Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Kashyyk]

Name: Artizan
Workspace:10
Engineers:9+Metallurgist
What it is: Long Range, stationary, rotatable artillery piece. Designed for coastal defence against naval targets. 150mm shell.

I concur with tryrar's points distribution.

[Brood]

Name: Shore battery.
Number Of Engineers: 10
Workspace: 10
What It Is: A massive rotational stationary artillery cannon, the barrel is 4 meters in legth and 1/2 a meter in width and it fires 500 mm high explosive shells, solid shells, smoke shells or can be used to fire a huge cluster of smaller shells at a shorter range.
It is designed with accuracy and range in mind as a shore based anti ship battery capable of punching a hole in the side of any warship foolish enough to come within range or cluster shells to smash transport to pieces.

Name : A.A.S.C
Number of Engineers : 5
Workspace : 5
What it is : A huge 6 barrel rotational anti air flak cannon, fires small shells that explode showering a huge area in sharpnel in the air designed to shred aircraft, also has variable elevation and so can be used to target ground based targets for self defense against enemy assault.

...........WHAT

Whats the problem? A massive coastal battery and an AA battery, we need defenses if we're at war.

[tryrar]

We can dig emplacements for my 100mm cannon in that instance

[Brood]

A 100 mm cannon doesn't have the range or power to do anything but make a warships crew laugh and it can't fire clusters of shells so it's bugger all use against transport which are small targets.

It's useful once they reach shore but by that point the enemy is bombarding us with ships we can't hit, so I designed a gun with the range and power to at least damage warships.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

Do we really need a fighter or dedicated AA guns at this stage? We are at war with naval power, not someone with strong airforce

500mm coastal gun is an overkill, 380mm (15 in) Is much more reasonable and may work nicely, will stay useful in future wars,  And we may letter put it on our future battleships

Also for airforce we may go historic and try helicopters, ignoring turboprop aircrafts altogether, not that unreasonable... And helicopters are way easier  for naval use

[Brood]

We have no advanced AA defense at all and the enemy may be naval but I bet they have some air force so we need a land based defense to counter it.

I still like my cannon more, I designed it to sink a destroyer with 2-3 shots, not 10-12.

[tryrar]

ummm, you do realize you're pushing over a ton in cannon right? That's a rather unwieldy artillery piece...

[Ukrainian Ranger]

Just a note, we need 3 years to get unit from designing to the field use, the war will end by that time....

And no,  bigger is not always better... Bigger guns are easier to hit, have smaller rate of fire, turn slower, unsuitable for navy use and require more crew
_______________________________________

And huge aa guns are useless against anything but bombers and cool target for the said bombers... How do you think why real world never had any AA gun larger then 88mm?
And why make rotational 6 barrel , while you can  do 6 one barrel?

[GrizzlyAdamz]

Okay, question(s):
So, is our budget/unmentioned resources unlimited? Just how far ahead can we reasonably expect success? 2 years? 5? 10? Where does the roll kick in? Do we have to be concerned about protecting our developments/security or is that outside our scope? Would suck to develop an abrams and have it be stolen by the commies damn yanks. Also, is inventing ideas in warfare under our perview or should we stay out of designing weapons/vehicles that haven't been requested? (cough, paratrooper transport)

On MGs: don't even bother developing around water-cooled, just focus on developing a quick-change barrel system that's compatible with our vehicles.
We don't need to sweat AA right now, only navy. Tanks are next, then infantry, then AA.
Go for the 380 for now, 500 seems a bit much for a niche kinda thing. We've already got some AA guns, and at this point, they'll be using biplanes- just how much ordinance can those carry?
Getting a scout/training plane is important, but we've gotta beef up our navy a bit, start producing some of those destroyers & cruisers- don't let our shipyard just idle.

[Brood]

6 barrel on a rotational platform.... so you can turn the gun.
6 barrels because it enables you to blanket an area in a concetrated barrage easily.

The artillery is stationary so no pushing involved and I don't want many of them, just like 1 at each landing area to use to drive off enemy ships to prevent them providing fire support.

[Scelly9]

6 barrel on a rotational platform.... so you can turn the gun.
6 barrels because it enables you to blanket an area in a concetrated barrage easily.

But why not have 6 seperate guns instead of six barrels? That way they're harder to hit, lighter, faster, and can still blanket an area effectively.

[GrizzlyAdamz]

I think he's talking about stationary emplacements, port defences. However, might be an undertaking to cover every landing area on our island with 500mm coverage.

[tryrar]

Just a note, we need 3 years to get unit from designing to the field use, the war will end by that time....

And no,  bigger is not always better... Bigger guns are easier to hit, have smaller rate of fire, turn slower, unsuitable for navy use and require more crew
_______________________________________

And huge aa guns are useless against anything but bombers and cool target for the said bombers... How do you think why real world never had any AA gun larger then 88mm?
And why make rotational 6 barrel , while you can  do 6 one barrel?

As an addendum, you also have to factor in shell weight. a 120mm shell for a modern tank weighs in around 18.7 kg(or 41 pounds!). a 500mm shell from the 1920s could easily top 200 pounds or more; you'd need a special rig just to move the shells around, much less load them! As well, think of the powder charge required to propel such a huge projectile at ranges other than short range....

[Scelly9]

I think he's talking about stationary emplacements, port defences. However, might be an undertaking to cover every landing area on our island with 500mm coverage.

My point is still valid. Why have six barrels when you can have six guns?

[GrizzlyAdamz]

We should build a rail-gun. Magnets yo.

snip

My point is still valid. Why have six barrels when you can have six guns?

One person to operate, more concentrated fire. Plus it looks sexy.