Print

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

[10ebbor10]

You did force one of the major slots to naval/ground use only, IIRC.

On a side note, most RPG use hollow charges, or even double hollow charges to greatly enhance penetrating power. This should probably not be needed for this decade's generation of tanks however.

[Patrick Hunt]

Thats why I just want a basic one for now, it doesn't need to pack much of a punch which makes it simple and easy to mass produce it to solve the immediate problem of enemy armor.

[Taricus]

Not that we have a grenade to propel anyway

And could we get a temporary lift on that restriction Ebbor?

[3_14159]

I doubt the 30mm would do much against the Moldavian light tank, apart from bouncing off the frontal armour. And I think that's the case Pi. Mind proposing one if we don't?

Well, the problem I have with designing the - new - 60mm gun in addition to the tank will take some resources away from that project. Other than that, well... we do not know how many tanks they've fielded or how good they were, but 57 of theirs got knocked out during the Crow's Island campaign.
Judging from similar cannons, I would estimate the 30mm's penetration to about 3cm at 500 or 2cm at 1000m, enough to be able to penetrate the proposed design frontally. Probably.

Also, exactly why we produce two gun fighters?

Because we can produce 25 reduced armament fighters for every 19 original ones, an increase of 30%. I believe that to be more important.

[Patrick Hunt]

Meh we need a means of countering enemy armor on a large scale this year, not 5 years from now when we manage to build enough tanks.

[Taricus]

One word then: Ospreys.

Also, The only real differences between two and 2.1 is that 2.1 is slower, has more vulnerable secondary gun mounts and about 350 tons more armour in exchange. 2.1 in my opinion is a far less useful ship due to it's lower cruise speed.

[10ebbor10]

Not that we have a grenade to propel anyway

And could we get a temporary lift on that restriction Ebbor?

I did not order it. If you can get enough people to vote for another organization proposal, then it will be done. Really organization proposals can be used for a lot of things, some of them quite meta.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

How is 2.1 slower? Fact is that unless we screw somewhere in design, our diesel tech produces 2.6 more  times power output....



And I am against using two aerto specialist team on anything but aero projects

[Taricus]

Alright, works for me.

@UR: Reassign the specialists to work on the engine then, since that's the only aeronautics project we have that should go through. And while the diesel engine does provide more power, it uses a fuel that has a potential to run out. And when it isn't using it, it it a FAR slower so we cannot get it to the enemy as quickly as we want to.

[3_14159]

Meh we need a means of countering enemy armor on a large scale this year, not 5 years from now when we manage to build enough tanks.

Again: Why?
You are assuming two things: That we need a way to counter enemy armour this year, and that RPGs are the way to do that.
First: We need something to counter them this year. We don't, really. If we cannot strike them from Crow's Island with the resources we currently have, we have lost the island. If we can, we can choose the time for an invasion ourselves. In both cases, no need for this year.
Second: Producing RPGs may be a short-term solution, but will it actually be better than producing tanks? Well, if we assume the army to be completely armed with RPGs in two years (a very optimistic assessment), that makes sixty or more tanks we could've otherwise built without expanding the truck factory. Seeing as we've lost Mules vs their light tanks in a ratio of ca. 2:1 (more like 3:1 with the other support we've been given), we can assume that the produced tank will be able to reach more than parity. We do not know the actual number of enemy tanks, but they had three years of production time and got 57 knocked out, so they probably have less than a fifty remaining; about one hundred and fifty after two years. While this keeps us at a disadvantage, our design probably is better armed and armoured - at least, I'm assuming that for now.
Also, if you want quick anti-tank armament, why not simply use the 30mm cannon as an anti-tank gun? We could produce nearly two hundred and fifty of them if we take the capacity away from the 80mm and 160mm cannons currently not needed for other construction.

@Taricus: How about keeping the steam engine and implementing the other changes? That's something I would probably be agreeing about.

[Aseaheru]

@pat
If we are gonna go with RPGs now I would say have a PIAT thing instead. For why not, it is (or was) cheaper, used less vital resources better used in tanks and aircraft, could have larger rounds and could be used as a mortar.

We also need a better spy network.
Can we hold off on new proposals? Also, what sort of heli?

[Ukrainian Ranger]

I think trying new aircrafts every turn is a good idea, even if we have no urgent needs. We are just getting experience, either twin engined fighter or twi engined dedicated torpedo bomber (Osprey is a dive bomber that can be used for attacks) or helicopters (not for immediate usefulnesses, but for future. I think it's very likely that it will fail but experience is worth it... same reason as with RPG design, while I think it's not needed, I want experience in that field)

As for Annihilator... I don't think that it needs large cruising speed, it's not a pursuit vessel, it's scare away enemy cruiser\shore bombardment ship... If enemy cruisers agree to retreat and let us shore bombard... fine... If enemy cruisers use to retreat and we cut enemy supply line - fine... But it needs high combat speed to get into good position, to dodge torpedos, to not let enemy to run away

[Aseaheru]

Well, helicopters where useful durring WWII.

[Patrick Hunt]

I'm against the anti tank gun because that requires us to have a vehicle to move it into position which severely hampers the infantries ability to maneuver by forcing them to stay on good ground.

Actually I want it this year because I'm betting within 2 maybe 3 at most we're either going to be launching attacks ourselves, or we'll be getting invaded again and constantly being forced to react to the enemy because we ignored a threat is what got us into this position. We've given the enemy full control to decide how the war will run, the RPG takes away our enemies most defined advantage over us which at present is armor. Even if we can't arm the whole army we can get probably 2000+ RPG out in 2 years which will have a big impact in land based battles.

60 tanks might be able to do more damage but they also cover less ground then 2000 infantry, it's a judgement match. You judge the tanks power to be worth more then the infantries numbers, I judge the numbers to be superior because it allows us to cover far more ground far faster.
If we get the RPG in this turn and not a tank then we can just do a tank next turn and add a factory for it to get it going.

The enemy has been ramping up it's production as well so I'd bet on the tank numbers increasing faster then they did last turn and I'm sure they're already working on an upgrade for the light tank or designing a heavier model.
I'm all for the heli, might take 3-4 years of work to get a good attack model out but it's worth the edge we'll gain having a chopper to provide CAS.

[Taricus]

Well, unarmouing the mounts.. I can't really see that (And the weight loss from that is negligible so...). And the thing is, the original design is at 10,000 tons already. But up-armouring it against torpedoes I don't mind, but we can't fit on any more armour. Most of the free tonnage for that came from downsizing the engine so...

If the name is something that everyone would prefer to be different, I can agree to a change on that though.