Print

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

[Brood]

Shotguns always have a use, SMG has less punch and can not breach cover very well where a shotgun can, it's always best to carry a few because every weapon has a situation where it is weak.

Designing assault rifle ammo is a piece of cake that can be done in 1 turn with only a couple of engineers as is designing the rifle itself even if only a basic version.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

Oh, we had a long discussion on multipurpose guns....
AA guns and AT guns need different characteristic ( And no, Flak36 wasn't a great AT weapon.  It's just became famous after North Africa battles. After heavy modification it did made not a bad tank guns, but still Germany designed a different 88mm gun for their PAKs)
Also, it happened that AA gun  were used as a makeshift AT or even a howitzer, but never AT guns were used as AA ones.
We do need 80mm AA gun, AA gun designed for that role, not make AT gun and somehow use it as AA. Not gonna work.

[Taricus]

It punched through the enemy's armour at long range regularly, and kept doing so until the end of the war. I fail to see how that is not a good one.

Still, a 40mm gun is barely going to scrape heavy armour though, even as a high-velocity shell. We do need to use a larger gun, and we can't afford to delay on it. We can start production upon 40mm field guns for AT alsomost immediately though.

What we DO need though is to rearm our troops with the SVAs and the AShs. Those would put us at a qualitative advantage over the Capian/Morovian troops.

@Alexandria: 7.76 still seems a little large for me as a intermediate round between a pistol and rifle cartridge, try something smaller perhaps.

[Brood]

And RPGs.

[Taricus]

Yeah, those too, but those aren't as high-priority due to our armour advantage.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

Still, a 40mm gun is barely going to scrape heavy armour though, even as a high-velocity shell

Truth is... enemy has no really  heavy armor.
Also, lower caliber, when provided with a long enough barrel,  may offer better penetration than you think  (fun fact, when USSR upgraded T-34 midwar, they chose between two possibilities, longballered 57mm gun and 85mm gun, 57mm offered similar penetration but 85mm offered much better HE shells and was chosen for that reason)

I might support 55mm AT gun, or 65mm AT gun but 80mm at gun is just too heavy, slowfiring and expensive

We have no real need for better AT gun right now, when we are preparing for war with Capia that has tanks wellpentrable by HVGs and infantry weapons, that's a waste of valuable designing and production manpower that is needed to cover holes like much more important howitzers, AA guns, fighters, radars, bombers, suubmarines, infantry weapons... you can continue the list

[Taricus]

Well, we already HAVE the infantry weapons, we just haven't started arming the infantry with them though (Something I proposed we DO).

And honestly? The cannon could also be used on ships as well.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

1) You'll need to produce those over-expensive 78mm tank guns (BTW,why mess with our supply lines by introducing new caliber? ANY REASON?) instead of something useful, that very well can be infantry weapons

2) 78mm caliber is a child caliber for ships, and again it needs different characteristics comparing to AT gun, On ship you can , and should go for much longer barrel, can tolerate weight more easily, can and should use different loading mechanisms and so on. If you want ship cannon than design ship cannon, but you ask for AT gun  to penetrate 90mm of armor ( two tanks placed in a raw)

3) You ignored many more important things  than infantry weapons that I listed, why?

[Taricus]

@Point 3: I'm generally forgetful at points, so I must've missed them in typing out my reply. But at any rate, we DO need to maintain our edge, and that design is the way to do it, in both the gun and the chassis.

The gun itself can lend itself as direct-fire support weapon if loaded with HE shells.

As for the others:

As for the supply lines, it's going to happen regardless due to new weapon designs. The sooner it happens the sooner we can adapt them for the new round. Sure, it's not going to be easy, but when have any of us factored that into considerations recently?

The ship gun, it would certainly prove more effective than the guns currently on the Alexi's.

Now, looking at the cricket, it's not actually an armoured car as it is a halftrack. I have this to say about them: Extend the length of the them so it can fit a full squad of our soldiers, and we have an effective way of transporting our entire army.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

You know, People design guns in a way that they can use old rounds... In a way that wouldn't require much retooling (When you are making barrels for one 80mm gun it's way easier to make 80mm barrels for new gun than change for 78mm)

You never said, why 78mm better than 80mm?
Any reason to change caliber but your whim?


What you do is in  not mainlining edge, that is going into 10 years in the future, especially with the tank

It's making the gun to heavy for real use, it's  allowing enemy to bomb our cities, wining the artillery duel and having advantage in AT artillry (100 60mm AT guns are way better than 40 78mm AT guns when both can kill tanks with almost identical effectiveness... And 8 40mm guns are more useful than 1 78mm gun)

[Taricus]

The standard 80mm cannon offers very little in the way of armour-piercing capabilities. The gun's AP capabilities would FAR surpass it in that aspect, making it quite suitable for naval warfare, among other things.

If anything, we should discontinue the 80mm in favour of it the 78mm because of the flaws of the former.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

*facepalm*
I now that our existing 80mm gun is old. I asked why make 78mm and not new 80mm gun? Do you claim that reduction in 2mm of caliber will greatly increase AP value of the gun?

[Taricus]

Due to the new velocities, the barrels would need to be replaced anyway, since I doubt a barrel used for low-velocity rounds would be able to withstand the forces from a high-velocity one.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

What about vice versa? (lower velocity rounds in the new gun)
What about retooling problems?

And I ask very simple question - WHY?

[Taricus]

I ask you this: Why NOT?

Lower velocity rounds would be perfectly probable, though they may suffer in their intended use of the long barrel, but designing a short-barreled gun for those wouldn't be difficult.

Retooling the factories wouldn't be too problematic, since the size is similar. Length, not so much.