Print

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

[Ukrainian Ranger]

Thread to reduce a clutter of IC topic

http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=125538.0

[10ebbor10]

This is for technology discussion and stuff, I assume.

So, stuff we might need: (Incomplete list)

1)Something to tow the Gliders.
2)Something to stop the subs, again
        -Bomb production facilities?
        -Deep sea mines?
3) Do something about that new Tank destroyer
4) Commence construction of airships

[Ukrainian Ranger]

I offer to go letter orderings for design (Or design + production)

And numbers for production\misc
That will allow to spread limited and unlimited proposals nicely

To ebbor

1) Heavy four engined bomber with defensive turret should do this and other jobs
2) Bombing is not a bad idea, but do our aircrafts can reach that far? I think with our new popular devotions, aircrafts and airships their subs will have a hard time... Maybe improve sonar, develop other sub detection stuff.
3) Build K-1s?
4) Sure

[10ebbor10]

Seems interesting.

1) If we're lucky, it can even reach far enough to bomb the enemy. Metal or wooden aircraft?
2) I don't know. The airships can certainly reach it, but well, I don't want to loose to many of them.
3) Should work, I suppose.
4) I doubt we can maintain more than a small fleet of them though. They are rather large, and storing is well, hard.

Edit: We need names for the airships. We won't use more than 4 variants (ASW, Carrier, Bomber*, Radar)

*This one is unlikely

[a1s]

We won't use more than 4 variants (ASW, Carrier, Bomber*, Radar)

*This one is unlikely

That's the one you marked unlikely. Not carrier?

[10ebbor10]

Airborne aircraft carriers are fairly usefull, if sometimes situational.

The problem with the airship is that's it's a support unit, not a frontline one. Dropping of a few small gliders or some fighters near enemy terretory works, but as UR said before, airship bombardements were not particulary effective. They tend to get shot down.

Besides, we don't need a dedicated bomber variant. The others can fill that role too.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

Why did our government stop to build Patriotisms? I fill that can hurt us in a longer run , our aircrafts still use them... And tanks... And Hydras

[a1s]

Dropping sure, but where will they land? Do you plan to build a runway on top of your airship? If there were any doubts before, I think now we have arrived into Diesel Punk territory.

[10ebbor10]

Some notes about that sub.

1) I'm not sure that allowing the tip of the cannon to come outside would be very good for it. Especially if the shell is already inserted. (Power getting wet is annoying, me thinks)
2) Do we have working electrical engines? Otherwise, our sub can't go underwater. (Unless we give it a Submarine snorkel that is)
3) I'd be best to limit the thing to one shot. Pretty sure that repeated fire would just snap it in two.

Dropping sure, but where will they land? Do you plan to build a runway on top of your airship? If there were any doubts before, I think now we have arrived into Diesel Punk territory.

This is real life technology, just so you know. Maybe a bit ahead(actually not. First prototype 1919), but anyway.

The gliders don't come back. Quite simple. The biplane fighters can either land at a normal airport, or hook back onto the craft. It's a tricky manoever, but not impossible.

Like this. Kinda.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

1) Of cause, some barrel sealing mechanism is expected

2) We have a wreckage and plans, and obviously should try to reserve engineer as much from Morovian designs as possible,

including electrical engines

3) Well, I suppose some repairs will be conducted at port together with reloading

4) Basically I want a much smaller and compact version of this : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_M1

[Funk]

Can we not just build a 300mm rocket with a shaped charge?
 it will be much cheaper to make due to not needing a high presser barrel.
by using a rocket we get much less recoil and save space.

[10ebbor10]

@ Ram. I don't know if you're allowed to combine suggestions like that. It kinda undermines the entire voting system, and limit proposals thingy.

Because now you've crammed 5 designs in 2 slots.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

+1 to above Yep, that is a clear gaming of the system

Funk
, such large rockets are quite far from what we have,
Also, they will be unreliable as hell and hard to reach 20kms ( Just look at ranges of early AT rockets and AT artillery)

Like how Khan1234 goes tanks, tanks and more tanks route. She reminds me some realworld USSR generals

Really we haven't even started production of K-1s =  let's develop three times better tank

[Funk]

Im sure with time we can get a good rocket that will reliably launch and hit targets at 20km but if we want an artillery sub inside the next 2 years it will have to be based on a navel gun.

maybe the SPIA can redeem it self, its a 160mm cannon and the doors it shroud help with sealing the gun for diving.

[kahn1234]

+1 to above Yep, that is a clear gaming of the system

Funk
, such large rockets are quite far from what we have,
Also, they will be unreliable as hell and hard to reach 20kms ( Just look at ranges of early AT rockets and AT artillery)

Like how Khan1234 goes tanks, tanks and more tanks route. She reminds me some realworld USSR generals

Really we haven't even started production of K-1s =  let's develop three times better tank

Land warfare is all i really know.....

I dont know enough about Ships, planes, airchips, gliders or the like to contribute anything relevant.