What country is best for tanks?

[Bojangles The Bear]

I'm trying to find out what country to start out for a good strong start and which tanks to go for any help would be nice.

[Jason]

Russia, why are you even asking.

[BrigadierBill]

The StuG F and the Panzer IV F are both the huge steps up from the mediocre tier 1 lineup, otherwise low-tier German tanks have pretty bad guns although typically better armor. The Panzer II in particular is just terrible, it can't even pen itself reliably from the front at point-blank until you unlock tungsten ammo. By contrast the Soviets get a lot of less-mediocre early guns plus the T-28 with a decent tier 1 gun, but worse armor.

This pattern is not replicated as the game progresses, with the two switching places for better firepower or better armor or better mobility. At any rate, there are already too many German players; I can't grind through Germany because everyone is already playing them (and I prefer realistic to arcade)... :(

[Max Headroom]

Germany has a really rough time tier 1 and some of tier 2, but after tier mid tier 2 they come into their own.

[sarge4499]

In the low tiers i like Germany the best. I love my Panzer III A and i think its a lot better than any thing the Russians can offer at low tiers. But in general in the low tiers Germany gets good armor and Russia gets good guns but no armor. I wish i could help you more but I dont have a Tier 3 tank yet so good luck and choose the German tanks.

[Driconian]

I love the T60 but I love the T70 more I find the fast light USSR tanks more fun than anything else.

[DOG OF WAR]

Russian

PZ III M tier 3 br 3.7 LOL

Rp cost tiger 6100 tier 3 the russians get KV 2 su 85 t34 for same rp cost 5 to 1 in tanks.

Russians own tier 2

Germans have med tanks and TD tier 1 and 2

Russians Heavys Ober T34.

Makes you wonder how the Russians were not in Berlin in 1942? With thier OP line up. Just like planes.

[BrigadierBill]

Diposting pertama kali oleh Thorexelfury:

Makes you wonder how the Russians were not in Berlin in 1942? With thier OP line up. Just like planes.

Russia had amazing tanks in 1941, but there were three key issues.
1.) Lack of radios. This was immensely problematic compared to the excellently-coordinated German armored forces.
2.) Too many T-26's and BT-7's. T-34's and KV tanks were much rarer in 1941, just like PzIV's, PzIII's, and StuG's. They started to become more common in 1942 and particularly 1943, but their German counterparts started emerging at the same time.
3.) Most Russian tank losses in 1941 were abandoned, particularly due to supply shortages or mechanical issues (getting cut off by the fastest invasion in world history from the rest of your supply lines is a minor issue).

However tanks like the KV-1 and KV-2 were practically invincible in 1941, and the T-34 was similarly overwhelming to a German army based primarily on PzII's and Pz38t's with pop guns (the 37mm guns Germany used were known as door knockers since they bounced ineffectively off French tanks so many times).

[Vuyek]

Just like in the aviation branch - Japan.

All kidding aside, Soviet Union had the best tanks in 1941.

In 1942-43, Germans rapidly developed their Tiger and Panther tanks, and more importantly upgunned their PzIV's, and even more importantly developed mobile self propelled AT guns on obsolete Czech and light tank chasis.

In 1944, Soviets mass produce T34 with 85mm gun, and start churning out IS (Iosif Stalin) tanks by the hundreds, giving them advantage again.

1945, Soviet tanks are insanely powerful, IS10 will be used up to the 1960's, it is that good.

Israeli tankers in their Centurions had trouble killing IS10's fielded by Egypt and Syria in the Yom Kippur War in... the 1970's.


Like Mr. Bill has said, Germans had better training AND better communication, which counts for a LOT in combat. Listen to that man, he (mostly) knows what he's talking about.

[Apocalypse_Later]

I've found that the German tanks get absolutely trashed in teir 1 and into the middle of teir 2. After that it feels a little more fair. The little snub-nosed guns most of their tanks start with are just useless against the sloped Soviet armor.

[Sadpan]

Historically speaking, Germany. In the game, Russia (but late German tanks are pretty good)

[Vuyek]

Diposting pertama kali oleh Techiastronamo:

Historically speaking, Germany. In the game, Russia (but late German tanks are pretty good)

Reading comprehension?

In 1941 Soviet Union had the best tanks, at any tier - amphibious (no country had those, bar Japan), light, medium (T34 outclassed anything German by far), heavy (no country other than Soviet Union had heavy tanks).

[BrigadierBill]

The Germans were outgunned by their opponents basically until the development of the long 75mm gun for the PzIII, PzIV, StuG III, and various tank destroyers. Russia, France, and Britain had better early-war tanks than Germany, which was why they relied so heavily on Czech tanks (the Pz35t and Pz38t were substantial parts of the German tank lineup, and the Marder and Hetzer assault guns were based off the Pz38t chassis). It wasn't until Kursk that Germany started to build tanks that were generally superior to their opponents, as Hitler rushed production on tanks such as the Panther, Tiger, and Elefant. Of these three, the elefant was practically useless (engine failures caused many to blow up simply driving up hill), the panther was useless for the time being (later becoming one of the best tanks of WWII) due to similar mechanical issues, with the sparse numbers of tiger tanks being the only substantial edge the Germans had in heavy tanks over the Soviets (other than existing long-gun Panzer IV's and Sturmgeschutzen)

Note the important concepts: The idea of heavily-armored tanks like the Tiger was drawn from the success of soviet KV tanks (otherwise the Tiger was tracks and armor surrounding the Flak36 88mm), while the Panther was fundamentally a copy of the T-34 (with enhancements like magnetic mine-resistant armor, long-75mm gun, longer-lasting components, and superior commander's sights which the T-34 lacked...at the cost of the T-34's simplicity and ease of production). Russia in fact then copied these tanks, producing tanks like the IS-2 (the IS-2 being a hilarious design, the gun was too long to reload without pointing the barrel down, throwing off any attempt to maintain accuracy at range) and matching the longer-barreled German tanks with the 85mm upgrades on T-34's, IS's, KV's, and the deadly SU-100 TD.

The problem with Soviet tanks was typically secondary stuff rather than the fundamental tank design. For instance, the T-34 suffered from poor commander's sights (the T-34 was practically impossible to survey the battlefield from if the commander was inside the tank and not popping his head out), lack of radios early on, open compartment (shrapnel would far more likely kill the entire crew), and poor ammo stowage. Many of these problems were fixed over time, but not all. However the more serious problems with Soviet tanks were that they had too few officers to command tank units, far fewer trained tank crews than operational tanks (meaning infantry were driving and operating T-34's, hence the benefit of simplistic design), and the fact that Germany had completely revolutionized tank tactics. The fact that Germany beat both the French in 1940 and the Soviets and British in 1941 in armored warfare is a testament to German tactics and leadership, given how much better their opponents' tanks were. Rommel was beating Britain not because his tanks were so much better (the German ones were, but most of his tanks were Italian tanks nicknamed "Steel Coffins"), but because he knew how to make the most of small numbers of forces, the value of reconnaissance and front-line leadership (which nearly got him killed and captured multiple times), and Britain kept falling for feinted retreats into AT gun ambushes (hence the western fear of the 88mm gun, which was used in such ambushes).

Sorry for text wall but don't tell a history buff that Germany had better tanks in 1941 than Russia (or Britain or France). Just revolutionary tactics and disorientingly-good tank generals.

[Vuyek]

"It wasn't until Kursk that Germany started to build tanks that were generally superior to their opponents"

Meh.

Readup on how ♥♥♥♥ the Panthers were. They constantly kept braking down. A Russian T34 could drive roughly 50,000 miles with no issues, a Panther could barely drive a 100.

The Panthers' were such a nightmare that they lost more due to them breaking down than to enemy action at first - and the technical problems were not resolved, EVER, for that tank.

Rommel kept winning because of 2 main things:

1) Brits were idiots, nuff said. They "sportingly" tried to engage Axis tanks in "dashing" cavalry maneuvers, and as the Axis "retreated" they "pursued"... straight into German AT guns, including the 88's.

2) The American ambassador in Egypt was a ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥. He sent, over OPEN UNSECURED airwaves, messages on British intentions to Washington. The Brits begged him to stop, but he arrogantly replied that nope, his job is to inform his bosses in the States. Once he was withdrawn, Rommel's victories stopped.

[BrigadierBill]

It's not really fair to base Rommel's victories on just those two facts. First of all his advantage of German tanks started to deteriorate with the introduction of the M3 Grant tanks to British hands, giving them a range capability they previously lacked. Second, his supply lines were precarious enough that having lost El Alamein he didn't have enough fuel to move a fraction of the way back to a safe position in Libya, and third Montgomery took advantage of overwhelming numbers by just setting up a fortified position and for once actually predicted Rommel's repeated southern flanking attack, leaving Rommel in the position of having no way of actually outmaneuvering the British in the narrow front between the sea and Quattara, facing tanks that ultimately matched his range, with no fuel, outnumbered, with Britain having gained air superiority.

Also take note that after Wavell was removed, Auchinleck stuck a commander in charge who turned out to be relatively incompetent and was hesitant to remove yet another British commander too quickly, eventually however he gave up this pretense and took direct command (and basically set up the El Alamein battle plan prior to Montgomery actually showing up). Generally speaking as well, Montgomery's biggest flaw was that he wouldn't take advantage of his victories and let Rommel retreat; yet Rommel's most successful tactic was his feinted retreat which had bloodied the British so many times already. Prior to the second battle of Tobruk, Britain was driving tanks that couldn't match German range; around that time the M3 Grant tanks started showing up with 75mm guns that could keep up with German tanks, and by El Alamein the M4 Shermans were further bolstering the British lines.

I also always give Rommel credit since he not only led the successful counterattack in Kasserine against huge numbers (again facing an incompetent General, this time American), shortly before his closest American counterpart showed up and broke the back of the German resistance (right after Rommel had been recalled). Later Rommel held the German lines together in Normandy, admittedly a defensible location, completely outnumbered and facing comically-overwhelming air superiority for well over a month. Once again, Patton showed up and the Allied territory in France went in the span of a month from most of Normandy to most of France as Operation Cobra forced the Germans into a retreat the Allied advance couldn't even maintain pursuit of.


Also with the Panther tanks, when they were first introduced they had issues with breaking down, but that was because they were introduced prior to any test runs way too early in the development phase. Later the Panthers were able to better show off their abilities when they became more reliable; basically they outgunned the Panzer IV with their longer 75mm gun (I think longer anyways), not to mention great frontal armor. They were also easier to build than Tigers (and the innovative concept behind the tiger was armored box + 88 Flak = Tiger) and more maneuverable. Germany's problem by this point was mostly that on the east front they were now hopelessly outnumbered, not helped by diversion of forces to the west front for their disasterous counterattacks in Lorraine and the Ardennes, while in the west front Allied air superiority, combined with a lack of German reconnaissance and a healthy supply of tungesten ammo for allied tanks with upgraded 76mm long-barreled guns (basically equal to 75mm german ones) could tear apart tanks like the panther, which could be penetrated from the front with tungsten ammo (at close-mid range) or the side with normal AP ammo. Or hit by an onslaught of P-47's, Typhoons, P-38's or other fighter-bombers obliterating tank formations wholesale.

[Vuyek]

"Second, his supply lines were precarious enough"

That's a myth brought forth by German and pro German generals apologists, now debunked.

"Second, his supply lines were precarious enough that having lost El Alamein he didn't have enough fuel to move a fraction of the way back to a safe position in Libya"

Which makes Rommel an ♥♥♥♥♥, which most German historians actually say.

Paulus, a staff officer par excellence, came over and said that yes, Rommel will win a few victories, whoop dee doo, but then his supply situation will ♥♥♥♥. NOT because of lack of supplies from Italy, as ITalians did HEROIC efforts to supply the Axis armies in N. Africa, but because Rommel and his ♥♥♥♥♥ staff did not plan any logistics, and so the fuel, ammo and other essentials parts went all the way from Libya to the front line.

The moron also concetrated on Tobruk way too late.

"Montgomery took advantage of overwhelming numbers by just setting up a fortified position and for once actually predicted Rommel's repeated southern flanking attack, leaving Rommel in the position of having no way of actually outmaneuvering the British in the narrow front between the sea and Quattara"

Yup, again, Rommel was an overpromoted divisional commander ♥♥♥♥♥, and Paulus and German general staff have all said so, but due to propaganda and "dazzling victories" they couldn't remove him.

The only reason for the "dazzling victories" was the total incompetence of British generals AND total ineptness of British forces and worse yet, total lack of combined arms tactics with each regiment doing their owm thing per the tard tradition of the UK army.


" Later the Panthers were able to better show off their abilities when they became more reliable"

Myth, they were breaking down all the way to 1945, they were a nightmare. Source: Osprey books on the Panthers.

By 1944, Germany had MANY problems :)