Print

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

[andrea]

a tank destroyer would not be a bad idea... engine experience, I assume it is going to be useful even after we refine the other tank... but what is a tank destroyer like and how does it differ from our main battle tank? lighter armor and more speed?

edit: on the other hand, our own assault rifle would be a nice idea and we do have more experience on that field. revision can still be used to make our tank useful .

I am torn about those 2 ( keeping in mind that our expense credit allows us to match their tanks for a turn. I checked stats, our tank has a better gun and substantially higher speed ( as long as 35mph reported is accurate. if it is 35kph it is slow and a waste of engine complexity), with a slower turret and slightly slower fire rate. Should be an even match, if not outright in our favor).
Both help defend the plains, in different ways: assault rifle defends the trenches/fortifications , while a tank destroyer or some other anti tank emplacement fights off their armor, even in the case we can't revise our very expensive engine.

The boat is, I feel, an huge gamble. Sure, it helps. But our expense credit keeps us alive for a turn and no more. Next turn we might turn out in the same situation with no survivability improvement and without the buffer provided by an expense credit ( while they will likely have one due to prohibition)

recoilless rifle is nice, but would that thing be portable and powerful enough to surpass in usefulness the 50mm gun we developed last turn?

redesigning the same tank as last year seems a waste of design. At least add something different, change the roles. the engine is the only thing we want to improve, the rest actually turned out quite fine.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

Except for most American designs, tank destroyers were all turretless and had fixed or casemate superstructures. When a tank destroyer was used against enemy tanks from a defensive position such as by ambush, the common lack of a rotating turret was not particularly critical, while the lower silhouette was highly desirable. The turretless design allowed accommodation of a more powerful gun, typically a dedicated anti-tank gun (in lieu of a regular tank's general-purpose main gun that fired both anti-tank and high explosive ammunition) that had a longer barrel than could be mounted in a turreted tank on the same chassis. The lack of a turret increased the vehicle's internal volume, allowing for increased ammunition stowage and crew comfort.[2] Eliminating the turret allowed the vehicle to carry thicker armor than would otherwise be the case, and also allowed this armour to be concentrated in the hull. Sometimes there was no armored roof (only a weather cover) to keep the overall weight down to the limit that the chassis could bear. The absence of a turret meant that tank destroyers could be manufactured significantly cheaper, faster and more easily than the tanks on which they were based and found particular favor when production resources were lacking. After hard lessons early in the war, machine guns were mounted for use against infantry, but the limited traverse of the mounting meant that they were still less effective than those used on turreted tanks.

[andrea]

do you think a tank destroyer made using our 50mm gun ( possibly with improvements) would hold value after fixing our main battle tank? do you think it would be cheaper? do you think it is a good answer to the enemy tanks and do you think it is going to be reasonably easy to design?
what advantages/ crucial technologies do you think your recoilless rifle proposal would have/provide instead, and at what disadvantages if any?

sorry if I am targeting you with so many questions, UR, but you seem well versed in military history, more than most of the rest of us at any rate, so I think your opinion is valuable. questions, but you see

[Ukrainian Ranger]

do you think a tank destroyer made using our 50mm gun ( possibly with improvements) would hold value after fixing our main battle tank?

If it will be cheap it will stay useful till we get cheap tank. If it will be not complex and cost more than 3 ore and 2 oil... it is not real good.

do you think it is a good answer to the enemy tanks and do you think it is going to be reasonably easy to design?

No turret and simple engine and existing gun should be relatively easy

UR, but you seem well versed in military history, more than most of the rest of us at any rate, so I think your opinion is valuable. questions, but you see

Nah, you overestimate my knowledge here. Besides this game is not a careful simulation.

what advantages/ crucial technologies do you think your recoilless rifle proposal would have/provide instead, and at what disadvantages if any?

Recoilless gun can be a stepping stone toward a proper rocket launcher... but thinking more about I see that it is out of our speciality. We are great in small arms and engines... i think focusing on this is a good idea. Enemy got more varied technologies, we can counter that by focusing and becoming the best.


PS.Can we use 8.31mm*37mm bullet for the assault rifle? I want intermediate round to have a literal meaning in this universe
 
To be honest, the more I think about it, the more interesting assault rifle + tank engine revision combination looks like. Questions are - 1) will assault rifle give noticeable effect for our troops in plains?  2) how likely that we will not screw with the design. 3) can we keep waging war if we lose 1 ore and 1 oil in plains while enemy will lose only one ore?

[andrea]

well. I'll try my best to answer

1) rereading the latest battle report, it is said to be too havy for use in trenches and too inaccurate for the mountains. their rifle as it is now seems to actually only be rather useful in the jungle, but it could change with improvements in accuracy and weight. Perhaps not as good as I originally thought.

2) I would need to check their thread and see their rolls to have a better idea, but at a glance I guess that even with our superior experience we might not be able to get anything substantially better. What did they use the revision on? if on the rifle, then it means that we have a decent chance of screwing it up by dedicating only a design phase.

3) in the scenario you described, the following things happen
DISCLAIMER: this assumes we don't get to exploit mountans quickly. ground prices don't change from the scenarios described, but our aircrafts wouldn't increase in cost. But since we need to build a road to harvest from their mine, and after that they can deploy vehicle in the mountains as well... I am not betting on us ever seeing that ore.

Spoiler: we lose plains, they lose mountains (click to show/hide)

Arstotzka-Ground vehicles
AS-MV21-AL becomes expensive
AS-T25 becomes manhattan project-level, Very expensive due to resource use alone. Good luck fielding one.
Arstotzka-Aircrafts
AS-A19C becomes expensive(not that we are still using it)
AS-DB-HF-23 becomes Very expensive
AS-HF-24 becomes National effort, unless we cheapen fuel injection in which case it stays Very expensive

Moskurg-weapons
M1 Stallion becomes very expensive (expense from resources, plus I read it still is complex)
Rhino Recoilless Rifle becomes expensive( I don't think that will significantly change their deployment)
B2 Destroyer becomes very expensive (their new heavy artillery)
MK-47 Assault Rifle becomes expensive
Moskurg-Ground vehicles
T1 Smasher Mk II becomes very expensive
T2 Breaker stays very expensive  ( this is not a change, but I think it is significant to point it out)
Moskurg-Aircrafts
M3 Wasp Fighter B becomes very expensive

in this scenario(assuming a failed revision on our tank engine) we might keep air superiority , but our ground attack capabilities will be significantly impaired. They lose a bit of general effectiveness and outdated tanks, but get to keep their heavy armor, which is our main problem, while at the same time we lose ability to deal with it. We also lose our armored car numerical advantage, which is also going to harm our anti-tank abilities.

With a partial engine revision ( fuel injection) we surely get air superiority, but we still lose the war on the ground badly.

with a total engine revision our tanks should match their and we should stop their advance.

Spoiler: we lose plains, they keep mountains (click to show/hide)

AS-MV21-AL becomes expensive
Arstotzka-Ground vehicles
AS-T25 becomes manhattan project-level, Very expensive due to resource use alone. Good luck fielding one.
Arstotzka-Aircrafts
AS-A19C becomes expensive(not that we are still using it)
AS-DB-HF-23 becomes Very expensive
AS-HF-24 becomes National effort, unless we cheapen fuel injection in which case it stays Very expensive

no change in the moskurg weapons obviously

with failed engine revision, we lose air superiority, we lose armored car advantage, we can't field armor and we have only artillery to shoot down their. In this scenario we are going to lose the plains QUICKLY.

with partial engine revision, we might keep air superiority, or at least contest their superiority enough to avoid too heavy bombings. forget us doing any bombing. still screwed on the ground.

with total engine revision, air superiority is still at best a stalemate,  ground situation improves but since they have the full use of their artillery I think they have the edge here. their cheap assault rifle will serve them well in the jungle as well.

Spoiler: we keep plains, they lose mountains (click to show/hide)

No change in cost to our equipment, clearly


Moskurg-weapons
M1 Stallion becomes very expensive (expense from resources, plus I read it still is complex)
Rhino Recoilless Rifle becomes expensive( I don't think that will significantly change their deployment)
B2 Destroyer becomes very expensive (their new heavy artillery)
MK-47 Assault Rifle becomes expensive
Moskurg-Ground vehicles
T1 Smasher Mk II becomes very expensive
T2 Breaker stays very expensive  ( this is not a change, but I think it is significant to point it out)
Moskurg-Aircrafts
M3 Wasp Fighter B becomes very expensive

We get to enjoy unmitigated air superiority and there is nothing they can do about it besides sending biplanes.
we probably resume advancing in the jungle, since the 2 things which stopped us ( artillery, assault rifles) were just made more expensive.

with a failed engine revision, we are still outmatched on the ground, but our air advantage might allow us to mitigate this problems thanks to dive bombing. A general loss of effectiveness means we have a good chance of repeating the miracle that allowed us to hold in the plains.

with a partially successful engine revision: Arstotzka rules the sky and they can't even launch a paper airplane without it being shot. wth dive bombers able to focus on bombing alone, their armor is less of a concern and we are able to produce our own as well

with a successful engine revision we can finally field our tanks in great number and we rule the sky. they jungle weapons are now expensive. In this scenario, we are set for big victories on all fronts.

Spoiler: we keep the plains, they keep the mountains (click to show/hide)

Why are you looking here? nothing has changed in terms of resources

failed engine revision: this is happening now, you can see the results.

partial engine revision: air superiority, we can field tanks. shouldn't be bad.

successful engine revision: air superiority, we can field tanks in great number. I think this goes well for us, our more powerful and numerous tanks should gain us an advantage

[10ebbor10]

On a side note, in the Mountain loss scenario, everything that mounts the Stallion also becomes expensive.

[Aseaheru]

 Well, we clearly need to hold the plains. And with their tanks, that means we need to be able to kill their tanks. Which means AT gun, RPG, recoil less rifle, radio+better arty, or rifle grenades.

 Wonder how our landmines are doing?

[andrea]

What I get from this is: the possibilities range from a sound defeat to glorious victory.
The main discriminating factors are keeping plains and engine revision

the scenarios in which we revise the engine go from stalemate or slow retreat to great victory, depending on the plains.
the scenarios in which we fail to cheapen the engine range from defending taiga next turn to barely stalemating/slowly retreating( in the best conditions, and I am doubtful that we would actually hold)

resources also instead have most impact on air combat rather than ground combat.
Any scenario in which we lose plains , either we lose air superiority or we barely keep it, but ground attack becomes a dream from the past golden age
Any scenario in which we keep plains involves us keeping a small to huge air superiority.

so, to win the ground we must revise the engine, to win the air we must keep plains.

What makes the ground war depend on engine revision is their armor. it is currently steamrolling everything we have and we have no way to stop it besides planes, which are clearly not enough.

In my opinion this highlights our great need for anti tank weaponry. if we fail to hold plains ( and therefore lose air superiority) while still not having an anti tank weapon of some sort ( be it a cannon, a tank destroyer, our own fixed tank), we are dead.

edit: Ebbor, the stallion would become expensive due to the resource cost. Its resource cost is already included in the cost of designs that use it, therefore a price increase on it due to resources wouldn't change anything.

interestingly enough, while the stallion is listed as complex, it seems that it doesn't make designs that use it complex. I wonder if it is just something Sensei forgot to edit out. in that case, stallion is cheap and would move to expensive.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

My offer for the assault rifle, but this is not a vote yet

AS-FAR26

Full automatic rifle. Uses brand new "Six on six" 6mm*36mm bullet. Design goal is not high rate of fire or low weight or great range or fantastic accuracy. Design goal is cheap, rugged, reliable, usable by any idiot  full auto rifle with optional single fire mode

________

Hmm... Can we order our 19C pilots to play kamikadze on enemy tanks? this WILL create problems for their armor. And our morale.


______________

Great analysis andrea!

My problem with 80mm self-propelled artillery that it is marginally good only for plains. I agree that boat is too risky and too ambitious. Assault rifle will benefit us everywhere IF it will be successful. We can never be sure with revolutionary technology...

My new offer  and vote

AS-MAT26-50
 Light tracked, low silhouette vehicle armed with the same gun as our tank (50mm, but no turret) uses light armor (3 ore) and relatively weak, cheap, simple, reliable engine. (2 oil). Do not try to create a high performance engine for it, use proved solutions. Should have level 2(or 1) forward armor  and level 0 side\top\rear armor.  Target price of the vehicle is cheap or at least expensive
While we are here try design a better 50mm gun with a longer barrel and advanced AP shells (tungsten, sabot, heat, whatever), failing that revert to standard 50mm gun. don't forget to add AA machingun

It is a dedicated tank destroyer, should be cheap or at least expensive. 3 ore to not lose it should we lose plains. It has no new techs barring attempt to improve the gun somewhat. It is created for using on defensive position\ambushes and thus don't need side and forward armors

[Parsely]

I thought our T2 was doing super well though? It won back the desert after all. Doesn't seem like we need more AT, it seems like we're falling short more in the air and in infantry VS infantry engagements.

[tryrar]

I thought our T2 was doing super well though? It won back the desert after all. Doesn't seem like we need more AT, it seems like we're falling short more in the air and in infantry VS infantry engagements.

......I think you have the wrong thread

[Ukrainian Ranger]

*Shoots Moksburg spy*

[andrea]

dude, wrong thread go brainwash yourself and forget our designs, or even better refrain from designing for your side this turn.

vote for AS-MAT26-50

[Parsely]

I thought our T2 was doing super well though? It won back the desert after all. Doesn't seem like we need more AT, it seems like we're falling short more in the air and in infantry VS infantry engagements.

......I think you have the wrong thread

...

 *kills himself*

[andrea]

posted a proposal fo the war hero, although it likely is at the limit of what is allowed. Not sure on which side, but thankfully we have Andres's contribution as well.

I wonder what Iituem will pull off however.