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

[Mulisa]

Voting for the Jonah; It's ambitious; I like it.

UF-LSL-39 "Tadpole": (5) GUNINANRUNIN, evictedSaint, Kashyyk, Hibou, Chiefwaffles,
UF-SUB-1939 "Jonah": (4) Piratejoe, Andrea, strongpoint, Mulisa
UFS-LVT-40 "Tiger Shark":
UFS-LVT-40 "Tiger Shark" Variant B: (5) 3_14159, Powder, Miner, Stabby, Lightforger
UFS-CL-39 'Stalwart Class': (1) Taricus
UF-39-LC "Gator":

[Powder Miner]

UF-LSL-39 "Tadpole": (6) GUNINANRUNIN, evictedSaint, Kashyyk, Hibou, Chiefwaffles, Powder Miner
UF-SUB-1939 "Jonah": (4) Piratejoe, Andrea, strongpoint, Mulisa
UFS-LVT-40 "Tiger Shark":
UFS-LVT-40 "Tiger Shark" Variant B: (4) 3_14159, Stabby, Lightforger
UFS-CL-39 'Stalwart Class': (1) Taricus
UF-39-LC "Gator":

[Madman198237]

UF-LSL-39 "Tadpole": (7) GUNINANRUNIN, evictedSaint, Kashyyk, Hibou, Chiefwaffles, Powder Miner, Madman198237
UF-SUB-1939 "Jonah": (4) Piratejoe, Andrea, strongpoint, Mulisa
UFS-LVT-40 "Tiger Shark":
UFS-LVT-40 "Tiger Shark" Variant B: (4) 3_14159, Stabby, Lightforger
UFS-CL-39 'Stalwart Class': (1) Taricus
UF-39-LC "Gator":

D-day. The single greatest amphibious offensive ever launched. And it was an infantry operation. Why? Because the tanks drowned before reaching the shore. Even though jumping into the water from a transport was a near-death sentence, even though the Germans had built the greatest coastal defenses ever seen, infantry, dropped by a really simple boat, won the day.

We don't need tanks at first---we need a beachhead. Then, once we have territory, we can land troops. We don't even need to invent Mulberry floating piers! We just have to land enough lunatics that the enemy can't kill them before air support drops the enemies.


Oh, and we ABSOLUTELY need to upgrade our ships with radar, as many as possible. It is essential that we revise the radar onto the carrier, onto the destroyers if we can. Even at one range-less set per carrier, well, we have cheap carriers. So we can just triangulate all day. And we have encrypted communications. A set of two to four carriers acting as command and control for each group of night-hunting destroyer wolfpack while the rest of the carriers (Which are as plentiful as our destroyers xD) launch all-night level-bombing attacks on ground positions with radar assistance.

[Strongpoint]

I am having a Déjà vu... It reminds me one moment from Juraki vs Cannala war when Juraki went for... a lander.

[Light forger]

UFS-RDN-1938-S 'Vigil'
A update of our current radio systems designed to make them not only more effective but, also smaller. Mounting a rotating array the new Vigil can tell which direction a object came from with modest accuracy. To further improve on the system it rapidly sends out pulses at a set rate which when combined with the rough knowledge of in which direction it was sent out last the system also get an extremely rough idea of distance and altitude. The system is only modestly smaller then it's progenitor but, it's enough to mount on our carriers and make use of this new tech at sea.

UF-LSL-39 "Tadpole": (7) GUNINANRUNIN, evictedSaint, Kashyyk, Hibou, Chiefwaffles, Powder Miner, Madman198237
UF-SUB-1939 "Jonah": (4) Piratejoe, Andrea, strongpoint, Mulisa
UFS-LVT-40 "Tiger Shark":
UFS-LVT-40 "Tiger Shark" Variant B: (2) 3_14159, Stabby
UFS-CL-39 'Stalwart Class': (1) Taricus
UF-39-LC "Gator":
UFS-RDN-1938-S 'Vigil': (1) Lightforger

We need a better radar and if we want the bloody lander we can use a revision. You know the huge-ass walrus lander that's cruiser size it's a revision so it's not impossible.

[helmacon]

If we choose to do ships this turn, I posit that we simply upgun our existing Archers.  They're fine ships aside from their lacking firepower.

this

Also, it's autumn right now. We need to get ship mounted radar before we are fighting in fog and storms again. Last time, that gave them a whole level of naval advantage. Let's not have to go through that again.

I'm in favor of up gunning the archer, and reducing radar systems size.

[evictedSaint]

Upgun the Archer this turn, but next turn we need to get the radar working if we want to wipe the fucking floor with those cannalan bastards.

and then, god willing, we'll have enough sea power to be even with them and we can focus on our ground troopers.


EDIT:  After some thought, upgunning would be best if we converted it into some kind of AA boat.  Obviously Operation Railroad is a super carrier; even if it isn't, you can bet Cannala will develop one eventually.  Having AA ships in place would help mitigate their effect once they steam out from port.

Alternatively, Explosive Reactive armor is simple enough we could roll it out in a single revision.  Explosives sandwiched between two metal plates?  It's like the assault rifle; the only limiting factor to its deployment was that no one ever thought of doing it.

[Powder Miner]

AA boat? We've got naval air more than covered. We need to get their Corsairs, and being able to pop 'em from higher range with a bugger gun would do the trick, AND give 'em some sting vs the Khornes.

[RAM]

What are the advantages to each of:
Designing a smaller radar?
Designing a smaller radar that is mounted upon the simplest ship that we can justify?

Difficulty is mainly judged by three factors: What the best similar example of a technology you have built is, how long ago you built it, and what progress the outside world has made in that area. It's usually easy to make incrementally better designs, and the longer your factories build something, the better your engineering bureau grows to understand it.

Waiting for a finer vintage of radar?

[Azzuro]

UF-LSL-39 "Tadpole": (7) GUNINANRUNIN, evictedSaint, Kashyyk, Hibou, Chiefwaffles, Powder Miner, Madman198237
UF-SUB-1939 "Jonah": (4) Piratejoe, Andrea, strongpoint, Mulisa
UFS-LVT-40 "Tiger Shark" Variant B: (5) 3_14159, Stabby, Lightforger, Azzuro
UFS-CL-39 'Stalwart Class': (1) Taricus
UF-39-LC "Gator":

Voting for the Tiger Shark LVT, and removing my original design.

Madman, you might want to read up more on these things before spouting off grandiose but inaccurate opinions. The tanks used at the Normandy landings were DD Tanks, essentially M4 Shermans modified with a floatation screen and propeller drives. In essence, they were simply normal tanks which had things added on to them, and were not specifically designed for amphibious landings. They sank due to rough seas and low freeboard, which you will note are deficiencies inherent to the floatation screen concept and not to a true amphibious vehicle.

LVTs, which is what the Tiger Shark is, were not used in combat roles at Normandy. Instead they were used in the Pacific Theatre, at Guadacanal, Iwo Jima and Okinawa and countless other island assaults, where they provided crucial fire support in addition to their troop landing role.

LVTs can deposit their troops further up the beach than landers can, which is pretty closely correlated to casualty rate. In fact, they may even disgorge their troops beyond the shore in tree cover if a path exists. They can provide moving fire support while doing so. They can return into the sea, reload and deploy successive waves of troops faster than a lander can. They can double as supply and ammunition transport after the battle.

The issue here is that you think the Normandy landings are the be-all end-all of amphibious warfare. It was the biggest amphibious operation, but in the Pacific Theatre amphibious assaults were conducted numerous times (and in fact the means by which they were accomplished are more relevant to this game as we are Pacific islands/continents).

In closing, a quote from a USMC general regarding LVTs:

"...amphibian tractors are the "work horses" of the Marine Corps.  Except for the 'amtracs' it would have been impossible for our troops to get ashore on Tarawa, Saipan, Guam or Pelelieu without taking severe, if not prohibitive losses.  But their use is by no means limited to the assault waves; after landing troops and equipment, they play an indispensable part in the movement of supplies, ammunition, et cetera ashore.  In fact, the whole ship-to-shore movement in the normal amphibious operation is to a considerable extent dependent upon one or more of the 'amtrac' family."

-Major General Roy S. Geiger, USMC, April 1945

[NUKE9.13]

Hmm.

I agree with Strongpoint- even with just a 'regular' Naval Advantage, Cannala will be able to keep enough of our troops at bay that I'm not sure a landing will go especially well for us, at least not without plenty of new toys to aid in such an operation. I think we can put off landers until we are really ready for a full-scale counterattack.
Rather, something to help in the Jungle would be great. If we can capture that ore, our T2s become Cheap. And we deny it to Cannala, which is more important.

As such, I'm going to support the LVT. It is not ideal, but unlike the lander it will have some utility in the Jungle. And when we do decide to mount full-scale landing operations, it will be a useful thing to have. I'm going to suggest a small change, though: the current year is 1939, not 1940. Let's not make our naming schemes even more confusing, eh?

UF-LSL-39 "Tadpole": (7) GUNINANRUNIN, evictedSaint, Kashyyk, Hibou, Chiefwaffles, Powder Miner, Madman198237
UF-SUB-1939 "Jonah": (4) Piratejoe, Andrea, strongpoint, Mulisa
UFS-LVT-40 39 "Tiger Shark" Variant B: (5) 3_14159, Stabby, Lightforger, Azzuro, NUKE9.13
UFS-CL-39 'Stalwart Class': (1) Taricus
UF-39-LC "Gator":

[3_14159]

I'm pretty sure that the LVT's going to help us in two of the three theaters:
The Jungle: "The Raider's water mobility is a point in Cannala's favor- it would be a much bigger point if it could make down-river trips while carrying its turret." - increased mobility due to rivers being an advantage the LVT has. Unless they push out something relevant, we'll probably advance no matter what.

The Plains: Here, the only thing that would help us is to reduce their naval advantage - something that'll happen automatically now that they're away from the beach. Once we repel them, however, we need something like that for the archipelago.

The Tundra: "Despite an impressive air showing, Forenia just can't regain a beach-head. They lack the appropriate landing craft [...]" To me, that screams landing crafts or LVTs.

In summary, the proposed LVT will help us in two out of three theatres, and potentially the third. The increase in mobility alone is worth it. On the other hand, we would also profit from radar improvements, which is something we could use the revision for.

I'm going to suggest a small change, though: the current year is 1939, not 1940. Let's not make our naming schemes even more confusing, eh?

Excellent point.


Lastly, a question for the Jonah supporters: How exactly do you deploy anything but divers out of it?

[Azzuro]

Yeah, I totally stoned on the numbering. In my defence it was 3am+ when I wrote that.

And just to elaborate on his points above, LVTs offer more flexibility in the choice of landing and assault locations as they aren't so hampered by reefs or other offshore obstructions, which we will likely encounter in the Archipelago. They also aren't as dependent on timing assaults to meet extreme-high tides (like Normandy!) as they can progress along the beach regardless of water level, giving us more options to choose when to attack.

[andrea]

We revise snorkels for deep wading on our tanks, so they can exit when submerged and drive on the sea floor.
Or it can emerge and drop things in shallow water i suppose, but i don't think our soldiers would be happy with that, since it can't get that close.
Honestly, i am surprised it got so many votes.

[RAM]

So much sanity here, so much disappoint...

UF-SPT-39 "Earsplitter"
An antitank position on treads.

With the recent upgrade to enemy ordnance, it became apparent that weaponry will continue to escaplate. We cannot abandon our tanks, so we must race to meet the enemy developments. I propose that we do so, but first, we ensure that we will never be caught completely unprepared. To do so, we must have a mobile unit of extreme armour and ordnance faculty. I propose:

A turret, of 120mm sloped forward armour, 10mm of steel at the front for hardness, 10 at the back for rigidity, and a 100mm slab of aluminium sandwiched in the middle to reduce weight. The other angles do not matter so much, but they need something... Two periscopes over two cylindrical holes for drum-jointed guns to seat. A pair of ammunition racks capable of holding at least three rounds each. And fully motorised rotation and elevation with an arc of at least 45 degrees with a reserve of battery power along with power connections to an absent base to recharge its batteries and convery control-commands from a pair of levers. Also a pair of slits at the back.

A Track with an armoured tank engine, multiple fiuel-tanks, and ammunition conveyance. along with a generator to provide power to a turret. And two large caterpillar tracks(With odd holes at regular intervals) with a heavy steel bracing pillar running heir length and affixed to a large, heavily armoured platform at the front(held in place with six 100mm pipes and 200mm disk as the platform itself.).

A pair of 120mm cannons. With drum-joints by which to be hinged in a turret. shields towards the back to extend out the back of a turret and travers up/down without exposing the innards, a loading gear to push the rounds to the back of the gun when loaded from a mid-point, and the ability to fire high-velocity penetrator rounds, though they will, for now, only be issued with snub-nosed high-explosive rounds with a low propellant volume for maximum damage against 'softer' targets and low wear until the kinks can be sorted out.

Howeve, any and all of these considerations can be sacrificed for these final necessities:
All components must be capable of being aiir-lifted by the reckless effect and dropped from altitude. We predict this sets a maximum limit of 3 tonnes to account for support elements and safety margins.
Field assmebleable into a single unit, ideally by as few as two dozen men. We expect this to require numerous ropes and rings upon the items themselves, along with some clever tricks...

The assemblage process would start with a Track-unit being righted and driven to a turret-unit. The turret unit would be tipped onto its face and the tracks would drive up behind it. A pair of choks would be inserted into the tracks and the turret would be pulled back onto the choks, with a notch catching on them. The tracks would then be wheeled backwards,pulling the turret over its platform, at which point one final heave pulls it off of the choks and it pulls backwards backwards while the turret finally rests in place. The guns are then pulled onto their ends and then lowered into place, again, this makes extensive use of attaching ropess to both ends, and obviously the entire top of the turret needs to open for this event. Obviously the turret's seam would have a pattern to prevent a perfect seam running straight through it.

It would be lack the combat mobility of a tank, or even tank-destroyer, but would be small enough to overcome some terrain disadvantages and hide in things like suburban garages. It's purpose would be to be under the authority of infantry units to provide heavy anti-armour support for defensive positions and ambushes. It would be extremely vulnerable to flanking attacks, but would hopefully be used in well fortified positions or used with the intention to overwhelm the enemy with surprise and thus if the retreat is xcalled everyone else is likely in just as much trouble... Its greatest strength would be to provide extreme stopping power to paratroops, provided it can be deployed to a relatively large area of relative security to be gathered and assembled.

1200 mm is very ambitious for air-drop so that will probably have to be abandoned, but I would really like me some extra-heavy front plating for long-term "don't come at my face"ness...