Although not originally designed to, Japan did use armored cars in companies for combat duty instead of purely using them as scout units:
Campaign to bring back ARMOURED CARS!!!
- Thread starter LostinSpice
- 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.
Those vehicles have tracks tough. They seem to be tanks.Although not originally designed to, Japan did use armored cars in companies for combat duty instead of purely using them as scout units:
Last edited:
- 1
That depends on whether tankettes should be counted as armored cars or tanks.
They're mounted with a single machine gun, has armor only enough to stop rifle rounds, and is almost exactly the size of a jeep, so IMO they're closer to armored cars than tanks.
So basically like some WW1 or interwar tanks. Which clearly were classified as tanks.
- 1
How else would you put it? Panzer 1 certainly is a tank, is it not?
- 1
So is there any design or functional difference between the two aside from the tracks? Because if there isn't then they're effectively the same as light tanks on HoI level.
-----
Edit:
@LostinSpice What do you think is the fundamental difference between AC and LArm in HoI?
Last edited:
I won't go into the differences between a car and a tank, because they are quite obvious. Open wikipedia if you are intereseted.
Gameplay wise I think mechanized equipment should represent ACs, but recon battalions should also include a few light tanks.
Hopefully this is something we can mod after launch but it would likely require its own tech tree.
From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armored_car_(military)
Gameplay they could have better speed than tanks but greater terrain penalties. Generally less defense and attack than tanks with some exceptions. Generally they also cheaper to build than tanks. And then you have the recon buff.
The first point seems ok, but 2, 3&4 is related to my original question, since the… things in that photo fit these descriptions as well.
-----
After digging on this "armored car" thing I found that APCs could be either wheeled, tracked or half-tracked. Should we have that distinction as well for Mechanized units?
Those are Type 94 tankettes. Tankettes were very light tanks usually quite slow for their size (this one had 32 horsepower). They could be hardly used for recon missions, because their top speed was low on road. Also they were constantly throwing their tracks off in faster turns because they had bad design.
Tankettes were meant to be mobile machine gun nests, but they were a dead end.
APC means armored personel carrier. An armored car can be an APC if they use it in that role, and has aquadate space for soldiers and equipment.
The 'APC' however is a more modern term. I dont think they used that name in ww2 (Not sure about this one.).
Last edited:
No, that's whether their vehicles are armored or not arrcording to Wikipedia.
Weren't they the same speed as Japanese armored cars? (40kph) Plus they don't need to stay on road when scouting, shouldn't that be a plus?
And in 3, the speed difference is 9 to 8, same as mec. to mot.
I used APC as a short hand of "vehicles used by mechanized infantry".
Hasn't the difference between Armored Cars and Light Tanks- in terms of HoI- mostly been a cost thing? And that one's usually frontline and the other support?
To me that's where light tanks aren't super satisfactory (aside from just liking the little reptile part of my brain activating when it sees a pretty vehicle I like a-la the Greyhound), even as a rich major I like to usually have a force of cheap mobile units I can use to swarm over unimportant areas or do crap like that...
To me that's where light tanks aren't super satisfactory (aside from just liking the little reptile part of my brain activating when it sees a pretty vehicle I like a-la the Greyhound), even as a rich major I like to usually have a force of cheap mobile units I can use to swarm over unimportant areas or do crap like that...
40 km/h is slow for a recon vehicle. M8 could do 90km/h, a 222 could go 80km/h, a 234 could go 85 km/h and had 8 wheels and 50mm cannon, etc. I guess 40km/h is still faster then a horse, so it was adaquate against the chinese.
Most warring nations did use light tanks for recon, the BT series, or the pz1-2 for example, but only because light tanks had no other place on the battlefield late in the war.
Gameplay wise I agree though, because mechanized equipment is fine to represent armored cars.
Last edited:
I see recon in game as;
Recon 1. As is now. A generic unit of horses, motorcycles and trucks.
Recon 2. Again a generic unit but now with an attachment of armoured cars. Intended for armoured or favoured divisions.
Recon 3. Again generic unit, now with heavy armoured cars and several light tanks.
This structure would be good as it gives diversity, acknowledges armoured cars are only part of a recon unit and gives light tanks a new role later in the game. Remember, light tanks in a normal battalion won't be in a recon role so won't give any bonuses in this regard.
Also, you can pick which recon type (once researched) you want in a division template.
Recon 1. As is now. A generic unit of horses, motorcycles and trucks.
Recon 2. Again a generic unit but now with an attachment of armoured cars. Intended for armoured or favoured divisions.
Recon 3. Again generic unit, now with heavy armoured cars and several light tanks.
This structure would be good as it gives diversity, acknowledges armoured cars are only part of a recon unit and gives light tanks a new role later in the game. Remember, light tanks in a normal battalion won't be in a recon role so won't give any bonuses in this regard.
Also, you can pick which recon type (once researched) you want in a division template.
