Print

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

Glorious Arstotzka

17 (16%)

Glorious Moskurg

13 (12.3%)

Ingloriously Didn't Play

76 (71.7%)

Total Members Voted: 106

[Baffler]

Design: UFS-LVT-40 "Tiger Shark"
A cross between a traditional tank and landing ship, the Tiger Shark is an amphibious tracked vehicle designed for beach assaults and landing troops. Launched from a CV-22 cargo ship, it crosses the distance to shore via twin screws powered by its fourteen-cylinder diesel engine, switching to tracks once ashore. It is capable of carrying half a platoon of troops and landing them via a rear ramp. Armour is Light on the sides and Heavy on the front, as befits a vehicle intended to drive straight into and survive enemy fire from fixed positions. Over the armour is a thin layer of aluminium to address issues of rust arising from the seawater. Atop, an AS-AC18 provides the firepower needed to eliminate enemy emplacements while an additional two M3 Sorraia GPMGs lay down suppressive fire allowing the troops within to disembark.

I like this a lot. It fits two roles we need and should do well at both, but I'm concerned about how it can follow the fleet. Can our cargo carriers hold them?

[Parsely]

Hey, guys I am sure that their Project Railway is either a jet fighter or large aircraft carrier. I think we must to go for a new fighter to negate this threat before it comes into the play.

And you know this... How? The name must be assumed to be meaningless.

If we design a lander, it should have the option to open from the sides or the front.  The front for armor, the sides for infantry. 

The whole point of a front ramp is so that infantry in full gear have to walk through as little water as possible. Having men deploy from the sides of the boat is making them more likely to drown and more likely to get targeted by machine guns because now they're neck deep in water. The goal is to get the guys off the boat and onto the beach as quickly as possible. The faster that happens, the more likely they will survive.

Having a long boat that's just narrow enough to fit a tank minimizes the risk of a machine gun directly in front of the boat mowing down the occupants.
That way most of the time a machine gun is only going to have this kind of angle:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cf/LCVP-1.gif

I like this a lot. It fits two roles we need and should do well at both, but I'm concerned about how it can follow the fleet. Can our cargo carriers hold them?

The Tiger Shark is nice but it can't deliver supplies or our currently existing tanks. We need an actual lander, something that's cheap and reusable.

UF-LSL-39 "Tadpole"
The Light Shore Lander is a shallow-bottomed, narrow landing craft built for reliability first and speed second. It's large enough to deliver 40 soldiers, a single T2 Breaker, or equivalent cargo directly onto a shore and long enough that it's capable of retreating from the beach after landing in order to pick up more cargo. It has an open top so its cargo can be switfly loaded from another ship directly into the interior. There is a forward-angled locking ramp on the bow that can be dropped remotely by the driver, or using an emergency control near the front of the boat; when the boat withdraws, one of the crew cranks the ramp back up using a handle. It has metal eyes on the hull for being hung from davits on larger ships or being towed. It's armed with two Sorraia machine guns for suppressing the beachhead; these are manned by two dedicated crew members. It has very light armor that's only meant to protect from machine gun fire and shell fragments; the sides and ramp (when closed) are just tall enough to protect a standing man from an enemy who is not elevated, and to allow tanks to fire. The engine, driver, and gunners are located in a lightly armored but open cockpit at the rear of the boat.

[evictedSaint]

I am just concerned about a Saving Private Ryan scenario; the front opens and MG fire kills everyone in the bucket.  Having the front ramp up would provide some cover on an otherwise coverless beach.


If you give the AS-LSL-39 a catchy name, switch the AS to UF, and make it a bit more ambitious, I'll vote for it.

[Parsely]

The Saving Private Ryan scenario is staged for dramatic purposes (it's a movie) and in reality it would be super rare. You'd have to be really unlucky to deploy directly in front of a machine gun nest. For every one boat in front of a machine gun there are another dozen with troops pouring out. Not to mention that not every landing is going to be like Omaha beach.

E: The boat's advantage is being really cheap so you can get lots of men and equipment onto the beach.

-a bit more ambitious, I'll vote for it.

What do you have in mind?

[Kashyyk]

UF-39-LC "Gator"
This landing craft is long enough to fit two AS-T33s one behind the other, although it is most commonly used with one AS-T33 followed by two squads of Armoured assault troops. The craft is fitted with a front access ramp, such that once beached the lead tank can immediately advance into combat. It is heavily armoured (for a tank) on the front, with medium armour on the sides and light armour at the rear. It is open topped, with sides high enough to protect a standing solider, but low enough that the turret gun of a tank can fire whilst the craft advances. It is fitted with a pair of screw propellers and can apply high acceleration both forwards and reverse, but it doesn't turn well. As most beach assaults will involve making a beeline for the beach, unloading then withdrawing for the next wave that shouldn't matter.

UF-39-APC "Croc" B
Following the basic frame of a T-2 Breaker, this eight-wheeled all terrain vehicle is designed to carry a squad of infantry, plus support gear (tiger armour & squad weapons for example). It is fitted with a turreted AC-18 Autocannon and coaxial Sorraia. The armour is Medium all round and it is specifically designed to be as sloped as possible for maximum deflection, additionally, it uses one unit of Manganese alloy to improve armour further. It has a rear access ramp, as well as two side doors, all rubber sealed. It is designed to achieve 40mph on smooth ground, 20mph on rough, can float and move slowly across water with it's rear mounter propeller.

EDIT: Missed the landing revisions for the Croc.

[3_14159]

This is the alternate design (some modifications to Azzuro's first design):

Design: UFS-LVT-40 "Tiger Shark" Variant B
A cross between an armoured transport and landing ship, the Tiger Shark is an amphibious tracked vehicle designed for beach assaults and landing troops. Launched from a CV-22 cargo ship, it crosses the distance to shore via twin screws powered by its fourteen-cylinder diesel engine placed behind the driver's cabin, switching to tracks once ashore. It is capable of carrying half a platoon of troops and landing them via a rear ramp. It is armoured against small arms fire, and although up-armour kits are available, those strongly reduce the load. Atop, a single AS-AC18s with a gun shield provides the firepower needed to eliminate enemy emplacements while an additional two M3 Sorraia GPMGs lay down suppressive fire allowing the troops within to disembark.

Compared to the original proposal, it is lighter armoured and armed, which will result in it being easier to move around, to use as an APC even on land. This would give us an advantage in the jungle, for example.

Compared to the landing craft proposal, it is also usable on land, and it has the advantage of allowing people to disembark directly on the beaches. My fear with a landing craft is that, similar to the pacific, it might get stuck behind some reefs or similar obstacles, leaving the soldiers to wade to the beach.

And, well, the submarine carrier won't be usable. Even assuming it works, and even assuming the snorkels work out of the box, where exactly do you erect the snorkels on a submarine's cargo deck?

[evictedSaint]

Knowing our lucky, EVERY beach landing will be like Omaha.

But I acknowledge you have a point.

What about putting treads on the bottom of the "Clamshell" (I named it the clamshell)?  Let it roll over sandbars and further up the beach than spilling out on the shore.

[Parsely]

My problem with an Amtrac-like APC is it can't deliver our tanks or supplies. An amphibious APC is a good idea for supporting landers and overcoming challenging areas that have reefs (reefs are the exception, not the rule, mind) but we absolutely need a true lander before we can get an amphibious APC, otherwise troops have no way of getting things like water, food, and ammo onto the beach after they seize it.

E:

Knowing our lucky, EVERY beach landing will be like Omaha.

But I acknowledge you have a point.

What about putting treads on the bottom of the "Clamshell" (I named it the clamshell)?  Let it roll over sandbars and further up the beach than spilling out on the shore.

I called it the "Tadpole" because it's cute and because their "Walrus" has clamshell doors. A shallow, light boat like this can sail right over sandbars. It's very small. And soldiers should get out of the transports as quick as possible so it can go back to get more people, so the only point in treads is if it was armored and had a cannon (i.e. NOT a lander but an APC).

[andrea]

That is true, we need our armor to get the beach.
plus, tanks firing their cannons provides more defense during the landing.

edit: @ Gunnin, you could mention walls high enough to shield a man but low enough to let our tanks fire, like in kashyyk's proposal.

[3_14159]

My problem with an Amtrac-like APC is it can't deliver our tanks or supplies. An amphibious APC is a good idea for supporting landers and overcoming challenging areas that have reefs (reefs are the exception, not the rule, mind) but we absolutely need a true lander before we can get an amphibious APC, otherwise troops have no way of getting things like water, food, and ammo onto the beach after they seize it.

Actually, the LVT series (including the LVT-4 on which I'm basing this) could carry about three tons of cargo as an alternative and, with the later addition of a ramp, easily deploy it. True, it wouldn't allow us to deploy tanks right away (I'm assuming that gets handwaved later on once infantry has moved in far enough), but artillery and supplies are fair game.

[evictedSaint]

If the tadpole lets the tanks fire from within, I'll vote for it - assuming you change the prefix to UF instead of AS.

[piratejoe]

UF-SUB-1939 "Jonah"

This, yes. It is flawless

[Parsely]

edit: @ Gunnin, you could mention walls high enough to shield a man but low enough to let our tanks fire, like in kashyyk's proposal.

If the tadpole lets the tanks fire from within, I'll vote for it - assuming you change the prefix to UF instead of AS.

Done.

UF-LSL-39 "Tadpole": (1) GUNINANRUNIN

[Strongpoint]

Do we really need to recapture Tundra? Why is this a priority? Also, if we design a lander and don't recapture Tundra then design will be nearly useless.

We got a low impact design > Radar. Going for another low impact design is a bad strategy that may deny us a chance to win very important jungles.

They are focused on winning the skies from us. Their strategy is just that. I don't want to allow them that

[Kot]

Spoiler: Guys... guys... no, hear me out, I'm actually serious. (click to show/hide)