- Location
- Germiston, South Africa
Okay edited for belted seats. I am not sure whether they exist or not though, might be a later developement.
Strategic Arms Quest 3/2: Armor Edition
- Thread starter 7734
- Start date
- Original
7734
Trust and verify.
- Location
- Philmont
Well to be fair they were basically riding around the bed of a box truck going offroad at speed.
They're a thing, but at this point its canvas lap belts for the most part.
- Location
- Germiston, South Africa
Cool I'll leave it in then, even a lap belt is going to help.
CthuluWasRight
Fresh Meat for the SV Grinder
- Location
- Canada
Aside from passenger comfort, what other changes ought to be made? We should start figuring out what designs are redeemable.
NothingNow
Corpse Wrangler
- Location
- Tampa
Honestly the obvious winner is the CCC body on a regular GBA 92 instead of a fragile half-track.
Which you know needs some serious interior modifications to be safe and soldier-proof.
Turning it into an armored car at this point is pretty stupid though.
Which you know needs some serious interior modifications to be safe and soldier-proof.
Turning it into an armored car at this point is pretty stupid though.
Last edited:
- Location
- Germiston, South Africa
Actually my proposed gun carrier mod turns it into a technical, a softskin with a gunshield.
I get the distinct feeling throughout this quest that the engineering and metallurgy just do not exist for mobility + armor + guns.
We can have ONE of the above, or two with issues, but not the armored vehicles we are conditioned to expect from today.
I think that you need to downgrade you expectations a little.
7734
Trust and verify.
- Location
- Philmont
Yeah, except you can't get the CCC body without explicitly completely and totally fucking with the drive train and at that point you're loosing a lot of the advantages of sticking with the GBA 92.
Tech progresses slowly when you're as neck-deep in it as you are right now. The big advances lately have all been in engines, which is why you have a thirty to forty horsepower engines that can actually get all this shit done without exploding, as versus back in Contest 1 and 2 where the brand spanking new forty horesepower engine in the W-2 and the forty-four horsepower engine in the W-5 were liable to have conniption fits every ten minutes.
- Location
- United States
I really like this quest, but I'll be the first to admit the actual vehicle design aspects are beyond my comprehension. I think the motorcycle gun thing and the half-track are what we want, although the latter needs modifications so that it can reliably transport infantry.
- Location
- United States
Some questions about the setting, if that's alright.
We're in Not!Imperial Germany, which managed to knock the Not!Russians out of the war before suing for peace due to going bankrupt, or at least that was my understanding of it. Is this correct?
How well known is our character? I imagine being the father of effective tank warfare and basically creating Blitzkrieg doctrine would have earned him some fame, and seeing as our children are being taught along with royalty we clearly have a degree of wealth and influence.
We're in Not!Imperial Germany, which managed to knock the Not!Russians out of the war before suing for peace due to going bankrupt, or at least that was my understanding of it. Is this correct?
How well known is our character? I imagine being the father of effective tank warfare and basically creating Blitzkrieg doctrine would have earned him some fame, and seeing as our children are being taught along with royalty we clearly have a degree of wealth and influence.
CthuluWasRight
Fresh Meat for the SV Grinder
- Location
- Canada
I believe that's correct.
I've gotten word in the discord that our testing process was borked, so let's reexamine that and see what went wrong. First of all, isn't there conflict of interest having Fenrus spectate and make notes when he also designed one of the entrants? Next, our hauling test struck me as wrongfooted, for starters 150 kg is nowhere near the limit of any vehicle's hauling capacity, and testing trailers on terrain like scree slopes is not exactly accurate to what we'd be doing with them in the field. It should be noted that this is my fault, as I advocated hard for keeping the limits at 150 because I didn't know what we could realistically expect. Whatever vehicles we pass on to the next round should go through a far better trailer testing process. Any ideas for that?
Additionally, we didn't get much chance to test repair/recovery either. We should work on that.
What else stood out to people?
7734
Trust and verify.
- Location
- Philmont
Well, you're stationed in the War College in the capitol, and there's a lot of perks that go with this. You don't write doctrine, mind, but you're pretty well known in military circles. Your personal familiarity with the Kaiser is mostly the fact your kids go to the same private school and are reasonably friendly (read when I rolled Ilsa she got godlike social) and doesn't tend to a strong professional relationship.
In sum, you're not an unknown name, but you're not exactly nationally known. A good place to be.
- Location
- United States
I think the big thing was that we fucked up the weight limit. It's actually an IC mistake, since our character has been out of the loop for over a decade. Can we fix this and do more tests, or do have to work with what we have?
CthuluWasRight
Fresh Meat for the SV Grinder
- Location
- Canada
It ultimately depends a lot on how many vehicles we choose to advance, how many modifications we ask to be made for the vehicles that we send through, and how extensive the next round of tests are. I think at the very least we know gunnery was done well.
- Location
- United States
I think everyone's happy with the motorcycle-halftrack, it does an excellent job of standing in for traditional cavalry and is just a well designed vehicle. I think we need to do more tests for a regular halftrack, however, none of them are really acceptable.
What should be the proper weight limit for a new test?
Last edited:
- Location
- United States
Okay, I'm making a vote of my own. This is just a template.
[X] Plan LonelyWolf999
-[X] Accept the guncycle.
-[X] Begin another test, this one specifically for a halftrack. Increase the weight limit and specify what we want out of it, an armed infantry transport capable of handling rough terrain and good speed.
[X] Plan LonelyWolf999
-[X] Accept the guncycle.
-[X] Begin another test, this one specifically for a halftrack. Increase the weight limit and specify what we want out of it, an armed infantry transport capable of handling rough terrain and good speed.
Last edited:
- Location
- City of Magnificent Intentions
[x] Plan Mixed force
-[x] ADOPT the Fenrus. Give him another month for the changes suggested by the testers.
-[x] ADOPT the MANN CO. Conditional on clutch replacement, radiator and oil use improvement. Add belted passenger seats in transport compartment.
-[x] MODIFY the GBA-92. Replace passenger compartment with light cannon (29-40mm). Add light (small arms at 200m+) gunshield and driver armor. Remove civilian interior for military.
-[x] ADOPT the Fenrus. Give him another month for the changes suggested by the testers.
-[x] ADOPT the MANN CO. Conditional on clutch replacement, radiator and oil use improvement. Add belted passenger seats in transport compartment.
-[x] MODIFY the GBA-92. Replace passenger compartment with light cannon (29-40mm). Add light (small arms at 200m+) gunshield and driver armor. Remove civilian interior for military.
- Location
- poland
Can we somehow add GBA-92 in pure transport form? Mainly so supply lines can keep up. In any war that will be, infrastructure will be either overloaded or destroyed, so transport that dont need good quality roads would be great for logistic branch that is so often overlooked.
I'm having a little trouble wrapping my head around plan mixed force. The MANN design is pretty clearly the best if they need something with real armor, but it's got a bunch of minor and not-so-minor issues and isn't up to any substantial off-road operation, and armor of any sort wasn't even something we were asked for originally. The GBA-92's main strength is being a fundamentally sound and solid design that can mostly keep up with the Fenrus design but carry a lot more people for the money. Trying to turn it into a gun truck with a lot of last minute modification requests mostly negates that, and isn't actually necessary when they are already looking at buying W-5s.
On it.
[X] Plan Simplicity
-[X] ADOPT the Fenrus. Give him another month for the changes suggested by the testers.
-[X] ADOPT the GBA-92. Request a more rugged interior and the Lmg. 71 mount we asked for from the beginning. Maybe just a pintel mount over the cab, and somewhere a guy can stand in the back to operate it?
-[X] RECOMMEND the purchase of the W-5 for a more heavily armed and armored component of a mixed force, to complement the other vehicles.
On it.
[X] Plan Simplicity
-[X] ADOPT the Fenrus. Give him another month for the changes suggested by the testers.
-[X] ADOPT the GBA-92. Request a more rugged interior and the Lmg. 71 mount we asked for from the beginning. Maybe just a pintel mount over the cab, and somewhere a guy can stand in the back to operate it?
-[X] RECOMMEND the purchase of the W-5 for a more heavily armed and armored component of a mixed force, to complement the other vehicles.
Last edited:
However...
W-5 is basically FT-17. We should wait for the actual tank competition to look for something like soviet BT series (For example) for cavalry tank, not buy a design a decade old without at least exploring our options.
Adopting Fenrus as a multipurpose vehicle we should do, but taking anything else would be rather rash, IMO - GBA-92 might not be the best truck for just moving stuff around, and having some armored vehicle for panzergrenadeurs is better than having them ride on the armour of the tank.
Also, why did we throw out both tracked contributions? We could have at least tested them, and shaving off armour and that 8.2 cm mortar (Or what did they have?) from Thryssen one probably would have been simple.
W-5 is basically FT-17. We should wait for the actual tank competition to look for something like soviet BT series (For example) for cavalry tank, not buy a design a decade old without at least exploring our options.
Adopting Fenrus as a multipurpose vehicle we should do, but taking anything else would be rather rash, IMO - GBA-92 might not be the best truck for just moving stuff around, and having some armored vehicle for panzergrenadeurs is better than having them ride on the armour of the tank.
Also, why did we throw out both tracked contributions? We could have at least tested them, and shaving off armour and that 8.2 cm mortar (Or what did they have?) from Thryssen one probably would have been simple.
Point on the age of the W-5, but it's what we've got and they're already thinking about buying it. It is probably the least bad vehicle we have access to to give them some armor now rather than after a future contest. I'd be willing to remove that recommendation if that's what the thread thinks is best, but I'm not inclined to replace it with anything else we have access to.
The reason I like the GBA-92 is that it can carry a lot more people and stuff for the money relative to Fenrus's design while still keeping up with it, and it's what we have in the trials right now. It is a cost saving measure, and should also be useful for individual heavy loads. Opening up a new RFQ to explore the entire world of off the shelf trucks seems wasteful right now, when this one is good enough.
Yeah, maybe we shouldn't have pruned so aggressively early on, but we did. Now we're left with three armored vehicles that are various levels of broken. The MANN design is least bad, but I am skeptical of our ability to get it modified into something genuinely good. Since armor isn't even really a requirement and horses aren't very well armored either, I think they can just do without.
Well, horses are also becoming obsolete, partly because they're big and easy to shoot targets that aren't very well armored.
7734
Trust and verify.
- Location
- Philmont
And you guys fell below horse reproduction levels in the War. Right now if you want your horse husbandry to come back the Irromes would need to import several thousand horses, which means you're picking up motorization or the farm economy is going to crash. Needless to say, there's a lot of drive to get mass motorization happening.
Yes.
Yeah, if Wanderer wasn't shitting out tanks at a rate of 'holy shit' then there'd be some pushback and problems.
Contest 4 Result
7734
Trust and verify.
- Location
- Philmont
Also since I'm an idiot and forgot to post this earlier, after your deployment to the Colonies the Seebatalions adopted the UkW-1 as their standard armored breakthrough vehicle. They are, on the whole, pretty happy with this decision. The general armor regiment community had some serious pushback, but the fact their W-5 tanks were worse across the board got them to back down.
Revising to dump the W-5 suggestion. They're too obsolescent. If they can't wait for something modern, that's on them.
[X] Plan Simplicity
-[X] ADOPT the Fenrus. Give him another month for the changes suggested by the testers.
-[X] ADOPT the GBA-92. Request a more rugged interior and the Lmg. 71 mount we asked for from the beginning. Maybe just a pintel mount over the cab, and somewhere a guy can stand in the back to operate it?
[X] Plan Simplicity
-[X] ADOPT the Fenrus. Give him another month for the changes suggested by the testers.
-[X] ADOPT the GBA-92. Request a more rugged interior and the Lmg. 71 mount we asked for from the beginning. Maybe just a pintel mount over the cab, and somewhere a guy can stand in the back to operate it?