Jump to content


Which Nation Will You Choose First? USA - Germany - USSR - British


  • Please log in to reply
719 replies to this topic

Poll: Which Nation Will You Choose First? USA - Germany - USSR - British (1446 members have cast votes)

Tankers, which nation are you going to play first?

  1. U.S.A. (444 votes [30.71%])

    Percentage of vote: 30.71%

  2. Germany (465 votes [32.16%])

    Percentage of vote: 32.16%

  3. U.S.S.R. (487 votes [33.68%])

    Percentage of vote: 33.68%

  4. British (50 votes [3.46%])

    Percentage of vote: 3.46%

Vote Guests cannot vote Hide poll

Sgt_Wilson__AngryTanker #701 Posted 23 November 2016 - 09:05 AM

    Junior Sergeant

  • Players
  • 8613 battles
  • 147
  • [B4L]
  • Member since:
    03-22-2016
I have always liked the Russian tanks

fabius1453 #702 Posted 15 December 2016 - 03:25 AM

    Lance-corporal

  • Players
  • 17515 battles
  • 61
  • [_NME_]
  • Member since:
    02-24-2015

View Postlendlease, on 17 October 2016 - 03:32 PM, said:

 

the reason US tanks didn't improve at the front line was because both Patton and Montgomery said, in effect, "these M4 babies will do".

 

They said this after the North Africa campaign,  where M4 was a huge step up from most early British tanks, and the M3.

 

The M4 was perfectly adequate for North Africa.  However,  the nasty Germans learned their lesson, there and in Russia,  and by the time of Normandy the M4 was entirely outclassed -as was the shiny new Cromwell. 

 

The US tanks, and British ones, which could have been combat ready for Normandy were the M46 and the Comet, both better than Panther and Tiger II.

 

It was poor British and American planning which left crews in inferior tanks for the Northern Europe campaign. 

 

Read "Tank Men" by Robert Kershaw, he interview many surviving crews (American,  Brit,  German, Soviet) in the early 2000s, plus did a lot of research. 

 

If you're ever in England,  get to the Tank Museum,  this stuff is well explained.

 

It's a scandal really. One quote in the book I mentioned is from a German tank gunner,  talking about Normandy. 

 

He says something like:

 

"we were astonished...  How could it be? The Americans, with all their wealth and all the raw materials  the British with all their experience, how were they not attacking us with the best tanks in the world?"

 

I think this might be overstating things a bit. I would agree that the U.S. became complacent with the early Shermans after N. Africa, and they should have pushed for quicker development of upgrades and follow-on models. However, it's worth keeping in mind that:

1. Going into Normandy, even U.S. tank crews were happy with their Shermans. In particular, the 75mm gun had a much better H.E. shell compared to the '76mm on the Easy Eight. That pivots us to:

 

2. U.S. Armored doctrine relying on the TD for anti-armor, and thinking of the tank proper as a breakthrough vehicle and infantry-support platform. WG's researcher, Nick Moran ('The Chieftan;) has a fascinating online presentation on American TD doctrine. The whole thing is long, but he makes an interesting case that the TD concept wasn't as crazy as it's often been presented. Tanks actually spent a lot less time fighting other tanks than popular culture (and our awesome game!) would have us think; on offense, tanks primarily supported infantry. When you ran into enemy armor, U.S. doctrine called for massive supporting air and artillery fire as the main solution to the problem. 

 

3. Few enemy tanks. While the Panther and Tiger outclassed the Sherman on paper, there were relatively few of them (the Pz. IV was more common, and it was arguably inferior to the M4). While stories like Michael Witman's epic rampage in Normandy present images of Tiger's mercilessly one-shotting everything in their path while bouncing spitballs in return, that was pretty rare. While probably still a poor decision, it was at least understandable that American planners didn't think rushing upgraded tanks to the front was a top priority. After all, what they had, worked perfectly well most of the time. Nick Moran again has a great presentation on this, with his "Myths of American Armor" presentation. He notes that the Sherman (especially the Easy Eight) did pretty well statistically, and was not a notorious fire hazard. Survey's of armored engagements routinely showed that whoever saw the enemy first and got the first shot off, usually won the fight. Given that the Germans were on the defensive, and able to fight from prepared positions against American tanks in the open, the actual rough parity in kill ratios is pretty remarkable.
 

4. Don't forget logistics. While the Pershing might have been available in the Summer of '44 if it had been rushed forward, it was logistically much more intensive than the Sherman. In particular, the Sherman easily fit on existing rail cars and through tunnels (it was an original design requirement), and the extra size of the Pershing meant that a single transport ship could carry far fewer M26's than M4s. On top of that, a new tank would've meant new training and spare parts lines. There was a virtue to running everything through the Sherman for so long, especially when you factor in:

 

5. Reliability. While it doesn't show up on Blitz, reliability is a huge real-world factor for armored forces; and the Sherman was hands down the absolute king of reliability. A U.S. officer could expect that almost all of his Shermans would usually be in decent working order, while German units suffered worse and worse performance as the war went on (the Panther and Tiger were notoriously labor intensive). German units often had a third of the nominal strength down for maintenance. A broke Tiger can't kill anything. This was one of the reasons the Pershing wasn't rushed into service sooner; it was a real maintenance hog itself.

6. Production. The Sherman was the easiest tank of the war to mass-produce (even more so than the T-34). There was a huge value in being able to throw them out in huge numbers, and it meant that U.S. infantry always had plentiful armor support (which again, was the main job of the tank). Basically, while the Sherman wasn't the best tank by raw performance, it was generally "good enough." And in a massive industrial war where numbers really mattered, "good enough," was very good indeed. 



lawny99 #703 Posted 27 December 2016 - 12:43 AM

    Lance-corporal

  • Players
  • 5455 battles
  • 95
  • [2S3XY]
  • Member since:
    07-12-2016
Russia and germany are the most user friendly. British after that followed by American and then Chinese. With the exception of Russia and germany, the other lines require a special flair or passion. This is from tier 1-6. I had 2 tier 7 tanks and saw the error of my ways. Choose carefully, mistake cost a lot of time and experience. I discovered no one can actually say which tank, tier, or line to follow. It's the style you develop in the first few tiers. The tech tree and all the crossovers can really pose a problem. Don't covet a tank that you see winning, it could be quite the opposite of what you think. I learned that the hard way.

lawny99 #704 Posted 27 December 2016 - 12:58 AM

    Lance-corporal

  • Players
  • 5455 battles
  • 95
  • [2S3XY]
  • Member since:
    07-12-2016

View Postfabius1453, on 15 December 2016 - 03:25 AM, said:

 

I think this might be overstating things a bit. I would agree that the U.S. became complacent with the early Shermans after N. Africa, and they should have pushed for quicker development of upgrades and follow-on models. However, it's worth keeping in mind that:

1. Going into Normandy, even U.S. tank crews were happy with their Shermans. In particular, the 75mm gun had a much better H.E. shell compared to the '76mm on the Easy Eight. That pivots us to:

 

2. U.S. Armored doctrine relying on the TD for anti-armor, and thinking of the tank proper as a breakthrough vehicle and infantry-support platform. WG's researcher, Nick Moran ('The Chieftan;) has a fascinating online presentation on American TD doctrine. The whole thing is long, but he makes an interesting case that the TD concept wasn't as crazy as it's often been presented. Tanks actually spent a lot less time fighting other tanks than popular culture (and our awesome game!) would have us think; on offense, tanks primarily supported infantry. When you ran into enemy armor, U.S. doctrine called for massive supporting air and artillery fire as the main solution to the problem. 

 

3. Few enemy tanks. While the Panther and Tiger outclassed the Sherman on paper, there were relatively few of them (the Pz. IV was more common, and it was arguably inferior to the M4). While stories like Michael Witman's epic rampage in Normandy present images of Tiger's mercilessly one-shotting everything in their path while bouncing spitballs in return, that was pretty rare. While probably still a poor decision, it was at least understandable that American planners didn't think rushing upgraded tanks to the front was a top priority. After all, what they had, worked perfectly well most of the time. Nick Moran again has a great presentation on this, with his "Myths of American Armor" presentation. He notes that the Sherman (especially the Easy Eight) did pretty well statistically, and was not a notorious fire hazard. Survey's of armored engagements routinely showed that whoever saw the enemy first and got the first shot off, usually won the fight. Given that the Germans were on the defensive, and able to fight from prepared positions against American tanks in the open, the actual rough parity in kill ratios is pretty remarkable.
 

4. Don't forget logistics. While the Pershing might have been available in the Summer of '44 if it had been rushed forward, it was logistically much more intensive than the Sherman. In particular, the Sherman easily fit on existing rail cars and through tunnels (it was an original design requirement), and the extra size of the Pershing meant that a single transport ship could carry far fewer M26's than M4s. On top of that, a new tank would've meant new training and spare parts lines. There was a virtue to running everything through the Sherman for so long, especially when you factor in:

 

5. Reliability. While it doesn't show up on Blitz, reliability is a huge real-world factor for armored forces; and the Sherman was hands down the absolute king of reliability. A U.S. officer could expect that almost all of his Shermans would usually be in decent working order, while German units suffered worse and worse performance as the war went on (the Panther and Tiger were notoriously labor intensive). German units often had a third of the nominal strength down for maintenance. A broke Tiger can't kill anything. This was one of the reasons the Pershing wasn't rushed into service sooner; it was a real maintenance hog itself.

6. Production. The Sherman was the easiest tank of the war to mass-produce (even more so than the T-34). There was a huge value in being able to throw them out in huge numbers, and it meant that U.S. infantry always had plentiful armor support (which again, was the main job of the tank). Basically, while the Sherman wasn't the best tank by raw performance, it was generally "good enough." And in a massive industrial war where numbers really mattered, "good enough," was very good indeed. 

 

 the way I heard things was the Sherman was a tank of quantity not quality. Using numbers to bring down German tanks. Germans would rather have a few good things than a whole bunch of mediocre things. Their car manufacturers still show this to this day. There's no farfignugen in a pinto or a Georgia metro. The amount of craftsmanship and engineering  that went into the engine blocks alone was remarkable. The little details on the tanks like the textured armor so limpit mines wouldn't  stick. To just look at the texture looks like poor work but was effective. The list goes on. The Sherman was a tiny little thing with mass produced by car manufacturers to up the  number of tanks to keep up. Look at the crashbox transmission. 

lawny99 #705 Posted 27 December 2016 - 02:55 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Players
  • 5455 battles
  • 95
  • [2S3XY]
  • Member since:
    07-12-2016
My bad. I reread the post I quoted and missed a lot of the information. He's right. I just restated what he said like a tard.

x_GAMBIT_x #706 Posted 27 December 2016 - 10:35 PM

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 16349 battles
  • 271
  • [129TH]
  • Member since:
    11-30-2015
Play the Russians, respect the Germans, learn to tank in Americans. Brits are good to talk with about life.

BakalovBoy #707 Posted 04 January 2017 - 05:08 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Players
  • 6741 battles
  • 31
  • [IR0]
  • Member since:
    06-08-2016
Started with the USSR, got bored.

Moved to the Germans. Rage quit.

Starter the Americans, got bored.

Tried out the British, gave up bitterly.

Went back to the USSR, Germany and USA.

Tried the Japanese. Just. Gave. Up...

Currently on USSR, USA and Germany .
 

Edited by BakalovBoy, 04 January 2017 - 05:21 PM.


BOOSTEDMUSTANG #708 Posted 04 January 2017 - 05:15 PM

    Private

  • Players
  • 16013 battles
  • 3
  • [FORD1]
  • Member since:
    06-01-2015
Germany, I went straight for Maus and JagdPanzer E-100 got them both now I'm close to getting E-100 and E-50m.

MarioKartMaster #709 Posted 17 January 2017 - 04:44 AM

    Lance-corporal

  • Players
  • 6425 battles
  • 31
  • [TROLL]
  • Member since:
    07-06-2014
I went U.S.A first, though I have been dividing my time throughout the different tank nations and line, my highest tier is the M103 at tier 9, pretty fun tank, tho basically what you do throughout the line ESPECIALLY at the T29 and T32(Tier 7 and 8 Heavys) with their OP turret armor is just doing this :hiding: 

MarioKartMaster #710 Posted 17 January 2017 - 04:48 AM

    Lance-corporal

  • Players
  • 6425 battles
  • 31
  • [TROLL]
  • Member since:
    07-06-2014

View PostEfrain_Luna_2016, on 20 August 2016 - 10:20 PM, said:

URSS will be my first bet, IS was the best tank in war, (germans were told to fight them only at close range), KV-2, SU-152 and ISU-152 shots destroy entire tanks just with HE (turrets flew far far away after 152mm shots:justwait:), T-34 did well(tons of stories about them),  KV line are mobile side-scrapping bunkers, SPGs aren't that good though.

 

Then I would go Germany, they had really good engineers, ideas, and stuff like that.

 

USA just produced Shermans and wolvies in real life, most high tier tanks are prototypes, dunno why they didn't develop some of them.

 

Japanese tanks are designed to defend their country, not to invade other countries.

 

And UK....., well, crusaders had to get close to panzers to do something to them, Churchill tanks were good but not that "bunker".

 

 

When the Mt-25, LTTB, and T-54 Prot. came out, I went back to the T-34 and did something different, rather than the bigger gun that averages I think 120-200 dmg, I did the faster shooting, higher penning gun, even though average damage I got was around 90-100 dmg, the speed and reload made the T-34 become a tank that I might go back to again, just for fun :justwait:

tankcrunch_2017 #711 Posted 24 January 2017 - 11:08 PM

    Senior Sergeant

  • Players
  • 211 battles
  • 640
  • Member since:
    01-24-2017

Russians, cuz dat kv-2 is no doubt the derp king.



Tomio_Hara #712 Posted 29 January 2017 - 02:52 PM

    First Sergeant

  • Players
  • 16847 battles
  • 1,926
  • [DPRK]
  • Member since:
    07-31-2014
Where is the Japan option?

Tomio Hara was the chief of Japanese tank development during the pre war period and WWII


tankcrunch #713 Posted 05 February 2017 - 04:19 PM

    First Sergeant

  • Players
  • 60 battles
  • 2,095
  • Member since:
    04-21-2011
Russia, because Russian bias

Redsniper77 #714 Posted 09 February 2017 - 01:12 AM

    Private

  • Players
  • 13193 battles
  • 7
  • [TITAN]
  • Member since:
    04-29-2012
USSR was the best choice

 

Tier 10s: Obj. 140, IS-7, Obj. 268

Premiums: T34, IS-6, Lowe, T26E4 SuperPershing, FCM 50 t, Glacial 112, AMX CDC, IS-2, T23E3, Panther/M10, SU-122-44, Dicker Max, Tog II, SU-100Y, Kuro Mori Mine, AC IV Sentinel,T-25, Matilda IV, Su-85I, T14, Matilda BP, Churchill III, Excelsior, Pz. V/IV, Ram II, Valentine II, Pz. B2, AC I Sentinel, Pz. S35, BT-SV, M3 Light, LTP, BT-7 art., Tetrarch

Grind: Jg. Pz. IV, Nashorn, ARL 44, T71, T20, LTTB, SU-100M1, T29, SP I C, Panther, Tiger (P), Tiger II, KV-4, AT 15, STA-1, Centurion 7/1


PyotrKK #715 Posted 13 February 2017 - 06:37 PM

    Private

  • Players
  • 50 battles
  • 3
  • Member since:
    09-24-2016

View PostTheTalkinChedda, on 19 March 2014 - 11:22 AM, said:

I play WoT on xbox, because i dont have a pc. On the xbox version there's no U.S.S.R. tank tree, so i'm gonna try the U.S.S.R one :)

Hurts me inside...



PyotrKK #716 Posted 13 February 2017 - 06:38 PM

    Private

  • Players
  • 50 battles
  • 3
  • Member since:
    09-24-2016

View PostTheTalkinChedda, on 19 March 2014 - 11:22 AM, said:

I play WoT on xbox, because i dont have a pc. On the xbox version there's no U.S.S.R. tank tree, so i'm gonna try the U.S.S.R one :)

Hurts me inside...



DirtFriend #717 Posted 23 February 2017 - 05:51 AM

    Junior Sergeant

  • Players
  • 3410 battles
  • 247
  • [ANVIL]
  • Member since:
    10-16-2016
This will obviously need updated for the french line, but who am i kidding? the french line (while it is good line) is by far the worst one to start with.

Go to http://forum.wotblit.../#entry1002347 for clan info

 

proud owner of the BT-7 Artillery, Pz. B2, glacial 122, FCM 50 t, AMX CDC, and IS 2.


Endric_Gaming #718 Posted 23 February 2017 - 03:27 PM

    Junior Sergeant

  • Players
  • 2808 battles
  • 124
  • [K_O]
  • Member since:
    04-12-2015
I chose Germany because I like my tanks to be VERY refined and perfect. Aesthetics, and German tanks are stronk.
endric_gaming_snowjag_eng.jpeg

skylerneal2020 #719 Posted 23 February 2017 - 03:31 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Players
  • 9212 battles
  • 32
  • [SKY2]
  • Member since:
    08-30-2015
FRANCE(update 3.6 yes) prior to 3.6 Russia all the way HAIL STALIN

wrec_50 #720 Posted 26 February 2017 - 06:07 AM

    Private

  • Players
  • 321 battles
  • 1
  • [BILAT]
  • Member since:
    02-15-2017
Duh French 




3 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 3 guests, 0 anonymous users