A few questions

[FOARP]

Tell us anything about what the majors produced that was exceptional.

Spitfire, T-34, Panther, Yamato-class battleship, B-29, Panzerfaust, Stalin's Organs, Ju-87, Typhoon, DC-3, Stg 44 - you get the picture.

In early 1940s bofors started to produced a new type of 15.2 cm naval guns for the Dutch navy. Unlike previous 15.2 cm guns these could be used against both air and surface targets and unlike other guns of that size this gun was fully automatic (or was improved to become so then Sweden confiscated the guns after Netherlands was conquered by Germany). This gun could fire 10 shot per minute at surface targets and even faster against air targets (unlike US modified 6 inch guns). This gun is still serving in the Peruvian navy which make it the largest naval gun still in service.

So, a component of a warship that didn't actually see service during WW2?

Guys, if there was a tank, aircraft, or warship fielded by a minor that took part in the war that was best-in-class we wouldn't even be having this discussion - it would be easy to point to it. Instead we're talking about individual components, or cobbling together of components from various sources to field a few battalion equipped with a given weapons-system, none of which is actually substantiating the claim that Denkt originally made, that: "in reality minors did produce better stuff then the majors did in many areas during ww2".

The reality was that the resources required to develop and field a truly cutting-edge tank, artillery gun, fighter plane, bomber, warship etc. were such that even the smaller of the great powers (e.g., Italy) struggled to do so during the war. Beyond the great powers, and broadening out to the immediate pre-war period were six or so countries (Sweden, Netherlands, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, Poland) that managed to develop ~two-three fairly average weapons-systems for their time, and beyond these another five or so (Belgium, Finland, Denmark, Yugoslavia) that came up with one or two average weapons-systems.

This still leaves ~40 minor countries with either no military industry or minimal production of limited numbers of out-moded weaponry. Try to slant the game so that minors can all produce tanks and warships results in these countries being preposterously over-powered, with resulting distortion of the game. Much better if they have to buy and import weapons - but unfortunately this will likely not be the case in HOI4.

This topic just annoyed me so much i had to post this... a few Swedish things that were equal or better then the major countries things...
K-pist M/45 (SMG used all the way up to 2007, loved by US navy seals in Vietnam)
Kg M/40 MG
AG M/42 (Semi auto rifle, barely any recoil)
KP-bil (APC, liked by UN forces, called the white elephants by the local population in Congo)
Tre Kronor class cruisers (Modern lightcruisers comparable to top cruisers of major countries, launched before war was over, served in navies until 1984.)
Saab J21 (Advanced fighter design, Japan went with same ideas but the J21 got into service and was one of the 2 prop fighters to get converted successfully to jet propulsion)
FFVS J22 (Despite being underpowered it could "hold its own against P-51 Mustangs below 5000 meters, and in mock dog fights with P-51 Mustangs could not be caught by Mustangs below 4000 m.

Do i need to name more?

I'm sure you'll be along with the proof that any of these weapons (presuming that they were actually produced during WW2, which does not actually appear to be the case with some of them) were better than anything fielded by the great powers shortly, right?

 

[Centerbe]

Bofors gun is the best medium anti air gun design of the war. Japan and Germany could not design a good medium aa gun which is shown by their over reliance on light anti air guns.

Axis have 37mm Flak and was quite similar to 40mm Bofors. No particular differences in performances... 37mm Flak have a rate of fire of 150 rounds/minute, Bofors 40mm 120 rounds/minute. 37mm Flak Maximum firing range 6500 mt, Bofors 40mm 7100 mt. Elevation and traverse or all other performances was similar. Why bofors 40mm was superior? Why the best of the war?

I've suggested earlier that Italy be given an event of sorts that would fire if they lost too many foreign possessions. In Europe Engulfed (WWII ETO board game), there is a rule called "Collapse of Italian morale" that gives the Italians severe permanent maluses should they lose North Africa. It gives the Italians a good reason to fight over Africa, the Germans a reason to support them, and the Allies a good reason to kick them out.

Italian morale is down also before they will lost foreign possessions, is down also when or if they will conquer it.
Also in 1935 was very down during invasion of Ethiopia, was spent more than 50 billions of old Liras (a huge amount of money of the time). So huge to be suffient for reindustrialization of all south Italy.
A huge cost of money and of italian deads only for conquer a desert without resources. For this reason there was serious and rough internal critique about this expansionist plan, wicked, expensive, and with no gain.

 

[Zaku]

Axis have 37mm Flak and was quite similar to 40mm Bofors. No particular differences in performances... 37mm Flak have a rate of fire of 150 rounds/minute, Bofors 40mm 120 rounds/minute. 37mm Flak Maximum firing range 6500 mt, Bofors 40mm 7100 mt. Elevation and traverse or all other performances was similar. Why bofors 40mm was superior? Why the best of the war?

Yes, that's the point.
Was Sweden a minor nation? Check
Was 40mm Bofors AA as good or better(so "first class") as the German light/medium AA gun? Yes it was more or less the same. It was better in range but worse in firing speed.
So the point still stands: Minor nations could develop as good weapons as the majors.

 

[Swinds]

Then original line I answered below....

Really trying hard to think of even a single weapons system produced by a minor that was first-in-class in 1939-45. Give us a hint?

Therefore the Czch version on the Bren was first class cos GB decided to copy it.

More examples.

Dutch Fokker G.I twin engineed Fighter.

Romainian ISR 80 Fighter.

Polish PZL.37 los bomber

 

[FOARP]

Therefore the Czch version on the Bren was first class cos GB decided to copy it.

Except, as is very obvious to anyone who has even casually glanced at the two weapons, one is an improvement on the other. The Bren was a development of the original Czech weapon, not a copy.

Still waiting for anything to substantiate Denkt's original claim.

Yes, that's the point.
Was Sweden a minor nation? Check
Was 40mm Bofors AA as good or better(so "first class") as the German light/medium AA gun? Yes it was more or less the same. It was better in range but worse in firing speed.
So the point still stands: Minor nations could develop as good weapons as the majors.

Except the 40mm used by the Allies was, again, an improvement on the original. Had the Allies stuck to the original design they would have never been able to even manufacture it in sufficent quantities, since its complex assembly required manufacture by-hand. They had to re-engineer the flash-suppressor, design a new gun-carriage, new sights, an all-new fire director system to control it etc. etc. etc.

 

[Heruure]

I'm sure you'll be along with the proof that any of these weapons (presuming that they were actually produced during WW2, which does not actually appear to be the case with some of them) were better than anything fielded by the great powers shortly, right?

The moment someone comes with things that were of equal or better quality you demand proof that they were that? Why dont you actually tell us why these are not equal or better?
Just to take the first one on my list for example and compare it to one of the favorite ww2 SMGs, the MP40.
Better rate of fire, longer effective range, better muzzle velocity, bigger mag, very compact, able to fire almsot directly after coming out of water.)

Is that enough of a proof? It just kicked one of the most beloved ww2 SMGs out of the water, and the question was not if they were better, it was if they were equal OR better then major countries weapons.

At the moment you just deny everything and anything anyone say and thus you are trolling us.

 

[Zaku]

Except, as is very obvious to anyone who has even casually glanced at the two weapons, one is an improvement on the other. The Bren was a development of the original Czech weapon, not a copy.

Still waiting for anything to substantiate Denkt's original claim.

I posted a few a while back. You can ignore the many excellent weapons the minor nations developed, but that doesn't make you right.

 

[FOARP]

The moment someone comes with things that were of equal or better quality you demand proof that they were that? Why dont you actually tell us why these are not equal or better?

That's how these things work - you make the claim, you substantiate it.

Just to take the first one on my list for example and compare it to one of the favorite ww2 SMGs, the MP40.

Sure, let's take the Swedish K - was it manufactured during WW2? Ooops, no it wasn't - it came out just after the war had finished..

So that's pretty much falling at the first hurdle there.

 

[77Hawk77]

My original point was still that in most areas most countries could produce what they generally needed with a few exceptions. Not that it was in the same quantities or quality as everything the major powers did. Not like the major powers didn't also make some junk once in a while.

The main thing the majors had during ww2 that most countries didn't have before, during or after, was a large amount of combat experience which enabled them to make improvements to their designs in the war. Was their Pre-war designs really that good? No not really, the Panzer Mk 3 and 4 used in France were pretty subpar to a lot of countries, and only became good when they were modded after getting combat experience.

 

[Denkt]

3.7 cm flak fire rate was actually worse then the bofors 40 mm before its 1943 design. The bofors 40 mm gun have several advantage over the 3.7 cm flak. It fire a shell that is 50% heavier then the flak 3.7 cm shell and at a higher muzzle speed. The range advantage bofors gun offered was very important in why it became so successful because it can destroy and disrupt aircrafts before they can attack. The heavier shell the bofors fire have a better chance of destroying an aircraft.

And given that bofors was great before the war even started while flak was only good in 1943 should count for something. Unlike most ww2 things, bofors 40 mm gun is still used today. Hard to think of anything more exceptional then it that was used in ww2.

Spitfire, T-34, Panther, Yamato-class battleship, B-29, Panzerfaust, Stalin's Organs, Ju-87, Typhoon, DC-3, Stg 44

How many of these things are used today?

 

[Swinds]

Except, as is very obvious to anyone who has even casually glanced at the two weapons, one is an improvement on the other. The Bren was a development of the original Czech weapon, not a copy.

Still waiting for anything to substantiate Denkt's original claim.

And what about the aircraft??

 

[Swinds]

Unlike most ww2 things, bofors 40 mm gun is still used today.

In fact my workmates had then on RN ships in the Falklands war in 1982

 

[FOARP]

My original point was still that in most areas most countries could produce what they generally needed with a few exceptions. Not that it was in the same quantities or quality as everything the major powers did. Not like the major powers didn't also make some junk once in a while.

The main thing the majors had during ww2 that most countries didn't have before, during or after, was a large amount of combat experience which enabled them to make improvements to their designs in the war. Was their Pre-war designs really that good? No not really, the Panzer Mk 3 and 4 used in France were pretty subpar to a lot of countries, and only became good when they were modded after getting combat experience.

I think those are both fair points. Yes, the more "major" minors still need to be able to produce enough weapons to meet what they historically could make. I also agree that a large part of the reason why the Great Powers managed to produce first-in-class weapons-systems was because they had the experience that allowed them to craft the weapons-system to fit its purpose. A big part of that, though, is industrial capacity - Finland had plenty of experience, but beyond making some OK SMGs didn't have much in the way of industrial production to make use of it.

And what about the aircraft??

That would be the aircraft that weren't built during WW2? Again, refer to Denkt's original statement.

How many of these things are used today?

Whether or not they are being used today is not really relevant when the original statement was that they were being used in WW2, is it?

 

[Centerbe]

Yes, that's the point.
Was Sweden a minor nation? Check
Was 40mm Bofors AA as good or better(so "first class") as the German light/medium AA gun? Yes it was more or less the same. It was better in range but worse in firing speed.
So the point still stands: Minor nations could develop as good weapons as the majors.

Totally agree. Sorry if i havent followed all discussion before. I dont think Sweden its a minor nation if u mean this. And i dont think its a minor nation cause cannot produce high quality tech of weapons. However, still today it produces and sells worldwide high quality tech and weapons.

Many in forum are convinced that the level of technology or military efficiency depends in direct proportion to the resources owned. Its not my mind. We had already discussed it before in other treads. Kuwait has much more oil than in all Germany, so it should have an army bigger and more effective in comparison of the first.

 

[Denkt]

I think HOI4 will be much more friendly to minor countries then it comes to technology then HOI3 was.

 

[Heruure]

That's how these things work - you make the claim, you substantiate it.



Sure, let's take the Swedish K - was it manufactured during WW2? Ooops, no it wasn't - it came out just after the war had finished..

So that's pretty much falling at the first hurdle there.

"Really trying hard to think of even a single weapons system produced by a minor that was first-in-class in 1939-45."
Designed: 1944, produced and taken into service: 1945.....
Seems like you failed at the first hurdle there. (btw, it came out before Japan surrendered so it was produced during the war, failed at the second hurdle aswell, did you?)

 

[Swinds]

That would be the aircraft that weren't built during WW2? Again, refer to Denkt's original statement.

Aircraft not built during WW2..... do you actually know what you are talking about???? That statement is so wrong I think you are just saying things to get a reaction.

 

[FOARP]

"Really trying hard to think of even a single weapons system produced by a minor that was first-in-class in 1939-45."
Designed: 1944, produced and taken into service: 1945.....
Seems like you failed at the first hurdle there. (btw, it came out before Japan surrendered so it was produced during the war, failed at the second hurdle aswell, did you?)

Debatable - I understood that the "S" in M/45S (i.e., the ones designating the original production-run) stood for September. Even if you're right, you're talking about a single SMG (one that wasn't perfected until the M/45B model came out) at the very, very tail-end of the war.

Aircraft not built during WW2..... do you actually know what you are talking about???? That statement is so wrong I think you are just saying things to get a reaction.

What, the Czech aircraft?

EDIT: here's the aircaft you're talking about -

Dutch Fokker G.I twin engineed Fighter. - not best in class by any measure.

Romainian ISR 80 Fighter. - ditto.

Polish PZL.37 los bomber - produced during WW2?

 

[Zaku]

Aircraft not built during WW2..... do you actually know what you are talking about???? That statement is so wrong I think you are just saying things to get a reaction.

I don't understand why is he so stubborn.
Several people listed examples of excellent weapons developed by minor nations in this thread. He ignored 90% of those, and only adressed where he could find any minor detail he could disagree on.

 

[Centerbe]

3.7 cm flak fire rate was actually worse then the bofors 40 mm before its 1943 design. The bofors 40 mm gun have several advantage over the 3.7 cm flak. It fire a shell that is 50% heavier then the flak 3.7 cm shell and at a higher muzzle speed. The range advantage bofors gun offered was very important in why it became so successful because it can destroy and disrupt aircrafts before they can attack. The heavier shell the bofors fire have a better chance of destroying an aircraft.

And given that bofors was great before the war even started while flak was only good in 1943 should count for something. Unlike most ww2 things, bofors 40 mm gun is still used today. Hard to think of anything more exceptional then it that was used in ww2.


How many of these things are used today?

The Bofors used today aniway its not the bofors of the WW2.... in WW2 was a 40mm L/60 manual operated the model used today its a L70 full auto and with a total new technology.
Rest the same the name and the caliber because the company produce it is the same. Also Mauser produce rifles today and Rheinmetall but weapons are not the same of WW2. (PS Mauser '98 is still produced today as hunting rifle) In WW2 there was Panther and today its called Leopard, its an evolution of it? As the same way modern Bofors its an evolution of WW2 bofors.