4,939 COMMENTS :

  1. By Scot on

    Do the Allies still have only the one oil well? It makes a real tempting target for the Leauge or the Dominion. And logistically how are they going to supply a world wide war effort from one refinery. And why is their only petroleum engineer running around the jungle with a machine gun?

    Reply
    1. Taylor AndersonBy Taylor Anderson (Post author) on

      Ha! Welcome, Scot! No, not only are there lots of oil wells around Baalkpan now, the whole of Tarakan Island has become a fuel producing facility. Others exists elsewhere, though haven’t been stressed. The Impies are getting oil out of California for their transition to oil-fired boilers, and it’s been established that the Nussies burn oil in their ships–understandable with their reserves. What hasn’t been discussed sufficiently is the Repub fuel source. I hope to get to that soon.

      Reply
    2. By Lou Schirmer on

      Welcome to the jungle Scot!
      Given their location & technology derived from SMS Amerika, they’re probably currently running coal fired double or triple expansion steam engines. With the alliance made with the Union, they may start to shift to oil fired engines. They would have to import oil for the ships though. Since they have plenty of coal their land based machinery will probably remain coal fired for the foreseeable future.
      Our version of South Africa does have very small amounts of oil, but no useable oil fields with their current WW1 era tech, maybe their world is different & does have accessible oil. Only Taylor knows.
      If by petroleum engineer, you’re referring to Courtney, I think he’s supposed to be some sort of ambassador, but likes to go out & look at stuff & on one seems to be able to say “NO! Sit! Stay! Good Courtney!” The way he gets into things, he’s liable to be the next one to cash in his chips.

      Reply
    3. By Matt White on

      While Courtney is the only person who can be considered an expert on petroleum, and one of the few “real” engineers alongside Ben and Spanky his involvement isn’t as necessary on the oil side anymore. His largest contributions there were with his charts of deposits known to Shell which turned out to be accurate enough as well as his knowledge on refinement techniques. At this point his charts for deposits have no doubt been copied and he and the Mice have no doubt trained enough personnel on how to extract, refine and store oil that he doesn’t need to be as involved. His main roles now are ambassador, boffin at large and as the Captain’s primary non military trained council. At this point he is serving his ambassador duties by working with the republic. In that regard he’s done a lot of good work and the same goes for the other people’s they’ve met like the empire. People just like Courtney and either because or in spite of his eccentricities he has become an effective statesman. Of course most good statesmen and intellectuals are eccentric so it’s probably a requirement.

      Reply
  2. By Paul Smith on

    Assuming a U.S. ship gets transported from our timeline and it has a load of M1 Garands, how hard would it be to make copies that use a 20 round box mag, like a BAR? It seems like this would be easier to produce than the 8 rd en bloc clip they used.

    Reply
    1. By Paul Smith on

      of course, that’s assuming the Alliance is making BAR mags.

      Reply
    2. By Justin on

      There actually was such a Garand during that period, the T20. No problems with it, Japan just quit before production could start. Most of its features ended up in the M14 years later.

      Adhering to the KISS principle however, command’s probably going to give the M1s to the Raiders and order M903s instead. Mass production of gas-operated rifles would be a bit much for the Union or Republic right now.

      Reply
      1. By Matt on

        I may be remembering this wrong but I believe initially the garand was intended to use box magazine but it was swapped in favor of the enbloc clip for cost reasons. Box mags were well understood by the time the gun was developed so there is no reason it couldn’t be done. They actually pre-date enbloc and stripper clips by a few years.

        Reply
    1. By Taylor Anderson on

      Outstanding, Lou. I think we can consider that definitive. Any specific objections?

      Reply
      1. By Paul Nunes on

        The Gray has no need for Nancy’s.

        Her guns are short ranged and no need for a spotter. If she needs a scout there is Nancy’s and Clippers in the support flotilla.

        That is taking real estate and filling it will flammable planes and aviation gas that should be another 5.5 or a range finder turret from Amagi.

        Every where Gray goes there will be aircraft available to support her.

        Reply
        1. By Lou Schirmer on

          I think it’s more a reflection of Reddy’s obsession with air cover after the Asiatic Fleet got wiped out by the Japanese. The Nancy’s are more of an early warning system than anything else.

          Reply
          1. By Justin on

            Always figured it was a holdover from the early books, where there was no Air Force and the DDs always ended up being the support.

            Gray simply follows that trend; she’s a CL, even more likely to go adventuring solo/with Walker, so she needs her own scouts and bombers. The CVs have their limits.

    2. By Lou Schirmer on

      She has plenty of HP since she’s running 8 boilers instead of the 6 required by the three turbines. I rated her at 39K SHP (1.5 times Walker HP), but with the extra boilers, think she’s actually turning 45K SHP or more. One thing I think they do need are basic splinter/small arms shields on the 4″/50s, since they have a tendency to get into musket range of the enemy.

      Reply
      1. By Justin on

        Technically, all three turbines are rated at 23-26k shp: 69-78k overall. That’s one mean hot rod.

        Reply
        1. By Lou Schirmer on

          If you look at the Wickes/Clemson specs, they say about 26K SHP total, which is about 13K per turbine. If the Gray was running 70K+ SHP, she’d be planning & running a rooster tail at over 40 knots. It would be a sight to behold!

          Reply
          1. By Justin on

            So either physics is wrong, or the author is. I think this is our cue to slowly back out of the room…

          2. By William Curry on

            Three Walker plants would be about 76,000 shp total and would drive a 4000-4500 light cruiser at about 35 knots, assuming a good hull form. Check out the USS Marblehead CL.

          3. By Lou Schirmer on

            The Omaha class were 3K tons heavier & had 14K more HP to do 35 knots. With 76K SHP I’d think the Gray would be pushing 40 knots pretty hard.
            Then there’s the issue of fitting six turbines (3 Walker plants) into the Gray. They’d also need paired reduction gearing for two turbines per shaft, or if not, figure out how to run six screws out the back. They’d need some bodacious propeller guards. :)And if they’re running three Walker plants, the boiler count goes up to 12. With all that in a 4K ton hull, she’d have very short range.

          4. By William Curry on

            When I say Walker plant I’m talking about two boilers and one turbine. 3 plants equal 6 boilers and 3 turbines in total.

          5. By Justin on

            Eight boilers, actually – two to a funnel.

            At any rate, we know Ellis and Geran-Eras could get 37 knots out of four boilers and two turbines, so there’s definitely been an increase in HP. How much, jury’s still out.

          6. By William Curry on

            The forth stack might be an intake for the forced draft fans rather than a boiler exhaust. On some ships it was a dummy.

          7. By Lou Schirmer on

            //When I say Walker plant I’m talking about two boilers and one turbine. 3 plants equal 6 boilers and 3 turbines in total.//
            Sorry, I was thinking of a Walker plant as the whole shebang (2 turbines & 4 boilers). I’m good at miscommunication.

            Still, going from the Walker plant, with 2 turbines & about 26K SHP total, adding a turbine & arriving at “at least 69K SHP” for the Gray, doesn’t seem odd to anyone?
            I’ll cease clubbing the mangled & bloated equine corpse now.

        2. By Matt on

          I think that rating is for total power, not per shaft. Either way, if two boilers per turbine is enough to run them at full power then I doubt the extra two will make much difference output wise. They could be there for reliability and redundancy sake. Walker and Mahan have had their boilers shot up enough that they may want extras in the new design. Not to mention the QC issues with components means they could be down one at a bad time. Maybe its just designing for reliability?

          Reply
          1. By Justin on

            That’s what I thought at first, but then Letts goes on and says “Add three (engine) shafts together and we come up with at least sixty-nine thousand.”

        3. By Lou Schirmer on

          I brought the HP issue up as a possible error in Devil’s Due, but Taylor never weighed in on it one way or the other. Going by the Wickes/Clemson specs, each turbine should be delivering about 13K SHP. If Taylor is doubling that, they must be running serious super heat & very high pressures with the new boilers, which would also explain the boiler tube failures.

          Reply
          1. By William Curry on

            The boiler tube failures were from too much sulfur and phosphorus in the steel that makes the tubes brittle. This causes cracking when the tube ends are rolled into the sheets. The micro-cracks spread as the tube is heated and cooled causing contraction and expansion. This causes the crack to spread down the tube suddenly. It called zipper cracking.

          2. By Lou Schirmer on

            I figured it had to do with manufacturing defects rather than superheat, but without Taylor revising the turbine specs to each putting out 13K SHP or so, folks are having to go with the Devil’s Due specs on page 37.

    3. By Steve Moore on

      Beautiful. I think we’re spoiled, though, because we have the benefit of looking back at WW2, whereas Reddy and company don’t have the advantage of armies of boffins.

      Saw the TB again and thought, just the thing for coastal work defending choke points. And a small enough scale to quickly train up Impies and Nussies for independent operations.

      Just a thought, would U-112 be able to make underwater supply runs through the Pass before Gravois gets there? I’m thinking he’s going to cut a deal with Mayta; the general gets the army by stopping the impalings, and Gravois gets the fleet and the seat of power. Getting things like fire control, M2’s and a few Derby’s they can start copying would be a huge force multiplier. Not to mention supply runs the other way, from Alexaandra. Both would be fairly free of LOT interference. Cargo subs worked in the Phillipines.

      Reply
      1. By Charles Simpson on

        You don’t need a sub to run freight between the Republic and the Union, two ironclads sailed between Sonzee and the Ungee River so regular freight ships can go through this port.

        Reply
        1. By Lou Schirmer on

          Might use it to send stuff to the NUS folks. Small cargos, liaisons, technicians, precision tools, designs etc.

          Reply
          1. By donald j johnson on

            A bunch of the clipers being built will do a better and faster job because the league has no airpower in the west and no way to build up one. The range of anything they provide the doms will not be sufficient to harm a clipper from anywhere in dom held territory.

    1. By Taylor Anderson on

      No, we were actually shooting at Ft. Hood Memorial Day weekend. On the other hand, we got some WAY better footage (5000 frames per second) at the Yuma Proving Grounds some years back while engaged to doing a documentary for the History Channel. Unfortunately, the footage belonged to the Army and I have never been able to get anyone to take responsibility for letting me post it. Like the footage you directed us to, it was live fire, but it also showed (in addition to much more graphic shockwaves) that a ball of plasma actually extends almost unmeasurably briefly backward as far as the axles. Remember, in action, the #1 and #2 men are standing there when the gun is fired.

      Reply
      1. By Doug White on

        Seeing the canister balls flying down range gave me a whole new appreciation for just what firing canister at troops would do.
        Wow.

        Reply
    1. By Doug White on

      That was pretty good stuff, wonder how much that cost him to reproduce (the long mag). Interesting how he learns and teaches at the same time. Thanks for sharing!

      Reply
    1. By Doug White on

      William, that was a great video to watch. We’ve all heard how the Chauchat was one of the worst weapons of all time, but it was interesting to watch it in use. Thanks for sharing.

      Reply
      1. By William Curry on

        The Chauchat wasn’t perfect as it was the first true automatic rifle (and used as such) as opposed to a light machine gun. The automatic rifle along with rifle grenades was the key to overcoming emplaced machine guns during the Great War. The Lewis Gun was a better weapon, albeit heavier, but it was used as a light machine gun, in a separate section rather than an automatic rifle at the squad level. The Chauchat was available in significant numbers and, in war, good enough now beats perfection in the future.

        Reply
        1. By Matt White on

          The BAR was an even better solution for the automatic rifle role than the Lewis gun which was firmly an LMG (albeit a very good one. Having said that the BAR isn’t great either, its heavy, expensive, has a small magazine and overheats too easy. There were some good modifications of it but the US Army never adopted any of them.

          IMO a better solution than HMGs, LMGs, auto rifles, battle rifles etc is to have an Infantry rifle and a GPMG like the MG34. While not excellent in any particular role it is good enough for all roles and the simplified logistics are a huge boon. Logistics win wars. Add in an SMG (blitzer) and sidearm (1911) for niche roles to round everything out and that’s all you really need for your small arms. Four guns. Anything else is either special use or artillery.

          Reply
          1. By Justin on

            I doubt it. It’s a good idea, but as smart as the Marines are, they’ve been doctrine-ized on BARs at squad-level and crew-served MGs in reserve;* they’re probably never going to even imagine a universal MG until the MG34s spray their trench. Ditto the OTL Panzer Korps and sloped armour.

            Until then, they might try converting Springfields to LMGs, like how the Canadians made the Huot out of the Ross. Not the same, but unlike the Browning Auto, it’d have interchangeable parts and a (seemingly) more heat-resistant barrel.

            *A doctrine that the modern USMC is reverting to with the M27 IAR. No strong opinions either way… although suppressing fire’s going to be real hard with just STANAGs.

          2. By William Curry on

            In WWII the USMC squad was 13 men. A squad leader and three 4 man fire teams. Generally each fire team had one BAR, one Thompson SMG and two M1 rifles. The US Army squad was generally 12 men, the squad leader carried a Thompson, the Automatic rifle man a BAR and the rest M1’s. The Marines considered each fire team a maneuver element. The Army used the BAR as the squad base of fire usually with the automatic rifleman and one to 3 others for rear and flank security and the extra ammo that they carried. The others were used as the maneuver element. The Marine squad had more flexibility, but the Army squad was more capable of sustained fire power from the BAR. The Germans based their squad around the MG34 or MG42 machine gun as the base of fire with the riflemen as the maneuver element. This is similar to the Army set up. A machine gun has an enormous appetite for ammunition and thus requires ammo carriers who also provide flank and rear security for the MG. One an MG opens up it usually becomes the draws everybody’s fire. The usual way to attack an MG is from the flank or rear, hence the need for security. The Marines used the BAR more like a modern assault rifle rather than a squad base of fire. Like and M1 with a much larger magazine capacity. Originally automatic rifles like the Chauchat and the BAR were intended to be used primarily in the semi-auto mode, with the full auto mode reserved for final stages of the attack or defense. They also had a second man who served as loader and a third who carried extra ammo and provided security. This was the Great War pattern. Beginning in the 1920’s the automatic rifle was integrated into the squad with all the squad members carrying extra loaded mags for the AR. This was in contrast with the AR as a separate 3 man element. This was in keeping with the general flattening of the organization as the infantry section was abolished, with the squad directly subordinate to the platoon instead of having the squad as a part of the section which was part of the platoon. So keep in mind that the weaponry has to be integrated with the organizational structure.

          3. By Matt White on

            @Justin, it’s mostly wishful thinking on my part. What is far more likely to happen is that they will developed based on what they know. And what they know are US Marine infantry doctrine circa 1941 and US Marine and Navy small arms from the same time. It’s much easier to reverse engineer a gun you have than it is to develop one from scratch. So they are going to mass produce BARs and Springfields. While not optimal, they will get the job done. Its easy to say they’d be better off with an assault rifle and gpmg but doctrine and available designs dictates what they will work with. The Union can only afford time spent on novel engineering where there isn’t already an established pattern, that’s why the new ships are based on Walker and the Nancy’s use Wright designed engines. I think we will see more original designs post war, if there ever is one. At some point they will need to standardize and modernize so much of what they have now will be surplused into the new growing economy to make room for equipment in a military that can afford to carefully develop its tools and weapons.

          4. By Justin on

            Then we agree. Like I said, the protagonists can only apply unconventional thinking if they realize the conventions exist. And in the case of MGs, they don’t.

            Still, even with just rifles and auto rifles, they’ve got to reverse-engineer and set up production lines for both. Tthere’s a good chance that some intelligent Cat or “happy little accident” along the pipeline might lead to (for example) a quick-change barrel or higher capacity mag; the French reworked the BAR into the FM 24, and that was in service as recently as 2006.

          5. By Taylor Anderson on

            Just wondering if anyone has made a post since the 12th? I’ve been noticing some website issues. Of course, if there is a problem, I probably won’t see your post! I’ll know it didn’t come, though, and I can get repairs started.

          6. By Taylor Anderson on

            Hi Lou. Well yours came through, so I guess folks are just busy. On the other hand, what prompted my concern was that I have not received anything on the direct contact feature in months. I figured folks just preferred posting on my facebook or the Association page. On a whim, I decided to test it and send something to myself. It never came. The possibility that people have been trying to contact me for a long time and I never saw it, probably making them think I just blew them off is NOT ok.

          7. By matt white on

            Still here, and I assume everyone can see my posts. I think the conversations just have an ebb and flow. We end when we’ve said what needs to be said and wait until someone brings something else up. I prefer this site to facebook, I deleted my account some time ago and the reddit community for the series is mostly dead. So here I am.

          8. By Generalstarwars333 on

            Reddit is, as I understand it, a discussion board website where people discuss things. A reddit community is a group of people on reddit who discuss a certain thing. There’s probably a reddit community for just about everything. I think. I don’t really go on it much myself as I tend to shy away from most forms of social media.

          9. By matt white on

            @Taylor, reddit is a website (www.reddit.com) where users can make their own sub forums known as sub reddits. They can cover just about any topic, news, hobbies, politics etc and the communities self moderate for the most part. Some have very large userbases and others are very small. The destroyermen sub reddit is http://www.reddit.com/r/destroyermen. Its a small community right now, only about 90 people have subscribed.

      2. By Paul Smith on

        If they got rid of the huge holes in the mags (mud & dirt magnets) & the overheating in the barrel sleeve, it probably would have a much better rep!

        Reply
        1. By William Curry on

          The opening in the magazine was so the loader could tell when when the magazine was about empty so he could have another one ready to change out. The Chauchat is historically important as it’s the ancestor of all of today’s selective fire military weapons including the assault rifle. The M16 and AK are concept descendants of it. It was the first truly single man portable and operable selective fire weapon. In concept, an assault rifle is a refined Chauchat.

          Reply
          1. By Matt White on

            I wouldn’t go that far. The chauchat is an LMG, maybe an automatic rifle. Assault rifles aren’t just defined by mechanical function but also by doctrine.

            The witness holes in the mags are understandable from a design perspective but completely ignore the realities of trench warfare. Which makes them a failure. The shortcomings don’t end there though. The long recoil action is poorly suited to a shoulder fired weapon. It’s difficult to fire one accurately because the thunk of the action combined with the recoil is too disruptive. The recoil forces your sight picture up and the weight of the bolt and oprod forces it down. Too much reciprocating mass. That’s not an indictment on the designers, it was WW1 and arms tech had a long way to go but the chauchat is primitive.

          2. By William Curry on

            The purpose of an assault rifle is to lay down suppressive fire to cover the maneuver elements of a squad, in a weapon that can easily be carried and operated by one man. That’s exactly what the Chauchat was designed to do. In effect, issuing assault rifles to everyone in the squad means everyone has his own Chauchat and can fulfill the automatic rifleman function. I never claimed that the Chauchat was perfect. It had a lot of bugs it was also designed and produced in a hurry during a major war. Saying the Chauchat is a bad weapon is like say the Wright flyer Model A was a bad airplane because it couldn’t fly at Mach 2. Technology gets refined with time and use. The experience with the Chauchat led to the BAR M1918, the Bren gun and others. Realizing the effectiveness of selective fire weapons in the infantry squad led to the development of semi-automatics like the M1 and that led to the development of the StG. In a modern infantry squad equipped with Stg’s, usually one or more men is/are designated as the automatic rifleman to supply suppressive fire to cover the maneuver elements just as if he had a Chauchat. The selective fire squad base of fire is integral to the fire and maneuver doctrine used by infantry today. You could take an infantryman from 1917 or 1918 and drop him in a modern infantry squad and he would adapt quickly and the basic doctrine hasn’t changed. An infantryman from 1914 would see a whole different, unfamiliar squad.

          3. By Justin on

            Right, but that’s an automatic rifle, not an assault rifle. Unlike the Sturmgewehr or Kalashnikov, the Chauchat and BAR did not require an entirely new carbine round, nor were they designed or used to replace the battle rifle; they were always intended as portable squad-level MGs.

          4. By William Curry on

            The designers of the StG and the AK were looking to put the firepower of the automatic rifle into the hands of every infantryman and REDUCE the weight. In order to do this they had to reduce the power of the cartridge to reduce the level of recoil to keep the weapon manageable in full auto fire. The reason the Chauchat and the BAR were so heavy was to keep the recoil of their full power cartridges manageable. By reducing the power of the cartridge to control recoil they also had to accept a reduction in effective range to 400m (440y). The US Army attempted to do this in the 20’s and 30’s by adopting the .276 Pederson cartridge, which was slightly more powerful that the 7.92×33 and had an effective range of 600 yards. The reason they were willing to accept a reduced effective range and power is that they realized they didn’t have to worry about killing horses anymore and the indirect fire and long range fire modes had been taken over by machine guns and mortars. They made a trade off in effective range and killing power, that they thought they didn’t need anymore, to get the firepower of a Chauchat into a lighter package. The concept of the squad automatic rifle evolved into the assault rifle over a period of two decades. I’ve stated before that if the M1 rifle had been chambered in .276, made selective fire and given a detachable box magazine we’d still be using it.

          5. By Justin on

            The BAR may have been directly replaced by the M14 and M16, but its role was replaced by the M60, M249 and M29 – the guy who holds it is literally the “automatic rifleman.”

            Again, there’s a difference between auto rifles & assault rifles. One fulfills the “full-auto heavy suppressing fire” role, the other is lighter and more general-purpose; I wouldn’t want to clear a house with a Chauchat.

          6. By William Curry on

            You missing the point. It’s not that the Chauchat is an assault rifle, but that it started the chain of development that led to the assault rifle. The M60 and the M249 are not automatic rifles, they are light machine guns. Yes, the line between an LMG and an automatic rifle is fuzzy. The Bren is a good example of that fuzziness. The M15, which was the Automatic rifle version of the M14, didn’t work because it was too light for the recoil of the 7.62×51 cartridge to be controllable in automatic fire. The Marine Corps M27 is on the fuzzy edge between an assault rifle and an automatic rifle.

          7. By Justin on

            “In concept, an assault rifle is a refined Chauchat.”

            Nobody’s doubting its innovative status, but it was the ancestor of the ancestor of the assault rifle; it wasn’t one itself, even in theory, any more than Australopithecus was human.

            That’s the point. It’d take a few more generations to jump from “let’s make a hip-firing MG that a squad can walk toward a trench with” to “let’s make an automatic carbine for everybody in the squad.”
            World war doctrine still called for one BAR in a fire team, and the other two being rifle teams (https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-915734e676a91b974982701ca85ad7a1); the concept of each team being capable of both fire and manoeuvre didn’t catch on until later.

          8. By matthieu on

            It was a little bit different. At least for the French army.

            The basic unit was 12 men
            – Fireman half group: 1 chief, 1 FM or Bar, 3 ammo carriers (riflemen with ammo), 1 caporal
            – Riflemen half group: 1 Grenadier (rifle grenades), 5 riflemen

  3. By Paul Smith on

    With Muriname now in the allies camp, you now have a naval aircraft designer (radials) and an army aircorps desiner (inline). Maybe Mallory & Muriname can bounce ideas off of each other to improve the aircraft of the Alliance. Hopefully before they run into the League.

    Reply
    1. By Doug White on

      I wonder whether Muriname will be ‘all in’ or just go through the motions? He seems to be in it for himself and his comfort maybe more than anything else. More so than the German Sub Crew he needs eyes on him for awhile.

      If he can help build a better flying machine then all just might be forgiven. Of not, exile to somewhere out of the way might be an answer.

      Reply
      1. By Justin on

        I’d say Muriname’s more like Okada. He just couldn’t find it in himself to switch until now.

        The worst he’ll do is tie up Mallory et al in endless heated R&D arguments – after all, the Japanese design theory that created the Zero was almost the exact opposite of the American one (Wildcat).

        Reply
        1. By donald j johnson on

          Muraname is a man of honor. He would not desert the man who is his senior, however when that man is dead he feels free to do what he feels right.

          Reply
          1. By Paul Smith on

            Hopefully, they can talk the technical aspects of their craft, figure who has better metallurgy,heat treating and such, and blend the best aspects of both camps. Muriname, probably, has more real-world education and Mallory has more booklearning, technical, theoretical education. IIRC, the 9 cylinder radials in Muriname’s aircraft were rated 380hp, the 10 cylinder stacked radials in the fleashooters were 375? Were the jap engines more efficient? Better carburetion? Larger displacement? Supercharged? Is there any possibility of duralumin or other aluminum alloy being created?

          2. By Matt White on

            It’s come up many times before but duralium or any form of aluminum is going to be very difficult and a huge technological barrier for not just he union but everyone. Bauxite is easy enough to find but the only process to refine aluminum that could be known to them is the hall-heroult process. This process requires cryolite an aluminum salt. The only major deposit was in Greenland. It is possible that it can be found elsewhere on this world but unlikely.

    2. By Justin on

      The Union counted eight torp bombers, two fighters and Amagi’s E8N. Which ones they’ll send where to do what, that’s the question.

      Reply
      1. By Charles Simpson on

        Other than the odd Grik BB in the lakes on the Zambezi torpedo and dive bombers are worthless in the African theater, so how to get the few they have in the Gulf of Mexico where they will be a vast improvement over Nancys in the upcoming battle with the League. Murinamie’s best cortibution would be to help spur the Union’s multi engine carrier aircraft production IMHO.

        Reply
        1. By Matt White on

          I agree. Right now the Union rely on the Nancy’s and the larger seaplanes for bombing and attack roles. The Nancy’s are slow and limited in payload. They can’t carry a useful torpedo. The seaplanes are more cumbersome to use tactically. Muriname’s attackers would be a great basis for a proper carrier attack aircraft. The ones they have are too few and valuable for a combat airwing but a great start for production and they can be used as trainers. Multi engined carrier ops is also a new challenge.

          Reply
      2. By Paul Nunes on

        The Japanese torpedo bombers are also dumb bomb capable. Install the proper raxks and use them to drop iron bombs on Grik targets.

        Use their better operational range to scout Grik territory and drop bombs on supply depots.

        Reply
  4. By Paul Smith on

    On the new construct destroyers, do the copies of Walker have the extended rudder of Walker? Will they have the same agility as Walker? Are the guys at Baalkpan working on an improved model, or replacement already? Since the Gray had issues with the rudder, are they going to modify the design before making more copies or send blueprints to New Britain or RRP? Will they send copies to their allies, or have them create their own ships? Is the Grand Alliance setting up a design bureau capable of heavy ship design?

    Reply
    1. By Justin on

      A unified multinational BuShips would be nice, but lack of reliable communication – and more pressing concerns such as a two-front war – means that swapping notes will likely have to wait until Sofesshk and/or Nuevo Grenada fall and they can connect all three factions with radios and a Clipper service. Captured Grik zepps might work too.

      There’s a brief mention of the Imperials making Walker-sized hulls and possibly larger ones. And the Republic’s currently building ironclad cruiser/battleships called the Imperator-class.

      Reply
    2. By donald j johnson on

      The Baalkpan shipyards only have walker to work with. The Mahan was to badly damaged that she is not good for a model. The shipyards will copy as close to exact as they can so yes the copy’s will have the extended rudder

      Reply
    1. By Doug White on

      The difference, of course, is they built it and we didn’t. Too bad.

      Reply
      1. By Justin on

        Too bad for the French and Germans, that is. Any ship an 8″ was designed to shoot, she’ll be able to shoot the sub right back – and subs aren’t supposed to be shot at in the first place. Same reason why the British battlecruisers didn’t work out too well.

        Reply
        1. By Taylor Anderson on

          And don’t forget the poor Argonaut. (1928-1943, sunk in action with all hands). Designed as a minelayer, she was also built and considered to be a “cruiser”, or “strategic scout.” At 381 ft and displacing over 4,000 tons, she was the biggest US sub until the nukie boats came along. She also carried two 6″-53 guns, the biggest ever put on a US sub.
          She was a terrible boat, though she probably would’ve been OK as a minelayer–which she never did–and was better than any other US boat for carrying commandos (Marines for the Makin Island raid), but she was entirely unfit for a war patrol (which she was performing when sunk.) To big, slow, and unmaneuverable. Many of the same complaints against Surcouf, and (now :)) U-112.

          Reply
  5. By Lou Schirmer on

    I’m interested in what prompted the return to the lower power ratings for the 10 cylinder radials. Just curious.

    Reply
    1. By Taylor Anderson on

      Actually? It’s called a “style sheet.” This is a confusing document they (sometimes) update with each book, or more properly, I update, in which they keep lists of everything from my corrections on the proper usage of terms, to the spelling of Lemurian names, to Silva’s way of saying certain words, to the way I don’t put “the” in front of a ship’s name, to technical specs listed in previous books. It is a VERY long document. Unfortunately, if I change anything, they assume it is a mistake and arbitrarily substitute the change with what is established in the style sheet. Sometimes they don’t use the right one. Sometimes they decide to change my changes to the style sheet back to what a previous style sheet said. Anyway, I do my best to catch things like that, but . . . there’s an awful lot to catch by now.

      Reply
      1. By Justin on

        Would it help if you mailed them a list of spec changes in advance, or would they ignore that too?

        Reply
      2. By Lou Schirmer on

        So the engines are still supposed to be 365HP. That’s good to know, thanks for the update!

        Reply
        1. By Taylor Anderson on

          Actually . . . nope, the newest variants have had a bit of a boost, but I’m REALLY going to have to make sure they don’t edit that out. But yeah, as of ROB. You’ll note that certain quarters are growing a little dissatisfied with the venerable Nancys?

          Reply
          1. By Lou Schirmer on

            Oooh! More power! Even so the speed increases will probably be minimal although the takeoff & climb performance will be better. The P-1C airframe is probably at or very near it’s absolute aerodynamic limits on a draggy design speed wise.

            Yeah, caught that. For what was hinted at, it’ll need airframe mods to handle the changes. I imagine the good folks in Baalkpan have been working on it though. Some of the guys here & on Deviant Art have had the same idea in the past. We readers still have to recognize, though it’s been a decade for us, not even three years have passed for our heroes. Change & modernization take time & the more modern you get, the longer the R&D period takes.

          2. By Lou Schirmer on

            You couldn’t give us the new HP ratings by chance? Pretty please?

      3. By Steve Moore on

        I’m still annoyed that they can’t get the 48-star flag correct. That’s 4th grade stuff, I still remember the wall poster. Matter of fact, I still remember 48-star flags…

        Reply
  6. By Generalstarwars333 on

    I have a question about the Union’s 32 and 50 pound naval guns: What are they? I know they are bronze, smoothbore shell guns, but I am not familiar with any such weapons in real life. Are they basically like bronze dahlgren or paixhans guns? Or are they scaled up M1841 six pounders or 12 pounder Napoleons?
    Another question: How did the destroyermen know how to make things like 12 pounder napoleons or the mountain howitzers? I don’t recall anything about them being intimately familiar with the design of civil war era artillery, but I might be wrong.

    Reply
    1. By Taylor Anderson on

      All guns since the very first have optimized material. They don’t have wedding bands or traditional “cannon mouth” swellings at the nuzzle. These are unnecessary. Imagine the basic shape of 3″ Rifles. This because they incorporate an efficient strength to taper ratio (sometimes called the Mordechai taper) and Napoleons utilized it, though they did keep a minimal muzzle swell. Confederate “Napoleons” did not. In any event, not only was Captain Reddy familiar with historical artillery to some degree, others would be as well. Just as important, they’d be familiar with their own naval rifles which utilize variations on those earlier tapers themselves. Gunner’s mates would probably have a basic understanding of pressures, tapers, etc. Garret would have. Probably Campeti too.

      Reply
  7. By Charles Simpson on

    During WW 2 gasoline was rationed not to save gasoline of which there was plenty but rubber of which the had little and lost large areas of production to the Japanese. So is part of the reason the Union has not developed truck transport the lack of rubber?

    Reply
    1. By Henry Breinig on

      I reckon that would be part of the reason, though we have heard some mentions and rumors of trucks and other vehicles being in development in the Union.

      Otherwise, it could be a matter of steel and industry being strained by other production needs at the moment.

      Reply
    2. By Steve Moore on

      Wasn’t the lack of rubber trees the problem with making tires for the original P1’s, but a substitute was found in India? Wonder why the Griks didn’t use that for their zeppelins?

      Reply
  8. By Charles Simpson on

    Considering there may be tankers among the survivors of the Misuki Maru as the 192nd Tank Battalion was in the Philippines and they were equipped with the M3 Stuart tank I think a copy of said M3 Stuart may be next tank in the pipe line. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/192nd_Tank_Battalion

    Here is an interesting quote from a British member of the Destroyermen Fan Association, //Steven James you do not need Gatling gun/minigun weapons when you have perfeclty good, EXTREMELY reliable water cooled mahcine guns!
    if you are tlaking about weapons to slaughter normal infantry which does include Griks

    US and British watercooled guns could fire quite literally, for days without jamming, and to be frank, butcher any poor sods in front of them in droves
    those bullets will go through several people and tear limbs off with plain .303 and .30-06 ammo cause they are firing 600 rounds per minute

    and from several guns on those tanks, so folk would often get hit several times, bullets would tumble, fragments would fly, ergo, messy
    (see descriptions of the poor sods of WW1 who did those loony suicidal charges across No man’s Land literally seeing friend’s arms and legs being shot off beside them, ick)

    water cooled guns are too heavy though for infantry to lug around easily however, real PIA
    great for vehicles, who dont’ worry on weight, but they do need armoured covers to protect the water jackets from bullets and splinters

    .50 cal guns also came in water cooled versions, and those on a tank would be *really* nasty
    over heating is real problem with normal .50 cal so you do have to use short bursts, not so with water cooled and the heavy water jacket keeps vibration down, too.
    Much more effective weapon than a 6 pounder gun! seriously.
    “Grik Scythe”?

    Problem with miniguns especially larger calibres, is they need a very powerful electric current for power
    so for a tank for the Allies, that might be the problem, where as, a basic tank using water cooled machine guns would have no engineering challenges and use existing weapons//

    Sorry for the Wall of Text, Charlie.

    Reply
    1. By Owain Alexander on

      Using an M3 would kill a few other birds with one stone. I don’t currently have my tank book on hand, but the Stuart would be a good choice. From what I recall, the Stuart was reliable and well-liked by its crews. The Alliance could get a fast cavalry tank out of the deal. It might also be relatively easy to produce, though I’m not certain about that. Its deployment would ensure they’d have something to throw at any tanks the League might have, as it was designed with the Battle of France in mind.

      Reply
      1. By Charles Simpson on

        The M3 Stuart was a prewar light tank some the heavier up gunned M5 were designed for the war.

        Reply
        1. By Henry Breinig on

          The M5 still used the exact same 37mm gun. However, it did have new engine, sloped glacius plate, and new positions for the driver’s hatches.

          So really the improvements were in protection, maneuverability, and ergonomics.

          Reply
          1. By Justin on

            Technically, there was the M8 Scott (a Stuart with a 75mm howitzer), but that’s still going to be lousy as a main battle tank. Best invent the Sherman and Stug PDQ.

          2. By William Curry on

            The M8 Scott wasn’t a Tank it was a Howitzer Motor Carriage.

          3. By Generalstarwars333 on

            You can still use it like a tank though. It was also just a light tank that they slapped a howitzer on, so it could still be used like a tank. And if you show a picture of an M8 to just about anyone and ask them what it is, they’ll say it’s a tank.

        2. By Owain Alexander on

          Wasn’t that the one you were suggesting? I mean no offense, I am just confused.
          The Stuart isn’t the best tank, obviously. However, it’s something they might have some experts on. It at least provides something to throw into the breach that might have a chance of taking on League tanks considering certain facts mentioned at the end of River of Bones that I do not wish to spoil.

          Reply
          1. By Alexey Shiro on

            Frankly, I think Stuart may be a bit too much for the Union. Their volute spring suspencion might be a tough one to design. They probably should start from something simpler, like tankettes.

          2. By Generalstarwars333 on

            They don’t necessarily need to copy the stuart rivet for rivet. They can base their tank off of it, copying what they can and substituting their own stuff for things they can make. I also remember reading somewhere that the vertical volute suspension system had problems with reliability, and in real life they eventually switched back to the horizontal volute system. They could also use a christie style system with larger road wheels that are independently…sprung? Not sure what the exact term would be, but the point is that they don’t need to use vertical volute suspension if they can’t copy it. I do think that for the time being tankettes might be the way to go though, since they’d be far easier to produce en masse. Maybe put a water cooled .50 in one, and you’ve got something to butcher infantry and take on light armor if needed, although it’d be better to have a dedicated anti-tank weapon for that job. Ooh. You could have versions with hull mounted .50’s as general purpose vehicles, and then versions with hull mounted 25mm’s for use against armor. Something like a universal carrier in design. That’d be pretty neat.

          3. By Matt White on

            There are several different suspension options they could go with. Each having pros and cons. For example the issue with Christie suspension was primarily that it took up a lot of room.

            I think they are probably a ways from something as well developed as a WW2 light tank or even an interwar model like a BT. A lot of these things seem obvious to us but the devil is in the details. Yeah a Christie would be nice but can anyone here actually give me plans detailed enough to work off of without checking books or the internet? This stuff takes development time. Hopefully there were some tankers included in those POWs they rescued who will have some good ideas. Beyond that, the main obvious improvement for them to make is to switch from sponsons to a turret. Thats obvious for even non tankers and they have enough examples of turret rings and the gear mechanism to make that work. The next thing is power. Proper suspension ain’t all that important when your top speed is 4mph. If they can get the speed up to 10 or more then it becomes more important. A proper tank cannon is also needed. I think the 3 incher can fill that role for now. Man how they keep ignoring that useful little gun.

          4. By Taylor Anderson on

            Good. In point of fact, there is an episode in the upcoming Pass of Fire in which a principal character actually rides a Union tank–consider it an A-1 version–and makes a few observations about improvements and deficiencies.

          5. By William Curry on

            You could do worse than to copy the suspension and drive on an FT17. I’ve examined one up close. It would be fairly simple to construct and more importantly, simple to maintain. Not for high speed though.

          6. By Matt on

            @Taylor, I can’t wait. I’m re-reading the series right now.

            @William. I agree, something loosely patterned on the FT-17 seems like the best idea. It’s cheaper to build, more mobile, easier to transport, and more effective. They also had a reputation for being reliable and simple machines to maintain compared to other tanks.

            I think two versions, one with a browning in the turret, and the other with the 3incher, or a scaled down version would work best. The “Female” version can be a mobile machinegun nest and the cannon armed one would be great for cracking the new defenses with Grik have no doubt devised.

          7. By Justin on

            I think anything larger than a 37 is going to need a two-Cat turret at the very least. Not only for efficiency, but because there’s no room for the commander, the gun and the recoil.

          8. By donald j johnson on

            Taylor giving out spoilers. Aggg the world is ending!!!

          9. By Matt on

            A Bit bigger, but the french did make a variant of the FT with a 75mm short barreled howitzer. http://www.landships.info/landships/tank_articles/images/Renault_75_BS_11.jpg

            Better would be a proper tank gun. We’ve discussed the differences between an artillery gun, naval gun and tank gun before. The point is, that takes time to develop and gear up production. Right now its best to fight with what they have, not dream about what they want.

            An FT style 2 man tank with a 3incher in a turret thats a bit fatter would work well against the Grik. Make it proof against small arms and shrapnel. The only thing they would have to fear is a direct hit from artillery or a rocket. They would easily be half the size of the rhomboid types they have now so you can bring twice as many. And manufacture more for the same time and resources. Once The Grik are beat then thoughts can go to the tank they want to go up against a possible conflict with the League.

          10. By Justin on

            Matt: The bottleneck seems to be lack of engines rather than lack of steel. Once that’s solved, by all means.

            General: The 3-incher is the AT variant. Best save the T96 for a Flakpanzer-type support vehicle.

          11. By Matt White on

            For new production the AA would probably be better on a truck. When/if new better tanks come out you could convert FTs to armored AA vehicles. But right now tanks are a more pressing matter than mobile AA so I think priority should go to them.

            I think the Nancy Engine should work. It’s a similar size to the engine in the real FT and quite a bit more powerful. Nancy’s are also close to the end of their life so as production is ramped down for airframes the existing capacity for engines can be redirected to trucks and tanks. Biggest issue is that the gypsy is air-cooled but air-cooled trucks and tanks have been done.

          12. By Lou Schirmer on

            //Biggest issue is that the gypsy is air-cooled but air-cooled trucks and tanks have been done.//
            While the Gypsy engine is was cooled, the engine the Nancy’s have, while a Gypsy derivative, is actually water cooled. It’s got plenty of power for the light tank chassis they can field now. If they want a bigger tank, they could use the 6 cylinder MTB engine, or the air cooled radials.

          13. By Matt White on

            It is? I must have missed that somehow. That’s great. I don’t think the 6cyl is needed. The FT17 had 39hp for its 6 tons. I don’t have the Nancy’s specs in front of me but it’s what? 80hp or so. That’s more than enough. The tank won’t be fast but it will be mobile and maybe a bit less lethargic than the real deal. IIRC the rhomboid mk1s they made are either powered by Nancy engines or the I6 PT boat derivatives. Those things are probably close in weight to the British ones so, pushing 30 tons! Very inefficient.

          14. By Generalstarwars333 on

            Not to mention that having a nancy engine power the tank carries on the american tradition of sticking aircraft engines in tanks.

          15. By Justin on

            Not to be a downer, but Renault’s R35 had similar size/weight and could only get 12mph with an 80hp engine. Likely still going to have the Cats going “I can get out and run faaster!”

          16. By Generalstarwars333 on

            Well, like matt said, the tank wouldn’t be setting any speed records, but it would be better than what they’ve currently got. And 12 mph isn’t that bad. It isn’t great, for sure, but it isn’t too horrible either. And they can always upgrade to the 6 cylinder MTB engine if they need too.

          17. By Lou Schirmer on

            IIRC the 4 cylinder makes 150HP & the 6 makes 225HP, so plenty of HP. They’re probably either geared down or a single speed transmission right now. Good traction, but slow, although on a nice flat surface, they could probably get moving faster. With no real suspension, they’d take a beating inside the tank at any speed cross country & also shake the rivets out of the thing. Very embarrassing when it falls apart.

          18. By Matt White on

            Justin, something to keep in mind is that mobility is not the same as raw speed. It’s the ability to traverse terrain, especially when rough or damaged. In order of mobility for infantry you have good old fashioned foot infantry, then motorized infantry, mechanized infantry and finally air assault be it paratroopers or hellos. Speed is related but isn’t worth much if you get stuck.

            150hp in an FT style tank will not make it fast. But it will make it more mobile. It’s ability to cross steep grades and soft terrain will be improved by the extra torque and power. This is going to be very important against the Grik where road infrastructure is going to be at best stone paving, and only in the city. Everything else is likely dirt which will become mud real quick.

          19. By Justin on

            Problem there is that neither Renault nor Hotchkiss tanks were much good for mobility either; even mildly uneven terrain (let alone ditches or hills) proved difficult. Unless it’s a “slow but steady” vehicle like the Churchill, a bad top speed usually means an even worse average speed.

            Lou has since pointed out that the Nancys actually use 150hp engines, not 80hp, so that’s good. Provided there’s a better gearbox and suspension to go with it, the Union’s (tentatively-named) A-2 should be close to an AMC 35 and actually somewhat competitive in a modern war.

          20. By Matt White on

            The way I see it, the tracks, suspension and gearbox are going to be the hardest parts to work out. Mind I never said they would have great mobility. Just better haha.

            The 3inch is a solid gun and the Nancy motor should work well here. At this point it’s well understood and mature in development. I’d like to keep size and armor close to the FT17 to keep weight down. For two reasons, 1: it’s good enough fighting the Grik and 2: that 6 ton weight will be much easier on the drive train than the 14 tons of the AMC. As for a follow on design the AMC doesn’t look bad though. It’s a straightforward logical improvement.

            Being that the two most important voices in tank development are going to be Alden and Letts though I doubt we would see something like an AMC. None of the crew saw blitzkrieg first hand and Alden is going to be most familiar with pre-war US tank doctrine. That emphasized speed and mobility. They wanted tanks to work like cavalry. That only changed after reports came from Europe about the nature of the war. The Sherman entered service in ’42 but I don’t think Alden had time to get up to speed on modern armor tactics. Long term I reckon he’d want an M2 or M3 Stuart. Any word he can get from the Phillipines survivors would reinforce that notion because the Stuart was more than a match for the tanks the Japanese had. Alden may have his own ideas about tank doctrine but we haven’t heard it yet and I think any changes he comes up with would come from experience he gains using them. At the start of the war pretty much everyone but the Germans had a hard time figuring out how to use tanks right. The good news is since the Grik don’t have any, WW1 tactics will be effective for now. You only need blitzkrieg when fighting another army with combined arms.

          1. By Justin on

            Well, how did the Union build their tanks? How would they build the jeeps and trucks that other posters have suggested?

            Henry raises a good point in that halftracks would need more maintenance than dedicated wheeled or treaded carriers, but most of the resources and the know-how appears to be available.

          2. By Henry Breinig on

            Key advantage of halftracks is that you can train people on trucks, and they can drive those as well as halftracks as the controls are about the same. Thus, less specialization required in comparison with tracked vehicle crews.

        1. By Steve Moore on

          I only suggested half-tracks because they can transport men or supplies, pull artillery, mount artillery, and do a lot of different things. It’s going to be a LONG time before the LOT gets their act in gear to mount an invasion (which in any case would come down from Egypt to secure the oil fields and split the Union by positioning a LOT base in Somaliland, and use superior air power to attack the Union). However, tanks are a long way and an unneccesary distraction now. My guess is that the LOT wants to seize the Carribean oil fields and the Pass of Fire.

          I’m repeating myself, but what the RRP needs is a 3/4 Dodge weapons carrier sized truck. Bigger than a jeep, it can pull a Derby 75 and ammo, supplies, quad MG mounts. Use what your can build a lot of, and that includes giving the RRP PB-5D’s for Coastal Command and plans for P-1’s.

          The ting I enjoy most about this series is that it’s relatively realistic; ok, yes, a certain amount of fantasy is needed, but come on, even the Germans couldn’t build a lot of super-weapons, and were defeated in the end by mass production of less-well-regarded machines.

          Reply
        2. By Paul Smith on

          IIRC, they didn’t handle mud or other loose surfaces too well, the front wheels were not driven. I remember reading one of the biggest complaint the Germans had on the eastern front, was not enough tracked vehicles.

          Reply
      1. By Henry Breinig on

        Trouble with halftracks is supply and repair. You need more parts to service a half track than a regular truck or a tracked vehicle due to the need to have a supply of wheels and tires for the truck portion, as well as tracks and roadwheels for the tracked portion.

        Reply
    2. By Paul Smith on

      If/once the alliance runs into the league, they’re going to need anti tank weapons capable of taking out Panzer III/IV class tanks. a small relatively light canon like the old 3″/23 AA gun off Walker would probably be a good start. The problems I see; no ap round, low velocity (1650 fps vs 2050 fps for the 75mm M2 or 2600 fps for the 76mm M1 canons in the Sherman.) Would stretching the barrel to 30 or even 40 calibers give any velocity increase without modifying the cartridge? Is the breach assembly strong enough to take a heavier propellant charge? If it is, can the artillery guys develop a shorter recoil assembly to fit inside a turret or sponson? If not, can a prime mover be made for a towed gun? A land war against the league will have to be planned for. At least the alliance has a source of indirect fire artillery from the LRP.

      Reply
      1. By Generalstarwars333 on

        They don’t need a 3″/23 to kill something like an early panzer 3/4. Early panzer 3’s had a whopping 15mm of frontal armor–the 25mm type 96’s ought to be plenty. Heck, a .50 cal ought to be enough. The things to worry about are S-35’s and B1 Bis’s–french tanks. The germans make up only a small portion of the league. The majority of the tanks present will likely be french, with a smaller proportion maybe being italian since I think france was a bigger tank builder leading up to ww2. In anycase, they were certainly better tank designers than the italians, aside from the whole single man turret thing, so the alliance can probably expect things like R-35’s, H-35’s, those panhard armored cars with the 25mm anti-tank guns, and similar french vehicles, with some italian tankettes mixed in. That’s pretty much the consensus we’ve come to in the past, right? Also, the RRP’s 75mm field guns might make relatively good anti-tank guns, since they’re based on the french 75, which worked pretty well against even midwar designs despite its age, unless I’m mistaken on that count. I imagine the black powder propellant the republic uses means it won’t have the same kind of muzzle velocity, but it’s already in production and had the kinks worked out, so I say just give it some solid shot and toss those rounds at tanks.

        Reply
        1. By Matt on

          Agreed, given how the world of the league developed I think the French are going to have the kion’s share of tanks. Hotchkiss and Renault 35’s shouldn’t be too scary, they have relatively thin armor. but the SOMUA 35 and Char B1’s will be a serious threat. Their biggest weakness is lack of mobility and for French designs across the board, tiny turrets. But the Union really doesn’t have anything that can take those out. The 75’s might be able to but they would need a proper AP round and good direct fire sights. They currently lack both things. Going off of the real 75, we have a muzzle velocity of 1600fps which is not enough for an antitank gun. If the Union wants to combat tanks they need something more akin to the 37mm in the Stuart. That, with APC ammo can penetrate the S35 and Char B1 at close range ~500 yards. Of course a proper 3inch (75mm) anti tank gun would be even better and capable of also firing a useful HE round too.

          Reply
          1. By Generalstarwars333 on

            The french 75 saw some good service in the anti-tank role when mounted on M3 halftracks, but I digress. I agree with needing a proper tank gun. Maybe if they can salvage the 47mm guns off of that league destroyer they sank in Devil’s Due, those could be a good starting point. As for taking out S-35’s and B1’s, I’d say put a type 96 in the nose of one of the twin engine aircraft(DPM1’s? I forget the name) the union just got from muriname and use those as tank-busters. The 25mm cannons ought to be able to penetrate their top armor.

          2. By Justin on

            Matt: Problem is that they don’t have 37s – it’s 12.7, 25, then straight to 75.
            Technically the Modele 1897 can pen a Tiger (http://catainium.blogspot.com/2016/06/75-mm-canon-de-75-modele-1897.html), and it did in OTL North Africa, but that’s assuming WWII AP rounds that the Allies don’t have. So yeah, the early war doctrine against heavies is probably going to be “run away and call airstrikes” until they develop some.

            General: RoB briefly mentions R&D on a redesigned Type 96. Perhaps the Allies will end up with a Crusader AA MkII in the light tank role? Two 25 mike-mikes in a closed turret should prove a nightmare to League infantry and slow flyers as much as light armour.

            Not as easy against mediums and heavies, though. An S35’s roof armour is 35mm; the 96’s AP can penetrate 42mm, but only at a flat angle within 100m. Might or might not do the job, but if the Cat pilot’s going that low, s/he might as well just bomb it – save the 25s for lighter targets and all that.

          3. By William Curry on

            The Republic 75’s can be improved without a major redesign. Change from straight black powder to semi-smokeless which will increase the muzzle velocity. Semi-smokeless can be made in the regular black powder wheel mill by incorporation of 20% nitrocellulose in the wheel mill. Second they could design a sub-caliber solid forged steel shot encased in a wooden (or other material) discarding sabot to increase the velocity further. Both of these were well known technologies by 1942. Nor do they require extensive development before entering service. They could also probably develop some type of hyper velocity AP shot as well, where the sabot is not discarded.

          4. By Generalstarwars333 on

            Couldn’t they just make a solid projectile for the derby guns and use that as an anti-tank round? I mean, it wouldn’t be as good as an APHE round, but it’d still be better than shrapnel rounds without any fuse on them or using high explosive rounds.

          5. By William Curry on

            They could, but one of the big differences between an AP shot or shell versus a common shell is the use of forged steel rather than cast steel or even cast iron. A cast steel shot is more likely to shatter than a forged steel shot. Increasing muzzle velocity, even to a small degree, aids the shot’s penetrating power. Adding a softer nose cap over the hardened nose of the shot is also a well known (at the time) way of increasing penetration especially at the greater angles of attack, as is a blunt nose, which causes the projectile to turn into the armor rather than skid. There a a lot of simple things they can do to help the anti-armor abilities of the 75’s. Tactically using the guns in ambush in combination with other weapons such as anti-tank rifles or rocket launchers is another option. The standard doctrine for using the 57mm guns in the US Army was in ambush from the sides at ranges of no more than 500 yards in conjunction with infantry men with the 2.36 inch rocket launcher or anti-tank rifle grenades. Tanks unsupported by infantry used to working with Tanks can be very vulnerable. Just about all tanks are rather vulnerable from the sides and rear and from above. In built up areas dropping explosives or incendiary devices on the rear deck of a tank was common. Hence the need for infantry protection. The Germans had Panzer Grenadiere, the US, Armored Infantry and Russians, Tank “Marines” trained to operate with tanks.

          6. By Lou Schirmer on

            Which one would you consider a better anti-tank weapon for immediate use, the Derby gun or the 3″/23 on a land carriage mount? Granted neither one has an armor piercing shell, but I imagine most of the Derby gun proposals could be applied to the 3″ ammo & it’s already using smokeless powder.

          7. By Matt White on

            @Justin, the French 75 could only pen the Tiger with a German made HEAT shell. Which has much more to do with the shell than the gun. HEAT has more or less the same penetration performance regardless of shell velocity. The only advantage you get with a fast HEAT shell is a flatter shot. I don’t think the Union has any basis right now to start HEAT development. If they did then pretty much anything of appropriate bore size would make a good antitank gun. Even the muzzle loading Napoleons. The conventional AP rounds listed seem to be the right numbers for a lower velocity 75mm gun. Very similar performance to the short 75s used in M3 Lees.

            They aren’t penetrating a Tiger with that. Not that they need to. The League shouldn’t have Tigers. Early war French heavies should be the toughest things they have. The Derby as it stands no needs some major work though. It’s currently a black powder weapon IIRC, and uses HE and Shrapnel ammunition. So we need to verify existing Derby guns can take cordite loads. Just because they are based on Mle 1897s doesn’t mean they are the same thing. Breech could be weaker or made of poorer steel for example. A proper cordite loaded shell needs to be developed, this should be easy enough to do. Just make a version of the Walker’s 4 inch shells rescaled to match needed dimensions. Better carriages will also be needed. Something that can serve as indirect light artillery but also has good traverse and gun depression for anti tank duties. Not to mention useful direct fire sights.

            I would prefer something like 37 because it has a lot of practical advantages, a smaller and more mobile gun, with a flatter trajectory which will give you a higher chance of a first shot hit. The advantage on using the Derby is of course we already have them so assuming they hold up to smokeless you have hundreds of antitank guns ready to go. And with the proper carriage you have a useful dual purpose direct/indirect gun. It is however not a small or light gun. 3400lbs or 1500kg and the barrel is 8 feet long.

          8. By Matt White on

            Crude wrote that without seeing Lou’s post. I think the 3’/23 popgun may actually be an even better gun. Its the same caliber, manages to be much shorter and lighter than the Mle 1897 and supposedly the Derby which having a higher muzzle velocity. I’m only seeing weight figures for the gun itself and not the mount, but the gun sans mount weighs around 700 pounds. I can’t imagine a carriage for one would weigh enough to make the whole package weigh 3400lbs. It also has a longer effective range. It’s a better gun in just about every way as far as I can tell.

          9. By Justin on

            Matt: Never said the Derby would pen a Tiger, only that it could with the right ordnance (and true, this also assumes the “Amerikans” got the design 100% right). 1600 ft/s should be enough to end a Carro Veloce or a Renault.

            If they had a 37mm lying around, I’d say go for it; as-is, designing an AT gun from scratch is probably not a good use of resources.

            Ditto on the 3-incher. Another nice thing is that as a naval piece (as William has observed), it can function as both gun and howitzer.
            Only question is how to equip it. Self-propelled or towed? If SP, open-top or closed-top? Turreted? Armoured? Whole lot of decisions to make here; Fiedler’s list can’t be revealed soon enough.

          10. By Matt White on

            Not just a howitzer but it can also be light AA Artillery for the army on the move. Since it was in part designed for that task it should do just fine.

            So that’s 5 roles it can fill, anti tank, direct fire support, indirect light artillery, light howitzer and antiaicraft.

            I think it should be different mounts for the task. Trying to make one do all of those is a bad idea. It will be big, expensive, complicated, heavy and likely unreliable.

            The AT and direct fire mount could be one in the same, the difference there is in ammo really.

            The artillery roles can be one carriage, just need enough extra elevation for the howitzer azimuth.

            And a third for the anti air role.

            Not sure about self propelled variants for now. That requires a reliable mass produced truck of some kind. need to get that figured out first.

          11. By Generalstarwars333 on

            Matt, for the self propelled gun carriage for the 3″/23 you could use a tank chassis for a StuG 3 type vehicle. But in general, for direct support they have the derby gun, for indirect support they’ve got those 150mm howitzers the RRP has along with 3″ and 4″ mortars, for anti-tank use they can use .50’s and type 96’s. The only gap to fill is the AA gun, although really I think for an army on the move .50’s and type 96’s ought to do fine against ground attack aircraft, and they can probably get 4″/50’s in theater to take out heavy bombers going against stationary targets. These are all weapons that are either in production or about to enter production. The 3″/23 isn’t under development(unless I’ve forgotten them mentioning that it is, which I might well have done), and to get it into production would take a lot of effort better spent elsewhere.

          12. By Justin on

            Matt: To my understanding, many gun-howitzers like the QF 25-lber, Soviet M1937 and lefH 18 were capable of direct and indirect fire, essentially fulfilling both surface roles. The only problem is designing the right mount.

            They do have the tank chassis. Not enough information yet to figure out whether or not it’s advanced enough to carry a 3-incher, but it is a start.

            General: Anything above 100mm (4″=101.6) will need to be mounted and towed on one of those 88mm FlaK carriages. Might be best to start small.

            Hey, speaking of mortars, let me change my Crusader idea – swap the closed turret for a swiveling gun shield. Much more versatile, since it can still house heavy firepower, but can also be stripped and used as a troop/supply carrier or mobile mortar.

          13. By Generalstarwars333 on

            I know a 4″/50 is gonna need to be towed and probably emplaced, but since it’d be shooting at high altitude bombers over stationary targets and not at a Ba-65 strafing an allied column, that’s okay. And they’ve already got them in production, so it makes sense to use them. Although…shoot. That leaves like medium bombers open. I guess they do need something to shoot at those with.

          14. By Matt White on

            @General, you certainly could make an assault gun like a StuG. The only problem with mechanized firepower right now is that the current ground vehicles the Union has are not exactly reliable. The current tanks are very much experimental vehicles in nature. They also break down frequently. The union needs more time developing them to make them ready for massproduction.

            Also keep in mind that for Union forces we are still talking about an Army that uses muzzle loading black powder cannons. They need modern artillery yesterday and waiting on self propelled chassis for them will increase the lead time far too much. You also have to factor in the extra logistics of parts, mechanics and gasoline for all of that. The only gas and ICE mechanics they have currently are in the airwings and they cant afford to cannibalize those in the short term while new army mechanics are trained.

            As to which guns to use, I think the 3″/23 from Walker and Mahan is a better choice. It is objectively better than the French 75/Derby for a start and the RRP likely has its hands full fulfilling their own army’s new demands. Also shipping tooling and the technical package for the Derby and 150 will again take time. Then you have to set up manufacturing. The 3″/23 IIRC has already been reverse engineered and can be made, they just haven’t for lack of need up to this point. Ironic considering that it can meet light artillery and AA roles quite well. Lett’s should get on it.

            @Justin, those gun howitzers are pretty much exactly what I’m talking about. Would be very useful and effective. The light weight of the 3″/23 means it can also keep up with the Army even without motorized transport.

            About the tanks, see above. They are prototypes. They need to be at least somewhat reliable to be ready for mass production. They have also been described as a huge resource drain in universe. They aren’t cheap. I think tanks are important but wont be key unless there is a ground war with the League. Instead of trying to build a thousand half baked WW1 style dinosaurs, low level production of prototypes should be continued with a testing program back at Balkpan with the end goal of making a proper modern tank that is reliable and massproducable. Effective towed artillery is more pressing matter at this time I think.

            The first mass produced motorized vehicle should be a truck. They have a million uses and are far cheaper and easier to make than a tank. Tanks are temperamental machines. All of that weight is hard on diffs and transmissions and they break down all the time. Even in WW2 after 20 years of development tanks were constantly breaking down. The Union can’t make an armored division overnight.

          15. By William Curry on

            They could try a short barrel version of the 4″/50. The problem in the long haul with any 3″ is the small size of the bursting charge. Same problem with the 75mm gun in WWI and WW2. Even given a high angle mount, the shell was too small to do the damage required. How ever, good enough now beats perfection much later. I suspect manufacturing capability in the shorter time frame will drive the decision.

          16. By Lou Schirmer on

            True, the 5″/25 was essentially a cut down 5″/50 to make it faster in training & elevating for AAA use & it worked quite well from what I’ve read. The 4″/50 cut down to 30 cal or so should still retain decent velocity with the high pressure propellant charge it’s got. They haven’t got a mechanized chassis strong enough for it yet, but it should still do well as a towed howitzer, anti-tank & AAA platform.
            http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_5-25_mk10.php

          17. By Justin on

            Matt: I get that, but my point is that the Union does have tracked vehicles right now. Baalkpan Arsenal would have to start from square one with a truck – aside from the Fleashooters, they don’t even have rubber tires!

            Another thing is that WWII wheels (to my knowledge) don’t have the same off-road capability as treads, and most of the front line so far has been mud and/or jungle.
            Is a truck or armoured car that much easier to design/build/maintain than a similarly-sized halftrack or tank? If not, it seems better to try modernizing what they’ve already got.

          18. By Matt White on

            trucks are much cheaper, faster to build and generally more reliable and easier to work on. IIRC there has been work on trucks already they just haven’t made it to the front lines yet and a good supply of rubber has also been secured.

            I don’t think either, wheeled vehicles or tracked ones will be ready for showtime in large numbers any time soon. That’s not something you can set up overnight and while the Union does have a lot of aircraft by now they have been churning them out for a few years and numbers, fuel and parts are always in short supply. The units in Africa right now have been run pretty hard and are suffering from attrition and and wear.

            The fastest way, and I mean any real numbers within the next year, to get modern artillery to the front is to start making the guns and sticking them on conventional carriages meant to be drawn by horses and palkas. Once vehicles make it up the guns can me moved over and remounted. That wouldn’t be difficult, just requires some design fore-site like the Alin-Silvas.

            The Union could at this point in the story start churning out 3″/23s on carriages with ammunition within a few months. A great deal of work towards that end has already unintentionally been done through other projects. Getting Republic guns produced at Balkpan requires the transport of plans and tooling at the minimum. Everything for the 3″/23 is already there. Its about as close to plug and play as you can get.

            I also think installing them on older steam frigates is a great way to make them into AA pickets and also give them a huge firepower advantage over Dom ships at the same time. So that should also be looked in to.

          19. By Steve Moore on

            Heavy tanks require transport. No rail lines, not even roads let alone bridges to handle 10-ton vehicles. Build motorcycles instead for the upcoming campaign around the Pass. Use zep motors.

            Start building more PT’s for the Carribean and the west coast of Mexico. Build a combined air/PT base at the end of Baja. Or some of Lou’s TB’s.

            Build what you know, and what your allies can learn easily, quickly. With the exception of the Dom’s, it’s going to be a defensive war, unless they sign a treaty with Halik. And it’s my guess that the Pope is going to be meeting a rope soon, more at the hands of Gravois… or Mayta.

        2. By Paul Smith on

          the velocity of the 3″/23 is already down at the muzzle, how bad would it be at 500 or more yards? And if there are veterans of the 192nd tank battalion, could they recall enough of the tech from their tanks to help with development of equivalent armored vehicles.

          Reply
      2. By Alexey Shiro on

        Pz-III/IV are just tincans; the real problem are the French S-35 and B1 tanks with their thick armor.

        Reply
      3. By Paul Nunes on

        Artillery is the primary tank killer. Tank vs Tank is to be avoided. You want your tanks into the enemy backside killing off infantry and support troops.

        Reply
        1. By Generalstarwars333 on

          dunno if the comment got through the first time, but in case it didn’t, here we go. While anti-tank artillery is definitely a good tank killer, and you’re right about tanks being best used like that, it is inevitable that tanks will encounter other tanks and need to kill them. Because of that, you need your tanks to be able to kill the enemy tanks when they see them. That’s why we’re discussing tank-armaments for the allies and how to deal with the league’s tanks. In a perfect world, the league’s tanks would only ever encounter allied artillery that’s ready for them, and the union’s tanks would only ever be killing league infantry, but destroyermen is not a perfect world. Hence the need for anti-tank armament.

          Reply
  9. By Henry Breinig on

    Aside from all the Mauser 71s, the German members of the Republic was noted to have brought other equipment from SMS Amerika.

    Among these were Gewehr 98s and Lugers. While the G98s are in the typical 7.92 x 57mm, the Lugers are not 9 x 19mm. Instead, they are noted to be in the original 7.65 x 21mm Parabellum cartridge (otherwise referred to as “.30 Luger”).

    This would seem to indicate another possible point of divergence of the world the SMS Amerika came from when compared with the world the Destroyermen came from or our own. The Germans in our world primarily used Lugers chambered in 9x19mm though after the punishing Versailles Treaty in our history they did use some 7.65 Parabellum versions with short barrels through the 1920s.

    Regardless, I think it likely that along with newer rifle production that the Republic would look into more modern handgun cartridges and perhaps even into producing some semi-automatic pistols.

    Reply
    1. By Henry Breinig on

      A Pistol-Carbine in 7.63 Mauser could be interesting, especially if used in a similar fashion to the Artillery Luger (Lange Pistol).

      Reply
    2. By Paul Smith on

      how about the Republic redoing the 7.62 Mauser to the 7.62 X 25 Tokarev specs? If possible, that would be an effective submachine gun round ala the PPD or PPSh. Probably the PPD, since I don’t believe the Republic or Grand Alliance is up to stamping the parts yet.

      Reply
      1. By Henry Breinig on

        Actually, 7.63 Mauser is usable in guns originally chambered for 7.62 x 25. However, the other way around is rather dangerous.

        Reply
      2. By Justin on

        Maybe just have the burp gun shoot 7.62 Mauser?
        Still sounds better than the carbine. IIRC, there was Broomhandle with a stock and longer barrel that didn’t really catch on; pistol cartridges in themselves are generally too weak for intermediate range.

        Reply
        1. By Henry Breinig on

          There was a machine pistol conversion of the “C96” in 9×19 parabellum. That was the M712, and I reckon a version with a longer barrel and a stock would make for a fine submachine gun/ PDW.

          Reply
    3. By Matt White on

      While the P08 in our timeline was in 9mm parabellum, most commercial Lugers pre-war were in 7.65 Luger aka .30 Luger. The SMS Amerika being an odd duck converted commerce raider very well may have been issued commercial model Lugers to save P08s for the regular military.

      A fun bit of information, 9mm is based on 7.65. They use the same case, just in 9mm they didn’t bottleneck it. 7.65 Lugers can be converted to 9mm with just a barrel change. If the world that Amerika came from did adopt a 9mm P08 then the men on board would likely be familiar with it. 9mm is a superior round to 7.65 so it would be a good idea to switch over to it and existing tooling can be used. You only have to change the barrel and remove one step from the ammunition production process.

      Reply
  10. By Doug White on

    I know I haven’t reared my head and commented since the days of trying to figure out which battleship type Savoie was, but hot diggity ROB was really good. Was somewhat saddened by one of the deaths but heck the red shirts can’t always be the ones to die.

    Now I gotta start reading other stuff or else go and read all the back catalog. Oh woe is me (heh heh)

    Reply
  11. By Alexey Shiro on

    Considering anti-tank weaponry… during the war, Japanese sucsessfully tested & implemented what they called “rubber bomb” – basically, a first approach to High Explosive Squash Head (HESH) munition. It was very lightweight and compact anti-bunker bomb, which nose part was made of rubber, so when the bomb hit, the explosive filler (TNT and ultropine) sort-of spread out on the surface of the target & make explosion area greater.

    It was called “Ko-Dan”, and this small 50-kg bomb was capable of crushing a meter-thick reinforced concrete.

    I suspect, that this method COULD be used for Alliance to create portable anti-tank weaponry. Either rocket-propelled, or some sort of spigot grenade launchers (Japanese actually loved grenade launchers…)

    Reply
    1. By donald j johnson on

      If you can call 50 kg (120) lbs lightweight. That would require 2 men or 2 grik to carry and i sure would not want to be near it when it exploded.

      Reply
      1. By Alexey Shiro on

        …I was talking about general principle. There is no reason why it couldnt be downscaled

        Reply
        1. By Generalstarwars333 on

          What’d be great is if they could make it light enough for a fleashooter to carry it(it’s limit is about 50 pounds, right?). Then they can have an anti-armor weapon for all their planes to use.

          Reply
    2. By Paul Smith on

      Do the Alliance or Republic have the capacity for high explosives? Courtney might know how to make nitroglycerine, but would he know TNT? I know dynamite is nitro in an inert stabilizer, would something like that be a first step in higher explosives? what could they develop with enough brisance to give an effective HE round for AT purposes?

      Reply
      1. By Lou Schirmer on

        The Union should. They’re probably using it already in their torpedo warheads, bombs & 4″ HE rounds.

        Reply
        1. By Paul Smith on

          I thought they used BP bursting charges, if I remember correctly.

          Reply
          1. By Lou Schirmer on

            Maybe initially, but if they’re making smokeless powder for small arms & some sort of nitrocellulose or cordite propellant for the modern naval guns, they have the means to make HE. Black powder would be an iffy proposition in a torpedo anyway, due to possible water damage to the warhead.

          2. By Taylor Anderson on

            If you’ll recall, they began using various smokeless powders for appropriate applications and HE bursting charges as far back as Iron Gray Sea. Lawrence’s surviving kin on Samar are almost wholly engaged in making nitrocellulose–and likely many other things by now–there. And though the raw material is still most abundant on Samar, other manufactories now exist elsewhere.

          3. By Matt White on

            They figured out gun cotton a while ago.

  12. By Justin on

    Just to recap, the Allies are now shooting:

    .30 Springfield
    11mm Mauser
    11mm Reichsrevolver
    .45 ACP
    .50 BMG
    .50-80 Allin-Silva

    25mm Type 96
    3″ DP
    75mm Derby
    4″ DP
    4.7″ DP
    ? (spoiler calibre)
    140mm

    10″/45
    340mm

    Not counting small arms from Savoie, Hidoiame or the Beaufort. Once Sofesshk falls, somebody needs to go over this sh*t and standardize it. Pronto.

    Reply
      1. By Henry Breinig on

        I also wouldn’t be surprised if there were some 6.5 x 50mmSR Arisaka rifles or a few Type 96s floating around- if not from Amagi or Hidoiaime, they could be from any of the other known (or future unknown) crossovers.

        Come to think of it, 6.5×50 wouldn’t be a terrible round to standardize on actually as the recoil impulse is low and the muzzle flash is small to almost non-existent. If nothing else, it would be a suitable upgrade to some of the rifles that are still firing .30-40. Conversion to 6.5x50mm would be easier than to a higher powered cartridge like .30-06

        Reply
        1. By Henry Breinig on

          6.5×50 if I recall correctly, is slightly heavier and slower than the original .30-40 loading. It also is likely more suitable for automatic firearms than the Krag cartridge.

          Reply
          1. By William Curry on

            The 6.5×50 had a lighter bullet than the 30-40 and a higher muzzle velocity. 139 grain bullet versus 220 grain bullet. 2475 fps versus 2000-2200 fps. The 6.5×50 was a semi-rimmed case which most people think would make it’s use in automatic firearms easier than the rimmed case of the .30-40; Especially in box magazines.

          2. By Henry Breinig on

            I guess the round I saw for .30-40 was a hotter, new loading. Your info makes more sense, and is more in line with my original line of thinking.

        2. By Justin on

          Not disagreeing, but wouldn’t going from 7.62 to 6.5 reduce effectiveness against Grik and large wildlife? And can they modify the Tommy and Blitzer designs to accept 6.5?

          Reply
          1. By William Curry on

            Not necessarily, penetration is related to striking energy, resistance to bullet deformation and sectional density of the bullet, as well as resistance to yaw upon penetration. Most military 6.5 have a good sectional density and do a good job of penetration. 6.5 M-S was preferred by some elephant hunters for brain shots because of its good penetration on bone.The 6.5×50 can not be used in the blitzer and the thompson as they are blow back operation. The 6.5×50 requires a locked breach. It’s also too long for both these actions which are built around the 45 auto cartridge.

          2. By Justin on

            I’ll defer to the experts. Just observing that the IJA themselves said that their 6.5 was underpowered, opting for 7.7 instead… nepotism, maybe?

            Sure but that means the Allies’ll have to replace their SMGs with a brand new one. Otherwise, they’re still shooting .45 (defeating the purpose of a standardized 6.5×50 round).

          3. By William Curry on

            It wasn’t that the 6.5 was underpowered, it was that the .264 diameter bullet makes it difficult to develop a good tracer and AP rounds. The 7.7mm had a bigger diameter bullet which made making these specialized rounds easier. The US in the 20’s actually felt that the 6.5 mm had better wounding effects than larger caliber, but that the small diameter made it too difficult to develop quality tracer and AP rounds, so they developed the .276 Pederson with it’s larger diameter bullet for this reason.

          4. By Matt White on

            The Thompson isn’t pure blowback, its better described as delayed blowback. In principle delayed blowback can be made to work with powerful cartridges. See the various roller delayed guns HK has made. However I’m not sure how well the Blish system would scale. Its a very different beast compared to the roller delayed system.

            As for the blizter, yeah its a tube gun like the sten or M3. Straight blowback and stupid simple. .45 is pretty much the most powerful thing you would want to use with that system. Any more and it would either become too heavy to be practical or would be very dangerous.

          5. By William Curry on

            The M1928 Thompson and earlier versions had the Blish Hesitation lock. The later M1 and M1A1 dispensed with the Blish device as it was needed, added to the cost and complication of manufacture.

    1. By Taylor Anderson on

      Standardization is always to be strived for, my buddies and I endeavor to ensure that all our same caliber weapons will shoot the same ammo, for example. But the Allies aren’t really using that many different things, and there has been a significant effort to standardize. Gray’s main armament is 5.5 primarily because they were already making liners for Amagi’s salvaged secondaries. Otherwise, 4″-50 has become the norm and the 3.7″s, etc., are in the process of being replaced. As for “small” arms, the Grand Alliance–not including the Republic–have standardized as quickly as they could upon .45ACP, .50-80, .30-06, and .50 BMG. Small lots of .30-40 are still made, as are other even smaller lots of (I bet) “spoiler caliber.” The stuff to make these was prepared during evaluation and still exists. They may well be adopted at some point and it makes sense to maintain the capacity, and making small lots is not that difficult. In any event, until they can mass produce an entirely new battle rifle the various “main” calibers still make sense and all have specific strengths and uses. The 6.5s are probably being fed by relatively small lots as well since they never recovered enough to supply a significant force, and other stuff was already being made.
      As for the Republic, they have standardized pretty well themselves, for them. Their rifles and pistols do not shoot the same cartridge but the bullet is the same diameter and the barrels can be bored on the same machine. Obviously, they’d require different rifling twists, but a .43 cal made sense for them. An Alliance-wide standardization would be ideal–eventually–but think about it: The US and Brits fought two world wars together and never standardized.

      Reply
      1. By Henry Breinig on

        On the note of the Republic, I wonder if we’ll see more modernized versions of the guns used by their Princeps monitors. German made 203mm or 210mm guns would bring some rather sharp teeth to the Alliance. Of course, the key issue would be the shell and charge hoists, as these limit rate of fire the most out of any single component of the turrets.

        Reply
      2. By Steve Moore on

        Taylor: does RRP have capability to build a bolt action .50 cal? Sort of a scaled dowm version of the Doom Whomper that mere mortals could shoot/snipe with.

        Reply
        1. By Justin on

          Great War-level tech means they’d probably be able to do a Tankgewehr, maybe a large-calibre Panzerbuchse or Wz.35. It’d be a nasty anti-material/anti-dinosaur/sniper rifle, but medium or heavy tanks’ll probably need a battery of Derbys.

          Say, I wonder if the Grik rockets have enough energy to launch a shaped charge? Something like a (very) primitive RPG would be handy too.

          Reply
          1. By donald j johnson on

            Is it potentially practical to even attempt shaped charges with black powder

          2. By Alexey Shiro on

            //Is it potentially practical to even attempt shaped charges with black powder//

            It is impossible. Black powder could not create supersonic detonation wave to compress the cavity.

          3. By donald j johnson on

            Well then i guess justin has his answer also.

          4. By William Curry on

            Black Powder deflagrates at a sub-sonic velocity. As the pressure goes up, the rate of deflagration goes down, which is the opposite of smokeless powder. Black powder and smokeless power are almost impossible to get to detonate. Urbanski, in his 1962 4 volume work on explosives, described experimentally trying to get smokeless to detonate. He finally succeeded, but had to use very large grain artillery propellant and initiate it with picric acid. Smokeless propellants usually have a negative oxygen balance so they produce a lot of carbon monoxide, a light voluminous gas good for pushing. High explosives (those that detonate) have a positive oxygen balance so they produce a lot of carbon dioxide, a dense gas suitable to transmit shock. To get a detonation, the rate of chemical change in the explosive has to exceed the speed of sound in that substance. The denser the substance the higher the speed of sound in that substance.

          5. By Steve Moore on

            Well, the rockets can push a payload of copper balls (figure half-inch?) plus a bursting charge a mile or so up, I would thing they could make an RPG motor, but it’d be worthless without the warhead. Better off as a bombardment rocket. But hate to think of what Grik rockets could do to Republic cavalry.

            Looking at the ceiling last night after putting down DD, and thought, Republic landing barges with eggbeater motors… Screw that, put a single bank radial on them and come up with a 40 knot airboat…

          6. By Matt White on

            It’s important to keep in mind that given the way the Grik rockets are described, they are nowhere near an RPG or any kind of shoulder fired weapon. They sound a lot more like a Congreve rocket. Simple, black powder things that detonate on impact. Essentially giant bottle rockets. Of course the Grik have improved them with time fuses but they are still pretty limited in their use. They are also wildly inaccurate and unreliable. About the only good thing about them is how cheap and easy they can be made. They have to be employed in huge mass volleys to be effective.

            More practical rockets, specifically effective HVARs, and shoulder fired rockets are going to require developments in solid rocket fuels beyond black powder.

            Apparently you can dissolve nitroglycerin in nitrocellulose and then add some solidifying materials (I assume stuff like saw dust) and can get a pretty decent solid rocket fuel. I know nitrocellulose is being produced by the Union and I’m pretty sure nitroglycerine is as well. If anyone knew enough about rockets to know that could be done then they could probably start making them sooner than you’d think.

      3. By Henry Breinig on

        About the .43 cal- I wonder if the Republic might create a version of that rifle with a magazine- something like a Vetterli Rifle or Mauser 71-84

        Reply
        1. By Taylor Anderson on

          Certainly. They clearly used a ’71 as their original pattern. Might’ve even had some ’98s to look at. Obviously had Maxims. So yeah, they can make ’71s with magazines. Lots of reasons they wouldn’t have to start with, but no real reason they can’t now. Might even convert existing rifles.

          Reply
          1. By Henry Breinig on

            I would think the conversions would be how’d they would start out, and then once the concept was proven and they had the basic tooling together the Republic would change the main production lines to the magazine conversions.

            As with the Allin-Silva rifles, I reckon the next step would be to rotate the originals out of the front as they are replaced with the new production magazine rifles. Then, the old rifles can be converted and sent back out, or issued to reserve units.

          2. By Matt White on

            The ’71-84 is exactly such a real world conversion. They added a tube magazine to the ’71. The vast majority were I think conversions. Would be a cheap and quick way to increase firepower.

    2. By Taylor Anderson on

      Actually, there aren’t really that many different small arms cartridges in production. .30-06, .45ACP (which can use the same basic case)and .50-80 and .50BMG (the barrels of which can both be bored on the same machines). There are a few “short run” calibers running around, like .30-40 and probably the “spoiler” caliber (I think) but that’s about it, and won’t require much diversion of production. As for Allied standardization, the Impies are going to Union designs but the Republic already has their own stuff that works and they’re geared up to make it. Getting one group or another to change over entirely at this point would not be feasible. Maybe in peacetime–like NATO did. Otherwise, I’ll point out that the US and UK fought two World Wars together and never even came close to standardizing. Even if they thought it was a good idea, in theory, it was not practical in time of war.

      Reply
      1. By Charles Simpson on

        If captured the Japanese Arisaka rifle cartridge factory would add a cartridge to feed captured Japanese arms. I’m sure the Konashi would want the cartridges made. Also we have the 25mm cartridge and other larger caliber rounds. During the American Civil War Confederate units became combat ineffective due to receiving the wrong cartridge for the multiple firearms used by the south.

        Reply
      2. By Paul Nunes on

        What the Imperial need is schooling in Rifles, not Muskets.

        The operation of one is not the same as the other.

        Reply
  13. By Joe Thorsky on

    Jacquerie ” continued

    “Economic control works differently.
    And to paraphrase that famous Salvor Hardin quotation of yours;
    “It’s a poor man’s atom-blaster that doesn’t work both ways.”
    pp 226 Foundation & Empire

    “To seize control of a world, they bribe with immense ships that can make war, but lack all economic significance. We, on the other hand, bribe with little things useless in war,but vital to prosperity and profits.
    pp 224-5 Foundation and Empire

    “The machines in the factories will, one by one, begin to fail. Those industries which we have changed from first to last with our new atomic gadgets will find themselves very suddenly ruined. The heavy industries will find themselves en masse and at a stroke, the owners of nothing but scrap machinery that won’t work”
    pp 223 Foundation & Empire

    Isaac Asimov- The Foundation Trilogy Equinox -Avon Books New York, 1974

    Casablanca revisited:
    Or “Capitalism.”
    “What Capitalism?!”
    ” There’s no Capitalism being practiced or operating here!”

    *As the battlewagons closed in for the kill, and huge geysers of water, caused by shells from their Main batteries were sprouting up all around the GAMBIER BAY, the gun Captain of her lone five-inch gun is reliably reported to have said, “Don’t worry, fellows, we’re sucking them in to 40mm. Range!”.….pp 149

    *”Breathed prayers of thanks for their miraculous deliverance, some young joker on the flight deck of the FANSHAW BAY yelled up to the bridge, “Better watch ’em, Cap’n—or they’llget away!”……pp 149

    *”The main battery of this great warship of ours consisted of one five-inch gun. This was mounted on the stern, and would not bear forward of the beam—a pretty clear indicator that if we met the TIRPITZ, we were expected to entice her into a running battle than slug it out with yardarm to yardarm.” …..pp 148

    **Jeeps had an antiaircraft battery of 40mm. pom-pom and 20mm guns. We released areological balloons from the flight deck, and the gun crews competed to see which could burst the balloons with the least number of shots.”….pp 148

    “Several of my officers pointed out a section in our current (Navy) regulations which could be interpreted as still authorizing payment of prize money. We estimated the U-505’s value as being several million dollars, and (we!?)visualized the possibility of getting fat checks from The US Treasury as we dragged our booty home. But that jackpot was never divided up. We found out when we got home that about thirty years previously some nosey and officious Congressman had repealed the law on which that section of the regulations depended”(The clearest case of Economic Piracy ever recorded {The US Government Giveth as the IRS Taxman taketh.}).” pp-215

    Clear The Decks by Daniel V. Gallery
    Warner Books, New York- 1949

    Yesterday, marked two somber unheralded historical seminal events and uncelebrated anniversaries, which mark an end and closure of an era violently and visibly scarred by turbulent and calcified social, cultural, technological economic upheavals and change.
    Gulf of Tonkin Incident 1964
    Welcome home! To all those unforgotten colleagues of Korea!

    Reply
    1. By Justin on

      Nobody’s contesting plywood – shit, even Goering was impressed by the Mozzie. It’s the glue we gotta worry about (especially in the jungles the Allies are currently fighting in).

      Reply
      1. By donald j johnson on

        And you are assuming that the glue being use for the last 200 years or so by the lemurian in a marine environment is inadiquate? My feelings are that it is fully capable of dooing the job at taylor has hinted several times.

        Reply
        1. By Justin on

          Ocean =/= air. All I know is that many adhesives weaken when in different climates or altitudes, or in intense air combat.

          For example, deHav’s Hornets were fine in Europe, but the heat and humidity of Southeast Asia caused them to have frequent unscheduled disassemblies.

          Reply
  14. By Joe Thorsky on

    “Jacquerie”

    “Our course of future history, did not count on brilliant heroics but on the broad sweeps of economics and sociology. So the solutions to the various crises must be achieved by the forces that become available to us at the time.”
    pp 222 Foundation & Empire

    Economic control works differently. And to paraphrase that famous Salvor Hardin quotation of yours; “It’s a poor man’s atom-blaster that doesn’t work both ways.”
    pp 226 Foundation & Empire

    “Why they don’t even understand their own colossi any longer. The machines work from generation to generation automatically, and the caretakers are a hereditary caste who would be helpless if a single D-tube in all that structure burnt out.”
    pp 224 Foundation & Empire

    Isaac Asimov- The Foundation Trilogy Equinox -Avon Books New York, 1974

    A short noteworthy Treatise on, and the best ever layman’s explanation and descriptionof the American Navy’s pre WW-II torpedo dilemma can be dissected, discussed, analyzed and found in Harry Homewood’s “Final Harbor” novel.
    McGraw Hill Book Company 1980 Chapter 16 – pp 152 to 157.

    Reply
        1. By Joe Thorsky on

          Charlie- You’ve got quite the Expletive Depleted sense of humor!!!
          Only suggest a little more of the WW- II Meuse River- Belgium be included.
          Also, your LSI need needs more of an Evinrude Wizard influence.
          Good Job You Dreamer You!

          Reply
        2. By Charles Simpson on

          WARNING SLIGHT RIVER OF BONES SPOILER.
          Nestor Menar was the artist of the first Bekiaa crossing the Ungee River rather than Washington crossing the Delaware River. The second drawing produced with the aid of Taylor Anderson having along Thai taxi tail with a low freeboard barge made quick by the engineers. OK can spoilers be posted today 1 August, or do we need to wait until 8,10,18?

          Reply
    1. By Henry Breinig on

      Are her twin DP mounts based or similar to the original Japanese design from the mid 20’s?

      Reply
  15. By Henry Breinig on

    Hmm, I’ve been thinking about U-112 quite a bit. While it’s not the greatest submarine, it does have a rather respectable armament, especially while surfaced. Now the real question is, now that it has defected to the Alliance, will it be refitted as a gunboat like S-19, or will it remain as is?

    Reply
      1. By Taylor Anderson on

        You’re right Don, but I think Henry’s new here and probably isn’t aware of the no spoilers for . . . how long? I forget . . . rule. Don’t think I want to delete somebody’s first post. Welcome aboard, Henry.

        Reply
        1. By Justin on

          Pretty sure it ends after three weeks (Tuesday). Anyone who hasn’t finished yet? Now’s the time.

          Reply
          1. By Lou Schirmer on

            I thought it was supposed to be a month after it was released, but I seem to recall Charles mentioning 1 Sept. on FB, so who knows. Maybe Taylor can call an audible & tell us when to let her rip.

          2. By Taylor Anderson on

            I think the old timeline was a month. It just seems longer this time since the book came out later. That said, it’s probably best to follow Charles’s lead on this since, though there aren’t that many frequent contributors here, a LOT of people check out what we write. Thoughts?

          3. By Justin on

            Not trying to pick a fight here, but September 1 is seven weeks after release, almost two months. I doubt we’ve ever agreed to wait that long.

          4. By Lou Schirmer on

            I think we somehow wound up with that date after a survey on FB. Don’t think Charles was happy with it, but went with the flow.
            Personally, I’m all for the one month after release date, which would be 13 Aug.

          5. By Justin on

            I can get behind that. Anybody else?

          6. By Charles Simpson on

            I suggested the first of the month after the book comes out for spoilers on the Assn. I am unaware of how the date was established here or where it is posted. Henry Breinig the Destroyermen Wiki has a page for the U-112 https://destroyermen.wikia.com/wiki/U-112
            Charlie

        2. By Henry Breinig on

          Actually, My bad. I actually was here about a year ago under another name. I’d forgotten about that rule.

          Reply
        3. By Henry Breinig on

          Also, feel free to remove that. I’ve got plenty of other thoughts anyhow 😛

          Reply
  16. By William Curry on

    Video on .30-06 Chauchat:
    https://www.full30.com/video/a07788998ae940b39a7b569e5921766f
    The Chaychat and the BAR were intended in the Great War to be run by a three man team; gunner, loader and scout who carried extra ammo and provided flank and rear security for the gun team. The automatic rifle(as opposed to the light machine gun) was intended to provide suppressive fire along with rifle grenades against entrenched machine guns to allow the riflemen and hand bombers to get close enough to finish the job. It is primarily an offensive weapon.

    Reply
    1. By Henry Breinig on

      It’s quite possible that we’ll see some of the 8mm Lebel version when the Alliance has more contact with the French parts of the League.

      Reply
  17. By William Curry on

    I’m wondering if the electrical plant on the Grey CL-1 has been upgraded fron 125v DC to 440v AC 3 phase? The electrical loads on the ships are only going to grow. Three phase lets them move more power around efficiently. 440 3 pz was the coming thing for ships in the late 30’s, the crew on the Walker would have know of it at least. Plus three phase would be very helpful for powering industry. The other option would be 2 phase 4 wire. But in the late 30’s it was on it’s way out. It was popular in the mines for reason.

    Reply
  18. By Justin on

    It’s come to my attention that the 10″/45s on Amagi would likely be outranged by WWII 8″ guns (27km against 30+). Any idea how the DD-verse IJN was planning to hunt cruisers with her, given that said cruisers would likely have a speed advantage as well?

    Reply
    1. By Dilandu on

      Er, they may increase her guns elevation to give more range. Japanese loved extreme elevations.

      And the role of Japanese battlecruisers was NOT to hunt enemy cruisers. Their main function was supposed to, in nighttime attack, break through cruiser screen around USN battleline, thus allowing the Japanese destroyers to make a torpedo tun against USN battlewagons.

      Reply
      1. By Justin on

        Fair enough. But then we run into the question of how the Allies will do the same; I don’t really see them producing turrets with 43 degrees of elevation by war’s end.

        Reply
    2. By Henry Breinig on

      Well, if we consider the possibility that the 10″/45 guns on Amagi were a newer model, or used shells with more modern propellants, the range might be greater than 27km.

      Reply

Leave a Reply to Justin Cancel reply

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