Print

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

[Aseaheru]

 Thats basically an upgraded 10x30mm special

[Slick]

Alright in till I can right up something more detailed here's a link so people can do their own research on Armored vehicles.

http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/

[Funk]

Hm. I'm thinking a casemate won't be necessary when mounting a new 40mm gun. For reference, my perfect design would basically be the Renault FT: A light tank mounting a machine gun/40mm gun in a rotating turret, with a target weight of less than ten tons mounting a single one of our Pattern 807 engine. The goal of the 40mm gun isn't to fight against tanks (though that'll be useful) but to fire high-explosive rounds at infantry.

With a hull mounted gun we can make the tank shorter, lighter and avoid the add complexity of turret.
Think of the Saint-Chamond
or a StuG III

Lastly, I don't know the weight of our 37mm cannon, but it's a six-barrel clip-fed black-powder weapon, so I guess it's a) heavy, and b) doesn't perform very well.

  The Hotchkiss Revolving Cannon is 210 Kg so it's some where in that ballpark.
Im more hopeing to reuse the gun's and free up some production.

Anyone considered AT rockets? The may be a better way to deal with any tanks out opponent fields, particularly if we have them in the field first...

Keep in mind that that'll require a shaped charge, which - in the real world - was only demonstrated in 1932.[/quote] Or just a large rocket an masses of TNT.
We could make a large duel purpose artillery / anti anything rocket, if we aim for 20kg~ it should be man portable.

[Amperzand]

Actually, that's a question: Do we have TNT? The only HE compound I've seen mentioned is nitrocellulose. (The guncotton in our torpedoes.)

[somemildmanneredidiot]

The Renault is a fair bit smaller than I was expecting. If we can design a slightly larger one, I think it would work well. I'm thinking something that can have 3-4 people operating it, along the lines of 1 driver, 1 commander, and 1-2 gunners. I'm on board for having the turret as the sooner we start that the sooner we can master it.

I'm imagining a wider Renault with two small hull mounts (or armored ports?) one on each side at about a 50 degree angle (with directly right and left of the tank being 0 degrees) with a BIT of swerve in it to cover between 60 degrees and 40 degrees for a HMG each. With a 40mm main gun (we COULD probably fit the Ratio into this, but part of the goal is speed, so deliberately providing a lighter main gun will help in that department), the 809 Landshark will be able to deal signficant amounts of damage while suppressing enemy infantry, preventing them from engaging the tank and any supporting infantry with any amount of ease.

2-3 807 Engines will probably be enough to cover movement as well as the turret's rotation. What I have in mind will probably be somewhat heavier than 10 tons though.

I'm counting out engineers and I don't think we'll have enough for what we want to do (if we want to hedge our bets on there being as few bugs to work out as possible). Presuming we want the Munitions Testing Facility (probably connected to our World Class Firing Range for testing purposes) and the Aerodynamics Testing Facility (wind tunnels anyone? They've been around since 1871 apparently) over production, we'll have a choice between 2x300t slips, 8x300pp factories, or half of each. I'm in favor of the split. Plus Pi wanted some more Artillery specced factories and we're going to be in need of them for quite a few reasons. 1200pp of new Artillery is going to be quite nice.

[3_14159]

With a hull mounted gun we can make the tank shorter, lighter and avoid the add complexity of turret.
Think of the Saint-Chamond
or a StuG III

True, a hull-mount allows us to mount heavier guns. On the other hand, as you've probably noticed, both the Saint-Chamond and the Sturmgeschütz III used a 75mm high-velocity gun, while we're aiming for something with a lower calibre.
By the way, the comparison of StuG III and Panzer III allows us to guess what a turret is worth: The Panzer III mounted, at its best, a 50mm high-velocity gun, while the StuG III mounted a 75mm gun. This suggests we could mount a 50% higher calibre on a casemate mount.

The Hotchkiss Revolving Cannon is 210 Kg so it's some where in that ballpark.
Im more hopeing to reuse the gun's and free up some production.

A very good find, thanks. I had wondered what a similar real-world weapon would look like. Using that, I also found the NavWeaps site on the same weapon, which includes some images.
However, there is one important difference between these weapons: While the Hotchkiss uses smokeless powder, we're still restricted to blackpowder for our revolving cannon which costs performance. And, aside from performance, blackpowder weaponry produces an awful amount of smoke; I shudder to think of blackpowder smoke in an enclosed tank turret.

On the other hand, Funk's right that our revolving cannon weights significantly less: Probably 210kg vs about 500kg for the (comparable) Bofors 40mm cannon. On the one hand, the Bofors has the disadvantage of being twenty years more advanced. On the other hand, we do not need the firing rate of 120 rounds per minute; 30 rounds per minute sound achievable and sufficient against torpedo boats and biplanes.

The Renault is a fair bit smaller than I was expecting. If we can design a slightly larger one, I think it would work well. I'm thinking something that can have 3-4 people operating it, along the lines of 1 driver, 1 commander, and 1-2 gunners. I'm on board for having the turret as the sooner we start that the sooner we can master it.

We'll probably have to make it heavier; for the gun alone (as indicated above, the 40mm quick-fire gun was 500kg, while the Renault's gun was 200kg).

I'm imagining a wider Renault with two small hull mounts (or armored ports?) one on each side at about a 50 degree angle (with directly right and left of the tank being 0 degrees) with a BIT of swerve in it to cover between 60 degrees and 40 degrees for a HMG each.

Keep in mind that each of these machine guns will require an operator. The driver might operate one (which would probably best be pointed forwards), the commander can operate one. The gunner has his 40mm gun, and might also need to reload (but might use a coaxial gun).

2-3 807 Engines will probably be enough to cover movement as well as the turret's rotation. What I have in mind will probably be somewhat heavier than 10 tons though.

Two should be sufficient for a ten-ton tank. That'd be more power per weight than the Renault FT, and about the same as the T-26.

I'm counting out engineers and I don't think we'll have enough for what we want to do (if we want to hedge our bets on there being as few bugs to work out as possible). Presuming we want the Munitions Testing Facility (probably connected to our World Class Firing Range for testing purposes) and the Aerodynamics Testing Facility (wind tunnels anyone? They've been around since 1871 apparently) over production, we'll have a choice between 2x300t slips, 8x300pp factories, or half of each. I'm in favor of the split. Plus Pi wanted some more Artillery specced factories and we're going to be in need of them for quite a few reasons. 1200pp of new Artillery is going to be quite nice.

We never have enough engineers :-)
I'm always in favour of more artillery, of course. In this case, it's a question of whether the new Swordfish is sufficient, or whether we'll need more production. We'll probably have to wait for next turn's designs, since we probably will have to improve some.

[somemildmanneredidiot]

I was thinking of the commander operating the main gun with the gunners operating the HMG. If we run with a crew of 3, the gunner can hop between the two HMGs and fire out as needed (my thinking being we want the driver as focused on driving as possible). If we run a crew of 5, we can have the commander free to assess situations and give orders while the rest of the tank keeps in operation, but at that point I think we might be edging into medium tank territory.

Another thing we might want to consider is holding off Revolving Rifle production for a turn. We currently have 900pp devoted to RRs. If for a turn we upgrade our Standard Troop Rifles to the 804 model, that'll use up 618pp~ the remaining 282pp we can use to bring out a different small arm while effectively phasing out the use of 10x60mm blackpowder munitions.

[3_14159]

I was thinking of the commander operating the main gun with the gunners operating the HMG. If we run with a crew of 3, the gunner can hop between the two HMGs and fire out as needed (my thinking being we want the driver as focused on driving as possible). If we run a crew of 5, we can have the commander free to assess situations and give orders while the rest of the tank keeps in operation, but at that point I think we might be edging into medium tank territory.

Contrary to that, I believe the best position split to be between main gunner and commander (since the latter can concentrate on the bigger picture). But that edges in a significantly bigger, three-man turret.
I'm wondering why you want the two angled HMG guns - do you believe us to engage flanking infantry very often?

Another thing we might want to consider is holding off Revolving Rifle production for a turn. We currently have 900pp devoted to RRs. If for a turn we upgrade our Standard Troop Rifles to the 804 model, that'll use up 618pp~ the remaining 282pp we can use to bring out a different small arm while effectively phasing out the use of 10x60mm blackpowder munitions.

Hm. That is an idea. On the other hand, IIRC, the Pattern 804 STRs are only approved for back-area work, since the round is quite powerful.


Lastly, here's a document I created as a summary of the game:
Arms Race Game Summary
It includes all of our turns, designs, and revisions; cross-referenced. I've also included the enemy designs we know about.
The 808 battle turn has not been included; neither have production orders. I'll do that next.
I hope it'll help.

[Aseaheru]

 Update is about 80% done, with my main computer now deciding that bits of it dont need to work. Which is fun, and probably do to me tripping a breaker, in part because the people around where I live apparently have no idea how buildings or electricity work.

[Amperzand]

Upgraded black powder rifles have, historically, only been used in rear-echelon roles, since they aren't usually durable enough to be fired a great deal with smokeless ammunition, especially with a borderline antimateriel round like 10x60mm.

Speaking of which, a sabot/AP round for our basic rifles should defeat a good deal in the way of light armor.

[somemildmanneredidiot]

Contrary to that, I believe the best position split to be between main gunner and commander (since the latter can concentrate on the bigger picture). But that edges in a significantly bigger, three-man turret.

It makes sense. The main part of the tank is the cannon, the HMGs don't need to be constantly manned for the tank to have its greater effect.

I'm wondering why you want the two angled HMG guns - do you believe us to engage flanking infantry very often?

Reviewing my thoughts, the original structure came about with the cannon being hull mounted rather than turreted. The idea was to provide a larger total firing area to help progress the goal of infantry supression and death. My thinking of the tank's role would be that it would advance forward firing on the enemy line and keep their heads down while our troops followed up behind. Having two HMGs in an outward angle would help with that while also provide more options in the field.

Now I'm thinking of a slightly different configuration. A front HMG that the driver can fire as well as a second HMG set to fire from the rear in case of being out manuevered could work out well.

Hm. That is an idea. On the other hand, IIRC, the Pattern 804 STRs are only approved for back-area work, since the round is quite powerful.

True. My thinking is/was that the faster equipment use rate would be worth the increased damage and accuracy the refinement would provide as well as make it so that we'd only have one rifle munition on the field.

Lastly, here's a document I created as a summary of the game:
Arms Race Game Summary
It includes all of our turns, designs, and revisions; cross-referenced. I've also included the enemy designs we know about.
The 808 battle turn has not been included; neither have production orders. I'll do that next.
I hope it'll help.

Very nice. I'd planned on collecting together enemy designs and here you've gone and done that and more. Great job.

Edit:
An argument for the Munitions Testing Facility.

As far as we know, we're using gun cotton for all of our explosive purposes. The above building will allow us to more easily develop TNT, RDX (invented and forgotten in 1898), and possibly Torpex if we get extra lucky.

Our next torpedo development should include a new explosive and tubine powered contra-rotating propellers.

We also apparently do not have gyroscopes on the torpedoes. If we need to independently invent them then we should as they have many many applications relating to navigation in all modes of transportation.

[3_14159]

Update is about 80% done

Good news!
Again, should there be anything we can do to help...

Speaking of helping, the Arms Race Game Summary Document has now been updated to include Production and Engineer Assignments and Turn 808, including all design proposals.
To sum them up:
- Radio set
- Truck
- Camouflage uniform
- Grenade
- Mortar rounds
- Training program
- Truck factory
- General purpose factory

Speaking of which, a sabot/AP round for our basic rifles should defeat a good deal in the way of light armor.

That's a good idea. Especially our machine gun (with a longer and heavier barrel than the normal rifles) and armour-piercing ammunition should be fairly good against the earlier tanks.

Reviewing my thoughts, the original structure came about with the cannon being hull mounted rather than turreted. The idea was to provide a larger total firing area to help progress the goal of infantry supression and death. My thinking of the tank's role would be that it would advance forward firing on the enemy line and keep their heads down while our troops followed up behind. Having two HMGs in an outward angle would help with that while also provide more options in the field.

I see. This would basically look like the German A7V, with casemate main gun and machine guns all-around, right?
(Also, I just noticed that the A7V had a crew complement of eighteen (!) people. Then again, the Mark I still had eight).

Now I'm thinking of a slightly different configuration. A front HMG that the driver can fire as well as a second HMG set to fire from the rear in case of being out manuevered could work out well.

This reminds me of some of the Russian tanks of WWII. The KV-1, for example - whom I mostly remember from the tutorial mission of the first Men of War game -, mounted a rear-turret machine gun in addition to the coaxial and hull machine gun. I don't know about the effectiveness of the measure.
My first impression is to rely on the accompanying infantry and other tanks to keep them from being surrounded. On the other hand, with WW1 tank performance and reliability, this sounds like a great recipe for breaking down, getting overwhelmed and then killed.

An argument for the Munitions Testing Facility.

No argument there; I want one :-)

Our next torpedo development should include a new explosive and tubine powered contra-rotating propellers.

We also apparently do not have gyroscopes on the torpedoes. If we need to independently invent them then we should as they have many many applications relating to navigation in all modes of transportation.

Definitely one possible upgrade; I think we have some more pressing areas for the next turn though.

[Amperzand]

WW1 tanks had kind of a lot of free space inside, AFAIK. Their armor didn't take up that much space, only being about 2-4 centimeters thick.

[Slick]

Actually most tank armor at the time was measured in millimeters in terms of thickness.
With that out of the way I'm gonna see if I can write up rough descriptions and ideas on different tank classes.

[Aseaheru]

 Space inside tanks depended on who designed them. If the navy got involved then you would see a dozen or so people, lots of extra space, and many, many guns. Meanwhile, tanks not designed by a navy often had two people in them, one or two guns, and no extra space inside.

 Part of this is due to the fact that many of the larger tanks where basically IFVs, though lack of ventilation nixed that idea.