Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10 11 ... 29

Author Topic: [SG] Imperial Military Design Bureau [Year: 2023]  (Read 27731 times)

adwarf

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: [SG] Imperial Military Design Bureau [Year: 2020]
« Reply #120 on: October 09, 2014, 09:41:16 pm »

Yeah, no. I'm not saying make everything non-amphib, we can keep the BTRs and BMPs design, but a cheaper transport is needed for general purpose use.
Logged

Taricus

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: [SG] Imperial Military Design Bureau [Year: 2020]
« Reply #121 on: October 09, 2014, 09:45:21 pm »

...Wait, we're an island nation? I never saw anything along those lines in the OP

I do say that we do need an armoured truck or the like though, Enough so that we can transport men cheaply and easily. Which means we need a new vehicle as the BTR isn't that cheap.
Logged
Quote from: evictedSaint
We sided with the holocaust for a fucking +1 roll

adwarf

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: [SG] Imperial Military Design Bureau [Year: 2020]
« Reply #122 on: October 09, 2014, 09:49:43 pm »

...Wait, we're an island nation? I never saw anything along those lines in the OP

I think Aseaheru is assuming that from our only having Amphibious Vehicles.
Logged

Taricus

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: [SG] Imperial Military Design Bureau [Year: 2020]
« Reply #123 on: October 09, 2014, 09:53:17 pm »

Eh, they may be amphibious, but I believe that was unintended.
Logged
Quote from: evictedSaint
We sided with the holocaust for a fucking +1 roll

Stirk

  • Bay Watcher
  • Full Metal Nutball
    • View Profile
Re: [SG] Imperial Military Design Bureau [Year: 2020]
« Reply #124 on: October 09, 2014, 10:00:43 pm »

This is why we need to gather intelligence over our land and what we will be fighting. Right now, we have no clue what our country even looks like geographically. We would be much more effective knowing what and where we are fighting.
Logged
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.

This is my waifu, this is my gun. This one's for fighting, this ones for fun.

Parsely

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
    • My games!
Re: [SG] Imperial Military Design Bureau [Year: 2020]
« Reply #125 on: October 09, 2014, 10:10:51 pm »

BTR is primarily a land vehicle, they're amphibious as a feature, it's not the core of the design unlike this.

BMP can take 9 passengers and the BTR 7 passengers, so they can transport 2300 soldiers in the crew compartments, plus upwards of 10 guys could just sit directly on top of the each APC, so we can quickly move over 5300 men. But you don't use APCs to move companies of troops, you use cheap covered trucks or just march them, which are common enough that I'd think we wouldn't need to design them, but I could be mistaken.
Logged

Beneviento

  • Bay Watcher
  • Rocks and Blocks
    • View Profile
Re: [SG] Imperial Military Design Bureau [Year: 2020]
« Reply #126 on: October 10, 2014, 01:29:08 am »

PTW. Also, about the tanks, I'd think that a useful change would be to have a human loader like the Abrams has instead of an autoloader, as this would (probably) reduce cost, increase survivability if wiki is to be believed, and give us some redundancy if someone gets injured, as we would still have enough crew to operate the tank at good efficiency even if we're down a crew member.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Logged
And any man who may be asked in this century what he did to make his life worthwhile, I think can respond with a good deal of pride and satisfaction: 'I served in the Assaulted Lanterns Magma Artillery' - King Id I of the Assaulted Lanterns

Parsely

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
    • My games!
Re: [SG] Imperial Military Design Bureau [Year: 2020]
« Reply #127 on: October 10, 2014, 01:35:18 am »

Having an auto-loader saves a lot of space that you'd normally need to fit that extra person comfortably. Giving the crew of an armored vehicle a comfortable amount of space reduces fatigue which is extremely important, and people need lots of space. The tank will fire faster (because human loaders are on average slower especially when they're under stress or driving over bumps) nope actually humans are faster, not sure? Need confirmation. The armor use is more efficient since the tank's overall size is reduced, and the smaller profile makes the tank less likely to be hit and harder to spot to begin with. Plus, per tank that's one less person you need to train, pay, house and feed.

E: Unless we get lots more cool gadgets and computers shoved into the tank, in which case a fourth member would be useful to take the load off of the commander, I think a 25% reduction in required manpower would be the best decision here.
« Last Edit: October 10, 2014, 01:46:37 am by GUNINANRUNIN »
Logged

Beneviento

  • Bay Watcher
  • Rocks and Blocks
    • View Profile
Re: [SG] Imperial Military Design Bureau [Year: 2020]
« Reply #128 on: October 10, 2014, 01:55:26 am »

An autoloader would be one more piece of mechanical equipment to deal with, going against the philosophy of being able to maintain the tank in the field. A fourth crew member would give us a lot more versatility, such as being able to mount an MG on the tank, or we could even have them designated to perform the more involved maintenance on the tank, helping us out with repair in the field, or even have them operate the tank's radio or something. Aiming should probably take more time than loading given that we might be working with equipment that could be outdated compared to any enemies, so getting good hits that count would be more important that mass of fire thrown at the enemy. Having a fourth crewman would distribute the task load more, which in my mind seems like it would balance out the fatigue caused by a cramped environment, which they aren't going to inhabit for days on end anyway. I agree with you on the size of the tank though, and that's something that we might need to address. I also tend to agree on the cost to maintain another crewman.
« Last Edit: October 10, 2014, 01:59:01 am by Beneviento »
Logged
And any man who may be asked in this century what he did to make his life worthwhile, I think can respond with a good deal of pride and satisfaction: 'I served in the Assaulted Lanterns Magma Artillery' - King Id I of the Assaulted Lanterns

adwarf

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: [SG] Imperial Military Design Bureau [Year: 2020]
« Reply #130 on: October 10, 2014, 02:24:54 am »

Uhhhhh, are we the red nation?
Logged

10ebbor10

  • Bay Watcher
  • DON'T PANIC
    • View Profile
Re: [SG] Imperial Military Design Bureau [Year: 2020]
« Reply #131 on: October 10, 2014, 02:27:48 am »

Yes. I should have said that.
Logged

Parsely

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
    • My games!
Re: [SG] Imperial Military Design Bureau [Year: 2020]
« Reply #132 on: October 10, 2014, 02:31:11 am »

The cost of one man per tank adds up exponentially. I think you underestimate the amount of money that goes into taking care of one person.

Say we end up building 500 tanks. 3 or 4 crewmen? That's the difference between having to take care of 1500 and 2000 people. A whole extra 500 people! Each of whom needs to be trained, which takes time space and money, have somewhere to sleep, which costs space and money, and has to receive wages, which costs more money, and could possibly be injured in which case you lose more money and have to train someone else to do his job. A person requires more maintenance and money by far, than a mechanical system.

The autoloader requires no training, you do not need to pay, house or feed the autoloader except with ammunition, if the autoloader is damaged in combat (unlikely since it's inside the hull) the third crewman can still load the gun manually, then repair the system afterward. Granted the autoloader cannot perform maintenance or stand watch, but if we do our best to keep the rest of the tank as uncomplicated as possible, we don't need feed those extra 500 people in order to keep it as efficient as possible.

Abrams needs four men because the commander is busy fiddling with computers, our tank isn't nearly as state-of-the-art. But right now we don't have a Future Warrior project or GPS guidance systems or laser-range finders or battlefield networks that display detailed terrain information, so I don't think we really need that fourth guy.

Uhhhhh, are we the red nation?
Yes. I should have said that.
Oh god we're right in the middle.
Logged

Beneviento

  • Bay Watcher
  • Rocks and Blocks
    • View Profile
Re: [SG] Imperial Military Design Bureau [Year: 2020]
« Reply #133 on: October 10, 2014, 03:06:16 am »

If they're both inside the armor of the tank like they should be, I'd say a human loader and autoloader stand about the same chance of being damaged in combat. However, you've convinced me. It seems to me that with our limited resources, we need a tank that is as economical and as easily produced as we can get, and a four crew member tank is not going to be that tank. It's probably worth the small reduction in possible effectiveness of our tank in order to be able to field another battalion of infantry.
Logged
And any man who may be asked in this century what he did to make his life worthwhile, I think can respond with a good deal of pride and satisfaction: 'I served in the Assaulted Lanterns Magma Artillery' - King Id I of the Assaulted Lanterns

akkudakku

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: [SG] Imperial Military Design Bureau [Year: 2020]
« Reply #134 on: October 10, 2014, 10:54:37 am »

Updating my votes.
Spoiler: VOTES (click to show/hide)
« Last Edit: October 10, 2014, 10:56:43 am by akkudakku »
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10 11 ... 29