Jump to content


historically accurate?


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
155 replies to this topic

sempah #41 Posted May 10 2013 - 17:51

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 16770 battles
  • 847
  • [POTT] POTT
  • Member since:
    08-30-2011

View Postprudent, on May 10 2013 - 08:54, said:

was it historically accurate german tanks would just light up on fire...

so annoying how constant it is

ok first start with this game isnt about historical accuracy, if it was we would lose 1/2 the tanks because they never existed.  second I play german tanks and they dont just light up on fire with every round I receive.

Gohibniu #42 Posted May 10 2013 - 18:00

    Major

  • Players
  • 40211 battles
  • 4,642
  • [BR4WL] BR4WL
  • Member since:
    11-17-2011

View PostDropkickmurphey, on May 10 2013 - 11:50, said:

Shermans should be the ones lighting up more in this game...hence the name "Tommycookers"..but I don't see a whole lot of them burning up.

War records show German tanks burning as much as allied ones.

Gohibniu #43 Posted May 10 2013 - 18:02

    Major

  • Players
  • 40211 battles
  • 4,642
  • [BR4WL] BR4WL
  • Member since:
    11-17-2011

View PostAlphabloom, on May 10 2013 - 10:50, said:

remember historically not much could pen the tiger tank (only effective anti tiger was the 17 pounder (i would want to include tanks such as the panther but im not sure how great the armour was) ) so it's unlikely you would fine a lot of accounts of the tanks catching on fire as they needed to be pen'd 1st

US 76mm could pen Tiger at combat ranges. Tiger only had 4inches of unsloped armor. Craptastic design.

Donk3y #44 Posted May 10 2013 - 19:03

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 13292 battles
  • 33
  • Member since:
    09-07-2011
Actually, combat range for Tiger was about 1400 meters, Sherman was about half of that. Several accounts of tigers engaging and killing whole company's of tanks (4-5 against 20+) and killing them all. The British firefly(Sherman with better gun) only faired slightly better. Infantry and air support was a tigers worst enemy till much later in the war. Plenty of news film from the era on YouTube to back this up.

Oglaigh_nah_hEireann #45 Posted May 10 2013 - 19:08

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 354 battles
  • 631
  • Member since:
    03-05-2013
Historical accuracy only applies when they want to nerf germans (E-50&E-50M depression nerfs for the canon clipping the viewport, while all other countries do the same and were to be untouched)

That said, when historical accuracy can be applied to germans in a positive way (that they didnt burn from transmission hits) they throw that out the window and tell you its not a simulation.


To sum it up, when nerfing germans, historical accuracy is a go.. when HA could lead to german buffs, the game is arcade not a sim... when HA applies in a positive way to russians, its a go.. when HA could lead to russian nerfs (T-50-2 top speed 25kph IRL, 140kph in game) they say its arcade and not a sim.


To sum it up in 2 words, Russian Bias.

Oglaigh_nah_hEireann #46 Posted May 10 2013 - 19:09

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 354 battles
  • 631
  • Member since:
    03-05-2013

View PostGohibniu, on May 10 2013 - 18:02, said:

US 76mm could pen Tiger at combat ranges. Tiger only had 4inches of unsloped armor. Craptastic design.

point blank 0 angle if you were lucky... all records show to be effective it needed to flank the sides or rear.... or to take out the tracks and disable it for lack of an ability to even pen it.

Also its common knowledge 100mm of german steel is actually more like 120mm+.. and less common knowledge that russian steel was opposite and made of garbage.

100=80 for them pretty much.. they couldnt even weld the IS's seams togeather... massive gaps between them lol that wouldnt hold for crap.

Edited by Oglaigh_nah_hEireann, May 10 2013 - 19:10.


therowman #47 Posted May 10 2013 - 19:38

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 9895 battles
  • 5,663
  • Member since:
    01-14-2011

View Post1SLUGGO1, on May 10 2013 - 15:46, said:

That looks like an ammo fire, notice the jet-plume out of the turret.  Gasoline does not do that, ammo does.  There is a real-life video around the web (cant find it, everything is about WOT) showing a T-series tank doing the same thing, which is clearly from an ammo hit.

Usually a fire in a tank would light ammo up as well.

EnsignExpendable #48 Posted May 10 2013 - 20:06

    Major

  • Players
  • 23210 battles
  • 15,183
  • [PBKAC] PBKAC
  • Member since:
    04-22-2011

View PostDonk3y, on May 10 2013 - 19:03, said:

Actually, combat range for Tiger was about 1400 meters, Sherman was about half of that. Several accounts of tigers engaging and killing whole company's of tanks (4-5 against 20+) and killing them all. The British firefly(Sherman with better gun) only faired slightly better. Infantry and air support was a tigers worst enemy till much later in the war. Plenty of news film from the era on YouTube to back this up.

I can't tell if you lack reading comprehension or literacy.

Here are some guns that have zero problems with the Tiger.
Soviet 85 mm AA gun (SU-85, T-34-85)
British 6-pounder (Churchill, Valentine)
American 75 (Sherman, Lee)
Soviet 45 mm with APCR (T-70, T-26, BT-7)
Blum AT rifle and Soviet AT grenades

I don't have an article for the ZiS-2 yet, but guess what? That could penetrate a Tiger at 1000 meters.

Even the Germans weren't as sure of their invincibility as you seem to be, and it shows in their application of Tiger tanks.


View PostOglaigh_nah_hEireann, on May 10 2013 - 19:08, said:

Historical accuracy only applies when they want to nerf germans (E-50&E-50M depression nerfs for the canon clipping the viewport, while all other countries do the same and were to be untouched)

That said, when historical accuracy can be applied to germans in a positive way (that they didnt burn from transmission hits) they throw that out the window and tell you its not a simulation.


To sum it up, when nerfing germans, historical accuracy is a go.. when HA could lead to german buffs, the game is arcade not a sim... when HA applies in a positive way to russians, its a go.. when HA could lead to russian nerfs (T-50-2 top speed 25kph IRL, 140kph in game) they say its arcade and not a sim.


To sum it up in 2 words, Russian Bias.

There are no depression nerfs for the E series tanks. Here's some buffs for you: the Maus moves at 3 times its realistic speed. OMG RUSSIAN BIAS. Also, the top speed of the Kirov Factory T-50 (T-50-2 in game) was 60 kph. Actually read a book, instead of historical revisionist tripe.


View PostOglaigh_nah_hEireann, on May 10 2013 - 19:09, said:

point blank 0 angle if you were lucky... all records show to be effective it needed to flank the sides or rear.... or to take out the tracks and disable it for lack of an ability to even pen it.

Also its common knowledge 100mm of german steel is actually more like 120mm+.. and less common knowledge that russian steel was opposite and made of garbage.

100=80 for them pretty much.. they couldnt even weld the IS's seams togeather... massive gaps between them lol that wouldnt hold for crap.

Yeah, no, it was the opposite, if you had bothered to actually read up on it. Compare that to the German armour: http://www.dtic.mil/.../u2/a954952.pdf

As for welding, the Germans did it by hand, and you can see how much their welding seams pop during ballistics tests. Seen here: http://www.dtic.mil/.../u2/a954940.pdf

Daigensui #49 Posted May 10 2013 - 20:55

    Major

  • Wiki Staff
  • 20005 battles
  • 20,162
  • [MUP] MUP
  • Member since:
    11-09-2012

View PostDonk3y, on May 10 2013 - 19:03, said:

Actually, combat range for Tiger was about 1400 meters, Sherman was about half of that. Several accounts of tigers engaging and killing whole company's of tanks (4-5 against 20+) and killing them all. The British firefly(Sherman with better gun) only faired slightly better. Infantry and air support was a tigers worst enemy till much later in the war. Plenty of news film from the era on YouTube to back this up.

Please give us actual sources like German reports, not propaganda news films or "historical" documents.

Donk3y #50 Posted May 10 2013 - 21:34

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 13292 battles
  • 33
  • Member since:
    09-07-2011
E.E.   I do not know why you are so angry at the truth. Numbers won the tank war in Europe. Germany could not replace the tanks it lost, they were truly that badass, not that I like that, but I can't change the facts. The Russians knew this also, hell, who do think invented ramming, it was one of the few ways they could stop the Germans. And again, Germans could not replace tanks at the rate the allies could. LATER in the war, much later, is when US and Russian guns finally came up to par with the Germans.

As a side note... Don't take is so personal or be so mad. Karma, it is bitch sometimes.

Daigensui #51 Posted May 10 2013 - 21:38

    Major

  • Wiki Staff
  • 20005 battles
  • 20,162
  • [MUP] MUP
  • Member since:
    11-09-2012

View PostDonk3y, on May 10 2013 - 21:34, said:

The Russians knew this also, hell, who do think invented ramming, it was one of the few ways they could stop the Germans.

You actually believe the myth of ramming? That's a tactic used only when there was no ammo or the conditions were so bad the tanks needed to get up close to see each other.

Why is it that people rely on false legends to make it seem they're scholarly correct?

EnsignExpendable #52 Posted May 10 2013 - 21:52

    Major

  • Players
  • 23210 battles
  • 15,183
  • [PBKAC] PBKAC
  • Member since:
    04-22-2011

View PostDonk3y, on May 10 2013 - 21:34, said:

E.E.   I do not know why you are so angry at the truth. Numbers won the tank war in Europe. Germany could not replace the tanks it lost, they were truly that badass, not that I like that, but I can't change the facts. The Russians knew this also, hell, who do think invented ramming, it was one of the few ways they could stop the Germans. And again, Germans could not replace tanks at the rate the allies could. LATER in the war, much later, is when US and Russian guns finally came up to par with the Germans.

As a side note... Don't take is so personal or be so mad. Karma, it is bitch sometimes.

Ahahaha, what? The Russians invented ramming? Do you think that, until 1941, nobody thought that running a thing into another thing really fast would damage said thing?

I'm not angry. I am posting historical evidence. Apparently you equate evidence with being mad, in which case I suggest you stay away from courthouses and universities, who knows what those angry mobs might do.

If you're going to talk about tank guns, need I remind you that the F-34 could take out a 1941 PzIV at 2000 meters, while the PzIV could only take it out with a shot through the engine grille? How's that for "Russian guns on par with Germans"?

Donk3y #53 Posted May 10 2013 - 22:02

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 13292 battles
  • 33
  • Member since:
    09-07-2011
I get it now. You are right and ALL of the historians are making everything up. Reality is a myth, and whatever you say or believe is a FACT. Hate to break it to you. But it is you that should check facts.

I would like to think that this is an exchange of ideas, however I know, just by the tone of your post that you have a very narrow and closed mind.

Just dig a little deeper and you'll discover the facts.

Luck to you!

Daigensui #54 Posted May 10 2013 - 22:05

    Major

  • Wiki Staff
  • 20005 battles
  • 20,162
  • [MUP] MUP
  • Member since:
    11-09-2012

View PostDonk3y, on May 10 2013 - 22:02, said:

I get it now. You are right and ALL of the historians are making everything up. Reality is a myth, and whatever you say or believe is a FACT. Hate to break it to you. But it is you that should check facts.

I would like to think that this is an exchange of ideas, however I know, just by the tone of your post that you have a very narrow and closed mind.

Just dig a little deeper and you'll discover the facts.

Luck to you!

Show us any work by scholars or military showing the Soviets consistently rammed tanks. Then maybe your worthless muttering might have any value to it.


And before you ask, here's mine. I'll have the translated version for you:

Quote

A Few Words on Tank Ramming

Tank ramming occupies a special place among the many feats of heroism performed by Soviet tankers during the Great Patriotic War. Unfortunately, very few people know of the master-tankers who employed ramming tactics, even though tank ramming was prevalent throughout the war. One of the first tank ramming actions occurred on June 22, 1941, in a battle approximately 8 kilometers from Javorov: a KV tank commanded by 2nd Lieutenant P. Goodz' rammed several German Panzer III tanks and armored half-tracks.

The practice of tank ramming became especially prevalent in 1943. For instance, during the battle of Prokhorovka on July 12, Soviet tankers engaged in approximately 20 ramming actions, while over the entire 50 days of the Kursk battle over 50 instances of tank ramming were recorded. While ramming was typically used to destroy light and medium armored vehicles, at times even the heavy Tiger and Panther tanks fell victim. A direct hit by a Soviet tank typically put German machines out of action as their armor plating ripped open, their tracks tore and their road wheels warped.
Head-on ramming was as a rule reserved for exceptional circumstances, such as when the tank exhausted its ammunition or lost its main gun while the battle was still ongoing. At times, tank ramming was resorted to during sudden encounters with enemy armor in town and village streets, as well as during especially close engagements when the Soviet tanks found themselves in the midst of enemy formations. A tanker executing a ramming maneuver typically tried to hit the enemy in the side, as this could lead to the target overturning. Oftentimes, rammed tanks exploded due to a hit on their ammunition storage or multiple fuel leaks. Such explosions typically inflicted heavy damage on the ramming tank as well.

In some instances, ramming was used as a deliberate tactic. This usually happened during poor visibility conditions (fog, rain, snow) or at night, when engaging the enemy with aimed gunfire was impossible. Ramming the German tank columns on the march proved especially effective. The sudden appearance of Soviet tanks ramming German vehicles and firing at point-blank range could cause considerable panic. This type of ramming was the height of courage and skill for tankers operating in vanguard and reconnaissance detachments. As a rule, it was also the most damaging to the enemy. There are many examples of such deliberate ramming during the war, including actions by tank commander Captain V. Bogachev (43rd Tank Division) near Dubno on June 26, 1941; Senjor Lieutenant -A. Umnikov (50th Guards Tank Brigade) near Kramatorskoje on February 7, 1943; and 2nd Lieutenant I. Kiselev (65th Tank Brigade) near the Polish town of Jusefuv on January 15, 1945. All three officers were made Heroes of the Soviet Union [Highest Soviet military honor, comparable to the Victoria Cross - Transl.] for their actions.

There are several known examples of tanks ramming enemy armored trains, for instance by the machine of 2nd Lieutenant Dmitri Komarov (15th Guards Tank Brigade) at Chernye Bory near Bobruisk on June 24, 1944, and by the tank commanded by Captain Leonid Maleev, company commander in the 45th Guards Heavy Tank Regiment, in the Sandomiers bridgehead on August 4, 1944.

When attacking enemy airfields, Soviet tankers frequently used ramming to destroy parked aircraft. For instance, during the Stalingrad counter-offensive the drivers of the 24th Tank Corps, having driven for 240 kilometers over five days, broke through to the train station Tatzinskaja on the morning of December 24, 1942. The station was the site of a German supply depot as well as two airfields basing over 300 enemy aircraft. The tankers had little ammunition left after days of constant fighting, and so resorted to ramming the German planes on the ground. Together, the 1st Battalion of the 54th Tank Brigade commanded by Captain S. Strelkov and the 2nd Battalion of the 130th Tank Brigade commanded by Captain M. Nechaiev destroyed nearly 300 aircraft on the airfields themselves as well as a further 50 entrained at Tatzinskaja. Thus, the tankers helped to sever the German air link to encircled Sixth Army in Stalingrad, and deprived Mainstein's rescue offensive of vital air support.

There are other examples of tanks ramming enemy aircraft. On January 11, 1944, tanks belonging to the 49th Tank Brigade destroyed 17 German aircraft near the Polish town of Ljubek. On March 28, 1944, the 64th Guards Tank Brigade attacked an airfield near Chernovtsy, destroying 30 enemy aircraft with gunfire and ramming. On January 17, 1945, the machine commanded by I. Kravchenko (47th Guards Tank Brigade) attacked and destroyed with gunfire and ramming 20 enemy aircraft at an airfield near Sohachev, Poland.

Tank ramming also occurred during night battles. On June 26, 1941, the tankers of the 43rd Separate Reconnaissance Battalion engaged in a night ramming action near Dubno. An enemy armored column comprised primarily of Panzer II and Panzer III tanks had halted to refuel. As darkness fell, a tank detachment commanded by Captain Arhipov fired a close-range salvo then slammed into enemy machines. The Germans suffered considerable losses, including some taken prisoner.

During assaults on enemy positions, tanks rammed artillery pieces, Nebelwerfer rocket mortars, and other stationary weapons. During the capture of Berlin, tanks rammed enemy barricades and even building walls to bypass or reduce enemy defensive positions.

Successful tank ramming in many ways depended on the level of preparedness of tank commanders and drivers. To successfully ram an enemy target, the tank crews, especially the drivers, had to possess considerable courage and technical mastery. Thus, most ramming actions were performed by veteran tank crews, confident in their machines' abilities fully prepared to sacrifice their lives in defense of the Motherland if necessary.

Most ramming actions were performed by the crews of KV and T-34 tanks. These tank types possessed substantial mass and speed as well as considerable frontal armor, which permitted them to smash the hulls of enemy tanks, assault guns and half-tracks. Sometimes the crew of a burning tank would perform a last-gasp "flaming ram" to inflict maximum damage on the enemy.

There are instances of a single tank crew performing multiple ramming actions. During the defense of Moscow in November of 1941, the KV tank commanded by Hero of the Soviet Union A. Bosov rammed 4 enemy machines, while on July 12, 1941 a KV tank driver N. Tomashevich rammed 3 German tanks in an engagement near Luga while rescuing the tank of his commander, Lieutenant Colonel Vjaznikov. The tank of I. Rogozin rammed the enemy three times near Krivoj Rog, while machines of 2nd Lieutenant I. Butenko and 1st Lieutenant P. Zaharchenko did so twice.

Should modern tankers be taught ramming tactics? The experience of the Great Patriotic War answers that in the affirmative. During the war, a number of tank schools as well as some tank detachments deployed at the front made it a point to provide tank crews with instruction in ramming, and rightly so. Although risky, tank ramming allowed crews to sometimes emerge victorious even in the most difficult battlefield conditions while inflicting considerable damage on the enemy.

Tank ramming is a weapon of courage. It is a very calculating tactic that combines exceptional bravery with formidable skill. During the war, Soviet tankers who resorted to ramming were motivated primarily by unit camaraderie and their exceptionally high sense of duty towards the Motherland.



Author: Hero of the Soviet Union, Marshall (Tank Arm) O. Losik
Translator: Gene Ostrovsky
Sources: September 1996 issue of "Military Knowledge"


EnsignExpendable #55 Posted May 10 2013 - 22:11

    Major

  • Players
  • 23210 battles
  • 15,183
  • [PBKAC] PBKAC
  • Member since:
    04-22-2011

View PostDonk3y, on May 10 2013 - 22:02, said:

I get it now. You are right and ALL of the historians are making everything up. Reality is a myth, and whatever you say or believe is a FACT. Hate to break it to you. But it is you that should check facts.

I would like to think that this is an exchange of ideas, however I know, just by the tone of your post that you have a very narrow and closed mind.

Just dig a little deeper and you'll discover the facts.

Luck to you!

I did dig. In the archives. To find primary documents. Guess what historians do, when they write history books? They don't go to internet forums and read rumours and chats about how dapper those uniforms were. They go to archives. The very same archives I get my information from. If you think that archive documents are a myth, tough to be you, since they are what real history is based on.

Edit: I found some info on how many tank rams were performed during WWII. It was 58-106, depending on who you ask. In total. The idea that the USSR could only known out enemy tanks by ramming is a myth.

Edited by EnsignExpendable, May 10 2013 - 22:14.


pfax #56 Posted May 10 2013 - 22:45

    Private

  • Players
  • 9418 battles
  • 1
  • Member since:
    08-06-2011
Gee EE, your "archives" and "facts" and "measurements" can't stand up to the real truth I saw one time on the history channel and on youtube. Checkmate set match.

Hurk #57 Posted May 10 2013 - 23:04

    Major

  • Players
  • 23630 battles
  • 6,890
  • [KGR] KGR
  • Member since:
    09-30-2012
based on the data above, a sherman only being able to pen at 650m is a death sentence and makes the tiger unkillable.

when people talk about tank effectiveness, they arent talking about non-standard situations. a pistol can take out a tank as well. but to get an infantryman in position to use a pistol to do it is not practical.

niether was it practical to fight through over a mile of effective battle range to get close enough to get a kill. it was done, sure, but only in cases where everyone involved knew it was suicide for someone.

america was good at that... using 5 shermans to kill one german tank.  you see, the whole reason we went into the war was because we had the manpower to do it, meanwhile every other nation was running out of men. the real reason later german and russian tanks sucked so much was their crews. boys ages 15 or so, that had in some cases never seen a car in their life, pressed into driving a tank with as little as a days training.

Oglaigh_nah_hEireann #58 Posted May 10 2013 - 23:04

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 354 battles
  • 631
  • Member since:
    03-05-2013
LOL@EE trying to say german steel was below russians quality.. everyone knows germany had extremely high quality steel and that russians were horribly put togeather.

EE, nothing you say matters.. everyone knows youre just a russian bias twit.

Oglaigh_nah_hEireann #59 Posted May 10 2013 - 23:05

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 354 battles
  • 631
  • Member since:
    03-05-2013

View Postpfax, on May 10 2013 - 22:45, said:

Gee EE, your "archives" and "facts" and "measurements" can't stand up to the real truth I saw one time on the history channel and on youtube. Checkmate set match.

History channel says the t-34 had 60mm frontal and the slope made its armor superior to the tigers. (Greatest tank battles - Kursk)

I bet EE would believe that too.

Edited by Oglaigh_nah_hEireann, May 10 2013 - 23:07.


EnsignExpendable #60 Posted May 10 2013 - 23:15

    Major

  • Players
  • 23210 battles
  • 15,183
  • [PBKAC] PBKAC
  • Member since:
    04-22-2011

View PostHurk, on May 10 2013 - 23:04, said:

based on the data above, a sherman only being able to pen at 650m is a death sentence and makes the tiger unkillable.

when people talk about tank effectiveness, they arent talking about non-standard situations. a pistol can take out a tank as well. but to get an infantryman in position to use a pistol to do it is not practical.

niether was it practical to fight through over a mile of effective battle range to get close enough to get a kill. it was done, sure, but only in cases where everyone involved knew it was suicide for someone.

america was good at that... using 5 shermans to kill one german tank.  you see, the whole reason we went into the war was because we had the manpower to do it, meanwhile every other nation was running out of men. the real reason later german and russian tanks sucked so much was their crews. boys ages 15 or so, that had in some cases never seen a car in their life, pressed into driving a tank with as little as a days training.

Saving Private Ryan wasn't a documentary, just FYI.


View PostOglaigh_nah_hEireann, on May 10 2013 - 23:05, said:

History channel says the t-34 had 60mm frontal and the slope made its armor superior to the tigers. (Greatest tank battles - Kursk)

I bet EE would believe that too.

There were several hundred up-armoured T-34s, with additional 15 mm armoured plates at the front. 60 mm at that angle is 120 mm effective, greater than the Tiger. If you had done any research at all, you would have known this.


View PostOglaigh_nah_hEireann, on May 10 2013 - 23:04, said:

LOL@EE trying to say german steel was below russians quality.. everyone knows germany had extremely high quality steel and that russians were horribly put togeather.

EE, nothing you say matters.. everyone knows youre just a russian bias twit.

"Everyone knows" is not a citation. Everyone knew the Earth was flat. Everyone knew that mice spontaneously appear in dirty laundry. Everyone knew that light travels through the luminous aether.

"Everyone" was wrong. That's why science is done. To provide evidence against things "everyone" "knows".