Print

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

[Aseaheru]

 Greetings comrades! Time for me to join this thing!

 Well, if we can get stuff from WW2, why not the STG-44? Its a really nice weapon, even after ~80 years. I would also take the FG-42 as an option, since the mechanics of that where taken for the M60.

 For our own stuff, well, our jet could use a fair deal more firepower, as hitting modern aircraft with mostly inert rounds does not do much than leave a few holes. Why not replace its armaments with autocannon? We could probably get a few off of the Russians, the NR-23 probably being our best bet.


-ninja edit-
Ill go write up a list of all the proposals for one.

[Stirk]

I guess now that Aseaheru is here I don't have to worry about hogging all the ideas .

How about a vote?

There are like, three of us and each has something different that we want :-/.

Greetings comrades! Time for me to join this thing!

 Well, if we can get stuff from WW2, why not the STG-44? Its a really nice weapon, even after ~80 years. I would also take the FG-42 as an option, since the mechanics of that where taken for the M60.

 For our own stuff, well, our jet could use a fair deal more firepower, as hitting modern aircraft with mostly inert rounds does not do much than leave a few holes. Why not replace its armaments with autocannon? We could probably get a few off of the Russians, the NR-23 probably being our best bet.


-ninja edit-
Ill go write up a list of all the proposals for one.

Because we could choose the AK-47 instead if we are looking for an assault rifle, which held up better even not counting the AKM improvements,  That's the problem with all the WWII stuff-even the latest and most high tech is outdated by now. Autocannons would be a nice upgrade both for its anti-air and anti-ground capabilities. I still think we need to prioritize our tanks, we are more-or-less winning in the air but our armor is getting pounded pretty hard.

[Aseaheru]

Im guessing that its one design and one beg per turn, right? Also, we are lacking a few designs, so heres one more.

Spoiler: Dart Helicopter (click to show/hide)

Based off of the German Fl 282, the Dart is a small, two man synchropter intended for observation and light ground support, being armed with a pintle-mounted machinegun(lifted again from the Mustang) placed in the tail of the craft.

With a bit of experience we could probably make it into a transport. At the least we can use the basic design for a heavy lift helicopter(something synchropters are particularly good for, being highly stable)

-ninja edit-

 There are alot of arguments that the STG-44 is competitive even against the M4 and AK-100 series. For sure, its internals are still in use in just about everything HK puts out.

 Tanks would be a good thing to upgrade, and would be nice to atleast attempt to homebrew. Ill probably wind up voting for the K-1, if I dont find a design I like more in about 45min.

-later edit-

 Why not a form of the PT-76? Its a light tank, sure, but its also been used in just about every amphibious vehicle the soviets made after WW2, from SPAA to SPGs to transports. Hell, they even shoved nukes on some.

Vote Proposals

Design Own
K-1 MBT (T-54 knockoff w/ 120mm frontal hull, 205mm frontal turret armor, 100mm main gun, 30 and 20mm pintle mount guns, coax .50cal) (Stirk)
Manta Ray HMG (local production M2 machinegun)(Doubloon)

Get from elsewhere
ROKS-3 from Soviets(Doubloon-Seven)
LPO-50 from same(Stirk)
STG-44 from captured Nutzi stocks(Asea)
FG-42 from same(Asea)
Flettner Fl 282 from same(Asea)

Unfleshed out proposals
Landmines?
Selp propelled arty?
Minisubs?
Get the T-54?
Up-gun the jet?

[Doubloon-Seven]

Just to clear the blockage, +1 to Stirk's Katyusha-1.

[Stirk]

Im guessing that its one design and one beg per turn, right? Also, we are lacking a few designs, so heres one more.

Spoiler: Dart Helicopter (click to show/hide)

Based off of the German Fl 282, the Dart is a small, two man synchropter intended for observation and light ground support, being armed with a pintle-mounted machinegun(lifted again from the Mustang) placed in the tail of the craft.

With a bit of experience we could probably make it into a transport. At the least we can use the basic design for a heavy lift helicopter(something synchropters are particularly good for, being highly stable)

-ninja edit-

 There are alot of arguments that the STG-44 is competitive even against the M4 and AK-100 series. For sure, its internals are still in use in just about everything HK puts out.

 Tanks would be a good thing to upgrade, and would be nice to atleast attempt to homebrew. Ill probably wind up voting for the K-1, if I dont find a design I like more in about 45min.

Vote Proposials

Design Own
K-1 MBT (T-54 knockoff w/ 120mm frontal hull, 205mm frontal turret armor, 100mm main gun, 30 and 20mm pintle mount guns, coax .50cal) (Stirk)
Manta Ray HMG (local production M2 machinegun)(Doubloon)

Get from elsewhere
ROKS-3 from Soviets(Doubloon-Seven)
LPO-50 from same(Stirk)
STG-44 from captured Nutzi stocks(Asea)
FG-42 from same(Asea)
Flettner Fl 282 from same(Asea)

Unfleshed out proposials
Landmines?
Selp propelled arty?
Minisubs?
Get the T-54?
Up-gun the jet?

The STG-44 was replaced with AK variants. Should go a long way to showing what direction we should go in . The STG-44 isn't as good as you claim it is, comparing it to the M4 and Ak-100 series greatly favors the M4 and AKs, and the fact that some of its internals got copied doesn't mean the gun itself was great (and if it did, then even the AK borrowed from it, so lets use it instead ). It had several major design flaws, the magazine kinda sucked and the forestock heats up with repeated fire. The quality control was a joke, since they were made late in the war and we are taking looted ones rather than producing our own, leading to much less reliability. The AK takes all the good parts of the gun and leaves out all the bad, on top of being a good base design for other types of weapons if we want to jump into them.

[Aseaheru]

 It was replaced with the AK by most nations that used it(though there where few of those) mostly because the Russians liked handing out plans like candy. The AK uses a very different mechanism. In any case, its a good starting point four our own homebrew design.

 I would argue that it definitely beats out the AK-47, if only because the AK was designed as a submachine gun that could be used at range if needed and the STG was a rifle that could be used in close quarters.

 That matter, if we do go with a totally new design, why not get the TKB-517 or even go bullpup and use a modified form of the TKB-408? If we are going heavy mechanized(and that sounds like a good idea to me) than bullpup is better.

[Stirk]

It was replaced with the AK by most nations that used it(though there where few of those) mostly because the Russians liked handing out plans like candy. The AK uses a very different mechanism. In any case, its a good starting point four our own homebrew design.

 I would argue that it definitely beats out the AK-47, if only because the AK was designed as a submachine gun that could be used at range if needed and the STG was a rifle that could be used in close quarters.

 That matter, if we do go with a totally new design, why not get the TKB-517 or even go bullpup and use a modified form of the TKB-408? If we are going heavy mechanized(and that sounds like a good idea to me) than bullpup is better.

If the STG was the god of the gun you claimed it was, they wouldn't have replaced it at all. I know it uses a very different mechanism, its kinda odd to bring up. Next, it doesn't matter how the weapons were designed, the results matter. I have never heard of that "AK was designed as a sub machine gun STG as a rifle" thing anyway. Kali designed his gun based on the best parts of the M1 and STG, neither of which is a sub machine gun making it odd that you would think it was designed as one. Kali had worked on a sub-machine gun before, but that was a completely different beast with no relation other than giving him experience. Considering he had the STG pointed at him plenty of times on the Russian front, and had examined many of its parts for use in his own weapon, I think its fairly obvious it was designed as an assault rifle from the start. Unless you were talking about tactically, which still doesn't make since. The AK has a better effective firing range then the STG does, and again was designed after that rifle taking its tactics into account. No matter how you cut it, the AK is the better rifle.

There isn't a lot of information on the second one, and the first one hasn't been designed yet for us to copy. If we are copying something, is it really a totally new design ?

[Aseaheru]

 It has flaws, yes, but it is still competitive. I brought up the mechanism as you did, saying that the AK copied its mechanism.

 As for the "designed to replace the SMG", well, thats basically how it was used by the soviets, with SVDs acting as the few rifles that where really needed. Course, the soviets where going wholesale over to SMGs during WW2, to the point where a platoon consisted of the squad lead, nine dudes intended to have SMGs, and a machinegun team.

 I have not been saying that it was not designed as an assault rifle, just that it came out of SMG development, not rifle development, causing different priorities in design.


 On the not alot of info/coppying stuff only being designed now, well, the first if typical of stuff that gets passed over, and on the second we can always get something thats not a smallarm this year from the soviets, and then get one next year. Helicopters to help our tanks find the enemy perhaps, or a light tank platform to go along with our homebrew T-54

 Incase it wasent clear, One vote for K-1 tank, though perhaps in a slightly modified format(replace the two pintle guns for one, and something the Russians already use(ammunition commonality good!))

[Stirk]

It has flaws, yes, but it is still competitive. I brought up the mechanism as you did, saying that the AK copied its mechanism.

 As for the "designed to replace the SMG", well, thats basically how it was used by the soviets, with SVDs acting as the few rifles that where really needed. Course, the soviets where going wholesale over to SMGs during WW2, to the point where a platoon consisted of the squad lead, nine dudes intended to have SMGs, and a machinegun team.

 I have not been saying that it was not designed as an assault rifle, just that it came out of SMG development, not rifle development, causing different priorities in design.


 On the not alot of info/coppying stuff only being designed now, well, the first if typical of stuff that gets passed over, and on the second we can always get something thats not a smallarm this year from the soviets, and then get one next year. Helicopters to help our tanks find the enemy perhaps, or a light tank platform to go along with our homebrew T-54

 Incase it wasent clear, One vote for K-1 tank, though perhaps in a slightly modified format(replace the two pintle guns for one, and something the Russians already use(ammunition commonality good!))

I didn't say the AK copied its mechanism. I say the AK "AK borrowed from it", not that they put Russian logos on the STG and called it a day. In any case, it doesn't matter how it was used. It matters how it functions. Your view of the tactical use of Ak-47s is impossible. The SVD entered service in 1963 and wasn't designed until 1958, by the time it came into the picture the AK-47 was replaced by the AKM everyone knows and loves. Even assuming that the SVD worked with what AK-47s were left after it entered service, that is still a decade were the AK was around and the SVD wasn't. Its design was as an assault rifle that came of assault rifle development for a project on assault rifles, whether or not the sovies used them tactically like sub machine guns is not relevant. Its development was rifle all the way, with the idea that it would be used as a rifle. It didn't come out of SMG development at all, like I said it was based on other rifle designs (including the STG) to be a rifle. Rifle, rifle, rifle, rifle. Rifle. Anyway, it was more accurate, had longer range, was more reliable, etc then the STG. Whatever got them to that point doesn't really matter.

But if we put off small arms until next turn, we can't get the bomber Doubloon suggested (and I upgraded ). I'm not sure how useful helicopters would be to us, the enemy is probably working on something to fight off our Jet (...At least, that is what I would do if I was them) making anything in the air an easy target.

[Aseaheru]

 Why would putting off smallarm acquisition prevent getting a bomber? I thought we where talking about designing new a bomber.

 On doctrinal use of rifles in sub-gun and later assault-rifle toting units, have a read.
 Not once have I stated that the AK was designed as a SMG, but it DID come to fruition thanks to those who designed first and foremost submachine guns. Kalashnikov got started as a designer of submachine guns, and the two designers he listed as major collaborators where also well known for the SMGs they designed(Degtyaryov with the PPD-40 and Shpagin with their PPSh-41).

 Your comment on the SVD not possibly have been designed to work alongside the AK-47 is true, yes. However, at that time it appears that Mosin-Nagant's where still in use in role that the SVD would be designed for, even up into the 1980s(Atleast again, so it appears from what the few snippits of data that I can find, as the best I can find is a US manual on soviet ToEs from 1991).

-edit-

More information found on the TKB-517(the gun thats more accurate and cheaper than the AKM)

[Stirk]

Why would putting off smallarm acquisition prevent getting a bomber? I thought we where talking about designing new a bomber.

 On doctrinal use of rifles in sub-gun and later assault-rifle toting units, have a read.
 Not once have I stated that the AK was designed as a SMG, but it DID come to fruition thanks to those who designed first and foremost submachine guns. Kalashnikov got started as a designer of submachine guns, and the two designers he listed as major collaborators where also well known for the SMGs they designed(Degtyaryov with the PPD-40 and Shpagin with their PPSh-41).

 Your comment on the SVD not possibly have been designed to work alongside the AK-47 is true, yes. However, at that time it appears that Mosin-Nagant's where still in use in role that the SVD would be designed for, even up into the 1980s(Atleast again, so it appears from what the few snippits of data that I can find, as the best I can find is a US manual on soviet ToEs from 1991).

Not once have I stated that the AK was designed as a SMG

I would argue that it definitely beats out the AK-47, if only because the AK was designed as a submachine gun that could be used at range if needed and the STG was a rifle that could be used in close quarters.

Are you trying out that alternative truth thing?

Why would putting off smallarm acquisition prevent getting a bomber? I thought we where talking about designing new a bomber.

We get one acquisition per turn. Penny suggested we go for the Tupolev Tu-85, I suggested we wait a year and get the Tu-95 instead. If we acquire small arms next year, we would have to put off getting the Tu-95.

Kalashnikov got his start designing a sub gun, so what? Browning designed a pistol before he made the BMG, that doesn't mean the BMG has anything to do with pistols. Kali also designed a machine gun before making the AK, Degtyaryov also made machine guns (we are currently outfitted with his work), and Shpagin worked on the DShK. They all worked on submachine guns, machine guns, and in the case of Kali an assault rifle. Even in that case, it is simply irrelevant. The AK would have never been made if it wasn't for the musket, but that doesn't make it a musket.

I am well aware of designated marksman, thank you very much -_-. The existence of battle rifles doesn't make the AK "basically a submachine gun" any more then the existence of the M14 makes the M16 a submachine gun. I fail to see your point, being how any of this bears relevance to the superiority of the SDK over the AK-47.

[Doubloon-Seven]

Ah, the unavoidable arguments about weapons and history that comes with every weapons design game.

[Aseaheru]

 I would prefer the Bear over the Tu-85 myself, thanks for the clarification on that issue.

 Dont think I am trying out alt truths, sorry about that. Tad frazzled at the moment.

 If you look at the realitive rates of fire, priorities, doctrines and so on, it shows what weapons where primarily designed for. For instance, the STG had a comparatively low rate of fire and was rather heavy, combined with German infantry doctrine it shows that it was designed as a carbine or rifle that could be used as a machinegun when required. Likewise, the FG-42 was designed as a machinegun that if required could be used as a rifle.
 The Soviets, when designing the AK, where focused on getting troops in fast and doing fighting up close, supported by snipers at the least, artillery, tanks and aircraft the rest of the time so that long-ranged combat for the infantry was less of a concern. This is evidenced by the different ways Soviets and the Chinese reacted to the AK, with the Chinese keeping the SKS along until they wound up in 'nam while the Soviets went to the AK jsut about as soon as it existed.


 Oh, also, when you say SDK, do you mean the TKB ,software development kits, or something totally different? I mentioned the TKB info as a bit of an aside(having suggested we wait to get it as opposed to going for the STG or the AKM a few slightly ranty posts ago, and put there to provide a bit more information on it)

-ninja edit-

 Yep, thats about the face of it. Much of the time, its one of the bits that I like the most, though when it gets nasty its the part I like the least about them.

[Stirk]

I would prefer the Bear over the Tu-85 myself, thanks for the clarification on that issue.

 Dont think I am trying out alt truths, sorry about that. Tad frazzled at the moment.

 If you look at the realitive rates of fire, priorities, doctrines and so on, it shows what weapons where primarily designed for. For instance, the STG had a comparatively low rate of fire and was rather heavy, combined with German infantry doctrine it shows that it was designed as a carbine or rifle that could be used as a machinegun when required. Likewise, the FG-42 was designed as a machinegun that if required could be used as a rifle.
 The Soviets, when designing the AK, where focused on getting troops in fast and doing fighting up close, supported by snipers at the least, artillery, tanks and aircraft the rest of the time so that long-ranged combat for the infantry was less of a concern. This is evidenced by the different ways Soviets and the Chinese reacted to the AK, with the Chinese keeping the SKS along until they wound up in 'nam while the Soviets went to the AK jsut about as soon as it existed.


 Oh, also, when you say SDK, do you mean the TKB ,software development kits, or something totally different? I mentioned the TKB info as a bit of an aside(having suggested we wait to get it as opposed to going for the STG or the AKM a few slightly ranty posts ago, and put there to provide a bit more information on it)

-ninja edit-

 Yep, thats about the face of it. Much of the time, its one of the bits that I like the most, though when it gets nasty its the part I like the least about them.

I did look at relative rates of fire. They are the same-600rpm each. The rate of fire isn't comparatively low, it is comparatively exactly the same. While the weight is heavy, it feels more like a design flaw then something they were deliberately attempting. A lighter gun is often a sign of a better gun, not a worse one (assuming the recoil is still controllable). Reducing the weight is one of the first upgrades people did to the weapon to make it more viable. In fact, if what you say is true in that the automatic capabilities were a secondary concern, they should have lowered the weight as much as possible due to the fact it is only truly helpful in fully automatic fire.

The gun was designed by a man, not a government. How the government used the weapon has no bearing on the quality or capabilities of the weapon. The "Sniper" you keep referring to is just a designated marksman, some guy who supports the fire team with more accurate fire. Americans have even similar tactics, does that mean the m4 is somehow less accurate or otherwise less useful then the STG? The Chinese got both guns in 56, right after the Korean war and before Vietnam. That is to say, they loved the gun...right up to the point they had to actually use it in a major war (having comparatively minor conflicts between then).

And, of course, the SDK is the StormDragunovKalish, based off your SVD gaffe.

[Aseaheru]

 STG had a rate of fire of between 550 and 600, which is slightly less. Not identical.

 Snipers I refer to are designated marksmen, and also actual sniper teams(WW2 soviet infantry platoons typically having a team as messengers/snipers, again I cant find much of anything on 50s and 60s era Soviet infantry ToE). And yes, the M4 is actually less accurate at range than the STG, because the M4 is a carbine with a far shorter barrel, firing a round designed for a far longer barrel while the STG fired a round designed for it to use. The relatively poor performance of the M4 at range is why US military units still keep some M16A4s handy as a support weapon.

 A major war in a place where they had to fight up-close and personal in mountainous jungle. Till then most fighting the PLA had to deal with was fairly wide open.

 How a government uses something has no bearing on its design, yes. That is, until they go and hold trials for a weapon to meet specific requirements(oh wait) or ask for certain things to be changed(hang on a second).


-Corrective edit-

 Earlier I stated that the STG 44's internals are the basis of a wide number of firearms. While this may be true, the ones I specifically mentioned are actually based on the internals of the MKb Gerät 06, which was a variation on the STG 44 in an attempt to further simplify and lower the costs of production, similar to what the TKB-517 aimed to do for the AKM.