C.O.R.E. Starting 1936 Tech

[McNaughton]

Hi, it has been a while and I was just testing out C.O.R.E. 0.532 and am amazed at how good it is!

One concern that I have is that the 1936 tech distribution is not as it should be. I looked for threads where this would be applicable, but could not find any that were not already innundated.

Some nations are woefully un represented techwize, notably when it comes to Armour.

In 1936, the following nations had the following armoured vehicles developed and/or in production

France (Historically had a lot of tanks developed by 1936)
S-35 Somua (Medium Tank)
Char D-2 (Medium Tank)
R-35 Renault (in larger numbers than the H-35 Hotchkiss_
AMR-35

I think that the tech rating for French tanks should change...

Basic Light Tank:
MG (AMR-33)
20mm (AMR-35)
30mm (R-35 Renault)
40mm (R-35 Renault)
Basic Medium Tanks = Char D-2 (developed in the early 30's)
Improved Light Tanks = H-39 Hotchkiss
Improved Medium Tanks = S-35 Somua
Advanced Light Tanks = AMX-38
Advanced Medium Tanks = S-40 Somua (with a 75mm gun)

----------------------------
MODEL_FRA_4_0;Renault FT-17;;;;;;;;;;x
MODEL_FRA_4_1;Mk V (Late GW);;;;;;;;;;x
MODEL_FRA_4_4;FCM-36 (40mm);;;;;;;;;;x
MODEL_FRA_4_5;AMR-33 (MG);;;;;;;;;;x
MODEL_FRA_4_6;AMR-33 (20mm);;;;;;;;;;x
MODEL_FRA_4_7;Renault R-35 (30mm);;;;;;;;;;x
MODEL_FRA_4_8;Renault R-35 (40mm);;;;;;;;;;x
MODEL_FRA_4_9;Hotchkiss H-39 (20mm);;;;;;;;;;x
MODEL_FRA_4_10;Hotchkiss H-39 (30mm);;;;;;;;;;x
MODEL_FRA_4_11;Hotchkiss H-39 (40mm);;;;;;;;;;x
MODEL_FRA_4_12;AMX-38 (30mm);;;;;;;;;;x
MODEL_FRA_4_13;AMX-38 (40mm);;;;;;;;;;x
MODEL_FRA_4_14;AMX-38 (50mm);;;;;;;;;;x
MODEL_FRA_4_15;AMX-38 (70mm S);;;;;;;;;;x
MODEL_FRA_4_16;Char D-2 (MG);;;;;;;;;;x
MODEL_FRA_4_17;Char D-2 (30mm);;;;;;;;;;x
MODEL_FRA_4_18;Char D-2 (40mm);;;;;;;;;;x
MODEL_FRA_4_19;Char D-2 (50mm);;;;;;;;;;x
MODEL_FRA_4_20;Char D-2 (70mm S);;;;;;;;;;x
MODEL_FRA_4_21;Somua S-35 (40mm);;;;;;;;;;x
MODEL_FRA_4_22;Somua S-35 (50mm);;;;;;;;;;x
MODEL_FRA_4_23;Somua S-35 (70mm M);;;;;;;;;;x
MODEL_FRA_4_24;Somua S-35 (70mm L);;;;;;;;;;x
MODEL_FRA_4_25;Somua S-35 (80mm);;;;;;;;;;x
MODEL_FRA_4_26;Somua S-40 (50mm);;;;;;;;;;x
MODEL_FRA_4_27;Somua S-40 (70mm M);;;;;;;;;;x
MODEL_FRA_4_28;Somua S-40 (70mm L);;;;;;;;;;x
MODEL_FRA_4_29;Somua S-40 (80mm);;;;;;;;;;x
MODEL_FRA_4_33;ARL 44 (80mm);;;;;;;;;;x
MODEL_FRA_4_34;ARL 44 (90mm);;;;;;;;;;x
MODEL_FRA_4_35;ARL 44 (100mm);;;;;;;;;;x
MODEL_FRA_4_36;ARL 44 (120 A);;;;;;;;;;x
MODEL_FRA_4_37;ARL 44 (120 T);;;;;;;;;;x
----------------------------

FCM-36 was used in fewer numbers than the D-2. The D-2 was 'inferior' to both the B-1 Bis and the S-35 Somua.

-----------------------

Italy (starts with just the Fiat 2000!?)
Fiat 3000 (100 by 1929)
CV 29 (30 by 1930) (Tankette .30 MG)
L.3/35 (BLT MG) (in full production and use in 1936, many used in Ethiopia)

As playing Italy, I found it strange that I had to spend about a year to research tanks that were historically in full production a year before the game started.

Since France starts with tanks beyond what it could research, so too should Italy.

I propose that Italy gets the following Tech's:
Great War Tank
Interwar Tanks
Basic Optical Sights
Tankette (.30 MG)
Basic Light Tank Prototype Tests
Basic Light Tank (MG)

-----------------------

On a side note, how about in the late 1930's have a series of minor nation purchases. Many countries bought tanks, or tank technology from larger nations. These tanks were generally...

Vickers 6 ton tanks
Cardon Lloyd tankettes

Many minor nations built up their tank forces through purchases like this (notably being Poland, Holland, Belgium, Siam, Yugoslavia, etc...).

How about an event that arises (sometime) that offers these nations 0.3 MG Tankettes and/or Basic Light Tank MG?

 

[Steel]

I agree about the Italian tank tech, don't know much about the others. Italy also seems to have too few submarine techs. Not really my area of expertise though.

 

[McNaughton]

Italian Submarines

Most Italian subs in WW2 (pre-war) were about 650-800 ton ships (equivalents to German Type VIIC submarines, the main German type)

In 1940, the Italian navy had:

"50 large, 89 medium, 2 cargo and 50 small units", of which "only 7 could be categorized as obsolete".

HoI starts Italy off with 15 or so Sub Groups of the weakest submarines (Coastal subs).

From what I can see, Italy had the capability of building equivalents to German Type VIIC submarines in 1936, and even had a few in her navy already. It should at least have 'Medium Submarine' technology, with a few extra techs to give the Italian navy a good base in which to develop newer types (it eventually developed some good long range subs). The existing Italian navy should be about 50-70% Medium Range submarines instead of just 100% Coastal Subs.

I think that Italy should have exactly the same techs as Germany in regards to submarines.

Check out this site about Italian submarines.

http://members.tripod.com/regiamarina/

-------------------------

Italy also laid down the Vittorio Veneto and Littorio Battleships (known as Treaty Battleships) in October 1934. As it stands now, Italy does not even have the Treaty Battleship technology, or even the Vittorio Veneto or Littorio laid down. I think that they should be like the Andrea Doria and Caio Duilio, as they are already in production and will arrive in April and May 1940 (eating up only 1 IC each). These two IC eaten up by these ships will be critical (since Italy starts with about 112 IC), so I think that giving Italy naval techs equalling that of Germany (at least) would make up for it.

-------------------------

Italy should be ahead of Germany in every tech level in 1936. They never faced restrictions of Germany after WW2, and were able to slowly develop technology ever since the end of WW2 and should not have to catch up. The problem of Italy should be that they start fairly advanced in 1936, but EVERY major nation will soon overshadow them in technology, because Italy has low numbers of IC, and a high military (which eats up the already low IC in supply).

While playing Italy in the current version, I can barely keep up with the lesser major powers in land and air techs (totally ignoring my navy). I produced nothing, and do not know how Italy would be able to achieve historic levels (which would be the production of about 40-50 submarines, along with 3 modern battleships, three armoured divisions and developing technologies in all aspects).

-------------------------

So, what I would like to see is the following

#1. 70% of existing Italian subs to be uprated to Medium Range subs

#2. The Vittorio Veneto (1934-28 April 1940) and Littorio (1934-6 May 1940) Treaty Battleships are under production costing one IC each.

The following technologies should given to them to make them at least equal to Germany (Which for all that I have read, in 1936 they were).

Tech Level
1300 (infantry)
2100 (armour)
5100 (sub techs)

Tech Apps
1205 1206 1207 1301 (infantry)
2006 2987 2104 2101 2103 2201 2202 2203 2101 2986 (armour)
5001 5002 5003 5004 5005 5101 (sub techs)
6211 6212 6412 6616 (surface ships)

 

[McNaughton]

Tanks

The following are for other nations, after doing a bit of research.

The US Christie suspension design was used by Russia and England before 1936, which I consider to be 2301 Improved Gear and 2302 Improved Suspension. Both nations should have these technologies.

Many nations had purchased a Carden Loyd Tankette and other light tanks by 1936. The following nations had purchased the following types from other nations (notably England)

Belgium T.15 (Vickers 6 ton)
Bulgaria Vickers 6 ton, L.3/33 (tankette .30)
Czeckoslovakia: Carden Loyd (tankette .30)
Denmark: Fiat 3000
Estonia: TKS (tankette .30)
Finland: Vickers 6 ton, Carden Loyd (tankette .30)
Latvia: Fiat 3000, Carden Loyd (tankette .30)
Lithuania: Vickers 6 ton
Netherlands: Carden Loyd (tankette .30)
Poland: TKS (tankette .30), Vickers 6 ton (later developed into the 7TP)
Portugal: Vickers 6 ton
Romaina: Vickers 6 ton, Carden Loyd (tankette .30)
Sweden: Carden Loyd (tankette .30) (plus sweeden developed many Basic Light Tanks, the Landsvark series)
Switzerland: Carden Loyd (tankette .30)
Thailand: Vickers 6 ton, Carden Loyd (tankette .30)
Turkey: T-26 (purchased from Russia in 1933)

The Carden Loyd represents the tankette .30, but I am not sure what the Vickers 6 ton should represent, since it was just a glorified tankette, possibly the tankette .50? Since these tankettes were usually purchased in small numbers, they would be probably better represented as a Tank Prototype, instead of an actual tank. So instead of giving the nation Tankette .30 or Tankete .50 technology, they should be given Interwar Tanks, Early Suspension, Early Gear, Early Optical sights, and Tankette prototype

So, nations that recieved the Carden Loyd/Vickers 6 ton should get the following techs (if they already don't have them). All major nations should have the following tech as well (except the US which had political problems in developing tanks which I am going to bring up).

Techlevels
2100
Techapps
2201 2202 2203 2101 2986 (note, many nations will not have the Great War tank tech)

*Those that have the Fiat 3000 (Denmark) should only get the following
2006

**Those that have the Fiat 3000 and Tankette (Latvia) should get the following

Techlevels
2100
Techapps
2006 2201 2202 2203 2101 2986

...and Russia and England should get these techs for the Christie suspension.
2301 2302

-----------------

Possibly those nations that have the Vickers 6 ton tank should get the following technology?

2103 (Basic Light Tank Prototype Tests)

 

[McNaughton]

US Tanks

I found this from the TANKS! website, which spurned my interest.

"The period between the two World Wars, only infantry units were allowed to have "tanks" (American political and military intelligence) before 1939."

Basically, the US had a lot indigenous of designes put forward to them, but really did not take to them. The US should have the ability to build Great War tanks, but not even have the prototype for Tankettes. The US relied heavily on US built FT-17s, and only paid lip service to tankettes and tank development. I think that they should have the following techs (which is more than what they currently have, but below that of even other minor nations)

Extra US tank techs

2006 2100 2201 2202 2203
(since the US did not have anything beyond tankette chasis in experimental versions, not even close to producable prototypes).

 

[unmerged(14683)]

France:


As I understand, changes you propose are mainly in model names, not in real techs? As I see it, France got most of it's 1936 tank techs present (heavy tanks, light and medium tanks and so on).
Discussion about the models names is on the other hand the discussion about the approach to the "improved" and "advanced" technology. While I can agree that Somua's can be count among basic or improved tanks, adding those to the "advanced" category (Panther, long barreled Sherman, T-34/85) is a bit controversial. Main problem in

Italy:

Fully agree, I'll correct that.

Other nations:

Will check that.

BTW, finally someone answered on that problem! When I was preparing starting tech list I was pretty sure, that after few days lots of enraged players will ask for update of to the historical level and problem will be solved. But it took almost 4 months... Thanks!

 

[hendriks]

Fully agree, I'll correct that

PLEASE keep in mind the balance of the game, Italy already as only an AI has no problem disposing the UK + allies in North Africa, so I am afraid giving them more techs will unbalance everything more........

 

[unmerged(14683)]

Originally posted by hendriks
PLEASE keep in mind the balance of the game, Italy already as only an AI has no problem disposing the UK + allies in North Africa, so I am afraid giving them more techs will unbalance everything more........

ITA will be hit by lower org/stats units from their doctrines, and their famous tankette tank divisions will not change balance that much.

 

[McNaughton]

Originally posted by hendriks
PLEASE keep in mind the balance of the game, Italy already as only an AI has no problem disposing the UK + allies in North Africa, so I am afraid giving them more techs will unbalance everything more........

Remove every tech but Italy's ability to build Infantry and supply them in North Africa and they will still overrun Egypt without any difficulty. Unfortunately the problem exists with England, and no matter what is done to neuter Italy they will still easily romp through Egypt. No sense in destroying Italy's chances in the Balkans as well.

The main reason why I believe that these tech updates are important for Italy is because of the following reason. Italy is in such a economic and military position in 1936 that it is impossible for them to achive historic levels of production/tech development given their current situation. No way would I have been able to, by 1940, get Italy to the proper technological level that they historically were (with Basic fighters, bombers, medium and light tanks, sub and surface navy, basic infantry, etc.) along with constructing the proper units (4 post-treaty battleships, subs and destroyers, 3 armoured divisions). I could barely develop techs to keep their Armour, Infantry and Airforce at par with local minor nations and constructing nothing from 1936-1939 (completely outclassed in every aspect by all majors as well as having zero submarine, surface navy and electronics tech development).

Italy is a nation of slow growth. Even with the tech increases in 1936, by 1939/40, the major nations will still be about 0.5 year ahead of Italy in regards to technology. As it stands now, it is about 2 years behind the major nations in tech, and in areas that you do not concentrate in, 3. Italy needs to be at par with nations like Germany, France, England and Russia, since all of these nations have the ability to develop technology and have military growth at much greater rates than Italy. No sense in neutering Italy further.

------------------------

The addition of tankettes into the Italian (and giving tankette prototypes to specific minor nations) inventory will not be a groundbreaking event in 1936. As many people have stated, developing tanks is a resource and time consuming project. Tankettes are the first armoured units in a nations inventory that are not completely worthless (the Great War tanks are slow, weak, and supply hogs), but are only REALLY just glorified cavalry when it comes down to it. It isn't like that giving Lithuania tankettes will result in them having advanced medium tanks by 1940. Most likely tankettes will be the only things that these minor nations wil ever develop, since they are probably the most expensive units to develop into powerful units.

 

[Steel]

Originally posted by McNaughton
Italy (starts with just the Fiat 2000!?)
Fiat 3000 (100 by 1929)
CV 29 (30 by 1930) (Tankette .30 MG)
L.3/35 (BLT MG) (in full production and use in 1936, many used in Ethiopia)

McNaughton, what's your source on the L.3/35? I've got conflicting information stating it was a "refresh" version of the L.3/33 and first used in WW2 (ie 1940) *or* that it was used in 1934. It appears to have been used as 1x6.5mm MG tank, 2x6.5mm MG tank and as a flame tank but that the 20mm or 37mm AT version was never delivered (but maybe retrofitted).

http://www.wwiivehicles.com/html/italy/L3_CV33_L5_CV35.htm

http://www.comandosupremo.com/CarroCV33.html

 

[McNaughton]

This is the site I use, but have seen the sites you posted.

http://mailer.fsu.edu/~akirk/tanks/

**Look on the left frame to find Italy, then go to tanks. The L.3 is about 1/5 down from the top.

**Hold the mouse cursor over pictures, and text will appear. Hold the mouse over the 3rd row 3rd picture (of the 20mm armed L.3) which gives the history of the L.3/38 and how many L.3/33 and 35's were upgraded to the L.3/38 standard. They were mainly field upgrades, as you said.

The writeup of the CV.33/35 or L.3/33 and L.3/35 is...

"Designed by Ansaldo but based upon earlier Carro Veloce 29. Although commonly referred to as a tank, this vehicle falls more properly within the classification of a tankette. The Italian authorities showed an interest in a small, light vehicle which would be suitable for use in mountainous terrain, leading to the acquisition of 25 British Carden Loyd Mark VI tankettes in 1929. A Fiat-Ansaldo modification of the Mark VI, armed with a Fiat Model 14 water-cooled 6.5 mm machine gun was designated as the carro i,elo(-e (CV) 29. The armament was subsequently changed to a single Fiat Model 14 air-cooled anti-aircraft machine gun, still 6.5 mm. Subsequent modifications resulted in the CV 3/33, still armed with a single 6.5 mm air-cooled weapon. Apart from its distinctive armament, this first series of CV 3/33 had a characteristic track tension idler mounted in a bracket which was attached to the rear idler wheel. In 1934, the second series of CV 3/33 appeared, with the track tension idler separated from the rear idler, and with two 8 mm machine guns as standard armament. The earlier series of CV 3/33 were eventually retrofitted with the heavier armament also. Development continued, and in 1935 the CV 3/35 appeared, Incorporating minor design and production changes, and retaining the 8 mm armament. A final version, of which only a limited number was produced, was introduced in 1938. It differed significantly in its suspension system, and was armed with a single Breda 13.2 mm machine gun. External stowage of entrenching tools, etc, varied from series to series. The designation of both the CV 3/33 and 3/35 was changed to L.3 in the late 1930s.

Variations of the L.3 were built for special applications. The most frequently encountered variant was the flamethrower, which was built in a version with a self-contained tank for flame liquid, and also in a version in which a wheeled tank trailer carrying the liquid was towed behind the CV. There were a number of radio-equipped variants of the L.3 used by company and battalion commanders. A limited number of L.3s were modified to mount the 20 mm Solothurn anti-tank gun in lieu of the machine guns.(This site credits them as L.3/38's) Two experimental variants of the L.3 were also produced, the first being the carro gettaponte, or bridge-laying tank, very similar in concept to present-day AVLBS, and the second being a recovery vehicle with an A-frame on the rear which could be controlled from inside the tank, making it similar in concept to present-day VTRS. It is interesting to note that this appears to have been the only Italian attempt at building a tracked VTR."

I am going to use the later terminology of L.3/33 and L.3/35 as it meshes better with the later modifications.

L.3/33 was developed first, based on the CV 29.
L.3/33 was upgraded from a 6.5mm MG to a 8mm MG
L.3/35 was basically a L.3/33 but with minor detail changes
The 1938 version (I believe that currently the game has it as the L3/38) has a 13.2mm MG
The 20mm armed L.3 did exist (as the L.3 cc), but as it says, in small numbers and probably only in 1940 (this, the L.3 cc, is the version that was first used in 1940).

The problem with the L3 is that it is basically an unchanged vehicle that went through numerous name changes throughout its life. The 33's and 35's were little different, and were both produced before the war and were (Generally) MG armed vehicles.

GENERALLY, the numbering system of the Italian armoured forces works as such.

L = Light
M = Medium
P = Heavy (I believe)

I am not sure what the second number means, but the second number is definitely a year, its starting service year. HOWEVER, this second number is also misleading. The L.6/40 actually started production in 1939, and from what I can understand, the L3/35 saw action in 1934, but the CV 29 was definitely in production starting in 1929.

Also, from all accounts, the L.6/40 was the equivalent of the German PzKpfw II, and should probably be Italy's Basic Light Tank 20mm, 30mm, 40mm, not Italy's Improved Light Tank as it currently is.

 

[Gwalcmai]

My main objection to the "tankettes for minors" idea is that up to now, in C.O.R.E. owning some equipment doesn't necessarily give the country the tech, the criteria is usually "able to build new ones". For instance, in the naval department (I've been annoying MDow ), Portugal had ships it was unable to build. Mostly bought from England. So, it can have those ships in the starting OOB, but it's a bit silly to give Portugal advanced techs for something that was built in Scottish shipyards.

In that same light, the fact that many nations had bought armour from the UK doesn't immediately enable them to build it. You can make a case for it if it was built under license in the country, or if it's industry was building similar stuff (for instance, if Poland had a thriving industry and built trucks, guns, engines and what not, it would be possible to start copying foreign equipment, until the experience to design new stuff came along. OTOH, Tibet could have bought a division worth of the best tanks in the world without coming any closer to being able to build the most basic car.

That's about the tankettes for minors. I really have no objection to your Italy ideas...

 

[Steel]

Thanks for the source info. I'm trying to determine if Italy should have the Ampib Tank and Basic Tank theories and the Light Tank MG (with it's pre-reqs) apps. There's obviously two aspects to it, accuracy from a historical snapshot point of view (ie what Italy had) and accuracy from a look-ahead (to 1940) point of view (ie what Italy should be able to reach).

The source you used state weights of 3.15 tons and 6.8 tons for the 33 and 35 models. Comandosupremo states 2.7 tons and 3.3 tons. WWIIVehicles states 3.35 tons. I'm thinking that the 6.8 tons specification must relate to field retrofit versions rather than factory spec. Also your source states this vehicle falls more properly within the classification of a tankette.

Bottom line:

1 - is the L.3/35 (or MODEL_ITA_4_5;Carro Leggero CL.35 (MG) in models.csv) actually a tankette and Italy should *not* have those techs?

2 - or is the L.3/35 definitely a Lt MG Tank and Italy *should* have those techs (all the way to Lt MG Tank with all pre-reqs and theories)?

3 - or should we maybe give Italy the Tankette .30 (which seems to be what they used in the wars 1934-1940) *plus* the theory levels (Amphib and Basic Tanks) but *not* the Lt Tank Prototype and the Lt Tank MG applications?


I'm starting to lean towards option 3. It gives Italy tankette units for the early wars (historical) and a choice on what Lt Tank they want to deploy.

 

[McNaughton]

Here are a few nations that definitely took foreign purchased equipment and developed their own equipment based off of the prototypes.

Belgium
Took purchased British tankette tractors and developed both the T.15 and T.13 classes

Poland
Took the Cardon Loyd and produced the TK and TKS based off of it.
Took the Vickers 6 ton and produced the 7TP

Czechoslovakia
Czech P-I Tankette, based off of the Cardon Loyd in 1934.

Sweeden
Many indigenous designs.

What I proposed was to give these nations the technology of a Tankette prototype, not the actual tankette (they would have to research it on their own. That is why these nations bought these tankettes, as prototypes. You will notice that none of the nations that I chose were anything close to the industrial capacity of Tibet. They were all European nations (I was considering suggesting this to some South American nations), who had the ability to take a prototype and build upon it or reproduce it (they all had some form of heavy industry).

It was also not like these nations could not build these tankettes, but some chose not to produce their own equipment. The Netherlands was capable of building Battle Cruisers, yet did not build an indigenous tank. They had Cardon Loyd tankettes, and the ability to build them, but just didn't. The ability to producetanks, and the knowledge of how a tank works are two completely different things. Acquiring a prototype gives a nation the understanding of the basics of a type of a tank. They can repair it, up arm it, etc. It is up to them to develop the industry of producing the tank .

Why should Bulgaria have to research a tankette prototype when they already have a bunch of them sitting around in inventory? What they should have to research is how to produce them in mass quantity (which is what I see Tankette .30 and Tankette .50 techs are).

 

[McNaughton]

Originally posted by Steel
Thanks for the source info. I'm trying to determine if Italy should have the Ampib Tank and Basic Tank theories and the Light Tank MG (with it's pre-reqs) apps. There's obviously two aspects to it, accuracy from a historical snapshot point of view (ie what Italy had) and accuracy from a look-ahead (to 1940) point of view (ie what Italy should be able to reach).

The source you used state weights of 3.15 tons and 6.8 tons for the 33 and 35 models. Comandosupremo states 2.7 tons and 3.3 tons. WWIIVehicles states 3.35 tons. I'm thinking that the 6.8 tons specification must relate to field retrofit versions rather than factory spec. Also your source states this vehicle falls more properly within the classification of a tankette.

Bottom line:

1 - is the L.3/35 (or MODEL_ITA_4_5;Carro Leggero CL.35 (MG) in models.csv) actually a tankette and Italy should *not* have those techs?

2 - or is the L.3/35 definitely a Lt MG Tank and Italy *should* have those techs (all the way to Lt MG Tank with all pre-reqs and theories)?

3 - or should we maybe give Italy the Tankette .30 (which seems to be what they used in the wars 1934-1940) *plus* the theory levels (Amphib and Basic Tanks) but *not* the Lt Tank Prototype and the Lt Tank MG applications?


I'm starting to lean towards option 3. It gives Italy tankette units for the early wars (historical) and a choice on what Lt Tank they want to deploy.

I like option #3 as well. The PzKpfw IA, AMR-33, which are contemporary versions of the Basic Light Tank (MG) are vastly superior to the L.3/35, which was just basically the best a Tankette could ever be.

The L.6/40 should be Italy's Basic Light Tank, not the L.3. Possibly even giving them Basic Tanks might be a bit much. Italy should not get a Basic Light Tank, or Basic Medium Tank until 1939 (based on balanced tech distribution and average research amounts). This means they have 3 years to develop Basic Light Tanks (20mm) and Basic Medium Tanks (30mm) to meet historic requirmenents. Giving them Basic Tanks would probably let them have these tanks by 1938 on average. I toyed with giving Italy Basic Tanks, but this was just too much. Amphibious tanks should be ok to give to them.

 

[Gwalcmai]

I'll admit the Tibet thing was a bit overboard... But, from your post, I now gather that some of those nations should have not only the prototype but also the model. The Czechoslovakians, at least.

I probably missed the prototype part of your proposal, BTW. I was thinking in the naval tree terms, where you don't get prototypes. After you spelled it out for me (thanks) your proposal makes sense...

Taking a "demo version" of a tankette, changing it slightly and claiming it was a new design would fit in nicely with the story of the portuguese "Vergueiro" rifle, which was really a Mauser/Mannlicher hybrid the POR arsenal "designed" in 1904 to save up on paying royalties...

 

[McNaughton]

Originally posted by Gwalcmai
I'll admit the Tibet thing was a bit overboard... But, from your post, I now gather that some of those nations should have not only the prototype but also the model. The Czechoslovakians, at least.

I probably missed the prototype part of your proposal, BTW. I was thinking in the naval tree terms, where you don't get prototypes. After you spelled it out for me (thanks) your proposal makes sense...

Taking a "demo version" of a tankette, changing it slightly and claiming it was a new design would fit in nicely with the story of the portuguese "Vergueiro" rifle, which was really a Mauser/Mannlicher hybrid the POR arsenal "designed" in 1904 to save up on paying royalties...

I thought you might have missed the prototype aspect. I find it difficult to keep track of the different requirements for each type of unit too. Ships require one set, aircraft another, and tanks are just chaotic. Glad this was cleared up!

 

[McNaughton]

Here is a revised Model list for the Italians (I know it should be in a different thread, but since this might be used to determine what tech's Italy has based upon tanks used in 1936 I will post it here and there)

MODEL_ITA_4_0;Fiat 2000 (Early WWI Tank);;;;;;;;;;x
MODEL_ITA_4_1;Fiat 3000 (Late WWI Tank);;;;;;;;;;x
MODEL_ITA_4_2;Carro Leggero L.3/33 (.30);;;;;;;;;;x
MODEL_ITA_4_3;Carro Leggero L.3/35 (.50);;;;;;;;;;x
MODEL_ITA_4_4;Semovente 75/18 (Infantry Tank);;;;;;;;;;x
MODEL_ITA_4_5;Carro Leggero L.6/40* (MG);;;;;;;;;;x
MODEL_ITA_4_6;Carro Leggero L.6/40 (20mm);;;;;;;;;;x
MODEL_ITA_4_7;Carro Leggero L.6/40 (30mm);;;;;;;;;;x
MODEL_ITA_4_8;Carro Leggero L.6/40 (40mm);;;;;;;;;;x
MODEL_ITA_4_9; (20mm);;;;;;;;;;x
MODEL_ITA_4_10; (30mm);;;;;;;;;;x
MODEL_ITA_4_11; (40mm);;;;;;;;;;x
MODEL_ITA_4_16;Carro Medio M.11/39* (MG);;;;;;;;;;x
MODEL_ITA_4_17;Carro Medio M.11/39 (30mm);;;;;;;;;;x
MODEL_ITA_4_18;Carro Medio M.11/39* (40mm);;;;;;;;;;x
MODEL_ITA_4_19;Carro Medio M.11/39* (50mm);;;;;;;;;;x
MODEL_ITA_4_20;Carro Medio M.11/39* (70mm/S);;;;;;;;;;x
MODEL_ITA_4_21;Carro Medio M.13/40 (40mm);;;;;;;;;;x
MODEL_ITA_4_22;Carro Medio M.13/40* (50mm);;;;;;;;;;x
MODEL_ITA_4_23;Carro Medio M.13/40* (70mm/M);;;;;;;;;;x
MODEL_ITA_4_24;Carro Medio M.13/40* (70mm/L);;;;;;;;;;x
MODEL_ITA_4_25;Carro Medio M.13/40* (80mm);;;;;;;;;;x
MODEL_ITA_4_26;Carro Armato P.26/40* (50mm);;;;;;;;;;x
MODEL_ITA_4_27;Carro Armato P.26/40 (70mm/M);;;;;;;;;;x
MODEL_ITA_4_28;Carro Armato P.26/40* (70mm/L);;;;;;;;;;x
MODEL_ITA_4_29;Carro Armato P.26/40* (80mm);;;;;;;;;;x

*I don't have anything for Improved Light Tanks, since the Italians didn't make any light tanks after the L.6/40 (which is, in all respects, a Basic Light Tank). Possibly we could just make up a fictional tank like the "Carro Leggero L.9/41*" or something (better than just having the basic "Adv. Light Tank".

**I changed the Advanced Medium Tanks to be the P.26/40 instead of the M.15/41 because the P.26/40 was a true Advanced Medium Tank, (the M.15/41 was basically an improved M.13/40), and was produced in larger numbers than hte M.15/41.