Print

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

[Graknorke]

I think you might be confusing ship cannons and howitzers? On ships there was use for purely explosive shells because it damages the relatively fragile wood and can set it on fire. On land there were shells filled with explosives, but they were designed with the intent of "bursting" rather than outright exploding, so as to fragment the exterior of the shell.

I actually looked it up, around that time that was all we pretty much had in terms of explosive ammunition, I even looked up howitzers themselves

Really? All I can seem to find is stuff about the Chinese hundreds of years ago, and the British inventing shrapnel shells in 3 years. By Mr Henry Shrapnel. Top lad.

[Snake1229]

I think you might be confusing ship cannons and howitzers? On ships there was use for purely explosive shells because it damages the relatively fragile wood and can set it on fire. On land there were shells filled with explosives, but they were designed with the intent of "bursting" rather than outright exploding, so as to fragment the exterior of the shell.

I actually looked it up, around that time that was all we pretty much had in terms of explosive ammunition, I even looked up howitzers themselves

Really? All I can seem to find is stuff about the Chinese hundreds of years ago, and the British inventing shrapnel shells in 3 years. By Mr Henry Shrapnel. Top lad.

I just looked up cannons in 1781, and it got something about the revolutionary war, which was 5 years earlier

[Graknorke]

Ah yes, the war that provided the entire backdrop for our rightful revolution in the first place. I probably should have checked there. Or, indeed, for the use of "bombs" instead of "shells", since that was a much more commonly used term. Or apparently checked the Wikipedia page instead of avoiding it, since it lays out a history back to 14th century.
My research is week today. I can only apologise for that shameful display.

Anyway, straight low explosive shells and shells with notshrapnel (which we absolutely need to name before the British can.) would both be well within technical understanding, and would let us try and push the range advantage that we seem to be working towards.

[Snake1229]

Ah yes, the war that provided the entire backdrop for our rightful revolution in the first place. I probably should have checked there. Or, indeed, for the use of "bombs" instead of "shells", since that was a much more commonly used term. Or apparently checked the Wikipedia page instead of avoiding it, since it lays out a history back to 14th century.
My research is week today. I can only apologise for that shameful display.

Anyway, straight low explosive shells and shells with notshrapnel (which we absolutely need to name before the British can.) would both be well within technical understanding, and would let us try and push the range advantage that we seem to be working towards.

I agree we need to steal the British's thunder, but think we should get the Howitzer first, due to the fact that explosive shells would probably come with it, due to the fact that howitzers were designed to fire them.

[flazeo25]

Ah yes, the war that provided the entire backdrop for our rightful revolution in the first place. I probably should have checked there. Or, indeed, for the use of "bombs" instead of "shells", since that was a much more commonly used term. Or apparently checked the Wikipedia page instead of avoiding it, since it lays out a history back to 14th century.
My research is week today. I can only apologise for that shameful display.

Anyway, straight low explosive shells and shells with notshrapnel (which we absolutely need to name before the British can.) would both be well within technical understanding, and would let us try and push the range advantage that we seem to be working towards.

I agree we need to steal the British's thunder, but think we should get the Howitzer first, due to the fact that explosive shells would probably come with it, due to the fact that howitzers were designed to fire them.

Well we can try make the ammo aswell with the cannon.

[Graknorke]

As I said before, I think that in these games the design phase is generally given a little leeway in what one "thing" is. So for example the cannons for a ship won't have to be individually designed, or in this case the ammo for a specialist weapon. They're too intrinsically linked for one to be useful without the other, so forcing them to be developed separately would just slow down the game.

[Snake1229]

So will we just build one of the howitzers?

[flazeo25]

Here's my updated verison of my one.

Spoiler: AM-R 12 pounder Howit (click to show/hide)

This Howitzer weighs 2350 pounds including it's gun frame which is pulled by horse or infantry. It's tube is reinforced breech smoothbore cast iron with length of 5 feet and diameter of 0.385 feet. It capable of firing four different types from 12 lb. cannon balls, spherical cases, low explosive shells and small ball canisters.

[Snake1229]

Here's my updated verison of my one.

Spoiler: AM-R Howit (click to show/hide)

]
This Howitzer is 2500 pounds, it's gun frame pulled by horse or infantry. It's tube is reinforced breech smoothbore cast iron with length of 5 feet and diameter of 0.385 feet. It capable of firing four different types from 12 lb. cannon balls, spherical cases, low explosive shells and small ball canisters.

Uhm, I am pretty sure cannons weighed less than 1 ton

[flazeo25]

Here's my updated verison of my one.

Spoiler: AM-R Howit (click to show/hide)

]
This Howitzer is 2500 pounds, it's gun frame pulled by horse or infantry. It's tube is reinforced breech smoothbore cast iron with length of 5 feet and diameter of 0.385 feet. It capable of firing four different types from 12 lb. cannon balls, spherical cases, low explosive shells and small ball canisters.

Uhm, I am pretty sure cannons weighed less than 1 ton

not really cannons weighted alot those days.

[Snake1229]

Here's my updated verison of my one.

Spoiler: AM-R Howit (click to show/hide)

]
This Howitzer is 2500 pounds, it's gun frame pulled by horse or infantry. It's tube is reinforced breech smoothbore cast iron with length of 5 feet and diameter of 0.385 feet. It capable of firing four different types from 12 lb. cannon balls, spherical cases, low explosive shells and small ball canisters.

Uhm, I am pretty sure cannons weighed less than 1 ton

not really cannons weighted alot those days.

Ship cannons maybe, but these are howitzers, they are designed to be at least SLIGHTlY portable

[flazeo25]

Well the cannons were dragged by horses and only modern times are howtizers made from lighter alloys and metal.

[Snake1229]

I feel that mine is simpler and has a better chance to not be complex, But i would vote for yours if other people do

[flazeo25]

I feel that mine is simpler and has a better chance to not be complex, But i would vote for yours if other people do

Theres always the revision phase to fix any problems that come up. plus crazier the idea more likely chance of getting more tech but we get a bit more problems which can be fixed in next phase.

[Snake1229]

Lets just wait until Someone else comes to vote, or we could start voting now, If we do, i would get a list of all the proposals for us.