Print

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

[evilcherry]

We need subs not for commerce raiding but for hunting enemy cruisers\destroyers... whatever deck guns will not be useful at, as soon as sub surface near an enemy vessel to engage in gunfight it's dead

Designs should come from our strategical goals, IMO our current strategical goals are

1) Maintain supply of our island
2) Reduce enemy navy (especially ships that can shore bombard) or at least make them scared enough to not enter our waters ,
3) Provide our land forces with some kind of land combat advantage when enemy starts the landings
4) Win the skies

I fail to see, how proposed changes of cod help can with the goals...

BTW you know what I hate most? When people propose design, it get voted, but no one ever tries to actually start producing them, SMG is a good example here... It can provide additional advantage to our land forces but doubt it will be produced

PS. 88mm guns on U-boats have nothing to do with 88mm flak, and had zero AA role

and then you should rather bluntly propose it and make sure everyone buys into it. Really, if things are not done properly it should be yelled out.

Then I think 3.14's revised Sub fits the bill completely, at least as an attack sub. Especially our current approach to 3 is almost a corollary of achieving 2 and thus 1. I guess we should just agree on that in principle, and rather argue on specs.

p.s. the 88mm do have a 30 degree elevation, and for some models its even higher making it capable as AA. But I digress.

p.p.s. Again I'm continuing to yell out in Cartago delenda est fashion: Can anyone sort out a mutual solution to our lack of aerial torp/general bombing capacity? Taking to the votes aren't going anywhere.

[evilcherry]

To make a short recap here:

1. UR wanted the SMG to be pressed into production, NOW. I don't think anyone with a brain will disagree that we do need an SMG, but how much it should be diverted is open to discussion.
2. We are pointing towards another attack sub hull design, as the Cod is too clumsy as one. What should be mounted on can be argued later.
3. I think we are pointing towards a Patrol Bomber-ish solution for our bombing/torping capacity, but seemingly some are inclined to a dive bomber solution. Anyway a raven refit should be in order.

I guess if everyone agrees with that we might all change our votes accordingly. Forcing a vote is one of the worst things to happen especially in a military setting.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

p.s. the 88mm do have a 30 degree elevation, and for some models its even higher making it capable as AA. But I digress.

I'd love to see how you hit an aircraft with 88mm shell without a flak shell...
Even proper 88mm flaks are absolutely useless in tactical AA defense. They have only one role - bring flak shell high into the skies

p.p.s. Again I'm continuing to yell out in Cartago delenda est fashion: Can anyone sort out a mutual solution to our lack of aerial torp/general bombing capacity? Taking to the votes aren't going anywhere.

Voting is going just fine. See no problems here. Most likely two aircrafts will be voted and it's good, because it's more likely that at least one aircraft will be good

[3_14159]

Agree with the number of strategic goals. Just as a note, 1 is almost done if 2 is achieved.

To the board gun for submarines: Yes, the germans during WW2 built guns on their u-boats. As did the Americans and anyone I know of. Until - they didn't, any more. The reason for that is quite simple: Deck guns don't work against convoys or escorts.

To the plane discussion: From the looks of it, we have 1 (Raven mod) voted, with a designed proposal for 5 (torpedo bomber) and 3 (seaplane), and a dive bomber proposal. I personally prefer the torpedo bomber to be designed and built.

[Funk]

The small size and number of deck guns is most of the reason they didn't work, and well the first act of any sub was to dive then decide to fight or flee.

With a large submarine of say 1600 ton we should be able to mount a 300mm, or a number of smaller guns, in short submarine can carry the same amount of fire power as a surface ship of the same size.

Now im for a submersible light destroyer or small aircraft carrier, mainly to hide from planes and dive to evade unfavourable battles.   Keeping there dive depths low and battery banks small should off set most of the down sides.
edit: having armoured hulls should let them have massive dive depths, and being able to dive lets them fake sinking.

[Aseaheru]

I really need to find a link for that...

Simply put, between the wars the french built a sub that could hold a single recon seaplane. During WWII the Japanese built, manned and almost sent out a sub that could (and did) hold three combat seaplanes, as well as being able to go from Japan to say NYC.

[Funk]

The Surcouf had
1 motorboat
1 floatplane
2 203 mm guns
2 37 mm anti-aircraft guns
4 × 13.2 mm anti-aircraft machine guns
8 × 550 mm torpedo tubes
4 × 400 mm  torpedo tubes

Not vastly better armed than a Guépard-class destroyers
That had
    5   138 mm (5.4 in)/40 calibre guns
    4   37 mm (1.5 in)/50 calibre AA guns
    4  13.2 mm AA guns
    2  triple 550 mm  torpedo tubes
    4  depth charge throwers
    2  depth charge racks

Now im not proposing that every thing is to be proper submarine, just that they should be able to snorkel and travel for an hour or so underwater.

[Aseaheru]

I really have to find that page now...

[ICBM pilot]

I like keeping Alpha unspecialized, so we have a design team for doing multiple things

there are plenty of specializations that would allow us to do many things.(mechanics would probably be the best choice ATM)

[Patrick Hunt]

(( But they have a tiny effect, the more specific it is the larger the effect it has. Mechanics would have a mega tiny effect given that it effects everything. ))

[ICBM pilot]

but it would increase over time as more things become electronic.

[evilcherry]

I really have to find that page now...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-400-class_submarine

I guess you are talking about this. Having the capability to attack Panama with a couple of seaplanes, even they are going to gain nothing from it.



p.s. In Cartago delenda est fashion once again: Can anyone sort out (or even just try to reach) a mutual solution to our lack of aerial torp/general bombing capacity?

[3_14159]

I think submergable cruisers (scruisers) have a few disadvantages compared both to normal ones and submarines:
- Tonnage loss: Adding submarine parts to a cruiser will probably result in about 20% tonnage lost for those parts. Compared to a normal cruiser, the scruiser therefore has less firepower or speed or armour available.
- Vulnerability: If a normal cruiser gets hit, all it loses is the hit part, or complete loss if hit unlucky. If a scruiser is hit, its pressure hull is punctured; it cannot dive anymore.
- Inefficiency: What is the tactical role? As a cruiser, it should attack with a fleet (at least for us, cruisers are our battleships). As a submarine, it should attack convoys or do sneak attacks on the enemy fleet. For the former, the submersibility (nice word) is not needed, for the latter, its firepower is unneeded and the risk to the ship itself is high (see vulnerability).
I therefore believe that a scruiser has less firepower than a normal cruiser, once hit loses its submersibility and sits between two chairs for its role.

A submersible aircraft carrier has about the same problems, though less with vulnerability but with the planes require to find the ship to land, and that stowing them takes time thereby slowing the deployment and undeployment. Plus, it has fewer planes than a comparable surface aircraft carrier (Compare the Hosho to the I-400. Hosho's a bit bigger, but carries five times the planes, and is not restricted to seaplanes).

@Cato: The current solution seems to be a combination of 1 and 5, that is a Raven-modification for the short term and a torpedo bomber complimenting that. But we need one more vote for that.

[Patrick Hunt]

We don't have enough Ravens yet for a Raven modification.

We need all of this turns production run of them as fighters just to give us a large enough force to provide air cover.
Even if my tactic gets the best outcome of triple production that puts us at under 400 vs 600+ however many the enemy is producing. So odds are it'll still be 2-1 in numerical favor of the enemy although I doubt they'll commit more then half of that to the offense.

t's just an educated guess but I'd predict the enemy has production of at least 200 a year very likely more and they've seen that ours are superior so I'd bet they're already working to upgrade or redeisgn there own to counter us. So gotta get our fighter numbers up fast.

Btw, should we test the new enginge in the Raven? The vastly superior speed could come in extremely handy in a fight if we're out numbered.

At present we're probably better off being 1 turn later on bombers then low on fighters.

[ICBM pilot]

No, iic they have a tendency to BREAK WHEN TURNING we don't want to increase that chance by adding more speed and more weight.