Print

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

[tryrar]

Oh, Nadaka question: Would it be significant engineering to modify the HVG-80 for tank warfare, or is it as simple as changing the mountings? If the latter, I'm gonna propose that with a simple production upgrade, but if not, I think I'll make it part of the K-1 modernization...

[10ebbor10]

We got a " fairly bad" missile already.

And well, combining missiles doesn't really work. We're going for an artillery missile here, and well, the only other place with demand for missiles is the air. Airmissiles are substantially different than normal ones.

[3_14159]

We got a " fairly bad" missile already.

And well, combining missiles doesn't really work. We're going for an artillery missile here, and well, the only other place with demand for missiles is the air. Airmissiles are substantially different than normal ones.

Oh, I misspoke. Actually I meant using the same missile for the same role, but mounting it on different platforms. For example, using a truck as a standard, but also designing a stand-alone mount for when it isn't available. Maybe bolting steel thingies on the side of battle busses to transport them directly. Things like that.
For the air, another, lighter missile is needed. With different characteristics. I'm probably going to propose one such next turn.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

didn't i propose this several turns ago only to be shouted down by you and Ukrainian Ranger?

And it was very a right decision to shoot it down

It was too early back then, when we only got the very first K-1s entered into production. Now it's time

We had more pressing matters, like those damned Morovian subs and necessity to upgrade our own air-force, I have no doubts that our airforce will play way larger role in the war than few dozens of better tanks would play

[tryrar]

didn't i propose this several turns ago only to be shouted down by you and Ukrainian Ranger?

And it was very a right decision to shoot it down

It was too early back then, when we only got the very first K-1s entered into production. Now it's time

We had more pressing matters, like those damned Morovian subs and necessity to upgrade our own air-force, I have no doubts that our airforce will play way larger role in the war than few dozens of better tanks would play

...What turn DID he make the suggestion again? I forget

[Funk]

My idea for the 320mm gun is to use a Battle Bus chassis as a trolley and have it pulled by some thing, a dozen or so trucks should be able to pull it like dog team.

if we go for a bigger tank then it need to be a mammoth tank, something truly massive that has it own AA and anti infantry. 

[Ukrainian Ranger]

...What turn DID he make the suggestion again? I forget

I think she proposed that  several times during our ASW war and first proposal was right after K-1 prototype (BTW, I think one 400kw diesel is enough, Gun does need to be upgraded at some point)

if we go for a bigger tank then it need to be a mammoth tank, something truly massive that has it own AA and anti infantry. 

Yay! Landkreuzer
No thanks

[tryrar]

....You do realize I was KIDDING about making our 320mm gun mobile right? there's no way to practically move a 70-ton artillery piece other than by rail(and even then, for certain definitions of "practical")...or as a ship's main gun, of course. It WOULD be better to simply design a 210 or 240mm super-heavy mortar for anti-fortification work

[Nadaka]

Oh, Nadaka question: Would it be significant engineering to modify the HVG-80 for tank warfare, or is it as simple as changing the mountings? If the latter, I'm gonna propose that with a simple production upgrade, but if not, I think I'll make it part of the K-1 modernization...

it would not take much engineering. its heavier and balanced incorrectly, compared to a 80mm purpose built high velicity anti tank gun, but it can serve in that role adequetly once its mated to a proper turret. the 78.3mm is going to be classified as very high velocity. it will offer better accuracy and penetration, but both weigh and cost more than the AA gun.

[tryrar]

Hmm, so next question: Would it require a design proposal to do that, or can I simply make it a production proposal?(I.E. "Stop mounting existing 80mms into K-1s, and start mounting HVG-80s after a slight modification to the turret")? If it needs a design proposal, I'd simply go for a mod of the gun to balance it for tank warfare

[3_14159]

My idea for the 320mm gun is to use a Battle Bus chassis as a trolley and have it pulled by some thing, a dozen or so trucks should be able to pull it like dog team.

if we go for a bigger tank then it need to be a mammoth tank, something truly massive that has it own AA and anti infantry.

Both of those have a same, common, weak point: Weight. In both cases, that makes using them difficult at least.

When using the trolley and several trucks, that will pretty much require specially reinforced roads, with bridges pretty much unable to be used. That makes deployment and transport slow, with single-digit kph figures likely, probably even high.

For the tank, the same applies. When using a heavy tanks, they get less and less terrain-traversable. Additionally, using them almost always requires absolute air superiority, because you can be damn sure that the enemy will gladly trade bombers against it, and even a single bomb hitting will disable that. Look, as an example for the problems associated with it, at the Maus or Ratte tank prototypes from the second world war.

[Taricus]

I did also submit a few changes to the tank design with the proposal this turn such as lightening up the armour and such. That may make it more vulnerable, but it'll work as a cost cheapening thing even if the effect is minor.

The angle is a perfect 1/8th thing though, allowing  both protection and room, something which the 70 degree angles on the Battlebus isn't able to provide...

[Nadaka]

Hmm, so next question: Would it require a design proposal to do that, or can I simply make it a production proposal?(I.E. "Stop mounting existing 80mms into K-1s, and start mounting HVG-80s after a slight modification to the turret")? If it needs a design proposal, I'd simply go for a mod of the gun to balance it for tank warfare

its a small engineering task.

note the angles i have mentioned are the angle from horizontal in case anyone was confused. 42 degrees is more angled than 75, and 90 would be vertical. i may have mixed that up once before, but its correct for everything in use right now.

[Taricus]

...Well, thanks to the wording of my last post, I can still say that the battlebus' armour is weaker than intended, though it gets the K-1 out of it.

[tryrar]

Ah, so even minor, it WOULD require an engineer an hour's work to do, which requires a design proposal. I'd rather go whole hog then and make an HVG-80T tank gun mated to a new turret, with the diesel upgrades and armor imrpovements