Print

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

[Ukrainian Ranger]

Yep, no answer, just a whim: "I like my design and want it  and care not that it will create supply problems and retooling problems. Neither I care that it is not needed right now"

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

Sure, it's a huge difference between making 10 meters long pipe and 20 meters long pipe but there are almost no difference in making 78mm and 80mm wide pipe...

Retooling is a problem, inability to interchange shells is a problem. And your question "why not?" is a ridiculous  because I said exactly why


PS:

Spoiler: German WW2 calibers (click to show/hide)

Tank guns   2 cm KwK 30 · 3.7 cm KwK 36 · 3.7 cm KwK 38(t) · 5 cm KwK 38 · 5 cm KwK 39 · 7.5 cm KwK 37 · 7.5 cm KwK 40 · 7.5 cm KwK 42 · 8.8 cm KwK 36 · 8.8 cm KwK 43

Anti-tank guns   2.8 cm sPzB 41 · 3.7 cm Pak 36 · 4.2 cm Pak 41 · 5 cm Pak 38 · 7.5 cm Pak 97/38 · 7.5 cm PaK 39 · 7.5 cm Pak 40 · 7.5 cm Pak 41 · 7.5 cm Pak 42 · 7.62 cm Pak 36(r) · 8 cm PAW 600 · 8.8 cm Pak 43 · 12.8 cm Pak 44

Infantry and mountain guns   7.5 cm leIG 18 · 7.5 cm IG 37 · 7.5 cm IG 42 · 7.5 cm GebH 34 · 7.5 cm GebG 36 · 10.5 cm GebH 40 · 15 cm sIG 33

Recoilless guns   7.5 cm LG 40 · 10.5 cm LG 40 · 10.5 cm LG 42

Field, medium and heavy guns   7.5 cm FK 16 nA · 7.5 cm FK 18 · 7.5 cm FK 38 · 7.5 cm FK 7M85 · 10 cm K 17 · 10 cm sK 18 · 10.5 cm leFH 16 · 10.5 cm leFH 18 · 10.5 cm leFH 18M · 10.5 cm leFH 18/40 · 10.5 cm sK 18/40 · 15 cm sFH 13 · 15 cm sFH 18 · 15 cm K 16 · 15 cm K 18 · 15 cm K 39 · 15 cm SK C/28 · 17 cm K 18 · 21 cm Mrs 16 · 21 cm Mrs 18

Anti-aircraft guns   2 cm Flak 30/38/Flakvierling · 2 cm Gebirgsflak 38 · 3.7 cm Flak 18/36/37/43 · 5 cm Flak 41 · 8.8 cm Flak 18/36/37/41 · 10.5 cm FlaK 38 · 12.8 cm FlaK 40

Just in case (some letter) = captured guns

[Taricus]

Except it's circumference, and not length we're talking about here. And I did give you an answer, one that you were content to ignore in favour of your point. And half of your plans and designs are based SOLEY because YOU want them, regardless of their efficiency and/or costs.

I'm well aware it'll take a fair bit of effort to retool the factories, but the price we pay for that would be returned in magnitudes. Not to mention, there are relatively few designs that do mount the 80mm cannon, and the ones that do are naval units.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

It's getting old, but why take 78mm but not 80mm and avoid majority of problems? Can you answer one simple question?

Do you know what the damned word "why" means? Just in case if that unknown word for you:

Why =  For what purpose, reason, or cause; with what intention, justification, or motive

[Taricus]

Well, for starters while they may have similar circumferences, the 78mm round is about 50% longer. Regardless if the circumference was bumped up or not, the older guns would certainly not be able to use the round. The gun is intended to be a complete replacement to the 80mm, not an improvement, nor a retrofit.

This cannon is intended to tear any enemy tanks a new asshole, from penetrating the front of the tank to leaving out the back of it. So yes, it's likely overpowered, but it does give our armoured columns the ability to sink lighter ships in port as well. Not to mention that a slight retrofit and the cannons can be used in a CAS fixed-wing aircraft, able to wreak havok on light ships, tanks and other hard targets.

Also, as a final note, I suspect your most recent post in the main thread would have been much more suited to being posted here.

[Nadaka]

I have reached an impasse. I can no longer add new designs to the first post of the thread, I have exceeded the allowable post size.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

Nadaka
That hurts. I expected that few updates later... I suggest to Find your second post in the topic and use it (with the link from OP)



Taricus]That was posted in IC topic to ensure that GM will see it as it is important

And you truly don't understand the word "why"........

WHY can't you replace 80mm gun with the new 80mm and have to use 78mm. For what reason, cause or purpose you go from 80mm to 78mm
You may disagree (even if that is obvious)  that this will create supply problems and additional retooling problems both for artillery industry and  ammunition. But, please. tell my why 78mm and not 80mm

The gun is intended to be a complete replacement to the 80mm, not an improvement, nor a retrofit.

Am i right that you suggest to destroy all existing 80mm guns in a moment  when your 78mm guns will enter production?

This cannon is intended to tear any enemy tanks a new asshole, from penetrating the front of the tank to leaving out the back of it

I see, penetrating once isn't enough because it's not cool. Great logic

a slight retrofit and the cannons can be used in a CAS fixed-wing aircraft,

Heh, 1.5-2 tons  on aircraft. Good luck making this thing fly

[Funk]

Nadaka just post all the  designs on one page and put a link to it on the first.

[Taricus]

Pretty easy with the engines available to us.

Ukrainian: No, but decommissioning those 80mm guns should be started as soon as the new 78mm are being rolled out, the 80mm being phased out and discontinued.

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...

[tryrar]

Really Taricus. I see no point in making a gun 2mm narrower than our existing 80mm. I only voted on it because I thought you were going for a squeeze-bore gun. Sinc ethis isn't the case I'm retracting my vote

[Taricus]

You know the round is going to be incompatable with the old cannons anyway, right?

[tryrar]

Which is why making a high-velocity 80mm mkaes more sense. We can still use the old low-velocity 80mm rounds if we have need to(mainly from mounting it in a howitzer configuration)

[adwarf]

Nadaka
That hurts. I expected that few updates later... I suggest to Find your second post in the topic and use it (with the link from OP)



Taricus]That was posted in IC topic to ensure that GM will see it as it is important

And you truly don't understand the word "why"........

WHY can't you replace 80mm gun with the new 80mm and have to use 78mm. For what reason, cause or purpose you go from 80mm to 78mm

Taricus is giving reasons as to why it should be a 78mm instead of an 80mm, you just seem to be either missing or entirely ignoring the reasons he is giving and instead asking the same question why over and over again in an attempt to win an argument. Instead of simply asking why, why not instead try to make a reasonable argument on why the gun should be 80mm instead, and why it would be best to simply refit the guns to the newer designs.

As I see it Taricus has a good idea with this, by reducing the caliber 2mm it'll make the enemy think the gun has less power then it actually does making them underestimate it. Then having it be powerful enough to burst through a tank twice helps us now by giving a shock to our enemies and preemptively prepares us for when we come up against tanks with thicker, stronger, or simply better armor. The way you are trying to work now is simply to react to the enemy you're facing now, and what tari is trying to do is prepare ahead which gives us the upper-hand now and in those 10 years in the future.

Really Taricus. I see no point in making a gun 2mm narrower than our existing 80mm. I only voted on it because I thought you were going for a squeeze-bore gun. Sinc ethis isn't the case I'm retracting my vote

Well if you thought it was gonna be a squeeze-bore gun then we can simply adapt this design to the one after this has hit production, that way less work is required to make both the guns then if we made to fully separate designs. And since they're both fairly similar models, and designs that'll mean repairs and creation of the two should be similar enough that a factory and even repair crews can be tooled, and trained to work with both designs easier.

[tryrar]

Adwarf, the amount an enemy will underestimate the penetration of a gun with a mere 2mm difference in gun diameter(if they even notice such a difference!) from our 80mms would be small at best, and the supply issues would outweigh any psychological benefits from surprising the enemy a little.

[adwarf]

Adwarf, the amount an enemy will underestimate the penetration of a gun with a mere 2mm difference in gun diameter(if they even notice such a difference!) from our 80mms would be small at best, and the supply issues would outweigh any psychological benefits from surprising the enemy a little.

Indeed, but thats only if we keep the 80mm, phasing out the 80mm is also part of the plan so that fixes the supply issues immensely, its no different then phasing out an older model of weapon like we're working on now with the infantry.

I also want to point out (from what I've seen) that so far you've all ignored the supply line results of what you've done and things have worked out fine, so why now is that you worry about the supply lines?

[Taricus]

Which is why making a high-velocity 80mm mkaes more sense. We can still use the old low-velocity 80mm rounds if we have need to(mainly from mounting it in a howitzer configuration)

If we need a medium artillery piece, it would be much better to dedicate a size for it, rather than making a dual purpose direct/indirect fire gun. Thing is that the old 80mm round is outdated, and same with the cannons too.

Any supply issues wuld be a temporary factor. Within the space of a year all the factories geared for the 80mm cannons would've switched to the new 78mm. Thing is though, with ANY new weapon, there will be supply problems. All the similar size does here is give Ukrainian the excuse to bitch and whinge about why we won't improve an outdated weapon.

Seriously, the damn 80mm is several years out of date, better start replacing it now before it's severely outclassed.