KickStarter Arms Trade Tycoon: Tanks

[Haba]

“Arms Trade Tycoon: Tanks” is a tycoon simulation game that puts you in charge of a small and young arms trading company, specializing in constructing and selling tanks all around the world. Shape the history of tank warfare as you research, design, produce and sell the ultimate fighting machines from the dawn of tank warfare to modern times. Every design decision you make will be tested on the battlefield starting from small skirmishes to world wars. Every business you engage in will affect your company and change the world history. Grow your arms trade empire, monopolize the markets and prove yourself worthy to be called a true Arms Tycoon and Tank Designer!

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/621678105/arms-trade-tycoon-tanks

Looks very solid so far. Published by the new "Microprose".



The Kickstarter goal is VERY modest, which makes me worried. There is a little bit too much scope in a game like this, it would require a serious budget to fully realize the vision.

 

[Burning Bridges]

Theoretically exactly my kind of game. It would of course have to be hardcore enough so the actual tanks make more sense than what your average university graduate can come up with from reading "Worlds Greatest 20 Tanks with big illustrations"

Such games are highly addictive if you are going to master things that you didn't even know you would ever learn. So just putting armor and gun on some ugly clones of Tigers or T-34 is not interesting.

But going deep into metallurgy, ammo, real ballistics, barrels, production hours, maintenance etc that would be great but not many people in the world are qualified enough. The problem with those games is mostly that some moron thought he would want to make a game about XY, and didn't bother to find an expert on it.

 

[Burning Bridges]

The Kickstarter goal is VERY modest, which makes me worried. There is a little bit too much scope in a game like this, it would require a serious budget to fully realize the vision.

I wouldn't worry about that now. Their demo is very comprehensive and would certainly cost a lot more than 34,000$ (or even the ludicrous 8,000 which are hardly enough for the main menu and options dialogs)

Seems more like they have decided to make this some while ago and now want a financial injection from kickstarter. Which is what all kickstarters should have done, then there would have been no backlash.

 

[Endemic]

I've seen how much paperwork (on both sides of the development programs) and testing goes into real tank designs. This will be heavily abstracted.

Also I doubt the customer will change their requirements 10 times during the project and then cancel it entirely.

 

[Burning Bridges]

The process of tank procurement changed a little bit since WW2, but we underestimate the amount of bureaucracy and politics that was involved even then.

It seems many mistakes were made on the planning level, not by designers. Italian tanks were deathtraps, Japanese tanks were a joke, French tanks outdated, Soviet tanks had weird omissions and German tanks were way too expensive. The Americans looked like they got some things right by building small, agile tanks but it only worked because they didn't rely on tanks as much. Otherwise it could have lost them the war.

I cant say I know a great deal about tanks, but had to think of the competition between the Bf-109 and the He-100. Many thought the Heinkel was the better plane (it became the foundation of the highly succcesful Yakovlev and Kawasaki families) and that Messerschmitts had a too bad reputation (Messerschmitt planes often had bent in the air because they were so flimsily made). But they went with Messerschmitt because they required less man hours, looked cooler and Heinkel was not as politically astute.

 

[Haba]

It is the same thing with tanks as well, Henschel v.s. Porsche, Aberdeen Proving Grounds v.s. Detroit Arsenal. Etc.

Japanese tank doctrine is largely misunderstood, they performed well for their intended purpose - supporting infantry on the challenging tropical terrain.

Japan did learn from Khalkhin Gol and adjusted their designs accordingly. Tanks were still not given much priority, and the new designs were strictly limited for the defence of the home island (and thus never saw action). Presumably Chi-Nu, Chi-To and Chi-Ri would've peformed much better against American tanks. They had very respectable guns, and completed a prototype autoloading mechanism.

Unfortunately the American assholes scrapped it after testing.

 

[Burning Bridges]

There is no question that the Japs would never need to fight tank battles in the jungle.

There was however also the front with Russia and in that respect Japan had neglected tanks entirely (like with everything, for example their submarines were gigantic and often had zero use in the war) They did intend not to fight against Russia but were in a war with them, so it was basically just a matter of time until the Soviets would show up with tanks that the Japs had no answer against.

I think they could have just asked the Germans for the design of the Panzer III but probably did not have the required industrial capacity, or did not want to commit it.

 

[Burning Bridges]

So who do you think made the best tanks in WW2?

The German lost the war for lack of tanks and the Soviets almost lost it even though they had 10,000s of tanks, so both may not have been the best. Germans should have produced something like the T-34 in greater numbers and the Soviets should have copied from the Germans which they did and were quite good but only at the end of the war.

The American tanks strike me as very adequate for the task and if you consider that they won the war in the West against Stugs and Panthers which should have outclassed them, there must be something reasonable about their design.

 

[I'm Big Into Anal]

So who do you think made the best tanks in WW2?

the british

for one tank only; just happened to be the best tank of ww2 and became the main battle tank fora number of countries post ww2

 

[Endemic]

The American tanks strike me as very adequate for the task and if you consider that they won the war in the West against Stugs and Panthers which should have outclassed them, there must be something reasonable about their design.

Purely from a numbers point of view, the StuG series reportedly destroyed up to 19 tanks for each one lost. But the Germans were outfought on the strategic level and their communications were compromised. Most of their best units were sent east. Luftwaffe was a shadow of its former self by the time Allied troops arrived at Normandy.

Instead of up-gunning the Sherman en masse (after encountering the Tiger in North Africa) or mass producing a new tank, the US built tank destroyers for that purpose. Only about 20 Pershings saw any action... though numerous better prototype tanks were tested in North America (T20 and T30 series come to mind).

Leaving aside firepower and protection, the front mounted transmission (raising the height of the tank substantially) and narrow tracks on most Shermans were not an optimum design. A lot of variants had weak engines too. People like to make fun of the T-34 and KV-1, but the rear-mounted transmission layout became the standard by the end of WW2 (Pershing, Centurion, etc).

the british

for one tank only; just happened to be the best tank of ww2 and became the main battle tank fora number of countries post ww2

Well, by that reckoning, the IS-3 is also in the running

Besides, British manufacturers churned out shit like the Valentine by the thousands and were allergic to sloped armour for some reason. I will give them some credit for the 17-pounder though.

That said, a war on the scale of WW2 doesn't really rest on the quality of individual pieces of equipment by themselves, rather the respective nations' ability to continue the fight (logistics for example) and maintain army cohesion.

 

[laclongquan]

This remind me back on the days designing best tank for Alpha Centaury.

 

[Endemic]

Yeah, had a feeling it would be like this.

I named my company "Vickers" of course, since you can only pick Britain in the demo

 

[Parsimonious cook]

So who do you think made the best tanks in WW2?

The American tanks strike me as very adequate for the task and if you consider that they won the war in the West against Stugs and Panthers which should have outclassed them, there must be something reasonable about their design.

The thing about American tanks was that for most of the war US high command rejected the idea of tank vs tank combat and focused on deploying their tanks purely in infantry support role, with the (relatively) fast and maneuverable tank destroyers (M10 and follow-up designs) created to protect them against enemy tanks. The M4 Sherman was certainly adequate for infantry support role (probably more so than Panzer IV and on par with T-34-85) and with the "Easy Eight" up-gunned version it became an adequate tank hunter as well. Of course the real advantage that the US had was it nearly unlimited production capacity, being able to produce multiple Shermans per each Panther or Tiger (while a Sherman in standard version could still kill a Tiger from the side or rear and Easy Eight could penetrate a Tiger even from the front), and an ability to keep their crews trained up to certain standard (unlike Germans who had to crew their tanks with underaged noobs who barely knew which lever did what by the end of the war). IMO the Sherman was something like a TIE Fighter to the Tiger´s X-Wing, but the X-Wing didn’t have the plot armor in this case.

As for the Soviets, their tank designs were completely superior to the German ones at the start of the war (there was a case in 1941 of one KV-1 in a good positon killing 22 German tanks while surviving 135 hits from German Pz. IIs and IIIs, in comparison, the Tigerfibel manual of 1943 braged about a case of Tiger surviving 25 hits from 52 and 76 mm cannons), if the Red Army commanders had their shit together, they would have been in Berlin before the first Tigers were even produced.

The Brits didnt really produce a good tank until the Centurion and the first ones arrived to combat units only after the war ended.

 

[markec]

As for the Soviets, their tank designs were completely superior to the German ones at the start of the war (there was a case in 1941 of one KV-1 in a good positon killing 22 German tanks while surviving 135 hits from German Pz. IIs and IIIs, in comparison, the Tigerfibel manual of 1943 braged about a case of Tiger surviving 25 hits from 52 and 76 mm cannons), if the Red Army commanders had their shit together, they would have been in Berlin before the first Tigers were even produced.

Russians had superior armor design which made their tanks pretty much invulnerable to German anti tanks weaponry at start of the war, with exception on 88s, which while highly effective was a defensive weapon. German tanks in early years of war were very poorly armed, even the heaviest tank during Barbarosa the PzIV, had a short barreled 75mm cannon that had very low penetration.

Thats why German quickly introduced Nashorn (88 on a tracks) and upped PzIV and StugIII with 75mm cannons, which all very effective against all Russian tanks.

 

[Burning Bridges]

Saying Russian tanks were superior when they lost 50 tanks for 1 is not convincing.

T-34s were even taken out with 20mm flak, the Germans had learned that crews abandoned the tank because of the noise it created. The tanks were of course good but for a long time the Russians didn't understand how to use tanks.

German tanks were masterpieces of engineering but if you consider how little the late Tiger or Panthers achieved on the West front, they were also not very good. What use is the best tank if it has no success.

 

[Parsimonious cook]

Yes, but those are two different questions.

The Red Army was in complete disarray at the start of the war, their doctrines were not good etc, but this is not the fault of the tanks (or rather of the people who designed them). The same thing with the German tanks on the Western front post-Overlord - M4s were often winning fights they were supposed to lose on paper, because the German crews at that point by and large sucked and were unable to make a proper use of their vehicles (compare performance of Michael Wittman at the battle of Villers-Bocage and the German catastrophe at battle fo Arracourt, people who knew what they were doing were getting good results) and also at that time there was a complete Allied air superiority.

IMO the run-down from purely technical perspective would be something like this:

- Both Soviets and Germans used full variety of tank designs (light, medium and heavy), with considerable focus on the expensive and logistically difficult heavy tanks such as KV/IS/Panther/Tiger design families

- US focused primarily on light (Stuart) and medium (Sherman) tanks, were able to maintain working logistics and had both technical (Easy Eight), doctrinal (tank destroyers) and strategic (air superiority, ability to starve German industry of necessary raw resources) ways to neutralize the advantages that the heavy tanks had over the medium ones

In the long-term context, the focus on medium tanks + supporting units turned out to be more viable, the last heavy tank used in the west was M103 (this was in the sixties), after that it was all about MBTs (ie medium tanks). Since even a medium tank can kill a heavy, is cheaper, can cross more bridges etc it seems to be a better option and you could say that the Americans were first to figure this about. In technical terms and in a hypothetical scenario where all things are equal for a 1vs1 fight, Panther or Tiger would have higher success rate against any Sherman variant, however Sherman is more viable as a war-fighting vehicle.

 

[Burning Bridges]

Germany was losing the war anyway. It's hard to say if they would have lost slower if they had more mediums and more 4x30mm instead of almost useless 70ton monsters without gas.

Of course the mediums would have used less gas, so in a way building the biggest tanks in the world when you are running out of gas could have been sort of dumb.

 

[markec]

Saying Russian tanks were superior when they lost 50 tanks for 1 is not convincing.

T-34s were even taken out with 20mm flak, the Germans had learned that crews abandoned the tank because of the noise it created. The tanks were of course good but for a long time the Russians didn't understand how to use tanks.

German tanks were masterpieces of engineering but if you consider how little the late Tiger or Panthers achieved on the West front, they were also not very good. What use is the best tank if it has no success.

I can bet that very few T-34s were taken out with 20mm flak, Germans had many issues at the early days of war with armor of enemy tanks, even on West front with Matilda and Char B1. Its only due poor enemy tank doctrines and superior strategy that Germans managed to edge out their opponents on both fronts.

That said Russian tanks were not superior in general, while they did have superior armor that advantage managed to be neutralized rather quickly. For example T-34 had some serious flaws especially with its main cannon, its stability and targeting mechanism were not particularly good which meant it had difficulty hitting anything around mid ranges. So their crew preferable tactic was to rush at Germans and engage at shorter ranges, which left them vulnerable. This was fixed with a later T-34-85 which had stronger and better designed main cannon.

German tanks were overly complicated in design which made them much more expensive and time consuming to build. One high point of German design are their cannons which were easily best in the war, they had highest velocity and penetration. For example the 75mm L/70 cannon had higher penetration then Russian 122mm.

 

[Dayyālu]

Saying Russian tanks were superior when they lost 50 tanks for 1 is not convincing.

Then you read about how Allies, Soviet and Germans counted tank kills, losses and "repairs" and you understand it's almost impossible to get a decent view on sheer numbers alone. The American technical teams could quickly repair and get new crews for tanks in a pinch thanks to superior logistics, the Germans flat-out refused to admit that a tank was a loss if it wasn't a burned out husk 50km inside the enemy lines, the Soviets considered "rebuilt" tanks total losses and a flat-out new tank.... and also the vast majority of the Panzerwaffe's claims weren't even believed by their own superiors (Yes, I'm talking about you, Heavy Panzer Battalions). What was the thing.... divide them by five and you can have a borderline acceptable result?

German tanks were masterpieces of engineering but if you consider how little the late Tiger or Panthers achieved on the West front, they were also not very good. What use is the best tank if it has no success.

Rivet counting is fun but essentially useless, and you're correct: while it's undeniably fun to read about technical details, the crux of the question is industrial and political organization that reverberates on logistical and military matters. For example, light tanks: the Soviets had excellent designs theoretically, but could not produce them because their industry could not keep up (and thus you scrap the T-50 and make do with the T-70) and often failed to properly implemented their own tactical manuals on their use because training was poor, or the Germans managed to kill their entire light tank industry without any effort from the Allies because their industrial potential was mismanaged, design competition was murderous and resources limited. It's fun to put 'em into a vacuum and see 'em fight, but discussion of their use needs the bigger picture.

Sperging aside, the game doesn't give me much confidence. They should have dumped down the graphics department even more, I can see this working fine on a top-down 2d engine, leaving a shitton of budget for variety and overall control.

 

[Burning Bridges]

Yes, the game is shit. I had already given up when I looked at the feedback on Steam. Way too much clicking, way too much abstraction and not much research.

 

[Derek Larp]

Russians had superior armor design which made their tanks pretty much invulnerable to German anti tanks weaponry at start of the war, with exception on 88s, which while highly effective was a defensive weapon. German tanks in early years of war were very poorly armed, even the heaviest tank during Barbarosa the PzIV, had a short barreled 75mm cannon that had very low penetration.

Didn't they have 7,5 cm HEAT shells which were quite effective against enemy AFVs? But then again they didn't carry many per tank IIRC.

 

[markec]

Russians had superior armor design which made their tanks pretty much invulnerable to German anti tanks weaponry at start of the war, with exception on 88s, which while highly effective was a defensive weapon. German tanks in early years of war were very poorly armed, even the heaviest tank during Barbarosa the PzIV, had a short barreled 75mm cannon that had very low penetration.

Didn't they have 7,5 cm HEAT shells which were quite effective against enemy AFVs? But then again they didn't carry many per tank IIRC.

Numbers were always the issue, for example, German main anti tank cannon during Barbarossa was towed 50mm gun that couldn't even scratch Russian tanks unless on very short distance. They did have special tungsten rounds that were effective even against KV1 but the numbers were limited.

 

[Endemic]

Well, it matters a lot less if only a fraction of those tanks arrive on the front line with enough fuel and ammo to fight (the Soviet 5th and 6th Armies lost 80%+ of their armour before even meeting the enemy).

Having better trained and coordinated crews, and much lower attrition, won out over the on-paper disadvantages. The T-34 and KV-1 were relatively new tanks that hadn't been widely integrated yet (compared to the Pz IV which dated back to 1936-37). There weren't too many organised counterattacks with KV-1s, and keeping the vehicles running was a problem. VVS wasn't too effective either, the Luftwaffe could interdict Soviet supply at will.

The logistics issues were flipped once the Germans were overextending themselves in the winter and the Soviets were much closer to their rail depots, of course.

 

[Burning Bridges]

KV-1 was almost useless as a tank but very annoying as a mobile bunker.

There is enough information (even German wartime movies) how to disable them. You had to find a way to disable it without penetrating the armor, like ramming wood in the tracks, throw handgrenades inside or create enough explosions that the crew came out on its own.

There was an instance where a few KV-1 delayed an entire division for 1 day, so it was a quite effective weapon born our of desperation. But a good design? Hell no. It was a moving suicide capsule with impressive armor, that's all.

The T-34 however is a different story and that was arguably the best tank in the world in 1941. Once it had removed its shortcomings it was a formidably weapon. The Germans captured 50 new T-34s and equipped them with radios and a observation tower. Once they were upgraded they were arguably the best the Germans had, and they should have started mass producing them. Of course Germans are way too slow and instead they made their own T-34, the Panther which took years.

 

[Endemic]

You had to find a way to disable it without penetrating the armor, like ramming wood in the tracks, throw hand grenades inside or create enough explosions that the crew came out on its own.

Eh, the Finns did that to every tank model in close range night ambushes. Not sure you can hold that against the KV-1 in particular.

There was an instance where a few KV-1 delayed an entire division for 1 day, so it was a quite effective weapon born our of desperation. But a good design? Hell no. It was a moving suicide capsule with impressive armor, that's all.

Rushed to the front and deployed in less than ideal circumstances, as I said. The design clearly had some mileage, the KV-1E, ZiS-5, KV-1S and KV-85 are testament to that, and it was a precursor to the IS series.

The T-34 however is a different story and that was arguably the best tank in the world in 1941. Once it had removed its shortcomings it was a formidably weapon. The Germans captured 50 new T-34s and equipped them with radios and a observation tower. Once they were upgraded they were arguably the best the Germans had, and they should have started mass producing them. Of course Germans are way too slow and instead they made their own T-34, the Panther which took years.

True, although it's not like the Germans didn't use captured KV tanks too. They couldn't afford to leave useful equipment lying around. They even fitted one with a 75mm gun:

Spoiler