German tank research over the top?

[adam_grif]

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?

The Tiger entered the battlefield in limited numbers in September 1942, just prior to the Battle of Stalingrad and the loss of the strategic initiative to to Soviets in the East. But it was not until the Panther appeared that they really had heavier tanks on average, in 1943. Certainly this was much too late to change the course of the war even if it was the best tank ever made (which it wasn't). The observation I'm trying to make is that the German's didn't get their heavies out until the back half of the war. 1939, 1940, 1941 saw the Germans at war with countries that had heavier, better armed and better armoured tanks, yet that was when they had their greatest successes.

• All recent French designs as of 1940... You mean the tanks newly developed in 1940? Before or after Paris was fallen?

I mean "everything except the WW1 tanks". The French had medium tanks in the 20 ton class in 1936, and "heavy" tanks at nearly 30 tons in the same year. French enjoyed an armour advantage at every tier and their main guns were generally good enough to penetrate all of the German tanks at combat ranges. There are exceptions, some of their tanks had low velocity weapons inappropriate for penetrating the Panzer III/IVs, but those tanks were a minority of German tanks fielded in 1940. It was mostly Panzer I and IIs.

• "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?

I'm not sure what you're saying. I know France lost, and I know the reason France lost. The reason was not that their tanks weren't good enough. Their tanks were quite effective tactically, despite drawbacks.

• "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?

Like the Tiger, Panther, and King Tiger, all of which suffered from reliability issues and being over-engineered for what they needed. The Panther was at least fast, but still prone to breakdowns and requiring constant maintenance. The French tanks of 1940 were comparable in the sense that they were mechanically unreliable but heavy and well armed for their time.

• 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...

In both of these cases I'm discussing the combined French and Soviet cases. The defeat of the French army and the (initial) success against the Soviets are being discussed collectively as the early victories of the Wehrmacht. Contrasted against the later defeats. The Germans only enjoyed local air superiority over the French and British, at the areas of their choosing but not the entire front. In 1941 they enjoyed air superiority in the east, but not the west.

• French and Soviet had heavier tanks...? Seriously? Maybe better in a 1vs1 comparison but that didnt happen in that time...

Yes, the French had heavier tanks in 1940, both on average and by having the individual heaviest tank. The Char B1 is 28 tons and has both a heavier gun and thicker armour than anything Germany would field until 1942. It fielded this tank in 1936 initially.

The Soviet Union had the KV1 tank, weighing 45 tons, and having heavier armour than anything the Germans had in 1941.

In both cases, having the heaviest tank did not matter. It is merely a factual observation that they had the heaviest tanks at those parts of the war. The Germans would take the "heaviest tank" mantle in 1942 and retain it until the end of the war, despite it also doing them as much good as it did for the French and Soviets, i.e. it didn't matter one bit because the war was decided by far more important factors than who had the thickest armour, biggest guns and heaviest tanks.

 

[Viper1989]

Thats nothing. In 1.0 Canada could be mass producing the 1950 tank by 1940.

 

[lihp]

until the Panther appeared that they really had heavier tanks on average, in 1943

Panther was a medium tank. You might want to read, to which statement I replied.

I'm not sure what you're saying.

"Recent French designs"... it all sounds so hightech, when we are talking eg about the Char B in 1940, which was planned in 1926. To me that isnt recent.

The observation I'm trying to make is that the German's didn't get their heavies out until the back half of the war. 1939, 1940, 1941 saw the Germans at war with countries that had heavier, better armed and better armoured tanks, yet that was when they had their greatest successes.

Thats actually what this thread is about. Also that the Tiger enters the HOI4 battlefield way too early.

French enjoyed an armour advantage at every tier and their main guns were generally good enough to penetrate all of the German tanks at combat ranges.

Nope sorry. Gun size and armor thickness was greater. Maybe even the tanks, which we might discuss forever. Yet the armour advantage as such (armour = armoured units) was on the german side. Thats actually why it took so "long" to take France.

I'm not sure what you're saying. I know France lost, and I know the reason France lost. The reason was not that their tanks weren't good enough. Their tanks were quite effective tactically, despite drawbacks.

Lets make it easy: we actually do have hard numbers in this thread, also historical facts. I plain pointed out, that the statement of yours wasnt correct in every aspect. In this case any advantage in 1vs 1 is moot, while the French front was overstretched, like eg. Corps Prioux or esspecially XXI. army corps Flavigny.

And no, French tanks were not effective. On paper in 1vs1 maybe even superior (not really since a tank is not only gun and armour). But in reality they were ineffectivly deployed and used - thats tactically ineffective.

In both of these cases I'm discussing the combined French and Soviet cases. The defeat of the French army and the (initial) success against the Soviets are being discussed collectively as the early victories of the Wehrmacht.

I am with you there. In your previous statement I read only "French", which was kinda weird...

The Germans only enjoyed local air superiority over the French and British, at the areas of their choosing but not the entire front. In 1941 they enjoyed air superiority in the east, but not the west.

Thats plain wrong. Point is: air superiority is not an on/off switch like the green air corridors in HOI4. In fact air uperiority as such is always locally (and not "only locally").Or in other words:
"Air supremacy is a position in war where a side holds complete control of air warfare and air power over opposing forces. It is defined by NATO and the United States Department of Defense as the "degree of air superiority wherein the opposing air force is incapable of effective interference."

As such it always refers to an area where two enemies clash. Point is in eg '41, but also up to mid '42, Germany was able to enforce air supremacy at will. As such your statement is moot.

Yes, the French had heavier tanks in 1940, both on average and by having the individual heaviest tank. The Char B1 is 28 tons and has both a heavier gun and thicker armour than anything Germany would field until 1942. It fielded this tank in 1936 initially.

Nice having heavy ineffective tanks, they couldnt really use . Low speed, high fuel use, no radio, lack of space,... Whats your point there? Better because it was heavier? Far from it...

The Soviet Union had the KV1 tank, weighing 45 tons, and having heavier armour than anything the Germans had in 1941. <snip>

Then you might also read our T34 statements before. In your follow-up you highly understate the Tiger I effect, which basically is your opinion.

...

Now after all your... writing... is the tank development bonus for Germany in HOI4 overpowered or not - enabling them to field Tigers in 40, maybe 39?

 

[adam_grif]

Panther was a medium tank. You might want to read, to which statement I replied.

The Panther weighed 44 tons. I'm not arguing over who had the most tanks internally classified by their own country as light, medium, or heavy. I'm speaking about weight and armour thickness relative to other designs of the time. The Char B is <30 tons, less than a Sherman, however in 1940 that was very heavy compared to what it was fighting.

Thats actually what this thread is about. Also that the Tiger enters the HOI4 battlefield way too early.

It depends on what you use your armor research bonus for, presumably? Or is it only the Soviet tree that lets you use it on heavies? I thought Tiger rushing relied on the NF tree bonuses.

Nope sorry. Gun size and armor thickness was greater. Maybe even the tanks, which we might discuss forever. Yet the armour advantage as such (armour = armoured units) was on the german side. Thats actually why it took so "long" to take France.

I think we're getting bogged down by terminological confusion here. When I say the french enjoyed an armour advantage at every tier, I mean that their light, medium and heavy tanks enjoyed armour advantages over similar German designs. Literally, that their armour was thicker. I was not speaking of the overall effectiveness of French armoured formations, whose deficiencies I am aware of.

Lets make it easy: we actually do have hard numbers in this thread, also historical facts. I plain pointed out, that the statement of yours wasnt correct in every aspect. In this case any advantage in 1vs 1 is moot, while the French front was overstretched, like eg. Corps Prioux or esspecially XXI. army corps Flavigny.

I have been talking about the specifications of individual tanks for most of this discussion, explaining how despite having thicker armour and sometimes heavier guns, the French forces were less effective because of a combination of, and I quote my original post - "superior planning, superior doctrine, operational surprise, and local air superiority". You take issue with "local" air superiority, I don't really care, I'm not going to argue. The primary reasons for German victory are that their plans were better, the way they used their tanks was better, the element of surprise (sometimes tactical, sometimes operational, sometimes strategic, which was truly stunning in the wake of how well informed the Soviets actually were about the impending attack), and air power. Do you disagree, or are you just here for semantic nitpicking?

Nice having heavy ineffective tanks, they couldnt really use . Low speed, high fuel use, no radio, lack of space,... Whats your point there? Better because it was heavier? Far from it...

Are you reading my posts? I'm not saying they're better tanks, I'm saying, explicitly, just that they were heavier. I am also explicitly telling you, as I have in my other posts, that their superiority in specific aspects of armour and firepower did *not* make any significant difference to the war effort, just like how it didn't in the case of the Germans when they had heavier tanks later in the war. I also point out in my posts that they had deficiencies including ones that the German heavies had later, such as a lack of mechanical reliability. I know they didn't have radios. The book I quoted goes into extensive detail about the strengths and weaknesses of the German and French armoured vehicles, as well as the far more important factors of how they were employed on the battlefield, and the details of the French campaign in 1940.

You're being belligerent for no reason.

 

[lihp]

You're being belligerent for no reason.

Thats an impression, but actually not true. If it felt that way: sorry.

From what I read now, we are basically on the same page, except where - from my impression - it wasnt clear before; considering the terminology used. I do enjoy to discuss WW2, but on a serious basis. Your first few posts felt different (to me).

Now the question was:
Now after all your... writing... is the tank development bonus for Germany in HOI4 overpowered or not - enabling them to field Tigers in 40, maybe 39?

 

[Captured Joe]

In my opinion, the development bonus is in the wrong area. If instead it was a bonus for radios/signal companies and doctrine, and if the blitzkrieg doctrine does more with those radio things (combined arms bonuses or reinforcement chances or better unit cohesion thus organisation or something like that) it'd fit the Blitzkrieg theme better than just BIGGERER STR0NKER tanks. In my humble opinion, of course.

 

[Lumpy]

In my opinion, the development bonus is in the wrong area. If instead it was a bonus for radios/signal companies and doctrine, and if the blitzkrieg doctrine does more with those radio things (combined arms bonuses or reinforcement chances or better unit cohesion thus organisation or something like that) it'd fit the Blitzkrieg theme better than just BIGGERER STR0NKER tanks. In my humble opinion, of course.

I agree. Maybe 1.4 will bring some changes to the German focus tree. I, for one, hope it. Currently my OP has more dislikes than anything else, but very few people are actually voicing their reasoning. Can anybody argue that this isn't not only a blatant balancing issue, but also unhistorical? Also, wouldn't it be even more satisfying and rewarding to break your enemy with '39 or even '36 tanks in '39? I guess some people just like their pseudo-historical tank porn.

 

[Captured Joe]

I agree. Maybe 1.4 will bring some changes to the German focus tree. I, for one, hope it. Currently my OP has more dislikes than anything else, but very few people are actually voicing their reasoning. Can anybody argue that this isn't not only a blatant balancing issue, but also unhistorical? Also, wouldn't it be even more satisfying and rewarding to break your enemy with '39 or even '36 tanks in '39? I guess some people just like their pseudo-historical tank porn.

Now that you mention early-war tanks, I hope very much that with the upcoming DLC there'll be a National Focus for Germany that allows them to licence-build the Czech tanks cheaper or something else that encourages the German player to use those, since historically the LT vz.35 and LT vz.38 (better known as the PzKpfw 35(t) and PzKpfw 38(t) respectively) were very important in the 1939-40 Blitzkrieg.

Also I do like me some historical tank porn. Looking forward to the Romanian and Hungarian tanks in particular.

 

[Celdur]

Pdx said they are going to make focuses more interconnected, that probably means a rework of all Major's focuses down the line, specially the French, German and Soviet one.


Beyond Tank Porn, which we all like, i'd enjoy it if each design had its moment to shine before being phased out, maybe you need some cost of "Army Experience" before improving your design, with the bonuses as they stand, you can jump from light tank 1 to medium tank 2 without ever seeing combat.

 

[amalric de g.]

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.

A GRU Colonel was there during the test, if he didn´t tell the US Army, that the airfilter has to be oiled every two or three hours, thats hardly the fault of the US Army.

 

[Opanashc]

A GRU Colonel was there during the test, if he didn´t tell the US Army, that the airfilter has to be oiled every two or three hours, thats hardly the fault of the US Army.

Ever think, that a spy (definition of GRU) does not know how to operate a tank? Or that he didn't tell them on purpose (unlikely, but possible)?

 

[mursolini]

an ahistorical Panther tank? which shouldn't exist until AFTER they fight the Soviet T-34?

Germans were working on new medium tanks since 1938, VK3001 program.

Invasion into SU or not, it would be built, tested and eventually fielded. Yes, panther(or what ever the name) should exist regardless of T-34, because it did do just that.

It could be a different vehicle, just like T-34 could be very different if not for Spanish civil war, that demanded fast up-armoring of Soviet tanks to withstand 37mm AT.

 

[amalric de g.]

Panther prototype (VK3001) was in development in 1940.

Invasion into SU or not, it would be built, tested and eventually fielded. Yes, panther should exist regardless of T-34, because it did do just that.

It could be.a different vehicle, just like T-34 could be very different if not for Spanish civil war, that demanded fast up-armoring of Soviet tanks to withstand 37mm AT.

The VK 3001 was allready planed in 1937 as the follow up tank to the Panzer IV. The VK 3001 H (Henschel) was developed in 1938 and the VK 3001 P (Porsche) was developed in 1939. The VK 3001 series was the forerunner of the Tiger I.

The Panther was a sibling of the VK 3001 line, it´s development number was VK 3002.

 

[mursolini]

The VK 3001 was allready planed in 1937 as the follow up tank to the Panzer IV. The VK 3001 H (Henschel) was developed in 1938 and the VK 3001 P (Porsche) was developed in 1939. The VK 3001 series was the forerunner of the Tiger I.

The Panther was a sibling of the VK 3001 line, it´s development number was VK 3002.

VK3001s prototypes were medium tanks intended to be successors of Pz3 and Pz4.
VK3601 was predecessor of Tiger.

Logically, if Germans wouldn't face T-34, a derivative of VK3001 would be the next medium tank of panzerwaffe.

Point is, German tank development didn't stop after Pz4 until they met Soviet armor, and if command had desire, new vehicle s could be fielded.

Yes, calling VK3001 prototype of Panther depends on if we look at panther as the next German medium tank or a particular vehicle, so poor choice of words on my end.

 

[amalric de g.]

VK3001s prototypes were medium tanks intended to be successors of Pz3 and Pz4.
VK3601 was predecessor of Tiger.

The first designs for the VK 3001, H and P were medium designs thats true, but the point is the Tiger I except the Turret based on the VK 3001 H design.

Logically, if Germans wouldn't face T-34, a derivative of VK3001 would be the next medium tank of panzerwaffe.

Point is, German tank development didn't stop after Pz4 until they met Soviet armor, and if command had desire, new vehicle s could be fielded.

Yes, calling VK3001 prototype of Panther depends on if we look at panther as the next German medium tank or a particular vehicle, so poor choice of words on my end.

Thats true.

 

[Celdur]

Of course they were developing new tanks, but they would've been outdated if not for contact with KV-1's and T-34's.

There really isn't much more to say here, the Soviets were ahead in terms of Tank engineering and innovation, more than a couple of years ahead. All sources blame the corporatism and cronyism of the Nazis awarding contracts to "friends" and not the most experienced companies.

They also took a very long time to develop the Panther, 1 year during war time is decisive (and it was) and they took more than 2 years, because they went back and forth and couldn't settle on a design. Real Life is not like the game where you already know what you are going to build and deploy in the future.

 

[amalric de g.]

Of course they were developing new tanks, but they would've been outdated if not for contact with KV-1's and T-34's.

There really isn't much more to say here, the Soviets were ahead in terms of Tank engineering and innovation, more than a couple of years ahead. All sources blame the corporatism and cronyism of the Nazis awarding contracts to "friends" and not the most experienced companies.

They also took a very long time to develop the Panther, 1 year during war time is decisive (and it was) and they took more than 2 years, because they went back and forth and couldn't settle on a design. Real Life is not like the game where you already know what you are going to build and deploy in the future.

Some of your points are true, some are questionable. The KV 1 was not a good design, the gun was not accurate, the tank was too slow, turret couldn´t rotate, if the tank didn´t stand on flat ground.

Corporatism and cronyism was not only a problem of the germans, nearly all countries had this problem and even today thats the way how the world is still run.

Even if they had produced the Panther in 1942, the war was already lost.

 

[bERt0r]

But corporatism and cronyism is especially strong in fascist governments. That is also one of the reasons why so many people joined the NSDAP after Hitlers ascend to power. If you were in the party, you got a piece of the cake.

 

[Celdur]

True, KV 1 was not a really good design, but it at least existed and was in production, they did their job just fine in defense.

While cronyism might exist everywhere, its not the same everywhere.

You know, not really, the Reich had massive amounts of resources at its disposal, more than they knew what to do with, manpower was only an issue because they refused to train and equip their allies properly, they had the whole of Europe and 30% of Soviet Union's industrial output at their service, they lost the war because they couldn't properly mobilize all of those advantages in their favor.

That is something every German player can improve at in this game.

 

[Gwydion5]

Currently my OP has more dislikes than anything else, but very few people are actually voicing their reasoning.

Yeah, IMHO there is little in terms of respect in disagreeing with something/someone without argument, and it does nothing to further discussion on the game. All it does is leave you wondering if you are missing something that is wrong in your argument, or if you didn't explain your argument well enough. Usually it's neither of those. There are fanatical defenders of PDS and often times criticism will be down voted regardless of legitimacy.

There is a great quote that captures this mentality perfectly. "“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.” -Christopher Hitchens. So just ignore them as the baseless unsubstantiated and most likely ignorant opinion that it is.