Print

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

[RAM]

I suspect that the nebelwerfer's technology might be a tad superior to our own, and that you should leave a bit more leeway for the G.M. to come up with a final product. It may be that it is simply impossible to produce something with the states specifications...

[3_14159]

Aye, that's possible and why the only things I meant to be in the proposal are the weight, warhead weight and range. I'll correct the proposal to mark that correctly, thanks.

[kahn1234]

Yes, i know there are 5 proposals there, but they are needed and three extra isnt too much.

Yes, they honestly are too much. I know that as non-GM I have absolutely no authority on that, but that's just opening Pandora's Box.

For your proposals as such, the main thing I noticed are the differences in calibre. You've designed a 94/114.3mm AA artillery gun, an 88mm howitzer and a 150mm artillery piece.

88mm: We have an 80mm medium gun already. If you'd have designed a replacement for that, maybe. But I currently fail to see which added capabilities are worth the total chaos of our supply lines.
150mm: Again. We already have a 160mm artillery gun.
Why not design the weapons around the current calibre?

I'd propose, however, to transfer this discussion to the OOC thread.

88mm gun is better. the 80mm one currently is old and inferior, it also cannot take higher velocity shells. This one, i hope, can. It is a light/medium artillery piece. It can also be used as a light SPG on the armoured cars/halftracks we have.

for the 150mm, we tried a SPG using the 160mm and that failed. we need a lighter gun with similar performance that can be used alone or on a SPG (like the Hummel, which it is based off). We could use the 160mm, but after our previous failed attempt it isnt looking promising. We could try again, and keep the 160mm gun and have a 160mm SPG, but i'd stress that we need the 120mm gun and the 88mm artillery piece too.

For the 114.3mm squeeze barrel AA gun, it is based off of the British 94mm which was, among other things, a great, if not fantastic, AA gun. We need a heavy AA gun to take down the higher flying enemy strat bombers.

I would have also added in a powerful spotlight, but i didnt want to go too far over the proposal limit (which wouldn't be there, i may add, without the constant bitching by certain people).

[Ukrainian Ranger]

Yes, i know there are 5 proposals there, but they are needed and three extra isnt too much.

Love that logic. Also love the fact that 3 of that proposals  were proposed in a slightly different form (mostly caliber)but subroposals (that, I, maybe, overuse a bit*) can take care of that. But why care about the thread and read proposals of other players?

I strongly suspect that all those design are some successful real world guns blatantly copied from some source. (ninjad, that's true)

*BTW, RAM, sorry for a pure fighter as subroposal for ground attack aircraft, I wanted to do bomber as a subproposal and fighter as a proposal, but made a mistake and it was too late to change as both got votes.. Besides it's not that far, both are aircrafts based around our new engine

[3_14159]

Thanks for detailing your reasoning.

88mm gun is better. the 80mm one currently is old and inferior, it also cannot take higher velocity shells. This one, i hope, can. It is a light/medium artillery piece. It can also be used as a light SPG on the armoured cars/halftracks we have.

My idea would more be like a total new design of an 80mm as light/medium artillery piece - basically taking your proposal and changing only the calibre for a better compatibility with our supply lines.

for the 150mm, we tried a SPG using the 160mm and that failed. we need a lighter gun with similar performance that can be used alone or on a SPG (like the Hummel, which it is based off). We could use the 160mm, but after our previous failed attempt it isnt looking promising. We could try again, and keep the 160mm gun and have a 160mm SPG, but i'd stress that we need the 120mm gun and the 88mm artillery piece too.

If I see this right, the development was a disaster due to requiring the SPG armored nearly as heavy as our tanks, and with those sliding doors. Without them, the design would theoretically be nearly half the weight and lacking the main problem, aka the doors. Huh... how about trying to modify the older Badgers to self propelled artillery? Would that work?

For the 114.3mm squeeze barrel AA gun, it is based off of the British 94mm which was, among other things, a great, if not fantastic, AA gun. We need a heavy AA gun to take down the higher flying enemy strat bombers.

I would have also added in a powerful spotlight, but i didnt want to go too far over the proposal limit (which wouldn't be there, i may add, without the constant bitching by certain people).

Can't argue with you there due to my lack of knowledge.

[kahn1234]

Thanks for detailing your reasoning.

88mm gun is better. the 80mm one currently is old and inferior, it also cannot take higher velocity shells. This one, i hope, can. It is a light/medium artillery piece. It can also be used as a light SPG on the armoured cars/halftracks we have.

My idea would more be like a total new design of an 80mm as light/medium artillery piece - basically taking your proposal and changing only the calibre for a better compatibility with our supply lines.

Main thing is, it is theoretically a totally different gun.

it needs a completely new chassis due to the breech type, traverse difference, elevation difference, needed reduction in crew number and multi-purpose use (as both an AT gun and a light/medium howitzer. It also needs to take different sights, higher muzzle velocity and different shells (regardless of calibre). In short, it is a different gun entirely, not just calibre.

for the 150mm, we tried a SPG using the 160mm and that failed. we need a lighter gun with similar performance that can be used alone or on a SPG (like the Hummel, which it is based off). We could use the 160mm, but after our previous failed attempt it isnt looking promising. We could try again, and keep the 160mm gun and have a 160mm SPG, but i'd stress that we need the 120mm gun and the 88mm artillery piece too.

If I see this right, the development was a disaster due to requiring the SPG armored nearly as heavy as our tanks, and with those sliding doors. Without them, the design would theoretically be nearly half the weight and lacking the main problem, aka the doors. Huh... how about trying to modify the older Badgers to self propelled artillery? Would that work?

Fair enough. I can remove them so long as someone else fills the required SPG and heavy arty space with a good updated 160mm gun plus a SPG using said gun. I would prefer the use of the K-1 as the base, mainly due to ability to have 2 large engines or 1 very large/powerful engine.

And, Ukrainian Ranger, if you actually looked at the main thread, you'd see i was the first to propose things like this, with the exception of Brood and his SPIA. They are also entirely my own making, being heavily modified versions of real life weapons. I didnt look at any other persons designs on any of the threads.


EDIT: The Squeeze barrel of the AA gun allows a higher ceiling, which means its very hard for the enemy to fly higher. The gun i based this off of was only surpassed by AA missiles in real life.....

Main thing is, we need a variable length fuse for the AA shells for the different ceilings.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

We could remake the SPIA, giving it a diesel engine, two times thiner armor, and no top armor....
But 160mm is just too heavy for my tastes

Well, when i see people putting up '2' proposals with half a dozen 'amendments' below them, 5 clear cut proposals with most of the work done for them by me dont seem like much a problem.

I suggest you to go simpler way, just write: " hey, engineers, go into an alternative dimension and copy designs A , B, C, D  and E with wikilinks and don't listen to that idiots that don't use Wiki and try to use their creativity.  And I am smarter so deserve more proposals"

And, Ukrainian Ranger, if you actually looked at the main thread, you'd see i was the first to propose things like this, with the exception of Brood and his SPIA. 

Pfffff.....
This turn:

1)Design a 160mm spg based on the K-1 that has enough armor to bounce a GVS-14(an MG that heavy can pen a surprising amount), but try to prioritize mobility. This design will definitely have the x2 diesels, an armored casemate structure, and should try to include a good gun traverse arc for the 160mm gun, as well as giving it enough gun depression to fight tanks in an emergancy. Call it the Hammer

Subproposals
1.1 Develop new 115mm howitzer optimized to be towed by or even installed into Cricket car. Try to reduce weight of the gun. Also, no additional armor for self proppeled version if one to be created, because self propelled howitzers shouldn't get any close to enemy lines and needs only anti shrapnel  and no top armor (160mm is just too big jump from 80mm and it is old, thus bad)

Proposal Seven: Heavy AT cannon: A new cannon designed to completely dominate the battlefield against enemy armoured units, the new round for the cannon, a large 78.3mm by 680mm round, should be able to punch through atleast 90mm of armour at 1 to 2 kilometers. It's maximum range should reach to about 10 kilometers.

The muzzle velocity of the round should exceed 850 m/s, the gun itself to be an electrically fired, semiautomatic falling wedge design. This will allow it to remain viable unless the enemy can mount over 150mm in armour.

8. Develop a fixed 80mm dedicated AA gun. Build them as soon as they are ready

All those are more than close enough to be modified by suproposals

[kahn1234]

We could remake the SPIA, giving it a diesel engine, two times thiner armor, and no top armor....
But 160mm is just too heavy for my tastes

Well, when i see people putting up '2' proposals with half a dozen 'amendments' below them, 5 clear cut proposals with most of the work done for them by me dont seem like much a problem.

I suggest you to go simpler way, just write: " hey, engineers, go into an alternative dimension and copy designs A , B, C, D  and E with wikilinks and don't listen to that idiots that don't use Wiki and try to use their creativity.  And I am smarter so deserve more proposals"

Note the phrase: 'heavily modified'.

All 5 of the designs are nothing like their real life counterparts. Different parts, shells, firing mechanisms, breech systems, chassis etc.

And, Ukrainian Ranger, if you actually looked at the main thread, you'd see i was the first to propose things like this, with the exception of Brood and his SPIA. 

Pfffff.....
This turn:

1)Design a 160mm spg based on the K-1 that has enough armor to bounce a GVS-14(an MG that heavy can pen a surprising amount), but try to prioritize mobility. This design will definitely have the x2 diesels, an armored casemate structure, and should try to include a good gun traverse arc for the 160mm gun, as well as giving it enough gun depression to fight tanks in an emergancy. Call it the Hammer

Subproposals
1.1 Develop new 115mm howitzer optimized to be towed by or even installed into Cricket car. Try to reduce weight of the gun. Also, no additional armor for self proppeled version if one to be created, because self propelled howitzers shouldn't get any close to enemy lines and needs only anti shrapnel  and no top armor (160mm is just too big jump from 80mm and it is old, thus bad)

Proposal Seven: Heavy AT cannon: A new cannon designed to completely dominate the battlefield against enemy armoured units, the new round for the cannon, a large 78.3mm by 680mm round, should be able to punch through atleast 90mm of armour at 1 to 2 kilometers. It's maximum range should reach to about 10 kilometers.

The muzzle velocity of the round should exceed 850 m/s, the gun itself to be an electrically fired, semiautomatic falling wedge design. This will allow it to remain viable unless the enemy can mount over 150mm in armour.

8. Develop a fixed 80mm dedicated AA gun. Build them as soon as they are ready

All those are more than close enough to be modified by suproposals

Again, you didnt look did you?

All 5 of my proposals were before the last turn, therefore BEFORE all those ones you quoted.

No-one jumped on them. Their loss.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

What the last turn has to do with this turn and fact that you ignored everything that was proposed before you?

[kahn1234]

What the last turn has to do with this turn and fact that you ignored everything that was proposed before you?

Want to know the reason i ignored them?

Tryrar tried to redesign the SPIA, whilst also making the exact same mistakes.

You tried to get a 115mm gun put forward, when my 88mm field gun/AT gun would be a much better choice, as it is lighter, faster firing and more versatile. And the 120mm could take the role of Medium/heavy arty before getting to the 160mm cannons.

Taricus's gun is an AT gun, and therefore fit only to SPATG's, tanks and tank destroyers. It cannot take the form of a field gun as it is not designed for that. my 88mm is designed for multipurpose use.

Finally, your 80mm AA gun will have a ceiling which can be flown over. My 94mm cannon, pretty much a heavily modified version of the British 94mm, has a ceiling so high you would have to be using jet engines to fly over it. It should have a ceiling of at least 46,000 feet (or ~14,000m), a horizontal range of 19,000m and a slant range of 13,000m, making it also a good field gun, which could augment the 88mm field gun.


Also:

What the last turn has to do with this turn and fact that you ignored everything that was proposed before you?

This is a bit rich coming from you, who has pretty much mastered the exact same thing. You put your proposals forward and then attack, belittle and fight down all other ideas. ANd now i am putting my foot down, this shit aint gonna work on me.

[RAM]

Just a warning, there is a movement amongst players to limit the number of calibres, so expect to have a more difficult time proposing an 88mm gun than you would an 80mm gun. And even if it requires a completely new part, I would expect that so long as the calibre and material remains the same, there will always be some manufacturing equipment that remains relevant, so it is almost always some value in maintaining calibre. It also keeps things simple for bookkeeping purposes if you can lump everything into a few different categories based upon calibre. But I maybe 1/8th as likely to vote for something that differs from the accepted 4/8/14/40/80/160/320 calibres, so I am pretty biased. I might cut a little slack for something around 20,120,240, but even then I will be hesitant.
...
Okay, 4mm doesn't exist yet, but I want it to, for concealed weapons and things with ridiculous rates of fire. It would be hilarious to have a 200 odd round magazine for an S.M.G. even if it did mean that it couldn't penetrate bone...

I want to reiterate that 4.3 is the plane that we need when we need it. The new engines and heavy weaponry will give it the brute force to fill all the roles that we need filled now, and it will throw off their designers when we come out with an elegant fighter.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

You put your proposals forward and then attack, belittle and fight down all other ideas.

Count my votes for other's project, count yours
Please, don't make me laugh. I like the story. I like discussing suggestions (call it attacking if you want) I like creating plausible decisions (using existing 80mm caliber to make AA gun is plausible, importing 94mm caliber gun from another dimension and improving it is not ) . I am not care much about acceptance of my own proposals

Want to know the reason i ignored them?

I want to know why not sub(counter)propose but go and ignore the rules
All your better are subjective, because you concentrate on one  set of characteristics and ignore others but I am too tired to argue and that's not important

And now on you heavily modified

Target specifications:
Max range: 19,000m horizontal with a 15,240m ceiling
Muzzle velocity: 1067m/s
Rate of fire target: 12 rounds per minute at least
Traverse: 360 degrees
Elevation: -10 - +85
Carriage: Mobile and Static
Shell: Depends
Crew: as low as possible without sacrificing efficiency or RPM.
Weight: As low as possible without sacrificing anything.
Length: 5m
Barrel Length: 4.8m

Elevation   -5 to +80
Traverse   360
Rate of fire   10/20 rpm
Muzzle velocity   Mk I - III: 2,670 ft/s (810 m/s) (new)
 2,598 ft/s (792 m/s) (worn)[2]
 Mk VI : 3,425 ft/s (1,044 m/s)[3]
Maximum range   Maximum horizontal: 18,800 m (61,679 ft)
 Maximum slant: 12,000 m (39,370 ft)
 Ceiling Mk I-II: 9,000 m (29,527 ft) Mk VI: 45,000 ft (13,716 m)

So your heavily modified = even better in everything  than late WW2 MK VI gun. Nice modification, munchkin

[tryrar]

Kahn, the only "mistake" I made when designing my proposal was keeping the 160mm gun(and also not designing a chassis from scratch, since the K-1 is a good chassis to put heavy stuff on). EVERYTHING else was changed; I lightened the armor to basically stopping small arms and machine guns only, and installing the x2 diesels, and adding a light armored casemate structure that the gun sticks out of(NOT the armored doors you might be thinking of).

For reference on what a casemate is, here's a picture of a jagdtiger:


The structure on top of the chassis that the gun is sticking out of is the casemate that takes place of the turret. I want something similar that allows for artillery fire(maybe with an open top)

[Ukrainian Ranger]

Bonus: On the 94mm is the best caliber and will give the best ceiling:
Did low level research (Wikipedia numbers) :

8 cm PL kanon vz. 37 \ ceiling = 11,470 meters (note 80mmm)
Type 99 88 mm \ ceiling = 10,420  meters
90 mm Gun M1/M2/M3 = 10,380
Type 88 75 mm AA Gun = 9085 meters
8.8 cm Flak = 11 900 meters
85 mm air defense gun M1939 = 10 500
QF 3.7 inch(94mm)  AA gun = 9000 meters

Enough said.

[kahn1234]

Kahn, the only "mistake" I made when designing my proposal was keeping the 160mm gun(and also not designing a chassis from scratch, since the K-1 is a good chassis to put heavy stuff on). EVERYTHING else was changed; I lightened the armor to basically stopping small arms and machine guns only, and installing the x2 diesels, and adding a light armored casemate structure that the gun sticks out of(NOT the armored doors you might be thinking of).

For reference on what a casemate is, here's a picture of a jagdtiger:


The structure on top of the chassis that the gun is sticking out of is the casemate that takes place of the turret. I want something similar that allows for artillery fire(maybe with an open top)

In that case, it looks good. Might as well do it.

Bonus: On the 94mm is the best caliber and will give the best ceiling:
Did low level research (Wikipedia numbers) :

8 cm PL kanon vz. 37 \ ceiling = 11,470 meters (note 80mmm)
Type 99 88 mm \ ceiling = 10,420  meters
90 mm Gun M1/M2/M3 = 10,380
Type 88 75 mm AA Gun = 9085 meters
8.8 cm Flak = 11 900 meters
85 mm air defense gun M1939 = 10 500
QF 3.7 inch(94mm)  AA gun = 9000 meters

Enough said.

Did i fucking say it had the best ceiling?

No, i fucking didnt.

And i used the MK6 as the base: 14000m ceiling.

You put your proposals forward and then attack, belittle and fight down all other ideas.

Count my votes for other's project, count yours

Completely irrelevant. You seem to have an idea about everything. And look at the mess you have us in now.

Please, don't make me laugh. I like the story. I like discussing suggestions (call it attacking if you want) I like creating plausible decisions (using existing 80mm caliber to make AA gun is plausible, importing 94mm caliber gun from another dimension and improving it is not ) . I am not care much about acceptance of my own proposals.

Nothing on the 94mm is not possible in the year we are in. And your 'discussions' are more like insults to the person who is putting their idea forward. I remember all the other suggestion games you infect. You argue until the person leave the thread, until you and your little buddies are the only ones left.

Want to know the reason i ignored them?

I want to know why not sub(counter)propose but go and ignore the rules

At least i 'break the rules' honestly instead of trying to game the system, like you and some others do.

All your better are subjective, because you concentrate on one  set of characteristics and ignore others but I am too tired to argue and that's not important

I only focus on one set of characteristics? you are the only who starts arguments over calibre ONLY. You are a freaking hypocrite.

So your heavily modified = even better in everything  than late WW2 MK VI gun. Nice modification, munchkin

And? Still doesn't use anything that wasn't around in 1930.