Jump to content


Let me summarize the Kursk event

google noindex nofollow

  • Please log in to reply
51 replies to this topic

r0f #21 Posted 05 July 2018 - 11:54 AM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 6567 battles
  • 282
  • [AFUNM] AFUNM
  • Member since:
    10-19-2012

Next time just link to a good youtube video-documentary and put just the tank in the cash-shop, would have been a better ''''''Kursk event''''''.

 

As if this is whining about free stuff, what a bunch of simpletons here. Nanananana :trollface:

 

Maybe your life is free, you cannot project that onto others.

 

Look, if this thing was truly free as you all now are desperately trying to claim, it would have been in everyone's garage by now.

 

It isn't, because it is not free.

 

You can try to bury this thread now as you seemingly want to do, but that really doesn't matter at all.

 



TheDrownedApe #22 Posted 05 July 2018 - 12:40 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 48400 battles
  • 6,178
  • [IDEAL] IDEAL
  • Member since:
    03-27-2013

View Postr0f, on 05 July 2018 - 09:05 AM, said:

 

Not everyone's time / income is free little buddy. :facepalm:

 

Besides that, buying out of this ''''Kursk event'''' is the complete opposite of free; overpriced.

 

#rockandrolllife

 

ps. that bunny is a wg undercover :trollface:

 

 

are you thick? how about you don't play the event, then it's free. just play as you would and reap the benefits

 

geesh some people's kids



OreH75 #23 Posted 05 July 2018 - 01:01 PM

    Major

  • Player
  • 51767 battles
  • 2,864
  • [-NARF] -NARF
  • Member since:
    05-29-2013

View Postr0f, on 05 July 2018 - 11:54 AM, said:

Look, if this thing was truly free as you all now are desperately trying to claim, it would have been in everyone's garage by now.

 

It isn't, because it is not free.

 

Correct: You buy it with money or you buy it with your own time by doing missions. If you don't want to invist time or money just keep playing for fun and dont bother with a tier 5 premium you likely will never play on a regular basis after you bought it with time or money.

DutchBaron_ #24 Posted 05 July 2018 - 01:27 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 11745 battles
  • 183
  • [FDAD] FDAD
  • Member since:
    10-06-2016
I am not dissapointed by the rewards (I didn't expect anything better from WG) I am just by the event, they announced it as a big event and I was hyped for some historical battles or something like that, but we just get some lame missions in randoms :(

Pvt_Duffer #25 Posted 05 July 2018 - 02:03 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 16671 battles
  • 3,230
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    05-11-2011

Yes, save 50p per day for the next 50 days, then buy the standard bundle.

 

So smoke one less cigarette per day.

Or drink 1 less Starbucks and get ~3 days credit.

 

Net result:Free tank+8200 gold.

 

 

Profit.

 

 

Seems pretty straightforward.



vixu #26 Posted 05 July 2018 - 02:04 PM

    Colonel

  • Player
  • 44547 battles
  • 3,593
  • Member since:
    03-19-2011
getting another free premium tank to collection for simply playing at a relaxed pace is not that bad. at least, it will give me good reason to play lower tiers.

Babbet_1 #27 Posted 05 July 2018 - 02:07 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 13353 battles
  • 1,060
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    12-13-2015

View PostAxelfoley666, on 05 July 2018 - 10:55 AM, said:

I can't remember, but does WG remember Cambrai (Nov - Dec 1917), 1st ever tank battle, in the same way? They could sell the TOG in a £89 bundle :coin:

 

They might do better to sell Little Willie! I'd sell mine if I could get a decent price for it!   :)

TsundereWaffle #28 Posted 05 July 2018 - 02:16 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 28115 battles
  • 11,104
  • [LEWD] LEWD
  • Member since:
    03-31-2013
it only takes 30 days to get the tank though, not 50

pecopad #29 Posted 05 July 2018 - 02:52 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 28134 battles
  • 1,917
  • [UGN] UGN
  • Member since:
    09-04-2015

View PostAdrian_iron_steel, on 05 July 2018 - 10:59 AM, said:

Not a realy great victory.

 

The Tigers didn't burn. Soviet tanks did:

There were lots of flaming tanks at Kursk. They were mostly Russian. Loss estimates for Kursk are fuzzy, but historians David Glantz and Jonathan House estimate the Germans lost 323 tanks destroyed, or about 10 percent of the tanks committed to the offensive (and a fraction of the 12,000  tanks and self-propelled guns the Third Reich built in 1943). Many German tanks damaged by mines or Soviet weapons, or that broke down, were subsequently recovered.

The Soviets lost at least 1,600 tanks, a 5:1 ratio in Germany's favor. The Germans probably lost 45 tanks at Prokhovoka, most of which were subsequently recovered and repaired. The Soviets may have lost 300 tanks destroyed and another 300 damaged, a 15:1 ratio in Germany's favor.

 

As for Tigers at Kursk, the Germans deployed 146. Only 6 were destroyed.

 

And what do the soviet historians have to say about Kursk?

 

German army didn't even have coats nor socks.....German tank superiority is a myth, the super weapons were propaganda used to keep the German people hopeful, in reality Germany had nothing, even the most basic stuff was missing.

 

Germans were only good beating helpless people ... And we all know how it ended, remember...

 

 


Edited by pecopad, 05 July 2018 - 02:54 PM.


NekoPuffer_PPP #30 Posted 05 July 2018 - 03:01 PM

    Colonel

  • Player
  • 33379 battles
  • 3,702
  • [VRTC] VRTC
  • Member since:
    09-13-2013

I wish the T-34S reward tank had an IS-3 turret, 122mm BL-9 gun, and was a tier 8 medium tank.

 

More worth my time and effort in this cesspit which random battles turn into during every summer break...



pecopad #31 Posted 05 July 2018 - 03:45 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 28134 battles
  • 1,917
  • [UGN] UGN
  • Member since:
    09-04-2015

View Postvixu, on 05 July 2018 - 11:44 AM, said:

 

It is not correct to always search for a great victory. Victory or loss should be deduced from the goals that were before each sides. 

Germany's goal was to deal a crippling blow to USSR to stop their advance to the west, and to ultimately win the war. They have failed simply because USSR could afford the monstrous losses it has suffered.

Soviets goal was to deal as much damage as possible and not to suffer a catastrophic defeat. 

While Germany didn't loose much of their newest tanks, the core of their tank units were still older models. And they did loose quite a bit. Soviets, ofc, lost more, but there is a big difference between Soviet army and German army: Germany was not able to afford the losses. And Soviets simply continued to advance. 

On top of that, Allies actions in Europe were also making quite a bit of effect on overall military capabilities of Germany, despite the fact that not much of it was part of history books in schools in USSR.

 


 

 

Kursk battle ended the war,Germans lost it and took a beating.

 

Germans didn't lose much of the new tanks because they didn't used them. It was like the Bismark stunt, all propaganda to keep morale high.

 

By 1944 Russians had air and ground superiority... The Tank superiority was massive, they could probably just ram all the German Tigers and Panthers without even having to fire a single round, or drowning the the crews just by pissing on them ...It wasn't even an issue, they had  so many more and better tanks than the Germans.

 

Germans were only good beating unprepared, peaceful armies, parading and propaganda stunts.Reality is that by mid 1943 the German Army was already  a big mess,beaten army, under supplied, under staffed, under trained.

 

The tank that won the war was the T 34, stopping the Germans from invading Russia and  effectively being massively superior to anything the Germans had, and beating the crap out of them.

 

Panthers and Tigers had virtually no impact, they were propaganda stunts.

 

 

 


Edited by pecopad, 05 July 2018 - 03:49 PM.


Karasu_Hidesuke #32 Posted 05 July 2018 - 05:20 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 16363 battles
  • 4,299
  • [I-S-L] I-S-L
  • Member since:
    12-03-2013

Hmm.. two people liked my post that isn't here... they don't like the post I have in this thread.. nor do I remember if I posted something else... :sceptic:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=If3SXJeZzMQ

 

 

Oh bother.. Now I remember. I first posted a reply to one post with a quote.. then tried edit in a quote from another post but instead the forum posted as a separate post. Someone must have combined the two posts into one.. got it now.


Edited by Browarszky, 05 July 2018 - 05:55 PM.


Thuis001 #33 Posted 05 July 2018 - 05:29 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 5981 battles
  • 466
  • Member since:
    05-29-2015

View Postpecopad, on 05 July 2018 - 03:45 PM, said:

 

Kursk battle ended the war,Germans lost it and took a beating.

 

Germans didn't lose much of the new tanks because they didn't used them. It was like the Bismark stunt, all propaganda to keep morale high.

 

By 1944 Russians had air and ground superiority... The Tank superiority was massive, they could probably just ram all the German Tigers and Panthers without even having to fire a single round, or drowning the the crews just by pissing on them ...It wasn't even an issue, they had  so many more and better tanks than the Germans.

 

Germans were only good beating unprepared, peaceful armies, parading and propaganda stunts.Reality is that by mid 1943 the German Army was already  a big mess,beaten army, under supplied, under staffed, under trained.

 

The tank that won the war was the T 34, stopping the Germans from invading Russia and  effectively being massively superior to anything the Germans had, and beating the crap out of them.

 

Panthers and Tigers had virtually no impact, they were propaganda stunts.

First of, the T-34 didn't stop the Germans from invading Russia, the main reason the Germans couldn't advance any further was due to their lack of resources and the distance between the frontline and their supply depots which ment that it essentially took more resources to get the supplies to the front then the actual supplies brought there. Besided that, Germany simply didn't have any resources aside of the few it could produce itself or it had stored from before the war, this ment that the balance of power was going to shift in favor of the allies as soon as the war started. I do agree that from 1944 on the Russians had the upper hand on the eastfront altough this was the case a bit earlier aswell simply due to German overextention and again, it's lack of resources and manpower. While the T-34 was a decent/good tank at the beginning of the war it was the sheer amount the Russians could press out (and thus afford to loose) that caused the gains not it's quality (they could be taken out by a bottle of burning Vodka...). German tanks on the other hand were simply focused on quality, they were superior in a 1v1 fight in most cases but they were heavily outnumbered. The Tigers and Panthers didn't really have the chance to have an impact because Germany had already lost the war when they invaded the Soviet Union in 1941. If they, however were built in greater numbers, could run (so no fuel and operator shortages) they would have been even more efficient.



pecopad #34 Posted 05 July 2018 - 06:09 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 28134 battles
  • 1,917
  • [UGN] UGN
  • Member since:
    09-04-2015

View PostThuis001, on 05 July 2018 - 05:29 PM, said:

First of, the T-34 didn't stop the Germans from invading Russia, the main reason the Germans couldn't advance any further was due to their lack of resources and the distance between the frontline and their supply depots which ment that it essentially took more resources to get the supplies to the front then the actual supplies brought there. Besided that, Germany simply didn't have any resources aside of the few it could produce itself or it had stored from before the war, this ment that the balance of power was going to shift in favor of the allies as soon as the war started. I do agree that from 1944 on the Russians had the upper hand on the eastfront altough this was the case a bit earlier aswell simply due to German overextention and again, it's lack of resources and manpower. While the T-34 was a decent/good tank at the beginning of the war it was the sheer amount the Russians could press out (and thus afford to loose) that caused the gains not it's quality (they could be taken out by a bottle of burning Vodka...). German tanks on the other hand were simply focused on quality, they were superior in a 1v1 fight in most cases but they were heavily outnumbered. The Tigers and Panthers didn't really have the chance to have an impact because Germany had already lost the war when they invaded the Soviet Union in 1941. If they, however were built in greater numbers, could run (so no fuel and operator shortages) they would have been even more efficient.

 

German tanks were good propaganda weapons... Super weapons and stuff....hardly made any difference. Germany already had lost air superiority and ground superiority when panthers and tigers came into the theater of war...

 

German tanks and army were good at invading unprepared countries and killing civilians.

 

T34 was the best tank when it mattered, and made a difference in stopping operation Barbarossa, if any tank won the war, it was the T34, which was vastly superior to anything the Germans had at the time, and in fact, much better designed and engineered than anything German ever did.They were cheaper, easier to maintain, etc. They also changed the morale both of the German troops and crew tanks and on the Russian side.

 

Germans didn't even have any boots or coats for the soldiers on the Eastern front, no fuel nor anti-freeze for trucks and  you still think they had super-duper tanks, .... Yeah right, and the V2 was the mother of all bombs.... and the atomic bomb was a Nazi invention captured by the allies....

 

 


Edited by pecopad, 05 July 2018 - 06:13 PM.


Thuis001 #35 Posted 05 July 2018 - 06:17 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 5981 battles
  • 466
  • Member since:
    05-29-2015

View Postpecopad, on 05 July 2018 - 06:09 PM, said:

...

T-34 was good, not the best.

Yes the Germans ran out of essentially everything, but that does not, in any way change the capacity of their tanks, they were good, not flawless, never said they were, nor will I, but they were good. The Soviets took quantity over quality because it was the most efficient for them. 

Either way, I seem to get the idea you are more or less spouting Soviet Propaganda here so I'll stop this discussion while it's still civilized. Have a good day.



Bordhaw #36 Posted 05 July 2018 - 06:40 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 14128 battles
  • 4,325
  • Member since:
    01-29-2017

View Postr0f, on 05 July 2018 - 08:51 AM, said:

Come play the Kursk event; normal Kursk-named missions for normal random-mode battles, or buy the 10 dollar T5 vehicle in a 30-70 euro bundle and get a tiny bit of gold for each normal random-mode mission.

 

And this for 50 days. So I expected some front-line event for this major, major, event in tanking history. Maybe I expected too much.

 

#slowclap 

 

Maybe I shouldn't expect anything at all.

 

 



TungstenHitman #37 Posted 05 July 2018 - 06:43 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 28904 battles
  • 5,323
  • [POOLS] POOLS
  • Member since:
    08-28-2016
I think visually it's a pretty funky looking tank like some iron clad concoction out of the industrial revolution era but your'e just going to get wrecked by tier6 and 7 tbh. I'll still play it a few times though :)

vixu #38 Posted 05 July 2018 - 06:44 PM

    Colonel

  • Player
  • 44547 battles
  • 3,593
  • Member since:
    03-19-2011

View Postpecopad, on 05 July 2018 - 03:45 PM, said:

 

Kursk battle ended the war,Germans lost it and took a beating.

 

Germans didn't lose much of the new tanks because they didn't used them. It was like the Bismark stunt, all propaganda to keep morale high.

 

By 1944 Russians had air and ground superiority... The Tank superiority was massive, they could probably just ram all the German Tigers and Panthers without even having to fire a single round, or drowning the the crews just by pissing on them ...It wasn't even an issue, they had  so many more and better tanks than the Germans.

 

Germans were only good beating unprepared, peaceful armies, parading and propaganda stunts.Reality is that by mid 1943 the German Army was already  a big mess,beaten army, under supplied, under staffed, under trained.

 

The tank that won the war was the T 34, stopping the Germans from invading Russia and  effectively being massively superior to anything the Germans had, and beating the crap out of them.

 

Panthers and Tigers had virtually no impact, they were propaganda stunts.

 

 

 

 

No.... the war did not end with Kursk. The next 2 years have seen some of the bloodiest engagements of the WW2 in Europe. Kursk destroyed an illusion, that Germany could win, but they were determined not to loose.
 

View PostThuis001, on 05 July 2018 - 05:29 PM, said:

First of, the T-34 didn't stop the Germans from invading Russia, the main reason the Germans couldn't advance any further was due to their lack of resources and the distance between the frontline and their supply depots which ment that it essentially took more resources to get the supplies to the front then the actual supplies brought there. Besided that, Germany simply didn't have any resources aside of the few it could produce itself or it had stored from before the war, this ment that the balance of power was going to shift in favor of the allies as soon as the war started. I do agree that from 1944 on the Russians had the upper hand on the eastfront altough this was the case a bit earlier aswell simply due to German overextention and again, it's lack of resources and manpower. While the T-34 was a decent/good tank at the beginning of the war it was the sheer amount the Russians could press out (and thus afford to loose) that caused the gains not it's quality (they could be taken out by a bottle of burning Vodka...). German tanks on the other hand were simply focused on quality, they were superior in a 1v1 fight in most cases but they were heavily outnumbered. The Tigers and Panthers didn't really have the chance to have an impact because Germany had already lost the war when they invaded the Soviet Union in 1941. If they, however were built in greater numbers, could run (so no fuel and operator shortages) they would have been even more efficient.

 

Still does not change the fact, that at the beginning of the war, T-34 was at least as good (if not better) then German tanks. Only later models such as Tigers and Panthers were superior.
 

pecopad #39 Posted 05 July 2018 - 06:47 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 28134 battles
  • 1,917
  • [UGN] UGN
  • Member since:
    09-04-2015

View PostThuis001, on 05 July 2018 - 06:17 PM, said:

T-34 was good, not the best.

Yes the Germans ran out of essentially everything, but that does not, in any way change the capacity of their tanks, they were good, not flawless, never said they were, nor will I, but they were good. The Soviets took quantity over quality because it was the most efficient for them. 

Either way, I seem to get the idea you are more or less spouting Soviet Propaganda here so I'll stop this discussion while it's still civilized. Have a good day.

 

There is a reason why the T34 is considered the best tank ever made by most of the specialists. Not WWII, but best ever, and that because it was the one who had the highest impact on a war, allowing to stop operation Barbarossa, and provided the blueprint for tanks to come.

 

Tigers and Panthers are mythological, just like the Bismark, they had an impact on Nazi propaganda and on the perpetuation of the German myth of superiority, no matter they were manufactured using forced labor and driven by SS divisions,but in end lacked anything to make them run.

 

Russians on the other hand have been facing the counter propaganda, all the numbers, and lucky climate weather, arguments etc when in fact, Russians had the best logistics, they had the best engineers and tank designers, and were able to deploy vast  numbers of man and material and keep siege frosted cities for months. Deploy all the manufacturing capacity and resource extraction for safer locations, etc

 

Credit due where the credit maters. Kursk wasn't an immaterial battle that the Germans won, Kursk was where the Germans were beaten and the faith of the war was determined, and where the Red Army superiority was established.


Edited by pecopad, 05 July 2018 - 06:54 PM.


themadgunman #40 Posted 05 July 2018 - 07:01 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 14874 battles
  • 45
  • Member since:
    04-13-2012
Just another way of making ppl log in every day to keep the numbers looking good even though the quality of the game is declining, but you can get a free Tier V premium tanks and some days of premium and various assorted rubbish to sell for credits, all in all its not actually that bad, especially considering that 3-5 games in the top 10 is hardly a challenging goal if your not a complete muppet given that 1-2 ppl at a minimum will be afk or suicide scouts, just staying alive for 3-4 minutes seems to be enough to get it done





Also tagged with google, noindex, nofollow

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users