Print

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

[Ukrainian Ranger]

Uhm, just as a note, but easy to fly and biplane are mutually exclusive terms.

Huh? Who said you that? Biplanes are way more stable and forging than monoplanes

Here are standard Soviet trainer - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polikarpov_Po-2 . Biplane

Same goes for Luftwaffe trainers - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gotha_Go_145 , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arado_Ar_66

[10ebbor10]

Most planes of that era were biplanes. Structural problems with monoplanes made biplanes more usefull at the time.

But I read somewhere* biplanes were rather hard to control.

Fakeedit:*Somewhere in BAy12 spaceprogram thread

[Ukrainian Ranger]

quick Google search on hard to control: http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1475171

As for that era. It's not entirely true, fighters tended to be biplanes up to something like 1935, when monoplane era started, yet most countries used biplanes as primary trainers up to the end of the WW2 

[Funk]

biplanes have smaller turning circles and can be much more agile, but a mono plane can be much faster and has an easier time fitting guns.

Do subs use there surfaced or submerged displacement?
im thinking of a sub we can use later

Spoiler: submersible commerce raider (not finished, comments welcome) (click to show/hide)

Name:Jormungand class submersible commerce raider
What is it: a submarine with a 280mm gun mounted in a turret forward of the conning tower.
Size: 70? (3500 tons)
Speed: 28 km/h surfaced/ 15 km/h submerged
Range: surfaced 3,700 km at 28 km/h / submerged 150 km at 3.7 km/h.
Dive Depth:60m
Crew: 65
Armament: 1 280mm gun mounted in a front turret. (size ?)
2x2 TP1 heavy machine guns (4 mounts each twin lined) (size 0.25 x 4 = 1)
2x2 LUP-40 40mm AA guns (size 0.75 x 4 = 3)
4 forward torpedo tubes (size 3?)

basic it is cross of the  French submarine Surcouf and a British M-class submarine.
it gives use some of the punch of a battle ship mixed with the stealth of a submarine.
and it is much safer vs planes as it can dive for cover.
if we make the sub bigger then we can mount a RTX-1 triple 280mm gun turret instead of the lone 280mm.

[Nadaka]

A lot of submarines mounted 3 to 6 inch guns, no non-experimental sub mounted anything much bigger. The problem with big guns on a sub is that they take a lot of time to prepare for submersion/firing which means you lose the element of surprise and the ability to quickly flee beneath the waves.

[tryrar]

A lot of submarines mounted 3 to 6 inch guns, no non-experimental sub mounted anything much bigger. The problem with big guns on a sub is that they take a lot of time to prepare for submersion/firing which means you lose the element of surprise and the ability to quickly flee beneath the waves.

IIRC deck guns on subs were really just for finishing off crippled ships/ships that couldn't reasonably fight back so you didn't waste a torpedo on it.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

That submarine with triple 280mm gun reminds me that real world Japanese submarine aircraft carriers. Awesome concept, dubious effectiveness

German 283mm triple turret weighted 600 tonnes, + every shell weighted 300 kg+ you want to have more than one on board, add crew to maintain that monster.  So I doubt that any nonnuclear submarine can be armed with that

That's armored turret. Gun itself weighted 48 tonnes and we can fit it, but I doubt that this will be an effective way to spend our limited resources

But you guys are wrong about no submarine had big guns, IRL France made a submarine with double 203mm turret  and several AA guns. 
Never seen real combat and sunk due to collision with a friendly ship in 1942 or 1943. Realworld history has seen many weird designs partially forced by Washington Naval Treaty

__________________________
Damn I look like a huge nerd in this thread

[tryrar]

Kingfisher you should update the sizes of our existing ships so we can get a general guideline of what we should shoot for when we mean "Cruiser" "Destroyer" etc.

[Morrigi]

Is it not obvious that these ridiculous and far-fetched designs are not being accepted? Read up on what you're suggesting so you have some idea what you're talking about, people.

Anyway, I want a tank that shoots bees that shoot lasers out of their eyes

[Nadaka]

I would note that the submarine with a big gun on it isn't really ridiculous, just not entirely practical for traditional submarine tactics.

[Funk]

A lot of submarines mounted 3 to 6 inch guns, no non-experimental sub mounted anything much bigger. The problem with big guns on a sub is that they take a lot of time to prepare for submersion/firing which means you lose the element of surprise and the ability to quickly flee beneath the waves.

Naval Treatys at the time limited subs to 10,000 ton and a maximum gun calibre of 8 inches.
only the French Surcouf (twin 8 inch) and the British M-class(1 12 inch) had any thing bigger.

The plan is to have one 280mm gun mounted like the 12 incher on the M-class.

Note that a 28 cm C/34 gun can piece 20 inch of Side armor belt, more than enough to wound a Bismark or Yamato class battleship and a range of about 36Km far more than most torpedos.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

Submarine with a big gun (305mm + 60 shells for it) was made  just after  WW1 so it isn't ridiculous  and absolutely possible to make

It was meant to fire the gun from periscope depth, BTW and one shot from 305mm gun is enough to sink a merchant ship or seriously damage\sunk light warship or wound battleship (but reloading required several  minutes, and could be done only when surfaced, so it was shot and go away concept)

That concept of underwater cruiser was scrapped not because it was decided to be unpractical, but because Washington Naval Treaty imposed limitations on the weapons that could be mounted at Submarine and London Naval Treaty limited  displacement of submarines to 2800 long tons

Even funnier thing existed, in late 1944 Japan made 3 6,560 ton submarine aircraft carriers that hosted three aircrafts.

Damn, Ninja'd.... But clarification:  Washington Naval treaty limited submarines to 10 000 ton and 8 inch guns,  later London treaty limited that further to 2 800 and 6 inch after French tried to build a fleet of heavy submarines

[Morrigi]

Does the enemy have a navy powerful enough to warrant the design of a submersible cruiser? And if so, would an ordinary cruiser be capable of fulfilling the role? It would be far easier and cheaper to produce.

[Funk]

we dont know about the first, and any ordinary cruiser may be cheaper to produce but it cant do the things a submersible cruiser can do, like stealth or being different.

It can do things like give shore fire support for raids, a 12inch shell will make every one think it is the start of a much bigger attack.
Hell a 12inch shells will ruin just about anything in short order, so sea lock gates, runways,shipyards, any thing with in about 30 km of the coast is a target.
 
(how much is crew capacity is 1 size? does it scale? we need crew to work stuff right?) 
i have an idea for 2 diffident layout of the sub at the end,

Heimdallr class replaceing the 280mm gun with a steam catapult and a sea plane, may be some kind of radar
Hymir class replaceing the 280mm gun with a sea mine layer.

Spoiler: submersible commerce raider (not finished) (click to show/hide)

Name: Asgard class submersible, verdant Jörmungandr spec commerce raider
What is it: a submarine with a 280mm gun mounted in a turret forward of the conning tower.
Size: 70? (3500 tons)
Speed: 28 km/h surfaced/ 15 km/h submerged
Range: surfaced 3,700 km at 28 km/h / submerged 150 km at 3.7 km/h.
Dive Depth: 60m
Crew: 65
Armament: 1 280mm gun mounted in a front turret. (size ?)
2x2 TP1 heavy machine guns (4 mounts each twin lined) (size 0.25 x 4 = 1)
2x2 LUP-40 40mm AA guns (size 0.75 x 4 = 3)
4 forward torpedo tubes (size 3?)

basic it is cross of the  French submarine Surcouf and a British M-class submarine.
it gives use some of the punch of a battle ship mixed with the stealth of a submarine.
and it is much safer vs planes as it can dive for cover.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

I think crew included in size, that's why we have machine-gun that takes 12.5 tons of displacement

You know what I dislike? Attempts to create something advanced when we never created a simpler thing....