Please Higby, we are going to need the Data....

Actually German "Blitzkrieg" was a British idea before being taking up by German generals.

German loss is largey due to them relying on bolt action rifles with MGs for suppression. The more inaccurate garand pretty much changed the face of war through it's volume fire.

The soviets weren't mobile. The soviets were numerous.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World_War_II_Casualties.svg

See that line? That's how many died. They are still considered the victors of that front.

I'm assuming you mean the GD-7?

Yes it has the highest ROF, but both Vanu and TR have carbines that are simply better.

If the GD-7 was a Vanu or TR weapon, it wouldn't be good, or used that much.

LevelCap did a pretty good review on carbines in this game where he explained this.

Ermm. Doesn't change the fact that 80% of German casualties were lost on the Russian front.... there were no grands there so no.

Sorry bro but American schools never teach there citizens the full story.

The soviets basically hated bolt action rifles and replaced them as soon as they could (hint it was called the SVT-40.) Sorry bro but you don't really know what you're talking about if you think the Red army was mobile.

Don't forget that the German's overwhelming ACCURACY and MOBILITY were lost by the end half of the war due to political and logistical faults as well. You can't be MOBILE when your tanks engines are too weak to move their mass, and you can't be ACCURATE when your ammunition burns so unevenly every third round is practically a misfire.

Though this is, in fact, a computer game that does not mean that the lessons learned in real warfare cannot be applied.

The Magrider, for example, was extraordinarily imbalanced against it's rivals because it was MOBILE and could fire with great ACCURACY on the move.

This is where the fact it is a game comes into play. In real warfare such an imbalance stays in place until the enemy can build something better or they have drowned in their own blood. In a video game, it must be brought in line.

How was this done? By removing some of the Magrider's MOBILITY and increasing the Magriders enemies ACCURACY.

Soviets weren't mobile?? not at the beginning maybe.

To say the soviets were never mobile shows your lack of knowledge.

They even had the most mobile tank, which surprise the Germans copied, and called it the Tiger/Panther.

Russia/Soviets have ALWAYS had Superior man power with poor training, so overall casualties mean squat.

So what? It's not what won the war, changed how future wars were thought maybe yes.

EDIT: Clearly that was suppose to say fought.

well what i see is all 3 sides complaining on having the crappy side of the weapons...thats something i will call balanced everyone has it bad...wich means things are balanced end of story...

The T34? That's a medium tank not a heavy tank. Panthers and Tigers were completely different tanks designed for completely different things. That's a silly comparison. And the Sherman was faster.

The T34 wasn't what one the war. The oppressive amounts of Russians dieing did.

Also you just hamstringed your own point. The Soviets won because there were more of them not because they were fast and accurate. Because there were endless amounts of them in an army that saw casulties as an investment because they could give the bullet riddled uniforms to the new recruits.

Nah, I'm giving a History lesson.

Sorry but your moron, the Panther and Tiger were both German copies of the T-34, it was just kept under raps as Hitler didn't want to admit that the "sub humans" had a far Superior and mobile tank then to that of the Germans. and how dare you try to say the Sherman was better by saying it was faster LOL!. maybe in some environments but over all the T-34 was far better then the Sherman.
Heres another one for you, the T-34 had various armaments and in the late part of the war (were the soviets became extremely mobile) the T-34 had a larger caliber main gun then the Panther.

I'm sorry bro but you may want to google stuff first before trying to pretend you know what your talking about.

EDIT: sorry I probably should also mention the reliability of the two, the T-34 was far more reliable to the Panther which was prone to breaking down all the time, what's the point if mobility of you can't even move?

Did I say the Sherman was better? No. I said it was faster. Stop getting your World of Tanks fanfic lodged in your hindquarters.

Your entire argument was that the Russains were more mobile and thats why they won WW2. This is wrong. They broke the germans because they could die two to one and still have ten more.

AKA winning through weight of numbers. Something you said was impossible.

They became more mobile at the tail end of WW2 by defacto. The Germans had engines that could barely power gocarts powering things that cracked the street from their weight. It also helped that the Germans were less interested in gotta go fast and more interested in trying to prevent all of their women and children being ***** and killed. The soviets didn't speed up the Germans slowed down.

AKA winning through weight of numbers. Something you said was impossible.

So please less sperging more reading. And no I don't mean reading more wikipedia articles.

unlike the NC VS who deconstruct at first sign of trouble, an infantry who suicide.... yer bad TR!!! naughty TR!!

PanzerShrimp is right.

also: It was insane to go there and stay for the winter. They didn't learn anything from Napoleon.
Germans have had great generals. Probably the best, but Hitler's bad decisions put them in a really bad situations.
Russia won the WWII. USA and UK were so afraid of new conflict that they didn't oppose when Stalin told them he will take Poland and half of the Germany at Yalta conference.

Never played world of tanks. Sherman was a bad tank FACT.

So you admit, as the war went on the Soviets became far more mobile while the Germans became less.

Now back to topic please.

AKA winning through weight of numbers. Something you said was impossible.

Cognitive dissonance much?

Well actually they did learn from Napoleon, hence the operation was suppose to take out the Soviets before winter, Hitler actually refused to allow his armies to prepare for Winter until it was far too late as he was so convinced he could make the Soviets collapse before hand, but no, Hitlers arrogance prevailed, and the German army unprepared for the winter, froze.

When Did I say that was Impossible? This whole argument was you claiming the Soviets had no mobility, In which you are wrong.

Stalingrad is very good example of this, Using there mobility ideas they copied from the Germans and using there far more mobile tanks to completely encircle the bulk of the German army before the Germans had time to think.

As a result they starved the Germans to death in this case, and this wasn't even that late in the war.

Sorry bro but facts speak for themselves. I said before and I will say again Yes the Soviets had more numbers, but with far poorer training, just like the Russian military has ALWAYS been.

“It's all a sham, because the Vanu weapons will always be the best. History shows us that ACCURACY and MOBILITY will always trump VOLUME and POWER.”

"If only someone had told the Germans that during WW2"

Damn you the minute I read that statement I thought 'Operation Barbarossa' and Stalingrad .

And you got there first !

Spot on observation man