Greatshowcase of capping around your opponents defensive positions, utilizing the flak halftrack properly (well not the first one I built...) and using a puma to scout t3 and force him to recall his units to his base.
Thats nice but its kolodny ferma not the best place for maxim spam
These losses were, in addition to mechanical problems, caused by shortages of fuel and supplies. This is not dissimilar to the collapse of Kampfgruppe Peiper in the Ardennes or the collapse of the 2nd Panzer division in front of the Meuse in 1944 where hundreds of AFV were abandoned.
This happened frequently on the eastern front.
The Soviets were 'shocking incompetent' in 1941 but continuously improved until they were the superior ones in operations.
The T-34 was a tank that took 300 labor hours for many factories to build. It was a much cheaper tank than the Sherman, which was already a cost effective tank. The Sherman was a much cheaper tank than the Panzer III. The T-34 was a great tank for its very low cost.
The point of war is to conduct the strategic offensive, not defend until overrun.
i have some doubts about this. even in 1944 the soviets lost 13 k t-34's in the battle of Berlin they lost 2 entire tank armies . It simply doesnt match up what your saying.
Short answer: weight restrictions, operational readiness, logistics, maintenance, and reliability. These were the archilles heel of tanks in ww2.
Panzer divisions on the strategic offense typically started falling apart in 2 months with most AFVs in repair. The Sherman, unlike the Pz III/IV/V could endure with operational rates @ 90% plus even months after the landings:
It has more to that russia was not kind to tanks or supply lines. both armies basically ceased offensive operations during winter months allowing both of them rearm themselves.
If you've studied it, it's true. Much of the German tank park was lost via abandonment as well- real war isn't a videogame (super offtopic)
The collapse of the soviet mechanized corps saw most of Soviet armor lost in the first 2 weeks of the war- to abandonment.
The soviet winter counteroffensive of 1942-1943- while mostly successful, most Soviet tanks were also lost to abandonment rather than enemy fire as the logistics situations began collapsing by early 1943.
Your not making a better case for the soviets here. i can understand the argument in 1941 where the soviets line collapsed several times and supply lines as well but if you tell they lost half their tanks in 1942 and 1943 (where supply lines were re-established and soviet industry came back online) because of mechanical failure it would not only prove that the t-34 is an incredibly shitty tank but also the soviets where shockingly incompetent.
Russia built 50,000 t-34s in comparison to around 9,000 pz 4s and 6,000 panthers-how is that 2 to 1 ratio.
Soviets were not running out of tanks in 1944,but men.
After stalingrad russia could have won the war on its own taking 2 more years than 45' and total manpower exhaustion.
Thats me being generous. because if we only took tanks in comparison we would have a staggering 1: 5 kill ratio. I include all AFV in in my calculations and some of those AFV are stugs marders and the su series.
But i can no longer be bothered to explaining stuff to you go read this website
Also you mp assessment is hilariously inaccurate. What you mean with stallinggrad you mean case blue. and total operation costed Germany 1. million soldiers the soviet suffered 1.4 million soldiers. But i was far from checkmate. by 1943 the whermach had an even stronger presence ,in terms of manpower ,in Russia then in 1942.
This is such nonsense. ''Run out of tanks''? You do realize they kept producing them with a vengeance even in 1945 because Soviet production facilities were intact, while the Germans insisted on using their few remaining infrastructure on producing over-engineered panzerporn that broke down all the time, when it wasn't bombed to oblivion by Allied air superiority, and outside of a few battles didn't even perform all that well?
But yeah, sure, keep thinking the Soviets had poor equipment and no tactics. They must have won the war by sheer luck, I presume.
Also, talking about ''human wave tactics'' is just laughable . Who formed things like the Volksgrenadiers and Volkssturm and sent them to die in droves with minimal training again?
1. you fail at math. read what im saying again then try again. Second im trying to point out that the red army doesnt get much praise from because the allies saved their behinds big time and not only with air raids but a second front and land lease. If their where no western allies the soviets would likely lose the war. good thing the ami's where their to safe them.
And this is not glorifying the ami's they made plenty of mistakes themselves. But without their support i doubt the soviet union would be able to last through 1942
It has the holy trifecta of Armour, Mobility and Firepower.
It is also easy to produce
Let down by bad ergonomics, lack of radio and indifferent crew training
Not especially reliable, but equally reliable no matter what the weather is
Easy to produce but only on a 1:2 ratio in favour for the soviets . but they where lost on a 1: 3 ratio. If the allies where not mucking things up for axis on the western front the soviets would run out of tanks in 1944. This tank was causing them to lose the war so its not a good tank no matter if you manage to produce more.
Also the most important part of the tank is the crew. you are not allowed to lose experienced tankers on that ratio.
Such non-sense made my day. The Red Army did not learn from their mistakes of 1941? Zhukov had no Strategic Brilliance? T-34 the worst tank?! Now I've heard everything...
The red army learnded very slowly from their mistakes. Zhukov was a decent general but he was also very predictable and linear and got tripped up very badly by better German generals like Heinrici , Model and Manstein. The worst defeat the soviets suffered at Kiev happened under his watch the the Rhzev meat grinder also happened under his command.
The t-34 for that matter is shrouded in shiny myths. take away the shiny myths and look on the numbers you will be horrified. i can write and entire essay why the t-34 is worst tank in ww2 but lets take 1941 where the t-34 supposed to have no equal. Yet of the 2800 t-34's 2200 got knocked out half of them caused by the p3 with its 50 mm gun.
Also van Voort and Burts if you dont know shit about ww2 do no comment you are looking like idiots. because a quick check on the internet can easily confirm what im posting.
If you want a realistic simulation, try Gary Grigsby's War in the East: Don to the Danube. Adam Tooze's The Wages of Destruction is a good illustration of the economic problems facing the Reich and illustrates quite well why the German war effort was doomed to fail. With all that said, I think you're being awfully dismissive of the Allied efforts in the war. They did not simply zerg rush the Germans with densely packed infantry. It's particularly insulting to the Soviet forces, who executed some of the most brilliant offensives in history in the final years of the war to decisively crush the German war machine.
Rzev did had human wave tactics but thats more of a problem outdated soviet infantry doctrine even so it costed the soviets dearly with nearly 1:10 casualties. And safe for Bragration their is not a single soviet operation i can respect. it nearly always was a 1:1 ratio. Also victories where only achieved by massive amount of advantages that where partly provided by the western allies. without landlease the soviet union would have collapsed in 1941 as mobility would have been crippled without the tens oof thousands of trucks provided by America.
But the greatest problem of the soviet army is was their inability to learn from their mistakes. Take for example the the t-34 which was one of worst tanks of the war it took the soviets nearly 3 years and 35k of loses to finally put the t-34/85 out.
Harrison2142
Dullahan
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
Heartless Jäger 
