Print

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

[Andres]

I have a much better idea than revising our plane to use less fuel. We use a revision action to get a few more ammo types. Getting tracers will be devastating for the enemy airforce, and getting High explosive fragmentation ammo for our auto cannon will hurt them significantly as well.

Then we can throw in APHE, HEAT, hollow point or whatever to boost ground forces as well.

Getting more planes in the air would help us more than tracer rounds, I think, especially since it lets us bomb them more. It may even get us enough bombers to take out their trucks as well as their planes. Seriously, we shouldn't delay this upgrade as much as we did our MC16.

Anyway, why don't we design some kind of big, nasty howitzer for the cities? We have a ton of ore, let's make a real heavy artillery.

That kind of massive artillery historically wasn't very useful. The Nazis tried it and it worked neither from a morale point nor from a destructive point.

EDIT: The engine revision might also give us some experience if we want to build a heavy tank or a heavy bomber. We won't be able to field them in decent numbers due to resource costs otherwise.

[andrea]

A real heavy artillery is surely an useful effort. However, a successful bombing campaign with a proper bomber should work just as well, and with less range restrictions.

@Andres I don't think Sheb meant the supergun kind of artillery, just an heavy artillery which we can still field in good numbers. Not an artillery able to deliver 300mm projectiles 300 km away. (by the way, whatever artillery we design it is going to have great range, thanks to our RAP)

[Sheb]

Super-large artillery doesn't work, but currently we have nothing larger than 8cm. We could have a 15cm cannon that would be very useful.

PS. Ebbor, you might be right.

[10ebbor10]

Getting more planes in the air would help us more than tracer rounds, I think, especially since it lets us bomb them more. It may even get us enough bombers to take out their trucks as well as their planes. Seriously, we shouldn't delay this upgrade as much as we did our MC16.

The thing is, I'm not certain we can actually reduce fuel use without heavily impacting performance. I mean, our plane is already slower, less maneuverable, less capable of flying at altitude, and all that.

[Sheb]

We could revise our planes to add turbo and supercharger and stuff to them?

[andrea]

a turbocharger can save fuel ( if you also reduce engine size), and improve the ability to work at higher altitudes. Sure, our planes would be worse, but there will be many more of them.

[10ebbor10]

We could revise our planes to add turbo and supercharger and stuff to them?

Does that reduce fuel use?

Description says it increases it.

[Sheb]

Thinking about it, I like the Heavy Bomber idea. If we could use it to disrupt their capital...

[Andres]

Speaking of our heavy resource advantage, why don't we donate our Chinese Ore to the US? It's not making any of our stuff cheaper and it'll improve relations with them. It'll also increase our prestige in the eyes of the world. We stand to lose nothing if we do this.

Donate our Chinese Ore to the US.

Glory to Arstotzka.

Getting more planes in the air would help us more than tracer rounds, I think, especially since it lets us bomb them more. It may even get us enough bombers to take out their trucks as well as their planes. Seriously, we shouldn't delay this upgrade as much as we did our MC16.

The thing is, I'm not certain we can actually reduce fuel use without heavily impacting performance. I mean, our plane is already slower, less maneuverable, less capable of flying at altitude, and all that.

Their revised their tank engine to use diesel without any change in performance. All it did was decrease its resource cost. Also, the argument you're using now has been used before. Most recently, it was said that simplifying our SMG's mechanisms would decrease performance. Yes, someone actually said this despite seeing Moskurg doing the same with no decrease in performance.

Also, we can just use fuel injection to decrease the cost. Our HF is just using it to increase power rather than get its previous level of power for less fuel.

FOUR REPLIES STOP IT

[andrea]

we have plenty of tech to reduce oil cost. Furthermore, increasing the service ceiling of our crafts means they fly at altitudes at which they find less drag, improving efficiency.

turbocharger is listed as a possible improvement in that you can use it to make the engine smaller while getting the same power. Smaller engine means less losses.

[10ebbor10]

Anyway, a few proposals.

Spoiler: AS-1932-HAI (click to show/hide)

A high performance High Altitude interceptor. Utilizes a supercharged, fuel injected V12 engine, with a AS-AC18 firing through the propshaft, which is kept light due to being reinforced with High quality Steel. (Molebdynum steel?) Enclosed cockpit, retractable landing gear, scope. An additional armament of 4 AS-1924's is present in the wings.

As an added bonus, introduce combat flaps and a War Emergency Power system

This is if we go the quality over quantity route.

Spoiler: AS-1932-GI (click to show/hide)

A cheap yet capable interceptor. Utilizes a supercharged, fuel injected V6 engine, optimized for fuel efficiency. Enclosed cockpit, retractable landing gear. Armament consists of 2 nose mounted AS-1924's with interrupter gear.

As an added bonus, introduce combat flaps and a War Emergency Power system

Lightly armed, but this should make it cheap and fast.

Spoiler: AS-1932-HAB (click to show/hide)

A triple engine medium bomber (2 in the wings, 1 in the nose). Supercharged, fuel injected engines allow for fuel efficient flight, even at high altitude. Carries 1 ton of bombs in an internal bomb bay and is equipped with a bomb sight.

3 gunners are present. 1 gunner operates a cannon mounted in the tail, another operates a twin machine gun dorsal turret, another operates 2 machine guns on each side of the plane.

For the simple reason that I believe that we can't afford the massive box formations that the B-17 utilized, and that seeing as we have no high altitude escort plane, making a big bomber will only succeed in giving the enemy more scrap material. Hence, optimized for speedy flight at lower altitudes.

Note: I don't see much use in further upgrading our current plane. It's rapidly becoming obsolete, utilizing an open cockpit, no optics, unretractable landing gear, and all that.

[Sheb]

Couldn't we try to design a bomber with a higher altitude ceiling than their YellowBird?

[andrea]

good point for the lack of escort.  Low altitude high speed might work better. However, as you said we should upgrade our interceptors soon, which would give us higher altitude fighters.

either way, I think we need more than one ton of bombs. our dive bombers can drop half a ton already.

@sheb: we definitely can, since we have a turbocharger and they don't.

[Sheb]

So why don't we got high-altitude enough that they can't intercept us? Then next turn they'll have to waste time while we can get a good interceptor.

[10ebbor10]

That lowers the accuracy of our bombers significantly though.