German tank research over the top?

[mursolini]

Well, Britain can pop up 1944 fighters before 1940 or 1941, Italy can do similar stuff, only a bit slower.

Anyone willing to argue British aircrafts were 4 years ahead of Germany, SU, US, Japan? Anyone?
This is harly unique to Germany frankly.

 

[Celdur]

Its def over the top, the Germans had three main weaknesses;

They were actually terribly hampered by Versailles on tank development which limited their engineering experiments, options and assessments.

Their doctrine of fast agile movement and encirclement to win wars didn't favor heavy tanks (even what eventually became medium tanks)

They underestimated the value of heavier tanks their production by the other powers (Britain, France and USSR)


The timetable they set for themselves for tank development was a couple of years behind that of the other powers, which is why lighter tank designs Pz II and Pz III were the mainstay in the first half of the war even though they were found to be obsolete very quickly and only their superb tank doctrine (coupled with the Allies WW1 mentality) save them from losing the war right then and there.

They missed several advancements like sloped armor, Nazi leadership and organization of industries was terrible, corporatist tendency to give contracts to "friends" instead of the most experienced companies in mass-production didn't help either. As a result their tanks had a reliability for 55% average, according to test by Soviets and Americans.


Imagine playing HOI4 with a 55% reliable tank division, its impossible to win like that.



The focuses should definitely improve German tank doctrine instead of tech at least temporarily, since the other powers learned from their mistakes, something not reflected in the game, you are stuck with whichever doctrine you chose.

And the Soviets should be the only ones able to produce Medium tanks 2 by 1940 by a fair margin, if we want to keep things historical.

 

[Lumpy]

You forget that you don't produce Tigers nor Pz IVs in HoI, you produce MT level 2 or 3 etc.

Dates on research tree are just for ahead of time penalty, not for some historical accuracy markers.

PS. Every country has access to same tanks.

Maybe I didn't express myself clearly. I am fully aware that all tags use the same tank techs in terms of stats. I am of course referring to Medium Tank '39, medium tank '41, and so on.
My point is that '41 tech shouldn't be mass produced in '39 by ANY nation. Germany needs an edge in utilization of tanks, not tank tech. This would be more balanced, since it could be fine tuned way better (in the form of modifiers, for example), and wouldn't provide Germany with the easy possibility to skip an entire model.

It's hard to reproduce the results Germany got early on. It had so much more to do with doctrines then equipment. And with a generic path, the early effect is even harder to reproduce.
The bonuses encourage someone playing Germany to go for panzers. It's not historically correct in every aspect, but INMO it's a good choice by the devs in order to give the Germans that early panzer edge and a good gameplay.

Yes, I am all in about the edge in tank warfare for Germany. Handing out massive tech bonuses seems a bit hamfisted, though. A modifier would work much better, since the Germans would then use the same (or maybe even worse) equipment as their enemies, but using it better. This would both reflect reality and be better for the overall balance. Have you ever played multiplayer? Currently, huge 40 width divisions of medium and heavy tanks by '39 are quite common when Germany is played by a mildly skilled player.

Well, Britain can pop up 1944 fighters before 1940 or 1941, Italy can do similar stuff, only a bit slower.

Anyone willing to argue British aircrafts were 4 years ahead of Germany, SU, US, Japan? Anyone?
This is harly unique to Germany frankly.

You are absolutely right. No nation should have tech bonuses of that magnitude. Again, a modifier for the brits would work much better IMO.

 

[Captured Joe]

A modifier would work much better, since the Germans would then use the same (or maybe even worse) equipment as their enemies, but using it better. This would both reflect reality and be better for the overall balance.

This is especially true for the early WW2, where the bulk of the German tanks in 1939 (PzKpfw II's) were inferior to the main tanks of the Polish army (7TP's) but outnumbered the latter vastly, and where in 1940 the bulk of their tanks were roughly equal to the French tanks (although their mediums were technically inferior to their French counterparts but were used more effectively, AND had all working radios, which would be considered a luxury by the allies at the time); French commanders complained afterwards that while having roughly equal numbers, they were for example using 30 groups of 10 tanks each, while the Germans were using one group of 300 tanks.

Communication (and thus unit cohestion and cooperation) was key to Blitzkrieg. This could be simulated much more effectively by giving the Germans radio tech bonuses rather than just plain tank upgrade bonuses. Give them cheaper/better signals companies or something. Make their doctrines better at using those tools.

 

[mursolini]

While this type of focuses are clearly unhistorical, I also can see why developers did this: tech focuses had to be considered against industrial and diplomatic focuses, and getting 70-90 days of discount for a few techs clearly is not very valuable.

Thus, at most we will see a few tweaks to get rid of ridiculous results, unless NF, and tech system s are reworked.

 

[Celdur]

They did it because most people play Germany so they overpowered the Nazis to make it "fun".

While i don't disagree with the Arcade/Sand Box option for the game i do want a Historically difficult Germany run, at least as much as possible, certainly i want the same machines they historically had. With the same pro's and con's then let me tinker with the models through the game but an ahistorical Panther tank? which shouldn't exist until AFTER they fight the Soviet T-34?

I've always had a problem with that, ever since HoI 2

 

[Louella]

You forget that you don't produce Tigers nor Pz IVs in HoI, you produce MT level 2 or 3 etc.

This is a significant point, which is often overlooked.

though, there are some extremely detailed mods, where different countries do produce vastly different forms of equipment.

 

[amalric de g.]

Errr nope. Up to '41, the SU was far ahead in tank and their operational strength (thicker armor, better penetration, higher reliability). Combined arms, using the tank mobility, focus relocation and communication gave Germans an edge, not the tanks as such.

Higher reliability? A early T34 could drive 200km and the engine was done. Thats the typical myth about the T34. The Panzer III and IV where reliabel Tanks.

 

[lihp]

Higher reliability? A early T34 could drive 200km and the engine was done. Thats the typical myth about the T34. The Panzer III and IV where reliabel Tanks.

Just talking about 41 and there the T34 was superior in a tank vs tank comparison. Hands down

 

[Gwydion5]

Not that I'm a historical buff. But based on the comments I can tell that there is a lot of fundamental changes required to achieve the balance people are looking for. I will say that I am somewhat disappointed in the balance of research and production in terms of historical accuracy/alignment. PDS should take a hard look at when certain models were actually put in production and ask if their research system reflects that. If it doesn't then they should make the necessary changes so that it does just to coincide with the historical simulation aspects and intent of the game.

As Gefallener_Held said, the Bismarck was being built in 36, and put to sea in 39. Yet the current research and production system makes it unreasonable to actually achieve that. So the historical framework to have a reasonably accurate simulation is compromised because... ? I don't know to be honest, it makes no sense to me, and it's not like this information is hard to find in terms of when something was first being produced, and when it first seen active duty/combat to base your research / production designs off of.

I also think the major nation models should be unique stat wise, and minors should use a generic model stats that is currently implemented.

 

[amalric de g.]

Just talking about 41 and there the T34 was superior in a tank vs tank comparison. Hands down

On paper yes. But horrible ergonomics, no radio, difficult and exhausting steering and bad vision was also common on the T34.

 

[Captured Joe]

Ergonomics and vision were quite horrible for German tank destroyers like the StuG III and JagdPanzer 38(t) too, yet they did fantastically well. The T-34 WAS an advanced tank when introduced, not just on paper but also on the ground. It was far from invincible, and in the hands of untrained recruits it did very poorly in 1941, but in one-on-one fights it outclassed any other tank of its time.

 

[lihp]

On paper yes. But horrible ergonomics, no radio, difficult and exhausting steering and bad vision was also common on the T34.

Yes, the exact reason why they went down. Radio in every tank actually is a precondidtion for coordinated combined arms. Its exactly what killed more than 1.5 mil Red Army soldiers and destroyed more than 6.000 Red Army tanks within 5 months.

 

[lihp]

Not that I'm a historical buff. But based on the comments I can tell that there is a lot of fundamental changes required to achieve the balance people are looking for. I will say that I am somewhat disappointed in the balance of research and production in terms of historical accuracy/alignment. PDS should take a hard look at when certain models were actually put in production and ask if their research system reflects that. If it doesn't then they should make the necessary changes so that it does just to coincide with the historical simulation aspects and intent of the game.

As Gefallener_Held said, the Bismarck was being built in 36, and put to sea in 39. Yet the current research and production system makes it unreasonable to actually achieve that. So the historical framework to have a reasonably accurate simulation is compromised because... ? I don't know to be honest, it makes no sense to me, and it's not like this information is hard to find in terms of when something was first being produced, and when it first seen active duty/combat to base your research / production designs off of.

I also think the major nation models should be unique stat wise, and minors should use a generic model stats that is currently implemented.

Id like to add:

1. HOI4 does not apply drastic effects by eg. weather, supply shortages,...: their bad side effects are tuned down compared to history.
2. HOI4 does not reflect the strength and weaknesses of each nation to their full extent. As such eg the Tiger I has a way lesser effect on the battlefield than in history. Same applies for the RN being way less effective.
3. Making research with experience (increasing unit stats to create a new model of the basic model) is imho a design flaw. Ideally that new model created by experience must then be researched, before production starts, while the switch in production to the new model should have a much smaller malus or no malus at all.

 

[amalric de g.]

Ergonomics and vision were quite horrible for German tank destroyers like the StuG III and JagdPanzer 38(t) too, yet they did fantastically well. The T-34 WAS an advanced tank when introduced, not just on paper but also on the ground. It was far from invincible, and in the hands of untrained recruits it did very poorly in 1941, but in one-on-one fights it outclassed any other tank of its time.

You compare apples and oranges. The T 34 was partially advanced, good armor and a good gun is not all. The christie suspension was introduced in 1928, the design cramped the interior of the tank and the cross country speed was not good, why do you think that the US, UK, Ge and all other tank producing nations didn´t used the christie suspension?

Do you think a tank battle is a jousting competition? The german tank doctrine, was not to go head on in the fight.

Did you ever read the Aberdeen Proving ground test of a new T34 from 1943?
- Wet ammo after a water test and short circuits
- Bad steel
- 343 km and the engine was beyond repair

- The only thing on the tank, that impressed the US Army was the target device

 

[Opanashc]

Did you ever read the Aberdeen Proving ground test of a new T34 from 1943?
- Wet ammo after a water test and short circuits
- Bad steel
- 343 km and the engine was beyond repair

- The only thing on the tank, that impressed the US Army was the target device

Considering the conditions, under which that T-34 was built, and mistakes made by US army in exploiting and testing it - some of issues are understandable. Soviet tanks were made to last one-two strategic operations at most, hence their low reliability.

 

[lihp]

You compare apples and oranges. The T 34 was partially advanced, good armor and a good gun is not all. The christie suspension was introduced in 1928

Considering the conditions, under which that T-34 was built, and mistakes made by US army in exploiting and testing it - some of issues are understandable. Soviet tanks were made to last one-two strategic operations at most, hence their low reliability.

Please you two actually do compare apples and oranges.

1. There were several studies of the T-34: by the allies in 44, by the Germans in 41 as well as after the war in 50. In most cases we have a comparison like T34 vs. Tiger I, Shrman, Panther or similar. Of course the T34 falls short on all those comparisons.
2. While T-34 in 1941 were still "quite similar" in quality and reliability, this drastically changed in '42 onward. Handling of steel, welding of steel, montage, motorization... differed in quality from extremely poor to execellent. That percentage became worse by each day up to a point in 42, where app 260 of 405 T34 failed due to mechanical issues before battle. Thats more than 60% failing before entering battle.

The reasons for the drastical drop in quality is also listed by several authors: moving of factories beyond Ural, loss of qualified workers, lack of raw materials, improvisation,...

 

[adam_grif]

Matilda II is not all allied tanks. The Cruisers were just on par with the German tanks.
The French tanks were all hampered by one-man turrets, except the AMC 35, which had reliability and availability issues.

All recent French designs as of 1940 had equivalent or better firepower and armour protection compared to their German counterparts. They did have problems of other varieties, but in a stand up fight they performed well. In The Blitzkreig Legend, they mention quite a few instances of small numbers of Char Bs resisting stubbornly, in some cases with individual tanks taking dozens of hits without any penetrations from German tanks. As off the invasion of France, huge numbers of German tankers were still using Panzer IIs or even Panzer Is. The situation was somewhat comparable to the much more famous experience of allied tankers encountering Tigers, wherein it was significant on a tactical level but not really significant on a strategic one, and the heavier tanks had secondary drawbacks that arguably made them less useful than faster, more reliable tanks with less armour and firepower would have been.

Germany achieved great success against France and (in the early years) the Soviet Union primarily because of superior planning, superior doctrine, operational surprise, and local air superiority. They didn't invade with supertanks, they just had "good enough" tanks that were balanced all-rounders. The French and Soviet forces both had heavier tanks and in the Soviet case the T34 was very much a better tank, albeit with some kinks still needing to be worked out. By the late war, when the Germans had the heaviest kit and all their famed big cats, they didn't have the opportunity to do anything meaningful with them.

 

[lihp]

All recent French designs as of 1940 had equivalent or better firepower and armour protection compared to their German counterparts. They did have problems of other varieties, but in a stand up fight they performed well. In The Blitzkreig Legend, they mention quite a few instances of small numbers of Char Bs resisting stubbornly, in some cases with individual tanks taking dozens of hits without any penetrations from German tanks. As off the invasion of France, huge numbers of German tankers were still using Panzer IIs or even Panzer Is. The situation was somewhat comparable to the much more famous experience of allied tankers encountering Tigers, wherein it was significant on a tactical level but not really significant on a strategic one, and the heavier tanks had secondary drawbacks that arguably made them less useful than faster, more reliable tanks with less armour and firepower would have been.

Germany achieved great success against France and (in the early years) the Soviet Union primarily because of superior planning, superior doctrine, operational surprise, and local air superiority. They didn't invade with supertanks, they just had "good enough" tanks that were balanced all-rounders. The French and Soviet forces both had heavier tanks and in the Soviet case the T34 was very much a better tank, albeit with some kinks still needing to be worked out. By the late war, when the Germans had the heaviest kit and all their famed big cats, they didn't have the opportunity to do anything meaningful with them.

Nicely written. Yet contradicts what I learned and read... Like:

• Late war, Germans heaviest kit,... you mean 42 with the Tiger entering the battle field is late war?
  
• All recent French designs as of 1940... You mean the tanks newly developed in 1940? Before or after Paris was fallen?
• "a few instances of small numbers of Char Bs resisting stubbornly, in some cases with individual tanks taking dozens of hits without any penetrations from German tanks. " You mean with the overstretched front of France?
• "secondary drawbacks that arguably made them less useful than faster, more reliable tanks with less armour and firepower would have been. " Secondary drawbacks of which heavy tank like?
  
• Great success against France in the early years? You mean during those two months after which France basically ceased to exist for a few years except their exile parliament?
• local air superiority in the SU for Germany in 41? SU sky after july 41 was almost free of RA planes, where the Red Army sometimes deployed locally some planes... Thats more like a complete air superiority...
• French and Soviet had heavier tanks...? Seriously? Maybe better in a 1vs1 comparison but that didnt happen in that time...
• T34 there is quite some info on the T34 in previous posts in this thread.
  
• ...

 

[Opanashc]

local air superiority in the SU for Germany in 41? SU sky after july 41 was almost free of RA planes, where the Red Army sometimes deployed locally some planes... Thats more like a complete air superiority...

Germans had air dominance, and could achieve air superiority at any point if they wished until quite late in the war, but the front was too large for them to have superiority everywhere at once.