My take on tank battles

Beancounting logic: During the conquest of Denmark, the Danish military suffered 16 casualties and inflicted 200+ on the Germans.

Ergo, the Danish military is 'superior' to the German.

Could be possible.If denmark had the same Population like Germany they would maybe beat hitler.And if Germany had the same Population like soviet Union, great britain and USA they would have maybe likely win the war.But they hadn t.Thats why they lost.But that doesn t make them an incompetent army.

This 'superior numbers' has been the German general's excuse for bad strategy, failed operations, failed doctrine and organization after 1942. Population and equipment numbers alone do not win battles, let alone wars. It's about strategy and systems design. They could not counter the fact that the allies would quickly eventually build armies as good as them and then better.

The American and British army in its combat operations did not need superior numbers to defeat superior numbers of German defenders. That they did have superior numbers was just a bonus. The Soviets- yes in offensive operations and no in defensive actions.

This 'superior numbers' has been the German general's excuse for bad strategy, failed operations, failed doctrine and organization after 1942. Population and equipment numbers alone do not win battles, let alone wars. It's about strategy and systems design. They could not counter the fact that the allies would quickly eventually build armies as good as them and then better.

Beancounting logic: During the conquest of Denmark, the Danish military suffered 16 casualties and inflicted 200+ on the Germans.

Ergo, the Danish military is 'superior' to the German. Silly, right?

I l guess that denmark just made "bad strategy, failed operations, failed doctrine and organization" thats why they couldn t beat the much bigger Wehrmacht army in 1940.Silly, right?

1. Beancounting logic: During the conquest of Denmark, the Danish military suffered 16 casualties and inflicted 200+ on the Germans.

Ergo, the Danish military is 'superior' to the German. Silly, right?

So the Danish military is 'qualitatively' superior; that they had no ability to conduct offensive operations and got totally defeated is not even considered.

As far as I know it was Germans: 200 KIA and WIA vs Denmark: 36 KIA and WIA. Also it was an part of opertation Operation Weserübung, which K/D favors the Germans.

The German panzer divisions lost their offensive edge at this point even if they conducted offensive operations with local superiority; they were incapable of penetrating soviet units and local reserves into the operational rear even if they outnumbered and outgunned the soviets in the local sector.

"Germans outnumberd and outgunned" This was rarely the case. And what would be the sense of doing so? Pushing into a small section and then getting cut off your other forces, and getting encircled and destroyed ? Even if Germans won at a section of the fornt it was better to move them to support sections of the front that were under presure because of the numerical superiority of the allies, then to rush them deep into enemy lines and to lose them.

This 'superior numbers' has been the German general's excuse for bad strategy, failed operations, failed doctrine and organization after 1942. Population and equipment numbers alone do not win battles, let alone wars. It's about strategy and systems design. They could not counter the fact that the allies would quickly eventually build armies as good as them and then better.

I would say that superior organistion until late of the war allowed them to hold back the allies with their superior numbers and supplys, overall germans pushed thier effective use of tanks to the maximum considering their supplys. Overall I would like to see an example of smarter/more effective system to use their tanks employed by the Soviets. Besides relying on brute for ce of superior numbers.

According to you Germans had superior quality only in 1939/1940/1941. Then you say the Soviets had superior quality couldnt get a K/D ratio in their favor when advancing like the Germans did, also why did it took them so long to beat them?

They could not counter the fact that the allies would quickly eventually outproduce and better supply thier armies.

I think some here are using 'German/Nazi mentality' of tanks rather than the 'Soviet Mentality'. The Germans were obsessed with destroying tanks because they had less of them. Their tanks and even SPGs like Stugs were all very expensive compared to soviet AFV. They however, had a lot more motorized infantry regiments and mechanized infantry battalions than the Soviets. The two militaries were very different in design, function, and strategy.

The Soviets were obsessed with maximizing the number of tanks. They preferred having more tanks instead of more motorized and mechanized infantry. That's why there were so few halftracks in the Red Army and the ones that were there were typically Lend-Lease.

The primary function a Soviet tank in the war was not to fight other tanks, but to destroy German infantry and infantry defenses (including Anti-tank guns with HE). And to advance and help take territory. It was actually the job of the AG companies and regiments (SU-85, SU-100,etc.) of a tank army to hunt down tanks.

Tanks (T-34, T-60, etc.) were like disposable artillery shells of victory for the Soviets. The T-34 had weak soft features but solid 'hard' features (later versions: better repair-ability/ reliability, very long operational range, speed, armor, turret, gun). But it was very cheap, and the opportunity cost of building and fielding one was much lower than a Panzer III.

The Soviets didn't give a damn about tank kill ratios since they have replacement vehicles. Kill ratios is the myopic belief and is what a tank destroyer regiment should concern themselves about. The Soviets care about winning the battle and penetrating the German operational depths, which they were successful at.

In July 1943, the 5th Guards Tank army lost most of their tanks (around 500). Two weeks later, they received several hundred replacement tanks and went on to push the Germans out of the Ukraine.

There should be a command that turns the turret forward.
When you target a vehicle, he should target that vehicle and not concentrate on other targets.
So many times that the turret is in the other direction of the target..
Way to many times that a panther shoots at infantry cause the other tank is out of sight for a second.

This has turned way off topic.

The thread starter said, he wanted stronger Soviet tanks. Point is: On a 1v1 basis German tanks are stronger to their Russian equivalent. Thus Soviets shouldn´t have the "dominant heavy tanks" as he claims.

This has turned way off topic.

The thread starter said, he wanted stronger Soviet tanks. Point is: On a 1v1 basis German tanks are stronger to their Russian equivalent. Thus Soviets shouldn´t have the "dominant heavy tanks" as he claims.

This is why I hate the forum communities for these WW2 games. They're always filled with WW2 enthusiasts who want to reinact WW2 battles and think that balance should be totally based on real life performances, even though their real life performances are completely subjective. It makes no difference in the actual game.

What is important is that the soviet union will be the most armor reliant of the two allied factions and most likely of any future ones as well. With even bigger armor like the kingtiger and jagdtiger soon to come out, the truth is soviet armor is currently completely lacking and they don't have enough non-armor based AT to make up for it.

Which is what relic is doing for the most part. The old AI vs AT balance left no room for other factions. Which is why after the next patch Ostheer won't be the big bad heavy tank faction. Relic wants to even out both the infantry and tanks for the soviets and ostheer, which will make room for the Obercommand's Super Heavies and the Americans infantry based AT.

My guess is next patch we will see things like the T34s do much better at flanking panthers and tigers. IS2 and Tigers will be evenly matched. Overall russian tanks will do much better in tank on tank battles, unlike the current total dominance of germans in the tank aspect of the game.

This is why I hate the forum communities for these WW2 games. They're always filled with WW2 enthusiasts who want to reinact WW2 battles and think that balance should be totally based on real life performances, even though their real life performances are completely subjective. It makes no difference in the actual game.

Someone here posted the statistics on lost tanks already. Turns out Russians lost more tanks. There are sources that claim the 10k StuGs destroyed almost 3 times their amount in vehicle numbers. That´s not subjective, that´s statistics.

Some performance should be represented in this game. If it didn´t matter at all, then we would end up with T-34/76 beating Panthers head on. Or Command Panzer IVs destroying IS-2s single handedly. There has to be some reference point from reality. And that is that German tanks (?magically?) performed better.

I´m not demanding StuGs to beat 3 T-34s on it´s own. Rather Germans should keep their slight armor advantage. A Panther nerf and IS-2 buff won´t turn out good.

Someone here posted the statistics on lost tanks already. Turns out Russians lost more tanks. There are sources that claim the 10k StuGs destroyed almost 3 times their amount in vehicle numbers. That´s not subjective, that´s statistics.

Some performance should be represented in this game. If it didn´t matter at all, then we would end up with T-34/76 beating Panthers head on. Or Command Panzer IVs destroying IS-2s single handedly. There has to be some reference point from reality. And that is that German tanks (?magically?) performed better.

I´m not demanding StuGs to beat 3 T-34s on it´s own. Rather Germans should keep their slight armor advantage. A Panther nerf and IS-2 buff won´t turn out good.

Maybe subjective wasn't the right word, but in real life there is no such thing as health. If a T34 shot into a rear of a tiger it would be done. Health is completely made up by devs and assigned whatever ever value to the unit to fill that role. At the end of the day the tanks in game have the stats they need to fill their roles and trying to go in to the amount of detail that some are going into this forum is useless when discussing balance.

I´m not demanding StuGs to beat 3 T-34s on it´s own. Rather Germans should keep their slight armor advantage. A Panther nerf and IS-2 buff won´t turn out good.

Well, then you're up for a surprise, because germans will loose the late game armor advantage just like soviets lost their early game infantry advantage.

While a T34 might not win head on, 2 of them probably will against a panther. that is just a pure assumption, we'll have to wait and see what patch will bring, but the late game german armor advantage going away for the sake of equal late game is something that is already set in stone.

^THIS

@CardboardTank

It is subjective, because the statistics have to be integrated with their context, cardboard. You and some of the others are myopically focused on one thing and believe in numbers alone without breaking down the drivers of the numbers.

Stugs were organized in batteries and brigades and usually held in Corps (Rifle) or army reserve. They spent most of their time on the Eastern front as defensive tank hunters. This usually entailed traveling through familiar territory and getting in ambush positions. Their kill claims were in excess of the Panzer battalions in the East.

This has little to do with the quality of the vehicles (stug III G obviously were inferior to panzer IV G, H, J, etc.) and more due to the nature of their combat mission.

Let me put it this way: For purposes of the game, the Soviet equipment was overall better except for fire rate, visibility and optics.

I have commented on the official forums that they could give the germans the edge in accuracy, rate of fire, and visibility range.

Well, then you're up for a surprise, because germans will loose the late game armor advantage just like soviets lost their early game infantry advantage.

While a T34 might not win head on, 2 of them probably will against a panther. that is just a pure assumption, we'll have to wait and see what patch will bring, but the late game german armor advantage going away for the sake of equal late game is something that is already set in stone.

I have no problem with 2 T-34s beating a Panther if one is flanking. A Panther kept at range and with the front armor to both T-34s should however win. If the T-34s however go through the frontal armor anyway, the game has totally lost any strategic value. I doubt they would fuck it up that bad.

All we know now is that the anti tank of IS-2 and ISU-152 will go somehow up and that Panthers will get nerfed vet2, which is a lot already. but further buffing T-34s wasn´t announced anywhere afaik.

all i hope to get is
1. An isu-152 buff. Seriously.
2. T-34 flanking speed or something else to make it a viable flanking tank. I mean im not saying that t-34 is bad now. It's just that the t-34 right now is either A- protector of your at GUNS or B : If you went T1 T3 battering ram. It's good for that role, but its just not that fun using it in such a way.