Uh, a prototype, you say? Stop acting dumb, for God’s sake. I know that you know that the Fedorov has more damage than even the MP43 and StG 44. They have the same rate of fire, but the Fedorov has slightly worse vertical recoil. However, as I already mentioned earlier, with the -40 recoil perk, it offsets this downside
Fedorov with a damage value of 12.6 is approximately 30% superior to the STG with a damage value of 9.6.
2 Likes
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?
1 Like
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.
2 Likes
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
1 Like
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”.
2 Likes
This is the best tank of the war, what’s the problem?
3 Likes
It was total shit and thats a lie. Only that;]
1 Like
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
ahahahahahahah you dont know comrad Stalin fantasy. He made it basic tank before it was even out of prototype (A-32, not even A-34 or T-34). You think that anyone would take it back?? Well, to be fair marshal Grigorij Iwanowicz Kulik tried to sent it to hell but Stalins word was finall.
KV and IS series had diffrent problems and what is more important, different role, but giving them as an example is also not the best, because they were not very successful either.
who would knew that overgrown parts of bt7 wont work exacly as they should
no (Sloped shape isnt game changer, was used in many tanks before btw if sb told you that t34 was so advanced couse it had sharp angles. Armor performance is much more affected by metallurgical factors), no and no. Not in any stage of war. Never achieved. 3 years were needed to make it evenslightly usefull. Mobilty and reliability are opposite to what this maschine was. On paper, yes it was f cav tank. In reality it just couldnt drive.
Nobody alse said so much lies about their product. Its matter of scale. And effects are worse. Not only somebody bought bad tanks but also every single home made historian untill now thought that T-34 was best tank of the war. Thats truly horrible xd
Its like you would said that shermans and panthers (panther was actually the worst of the worst tank of the war couse nazis hadnt time to fix it a bit as soviets could with t34) were best tanks of the war. As well preposterous.
Tests were made by soviets and by yanks. T-34-85 sucked in every way when compared to M4A2.
conclusion: 42 000 lost T-34 wasnt an accident. And yes, soviets battle plans were retarded (of corse not as much as human waves as “Enemy at the gates” want us to think) but other types of tanks werent lost in such quantities and had better performance. T-34 was just technological dead end from the start (literally from decison of useing Christie suspension), that was hard to improve. Poor quality of production didnt help. All of it made this tank shit that it is. Still better than panther if it would make you happy;]
And it wasnt case of legendary “quantity over quality” couse it cost similar price as sherman btw.
And man responsible for logistics would kill you for this proverb anyways.
3 Likes
The author of the post should read a bit about firearms. And above all, what is the theoretical rate of fire and the practical rate of fire and how do they differ.
1 Like
The best Soviet tank for sure.
Retard soviet (corgi) mains, vs axis mains…
Forum. Forum never changes…
5 Likes
3:1 ??? where did you even get that from? Sometimes I wonder when I read about the ratio of losses on the eastern front. I think you guys are clearly not aware that they fought along with the Reich on the Eastern Front: Italy, Romania, Hungary, Finland, Spanish volunteers, various traitors, etc. and also that the Reich was very fond of exterminating Soviet prisoners of war (since the Slavs were considered Untermensch, of course, not as much as the Jews, but according to the ideology of Nazism, they went very close to the animals). As far as I know, the number of prisoners of the Axis and the USSR on the eastern front following the results of the war is approximately the same, although there are more councils, but there is one bad luck: less than 50% of Soviet prisoners of war survived, and German 85-90%
in total we have: irrevocable in battles, if we take into account not only the Wehrmacht but also the Axis forces on the eastern front, they are the same, but so many prisoners of war in concentration camps were killed that they pulled out as much as a ratio of 1 to 1.3 deaths.
But you mentioned exactly 44-45 years and the ratio of 1 to 3 in favor of the Germans.
Operation “Bagration” (1944) (liberation of Belarus) losses 2-2.5 to 1 in favor of the Soviets.
Warsaw-Poznan offensive operation
the Soviets lost 17 thousand, the axis did not even count their own (by the way, the ubiquitous situation in 45.
“Königsberg operation” 45. The operation to storm the city of the fortress. 11.3 to 1 in favor of red army
“Bucharest-Arad operation” The operation to liberate Romania is no less than 11.7 to 1. As a result, the whole of Romania is under the control of the Soviets. one of those moments where the axis didn’t count the men or the casualties. Only from Soviet data is it known that the enemy lost at least 100 thousand
“Vistula-Oder operation” 45. An operation during which eastern Poland was liberated and a bridgehead on the Oder River was captured. By the way, in terms of the number of troops involved from both sides, this operation is approximately equal to Kursk. The ratio of losses to those killed is again 11 to 1, namely 44 thousand Soviet losses against 479 thousand German ones, this is without taking into account 150 thousand prisoners of war. This is one that quickly came to mind.
3 Likes
Since this topic Just turned in a Mess of Personal Insults it will be closed
5 Likes