Sign in to follow this  
Rob Zacny

Episode 312: Historical Accuracy

Recommended Posts

Nah, everyone was preparing for war. They've tested their equipment and doctrines in real wars. This is one of the reasons everyone wanted to participate in Spanish civil war - to test how your new shiny toys work in real situation. Soviets had Winter War but it was very different from traditional war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In north Africa the main quality difference between the allies and German tanks in the earlier months was that the Germans had 1 radio per tank, the allies didn't. Again this isn't always modelled but is far more important than the exact size of the tank gun or front armour. Aside from the radios, training and overall tank strategy doctrine however, there is little evidence that Panzer 3s and 4s were any better than Crusaders or Matilda tanks, at least according to a book on Wavell i read.

 

 

It's really hard to separate these things, though.   The "one-radio-per tank" was more than just that - the French Char B was technically a good tank, able to stand up to a Panzer III, it had a one-man turret, so the commander had to serve as loader, gunner, and radio operator.  Even if the French had had radios in every tank, they couldn't have used them as effectively.  The Matilda was an adequate tank, but was quite slow because it was designed to support infantry.  Whereas the German combined arms doctrine in the desert was so far ahead of the British that it is almost impossible to imagine the Matilda functioning in the system the Germans used.   But you're right that it's about so much more than the equipment by itself.  I think the following quote from Correlli Barnett's superlative The Desert Generals shows how much perception can be driven by external factors:

 

[t]he British also had a magnificent anti-aircraft gun, the 3.7-inch, no more of a conspicuous target than the 88 mm., and of even greater penetrative power.  In November 1941 there were in North Africa more 3.7’s than 88’s.  But the British never used them in an anti-tank role, either in Crusader or in later desert battles.  It was a depressing example of a streak of conservatism, rigidity and departmentalism in the twentieth-century British mind.  The 3.7 was an anti-aircraft gun. It was to be used therefore to shoot at aircraft. The two-pounder was supplied to shoot tanks.  And that was that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interestingly there is an argument that factors not typically modelled in games could be more significant. My grandad generally viewed the German gear as superior, when i asked him why the example he gave was the gerry can. The Brits carted around petrol in tins that had to be opened with a tin opener and then use a funnel to put it in the fuel tank. The Germans opened the top of the gerry can and poured. This sort of better engineering makes a huge difference at the depot but is irrelevant in most games.

 

That is interesting!  On the flip side Hans von Luck (author of Panzer Commander, very relaxed read I recommend it) was shocked during his African tour because American soldiers had chocolate and cigarettes on them.  Like, him and his soldiers were blown away that front line troops would be supplied with ration of such luxury goods.

 

And German uberscience is horrible myth. It grows from thinking that it's easier to do science when you have no moral limits.

 

So much agreement for this.

 

It's especially odd considering that the most ground breaking, world politics shattering secret weapon was developed by... USA.  Which is also interestingly tied to this weird video game myth that China and Russia (and not USA) uses nukes, while only USA actually deployed them in non-testing capacity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

on the tank radios, i agree. I guess strategy games can deal with this in their overal ratings and stats for the tanks, its mainly a comment on shooters like War Thunder or day of defeat where the only things which matter are rate of fire and damage etc.

 

although many simpler wargames ignore command and control

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey guys, I just wanted to congratulate you on a really amazing discussion. I'm midway through an MA in history and I'm specifically studying historical representation in games, so I was a bit nervous going into this discussion, worried that the topic wouldn't be given the nuance it deserved. I'm happy to say that my worries were unfounded! You all did a great job of tackling the topic from various angles and gave a lot of food for thought about how one represents history in games. Two points were made that I feel are especially important: first of all, like Rob said, games have a tendency to reinforce pre-conceived notions of historical events or processes, simply because a game has to be learned (doubly true for board games) and it's easier for players to learn something that goes along with whatever ideas they already have, so designers lean into that; second, that any interpretation of history is just that - interpretation. That goes for games, books, movies, scholarly articles, museum exhibits - you name it. The interpretations of games should be held to the same standard as those other interpretations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah shit Duke, the bright text on black background gave my eyes some serious screen burns :P

 

I think that article is actually not that controversial... like if anything, the most overall 'best' tank is most commonly referred to as Panther while T-34 is, just as that article points out, praised more on strategic level (cheap mass produced tank that still nailed the big design goals in raw power).

 

One thing though is that the author assumes the choice between something more refined vs actual t34 is readily available... I wonder if that really was the case?  I mean, did the Soviet Union in 1941 ~ 1943 really have the capability of adopting production method of Nazi Germany at its finest?  Like, can you use same workers, factory and tools to produce 1000 Honda Civics to make 10 Ferrari?  But that's minor gripe.

 

If you guys want something more painful look at PDX forum...

 

https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/rant-on-unreal-westernization.869424/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you guys want something more painful look at PDX forum...

 

https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/rant-on-unreal-westernization.869424/

 

Yeah... Posts like those are business as usual on the Paradox forums, even when the game's in a well-patched state. There's a strong contingent of people there who believe that our actual history should be the best-case scenario for everywhere except Europe, and you can always mark them out by their argument that the game's called Europa Universalis IV.

 

I love history as much as anyone, especially history that can be effectively simulated by complex systems in a game, but if your version of history demands that ninety percent of available factions in a game just sit around, waiting to be conquered by the first European army to look their way, then your history should probably go fuck itself, I don't know. Readings from Blaut for everybody!

 

 

EDIT: Also, always glad to see TheMeInTeam still plugging away. He's one of my top three favorite people on the EU4 forums and I wait anxiously for the day when his proposals catch the eye of a Paradox dev with some heft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed.  France WC?  "Not a problem".  Decently managed China survives?  "Outrageously a-historical, affront to all logic and reason".

 

On side note, every time unified Japan invades Korea around late 1500 or early 1600 (which happens A LOT in current beta version), I always smile at how well that part is pulled off.  The rest depends on Korea's status with Ming of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's really hard to separate these things, though.   The "one-radio-per tank" was more than just that - the French Char B was technically a good tank, able to stand up to a Panzer III, it had a one-man turret, so the commander had to serve as loader, gunner, and radio operator.  Even if the French had had radios in every tank, they couldn't have used them as effectively.  The Matilda was an adequate tank, but was quite slow because it was designed to support infantry.  Whereas the German combined arms doctrine in the desert was so far ahead of the British that it is almost impossible to imagine the Matilda functioning in the system the Germans used.   But you're right that it's about so much more than the equipment by itself.  I think the following quote from Correlli Barnett's superlative The Desert Generals shows how much perception can be driven by external factors:

 

[t]he British also had a magnificent anti-aircraft gun, the 3.7-inch, no more of a conspicuous target than the 88 mm., and of even greater penetrative power.  In November 1941 there were in North Africa more 3.7’s than 88’s.  But the British never used them in an anti-tank role, either in Crusader or in later desert battles.  It was a depressing example of a streak of conservatism, rigidity and departmentalism in the twentieth-century British mind.  The 3.7 was an anti-aircraft gun. It was to be used therefore to shoot at aircraft. The two-pounder was supplied to shoot tanks.  And that was that.

 

This seems to be accounted for in the wikipedia article that the 3.7's were not as numerous, often attached directly to higher level HQs above division level, the system was much heavier than the 88, prolonged firing at low elevations were outside the design spec and strained the mounting gear.

 

Not that they couldn't have developed the gun into an AT weapon (It actually ended up as the QF 32 pounder), but by late 1942 they had the famous 17 pounders available.

 

In this day of multi-decade procurement programs, it's easy to forget how short the system development and deployment cycles in WW2 were.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[t]he British also had a magnificent anti-aircraft gun, the 3.7-inch, no more of a conspicuous target than the 88 mm., and of even greater penetrative power.  In November 1941 there were in North Africa more 3.7’s than 88’s.  But the British never used them in an anti-tank role, either in Crusader or in later desert battles.  It was a depressing example of a streak of conservatism, rigidity and departmentalism in the twentieth-century British mind.  The 3.7 was an anti-aircraft gun. It was to be used therefore to shoot at aircraft. The two-pounder was supplied to shoot tanks.  And that was that.

 

Well, there's a much simpler explanation that makes a lot more sense- neither the Germans nor the Italians fielded a tank that couldn't be penetrated easily by the 6-pounder until Tunisia.  The 88mm was used as an expedient as the German 37mm was found wanting against some of the heavily armored French tanks.

 

Also, I have a feeling that they would have suffered the fate of the US towed tank destroyers- an AT gun that heavy was nigh-useless in offensive operations and almost everyone was finding deficiencies in all towed AT guns as the war went into its last couple years, particularly those that demanded heavy movers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This seems to be accounted for in the wikipedia article that the 3.7's were not as numerous, often attached directly to higher level HQs above division level, the system was much heavier than the 88, prolonged firing at low elevations were outside the design spec and strained the mounting gear.

 

Not that they couldn't have developed the gun into an AT weapon (It actually ended up as the QF 32 pounder), but by late 1942 they had the famous 17 pounders available.

 

In this day of multi-decade procurement programs, it's easy to forget how short the system development and deployment cycles in WW2 were.

 

Like many Wikipedia articles, that one is poorly sourced, so I'd question whether they were actually fewer 3.7-in guns in North Africa in late 1941 than there were 88s.  Also, by late 1942 the question was settled: the British had problems handling the Germans in North Africa from early 1941 through mid-1942.  So I would argue that a solution found in late 1942 did not solve the acute problem.  

 

Well, there's a much simpler explanation that makes a lot more sense- neither the Germans nor the Italians fielded a tank that couldn't be penetrated easily by the 6-pounder until Tunisia.  The 88mm was used as an expedient as the German 37mm was found wanting against some of the heavily armored French tanks.

 

Also, I have a feeling that they would have suffered the fate of the US towed tank destroyers- an AT gun that heavy was nigh-useless in offensive operations and almost everyone was finding deficiencies in all towed AT guns as the war went into its last couple years, particularly those that demanded heavy movers.

 

Yet the 6-pdr didn't appear until Gazala, (I think), so again, this is an example of a problem being solved later.  And I would argue that the fact that a tank "could be penetrated" by a given gun is not that significant in itself - it depends on the range at which the penetration takes place.  The big advantage of the 88 was the long range at which it could penetrate British armor, so that British tanks could often not effectively engage the AT guns.

 

Also, the 88 was used very effectively in offensive operations in North Africa by capturing ground and then fighting defensively on the ground occupied.  This was the essence of German combined-arms tactics and I don't think was matched by the Allies in the war.  However, this was also largely due (I think) to the wide, flat terrain which allowed fighting at maximum effective ranges far greater than on the Western Front.

 

This is all of course debatable, but I think the point is that it is hard to talk about any "technical superiority" without taking into account a lot of other factors that might not be considered strictly "technical" according to some people's definitions.  And the applicability of that to this episode is that how you internalize these facts, and to what extent, very much drives the way in which you perceive a game like this as being "historically accurate."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

et the 6-pdr didn't appear until Gazala, (I think), so again, this is an example of a problem being solved later.  And I would argue that the fact that a tank "could be penetrated" by a given gun is not that significant in itself - it depends on the range at which the penetration takes place.  The big advantage of the 88 was the long range at which it could penetrate British armor, so that British tanks could often not effectively engage the AT guns.

 

Also, the 88 was used very effectively in offensive operations in North Africa by capturing ground and then fighting defensively on the ground occupied.  This was the essence of German combined-arms tactics and I don't think was matched by the Allies in the war.  However, this was also largely due (I think) to the wide, flat terrain which allowed fighting at maximum effective ranges far greater than on the Western Front.

 

This is all of course debatable, but I think the point is that it is hard to talk about any "technical superiority" without taking into account a lot of other factors that might not be considered strictly "technical" according to some people's definitions.  And the applicability of that to this episode is that how you internalize these facts, and to what extent, very much drives the way in which you perceive a game like this as being "historically accurate."

 

The Germans were very good at using anti-tank guns throughout the war, and enjoyed a superiority in their use which had a decisive impact in, for example, the 1941 operations against the Soviets where they were able to have infantry divisions blunt large scale armored counterattacks.  That all being said, starting in 1943 the Germans were really looking for ways to get their new, heavier AT guns onto tracks, because anti-tank guns were not very flexible in their use, and the heavier ones could no longer maneuver much at all.  The 37mm guns that were adequate in the beginning of the war could be manhandled and towed by small cars and jeeps and even mounted on the back of trucks or halftracks.  The 75mm and larger guns that were needed by the end of the war could only be towed by heavy vehicles and really couldn't be moved by man power alone.

 

I could also go into the example of the US Towed Tank destroyers, one of those little-known fiascoes that went far worse than the more well-known tank destroyers.  The towed tank destroyer battalions used the 76mm gun as a towed AT gun that had to be moved by a half-track.  Their performance, however, was awful.  They almost never got to engage enemy tanks in the first place, and even when they did, they performed very poorly.  Most of the towed tank destroyer battalions were relegated to firing as artillery.  Part of that, of course, is that the US was almost never on the defensive for a long time, but I think part of it is that towed anti-tank guns were becoming more and more obsolete.

 

You're right, though, that there are a great many factors that go into these sorts of things, and I think the most important part of simulating technical details is figuring out what they do to the behavior of players in the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

playing an Operation Crusader scenario from Command Ops2. Knocking out PzIVs with crusader tanks 2pd guns is not easy. Also i recently picked up a Richard Berg wargame on ebay for £8, Blood and Sand. It doesn't appear to consider any changes in british tank ability or doctrine between 1941-1943 but it does separate cruiser tanks (1 damage die, but faster move) from Infantry tanks (2 or 3 damage dice, but very slow). German tanks fall in the middle of the two.

 

going back to the episode, im not so sure i have an issue with every faction in a hearts of iron game having tanks of equal ability at tech 3 or something. Is there really good evidence for the difference in tank build quality being a determinant factor at operational or strategic scale? I appreciate tank doctrine had a big effect and crew experience, but i am not so sure the physical technology itself was so important.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

going back to the episode, im not so sure i have an issue with every faction in a hearts of iron game having tanks of equal ability at tech 3 or something. Is there really good evidence for the difference in tank build quality being a determinant factor at operational or strategic scale? I appreciate tank doctrine had a big effect and crew experience, but i am not so sure the physical technology itself was so important.

 

Physical tech difference is represented and is important in Hearts of Iron games.

 

It wants the tech year level to be the qualitative difference.  Like, Allies making better planes isn't built in, it's there if you get to year ahead in tech.  And given how hard it is to keep up-to-date in all the techs (impossible in HoI3 (this is in very stark contrast to say, EU4)), this works out very organically and wonderfully, IMO.

 

Edit: and to actually answer the question you proposed, I think it should... but then again it also depends?  WWII is pretty tech centric war (I mean I guess so many wars are but I meant more so than others, like if one side started with the gear that it did at the end of the war, that would be a pretty huge difference) and that should be noticeable even on grand strategy level by some abstracted means.  The variety among say, sherman tanks maybe doesn't warrant a notable change, but going from Panzer 3 to Panther should.

 

And on grant strategic level in the scope of Hearts of Irons (where you get the opportunity for years of pre war development), it certainly shouldn't be a predetermined factor.  So that's why I like the organic solution of HoI3 where it shows tech advantages but it's something that you have to decide to go for or not at cost of something else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this