Print

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

[10ebbor10]

You were in favor of the Carabine, which was rather unsuccesfull.

And we don't need to waste a design action on the Machine gun. That can be done perfectly through a revision. We have all the techs, and same ammunition used.

I'd vote for mountain artillery first (that early mortar have us a descicive advantage, extra range is even better) In addition, extra firepower everywhere..

[Andres]

(I edited this into my last post but posting again in case people didn't see it.)

The mountain howitzer suggestion won't work. Their current enemy machine gun tactics heavily favour ambushes - something that can't be countered with artillery.

You were in favor of the Carabine, which was rather unsuccesfull.

And we don't need to waste a design action on the Machine gun. That can be done perfectly through a revision.

I'd vote for mountain artillery first (that early mortar have us a descicive advantage, extra range is better).

The carbine was good enough to replace the pistol even with its bad reliability. It "works" in trench fighting and charging, so it's doing its job. It's also better at stopping charging soldiers than the Nosin, which is admirable considering the Moskurigan Fierce trait. The only problem with it is its reliability. If we were to solve that, I expect its performance to be much higher. If we can give it a magazine, we'll be one step closer to fielding an SMG.

This MG is just as different from our own as the M2 was to the M1, so it'll need its own Design phase.

See above for my objection to mountain artillery.

Glory to Arstotzka.

[Aseaheru]

If we do design a new machine gun, we should probably make it use mags. Cheaper tech and lighter, aswell as easier to move about.

[tryrar]

AS the howitzer was my idea, I vote for that. For revision, we don't need to design a new MG, just revise our existing one to be light enough to be carried by one to two men

[Andres]

If we do design a new machine gun, we should probably make it use mags. Cheaper tech and lighter, aswell as easier to move about.

Yes, this is a good idea. If we succeed, the next step to making an SMG is to make it smaller, but that makes sense since SMG stands for sub-machine gun. I'll change the design. This is a very good revision because the cheapness will let us field all of our soldiers with it.

AS the howitzer was my idea, I vote for that. For revision, we don't need to design a new MG, just revise our existing one to be light enough to be carried by one to two men

We don't need new artillery. We have two types of artillery and they're both working fine. They're new machine gun is giving them a huge advantage in every theatre of war and it's an Expensive weapon! Matching that with a non-Expensive weapon would be game-changing in our favour.

Glory to Arstotzka.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

I change my vote to mountain howitzer

I am ready to let our enemy have better small arms if we will get a steady advantage in artillery

[10ebbor10]

The mountain howitzer suggestion won't work. Their current enemy machine gun tactics heavily favour ambushes - something that can't be countered with artillery.

It will. We were forced to withdraw to our defensive line. The mortar can easily hit their positions from there.

This MG is just as different from our own as the M2 was to the M1, so it'll need its own Design phase.

It is not. They changed their ammunition type, we won't. They changed their cooling system, we won't.

We have a consistent problem with underusing our/design phase.

And you overestimate the advantage their weapon gives them. It only gave them an advantage in the mountains.

[Andres]

I'm looking at the design for the mountain howitzer and seeing that it actually has a larger round size than our current artillery, making it bigger and thus harder to carry around.
Wouldn't it be wiser to revise our current Artillery so that it can be easily disassembled, as well as adding the hydro-pneumatic recoil dampening system? This is a better idea because if we design a new artillery, we risk being loaded with the same problem the 1912 had, namely that it can't be used in warm weather. By revising our 1912 Artillery, we can ensure our mountain artillery can also be used in the Jungle.

Glory to Arstotzka.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

IMO, we want a large calibre that is still light enough to use in mountains\jungles and give us huge firepower advantage . And if we fail to make it mobile it will still stay useful in plains, were 105mm shell can make a difference.

[tryrar]

A tossup really. The heavier shell has more boom in it(and so means more damage to whatever it hits which usually = more dead soldiers) and even though it's shortbarrled, the heavier cartridge should fire out at least as far as our current artillery. But as you said, the bigger caliber does mean the gun is overall heavier, and harder to transport in pieces as well as being new tech and thus subject to the whims of the dice. Overall though, I think the positives should outweigh the negatives here, especially if we can bombard their positions with our heavy pieces from our encampments.

[10ebbor10]

Our current artillery and the Howitzer are entirely different weapon systems.

The artillery is an artillery gun, like you can find on tanks. Low firing angle, direct line of sight. It has a rather long (and heavy) barrel for high speed projectiles. The proposed mountain gun is a short barreled Howitzer. This means a somewhat smaller muzzle velocity, but a Howitzer doesn't need that to do damage.

In short. Gun means long range and direct fire, Howitzer means indirect fire and powerfull shells. (Our Howitzwrs shells should be twice as heavy as our normal shells)

As for the problem, sabotage can happen wherether redesigning or not.

[Aseaheru]

You also have high velocity VS low. High means better AP, but HE loads need stronger case walls so that they dont go boom in the gun. Low velocity is the opposite, while also being less useful against moving objects. However, its also alot easier to lob shells over things.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

I think even low velocity 105mm shell will handle any early armor, no need to get AP weapon.

[Andres]

Our current artillery and the Howitzer are entirely different weapon systems.

The artillery is an artillery gun, like you can find on tanks. Low firing angle, direct line of sight. It has a rather long (and heavy) barrel for high speed projectiles. The proposed mountain gun is a short barreled Howitzer. This means a somewhat smaller muzzle velocity, but a Howitzer doesn't need that to do damage.

In short. Gun means long range and direct fire, Howitzer means indirect fire and powerfull shells. (Our Howitzwrs shells should be twice as heavy as our normal shells)

As for the problem, sabotage can happen wherether redesigning or not.

Even if a howitzer would be worth less than artillery on the Mountains, revising the artillery as I mentioned would be worth it in other ways. On the Field the hydropneumatic system would increase accuracy. On the Mountains, it would be light enough that we can put it on encampments to defend against the enemy, or even fire on the enemy's mines from afar. With us having more Ore and thus making the artillery piece cheaper, we could have all defensive positions in the Mountains equipped with this artillery. We risk not having that with the howitzer.

Making the new artillery a revision also lets us use the Design phase for a new machine gun, which I maintain is critical in matching the enemy's which is letting them win in all three theatres. Even better is that it'll make the creation of an SMG much easier. (Mag-fed MG, by the way.)

Glory to Arstotzka.

[tryrar]

Our current artillery and the Howitzer are entirely different weapon systems.

The artillery is an artillery gun, like you can find on tanks. Low firing angle, direct line of sight. It has a rather long (and heavy) barrel for high speed projectiles. The proposed mountain gun is a short barreled Howitzer. This means a somewhat smaller muzzle velocity, but a Howitzer doesn't need that to do damage.

In short. Gun means long range and direct fire, Howitzer means indirect fire and powerfull shells. (Our Howitzwrs shells should be twice as heavy as our normal shells)

As for the problem, sabotage can happen wherether redesigning or not.

Even if a howitzer would be worth less than artillery on the Mountains, revising the artillery as I mentioned would be worth it in other ways. On the Field the hydropneumatic system would increase accuracy. On the Mountains, it would be light enough that we can put it on encampments to defend against the enemy, or even fire on the enemy's mines from afar. With us having more Ore and thus making the artillery piece cheaper, we could have all defensive positions in the Mountains equipped with this artillery. We risk not having that with the howitzer.

Making the new artillery a revision also lets us use the Design phase for a new machine gun, which I maintain is critical in matching the enemy's which is letting them win in all three theatres. Even better is that it'll make the creation of an SMG much easier. (Mag-fed MG, by the way.)

Glory to Arstotzka.

yeah, I'm maintaining we don't need to go with a design for a new machine gun, just lighten the perfectly servicable one we have to the point it's more man portable.