WesWorld

Quoted

Originally posted by Brockpaine
Bulgaria has ordered 13 AT-37s (with 76.2mm gun) to equip the 13th Independent Armoured Company. Bulgaria is also receiving AT-36/57s in the Q3-Q4/1937 period, though they were delayed due to the Peruvian War...

Chile has ordered 48 AT37s and 60 AT36/76.2s to equip three Panzergrenadier regiments.

[size=1]These orders are made irregardless of whatever discussion determines regarding weight. And yes, it's intended that France and Russia are producing at least the TT-37 - it's the Transall design first proposed by France in early 1936.[/size]

What happened to we cant have 1944 tanks?

Quoted

Originally posted by Vukovlad
Just the fact that an invulnrable tank is on the field should be enough to kill morale, guess you were right no need for HV guns....

It's the nature of things that tanks seesaw between protection and lethality. The Type 96 seriously raised the bar in terms of lethality with that 3"/L50 gun; it's quite frankly inevitable that folks would design tanks to bring the protection up to par. Lots of folks warned that this would happen, but Japan insisted on those HV guns.

The genie came out of the bottle with the Type 96, and it's too late to shove it back inside.

BTW:

AT36/57:


AT37:

I sense it is a wise decision for me not to venture into Canadian Tankbuilding...

Quoted

Originally posted by TheCanadian
And I was talking about the 37 too, and just made an error. The 37 is heavily armoured, but not invulnerable. Even the ancient 75/1897 should kill it with a sideshot using HEAT shells, and considering the terrain Persia is fighting in, sideshots shouldn't be that uncommon.

Since HEAT was unnecessary no one has it the same for APBC, APCR and APDS

Quoted

Originally posted by Brockpaine

Quoted

Originally posted by Vukovlad
Just the fact that an invulnrable tank is on the field should be enough to kill morale, guess you were right no need for HV guns....

It's the nature of things that tanks seesaw between protection and lethality. The Type 96 seriously raised the bar in terms of lethality with that 3"/L50 gun; it's quite frankly inevitable that folks would design tanks to bring the protection up to par. Lots of folks warned that this would happen, but Japan insisted on those HV guns.

The genie came out of the bottle with the Type 96, and it's too late to shove it back inside.

Ill have to agree with Brock on this one, did certain nations really feel that the Great Powers would not respond when the Type 96 was introduced? All actions have an equal and opposite reaction, and thinking that FAR and now presumeably the other powers are going to continue happily making now mediocre tanks belongs to the realm of fairyland.

Poland and Romania aren't too concerned, bigger tanks means more fuel which means the Polish/Romanian oilfields get more demand which means more money. Too bad world economy doesnt play much in the sim. As well, Sikorski's Poland and Romania would rather resolve disputes diplomatically than using the use of force while at the same time retaining their 1918/37 borders.

Quoted

Originally posted by TheCanadian
Is invulnerable, not even the AT-37. Its tracks for instance should still be vulnerable to all AT guns in service, and the side armour should be able to be penetrated by most medium caliber AT guns. Knock out the tracks, and it just becomes a four man fortress which can be knocked out from the side or rear.

It depends heavily on the ranges really. Point blank is usually a killshot if you place the round well enough.

Quoted

Originally posted by TheCanadian
Saying that, Brazil would like to make to make some orders in 1938/39.

When the dust setles from this discussion we can discuss business!

Quoted

Originally posted by Hrolf Hakonson
Nah, the Type 96 is still perfectly usable. Admittedly, it doesn't want to go head-to-head with a TT-37, but it will do just fine against the AT-36s.

The historical KV's in their hayday were also near impervious untill the Germans started using 88's in significant numbers. The AT-36 is meant to hold its own vs a tank such as the type 96.

Quoted

Originally posted by Hrolf Hakonson
That's a high proportion of heavy to medium tanks for Chile.

Likely the product of Chilean OOB. If its similar to the one I'm cooking up for Atlantis it would mean its armoured division would have one heavy battalion of 62 heavy tanks and 2 medium battalions of 40 heavy tanks and 84 medium. Even though theres more medium battalions theres more heavy's than mediums.

I'm going to knock the speed down due more to Hrolfs objections than anything. Other than that the tanks not going to change much.

Reply to the Canadian

Well a reaction was expected and in typical manner it came in the form of "if you get an AK then I should have a nuke", the T96 was superior to some degree to FAR tanks but this one makes every other tank and AT gun obsolete.

The AT-37 has the protection of the Tiger II but is far more mobile. I am not to worried but if this game didnt have scrpted wars Germany, Poland, Romania and Nordmark (perhaps China) would find bootlicking an essential survival skill.

Quoted

The Type 96 seriously raised the bar in terms of lethality with that 3"/L50 gun

What bar? Oh, the OOC bar. You see, it has not been proven that the Type 90 gun in the Type 96 tank is a good idea and that it actually does more than what it is supposed to do. The only thing that they know is that only one type of 75mm gun is produced and that all the 75mm ammunition that is produced can be used by all those guns, regardless what it is used for, and that on a ship, it will fire into lightly armored ships so in a tank, it will most likely fire into lightly armored vehicles and that is it.

Apparently other nations know something that Japan does not and what they know is based on... well... nothing at all actually. If Japan does not know about it, is it possible for another nation to know it without having seen the tank or worked with it?

But looking at things, I might as well go for my anti-tank tank now...

... at least no one will complain about the length of the barrel.

Quoted

Originally posted by Vukovlad
Reply to the Canadian

Well a reaction was expected and in typical manner it came in the form of "if you get an AK then I should have a nuke", the T96 was superior to some degree to FAR tanks but this one makes every other tank and AT gun obsolete.

The AT-37 has the protection of the Tiger II but is far more mobile. I am not to worried but if this game didnt have scrpted wars Germany, Poland, Romania and Nordmark (perhaps China) would find bootlicking an essential survival skill.

Is there a legitimate, respectfull coment/sugestion in this or are you just being an asshat on purpose?

Um, guys, cool off.

Quoted

Originally posted by Rooijen10

Quoted

The Type 96 seriously raised the bar in terms of lethality with that 3"/L50 gun

What bar? Oh, the OOC bar. You see, it has not been proven that the Type 90 gun in the Type 96 tank is a good idea and that it actually does more than what it is supposed to do. The only thing that they know is that only one type of 75mm gun is produced and that all the 75mm ammunition that is produced can be used by all those guns, regardless what it is used for, and that on a ship, it will fire into lightly armored ships so in a tank, it will most likely fire into lightly armored vehicles and that is it.

Apparently other nations know something that Japan does not and what they know is based on... well... nothing at all actually. If Japan does not know about it, is it possible for another nation to know it without having seen the tank or worked with it?

But looking at things, I might as well go for my anti-tank tank now...

... at least no one will complain about the length of the barrel.

Nah, you will be needing something like this

Quoted

Originally posted by thesmilingassassin

Quoted

Originally posted by Vukovlad
Reply to the Canadian

Well a reaction was expected and in typical manner it came in the form of "if you get an AK then I should have a nuke", the T96 was superior to some degree to FAR tanks but this one makes every other tank and AT gun obsolete.

The AT-37 has the protection of the Tiger II but is far more mobile. I am not to worried but if this game didnt have scrpted wars Germany, Poland, Romania and Nordmark (perhaps China) would find bootlicking an essential survival skill.

Is there a legitimate, respectfull coment/sugestion in this or are you just being an asshat on purpose?

I what way am I an asshat? Because I say that you are introducing an improved Tiger II in 1938?

Quoted

Nah, you will be needing something like this

Nah, people would just be complaining about the long barrel again.

Like the type 96, the AT/TT-37 is not unfluenced by any other design. Its a breakthrough tank hence the heavy armour, added to withstand 50-57mm AT guns at most ranges.

The AT-36 is more comparable to the type 96, the AT-36 is just being introduced alot closer to the historical T-34's launch date than the type 96 is.

Gents, can we avoid the insults please and stick to the topic at hand?

Quoted

Originally posted by Rooijen10
...And that on a ship, it will fire into lightly armored ships so in a tank, it will most likely fire into lightly armored vehicles and that is it.

Walter, I don't believe that for a minute and I doubt you do, either. You know as well as I do that a "lightly armoured ship" carries as much armor as many heavy tanks, and the guns are shooting at longer ranges. The only way the designers could have presumed a tank needed a 3"/L50 gun to shoot "lightly armoured vehicles" is if they were completely ignorant of how much armour is on a lightly armoured vehicle.

Quoted

Originally posted by Vukovlad
Reply to the Canadian

Well a reaction was expected and in typical manner it came in the form of "if you get an AK then I should have a nuke", the T96 was superior to some degree to FAR tanks but this one makes every other tank and AT gun obsolete.

The AT-37 has the protection of the Tiger II but is far more mobile. I am not to worried but if this game didnt have scrpted wars Germany, Poland, Romania and Nordmark (perhaps China) would find bootlicking an essential survival skill.

Poland/Romania's stratedgy is to try and remain on good terms with both Germany/Nordmark and FAR, while at the same time politely asking them that should they wish to resolve any conflicts that arise amongst them to do so without violating our borders. Noncompliance by either means we ally with the other side.

I really can't speak for China, however in an FAR/SATSUMA conflict, I could see the Far Eastern Front turning into an earlier version of the Korean War with the Chinese/Japanese having the advantages of sheer numbers, while the Russians have the advantage of better gear leading to stalemate.

Actually, he's pretty much correct: the armor on the AT-37 Is WAY, WAY over the top. The historical KV-1 1939s had mostly 75mm armor, sloped at 50 degrees on the glacis but vertical on the chassis sides, with a 90mm mantlet and 75mm armor at 15 degrees on the turret sides and rear. That's not going to result in much of a bonus from sloping except on the glacis, but in OTL 1939 it didn't need it, there wasn't much at all that could penetrate 3" of steel armor plate at any distance. Effective thickness on the turret would vary from 100mm or so on the mantlet to 80mm on the turret sides and rear.

The AT-37, on the other hand, has somewhere in the neighborhood (judging by the picture to guess at sloping effects) of 150-180mm of armor on the turret front and about 110-130mm on the turret sides. The Tiger II had 180mm at 9 degrees on the turret front and only 80mm at 21 degrees on the turret sides and rear. Pretty comparable armor, looks like from here.

Quoted

Originally posted by Vukovlad
I what way am I an asshat? Because I say that you are introducing an improved Tiger II in 1938?

No, because you haven't read the whole post and are simply flaming at the first opertunity.

I've already stated that the design has already been run through tanksharp, to which Hrolf (whom I might add didn't have to resort to snide remarks to make his point) stated the speed and armour levels are not compatable even if tank sharp says so because it has bugs. I accepted his arguement, because he respectfully made his point, and stated I would reduce the speed.

Do you get it now?

I don't get it, Japan can release an apparent copy of the T-34/85 which is a 1944 tank in 1936, but FAR can't release an apparent copy of the Tiger II which is a 1944 tank in 1938? Is it me or is there something wrong with this picture? If one player can have a 1944 tank why can't all players have one? (starts feverishly making plans for a Polish copy of the Sherman).