All right, fairly large post coming up answering to different ones. First:
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)?
I'll try making my statement clearer: We need to design four things for each of the weapons: Warhead, Guidance, Engine and Body. Warhead is pretty easy, and I will ignore it for now. Additionally, references to the rocket refer to a flying anti-ship rocket, references to torpedo to the rocket-propelled surface torpedo.
Guidance is the first difference. The torpedo needs some way to correct for waves and currents, while the rocket just needs to hold the direction and correct for wind. That's pretty relevant in complexity, especially as we don't have miniaturized electronics available.
The engine is probably nearly the same, but needs maybe a bit more complex engines for the rocket as it cannot use a rudder like the torpedo.
The body is for the torpedo an analogon to a boat, for the rocket to a plane. Needs to be airtight for the torpedo.
To sum up: The rocket needs less complicated tech due to easier guidance. The actual new technology is the rocket engine used for both. The torpedo requires calm seas, or it will go off course due to the waves (the few moments I've seen from the show, they tested it in a pool against a target less than 250m away - far from ocean). Plus, such a torpedo will not be airdroppable.
For the experience: We have experience with both boats (including fast ones) and why do we require more specifically from that project? It's a proof-of-concept for rocket technology.
long post about subs.
Huh. That happens when you start pulling numbers from somewhere. You're right.
An addition for snorkeling: Yes, just for recharging batteries. But even that is very useful against air searches. Our situation is, I think, similar in respect to air cover as the Bay of Biscay. That is, under air attack thread.
How about: The Swordfish class submarine: Four torpedo tubes with spares (2-3 per tube), a high underwater speed 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.
Posts about engineer shuffling:
At the moment, we have one specialized team, increasing next round to two. One guns, one aero. I would generally assign teams as such, without reshuffling:
Alpha: Big, undefined projects. Will design tanks, and everything that we need that turn as big projects.
Beta: Train for Naval
Delta: design a plane-related thing per turn.
Gamma: Guns. Design uhm, guns.
Eta: Smaller projects.
The main difference is to keep Alpha undefined for speciality until needed, and keep all aero-specialists together, as they only use something when they design for their speciality.
I like keeping Alpha unspecialized, so we have a design team for doing multiple things. I dislike training an armoured vehicle team, as we currently have no need for designing one armoured vehicle per turn - and that's exactly what specializing a team means.
I do like adding a manufacturing specialist to each team, though. Next round training idea?
Author
Topic: [Discussion] The Glorious Design Bureau of the People (Read 69647 times)