Comments by "Вячеслав Скопюк" (@user-yj8vj3sq6j) on "Panzer III vs. T-34 (featuring Chieftain)" video.

 @Romanotieu look at the number produced. About 100 IS-1. By the wartime USSR standards it's nothing more than experimental design
123
@ethanedwards422 IS-1 was designed as replacement for KV-1, capable of withstanding 75mm and 88mm shells. So, you can't compare it with T-34-85. But 85mm cannon was not enough
23
> I'd rather die in a Panzer 4 lol. It's your choice. Soviet tankmen preferred to live in T-34-85
6
@uni4rm don't be stupid. T-34-85 continued to serve after war, same as Sherman. USSR replaced it after war, yes, because USSR had production-ready next generation tanks since 1944. Not the case with the USA
5
@baristhealienated >never said American M3 was superior but you said that evil USSR continued to produce inferior tanks > but Firely had a better protective armour and gun and had all bunch of problems including cramped turret. Exactly why they weren't adopted by USA > M4A2 and A3 are also superior to t-34. superior to what modification of T-34? >there is a difference between sending tank waves to superior tanks and positions of the enemy AND using tanks in the defensive camouflaged positions when needs to be/ striking the weakest position of the enemy etc.. you can't win the war sitting in 'defensive camouflaged position'. Look at the german offensives. After all, tanks are supposed to attack enemy positions head on - that's why they had their armor
2
Merkava tank uses Cristie suspension
2
>The T-34 was designed for the UNskilled that's straight bullshit
2
Pz III / PZ IV also were cheap and easy to produce in large numbers. Do you think that german workers mill them from the solid piece of steel?
2
Author of that blog post set his goal not to debunk ' superiorT-34 myth', but to make myth of his own, about 'inferior T-34'. You can use it as a wikipedia article, for further research, but not as a source itself
2
Another... T-34 wasn't cheap. T-34 wasn't easy to mass-produce. T-34 was made in large numbers because USSR build tank factories who could made them in large numbers. And USSR produced T-34 in large numbers because it had decent armor, good speed, low ground pressure, high power to weight ratio and powerful enough cannon
2
I like M4 in Warthunder. Didn't noticed anything about ''a rolling napalm container at any angle against any weapon'
2
@Lukos0036 >All those things I outline happened to me more times than I could count. you are clearly biased. I met many of your kind. Some are saying that Gaijin made T-34 a god tank. Some saying that Gaijin made a shit turd.It's just bias
2
@Lukos0036 over inflating some minor casualties to statements like " Gaijin making the M4 a rolling napalm container at any angle against any weapon" - it's clearly bias. >Bias is when you shoot a Russian anything point blank and it bounces because Stalin! yep. Another "shells bouncing off T-34" case.You, guys, are all the same
2
they should have produced more tank crews
1
@baristhealienated it's not computer game, man. You can't just pick blueprints from the research tree, then select tank factory and press the 'build T-34-85' button. Should I remind you, how long did it take for americans to replace their 75mm gun?
1
@baristhealienated >Unlike Soviets, Americans did not engage and were not expected to engage in massive tank battles over open space. really? Why they developed tank destroyers, then? With large powerful guns >Nevertheless, due to experiences in North Africa, Americans had sent large number of Sherman Fireflies to Normandy it were the brits, who sent Sherman Vc to Normandy. Americans didn't adopted Firefly >Unlike Americans, even after two years of intense tank warfare in an open terrain, Soviet military machine was still producing inferior tanks Unlike americans with their M3 tanks? And why do you think that T-34 was inferior? >so the tank crews suffered not only because of the inferiority of the tank but also because of the Soviet tactics... what tactics do you propose for tanks, other than riding towards enemy? Use them as self-propelled artillery?
1
ZenzokuZenshin enough of this bullshit. Please. You also can say that Germans preferred quantity over quality, because of the faulty early Panthers
1
BTW, I would not say that 'impact of the T-34 in 1941 was limited'. After all, tank brigades equipped with T-34 and KV-1 detained and finally stopped 'Typhoon'. And I think that earlier versions of T-34 were optimized for mass production no more than PzIII. Soviet engineers did a great job to cheapen and simplify production of T-34
1
T-34 wasn't built for "numbers in the battlefield". And it was built with maximum quality USSR could afford
1
jojones jojo > 300,000 out of 400,000 SU tankistas died in the Great Patriotic War. there is something with your numbers. AFAIR, USSR tankmen to infantrymen losses were about 1:150. So, USSR lost 60000000 soldiers?
1
but it wasn't "Infantry support" tank. Germans didn't have "infantry support" tanks AFAIR
1
Cologne Cathedral - Sherman: 0, Panter: 2 M4. End of story :D
1
@Lukos0036 you encouneterd some of this things in the game. But clearly you have exaggerated their frequency > But much like gaijin you can't handle criticism of anything from your country. ROFLMAO. You so typical. You ALL say that :D >And you guys call Americans nationalist "We, guys"? Who are these "we, guys"? Do you know, who I am? > You're even more arrogant and prideful. of course, Mr. Honesty :D it's not your butthurt ego, who doesn't let you think clearly. It's "we, guys"
1
@JaM-R2TR4 >tank warfare is maneuver warfare.. goal is to outmaneuver the enemy that would be true in a perfectly flat world. In the real world, with rough terrain, forests and swamps, you can't outmaneuver the enemy on the tactical level, if he knows the terrain. So yes, you clash with enemy more or less frontally
1
@JaM-R2TR4 >which means they were outmaneuvered by enemy who managed to engage them from side.. nope, it means that they were hit by anti-tank artillery while advancing at the enemy positions. >with new type of turret which has better protection on front side portion of turret yep, because in a real world you don't fight in a narrow corridor
1
@JaM-R2TR4 >broken terrain is ideal for it because it hides your movement... in computer game, yes. But in a real world it obstructs movement. Like bocages in Normandy. And enemy can predict where your tanks go
1
@JaM-R2TR4 >3.7cm PaK 36 in 1941 was as effective as 7.5cm PaK 40 in 1944-1945 nope >neither was effective against heaviest Soviet tanks, but they did the job against everything else PaK 36 didn't do their job against T-34. Because T-34 was built to withstand 25mm-45mm shells . And you forgetting the HE shells
1
@JaM-R2TR4 >And yet, US tankers managed to break through and destroy German tanks defending in Normandy.. why? because they outmaneuvered German tanks in combat... nope. They 'outmaneuvered' German units on operational level > you do realize you contradict yourself? you don't realize that I don't contradict myself >Maneuver is about "not fighting in corridor"... but i'm talking not about 'maneuvers'. I'm talking about one simple fact - enemy positions usually are stretched. For hundreds of meters. Or for kilometers. >Antitank gun placements were dynamic, not static yes, yes. I see that picture - anti-tank guns 'outmaneuver' enemy tanks. > yet still, clever commander would set the defensive perimeter with antitank guns placed in such positions, that they would fire into enemy sides what about 'outmaneuvering' enemy? "Goal is to outmaneuver the enemy, not clash with him frontally"(c). And yet you sit and wait for enemy to come to your positions :D >while actual tank support would be in reserve and counterattack into enemy flank it's not working on the tactical level. Unless you are fighting on the large flat field. Terrain, you see. > In such situation, it would matter little what kind of tank attacker has, you would outmaneuver it and hit from side or rear... you played too much computer games. In the real life tanks advance not in dense formation, but are stretched along the front and in depth. So, when you 'outmaneuver it and hit from side or rear..'(and if terrain allows such maneuvers), you also getting attacked from the side or rear.
1
@JaM-R2TR4 yep. Germans, who coulndn't 'outmaneuver' their enemy, and americans in defensive positions, waiting for germans to come (because terrain wasn't flat and germans couldn't choose any direction they like)
1
@JaM-R2TR4 >American Shermans did not fight in static defensive positions they advanced towards the enemy? battle description says clearly, that they waited that german tanks get to THEM and fired when the opportunity presented itself, using low visibility >Its looks like you dont understand what maneuver warfare actually means... I clearly understand what maneuver warfare isn't. Maneuver warfare isn't about group of tanks, who goes around the corner of the map to catch enemy team from behind, like you used to do in Warthunder
1
@JaM-R2TR4 they get to germans from behind? Or just sat and waited while they get closer and maybe go by them and didn't notice? You see, examples when enemy goes by predetermined route because terrain don't allow them to move by any other route prove my point, not yours. Germans didn't outmaneuver american tanks, because terrain and battle condition didn't allowed them to choose direction of attack. American knew where to wait for germans and prepared a meeting
1
@JaM-R2TR4 As I said earlier , Germans didn't outmaneuver american tanks, because terrain and battle condition didn't allowed them to choose direction of attack. American knew where to wait for germans and prepared a meeting
1