Was the British Chieftain, really the worst major MBT of the cold war?
>>50015296bad engine but aside from that it was actually quite good (for NATO) at the time. >good armor>great gun (for the time)>just enough mobility to drive from barracks to the stop positions to meet the soviet rush
Multifuel engine was shite, but gun and FCS were top tier till M1A1 and Leopard 2A2 came in.
>>50015296so what was the worst MBT of the cold war era for its time period (not talking about T-62 in 2021 ofc) then
>>50015296It was the Western T-64. Centurion - Western T-55Leopard 2 - Western T-72
It proved to be upgradable very well but the fundamental flaws like weak engine, subpar suspension, optics were never never fixed.
>>50015392The US was using the Patton at that stage and I would have to say it was the worst. You also have to remember that this thing replaced the fucking Centurion - the capability leap was fucking ridiculous at the time.
>>50015419>The US was using the Patton at that stage and I would have to say it was the worst.I've heard some 19K complaining that Patton had better FCS than Abrams (at least the early ones).
>>50015435Thats not really that un-usual desu. The Leopard 2A4's that we got had worse thermald than the Leopard 1's getting replaced
>>50015453Shut the fuck up you Canadian piece of shit. No one is interested to hear what you have to say
>>50015419>>50015431The Leopard I was the worst, not being able to survive at any range from the T62/64/72 is completely unacceptable.
>>50015457I feel offended that you assume im a canadian, but also curious as to what canada ever did to you?
>>50015475You don't need armour, /k/rautJust ambush Russians and use hit-and-run, if they hit you you are dead but they will hit you anyway, possibly with nukes, then why even bother?For meat shield to hold the Soviets until the USAF could drop tactical nukes right on their overrun positions Leo1s were good enough.
>>50015392AMX-30>even worse armor than Leopard>not quite as fast>unstabilized gun
>>50015419Everything I've heard from veterans who served in the Patton is positive. Maybe on paper but the people I talked to loved theirs.
>>50015475>Leopard 1>rated as best NATO tank by the NATO and Soviets>some guy on /k/>it's the worst!
>>50015486Where are you from?
>>50015419Patton was superior to the Centurion variants in that timeframe.
>>50015453The late A5 Leopard 1 tanks literally got the same fire control system and optics as the Leopard 2. So kinda unlikely.
They where comfy as targets on the range
>>50015530fun factIn NATO maneuvers any (counter-)attacks were carried by Leopard 1 tanks. It was the only tank they thought could successful act as spearhead.
>>50015296Why don't you ask the Soviets that had to face it? They put their most advanced tanks at the time (T64) opposite Chieftain formations. In its intended role of going hull down in prepared positions to fight off Russian hordes before the falling back under covering fire to more prepared positions - it had no equal.It's engine was always a shortcoming, but let's not take it too far out of of context - it was more reliable than pretty much every tank in WW2 - its not like it was always broken. By the time it was fixed it was surprisingly reliable. In the 1991 gulf war it had a higher availability rate than challenger 1. And thats not because CR1 was unreliable.
>>50015419The Patton, especially in the later variants was better than the Chieftain. Better mobility, reliability and equal armor. The 120mm gun was better, but not by that much.The Chieftain was a pretty good tank, but it quickly became obsolete.
>>50016095That‘s not how it works. Soviets rated the British sectors as the easiest ones and would have break through Northern Germany
>>50016124>The Patton, especially in the later variants was better than the ChieftainYou need to give your head a wobble.
>>50016124At no point was Chieftain rated as a good tank.
>>50015296It's godtier in WoT, but that because it's only competition is WW2 and Korean era tanks
>>50016138Incorrect, none of the British sectors were opposite the main soviet target of the fulda gap. Feel free to look up some soviet reports from the late 60's and early 70's about having to break through British forces.
>>50015296Idk but I looks cool, especially the turret
>>50016174Seven Days To The Rhine wargame would have seen the main attack in the British Sector. Fulda Gap was never particular interesting for the Soviets because it would only lead to Southern Germany.
>>50015296No, that would be the T-64. There's a reason why it was removed from frontline service for years
>>50016218>seven days to RhineLiterally made to appease politicians. Commanders in the field knew it wasn't possible either conventionally or when nukes were used.
>>50015392Genuine worst? Something minor and likely not often talked of.Pattons, M60s, T-55s, T-64s, Leopards, AMXs...they were all pretty good. It was a very good era of tanking from many nations.Worst is probably the OF-40 or something, given it attracted virtually no attention and even Italy didn't use it.
>>50016138>The soviets, long known for their honesty and integrity in the field of military propagandistic shit talking, said ____
>>50016218It was always a weakness that the sectors were based of historic zones than the actual threatlevel. US forces in Nothern Germany would have been more logical.
>>50016235Are Russians even capable of making anything comparable to Western designs, both in tanks and aircraft?Not talking about "superior: to Western
>>50016272Top secret war game was somehow propaganda…Makes one wonder what reports which were referred proved the opposite
>>50016272>secret soviet briefings>propagandaYeah, CIA think tank "experts" know better about Russia and Russian capabilities than real Russians, ignore anything Russians say that don't corroborate with our world view
>>50016328US tanks were shit until M1A1 though
>>50016283The T-64As weren't bad after they were fixed. The problem stems from Soviet procurement which placed a far greater emphasis on fixing problems after adoption vs the west where major known issues are corrected before production. One leads to an adequate solution now that becomes good in time vs a good solution that takes longer to be fielded.
>>50016328>>50016342Man was the CIA shown to be wrong.
>>50015631can you provide source on that?or in general counter attack tactics from NATO during CW
>>50016218Fulda WAS interesting though. Whoever controlled it was able to funnel units through it and could perform an encircling maneuver against the northern front of NATO or Pact forces. That was the importance of it. The north was always the focus because it's better tank country but Fulda allowed you to actually destroy units instead of just forcing them to retreat.
>>50015316One of the best tanks of the cold war as long as it broke down on the correct hill
>>50016457Fulda gap was one big way to Southern Germany. Breaking through Kassel would have give you the option to encircle either parts of Germany.
>>50015545M60 maybe, M48 no, even the 20lbr could frontally penetrate the M48.
>>50015296who has ever claimed this? The only thing wrong with it was a shit engine, other then that it was equal too or even surpassed tanks of the time. Is there just one mentally I'll faggot who spends all his time shitting on British military equipment?
>>50015572Leopard 1 had EMES-18, while Leopard 2 only had EMES-15. That's 3 worse
>>50016303You might have had a point if a country using state of the art Russian doctrine and equipment didn't get utterly annihilated during desert storm.Even the coalition thought they'd take 15% casualties, but instead came out with barely a scratch.Russia was deluded the whole cold war
>>50016342This reads like a humanities major's first intro to warfare. All that text to say "I don't understand concentration of force"
>>50016619Considering there are 5 bing hate threads in the catalog right now I'm going to say yes, or the Chinks are pre-seething hard about the bongs sailing past them next montg
>>50016728Could be residual slav seethe
>>50016672> using state of the art Russian doctrine and equipment >state of the art equipment>export T-72Ms without composite armour turret cheeks >tankers unironically fire training rounds at Americans because the don't know the difference from live rounds>state of the art doctrine>hey guys lets just dig in our tanks in the desert plain open and wait for americans to come, no spread of force, no forward and side security detachments.>get 73Easting'dLMAO. >Muslims>Capable of sticking to ANY military doctrine
>>50016728People of all races are laughing at the Bongs. It‘s not coming home.
>>50016836Not even half of bongs are English when you count overseas brits
>>50016774Cope all you like, Russian high command absolutely shat their pants after they saw what happened
>>50017018>Proofs: my assOk Ameriboo.
>>50016672They definitely weren't following Russian doctrine at all. Their Mig-25 pilots, on the other hand, were well-trained by Russians and were able to make the most of their equipment.
>>50015296For the West, yes. Finicky engines resulted in low ready-rates. Even if their armor and firepower were good. Going hull-down doesn't matter if you can't drive to the position or die sitting there because you can't quickly evacuate it.At least it can claim the distinction of looking really good.
>>50015296Absolutely the Leopard 1/AMX-30 were the worst. Any European cold war conflict would have been almost entirely defensive for NATO throughout the 50s-early 70s. The Europanzer project had this fantastical idea that somehow they were going to perform maneuver warfare against an enemy also performing maneuver warfare with a numbers and equipment advantage. The chieftain's from the Mk10 onward, M60A3, and Type 74 all perfected the 2nd gen MBT. The Chieftain went with the heavier armor in a purely defensive role. The M60A3 and Type 74 went with a vehicle that were strategically mobile enough to meet soviet maneuvers while not completely abandoning armor protection combined with some of the best FCS' around at the time. The Type 74 while late to the party was able to learn from everyone else's mistakes and still remained relevant through their primary threat being soviet naval infantry which only had access to T-55s and T-62s well after the introduction of the T-64 and T-72 into the normal soviet army.
>>50016774>export T-72Ms without composite armour turret cheeksT-72M's are literally identical to T-72A's right down to the fire control and armor layout. The same is true of the T-72M1 and T-72A('82) I don't know where this meme came from that the M was this trash tank.>training round memeThe BM-15 was never issued as a training round, it was always considered warshot even as it was phased out and the supply was being sold to client states and countries that purchased the T-72M/M1
>>50016542Funny map considering what the Czechs thought of the notion of them advancing along their front, and the rather bizarre amount of fear both sides had of Austria.
>>50017172>what the Czechs thought of the notion of them advancing along their front?>inb4 "stab Soviets in the back" bullshit
>>50016147One worked, the other didn't.
>>50017219Seeing as centurions were reeking pattons is laughable to suggest chieftains wouldn't.
>>50016342>it says secret and someone highlighted certain parts so it must be official!Idiot
>>50017217Oh no, nothing that silly.https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/nukevault/ebb285/ZB-79.pdfPage 73 in particular he talks about his task.
>>50017305Well the other side just wants us to believe the "common knowledge" of "American qualitative superiority". At least he presents something to back his claim.
>>50016272>heh why don't you ask the Soviets they rated our shitboxes as the most powerful and best!>Soviets rated you as easiest pushovers >n-no Soviets are just b-big liars!!!! they always lie!! We're the bestNice cope bro
>>50017305It's really not that hard to search up mouthbreather.https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/DOC_0000624298.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjp7o33rfXxAhVCGFkFHfj0CJ0QFjAAegQIDBAC&usg=AOvVaw3Vxyw_arOtwOedbaISiRWo
>>50016375I legitimately want to know how you formulate in your head that Iraq was the same as USSR and Warsaw pact.Please tell me.
>>50015406that's a retarded comparison
>>50017786>Iraq was the same as USSR and Warsaw pact.Where did I say this? Go take your strawman elsewhere.
>>50015435Not sure about the FCS as a whole, but the A3's TTS was known to be better than the baseline M1
>>50015296Not really. The engine just sucked. Had the Brits adopted the Rolls Royce V12 diesel that they developed for the Iranian models it would have arguably been the best western MBT of the time.
>>50015572Brazilian Leopard 1 have kits to upgun them to the 120mm gun but Brazil has only done so with 3 tanks because no one in South America is stupid enough to try and attack Brazil anyway.
>>50015296Nope, that would be vanilla M1 with 105mm L7
>>50020643true but the british decision to go with the multifuel engine was based on a NATO requirement that the other nations ignored because until the turbine in the M1 it just wasnt that doable. the british version worked but was not as reliable as required
>>50015435I think the m60a3 tts had better thermals than the original m1s from what I remember reading.That might be what he was talking about.
>>50015527The only problem with m60s for that era that I keep reading about was its height.Might be one of those things that are complained about but didn't really matter.Just like how everyone swoons over how low and harder to hit the t-64s and t-72s were. I dont remember them being low stopping them from punting their turrets to the other team.
>>50016349Sherman, m48, m60 were all good tanks.M26 had issues and m47 was a stop gap tank.
>>50016147Nice counterargument, buddy.
>>50016265OF-40 was always meant as a cheap export tank for third world shitholes, no wonder Italy wasn't interested in italso the mk.2 was a fine tank, basically a better Leopard A1A1
>>50016302>Top secret war game was somehow propaganda…Yes. Perhaps you're not aware but soviet society was completely dysfunctional. They did not only bullshit the outside world, they bullshitted each other on a regular basis. See what happened with Chernobyl, just layers of retards lying to each other to cover their asses until some brave idiot decided he had had enough and started telling the truth.
>>50020671I mean yea, hope you enjoy subdueing HueHue population
>>50016375>amerifats are genuinely this retardedLol
>>50021660The more I think about it the more it seems like Brazil would be one of the absolute worst nations to fight.>large population>a lot of them are used to violence and comfortable with it>memes aside, they're relatively educated compared to other thirdy countries and could put up some clever resistance>they're a Portuguese colony, not Spanish and don't have as much raw ineptitude floating to the top of their leadership>half of the terrain is hellish jungle which could lead them to be Vietnam x10 in a defensive situation>large aerospace and defense sectors that could be put towards rapidly producing armaments for a massive standing army>capacity to create nukes if a budget is authorized for facilities and already capable of building large dirty bombs>already has the capability for manufacturing long range delivery systemsIt'd be like fighting Vietnam with a much bigger, much more brutal and much more industrially capable population
>>50015296I would take it over a M60 or Leopard 1
>>50015296My dad used to work on them.Gun and armour were top notch when it came out.Engine/gearbox were comically unreliable and squaddies used to joke about if ww3 started, they hoped they would break down in a good hull down position.
>>50022301The Ik-ookers actually cancelled their contract to buy some because during their trials there was a 1 out of 3 chance that there would be a severe oil leak on startup and would paint the whole engine bay black. They started calling it the "negergraf" or negro-tomb because the mechanics were always covered in oil and they figured it was just a mobile coffin.
>>50016170Isn't it like a premium tier 10 tank you had to do some abstract shit to get?
>>50023520Ranked reward tank I believe. Fighting them in my M48 is hell. It's basically better in every way, including mobility despite being a heavy.But WG also hates America so it's not surprising it's better.
>>50022122>the same CIA that says there was a missile gap, MiG-25 is super dogfighter and Alfa class sub is quiet thought that the T-72 Ural was immune to M735, it had thermals and had a laser range finderYeah, they were wrong.
>>50024017WG has made so many stupid decious with Tech Trees I have lost all care for it.>What should we do about the French Medium tank line?>Just make all of them premium lmao>Should we make the Czech tech three from domestic tanks?>Yes, except the tier 7, we will sell the tier 7 tank as a premium and place a T-34-100 in a line where it stands out completely>Should Americans get another medium tank line?>No, we should just turn the T95 into a bunch of mediums instead
>>50015513>I get my tank knowledge from War Thunder : the post
>>50027578hes not wrong though
>>50026251I just want to play a good American tank man. I got the M103 because it's my favorite tank of all time and it's worse in every single way then its competitors. Considering it's known for its crazy powerful gun I don't know why WG doesn't just buff the pen to shit on it so it can be competitive.Well, I do know why. It's a Russian country and they're still butthurt about the Cold War.
>>50021341>another example of the brits doing what Nato wants because the US demands it... only for the US to say fuck part way down the road it when it comes to development of our own stuff.lol
>>50027596>entered service in 1995>cold warif it actually entered service in the intended date, it wouldn't have been half bad
>>50015513Was also used well into the 90s with all of those downsides.
>>50030536American line has bunch of holdovers from old, old design language from like 2012 and 2013 and it hasn't gotten as much love as either Russian or German tech tree.Early WoT had this thing where>Stock tank is hot garbage, can't pen shit>Top tank is decent, good gun + (usually) gimmick gunIf you check the new tech trees they always come with competitive guns as stockI recently checked and American line has had no new tanks added to it for over half a decade.Last additions were probably the light tanks
unironically the USSR had both a quality and quantity advantage in MBTs for the majority of the cold war. things were relatively equal at the onset, but by the period of the T-62 onwards, the leopard 1 and M60 were outclassed. that doesn't mean they were bad tanks, just compared to what the soviets had, underperforming. nowadays though things are a lot more equal, and arguably leaning in NATO's favor.
>>50015406you realize the T-64/A was superior to the T-72 when the latter was first introduced, right?T-64 was NEVER exported.
>>50032429Yeah but they didn't have quantity and quality in the same tank and I don't think the relatively small numbers of T-64 were going to prop the T-55 up, even less the T-80 the T-72 down the line
>>50032714the T-64 was fielded alongside the T-62 anon, both of which were very capable tanks. Pattons, Leopards, and Centurions really stood no chance.
>>50032789You need to look at the numbers available in time frame. They might be able to send T-64 with professional crews and T-62 backup against the British sectors Chieftains, for example, but that's going to leave areas where they're sending conscripts in T-55s against Leo-1s or AMX-30 crewed by professionals and western reserve tanks were at least as capable against that USSR reserve too.The USSR had the advantage but it wasn't as overwhelming as most people seem to think and the statement "quality and quantity advantage" misses the nuance that the quality was slim at best and the quantity was provided by shit
>>50031033Soon America will be adoptin a bullpup.
>>50032848even if you are to argue that the quantity being of sub-par tanks makes it worthless, then there are a few examples we can look to sort of disprove that. now, I know the m4 sherman was a very capable and well-performing tank, but in late 1944/early 45, you have plenty of instances of 75mm M4 shermans taking out King Tigers and Late Panthers, tanks which easily outclassed it. The quality difference here is massive, yet they still were wrecking the kraut's shit. even if a leo sees a group of t-55s at first, the best advantage it has is to get the first shot off. and once that occurs, the 6 other t-55s will return fire and easily kill the leo. the numbers advantage was great for the soviets, especially on a local level.
>>50015296It had a shitty engine, but otherwise was a great tank. A squadron of Kuwaiti Chieftains held off a full Iraqi republican guard armored division for a whole day before they had to retreat after running out of ammo.
>>50015296>>50017064>>50020643Who cares about how good a tank that never saw combat in it's intended role was? You might as well ask how well a tractor with recoilless rifle bolted to the side would have been.From the point of view of us, now, today, here the ONLY thing that matters is aesthetics and GOD DAMN, that's a sexy fucking tank.
>>50032875You're not wrong in what you're saying there but this is why the Leo-1 and AMX30 were optimised for maneuver, escaping encirclement etc long enough for the US to arrive with the greater number of M60s, with enough on hand to slug it out with the quality USSR forces along with the British in that example.Throw in that it's a narrow front due to European terrain etcAgain, I agree completely that the USSR had the advantage but anyone who thinks they're going to conventionally roll into Paris and/or make it through Germany without significant losses is mistakenWest had pretty much no chance of taking the fight into Russia though, it bears saying
>>50032850sauce? im pretty sure the sig entry for the NGSW was the selected one
>>50032954I pretty much agree totally.
>>50015392Probably Type 61. It's practically a WW2 tank made for the cold war. You could see a
>>50032947>le "a piece of military equipment is worthless unless it saw frontline combat in (the nonexistent) third world war!!!11"it's pretty reasonable to judge a tank based off it's design and statistics even if it didn't sling tungsten across the fulda gap
>>50015296by far the worst tank by a NATO or neutral state
>>50015530Leopard 1 was never counted as as the best tank. Actually, before Leo2, Soviet command believed that Chieftain was actually the best NATO heavy machine.
>>50015631Because they were the only one goddamn fast enough to compete with the Warsaw Pact machines.
>>50033016>t. complete brainlet You don't own a gun and you don't know anything about the military so why are you even on this board?
>>50016174Fulda Gap was NATO theoretical game without any real Soviet Union/Warsaw Pact interest. Domain goal for the Soviet Union command was to get to the Benelux and Northern France ASAP, due to logistical reasons (ports, roads, huge armaments stocks).
>>50017048Different Anon here. Here's one of my favorite papers, it's translations of soviet military journals during the gulf warhttps://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/reports/2009/R4164.pdfDesert ShieldWeek 1>The theme that the Persian Gulf War would be protracted was most authoritatively stated by Marshal of the Soviet Union Akhromeyev at the end of the first week of the war... He went on to observe, "I do not think that an army with nine years of combat experience can be paralyzed simply by air attacks. The conflict will drag on rather long." Week 2Colonel General of Aviation Ye. Shaposhnikov, Commander-in-Chief of the Soviet Air Force ... indicated that the Iraqi Air Force had survived intact and was probably being keptin reserve for planned strikes against the ground forces of the allied coalition and Saudi Arabia, and for cover of its own combat formations in the event of large-scale Iraqi ground operations. Week 3Pravda interview with Major General V. Filatov, chief editor of Voyennoistoricheskiy zhurnal, who predicted that the war would end in a major U.S. defeat. He commented that the U.S. was moving steadily toward its "second Vietnam," which would be worse than the first: ... he nonetheless predicted that the war would be "protracted," and went on to comment that the U.S. would lose many of its allies, while the Soviet Union -- remaining on the sidelines -- would acquire them"
>>50016138>Soviets rated the British sectors as the easiest ones and would have break through Northern GermanySource for this?
>>50017048>>50034029Desert StormWeek 1On 6 February in KZ, Colonel V. Demidenko, a Soviet Air Force pilot ... remarked while Soviet fighters such as the Su-17 and MiG-23 could hardly be expected to counter U.S. F-15s, Iraqi MiG-29s were more than a match for U.S. aircraft. He concluded: "Even an average MiG-29 pilot has a better chance of emerging victorious in a dogfight than his adversary in an F-15, not to mention other aircraft."Pravda, 18 January 1991. Two analysts observed: "We note that Soviet military equipment, of which Iraq has an abundance, has not shown itself at its best. Will anyone dare to buy it after such an obvious failure?"Week 3Major General Viktor Filatov,... reported that the Iraqi army had shown "its bravery and courage" in a series of counterattacks which "smashed" allied forces in the Persian Gulf... [Filatov] asserted that American forces had not actually entered Kuwait on February 24, as announced, but remained inside Saudi Arabia on the defensive.Post warReformists>Colonel Aleksandr Tsalko, who headed a Soviet Air Force Training Center prior to assuming his duties as a Soviet People's Deputy, observed that the crushing defeat of the Iraqi Army made itclear the Soviet military doctrine and the entire model of military development were obsolete. On a 1 March Moscow Radio broadcast he stated:>Some military authorities in this country continue to believe that the outcome of a war is determined by a clash of huge masses of ground troops. It is sheer madness. The war in the Gulf clearly showed that the Iraqi Army was simply overwhelmed by air strikes and the troops had to keep their noses buried in the sand.>Tsalko disagreed with those who claimed that the war demonstrated the inferiority of Soviet military equipment. "On many counts we are not so much behind." He stressed, however, thatthe main lesson of the war was that huge amounts of tanks, armored vehicles, and artillery pieces were "absolutely useless."
>>50017048>>50034029>>50034116More post war reactions>Colonel Nikolay Petrushenko, one of the leaders of the powerful, conservative, Soyuz [Union] organization, stated that he had no doubts that the reported successes of the multinational forces were exaggerated by the Western press. "Only a very naive person," he commented, "can believe that during the month and a half of preparations for the war, the U.S. lost 80 people, while more than a month of hostilities claimed a total of 70 men killed or wounded.">Marshal of the Soviet Union Viktor Kulikov, former Commander-in-Chief of Warsaw Pact Forces, said that the "human factor" was largely responsible for the Iraqi defeat in the Gulf War. Noted that the Soviet equipment sold to Iraq was not technologically inferior to Western equipment. He claimed that the "human element" was always the derisive element in the success or failure of any weapon system. He observed that while the Iraqis had been trained by Soviet military advisors, "one does not always succeed in injecting one's knowledge into someone else's head.">Kulikov acknowledged that the Iraqi air defense system, composed essentially of Soviet equipment, had not functioned. He concluded: The military operations between the coalition forces and Iraq have modified the idea which we had about the nature of modern military operations. A deeper analysis is necessary, but one point is already clear; the Soviet Armed Forces will have to take a closer look at the quality of their weapons, their equipment, and their strategy.
>>50034116>>50034165Powerful. At least there are some honest Slavs in the world.
>>50034478The part that tickled me the most is that the Soviets were aware of "why arabs lose wars" for decades and by the gulf war had given up on trying, content with just selling them monkey models for money.
>>50015296Aesthetically it looks the best imoHave no idea about functionality lmao
>>50015392Probably a Japanese tank, or that tank Switzerland built which is an abomination.
>>50017786>Iraq, most experinced army at the time>followed soviet tank doctrine to the letter>get rolled over in a day >russians immediately begin to rework armor doctrine becuase of how bad the Iraqis did vs the US.First gulf war was a good indicator of how the west vs the soviets would have gone down if there weren't nukes. It also showed how far they fell behind in tech.
>>50015431WHAT! You don't like the starship?!??! You fucking fags!
>>50023520>>50024017I used to play WoT Console where the Chieftain was just a regular tier 10 unlock. The game was fun until one day they made some gayass update that ruined every tank and made three years of my life and about $1200 go down the drainGood times.t. 2016-2019 player
>>50034997I've been playing since 2012. God I miss old WoT, before power creep.I remember when they first added the brits. Good times.
>>50035148>>50034997I unfortunately still play the PC POS game. Not as much as before. Nothing but frustration. Thinking of playing War Thunder, but I heard its even more of grind.
>>50035192War Thunder is worse. The grind is 1000 times more difficult.However, you don't get steamrolled by shit teams nearly as much. But there's the added frustration of being one-shot by some faggot in a bush 3.6 miles away that's impossible to see from where you are. So take your pick.Man I wish Armored Warfare was good.
>>50035233I miss the days when a random War Thunder arcade game could take hours.
>>50035233I am more interested in the lower tier stuff for War Thunder. Already wasted enough time with these games. Are the lower tiers doable in War Thunder?
>>50035233war thunder is a great game if you pretend that nothing exists past like tier three
>>50015296>WorstT-62 existed, anon
>>50035284What do you mean by low tier? Late WW2 can be a pain in the ass to get to but it's not that bad. It's once you start hitting early Cold War that the grind becomes near impossible.
>>50035301Ah I see. You answered it for me. Shame they make it so hard considering it appears they have more in terms of availability then WoT.
>>50015406>Leopard 2 - Western T-72Woah there let's not get carried away
>>50035321Yeah the tier progression system is fucking stupid too. You can't just grind one line since you need a certain number of vehicles in your current tier to unlock the next one. It's annoying.
>>50034560Fuck you! The Panzer 68 was a great tank. I mean, what other tank would fire the main gun when you turn on the heating system?
>>50034116The Iraqis military got fucked by superior technology. Allied forces tanks for instance all had thermal and night vision and that alone is a dominating factor on a battlefield.