Ah yeah it appears I did get one too many NST dice, whoops, thanks for catching that. The diesels have been getting a free +50 per turn from something (I think the rail/locomotive factories?) so that's where I came up with the extra +50 there from.
Yeah, I thought as much, and also could remember such a thing being, well, a thing. But I couldn't find the place where it's mentioned... *shrug*Ah yeah it appears I did get one too many NST dice, whoops, thanks for catching that. The diesels have been getting a free +50 per turn from something (I think the rail/locomotive factories?) so that's where I came up with the extra +50 there from.
Ah the traditional Communist method of innovation, stealing technology from the capitalists. That or just buying it from them.
I'm really curious what we're going to see for our 45 ton tank. I don't particularly see the KVs as an '88 quality' design for the most part. Especially considering our General Staff does not seem overly fond of the 76.2mm cannon at the moment. Given that, a design using a 152mm or a 122mm seems a bit likelier- do we have the technology or the know how to stumble into an early IS?
I can't see us going with a 152mm KV2 or the like given it misses the entire point of being capable of using our infrastructure, and the KV1 is ultimately a rather uninspired design, even if we improve some of its larger flaws.
It has a 20 year old transmission, the T-34 it should be mostly contemporaneous with had the same amount of firepower, it's armor is impressive but that's essentially the only thing it's got going for it.It's traditional human method of innovation, cribbing someone else's stuff.
Right now, KV is something worthy of an 88 roll.
It has heavy armour and only one turret with a relatively big gun, something that wasn't a prevailing trend for heavy tanks in the 30s.
It has a 20 year old transmission, the T-34 it should be mostly contemporaneous with had the same amount of firepower, it's armor is impressive but that's essentially the only thing it's got going for it.
Yes our KVs would likely have a more robust transmission and ubiquitous radios than OTL's- but they likely would have had those features anyways given our emphasis on radios and better educated labor pool+preserved technical expertise. The KV wasn't a good design, and I'd argue it never particularly was. I'm not going to be grateful for it and assign it a higher value just because it's not a T-35 or T-39- especially because that design philosophy was discredited independently of the KV
Edit: I'll point out a roll of 92 got us the SVT-40 in 1934. A design substantially innovative even for the time is not that out there.
The Russian Tiger.I'm really curious what we're going to see for our 45 ton tank. I don't particularly see the KVs as an '88 quality' design for the most part. Especially considering our General Staff does not seem overly fond of the 76.2mm cannon at the moment. Given that, a design using a 152mm or a 122mm seems a bit likelier- do we have the technology or the know how to stumble into an early IS?
Blackstar Today at [When Vocalend Was Working Mid-Terms]
The KV is getting a long 76 from the AA guns
The KV will be a monster, the problem is making them in numbers
Honestly probably due to the success of the KV, the T34 may be more like a mini KV then a t34
Also do note the KV is... kinda light compared to even a panther
Repeatedly, Blackstar did mention that low Quality rolls now is fine. It just mean that we learn theOur Scout tanks will survive, I am sure that it'll quickly be improved come the war. Perhaps the flaw will become apparent during the Winter War?
don'ts
than the dos
. Certainly, doing it now at 1938-1939 isn't going to be the killer it would be unlike say, we do it at 1940.Yup, that's just the nature of military development. We'll have a series of failures before we have success.Repeatedly, Blackstar did mention that low Quality rolls now is fine. It just mean that we learn thedon'ts
than thedos
. Certainly, doing it now at 1938-1939 isn't going to be the killer it would be unlike say, we do it at 1940.
The other part of the equation — still writing midterms, don't have the time to properly write down the quotes — is that we're using diesel compared to Germany's gasoline. We can eke out a better fuel draw rate and unlike the actual Tigers, don't need such convoluted gearboxes — thus cheaper on the production side — to go to full power...
...and still likely to be lighter than a Panther. Add this with the fact that we're not so crippled with the machinegun situation, what with us having updated post-war MGs, Russischer Koloss is liable to a bane against Germany... provided we work on the kinks of the tank a bit more. More than makes up for our -8 Scout Tanks, really~
Clearly, what happened is us getting a Steiner Scout Lance. This time they're riding tanks that failed the heavy tank competition, as it's a millennia before Atlas became available.
We could probably use the BT-7M as our base chassis instead of a T-70. It's weight is a few tons heavier but it could probably be modified for the role and it's a proven design by this point.The main problem with not having at least an acceptable light tank chassis is that if we go by OTL that's also the chassis our SPGs, SPAAGs and TDs would be using. So we do need to unfuck that at some point rather than inventing the MBT concept early and calling it a day.
We still have roughly 2 years, our engineers and the Officer corps within our army are not stupid. The mistakes will definitely be avoided during the next design phase.
It's probably going to be something stupid like 'We don't need a scout tank we have cavalry!'If we have to get a -8, I would much rather get it now so we can learn in Spain or whatever that this is a terrible idea and we should never do any of this again before the war. At least we didn't get it in, like, 1942.