 Thread: Hungary |
|
|
| Zitat: |
Originally posted by BruceDuncan
| Zitat: |
Originally posted by Hrolf Hakonson
The reason Perderdor was looking at Hungary was that he and I were discussing the possibility of a German-Czech-Hungarian war (probably starts over the Sudetenland, if the Czech government that promised to abide by the Treaty on Minorities falls and is replaced by another less inclined to listen to the outside world). In such a circumstance, Hungary would likely look to take advantage, just as it did OTL. |
|
One of the provisos specified in the vote to nullify the Treaty of Trianon was that Hungary repudiate irridentism and agree to accept its post-Trianon borders. Such a story line would not be consistent with that proviso. |
|
And that would be inconsistent with the real-world how? It would hardly be the first time in history a country spoke words it needed to say to get what it wanted, and then turned around and did things contrary to those words.
|
|
 Thread: German News & Events - Q3, 1939 |
|
|
September 11, 1939 - Dessau
First flight of the Junkers Ju-187, a possible replacement for the Ju-87. Powered by the BMW-801 radial, the single-seat aircraft is capable of carrying it's bombload internally, and the cleaner lines and additional power of the aircraft mean that it is a good deal faster than it's predecessor.
|
|
| Thread: Hungary |
|
|
The reason Perderdor was looking at Hungary was that he and I were discussing the possibility of a German-Czech-Hungarian war (probably starts over the Sudetenland, if the Czech government that promised to abide by the Treaty on Minorities falls and is replaced by another less inclined to listen to the outside world). In such a circumstance, Hungary would likely look to take advantage, just as it did OTL.
|
|
| Thread: Yugoslav News, 4Q 1939 |
|
|
| Zitat: |
Originally posted by Red Admiral
| Zitat: |
| Yugoslavia is recognizing a need; better AT weapons for their mainly infantry force, knowing perfectly well they can't respond to their neighbors' new tank models on numbers alone and they are trying to find a way to resolve that. |
|
I'm not sure the need is there. Who is Yugoslavia going to fight now that she's allied with the rest of Eastern Europe? Possibly Germany, or much more likely Italy. |
|
Well, Germany would have to invade either Italy or Hungary to get to Yugoslavia. Doing so would only activate the Poles, with whom we've been getting along fairly well for years (not to mention AEGIS, if we went via Italy). Not worth it. Nope, sorry Yugoslavia's basically safe from Germany. Now, if we had a border.... but no. 
|
|
| Thread: Yugoslav News, 4Q 1939 |
|
|
| Zitat: |
Originally posted by Brockpaine
| Zitat: |
Originally posted by Hrolf Hakonson
Anti-tank defence IS progressing, along historical lines. |
|
And no offense, but that's a bit of my problem here. While AT defense is historical, the tank designs are very definitely not. So far as I've seen, nobody's going to much effort to prepare those bigger AT guns - they're just building bigger and more uber tanks. |
|
Then you didn't read the latest German or US news: both countries are looking (Germany more seriously than the US, probably due to more tanks around it) at new heavier AT guns. The trials in Germany have delivered prototypes of the historical PaK-40, PaK-41, and PaK-43 75 & 88mm guns. In the US, it's being recognized that the 2" AT gun isn't going to cut it long term, and that something bigger will be needed.
| Zitat: |
| Zitat: |
Originally posted by Hood
I'm not concerned about the Yugoslavia aspect but the gameplay aspect and tech aspect. If you were to delay introduction by 1-2 years I'd feel happier that would stabilise things a little more. |
|
Clarification: as I understand things, this is a prototype test, and the actual weapon won't enter production until 1941 or 1942; presumably ubiquity will be several years after that, right? Is that a sufficient delay of introduction? |
|
As long as that's held to, I withdraw my objections.
|
|
| Thread: Yugoslav News, 4Q 1939 |
|
|
Anti-tank defence IS progressing, along historical lines. That means AT gun development is taking precedence over HEAT weapons, which were much more of an emergency response to an unexpected problem (more enemy tanks than expected, the need for more AT guns than could be produced, etc) than anything else. After the many bugs in the HEAT programs were worked out, they became the most potent tank-killers for 30-40 years, until the development of composite armors, but that time isn't yet.
HEAT rounds for artillery and tank guns rather predated their use in rocket weapons (rifle grenades got HEAT rounds first, but only by part of a year over the use in the short-barrelled 75mms used by the Panzer IV and StuG III): rifle-grenade (UK No. 68 AT grenade) and shell (7.5cm Gr; 38 HI) were fielded in 1940, with the PIAT and bazooka following in 1942. I seem to remember RA giving a 1940 or so date for the Italian HEAT version of the Effeto Pronto shells as well, but I might be wrong.
And to call penetration poor is understating matters: the No. 68 would penetrate perhaps 2" of armor, the Gr. 38 HI only 45mm. These would improve, by the end of the war the Gr. 38 HI/C would penetrate 100mm, but in 1940 (even in WW) a 88mm rocket HEAT round would probably only penetrate perhaps 65-70mm of armor.
What might make more sense (to me) for Yugoslavia to be developing is something along the lines of the Steilgranate 41: a way to make older AT guns more useful against heavier tanks, while allowing them to remain useful against lighter vehicles.
|
|
| Thread: Yugoslav News, 4Q 1939 |
|
|
HEAT weapons, because they have not been needed, have not been put on the +3 year track, so in 1939 they're JUST coming out of the lab and being standardized as shells (and they're not very good ones, either). We've had this discussion before, with Howard.
IHEAT weapons so far haven't appeared because there's been no war to clearly point out the inadequacy of AT rifles. Also, lacking a shooting war with lots of tanks, no one really sees the necessity of having powerful anti-tank weapons down to the company/platoon level: battalion level AT guns (or regimental guns distributed to the battalions) are seen as plenty, and they have a far longer accurate range than rocket-propelled weapons.
|
|
| Thread: Chilean Ships for 1940 |
|
|
| Zitat: |
Originally posted by Brockpaine
Battle-class, Chilean Destroyer Leader laid down 1940
The Chilean Navy will call this a destroyer leader, but has assigned it cruiser hull numbers.
|
|
Ah, something to deal with Peruvian Independencias. How is that layout going to work, though? I'm curious where the AA batteries are going to all fit, and still give the torpedoes angles to fire.
|
|
| Thread: Yugoslav News, 4Q 1939 |
|
|
Hold up on the panzerschreck..... seems a bit early for that piece of equipment to be rolled out, since the requisite HEAT rounds haven't done so yet and neither has it's progenitor, the US bazooka.
|
|
| Thread: Us Lst |
|
|
The Marinefahrprams are really more like LCTs than an LST, they're far smaller.
The Brits actually had a couple designs:: the Maracaibo conversions and the LST Mk3s. The Mk3's were larger and faster than the LST(2)s, but didn't carry much more, they had a light displacement of about 2140 tons and a full-load displacement of about 5000 tons.
|
|
| Thread: Us Lst |
|
|
| Zitat: |
Originally posted by Brockpaine
The thought occurs to me that the USN's LSTs weren't really built for heavy weather, although they did make ocean crossings. Might it perhaps be more appropriate to sim them with <1.0 hull strength to reflect this? |
|
You could..... but to get my posted design to carry the actual tonnage carried you'd drop the strength to 0.14. I've got a design that is fairly representative of the LST at deep load (deep displacement's right, cargo tonnage is in the range at 1800 tons, speed's accurate, etc), but it's light displacement is WAY off (2925 tons versus 1625-1700) because SS isn't really written to handle this type of ship.
|
|
| Thread: Us Lst |
|
|
| Zitat: |
Originally posted by HoOmAn
I think it is too difficult to even try covering OTL US wartime production with our rules. It was not standard situation historically and thus cannot be covered by out standard rules here, IMHO.
But of course it´s just a proposal for a compromise. You can always say nay and veto it. We will then need a new proposal.... |
|
I don't get a veto. I don't WANT to have a veto. I'm expressing my opinion that the cost is too high given the historical realities, which I thought we were trying to reflect as much as possible.
|
|
| Thread: Us Lst |
|
|
My opinion is that it's too expensive for a type of ship that was being turned out in 2 months by factories that hadn't been shipyards of any sort (Chicago Bridge & Iron, Missouri Valley Bridge & Iron, International Steel) a year or two before. Keep in mind, over 1000 of the LST(2) type in the US alone were turned out between the end of 1942 and the end of 1945. The historical LST(2) design could carry from 1600 to 1900 tons of cargo on a light displacement of 1625 tons. The problem is that if you use SS to design an LST, you won't get anywhere close to that cargo tonnage (I ended up with 780 tons), which will, using this proposal, push the costs up twice (first by making the ship more expensive that it should be, second by making you buy more ships to carry the same load).
|
|
| Thread: Ships on market |
|
|
The USN will be putting some of it's older Omaha class CLs on the block as the new Brooklyns become available to replace them.
|
|
| Thread: Reparations Question Revisited |
|
|
| Zitat: |
Originally posted by BruceDuncan
It was interesting that the renunciation was between France and Germany; the fate of claims of the other nations to not appear to have been addressed.
Nevertheless, the question remains - what would be a valid upper limit? If we were to limit our calculations to the period before 1924, would 10-11 billion gold marks be sufficient? |
|
I'd guess so.
| Zitat: |
| And secondly, did the rest of the world accept the determination between France and Germany as a fait accompli and not demand continued reparations from Germany? I would infer that is the case, but it is not explicit. |
|
It was not explicit, agreed, but I'd expect that it was taken as such.
|
|
| Thread: Selling infrastructure? |
|
|
| Zitat: |
Originally posted by Brockpaine
Hm, maybe I'm just mistaken, then... |
|
Yep. And, while you're limited during Q1-3 by the "no more than 1.5 IP per quarter" rule, it doesn't apply to "bonus" IPs from dedicated factories in Q4, even if the project didn't start until Q4.
|
|
| Thread: Selling infrastructure? |
|
|
| Zitat: |
Originally posted by Brockpaine
| Zitat: |
Originally posted by Hrolf Hakonson
And here's something else to consider: we're ALREADY buying slips and docks from the commercial side in the sim, and have been since the start. Why do I say that? Because if you have enough IPs to purchase a slip or dock in 1 quarter, you can use that slip or dock the next quarter, there are no building times defined for slips or docks. So, you're clearly buying one that's already completed, NOT building it from scratch. And, there's no extra cost to do this over building it over several quarters. |
|
Well. Aside from the fact that we have a cap on how much IP can be spent on a project per quarter.
(Speaking of which, who *raised* the cap? It used to be .5 IP per quarter, and now it's 1.5 IP per quarter.) |
|
It's always been 1.5 IP per quarter, at least as long as I've been here. Building factories in the late 1920s as Germany would have been UGLY at .5 IP per quarter.
|
|
| Thread: Selling infrastructure? |
|
|
And here's something else to consider: we're ALREADY buying slips and docks from the commercial side in the sim, and have been since the start. Why do I say that? Because if you have enough IPs to purchase a slip or dock in 1 quarter, you can use that slip or dock the next quarter, there are no building times defined for slips or docks. So, you're clearly buying one that's already completed, NOT building it from scratch. And, there's no extra cost to do this over building it over several quarters.
|
|
|
