Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

New Technology?

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> New Technology? Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
New Technology? - 2/13/2003 12:19:22 PM   
Flying fortress

 

Posts: 35
Joined: 11/1/2002
Status: offline 		I have seen some of these interesting posts about VLs and VPs, and it gave me an idea. How about a ability to make diplomatic decisions (kind of like PTO II)? Although the game is pretty old, I think it used a interesting concept. An interesting way of controlling production, resourses, budget, or diplomatic relations. In PTO II, we were able to make a military aid treaty, negotiate, ask for declaration of war, etc. Perhaps we could refine those ideas and incorporate these ideas in WITP? Historically, the Japanese imported several Fw-190s, BF109s, etc..... How about an ability to make arms negotiations/technological negotiations? Since Germany is not on the map in WITP, we can simply assume that Germany will lose as it did historically, but can provide the Japanese with new technology, machinery, production methods, weapons, (such as Panzerfausts, submachineguns, or even Panzerschrecks, which the Japanes needed desperately. We could say that the having these new weapons would increase assault/AT ratings for the IJN/IJA? How about the concept of blueprints/model? As long as the Japanese are able to acquire blueprints and the weapon itsself, the Japnese would be able to produce them (of course with a penalty: ie 6month waiting period, factories must be able to incorporate new technology to build them- another 6-12 months to build factories that could build the advanced German weapons, because the Japanese factories were not capable of producing advanced weapons at a high rate because of their inefficient methods. Or if the player chooses to simply get the weapons in the field as fast as possible he could do so, but with a penalty which would decrease the performance and the availability of the weapons....) This would be an interesting senario because if the Japanese are able to keep their factories free from bombing for a couple of years, and with some luck, if they are able to acquire the designs, they could, perhaps begin to produce these things, which might be at least give the Japanese a little better chance.

For example, because the IJN/IJA did not have good interceptors/ground attack aircraft, had they decided to use the FW190, they could have made excellent ground attacks which the Japanese desperately needed. Even weapons such as the 75mm Pak40 AT gun. or the 88mm Pak 43.... The 88 might be going too far because the Japanese facotories might not be able to produce guns of the same quality. But given time for building new factories, they might have been able to build them. Historically, the Japanese employed German 88s on Iwo and Okinawa (I know they used it on one of the islands at least)

For the historical crowd, I am not suggesting we make this part of the whole game, I am merely suggesting maybe this could be part of one of those hypothetical campaigns, therefore the historical crowd can play their historically accurate game, and the What-if crowd can play their hypothetical game?

Just another one of those crazy (or creative) ideas that just flashed into my head..... I know that some of this might not be feasable, and that's ok, just thought it might make the game more unpredictable and interesting?

Just my two cents,

tell me what you think?
Post #: 1
- 2/13/2003 12:58:36 PM   
Zakhal


Posts: 2494
Joined: 1/4/2001
From: Jyväskylä, Finland
Status: offline 		Yeah, ptoII diplomacy would be great, but i doubt well ever see anything like that in grisby's games. Garys games have always bin more on the production side of things.

(in reply to Flying fortress)
Post #: 2
- 2/14/2003 1:50:21 AM   
Snigbert

 

Posts: 2956
Joined: 1/27/2002
From: Worcester, MA. USA
Status: offline 		I dont think production options will be available for what types of guns are used by infantry, for example, it seems to me that there might be options for aircraft and ship production though.
Of course I could be wrong.

_____________________________

"Money doesnt talk, it swears. Obscenities, who really cares?" -Bob Dylan

"Habit is the balast that chains a dog to it's vomit." -Samuel Becket

"He has weapons of mass destruction- the world's deadliest weapons- which pose a direct threat to the

(in reply to Flying fortress)
Post #: 3
Re: New Technology? - 2/14/2003 3:29:06 AM   
pasternakski


Posts: 6565
Joined: 6/29/2002
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Flying fortress
[B]This would be an interesting senario because if the Japanese are able to keep their factories free from bombing for a couple of years, and with some luck, if they are able to acquire the designs, they could, perhaps begin to produce these things, which might be at least give the Japanese a little better chance.
[/B][/QUOTE]

I would hate for wargame design to be based on a suggestion that uses the words "if," "with some luck," "if," "perhaps," "might,' and "a little better chance" all in one sentence.

"If" you think there's a chance that WITP will allow you, as the Japanese, to mass-produce FW-190s, you're looking to buy a far different game from the one I'm interested in.

_____________________________

Put my faith in the people
And the people let me down.
So, I turned the other way,
And I carry on anyhow.

(in reply to Flying fortress)
Post #: 4
- 2/14/2003 6:29:29 AM   
Raverdave


Posts: 6520
Joined: 2/8/2002
From: Melb. Australia
Status: offline 		No Jaw Jaw and more War War.;)

_____________________________




Never argue with an idiot, he will only drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

(in reply to Flying fortress)
Post #: 5
Interlude - 2/14/2003 11:22:49 PM   
LargeSlowTarget


Posts: 4443
Joined: 9/23/2000
From: Hessen, Germany - now living in France
Status: offline 		Raverdave,

I'm an ex-tank gunner, so I'm curious what tank is shown in that picture. Looks like a Leopard 1, although the turret seems to be larger. Any details?

LST

_____________________________

AE Mod "Bottlenecks" UPDATED 01/2022

(in reply to Flying fortress)
Post #: 6
- 2/15/2003 2:31:04 AM   
bradfordkay

 

Posts: 8683
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline 		Historically, Japanese industry had serious problems with the more complicated German machinery. IIRC, the aircraft that did use Japanese versions of German engines had a horrible reliability record in theatre. Therefore, if you were to add something like this, you would have to factor in the lower reliability of the licensed BF109s and FW190s.

I doubt that we would see this ahistorical an OOB in a 2by3 game (and am grateful therefore...).

(in reply to Flying fortress)
Post #: 7
Re: Interlude - 2/15/2003 7:52:44 AM   
Raverdave


Posts: 6520
Joined: 2/8/2002
From: Melb. Australia
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by LargeSlowTarget
[B]Raverdave,

I'm an ex-tank gunner, so I'm curious what tank is shown in that picture. Looks like a Leopard 1, although the turret seems to be larger. Any details?

LST [/B][/QUOTE]

Yeah it looks deceptive, but it is just the angle that the pic is taken from. Here are the full details of the Leopard.

Fast, agile and very reliable, the Leopard tank has been operated by the 1st Armoured Regiment in all the extremes of Australia's climate and terrain.

The Leopard AS1 Gun Tank is the main vehicle of the medium tank family and was acquired by the Australian Army in 1976.

The Leopard is of German origin, but began life as a collaborative idea between the Germans, French and Italians in 1955,

The three countries had decided to jointly develop a new tank that fitted their collective requirements better than the available overseas designs.

The joint tank project was dubbed the Europanzer and the design was to be based on two main criteria - mobility and firepower.

Between 1955 and 1962 both the French and the Italians were to withdraw from the project leaving the Germans to continue development alone.

Initially this resulted in the Porsche Standardpanzer which by 1962 was equipped with the British 105mm L7A3 tank gun, considered to be the most formidable tank gun then in existence.

What started out as the Europanzer joint project had, by late 1962, evolved into the German Standardpanzer and on 1 October that year, the new tank was officially christened the Leopard.


The name continued the German tradition of calling their armoured fighting vehicles after wild animals.

In particular, the name Leopard followed on from the legendary tanks of WW2 named after big cats - the Tiger and Panther.

The German Ministry of Defence awarded Krauss-Maffei of Munich the production management contract for the Leopard tank in 1963, with many other German companies manufacturing components. The turret was manufactured by Wegmann, who amalgamated with Krauss-Maffei to form KMW as the company is known today
[IMG]http://www.army.gov.au/equipment/images/leopard2_200.jpg[/IMG]

By the time of Australia's decision to purchase Leopard, an improved fire-control system was optimised by SABCA of Belgium and fitted to the Australian Leopard.

The Leopard 1 Gun Tank is one of the region's most advanced fighting vehicles and it is the main fighting vehicle of the Royal Australian Armoured Corps.

The tank provides heavy and direct firepower against enemy targets. Its main armament is a 105mm gun which can fire high explosive, armour-piercing, anti-personnel and smoke ammunition.

The main gun can engage a pin point target at distances up to 2500m and area targets up to 8000m.

As with other members of the Leopard family, the gun tank is powered by a V-10 four stroke, supercharged diesel engine developing 610kW.

It has a maximum speed of about 62km/h and can "snorkel" through water.

There are four specialist variants of the Leopard including:

Armoured Vehicle Launcher Bridge (AVLB)
Armoured Recovery Vehicle - Medium (ARVM)
Medium Battle Tank Dozer (MBTD)
Medium Battle Tank Mine Clearer (MBTMC)
Medium Battle Tank Mine Plough (MBTMP)

LEOPARD DATA
Crew 4: Crew Commander, Gunner, Operator, Driver
Length 9.54m (with gun in combat position)
Width 3.37m
Height 2.62m (4.8m with radio aerials)
Engine MTU supercharged V-10, (37.4 litres)
Fuel Capacity 985 litres
Hull Armour 70mm
Turret Armour Classified
Main Armament

[IMG]http://www.army.gov.au/equipment/images/leopard1_200.jpg[/IMG]

http://www.army.gov.au/

_____________________________




Never argue with an idiot, he will only drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

(in reply to Flying fortress)
Post #: 8
- 2/15/2003 8:12:37 AM   
Chijohnaok2


Posts: 628
Joined: 7/29/2002
From: Florida, USA (formerly Chicago)
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Historically, Japanese industry had serious problems with the more complicated German machinery. IIRC, the aircraft that did use Japanese versions of German engines had a horrible reliability record in theatre. Therefore, if you were to add something like this, you would have to factor in the lower reliability of the licensed BF109s and FW190s.[/QUOTE]

Just wanted to second your assessment of Japanese industry. I would like to cite the following quote from Eric Bergerud's "Fire in the Sky" page 665:

"When it came to producing them [second generation fighters] , however Japanese industry proved unable to create complex aviation subsystems that possessed fine tolerances for performance and reliability for operational use. The failure to make the Tony, a fully developed and well-proven design in German hands, into a reliable aircraft was the worst possible sign of Japan's inability to move beyond the Zero and the Oscar".

If I recall correctly, the Tony was Japan's version of the Bf109.

John

(in reply to Flying fortress)
Post #: 9
Re: Re: Interlude - 2/15/2003 9:42:47 PM   
LargeSlowTarget


Posts: 4443
Joined: 9/23/2000
From: Hessen, Germany - now living in France
Status: offline 		Nice info, Raverdave, thank you. Although I've spent my military service as gunner of a Leopard 1, I've never received briefings on the development history or on versions used outside the Bundeswehr. What counted was to hit the target with the first shot. The fire control system is quite good, but from my experience I wouldn't call the Leopard 1 "fast, agile and very reliable".
The turret rear of the Aussie version still looks somewhat larger to me, but that may well be a deception. Thanks again.

:End threat-jacking interlude

_____________________________

AE Mod "Bottlenecks" UPDATED 01/2022

(in reply to Flying fortress)
Post #: 10
Tony- Ki 61 - 2/16/2003 10:20:51 AM   
decourcy

 

Posts: 65
Joined: 12/17/2002
From: Michigan
Status: offline 		Hi all,

I have mentioned this before, but i think it needs to be said again;
The Ki 61 was not a Japanese built Me109, it was a completely Japanese design. The one and only part that had anything to do with Germany was the license built Daimler-Benz engine.

Eric Bergerud is not what i would call a serious historian; he writes his preconceived notions down without anything but the most cursory of research and calls it scholarship.

The only serious problem the Ki61 had was the main bearing in the engine could not handle the heat and humidity of the South Pacific. This was hardly limited to the liquid cooled engine of the Ki 61, it was a problem the Allison engined P38 & P39 had as well. The only liquid cooled engine that i have any knowledge of that survived the heat and humidity well was the Merlin,
which is probably why a great mechanical engineer declared the Merlin the greatest achievement in mechanical engineering this century.

excuse me, last century. oops.

The Ki61 did have a few other problems but there are quite a few allied aircraft that had teething problems as well. It, however, has become the rage to criticize Japanese industry. You might want to read some of the American Air Force papers on the aircaft produced during the war; it is illuminating reading about entire models that were never used because they were considered unsuitable for combat.

Michael A Johnson

_____________________________

Tae Kwon Leep is the Wine of Purity
not the Vinegar of Hostility.

(in reply to Flying fortress)
Post #: 11
Re: Re: Re: Interlude - 2/16/2003 6:20:17 PM   
Raverdave


Posts: 6520
Joined: 2/8/2002
From: Melb. Australia
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by LargeSlowTarget
[B]Nice info, Raverdave, thank you. Although I've spent my military service as gunner of a Leopard 1, I've never received briefings on the development history or on versions used outside the Bundeswehr. What counted was to hit the target with the first shot. The fire control system is quite good, but from my experience I wouldn't call the Leopard 1 "fast, agile and very reliable".
The turret rear of the Aussie version still looks somewhat larger to me, but that may well be a deception. Thanks again.

:End threat-jacking interlude [/B][/QUOTE]

No worries, glad to be of help. As a futher note, most of our Leopards have now been moved north and as such into the tropical region of Australia. Such a move caused hell with the crew, and the equipment to such an extent that all the leopards have had to be retro-fitted with an a/c system that can cope in tropical climates.

Most of what I have seen and heard does indeed backup the fact that the leopard is reliable. But as the design is now more than 30 years old, what you say about "hitting the target first with the first shot" counts even more ! ;)

_____________________________




Never argue with an idiot, he will only drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

(in reply to Flying fortress)
Post #: 12
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> New Technology? Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.797