Per. Tier. Performance. Cherry picking single tanks and stats isn't an argument when talking about a systemic bias.
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Per. Tier. Performance. Cherry picking single tanks and stats isn't an argument when talking about a systemic bias.
Look, Soviet tanks, at least the actual historically made models, had steeper slopes than any western tank. As per physics, any steeper angle will cause a ricochet to be more likely compared to a more shallow angle. Historically soviet tanks had bigger guns than their western counterparts, KV-1 had a bigger gun than the Panzer III, Panzer IV, and Churchill variants, IS-2 had a bigger gun than a Tiger I and II. Bigger gun=bigger shell = more alpha. These are historical facts and scientific facts, if you dont like them, that is not evidence of some bias on the part of a 3d party gaming company.
This is ridiculous and shows there are some serious logical shortcomings in the way you approach arguments. WoT has, for the fifth time, never been about historical accuracy. You can't seem to stay on one train of thought in this discussion, hopping back and forth as it suits you. You argue history, then you argue cherry-picked stats, then history, then cherry-picked stats. Never the real discussion: overall statistical trends.
I knew you had some serious logical issues and believed some biased stuff from your discussions on the HOI4 forums, so I'm not sure what I expected, but I'm done with this conversation.
Last edited:
On the other hand realistically portraying Soviet tanks (e.g. poor to none situational awaraness) would be bad for the gameplay.
All of the armor slope advantages, the gun caliber, and other "facts" are irrelevant if you can't hit the other tank, and hit it FIRST. Pure gun caliber isn't the only meaningful statistic. That sloped armor comes at a distinct cost, which includes a far more cramped internal layout that's problematical for the crew. Situational awareness, reaction times, and reload times more often determine who wins a tank duel, not that tank duels were even the main cause of tank losses. In reality, AT Guns were the real tank killers. The game gives the Soviets the "raw stat" advantages which they had in reality, without penalizing them for the various other factors that allowed them to obtain those high numbers, which historically led to them losing a high number of tanks in engagement after engagement.
Yes, the first few times that the Germans encountered the latest new Soviet armored monsters, they had no idea how to stop them, and the new machines did surprisingly well. Once the Germans figured out their weaknesses and learned how to counter them, they weren't nearly as effective as the raw numbers would have you believe. A lot of Soviet tanks were destroyed without ever firing a shot, because the Germans spotted them first, reacted faster, and were more accurate on their first shots, then had faster reload times to place a second shot more accurately, if the first didn't do the job. The Soviets were less likely to fire first, were less likely to hit with their first shot (but were in many cases slightly more likely to kill a tank if they did hit it), and were less likely to survive long enough to take a second shot. Better command and control options (radios and intercoms that actually remained functional, and were audible in a moving tank) allowed German tank crews to cooperate and respond to changes in the situation as a group, rather than becoming effectively isolated as soon as the hatches were closed.
Those "other" factors are not represented in the silly tank game, so German tanks and gun values may have been unrealistically modified to produce more historically "realistic" end results, otherwise the game would be seriously unbalanced. Besides, "bigger gun = bigger shell; better explosives = faster shell; bigger X faster = more alpha. Soviets had a bigger shell, Germans had higher velocity from the SAME length of gun barrel due to better chemistry. Besides, the huge guns are irrelevant if you can't hit the target.
Of course, I'm probably violating the basic forum rule: "Never argue with a tankie". It's probably for similar reasons as the old phrase "Never argue with an idiot, because other people might not be able to tell which of you is the idiot."
I know another version: never argue with an idiot, because you are going to debate at his level and he has more experience on that.
Interesting observations. I can also testify that in modern war many of these things ring true. I've seen plenty of examples during excercises that M72s etc are the bane of IFVs. One gunner of a CV90 said that he got really irritated as they simply ambushed them and "knocked" them out before they even knew they were there. Likewise I seen plenty of examples of 30mm recom CV90s having no problem taking out Leopards 2s, M1a1s etc (120 mm gun, much much thicker armor) and even Apaches just because they spot them first with advanced optics (their own and their disembarked recon squads). Another one who crewed an MBT said that their platoon Commander said that if they got thermal on OPs with likely heavy weaponary like javelins they needed to drop everything and just pound them so that they couldn't get a visual and lock on their MBT. I guess many really don't realize how little SA you have in a tank, Even a footsoldier often have poor SA. This is largely remedied by modern optics, command and control and things like near 360 thermal vision, even thena modern tank is no wunderwaffen and will not win a battle alone based upon statistics based on face value. During WW2 you had none of these thungs
And that is why artillery is the king of the battlefield. Shooting first becomes so much easier if you have a rang advantage measured into double-digit kilometers.
Yes, the interval units were missing, and this is one problem with the line that I have mentioned over and over, and also with fixed fortifications over all, they are entirely dependent on being manned and not being made obsolete in some way or another. In this case, if you do not have air superiority, your Interval troops are going to be facing not just the infiltrating stormtroops but the power and psychological effects of the Stukas.
In OTL the German's did not need to capture the Gros ouvrages, as there was a great big gap 40km wide near Saarbrucken (section 13 if you have a maignot map) where there were no large fortifications at all. A gap large enough to drive an Army through as it turns out. Even if we fill the area surrounding it with pre-registered artillery, if the artillery units cannot be protected from Dive bombers then the Panzers and Infantry will come though the gap, and when they do they need to be engaged with the cream of the French army and all her Armour, preferably by far taking a defense in depth approach with infantry and artillery acting as hedgehogs and the tanks as a mobile reserve to assault the German Panzers and Infantry. If you have Gamelin, you don't have the strategic or tactical understanding or command and control or battlefield awareness to make this happen. And without a powerful airforce capable of truly contesting supremacy in the skies above you will not be able to hold ground without taking horrific losses.
Secondly even if we teleport some there, the Gros ouvrages had specially reinforced concrete designed to resist shells fired by guns upto 420mm, Gustav fired 800mm projectiles, once the dirt mounds protecting the concrete are blown away in the first couple of shots, the forts will begin to take serious punishment well beyond their design specs and lack of air power means this won't be possible to interdict. This way if the Germans feel like taking their time, they can expand the gap and therefore the front that French infantry and tanks have to face when the inevitable assault comes.
And if we were to look from a '39-40 perspective, without foreknowledge that Alien Space Bats had reprogrammed Adolf's mind to preclude an invasion of France via Belgium, then a lot of France's best divisions are still going to be camped out near the Belgian border waiting to head to the Dyle line because it's a given that the noted Paragon of international relations Mr Adolf Hitler was not well known for keeping his word. And probably the attempts at closing the Sarre Gap with new blockhouses will be as half hearted as they were in OTL. There is a possibility if the Germans put their Elite units at the Gap rather than Ardennes they might have quite some success.
The end result for the USSR or financial position of the Reich after the end of hostilities is neither here nor there, the end result for France though is going to be in serious question. If Germany pays a higher price in blood, and has a neutral UK to not interfere with it's demands, it will plunder France all the harder and strip her colonial possessions.
The success of the entire wall project as you see it, is down to Germany insisting on banging its head against the hardest parts of the wall and not using it's airpower to ease the job and assuming that the presence of troops is enough to secure the areas between the forts large and small. My contention is that those were faulty assumptions in 1940 and they are still faulty even if the Germans decided to focus only the line itself to the exclusion of Belgium.
Last edited:
Funny that you mentioned it, remember we (one recon IFV and two MBTs) more or less took out an entire armoured battalion. I won't go into details, but the IFV due to supberb thermal optics managed to give pinpoint arty and airstrikes, rendering the two MBTs and us in the recon squad useless, our only action during those 72 hours in the trunk was when we had to dispose of the urine in soda bottles for the IFV crew.
Don't get me wrong, in perfect conditions a 120mm MBT beat a 30mm IFV. But combat is often more complex, and those who fire first usually win the firefight even among infantry. You often see these debates that 7.62 is better than 5.56, or that NATO 7.62 have more gunpowder than Warsaw ones. In the end it is the first machinegun to fire, and the first fire team to lay down supressive fire that win the day, it matter little it's FN MINIMI or FN MAG that fires first, it's awful either way to get such weapons directed against you.
Reminds me of two things:
One, that fighter pilots requested since the beginning of their profession aircraft that would allow them to see the enemy before he sees them.
Two, during the cold war there was a debate on the usage of infantry using anti-tank missiles. It was pointed out in one book, that just looking on how the missiles performed in field tests was inadequate, as a war would rarely find AT-infantry alone against tanks, but against tanks with infantry and artillery support on both sides, all of which had to be taken into account.
My knowledge of tank systems stops around 1950, but I didn't think a 30 mm bushmaster could penetrate a modern MBT.
It did in Iraq during the Gulf War. There were a couple of reported instances. Then again, that still depends on how you define "modern", as a lot of the Iraqi armor was far from new. Apparently, the odds of doing so are rather low, but it can and did happen.
Might depend what "taking out means", mobility kill for example? ThaHoward specified Leopard 2s and M1s
First of all what I'm saying is not to.be regarded as a gospel, and I'm neither a military theorist nor researcher. These were just my observations that coincided with a previous post stating that those who fire firdt usually win. Knowing from the perspective of legged units that's usually the case, it's those who first establish fire superiority that usually win a firefight, let it be by fire and movement, fall back or clearing out rooms. Mind you that "winning" isn't necessairly as per video games where you kill all your opponents.
What I said was casual remarks, and indeed in controlled conditions ab MBT will win over IFVs. However without proper support or SA MBT, IFVs etc can march into an ambush or be taken out by a more mobile foe or one with superior optics. These are based upon SAAB laser systems etc so I take these with a grain of salt so to speak (or rather a pretty big one). And of course let me stress that such situations are not the norm. However like with legged infantry and in contrast to video games, success in an armored fight doesn't necessairly mean that every single tank on the enemy team is totally burned out and their crew dead. There are systems to differentiate between total kills, mobility kill, comms kill, weapon/system kill and some dead crew members.
For an instance one IFV or medium AT legged infantry (e.g 84mm recoilless rifle) may inflict a mobility or weapons kill on the MBT. It may not be totally killed and can be repaired later, but that matter little if you manage to delay the enemy or hamper or even hinder their overall assault/advance.
The point is really just that statistics alone doesn't detirmine the overall battle outcone. Sure some Soviet tank may have a barrel that's longer than the German counterpart, but there is so many other factors that is at play. SA inside the tank itself and in their overall cooperation with higher ups, other tanks, arty, air, infantry etc play a huge role.
Last edited:
I read a lot about Soviet tanks supposedly being good on the hard stats like armor, speed and firepower, but lacking in things like for example creature comfort, the later supposedly playing a big role how quickly a tank crew's performance will deteriorate while riding a tank.
And German tanks generally break down Before battle. Obviously the Sherman was the best tank, as generally worked, was comfortable, better radios than what the german tanks had, gyro stabilized , was massproduced in huge numbers and fought on many theaters during the war. It was also highly rated by the Soviet if I'm not wrong.
Having good hard stats don't mean anything if you can't even reach the battlefield and it don't mean anything if you can't spot, there are many cases in which it don't mean anything.
Obviously Sherman was around in 1942 so a bit late but being late is acceptable if you outclass the competition. It is hard to say anything bad about the Sherman since when you compare it to the German, British and Soviet tank the Sherman look pretty excellent overall with no major achilles heel.
Back on topic, if the Germans somehow managed to get an army across the channel and supply it (with fishing boats?), the UK could probably continue guerilla operations in the northern half of the island for years, as long as it could produce supplies and weapons in the colonies. That doesn't mean that a US force would be able to simply stroll in and liberate the UK, but it could help blunt the German response to the invasion.
How would germany get the experience to do a reversed DD invasion in the first place, not talk about the navy and airforce. Think about the effort it took the allies to reach the DD level of competence, Germany did not even come close to that level.