| Error creating thumbnail: File missing Join our Discord! |
| If you have been locked out of your account you can request a password reset here. |
Talk:Ribeyrolles 1918 Automatic Carbine: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
StanTheMan (talk | contribs) |
StanTheMan (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
==Classification?== | ==Category Classification?== | ||
I'm thinking if it shoots a shortened/scaled-down rifle cartridge and has selective fire that would make it technically an assault rifle rather than a machine gun for the purposes of categorization on here. [[User:StanTheMan|StanTheMan]] ([[User talk:StanTheMan|talk]]) 01:10, 28 February 2017 (EST) | I'm thinking if it shoots a shortened/scaled-down rifle cartridge and has selective fire that would make it technically an assault rifle rather than a machine gun for the purposes of categorization on here. [[User:StanTheMan|StanTheMan]] ([[User talk:StanTheMan|talk]]) 01:10, 28 February 2017 (EST) | ||
:Sort of, but bear in kind that there are weapons chambered in 5.56x45mm, 7.62x39mm and 5.45x39mm which are classified as machine guns despite firing an intermediate cartridge. As for this weapon specifically, I think it sort of falls in the middle between the two. I believe that it was developed with the intent of being a mobile light machine gun, however the testing revealed that the cartridge did not have enough range and power for their liking in the machine gun role, and it was deemed too heavy and clumsy to be an individual weapon. For the purpose of categories on here, I would probably say to put it in both, as it is on border between the two and it really depends on how it is used as to where it falls. The main article states that it "saw limited use in World War 1", anybody know if there is any evidence for this? The only info I can find about this gun is that it was presented to the Army in July 1918, but they seemed to do nothing with it until after the war in 1921 where it was rejected for the above reasons. I would guess that there were only a few (possibly only one) finished prototypes and doubt it was actually ever used. On this topic, there were a couple of other pre WWII light machine guns that fired an intermediate cartridge that blurred the line between LMGs and assault rifles, the Danish Weibel M/1932 and the Greek EPK machine gun. They were both abandoned though, with the same criticisms of the Reibeyrolles that the intermediate cartridge was (at the time) deemed underpowered. --[[User:Commando552|commando552]] ([[User talk:Commando552|talk]]) 12:59, 28 February 2017 (EST) | :Sort of, but bear in kind that there are weapons chambered in 5.56x45mm, 7.62x39mm and 5.45x39mm which are classified as machine guns despite firing an intermediate cartridge. As for this weapon specifically, I think it sort of falls in the middle between the two. I believe that it was developed with the intent of being a mobile light machine gun, however the testing revealed that the cartridge did not have enough range and power for their liking in the machine gun role, and it was deemed too heavy and clumsy to be an individual weapon. For the purpose of categories on here, I would probably say to put it in both, as it is on border between the two and it really depends on how it is used as to where it falls. The main article states that it "saw limited use in World War 1", anybody know if there is any evidence for this? The only info I can find about this gun is that it was presented to the Army in July 1918, but they seemed to do nothing with it until after the war in 1921 where it was rejected for the above reasons. I would guess that there were only a few (possibly only one) finished prototypes and doubt it was actually ever used. On this topic, there were a couple of other pre WWII light machine guns that fired an intermediate cartridge that blurred the line between LMGs and assault rifles, the Danish Weibel M/1932 and the Greek EPK machine gun. They were both abandoned though, with the same criticisms of the Reibeyrolles that the intermediate cartridge was (at the time) deemed underpowered. --[[User:Commando552|commando552]] ([[User talk:Commando552|talk]]) 12:59, 28 February 2017 (EST) | ||
:: I too doubt this had any actual war-time use. And yes there have been similar weapons in the interim period, but similarly went mostly nowhere. Mis-appiled in terms of a combat role and otherwise too ahead of their time. Anyway, I agree and am myself good with classifying this/those under both - indeed it does fit both roles in a fashion, and we have several more contemporary pieces that are likewise dual-classified because they too fill both roles (mostly with SAW/LMG variations on the 'basic weapon', but still). I didn't necessarily wanna ignore that it was meant to be a machine gun, but wasn | :: I too doubt this had any actual war-time use. And yes there have been similar weapons in the interim period, but similarly went mostly nowhere. Mis-appiled in terms of a combat role and otherwise too ahead of their time. Anyway, I agree and am myself good with classifying this/those under both - indeed it does fit both roles in a fashion, and we have several more contemporary pieces that are likewise dual-classified because they too fill both roles (mostly with SAW/LMG variations on the 'basic weapon', but still). I didn't necessarily wanna ignore that it was meant to be a machine gun, but wasn't sure if that was good to run with either, hence my bit of yak there. [[User:StanTheMan|StanTheMan]] ([[User talk:StanTheMan|talk]]) 15:11, 28 February 2017 (EST) | ||
Revision as of 20:12, 28 February 2017
Category Classification?
I'm thinking if it shoots a shortened/scaled-down rifle cartridge and has selective fire that would make it technically an assault rifle rather than a machine gun for the purposes of categorization on here. StanTheMan (talk) 01:10, 28 February 2017 (EST)
- Sort of, but bear in kind that there are weapons chambered in 5.56x45mm, 7.62x39mm and 5.45x39mm which are classified as machine guns despite firing an intermediate cartridge. As for this weapon specifically, I think it sort of falls in the middle between the two. I believe that it was developed with the intent of being a mobile light machine gun, however the testing revealed that the cartridge did not have enough range and power for their liking in the machine gun role, and it was deemed too heavy and clumsy to be an individual weapon. For the purpose of categories on here, I would probably say to put it in both, as it is on border between the two and it really depends on how it is used as to where it falls. The main article states that it "saw limited use in World War 1", anybody know if there is any evidence for this? The only info I can find about this gun is that it was presented to the Army in July 1918, but they seemed to do nothing with it until after the war in 1921 where it was rejected for the above reasons. I would guess that there were only a few (possibly only one) finished prototypes and doubt it was actually ever used. On this topic, there were a couple of other pre WWII light machine guns that fired an intermediate cartridge that blurred the line between LMGs and assault rifles, the Danish Weibel M/1932 and the Greek EPK machine gun. They were both abandoned though, with the same criticisms of the Reibeyrolles that the intermediate cartridge was (at the time) deemed underpowered. --commando552 (talk) 12:59, 28 February 2017 (EST)
- I too doubt this had any actual war-time use. And yes there have been similar weapons in the interim period, but similarly went mostly nowhere. Mis-appiled in terms of a combat role and otherwise too ahead of their time. Anyway, I agree and am myself good with classifying this/those under both - indeed it does fit both roles in a fashion, and we have several more contemporary pieces that are likewise dual-classified because they too fill both roles (mostly with SAW/LMG variations on the 'basic weapon', but still). I didn't necessarily wanna ignore that it was meant to be a machine gun, but wasn't sure if that was good to run with either, hence my bit of yak there. StanTheMan (talk) 15:11, 28 February 2017 (EST)