5,957 COMMENTS :

    1. AvatarBy Steve White on

      Some discussion of this at the Facebook site. Comments there included 1) removing the catapult and Nancy and 2) moving the torpedo launchers to in-line. My own thought was that removing the catapult would leave room for more AA weapons, which the Alliance likely will need in a face-off with the LoT.

      Reply
      1. AvatarBy Lou Schirmer on

        True & I acknowledged that in the notes. The only reason I left it in was Reddy’s air cover fetish/obsession.

        Reply
        1. AvatarBy Doug White on

          Been gone with a dead computer but now I’m back and don’t ‘we’ want to think about upgunning the destroyers? Either 2 4″ in a turret or a larger gun? I know research and development, but it seems a turret would do a lot of good.

          Reply
          1. AvatarBy Lou Schirmer on

            The second design study is slightly larger (about the size of a Farragut class gold plater) & does have twin 4″ DPs, but still not in turrets, due primarily to weight considerations. They haven’t put Amagi’s 4.7″ DPs into production yet, or I’d have put them in both design studies. With study #1 on a small Walker hull, turrets would be too much weight, so I went with the lighter shields. Even the larger gold platers only had either open backed shields or turrets on the forward guns due to weight issues. It’s only when you get into the much larger Fletchers, Somers & Gridley’s that you get all guns in turrets.

          2. AvatarBy Steve White on

            Lou, thanks for the thoughts on turrets. And it’s not just the weight but also the a) manufacturing complexity and b) quality of steel required. The Madraas and Baalkpan Works would have trouble here. So single guns with light shields is the best compromise for any DD going forward in the next generation.

          3. AvatarBy Alexey Shiro on

            Turrets are complex. They required powered systems to be practical – especially dual-purpose ones (because manually rotating the TURRET to follow aircraft is the exemplification of “we done something wrong”)

  1. AvatarBy Lou Schirmer on

    I was talking to a friend on the phone the other day who has respiratory issues & uses O2 & got to thinking about the cat’s altitude restrictions.

    The simplest way for a quick, cheap, temporary solution would be to just run a regulated O2 line to the pilot that loops around the ears & across the face with tubes feeding the nostrils. If the cat’s noses are “wet” like dogs, they may be too sensitive for cold O2, they might need to run the tube to their mouths instead. They wouldn’t need it full time, but if they wanted to climb past 7-8,000 feet, they’d turn the valve on. This would only be good up to 18,000 feet or so due to the drop in air partial pressure. Past that, they’d need a full face mask & pressurized O2. Pilots in the 1920’s & 30s used to do this to be able to fly high.

    Something similar might work for the engines if they need a boost for combat at altitude, since engines loose power as they climb also. You’d need far larger tanks & it would only last a few minutes, but it’d be a type of supercharging on the cheap & sleazy. You’d need to cross connect the lever/switch bringing in the extra engine O2 with the fuel mixture control to keep from leaning out the engine too much.

    Have to run & violate our overlord’s quarantine now.

    Reply
    1. AvatarBy jbmedd on

      how high do the alliance pilots have to be to outrange the AAA of the league warships

      Reply
      1. AvatarBy Alexey Shiro on

        Too high to it be practical; French 75 mm/50 model 1927 have AA ceiling of 8.000 meters (26.250 feet). Italian 100 mm/47 model 1928 could reach 10.000 meters (33.000 feet). And it is actually possible that newer French ship may be armed with 130 mm/45 (5.1″) Models 1932, capable of 12.000 meters (45.000 feet)

        Anyway, attack from such altitude would be next thing to useless without guided weaponry.

        Reply
        1. AvatarBy Lou Schirmer on

          True, the only time high altitude level bombing ever hit a ship was when it was anchored in harbor. If it took 500-1,000 bombers to make sure a stationary land target was hit, you can imagine the difficulties hitting maneuvering ships.

          Reply
    2. AvatarBy Paul Smith on

      Didn’t the P-40 have some sort of demand regulator that would automatically increase O2 percentage with altitude? if they had enough spares to disassemble & copy then modify for the Lemurian’s O2 demands. Of course they would have to come up with an O2 generator. It’s been mentioned before to use something like a scuba regulator (held in the mouth)for the pilots to use.

      Reply
  2. AvatarBy Mason McCormick on

    About the problem of making more of Muriname’s light bombers: Send the plans, as well as some of the bombers to the Republic, then if the Repubs engines are not as good as the ones used on the bombers, give them all the engines they captured at Zanzibar. This would give the Repubs a monoplane that is capable of taking off a carrier (make their own or give them to the Unions carriers with Repub crews). Then if they give it some dive brakes (going off of if they are unable to carry the 2,000 pound Union torpedo), give them possibly 2-4 .30s, and possibly 2 .50s and a .30 or .50 for a rear gunner they can be used as P-47/Bf-110 type dive bomber/ground attack/fighter. About the problem of runways, they are already making them for the Cantets and P-1s. If possible they could have a 1-2 man crew (Pilot/bombardier, and navigator/rear gunner) instead of the 3 man crew that was used by the Japs.

    Reply
    1. AvatarBy Alexey Shiro on

      Er, but why? The Alliance have more advanced aircraft building capability than Republic, and Republic hardly have much use for torpedo plane. Essentially it would only hamper the whole project.

      “make their own or give them to the Unions carriers with Repub crews).”

      Again, Republic didn’t have much of the Navy. They probably would struggle just to find enough sailors and more or less competent officers to man their new cruisers. It would took years, before they would be able to put any sizable naval force into sea.

      “Then if they give it some dive brakes”

      Frankly, I think the trap of dive bomber better should be avoided. Alliance should not put a lot of resources into machines, that could be effective only for a very short time-span.

      ” they can be used as P-47/Bf-110 type dive bomber/ground attack/fighter. ”

      They would be quite bad ground attack planes, due to the utter lack of armoring…

      Reply
      1. AvatarBy Mason McCormick on

        “The Alliance have more advanced aircraft building capability than Republic, and Republic hardly have much use for torpedo plane. Essentially it would only hamper the whole project.”

        The Republic uses the metric system, it will give them a monoplane light bomber to replace the Cantet, that is capable of carrying a heavier bomb load. They could also give it better engines. And why would they want a torpedo plane? They already said it could not carry Alliance torpedo, so why use it as torpedo plane, when you can use it as land based light bomber/ dive bomber to use against Grik CAs, BBs, and Yanone carriers. (going off of a broadside of many 50-100 pounder guns firing canister or case, that can’t be good for a torpedo bombers health)

        “Again, Republic didn’t have much of the Navy. They probably would struggle just to find enough sailors and more or less competent officers to man their new cruisers. It would took years, before they would be able to put any sizable naval force into sea.”

        So they give their version of the light bomber to the Union to use on its carriers, but with Repub pilots so the CVs have a replacement for the Nancys.

        “They would be quite bad ground attack planes, due to the utter lack of armoring…”

        So you are saying that PB-1B Nancys (Most of which can’t even shoot back, and are reported as being “swatted out of the sky”), P-1s (which have SUB-MACHINE GUNS or 2 .30s which are set on a convergence and can’t carry much of a bomb load) and Cantets (BIPLANES with a .30 shooting through the prop and can gunship a little with the rear gunner) are better than a 2 engine monoplane light bomber which has engine redundancy, possibly 2-4 .30s and possibly 2 .50s mounted in the nose (more accurate than wing guns and more numerous than 1 firing through the prop)? If they only used planes with any armor, that would be TWO P-40Es that have almost no spare parts and are being kept back in case of more modern LoT planes.

        Reply
        1. AvatarBy Justin on

          If that’s the end goal, then it’s much easier to have Mallory and Muriname hammer out a DP2 and send the Republic those ones instead. And they’re still going to need torp bombers in case the League tries to force the Cape.

          And against an enemy that has machine guns and autocannons, you’ll want to get to at least a Ba.65, if not an IL-2, before you start strafing/bombing from low altitudes (which is what ground-attack means). If you mean dive bombing, then yeah, the current planes would suffice.

          Reply
        2. AvatarBy Steve White on

          A ‘torpedo plane’ can carry other loads — witness the Avenger.

          Muriname’s light bombers, with little modification, would be a substantial upgrade to the Cantet. Give Ben Mallory a quick opportunity to play with the design and it could do more.

          Most importantly, the Republic could re-tool its manufacturing to build the “MLB” fairly quickly, and that counts for a lot.

          Reply
          1. AvatarBy Alexey Shiro on

            “A ‘torpedo plane’ can carry other loads ”

            Glide bombs, for example…

  3. AvatarBy Zakary Letney on

    Got a quick question regarding Amagi, of all things.
    Her armament.
    On the DD-men wikia it states that, of course Amagi most probably uses 254mm (10″)/45-caliber (perhaps longer but the guns in the series ARE noted as being “stubby” and the 46,000-ton measure insinuates she’s using turrets originally designed for the 16″ guns) 41st Year Type. No doubt using more modern examples of ammunition. I’ve consulted my peeps and came up with these figures for ammunition:
    Type 91 APC: 245.8 kg (anywhere from 5.7-6.07 kg filler but most likely 5.7 or less)
    Type 0 HE: 223.1 kg (10.5 kg burst charge)
    800 m/s (APC) and likely about 830 (HE).

    My real question lies in the secondary armament and AA armament: it’s not mentioned, AFAIK.
    All I have, specifically for the 12cm (4.7″) guns, are where they are used on various ships. Originally called for 4×1 12cm, but according to STORM SURGE:
    Walker (1); Santa Catalina (2); Salissa (2); Arracca (2); Maakja Kakja (possibly 2, can’t remember). Didn’t Humfra-Dar also receive two 12cm?
    + add in 12cm guns found unusable among the wreckage.
    This is more than the 4×1 slated to the on Amagi by quite a margin. So exactly how many are there?
    Now about the AA: How much 25mm AA? It seems like a majority for some reason are twin 25mm, but I have no idea the exact amount.

    Reply
    1. AvatarBy Zakary Letney on

      Note: I’d love to hear from the “primary source” for complete confirmation.
      😉

      Reply
  4. AvatarBy Alexey Shiro on

    One common problem with the idea of “carriers would just stay away from enemy reach” – the problem of wind.

    To launch aircraft, carriers are usually turn into wind & sail at full speed. While it is possible to launch otherwise, it is highly dangerous and could easily led to crashes. The same for landing, too.

    This essentially means, that during launch/recovery operations, carriers movement are directed by wind. And wind is not predictable. There could be quite possible situations, in which the wind is blowing from the direction of enemy approach – in which case, to launch and recover aircraft, the carriers is forced to run TOWARD the enemy.

    And if we are talking about fast ships, the situation could deteriorate quickly. Let’s assume that carrier is forced to turn toward advancing enemy fleet, and both sides are at 30 knots. During the one hour that carrier would need to commence all launching operation, the distance between carrier and enemy vanguard would be shortened for more than 100 km.

    To better understood the problem, the combat radius of Dauntless dive bomber is 280-360 km. I.e. if the “weather gauge” is not favorable, the carrier would have… problems with staying out of range. That’s why they were always escorted with heavies, including battleships; there were always a possibility that enemy surface units may attempt to rush the carriers, and they would be in no position to stay away.

    Reply
    1. AvatarBy Paul Smith on

      What’s the combat radius of the leagues strike aircraft? IIRC most of europe’s airforces had a combat radius what we would consider “tactical”, i.e. short range. I think the Alliance’s carrier born craft are a little more “strategic” in nature, slower with longer range.

      Reply
  5. AvatarBy Lou Schirmer on

    I also got to thinking (Gasp! Horrified muttering). We’ve been discussing the Alliance ships attacking the LOT task force, but ignoring the carriers. In a desperate situation they will use every resource they have to fight it.
    Kurokawa’s surprise torpedo attack on the Allied convoy about a year ago was an eye opener. You have to think Letts & Mallory would have been coming up with something to match &/or counter them. Simple aircraft are quick to design & build. They may have torpedo squadrons of their own training back in Balkpaan. Reddy has said there are new designs in the works. Several squadrons of torpedo bombers could do a number on the LOT ships. They would be opposed by a few seaplanes off the BBs & CAs, but P-1Cs escorting the TBs could handle them. Then they would face the LOT AAA, which while modern by Alliance standards, will be mounted in numbers considered adequate by pre-WW2 designers & have no recent experience in shooting at moving targets. Hit the LOT with several strikes & when they’re softened up a bit, THEN hit them with a night attack with your ships, while the carriers run for it… or stroll for it.
    It’ll be fun if the Republic cruiser(s) finally make an appearance. Savoie may or may not be available. It depends on how badly she was hurt by the torpedo’s. Let’s bring everyone to the party! It’ll be a free for all!

    Reply
    1. AvatarBy Neal Potts on

      I think it was mentioned at some point that the clippers can carry a single torpedo so there’s probably a squadron already capable of aerial torpedo attacks in that theater. You do bring up a good point though, pretty sure one of the League officers mentioned that they didn’t have anything like carriers. If nothing else, the Allies can deploy scout planes to give Savoie a range advantage while ensuring enemy aerial observers can’t deploy, assuming if they have catapults on their ships. Perhaps the Allied planes can even spot for Fitzhugh Gray? Though I’m uncertain of the ship’s weapon range.

      Regardless, it’ll be a climatic battle to be sure and perhaps the last few battles to decide the ultimate fate of the war. I do wonder what the post-war would look like. I’ve always envisioned something of a Cold War between the powers, similar to the US and USSR after our WWII.

      Reply
      1. AvatarBy Justin on

        Seeing as Hidoiame was able to swat dive-bombing Buzzards out of the air like flies, I don’t like the Clippers’ odds flying slow n’ low against a whole fleet. Granted, the pilots probably have more recent experience than the League’s AA, but if I were Reddy, I’d feel better if the flying boats stuck to traffic & weather updates for now.

        Reply
        1. AvatarBy Steve Moore on

          Difference with Hidoiame is that she was optimized to 1943-4 AAA standards, she would have been more effective than 1939-era LOT ship. The Republic is going to need anti-shipping planes like Ju88’s or Beauforts; they wouldn’t need the armor of ground-attack planes but better stand-off weapons. The LOT has to come around the Cape, or get through the Pass opf Fire, to get into the Pacific. Either way, they’re going to be at the very end of a long supply chain, and have to have a lot of support ships.

          Support ships should be the Alliance’s first target. Whether its maritime strike aircraft, U-112 popping off a few torpedoes in a coordinated strike (she attacks at dawn, draws off escorts, then strike aircraft come in while escorts scattered). Not to mention a Clipper overhead at night dropping flares to keep LOT crews on edge.

          And yes, rockets. Faster than an attack aircraft, lighter than bombs, and with HE fragmentation heads combined with M2’s, knock down exposed AA gunners leaving the way open for bomb-carrying strike aircraft.

          Jeez, nice to find you guys again. Hiding out in Northwest Maine, intending to WFH from now on, and watching the wildlife.

          Reply
          1. AvatarBy Alexey Shiro on

            Hello, Steve!

            “And yes, rockets. Faster than an attack aircraft, lighter than bombs, and with HE fragmentation heads combined with M2’s, knock down exposed AA gunners leaving the way open for bomb-carrying strike aircraft.”

            If they could made rocket large & reliable enough, they would soon notice the behavior of rocket after entering the water – the tendency to run parallel to surface. I.e. that the optimal way to aim the rockets is to aim at the enemy waterline; the rockets that overflew would hit deck and superstructure, and the rockets that fell short would strike underwater part.

          2. AvatarBy Justin on

            Welcome back!

            Like I said before though, five Leopardos = one late war Kagero, and the League’s sending up to twenty. It’ll have to be the DP1M1s or something better.

    2. AvatarBy Alexey Shiro on

      Thing is, that Alliance air force would hardly could do much. First of all, the main attack plane – Nancy’s – are essentially of no use against LoT ships and forces. It is too slow, too vulnerable, too underpowered.

      Secondly, the majority of Alliance attack planes are seaplanes – which means, that they actually not well-suited for open sea warfare. Not only they could not be used in rough seas, but they also required the carrier to slow down for recovering them with cranes, which is slow, time-consuming process.

      Thirdly, the alliance P-1C fighters are short-legged. Essentially, if the attack would be in P-1C combat radius, then the Alliance carriers are under deadly threat from League ships; they simply would not be able to stay out of range.

      Fourthly, let’s not forget, that Alliance carriers are slow. They could reach 15 knots at most – i.e. they are more than twice slower than League cruisers and destroyers. And carriers are wind-dependent. They are forced to move against the wind for takeoff or landing of planes. And what if the wind is from League’s fleet direction?

      In short, any carrier attack could be performed only as part of general fleet action, with “Savoie” steaming in to protect the carriers & support the aircraft attack with her heavy artillery.

      Reply
      1. AvatarBy Lou Schirmer on

        You’re correct in that the Nancy’s would get shot to ribbons, but I was thinking they might mix in some of the bombers Muriname brought with him & may have some of the new planes Reddy referred to shipped out to them. P-1Cs may be short legged, but 100-150 miles is well away from the action. The plane it’s derived from, the P-26, did shoot down some Japanese Zero’s & bombers over China & the Philippines at the start of WW2, so they should be effective against the LOT seaplanes & even the MacchiSchmidts, if prepared & trained with the correct tactics.

        Reply
        1. AvatarBy Alexey Shiro on

          Problem is, that they have only a handful of Muriname bombers intact. It would took time to build more, considering that they are non-standard designs (probably all metric). And 100 nautical miles – is just a 3 hours run on 30 knots, I must remind you.

          “The plane it’s derived from, the P-26, ”

          One problem: it is not P-26. P-26 was all-metal fighter with 600 hp engine, and P-1C is a wood & fabric fighter with 325 hp engine. Even League spotter seaplane – like IMAM Ro.43 – would be more than a match for P-1C.

          Reply
          1. AvatarBy Lou Schirmer on

            Three hours at 30 knots for the cruisers & DDs. The carriers will be headed away at 15 knots & if the LOT ships are being attacked by torpedo bombers, they will be maneuvering to avoid the attacks, slowing them further. That’s if they know where the carriers are, it’s a big ocean. In WW2 scout aircraft sighting reports were often giving incorrect positions, courses & types of ships. The LOT scouts, if they aren’t picked off by the P-1Cs, also haven’t had any recent practice calculating their positions with no real reference points besides a compass & dead reckoning.

            I thought the P-1C engines were up to 410 hp these days? Being considerably lighter than the P-26, the performance should be about the same, including the range & they do have the same armament. So they will be able to handle the seaplanes. Their main restriction is still their inability to operate at high altitude limited by the cat pilots.

          2. AvatarBy Alexey Shiro on

            *The carriers will be headed away at 15 knots *

            If they could. They then need to receive the planes, which means, that they would need to change their course into wind.

            *I thought the P-1C engines were up to 410 hp these days? Being considerably lighter than the P-26, the performance should be about the same*

            They may be lighter, but their aerodynamic is much worse, and they are much more fragile than all-metal planes. In combat with all-metal seaplanes, they would at best be able to stand their ground. Do not underestimate the value of metal for fighters.

          3. AvatarBy Mason McCormick on

            Also, Fiedler says what,at most 5-6 BB’s, and 5-6 CA’s, that’s 10-12 capital ships with the ability to launch 1-2 scout planes at once. (I would assume they only launch the ones they have on the catapults and only add more if one or both are shot down.) So that could be 10-24, more like 20-24 vs what? 2 CVs’ worth of P-1Cs, all the Nancys might have a .30 in the nose, or are F models. As it is they could have a flight a P-1Cs focus on 1 IMAM Ro.43 each probably. And that’s if they decide to launch all their scout planes at once. Considering they are spotter plane pilots, not Fighter plane pilots, going up against possible veterans of the Mahe convoy, Zanzibar, and the brief dogfight over the Zambezi in RoB, not to mention constantly dog fighting among each other when they learn they are going up against a LoT fleet with modern scout planes.

          4. AvatarBy Mason McCormick on

            They might be able to get more scout planes from the 2 dozen or more auxiliaries that are going to be with them (Example being Ramb V), if they have planes. But even if they do they will be even worse I would think b/c, it would never have been imagined that they would need to dogfight, but that would give them more planes. If they are not used for parts and/or replacements.

            By the way, in RoB it says Leopardo has 2 40mms and 6 20mms in the specifications, but in PoF it says only 6 20mms.

            Quick question: PB-5Ds have 5 .30s, where are they placed? 1 is in the nose, 2 in the waist, and is there a dual on top, or 2 singles in separate positions?

      2. AvatarBy Mason McCormick on

        About the CVs avoiding the LoT fleet but still launching planes: Have Tara act refuel and rearm the seaplanes and stay stationary, then have the CVs steam circles around her like they did at Grik City the first time.
        By the way Justin, they were Nancys not Buzzards, and Hidoiame was a “new” DD, not 1939 or older and refitted to be better at AA.

        Reply
        1. AvatarBy Justin on

          I stand corrected, but neither variable changes much. Statistically, a Clipper’s much more durable than a Nancy, but also clumsier and not much faster. Either one would be a sitting duck during a torpedo run.

          And while a 1944 Kagero would’ve had up to twenty-seven 25mms and four 13mms, Leopardo by herself has six 20mms (let alone Savoie) and the League’s sending up to twenty DDs – that’s a lot of dakka.

          All things considered, probably best to keep the air wing out of a modern fight until they get more of Muriname’s bombers and/or other faster planes.

          Reply
          1. AvatarBy Doug White on

            The problem for a lot of readers is that we have gotten spoiled, if you please, by the ‘at the very last possible minute of the hour’ rescue of some kind or other.

            Because we have these dreams of invincibility we tend to take for granted that the good guys will come up with a plan and voila the plan appears, runs pretty well, some of the GREAT good guys die (I STILL haven’t gotten over Flynn’s death) and they pull things out by some miracle.

            Well, the League may be some arrogant MFrs but they got the club and the tech to back that up. So, unless ‘you’ want a damn blood bath, on the wrong side, be careful for what you wish for. The Air Power the Alliance has isn’t going to be much when they run into GOOD flak and really good aircraft. I think of VT-8 and Midway and you should remember that the good guys would KILL to have as nice a plane as those horrid Devastators were for the US in that battle. But, they would be a huge step up for ‘our boys’. And that is just air power. the navy clan would be in a world of hurt against whatever the League decides to bring.

            Unless they’re bluffing and our glorious leader is fooling us. All bets are off then. Also let’s hope Halik continues to be nominally neutral cuz by now he’s one tough bugger.

            I know I am kinda all over the place with this but I had to get this out there. Looking forward to ‘The Winds of Wrath’

    3. AvatarBy Paul Smith on

      I don’t have any books in front of me right now, but could the Alliance possibly mousetrap the LOT task force in the Pass of Fire. Attacking with several waves of PT boats in the narrower part of the pass? Especially at dawn or dusk if the tides are right? Or, if they had the time to get HEAVY artillery on the ground by the narrowest part? Could the RRP supply large enough cannons that would reach across the POF and be heavy enough to sink any LOT capital ships? Especially using indirect fire so their targets would have a harder time returning fire? I think if you had concealed gun emplacements on both sides of the pass, you would force the targeted ships to either try to concentrate fire on one side or try to split their response.

      Reply
      1. AvatarBy Justin on

        Might not be the only chokepoint either. If sea levels https://i.redd.it/cdywk5iva0111.jpg plus volcanism means that the only ways through either Antilles are a narrow Windward/Anegada Passage or the Florida Straits, the Union’s job is somewhat easier; get some planes in the air, figure out which one the League’s using, jump them with torps while they sail through (a la Surigao or Ironbottom), fall back to the Pass and repeat.

        I’d hold off on lugging 8″ guns all the way from South Africa; since Kim and the Kaiser weren’t sure about their chances of hurting Savoie, they might be a little outdated. They’d help against the lighter ships, but that’s still a much lower cost/benefit ratio.

        Reply
        1. AvatarBy Mason McCormick on

          I think the 8″ in the monitors were short howitzer versions, not (what I consider) “proper” naval rifles. They might be working on better, and if Taylor follows Lou’s Imperitor CAP design, they could send 10″ guns. The Union could also send 8-9 10″ guns as well (depending if Humfra-dar went down with one, and Santy Cats’ is in low orbit after her magazine blew). Of course some or all of those could be shortened, but it was said they were quite accurate given a stable platform and should be able to reach across the Pass. Then there is whatever the bigger New Britain ships are being armed with (8″-16″ on CA-BB).
          Then for AA/AAA and anti infantry IIRC, Letts mentioned that they were making “ever larger naval rifles” and might be making 5.5″ guns already to arm the new CL. So for AA/AAA they could send say, 12 3″/23 (were making them before they met the Repubs, and would want them for immediate small, easy to move AA/AAA), 24 4″ guns, 24 4.1″ guns, and 12 5.5″ guns. Then they could cut down trees and make them look like guns, but camouflage them less than the real ones. Considering German 88s could reach B-17s, I would assume a bigger gun could certainly reach a repurposed torpedo bomber, M&Ms, and Stukas. And then there is the possibility of them getting Repub 75mm and 105mms as well. If I was them, I would then have each position be like a small fort with .30s and .50s positioned around the guns. The Dom regulars would be advancing through rapid firing modern guns and I would think they would break almost immediately if they are not all killed before they can process it, and Blood Drinkers would be wasted in the attack. (I would keep the majority of the Blood Drinkers at their capital). And if the League sends troops,the soldiers around the guns keep them pinned down firing as fast as possible and smothering them with mortars, while the guns blow the League solders apart behind whatever cover they could find. If the take a gun position, then they will then have to do it all over again. If they send tanks I would assume they would be: Spanish T-26 and BT-3,5, or 7s, German Pz IIs, French FT-17 and H-35s, and Italian tankettes, all easily destroyed by dug in and camouflaged artillery. All the tanks would have would be coaxial MGs a 20 or 25mm, or a 37, which as Alexey stated on earlier comments, are not good for shooting at fortifications, and unable to fire back until at essentially point blank range for the larger dug in guns. Most of the tanks listed are fairly slow, lightly armed and armored, so they will have to try to zig-zag to get within range.

          PS can any of you post a picture of what Savoie’s level-cross level will look like?

          Reply
          1. AvatarBy Alexey Shiro on

            “And if the League sends troops,the soldiers around the guns keep them pinned down firing as fast as possible and smothering them with mortars, while the guns blow the League solders apart behind whatever cover they could find. ”

            Er… sorry to disappoint you, but it would be what League troops would do to Alliance troops. Do not forget, they have French troops. French were all for “controlled battle” with heavy use of heavy artillery. Their artillery interwar was among the very best. They would pinpoint your battery immediately, and silence her with sudden avalanche of fire by their own heavy guns.

          2. AvatarBy Alexey Shiro on

            “If they send tanks I would assume they would be: Spanish T-26 and BT-3,5”

            …Er…

            T-26 and BT tanks were Soviet tanks, supplied to Spain. There is no Soviet Union in CES world, from which League originated. Therefore there is no T-26 and BT tanks, and most clearly not in Spain.

          3. AvatarBy Mason McCormick on

            Forgot about the fact that the Spanish Civil War probably never happened.
            As for French artillery, their doctrine might be different, but we won’t know until later. However, there will be lots of smooth bore, and NUS rifled cannon on the Allies’ side. The League could send in Dom regulars as, literally, cannon fodder, but the modern guns might not fire, or be obscured by smoke(?). But if they do fire on the guns that reveal themselves, there could be 50 more waiting to do counter battery fire. And seeing as the League knows the Allies have torpedoes, and would hopefully be preoccupied with First Fleet, they could move the bigger guns to be able to fire on the League artillery. They could also use the Jaguaristas to scout out the position of, if not the guns, then the general area where they would be and have the 10″ level the place.

          4. AvatarBy Alexey Shiro on

            With all respect, but better NOT to think anything that Alliance could do on terrain could surprise the League much. They are professionals of land warfare of late 1930s style. The idea of hiding guns, of using fake guns, ect. – all this League knew much better than Alliance, because all this was tried and used in Great War.

            Currently, Alliance is not gonna win any land engagement with League, short of having absolute numerical advantage or a quite large amount of luck. They are simply not prepared for anything like late 1930s warfare. Neither their equipment, nor training, nor tactics, nor strategy is sufficient. Any current attempt to engage League on the land for Alliance would be costly failure at best.

          5. AvatarBy Mason McCormick on

            Fiedler says that the Dominion has difficult terrain on page 38 PoF. Taylor could help since he has the “clear picture”, but I would think that wouldn’t be the best for heavy artillery.

            All this depends on if they want/are allowed to deploy any land based forces. As Don Hernan says in PoF page 78-79: “I’m quite confident El Paso is secure -and our loyal people need to know it was us alone who kept it that way.” “…No, my friend. Let them land. …,and wouldn’t stop them even if our own ships weren’t already focused on the demon horde. …And again it will be seen that it was we alone who defeated them at last.” So even if the League decided they wanted to send land based aid to the Doms, they might refuse it out of pride, and if they do, it might be too late.

            Then, would Gravois be willing to send it? PoF page 78: “The League was coming, there could be no doubt, but perhaps not soon enough to save the Pass of Fire. On the other hand, that might suit Gravois’s plans even better…” Page 80: “On second thought, however, why should he do everything Don Hernan requested. …whatever happened, it was obvious he meant to take all the credit for himself. If Mayta successfully defended El Paso del Fuego without League assistance and Leopardo entirely crushed the NUS fleet and the Doms destroyed their army, Don Hernan would be free to pursue direct negotiations with Oriani or the Triumvirate itself at his leisure. Gravois had to keep Don Hernan indebted to the League through him and ensure he continued to require their protection.”

            Finally, we don’t know what kind of foes they faced in the Med, other than that it was “brutally simple”. I would think that would be ancient Roman, Greek, and Egyptian type armies. Considering that, their army might be a little spoiled and not like being shot at, but yes I will admit they will make the Allied armies feel what it was like to be Grik or Doms.

          6. AvatarBy Alexey Shiro on

            “Fiedler says that the Dominion has difficult terrain on page 38 PoF. Taylor could help since he has the “clear picture”, but I would think that wouldn’t be the best for heavy artillery.”

            You would be amazed of what heavy artillery could do and what terrain it could cross) Not to mention that Alliance did not have specialized mountain cannons either, while at least French forces should have their battalion guns for such conditions.

          7. AvatarBy donald j johnson on

            One would think that heavy mortars would do a better job in mountainous terrain vs heavy artillery as artillery is basically line of site and mortars are unlimited up close. I personally would rather have a mortar than artillery in the mountains.

          8. AvatarBy Alexey Shiro on

            Well, yes, but where would Alliance obtain Soviet PM-43 heavy mortar (nearly-universally considered the best example of her time)?

          9. AvatarBy Lou Schirmer on

            It doesn’t have to be the best mortar, just a mortar. They’re a lot easier to make than regular artillery & the modern Stokes mortar has been around since WW1, so General Alden should be familiar with them. It doesn’t even need to be a heavy mortar. A 3″ (75-80mm) mortar tube, plate & bipod is a bit easier to haul around than a heavier system & you can carry more ammo for it as well.

      2. AvatarBy Alexey Shiro on

        One problem; League also have air force and dive bombers. And best land-based military in the world, so they could just land troops & too the Pass by overland assault.

        Reply
        1. AvatarBy Steve Moore on

          True. Alexey. But I like Paul’s ideas of PT boats. The NUS has proven wooden ship-building and oil refinery technology (unless they’re burning oil right out of the ground). The Republic has good engines, supposedly, and I’ll bet that they can spin up a torpedo industry pretty quickly to supply themselves as well as the NUS. The more production they can keep in-theater, the better.

          PT’s are the fastest, and probably most evasive, ships the Alliance have. Operating in confined waters, including shallow draft, they can be produced quickly in small shipyards. Expand the scale, maybe, and give them a little more punch (a single 25mm and 2 M2’s) to go along with the two torpedoes.

          When the British started developing hydrophones in WWI, they originally mounted them on trawlers, but quickly realized they needed faster ships. They went to Canadian and US shipyards and purchased a 110′ subchaser design, which was spun up within 3 months or so, and had a capability of 20+ knots. In convoy, they could cross the North Atlantic, and were used in both Northern European waters as well as the Med. It wouldn’t surprise me if the LOT has similar craft by now, similar to E-boats or Italian MAS boats.

          Considering that the NUS is the closest model to a government the D-men are going to be comfortable, and the Dominion’s people are ready for open revolt, the more technology the Alliance can bring to the Gulf and POF region, the better for long-term stability. Remember, there are the East Coast unknowns the NUS have warned about.

          Lou or Taylor, just curious, are there enough spare Allison engines to create some E-boats for the Alliance, that would be able to take on light LOT escorts? The Republic, with the addition of the U-112 crew, probably has the capability to develop a diesel engine, but I’m just thinking of going with what they have.

          Now, back to work on the Osa-boat design…..

          Reply
          1. AvatarBy Lou Schirmer on

            Probably not enough to be worthwhile. The big USN 80′ PT’s took three V12s each. A smaller design, say 60′ would work with two & be larger, faster & more capable than their current MTBs, but again, they’d be limited in number. They might be able to field 2-4 depending on how damaged the engines were that they recovered. They probably have most of the surviving engines torn to pieces & measuring for parts trying to copy them in a simpler form (non-supercharged). I doubt if they’ve had enough time to do more than initial design work though. On the other claw, the uprated radial engines might work, if they staggered them in a larger boat. They’d have to design a transmission for them, but it’s doable.

    4. AvatarBy Paul Smith on

      That wrecked bomber they got from the Shee-Ree village, it was a bristol blenheim or beaufort if I remember right. could they build a version of that using it to drop Muriname’s short aerial torpedo? If it would have better performance than his DP1M1 torpedo bomber.

      Reply
  6. AvatarBy Lou Schirmer on

    The U-112’s torpedo’s should provide the Allies with a template for a decent, fast torpedo. It’s range of 7,500 meters is not much more than their current model, but the G7A’s speed is 40 knots, so somewhat better than what they have.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G7a_torpedo
    They probably won’t have the improved models in production for WoW, but they’ll be available sometime soon.

    Reply
    1. AvatarBy Zakary Letney on

      U-112 is quite the treasure trove of technology, isn’t she?
      Now the Alliance has a template for a diesel engine as well! I would hope the could attack the League, but I’m not sure the crew could go through that especially if German ships are involved. She may just perform scouting duties.
      Apart of the things expected to be copied from here are the 20mm C/38 (replacement for the 25mm), but I do not expect that of the 3.7cm/83 SK C/30 aboard. The torpedoes (G7a type, as you said, with 617-pd warhead 7.5km (NavWeaps says 8km) @ 40 knots. I really expect the greatest thing to come from the U-112 will be her 12.8cm/45 SK C/32 guns.
      Another good thing to come from her are the supercharged M9V 40/46 diesels which will provide a superior diesel engine to anything the Alliance should have.

      Maybe the Alliance would have better, very modern aircraft if they’d not thrown away those Japanese aircraft by ignoring them. I’ve thought about the situation required to convince them and decided that, honestly, they could have done it if they’d seriously tried instead of playing it as they did.

      Reply
      1. AvatarBy Paul Smith on

        The U-112 might be a treasure trove alright, I would also point out they might be carrying other valuable items. Just think what the crew might have on board; text books, technical magazines, maintenance manuals with dimensioned drawing and material specifications. All the stuff they brought with them besides the sub. Did the alliance record anything when they had the S-19 in for conversion? diesel construction, manuals 7 the like? Is the U-112’s sonar appreciably better than Walkers? Or the Hidoiames?

        Reply
    2. AvatarBy Alexey Shiro on

      G7A? Nah. German engineering is – as usual – bad. The G7 torpedoes required extremely precise machining and use of very carefully crafted parts, otherwise they would not work. They were much more time-consuming and hard to produce than contemporary Italian, Japanese, American and British torpedoes.

      My general advice is that most of German-delivered technology (with rare counter-examples) did not worth much for Alliance.

      Reply
      1. AvatarBy Zakary Letney on

        Complex torpedoes are a little out of their capability currently. Going with something over-engineered as expected of a German torpedo would not be encouraged by me. However, a modern torpedo provides an example and a basis for improvements, even if it’s not copied.
        Otherwise the weaponry does the same. I consider just about anything – including the smaller 2cm C/38 – to be superior to the Type 96 25mm. The 12.8cm/45 is the most modern 5″-caliber gun they have to copy or pattern. Add a DP mount and there you go. It’s a little heavy but it delivers a good ROF and the rounds are good enough and expected of the caliber in early WWII for the Axis. This could be the initial weapon for larger destroyer designs until something better can be made.

        Reply
  7. AvatarBy Zakary Letney on

    I know I’m very late to this argument, but I’d like to be caught up to the results of the 76.2mm/23 Mark 14 vs 75mm/36 Modele 1897 for tank use argument.
    – 76.2mm/23 has a Common (which I guess is close enough to AP, or SAP) round as well as an “AA” (HE) round and an automatic sliding breechblock (which will prove superior to the Derby gun’s breech). All rounds are 13 pounds. Common has 0.28 pds burst and AA-HE has 0.74 pds. Common (IAW with the _”/3 rule) should be able to penetrate 1″ (25mm) of armor. This should increase with the invention of a solid-shot round with, perhaps, a cap. 9.2 km range with an AA ceiling of 5.5 km. 500 m/s velocity.
    – 75mm/36 Modele 1897 has an HE and Shrapnel round featuring an older screw breech type. HE is 12 pounds and Shrapnel is 16 pounds with 290 lead balls but I believe HE to be their man ammunition of choice – so 12 pound projectiles. No anti-armor or penetrative capabilities. Range out to 11 km (effective at 8.5 km). 500 m/s velocity.
    My say would sway heavily in favor of the 3″/23 with perhaps a longer barrel to increase the muzzle velocity if fortifications or armor needs to be penetrated but otherwise the weapon is perfect for an anti-personnel role. I don’t know the burst charge data for the 75mm Derby gun though, which might change things.
    I’m probably lacking information so I’d like to hear what you guys had to say on the matter.

    Reply
  8. AvatarBy Zakary Letney on

    Hello all.
    I’m rather new to actually posting on this discussion Forum. I’ve been a lurker for the times I do stroll around here, taking a gander at the technical discussions taking place every once in a while. However, since I have some spare time and a couple of questions to ask, I figure I might as well get them out.
    Slight disclaimer: though I’m an avid reader of the series and have read up to and including PoF my knowledge on the series as a whole has dimmed a bit.
    One of the biggest questions I have is regarding the standard destroyer-caliber armament of the Alliance – the 102mm/50 (4″-50).
    …Why?
    I ask this question primarily because of the existence of the 120mm/45 (4.7″). If you haven’t connected the dots yet, I’m asking why this weapon wasn’t adopted and the 102mm was?
    Looking at the Holy grail of naval weaponry – NavWeaps – the superiority of the 120mm is not in question. Naturally, because it’s a larger weapon. In discussions with other D-men fans here and there I’ve heard mention of top weight becoming an issue. No doubt the slim hulls of the Wickes-class are not going to do well against too much top weight, and the reduction in overall machinery weight (of which acts as a permanent ballast) and its subsequent replacement by a fuel tank (which, at best, is a variable ballast. See: Type 1934 Zerstorer) is not at all helping.
    Though, the replacement of the original torpedo armament with two quadruples and the much lighter twin 25mm/60 is helping, though the catapult mitigates this somewhat. Assuming each triple weighs roughly 10 tonnes, the combination of four is about 40 tonnes. Say each quadruple weighs 12 tonnes. 40-24, and now we have 16 tonnes. Each twin 25 costs 1.1 tonnes, leaving 13.8 tonnes. The catapult and aircraft weigh roughly 2.5 and 1.2 tonnes respectively. So there’s about 9.3-9.5 tonnes off the deck simply from the change in torpedo tubes.
    Now here comes the meat of the question: Walker, Walker-class, and subsequent light destroyer designs with the 4.7?
    The difference in overall weight is a little appalling considering the very similar weight of just the guns alone. 12.8 tonnes increased displacement just going from 4″ to 4.7″. We have 9.3 tonnes left, so an overall increase of, what, 3.5 tonnes?
    So it’s not impossible, and the increased weight can be compensated I’m sure (even if actual ballast needs to be emplaced). However, the increase in firepower could be considered very much worth it.
    Now that the possibility of the weapon on ships such as the Walker and her class is no longer in question, let’s talk about logistics and manufacturing. As early as Maelstrom if I recall correctly, manufacture of primitive 4″ black powder bolt projectiles were being used with Walker’s guns. In the subsequent books (Distant Thunders/Rising Tides) Amagi is scrapped and her useful useful weaponry removed. To continue the feed of ammunition to ships equipped with the 4.7″ gun – such as Santa Catalina and the various carriers – production will have to start with them as well. It’s happening a little later, but why develop the 4″/50 itself any further? The creation of a DP mount, for instance as well as production for the weapon. The 4.7″/45 10th Year Type, as there would be no 3rd Year Type on a capital ship such as Amagi, is already a dedicated DP weapon and should have carried Sankaidan ammunition for AA use. It features a higher ROF (the listed ROF on NavWeaps may be due to a variety of factors) I’m sure owes to the vertical sliding wedge breechblock. This, not to mention the round has a significantly larger burst charge and still manages good ballistic performance AND has a better barrel life.
    The second question I have is regarding the Fitzhugh Gray. Where did the design for her 140mm (5.5″) turrets come from? I’d say based on logic that they would come from blockier designs of the Hidoiame’s DP 127mm (5″) mounts but they look strikingly like twin 5″/38 mounts, notably the more modern ones. Was just curious.
    Third and final question: How in the world do you calculate displacement for things such as the wooden ‘Cat carriers, Grik Arata-Amagi BBs, and more? Is it guesstimations? Is there a specific formula? SpringSharp? How does wooden hulls work with SpringSharp? Always wondered.
    I have a few more questions that I’d ask, but I’ll save them for later. I look forward to the responses.
    FCSA Letney.

    Reply
    1. AvatarBy Justin on

      Welcome aboard, Zakary.

      Both the 12cms and 14cms (5.5s) came from Amagi
      Paper stats are somewhere important, yes (in which the 10th Year 12cm/45’s effective fire rate and range are actually worse than a Type 9 4″/50’s)… but more important is crew experience. Why would the Americans and Cats swap out a very familiar weapons system in favour of an unfamiliar one? Anybody who’s gone from PC to Mac or vice versa knows the agony of retraining.

      IMO they only put one on the stern and a bunch on the carriers because they had DP mounts; now that there’s enough DP four/fifties for the whole fleet, there’s not much reason to keep the twelves. If they need something heavier, they’ve got the fourteens (also DP now).

      Reply
      1. AvatarBy Zakary Letney on

        The weapon was rather unfamiliar, according to the experiences of the crew aboard Walker at the time the 4.7″ was mounted. They noted that the weapon had to be adjusted for in terms of ballistics, the crew positions on the weapon were changed, and there was a vertical sliding wedge-type breechblock there isn’t a major difference in operation. At its base it is a very simple weapon and besides some minor things is very easily adjusted to. Windows to Mac is more like going from working on the Texas to working on an Iowa. It implies a larger change than crew positioning and not having to unscrew the breech to reload.
        As I had said, the RoF is depending on a variety of factors and doesn’t necessarily reflect a crew slamming in shells as fast as the breech can operate. I’ve no doubt in that scenario a sliding wedge-type will beat a screw breech due simply to the automatic nature of the former. With different distances to magazines and ready ammunition lockers compared to IJN vessels, it’s hard to tell what the ROF can be as high as for the 4.7″ on Walker. However, the round IS heavier and no doubt long-term ammunition supply will eventually wear down a little faster than with the 4″ ammunition. That is to be expected. Honestly, with weapons like these that are hand-operated, the speed and ease of loading and ejecting shells can have an impact on the overall ROF. To be entirely honest, I’d say that ready ammunition supply (which are almost worryingly close to the weapons on a Wickes-class) can provide up to 14 rounds per minute (4.3 seconds) wearing down to about 12 as the ready ammunition expires. Once a correct ammunition train is set up, ROF will likely be marginally better than the 4″, but see a slight decrease in ROF in comparison in long-term engagements.
        I’d like to note the 14cm/50 is more of a barrage AA weapon rather than a dedicated DP. The bag ammunition and screw breech support this conclusion. The same is true of the IJN 127mm/50 3rd Year Type – also a bag and screw breech. Only in 1945 was a suitable DP AAA weapon (the 12.7cm/50 Type 1 and Type 5) created. Note: I consider the 10cm/65 Type 98 to be an AA weapon rather than AAA. AAA usually includes 5″ and larger from my experience.

        Reply
        1. AvatarBy Zakary Letney on

          A quick additional note on range: The 4″-50 is limited to 20 degrees of elevation for a range of 14.56 km. The 4.7″-45 has a range of 16 km at 45 degrees. Based on this data, it can be inferred that, with the DP mounts, the 4″-50 does have a greater range than the 4.7″. How much? Looking at the 10.5cm/65 SK C/33 – a very similar weapon in terms of round weight and propellant charge – I can suggest about 18 to 18.5 km at 45 degrees with the DP 4″-50. So can increase of about 2-2.5 km. A range increase of 12.5% – 15.5%. That’s not insignificant, but considering the ranges expected…I’d say that the 4.7″ still holds the advantage.

          Reply
        2. AvatarBy Lou Schirmer on

          Welcome to the jungle Zackary!
          I’m with you on the 4.7″ issue. The Wickes & Clemson classes were designed to be able to mount up to 5″ guns & a couple were tested, but after WW1 ended there was no longer any push (or money) to get the conversion done. They also tested a twin 4″ mount successfully. I’d have developed the existing 4.7″ DP before going to the 5.5″ & having to design a DP mount for it as well.
          As far as topside weight, the Walker could delete the number one stack & take a few tons off the top to help stability. I already asked Taylor why they didn’t a few years ago & he said it was more brand recognition (4-piper DDs) than anything else. To save topside weight on the new ships, they could simply trunk the four stacks into two & save even more weight.
          The “turrets” on the Grey are actually half shields, like some of the Gold Plater destroyers had & are open at the rear. They probably just rest on a frame extended from the traversing ring of the gun mount.
          Taylor can probably extrapolate the weights of the sailing steamers, frigates & DDs from existing historical designs. I’d only be guessing on the larger designs.
          Just out of curiosity, what does the FCSA at the end of your first comment stand for?

          Reply
          1. AvatarBy Zakary Letney on

            Thanks!
            I know of these two types of Wickes/Clemsom prototypes. The twin 102mm from Wolrld of Warships and the 5″ mounted ones from various 4-piper pictures I scour online. I thought about referencing them in my previous comments but that would mean some more math and a novella-sized question LOL.
            As for the stacks, looking back to older comments in Technical Discussion I did find a picture of the Wickes class with a revised superstructure and weaponry placement I’d never seen before, with trucked twin stacks. Speaking of trunked stacks on 4-pipers, I REALLY hope to see a certain 4-piper captured by a certain island nation and refitted for service in 1943 after being abandoned in dry dock in Surabaya 😉 Oh boy would I love to see her in the series, or any number of postwar IJN vessels coming through the squall. Sakawa, as dearmed for troop transport? Akizuki class? A Matsu or Tachibana? …Nagato? I’m getting a little carried away here excuse me.
            Anywho, for the stacks: trunking is a great idea. It’ll reduce the weight in the same way having one quadruple torpedo launcher is better than two twin launchers. Or, you could pull a Britain and reduce the funnel height. Or, remove the no. 1 funnel, trunk no. 2 and 3, and leave the fourth as-is. All great ideas as far as I’m concerned.
            Though I can understand wanting to keep that special 4-pipe arrangement. It’s a strong, unique look.
            Ah. I see. I thought that, based on renditions of Gray and the silhouette provided, she was carrying full turrets, or something like the Agano-class (fully encased, but no turret stalk). Ah well, we’ll see turrets someday. I’m sure the new Repub ships will, with their 8″ bag guns.
            I figured he had gotten someone else to use SpringSharp – a program that can calculate specific values about a vessel you can create, and tends to be rather very specific and is pretty accurate as well.
            FCSA – Fire Controlman, Seaman Apprentice. I’m in FC ‘A’ school. I’ll be FC3 (PO 3rd) sometime in ‘C’ school.
            As my classmates call our rate, we’re “spicy GM’s”, even if we consider GM’s to be basically animals lmao. It’s all in good fun.

          2. AvatarBy Lou Schirmer on

            You probably won’t see the captured 4-piper you’re talking about. Taylor doesn’t like to use ships with actual WW2 records in this series. He uses ships that were decommissioned before the war or were never built.

          3. AvatarBy Alexey Shiro on

            “Oh boy would I love to see her in the series, or any number of postwar IJN vessels coming through the squall. Sakawa, as dearmed for troop transport? Akizuki class? A Matsu or Tachibana? …Nagato? I’m getting a little carried away here excuse me.”

            Hardly. You see, mr. Taylor established a rule; he does NOT include into fiction events the ships with any actual military careers – to avoid the possibility of accidentally offending someone who actually served on said ship, or his relatives. So, only the ships with no actual military records are allowed, such as:

            * “Walker” and “Mahan” – both commissioned too late to serve in World War 1, and decommissioned before World War 2.

            * “Amagi” – scrapped incomplete due to earthquake damage.

            * “Hidoiame”, “Leone” – fictional representatives of real classes of warships.

            * U-112 – a project, never actually completed.

            * “Savoie” – a export-build unit, seized by French Navy, but never completed.

            So, “Nagato” could not appear. “Sakava” – maybe, she does not have any actual career (spend almost all her time moored due to lack of fuel). “Ibuki”, maybe – as carrier or cruiser from which she was rebuild.

        3. AvatarBy Justin on

          Hence “effective fire rate.” As per NavWeaps, the 12cm’s maximum with ready ammo is 10-11 rpm – not 12-14. And this is assuming that Baalkpan hasn’t given the newly-built 4/50s a sliding wedge of their own, which’d give them even more of an advantage.
          Remember that a DD’s mains are a BB’s secondaries; whether you’re a Grik Indiaman or a Kagero, there’s not much difference between 1.2kg of TNT and 1.9. So for the Union, it’s less about individual shells and more about getting a lot of them downrange to hit a lot of different things. A lighter gun with a faster traverse also helps in that department.

          It’s a moot point, because just four books after installation they were already planning to ditch the 4.7; either production was already locked into the 4s and 5.5s, the 4.7 underperformed, or they just didn’t like it that much.

          True about the 14s, but I was talking about surface-to-surface capability. The 12s are in a “master of nothing” slot where they can’t hit hard like a 14, or shoot as fast as a 4.

          Reply
          1. AvatarBy Zakary Letney on

            I don’t see any source which indicates that 10-11 is for ready-use ammunition but I suppose it can be inferred. Price said in 1.5 seconds to manually ram the ammunition as opposed to dumping it on a tray to be rammed with the 127/38.
            Now for reload of ready-use ammunition for 12cm vs 10.2cm. The automatic breechblock seen on the 12cm will provide a not-so insignificant reload boost. My guess is about 1-2 seconds over the 10.2cm’s screw breech. Compared to the 6 motions required to operate a screw breech (rotate, open, place shell, ram, close, rotate), it’s just 2 (laying the shell at the bore and ramming it). With ready ammunition, supply is basically instantaneous. In this, the 12cm will come out on top, even if mitigated slightly by the 10-pound increase in the shell weight. This weight difference should only be noticeable after long stretches of ammunition transfer in combat and should not account for too much change. As for specific numbers, I guess 11 RPM will work, versus about 9 for the 10.2cm.
            For ammunition brought from the magazines, it’s about the same. Naturally the ROF for both will drop off. 8 RPM for the 12cm should be the absolute minimum, and 8 RPM nearing the maximum for the 10.2cm.
            In regards to the 10.2cm having an automatic breechblock of its own, that will help stabilize the difference to where they perform about the same in terms of ROF. Due to round weight differences, the 10.2cm will now perform slightly (in terms of milliseconds) in ROF.
            But ROF is not all there is. You have to consider all aspects about the weapon and its intended purpose.
            A note about the burst charge: It’s 1.5x (50%) greater than that of the 10.2cm. This is definitely not an insignificant increase. About 1.4 extra pounds of burst charge. Considering how low the burst charges are at these calibers, this is a rather large increase. Note that this will also improve the anti-air capability with such an increase and thus time and resources that could be better spent elsewhere don’t have to be spent trying to reinvent the wheel, but smaller with the 10.2cm.
            The muzzle velocity is lower, slightly impairing ballistics but this is rewarded by having a barrel life nearing 1,000 rounds compared to 600 that can be expected of a 10.2cm’s chromium-plated bore.
            Manual operation for both, but though the 10.2cm should be rotating faster, the 12cm isn’t far behind.
            The 10.2cm is, of course, lighter but that’s to be expected from a smaller weapon.
            I assume they ditched the 4.7″ because they A.) Don’t have the information we have. B.) Are better accustomed to the 10.2cm. C.) Were, as said, locked into 10.2cm production before they had obtained the 12cm examples. This, rather than an under-performance on the 12cm’s part.
            Proven that the ROF is in favor of the 12cm until the 10.2cm gets its automatic breech. At worst they have a similar ROF, but if that’s the case the broadside per minute and burst charge per minute is still much heavier. As an intermediate between a 4″ and (what’s effectively an extremely early and heavy 5″) 5.5″ gun, it should be doing well as a jack-of-all-trades. It outperforms the 10.2cm but, naturally, is not going to beat the 14cm. The 14cm reloads rather fast for a screw-bag gun with no rammer. Just 6 seconds? That’s rather impressive. It suggests hoists but I’m not entirely sure. This may only apply to 14cm twins.
            Broadside/Min 12cm (9 RPM): 404 pds.
            Broadside/Min 10.2cm (9 RPM): 297 pds.
            Burst/Min 12cm (9 RPM): 36.6 pds.
            Burst/Min 10.2cm (9 RPM): 24.4 pds.

          2. AvatarBy Justin on

            Good thing there’s often a bucket chain from the magazines to the lockers, as demonstrated in Book 1. Hasn’t seemed to been a problem so far.

            I’d argue that barrel life is somewhat academic when A) you’ve got enough spares, and B) your hull is in need of replacement much more often than your guns are.

            Ditto explosive mass. For planes, given the often size of the airspace “box” you’re saturating, an extra half-kilo means nothing if it misses. And accuracy usually requires a proximity fuse. Two of the most effective AA guns of WWII were the 40mm Bofors and 3″/50, bursting charges both less than a pound each.

            And for ships or ground targets, even if the Japanese somehow got the 4.7’s fire rate down to 9 rpm (which would’ve been mentioned somewhere), 107 pounds is two checked bags and a carry-on! TKO for a tank, not so much for a DD – not unless it hits something important or requires a damage control party, in which case fire rate and accuracy are still more important than a marginally heavier charge.

          3. AvatarBy Zakary Letney on

            I’d forgotten about the chain hoists.
            The note on barrel wear is rather academic but is compensation for the lower muzzle velocity.
            Any increase is an increase. Half again as much by comparison. Again, with the low explosive mass numbers we’re dealing with, this is a large increase, even by percentage.
            I have a chart on USN AA performance somewhere I could reference for that, but both fire much faster and are dedicated AA weapons. Well, that’s debatable for the 7.6cm/50 but by WW2 the only thing that could sink is a small submarine on the surface or other vessels smaller than a DE-sized ship.
            I’ll again note that the fire rate is not higher than the 12cm, and there’s not much to suggest the accuracy is better. A slightly tighter rifling twist (1 in 25 vs 1 in 28). The high muzzle velocity does help rounds reach the target faster but isn’t a direct cause of accuracy. The 12cm likely has similar ballistics owing to energy retention from a heavier round yet a lower muzzle velocity and is less likely to be swayed in exterior ballistics.
            Let’s look at an overall list:
            10.2cm – 12cm
            Twist: 1in25 > 1in28 (marginal)
            ROF (Ready Stow): 9 RPM max < 11 RPM max
            ROF (Magazines): 8 RPM < 8-9 RPM (marginal)
            Burst Charge: 2.71 pds 830 mps (12cm has better energy retention)
            Barrel Life: 600 < 1,000
            Range: 14.56 km (20/deg) 1in28
            ROF (Ready Stow): 11 RPM max = 11 RPM max (marginal, millisecond increase due to lighter round)
            ROF (Magazines): 8-9 RPM = 8-9 RPM (marginal increase, same as above)
            Burst Charge: 2.71 pds 830 mps (12cm has better energy retention)
            Barrel Life: 600 16 km (45/deg)
            Traverse Speed: Manual – Manual (Likely slightly in favor of the 10.2cm)
            So there’s that. You’ve got a weapon more effective than the 10.2cm even with DP and an automatic breechblock.

          4. AvatarBy Zakary Letney on

            Agh, that got all screwed up when it got posted.
            Ah well, nothing for it I guess.

          5. AvatarBy Justin on

            Sorry, human bucket chain – Mallory and Kaufman running from the wardroom to the lockers. Thanks to the Cats, they’ve likely got enough spare hands… though yes, that likely tilts things slightly in favour of the 12.

            I’ve yet to find a source that says that anything but ultra-near misses contribute to AA. You don’t get much larger than the Yamato’s beehive burst rounds, and those were useless.

            Again, do we have anything but marginal advantages for either one that would justify a complete retooling and replacement of the Union’s main guns? This is starting to sound like the Firefly/Easy 8 argument.

          6. AvatarBy Zakary Letney on

            The Firefly is just a development meme and sacrifices way too much for that 17-pdr gun. 76mm M1 is a good anti-tank weapon but not too much as an anti-infantry. 75mm M3, of course, better fulfills that role. It’s like saying the ZiS-2 or ZiS-4 on a T-34 makes it better as an overall tank just because it has more armor penetration.
            It’s too late to adopt the 12cm now anyway. The 10.2cm is in full production and the 12cm will be phased out, especially with the plausible introduction of a 10.2cm vertical sliding wedge DP gun which will put the 12cm in the ground permanently. It’s kind of sad because the 12cm does very well at being just a bigger 10.2cm: it maintains the same ROF or better firing a heavier, larger round and with a greater burst charge and – no matter how probably marginal – anti-air performance. The most notable difference in ballistics is the loss of muzzle velocity that can be directly attributed to an increase in barrel life. But the 10.2cm is what they chose and they definitely can’t change it now, unless they bring it back for a larger destroyer design – or maybe they just make twin 10.2cm mounts for ultimate spam. Who knows. We’ll just have to see.

          7. AvatarBy Justin on

            If the Union can make all the logistics and weight issues work, a twin 10.2 mount would be insanely effective.

    2. AvatarBy Alexey Shiro on

      Well, generally because there were actual attempts to improve four-piper’s (of Wickes and Clemson classes) armament, including installing the 5-inch guns. It never works good. The “Wickes”-class was designed essentially as ocean-capable torpedo boat with enormous torpedo salvo – for her time, 12 tubes were an awful lot, and contrary to the popular opinion, “Wickes”-class were designed to fire full broadside at once using the offset of main gyro to turn at pre-set angle after entering the water (it was brand-new idea at this time, and USN sailors were fascinated with it). They never were actually designed to be an artillery platforms. One of the reason why USN did not improve that type of ships further was exactly that admirals wanted more artillery power.

      Reply
      1. AvatarBy Zakary Letney on

        I’d forgotten that Mr. Anderson does not use ships with real service histories. Which is rather unfortunate and very limiting. I’ve already read his reasons why.
        I’m familiar with what the Wickes and subsequent Clemson-class destroyers are designed to do. I didn’t know about the torpedo abilities. An unconventional way to launch a torpedo. Sounds like an extreme version of a G7a.
        Naturally with their length to beam ratio they would not make the most favorable gunboat destroyers. However, the reduction of torpedo power gives quite a lot of extra space in terms of weight. So even though the conversion would increase weight on the deck by 18 tonnes, the removal of the original torpedo armament cuts this down to 3.5 to 4 tonnes. Increasing deck weight on something as light as a Wickes is finnicky. It would be much easier if it was a wartime DE. Either way, I would see the increase in firepower as a necessary choice in regards to the Alliance’s more modern opponents – even though I can assume their next step will simply be creating a copy of the 5″/38, rendering both obsolete in one fell swoop as well as the entire Walker class once a more suitable modern destroyer design is accepted. I can say with confidence this design will at least come up once in the upcoming book. I doubt this proposed vessel will reach production for a while, though. Why do so when you can have quantity over quality?

        Reply
        1. AvatarBy Zakary Letney on

          Note: By “both obsolete” I mean the 4″ and 4.7″. If they create standard 5″/38 rounds – which, honestly, should have been on the Santa Catalina as they were throwing the nice 5″ guns overboard to get S.C. through – then they’ve successfully created a better weapon than the 140mm. For the Japanese, this is one of the listed reason s why their 5,000 and 5,500-tonne cruisers (now 8,000 tonnes and obese from constant retrofits) needed replacement.

          Reply
        2. AvatarBy Alexey Shiro on

          “An unconventional way to launch a torpedo. Sounds like an extreme version of a G7a.”

          Not exactly, it’s just a heading gyro being set offset before launch, so essentially torpedo is launched “already deflected” and upon entering the water it try to correct that. It became a common technique for the ships with un-rotating tubes (like submarines).

          “– even though I can assume their next step will simply be creating a copy of the 5″/38,”

          This gun is not exactly simple. High-angle dual-purpose mounts were… quite complex.

          Reply
          1. AvatarBy Zakary Letney on

            A large, electric-powered mount like the 5″/38 definitely won’t be easy. However, when they are able, it will definitely be the end goal of destroyer-caliber weaponry. Replacing the 140mm will only make light cruisers like GRAY even better. Based on Reddy’s familiarization with them before his time on Walker and the fact its been in service since 1934, it should be a known weapon.

          2. AvatarBy Alexey Shiro on

            The end goal would be guided missile)

            “Replacing the 140mm will only make light cruisers like GRAY even better.”

            Er, no. It would make them essentially near useless as surface combatants. While 5-inch/38 was a great destroyer gun, it was definitely not a cruiser-grade weapon. Its range, weight of shell and ballistic are too mediocre. Cruiser us nainly a gunnery plateform, so its pointless to arm it with a guns that could not use it advantages.

            “Based on Reddy’s familiarization with them before his time on Walker and the fact its been in service since 1934, it should be a known weapon.”

            But from where they would took a fire control computer?

          3. AvatarBy Zakary Letney on

            The end goal within their possibility would be the 5″/38. Maybe a decade or two after they get radar (and proxy fuse ammunition) they will finally be able to create a basic guided missile, perhaps with their own rockets developed from Grik models. IAW the timeline we can expect to see over the course of the books is all that I am considering.
            So, for me, the end-goal of possibility within the expected timeframe of the series for destroyer-caliber conventional weaponry (which does not include missiles) is the 5″/38.
            As for the 5″ vs 5.5″, I’m siding with Japan’s reasoning according with the armament of their 5000 tonne (Tenryu) and 5500 ton (Kuma, Sendai, Nagara, the works) cruisers. Note that despite the 3″ of armor (which is heavier than those cruisers and I find that very amusing) the ship only displaces 3900 tonnes (4300 short tons) maximum. This cruiser barely just passes into destroyer leader territory, and is essentially the lovechild of a C-Class cruiser (as stated in the series) and the Yubari – both of which are no match for designs of the 1930’s. I don’t even consider Yubari as anything more than a DD killer. She’s just a built-up version of a WW1-era destroyer, and in actual surface combat should act as an armored destroyer squadron leader, and could possibly prey on elderly CL’s, or perhaps disable some.
            The 140mm will have greater AP performance, no doubt, but will not be enough for modern cruisers – not that she should be fighting them in the first place. This leaves her as a destroyer-hunter, firing high-explosive ammunition. In this capacity the 5″ will be superior, just as Japan had correctly deduced. Could you even imagine seeing this 4,000-odd short-ton cruiser fighting a Konigsberg? A Nurnberg? Galissonniere, or even Emile Bertin? I doubt she’d stand too much of a chance against a Capitani Romani, whether they magically make it into the series or not.
            Yes, the ballistics, shell weight, and range are better, including penetration values. 15.9 km vs 20.1 km. Range matters a little less since combat will be done with enemy destroyers in most instances. The 5″ does have a chance against CLs (3″ armor) with special common within 7km.
            At 10 RPM the 140 produces 838 pounds broadside per minute. (63 ilb burst charge per minute)
            At 15 RPM the 5″ will produce 828 pounds per broadside per minute. (109 ilb burst charge per minute).
            The reason for these statistics is that the 5″ gun can fire nearly the same broadside weight per minute with a 58% increase in burst charge weight per minute, assuming a 6.3 versus 7.25-pound burst. 10 RPM is the maximum for the 140mm, but considering 15 was capable of HMS Delhi from her magazines and up to 25 RPM from ready stow…later integral hoists will only increase GRAY’s ROF. Include that the AAC Mark 52 round acts similarly to a HC round with 8.4 pounds of charge. The 5″ has room for improvement. The 5.5″ is a very outdated and ineffective cruiser weapon, and anything larger will be wasted on something as tiny as GRAY. Repub CAP’s can deal with enemy cruisers – I hope.
            Miscl. advantages also include: much lighter, capable of firing at any angle with a hydraulic ram (140 must be lowered to 20 degrees for manual ramming), much longer barrel life, and vertical sliding wedge breech.

          4. AvatarBy Zakary Letney on

            Oh, yes, the GFCS. This will hopefully be created alongside the new weapon. A simplistic and crude gyro as seen on the wooden frigates could work, alongside optical rangefinding. An actual gyro supported by radar will hopefully be there or come shortly after the 5″/38 and its mounts are created, but may come later as improvements. So, until then, GRAY will have to suffer the same as everyone else: optical rangefinding and a lack of of a stabilization system. Note that DE’s during WW2 lacked a GFCS and as far as I know had optical rangefinding as well for their two 5″ guns.
            I think GRAY will be like Yubari. I think there are more cruisers coming, but if the Alliance had time they should have utilized her as an experimental for larger designs.

          5. AvatarBy Justin on

            Question is, can they build a 5/38? If just knowing about a gun was enough, they could’ve skipped the 14cm and gone for a 6/47.

            I wouldn’t count the Grays out entirely. The League transferred from the Meditteranean in ’39; that means Duquesnes and Condottieris more than Nurnbergs, and if two Giussanos can get sunk by a pack of DDs, than the Gray is definitely somewhat relevant.

          6. AvatarBy Zakary Letney on

            Giussano and Barbiano were attacked by radar-guided destroyers under the cover of darkness and sunk by torpedoes fired from less than 1,000 meters. Their guns had just about nothing to do with the cruisers being sunk. Though, had the guns struck the cruisers, damage would have been done but I doubt it would have penetrated the 24mm plating. Even if it had, there’s an 18mm secondary citadel plate with a 20mm armor deck roof. Maybe the 14-12mm upper, but that wouldn’t have done any damage to sink the Giussano’s in combat that night in any conventional manner. (“Armor” data from Gli Incrociatori Italiani). I think the 140mm guns will able to penetrate the Giussano’s and Emile Bertin, but I don’t fancy the chances of a “cruiser” with six 140mm guns versus one with eight 6″ guns with range far exceeding Gray.
            As for being able to build a 5″/38. Will it be possible? Yes. Eventually, and most probably by the end of the series, a 5″/38 will be built. I consider it to be most probably the best 5″ gun of the entire war. A true jack-of-all trades weapon. The price of that weapon – time, having to make shittier mounts before powered ones with hydraulic rams, a lack of a proper radar-guided GFCS, etc – is yet to be seen. There may be other designs before the 5″/38 is introduced.
            The 6″/47 cannot be mounted on anything the Alliance currently have and I don’t think any of Walker’s crew is actually familiar with it. At all. It would suffer from the same problems as creating a 5″/38, but expand those issues and multiply them several-fold.

          7. AvatarBy Doug White on

            Hey Zakary I gotta tell you that while I like your train of thought the one thing the Alliance doesn’t have is time or at least not too much of it. Certainly not measured in a decade or more before the League comes knocking. So hoping for what they can’t possibly produce it not what they need to do.

            Granted they should be researching like mad and that’s what Letts and crew are presumably doing but in the meantime they need stuff yesterday.

          8. AvatarBy Justin on

            A 5″ is possible… but within what timeframe? Nothing to reverse-engineer, and no expert metallurgists or engineers, so it’d likely be down to trial and error; the 14cm’s less useful, but is available.

            Group consensus suggests that the Union’s best option is to attack under cover of darkness and close to knife-fighting range. Get close enough, even a 3″ can penetrate.
            You’re right though, it may go pear-shaped if neither side has radar… though Cats and raptors do have better night vision…

          9. AvatarBy Zakary Letney on

            To: Doug
            Thanks, Doug. And you’re entirely correct. The best current armament choice for the GRAY is without a doubt the 14cm/50. It’s the best cruiser-sized weapon they have, even if it’s kind of lackluster comparatively speaking – especially in the numbers placed on GRAY. The main point I’m arguing in that the 12.7cm/38 – should it be able to be produced – would be the superior weapon to GRAY’s current armament. It would take 10-11 single 5″ guns to reach the amount of weight taken by the six 14cm guns on her. Not that you could FIT 10 or 11 12.7cm/38 guns on her, but just a note I’m making.

            To: Justin
            In regards to Alliance night attacks, that may be their best bet overall. It would rely on Lemurian night vision and a lot of torpedoes. Better torpedoes than what they have currently. Preferably the Type 93, if there’s anything on Hidoiame’s crushed corpse. That would give them an extremely solid edge against what, currently, seems like insurmountable odds.
            I still do not fancy the 140’s chances against enemy light cruisers, even at close range. German cruiser’s turtleback is shitty and thin for their light cruisers but exists and will likely keep the 14cm rounds out, most noticeably at close ranges. Though the 50mm belt is nothing and will certainly be penetrated if left unangled at anything easily within 10km or possibly more. Her other most likely victim could be the Giussano-class CL’s which have basically nil armor. Within 7km she can basically penetrate anything that isn’t a Zara (or maybe Bolzano in some instances), but she’ll likely be withered under return fire with spotlights on her once she’s detected. And she’s only GRAY. The loss of GRAY will be huge to the rather small Alliance naval force. More torpedo tubes should be added if they don’t want to lose her in night attacks. The guns are for destroyers but otherwise may or may not penetrate angled or maneuvering cruisers and is pretty much unreliable. I like the fact they basically have a Wickes broadside of 10.2cm guns as well but may need to be removed for more torpedo tubes – the safest way to conduct night attacks. Gun flashes might blind Lemurians or reduce their ability to see.

          10. AvatarBy Alexey Shiro on

            “The end goal within their possibility would be the 5″/38”

            Actually, a simple self-defense MCLOS type missile (like Sea Cat) would probably be simple to achieve. Stabilized gun mounts are enormous pain to design and build, and fire control computers are very complicated.

          11. AvatarBy Justin on

            Zakary: Solid summary, though IIRC there’s another Gray-class CL in the pipeline, so she’s not entirely indispensable. Besides, all the heat’s going to be on Savoie (and if she goes down, the Allies are in a whole lot more trouble).

            WRT Long Lances, I’m not sure if you were here for that discussion, but the IJN found out the hard way that compressed oxygen is extremely volatile and best avoided.

          12. AvatarBy Zakary Letney on

            Owing to the fact that the Alliance, as stated, doesn’t have a whole lot of time, it does make sense. However, the loss of GRAY will be the reduction of the Alliance’s current known cruiser force by a whole 100%. Even 50% if you do include the second of the GRAY-class. 20% if you include the 3 Repub CAP and her incoming sister.
            I know from conversations elsewhere that the Type 93 is quite volatile and has a tendency to explode violently when strafed by aircraft or hit with shrapnel. Hopefully, in a night attack, neither of those will happen. If they can place the torpedoes under the weatherdeck or under a plated platform on the deck. Desperate times call for desperate weapons against ships they can’t hope to sink even with their carriers and would likely just crush Savoie.

          13. AvatarBy Justin on

            Gray’ll be missed, alright, no matter how many reserves the Union has. But as with Santa Catalina, she was built to sail into harm’s way (albeit not this much harm) – can’t really afford to keep anybody on the bench this round.

            Well, as per Devil’s Due, the new Union torps have a range of ~6,000 yards, rounding down from Ordnance’s 10,000 (5.5-9.1km?), and they’ll likely need to get just as close anyway in order to use their guns. There’s a world of difference between sneaking up on Amagi and on an entire fleet, yes, but there is a chance for the torpedo line as-is.

          14. AvatarBy Zakary Letney on

            Which is all the reason more they can’t lose Gray as she’s currently the only operating cruiser and the Alliance’s best bet against enemy destroyers. To mitigate this chance while also allowing her to get into combat most effectively would be to solely use her torpedoes against larger targets and attack scouting destroyers where possible. If she reveals herself in the night, it’ll go south very quickly. Combination of BB secondaries, 6″, 8″, 12-15″ (depending on what they have) all coming Gray’s way. She’ll be sunk in minutes.
            I still don’t fare her chances against an enemy cruiser in an even fight. She’s at a big disadvantage with the range she needs to close just to penetrate an enemy cruiser’s belt armor. Even with Giussano – most probably going to be used as a scout cruiser and opponent for Gray in the upcoming book – Gray cannot outrange the 6″-armed cruiser at all and even at close range will be very vulnerable to her AP. It would require the most brainless adversary for the Giussano to get cocky enough to close instead of kiting to use his speed and gun range advantage as well as angle what negligible amount of armor is on the cruiser.

          15. AvatarBy Mason McCormick on

            Don’t they have the 5″ on U-112?

          16. AvatarBy Justin on

            Sure, but right now none of the good guys have anything they can use in a fair fight. Best they can hope for is to keep the enemy spotted from the air and pick & choose their engagements.

            I mean, Walker got to within 7km of Amagi in Crusade, and three Royal Navy dreadnoughts, of all things, snuck into 3.5km at Cape Matapan; the Italians, not prepeated for a night action, didn’t even have their guns ready! Not saying the League’ll be that incompetent, only, don’t underestimate the element of surprise.

          17. AvatarBy Zakary Letney on

            Thank you so much Mason. I’d entirely forgotten about U-112’s 12.8cm battery, even though I’d been so hyped about the possibility of what that armament could entail for the Alliance if domestic copies were made.
            The 5″ guns on U-112 are the 12.8cm/45 SK C/32 naval gun. A rather unassuming weapon and certainly not close to late-war 5″ weapons but would provide the Alliance a good, basic pre/early war non-overpowered 5″ weapon. U-112 is the perfect choice for this. Finally, a 5″ gun for the Alliance!

          18. AvatarBy Zakary Letney on

            I’m not saying that it’s impossible to sneak within 7km (or closer) under the cover of darkness – it is, and has been demonstrated time and time again and was the basis for IJN DD torpedo runs until radar ruined their fun – but I AM saying that it’s suicidal for Gray to reveal her position in the face of the League, especially if they’re in a fleet of multiple cruisers. That is, unless some larger plan is going on and Gray can be risked firing her guns and being spotted and targeted. If she can, then it’s all apart of the plan.

          19. AvatarBy Justin on

            Well by that standard, it’s suicide for any of them to reveal themselves, but they’re probably going to do it anyway.

            It’s not that bad. From what we’ve seen, the League are arrogant, used to being the top dogs… and from personal experience, night shifts are boring as hell.
            So if they sail all the way across the Atlantic, being told to expect minimal resistance, they could be any combination of overconfident, relaxed, and/or tired. Even one of those could seriously affect their reaction time, especially if the Union waits for the torps to hit before opening fire.

          20. AvatarBy Mason McCormick on

            I can see it now: the Allies spot them en-route with a Nancy, but the LoT ships don’t have the fuel to waist looking for who launched it like Kurokawa found out in Iron Grey Sea. So them being arrogant won’t think they have much that can damage them: a carrier or two, Walker, and sail/steam wooden frigates. I don’t know if it would do anything, but would having the planes watching them fire flares? As a way to kill their night vision, keep them focused up? And if they turn on any spot lights, have some sharp shooters with rifles try to bust them. Of course they will want to shoot the flares in such a way as to not reveal themselves. By the way, the nancys that they send to do this should all be armed with .30s in some way (PB-1F, or such)
            Anyway:
            First night, they do nothing, get them used to hearing the planes.
            Second night: Walker,Ellie, Grey and the two new DDs make a torpedo attack. (No Mahan, she’s to slow). Then after several hours while the League ships congregate around the wounded and sinking ships, the DDs and CL return to fire the rest of their torps then run. (The league is arrogant, so might think it was a one time thing, also might think it was Walker, Mahan and the PTs did it, but fired ALL their torpedoes.)
            Third night: now they are focusing their attention close to the ships, so will not be ready when Savoie and the Repub CAPs get near and fire as many salvos as they can before running.
            What do you think?

          21. AvatarBy Zakary Letney on

            Honestly, in a regular action between the two, without a larger plan in the works, it would be suicidal for them to open fire. BB secondaries and cruisers open fire while escorting destroyers chase down and sink the generally inferior Walker-class. In a standard night action between the LoT fleet and what the Alliance could muster, opening fire with the main battery is pretty close to suicidal. Opening fire after the torpedo run could work, but now the cruisers are maneuvering and the 140mm AP is far less effective despite the range. It would take multiple 14cm salvoes to do any significant damage to the cruisers anyway, and destroyers need to be constantly corrected for in the darkness and it becomes difficult to hit them.
            (Night 1, First Attack) I can the first action being a nighttime torpedo run. If you do decide to include Mahan, that’s 40 torpedoes from 2 new Walker-class, Walker, and Gray. Add +2 torpedoes for each MTB involved. The outlying screen of LoT destroyers will take the first torpedoes, lessening the chances that a cruiser and then the battleships take them. I can see several destroyers (a dozen or possibly more, just from the insane wave of torpedoes) sunk, and two-three cruisers. Unlucky battleships take a couple of torpedoes or so. Battleships can tank the torpedoes, especially since they’re not hitting near the keel and slam right into the TDS. Any surviving cruisers that were hit with torpedoes will survive but will no doubt be disabled and may be left behind or lag behind the main fleet. Subsequent gunfire in the chaos may cause damage to more of the unfortunate outlying destroyers. If the Alliance takes the fleet from both sides (20 torpedoes for each side) and rapidly disengages the LoT’s fuel may come into play here. The League will be forced to take the losses, which will not be insignificant. However, they will not fall for the night attack again so easily and any subsequent night actions will yield far less damage. The first action will have to be devastating and may include carriers. Torpedo bombers would be great about now.
            (Night 1, Second Attack) HOWEVER, a second attack on the ships attempting to rescue survivors – god, if there are any after the flashies and the LoT doesn’t decide to just leave them – or ships damaged by torpedoes and lagging in a naval action will be easily possible especially with the Repub CAP’s and Gray involved. Throw in Savoie for maximum damage but she’s not required. Do this, rather than losing ships trying to attack a now very vigilant main fleet.
            Though I do like the idea of having a second torpedo run. The lights from the burning, sinking destroyers and cruisers will provide targets. However, no cruisers or battleships will be present to pick up survivors. Destroyers will be left to that task, taking in crews for other destroyers and the sunk cruisers. a light cruiser may assist due to space constraints/amount of sailors in the water due to a new lack of destroyers on the LoT’s part. It might be best to take the fleet while they’re already congregated, because now they’re spread out and this reduces the overall effectiveness of the torpedo runs.
            Carriers cannot engage in the daytime. The planes are too slow and fleet AA defenses FAR too great to even think of getting close to. Carriers in the nighttime may run into each other and without the benefit of daytime will miss bombs more likely. Add that to wildly maneuvering destroyers/cruisers with AA and your chances of landing any ordnance on anything you can damage.
            The battles in reality that these actions will be inspired by are the Channel Dash/Operation Cerberus but more successful and there might be some hints of Denmark Straight depending on how the planes perform.

          22. AvatarBy Mason McCormick on

            About the DDs firing did you think I wanted them to, or where you just adding more info? In case you think I did, then I will say I didn’t.
            About the torp attack, Walker, Ellie, Mahan, Grey, and the 2 other DDs have a combined worth of 48 torps in all. I wouldn’t use Mahan or the PTs b/c they would not be able to outrun any pursuit by vengeful DDs or even cruisers. (25,26 knots respectively) And of course if the other ships fire on the pursuers to help, they will be blasted by the rest.
            As for the second attack I meant for it to hit them on the opposite side from the first, hence the few hours to get into position, although now an attack with half on one side and half the other sounds better. Now with your adding more detail about all they could damage, what about having the second attack focus on the undamaged ships that keep going. Then, at dawn coming out of the sun, have the planes aim to damage as many as possible, but not necessarily sink them, so when night comes Savoie and the Repub CAPs can pick off the stragglers?

          23. AvatarBy Alexey Shiro on

            “So them being arrogant won’t think they have much that can damage them: a carrier or two, Walker, and sail/steam wooden frigates.”

            Tactician rule number zero: NEVER EVER build plan on the assumption that other side would do exactly what you planned for it.

            League knew that Alliance have significant resources. They knew, that Alliance technology improves rather fast. They also knew, that they could not exclude Alliance-beneficial transfers from equation.

            Bottom line? The League would most likely NOT act arrogant, and instead act cautious. If they are particularly devious, they would probably do both; they would send a decoy formation which would seemingly sail without much consideration for Alliance, and a shadowing force that would move with extreme caution behind.

          24. AvatarBy Alexey Shiro on

            “(Night 1, First Attack) I can the first action being a nighttime torpedo run. If you do decide to include Mahan, that’s 40 torpedoes from 2 new Walker-class, Walker, and Gray. Add +2 torpedoes for each MTB involved. The outlying screen of LoT destroyers will take the first torpedoes, ”

            You could not rely on MTB’s in open sea. Even if you could use them, handling them would really be a pain and a slow procedure.

            “I can see several destroyers (a dozen or possibly more, just from the insane wave of torpedoes) sunk, and two-three cruisers. ”

            I can see most of the torpedoes going nowhere, with maybe 1-2 accident hits on something. Torpedoes are NOT that accurate, especially if you are forced to aim at night with only optic. Alliance torpedoes also have rather crude gyros and hydrostates, which means that their accuracy is even less than average WW2 torpedoes.

            “Battleships can tank the torpedoes, especially since they’re not hitting near the keel and slam right into the TDS”

            The whole idea of destroyers outer cover is that they are far enough from main force so enemy could NOT launch torpedoes without being detected.

            “If the Alliance takes the fleet from both sides (20 torpedoes for each side) ”

            And how do you propose to coordinate such action while maintaining radio silence? Night combat is hard to plan, you know. It would be utterly amusing if Alliance formations would mistook each other for enemy and annihilate each other…

            Zakary, you are overplanning terribly.

          25. AvatarBy Zakary Letney on

            To Mason:
            No, that was a response to Justin.
            You hadn’t put Ellis in your previous comment’s lineup so I had assumed you had did that on purpose. It makes sense that she would be there, however. All hands and such.
            Mahan could definitely join the lineup. She’d have an armored destroyer leader and 3 DD’s with her. Gray alone could definitely take a pair of DD’s herself. More if she’s kiting away from them. But I suppose she’s not exactly required for the torpedo run. If I was leading the fleet, I wouldn’t exactly be comfortable sending the ships with the least range of action after a task force moving at 25 knots, especially after making the trip across the Atlantic.
            One side then another is definitely a possibility. Comments by Alexey clarified why doing both simultaneously can’t be done in a nighttime surprise attack.
            I think the fleet will still slaughter the planes with sheer numbers in regards to AA. It’ll be a suicide run just to get ordnance off and just about nothing they have can penetrate the decks of the BB’s AFAIK. The aircraft will have to go through an increasing layer just to get to the BB’s so their primary target will most likely be the widespread DD’s.
            I might leave the planes for sinking the disabled vessels hit with torpedoes. At least until there are some torpedo bombers to utilize in strikes against the main fleet. I’m not entirely sure how Savoie and the CAP’s can be apart of the action while still avoiding the main fleet. The LoT fleet can’t all be sunk in one go. Should be literally impossible. They might be able to fight Task Forces from the main fleet sent to destroy the small Alliance fleet in response to their earlier night attack which would eventually whittle down the LoT fleet to a manageable chunk as more DD’s and cruisers show up to the fight and carrier aircraft can better engage the lessening amounts of AA.

            To Alexey:
            In regards to arrogance, it’s plausible they may be arrogant, because they can afford to be. Very few enemies have actually proven to be intelligent, and those who consider themselves to be usually give themselves the illusion of intelligence. However that could be the new “theme” for these baddies: instead of blindsiding the Alliance with surprisingly quick technological advances, they blindside the Alliance with actually intelligent strategies and tactics. However, we don’t know the personality of the man commanding the force, so who are we to say just yet whether or not this commander or various commanders won’t just lead the fleet to an almost stereotypical Destroyermen death? I hope not. I hope it’s a challenge. The League has always been a little different overall, even if characters like Gravois fit the meta of villain common in the series.

            Excuse the comments about MTB’s. I’d forgotten they can’t exactly operate on sea.

            About the torpedoes. Without Mahan, we have 48. 48 torpedoes fired under the cover of darkness, at what is expected to be close range. It’s almost as if they don’t need to be particularly accurate – in fact, it’s better that they’re not. It’ll increase the spread at close range and increase the likelihood that a torpedo connects.
            Everything depends on the spread of the fleet. In fact, there are dozens of factors that could affect the overall effectiveness of the nighttime torpedo run. With little choice, I’m forced to consider the most logical fleet formation and assume that they’re rather close together. That’s the only real way that the Alliance can hope to inflict significant enough damage to hope to continue the fight against the much larger League fleet. Assume League losses are minimal and they reach a Dom port. What then? Send planes on a suicide run against the enemy fleet in an attempt at Pearl Harbor/Taranto? Maybe if there were torpedo bombers and a lot of torpedoes. This of course assumes that the commander is an idiot and there are enough planes and torpedoes to eliminate the massive fleet. Even a fleet of just destroyers would be a massive threat on their own.
            Destroyers on outer cover. Yes, they’re there as scouts and spotters on the lookout for enemy forces – but what if they’re like the fleet, unsuspecting of the close-by enemy force and unable to adequately spot torpedoes in the water? Who would expect 48 torpedoes in the first place? Fired from the ranges expected, even targets beginning to maneuver still have a good risk of being hit. Despite the close range, some smoke screens to lay cover as they escape would work nicely and the darkness only aids in that.
            Overplanning? Ha. Hardly. It’s a simple, overarching plan. What I’ve done is been to specific about casualties and perhaps about specific methodology.
            Literally the plan consists of three simple parts:
            – Approach the enemy fleet undetected until at torpedo shotgun range (or equivalent – tie back in the unknown spread of the LoT fleet).
            – Launch massed wave of torpedoes.
            – Retreat utilizing whatever cover can be made.
            There’s nothing hard about that, or even overplanned. I’ve just been a little too specific on each part.

            What happens after the night attack? Depends on the results. I’m calling that the LoT fleet will suffer severe damage, namely to the destroyer forces. With destroyers significantly reduced, that leaves the much smaller cruiser and battleship force which can be matched by the combination of CVs, Savoie, Gray, and DD’s.
            But this all speculation, hardly hard fact. Who knows what Mr. Anderson has in mind? He could read this laughing at us, as we have no idea what’s in store. Bickering over something that’s never going to happen. I, for one, am simply excited to see what happens.

          26. AvatarBy Mason McCormick on

            I am glad someone acknowledged the fact that when attacking a fleet, you don’t have to tunnel vision on the heavies with suicidal prejudice. I am fully for them ignoring the capital ships and swarming what escorts are left after the torp runs.

          27. AvatarBy Alexey Shiro on

            “Overplanning? Ha. Hardly. It’s a simple, overarching plan. What I’ve done is been to specific about casualties and perhaps about specific methodology.
            Literally the plan consists of three simple parts:
            – Approach the enemy fleet undetected until at torpedo shotgun range (or equivalent – tie back in the unknown spread of the LoT fleet).

            1) How exactly the enemy fleet would be detected?

            2) What if enemy fleet is moving in several formations?

            3) How exactly Alliance forces would close with the League fleet at night?

            “– Launch massed wave of torpedoes.

            At what exactly? At League vanguard?


            – Retreat utilizing whatever cover can be made.”

            And what if it would not work?

          28. AvatarBy Zakary Letney on

            These are all the various variables I was making mention of – the ones that will ultimately determine the end effectiveness of their torpedo attack.
            The first one we know: a combination of constant air cover and utilization of Lemurian eyesight. The air cover is slated to be at higher altitudes and during nighttime on the night of attack.
            Two presents problems that would make a massed torpedo attack ineffective. Just have to hope they aren’t.
            Lights out, and very rapidly.
            I’m not quite sure why a smokescreen (especially during the night) wouldn’t work as good enough cover to escape with in the first place but I’d really hope the League would be infinitely more preoccupied maneuvering to try and avoid the torpedo wave.

          29. AvatarBy Mason McCormick on

            I would think that the LoT fleet being split into many small forces would be better allowing them to defeat it in detail, one force at a time. The Allies know that they are going to need lots of torps, not to count damage from enemy ships to be expected, so they would take Tara with them, load it to over brimming with torps. You spot the small league force with planes, then make repeated night torpedo attacks until it is whittled down enough to send Savoie and the CAPs in and finish them off. Then repeat it with the next one.
            Of course what if they run out of torps on Tara? They should have the PoF by then, or at the very least, fly them in 2 at a time on Clippers.

          30. AvatarBy Zakary Letney on

            The only problem I have with that approach would be if the LoT fleet consolidated and reinforced an under-attack task force or chased down the Allied fleet.
            Because if the LoT fleet chases down the Allied fleet it’s pretty much over. There’s only so much room in the Caribbean. If the LoT secure the Caribbean and the eastern Pacific then the Alliance can’t resupply land forces and it just becomes very bad very quickly. Add to that and now the LoT can shell Empire cities, shipyards, etc.

          31. AvatarBy Mason McCormick on

            I was thinking it would be in the open Atlantic: normal scout revels LoT fleet, you know the rest. As for the Caribbean, it might be better for them actually. They will have NUS charts, guides and such and with all those islands they could bait/kite them into getting torpedo shot gunned when they come around an island or passing between 2 of them. After all, the Allies will have air superiority and the LoT won’t be able to launch scouts that move out of AA/AAA range of friendly ships for fear of being mobbed out of the sky. And if the ships still chase the DDs, kite them to Savoie and the CAPs.

  9. AvatarBy Justin on

    Speaking of bombers and gunships, do we know what the Union’s operating altitude is?

    Reply
    1. AvatarBy Taylor Anderson on

      Well, even with all the additional ice, there is more oxygen on the D-men earth than ours. More land surface to grow more oxygen producing plants, etc. particularly on the equator, more than makes up the difference. Most “indigenous “ species encountered have developed at or near sea level, however, and it is established that lemurians, at least, begin to struggle with hypoxia between 7-10 thousand feet, (though some, through acclimation they may not have even realized they were getting at first, are able to tolerate higher altitudes. In genera, however, this means that the service ceiling of aircraft (none of which can possibly be pressurized) is more limited to the ability to supply oxygen to aircrews than to the engines, crappy gas or not. This has not been much of a problem prior to League interference because Grik in airships and even Grikbirds were somewhat similarly limited. Oxygen for aircrews and better high altitude performance has only recently become something the Allies really even needed to worry about.

      Reply
      1. AvatarBy Justin on

        Thanks. I wonder if the increased oxygen has been contributing to engine HP as well? More O2 = more fire = more combustion, at least to the uninitiated.

        Reply
        1. AvatarBy Alexey Shiro on

          More corrosion, also. And more barrel wear. And pyrotechnical fuses for AA shells would essentially become unpredictable, because their powder trail burning speed would be faster, throwing all settings into chaos.

          Reply
      2. AvatarBy Alexey Shiro on

        I’m not exactly sure it would work like that. First of all, while the land area is large, the glacier areas are large too. Second, I’m not sure that glaciation actually caused any noticeable change of oxygen level in atmosphere. On Earth it was steadily dropping for last 800.000 years for about 0,7%.

        Of course, since we do not know exactly why, we could assume that it is different in Destroyermen’s World, but frankly, I doubt that it could actually changes much without seriously affecting a lot of physiological and chemical processes.

        Reply
        1. AvatarBy Taylor Anderson on

          I’m not EXACTLY sure either, for the same reasons you say it is difficult to be sure, but I have deemed it so and based it on the reasons I cited as well as others, (such as the abundance of megafauna during the Pleistocene when glaciers were quite advanced. I don’t know if they needed more oxygen or not—we still have megafauna—but like the dinosaurs, I bet they would’ve appreciated it. In any event, it wasn’t just a “huh, I’ll do it this way “ without any foundation at all. And you’re right. Corrosion would be a bigger problem. I can’t dwell on that too much in the narrative but I do have them doing rust maintenance fairly often. But they’d do that anyway too. And you’re certainly right about fuses! But that would hamper the League more than the allies since the good guys had no AA to speak of to begin with, and no AA gun directors. For those, and even Borman type case shot fuses they’ve made, they’ve had to come up with their own tables of fire so again, might not have even known the difference.

          Reply
          1. AvatarBy Lou Schirmer on

            Isn’t the oxidizer built into most fuses/gun powder? Since they’re burning in contained (restricted outside O2) cartridges & fuse casings, how would the external O2 effect the burn rate?

          2. AvatarBy Taylor Anderson on

            Very true. And I’d love to see how gunpowder would burn in space. I was working on an EB welder once but the guy wouldn’t let me play with gunpowder in the vacuum chamber. That said, I doubt there would be much difference in a fixed cartridge. On a world with more oxygen, The chemical makeup of the oxidizer itself might be affected, however. I am NOT a chemist but I know a few and it has stumped them. I know different woods are way better than others for gunpowder charcoal, and even the age of the trees makes a difference, as does what part of the tree is used due to varying grain densities etc. making gunpowder charcoal from trees that may not even exist now, or any kind of nitrocellulose from unknown plant matter……. Fun stuff to think about.

    2. AvatarBy Justin on

      Say, if the Cats are stuck at 10,000 feet, could the League be too? I don’t think O2 rebreathing systems are easy to manufacture and fill with their tech base.

      Reply
      1. AvatarBy Lou Schirmer on

        O2 is easy to come by with simple electrolysis. Pressure pumps to refill O2 bottles aren’t that hard either. It’s a bit hazardous with the explosive risk in production, but they’ve had several years to get it right, so I figure they’re not altitude restricted. Even if they’re not refilling they’re O2 bottles, humans were regularly operating aircraft at up to 15-16,000 feet in our world (higher with acclimatization) & with the higher O2 levels in the DDmen world, should have no real problems at up to 18,000 feet.

        Reply
        1. AvatarBy Taylor Anderson on

          And they have been bottling O2 for a while. Remember the first adventures in cutting torches?

          Reply
        2. AvatarBy Justin on

          And here I was thinking no aluminum = no tanks. Looks like I have some rereading to do.

          Reply
  10. AvatarBy Alexey Shiro on

    A really good solution for Alliance might be this:

    https://ic.pics.livejournal.com/ivagkin/26880913/437022/437022_1000.jpg

    A Soviet PTAB-2.5 shaped-charge/explosive bomb. PTAB means Protivo-Tankovaya Aviatsionnaya Bomba – Anti-Tank Aerial Bomb (2,5 is a weight in kg)

    The PTAB were small, very simple to build, shaped-charge bombs that combined anti-tank capabilities (PTAB could penetrate up to 3 inch of armor, which means that they may penetrate the roof of almost any WW2 tank), and good explosive effect (due to thin body, that made a lot of fragments).

    They were dropped in cassettes, up to 192 bomb from one Il-2 attack plane, and were devastatingly effective against “soft” targets (good against tanks, too). One Il-2 covered a 700 х 100 are with its bombload, creating a zone in which basically any object would be hit by numerous fragments. Essentially they were USSR main general-purpose close support weapon, used both against tanks and soft targets.

    IMHO, but it is a more promising solution for Alliance, than heavy-gunned gunship crafts.

    Reply
  11. AvatarBy Paul Smith on

    When did the US develop gun ships like the AC-47 Spooky? Could the GA use a PB-series ship with say 5 or 6 .30’s pointing out the port side set to converge at about 500 yds & a down angle of 10 to 20 degrees? Set up a crude sight on the pilot’s widow, say a post on an arm & a ring inside the side window? It could fly over the Alliance side of a battle & basically strafe the grik/dominion side of the line. Assuming their still fighting linearly or from trenches?

    Reply
    1. AvatarBy Justin on

      Don’t want to say “no” outright, but remember that a Clipper ain’t a Skytrain; putting all five of her .30 cals (or three of the Type 96 spinoffs, come to think of it) might cause balancing issues.

      And the AC-series’ main advantage is that they can attack the enemy, and the enemy can’t attack them – that requires both air superiority and sufficient altitude. Is 500 yards enough to negate AA mortars or Dommie pterosaurs? It’s definitely not going to work once the League War starts up.

      Reply
    2. AvatarBy Alexey Shiro on

      Must point out, that for WW2, the idea of gunship was well-known – but it relied on powerful dorsal armament for strafing the surface targets, not to lateral one. The USAAF used some B-25 with either 3-inch cannon in nose, or a battery of eighteen (!!!) M2 machineguns. Some British “Mosquito” were also used in that role with four 20-mm guns.

      Also, Italians tested the Piaggio P.108 heavy bomber variant armed with 4-inch cannon (!) for attacks against shipping.

      And USSR equipped two Tu-2 light bombers with a dorsal battery of 88 (!!!) PPSH submachineguns. This system was known as “Fiery Hedgehog”, and looks like that:

      https://topwar.ru/uploads/posts/2012-02/1329657598_03.jpg

      The system worked fine, but reloading was the utter pain, so it was determined that cluster bombs are much better solution.

      Reply
  12. AvatarBy Mason McCormick on

    What would be the possibility/how easy/difficult would it be for them to make amphibious vehicles?

    Also, could they put a .50 in the prop shaft of a P-1C? If so, could they still have the thirties in the wings? What about in the wings of Lous’ P-1D?

    Would the Navy Clan consider using Zanzibar as a base, or could it be used for anything by anyone later?

    Reply
    1. AvatarBy Alexey Shiro on

      It would be problematic. To make practical amphibious craft would require a lot of efforts.

      “Also, could they put a .50 in the prop shaft of a P-1C? If so, could they still have the thirties in the wings? What about in the wings of Lous’ P-1D?”

      Hm, if shaft could be made hollow… but it would probably require to seriously re-engineer the motor.

      “Would the Navy Clan consider using Zanzibar as a base, or could it be used for anything by anyone later?”

      Er, they (quite stupidly) hit it with bioweapon. Nothing would live here for quite a long time.

      Reply
      1. AvatarBy Lou Schirmer on

        Courtesy of Silva. Of course, he put the seeds in Kurokawa’s wounds, so if they acted immediately to isolate & burn the body & sterilize the site, Zanzibar might still be habitable. Probably no one thought of that at the time though.

        As far as .50 cals in the wings of my P-1D, they’d have to beef up the wing structure considerably to handle the recoil & vibration. They’ve indicated new aircraft are in the pipeline, so we may see something a bit more capable carrying .50s either in WoW or the next book.

        Reply
  13. AvatarBy Mason McCormick on

    What would be the likelihood that the League could have wooden aircraft carriers using
    salvaged engines from ships that were dropped onshore by the Squall? A wooden hall should be within the limits of their conquered peoples, mixed with their own engineers and their capability. Having Gravois, who had seen Kurokawas’ carriers, as well as others, before being sent away from Zanzibar. They could use planes like Kurokawa’s since they should be simple for them to make, then crew them with locals that are trusted/ given incentive. (They will all be human of course)

    Reply
  14. AvatarBy Mason McCormick on

    Sorry if I’m filling up all the discussions, but do any of you know why Kurokawa didn’t use gas?

    Also, might we get a grunts perspective, all the ones we meet tend to be leaders/soon to be leaders/close friends of leaders. Of course they tend to be in the thick of it, but would like to see something from the position of a private/corporal and them getting shouted at to get moving and how “The General’s” sending them to this or that place by their sergeant?

    Reply
    1. AvatarBy Michael Clitheroe on

      That is a fair question. Basic mustard gas can be created using salt water and an electric source so not hard to make. Then you need to create shells or bombs that can be pressurized to hold enough gas to make a bombing mission viable. After that you need luck and favourable winds and then the nightmare begins. Even Kurokawa thankfully wasn’t crazy enough for that. I can still remember being told of the long lines of blind men being guided back from the front in WWI. And the tests carried out by the Australians against potential Japanese use of mustard gas in WWII

      Reply
      1. AvatarBy Alexey Shiro on

        Er… Mustard gas is essentially a liquid. It is not require much more than a chemical tank with some dispersion mechanism. It could be perfectly fine used from just the average smoke screen-laying tanks.

        “fter that you need luck and favourable winds and then the nightmare begins. ”

        You do not. The mustard gas is mostly used to disperse it over enemy positions or territory. It is rather long-standing solution, so it could be used as area denial weapon, too; disperse it over road, and it would be quite efficiently blocked for enemy troops movement for some time.

        ” I can still remember being told of the long lines of blind men being guided back from the front in WWI. ”

        Yes, it have horrible effect. But – it is efficient. Of all chemical weapons, mustard gas is probably most efficient, because it affect skin and could hold on ground for long. Generally, I think, Alliance should have limited mustard gas production running – as deterrent in case League would start probing around with chemical weapons.

        Reply
        1. AvatarBy Michael Clitheroe on

          You might want to read some of the accounts by the Australian military volunteers who were experimented on early in the war by their own side to see how well they could fight in the event the Japanese resorted to using it in 1942 as they closed in on the northern Australian coast.

          Equally standard use in WWI required gas shells on the western front which did more than once blow back over their own side gassing their own troops. Chemical weapons are never a valid means to an end neither are biological.

          This may be fiction but based on the moral compass used by captain Reddy and those who would have read and seen the effects of chemical weapons this would be very much a weapon of last resort if the Grik had come to over running the Alliance early in the war.

          As someone who had a relative gassed in WWI my personal dislike of the idea in practical terms I hope is rather evident.

          Reply
          1. AvatarBy Justin on

            Sh*t, having been gassed back in 1918, even Hitler didn’t want to use chemical weapons.

          2. AvatarBy Alexey Shiro on

            With all respect, but “moral compass” is a very relative thing. Alliance have no objection against firebombing with the use of napalm-like substances – which in effect are as horrible as chemical weapon. Moreover, they have no objection against firebombing the civilian population (Grik, but still civilian), which up until 1945 even USAAF considered to be “uncivilized” way to fight.

            With all respect, but this dichotomy is not so much moral, as cultural. Since US military loved to use napalm, they insisted that it is “civilized weapon”, and since they didn’t have much experience with mustard gas, they insisted that it is “barbaric” weapon. Actually, there isn’t much difference from humanitarian point of view.

          3. AvatarBy William Curry on

            Based on statistics from the US Experience in the Great War. chemical weapons had a high morbidity but a low mortality rate. The US figure for chemical weapons in the Great War was 1% mortality. Most causalities,like Hitler recovered with no permanent disabilities.

    2. AvatarBy Alexey Shiro on

      Most probably just because Kurokawa is a naval officer, and thought mostly in therms of naval strategy. In which chemical weapon never was an important part. He most likely just didn’t want to divert his limited resources of chemical industry to mustard gas production – which is efficient only in large quantities – because he have much more urgent works to do, like producing paint, rubber and glass for his planes.

      Reply
  15. AvatarBy Lou Schirmer on

    Since the LOT came from a different timeline than ours & were from a fascist coalition, it’s possible the Italian & French battleships may be Littorio &/or Richelieu class variants. They may have abandoned the Washington & London naval treaties early or even never agreed to abide by them. They only needed to begin construction two years earlier for the LOT to have truly modern BBs in their fleet.

    Reply
    1. AvatarBy Alexey Shiro on

      Well, the existence of Surcouf-type sub clearly demonstrated, that there were at least Washington Treaty; otherwise there would be no 8-inch guns on French corsair sub (French admirals actually considered 12-inch or 10-inch gun for their heavy artillery submarine, or a pair of 7,5-inch ones from old cruisers).

      Reply
      1. AvatarBy Matt White on

        It could have been developed based on other requirements. Perhaps instead of trying to circumvent the cruiser limitations of the naval treaties they developed it to serve some other hair brained doctrine. I can think of a few potential uses that wouldn’t have been practical but may have driven them to develop a one off example.

        Reply
        1. AvatarBy Alexey Shiro on

          With all respect Matt, but to create a submarine virtually indistinguishable of Surcouf, the naval development in CES world must went near-parallel to out in 1930s. Let’s not forget also about much later German submarine, which is also a perfect copy of un-produced 1930s design of our world.

          So, it is most likely that Washington Treaty existed – maybe with some other quotas, but still – in CES world.

          Reply
      2. AvatarBy Lou Schirmer on

        True Alexey, but they may have balked at the London Treaty &/or disregarded the treaties more as time passed. We already have one oddball vessel in the U-112, which wasn’t built in our timeline. Unless you buy into some of the theories out there that say they did build one (Research Project CA-35 etc.).

        Reply
        1. AvatarBy Alexey Shiro on

          Well, the CES obviously considered Britain and USA as their major opponents since at least 1930. So, it make perfect sense for CES nations submarine development to concentrate on long-range ocean cruiser type – like “Surcouf” or U-112.

          Reply
      3. AvatarBy Justin on

        Worth noting is that both the Richelieus and the Littorios fell well within the WNT. And the Italians were planning on building one or two Littorios for the Spanish.

        That said, the Atlantic powers probably kept their best ships at home to watch the Channel; the protagonists really only have to worry about the Italians, who’d’ve probably sent the best part of their navy. That definitely includes the Zaras, and quite possibly a refitted Francesco Caracciolo.

        Reply
        1. AvatarBy Lou Schirmer on

          The French have shorelines in the Med as well as the Atlantic & may not have completely trusted the Italians, so they may have had modern units there as well as in the Atlantic. That said, who knows what ship designs they may have come up with since WW1. The Dunkirk’s were a response to the German Deutschland class, which due to the civil war in their AU, may not have been built. If the French didn’t build them, they may have started the Richelieu’s early. If they were able to expand their infrastructure a bit, they may even have gone straight to the Alsace class instead. If the CES refused to sign the London Treaty & backed away from the Washington Treaty, we could see some interesting designs coming out of Taylor’s fevered imagination.

          Reply
          1. AvatarBy Lou Schirmer on

            On that note, given a squall big enough to take most of an invasion fleet, it might have taken any British task force shadowing it as well. You can’t gather that many ships from so many nation’s & not know it’s coming & British intelligence was pretty decent for the time. There could be an HMS Hood & Nelson (among others) with escorts operating out of the Adriatic or Aegean Seas to worry the LOT. They may not be able to send their most modern BBs to help the DOMs.

          2. AvatarBy Mason McCormick on

            That brings to mind: what about the Atlantic convoys? Are there like 300 cargo ships from WW1-2 and 3-5 different worlds on Britain starting a civilization there?

          3. AvatarBy Justin on

            Maybe, but consider that our Royal Navy put the Nelsons and KGVs in the Atlantic (at least until the Bismarck was neutralized) and the QEs and Rs in the Med. Seems prudent for the French to do the same.

            We’re basically seeing all the OTL classes – Wickes, Amagi, Bretagne, Leone, Alsedo. If I were an author, I’d find it easier to use existing ship specs than pull new ones out of thin air… though going by the Buzzards and M&Ms, plane specs are easy enough.

            Yeah, we’ve speculated about the British. Question is, why would the League think it’s a good idea to take what’s probably the better part of their naval strength and open up a two-front war, unless the situation at home was under control?

          4. AvatarBy Lou Schirmer on

            We don’t really know what the LOT is sending yet & won’t until June.

            “An’ his ‘ducks’re half a dozen battlewagons, as many cruisers, an’ maybe twenty DDs,” Silva stated, matter-of-factly. POF pg. 430

            That’s what they have, not necessarily what they’re going to send. If I was them I’d figure two older BBs, a couple of cruisers & a few DDs would be plenty to overwhelm a couple of old 4-pipers a very light cruiser & some wooden warships. The new Republic ship(s) may make a surprise appearance near the end. That leaves the core of their modern fleet to keep the Med secure.

          5. AvatarBy Justin on

            Actually, Fiedler says that is what they’re sending – albeit the older ones – with the rest holding the fort.

            TBF it doesn’t rule out the presence of the Royal Navy (though I’m sure he’d’ve mentioned it), but it sounds like the home fleet is there mostly due to lack of maintenance and to prevent rebellions.

          6. AvatarBy Lou Schirmer on

            Right, I forgot about that.
            “Perhaps three to five battleships, old and new, and at least that many light and heavy cruisers.” POF pg. 39
            And they could send more if refitted. That’s insane. Either the LOT has the entire CES battle line with them, or the CES nations went on a serious building spree in their AU.

          7. AvatarBy Justin on

            Consider that the 1944 Overlord fleet had six BBs, twenty-two CA/CLs and ninety-three DDs.

            Way I see it, the Regia Marina alone has up to five modernized BBs even without Caras or Littorios, so all the French and Spanish would have to do is send 2-3 BBs each and some old cruisers. Could be anything between a Courbet to a Lyon to a Nelson/Littorio (Franco was planning to have some modern ships, and if he wins earlier he might just get them).

          8. AvatarBy DONALD JOHNSON on

            Murmansk just might be a location and for a civilization because that’s where all the ships would have headed when they were Displaced by a squall. We really should look there

  16. AvatarBy Justin on

    Last time I’ll bring this up, I promise: if the Union suddenly needs squad autos and can’t spare extra assembly lines, it’s worth noting that Joseph Huot managed to MacGuyver a Bren-like weapon out of a Ross rifle, sharing 33 parts and being generally more reliable than a Lewis.

    Might be able to do the same with existing rifles in order to minimize retooling.

    Reply
  17. 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
  18. 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
  19. 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
  20. 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.

  21. 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.

  22. 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
  23. 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
  24. 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
  25. 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 Neal Potts Cancel reply

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