Print

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

Glorious Arstotzka

17 (16%)

Glorious Moskurg

13 (12.3%)

Ingloriously Didn't Play

76 (71.7%)

Total Members Voted: 106

[evictedSaint]

Hmmm....he has a strong point, you guys.

[andrea]

I'll just see how our carriers perform. If they do any decent scouting, they should not meet a battleship unescorted, anyway.

At the end of the day, we can field a carrier with planes much more easily and effectively than a battleship with good armor and good guns to take the enemy. Our naval knowledge is bad and our planes cheap and good.

[Taricus]

Maybe, but we'll need a bigger cargo ship next turn. So unless we can revise that we're basically stuck with that being our design phase idea.

Furthermore, we have a LOT more ships on field than they do. Our carriers basically outnumber their cruisers.

[Light forger]

Just some designs I have been meaning to post, while we wait for the drunken pirates to do their jobs.

UFS-AR-19XX-X 'X'
An assault rifle cambered in a brand new 6.5mmx40mm round. It's a gas powered closed bolt action with 4 rotating locking lugs. The gun barrel can be quick-swapped and come in three possible version, a short carbine barrel for fighting in urban or jungle areas, a normal rifle barrel and, a heavy barrel meant to act like a light machine. The guns is designed for paratrooper use with both a folding stock by standard and using a tension spring wrapped around the barrel rather then a compression spring behind the bolt. The tension spring helps to shorten the gun without some of the more glaring flaws of a bullpup. The weapon has 25 round box mags for normal use and 50 round drums for use as a light machine gun.

UFS-ISV-19XX-X 'X'
A light tanks built with aluminum armor and a steel frame designed to strike the balance between weight and our limited aluminum supply. The tanks is designed to be air dropped and only has enough armor to ward off some machine gun fire. It's powered by a fuel-injected supercharged V-12 in the front to provide some measure of protection against anti-tank fire and letting us place a rear hatch on it. Early complains about possible issues with spalling where ignored our as the vehicle is designed to avoid anti-tank as all costs and a meter or two of steel stops the crew from being killed by the first shot. The vehicle is able to ford rivers and come in three possible versions.
APC-1
A version of the ISV made to be an APC it comes with a completely enclosed hull with a roof mounted AS-AC18. The vehicle carries eight passengers, a driver and a radioman/gunner in a 'cozy' and spartan vehicle.
FSV-1
Another version made to be a fire support and anti-air vehicle for troops. It has a open topped turret and a armament of a 40mm cannon with aligned mg, a hull mounted mg and a pintle mounted mg on the turret. The tank has a modified bumblebee computer in it combined with it's open topped turret lets it offer decent anti-air fire power. The crew is made up of a driver, commander, radioman and gunner.
SPA/AT-1
The final version of the ISV designed to be a self propelled artillery and a tank destroyer. It's has an enclosed hull with a noticeable bump on top to help fit a 90mm bumblebee cannon. The bumblebee still has it's computer but, is unusable for anti-air fire as it's mounted on a casemate. The vehicle not only offer solid artillery range with rocket assisted round but, also can serve as slightly tall tank destroyer in a pinch. Most of it's interior space is taken up by steel supports for the 90mm cannon and ammo to the point which the tank is only air dropped with a few round and needs to have extra dropped later. It's crew is made up of a gunner, loader, driver and radioman; it's expected to work with FSV-1 in order to provide any needed command and control.

[Parsely]

Aircraft carriers are a long arm for the force projection but when they meet battleships unescorted they die.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sunken_aircraft_carriers
There's only one aircraft carrier on this list that was sunk by multiple battleships, and it had a small escort of destroyers. They had no combat air patrol or anyone looking out when they came under attack, so it's kind of a strange case.

Most of the carriers on that list were sunk by torpedoes launched from submarines and bombers.

[Zanzetkuken The Great]

Hey, this just came up in the discord.  I don't believe there has been anything made about Forenian plays, books, and films.  Bit of potential for some propaganda there through published reviews, the history of those mediums, and major historical figures.

[Madman198237]

Heh...... The battleship was made obsolescent by the AIRCRAFT CARRIER. Not WWII battleship was ever even HIT by guided missile fire, because guided missiles DIDN'T EVEN FLIPPING EXIST. Not until '44. maybe even '45, when the Germans deployed a radio-guided flying bomb. And even that wasn't a missile, it didn't have a rocket engine. It was a primitive JDAM, basically.

The battleship: Pinnacle of the gunships, capable of killing its foes almost as soon as it can see them. Capable of smashing through hulls, destroying machinery, obliterating shore positions from twenty miles out to sea.

The aircraft carrier: The last capital warship. Capable of finding, tracking, and killing its targets without even getting into radar range. Capable of deploying torpedoes, bombs, and gunfire from almost two HUNDRED miles from its targets. Capable of utilizing every ship-killing method a battleship's entire fleet can use (The Japanese used 16-in armor-piercing shells with fins for Pearl Harbor), and then some, all without the captain ever seeing the enemy.


The battleship was doomed. It couldn't match the range or the sheer killing power of a carrier's squadrons. Battleships sank, one by one, due to air power. There were a few remaining gun duels. A few ships sunk by battleships. A few battleships sunk by other battleships, or by battleships and escorts, as was the Bismarck, but no battleship fleets would ever again meet in a grand, Jutland-esque duel on the high seas. The carriers could kill them first. And kill them they did.

The mightiest battleships ever put to sea: The Yamato and Musashi: Sunk by carrier-borne aircraft. They took bomb after bomb, torpedo after torpedo, but they finally sank. Because they couldn't shoot the ships responsible for the attack.



If you think that guided missiles were a factor in WWII, or the death of the battleship, you are mistaken. Battleships were too expensive, carriers could do what they could do with less risk, and more effect. Because a carrier can destroy a battleship, while bombing a shore installation, while covering its task force from hostile fighters, while hunting down the rest of its enemies....simultaneously. A battleship is only good for one thing: Doing battle. And when there is a ship that can do it all, better, and do more as well, there is no choice.
The battleship was doomed from the moment that the Japanese sailed for Pearl Harbor, damaging or destroying all the working battleships of the Pacific Fleet...forcing America to prove that the carrier had quite the future ahead of it. It forced new tactics on the ambushed navy, forced them to explore the true extent of what could be done with a carrier. And it was revealed that the carrier could do it all.


No new US aircraft carriers were built post-war because America was trying to reduce military expenditures and stuff, not get more of something they already had a HUGE lead in.

HUNDREDS of carriers (Including escort carriers) were built in WWII. HUNDREDS. Including over a dozen fleet carriers (The biggest size, until nuclear-powered supercarriers).

[NUKE9.13]

So, hey, since we will need more Transport Capacity next turn, perhaps we should start planning a transport plane large enough to provide 1 TC.

For cost considerations, and since they should ideally not enter combat at any time, I think we should aim for a mostly wooden construction.
I think we should seriously consider making it a seaplane, since they can be larger, without requiring massive runways.
If we want to be ambitious, we could try for something in the realm of the Messerschmitt Me 323. However, a slightly more humble craft would probably be more likely to succeed, and remain within budget (I'd like for the plane to be merely Expensive)
How much do our tanks weigh?

[evictedSaint]

We don't have any landing ships.  If we could build a resource transport ship that doubles as a lander, like say...an LST, then our design could also assist in the war effort.

[Taricus]

Landers can wait for now, once we start pushing them back on the waves then we can think about landing ships.

[andrea]

that depends on our confidence in holding the waters. Keep in mind that if we use cargo ships, our carrying capacity is halved when they have a large advantage.
Water transport is therefore inherently unreliable. Of course, the problem would be solved by making a ship large enough to provide 3 TC, ensuring that when rounded up we always get at least 2 sea TC.

[Taricus]

Given the cost of our current fleet, I'm pretty damn confident.

[NUKE9.13]

Zanzetkuken - Today at 10:23 PM
The full reason of why to get a transport to get the ore:
It will make the B2 Destroyer, the MAT26, the HF-23, the HF-32, and the Wasp Nest all Cheap rather than Expensive, the HAFB and the AS-T33 merely Expensive rather than Very Expensive, and the Death Ball will reduce in cost from National Effort to Very Expensive.

In case anyone was wondering why that extra TC is so important.

[Parsely]

Yeah. Landing ships are important, but they only make us stronger on a single front. Boosting our TC will make us stronger on all fronts.

[Strongpoint]

Aircraft carriers are a long arm for the force projection but when they meet battleships unescorted they die.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sunken_aircraft_carriers
There's only one aircraft carrier on this list that was sunk by multiple battleships, and it had a small escort of destroyers. They had no combat air patrol or anyone looking out when they came under attack, so it's kind of a strange case.

Most of the carriers on that list were sunk by torpedoes launched from submarines and bombers.

Did you miss the word unescorted? If there were no "obsolete" battleships and cruisers to guard aircraft carriers than other side would have a great deal of fun with those aircraft carriers.  BTW, submarines are the champions of ww2 sunk ships by tonnage and scored quite a few of capital ship.  By that kind of logic submarines obsoleted battleships even more than aircraft carriers. 

Sometimes to be effective weapons don't need to be used often. The strength of battleships in WW2 was in a simple fact that no smaller surface vessel would dare to approach them (and carriers they escorted). Also, Battleships were very formidable floating air defence batteries that covered other ships against incoming aircraft scoring many poor pilots who flew to close. Without all that flaks on cruisers and battleships carriers would be much more vulnerable to other carriers.

Anyway I don't think that we can change each other's opinion and let's stop derailing the thread further.
____________

As for the on topic discussion. The best thing to do is to wait and see what will they design and how the battle will go. Having no prior info I  prefer a heavy long range bomber or risking and going for something very heavy like early radars, ballistic missiles,  jets.