Suzuuha
commented
3 years ago Thank you for this well thought out suggestion! We have taken a look and have added some of your suggestions to the Canada tech tree.
Closed Tehrozer closed 3 years ago
Suzuuha
commented
3 years ago Thank you for this well thought out suggestion! We have taken a look and have added some of your suggestions to the Canada tech tree.
Vidyaorszag
commented
3 years ago Here's a more detailed response I gave to Suzuhaa as to what we're planning to do. Keep in mind that new icons will take time to make, though.
A detail I vehemently oppose is the use of the No.x Mk.y nomenclature for the Entente. The change happened in 1926 and should only be used in the UoB. Entente should use stuff like "Short Magazine Lee-Enfield Mk.III" while the UoB equivalent would be "Rifle No.1 Mk.III"
Either way, thank you for bringing this up.
Tehrozer
commented
3 years ago Sorry didn't notice the additional comment it seems for some reason I did not receive a notification about it and since the post was closed I didn't check back luckily I was going trough old suggestions for making a second post so I noticed it and will respond now. First of thank you for in depth answer I was wondering what exactly the phrase "some suggestions" might mean so this thankfully clears it up.
1 If so then I would only suggest to fix the name and change it from Rifle Ross Mk.III to Rifle, Long, Ross Mk III and Ross Mk.III to Ross Mk III so that it is accurate. The difference is minuscule I know but it would be better to use the proper naming system instead of what I guess are anachronistic additions that seem to have taken over the tech lists for all countries of course wouldn't blame anyone for making those these naming conventions are a mess and it is easy to get lost. 2 Think the M1929 would be better pick since the M1926 version is known to be rather bad and lacking several essential features that would be added in M1929. While it is always interesting to pick the weapons that failed many of them failed for a reason and this is the case with M1926 while M1929 seems to have been a perfectly good design that failed only because of British General Staff being against the idea of "gangster guns". 4 Could you elaborate? 6 The issue with Canadian made lightweight No. 4 seems to be that it was a failed design. Furthermore I would like to remind that it is fair to assume many British designers would end up in exile so the issue of where the rifle was designed originally becomes very blurry. Finally if one looks at OTL Australian No. 6 it shares far more features with No. 5 especially in general look. 7 If you refer to Anton Rosciszewski then I have no idea who he is and where he came from and when. Furthermore while Britain did have whole teams of foreign designers compete with British ones I don't think Canada had a similar situation at all so it would still be a primarily Canadian design assuming Rosciszewski wasn't a Canadian himself. I didn't see any more designs from Canada itself that could be used here then I the only real alternatives for a new weapon could only be found among late-war British experiments otherwise I guess it could be a upgrade to the SLR?
When it comes to the nomenclature the choice of the 1926 was very much intentional and probably should have been explained but decided against it to not get too technical. I searched quite a lot for why the change happened and as far as I can tell this system for a name was already used several times prior to 1926. Furthermore as far as I can understand this change would have been decided on or debated about prior to the ultimate switch for quite some time. As much as I can determine the change for the SMLE itself could be traced already to the Mk V as the difference between Mk I and Mk III and Mk V was such as to warrant them being treated as completely different weapons and yet they shared the same basic designation. By the time Mk VI development started Britain had nearly two dozens of different Lee-Enfields in service and should Mk VI be adopted this list would obviously get even larger (OTL eventually there were no less than 8 different types of No. 4). Therefore I can certainly say that the change in naming would happen in both UoB and the British Empire. I would say that Canada and the rest of the Empire should use the OTL system considering nearly all of OTL British high ranking military staff left UoB and that if anything it is the Empire remnants that arecloser to OTL Britain in many regards. As to what would UoB use I am still figuring that out and will add it to the post I will make soon enough but right now I favour P14 style so "[Rifle Type], [Calibre] Pattern [Year]" for example "Rifle, .303 Pattern 1914" due to being rather distinct. Finally I would like to once again stress the fact that there is no dot after the Mk and that there should be a space between the No./Mk and the number. So it would be "No. x Mk y" not "No.x Mk.y".
Vidyaorszag
commented
3 years ago 1- Done
2- Kind of already settled on the 1926 honestly. It looks more visually distinct more than anything.
4- That one was my mistake and misread you.
6- Yeah, I did further research and decided against it after all, instead using one of the Australian designs based on the SMLE Mk III instead of the OTL No.5
7- That was a dumb brain fart on my part, ignore it. We decided on the De Lisle anyway as it's already showcased on one of the loading screens anyway.
Tehrozer
commented
3 years ago 2 Ultimately it is up to the devs so if M1926 would be used for visuals I would suggest changing the name and the description to clearly show it is some kind of a upgrade to the M1926. Considering its OTL development id say the M1926 itself could be adopted right after revolution alongside other Thompson variants as a way of getting the remnant armies much needed equipment in case there is a chance to retake Britain itself or that there are more syndicalist revolutions and from there on the design is developed over time to create something much more usable and cheaper. Then after 1936 as war is coming up that upgraded design is put into mass production. What would this design be named and look like is anyone guess it is alternative history in the end and there is a lot of possibilities but it couldn't be a unaltered M1926 at least from the name and the description.
5 Yeah fair it is possible Australia would keep its new No 4s untouched and just cut up the SMLEs there is already some precedent for that OTL with the staggering amount of SMLE conversions and the distribution of SMLEs among the Home Guard or other less important units (Though of course that happened only after the No. 4 got produced in sufficient numbers).
7 Then I just have to add that De Lisle carbine is not a normal military weapon and couldn't serve as one. It was internally suppressed rifle using .45 ACP and explicitly designed for commando use only as it couldn't serve in any other role. As to being used on the loading screens then I have to say those aren't the best when it comes to accuracy especially when weapons are showcased and I always thought they made very liberal use of artistic freedom of interpretation. Furthermore just because a rifle isn't on the tech list doesn't mean it doesn't exist there is a finite amount of slots and the weapons that get into the slots for every other country seem to be picked according to how important the gun was with less produced designs simply not making it (Best shown with Germany or Russia which had dozens of different weapons in service).
Anyhow think that would be it from me when it comes to this suggestion. Thank you for reading the suggestion and the nice talk about the topic I hope I didn't take too much of your time.
Quick questions Kaiserreich version: 0.18.1
Describe the specific change you would like: Having spent a lot time recently going over the above mentioned nations I realised that their Infantry Equipment lists have not seen a proper update in a long time leading to a number of oddities. Seeing that in the recent update there has been a considerable and admirable effort to add proper localisation to weapons and to update some of these weapon lists the ones employed by the remnants of the British Empire stand out a lot and I would like to help by showing the errors and suggesting some changes to the list.
Suggested new tech list Basic Infantry Equipment - 1918: Rifle No. 1 Mk III/III ( No. 1 Mk III/III ) Infantry Equipment I - 1936: Rifle No. 4 Mk I (No. 4 Mk I ) Improved Infantry Equipment I - 1938: Model 1928 Thompson Machine Carbine ( M1928 TMC ) or a alternative weapon Model 1929 Thompson Machine Carbine ( M1929 TMC ) Infantry Equipment II - 1939: Owen Machine Carbine Mk I ( Owen Mk I ) Improved Infantry Equipment II - 1940: Rifle No. 4 Mk I ( No. 4 Mk I ) Infantry Equipment III - 1942: Rifle Semi-Automatic Ontario Mk I ( RSA Mk I ) or a alternative name Self-Loading Rifle Ontario Mk I ( SLR Mk I ) India/Australasia specific Infantry Equipment III - 1942: Rifle No. 5 Mk I 'Jungle Carbine' ( No. 5 Mk I ) Improved Infantry Equipment III - 1944: Canadian Machine Carbine Mk I ( CMC Mk I ) or a alternative name Roke Machine Carbine Mk I ( Roke Mk I ) Infantry Anti-Tank I - 1942: Grenade, Rifle No. 68 / Anti-Tank ( No. 68 AT Grenade ) Infantry Anti-Tank II - 1943: Projector, Infantry, Anti Tank Mk I ( PIAT ) Australia specific Infantry Anti-Tank II - 1943: Projector Infantry Tank Attack Mk I ( PITA ) Night Vision I - 1943: 'Tabby' Type K RG Receiver & Type E Binoculars ( 'Tabby' Types K & E ) Night Vision II - 1946: 'Tabby' Type B IR Telescope Sighting & Type E Periscope No. 1 ( 'Tabby' Types B & E )
Explain the reasoning behind this actionable change: I already made a reddit post explaining each single proposed change in detail https://www.reddit.com/r/Kaiserreich/comments/oo15tt/few_suggestions_regarding_canadian_infantry/ and I will copy the relevant section; Basic Infantry Equipment - 1918: Rifle Ross Mk.III
Simple issue here Ross Rifles are a classic and infamous example of a weapon unfit for conditions of modern warfare. These weapons had a deserved terrible reputation with the troops and Canadian units would seek any way to get rid of them and switch to Lee-Enfields, even the older types. Ultimately the rifle was officially replaced with the SMLE Mk. III and Mk. III in 1916 so it doesn't make any sense for Canada to have it as the 1918 weapon. So the new starting rifle should be "Rifle No. 1 Mk III/III", furthermore the exact same name should be applied across the Dominions as they all used the same standardised naming system (currently they either contain typos and in some cases factory names which are all kind of wrong).
Infantry Equipment I - 1936: Enfield-Ontario Rifle Mk.III/IV
This one is all types of wrong. First off when it was originally added it was clearly using a picture of a Rifle No. 4 but with an alternative name which I assume came from a misunderstanding that the "Enfield" in SMLE name stands for the factory that made it while it refers to Enfield pattern rifling in the barrel. Furthermore the "Mk.III/IV" is a bit of a mystery I assume someone thought that British rifles had a logical progression to their names and that after Mk III there would be a Mk IV while in fact Mk IV was the designation for all other Enfields converted to something resembling more or less the Mk III or Mk III* patterns. So for a time I joked that for some reason Canada stands with one obsolete rifle and then adopts another obsolete rifle in 1936. Well the new description ended that gag because apparently this rifle is a SMLE conversion to a semi-auto. Now that is a whole new joke because converting a bolt action rifle to a semi auto is the ultimate interwar pipe dream. Everyone tried it and everyone failed, the designs were always terrible frankensteins which didn't work well and were cost prohibitive. This goes double for the British since they used .303 rimmed cartridge which was terrible to adapt for semi-automatic action so much so that when the British Army was looking at semi-automatic designs the idea of using .303 was ditched very early on and never came back. So the idea of Canada using a Mk III semi-auto conversion is ridiculous. This goes even further as the description claims that it was a "rifle developed to compete with the American M1 'Johnson'." despite the fact that "M1 'Johnson'" doesn't even exist yet nor would it for 4-5 years (though in KR due to USA tree being also full of errors it would only be 3 more years). This should be replaced by "Rifle No. 4 Mk I" this is already what is being shown in the image and it makes perfect sense for Canada and the rest of the Empire. Before anyone says that this is what UoB is using for 1936 slot or that the rifle was adopted OTL in 1941 the No. 4 actually started its OTL development prior to the British Revolution with the Mk V and then Mk VI the latter ultimately being renamed to No. 4 after further development. All of the main features of the No. 4 were already set and would in fact pass early testing which means that if anything the plans or at least the knowledge of the project would make its way to Canada where it could be finished and eventually adopted somewhere in early or mid 30s (OTL the rifle was ready a decade prior to its adoption just that politics got in the way).
Improved Infantry Equipment I - 1938: M1928A1 'Thompson Submachine Gun'
While it is cool to represent foreign designs in the list as there would no doubt be a lot of guns that would be bought off of USA to fill in the now depleted stocks all across the Empire there is a issue here. First off the M1928A1 was created in the early 1940s and secondly a more minor issue the USA kinda doesn't exist anymore and has collapsed into a civil war. The easy way to solve it is to make it either a licensed production or a copy of the M1928 (which is also what the British used OTL as I said A1 didn't exist yet and it was created for the US army so A1s were rare to see in British service). Furthermore the name that seems to be used in official British sources of the time is "Thompson Machine Carbine" so the name in-game should probably be "Model 1928 Thompson Machine Carbine". If one digs even further one could also find the British made M1926 Thomspon and its subsequent M1929 upgrade from the OTL submachine gun trials which could also be the basis for this design and would allow it to be something more interesting than just the bland 1928 Thompson.
Infantry Equipment II - 1939: CA Auto-Carbine Model.1
This is just a Sterling submachine gun with a super weird name that is all sorts of wrong so much so that the CA might stand for Canada and be inspired by Cold War Canadian C1,C2 etc but I am not sure while the Auto-Carbine part seems to be taken from the M1947 Johnson auto carbine (for some reason Johnson guns are extremely overused in KR with USA alone using 5 different guns of his) and Model.1 seems to be taken from USA naming convention? Anyhow bad name aside, Sterling was designed in 1944 as a replacement for the Sten so it doesn't make sense for it to be in Canada in 1939. It should be moved to UoB to 1944 or maybe 1942 slot. It won't be a loss considering both slots are based on EM-2 from 1948 designed by a Polish Army officer who most certainly wouldn't be in Britain this TL besides of course there is the dating issue. Funnily enough the 1942 slot also seems to be a bit confused as to what year it is since it claims it was developed as a response to British fighting against the Germans armed with MKb 44 so once again we find ourselves travelling in time. This is a bit more interesting since the best replacement here would be what the game calls "Owen gun" but what really was "Owen Machine Carbine Mk I". This was a design from Australia which takes Australasia 1939 slot and it would make perfect sense for Canada to adopt it considering its cheap cost and very good performance. One small note here is that the current image used for the Owen Gun is for some reason a very rare experimental version so it should be changed up to a proper Owen Mk I.
Improved Infantry Equipment II - 1940: Lanchester Submachine Gun
Well while it is okay since it is a copy of a German design I think Lanchester makes a lot more sense in UoB which still uses generic designs in some slots and needs everything it could get. Also in OTL and based on the description in KRTL too it is an emergency production which doesn't really match up with the fact that the previous two weapons already are automatic weapons so why create a yet another gun instead of producing existing designs? So Lanchester Mk I should be sent off to Britain and this slot instead is a perfect place to throw in the wartime simplification of Rifle No. 4 making it "Rifle No. 4 Mk I*" which was produced only by Long Branch in Ontario and by Savage in the USA.
Infantry Equipment III - 1942: CA Auto-Rifle Model.5
I already said this kind of naming scheme is super odd but this time there is a further twist. The image presented is in fact M1941 Johnson machine gun which of course doesn't make much sense. The description makes this even more complicated since it claims that this is a derivative of the Huot which means it's not M1941 but it makes it a automatic rifle made out of a LMG conversion of a Ross rifle? There are all sorts of problems with what is happening here and since I can't match the description I guess it's a completely made up description and that someone didn't know what the image presented? Whatever this really is it is clear that it could use a actual interesting design. OTL in 1940s there were several experimental weapon designs being tested out in Canada one of the projects was a design for a Self-Loading Rifle. The work on one of the designs started in 1943 producing multiple different experimental rifles and one of them could be used as a base for a 1942 slot. In this case there isn't a name one could use so I simply propose it is named "Rifle Semi-Automatic Mk I" or if one would something more inspired by British Lee rifle original names "Rifle Semi-Automatic Ontario Mk I"/"Ontario Semi-Automatic Rifle Mk I"
India/Australasia Infantry Equipment III
OTL during the 1940s the problems of specific conditions of the Asian battlefield resulted in the British Army realising they needed a rifle more suited to jungle climate. This ultimately resulted in the designing of "Rifle No. 5 Mk I" nicknamed the "Jungle Carbine". The same issue would be present in KRTL and if Canada adopted a self-loading rifle in 1942 these problems would become even greater as such a rifle would be even harder to use in harsh conditions. I suggest that the 1942 slot for India, Australia and possibly New Zealand would be taken up by this rifle, this would also somewhat reference the fact that OTL Australia and India never adopted No. 4 Mk I rifle instead still using No. 1 Mk III/III*. Before anyone suggests Rifle No. 6 Mk I which is what Australia OTL developed instead of No. 5 (and what is currently used as 1936 weapon for Australasia) it was simply the same principle but with No. 1 rifle as a base instead of No. 4 and in KRTL there is no reason to not have Australasia adopt No. 4 in 1930s.
Improved Infantry Equipment III - 1944: De Lisle Carbine
Well this one is historical all right but the fact of the matter is they ever made 124 of those OTL and maybe they would make a few dozen or even a hundred more but it really isn't a gun for the main line. Once again I would rather see an actual Canadian design from the time used and there is one. SAL of Long Branch Arsenal was actually developing one in 1944/45 and rather interesting one at that In addition to being a cool design from the right time and right place it also features a horizontal top mounted magazine so it would match up perfectly with the Owen and give the Entente nations weapons a rather unique look. There is once again a question of the name and frankly there is nothing to go on maybe "Canadian Machine Carbine Mk I" to distinguish it from Australian Owen or something derived from the names of the designers Anton Rosciszewski and George Kersey shortened like with the Sten to form "Roke Machine Carbine Mk I".
Infantry Anti-Tank I - 1942: Bombard Mortar
There are two issues here first off the designer named it the "Blacker Bombard" while the official name was "29-mm Spigot Mortar" but more importantly it doesn't really make sense to have it here considering it was a pretty much static only crewed weapon. Infantry AT tech is supposed to show portable AT weapons, not something that requires 3-5 people. Considering Boys is already taken by UoB and there is nothing wrong with that I suggest it be replaced by the British AT rifle grenade "Grenade, Rifle No. 68 / Anti-Tank" with the short name of "No. 68 AT Grenade"
Infantry Anti-Tank II - 1943: PIAT
For once no real issue here just that the long name should actually show the full name of the weapon that is "Projector, Infantry, Anti Tank Mk I " and that in Australian service it should be "Projector Infantry Tank Attack Mk I" or "PITA" ('Point It At Tanks' sadly wasn't a official name anywhere).
Night Vision I - 1943: Tabby Scope
Night vision equipment is not my field so I am sorry If I make a mistake but as I understand "Tabby" was the common name for all OTL British NVs and there was never a scope just variety of monoculars, googles, binoculars and periscopes most of which were for vehicles. In interest of having a accurate name the 1943 slot should probably be "'Tabby' Type K RG Receiver & Type E Binoculars"
Night Vision II - 1946:
I have seen multiple examples of Sten mounted IR scopes somewhat similar to the American M3s and also various German scopes but while I could dig up several types of Tabby night vision equipment knowing what was used in these experiments is harder. It is possible it was one of British designs or something copied of the Germans and my best guess here is "'Tabby' Type B IR Telescope Sighting & Type E Periscope No. 1" the description of Type B seems to fit the images I saw while the "IR Telescope Sighting" designation was added by me based on British nomenclature of the time.