light and heavy tanks

[3ishop]

Idea -- the doctrine you research has an impact on the starting variant of the tank that you research. As it is now, the British will never build a Matilda II, because they would never expend rare pre-war experience on up armoring and lowering the firepower of a medium tank. But if the doctrine researched by the British resulted in the tank model researched by the British being Matilda like, then you would have doctrine effecting tank design -- like it should. Then the British would have to expend experience to fix the deficiencies of the Matilda.

The Matilda is just an example. Every nation's doctrine could impact their starting tank model.

UK can employ a company to design their tanks, e.g. if they hire Messrs Vulcan and research a pre-war tank it will gain different stats to say Vickers. Which could give it more heavy armour at the cost of speed and firepower.

 

[jamesd]

Actually the developement of the Matilda 2 started in 1936, and they finished in with it in 1938.

The t-35 was developed in 1930-32, so it is unfair to compare it to that one.

Also you keep forgetting that a heavy tank is not equal to a tank with good armor. A heavy tank has both good armor for it's time, and excellent firepower. The matilda 2 has a good armor for a tank developed in the late 30s, but it's firepower is pathethic. Compare it to the Char b1 for example, which had a 75 mm and a 47 mm cannon. Even the T-35 had better firepower then the Matilda(and both those designs were much earlier), because after all a tank is not designed to just fight other tanks. It is also designed to fight dug in infantry. The matilda 2 only had a machine gun against infantry, because it's main gun couldn't even fire HE rounds. Even the AP rounds where quite bad, as they could only penetrate around 50mm of armor at 500 yards with AP rounds. It had only slightly better penetration value then a 7.5 cm kwk 37 firing AP shells.

So what I'm getting at is where do you put the Matilda on the heavy line? It can't go to the 1934 slot, because it was not developed at a time, but you can't exactly put it in the 1941 slot either because it was a joke compared to the KV1(not to mention the Tiger). If we really want to make justice to the Matilda the game should have a different tech line for infantry tanks(cheaper then a heavy, slow, bad firepower, but very good armor.) but I don't think that's neccessary, because we can already make slow and well armored medium sized tank with the variant system.

You're the one making the assumption that a heavy tank must have both heavy armour and excellent firepower, but that was not the case with heavy tanks often having the same main gun as medium tanks. It wasn't until the Tiger I that a heavy tank emerged with greater AT capability than corresponding mediums. If you want to look at the firepower of the 2 pdr gun, it was capable of knocking out all pre war medium and light tanks, and the Matilda's armour allowed it to get close enough to do so. When it was developed there was no better AT gun in service. Additionally, with heavy armour that was unmatched in the world at the time of its development, a MG is sufficient for dealing with unarmoured targets. it is entirely fair to say that to a certain degree, additional armour can compensate for firepower shortcomings, and the only firepower shortcoming of the Matilda at the time it was designed was in HE.

The point I was making regarding the T-35 was that it was an earlier generation of heavy tank that could not compete with the Matilda in its impact on the battlefield, just as the Matilda couldn't compete with the Tiger I or upgraded versions of the KV.

As to where to slot it into the tech tree, the whole premise of this thread was that there needed to be at least one additional slot for light and heavy tanks, meaning that the Matilda slots into the new tech that should be inserted into the massive gap between the Grosstraktor and Tiger I.

 

[Zaku]

It wasn't until the Tiger I that a heavy tank emerged with greater AT capability than corresponding mediums. If you want to look at the firepower of the 2 pdr gun, it was capable of knocking out all pre war medium and light tanks, and the Matilda's armour allowed it to get close enough to do so.

As I said: firepower =/= AP power. The matilda 2 had pathetic firepower overall. it had 1 machine gun and a 2 pdr. When they tried to fit a greater gun it always failed, because the design(especially the turret) was already on it's maximum weight limit. The only other gun which they could fit was the QF 3-inch, at least that had HE shells.

All in all, the definition of medium/heavy tank was not set in stone. You can call whatever you want a heavy tank, but think about the gameplay for a second. A heavy tank costs far more IC and resources then a medium tank. The matilda 2 was a 25t vehicle, that entered to production in 1938. For the same slot we have the PZ3, and the T28. They weighed 21t and 28t, around the same. While the Japanese and the Italians both have 15-16t vehicle in that slot, that is because they didn't have any other design which could fit there. My point is, that if you make the Matilda 2 a heavy we should also make the T28 and the PZ3 heavies as well(which is ofc silly), because they cost around the same amount of resources to build.

If we include it in the medium slot, the variant system lets us make build the matilda 2 as it was: 5 points in armor, and zero points to everywhere else. However, if it were a heavy it would cost us the same amount as a KV1 or a Tiger(or whatever 40t+ vehicle is in the heavy slot.)

Also, if we put in a new slot for heavies before 1941, what would you use for the other nations? Most simply had no other designs that could fit there. We could use the generic "1939 heavy" with a black siluette, but that would be very immersion breaking imo. I would also like to limit the usage of fantasy designs such as the Deuce super heavy tank, or the Iwakuro heavy tank to the minimum.

(BTW is the Matilda 2 even in the british tank tree? I don't think I ever saw a screenshot of it.)

 

[Antediluvian Monster]

My point is, that if you make the Matilda 2 a heavy we should also make the T28 and the PZ3 heavies as well(which is ofc silly), because they cost around the same amount of resources to build.

Bit besides point, but T-28 would make sense as heavy regardless. Compare it to "mediums" from the same period like Vickers Medium III, Type 89 and Char D1. Then compare it to Char B1 (and T-28E can be compared to B1 bis) and Japanese Type 95. The mediums are half the weight and the "heavies" all have three inch guns, which were heavy for the time.

 

[HeilLoki]

I'd love to see more Entwicklungs series tanks in the game for 1945/46 so you can have some late tech tanks that were actually in research (a prototype for E-100 was produced in 1943/44, but Hitler stopped any further research/production). E-50 and E-75 meant to be standard tanks to replace Panther, Tiger, Tiger II and Jagdtiger.

E-25 was designed as a tank destroyer, so it's a little hard to implement it as a light tank, because of the game mechanics (e.g. E-25 as a flak-tank does not make much sense as a design. So this option shouldn't be available for E-25 tank... Just a thought... not sure about it). I'd still love to see a little more late tech tanks than only E-50... At least a choice between 2 tanks like E-50 and E-75 would be nice. There should be a meaningful difference between them.

 

[jamesd]

As I said: firepower =/= AP power. The matilda 2 had pathetic firepower overall. it had 1 machine gun and a 2 pdr. When they tried to fit a greater gun it always failed, because the design(especially the turret) was already on it's maximum weight limit. The only other gun which they could fit was the QF 3-inch, at least that had HE shells.

All in all, the definition of medium/heavy tank was not set in stone. You can call whatever you want a heavy tank, but think about the gameplay for a second. A heavy tank costs far more IC and resources then a medium tank. The matilda 2 was a 25t vehicle, that entered to production in 1938. For the same slot we have the PZ3, and the T28. They weighed 21t and 28t, around the same. While the Japanese and the Italians both have 15-16t vehicle in that slot, that is because they didn't have any other design which could fit there. My point is, that if you make the Matilda 2 a heavy we should also make the T28 and the PZ3 heavies as well(which is ofc silly), because they cost around the same amount of resources to build.

If we include it in the medium slot, the variant system lets us make build the matilda 2 as it was: 5 points in armor, and zero points to everywhere else. However, if it were a heavy it would cost us the same amount as a KV1 or a Tiger(or whatever 40t+ vehicle is in the heavy slot.)

Also, if we put in a new slot for heavies before 1941, what would you use for the other nations? Most simply had no other designs that could fit there. We could use the generic "1939 heavy" with a black siluette, but that would be very immersion breaking imo. I would also like to limit the usage of fantasy designs such as the Deuce super heavy tank, or the Iwakuro heavy tank to the minimum.

(BTW is the Matilda 2 even in the british tank tree? I don't think I ever saw a screenshot of it.)

The Matilda II may have had pathetic firepower in your opinion, but it was equal to that of contemporary British medium tanks, just as the KV-1 had the same firepower as the T-34 and the Durchbruchwagen was intended to have the same short barrelled 7.5cm gun as was on the Pz IV, which was also one of the options looked at for arming the VK3001. Remember that research companies can have an impact here. Maybe the British are using one that reduces soft attack.

In terms of weight, comparing across nations is very problematical. Yes the Pz III was heavier than contemporary British medium tanks, but that was common across a number of German tanks. Look at the Tiger I vs the KV-85, which is probably the best equivalent. The Tiger is 54t with max armour of 110mm while the KV is 46t with max armour of 110mm. Also the Panther at 45t vs the T-44 at 32t. The best candidate for a contemporary medium of the Matilda is a Cruiser II, which had double the armour of the Cruiser I, but less than half that of the Matilda. It only weighed 14t to the Matilda's 25t. The T-28 would fit very well as an early heavy tank due to its multi turret configuration.

If we're relying on the variant system, I don't think there's any way the Matilda design could be completed before war starts. From what I've seen on the WWW videos, the cost to make a variant is very high and the UK will only have limited land experience by then, all of which, and probably more, will be needed to get templates up to their 1939 configurations.

I think I said it earlier in the thread that IMO the tank tech tree needs one each light medium and heavy tank for each design period, and the periods should be Great War, Inter War (1920's), Pre War (36-38), Early War (39-41), Late War (42-44) & Semi modern/super heavy (45-47). As the only Great War tank used in significant numbers in WW2 was the FT-17, that section could be condensed into a single starting tech.

Inter war heavy tanks could include: Grosstraktor, Neubaufahrzeug, T-28, T-35, Vickers A1E1, SRB & Char B1
Pre war heavies: Durchbruchwagen, VK3001, T-100, KV-1, Matilda II, Valentine X & Char B1 bis
Early war heavies: VK3601, Tiger I, KV-1C, KV-85, Churchill III, Churchill VII, M4 Jumbo, T14 & ARL 44
Late war heavies: Tiger II, E-75, IS-2, IS-3, Black Prince, Super Pershing & AMX 50
Super heavies: Maus, E-100, Tortoise & O-I

You will note that I've included 2 tanks for some nations in some periods. This is to facilitate naming upgraded variants. Some were never more than prototypes, but they represent steps in the design process and could have potentially been placed into production.

The Matilda is in the current tank tech tree, as a Pz II equivalent light tank. WWW 9th December 23:47.

Edit: corrected the maximum armour thickness of the Tiger I & KV-85. That will teach me to rely on Wiki rather than walk to my library.

 

[jpd]

The Matilda & Valentine tanks were heavy tanks in that they posed very large problems for the standard AT guns up to the end of 1941. While Germany did not put a heavy tank into production until the Tiger, they had multiple research projects prior to that such as the Durchbruchwagen, VK3001 & VK3601. A German player may wish to produce an intermediate heavy tank that's a step up from the Grosstracktor of 1928. You're right that there weren't that many new light tank designs put into service after 1941, but there were again a number of designs that could have been. There were the German VK1602 Leopard with a couple of different armaments proposed and the later E-25. The US developed the T7 light tank, before moving onto the Chaffee and development of its T37 replacement (eventually the Walker Bulldog) started in 1947 which is within the timeframe of the game. Development of the French AMX13 started in 1946, also in the timeframe covered by the game.

The Mathilda wasn't exactly a heavy tank though.

Mathilda I
Mathilda II
Tiger
KV-1S

Just look at the weight, armor and armament. At best, the Mathilda would be a medium tank. Mathilda I is in the same ballpark as the german Panzer I, just a machine gun on tracks, so a light tank at best

 

[panzerzombie]

The Tiger is 54t with max armour of 120mm while the KV is 46t with max armour of 160mm.

Sorry for nitpicking, but you may have mixed up something. The Tiger had 110 maximum at its gun mantlet and KV85 ( and the somewhat similar/successor IS and IS-2) had 120mm (KV-85 120mm only at the driver position with a 15° slope / IS-2 60° slope upper hull front ) at most.

 

[George Parr]

The idea of using one formula for every country is going to fail anyway, it will never be perfect. You can either individualise the countries by giving them fitting tanks at the appropiate time, or keep the same setup for everyone and live with the fact that there will be plenty of things that just don't look right on paper. Something you can try to fix a bit through the companies each country has and the ability to create variants of every tank.

Were there alot of heavy tanks designed between 1934 and 41? Germany for example had no real heavy tank before the Tiger ( designed in 41 as a result of the experience on the east front that heavier armor and bigger guns were needed ).

The development of the Tiger had nothing to do with the Soviets. Early prototypes had been worked on since 1937 onwards and the final order to produce the Tiger (not further development but the actual production order!) came in May 1941, a few weeks before Barbarossa would kick off and thus before the Germans ran into the T-34 or KV-1.

 

[CyberianK]

The development of the Tiger had nothing to do with the Soviets. Early prototypes had been worked on since 1937 onwards and the final order to produce the Tiger (not further development but the actual production order!) came in May 1941, a few weeks before Barbarossa would kick off and thus before the Germans ran into the T-34 or KV-1.

You are right that the initial design for a heavy breakthrough tank had nothing to do with the soviets BUT there were significant changes made after Barbarossa as a direct result of encountering KV1 and T34 tanks.

 

[George Parr]

You are right that the initial design for a heavy breakthrough tank had nothing to do with the soviets BUT there were significant changes made after Barbarossa as a direct result of encountering KV1 and T34 tanks.

I haven't found anything that would suggest that noticeable changes were made. The decision to add armor and weight were already made prior to Barbarossa. Now, early on in Barbarossa the date for the prototypes was pushed from June 42 to April 42, and the gun was clearly defined to use a caliber of 88mm - while it had been left open before - but Henschel already did develop his prototype with the 88 anyway, so this wasn't really a change at all. The Porsche prototype had to switch the gun, but that one didn't end up as the Tiger so it is kind of irrelevant.

 

[ArcandSpark]

I believe that would be part of the land combat experience gained which lets you alter your tanks.

 

[jamesd]

Sorry for nitpicking, but you may have mixed up something. The Tiger had 110 maximum at its gun mantlet and KV85 ( and the somewhat similar/successor IS and IS-2) had 120mm (KV-85 120mm only at the driver position with a 15° slope / IS-2 60° slope upper hull front ) at most.

Sorry, I looked them up quickly on the tank's Wiki pages rather than looking them up in my various books on tanks.

 

[jamesd]

The Mathilda wasn't exactly a heavy tank though.

Mathilda I
Mathilda II
Tiger
KV-1S

Just look at the weight, armor and armament. At best, the Mathilda would be a medium tank. Mathilda I is in the same ballpark as the german Panzer I, just a machine gun on tracks, so a light tank at best

Please read the rest of the thread. as I don't have the time to repeat all the arguments I put forward in the multiple posts I made after that one you quoted.

 

[CyberianK]

I haven't found anything that would suggest that noticeable changes were made. The decision to add armor and weight were already made prior to Barbarossa. Now, early on in Barbarossa the date for the prototypes was pushed from June 42 to April 42, and the gun was clearly defined to use a caliber of 88mm - while it had been left open before - but Henschel already did develop his prototype with the 88 anyway, so this wasn't really a change at all. The Porsche prototype had to switch the gun, but that one didn't end up as the Tiger so it is kind of irrelevant.

You could be right, there. Researched into it and there are all kind of mentions implying that changes were made due to experiences in Barbarossa but not any real proof or details. Maybe thats just bullshit? Btw. I hate that you can't easily electronically access material from german Bundesarchiv military archives, You basically have to request something and then go to Berlin or Freiburg to read it. Thats so medieval.
There's probably enough books by historians who have already done that but I don't have one with the development history of the Tiger maybe someone can fill in on this. Anyway I find it very suspicious that I don't find any details of the implied changes after Barbarossa so you could be right on that.

 

[TheRomanRuler]

You could be right, there. Researched into it and there are all kind of mentions implying that changes were made due to experiences in Barbarossa but not any real proof or details. Maybe thats just bullshit? Btw. I hate that you can't easily electronically access material from german Bundesarchiv military archives, You basically have to request something and then go to Berlin or Freiburg to read it. Thats so medieval.
There's probably enough books by historians who have already done that but I don't have one with the development history of the Tiger maybe someone can fill in on this. Anyway I find it very suspicious that I don't find any details of the implied changes after Barbarossa so you could be right on that.

What i know is that German WW2 military archieves are in just as big mess as they were in 1945. Maybe that has changed, but that is what i have heard from historians digging trough those files. People prefer to quote books written based on those archieves, rather than quoting actual archieves. Of course, that is likely to lead to mistakes at one point or another.
So it will take time to digitise it.

 

[jamesd]

I haven't found anything that would suggest that noticeable changes were made. The decision to add armor and weight were already made prior to Barbarossa. Now, early on in Barbarossa the date for the prototypes was pushed from June 42 to April 42, and the gun was clearly defined to use a caliber of 88mm - while it had been left open before - but Henschel already did develop his prototype with the 88 anyway, so this wasn't really a change at all. The Porsche prototype had to switch the gun, but that one didn't end up as the Tiger so it is kind of irrelevant.

You could be right, there. Researched into it and there are all kind of mentions implying that changes were made due to experiences in Barbarossa but not any real proof or details. Maybe thats just bullshit? Btw. I hate that you can't easily electronically access material from german Bundesarchiv military archives, You basically have to request something and then go to Berlin or Freiburg to read it. Thats so medieval.
There's probably enough books by historians who have already done that but I don't have one with the development history of the Tiger maybe someone can fill in on this. Anyway I find it very suspicious that I don't find any details of the implied changes after Barbarossa so you could be right on that.

Having a look at the first tank book I pulled off the shelf: World War II Tanks by Eric Grove in 1976:

"The tank dated back to a 1937 requirement for a Durchbruchswagen or break-through vehicle. Various designs emerged as ideas changed and finally in May 1941 Hitler demanded a still more powerful tank superior to such heavily armoured vehicles as the French Char B and the British Matilda already encountered in the West. The existing plans were enlarged and a year later Henschel and Porsche demonstrated their prototypes. Trials showed the Henschel VK 4501 design was superior and it was accepted into service"

The Wiki contradicts itself regarding part of the design process. It says that the firms were ordered to design a 45t tank in May 1941 but later that the increase was decreed after meeting KV's. It also says that the decision that it must have an 88mm gun was made after the invasion. I've checked 3 other books I have and they all imply the decision regarding the 88mm gun was made after Barbarossa started. In fact one of them says that Henschel persisted with its VK3601 design after May 1941 and was planning on fitting it with a tapered bore gun, but that had to be scrapped due to tungsten shortages. It then switched to the 88mm in the Porsche turret (which they had asked Krupp to design as the 88 was a Krupp gun), which corresponds to the Wiki saying that the VK3601 was only scrapped in early 1942. I also found a site that says Henschel wasn't originally asked to develop a heavy tank, but was still working on a requested medium design.

I think that the May 1941 specs were for a tank that had 100mm of armour and could penetrate that armour at a range of 1 mile. Henschel continued work on its VK3601 medium tank with a tapered bore gun being its solution to the piercing spec, while Porsche designed a new heavier tank with an 88mm gun as its solution. Once Henschel abandoned its tapered bore gun it was running out of time and so plonked a Porsche turret on a redesigned VK3601 as the basis for what became its VK4501 submission and poached the contract from under Porsche's nose.