Print

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

[kahn1234]

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

On SMG: When you say 8mm without specifying new round that means using the one existing.

On tanks: You are full of history channel myths on that. KV could be disabled by lighter guns, while it was troublesome it wasn't impossible at all with right tactics.

You ignored my words that main role of the tank is
not to combat other tanks....

As for Panther, it's subjective, but IMO it was too expensive and it's good antitank ability wasn't that useful on strategical scale. Tank destroyed could take that role.

Shermans never claimed to be very good against Tigers and Panthers but Americans produced them, not some heavier machine. Think why.

and as for your aversion to sloped armour, it just shows how out of touch you are in armoured warfare.

Look at modern tanks, Only few tanks (Like Merkavas)  can be called heavily sloped, others are quite boxy. Front armors are sloped.  But side armors (including turrets) are not
It never was an obvious decision  to make sloped armors. It's effects were well known from the mid 19 century (from naval armor) about sloped armor effect, but it made tanks more expensive and cramped. Some armored vehicles were sloped (look at french S-35 tank for example. It was done long before "revolutionary sloped T-34" Same with German armored cars) Some not. Because boxy tanks are easier to make (both in cost and workhours), have more space and easier in maintenance.


I love tanks, I am not an expert, but yours "out of touch" makes me smile

On the SMG: I assumed it was obvious that a rifle round would be unsuitable.

On Tanks: You are severely underestimating the KV tanks. Yes, they COULD be DISABLED by lighter guns, but they would need to be overwhelmed with many attackers, similar to the tactics the allies used against the Tigers, Panthers and King Tigers. Hence the Germans designed a tank that could destroy the KV without the need of more than 1 or 2.

You said: "As for Panther, it's subjective, but IMO it was too expensive and it's good antitank ability wasn't that useful on strategical scale. Tank destroyed could take that role."

The Panther was a very good all round tank, which was rare. You seem to believe that during WW2 and before, they submitted to the MBT doctrine of multipurpose tanks. They Didn't, and, back then at a time when different tanks had different roles, a Medium/heavy tanks main role was to crack enemy fortifications, combat other tanks and lead the spearhead in an offensive. They left anti-infantry fighting to the lighter tanks or the Infantry tanks.

As for the Shermans, its a moot point. It was quicker to build thousands of inferior tanks to combat the Panthers/tigers/king tigers than it was to design, test and built a new tank. Look at how long it took the British to design/build/test the Centurion, and the US the Pershing heavy tank and prototype T29 tank destroyer. Shermans were ok, but they were by no means good. Essentially they were cannon fodder.

Modern tanks have the benefit of modern materials, which have semi-negated the need for sloped armour. For example, the Challenger 2 is the best, more heavily armoured tank on the planet, with Dorchester composite armour. The materials used in that are spaced (which can counter kinetic rounds/SABOT just as good as HEAT and other modern shells) and extremely strong.

They are also synthetic and modern. But thats doesn't do away with sloped armour. It is still there, on all sides and even behind the tracks on the hull, just not as severely sloped as older tanks.

Behind the tracks, the Challenger is also angular. The only bits which aren't are the sides of the turret, but they have the benefit of very thick Dorchester plating, same as the front, belly and sides of the hulls and turret. its the same for most modern tanks. The Hull, even behind the tracks, will be angular as well as the front of the turret, whilst the sides and, sometimes the rear of the turret wont be. All modern tanks are like that.

The Merkava, with its very heavily sloped design based around hulling-down, is the exception rather than the rule. Other modern tank designers have seen that due to the armour now put on tanks, slops dont need to be as severe, although, as i keep say, it is still there on almost all surfaces.

Even with modern armour, sloped armour is still heavily used, even if they aren't as sloped as the early 20th century.

Looking at the Challenger 2 and Abrams in detail (they are very similar) there is very little of them that isn't sloped.

We, in the 1920's didnt have the luxury of modern composite materials which can do far more for us than sloped. We are against solid kinetic rounds, and the only way we can counter them is by having sloped armour. The way to counter the loss of space is to lengthen and widen the Chassis (which has other benefits). the Badgers already have all round sloped armour, thickening it alongside lengthening and widening the chassis would do wonders for it. Not to mention allowing space to double the engines power and size.


"Good strategist produces what is needed now, not something that may be useful ten years later"
And this is the most ridiculous sentence you have ever uttered. this would put you at odds with all military planners on the planet, pretty much. Planning for the present means that when whatever you planned is done, it will be obsolete and superseded by your enemies.

((sorry about formatting. went funky)).


As for air-force, it is plausible that we could start researching jet engines. not saying we should, just that it does technically fit the era. the first jet engine was designed and built by a British fighter pilot in 1926......

[RAM]

+10.2 I dearly want to say to take off a main gun and make it faster, or to mount a single 160mm gun and hope it still floats, but 10.2 as it stands is a good plan and I support it.

27) Fourthly, I'd like to also recommend we lengthen and widen the chassis for the next stage of the Badger. Give it better treads, two (instead of one) engines, make sure the engines are of the new type (the ones with far more power) and i'd say increase the armour on the front and sides of the turret and hull by 10-15mm. Keep the armour slanted as much as possible to reduce penetration chance and also try to keep the gap between the turret and the hull as small as is possible without compromising the turrets turning capability. I's also recommend looking into powering the Badgers turret, so it traverses faster. Better optics too are needed. Finally, try to lighten it as much as possible without compromising firepower, mobility or protection and if that means we need to completely redesign some parts, then so be it.[/b]

Subproposal 27.2: Kahn1234-1a(K1) Super-Tank(tank destroyer). Give it roughly 40% more volume than the badger, thicker armour and heavy sloping. Fit it with a standard 80mm gun. Try to incorporate our latest turret technology and give it two engines. Speed can be sacrificed. Don't put too much effort into this design, just put the parts together then get it moving and shooting. Then build a couple of dozen so that we have something in reserve if we get a nasty surprise.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

Spoiler: OOC (click to show/hide)

Khan1234, your mentoring style amuses me . I repeat I know about the tanks quite a lot, less about modern, more about WW2.
I talked quite a lot with real WW2 tank commander (grandfather of my friend who started the war in T-26, briefly commanded T-34, than fought in land-lease Sherman) , I read more than one book on the subject... And spent months reading forums like axishistory. Everything is not as black-white as you seem to think. And not simple at all.
+  WW2 has many myths like "best AT gun Flak 36"  Or "ideal tank T-34"  or " one KV-1 that held back the whole tank division" or "Brest fortress that tied several German divisions for month" or "Stupid French generals that never expected that Germans will go through Belgium"

As for KV-1 and it's effectiveness I suggest to read this http://english.battlefield.ru/evaluation-of-the-t-34-and-kv-dp1.html

IC
I have 29)  Ask our generals to consider to order a 10 000 ton+ heavy cruiser\battleship from a foreign nation as we'll not be able to construct our own anytime soon and need a proper flagship sooner than later

And to repeat I am against 27, 27.2 or any other tank designing that turn. We are spreading to thin. Not only that bad for the quality of designs, that puts to much work on the GM

[kahn1234]

Everything is not as black-white as you seem to think. And not simple at all.
+  WW2 has many myths like "best AT gun Flak 36"  Or "ideal tank T-34"  or " one KV-1 that held back the whole tank division" or "Brest fortress that tied several German divisions for month" or "Stupid French generals that never expected that Germans will go through Belgium"

I never said any of that, so they dont contribute to this argument. I enver said anything was 'the best'. i usually say, if i admire something, that it was effective or very effective. Everything has weaknesses. But anyway.

As for KV-1 and it's effectiveness I suggest to read this http://english.battlefield.ru/evaluation-of-the-t-34-and-kv-dp1.html [/spoiler]

They seem to have as many good points as bad points.

If they were perfect, they wouldn't have been replaced by the IS tanks or upgraded (as the T-34 was, extensively).

[tryrar]

Guys can we not have any history arguments here...at ALL? If you guys wanna debate, open up a topic for it, but please don't clutter up this thread (that's what basically killed my suggestion game, 10ebbor and another player getting into a long arguement about what techs were possible).

That said, I have an addendum: Name the new frigate class the Alexi class

[kahn1234]

Guys can we not have any history arguments here...at ALL? If you guys wanna debate, open up a topic for it, but please don't clutter up this thread (that's what basically killed my suggestion game, 10ebbor and another player getting into a long arguement about what techs were possible).

That said, I have an addendum: Name the new frigate class the Alexi class

I'm not the one starting arguments.

I put something forward to try and preemptively counter any possibility and then UR comes in and says 'Oh, we dont need it'.

But what happens when we DO need it, but we dont have it because some egotist thinks its better to put his ideas forward which only revolve around the present instead of thinking for the future?

[Ukrainian Ranger]

Kahn1234 you are the one who  start real world stuff again and again

Tryrar (not me)  said that we don't need new tanks and you started your long passionate speech about KV-1s and German tanks and how we don't need to repeat a questionable mistake from the far future in the alternative universe (metagaming on the march, BTW)

I had to answer that that never was a big problem for Germans, as they advanced nevertheless and thus designing better tanks aren't as important as other branches (I could, and probably should have ignored your one sided history "facts", but you are the one who started it.)

Also, can you stop your personal attacks? I have very different vision of how we should develop. And I can and will oppose ideas I dislike. It's how I play all suggestions games I play in. Learn to live with it. It's a game.
You may oppose my ideas as much as you want, my Ego isn't hurt when they attacked or rejected

[Brood]

Ukranian, opposing people is fine to a point but every single turn you go out of your way to block everybody else and force your own ideas through and more often then not your ideas are extremely limited and leave us with massive weaknesses, you could try compromising and limiting your own ideas to 2-3 a turn so other people can put there own rather then using up 1/2 of the spaces just for yourself.

Sticking to 1 military branch at a time? Your begging to get slaughtered because the enemy will advance in every field while your only advancing in 1.

The tank is effective now but enemy has already deployed a prototype  to counter it, seen what it lacks and is already refining it, in 2 years at most the enemy will have superior tanks and tank destroyers in the field and we'll be back to square 1 with them driving us back again because you didn't think it was worth it.
Countries do not pick 1 branch to advance they work on all of them, so spread your ideas out, do a couple of your ideas, a couple of his, a couple of somebody elses in each turn to advance in each branch and keep them all up to date and competitive with the enemies or they will very quickly over take our level of tech again.
Kahn is correct war is not won by planning a week in advance it's won by planning a year in advance, Kahn is planning to counter the enemy in advance so when they deploy a new weapon we already have our own to counter theres and can keep pushing, rather then being brought to a stand still then pushed backwards.

[kahn1234]

Kahn1234 you are the one who constantly start real world mumblings

Tryrar (not me)  said that we don't need new tanks and you started your long passionate speech about KV-1s and German tanks and how we don't need to repeat a questionable mistake from the far future in the alternative universe (metagaming on the march, BTW)

I did not go off on one. I used a real world example of why it always pays to be prepared for all eventualities. YOU are the one who started an argument about real world aspects.

I had to answer that that never was a big problem for Germans, as they advanced nevertheless and thus designing better tanks aren't as important as other branches (I could, and probably should have ignored your one sided history "facts", but you are the one who started it.)

Please, tell me what fact i 'made up'? The fact that the Germans struggled immensely against the T-34 and KV-1 and were forced to build larger, better tanks? (all true). Or the fact that modern tanks still use sloped armour? (the only tank that fits your 'all-modern'tanks-are-boxes' argument is the Indian Argun MBT, and only on the turret, which is protected by 320-360mm thick composite armour, using in tandem with RHS and ERA..... All other tanks are either sloped all around, or heavily sloped on at least 3 sides.)

Also, can you stop your personal attacks? I have very different vision of how we should develop. And I can and will oppose ideas I dislike. It's how I play all suggestions games I play in. Learn to live with it. It's a game.

And you are constantly getting into arguments because you constantly push your ideas, whether or not they are supported. You do the same in every suggestion game. I haven't forgotten how you nearly got the 'You are a new god' thread shut down by the big guy himself.

You may oppose my ideas as much as you want, my Ego isn't hurt when they attacked or rejected

Neither is mine, and if you hadn't noticed i was moving on but you just HAD to start an argument with me to show people oh how superior your 'knowledge' is.....

[Morrigi]

I agree with the naval stuff, also make some Hydras. Quad machine guns are equally effective against infantry and soft-skinned vehicles as they are against aircraft, and we are expecting bomber raids. Also, design a 4-engine bomber capable of carrying 500 pounds of bombs with defensive machine guns, if possible. If we want to make a real bomber, we will need engines in the 500 horsepower range, though if development goes well we should field as many as possible.

Also, we will need more fighters to escort the bombers.

[Brood]

I support the notion that we should defend our cities with heavy coastal batteries and 80mm flak guns, but i'd also make sure to add in that we need the quad linked MG's as well, situated on top of buildings and in their own fortified areas.

Also, bunkers, especially on the coast, to defend against any landing operations.

I also support the notion that we need more semi auto rifles (the SVA-10's effectiveness at medium/short range will complement the Nagants effectiveness at long/medium range very well). I would also like more pistols and shotguns as sidearms as well for the really gritty close quarters and house-to-house fighting.

26) Thirdly, i support the design and construction of a 8mm SMG. I'd preferably like it to have a straight stock (as opposed to the slight bent look the files have) to help handle recoil (and so it doenst 'pivot' about the soldiers shoulder) and either a 80 round box magazine or a 60 round drum magazine. Also, give it an air cooled, long-ish barrel. Finally, give it a forward grip for extra control.

27) Fourthly, I'd like to also recommend we lengthen and widen the chassis for the next stage of the Badger. Give it better treads, two (instead of one) engines, make sure the engines are of the new type (the ones with far more power) and i'd say increase the armour on the front and sides of the turret and hull by 10-15mm. Keep the armour slanted as much as possible to reduce penetration chance and also try to keep the gap between the turret and the hull as small as is possible without compromising the turrets turning capability. I's also recommend looking into powering the Badgers turret, so it traverses faster. Better optics too are needed. Finally, try to lighten it as much as possible without compromising firepower, mobility or protection and if that means we need to completely redesign some parts, then so be it.

I'd also recommend we dont rely solely on a 320mm coastal gun. have everything from 80mm to 320mm coastal batteries to keep up a constant rate of fire, to cover the time it takes to reload guns of 200mm and up.

(( As a note, for the bottom point I suggest placing smaller batteries on higher ground to give them the longest possible effective range. ))

But +1 to these suggestions.

[mesor]

I support the notion that we should defend our cities with heavy coastal batteries and 80mm flak guns, but i'd also make sure to add in that we need the quad linked MG's as well, situated on top of buildings and in their own fortified areas.

Also, bunkers, especially on the coast, to defend against any landing operations.

I also support the notion that we need more semi auto rifles (the SVA-10's effectiveness at medium/short range will complement the Nagants effectiveness at long/medium range very well). I would also like more pistols and shotguns as sidearms as well for the really gritty close quarters and house-to-house fighting.

26) Thirdly, i support the design and construction of a 8mm SMG. I'd preferably like it to have a straight stock (as opposed to the slight bent look the files have) to help handle recoil (and so it doenst 'pivot' about the soldiers shoulder) and either a 80 round box magazine or a 60 round drum magazine. Also, give it an air cooled, long-ish barrel. Finally, give it a forward grip for extra control.

27) Fourthly, I'd like to also recommend we lengthen and widen the chassis for the next stage of the Badger. Give it better treads, two (instead of one) engines, make sure the engines are of the new type (the ones with far more power) and i'd say increase the armour on the front and sides of the turret and hull by 10-15mm. Keep the armour slanted as much as possible to reduce penetration chance and also try to keep the gap between the turret and the hull as small as is possible without compromising the turrets turning capability. I's also recommend looking into powering the Badgers turret, so it traverses faster. Better optics too are needed. Finally, try to lighten it as much as possible without compromising firepower, mobility or protection and if that means we need to completely redesign some parts, then so be it.

I'd also recommend we dont rely solely on a 320mm coastal gun. have everything from 80mm to 320mm coastal batteries to keep up a constant rate of fire, to cover the time it takes to reload guns of 200mm and up.

(( As a note, for the bottom point I suggest placing smaller batteries on higher ground to give them the longest possible effective range. ))

But +1 to these suggestions.

+1, a good tank can be adapted to fit a lot of different roles and varied infantry weapons is a good support for it, combine the two and we have a massive offensive and defensive advantage in both deployment speed and power.
In this period most armies used armor and infantry as seperate units but working together so I say we invent the first mechanised infantry devision in the world.

[Brood]

I'll work up an APC system for next turn but we need a good piece of heavy artillery that can be dragged into position by the APC, preferably high power, long range and with a variety of munitions from smoke shells, to AP shells, to HE shells so it can be used to fit any circumstances, with Hydras to provide anti air cover and pure badgers to lead the charge the APC can double as light armored support and rapid deployment vehicles to bring infantry into the fight.

[Funk]

 +1 for 7, 8, 13, 14, 15, 26 and 27.

26.1 Use our 9x30mm cartridge from the The Peoples little friend instead of 8mm.

28)Quick work on building a stand alone, quad machine gun turret  from the AA badger, it should packaway on to the back of a truck.

by not having the to build the badger it should be a lot faster to build.

[Morrigi]

+1 for 7, 8, 13, 14, 15, 26 and 27.

26.1 Use our 9x30mm cartridge from the The Peoples little friend instead of 8mm.

28)Quick work on building a stand alone, quad machine gun turret  from the AA badger, it should packaway on to the back of a truck.

by not having the to build the badger it should be a lot faster to build.

Yeah, we can mass-produce Hydras when we have extra production capacity later, and +1 on the SMG ammo.