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

[RAM]

0 RDN-39-3 "DEADLIEST RAY" :
0 UFA-SAB-41 Speedy Altitude Bomber :
0 UFN-AIPS-41 Submarine :
0 UFSS-41-A "Siren" :
1 UFAF-A41 "Turbohaast" : Azzuro
1 UF-GEV-41 "Ekaterina" : RAM
2 UFS-CL-41 Pattern A 'Cavalier' Cruiser : Wolfhunter, Taricus
1 UFS-CL-41 Pattern B 'Knight' Cruiser : 10ebbor10
0 UFS-CL-41 Pattern C 'Paladin' Cruiser :
3 UFS-CA-41 Pattern D 'Winged Hussar' Cruiser : Zanzetkuken the Great, Piratejoe, NUKE9.13
2 UFN-CA-41 Pattern E 'Cataphract' Cruiser : Madman198237, evictedSaint
2 UFN-CA-41 Pattern F 'Lancer' Cruiser : NAV, Kashyyk

Or we could build a torpedo boat that travels at 200 KPH and can be revised into the best lander ever...

Although I worry that the design doesn't have enough engines. Looking at images of ekranoplans I see piles and piles of engine-looking things everywhere and I do not know why...

200mm is too large for a light cruiser. And downsizing, by word of sensei, is easily done with no increase of difficulty. And CA is for heavy cruisers, while CL is for light cruisers. The ship is too small to be a heavy so CL is used.

I suspect that size is irrelevant to ship designations. They do follow size standards, but that is more a matter of design doctrine and tradition. You can build a kilometre-long destroyer if you can find a way to use it to effectively keep snipers away and a ten-metre-long battleship is just fine if it can somehow bombard hard targets from over the horizon. I feel that light cruiser means fast and heavy means armoured, and size is only relevant if it makes it difficult to achieve the desired result.

But seriously though. The Ekaterina ought have enough range to sortie into any part of the ocean it chooses. It may have poor loitering but that ought not cost it anything as it does have way more loitering than a conventional plane and a mess of them can show up wherever they like and ruin a fleet's day from below effective radar spotting.

Alternatively. We could work on improving our air-transport. If we are serious about ignoring the navy, then we need stuff that can be dropped. This is a air-droppable tank-destroyer Not the greatest thing ever, but it would give our paratroopers an unprecedented stand-off ability and go a long way towards shutting down enemy heavy tank doctrine. We have abundant transports, so we need something to transport and this would fill a colossal hole in that regard. Also, it has the advantage of being small, which would make it more capable at navigating dense terrain, so it even has some advantages over conventional tanks in terms of where it can ambush from and such.

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

    With the recent upgrade to enemy ordnance, it became apparent that weaponry will continue to escalate. 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 convey control-commands from a pair of levers. Also a pair of slits at the back.

    A Track with an armoured tank engine, multiple fuel-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 traverse 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.

    However, any and all of these considerations can be sacrificed for these final necessities:
    All components must be capable of being air-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 assmeblable 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 chocks would be inserted into the tracks and the turret would be pulled back onto the chocks, 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 chocks 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 ropes 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...

Looks something like this:

     _
____/ \_    {HHH}
    \_/[] []{HHH}
  0=0=0=0=0=0=0=0

With the front pod and engine being heavily armoured and the rest being sxposed and easily blowed up.

I really don't see any reason that we should bother with a tank-destroyer if it can't be dropped with the paratroops... But how you go about that is not my concern.

[Madman198237]

Could you put that in a quotebox instead of bold? It makes it easier to read and distinguish.

[andrea]

0 RDN-39-3 "DEADLIEST RAY" :
0 UFA-SAB-41 Speedy Altitude Bomber :
0 UFN-AIPS-41 Submarine :
0 UFSS-41-A "Siren" :
1 UFAF-A41 "Turbohaast" : Azzuro
1 UF-GEV-41 "Ekaterina" : RAM
2 UFS-CL-41 Pattern A 'Cavalier' Cruiser : Wolfhunter, Taricus
1 UFS-CL-41 Pattern B 'Knight' Cruiser : 10ebbor10
0 UFS-CL-41 Pattern C 'Paladin' Cruiser :
3 UFS-CA-41 Pattern D 'Winged Hussar' Cruiser : Zanzetkuken the Great, Piratejoe, NUKE9.13
3 UFN-CA-41 Pattern E 'Cataphract' Cruiser : Madman198237, evictedSaint, Andrea
2 UFN-CA-41 Pattern F 'Lancer' Cruiser : NAV, Kashyyk

@RAM about ekranoplanes and engines: keep in mind that the ekranoplanes you see are generally huge transport planes, while we are building a small torpedo boat.

[NUKE9.13]

The problem with the ekranoplane is that it is going to be harder than a plain ole ship. It may be worth doing, but right now, we need a bog-standard cruiser, to fill the gaping hole in our navy.

For retaking the jungle, incidentally, there is an overdue revision that could really boost our chances there: better flamethrower. We have a primitive flamethrower. A few upgrades based on years of experience, and the use of modern materials, should be able to make it vastly better. Frankly, if I was on Cannala's side, I'd be arguing for a flamethrower for this turn's design, in an attempt to solidify the beachhead in the jungle, and to prepare to make inroads into Western Forenia.

[NAV]

0 RDN-39-3 "DEADLIEST RAY" :
0 UFA-SAB-41 Speedy Altitude Bomber :
0 UFN-AIPS-41 Submarine :
0 UFSS-41-A "Siren" :
1 UFAF-A41 "Turbohaast" : Azzuro
1 UF-GEV-41 "Ekaterina" : RAM
2 UFS-CL-41 Pattern A 'Cavalier' Cruiser : Wolfhunter, Taricus
1 UFS-CL-41 Pattern B 'Knight' Cruiser : 10ebbor10
0 UFS-CL-41 Pattern C 'Paladin' Cruiser :
3 UFS-CA-41 Pattern D 'Winged Hussar' Cruiser : Zanzetkuken the Great, Piratejoe, NUKE9.13
4 UFN-CA-41 Pattern E 'Cataphract' Cruiser : Madman198237, evictedSaint, Andrea, NAV
1 UFN-CA-41 Pattern F 'Lancer' Cruiser : Kashyyk

Changing vote to the Cataphract.

[Madman198237]

NUKE, I point out that the Cataphract is in fact a better cruiser than the Winged Hussar, at least at being "standard". It has good speed, good armament, and good armor, whereas the Hussar is unbalanced in favor of gun power and armor.

[10ebbor10]

For retaking the jungle, incidentally, there is an overdue revision that could really boost our chances there: better flamethrower. We have a primitive flamethrower. A few upgrades based on years of experience, and the use of modern materials, should be able to make it vastly better. Frankly, if I was on Cannala's side, I'd be arguing for a flamethrower for this turn's design, in an attempt to solidify the beachhead in the jungle, and to prepare to make inroads into Western Forenia.

I want a flame tank

Can we get a flame tank?

[Taricus]

Flame tank is something we could revision.

[Madman198237]

If we get a spare revision, then I would definitely go for fixing the flamethrower up a bit, maybe give it some cool new traits.

[10ebbor10]

On the other hand, I have another idea.

We can research RDX nitrolysis, which allows us to make HMX en masse. HMX is one of the most potent explosives in the world, boosting our rockets (it's propellant), artillery and torpedoes.

[Wolfhunter107]

0 RDN-39-3 "DEADLIEST RAY" :
0 UFA-SAB-41 Speedy Altitude Bomber :
0 UFN-AIPS-41 Submarine :
0 UFSS-41-A "Siren" :
1 UFAF-A41 "Turbohaast" : Azzuro
1 UF-GEV-41 "Ekaterina" : RAM
1 UFS-CL-41 Pattern A 'Cavalier' Cruiser :Taricus
1 UFS-CL-41 Pattern B 'Knight' Cruiser : 10ebbor10
0 UFS-CL-41 Pattern C 'Paladin' Cruiser :
3 UFS-CA-41 Pattern D 'Winged Hussar' Cruiser : Zanzetkuken the Great, Piratejoe, NUKE9.13
5 UFN-CA-41 Pattern E 'Cataphract' Cruiser : Madman198237, evictedSaint, Andrea, NAV, Wolfhunter
1 UFN-CA-41 Pattern F 'Lancer' Cruiser : Kashyyk

Changing vote to the Cataphract.

Same

[Zanzetkuken The Great]

Winged Hussar given a Torpedo Belt and Water Pumps.  The differences between the Cataphract and Winged Hussar at this point are: a one vs two director system, three turrets vs four turrets, the level of hull armor, and having the ship run around vs. matching speed with existing ships for escort duty.

[NAV]

Did I hear someone say flamethrower?

UF-FT40 "Conflagrator"

An improved version of the old incinerator flamethrower. It has a lighter, higher pressure tank made from modern alloys and the nozzle has been optimized to reduce turbulence and increase range from 10m to 30m. Additionally, the flamethrower nozzle can attach to the bottom of a MC16A giving the the user the ability to defend himself and contribute in a conventional firefight.

based on A Finnish weapon that may or may not have actually been used.

[Zanzetkuken The Great]

If we're talking about revisions, I say again, revise targetting computers to apply to all our artillery and tanks.  Need to boost the Overcompensator to prevent landings on Forenia proper, and will boost the capabilities of all our artillery, helping us out in all fronts.

If you don't want to do that, another practical revision would be to improve the RoF and penetration capabilities of the Autocannon, which would improve several designs.

[NAV]

This is our most outdated/flawed and ineffective equipment still in our arms list. I think we would get the most benefit from revising one of these.

-F14A Rifle: Uses a heavy open bolt mechanism, leading to unacceptably high recoil and low accuracy for a long range battle rifle.
-M1 Stallion HMG: Too heavy to go on our vehicles, and incredibly low ROF. We should replace it with a practical .50 cal that can replace the sorraias on our vehicles.
-Incinerator Flamethrower: Has 1/4 the range a modern flamethrower should.
-MAT26-50 Tank Destroyer: Cannon is too small to hurt enemy tanks from the front.
-SPAT mobile artillery: Barely mobile, the artillery itself is obsolete, doesn't have recoil suspension so it has to jack in place before firing. Mostly replaced by Sarukhs. Should just be removed and not revised.
-Overcompensator coastal artillery: Needs functional targeting.
-Archer: ..........

I think we should spend our revision fixing one of these broken things.