Massive oversight in the tank designer: there is no advanced medium cannon.

[Praetori]

That's possible, but that's a lot of mental gymnastics required to arrive at that conclusion when it still doesn't make a lot of sense up front. I don't really know how often tanks were brawling at close range where they could actually shoot at the sides and rear of an enemy as opposed to shooting each other from across fields, I'd have to look into it.

We have to remember the grand-strategy perspective. If this was a tactical game then yes the AT gun should be the same as the tank gun but HOI4 has a lot of mechanics that makes sense only when viewed from a larger perspective (like CIC for resources etc).
With two divisions fighting over tens of kilometers of battlefield then guns mounted on vehicles will have more opportunities (and can create such opportunities) to shoot at less armored parts of the enemy than much less mobile AT-guns. There was a difference between piercing of tanks and AT guns before we had the tank-designer and I always reasoned that the difference is derived from a reasoning along those lines.
In any case the stats are diluted in the division-stats in the end so it wouldn't really carry all the way no matter how historically accurate you made the techs and designer as it's less relevant on the grand-strategy level (or rather how the game mechanics works).

 

[Louella]

I wish that there were Light, Medium, and Heavy high-velocity cannons

Well that's kind of the case right now, isn't it ? The basic HV cannon fits in a light turret, the improved HVcannon fits in a medium turret, and the advanced HV cannon fits in a large or modern turret.

 

[Ringwraith_JP]

Someone needs to diagram all that. I've through all that and my head spins.

 

[Warlock-Engineer]

In some ways, yes it does. Higher velocities means there is more stress on the shell, the shell needs to be stronger to avoid tearing itself apart. Strength usually achieved by making the walls thicker, which means there is less room for explosives.

Just because the cannon is built for certain velocity doesn't mean the shells need to have identical amount of propellant regardless of their purpose.

 

[Joshua Happytree]

The sequence T-34-85 - T-44 - T-54 does not make sense. Because the T-44 is a completely different tank and the T-54 is based on it.

It does make sense because that's the order how they were accepted into military service As per the rest - the point was to show that bigger guns need bigger turret rings. And that this rule was not taken at face value but attempts to squeeze bigger gun into turret rings of smaller ones were made yet they consistently failed time after time. So I simplified some things for the sake of clarity.

 

[Joshua Happytree]

The MBTs of the late 40s and 50s

The first tank that is considered an MBT is T-64. So there are no MBTs of 40s and 50s

 

[Corpse Fool]

Just because the cannon is built for certain velocity doesn't mean the shells need to have identical amount of propellant regardless of their purpose.

Sure, but cutting powder reduces velocity, which will mess with sighting systems and the performance of the rifling.

 

[Louella]

The first tank that is considered an MBT is T-64

considered by who ?

And what about the Centurion ? Or the M47 Patton ? Or the T-55 ? Are they not 1st-generation MBTs ?

 

[Joshua Happytree]

considered by who ?

You'd be surprised - more or less by everyone. It's not a Soviet fanboy thing if you imply this.

And what about the Centurion ? Or the M47 Patton ? Or the T-55 ? Are they not 1st-generation MBTs ?

No, and though they may vary yet there are good reasons in every case. I don't think it's wise to go into a lengthy recap of the tank development history.

 

[Anon_E_Moose]

I hope it is intentional as cost looks more historical now.

It would make sense if Superheavies didn't get a huge cost reduction. A battalion of reasonably designed superheavies costs half of the IC of a battalion of reasonably designed mediums now, it's kind of silly.

 

[blahmaster6k]

You'd be surprised - more or less by everyone. It's not a Soviet fanboy thing if you imply this.

No, and though they may vary yet there are good reasons in every case. I don't think it's wise to go into a lengthy recap of the tank development history.

Interesting. It seems that you are wrong.

 

[Joshua Happytree]

View attachment 778718
Interesting. It seems that you are wrong.

Did you check at least if said countries produced/employed heavy tanks in parallel with your Wiki list?

 

[blahmaster6k]

Did you check at least if said countries produced/employed heavy tanks in parallel with your Wiki list?

That's a strawman, and has nothing to do with anything.

 

[Ironside112]

Did you check at least if said countries produced/employed heavy tanks in parallel with your Wiki list?

Britain's last heavy tank of the war, the Churchill, was made obsolete due to the Centurion - as was the cruiser tank programme and therefore the Comet too. The only other heavy tanks Britain would go on to build was the late-war prototype Black Prince (of which there were only 6, so completely irrelevant to your point) and the Conqueror, put in service in 1955-1966 in limited numbers.

So just to indulge you, does having heavy tanks being produced mean you can't have an MBT? Does that mean the Centurion is an MBT for a few years before the Conqueror rolls up then becomes one again after? It's an odd hill to die on, I'll give you that lol

 

[Joshua Happytree]

That's a strawman, and has nothing to do with anything.

How come? The whole idea behind MBT concept is that you can have one platform that will be (almost) as heavily protected and (almost) as heavily armed as a heavy tank so you don't need the latter any more. Providing you can afford having two platforms in your inventory.

So just to indulge you, does having heavy tanks being produced mean you can't have an MBT? Does that mean the Centurion is an MBT for a few years before the Conqueror rolls up then becomes one again after? It's an odd hill to die on, I'll give you that lol

Yepp, it opens a whole can of worms that will last for many many pages. We'll quickly descend into citing doctrinal docs and economic calcs of the time. Like T-55 protection and firepower was not considered adequate for all cases in USSR so IS-7 and T-10 programs were launched. And T-10 was produced up until T-64 appeared since that one was considered a true MBT and no further heavy tank was produced afterwards. Yet on the next step of the discussion an argument can be made that technically speaking T-10 was used up to 90s so the picture becomes not so black-and-white. Then there will be a counter-argument that after T-64 T-10 was mostly used as static pillbox and not as "real" tank so that muddies the picture even further. It will go on and on

 

[Ironside112]

Yepp, it opens a whole can of worms that will last for many many pages. We'll quickly descend into citing doctrinal docs and economic calcs of the time. Like T-55 protection and firepower was not considered adequate for all cases in USSR so IS-7 and T-10 programs were launched. And T-10 was produced up until T-64 appeared since that one was considered a true MBT and no further heavy tank was produced afterwards. Yet on the next step of the discussion an argument can be made that technically speaking T-10 was used up to 90s so the picture becomes not so black-and-white. Then there will be a counter-argument that after T-64 T-10 was mostly used as static pillbox and not as "real" tank so that muddies the picture even further. It will go on and on

... you are aware that the MBT classification came about due to the development of the Centurion, right? I've yet to find a single source that says that the T-64 was the first MBT developed when the Centurion was both classified as one by British forces and was treated as one. You're claiming it's a much harder designation than it is - just work off of what general doctrine dictated for an MBT to exist and then what the nation classified them as. You don't refer to the Panther as a heavy tank because the Germans considered it a medium - why should the Centurion not be considered an MBT when it was referred to being one?

 

[Joshua Happytree]

Centurion was both classified as one by British forces and was treated as one

Will it be correct to say that UK's doctrine of the time was to use a hi-low mix with Centurion employed as a medium tank and Conqueror supporting it with its heavy firepower?

 

[Paul.Ketcham]

Will it be correct to say that UK's doctrine of the time was to use a hi-low mix with Centurion employed as a medium tank and Conqueror supporting it with its heavy firepower?

To put it simply:

So just to indulge you, does having heavy tanks being produced mean you can't have an MBT? Does that mean the Centurion is an MBT for a few years before the Conqueror rolls up then becomes one again after? It's an odd hill to die on, I'll give you that lol

If a main battle tank is a universal tank and the "universal" guns are the 100-122mm guns, mounted on a highly-mobile platform, then for the sake of understanding a Cold War medium tank is typically a main battle tank. "Medium" tank is already a problematic definition for extended time durations, because they often aren't medium in weight (the Centurion weighed a similar amount as the T-10, and both weighed around the same as a Panther).

Remember too that "main battle tanks" include vehicles like the Leopard 1 (almost unarmored) or the Abrams (no HE rounds to engage infantry, making it a dedicated anti-tank platform akin to the Panther or Comet), so the definition isn't even consistently-applied.

 

[Ironside112]

Will it be correct to say that UK's doctrine of the time was to use a hi-low mix with Centurion employed as a medium tank and Conqueror supporting it with its heavy firepower?

No, doctrine dictated the Centurion as a breakthrough an infantry supporting vehicle, the Conqueror was designed and employed solely as a counter to Soviet heavy tanks. It is very important to remember that British world war 2 tank doctrine wasn't concerned with light/medium/heavy doctrine, instead focusing on creating two roles for their tanks - cruiser and infantry. Infantry tanks were designed to support the infantry and help make breakthroughs, and the reason they're usually referred to as heavy tanks was because their speed only had to be limited to infantry speed; they could add a lot more armour. Conversely, the cruiser tanks were designed to have less armour but be much quicker and exploit breakthroughs by causing havoc behind enemy lines.

What the Centurion was, was a unification of these two doctrines into one; it had the firepower and speed of a cruiser tank and the armour of an infantry tank which made it the first main battle tank as designated by the nation using it. Since then, MBTs have just evolved into the 'main' tank an armoured force uses. As the post above says, the Leopard sacrifices armour for superior mobility and the Abrams was designed almost exclusively anti-tank oriented. This discrepancy is down to national choices in fighting a war, especially against the Soviets. Tanks like the Abrams and Chieftains were designed to be more on the heavy side as they would work best in a defensive engagement, a doctrine which was further evolved into the Challenger I and II.

But on the topic of the Conqueror, both it and the Centurion were retired from service when the Chieftain was deployed in 1966, as it featured a much better armour layout than both tanks and sported the L11A5 120mm cannon which was much better than the L7 fitted to the Centurions and similar in performance to the L1 120mm fitted to the Conqueror. The Conqueror doctrine-wise was an anti-tank vehicle, specifically anti soviet heavy tank. roughly 4,500~ Centurions were built, to the Conquerors 185, so barely relevant in the grand scheme of things.

 

[Joshua Happytree]

Centurion as a breakthrough an infantry supporting vehicle, the Conqueror was designed and employed solely as a counter to Soviet heavy tanks

I think it must be pretty obvious that if you need a heavy tank to counter enemy's heavy tanks because the "low" part of your hi-low mix cannot do this then it's not a true MBT. At the time T-64 was designed Americans were using M103 and it had the same level of protection that contemporary Soviet heavy tank (T-10) had and was much better protected than the previous generation of Soviet heavy tanks that "Conqueror was designed and employed solely as a counter" to. Yet no one came with an idea that "let's make an even more powerful tank" to augment T-64 because our supposedly MBT cannot cope with certain tanks of our adversaries.

British world war 2 tank doctrine wasn't concerned with light/medium/heavy doctrine, instead focusing on creating two roles for their tanks - cruiser and infantry... What the Centurion was, was a unification of these two doctrines into one

That - I totally agree with. With a notion that concept in its purest form failed the test of WWII. Cruiser tanks turned out to be under-armoured while infantry tanks - having excellent level of protection - had wrong armament to fight full compliment of its adversaries - enemy tanks (here come Fireflies). As per Centurion - yes, you have a versatile platform that can fulfill most of the battlefield roles of the tank. Most, yet not ALL of them. And IMHO Soviet T-34 and PzKpfw V fit this "narrow" description no less than Centurion however I wouldn't call T-34 an MBT. And btw I do believe Centurion was really a marvel of tank design - one of the best of all times.