Print

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

[3_14159]

@Ram: If I may ask, what's the important difference between proposal 10 and 11?

@UR: Well, I quite dislike both the Assault Rifle and Tank gun calibre too (if only for being too specific), but I guess that simulates nicely the revolutionary design bureau's non-existing AR knowledge ;-)

Also, two clarifications, because I'm not sure everyone knows that (if I'm wrong, correct me):
A) The helicopter, as UR has said during the proposal, will be "small, light unarmed." Think Fl282, not Apache.

B) The bazooka proposal will probably not be able to use "multiple hits to penetrate heavy armor.". If a hit doesn't penetrate, it usually only damages armour, and only a hit at nearly the same place will do further damage.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

I think for RAM his project is "cooler" .  That's a main reason. Other than that, those are quite close

Cost
10 is obviously cheaper than 11, less engines, smaller

Anti aircraft role
11 is obviously better than 10 due to having rear turret, being more nimble and having two frontal machineguns. 11 can very well hunt for enemy bombers and defend itself. But we have fighters for that and if Capia, by some miracle, haven't produced new fighters equal to our newest one, I do expect clear skies  until Morovia reacts and rebase their aircrafts to Capia
Full metal fighter close to early spitfire in specs will sweep the skies clear from wooden biplanes. Zephyrs will participate in the hunt, too

Resilence to ground fire
Roughly equal

Bombs
Hard to tell, I suspect 2 engined could carry more, but 11 has turret, 10 doesn't

Speed
10 should be faster due to being monoplane and having no need to hurt aerodynamics by the turret

I disagree with RAM that it was a last chance for his aircraft, my CAS is for the clear skies situation, that may change if enemy will catch up fighter-wise. Or we may go 4 engined variant with 80mm guns! (new transport plane can be modified for that, I think)


Damn, we need one more vote for the airship to pass, really regret that 2.1 from me....

BTW I am really surprised that helicopter went through... That's  kind of a long term investment

[RAM]

@Ram: If I may ask, what's the important difference between proposal 10 and 11?
B) The bazooka proposal will probably not be able to use "multiple hits to penetrate heavy armor.". If a hit doesn't penetrate, it usually only damages armour, and only a hit at nearly the same place will do further damage.

B) Yes, I noticed that, but I felt it would still be relevant if they could get around the back or something, but potentially, if they used some sort of caustic round, or maybe something like thermite...

10 Shark dive bomber (UR vote#3)
Aircaraft designed to operate in clear skies, quite slow, one engined dive bomber armed with one built in 40mm gun (20 shells), one 14mm machinegun  and bomb mountings (yep, no machinegun). Designed to obliterate light fortifications, enemy armor and ships with dive attacks
Should use those 20 additional engineers to design it (+ our own of cause) and 200 workers to produce initial run

_I11: Design a twin-engined biplane using the new 1200kw engine and wings angled back to increase their wind-speed tolerance.
 House a covered cockpit with 2 seats, one forward-facing and one rear-facing with a focus on ground visibility while diving or turning.
 Attempt to include a fuel capacity sufficient for 2 hours of flight.
 Attempt to include mosin-nagant-resistant armour shielding the fuel, pilots, and engines from ground-fire while diving.
 Arm it with two, wide-spaced GVS-14 machine guns in front of the pilot, a single GVS-14 in a rear-gunner position, and a single jettisonable HVG-40 centrally-mounted under the armour.
 Name it the Patriotic Zest 1a.

Well, the same primary armament, mine probably has more ammunition, but it is hard to tell how it will be worked out. 11's gun is meant to be jettisonable, which would free up its options somewhat, but also introduce a new point for mechanical flaws. Finally, the under-side position of the gun will likely pull the plane down when it fires, this would probably help it a little with ground runs, as the pilot would be free to have the plane pulling up a little while still firing, but tend to make it difficult to control while firing...
 3 GVS-14s to one: 11 has a wider strafing area, but more weight. 10 is much lighter but has no rear-gunner.
 11 is more detailed: less freedom for the engineers, more of an idea what it will be. Likely to take longer to finish.
 2 crew to one: more expensive to lose 11, but the gunner probably isn't going to get that much training... 11 has a bit more awareness but less visibility due to being a biplane. The rear-gunner would hopefully be useful in reporting the results of an attack and suppressing counter-fire, though the latter is quite a stretch.
 Biplane to monoplane: 11 is likely more agile, and therefore better able to aim when diving and pull up afterwards, but 10 can probably dive faster and travel faster.
 11 has two engines for twice the price but also a significant weight increase.
I could be wrong, but I get the impression that 2 hours is a long time for a fighter aircraft of that era to stay aloft, I would have said "at least 2 hours" if I had had my wits about me... But flight time is important if you are basically looking for targets as you go. With only 20 shells 10 can probably stay aloft a long time too...
11 has more armour, which makes it heavier, but less likely to go down to a stray bullet. 11 can probably also still fly, or at least land with some dignity, with a wing compromised and an engine gone...
Shark is... Well, a largely nondescript and often used predator. Patriotic Zest 1a leaves more room for similar names but bears a strong resemblance to our naval names, but then there is the patriotism MG so...
Parts:
 1/2* engines
 1/1 40mm
 1/3 14mm
 2/4* wings
 0/oh, lets say 12mm armour, maybe 8 square metres. Umm, 96000 cubic centimetres or .096 cubic metres? Call it an even tenth?
 1/1.5-ish body-volume?
*additional bracing is likely

Spoiler: 11 comes with a poorly drawn picture with a clearly poorly-balanced fuel tank that should never make the final model and no sense of aerodynamics, or anything else much for that matter... (click to show/hide)

So 11 is probably about 2-2.5 times the cost of 10, but has a higher coolness quotient and various varied advantages...

[Taricus]

First off, we need to start phasing out EVERY biplane from service. This means no more new designs for them. With the advent of the Stormfront we have a single-wing design that can easily.

@RAM: I think something that most people relize that while the 5.56mm is a standard cartridge due to it's AP capabilities, it has a disadvantage of not causing as much wounding as a larger bullet. The current round that we have is an excellent one until the advent of kevlar and other fabric armour. I'd expect the Morovian 6mm shares the same disadvantages.

The RADAR towers we expect to be targeted. The simple aspect would help immensely in replacing said towers though. Not that they'd worry about them when our factories are the primary targets.

Also, stop raging about the digits. That's just going to make a blood vessel burst.

@UR: The 78mm was designed as a tank gun from the beginning. The penetration of the round itself I can give some ground over though (Kinda did base it off the tungsten one >.>;), But even then, it's still designed to be a tank-killing weapon, and it's designed to keep it's usefulness though several enemy armour upgrades.

[Brood]

Actually it has nothing to do with the AK at all because I hate that gun I picked it because it was the round that was used first, they down sized later on after field testing and in the absence of such testing I went for something bigger.

But it's not totally real anyway since it's 7.62-31mm and the real one was 7.62-51mm.


The idea of the RPG is that you either aim for the treads first to pin it in place or out right penetrate on lighter tanks, a heavy tank is going to resist an RPG anyway so you have to pin it in place to enable you to get a good shot at it's weak spots so disabling it first helps.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

I think something that most people relize that while the 5.56mm is a standard cartridge due to it's AP capabilities, it has a disadvantage of not causing as much wounding as a larger bullet.

Nope. 5.56 round does much more nasty wounds to human flesh while s larger bullet leaves a nice, clean hole


As for AT gun, I am in " No need to develop a gun that can penetrate 4 times thicker armor than current tanks have" camp
That bigger is better mentality never works right

I am 99.99% sure that this gun will fail to influence the war

[Brood]

Uhm but isn't this one smaller then most of the others not bigger?

[Ukrainian Ranger]

Uhm but isn't this one smaller then most of the others not bigger?

Huh? What do you mean?

[kahn1234]

I find it funny that people here think smaller rounds have better AP capabilities......

NATO went with 5.56 round because it caused more logistics damage.

Why?

Because instead of killing outright or causing death-inducing bleeding like larger rounds (such as the 6.5mm grendel and 7.56 etc) the smaller rounds caused wounds more often than instant/near instant death.

Also, larger rounds have better AP, and kill outright.

If we want to kill our enemies quickly, go for a larger round. If we want to damage their logistics by forcing them to have extensive medical support, we use a smaller round.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

M-16 and others rifles that use 5.56 rounds are more deadly than AK-47 and WW2 rifles, but 5.56 lacks armor penetration

5.56 is tumbling inside the human body and does very, very nasty wounds.

Look here for example http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070515172619AAnJKHg

BTW missed that:

But it's not totally real anyway since it's 7.62-31mm and the real one was 7.62-51mm.

What?  AK-47 uses  7.62x39mm, and we got 7.62x39mm in the game
7.62X51 is NATO rifle round

[kahn1234]

M-16 and others rifles that use 5.56 rounds are more deadly than AK-47 and WW2 rifles, but 5.56 lacks armor penetration

5.56 is tumbling inside the human body and does very, very nasty wounds.

Look here for example http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070515172619AAnJKHg

BTW missed that:

But it's not totally real anyway since it's 7.62-31mm and the real one was 7.62-51mm.

What?  AK-47 uses  7.62x39mm, and we got 7.62x39mm in the game
7.62X51 is NATO rifle round

And the shockwave large bullets put through the body causes just as much damage.

If you get hit by a 7.62mm bullet, you are going down.

If you get hit by a 5.56 round, you may go down but you will most likely be wounded.

The effectiveness of 5.56 and 7.62 bullets also depends on the type of bullet used.

[RAM]

A larger projectile is more likely to cause bruising, knock someone over, cause massive bleeding, or remove a limb, none of which are really relevant. If a 4mm round penetrates a major muscle then it will pretty reliably stop the subject from fighting, at least temporarily.

Biplanes are great for low-velocity flight, and low-velocity flight happens to be great for strafing ground targets. It is also handy for buying more time to line up a good shot against another aeroplane with your massive gun that could probably disable an extremely light plane with a near miss...
The only thing that really worries me is the maximum altitude, that gun would be brilliant against heavy bombers, but would actually need to get close enough to hit them...

[Taricus]

The problem with the 5.56mm isn't the wounds it can cause, but rather that it can be inconsistant with such wounds.

[Brood]

So what do people think for next turn at the moment?
I'm curious what people think now so I can see how it changes later.

[tryrar]

Well, I'm glad my cargo truck went through. Logistics is VERY important when conducting fast maneuver warfare, and the modular refueling tank that goes along with it will help keep us going farther than we would otherwise

Edit: As to brood's questiom, I'd say we invent advanced primer ignition blowback autocannons like the feared 30mm mk 108(also known as the "Jackhammer"), though I'd say we prioritize ballistic performance over rate of fire