Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 61 62 [63] 64 65 ... 74

Author Topic: The revolutionary design bureau (OOC)  (Read 43353 times)

10ebbor10

  • Bay Watcher
  • DON'T PANIC
    • View Profile
Re: The revolutionary design bureau (OOC)
« Reply #930 on: May 25, 2013, 02:41:21 am »

We only need to limit the minimum airspeed of the aircraft, not it's maximum airspeed. (Though a great difference between the two would mean interesting aerodynamic challenges).

And I wasn't really aiming for any diameter. Just going for a cheap, fairly portable rocket.
Logged

3_14159

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: The revolutionary design bureau (OOC)
« Reply #931 on: May 25, 2013, 03:09:31 am »

In respect to the rockets, I think both of you want basically the same thing. How would you both like something like that?

Cricket-M: This cricket variant eschews the armoured back compartment usually mounted, keeping only the forward driver's cabin. It instead mounts several missile racks to launch a barrage of missiles.
Try mounting the maximum amount of rockets on there, and concentrate on cheapness.


As for the rockets, I'd really like to see ranges in excess of 6-10km. Counter-Battery fire should be avoidable due to them being mobile. Of course, you need more than two people to reload them, but they have to return to a depot, then.
Logged

10ebbor10

  • Bay Watcher
  • DON'T PANIC
    • View Profile
Re: The revolutionary design bureau (OOC)
« Reply #932 on: May 25, 2013, 03:16:45 am »

I don't like it. The armour around the cabin is useless (because gunpowder rockets tend to explode when under fire, and it's armour is by far not strong enough to take it), and I don't see why we should force it into the cricket design.

It's better to just design the Missile launcher, as that means that we get
a) A vehicle mountable missile launcher
b) A standalone missile launcher unit
c) A turretmountable missile launcher unit
Logged

RAM

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: The revolutionary design bureau (OOC)
« Reply #933 on: May 25, 2013, 03:55:10 am »

Fair enough... Care to make it 80mm? The advantage to combining it with the cricket is that we get a whole working vehicle and we are already producing most of the parts.
Logged
Vote (1) for the Urist scale!
I shall be eternally happy. I shall be able to construct elf hunting giant mecha. Which can pour magma.
Urist has been forced to use a friend as fertilizer lately.
Read the First Post!

10ebbor10

  • Bay Watcher
  • DON'T PANIC
    • View Profile
Re: The revolutionary design bureau (OOC)
« Reply #934 on: May 25, 2013, 03:58:17 am »

Fair enough... Care to make it 80mm? The advantage to combining it with the cricket is that we get a whole working vehicle and we are already producing most of the parts.
Better to make it a standalone turret that can be mounted onto things, like for example the truck.

Advantages:
-Missile launcher is not part of the truck (Ie, can be removed and remounted when needed)
-Truck is faster
-Truck has 3 times loading capactiy.
-No need for a seperate production chain (You're changing a significant part of the cricket's structure )
« Last Edit: May 25, 2013, 04:15:06 am by 10ebbor10 »
Logged

3_14159

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: The revolutionary design bureau (OOC)
« Reply #935 on: May 25, 2013, 04:16:30 am »

Ah, I see. I was completely forgetting about the truck. Mounting the rockets on the truck should provide better performance, true. However, that will pretty much require longer range due to higher vulnerability.
For the diameter, how about 150-200mm?

And, lastly though not relevant anymore, I actually don't think it'd be too difficult to adapt the cricket. After all, it'd have been just not bolting on the back compartment's armour and bolting on a rocket launcher turret similar to your design.
Logged

10ebbor10

  • Bay Watcher
  • DON'T PANIC
    • View Profile
Re: The revolutionary design bureau (OOC)
« Reply #936 on: May 25, 2013, 04:21:33 am »

The armor is mostly an nonissue. In both Cricket and truck the rockets sit exposed, and a single hit will obliterate both.

150 mm is a bit large actually. ((Also, I removed that remark because originally, I forgot to look at Allied forces, who almost uniquely used 78mm rockets))
Logged

3_14159

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: The revolutionary design bureau (OOC)
« Reply #937 on: May 25, 2013, 04:40:50 am »

The armor is mostly an nonissue. In both Cricket and truck the rockets sit exposed, and a single hit will obliterate both.
True. I was thinking more along the lines of escaping counter-artillery fire.
Quote
150 mm is a bit large actually. ((Also, I removed that remark because originally, I forgot to look at Allied forces, who almost uniquely used 78mm rockets))
I think, though, that rockets of that calibre were deployed primarily from aircraft, while the dedicated ground-to-ground rockets nearly all were bigger.
Still, I definitely agree on the need to produce MRLs.
Logged

10ebbor10

  • Bay Watcher
  • DON'T PANIC
    • View Profile
Re: The revolutionary design bureau (OOC)
« Reply #938 on: May 25, 2013, 04:44:39 am »

Rocket artillery focusses on speed to get away. By the time the shells land, our truck should be back in HQ Though yes, 4 km is a bit short.

About wwII rockets, as said before, the allied forces used 78 mm rockets, Stalin's organ used 138 mm rockets, and I believe the germans used something in between. Mostly, rockets tend to be increased in length rather than caliber,due to the way they work.
Logged

RAM

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: The revolutionary design bureau (OOC)
« Reply #939 on: May 25, 2013, 04:49:55 am »

The cricket should be a military vehicle made to military specifications, the truck should be, well, a truck... The cricket probably has better off-road performance and, if it doesn't, then I think that I might produce a redesign of the cricket...
Logged
Vote (1) for the Urist scale!
I shall be eternally happy. I shall be able to construct elf hunting giant mecha. Which can pour magma.
Urist has been forced to use a friend as fertilizer lately.
Read the First Post!

10ebbor10

  • Bay Watcher
  • DON'T PANIC
    • View Profile
Re: The revolutionary design bureau (OOC)
« Reply #940 on: May 25, 2013, 04:51:00 am »

The cricket should be a military vehicle made to military specifications, the truck should be, well, a truck... The cricket probably has better off-road performance and, if it doesn't, then I think that I might produce a redesign of the cricket...
The truck is a military truck and it's based on the cricket design. It'll do great.

Rocket artillery relies on saturation bombardement (untill we get guidance, that is), so the ability to launch as much rockets as possible in a short amount of time is a must.
Logged

Brood

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: The revolutionary design bureau (OOC)
« Reply #941 on: May 25, 2013, 09:02:12 pm »

I dunno about weaponry yet but I have these ideas for next turn.

A campaign back home detailing our mens heroic victories and and the glory of war to encourage people to join the army.

A special division of our best men be created combining armour, infantry and aircraft into a first division of sorts, until ww1 it was fairly common to have special units of famous men, special forces can't do it because they have to act in secret a lot.

The best of the best across the armed forces, every army needs idles to follow and for an army that's the men who've fought the most and won so making them public encourages the rest of the army and gives them a standard to rally on. As long as the core of an army holds the army will fight to the death. We need a good standard for our men to encourage that, we have the best kit, now we need to make sure our men fight the hardest.
« Last Edit: May 25, 2013, 09:05:05 pm by Brood »
Logged

tryrar

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: The revolutionary design bureau (OOC)
« Reply #942 on: May 25, 2013, 09:22:26 pm »

BTW, why in the world are we assuming we have gunpowder rockets? I never saw any note that that's what they were....
Logged
This fort really does sit on the event horizon of madness and catastrophe
No. I suppose there are similarities, but I'm fairly certain angry birds doesn't let me charge into a battalion of knights with a car made of circular saws.

Nadaka

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
    • http://www.nadaka.us
Re: The revolutionary design bureau (OOC)
« Reply #943 on: May 25, 2013, 09:37:36 pm »

The cricket should be a military vehicle made to military specifications, the truck should be, well, a truck... The cricket probably has better off-road performance and, if it doesn't, then I think that I might produce a redesign of the cricket...
The truck is a military truck and it's based on the cricket design. It'll do great.

Rocket artillery relies on saturation bombardement (untill we get guidance, that is), so the ability to launch as much rockets as possible in a short amount of time is a must.

The cricket weighs more, but has a half track on back.

For off road, I expect the cricket would get stuck less, but be a bit slower. But I don't really account for that in any practical way.
Logged
Take me out to the black, tell them I ain't comin' back...
I don't care cause I'm still free, you can't take the sky from me...

I turned myself into a monster, to fight against the monsters of the world.

Taricus

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: The revolutionary design bureau (OOC)
« Reply #944 on: May 25, 2013, 09:58:45 pm »

Damn, the Ratel is SMALLER than the K-1? I'm impressed! O.O
Logged
Quote from: evictedSaint
We sided with the holocaust for a fucking +1 roll
Pages: 1 ... 61 62 [63] 64 65 ... 74