Linked research

[Wyrm]

What I miss in HOI3 is some kind of linking in research.

For example, AT-guns and Tank-guns were completely separate fields of development while in RL Tank-guns were usually AT-guns modified to be installed in a tank.

So, what if you research the PAK40 AT-gun, you would then have a halved research cost for the KwK40 that was the tank gun based on it?

Same could be done for other techs as well. If research will even work that way.

 

[Axe99]

Another good idea . They seemed to have something in place at the whole of tank level with the crossover to heavy tanks from the medium tank tree if a nation didn't start with heavies early on. It'll be a balance between making it too complicated and making it accurate, but there's definitely merit in this approach.

 

[1alexey]

What I miss in HOI3 is some kind of linking in research.

For example, AT-guns and Tank-guns were completely separate fields of development while in RL Tank-guns were usually AT-guns modified to be installed in a tank.

Usually they were not.

That, is only true for a few tank guns of 50mm and 75(6)mm calibre, but nothing close to a majority.

 

[Klausewitz]

Usually they were not.

That, is only true for a few tank guns of 50mm and 75(6)mm calibre, but nothing close to a majority.

Hmm, the 37mm PaK (German) and the 3,7 cm KwK 36 were closely related.
The 5 cm Pak 38 and the 5 cm KwK 39 were to.
The 7.5 cm KwK 40 was developed from the 7.5 cm PaK 40.
And all version of the (land-based) 88 mm guns, Flak, Pak and KwK are also closely related.
So at least for Germany the idea is sound.

The same goes for the 75 mm gun of the Sherman which was an updated Version of the canon de 75 modele 1897.

For the russians i see no confluence, but for the Brits it is there again, most obviously with the Firefly.

So the idea does not them so far fetched.

 

[Wyrm]

Usually they were not.

That, is only true for a few tank guns of 50mm and 75(6)mm calibre, but nothing close to a majority.

For germany we had the Pak36, the Pak38, Pak40 and Pak43 that all were rebuilt for tanks.

The UK had the QF 2-pounder the QF 6-pounder, and the QF 17-Pounder.

The soviets had their 45 mm M1937, and the 76mm F22. The 85mm gun on the T34-85 was also not a tank gun at first but an AA-gun.

Just some examples I can find quickly.

I think only the US did not go this way since they had very few anti tank guns, relying mostly on tank destroyers for anti tank duty.

So it was not just a few tank guns.


- Edit
Obviously Klausewitz beat me to it

 

[Axe99]

Usually they were not.

That, is only true for a few tank guns of 50mm and 75(6)mm calibre, but nothing close to a majority.

On top of the ones that were listed by Klausewitz and Wyrm, would it not also be the case that anti-tank gun expertise was readily transferable and transferred to those making dedicated anti-tank guns? Or were they both developed in separate institutions with no communication or experience shared between the two? Genuine questions, this is something I know nothing about, but would expect there to be a bit of shared expertise across that kind of thing.

 

[No idea]

Usually they were not.

That, is only true for a few tank guns of 50mm and 75(6)mm calibre, but nothing close to a majority.

Iirc the Tiger gun was very similar to the 88s.

 

[1alexey]

Hmm, the 37mm PaK (German) and the 3,7 cm KwK 36 were closely related.
The 5 cm Pak 38 and the 5 cm KwK 39 were to.
The 7.5 cm KwK 40 was developed from the 7.5 cm PaK 40.
And all version of the (land-based) 88 mm guns, Flak, Pak and KwK are also closely related.
So at least for Germany the idea is sound.

The same goes for the 75 mm gun of the Sherman which was an updated Version of the canon de 75 modele 1897.

For the russians i see no confluence, but for the Brits it is there again, most obviously with the Firefly.

So the idea does not them so far fetched.

Aww, but here comes the kicker:
2 cm KwK 38 of Pz2 was not AT gun.
5 cm KwK 38, used in Pz3, never had non-tank variant.
75mm KwK 37 of early Pz4 and late Pz3 was not an AT gun.
75mm KwK42 of Panther was never made into AT gun.
88mm L/55 of Tiger 1 was rather changed 88mm AA gun. And there never was an AT version.
10,5 cm StuH 42 gun also was not an AT gun.
And canon de 75 modele 1897 was not an AT gun either, it appeared almost 15 years before any tank was ever made.
For Russians, it is even more pronounced, as neither T-34, nor KV, nor IS series ever used AT guns.
You need some very biased sample to claim that " in RL Tank-guns were usually AT-guns modified to be installed in a tank".
It is true that tanks often used artillery tubes already created. However most of them, were not AT guns, but rather field artillery or AA guns.

 

[Jazumir]

Hmm... going by the thread-title, i thought the OP would be suggesting internet links for equipment (like, IIRC, for some personalities in CK2). I dunno if there is some sort of wikipage for everything the devs want to include, but if so, that would be pretty nice to have. Maybe with a disclaimer in the tooltip, saying that RL-equipment and ingame-equipment are only related in appearance, nation and rough year of appearance and that performance may differ.

As to what the OP actually did request: I guess it would sense from a realism point of view in many instances, but OTOH, i think it would be quite complicated to model and play. I think the best way to go about it, is to have some techs be pre-requisites (or discount-givers) for variants in another field. Like you need a gun researched to some calibre/ammo/someotherproperty first, before you can have a tank variant sporting that calibre/... (or get the variant for half the xp-cost).

 

[Big Nev]

Hmm... going by the thread-title, i thought the OP would be suggesting internet links for equipment (like, IIRC, for some personalities in CK2). I dunno if there is some sort of wikipage for everything the devs want to include, but if so, that would be pretty nice to have. Maybe with a disclaimer in the tooltip, saying that RL-equipment and ingame-equipment are only related in appearance, nation and rough year of appearance and that performance may differ.

As to what the OP actually did request: I guess it would sense from a realism point of view in many instances, but OTOH, i think it would be quite complicated to model and play. I think the best way to go about it, is to have some techs be pre-requisites (or discount-givers) for variants in another field. Like you need a gun researched to some calibre/ammo/someotherproperty first, before you can have a tank variant sporting that calibre/... (or get the variant for half the xp-cost).

In reality, the "research" was more about how to shoehorn the gun you had (6prd in to a Churchill, 17pdr in to a Sherman etc. etc.) in to an existing turret or how to make the turret big enough (T34-85) without destroying your suspension, drive-train etc. etc.

Basically, it's not about the gun, but how to mount it.

 

[Kovax]

In that list:

2cm gun on the Pz II was a modified AA gun.

3.7mm gun on several early Pz III models was modified from an AT gun design, or rather from a design which had already developed into slightly different AT and tank versions by the time the tank was developed.

5cm guns on the intermediate and later Pz IIIs (medium barrel length L46? and longer L60) were designed by companies which submitted bids for both the 5cm tank gun and AT gun contracts. Bids went to different companies, but they probably could have been done by the same company building slight variations of the same weapon. Hitler decreed the use of the L60 weapon, but the contracts were signed anyway for the less expensive medium-length gun. The more powerful L60 wasn't fitted for almost another year, when it became apparent that Soviet armor was too strong to be penetrated by the shorter gun at anything over point-blank range.

7.5cm short-barrel demolition gun on the Pz IV and one late model of Pz III was based on a light field howitzer; as such, it was never intended as an AT weapon. It was eventually replaced on the Pz IV with two different medium-barrel guns (L43, L48), both by companies which had bid on the Pz III and 5cm AT contracts. Both of those medium-length guns were also built in modified form as AT weapons.

7.5cm L70 used on the Panther was a new high-velocity design (a great gun, a less great tank), which still drew upon AA gun designs, coupled with new armor penetration research.

8.8cm designs were heavily based on an AA design (another great gun on a heavy slug of a tank). An AT version of one was prototyped.

10.5cm howitzer was not intended as an AT weapon, and was a slightly modified field howitzer design.

The statement that most tank guns were derived from AT gun designs is at least partially or largely incorrect, because they were mostly derived from a mix of AA and ART designs, either as direct modifications or as "new" designs using existing design parameters to scale up smaller guns of similar purpose. Very few were developed from scratch purely as tank main guns, and even fewer were derived from existing AT guns; AT guns were more often developed from the same ART or AA weapons as the tank guns, or developed using design parameters from existing smaller designs. A few tank guns were based on larger caliber but lower velocity ART designs, for infantry support rather than anti-armor capability. Higher-velocity tank guns for armor penetration were more often based on AA designs, or designed from scratch when they began to push the envelope toward the end of the war.

One difference between many AT and tank gun designs was the fitting of a muzzle-brake, and use of a lighter recoil mechanism which the brake allowed if present. The channeled blast tended to deafen crews operating close to the gun, so they were rarely designed into AT guns, where the crews would suffer the full debilitating effects with every shot.

 

[Chromos]

What I miss in HOI3 is some kind of linking in research.

For example, AT-guns and Tank-guns were completely separate fields of development while in RL Tank-guns were usually AT-guns modified to be installed in a tank.

So, what if you research the PAK40 AT-gun, you would then have a halved research cost for the KwK40 that was the tank gun based on it?

Same could be done for other techs as well. If research will even work that way.

I support this idea.

Basically inital(WW1)tank guns where used from existing field guns. And most later(Intermediate) from existing AT-Gun designs.
That were mostly those 37mm up to 45mm guns.
While then when war was around and started, we got a quite big mix of all sorts field gun/Art gun/naval gun/AT-gun/AA-gun based tank gun designs.

So GER adopted for its PzII a "upgunned MG variant", a Machine Cannon with 2cm calibre wich was used as AA gun before.
And the later GER tank guns of 75mm were based on the 5cm AT gun wich was based on 37mm AT gun..
That includes also the initial 75mm short version of PzIV as it was also based on 5cm AT-gun but had more emphasis on SA. While the later 75mm tank guns(also of Panther) were based on the 75mm AT gun, wich was also based on the 5cm AT-gun but had of course more emphasis on AT..
The gun from Tiger was based on the famous 88mm AA gun as most of us might know. And the later long versions are that way also based on that initial AA design. Same to the 128cm tank gun. This was basically an daopted AA gun for AT and tank usage. The 150mm of Maus would have been likely a new design or adoption of naval gun(DD)..

Allied guns were sometimes based on infantry/field gun designs and of course also on AT/AA too.
E.g. initial Sherman 75mm gun was kind of based on famous pre WW1 french field gun design! While later 76mm was a new design wich can be seen as a hybrid between and field gun and an AA gun.
SOV also did reuse naval guns fro their bigger calibre tanks and the famous IS series used an Art gun wich had to use ammunition similar as an Art gun. The projectile and charges were seperated and neede to be put together while loading. So the fire rate dropped significantly, but SA effect was very good and AT good enough for all enemy tanks.

So basically tank guns were one basic design of:

-Field guns
-Artillery guns
-Naval guns
-AT guns
-AA guns

adopted to be used in a tank.

While more basically the gun design only differs in:
-Calibre
-Length of barrel
-Basic gun design(Important her also the rifle twist, some very few had a conic barrel, smoothbore was ~65 design)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rifling#Twist_rate

And does it have/need a muzzle brake and how it is mounted and so on..


And last but not least, the ammunition that the gun can fire..
Late ammo for US 76mm was said to have better penetration values than normal Panther ammo.
And the superheavy ammo of Iowa BB is said to be much better as Yamato BB ammo. (Ok a bit unfair as there is quite a big research gap timewise, but it shows how better ammo can make up for ~6cm of calibre!)


So it would be cool if there was some gun design practical/theoretical and some gun pool from wich we could choose.
Doesn't need to be that complicated as real life maybe. As for the game, mostly 3 stats are most important: HA/SA and penetration.

 

[Stenner]

As far as pure game effects go, I would not miss linked research.

Purely for game mechanics, it kind of muddles the water of research (I also hope we don't have theory return).

 

[Kovax]

Theoreticals were the only way in HOI3 that one could model how improvements in gun designs would affect other designs. Unfortunately, guns themselves were split between infantry support weapons, artillery/AT/AA, and naval design research groups, so improving gun designs in one group barely affected the other groups, if at all.

The "Theory" page in HOI3 was a waste of a potentially vital aspect of research: the underlying scientific principles upon which the later technological developments are based. Research in real life can be divided into Science and Technology: science gives us the principles and opens up possibilities, but is of limited immediate or direct benefit, whereas technology relies on that science to produce and refine actual useful products. You can pump money into technology for a quick return on your earlier science investment, until you've reached the limits of the science upon which it's founded, or else put some of that funding into science to allow your technology to jump to the next level from there.

Note the differences between Einstein and Edison: one developed the mathematical underpinnings of nuclear physics, while the other created a host of products for the consumer. Both were important, but for totally different reasons, since one drove major advances in science which allowed many later technological improvements, while the other used existing science to make major advances in technology. Science without technology is merely a way to satisfy curiosity, with no real tangible benefit, while technology relies on science to make break-through (rather than incremental) advances possible.

Hopefully, in HOI4, the distinction between research and experience will allow a better representation of the limitations of each.

 

[Cybvep]

I think that practicals and theory levels were *supposed* to represent things which the OP mentioned. The idea was good on paper, but unfortunately, the implementation wasn't that good and the tech tree setup was even worse, which promoted min-maxing and 1/0 gameplay :C.