Wow, Russia is only on place 15 and China isn't even on it. With all those tea drinkers that list seems a bit wrong.
Hearts of Iron IV - 46th Development Diary - 26th of February 2016
- Thread starter podcat
- 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.
No no no no. I was referring to Panzer IV Ausf. A-D, and the Panzer III in general.
Panther and Tiger were not comparable to Matilda. My point was that the tanks that Panther and Tiger were comparable to did better against Panther and Tiger than the tanks Matilda was comparable to did against Matilda.
- 2
Why is the game obliged to give you an option to go for inferior tech? SMK was same year prototype as KV, it would only be logical to put it into same year slot as KV-1. Then, we will probably have to put every German, Soviet, American, British, ex, failed prototypes in paralel slots, because, technically prototypes existed.
Tiger would be coupled with Tiger Porshe, that even seen a production run enough to outfit 2 regiments, that actually fought for years.
I`t still at loss as to what "different" roles are extra turrets supposed to present as opposed to hull-mounted gun, but I`m certain I will only get another dismissive answer.
I also don`t get how it is reasonable to claim that a mg that is supposed to be used by radio operator in a crutch, is the same as main part of tank armament, operated by dedicated gunman, and, sometimes, loader. That is a very different role.
Idk, Matilda2s record in early campaigns is kind of questionable, as units armed with it didn`t achieve anything besides a few impressive ambushes.
That really has nothing to do with the actual performance of the tank itself.
I agree with you the matilda was the most formidable tank in the world from when it was first produced in 1937 till the KV1 came out. In the battle of france the only weapon the germans could use against it was the 88mm antiaircraft gun. In North Africa during operation compass it was as close to invincible as any tank has ever been, it was a major factor in the huge sucess against italy. The reason the matilda got a reputation as being under-gunned was because its very heavy armour meant it could survive on the battlefeild long after its gun had become obsolete. The 2 pounder was a good antitank gun in 1937.
On a slightly different note the best way to simulate infantry tanks would be to have a national focus for britain and maybe france as well that would modify heavy tanks to be more like infantry tanks. A player could change that focus to create tanks more like germany if they wished.
The infantry-tank modifier would make their heavy tanks;
- slower
- reduce base armour piercing and hard attack to the same as medium tanks
- cheaper to reflect the fact they didn't have high speed suspension, powerful engines or large turrets like other countries heavy tanks.
- 1
- 1
Read up on good accounts of the assaults on the fortresses of Bardia and Tobruk. They were stoutly defended by the Italian artillery units and the absence of the heavily armoured Matildas would have slowed down the assaults and led to more casualties amongst the Australian infantry. The lightly armoured cruiser tanks (with as much armour as 1939/40 Pz III's) did not participate in the assaults as they would have suffered heavy losses from the many Italian 75-150mm artillery pieces, and were needed for the pursuit where their mobility was more valuable.
You should also read up on the operations to relieve Tobruk in 1941 prior to Crusader. The Matildas were by far the most effective tanks the British had and the fact that results were not greater had more to do with the small strength of those operations, the faulty tactics used and the good use by the Germans of some 88mm FLAK in the AT role.
- 5
@podcat
I don't know if this was ever resolved (I've not seen mention of it), but an easy 'fix' for Stanley Baldwin would be to have him as prime minister in 1936, and then replace him with Neville Chamberlain if Edward VIII abdicates, which is more or less what happened historically. However, if Edward VIII does not abdicate then Baldwin can remain prime minister until you get to the Churchill events.
Just a thought, as it would mean Britain had the correct prime minister in 1936. Could be a good compromise?
I don't know if this was ever resolved (I've not seen mention of it), but an easy 'fix' for Stanley Baldwin would be to have him as prime minister in 1936, and then replace him with Neville Chamberlain if Edward VIII abdicates, which is more or less what happened historically. However, if Edward VIII does not abdicate then Baldwin can remain prime minister until you get to the Churchill events.
Just a thought, as it would mean Britain had the correct prime minister in 1936. Could be a good compromise?