Print

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

[Ukrainian Ranger]

Why I think we should attack our neighbor now

a) We have many biplanes, but I expect that they will become badly obsolete in few years, gotta use them now, while they are useful it not let them sit on the airfields.
b) Same goes for badgers, our armor is very respectable, but few years and they will be light tanks for auxuliary roles. Russians made 10-000+ T-26s that were nice tanks for it's time, but when WW2 came they were too obsolete
c) Our enemy has no recent combat experience and may be not ready for rapid advance of our forces being used for slower, positional warfare
d) If enemy will striker us first, that may be a disater. We don't know their plans. If Morovia will base their battlehardned forces near our land border and aid our neighbors with fighters, Attack like that will never work
e) It's fun!

To brood

Our special forces is 300 men, they'd get bogged down and slaughtered within a day with such low numbers, if you want to land them then first expand them to at least 1000 men so they have the numbers to at least stand a fighting chance.

their mission is to destroy some staff and retreatback to sea as any commando unit should do

Your looking at hours of travel time completely removing the ability to react quickly to threats and the enemy can just pick off each wave as it comes using superior numbers and AA fire, it needs to arrive in force at once and keep up a constant assault to keep them down, that requires proximity.

Coordination and distance aren't related. If our pilots aren't iditos they can fly together. And I doubt that they have radars to detect our waves of us to early. Besides Japanese attacked Pearl Harbour while their aircraft carriers were quite far away

[Brood]

... you've clearly never done anything like that.

Do you know how hard it is to co-ordinate that many planes at once? Get them in the air fast enough that half of them don't run out of fuel? Meet up from multiple airbases?
Theres a reason it took a long time to begin doing it in the battle of Britain, keeping that many planes in the air at once is hard at the best of times and that was using multiple airfields and a far better command and control system then we've got.

But your inviting a 2 front war, if our attack fails in any way then we are trapped in the middle and they've made no threat against us so why should we declare a war that doubles the enemy strength we have to fight?

[kahn1234]

Uhm why do we need 3 cannons all in the same size class? Pick one.

I was thinking the 120mm could be a naval cannon. More powerful than the 80mm, but not as heavy as the 160mm.

AS for the other two, the 105mm could be an upgrade for the K-1, and the 110mm would be the standard gun for the K-2.

[Brood]

But why? A 15mm difference is not much at that size so why design 3 new weapons when you can just do a 110-115mm to fit all 3 roles using 1/3 of the manpower.

[kahn1234]

But why? A 15mm difference is not much at that size so why design 3 new weapons when you can just do a 110-115mm to fit all 3 roles.

the K-1's turret is too small to take a gun larger than 105mm as its only a 3 man turret. the K-2's will be, as i have designed it to have a 4 man turret (commander/radio operator, gunner, 2 loaders).

Plus, we are nowhere near close enough to justify a 120mm tank cannon, as it would probably go through 3 tanks at least of this era with unnecessary expense, whereas they would be useful on ships such as out Light Destroyers used in ASW/AA roles so that they can fend for themselves against similar sized enemies.

110mm is the largest i'd want to go for a tank at the moment. A 110mm and 105mm tank cannon is cheaper and easier to make, plus we can hold more ammo for them.

[tryrar]

Brood does make a good point about a two-front war. If we stall out in the capitalist country, we're in serious trouble. So I reinterate my vote for 5. We destroy their naval yards, then we work up some troop transports, load them into the PT boats(which double nicely as landers. They even have the cargo capacity for a Badger tank, IIRC!), establish a beachhead somewhere, and take it to them.

I'd vote for a 122mm gun myself for all 3 roles(similar to the soviet 122mm D-25). We can start by making a 122mm naval cannon...

[kahn1234]

Brood does make a good point about a two-front war. If we stall out in the capitalist country, we're in serious trouble. So I reinterate my vote for 5. We destroy their naval yards, then we work up some troop transports, load them into the PT boats(which double nicely as landers. They even have the cargo capacity for a Badger tank, IIRC!), establish a beachhead somewhere, and take it to them.

I'd vote for a 122mm gun myself for all 3 roles(similar to the soviet 122mm D-25). We can start by making a 122mm naval cannon...

But that would not be able to be used in the K-1, and it would make the K-2 unnecessarily heavy, whilst also sacrificing ammo capacity.

122mm would be great for naval cannons though.

Also, didnt the 122mm D-25 need a two part charge? that wasn't a problem on the auto-loaded ships cannons, but it would slow down fire rate, reduce ammo capacity further etc on a tank.

[Brood]

I'll design a heavy transport for the next turn for mass armor deployment. Say each one capable of deploying 1 K-1, 2 badgers and 2 battlebus/4 armored cars?
Land 10-20 of them along a beachhead at once and you have a massive armored punch with a fairly good infantry force landed then it digs in while follow up waves are landed.


But we do need to churn out some K-1 and Battlebus, if we're going to launch an attack on an enemy with unknown infantry and armored support we need our heaviest tanks and some good armored transports in the mix to give us an edge.
And a lot of the new monoplane fighters for ground assault.


Then do a 122mm and a 110mm, if you've designed the K-2 then don't bother with upgrades on the K-1 since it'll stop being produced anyway.

[kahn1234]

I'll design a heavy transport for the next turn for mass armor deployment. Say each one capable of deploying 1 K-1, 2 badgers and 2 battlebus/4 armored cars?
Land 10-20 of them along a beachhead at once and you have a massive armored punch with a fairly good infantry force landed then it digs in while follow up waves are landed.


But we do need to churn out some K-1 and Battlebus, if we're going to launch an attack on an enemy with unknown infantry and armored support we need our heaviest tanks and some good armored transports in the mix to give us an edge.
And a lot of the new monoplane fighters for ground assault.


Then do a 122mm and a 110mm, if you've designed the K-2 then don't bother with upgrades on the K-1 since it'll stop being produced anyway.

we dont want the K-1 to be left behind. We still use the badgers, and we will still use the K-1s.

The K-2s are probably not going to be needed for another 2 years

[Brood]

Maybe, but designing a cannon with a 5mm difference to a previous one just seems like a waste of man power for a very minor difference.

[kahn1234]

Maybe, but designing a cannon with a 5mm difference to a previous one just seems like a waste of man power for a very minor difference.

the K-1 is currently using a not-very-good 80mm low velocity smoothbore cannon.

A 105mm rifled high velocity/low velocity cannon is a huge step up.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

Do you know how hard it is to co-ordinate that many planes at once?

Not that hard if they lift off from the same bases. And even if attack is not coordinated enough, and will arrive in 20-50 planes waves it has a huge potential to  be devastating.
+ add righteous boats that alone can do extreme damage to docked, immobile  capital ships

But your inviting a 2 front war

Learn what 2 front war means

they've made no threat against us so why should we declare a war that doubles the enemy strength we have to fight?

Because
a) I rather do surprise attack than suffer from surprise attack later
b) We need to spread communism
c) Enemy industrial capacity could be handy, especially if we manage to get it relatively undamaged due to blitzkrieg
d) We need land route to our main enemy, because amphibious assault is too costly. And needs total air superiority,
e) It's fun.


Tryrar, Ambibious assault is extremely dangerous thing to do. Way more dangerous than adding one not that strong enemy to the war. Add supplying by sea is a nightmare.

And imagine what will happen if our neighbour will strike first? we'll lose the sea to their united navy

[tryrar]

Eh, what the hell, I'll go for it. Even if it blows up in our faces, it should be fun!

On another note, what did you guys think of my airborne aircraft carrier idea?

[Brood]

Your basing everything on the fact that an enemy we know almost nothing about isn't strong.
You never fight multiple wars at once if you can avoid it and we have no reason to start a war when already in one.

Our current enemy has a fleet equal to our own and you want to send a chunk of our fleet away? He'll smash through the rest and attack us while we are fighting a war that didn't need to happen at all.

They might attack us, they might not attack us. Thats not a reason to attack first.
We can't spread it if were dead because we started a second war.
Enemy industrial capacity is being used to arm it's army which is not just going to surrender, it will take a lot of time to subdue them and leave us vulnerable to the current enemy in the process.
We can try to get a land route without going to war and an amphibious assault can be managed fine if done properly since we have a better airforce and our new monoplane is a very fast and agile fighter and can also be used as a very powerful ground attack plane, we have air superiority.
Not fun if we lose.

[tryrar]

Brood, stop being a wet blanket. Even if it goes pear-shaped, it'll be a glorious defeat. And hey, we might happen to be able to turn it around, we DO have several new techs just coming into the pipeline that may help!