WesWorld

I'm trying to remember what was published in Hammer 36. I didn't particularly recall much about requiring larger tank guns - all I remember is the Type 96 tanks reaming everything they faced, which implied to me they were the standard to beat.

Personally, with what I'm hearing from this thread, I think the TT-37 needs to be bigger... not smaller.

Quoted

Originally posted by thesmilingassassin

Quoted

Originally posted by perdedor99

Quoted

Originally posted by thesmilingassassin
Which is why I'm still trying to come up with a realistic design for the TT-37. Wesworld is already advanced abit too far with tanks so its difficult to guage whats realistic anymore.

And the TT-37 is basically a 1942-43 tank in 1938. Around five years too early but I agree that if one nation did it already is only fair for you and every one else to do it. As long as no 1970's tanks began to make an apperance.

Its no such thing, we're still debating its final design OOC but IC China already has called for a 75mm/L50 gun and from what I can see of India's encyclopedia it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out where things will head at the current rate.

I might as well mount my own 75mm AA gun on the AT-37 now....

I wait till 1939 just to keep it in a five year plan but I have no beef with it. I didn't open the genie bottle and neither did you.

Quoted

Originally posted by perdedor99
The pieces are around. Just need to piece them together.

I beleive we recently had a spirited discussion about how 'the peices are around' for many things...like Atomic Science!™, guided torpedoes, etc.

As far as I'm concerned, for any introduction of technology (or combination thereof) earlier than historical requires a compelling storyline behind it detailing the reason for the deviation from historical; This I have done with all advances in technology employed by Canada; lengthy storylines with compelling foundation for development, including the development of automation assisted gun technology, the adoption of Radar technology, and it's aeronautics industry (both it's existance and it's particular flavor). A main reason why Canada isn't designing and producing it's own tanks or other land combat vehicles is because I have trouble finding compelling, valid reasons for Canada to be doing so; Canada's only land border is the US, and that's not a fight being planned for. Any conceivable conflict involving Canada will involve overseas deployment which precludes investigation of anything too heavy or otherwise difficult to transport.

Slapping a bigger gun on a tank "because it is possible" is not overly compelling, and rather than seeing the Land and Air design forums flooded with a deluge of side-views and specifications, I'd like to start seeing some expositionary history, development, and rationale for all these diverse and advanced concepts, especially when coming from areas of the world that would strike a casual reader as 'not in that business' historically.

[/end rant]

Quoted

Originally posted by Brockpaine
I'm trying to remember what was published in Hammer 36. I didn't particularly recall much about requiring larger tank guns - all I remember is the Type 96 tanks reaming everything they faced, which implied to me they were the standard to beat.

Personally, with what I'm hearing from this thread, I think the TT-37 needs to be bigger... not smaller.

If it gets bigger it gets slower, always a trade off. Just not start building tanks before every one got the info out. It seems to me that everyone is taking my actions as reaction to this. Is not. My response is to the Hammer 36; were FIRST person review of the capabilities of a vehicle, therefore the decision was made to make a change. I waited for three SIM to make the move due to no military force make an upgrade in equipment from a week to another. My beef is not the tanks, is the fast time everyone comes up with a response. If your spy tell you we are building 88 tons Maus tanks, will you go and built them?

Quoted

Originally posted by perdedor99
My beef is not the tanks, is the fast time everyone comes up with a response.

In fairness, I'm not really concerned about you, perdedor. You've posted a lot of stuff way far in advance to say "this is what I will build" - heh, you've got 1939 and 1940s ships in your dictionary. Hrolf generally shares his development plans. I didn't see anything much on tanks, but that's hardly unusual. I actually gave Hrolf that bet because I was thinking of other people.

Quoted

Originally posted by Brockpaine

Quoted

Originally posted by perdedor99
My beef is not the tanks, is the fast time everyone comes up with a response.

In fairness, I'm not really concerned about you, perdedor. You've posted a lot of stuff way far in advance to say "this is what I will build" - heh, you've got 1939 and 1940s ships in your dictionary. I didn't see anything much on tanks, but that's hardly unusual.

I actually gave Hrolf that bet because I was thinking of other people.

I just should have kept my mouth shut. Is that I don't mind some of the vehicles moving faster than historical; is the responses that make the new vehicles obsolete in a year. I guess being in the military full time cause that, even when I'm a pencil-pusher now .

I try to be realistic as possible in regard to the reasons for doing something. My reasons are that during a multinational exercise we found out our tank is not what we expected. It took close to three years to put a new vehicle on the field and I was basing my numbers in what I wanted, not the other nations tanks; expect perhaps the Japanese and Gothia tanks.

Quoted

If your spy tell you we are building 88 tons Maus tanks, will you go and built them?

No, unlikely to be true. Anything over 45-50 tons and you're going to see lots of bridges collapse. Plus the transmission tech to make such a thing work. Worse case we're just going to have to get better concentrating artillery fires, with dive bombers, and blowing treads off.

Quoted

Originally posted by perdedor99
I just should have kept my mouth shut. Is that I don't mind some of the vehicles moving faster than historical; is the responses that make the new vehicles obsolete in a year.

Considering it's not wartime, and these things aren't getting tested extensively, the responses are pretty quick and emphasis what we know are the "good parts".

Consider this- The Legionnaire II was a pretty tough and useful cookie in South America, which *just* happened. Yet instead of trying to clone the thing that worked, we're leapfrogging it to build extremely expensive tanks.

Fun to consider one of these long barreled tanks trying to fight in a wooded or urban area. One might draw different lessons then.

Quoted

I'd like to start seeing some expositionary history, development, and rationale for all these diverse and advanced concepts, especially when coming from areas of the world that would strike a casual reader as 'not in that business' historically.

I try, I probably fail some, and I don't go hugely in depth. Well except those couple Defense reviews I've done which tried to establish the roles perceived.

I do foreshadow a fair amount of what I do. Both in deed- the various experimental dutch ships, and in text. The groundwork for the LT-35A and it's 45mm gun were laid 3-4 years before I rolled them out. Once built, I put out design orders for the next generation of tank chassis and roles.

LT-35C will feature redistributed armor and the next gun will be the FRC 60mm fortress as a stopgap, at which point the turret ring will be maxed out. This will be slow, well armored and somewhat undergunned compared to these beasts.

Back in the mid 30s, I reported a casting plant was built in Leige during the Belgian economic crisis with the long term view of fielding the LT-35D with it's mix of Rolled +space+ FH armor. I may call it the Lt-38A, as the hull will be redesigned for castings, same weight of armor, but slightly better slopes in places. Overall a tough, but still undergunned tank. Like a Churchill.

The 90mm AA the Belgians starting working on ~1937 will then be adapted to the 45 ton chassis that the Dutch work started on in 1936 to make the heavy "response" to these things being thrown out here, my version of the Tiger I / KV-1. Hopefully in 41 or so, perhaps earlier.

Meanwhile the light tanks draw from the German and the Dutch Marines, with the Belgians moseying down the TD route.

The timelines may have to be adjusted up, but thats where I'm coming from.

heavy tank = expensive tank

tank development = technology needed = expensive

tank assembly = technoloy needed = expensive

tanks are made of high quality steel = mills needed = expensive

(I could go on.)

The true problem is that WesWorld has no rules for economics and is not money based. Like with ships or plane engines or hightech on other fields we would not have this discussion because many powers that are pushing things in WW would not be able to develope anything on their own otherwise. Neither in peace nor in war times.

All those that think tech has advanced too far can rely on is this one sentance: Everything has to be scripted.

And there is a second: No early Tiger or Panther clones on my soil!

It´s fun to clue new things togehter but it is also frustrating.


Edit: I should note that my comment is not aimed on Atlantis directly or Atlantis alone. At least their military budget could be expected big enough to develop new toys.

Quoted

Originally posted by Hrolf Hakonson
Heh, _I_ have the pieces, and the word of the TT-37 will definitely put the spurs to the heavy panzer project. Where could vehicles like the TT-37, in Russian and French hands, be pointed? Right at Germany., very, very easily, it's not like they're necessary against China or useful in French Indochina..... Gah...... It'll probably be built with a 88/56, mind, not the 88/71, but still.....

Its statements like these that make Poland very nervous, considering our geography and the fact that Poland just happens to be right in the middle of where your guns are pointed. If things should turn nasty.........

Personally, I can see both points of view in this debate. The news on the 75/50 will have had to reach FAR by now, and adjustments made to their designs. And quite frankly no matter what anyone says, they do have their own people who could probably figure out the probable ballistics performance of the gun based on their own programs. Or they could just take an weapon with near potency off a ship or something and figure it out from there. Really, its not that difficult to get a rough estimate the performance of the Type 96 and what it will likely do to their armoured vehicles. Perhaps an IC story along these lines would make more sense. Then you could justify the reasons IC for jumping from the 48mm armour to 120mm being proposed. That being said, I can see Wes's point. Whats the point of building a heavy tank that can be penetrated by a medium tank at 1000 yrds?

(begin rant) However, as a player who plays small nations, I am somewhat dismayed at the massive jump these tanks (not just yours Wes) have brought and will bring. How are small nations even supposed to reasonably compete? Can you imagine Polands 7TPs running into a Type 96 or a Tiger or a T-36/37? Massacre comes to my mind. Perhaps the biggest problem for me is that there has been absolutely no militarily justifiable reason for any of these tanks being built. Political/practical perhaps, but no miltary reason for Type 96 or T-37 in WW nor in OTL at this point in time. There simply isnt the doctrine for them, current doctrine should be all for an upgunned S-35 for medium tanks, or a 75mm LV Valentine for heavies, not these. (end rant)

My main point is the way the responses to other nations designs come forward. So the Type 96 make its appearance in 1936? A nation that have a FIRST hand account of their capabilities will take three years to built a response; other nations, with second and third hand info built a response in less than a year. That what is mainly unreal in my book.

I'd disagree on the doctrine not being up to it: consider the OTL KV-1. It was designed to the concept of a "breakthrough tank", a concept that dated back into the 1920s if not before (the Char 2C could easily be seen as the first of breed). Previous historical examples include the Vickers Independent and the various Russian "land battleships" like the T-35. The KV-1 looks different because it was realized that all that size and all those turrets were limiting the thickness of armor that could be carried and that all the turrets really didn't help all that much.

From my POV, I don't have a technical problem with FAR developing a KV-1esque breakthrough tank, as long as the weight and speed are reasonable for what it is.

As one of FAR's neighbors, with tolerably good relations with France and Russia, Germany is not immediately threatened by these, but...... you can't be sure, can you. Should the Bolsheviks take control in Russia and decide to spread Socialism directly, East Prussia is very close to Russia, and Germany itself has an active Socialist party. (Not to mention that the Belgians would be encouraging the French to attack at every opportunity. ) Or should some other government take power in France, with the end of the trough in manpower from the Great War coming up, the western border could be something that Germany has to watch.

Of course, the VK4501 and VK4502 were in design well before word of the AT/TT-37 leaks, but still....

Quoted

Originally posted by Brockpaine

Quoted

Originally posted by perdedor99
My beef is not the tanks, is the fast time everyone comes up with a response.

In fairness, I'm not really concerned about you, perdedor. You've posted a lot of stuff way far in advance to say "this is what I will build" - heh, you've got 1939 and 1940s ships in your dictionary. Hrolf generally shares his development plans. I didn't see anything much on tanks, but that's hardly unusual. I actually gave Hrolf that bet because I was thinking of other people.

I haven't added the long-term projects to the Development of the Panzers thread in my encyclopedia, mostly because they can be affected by events. If you look in my Q2, 1937 news, though, you'll find references to the VK4501 design from Porsche and a competing design from Henschel, along with some rough ideas on what they're supposed to be armed with and an idea of their armor weight. There's also reference in the same posting about creating the specifications for a new medium panzer.

I have no beef with the Atlantean designs either. My concern with the medium one was the speed, not the idea or doctrine for it. The heavy one my concern was that it was too much tank for the weight presented originally.

I just opened a new can of worms by opening my mouth.

Perdedor, by medium I assume you mean the AT-36? If so I don't see any issue with the speed or anything else really. It's slightly larger in demensions but not by much. It has 10mm less frontal armour, 100 more hp for 6mph more speed and weighs 2 more tons than a historical T-34. Stats are anything but wildly off.

It shouldn't take more than 2 years to switch 75mm guns on the design to even remotely match the gun on the type 96. In fact the gun is in the same neighbourhood as existing Atlantean feild guns already in service since 1933 and even earlier.

As for the KV clone there is absolutely zero SATSUMA design influence involved, period. Its more a Russian design than anything, its merely picked up a few traits from other designs as a result of FAR's Transall venture. Sloped armour and nation specific weapons.
My main mistake with that design was trusting Tank sharp and not seriously studying the stats on the sheet, partly due to my lack of knowledge on transmission weights ect. Hrolfs helped in that reguard and I owe him many thanks. (looks like I'll have to place some more orders from Germany to compensate him!)

As I said. I have some minor kibbles with the designs but they seemed reasonable and I understood where you were coming from with the TT-37. I have no issues except how fast it takes for some to come up with a new tank from the ground up.

AT-36 is a sized up AT-35 so it shouldn't really be an issue. The AT-35 isn't large enough to mount a 75mm gun in a turret for infantry support.

Also keep in mind I don't do concrete developement timetables as I have plenty on my plate running 3 nations (4 including tiny Byzantium) but the developement would certainly be just behind the AT-35's starting point and paralell untill the AT-35's completion.

Quoted

Originally posted by TheCanadian
(begin rant) However, as a player who plays small nations, I am somewhat dismayed at the massive jump these tanks (not just yours Wes) have brought and will bring. How are small nations even supposed to reasonably compete? ... (end rant)

Well, small nations will never be able to compete with large powers. Might be frustrating for those playing small nations BUT it is one of the few realistic things in WesWorld.

(Of course this statement is limited to navy stuff because players don´t have to actually pay for tanks and planes. So there is no reason why Poland should not have as many big tanks as any neighbor - or even more.)

Quoted

My main point is the way the responses to other nations designs come forward. So the Type 96 make its appearance in 1936? A nation that have a FIRST hand account of their capabilities will take three years to built a response; other nations, with second and third hand info built a response in less than a year.

...any more than the original KV design was. The long 75 did influence the TT-37 design, but only at the margins.

By the way, I went back and looked in the FAR folder, and we first started discussing the KV-85 knockoff ten months ago. Agent first commented on the Transall tank being in the late design stage in early 1936 news - though everyone missed it because of the uproar about the French Mongotanks.

Quoted

Originally posted by Brockpaine
By the way, I went back and looked in the FAR folder, and we first started discussing the KV-85 knockoff ten months ago. Agent first commented on the Transall tank being in the late design stage in early 1936 news - though everyone missed it because of the uproar about the French Mongotanks.

Heh, there's not much in that post to comment on, just that Transall proposed to produce a new tank design at it's expense, and the government said "Sure, go ahead:.