Print

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

[RAM]

As from 80 to 78. Intelligence. They aren't going to expect a smaller round of doing far more damage to their tanks and such. A retrofit of the 80mm would be seen as us rearming our old guns into something more effective. Half of this war will be in the mind, and we need to keep misdirecting the Morovians to prevent them from fighting us at their full capacity.

As for the penetrating twice, that's just due to the predicted thickness of the enemy armour. It's more than likely that will not happen when they start improving the amount of armour on their tanks, But for now any tanks hit by the new gun will be scrap..

As for making such an aircraft fly? It's more than possible considering that we have a 1200Kw engine. Germans put a CAS fighter in the air with half that power available to it. I have to say that engine is going to vastly improve our airforce, if we can keep the fuel going...

As near as I can tell this is the first time that Taricus actually gave a reason for 78 instead of 80, and Ukrainian Ranger has not replied to it. Furthermore, Ukrainian Ranger asked several times for a specific reason for 78mm instead of 80mm, and was consistently answered with replies that failed to address that answer. I can see that this would be frustrating so have a certain amount of sympathy for Ukrainian ranger's overreaction.
 As for my own thoughts, I feel that a 2mm difference is not going to provide much of an intelligence effect, particularly given the barrel extension, and the reworking would not just be in the gun but also in the manufacturing facilities, much of which should be compatible with a high-power version of gun and ammunition. And the possibility of being compatible with older ammunition would be a nice bonus. As you would likely be able to store more of the old ammunition and it would be of use against softer targets. Although I can imagine that using the old ammunition might prove difficult for some reason, and I would rather not compromise the new gun for this purpose.
I suspect that tank escalation has a little while to start in earnest, so a larger anti-tank gun should not yet be necessary, though it would certainly be nice to have. I do not think that anyone is actually against an anti-tank version of the 80mm. I think that the whole issue is about 78mm compared to 80mm. The rest of the proposal seems to be widely accepted.


Also, I have what I hope to be a highly effective Close Air Support aircraft proposed right now, which should be able to perform admirably as a fighter if it uses its big gun in a head-to-head encounter or drops its big gun. I was really looking forward to seeing how it would turn out and now it has been replaced by what looks to be a completely different fighter aircraft. At this point I am begging for votes for proposal 4.3, I saw so many lulz in that design, please let me have my lulz!

[Alexandria]

Allow me to give a reason on Taricus behalf that I don't think he has noticed.

Our enemies use the standard cannon sizes, 40,80,120,160 and so on where as his design is 78mm.

We face the very real risk that we may be forced into a retreat at times by far superior numbers of enemies, this will result in our leaving supplies behind. Cannons and cannon ammo.
Our enemy has no means to repair a 78 mm cannon, they have no means to create more of them and most importantly. They can not create ammo for it.
By using a slightly different sized cannon in effect we render the cannons worthless to our enemy for months before they can find a way to produce ammo and potentially years before they can repair or build some themselves.
This is a signifiant bonus to us in war since it prevents the enemy from simply turning our own cannons back on us if they capture any since they will have very little ammo for them.

[RAM]

On the other hand, we can't use theirs either...

[Taricus]

Considering how well ours will perform, why would we use theirs anyway?

[RAM]

Because we capture their supplies? Because theirs are better than ours? Because we don't have enough to go around? Because we are behind their lines or want to move too quickly to be supplied effectively and their ammunition stockpile is just sitting right there?

[Taricus]

If their 80mm cannon is like ours, it's an infinitesimally small chance that it could be better. We will have enough to go around (Since we barely even USED the old 80mm). And since our doctrine is one of mobility, we're expecting the supply lines to keep up. And odds are their munitions will have not been designed with our guns in mind.

Also, one other point about the 80mm, from reading the OP, it seems like it's more a medium artillery piece, rather than an actual AT weapon. And since the 115mm is replacing that, the 80mm is all but obsolete. The fact that we have two guns able to perform better, one in each role, pretty much means the 80mm is done for. We have NO reason to keep it around at all.

[RAM]

 We really don't know much about their technology, unless you are gaming the system by introducing externally proven technologies... The 80mm would replace the 40mm, which sees vast use. A doctrine of mobility is going to place stresses on our supply lines and increase the rate of captured enemy resources, unless we apply a significantly greater emphasis on mobility of our supply lines than of our forces then it is the exact opposite of making our own supplies preferable. Less powerful 80mm ammunition, be it the older or enemy models, is still good for direct-fire use against soft or light targets, and is easier to carry so you can have more ammunition or less ammunition storage without losing anything...

[Nadaka]

If their 80mm cannon is like ours, it's an infinitesimally small chance that it could be better. We will have enough to go around (Since we barely even USED the old 80mm). And since our doctrine is one of mobility, we're expecting the supply lines to keep up. And odds are their munitions will have not been designed with our guns in mind.

Also, one other point about the 80mm, from reading the OP, it seems like it's more a medium artillery piece, rather than an actual AT weapon. And since the 115mm is replacing that, the 80mm is all but obsolete. The fact that we have two guns able to perform better, one in each role, pretty much means the 80mm is done for. We have NO reason to keep it around at all.

Yes, the 80mm that you started the game with is a medium artillery piece, left over from the monarchy before the revolution. It can serve an anti-armor role against light to medium armor, but is far from ideal for it.

I never said the Morovians or Capians used 80mm guns.

I did say that the Capians use 50mm, 75mm and 100mm cannons and that the Morovians use 6mm rifles and 60mm cannons.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

Germans put a CAS fighter in the air with half that power available to it.

Do you mean late war 75mm Bordkanone? It is from quite different league from what you propose penetration wise, weighed "only" 750 kg as it is not made for great AP. And It was fitted only on bombers that were designed to carry that much weight (+me262 with jet engines)

As from 80 to 78. Intelligence. They aren't going to expect a smaller round of doing far more damage to their tanks and such. 

Yay! At last you made one reason. It is from "our enemies are idiots" category, but still, congratulations
I guess your ego doesn't allow to make even the smallest change to your design, that's a real answer on the question why

that so far you've all ignored the supply line results of what you've done and things have worked out fine

Ignored is simply untrue.  If you ignore those things, that doesn't mean that other's do, too
We designed several variants of 40mm guns not 40mm, 38mm and 41mm guns
SVA-10s, mosins and Patriotism use the same round
Sniper rifle and heavy machine gun use the same round
Our Alexi frigates use the same turrets as our AA tanks
We try to use as few different engines as possible and so on

[bAlexandria[/b], even if we'd share same calibers as our enemy (We don't, Capia uses  50mm, 75mm and 100mm cannons. and Moprovia 60mm and  something else)  our own supply lines are much more important. Besides ability to use ammo of the enemy is always a double-edged thing

Guys, just tell me why real world armies prefer to have same caliber for everything? From flaks to tank guns, to howitzers to naval guns
Tell me why Russians used different kinds of 7.62 for vast majority of small arms until  AK-74 appeared (and no, it is not 7.5)
Tell me why NATO has 4 standard chambers for small arms sinse 1950s (3 of 4 existed long before and was used as standard in different armies)
Why the hell real world armies make guns compatible with 100+ year old ammunition if it is "outdated"?
Why the hell modern high tech howitzers use the same caliber as WW1 one?

__________________________________

Do you release that our curent K-1s use the 80mm gun, right? As well as half of the Navy? As well as several hundreds in artillery role?  And no, you can't switch it all to the new gun in a moment, without disrupting production when we need stuff produced NOW (And destroying existing weapons midwar just because they are a bit outdated is an idiotic decision)
Now, We'll need to produce both 80mm and 78mm shells just because you are stubborn. Hope GM will punish for that

PS, 80mm and 115mm artillery fill different roles, one is light another is a medium artillery piece, thus one can't replace another

[Taricus]

Okay, I think Nadaka has cleared things up, thanks for that.

This does put into light that we NEED a dedicated AT gun. My design is a good one at that.

Ukrainian, as Nadaka has put it,, the 80mm is an ARTILLERY piece, not an actual AT weapon. The bordkanone used the same round as the german 7.5cm PaK 40. That same round was effective against the armour just about every allied and soviet tank until the end of the war. That same cannon was mounted on the Hs 129B-3 (The aircraft had poor handling as a result though, but that may've been due to underpowered engines which is a problem we don't need to worry about.)

My ego doesn't allow me to make an insignifigant change, sure. However, if there was an actual flaw in the design, I would happily go with a redesign. However, a simple disagreement over the size of a shell does not merit such a change, being so insignifigant as it is.

The 40mm has as of yet supplied no defects for it's intended role. If anything, it's likely to have the longest service life of the artillery calibers due to the ability for it to be remodeled into several roles such as anti-personnel and anti-aircraft.

And your evidence isn't exactly convincing either. The americans shifted from a 75mm to a 76mm cannon on the sherman tank around the end of the war, less than the difference between the 80mm and the 78mm. If the round is effective, we should use it. As we know the 80mm isn't as such, the K-1 series of tank would be more relegated into an infatry support tank. If nothing else, they will soak up a lot of fire from enemy AT weapons away from our badger tanks.

[RAM]

Nadaka, do you think that I have been abusing the system?

[3_14159]

I'd like to ask both of you, UR and Taricus, whether we can't find a compromise and what'd speak against it.

I think you both, and all of us, agree that we will need a dedicated, high-penetration AT gun in the future.
Can the 80(+/-)mm calibre reach that goal? I personally don't know, but probably. So, I'd like to see one designed.

However, the question of calibre stands. Both the AT guns are nearly the same for penetration, range and so on.
Therefore, the only question is whether we want one to be able to continue using the same rounds as before (as HE rounds), too which'd also simplify logistics or, alternatively, one that'll 'fool the enemy intelligence'.
I for my part do not think that the intelligence argument would be that important, seeing that they either need spies in our factories, or need to capture tanks equipped with them - in which case they already have combat efficiency reports.
May I therefore ask you, Taricus, to reconsider designing the round with an 80mm calibre as the only change? I still believe the proposal is good; however I believe that using the 80mm calibre will make it even better.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

I know that 80mm cannon is not a dedicated AT gun, but I see no great need  of dedicated AT gun right now, because we have HVG-40s for that role

While new AT gun would be nice, lighter, more suited to the current tanks. 55-65mm is much more practical than a piece that is too heavy and too expensive to use it massively ( in fact I'd prefer to never have towed heavy AT-guns, skipping that part, as those weren't that effective comparing to mobile stuff and handhld weapons)
And lighter gun is easier to fit into earlier tanks\tankdesttroyers

Still if  the choose between 78mm anti-tank gun and 80mm anti tank gun, it's obvious that 80mm is just better and 78mm offers no advantages

the bordkanone used the same round as the german PAK40

It was based on PAK 40 (based = seriously reworked) but you could load it with a variety of 75mm shells, that's a reason to use same calibers

Finally, Switch in Sherman from 75mm to 76mm only strengtheners my position
New American tank gun used 76mm  for the compatibility with British 76mm ammunition to lower supply problems
The fact that Americans and British used different calibers did create supply problems. Lesson was learned and NATO created joint standards for everything.

[Nadaka]

Nadaka, do you think that I have been abusing the system?

No, I don't think that using one of your proposals to "continue unfinished engineering from last turn" is abusing the system. Combining unrelated designs into one proposal is pushing it.

[RAM]

'k, thankyou, I will try to keep my balloons and my ships separate from now on.