Yeah of course, everything Soviet = lie. WW2 dates? Lie.
Of course.
I spelled it out in simple English that T-50 shouldn’t relly be in the campaign either, but at least it was made before Moscow and had a chance to appear.
It doesn’t fit the timeline because it was made after Moscow and appeared in the field elsewhere after April.
Yes, waiting, but first:
Source that F2 existed in the field during Moscow?
In the sentence I quoted. It’s dates.
Il just leave this here. Unless you have some soviet archive source proving april comes before march, you can go fk yourself.
Classic.
Go fk yourself likewise.
F2 wasn’t used at Moscow.
F2 wasn’t in the field until May.
Moscow ended way before May.
Only in russia.
Panzer 4 F2 should not be in Moscow. Also to keep balance KV-1 should NEVER be added because it will break balance. Unless Germany can use 88s then its never happening.
for some odd reason I doubt the existence of KV1 would break anything as theres no balance to start with.
Problem is KV-1 resists dynamite so it would be impossible to kill unless it’s GRB-39 and PZ.III J1
So, those that actually studied history as opposed to hysterical propaganda, wikipedia or similar “sources”, will quickly find that neither the new T-34 nor the KV-1, KV-2 or any other Soviet capability was somehow insurmountable for the Germans, nor were they available in small numbers compared to the numbers of German tanks as some “historians” purport. The so called “shock” was actually frustration by a large portion on the Infantry divisions many of which were still operating on the older weapons (ie equipped with Pak 36 as opposed to the rarer Pak 38 still being produced in sufficient numbers) as the German army underwent a massive expansion after the French campaign. It also ignores all the info of Germans routinely appropriating Soviet AT guns into their line up, which were used effectively to combat this “propagandistic scourge” and shock.
The majority of this garbage comes from the secondary source diaries of German generals writing BS post war, when theirs and the captured portions of the German records by the allies were available as sources. The Soviets hiding behind the iron curtain did not dispute German propaganda that sought to make them into an even bigger boogeyman. Firstly, to portray the Soviets as much more capable than they actually were, often hiding their own Intelligence shortfalls or Operational / Tactical mistakes, and secondly, generally shift the blame on Hitler as meddling in military decision making to a far greater degree than he actually did initially, because that was also the post war fad, and it conveniently exploited the issue of the growing schism between Hitler and some of his Officers in terms of Strategic/Operational planning, but doesn’t go into the real reasons why governments meddle in military affairs to this very day.
When you actually read some of Glantz’s work or Isaaev’s work, made available in the brief period when the Soviet archives were opened to western historians and provides a counter balance to the Soviet view, you will be reliably informed that despite the ongoing paper comparisons that continue to this day, the Germans had no problems overcoming the T-34 or the KV-1 with their 50mm guns. Sure the 37mm struggled, but new Stielgranate 41 HEAT ammunition was quickly developed form them (read battle for/ Siege of Cholm Jan '42 - June '42) to deal with the heavier armoured Soviet tanks - the wikipedia source is wrong here as the ammunition was used well before 1943.
The PzIII 50mm short was “good enough for the job” and the L60 long had no issues with Soviet tanks, not to mention the previously cited in this thread Flak 88 was there to back up the ranks as well.
Just like the famous battle of Kursk, the battle of Moscow will have 2 timelines - one from the German perspective and one from the Soviet. In both cases the German timelines cite the “end” of a given operation, when that operation has reached its culminating point and has been terminated, the Soviets however, also include their counter attacks which extend the historiography of the events by a few months. So the end dates of Feb-Mar '42 are from the Soviet perspective, which kicked off with Operation Typhoon on 5 Dec '41 - this is when the “German centric” battle of Moscow ends, because this is the end of Barbarossa…
In terms of the PzIVF2 you can go to Jentz who cites that the recoil of the 75mm Pak 40 was too long for the turret of the PzIV, and the KwK 40L43 had to be re-designed to be fitted into the turret of the PzIV, he cites that the first 30 gun conversions were completed in March, and so it stands to reason that this is the earliest these tanks could be feasibly fitted with them. This does not take into account any testing, shipping and subsequent training of crews for the employment of this platform. The key difference between appropriating the T-50 from the Leningrad front into the Moscow front was that the T-50 was “IN SERVICE” and not being manufactured, finished off or mid testing…The same cannot be said for the PzIVF2.
Nevertheless, Gaijin will use whatever means it sees fit to “balance” the line ups and we already know that historical accuracy or authenticity will take a backseat to what I think is more important for most on these forums - the representative adoption of different pieces of equipment to fit their game model/gameplay “balancing”. This is why we now have the Mkb in Moscow…