Topic: Department of Armaments-Weapon Design Game-Dead. Please Lock. (Read 104284 times)

Aseaheru · « **Reply #900 on:** December 03, 2015, 08:15:59 pm »

Oh, Maegil, which landingcraft where you talking about? LST, LCT, LCM, LCI, *looks up the other ones...* LCVP, LCP and variants, LCA, or the LCP(L)?

Maegil · « **Reply #901 on:** December 03, 2015, 09:08:23 pm »

The base is the LCM(1), it has its own page, but the dimensions are conflicting and confusing, I actually got the specs from here.
As for the mortars, I got the idea from the later models LCA, but instead of 2x2in mortars, I decided for a single of our own OP electric mortar.

Spoiler: LCM(1) (click to show/hide)

I'm not certain, but I think the NLAC is something more in the line of the Rhino ferry, only a bit smaller, with an AA and not requiring a tow.

Spoiler: Rhino ferry (click to show/hide)

Video of Rhino at work

3_14159 · « **Reply #902 on:** December 04, 2015, 09:10:55 am »

Quote from: tryrar on December 03, 2015, 07:53:52 pm

As for the fact that the engine turned into an "aircraft" engine, no problem. We can still use it in our tanks and stuff, just need high octane gas for it.

Yet high octance gas will be expensive. On the other hand, all of our logistics vehicles will have the less choosey engine.
On that, I vote for Reliable. A more reliable tank means that you've got more of them. It's less useful if half of your tanks don't even arrive at the battle.

Quote

Also, we should build an annex to our naval factory to start building landing craft.

I wouldn't do it that way. Right now, we're producing Shockwaves and those old coastal defense vessels. By switching the latter with the NLAC, we'll get the first batch of 20 this turn.

Aseaheru · « **Reply #903 on:** December 04, 2015, 04:47:31 pm »

Next turn. Unless you want to spend workers and material on it.

Maegil · « **Reply #904 on:** December 04, 2015, 04:52:25 pm »

Quote from: Aseaheru on December 04, 2015, 04:47:31 pm

Next turn. Unless you want to spend workers and material on it.

I guess we probably will... How many, and how much?
Are those values standard for any urgent retooling, or is it case-by-case?

StrawBarrel · « **Reply #905 on:** December 04, 2015, 07:28:05 pm »

SPE-M1938 Trait Vote: Reliable.

3_14159 · « **Reply #906 on:** December 05, 2015, 04:28:17 pm »

Just as a reference, I am currently waiting for the rest of the turn to be posted before proposing designs.

jaked122 · « **Reply #907 on:** December 06, 2015, 11:22:07 pm »

Just to be clear, the suggestion that we had reached the limits of what could be done with materials and technology accessible at the time, they suggested semiconductors...

Can we be twenty years ahead of everyone else?

Anyway, to contribute, I'll vote for reliable for the SPE-M1938.

Funk · « **Reply #908 on:** December 10, 2015, 07:15:48 am »

SPE-M1938 Trait Vote: Reliable.

3_14159 · « **Reply #909 on:** December 12, 2015, 02:13:15 pm »

So, anyways, there are some things I can still talk about until we get the rest.

There are a few things I think would be useful.
First of all, I'd like to construct a new tank. Instead of the amphibious assault design, it'd be a simple, reliable medium tank; the future workhorse for our army. Mounting a single SPE-M1938 engine and using some features explored with the T-SP-M1938 (like the enlarged turret ring for future use), it's not supposed to perform spectacularly but to perform efficiently.

I'd also like to build a patrol/medium bomber for naval patrols. Something like the PB4Y-2, the FW200 or the Catalina (if we want to go the seaplane route). Ideally, it'd include an (interchangeable)
radar mount on which we can mount an aerial search radar, ground search radar and EW equipment. About 5-6t of bombs would be nice, and we'd probably use four of our Hurricane engines.

I'd also like to design either fire control for our ships or an aerial surveillance radar (for the patrol bomber); preferrably the latter.

Additionally, I'd like to design air-launched rockets and build a new destroyer or possibly assign a whole team to build one of these per turn.

Funk · « **Reply #910 on:** December 12, 2015, 03:12:20 pm »

+1 to the new tank.
For the new planes i'd like a new firestorm model for ground-attack with one big gun in the nose.

Maegil · « **Reply #911 on:** December 12, 2015, 05:56:49 pm »

Quote from: 3_14159 on December 12, 2015, 02:13:15 pm

First of all, I'd like to construct a new tank. Instead of the amphibious assault design, it'd be a simple, reliable medium tank; the future workhorse for our army. Mounting a single SPE-M1938 engine and using some features explored with the T-SP-M1938 (like the enlarged turret ring for future use), it's not supposed to perform spectacularly but to perform efficiently.

That depends whether we're breaking the temporal technical paradigms or not: at that time, there were fast light and cruiser tanks, supposed to fill in the cavalry role (Pz I, II and III, Soviet BT and American M2 tanks), more armored slow infantry tanks generally armed with howitzers (StuG III, Pz.IV, Matilda), and lumbering heavy tanks designed to take on fortifications (about the only thing they could actually catch up to) or anything that came at them (KV-1, Char B1).
The medium tank came about when field experience showed that cruiser tanks actually had to be able to shrug off at least some hits and the infantry tanks were the ones present when breakthroughs were achieved, so there was a need for an "universal" tank with plenty of armor, but also mobile and well armed - this can be seen clearly on the evolution of the Pz. IV.
Given our terrain, I think we have more need of an infantry tank, which we could then gradually increase the armor, gun and engine into a proper medium tank - something good enough to remain our mainstay at least until 1943, and in service for even longer in other duties (Yes, the Pz. IV

, even if our engine already allows to armor it to hell and back and still be quite nimble-as long as I don't have to pick up that guzzler's bar tab).

Quote

I'd also like to build a patrol/medium bomber for naval patrols. Something like the PB4Y-2, the FW200 or the Catalina (if we want to go the seaplane route). Ideally, it'd include an (interchangeable)
radar mount on which we can mount an aerial search radar, ground search radar and EW equipment. About 5-6t of bombs would be nice, and we'd probably use four of our Hurricane engines.

At this point we only have a tactical dive bomber, so it's a good idea. Instead of a FW200, however, I'd rather go for something a bit smaller and both less fragile and more expendable, with only two engines instead of four... By this time, the B-18 Bolo (a weaponized DC-2) had just entered service but was soon considered underpowered and too small; however the larger DC-3 was proving to be a revolutionary design (actually so good that even 70 years later it's still in operation).
True, the CD-3 wasn't converted into a bomber but into a transport, but we have a 1500hp engine (the DC-3 had two 1100-1200hp engines), and we can come up with something with a bit more wingspan to increase the lift and range.

Aside that, fleet reconnaissance could be drastically increased by Catalina-type seaplanes, but given our weather, that may not be so feasible. Instead, I'd suggest a cheap folding wing catapult-launched seaplane fighter-bomber/ASW plane - the swell wouldn't prevent the launch, and if the conditions are too rough to land for recovery the pilot can just bail out near the mother ship (which could even carry more than one in the hold, even if not launch them quickly).

Quote

I'd also like to design either fire control for our ships or an aerial surveillance radar (for the patrol bomber); preferrably the latter.

I fully agree, but we need better electronics.

Quote

Additionally, I'd like to design air-launched rockets and build a new destroyer or possibly assign a whole team to build one of these per turn.

I agree that we need both, and will vote for them

Funk · « **Reply #912 on:** December 12, 2015, 07:51:04 pm »

I say that we just buy some DC-3's or some Lisunov Li-'s2 (the metric model) there a civil air craft so we can buy them with out weapons or engines and out fit them our selves.

We need a large calibre round, some thing in-between 7.62R and 20mm for heavy machine and sniper use.
A bullet in the 12-14mm with a focus on long range accuracy is what we need.

Aseaheru · « **Reply #913 on:** December 12, 2015, 07:53:39 pm »

Sorry for the wait on this, work is being a pain. I should have it done by next weekend though...
Also, on needing a larger round than 7.62x54r, if you look at just diameter theres the .45 rounds and the shotguns...

Also, there where 20mm snipers, and still are some in use. Plus, with rifle-caliber rounds being seen as "heavy" rounds these days...

3_14159 · « **Reply #914 on:** December 13, 2015, 07:06:39 am »

Quote from: Funk on December 12, 2015, 03:12:20 pm

+1 to the new tank.
For the new planes i'd like a new firestorm model for ground-attack with one big gun in the nose.

I believe a patrol bomber is more important at the moment since our main problem is going to be the naval war. Even so, I don't particularly like using big-gun fighters (like the Ju-87G or the Mosquito variant) since I believe rockets to be more effective and flexible. Even more so when you're able to mount them onto your normal fighters with only slight performance losses when not using them.

Quote from: Maegil on December 12, 2015, 05:56:49 pm

That depends whether we're breaking the temporal technical paradigms or not

We built an almost-IFV in 1934; I don't think we ever adhered to the paradigms :-)

Quote

at that time, there were fast light and cruiser tanks, supposed to fill in the cavalry role (Pz I, II and III, Soviet BT and American M2 tanks), more armored slow infantry tanks generally armed with howitzers (StuG III, Pz.IV, Matilda), and lumbering heavy tanks designed to take on fortifications (about the only thing they could actually catch up to) or anything that came at them (KV-1, Char B1).
The medium tank came about when field experience showed that cruiser tanks actually had to be able to shrug off at least some hits and the infantry tanks were the ones present when breakthroughs were achieved, so there was a need for an "universal" tank with plenty of armor, but also mobile and well armed - this can be seen clearly on the evolution of the Pz. IV.

I definitely agree (except slightly for the StuG part; you're probably thinking about the StuH or the very early StuG version).
To expand, the combat paradigm was to use the infantry tanks to punch a hole into the enemy lines (for which they needed firepower and armour), one which the cruiser tanks could then exploit (for which they needed speed).
However, even with the (usual) distinction into cavalry and infantry tanks, there were some early attempts on medium tanks, like the French S35, a fairly fast (40/32km/h) tank armed with a 47mm cannon and about 47/40mm of armour.
Alternatively, we might designate it as an infantry tank but recognize that - since I really don't want to add another user of the SDE M1933 engine - with the new engine, it's going to go fast enough.

Quote

Given our terrain, I think we have more need of an infantry tank, which we could then gradually increase the armor, gun and engine into a proper medium tank - something good enough to remain our mainstay at least until 1943, and in service for even longer in other duties (Yes, the Pz. IV , even if our engine already allows to armor it to hell and back and still be quite nimble-as long as I don't have to pick up that guzzler's bar tab).

Agreed.

Quote

At this point we only have a tactical dive bomber, so it's a good idea. Instead of a FW200, however, I'd rather go for something a bit smaller and both less fragile and more expendable, with only two engines instead of four... By this time, the B-18 Bolo (a weaponized DC-2) had just entered service but was soon considered underpowered and too small; however the larger DC-3 was proving to be a revolutionary design (actually so good that even 70 years later it's still in operation).
True, the CD-3 wasn't converted into a bomber but into a transport, but we have a 1500hp engine (the DC-3 had two 1100-1200hp engines), and we can come up with something with a bit more wingspan to increase the lift and range.

That's a good idea. How about we build something similar to the B-25 or the Wellington? Twin-engined, medium bomber?

Quote

Aside that, fleet reconnaissance could be drastically increased by Catalina-type seaplanes, but given our weather, that may not be so feasible. Instead, I'd suggest a cheap folding wing catapult-launched seaplane fighter-bomber/ASW plane - the swell wouldn't prevent the launch, and if the conditions are too rough to land for recovery the pilot can just bail out near the mother ship (which could even carry more than one in the hold, even if not launch them quickly).

You mean something like a CAM-Ship for merchant defense or the battleships' seaplane launcher? For combat scouting, this might work. On the other hand, by introducing a Catalina-like design (which already had 4000km of range) we get more space on our ships, and we can still expand the range with seaplane tenders. That is, we station a few seaplane tenders 500-1000km out. If the weather permits it, the plane can land and refuel (and the crew rest) there. If not, they have to return to the main airport. On the other hand, a seaplane tender for a Catalina-sized plane might be very big and therefore expensive.

Quote

I fully agree, but we need better electronics.

In which way? Higher quality, higher quantity, ...?

Quote from: Funk on December 12, 2015, 07:51:04 pm

I say that we just buy some DC-3's or some Lisunov Li-'s2 (the metric model) there a civil air craft so we can buy them with out weapons or engines and out fit them our selves.

Or just use them as a transport plane. Yeah, those might both work.

Quote

We need a large calibre round, some thing in-between 7.62R and 20mm for heavy machine and sniper use.
A bullet in the 12-14mm with a focus on long range accuracy is what we need.

Go for the classics?

Quote from: Aseaheru on December 12, 2015, 07:53:39 pm

Sorry for the wait on this, work is being a pain. I should have it done by next weekend though...

No worries.

Quote

Also, on needing a larger round than 7.62x54r, if you look at just diameter theres the .45 rounds and the shotguns...

Also, there where 20mm snipers, and still are some in use. Plus, with rifle-caliber rounds being seen as "heavy" rounds these days...

Sure, there are .45 pistol and the shotgun rounds. They're probably rather ineffective as sniper weapons though :-P
And while there were 20mm sniper (well, anti-tank) rifle rounds, they make the weapons heavy and ineffective rather quickly. So if we get access to the M2, I'd say we should probably use a 7.62mm sniper rifle (just a mosin with sights) and maybe, maybe build a 12.7mm anti-materiel rifle.

Also, here's the current production numbers for this turn.

TURN 12: 1938.0

Spoiler: Industry assignments 1938.0 (turn 12) (click to show/hide)

Spoiler: Industry production 1938.0 (turn 12) (click to show/hide)

Spoiler: Stocks 1938.0 (turn 12) (click to show/hide)

Bay 12 Games Forum

News:

Poll

Dead or not dead?

Author Topic: Department of Armaments-Weapon Design Game-Dead. Please Lock. (Read 104284 times)

Aseaheru

Re: Department of Armaments-Weapon Design Game-First half of First Half of 1938

Maegil

Re: Department of Armaments-Weapon Design Game-First half of First Half of 1938

3_14159

Re: Department of Armaments-Weapon Design Game-First half of First Half of 1938

Aseaheru

Re: Department of Armaments-Weapon Design Game-First half of First Half of 1938

Maegil

Re: Department of Armaments-Weapon Design Game-First half of First Half of 1938

StrawBarrel

Re: Department of Armaments-Weapon Design Game-First half of First Half of 1938

3_14159

Re: Department of Armaments-Weapon Design Game-First half of First Half of 1938

jaked122

Re: Department of Armaments-Weapon Design Game-First half of First Half of 1938

Funk

Re: Department of Armaments-Weapon Design Game-First half of First Half of 1938

3_14159

Re: Department of Armaments-Weapon Design Game-First half of First Half of 1938

Funk

Re: Department of Armaments-Weapon Design Game-First half of First Half of 1938

Maegil

Re: Department of Armaments-Weapon Design Game-First half of First Half of 1938

Funk

Re: Department of Armaments-Weapon Design Game-First half of First Half of 1938

Aseaheru

Re: Department of Armaments-Weapon Design Game-First half of First Half of 1938

3_14159

Re: Department of Armaments-Weapon Design Game-First half of First Half of 1938