5,795 COMMENTS :

  1. AvatarBy Mason McCormick on

    With all their talk about ways to easily transport their .30s, could they consider making something like the Stinger? Have Silva come up with the idea, after all, before his Doom Whomper, his favorite gun was a BAR, then there was how Horn used a .30 in RoB.

    Also, why have they not considered giving Blitzerbugs drum clips? They used them on the P-1Bs, and both of these ideas should be easily cobbled together on Tara I would think.

    Reply
    1. AvatarBy Harvey on

      Since Silva likes the BAR so much I was thinking the Browning Monitor would be a logical growth path for battle/assault rife.

      Reply
      1. AvatarBy Matt White on

        Good LMG or GPMG would be nice. Depending on how the uboat was kitted out it may have had some MG34s. You can’t do much better than that for a GPMG.

        There were some nice upgrades to the BAR that the Army never fielded. The Colt Monitor was one of the better ones. Silva may be familiar with it. And even if he isn’t I’m sure he could come up with some of the improvements on his own.

        Reply
        1. AvatarBy Mason McCormick on

          Could they make a drum clip for the BAR as well. Sorry if this is a stupid question but I like belt-feds and drum clips a little to much.

          Reply
          1. AvatarBy Matt White on

            They could make a drum magazine but there are some drawbacks. Drum mags are more finnicky and more expensive. They also don’t pack as well on your web gear and can be annoying. Alexey can probably go into more detail but the Soviet experience is a good lesson in why drum mags aren’t ideal. They used to use them heavily, in LMGs and SMGs but ended up switching entirely to box magazines because of the above issues. I’ve heard that PPSHs are particularly finnicky with their mags.

            It’s best to go with either a double stack box magazine or belts. They each have their pros and cons.

          2. AvatarBy Alexey Shiro on

            Yes, drum magazines were quite popular in Soviet automatic before the war, but essentially demonstrated themselves as unreliable & too maintenance-demanding. They were prone to mis-feeding, and reloading them were slow process. They were used on our famous PPSh submachine guns of 1941 model, but their deficiencies became clear quite quickly. In spring 1942, the PPSh model 1942 was rushed into production, with box-type magazine.

            On our light DP machineguns (Degtyarev Pehotny, i.e. Infantry), a pan-shaped magazines were used. They were externally similar to Lewis machinegun ones, but in DP magazines the feeding was mechanical, using a loaded spring inside the magazine (without the nightmarish system of levers inside Lewis magazine). They were very reliable in feeding, but – always “but!” – were prone to mechanical damage, and a pain to reload.

            So, while drum system is not exactly the best, the pan system could be quite reliable.

      2. AvatarBy Justin on

        Probably not an assault or battle rifle per se; squad autos are too heavy for that. Still, might be useful later, after the Union finally rolls out Springfield production and has the resources for other weapons.

        Reply
  2. AvatarBy Alexey Shiro on

    Interesting detail: found that during Cold War, US Navy worked on the concept of fuel-air carrier catapult.

    The idea was to pump the compressed air at 1500 psi into the catapult tube, then inject JP-5 jet fuel and water inside, and ignite the mix. The resulting air-steam mix pushed the piston along the tube, producing the power to launch aircraft. The water served both as coolant protecting tube walls from overheating, and for creating additional pressure by being turned into steam.

    Essentially, it was the idea of wet-heater torpedo engine, being adopted for aircraft launch. It was supposed to be used on ships with gas turbine engines – since they could not provide steam for steam catapults. Apparently, the idea was thoroughly tested on a ground-based installation, but since USN operated only either steam turbine or nuclear carriers (both of which did not have any problem with steam), the concept of fuel-air catapult was quietly dropped.

    It may be interesting idea for Alliance, actually. What kind of catapult they are using now? If I recall correctly, they are using some kind of semi-steam/pneumatic catapult (i.e. steam is used to compress air in tanks, which is then used to launch aircraft)?

    Reply
    1. AvatarBy Matt White on

      The advantage here would be that you could get rid of the complicated piping from engineering up to the catapult.

      The disadvantage is fuel air explosives are very dangerous. Getting the mixture wrong could blow the system and cause collateral damage. Union fuel isn’t the highest quality or awfully consistent and the same can be said of their high pressure pipe work as well.

      A failed steam line can be dangerous to anyone nearby but wont endanger the ship. A failed fuel-air explosive line could start a fire.

      What do you think about the risks and safety concerns?

      Reply
      1. AvatarBy mason mccormick on

        Wait until they have better consistency, as well as all steel carriers.

        Reply
  3. AvatarBy Mason McCormick on

    Could they take their M2, get rid of the .50 turret, but enlarge the hole, then add a gun tub like those on Walker, put a 3″ on a DP mount with limited traverse on top of the tank. The 3″ would have a gun shield like Walkers’ #1 as well. with the gun tub you could mount some .30s along the sides then a dual .50 on the back for AA purposes.

    Then they would improve the suspension and batteries, as well as possibly having a pike nose like the IS-3.

    Reply
    1. AvatarBy Mason McCormick on

      The enlarged hole would be for easier internal crew bailout abilities, as well as allowing for faster transfer of 3″ ammo internally to outside for the gun. The gun tub would help block sniper fire from this process.

      Reply
    2. AvatarBy Alexey Shiro on

      It would not exactly be a tank… more likely sort of German self-propelled direct support guns.

      Reply
      1. AvatarBy Mason McCormick on

        I count it with my Wafentrager like thing idea. It would be something they could use that would be quick to modify (say on Tara) and give them a 3″ gun to use for things like grik fortifications.

        Reply
  4. AvatarBy Alexey Shiro on

    Talking about Alliance tank – okay, let’s try this.

    * T-34’s shaped hull, with sloped sides (Alliance did not have good enough armor, so sloping the sides would make a lot of sense), pike-type nose.

    * Nose-mounted 3-inch field gun in sponson mount. The pike nose would gave main gun good fire arc without the need to put it into a turret (large tank turrets are problematic, they require special tools to make their barbettes)

    * On the top of the hull is three-cat turret with dual heavy machineguns or – maybe – small cannon instead.

    * Side-mounted light machineguns in ball mounts, or – maybe – one-cat machinegun turret at the rear of the tank.

    Reply
    1. AvatarBy Lou Schirmer on

      Sounds pretty good, except the last part.

      //* Side-mounted light machineguns in ball mounts, or – maybe – one-cat machinegun turret at the rear of the tank.//

      The 3″ gun forward would take up too much room in traverse & recoil space & ammo storage to allow machineguns in the sponsons, unless you make it a really large tank, like the Mark VIII. Or did you want to mount the main gun above the treads, like an M-3 Lee?
      The MG in the tail would be hard also, since that’s usually where the engine, radiator & exhaust will be. The cat back there would have a rough time. Or again, a very large tank.

      Reply
      1. AvatarBy Alexey Shiro on

        Well, I think that “dustbin”-type one-cat turret could be put on the rear without much troubles, but yes, it may be better without it.

        Reply
        1. AvatarBy Mason McCormick on

          So pretty much an Object 268 with a 3″ instead of a 152mm, a dual .50 Whirlwind turret (sorry just wanted to say Whirlwind, probably look like that one turret on the ARL V39 but with more AA ability.) and a ball mounted MG in each side.

          Reply
          1. AvatarBy Alexey Shiro on

            Hm, actually I wasn’t thinking about Object 268, but yes, something like that. But with more sloped armor (again, it would help to compensate deficient quality), including sides, and turret with machineguns on the top.

            P.S. I must agree with Lou, side-mounted MG’s would be a major weak points. They were presented on Stuart generally because US army at this time was still thinking in the trench warfare paradigm and assumed that the main purpose of the tank would be to suppress enemy machineguns.

    2. AvatarBy Justin on

      Is the AFV is question an assault gun or a medium/heavy? If the former, you don’t really need a turret, even for MGs or autocannons; if the latter, it’s probably simpler to just draft a Matilda II and go from there – the Wehrmacht had a hard time with those suckers until ’42.

      Reply
      1. AvatarBy Alexey Shiro on

        Turretless tank, to be exact. Producing the turret for 3-inch gun is not exactly simple, and guns less than 3-inch are of limited use against fortifications.

        “Matilda” is not exactly the best example. They are slow, they are costly, their cross-country ability is abysmal. For the Alliance, the “Matilda” would be a constant headache to move and supply. Let’s not forget, that there are no major road network outside Republic and Dominion. So the tank would be forced to move a lot on its own… and as Russian experience demonstrated, “Matilda” weren’t exactly good in that.

        Not to mention, again, that Alliance armor and engines aren’t exactly great. So sloping the armor seems he only way to held the mass of tank within tolerable limits.

        Reply
        1. AvatarBy Justin on

          IIRC the Matilda’s main problem was an underpowered engine, which is something the Allies’d definitely need to work on.
          The problem with a Stridsvagn is that Baalkpan’s not very close to one of those either. Their version’d probably end up somewhat like a Char or Sau 40, and that’s something you don’t want either in terms of manoeuvre warfare. Something like the M3 Lee, maybe, but it’d be pretty hard to give it sloped armour and a small turret and not have it ten feet tall and attracting every AT gun in the area. IMO they might as well double down on the SPG/TD aspects – maybe add a commander hatch MG.

          The Union M2’s already got a Browning M2/Type 96 turret (albeit most likely a crude one). Might be worth expanding on that to get scout tanks alongside the main line.

          Reply
          1. AvatarBy Alexey Shiro on

            Problem is, that Alliance enigne would probably be even worse. They hardly could reach more than early 1920s efficiency. Still, the Liberty analogues worked fine as tank engines.

          2. AvatarBy Mason McCormick on

            What about something like an ARL 44, I was going to say a Churchill since they had such good climbing abilities, but that is a boxy tank, however it looked like a WW1 tank, an ARL 44 looks somewhat like it but with slopped armor, all you need is to have a turret that could fit a 3″.

            What about a Waffentrager type tank but with more armor also slopped, and a limited traverse for the turret, then put a “sawed off” 4″ or 5″ in it.

          3. AvatarBy Justin on

            The Matilda’s engine gave 190hp, and the Fleashooter engine is 254-410 depending on the model. I’m guessing there’s more to it than just power?

          4. AvatarBy Lou Schirmer on

            Aircraft engines are similar to diesel engines, in that they make their power at low RPMs, so HP ratings can be deceiving. They are torque monsters & ideal for a tank engine. I did the math on engine size & given 50 octane gas, based on a 1920s Wright engine & the 254 HP 5-cylinder radial came out to be in the neighborhood of 900 cu/in.. The Wright R-790 made it’s rated power (200 hp) at 2,000 RPM. Turning 254 HP, the 5-cylinder radial is probably capable of 500-550 ft/lbs. of torque, which is plenty for a medium tank/tank destroyer/self-propelled artillery.
            The hard part of any semi-modern tank will be the transmission & suspension. I believe the current tanks have no suspension, just treads running on rollers & drive wheels. God knows what the tranny looks like, probably a simple dual clutch type (one for the left drive wheel & one for the right side) using differential clutch for steering.

          5. AvatarBy Mason McCormick on

            To bad they can’t get any KV-2s, would love to see one just delete a couple panzer IIIs and B1s.

          6. AvatarBy Alexey Shiro on

            KV-2 was essentially the turreted self-propelled howitzer; it was intended as a “siege tank”, which would support the advancing KV-1 tank and demolish the fortifications they meet. In anti-tank role they weren’t exactly that great – they have a lot of problems with aiming their monstrous turret – but frankly, almost any Soviet tank of 1941 could kill any German ones) The problem in 1941 was to engage Germans in such way that the advantages of Soviet armor could be used…

          7. AvatarBy Doug White on

            I’ve putting more thought into what sort of tank-like vehicle the allies could field, short of getting something via a transfer.

            I am thinking smaller sized with a light armament – probably a gun not much larger than a 40 or 50 mm cannon. I would think a 50 cal machine gun or a 20ish mm cannon would suffice as well. So, a light tank or a lightly armored medium tank would be sufficient, is my guess.

            So, while a Renault FT17 would be a little bit underkill for the Allis purposes something a little more heavy armored would probably do the trick, a little larger as well.

            So, what do you all think:

            A Canadian Ram Mk II?
            A M3 Stuart?
            French AMR35 with a cannon
            Japanese Type 95 Ha-Go or Type 4 Ke-Nu
            Russian T-26 or more preferably a T-50 light tank.

            All of these would be a step up, hopefully not a huge leap in ability for the Allies to make, but definitely better than any of the tankettes that were out there too.

            What are your sage opinions?

          8. AvatarBy Justin on

            Except that the Allies don’t really have anything between 12.7mm and 76mm right now. They’ve got access to U-112’s 37s, sure, but the SK C/30 isn’t really meant for AT or infantry support, nor is it in the R&D queue – might not make it to production in time.

            So that leaves the Type 96 and the 3″/23; the utility of the Derby has been questioned. For now, a 25mm autocannon should be enough for a Luchs, though the Union and Republic’ll probably need something stronger in the future.

          9. AvatarBy Mason McCormick on

            Oh, was thinking in terms of World of Tanks and War Thunder. But what about the Battle of Raseiniai?

            There was lots of talk in PoF about the unmuffled tank engines, how come they were not muffled? Could they not make the muffles or did they hope the noise would scare the Grik?

          10. AvatarBy Lou Schirmer on

            Good question. Mufflers are easy & the noise was deafening the cats & making it hard to communicate between the crew & other tanks. They may not have realized the need, since their aircraft engines are unmuffled also, but one of the humans should have brought it up. Maybe they didn’t hear him over all the noise.
            On the other claw, an unmuffled engine would probably scare the hell out of someone who’s never seen such a contraption, but even the Grik Uul already have some experience with machinery.
            I’d say they need to muffle the engines for the next go round.

        2. AvatarBy Doug White on

          A good point made about the lack of anything between 25mm and 3″ Cannon so…..a tank like vehicle with 25mm cannon is pretty fearsome in the face of no other armored vehicles or cannon firing shells. As long as the they’ve got infantry support the ability to break through the enemy in front of you is pretty likely. Anything I am still missing?

          Reply
          1. AvatarBy Alexey Shiro on

            25-mm gun is of no use against even field fortifications, and have very limited destruction capability. It is ill-suited for suppressing machineguns & destroying pillboxes and entrenched position.

          2. AvatarBy Justin on

            Sure, the 25’s not a bunker-buster, but light tanks are mainly force recon vehicles. The Panzer II variants were capable enough in Poland and France, and even a Grikoshai can outmatch trenches or exposed infantry.

        3. AvatarBy Doug White on

          Alexey since there aren’t too many of these obstacles right now does it matter? If they’re really just up against troops a 25MM cannon is going to be pretty tough on them….against tanks no, but then right now they don’t have that problem. Long term they are going to need a solution. Right?

          Reply
          1. AvatarBy Alexey Shiro on

            There are such thing as “entrenched troops” and “field fortifications”. And against them, 25-mm is not good enough. You need at least 3-inch to have sufficient efficiency.

    3. AvatarBy Matt White on

      This design would have poor trench crossing capability. The saint chammond tried the field gun in the nose setup and it just got stuck. I also think a 3 man turret is wasted on MGs.

      Ideally we’d want something like a t-34/Sherman/pz4 but I don’t think they are up to it yet.

      Best bet is a Renault 17 knock off. It’s a solid design. One that the DD men are familiar with and also a more efficient use of crews and resources.

      Walker’s old 3inch would work here. It’s compact and light and they can also produce an MG version like was done in real life.

      For the crew and materials of one land ship you can have two renaults. Their lighter weight means lower ground pressure, so greater mobility and it will be easier on the drive train.

      Reply
      1. AvatarBy Justin on

        Though the Union’s new M2 resembles an Stuart or Vickers Medium, so there’s a good chance they’re at or beyond the FT-17 stage already. If so, they could try for a 3″ in an S35, or failing that, a StuG.

        Reply
        1. AvatarBy Matt White on

          Somehow I completely forgot it existed. Guess my mind has been other places.

          Reply
          1. AvatarBy Mason McCormick on

            Maybe try both designs? The M2 line acts as the heavy/medium, while an FT17 becomes the light/medium line?

            Of course this would be later on and it would be better for them to just focus on 1 tank version right now.

  5. AvatarBy Neal Potts on

    Hey there, I’m new here and have lurked from time to time among these forums. It’s quite heartening to see some activity here since the subreddit is, to put it nicely, rather slow. Given the subject of this section I aught to get on with a discussion prompt.

    What do you think is the technology ceiling for the factions at large? The destroyermen brought a great deal of knowledge and engineering processes to this world and with it ushered in a new industrial revolution where ever they go. It’s said that science stands on the shoulders of giants and with the implementation of radio communication and trade among nations (at least among the United Homes and the Empire of New Britain Isles), could this revolution be sustainable in the long term that leads to continuous innovation and discovery?

    Reply
    1. AvatarBy Alexey Shiro on

      Welcome from Mother Russia, Neal Potts!

      “What do you think is the technology ceiling for the factions at large?”

      Generally early 1930s. Then most of the faction would hit the problem of their technical and scientific specialists simply not up to the task. For decade at least (maybe two) there wouldn’t be much progress past that – because technology would become too complicated to design by just a few half-trained engineers.

      The possible exception is League, which have late 1930s trained engineers (and at least some personnel with scientific education). They would – probably! – get over this faster, and lead the technological race.

      Reply
      1. AvatarBy Doug White on

        Unless of course we get some more refugee influx with more advanced tech on the ‘good guys’ side. Can you imagine…T-34s would be awesome, frankly. But something like a Panzer 2 or 3, a Japanese Type 95, or a Matilda II wouldn’t be too bad. but we really can’t hope that some savior will come riding in to save the day, but it IS fun to think about.

        Alexey I do love when you welcome newbies from Mother Russia it makes me smile every time.

        Reply
        1. AvatarBy Neal Potts on

          It would be pretty awesome to see the Allies thoroughly unmatched on land just like they were in the very early days of the war, such tanks would ensure that. I can’t imagine the logistics behind those though, just transporting them from shore to shore would be a pain I bet.

          Also, thanks for the welcomes everyone.

          Reply
          1. AvatarBy Alexey Shiro on

            You are too fast about “unmatched”. Military efficiency isn’t only about weapon; it’s about tactics, organization also. In this areas, Alliance is far (really far) behind the League. Their troops are combat-experienced, yes, but not for a modern warfare. Tactics, that works against Griks and Dom’s arent gonna work against League.

  6. AvatarBy Lou Schirmer on

    I just noticed something.
    How come Justin rates a wolf & the rest of us get boogers?

    Reply
    1. AvatarBy Justin on

      It’s my old Gmail icon – switching to a new one hasn’t changed the one on the forum for some reason.

      Matt’s got a custom one too. Weird.

      Reply
      1. AvatarBy Taylor Anderson on

        You’re Canadian, right Justin? Hmm. I wonder where Matt is from? Possible Canadian avatar dominance conspiracy? Only Canadians don’t have to be boogers?

        Reply
          1. AvatarBy Lou Schirmer on

            He made the post & reply as two different people. Note the slight difference in the post titles. Very crafty Taylor! :)

          2. AvatarBy Taylor Anderson on

            Wow. That was surprising. Actually, I made one comment with my computer and one with my name phone. It seems our GIZMOS are the true boogers!

      2. AvatarBy Matt White on

        It’s tied to WordPress. You can set an avatar that will apply across any WordPress site online.

        Reply
        1. AvatarBy Matt White on

          If anyone has a WordPress account and enters their email address when making a post here it will pull the avatar. If you don’t have an account or don’t enter your email then it defaults to the included WordPress avatars which are all boogers.

          Taylor of you want to work on the site or make some improvements feel free to contact me out side of the forum. I’d be happy to help.

          Reply
  7. AvatarBy DONALD JOHNSON on

    But who is going to fire unmanned basicly unguided missiles into or even near a storm

    Reply
    1. AvatarBy Alexey Shiro on

      Er, one of the reason why USA were so enthusiastic about JB-2 – is that they could be used even in bad weather.

      Reply
    2. AvatarBy Mason McCormick on

      They could do it just to see what happens when it is in a storm, or whatever is transporting it gets sucked through.

      Reply
  8. AvatarBy Mason McCormick on

    Just watched a Real Engineering video on the M4 Sherman. To bad they can’t have a ship carrying the plans to the Easy 8 show up. Sorry I can’t put the link to the video on, I don’t know how.

    Reply
    1. AvatarBy Alexey Shiro on

      M4 would be very hard to reproduce. It requires a very fine engineering and production capabilities. Without US industrial power behind you… you could not make Sherman as reliable and handy as it was.

      Reply
      1. AvatarBy Justin on

        Not to mention unnecessary – a Sherman would be like an Abrams against most League tanks. Something like a Chi-He or a SARL 42 (albeit with a much better armour scheme) would be adequate for those situations and easier to build.

        Reply
        1. AvatarBy Alexey Shiro on

          T-34-76, as I mentioned before) It’s relatively easy to build, could be produced on a primitive tech base (with the exception of aluminum motor, but it could be replaced with cast-iron one – such engines were actually used), and would be literally the dread on treads for League military.

          Reply
          1. AvatarBy Lou Schirmer on

            I like that! “Dread on Treads!” :)

          2. AvatarBy Justin on

            Or the Bernardini X1 series. The Brazilians managed to upgun and uparmour their Stuarts to match Soviet T-54s, so something like a heavier M8A1 would be much easier and possibly equally devastating.

          3. AvatarBy Alexey Shiro on

            Justin, with all respect, but Bernardini tanks were products of 1970s technology; almost half of a century more advanced (let’s not forget, that currently Alliance is roughly in 1920s in therms of tech!) than Alliance have. And while their 90-mm DEFA D-921А gun and Vasconcelos FCS gave them more or less decent firepower, their protection was still only against bullets – at best, against 20-mm guns in frontal parts.

          4. AvatarBy Justin on

            Maybe I said it wrong. Obviously Baalkpan’s in no condition to produce Cold War tech, but they’re definitely able to improve on a Stuart (likely even easier to make than a T-34).

            Hence mention of the M8A1 – basically an M5 but with a 75mm gun. Give it a larger chassis and slightly more armour, and theoretically it should match anything short of a B1 bis.

          5. AvatarBy Alexey Shiro on

            They managed to improve the Stuart using 1970s technology to achieve something roughly comparable with AMX-13. We are talking about basically 1920s technology, made by generally incompetent Lemurian engineers (no disrespect, but on current stage they are mostly incompetent, with very little specific education) and made by hasitly trained Lemurian workers.

          6. AvatarBy Justin on

            At last check, the M5, M8 HMC and all their variants are definitely not Seventies tech. If unskilled Cat engineers and workers can make a T-34-76, they can definitely make an M8A1.

          7. AvatarBy Mason McCormick on

            Could they make an enlarged M8 so they could put some kind of sponson MGs in it like that are on the M2, then up armor it, they are going to need the armor since they are unlikely to be going fast, use the M8 turret with a 3″ or a Repub 75, maybe a 105 howitzer.

          8. AvatarBy Alexey Shiro on

            M8A1 is a very specific machine – a tank destroyer. They managed to fit 3-inch HV gun into it only by using an open turret. And its armor was extrenely light. Considering that Alliance armor are probably of low quality, I see no reason for them to try anything like that.

          9. AvatarBy Matt White on

            I think a T-34 would require almost as much technical prowess as an M4 Sherman wouldn. The Sherman is more advanced and complicated in some places, the gun stabilizer for example. But in many ways is no more advanced than a T-34. It’s a trade-off either way. The Sherman has its stabilizer but the T-34 has the more complicated suspension.

            The biggest barrier though isn’t technological but doctrinal and just experience in what makes a good tank. Both were the culmination of studies and development programs over time and the early versions of both were less than perfect. There were a lot of lessons learned in their development.

            The most advanced tanks the destroyermen and others may be familiar with are the older US M3 light tanks. They crossed over before something like the Sherman was common.

            If they had a more recent crossover arrive, say an allied tanker, then their general knowledge would already be a boom to development efforts. A tanker or entire tank crew would have a working knowledge of modern tank design an tactics.

            For example, a very common mistake almost every power made at the start of the conflict was their armored divisions were too tank heavy and lacked sufficient infantry support. By 1942 this was being reworked but our heroes being members of the Navy wouldn’t have been up to speed in the latest armored doctrine. It’s a mistake they would be liable to repeat. And it’s almost certainly one the League are making given when they crossed over and the fact they haven’t fought a peer foe and learned those hard lessons yet.

            But a Sherman or T-34 crew from 1945 would know all of this and could provide the Union with a serious tactical advantage. Even better if they brought their tank which like the P-40 would act as a great learning aide.

          10. AvatarBy Mason McCormick on

            What about T-34 hull shape but enlarged to fit 2 MGs in sponsons and no front MG (might make it easier to transition from their current one to this), their current suspension, and an M8 type turret that would allow for it to use the cannon as and anti air device, or failing that, as an artillery piece, plus the standard .50 mounted on the back of the turret

          11. AvatarBy Alexey Shiro on

            Well, I think that T-34 hull shape would be a good choice. Sloped sides would give much better protection even with relatively bad armor (that Alliance armor probably is).

            I’m not sure about Christie suspension, but as far as I know, it is relatively simple to build.

          12. AvatarBy Mason McCormick on

            I meant the suspension they are using on their MK2’s, but yes they should be able to easily produce it and should know of it, if vaguely.

            PS watched some of MIDWAY, I know the torpedo bomber attack was a terrible idea and that the British swordfish did well, but I honestly would rather be in a dive bomber coming in at high altitude, plus their Nancy pilots will be used to it.

          13. AvatarBy Justin on

            Matt: Yeah, the Stuart family is probably their best bet. Might be able to work their way up to Chaffee levels of performance with the right upgrades.
            IIRC the Union already has tanks and infantry working together somewhat; so long as they don’t spread the tanks all over the front, things should be okay.

            Alexey: Trying to jump straight to a midwar medium would likely produce even poorer results. Light/medium is more Baalkpan’s speed right now.
            As suggested above, the Union doesn’t need to copy the M8A1 or X1A spec for spec, just improve on the Stuart with a larger hull/chassis and more protection & firepower. The Union M2’s already two and a half feet wider than our M3 and semi-angled; assuming an adequate engine/suspension/transmission, all they need is a thicker, uniformly-sloped casemate and a two-Cat turret.

          14. AvatarBy Lou Schirmer on

            Mason, the problem with the TBs at Midway was not that it was a bad or totally obsolete plane. Swordfish, as you mentioned, did OK & were far more obsolete than the Devastator. The problem at Midway was mainly due to timing (or lack thereof). Doctrine was the TB & dive bomber squadrons would arrive at the same time & conduct simultaneous attacks, thereby splitting the enemies air & AAA defenses. All the various carrier’s squadrons got lost & the dive bombers had to do a search to find the IJN fleet, but the TBs found them first (one squadron at a time) & attacked, drawing all the fighter coverage as well as having the undivided attention of the AAA. Couple that with having to fly under 100 mph & 100 feet altitude (torpedo dropping restrictions) & they had no chance. If all the TB squadrons had arrived at the same time & made a coordinated attack, they may have had some successes &/or more survivors. Adding insult to injury, the aerial torpedoes had the same problems as the surface & sub torpedoes of the early war.

          15. AvatarBy Mason McCormick on

            They know that sloped armor helps deflect cannon shots, and most of their destroyed tanks were taken out by side hits, so it would be reasonable for them to move to a T-34 like hull except with less steep side slopes, with a .30 in the hull on each side. Is the back sloped already? As for the turret, what about a topless JS-3 or Object something something style rounded turret? Have a 3″, Repub Derby gun, or a 105 howitzer that could be elevated to fire at planes with a .50 on the back of it, and maybe a coaxial .30 or .50 if they can fit it. It might not do much, but if a modern League plane comes towards them they could fire a couple time fused shells at it as a warning to try to scare it off.

            About tank guns that they could use, they do have 2-3 already in the form of Silva’s Doom Stomper replacements. How hard would it be to put one in their current grikoshai if they needed it in an emergency? (Say the league loaned the doms some ft17s or H35s in response to the Mk2s showing up, or would it be Mk3 domoshai?)

          16. AvatarBy Alexey Shiro on

            It is not easy to cast turtleback-style turret as on IS-3 (yes, I knew, that Stalin’s name usually written as Joseph, but the traditional transcription for tank is IS). On the other hands, “pike” shaped nose may actually be an interesting solution to increase frontal protection more.

    2. AvatarBy Lou Schirmer on

      Copy the link & paste it in your comment.
      Be judicious however, more than one hyperlink per message, gets you moderated.

      Reply
  9. AvatarBy Alexey Shiro on

    Talking about pulsejets… In 1945, general Arnold (head of USAAF at this time) have some sort of idée fixe: he wanted to bombard Japan with 75.000 (yes, seventy-five thousands) of JB-2 missiles.

    Said missile was essentially the reverse-engineered German V-1 cruise missile, with very little alterations. Arnold was quite fascinated with missiles and unmanned aircraft (quite interesting contrast with LeMay, who was a fan of manned bombers), and he wanted this missile to be put into production and used in enormous quantities to support the planned landing on Japanese islands.

    Problem was, that this hailstorm of cruise missiles (he planned to launch 100 per day, with eventual increase to 500 per day) was logistically unsustainable. It would require more than fifty “Liberty” ships just to transport enough missiles to sustain the planned launch rate. And it would require almost 15.000 of skilled aircraft factory workers to produce those missiles (workers who would need to be moved from some other military programs!), and would cause almost 15% reduction in bomb & shell production, due to enormous demand of almost 200.000 tons of explosives for warheads and launch booster rockets.

    There are reasons to believe, that Arnold pushed this fantastic scheme mainly to ensure, that Ground Force command would not took control over missile programs, claiming unmanned missiles to be parts of “artillery”. As I mentioned above, Arnold believed in unmanned weaponry; he pushed for drones, guided bombs and missiles during all World War 2. He was convinced that missiles and drones would eventually surpass manned planes as main means of aerial warfare (and he was right), and so the only way to ensure the future of air force for him was to be on the top in missile development (again, contrast with LeMay, who tried the contrary – to suppress the missile development in favor of manned bombers).

    What I means, is that in winter 1945-1946, the Pacific of Destroyermen’s world may be a place for… quite technologically-interesting transfers) JB-2 missiles from USAAF, Gorgone-IIC missiles from Navy, Japanese “Baika” Kamikaze planes… All powered by pulsejets. And Alliance need only one example, to immediately understood all mechanics)

    Pretty interesting, huh? :)

    Reply

Leave a Reply to donald j johnson Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *