WesWorld

Quoted

[SIZE=3]PZInz 32TP wzór.44 (Polish 32-ton Medium Tank model 1944)[/SIZE]
This tank was designed by PZInz as a replacement for the 26TP wz.42, itself a heavily-modified variant of the German Panzer IV tank. The 32TP was designed to provide superior firepower and protection in comparison to the 26TP. An 85mm gun, based of an anti-tank gun prototyped in 1942, provided enhanced firepower in comparison to the previous 75mm guns used on Polish tanks. The Poles, having been pioneers of the diesel-powered tank, license-built the French MD.12/36 diesel engine at Ursus, and used it to power the 32TP.

[SIZE=3]Specifications[/SIZE]
Dimensions:
-- Length:6.07 meters (hull), 7.65 metres (with gun)
-- Width: 3.25 meters
-- Height: 2.455 meters
Weight: 32 tonnes
Armament:
-- 85mm/L55 with 58 rounds [1]
-- 2x MGs
Speed: 53 km/h (33 mph)
Range: 350 km (120 mi) with 500 litres fuel
Engine: Ursus V12 diesel, 600hp (Alsthom/SACM MD.12/36)
Suspension: Torsion bar
Protection:
-- Turret face: 120mm
-- Glacis: 40mm-90mm (sloped)
-- Sides: 30mm-75mm
Constructors: PZInz
Variants:
-- Tank: July 1944
-- Tank destroyer: October 1944
-- Self-propelled artillery piece: July 1945
-- Self-propelled AA gun: October 1945

From what I read from those specs that beast is lighter, faster, longer ranged, heavier armed and armored than the Panther.... Not sure if that is is technically feasible but the point that really needs an answer some day is this: Why do the Poles (and other European powers) think they need these kind of tanks without the experience of OTL world war two?

I know tank development in WesWorld has long left realism behind but at least I want an answer that puts it all into picture so other WesWorld participants like me can act accordingly.

Quoted

Originally posted by HoOmAn
From what I read from those specs that beast is lighter, faster, longer ranged, heavier armed and armored than the Panther.... Not sure if that is is technically feasible.

Of course it is feasible. I got permission from AdmK to use the T-44, and so I just used the specifications for the historical tank (albeit using an 85mm gun instead of a 100mm gun, as some T-44s carried). Even if you discard the T-44, the T-34/85 had the same gun, higher speed and range, and only a little bit less armour than this, all on 32 tons.

The Panther was heavier because it had a more voluminous fighting compartment for five crew, versus the T-44's four. The greater need for volume raised the demand for armour to cover that volume, and thus demanded a more powerful engine. The German use of interleaved road wheels (for lower ground pressure) and their attendant torsion bar suspension, which differed from that of the Soviets, further ate up internal volume. Finally, the Panther stowed twenty more rounds of main gun ammunition, which also adds to the demand for internal volume. In short, the Soviets made a few more compromises to produce a better fighting machine.

Quoted

Originally posted by HoOmAn
...but the point that really needs an answer some day is this: Why do the Poles (and other European powers) think they need these kind of tanks without the experience of OTL world war two?

Because the Europeans are being forced to follow the trends that other people have started.

I'd note that the entire slippery slope in regards to tank development started with the Asian countries. At risk of bringing up old issues, why didn't you offer up these arguments years ago when Perdy introduced the Argun C - a tank which, aside from a slightly thinner frontal armour suite, is very close to the 32TP specs I publish here? (In fact, in terms of power/weight ratio and gun size it's still a better tank, six years after its introduction.)

Given the Indian tone of aggression at the time (which Rocky has fortuitously moderated), the Argun C's appearance in combat drove the development of new tanks by worried neighbors - Britain, Russia, Italy, China - and thus the neighbors of those countries had to adjust or similarly fall behind. And yet, six years later, most of the European armies have yet to field a tank which is categorically superior. That's because we don't want to push the technological envelope - but we recognize that that envelope has already been pushed, and we're reluctantly being forced to react and keep up.

Thanks for summary. Need to look up that Argun tank and whatever discussion we hsd back then. Not my intention to open old issues again too. Too much time has passed. Me just hasn't caref about tanks years ago but today I am playing catch up on it.

Quoted

Originally posted by HoOmAn
Thanks for summary. Need to look up that Argun tank and whatever discussion we hsd back then. Not my intention to open old issues again too. Too much time has passed. Me just hasn't caref about tanks years ago but today I am playing catch up on it.

Specs are here. As near as I can find, there never actually WAS any serious technical discussion on it - Hrolf and Perdy just cooked up the Springsharp and posted it to the encyclopedia. What complaining there was came afterward, after it had already seen combat, when people started to realize what it was.

Posted in my specs style, here's what the Argun looks like:

Quoted

[SIZE=3]Argun C[/SIZE]

[SIZE=3]Specifications[/SIZE]
Dimensions:
-- Length: 5.80 meters
-- Width: 3.14 meters
-- Height: 2.72 meters
Weight: 36 tonnes
Armament:
-- 90mm/L56 with 65 rounds
-- 1x MG
Speed: 49 km/h (30.5 mph)
Range: 188 km (117.39 mi) with 908 litres fuel
Engine: Avati Tiger V12 diesel, 720hp
Suspension: ????
Protection:
-- Turret face: 80mm
-- Glacis: 70mm (sloped)
-- Sides: 50mm
Constructors: ????

One of the difficult things for me is that I can actually believe these specs... for a mid-1940s tank. Please understand - I don't want to make trouble about the Argun C, particularly after so long; but its existence is part of the reason that Wesworld tanks became so advanced without a WWII to guide their development.

A T-44-like tank for Poland is optimistic. Historically even the czechs were able to produce tanks which were on par with their german/allied counterparts (at least in 1938/39) so why shouldnt Poland be able to do the same in wesworld? I see no Problem with that.

Though, what I generally don't understand is that sci-fi tanks from asian nations have any impact on anything. As far as I can see there has never been a war which earns its name in wesworld.
So, for example, if Luxembourg decides to field a new mach 3 intercontinental bomber, I, as the player of Chosen, just wouldn't give a shit.
If you refer to Sci-Fi-nonsense with your own designs you encourage Sci-fi-nonsense. I think Sci-fi-nonsense and Über-hardware should be ignored, especially as gameplay-wise there is no necessity to counter a big tank with an even bigger tank.
Every conflict or battle is scripted, so even if somebody throws Argun tanks at you, you could say "yeah, well, I have some super elite anti-tank-dogs who just blow your tanks up."

This is my totally OOC view. All weapons develop, fighters get faster and climb faster as engine technology improves even without a significant bomber threat, Britain developed the F.5/34 series that were monoplane fighters with four MGs when the European bomber threat was used as a political threat but the bombers were lumbering slow biplanes in most cases.
As for tanks, there is a case that, as OTL, more powerful engines have given us fast tanks as engine development has progressed. As ballistic improvements have been made has not been difficult for the military chiefs to see that the early thin armour thicknesses could be pierced by even AT-rifles let along the AT guns available. As AT-gun calibres have increased and as plans for bigger ones have been drawn up the endless cycle of armour and gun power continues. [The Persian War saw the use of massed AT-guns]The same with tank guns, the desire to destroy an equivalent opposing tank means having an adequate gun, the other side wants some armour thickness in reserve. I think we have reached a peak now and things will plateau off, most advanced nations now have sloped glacis plates and thick armour, a good high HP engine and good mobility and a gun capable of defeating most of the best tanks likely to be encountered. Heavy tanks are still fairly rare and will always remain constrained operationally due to mobility issues.

The Argun C still seems a bit ahead of the curve to me, the 90mm gun was a massive leap when most nations at the time only had 57mm guns (most British tanks probably will have 6pdr guns until the late 1940s). Tank guns are perhaps the real problem more than the weight and armour issues. 85-90mm seems to be becoming a new standard and probably the upper end of what is required. Britain has its 17pdr which is more than adequate for now but there is the historical 20pdr to fall back on in the late 1940s if 90-100mm becomes widespread. For me once I get to the Centurion the ultimate will be achieved, right now Britain stands at the point where she has increasing numbers of historical Cromwell's with sloped glacis and 57mm guns and the new Comet has the 17pdr but otherwise unchanged, more than a match for the Standardpanzer. I don't see a need for much more that, the Centurion would be a logical step from that for the late 1940s.

Quoted

Originally posted by Daidalos
Though, what I generally don't understand is that sci-fi tanks from asian nations have any impact on anything. [...] If you refer to Sci-Fi-nonsense with your own designs you encourage Sci-fi-nonsense. I think Sci-fi-nonsense and Über-hardware should be ignored, especially as gameplay-wise there is no necessity to counter a big tank with an even bigger tank.

That's about what I thought when Brock said Britain, Russia, Italy etc. felt threatened by an Indian tank that pushed limits too far. Sums it up pretty good.

Although - to some degree this is what WesWorld is for and lives from, though with a focus on ships originally. ;o)

Oh please, that's a load of stuff. Wesworld is based off collaborative effort and interaction, and part of that involves the maturity to accept when other people make choices you disagree with, and then move on. If we just ignore anything that we think pushes the limits too far, then there's not much point to playing this game with other people - just design your own alternate history on your hard drive or something.

Whatever man....I am just saying that it is cheap to complain about super-hardware and using this super-hardware as a justification to create own super hardware at the same time.

Quoted

Originally posted by Daidalos
Whatever man....I am just saying that it is cheap to complain about super-hardware and using this super-hardware as a justification to create own super hardware at the same time.

You know, it's five or six years after the Argun was introduced, and most of us have spent that time taking slower, more logical incremental steps to get there (as Hood indicated), rather than just top-trumping the moment we think we can get away with it. As I've already said, most European countries haven't even fielded a tank that can definitely beat the Argun C in all categories. And yet you come in here and talk about how we're complaining and using one or two things as justification to create our own 'super-hardware'?

Whatever, man.

Okay... Stop, stop, stop....

I really didn't want to start another endless discussion. Brock is right, that Indian tank is in service for long. And yes, other players used more reasonable approaches.

But still, Brock, your original statement sounded a lot like the "sci-fi to top sci-fi argument". At least that was the first thought it triggered in me... ;o)

To give this thread a different direction: The Panther is often rated the best tank of its era. I have even read somewhere it is considered the first modern tank because of its overall layout and performance (once the bugs were worked out). Now, why is this when it compares so "badly" to a T-34/85 or T-44 or probably some other tanks? Is the Panther just overrated or is there more about it that distinguishs it from other designs?

What I said was not meant as an accusation but as an explanation. Furthermore, as I already said, I would't consider your 32 TP as over the top or highly unlikely.

All I said (generally spoken) is, that the tendency to counter implausible developments with even more implausible developments can lead to a rather noncredible game environment.
Therefore I would tend to ignore things like the Argun tank, which is maybe contradictory to how wesworld should be played but on the other hand avoids spiraling down the sci-fi abyss .

Well, the big figure that always sticks out to me is how difficult some of the late war german tanks were to make in comparison to the tanks the Allies were fielding. Despite the Panther's advantages in some areas, those advantage could only go so far when the T-34-85 could outproduce it by very very large numbers. Quantity has a quality all its own.

The latest American tank, the M25 is comparable to the T-44. The upcoming heavy tank, the M26 Pershing is comparable to the Argun C, introduced only seven/I] years after the Argun C.

I don't quite understand the issues from players who don't play nations in Europe, with Poland, a mid-level European power designing and building a tank which is
comparable to what the rest of the world has been fielding for some time now. Poland is capable of building and designing tanks or at least they were IOTL and I have yet to see any reason why in WW that should be taken from them.

Just saying.

Edit

Hoo, my thought on how the Panther compares to other tanks of the era; they were good tanks that suffered perhaps from being over engineered, and to difficult to mass produce. I would still take 10 Shermans, or 8 T-34s over 1 Panther any day, which is the odds the Panthers were facing.

Quoted

Originally posted by HoOmAn
Okay... Stop, stop, stop....

My pleasure - I didn't want to get into this sort of argument to start with (and didn't expect even this much discussion about it, even).

Quoted

Originally posted by HoOmAn
I really didn't want to start another endless discussion. Brock is right, that Indian tank is in service for long. And yes, other players used more reasonable approaches.

But still, Brock, your original statement sounded a lot like the "sci-fi to top sci-fi argument". At least that was the first thought it triggered in me... ;o)

Such was not my intention. I still think the Argun C specs are technically defensible when placed within a better time period. For instance, now that it's 1944 the Argun C is now a competitive vehicle in a competitive market.

Quoted

Originally posted by HoOmAn
To give this thread a different direction: The Panther is often rated the best tank of its era. I have even read somewhere it is considered the first modern tank because of its overall layout and performance (once the bugs were worked out). Now, why is this when it compares so "badly" to a T-34/85 or T-44 or probably some other tanks? Is the Panther just overrated or is there more about it that distinguishs it from other designs?

I think there's some of both aspects at work. Unlike most comparable Allied tanks (and the Allies did field several comparable tanks), the Panther saw quite a bit of combat. Allied tankers saw the Panther and wondered why they didn't have something similar. So even in the Allied states, the Panther became a bit of the standard to measure up to - even though there were highly comparable British, American, and Russian tanks.

I'd disagree with snip that the Panther was so much more difficult to make. I do agree that there are some elements in that, but the reasons WHY it was harder to make are overlooked. Allied bombing of the factories slowed things down quite a bit, as did Germany's initial disinclination to go to a full war footing in their industry. After Speer reorganized the economy for total war, and when the Germans had the breathing room from the bombing, they were able to produce on a comparable scale to Allied factories. But those times were rare, since the Allies were disinclined to let the Germans build more tanks.

Quoted

Originally posted by TheCanadian
Edit

Hoo, my thought on how the Panther compares to other tanks of the era; they were good tanks that suffered perhaps from being over engineered, and to difficult to mass produce. I would still take 10 Shermans, or 8 T-34s over 1 Panther any day, which is the odds the Panthers were facing.

Does it make sense to compare quantity of tank A versus single-unit quality of tank B?

How could the Panther gain its reputation if it was not superior to other tanks of its era? What were its advantages? On wiki it says "The Panther's excellent combination of firepower, mobility, and protection served as a benchmark for other nations' late war and post-war tank designs, and it is regarded as one of the best tanks of World War II."

However, comparing the Panther to the T-44 stats does not lead to this results.

Well, I would say the hard-skills of a tank design, which are more or less the specs we are writing down here (speed, armament, armor etc.) are just a part of the charcteristics which define a valuable fighting machine. Other qualities which are not discussed that much are the ergonomics, the optics, the human-machine interface and all the "soft-skill" stuff .
As far as I know the soviet tanks were substandard in that regard. I have to search for the book, but I remember I read some german reports about the combat performance of the T-34 early in the war (when it was deemed superior to everything the germans could field...at least on paper) and the results were that the situational awareness of the T-34 crews was bad, reaction to enemy fire was rather slow and due to low quality optics and sights they needed several attempts to hit their targets. So german tanks usually spotted the soviets first and got their hits first.
I am not sure if that is true later soviet tank designs but from everything I heard soviet hardware was always inferior to german/western designs in regards of ergonomics and HMI.

Quoted

Originally posted by HoOmAn

Quoted

Originally posted by TheCanadian
Edit

Hoo, my thought on how the Panther compares to other tanks of the era; they were good tanks that suffered perhaps from being over engineered, and to difficult to mass produce. I would still take 10 Shermans, or 8 T-34s over 1 Panther any day, which is the odds the Panthers were facing.

Does it make sense to compare quantity of tank A versus single-unit quality of tank B?

How could the Panther gain its reputation if it was not superior to other tanks of its era? What were its advantages? On wiki it says "The Panther's excellent combination of firepower, mobility, and protection served as a benchmark for other nations' late war and post-war tank designs, and it is regarded as one of the best tanks of World War II."

However, comparing the Panther to the T-44 stats does not lead to this results.

Yes it does because what makes a good tank in my view is more than just the hard numbers of weight, gun size, armor, engine power, etc.

The Panther is one of the best tanks of World War II, there is no denying that. And it does compare with the T-44, because it compares with the T-34/85 and the T-44 is just a slightly better T-34/85. The 75mm L/70 is a powerful gun, 80mm sloped armour is nothing to sneeze at, the mobility issue I have problems with, both the T-34/76 and the T-34/85 have significantly better range.

Interestingly if you look at the hard specs of the T-34/85 and the T-44 there isn't much difference, both are remarkably similar. And the T-34/85 was in production in January 1944. The key difference being slightly more armor, and the T-44 is shorter and wider.