C.O.R.E. : Technology tree - support, ideas, problems...

[Semi-Lobster]

What was the T-34/85 called when it was built in Poland during the Warsaw Pact? In that case we could use that instead. I'm against though just assuming what a country's tank will be named. The 10TP, 14TP, 20TP and 25TP because in the first few there where actual prototypes, while the others where designs that where never completed. Actually this could be useful for all Warsaw Pact countries if we use the local designation of Soviet armour rather then the Soviet names

 

[Jedrek41]

Okay, I understand. I just fought that adding hypotetical units would be better than just leaving empty spaces.

BTW, I think that 7TP should be considered a medium, not light tank. According to http://www.linux-penguin.org/achtungpanzer/pol/pol7tp.htm it was comparable to PzIII. A 4TP tank could replace 7TP as a light one. Here's a site about 4TP recon tank:

http://www.geocities.com/pibwl/4tp.htm

 

[Jedrek41]

Okay, I understand. I just fought that adding hypotetical units would be better than just leaving empty spaces.

BTW, I think that 7TP should be considered a medium, not light tank. According to

http://www.linux-penguin.org/achtungpanzer/pol/pol7tp.htm

it was comparable to PzIII. A 4TP tank could replace 7TP as a light one. Here's a site about 4TP recon tank:

http://www.geocities.com/pibwl/4tp.htm

 

[Semi-Lobster]

While hypothetical units would be interesting it would get kinda rediculous, We could assume that Bulgaria's small DAR aircraft company could make jets but of course, they didn't. As for the 7TP is that it was light tank but the PzKpfw III, especially the first ones used during the war in Poland where that they where TERRIBLE, they had poor armour, a mediocre main armament along with many other problems which where only addressed afer the war in Poland. I think the problem is that there's a large difference in hard and soft attack between a 37mm medium tank and a 37mm light tank. I'm no tank expert so I'm not going to go too indepth on this. I agree though, the MG basic light tank and 20mm basic light tank should be the 4TP

 

[McNaughton]

Okay, I understand. I just fought that adding hypotetical units would be better than just leaving empty spaces.

BTW, I think that 7TP should be considered a medium, not light tank. According to

http://www.linux-penguin.org/achtungpanzer/pol/pol7tp.htm

it was comparable to PzIII. A 4TP tank could replace 7TP as a light one. Here's a site about 4TP recon tank:

http://www.geocities.com/pibwl/4tp.htm

The 7tp, in weight, speed, armour, etc. fit more as a light tank than a medium tank. The difference between medium and light was very little at the beginning of the war (both had similar armour and gun), but the main difference was size. The 7TP was an upgunned light tank with little room for upgrade. The PzKpfw.III was an undergunned Medium tank with a lot of future potential. Basically, the 7TP was at the best of its design, while the PzKpfw.III was at its worst, which is why they are 'comparable'.

 

[Semi-Lobster]

The closest thing I found to a specifically Polish T-34/85 was the WPT-35, which seems to have been a turret-less T-34/85 used as a utility vehicle. The CW34 used the chasiss of the T-34/85 as an engineer vehicle. I guess we COULD use it, let's leave it open then to suggestion. As for a less advanced advanced medium tank could be the PzKpfw V "Pudel"

Here's a picture of the "Pudel", it was captured during the Warsaw uprisng

And here's the T-34/85 variants:

 

[Jedrek41]

I've recently found information about an interesting German design, which could be used in CORE as a new infantry weapon.

According to Ian v. Hogg's "German Secret Weapons of the Second World War" in early 1945 it was ordered to produce 1000 "Fliegerfaust" AA rocket launchers. The weapon is said to be just like Panzerschreck, except for it launched nine 20mm rockets instead of one big. Only two examples were captured by the Allies and it's not propable if any launcher was used, but if this device was used earlier, it would certinaly make life much shorter for Allied fighter-bombers.

IMHO, such research should be avalible after researching improved tube-launched AT missiles and add some points of air attack for every infantry division. What do you think about it?

Luftwaffe 1933-1945 (Polish site)

 

[unmerged(28058)]

I was thinking about a new land doctrine, it would be something along the lines of 'Defensive Armoured Doctrine', and avaliable to any nation as a Late War Doctrine.

I was thinking of something like this:

Defensive Armoured Doctrine
- 2 IC Panzer
+ 1 IC Mechanized
- 30 Days Panzer
+ 30 Days Mechanized
+ 2 Ground Defense Panzer
+ 2 Ground Defense Mechanized
- 1. Speed Panzer
- 1. Speed Mechanized
- 3(%) Organization Panzer
+ 3(%) Organization Mechanized

Of course, it can be changed around alot and that is just a quick idea.

It basically is trying to simulate how many nations, especially Axis nations began transitioning to Assualt Guns/Tank Destroyers over full mobile tanks for ease of production and cheapness. Italy, Germany, Hungary and USSR to a lesser extent all began switching heavily to Defensive Armour in production.

It would make Panzer divisions easier to produce but less effective, and do the opposite with Mechanized divisions.

 

[unmerged(15046)]

Not so far from WWII

This week it's Dien Bien Phu's battle 50th anniversary

According to official figures it was a 15k french (professionnal) soldiers against 100k viets soldiers & coolies

It was a hugely bloody affair and in term of being surrounded you can't do better ! No escape route and being in a muddy hole.

I don't know if it can be taken as 1 inf div against 20 militia but it's somehow close
- The french were loose units, not a division. But many were very experienced veteran units, voluntering to fight a senseless cause at the end

- The viets were better equiped than what the french would have thought. They were probably close to inf div. But in HOI terms weren't they closer to artillery brigaded militia ?

 

[unmerged(14102)]

I think that instead of trying to figure out wether or not 20:1 odds is enough to destroy a single unit, we should decide which system is MORE realistic when it comes to AVERAGE combat.

We could postulate that high GD will not work very well for odd situations (i.e., the 20:1 odds deely), but if it gives better results for the more common attacks (similar odds), then there really should not be such a debate.

Lets discuss common combat, and figure out if the system works. Indeed, no system will be perfect (in HoI) representing ALL levels of combat, but we should try and use the model that is best for the most common forms of it.

Not quite what i am suggesting ... let me elaborate [get your beverage of choice, i am known to be long-winded].

We have constructed an abstraction of combat here involving [for simplification] SA and GD. when you create such things a starting point for evaluating this is to look at the end points ... which is what i am doing.

My current point is that it appears these are a bit off ... ending strength is too high. Therefore, you scale this back to what it is thought it needs to be.

For example: the result of this discussion is that a fully developed division could on average defeat 15 militia. this is 75% of current result, so scale all current tech bonuses back to 0.75 of their current values to give correct result. I am not suggesting to change any of the new techs, the tech tree, the interrelations, order or anything else ... i am not expert enough to do that. I am however, expert at modeling ... boundary checks are fundamental, and that is all i am doing.

However, to begin this process of refinement, we need some experience to step in to help calibrate. reminds me back a few years ago, i was modeling an FCC process [refinery process]. I made this great model, nice theorectical basis, very 'live', but i had never run one of these units. So, i requested a field expert to come in and look at it. After 2 hours he said "it ain't right". One day later he had 3 pages of observations detailing what "it ain't right" meant. One week later, i had adjusted the parameters and he said "looks good". My model was right, but it just wasn't tuned to real world observances yet. Similar thing here: there is no substitute for experience.

So, back to my call ... line officers? we need some thoughts ....

 

[unmerged(14102)]

This week it's Dien Bien Phu's battle 50th anniversary

According to official figures it was a 15k french (professionnal) soldiers against 100k viets soldiers & coolies

It was a hugely bloody affair and in term of being surrounded you can't do better ! No escape route and being in a muddy hole.

I don't know if it can be taken as 1 inf div against 20 militia but it's somehow close
- The french were loose units, not a division. But many were very experienced veteran units, voluntering to fight a senseless cause at the end

- The viets were better equiped than what the french would have thought. They were probably close to inf div. But in HOI terms weren't they closer to artillery brigaded militia ?

This is a pretty good reference that i had not thought of. Do you happen to have loss results of this?

I would say that this was:

- FRA INF fortified in developed positions. at least a level 4 fort ...maybe higher [comments?]

- VIET MIL plus maybe one[?] INF of low middle quality? that would account for the mortars which IIRC was the primary 'arty' weapon they used. I recall they also had some arty pieces, but not many, and not a lot of shells [transport issues]. More mortar fire as i recall ... i don't know that they would constitute an arty brigade ... maybe?

We get the loss figures, this could be interesting ... and if the readings that i have read [long ago] were accurate, this battle was very close, could have gone either way ... so let's say they were well matched, almost even then ... correct?

 

[kionas76]

Actually the vietcong units then did have a divisional command.Several of them were against the fort which in no way is qualified as 4 level.One of the congs division was a Heavy weapons one with practically all the heavy pieces of art/aa/at that china had given them gathered together.It was a formation the Giap made in anticipation of exactly that kind of battle.All other vietcong divisions had a 3 regiment formation and a battalion of heavy mortars and low caliber guns.About the personel of these divisions they were the best trained and experienced forces vietcong could gather.Most of these men had spend a lot of time in irregular formations fighting guerilla warfare before send for field training in order to get to the regular forces.Even more the position of Dien bien Phu proved that French high command was inferior to the vietcong and that during combat althought that small unit leadership of the French proved to be fine their high chain was not to the expectations for several reasons.If you are more interested i will post more info.

 

[JRaup]

This is a pretty good reference that i had not thought of. Do you happen to have loss results of this?

I would say that this was:

- FRA INF fortified in developed positions. at least a level 4 fort ...maybe higher [comments?]

- VIET MIL plus maybe one[?] INF of low middle quality? that would account for the mortars which IIRC was the primary 'arty' weapon they used. I recall they also had some arty pieces, but not many, and not a lot of shells [transport issues]. More mortar fire as i recall ... i don't know that they would constitute an arty brigade ... maybe?

We get the loss figures, this could be interesting ... and if the readings that i have read [long ago] were accurate, this battle was very close, could have gone either way ... so let's say they were well matched, almost even then ... correct?

The French fortifications at Dien Bien Phu were mostly shallow trenches and dug outs. In games terms MAX of level three. They didn't really have much in the way of hardened positions as we tend to think of in terms of fortifications.

As for unit types, the French would have had several regiments of Paratroops, elite infantry, and colonial militia types. It was a maixed bag, with the Paras and Legionaires being the most notable. So, I'd actually go with a Para unit. For teh Viet Minh, definitely mainly infantry units, with artillery brigades. Not exactly the way Giap had it all organized, but to translate into game terms, good enough. I'd say about 6 infantry with artillery, plus 4-5 militia types with either artillery or engineer brigades. The Viet Minh used counter trenches to approach and isolate each French position, before assaulting them.

As for being evenly matched, I'd definitely have to say no. the French were doomed almost from the start. They made one key strategic error in believing that Giap couldn't get heavy artillery up on to the ridges surrounding the French position. He did, and was able to rain artilery fire down on the French at will. They also relied on a static defense concept, which eventually doomed all the out laying positions to isolation and capture. The French position could only be resupplied by air, and with the Viet Minh having art'y and AA on the ridges, was effectively able to shut down the air strip. The French also lacked any real heavy artillery pieces in Dien Bien Phu, which limited their ability to use counter-battery fire against the Viet Minh.

Now, IIRC, the French suffered some 5,000 KIA, and another 10,000 or so POW after the position was over run. i don't think there has been a full factual accounting of Vietnamese losses from the battle, but I have seen estimates that range from 8-18,000 KIA.

 

[unmerged(15262)]

Most of the techs in general and those in air tech trees in particular were adjusted in the way you suggest - under assumption, that player plays Normal difficulty level and not stops R&D in given branch for more then a year.

First jet planes (finished project) can be created at the end of 1941. First battle-ready units of planes - around the second half of 1943.

For Hard and V.Hard levels it's sometimes impossible to reach historical level of certain technology without serious focusing on it, but that's the price of playing on more difficult levels...

I'm playing the US in Sept. of 43' an I'm still 211 days before the late war experance is completed. Land an Naval same period. In armd I have the M4a1 an working on advance tanks. Naval just started R&D on Oregon City class cruiser. What I was wondering could P-47A/B, P-51B, & B-25C be moved to middle war experance not sure of exect dates; P-47's in England late 42' P-51B sometime in 43' an B-25 early 42' an thats normal leval.

 

[unmerged(14102)]

The French fortifications at Dien Bien Phu were mostly shallow trenches and dug outs. In games terms MAX of level three. They didn't really have much in the way of hardened positions as we tend to think of in terms of fortifications.

Worse than i recalled. so we can call it level 2 then for cimulation, 10% bonus to defense.

As for unit types, the French would have had several regiments of Paratroops, elite infantry, and colonial militia types. It was a maixed bag, with the Paras and Legionaires being the most notable. So, I'd actually go with a Para unit. For teh Viet Minh, definitely mainly infantry units, with artillery brigades. Not exactly the way Giap had it all organized, but to translate into game terms, good enough. I'd say about 6 infantry with artillery, plus 4-5 militia types with either artillery or engineer brigades. The Viet Minh used counter trenches to approach and isolate each French position, before assaulting them. .

FRA: would not like to count them as Para's in HOI terms. I think if we are lumping them with the legionaires, then lets call the elite troops, and in HOI for this terrain, that would be Marines. The stupidities that they did in their defenses means low skill leaders ... 1 at best, right? no traits.

VIET: I must have really forgotten my reading, but 6 brigades of arty? this implies +100 guns there ... how many guns [including mortars] did they actually have? While the troops were experienced, i don't think that they were that well armed. Did they have bolt action rifles or semi-autmatics as standard issue? I don't think they had semi-automatics yet, so that in HOI terms means either MIL or low tech INF. Obviously well led, so several skill 3 leaders, and maybe a couple with ENG traits. Giap is obviously a OFF/FORT leader with at least skill 3.

As for being evenly matched, I'd definitely have to say no. the French were doomed almost from the start. They made one key strategic error in believing that Giap couldn't get heavy artillery up on to the ridges surrounding the French position. He did, and was able to rain artilery fire down on the French at will. They also relied on a static defense concept, which eventually doomed all the out laying positions to isolation and capture. The French position could only be resupplied by air, and with the Viet Minh having art'y and AA on the ridges, was effectively able to shut down the air strip. The French also lacked any real heavy artillery pieces in Dien Bien Phu, which limited their ability to use counter-battery fire against the Viet Minh..

right, so essentially 2 very poor strategic command erros on FRA part, exceptional command ability on VIET part, and overwhelming numbers. right? sounds like Custer all over again ...

Now, IIRC, the French suffered some 5,000 KIA, and another 10,000 or so POW after the position was over run. i don't think there has been a full factual accounting of Vietnamese losses from the battle, but I have seen estimates that range from 8-18,000 KIA.

This would tend to support modeling the VIET as mostly MIL units led by very capable leaders. we could call them low tech INF units as well, same SA/GD values.

 

[ltccone]

88mm Anti-tank guns

Why is it take so long to get 88mm anti -tank guns? Working on it as fast as I can I have just got to where I can research the 85mm anti-tank gun as Germany at the end of 1940.

Germany had the FLAK 18 88mm anti-tank/AA gun before the war and was used in its anti-tank role as the campaign in France in 1940.

 

[jdrou]

Why is it take so long to get 88mm anti -tank guns? Working on it as fast as I can I have just got to where I can research the 85mm anti-tank gun as Germany at the end of 1940.

Germany had the FLAK 18 88mm anti-tank/AA gun before the war and was used in its anti-tank role as the campaign in France in 1940.

I assume the 88mm AT is the "long-88" L71 used in the King Tiger rather than the L56 that was used in the Tiger I and was available pre-war. I don't think the original 88 was ever officially an AT gun; it was always mounted as an AA gun (360-degree traverse w/high elevation). EDIT: actually, it doesn't seem CORE makes a short/long distinction. The point remains, though, that the German 88 was not primarily an AT gun. The CORE 85mm+ AT gun is modelling the German long-88 AT and the Russian 85mm which were introduced later.

 

[Crazyhorse]

I assume the 88mm AT is the "long-88" L71 used in the King Tiger rather than the L56 that was used in the Tiger I and was available pre-war. I don't think the original 88 was ever officially an AT gun; it was always mounted as an AA gun (360-degree traverse w/high elevation). EDIT: actually, it doesn't seem CORE makes a short/long distinction. The point remains, though, that the German 88 was not primarily an AT gun. The CORE 85mm+ AT gun is modelling the German long-88 AT and the Russian 85mm which were introduced later.

The 88mm AT should be available rather quick in my opinion.

I'm quite sure that CORE 85mm+ AT is not the gun mounted in a tiger. Because those would be called Tankgun in the game and not AT.

 

[JRaup]

Worse than i recalled. so we can call it level 2 then for cimulation, 10% bonus to defense.

That sounds about right to me.

FRA: would not like to count them as Para's in HOI terms. I think if we are lumping them with the legionaires, then lets call the elite troops, and in HOI for this terrain, that would be Marines. The stupidities that they did in their defenses means low skill leaders ... 1 at best, right? no traits.

VIET: I must have really forgotten my reading, but 6 brigades of arty? this implies +100 guns there ... how many guns [including mortars] did they actually have? While the troops were experienced, i don't think that they were that well armed. Did they have bolt action rifles or semi-autmatics as standard issue? I don't think they had semi-automatics yet, so that in HOI terms means either MIL or low tech INF. Obviously well led, so several skill 3 leaders, and maybe a couple with ENG traits. Giap is obviously a OFF/FORT leader with at least skill 3.

Ok, here's where it strats to get tricky. The over all CINC for Indochina, Navarre, started the ball rolling. But there were political and command changes during the period in question. Salan was brought in, as was de Lattre-Tassigny to be CINC Indochina. So the strategic level operations were mucked up, which hurt the efforts at Dien Bien Phu. The camp commander, Gen. de Castries, was often the last to know about alterations to to plans involving Dien Bien Phu, and was never on the same page as to the over all objectives, and strategic level planning.

French OOB: (roughly)- Originally 6 Para battalions, four of which were replaced before the siege by 10 infantry batallions (4xLegion, 3xAlgerian, 1xMoroccan, 2xThai). 4 Bearcat F/B, 10 M24 Tanks, 24x105mm, 4x155mm artillery.

As for the VM, they had a lot going for them from the start. First off, Giap was in control tactically at Dien Bien Phu, while the better French officers were up at the strategic level (Salan, de Lattre-Tassigny), and poor de Castries was out matched and out gunned. VM "divisions" were much larger than their European counter parts. Five VM divisions used (304, 308, 312, 316, 351 "heavy"), totalled over 490,000 men. Giap was also able to bring up over 200 guns of either 105mm or lighter 75mm onto the ridges (as previously stated, thought impossible to do). Also, the VM were mainly veterans of combat opertaions dating back to the Japanese occupation. They had also received training from US, UK, Dutch, and Chinese advisors during the campaign against the Japanese.

As for VM infantry armament, it was a mixed bag, but certainly not that far off from the French. The VM used a variety of captured French and Japanese rifles, plus weapons gained from US and UK supply drops from WW2. Also, they had at least 75 20mm+ AA guns (mainly French and Japanese) which they brought up with them.

right, so essentially 2 very poor strategic command erros on FRA part, exceptional command ability on VIET part, and overwhelming numbers. right? sounds like Custer all over again ...

Close enough. The French were beaten not only because of those factors, but also due to political fumbling in Hanoi, Saigon, and Paris, superior tactics, and lack of proper experience on the part of 4 of the French batallions. Not to mention equipment issues for the Algerian and Moroccan battalions (they came equipped for a desert fight, not a jungle fight).

This would tend to support modeling the VIET as mostly MIL units led by very capable leaders. we could call them low tech INF units as well, same SA/GD values.

I still disagree. the Viets had regular infantry, trained in the Western style, levied by soldiers who joined after WW2. Given the total numbers of troops (490,000), I stand by my previous estimation in game terms. To do otherwise, would give the French in this case, an unrealistic chance at survival.

 

[jdrou]

The 88mm AT should be available rather quick in my opinion.

I'm quite sure that CORE 85mm+ AT is not the gun mounted in a tiger. Because those would be called Tankgun in the game and not AT.

I believe the actual gun in the Tiger I was pretty much the same as the pre-war AA gun; just a different mount (KwK36 vs. FlaK37). I don't think it was ever put in an AT mount or used in AT battalions/brigades. The long 88 OTOH was put in an AT mount in addition to its use in the Tiger II (PaK43 & KwK43). So the only 85mm+ AT the Germans had was the PaK 43 88mm L/71.