You are not logged in.

Dear visitor, welcome to WesWorld. If this is your first visit here, please read the Help. It explains in detail how this page works. To use all features of this page, you should consider registering. Please use the registration form, to register here or read more information about the registration process. If you are already registered, please login here.


Saturday, May 29th 2010, 1:19pm

"Over"-standardization in WW

It sometimes seems in WW we're operating at a level of standardization equal or greater to that of 2010, rather than 1940. Alliances are standarizing on tank designs (something that hasn't happened outside the Warsaw Pact), countries standardize on a single cannon for common use across the Navy and Army, etc. There's a value to standardization, yes, but it can be carried too far. Certainly, there were period cases of re-use of an already existing system, but in many cases that was because of a time-constraint: the country needed something quickly and used something it already had as an expedient. But it does feel, at times, that we're putting even more weight on standardization than the current world does, let alone the period of the 1940s.

All just my opinion, of course.


Saturday, May 29th 2010, 1:45pm

I agree. Realistically I think there are many obstacles to multi-national designs in the 1930s, especially when it's so world-wide. With the cost of R&D being fairly low for this sort of technology there aren't many cost savings to be had. Multi-national programs tend to increase in cost according to the power rule (i.e. two countries = cost/2^0.5, so total program cost increases by 1.4x and a lot more for 5 countries) With R&D being a small proportion of the costs it doesn't really make sense.

Tank design standardisation within the Warsaw Pact is easy. The other countries had to buy Russian as there was no other choice. In the West, there were quite a few attempts for standardisation, but nationalism and differing priorities got in the way. Those problems would be much worse in the 1930s.

At the end of the day, most things aren't expensive or technical enough that you can't do in house (except for small countries). It's pretty cheap to design and produce a rifle that exactly fits your army's requirements, rather than being involved in a massive multi-national program and being fobbed off with an expensive bit of kit that isn't what you wanted.


Saturday, May 29th 2010, 4:47pm

"Over" standardisation?
That have a strong "Real Socialism" ring too it.

I have too say I'm guilty of that one.
I use 40mm 110mm on my ships only,
make two aviation engines.
I however have not made any standard multi nation design since Peggy Brown class DD/TB.

However I have too disagree about it limiting the weapon system usefulness. Most countries that share the designs have very much the same geopolitical situation.
There isn't that much difference between plains of middle Asia and Europe. Plus most(if not all) systems have operating in plus/minus 50 degrees Celsius as a design requirements.
A aircraft developed in Germany will fit its role well in any other nation of similar size. On the other hand Zero or a Mustang extensive range is a nice feature in Mexico or Australia while it will be waisted in Europe were the airfield and target density is that much higher.


Sunday, May 30th 2010, 12:39am

I don't think its serious as one thinks. Its a case of a tank or an aircraft design simply being purchased by more than one country. Several country's also seem to be looking to purchase designs to build at home that seem to be lacking in their own industry's.

Christies chassis design was used by several country's as was the Vickers E design and many Czech tanks.


Sunday, May 30th 2010, 1:29am

The only notable 'joint' programs I really know of, are the Lantean/Argentinian Rocket and plane programs, and some of the Commonwealth production decisions.

In the case of the Commonwealth,'s mostly as historical, except with the British adopting a handful of decent Canadian developments, as a result of Canada doing some independant R&D, rather than just being British outsourcing.

Germany and the US have had some joint-programs in the past, but I don't recall if any of them have been recent.

I suspect this is directed a bit at FAR, but mostly I see the smaller FAR-aligned powers buying Lantean products, not really being joint developers.

I could be wrong, I suppose. I don't fixate as much on the ancilliary Air and Tank stuff like some people here do.


Sunday, May 30th 2010, 6:29pm


Its a case of a tank or an aircraft design simply being purchased by more than one country. Several country's also seem to be looking to purchase designs to build at home that seem to be lacking in their own industry's.

It doesn't seem to actually be that way. It seems more like each country has their fingers in the pie, rather than just buying the end product from another country. You've got to have pretty strong reasons not to buy internally in this period.