Print

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

[Ukrainian Ranger]

I kinda dislike the idea to edit old proposals out, because that may lead to some dubious retroactive voting schemes by reusing voting points used for unpopular staff (like my helicopter, I doubt that it will get any votes . Btw, little advertisement:) those helicoper much better for recon than balloons and may lead for funnier stuff in future)

As for the transport plane design itself... It's good. I like it. Especially now when we got no carrier airships.  Later we may upgrade it to a bomber. But with only one vote left I need to be picky, so will not rush just yet and wait for BMA actions

[3_14159]

The supply plane sounds nice. I'll probably vote for it, too. However, to airdrop supplies we probably need a better parachute, as our current one can only deploy up to 250kg. Also, try making it able to land almost everywhere (terrain), if possible.

I support UR, though, with the no-vote-changing in the future. It's a bit irritating. I'd instead propose posting the design in this thread, first, to allow it being double-checked.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

I am considering to do this subproposal

2.1:
Same as 2, but try to make it as cheap and easy to produce as possible by using wood for non crucial parts, using easily to produce parts even if those hurt aerodynamics a bit and dumbing down the engines to reduce max RPM (those aren't fighters and need no great acceleration, and we can save production\maintenace costs and fuel usage) 

Also, note that our newest engine while very powerful is very heavy and, likely, fuel hungry

O) Set up hydra turret emplacements around our critical factory/shipyard complexes for that much more AA protection

I am afraid it's totally useless against strategic bombers. They fly several times higher machine-guns can reach

[tryrar]

..well, I can't think of anything ELSE to do with them, since we're producing as many Hydra SPAAGs as we can(and are still getting extra turrets), and refitting them onto any vehicle would likely require engineering

[kahn1234]

Hmm, UR, Shark sounds good, though I'd like to keep our air/storm theme going for planes(DR-1 Backdraft would be my name pick). Also, I AM a bit worried even a single v12 won't really have enough power to bring aloft a HVG-40. Though, even with those concerns you have my vote

Also, keeping the theme, I'd like to name the new 80mm the HVG-80

tryrar, the engine we have is more powerful than a single engine used on bombers like the Lancaster and B-17 (1200kw compared to 800-1000kw for WW2 bomber engines).

I really actually think our interceptor goes a bit slow and should be able to carry more weight with an engine like the one it has.....

[kahn1234]

@Kahn:
What, exactly, is the advantage of the 94mm AA gun? The heavy AA role to defend our cities is, as far as I see this, already filled by the 80mm AA gun we've got. Why design a new one and split production?

At the Howitzer; why not use an 80mm calibre?

And, lastly, I fear that proposal M isn't really possible.

Proposal M is more like a long term goal. We NEED more production.

The Howitzer is too different to the 80mm, i just made it a new weapon.

and as for the 94mm, it was just a repost of a previous idea. I'm not really expecting it to go through.

[Taricus]

@Tryrar: Could cancel some of the less important proposals.

@Kahn: Why not use that vote for something more productive then?

[kahn1234]

Kahn, should I ask why you're repeating the same proposals as last turn? Most, if not all of those things were done by other actions...

please, show me where we have a 120mm howitzer, i must have missed it.

or, for that matter, a 60mm recoilless rifle fit for infantry and airborne use.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

I think 600 km\h is very generous from our GM, never expected fighter that fast that early , that's our first full metal fighter thus unlikely to have good aerodynamics and stuff. Also engine is not only powerful, but also heavy  (Edit: Checked that. Was wrong, it's quite standard weight for fighter engine)

On other hand speed is compensated by lower number of installable weapons so probably not that unrealistic

[Taricus]

We already have a man-portable AT weapon that's entered production and ready to be used by our troops. I admit that the only thing we truely need is the 120mm. But that's one out of four there so...

[kahn1234]

We already have a man-portable AT weapon that's entered production and ready to be used by our troops. I admit that the only thing we truely need is the 120mm. But that's one out of four there so...

a hand held AT weapon that is heavy, and needs to be used against the engine of a vehicle to do any decent damage as someone designed the rocket to be too pathetic.

[Taricus]

Well, why not improve on it then?

[kahn1234]

I think 600 km\h is very generous from our GM, never expected fighter that fast that early , that's our first full metal fighter thus unlikely to have good aerodynamics and stuff. Also engine is not only powerful, but also heavy

On other hand speed is compensated by lower number of installable weapons so probably not that unrealistic

The engine is just over 150KG heavier than the Rolls-Royce Merlin, whilst having over 500kw more power. I dont care if you think its generous, the fighter is too slow and carries too little for the engine it has.

Well, why not improve on it then?

That would require too much fiddling and the person who put it forward would probably cry about it.

[3_14159]

Well, why not improve on it then?

That would require too much fiddling and the person who put it forward would probably cry about it.

May I ask you to keep things like 'cry about it' to yourself? Also, the original proposal was: " 14, Design an infantry portable anti armor weapon, light weight with a reasonably high yield explosive tipped rocket.". There was no other suggestion or anything. I'm pretty sure the original proposer would accept a rework to make it more effective.

[kahn1234]

Well, why not improve on it then?

That would require too much fiddling and the person who put it forward would probably cry about it.

May I ask you to keep things like 'cry about it' to yourself?

No. You know why? because i've had it with one (or more) people causing an argument over even the most trivial of reworks.

Its easier and less contentious to just put forward my idea. If it doesn't pass, so be it. But dont blame me when our current AT weapon bounces off the enemy armour.

Also, the original proposal was: " 14, Design an infantry portable anti armor weapon, light weight with a reasonably high yield explosive tipped rocket.". There was no other suggestion or anything. I'm pretty sure the original proposer would accept a rework to make it more effective.

I would have reworked it, but i am put off by the inevitable arguments that follow. I dont care enough to get into another argument. If it doesn't pass, bugger it.