Print

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

[Brood]

Damn, destroyer is  voted for... Should think about counterproposal because I want a proper ASW ship not heavy and slow destroyer created for artillery duels

Why not create a heavily armed and armoured Destroyer/Cruiser that can combat surface fleets and then make a lighter variant that can support them by rooting out subs and maybe working as added AA and light firepower when not sub chasing.

This isnt a proposal, but maybe quad link 40mm high velocity autocannon turrets for lighter warships so they can have good light firepower which can supplement heavier guns when in ship to ship combat. The lighter quad-40 turrets would allow far more room for AA and and sub ordnance, and due to the smaller size, might be able to cover all angles of the ship better.

On larger ships a quad-40 could be used as point defence and light anti-ship and maybe even heavy AA if needed.

Actually, i think i will turn it into a proposal. We are already working on high velocity 40mm cannons, we could easily create a high velocity 40mm auto-cannon and then quad link them up like a Shilka. Ships have the space and weight isn't such as issue.

22) When the 40mm high velocity cannon is completed, use experience to design, build and test a 40mm high velocity autocannon. Then quad link 4 autocannons, prioritising good elevation, reliability and stopping power as well as 360degree traverse. Use as main anti-ship weaponry on light sub-hunters/AA destroyers and as secondary anti-ship/point defence/heavy AA on larger ships.

+1 it should come in handy on later destroyer designs.

[3_14159]

Counterproposal 22.1: Do not quadlink the 40mm autocannon. Same priorities.
I would vote the ability to engage more targets more important than the one to engage them with heavier fire, at least on ships. The resulting design should be similar to the Bofors 40mm cannon. Quad-linking would probably make it a bit too heavy and too slow to traverse.

[kahn1234]

Counterproposal 22.1: Do not quadlink the 40mm autocannon. Same priorities.
I would vote the ability to engage more targets more important than the one to engage them with heavier fire, at least on ships. The resulting design should be similar to the Bofors 40mm cannon. Quad-linking would probably make it a bit too heavy and too slow to traverse.

Twin link them then, and have more turrets. remember, we dont really have to worry about weight as much, and they can have electrically powered traverse systems and their ammo can be autoloaded.

[10ebbor10]

Just as a note, but larger ships tend to do badly against submarines. Especially without a sonar system. The engine noise allows the submarine to target it from a rather long distance, it makes a big hulking target, and doesn't have the speed nor the maneuvrability to pursue. (After all, a depth charge only works when the submarine is under the attacking ship.)

Now, onward with my own suggestion. Depth charge detonation can be fixed in a variety of ways. By adding a parachute, for example. That would defeat the purpose of airdropable depthcharges however. I think we should therefore switch to timedetonated depthcharges, rather than pressure based ones. It's safer(a nearby explosion won't cause them to go off), a bit more versatile, and still just as accurate(Things sink always at about the same speed. It should be fairly easy to set up a depth/time/altitude table). Also allows deeper explosions.

23. Timed Depth charges

Secondly, a destroyer is a lot of work, and not the optimal design against the thread we're facing. I therefore propose to focus work away from it. Ie, keep stuff theoretical for now. We will need to do major redesigns anyway, to make room for hydrophones and other antisub systems that would give it a chance of survival.

18.4 Keep Destroyer design theoretical (or in the fridge)

And last for now, as a small suprise for our enemies. Let's take a couple of merchant ships, and equip them with anti subweaponry. They'll think twice before they attack a unguarded merchant again.

24. Develop Q-ships

Stuff I vote for: 1.1/1.2 2 and 2.1, 6.1, 9, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18.4, 20, 23, 24.

Spoiler: List of Projects (click to show/hide)

1. Fix Bomb Release and Depth Charge Detonation problems
   1.1 Let the factory fix the bomb release
   1.2 Bomber name: Wolverine
2. Electronics Engineer
   2.1 Acoustic engineers
3. Recon plane camera
4. Fix the K-1, drop SPIA and MIAW
5. Finish the 14mm MG
   5.1 Name: GVS-14
6. Scrap the monoplane, single engined biplane fighter
    6.1 No, new monoplane
7. Upgrade popular devotion
8. Finish the diesel
9. Ship recovery equipment for the subs
10. Jet engines
11. Production of armored cars, 40mm mortars and depth charges
12. High-velocity 40mm
   12.1 Finish projects
13. Small Rocket
14. Hedgehog
15. Take all and every engineer offered
16. Military academy
17. 320mm artillery
18. Destroyer
    18.1 More AA
    18.2 Drop double hull
    18.3 Designate as cruiser
    18.4 Theoretical design only
19. Complete BattleBus
20. Continue Airship
21. Diesel into Badgers, Hydras and PT boats
22. Quadlinked 4 autocannon
  22.1 Not quadlinked
23. Timed depth charges
24. Q-ships

[Brood]

Uhm we need a better fleet now to hold off the enemy while we attack the long way round.

[tryrar]

Brood, who said we were attacking the long way around???

[Brood]

It's an option so I'm planning for it. But either way we at least need a prototype for testing and to shock the enemy a bit.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

18.5
Design "Worker" class destroyer  (I think it's still a destroyer under my proposal)

a) Main  armament: one twin 160mm turret front (design it) , one single  160mm gun back (80mm are crappy guns that can't penetrate serious armor and have a low range, we can do without them and save valuable tons. Turret will allow us to make the ship shorter and thus smaller target. )

b) Secondary armament: Six double unarmored high velocity 40mm cannon mounts on sides  (double is a compromise between quad and single. )

c) AA and ASW armament: 2 Hydra turrets guarding main turret, 12 14mm machineguns on sides, 12 40mm mortars with smoke and anti-sub shells

d) Armor: Light above waterline(except main gun turret as losing the weapon is meh), modest below deck(but keep a nice hydrodynamic shape), that ship is meant to run away against anything that has big guns so need to be able to outrun them on other hand it should be able to pursue ships with weaker armament and while staying out of their range shell them to death. on other hand it should have some protection against subs that as it will hunt it

e) Mine\depthcharge laying equipment and mines, try to develop lighter equipment than one used at cruisers and not carry too many mines

f) Torpedoes: none.... That ship is meant to stay away from the larger ships and we need to save space for all that other stuff

e) Design and put various detecting and targeting equipment. Design various sub detecting equipment.

g) Propulsion: Diesels. Try to have nice sized fuel tanks

h) Engenieer and worker allocation: at least 33%, better 50% of both, that's a huge project with various subprojects , don't want it underdeveloped or flawed . Include 3 newly hired electronics specialist  that will help to design targeting systems\sonar\radar\whatever else for the ship. Also hire 1 naval engenieer for the project

i) Make it 2300 tons displacement, should use every inch of our shipyard. We spent so much workforce for it's expansion and need to start using it...

In short I want smart ship that relies on it's speed and better targeting\vision instead of guns

Also I ask for no more votes for the airship... We need engineers for more pressing stuff even if airship is cool it doesn't good enough to sabotage our fighters

In fact

20.1 Do not continue to pursuit airships this turn

6.2. Ensure that at least 20% of engineers and aviation engenieer will work on the fighter

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

.
1 Fix Bomb Release and Depth Charge Detonation problems
   1.1 Let the factory fix the bomb release
   1.2 Bomber name: Wolverine
2. Electronics Engineer
   2.1 Acoustic engineers
3. Recon plane camera
4. Fix the K-1, drop SPIA and MIAW
5. Finish the 14mm MG
   5.1 Name: GVS-14
6. Scrap the monoplane, single engined biplane fighter
    6.1 No, new monoplane
    6.2 Ensure allocation of 20% of enginieers for the project
7. Upgrade popular devotion
8. Finish the diesel
9. Ship recovery equipment for the subs
10. Jet engines
11. Production of armored cars, 40mm mortars and depth charges
12. High-velocity 40mm
   12.1 Finish projects
13. Small Rocket
14. Hedgehog
15. Take all and every engineer offered
16. Military academy
17. 320mm artillery
18. Destroyer
    18.1 More AA
    18.2 Drop double hull
    18.3 Designate as cruiser
    18.4 Theoretical design only
    18.5 Fast variant with no 80mm guns and large usage of manpower
19. Complete BattleBus
20. Continue Airship
   20.1 Do not continue Airship
21. Diesel into Badgers, Hydras and PT boats
22. Quadlinked 4 autocannon
  22.1 Not quadlinked
23. Timed depth charges
24. Q-ships

[10ebbor10]

Uhm we need a better fleet now to hold off the enemy while we attack the long way round.

It's an option so I'm planning for it. But either way we at least need a prototype for testing and to shock the enemy a bit.

I suppose that would be usefull, if we were not fighting submarines. Because large ships tend to do pretty bad against them, especially at our tech level. A small ship can hope to dodge a torpedo, a large ship is a target that's impossible to miss.

Besides, an antisubmarine convoy relies on several small ships, in order to shield all routes of attack. A single large ship can't hope to act fast enough.


There are easier places to cut manpower. Airships are quite capable scouts, and very good, if slow, (antisubmarine) bombers. The fighters, well, we haven't seen the enemy airforce for a while, doubt they'd return soon. Maybe we should try to finish designs first before we start new ones. I dunno. Could be helpfull.

How about this distribution:
60% of engineers: Finish and optimalize existing designs
10% Engineers: Technology research
30% Engineers: New designs

[Ukrainian Ranger]

10ebbor10

While I tend to agree with you, I am a bit worried about possible entrance of the unnamed country in the war as they do posses navy and may provide airfields for Morovia

Also, I tend to hope that our new biplanes will keep enemy subs at bay

Also, that new destroyers can play hunt the merchant ships game way better than their subs

What saddens me is thatr government decided to syop making Righteous boats and switched that shipyard to popular devotions... That no one want to update to fit ASW role (really would prefer that to destroyer, but no one supported that)

I hope that my 18.5 will find enough support as this can be a neat ship

[tryrar]

I/m with 10ebbor on this.

I vote for 18.4

Keep in mind such a design would require most of our engineers if we were to actually build a prototype. we can keep things to blueprints for now and revisit the design later

[Brood]

And if the enemy builds a big ship our fleet is doomed, we need a ship ready not a piece of paper and an untested idea.

[kahn1234]

I'll support 18.5. At least then we'll have an actual ship (light destroyer) that can be up-armoured in case we come up against something unexpected.

[10ebbor10]

10ebbor10
Also, I tend to hope that our new biplanes will keep enemy subs at bay

They might get some lucky hits, but they can't stop all of them, I'm afraid. Neither can the airships of course, but those will atleast fill a large gap in our airforce. They can fullfil the role of high altitude bomber. We're still in the early days of Heavier than air flight. It's not unthinkable that our ships can have a higher flight cieling than the enemy, and most likely higher than their AA defenses. That would give us free range in bombardements, at least for a while.

Also, that new destroyers can play hunt the merchant ships game way better than their subs

Doubt it. Besides, I highly doubt we can finish it in time.

What saddens me is thatr government decided to syop making Righteous boats and switched that shipyard to popular devotions... That no one want to update to fit ASW role (really would prefer that to destroyer, but no one supported that)

Found it strange too. Because really, the Righteous thingies should be better at Anti sub duty.
[/quote]

And if the enemy builds a big ship our fleet is doomed, we need a ship ready not a piece of paper and an untested idea.

Not really. We got an ample supply of torpedo boats, which, IIRC, were used to great effect against large enemy ships. UR can probably tell you more about that. Then we got an ample supply of mining layers and altitude bombers.

Besides, 3 to 1 your large ship is going to be torpedo fodder when launched anyway. Giant target, and no effective anti sub measures have at this moment been developed.

[Funk]

i vote for 22 and 23 as a hight priory , we need to make our merchant ships count as war ships under navel law.