I think it´s ridiculous that the Sherman is remembered as a "death trap" and the T-34 seen as "best tank of the war" by many. Both vehicles offered similar armor protection, armor penetration capabilities in early and late versions, ease of maintenance and were even produced in similar numbers.
But due to sheer propaganda the Sherman is seen as a bad tank, while the T-34 is not. It´s the early Shermans that had a tendency to catch fire. This is what lets a lot of people believe the Sherman was bad. What´s often ignored is that by 1944 this issue was fixed with wet storage making the tank quite safe for WW2 standards.
The ridiculous thing is that compared to the T-34 the Sherman was actually the better tank. It offered way better escape options for the crew, vision, internal layout, accuracy especially on the move, wet storage and was a more solid design in general.
This especially shows with the difference in losses of both vehicles during WW2 (not all due to disastrous Soviet doctrine) or when both vehicles faced each other in Korea.
Yet you see a lot more people - and clowns like the history channel - glorifying the T-34.
Myths of American Armor (food for thought)
2 Oct 2015, 17:56 PM
#61
Posts: 1217
2 Oct 2015, 20:10 PM
#62
Posts: 923
Ultimately though, they are all just pieces of armor.
Popular history (of the TV kind) which unfortunately seems to have a large impact on the histography of the general public always seems to neglect that oh so important training of the crews.
Now I do not dare speak about British or American training, I simply do not have the knowledge.
But looking at the Russian and German methods of training (up to the fall of 1944) the difference is staggering.
Compare the good combat ranges with moving targets at Panzerschule 1 with the haphazard training at the Soviets training regiments and I suspect the "paradox" of the Soviets having quite good tanks but still staggering looses shouldn't come as a surprise.
(Yes there are other factors)
Popular history (of the TV kind) which unfortunately seems to have a large impact on the histography of the general public always seems to neglect that oh so important training of the crews.
Now I do not dare speak about British or American training, I simply do not have the knowledge.
But looking at the Russian and German methods of training (up to the fall of 1944) the difference is staggering.
Compare the good combat ranges with moving targets at Panzerschule 1 with the haphazard training at the Soviets training regiments and I suspect the "paradox" of the Soviets having quite good tanks but still staggering looses shouldn't come as a surprise.
(Yes there are other factors)
Disclaimer: Posts made while drunk should not count against this poster.
2 Oct 2015, 21:23 PM
#63
Posts: 1702
I think it´s ridiculous that the Sherman is remembered as a "death trap" and the T-34 seen as "best tank of the war" by many. Both vehicles offered similar armor protection, armor penetration capabilities in early and late versions, ease of maintenance and were even produced in similar numbers.
But due to sheer propaganda the Sherman is seen as a bad tank, while the T-34 is not. It´s the early Shermans that had a tendency to catch fire. This is what lets a lot of people believe the Sherman was bad. What´s often ignored is that by 1944 this issue was fixed with wet storage making the tank quite safe for WW2 standards.
The ridiculous thing is that compared to the T-34 the Sherman was actually the better tank. It offered way better escape options for the crew, vision, internal layout, accuracy especially on the move, wet storage and was a more solid design in general.
This especially shows with the difference in losses of both vehicles during WW2 (not all due to disastrous Soviet doctrine) or when both vehicles faced each other in Korea.
Yet you see a lot more people - and clowns like the history channel - glorifying the T-34.
How exactly was the sherman superior to the t-34 in terms of vision? Escape options i might agree with, but not with vision.
Late war t-34s had a commanders cupola and a presicope for all crewmembers. That's about as good as you can get. Accuracy? The americans in 1941 said that soviet optics are "the best in the world" and that they have nothing comparable.
You seem to focus on whatever the t-34s shortcomings might be, and seem to ignore that the shermans also had several flaws as well. High profile, and of course the t-34 being wider giving better off road mobility.
And of course it's easier to design a tank when you are completely isolated from the conflict, nobody has any chance of reaching your industries and you can easily fine your tank to suit your needs.
And what "disastrous soviet doctrine" are you talking about? There was nothing disastrous about soviet doctrine, if anything the aplication of it was sometimes iffy. Especially in 1941-42.
2 Oct 2015, 23:09 PM
#64
Posts: 923
And what "disastrous soviet doctrine" are you talking about? There was nothing disastrous about soviet doctrine, if anything the aplication of it was sometimes iffy. Especially in 1941-42.
OFF-TOPIC
Are you perhaps mentioning (at least in part) the soviets changing from having many different types of tanks in their armored formations to doing a more exclusive model? (Not mixing T-34s and KV tanks in the same formation) I came to think of it and I remember reading about it in passing in many books covering aspects of soviet industry or armored warfare, but I have been looking for a more in depth writing on the development on soviet tactical and operational ideas during the war, could you perhaps point me in the right direction?
Disclaimer: Posts made while drunk should not count against this poster.
2 Oct 2015, 23:32 PM
#65
Posts: 1225
And what "disastrous soviet doctrine" are you talking about? There was nothing disastrous about soviet doctrine, if anything the aplication of it was sometimes iffy. Especially in 1941-42.
Äh...Spot the paradoxon, or where is the chicken and where is the egg in that narrative?
Can the poor performance of the RKKA throughout the war be truly attributed to a failure to implement its doctrine properly, or was not rather its doctrine ill suited, arguably even the root cause of its troubles?
Mind you, even when fighting against a depleted, numerically and materially outmatched, even essentially premodern opponent like the mid-late war Wehrmacht, the Soviets kept incurring disastrous casualties and no shortage of operational setbacks which they would have never been able to afford agaisnt a peer opponent. Similar to how they fared against the Finns in 1940 come to think of it.
I don't think the Soviets can be entirely absolved on the doctrinal front given that they had essentially 7 years of interrupted, high-intensity combat (Nomon-han to VE day, or August Storm if you will) to smoothen out questions of "application".
2 Oct 2015, 23:58 PM
#66
Posts: 862
Ultimately though, they are all just pieces of armor.
Popular history (of the TV kind) which unfortunately seems to have a large impact on the histography of the general public always seems to neglect that oh so important training of the crews.
Now I do not dare speak about British or American training, I simply do not have the knowledge.
But looking at the Russian and German methods of training (up to the fall of 1944) the difference is staggering.
Compare the good combat ranges with moving targets at Panzerschule 1 with the haphazard training at the Soviets training regiments and I suspect the "paradox" of the Soviets having quite good tanks but still staggering looses shouldn't come as a surprise.
(Yes there are other factors)
The US troops that landed in Europe were well trained in the use of their vehicles but, for the most part, inexperienced in combat. And the Bocage was not the best place to learn, or for that matter, the place to learn the right lessons. Performance in some units no doubt suffered from attrition combined with the resupply doctrine of sending single available troops willy nilly to undermanned frontline units. But the trained troops, with experience, were certainly a formidable force, as were any reinforcements that survived their early combat experiences.
The Wehrmacht had a different reinforcement strategy. Whole new units were created and sent to the front. I believe their performance and readiness suffered greatly regardless of the bright, shiny, new pieces of Krupp steel uber machines. At Arracourt US armored forces soundly defeated new German formations equipped with Panthers.
3 Oct 2015, 00:31 AM
#67
Posts: 1225
Avny, the Arracourt engagement is certainly not a suitable benchmark to measure reinforcement strategies. You might want to read up on the two Panzerbrigaden in question. In fact, I don't think Arracourt illustrates much of anything, apart from the fact that formations that can barely operate their vehicles individually, let alone fight as a unit are not up to the task of mounting an impromptu attack in limited visibility.
Seriously, if you want to read up on US vs German reinforcement policies etc, I'd recommend you take a look at van Crevelds oldie but goldie "Fighting power". Not that I exactly agree with all his conclusions mind you, but its a good introduction.
In fact, I don't think Arracourt illustrates much of anything, apart from the fact that formations that can barely operate their vehicles individually, let alone fight as a unit are not up to the task of mounting an impromptu attack in limited visibility.Seriously, if you want to read up on US vs German reinforcement policies etc, I'd recommend you take a look at van Crevelds oldie but goldie "Fighting power". Not that I exactly agree with all his conclusions mind you, but its a good introduction.
3 Oct 2015, 00:38 AM
#68
Posts: 862
Avny, the Arracourt engagement is certainly not a suitable benchmark to measure reinforcement strategies. You might want to read up on the two Panzerbrigaden in question.
Seriously, if you want to read up on US vs German reinforcement policies etc, I'd recommend you take a look at van Crevelds oldie but goldie "Fighting power". Not that I exactly agree with all his conclusions mind you, but its a good introduction.
I was responding to training.... Arracourt illustrates that it isn't about the kit, but about the crews.
Though on other forums I always liked the "apologists" for German performance in that battle ("well the US had CAS", "the germans were in disarray and not well supplied".) War is not meant to be fair. Much allied effort and materiele went into ensuring that if combat engagements happened they would as unfair in their favor as possible.
3 Oct 2015, 01:06 AM
#69
Posts: 1225
Hm. In the context of these internet forum pissing contests, I see alot of people falling into ex-post circular reasoning concerning ie. the merits of the respective training/reinforcement practices. The simple fact is that if any given side - in this particular case the Allies - holds all the quantifiable advantages, it is obviously far easier for them to engage arrangements in their favour than it is for their opponents in the first place, the overarching point being:
Success in an asymetric contest is never by itself an indicator of superior performance - performance is relative and has to be assessed through a third (fourth, fifth) metric.
To take an extreme example, the Soviet Union won the Winter War, yet did the RKKA outperform the Finnish army?
Success in an asymetric contest is never by itself an indicator of superior performance - performance is relative and has to be assessed through a third (fourth, fifth) metric.
To take an extreme example, the Soviet Union won the Winter War, yet did the RKKA outperform the Finnish army?
3 Oct 2015, 04:33 AM
#70
Posts: 308
I'm not entirely sure what the actual 'myths' are at this point, because everyone seems to have a certain version of it.
Is the Myth;
1) 3/4/5/6/...x more Shermans than Panthers were lost in WW2? OR
2) It took 3/4/5/6...x shermans to be as good as 1 Panther.
These two are very different statements, and depending on which one you address, you need to bring forth different arguments.
For example:
1) A Kar98 Rifle was 4x better than an M1 Garand.
2) Soldiers using Kar 98 Rifles suffered 4x less casualties than soldiers using the M1 Garand
Proof: Entire Casualties of Fantasy War 2, where German Soldiers lost 200 men and US forces lost 800 men.
Is the Myth;
1) 3/4/5/6/...x more Shermans than Panthers were lost in WW2? OR
2) It took 3/4/5/6...x shermans to be as good as 1 Panther.
These two are very different statements, and depending on which one you address, you need to bring forth different arguments.
For example:
1) A Kar98 Rifle was 4x better than an M1 Garand.
2) Soldiers using Kar 98 Rifles suffered 4x less casualties than soldiers using the M1 Garand
Proof: Entire Casualties of Fantasy War 2, where German Soldiers lost 200 men and US forces lost 800 men.
3 Oct 2015, 07:04 AM
#71
Posts: 275 | Subs: 1
Not every Wehrmacht or SS soldier was the definition of pure evil. If people still can't see that nowadays,I don't know what to tell them
Of course not every. But it is not important. Non-resistance to evil is, aiding the evil.
Also, during the Cold War, not the entire Soviet people were members of the party. And not all supported the party. Regardless of this, the West called all the crowd - commies. Hell, somewhere in the Internet, I saw someone keeps calling us commies even now.
I think it´s ridiculous that the Sherman is remembered as a "death trap" and the T-34 seen as "best tank of the war" by many.
In fact, everything is simple.
Firstly, timing. In short: when the Germans faced the T-34, they had craptanks, when the Germans faced the M4, they had wundertanks.
Long story
Secondly, the glorification was profitable. Oddly enough, for everyone.
In short: exNazzi have justification for their defeat, USA have a reason for abandoning the M4 and funding programs M26 and etc. And the Soviet people have their pride of the winner. Including the construction of tanks. All happy.
Long story
Victory needs no explanation, defeat allows none
3 Oct 2015, 08:16 AM
#72
Posts: 1702
Äh...Spot the paradoxon, or where is the chicken and where is the egg in that narrative?
Can the poor performance of the RKKA throughout the war be truly attributed to a failure to implement its doctrine properly, or was not rather its doctrine ill suited, arguably even the root cause of its troubles?
Mind you, even when fighting against a depleted, numerically and materially outmatched, even essentially premodern opponent like the mid-late war Wehrmacht, the Soviets kept incurring disastrous casualties and no shortage of operational setbacks which they would have never been able to afford agaisnt a peer opponent. Similar to how they fared against the Finns in 1940 come to think of it.
I don't think the Soviets can be entirely absolved on the doctrinal front given that they had essentially 7 years of interrupted, high-intensity combat (Nomon-han to VE day, or August Storm if you will) to smoothen out questions of "application".
What do you mean by disastrous soviet casaulties in the later years of the war? As far as i'm aware during 44-45 the casaulties of the soviets did not exceed the casaulties of the wehrmacht, And in 1943 the casaulties were not really "disastrous" either. Even if the soviets did suffer higher casaulties, they were able to sustain them much better than the wehrmacht.
The most reliable data is 8.7 millitary deaths of the soviets vs 5.2 million deaths of all axis forces on the eastern front. Hardly disastrous, IMO.
The casaulties in 1941-42 were of course horrible, but so were the casaulties for the wehrmacht in 45.
And even with all the shortcomings of soviet doctrine, i dont think its fair at all to call it disastrous... Especially compared to the performance of allied armies in 1940 during the invasion of france, or the performace of the british in the south eastern theatre.
3 Oct 2015, 08:39 AM
#73
Posts: 334
Hmm you would have to take into account the sheer number of armour fielded on the Eastern Front compared to the Western Front for an accurate comparison. Only approx. 15% of German panzer divisions were deployed in the West at any given time. I've read that airtrikes accounted only for about 8% of armour "kills" in the Western Front, with the kills claimed by the flyboys grossly over-exaggerated. Artillery fire, funnily enough, apparently accounted for around 10%. American ground-based AT accounted for the rest which proves that it was more than capable. But like I said, only around 15% of panzer divisions were deployed on the Western Front at any given time anyway.
3 Oct 2015, 08:45 AM
#74
Posts: 473
Permanently Banned
Of course not every. But it is not important. Non-resistance to evil is, aiding the evil.
Agreed. But this goes both ways. British forces, American Forces, Japanese Forces and Russian forces all committed war crimes. Just because some of them won the war, doesn't mean that their actions weren't aiding any kind of evil
Whenever I face USF as OKW, it feels like I have been strapped down into a mental hospital wheelchair, with legs that can't reach the floor to move myself forward and a nurse is trying to move the wheelchair backwards whilst I have to race a formula one car for a best of three laps.
It feels handicapped from the start
No thumbs, cute and a lot of furry fluffiness, I am the ultimate kitten and by the heavens, am I angry!
It feels handicapped from the start
No thumbs, cute and a lot of furry fluffiness, I am the ultimate kitten and by the heavens, am I angry!
3 Oct 2015, 09:19 AM
#75
Posts: 275 | Subs: 1
Agreed. But this goes both ways. British forces, American Forces, Japanese Forces and Russian forces all committed war crimes. Just because some of them won the war, doesn't mean that their actions weren't aiding any kind of evil
Just wars happen, but just troops not.
Soviet military for robbery, rape and murder of civilians found themselves at the tribunal and had been executed. As far as I know, the Allies had a similar system, but in this area I am not strong.
Japanese Forces & Wehrmacht/SS not seen in Chinese, jews or Soviet people - humans. And not punished for war crimes against them. Because for them it was not a crime. Kill the pig is not a crime. For the Nazis, subhuman where they recorded their opponents were no better than pigs.
This is the reason for which Japanese killed millions of Chinese, as well as the Germans killed millions of Soviet civilians and Jews. While the Japanese have lost ~ 700K civilians and Germans lost ~ 1,5kk civilians. The figures are very revealing. Same with prisoners of war.
Victory needs no explanation, defeat allows none
3 Oct 2015, 11:25 AM
#76
Posts: 473
Permanently Banned
Just wars happen, but just troops not.
Soviet military for robbery, rape and murder of civilians found themselves at the tribunal and had been executed. As far as I know, the Allies had a similar system, but in this area I am not strong.
Japanese Forces & Wehrmacht/SS not seen in Chinese, jews or Soviet people - humans. And not punished for war crimes against them. Because for them it was not a crime. Kill the pig is not a crime. For the Nazis, subhuman where they recorded their opponents were no better than pigs.
This is the reason for which Japanese killed millions of Chinese, as well as the Germans killed millions of Soviet civilians and Jews. While the Japanese have lost ~ 700K civilians and Germans lost ~ 1,5kk civilians. The figures are very revealing. Same with prisoners of war.
You are going pretty offtopic here, but okey here we go.
Uhm you do understand that Stalin murdered a couple of million of his own people before WW2 even happened? You do realise that Stalin invaded Poland together with Nazi Germany? You do realize that British forces and American forces raped and plundered and murdered innocents as well, but that we are not taught those things because they won the war? Heck even in the Vietnam war some American soldiers murdered civilians. Does this make every US soldier that fought in the Vietnam war a ruthless killer? No it doesn't.
What are you aiming for? That every German soldier was a nazi and thought of every Russian and Jew as Untermenschen? I think you have watched to many biased documentaries. There is a famous one called "dogfights" in which famous American air battles are portrayed. In the entirety of that series, I have never seen an American plane get shot down xd, because it was bullshit propaganda. The same goes with a lot of "historic facts" about every German soldier being a nazi and killing children whilst drinking the blood of jews and burning their livers in satanic rituals. Don't believe everything you see, especially from the current History and Discovery channel.
@mods, could you please watch this guy? He seems to be a bit out of grip with reality and pretty hateful.
Whenever I face USF as OKW, it feels like I have been strapped down into a mental hospital wheelchair, with legs that can't reach the floor to move myself forward and a nurse is trying to move the wheelchair backwards whilst I have to race a formula one car for a best of three laps.
It feels handicapped from the start
No thumbs, cute and a lot of furry fluffiness, I am the ultimate kitten and by the heavens, am I angry!
It feels handicapped from the start
No thumbs, cute and a lot of furry fluffiness, I am the ultimate kitten and by the heavens, am I angry!
3 Oct 2015, 11:29 AM
#77
Posts: 473
Permanently Banned
What do you mean by disastrous soviet casaulties in the later years of the war? As far as i'm aware during 44-45 the casaulties of the soviets did not exceed the casaulties of the wehrmacht, And in 1943 the casaulties were not really "disastrous" either. Even if the soviets did suffer higher casaulties, they were able to sustain them much better than the wehrmacht.
The most reliable data is 8.7 millitary deaths of the soviets vs 5.2 million deaths of all axis forces on the eastern front. Hardly disastrous, IMO.
The casaulties in 1941-42 were of course horrible, but so were the casaulties for the wehrmacht in 45.
And even with all the shortcomings of soviet doctrine, i dont think its fair at all to call it disastrous... Especially compared to the performance of allied armies in 1940 during the invasion of france, or the performace of the british in the south eastern theatre.
Agreed, people also forget the disastrous loss of live during the 1944 summer offensive "Bagration". Army group center, the equivalent of 3 Russian front sectors, was completely destroyed. People never seem to come to a discussion with this information.
Whenever I face USF as OKW, it feels like I have been strapped down into a mental hospital wheelchair, with legs that can't reach the floor to move myself forward and a nurse is trying to move the wheelchair backwards whilst I have to race a formula one car for a best of three laps.
It feels handicapped from the start
No thumbs, cute and a lot of furry fluffiness, I am the ultimate kitten and by the heavens, am I angry!
It feels handicapped from the start
No thumbs, cute and a lot of furry fluffiness, I am the ultimate kitten and by the heavens, am I angry!
3 Oct 2015, 12:41 PM
#78
Posts: 275 | Subs: 1
You are going pretty offtopic here, but okey here we go.
You're right
@mods, could you please watch this guy? He seems to be a bit out of grip with reality and pretty hateful.
You are so kind (in fact, no
)P.S. In a way, sorry to disappoint you, but I do not hate, Germany, Germans and even the Nazis. It is foolish to hate those who died long ago. And modern Germany, well, of course it again gathered around a united Europe but thankfully slightly different from the old ways.
Victory needs no explanation, defeat allows none
3 Oct 2015, 19:02 PM
#79
Posts: 1225
What do you mean by disastrous soviet casaulties in the later years of the war? As far as i'm aware during 44-45 the casaulties of the soviets did not exceed the casaulties of the wehrmacht, And in 1943 the casaulties were not really "disastrous" either. Even if the soviets did suffer higher casaulties, they were able to sustain them much better than the wehrmacht.
The most reliable data is 8.7 millitary deaths of the soviets vs 5.2 million deaths of all axis forces on the eastern front. Hardly disastrous, IMO.
The casaulties in 1941-42 were of course horrible, but so were the casaulties for the wehrmacht in 45.
And even with all the shortcomings of soviet doctrine, i dont think its fair at all to call it disastrous... Especially compared to the performance of allied armies in 1940 during the invasion of france, or the performace of the british in the south eastern theatre.
[/quote
Burts, I usually don't like arguments ad auctoritatem, but I am tired, slightly tipsy and and in a foul mood and don't want to repeat the same stuff all over on the internet, so trust me here: (or don't, your call)
Your numbers are all off, and so is your narrative. For starters, owing to the breakdown of their respective reporting channels, we have no reliable data on German casualties in 1945, and the same essentially applies to the Soviet losses in 1941. I could go on for years on end of problems of inclusion, methodology, Heeresarzt, Krivosheev, blabla. I might add that more recent research ie. by Mikhailev or Glantz puts Soviet military deaths in the vicinity of 11 and 14 millions respectively. However, to consider solely KIA or more broadly deaths is meaningless in a military context anyways. Anyways I digress.
But be that as it may, we can fairly accurately establish casualty exchange ratios for 42-44. Even if we solely consider the year the Germans fared worst (1944) and, with Op. Bagration suffered their worst defeat at the hand of the Soviets, the Germans and their Allies still inflicted more than twice the casualties that they suffered despite the fact that the Wehrmacht had effectively ceased to be a modern military. Heck, even during Bagration itself, despite a ridiculously lopsided force ratio, despite archieving a strategic breakthrough the Soviets suffered worse casualties than the Wehrmacht. In fact is is supremely unlikely that Soviet casualties in the last two years of the war did not exceed those of their antagonists and by quite a margin at that. Of course, casualty exchange rates are not the end all of military conflict. However, if this is considered to be a validation of Soviet doctrine then I don't know. Anyways, I am really in a fould mood and should stop posting. If you're really interested in the matter I can expound on this in PM or point you to literature.
4 Oct 2015, 23:39 PM
#80
Posts: 1571
What I'm really fatigued of is the whole dick measuring contest caused by professional sports (lol.) and the scattershot nature of the literature- I find that people's conceptions based generally based around theorycrafting/biases (pro-allied or axis, their own biases or the authors) as people use the same sources they downloaded from the internet..there are entire forums of tank heads that are so narrowly focused on armor and generalized sources that it resembles autism to me.
The whole 'Duel' series is an attempt to profit off of this, and is rather patronizing.
Zaloga, for instance, has an rather attritionist (as opposed to, systematic) mindset in his thinking and this leads to many questionable conclusions. His chapters about the Eastern Front in his 'top tanks' are pretty bad and blatantly shows that he is not well read on the subject.
Certain things like war experience cannot be easy theorized- eventually one has to get down to reading EVERYTHING operational on the subject in order to get general opinion statements and even these are liable to change as new things are read. It actually defies the theories being tossed around by Osprey & co.. about kill ratios, operational readiness, and such.
Roughly speaking, the Panther was around 20-25% in 1.PzA, 4.PzA during the defeats in the Ukraine 1943/44. The Tiger Is in the two armies were not much better. PzIV were @ ~45% and Stug were @ 55%.
The whole 'Duel' series is an attempt to profit off of this, and is rather patronizing.
Zaloga, for instance, has an rather attritionist (as opposed to, systematic) mindset in his thinking and this leads to many questionable conclusions. His chapters about the Eastern Front in his 'top tanks' are pretty bad and blatantly shows that he is not well read on the subject.
Certain things like war experience cannot be easy theorized- eventually one has to get down to reading EVERYTHING operational on the subject in order to get general opinion statements and even these are liable to change as new things are read. It actually defies the theories being tossed around by Osprey & co.. about kill ratios, operational readiness, and such.
Frankly, by way of NARA, its been available even a good deal earlier. If people had taken the time to actually read up on the Panzerlage, they would have seen that the Panther was not on average less (or more) reliable than either the Tiger or the PIV after the teething issues had been worked out.
In general, its quite astounding just how underused (or selectively used) even the completely open German archives still are even in Western historiography, not to mention just about everything that came out of the Soviet Union/Russia until not long ago.
Roughly speaking, the Panther was around 20-25% in 1.PzA, 4.PzA during the defeats in the Ukraine 1943/44. The Tiger Is in the two armies were not much better. PzIV were @ ~45% and Stug were @ 55%.
1 user is browsing this thread:
1 guest
Ladders Top 10
-
#Steam AliasWL%Streak
- 1.655231.739+15
- 2.842223.791+5
- 3.940410.696+6
- 4.35459.857-1
- 5.599234.719+7
- 6.278108.720+29
- 7.307114.729+3
- 8.645.928+5
- 9.10629.785+7
- 10.527.881+18
Data provided by
Relic Entertainment
Relic Entertainment
Replay highlight
VS
-
cblanco ★ -
보드카 중대
-
VonManteuffel -
Heartless Jäger
Einhoven Country
Honor it
11
Download
1265
Board Info
810 users are online:
810 guests
2 posts in the last 24h
10 posts in the last week
28 posts in the last month
10 posts in the last week
28 posts in the last month
Registered members: 50015
Welcome our newest member, MaddisondfBurgess
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM
Welcome our newest member, MaddisondfBurgess
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM