Tank destroyers versus tanks.

[markslawson]

I thought tank destroyers cost less than tanks proper but in the game it seems to be the same, at least for mediums. I can see a use for self-propelled artillery if you don't mind the additional cost over truck drawn artillery but you can boost your main tank with variants. I'm talking here mainly about single player. MP would be different. If you can convert, that might work as a cheap tank for the nation with few mils??

 

[Orlunu]

TDs are the same cost per item, but require fewer items per unit. It's a weird way to do it, but the end result is similar.

 

[sekelsenmat]

I thought tank destroyers cost less than tanks proper but in the game it seems to be the same, at least for mediums. I can see a use for self-propelled artillery if you don't mind the additional cost over truck drawn artillery but you can boost your main tank with variants. I'm talking here mainly about single player. MP would be different. If you can convert, that might work as a cheap tank for the nation with few mils??

Nothing substitutes tanks, since nothing gives in the amount necessary one key stat: Breakthrough.

But you can mix, like 4 light tanks, 2 light spg, 3 mot .... this should be a cheap tank division for minors. Later in the war double it to reach 40width.

 

[Shaka of Carthage]

I thought tank destroyers cost less than tanks proper

They were. Should be about 60% of the equivalent tank cost. Base game production costs are off, for more than just this.

 

[Mister Analyst]

Below is a condensed table from the HOI4 wiki Land unit types. It provides a quick way to compare overall stats and production costs of armored regiments. Note that it does not include resource costs.

Regiment Type	Manpower per Regiment	Soft Attack	Hard Attack	Defense	Breakthrough	Armor	Piercing	Hardness	Quantity of Tanks per Regiment	Production Cost per Regiment
Armored Car	500​	6​	2​	2​	12​	3​	6​	65%​	60​	240​
Light Tank	500​	13​	4​	4​	26​	10​	10​	80%​	60​	480​
Medium Tank	500​	19​	14​	5​	36​	60​	61​	90%​	50​	600​
Heavy Tank	500​	15​	12​	6​	36​	70​	35​	95%​	40​	1000​
Super Heavy Tank	500​	38​	45​	10​	74​	145​	146​	99%​	15​	1500​
Modern Tank	500​	33​	32​	10​	84​	130​	131​	98%​	50​	1400​
Amphibious Tank	500​	13​	4​	4​	26​	20​	10​	80%​	50​	500​
Light TD	500​	6​	10​	4​	1​	10​	50​	80%​	30​	240​
Medium TD	500​	5​	20​	5​	1.3​	60​	88​	90%​	24​	288​
Heavy TD	500​	6​	25​	4​	1​	70​	96​	95%​	20​	500​
Super Heavy TD	500​	12​	70​	7​	1.8​	145​	170​	99%​	7​	700​
Modern TD	500​	10​	42​	8​	2​	130​	165​	98%​	24​	672​
Light SP Artillery	500​	34​	0.5​	4​	2​	5​	4​	50%​	36​	288​
Medium SP Artillery	500​	42​	1​	5​	3​	45​	5​	65%​	36​	432​
Heavy SP Artillery	500​	55​	1​	4​	2​	45​	8​	80%​	24​	600​
Super Heavy SP Artillery	500​	85​	3​	7​	3.5​	100​	9​	90%​	12​	1200​
Modern SP Artillery	500​	80​	3​	8​	4​	90​	10​	85%​	40​	1120​
Light SP Anti-Air	500​	3​	1​	2​	2​	5​	5​	50%​	15​	150​
Medium SP Anti-Air	500​	6.75​	3​	2.5​	2.5​	45​	40​	65%​	12​	144​
Heavy SP Anti-Air	500​	6.75​	4​	2​	2​	45​	25​	80%​	8​	200​
Super Heavy SP Anti-Air	500​	17.25​	9​	3.5​	3.5​	100​	98​	90%​	4​	400​
Modern SP Anti-Air	500​	13.5​	7.5​	4​	4​	90​	100​	85%​	12​	336​

 

[Leinad965]

They were. Should be about 60% of the equivalent tank cost. Base game production costs are off, for more than just this.

Disagree, production costs in game are pretty good.

For PZ III vs StuG 3 it is 80%:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturmgeschütz_III
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panzer_III

As mentioned above me, sum price is lower for TD than for tanks.

 

[Shaka of Carthage]

Disagree, production costs in game are pretty good.

We'll just agree to disagree.

 

[markslawson]

Thanks for the response guys, especially the table. Still need to think about this..

 

[Zauberelefant]

We'll just agree to disagree.

You know, the cost ratio between a turreted tank and a tank destroyer is closer to 80% than 60%. You need all the expensive stuff for both - engine, transmission, armour, gun, electrics - minus the turret and its subsystems.
If the cost difference would have been as great as you apparently think, the soviets would have built SU85s instead of T34s...

 

[Spelaren]

Are medium tank tank destroyers and self propelled artillery worth it for minors like Greater Hungary sized Hungary, or Romania or Poland?

 

[Orlunu]

Disagree, production costs in game are pretty good.

For PZ III vs StuG 3 it is 80%:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturmgeschütz_III
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panzer_III

As mentioned above me, sum price is lower for TD than for tanks.

You know, the cost ratio between a turreted tank and a tank destroyer is closer to 80% than 60%. You need all the expensive stuff for both - engine, transmission, armour, gun, electrics - minus the turret and its subsystems.
If the cost difference would have been as great as you apparently think, the soviets would have built SU85s instead of T34s...

Well, it seems that the key here is how the comparison is being made. The StuG III was not "equivalent" to the Pz III so much as it was to the Pz IV - this being why production switched from Pz III to Pz IV. This leads to a more pronounced cost difference (say, 70% rather than 80%).

This seems to be the case in game to some degree too, going by the AT stats, and comparing the tank destroyers to tanks in this way also means that there is a more pronounced actual cost in game as there was iRL.

 

[sekelsenmat]

Well, it seems that the key here is how the comparison is being made. The StuG III was not "equivalent" to the Pz III so much as it was to the Pz IV - this being why production switched from Pz III to Pz IV. This leads to a more pronounced cost difference (say, 70% rather than 80%).

This seems to be the case in game to some degree too, going by the AT stats, and comparing the tank destroyers to tanks in this way also means that there is a more pronounced actual cost in game as there was iRL.

What do you mean it was not equivalent? From Wikipedia: ". It was built on the chassis of the proven Panzer III tank", which in hoi4 means exactly that one is a variant of the other, which explains the quick research: it uses the same chassis.

And the cost difference in Wikipedia is nearly exactly 80%

Maybe it had much more tactical value then a Panzer 3, but I don't see how this is relevant

 

[sekelsenmat]

Are medium tank tank destroyers and self propelled artillery worth it for minors like Greater Hungary sized Hungary, or Romania or Poland?

In single player I think that Tank Destroyers are useless because the AI barely builds any tanks, and anyway cannot concentrate them into spearheads. But SPG is good to mix into tank divisions to make those cheaper.

 

[Zauberelefant]

What do you mean it was not equivalent? From Wikipedia: ". It was built on the chassis of the proven Panzer III tank", which in hoi4 means exactly that one is a variant of the other, which explains the quick research: it uses the same chassis.

And the cost difference in Wikipedia is nearly exactly 80%

Maybe it had much more tactical value then a Panzer 3, but I don't see how this is relevant

He means that you should compare the stug to the Panzer 4, not 3, because of armour/gun.

 

[Eisscrat]

Jagdpanzer/Sturmgeschütze
Bring good armour for my Panzergrenadiersdivisions for low cost.

 

[Orlunu]

What do you mean it was not equivalent? From Wikipedia: ". It was built on the chassis of the proven Panzer III tank", which in hoi4 means exactly that one is a variant of the other, which explains the quick research: it uses the same chassis.

And the cost difference in Wikipedia is nearly exactly 80%

Maybe it had much more tactical value then a Panzer 3, but I don't see how this is relevant

Shaka said that it should be about 60% the unit cost of an equivalent tank - various people went over to talking about the Pz III, but I pointed out that it was more of a Pz IV equivalent in many ways, as the 75-armed later workhorses together. Yes, the StuG III was based on the Pz III chassis, but this does not mean that they were equivalent - a large part of the entire TD concept was to be able to fit armament that outclassed what the chassis could use when constructed as a tank.

This seems to be the case in game as well, with the StuG III showing AT stats more in line with the Pz IV than with the Pz III.

This being the case, the cost difference between the StuG and its closer equivalent was larger IRL and is larger in game. IRL, the StuG was about 70% the cost - in game I can't remember off the top of my head, but it is certainly cheaper.

 

[Zauberelefant]

Shaka said that it should be about 60% the unit cost of an equivalent tank - various people went over to talking about the Pz III, but I pointed out that it was more of a Pz IV equivalent in many ways, as the 75-armed later workhorses together. Yes, the StuG III was based on the Pz III chassis, but this does not mean that they were equivalent - a large part of the entire TD concept was to be able to fit armament that outclassed what the chassis could use when constructed as a tank.

This seems to be the case in game as well, with the StuG III showing AT stats more in line with the Pz IV than with the Pz III.

This being the case, the cost difference between the StuG and its closer equivalent was larger IRL and is larger in game. IRL, the StuG was about 70% the cost - in game I can't remember off the top of my head, but it is certainly cheaper.

The chassis of the StuG III is equivalent to Panzer III. The Panzer IV had a StuG IV/JgPz IV equivalent, with even heavier armament and thick, sloped armour.

So, I think there is only one way to read "equivalent tank" here, related to the chassis, that is. The StuG III is both stronger than a Panzer III and weaker, as it lacks the flexibility of the tank but has heavier gun and armour.

 

[noobermenschen]

Nothing substitutes tanks, since nothing gives in the amount necessary one key stat: Breakthrough.

But you can mix, like 4 light tanks, 2 light spg, 3 mot .... this should be a cheap tank division for minors. Later in the war double it to reach 40width.

I both agree and disagree: I almost always go with tanks as the breakthrough is incredibly valuable, but I would keep mediums and lights in separate divisions - Your mediums will slow down everyone else and your lights will dilute the hardness and armour value of the mediums.

If I am recycling old or captured tanks I turn them into SPART and if I need piercing will add motorized or support AT.

 

[Spelaren]

How does one use the stug like the germans did IRL? Put it in infantry divisions for a kind of space marine esque division?

 

[Eisscrat]

I made it some times ago put 2 medium TDs in every infantrydivision for barbarossa. It is very expendive but give normal infantrydivision a good amount of armor to get the armorbonus against normal infantry and piercing against tanks so they do well.

But now i build more tank and pzgren divisions with the ic so you can launch mire fast operations all over the front. The normal infantrydivisions only hold the lines.

But for roleplay its fun.

Also you will suffer huge amount of attrition cause of the single battalion attrition mechanic.