Search results
Search results 1-20 of 1,000. There are even more results, please redefine your search.
Quoted Originally posted by BruceDuncan Quoted 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 ...
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.
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.
Quoted Originally posted by Red Admiral Quoted 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 Hunga...
Quoted Originally posted by Brockpaine Quoted 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 serio...
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 roun...
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 ...
Quoted Originally posted by Brockpaine [SIZE=3]Battle-class, Chilean Destroyer Leader laid down 1940[/SIZE] 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.
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.
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.
Quoted 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 ...
Quoted 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 th...
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 y...
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.
Looks like it should be 35 ton Landing Craft Mechanized.....
Quoted 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. Quoted And secondly, did the rest of the world accept the determination between France and Germany as a fait acc...
WW German-French reparations payments ended MUCH sooner than that: see these threads: - http://wesworld.jk-clan.de/thread.php?threadid=1082&sid= & http://wesworld.jk-clan.de/thread.php?threadid=1065&sid=. Also, here in WW, some of the US loans to Germany in the early 1920s were replaced by loans from India.
Quoted 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.
Quoted Originally posted by Brockpaine Quoted 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 s...
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 quarter...
WesWorld »
Tuesday, April 16th 2024, 10:02am
Go to the top of the page
