Print

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

[Parsely]

'Nade down the exhaust pipes? That thing runds on steam so those aren't going to be small.

How in the heck are you going to do that with enemy infantry swarming around it? You would need to climb bodily upon the tank. That is absurd; it's never going to happen in open-country trench warfare.

Eh, artillery guns aren't that small. Besides, the grenade also works to pelt the enemy infantry to ensure they aren't near the tank as well.

It isn't an artillery issue, it is an anti tank gun issue, we are over engineering the SPAT by throwing practically an artillery piece on it when all it really requires is something to destroy armor, and a destroyers cannon isnt the answer to that, we aren't fighting ships, we are fighting a slow, kinda shitty tank.

A four inch gun isn't even that big. It's only .4 inches larger than our howitzer. We're saving ourselves a revision phase later by putting a slightly larger gun on this chassis. This weapon will work for us for years to come, when the enemy is fielding tanks with 80mm side armor.

[Taricus]

You throw another to disperse the infantry swarming around it. Should manage several kills a grenade with that sort of thing.

[Elfeater]

Okay, so its only .4in larger, so why don't we just use our revision to make a direct fire anti tank weapon?
We cant use our design phase to counter their previous one every year, or we will lose, albeit slowly, we need something that will put them on the back foot.
A flamer will let us stop them in the trenches, torching tanks, especially if we get a revised AT gun from the bombardier, and we can thrash them in the jungles.

[Parsely]

Okay, so its only .4in larger, so why don't we just use our revision to make a direct fire anti tank weapon.

We cant use our design phase to counter their previous one every year, or we will lose, albeit slowly, we need something that will put them on the back foot.

A flamer will let us stop them in the trenches, torching tanks, especially if we get a revised AT gun from the bombardier, and we can thrash them in the jungles.

We want a self-propelled weapon, so we can respond to assaults, and push the enemy back! Stationary weapons are only good for defending. We can't attack if the guns aren't mobile. We can't destroy enemy emplacements or fortifications. Your way leads to stagnation, not advances. I should also point out that if the gun is smaller, it will be less likely to damage bunkers, if the enemy ever develops concrete fortifications.

That's what this mobile AT will do. You underestimate the advantage their armor gives them. It NEEDS to be countered, and in such a way that will lead to further advances. Grenades can't help us destroy emplacements because of their short range. You'd never get close enough to knock out a machine gun with it on the plains. That's what the SPAT will do.

Flamethrowers are just like the grenades. Defensive weapons. We can't use them in attacks on the plains because the men using them are vulnerable to machine guns. The SP-AT will lead to breakthroughs in the jungles and mountains as well where the enemy is entrenched, because we'll be able to destroy their strongpoints.

E: The solution to turning things around certainly isn't to ignore their advantages, instead of countering them.

E2: If we develop this tread platform now, we can put a flamethrower on it later.

[Taricus]

Not true. Grenades ARE offensive weapons. The ones we are developing aren't frags, we can throw them on the move and not worry about blowing ourselves up.

[Elfeater]

But revision of our current artillery into AT guns will counter their tanks, a flamethrower is not just a defensive weapon, it is excellent at taking bunkers and trenches.
A 4 inch gun is about 101.6mm, that is larger than what the Tiger used, an 88. A 47mm cannon, or 1.85039 inches could easily penetrate what we are going up against.
So a 3 inch gun, which is a 76mm gun, is more than acceptable for our needs, which would get us an advantage in both rate of fire, and ammunition storage.

[Dampe]

I like all of your ideas, Iituem. I have an additional proposal for a few years from now.

R-1 Hawk: A simple, wood-and-canvas biplane for reconnaissance. Armed with two forward-facing Brumby LMGs, and seats two. The pilot sits in front, while the observer sits behind him. The observer can navigate, use binoculars to make observations, and radio back to Command with a Markonzi.

Fully supporting this.

[Parsely]

If we practice the tread design now, we'll be able to make things like medium tanks later on.

[Taricus]

And if we do the grenades now, we can work on developing smoke grenades and such later.

[Happerry]

After some thought, I'll switch my vote from Grenade to the Anti-Tank Gun.

Though admittedly one of the reasons I wanted a grenade was because I expected it to be nasty against those wooden jungle forts Arstotzka set up.

[Taricus]

It's HE, it shoulg be nasty. Also we only have a choice between the SP AT and the 'nades at this point.

[Parsely]

I'm actually pretty sure that we don't need to modify our field guns to use them as AT guns. They're already big enough. The Germans used 77mm field guns against British tanks at Cambrai once they retrained the crews to use them for direct fire.

[Taricus]

The gun and projectile itself isn't the thing that needs to be modified, just the ability for the barrel to depress low enough for it to target their tanks.

[Parsely]

That's what I'm saying. Do we know that our guns can't depress that far? Because the ones used in WW1 could.

E:

Spoiler: 4.7 Inch Field Gun (click to show/hide)

As long as they can point straight ahead, we don't need to modify it.

[Taricus]

Well, if it can, then we can just basically use it as-is to provide direct fire support. We just need an order in the production phase.