Shouldn’t Soviet tanks be better than German tanks?
1 Like
Soviet tanks are better, but Soviet tankists are brainless. Also, a lot of German tankers are skilled Warthunder players. As a warthunder player I can suggest you to flank the enemy tank and shoot the turret first and then shoot the center of mass. Don’t shoot the engine because it takes him 5 minutes to completely burn up.
4 Likes
its simple, overall the German tanks was faster (turret speed!), compared with the armor , and the overall build from a technical point was just that little bit better
the pz3 actually has worse turret traverse compared to any other vehicle in the game.
also, in terms of the “russa tonks better” - their tanks were not better, they simply had 10 tanks for every german tank.
6 Likes
I think he’s talking about the BA-11 being better than the Pz-3 in game. In that case the BA-11 is better because of how the damage system works.
That being said, a lot of people seem to forget that individual skill matters in a shooter game, and if a better tanker is in a worse tank, or if 2 tankers are working in tandem, they will still win.
Well the better tanker in the worse tank still has to fight an uphill battle.
Also, the BA-11 is vastly superior to the Pz-3:
- Better cannon (especially the HE)
- Faster reload rate
- Higher mobility (both top speed and acceleration) > also makes it less vulnurable to explosive packs as it can run away from them faster
- Can only be damaged from the front if you hit the driver port or flat turret front, hitting the engine front, roof or curved turret parts will result in no damage
- Even from the side, most of the BA’s profile is not filled with important bits, requiring you to still aim accurately to take out crew
Lastly, the russians also have access to an semi-automatic 5-shot AT rifle, instead of a single shot rifle like the germans have, giving the russians another edge when it comes to tank to tank engagements.
5 Likes
Definately, I just think the German tankers have gotten better.
I play BA-11 a lot and I find that tank battles have gotten alot more competative. More people figuring out how to get 2-3 shot kills and the like.
That Being said, the BA-11 is too powerful and should be replaced by another Soviet light tank, maybe BT-5 or T-60, making T-26 the starter tank
2 Likes
As far as I am aware, the BA-11 was never used in the tank role to begin with. It was an recon vehicle.
I mean, yes and no. It was used for armored recon but it was designed to be capable of engaging infantry and Light armor.
Either way, for balance purposes the devs should consider replacing it, the problems with it stem from the damage system itself.
I almost always get one-shot by whatever tank, i smell hax
never forget , there will be always some fishy people and they blur the whole game values someone with hack is always better than someone without hack.
Sad but true.However I buy the console version for playstation and xbox because the game is really good
I dont think its hax. Unless they have an aimbot that knows how to lock onto an ammo rack and ive never seen that
I do know from my admitadely little experience playing Germany in comparison to Russia, that their is a “Sweet spot” to one shotting the BA-11
Its a hard shot but if you get a hit on the Turret it is possible that the round can explode and shrapnel can hit the ammo rack.
Again its harder to pull off than a one shot against a Panzer 3 (although 2-3 shots is gettting more common these days) but it is possible.
If we’re talking IRL, German tanks had much much better visibility, and their early tanks were quick and reliable compared to what they were up against.
No tanks were reliable. “Reliability” mainly comes from how easy they are to repair or replace, which the Soviets did much better than Germany.
Not in the early war, where Germany was performing well and Russia hadn’t refined production yet.
Panzer 38s in particular were good at staying mobile over the long term.
I love too see how people necropost and disuss things (ba) being not in the game build anymore
If this was to be a realistic game to the standards of simulation (it isn’t, Im just saying this for clarification) then the Soviet vehicles would catch on fire when they started up, the Germans couldn’t cold start, and would have issues in mud. German tank design was abit better than the soviets, since most soviet tanks were thrown together, or used older more outdated technology. Now, Im no wehraboo, god forbid, but Soviet vehicles were terrible, especially T-34s (But thats straying away from this campaign). The German 37mm was good for the time, until soviet tanks had more armor and more slopes.
1 Like
M4A2s in Russian service would be at constant risk of those rats in the infantry sneaking inside to rip the pleather off of the seats for their boots source- Dmitriy Loza
well the thing about the T-34 was is that it was generally cheaper labor-wise to just build a new tank than to repair an old one. The russians recognized that and built a tank that would literally last about 3 months before falling apart.
Sure, the german vehicles were built to last, but they were a hell to repair with most using unique parts and because of the few common parts in between, you would always be out of certain parts. Once they did break down, they would be really hard to repair. Later on in the war the Germans used underpowered engines and gear boxes, that failed regularly because of the stress on them with the heavier armor. That amplified the issue for sure, but the issue was there from the start too.
1 Like
It’s funny now because in this CBT it’s reversed and the PTRD doesn’t even do damage to tanks now.
1 Like
Russia is also a fan of something called “planned obsolescence”
They did studies to discover that it takes, like you said, about 3 months on average for a major failure to happen in a tank.
If Germany saw that study, they would ask what failed, and try to improve that component.
But Russia decided that if it’s estimated that the tank won’t last longer than 3 months, then designing parts to last longer than 3 months is a waste of man hours and resources. So instead, they scaled back the quality on all other parts so that they don’t have to last longer than 3 months. And so “military grade” was born; delivering the end goal for the cheapest.
Really I’m a huge fan of the philosophy that nothing lasts forever and you should plan for failures instead of trying in vain to prevent them.
I’ve heard that vehicles were also designed so that the most failure-prone components were as easy to replace as possible, but I’m not sure if that’s true because there are conflicting claims on that.