Matrix Games Forums

Inherited from the RN...are we talking about ships or traditions? To say America based her naval traditions solely from the RN is laughable at best.

ORIGINAL: aspqrz

ORIGINAL: LiquidSky
How long did it take the americans to build their tradition?

Inherited it from the RN.


YMMV

Phil

Everyone is forgetting that the war doctrine level is one higher for Great Britain.

ORIGINAL: rogo727

Inherited from the RN...are we talking about ships or traditions? To say America based her naval traditions solely from the RN is laughable at best.

Hmm.

UK colonists in UK colonies rebelling against the UK.

Where did you think they got their traditions from, the Imperial Chinese Navy?

Seriously, while, I expect, they may have gained some technical knowhow for their first Frigates, the ones that did so well in the War of 1812, from their contacts with the French, let's face it, they certainly didn't get their "tradition of victory" as the RN would have put it, from the French ... since the French navy was always inferior in the way it was handled compared to the RN.

For much the same reason as the German fleet was in WW1/WW2 ... scared of scratching the paint on their shiny new toys, coupled with piss poor training, piss poor morale, politically appointed officers ... or officer scared of the "tree of liberty" (Madame Guillotine) if they failed ...

This is the sort of tradition the USN inherited. And, while it isn't as old as the RN, it's done rather well in the last 222 years or so since the end of the Revolutionary wars.

YMMV of course.

Phil

Which War Doctrine Level? There's only one shown in the Editor, and that's for Land Warfare (at least, that's what it calls it, and it would make no sense at all for it apply to Land, Air and Naval simultaneously ... does it?) ... and Germany is one higher than the Allies ... is there a Naval Doctrine Level shown somewhere?

Where?

Phil

Definitely a good thread, technologies should be discussed. I am glad someone opened this up. As far as I know of the early years and tank/aircraft/gun technology.

Tanks:

UK superior, with the A-series(medium Tank) the Matilda(heavy superior to the Germans. At the outbreak of WW2.The French Somua/Char1B, far superior to that of the Panzer I/II...Panzer III being a decent medium tank, but not much better than the stolen Czech medium tanks. Weaker Armor.

So here I would rate it like this:
French Level 2
Germany Level 1
UK level 2 possibly

Fact was the way they were used, not the tanks themselves, so the tactics for the Germans could argue would put them above the other two in use of the armor. Do we figure in tactics into technology? If I were to, I'd either have to give the German Panzers a Blitzkrieg Bonus through 1942, until the West & Russians learned how to fight and use Armor spearheads or keep the German Tank Tech ahead.

As for the USSR: T-34... great for the steppes, wide tracks, slopped armor, a great weapon. A great many built.

The Mark IV by the time Barbarossa hits isn't a marked improvement. Again Germany lags behind USSR, but the tactics again. The Stugs(tank destroyers are also a factor) they may not be literally tanks but they are part of armored formations. As are ATGs. As for how each side holds up in this category. That fluctuates throughout the war and the tactics used with each. Though they're as much about armor as anything.

I'd place the USSR: at Tank level 2 as well, USA I won't comment on.


P.S. now someone comment on the fighters involved at the outbreak. French D.520, British Hurricanes, German 109s, Italian G.50s, American Early P-Series Planes, and Red Wings mixed 4 various fighters. P39, Mig3 to start with.

ORIGINAL: battlevonwar
So here I would rate it like this:
French Level 2
Germany Level 1
UK level 2 possibly

You have to place the Level at the figure for the majority of the vehicles available, T34, Matilda, etc., good as they may have been, were only small fractions of the overall tank force, early in the war, and not representative of a nation's overall capability.

There are other factors in tank performance other than gun, armour and speed, the Matilda had no HE capability and therefore could not suppress anti-tank guns, until it got with M/G range. Most Soviet tanks had no radios and had to rely on flag signals for control, the commanders of early French and Russian tanks were overloaded as they had to operate guns as well.

Guderian is foremost in tank warfare, but he was initially a radio specialist, it was in the control of tanks that he excelled.

In 1940 the French were mainly relying on dispatch riders to pass orders from HQ (Supreme HQ at Vincennes had no radio installed), it sometimes took the rider two days to find the unit the message was meant for, much too late to match the German advance.

The French used fuel tankers to carry fuel out to the units, they could only refuel a few vehicles at a time, making refuelling a long process, (Char B only had a short range). The fuel tankers were easily identifiable and very vulnerable to attack. A tank without fuel is 30 tons of scrap iron. The Germans used the 'jerry' can, any vehicle could become a refueller and, when the cans reached the units, each crew could take their share of jerry cans and refuel simultaneously, it was also easier to carry spare cans to extend range.

Initially, the British used commercially produced cans which were of thin metal and prone to leak, captured jerry cans were highly prized and later in the war the Allies had huge stockpiles of their own fuel containers.

All of these items affected the effectiveness of each nation's tank units, perhaps more than the vehicles themselves. Whether these factors are covered by tech level, or doctrine, I am not able to say, but it's more than which tanks had most armour, or biggest gun. [:)]

Indeed.

But the Panzer 35t ands 38t were probably almost as good as the Matilda, Somua and R-35s ... and Panzer IIIs and IVs were coming online by 1939, and they were as good as the Matildas and French tanks, especially when upgunned ... though the T-34's were superior in concept.

Of course, you do know that the early model T-34's fielded in 1940 had guns whose barrels were bored, shall we say, somewhat askew on an unreliably reliable basis, and had considerable accuracy problems initially.

And, of course, you also know that the T-34 typically went into combat with a spare gearbox strapped to the back deck ... because the average MTBF for the gearbox was around 10 hours of driving time, so crudely made were the running parts of the engine and transmission.

In fact, Brand New T-34's are know to have had a MTBF of no more than 35 hours, all up, before something major took them down. They were, very much, throwaway vehicles ... it's fortunate the Russians were able to produce as many of them as they did because something like 80% were destroyed in combat or as a result of combat throughout the war.

Phil

All sides did it ... used captured weapons ... but the Germans did it a lot ... and this would probably be representable by allowing a nation to take a boost either directly to their TL or to the investment/time they have in by conquering a nation with a higher TL in that area ... or you could script events to allow them to purchase a limited number of higher TL units, like the Germans starting with TL (2) Infantry even though they only have Artillery (1).

Or are there such scripted events already?

Phil

IIRC in 1941, the T-34 crew was trained for couple of hours before sent to the front line

ORIGINAL: battlevonwar
P.S. now someone comment on the fighters involved at the outbreak. French D.520, British Hurricanes, German 109s, Italian G.50s, American Early P-Series Planes, and Red Wings mixed 4 various fighters. P39, Mig3 to start with.

As with the previous post, this is a strategic game and it's not so much the attributes of each nation's individual aircraft, but the effectiveness of each nation's air units and operating system.

This has come up in another thread, but however good the Spitfire, Hurricane, D.520, or Bf109E may have been, their respective performance owed more to the way that they were operated.

In 1940 RAF Fighter Command was still using the 3 aircraft 'Vic' close formation, which meant that most of the pilots were intent on maintaining their position in formation and only the formation leaders were fully able to look-out for the enemy. The Luftwaffe fighters was using the looser 'finger 4' formation, allowing all of the pilots to look-out, rather than watching each other.

The UK air defence system (not just the availability of radar, but the comms net, the ground observers, the control organisation, etc.), restored the balance, but only in UK airspace. The RAF fighters may not have been able to look-out so well, initially, but the control system was telling them where the enemy was and putting them in advantageous positions, where possible.

The US had 300 P-40 fighters sitting on airfields in the Hawaiian Islands and, through radar, saw the attacking formations approaching, but had no system evolved to react. So again, it's not so much the individual aircraft, but the way they are used.

But on the issue of individual aircraft, the important factors may not be the obvious ones of guns and speed. There is always a lot of debate on whether the Spitfire, or Bf109 could turn the tightest in a dogfight.

The Spitfire wing was designed with a twist down the span to the wing-tip. Known as 'washout', the wing presents a greater angle to the airflow at the wing root, than it does at the wing-tip. This means that, as the wing comes close to stalling, as can happen in a high speed turn, the stall starts at the wing-root first, causing buffeting and vibration, this warns the pilot to ease the turn, before something worse happens. In other high performance aircraft of the time, the stall started at the wing-tip, causing a vicious stall into a spin, with little, or no warning.

This all means that Spitfire pilots (many very young and inexperienced) had the confidence to throw their aircraft into tight turns, knowing the Spitfire would warn them if they went too tight. Pilots of other aircraft had to treat them with greater respect and were often not able to use the full capabilities of the aircraft.

This explains why some German pilots were able to amass huge scores in the Bf 109, as once they had fully mastered the aircraft it could be supreme, whereas an average Spitfire pilot could dance away from an average Bf109 pilot, who did not have full confidence in his aircraft.

This is only to show how deep the discussion could go, but in a strategic game, I don't know how much these factors should impact into tech levels, effectiveness and doctrine. [:)]l

ORIGINAL: aspqrz

Indeed.

But the Panzer 35t ands 38t were probably almost as good as the Matilda, Somua and R-35s ... and Panzer IIIs and IVs were coming online by 1939, and they were as good as the Matildas and French tanks, especially when upgunned ... though the T-34's were superior in concept.

Of course, you do know that the early model T-34's fielded in 1940 had guns whose barrels were bored, shall we say, somewhat askew on an unreliably reliable basis, and had considerable accuracy problems initially.

And, of course, you also know that the T-34 typically went into combat with a spare gearbox strapped to the back deck ... because the average MTBF for the gearbox was around 10 hours of driving time, so crudely made were the running parts of the engine and transmission.

In fact, Brand New T-34's are know to have had a MTBF of no more than 35 hours, all up, before something major took them down. They were, very much, throwaway vehicles ... it's fortunate the Russians were able to produce as many of them as they did because something like 80% were destroyed in combat or as a result of combat throughout the war.

Phil

Which is the point I am making, it's not just the paper specifications of each vehicle, it's the overall performance and effectiveness of each nation's armoured units, which counts. In June 1941 most Soviet armoured units had little effective recon assets. It would not have mattered how good, or bad their tanks were, they often didn't know where the Germans were, before they blundered into them.

When the fronts became static the Germans lost some of this advantage, as the opposing positions were at least known. [:)]

Ah yes the technology question!

Well when reading through this post you do get the general picture! why where the Germans so successfull in 1939/1940 with such "mediocre" technology in their tanks/planes/ships...???? it was because of the way they used them! i.e. the operational doctrine and also military tradition is what made the huge difference.

So the REAL way it should be organized in a game on this scale is to separate TECHNOLOGY from DOCTRINE with ideally also military tradition of the country being accounted for as well. Then you can make much more realistic feeling values. Like for example having Russion TANK technology being 2 or even 3 to begin with (higher than the German Tank technology) but the usage Doctrine and the military tradition for using tanks being absolute minimum horrible values. Similar with the western Allies....with the same being said for Navy and Air correspondingly.

If you look at the HOI series for example there you see what is really needed in this respect - translated to ToF - separate Technology, Operational Doctrine and Military Tradition values for EACH military branch. THEN you could implement all the indeed correct comments mentioned here.

Currently the ToW, SoP, ToF games unfortunately only have "one" doctrine type - the Land Doctrine value. With also in a smaller more indirect way the const. values being a albeit poor representation of country military tradition. This is what the real problem is! So what I understand the current situation to be is that the starting technology values represent a compromise solution as adjustments for game play reasons (i.e. Hybrid values) since this ideal solution isn't/can't be implemented.

In the best of all worlds it whould be possible to do research / development in operational doctrine, combined with some form of influence of the "war-experience" of the armies & generals and military tradition of the country for each military branch of the current "technologies" ....similar to like in HOI [8|]

Romdanzer

But the Panzer 35t ands 38t were probably almost as good as the Matilda, Somua and R-35s ... and Panzer IIIs and IVs were coming online by 1939, and they were as good as the Matildas and French tanks, especially when upgunned ... though the T-34's were superior in concept.

Not quite.

This is from an old S&T # 27 back in 71-73 or some such.

Yes. You have an excellent point. Perhaps there should be separate Naval, Air and Land Doctrine values ... if the Game Engine can support it.

I would further suggest that the Air Doctrine should be divided into Fighter and Bomber Doctrines, the Naval into Surface and Submarine and the Land into Infantry and Armour ... and that, unlike the way the data files suggest it works, you be allowed to research these areas and speed up their arrival. Or perhaps it could be related to experience increase thresholds?

(As it is, if I read the data files correctly, Land Doctrine increases occur at hard coded times)

Phil

aspqrz yes that would be great if it could be done - unfortunately I don't think it can. I assume that if it could have been done WI would have done that with this game engine a long time ago - after all ToF is not the first in this series with this game engine. see ToW and SoP.

So I think that we will have to live with these starting tech values being stand-in, compromise, game-balancing values... [:(]

Romdanzer

So many great posts, I cannot keep up. I will have to return. I will say though, The 38(t) doesn't touch the S-35/Char ~tank to tank~, the Germans knew it. Look at at S-35 and you know what I mean..(she is just a thing of beauty) Of course French Training and Tactics? That is under Battlefield Doctrine. : ) personally, I would doubt they'll reprogram the game, but they may script events in for bonuses to certain fighting units?

ORIGINAL: Romdanzer

aspqrz yes that would be great if it could be done - unfortunately I don't think it can. I assume that if it could have been done WI would have done that with this game engine a long time ago - after all ToF is not the first in this series with this game engine. see ToW and SoP.

So I think that we will have to live with these starting tech values being stand-in, compromise, game-balancing values... [:(]

Romdanzer

Yes, I have the previous two versions as well, so I suspect you are right



Pity, though.

Phil

There are short term Strength boosts as part of some Tech upgrades, that would work, but it would probably have to be longer ... as it is, IIRC, they're on the order of 5-10 weeks, when it would have to be something more like *months* ... depending on the Tech area advanced in.

Phil

ORIGINAL: battlevonwar
So many great posts, I cannot keep up. I will have to return. I will say though, The 38(t) doesn't touch the S-35/Char ~tank to tank~, the Germans knew it. Look at at S-35 and you know what I mean..(she is just a thing of beauty) Of course French Training and Tactics? That is under Battlefield Doctrine. : ) personally, I would doubt they'll reprogram the game, but they may script events in for bonuses to certain fighting units?

Tank for tank the Char B/S-35 would be better in stand up fight, but one shot through the Char B side radiator, or the commander busy operating the turret gun alone, or no fuel because the refuelling tanker is a flaming wreck on the supply route, or the 38(t) is miles away, because you have out of date orders, or ...............[:)]