Print

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

[Aseaheru]

Err.... The AT gun design I saw as to be on the back of or atleast on a mule.

[Patrick Hunt]

Yeah hence the problem with it, it's going to hurt the infantries mobility a lot to use it. Thats the main reason I favor an RPG.

A man with an RPG can go into broken ground, forests, swamps and so on to ambush people or to evade enemies, the AT gun is a nice big beacon that says please blow me up.
I favor mobility over brute force.

[3_14159]

60 tanks might be able to do more damage but they also cover less ground then 2000 infantry, it's a judgement match. You judge the tanks power to be worth more then the infantries numbers, I judge the numbers to be superior because it allows us to cover far more ground far faster.

Well, I actually judge the tank to project more power quicker (seeing as they can drive there), with the infantry covering a bigger area. But yeah, judgement call. Not adding a vote to the RPG, btw, because it has enough votes to get through.

I'm against the anti tank gun because that requires us to have a vehicle to move it into position which severely hampers the infantries ability to maneuver by forcing them to stay on good ground.

Which is exactly where they encounter tanks, after all. Oh, and notice that we have 700 trucks available for towing the guns.

Adding one vote to the helicopter, though, just for the hell of it.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

It's not only unarmoring, it's purposing them to be AA guns, armor not only not helps, it hurts in AA role

But differences are negligible, that's why I voted for both versions. Hope we will not have no ship because of that tank... And I ask people to what for both versions of 10,000t ship, we need one

[Patrick Hunt]

Those trucks are horrible lol, a soldier with an LMG will rip those trucks to pieces.

[Taricus]

Well, the 40mm is purposely being put onto the ship as an AA gun. The turret is to improve survivability of the AA gunner. I can agree to stripping off the rear armour for the 40mm cannons if that's the case though, the 80mm are multipurpose guns, either to be used as supporting artillery AA or anti-ship if an enemy waercrat gets too close.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

Enemy ships will not get close, our flagship doesn't travel alone and 80mm gun is too weak for anti-ship role anyway, of cause unarmored 160mm guns that vessels of that size have IRL would be good, but that's a different story...

[Taricus]

Hm.. Point. Problem is the 80mm is on twin-gun mounts, and That kinda required the superstructure of a turret so...

I can unarmour the top and back of those guns, and posibbly some of the sides. The front has to stay for the guns to be usable in their current configuration.

[evilcherry]

It's not only unarmoring, it's purposing them to be AA guns, armor not only not helps, it hurts in AA role

But differences are negligible, that's why I voted for both versions. Hope we will not have no ship because of that tank... And I ask people to what for both versions of 10,000t ship, we need one

@ebbor Is the "Team Alpha designs Ships and Team Beta designs Planes" clauses still active?

[Taricus]

Alpha is design ships/land vehicles. I have a proposal to wave beta's clause for the turn due to the circumstances and neccessity of both the tank and a 10,000 ton ship.

[evilcherry]

Alpha is design ships/land vehicles. I have a proposal to wave beta's clause for the turn due to the circumstances and neccessity of both the tank and a 10,000 ton ship.

I fail to see the point that why we NEED both TODAY. We don't need much tactical mobility on Crow's Island (now or afterwards), and while we certainly need some for the forthcoming invasion they can wait for another turn.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

Alpha is design ships/land vehicles. I have a proposal to wave beta's clause for the turn due to the circumstances and neccessity of both the tank and a 10,000 ton ship.

I fail to see the point that why we NEED both TODAY. We don't need much tactical mobility on Crow's Island (now or afterwards), and while we certainly need some for the forthcoming invasion they can wait for another turn.

+1

Nature of this war is such that we don't require tanks. Let's assume we would designed a tank several turns ago, what would it changed for us in better way? I think a lot... Not in our advance....  Crow island would be still invaded but it's quite possible that we wouldn't have something from hunters\herrings  and lose naval war completely.
Even if we'll design a tank, we are unable to start producing many of them to matter on possible reconquest of the Crow's island

Besides, why not go flying tanks route? (hint, hint - several years of helicopter development can give us one)

[Funk]

Right now a helicopter or autogiro will probably be able to carry 2 crew and a light machinegun or maybe a rocket or two.
Still it should manage speeds around the 100mph mark and be a usefull platform for scouting.
A good point is autogiros dont need the large engines planes do so they will be easier on fuel.

[10ebbor10]

Besides, why not go flying tanks route? (hint, hint - several years of helicopter development can give us one)

A decently sized glider works too.

[Taricus]

Thing, is such research at a blue-sky level. We don't need it, we wouldn't realistically know how to use it and that comment about it being a flying tank is well off the mark due to the lighter armour on it.
Crow's island wouldn't have fallen so much if we had the proper armour there, as they wouldn't have had a counter to that with their ground forces, they'd have needed to call in CAS or a naval bombardment in order to do so.

A tank helps us fortify Crow's island. A helicopter only wastes time and effort.