Development questions, please respond.
 

Ok, a couple more questions. How do you translate real world weights into game weights? How do you come up with values for weapons if they never got off the drawing board? I have a 105mm KWK, a 150mm KWK and a 175mm KWK that I need to integrate into the game. I have started playing around with the figures from guns that are similar but I need to know if there is a more sensible solution.

Re: Development questions, please respond.
 

For the 175mm I have this, thus far.

Weapon class: 7
Accuracy: 12
Weapon size: 12
Warhead size: 9
HE Pen.: 4
HE Kill: 25
AP Pen.: 35 (ish)
AP Kill: -
Sabot Pen.: -
Sabot range: -
HEAT Pen.: -
Weapon range: 120

For the 105mm I have this, thus far.

Weapon class: 7
Accuracy: 13
Weapon size: 12
Warhead size: 5
HE Pen.: 3
HE Kill: 11
AP Pen.: 18-20 (ish)
AP Kill: -
Sabot Pen.: -
Sabot range: -
HEAT Pen.: -
Weapon range: 100

What do you think?

What if the weapons were upgraded post WWII? What would the Sabot and HEAT figures look like? As this is for the German OOB should I just use the available 105s or develop new ones?

Re: Development questions, please respond.
 

Back in SP2 times I figured the in-game weight is 0.75 of real weight (metric tonnes) so I do use that still.

As for the 105mm, I have found for 105mm FlaK-39 (105/63) 140mm at 1000 meters.

Re: Development questions, please respond.
 

I think you can get some good refernce points for the 105mm ammo by looking at how 105mm direct-fire weapons through the times are modeled in the game(s).
Use the names and IOC dates of the relevant weapons and their penetration stats to figure out which ammo version they actually stand for, and relate that to the level of technology you want your weapon to use.
For HEAT rounds, the penetration is related only to caliber and tech level, count about 3*cal for 40s to 70s rounds, up to 5* (10* in some rare cases) for more modern ones.
As for sabot rounds, you should try extrapolating from similar rounds, either in caliber or technology. If you feel like it, work it all the way down to the technical values (penetrator shape, mass, hardness, propellant energy...) using one or several of the formulas available.

Re: Development questions, please respond.
 

Marek, if you read what has been posted by the team recently, weight shouldn't be thought of as directly related to unit mass in tons. Most likely, since you're building a whole new range of equipment here, think of 10 as minimum vehicle weight and 55 as the max you can stuff in a transport of any kind (100 absolute max) and scale your vehicles relatively within this range. Since there is some really heavy armor involved, I'm not sure proportional weight will give you enough flexibility.

Re: Development questions, please respond.
 

Game weight and carry capacity is more about preventing an helicopter which can carry a BMD from being able to lift a Maus as well, rather than an accurate reflection of actual weight/carry capacity. Tentatively one ton equals one point IIRC, but this is more a starting point for further fine tuning than an hard value.Also crew is added to the weight for carry capacity IIRC, so keep that in mind.

"How do you come up with values for weapons if they never got off the drawing board?"

Without a penetration table I would not dare to touch the issue with a barge pole, but if you have worked out the AP penetration the rest is relatively easy. HEAT has already been dealt with. For Sabot do you mean APCR or proper APDS?
What's the timeline?

Re: Development questions, please respond.
 

Regarding Sabot rounds I am fairly sure we are dealing with APCR/(APCNR) rounds. As far as I know that is what the Germans use. However having said that they did pinch the early design, the APDS, from the French they could also use that I suppose. Which is better?

IIRC? (Probably a stupid question but...).

As for the 105s, I have decided to just use the Leopard 105s for anything after the mid 50s.

Could you explain what "3*" or "10*" mean? I have never come across this before. (Stupid question perhaps).

Re: Development questions, please respond.
 

"Which is better?"
APDS and APCNR are both better than APCR. Between APDS and APCNR it is a bit harder to say. APCNR is a one trick pony, in the sense that you can only fire efficiently AT rounds (the HE shell sucked, especially for the small calibers, given that it had to fit a taper bore barrel) and you have to deal with higher barrel wear. Further you need a secure supplies of tungsten for the rounds (and managanese for the barrel); while with a conventional gun you can supplement your APDS with conventional AP this isn't as easy with a taper bore design.An APCNR might,but I am not sure, be lighter in construction; this would be handy for a towed antitank gun, like the PAK 41 was. But for large caliber tank guns I think you are much better off with a conventional barrel and APDS rounds. Frankly I am not even sure a 150mm taper bore design would be feasible in first place.

Re: Development questions, please respond.
 

And thinking about it, what is a 175mm tank gun for?
The Pak 44 with an APDS should be able to deal with pretty much everything that the russians can field. But a 175mm? the HE shell for that caliber weights nearly 67 Kg. How are you supposed to load it?

Re: Development questions, please respond.
 

Thankyou for your answer.

I should think it would be used with an Auto-loader. The Germans had a semi-auto loader, in as much as it still required help from a crewman or two to get it to function. An auto-loader was not beyond them. As for its function, well I suppose it is an overkill weapon. It was after all intended for the next generation Jagdpanzers. We all know those things were monstrously huge.

Yes, an overkill weapon. Lets be honest, the 150mm and 128mm would likely be the mainstay of the jagdppanzer force. The 175mm would be the extra big piece wheeled out on special occasions to cause terror in the enemy ranks.

Any more answers, to the other two questions?

Re: Development questions, please respond.
 

For the HEAT warheads, I meant by the 3* and 10* that the penetration value for new rounds could be rounded up with the following rule: penetration equals 3 times caliber for anything 50s to 80s, give and take 10-20% depending on the date and tech level.

And IIRC is internet slang abbreviation for "if I remember corectly" http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Re: Development questions, please respond.
 

I have thought more about it. If the 175mm gun is meant for a tank destroyer, rather than some uber tank as I assumed initially, it might be possible to set up something to load it without an autoloader. The shell for the Sturmtiger was 345kg so handling a 175mm round should be technically feasible,if still massively unwieldy. Still it isn't a good idea; you have to remember that in real life the germans were cut off from tungsten sources when Franco turned the back to them. Given that all those advanced shell designs required tungsten this meant that they could not be produced. Therefore the only way to improve AP performance was building bigger guns, despite the disadvantages.
Assuming that instead tungsten can be purchased it seems to me quite likely that the germans would have developed more sophisticated rounds, it is not like they were clueless in this area (see the PAK 41 for example). As I said a 128mm with an APDS would deal with everything the russian can field, save maybe (and I mean maybe) the few IS-7 which will be made. For those a few 150mm with APDS will be more than enough.

Re: Development questions, please respond.
 

3x the Calibre? Ok, just to clarify can I have some examples? Thanks for explaining what "IIRC" means.
As for Spain, well in the mod I am working on, the Germans have access to the Spanish tungsten. Besides, the guns are nice and long so both bases are covered. I do agree though, tanks that big with guns that big are unwieldy and only good in open terain. Ideal for the Russian Steppe then.

What do you think about the figures I have already posted up?

Re: Development questions, please respond.
 

off-topic:
just a thought, shouldn't you give germany access to portuguese tungsten, rather than spanish tungsten?
since AFAIK at the time of the war the major sources of tungsten ore were in portugal, not in spain

Re: Development questions, please respond.
 

Spain, Portugal, either way they have access to it!

Re: Development questions, please respond.
 

These figures are, by now probably out of date!

Ok, Here we have the new figures for the 175mm and, the as of yet unmentioned, 128mm guns. What do you guys think?

For the 175mm (60s Variant):

Weapon class: 7
Accuracy: 12
Weapon size: 12
Warhead size: 9
HE Pen.: 4
HE Kill: 25
AP Pen.: -
AP Kill: -
Sabot Pen.: 46
Sabot range: 115
HEAT Pen.: 56
Weapon range: 125

For the 175mm (70s Variant):

Weapon class: 7
Accuracy: 12
Weapon size: 12
Warhead size: 9
HE Pen.: 4
HE Kill: 25
AP Pen.: -
AP Kill: -
Sabot Pen.: 50
Sabot range: 120
HEAT Pen.: 62
Weapon range: 130

For the 175mm (80s Variant):

Weapon class: 7
Accuracy: 12
Weapon size: 12
Warhead size: 9
HE Pen.: 4
HE Kill: 25
AP Pen.: -
AP Kill: -
Sabot Pen.: 58
Sabot range: 130
HEAT Pen.: 65
Weapon range: 130

For the 128mm (60s Variant):

Weapon class: 7
Accuracy: 11
Weapon size: 12
Warhead size: 7
HE Pen.: 3
HE Kill: 14
AP Pen.: -
AP Kill: -
Sabot Pen.: 40
Sabot range: 110
HEAT Pen.: 50
Weapon range: 120


For the 128mm (70s Variant):

Weapon class: 7
Accuracy: 11
Weapon size: 12
Warhead size: 7
HE Pen.: 3
HE Kill: 16
AP Pen.: -
AP Kill: -
Sabot Pen.: 45
Sabot range: 110
HEAT Pen.: 55
Weapon range: 120

For the 128mm (80s Variant):

Weapon class: 7
Accuracy: 11
Weapon size: 12
Warhead size: 7
HE Pen.: 3
HE Kill: 17
AP Pen.: -
AP Kill: -
Sabot Pen.: 52
Sabot range: 120
HEAT Pen.: 65
Weapon range: 120

For the 128mm (90s Variant):

Weapon class: 7
Accuracy: 14
Weapon size: 12
Warhead size: 7
HE Pen.: 3
HE Kill: 18
AP Pen.: -
AP Kill: -
Sabot Pen.: 70
Sabot range: 120
HEAT Pen.: 65
Weapon range: 120

Re: Development questions, please respond.
 

OK, let's me get this straight: are the germans going to develop and field FOUR (105/128/150/175mm) tank guns in parallel?
That's a massive waste of effort and a logistical nightmare. If some uber AFV is needed for the propaganda newsreels you can always stick an artillery or naval gun on it. But for actual tanks, TD and Stug you should cut it down to no more than two pieces (you might need something lighter for armored cars and such but I am speaking about guns in this class) at any given time.

Re: Development questions, please respond.
 

Well honestly, Hitler wasn't exactly known for making logistically conscious decisions, and the German Army from day one was a logistical nightmare because it had to make ends meet on equipment. Depending on SGTGunn's alternate history, Hitler might still take responsibility for all armament development decisions at a certain point (as he did in real life), which might lead to this situation.

Remember, Hitler was the guy who with limited resources decided to produce two initial production runs of tanks, one of which would become the Tiger, and other of which they had to find a use for. The decision to create the Ferdinand/Elephant was not one that had been preplanned for the excess, it was done because they needed to make use of them.

Re: Development questions, please respond.
 

"Remember, Hitler was the guy who with limited resources decided to produce two initial production runs of tanks, one of which would become the Tiger, and other of which they had to find a use for."

Well the usual story was that it was a Porsche decision, as the guy felt that he had already won and thus decided to start production in advance. Hitler liked Porsche design but actually listened to the informed opinion that it was unsuitable for mass production. Besides RecruitMonty is posting data for the 90's and Hitler would not be around anymore.

Re: Development questions, please respond.
 

Guys, are we still talking about the "Das Reich" mod? If so, and assuming I have understood anything to the storyline, there would be no Hitler to heed the Imperial decisions and ruin the whole business in a few years, right?
This and the rest being considered, I agree with Marcello that four parallel tank gun calibers are overcomplicated. Now how about using them as two parallel runs, each one evolving over time from one caliber to another? Say, start with 105 and 150 as main weapons, respectively for light/medium tanks and light TDs and for heavy tanks/Stugs. Meanwhile, keep the 128 and 175 for seldom exceptionally heavy vehicles, and later on switch them to main calibers, while developing new ammo for them.

There again, I'm not sure there is much point in such large guns once you have better technology for AP rounds (make that the 60s, I don't know the technical development line you have in mind).

Re: Development questions, please respond.
 

Is a tank with a 175mm gun feasible? It would weigh like 100 tons if it carried enough armour and ammo.

Re: Development questions, please respond.
 

"Is a tank with a 175mm gun feasible?"

More likely a Jagdtiger style vehicle. Feasible ? Probably yes. Sensible ? Absolutely no.

Re: Development questions, please respond.
 

Questionable whether such gigantomaniac designs would come to life under other than Hitler's (ie by default more rational) leadership... I'd rather envision tank main gun stopping at 105mm, later advancing to 120mm (or around- say US and Brits going for 120, Germans for 128, Russkies going 107mm->122mm->130mm), with this caliber reserved for heavy tanks, so... 1950's, med. tanks 88/90/85/20pdr, heavies 105/120/107, later medium 105, heavies 120/128/122/130... with maybe the German 15cm KwK coming to life but for exceptional use on some übertank with minimal practical employment or some SPG with a little bit better one http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif
If you really don't want to leave the 175mm thing, I recommend you go for 17cm as that was caliber used in German artillery already. Also it would come with bonus - the 17cm field gun had practically same lavette as 21cm howitzer IIRC so your wunderpanzer may have two versions, one with HV gun and one with destructive howitzer.

Re: Development questions, please respond.
 

In answer to PlasmaKrab, yes I am still talking about that, heaven knows what the others were talking about. I did reference my mod earlier on in this post.

There are three main Tank classes in the Imperial arsenal: Medium/Light (75mm then 105mm), Medium/MBT (88mm/105mm/110mm and 120mm) and Heavy (88mm/110mm/128mm/130mm and 140mm).

The first set, the Medium/Light tanks are numerous, easy to produce, fast and are, later on, capable of being airlifted straight to the heart of a War Zone by Helicopter or Plane. They work along side Airborne and Heliborne forces.

The second set, the MBTs are the mainstay of the Imperial armoured force. Think of them more as a medium tank rather than an MBT though, at least that is what the Imperial Military thinks. The MBT is by no means a special weapon, in other words the Soviets, Allied Remnant and, later, even the Islamists can field them. Together the enemies of the Empire can field large numbers of these tanks. With that in mind it makes sense for the Germans to develop heavier tanks, tanks which can out perform the enemy in terms of range, firepower and more importantly a tank which can soak up punishment.

These vehicles, the Heavy Tanks, are less numerous and act in a supporting role. They are primarily defensive weapons, hence they are more prevalent in the East and around key cities in the heart of the Empire. Don't get me wrong, they can, and do, go on offensive operations and as the engines, weapons and of course materials used to build the tanks improve they also become more mobile.

The USA, Soviet Union and Communist China also field similar weapons. However the USA lacks a decent Heavy tank in the period between the 60s-80s and the Soviets pursue better MBTs (or rather better MBTs in support of the basic models) from the 80s onwards. China lacks decent heavy tanks until the late 70s.

As was common in Germany all the tanks, bar the lighter one in this case (not decided yet), have their Pzjaeger variants. So you get Jagdtigers, Jagdpanthers and then later PzJgr. Leopards. The heavier Jagdpanzers are again not very numerous and serve a dual role, they look good in parades and they lack credible competition. They mount (128mm/150mm and 175mm - the last being the rarest).

Bearing in mind that the Empire is more than ready to invest in its military (it does consdier itself to be surrounded on all sides by enemies after all) it seems quite narrow minded to limit the Imperial Army to present day Military frugality.

SP-Howitzers, Flak tanks/APCs, APCs and Heavy Armoured cars are also available to the Empire.





Anyway, all this is really immaterial as I did not ask whether or not it was sensible to have a tank with a 175mm gun, I asked if the figures I provided were accurate. So are they?

Re: Development questions, please respond.
 

Well?