Print

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

[3_14159]

If your going to defend a position you have to prepare it to withstand anything, not just assume the enemy is going to do exactly what you want them to do to make things easy for you. 20-25 men in a bunker will not last an hour if they get ambushed. No matter how much you might think the position is strong if the enemy catches you by surprise you need enough men to counter attack. You can't counter attack an attacking force with 20 men if they're already inside your defense.

So you need a larger bunker to enable you to house enough forces to counter any assault, rather then just the assault you hope the enemy will throw right into the jaws of your defenses.

Over confidence and arrogance based on opinion alone will get you killed.

True, they will. Which is why you need several lines of defence, each of which will need to be manned and prebuilt. But, again: We are at peace with them.

Now, for another topic:
I'd like to develop a new plane next turn. Strategic role is naval reconnaissance, with transport and commercial raiding as secondaries. This would allow us to both spot ships, attack them if it's light enough defended, and transport supplies to islands.
The design should be a flying boat, with (depending on the new aircraft engine) two or three motors. A range of two to three thousand kilometres will be necessary, with a crew of about five to ten.
As armament I'd take at least several Project 2202 heavy machine guns in turrets.
Remaining capacity could be filled either with place for bombs and torpedoes, or possibly with a single 40mm cannon - but the weight would mean no bombs nor torpedoes could be carried.
Basically, the two alternatives would be:
- ca. 5 15mm MGs plus place for bombs/torpedoes or cargo.
- ca 5 15mm MGs plus a single, fixed 40mm gun.
I'd much prefer the first one, giving it more firepower against bigger targets.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

If your going to defend a position you have to prepare it to withstand anything, not just assume the enemy is going to do exactly what you want them to do to make things easy for you. 20-25 men in a bunker will not last an hour if they get ambushed. No matter how much you might think the position is strong if the enemy catches you by surprise you need enough men to counter attack. You can't counter attack an attacking force with 20 men if they're already inside your defense.

So you need a larger bunker to enable you to house enough forces to counter any assault, rather then just the assault you hope the enemy will throw right into the jaws of your defenses.

Over confidence and arrogance based on opinion alone will get you killed.

Why  you assume that building forts = having soldiers only in forts?  Our generals are not insane, the whole front is covered, always. Be it heavy fortified positions or just infantry

[Dorsidwarf]

True, they will. Which is why you need several lines of defence, each of which will need to be manned and prebuilt. But, again: We are at peace with them.

Now, for another topic:
I'd like to develop a new plane next turn. Strategic role is naval reconnaissance, with transport and commercial raiding as secondaries. This would allow us to both spot ships, attack them if it's light enough defended, and transport supplies to islands.
The design should be a flying boat, with (depending on the new aircraft engine) two or three motors. A range of two to three thousand kilometres will be necessary, with a crew of about five to ten.
As armament I'd take at least several Project 2202 heavy machine guns in turrets.
Remaining capacity could be filled either with place for bombs and torpedoes, or possibly with a single 40mm cannon - but the weight would mean no bombs nor torpedoes could be carried.
Basically, the two alternatives would be:
- ca. 5 15mm MGs plus place for bombs/torpedoes or cargo.
- ca 5 15mm MGs plus a single, fixed 40mm gun.
I'd much prefer the first one, giving it more firepower against bigger targets.

+1 for flying boat!

Production idea: floating fuel depot ships for seaplanes. Seaplane lands on the water near the tanker, escort vessel takes a tank of fuel out to them, seaplane refuels and flies off.
Much easier to setup and produce than an aircraft carrier.

[Funk]

Seaplanes are great so long as the sea is calm, in rough weather they cant land or take off or even fly well.
Still aircraft carrier have the same problems and a seaplane tender can be shorter and simply use crane to move the seaplanes off and on.
By using cranes we save space on deck and can mount guns there.

[Aseaheru]

I agree with seaplanes. I am also thinking at somepoint to copy the Japanese is WWII, the french and others between WWI and WWII and have aircraft carrying subs.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

Floatboat is an interesting concept, but if you ask me, I dislike the whole idea of 40mm gun on it, any modest ship will be able to destroy target as large and as slow as a floatboat, diving attacks are suicide

I'd prefer a long range transport, bomber if we can find unprotected targets (or night bombing)... One very useful thing would be if it could land in hostile waters, put several mines in the sea and GTFO


What I'd really want - 500-1000t warships, that should be the backbone of the navy

Also, I think we should buy  a battleship expand repair docks, and refit the old ship, easier than building new one

[3_14159]

Seaplanes are great so long as the sea is calm, in rough weather they cant land or take off or even fly well.
Still aircraft carrier have the same problems and a seaplane tender can be shorter and simply use crane to move the seaplanes off and on.
By using cranes we save space on deck and can mount guns there.

That is true. On the other hand, they can land on land (no pun intended), and other planes cannot at all land on water.

A seaplane tender is an idea, but may not be feasible - the planes I based this one on have length of twenty metres and more, which is hardly practical to store on ships. Plus, depending on the distances involved, the only thing changing is the duration of the flight, which were about twelve hours anyway.

Floatboat is an interesting concept, but if you ask me, I dislike the whole idea of 40mm gun on it, any modest ship will be able to destroy target as large and as slow as a floatboat, diving attacks are suicide

I'd prefer a long range transport, bomber if we can find unprotected targets (or night bombing)... One very useful thing would be if it could land in hostile waters, put several mines in the sea and GTFO

Then we can delete the 40mm gun and leave transport room. That would also probably allow it to use torpedoes, which I definitely like.

[Aseaheru]

Russia had a working flying boat with BATTLESHIP guns on it...

I agree with the need for a transport and a navy. I also still think that this aircraft is a good idea. If we can have the jolly green giant with a HOWITZER, an autocannon and another big, fat asshole of a gun, why not a flying boat with one?

[Dorsidwarf]

When I was talking about the seaplane-fuel-depot I didn't mean having an aircraft carrier without a deck - I just meant what is essentially any old ship with it's entire hull space converted to aviation fuel, to extend plane ranges. Your idea would be cool, but way harder.

[Taricus]

I'd like to develop a new plane next turn. Strategic role is naval reconnaissance, with transport and commercial raiding as secondaries. This would allow us to both spot ships, attack them if it's light enough defended, and transport supplies to islands.
The design should be a flying boat, with (depending on the new aircraft engine) two or three motors. A range of two to three thousand kilometres will be necessary, with a crew of about five to ten.
As armament I'd take at least several Project 2202 heavy machine guns in turrets.
Remaining capacity could be filled either with place for bombs and torpedoes, or possibly with a single 40mm cannon - but the weight would mean no bombs nor torpedoes could be carried.
Basically, the two alternatives would be:
- ca. 5 15mm MGs plus place for bombs/torpedoes or cargo.
- ca 5 15mm MGs plus a single, fixed 40mm gun.
I'd much prefer the first one, giving it more firepower against bigger targets.

Actually, I'd argue against the 2-3k kilometre range. Cut it down to about 500-600, utilising two engines. It may not be as god in a recon role, but what we do have is an effective torpedo bomber instead. This should be more effective against larger ships as well, providing that there isn't too much AA mounted on the larger ships. But in no case should we have a 10-man plane used for reconnaissance where a small boat or a smaller aircraft could do.

And we need a new name for the MGs, just saying.

[10ebbor10]

I hope I didn't forget anything. Not exactly awake at the moment.

[Patrick Hunt]

So I suggest.

Silent
Increased service ceiling
Resilient

Our planes being able to attack from above without being noticed is a massive edge in an aerial battle and add them being damned hard to destroy and we have a very powerful fighter. Something we need fast to counter the enemy air force.

We can't beat them in numbers in time for this to make a difference, but we can make sure our planes choose when to engage and can take on the superior numbers.
Plus we all know what happened in ww2 when quantity met quality, Russia got wooped by Germany, Germany got wooped by the UK. Quality rules the skies.

[Dorsidwarf]

I would go for speed instead of resilient. That way, after diving through the enemy flight formation, they can regain their altitude advantage easily. Plus, running away.

[Patrick Hunt]

Once you engage you ain't gonna be heading up again, an enemy fighter is gonna blow you to pieces the moment you try to disengage.

Once they're in the fight they need to be able to take the punishment.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

We got a lucky air design and must go from there, winning the skies...

We need a torpedo carrying aircraft making one based on the fighter is an easy way

And submarines, weapon of the weak