WWXI Weapons/Tanks by BistroD

WWIII is going to punt us all the way back to the stone age so that when WWXI rolls around we will be fighting as if it was WWI.

Forgotten Weapons: The 1917 Burton Light Machine Rifle

 America's first assault rifle? Well, it does meet all the requirements: select-fire, intermediate cartridge, and shoulder-fired. It was never actually fielded, though.

The Burton Light Machine Rifle was developed during World War One, with the firing model completed in 1917. It was intended as an aircraft observer's weapon for attacking balloons—a role which required incendiary ammunition.With this in mind, Winchester's Frank Burton adapted the .351 WSL cartridge from his 1905 and 1907 self-loading rifles into the .345 WSL, with a spitzer bullet. He designed an open-bolt, select-fire shoulder rifle to fire it, which became known as the Light Machine Rifle.

Burton's rifle was to be usable both in an aircraft where it could be fixed to a Scarff mount for a wide field of fire or used by an individual on the ground, fired from the shoulder. It weighed in at just about 10 pounds (4.5kg) and had a pistol grip and straight-line design to bring the recoil impulse directly into the shooter's shoulder and minimize rise during automatic fire. The barrel was finned for better cooling, and infantry barrels were equipped with bayonet lugs.

 The most distinctive elements of the design, of course, are the dual top-mounted magazines. Each one holds 20 rounds, and each has a pair of locking catches. One position locks the magazine into a feeding position, and the other holds it up above the cycling of the bolt. The idea here was to keep a second loaded magazine easily accessible for an aerial observer—so they could reload without having to find another magazine somewhere in the aircraft. Contrary to some speculation, there is no automatic transition between magazines. When one is empty, the shooter must pull it back to the second locking position (or out of the gun entirely) and then push the second magazine down into feeding position.

Despite Burton's work—which was well ahead of its time—the LMR had been rendered obsolete for its primary role by the time it was ready. Synchronized, forward-mounted Vickers machine guns firing 11mm incendiary ammunition were being mounted on aircraft, and were more effective on balloons and airplanes than Burton's weapon would have been. Only this single example was ever made, and it was not presented for infantry consideration as far as I can tell. It was lost for many years before being discovered in a Winchester building, and eventually ending up in the Cody Firearms Museum with the rest of the Winchester factory collection.

---

Ian McCollum is the founder of ForgottenWeapons.com, a website and YouTube channel dedicated preserving the history of rare and obscure guns from around the world.

Remote-Controlled Tanks of the 1930s

This Japanese-made, remote-controlled tank got tech nerds all excited in 1931. But it wasn’t just because they saw a new toy. Tech-minded folk of the early 1930s also saw a utopian solution to war. A solution where, ideally, fewer humans would have to die.

Ideas about remote-controlled warfare have been around for over a century. And here in the 2010s we’re acutely aware that wars can be fought from halfway around the world. If our generation is remembered for anything, it might be for our introduction of “drone” into the international lexicon. But the thing that we so often forget is that the people who built remote-controlled war machines in the interwar period (between the end of WWI and the beginning of WWII) thought they were doing humanity a favor.

There are countless visions of radio-controlled tanks, unmanned aerial vehicles, and even gigantic robot fighters from the early 20th century. But the thing that might be most shocking to readers here in the early 21st century is that these empty vehicles were all supposed to be fighting amongst themselves. 

The gigantic robots of 1934 were explicitly envisioned to fight “our battles” and whatever robot won, that nation would be declared the victor.

You also see this in the visions of robot tanks. From the April 1931 issue of Radio-Craft magazine (emphasis mine):

Writers of war stories, peering into the future, predict an approaching era when fighting will be done by machinery under remote control. Guns automatically operated will fire from deserted fortifications and from tanks which contain no living operators. Airplanes without human pilots will observe positions through televisors, and drop projectiles guided from a post at headquarters, many miles away. The casualties will be solely among robots of steel and copper, whose orders are conveyed to them by radio, or other subtle signalling methods. Such is the picture which is painted upon the drop curtain which conceals the next war—if it be true that war has not been abolished along with the dips in the business cycle.

Of course, that bit about abolishing dips in the business cycle gives us a hint that perhaps the authors of this article didn’t believe wholeheartedly in the utopian promises of unmanned war.

The article continued by explaining that the robot tank had recently been demonstrated in Tokyo, Japan, and that it’s clearly just the start of something much bigger.

A picture which appeared recently in one of our English contemporaries is reproduced here; the original, it is said, was taken at a public demonstration in Tokio of a tank which was operated entirely by radio from the post in the foreground. The tank went through numerous maneuvers, under full command of its operators, to the enthusiasm of a great crowd of spectators. While the picture does not seem to be of an official type, it is evidently genuine; the tank itself seems rather small and not too war-like.

When World War II would rear its ugly head, robot tanks would indeed become a reality. But unfortunately they were the exclusive domain of the Nazis. The Germans designed two different remote-controlled tanks that carried explosives: The Borgward IV and the Goliath.

Neither were wireless, so their range was thankfully limited to however far the remote’s wire would take them. Both were packed with large payloads and were designed to explode on impact with their target of Allied troops.

Needless to say, remote-controlled warfare has not led to a utopian world of robotic fighting wherein nations simply let the machines battle it out and declare a winner at the end. That seems about as likely as it did in 1931, along with abolishing “dips in the business cycle.”

Dawn Burns over Tennessee - An After Action Report

Near Covington, Tennessee, the morning of May 24th, 1914 - Many who have not been to the Front often think of brave American doughboys and guns eagerly sitting in massive fortifications waiting for the Martians to attack. This is to be expected. Most newspaper men do tend to stay in the fortified areas and their stories often lead one to believe that the Martian War is a stagnant one. This is, however, not true. While hundreds of miles of fortifications have been built along the Mississippi line, mobile operations are the hallmark of this new form of war with machines. These mobile battles can cover great amounts of land quite quickly and are fought in the farms and fields of America’s heartland; not just the major cities on the river front. This story, recounted by a brave newspaperman that travelled with the 301st, is about an encounter between a Martian advance force, hell bent on destruction, and the American Force moving through the country west of Jackson, Tennessee in an effort to flank the Martians crossing the Mississippi at Memphis. It’s a clear example of hundreds of battles fought over the typical rural American landscape so many of us are familiar with…

Download LINK

Wargame: All Quiet on the Martian Front

Architects of War has announced that All Quiet on the Martin Front is now available for order and immediate delivery through their site. - See more at: http://www.beastsofwar.com/all-quiet-on-the-martian-front/quiet-martin-front-reporting-duty/#sthash.5R29BJo4.dpuf

Architects of War has announced that All Quiet on the Martin Front is now available for order and immediate delivery through their site. - See more at: http://www.beastsofwar.com/all-quiet-on-the-martian-front/quiet-martin-front-reporting-duty/#sthash.5R29BJo4.dpuf

rchitects of War has announced that All Quiet on the Martin Front is now available for order and immediate delivery through their site. - See more at: http://www.beastsofwar.com/all-quiet-on-the-martian-front/quiet-martin-front-reporting-duty/#sthash.5R29BJo4.dpuf

Ironclad Games of Missouri has announced that All Quiet on the Martin Front is now available for order and immediate delivery through their site.

After a successful Kickstarter campaign, Architects of War are now able to make this interesting game available to all those who did not get in as a backer.

All Quiet in the Martian Front was formerly owned by Robot Peanut Studios and was acquired in June 2016 by Ironclad Games.  Our goal is to continue this brand through new models, updated rules and an organized play system.

As a game designed around 15mm miniatures from the early 20th century it takes a time period that is less played and adds the H.G. Wells flavour of the Martins returning to Earth after their defeat by the British. This time they start their campaign in the United States and are testing the equipment and resolve of the Americans. Of course you have the British with their experience in fighting the Martins coming to the aid of the United States by sending their British Expedition Force (BEF) to aid in sending them back to where they came from.

The initial starter sets and individual miniatures are available for the US and Martin armies, with the BEF to become available at the end of June.

It seems that World War I is getting some well deserved love and respect recently and this will make for an interesting twist. There is also some scenery planned with the first set, trenches now available for pre-order.

• A Fistful of Tripods – Miniature wargame rules for The War of the Worlds based on the FFT system. Covers the “historical” invasion of the 1890s, and a second invasion in 1920; and alternative invasions in 1917, the early 1940s, and the 1990s.
• Tripods and Hussars – Fast-playing rules covering the “historical” War of the Worlds Martian invasion of Earth. Uses a non-FFT game system.
• Tripods and Hussars Eratta – Word 97 file.

Soviet Armored Trains

Avalanche Press

EasternFront:
Soviet Armored Trains
By Mike Bennighof, Ph.D.
August 2014

Armored trains proved themselves well suited to the conditions of the Russian Civil War, which raged from 1919 until 1922. The Imperial Russian Army had fielded seven official armored trains during the First World War, but these were usually used as mobile artillery platforms. The more fluid situations of the Civil War, in which the armies were much smaller and there often were no fixed front lines, brought forth greater use of armored trains.

A train can carry an enormous load of weapons and manpower. The typical armored train had an armored locomotive, and up to six cars fitted out as weapons platforms. These had one or two field guns each, plus machine guns. A single train could easily bring a battalion’s worth of firepower to bear on its target. A typical Bolshevik early armored train with two armored wagons had a crew of 95: 24 to work the train itself, and 71 to man the weapons.

Russia did not have an advanced automotive industry capable of turning out tanks and armored cars (few nations did in 1919), but the Russian factories that produced locomotives and rolling stock could easily turn their hands to making military trains. Designs became more sophisticated, with armored turrets for the machine guns and cannon. By early 1921, the Red Army alone had 122 armored trains in service, not counting locally-made improvised versions. Many of the trains carried naval guns ranging from 3-inch to 6-inch caliber, and usually drew their crews from the highly-motivated, pro-Bolshevik crews of the former Tsarist Baltic and Black Sea fleets. The sailors also had a much higher literacy rate than the typical army soldier, and often had technical training as well.

Red Army practice teamed the trains in groups of three. A light armored train was armed with machine guns, carrying an infantry company and sometimes even cavalry. The heavy armored train’s big naval cannon provided the fire support. Finally, a maintenance train was ready to deal with the armored train’s greatest weakness: damaged tracks.

By 1920 the Red Army was using armored trains in groups, sometimes six or more of them at a time. And on several occasions, armored trains fought other armored trains belonging to the White faction or to the Polish army.

“In recent battles armored trains have been the most serious and terrible opponent,” read a Polish order of the day. “They are well designed, acting surprisingly decisively, have large amounts of firepower and are a linchpin of the enemy’s strategy. Our infantry is powerless against enemy armored trains.”

The same re-armament plan that brought out a series of new tanks in the early 1930s also called for new, purpose-built armored trains. The standard BP-35 armored train used many components from the tank program (for example, the same 76.2mm turret as the T-35 heavy tank). When the Nazis attacked the Soviet Union in June 1941, the Red Army had 34 light and 19 heavy armored trains, while the NKVD had another 25 armored trains (many of them Civil War veterans) and 36 self-propelled armored wagons (a large locomotive sporting several tank turrets).

Armored trains proved themselves extremely useful in covering the Red Army’s retreats during the summer of 1941 — all of the rail lines ahead of them were in friendly hands, and they could unleash their massive firepower from secure locations. Soviet workshops began producing more trains as quickly as possible, and by late September two dozen more had taken to the rails.
Two turret-mounted 107mm howitzers of a BP-35 armored train.

The big armored trains proved vulnerable to German air attacks, and in January 1942 Soviet factories began turning out a new design, the OB-3, with more, smaller wagons each carrying one gun turret or anti-aircraft gun. This would allow the crew to jettison damaged cars without losing as much of the train’s firepower, and their lower profile would make them more difficult to hit. But armor quality was poor (often a pair of mild steel plates with several inches of concrete poured between them) and the weapons were the leftovers from the Red Army’s depots — guns of French and Polish manufacture captured during the Civil War. Twenty of the 65 OB-3 trains built were lost in action.
The final Soviet armored train design was the BP-43, a modified OB-3 with real armor and tank turrets from the T-34 production line. Twenty-one of these were built by the end of the war.

In the game, armored trains are, of course, limited to movement on railroad tracks. A train can both move and fire in the same action segment, unlike a tank, but otherwise is treated just like a tank. The piece provided in the game represents a smaller vehicle, the M1938 self-propelled armored wagon, and as such can be destroyed by anti-tank fire.

Mike Bennighof is president of Avalanche Press and holds a doctorate in history from Emory University. A Fulbright Scholar and award-winning journalist, he has published over 100 books, games and articles on historical subjects. He lives in Birmingham, Alabama with his wife, three children and his dog, Leopold.

The complete sequence of Zveno developments (not all were tried).

In 1930 Vakhmistrov suggested that a cheap glider might be used as an aerial gunnery target, and he quickly perfected a way of carrying such a glider above the upper wing of an R-l reconnaissance aircraft and releasing it in flight. This gave Vakhmistrov the idea of using a large aircraft to carry a small one on long-range flights over hostile territory. The small aircraft could either be fighters to protect a large bomber, or bomb-carrying attack aircraft or camera-carrying fast reconnaissance aircraft which could make a pass over a target while the parent aircraft stood off at a safe distance. In each case the difficult part was hooking on again for the long flight home. After presenting the WS and LII management with calculations Vakhmistrov received permission to try out his idea. This led to a succession of Zveno (link) combinations:

Z-1 This featured a twin-engined Tupolev TB-1 bomber carrying a Tupolev I-4 fighter above each wing. The fighters were of the I-4Z version, three of which were converted for these experiments with short stub lower wings and attachment locks on the landing gear and under the rear fuselage. The bomber was provided with attachments for the Zveno aircraft above each wing: two small pyramids for the landing gear and a large tripod for the rearfuselage attachment.

The first flight took place from Monino on 3rd December 1931. The TB-1 was flown by AI Zalevskii and A R Sharapov, with Vakhmistrov as observer. The fighters, with ski landing gears, were flown by V P Chkalov and A S Anisimov. The take-off was made with the fighter engines at full power. The TB-1 co-pilot forgot the release sequence and released Chkalov's axle before releasing the aft attachment, but Chkalov reacted instantly and released the rear lock as the fighter reared nose-up. The second fighter was released correctly. For a few seconds the TB-1 flew with no tendency to roll with an I-4Z on one wing.

Z-1a First flown in September 1933, this comprised the TB-1 carrying two Polikarpov I-5 fighters. The latter were fitted with a reinforcing plate under the rear fuselage carrying the rear holddown, but had no special designation. The pilots were P M Stefanovskii (TB-1) and I F Grodz' and V K Kokkinaki (I-5).

Z-2 This was the first of the more ambitious hookups using a TB-3 as parent aircraft. The bomber was an early TB-3/4 M-l 7, and it was given attachments for an I-5 above each wing and a third above the fuselage with its wheels on a special flat platform. On the first test in August 1934 the TB-3 was flown by Zalevskii and the fighters by T P Suzi, S P Suprun and T T Al'tnov.

Z-3 This combination would have hung a Grigorovich I-Z monoplane fighter under each wing of the TB-3. It was not flown.

Z-4 No information.

Z-5 This was the first attempt to hook back on. The parent aircraft was again the TB-3/4 M-l 7, and the fighter was an I-Z fitted with a large suspension superstructure of steel tubes, plus a curved upper guide rail terminating in a sprung hook releasable by the pilot (almost identical to the arrangement used on the airship- borne US Navy F9C Sparrowhawks). This was designed to hook on a large steel-tube trapeze under the bomber, which was folded up for take-off and landing. V A Stepanchyonok flew the I-Z on several tests with the bomber flown as straight and level as possible by Stefanovskii. The first hook-on took place on 23rd March 1935; this was a world first.

Z-6 The final combination of the original series was the mating of two I-16 monoplane fighters hung under the wings of the TB-3. The fighters were provided with local reinforcement above the wings to enable them to be hung from sliding horizontal spigots on large tripod links of streamlined light-alloy tube pin-jointed to the bomber's wing structure. Bracing struts linked the bomber to a latch above the fighter's rear fuselage, and one of the fighters (M-25A-engined No 0440) was photographed with a lightweight pylon above the forward fuselage to pick up under the bomber's wing. The first test took place in August 1935; Stefanovskii flew the TB-3 and the fighter pilots were K K Budakov and AI Nikashin.

Aviamatka
Named 'mother aircraft', this amazing test, not part of the original plan, took place in November 1935. The TB-3/4M-17 took off from Monino with an I-5 above each wing and an I-16 below each wing. At altitude it folded down the under-fuselage trapeze and Stepanchenok hooked on the I-Z, making a combination of six aircraft of four types all locked together. After several passes all the fighters released simultaneously. By this time Vakhmistrov had schemes for up to eight fighters of later types all to be carried by large aircraft such as the full-scale VS-2 tailless bomber projected by Kalinin. Instead Stalin's 'terror' caused the whole effort to wither, but there were still to be further developments.

SPB (Russian initials for fast dive bomber) This was a special version of the Polikarpov I-16 equipped with a rack to carry an FAB-250 (bomb of 250kg, 551 Ib) under each wing. Such an aircraft could not have safely taken off from the ground. In 1937 a later TB-3/4AM- 34RN was made available, and two SPB aircraft were hung under its wings. The first test took place on 12th July 1937, the TB-3 being flown by Stefanovskii and the dive bombers by A S Nikolayev and IA Taborovskii.

Z-7 In November 1939 one final combination was flown: the TB-3/4AM-34RN took off with an I- 16 under each wing and a third hooked under the fuselage in flight (with severe difficulty). The I-16 pilots were Stefanovskii, Nyukhtikov and Suprun. In early 1940 the WS decided to form a Zveno combat unit. Based at Yevpatoriya, this was equipped with six modified TB-3/4AM- 34RN and 12 SPB dive bombers. During the Great Patriotic War a famous mission was flown on 25th August 1941 which destroyed the Danube Bridge at Chernovody in Romania, on the main rail link to Constanta. Surviving SPBs flew missions in the Crimea.