Begs the question then…if the other guns had to be so close to be useful, and the t34 didnt…
Why did it have a 6 to 1 death to kill ratio with 75% of all loses in 1942 to calibres under 50mm
And this is from russian battlefield reports.
Clearly…Something really wrong there
You guys genuinely think that pre-WW1 weapon is superior to the MKB?
Do you really think that a prototype is better than a mass-produced weapon?
meanwhile AKM/M2 Browning/MG42(3-5-100500) be like: ok
It’s a game. In principle, we do not take into account a huge number of nuances. Speed is not superiority. This even had consequences in the form of overheating of the barrel. The power of the rifle cartridge and such rate of fire very quickly rendered the weapon unusable. Therefore, it was almost always used in semi-automatic mode.
How are things going with the Browning heavy machine guns that are still in service? Hasn’t something better been invented in 100 years?
These are all paper characteristics that do not reflect reliability and operating experience. In general, the Fedorov Avtomat is classified more as an automatic rifle than an assault rifle. But the USSR needs to be given an analogue in the game and the choice here is small: either Experimental assault rifles of 44-45 years, or the Fedorov Automatic Machine, drawn according to certain characteristics, which was at least used in the war.
it’s interesting more about how, when, where, with how much hits. especially if vehicle was damaged before, becuz as i said, cooperation in first part of war was quite bad (guess at which side). here you might see that in 42nd year majority of 37-50mm hits were counted as “undangerous” and even pak40 had nice chance to just deal ricochet at that pyramid hull. most losses are count as “engine hit” which means just straight what you might think-shitty visibility and ambushing or live bait tactics with cooperation of PaK38 and Pz2/3s. the same way Soviets actually ripped many KTs and Panthers, especially those in Poland. and excuse me, war is not won with number of frags or something. if you finally have enemy in your capital, you wouldn’t say like “hey but i got maximum exp”. war of attrition requires quantity over quality (but i still won’t listen to all those coolstories that Soviets didn’t fix quality to the 43th year, while Reich had it’s factories bombed and experienced soldiers or workers slowly replaced with “Hitlervolkjugend”), while losing 1 wonderwaffe is way worse than losing 6 cheap and reliable machines, which could also be repaired soon. one more thing- the picture of battle is not the narrow corridor like in Wilhelm Strasse where 1 Tiger faces 6 T-34s. Tiger might hold one narrow point while others, held by Pz3/4s, could be smashed by artillery or same hordes of T-34s and battle would be lost anyway. in the end, 1 tank loss doesn’t mean crew will die.
so at the end, number of kills shows literally nothing in real war, especially out of context
But its well known truth. Like well known right now, soviet with their propaganda “best tank of the war/buy it from us its good tank” did good job in overrating it.
so, it’s soviets who called their weaponry “wonderwaffe which can turn sides in battle by simply appearing out of mist” instead of learning ambushes and camouflaging am i right?
who said that germans were better xd
6,5 arisaka
well who says anyone acted in other way then. and exactly, T-34 and SU-100 are found in service in some countries nowadays. while Tigers, Panzers, even reliable and comfortable Sherman, where?
I heard Quantity over quality.
Pretty much sums up what i said. T-34, tactically performed woefully and made up for it with numbers (strategically).
Im not going into tigers and wunderwaffe. I picked 1942 because in theory, the t-34 was supposed to be far superior over all the obsolete panzer IIs, IIIs and 75mm short IVs, and yet here it has its worst track record.
well, talking about performance of tanks of Red Army, i remember 2 main problems- lack of cooperation between infantry and tanks, some kind of chaos due to really brand new blitzkrieg strategy. 2nd- of course, bad quality of first series, because it was new tank i guess. also there might be leadership mistakes just like Tuhachvesky (clownchevsky) who stated that modern tanks with anti-projectile armor are unneeded and caused some problems with overfeeding army with obsolete T-26s and BT. i might forget details but you understand key thought
dont know what you want to say by that…
German and USA tanks were used all over the world after war. I was speaking about T34 and its myth that it was best tank of the war, when it was like one of the worse in compared to the expectations placed on it ( I dont it compare to tankettes, but to the tasks he was supposed to fulfill). And this myth is based on inward propaganda that “it is our Soviet technological thought that is the best my comrads” and propaganda directed at the outside “this is great tank foreign comrades, you need to buy it right now”.
This is the best tank of the war, what’s the problem?
It was total shit and thats a lie. Only that;]
And that is fair.
But it doesnt really get better late war, t-34-85s, removed most defects, soviets are a seasoned force and battle hardened, have the complete initiative and air superiority, still 3 losses for every 1 kill.
But anyway. Its a nice looking tank. I love it. Just not a fan of exagerating its legend (tactically).
yes it was slightly worse in first years due to production and “bugfix” problems. but it performed well, otherwise Red Army would replace it at all, through some pain maybe, just like it was with KV and IS-2 (that path was really hard at designing stage if believe to Yuriy Pasholok). what about exporting, nobody will say bad about product, while after some fixes T-34 had some advances like sloped shape, mobility, and yes, RELIABILITY. personally i recognize late Sherman and T-34 best tanks of war, denying any supremacy of Germans except powerful (but not really) guns. mediums finally became ancestors of early MBTs, saving their mobility and numbers
yes, there were some issues with producing something stronger like T-43 or T-44, so i’m glad T-34 saved it’s mobility and gained visibility and firepower in late versions. ironically i dislike it’s “weird” shape and prefer late Shermans like Easy Eight or Firefly even despite their giant silhouette
