Dear visitor, welcome to WesWorld. If this is your first visit here, please read the Help. It explains in detail how this page works. To use all features of this page, you should consider registering. Please use the registration form, to register here or read more information about the registration process. If you are already registered, please login here.
Quoted
The original US 2.36-inch rocket launcher is cited as having an armor penetration of 4.7 inches at 0 degrees - I do not consider that 'sucky' performance.
Quoted
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.
Quoted
I believe that my development work, as cited, is adequate to support the concept of the weapon. Other players disagree
Quoted
I have been told that HEAT ammunition is off the "+3 years" development track; having asked for a citation, none has been provided.
Quoted
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.
This post has been edited 1 times, last edit by "Red Admiral" (Jul 25th 2010, 3:43pm)
This post has been edited 1 times, last edit by "perdedor99" (Jul 25th 2010, 4:37pm)
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.
Quoted
Originally posted by Hood
I agree that anti-tank rifles are finished. We all know that.
Medium AT guns 47-57mm are still viable weapons as the recent Persian campaigns showed and will defeat the majority of tanks found on today's battlefields.
Heavy AT guns are only just making an appearance now, probably some 2-3 years late if we guage besides tank development.
HEAT is under development, I don't doubt that. I doubt the Swiss engineer doing it or that Yugoslavia would be interested in such a weapons. I don't doubt Yugoslavia couldn't build the launchers or even the rockets themselves.
What we don't want is to open the floodgates too early. What this does as cut out an entire generation of heavy AT guns at a stroke. It leaps straight into recoiless guns like 120mm Wombat, B-10, Panzerfausts, RPG-7s etc. Then tanks get even bigger and heavier as players look to keep an advantage so we see skirts by 1942, stand-off armour and by 1950 we have something approaching ERA appearing on a suspicious Abrams look-alike. I only half-joke.
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.
Quoted
Originally posted by Hrolf Hakonson
Anti-tank defence IS progressing, along historical lines.
Quoted
Originally posted by Hood
What we don't want is to open the floodgates too early. What this does as cut out an entire generation of heavy AT guns at a stroke. It leaps straight into recoiless guns like 120mm Wombat, B-10, Panzerfausts, RPG-7s etc. Then tanks get even bigger and heavier as players look to keep an advantage so we see skirts by 1942, stand-off armour and by 1950 we have something approaching ERA appearing on a suspicious Abrams look-alike. I only half-joke.
Quoted
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.
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.
Quoted
Quoted
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?
Quoted
Originally posted by Hrolf Hakonson
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 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.
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.
This post has been edited 1 times, last edit by "perdedor99" (Jul 25th 2010, 8:55pm)
Quoted
There is no atomic armageddon looming; at least war is an option.
Quoted
Which government in the Balkans is willing to say to its citizens "after seeing your sons, your brothers, your husbands, your friends die in three consecutive wars, we now want your children to be sent to war as well?"
Quoted
We're responding to "enemy" tanks with the sort of speed that would come from facing them in combat.
Quoted
Originally posted by TheCanadian
Turkey lost 13% of its prewar population. .
Quoted
Originally posted by TheCanadian
Remember, while in OTL World War 2 started 20 years after World War 1 ended, the factors that led to World War 2 in OTL are not present here.
This post has been edited 1 times, last edit by "TheCanadian" (Jul 26th 2010, 12:02am)
Forum Software: Burning Board® Lite 2.1.2 pl 1, developed by WoltLab® GmbH