Jump to content


Why Soviet tanks outperformed by us/uk/french tanks after ww2?


  • Please log in to reply
75 replies to this topic

SergeantPunch #1 Posted 25 March 2012 - 10:02 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 15665 battles
  • 198
  • Member since:
    11-13-2011
From a brief look at the wars since ww2 it appears that western nato tanks outperformed or spanked soviet made tanks, we can see this is the arab israeli wars, we can see it in the iran iraq wars, in the indian pakistan wars and even in ww2 the german tanks killed the russian ones at a ratio of 7:1 or something.

THEN WE GET THIS GAME!!

Sotahullu #2 Posted 26 March 2012 - 05:53 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Beta Tester
  • 15540 battles
  • 684
  • Member since:
    10-15-2010
Well there is something about that there was 20 years between western and eastearn tanks during those fights.  <_<

Listy #3 Posted 26 March 2012 - 10:40 AM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 12095 battles
  • 5,732
  • Member since:
    04-19-2011
And Soviet tanks in WWII weren't that good. Most were inferior to the western tanks.

Jukelo #4 Posted 26 March 2012 - 10:50 AM

    Colonel

  • Beta Tester
  • 26477 battles
  • 3,608
  • Member since:
    08-13-2010
And yet the russians spanked the germans because they simply outnumbered them. Now, how do you want that to be translated in game terms? Do you really want to try your luck and face 10 soviet tanks against YOU ALONE when taking your tiger out for a stroll?

You claim soviet tanks are OP and justify that by saying soviet tanks were UP historically ?

Yamaxanadu #5 Posted 26 March 2012 - 10:58 AM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 1215 battles
  • 5,031
  • Member since:
    10-07-2011

View PostSergeantPunch, on 25 March 2012 - 10:02 PM, said:

From a brief look at the wars since ww2 it appears that western nato tanks outperformed or spanked soviet made tanks, we can see this is the arab israeli wars, we can see it in the iran iraq wars, in the indian pakistan wars and even in ww2 the german tanks killed the russian ones at a ratio of 7:1 or something.
Arab-Israeli wars are not useful for comparison since there are some age difference between tanks (and lack of tank commanders on Arab side). I think Korean War can be example (even though North Korea lack trained tank crews).

View PostJukelo, on 26 March 2012 - 10:50 AM, said:

And yet the russians spanked the germans because they simply outnumbered them. Now, how do you want that to be translated in game terms? Do you really want to try your luck and face 10 soviet tanks against YOU ALONE when taking your tiger out for a stroll?

You claim soviet tanks are OP and justify that by saying soviet tanks were UP historically ?
T-34-76 was superior in 1940-1941, average in 1942, barely acceptable in 1943.
T-34-85 was average in 1944-1945.
T-44 was good in 1944 but lack numbers.
T-54 was great in 1944 but have problems in design and was in prototype stage.
KV-1 was superior in 1940-1941, so-so in 1942, almost useless in 1943.
IS-1 was average in 1943.
IS-2 was good in 1944.
IS-3 was superior in 1945.

SergeantPunch #6 Posted 26 March 2012 - 06:19 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 15665 battles
  • 198
  • Member since:
    11-13-2011

View PostJukelo, on 26 March 2012 - 10:50 AM, said:

And yet the russians spanked the germans because they simply outnumbered them. Now, how do you want that to be translated in game terms? Do you really want to try your luck and face 10 soviet tanks against YOU ALONE when taking your tiger out for a stroll?

You claim soviet tanks are OP and justify that by saying soviet tanks were UP historically ?

Yes but in this game it's 15 vs 15 and in reality in this senario the germans spanked the russians

Paaranoja #7 Posted 26 March 2012 - 06:41 PM

    Captain

  • Beta Tester
  • 31988 battles
  • 2,215
  • [DAVAI] DAVAI
  • Member since:
    11-03-2010
You are wrong + no one cares.

Tigger3 #8 Posted 26 March 2012 - 08:52 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 13569 battles
  • 1,779
  • Member since:
    02-01-2012

View PostSotahullu, on 26 March 2012 - 05:53 AM, said:

Well there is something about that there was 20 years between western and eastearn tanks during those fights.  <_<

In the Arab-Isreali wars, Indian-Pakistani wars and the Iran-Iraq wars all sides had vehicles of the same time frame and in many case used the same vehicles.

Sotahullu #9 Posted 26 March 2012 - 09:30 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Beta Tester
  • 15540 battles
  • 684
  • Member since:
    10-15-2010
I should mention that Germans used tanks more carefully and organised them better so they had big .


And Soviet union was pretty screw up in training but they had to that so they could keep up with losses.

For example: Soviet unions gained and produced almost 22,000 tanks in '42. They lost 16,000 during the same year...

Sotahullu #10 Posted 26 March 2012 - 09:30 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Beta Tester
  • 15540 battles
  • 684
  • Member since:
    10-15-2010
Douple post so move it on...

MuleMobile #11 Posted 08 April 2012 - 11:50 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Beta Tester
  • 4669 battles
  • 945
  • [HB] HB
  • Member since:
    10-06-2010

View PostSergeantPunch, on 25 March 2012 - 10:02 PM, said:

From a brief look at the wars since ww2 it appears that western nato tanks outperformed or spanked soviet made tanks, we can see this is the arab israeli wars, we can see it in the iran iraq wars, in the indian pakistan wars and even in ww2 the german tanks killed the russian ones at a ratio of 7:1 or something.

THEN WE GET THIS GAME!!
It's not so much that Russian tanks are OP, stats are debatable, but the main problem is that Wargaming's matched later war Russian tanks with German tanks that they were designed to beat, almost all the tanks came out 2 years after the German equivalent

The worst example of this is when Panther used to be tier 8, obviously a decision Wargaming made to try to nerf Panther by tiering a 1942 tank against 1944 T44s
The result was so awful that they had to tier it down, and now Panther's quite alright, and comparable (probably better) than it's equivalent 1943 T-43

But you still see the messed up tiering throughout the tree:
T5 PzIVa(1937) T-34/42(1940)
T5 StuGIII(1940) SU-85(1943)
T7 Tiger(1942) IS-2(1944) [IS-1(1943)]
T8 TigerII(1944) IS-3(barely 1945)

Of course Russian tanks are going to be superior when the tanks are ~2 years ahead in a 5 year war..

V0ILA #12 Posted 08 April 2012 - 01:35 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Beta Tester
  • 13262 battles
  • 98
  • Member since:
    09-25-2010
their designs also give them great advantages in a game situation where their disadvantages are irrelevant: small size, lots of angles, good all round armour etc

Tigger3 #13 Posted 08 April 2012 - 02:47 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 13569 battles
  • 1,779
  • Member since:
    02-01-2012

View PostMuleMobile, on 08 April 2012 - 11:50 AM, said:

It's not so much that Russian tanks are OP, stats are debatable, but the main problem is that Wargaming's matched later war Russian tanks with German tanks that they were designed to beat, almost all the tanks came out 2 years after the German equivalent

The worst example of this is when Panther used to be tier 8, obviously a decision Wargaming made to try to nerf Panther by tiering a 1942 tank against 1944 T44s
The result was so awful that they had to tier it down, and now Panther's quite alright, and comparable (probably better) than it's equivalent 1943 T-43

But you still see the messed up tiering throughout the tree:
T5 PzIVa(1937) T-34/42(1940)
T5 StuGIII(1940) SU-85(1943)
T7 Tiger(1942) IS-2(1944) [IS-1(1943)]
T8 TigerII(1944) IS-3(barely 1945)

Of course Russian tanks are going to be superior when the tanks are ~2 years ahead in a 5 year war..

Not going to go through all of these for you so I will just do your Tier V, PzIVa(1937) T-34/42(1940) based on historical accuracy which you tried to bring in.

The Panzer IV they have at tier 5 has as its starting weapon the 50mm/L60, this would have been the Ausf F2 but was cancelled and the 75mm/L43 was fitted instead in 1942 (the Ausf A having a 75mm/L24 and being produced in 1936, the Ausf B being 1937).

The T34 that starts at tier 5 is the T34/40 made in 1940 and armed with the inadequate L11 76mm (relatively few made along with the 57mm before changing to the 76mm F34), the T34/42 model was an update in 1942 at the time the Panzer IV was getting the 75mm/L43 to become the Ausf F2 (renamed Ausf G) and later. The majority of Panzer IV that met T34 upto the end of 1942 were armed with 75mm/L24.

So to me they seem pretty much balanced on the time frame period (apart from the Panzer IV getting much better weapons it never had while the T34 gets a slight improvement).

cDa #14 Posted 08 April 2012 - 09:15 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 5572 battles
  • 1,457
  • Member since:
    08-01-2010
About middle east.. End of century tanks vs tanks from '60.... Not quite correct way to compare no?

Tigger3 #15 Posted 08 April 2012 - 11:31 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 13569 battles
  • 1,779
  • Member since:
    02-01-2012

View PostcDa, on 08 April 2012 - 09:15 PM, said:

About middle east.. End of century tanks vs tanks from '60.... Not quite correct way to compare no?

?

End of century tanks v tanks from the 60's? the most common armour on each side in the most common conflicts the Arab Israeli wars. Not forgetting that many Arab nations also had Centurions along with other western tanks at the time.

Centurion design (1944), M48 Patton design (1951), M4 Sherman design (1941) v T55 design (1950's the T54 1945), T 62 design (1958).

Yamaxanadu #16 Posted 08 April 2012 - 11:37 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 1215 battles
  • 5,031
  • Member since:
    10-07-2011

View PostTigger3, on 26 March 2012 - 08:52 PM, said:

In the Arab-Isreali wars, Indian-Pakistani wars and the Iran-Iraq wars all sides had vehicles of the same time frame and in many case used the same vehicles.
Not only time-frame matters. Commanders, crew skills and logistic must be put in consideration too. Look at USSR during first period of Great Patriotic War. It had superior equipment but lack talented commanders and skilled crews. The result was catastrophic.

RoflSeal #17 Posted 09 April 2012 - 01:49 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Beta Tester
  • 15008 battles
  • 784
  • Member since:
    07-28-2010

View PostSotahullu, on 26 March 2012 - 05:53 AM, said:

Well there is something about that there was 20 years between western and eastearn tanks during those fights.  <_<

Elaborate please

Lets take Yom Kippur
In the Golan you had Isreali Shot Kal vs Syrian T55 and T62
the Shot was a Centurion with a 105 L7 and a Continental Engine with no nightvision capabilities (basically a Centurion Mk5/2 with a American engine)
The T55 had the 100mm D10 cannon and the T62 had a 115mm Smoothbore, both could destroy the Centurian at combat ranges.
Syrian tanks also had nightvision

What made the Centurions win was the fact that the Isrealis had Superior commanders, better trained soldiers with more determination and professionalism then some Syrian conscripts, prepared firing positions so that the Cents could quickly dial in the ranges of the target. The Equipment themselves were equal, infact the USSR tanks on paper were better. But Real warfare is not decided on paper, its decided on the professionalism, skill and determination of the man in the trench, and the quality of the higher echelons

Rodina67 #18 Posted 09 April 2012 - 02:38 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 4481 battles
  • 42
  • Member since:
    07-11-2011
Yes, it’s generally accepted that Russian tanks of WWII were inferior to the German ones. But only the Germans. They were either equal or superior to the US (Shermans) or the British counterparts. I’m referring here to all these nation’s tanks which did participate in the war.
This fact was further aggravated by the fact that, unlike the Germans, the Soviets lacked in the first two years (1941-42)both the training level and the tactical applications of modern tank warfare.

However, based on war reports, whenever the Russians DID have competent commanders (at tank, platoon, company and regimental level) AND carefully planned tactics, the Germans found themselves in a lot of problems.

Point in case: from the Battle of Kursk onwards, the Russians gradually quit their mindless form of rushing tens and hundreds of T-34s at once allowing the Tigers, Ferdinands and PzIVs to pick them at long range one by one.
Instead they began to use tactics which carefully used the combined-arms doctrine. Scouts were sent in advance for spotting and reporting the Germans’ firing positions. Then T34s were brought in easily in Platoon size (instead of full Companies or Battalions charging) advancing cautiously on multiple ways of access. All the while anti-tank equipped infantry followed and took positions close behind the advancing T-34s while on the flanks Zverobois were quietly taken their positions. Once the Germans opened fire on the advancing T-34s, with their firing positions known, the Russians opened up with all assets. The worse for the Germans was that the Zverobois adopted the so called “unity of fire” in which at least two vehicles concentrated on only one target. Tigers and Ferdinands were put out of action in mere minutes (sometimes with devastating results) and all the tactical, manufacturing or firepower advantages which the Germans had were in vain. Somewhere else, in urban engagements, the Russians were so much more superior that in many cases the Germans would leave towns falling in Russian hands then to try defending them.

Hammerbolt #19 Posted 10 April 2012 - 11:49 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Beta Tester
  • 33242 battles
  • 1,358
  • [TEC] TEC
  • Member since:
    08-13-2010

View PostRodina67, on 09 April 2012 - 02:38 PM, said:

Yes, it’s generally accepted that Russian tanks of WWII were inferior to the German ones. But only the Germans. They were either equal or superior to the US (Shermans) or the British counterparts. I’m referring here to all these nation’s tanks which did participate in the war.

Even that is a dangerous generalization. US/UK sights, for example, were superior to Russian, as were their radios. And, by 1945, the M26 Pershing and the Comet could hold their own against the Russian late war tanks (which, afaik, stop at the IS-2).

The one point where Russians held superiority was in the engine. Every Russian tank had a diesel engine, while everyone else had gasoline engines (but I seem to remember 1 Sherman version had a diesel?). This made the Russian tanks far less vulnerable to fire-based destruction, and gave them greater strategic mobility.

Post war, this engine superiority held for a long time. The west didn't have a diesel tank before late 1950s...

Tigger3 #20 Posted 15 April 2012 - 04:05 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 13569 battles
  • 1,779
  • Member since:
    02-01-2012

View PostHammerbolt, on 10 April 2012 - 11:49 AM, said:

Even that is a dangerous generalization. US/UK sights, for example, were superior to Russian, as were their radios. And, by 1945, the M26 Pershing and the Comet could hold their own against the Russian late war tanks (which, afaik, stop at the IS-2).

The one point where Russians held superiority was in the engine. Every Russian tank had a diesel engine, while everyone else had gasoline engines (but I seem to remember 1 Sherman version had a diesel?). This made the Russian tanks far less vulnerable to fire-based destruction, and gave them greater strategic mobility.

Post war, this engine superiority held for a long time. The west didn't have a diesel tank before late 1950s...

Most tank fires suffered in combat was by the ammunition catching fire after a penetrating hit, the Soviet tanks were as prone to this as any other countrys.

BTW many countries used diesel engines as well but petrol was the prevalent fuel.

Not every Soviet tank had a diesel engine either.

Sweeping statements like that are not very good and never accurate.




6 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 6 guests, 0 anonymous users