Profile of Brachiaraidos

Which is the essence of a "troll poll" or a biased poll as i put it.

It´s handpicked options from that guy, not even giving the option "other units" to eventually lead to the impression the handpicked units are the only ones underpowered. What´s even more suspicious is that the units are almost exclusively Allied units. Then a random Axis unit was put as an option to - that´s at least my impression - give an excuse to not being biased.

This is manipulation of the most primitive kind.

Other units is what this huge, open discussion box below is all about.

I've not had any axis units provided for the poll that I've missed. Most of them have been fixed, and the rest are buildables that I didn't include (looking at you, 2cm Flack and your fuel cost).

OST T4 is only bad because of price of entry which only really affects 1v1, and no other axis unit I know of is quite as useless as any of the above options.

Feel free to provide examples, though.

It's hardly my fault that the soviets have so many doctrinal units that are about as scary as a wet rag. Nor does it mean that soviets are UP. Just that they currently have the worst of the worst.

These units are not that bad. They are just not used a lot because there are better options....

'They're not bad, just everything else is better'

Odd metric to use.

Honourable Mentions to the previous incarnation of the American Mortar HT, the long standing states of the Pack Howitzer and LeiG, Flack Emplacements, soviet light AT mines & tank traps.

We're talking about the units here, so no whining about the cost of Ost T4 being prohibitive (we know).

Anything you reckon has been missed from the glorious list of irrelevance?

He didn't say it was munitions-free. Stop throwing straw men.

And show me a replay where scripts get "shredded" by MG42s. They lose a model or two in 99% of cases just as grens do vs a Maxim.

The emotional nature of your post betrays your bias. "vet2 grens laughing". Sheesh.

Bias? What bias?

It's a completely different set of scenarios in comparison and I had a little bit of a giggle about it.

Cons have to get to point blank to throw molotovs and they're generally about as effective as a warm bath because flame crits are silly. If the MG is spotted for and not set up stupidly they'll have to do the last third of that distance crawling. It's a painful experience.


Grens have to travel about three feet into the range of the maxim to fire off their nade at vet 2 because it has a huge range. Odds are they'll lose zero models doing that, one at worst.


There is genuinely no comparison. It's not a matter of bias, it's a matter of me being amused by the blatant, glaring disparity between the two examples.


Rifle nades are stupid good.

People harping about axis armour superiority always make me chuckle.

'Yeah sure the Pz III was trash and the IV was undergunned at the point in time it had to try and kill the T-34 and KV-1 but.. but.. they could LOOK at the KV-1 real hard!'

Oh boy, whoop de doo.

And then 'OMG tigerz and panthaz!'

Yeah, Tigers and Panthers existed. So did King Tigers. None of them were impervious, and more important, they were the vast minority of armoured vehicles in the war. A large part of the reason the soviet war industry focused on producing T-34's rather than trying to have all their factories churn out IS2's and their ilk is that, believe it or not, heavy tanks are an impressive sight but generally a huge waste of time, money and resources. There is a very, very good reason we don't have lumbering behemoths any more. They're hard to use, expensive, unreliable, slow, and vulnerable to absolutely every form of AT going. Including but not limited to static guns (massive target), air support (massive, slow target), handheld at (huge investment, still useless is tracked), etc. etc. etc.

Less than 2000 tiger I & 2 tanks were produced throughout the war. For a similar price, 30,000 T-34-85's were produced brand new, with the '76 hull being put to use elsewhere or retrofitted.

You cannot claim armored superiority when your 'superior' tanks are outnumbered 10 to 1 by tanks prefectly capable of ruining your day, especially considering the introduction of APCR/APHEBC/HVAP rounds that made the heavier armour increasingly obsolete.

Bluntly put, the Axis did not win the war on any front because of 'Armour Superiority', and anybody that thinks they did clearly wants to imagine a fantasy world where all the enormous problems with heavy tank design that killed them off as a concept over the years after WWII didn't exist.

And the panther didn't have 40mm of side armour.

What they did have was a generally higher production quality- but not good enough to overcome the over engineering of german designs in their bigger cats. So both germans and russians had huge losses of vehicles to mechanical failure for wholly different reasons. What they did have was a generally better trained army. What they did have was a better command chain (funny that purging all your qualified leaders means your leadership is a bit sketchy, huh, Stalin?)

What they had was a war machine that wasted huge, huge amounts of time and money on big white Elephants (/cats).

Which, to be fair, so did the soviets. But the soviets were churning out the T-34-85 as their main battle tank in the late days of the war, which frankly was just better all around then the axis equivalents- the StuG's and PzIV's.