Something that's always been a bit of a bother to me; how attaching any armour to Marine divisions was worse than useless. Well before the time period (dating back to the Great War), amphibious tanks had been experimented with. During the way, there are many different tanks developed especially for fording rivers and launching amphibious assaults. Best known is probably the Sherman DD, used on D-Day and Operation Dragoon. It looked like this
It was propelled by its own propeller and could reach speeds of four knots when swimming. The screen around the tank was a rubber folding screen that could be raised before entering water and folded down again after leaving it. Of course, the tank obviously can't fire with the screen raised, however on D-Day, after the Donald Ducks had landed, they were essential in providing fire support against German fortifications.
One of the reasons Omaha was such a disaster was that the Shermans had got swamped in bad weather (27 of 29 in the first battalion ashore were lost to poor weather alone)
Of course, the US was not alone in developing amphibious armour. During the war, the Japanese built the Type 2 Ka-Mi (1941) and the Type 3 Ka-Chi (1943) significantly modified light and medium tanks respectively that unfortunately were built too late to see most of their major landings. A little interesting historical tidbit is that both tanks carried specialist mechanics because the design was so complex and difficult to maintain.
The Germans also made modifications to the Pz.III and IV in anticipation of Sea Lion, but as that never happened we can't draw many conclusions about the capabilities.
The British experimented a bit with making the same DD modifications to the Churchill, Valentine and Cromwell tanks, but they discovered that the Sherman was a more effective model for amphibious operations.
Interestingly enough, with the exception of the T-26 and BTs which were retrofitted, almost all Soviet light tanks were designed for amphibious operations. Of course, light tanks have an advantage in that they're light. Obviously, but it made river crossings much easier.
This is important because in the Hearts of Iron series so far, I've never seen attaching armour to Marines as anything but a burden. Hearts of Iron 3 had a base penalty 120%, which couldn't be improved. Naturally, that horrendous penalty would wipe out the advantages to using Marines. It also made it unintentionally more effective to use heavy armour instead, as they suffered only a slightly greater penalty to amphibious invasions and carried enough of a big armour bonus to make the Marine division hard to stop.
In Hearts of Iron 4, the variant system has a lot of potential, and it would be neat to see amphibious versions of tanks produced, possibly trading off slower speeds (due to the slightly greater weight of the equipment naturally) and more intensive production
It was propelled by its own propeller and could reach speeds of four knots when swimming. The screen around the tank was a rubber folding screen that could be raised before entering water and folded down again after leaving it. Of course, the tank obviously can't fire with the screen raised, however on D-Day, after the Donald Ducks had landed, they were essential in providing fire support against German fortifications.
One of the reasons Omaha was such a disaster was that the Shermans had got swamped in bad weather (27 of 29 in the first battalion ashore were lost to poor weather alone)
Of course, the US was not alone in developing amphibious armour. During the war, the Japanese built the Type 2 Ka-Mi (1941) and the Type 3 Ka-Chi (1943) significantly modified light and medium tanks respectively that unfortunately were built too late to see most of their major landings. A little interesting historical tidbit is that both tanks carried specialist mechanics because the design was so complex and difficult to maintain.
The Germans also made modifications to the Pz.III and IV in anticipation of Sea Lion, but as that never happened we can't draw many conclusions about the capabilities.
The British experimented a bit with making the same DD modifications to the Churchill, Valentine and Cromwell tanks, but they discovered that the Sherman was a more effective model for amphibious operations.
Interestingly enough, with the exception of the T-26 and BTs which were retrofitted, almost all Soviet light tanks were designed for amphibious operations. Of course, light tanks have an advantage in that they're light. Obviously, but it made river crossings much easier.
This is important because in the Hearts of Iron series so far, I've never seen attaching armour to Marines as anything but a burden. Hearts of Iron 3 had a base penalty 120%, which couldn't be improved. Naturally, that horrendous penalty would wipe out the advantages to using Marines. It also made it unintentionally more effective to use heavy armour instead, as they suffered only a slightly greater penalty to amphibious invasions and carried enough of a big armour bonus to make the Marine division hard to stop.
In Hearts of Iron 4, the variant system has a lot of potential, and it would be neat to see amphibious versions of tanks produced, possibly trading off slower speeds (due to the slightly greater weight of the equipment naturally) and more intensive production
- 3
- 1
