Very nice. I like them.
Can I use the Armoured Train rules for my 12" Monster Off-Road Mortars?
Borys
Seems reasonable to do that.
Glad you like the updates.
I still don't like the new tank rules. There's nothing that would justify that later units would cost twice as much. Those numbers are arbitrary and contradict both common sense and historical data.
Early tanks were not cheap. They were expensive as manufacturing methods were not well understood, and cost a lot compared to their size.
If someone could bring up a table that'd show that the inflation-adjusted price of 1000t of a tank raised 4-fold from Mark I to Mathilda I'd agree, but not without.
I don't think this necessarily addresses P3D's issue with this rules mod, but would it be safe to say that the number of tanks per corps sized unit (and therefore the cost of that unit) increased between 1917 and 1939?
Sorry, I don't know much about these particulars of armored warfare personally.
Quote from: guinness on October 27, 2008, 01:14:02 PM
I don't think this necessarily addresses P3D's issue with this rules mod, but would it be safe to say that the number of tanks per corps sized unit (and therefore the cost of that unit) increased between 1917 and 1939?
Sorry, I don't know much about these particulars of armored warfare personally.
The constant BP represents that the amount of tanks (as in total weight) stays the same.
After considering matters and doing some poking about, I am inclined to agree with P3D on this matter. The cost of armored units appears to be imbalanced when I compare them to an admittedly limited number of historical costs and other in game costs.
Materials :
1 BP is about 1000t, or the raw material for ~20-30 tanks depending on individual weight.
As such, 4 BP indicates 80-120 tanks, which is about right for a Brigade/half division.
A late WW2 German Tank Regiment had 103 Pz-IVs on it's TOE and 1,661 personnel.
Ok, so what about $?
The WWII M4 Sherman however was pretty darn basic and weighed about 30 tons, or about 133 for each of our Brigades.
Now tank regiments should include maintenance companies, repair companies, recovery vehicles, etc
but this is not an armored division with supporting Arty and infantry. So lets say 120 tanks,
The cost at the beginning of the war was $US 33,500. Or about $US 4,200,000 for 120.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_was_the_cost_of_a_sherman_tank_in_ww2_dollars
Compared to other land units.
At $8 for a 1915 regiment, that places those 1,600 men and 120 vehicles as roughly equivalent in cost to 37,500 men and supporting arms of 1916 cutting edge infantry. As a gut level thing that seems high.
Compared to real life :
Looking at soviet production rates from T-26 and BT light tanks, they produced nearly 20,000 light tanks in the 1930s. When converted into regiments, they would have to be spending $82/ half year on light tanks alone at the current rate.
Compared to airplanes :
Found this quote since I couldn't find the link I was looking for :)
"The Curtiss-Wright model H81 A-3 was manufactured for the US Army Air Corps between March and May 1941. The order number was W-535, account 15802 and it cost the US Government $40,148.00."
http://lend-lease.airforce.ru/english/articles/sheppard/p40recovery/index.htm
Planes were pricey. 120 P-40s would cost $4,817,760 at the above rate.
Yet the cost of 120 planes and supporting infrastructure is far less here.
Extrapolating the current aircraft costs, we can guess a late 1930 aircraft will cost around $0.6 per hundred or 0.72 for 120. Add in the airfield to parallel the support personnel, and you have $3.22
The 1935 twin engine B-18 Bolo cost $58,500 (wiki). The cost of the 120 Shermans would buy 71 Bolos. figuring $0.7 for 50, that is $0.994 : 71
Airplanes are high tech, perhaps the problem is they cost to little, but I suspect the tanks are costing to much.
Compared to Naval vessels:
Jane's puts the estimated cost of the 1933 9,950 ton New Orleans class as $11-12million.
So one 1933 heavy cruiser is worth roughly 328 1942 Sherman tanks, or 3 regiments.
Admittedly 3 regiments is 4,800 people and 360 vehicles, while the cruiser is 1200 people and 1 vehicle, but those 3 regiments here would cost $48 and 12BP vs. $9.95 for the cruiser.
However, its' just a game :)
Based on WWII German Prices (german-navy.de and achtungpanzer.com):
Price, RM Weight, t RM/t
StuG IIIG 82500 23.9 3452
PzIIIM 103000 22.7 4537
PzIVF2 116000 23.5 4936
PzV 160000 43 3721
Bismarck 197000000 41000 4805
Tirpitz 183000000 41000 4463
Sch 143000000 31000 4613
G 146000000 31000 4710
Hipper 86000000 14000 6143
Prinz E 104500000 15000 6967
So a tank should cost tonnage-wise about as much as a battleship (bit less). To account for all the ancillary equipment and repair vehicles, twice the BP cost would be a good ballpark figure.
The Sherman cost about $1000/ton.
SoDak: ~$77m, or $2000/ton
Still cheaper than a BB per ton - significant, IMO due to mass production, unlike in the German case
Just remember, you are using WWII aircraft for comparision, there is a big difference between the wood biplanes of WWI and the all metal planes of WWII.
Quote from: Desertfox on October 27, 2008, 10:05:50 PM
Just remember, you are using WWII aircraft for comparision, there is a big difference between the wood biplanes of WWI and the all metal planes of WWII.
True, but since 1930-40s material is what I had first came up with numbers for, and the heavy armor table extends through 1935- when metal planes are available, including the B-18 I included- I used em as examples. Feel free to provide pricing figures for bi-planes vs. WWI tanks :)
QuoteTo account for all the ancillary equipment and repair vehicles, twice the BP cost would be a good ballpark figure.
Looking at the IJA equipment list, there is only the Type 94 Repair Vehicle that is on the list, thus the way I see it, Japan had no repair vehicles prior to 1934 and it seems rather ridiculous to pay for something that one does not have in his unit.... so do you have a list of repair vehiclesprior to 1930 from the various nations for me?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Japanese_military_equipment_of_World_War_II#Miscellaneous_vehicles
http://www3.plala.or.jp/takihome/RepairVehicle.html
... and being the stupid Dutchman that I am, what stuff exactly would fall under the "ancillary equipment"?
Logistics and repairs - don't ask me why Japan has none historically, but it seems reasonable to have them attached to the tank unit here.
So - am I hearing, then, that $2 per BP is a reasonable cost for tank/armored car units?
If so - do the prices reflect potential growth in tank size over the years?
Could be that up to the Second Sino-Japanese War, there was no need for Japan to have that stuff as the facilities on the islands would be easily reached, something that is a bit more difficult when sending the forces into China. Might be that Japan wasn't the only nation.
Japan : It could also be that specialty vehicles for transport, fueling/ammo, repair and recovery in the field did not evolve until later. They could have simply hooked up chains to other tanks and towed back to a central depot, or driven up in a bunch of trucks.
Tank size over time
I think the breakpoint between heavy and light works fairly well.
Armored cars, Whippets, Schneider CA 1s, later tankettes, Ft-17s, Vickers etc, T-26, BTs, etc - all about 15t or less. "Light".
Based on simple weight, one would have ~200 ACs or 150 Ft-17s or ~100 T-26s or 70 whippets for 1BP
British Mark Is were 28t, Mark Vs 33t, German A7V was 32t, Char st. Charmond was 22t. "Heavy"
Based on simple weight, one would have between 180 and 121 tanks.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_World_War_I_tanks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_World_War_I_tanks)
Moving to WWII
Panzer I - 6t
Panzer II - 9.5t
Lt-38 - 9.5t
7-TP - 9.9t
T-26 - 10.3t
Cruiser Mk II - 14.3t
"Light"
Maltilda II - 27t
Pz III- 22t
Pz IV- 24.6
T-34 - 26.2t
Souma S35 - 19.5t
Sherman - 30.3t
"Heavy"
While there are outliers - the true heavy tanks, 70t Char 2Cs, 56t Tigers, 45t Kv-1s, 38t Churchills. you'd simply buy fewer per BP. That suits at least German practice, as they issued fewer tigers/platoon than say Pz-IVs.
Quote from: P3D on October 27, 2008, 08:57:47 PM
Based on WWII German Prices (german-navy.de and achtungpanzer.com):
The Sherman cost about $1000/ton.
SoDak: ~$77m, or $2000/ton
Still cheaper than a BB per ton - significant, IMO due to mass production, unlike in the German case
Just a thought I had- the Sherman price I dug out of the web was at the beginning of the war, they likely got cheaper :)
However my understanding is the US had different construction techniques than the Germans. The Germans welded hardened armor plate, while the Sherman used large castings, which should be cheaper but not as effective for the same thickness.
Hello All,
Dropping in for a bit and then back to real life.
1) When I set the cost of the tank tech I was attempting to use a scale based system like the other army techs. So if you guys do rescale the cost of the tanks you should consider is it over or underpriced compared to infantry? In WW2 there was a reason that armor units were about 1/10 to 1/20 of the number of infantry units.
2) Also the cost of tanks themselves vs. a BB is a bad idea as a tank unit; especially a WW2 one would have more gear than just the BB. There would be the troops, small arms, armored recovery vehicles (a tank without a turret w/ a winch), a machine shop for repair and the support units, a large number of trucks / half tracks for the various support units / logistics. We have support units for ships in the game as seperate units and ditto for bases. Army units are just whole units so their support cost needs to be reflected in the base unit.
3) I had two sets of tech heavy and light because from my reading on tanks its fairly clear that up till the MBT comes out different dev trees of tanks was the norm. In WW1 you had the tankettes like the french RT-17 and the heavier tanks like the britsh Mark- I to XII. In WW2 tanks you had light, medium and heavy but he light stuff by 42 / 43 on was assigned to recon units.
Best of luck with working this out.
Michael
Quote from: miketr on October 30, 2008, 08:11:10 AM
1) When I set the cost of the tank tech I was attempting to use a scale based system like the other army techs. So if you guys do rescale the cost of the tanks you should consider is it over or underpriced compared to infantry? In WW2 there was a reason that armor units were about 1/10 to 1/20 of the number of infantry units.
And one Heavy Armor unit of 4BP represents say 120 tanks. A tank "division" needs two units, a corps ~8. So an Armored Corps will cost you 32BP. With your numbers in 1935 it'd cost $128. Way too exaggerated. I told this the first time when the rules got official.
Quote
2) Also the cost of tanks themselves vs. a BB is a bad idea as a tank unit; especially a WW2 one would have more gear than just the BB. There would be the troops, small arms, armored recovery vehicles (a tank without a turret w/ a winch), a machine shop for repair and the support units, a large number of trucks / half tracks for the various support units / logistics. We have support units for ships in the game as seperate units and ditto for bases. Army units are just whole units so their support cost needs to be reflected in the base unit.
And those units wont' have more than 10% of the total tonnage of tanks. These units right now are pure tank formation plus support. So additional support units in 1935 compared to 1920 should not throw increase the cost of the division by 200%. So going by BP-relative cost is perfectly justified. If you also double the cost relative to the BB, my estimate would be surely over whatever real cost - esp. as BBs are more expensive than tanks tonnage-wise, and you also double this price.
I agree globaly with P3D remarks
Quote4BP represents say 120 tanks
4000t for 120 tanks = 33 t per tank
Good for 1940
If Mods want that the Players build "Panzer Division"
one solution... double the BP
Jef ;)
Quote from: Jefgte on October 30, 2008, 04:54:35 PM
4000t for 120 tanks = 33 t per tank
Good for 1940
And also good for 1918, with Mark VIII weighing 37t.
37t & not a great mobility.
With 0.5BP, I prefer to have 50 tanks x10t in1915.
Jef
The rhomboids has much better mobility on rough terrain compared to a small tank due to large size - and might not be much slower either. Better step climbing and trench crossing counts a lot - of course, if you do not have trenches and tank obstacles to handle, 4 FT-17 is a better idea than a Mark-anything, even if not much faster or reliable. But then, as miketr noted, there are different techs for both.
Quote1. I have amended two starting dates for Aircraft techs. The 1915 tech is deferred to 1917; 1920 is pushed back to 1921. It is my view that the previous starting dates allowed for aircraft development that was far more rapid than sim events could possibly justify.
I apologize if this mucks up any 1915 sim reports in the offing, but I couldn't well tinker with the 1913 tech at this point, and the 1920 tech was too far away to make a dent in the problem.
I suggest to update the IC engines to be delayed similarly otherwise the effect of the delay would not be noticable - see my suggestions in the MTB thread.
Also, please clarify the foreign built/second-hand ship cost/maintenance issues.
Good points both. Will get to it.
This is what I have in mind.
QuoteForeign-built shipsAny nation may contract another player-nation to construct, refit, or repair a ship. However, the job will be more expensive as a result of the builder and the operator not using identical equipment and parts.
Maintenance for a ship originally built by another nation is 25% higher than the standard maintenance costs, regardless of how old the ship is. If the ship undergoes a refurbishment, the maintenance can be reduced to standard rates by spending 25% of the ship's original cash cost on top of the other refurbishment costs.
If a player contracts a foreign power to build a ship for him, he has the choice of accepting the higher maintenance rates noted above or by having the ship cost 25% more than standard. The ship's subsequent maintenance fees will be as if the ship had been built domestically.
Repairs or refits by a foreign yard will cost 25% more than if done in a domestic yard.
In all cases, the BP cost is unaffected.
Terms of the deal - who pays the dollars and contributes the BP, as well as any profits for the contractor - are otherwise strictly for the contractor and the purchaser to determine.
Example:
Gran Colombia orders a 4,000 t (light) cruiser from Orange. Gran Colombia does not wish to pay higher maintenance on the ship through her career, so orders the ships to Colombian standards. Therefore, Orange will have to pay an additional $1.00 to build it. Orange passes the additional cost on to Gran Colombia by charging $5.00 along with a modest profit on top of that.
Grate.