Print

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

[10ebbor10]

What difference does it make. Except from scaring away possible voters. (Because well, the amount of people liking both things is always going to be smaller/equal than the amount of people liking at least one of the suggestions)

[RAM]

Well some folk might want it to be apparent that the items come as a set...

[tryrar]

Hey, would you guys be adverse to start experiments with early jet aircraft? This actually wouldn't be a-historical, as it WAS around the early 30s that jet engine experiments were started/engines were designed, though it took until the 40s for practical jet aircraft(well, for certain definitions of practical) to emerge

[Ukrainian Ranger]

Jet aircraft right now is a wunderwaffe route. We need to improve simplier weapons and produce more and more, not waster R&D on something that will give no direct impact

[tryrar]

Well, then getting a practical aircraft carrier would help, since we can extend the range of our bombers and scouts to obliterate the sub tender fleets Morovia has(and force them to move even further out to hide form our air support)

Though, if we immediately field a jet aircraft interceptor(no dickering on making it a bomber like Hitler did), it might actually be practical, thuogh I do agree on getting more of our current designs out

[10ebbor10]

Provided the aircraft carrier isn't sunk by submarines, that is.

You don't need jetengines for an aircraft carrier btw.

A real advantage would be getting a naval radar system online. Which is mostly the only reason I might still vote for the RADAR airship. The advantage of that is that we can detect enemy ships and surfaced submarines, and sent our airforce after them before they strike. This will force their submarines to stay submerged for prolonged amounts of time, something they can't really do with current design.

[stabbymcstabstab]

Carriers should be something we build once one destroy the wolf packs sinking everything they see. A carrier would just be target Practice.

[tryrar]

I would point out that the 50% complete cruiser class DOES have an integrated radar suite, and I'm planning to at least update the Alexi with radar(if not create a better frigate/escort destroyer class).

Actually, do you think it's time to say goodbye to the Alexi and create a better ligfht combatant, or would updating it to include our better toys suffice?

[Brood]

I'd say scrap it, but after the 120mm is ready so we have a new short/mid range cannon for it.

[10ebbor10]

I would point out that the 50% complete cruiser class DOES have an integrated radar suite, and I'm planning to at least update the Alexi with radar(if not create a better frigate/escort destroyer class).

Airborne radar has a better vantage point for detecting surface targets and others.

[tryrar]

I'd say scrap it, but after the 120mm is ready so we have a new short/mid range cannon for it.

Point. Well, I guess it doesn't hurt to design in THIS thread an escort destroyer based on the 120mm, just to get your opinion


Peregrine class Escort Destroyer. An improved light combatant designed to replace both the Alexis AND the popular devotion ASW ships. This 1750-ton design uses two twin-120mm cannon turrets as it's primary anti-ship armament(complemented by 4 torpedo tubes), 8 twin HVG-40 mounts and 6 GVS-25 Jackhammers for AA, radar and sonar, and two hedgehog mounts as well as two depth-charge racks(with multiple reloads for each, and including new proximity fuses on both depth-charges and hedgehog mortars) as wells as the latest in torpedo defenses. This design should try to accomplish 50 kph(about 27 knots)

[Brood]

Hmmm looks good I think for a light ship.

[kahn1234]

Maybe, it's also a sitting duck though and a lighter one would be better suited to it otherwise it slows down the entire attack force because they have to let it keep up.

a sitting duck? the K-1 is almost as fast as the Badger. AND, if the 400kw had been put in like i requested in the first place, it might have been just as fast, if not faster, than the Badger.

If we put in one of the 900kw engines alongside the new gun, it would be a fast powerful medium tank.

Which brings me onto my next point: the K-1 is not a heavy tank. It is barely a medium tank by WW2 standards (which, by the way, is what we are coming up to). Also, with the 900kw engine, we'd be able to add on extra armour, extending its operational life whilst keeping it as a good support vehicle for the T-2 Ratel.

[RAM]

I am not really certain that you are extending the design's life by adding armour, as chassis modification is about the point at which you are building a new design, but I guess you could drape more armour over it, add sand-bags or something...


That destroyer sounds a bit ambitious to me. It has about 60% of the guns and armour that the Glorious cruiser has, more support systems and auxiliary weapons, and much more speed, with less than half the weight. New engines would help, but it still sounds like a lot. There are highly variable qualities in a ship, such as armour and speed and tonnage, I would recommend leaving at least one of these undesignated to leave room for the design to be possible... For my own preferences, that seems like a lot of main guns for a support ship, it comes off as a generalist even for something that is designed to replace an air defence and submarine defence ship.

[kahn1234]

I propose we don't do that. Underground/ bunker complexes are very, very expensive.

And well, they can develop shockwave explosives.

But they would help, even if we only did this to key complexes.

And large bombs need large, slow bombers, which we can intercept.

and the largest conventional bomb ever produced, the Allies 'Earthquake' 22 ton bomb wasnt really that effective against the German reinforced concrete submarine pens and industrial complexes it was used on. it inflicted damage, but nothing that couldnt be easily repaired.