WesWorld

So... does this
A) Meet the readability/comprehension threshold
B) illustrate the general progression of ATGs without tying me specific dates, which I strenously object to since so many people are in different places tech wise.
C) meet the "need" for such things

If not, tell me, as this is how I've been doing this so far.


Towed Anti-Tank Gun progression (+T = tungsten core) 5 stages
Royal Dutch_____37L45 --> 45L48 --> 45L48(+T) --> 60L50(+T) --> 60L50(+T)
Regular Dutch____37L45 --> 45L48 --> 45L48(+T) --> 60L50(+T) --> 60L50(+T)
Reserve Dutch____37L45 --> 37L45 --> 37L45 --> 45L48(+T) --> 60L50(+T)
Dutch Marine_____37L45 --> 45L48 --> 45L48(+T) --> 10.5LG42-2 (HESH) --> BAT (10.5LG42-2 HESH)
All Dutch________20mm Madsen --> 23mm FN-Madsen --> 23mm FN --> 23mm FN
Belgium_________47L30 --> 47L30 --> 60L50 --> 75L54 --> 90L50 FRC
Kongo Expedition _................ --> 45L48 --> 45L48 --> 45L48 --> 10.5LG42-2 (HESH)
Kongo Regular____................ --> 45L48 --> 45L48 --> 45L48 --> 10.5LG42-2 (HESH)
Luxembourg______................ --> ................ --> 47L30 --> 47L30 --> 75L54
Saudi Arabia______................ --> 37L45 --> 37L45 --> 75L54 --> 75L54
________________................ --> 20mm Madsen --> 20mm Madsen --> 20mm Madsen
Yemen___________................ --> ................ --> 37L45 --> 37L45 --> 37L45

While tank destroyers is currently looking like

Self-propelled Anti-tank / Tank Destroyer
Royal Dutch______................ --> ................ -->................ --> SU-100 (90L50)--> SU-100 (100L55)
Regular Dutch____................ --> ................ -->................ --> SU-100 (90L50)--> SU-100 (100L55)
Reserve Dutch____................ --> ................ -->................ --> ................ -->................
Dutch Marine_____13.2mm --> 13.2mm --> 23mm FN-Madsen --> 23mm FN --> 60L50(+T)
Belgium_________T13 (47L30) --> Marder I (60L50) --> M18 Hellcat (60L50) --> M18 Hellcat (75L54) --> M36B2 Jackson (90L50)
Belgium_________T15 (13.2mm) --> ................ -->................ --> ................ -->................
Kongo__________................ --> ................ -->................ --> M36B2 Jackson (90L50) --> M36B2 Jackson (90L50)

Luxembourg_____................ --> ................ -->................ --> ................ -->................
Saudi Arabia_____................ --> ................ --> Nashorn (75L54) --> Nashorn (75L54) --> Nashorn (90L60)
Yemen_________................ --> ................ -->................ --> ................ -->................

Hmm...

Well, at a glance, there doesn't seem to be much I can comment on, since I would need dates to speculate. Without that, I can't really compare it to what's historically possible or probable. For instance, if the 10.5LG42-2 HESH had a date of 1948 or so, then I'd probably not object. But if the date was 1942 or 1945, then I'd probably have a few more comments. So... I guess I can offer no comments from my point of view.

Well,

actually that is a comment- that it is not useful.
Which saves me a deal of potential effort.

Frankly after the little discussion re tanks, I'm even more inclined not to specify. Without a war to spur arms along, they are more advanced than OTL, yet unlike aircraft they are not supposed to be.
So some nations "kit" is far in advance of others. While I just want mine to be appropriate to whomever I'm facing.

As for the 105mm LG42-2 was a historic 1942 german recoilless field gun, and HESH rounds were in use for the PIAT starting in 1942. So 1942 is emminantly reasonable to me, but given the tanks already in service, earlier could be argued for.

Just curious, why HESH instead of HEAT?

Mainly to be different and not follow the herd.
Both concepts came out about the same time, Brits went HESH, everyone else went HEAT. I just figured I'd go the British route....

I was even tempted by the PIAT spigot mortar concept as the WW Dutch rolled out a multiple spigot mortar in the 1930s as a psuedo pre-Nebelwerfer, but decided a Bazooka/Panzerschreck style weapon was 'cooler'...plus they recovered HEBCO's rocket launchers in Siam.

Quoted

Originally posted by Kaiser Kirk
Well,

actually that is a comment- that it is not useful.

Mmm... sorta yes and no. I'm trying to say that "it's useful so far as it goes", but without dates, it has no context for me to catalog the information in my brain. It's like posting a Springsharp which lists only the guns and armour, but not the speed or tonnage. I just can't file the data in a meaningful manner for analysis.

Since you're my northern neighbor, I do appreciate having at least some vague clue about what you're doing with the Dutch and Belgian land forces, because I do very much enjoy working on my own French army stuff. I'm interested in the dates because I want to ensure that I'm not too far out of synch with my neighbors - neither falling behind nor dashing wildly ahead. But if I've no dates to compare to, then I'm left with nothing but guesswork and supposition.

I recognize that you don't want to provide dates, but without dates I just can't work out whether it's too fast, too slow, or goldilocks.

------------------------

For instance, if I look at your original post, I can browse through it and say in my internal monolog:
- Okay, 37mm and 45mm AT guns, eh, that matches up fairly closely with the French 37mm and 47mm AT guns that came out in 1934 and 1937. And they're fairly suitable versus the tanks of those years. Okay, he and I seem to be fairly close there. That's imminently reasonable for the 1930s.
- Hm, Belgium has a 75mm/L54. Well, okay, that's on par with France's 75mm/L53, which entered service in 1939-1941 in response to the Argun C. When did the Belgians set up with the 75mm/L54? I don't know. Was it in 1939? No, there weren't any tanks on Belgium's borders in 1939 that merit such a large AT gun. Was it in 1941? I suppose that's more likely, as France has some heavier tanks in '41 that'd require the 75mm to beat. Hm, though Germany still only has the Panzer IV, and that big 75mm gun is overkill versus a German tank. I wonder why the Belgians are preparing to try to beat my tanks...
- Okay, a Belgian M18 Hellcat with a 60L50 gun, that's imminently reasonable, even for 1941 or 1942. Better than most of what France's got for the start of 1941. I'm one of the world's premier armies and I ought to be at least on par with the Belgians. **Shuffles the production of the Montbrun medium tank forward in response.** There, much better. My Montbruns will start appearing in April, and I won't be behind the Belgians.

So far, I've intention to introduce PIAT. The Boys AT rfile is still in use. There is little demand for anything new until a war comes along. Plus it was a damn akward weapon to reload with that spigot.

Quoted

Originally posted by Brockpaine

I recognize that you don't want to provide dates, but without dates I just can't work out whether it's too fast, too slow, or goldilocks.

This was an attempt to play nice and satisfy those that seem to demand that in our naval sim we have to specify our land and air equipment. The idea was that was that I'd field something from that progression appropriate for the tech era of the equipment the viewer was fielding. The Dutch are technically capable, but lack the funds to fund lots of R&D streams so only in very limited fields- such as Radar- do they wind up top of the pack. Otherwise they have B+/A- gear for the first line troops, tend to evolve equipment, and lots of older stuff they retain and upgrade, because they can't afford to replace it all at once.

You see, back when I made the T-35A, I carefully looked at the historic tanks, ground pressures, turret rings, designed a gun, and made something I felt was competitive, but not dominating....a S-35/Maltilda II blend.... and then the Japanese rolled out a T-34-esque tank with a longer gun years ahead of time. Which highlights the perils of specifying dates, only works if everyones following the same guidelines. You once said you won't script a conflict with folks that don't specify in advance. Me, I took the stance that any of the Japanese T-34s that touched Dutch soil would be plagued by mechanical malfunctions. Neither is a particularly useful stance.

It seems that except for the naval sphere, military weapons have rushed ahead of OTL. However this is not uniformly true as different players seem ahead by different levels.

The result is that while Italy and the USA appear to be fielding 1942 appropriate tanks..... many of the others on your medium tank chart are far in advance. The Brits have a 1944-ish tank, while the germans are already looking to replace their 75L48 Pz-IV before it historically started production- in reaction to combat experience on the Eastern front- and you are advising the Germans that an 88L71 is an appropriate standard gun for the next tank.

There's a wide spread of military technology out there. It's supposed to be just into 1942 with no major war to spur design, yet you say a KV-85 clone has been in service in France- the Soviet 1943 tank developed after a couple years of war to address the KV-1's shortcomings has been out there long enough to effect German design planning.

So let me quote you :

Quoted

Originally posted by Brockpaine
but unfortunately, the rest of the world has apparently decided we're not in 1941, but 1945, and they've introduced tanks more suitable to that era than this. Catch-22 for me, I'm afraid: if I introduce what ought to be historical, then I'm quite far behind everyone else; if I introduce stuff comparable to theirs, then I'm giving them justification to field even more advanced stuff even further in advance.

So what year do I pick ? Do I match the 1942 USA and Italy ? Or do I match the 1944-5 Cromwell ? I'm sure if I look around I could find somebody with 1940ish gear. I don't want to allow everything except ships to be +3-5

Instead, I offered this alternative- I wouldn't specify a year, but I'd give an indication of what type of equipment would likely be out there- no JadgTigers hiding in the bushes.

However, if that still doesn't satisfy, I'm actually a bit happy, as it means I tried, but I don't have to finish 8p


Edit : I do find it a bit bemusing that I bent, and posted up the T-35/T-41 evolution, and not a peep. Apparently they aren't provocative enough.

Quoted

Originally posted by Hood
So far, I've intention to introduce PIAT. The Boys AT rfile is still in use. There is little demand for anything new until a war comes along. Plus it was a damn akward weapon to reload with that spigot.

Yeah, the weak range and the reloading bit is a large part of why I rejected it. Though I've thought maybe I should have slotted it in for the Kongo and Marines, as the lack of backblast is a considerable plus. But rockets..are more cool.

As for the ATR, the 13.2mm Mauser is an older round and would be limited against ACs and LTs by the early 1940s, so I needed something else, but felt it was too early for a rocket. The 20mm Swiss would sound great on paper to the quartermasters, but is too heavy to be loved in the field, leading to the stop over at the Gustav M42 because it's such a nice alternative to the Swiss 20mm ATR. Still, with the tanks out there, it would become obvious that a 23mm RR round wasn't going to cut it as the infantry anti-tank weapon, which would then lead to rockets.

Argh! Kirk, I must not be communicating myself well to you... please let me try to start over.

I was rather distressed when you said a while back that you weren't going to detail your army and air force stuff any more. I understand why you made that decision, but it still distressed me. Now that you've come back and fleshed in a few more details, I appreciate that you're willing to try again, and I want to encourage you to do more. For me, "tell me more!" is an attempt at engaging better - I'm trying to show that I'm interested and paying attention.

Somehow, though, whatever I'm saying must be the wrong sort of feedback for you. When I read your responses to me, I feel I'm discouraging you from doing anything further. That's the complete opposite of what I want. When you said earlier "I'm even more inclined not to specify", I had a little private fit because that was the exact opposite of the response I was trying to encourage. I suspect that I'm coming off prissy or demanding ("I demand you specify etc etc...") which is not what I want to do. I don't want to demand, I want to encourage.

On one hand I can somewhat understand Kirk's reluctance to provide dates for when variants enter service, though from the information you posted on the T-35/41 I have a general idea of when these tanks are in service. Providing a date in one sense means providing the fodder for an arguement of "this tanks too early, this innovation is too early, blah blah blah." On the other hand it also means that its difficult to plan a conflict with someone with whom your unsure of what forces they can bring to bear. So the end result is the stagnation of the game, where one party refuses to script a conflict without at least some knowledge beforehand, (an understandable approach and one I agree with to some extent) whereas the other party refuses to give that knowledge for a variety of reasons.

We have all responded to the Japanese T-34, in a variety of ways. Some have merely built better tanks, others declare those tanks to be implausible and unrealsitic, and declare they shall be plagued by mechanical malfunctions. Myself, for the US I decided to go with a fairly conservative approach so far as the design went (at least in comparison to others being built), but reserved the argument that I would outbuild you all in event of war, or to put it in simple terms "I see your Panther/T-34/whatever and raise you 50,000 Shermans." I think we can see the profit of those discussions even now, where to my view at least the game has stagnated somewhat.

I realize this is Just A Naval Sim, but the Land and Air aspects are important. I am wiling to argue that no war has been won by the Naval side alone, for some conflicts Naval Power is irrevalent. Even in Wesworld, I do not think you could defeat Russia or the United States by seapower alone, although your wonderful Navies may allow you to put a force on US soil, its the war of the boots on the ground, and the planes in the air that will win that sort of war.

Quoted

Originally posted by Brockpaine
but without dates, it has no context for me to catalog the information in my brain. It's like posting a Springsharp which lists only the guns and armour, but not the speed or tonnage. I just can't file the data in a meaningful manner for analysis.

Brock :
It was your musings on which year various things fit into and if you need to advance your equipment, and your statement above.

If you can't process the data, then there is no point.

Edit :The Belgian 75L54 is simply an Anti-tank version of their 1936 semi-automatic 75L54 Anti Aircraft gun, an FRC modification of a Bourges (French) design. While the 90L60 was developed in the 1930s by FRC and was announced as entering service in..I think 1939, again as an AA gun originally. The Dutch and Belgians didn't forsee the need for ATGs in this size, but like most nations, found the HV needed for AAGs was also suitable for other purposes.

Quoted

Originally posted by TheCanadian
On one hand I can somewhat understand Kirk's reluctance to provide dates for when variants enter service, though from the information you posted on the T-35/41 I have a general idea of when these tanks are in service. Providing a date in one sense means providing the fodder for an argument of "this tanks too early, this innovation is too early, blah blah blah."

Year : Actually I'm less worried about posting something too far ahead. I try hard to ensure what I put forward is at least somewhat reasonable for the period it's intended. However, while some are staying in period, I see many are not. I got tired of pointing that out long long long ago. What I call the "tech wars".

Which means I either have to post something "in period" and accept that my design will be obsolescent in ways since some have run ahead- which is frustrating after I put time into something....
or pay allot of attention to everyone's latest out of period development and try to @#$ match that.

I won't play that game. This was the extent I was willing to go.

Quoted

Originally posted by TheCanadian
On the other hand it also means that its difficult to plan a conflict with someone with whom your unsure of what forces they can bring to bear. So the end result is the stagnation of the game, where one party refuses to script a conflict without at least some knowledge beforehand, (an understandable approach and one I agree with to some extent) whereas the other party refuses to give that knowledge for a variety of reasons.

Yeah, I hear this, I don't *get* this. Hood & Hooman made their equipment period for their war. I really don't get why saying "I have B+/A-" gear doesn't work. Beyond Fire control and radar, I don't have anything cutting edge except radar, but it's not junk either.
That means in my universe WW should equal OTL Q1 1942, in which case I wouldn't have a brand new PzIVF with a 75L43 gun (the A+), or an old Pz-IVC with a 75L24 (C), I'd have the PzIIIH with the 50L42 (B+) or the PzIIIJ with the 50L60 (A-).

What I was attempting here was giving a progression. If you're fielding 1942 kit, well then the 1942 appropriate kit from my progression is your opposition, but if you're fielding 1945 kit already, skip ahead to the stuff appropriate for 1945. Magically matches ever player in the game.

Quoted

Originally posted by TheCanadian
see the profit of those discussions even now, where to my view at least the game has stagnated somewhat.

It tends to come and go depending on folks time, energy and interest. There was a long discussion quite some time ago that concluded the alliance blocks are a major dampener, plus nobody really plays the bad guy. Red Admiral ran Mussolini and things almost got personal, but my paraphrasing Hitler speeches managed to garner no interest or reaction, Desertfox is nicely belligerent but has yet to really kick an ant mound.

Quoted

Originally posted by TheCanadian
I realize this is Just A Naval Sim, but the Land and Air aspects are important.

Actually...I can disagree in a way with this. The big need is to specify parameters for dive bombers and torpedo bombers as they effect carrier design, TDS, and deck thickness.

I don't think it would have hurt the sim at all if we had said "you must use a historic vehicle within it's service period to illustrate your land and air equipment", instead we said things had to be "in service" to be a precedent for land stuff, (look at the discussion over the Italians introducing a early SLR based on ~800 in Central American service) and said prop planes could be +3-5... which became +3 and included general airstuff except rockets/jets/the bomb.


Economics :
Canadian -You mentioned 50,000 shermans, I wrote a reply...... ya know, You and I just have different views. However, that's part of the point of Wesworld.