Should there be mechanised SPRART?

[Finski]

It seems there is no ability to build armoured and tracked rocket artillery pieces. In history the primary German self-propelled rocket launchers were based on halftrack designs, some even on converted M3 Halftracks (Wikipedia). As a person who has himself taken part in a wargame as part of a mechanised force in a self-propelled artillery unit, I know that artillery can meet enemy infantry. The light armour on such vehicles allows them to be used much more safely in rapid advances without having to have frontline units babysit them all the time, this should lead to an increase in organisation. The tracks on these vehicles allows them better cross terrain ability than wheeled vehicles. I think either the first or second mechanised infantry tech should have a rocket arty variant.

 

[LordOfWar16]

Yea its a bit weird that we dont have at or aa variants of motorized equipment, i.e truck mounted AT and AA guns. You can build motorized rocket artillery tho, thats in.

These puppies and their equivalent for the other nations are actually in unlocked as variants of motorized equipment:

Spoiler: Panzerwerfer 42

Spoiler: Katjuscha

Something like those truck mounted aa/at/spg guns for example however isnt in and i dont know why:

Spoiler: 94-KM SPAAG

Spoiler: Sd.kfz 6-2

Spoiler: Sd.Kfz.8-Flak18

Spoiler: Sd.Kfz.8-2cm Flakvierling

Spoiler: M3 Gun Motor Carrier 75mm

I dont know of much soviet sp-aa tanks, since most of their AA was mounted on trucks, similar to germany, which basicly put everything from quad-20mm "Flakvierling" over 37mm and 50mm guns up to even 88mm Flak36 guns on their Opel Blitz for example.

 

[Finski]

How come the Panzerwerfer is included, have they recently added my suggestion?

 

[LordOfWar16]

How come the Panzerwerfer is included, have they recently added my suggestion?

it is in since ages actually. You can see the variant icon for self-proppeled rocket artillery on the motorized equipment. I think Johan even researched them or atleast showed them during WWW.

One could of course argue that you can attach at-guns, aa-guns and artillery as support units to armored divisions and they get towed, but that is not the same and why does rocket artillery is an exception to that then?

 

[Finski]

Ah but panzerwerfer is mechanised not motorised, the only thing the motorised represents is the katyusha which is based on a truck.

 

[LordOfWar16]

Ah but panzerwerfer is mechanised not motorised, the only thing the motorised represents is the katyusha which is based on a truck.

its still the same in game term, self propelled rocket artillery.

 

[Finski]

As I outlined in the OP having armour and tracks on self propelled artillery makes a real difference, this is where the PW has an advantage over katyusha.

 

[LordOfWar16]

As I outlined in the OP having armour and tracks on self propelled artillery makes a real difference, this is where the PW has an advantage over katyusha.

agian, both are simply self propelled rocket artillery. They have to use something. They still have the exact same stats ingame. This is a game, not reallife.

 

[Kovax]

In the game, both motorized and mechanized rocket artillery vehicles can be represented by the same unit, since the armor stats would be dependent upon the formation that they're attached to. Put them in as part of a motorized division, and they're trucks. Put them in a mechanized unit, and they're half-tracks. As part of an armor division, they could be anything from towed to armored, and it really doesn't matter much to the overall outcome, unless the division is already in serious trouble. Anything "deeper" than that is well below the scale of the game, and simply doesn't make enough difference to give the overall division a different modifier. Just assume that they more-or-less match the rest of the division's vehicles, and you're close enough to right for game purposes.

 

[ArcandSpark]

I think he is saying they should make a separation for mechanized or motorized units since they are different and could add another aspect.

Do you go with less armour and mobility to cut costs or say that cost is not an issue?

 

[Finski]

The self-propelled vehicles are always the type that you build them as, they are not support companies so they don't switch based on division composition. In the OP I outline the effects that the armour and tracks have on such vehicles, and suggest that the obviously more expensive mechanised SPRART should grant more org and more mobility in soft terrains, and perhaps some extra breakthrough due to the flexibility in attack that the tracks allow in terms positioning (not being tied to roads etc., allowing more options for staying under a small hill or forest edge as artillery tends to like to do).

 

[panzerzombie]

Since e.g. given the germans did not use rocketlaunchers on trucks they would be hard pressed to find a picture......so they went the easy way I guess and simplified.

But still I agree there should be a truckbased motorized version of AT and Flak

 

[LordOfWar16]

Since e.g. given the germans did not use rocketlaunchers on trucks they would be hard pressed to find a picture......so they went the easy way I guess and simplified.

But still I agree there should be a truckbased motorized version of AT and Flak

Correct. Germany only had differently sized nebelwerfers ranging from 21cm to 32cm, the Wurfrahmen 40 mounted on the side of halftracks and even some tanks (Stuka zu Fuß), the Panzerwerfer 42 and the Sturmtiger. There were no other rocket artillery availabel for the germans in ww2.

The USA actually run into the same problem, in that the only self propelled rocket artillery they had was the M8 mounted on the M4 Sherman "Calliope".

 

[Finski]

It could however be considered that the Germans just didn't build the lower tech truck RART and skipped straight to higher tech, like the UK never built its own great war tank, which in this game is the FT-17, a French tank. It seems to me you guys are arguing against having more options that seem simple to implement that would also be historical, correct me if this isn't what you're doing.

 

[fredgiblet]

It seems to me you guys are arguing against having more options that seem simple to implement that would also be historical, correct me if this isn't what you're doing.

The question isn't how hard it is to implement, the question is RoI. What is the return on the time spent implementing it? I would argue it's pretty low, YOU may think it's important, but most players probably won't. Therefore it should be at the bottom of the priority list.

 

[aruon]

The USA actually run into the same problem, in that the only self propelled rocket artillery they had was the M8 mounted on the M4 Sherman "Calliope".

ah, the terror of war thunder. i wouldn't say it's truly a SPRART, it's a stock M4 Sherman with a rack of sixty rockets. if anything it's a SPR-equipped Medium tank, or simply a Tank Destroyer.

(but i get what you mean)

 

[ArcandSpark]

ah, the terror of war thunder. i wouldn't say it's truly a SPRART, it's a stock M4 Sherman with a rack of sixty rockets. if anything it's a SPR-equipped Medium tank, or simply a Tank Destroyer.

(but i get what you mean)

When I saw that picture I had a flashback to my CoH: Tales of Valour days. Those were good times!

Maybe splitting the two types will be done in an expansion? Right now I imagine they are trying to polish everything and do some balancing before release.