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

[evictedSaint]

M4 Kiger HMG: (0)
BLOODLESS EAGLE: (1) Taricus
BLOODIER EAGLE: (0)
Chum: (0)
'Archer' Pattern F: (3)Wolfhunter107, Helmacon, Powder Miner
'Archer' Pattern G: (1) NAV
"Reachr" Ship Destroyer: (0)
UF-ALR-40 'SHARUKH:(1) Strongpoint
UF-ABR-40 "Shower Curtain":(0)
SHMG-40 "War Horse" :(4) Mulisa, Madman198237, Piratejoe, evictedSaint

[Parsely]

M4 Kiger HMG: (0)
BLOODLESS EAGLE: (1) Taricus
BLOODIER EAGLE: (0)
Chum: (0)
'Archer' Pattern F: (3)Wolfhunter107, Helmacon, Powder Miner
'Archer' Pattern G: (1) NAV
"Reachr" Ship Destroyer: (0)
UF-ALR-40 'SHARUKH:(1) Strongpoint
UF-ABR-40 "Shower Curtain":(0)
SHMG-40 "War Horse" :(5) Mulisa, Madman198237, Piratejoe, evictedSaint, GUNINANRUNIN

[Baffler]

M4 Kiger HMG: (0)
BLOODLESS EAGLE: (1) Taricus
BLOODIER EAGLE: (0)
Chum: (0)
'Archer' Pattern F: (4)Wolfhunter107, Helmacon, Powder Miner, Baffler
'Archer' Pattern G: (1) NAV
"Reachr" Ship Destroyer: (0)
UF-ALR-40 'SHARUKH:(1) Strongpoint
UF-ABR-40 "Shower Curtain":(0)
SHMG-40 "War Horse" :(5) Mulisa, Madman198237, Piratejoe, evictedSaint, GUNINANRUNIN

[RAM]

M4 Kiger HMG: (0)
BLOODLESS EAGLE: (1) Taricus
BLOODIER EAGLE: (0)
Chum: (0)
'Archer' Pattern F: (4)Wolfhunter107, Helmacon, Powder Miner, Baffler
'Archer' Pattern G: (1) NAV
"Reachr" Ship Destroyer: (0)
UF-ALR-40 'SHARUKH:(2) Strongpoint, RAM
UF-ABR-40 "Shower Curtain":(0)
SHMG-40 "War Horse" :(5) Mulisa, Madman198237, Piratejoe, evictedSaint, GUNINANRUNIN

[stabbymcstabstab]

M4 Kiger HMG: (0)
BLOODLESS EAGLE: (1) Taricus
BLOODIER EAGLE: (0)
Chum: (0)
'Archer' Pattern F: (4)Wolfhunter107, Helmacon, Powder Miner, Baffler
'Archer' Pattern G: (1) NAV
"Reachr" Ship Destroyer: (0)
UF-ALR-40 'SHARUKH:(2) Strongpoint, RAM
UF-ABR-40 "Shower Curtain":(0)
SHMG-40 "War Horse" :(6) Mulisa, Madman198237, Piratejoe, evictedSaint, GUNINANRUNIN, Stabby

[Powder Miner]

M4 Kiger HMG: (0)
BLOODLESS EAGLE: (1) Taricus
BLOODIER EAGLE: (0)
Chum: (0)
'Archer' Pattern F: (2)Wolfhunter107, Helmacon
'Archer' Pattern G: (1) NAV
"Reachr" Ship Destroyer: (0)
UF-ALR-40 'SHARUKH:(2) Strongpoint, RAM
UF-ABR-40 "Shower Curtain":(0)
SHMG-40 "War Horse" :(7) Mulisa, Madman198237, Piratejoe, evictedSaint, GUNINANRUNIN, Stabby, Powder Miner

[Parsely]

Perhaps you should also take your vote off the Archer? I think that was the one you were on before.

[Kashyyk]

I mentioned this yesterdaynin the hope someone might remember it before everyone had already committed.

UF-AC-40
Designed to replace the AS-AC18, without having to alter any designs that use it, this applies twenty years of improved weapons knowledge to affect general improvements all round,  but specifically in reducing the weight of the weapon and allowing easy interchange of ammo. This will be done by swapping out for aluminium parts,  reducing the weight of the barrel, generally making the weapon smaller (so long as it still fits in AS-AC18 mounts) and changing from the blowback system it uses to something that can handle different ammo types more easily. The end result will be an  improvement to our aircraft, our APCs, our Anti-Air,  anything else that uses the old design, and if we're lucky it will produce a squad portable, automatic anti armour/personnel weapon.

   

[Azzuro]

M4 Kiger HMG: (0)
BLOODLESS EAGLE: (1) Taricus
BLOODIER EAGLE: (0)
Chum: (0)
'Archer' Pattern F: (3)Wolfhunter107, Helmacon, Powder Miner
'Archer' Pattern G: (1) NAV
"Reachr" Ship Destroyer: (0)
UF-ALR-40 'SHARUKH:(2) Strongpoint, RAM
UF-ABR-40 "Shower Curtain":(0)
SHMG-40 "War Horse" :(7) Mulisa, Madman198237, Piratejoe, evictedSaint, GUNINANRUNIN, Stabby, Powder Miner
UF-AC-40: (1) Azzuro

It's okay Kashyyk, I'll vote for that!

To all those voting for SHMG, it will likely not be retrofit onto our aircraft without significantly impacting performance, unless we roll a 7 and get a .60 cal SHMG that's lighter than a 7.62 GMPG, which is not going to happen no matter how much aluminium is used in the design. Furthermore it is stated that we have an advantage as the Cannalans lack a medium MG, while we are not at a disadvantage because we lack a HMG. I would say that a medium MG is much better to have in the Jungle than a HMG, which is less portable and useful only on the defence.

[RAM]

Could we get some calibres into our naming scheme? It is a bit of a pain to have to go through the description to find out...

An, umm, I really want an upgrade to the AC20, but I would like to focus on armour penetration. Something that can go through light armour with some consistency would be super-nice...

[Azzuro]

The AS-AC18 can already penetrate light armour, though. Our Salamander with the AS-AC18 is noted as being able to reliably defeat the Cannalan Raider, which has light armour.

Also, I think we already have way too many useless letters and numbers all up in here.

[Strongpoint]

HMG has many uses in mountains and plains and jungles and future vehicles. It is not a bad idea to give a toy for infantry.

Upgrading the auto-cannon is unlikely to have a large impact. Yes it impacts many designs that use it but It is already very light for its calibre and reducing it weight slightly won't change much.

PS. I still think that air to ground rockets is the best choice

[RAM]

PS. I still think that air to ground rockets is the best choice

Well *I* Still think that rocket-booster drop-pods to make the over-engineered close support plane into an interceptor for a brief moment is the best choice, so there!
Or, umm, ugh, I have three proposals in there and I like them all. Chum could be a bit finnicky to get right, and may lack enough stopping-power for a bigger ship to care. But we already have cluster-bombs and the dolphin has made great strides in air-to-sea drops, an anti-propulsion mine shouldn't need that much powder to mess things up...
 And the rocket-launchers should have massive stopping power to deployment area ratios, it really shouldn't be difficult to get a dozen or more onto a destroyer to just hit-and run, and it ought to be able to carry quite a lot of rockets. If one of thos joke battleships made a move on three, umm, let's call them locket-battleships to match their role rather than size bcause they wouldn't really be into small-target defense anymore... But it one of those ugly ships rocked up on three little baby ships, and then saw 40-odd rockets heaing their way, then they might think twice about picking on the little-fishies...

Or we could revise a transport ship to carry 20 torpedo boats...

[Azzuro]

HMG has many uses in mountains and plains and jungles and future vehicles. It is not a bad idea to give a toy for infantry.

Upgrading the auto-cannon is unlikely to have a large impact. Yes it impacts many designs that use it but It is already very light for its calibre and reducing it weight slightly won't change much.

PS. I still think that air to ground rockets is the best choice

Again, I would rather have a GPMG over a HMG for infantry use in the jungle. It will be much more versatile on the offensive, which is what we're planning to be on. Unless people are convinced that we can make a HMG that's the weight (and thus man-portability) of a Sorraia, which is really quite impossible. And no, saying that it's on a cart is silly, unless you plan on asking our infantry to drag wheeled carts through the jungle.

And weight savings are pretty essential not just for infantry-centric use but also for aircraft, where even small reductions in weight free up the designer's constraints, or improve aircraft performance directly.

Oh, and for air-to-ground, the War Horse would essentially be replacing the AS-AC18s on our aircraft, NOT the Sorraias. It is flat out impossible to replace the 7.62mm MGs with .60 cal and expect similar performance, so I can only assume it's meant to replace the AS-AC18s instead to make sense. And I'm not comfortable with replacing an autocannon design we've already used to great effect with an entirely new weapon, with a lower RPM. Let's just revise the AS-AC18 to be better instead.

[NUKE9.13]

Hmm. The hope of retrofitting the War Horse into existing planes is, ah, optimistic. Other than that, it seems fine.

Upgrading the Archer is something we should do at some point, but now is not that point, I feel. We are going to be defending inland positions everywhere, so reducing their naval advantage is not as critical.

I was actually thinking that we could potentially do some 'theoretical' research this revision (as in, deliberately avoid trying to make a working product, instead focusing on reducing future difficulty). Something like

Feasibility Study Of Gas Turbine Designs: Examining the effects on engine efficiency from compressing air, Forenian engineers came to realise that an engine designed around compressed air ignition could prove a lot more powerful than a regular piston engine- especially for aeronautical purposes. The 'Gas Turbine' was quickly identified as the best way of doing this. However, it was also quickly identified that gas turbines are complex, finicky devices. It was unclear whether it would be even theoretically possible to construct such a device powerful enough to propel an aircraft.
As such, it was decided to build a number of test models- never designed to fly, or indeed power anything, these exist purely to be studied. The effectiveness of different compressors will be analysed, the power output measured, fuel usage monitored, until in the end, we can definitively say whether 'Jet Engines' are possible or not (with our current level of technology)

Eh? Reduce the difficulty of future jet engines? Anybody?
I mean, it would mean producing nothing of use this revision. Which may be a bad idea, as we could definitely use more help in the jungle.