Remove ads

Strategic Arms Quest 3/2: Armor Edition

Reader mode
Gnarker said:
Don't RFQs cost us on a per-line basis? If so, this plan seems like it'd seriously strain our budget. @7734?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Damn, I didn't think of that. Alright, what does everyone think we could afford to take off?
For starters I think the cavalry entry could be a little more barebones, maybe I'll get rid of the requirements for independent operations and minimal maintenance, as I don't see the thing pushing that far ahead of our supply lines with no armor and only two fighting men in it.

@7734, when the cavalry ask for minimal maintenance, does that include maintenance done by the crew or specifically the kind of stuff that requires the vehicle to be brought out of the line?
 
Last edited:
CthuluWasRight said:
Damn, I didn't think of that. Alright, what does everyone think we could afford to take off?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I think the cavalry design could certainly dump the radio receiver and the towed HMG, as there is little reason to have one per 2/3 people. And maybe select exactly one carrying capacity limit for the transport. But maybe make it slightly bigger, is 150kg even enough?
 
Last edited:
FortTell said:
I think the cavalry design could certainly dump the radio reciever and the towed HMG, as there is little reason to have one per 2/3 people. And maybe select exactly one carrying capacity limit for the transport. But maybe make it slightly bigger, is 150kg even enough?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

What carrying capacity limit would be reasonable for a transport do you think?

Also considering dropping the towed HMG from the fighting vehicle RFQ along with the ability to carry two soldiers. We'll have the transport vehicle and cavalry vehicles for any kind of serious troop transport duty. I'm hesitant to dump the sled for the cavalry vehicle as being a light cargo transport vehicle is one of the only points in its favor as far as I'm concerned, and the radio is there at Fenrus' request.
 
Last edited:
CthuluWasRight said:
What carrying capacity limit would be reasonable for a transport do you think?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Sorry, I have no idea. I do not know what are the usual logistical elements attached to a cav regiment and how much supply will actually be necessary to be transported near or right to the frontline.

I mean, if the cav vehicle could perform a scout role, then a radio is desirable. But it contrasts with the 'mobile HMG crew' role. One or the other should take precedence, and I believe it to be the scout role. The transport vehicle can work as an LMG/HMG nest better bevause it will be supported by transported infantry to prevent sneaking up on it.
 
Last edited:
FortTell said:
Sorry, I have no idea. I do not know what are the usual logistic elements attached to a cav regiment and how much supply will actually be necessary to be transported near or right to the frontline.

I mean, if the cav vehicle could perform a scout role, then a radio is desirable. But it contrasts with the 'mobile HMG crew' role. One or the other should take precedence, and I believe it to be the scout role. The transport vehicle can work as an LMG/HMG nest better bevause it will be supported by transported infantry to prevent sneaking up on it.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

In that case, we should probably stick with the given weight of 150 kg unless someone else has a better suggestion. Worst case scenario, it turns out the cavalry's numbers were off and they should have asked for something larger, but it's not really our fault if we provide something that fits the specifications they gave us.

I see your point. I'll stick with the radio, dropping the HMG sled.
 
Gnarker said:
Don't RFQs cost us on a per-line basis? If so, this plan seems like it'd seriously strain our budget. @7734?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Yes. Cthulu's plan as written would either get the armor or endurance testing done and then phbt, you're out of money. That said, you're also allowed to pass multiple vehicles for this one if they're complimentary enough.
 
7734 said:
Yes. Cthulu's plan as written would either get the armor or endurance testing done and then phbt, you're out of money. That said, you're also allowed to pass multiple vehicles for this one if they're complimentary enough.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Right, well I guess I'd better start cutting stuff. Might I refer you to my earlier question about maintenance?

EDIT: Cut the two passenger and HMG sled requirement from the Fighting Vehicle RFQ. Looking to cut more where possible: what does the rest of the thread think?

@7734, is it reasonable to assume that a vehicle capable of towing a trailer would also be able to tow an HMG sled?
 
Last edited:
CthuluWasRight said:
Right, well I guess I'd better start cutting stuff. Might I refer you to my earlier question about maintenance?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

The requirements were written so that IC you know its them saying "we want this to work but if it doesn't work we want the crew to probably get it to the depot". They're not expecting cavalry to do much more than change the oil and inflate the tires/fix track, but if the radiator gets hit or the track falls off then the crew can duct tape it shut and baby it home.

Also, if it helps your piece of mind, you do have duct tape (or panzergaffe if you're feeling IC about it and have witnessed the fact a W-5 screaming about fixing the engine again)
 
CthuluWasRight said:
Right, well I guess I'd better start cutting stuff. Might I refer you to my earlier question about maintenance?

EDIT: Cut the two passenger and HMG sled requirement from the Fighting Vehicle RFQ. Looking to cut more where possible: what does the rest of the thread think?

@7734, is it reasonable to assume that a vehicle capable of towing a trailer would also be able to tow an HMG sled?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The really obvious hack I see is to reformat things so that shared requirements are only stated once. I'd start with that.
 
CthuluWasRight said:
[X] Plan Cover Our Bases
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Thoughts, everyone? @7734, how many lines would this be, effectively? Any tips? Is it better to have few longer lines or more shorter ones?


- All vehicles must be cabable of independent standard operation for the lesser of five days or 250km over all common Irromic terrains (Dirt road, field, mud field, hills, valleys, mountain tongues) with minimal maintenance
- Transport (passengers included) and Combat Vehicle to be protected against small arms, shrapnel, and rifle-grenade near-misses.
- Transport and Cavalry must be repairable to the point of recovery by a standardized kit to be issued with each vehicle
- All vehicles must be able to keep up with transports and other fighting units over short distances.

Transport:
- Must carry a towed trailer with at least 150kg of supplies and internally either eight passengers or an Mg.52 sled with all needed equipment and crew.

Fighting:
- Carries a radio receiver, a Leichtmachinegewehr 71 on pintle or turret mount and a heavier weapon for infantry support and against light armor, preferrably a 20mm autocannon with at least 1000 rounds of ammunition.

Cavalry:
- Carries two troops plus one crew as well as a radio receiver and a trailer with at least 150kg of supplies.
- Vehicle engine and internals must be armored against rifle fire.
- Should be reasonably low-profile and have good visibility suitable for scout work.
 
Gnarker said:
Thoughts, everyone? @7734, how many lines would this be, effectively? Any tips? Is it better to have few longer lines or more shorter ones?


- All vehicles must be cabable of independent standard operation for the lesser of five days or 250km over all common Irromic terrains (Dirt road, field, mud field, hills, valleys, mountain tongues) with minimal maintenance
- Transport (passengers included) and Combat Vehicle to be protected against small arms, shrapnel, and rifle-grenade near-misses.
- Transport and Cavalry must be repairable to the point of recovery by a standardized kit to be issued with each vehicle
- All vehicles must be able to keep up with transports and other fighting units over short distances.

Transport:
- Must carry a towed trailer with at least 150kg of supplies and internally either eight passengers or an Mg.52 sled with all needed equipment and crew.

Fighting:
- Carries a radio receiver, a Leichtmachinegewehr 71 on pintle or turret mount and a heavier weapon for infantry support and against light armor, preferrably a 20mm autocannon with at least 1000 rounds of ammunition.

Cavalry:
- Carries two troops plus one crew as well as a radio receiver and a trailer with at least 150kg of supplies.
- Vehicle engine and internals must be armored against rifle fire.
- Should be reasonably low-profile and have good visibility suitable for scout work.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I'm definitely going to add a list of requirements for all vehicles. I'm not sure if changing the formatting of the lines will meaningfully alter the cost though.

EDIT: Got it down to a 19-line entry. I'll see if I can shave off a few lines here and there to try and save some money. Ultimately it depends on whether folding lines into each other where applicable reduces cost. If not, we'll just have to see what we can live without.
 
Last edited:
Universal Carrier started production in 1936 and ended in 1945, and not because it was outdated, but beacuse there were 113000 made already. Making something like that off tankettes should be easy and usefull for long time. Towing power also wouldnt be a problem, as tankette could tow
QF 3.7-inch mountain howitzer, let alone machinegun. Range also would fit, as armor would be thinner, engine would have to handle less strain-therefore would be more durable.
 
Last edited:
kpkdktswnw2015 said:
Universal Carrier started production in 1936 and ended in 1945, and not because it was outdated, but beacuse there were 113000 already. Making something like that off tankettes should be easy and usefull for long time.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Yeah, smart one, you're still rocking these as your main line tank combatants.



Your front line units are still hoovering up tanks too, and Wanderer is going flat out. You're not getting a tank derivative based on something already in service for this contest.
 
Okay, so not based off old tank. Completly new design, still copy of universal carrier idea, or of AH-IV, if has to survive frontline combat even for a moment.
 
[X]Plan Multipurpose Transport
-[X]One vehicle model will be accepted, subject to the following requirements.
-[X]Must be able to tow one of the following: A Mg.52 sled (and associated equipment), A supply trailer of 150kg capacity, as well as whatever additional trailers are needed to meet the other requirements.
-[X]Be able to operate with minimal maintenance for up to five days.
-[X]Carry eight men with two or more operating crew.
-[X]Traverse all common Irromic terrains (Dirt road, field, mud field, hills, valleys, mountain tongues)
-[X]Carry supplies for independent operation for up to five days or 250km of standard operation, whichever is lesser. A trailer may be used to achieve this, if needed.
-[X]Be able to carry a Leichtmachinegewehr 71 on pintle or turret mount. May be manned by one of the passengers, if needed.
-[X]Be able to be repaired to the point of recovery by a standardized kit included with the vehicle.
-[X]Carry a radio receiver

This has outright dropped a few things I concluded were not demanded and only served to add more fat to the demands, like the 20mm autocannon (provided by W-5 support) and the 1 crew 2 passenger thing which would have been a mess to make useful for anything other than driving people around (and could literally be a civilian car, probably). What is left is a vehicle I have concluded should be possible, if on the large side of transport truck. The main purpose of this decision is to simplify supply lines, and remove the organizational hassle that a multi-prong plan would be.
 
This might be expensive, but watch as someone has a COTS solution to like 90% of this. As it is, a Tatra 92 or 111 could meet all of this aside from the landmine requirements.

[x]Plan fuck it we truck now.
-[x] Multiple variants may be accepted at a later date, at present a troop carrier version is required.
-[x] Mobility
--[x]Be able to operate with only standard maintenance for up to five days or 1000km on road operation. This does not include decoking or anything which would entail a stop longer than one hour in duration.
---[x] In case of minor breakdowns within this period be able to be repaired to the point of recovery by a standardized kit included with the vehicle, including spare tires and wheels.
--[x]Be able to survive the loss of at least one wheel per side, (not paired for leading or trailing wheels) without compromising passenger and crew safety, and optionally retain the ability to limp back to a depot or established recovery point.
--[x] Vehicle should, if practical and without sacrificing reliability and performance, use commercial truck/bus components to control costs.
--[x]Traverse all common Irmionic terrains (Dirt road, field, mud field, hills, valleys, mountain tongues) at speeds comparable to or exceeding those of existing cavalry horses in good health, and safely exceed 60km/h on a well maintained road.
--[x]Carry supplies for independent operation for up to five days or 250km of off-road operations, whichever is lesser. A trailer may be used to achieve this, if needed.
-[x] Capacity.
--[x]Carry twelve men with two or more operating crew in a passenger configuration, eight men and two crew served weapons (eg two Mg.52 on sleds or light mortars) or 300kg cargo, 1000kg cargo in an all cargo configuration, or a minimum of two stretcher cases and an attendant in an ambulance.
--[x]Must be able to tow one of the following: An existing horse artillery gun and limber (and associated equipment), A supply trailer of 1500kg capacity, as well as any additional trailers required to satisfy other requirements. This does not necessarily have to be at the same time (or be the same variant) as any version that complies with the troop or crew served weapon carrier clauses.
--[x]Be able to carry at least one Leichtmachinegewehr 71 on pintle or turret mount in all configurations. May be manned by one of the passengers, if desired.
--[x]Carry a radio receiver. If only a receiver is fitted to a standard carrier model, a commander version must also be offered that can take a transmitter and receiver.
-[x] Protection
--[x] Vehicle should provide protection against rifle caliber AP ammunition, inclement weather, and shell fragments from all angles in any version that carries personnel outside the crew.
--[x] Drivetrain should survive at least one hit by an anti-personnel mine without being a complete write-off.
 
Last edited:
NothingNow said:
This might be expensive, but watch as someone has a COTS solution to like 90% of this. As it is, a Tatra 92 or 111 could meet all of this aside from the landmine requirements.
[]Plan fuck it we truck now.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I worry that this may be asking too much of what engine and materials technology is available, given that of the two trucks you mentioned, the earlier of the two was only made in 1937, which is pretty far from the current technology since
7734 said:
you're still rocking these as your main line tank combatants.

Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
That said, this version of the plan is much more acceptable to me than the discord-posted version because it doesn't expect the supplier to achieve all your goals at once, only a few of them at a time with a lot of variants to cover all bases. My plan doesn't expect any single payload larger than what was asked for, but does ask that everything fit into one vehicle. It still should work out to be easier though, as mine only expects eight troops and one machine gun or supply cart out back, rather than a dozen of them or eight and two machine guns in the vehicle, rather than in trailers or sleds for towing.
 
TortugaGreen said:
I worry that this may be asking too much of what engine and materials technology is available, given that of the two trucks you mentioned, the earlier of the two was only made in 1937, which is pretty far from the current technology since
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Not really. Like Sleeve valve engines of the period can totally do this, and like the main difficulty is going to be the safety stuff. Like, I'm asking for a deuce and a half with an armored body. Which coincidentally, might leave us open to a good armored car as well, and will provide a lot more strategic mobility than the cavalry has ever had before.

They want to stay relevant, well, let's make them stay relevant.
 
Altered Plan Cover Our Bases to remove the cavalry/kettenkrafttrad entry. This drops us down to 12 line items, which is hopefully vastly more affordable.
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top