Print

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

[RAM]

Vote for 11 Mostly because I wuv da lighter-than airships.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

Now suggestions

1.1 Design two engined heavy fighter using the monoplane design we develop. Make it durable,  fast (monoplanes are faster than biplanes) and armored with at least 4 8mm machineguns (but should ber able4 to carry something heavier) . Design it in a way, that allows installation of slightly larger engine(s)s in the future. 

3.1 Redesign our current biplane fighter (use old engine for simplicity) to turn it into a light floatplane bomber, without defensive machine guns, but with new mount to carry standard bombs\depth charges\. Use the same engine and in general try to make it share as much parts with the fighter biplane as possible to let our biplane factories to build both fighters and those anti-ship aircrafts without retooling

4.1 Work on sub detecting equipment. High priority. 

10.1 Design simple depth charges that can be dropped from low flying biplanes  Righteous boats and Popular devotion. TOP Priority

12 Design  14mm machineguns, prioritizing punch and magazine over weight, RPM and cost 

8.1 send the refined car into limited production
When we'll need variants we'll develop variants

I vote for 6

I vote for 11
Airships have their uses in naval warfare and they are fun, but I prefer to have a faster response option (biplanes) So want both. Also this is essential and we must have two projects in case if one will fail.

As for 7, RAM, please, explain me a way to make a mobile 70 ton weapon that fires 1 ton shells....
Also explain why we need such a weapon

As for 9, I prefer monoplane for greater speed, and 8mm  machineguns are enough to knock fighters, later, we may install heavier machineguns or 25mm, or even 40mm (for ground attack role)  on the very same heavy fighters, So I ask you to drop 9 and support 1.1

[10ebbor10]

As for 7, RAM, please, explain me a way to make a mobile 70 ton weapon that fires 1 ton shells....
Also explain why we need such a weapon

Put it on rails? We do have a railway network, right? It's not as mobile as normal mobile artillery, but at least it won't sink into the mud.
Long range bombaredement, I suppose.

Note that this thing is highly usefull.

Spoiler: List (click to show/hide)

1.Single wing plane
   1.1: 2 Engined Heavy Single Wing fighter.
2.Double ship hulls
    1) Alternative anti torpedo defense options
3. Antisubmarine/ship biplane bomber
    3.1 Use a redesign of current fighter for simplicity
    3.2 Use new technology
     a) Standard bomber variant
     b) Advanced sea mines (Antisub and normal variants)
     c) Timed torpedoes
4) Acoustic submarine detection system
     4.1) Or whatever other detection systems we can come up with.
5.) Mobile artillery piece (320mm)
6.) Tank diesel engine
7) Messing with aircraft engine
Refining armoured car
   8.1)Limitied production
9)Twin engined Sniper biplane
10) Depth charges
    10.1) Simple charges that can be dropped by planes and boats.
11) Airship Bomber
12 Design  14mm machineguns, prioritizing punch and magazine over weight, RPM and cost 

[/quote]

[RAM]

Yes, long range bombardment, and weight reduction would likely be a major part of that. When I say mobile, my standards are pretty low, the mark one will probably be transported in two or three parts. But once they were set up somewhere they would be able to provide phenomenal bombardment to anything within a large radius. Ideally it would eventually evolve into a tracked vehicle, but for that we would probably be looking at, at least, the mk XIII Cod artillery piece...

13: build a 40mm man-portable artillery piece. Dub it the dogma.

[10ebbor10]

Yes, long range bombardment, and weight reduction would likely be a major part of that. When I say mobile, my standards are pretty low, the mark one will probably be transported in two or three parts. But once they were set up somewhere they would be able to provide phenomenal bombardment to anything within a large radius. Ideally it would eventually evolve into a tracked vehicle, but for that we would probably be looking at, at least, the mk XIII Cod artillery piece...

12: build a 40mm man-portable artillery piece. Dub it the dogma.

It's number 13 actually. There's a reason I keep this little list around. Feel free to use it.

Another question. What's stopping our current land advances. Because the submarines don't seem to be too dangerous, as long as they don't start targetting our commerce supplies.

Spoiler: List (click to show/hide)

1.Single wing plane
   1.1: 2 Engined Heavy Single Wing fighter.
2.Double ship hulls
    1) Alternative anti torpedo defense options
3. Antisubmarine/ship biplane bomber
    3.1 Use a redesign of current fighter for simplicity
    3.2 Use new technology
     a) Standard bomber variant
     b) Advanced sea mines (Antisub and normal variants)
     c) Timed torpedoes
4) Acoustic submarine detection system
     4.1) Or whatever other detection systems we can come up with.
5.) Mobile artillery piece (320mm)
6.) Tank diesel engine
7) Messing with aircraft engine
Refining armoured car
   8.1)Limitied production
9)Twin engined Sniper biplane
10) Depth charges
    10.1) Simple charges that can be dropped by planes and boats.
11) Airship Bomber
12) Design  14mm machineguns, prioritizing punch and magazine over weight, RPM and cost 
13) 40 mm manportable artillery

[/quote]

[Brood]

14, SPIA, Design a halftrack with front wheels and rear tracks, add an armored roof that can be withdrawn to the sides of the rear compartment to provide cover while mobile and additional armor when in use.
Attach an indirect firing artillery piece that can be adjusted to a high enough angle to use against aircraft also make it capable of firing a 160 mm HE shell and a 160mm varient of the 40mm AA time fused shell.

Continue work to remove flaws.



15,MAIV, Extend the frame of the badger enough to allow it to hold 12-16 soldiers in the rear hold, remove all primary weapon systems to add space, bolt 4 Patriotism Mk 3 onto the roof of the APC and add hatches to the roof of the APC behind those 4 guns, the guns are to be above the 2 seats closest to the driving compartment and 2 closest to the rear doors above the seats to allow passengers to stand on seats with the hatch open to operate the guns, the guns are to have armor forming a 3 sides box around the hatch while the hatch opens to cover the back to shield gunners.
Use the advanced design badger with 2 engines and heavier armor.

[mesor]

+1 to 14,15.

An armored car APC is no use on a battlefield, a medium machinegun will go through the armor and kill everybody inside, as will anything bigger, a tank, a light tank, a tank destroyer, a hand held anti tank weapon.
For behind the frontline sure but it's no use in a support role when everything above assault rifle size will kill everybody in it.

[scapheap]

+1 to 12, 14 and 15

[10ebbor10]

Just a question, but why are we focusing on ground combat. While the suggestions might be usefull, they are not the solutions for the problems we currently have. IIRC, our groundforce is currently beating the enemy, air is a bit of a stalemate, and if we don't do anything soon, we might loose the sea.

[Brood]

Because if we fail on the sea it comes down to land, never focus all your efforts in one place because if it fails your helpless.

The sea is still being worked on but preparing the land forces if the enemy gets past is the best we can do for a reserve, so me and Mesor are working out ground based equipment incase the navy fails, since even with better ships we'll be severely out numbered on the sea it's doubtful we could repel them all if they try to invade again.

So when they do if your ships get them then great, if not then my APC and Artillery will be ready to bomb the living hell out of the beaches and deploy infantry to contain any landings while providing fire support.
I always look at the moves one step ahead and behind of our main position, ahead is invading the enemy but we lack the hardware, behind is defending our land so we need enough fire power to repel an enemy with superior man power and weaponry that at least rivals our own if not out matches since we haven't seen what they've done with the TD and other systems.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

Weight reduction of 320mm gun  is highly doubtful, because our 70 ton gun  is very light for the gun of that caliber (and it has quite low range for midwar standards, we'll need to design better ones if we'll ever use it for navy)

Also, really interested what 40mm piece you guys want . Mortar? Recoilless? Wheeled light gun  with weight like 300 kg?

10ebbor10, I think because "we" care not about strategy or current situation and just want "our" own "cool" designs approved. Depth charges and the like are just boring for them. You see, Brood even speaks like "my tanks and your ships! "

Also, I somewhat suspect that mesor and Brood are the same person, similar  writing style, same ideas, same online times

[10ebbor10]

Because if we fail on the sea it comes down to land, never focus all your efforts in one place because if it fails your helpless.

Then why are we focusing all efforts on land.  Because really, the majority of the suggestions is land based.

The sea is still being worked on but preparing the land forces if the enemy gets past is the best we can do for a reserve, so me and Mesor are working out ground based equipment incase the navy fails, since even with better ships we'll be severely out numbered on the sea it's doubtful we could repel them all if they try to invade again.

Are we outnumbered? We saw a few submarines, but that's it. I might have missed it of course. Besides, don't we share a landborder with them?

The largest threat is that they turn their submarines against our civilian marine, close of shipping and starve us out. Our economy is not indepenent, IIRC. I'm pretty sure they control the only land border, and generally, artillery doesn't do well without bullets to fire.

So when they do if your ships get them then great, if not then my APC and Artillery will be ready to bomb the living hell out of the beaches and deploy infantry to contain any landings while providing fire support.
I always look at the moves one step ahead and behind of our main position, ahead is invading the enemy but we lack the hardware, behind is defending our land so we need enough fire power to repel an enemy with superior man power and weaponry that at least rivals our own if not out matches since we haven't seen what they've done with the TD and other systems.

Generally, fortifications are used to defend, not mobile artillery systems. Those seem more suited for an attack. Besides, you can't hold the beaches if we loose the skies, no matter how much artillery and fortifications you got. That lesson was learned in the second World War. Another of those lessons was that you don't simply ignore submarines. So we can't afford to loose the sea either.

Also, what technical obstacles were there in the counterinvasion? Why was it stopped?

Also, I somewhat suspect that mesor and Brood are the same person, similar  writing style, same ideas, same online times

Doubt it.

Voting on:
1.1
2
2.1
3.2 (b, c)
4 / 4.1
7
10
11

Spoiler: List (click to show/hide)

1.Single wing plane
   1.1: Double Engined  Single Wing Heavy fighter.
2.Double ship hulls
    1) Alternative anti torpedo defense options
3. Antisubmarine/ship biplane bomber
    3.1 Use a redesign of current fighter for simplicity
    3.2 Use new technology
     a) Standard bomber variant
     b) Advanced sea mines (Antisub and normal variants)
     c) Timed torpedoes
4) Acoustic submarine detection system
     4.1) Or whatever other detection systems we can come up with.
5.) Mobile artillery piece (320mm)
6.) Tank diesel engine
7) Messing with aircraft engine
Refining armoured car
   8.1)Limitied production
9)Twin engined Sniper biplane
10) Depth charges
    10.1) Simple charges that can be dropped by planes and boats.
11) Airship Bomber
12) Design  14mm machineguns, prioritizing punch and magazine over weight, RPM and cost 
13) 40 mm manportable artillery
14) SPIA mobile artillery
15) MAIV APC

[RAM]

Also, really interested what 40mm piece you guys want . Mortar? Recoilless? Wheeled light gun  with weight like 300 kg?

When I say artillery I mean howitzer, and I said man-portable so probably a mortar.

And the mobile artillery would be, well, for mobile artillery. You stick it in a ditch somewhere, someone whines about some spot that is a problem, the artillery piece and its friends make a loud noise and deny or suppress whatever spot was meant to be a problem. And with a 320mm calibre, 'suppress' tends to be a rather subtle way of putting things. If you run out of problem spots, or decide that there are too many problems to deal with at once, then you move it to somewhere else so that it can deal with problems there.

Ugh, thanks, sorry that I missed 12, I have edited my post.

5.1: Assign 3 engineers and a novice engineer to determine the necessary specification for a vehicle capable of wielding the 320mm gun as a howitzer. Who knows, maybe it will be as easy as sticking a floor and a few engines on top of a half-a-dozen tracks.

[tryrar]

Actually, 10ebbor, I got the sense from the GM that we took all of their land that shared a border with us and the rest of the country is across the sea(correct me of I'm wrong Nadaka)
I vote for 1, 1.1, 2, 2.1, 3.2, 4, 4.1, 6, 7, 8, 8.1, 10, 10.1, 12, and 13(if he's talking about mortars)

16)Our current fighter should be named Feather(bugs me it's unnamed)

17)we need to finish the high-velocity 40mm, and use that as a basis for making high-velocity cannons of other calibers

[Brood]

Hmm fair point, I'll look at ships and planes when I get home. Mobile artillery is both offense and defense and good for both.