Print

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

[Funk]

+1 for 
Proposal 29: Design a small rocket of about 50kg with a small warhead.

[tryrar]

Umm, guys, I'm with UR on this. We have WAAAAY too many proposals here for any one of them to really get completed here(maybe if we had 200 engineers...)

so, let's prioritize. I vote we put the naval warfare aspects as highest priority, getting existing designs build as the next priority, and then lower priority designing the apcs and cannons

[Funk]

im for putting naval warfare aspects as highest priority as well, next year we should focus on air warfare them back to ground warfare. 

[Brood]

We were  alright until somebody added 30 more projects, but I want the APC and artillery done now so I can dump it for the ship I worked out last night.

[kahn1234]

Projects like 20 forces  me to remember various Hitler's projects

Project 20? the quad 40mm AA cannon?

Not impossible. The Soviets managed a twin 57mm AA vehicle (Soviet ZSU-57-2)

So a 40mm quad AA vehicle and a 40mm quad stationary variant for emplacements and ships is possible. We already have the technology, just takes a little engineering. Really its all about whether we can enlarge and modify the chassis that contains 4 MG's to take 4 40mm AA auto-cannons.

[tryrar]

Projects like 20 forces  me to remember various Hitler's projects

Project 20? the quad 40mm AA cannon?

Not impossible. The Soviets managed a twin 57mm AA vehicle (Soviet ZSU-57-2)

So a 40mm quad AA vehicle and a 40mm quad stationary variant for emplacements and ships is possible. We already have the technology, just takes a little engineering. Really its all about whether we can enlarge and modify the chassis that contains 4 MG's to take 4 40mm AA auto-cannons.

I would point out the vehicle you're referencing was considered a failure and was replaced by something with quad 23mm autocannons, which became the iconic soviet SPAAG the Shilka

[Ukrainian Ranger]

Also, Idea to design several weapons that have similar role is an overkill

Transport ships, lorries, jeeps, APCs, transport planes, airships in one turn?
Come on, choose one thing

Yep, I voted on 9 design related projects (probably too much) but at least,  they cover different fields. Some of them are I have to offer alternative to other's things because they'll be voted anyway

And I have like 10 ideas I want ( 80mm AA guns, Cruiser refit, better 160mm guns for coastal batteries, 80mm mortars, better 14mm rifle, 120mm howitzers, unguided rockets, helicopter experiments, jet expeiments  and several more ) leaving only the ones I see as urgent  (all my suggestions are air superiority or anti-submarine related)

the quad 40mm AA cannon?

I never said that it is impossible, world have seen weirder prototypes. Quad 40mm turrets were (and are) quite common in navy but armored vehicle with the turret that heavy  is unpactical due to many reasons I see no point to bring in, because a) no votes against allowed b) I am tired to get called arrogant egoist for arguments
Also, you can't take machine-gun turret and modify it to hold something 50-150 times larger....

I would point out the vehicle you're referencing was considered a failure and was replaced by something with quad 23mm autocannons, which became the iconic soviet SPAAG the Shilka

As well as american M42 dusters armed with two bofors
But we can't really compare it to our situation, as that was a result of increased speed of jets

[kahn1234]

Projects like 20 forces  me to remember various Hitler's projects

Project 20? the quad 40mm AA cannon?

Not impossible. The Soviets managed a twin 57mm AA vehicle (Soviet ZSU-57-2)

So a 40mm quad AA vehicle and a 40mm quad stationary variant for emplacements and ships is possible. We already have the technology, just takes a little engineering. Really its all about whether we can enlarge and modify the chassis that contains 4 MG's to take 4 40mm AA auto-cannons.

I would point out the vehicle you're referencing was considered a failure and was replaced by something with quad 23mm autocannons, which became the iconic soviet SPAAG the Shilka

It was considered a failure mainly due to the advent of fast air (jets) not because they were integrally bad.

And any problems with the one i used as an example we could try to resolve.

I never said that it is impossible, world have seen weirder prototypes. Quad 40mm turrets were (and are) quite common in navy but armored vehicle with the turret that heavy  is unpactical due to many reasons I see no point to bring in, because a) no votes against allowed b) I am tired to get called arrogant egoist for arguments

Well lets build one for the NAVY then. You like to whine when people don't do what you want (aka focus on navy oriented things) and then shoot them down when they suggest something.

A 40mm quad auto-cannon AA could deal with larger/stronger aircraft. its only a matter of time till our current AA is too weak to take down better armoured/built planes. And i actually said that the main use would be heavy AAA for emplacements and ships mostly, and we could use a variant for vehicles, which would probably use a lighter/smaller gun like the Shilka (23mm cannons).

I was in no way focusing on land warfare when i proposed that.

As for whether you are an arrogant egoist, yes, you are sometimes. You are also highly inflexible with your ideas and stance. If someone proves me wrong, I'll adapt. Change my ideas. Some things i wont on (like we DO need heavy armour, even if it is playing the home game at the moment in defense) but other places i am very flexible (naval and aircraft subjects).

and you know what the simple answer to out engineer problem is? Ask command for more.

[10ebbor10]

The problem here is that well, we're preparing amply for a situation that will probably never happen. After all, we have a very strong army, weak airforce, and  very weak navy. We're also a quasi island nation. 1 of our neighbours is at war with us, the other not our friend. IIRC we're also a mountainous nation, with, combined with the large coastal area, implies that we rely on fishing for food production.

Now, the enemy has submarines, and who knows what else in their navy. It would be trivial for them to smash our fleets, seize our merchants ships and blockade our ports. When the fishers can't set sail, it won't be long before famine sets in. Supply shortages will weaken our army, and the people will riot in the street. Before the year is over, we will be forced to surrender. All that, while none of their troops ever came within range of the enemy.

It is strange, that we, as what might as well be considered an island nation, are focussing so strong on the land component. After all, we can't afford to loose the sea, and the skies decide most battles these days, and will in the future.

[Brood]

The skies only decide it as long as the battle on the ground lasts, if you have superior land power with good anti air then your air units have an advantage.

But next turn I'm gonna add a new plane proposal I just want my artillery and APC in position because it'll work great for mobile defense or as the front wave of an assault.

[10ebbor10]

The skies only decide it as long as the battle on the ground lasts, if you have superior land power with good anti air then your air units have an advantage.

But next turn I'm gonna add a new plane proposal I just want my artillery and APC in position because it'll work great for mobile defense or as the front wave of an assault.

Losing the skies can cause us to loose the war. There's no way we can put up effective AA covering over the entire nation, and if they're going for an exhaustion battle, they get to chooce were they attack, not us.

Our AA has FoF detection, interesting. Didn't know that.

[tryrar]

The skies only decide it as long as the battle on the ground lasts, if you have superior land power with good anti air then your air units have an advantage.

But next turn I'm gonna add a new plane proposal I just want my artillery and APC in position because it'll work great for mobile defense or as the front wave of an assault.

Brood, you are underestimating how hard it is to hit a fast-moving plane from ground-based AA. You'd want high rate of fire and lots of ammo stowage(there is a reason most gun-based AA platforms today are rotary-cannon based; they can put up insane walls of lead in a short amount of time). Of course, nowadays most AA is done with missiles, which require a FAR less ammo-per-plane shootdown ratio(what with being guided and all that!).

All I'm hearing right now is someone going "look at my awesome designs which have no bearing at all to what we need! Vote for them, cause they're awesome!" Dude, this isn't an e-peen waving contest, we need to focus on what we NEED, not what is cool

[Brood]

We have this thing called a radio, you focus fire on one area then order your plans to get out of dodge and let rip, it won't get them all but it'll take down a few and slow down the rest allowing freindly forces to regroup and reinforcements to arrive.

But air power isn't that important yet, for now it has a limited range and limited power. It will be soon but for now it's not a massive emergency but the submarines are.

I'll deal with them next turn.

My designs already got the votes they need and since it's a nightmare to get anything voted up now I'm keeping them there, I'll worry about our other problems next turn I already have an idea for some of them.

[10ebbor10]

We have this thing called a radio, you focus fire on one area then order your plans to get out of dodge and let rip, it won't get them all but it'll take down a few and slow down the rest allowing freindly forces to regroup and reinforcements to arrive.

Yeah right, like the enemy planes are going to follow you into the nest of AA turrets. Nope, they're going to attack some part of our supply chain, which doesn't have AA all over it. And then the planes are on their own.

a massive emergency but the submarines are.

I'll deal with them next turn.

I like the irony.

Point is, we got a significant amount of antisubmarine designs hanging around. In fact, I'm sure we covered each and every possible solution. We got depthcharges, mines, antisubmarine bombers, antisubmarine airship bombers, a Torpedo boat destroyer, torpedo net, submarine detection equipment, and the whole thing. Most doesn't make it through the votes.

Well yeah, we'll see next turn, when, provided the enemy aren't idiots, we're going to have to fight an upward battle. It's much harder to reclaim supply lines than to secure them. After all, we loose a lot of placement options for defensive weaponry(mines).

((Besides, I wonder what would make those solutions so much better than all the others, but anyway.))

[Brood]

(( Thats the point of mobile AA, bring it into position once the enemy is distracted in a dogfight. But no matter I'll see what the enemy does this turn then work out something to counter it. For now I'm not overly worried about them they seem to be avoiding direct confrontation which gives us time. ))