East Africa 1930: An ORBAT Quest
- Thread starter 4WheelSword
- Start date
- Original Alt. History
Ok so Finland went fascist, nothing that effects us currently(the power balance required for a fascist victory is asb) but we should keep an eye out(really the power that matter to us are Italy, Britain, Japan,USSR and Germany) for tensions that could lead to a general European war if mustache man doesn't appear on schedule.
On the matter of tanks the best design of WW2 overall were the American models, barring that grab something based on the German model, Italian, Japanese and British tanks were below par historically(USSR were fine cannon fodder in a cost sense but relations with the soviets is like being close to Uranium not good for ones health plan).
On the matter of tanks the best design of WW2 overall were the American models, barring that grab something based on the German model, Italian, Japanese and British tanks were below par historically(USSR were fine cannon fodder in a cost sense but relations with the soviets is like being close to Uranium not good for ones health plan).
Rat King
Izutsumi-pilled
The issue is the Sherman doesn't get designed OTL until... 1941. So American tanks right now are basically nonexistent aside from some prototypes. In the immediate future, Italian, British or German designs are probably our best bets. And even then prior to P1940-41, I'd say the Vickers 6-ton is roughly on par with the early Panzer marks (I/II especially, as they're a bit underarmed). There's also the possibility of getting Czech or Swedish tank designs.
Did they get the chance to look at any carbine variants?
So the only real improvement could be to the bolt handle. Is that possible without mucking up the design of the Arisaka?
Gotcha. I saw the entire 6.5 discussion upthread, understood none of it, and wanted to bring it back up
Timing's good for LMGs. We've tested the BAR and the only other option I'm particularly keen on is the ZB vz. 26 (and its variant, the Bren).
The Thompson is a nice SMG, but it's absurdly expensive by what accounts I've come across. We probably want to wait until someone develops a cheaper weapon or put a lot of time into reworking the Thompson into a gun that can be stamped off an assembly line by the thousands. We should also wait for pistols to around the same time so we can have a standard pistol/SMG cartridge.
There's also things like mortars (the French 81 mm being the obvious pick), grenade launchers (the Knee Mortar being superb), and regimental artillery (the 75 mm we use is apparently quite outdated and the 70 mm has an effective range of a thrown shoe).
I would strongly disagree with that assessment. US tanks during the period where we'd want to procure them (i.e., pre M3 - any of them) are all terrible cult of the machine gun monstrosities that run on gasoline and cost a ton. Once the war starts, we're basically reliant on our existing stockpiles, so we can't get M4A3s.
Germany's not building tanks right now, and if you say they are, they'll get very angry at you for implying they're violating Versailles. Their first actually good tank is the Panzer III, and that shows up too late for us to build up large numbers.
Italian tanks aren't great, but they're small, they're cheap, and they exist in the mid-'30s (the most important part).
Japanese tanks are actually really good for when they're designed. If we built something based off of a heavily modified I-Go Otsu or Ha-Go, we could arguably have the best light/medium tank in the world in the mid-'30s. The diesel they have is very nice, if the gun's not spectacular until the Japanese switch to the 47 (we'd want to adopt something else), and armour can be improved upon. Just because they didn't modernize them then ran into Soviet tanks skews things a lot.
Not gonna disagree about British tanks, but that's because I'm biased.
Soviet tanks in this period were very good. The BT-series are more mobile, as armoured, and as heavily armed as most tanks in the world. Adopting something similar is a thought.
Rat King
Izutsumi-pilled
Technically, the Bren is based off of the vz 33, which comes a bit later, but yes, basically the same gun as the Bren in most mechanical aspects (vz 26 is original, then theres the 30 and 33, 30 is probably the one we want to get our hands on).
With regards to tanks... as of 1930, there's not a lot out there that's "good". It's the middle of the interwar period and everyone and their mother is trying to figure out what works. As of 1930, there's basically nothing that we want to use - we don't start seeing a lot of the "early war" tanks until 1932-34 period (that's when we get the Vickers 6-ton, the T-26, the BT series, the early Italian tanks, and the Japanese Type 95 Ha-Go). Right now the best tanks on the market are probably FT-17 variants or the early Italian tankettes. Because basically nothing else "good" gets really developed until the mid-30s - and then those get made obsolete by the jumps at the beginning of the Second World War.
Yeah I'm shifting my dates to the mid-30s when I talk about things. 1930 is just too early to do anything beyond the very early stuff, but we want to have tanks soon enough before we can't develop an armoured doctrine in time. The best early tank is probably the Landsverk L-60 in 1935, but who knows if we could get a production license for it.
Of course, again, there's always the topic of designing our own tank
- Location
- Somewhere in the stacks
- Pronouns
- She/Her
Aircraft wise the Glouster Grouse or Glouster Gamecock might be a good choice for adoption. A little outdated by 1st-rate power standards, but probably good for our use. The Avro 504 or Curtiss JN Jenny are also good choics, I'd say.
EDIT: Actually, the Curtiss Falcon was introduced in 1925 and is probably a solid all around light trainer/bomber/recon aircraft. And the Curtiss Hawk is a solid biplane fighter.
EDIT: Actually, the Curtiss Falcon was introduced in 1925 and is probably a solid all around light trainer/bomber/recon aircraft. And the Curtiss Hawk is a solid biplane fighter.
Last edited:
It shouldn't be too hard to get them because it looks like they were not very concerned about the different variety of Nations buying them?
Rat King
Izutsumi-pilled
I'm voting for the Type 38 at this point. Potentially with total length reduced from about 50 inches to about 44-45 to make it a bit handier, but thats not an absolute necessity.
We also badly need to revise our training standards (20 rounds a year!!!) but we need more ammo production for that.
[X] The Defence Council has plans for the future, but the situation is not yet right for introducing these elements.
We also badly need to revise our training standards (20 rounds a year!!!) but we need more ammo production for that.
[X] The Defence Council has plans for the future, but the situation is not yet right for introducing these elements.
- Location
- an unseen void
- Pronouns
- Any
[X] The Defence Council has plans for the future, but the situation is not yet right for introducing these elements.
[X] The Defence Council has plans for the future, but the situation is not yet right for introducing these elements.
we'll do it when the guns exist.
Also, agreed on training schedules. Having enough ammo that troops can actually shoot is important. Might want to make that a write-in
Lastly, as soon as we get a chance I want to do a write-in to find a production engineer and hire them to look at the things we pick and see which ones are easiest to make. When we're giving the troops so few bullets, even small improvements are helpful.
we'll do it when the guns exist.
Also, agreed on training schedules. Having enough ammo that troops can actually shoot is important. Might want to make that a write-in
Lastly, as soon as we get a chance I want to do a write-in to find a production engineer and hire them to look at the things we pick and see which ones are easiest to make. When we're giving the troops so few bullets, even small improvements are helpful.
[ ] The Defence Council has plans for the future, but the situation is not yet right for introducing these elements.
Hmm, would 20mm be an acceptable caliber for anti-air/early anti-tank? Oerlikon might have put out an early version of their autocannon this year that was supposed to be used in both those roles.
[X] The Defence Council will assess anti-armour and anti-air weapons as soon as possible (Industry and Logistics - Armaments will now include AT and AA options.)
Hmm, would 20mm be an acceptable caliber for anti-air/early anti-tank? Oerlikon might have put out an early version of their autocannon this year that was supposed to be used in both those roles.
[X] The Defence Council will assess anti-armour and anti-air weapons as soon as possible (Industry and Logistics - Armaments will now include AT and AA options.)
Last edited:
- Pronouns
- He/She/They
[X] The Defence Council will assess anti-armour and anti-air weapons as soon as possible (Industry and Logistics - Armaments will now include AT and AA options.)
Last edited:
- Location
- The Frozen North
- Pronouns
- He/Him
While tanks and aircraft/aa are a bit pre-emptive as others have said, what are current At-Rifle designs like and would we have any ability to obtain them? I would think we'd only need a small amount of them to deal with the low quality early interwar tanks we might encounter In any early conflicts. Plus this would probably help placate the politicians.
The 20 mm Oerlikon 1S or the 13.2 mm Hotchkiss M1929 are HMGs (or cannon, in the former case) that are probably the closest thing to an effective AT rifle right now. For anti-tank rifles proper, the earliest I know of is the Solothurn S18/100.
We could buy those and use them in AA/AT companies (they're both designed to work as AAA and AT guns). Buy ~30 of those, and then maybe in the mid- to late-'30s we replace them with a heavier autocannon to fill the same niche? In that case, we'd probably switch to voting
Code:
[ ] The Defence Council will assess anti-armour and anti-air weapons as soon as possible (Industry and Logistics - Armaments will now include AT and AA options.)- Location
- an unseen void
- Pronouns
- Any
It's the "ASAP" part of that vote which still concerns me. Working on this stuff with the munitions office sounds dope but I don't want to make political commitments to the pace thereof if we don't have to.
How long d'you think it'd take? The production licensing decisions were 6 months, but things like purchasing horses were 3-month tasks. "Buy three dozen Oerlikon 20 mms from the Swiss and give them to the Divisional Artillery Detachment to act as a stopgap" wouldn't be that much more complex (if at all) than buying hundreds of horses, IMO. It's an option if we want to take it.
- Location
- an unseen void
- Pronouns
- Any
Mm. That's true, and it does seem to be the way to unlock the options sooner. Cautiously switching my vote.
[X] The Defence Council will assess anti-armour and anti-air weapons as soon as possible (Industry and Logistics - Armaments will now include AT and AA options.)
[X] The Defence Council will assess anti-armour and anti-air weapons as soon as possible (Industry and Logistics - Armaments will now include AT and AA options.)
- Location
- alphen aan den rijn
[X] The Defence Council will assess anti-armour and anti-air weapons as soon as possible (Industry and Logistics - Armaments will now include AT and AA options.)
- Location
- The Frozen North
- Pronouns
- He/Him
[X] The Defence Council will assess anti-armour and anti-air weapons as soon as possible (Industry and Logistics - Armaments will now include AT and AA options.)