+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.
Actually, and as much as I regret to say (I don't really like the idea, but, hey, eventually the brits made the Schnellbomber concept work), the Mosquito was quite the awesome plane, and it did had its uses.
In the ground attack case, I'd say "horses for courses", rockets are great against infantry and buildings, but too inaccurate to reliably hit a targeted tank, and large gun strafing was well proven by the Sturmovik (BTW, we should see if Stalin will let us make these).
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 :-)
Indeed... Then again, it might have been just one of those anachronistic inventions - you know, like Leonardo da Vinci's parachute, or the S35...
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.
To be frank, I'd very much like to develop a 250HP and a 500hp engine to complement our current 50~750hp gap, making sure that they are immediately compatible with the current. This time, though, maybe we should enforce these requirements with the threat of having the design team draw lots to see who would go mine gold for the winter if they screw up?
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?
Yes, the Wellington would be perfect.
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.
Worse than just expensive, a seaplane simply can't develop enough speed to take off if the sea is even slightly rough, which if I understand correctly would be most of the time; that's why I suggested a catapult design.
I fully agree, but we need better electronics.
In which way? Higher quality, higher quantity, ...?
Both, but more importantly, more advanced. The miniaturization issue, and the cavity magnetron thingie for centimetric radars, remember?
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.
Yes, I agree. We'll need an airlift and transport plane anyway...
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?
Nah, it fires too slowly. If we're to use it also in aircraft and as pintle AA on armor, it really should have more RoF.
Sorry for the wait on this, work is being a pain. I should have it done by next weekend though...
No worries.
We should only thank you for taking the time, not put undue extra pressures on your RL. If you're too busy, though, maybe you should consider letting someone else temporarily take over.
Poll
0 (0%)
Author
Topic: Department of Armaments-Weapon Design Game-Dead. Please Lock. (Read 104325 times)