Login or register


Last status update:
Gender: male
Age: 115
Date Signed Up:9/26/2010
Comment Ranking:#2879
Highest Content Rank:#1908
Highest Comment Rank:#900
Content Thumbs: 3932 total,  4237 ,  305
Comment Thumbs: 13549 total,  13969 ,  420
Content Level Progress: 14% (14/100)
Level 136 Content: Respected Member Of Famiry → Level 137 Content: Respected Member Of Famiry
Comment Level Progress: 12.6% (63/500)
Level 310 Comments: Wizard → Level 311 Comments: Wizard
Content Views:108014
Times Content Favorited:108 times
Total Comments Made:2067
FJ Points:14799
Fookin' whibblys.

latest user's comments

#47 - Picture 07/25/2016 on Monster gremlin +1
#13 - A masterpiece. 07/04/2016 on loan edit +46
#30 - Picture  [+] (12 replies) 06/25/2016 on Only in Russia +23
User avatar
#48 - itssakamoto (06/25/2016) [-]
>turn into Thomas Edison
So, an invention thief?
User avatar
#46 - hiukuss (06/25/2016) [-]
towards the end of the war maybe

soviet tanks were fucking shit for the longest time
#68 - anon (08/18/2016) [-]
BULL FUCKING SHIT the Germans were scared SHITLESS by the T 34 and KV 1
#50 - dyelfagget (06/25/2016) [-]
Wanna specify which tanks were not good? Early t-34s were really really well build. Great welds and good machining. They didn't drop off in quality until late war when the soviets were just trying to shit out as many tanks as possible.
User avatar
#54 - hiukuss (06/25/2016) [-]
When the Germans first invaded Russia, the soviet tanks were absolutely no match for the Germans. (T-28s, etc.)
#61 - antoniospaghettio (06/25/2016) [-]
Not really.

T-28 wasn't bad for the time, but got outdated by year 1941, because tanks evolved really fast back then.
KV-1 heavy tank was a strong adversary and had the heaviest armor at the time, German tanks were no match for it.
Unfortunately, they came out in 1940, so Soviets didn't produce much of them.
T-34 proved to be more effective, because it was faster and easier to produce. Even with reduced armor (which was sloped, so more effective), German tanks were still no match when they first faced it.
They preferred to take them out by other means, like bombers, artillery, anti-tank guns, cutting off supply lines etc.
Germans were really good at that - this was their main tactic of Blitzkrieg. Put all the force in 1 point, penetrate the defense line, surround from behind, cut off supplies, then just wait till they surrender, while bombing them with artillery and air raids. Worked great in the conquest of Europe, and Operation Barbarossa at first.
Later, Germans equipped their tanks with heavier guns, so they could fight KV-1 and T-34

A lot of haters say 'well, they just overrun Germans with numbers, no disregard for their soldiers lives' but look at it this way: Soviets could put more men in tanks, who would otherwise have to fight on foot. At least in T-34 you were almost invincible to small arms and explosion debris etc.

The major thing where Soviet tanks lacked, was radio communication and experienced crews/commanders. Air force was also vastly outdated compared to Germans, so Soviet tanks couldn't count on air support. German planes being much faster, could evade air fights when outnumbered, or to force a fight when they had the upper hand. Tanks can't do much against air raids.

Most casualties were from the start of the war due to very effective German surprise Blitzkrieg tactics, experienced commanders and Luftwaffe, not the tank superiority.
#57 - dyelfagget (06/25/2016) [-]
Dude what? T-28s were rare. The t-34 was already in production before germany even invaded poland. Russian tanks were arguably superior to the pz3 and pz4. The vast majority of shit Germans faced was t-34s and kv-1s. To give you an idea only 500 or so t-28s were ever produced. 10 times the number of Kv-1s were made.
The average German armored vehicle on the fron was inferior to a lot of the russian armies equipment and was out numbered 3 to 1. Germany only made it as far as they did on the back of air power and superior doctrine.
User avatar
#58 - hiukuss (06/25/2016) [-]
"Despite this, the Soviet corps equipped with these new tanks lost most of them within weeks.[79] The combat statistics for 1941 show that the Soviets lost an average of over seven tanks for every German tank lost." Even when the Germans had "inferior" equipment, they still managed this. Whether it was the tank itself, or the management of it, it still is an embarrassment. The only battles I could find about the KV-1 were ambushes or something similar.
#62 - antoniospaghettio (06/25/2016) [-]
As I explained, heavy losses came not from 1 on 1 tank battles. War is more complex than that.
The discussion wasn't about German army vs Soviet army tactics, logistics etc, but Soviet tanks being shit - they weren't.
#69 - anon (08/18/2016) [-]
I feel sorry for you, explaining facts to an FJer is like trying to bail out a boat with a sieve
#59 - dyelfagget (06/25/2016) [-]
Kv-1 was generally speaking the most feared tank on the eastern front in 1941. Most german weapons could not penetrate it's armor from the front. As I said germany made very good use of air power and practically invented CAS support. They didn't operate under having a bigger gun than the russians but instead better support and tactical management. But that's not what I was saying originally. Russian tanks aren't bad at all. In the right hands they can be used to very good effect. A retreating army with half it's experienced officer corps dead is not the right hands. German SS divisions did great with T-34s.
#63 - antoniospaghettio (06/25/2016) [-]
Yes, Germans started to use T-34's not long after they invaded in the summer of 1941.
So even Germans considered them to be good tanks.
#10 - Holy **** where is this from?  [+] (11 replies) 06/22/2016 on dealing +7
#11 - antibronywiseman (06/22/2016) [-]
"Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee"
#18 - wattlegobbler (06/22/2016) [-]
Wounded knee is a thing? I only through it was a Location in fallout
User avatar
#25 - saxong (06/22/2016) [-]
IIRC it was the ACTUAL site of the largest mass shooting in US history. Not Orlando.
User avatar
#27 - seniorawesomesauce (06/22/2016) [-]
yes, thats why people say "the largest mass shooting in modern history"
#48 - anon (06/23/2016) [-]
Literally nobody has been saying that. It's always "U.S. history."
User avatar
#49 - seniorawesomesauce (06/23/2016) [-]
Now you're just playing semantics. When American news reporters report on an American shooting, it should be assumed they're referring to American history when they say "modern history".
User avatar
#29 - saxong (06/22/2016) [-]
Don't know why I'm doing that "capital letters for emphasis" thing so much.
User avatar
#28 - saxong (06/22/2016) [-]
That's why CORRECT people say that, other people just spew gibberish out of their faceholes and nobody questions it
User avatar
#22 - iamchicken (06/22/2016) [-]
Yep. one of the many places where Natives and Americans clashed.
#21 - anon (06/22/2016) [-]
Yeah. Like, it was the site of one of the more infamous massacre of native Americans by US soldiers.
User avatar
#12 - ComradeBritish (06/22/2016) [-]
Thank you very much.