Print

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

[milo christiansen]

Well, then I guess we go with wood furniture, no big deal. I just thought to avoid the production complications entailed in trying to turn wooden parts. Producing wood furniture is slower for a proper factory, but if we don't have sufficient machinery for stamping metal parts enmass, then I guess wood is the way to go.

The receiver and such were assumed to be milled (for reliability and strength), as I assumed that our steel wasn't up to stamped receivers (I didn't exactly make that clear).

Pending more suggestions/etc Pi's simplified R10 will probably be the way to go for now.

[3_14159]

At the moment we are severely outnumbered in long range arty.

Damn, that's a pretty huge issue.

All right. There are two things we should probably do: First of all, produce more artillery. Right now, the plan calls for 360 MGs and 195 Ratios per turn (last turn was 120/120). We can trade them off at a ratio of 2:1. I'd say we either change that to 240 MGs and 255 Ratios or to 120 MGs and 315 Ratios.
In addition, we should probably design a longer-range, indirect fire piece next turn. Personally, I'm thinking of a 105mm howitzer. Well, rather gun-howitzer, i.e. with a longer barrel as a mix of field gun and howitzer.

[somemildmanneredidiot]

@Aseaheru: Are there any other military developments that have occurred that we may not have acknowledged the signficance of?

+1 to 120 HMG and 315 Ratios. I think we might end up needing to do at most 2 or 3 designs next turn and use the rest of our engineers to produce a lot more factories. Setting up 4 4x300 artillery factories should help alleviate our production stresses there while allowing us to produce 40mm, Ratios, and be ready for the indirect fire artillery.

I agree that a longer range indirect fire artillery gun is a good idea. I'm unfamiliar with naval guns, but we might be able to redesign our new 6" guns to about 150mm to be used in a indirect fire role, though they might be direct fire guns in the first place.

[Aseaheru]

 Time for a news report!

World news report, 808

 In news this year, we have a large number of new innovations military applicable things. Among these are:

-The Monarchy has commissioned the worlds first military airship, the HMIAS Wene, which is of semi-rigid structure and is armed with a number of machineguns and a pair of cannons. Oddly, during its tour to show it off to the Monarchy's people its two cannons where missing.

-The Gaus navy has commissioned the first submarine to be propelled both by electric engines and by a diesel engine. It is armed with three externally mounted torpedoes and a pair of torpedo tubes.

-Experiments in the Oligarchy of Logmen with heavier-than-air-craft for scouting have given birth to the first seaplane. It is unarmed and has a crew of one.

-A mass-produced passenger car is put into production, running off of an engine designed to use high-strength alcohol or gasoline. Due to its use of an assembly line where the car, not the workers, move along it production costs are even now dropping steadily. It is estimated that within a decade nearly anyone will by able to purchase one if they wish.

-The first railway locomotive to exceed 100mph does so in Denland

-The IDS Bulldog is laid down, and has sparked something of an arms race. Unlike other battleships, she is armed with a uniform set of main armament guns and few secondary armaments. She is also powered by steam turbines and possesses the superimposed turrets first put into use in 801 by the Oligarchy of Logmen.

[Funk]

@Rocket Prototype: So I see three primary issues with this idea.

First and foremost, rockets are likely not considered ammunition so we would need to produce each one personally. This means that every pp spent here will not have any further use after the first volley, considering that rockets aren't exactly reusable.

Neither are artillery shells reusable, and rockets are not much harder make.
Once you get in to the bigger guns with there heavier payloads, rockets start being much cheaper.
Look at the Type 4 40 cm Rocket Launcher it fires a 508 kilogram projectile, a gun big enough to fire a 500kg would be huge.

Second, the system you describe has a very short end range. The Congreve Rocket is what you're describing correct? The 32 pound version has a range of 2.75km. The horse portable 12 pound version has a range of 1.8km. The more accurate Hale rocket system increases accuracy but specifically lowers its range. Rockets as artillery were out ranged by smoothbore muzzle loading guns in the 1810s. At this point with recoil reduced breech loading 10km~ guns, rockets don't have the operating range to be effective artillery pieces.

I thinking more along the lines of aQassam rocket type thing, yes there lacking in accuracy at long range but 5 km is nothing to laugh at.
Rockets often carry higher payload, twice that of 81mm mortar.

Third, the system is literally 100 years old.

And still in use today when ever some on need cheap artillery, it's a crude rockets and mortars you see.

The reason why we use rockets in modern day is because we have guidance systems and propellant systems that allow rockets to have a huge effective range against a wide variety of targets.

Ungided rockets are still comon in the middle east, all the smaller rocket are basically unguided.

Something like a shoulder launcher is a bit different for deployable purposes, but that's not exactly the current item on the table. Aiming for that and using the Flying Pipe as a stepping stone towards that would rank as a bit more useful most likely.

Ok but we have rifle grenades and they should work for most early tanks.
we could try going for a really large rocket carrying massive amounts of explosive to smash open enemy bunkers.
We could try makeing a cluster bomb by useing a Shrapnel shells loaded explosive 37mm shells.

[somemildmanneredidiot]

The Monarchy has commissioned the worlds first military airship, the HMIAS Wene, which is of semi-rigid structure and is armed with a number of machineguns and a pair of cannons. Oddly, during its tour to show it off to the Monarchy's people its two cannons where missing.

Well. Crap. I mean, hooray for the news update, but crap.

Okay, implications. Presuming that they aren't at a resource limitation, they can churn out at least one airship a turn and may have the infrastructure to begin producing more than one a turn soon. The machine guns are most likely for anti-air defense and the cannons are for bombardments. The lack of cannons might mean that they don't have the cannon design they want to mount on it yet, or they forgot to produce it.

The news update probably means that we're not in a
position to edit our production order, which means a roughly even mix of HMGs and Ratios, which isn't bad, but artillery seems like it might be more useful at the moment.

We're going to need tracer rounds. We planned on making them, but now we sort of need them, unless the 40mm anti air sharpnel shells work very effectively.

If we go ahead with the plane, it's going to take 2 turns minimum to begin production, assuming that we create a useable plane design in one turn. Let's assume it's going to take 5 turns without botchs to make the plane (plane design building + beginning plane design, actually being able to have the building in full use designing + plane engine design, test flight, revisions based on test flight, production). We can set aside 10 engineers to work on all of the involved parts of the project (designs and buildings) while we use the rest of our engineers to work elsewhere.

I kind of want to design a submarine as a kind of screw you to the Monarchy, but we can't really afford that at the moment.

@Funk: I'm going to outline the areas that I find make the rocket project an inefficient use of resources and man power. If you can prove otherwise on these points I will support the project.

The Qassam rocket you're using as an example is 100 years ahead of us timeline wise. It takes advantage of solid fuel which we have no experience in at the moment and of which your rocket design relies on gunpowder for propulsion. It also has the advantage of 100 years of aerodynamic design research, development, and experimentation. In addition to that, it is specifically called out for being exceptionally inaccurate for hitting specific military targets, which suggests that even if we managed to make it, we'd have to be well within its 5km range to hit what we want. The enemy would almost certainly be able to fire upon the rockets well before they get into position and are able to fire.

Rockets seem complex enough that they would require a specific factory to make them, (Aseaheru, are we able to get confirmation on that) which is not something that our government has shown itself willing to do so far. This means that we would need to devote factories to producing them which would be production that we could have used on things we know work well in the field. In addition to that, presuming we advance to the Qassam design, it would require Special Fuel which means that we would need to design the process to produce said fuel and then set up chemical plants to put the process into practice.

Let's say we use 10 engineers on all aspects of this project. Fuel Design + Chemical Plants => Rocket Design + Rocket Factories => Rocket Fin Redesign = 3 turns. Assuming 1 botch and 2 extra turns needed to form a base design to be further refined in any part of the process, that means it will take at least 6 turns to set up the rocket system, assuming the minimal goes wrong. Can we afford to use these engineers like that?

In regards to the "really large rocket." That would certainly require a specific factory for it. We have a 42cm siege mortar which will do exactly what you want while being reusable and having a 14km range. Engineers would be better spent turning the siege mortar into something we can actually use rather than working out a rocket that won't have near the same range for exactly one use. At what point would a rocket of that size be able to bring back a return in PP while still being able to provide the same level of accurate destruction that we would seek from it?

[3_14159]

-The Monarchy has commissioned the worlds first military airship, the HMIAS Wene, which is of semi-rigid structure and is armed with a number of machineguns and a pair of cannons. Oddly, during its tour to show it off to the Monarchy's people its two cannons where missing.

Hm. Interesting. Personally, I fairly doubt it's going to be useful - in the end, producing one airship per turn means two artillery cannons mounted on them, when there are hundreds being produced. While the airship might be used to attack our interior, this should prove fairly ineffectual.
On the other hand, this might be their answer to the Swordfish - a long-range naval patrol airship armed with cannons. If so, it should be mostly unable to hit it.

-The Gaus navy has commissioned the first submarine to be propelled both by electric engines and by a diesel engine. It is armed with three externally mounted torpedoes and a pair of torpedo tubes.

-Experiments in the Oligarchy of Logmen with heavier-than-air-craft for scouting have given birth to the first seaplane. It is unarmed and has a crew of one.

Very interesting.

-A mass-produced passenger car is put into production, running off of an engine designed to use high-strength alcohol or gasoline. Due to its use of an assembly line where the car, not the workers, move along it production costs are even now dropping steadily. It is estimated that within a decade nearly anyone will by able to purchase one if they wish.

@Aseaheru: Can we buy that? Failing that, can we design an assembly-line factory?

-The IDS Bulldog is laid down, and has sparked something of an arms race. Unlike other battleships, she is armed with a uniform set of main armament guns and few secondary armaments. She is also powered by steam turbines and possesses the superimposed turrets first put into use in 801 by the Oligarchy of Logmen.

Welcome, Dreadnought. Looks like we're still on OTL tech development track.

[Funk]

@Funk: I'm going to outline the areas that I find make the rocket project an inefficient use of resources and man power. If you can prove otherwise on these points I will support the project.

The Qassam rocket you're using as an example is 100 years ahead of us timeline wise.

I picked the Qassam rocket as it a simple type of rocket and other home made rockets are available.
But it shows what can be made with out the befits of advanced aerodynamics or modern solid rocket fuels, there mostly sugar or black power fuelled.

In regards to the "really large rocket." That would certainly require a specific factory for it. We have a 42cm siege mortar which will do exactly what you want while being reusable and having a 14km range. Engineers would be better spent turning the siege mortar into something we can actually use rather than working out a rocket that won't have near the same range for exactly one use.
At what point would a rocket of that size be able to bring back a return in PP while still being able to provide the same level of accurate destruction that we would seek from it?

A bigger rocket should get better range and can carry better aiming equipment, but aiming is the hard part.
To be really accurate we'll need some kind of radio navigation which i'll add bombers will need anyway.

[somemildmanneredidiot]

Upon reviewing material, I acknowledge that the Qassam is designed to be as inexpensive and easy to produce as possible. I'm still of the mind that the progression needed to set it all up could be better used on more effective weapon systems.

[Aseaheru]

 Small rockets and missiles are counting as munitions. However, things that need specialized launch sites built are built in factories.

 Theres also alot of work needed on rockets, starting with engines, then fuel, and eventually guidance.

[milo christiansen]

That airship will be a death trap if we can get some flak cannons (or even just incendiary shells for the ratio). A 40mm bofors equivalent would be awesome, but a plain old 40mm quickfire (with explosive shells and fairly sensitive impact triggers) would be plenty...

Rockets of some kind (designed to be fired in a massive salvo just before an assault) would be very useful, but longer range artillery rockets are really only good for harassing the enemy with our tech levels. That is not to say that harassing the enemy isn't useful (periodic random rocket fire during the night would be a good anti-moral weapon). Never let your enemy get a good nights sleep!

[Amperzand]

Something that rockets are much better at than guns is to produce an extreme number of shots in short period of time, without needing enough expensive artillery guns to fire all that.

Honestly, if WW1 airships are what we're working with here, and incendiary round for our HMG would be plenty effective, if we could get it close enough to hit the zeppelin.

[somemildmanneredidiot]

@Aseaheru: Does the news update mean that the turn number crunching has started? If not, anything we need to do on our end?

If not and we still have time to change things real quick, here's a vote for amounts of HMGs and Ratios:

Spoiler: Production Change Vote (click to show/hide)

Current Set Up: 360 HMGs and 195 Ratios:
255 HMGs and 255 Ratios:
120 HMGs and 315 Ratios: SMMI

Unrelated to anything, I've been reading through some old Design Games and I keep snickering over one combat. One side had deployed tankettes with 8mm armor. The receiving side already had 14mm HMGs in deployment. The previous side did not have any tanks on the field after that combat.

[3_14159]

To be really accurate we'll need some kind of radio navigation which i'll add bombers will need anyway.

For strategic bombardment, a radio navigation system would be useful (and for carrier location for landing after a strike). On the other hand, that's at least another thirty years away, just like any miniaturizable guidance system for rockets.

Theres also alot of work needed on rockets, starting with engines, then fuel, and eventually guidance.

We could, of course, also use blackpowder. A modernized Congreve rocket (blackpowder, fins and launch rails for higher accuracy) should be fairly easy to design, and have a better performance than the original one. On the other hand, I don't see a huge use. Amperzand and somemildmanneredidiot are right in that rockets afford a significantly higher initial rate of fire (which is proportionally much more effective than a prolonged artillery bombardment), but the design investment makes it prohibitive. We do have what I believe are more important things to design.
That being said, I definitely want it later on, because rockets should be effective as both infantry-portable anti-tank weaponry, aircraft-launched weapons and mobile rocket artillery (a truck with rockets should be much more mobile than a self-propelled gun). And for pre-landing shore bombardment.

Honestly, if WW1 airships are what we're working with here, and incendiary round for our HMG would be plenty effective, if we could get it close enough to hit the zeppelin.

Aye. One of the issues is the fairly high flight ceiling of the Zeppelins (a German WW1 P-Class reaches about 3,500 metres height). This makes it difficult to catch by fighters. On the other hand, the 40mm Bofors had a ceiling that was high enough; so let's hope our 40mm gun reaches a similar ceiling.


Also, seconding the more-ratios-plan; I'll do a more specific write-up once voting has finished.

Spoiler: Production Change Vote (click to show/hide)

Current Set Up: 360 HMGs and 195 Ratios:
255 HMGs and 255 Ratios:
120 HMGs and 315 Ratios: SMMI, 3_14159

Unrelated to anything, I've been reading through some old Design Games and I keep snickering over one combat. One side had deployed tankettes with 8mm armor. The receiving side already had 14mm HMGs in deployment. The previous side did not have any tanks on the field after that combat.

Huh; that must have been one of the first ones. Link?

[Amperzand]

Actually, something that might be worth doing is to test the maximum range of our cartridge. I know WW1 rifle rounds were largely engineered to be capable of fire out to 2km under ideal circumstances, and our round might manage better than that. I can't imagine it'd do it very well, though. Plus 40mm AAA probably leaves us good until guided missiles, with maybe a Flak 88 equivalent if we run into lethality problems.