WesWorld

05OCT35

Today, after a meeting with Danish naval attaches, the Admiralty council announced that they would begin building a class of destroyers in Bangkok sometime next year. The ships would be based on the Danish Navy's new Archer class, but armed with locally produced weaponry. With a heavy main armament of 130mm guns and many torpedoes, they would be a match for any destroyer fielded by any country. The new class of ships will be named after The Great Beloved King, His Majesty Chulalongkorn.

October is Q4. We're still in Q3, aren't we?

He's only 5 days early.........

and when you think about it, we are all 68 years late!!!!

*Must remember September is in Q3 and not Q4*

Hey, I had to post SOME news!

14OCT1935

[SIZE=3]NOTICE![/SIZE]
To all governments maintaining diplomatic relations with the Kingdom of Siam:

His Majesty King Ananda Mahidol- through his most humble servants and appointed Regents Colonel Prince Anuwatjaturong, Lieutenant Commander Prince Artit Thip-apa, and Chao Phraya Yommaraj- and the Parliament of the People of Siam do hereby express interest in purchasing no less than 4 but no more than 8 destroyer-type vessels of a single, identical class displacing between 1,000 to 1,500 tons, capable of speeds of no less than 30 knots, and armed with weapons of no less than 105mm or 4" caliber.

It is requested that any interested parties should communicate their intentions to their Siamese Embassy.

Questions for the government of Siam:

First, how does the Siamese government intend the term "displacing" to be used? Light? Standard? Normal? Deep?

Second, is it the desire of the Siamese government to purchase newly constructed vessels, or to purchase used vessels?

Quoted

Originally posted by Hrolf Hakonson
First, how does the Siamese government intend the term "displacing" to be used? Light? Standard? Normal? Deep?

The Siamese Navy defines 'displacing' as normal displacement, as light displacement can fluctuate deceptively , causing two equally capable ships to appear to have a great disparity. When in doubt as to whether a ship's displacement is within the desired tonnage range, know that ships favoring firepower and survivability would be favored over range and, to a lesser degree, speed.

Quoted

Originally posted by Hrolf HakonsonSecond, is it the desire of the Siamese government to purchase newly constructed vessels, or to purchase used vessels?

Siam wishes to purchase previously deployed vessels, though not vessels which have been laid up for a long period of time. Well-used but well maintained is preferable to neglect.

Plaek Pibulsonggram, Field Marshal of the Siamese Army, looked coolly around the room at the faces of his project managers. This meeting had been insisted upon by the King himself and was intended to make the state of the various weapon development projects in the works known to all branches of the military, and to the King's cabinet.

Around the table sat the Admiralty's representative, the Marshal of the Royal Air Force, and the three regents of the King. Lining the walls, the various project managers waited their turn to address their superiors.

First the 'Mara's Breath' project reported: They had deployed the first group of perfected weapons to the Air Force and had prepared orders for a second and third production run. Their newest test products were small, vehicle portable devices which could replace the main weapon on a tankette or riverboat, and could project the damnable mixture over 50m away.

Next came the Artillery Commission's report on it's new weapons. Development of the 76mm multi-purpose gun had completed. The first working examples were fielded on the Navy's new Surasdra in simple mountings on the deck. More advanced mountings were planned for the next class of torpedo boat that the Navy would construct, as well as a small class of planned escorts for the new vessel recently acquired form the SAE. Additionally, a larger version of the weapon- between 100mm and 115mm- was beginning development. Three test models were presently being built and would test fire sometime by middle of the next year. Final development might be as much as 2 years away, but the weapon would be on par with any being fielded by other navies.

The naval design bureau next presented designs for the previously mentioned escort ship, a minelayer/sweeper and a new coast defense ship project that might be begun in 1937 if all went well. Additionally, it was said that problems with acquiring some new destroyers were preventing the fleet from modernizing as quickly as would be liked.

Finally, the B.A.M. engineering representatives notified the board of three new aircraft projects which would be ready for test flights in the upcoming year. The first was a new version of the 114F with a more powerful engine and new cannon. The second was a small flying boat that would be tasked with mid-range sea patrol and rescue work. The final project was a bit sketchy- something about a specialized ground-attack aircraft that he didn't quite understand.


By the end of the meeting, the Marshal was sure of one thing... his chair needed as much padding as these scientist's budgets. Though their inventions were what kept his military able to fight, their briefings made his backside sore.

Swampy was stealing the B.A.M planes fro here:
http://latvianaviation.com/AF_Index.html
You migt want to take a look at the VFM ones for ideas.

Specialized ground attack plane...hmm...B.A.M might want to talk with TNCA representatives, after all no one else is building the baby Warthog.

The problem with flame throwers is, the operator can expect no mercy from his enemy's, even if he surrenders. It was quite common in WW2 for flame thrower operators to be shot out of hand.

In the future I'd expect a similar treatment for flame thrower tank operators exiting a disabled vehicle too.

Quoted

Originally posted by thesmilingassassin
The problem with flame throwers is, the operator can expect no mercy from his enemy's, even if he surrenders. It was quite common in WW2 for flame thrower operators to be shot out of hand.

Its not really a good enough reason to stop using them though. They'll be extremely useful weapons in the jungle country.

Quoted

Its not really a good enough reason to stop using them though. They'll be extremely useful weapons in the jungle country.

And politically disasterous if employed in a war of aggression.

Wars are won by good politics, far more than by good tactics.

Quoted

Originally posted by AdmKuznetsov

Quoted

Its not really a good enough reason to stop using them though. They'll be extremely useful weapons in the jungle country.

And politically disasterous if employed in a war of aggression.

Wars are won by good politics, far more than by good tactics.

Tell that to the Marines of the Pacific campaign, I doubt if many of them would complain about having Flame throwers available to them back then!!

And they are only politically disasterous if you are the loser.....remember, winners write the history.

Quoted

Originally posted by AdmKuznetsov
And politically disasterous if employed in a war of aggression.

Wars are won by good politics, far more than by good tactics.

As a soldier by trade, I beg to differ.
Wars may be ENDED by politicians, but I have never seen a politician pick up a rifle and WIN a war. Wars are won by killing, wounding and maiming the people you are fighting until they can no longer put up an effective resistance.

And honestly, the only wars I can think of that were 'won' by politicians... well, we didn't 'win' Korea, we just didn't loose and when you ignore the politicians screaming about leaving every five minutes, Iraq don't look too bad.



Anyway, enough about that...

Siam wants effective weapons- napalm and flamethrowers are very effective for their environment. Also, we are planning some limited production of new aircraft and are looking at importing some as well* to replace our outdated aircraft.


*Siam is looking for a 1.) a small, inexpensive fighter, 2.) a high-speed, hard-hitting interceptor and 3.) a reliable, high-payload fast bomber.

1. and 2. are needed to be firepower heavy.
1. should have a competitive speed, but should be maneuverable enough to defend against the most modern aircraft.
2. should have extremely high speed and a high climb rate, and should be at least mediocre in handling.
3. should be as fast as possible and still carry a respectable payload.

As far as #2 goes, Siam was buying Fw-187 S-1s, which look like:

Focke-Wulf FW-187 S-1

General Type:
Airplane = 1
Airship = 2
Orbiter = 3
1

Year of First Flight: 1938

Description

Carrier or Rough Field
Monoplane
Conventional Fuselage

The Siamese version of the FW-187 'Falke'. Equipped with 4 20mm MG-FFs and 2 7.92mm MG-17s in the nose. Service ceiling limited by the unpressurized cooling system of the engines.



Characteristics:

Weight (maximum) 11,100 lbs
Weight (empty) 9,497 lbs

Length 36.5 ft
Wingspan 50 ft
Wing Area 327 sq ft
Sweep 3 degrees

Engines 2
Junkers Jumo-211
Piston

1,095 hp
at 12,000 ft


Crew 1


Typical cost $0.059 million in 1939
Total number procured 2000


Performance:

Top Speed 337 kts = 388 mph
at 12,000 ft
Mach N/A

Operational Ceiling 27,000 ft

Range 800 nm = 921 miles
with 52 lbs payload
55 lbs released at halfway point

Climb 3,086 fpm

Cruise 240 kts = 276 mph
at 20,000 ft

Corner Speed 240 KIAS =
287 kts at 12,000 ft
Mach N/A
Turning Rate 25.1 deg/sec
Radius 2,214 ft



Internal Data:

Intake / Fan Diameter 9 ft

Bypass Ratio 87

Engine Weight 1320 lbs
Overall Efficiency 22.5 percent

Structural Factor 1.00

Number of Wings 1
Number of Fuselages 1

Limiting Airspeed 450 kts
Wing Ultimate g Load 10.00 g
Wing Taper 0.5
Wing Thickness at Root 1.2 ft

Tail / Canard Factor 0.4

Number of Nacelles 2
Length 9 ft
Diameter 3.25 ft
Fullness 0.5

Fuselage Diameter 3.25 ft
Fuselage Fullness 0.35

Pressurized Volume 0 percent
Cargo Decks 0

Cleanness 80 percent
Unstreamlined section 2.5 sq ft

User equipment 1,600 lbs

What explains the success of Bismark's wars, and the failure of his successors? Both had at their disposal tactically excellent armies. But Bismark chose to wage his wars for limited objectives, with limited means carefully budgeted, against a very short list of carefully selected and carefully isolated enemies.

His successors didn't.

Here's the key, from someone who saw a good deal more of war than anyone here:

"It is in any case a matter of common experience that despite the great variety and development of modern war its major lines are still laid down by governments; in other words, if we are to be technical about it, by a purely political and not a military body.
This is as it should be. No major proposal required for war can be worked out in the absence of political factors; and when people talk, as they often do, about harmful political influence in the management of war, they are not really saying what they mean. their quarrel should be with the policy itself, not its influence. if the policy is right - that is, successful, any intentional effect it has on the conduct of the war can only be for the good. If it has the opposite effect the policy itself is wrong."

Quoted

*Siam is looking for a 1.) a small, inexpensive fighter,

1. should have a competitive speed, but should be maneuverable enough to defend against the most modern aircraft.

Siam already has access to the CAC-9 Skua (Vought V-143), other options include:

Australian Aviation's:



AA-5 Centaur

Power: Rolls-Royce 870hp Peregrine

Armament: Four 7.62/0.3in machine guns

Size: Wingspan - 29ft
Length - 25ft
Wing area - 170sq ft

Weight: Empty - 3200lb
Max take-off - 3900lb

Performance: Max speed - 330mph
Ceiling - 33,000ft
Range - 500 miles
Climb - 3300ft per minute


***


Or TNCA's:



C-5 (TNCA Aguila), Fighter

Power: Curtiss 700hp Conqueror

Armament: Four 7.62/0.3in machine guns (2 wing, 2 nose)

Size: Wingspan - 30ft
Length - 22ft
Wing area - 200sq ft

Weight: Empty - 2500lb
Max take-off - 3500lb

Performance: Max speed - 320mph
Ceiling - 25,000ft
Range - 450 miles
Climb - 2000ft per minute


Both the C-5+ and the C-10 Aguila II are also available, but would be more expensive.


All of the above planes are available at very competitive prices. The Australian ones can even be subsidized, while the license for the Mexican ones can be had in exchange for the license on B.A.M's 115.

Quoted

Originally posted by AdmKuznetsov
What explains the success of Bismark's wars, and the failure of his successors? Both had at their disposal tactically excellent armies. But Bismark chose to wage his wars for limited objectives, with limited means carefully budgeted, against a very short list of carefully selected and carefully isolated enemies.

His successors didn't.

Bismark simply engaged in something that Willie II and herr Hitler did not... good, sound TACTICAL PLANNING. You can argue the opposite side of the point for the Allies in both wars- they had unlimited aims and large, well-equipped adversaries (initially far superior to themselves) and endured defeat after defeat at the beginnings of their campaingns. The Allies, however, fell back when appropriate and advanced when appropriate, ensuring victory through good military planning (as opposed to the purely political plannign you insinuate).

War is- no matter how grandious or limited it's aims- the simple distruction of your enemy's ability to fight back, either physically, psychologically, or both.

Korea is a perfect example of the 'limited warfare' problem- limit the aims of the war, and you often limit the success of the action. 50 years without a formal end to the war is not a victory in anyone's book. Vietnam is another- limit the objectives too much, and you loose the bility to harm your enemy to such a point that you destroy the ability or will to fight back, and thus loose the war; the same can be said for the Soviet campaign in Afghanistan... and many other expeditions into that country.

Bismark, IIRC, had no real military service. His wars were not so much 'wars' as they were strong-arm political tactics, well planned and timed to ensure victory. This is something any winning general would take into account fighting wars of aggression- fight on your own terms and at your most advantagous pace.

Gothia Works offers it Type 107



MODEL Gothia Works Type 107
ENGINE GWM V-1300 1300Hp
WEIGHTS
Take-off weight 2900 kg
Empty weight 2000 kg
DIMENSIONS
Wingspan 9.70 m
Length 7.90 m
Height 2.70 m

PERFORMANCE
Max. speed 630 km/h
Range 750 km
ARMAMENT: 2x ~13mm MG, 4x~8mm MG