Why such a short range of IS2?!

Reread your own links.

Germany total =! germany on eastern front.

They were hopelessly outnumbered on eastern front.
And it doesn't just account for P4s and up, but P3s, P2s and others, while soviets were just pumping more and more T34s.

Tanks were not the main-problem at Ostfront. It was artillery and numbers of soviet infantry.

Even if Germany had more tanks, where wouldn't be such a difference.

Tanks were not the main-problem at Ostfront. It was artillery and numbers of soviet infantry.

Even if Germany had more tanks, where wouldn't be such a difference.

Could have made a difference in October 1941

Could have made a difference in October 1941

Same for more Opel Bliz, would been better. lol

Historically Tigers outranged SU85s. And the Soviet Union probably had 4 conscripts squad vs 1 Grenadier squad.

People also die when you shoot them once, instead of when you shoot them with a light machine gun 20 times. Tanks often get destroyed by one penetrating shot. Tanks had more than 40 meters of range. Even a Kubel could drive over someone and kill him, but we can all imagine how BS it'd be if Kubel had crush.

Stop obsessing over "historical accuracy" and learn to play the game.

My favorite "historically" argument is that the zis-3 had a range of over 13km while the lefh18 was capped at just a smudge over 10km.

I advocate for a zis barrage range buff to halfway between the lefh18 and ml20 for accuracy sake.

At Ostfront also more German tanks got destroyed by their crew than from soviets. löl

This is even more true of the western front, If I recall correctly, 90% of German heavy tanks on the western front were destroyed by their own crews. After running out of fuel, they were dug in as part of immobile Stützpunkt, ersatz sperrverband, or festungskompanie, fulfilling the role of emplacements until they were out of ammo, which they were then decommissioned by their own crew.

There was also 1 german tank for 20+ soviet ones and many of these German tanks didn't even made it to the front line before running out of fuel or just breaking down.

Once Soviets launched counter offensive, eastern front germans were just a shadow of their early war power.

The main issue with German heavy tanks, was in the winter, the wheel set-up would have mud freeze between the wheels at night, which were not easily accessible, to work on one wheel you have to remove 5. The transmission was a secondary issue, which was actually reliable, issues mainly arise from a lack of spare parts or equipment to provide field maintenance.

That's true. German tactics were mainly infanrty and PaK coop, the hole war. Soviets won war because of artillery, not because of tanks.

Untrue, both soviet artillery and tactical air support was ineffective(their strategic bombing was effective), this is frequently stated by veterans of both sides (anecdotal), soviets frequently missed bunkers and emplacements with both, if they were out of direct sight of the artillery.

Assault guns and Infantry did the heavy lifting for the soviet forces post 1943.

Assault guns and Infantry did the heavy lifting for the soviet forces post 1943.

Where is that untrue?

As German definition also assault guns are part of Artillery.

And yes, it was mainly infantry and artillery.

Also bombing, an advanced form of artillery. But most battles soviets won were because of destroying defense-structures by indirect fire.

Where is that untrue?

As German definition also assault guns are part of Artillery.

And yes, it was mainly infantry and artillery.

Also bombing, an advanced form of artillery. But most battles soviets won were because of destroying defense-structures by indirect fire.

Not to mention the mass strategic/tactical bombing from ILL-2.It was the most produce plane throughout the war isn't it?

Not to mention the mass strategic/tactical bombing from ILL-2.It was the most produce plane throughout the war isn't it?

I’ve realised I know nothing about Soviet strategic bombing during the war - did they even do this? I imagined that until late war the distances would have made it unviable to attack Germany proper and only viable reachable targets would have been their own occupied cities

I’ve realised I know nothing about Soviet strategic bombing during the war - did they even do this? I imagined that until late war the distances would have made it unviable to attack Germany proper and only viable reachable targets would have been their own occupied cities

The Soviet IL-4 bombers began the bombing of Berlin as early as August 7, 1941, the operation ended on September 5, 1941. 70 bombers were involved, 17 aircraft were lost.

Despite the fact that the bombing did not inflict significant military damage on Germany, it had an important psychological effect.
Until September 5, Soviet pilots made nine raids on Berlin, making a total of 86 sorties. 33 planes bombed Berlin, dropping 21 tons of bombs on it and causing 32 fires in the city. 37 aircraft could not reach the capital of Germany and struck at other cities. In total, 311 high-explosive and incendiary bombs with a total weight of 36,050 kg were spent. For various reasons, 16 aircraft were forced to interrupt the flight and return to the airfield.

After the abandonment of Tallinn and the Moonsund Archipelago, flights to Berlin had to be stopped.

On August 8, the German radio broadcast the message:

“On the night of August 7 to 8, large British air forces, in the amount of 150 aircraft, tried to bomb our capital ... Of the 15 aircraft that broke through to the city, 9 were shot down. "

In response, the BBC reported:

“The German report about the bombing of Berlin is interesting and mysterious, since on August 7-8, British aircraft did not fly over Berlin. "

Seems interesting. Germans didn't believe that soviets would force to bomb Berlin that early, because Soviets had larger troubles and targets than bombing Berlin.

...

Their tactics were really primitiv, but worked.

Mostly like WW1 battles + good support.

There are some good videos analyzing the eastern-front. And when you see how Germans won battle after battle, and even counterd some counter-attacks without having any chance on paper, you see the the soviet in an other light. Even Stalingrad wasn't that huge victory. But Germans weren't able to compensate.

Germans had one huge tactic disadvantage (beside no fuel, no winter-textil, no ammunition and or food) it was artillery support. They were unable to counter soviets artillery, and Soviets knew that.

Udssr mainly put their production priorities in Mortar and Artillery production. To destroying german lines (didn't worked well, but one dead PaK and crew can mean 5 T34 losses less, means infantry can attack trenches in cover, means MGs were useless means Germans had no chance). Also T34 were made for one battle, after that their engine was defect.

The real heroes of Eastern-front were German PaK crews and HMG supporters.

Edit: Kursk and other Soviet tank-victories were made, because Germans tried soviet tactics. PaKs and HMGs, Germans run into them + bad use of own material.

Their tactics were really primitiv, but worked.

Mostly like WW1 battles + good support.

There are some good videos analyzing the eastern-front. And when you see how Germans won battle after battle, and even counterd some counter-attacks without having any chance on paper, you see the the soviet in an other light. Even Stalingrad wasn't that huge victory. But Germans weren't able to compensate.

Germans had one huge tactic disadvantage (beside no fuel, no winter-textil, no ammunition and or food) it was artillery support. They were unable to counter soviets artillery, and Soviets knew that.

Udssr mainly put their production priorities in Mortar and Artillery production. To destroying german lines (didn't worked well, but one dead PaK and crew can mean 5 T34 losses less, means infantry can attack trenches in cover, means MGs were useless means Germans had no chance). Also T34 were made for one battle, after that their engine was defect.

The real heroes of Eastern-front were German PaK crews and HMG supporters.

Edit: Kursk and other Soviet tank-victories were made, because Germans tried soviet tactics. PaKs and HMGs, Germans run into them + bad use of own material.

I imagine for the first couple of years this is true but by Bagration I think the Soviets were all singing all dancing combined arms, armoured manouveur with close air support masters. Artillery is great on static lines but not so useful in fast moving offensives

I imagine for the first couple of years this is true but by Bagration I think the Soviets were all singing all dancing combined arms, armoured manouveur with close air support masters

Since D-Day war was over. Would be interesting how long war would gone if all that material were at Ostfront. Where it was made for.

Edit: And yes, Soviets learned from Germans, very well.