Jump to content


Were Russian tanks as good/dominant in real life as in WoT?


  • Please log in to reply
5 replies to this topic

NoPoet406 #1 Posted 01 February 2018 - 05:58 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 2440 battles
  • 500
  • [USAW] USAW
  • Member since:
    07-01-2016

Greetings all. To answer my own question, the evidence points to NO, Russian tanks were not very good at all. I've read opinions that the T-34 was actually fairly terrible, or at least overrated. It beat the Panzers due to being deployed in overwhelming numbers, and also being easy to repair, which was good because they died like lemming trains. They didn't even have radios. I also read the KV-1 sucked the grand potato. And since WW2, Russian tanks have continually had their rear ends handed to them by British, American etc tanks in every conflict where these vehicles met.

 

I therefore don't understand the basis for WG making Russian tanks pretty much the superior species in this game. They were unreliable, lacked advanced technology, lacked a competent command structure and the crews had no real training, or at least the training was inferior to that of every other nation.

 

What do people think about this? Is the T-34 the most overrated tank - or could it out-climb a Churchill, outrun a Hellcat, kill a Tiger one-on-one, block 88mm guns with its armour? As these are surely the traits that "the best tank of WW2" must have had?



cragarion #2 Posted 01 February 2018 - 06:03 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 43833 battles
  • 2,539
  • Member since:
    07-10-2010
Yes the Germans built the tigers after they encountered the kv and they built the panthers after they encountered the t34s.

K_A #3 Posted 01 February 2018 - 06:37 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 13641 battles
  • 4,665
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    04-18-2013

View PostNoPoet406, on 01 February 2018 - 04:58 PM, said:

Greetings all. To answer my own question, the evidence points to NO, Russian tanks were not very good at all. I've read opinions that the T-34 was actually fairly terrible, or at least overrated. It beat the Panzers due to being deployed in overwhelming numbers, and also being easy to repair, which was good because they died like lemming trains. They didn't even have radios. 

 

T-34 armour was exceptionally good when it first launched, it could deflect almost anything the Germans were trying to throw at them. The 88mm AT guns were only brought in at the last years of the war, but in the first couple years, a lot of the AT guns were 37 or 55mm, both of which the T-34 could handle no problem.

 

 

Block Quote

I also read the KV-1 sucked the grand potato. And since WW2, Russian tanks have continually had their rear ends handed to them by British, American etc tanks in every conflict where these vehicles met.

 

Don't know where you read that the KV-1 sucked. It didn't. The reason why they didn't make many of them was that the T-34 and it's later versions were just easier to make. Also most conflicts between Russian tanks against British, American or German tanks have been conflicts that pit 1950 tanks against 1975 tanks, so the outcome is quite heavily skewed against the older (Russian) tanks.

 

 

Block Quote

I therefore don't understand the basis for WG making Russian tanks pretty much the superior species in this game. They were unreliable, lacked advanced technology, lacked a competent command structure and the crews had no real training, or at least the training was inferior to that of every other nation.

 

By Russian philosophy, a machine (a tank) is reliable when it's easy to produce, easy to maintain and easy to fix. Russian tanks checked all 3 boxes, so I don't see the problem. Compare to the Germans who had a very hard time doing anything to their tanks out in the field, literally having to just abandon them because of problems the Russians could've fixed in their tanks in a couple hours. 

 

 

Block Quote

What do people think about this? Is the T-34 the most overrated tank - or could it out-climb a Churchill, outrun a Hellcat, kill a Tiger one-on-one, block 88mm guns with its armour? As these are surely the traits that "the best tank of WW2" must have had?

 

If you're talking about "best tank of WW2 in a 1 on 1 scenario against any other WW2 tank", then the winner obviously won't be Russian. But if you're talking about "the tank that had the most influence in the outcome of the war", then I'd argue T-34 takes the cake. And yes, a T-34 could kill a Tiger one-on-one if it got close enough without getting detected and got the first shot off. Also Tiger couldn't block 88mm guns with it's armour either. 

 



DarkPacifist #4 Posted 01 February 2018 - 06:37 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 26846 battles
  • 180
  • [CR0WS] CR0WS
  • Member since:
    08-05-2013

The thing is that in modern days they are not that bad. Yes German, French and American tanks are within the best, and so are Israelis ones, but Russian tanks are pretty cheap (for a tank) and easier to maneuver due to the lack of advanced technologies (which will be over with the new Armata). That's why you see a lot of armies and rebels using them (with no funding nor training they won't use American/French/German state of the art tanks).

 

PS: I'm sorry for not mentioning modern British tanks, but I don't know them well.



cragarion #5 Posted 02 February 2018 - 09:59 AM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 43833 battles
  • 2,539
  • Member since:
    07-10-2010

View PostNoPoet406, on 01 February 2018 - 05:58 PM, said:

Greetings all. To answer my own question, the evidence points to NO, Russian tanks were not very good at all. I've read opinions that the T-34 was actually fairly terrible, or at least overrated. It beat the Panzers due to being deployed in overwhelming numbers, and also being easy to repair, which was good because they died like lemming trains. They didn't even have radios. I also read the KV-1 sucked the grand potato. And since WW2, Russian tanks have continually had their rear ends handed to them by British, American etc tanks in every conflict where these vehicles met.

 

I therefore don't understand the basis for WG making Russian tanks pretty much the superior species in this game. They were unreliable, lacked advanced technology, lacked a competent command structure and the crews had no real training, or at least the training was inferior to that of every other nation.

 

What do people think about this? Is the T-34 the most overrated tank - or could it out-climb a Churchill, outrun a Hellcat, kill a Tiger one-on-one, block 88mm guns with its armour? As these are surely the traits that "the best tank of WW2" must have had?

 

These are from a documentary series called killer tanks, it documents some of the best tanks.

 

KV you may want to start watching from 12:30 before that it's mainly Russian history building up to the kv.

 

t-34 


Edited by cragarion, 02 February 2018 - 10:08 AM.


NoPoet406 #6 Posted 06 February 2018 - 04:44 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 2440 battles
  • 500
  • [USAW] USAW
  • Member since:
    07-01-2016
Thanks for the replies everyone, forgot I posted this. Thank you for the information you've all provided.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users