Here lies the telling of your ignorance. I think anyone who uses this argument to try and prove their point, can be written off.
2 Likes
The thing is - All countries had good and bad points about their tanks. You have to think of it in the terms of - What enviroment was this tank built for? what stratergies to the factions tend to cling to. Where was this tank used? how was this tank used? When was this tank used? What did the enemy say about it? What did the crew say about it? what did high command say about it? what was its kill to death ratio? (altho K.D has a lot more contributing factors then just ââwas it goodââ).
LOL I find it funny I post a unbiased video sources - and immediatly you have die hard Russian fan boys ââAaahhh NO, No, no no noooooooo The German tanks werenât that goodâŚahhh they broke downââ. Watch the videos first! it does have good things to say about both German and Allied tanksâŚ(notice I said GermanâŚnot Axis)
Another thing Iâll just add quickly - guysâŚhaha Soviet constantly fudged the numbers on production quoters. Im surprised people dont actually know this (or perhaps do but choose to regect it).
Guys Communism Propaganda goes as follows - ââIvan Stervisikov, a farm boy from the Urals, today did his part for the Party and the love of Mother Russia, by building 50 tanks on his own and working through his shift to achieve maximum production in defence of his homeland be like IvanâŚBe betterââ
Iâll give you a real example with a little topic I like to call (and everyone else) - The Stakhanovite Movement -
The initial record of Donbass coal miner Alexei Stakhanov and the subsequent records of
his follower âStakhanovitesâ indeed seemed miraculous. Under a norm of 6 tons, Stakhanov
famously hewed 102 tons of coal in a six hour shift on the night of 30/31 August 1935. A few
weeks later, Stakhanov exceeded his own record with an output 227 tons of coal in six hours, only
to be quickly surpassed by competitive coworkers, one of whom achieved 536 tons of coal in a Young 5
single shift. 5 In other sectors of heavy industry, Alexander Busygin of the Gorky Automobile
Factory produced 1050 shaft parts against a norm of 675, while Ivan Gudov operated a milling
machine at 410% the norm speed. âStakhanoviteâ work ethic also invigorated light industry
production: Nikolai Smetanin lasted 1400 pairs of shoes in a shift, and weavers Dusya and Maria
Vinogradova simultaneously operated 216 electric âNorthropâ looms.
So when they say ââThe Soviets made 20,000 T34/85 in one year 1944-1945ââ Its nothing more then lies. They lie, its a communist propaganda trick (actually a Marxist trick but its basically the same thing). And heres the reason why -
a) If scares other nations into thinking the soviet war machine is a monster (if the other countries are dumb enough to believe it).
b) It convinces the poor brainwashed workers into believing that there are people out there who believe in the power of the party, so they can work and do their part.
c) You can achieve exuberant amounts if you only work harder.
d) The party is accelerating the countries industries to new levels. Therefore keep working and the good and easy times are just around the corner.
e) Fudging production numbers for one industrial factor can make you set qouters for other competing factories. Resulting in cheaper and harder pushing factories (altho this will come at a cost of quality)
I could go onâŚBut altermatly its the renenforcing of the party being the new ââReligionââ. Belief in the party is control and if not belief, tyranny for those who question it.
source - https://history.columbia.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/20/2020/05/Young-Perry_SNR-Thesis_web.pdf
1 Like
George Orwells 1984 points out the power of the Markist-Lennon control-like propaganda. Altho the story is a fictional setting, Orwell does create a very real enviroment implementing the notions and constructs of Markist ideology.
Iâve digressed ALOT - but my point is I question the Russian stats a lot. and yes while everyone lies about thier stats and what not to some degree. You have the other countries holding your numbers accountable. France, England and America for example needed to coordinate what went on at the front and you can take it a step further and say what did the Germans observe on the western front? The Eastern Front you have only Two factions holding each other accountable. And Im sorry I tend to lean towards the German reports as they were very thorough and you could match what was said with the troops (as they had ââsomeââ freedom with what they said and wrote) as apposed to the Russians who are constantly being monitored. And what the western Allies reported.
Just to point out France in the 50âs used Panther tanks. PanzerIV was used a lot after the war because there were heaps of them to be used.
i just like the shape of USA and German Tanks 
italy tanks i see in tunisia is okay i guess?
the USSR tanks iâve seen ingame is⌠eh. some of them looks good, the other looks goofy.
wait, what was this thread supposed to be talking about? vehicle performance?
German tank (mostly the later ones) sucks ass because a lot of rushing in design process and poor manufacturing quality (sometimes deliberately done by forced labourer/slave).
USSR tank sucks because theyâre not designed for quality, but for quantity, also rushed production often using labourer who arenât skilled. Though the sheer amount of tanks against nazi german make any quality above âunable to work at all, all of themâ is good enough.
Britain tanks
USA tanks are generally the best because their tanks focus on simplicity while being able to produce everything at a relatively stable pace.
Japan tanks is basically using a musket in WW2. not ideal.
Italy tanks⌠iâll be honest, i donât even know Italy have tanks until this game come out. like, iâm sure they have tanks, i just donât know what.
Its great and all debating specs, diaries, propaganda, opinions, accounts from the victor. Its fun. But for me numbers tell their own story.
As a youngster I was always lead to believe that T-34s were the bees knees, The Tiger was the Ultimate Killer, Spitfires single handedly won the battle of Britain, and the French national Flag was white (a bunch of whoopsies)
Turns out T-34s have the worst tactical record, Stugs killed more armour, Hurricanes shot down more over Britain, and the French were a formidable force (not used well)
2 Likes
Heres something I found interesting. And None Bias
1 Like
1 Like
The Russians suffered gargantuan losses. But they had the ability to quickly replenish losses. And they had the material support of the Allies, depending on the source, it is from 8% to 20% in technical equipment. Because the Russians completely avoid the subject of things like boots or infantry small arms.
The biggest mistake of Germany is that they wanted to win the material war with quality. Take the Tiger tanks as an example. The Germans could not field more than 30 Tigers in one battle. Someone will say âbut it was Tigerâ yes, tigers were a dangerous opponent, but their number only affected the lines of fights. If the Germans would focus on the Stugs, which they produced 10,300, and if they produced 50,000 of them and introduced Hetzers into production faster, they could fight longer. Similarly, the 8.8cm guns, most of which were assigned to the defense of German cities, and huge amounts of steel were used in their production, and their effectiveness against Allied air raids was low.
Actually they never planed a material war.
From the start they planed to do one big strike and crush russia like they did with poland and france.
But when their big push failed, there was no plan B.
They made a gamble all or nothing and they lost.
3 Likes
Bit off more than they could chew. Simple as that.
They made alot of enemies on all sides
Too many fronts
2 Likes
There is speculation that the Germans would be better off digging in and letting the Russians smash their divisions against the defences.
The same would happen if the Germans invested a lot of strength and resources in the defense of France, and so they swallowed the bait and expected a landing in Norway.
And weak allies. Italy was weak in terms of equipment, Japan was strong but had dire logistics and strange ideas.
Or, they coulda just not started something with russia in the first place. And consolidated instead of spreading thin.
But they did what they did.
An amazing story told about the Eastern front. I recommend you make time to watch it, because these are up for a limited time to promote their streaming platform:
2 Likes
do you also listen to war stories podcasts?
2 Likes
Just as firepower isnât the only important part of a vehicle.
Reliability alone also doesnât make a great vehicle.
Yes the Panther tank is pretty overrated by tank enthusiast, however to say it was worthless is a pretty stupid thing to say.
The Ferdinand tank destroyer for example had even much much worse reliability issues, yet it has the best âtank kill ratioâ of all the ww2 vehicles, even if most their losses were due to mechanical breakdowns.
There were many issues with the Panther tank, many of them were due to it being a rushed vehicle,
however something people are not aware of is the fact that production wise Panther tanks were as expensive to produce as Panzer IV tanks.
So Panthers were not only rushed, they were also cheap for what they were, or at least for German standards.
Now all these things aside, one thing that canât be argued with unless you are extremely biased would be the effectiveness of its gun.
It was unmatched in anti tank combat, with the only exception being the Soviet 100mm guns, the US 90mm guns and the British 17 pounders.
This is a fact that canât be argued with.