Print

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

[Stirk]

Going to +1 this. Air Power will break up enemy attacks and tear up defensive positions not covered by anti air emplacements or other air support.

You don't +1, you vote  .

I still fail to understand that kind of resistance against using stuff with flaws

So far it has taken little effort to remove all flaws, so why not do so? Perfection is good, and easily obtainable.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

Because we are wasting time on fixing flaws

[Stirk]

Because we are wasting time on fixing flaws

Instead of what? Building railguns for our nonexistent navy?

[Patrick Hunt]

Because a weapon system that is defeated by a gust of wind can fail at any moment. I'd rather take an extra year to get it right then rush it out just to fail.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

Because we are wasting time on fixing flaws

Instead of what? Building railguns for our nonexistent navy?

Railguns are a long term-project

[Stirk]

Railguns are a long term-project

So you are fine working on long-term projects, but not making huge fixes in things we could field right now?

[Ukrainian Ranger]

I don't think they are huge.  I think the fixes are rather minor

Besides I prefer using experience for developing new weapons:

Fixing weapon system A is a bad move for me
Developing different weapon system B that uses experience from system A is a good course  of action

Look at my 18kg armor proposal from the last turn.
Or my railgun proposal this turn (BTW, I want a railgun tank sooner or later)

[Stirk]

Fixing weapon system A is a bad move for me
Developing different weapon system B that uses experience from system A is a good course  of action

Why? This is how it is done in the real world. Just look at the M16s in Vietnam. We have the power to stop poor results like that, saving lives of our troops.

Besides, look at it this way. If we produce high-quality items with no faults, then when they are used we get browny points from the higher ups who will give us more stuff. If they are all failures filled with flaws, we aren't going to get funding for all those long term projects you guys seem to want.

Why develop new things when the old one works fine?

What is the purpose of learning how to use a medium armor if our light armor is a failure? What kind of experience does one get out of a flawed system?

Also, I always found railguns boring. What is wrong with good-old-fashioned powder?

[Patrick Hunt]

I'm with Stirk. Sending out defective kit that will fail our men will cost us the resources you want for your big jobs.

Do it right or don't do it at all.

[evilcherry]

Maybe we should actually do both. Even the ammo are shite, at least we got the launchers right. Also, we got no MANPADS to work with at the moment, and our only AA are full-sized SAM rockets, which are prohibitively expensive if they are to replace MANPADS.

Of course, we should work on the rocket motor of the MANPADS. But that does not mean that we should not deploy them to frontlines at the same time.

So, in short, we do a limited rollout of MANPADS and iron out the flaws. Then we can finally start series production.



As for this year's plans, the light CAS turboprop is a good idea. We should just reverse engineer or import Dragunovs if we need a DMR. We might need an anti-materiel rifle; or we can find if we can reverse engineer a 12.7x108mm weapon or not.

Formal votes later.

[Patrick Hunt]

Deploying it when the rocket it fires is volatile will kill our own men when it blows up right after launch. Without usable ammo it's no use.

[Taricus]

The full-sized SAMs are suitable enough for deterrence work at the very least, so we're not completely defenceless. As for spending time on all the flaw-fixing, given the scarcity of resources and the fact it's not good practice to use shoddy equipment means that working out the flaws is a good plan. Not only that, but it also still gives our engineers valuable experience as well.

EDIT: Also, out 14.5mm round is just fine for anti-material work. We don't need to make up another round type for it.

[Parsely]

An anti-material rifle would be nice, but with bigger things to worry about like our AA capability I don't think that's something we particularly need right now. Those are only useful for taking out unarmored or lightly armored vehicles, among other things, and we need trained snipers to use them effectively.

I'm happy with the fixed SAMs we've bought, we should deploy those around important installations throughout the country.

Proposal 5.1: 8-ton armored mine/ballistic-protected four-door infantry mobility vehicle. 620 miles (1000km) range and a top speed of 81mph (130km). 2+8 crew, with a wraparound armor-glass turret

Spoiler: Votes (click to show/hide)

1. Rechargeable Battery ()
2. Smaller Railgun ()
3. Redesigned Badger (Taricus, akkudakku)
4. Fix Light Armour Flaws (Taricus, akkudakku)
5. Armoured Truck Design (Taricus)
    - 5.1 7-ton mine-protected infantry mobility vehicle, 10 occupants, wraparound turret (GUNINANRUNIN)
6. Develop a DE-based active protection system ()
7. Sniper rifle ()
8. Universal machine gun (akkudakku)
9. Eliminate MPOD flaws (akkudakku, GUNINANRUNIN)
10. Turboprop trainer (akkudakku, GUNINANRUNIN)
11. Jet trainer/light fighter (akkudakku, GUNINANRUNIN)

A. MANPAD Distribution ()
B. Shoreline Railguns (akkudakku)
C. Small-arms Factory: (Taricus, akkudakku)
D. Start production of the rifle and pistol. (akkudakku)

[Taricus]

I think the only problem with that design GUNIN is the weight target. I don't think that's a realistic goal for such a vehicle.

[Parsely]

Based the proposal on this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VPK-3927_Volk

There are even lighter vehicles than that built with the same kind of resistance in mind: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iveco_LMV

E: The alternative is one that weighs 14 tons. The BTR weighs less than that, and it has guns. :l