Remove ads

Strategic Arms Quest 3/2: Armor Edition

Reader mode
Himmelhand said:
Instead of fighting the need for greater ammo storage on the Nasspanzer, could we instead see if they can stretch the existing supply through greater accuracy? Either through optics, lengthening the barrel, or something else.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Wouldn't a longer gun take up even more space and therefore further reduce the room there is for ammunition? I do think your idea has merit to it though, by the sound of things GBA Aquatic build warships, they should have extensive experience with good gunnery optics, or at least know a suitable supplier.
 
CthuluWasRight said:
By the sound of things the Nasspanzer's ammo storage racks weren't exactly well laid-out. Perhaps if we get GBA Aquatic to unfuck them we can squeeze a few more rounds in?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
My interpretation is that they likely started with something reasonably designed but too small, and, having run out of room, figured out a multitude of strange places to wedge one or two shells. There might be a little room to improve the layout, but I'm skeptical about how much.

CthuluWasRight said:
Wouldn't a longer gun take up even more space and therefore further reduce the room there is for ammunition? I do think your idea has merit to it though, by the sound of things GBA Aquatic build warships, they should have extensive experience with good gunnery optics, or at least know a suitable supplier.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
A longer gun would take up more space, yes, but not more internal space. There's no shortage of space outside of the tank.
 
brmj said:
A longer gun would take up more space, yes, but not more internal space. There's no shortage of space outside of the tank.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Weight. The problem with floaty tanks is that in order to float, you need a large-ish displacement (bigger tonk) and to keep it reasonably lightweight so you don't end up with a destroyer-sized thing that happens to have tank treads on the bottom (not so much Armor because it has to float). I have a feeling that adding weight with a longer gun and/or a larger turret might be a bit more problematic than we imagine.
 
Michael Lewis said:
Weight. The problem with floaty tanks is that in order to float, you need a large-ish displacement (bigger tonk) and to keep it reasonably lightweight so you don't end up with a destroyer-sized thing that happens to have tank treads on the bottom (not so much Armor because it has to float). I have a feeling that adding weight with a longer gun and/or a larger turret might be a bit more problematic than we imagine.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
True, but it didn't seem to have much trouble floating and the reason for the shorter gun was stated as recoil reduction.
 
CthuluWasRight said:
Wouldn't a longer gun take up even more space and therefore further reduce the room there is for ammunition? I do think your idea has merit to it though, by the sound of things GBA Aquatic build warships, they should have extensive experience with good gunnery optics, or at least know a suitable supplier.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Or we could go smaller?
A 75 is a big shell no matter how you look at it. Like, by going to 37mm we could go down from an ~8kg shell to something in the 1-1.5kg range, and we could get a lot more of them in the same space. Like, a thirty round ready rack would be entirely reasonable. And it'd let us cut a lot of weight in the turret, which would improve both floatation and stability.

...Actually, do we really even need the turret roof? That thing has to be like 20kg you could cut.
 
CthuluWasRight said:
Wouldn't a longer gun take up even more space and therefore further reduce the room there is for ammunition? I do think your idea has merit to it though, by the sound of things GBA Aquatic build warships, they should have extensive experience with good gunnery optics, or at least know a suitable supplier.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Point of order, but the Ghermain Brothers Autowerke mostly does car modifications and specialty runs. If, say, Daimler wants to do a run of a thousand trucks but they don't have the right engines for the main line handy, they get some shop time at Ghermain Brothers Autowerke and the job gets done. When they're not making cars, there's a gunsmith shop for working on custom big game weapons, like dragon, roc, and sea snake, or building new decontamination flamethrowers. It's Skoda that normally builds warships.

Michael Lewis said:
Can the proto LV(T) drain itself without having the operators exit the tank? If not, that might be something we want to fix.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

The Wp-1 can drain without operator exit, caveat, that's by the bilge pump only and that fucker only moves something like two hundred liters an hour. Plus side, the bilge pump can run independant of the main engine though!

brmj said:
True, but it didn't seem to have much trouble floating and the reason for the shorter gun was stated as recoil reduction.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

The issue was internal volume and recoil, not so much weight. The Wp-1 actually has a pretty overbuilt suspension due to that second wheel per bellcrank- they could probably tie like eight or nine milk crats of shells to the engine deck if they needed to.

NothingNow said:
Or we could go smaller?
A 75 is a big shell no matter how you look at it. Like, by going to 37mm we could go down from an ~8kg shell to something in the 1-1.5kg range, and we could get a lot more of them in the same space. Like, a thirty round ready rack would be entirely reasonable. And it'd let us cut a lot of weight in the turret, which would improve both floatation and stability.

...Actually, do we really even need the turret roof? That thing has to be like 20kg you could cut.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

The Seebatalions expressly want a big shell to go big boom because fortifications are a pile of fucknuggets. After the Dieppe Raid equivalent, the big takeaway was something that can actually slow down a bunker, and a 37mm can't really do that well enough. The KTW-2 doesn't have a turret roof (or turret) per say- theirs actually has a hinge so they can open it and get more shells in, and the turret isn't so much a turret as a really huge ring mount with a mantlet on it.

Really, the KTW-2 is an SPG with delusions of grandeur, and certain parties are still arguing about the turret's absence.
 
7734 said:
The Wp-1 was next
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
@7734, should not that be the Np-1?

Can we try to remove some shells from the Np-1, instead providing a hatch or other quick way to set a new 10-shell box on the ready rack? To fix the ammo deficit, one tank in the platoon should then be converted as an ammo carrier with light armament but ample room for extra shells, which would then be transferred to battle tanks as they rotate around the front.

It can also be used as a way to extend operational reach of the surprise tank attacks on supply lines.
 
@7734 what is the state of tank optics at this point, anyway? Are they basically just looking down iron sights (if any) through a hole next to the barrel?
 
7734 said:
The Seebatalions expressly want a big shell to go big boom because fortifications are a pile of fucknuggets. After the Dieppe Raid equivalent, the big takeaway was something that can actually slow down a bunker, and a 37mm can't really do that well enough. The KTW-2 doesn't have a turret roof (or turret) per say- theirs actually has a hinge so they can open it and get more shells in, and the turret isn't so much a turret as a really huge ring mount with a mantlet on it.

Really, the KTW-2 is an SPG with delusions of grandeur, and certain parties are still arguing about the turret's absence.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
So then why not a 57mm gun?
 
FortTell said:
@7734, should not that be the Np-1?

Can we try to remove some shells from the Np-1, instead providing a hatch or other quick way to set a new 10-shell box on the ready rack? To fix the ammo deficit, one tank in the platoon should then be converted as an ammo carrier with light armament but ample room for extra shells, which would then be transferred to battle tanks as they rotate around the front.

It can also be used as a way to extend operational reach of the surprise tank attacks on supply lines.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Yes, it should. Your modifications are also fairly reasonable; they can go in your plan.

TotallyNotEvil said:
I rest my case.

We have a worrying tendency to have casualties on our tank tests.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

To be fair, in the endurance trial the KTW-2 is gonna do pretty well, and on the economic tests and math the Seebats are doing it also comes out favorably.

NothingNow said:
So then why not a 57mm gun?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Shell weight. The 5,5cm field piece needs its muzzle velocity, forcing it into a longer barrel than the 7,5cm gun which is perfectly happy being cut down into a bloop gun.

Himmelhand said:
@7734 what is the state of tank optics at this point, anyway? Are they basically just looking down iron sights (if any) through a hole next to the barrel?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

The Skoda has a 1.5x and 3x set of gunners optics, the KTW-2 has a gunners quadrant and a 1.5x optic, and the GK-4 has a 3x-5x variable optic.
 
Aaaaannd... nobody's voting. You guys should probably do that.
 
@7734 do we have any feedback from Skoda, CCC, or the Seebatalion testing?

I'll have a plan written up in another hour or two, pending that answer.
 
Ah, fuck it.

Plan Skoda-Chan:

[X] Disqualify the GK-4 from further testing.

[X] Modify the NP-1's ammo storage in accordance with @FortTell's suggestions

[X] Inquire with Skoda how the SkW-2 is progressing, and what improvements they intend to make from the SkW-1

[X] Ask all remaining entrants to look into better bilge pumps on their tanks
 
Himmelhand said:
@7734 do we have any feedback from Skoda, CCC, or the Seebatalion testing?

I'll have a plan written up in another hour or two, pending that answer.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

The Seebatalions are doing their own testing right now, and Skoda is sending the SzW-2 as soon as possible. Commorate Casting hopes to have their finished model on the same train in.
 
[x] Drop the KTW-2 and GK-4
[x] Advance the Nasspanzer-1
[x] keep the SkW-2 in until the SzW-2 arrives.
[x] Have someone remind Skoda and Commorate to ensure an adequate number of escape hatches as well as a proper bilge pump.
 
[X] Plan Schwimmpanzer
-[X] Drop the GK-4 and the KTW-2 from consideration.
-[X] Inquiries:
--[X] Ask Skoda what changes or improvements we can expect on the SzW-2 over the current model.
--[X] Request more complete technical information from Commorate about their entry while it is in transit.
-[X] Modifications:
--[X] Improve crew hatches and bilge pumps in Np-1.
 
Last edited:
That's fair. I guess I thought they were a little further out, but I'll take that out of the plan.
 
[X] Plan Schwimmpanzer

Can I just say that I love this plan name?

Also.

Himmelhand said:
Investigate support variant with lighter armament to carry more ammo/supplies at the platoon level.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
This is not a good idea, it would compromise the flotation of the tank and be a very expensive version of an already existing ammunition transport. It would only be useful for transporting ammunition to tanks under fire, and you really don't want to be reloading a tank while under fire.

Also also, it would be an additional variant that needs to be produced, costing more and taking away from the final production numbers of normal tanks for literally zero gain.
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top