Remove ads

East Africa 1930: An ORBAT Quest

Reader mode
I'm not sure we need to keep a slot open for LTPH - I assume the Veterinary Office turns into a dedicated point the same way the Carabinieri office and the Munitions office do? It'd be weird if it was the one continual area-specialty thing that didn't.

That said, I'd love to put the newly completed info bonus to work on that 3-month army analysis anyway. That + the munitions point to an ammo factory + the carabinieri point to army drill + the other free point to Veterinary Office is my preference this turn, I think.
 
4WheelSword said:
[ ] Analysis: The Foreigners Have Some Good Ideas - Form overseas observation teams to take the best ideas from foreign nations. (12-Month Investment.)
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Eukie said:
[ ] Analysis: The Foreigners Have Some Good Ideas - Send observation teams overseas to take the best ideas from foreign nations. (6-Month Investment.)
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I want to point out that with the Analytical Research Team complete, it only takes 6 months to send observation teams overseas rather than a year.
 
Rat King said:
I think information review army will give us a better picture of what we need to do next. Unless we really want to try an grab the LMG immediately, which I am kinda "eh" on until we can start more indepth army and training reforms and get the org chart sorted.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I wasn't thinking the LMG (we want license production of that and they aren't available off the shelf), but instead a heavier weapon we need less of. If the government hadn't beaten us to the punch then I would have suggested 20 mm Oerlikon autocannons, but alternatively there's 75 mm howitzers to modernize our artillery companies, 81 mm battalion mortars, Type 3 HMGs, or something similar.

That said, army review is my other preferred choice, so I'm not complaining either way.
 
Wait are these things using feed strips or the box magazine? Because I can't find any documentation on the 13.2mm Hotchkiss using feed strips.

EDIT: Disregard I found it.
 
Last edited:
C_Z said:
I wasn't thinking the LMG (we want license production of that and they aren't available off the shelf), but instead a heavier weapon we need less of. If the government hadn't beaten us to the punch then I would have suggested 20 mm Oerlikon autocannons, but alternatively there's 75 mm howitzers to modernize our artillery companies, 81 mm battalion mortars, Type 3 HMGs, or something similar.

That said, army review is my other preferred choice, so I'm not complaining either way.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I think for our regimental guns, the Skoda 8 cm canon vz. 30 might be a decent light piece - it's called an 8 cm, but fires a 76.5mm (three inch) shell, essentially, and was designed to combine the field gun/mountain gun role and is relatively light.

For the higher level guns, there's a 10cm Skoda, which is relatively light and has about the same range and shell weight as the German 105 and the later American 105. All shoot out to about 10-11 km, give or take. There are heavier, longer-ranged 105s as well but I am not sure we need or want those.

So we could be ambitious and do the regimental guns as all 75s/three inches and then the army reserve as all 105s/10cm, but I don't know how deep we want to go on that.

EDIT: The Japanese also apparently have an effective 10cm/105mm gun that's just entering production.
 
Last edited:
Rat King said:
I think for our regimental guns, the Skoda 8 cm canon vz. 30 might be a decent light piece - it's called an 8 cm, but fires a 76.5mm (three inch) shell, essentially, and was designed to combine the field gun/mountain gun role and is relatively light.

For the higher level guns, there's a 10cm Skoda, which is relatively light and has about the same range and shell weight as the German 105 and the later American 105. All shoot out to about 10-11 km, give or take. There are heavier, longer-ranged 105s as well but I am not sure we need or want those.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The Skoda guns did catch my attention. Supposedly they were designed to act as both field and mountain howitzers, so even the 10cm version is able to be taken apart and transported in 3 pieces.
 
[ ] Plan: Tentative and based on above discussion
-[ ] Information Review: Army
-[ ] Establish a Veterinary Oversight Office
-[ ] Production Licencing: Ammunition
--[ ] 6.5x50mmSR Type 38
-[ ] Doctrinal Reform: Army Drill

Also, as for the organization of the HMGs, I'm concerned that having them at the battalion level will pose too much of a logistical headache on our army right now. I'd like to do a battalion-level fire support company at some point, but the framework isn't there for it yet and we don't even have a standard battalion structure right now (the 1st Regiment is just 3 companies!). I'd rather we establish a regimental AA/AT company for each regiment of 6 guns each, with the remaining 6 guns being kept as spares/given to the army training command to familiarize new soldiers with the weapons and develop new doctrine surrounding their employment.
Rat King said:
I think for our regimental guns, the Skoda 8 cm canon vz. 30 might be a decent light piece - it's called an 8 cm, but fires a 76.5mm (three inch) shell, essentially, and was designed to combine the field gun/mountain gun role and is relatively light.

For the higher level guns, there's a 10cm Skoda, which is relatively light and has about the same range and shell weight as the German 105 and the later American 105. All shoot out to about 10-11 km, give or take. There are heavier, longer-ranged 105s as well but I am not sure we need or want those.

So we could be ambitious and do the regimental guns as all 75s/three inches and then the army reserve as all 105s/10cm, but I don't know how deep we want to go on that.

EDIT: The Japanese also apparently have an effective 10cm/105mm gun that's just entering production.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
It's awfully heavy for a regimental gun though, isn't it? Looking at the Bofors, Ansaldo, French, and American pack howitzers/mountain guns, they seem to be much easier to handle at the expense of shorter range. Even the Japanese 10 cm gun you linked is lighter than it. With our poor logistics, I'm in favour of prioritizing light weight and the ability to be broken down into loads that can be transported by donkey or ox even if it means sacrificing range at the regimental level.
 
C_Z said:
[ ] Plan: Tentative and based on above discussion
-[ ] Information Review: Army
-[ ] Establish a Veterinary Oversight Office
-[ ] Production Licencing: Ammunition
--[ ] 6.5x50mmSR Type 38
-[ ] Doctrinal Reform: Army Drill

Also, as for the organization of the HMGs, I'm concerned that having them at the battalion level will pose too much of a logistical headache on our army right now. I'd like to do a battalion-level fire support company at some point, but the framework isn't there for it yet and we don't even have a standard battalion structure right now (the 1st Regiment is just 3 companies!). I'd rather we establish a regimental AA/AT company for each regiment of 6 guns each, with the remaining 6 guns being kept as spares/given to the army training command to familiarize new soldiers with the weapons and develop new doctrine surrounding their employment.

It's awfully heavy for a regimental gun though, isn't it? Looking at the Bofors, Ansaldo, French, and American pack howitzers/mountain guns, they seem to be much easier to handle at the expense of shorter range. Even the Japanese 10 cm gun you linked is lighter than it. With our poor logistics, I'm in favour of prioritizing light weight and the ability to be broken down into loads that can be transported by donkey or ox even if it means sacrificing range at the regimental level.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I was thinking 3x8, but 3x6 with with six as reserves/training/replacements works better, I think for the HMGs.

And fair enough on the guns... I like the Bofors model, but not available until 1934 (although at this rate, we won't be ready to buy new guns until then anyway). The French '28 model also isn't bad.
 
Any particular reason to NOT go with the M2 when it enters production in 1933? Probably also the best long term option given the relative simplicity of the design and parts.
 
RookDeSuit said:
Will we know about this gun in-universe? If so then yes, but if , No, then how do we learn it exists?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
We should know about the predecessor the M1921 Browning machine gun which was developed into the M2 in 1933, pretty sure there has been continuous refinement/production of the .50 cal Brownings since it's design was started in 1918. Off the top of my head I can't think of any particularly egregious problems with the earlier designs beyond not being the M2.
 
KleverKil'Vanya said:
Any particular reason to NOT go with the M2 when it enters production in 1933? Probably also the best long term option given the relative simplicity of the design and parts.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Price. The Browning Company licenses are quite expensive during this time period if we want to make it ourselves.

Not sure how just buying the gun stacks up, but now that we have the Hotchkiss I don't see a reason to change away from them...
 
Artificial Girl said:
Price. The Browning Company licenses are quite expensive during this time period if we want to make it ourselves.

Not sure how just buying the gun stacks up, but now that we have the Hotchkiss I don't see a reason to change away from them...
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Not specifically with regards to the Browning (it's kinda pointless now that we have the Hotchkiss, as you said, and for an improvement over the Hotchkiss I'd rather we jump to a proper autocannon that'll be able to penetrate late-30s tanks), but could we go the route of "purchase a limited number -> produce unlicensed copies" for other weapons? If we're not selling them everywhere, there might be a chance that we can delay any attempt to get license payments long enough that it will cease to matter?
 
Last edited:
[X] Plan: Horses, bullets, and regimental AA/AT companies
-[X] Write-in: Create three regimental Anti-Air/Anti-Tank companies with six guns each. The remaining six guns are to be given to the Army Training Detachment to act as spares and aids for training and doctrine development.
-[X] Information Review: Army
-[X] Establish a Veterinary Oversight Office
-[X] Production Licencing: Ammunition
--[X] 6.5x50mmSR Type 38
-[X] Doctrinal Reform: Army Drill
 
I think we should probably do the government info review soon? Like, that way we know what they want us to be, which makes it easier to avoid getting screwed over by surprise mandates.
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top