Print

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

[Taricus]

Well, we can fire the torpedo from ships too Ebbor

[Brood]

Taricus you did 7 production votes, we only get 6.

[Taricus]

And edited.

[10ebbor10]

Well, we can fire the torpedo from ships too Ebbor

Firing an electrical torpedo from a ship is kinda pointless. After all, it's primary benefit is stealth, and if the enemy crew fails to notice a ship coming into torpedo range, well,...

edit: Anyway, sub got voted, so no complaining from me anymore.

[RAM]

I may as well bump at this point...

[Nadaka]

I'll try to finish an update tomorrow, but it might be friday.

[3_14159]

As a note, my next design (and a design for next turn) would be a purpose-built interceptor. Assuming, of course, that the air war will continue as-is, a purpose built Jackhammer-armed interceptor would be pretty nice. Something like that:
Design an interceptor, armed with either Jackhammer or the Shark's 40mm gun. Prioritize speed and climbing rate at the expense of manoeuverability.
A one-trick-interceptor: Once enemy bombers are detected, start, climb towards their height and use the high-calibre cannon to kill them. Manoeuvrability is pretty much useless for it shouldn't take part in dog fights.

[Funk]

If it does not have to be maneuverable then lets go twin engined for speed and payload, still lets not build a flying brick here.
mount twin or quad Jackhammer's , to keep it simple to use.

Spoiler:  my interceptor codename: Thunder Zwei MK1 (click to show/hide)

an all metal monoplane heavy interceptor/escort.
twin booms with a single, central nacelle containing the cockpit and guns.

2 V12 Aviation Engines, in armored pods mounted to twin tail pipes leading to the single tail.
2 Jackhammer, center nose mounted, twin linked. by center mounting we don't have a convergence zone limiting it's range.
2 Patriotism Mk3 twin linked in a rear turret mount.
1 Portable Radio for guidance.   
For armor use harden steel around both engines,the cockpit and the rear turret.
make it so thick it stops a normal Morovian MG round but no thicker.

[3_14159]

Hm... I do quite like it, except for the addition of the rear gunner - at least if it's supposed to be only a bomber-interceptor. Additionally, we might have a new fighter engine next turn.

[Funk]

The gunner it give it some way of keeping fighters off it, if we ditch that then it has to be faster, more agile or better armored to keep fighters from shooting it down.

if we get a new engine then we should use it but i plan on using the old engine for now, because the new engines are an unknown.
That and i was basing the plane off the P-38 Lightning which about the same engine power.
Still with better engines it should be able to carry a few bombs, rockets, drop tanks or what ever.

[3_14159]

I knew I should have written more... basically, as I see it currently, we have a threat of unescorted four-engined bombers bombing our main land. We pretty much know that - barring a technological leap - they won't be able to send fighters with them. My plan was therefore to use an interceptor pretty much unable to kill fighters as it - while defending the main land - wouldn't need to fight them.

I agree with you on the engine.

[RAM]

I like the sound of the interceptor. I am not entirely opposed to the idea of a rear gunner, as this thing is likely to get into fights regardless of our best intentions and a rear gunner would make hit-and-run attacks, particularly the run part, much more practical, and it would help the thing to focus on accurately taking down escorted bombers. But it certainly would be a trade-off for speed. A cockpit and, what, a single GVS-14? Maybe two to prevent jamming and increase rate-of-fire? Possibly just patriotisms? It would be far from weightless, and would have to reduce speed. It is all a trade-off, the rear gunner risks the thing losing its effectiveness and being useless, the lack of a rear gunner risks the thing being too focused and becoming useless due to changes in the enemy. Would probably make a good scout plane though.

I want to work on a carrier airship and speciality interceptor. Probably convert the R.A.D.A.R. airship and probably use a very light fighter. I would like to experiment with a rail for landing, perhaps designed to slant slightly upwards with one-way gears to provide resistance and keep the craft from falling backwards. Hopefully the craft could be hoisted up and mounted from the airship's fuselage. The trick would be making the fighter effective without being too heavy, as the heavier the aircraft is the heavier the rail needs to be and the heavier the moorings need to be and the more fuel and ammunition you need to carry and it puts a terrible strain on the poor airship... I might also try to design a specialist bomber, probably aimed at the naval theatre. Any advice?

Oh, I am also interested in a land-based rocket, probably 80mm, with about 4 km range and probably mounted in a Cricket module. Something that can drive up to the front, launch a few missiles, then drive back for more ammunition. Any advice?

[10ebbor10]

On the carrier airship, why would you go for a rail? It's a very heavy thing, and takes up a lot of place. Also, it's like to sustain quite a lot of damaged due to failed docking attempts. A better thing might be to add extra engines to the airship, so that it's maximum speed is just slightly lower than the plane's minimum airspeed. Since the bomber is going to be pretty light anyway, it's minimum airspeed won't be that large. The advantage of this is that it's safer, and a bit easier. Only downside is that the airship needs to be flying at full speed for a ship to dock.

Another advantage is that you can put the docking rig at the bottom, which helps in preventing the thing from being topheavy.

Oh, I am also interested in a land-based rocket, probably 80mm, with about 4 km range and probably mounted in a Cricket module. Something that can drive up to the front, launch a few missiles, then drive back for more ammunition. Any advice?

I wouldn't do it. It's fairly shortranged, easily damaged and likely won't be able to launch enough rockets in a given measure of time. (Because rockets will most likely be terrifically inaccurate, seeing the fact that we have no guidance systems yet).

Besides, it's mostly superceeded by the MRL system I've been trying to design for a while. Truckmounted, more rockets in the same time. Because armor doesn't really matter for these light vehicles.

[Parsely]

On the carrier airship, why would you go for a rail? It's a very heavy thing, and takes up a lot of place. Also, it's like to sustain quite a lot of damaged due to failed docking attempts.

A hook perhaps?

[RAM]

On the carrier airship, why would you go for a rail?

To allow for greater speed differences. Limiting the aircraft speed just seems to have too many issues with inhibiting the aircraft.

It's a very heavy thing, and takes up a lot of place.

It needs to support its own weight and that of an aircraft and the aircraft's momentum and have some reserves for weather and weaknesses and miscalculations and such. If the airship can carry 20 tonnes, and we devote 2 tonnes to each aircraft, then we should be able to field a pretty hefty rail and still have a functional complement of craft and supplies. Hrmm, the Lightning is almost 4 tonnes, that could be difficult... But still, I would rather carry 2 good planes than 5 bad ones...

Also, it's like to sustain quite a lot of damaged due to failed docking attempts.

I was thinking about some sort of guide line, maybe a weak cloth or something, to give pilots a better idea of their success prior to commitment, but you are right, thanks for that. I hope that it could be reinforced near the base where most of the damage would occur without too much extra weight.

A better thing might be to add extra engines to the airship, so that it's maximum speed is just slightly lower than the plane's minimum airspeed. Since the bomber is going to be pretty light anyway, it's minimum airspeed won't be that large. The advantage of this is that it's safer, and a bit easier. Only downside is that the airship needs to be flying at full speed for a ship to dock.

Hrmmm, giving the airship bursts of speed would be helpful, but lowering the speed of the aircraft would hurt and getting an airship up to high speed would have aerodynamic issues, but this help any docking mechanism, the rail could be shorter.

Another advantage is that you can put the docking rig at the bottom, which helps in preventing the thing from being topheavy.

The rail would be underneath, there would be a hook on top of the plane that would hang from the rail, probably with a little sled on the plane's hook. Both hook and rail would be basically hook-shaped so hopefully aircraft could just be lifted using a crane once the aeroplane had come to a stop.

Oh, I am also interested in a land-based rocket, probably 80mm, with about 4 km range and probably mounted in a Cricket module. Something that can drive up to the front, launch a few missiles, then drive back for more ammunition. Any advice?

I wouldn't do it. It's fairly shortranged, easily damaged and likely won't be able to launch enough rockets in a given measure of time. (Because rockets will most likely be terrifically inaccurate, seeing the fact that we have no guidance systems yet).

Yes, it would rely upon quantity rather than quality. You would get maybe a dozen of these working together and hopefully they would be mobile enough to avoid most dangerous conditions. They would be designed for indirect attacks and we already have options for long-range artillery. Four kilometres is not a long distance on a flat plane, but provide some intervening terrain and they should work just fine.

Besides, it's mostly superceeded by the MRL system I've been trying to design for a while. Truckmounted, more rockets in the same time. Because armor doesn't really matter for these light vehicles.

Yes, I have had my toes stepped on enough in this game and I didn't want to step on your toes, which has left me rather apprehensive about this project. I would like to see the Cricket get more modules, although working it as a cricket module would likely increase the cost to field each unit significantly.

Thankyou for your thoughts, I will probably hold off on the rockets while you do your thing, although I might build the rockets themselves, it will probably be possible to convert the launching racks with a simple filler piece or something. What diameter are you aiming for?