Print

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

[evilcherry]

I still support the Struunk II design an armored multi purpose half track would be useful in all theaters of operation and help us push back across the board.

-1
The struunk II isn't really useful in the mountains, and unless we crit rolled like their armored car, its not really better than them.

Either a more reactive solution like recoilless guns, or if you really want to be aggressive, A even faster vehicle.

[Kashyyk]

If someone wants to throw up a recoilless rifle design,  I'll +1 it.

[heydude6]

If someone wants to throw up a recoilless rifle design,  I'll +1 it.

+1 to recoilless artilery. That is the gun all of our tanks use.

Edit: Hey guys, want to try chemical weapons? At this point, we're too desperate to NOT use them.

[Parsely]

A recoilless rifle would only help us in the jungle where men can get close enough to use it. We need to win in the desert. That's where we're getting killed most badly.

I'd oppose a long tank gun for now, given that I doubt we have a tank to hold it.

Can you explain why making the tank gun longer would somehow cripple one of our existing tanks if we threw one on there? I really don't see the disadvantage an extra foot of pipe would bring; it's not an AT gun without a really long barrel. In order to penetrate vehicle armor AT guns fire smaller caliber shells from longer-barreled guns to achieve a higher muzzle velocity.

---

2-inch AT gun with a 120 inch long barrel, rifling, sliding block breech, that uses lightweight, rigid, high-velocity AP ammunition.

Edit: Hey guys, want to try chemical weapons? At this point, we're too desperate to NOT use them.

We could design chemical weapons, but we would also need to develop countermeasures so that we won't harm our own troops with them.

[Taricus]

Honestly, A shoulder-launched recoilless rifle seems our best bet, so here goes.

2.2 Inch "Rhino" Recoiless Rifle
Inherently designed to be either shoulder-fired, fired from prone position or mounted in a tripod, this recoilless rifle has a rifled barrel and fires rounds with either a shaped charge or a plain HE round. Needing a crew of two, one gunner and one loader, and roughly 5ft in order to make is easy to carry, if not particularly light (Though an upper weight limit of 50 pounds is addended to the design) and with an elevation from -20 to 60 from the tripod.

Gunin, that cannon is HUGE. Hell, the Kwk 40 is half the length of that. Tone it down to something actually reasonable >:C

[Kashyyk]

Recoilless rifles aren't limited to short range engagements. Besides, there'll be terrain to hide behind in order to closer in a desert anyway (rock formations, river beds, dunes). If we get it cheap enough, we'll be able to fix any range drawbacks with sheer volume of fire anyway.

+1 to the rhino

[Sensei]

There's a lot of debate here, but I'm assuming votes are in favor of the Rhino there? I'll give you a few minutes.

[evilcherry]

Recoilless rifles aren't limited to short range engagements. Besides, there'll be terrain to hide behind in order to closer in a desert anyway (rock formations, river beds, dunes). If we get it cheap enough, we'll be able to fix any range drawbacks with sheer volume of fire anyway.

+1 to the rhino

Recoilless rifle are actually great for barrage, not unlike rocket launchers. Ask the Ontos.

A recoilless rifle would only help us in the jungle where men can get close enough to use it. We need to win in the desert. That's where we're getting killed most badly.

I'd oppose a long tank gun for now, given that I doubt we have a tank to hold it.

Can you explain why making the tank gun longer would somehow cripple one of our existing tanks if we threw one on there? I really don't see the disadvantage an extra foot of pipe would bring; it's not an AT gun without a really long barrel. In order to penetrate vehicle armor AT guns fire smaller caliber shells from longer-barreled guns to achieve a higher muzzle velocity.

---

2-inch AT gun with a 120 inch long barrel, rifling, sliding block breech, that uses lightweight, rigid, high-velocity AP ammunition.

Edit: Hey guys, want to try chemical weapons? At this point, we're too desperate to NOT use them.

We could design chemical weapons, but we would also need to develop countermeasures so that we won't harm our own troops with them.

That's real long, and 2 inches isn't even to cut it. Also by having a longer barrel and higher velocity you will also have to make it much thicker, and then you'll also need a stronger mount. Unless you make it a tank destroyer its not going to happen.

The gun should be as large as possible, but keep to the 50 pounds limit, sans ammo. Also make sure that integrated ammo is used.

[Dampe]

The recoiless rifle seems the most prudent choice at this juncture.
+1 to the Rhino.

[Playergamer]

The recoiless rifle seems the most prudent choice at this juncture.
+1 to the Rhino.

+1

[Parsely]

That's real long, and 2 inches isn't even to cut it.

Also by having a longer barrel and higher velocity you will also have to make it much thicker, and then you'll also need a stronger mount. Unless you make it a tank destroyer its not going to happen.

Wrong. 50mm is a great size for an AT gun. It was good enough to kill most tanks during WW2, sans the heaviest ones, like the Tiger II. And 10 feet is obviously not extreme for an AT gun since this 50mm gun had a 10 foot barrel. The Tiger II had a barrel of a similar length, albeit for a larger gun.

You wouldn't have to boost the thickness by but a millimeter or so, and a gun barrel doesn't have as much surface area as, say, a tank's hull, so it's not demanding of material. As for mounting it on tanks, that would probably only be true of the T1 Smasher, which uses a short-barreled 2-inch, whereas the SP-AT's accuracy would probably improve if given a gun that's smaller by an inch and a half. Until we could take care of that with a revision (if we even need to; we don't actually know if it would need significant fixing or if it would be lumped in with the AT gun design project), we would still be able to use them to destroy the enemy's tanks.

[Devastator]

A recoilless rifle would only help us in the jungle where men can get close enough to use it. We need to win in the desert. That's where we're getting killed most badly.

Which is where it matters most.  If we had won in the jungle last turn, we'd have more resources, which would mean more aircraft, bigger tanks, etcetera.  All we need to do is not lose too badly in the desert and we'll be fine.

And if you conceal the gun somewhat, we should be able to use it in the desert as well.  And the mountains.

[Parsely]

After reading the last turn again, yeah you're right. We're losing because the armored cars are letting their troops get close in the jungle. And if we can take the jungle, we'll even the odds in terms of resources. +1 to recoilless rifles. If it does end up having an impact on the war in the desert, I'll eat my hat, because infantry AT couldn't possibly be put to significant use on anything but rough terrain where a man can get close enough to cause a penetration.

I hope we can finally get around to using a revision to make less shit armor though.

[Kashyyk]

.
I hope we can finally get around to using a revision to make less shit armor though.

That, or some AP rounds for our soldiers.  Apparently that's what Arstotzka had been doing for a while.

[Sensei]

Honestly, A shoulder-launched recoilless rifle seems our best bet, so here goes.

2.2 Inch "Rhino" Recoiless Rifle
Inherently designed to be either shoulder-fired, fired from prone position or mounted in a tripod, this recoilless rifle has a rifled barrel and fires rounds with either a shaped charge or a plain HE round. Needing a crew of two, one gunner and one loader, and roughly 5ft in order to make is easy to carry, if not particularly light (Though an upper weight limit of 50 pounds is addended to the design) and with an elevation from -20 to 60 from the tripod.

Rhino Recoilless Rifle: This is a rifled tube designed to fire a 2.2 inch shell, without creating significant recoil. It is five feet in length and portable by a single man, weighing about 25 pounds, but sits on a tripod to fire. The recoilless effect is achieved by firing a "wad" of rubber-lined cement, equal in mass to the 2.2 inch shell, out the back of the rifle. Tubes are manufactured loaded, and discarded after firing. It is accurate out to medium range. It fires the normal variety of artillery shells. Costs 2 ore.

You have gained Recoilless Rifles. You didn't get bad rolls, by the way, both recoilless rifles and shaped charges are very forward-thinking. Conventional knowledge suggests that a gunpowder charge in an open tube won't push the round much at all, your design is consequently more like a Davis Gun.