CAPTURED EQUICMANT

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: Historiker

ORIGINAL: mikemike

ORIGINAL: mlees

Not in great numbers, I don't think, and generally only in desperate times. As I pointed out, resupply of parts (or sometimes ammo) to keep them functioning beyond a couple months would be very unlikely.

The French used german Panther and Königstiger in large quantities and continued their use even some time after the war.

Königstiger in large quantities? They weren´t even built in large quantities...

[Historiker]

Königstiger in large quantities? They weren´t even built in large quantities...

With 489 produced, 30 used by someone else is already a large qzantity - it's over 6% [;)]

The french also used it until 1952!

[mlees]

Thanks gents. I guess I will retract my statements about the use of captured gear. Very interesting stuff. In the context of this game, however, I would recommend some restraint, as production is already somewhat inflated compared to historical levels.
 

as im sure you know, the Panther is basikly a Hevely Modefied T-34.

 
I respectfully disagree. While the Panther was developed in response to the T-34, and incorporated some of the features (sloped armor, wide tracks), it was absolutely an independent design.
 
The T-34 was designed utilising a somewhat "less developed" industrial production and support base. It was designed to operate in more undeveloped country than the earlier German model tanks, and the training and experience levels required to service the T-34 were not as stringent as the more technically demanding German tanks. Indeed, the Panthers early teething problems (like a finicky engine) were the result of an inadequate "stress test" prototype period.
 
From Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panther_tank
 

The two proposals were delivered in April 1942. The Daimler-Benz (DB) design was a direct homage to the T-34, side-stepping the German propensity for over-engineering and, hence, complexity, to produce a clean, simple design resembling the T-34 in hull and turret form, diesel engine, drive system, leaf spring suspension, track layout, and other features. In the DB design, like the T-34 design, the internal crew layout provided for two men: the commander would also have to serve as the gunner. This provided the advantage of a smaller, inexpensive turret design, as well as manpower savings, and a smaller target for enemy gunners to hit during a battle.
 
The MAN design was more conventional German thinking: it was higher and wider with a substantial turret placed centrally on the hull, a petrol engine, torsion-bar suspension, and a characteristically German internal crew layout for three men: commander, gunner, and loader. The MAN design was accepted in May, 1942 in spite of Hitler's preference for the DB design. One of the principal reasons for this was that the MAN design used an existing turret designed by Rheinmetall-Borsig while the DB design would have required a brand new turret to be designed and produced, substantially delaying the commencement of production.

[Japan]

@mlees  

Well, the Panter was after my Dudgement Pritty much based on the Tankaya 34 (T-34).
OF course some new thinking, but both Krupp and Dimler anyway called it the "German T-34"


Anyway here is some other info to add to your info regarding the Pz V
The Panther was a direct response to the Soviet T-34. First encountered on 23 June 1941, the T-34 decisively outclassed the existing Panzer IV and Panzer III. At the insistence of General Heinz Guderian a team was dispatched to the Eastern Front to assess the T-34. Among the features of the Soviet tank considered most significant were the sloping armor, which gave much improved shot deflection and also increased the effective armor thickness against penetration, the wide track and large road wheels which improved mobility over soft ground, and the 76.2 mm gun, which had good armour penetration and fired an effective high-explosive round. Daimler-Benz (DB) and Maschinenfabrik Augsburg-Nürnberg AG (MAN) were tasked with designing a new thirty to thirty-five-ton tank, designated VK3002, by April 1942.

The two proposals were delivered in April 1942. The Daimler-Benz (DB) design was a direct homage to the T-34, side-stepping the German propensity for over-engineering and, hence, complexity, to produce a clean, simple design resembling the T-34.

[mlees]

Japan:

You seem to have quoted (from the same wiki page) the paragraph that preceded the one I quoted with your second paragraph. Did you presume I missed it?

The thing is, there is a big difference between a design inspired by the T-34 (which I and wiki admitted it was) and a design being a near copy, or a "heavily modified version" design.

The similarities between the two designs are in your quote. I mentioned them, but did not quote. Those are sloped armor, wide tracks, large road wheels, similar caliber gun. That's it. Very little else is the same.

Note the sentence in my quote: "The MAN design was more conventional German thinking: it was higher and wider with a substantial turret placed centrally on the hull, a petrol engine, torsion-bar suspension, and a characteristically German internal crew layout for three men: commander, gunner, and loader. The MAN design was accepted in May, 1942 in spite of Hitler's preference for the DB design."

This indicates that the design ultimately approved was the one that the Germans felt met their own standards and needs, not one that was a mere copy.

[Historiker]

There was a real copy of the T-34, but it wasn't accepted for propaganda reasons. It was unacceptable that the Wehrmacht needs to copy equipment from an "inferior race"...

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: Historiker

There was a real copy of the T-34, but it wasn't accepted for propaganda reasons. It was unacceptable that the Wehrmacht needs to copy equipment from an "inferior race"...

VK3002(DB) with torsion bar suspension:




Lots of info here:

Achtung Panzer! - Panther


Leo "Apollo11"

[Japan]

Daimler-Benz was the first to produce their version of VK3002's design based on previously rejected VK3001 (direct copy of T-34/76) design from January of 1942.

Achtung Panzer! - Panther







[:D]

[pad152]

Go look at the Japanese transport ships (AK's) in the WITP database, not all of them were made in Japan!

[Fishbed]

ORIGINAL: Japan

Daimler-Benz was the first to produce their version of VK3002's design based on previously rejected VK3001 (direct copy of T-34/76) design from January of 1942.

Achtung Panzer! - Panther

[:D]

Yes, and...?
They finally chose to produce the MAN model rather...
What are you trying to prove "Japan"? [&:]

Again, the use of captured equipment in Europe was only allowed because of the astronomic amounts captured by the Germans, either in the West or in the East, not to mention the capture of the production equipment in countries such as France. In the East, captures were so important that kits to convert Soviet fire arms or guns calibers were issued, all right, but that's the kind of situation Japan never enjoyed in the Pacific on such as scale, even in the Philippines or in Singapore...

[Japan]

I have now watched the next 3 series in my prodject that semes to last for ever... ( World of War - by Thems)

And thay mantion that Japan Captured some 900 AA Guns from UK, and over 10 000 Smallarms, who was used in Front Line Servise.

I was thinking of one things and I then remember, - BiG.B Mod Simulates Captured Equicmant (in my opinion)... some Japanese Base Forces ect comes with the 40mm Bofors AA Gun, and I have seen some Destroyers? Come with it as well...
Im Pritti sure i have seen one and another other unit also comming with different forms for Allied Equicmant.


[8D][;)][&:][:D]

[JeffroK]

Japan,
 
I would have a serious look at the quality of the program you are watching.
 
"4 Regiments of M3, Matilda & Stuarts", as only 2 British Regiments & 2 US Tk Bns of M3/Stuarts sw service in Burma & the Phillipines this seems very far fetched. Australia used small numbers of Stuarts & Matilda's in New Guinea and I have not heard of any capture/reuse of them.
 
japan did use very small numbers of Stuarts in Burma, equally a very small number of M3 Lt Tks were used in the defense of Mindanao by 100th Div.
 
japane captured over 900 British AA Guns, quite possible with the capture of Hong Kong, Malaya, Singapore & Burma.  But were any units formed with them or just the odd inventive commander scrounging extra firepower.
 
Yep, infantry weapons were more often re-used, but I havent read of many Allied units seeking japanese weapons to replace theirs!

[IKerensky]

Err...

Bofors 40mm is a standard caliber gun produced in Sweden by Bofors, with partial cooperation from Krupp at start...

You can found it in a lot of WWII armies.

By 1943 Japan have produced a copy of the Bofors named :
Japanese 4 cm/60 (1.57") Type 5

He has slightly longer barrel that standard one but worse ammunition, especially fuse.

About the use of captured equipment in Pacific... Could happen in the landwar of Burma/China, less so in the island hoppings. Definitely not an event to be introduced in this game, especially with 1 day combat turn...

And 30% captured material is a very very large amount. Japan on defense wont have left anything for the american to use ( or want to use ), except sabers, helmet and flags... US on the offense, even if repulsed wont be letting a lot of gear avaliable for the Japanese to salvage.

The only things that you want to salvage is motorised vehicules and artillery guns... In the Pacific...

[DuckofTindalos]

During the advance into Burma, the Japanese did utilize a small number of Stuarts abandoned by British 7th Armoured Brigade. However, the use of captured equipment was very limited.

[treespider]

In game terms - one could consider the supply that is captured at a base as being partially composed of captured equipment...reason - supply is used for replacement devices...and when you take away the device names there is not a lot of difference between the values of certain devices...so you could say certain Japanese devices are essentially the same as captured Allied equipment...so in the end there really is no value added by trying to craft some sort of code to account for specific captured devices being used.

[jwilkerson]

Well, there were plenty of captured ships - but easiest way to explain how AE handles captured stuff is to say we thought about it - discussed and decided to handle the same way stock handles - not implemented.

[NormS3]

Quick question.
 
Any chance that instead of captured equipment, the opposing force gains some supply in AE.  But that is  gonna be a change in code isn'y it?

[Nikademus]

Unless i'm mistaken, thats already built into the game. Capturing bases with supply usually bequeaths some of that to the conquorer.

[NormS3]

Yes my alien friend you are right. Guess I was not thinking when I posted. Was focused more on if you destroyed/defeated a unit not base capture. But we can't have everything. But AE will br ****ed close![:D][&o][&o][&o][&o][&o]

[doc smith]

Rather than pursuing this objective, I'd rather have the design/developer team focus on completing the game.  Something like this is small potatoes compared with getting the game out to us!  Hell, I'd like to use guerrillas (OSS) in SE Asia, but I'm not going to ask for it because: a) had little impact and b) there's a point when you go so deeply into the weeds that you lose sight of all else. 

I'd even support a policy of kicking off this forum everyone working on the game.  Time spent considering and answering some of the goofy requests posted here has GOT to delay their work.  I say, chain the nerds to their desks and feed them Red Bull until they finish the damn thing!

'Course, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.