Logistically Viable Weapons AtE

[Rupert]

Originally Posted by (E)

Having members of a unit trained and equipped to salvage for, make and remake ammunition into the caliber(s) used by everyone else there might be viable.

Something like an SKS designed with large amounts of bayonet use in mind?

The SKS is comparatively mechanically complex. An AK-style weapon with whatever combination of length, shape, magazine type, etc. that you wanted would be a better bet, perhaps with the SKS' bolt mechanism (because it's very simple).

[Rupert]

Originally Posted by mlangsdorf

For a low-logistics "enemy gun", I'd go with a low caliber, muzzle-loading, black powder flintlock rifle firing minie balls. Black powder is relatively easy to make; minie balls are nearly as easy to cast as round balls but more accurate; a low caliber (.30 or .40 or so) is dangerous but not impossibly deadly if a PC takes a hit.

The problem is that without high-quality, high-TL black powder, small calibre guns foul very quickly. They're also more sensitive to casting defects in their bullets. That's why most muzzle loaders in the day were no smaller than .45" calibre. I'd go with .45" calibre, and low power. This makes a rifle scary enough to be a believable issue weapon not too scary if you have body armour and reasonable hit points.

[mlangsdorf]

Looking over the gun listing in High-Tech, the .38 Volcanic is too wimpy (2d-1 pi) but Hall .54, Enfield .577, Spencer .56-56, or Winchester .44-40 all come in around 3d+1 pi+ and were historically successful rounds (well, not the Hall, but that was the gun's fault). 16 injury against an unarmored target is a lot, but if the PCs have access to light plate or more preferably even a little modern body armor they should be okay (DR 6 cuts the injury to a manageable 7; DR 8 to an acceptable 4).

So if small-bore black powder is unacceptable, low powered medium bore isn't fatal. I'd just stick away from the serious rounds, like .450 Martini-Henry and cousins, because 25 injury to an unarmored target is pretty lethal.

It might be interested to have the evil warlord's army carrying .30 black powder guns (maybe he found a huge stock of rifled barrels for .308?) without having learned yet that they're sub-optimal. Historically, people had doctrines and weapons that were really bad in retrospect. I don't see why that would change After the End.

[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by ericthered

...

I'm going to quibble with the claim that early C19th cavalry charging against infantry was a bad idea in all but the most favorable situations. Cavalry was always a unit that you deployed carefully and picked your battles for. They are expensive and can save you in a pickle. When I look at the way cavalry was outfitted in the Napoleonic wars, in the US civil war, and in the Crimean, I have no doubt they were used to charge infantry and especially artillery.

Yes they were designed to do this, the point was that as weapons got better the option to do this and not get shot reduced. This led to the melee charge becoming less and less a thing. And Cavalry ending up being deployed as mounted infantry rather than chargers (certainly by the C20th). Basically cavalry tactics changed in the face of weapon innovation just as every other units did.

Originally Posted by ericthered

The charge of the light brigade was routine until they were given the wrong target. Even then, they successfully overran their target, and had their sister battalion, the heavy brigade, followed up, the battle would have been over there and then.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_...Napoleonic_era

Not sure it would have made much difference. The point was they were sent in against prepared artillery (and some supporting infantry IIRC). Now they reached their target but got too shot up to decisively effect it and were so shot up they were basically removed as an effective unit for their trouble.

EDIT: from the wiki on the charge of the light brigade (not your link sorry!)

Lucan himself was to follow with the Heavy Brigade. Although the Heavy Brigade was better armoured and intended for frontal assaults on infantry positions, neither force was remotely equipped for a frontal assault on a fully dug-in and alerted artillery battery—much less one with an excellent line of sight over a mile in length and supported on two sides by artillery batteries providing enfilading fire from elevated ground.

Originally Posted by ericthered

I don't have any stats for cavalry on the eastern front of world war 1. I've merely been following The Great War you tube channel, and it comes up. The main video on the subject is :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KDFZPIl0JtE

But that focuses mainly on the western front, and its really just proof that before world war I the cavalry charge was deeply entrenched in military doctrine and not at all abandoned. I can't find all the times when the eastern front charges come up, (actually, I can't find any because that would involve combing hours of footage), but they are in there.

Ok but we know it wasn't abandoned, but we also know what happened when they tried it and it didn't work out. The question was did it happen as often and was as successful as you implied.

Originally Posted by ericthered

Against true TL6 troops who aren't counting bullets, cavalry charges are almost always a bad idea, and the exceptions are just that. I will concede this freely. But I will hold to the claim that against muzzle loading troops, and against those who don't have hundred of bullets to use for covering fire, the cavalry charge remains a strong weapon capable of deciding battles.

Right only we're not necessarily talking about muzzle loading troops (certainly not the TL6 ones you mentioned). This leaves aside that muzzle loading infantry were more than capable of defeating oncoming cavalry, see the earlier point made about Waterloo.

And as to bullets to cavalry ratios as I pointed out to Danhoward the issue with concentrating all your resource in these elite troops is that they are resource intensive. i.e you wont have that many of them, and the resource issues of ATE will hit you just as hard if not harder.
As has been pointed out bullet supply won't necessarily be that tight. Basically I think there will be more than enough bullets per elite what ever. And unless their elite status comes with bullet proofing you'll lose your hard to replace resource.

[safisher]

Pump action shotguns are about the most rugged and reliable weapons you can find. The ammo is very easy to produce, whether it's shot or a single ball. Slam-fire shotguns are a good start for equipping a fledgling army in a world where guns are rare; equipped with a bayonet you have a deadly close range weapon.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

And as to bullets to cavalry ratios as I pointed out to Danhoward the issue with concentrating all your resource in these elite troops is that they are resource intensive. i.e you wont have that many of them, and the resource issues of ATE will hit you just as hard if not harder.
As has been pointed out bullet supply won't necessarily be that tight. Basically I think there will be more than enough bullets per elite what ever. And unless their elite status comes with bullet proofing you'll lose your hard to replace resource.

Yeah, having elite cadres requires a large selection pool which has enough ideal candidates. In a "Falloutlike" scenario, I think you almost always are going to run out of healthy well-nourished recruits suitable for special operations and the people you need to support them before you ever run out of bullets. There's a lot of bullets in Fallout, even before you start making your own.

[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

Yeah, having elite cadres requires a large selection pool which has enough ideal candidates. In a "Falloutlike" scenario, I think you almost always are going to run out of healthy well-nourished recruits suitable for special operations and the people you need to support them before you ever run out of bullets. There's a lot of bullets in Fallout, ...

Yep exactly.

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

even before you start making your own.

took me ages to work out you could do that :-)!

[ericthered]

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

Yes they were designed to do this, the point was that as weapons got better the option to do this and not get shot reduced. This led to the melee charge becoming less and less a thing. And Cavalry ending up being deployed as mounted infantry rather than chargers (certainly by the C20th). Basically cavalry tactics changed in the face of weapon innovation just as every other units did.

So at what point in history would you personally stop using cavalry charges in war?

Not sure it would have made much difference. The point was they were sent in against prepared artillery (and some supporting infantry IIRC). Now they reached their target but got too shot up to decisively effect it and were so shot up they were basically removed as an effective unit for their trouble.

Once they reached their destination they forced the gunners to abandon the guns. A large number of causalities happened during the retreat, not the initial charge. They weren't trained for such things, but they were drained for similar charges under better circumstances. The charge was a success. It was just a bad move because they were then in the middle of the enemy line without reinforcements, because their orders were delivered incorrectly.

The French light cavalry ... cleared the Fedyukhin Heights of the two half batteries of guns, two infantry battalions, and Cossacks

This action is from the same battle, and a similar set of units, who were used correctly to save the brigade. That's several defeats in quick succession, and I really doubt they defeated each using dismounted tactics.

Ok but we know it wasn't abandoned, but we also know what happened when they tried it and it didn't work out. The question was did it happen as often and was as successful as you implied.

During world war I? it wasn't very often. But it did happen. Prior to world war I, cavalry was prepared and used, as demonstrated as they had it around in such numbers at the start of the war. And repeating riffles were well over 30 years old at that point. It took the machine gun to end the cavalry charge.

This leaves aside that muzzle loading infantry were more than capable of defeating oncoming cavalry, see the earlier point made about Waterloo.

Just as modern infantry is capable of defeating tanks. They are trained in it, and they can do so successfully. But that's not their role, and generals prefer when they can hit tanks with something other than infantry.

As has been pointed out bullet supply won't necessarily be that tight.

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

There's a lot of bullets in Fallout, even before you start making your own.

I think this is really a setting specific issue, not something hard and fast. The number of bullets floating around just has too many variables that effect it.

[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by ericthered

So at what point in history would you personally stop using cavalry charges in war?

It's not a hard cut off. As I've said it's more that the various factors that make it more dangerous increase both in number and effect.
So to answer the question from the C19th onwards I would be increasingly circumspect in their use, I'd be looking for alternative ways to make use of their speed over terrain. And ultimately I'd be looking at the cost effectiveness of training and fielding impact cavalry once breach loading guns appear and we stop lining up and start shooting at 100 yards. Their always going to be great flankers, scouts, skirmishers of the side. But they increasing vulnerability on the battlefield matched with their cost to field is a problem that gets more acute.

Originally Posted by ericthered

Once they reached their destination they forced the gunners to abandon the guns. A large number of causalities happened during the retreat, not the initial charge. They weren't trained for such things, but they were drained for similar charges under better circumstances. The charge was a success. It was just a bad move because they were then in the middle of the enemy line without reinforcements, because their orders were delivered incorrectly.

Read the link I gave. Thy charged and whilst taking near constant fire they got there and pushed the crews off, but they were pretty much broken. The crews retook their positions and then as you say in the retreat the unit was lost.

The charge didn't work, because whilst it managed to make contact it didn't actually succeed in it's purpose silencing the guns

This is kind of emblematic of the whole point. It's not that cavalry in this era never charged, it's not that they never made contact. It's that unless they did it very carefully (see my point above) it went badly.

Now yes you can say in abstract the need to do it carefully has always been true, but again as I said the difficulties of doing so i.e "the need" increased. This ultimately limited their pre-existing role, and forced them into new ones.

Originally Posted by ericthered

This action is from the same battle, and a similar set of units, who were used correctly to save the brigade. That's several defeats in quick succession, and I really doubt they defeated each using dismounted tactics.

The dismounted tactics wasn't a hard and fast cut off where one day they all charged, and the next day they all dismounted. As per above we talking about a change in tactics over time in response to changing battlefields overtime. Also I was really making that point about cavalry in the C20th (we seem to be jumping back and forth within a 100+ year period between Waterloo and the Russian Civil War)

Originally Posted by ericthered

During world war I? it wasn't very often. But it did happen. Prior to world war I, cavalry was prepared and used, as demonstrated as they had it around in such numbers at the start of the war. And repeating riffles were well over 30 years old at that point. It took the machine gun to end the cavalry charge.

OK earlier you seemed to be implying that it was a regular occurrence and significant thing in WW1 in the east (and later in the RCW)

On cavalry in the beginning of WW1 they were there no doubt but even by then their role had changed. I disagree that it took the machine gun to do it although it was certainly the final wake up call! I suggest you look at the Boer wars, the Balkan wars et. Some of which is mentioned in the link above regarding the British change in tactics.

Go earlier, Von Bredow's "Death Ride" succeeded in it aims, and also possibly revitalised the image of cavalry charging in mid battle in the minds of some. But at about a 50% casualty rate! And it is known as one of the last significantly successful cavalry charges

Originally Posted by ericthered

Just as modern infantry is capable of defeating tanks. They are trained in it, and they can do so successfully. But that's not their role, and generals prefer when they can hit tanks with something other than infantry.

It not really an apt metaphor, even in Napoleonic times prepared infantry formations were stopping cavalry charges as part of their role. Again this was the point being made earlier about Marshall Ney sending the cavalry off to get shot at Waterloo

Originally Posted by ericthered

I think this is really a setting specific issue, not something hard and fast. The number of bullets floating around just has too many variables that effect it.

It has variables, but unless were are specifically setting up guns to fail in the ATE setting or making it TL3 or less. The scarcity issue will hit the idea of elite trained and supported troops just as well.

This kind of hand wavy "Oh just train up some elite chaps and make sure you can use them exactly when and where you need to to maximise their eliteness" (which is not so much you TBF). Is ignoring the fact that (for example) elite groups of cavalry is a massive resource undertaking, just as much if not more as keeping enough guns to shoot them would be.

As Sir pudding has said such groups tend to be drawn from and supported by much larger populations.

[aaron819]

There was a pyramid article i read once with stats for a few cheap slamfire guns. Also try low tech muzzle loaders.