German tank superiority!?

[steindroff]

Most time of WWII the Germans weren't able to produce nearly as much equipment as most of there enemies (specially the USA and the SU)! The reason, they still where so successful!? They compansate there quantitative weaknesses with quality ... See: the Americans need four to five Shermans to destroy only one German Tiger (on average ...). And even the Pershing wasn't complete on a level with a Tiger or a Panther never mind the TigerII! :excl:

Now I'm worried about how the game will hadle this ... we've seen both, the German and the US tank tech tree and in what we've seen the Pershing will be the counterpart to the German TigerII! We also know, that all the tanks of one level will just be different in their names, but not in their stats (except for the boni of the companies)... So the Pershing will be (nearly) the same tank than the TigerII, with the only differene, that (if they simulate the (late war) econemy in the right way) the Americans will be able to produce much more Pershings than Germany TigerIIs ... remember this! :huh:

Older HoIs 'solved' this problem at 'the part' of the tech: (for example HoI3) the Germans have much more leaderpoints than the US, so they can research more techs and tech up to bether tanks (in my opinion the best way to do so, even if the system with the leaderpoints was more than awful) ... (or in DH) the German tech teams were more specialize in tanks ...

But in HoI4 I don't see such mechanics ... or will the German companies give more and bether boni to their tanks than the American ones!? (<-- specially asked to the Dev.)!
And than I'm really scared about the Variants: remember two parts before: the Americans will produce more Pershings than Gemany produces TigerIIs ... so they can use more tanks on the battleground and gain more combat experience, won't they? So they can make bether variants and ... uups, suddenly they don't just have more, but also better tanks than Germany ...

Maybe (and I really hope so) the Dev. have already mentioned this problem and this hole thread is useless ... but if not I'm really hoping the Dev. will see the same problem as I or can explain at least, why this problem don't exist at all ... :excl:

Thoughts!?? :unsure:

 

[vonhavoc]

These kind of threads have a high probability of getting locked after heated arguments about the Panther. I'm just warning you, don't expect too much from this..

Besides, I think in-game the differences to tank designs can come from the modifications due to land XP, or the trait given by design/manufacturing company. Other than that, the stats are equal accross the board and names are just a flavor thing.

 

[Stenner]

I think that Germany's advantage will be that America will likely be limited in some way from starting factory production for war-time. That Germany will have many strong units and only a few "advanced" techs exactly as you say. And that America will have a much harder time competing if it tries to make heavy armor to counter Germany on this front at a 1:1 ratio..

But rather America will need to produce lots of tanks (if they so choose), to counter a built up Germany that already has Poland, France, Czechoslovakia, and maybe parts of russia.

However if there's no penalty that's representative of historical America's neutrality to wait before they "really" gear up, then as you say there would be a problem with competing with America. (as there always was with 3).

 

[f1nalstand17]

These kind of threads have a high probability of getting locked after heated arguments about the Panther. I'm just warning you, don't expect too much from this..

Besides, I think in-game the differences to tank designs can come from the modifications due to land XP, or the trait given by design/manufacturing company. Other than that, the stats are equal accross the board and names are just a flavor thing.

I can see it already

In regards to the OP: German tanks weren't superior. As all tanks they had their strengths and weakness.

Game-wise, Podcat said that production efficiency of equipment is very important, and that smaller and losing countries generally should go for the newest equipment available (for example in Germany's case going for the Panther/Tiger II, etc.), while larger countries should stick to creating a single type of the equipment and maybe even rarely upgrade it (for example US/Soviets with the Sherman/T-34 respectively).

 

[RabbidHamster]

Well, we're still at the speculative point as there is so much still unknown. However, it sounds like the game is much more sandbox than past iterations, with the result being that most countries will have the choice of quality vs. quantity, and which way they decide to go is up to all sorts of variables (available IC, available resources etc.).

I'll side step the whole who historically had better tanks issue, because that's just a mess (there are soooo many factors, most of which are not modeled in the game), but overall the fact that different countries will potentially field different quality tanks is something I'm looking forward to. Regardless of who is doing it, and whether or not it follow historical 'fact' (opinion) to a T.

 

[steindroff]

These kind of threads have a high probability of getting locked after heated arguments about the Panther. I'm just warning you, don't expect too much from this..

yes, I also fear so ... so please, please be civilized! :excl:

Besides, I think in-game the differences to tank designs can come from the modifications due to land XP, or the trait given by design/manufacturing company. Other than that, the stats are equal accross the board and names are just a flavor thing.

Yes, I said so .. but will the company given stats that big? And won't America (with the use of more tanks) gain more XP and have later on bether tanks?

In regards to the OP: German tanks weren't superior. As all tanks they had their strengths and weakness.

Yes, we cant start a conversation, which tank was bether than which else and which was the best ... but that isn't really the topic, and like we see: will very soon end in closing this thread ...
But fact is, specially the Americans had very much higher losses in combat than the Germans ... so I think in general the German equipment (tanks) was superior ...

 

[f1nalstand17]

Yes, we cant start a conversation, which tank was bether than which else and which was the best ... but that isn't really the topic, and like we see: will very soon end in closing this thread ...
But fact is, specially the Americans had very much higher losses in combat than the Germans ... so I think in general the German equipment (tanks) was superior ...

Yes, that is why I included my point on game-wise:

Game-wise, Podcat said that production efficiency of equipment is very important, and that smaller and losing countries generally should go for the newest equipment available (for example in Germany's case going for the Panther/Tiger II, etc.), while larger countries should stick to creating a single type of the equipment and maybe even rarely upgrade it (for example US/Soviets with the Sherman/T-34 respectively).

 

[vonhavoc]

I can see it already

In regards to the OP: German tanks weren't superior. As all tanks they had their strengths and weakness.

Game-wise, Podcat said that production efficiency of equipment is very important, and that smaller and losing countries generally should go for the newest equipment available (for example in Germany's case going for the Panther/Tiger II, etc.), while larger countries should stick to creating a single type of the equipment and maybe even rarely upgrade it (for example US/Soviets with the Sherman/T-34 respectively).

Well, we're still at the speculative point as there is so much still unknown. However, it sounds like the game is much more sandbox than past iterations, with the result being that most countries will have the choice of quality vs. quantity, and which way they decide to go is up to all sorts of variables (available IC, available resources etc.).

I'll side step the whole who historically had better tanks issue, because that's just a mess (there are soooo many factors, most of which are not modeled in the game), but overall the fact that different countries will potentially field different quality tanks is something I'm looking forward to. Regardless of who is doing it, and whether or not it follow historical 'fact' (opinion) to a T.

Indeed, all military equipment are a sum of compromises, you just have to pick the right compromises for your conditions.

I just hope that the game really simulates this somehow. Of course certain rare elements are not in the game, so in that regard the embargoes or natural shortages will not probably affect the decisions that much. As with the hinted chokepoints in the supply system, I hope there are "chokepoints" in the design/production of the equipment. Other than just min-maxing the factory efficiency.

 

[frolix42]

See: the Americans need four to five Shermans to destroy only one German Tiger (on average ...).

I don't think that this can be a proven rubric since the German-American/Britsh combat was asymmetrical, with the majority of German tanks in the east with Bagration. The Allied invasion of France was the first truly fully mechanized Army in Europe. The allies had a significant numerical, logistical and supply superiority that equalized and tipped the balance of power decisively in their favor regardless of tank quality.

But I will acknowledge your idea that the Germans chased the idea that they could out quality Soviet quantity leaving the Americans at the time of Normandy behind specifically regarding development heavier armor. No one seriously disputes this, though you'll find many people on this videogame forum who willfully delude themselves into imagining that the M4(76) was the most common American tank (false), that US HVAP ammo was plentiful (false) that the Pershing saw regular combat (false). Most WW2 videogames project balance onto "factions" that are equally strong which doesn't reflect reality but some gamers think are real. But HoI4 is a sandbox which is asymetric because it is based on history. I agree with you that the US could have produced better tanks and the players of HoI4 can do so.

And even the Pershing wasn't complete on a level with a Tiger or a Panther never mind the TigerII! :excl:

This is a good microcosm. The Pershing was hardly in combat in World War 2. We can't get a clear picture of how is stacked up against German tanks because by the time it was fielded in March 1945 the Germans didn't have a coherent tank force. It was mechanically unreliable but the Allies had a supply system in place which the Germans couldn't come close to matching. When we look at it's stats, it was more or less equivalent to the Tiger I.

So if we were to have a hypothetical match between a Pershing and Tiger II, the Tiger II should win all things being equal. But then the Pershing probably has more fuel, better supply and repair, more rest, air support, more ammo and, most importantly, much more likely to have other allied tanks nearby. I would hope that HoI4's combat system does a good job taking into account all those other factors and doesn't aggregate them into pretending the Pershing was equally as powerful as the Tiger II.

Now I'm worried about how the game will hadle this ... we've seen both, the German and the US tank tech tree and in what we've seen the Pershing will be the counterpart to the German TigerII! =

I don't think this is true but if you are right, I would agree with you this would be silliness[EDIT: It is true and it is silliness]. The good news is that even if some developers are deluded enough to believe that historically the Shermans in Normandy were equivalent to the Panthers they sometimes faced, they would wreck the game if they tried to project this bias onto the game. Tens of thousand of Shermans would be in Berlin by August 1944. We empirically know this did not happen and there would be an appropriate backlash to this revisionism if the game were balanced this way.

 

[vonhavoc]

This is a good microcosm. The Pershing was hardly in combat in World War 2. We can't get a clear picture of how is stacked up against German tanks because by the time it was fielded in March 1945 the Germans didn't have a coherent tank force. It was mechanically unreliable but the Allies had a supply system in place which the Germans couldn't come close to matching. When we look at it's stats, it was more or less equivalent to the Tiger I.

So if we were to have a hypothetical match between a Pershing and Tiger II, the Tiger II should win all things being equal. But then the Pershing probably has more fuel, better supply and repair, more rest, air support, more ammo and, most importantly, much more likely to have other allied tanks nearby. I would hope that HoI4's combat system does a good job taking into account all those other factors and doesn't aggregate them into pretending the Pershing was equally as powerful as the Tiger II.

If the air combat system in any way reflects the overall combar mechanics of the game, it might give us soe hints. If my memory serves right, podcat said the air combat is broken to duels between two aircraft which then make for the result of the battle. Wvwn for air combat it would not necessarily give enough balancing force to quantity. Or alternately, if quality difference is big enough, even a UFO could be shot down by a biplane if a roll just goes badly.

There was a lot of talk about positioning back then, but my senility steps in and I just can't remember how much that factored into the battles. Altitude, speed, max ceiling, all the works.

As far as the land combat goes, positioning (tactical advantage) would be pretty darn important too. As the Sherman propnent's favorite tank battle vs. the Panthers clearly indicates.

I don't think this is true but if you are right, I would agree with you this would be silliness. IIRC in the US tree the Pershing was equivalent to the Tiger I and the T-29 is equivalent to the Tiger II. The good news is that even if some developers are deluded enough to believe that historically the Shermans in Normandy were equivalent to the Panthers they sometimes faced, they would wreck the game if they tried to project this bias onto the game. Tens of thousand of Shermans would be in Berlin by August 1944. We empirically know this did not happen and there would be an appropriate backlash to this revisionism if the game were balanced this way.

Whatever is on the techtree is not such a big deal for me. I just hope people won't use the flavor name based techtree as a source for historical comparisons or as a source of any kind of actual information outside the game's own universe.

From historical point of view, pitting a Pershing as a direct competitor for a Tiger II is a bit missleading. But that was the heaviest tank the americans actually had on the field (I'm assuming Sherman Jumbo would be more likely to be a Sherman variant unlockable with land XP), so it sort of fits thereabouts, especially considering the actual production year. On the other hand, paper tanks and prototypes are used for other countries anyway, so why not here?

That would however leave Pershing with no real spot ingame. Equating it with Panther or Tiger I would slip it too early on the techtree. Is there a Panther II in? Maybe put it against that.

 

[Daelyn75]

These kind of threads have a high probability of getting locked after heated arguments about the Panther.

I really couldn't help but think up delicious ways of saying something really stupid to make this come true.

 

[RagingCroppy]

It seems like the German tanks generally considered to be "superior" are at a higher tech level than their contemporaries on the US tree. (except the Pershing)

 

[frolix42]

I rechecked the video with the US Tank tree. steindroff is right, the M6 is the '41 US Heavy, which doesn't make sense:glare: So much as you can compare tanks, the M6 was not nearly as capable as the Tiger. The T1 tank, which is the US '34 Heavy, was standardized for production as the M6 with the same 3-inch Gun as the M10. The American response to the Tiger's 8.8 cm KwK 36 L/56, the 90 mm Gun M3, would make much more sense in the turret of the T26/M26.

T1 and M6 should be one tank, the M6 in the '34 Heavy slot. The M26 Pershing should be in the '41 Heavy slot with the Tiger. The T29 should be in the '43 Heavy slot with the Tiger II. The US Super-Heavy tank should be the T28.

Whatever is on the techtree is not such a big deal for me. I just hope people won't use the flavor name based techtree as a source for historical comparisons or as a source of any kind of actual information outside the game's own universe.

From historical point of view, pitting a Pershing as a direct competitor for a Tiger II is a bit misleading. But that was the heaviest tank the americans actually had on the field (I'm assuming Sherman Jumbo would be more likely to be a Sherman variant unlockable with land XP), so it sort of fits thereabouts, especially considering the actual production year. On the other hand, paper tanks and prototypes are used for other countries anyway, so why not here?

That would however leave Pershing with no real spot ingame. Equating it with Panther or Tiger I would slip it too early on the techtree. Is there a Panther II in? Maybe put it against that.

But why have the single T1E1 prototype, with a 90mm gun, ahistorically represent all M6s when a historical tank, the M26 Pershing, had the 90mm gun M3, existed and saw combat service? Given historical American development focus was not on heavy tanks, the Pershing belongs in the 1941 Heavy slot with the Tiger. It's pointless for HoI4 to have an M6 Tank with the characteristics of the historical Pershing (such as the 90 mm Gun M3) just so the Pershing can get a historical introduction date.

The "Year" in HoI development should only be the benchmark that tells the player how much investment a weapon, vehicle or doctrine will cost. The development of weaponry was not uniform across all nations, following the historical path of not investing in the Pershing in 1941 might free up the US to invest in the B-29 or TD Tech. Ah well, flavor is only flavor, at least the T20 is in the '43 Medium slot though it should probably be renamed the M27 as it would have been named if they had been fielded.

Unless Paradox reworks the tree, the E-50 is in the final German tank so the "Panther II" would be a 1943 Medium "Panther" chassis variant.

 

[TheD3rp]

But fact is, specially the Americans had very much higher losses in combat than the Germans

German tank K/D ratio was somewhere around 1.3:1, so I have no idea where you are getting that from.

 

[Had a dad]

 

[eleinvisible]

American tank losses, to other tanks, was minimal. Allied air superiority made their tank quality almost totally a non-issue except in cases of severe weather (the Bulge). The most common cause of loss, excluding friendly fire and mechanical failure, was the much more numerous panzerfaust. And of losses to tanks, it was frequently well camouflaged StuG-type vehicles, which could better avoid air attack by their small size and ease of camouflage.

People fetishize German tanks because they were expensive, limited-run, avant-garde, pieces of garbage. And they have no modern descendants to make them seem more commonplace.

 

[vonhavoc]

Aaaaand there we go. The thread has hit the rocks. It was fun while it lasted.

 

[bcoop1701]

I rechecked the video with the US Tank tree. steindroff is right, the M6 is the '41 US Heavy, which doesn't make sense:glare: So much as you can compare tanks, the M6 was not nearly as capable as the Tiger. The T1 tank, which is the US '34 Heavy, was standardized for production as the M6 with the same 3-inch Gun as the M10. The American response to the Tiger's 8.8 cm KwK 36 L/56, the 90 mm Gun M3, would make much more sense in the turret of the T26/M26.

T1 and M6 should be one tank, the M6 in the '34 Heavy slot. The M26 Pershing should be in the '41 Heavy slot with the Tiger. The T29 should be in the '43 Heavy slot with the Tiger II. The US Super-Heavy tank should be the T28.



But why have the single T1E1 prototype, with a 90mm gun, ahistorically represent all M6s when a historical tank, the M26 Pershing, had the 90mm gun M3, existed and saw combat service? Given historical American development focus was not on heavy tanks, the Pershing belongs in the 1941 Heavy slot with the Tiger. It's pointless for HoI4 to have an M6 Tank with the characteristics of the historical Pershing (such as the 90 mm Gun M3) just so the Pershing can get a historical introduction date.

The "Year" in HoI development should only be the benchmark that tells the player how much investment a weapon, vehicle or doctrine will cost. The development of weaponry was not uniform across all nations, following the historical path of not investing in the Pershing in 1941 might free up the US to invest in the B-29 or TD Tech. Ah well, flavor is only flavor, at least the T20 is in the '43 Medium slot though it should probably be renamed the M27 as it would have been named if they had been fielded.

Unless Paradox reworks the tree, the E-50 is in the final German tank so the "Panther II" would be a 1943 Medium "Panther" chassis variant.

I think frolix42 made a good point here for how the American tank tree should look. If the German tank tree is the baseline for capability then the changes frolix42 recommended would more accurately have the equivalent American tanks. The year of introduction doesn't have to be exactly historical because the US Army Ground Forces leadership deliberately delayed or prevented the introduction of the M26 and M27 and the player would not have to make the same choice (and probably would not given hindsight). Should be an easy enough thing to mod though if PDS disagrees or chooses to spend their time on more critical issues.

 

[Liquid Sky]

The Russians considered the panzerfaust to be more of a nuisance weapon. They easily defeated it by keeping infantry near their tanks, as well as strapping mattresses (bed springs) to the sides of their tanks. Similarily the Americans would use combined arms ..infantry with tanks when they were fighting in close quarters. Read about the battle of Aachen to see how a small number of americans defeat a larger German defence dug in a fortified city.

Don't get too wrapped up on tank vrs tank. That rarely happens as tanks can maneuver. And are only a part of the overall formation.

EDIT: I remember reading somewhere that most tanks killed in WW2 were not killed through the front armour.

 

[Wulf145]

People fetishize German tanks because they were expensive, limited-run, avant-garde, pieces of garbage. And they have no modern descendants to make them seem more commonplace.

Have a look at the Tiger and the Leopard A1