T-28: 41 in 1933, 50 in 1934, 32 in 1935 and 101 in 1936.
T-35: 10 in 1934, 7 in 1935 and 15 in 1936.
85% of the Soviet armoured vehicle park on 1.1.1936 is missing from HoI4 (updated to NSB)
- Thread starter Fulmen
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
T-35: 10 in 1934, 7 in 1935 and 15 in 1936.
Umm, that's a bridge laying AFV based on the T-28 chassis. I'm pretty sure that's not what you meant to link.
- 1
Those T-28 numbers look significant. T-35 numbers look kinda small for inclusion in the 1936 scenario, but they do exist.
No, they had 481 T-28s by Barbarossa and about 60 T-35s. While the devs probably included them for the memes (multi-turretted tanks - land battleships am i rite?), they can also be seen to represent the medium (before T-34) and heavy (before KV) tanks the Soviets had (because BT tanks and T-26 were lights).
I'm aware it's a tankette, and it does exist in the game. It's marked as obsolete, which is probably why you didn't notice it.
This is wrong. You're looking at the IT-28, which was a bridge-layer based on the T-28 chassis. There were 524 T-28s produced from 1933 to 1940, and 62 T-35s produced from 1933 to 1939.
EDIT to avoid double-posting:
Production of tanks (and tankettes) in the USSR 1930-35 according to the archival material used by Meltyukhov:
| Type | 1930 | 1931 | 1932 | 1933 | 1934 | 1935 | Total |
| T-18 | 78 | 435 | - | - | - | - | 513 |
| T-24 | 1 | 25 | - | - | - | - | 26 |
| T-26 | - | 19 | 1,032 | 1,405 | 1,449 | 1,378 | 5,283 |
| T-27 | - | 365 | 1,593 | 919 | 14 | - | 2,891 |
| T-28 | - | - | - | 41 | 51 | 32 | 124 |
| T-35 | - | - | - | 1 | 10 | 7 | 18 |
| T-37 | - | - | - | 138 | 953 | 1,140 | 2,231 |
| T-41 | - | - | 14 | - | - | - | 14 |
| BT-2 | - | 3 | - | - | - | - | 3 |
| BT-5 | - | - | 393 | 1,005 | 1,103 | - | 2,501 |
| BT-7 | - | - | - | - | 2 | 500 | 502 |
| Total | 79 | 847 | 3,032 | 3,509 | 3,582 | 3,061 | 14,110 |
Last edited:
- 2
@goodcigar and @Arheo had a PM conversation (about the ship improvements we've proposed), and according to @Arheo the devs may prioritize balance over historical accuracy.
This makes some here think: If all these tank were added to the game, how whould you prevent the Soviets from steamrolling everyone?
Could some neagtive national spirit do the trick?
This makes some here think: If all these tank were added to the game, how whould you prevent the Soviets from steamrolling everyone?
Could some neagtive national spirit do the trick?
- 4
- 1
Perhaps, but then fans would complain even harder about "Soviet Union nerfs" and how they can't conquer the world by justifying on Germany in 36 anymore.
- 1
Depends actually. If I play as USA, at least the game would feel much more down to earth realistic if I can only LL the Soviets and they can push the Axis on their own. Not all the time, but I shouldn't have to put boots in the Eastern Front for the Red Army to regain the initiative and start pushing.
By representing the absolute incompetent mess that the Red Army was well into 1942, and even after that it was pretty atrocious.
Personally I'd love to see all nations have historical stockpiles, manpower, economies and politics, as well as have the reasons for why they did what they did be represented; e.g. USA couldn't just join the war in 1939-40, despite her immense economy, and she couldn't just amass a gigantic air force during peacetime, like she currently can in the game. I'd like to see things like that represented. Sadly this is not compatible with the sandbox vision of the game that PDX has, and would also entail a lot more research and tinkering with the game, as I previously pointed out on page 2 of this thread.
- 11
- 1
Well, it is debatable just how incompetent Red Army was in 1942, and even more so afterwards.
Putting that aside, (a very complex subject) the main problem was that Red Army incompetence in 1941 was generally caused by poor political decisions and/or poor strategic decisions - both of those things are under control of the player.
If the player has the actual historical resources of the Red Army in the game, Germany wouldn't stand a snowball's chance in hell.
- 3
- 1
- 1
It's so odd that no country starts with armored cars no units using it, no stockpiles, etc. The onebigger piece of equipment almost every country had.
- 8
- 3
There's also no reason you can't model tankettes with the current designer, either. It fits with how it works, and the designer does a good job.
I pulled up the T-27 in the game, and it's just an Interwar light tank with a heavy machine gun and armor that is almost pierced by Tier 1 infantry kits and is completely pierced by Tier 2 infantry kits. If the Soviets had a pile of these at start, it probably wouldn't be too overpowering except that we can refit older tanks.
So, let's say you gave the Soviet 2800 of these crappy vehicles. Well, I'm either sending them to China to help China against Japan (and to farm some XP for me since these are Soviet tanks and not tanks I, umm, borrowed from the Finns or Baltic states), or I'm going to refit them into something decent for about half the cost of a BT-7. Given the limited utility of light tanks anyway, either way is a solid move for the Soviets.
I mean, even with the existing smaller stockpiles, I rarely have need to produce actual new light tanks as the Soviets. I can satisfy my recon needs by refitting BT-5s. Hell, with another 2800 light tanks of whatever type in stockpile, I could afford to use light tanks as partisan suppression tools if I just felt like it.
- 1
- 1
Refitting of tanks is being nerfed per 11.4 changenotes, there will no longer be a base bonus for unit conversion. And even with techs, it'll only hit 80%.
Have those changes actually hit the beta patch? Because I was just looking in the game, and I use the beta patch, and I was looking at refit cost in the tank designer, and it was cheaper to do a refit on old, crappy T-27s than it was to build new BT-7s.
Yes, this is really the right moment. If the USSR had at least a month to mobilize like France, this could turn the war significantly. The USSR began momilization just a few days before the war, and the Army was split into three echelons - on the border, on the way to the border, and just started to move towards the border. If the decision to mobilize had been made a month before the war. Then there would be more troops on the border, they would have had time to prepare positions (trenches, fortifications, AA and AT defenses, organize a front line), tanks would not enter battle in small groups and there would be fuel for them. In reality, the concentration of troops on the border is a precedent for starting a war, the game does not simulate this issue. And you can concentrate your entire army on the border and this will not have any diplomatic, economic or military consequences.
- 2
- 1
Troops on a shared border increase your trade value relative to other countries. You can bully neutrals into giving you a bigger share of trade via troops on the border.
- 1
I think this can't be overstated enough. In reality it is estimated that anywhere between 50-70% of all Red Army tanks were inoperable at the outset of Barbarossa, most due to poor maintenance and lack of spare parts. The reason for this were many but the chief two was the inflexible production quotas used by the USSR, that only cared about completed tanks and not about producing spare parts for said tanks, and the rampant disorganization and corruption of the Red Army, an issue that still existed in 1941 even if it had been much improved. Both of these issues are probably possible to simulate in HOI4 at the moment (as a national spirit debuff to reliability and attrition most likely) but it would also be trivial for a player to abuse game systems to avoid it and then cakewalk through Barbarossa with 20k modernized light tanks.
- 2
- 1
no, it's far more than political decisions. The red army in 1941 lacked competent officers and had a whole lot of organisational issues
- 3
The lack of competent army officers was, itself, a political decision. Which led to organizational issues, since the officers capable of improving those issues were either afraid of being reassigned to Donskoye, or already there.
Edit: because things that make sense in my head don't always when typed out.