Print

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

[3_14159]

I would even think about making the shark with wood, while trying to improve the engine reliability, as well as removing the naval gun component. Hell they are our equivalent to PT boats, designed to be produced on the fly quickly in a war. All they need to do is to throw torps, retreat, rinse and repeat. Why complicate it?

Only question: Old torpedo or new one? The old one has a higher range meaning more survivability (4600m vs 2000m) and higher speed, while the new one probably has higher firepower and less weight.
My tendency is to use the old one due to the higher speed, meaning easier hitting faster targets from further away.

I guess we could have just say "design a torp monoplane bomber, using 2x900 engines, with 2x15mm as secondary arms, reasonable armor, and reasonable torp carrying capacity." I'm still a bit bent on it should be a seaplane, or even a flying boat, but it all depends on votes.

That's the heavy design, though I'd add a secondary gunner shooting behind to it. Hopefully it's faster than the enemy biplanes, but if not, they can at least defend themselves.

@UR:
Yup, that's more or less what I meant. Coastal guns are less vulnerable than placing the same number of turrets on a cruiser, but we're still undermatched.

[ICBM pilot]

I guess we could have just say "design a torp monoplane bomber, using 2x900 engines, with 2x15mm as secondary arms, reasonable armor, and reasonable torp carrying capacity." I'm still a bit bent on it should be a seaplane, or even a flying boat, but it all depends on votes.

I think we should see if my rocket torpedo is made before we consider making flying boats(we might be lucky and become better at hydrodynamics or something)

[evilcherry]

I guess we could have just say "design a torp monoplane bomber, using 2x900 engines, with 2x15mm as secondary arms, reasonable armor, and reasonable torp carrying capacity." I'm still a bit bent on it should be a seaplane, or even a flying boat, but it all depends on votes.

I think we should see if my rocket torpedo is made before we consider making flying boats(we might be lucky and become better at hydrodynamics or something)

seriously, why so hell bent on rocketry?

[ICBM pilot]

This is my first rocket-based suggestion and it's because a rocket torpedo like mine would provide a lot of exp boosts and still be useful because it would be faster than most (if not all) other torpedoes available and the engine to explosive ratio would be better. 

[3_14159]

I'd rather design not such a rocket torpedo (I don't believe they'll work in rough seas) but an actual rocket. Take, for example, the new lighter torpedo and add a rocket engine on that and a gyroscope to keep it level.

seriously, why so hell bent on rocketry?

For being ahistorical and awesome
Seriously, though, I believe a rocket torpedo to be a way for us to operate the sharks more effective and catch ships without leaving them the chance to evade the attack. I do not, however, believe it to be important enough to wait for flying boats or torpedo bombers until after designing that.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

Can we explain why we are developing the second transport submarine? With same free space, and troops (Why we need troops on a sub for, BTW?)

[ICBM pilot]

the reason I want it to skim along the surface is so we can get more boat design training and can make better boats, ships, and float-planes(and they wouldn't be to hard to make controllable if we get that far). Does anybody know if we still get the penalty for designing outlandish weapons IF we we don't use anything that isn't already know?

[Patrick Hunt]

A troop sub is good, we can reinforce Crow while it's under siege.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

But we have one already, why design another with more torpedoes and a deck gun?

[evilcherry]

the reason I want it to skim along the surface is so we can get more boat design training and can make better boats, ships, and float-planes(and they wouldn't be to hard to make controllable if we get that far). Does anybody know if we still get the penalty for designing outlandish weapons IF we we don't use anything that isn't already know?

If we are developing towards a hydroplane a shark variant would be the best.

Scrap the other transport sub, at least not after feedback from cods.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

Scrap the other transport sub, at least not after feedback from cods.

Well, you are among the guys who are voting for the second transport submarine

[3_14159]

the reason I want it to skim along the surface is so we can get more boat design training and can make better boats, ships, and float-planes(and they wouldn't be to hard to make controllable if we get that far). Does anybody know if we still get the penalty for designing outlandish weapons IF we we don't use anything that isn't already know?

The way I see it, a skimming torpedo is both more complicated to design and brings us less experience. Why?
More complicated: The weapon system needs to hit enemy ships. Therefore, it needs to travel in a reasonably straight line. When going over waves, the course is going to change slightly for every wave. So you either need to correct that (complicated) or can't hit anything.
Less experience: The most complicated part is the rocket design. In many ways, the rocket is going to be our first-designed one, bringing us valuable information about rockets in total due to the engine. Contrary to that, I believe the torpedo brings us less experience with ship design than all the other things we already have: Protectors, Sharks, Cods.

Can we explain why we are developing the second transport submarine? With same free space, and troops (Why we need troops on a sub for, BTW?)

I agree on that. Troops can be transported with the other one already (we have a hundred tons cargo space. Install benches, they're only going to be underway for half a day or a bit more).
For a dedicated attack/commercial attack sub, I'd do a completely new design. we need speed, we need diving depth and we need armament. Therefore:
The Swordfish class submarine: Four torpedo tubes with spares (2-3 per tube), an underwater speed of at least 20km/h and a diving depth of over a hundred metres. Design it only to be used submerged, with a snorkel. No deck gun. I do not care about the overwater speed.
It's only to be used submerged with torpedoes. A deck gun would make it slower underwater and could only be used against unarmed targets anyway. Eliminating it frees tonnage.
Thoughts on that?

[evilcherry]

Scrap the other transport sub, at least not after feedback from cods.

Well, you are among the guys who are voting for the second transport submarine

To start with that isn't a transport sub anymore. Yes its an old hull design but we can work with that. I guess the word "troops" is a misnomer for seamen, and if that sub needed so much seamen its fine. Otherwise we might use a slimmer design.

Don't think a sub can sport snorkels that long to be honest, though as an attack sub I agree most of the attack operations should be below water. We also need the 15mm for basic AA as well as attacks on unarmored shipping; However we can definitely do without the main gun.

[ICBM pilot]

the main boats we will use it on will probably be PT boats and maybe our torpedo boat so rough water won't be as much of a problem and the xp will be useful for flying boats, hydroplanes, and other things that need to be fast unless all water related things are in the same category.
how hard could making a solid rocket engine be(for future arguments don't point out flaws that your design would have two)?

[evilcherry]

the main boats we will use it on will probably be PT boats and maybe our torpedo boat so rough water won't be as much of a problem and the xp will be useful for flying boats, hydroplanes, and other things that need to be fast unless all water related things are in the same category.
how hard could making a solid rocket engine be(for future arguments don't point out flaws that your design would have two)?

to start with these are not really related to rocketry anymore. Just saying.