Historical Tank Designs Make No Sense? A Case for Custom Tank Design

[Hippob4]

So, something my friend and I were discussing months ago is this idea that maybe instead of players 'researching the M4 Sherman' or 'Researching Tiger Tank', what if instead we were given different chassis to research, then we can adjust and change what features the tank has, whether it's closer to the historical template or not.

Besides the 'freedom' aspect, I think in-universe wise, this would make way more sense than just planning to research existing historical tanks because World War II tanks weren't exactly 'planned' years ahead. No, most tanks were designed in response to encounters with new challenges and opposing tanks. You shouldn't be able to build a Tiger tank without facing the Russian T34s and KV1s for example. Or at least, in HoI4 maybe because it's 1941 and Germany has only been fighting France, Germany might have a heavy tank chassis, but no 88mm gun because technically it wasn't necessary like it was when Germany went up against the Soviet tanks with their sloped armor.

Same with the Firefly tanks. Players shouldn't be researching these tanks when the Allies might have not faced Tigers and Panthers yet.

Basically I'm arguing in favor of chassis that can 'organically' be fitted with armaments, armor, and features that reflect the real world experiences and conditions in the field, rather than going "Well, I'm going to research the classic Tiger tank".

Oh, you might be able to research 88mm, 17 pounder, 122mm, 76mm long barrel cannons for example, but it would take muuuuuuuch longer if you haven't come across tougher enemy tanks yet i.e. the Germans responding to the Russian T34s, or the Allies responding to the German Panzers which were far more heavily armored. Getting combat experience (or intel?) on these heavily armored tanks could boost research. Or if the enemy tank has a big gun, it could boost armor research.

 

[Shaka of Carthage]

If we were to get a Tank Designer, along the lines you propose above (basically a Tank version of the Ship designer), the upcoming Barbarossa would be the place. Then again, depending on how many other mechanics are reworked,, maybe not.

As far as certain tank models not being built until you are exposed to certain enemy tanks, I would suggest it already exists. Why would I bother to spend the time to research, then the time to build a better tank, when my current tank is good enough (ie better than the enemy tank) and being built in factories with high efficiency rates? Cause gamers game.

Players operate from hindsight and know exactly the differences between the different tank models. Having a Tank Designer doesn't change that. It just makes it harder for the player to determine what his enemy could potentially have. The only advantage of a Tank Designer is that a player can configure his tank design to what he thinks is best. Isn't that what is happening with ship designs? Personally, I think that is too much lower level detail that doesn't belong in a strategy level game. The existing variant system can scratch that itch if you have one.

 

[GSP Jr]

All the equipment is totally generic, planes, ships, tanks, rifles, even mess kits for balance purposes.
The names (Sherman, Tiger, etc) are visual "flavor names" only.

The best you may see is probably similar to the way ships are after MtG, all the hulls and modules available have the same stats.
Everybody has the same base stats on equipment, only the names are changed.

The current Variant system would already cover Firefly and 76mm gun upgrades to "Shermans".

It isn't historically accurate, but it is not a historical simulator, it's a game that needs to have all sides have an 'equal' shot of winning.
Besides, it saves PDX the endless complaining and bickering that would ensue if they actually tried to give "real life" stats to equipment.

Check these two thread for a lot of discussion about suggestions similar to yours:

Tank and Airplane designer

Should Tanks and Airplanes have a designer like MTG ships? The MTG designer and techs for ships is interesting, but considering the roles of Tanks and Planes, these should get too. Tanks should have chassis (Light, Medium, etc) but they guns...

forum.paradoxplaza.com

I do not want a Tank/Aircraft designer

So I'm sure by now everyone has seen today's Dev Diary including this nugget: Assuming that the Ship designer works out as we hope it does, we might expand the system to cover tanks and airplanes as well. Some of the backend was made with tanks...

forum.paradoxplaza.com

 

[mursolini]

So, something my friend and I were discussing months ago is this idea that maybe instead of players 'researching the M4 Sherman' or 'Researching Tiger Tank', what if instead we were given different chassis to research, then we can adjust and change what features the tank has, whether it's closer to the historical template or not.

That one is highly unrealistic. Practically, the limiting factor was engine power. There already was Char C2 in 1920s, weighting almost 70 tonne, so it`s not an issue of weight limit or chassis load.

Besides the 'freedom' aspect, I think in-universe wise, this would make way more sense than just planning to research existing historical tanks because World War II tanks weren't exactly 'planned' years ahead.

Um, well, Pz3, Pz4, T-34, Tiger, KV all started their development pre-war. The reason, surprisingly, was the fact that tanks were not josting knights, and their main job was to break entrenched infantry.

No, most tanks were designed in response to encounters with new challenges and opposing tanks.

Only late war German tanks were build like that.

You shouldn't be able to build a Tiger tank without facing the Russian T34s and KV1s for example.

VK 36.01 (H) program began pre-war.

Or at least, in HoI4 maybe because it's 1941 and Germany has only been fighting France, Germany might have a heavy tank chassis, but no 88mm gun because technically it wasn't necessary like it was when Germany went up against the Soviet tanks with their sloped armor.

Germany used it`s 88mm AA gun extensively in AT role in France. Now, common culture has it that Germans were "mightily surprised" by how effective that gun was. Well, even more surprised they were, that some mad genius actually made sure that there were plentiful armor piercing shells available, for AA gun.

So, no, 88s great AT performance was a feature, planned pre-war.

Same with the Firefly tanks. Players shouldn't be researching these tanks when the Allies might have not faced Tigers and Panthers yet.

Fireflys are vastly over-rated. US had dedicated tank destroyer units, thus it chose to not bother arming M4 with a stronger gun. So it`s not like heavy German armor was a surpriseб US and UK just needed a lot of polishing of their anti-tank doctrine.

Basically I'm arguing in favor of chassis that can 'organically' be fitted with armaments, armor, and features that reflect the real world experiences and conditions in the field, rather than going "Well, I'm going to research the classic Tiger tank".

So you can go from 70 tone Char C2 in 1936 to slightly faster and better armored 70 tone Char "C3" to even faster and better armored 70 tone Char "C4", king Tiger equivalent?

Oh, you might be able to research 88mm, 17 pounder, 122mm, 76mm long barrel cannons for example, but it would take muuuuuuuch longer if you haven't come across tougher enemy tanks yet i.e. the Germans responding to the Russian T34s, or the Allies responding to the German Panzers which were far more heavily armored. Getting combat experience (or intel?) on these heavily armored tanks could boost research. Or if the enemy tank has a big gun, it could boost armor research.

Most of those guns already existed outside of tanks. Issue was getting big enough turret, on big enough tank, and and making it actually practical. Yes, 70 callibre versions represented some research efforts, but that is about it.

 

[STABBY5]

World War II tanks weren't exactly 'planned' years ahead.

While I agree with the need for a tank designer, I'll point out that most tanks were planned years in advance. The Tiger I began being designed in 1938 for example.

 

[Shaka of Carthage]

it saves PDX the endless complaining and bickering that would ensue

This must be an alternative forum I am not aware of.

 

[Anaraxes]

All the equipment is totally generic... The names (Sherman, Tiger, etc) are visual "flavor names" only.

This. Take a look at the stats, and you'll notice that the tank for a given year (say, 1940 medium) has the same stats for all nations.

You customize the tank to your tactical preferences when you apply army xp to make a variant with a bigger gun, or bigger engine, or more armor, or some mix. Slow, impenetrable monster like a Matilda or KV-1? Balanced all-purpose fighting vehicle? Speedy explotation machine? You can track down model names to suit those concepts, but it's not the name that's important.

A tank designer proposal should consider how the designer differs from the existing variant system. (And "not much, just more flavor" is a valid answer.) I'd start by considering differences between historical tanks, and trying to identify differences that were:
- significant, in that there were actually successful competing designs that made different choices. Differences that don't affect the combat performance of the tank are just flavor. Might be fun, but less important.
- gameable, in that there's actually some player choice involved. A choice that's a no-brainer "pick the better one" isn't worth putting in the game. (We've already got that in the main tank research tree. The next tank up is always better. The game only comes in opportunity cost on the research slot, and productivity drop for switching models.)
- costly, in that there's a tradeoff (opportunity cost) involved. Bigger guns need bigger tanks, which weigh more and are easier to hit. More armor makes for a heavier tank, which should be slower and perhaps have some higher terrain penalties in some terrain. And so on. This ties in with the above points.

Then you can look for areas not already covered that were important to tank design because they made a difference in game terms. That might be on the battlefield -- crew size and comfort, for instance, affects spotting and reloading and fatigue -- but might also be compromises that improve manufacturability (lower IC cost, different resources requirements), or grand strategic issues (big tanks might not fit well on convoys, to cite one real-world example; in game terms, how do you limit overseas deployment or penalize strat deployment in this case). Some of these differences might require some new mechanics, or more than just tinkering with existing game stats, and those necessary changes need to be identified to have a good idea of how much effort is involved.

 

[grommile]

no 88mm gun because technically it wasn't necessary like it was when Germany went up against the Soviet tanks with their sloped armor.

The Germans were using 88s to crack Matilda IIs in 1940, when the MR Pact was still in effect.

 

[Znail]

(...)
Fireflys are vastly over-rated. US had dedicated tank destroyer units, thus it chose to not bother arming M4 with a stronger gun. So it`s not like heavy German armor was a surpriseб US and UK just needed a lot of polishing of their anti-tank doctrine.
(...)

I mostly liked your post but not this part. US was actually surpriced as while they had reports about the armor thickness of Panthers and Tigers so did they use softer steel for their tanks then Germany and also when testing their guns. So US honestly thought that the original M4 gun was sufficient against German tanks, UK did not agree, wich is why they made the Firefly. UK wanted all their M4's upgunned, but they had to make do with what US sent them.

The doctrine of dedicated tank destroyers was what most nations started the war with, but moved away from when found out that it wasn't that good. US got left behind as they did not have much personal experience and didn't put much weight in allies reports.

But I don't think there is any need for any special rules for tanks to simulate that some Tank stats was influenced by the opposition as that is already part of the game. It's already a big part of the game to addapt to what you think the opponent have.

 

[grommile]

Oh, you might be able to research 88mm, 17 pounder, 122mm, 76mm long barrel cannons

The Ordnance QF 17-pounder (76.2mm) anti-tank gun was a predictive programme, not a reactive one. The Germans were bound to upgrade their armour sooner or later, so we needed a better AT gun than the Ordnance QF 6-pounder. They were already in prototype manufacture by the time we saw a Tiger I.

 

[George Parr]

The doctrine of dedicated tank destroyers was what most nations started the war with, but moved away from when found out that it wasn't that good. US got left behind as they did not have much personal experience and didn't put much weight in allies reports.

Nah, most of the nations didn't even have proper tank-destroyers in the first place, and made them up on the fly, using whatever sort of vehicle they had available and adding some guns and a tiny bit of armor on it.

The USA wasn't left behind on that at all, nor did countries really move away from such an approach. They all went on to develp more vehicles of that sort, because they needed the additional mobility. Anti-tank guns became heavier and heavier, making them relatively stationary and also not particularly easy to hide. That meant that you couldn't really react to any focused attack by the enemy. If you spread out your at-guns, you might not have the necessary firepower to challenge a strong attack, but if you bunch them up, the enemy might hit you where you don't have any, and you can't relocate easily. Setting up a proper position for an at-gun took hours, tank-destroyers didn't have that issue. You could let regular guns spread out and do the general defense, and have a dedicated unit of tank-destroyers in the rear, ready to quickly move wherever the enemy would strike.

The USA choose not to focus their tanks on going head-to-head with other tanks, but that is a seperate issue entirely.

 

[Louella]

Germany used it`s 88mm AA gun extensively in AT role in France. Now, common culture has it that Germans were "mightily surprised" by how effective that gun was. Well, even more surprised they were, that some mad genius actually made sure that there were plentiful armor piercing shells available, for AA gun.

Something I've wondered, but have trouble trying to find anything out about - the Germans had several 88mm guns, including naval ones. Did they use a common shell, with only the dimensions of the propellant cartridges differing between the individual guns ?

Was wondering where the idea for the AP shells for the 88mm FlaK guns came from - experience of the Condor Legion in the Spanish Civil War, when they used the FlaKs as anti-bunker & anti-tank guns as well as their AA role ? From the co-developed 88mm KwK that was the tank-mounted version of the gun ? An adaptation of the naval 88mm shells ?

 

[Dalnar]

Considering how the AI works with ship designer, I actually dread something like tank designer.

 

[Znail]

Nah, most of the nations didn't even have proper tank-destroyers in the first place, and made them up on the fly, using whatever sort of vehicle they had available and adding some guns and a tiny bit of armor on it.

The USA wasn't left behind on that at all, nor did countries really move away from such an approach. They all went on to develp more vehicles of that sort, because they needed the additional mobility. Anti-tank guns became heavier and heavier, making them relatively stationary and also not particularly easy to hide. That meant that you couldn't really react to any focused attack by the enemy. If you spread out your at-guns, you might not have the necessary firepower to challenge a strong attack, but if you bunch them up, the enemy might hit you where you don't have any, and you can't relocate easily. Setting up a proper position for an at-gun took hours, tank-destroyers didn't have that issue. You could let regular guns spread out and do the general defense, and have a dedicated unit of tank-destroyers in the rear, ready to quickly move wherever the enemy would strike.

The USA choose not to focus their tanks on going head-to-head with other tanks, but that is a seperate issue entirely.

Wich country are you talking about here? At least not Germany or Russia. It might be that I wasn't clear, but the doctrine USA used was a mix of infantry support tanks that would mostly shoot HE and TDs that would show up and protect them when the infantry support tanks encounted enemy tanks.

This was also the original idea behind Panzer I/II and Panzer III/IV. But Germany (and others) realised that having tanks unable to defend themselves against other tanks was a bad idea. Even if most tanks (and TDs) spent most of their time shooting HE at infantry so was it a waste to have tanks unable to engage other tanks. Now, smaller tanks like Panzer III had a hard time mounting a big enough gun in the turret, thus the StuG III was made. But note that later versions of StuG III and the Panzer IV uses the exact same gun, so it's not like StuG III destroyed armor while the Panzer IV only shot infantry. Then the next generation of medium tanks only had one type instead of two, the Panther. Most German TD's was built for the same reason as the StuG III, as a means to use a chassis that else were obsolete.

USA also moved in that direction later by upgunning the M4 until it could engage most enemy targets.

 

[3ishop]

...it still runs in to the same issue. There's a limited number of options and generally a clear cut optimal build. Only works with huge amounts of depth which the game really doesn't cover.

Plus people want the historical names of vehicles, that's why it's used in game.

 

[mursolini]

I mostly liked your post but not this part. US was actually surpriced as while they had reports about the armor thickness of Panthers and Tigers so did they use softer steel for their tanks then Germany and also when testing their guns. So US honestly thought that the original M4 gun was sufficient against German tanks, UK did not agree, wich is why they made the Firefly. UK wanted all their M4's upgunned, but they had to make do with what US sent them.

M4 was sufficient against panther, because it had poor side armor. Tiger was a problem, but expecting 30t tank to go toe to toe with 50t tank is outside of realistic expectations.

The doctrine of dedicated tank destroyers was what most nations started the war with, but moved away from when found out that it wasn't that good. US got left behind as they did not have much personal experience and didn't put much weight in allies reports.

It`s a good doctrine, but for defense.

Something I've wondered, but have trouble trying to find anything out about - the Germans had several 88mm guns, including naval ones. Did they use a common shell, with only the dimensions of the propellant cartridges differing between the individual guns ?

Was wondering where the idea for the AP shells for the 88mm FlaK guns came from - experience of the Condor Legion in the Spanish Civil War, when they used the FlaKs as anti-bunker & anti-tank guns as well as their AA role ? From the co-developed 88mm KwK that was the tank-mounted version of the gun ? An adaptation of the naval 88mm shells ?

I`m not sure when or whom, but "universal"/"multi-purpose" guns, that could do many jobs were pretty popular concept back then, at least Soviets really tried to make 76 mm field gun+AA+AT, but AA role was dropped. 88 Flack could also work as field gun, though pretty costly. It is fairly common sense that a high velocity, high caliber gun mounted on 360 degree rotating platform, will be amassing against tanks, despite being pricey. Rest, probably comes from realization that Germans will face numerous tanks, so why not spent a few dimes on already expensive gun.

 

[Anaraxes]

Something I've wondered, but have trouble trying to find anything out about - the Germans had several 88mm guns, including naval ones. Did they use a common shell, with only the dimensions of the propellant cartridges differing between the individual guns

Most of them did. The 8.8cm caliber was adopted because of its use in the Germany navy. There were two different 8.8mm cartridges:
8.8cm x 571R: Flak 18 (first version, pretending it was designed in 1918 for treaty-dodging reasons, but really starting production in 1928), Flak 36, Flak 37 (various improvements to the 18), KwK 36 (tank gun variant of the Flak 36, famously on the Tiger)
8.8cm x 855R: Flak 41 (Second-generation version of the weapon which never saw much production, about 500 units compared to over 20,000 of the 18/36/37), using a longer and heavier shell. The cartridge was also used in about a dozen prototypes of a rechambered version of the Flak 18/36/37.

Was wondering where the idea for the AP shells for the 88mm FlaK guns came from - experience of the Condor Legion in the Spanish Civil War, when they used the FlaKs as anti-bunker & anti-tank guns as well as their AA role ? From the co-developed 88mm KwK that was the tank-mounted version of the gun ? An adaptation of the naval 88mm shells ?

The Kaiserliche Marine had 88mm guns with AP shells even in WW I. An AA gun could benefit from a high muzzle velocity because it has to throw its shell high into the air. Naval guns also like high velocity for long horizontal range -- not to mention they also need to pierce armor. So high-velocity AP was a capability designed into the weapons from the beginning, not some sort of improvisation or battlefield inspiration.

 

[Louella]

Hmm. I was also thinking about... for the 88mm FlaK to be useful as an AT weapon, not only does the AP shell have to exist, but the shell also has to be issued in sufficient quantities to the units in the field, for it to be useful.

Like, I think the Soviet 85mm AA gun, was designed to be issued AP shells initially for self-defence against tanks. But to use such guns as battalion or divisional AT defence, requires them to be issued with a whole lot more AP ammunition, doesn't it ?

So, when Rommel used his 88mm FlaKs in the Battle of Arras, how did they come to be issued with sufficient AP ammunition ?

 

[GSP Jr]

Hmm. I was also thinking about... for the 88mm FlaK to be useful as an AT weapon, not only does the AP shell have to exist, but the shell also has to be issued in sufficient quantities to the units in the field, for it to be useful.

Like, I think the Soviet 85mm AA gun, was designed to be issued AP shells initially for self-defence against tanks. But to use such guns as battalion or divisional AT defence, requires them to be issued with a whole lot more AP ammunition, doesn't it ?

So, when Rommel used his 88mm FlaKs in the Battle of Arras, how did they come to be issued with sufficient AP ammunition ?

Good question.
Dual purpose guns would also require 'dual purpose' supply tails to have HE and/or AP shells both 'in stock'. I would guess that that they would carry different mixes of ammunition depending on the role expected. A flak unit behind the lines may have little or no AP shell stocks, while a combat zone unit closer to the front would have more AP shells. The Sherman tank carried both, HE and AP shells. I would think that an 88mm HE shell could still disable tanks (hitting tracks or disabling crew, etc) and if you are part of the gun crew, you'll shoot that HE shell if it's all you have.

 

[George Parr]

Wich country are you talking about here? At least not Germany or Russia. It might be that I wasn't clear, but the doctrine USA used was a mix of infantry support tanks that would mostly shoot HE and TDs that would show up and protect them when the infantry support tanks encounted enemy tanks.

This was also the original idea behind Panzer I/II and Panzer III/IV. But Germany (and others) realised that having tanks unable to defend themselves against other tanks was a bad idea. Even if most tanks (and TDs) spent most of their time shooting HE at infantry so was it a waste to have tanks unable to engage other tanks. Now, smaller tanks like Panzer III had a hard time mounting a big enough gun in the turret, thus the StuG III was made. But note that later versions of StuG III and the Panzer IV uses the exact same gun, so it's not like StuG III destroyed armor while the Panzer IV only shot infantry. Then the next generation of medium tanks only had one type instead of two, the Panther. Most German TD's was built for the same reason as the StuG III, as a means to use a chassis that else were obsolete.

USA also moved in that direction later by upgunning the M4 until it could engage most enemy targets.

No idea what that has to do with what I wrote.

Your earlier comment was incorrect. There was no doctrin of "dedicated tank-destroyers" most nations started the war with, nor did anyone move away from it. Hardly any nation even had tank-destroyers at the outbreak of the war. Some nations then started to create a modest amount of tank-destroyers after the war had broken out, mostly using light vehicles or outdated tanks as basis, but even then did they not really come up in larger numbers until 1942, and they didn't take off entirely until 1943. Then, and only then, did tank-destroyers end up being used in a dedicated role. And that role didn't really change much.

The way how countries used their tanks has very little to do with their doctrin for tank-destroyers. Germany having its tanks suited for combat against soft and hard targets doesn't somehow mean that its tank-destroyers were any different than those the USA build, nor was their use much different. That was the point, not what the general doctrin surrounding AFVs was.

That doesn't even include the fact that different situations require different solutions. A nation that is facing overwhelming amounts of tanks tries to make sure that its tanks can fight off numerically superior enemies, building up armor and firepower. A nation that has numbers on its side, and which is facing far less armor most of the time, doesn't really have the need to make its tank think mostly about fighting other tanks, because most of the battles are fought against soft targets. And the odd times this doesn't happen, the tank-destroyers can quickly engage. Not to mention the air superiority, which makes any attempts by the enemy to focus its armor a rather costly affair. Therefore there wa absolutely nothing outdated about the american approach, nor where they left behind. They merely looked at how their tanks would hve the biggest impact against the enemy they were facing. You can't just look at tank-battles, you have to look at every engagement tanks are involved in. And if american tanks had far more engagements against soft targets (or hard targets without a ton of armor) than against really tough tanks, then it was worth it for them to mostly go with a gun more suited for shooting HE rounds.