ITT: People talk about firearms and operational doctrine like they understand it
Keep it abstract
Keep it abstract
Small Arms.-No AR-15 conversation allowed
- Thread starter xXAgeOfPeopleXx
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
The difference is that running a tank from 1936 (or even 1939) in 1944 was suicide, whereas bolt action rifles from 1891 and 1895 could still be used throughout the war to satisfactory and consistent effect. The development of armored vehicles and anti-tank weaponry exploded during the war, with both seeing massive improvements as time wore on. That's why modeling the research of vehicles (both armored, airborne and naval) makes sense both within the context of the period and from a strategical perspective, because it was a very real strategic problem to keep up in the development of modern combat vehicles.
What you are suggesting is research in an area that barely saw any technological advances worth noting (the exception being the StG44) for the entire war and what advances were made were all doctrinal and closely tied to individual nations infantry doctrines (such as the soviet emphasis on SMG equipped assault companies or the US focus on individual soldiers firepower). The latter is already modeled in the army doctrines, so there's no reason to detach it other than to superficially inflate the number of choices and actions the player has to make, by adding choices that are largely inconsequential in the grand scheme of things.
Your argument falls apart because you blatently ignore data that most contradicts your conclusions, namely the StG-44. The Germans were hardly the only exception here, the Soviets developed the PPSh-41, the SVT-40 and, shortly after the war, the SKS and AK-47. The Americans developed the M1 Garand and M1 Carbine. The British had the Bren gun and Sten. All of these technological advances are worth noting.
You are wrong on both counts. Lots of tank designs from 1936-39 were still in use even in 1945, and while a Bolt Action Rifle was perfectly sufficient in 1945, a squad with old bolt action rifles would perform very poorly against a squad with STG 44s, assuming equal amounts of training. They would even be disadvantaged against earlier developments like the MP-40 and PPsh depending on conditions. The main problem with bolt action rifles is that they were a poor fit for World War 2 warfare. The average GI could not properly use one at its maximum range and the rifles were being used at a fraction of the normal engagement ranges, which meant that, for the most part, the full-size rifle ammunition were complete overkill for the task. This is the big reason why the Germans and Soviets developed shortened versions of their rifle cartridges, which later became the ammunition used in the STG 44 and AK-47.
Which?
I can see some, very low number of vehicles used mostly not for things they were not intended, but that is nowhere close to the ratio of old bolt-action rifles compared to newer designs.
Not to say the rest of your argument is not valid, it is valid.
Somua S35 (1936), Panzer II (1935), Panzer III (1939), Panzer IV (1939), Matilda (1937), T-26 (1931), Probably a bunch more, especially in Italy/Japan if I could be arsed to look. Tanks tended to be used until they were unservicable, either because they were shot to pieces or there were no more spare parts left. In addition, games tend to forget to tell you that tanks like the Tiger, Pershing, Comet, IS, etc. were far more rare than they actually were in reality. You were far more likely to encounter lighter, older tanks. It was definatly not like the professional armies today which tend to only use the best and leave the rest rotting in scrapyards.
Neither of them was a major, or even vehicle having noticeable impact by 1945, aside from Pz-3&Pz4, that were heavily upgraded, to be more or less on par with more newer vehicles. In 1945, you were most likely to see 1943 and 1944 produced vehicles, and maybe 1943-1942 on less important fronts.
Most of them were not even used in formation sizes they were intended to be used.
Well, ignoring the fact that most of "contemporary" equipment of most countries are at least a decade old from commission into service.
Aren`t most American military planes older than pilots?
can't wait to equip my german troops with Gewehr 43 so they can fight equally against the US troops.
I kind of find it amusing how you dismiss the Pz3/Pz4 when they were, by far, the most common German AFVs of the war. In terms of upgrade, only Pz3s were heavily upgraded (infact, you might know them as the Stug III), the only major upgrade done to the Pz4 was to use a longer-barrel gun. On top of that, the T-34 was introduced in 1940, the M4 Sherman was introduced in 1941. Your statement that 1943-44 designs were in common use in 1945 is just plain wrong.
You are also wrong about the less important front. They were more likely to be equipped with 1930s-era vehicles. The Matildas for example? Entire British units in SE Asia were equipped with them up until the end of the war. Soviet Union heavily used older T-26s when they invaded Manchukuo. As I said, I could probably find entire pages of examples if I bothered to look.
The assumption that everyone is going to be using top of the line hardware or near top of the line hardware is just plain false.
T-26 was used in entire divisions on the western front in 1944, and was used all the way up to the end of WW2 on the eastern front.
The British used Matildas in SE Asia until 1945
The Germans used Pz 2, 3, and 4 until the end of the war. The 2 mainly in scout roles, 3 converted into assault guns (Stug III), and the 4 as the mainline tank.
Yup, my statement is still correct, though. In WW2, tanks were largely used until they would not run anymore, no matter how old the design. Modern day is different in that regard, and that is probably largely because there has not been a major war since 1945.
Can`t wait to equip my Finnish troops with their bare hands so they can be superior against any foreign forces.
can't wait to equip my german troops with Gewehr 43 so they can fight equally against the US troops.
Really now, comparing a late war Pz 4 with the early one is really silly. Pre and post F2 models might just as well be different tanks.
Don`t forget Soldier of 3 armies
[video=youtube;jUzxYDvvWEk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUzxYDvvWEk[/video]
All this talk about rifles reminds me of this interesting video on another German assault rifle that never entered service, but had some pretty big influences later.
[video=youtube;WEPwmYcCPFs]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WEPwmYcCPFs[/video]
A gun video guy who is just so lovably nerdy, all mechanics no politics
[video=youtube;WEPwmYcCPFs]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WEPwmYcCPFs[/video]
A gun video guy who is just so lovably nerdy, all mechanics no politics
Not really. The only difference between F1 and F2 models were the upgunning from the KwK 37 L/24 to the KwK 40 L/43. This was when the tank was fully transitioned from the role of anti-infantry support (which is what it was originally designed for) to anti-tank. The older models were eventually refitted to Ausf E which had the same armor layout.
Not really. The SVT-40, just as the G43, was just another semi-automatic rifle like the M1 Garand. Even so, they are the only "upgrades" to rifles during the war. The same really goes for the Sten or PPSh-41, they are "just" submachine guns and are, on a strategic level, no different than a MP-38/40 or a M1928/M1 Thompson. Just as the Bren is no different than a Type 99 LMG or DP-28. Sure, each nation had their own variations on these weapons and some had several (PPD-40, PPSh-41, PPSh-43, for example) but in the end they are all just variations on weapon types that existed prior to the war. The only exception is the StG-44 which is the only real advance in small arms during World War 2. To dedicate research trees to something that didn't really progress for most of the war and which has minor impact on a strategical level is a waste of both developer time and player time, as it will be nothing but busywork for the player. The easy way is to simply combine small arms research with the traditional "infantry 'XX"-type branches that also includes 3C, infantry kits, support weapons and all those other things that one could technically split into many tech trees but keep in one for simplicity's sake.
Sure but none was in their original role. The P II and T-26 had both been relegated to recon and the P IV wa so modified as to be effectively a different tank (new, heavier armor, better gun, better transmission, better engine etc.), as others pointed out. Even the T-34, the best tank of the late '30s, had to undergo significant modification during the war to remain in its role as the workhorse medium tank. Just look at the number of upgrades the P IV, Sherman or T-34 went through (or how many different medium tanks the Brits went through) during the war compared to how many new attempts were made to develop a new "primary" small arm for their respective armies. There were attempts made to replace the Mosin-Nagant with SVT-40s and the Germans intended to replace the K98 with the StG-44, but that's also the full extent of small arms development during WW2. The AK-47 is entirely contingent on the Russians capturing StGs and the SKS is "just another" semi-automatic rifle.
In the context of a grand strategy game it makes sense to split the research on aircraft and tanks into several stages and categories, because it was research that historically progressed at a prodigious rate and where the end state in '45 was significantly different from the start state in '39 (medium tanks in '45 were heavier than heavy tanks in '39, as a very telling example). The same kind of research or development rate did not go into small arms, hence you can't compare small arms research to tank/aircraft/ship research.
He BTW talks how i was not useful to retool factories to use that (dunno which one of those, they look the same, but that is not the point) rifle, so they went with little more expensive rifle that was already in mass production. This already is in-game for tanks, i know it is nothing new, but is it in-game for small arms/infantry equipment?All this talk about rifles reminds me of this interesting video on another German assault rifle that never entered service, but had some pretty big influences later.
[video=youtube;WEPwmYcCPFs]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WEPwmYcCPFs[/video]
A gun video guy who is just so lovably nerdy, all mechanics no politics
That question is what this thread is supposed to be about, are small arms going to be simulated well/correctly with the depth they deserve or will we have to do it ourselves? (It's just the AR-15 discussion sidetracked it completley)
Can we stick to discussing small arms technologies in the game, not posting random pics of guns we like? We don't need to go off topic again.
You moved the goalposts here. Technology upgrades have always been improvements on the same base concept. A Panther is just an improvement on a Panzer IV, after all, they are both still fundamentally medium tanks.
ALL in their original role. You have played too many video games, the Germans were not all using Panthers and Tigers, the Americans were not all using Shermans and Pershings, the British are not all using Cromwells and Comets, the Soviets are not all using Iosif Stalins and T-34s. One of the most unrealistic things about HOI3 was how easy it is to upgrade an entire army to the latest equipment. This never happened during the World War 2 period.
The T-26 was still used in frontline combat in 1944, not in a recon role. source.
As the war progressed and Germany's lighter tanks were replaced by the Panzer III, Panzer IV and heavier tanks such as the Panther, the T-26 was gradually replaced through attrition by the vastly superior T-34. The remaining T-26s participated in battles with the Germans and their allies during the Battle of Moscow in 1941–42, the Battle of Stalingrad and the Battle of the Caucasus in 1942–1943. Some tank units of the Leningrad Front used their T-26 tanks until 1944.
Yes, the Germans were quite skilled at repurposing obsolete designs to get the most use out of them, but even then they were still used in the front lines in a combat role up to the end of the war. The only mass produced German tank that did not see front line service until the end of the war was the Panzer I, which was eventually repurposed for training and partisan hunting.
The Sherman actually went through very few significant upgrades, and remained mostly the same from beginning to end. There were a shitload of variants largely owing to the US Army tendancy to try to adapt the vehicle for almost everything. The only major upgrades it went through was the upgun to the 76mm and marginally improved engine and tracks.
The T-34 went through about the same upgrades as the M4 Sherman, with exception of having upgraded armor.
In spite of the upgrades, there were a huge number of unupgraded models running around all the way to the end of the war.
Yes, there were fewer advances made in Small arms compared to Tanks, but advances were made nonetheless. The first was the move away from bolt-action into automatic/semi-automatic, which increased effective rate of fire for the average GI. The second was the move towards detachable box magazines, which made reloading quicker and easier. The third was the move to an intermediate cartridge, which was far lighter and far easier to carry. You malign the SKS as 'Just another Rifle', but it was a huge improvement on the Mosin Nagant for the average infantryman, it was much lighter and easier to carry, and the shortened barrel length made it easier to use in confined spaces. The only thing it was missing was the detachable box magazine.
Note that developments were hardly limited to the Soviets and Germans, the Americans developed the M1 Carbine which had all the features. Lighter rounds, detachable box magazine, and semi-automatic, the only problem being the ammunition type picked was complete garbage, since the Americans developed the .30 Carbine round in a completely bizzare method and the resulting round had penetration issues.
Also, the AK-47 was an independant development from the StG, and, while externally they look similar the internals were completely different.
The number of advances made in small arms were fewer, but there were advances made none the less. Your original argument is that Small Arms had no significant advances at all, which is just plain wrong.