HoI4 DevDiary - Tank Designer

[Zauberelefant]

I have done it with the Leopard 1 coaxial MG 3 in my days. The MG sits further back (it does not protrude the port) and you open it to the side.

It is a design question - would you rather redesign the gun mantle or use an older machine gun.

Another benefit was that the MG34 was capable to fire single shots (beneficial if you are adjusting your gun in the field). Unless you belt single shots or have a very good trigger finger, the MG42/MG3 is full auto only.

Plus - look at this image:
View attachment 717224

You see that both coaxial and hull MG protrude significantly. All ports are round. Without a redesign a square gun does not fit.

Now look at this Leo 1:
View attachment 717229

Nothing protrudes because the mantle is designed to house the MG internally.

Note:
The loader in the Leopard sits on the left, in the Panzer III he was sitting on the right.
The MG in the Leopard is to the left of the main gun.

Your call...

You are missing some important bits:
- the Leopard does not have a hull MG. Inside the bow of any WW2 german tank, Barrel Change the MG 42 style was nigh impossible.
- the ball housing of a ww2 tank MG might not be redesigned for older tanks, because of cost etc, but if you're designing a completely new tank (Panther, King Tiger), you can design a new mounting as well (just Change the round hole to a square)

The coax MG of the Leopard sits further back than in a WW2 tank. That gives more clearance to change the barrel inside the tank. Take Your time, Draw up a top down view and compare different protrusion levels.

Tl;Dr, while I am not saying you don't know what you are talking about, I urge you to rethink the arguments.

 

[Jamor]

Folks debating "why no MG 42 in late war German tanks?"

Even without engineering constraints, it should be remembered that the MG 34 was already in max rate production, and Germany was short of almost everything. Retooling the plants would have eaten precious time and resources. The MG 42 with its robust design and looser tolerances was much more able to endure hard, dirty use in the hands of the infantry, so it was prioritized there. MG 34 was more sensitive to dirt than its successor, but that was less of a problem inside the more pristine confines of an AFV fighting compartment. So it remained in use because it was adequate for the job, and available in numbers. Logistonks.

 

[GrandVezir]

Logistonks.

This word needs to be worked in everywhere it possibly can. That is all.

 

[parkerg12]

I'm curious what the numbers will be for cost? as Italy is my number 1 nation to play; Fuel cost, unit cost and reliability are the most important factors for me. I know I wont be able to compete with the allies or soviets armored divisions so I strive for attacking were they are not. Then if they do show use the Airforce and dig in. So Reliability and speed for my main tanks and then use tank destroyers to assist with piercing.

 

[wagnerleung0079]

Folks debating "why no MG 42 in late war German tanks?"

Even without engineering constraints, it should be remembered that the MG 34 was already in max rate production, and Germany was short of almost everything. Retooling the plants would have eaten precious time and resources. The MG 42 with its robust design and looser tolerances was much more able to endure hard, dirty use in the hands of the infantry, so it was prioritized there. MG 34 was more sensitive to dirt than its successor, but that was less of a problem inside the more pristine confines of an AFV fighting compartment. So it remained in use because it was adequate for the job, and available in numbers. Logistonks.

The real question is will such kind of logistical decision would meaningfully represent in the next DLC.

 

[safe-keeper]

The real question is will such kind of logistical decision would meaningfully represent in the next DLC.

Or how many of the players will even care. For all the weight some people here put on this question, "does it protrude or is it inside" is something most of us ask ourselves only when we decide who to flirt with at the night club.

 

[Secret Master]

Or how many of the players will even care. For all the weight some people here put on this question, "does it protrude or is it inside" is something most of us ask ourselves only when we decide who to flirt with at the night club.

Or out on the street:

 

[Wombat69]

You are missing some important bits:
- the Leopard does not have a hull MG. Inside the bow of any WW2 german tank, Barrel Change the MG 42 style was nigh impossible.
- the ball housing of a ww2 tank MG might not be redesigned for older tanks, because of cost etc, but if you're designing a completely new tank (Panther, King Tiger), you can design a new mounting as well (just Change the round hole to a square)

The coax MG of the Leopard sits further back than in a WW2 tank. That gives more clearance to change the barrel inside the tank. Take Your time, Draw up a top down view and compare different protrusion levels.

Tl;Dr, while I am not saying you don't know what you are talking about, I urge you to rethink the arguments.

As a former member of the German Federal Armed Forces, and having the opportunity to shoot MG3, MG 42 and MG 34 (the latter two in France during a training exchange), I have a feeling that I do know what I am talking about.
War reporters back in the days rode on the radio operator seat - watch old newsreels and you will see that the hull MG 34 has been removed in some reports and they filmed through the round mounting hole. And if you have a very keen eye, you can see the fasteners on the ball shield to which you attach the gun

I agree with Jamor - if I have tons of good MG 34s in stock, why would I redesign my faceplate or hull just because one is square and the older one (still doing its job) is round? There is no good reason.
On the other hand, if I have a swivel that does not require a redesign of an essential piece of equipment - let's use it!

Here is a cutout of a Panzer 4 with the radio operator position - looks spacey to me. If I was the radio operator and actually COULD use an MG 42, I would have swung the back end of the gun to the left and opened the side lid to exchange the barrel.
Comparing space in WW2 tanks, Pz IIIs and IVs were roomy compared to their Allied counterparts. Crew members could see each other.

In the former GDR, there were several T34/85s as gunnery targets which I had the luck to mount and have a look inside. Guess why the T34 had a Degtjarjow DT with a drum magazine as hull MG? Because that radio operator could not have been claustrophobic by nature, neither could he see well through his slit. The barrel could only be exchanged with tools. The magazine only held 63 rounds. Here is the seat of the radio operator:

I rest my case.

 

[Wombat69]

Folks debating "why no MG 42 in late war German tanks?"

Even without engineering constraints, it should be remembered that the MG 34 was already in max rate production, and Germany was short of almost everything. Retooling the plants would have eaten precious time and resources. The MG 42 with its robust design and looser tolerances was much more able to endure hard, dirty use in the hands of the infantry, so it was prioritized there. MG 34 was more sensitive to dirt than its successor, but that was less of a problem inside the more pristine confines of an AFV fighting compartment. So it remained in use because it was adequate for the job, and available in numbers. Logistonks.

Thanks Jamor - that is a new word in my vocabulary now!

 

[Wombat69]

Or out on the street:

View attachment 717526

This made my day!

 

[wagnerleung0079]

@Jamor @Archangel85 I would like to know why correlating Suspensions with speed. Isn't the speed of a tank is correlated to its power/weight ratio and Suspensions is more correlated with the crew ergonomics of the tank for shock absorption? Claiming that "Christie suspension adds quite a bit of speed" seems to be over-generalizing the design philosophy of cavalry tanks, which were the main users of Christie suspension, and a little bit unrealistic for example, is a tiger tank with Christie suspension in-game will faster than the tiger with torsion bars?

 

[Jamor]

@Jamor @Archangel85 I would like to know why correlating Suspensions with speed. Isn't the speed of a tank is correlated to its power/weight ratio and Suspensions is more correlated with the crew ergonomics of the tank for shock absorption? Claiming that "Christie suspension adds quite a bit of speed" seems to be over-generalizing the design philosophy of cavalry tanks, which were the main users of Christie suspension, and a little bit unrealistic for example, is a tiger tank with Christie suspension in-game will faster than the tiger with torsion bars?

You're absolutely right about straight line speed on flat ground being a function of power-to-weight. However, what a good tank suspension does is dramatically increase the vehicles cross-country terrain handling, meaning higher average speed over the sort of ground where fighting happens.

DISCLAIMER: I'm not involved in the design of the feature, just commenting because I have an unnatural and unhealthy fixation on AFVs.

 

[Zauberelefant]

You're absolutely right about straight line speed on flat ground being a function of power-to-weight. However, what a good tank suspension does is dramatically increase the vehicles cross-country terrain handling, meaning higher average speed over the sort of ground where fighting happens.

DISCLAIMER: I'm not involved in the design of the feature, just commenting because I have an unnatural and unhealthy fixation on AFVs.

Doesn't hurt to Note that christie suspension allowed for ridiculous Road speeds in light armour, some 60 MP/h (100 km/h)

 

[Axe99]

because I have an unnatural and unhealthy fixation on AFVs

Quite right - a person of your calibre would naturally have an unhealthy fixation on naval vessels Just joking of course Many thanks for your replies, they're very interesting, informative and well-written

 

[Wombat69]

Doesn't hurt to Note that christie suspension allowed for ridiculous Road speeds in light armour, some 60 MP/h (100 km/h)

BT-5 72km/h, but without tracks on road
The first Christie demonstration vehicle achieved 113km/h on the road, but no tracks.

BT-5 with tracks on road: 55 km/h.
The interchangeability of removing/applying tracks was finally given up with the T34, because it was a technical effort to equip the tanks with the first two sets of wheels being steerable. It is not needed when the tracks are mounted (which they were for the most part when in the field). Riding cross country at any speed close to that is a bouncy ride with the risk of being hurt. Gun stabilizers did not exist at the time yet.

A second reason was probably that it took time and effort to reapply the tracks in the field.

A mere logical reason not pursue the idea - despite the Christie drive was an ingenious invention.

 

[wagnerleung0079]

You're absolutely right about straight line speed on flat ground being a function of power-to-weight. However, what a good tank suspension does is dramatically increase the vehicles cross-country terrain handling, meaning higher average speed over the sort of ground where fighting happens.

DISCLAIMER: I'm not involved in the design of the feature, just commenting because I have an unnatural and unhealthy fixation on AFVs.

Hoping there will be some stats change in the final version as torsion bar but not Christie suspension is the one famous for its vehicles' cross-country terrain handling in that sense.

 

[George Parr]

On an unrelated note, the Soviets planned to replace the Christie suspension in the T-34 wih a torsion bar one, but the outbreak of the war prevented the switch.

 

[DrinkingHeavily]

However, this kind of direct community access comes at a heavy cost for us. As many of you have noticed, we have gotten a little sparse in these forums in the last few months, or even years. The reason for this is that often we do face a debate culture that is not enjoyable to take part in, where it is taken as a given that the devs are either lazy or incompetent and where everything we do is viewed through that lens. Not only is it incredibly demoralizing to spend months of your life creating something, only to see the people you made it for tear it to shreds, it is also a debate that gives no one anything. We aren’t paid to wade through pages of abuse to find a few nuggets of useful feedback, and so that feedback is not acted on.

Object lesson: If anyone wants their feedback to be acted on, they still need to obtain the personal buy-in of the designer team before minute one of coding will begin.

I work in health care.. one of the general concepts is that only 20% of a patient's recovery is directly due to any medical intervention. The rest [diet, ambiance, personal connections, placebo effect, mental outlook, etc] is entirely out of the doctor's control. Thus, doctors need a bedside manner regardless of how high they were in their class at Harvard.. so that the patient adopts their treatment plan.

Same thing here.

No employee at Paradox loses sleep waiting for the latest sharpshooting criticism from "albo472" even if that guy is a customer. You bought something they already completed - the exchange is over. And when the whining starts.. I'd upvote the staff even more if they started answering this way.

Life is personal - whether you like it or not. If the goal is posting on a random forum and accomplishing nothing, then keep it up - you're doing that quite well! If the goal of communicating with Paradox employees is to actually achieve changes in the game... then you're going to have to post as though you're actually talking to them face-to-face.

 

[mursolini]

BT-5 72km/h, but without tracks on road
The first Christie demonstration vehicle achieved 113km/h on the road, but no tracks.

BT-5 with tracks on road: 55 km/h.
The interchangeability of removing/applying tracks was finally given up with the T34, because it was a technical effort to equip the tanks with the first two sets of wheels being steerable. It is not needed when the tracks are mounted (which they were for the most part when in the field). Riding cross country at any speed close to that is a bouncy ride with the risk of being hurt. Gun stabilizers did not exist at the time yet.

A second reason was probably that it took time and effort to reapply the tracks in the field.

A mere logical reason not pursue the idea - despite the Christie drive was an ingenious invention.

The reason was, tracks designed in 20s and didn't last afaik even 300km, and had to be replaced anyway.

By mid and late 30s, designers and metallurgist managed to create tracks that lasted enough for this to not be an issue.

Having road wheels had little to do with speed, and everything with attempt to drag out the length of a march divisions can sustain before inevitable need to stop, service vehicles. Once tracks could notably outlast engines, having detachable became pointless.

Even then, looking at battle of Kursk, the "sturdy, reliable, Soviet"(tm) T-34 suffered 20-30% breakdown when 5th guard army had to travel for 400 km on roads before counter attack at Prokhorovka.

 

[Wombat69]

The reason was, tracks designed in 20s and didn't last afaik even 300km, and had to be replaced anyway.

By mid and late 30s, designers and metallurgist managed to create tracks that lasted enough for this to not be an issue.

Having road wheels had little to do with speed, and everything with attempt to drag out the length of a march divisions can sustain before inevitable need to stop, service vehicles. Once tracks could notably outlast engines, having detachable became pointless.

Even then, looking at battle of Kursk, the "sturdy, reliable, Soviet"(tm) T-34 suffered 20-30% breakdown when 5th guard army had to travel for 400 km on roads before counter attack at Prokhorovka.

Tracks are still an issue: Found this on a US government website on the M1 A1 tank (https://www.gao.gov/assets/nsiad-91-114.pdf).

On page 5, it says this:

Was to last 2000mi but does last 710mi. That is why even modern tanks are TAKEN to the theater and don't drive there themselves unless there is no alternative.
Sorry, can't find the numbers in the German manual right now...

However, cross-country mobility is higher on tracks than on wheels.
Which is interesting, because (back to Russian tank designs) most roads in those days in the Soviet Union were dirt roads and not necessarily passable on wheels all year around (if someone did have a motorized vehicle).