Print

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

[Nadaka]

Oh man, that was a good turn. Though I should've passed too due to the votes...

which proposal was it? This time I kept a record how people voted, I can check that rather quickly.

[tryrar]

Well, what we need to get ready for war with Capia is definitely as stated motorizing our infantry and getting more artillery pieces out. The Hammer will help there as it is a mobile 160mm gun that can go 45 kph to provide artillery support to the front lines, but we won't have a lot of them due to being K-1 based(since K-1s are expensive to produce). A 80mm Badger-based SPG might be a good idea to fill in the gaps, or we can update the 80mms we have to a better design(or do both). I had in mind something along the lines of a standard 2-ton truck or half-track that can be configured to carry not only troops but things like modular gas tanks for refilling our fuel for our armor(AKA a mobile gas station). Basically, something that can vastly improve our logistics.

[Taricus]

Proposal I Nadaka.

[3_14159]

All right, analysis time. (conclusions are marked like this.):
Army: Stays mostly the same as last round. We haven't got any new technology and
We have a good assortment of tanks, with our new heavy tank getting produced now, too. With 32 K-1 (and later 48) per year they will remain scarce, however. Switching production from the BattleBus might help here.
Our infantry is still armed with mosin nagants, and we have about ten infantry units per MG. Switching them to the SVA-10 might help here, and I'd really like to see a smaller MG to be introduced for squad level. May be too modern, though. The assault rifle is an alternative, depending on the accuracy differences between them.
Our mobility, however, is severely lacking due to the lack of transport. We have enough halftracks to transport about 4500 of our men. Also, we have less Crickets than artillery, which therefore won't be able to be transported quickly. Producing more crickets would be advised, definitely to one per artillery basis and hopefully to transport about ten thousand men. That would require about 2000, and currently about seven years.
Speaking of artillery: We currently have 80mm and 40mm towed artillery guns. Plus the 160mm self-propelled. I think we should modernize them, and possibly add self-propelled artillery into the mix.

Comparing ourselves to Morovia, "Their new Tank Destroyer is in the same class as our K-1". We will possibly have real enemy with that, and they may be able to overwhelm our limited numbers of K-1s. Flanking them with sufficient Badgers and/or air strikes would help there, probably.

Comparing ourselves to Capia, their tank shares common characteristics with the Morovian and therefore, the K-1 though slower. Again, maneuver warfare and air support will be necessary. Additionally, they have about 2/3rds of our infantry, supported extensively by artillery. Since they probably will be dug in at the border, I'd advise that we try to break through decisively to make redeployments necessary. Again, air support, too.

Navy:
We are getting more and more efficient at anti-sub wars. However, compared to Capia we will have a huge disadvantage on surface combat. Since that would take another three turns or so to improve, we need alternatives. Sneak attack, mines and/or wolverine torpedos?
Compared to Morovia, we will probably have an advantage on the surface.

Air Force:
Now, here it gets interesting. The fast fighter is awesome (sorry for being that enthusiastic), however it is a single-role fighter. We should produce it as fast as we can, with the Zephyr relegated as ground-attack plane. I am also thinking about designing a dedicated one for this turn.
Compared to Morovia, we will probably have an advantage in maneuverability and speed, while they (two-engined fighter) will have one in armor and armament, plus range. Producing the fast fighter prototype should get them off our shoulders.
Compared to Capia, even the Zephyrs should slice through the biplanes. We will need air superiority before we can send in the Wolverines, though.

Any comments?

I had in mind something along the lines of a standard 2-ton truck or half-track that can be configured to carry not only troops but things like modular gas tanks for refilling our fuel for our armor(AKA a mobile gas station). Basically, something that can vastly improve our logistics.

Good idea. Would refitting the Cricket car work, too? That was actually the role I thought it to be used for besides transporting infantry.

[Taricus]

We'd only need to lengthen the cricket in order to make it viable. If anything, that proposal sounds like a good one. I also suggest we call it the Hopper, in relation to the Cricket's name.

[3_14159]

@Taricus, let me answer (and ask) to your proposals here.

Choosing Simple and Precise for the RADAR installations.

Proposal 1: Continue with the AT gun development, no changes are to be made to the specifications laid out during the previous year. This may mean the gun takes longer to get out of the development phase, but the power of the gun will be worth it.

I agree with you there if it's only a design requirement. If the cannon's something like quadruple more difficult to build, not so much.

Proposal 2: Design a self-propelled AA gun using the new 80mm cannon mounted on a badger Mk2 chassis. The turret is to armoured thick enough to provide good protection from small arms fire.

I'd like to ask: Why? The 80mm AA is thought to protect our cities from high-flying bombers and has, as far as I know, only limited use against low-flying aircraft. Mounting them on a Badger chassis would make them mobile, to be used to support our army. High-flying planes - due to inaccuracy - should not do that much damage there, plus we more likely have fighter cover on the front lines.

Proposal 3: Continue with the Advanced tank hull, if only in a minimal capacity. Suggest lighting up the armour by 10mm on all facings, and propose a 45% slant for the armour to offer the most from it.

Here I'm not sure. The idea is to train our engineers and get experience in heavy tanks, right? So, wouldn't actually designing an interim tank work, too? The K-1 will probably need a replacement in about four or so turns, and we'd need a tank to be ready then. The ATH, however, will need a few more to even get into production.

[Nadaka]

Proposal I Nadaka.

Ah.

Mosin Nagants are already no longer produced.

The ring sights were an innovation of the SVA-10 before being refitted on the Mosin Nagants.

The SVA-10 is already on its way to becoming the more common weapon, over 16 thousand are already in the hands of infanty, thats 1 in 3.75 men, and in 2 years it will be almost 1/2.

And 500 smg's were manufactured  as part of another proposal.

It is happening, even if slower than you would like, but I'll add in a SMG factory for this turn as well.



The govornment is building 5 new factories this year

[Taricus]

Fair point on proposal 2, I'll edit that one out. Proposal 3 can work as a vehicle engineer training exercise (And we may even get lucky), and we can take elements from that design for an interim tank too (Such as the armour slant, for example).

As for proposal one, the engineers are suggesting the cut rate in order to reduce their workload (And potentially get the gun out of the design phase quicker). The lower armour penetration will mean that it'll become obsolete sooner.

However, I don't know if that happens to be the round or the cannon itself at this time so...

@Nadaka: Alright, sounds fair to me. Atleast we already have a superior firearm already (I'd improve on the prototype assault rifle before we put it into action, but that it but a recommendation.)

Still, sounds like we got a VERY good dogfighter capable of ripping control of the skies from the Morovian/Capian forces. Add to the fact that twin engine fighters happen to be slightly more vulnerable due to the engines not being part of the armoured "body" of the aircraft should help us as well. Add in the RADAR stations as Ukrainian and I have proposed (FYI Ukrainian, it;'s simple, not cheap. I get the wording though ) and we'll have a formidable AA capability.

We should also start distributing as many radios as we can to our forces, the increased co-ordination will be a great boon to the army.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

Edited subproposal in and I suggest to number own votes for easier accounting

IMO, We got interceptor, not a dogfighter, note that our new aircraft is very heavy weightwise, it is in twin-engined fighters category weightwise, still advantage in speed should be notable

Also, I'd suggest to not stop producing Zephyrs as those are more versatile, most likely cheaper and require no retooling

[3_14159]

I agree with you on one, then. Three, not so much but that's just differences in styles.

Installing the Radar + the new fighter + 80mm AA gun and we will be moderately safe from the enemies bombers. Adding land installations near the front may also help us to guide our fighters in. However, with a hundred km range we'll have only about twenty minutes of forewarning. Still, I'd support simple and precise, too.

@UR: Why do you propose the new tank gun as Infantry Gun? From what I remember, it'd have a bunch of different characteristics therefore requiring basically new engineering. Shortening a howitzer might work. Do you think we don't need a new AT gun, or that it's over-engineered?

As for the Hopper transport, how about this:
Construct a all-terrain half-track with a capacity of two tons of cargo, with an ability to swap that easily (though maybe not in the field) between ammo storage, fuel tanks and so on. Use our 400kW diesel engine with low maintenance, and if possible armour the driver section.
Note: I'm thinking about 25mm similar to the SPG, which'd protect it from our own 14mm MGs. This might make it too heavy, though. Ideas?

Also, I'd suggest to not stop producing Zephyrs as those are more versatile, most likely cheaper and require no retooling

That is true, would mean however concentrating most of the five new factories on the new Interceptor.

[RAM]

RAM feels that, in the interests of becoming combat ready quickly, focus should be placed upon proven technologies, mass production, and mobility. So ideally upgrade existing badgers to the latest variant, continue fielding the SVA-10, produce many more light transport vehicles, and increase numbers in the air.

[tryrar]

Basing my design on the cricket was a good idea, edited it to reflect that

[Ukrainian Ranger]

@UR: Why do you propose the new tank gun as Infantry Gun? From what I remember, it'd have a bunch of different characteristics therefore requiring basically new engineering. Shortening a howitzer might work. Do you think we don't need a new AT gun, or that it's over-engineered?

Pure infantry guns are usually short barreled, light and the like, but here I am aiming at dual purpose here. To rephrase, I want to lower target AP demands and make the gun more suited for direct fire support role using variety of shells
Later we may rearm K-1s with that new gun or make Stug equivalents
I see no need in overpowerful and complex AT gun that will take much resources to design and later produce

E)Build several dedicated factories to make Hammers as well as ramping up K-1 production even more. In fact, spool down Badger production to free up the manpower for this(or retool those factories for this, whichever works better). We have enough Badgers to last us quite a while

Strongly dislike  reducing number of Badgers, If we'll retool badgers, than we should do that by either making new light tank, or using badger chassis for tank destroyer. That's much more effective way to retool the factory, than switching from light chassis to heavier ones
Also I generally disagree that we need even more K-1s ATM

[Taricus]

An interceptor is the same thing as a dogfighter Ukrainian: They're designed to shoot down enemy aircraft. Only diference in the degree at which they can do it.

It's no spitfire, but I'd say it comes close enough for our needs. Those Morovian dogs will come to fear the Stormfront!

@ Tryrar: If you want to make an interim AT gun design from the engineer's proposal on the heavy AT gun, do so. Modifying the AA gun won't give us the performance we need in that however. Also change yards to meters, more professional that way. (And fitting in line wth the fact we use the metric system for it). The round designed for the AT gun is about 80mm longer than the AA round. Considering the effort we'd have to make to modify that, we may as well make a new gun altogether.

We CAN however, put the 80mm into a impromptu AT gun due to it's size and penetrative capabilities.

@UR: The cannon itself is intented to be mounted on a tank. A separate gun designed to be used as a set AT piece with the same roundcould easily be adapted from the main cannon though.

[RAM]

An interceptor is the same thing as a dogfighter Ukrainian: They're designed to shoot down enemy aircraft. Only diference in the degree at which they can do it.

Suspicions arise that the function of an interceptor is to intercept aircraft, which would require speed so as to respond to them more swiftly. Dogfighting would primarily require rapid turning to gain sight of a target that is turning away. It seems to RAM that there is great complexity to engaging aircraft, but that a craft designed for speed would rely on attaining a superior position, destroying its target quickly, and then escaping, while a primarily manoeuvrable craft would generally prove victorious in a prolonged engagement. So interceptors are better against bombers and easy fights, dogfighters are better in large fighter battles or when out-numbered.