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

[Devastator]

There are also guided torpedos, which might be way better than bombs, much closer to period history, and could be launched from subs in a way more difficult for Cannelia to counter.

[evictedSaint]

There are also guided torpedos, which might be way better than bombs, much closer to period history, and could be launched from subs in a way more difficult for Cannelia to counter.

Wire-Guided torpedos rely on the operator being alive to work.  Our Archers can't do that, so doing it as a design won't really have an effect in the naval theatre.

If we developed a wire-guided ATGM, though, it would be trivial to copy the wire guidance to a torpedo if we developed a submarine.  That would be two powerful developments in a single design action.

[andrea]

our archers, as they stand now. If we make guided torpedoes, clearly we would revise archer and/or build a proper torpedo ship. It will not have armor to sustain hits from the victoria, but torpedo ships need speed.

[Azzuro]

I believe we should make the radio guided glide bomb next turn if we don't lose the Jungle, and the Turbohaast or Saltseeker if we do lose the Jungle. I like Madman's plan, but I think we won't be able to miniaturise the radar enough in revisions. Might as well dedicate a full design action to better Radar and save those revisions for other things.

Speaking of which, is there a list of things needing revision? The only ones I can think of offhand are:
-fixing the Archer, probably with some armour and bigger guns.
-getting Long Shot working

[evictedSaint]

The Archers don't have the armor to get in close, nor do they have covering fire from cruisers or battleships to buy them time.  These battles are happening at 20 km's of distance - a wire guided torpedo is better suited for close-range knife fights.  At 20 km's you can't even be sure where the torpedo is, let alone accurately guide it.  If they were sonar-guided then that would perhaps work, but we don't have that tech yet and getting within range to use them accurately is impossible.

We need either a submarine to use them effectively or sonar for fire-and-forget capabilities.

[andrea]

a wire guided torpedo is DEFINITELY not for anything you would describe as a knife fight. if you are just a few kilometers away (say, 3 or 4) then your torpedoes have a great chance of hitting unguided.

A more likely range would be 10 km. We have optics and we don't need to keep them hidden, since we can manoeuvre them against enemy evasive actions.

[Zanzetkuken The Great]

The Archers don't have the armor to get in close, nor do they have covering fire from cruisers or battleships to buy them time.

As I pointed out earlier, the Archers were originally designed to utilize 130mm cannons (only getting Bumblebees (which match range with the Canallan 4 inchers (102 mm) due to low roll, but were still mentioned to be capable to carry a larger caliber weapon).  If we were to use a revision to create such a cannon with targeting computers and an autoloader, then they could be brought to the original design specifications, gaining greater strength and an ability to outrange the entire Canallan navy, and we would also get a heavy artillery piece for our infantry.  Possibly we could do what the Canallans did with their 4-inch cannons, but on a smaller scale (ie. make them able to be mounted on old T2 or T33 frames for Self-Propelled Field Artillery.)

[Azzuro]

I suggest that to appease the anti-new-ships crowd, we transition to an all ekranoplan navy. We'll thus use plane experience instead of (non-existant) ship experience to get back naval advantage. Bonus: we become immune to Cannalan mines. Double bonus: FLOATPLANES! (sort of)

But seriously, has anyone considered making an ekranoplan TB? Could be an easy and cheap way to fill the torpedo boat role. They will also be far faster than actual boats and thus harder to hit. Also, we already have turboprops.

[10ebbor10]

10 kilometers is well within range of the enemy guns, and they're working on basic radar guided guns already. I would not expect that to work.

I believe we should make the radio guided glide bomb next turn if we don't lose the Jungle, and the Turbohaast or Saltseeker if we do lose the Jungle. I like Madman's plan, but I think we won't be able to miniaturise the radar enough in revisions. Might as well dedicate a full design action to better Radar and save those revisions for other things.

Before we make a new fancy bomb (of any variety), we need a new bomber. Not a tiny 1 man design like the Haast, and actual medium-sized bomber. Our HAFB is a decade old, and it was outdated when it was build, with it's fixed gear and fuel issues.

Making a fancy bomb first just gives the enemy time to counter it.

But seriously, has anyone considered making an ekranoplan TB? Could be an easy and cheap way to fill the torpedo boat role. They will also be far faster than actual boats and thus harder to hit. Also, we already have turboprops.

Ekranoplans were developed in the sixties, but the aerodynamic laws they were based on were made in the 20's. We have aerodynamics experience (race car) and plenty of plane experience, so we could try.

[Zanzetkuken The Great]

You know what, it's kinda a moot point to be discussing 'what should best be done', when ideas of the areas we are behind in are vague.  Let's sort that shit out in this doc.

[Zanzetkuken The Great]

Here's something:

4-Ton King of Bombs
A four ton bomb that comes in high explosive, incendiary, and packed to the brim with various Firecrackers deployed with an upscaled mechanism to scatter them as the bomb falls variants deployed out the back of Reckless Effects via being dragged out the back via a large parachute connected to a wheeled chassis the bomb is sitting upon, the parachute also able to be used for air dropping supplies.

Might as well get something out of the Reckless Effect now that its transport role no longer exists.

[10ebbor10]

With the entire thing stabilizing somewhat, the big thing appears to be a big red blob surrounding artillery. Hence, a summary.

-AS-1912 Artillery A [L]: 80 mm @ 12 RPM. Manual targetting.

-B2 Destroyer: [L] 100 mm @ 10 RPM. Manual targetting.

-Bumblebee AT/AA: [L] 90 mm @ 15 RPM. Automated targetting.

-UF-ASA-40 "Overcompensator" Coastal Artillery System: 300 mm @ 2.? RPM. Manual targetting with a tiny hint of radar.


Nightwind Howitzer: 76 mm @ 12 RPM  Manual targetting.

Daybreaker  101 mm @ 10 RPM Manual targetting.

Nightstorm Howitzer: 150 mm @ unknown RPM Manual targetting.

Victoria cannon 304 mm @ 2.4 RPM . Calculated Targetting

Here's something:

4-Ton King of Bombs
A four ton bomb that comes in high explosive, incendiary, and packed to the brim with various Firecrackers deployed with an upscaled mechanism to scatter them as the bomb falls variants deployed out the back of Reckless Effects via being dragged out the back via a large parachute connected to a wheeled chassis the bomb is sitting upon, the parachute also able to be used for air dropping supplies.

Might as well get something out of the Reckless Effect now that its transport role no longer exists.

Seems kind of pointless. I mean, do we need to waste a revision on something that doesn't even do anything new?

[Madman198237]

His point is to make the Reckless a combat weapon, and while I don't disagree, I think that glide bombs are a much better investment than his proposal.

[10ebbor10]

It would be very bad combat weapon.

The 2.5 kg bomblets are good, but only if they directly impact their target. By shoving them out of the cargo door, we gain a massive margin of error, making us far more likely to bomb our own lines than the enemy.

If you want to turn the Reckless into a bomber, revise it to include a bombing rack and bomb sight.

[Zanzetkuken The Great]

It would be very bad combat weapon.

The 2.5 kg bomblets are good, but only if they directly impact their target. By shoving them out of the cargo door, we gain a massive margin of error, making us far more likely to bomb our own lines than the enemy.

If you want to turn the Reckless into a bomber, revise it to include a bombing rack and bomb sight.

PTABs are only one version.  Other two are just plain massive bombs to wreck shit.

With the entire thing stabilizing somewhat, the big thing appears to be a big red blob surrounding artillery. Hence, a summary.

-AS-1912 Artillery A [L]: 80 mm @ 12 RPM. Manual targetting.

-B2 Destroyer: [L] 100 mm @ 10 RPM. Manual targetting.

-Bumblebee AT/AA: [L] 90 mm @ 15 RPM. Automated targetting.

-UF-ASA-40 "Overcompensator" Coastal Artillery System: 300 mm @ 2.? RPM. Manual targetting with a tiny hint of radar.


Nightwind Howitzer: 76 mm @ 12 RPM  Manual targetting.

Daybreaker  101 mm @ 10 RPM Manual targetting.

Nightstorm Howitzer: 150 mm @ unknown RPM Manual targetting.

Victoria cannon 304 mm @ 2.4 RPM . Calculated Targetting

Big reason I'm wanting the bloody 130mm as well.  Kinda need one in that range, and while 150 would likely be stronger, with a 130, we could also improve our Sea position at least a slight bit.  Would allow us to see if investing in an escort would actually hold any value or not.

Edit: Also, did a slight bit of scoring on how each category fares based on the stuff analyzed.  May be an interesting thing to look over for planning.