Russian Bias

Posted on by

Hello everyone,

think bad MM balance and leaving KV-1S OP is a sign of Russian bias in World of Tanks? Let me show you some real Russian bias.

Some of you, who read the historical articles and follow such stuff might are familiar with the name of Yuri Pasholok. He’s the main historical researcher for Wargaming (after you read what he wrote, you will probably be able to imagine where this is going). He recently wrote a post about Tiger II (resp. its prototype, VK4503(H)).

untitled

The post it titled “Engineer Hans really didn’t want to go fight on the eastern front” – yep, implying German tank designers were cowards is a good start for every post by a Soviet Russian historian. It gets better though. Here’s the translation.

I studied the Tiger II and VK4503(H) documents, thought about it a lot. The 105mm gun on KT can be explained simply – split ammunition. It’s possible the German lovers will suffer when they hear this. And in general, the German engineers, those were jokers. The VK4503(H) suspension that had on each bogey two DOUBLED roadwheels with rubber banding – that’s some sort of tank porn. 19.10.1942, the German genius was as gloomy as never before. And yes, studying German documents makes me proud about our tank engineering. I have a feeling that first grade university students were creating tanks in Germany, they were far behind our design school. Well, and technical approach of German engineers sometimes just delivers.

And this guy is responsible for WoT historical research…

223 thoughts on “Russian Bias”

    • Yeah, just wow, totally mistranslated original text.

      1) “It’s possible the German lovers will suffer when they hear this” – actually, he wrote “It’s possible the German tank lovers will suffer due to this fact” (that is “when the KT is nerfed”).
      2) “I have a feeling that first grade university students were creating tanks in Germany, they were far behind our design school.” OMG, Pasholok talks not about creating tanks and their design, but just about drawing drawings, i.e. drawings quality.

  3. Yea, I have never seen a Russians slandering their stuff. Idk what surprises you there, I am used to the rule “We are Russians, we are the best because we have stronk tenks and stuff like that and we get better specials. Go fuk yourself WC”. I guess everyone knows what WC means, it is quite used phrase here on FTR.

    • Indeed, it makes total sense:
      KV-1S OP -> Russian Bias.
      I also realized following things:
      WT E-100 -> Russian Bias.
      T57 -> Russian Bias.
      Obj 268 nerf – Russian bias.
      Wait I got a lot more of that fabled Russian Bias around…

      Do you, people, even pay attention to how much crap is coming out of your mouth? I like this blog, SilentStalker seems to deliver on time and a lot of interesting things, but him perpetuating bullshit like this takes him down the notch just like his intended target.

      I can point out that Russians and Chinese are bad guys in every single NA game but you don’t see Russians whining “Murican Bias”. It’s the bias of MONEY, whatever sells. And I hate to break it to you, nobody in the world including me gives a shit about your satisfaction, someone builds a game they want to make money off and if they are successful they do. Not a single game developer ever gave a shit about whining of indivuduals. Vote with your money, not your mouth. Don’t like the game? GTFO.
      Quality of community on this blog is as bad as the worst of Russian community or American.

      Just my two cents.

        • Every idiot and their dog want to have those in their garage because they are easier to play than other more specialized heavies

      • Yes tell me why I have IS-7 in my garage but not e-100 or maus which i can buy too? I will aswer to it because they are huge slow moving pile of junks which end has somking wrecks in the age of gold ammo.

        • I can easily tell you why you have Is-7 and not the other tanks. You are a terrible player, incapable of adapting to the tank and using the strong features of it.

          Some tanks are worse than others. Not a single tank is unplayable and every one of them can shine.

          If you think E-100 cannot penetrate IS-7 with gold ammo, you are even worse than I described.

          • Yeah but some can shine more often than others…
            the problem with E-100 is how useless it can be in many situations…especially if you cant sidescrape or hide your LFP….also one funny moment was then IS-6! penned my E100s turret frontally at 400m using AP :) then he caught a HEAT round i had loaded for some enemy T10 and died but still….175mm pen :D

          • ‘Some tanks are worse than others. Not a single tank is unplayable and every one of them can shine.’

            I’ve played quite a many varieties of tanks, from the big boom of the ISU-152 dreaded BL10, to the sniper elite that is the Nashorn. I’ve played precision Vossprung durch Technik of the German Heavy and also the Peek-a-boom of the Russian HT. I’ve also tried for a short time the burst machine gun of the Church III and AMX-autoloaders. Even the Japanese which aren’t good at most thing, is just fun ith that gun depression .I’ve tried and succedded in making most tank work and shine and all of them have that hidden jewel……except 2.

            The M3 Lee and the horrible disgusting and painful Pz Sfl V ‘Sturer emil’. The M3 Lee is forgivable as it is stuck in the black sea of Tier IV and is easy to free xp it but the TIER VII Sturer is just painful.

      • I’m going out on a limb and guessing that you are a rusky yourself. The smell of butthurtness and BS is unmistakable.
        ———
        “can point out that Russians and Chinese are bad guys in every single NA game but you don’t see Russians whining “Murican Bias”.”
        ———
        What, have you already forgotten “Company of Heroes” 2 butthurtness?

        ——–
        ” And I hate to break it to you, nobody in the world including me gives a shit about your satisfaction, someone builds a game they want to make money off and if they are successful they do. Not a single game developer ever gave a shit about whining of indivuduals. Vote with your money, not your mouth. Don’t like the game? GTFO. ”
        ——–
        Yeah…stronk soviet mentality…there are plenty of game dev’s that actually care what their playerbase thinks, for example, path of exile. That’s just a quick example cuz i’m playing that game myself. Need more? How about – every othee indie game? Or maybe try checking out some kickstarter/Steam greenlight/Steam early access products?

        • Awww, how terrible.

          Your examples are Invalid. Indie games have a tiny customer base and pandering to whims of their players is the only thing they can do to stay afloat, often still failing and losing the business. Not listening to whiny community is why majority of the games are successful, because lets be honest, if this blog commenters are a sample of how much stupidity fills the brains of most players, wot would have failed long time ago.

          Point remains: the game is successful because of what developers have done. Really good example is World of Warcraft… They couldnt give a shit about whiny pathetics on the forums and succeeded beyond anyones expectations.

          I, for one, appreciate the game and what it is, without whining and “oh mah gawd I so totally the smrtest in de wurld and i know how this game should be” bullshit that so many self ritcheous forum trolls are full of.

    • Basically this. His opinion is his own, and we should respect it so long as it doesn’t interfere with facts.

      • Wrong. If you want to be viewed as historic expert, you can’t give that sort of opinions, because you will lose all credibility. Only thing it showed that he got no high regards on other tanks than russians and that he will not invest that much attention to accuracy (good exemple how much time they spend on giving us 3 (identical) soviet medium branches)

        • well you you are forgetting that he is still russian their were born with this attitude and brainwashed about superiority of their stuff and everything. Considering that RU server is only server WG is interested in he will lose none of the credibility on the contrary. This will boost russian ego even more.

            • He is right, though – except no Russian will ever face that fact unless he or she has lived abroad for a long time. Only Russians are at liberty to call Russia crap, anybody else has to revere its greatness.

          • Well, to the best of my knowledge, americans are usually the same way. Everyone is nationalistic to some extent, and it depends on the situation. I mean, just listen to people talking about the P-51D like it was the second coming of jesus.

        • You have a very antiquated understanding of historical studies. I suggest you do some university courses in history that were developed this side of the year 2000 and learn that bias and opinion are pretty much a matter of course.

          A historian claiming to be unbiased is either in denial or lying.

  6. Soviet Tonk bess tonk
    Vodka bess drink
    Lada bess car
    Mig bess playn
    Single-core engine, bess engine (little stab at “Multi-core support will not come in 9.0 – let’s stay in 1994 s’more!”)

    Oh wait… none of that makes any sense now does it?

  7. Ok, what I’m sure it was like:
    -Germans were experts in designing tanks but they were so complicated that they couldn’t build so many of them. (Very good tanks but in small numbers)
    -Russians were making many cheap and simple tanks with very bad accuracy that could be produced tons of tanks.(bad tanks but in big numbers)
    –>The quantity defeated the quality. Yes Russians won the war but their tanks were good coz of the overwhelming number, otherwise they were shit.
    That guy… I just can’t describe him. He’s aaa…. Well I said I can’t describe him!

      • If im not misstaken Russia still have the doctrine quantity over quality with all military equipment they make. Crap weapons but in big numbers worked in world war 2 and they seem to belive it will work for them in a world war 3. T-34 was a terrible tank yet due to its big numbrs it was victorious.

      • They also had to compensate for bigger shells and lower velocity when aiming. That, and they didn’t have at all the same kind of optics(can’t find and aim at targets) or radios (can’t tell buddies).

      • So what? T-34s couldnt pen tiger I 200m away in his side.And IS-3M was peace of shit too. England was afraid of it but then they saw conqueror was way better. Leopard 1 was way better than T-55 and T-62. Brits were like 5 or 10 years ahead of russians.

      • I created an account just to say how stupid that is.

        The only real, mattering difference was that the Russian tanks did not have any fucking sights. They literally had to hope that the gun was pointing in the right direction, because they couldn’t afford to put glass into the tank.

        • Its not just about mechanical accuracy or sight quality…
          Its also about targeting system and doctrine because just know which way is the target isnt enough and thats where range finding comes into play…if you dont how far the enemy is you cant really engage properly outside close range as any shell has a large chance of falling short or overflying the target
          German gunners mostly had better training for that than your average Ivan in WWII and their sight system probably helped as well
          german sights also made it easier to guess the right distance if you knew how large the target was

    • In fact number of destroyed T-34s in WW2 (about 45k if my numbers check up) was way bigger than the number of total amount of tanks produced by Germans in 1939-1945, so yeah, Russian engineering stronk. I don’t know how many people is aware of the fact that Soviet aiming devices were so Napoleonic Wars Era, that svoiet tanks were unable to shoot while moving, which was completely unthinkable in the German overthinked crappy projects.

  8. What i catch in this Article is, about Chauvinism, not just it.. for example take a look British TV Show Top Gear, they always praising how good was British Engineering and Aston Martin DB 9, Bentley etc. etc. and mocking foreign manufacturer cars (sorry a bit Out of context but its what it is)

    • You don’t watch much Top Gear then…normally it’s a joke, they love loads of foreign cars as well as British ones.

      • Did nobody watch the British car industry races?

        If you really thought that the TVR’s massive turbo lag was a “safety feature” then you really are gullible.

  10. all people over the world knows about GERMAN PRECISION , and the great and good things they do

    but who the heck knows about VOKTA DRINKERS?(russians) the single thing i remember is : they are many and more many idiots:)))

          • Main reason: T-34 was the first proper use of sloped armor, fire power and mobility.
            T-34 -> Panther -> Pershing/Centurion -> the rest of the worlds tanks
            T-34 -> T-43 -> T-44 -> T-54 onwards… -> the rest of the worlds tanks
            Notice how the cromwell has no sloped armor?

              • Yup because the ft totally had proper sloped armor, fire power, and mobility it was it was copied around the world… Nope. It totally made armored warfare plausible… Nope. Did it have at least one those defining characteristics? Nope.

                • “It had a turret.”
                  It looked like a tank yes, but it was still a failure, and was not useful. So yeah I guess if you invented the wheal you also invented the car…

              • Yup because the (FCM36) totally had proper sloped armor, fire power, and mobility it was it was copied around the world… Nope. It totally made armored warfare plausible… Nope. Did it have at least one those defining characteristics? Nope.
                FCM has only some of its armor that’s actually sloped well so no it does not have proper nor effective sloped armor. Its like saying medieval soldiers had sloped armour all around because of their helmet.

  12. SS can you tell me what was the ratio of destroyed tanks between german and soviet in WW2?

    I heard 1:6 or 1:7 is that true?

    • Likely, although exact numbers aren’t known and everyone disagrees on them.

      However, those numbers cannot be used to indicate superiority of specific tanks over each other. Majority of losses was non-combat i.e abandoned, scuttled, or simply captured.

  14. da heck?
    Split ammo my foot
    but the suspension???

    IMHO the Churchill’s suspension was the best around, but the German approach was still better at transferring the weight evenly to the tracks, and thus gaining better grip than the Russians. The Russian approach is mechanically simple and reliable, but lacks any form of optimisation or ingenuity. For example the gap between the first two roadwheels on the T54. just cries “we couldn’t design our suspension spacing properly”.

      • It takes lot of time and replacing broken stuff takes too long time. In war you need things done quickly. There are many examples some things being superior but they are too expensive to use.

      • Too many moving parts, so maintenance is a pain, also I suspect it gives increased rolling resistance. Overall though I prefer Horstman to Torsion bar suspension. The simple bolt-on ability allows you to easily replace damaged parts, which is no mean feat with Torsion bar suspension

  15. Typical Soviet lover who talks all kind of BS because he wouldn’t admit German engineering was far superior to the soviet one. I’m sure he and SerB are like best friends.

    • Typical German fan boy. The “Superior Tiger” kind of tanks will work in real life. Source: WW2
      Russians could build tanks during WW2 that would be “superior”, but they were smarter than that. Take for example the 107mm zis 6, incredible gun but Russians thought they wouldn’t need it against the small tanks at that time. Zis-2 the gun that could kill the tiger from the front easily was not produced before the war for having too much penetration. And the IS-2 was not only far superior to the tiger in a AT role, but also as a anti infantry/infantry support role as well. If was faster, more armored, weigh less, more reliable, easier to produce, cheaper, smaller target.
      Typical, TYPICAL German fan boy.

      • And you are typical Fanboy that thinks, that russian Tanks could have a chance against German Steel

      • Lmfao. You forget that Russia had no real counter towards Tiger I. They solved it by massing shitload of t-34s against each tiger. When they were building IS, they had to fight Tiger II, which was far superior than any Russian tank at that point.

        So german fan boy, my ass…

        • They also decided they didn’t need one. Why bother CREATING a tank to counter another tank when the T-34 chassis can do the job just fine? You need one? Create a counterpart to the StuG (SU-85 and SU-100).

          Your KVs aren’t effective at breaking through enemy fortifications anymore? Create a more heavily armored and armed version.

          This is how the Russians thought. They didn’t see the Tiger I and Tiger II as unstoppable death machines, more like obstacles in the way, and they very rarely created a vehicle that could only do one job.

        • “You forget that Russia had no real counter towards Tiger I”
          “Actually Tiger was much better at AT tasks due to 88 being a better AT gun than D-25T”

          Tiger had a 100mm flat plate for its main frontal armor:
          http://www.tarrif.net/cgi/production/all_vehicles_adv.php?op=getvehicles&vehiclesX=145
          So the IS could pen pen it at 2000m+

          Early tiger counter measures:
          ZiS-2 1940
          10k produced. Kills at Tiger at 1000m

          SU-152: production started in 1942. Could RIP the turret off the tiger through the shell force alone. RIP Tiger.

          107 mm divisional gun M1940: designed In 1 9 3 8 could kill tiger at 2000m+ soviets didn’t need it vs panzer IIIs…

          The IS-2 had 120mm that was sloped:
          http://www.tarrif.net/cgi/production/all_vehicles_adv.php?op=getvehicles&vehiclesX=73
          So the the tiger could pen it from 1000m-1500m
          Notice how the IS-2 can kill the Tiger at 2000m+ while the tiger has to get to get less than 1500m to kill the IS-2.

          “It was faster, more armored, weigh less, more reliable, easier to produce, cheaper, and a smaller target.” still stands true as well.

          This should make you guys whine some more please do. So I can hurtz you fanboy feelings some more.

  16. Well as a Ruskie who mostly plays Ruskie tenks, I do think German tenks are mostly overcomplicated boxxy shits, but given KV-1S with 400% better gun depression than RL, even better than IS-2, with 300%+ faster reload time than RL, Russian bias is unquestionable.

    • There’s plenty of German goods that are also unquestionably ridiculous in the lineup.

      Pz I C, Tiger I, WT E-100, E-75, E-25, the Rheinmetall Waffentrager, Hetzer, Marder 38t are all unquestionably good tanks in the game. The Tiger II is a mainstay in team battles, the flakbus is a KV-1S for the long 88mm without the armor and gun depression. With a better camo rating or better gun depression, the thing would unquestionably be overpowered.

      Speaking as a German tree player, I honestly don’t find the KV-1S to be all that badly overpowered with the ridiculously bad accuracy, almost medium tank armor, the horrid reload and incredibly large size. All you’d really need to do is mend the gun depression or increase the reload or plenty of other options, and the tank would be right where it needs to be.

  17. Guys lets get real.

    Low tier PZs – bigger than their counterparts, dont work as good, mechanical and technical nightmare – after they partitioned Czechoslovakia, didnt they adopt lots and lots of CZ tank engineering (SS will know about this), i was under the impression that the whole German medium tank concept was kickstarted by essentially studying CZ designs.

    Then they invade France. Even Frenchies had better designed tanks than what Germans had at that time – they essentially beat the Frenchies because Frenchies actually sucked at USING tanks – what an irony, you build a better machine and then fail at the doctrine as to how to actually USE the machine – result? Germans use French ideas as well (and vice versa after the war).

    Then the Germans attack Soviets. They beat the crap out of Russians first few months of the war – mostly due to Russian stupidity (and chaos that their army is in after comrade Vozhd purged the officers, and whole Winter War / Talvesota debacle), and even then they start running into KV-1s that are far superior to PZ3s and 4s, again Germans beat better machines only due to their experience and expertise as to how to use what you have at hand to the fullest of its potential (something Russians dont do yet).

    Then t34s appear. Germans are shocked.

    German commanders write back home “copy t34 NAO NAO NAO and massproduce it YESTERDAY!!!”. German response? Tiger I. It works well, when it works. Which is not most of the time. There isnt enough of them, they break down, and Russians just keep sending more meat into the grinder. German commanders again ask for a cheap to produce mass employed tank, and what do they get? Panther. Basically lighter version of Tiger I. Less-ish armor with all the technical and mechanical flaws… And even then they dont learn from these mistakes. How stupid do you have to be to devote your time into improving technical aspects of the tank that give crew “comfort” instead of, oh i dunno, making some bloody sloped surfaces?!? Yeah they built Panther and Tiger II with slopes, sure, but they also managed to overcomplicate everything on those tanks, as if they were trying to make them as expensive and complex to build as possible. Impressive as they are, in their awesomeness, they were just too difficult to produce, which meant they could not stop the Red Tide, hence they lost the war. Simple as that. t34 buttonless ends up a superior design to everything Germans came up with, which is hilarious.

    In fact the only thing German tanks have going for them, is the myth that came out of them. They have this aura of awesomeness and menacing look, but in fact most, if not all, of their combat prowess came only when they were fighting tanks bellow their class or opponents bellow their level of organization. Tiger I or II vs Shermans? Please. Ofc they won those duels. It wasnt always as easy when they started running into serious opponents designed specifically to kill them.

    So as arrogant as Yuri might be, he does have a fair point. German Aryans got beaten by half starving communists who before the war AT best developed agricultural tractors, at worse were farmers. Look at Kalasnikov…

    • >Then t34s appear. Germans are shocked.

      No, they weren’t shocked so much by T-34. All stories about impenetrable all-vanquishing russian super-tanks are post-war memoir thing. German generals needed some good reason to explain their failure in 1941. So they invented myth about T-34 superiority.

    • I’m curious, how for example Battle of Kursk can be explained? How these so bad German tanks could have beaten far superior Russian machines? All the independent sources confirm, that at the Western Front quantity won quality. German commanders knew, that one one one T-34 has no chance against Tiger. But it was not like that. There was 5-6 : 1 T-34 vs Tigers. They were not able to kill them that fast, so must have failed.

      • my history teacher told the class that at kursk the russians flanked the germans so they won coz tanks have less armor in the side (i was like: cant they just turn their tanks frontally to the flankers?). OMG OMG, the german got outnumberd.

    • So first of all, you seemed to forget that Staline and Adolf were allied before Adolf changed his mind in 1940 (or was it 1941, don’t remember exactly). Adolf trained his tankcrews in Russia, so Soviets should have known how to beat the Germans.

      Second, in his stupidity, Adolf made a lot of mistakes. He could have beat Staline if he hadn’t a hard on for the petrol at the black sea. The germans weren’t that far from Moscow when Adolf made his generals change direction to get the petrol.

      Third, Soviets were lucky that Churchill decided to helped them (losing a lot of boats and resources in the process). They would have been beaten if they didn’t got that help (tanks, guns, ammo, etc.).

      So in final, it isn’t really the Soviets whom won this war, but the allies in general, because without them, Staline would have been dead and Russia no more (in that matter, we could be still in the grip of the nazies).
      So they weren’t that starved, those communists when they beated the Germans.
      And Kalasnikov is a bad exemple because he copied a german weapon to make his (STG 44).

      • >So first of all, you seemed to forget that Staline and Adolf were allied

        No, they didn’t.

        > Adolf trained his tankcrews in Russia

        No, he didn’t. No german tankers were trained in USSR after 1933. And there was about several dozens of germans who went through tank school at Kama.

        >Second, in his stupidity, Adolf made a lot of mistakes

        No, german generals just srape-goated Hitler in their memoirs. Hitler was probably the best strategic thinker in german High Command.

        >Third, Soviets were lucky that Churchill decided to helped them

        Churchill? Not Roosevelt?

        >So in final, it isn’t really the Soviets whom won this war, but the allies in general

        As part of the Allies soviets win the war too. And destroyed about 80% of german ground forces in the process.

        >And Kalasnikov is a bad exemple because he copied a german weapon to make his (STG 44).

        Wow, did you know that AK and MP 44 have only superficial resemblance? No?

        • So if he that a genious commander, why didn’t he go for Moscow? Explain.

          Roosevelt, serious? If Pearl Harbor didn’t happened, they would have sitting on theirs a***s, making a lot of money. Churchill sended a lot of ships to the Soviets before even the USA got involved.

          And you seemed to forget the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. Maybe you were right about the fact that they weren’t any german tankers trained in Russia after 1933, but they still had the opportunity to study them.

          If the STG 44 (not the MP44) wasn’t made, the russians wouldn’t have think about the AK to be interesting. So in a way, the Kalasnikov came to birth because of the STG44 (superficial is a little bit underwhelming, don’t you think?)

          • >So if he that a genious commander, why didn’t he go for Moscow?

            Because AG Center had a half a millon strong soviet force flanking it? You know how next foward push without thinking about flanks ended? Badly.

            >If Pearl Harbor didn’t happened, they would have sitting on theirs a***s, making a lot of money.

            Tell this to american marines who garrisoned Iceland in may of 1941. Tell this to american sailors who protected english convoys in the Atlantic in the summer of 1941 already. American entry in the War was already sealed deal.
            Without declaration of war you can always blow up another “Maine” or create some other incident in “tonkin bay”

            >And you seemed to forget the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.

            This isn’t a alliance. It was a non-agression pact and treaty about spheres of influence. Similar treaty was signed between Imperial Japan and Britain in 1938, for example. Japan and Britain was allied in 30s?

            >If the STG 44 (not the MP44) wasn’t made, the russians wouldn’t have think about the AK to be interesting.

            Yes, of course. Fedorov didn’t create an its own automatic rifle. And there wasn’t such thing as Simonov Automatic Rifle (AVS-36). No, without german genius stupid russians cannot invent such advanced thing as hand-held automatic weapon.

            >So in a way, the Kalasnikov came to birth because of the STG44 (superficial is a little bit underwhelming, don’t you think?)

            No. it isn’t a little bit underwhelming. AK internal mechanics is very different from MP 44. It is look somewhat like it and this is all. Internally it was different.

        • “Hitler best strategic thinker in german High Command?”

          How retarded are you? Thats the biggest BS I had to read in a long time:

          - Dünkirchen (a victory he gave away)
          - Instead of finishing off the RAF in autum (RAF was standing K.O.) german Luftwaffe (also pretty strained at that point) switches to attacking cities – though I m not really sure who was responsible for the final decision on that one
          - He didnt reign in Mussolini – > gets involved in Balkan and North Africa BS
          - no clear vision of how to deal with russia as a whole, beside some vague ideas of Moscow, Leningrad and oil in Kaukus (switches focus all the time)
          - declaring war on USA
          …

          You are stupid as fuck if you think Hitler was best thinker in german High Command.

          • +1 mate. Who in his right mind would think that Hitler was the best german Commander? Thanks for the precise arguments (didn’t want to bother looking for all the details myself)

          • >- Dünkirchen (a victory he gave away)

            Order to stop the advance was adviced to Hitler by von Rundstedt. He was worried about overextended flanks.

            >Instead of finishing off the RAF in autum (RAF was standing K.O.) german Luftwaffe (also pretty strained at that point) switches to attacking cities – though I m not really sure who was responsible for the final decision on that one

            1. Swithing to cities was a Goering idea.
            2. RAF wasn’t even close to K.O state. By the end ot Battle for Britain RAF had MORE fighter planes than when Battle just started. Britain just outproduced Germany in planes and trained pilots faster. Battle for Britain was just unwinnable for Luftwaffe.

            > He didnt reign in Mussolini – > gets involved in Balkan and North Africa BS

            And how can Hitler stop Mussolini? Italians just attacked Greece without any advance notice.
            And you know – USSR just tried to install a puppet regime in Jugoslavia. No reasons to worry about.

            > no clear vision of how to deal with russia as a whole, beside some vague ideas of Moscow, Leningrad and oil in Kaukus

            And german general staff had such “vision”? Plan “Barbarossa” was created by GERMAN GENERAL STAFF. It wasn’t written by Hitler.

            >- declaring war on USA

            Americans was already created forward bases in Iceland by the summer of 1941. American planes already searched for german u-boats and transmitted such intelligence to briish. American ships already participated in british convoys and engaged u-boats in combat several times.

            US was already participated in war by the time Hitler declared war on them.

            • > US was already participated in war by the time Hitler declared war on them.
              After years of dismissing US diplomatic, publically consorting with the Japanese (Mukden incident, Japanese attacked a US warship in Chinese waters) despite their ambivalence up to 1940, and trade relations outright, and declaring them a mongrel nation in Mein Kampf, Hitler blew a Diplomatic opportunity of a lifetime. The US had a massive Isolationist following and a large German Speaking population.

              Between Hitler’s warmongering pronouncements, the intense emphasis on War production the moment he took power, the frivolous and backstabbing attitude he had for diplomatic discourse, his recurrent disregard for International Law, the cultivation of the SA and then the violent purge, pretty much gave any observer at the time all that he needed to understand that Hitler was preparing to go to war, and didn’t particularly care about how he appeared to the United States. Hitler personally spoke about wanting better relations with Britain than the United States.

              So yes, the US was quietly in the war effort before Pearl Harbor, but Hitler’s diplomatic efforts to keep the US disinterested and out of the war were nonexistent.

        • >No, they didn’t.
          Yest they were. How otherwise would you name attacking Poland together, and then trading military tech (Pz III, naval battlecruiser and other ships) for raw materials, and dividing spheres of influence on world map?

          >Churchill? Not Roosevelt?
          Yes, Churchill. When asked about it, he said he would made deal with Satan himself, if Nazi Germany would go at war with Hell.
          Beside, get your dates straight. Barbarossa happened quite earlier than Pearl Harbor

          >Wow, did you know that AK and MP 44 have only superficial resemblance? No?
          While this is somewhat true mechanically, it was also about purpose of the gun. And the German concept of assault rifle using intermediate cartridge was copied allright.

          • >Yest they were. How otherwise would you name attacking Poland together

            Germans attacked Poland in 1st of September. Russians attacked Poland in 17th of September.

            >and then trading military tech (Pz III, naval battlecruiser and other ships) for raw materials

            So? T-26 was based on a british tank and BT was based on american one. USSR was allied to Britain or USA in 1930s? Sweden traded with Germany in tech and material during whole war. Was Sweden allied with nazies?

            >And the German concept of assault rifle using intermediate cartridge was copied allright.

            German concept? Tell it to americans and Garand. British also experimented with such designs in 20s already. Russian Avtomat Fedorova used weak japanese rifle round similar in capabilities to intermediate round in 1916 already.

        • Stalin and Hitler were happy allies. That’s obvious to anyone knowing anything about history of WWII.

          Second of all, the Germans might have actually won the war, if not the stupidity of Hitler. His shitdecisions made the Werhmacht lose its superiority and led Germany to losing the war.

          Churchill helped Soviets at first, but then all the Lend-Lease stuff was from US, and Roosevelt was a sovietofile (soviet-lover), why Churchill saw Soviets as the upcoming enemy after the WWII. It’s Roosevelt to be blamed for selling Poland and other easterneuropean countries to soviets.

          • > It’s Roosevelt to be blamed for selling Poland and other easterneuropean countries to soviets.

            Well, he didn’t want to bury another several hundred thousands of american soldiers for some backwards countries freedom. I can fully understand his sentiment.

        • God you are one of the biggest idiots I have seen here. Thanks for the comedy but seriously try brushing up on some of your history!
          I thought you were joking at first but your stupidity seems to be authentic….. How terrible.

      • AK47 is not a copy of STG 44, they look similar but they operation means are different.

        French tanks were better in armor and fire power, but that all. German tanks were much better because they were suited to a better doctrine (better mobility, all had radios, 3 man turrets in panzer 3 and 4, mutual arm suppport, etc).

        Germans were indeed behind in some tank design areas, as seen in some previous posts of FTR. For example the gun recovery mechanism, which soviet ones were so much more compact than german ones that a 122mm gun could fit in a much smaller turret than Tiger II’s, while 88L71 had much bigger “ass” than that 122mm gun. I bet it would fit on Panther’s turret, or almost.

        Anyway, if you need so many more T-34, Shermans and other tanks to beat 10K Panzer III, 10K Panzer IV, 10K Stug 3, 6K Hetzer, 6K Panther, 1.5K Tiger I, 500 Tiger II and 90 Ferdinand/Elephant tanks (just the biggest tank factory of soviets equaled all germany tank production, if I am not mistaken), german tanks were not that bad at all (numbers from top of my mind, but I think they are in their correct order of magnitude).

      • AK is not a copy of StG other then in general principle, but that was in use already in WW1 as Fedorov and Winchester 1907/17.

    • Panther was similiar in cost to pz4 and twice cheaper than tiger. But still its cost was incredible in comparison to t34. Panther offered better cross country mobility, speed, frontal protection and 7,5 l70 was much better than 8,8l56 – easier to produce, lighter shells, better rof and pen. Saying they were worse because manufacturing process was longer and more complicated is stupid. economy and industry abilities are different things from raw tank performance, but for war result everything is important.

    • Take a look at Germany’s economic situation and you’ll find a much more complicated story than “Germany was dums and couldn’t face ivan durr.”

      >after they partitioned Czechoslovakia, didnt they adopt lots and lots of CZ tank engineering (SS will know about this), i was under the impression that the whole German medium tank concept was kickstarted by essentially studying CZ designs.
      The Pz III and Pz IV had ink to paper by 1936. The reason why they pressed insane amounts of captured vehicles into service was because the German peacetime resources available were nowhere near capable of meeting German wartime needs. Additionally, Germany didn’t need help to learn the concept of the medium tank, the entire plan all along was that the Pz I and II were interim designs while the German industry came around to developing the Pz III and IV. The Pz III was in production by 1937, while the first batch of Pz IV Ausf As was started in 1936. The authorities then agree to put the Pz IV into general production by the end of the Poland campaign.

  18. Now that does explain everything….

    How Russian tanks have the tendency to be OP
    and German have to be nerf if they ar e slightly better than Russian

    Now let see if the national battle thing will made WG realize their balancing issue

  19. SS!!11 Wrong translation.
    “Такое впечатление, что чертежами у немцев занимались студенты-первокурсники, до нашей чертежной школы очень далеко.”

    Чертежи = drawings.

    you have translated it as “I have a feeling that first grade university students were CREATING tanks in Germany, they were far behind our DESIGN school”

    He says about drawing school, not design.
    Please ask someone native speaking, before posting about RUSSIAN BIAS
    Especially if you are reading article full of slang and trolling.

      • And i don’t understand why SS made this post? You want more HATE between RU and EU,NA??
        It is the same like find someone’s dirty pants and show it to everyone.
        It’s a Russian TROLL forum. You caught some words and made a post about conspiracy.

        • Why not? I think this post is just crap. I am however not biased, I bashed German fantasies on numerous occasion.

          Also, I know perfectly well Чертежи means “drawings”, “чертежной школы” means “drawing school”, which can safely be translated as “design school”. Nitpicking on translations is not the best way to support Yuri Pasholok’s statement.

          • I don’t like Pasholok and i don’t support him.
            His post is crap, but you made it more crappy and threw it on a fan.
            Nice work, SS. *sarcasm*
            Just look on his avatar, it’s a fucking trollface.

          • >which can safely be translated as “design school”
            Why are you so confident about that? It just makes me think you really trolling here, or may be Pasholok’s words somehow offend you.

            There are drawing calsses in russian school. And there you just learn HOW TO DRAW.

            • Obviously, he is specifically referring to technical university (as I was reminded by either Ensign Expendable or Looser, both Russians), where this is not referred to as drawing, but as design.

              • I have a feeling that first grade university students were creating tanks in Germany, they were far behind our design school.

                Я думаю что первокурсники создавали танки в Германии, их конструкторская школа далеко позади нашей.

                That’s how a russian would say what you are trying to present here as a proper translation. But Pasholok in this particular sentence was saying about drawing and nothing more. Whole second paragraph except last sentence is about drawing.

                • It’s a Russian TROLL forum. You caught some words and made a post about conspiracy.
                  ______________
                  All that trolling done by WG’s main historician. I think that explains SS article/post. With that post even if it was trolling he just lost his credibility and made a circus monkey out of himself. From now on all the russian bias conspiracist(including me) have the perfect evidence to back up our theory. Now troll more. You’re kind of funny. For a retard.

            • Drawing school in period of WW2 would be called design school today. Or are you claiming they had Photoshop and Illustrator ? Just stay out of techical stuff you don’t understand and don’t defend Russian bias (or any other for that matter).

              • Point is Pasholok were surprised of few strange engeneering decisions regarding two german tanks and a quality of drawings. Hw alse made a sarcastic note, but how can you blame him? It’s just his personal blog. But here we can see how it can be turned into russian bias. Truely people only see what they want to see…

                • And for those crappy drawings he found he thinks all German engineer’s and engineering were jokers and then he keep praising he’s god forbiden country. And on the bottom line he is Russian wot historian ? Cmon leshakartoshkin, you can do it better :)

    • well, since when Pasholok talks about art students?

      i bet that in 1942 russia was full of “drawing schools” where people learn how to DRAW trees, houses, and ocasional some nude girls and not of people that focus on beating germans that where bombing them……

      alex

  20. 1. Every thing he wrote is true. German armor program in 1944. (with few exceptions) was done on crack.

    2. He had article titled “Engineer (Insert Soviet Name) did not want to go to front too”. Somehow you overlooked it.

    3. He bashes bad Soviet ideas also. Somehow you overlooked it.

      • StuGIII cancellation was met with an uproar, Tiger I cancellation was met with silence. Germany was bad at building tanks, and Silentstalker’s picking and choosing his articles to tend to his flock of sheeple.

        God bless America everybody!

  21. He just jelly cause German tanks were too complex for him to understand,
    And not to feel intelligently inferior he decided to mock the German tank!

    and he probably would shit his pants if he would meet tiger 2 in combat!

    • >and he probably would shit his pants if he would meet tiger 2 in combat!

      But Tiger 2 almost never got in combat in right time and place. It was too heavy, too slow and consume too much of precious gasoline.

      • @Konstantin Obvintsev@ Same as your “precious” IS-3. Shitty tank, but good enough to drive it on parades to present it to fuckwit soviet peasants as stronk soviet tonk.

  22. Im russian! i want to build a kv-1s! the best overpowerd tank in the world!
    but wait! i dont have the 122MM gun, so i mount a 85 now i designed a new tanks… the russian kv-85 the second best tank in the world!

  24. So Tiger II was shit? xD What the Soviets got against it? T34-85? xD or amazing KV-2? God…

    I think the Butthurt is strong in this one…

    • > So Tiger II was shit? xD What the Soviets got against it? T34-85?

      Soviets got operational mobility against overweight behemoths. Most of the Tiger IIs were destroyed or left behind by own crews.

      • As far as I know both the road and cross country speed of the Tiger II was comparable to the IS.

    • Actually they had IS’es and SU-122/Su-152 assault guns.
      KV-2 was long time gone from battlefields when KTII arrived.

      • Tiger II was shit as was JagdPanther, JafdTiger and whole bunch of late war German tanks.
        Why? Because they were something that Germany could not afford to waste money to design, let alone build.
        Every one of those actually helped Allies win as it sucked significant resources while provided very little return benefit.

        • They could never have won ever since Japan attacked USA and thats the beauty of it….no matter what they built they were doomed and we should be damned thankful for it….even though victory for USSR wasnt what Europe needed either…

          • So instead of concentrating where they could make a difference (standardized medium tank, about 35 tons, hell, even panther with all it’s troubles), they make more Uber projects that suck even more resources they don’t have, using all “perfect” engineering solutions that were later not repeated by anyone…

            You know what makes good engineer? Ability that makes good product, suitable for production and intended use. Which is something Germans were clearly failing in 1944-45 regarding tank manufacture.

            Look at their small arms, especially StG-45 and MG-42 to see how you could make wonders with minimal resources wasted and w/o using any kind of “uber” technology.
            If they designed and made small arms like they did tanks MG-42 would weight 15+kg, have accuracy of sniper rifle and require manual lubrication of ammo before firing it. And it would use at least 1kg of rare metals, countless machine shop hours and precision made grip with special checkering to improve grip.

            Instead it had so-so accuracy (which was not needed for MG anyway, even if MG-42 plays on outer edge of acceptable accuracy), maximum stamped parts and very wide tolerances of non-essential parts – plastic grips are usually not interchangeable unless guns were close enough in serial number.

  25. Yuri Pasholok has been schunned from the european community of tank historians.

    same thing happened with some historian from spain and israel, for being “overly nationalistic” and “biased”

    but hey, we can keep playing his stupid failowe, cant we?

    in fact, i loled quite a bit when i heard he got mad for the claiming “copyrights” of a japanese company to produce a plastic model of the failowe.. since when you can copyright “historic” material?

    what a sham of a man

    • His bragging is even more bizarre if we take into account that soviet engineers evaluated Pz III (USSR bought few before Barbarossa) as a really good tank, with only few weak points (I think the gun was the main weak point mentioned).

      • So they said: GUD TANK TOO GUD MUST MAKE T-34 AS SMALL AND CRAPY AS THIS GOOD TANK? Nope. They had the T-34. Didnt need to copy and old design. But I just remembered: the glorious panther? LOL a FAILED attempt to create the superior German T-34.

  27. You know, some of accusations against German tanks are justified. The problem is that Pasholok may be good researcher when it comes to historical data but he has no grasp of engineering and of all background details that make history – just a reporter that tries to make intelligent remarks.

    Unfortunately i’m not fluent enough to make an article about that, that’s more material for a forum discussion…

  28. German first grade students must be genius, because German tanks killed Russians counter parks in a very good ratio!

  29. I totally agree, I guess he propably found historical research about MS-1 with 122 D-25 gun

  32. It would be interesting to hear the opinions of Doyle, Jentz etc – i.e. REAL tank historians – on this man.

  35. I made an account here, just to comment that post.
    First i want to say good job SilentStalker with this interesting Blog. Keep on.
    Second i’m stuying mechanical engineering in germany and i anderstand quite a bit of tanks and how they work.
    I can’t understand that a “historian” is doing such kind of post. It has no proof of any “facts” he says and is lack of any kind of seriousness.
    Sure some tanks had problems and were not finished in development, but they had to prdouce them in such a short amount of time that it is a miracle that they worked so good. Now adays a company need 10 to 20 years to make a new tank and even that has it’s flaws.
    Coming to split ammunition: I don’t know the problem here. all soviet 122mm shells had seperate charges and needed quite a time to reload.
    Have you ever seen a T-34 in real life? I visited some museums and if you see the weldings of them you can’t speak of good quality.
    I think this guy should learn to be more serious and try use facts and not jokes.

  36. Some people tend to think that the T-34 was a crap tank produced in huge numbers.
    This might be true, but lots of people dont know that the first T-34”s to see combat shat the germans’ pants.

    They didnt do that well because of tactical decisions, but the sheer fact that the germans seriously considered making a copy of T-34 (VK3002DB) and based some of it’s design in the panther prototype (VK3002M) speaks for itself.

    • I would never say the T-34 was crap. It was a reliable Tank with good armor and medium weaponry. The suspension was good for the terrain in russia but it also had some flaws as every tank had. It was quite small inside, had bad weldings and was more or less badly manufactured.
      As someone mentioned before the number build finally made the decision who won the battles. Sure in the beginning the Panzer IV had a hard stand against it but the newer german tank models were up to the T-34 but also had their flaws.
      Germans had some problems because of their tank doctrine they stick at for no reason. It made them use front wheel drive, which is not the best solution for a Tank. The didn’t use diesel engines and used complicated suspensions.

      • Transmission etc up front = more crew protection, damaged transmission didn’t produce fires irl after all.
        Diesel engine wasn’t the best for germans, petrol was more plentiful and the engines produced the highest torque in the right ranges – got that from bovington
        That said, if they had built more panthers and pzIVs and less tigers they’d had a better fighting force.

        T-34 was a great tank too (Bovington guide said in his opinion it was best tank of the war) First to use sloped armour etc.
        Tracks were brilliant in their simplicity – pins being knocked back in by plate on side of tank for example, but it did pay by having less traction n boggy ground.

        In summary, each nation went their own way.

        German tanks were over-designed. Built outside wartime, and then used, they would have started off with lots of superior tanks, and the kinks would have been ironed out – rushed transmission design for example would have been done properly.

        RU tanks were not as good. Fact. However, they were designed with different goals in mind. Simplicity of build and maintenance meant that they could build and service many more, which in wartime is the better option, as long as you can still damage the enemy.
        German tanks were better in design and potential, but suffered greatly due to the realities of war and their focus on ever bigger and more complex tanks.

  37. Soviet … ahm … RUSSIAN imperialistic arrogancy was never dead, and grows even stronger…

  38. Germany lost 2 world wars, had to pay war reparations in billions and rebuild infrastructure. Today is known for producing quality stuff best cars, roads etc… is #1 economy in EU and #4 economy in world. What a bunch losers right? right? anybody? Now lets take a look at Russian the land of great minds http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zjBtYYW1Y4E

  39. “think bad MM balance and leaving KV-1S OP is a sign of Russian bias in World of Tanks?”

    Of course, KV-1S is the proof of Russian bias, while Hellcat and Cromwell being even more OP doesn’t mean anything…

  40. Thanks Yuri Shitolok for providing us troll yet legit reason to back up our soviet bias theories in future.

    Sincerely,
    German fanbois

  41. You’d think the Russians would more humble about their tech and vehicles seeing as they stole and adapted most of their technology from many countries before WWII, during and after.

      • Well, of course many countries did that, but I don’t see many sing the praises of their stolen tech.
        I doubt many people would praise Chinese tech, for example.
        Taking what are the best solutions from various sources is a good practice, but then saying you are the best engineer/inventor because of that etc, is at least morally dubious.
        What people could praise should be the skill with which the adapted and the different aproaches used in adapting that tech.

  42. that’s why russians copied/used german engineering in their own tanks/projects, because it was crap ?!
    for stalin, no?

    • Exactly which German engineering was “copied” or “used” in Soviet tanks, other than IS-4′s engine fans (which were then never used in another Soviet design)?

  44. The nationalistic dribble is annoying, this is a game and we want balanced game-play… not overly historical bullshit.

  46. Hows this guy still got a job. People opinion should not be influencing the game historically Still waiting on that KV1s NERF probably going to be waiting forever.

  47. WG at its finest. No wonder I am waiting for WT to release tanks. I have enough of this garbage, like no multicore support for the last 2 years and russian bias. I have a PC to run crysis 2 on high options with nearly no fps drops but I am barely playing wot with 20 fps to hell with this game and its monopoly in game economy. Hope WT will crush WoT to its ground, they dont deserve anything better. I mean they have like 3k+ employees, but need 2 years to make some performance adjustments?

  48. Funny how nationalism is still so stronk (especially in Russia these days)

    Having an opinion about tanks is one thing -> pretending to be an historian is another and yes an historian will be subject to bias but this is supposed to be limited to opinions and has no place when technical considerations are supposed to be presented…..

    Saying the German tanks were designed by little kids = Pure bias about a technical matter
    Saying German tanks were technically more evolved than the Russian ones but the Russian ones were built in far larger numbers and were more technically reliable = Expressing a bias justified by sources

    Best medium tanks of WW? Sherman versions – T34/76 – Panther
    Best heavy tanks: KV-1 versions – Tiger I – Tiger II – JS2
    Best TD: STUG III versions – Jagdpanther – SU76

    Sherman: Because of the huge numbers produced and overall reliability
    T34-76: Because of the big numbers produced during WW2 and due to the fact it remained the main USSR tank for the duration of the war (+ rugged design was fit for the Soviet army)
    Panther: Superb tank especially in its G version but came too late and in too small numbers
    KV-1: Served well as main heavy tank (without equivalent for some time) during a crucial period for the Soviet army
    Tiger I: Not amazing design but came early enough (with excellent crews) to become a fearsome machine without any equivalent (for some time) in the armored units of Germany’s enemies
    Tiger II: Came too late and in too small numbers and with too many mechanical issues but proved fearsome when used correctly
    JS-2: More of a breakthrough tank but helped a lot the Soviet army during the last battles of the war

    Stug: The fearsome AT weapon of Germany’s artillery units
    Jagdpanther: Superb TD, not enough of them and late
    SU-76: Simply because that TD was produced in numbers big enough at the right time

  49. Germany wasn’t very good at tanks, all their good designs were prewar. It is sad that people still believe in the myth of the invicible cats, but I guess that’s what you get when you try and pander to the lowest common denominator and throw out properly-researched documentaries for filler garbage designed to separate ad breaks.

    Also the Panther was objectively bad, and I say this as someone whose favourite WWII tank was the Panther. There was virtually nothing good about its design. It was so flawed that it really needs an entire article to highlight the reasons, but suffice to say that tanks like Pershing, IS-2, T-44, and Centurion all had better protection for less weight and could go more than 150km without their final drives shitting the bed. Each named tank also took less than half a minute for the commander-gunner target handoff. They were also much better constructed and their guns were useful against infantry as well as tanks.

    Seriously, the Panther was a shining example of how NOT to build a tank, which is why not a single descendant of it ever entered service postwar. The French only used them because they had no choice and retired them as soon as they could get better tanks off the Americans. I don’t know why people call it “superb”, it was bad.

    • Yeah, especially the T-44 was a superior WW2 machine. Or would be, because first units received that tank nearly a month after the war. Pershing and Centurion entered the service in the last year of war, whilst the Panther was on the fields of battle since 1943, so you should compare it to Shermans and T-34s.

      • Sherman was 3.6X as combat effective as the Panther. And why would I compare the Panther to the T-34 (still a better tank) when I can compare it to the IS-2? The IS-2 weighed about the same and was in the war plenty long itself. IS-2 has thicker armor, smaller profile, bigger, more powerful gun, and greater reliablity and weighs basically the same.

    • Both T-34 (M1942 and later) and Sherman were better tanks than Panther, because they were capable of fulfilling any mission that a tank might need to perform. Infantry support? Both had very good HE shells, while the Panther’s was relatively unimpressive and its gun too long to be practical in an urban or bushy environment. Deep breakthroughs and encirclements? Both Sherman and T-34 were mechanically reliable and easily serviced, with long ranges and good road march speeds, while Panther had to be shuttled about by train and had short legs and shorter final drive lifespans. Ambushes? T-34 was much smaller, and even as tall as Sherman was, it was smaller than the Panther. Both also acquired targets faster thanks to panoramic sights for the gunner.

      Since 1v1 tank engagements are largely a figment of fiction, the only parameter where the Panther really noticeably surpassed the Sherman was tactical mobility, as its suspension allowed it to cross worse ground with ease. However, it was a maintenance nightmare because of its design, and T-34 achieved similarly excellent mobility (though worse flotation) with a simpler system.

  51. Sad to read so much “anti-german” bias, outdated propaganda and hate out there, which has nothing to do with reality and common sense. It seems that lots of Russians have to compensate the fact that they still live in a dictatorship, masked as a democracy, ruled by a fascist leader, who pretends to be antifascist.

    Sad, but true.

    • There is no such thing as “anti-German bias”, the problem is that the historically uneducated somehow think Germany was some incredible nation of ubermensch who only lost the war because of bad luck and unfair tactics. In reality, Germany only got as far as they did because of exceptionally lucky timing.

      “Common sense” is an oxymoron. Popular history is plagued with idiotic Nazi-worship and a hilarious amount of incorrect national stereotyping (Soviets “building junk”, Germans “being efficient”).

  52. But Russian tanks were better.

    KV-1 shat on all German tanks during Operation Barbarossa.
    T-34 shat all over the Panzer IV (PzIV = overloaded, no armor, failed totally in Stalingrad getting penned everywhere by anti-tank rifles, got penned by Stuarts in North Africa lolol)
    IS shat all over Tiger and Panther (Panther costs as much to make and classified as a heavy tank by Russians)

    As for King Tiger – look at Oskin, killed 3 King Tigers in one engagement in his T-34

    German tanks only well known for one thing – breaking down all the time. \

    • Yeah, Oskin was this 1% who made it. In general, King Tigers, even normal tigers blew more T34′s apart than the russians were able to shoot down Pz.IV
      You are the one with strong bias.
      In fact, the russians were shocked about how fast the panthers could be brought to life from scratch.
      You are actually comparing vehicles that don’t fit together at all.
      The T34 was later build than even the newest german Panzer 4, so the comparison doesnt really fit.
      the comparisons should be
      T-26 (pretty much everything earlier than the T34) vs. Pz.IV = Pz.IV wins
      T34 against Tiger = Tiger wins more often, even though the T34 could win sometimes
      Tiger II against IS = draw, at least technically. The gun of the IS couldn’t penetrate the frontal armor in combat ranges
      Tiger II vs. T34 = I guess 95% the Tiger II won, yes there was this one occasion with oskin, but on the other side, look at Otto Carius. He destroyed 12 IS’s with a Tiger I in a few minutes. What now, genious?

  53. Oh my goodness, what a numpty.
    I’ll admit that I’m a bit of a WG fanboy, but this… I’m disappointed. His post is so… Childish. I mean, OK, so he has a view on WW2 German tank designers but he could have put it across in a far better, more professional, more GROWN UP way. It’s borderline embarrassingly pathetic.

  54. Most likely one of the reason the British line is victimized because even if the challenger sends all the information he can get , guys like this moron cant even be bothered to look at it apparently.

    In my opinion a massive fail for a company that offers a service of choice and promised historically accurate tanks. I pay for premium and gold have to admit im disgusted with seeing things like this since i usually run the British mediums or currently the leopards.

    This guys should be sacked for having such a mentality {since we can consider him a developer his action are affecting the game play} and somebody with a more open mind put in somebody devoted to actual tanks design himself. There again perhaps the rumors are true that WG pays peanuts for wages so you end up getting morons like this. [ pay peanuts get monkeys in return]

    • The British line is victimised? What? Cromwell, Comet, and both Centurions own. 4202 is massively underrated because people think clan wars is everything when in reality it is such a tiny aspect of the game. The Matilda would be OP if it wasn’t limited by its speed, the low tier Cruisers are all very good, the Churchill I is pretty decent and the Caern and Conq are both very good. The FV304 is the best SPG in the entire game. Also, Tortoise is an excellent TD.

      The line has a few turds, so does every line. It is far from victimised. Try learning to play the tanks rather than blaming some nebulous bias for your inability to perform in them.