Print

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

[Aseaheru]

We need more rifles than SMGs in my opinion. or atleast when things are gonna be at range.
And grenade launchers. We need those...

[LordSlowpoke]

we need a full-auto grenade launcher that can get more than 200 meters range

then we just deploy a cod's worth of these people with backpacks full of grenades and wreck everything

then disappear before the night is even over

[3_14159]

Also, as a side note but 2.1 would be horrendously draining on our diesel fuel, and would be much slower and thus less dangerous due to it's low cruising speed. I'd rather our capital ship as of yet not be outmanoeuvred and strafed because of it's speed. Besides, a faster cruising speed would allow it to more effectively keep up with it's escorts, if any.

The difference in power is 7.5MW/37.5MW vs 21MW, which should probably give us speed values around 35/45km/h and 40km/h, respectively. The only question is whether the additional five km/h in combat are worth the loss of five on cruise and the added diesel consumption.

On the squad loadout: (not that it would be relevant seeing as we are have been never were a design bureau), I would primarily give them rifles due to two reasons:
- Effectiveness: Rifles are effective outside of a hundred metres and additionally can pretty effectively render suppressive fire. After all, compared to Mosin-Nagants our enemies still use as far as we know, the Revolutionary has a firing rate of about four times, and should be able to fire through its magazine in about or under five seconds for unaimed fire. On the contrast, the SMG will, with its biggest magazine, send ten times the bullets during the same time, but those will go all over the place. Sure, if the enemy charges over a field, it will be useful, but probably not normally.
- Cost-Effectiveness: Those submachine guns just eat through ammo.
So, for me, the squad-loadout would rather look like this:
1x Leader with SMG
5x Rifleman (carry additional ammo for LMG)
1x LMG loader (Rifle)
1x LMG gunner (Pistol).
Possibly changing one of the riflemen to a submachine gun.

On the tank-killing:
While an RPG would give our infantry an anti-tank punch, a tank supporting them is much better. Consider the ranges alone: A rocket launcher has a range of under 200m [1]. Compared to that, a tank or anti-tank gun can kill enemy vehicles further out, over a kilometre.
Sure, an RPG is much better than having just a flaming bottle, but not that much.

Speaking of tanks, I think I've got to change my vote and do a modified proposal...


[1] See the articles on the Bazooka or Panzerschreck; the Panzerfaust had even shorter ranges

[Aseaheru]

I would have given the loader a SMG and extra ammo for the LMG.

We need a PLAST system.
I think it is spelled PLAST. its that or PLAT.

Think spring launched rocket. Yes, it existed. And yes, it worked.

[Patrick Hunt]

A tank will need a long time to get in numbers, an rpg you can make thousands in a year.

It's far easier and faster a solution then a tank, we're to fixated on planes and ships everything else is getting neglected.

We have an effective fighter, bomber and long range bomber now.

We need armor and infantry weapons now, we can afford to hold off on air for a couple of years.



I know the range is worse but you can arm every squad in 2 years with a reasonable factory so every unit has anti armor.

Tanks we could never make enough to support every infantry force so a lot will still be hung out to dry.
The tank is more effective but the RPG will save a lot more lives in a much shorter time frame and is simpler to design.

[Aseaheru]

PIAT! That what it is, a PIAT!

RPGS would help, but I think that a good grenade launcher underslung under a rifle might help more. Or rifle grenades...

[Patrick Hunt]

Depends how well armored the enemy tank is but a grenade at best will disable the tracks.

[Aseaheru]

Also depends on the grenade. There is a good excuse that a RPG is just a Rocket Propelled Grenade.
Also grenade launchers can do fun things like smoke, anti infantry frags, flares...

[Taricus]

I don't think we know how to do that yet anyway, atleast with the underbarrel GL.

Besides, for all it's worth, we should be either engage the enemy tanks only in favourable terrain with infantry, or just use AT guns/tanks/CAS.

[Aseaheru]

I wonder if we could make a spigot launcher.

[3_14159]

Depends how well armored the enemy tank is but a grenade at best will disable the tracks.

Well, not exactly. An RPG is nothing else than a grenade with a delivery mechanism. Said delivery mechanism doesn't, generally, add anything to the penetrative power of the grenade which is achieved by a hollow charge. So, a grenade with the same weight can have the same penetration, as long as it hits with the same side. Actually, even better because it can be arced on the tank's top.

@PIAT: It's got advantages and disadvantages compared to a rocket launcher. I would generally think it to be not better, but that's personal preference unbacked by facts.

On the tank numbers: We can more or less accurately calculate the production cost of, for example, tank proposal 1.1. The 30mm autocannon has a cost of 4, the machine guns of five, and the cost for the chassis should not be greater than twice the mule's. In total, that makes about 19points, meaning our truck factory can produce thirty per year.
How much does it cost to make RPGs? One bazooka round has been estimated to $25, with a Sherman estimated to $33.5k, so about a thousand times the cost of a single rocket. So, 1000:1 could be a fair assessment, not including the launcher itself.
Of course, that just means you can build about one thousand rockets for each tank. On the other hand, a tank is more flexible and has lower operating cost.
This is why I'd prioritize tanks currently higher than RPGs - if, as you say, we can arm our army with RPGs in a short time, it seems only logical to start with the project that requires a longer time but is crucial.

By the way, do we really have no infantry mortar designed?

[Taricus]

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?

[Ukrainian Ranger]

I think we need a capital ship way more than a tank...

Also, exactly why we produce two gun fighters?

[Taricus]

Means we can arm more fighters. As Ebbor said earlier, the problem was speed, not firepower. And with the new round variants the 15mm should tear through the enemy airforce.

And we can have both UR, considering we have two Large slots.

[Patrick Hunt]

Our land forces are horribly out matched, we need a tank and we need an RPG. Tank is a large project RPG is small so both can be done at once and the RPG can be mass produced and in the line in a year. Our history in this game shows 1 thing, every single time our enemy makes a move we get forced back because we then have to stop and design a counter move to it from scratch.

We know our enemy is pushing hard to land forces so we need to counter those land forces and the simplest and most efficient way to counter the enemies armored edge is an RPG. The enemy will massively outnumber our tank even if we get it built fast so our tank will still be helpless where as infantry are far more flexible then a tank in how they can move and fight.

The tank beats an RPG yes but when you have limited time the RPG is a far more effective means of countering the enemy then a tank purely because of numbers.
Us building 30 tanks won't help much when the enemy has over 100.
However us building 1000 rpgs will be more then enough for our infantry to knock out the enemy armor through sheer weight of numbers if nothing else.


Can you all please just give me the benefit of the doubt here? We Need a mobile anti armor unit in place and the RPG is the one we can have out into the field in large numbers in the shortest space of time. By all means build a tank as well I'll be voting for the tank design anyway because we need it but we can not get enough tanks fast enough if we have to fight another major land battle within the next 1-2 years The RPG is the perfect short term response to the enemies armor advantage while we build a longer term solution.