Print

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

[Kashyyk]

What exactly are you guys arguing about? It seems to be less about whether we should or should not design our own AT/AA cross, and more about whether a specific AA gun could be used as an AT gun.

[kahn1234]

What exactly are you guys arguing about? It seems to be less about whether we should or should not design our own AT/AA cross, and more about whether a specific AA gun could be used as an AT gun.

I really wanted to use the 94mm as a base for an AT/AA gun and in a field gun role as it was a fantastic AA gun and field artillery piece, and an adequate AT gun with some modifications, then UR started arguing that it was unsuitable, completely forgetting that we can add to or modify it any way we like.

He also was saying that it was too much, where as i wanted to future-proof our weapons by giving us an edge later on.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

I am arguing over the basic idea of gun designed for several different roles, as this is a nonsense. Gun can be used for something  it wasn't designed for, usually with severely reduced effectiveness comparing to normal usage. Attempt to make universal gun will lead to a gun mediocre in all roles (Navies do have dual-purpose guns, but that's a different story because ships have limited space and installing two guns instead is not an option. As well as having half of the guns silent when you fight airforce)

No AA\AT guns ever existed, only AA guns that could be used as AT or even crappy howitzers

Also I am quite infuriated by  that arguments like "gun was designed in 1928 because military decided that it wants the gun".... Text clearly says that first prototypes were made in 1934! and final version in 1936. Or claim that it is a successful AA\AT gun because -   3.7" was used in the anti-tank role in one or two emergencies. or "It was used as a howitzer on secondary theaters so it's a howitzer, too" (it's obvious that if you have no enemy strategic bombers and already produced guns you want to find some use for them)
Ha. Now it's an excellent howitzer (recently it was an excellent AT gun, BTW) and I am too bored to write why it's wrong.   

I promise to ignore khan1234 as this is pointless.

As for IC: Such a gun is a waste of resources, enemy can't have anything that would require either heavy flak rounds , or heavy AP rounds. Heavy HE rounds are good, but you need not an AA gun for that but a proper howitzer.  Also it is quite  complex for our low level engineers, very costly to produce and we can't afford to spread our efforts too thin

[kahn1234]

I am arguing over the basic idea of gun designed for several different roles, as this is a nonsense. Gun can be used for something  it wasn't designed for, usually with severely reduced effectiveness comparing to normal usage. Attempt to make universal gun will lead to a gun mediocre in all roles (Navies do have dual-purpose guns, but that's a different story because ships have limited space and installing two guns instead is not an option. As well as having half of the guns silent when you fight airforce)

No AA\AT guns ever existed, only AA guns that could be used as AT or even crappy howitzers

Also I am quite infuriated by  that arguments like "gun was designed in 1928 because military decided that it wants the gun".... Text clearly says that first prototypes were made in 1934! and final version in 1936. Or claim that it is a successful AA\AT gun because -   3.7" was used in the anti-tank role in one or two emergencies. or "It was used as a howitzer on secondary theaters so it's a howitzer, too" (it's obvious that if you have no enemy strategic bombers and already produced guns you want to find some use for them)
Ha. Now it's an excellent howitzer (recently it was an excellent AT gun, BTW) and I am too bored to write why it's wrong.   

I promise to ignore khan1234 as this is pointless.

As for IC: Such a gun is a waste of resources, enemy can't have anything that would require either heavy flak rounds , or heavy AP rounds. Heavy HE rounds are good, but you need not an AA gun for that but a proper howitzer.  Also it is quite  complex for our low level engineers, very costly to produce and we can't afford to spread our efforts too thin

If it was a crappy howitzer, why was it used as a field gun in all theatres of war from Burma to Normandy, to great effect (as evidence and first hand accounts will testify to).

If it was ineffective firing horizontally, why was it used against landing craft and against tanks all the way up till 1945? Example: (its in the centre).

Australian fortified position, year: 1945 (7th Field Regiment and 2 9th Armoured Regiment Tarakan June 1945)
Yes, it was heavy, but as you can see its profile isnt any bigger than a Flak88 and although it did need modifications to run as a AT gun (unlike being able to run without mods as an AA or field arty piece) it was still used and was effective.

"No AA\AT guns ever existed"

the Germans and their Flak88 would like a word with you.

"text clearly says that first prototypes were made in 1934!"

The first ones by VICKERS. Not the first ones at all. Its initial base was laid down in 1928, as well as the idea and recognition of the idea that Heavy AA was needed or would be needed.

"Ha. Now it's an excellent howitzer (recently it was an excellent AT gun, BTW) and I am too bored to write why it's wrong"

I said it was an effective AT gun. never said excellent. It was, indeed an excellent field gun though, as is testified by its performance in Italy, North Africa, France, Belgium, Burma, the middle east and Germany.

And, i will say it again, i wanted to use it as a base. i never, ever, said i wanted to completely copy the gun.

[Brood]

Ukranian for the love of god be quiet and let people have some fun.

It's a damned game, it's supposed to be so people can have fun designing interesting weapons and seeing how effective they turn out to be.
It's not a game thats designed for everybody to do what you want them to and design the weapons you like every turn like your intent on making every one of these games into, if you want everything to be done the way you want then make your own game.

[RAM]

I feel that our first priority should be to get an assembly line for badgers up and running, our production really isn't up to standard for a protracted war.
I am not sure what our ammunition situation is, but we should probably devote some time to getting some spare 8mm ammo for those machineguns.
I agree with building some 80mm artillery pieces.
I advocate working on 80mm altitude-detonated shrapnel rounds so that our 80mm guns can discourage aircraft in a pinch. Later they can be reworked into specialist A.A. guns and we can work up some heavy artillery, possibly going all the way up to 320mm, and some mortars. But for now stick with an 80mm artillery piece with A.A. ammunition for emergencies.
It seems a bit late to be getting into aircraft production, is it possible to purchase some fighters?
A wooden river-boat sounds like it could be fun. I would probably go for 4 lightly-armour 8mm machine-gun positions, a 40mm turret, space for, say, 20 passengers, and put some effort into the disembarking mechanism. It wouldn't change the world, but should be able to serve as pretty good transport and support for river operations without being too expensive.
Do we want to sell our machine-guns? We could probably make some coinage that way...


P.S.
 I just dislike pulling up real-world examples when we lack a simulator capable of accurately portraying their effectiveness and I have more fun coming up with more original stuff. Not to mention the arguments that can be caused when a piece of historical equipment doesn't perform as someone thinks it should...

[kahn1234]

I didnt want tog et into an argument about it. I was just saying we could look into designing a 80-95mm multi-purpose gun that could give us the edge later on.

I feel that our first priority should be to get an assembly line for badgers up and running, our production really isn't up to standard for a protracted war.
I am not sure what our ammunition situation is, but we should probably devote some time to getting some spare 8mm ammo for those machineguns.
I agree with building some 80mm artillery pieces.
I advocate working on 80mm altitude-detonated shrapnel rounds so that our 80mm guns can discourage aircraft in a pinch. Later they can be reworked into specialist A.A. guns and we can work up some heavy artillery, possibly going all the way up to 320mm, and some mortars. But for now stick with an 80mm artillery piece with A.A. ammunition for emergencies.
It seems a bit late to be getting into aircraft production, is it possible to purchase some fighters?
A wooden river-boat sounds like it could be fun. I would probably go for 4 lightly-armour 8mm machine-gun positions, a 40mm turret, space for, say, 20 passengers, and put some effort into the disembarking mechanism. It wouldn't change the world, but should be able to serve as pretty good transport and support for river operations without being too expensive.
Do we want to sell our machine-guns? We could probably make some coinage that way...


P.S.
 I just dislike pulling up real-world examples when we lack a simulator capable of accurately portraying their effectiveness and I have more fun coming up with more original stuff. Not to mention the arguments that can be caused when a piece of historical equipment doesn't perform as someone thinks it should...

+1

[Crabnumber]

And so the thread quickly devolved into a real-life knowledge e-peen demonstration.

Gonna support what RAMs said.

[Morrigi]

I feel that our first priority should be to get an assembly line for badgers up and running, our production really isn't up to standard for a protracted war.
I am not sure what our ammunition situation is, but we should probably devote some time to getting some spare 8mm ammo for those machineguns.
I agree with building some 80mm artillery pieces.
I advocate working on 80mm altitude-detonated shrapnel rounds so that our 80mm guns can discourage aircraft in a pinch. Later they can be reworked into specialist A.A. guns and we can work up some heavy artillery, possibly going all the way up to 320mm, and some mortars. But for now stick with an 80mm artillery piece with A.A. ammunition for emergencies.
It seems a bit late to be getting into aircraft production, is it possible to purchase some fighters?
A wooden river-boat sounds like it could be fun. I would probably go for 4 lightly-armour 8mm machine-gun positions, a 40mm turret, space for, say, 20 passengers, and put some effort into the disembarking mechanism. It wouldn't change the world, but should be able to serve as pretty good transport and support for river operations without being too expensive.
Do we want to sell our machine-guns? We could probably make some coinage that way...


P.S.
 I just dislike pulling up real-world examples when we lack a simulator capable of accurately portraying their effectiveness and I have more fun coming up with more original stuff. Not to mention the arguments that can be caused when a piece of historical equipment doesn't perform as someone thinks it should...

1. Yes.
2. Yes.
3. Sure.
4. I'd place this as a lower priority
5. Good idea.
6. Sounds effective
7. Right now we need all the MGs we can get.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

Brood
I could be more silent if no one tried to bring real world and say some disinformation like British 97mm AA\AT gun and quoting real world with clear disinformation and keeping pushing the gun after several people said that it is not needed. But yep, It's a lack of self-discipline from my part.  I agree, thread can survive without real world examples

I am so tempted to answer to "the Germans and their Flak88 would like a word with you." But I promised to not react
______________

IC part to RAMs suggestion

I kinda like it, except flak round for 80mm, as I'd prefer a dedicated flak round for 40mm first.
Also. I do think that developing a powerful 14-16mm round is an important thing for near future. As well as heavy sniper\anti-tank rifle on that round ( I think it's more practical to design weapon and round in conjunction, to make them fit each other ideally. Later we'll need to design new weapons around a round, but it is unwise to develop round first and then limit engineers by forcing them to make a weapon for that round is a wrong way to do it)

[Morrigi]

A 16mm round would probably break collarbones without recoil compensation if used in a rifle. In addition, we know nothing about the Morovian military, so getting some knowledge of that is essential before we devote major production capacity to AA weapons, though we should have some amount of them anyway.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

Aren't such rifles meant to be fired from a prone position? 16mm is a damn large round for a rifle, but even bigger rounds aren't something unrealistic. I'd prefer smaller, like 14 or 14.5mm

 

[kahn1234]

Aren't such rifles meant to be fired from a prone position? 16mm is a damn large round for a rifle, but even bigger rounds aren't something unrealistic. I'd prefer smaller, like 14 or 14.5mm

Doesn't matter if its supposed to be fired lying down. Without proper recoil compensation, your should becomes nothing more than crushed bone and torn tissue.

And i wasnt spreading disinformation, nor did i say 'copy this gun'. I said why not design something with a multi-purpose role, and used that as an example. But i'll leave the argument now, as UR's ego is annoying me.

[RAM]

A 16mm machine gun would typically be mounted or have a three-man crew and would not typically be carried while being fired.
A 16mm rifle would be for use against lightly armoured vehicles or personnel at long-range and would not expect to be fired from a standing position. Although you are right, it would probably need a tripod and some mobile components with shock absorbers to keep whoever is firing it in one piece. I would like to suggest that it might be worth it, being shot at through walls is terrible for morale...

[Ukrainian Ranger]

Muzzle brake and staff for heavy sniper rifles is good to have, but those are meant to be fired from a bipod. I hate to bring real world (again), but Google anti-material rifle for a rough outline of what I want to get

Also, engineer details like recoil compensation and stuff, IMO, better to be left in the background. We aren't engineers we are giving orders to engineers