HoI4 DevDiary - Tank Designer

[Wombat69]

I suspect you have already heard this, but "improving" the historical designs will just cause discussions about the accuracy of the designs. Please reconsider "took the bite out of some of the historically more questionable calls".

Within a certain framework it is still "plausible".

 

[Leinad965]

I'm pretty sure that you just described everything wrong with the F-35...

Did you mean He 177?

 

[Takao_01]

I cannot wait to play as the UK and make Churchill's, Black Prince's, Cromwells and Crusaders! Same with Germany - now I can actually RP upgrading the Panzerwaffe and it is glorious. Let's hope it is possible to start with Panzer III's with the 37mm KwK 36 and Panzer IV's with the 7.5cm KwK 37, and in 1945 have them be turned into the M and H variants - with the 50mm KwK 38 and 7.5cm KwK 40 respectively!

Is it possible to emulate the late-war German reduction of quality by using modules which represent the removal of the powered turret rotation mechanism, the removal of ammunition, fuel, etc? That would really help for LARP purposes! It may be answered earlier, but can we manually assign which tanks end up where? Like say I have an tank division in France in 1943, can I order them to be only outfitted with captured tanks and weapons without messing with the template?

 

[PichuTrainer]

Did you mean He 177?

Lockheed F-35, Heinkel He-177, Avro Manchester, quite a few examples actually.

 

[Jean Royal]

Will there be a 1941 'slopped armour' tech like T-35 featured and most late German tanks?

Sloped armour - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Leinad965]

Will there be a 1941 'slopped armour' tech like T-35 featured and most late German tanks?

Sloped armour - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I think T-35 did not featured sloped armor

 

[JirkaSuperFraja]

Hopefully, a similar designer is implemented for airframes next...

No , we will have to wait through another dlc , ( my guess is political overhaul with italian focus tree ) and then after that we will get modular airframes , like it was with La Resistance .

 

[Orlunu]

I knew I forgot something

If you add in the Hungarians grabbing some prototypes I'll probably squeal...

 

[PichuTrainer]

I think T-35 did not featured sloped armor

I think he means the T-34 which did feature sloped armour.

 

[Saxonicus Maximus]

I dont know how good the different steels where in the time of WW2, but as a student of production engineering i have to say that welded armor most likely will be better than casted armor, because casted steel is way worse than the rolled steel used for welding. Casted steel may be harder, but rolled steel has much more toughness, which is more important to prevent cracks from hits. German tanks faced this problem in the late stages of the war because of the lack of rare materials resulting in less tough steel.

 

[billcorr]

Will you be able to add new guns, swap out engines, turrets...etc... to lend lease, captured or purchased designs?

Firefly!

 

[PichuTrainer]

I dont know how good the different steels where in the time of WW2, but as a student of production engineering i have to say that welded armor most likely will be better than casted armor, because casted steel is way worse than the rolled steel used for welding. Casted steel may be harder, but rolled steel has much more toughness, which is more important to prevent cracks from hits. German tanks faced this problem in the late stages of the war because of the lack of rare materials resulting in less tough steel.

The USSR also faced the same problem, with different factories utilising different methods in tank construction, which means a lot of T-34 and KV-1 tanks ended up with cast, welded or bolted armour.

 

[Jean Royal]

I think T-35 did not featured sloped armor

My bad. I meant T-34 like mentioned in the article.

 

[Jamor]

(I have no idea for the historical precedent of this, if it is a historical truth that light tanks were able to massively outrun any supporting elements across typical terrains, feel free to inform me, and ignore me )

In terms of total mobility in the military sense (ie, not in a straight line on a paved road, but ripping through forests and over berms and fording streams), nothing is faster than a light tracked vehicle in most terrain (except maybe a jeep, but you can't carry much of an army with just those). The historical reality though, for all armies, was that the bulk of the infantry, engineers, artillery and supplies that you need to fight a modern all-arms battle moved on wheels. Tracks can go most places firmer than a swamp, but that causes wear and tear and leaves the wheeled vehicles behind. This is why so much of the fighting centered upon securing lines of communication, so the wheeled tail could keep up with the tracked point. All the prewar armoured theorists dreamed of an all-tracked division, but no one came close to it in real life until the sixties. The historical German Panzer Division had only one Panzergrenadier battalion out of four in the division mounted on halftracks, alongside one of the three Panzer-Pionier companies, and one kp. of the Panzer-Aufkl. Abt. if they were lucky. Everyone else rolled.

Kinda makes me sad to see something as impressive as the Christie-suspension be easily researchable and the same goes for the 88mm

​

There was nothing particularly unique about the various German 88mm L/56 guns. Equivalent weapons abounded worldwide, such as the British Q.F. 3.7 inch gun, the Soviet 85mm M1939, and the various American 90mm guns. In raw gun performance all of these were broadly comparable. The thing that set the German weapons apart was a more aggressive doctrine that saw them deployed even with line divisions in the field rather than confined to installation defense, with the provision of ample AP ammunition and ground sights. Having a tech that anyone has the opportunity to research means that people can, if they choose, adopt a similarly aggressive doctrine for their own antiaircraft artillery as well, as it is hardly a genetically exclusive Teutonic idea to use a high velocity gun for direct fire. Also, the "legend" of the 88 really owes itself to that brief period in the desert where the combination of super long fields of fire and British tanks without effective long range HE ammunition gave them a brief ascendency. By 1943 weapons like the PaK 40 were much preferred, having only slightly less ballistic performance but being massively more portable and easier to conceal.

So, mechanically, will it be beneficial to have 4 vehicles on the same chassis?

• PanzerBrick, that has as high armor as feasible, but carries just an MG
• PanzerHighOnPiercing, with highest piercing gun
• PanzerBoatLoadOfSoftAttack
• PanzerBudgetHardAttack

As opposed to one size fits all generic design, to which most WW2 countries gravitated towards end of war?

• Pzkfw I Ausf. F
• Pzkfw V
• Pzkfw IV Ausf. D/E/F1
• Pzkfw III Ausf. F-L

 

[Orlunu]

I dont know how good the different steels where in the time of WW2, but as a student of production engineering i have to say that welded armor most likely will be better than casted armor, because casted steel is way worse than the rolled steel used for welding. Casted steel may be harder, but rolled steel has much more toughness, which is more important to prevent cracks from hits. German tanks faced this problem in the late stages of the war because of the lack of rare materials resulting in less tough steel.

RHA (Rolled, welded) did emerge as the established standard of good armour during the war. Castings were generally inferior. To state the difference even more strongly, the Japanese used the hardest armour steel for their tanks - it was excellent against light high-velocity penetrators like AT rifles, but it would just shatter when hit by a high calibre shell.

 

[Wombat69]

The ultimate DLC after tank and plane designer:


INFANTRY DESIGNER!!!

 

[PichuTrainer]

• Pzkfw I Ausf. F
• Pzkfw V
• Pzkfw IV Ausf. D/E/F1
• Pzkfw III Ausf. F-L

Will there be any mechanics to include the modification of captured or lendlease tanks, like the KV-1B 756(r), Firefly or more radical examples of the SU-76i and SU-85i?

 

[Xveers]

There were 2 88mm guns. Barrell length 56 caliber and 71 caliber. The former was pretty typical AA gun, and there were several similar in allied service. The reason they were not employed had to do with either having lighter guns that were sufficient, or their carriage not being designed for ground fire, and guns themselves lacking AP rounds.
The latter gun was fairly unique, best AT gun at that caliber.

The original FlaK 18 L/56 was originally used in a ground AT support role during the Spanish Civil War, and during the final offensive in Catalonia ground engagements were 97% of ammunition expenditures. After the civil war campaign units in service were modified (with production lines likewise modified) to have proper direct fire sights, and a proper anti-tank projectile (PzGr 40/ AP 40) was likewise developed to support this use. This same gun was used in 1940 against the Brits in the Araas, and then from 1941-43 in North Africa. At the same time, the FlaK 18 L/56 was being redeveloped into the FlaK 36, which retained the same shorter barrel length but had improvements to transportability and handling (but at a core is the same gun as the '18). Use of the '18 and 36 in an AT role became far more prevalent after '41 and encounters with Russian armor made current AT guns insufficient (but that's beyond the scope of this rebuttal). The 71 caliber FlaK 43 was, primarily, an AA-dedicated weapon, with specific features built in to function as said (battery synchronization equipment, power rammer etc), though it was used as the base for the PaK 43 AT gun.

And while yes, there were other AA guns in service (the brits had a 3.7" gun that actually had marginally better ballistic performance), those units were both heavier, did not have an AP round developed (though its need is probably debatable in the early war environment against Pz IIs, IIIs, 36/38t's and early Pz IVs), the single reason that they weren't used in this role was simply that nobody thought to try. The use of the FlaK 18 in Spain was probably significant overkill against anything they were deployed against, but their range and accuracy were obvious selling points (that got put to significant use in north Africa). So at most the Germans were ahead of the curve here and made use of a technologically flexible tool, but it was something that was eventually matched with equivalent tech (more or less).

 

[Wombat69]

I think T-35 did not featured sloped armor

 

[cac579]

The ultimate DLC after tank and plane designer:


INFANTRY DESIGNER!!!

Fort designer