Remove ads

Attempting to Fulfill the Plan MNKh Edition

Voted best in category in the Users' Choice awards.
Reader mode
I have ascended into a single issue voter for the ASU we cannot abandon Voz great legacy just because an upjumped politician with a dropout degree got handed a freebee 😤
 
Hianny said:
I have ascended into a single issue voter for the ASU we cannot abandon Voz great legacy just because an upjumped politician with a dropout degree got handed a freebee 😤
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Another part of vozs great legacy that he is a living example of the USSR not discriminating against oceanborn life forms joining the economy, specifically in this instance the much marginalized and long victimized octopus community.
 
[]Plan Throw Stalin a Bone for RNG
-[]Infrastructure (8/9 dice) 650 Resources
--[]Western USSR Regional Roads, 3 dice (255R)
--[]Ural Region High Capacity Roads, 3 dice (255R)
--[]Unified Canal System, 2 dice (140R)
-[]HI (2/5 dice) 320 Resources
--[]Bryansk Truck Plant, 2 dice (320R)
-[]Rocketry (2/2 dice + 1 Free) 200 Resources
--[]Stalingrad Plant Expansions, 1 die (200R)
--[]Outreach Programs, 1 die
--[]Patent Transfer Systems, 1 die
-[]LCI (3/6 dice) 360R
--[]Samotor Field Development(Stage 1), 3 dice (360R)
-[]Agriculture (9/6 dice + 3 Free) 970 Resources
--[]Domestic Meat Programs (Stage 1), 5 dice (550R)
--[]State Storage Enterprises, 3 dice (300R)
--[]Second Generation Seed Program, 1 die (120R)
-[]Services (8/10 dice) 620 Resources
--[]Expanded Childcare (Stage 2), 2 dice (140R)
--[]State Consumer Food Champions (Stage 1), 6 dice (480R)
-[]Bureaucracy (8/8 dice) 0 Resources
--[]Bread Program Cancellation, 1 die (SupSov)
--[]Cooperatives Reform, 1 die (SupSov)
--[]Undo the Wage Freezes, 1 die (SupSov)
--[]Intervene on LCI Department Reorganization, 1 die
--[]Call a General Meeting, 1 die
--[]Personally Assess Department (HI), 1 die
--[]Dedicate Focus (Unified Canal System), 1 die (unrolled) (SupSov)
--[]Dedicate Focus (State Consumer Food Champions), 1 die (unrolled)
-[]Total Cost: 3120/3120 Resources, 39 dice rolled

Did a plan that does Stalingrad (to appease Stalin and because letting a rocket factory to rot for a year seems unwise), Second Generation Seeds Program (some of the seeds popping up around this time can literally double yields) and the Samotor field because that one is our most profitable and gives us 2 gas projects.
 
Made a plan proposal
[]Plan Proper Priorities
-[]Infrastructure (9/9 dice + 2 Free) 2420 Resources
--[]ASU, 11 dice (2420R)
-[]HI (5/5 dice) 1100 Resources
--[]ASU, 5 dice (1100R)
-[]Rocketry (2/2 dice + 1 Free) 660 Resources
--[]ASU, 3 dice (660R)
-[]LCI (6/6 dice) 1320R
--[]ASU, 6 dice (1320R)
-[]Agriculture (6/6 dice + 1 Free) 1540 Resources
--[]ASU, 6 dice (1540R)
-[]Services (10/10 dice) 2200 Resources
--[]ASU, 10 dice (2200R)
-[]Bureaucracy (8 dice)
--[]Bread Program Cancellation, 1 die (SupSov)
--[]Cooperatives Reform, 1 die (SupSov)
--[]Undo the Wage Freezes, 1 die (SupSov)
--[]Dedicate Focus (Unified Canal System), 1 die (unrolled) (SupSov)
--[]Dedicate Focus (ASU), 4 dice (unrolled)
-[]Total Cost: Irrelevant/There Is No Fortress The Soviet Science Cannot Storm Resources
 
Military overview for those interested.

Blackstar said:
The largest and most recent development for the infantry has come in the form of a new rifle program to find a successor to the at this point relatively venerable Kalashnikov. The heavy ammunition used has consistently limited carrying capacity and persistently caused issues in transportation, necessitating a new rifle. Limitations in the precision of automatic fire have also been endemic along with general precision, restricting engagement ranges and forcing soldiers to carry an excessive quantity of ammunition. Several smaller programs have also been started for the development of a new series of infantry missile weapons. One push going towards the miniaturization of a heatseeker into an infantry portable format while another has focused on the atomization of light anti-tank firepower to deal with whatever BMP equivalents our enemies bring to the field.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
New rifle being considered and spreading of anti tank weapons more generously is interesting and nice but not really a big deal, we seem to be going towards smaller bullets like NATO did. What is good is that development of man portable AA missiles seem to be on track relative to OTL and that is nice.

Blackstar said:
With the effective continuation of technical funding the vision for the standardized tracked infantry carrier has been modernized, with the first examples set to ship out across the next year. Original expectations for dismount space proved optimistic, necessitating a mild lengthening of the design but that was accomplished through minor internal movements of hardware. A higher velocity 20mm autocannon has also been adopted with APDS shells set to be produced to accompany it, providing sufficient anti armor capability against any light vehicles. The production variant is set to receive a night sight and IR searchlight for the commander-gunner, allowing for a degree of night fighting capacity. Initial models are going to ship with 9M14's but plans have already been made to transition towards the 9K111 and then the 9K113 with the same layout of four on external racks and four stored internally though without any combat reload capacity in place of the right side "5th seat".
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Our BMP-1 came out really nice, with more missiles, better upgrade potential and more effective artillery armament than IRL BMP-1. With deliveries stated for 1966 it's also ready ahead of time by small margin.

Blackstar said:
Continued developments of both the light 9K111 and the heavy 9K113 have continued through the plan and have only received more funding as the French armored threat has increased. The necessity of a follow-on towards older manually controlled systems is already critically necessary with the advances in armor and the poor accuracy exhibited by all but the best gunners. Both new missiles are similar in general design, featuring a single cumulative warhead and a wire-linked beacon firing system. The largest difference is in size, as the 9K113 is more complex and larger, serving as a heavier dedicated anti tank system with a longer range, better warhead, and stronger motor. Issuance of either missile is not expected to occur at a large scale until 67 for the 9K111 and likely before the end of the decade for the 9K113. Guidance by thermal beacon is only expected to become more significant, with plans already made to pair the new heavier missile with a helicopter platform.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
First really big military news this update, if those missile are analogous to the IRL ones with same designation we have pulled years ahead in development and production schedule. Even if those are less capable pushing out SACLOS ATGMs early will still offer massive increase in combat potential to our troops.

Blackstar said:
As the reality of the technically challenged T64 program has set in, a new series of modernizations have started development for the T52, to bring it into a new T52M1 standard and update the production of tanks for export. The initial modifications conducted in the T52B and M variants have avoided anything radical in favor of being cheap retrofits, but those versions of the tank have a limited capacity for further work. Still, more mild upgrades have continued to bring the vehicles up to modern standards and ensure a degree of training commonality. A new unified system optic for all models has been developed from the T64 project, and while stuck with a stadiametric rangefinder, the new targeting system can independently calculate gun elevation with different ammunition, eliminating manual changes in gun laying when switching between ammunition. Turret armor kits have gotten more comprehensive, with an extension of the composite-epoxy plate system to deter cumulative munitions enabled by the new sight. Most importantly, to compensate for a lack of rangefinding equipment, a fin stabilized sabot round with a tungsten core has been designed from the advances on the 125mm gun and is expected to replace all APDS rounds in domestic inventory. Sighting for all closer range shots has enabled a flat trajectory, reducing the need for complicated sighting and more then doubling first shot accuracy within a kilometer.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Pretty important modernisation for T-52 (our T-54/55 analog), introduction of ballistic computer early together with new periscopic sight fully replacing older telescoping gunsight represent significant increase in capabilities, addition of what look like superelevation function represent further increase in capability over both what was present in quest but also over what was used by IRL USSR at the time.
For comparison, USSR didn't include superelevation to the gun meaning that adjusting range caused crosshair in sight to drop down instead of range adjustment causing gun to go up while sight stayed in place and to the best of my knowledge ballistic computers were not included on T-55 until 70s when they receiver laser rangefinders.

Now to confusing section, I'm going off on the assumption that our 100mm gun is analogous to D-10T cannon (found on T-55) and APDS it fire is analogous to 3BM-8 APDS for D-10T.
Full caliber AP shell like BR-412D fired from D-10T have point blank range against tank sized target of ~1km (exact range depend on height of target and what range sight is zeroed to but number I'll use will be broadly fitting to IRL NATO tanks of the era), meaning that if sight is set to 1km pointing it at the bottom of the hull of tank that is no further than 1km from you will result in hit. EDIT: Part about point blank range of BR-412 is incorrect.
3BM-8 APDS fired from D-10T have point blank range against tank sized target of ~1.5km.
Finally historical APFSDS projectiles fired from D-10T were so close in their trajectory as to not require any sight changes from sights made for use with 3BM-8 APDS (muzzle velocity difference was ~15m/s in favour of APFSDS ammounting to ~1% increase compared to APDS). Main advantage those APFSDS rounds had over 3BM-8 APDS had was price, the monoblock steel APFSDS didn't use tungsten carbide at all while granting competitive or superior (depending on which source you use for 3BM-8) performance against highly angled steel plate while the steel penetrators with tungsten carbide slug in the nose also provided competitive or equal performance against flat plate while using fraction of tungsten carbide (those slugs are tiny compared to APDS cores). Things that would provide improved accuracy would be usage of subcaliber fins (as in fins that are not used as point of contact between projectile and the barrel and consequently causing less drag) or MV of projectile (mostly by using stronger charge) but even then those would most likely have pronounced effect on accuracy at longer ranges.
TL;DR: Unless existing APDS was dire crime against aerodynamics/had massive sabot separation issues (but then it'd be useless at long range and crew would rather use older full caliber shells to be able to hit anything) improvements in APFSDS shell construction are unlikely to significantly improve accuracy at short range since APDS should have been rather accurate already.

Blackstar said:
A modified T52U has been introduced with a number of advanced features and a mild increase to weight. The high hardness hull plate has been removed in favor of a mixed metal polymer block to improve the protection from chemical rounds. The shift to newer optics has led to an increase in frontal coverage relative to older models, eliminating much of the weaker front turret area relative to the unmodified T52M. The new optics have been combined with a coincidence rangefinder, unifying the system with the T64 and bringing in a significant increase in long range capability, even if the rangefinding complex is more limited on the T52U. Ammunition stowage has also been partially moved into a large "wet" ammo rack with hull stores consolidated to reduce threat areas and reduce congestion in the turret. Engine upgrades have also proceeded along the original plan, improving horsepower slightly and ensuring a slightly higher degree of mobility to compensate from the significant weight increases brought on by new systems. Effective production changes to the new model are expected to occur in the next year, with domestic inventories being the first to receive it at scale.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
This is a very nice tank getting all advantages mentioned for above upgrade package while also getting improved range finding capability with slightly better armour (not only better addon armour coverage but no hole for now obsolete telescopic sight) and if metal polymer block is analogous to IRL metal polymer block addon armour (taking into account that base T-52 is better armoured than base T-55) we are now talking protection equivalent to IRL T-64A or bit better meaning immune to all existing 105mm APDS shell at all ranges (0m included) until we talk I thing 3rd generation APDS from mid 70s (then it should be immune at ranges over 500m), immune to 120mm APDS over 1200m (early 70s 120mm APDS is estimated to defeat T-64 hull at that range) and likely to be able to withstand some weaker early WHA/DU 105mm APFSDS at ranges over 1500m. It should also be immune to 105mm HEAT-FS shells and at least highly resistant to most NATO ATGMs of 1960s including heavier vehicle mounted ones.

Blackstar said:
Initial functional examples of the T64 have been delivered to units in the rear for evaluation and training, finding a number of severe technical issues with the tank and a generally negative impression of the reliability. The new gun and its targeting system have proven themselves functional, integrating a coincidence rangefinder with a targeting complex that automatically adjusts for ammunition selection. A new round has been issued to improve anti armor capability, providing the tank with a massive fin stabilized steel dart with an integrated tungsten penetrator. Weight gains have brought the vehicle up to almost forty one tons, as built, but the improvements in engine space and increase in filters has allowed it to function significantly better then the prototypes.

The hydropneumatic suspension and a hydraulic transmission have both proven problematic for different reasons. The suspension is maintenance heavy and with a tendency to get stuck, but when in operational mode greatly assists the gunner with the use of ridge lines and dug in points by providing additional elevation for the tanks rear. The transmission is unreliable with a tendency to leak, but it has a capacity for neutral steering, pre-selection, and an effective six forward, and two reverse gears. Modifications to the production model are expected to eventually improve reliability, but that will be the work of most of the next decade. Current production is expected to be issued mostly to training and domestic units as reliability issues are ironed out.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
So important things, T-64 is both early and late, IRL T-64 was first deployed in 1964 but with smaller turret housing 115mm cannon while T-64A with bigger and stonger turret housing 125mm cannon came in 1967. Additionally hydropneumatic suspension reduce one of the big issues of soviet tank desing, specifically low gun depression that make using ridges harder/more dangerous offering big advantage over IRL vehicle while showing willingness and confidence our army have to field more complex vehicles. In terms of firecontrol system already mentioned superlevation of gun seems to be main improvement (not sure if T-64 had balistic computer connected to coincidence rangefinder). Aside from that big change is weight, being equal to T-72A at 3 tons heavier than T-64A which may translate into better protection but it may not, hydropneumatic suspension have it's own weight. Assuming armour array is equal to that of T-64A it'll be immune to all current 105mm shells, vulenrable to 120mm cannons firing APDS (IRL only British really) below 1.2km and immune to most ATGMs it is likely to face and that should remain true for almost a decade, assuming it's protection is equal to T-72A threat range for 120mm cannons go down to below 1km and number of threatening ATGMs go down somewhat. Addition of second reverse gear is also improvement over IRL T-64 and quite significant one at that, though how significant depend on how fast it can actually go backwards.
Reliability issues seem to follow it same as it did early IRL T-64 but instead of engine problems it have issues with it's ambitious suspension.


Blackstar said:
Finalization of the Mig-23 prototype has occurred with the primary finalization of its armament complex and engine systems. Designs with a tailless cranked delta have further been pushed forward, offering a compromise on lift capacity along with a sufficiently short takeoff length in an anti-air or frontline tactical configuration. The avionics package has effectively been centered around a Sapfir radar system, providing guidance to the radar guided R13's on board, even if initial examples will fly with a more primitive system then the original specification would indicate. The AL-21 engine has effectively been paired with the airframe, delivering a better power to weight then any plane before it even if proving exceptionally fuel hungry under reheat. The idealized air to air loading as planned involves the addition of a 800L central drop tank, four R13 missiles, and two R3M missiles, coming out to a gross weight of almost thirteen and a half tons. Some proposals have been made for using the massive lifting capacity for ground attack outside of specialized systems, but that will take a further degree of systems integration.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
It seem that our MiG-23 will be more similar to earlier concept of the program rather than IRL MiG-23 but it can still change. Still it's shaping up nicely, there are also already ideas for stike version (IRL MiG-27 was strike version of MiG-23). 6 pylons as opposed to 4 represent big capability upgrade especially since 4 of them are meant for heavier R-13 missile (those seem to be meant as equivalent of R-23 missiles that IRL MiG-23 carried maximum of 2).
Blackstar said:
The larger heavy-fighter/interceptor version of the program, focused more on a long range patrol aircraft capable of long term stationkeeping with heavy ordinance has comparatively lagged behind. Work on the larger integrated radar has proven challenging in an electronics sense with the armament complex depending directly on its integration into the airframe. Initial optimism with titanium construction has proven to be uneconomical, limiting it to bracing materials and core structural elements with minimal machining, leaving the rest of the airframe to advanced aluminum alloys and adding weight and bringing it to almost sixteen tons empty. Turbine developments have not been idle, with an enhanced variation on the AL-21 developed for the fighter to improve fuel efficiency in standard operational modes.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Massive promise on TTL MiG-25 seem to got setback a step or two but it's still shaping up to be improvement over IRL MiG-25 leaving it very capable plane for it's intended role.


Blackstar said:
The largest developmental gains have effectively come for the radar operator rather than the pilot, with a significant improvement in systems integration and the beginnings of a unified computational system expected to be fitted by the point mass production models enter evaluation. Ostensibly, the plane has been expected to serve as a heavy interceptor in all roles, carrying fuel across massive internal tankage. VVS commands have pushed for it to be adopted in a longer range front line fighter role to poke out of air defense networks and target enemies as a mobile missile battery though exercises are still underway on the theoretical concept, much less any implementation. PVO forces across the most remote terrain are expected to receive the first examples with naval bases shortly following to provide a long ranged escort for naval strike aviation. Cross compatibility with the lighter R13 has been built in for the role, with work already starting on the development of twinned mounts for making the most of the four mounting points available in a three drop tank configuration.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Radar improvements are always welcome but I personally find the dual rail for what is effectively R-23 to be interesting development even if it's only meant for MiG-25.

Blackstar said:
Much of the new ordinance coming for the air force has come as a direct reaction to the Vietnam conflict and the poor ability of interceptor tasking in the midst of large scale campaigns. The fighter gun has been consolidated onto a lighter and less intrusive platform in the form of a 20mm gast-mechanism cannon, expected to be mounted to both of the new fighters and with some proposals for the refitting of the mig-21 with it to save on weight. The venerable R3 missile proved capable at downing targets from perfect shots from the rear but seeker response was consistently poor and pilot discipline was lacking. Work on both has effectively concluded with the R3M, cooling the seeker with and providing a larger continuous rod warhead to improve kill area. Minor improvements in its speed have been made with slight propellant compositional improvements, but those are only minor improvements. Even so, the missile is expected to universally be mounted to all airframes in the course of the next decade, providing a massive improvement in air to air capability.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Switch to 20mm cannons seem to be analogous to IRL change from 30mm to 23mm cannons as go to weapon system for planes in USSR. Lighter gun with more ammunition very often improvement due to higher rate of fire and longer firing time making it easier to hit target with burst and having more chances to do so.
Blackstar said:
Some newer modernizations and airframes have come from the other bureaus, as Vatutin has steadily pushed for new airframes for every context. Sukhoi has delivered the next generation of supersonic ground attackers. The Su-17 is itself practically a derivative of the Su-7 with a variable geometry wing, incorporating two additional fuselage pylons for mounting ordinance and light intermediate pylons for mounting two R3Ms as a temporary measure. For the next generation airframe a more comprehensive modernization and a move towards two tandem seats on a heavy ground attacker along with an increase in pylons and their capacity has led the program down the same road as the Mig-23. Adopting a similar if larger cranked delta on a more conventional tailed scheme and with a pair of R11's selected for power to ensure redundancy in a plane that would operate near the ground the new airframe is expected to enter service at some point early in the next decade. Integrated ordinance systems featuring more viable systems of guidance are still in the works and many of the avionics for the new airframe have yet to be developed.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Su-17 seem to be pretty much the same as IRL Su-17. What is interesting is what looks like early (as in ahead of time) Su-25 made with current technology being in the works, that is likely effect of our army deciding to keep working and finally fielding subsonic jet attack aircraft in the 50s going different route than IRL USSR.
Blackstar said:
Both the R13 and R40 are the larger missiles expected to revolutionize aerial warfare by allowing front aspect shooting capability along with a general extension of the range. The former is developed as a 200kg mid range missile with either a thermal or radar seeker, allowing a mixed shooting arrangement to reduce the probability of evasion. This ordinance unfortunately is incompatible with the limited radar of the mig 21, leaving it the purview of the next generation of aircraft. The R40 conversely is a far larger 500kg long range contemporary with a radar and thermal guidance mechanism, primarily meant to be used against any high altitude target. Much of this work is going to be against bombers and their escorts, ensuring that they are forced lower for longer and providing an anti bomber radar look down patrol capacity as an outer ring of air defense.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
As mentioned, R-13 here seem to be what R-23 was IRL. R-40 however seem to have a shot at being significantly better than it's IRL counterpart.
R-40 look to be meant for same role as IRL R-40, that is very long range air to air missile. Assuming that project will succeed in mounting dual seeker on it (IR seeker and radar seeker at the same time) it will most likely be extremely capable weapons but there is high chance that it will fail (like most such attempts at the time) and will instead be delivered similarly to projected R-13 and like IRL R-23 and R-40 in two variants, one with radar seeker and one with IR seeker.
Blackstar said:
Air to ground ordinance has also been modernized with the next generation of air force modernizations. The S-5 rocket system has been paired with a new modern rocket pod, providing significantly improved capability. A more standardized complex of larger ordinance has further been developed to enhance work against armor and fortified positions. A parallel program to retire heavier rocket ordinance in favor of a lighter more accurate system of 130mm rockets mounted into a pod has started to enter production, effectively replacing the S-3K and S-24 system with a single integrated multi shot pod with improved aerodynamic capabilities. Further work on a single unit heavy ground attack munition has developed into a guided system, weighing almost 300 kg and guided by radio command. The venerable PTAB and its derivatives have also received a modernization in the form of an aerodynamic container-bomb developed to deliver them in a denser configuration adding a universally mounted cluster-ordinance capacity in sizes from 250 to 1000 kg.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
So S-13 rocket equivalent delivered early, very early actually, technologically it's not significant (it's just medium sized unguided rocket in rocket pod) but it should increase capability and flexibility of our air force. Furthermore it seem we are getting Bullpup equivalent earlier (much earlier if it's ready to be shipped and not just project in the work) than IRL USSR, most likely result of our involvement in SEA and maintaining of subsonic strike aircrafts and something that reduce the gap between our and US strike capability at least on technological level. Also cluster bombs in universal containers just like USSR did IRL.

So that's it, I'll leave boats to people who know something about boats.
 
Last edited:
Ok I think the moratorium's up, posting my plans. If anybody sees an easy way to use up the extra 20R in reserve I forgot about, let me know, I'm just letting it ride for now. We'll definitely find a use for it next turn if nothing else, and thanks @notgreat for catching it, it would have vanished into the aether without that!


[X]Plan How the Sausage Gets Made
-[X]Infrastructure (9/9 dice + 1 Free) 940 Resources
--[X]Western USSR Regional Roads, 3 dice (255R)
--[X]Ural Region High Capacity Roads, 3 dice (255R)
--[X]Unified Canal System, 3 dice (210R)
--[X]ASU, 1 die (220R)
-[X]HI (2/5 dice) 320 Resources
--[X]Bryansk Truck Plant, 2 dice (320R)
-[X]Rocketry (2/2 dice + 1 Free) 0 Resources
--[X]Start International Programs, 1 die
--[X]Outreach Programs, 1 die
--[X]Patent Transfer Systems, 1 die
-[X]LCI (3/6 dice) 300R
--[X]Ukrainian Oil Field Development, 3 dice (300R)
-[X]Agriculture (6/6 dice + 2 Free) 850 Resources
--[X]Domestic Meat Programs (Stage 1), 5 dice (550R)
--[X]State Storage Enterprises, 3 dice (300R)
-[X]Services (9/10 dice) 690 Resources
--[X]Expanded Childcare (Stage 2), 3 dice (210R)
--[X]State Consumer Food Champions (Stage 1), 6 dice (480R)
-[X]Bureaucracy (8/8 dice) 0 Resources
--[X]Bread Program Cancellation, 1 die (SupSov)
--[X]Cooperatives Reform, 1 die (SupSov)
--[X]Undo the Wage Freezes, 1 die (SupSov)
--[X]Intervene on LCI Department Reorganization, 1 die
--[X]Call a General Meeting, 1 die
--[X]Personally Assess Department (HI), 1 die
--[X]Dedicate Focus (Unified Canal System), 1 die (unrolled) (SupSov)
--[X]Dedicate Focus (State Consumer Food Champions), 1 die (unrolled)
-[X]Total Cost: 3100/3120 Resources, 20R reserved, 41 dice rolled


[X]Plan How the Sausage Gets Transported
-[X]Infrastructure (9/9 dice + 1 Free) 805 Resources
--[X]Western USSR Regional Roads, 4 dice (340R)
--[X]Ural Region High Capacity Roads, 3 dice (255R)
--[X]Unified Canal System, 3 dice (210R)
-[X]HI (2/5 dice) 320 Resources
--[X]Bryansk Truck Plant, 2 dice (320R)
-[X]Rocketry (2/2 dice + 1 Free) 0 Resources
--[X]Start International Programs, 1 die
--[X]Outreach Programs, 1 die
--[X]Patent Transfer Systems, 1 die
-[X]LCI (3/6 dice) 300R
--[X]Ukrainian Oil Field Development, 3 dice (300R)
-[X]Agriculture (6/6 dice + 2 Free) 850 Resources
--[X]Domestic Meat Programs (Stage 1), 5 dice (550R)
--[X]State Storage Enterprises, 3 dice (300R)
-[X]Services (10/10 dice) 800 Resources
--[X]Expanded Childcare (Stage 2), 3 dice (210R)
--[X]Transportation Enterprises (Stage 1), 1 die (110R)
--[X]State Consumer Food Champions (Stage 1), 6 dice (480R)
-[X]Bureaucracy (8/8 dice) 0 Resources
--[X]Bread Program Cancellation, 1 die (SupSov)
--[X]Cooperatives Reform, 1 die (SupSov)
--[X]Undo the Wage Freezes, 1 die (SupSov)
--[X]Intervene on LCI Department Reorganization, 1 die
--[X]Call a General Meeting, 1 die
--[X]Personally Assess Department (HI), 1 die
--[X]Dedicate Focus (Unified Canal System), 1 die (unrolled) (SupSov)
--[X]Dedicate Focus (State Consumer Food Champions), 1 die (unrolled)
-[X]Total Cost: 3075/3120 Resources, 45R reserved, 42 dice rolled
 
[X]Plan How the Sausage Gets Made
Personally I'd prefer to get the ASU done rather than dropping it now. Theoretically it's only one dice away from completion, even if it's a pricey dice
 
aja318 said:
Now to confusing section, I'm going off on the assumption that our 100mm gun is analogous to D-10T cannon (found on T-55) and APDS it fire is analogous to 3BM-8 APDS for D-10T.
Full caliber AP shell like BR-412D fired from D-10T have point blank range against tank sized target of ~1km (exact range depend on height of target and what range sight is zeroed to but number I'll use will be broadly fitting to IRL NATO tanks of the era), meaning that if sight is set to 1km pointing it at the bottom of the hull of tank that is no further than 1km from you will result in hit.
3BM-8 APDS fired from D-10T have point blank range against tank sized target of ~1.5km.
Finally historical APFSDS projectiles fired from D-10T were so close in their trajectory as to not require any sight changes from sights made for use with 3BM-8 APDS (muzzle velocity difference was ~15m/s in favour of APFSDS ammounting to ~1% increase compared to APDS). Main advantage those APFSDS rounds had over 3BM-8 APDS had was price, the monoblock steel APFSDS didn't use tungsten carbide at all while granting competitive or superior (depending on which source you use for 3BM-8) performance against highly angled steel plate while the steel penetrators with tungsten carbide slug in the nose also provided competitive or equal performance against flat plate while using fraction of tungsten carbide (those slugs are tiny compared to APDS cores). Things that would provide improved accuracy would be usage of subcaliber fins (as in fins that are not used as point of contact between projectile and the barrel and consequently causing less drag) or MV of projectile (mostly by using stronger charge) but even then those would most likely have pronounced effect on accuracy at longer ranges.
TL;DR: Unless existing APDS was dire crime against aerodynamics/had massive sabot separation issues (but then it'd be useless at long range and crew would rather use older full caliber shells to be able to hit anything) improvements in APFSDS shell construction are unlikely to significantly improve accuracy at short range since APDS should have been rather accurate already.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Meant to say two kilometers but my brain semi blanked on ranges and for some reason used assumptions from the BR-412 rather then anything else for some reason. Also, at least going by the OTL T54/55 optic the flat range for it is 500m rather then 1km, where you can aim for the top of the tank and still hit it (assuming you are treating the target as a 2.5m target.)
 
Vi'Talzin said:
-[]Rocketry (2/2 dice + 1 Free) 200 Resources
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
We only have 1 natural dice available in rocketry, the other is tied up in maintaining the programs. nevermind, format changed

[X] Plan Coal, Canal, And Completion
-[X]3115/3120 Resources (5 Reserve), 41 Dice Rolled
Infrastructure (11/9 Dice, 1005 R)
-[X]Caucuses High Capacity Roads, 2 Dice (170 R)
-[X]Ural Region High Capacity Roads, 3 Dice (255 R)
-[X]Unified Canal System(Step 2 of 3), 4 Dice (280 R)
-[X]Power Grid Expansions, 1 Dice (80 R)
-[X]ASU, 1 Dice (220 R)
Heavy Industry (4/5 Dice, 480 R)
-[X]Kuzbas Deposit Exploitation(Stage 3), 4 Dice (480 R)
Rocketry (3/2 Dice, 200 R)
-[X]Stalingrad Plant Expansions, 1 Dice (200 R)
-[X]Outreach Programs, 1 Dice
-[X]Patent Transfer Systems, 1 Dice
Light and Chemical Industry (0/6 Dice, 0 R)
Agriculture (5/6 Dice, 540 R)
-[X]Domestic Meat Programs(Stage 1), 2 Dice (220 R)
-[X]Agricultural Insurance Enterprises, 1 Dice (120 R)
-[X]State Storage Enterprises, 2 Dice (200 R)
Services (11/10 Dice, 890 R)
-[X]Distribution of Banking Branches, 2 Dice (160 R)
-[X]Expanded Childcare(Stage 2), 2 Dice (140 R)
-[X]Transportation Enterprises(Stage 1), 1 Dice (110 R)
-[X]Legal Consulting Programs, 1 Dice (80 R)
-[X]Expanding State Catalogs, 2 Dice (160 R)
-[X]State Consumer Food Champions(Stage 1), 3 Dice (240 R)
Bureaucracy (8/8 Dice, 0 R)
-[X]Bread Program Cancelation, 1 Dice
-[X]Cooperatives Reform, 1 Dice
-[X]Undo the Wage Freezes, 1 Dice
-[X]Dedicate Focus Towards a Project(Unified Canal System), 1 Dice
-[X]Intervene on Infrastructure Department Reorganization, 1 Dice
-[X]Intervene on LCI Department Reorganization, 1 Dice
-[X]Call a General Meeting, 1 Dice
-[X]Personally Asses Department(HI), 1 Dice


Ok, quite a significant change from my previous plan:
+1 Caucuses Roads
+1 Stalingrad plant
-1 Agronomy Institutes, -1 Agri Insurance, +1 Storage
-3 Insurance, +1 Transportation, +1 Legal
New Food Program replaced with General Meeting, LCI assessment replaced with HI

The biggest change is actually working on the Stalingrad plant since I hate leaving a factory half-complete (also we had an extra free dice due to the spreadsheet missing the format change). General insurance doesn't seem as important as roads so I made a bunch of changes to handle that, and storage was noted as being very popular politically so I'm pushing to get that done faster.

As for Plan How the Sausage Gets Made, I really don't see why we would want to over-invest in our fast food industry to quite that degree.
 
Last edited:
Blackstar said:
Meant to say two kilometers but my brain semi blanked on ranges and for some reason used assumptions from the BR-412 rather then anything else for some reason. Also, at least going by the OTL T54/55 optic the flat range for it is 500m rather then 1km, where you can aim for the top of the tank and still hit it (assuming you are treating the target as a 2.5m target.)
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I'm going for about 2.5m and I may be confusing point blank range for BR-412D with what was the default/usual battlesight range (what range sight was zeroed to) that was used with it now that I think about it.

EDIT: Yes, mixed the two ranges.
 
Last edited:
[X]Plan How the Sausage Gets Transported
[X]Plan How the Sausage Gets Made
Prefer the no ASU plan, but either are good as long as they avoid the Stalingrad plant imo.
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top