Print

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

[Iituem]

Hrm.  Alright, you've convinced me.

+1 Dragonfly

[Playergamer]

Alright. For our revision, unless something goes terribly wrong with the Dragonfly, I suggest we reinforce the Hornet with aluminum. Aim to use two ores worth.

((That'll save our bombers from incendiary fire and generally make them lighter and more durable, allowing us to get past their defenses.))

[Kashyyk]

I think we're all agreed on the Dragonfly then. I still say we should revise the radio, making it small enough to put in the Dragonfly and for carting around by our ground troops. Preferably, large backpack, or smaller.

[Playergamer]

Yeah, we need to revise the radio, but, IMO, revising the hornet is much more important. The aluminum will make it more durable, less likely to die to incendiaries, and lighter. All that'll allow us to get more bombers past the enemy and destroy them.

[evilcherry]

Yeah, we need to revise the radio, but, IMO, revising the hornet is much more important. The aluminum will make it more durable, less likely to die to incendiaries, and lighter. All that'll allow us to get more bombers past the enemy and destroy them.

If we have the interceptor and have the right radio technology to phase out the Model 1 we can restore parity in air.

We can still afford to lose 1 step in the desert, and if we cannot afford to develop some killer weapon on that front we might as well just forfeit for gains in other fronts.

[Playergamer]

Fast and Bomber don't really go together in this period of history.  If we rework the Model 1 with a light aluminium frame (using minimal metal to save on ore) and adjust the guns for anti-aircraft fights specifically, we can use those mass-produced fighters as escorts for the slower Hornets on their bombing runs.  The below design is fairly contingent on us fixing that radio, mind.

Not actually true. In WW1 and interwar times, bombers would often outrun fighters, and interwar air defense doctrine said that "the bomber will always get through." In that time period, bombers would outrun fighters, so they'd focus on ground defenses and reducing damage.

So, radio, armor up the bombers, or armor up our ground vehicles? Oh, and are we saving the expense credit?

[Taricus]

Wait and see on the design and revision before spending the credit.

[Parsely]

I thought we were losing principally because their armored cars were still wrecking our tanks.

[evilcherry]

I thought we were losing principally because their armored cars were still wrecking our tanks.

True, but we are in a corundum of developing the gun or the armor.

[Parsely]

If we do end up making really successful fighters, our bombers would probably help weaken them pretty badly in the desert. I just hope its enough. They're dangerously close to our capital right now.

I thought we were losing principally because their armored cars were still wrecking our tanks.

True, but we are in a corundum of developing the gun or the armor.

Using aluminum on our tanks would cinch the advantage, if it indeed makes our T1s are immune to their autocannons.

[Taricus]

Yeah. But we're going to need something better than a biplane atleast.

[Parsely]

If they made high-altitude bombers, or just really fast medium ones, we'd be in trouble.

[TheLordofHouseRiley]

I have two proposals

Tiger Shark (commerce raider)
As our enemy currently has the only naval vessels and seeing how those naval vessels are increasing there industrial capacity thus there capacity to wage effective war on us lets take away there edge.

Ship Classification: Corvette
Displacement: 690 long tons
Length: 150 feet
Beam: 18 feet
Draught: 10 feet
Propulsion: engine from the model 52 steam engine x 2
Speed: RNG will decide
Range: Shooting for at a minimum 1,500 nautical miles
Crew Complement: ~ 65
Armament:
Bombardier with elongated barrels x 6 (four mounted forward on two separate rotating turrets two mounted rear on a single rotating turret)
M1 stallion x 6  (three mounted on either side of the ship)
Brumby x 16 (two mounted forward two mounted aft and six mounted on either side of the ship for anti aircraft purposes)

Also I apologize for the way I had to describe this vessel I couldn't think of a way in sentence form to convey what I wanted this ship to be.


MP-1 (Monoplane Fighter bomber/light bomber)
As we are currently engaged in quite an aggressive air war that we seem to be loosing now would be a good time to change the rules of that air war. Thus i propose our first monoplane. It should be made of aluminum or steel if we can get something made of steel to fly. Though i don't know what would be the ideal armaments for such a craft. I would propose that it used three engines much like the SM. 79 that would enable us to fly a heavier and more well armored and armed aircraft.

SM. 79 for those who don't know

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

[Iituem]

Argh.  Convince me that the monoplane is a good idea?

Also, any requests for the 1923 Moskurger?

[Taricus]

M3 Fighter
A monowing aluminium fighter with cantilever wings and a new radial engine armed with a stallion in the nose. Designed to just be plain faster than the AS-19 Fighter, if not more manoeuvrable. Essentially designed purely to swat enemy fighters from the sky before anything can bring fire on it

I'm just going to repost this here.