Print

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

[10ebbor10]

In terms of small arms, are there any advantages that normal bullets have over incendiary ones?

Shorter effective range due to the fact that the bullet burns up, I'd assume.

[evilcherry]

Oops wrong thread!

[tryrar]

Oops wrong thread!

...I know we look at each others threads(if for no other purpose than for spying, though it is fun seeing what the other guy is up to) but I'd think you'd see if you were typing in the wrong thread, though I can understand if you have multiple tabs open and select the wrong one

[Sheb]

Why don't we include optical sights in the T-33 design specs? Not add-on, but integral in the design? We might even get cheaper optics. Also, I suggest keeping the T-25 gun, to limit the number of new parts we need to design.

[andrea]

of all the things we are piling on this design, the gun is the easiest to design since it uses known tech.

we have already an electrical turret, diesel angine, slat armor on the design. adding new optics as well seems ambitious.
Although a failure in optics shouldn't make the tank fail, but if they stay expensive, it will likely be a national effort. Again.

[evilcherry]

Oops wrong thread!

...I know we look at each others threads(if for no other purpose than for spying, though it is fun seeing what the other guy is up to) but I'd think you'd see if you were typing in the wrong thread, though I can understand if you have multiple tabs open and select the wrong one

No. That's a genuine error. I thought its the OOC thread (with the icon saying that I had a post here, its easy to mix up especially when you are only half awake).

[Sheb]

Slat armour is not exactly hard to design, and we have tank experience. Worst case, we have a revision we can spend, as well as an Expense Credit.

So, should we start making propaganda for the design credit?

[10ebbor10]

Probably

[Andres]

In terms of small arms, are there any advantages that normal bullets have over incendiary ones?

Shorter effective range due to the fact that the bullet burns up, I'd assume.

I don't think that's how incendiary bullets work. They only ignite once they hit something. If they were crap for range, sniper rifles and aircraft wouldn't use them.

Battle Order: Give our soldiers one magazine of incendiary ammo for their main weapon and their sidearm each (Mountain troops excluded). We get to test the effects of incendiary weapons on people and it'll make the odds of exploding Moskurg flamethrowers more likely.

Glory to Arstotzka.

[10ebbor10]

Primitive incendairy ignites immediatly, but yeah, ours probably don't.

[andrea]

just how powerful are those? not powerful enough and they are actually cauterizing their wounds, reducing bleeding.
powerful enough, and they are killing soldiers slightly more effectively I guess. Although they might have less penetration? not sure how those are made. mass differences might even affect range.

[Andres]

powerful enough, and they are killing soldiers slightly more effectively I guess. Although they might have less penetration? not sure how those are made. mass differences might even affect range.

Aside from being more powerful, it could also send a bit of shrapnel their way. It would also be detrimental to enemy morale because our bullets now visibly explode them. Less penetration isn't an issue because their armour sucks. Our incendiary rounds were said to be used by our aircraft so they must be pretty good at range. Even if they weren't, our infantry don't usually fight at range. (Editing my previous order to exclude Mountain troops.)

I wonder what the effects of incendiary rounds would be on horses. Horses are scared of fire, right?

Glory to Arstotzka.

[Funk]

So we are using explosive bullets now?

[tryrar]

Say, can anyone artistically inclined do a picture of our paratroopers dropping into the night? I have an idea for a story for the design credit

[Sheb]

Kot is your best bet for awesome pictures.