This is exactly what I was referring to. Honestly it was a genius concept that imo outperformed even the American “bring spares for everything” philosiphy. They had everything in spare except for a hull or turret. Spare transmissions, engines, guns, pretty much everything, and it all had to be replacable within 3 hours.
1 Like
Of course the US and Russia were in very different positions.
The US couldn’t just rail more tanks over on demand.
Don’t trash talk Murica, our philosophy is if it aint broken, dont fix it, and, we could replace most parts with a forward repair depot, even the crews. Sherman knocked out, tow it back, slap new engine or transmission in it if its broken, grab some rookies, and bam, you got a “brand new” tank.
STOP TALKING ABOUT CAT!
IN CBT SOVIET TANKS AND ANTI TANKS ARE TRASH!
PTRD are bugged and is useless. PZB even weaker in given stats but do more damage than PTRD.
I agreed on that point. We are just having a mostly off-topic discussion about design philosophy of the various nations, which has little to nothing to do with enlisted itself. Idk what your issue is so how about you just shut your mouth.
I’m not trash talking America. I am praising the Soviets for a system that outperformed even the American system in production numbers and effective ammount of tanks being deployed to the front. The russian tanks were much less durable / repairable than the American tanks, but because of sheer numbers, they still matched the American numbers, or even outnumbered them.
1 Like
well your talking about early version where it was a stop gap like M3 Lee but still M3 Lee wasnt worse like any other type of tanks like its kind because other nations made worse like france and etc its same problem at here the germans where came with complicated and costy desings which is the reason why the Gen 2 where good but soviets where not even ready from start from the war thats why they needed stop gap like T34 1940 / 1941 / 1942 etc like if you had a T34-85 / T34-85 D5T then you would get them all kicked