Technology...Some Thoughts

[piratefish]

I just wanted to put a few thoughts I have been having about the technology and research system out for consideration. Not really asking for a change, but hope to spark some thought or conversation.

While I think the current system of research and technology advancement is okay, I still think there is a better and more realistic way of approaching the whole matter.

In the real world, research often depends upon several factors:

1) Funding (you won't get anything done without grants or profits)
2) Collaboration (rarely is a technology advancement ever the product of a single
effort or entity)
3) Talent (including persistence and a fair amount of luck - as Thomas Edison once
quipped "Genius is 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration).
4) Previous technology advancements (standing on the shoulders of giants)

What these four main components suggest (at least to me) is the possibility of a more realistic approach to research and technology within the framework of the game. Three of the four elements have been captured fairly well; funding, talent, and the tech tree (building upon previous technology), but the fourth (number 2 on my list) seems to be almost non-existent except in the player's imagination.

For instance, if Porsche is researching Medium Tank technology, does one assume that Porsche actually consists of an entire team of individuals collaborating on the project? And if so, why perform the work in stages? Not all projects, or parts of projects, are dependent on the completion of other parts and may be accomplished independently - or at least in parallel with - the other components of research.

What I am saying is, instaed of assigning one "tech team" to a technology that consists of 5 separate, encapsulated phases executed in consecutive order, why not take a more "real world" approach?

The player can decide which technologies to research and apply funding for the various projects. Then, based on the number of research projects designated and the available funds, the player can select a number of "contractors" (aka tech teams) to work in collaboration on the various components of research. In this manner, it would be possible to have 2, 3, 4, or even 5+ teams working on the development of a single technology, each contributing in the area(s) it is best suited according to expertise and talent.

Tech slots would now be for the technologies being researched rather than for the single team doing the research project. For instance, if one decides to research a naval technology, they would simply select the desired tech from the tree, assign a funding amount, and then based upon the amount of funds earmarked for the project, would then select one or more contractors to work toward developing the technology. Each tech team/contractor would have something akin to the "stacking" penalty whereby each additional, simultaneous project over one in which it participates would lower its skill efficacy incrementally. Additionally, there would be something akin to the "command limit" concept that would limit the number of concurrent research projects in which a given team can participate - which would vary from team to team to simulate the unique size and resources of each contractor/team.

For me, this would be a much more realistic way of approaching the whole research/technology development issue. Instead of the oversimplified approach of selecting a technology, assigning a team, and then paying them a certain amout for a certain period of time while they piecemeal the work (not to mention working on component projects where the team has absolutely no expertise) in consecutive order, one could select the desired technologies to research (as many as funding and the number of available teams/contractors and resources permit), contract out to the desired/available teams, pay them their going rates, and let them work collaboartively and concurrently on a project.

This idea would introduce real world elements like the theory of constraints (the weakest link slowing the project down), the need for better planning and scheduling, better resource management, etc,

I personally think a more complex and realistic system similar to this would be more exciting and add a level of richness to game play. The tought of being able to assign some of the better teams to multiple, simultaneous projects (obviously with some sort of mechanism in place to simulate diminishing returns for each additional project above one in which the team is participating), makes the strategic muscles in my brain go giddy with delight.

Just some thoughts, and far from well thought out, but I only hope to spark more thinking in the forums along this line. And maybe generate a discussion or two.

Happy gaming to all!

 

[Klausewitz]

I would say the 'collaboration' part is capture by almost every tech making your tech modifier go up, meaning that the more experience with technology has been acheive the more synergy effects you get.

What you advocate is both to complicated for my liking and also not as 'realistic' as you like.
As for the question:
No, Porsche does not do it alone. Neither das Zuse or Braun. They are figureheads for whole departments or companies (okay, maybe not Zuse, but you get the idea).

 

[piratefish]

Look at any research project in the real world. They are ALL collaborations for anything of significance. (And I am not talking about the development of new products for an individual company, I am talking about new technologies).

Governments simply do not contract out research and development to companies with no expertise in a given area, which is often the case when selecting individual tech teams to do research in the game.

Take for instance aircraft carrier technology. Or hell, for that matter just about any single technology represented in the game, and name a single company that would be capable of researching, developing, and implementing the technology. There is a far cry between designing and researching everyhting that goes into say, an aircraft carrier and actually building one in a shipyard.

I am just saying that for me, the tech development is a bit oversimplified. I suspect that this may also be true for may engineers and research scientists who also play this game.

 

[Klausewitz]

Look at any research project in the real world. They are ALL collaborations for anything of significance. (And I am not talking about the development of new products for an individual company, I am talking about new technologies).

Governments simply do not contract out research and development to companies with no expertise in a given area, which is often the case when selecting individual tech teams to do research in the game.

Take for instance aircraft carrier technology. Or hell, for that matter just about any single technology represented in the game, and name a single company that would be capable of researching, developing, and implementing the technology. There is a far cry between designing and researching everyhting that goes into say, an aircraft carrier and actually building one in a shipyard.

I am just saying that for me, the tech development is a bit oversimplified. I suspect that this may also be true for may engineers and research scientists who also play this game.

Technology needs to be simplified.
Because as 'Real' you cannot control it. You do not know how long it takes. If it comes to anything, etc.
For that matter German tanks SHOULD be better than anything else, not just because they are Level 3 or 4 but because almost ALL german tanks were better works of engineering than comparable models. Same goes for Infantry weapons, etc.
Unsimplified technology does not allow a game such as HoI.

 

[azedalis]

My problem with Tech research is this...when I get a minor into an Alliance they are so far behind the learning curve that why bother with them? I am not saying that a minor should get their tech upted to that of a major power but having a minor having 1936 infantry model even after a year being with the alliance when the majors have 1941 or so is a bit ridiculous...and then when you add in the fact that the minors will not have usually the theory techs also, it makes them so back-water that they are basically useless. I think that minors should gain techs quickly to be about 1 - 2 tech levels in most areas behind the majors. Maybe not at once but mabe if the tech is 2 or more tech levels behind any other alliance member, then the skill level is doubled for the research team and a blueprint is consider already recieved so that the tech is researched four times quicker or something like that. Minors have normally 1-2 tech slots compared to a majors 5 maximum amd nromally have tech teams will skill ratings 2-5 instead of 6 - 10 with the Majors and the Major Powers normally have alot more tech teams with alot more variety of specialties. So a major normally researchs a tech alot faster. There should be little the minor nation needs to actually research to get that technology, a major power would be giving away its outdated weapons anyways to a minor most likely and translating a document is far easier then crsating a brand new one.

 

[piratefish]

I partially agree. Afterall, the Hungarians, Romanians, and Bulgarians remained noticeably subpar to their German counterparts throughout the war.

Also, just because a nation is an ally does not necessarily mean that the "major" will readily share all of its technology with the minors. This has been the case time and again throughout real life history. Nations carefully and selectivley share advancements in warfare technology, even with their closest allies.

However, I do agree that the minors should receive an added bonus to research above and beyond the regular blueprint bonus received when gaining a technology from the faction leader. (But only for those technologies that the faction leader chooses to share via the current method of technology swapping).

I think, overall, this is still pretty realistic.

Also, Klausewitz, I agree with your point about needing to keep the technology aspect of the game fairly simplified. However, it is difficult for me not to fantasize a little as I play and wish for something more.

Happy gaming to all!

 

[unmerged(207446)]

Romanian, Hungary and Bulgaria are one thing, but what about Canada, Australia or Finland? Do they deserve to be penalized because of their smaller industrial bases?

 

[azedalis]

Romanian, Hungary and Bulgaria are one thing, but what about Canada, Australia or Finland? Do they deserve to be penalized because of their smaller industrial bases?

Atleast Canada, Australia and the rest of the Allies minors can get blueprints early because they are Allied at the start of the game, so yes they will be behind, but not as much as say Romania, Hungary and Bulgaria who don't join a faction til 1939-1940 historically, Thats a 6-7 year advantage with having blueprints.

I don't think the bonus I talked about should include doctrines, secret weapons, and certain techs like rocket and jet technologies. But atleast should be like Infantry level and such atleast. Maybe this bonus can be increased or decreased with the amount of differences in diplomatic settings of the two countries or/and maybe the supplying countries Industrial output modifying a setting set on the production page under expenses. Plus if playing MP you have more Major Allies who can share and work on different techs so that the minors can have more blueprints.

 

[unmerged(55787)]

Technology needs to be simplified.
Because as 'Real' you cannot control it. You do not know how long it takes. If it comes to anything, etc.

For that matter German tanks SHOULD be better than anything else, not just because they are Level 3 or 4 but because almost ALL german tanks were better works of engineering than comparable models.

In what respect? They certainly weren't more reliable. In my book, reliability is a key aspect of engineering. It's not how many awesome TanksODoom you have in the repair sheds that count, it's how many tanks you have on the battlefield. The T-34 and Sherman were far superior in terms of reliability.

The PzIII wasn't superior to the T-34, or the Sherman. The PzIV had to be uparmoured and upgunned in order to compete with its opponents and it was outmatched in Africa and on the Eastern Front (and the Western Front in '44/'45). The Panther was, of course, based on the T-34, which indicates that the Germans learned from the 'better works of engineering' their Russian opponents produced.

Same goes for Infantry weapons, etc.

Was the K98 'better' than the Enfield or Garand? How? MG42 better than the Vickers? The Vickers was used as artillery. Better than the Maxim? The Maxim didn't break down in the cold or snow or mud. Was the German 81mm mortar better than the 2" or 3" mortars? If so, how?

 

[unmerged(55787)]

Atleast Canada, Australia and the rest of the Allies minors can get blueprints early because they are Allied at the start of the game, so yes they will be behind, but not as much as say Romania, Hungary and Bulgaria who don't join a faction til 1939-1940 historically, Thats a 6-7 year advantage with having blueprints.

The allied minors don't get blueprints early. They aren't allied at the start and because they're not puppets you can't trade tech with them. The only people that you can do that with are France, Iraq, Nepal, Egypt and India.

 

[azedalis]

Actually wasn't atleast in the early war, wasn't french armor actually better then Germans. It was how the germans used the tank that made them better...not how they were made. An the only thing I know about germans is that the used the 88mm AA gun and used it as a AT gun with great success.

 

[piratefish]

In what respect? They certainly weren't more reliable. In my book, reliability is a key aspect of engineering. It's not how many awesome TanksODoom you have in the repair sheds that count, it's how many tanks you have on the battlefield. The T-34 and Sherman were far superior in terms of reliability.

The PzIII wasn't superior to the T-34, or the Sherman. The PzIV had to be uparmoured and upgunned in order to compete with its opponents and it was outmatched in Africa and on the Eastern Front (and the Western Front in '44/'45). The Panther was, of course, based on the T-34, which indicates that the Germans learned from the 'better works of engineering' their Russian opponents produced.

Really? The Soviets had better engineering? Since when? The only reliability "flaw" of any significance for German armor was they were poorly adapted for the Russian winter, weren't as maneuverable (much heavier and more heavily armored - at least the Tigers and Panthers), and were more difficult to operate than their Soviet counterparts. In a one on one battle, a Tiger or Panther would destroy a T-34 almost every time.

What the Soviets had was an advantage in production; they far outproduced the Germans with their T-34's (which, by the way, was one of the best overall tanks of the war).

I'm not so sure the Panther was based on the T-34 so much as it was designed as an answer to the T-34 problem; being outmaneuvered on the field. The Tiger was too big and clumsy and consumed way too much fuel (not to mention it was too slow and too heavy), so the T-34's would gang up on it, outflank it, and BAM! take it out. The Panther was meant to be something of a solution to this problem by giving more mobility on the battlefield. It was no more based on the T-34 than penicilin was based on infection.

 

[unmerged(55787)]

Really? The Soviets had better engineering? Since when? The only reliability "flaw" of any significance for German armor was they were poorly adapted for the Russian winter, weren't as maneuverable (much heavier and more heavily armored - at least the Tigers and Panthers), and were more difficult to operate than their Soviet counterparts.

Being poorly adapted for the environment they are in is a reliability flaw. It wasn't just the winter. Their dust filters became clogged in the summers. Their tracks were too narrow to handle the autumn mud. If a machine is not fit for its environment it is badly engineered. The T-34 was superbly adapted for its environment, therefore it was better engineered. There's no point in having an amazing vehicle that won't work in the place you want to use it.

In a one on one battle, a Tiger or Panther would destroy a T-34 almost every time.

A Tiger is not a competitor to a T-34. A Tiger's a heavy tank, a T-34 a medium tank. Panther and T-34/85 were pretty evenly matched by late 1944/early 1945. Before this date poor quality Soviet ammo meant that even if the Russian tanks could score a hit the shell often shattered. Of course, by late '44 the Panther had quite serious armour quality problems.

I'm not so sure the Panther was based on the T-34 so much as it was designed as an answer to the T-34 problem; being outmaneuvered on the field. The Tiger was too big and clumsy and consumed way too much fuel (not to mention it was too slow and too heavy), so the T-34's would gang up on it, outflank it, and BAM! take it out. The Panther was meant to be something of a solution to this problem by giving more mobility on the battlefield. It was no more based on the T-34 than penicilin was based on infection.

The Panther was based on the T-34. The sloped front armour, the large wheels, the wide tracks, were all elements of the T-34 that were copied by the Germans.

In November 1941 two companies, Daimler-Benz and MAN, were ordered to develop the tank which later became the Panther. Both MAN's and Daimler-Benz's version of the Panther, VK3002(DB), had the large wheels, wide tracks, and sloped front armour of the T-34. The Daimler-Benz version even had the turret forward on the hull in exactly the same way as the T-34. Here's a link:
http://www.achtungpanzer.com/panzerkampfwagen-v-panther-sd-kfz-171.htm

The Panther's heritage is undeniable. If you can get a copy, track down Chamberlain and Doyle's "Encylopedia of German Tanks of WW2" which has some good pictures of the wooden mockups.

 

[piratefish]

I suppose, like anything else, if certain modifications prove to be better, then eventually everything will follow suit.

Kind of like when they started designing more aerodynamic cars. Everyone abandoned the boxy style in favor of a more sleek design to improve mileage and speed.

If the T-34 had greater slope to its armor first (which the Soviets definitely did not invent sloped armor), it was because the Germans were lagging. In that era tanks and armored technology were still relatively new (less than 3 decades old...really even newer than that in terms of what we really think of tanks as being today). Advancements were being made quickly, and like anything else that is engineered, the production line lags behind the drawing board for sometimes many years (although wars tend to speed up the implementation curve). I'm not sure that the German engineers designing their armor before Barbrossa had the Soviet environment in mind, either. And if they did, they could not know like the Soviets did, how best to design a tank for that environment.

Just because something comes before something else does not mean there is causality. One of the more common logical fallacies is post hoc, ergo proctor hoc.

Believe me, if the Germans implemented something after the Soviets, it is highly unlikely that it was copied from one of the Soviet's unique and original ideas. The Germans have always been frontrunners of engineering.

You are correct that the real advantage of the T-34 was its durability and the fact that it was well suited to its environment. But so were the German tanks. They were designed for their environment (western Europe), and were really out of their element in the steppes of the Soviet union and the deserts of north Africa. They had very little difficulty in Europe.

My car performs very well on paved streets, but if I were to take it off road and try to go up against a 4x4 designed for all terrain, it would not do so well. But put that 4x4 on an open stretch of paved highway with me and I would blow its doors off.

Also, one of the things that German tanks were famous for were their thick armor. The heavier German tanks were more than a match for any other tank on the WW 2 battle field in terms of firepower and hardness (except for toward the end of the war as you pointed out - and then only because of rapidly dwindling resources and the need for quicker production times just to try to match a fraction of the Allied output). It was not only the Soviets that had a tough time with the German armor, it was the Brits and Yanks, too.

One of the most common tactics of the US in Europe was to use 3 or 4 of their tanks to take out a Panther or Tiger. One tank would make a run in front of the Panther as decoy, while the other 2 or 3 would circle and flank. Hitting the Panther (or especially the Tiger) head on was rarely successful, It was the flanking tanks that would hit the sides or rear of the Panther/Tiger to cripple it. Usually the decoy tank was fast enough and agile enough to avoid getting hit by the Panther/Tiger, but about 25 to 35% of the time, it would get blown to bits...a real bummer if you were part of the tank crew that pulled that particular duty.

Worked for the Americans because they could afford the losses...Germany couldn't.

I also would like to add that the modern Leopard MBT of Germany is arguably one of the 2, perhaps 3 best tanks on the planet today. The Russians are still using (more or less) the T-34 with a few adjustments and a couple of more bells and whistles. We (Americans) used to be terrified of Soviet armor (Kursk really gave them their reputation) until we tore them to shreds during the first gulf war.

And a Tiger or Panther was a competitor of the T-34; they met on the battle field often and usually came out on top against the Soviet tanks except when badly outnumbered or out of supply (their true Achilles Heal). This is true in the same sense that a Chevy Lumina is not a competitor with the McLaren F1 until it tries to pass one on the highway that does not want to be passed.

However, I do see where you are coming from. I'm just convinced that the reputation the T-34 enjoys is more hype than bite. Their success at Kursk really helped cement their reputation, but they had overwhelming numbers, surprise, mobility, and a more advantageous situation on their side. Give me a Tiger or a Panther over a T-34 for one on one anyday (and, yes, I am aware I am susceptible to the apples and oranges argument here).

 

[unmerged(227777)]

Really, it has to be remembered that the T-34 was an *early-war* tank. It was first produced in 1940, and the design 'frozen' after Barbarossa began (meaning no design changes other than ones to increase production speed were allowed.) There were upgrades later, but only in late 1943 and 1944, with modifying gun type, etc. and not that substantial at all. In game terms, the Soviets went for 'increase production speed' rather than 'increase quality'. And besides, producing tanks and upgrading them is quite cheaper than it should be in-game. It's not fair to compare a Tiger to a T-34 one-to-one, when the former was first produced 3 years after the latter - and yes, there were more T-34s, but that was because the Soviets specifically went for increasing production speed rather than improving the design, which turned out to be the right choice in hindsight. The fair comparison is say, a T-34 to a Panzer IV, which were created around the same year. And in that, the only reason the Germans came out ahead were the poor leadership and individual tactics (also involving technical reasons such as lack of radios causing communication problems) for the Soviets. Indeed, the Panther was designed specifically to counter the T-34 (and there is considerable literature and sources on the similarity of its design to the T-34, whether you wish to believe it or not.) I should also point out that the German tank design had the flimsiest armor of all the main nations at the start of the war (after all, the Panzer II was intended as a training vehicle) - the French tanks were considerably superior in quality and number, inferior only in tactics, strategy, and speed. The T-34 was by far the most effective tank during the early war (there are numerous Barbarossa anecdotes of German officers/soldiers horrified to see their shells simply 'bouncing off', and the Germans had to immediately do an emergency gun upgrade to counteract this.)

Regarding your Gulf War example, this is tangential but it must be kept in mind that all exported Soviet military equipment was considerably downgraded in materials and technical performance (the military term for this is 'monkey model', I believe.) This is for many reasons - it was much much cheaper to produce, it kept the West in the dark as to their true military capabilities, and as practice for quickly constructing massive quantities of lower-quality replacement munitions (keeping with the simple fact that in a war of attrition, quantity is generally more important than quality. Arthur Clarke has a great short story on this - Superiority, it's called.)

 

[piratefish]

Never said there wasn't a similarity in design between the two tanks. But there is also a similarity in design between a KIA and a Porsche.

All nations availed themselves of a rapidly developing technology. The reason the Germans started off so behind the game is because the Treaty of Versailles strictly limited them on armor production. Up until just a few years before the war they were still forced to train with dummy tanks; little more than casements set on wheels.

The Germans knew they were behind, and knew that they had inferior armor in 1940. That's no secret. Hitler was well aware of this and ordered (unrealisticly so) the creation of new tank divisions and new tank designs to modernize the German army and get up to speed witht he armor of other nations.

However, this cannot happen overnight, or even in three years. There was simply too much catching up to do. And yes, they were forced into "countering" enemy technology. That's what warfare is all about (unless you don't care about winning). It is no surprise (nor should it be) that the German armor was subpar to the Soviet armor at the launch of Barbarossa. They were only more than two decades behind. But the progress made from the battlefield experiences and the redesign of their armor in response to what they encountered is far superior to anything the Soviets could ever have hoped to accomplish.

If the shoe were on the other foot, and it were the Soviets who started out that far behind, they never would have been able to pull off what the Germans had. History is rife with examples of the Soviets plundering German technology after advancing into Germany at the end of the war and after the war. They gleaned more than a few improvements from the Germans.

What it boils down to is that by the end of the war, the Germans had come from a 20 plus year deficit to surpass any one tank design the Soviets had in their arsenal. Compare the T-34 to earlier German armor all you want. Yes they were inferior, but it's no wonder when you remember what had been done to the German military after WW I. But compare the T-34 to the WW 2 pinnacle of German armored engineering, and the T-34 comes up short everytime.

And as for the "tangential Gulf War", we went up against T-55s. True they were 20 years behind our M1A1s, but I have also seen, first hand, the T-80 (the Russians sell very real, very genuine T-80s to the Indians and even the Saudis - the same ones they use in their own army). And believe me, they're not as good as an Adrams M1A1; and they certainly aren't standard-setters. Just because the Germans had to race the first three years of the war to play catch up (and catch up they did - as well as pass), does not mean the Soviets are better tank makers.

Anyhow, give me an Abrams M1A2 over a T-90 any day. Or a Tiger II over anything the Soviets had in WW 2. They may have started from behind, but by the end the Germans clearly had better tank models...just not enough of them.

 

[unmerged(55787)]

I suppose, like anything else, if certain modifications prove to be better, then eventually everything will follow suit.

Kind of like when they started designing more aerodynamic cars. Everyone abandoned the boxy style in favor of a more sleek design to improve mileage and speed.

If the T-34 had greater slope to its armor first (which the Soviets definitely did not invent sloped armor), it was because the Germans were lagging.

The first German tank to slope its armour was the Panther. The PzII didn't slope it. Nor did the Pz III, or the Pz IV. Or the Tiger. The first German tank to slope its armour was the one which was designed after the Germans encountered the T-34.

In that era tanks and armored technology were still relatively new (less than 3 decades old...really even newer than that in terms of what we really think of tanks as being today). Advancements were being made quickly, and like anything else that is engineered, the production line lags behind the drawing board for sometimes many years (although wars tend to speed up the implementation curve). I'm not sure that the German engineers designing their armor before Barbrossa had the Soviet environment in mind, either. And if they did, they could not know like the Soviets did, how best to design a tank for that environment.

Just because something comes before something else does not mean there is causality. One of the more common logical fallacies is post hoc, ergo proctor hoc.

Yet Heinz Guderian, one of the developers of the Blitzkrieg doctrine, specifically says in his post-war interviews with Basil Liddell-Hart that the Panther was designed specifically after encountering the T-34 in late 1941. Guderian's run-in with the T34s of 4th Tank Brigade convinced him of the superiority of the design. And if you looked at the link that I posted earlier you can clearly see that the Daimler-Benz Panther design shares exactly the same profile as the T-34. I wonder how anyone can deny its heritage.

Believe me, if the Germans implemented something after the Soviets, it is highly unlikely that it was copied from one of the Soviet's unique and original ideas. The Germans have always been frontrunners of engineering.

That'll be why the German tank turrets were rolled steel while the Russian ones were cast? Come on. Russian steel technology was significantly in advance of German. The Germans never got round to casting their turrets in a single piece. Even the cast Panther turret mantlet was notoriously failure-prone. While the Tiger used large wheels and wider tracks, the sloped armour (which is more resistant to AP rounds) was something that the Russians did first (and the French with their S-35).

You are correct that the real advantage of the T-34 was its durability and the fact that it was well suited to its environment. But so were the German tanks. They were designed for their environment (western Europe), and were really out of their element in the steppes of the Soviet union and the deserts of north Africa. They had very little difficulty in Europe.

They had a rotten time in the snows and muds in Italy. Kesselring complained bitterly about his losses to mud in 1943/1944. But the T34s had no problem on the good roads in Europe while the Panzers struggled in Russia. A failure of design - an engineering failure - is evident IMO.

Also, one of the things that German tanks were famous for were their thick armor.

Only the Tiger and King Tiger were famous for thick armour. The PzIII and PzIV had to repeatedly have their armour upgraded because they were so vulnerable to enemy weapons.

The heavier German tanks were more than a match for any other tank on the WW 2 battle field in terms of firepower and hardness (except for toward the end of the war as you pointed out - and then only because of rapidly dwindling resources and the need for quicker production times just to try to match a fraction of the Allied output). It was not only the Soviets that had a tough time with the German armor, it was the Brits and Yanks, too.

I'm not saying that German tanks weren't good. I just don't think that they deserve their wunderwaffen reputation. It was tank doctrine that got the Axis their early victories, not the tanks themselves. The

 

[piratefish]

If I am understanding some of these posts correctly, it sounds as though what is being said is that 1) the Soviet armor was superior to German armor, and that 2) to a large extent, the Germans copied the Soviets.

On the first point, there will always be debate as long as there are people. But I think in the end, if you put the best German tank against the best Soviet tank of WW 2 in one on one combat, the majority of the time (all else being equal) the German tank would win. (I'll llet others argue over which design was the best design for each side).

On the second point, post hoc ergo proctor hoc is a very common logical fallacy. Just because something follows another does not imply causality, despite what Mr. Guederian said in his interviews. Let's follow that line of reasoning to it's terminal.

The Soviets most certainly were not the first to use sloped armor. Thay also did not invent the tank (our modern idea or otherwise). Therefore, everything they did, to a large extent, was copied from a forerunner. Which is how it works most of the time. (Every new car on the drawing board is still mostly borrowing from the very first automobile ever designed - each generation simply improves on form and function). I believe what the Germans did is called "adapting" to their enemy. If he has a better tank, produce one of your own to counter it. And chances are, it will have many design similarities (because it is following suit of the current cutting-edge technology). Just because a nation implements the newest and best technology first does not mean all nations after it are copying. IMO, I think a distinction should be made between mounting a response to a battlefield experience and simply copycatting the enemy.

If you were to design a tank to fight the best armored units of today, I would be willing to bet everything I will make in my lifetime that it will share more than a few noticeable similarities to the M1A2 Abrams or the German Leopard 2 (maybe, just maybe also the Brittish Challenger II). To do better, one would truly need to totally revolutionize tank design and production - a task that would have taken Germany far too long when it needed something yesterday to counter a more advanced tank. What would you do in the short term?

As a side note, I think it bears mentioning that the modern Russian tanks would barely make the top 12 list of MBTs in the world today. Their T-90 is nothing special and it would be tough to argue how it would fare much better than the Polish PT-91 or the Chinese Type 99.

I think for the era and time in which Germany found itself (given its unique set of circumstances leading up to the War), it ended up producing some of the best armor. Every nation was constantly evolving from necessity...some just had a longer start (hell, almost all of them did compared to Germany...they were all but castrated by the Treaty of Versailles).

And to say that Germany's tanks were not known for the toughness of their armor based upon the Tigers and Panthers would be tantamount to judging the strength of a powerlifter when he was 12 rather than at his pinnacle. Nations, teams, companies, people (you name it) always are famous for their successes, which is why you never hear about Heinz 56 (or 55, or 54, or 53....)

 

[unmerged(55787)]

If I am understanding some of these posts correctly, it sounds as though what is being said is that 1) the Soviet armor was superior to German armor, and that 2) to a large extent, the Germans copied the Soviets.

On the first point, there will always be debate as long as there are people. But I think in the end, if you put the best German tank against the best Soviet tank of WW 2 in one on one combat, the majority of the time (all else being equal) the German tank would win. (I'll llet others argue over which design was the best design for each side).

No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that that German armour was not better because it was German. I'm saying that it was doctrine and training that delivered their successes. And I'm saying that the tanks that were designed after the Germans started facing the Russians adopted aspects of Russian design because they were recognisably superior.

On the second point, post hoc ergo proctor hoc is a very common logical fallacy. Just because something follows another does not imply causality, despite what Mr. Guederian said in his interviews.

Yes, you keep writing that. It's irrelevant because on this occasion there is clearly causality. You can see it in the Daimler-Benz prototype which looks identical to the T-34. You can see it in the profile of the Panther. You can read about what the man who was on the front line facing the T-34s said.

Let's follow that line of reasoning to it's terminal.

The Soviets most certainly were not the first to use sloped armor. Thay also did not invent the tank (our modern idea or otherwise). Therefore, everything they did, to a large extent, was copied from a forerunner. Which is how it works most of the time. (Every new car on the drawing board is still mostly borrowing from the very first automobile ever designed - each generation simply improves on form and function).

Then could you show me which tank the Soviets copied for their T-34 design?

I believe what the Germans did is called "adapting" to their enemy. If he has a better tank, produce one of your own to counter it. And chances are, it will have many design similarities (because it is following suit of the current cutting-edge technology). Just because a nation implements the newest and best technology first does not mean all nations after it are copying. IMO, I think a distinction should be made between mounting a response to a battlefield experience and simply copycatting the enemy.

There's nothing wrong with 'simply copycatting' the enemy. You seem to be working overtime in order to avoid crediting the Soviets with any advances at all and I have to wonder why that would be.

I think for the era and time in which Germany found itself (given its unique set of circumstances leading up to the War), it ended up producing some of the best armor. Every nation was constantly evolving from necessity...some just had a longer start (hell, almost all of them did compared to Germany...they were all but castrated by the Treaty of Versailles).

And I think that while some of their tanks were good (such as the Panther) others were technological dead-ends (the Tiger) and that there's a mythology around German equipment that makes it extremely hard to do any critical analysis because it always runs in to the 'German tanks were the best, because they were' line of thinking which we have here.

And to say that Germany's tanks were not known for the toughness of their armor based upon the Tigers and Panthers would be tantamount to judging the strength of a powerlifter when he was 12 rather than at his pinnacle. Nations, teams, companies, people (you name it) always are famous for their successes, which is why you never hear about Heinz 56 (or 55, or 54, or 53....)

You were quite specific when you said that German tanks were recognised for their 'thick armour'. I've pointed out that this isn't the case. Early-war, Matildas and Somuas and KVs are better armoured. Late-war, JS2s are better armoured.

 

[slategrey252]

German Armour (Armour as in a group of armoured vehicles, not a slab of metal) was good. Why? Several factors.

As Soddball said, Heinz Guderian really was ahead of his time in his approach to manoeuver warfare. His book "Achtung Panzer" is still used as reference material for tank warfare.
German equipment was designed for manouever warfare, whereas most Western countries at the time were designing tanks for the Infantry support role.

Though German equipment generally improved during the war, it started to become less and less effective as the war went along and the Allies started to adapt thier doctrinal approach to counteract German tactics. War is Darwinian. Adapt and overcome or die. Beat someones head against a brickwall long enough they get the point.

Oh and lets be clear about this, Britain invented the tank, we even coined the name tank. (Australian Lancelot Eldin De Mole tried to claim responsibility but the case was dismissed) We were a bit lax during the period between the wars about developing said tank, but yes sirree tank? yup British.