Print

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

[Funk]

If we want an automatic AA weapon then why not scale down the 40mm to 20mm and covert it to drum or box magazines.

a 20mm cannon should be light enough to mount on planes but have more punch than the Patriotism MGs.
when quad linked it should be a good AA weapon but small enough to be mounted on a truck bed or light tank chassis.

 

[Ukrainian Ranger]

I prefer 14.5mm*114mm heavy machine guns I offered earlier. Almost as good as 20mm against aircrafts of that era, but lighter and more handy for infantry.

Also, round developed may be useful for anti-tank rifles and other heavy sniper rifles

[Funk]

i feel that a 14.5mm heavy machine gun over laps with our 7.62mm machine gun too much.
20mm shells are better at fighting planes or tanks , due to better ammunition,
look at the grams weights of 100-140 for 20mm vs 60 for 14.5mm now more weight = more explosive filling.
The 20mm was the weapon of choice for fighter planes a reason.

[Morrigi]

Ask the military what they want in terms of production in order to mobilize, and what they need most.

I quite like the Badger, it would appear to be an early AFV with armor equivalent to a tank of the era. It has great potential, and we could probably use as many as we can make, though more extensive field tests, especially in muddy conditions, would be prudent.

It would appear that we are lacking an infantry-portable anti-tank weapon. I propose the Bear, a 14.5x115mm, bolt-action anti-tank rifle with a 5-round box magazine. Effective range should be at least 1,000m against armor. With a scope, this could also function as a (rather ungainly) sniper rifle.

Barrel length should be about 1200mm.

We should try for a mass of about 40 pounds, slightly lighter than the PTRS used in World War II.

The round should be steel-cored for armor piercing capability.

In addition, the 14.5mm HMG would be a good idea, considering that we are adapting a war footing and need light AA and heavy anti-infantry capability. A quad mount for the HMG would be practical as well.

Also, what do we know of the Morovian military?

[a1s]

look at the grams weights of 100-140 for 20mm vs 60 for 14.5mm now more weight = more explosive filling.

No filling actually, just good old steel. This allows us to make rounds very cheaply and provide a higher volume of fire (14mm machine gun would both fire more often then a 20mm autocanon and be more compact, you could easily have 3 of them wherever 2 20mm cannons are mounted) for less money, passing the savings on to the worker.

As for anti tank rifles based on the 20mm.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

They don't actually work with "real" tanks.

[Morrigi]

It's the 1920s. Tanks had relatively light armor, and the 14.5mm round can pierce 60mm of steel at 100m.

[10ebbor10]

As for Maginot line, It's a very complex topic, it wasn't built to the coast  because 1)  more marshy land made bunkers much building here much more expensive even for the country with huge military budget 2) It was expected that Belgians would build their own line (guess what? They never had enough funds for that)   3) French never wanted to let Germans move artillery and bombard their industrial zones

But, most importantly: Germans did break through the Maginot line
That's exactly what allowed them to encircle BEN forces and win French Campaign

Bit of an outdated post, but the Belgians did have enough funds for a large network of forts. The forts surrounding Liege, for example. Taking advantage of natural fortifications, and with the most modern military technology, these were considered to be best forts in the world. In fact, the line was considered to be impregnable.

The central fort, Eben-Emael, was rendered inoperable and surrendered within a few hours of the german attack. After that, the other forts came under attack the next day. The line quickly fell, and the germans bypassed most of it. Lack of AA defense is mainly to blame, as well as the use of a few large forts, as opposed to the many smaller ones that the French Maginot line employed.

[kahn1234]

As for Maginot line, It's a very complex topic, it wasn't built to the coast  because 1)  more marshy land made bunkers much building here much more expensive even for the country with huge military budget 2) It was expected that Belgians would build their own line (guess what? They never had enough funds for that)   3) French never wanted to let Germans move artillery and bombard their industrial zones

But, most importantly: Germans did break through the Maginot line
That's exactly what allowed them to encircle BEN forces and win French Campaign

Bit of an outdated post, but the Belgians did have enough funds for a large network of forts. The forts surrounding Liege, for example. Taking advantage of natural fortifications, and with the most modern military technology, these were considered to be best forts in the world. In fact, the line was considered to be impregnable.

The central fort, Eben-Emael, was rendered inoperable and surrendered within a few hours of the german attack. After that, the other forts came under attack the next day. The line quickly fell, and the germans bypassed most of it. Lack of AA defense is mainly to blame, as well as the use of a few large forts, as opposed to the many smaller ones that the French Maginot line employed.

And both the French and the Belgians didnt make use of a lifesaving strategy: Strategic Reserves.

When Churchill asked De Gaul (i think it was) 'what do we have in the strategic reserve', De Gaul answered 'What strategic reserve?'. Churchill reportedly, promptly facepalmed.

[a1s]

and the 14.5mm round can pierce 60mm of steel at 100m.

This is the first time I hear about 14.5 mm ammo piercing 2 inches of armor, care to provide proof links?

edit: I admit I expected 20mm, but wikipedia suggests it's 40mm in perfect conditions. Which is still 35% short of 60mm.

[Funk]

a lot of 20mm shells have explosives loading often about 10% by weight.
read this for more info
still i think i have lost the debate on this one.
maybe we should build rockets for heavy attack use so not to compromise the dog fighting ability of our planes. 

[RAM]

Rockets may be a bit far-fetched...

I second the research into concrete. They may not be much by themselves, but a fortress can add a lot to a defensive position.

We need to upgrade our production capacity. Try to get another warehouse. And research better manufacturing mechanisms, with luck it will help us design weapon mechanisms...

Produce some of those observation balloons, we want to know if our neighbour is making a move...

[Morrigi]

Correction to my above post, I misread the article. Actual penetration is 40mm of 60 degree sloped armor at 100m, and 32mm at 500m according to wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/14.5%C3%97114mm

From what I have seen, their sources and other articles match up to this.


EDIT: A quad 20mm or 14.5mm mount for the Badger at a cost of passenger capacity would be an extremely effective anti-infantry and anti-aircraft weapon. I propose this variant, if produced, to be christened the Hydra.

[Funk]

Rockets are not all that far-fetched, a few where built in the war.
the German R4M missile and Henschel Hs 293 anti-ship guided missile
the British Rocket Projectile 3 inch
the Russian RS-82 Rockets
all of which where used in action.

+1 the quad mounted with 20mm or 14.5mm on the Badger frame.

[Sensei]

Keep in mind, we're not Germany, Britain or Russia. We could try for rockets, but it will probably end in tears. Of blood.

[Funk]

Now guided missile are a 50's thing but unguided missile are not that hard to make.
 but it is only the 1920's we can hold off building them for a few more years.