Print

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

[Andres]

Conventional doctrine allots a gunner, spotter, and a guy to chain belts or recharge magazine. These men also rotate operating the gun or replace wounded gunners (gunners are a high priority target).

Why would there need to be someone to recharge the magazine? Couldn't the gunner do that on his own? Why would a gunner need a spotter? Couldn't he take a break from firing his machine gun and look up? I can only imagine there being one other person with the machine gunner now and that's to quickly replace the battle while the other gives covering fire with the Nosin or the F14.

EDIT: Actually, that one other person can pull double-duty for spotting and reloading, assuming such roles were needed. When you're reloading, the spotter is useless and when you're spotting, it's because the gunner's read to kill people.

Difficult to pull off, but a decent SMG in 1915 will not only sell well, it stands to upset history, or at least give it an uncomfortable shove.

Well, either that or stodgy generals won't see its value.

What technologies are we missing, exactly? We have a machine gun, we can load it with magazines, and we can downsize it with already-researched 9mm rounds. Speaking of which, what's the difference between Detachable Magazine technology and Clip and Magazine technology? How do you even reload a pistol or Nosin when you can't take out the magazine?

[10ebbor10]

Anyway, for that Tank, considering it uses a high pressure steam engine in an enclosed environment, I'm afraid most of the people who get in will quickly become pink steam. The armor is not strong enough to resist the horsekiller, and a single bullet can thus kill the entire crew.

I propose for combat doctrine that the tank is treated as a mobile bunker rather than a tank, spending most of the time with the engine cold.

Also, keep a tank at HQ, and use it for heat testing all future equipment.

[Andres]

Anyway, for that Tank, considering it uses a high pressure steam engine in an enclosed environment, I'm afraid most of the people who get in will quickly become pink steam. The armor is not strong enough to resist the horsekiller, and a single bullet can thus kill the entire crew.

I propose for combat doctrine that the tank is treated as a mobile bunker rather than a tank, spending most of the time with the engine cold.

I oppose this proposal of combat doctrine. The armour is 20mm thick - that's thicker than the Horsekiller round is long. Moreover, the latest British tank in WW1 (the Mark IV, I believe) had a mere 13mm and that survived fine. It was even slower than our own. If we get lucky, the Europeans might be interested in our tank for those facts alone.

Also, keep a tank at HQ, and use it for heat testing all future equipment.

We should see if it's prone to exploding when on the field before we keep one near the research facility, but it's definitely a good idea.

[10ebbor10]

Oh, you're right. I appear to have dramatically overestimated WW1 armor. In fact, it appears our tank might be invincible. For example, this late WW1 gun could only penetrate 22 mm at 100 meter and using a specially designed round. And it had the tendency to break the firer's bones.

The enemy has no other way of killing our tank. Methods used were direct firing mortars, artillery guns, or grenades. They have none of those.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mauser_1918_T-Gewehr

Let's move on, anyway.

Edit : Side note, lesson learnd, bold your votes people.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

0.6 inches is roughly the same caliber as WW2 AT rifles used but those were very advanced bolt action rifles and had special AP ammunition and I will say bullshit if Horsekillers will penetrate 20mm of steel.

0.6 machinegun is what I am more afraid of but only at point blank range.

At least it is how I hope GM will treat small arms vs Tanks fights.

I totally support switching to mobile bunker next turn, after enemy will grow accustomed to our lumbering monsters

[Andres]

Bad news, guys. Moskurg could very well be deploying mortars this year. Counter-espionage failed and the Moskurg agent escaped.

Glory to Arstotzka.

[10ebbor10]

That's problematic.

Anyway, the mortars will be expensive, and they don't make good anti-tank weaponry anyway. Especially, since from the descrption, our mortars are actually similar in design to RPG's. This means low starting velocity, increasing over time. However, if they want to use it against tanks, they have to tilt it to be horizontal to the ground and use it at close range. (No way they can aim accurately at long range). This has the effect of causing the mortar shell to flop into the ground and detonate if the angle is too shallow, or overshoot if it's too high.

The fact that our mortar has no stabilization doesn't help.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

But it will make our situation in jungles\mountains even worse...

Hope that the tank will not be a complete failure and bring some success to the plains

[10ebbor10]

Well, what now.

The tanks work, a bit, despite still being vulnerable to the Horsekiller based weaponry, but that should only be at close range.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

What I support and may vote for any of those.

1) All terrain motorcycle: for generic transportation and mobility in jungles
2) 9mm submachinegun:  for close quarters combat
3) 35 mm high velocity gun with that can be disassembled for two parts and carried by packmules. : Gun to deal with light fortifications enemy armored cars or whatever future armor they will bring. May also be used for AA duties in future. I don't want to see how enemy will bring proper tanks with their oil advantage and rape us. 
4) 240-320mm railway gun: Using our ore advantage to crush enemy on the plains front
5) Steampowered vessel: we have nice experience in steam engines, may use it for logistics.

[10ebbor10]

Anyway, new design

Spoiler: A-1916 40 mm Autocannon (click to show/hide)

An autocannon with high range and high firerate, yet weighting not much more and being not much larger than the AS-1910 ( approx 200 kg, carriage excluded. Can be both beltfed and boxfed. Optional watercooling shroud should be implemented.

Designed to be dissassembled in 2 or 3 pieces, and moved to another position.

Basically, this leds us shred the enemy armored cars, and can be used everywhere we use our current machine gun.

[Andres]

Ok, so before we can get an SMG, we need to get a portable LMG out onto the field.

Have a completely disarmed T15 at the research facility for Hot Environment weapons tests. All weapons used must first be able to load, "fire", and reload well with dummy rounds before proceeding to blanks and then live rounds (shot out of/from the hatch).

Design the AS-MG16.

Spoiler: AS-MG16 (click to show/hide)

A smaller but portable variant of the AS-1910, the MG16 can be carried and operated by one person, uses mags to feed ammunition into it, comes equipped with iron sights, and has a bipod for use when prone. It uses a pistol grip like the 1910 Mag.

For the Revise phase, I think we should work on lengthening the F14 carbine, making a semi-automatic battle rifle variant. We'll also take the chance to increase its reliability.

My reasoning is this: the F14 is so useful in the mountains that it's occasionally preferred to a machine gun for suppression of targets. If we increased that range, it'll be excellent in the Mountains where sharpshooting is performed a lot. It would also do a good job in the trenches and in taking out their armoured cars, seeing as it would use the same rounds as the Nosin. (The Nosin has been reported to be able to kill armoured cars.) The reasons for increasing the reliability are obvious.

Anyway, new design

Spoiler: A-1916 40 mm Autocannon (click to show/hide)

An autocannon with high range and high firerate, yet weighting not much more and being not much larger than the AS-1910 ( approx 200 kg, carriage excluded. Can be both beltfed and boxfed. Optional watercooling shroud should be implemented.

Designed to be dissassembled in 2 or 3 pieces, and moved to another position.

Basically, this leds us shred the enemy armored cars, and can be used everywhere we use our current machine gun.

Our Nosin Magants are actually able to pierce the armoured cars already. If we increased their rate of fire by getting a battle rifle version of the F14, it would make much faster work at killing them.

Glory to Arstotzka.

[10ebbor10]

Our Nosin's have, by chance, damaged one of their Struunks. It's not reliable, and can only kill their side armor by repeated fire.


We could also do something silly and design a 320 mm cannon. In any case, the enemy is going to find something to kill pur tank, so we should not rely to much on it.

Someone should draw a flag

The country with the most glorious flag by the 1916 Battle Report will receive an extra spy. If there are multiple flags submitted for a country, citizens must nominate one as theirs. Do take care to keep your spy alive, they will not be automatically replaced.

The Great Nation of Antegria, aligned with the Central Powers, is looking to purchase the rights to a machine gun design to produce domestically. Payment is 1 oil each year until 1920. May earn you a bad reputation with the Allies. Submissions due by 1916 Battle Report.

And do we take the contract?

[Ukrainian Ranger]

I prefer 35mm because it is enough and it is 1.5 times lighter than 40mm. And I prefer single fire high velocity gun because it has greater range, more accurate, less complex and effective against light fortifications.

BTW, we have some breathing room because I am 90% sure that enemy will spend its desigbn phase on creating a countermeasure for our tanks (And I think we need to switch to mobile bunker doctrine to not lose many tanks next room). 9% are for enemy designing their own tanks... that we have no weapon against....

If we design a LMG, it should be not a variant of AS 1910, but completely new weapon that uses same rounds.

Our Nosin Magants are actually able to pierce the armoured cars already. If we increased their rate of fire by getting a battle rifle version of the F14, it would make much faster work at killing them.

Lets not hope for the Golden BB. And any may bring heavier armor any moment (or revise their armored cars)

[Aseaheru]

 I find it insane that either our tank is not long enough to cross trenches, or that we never designed it for that.

I support the autocannon.

 Mostly because, well, we can mount that in tanks. Or on lighter vehicles...


 Also, anyone else find it amusing that we only use a single type of steam engine, and that appears to be one of the larger sorts? I mean, there where steam locos that are smaller than your average car today. While they do (or did) produce less power, they still where alot smaller...