Uptiers sucks for everyone, though the German 6.7 line-up isn’t too bad at all frankly.
The Bkan really isn’t hard to nail down.
The Kugel should be a lower BR, tbf. Either 6.7 or 6.3 ideally.
2 Likes
That sounds like anger managment issue but you do you buddy
2 Likes
Ya know lot of his threads and comments suddenly make sense.
3 Likes
If it’s propagande it should be easy to disprove with sources and facts no?
Yeah, but that can also be said for russia and germany. If all we’re going to do is say “that’s propaganda” (which I appreciate because everything seems to be anymore) then every thing is propaganda anyways which means that none of the tanks were better than the other. Besides, The T-34s had obvious disadvantages just like the tigers and shermans. Each country prioritized different things.
Name of the site please ?
“taking on the horde of T-34s” is the exact reason the german tanks were “better”. The german tanks lost mostly because they were outnumbered, not because they were worse. However, something else that gets over looked is the type of tanks that were used on battle fields. It wasn’t like it was only tigers vs only T-34s. There were panzers tigers panthers T-34s bts and who knows what else. The german tanks’ statistics were way better than the T-34 statistics but it isn’t as simple as “this is the better tank”.
Exactly, they weren’t ahead, they simply made a bigger tank with a big gun. That isn’t always better because the thing weighed so much.
once again as I said, it’s the use of the tank. The abrams steam rolled in the golf war but the export abrams get steamed rolled a lot, not because it’s a bad tank, but because of the method used. T-34 had it’s advantages but so did the tiger and sherman.
First off, I’m not talking about the T-34—I’m talking about everything but it. The T-34 was a mass-produced tank, and its quality varied a lot depending on the modifications. Compared to other very mass-produced tanks (like 5,000+ units), it’s only slightly better than the Sherman—mainly due to better armor, gun, and engine. The real weakness? Ergonomics.
I’m not even going to bring up the Panzer IV because we already know the answer there.
Then you’ve got the Panther, which—if we’re being real—falls into the heavy tank category once you look at its tonnage.
My point is: tanks like that, bro, do you get it? The IS series? Everything under the IS-6 is still basically a WWII-era tank. The IS-7? First prototype was made in, like, a week later from WW2. And don’t even get me started on the Objects.
My point is, when the USSR went for quality over quantity, its vehicles were straight-up superior.
True
8.0 and 9.0 wait for you
The Korean War is literally the forgotten war. It seems like everyone forgets that the Russian and American vehicles fought and the Russian vehicles held up, DESPITE fighting half the world into a stalemate
1 Like
Tanks were never the Americans’ strong point, but rather their air force and navy
It was only a stalemate because of certain things that aren’t allowed to be discussed on here. It was nothing incredible.
That is true
It cant be both. which one is it?
1 Like
I love seeing Americans flip flop. “We have the best tanks in the world” to “We don’t care about tanks, we have the best air force in the world!” It’s like the whole, “we are undefeated in war!” to “we just got bored and left” or “it wasn’t an actual war since we never declared war on X country”
2 Likes
Statshark