Remove ads

Attempting to Fulfill the Plan MNKh Edition

Voted best in category in the Users' Choice awards.
Reader mode
LATE REACTION POST! Well, we made good use of what we learnt from the Algerian bloodshed at least.

Political pressure to increase meat production at this stage is unfavorable to us, but don't get why people are predicting plagues or nurgle to hit us. Unless those "modified standards for the handling of livestock" involve stripping away health and safety measures?

Finally the big roads are done (except for Siberia) and the countryside doesn't use hand water pumps! Yet our smaller towns still have dirt streets, infra hell just never ends huh? And the first stage of River Reversal is done too. Hopefully by the time more are available we'll understand the consequences of our actions.

We rolled a 3 on the mars mission, so what exactly went wrong? Are our scientists just totally wrong about how much rocket we need or the need to do a mars orbit rendezvous? I'd rather not send it to committee just because lol committee funni (the results of designs by comittee are not funny they are just sad), but heck stuff like this is the reason we wanted an atomic rocket!

Only +10 RpT for CMEA launches is disappointing, but hey we are past 120 RpT cap now, the magic 50% of moonshot budget said to be sustainable! Now I just hope we can keep it growing in proportion to our economy.
Blackstar said:
Further through the consolidation of hydrological resources to production rather than wasteful ecological concerns, regional water efficiency is expected to significantly improve. Once the rivers themselves are tamed and new techniques developed it may even be possible to convert the water into targeted agricultural feedstock rather than then unmodernized open systems.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
<eyes twitch> RIP aral sea. Well at least they are honest this time!
Blackstar said:
As the Soviet demand for educated personnel has only accelerated with the current plan the priority has fallen towards the importation of foreign labor, especially for technical aspects. An effectively unlimited number of partially teaching graduate student slots have been opened in critical fields for industry and defense, allowing thousands of students to study in the Union and help with further domestic development. Most of these students and labs run by them are expected to be provided with basic grant money for research and further, by teaching local students the costs are expected to be entirely recouped with few issues, and by providing local graduate degrees Soviet science can significantly be improved. Furthermore, the hiring of foreign graduate students doing field-relevant research has been opened to all domestic enterprises outside positions of military classification, accelerating development and access to capable personnel.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
This... it's good for us the USSR, but It sounds a little like we're ramping up the brain-drain of the rest of CMEA.

With the LI deputy I'm a []Vladimir Akimovich Demchenko man. Household knicknacks are suitable for being produced by coperatives and small businesses rather than massive state-controlled enterprises and we should encourage that. Computing technology is moving towards Heavy Industry rather than light industry, and I not not think the remaining widget industries that NEED state control are numerous enough to bother with an LI focus like Solovyov's proponents want.
 
Blackstar said:
It's a bit of a mess of a tank as seen by the bureaus and enterprises doing what they would otherwise never do and semi-cooperating/forcing their will onto the new tank before accepting the bitter problem of having to produce it instead of their designs. UVZ is still pushing the T52U, but that's for export clients rather than any domestic armament program. The turret is broadly the T72A turret with similar sintered inserts, the hull though, mostly due to the expected threat of extended mixed composition penetrators (BM-15/22 out of an L11 gun) is getting something closer to a T80B/T64BV and HHA introduced earlier due to a more mature steel industry that is using modern techniques. This makes an array of similar thickness to the previous one of a weird mixed composition to compensate for the expected HESH/HEAT threat. Something like 50-40-50-40-25 HHA-Texo-HHA-Texo-RHA as a compromise and balance to keep pace with new kinetic and cumulative threats, in effect a quasi-in-between comparable to the base armor of a later production 80B and 64B.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
That 50-40-50-40-25 lowkey does not make sense* but non optimal designs are a thing and this should still be better than base T-72A even if worse than T-64BV or T-80BV.
For reference:
T-80B used 60-100-45 array (HHA-Texo-HHA).
T-64B I think varied between 60-105-20 (RHA-Texo_RHA) and 60-100-45 (HHA-Texo-HHA) depending on production date
T-64BV (not to be confused with T-64B brought up to BV standard) used 60-35-30-35-45 (RHA-Texo-RHA-Texo-RHA array).
T-80BV (not to be confused with T-80B brought up to BV standard) and T-80U used 50-30-50-30 (HHA-Texo-HHA-Texo-HHA)
*From what I read Inner most plate really benefit from being over 25mm thick, with every mm of steel added over those 25mm having higher efficiency.
Blackstar said:
The passive night sight is going to likely end up on the B and the first production models of the new MBT in the sense of being equipped across all positions and significantly enhanced compared to older fielded 1st generation systems. The biggest thing expected of it is moving to the performance of a quasi "2nd generation" system for the commander and gunner while going most of the way for the more compact driver's position. Light amplification in the 10-20k range rather than the capacity of first-generation systems and identification to half a kilometer with just starlight and far longer under half and full moon conditions. It's a technical dead end in a lot of ways but is seen as a way to avoid the use of searchlights in an increasingly night vision-enabled battlefield. High contrast tubes along with more capable noise filtering will likely not come in on the so to say mid/late 70s generation but the capacity itself comes from the issues of night combat and reduced target acquisition times in the encounter between two armored vehicles.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
This make sense.
Blackstar said:
To note specifically, the system is considerably less advanced than the later Kaira, it's closer to something like an integral AN/AVQ-10 Pave Knife that will later get entirely overhauled to be both lighter and more capable in either craft's attack/production versions ala a Su-24's Kaira-24 in the mid to late 70s.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Still massive improvement over literally nothing for planes and simple stabilised sight with laser rangefinder for helicopters that USSR used at the time, plus if you can take feed from optoelectronic head of pod/integrated system you can take input from compatible TV seeker heads and both need screen to display what they see.
 
General_Urist said:
We rolled a 3 on the mars mission, so what exactly went wrong? Are our scientists just totally wrong about how much rocket we need or the need to do a mars orbit rendezvous? I'd rather not send it to committee just because lol committee funni (the results of designs by comittee are not funny they are just sad), but heck stuff like this is the reason we wanted an atomic rocket!
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

The starting roll on rocketry projects is basically for the quality/practicality of the idea that the nerds decide to build the program around. So rolling a 3 got us an insane mission profile that wants to drill multiple meters deep and come back with multiple kilos of Mars rock. They're wrong about how practical this idea is, not necessarily because of raw launch mass (although that is a big problem) but also by seriously underestimating the difficulties of landing a drilling rig that big on Mars, returning to Martian orbit with that many rocks, etc. The plan as proposed will (barring godlike luck) hit pretty constant delays as they run up against these problems, and it's an open question whether they can even be solved or if we'll just keep burning money banging our head against DC 90 checkpoints every year.
 
Last edited:
Crazycryodude said:
The starting roll on rocketry projects is basically for the quality/practicality of the idea that the nerds decide to build the program around. So rolling a 3 got us an insane mission profile that wants to drill multiple meters deep and come back with multiple kilos of Mars rock. They're wrong about how practical this idea is, not necessarily because of raw launch mass (although that is a big problem) but also by seriously underestimating the difficulties of landing a drilling rig that big on Mars, returning to Martian orbit with that many rocks, etc. The plan as proposed will (barring godlike luck) hit pretty constant delays as they run up against these problems, and it's an open question whether they can even be solved or if we'll just keep burning money banging our head against DC 90 checkpoints every year.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Oh OK. Didn't consider the drilling rig. No amount of work can salvage THAT idea, I'll vote to cancel.
 
General_Urist said:
Oh OK. Didn't consider the drilling rig. No amount of work can salvage THAT idea, I'll vote to cancel.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Now admittedly drilling multiple meters down isn't 'that' impossible*, but it's certainly a substantial challenge. And now it makes some more sense to me what is helping to make this mission a problem. That is overly ambitious for the first sample return mission when even getting some samples one can pick up and extract from the surface would already be very good.



* A Mars probe once had a some what deeper drilling setup going for it, it used an innovative super lightweight design for that... because well it had to fit in to tighter margins then this thing would need to. Though it is worth noting it failed to get to remotely close to hoped for depths and they had to abort with far less then hoped for in the end. So that could be an alternate fail mode in this case as well then. Drill gets 30 cm deep, gets stuck on something for the one or other reason, you only get the first 30 cm and go home with that in the moderately likely case of still being able to retract it.
 
Our options are []Be a Captain Planet villain, []Be a real life oil executive, []Spin this about how nuclear is the future, []Let Balakirev continue to be bad at politics, and []Be a suicidal hippie. Clearly, the middle option is optimal.

[X]Reword the Report
[X]Cancel it
[X]Vladimir Akimovich Demchenko
 
aja318 said:
We also see early spread of slat armour to tanks, not exactly expected outcome of Algerian conflict but not an unreasonable development.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Come to think of it, if the French tank designs are like OTL, they're not very well protected as I recall, and everyone at this point is underprepared for long range antitank missiles and HEAT weaponry performance. So the slat armor, which can be attached hastily to existing tanks as an applique, has appeal.
 
Simon_Jester said:
Come to think of it, if the French tank designs are like OTL, they're not very well protected as I recall, and everyone at this point is underprepared for long range antitank missiles and HEAT weaponry performance. So the slat armor, which can be attached hastily to existing tanks as an applique, has appeal.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
French tank development after WW2 wasn't really the best hell they used some German tanks for a bit and there first new native tank was a awkward heavy one?
 
Simon_Jester said:
Come to think of it, if the French tank designs are like OTL, they're not very well protected as I recall, and everyone at this point is underprepared for long range antitank missiles and HEAT weaponry performance. So the slat armor, which can be attached hastily to existing tanks as an applique, has appeal.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
It's less presence of such weapons and more of how many you can easily rush into theater, the late 50s and 60s western tank design was based around tactical mobility mostly because protection was deemed infeasible in the face of powerful HEAT warheads.
French were probably expecting massive numbers of AT weapons when facing us directly not in proxy conflict.
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top