Print

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

[RAM]

I want to make certain that the engineers have the lowest possible opinion of us, so I want to submit this with the 4.3plane proposal.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

[tryrar]

For that matter, I was mainly thinking of something similar to the M7 Priest when designing my SPG. For reference, this thing:




This was one of the most produced self-propelled howitzers of the war(with nearly 5000 produced). Now, the Hammer might be not as good due to being early 30's tech and having a heavier, older gun than the M7, but it would still be a pretty decent SPG to start with

[kahn1234]

For that matter, I was mainly thinking of something similar to the M7 Priest when designing my SPG. For reference, this thing:




This was one of the most produced self-propelled howitzers of the war(with nearly 5000 produced). Now, the Hammer might be not as good due to being early 30's tech and having a heavier, older gun than the M7, but it would still be a pretty decent SPG to start with

good idea, i like the Priest. But done well, ours should be better, if a bot heavier and a bit more costly.

[tryrar]

Remember, this is to START with, to get the design ideas for an SPG down for our engineers so we don't have many botched rolls when changing or creating new ones. As long as it has decent mobility and fires, I don't really care if it's my Hammer or UR's cricket with a 115mm gun that goes through. Like I said, if we want to we can get heavier SPGs designed later

[Ukrainian Ranger]

Did i fucking say it had the best ceiling?

No, i fucking didnt.

You said that it would have better ceiling than 80mm gun I proved  that caliber has little to do with ceiling

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

But it wasn't because of the caliber, but because it used oversized cartridge. Do that for 80mm gun and you'll get roughly same ceiling . But engineering decisions are decisions of our engineers, not ours

And MK6 it's from late WW2, can you understand why offering late WW2 weapons, upgrading them and using as a basis for designs is a bit wrong?


Why take 1944 weapons? Let's take 2013 weapons instead, those are more powerful....

[Taricus]

I think Kahn has the right idea here.

First off: Even if the 76 M1 gun was the same diameter of the 17 pounder round, the 17 pounder round was signifigantly longer than the standard M1 76mm shell. It would not have fit inside the chamber at all. You seem to forget about the length of the munitions as a whole. The 78mm rounds would not fit the old 80mm cannon regardless of it's current diameter. If you ned proof of this, just fire a 7.62mm WP froma a rifle that fires 7.62mm NATO ammo.

The SPIA, I would say is dead in the water due to it's design, since it is overengineered to hell.

Honestly, I could support both the 88mm and the 94mm. Sure, the may be pains switching over, but the increase in power more than outweighs this, especilly due to the poor performance of the older gun.

As for the votes thing Ukrainian, there's a few people that haven't voted, and most of those would certainly not vote for any of your proposals. It's kinda why I'm expecting my tank project to go through.

[tryrar]

I think Kahn has the right idea here.

First off: Even if the 76 M1 gun was the same diameter of the 17 pounder round, the 17 pounder round was signifigantly longer than the standard M1 76mm shell. It would not have fit inside the chamber at all. You seem to forget about the length of the munitions as a whole. The 78mm rounds would not fit the old 80mm cannon regardless of it's current diameter. If you ned proof of this, just fire a 7.62mm WP froma a rifle that fires 7.62mm NATO ammo.

The SPIA, I would say is dead in the water due to it's design, since it is overengineered to hell.

Honestly, I could support both the 88mm and the 94mm. Sure, the may be pains switching over, but the increase in power more than outweighs this, especilly due to the poor performance of the older gun.

As for the votes thing Ukrainian, there's a few people that haven't voted, and most of those would certainly not vote for any of your proposals. It's kinda why I'm expecting my tank project to go through.

...Now THAT'S not the height of arrogance at all now, isn't it :/

Seriously, If you wanna be arrogant, I'll be too. Your tank proposal is also dead in the water due to being based off the Panther, which was a LATE ww2 design that had twice the horsepower our current tanks have, and better drive-trains to support its armor and mobility(and firepower!). Your tank proposal is EVEN BETTER than the Panther; Nadak himself came down and said it was a non-starter!

[3_14159]

First off: Even if the 76 M1 gun was the same diameter of the 17 pounder round, the 17 pounder round was signifigantly longer than the standard M1 76mm shell. It would not have fit inside the chamber at all. You seem to forget about the length of the munitions as a whole. The 78mm rounds would not fit the old 80mm cannon regardless of it's current diameter. If you ned proof of this, just fire a 7.62mm WP froma a rifle that fires 7.62mm NATO ammo.

Question from someone who actually doesn't know it: Would it be possible to fit, for example, an 80mm x 5000mm projectile into a chamber made for 80mm x 8000mm?
Also, my concern was for storage purposes, too, as we could use the same parts for the logistics, too. Sorry for not making that clear.

Honestly, I could support both the 88mm and the 94mm. Sure, the may be pains switching over, but the increase in power more than outweighs this, especilly due to the poor performance of the older gun.

Is that an inherent feature of the 88mm calibre, or could the same be reached with an 80mm calibre, too?
Asked otherwise: If you would design an 80mm calibre AT shell and an 88mm AT shell, what would be the differences?

And, lastly, might I ask all of you to please stop calling the others names? We all want (or at least I want) to have fun at this game. Why don't you try listing the arguments you see for and against the proposals and your conclusion, with the others able to correct and counterargue?

[Taricus]

And? It's not as if anyone has come up with any counter-proposals to it, nor any improvements or such. The drive-trains bit I can believe though, but we aren't going to improve our designs on them without a lot of work. Thus, the earlier we start, the earlier we can get our heavy tank up.

The votes thing happens to be true though Tryrar. There's a bloc that hasn't voted yet, and I'm on pretty favourable terms with them. If it only takes three votes for a design to be developed, then I have more than enough for work to go ahead on it.

@Pi: Due to the constuction of the cannons and rounds, it's unlikely that the maintenece would be the same regardless of diameter. And the firing of that round may be possible, but certainly not advisable due to the risks of such. Storage-wise, the round IS longer and would thus require new storage cases as the old 80mm is too short for it.

[RAM]

....Ram are you even TRYING for serious proposals anymore?

Yes, yes I am, but my seriousness is temporarily lost, so I find myself absent from the resources necessary to facilitate a communication resulting in propriety and forthrightness.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

The votes thing happens to be true though Tryrar. There's a bloc that hasn't voted yet, and I'm on pretty favourable terms with them

Bloc, favorable terms... 
Someone is playing popularity contest here

[kahn1234]

First off: Even if the 76 M1 gun was the same diameter of the 17 pounder round, the 17 pounder round was signifigantly longer than the standard M1 76mm shell. It would not have fit inside the chamber at all. You seem to forget about the length of the munitions as a whole. The 78mm rounds would not fit the old 80mm cannon regardless of it's current diameter. If you ned proof of this, just fire a 7.62mm WP froma a rifle that fires 7.62mm NATO ammo.

Question from someone who actually doesn't know it: Would it be possible to fit, for example, an 80mm x 5000mm projectile into a chamber made for 80mm x 8000mm?
Also, my concern was for storage purposes, too, as we could use the same parts for the logistics, too. Sorry for not making that clear.

Honestly, I could support both the 88mm and the 94mm. Sure, the may be pains switching over, but the increase in power more than outweighs this, especilly due to the poor performance of the older gun.

Is that an inherent feature of the 88mm calibre, or could the same be reached with an 80mm calibre, too?
Asked otherwise: If you would design an 80mm calibre AT shell and an 88mm AT shell, what would be the differences?

And, lastly, might I ask all of you to please stop calling the others names? We all want (or at least I want) to have fun at this game. Why don't you try listing the arguments you see for and against the proposals and your conclusion, with the others able to correct and counterargue?

Its all in the breech design. The breech is designed to not just take a shell with the correct diameter, but also with a specific length. If you put a shell that is too long in, the breech wouldn't close or it would jam, and if you put in one that is too short, it wont fire.

Without using a squeeze bore barrel, the 88mm AT shell would have more punch due to the higher velocity and bigger shell (which means more stopping power and longer range). If you use a squeeze bore barrel, small calibres can penetrate armour non-squeeze bore guns cannot (for example, the 28mm Germany AT gun penetrating the front armour of an IS-2 heavy tank....).

Sure, you could get similar performance from an 80mm cannon using squeeze bore barrels, but that would require research and development of squeeze bore theory and then experiments. And we will need to do this due to squeeze bore theory being used on my 94mm (if it goes through).

You could also get similar performance if you used the same type of thing i used on the 94mm as well. Use a larger cartridge but an 80mm shell. For example, have a 100mm cartridge holding a 80mm shell. You'd still need a 100mm breech, but the cannon could be 80mm, and the much larger cartridge would mean far high velocity, meaning far higher stopping power, meaning better armour penetration.

It is useful to have, especially if we start losing and we cannot produce large guns.

[Taricus]

The votes thing happens to be true though Tryrar. There's a bloc that hasn't voted yet, and I'm on pretty favourable terms with them

Bloc, favorable terms... 
Someone is playing popularity contest here

Nature of the game I'm afraid. The very fact that it's based on votes means it's more politiburo than an actual bureau.

[tryrar]

Honestly, it appears the attraction for the 88mm and the 94mm is that they are proven calibers in the real world that worked(for the most part). Really, penetration, velocity, and  max ceiling the shell achieves depends more on the gun and the shell itself, not what caliber it has; the only real difference caliber has is that larger caliber shells are heavier(Duh). Basically, we can design a gun with a shell in any caliber we want and it will(probably) work as long as we specify what it is for(howitzer, AT gun, AA gun, general-purpose).

However, many people object to breaking the 40-80-160-320 progression we have going, and that's what's causing most of the flame wars. Though, we'll probably have to get at least SOME intermediate calibers, if only to get some good naval guns that combine the good things about the 80mm(lighter weight, good rate of fire) and the 160mm(heavy punch, very good HE shell).

One thing is that when it comes down to it, the thing that really matters is balancing muzzle velocity with shell weight to come to a good penetration number. For example, two guns have roughly equal muzzle velocity. One is a 40mm while one is an 80mm. It's true that the 80mm shell would hit with much more force(being twice as big as the 40mm(and thus due to the square cube law, being 4x as heavy) while still traveling at the same speed), the 80mm would require a proportionally larger powder charge(and thus a much longer and heavier shell) , which WILL reducing reload times as crews need to wrestle a more awkward shell  into place.

[kahn1234]

Honestly, it appears the attraction for the 88mm and the 94mm is that they are proven calibers in the real world that worked(for the most part). Really, penetration, velocity, and  max ceiling the shell achieves depends more on the gun and the shell itself, not what caliber it has; the only real difference caliber has is that larger caliber shells are heavier(Duh). Basically, we can design a gun with a shell in any caliber we want and it will(probably) work as long as we specify what it is for(howitzer, AT gun, AA gun, general-purpose).

However, many people object to breaking the 40-80-160-320 progression we have going, and that's what's causing most of the flame wars. Though, we'll probably have to get at least SOME intermediate calibers, if only to get some good naval guns that combine the good things about the 80mm(lighter weight, good rate of fire) and the 160mm(heavy punch, very good HE shell).

One thing is that when it comes down to it, the thing that really matters is balancing muzzle velocity with shell weight to come to a good penetration number. For example, two guns have roughly equal muzzle velocity. One is a 40mm while one is an 80mm. It's true that the 80mm shell would hit with much more force(being twice as big as the 40mm(and thus due to the square cube law, being 4x as heavy) while still traveling at the same speed), the 80mm would require a proportionally larger powder charge(and thus a much longer and heavier shell) , which WILL reducing reload times as crews need to wrestle a more awkward shell  into place.

and yet for heavy AA (70mm and up) and the larger AT guns, they still managed 10+ Rounds per minute......

chances are, if we train the crews properly, we will still get a damn good rate of fire. and for things like ships and tanks, we can develop auto-loaders.

It might be worth looking into building a ship, vehicle and artillery crew training school.