Print

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

[NUKE9.13]

NAF-AH-52 "Shrike" (2): Chiefwaffles, Frostgiant
NAF-NG-52 "Duke" (2): Kot, NUKE9.13

The dire state of our artillery (range <5km) needs fixing. Our plan of action should be:

Duke->Turboshaft Revision->Shrike->Uniform Revision

[Chiefwaffles]

I knew our artillery was quite awful already, but with Nuke's mention of it I just recently realized that evicted implied in his description of their rocket artillery that the Ironcaster doesn't even reach 5km. That's actually atrocious. World War 2 light field howitzers had ranges above 10km.
Our artillery was already really bad, but that changes it to a priority.

NAF-AH-52 "Shrike" (1): Frostgiant
NAF-NG-52 "Duke" (3): Kot, NUKE9.13, Chiefwaffles

[10ebbor10]

On a side note, your description of the Duke makes me think of something.

Should we try to get the enemies rocket's banned? They probably take longer than 30 seconds to explode, and they're not ballistic, so they don't have a predetermined explosion time.

[NUKE9.13]

On a side note, your description of the Duke makes me think of something.

Should we try to get the enemies rocket's banned? They probably take longer than 30 seconds to explode, and they're not ballistic, so they don't have a predetermined explosion time.

I don't think so. Maybe if the Wictor loses by a huge margin, indicating the UN is far more willing to ban things than common sense would suggest.

[Mandemon]

NAF-AH-52 "Shrike" (1): Frostgiant
NAF-NG-52 "Duke" (4): Kot, NUKE9.13, Chiefwaffles, Mandemon

On a side note, your description of the Duke makes me think of something.

Should we try to get the enemies rocket's banned? They probably take longer than 30 seconds to explode, and they're not ballistic, so they don't have a predetermined explosion time.

I don't think it's feasible. It is artillery, so there is certain degree of certainess of when the rockets come down and explode. It's like with artirelly, as long the time it takes for explosive to, well, explode it should be OK, the 30 second limit is only for stuff that you have no idea when it might detonate. Basically, if it's "deploy/fire and forget" that is still active after 30 second, it's banned, but stuff that you cn say "It will be in flight X(where X > 30) seconds, before landing and detonating" it should be OK

[Sosoku234]

NAF-NMG-52 - Expanding on the crank operated machine gun, this new gun forgoes the depression of the trigger by the crank and instead uses a toothed gear that meshed with a safety on the bolt. This prevents the bolt moving when gun is not cranked. The trigger is a second safety, that, without actuation, will not allow the bolt to move forward.
   The teeth of the gear are at an angle to decrease distance of crank required to move the bolt. The bolt is recoil operated, but when the crank is not moving, the bolt catches and stops. This allows a greater possible fire rate. But, the increased fire rate would boil the water in a shroud faster, so we put metal fins on the barrel and shroud it in an aluminum case that is open on both sides, like a Lewis gun. It has a flat plate on the top that acts as the sight plate and a tea storage capsule.

At some point I will compile my designs for resubmission later, but here's a better NMG with (hopefully) less crank recoil.

[NUKE9.13]

Ladies and gentlemen, I shall endeavour to keep this brief.

Article six bans automatic weapons, defined as weapons which:
-fire greater than one projectile per activation of the device.
  The Wictor fires one bullet per quarter rotation of the firing crank. Each quarter turn is a distinct activation of the device.
-which in the user is able to continue the firing of said weapon without further input or intervention.
  The Wictor requires constant input (turning of the crank) in order to fire. Should the operator stop turning the crank, the device stops firing immediately.

Article six does not ban weapons based on rate of fire, or any other criteria not mentioned. By any reasonable interpretation of the law, the Wictor is legal.

I mean, I'm not saying anything that hasn't already been said, but the more the merrier, eh?

[Mandemon]

Yeah, at this point we are basically looking for what is Toskesh argument. I posted my defense, but it's pretty generic without adressing any specific points Toshkesh might have made.

[10ebbor10]

The thing we may try to add is to focus on how a ban like this may set precedent. I mean, we can make a good case that this ban would also result in a ban for all semi-automatic guns, whuch the Great Powers won't like.

[Happerry]

NAF-AH-52 "Shrike" (1): Frostgiant
NAF-NG-52 "Duke" (5): Kot, NUKE9.13, Chiefwaffles, Mandemon, Happerry

[stabbymcstabstab]

NAF-AH-52 "Shrike" (1): Frostgiant
NAF-NG-52 "Duke" (6): Kot, NUKE9.13, Chiefwaffles, Mandemon, Happerry, Stabby

[evictedSaint]

Design: NAF-NG-52 "Duke"
The Duke is a 4-inch (~105mm) artillery piece designed to be an actual, competent, piece of artillery rather than a glorified field gun.

It can be towed by being hooked to any of our walkers (namely the Hippo for its speed) using skids like the Ironcaster, though we largely only recommend this for moving it between stationary emplacements. It's classified as a Pack Howitzer, representing its ability to be taken apart to be carried via other means. Draft, horse, person, on a Hippo, and more. All the pieces (even if not assembled) may not be able to fit at once onto things like the Draft but it can be moved in more than one vehicle/load. It's more-specifically designed to replace the Ironcasters fit onto the Paradigm and Herald currently.

HE munition is to be the standard for the Duke. They may be in the air for over 30 seconds, but thanks to the wonders of math we always have a determined amount of time (whereas the conventions specifically mention undetermined) from the shells being launched to them hitting the ground and detonating. But we'll save this for our lawyers.

Hard Difficulty: 3

The NAF-NG-52 "Duke" is a 4" (or 101.6 mm's for imperial users) "Pack Howitzer". It is twice the size of our previous Ironcaster artillery piece and outranges it considerably at around 5.3 miles (or 8.5 kilometers).  It is designed to be disassembled into multiple pieces to ease transportation and reassembled on-site.  Depending on how skilled the crew is, firing rates range between 6-8 rpm.

The gun works just fine, but we run out of time before we can resize the mountings on the Paradigm and Herald to fit the larger, heavier Duke.  The Hippo's turret is not sized correctly to accommodate the Duke and would require a dedicated action all by itself to upsize the cannon.  The Draft does not have the lift capacity to carry all of the Duke at once, but components can be split between two or more Drafts to stay within the safe cargo weight limit. A handy-dandy range-finding sheet pasted to the Thin steel shield gives estimated shell travel times for each elevation angle. 3 Ore.

[10ebbor10]

NAF-TS-52 "Ant" The Ant is a new, transport vehicle, designed as a treaty compliant version of the Wallace truck. In practice, it's a Hippo frame from which all armor and weaponry has been removed so as to drive down expense considerably.

[Chiefwaffles]

I was disappointed at first about the Duke but after some thought I think it's a pretty good result.
For comparison, our current artillery is a Cheap crappy horse&ski-moved extremely close-range field gun, and a Very Expensive very slow self-propelled version of that gun that can't move and shoot at the same time.
We made a gun that's significantly longer-ranged, should do more damage, and can be transported by helicopter or infantry or Hippo or boat or anything in addition to being moved via skids.


@Ebbor: The Wallace Truck is actually Legal - it just can't move troops. But it can move TC. I believe an unarmored transport revision of a light walker tank will only be good for moving equipment (not TC - since I doubt it'd provide >1 TC) and whatnot behind front lines. We'd need to get 2 TC in either Sea/Land or 1 TC in Air in order to take advantage of the new resource.

Lucky for us, we have a component that we can (relatively) easily improve:
Revision: NAF-TS-52 "Shire"

The new improved TS-52 Shire is essentially an effort to improve the TS-51 Shire to the point of "not absolutely awful" when compared with modern turboshaft engines. While we aim to just generally improve the engine, the main goal here is to make the fuel economy also "not absolutely awful" and fix minor flaws such as flaming out in the rain. The new version will of course be retrofit onto the Draft.

We largely hope to achieve 1 TC capacity in the Draft with the new Shires equipped, and to spend less on fuel.

NAF-TS-52 "Ant" (0):
NAF-TS-52 "Shire" (1): Chiefwaffles

The TS-52 will let us take advantage of our new Ore resource, decrease the Oil cost of the Draft (which was stated to be high due to poor fuel economy), and just generally have a better helicopter. Better lifting capacity (that leads to the +1 TC)) should mean more troops carried and potentially even the ability to carry all of one disassembled Duke on board.

The best part is that this shouldn't actually be that hard - we're working off of an existing design that's been deployed for a (relative) bit and we're just bringing it to relative parity with modern stuff, not beyond.

[10ebbor10]

@Ebbor: The Wallace Truck is actually Legal - it just can't move troops. But it can move TC. I believe an unarmored transport revision of a light walker tank will only be good for moving equipment (not TC - since I doubt it'd provide >1 TC) and whatnot behind front lines. We'd need to get 2 TC in either Sea/Land or 1 TC in Air in order to take advantage of the new resource.

Which is exactly what it's supposed to do. It's supposed to move artillery and infantry around. It's not a TC vehicle.