The reason why Gunner and Loader are swapped in Soviet tanks is as follows. In the British Army, it was normal for the gunner of a gun to always be on the left side. It was taken over for the tanks. Germany was the first to change that, and with time so did the rest of NATO, including the British. in the USSR that just didn't happen. possibly due to the introduction of autoloader. if you look at older British tanks for example, you find there also the "wrong" arrangement
Not quite. The US actually used the 'current' layout with the Sherman, meanwhile the germans were using the 'incorrect' layout as late as the Tiger II. Even the British hadn't swapped until the Centurion.
@@mr.waffentrager4400ergonomics. As I understand it, it's a lot easier to load a large round with your dominant hand, and since most people are right handed it makes more sense.
@@alexmorley241 i see the loader will have to ram the round with left hand, but tbh both hand have equal strength, the difference is that the right hand has more co-ordination, in the incorrect method I think the loader will hold the projectile side with his right hand which is heavier. And guide is into the breach
@@mr.waffentrager4400 Okay, I didn't think about the Sherman,good point. And yes, it's about ergonomics. whether this was really so necessary we do not know. My father was a loader on an East German T55, Panzerregiment 4. We talked about it and he said that at the beginning the quite heavy HE were difficult to load. But as time went by, they knew how to do it best. and the APFSDS (he uses the designation UK, Unterkaliber wich means subcaliber) were never a problem due to the comparatively low weight
One of the biggest things you're missing here is other vehicles with you. One of the primary parts of that doctrine is concentration of firepower, in this case via superior numbers. In your case, depending on the time and unit, you should have 2 or 3 tanks moving in conjunction with you, either in column or on line. It'd be interesting to see if doing that changes the results.
Soviet Cold War tactics are impossible in game realities, as Soviet tanks from the 50s-60s are opposed by vehicles with modernization from the 80s-90s, and the Soviets don't have a 1 to 3-5 quantitative advantage, besides, in reality a Soviet offensive would be all-armed, with infantry and aviation, with paratroopers, with tactical nukes and other elements of WW3. So in the game, the Soviets are buckets that are immortal or die from spitting in favor of balance. Just imagine what would happen if the 1971 t-64a was the main opponent of the m60 and leopard 1 from 1965, in their basic versions, without stabilizers, without APDS-FS, and other joys from the 80s.
@@kidpagronprimsank05 Ik that a lot of officers were purged but I don't think that every tank crew got out of the country or got purged one of my grandpas friends was a tank commander in iran iraq war he used to say that the soviet tanks performed better anyways I don't really know about tanks I'm a plane guy😂
Hey panzer you should get a big squad together and test the tactics against a random enemy team, some games like war of rights have “pub stomps” where the organized guys eviscerate the randoms on the other team, I think a similar idea would be fun to see in war thunder
so accroding to Polish People Army Tank manuals (all declasified as Poland no longer uses this docrine) you got 3 things wrong: 1st. NATO tactic of using the elevating terrain was designed a little after all NATO tanks stared using L7 so late 60's 2nd. your first ammo type should be APHE than Kinetic (when T-72 became a thing they went with HEAT firts then if the target is 1.2km away switch to Kinetic 3rd. While playing soviet tanks like T-55, T-62 or even BMP's you should go with the group as it is in the doctrine "Infantry should cover the tanks as the platoon of Tanks breaks through enemy defense line" Source: trust me bro also I'm polish and I work for terytorial army, so getting info from someone who has been a soldier in 80's was like: hey, what was like to be a tank commander? and then he told you evertyhng saying "we don't use that anymore so its public information"
Short answer : The developers need to increase the number of players on the Soviet side, in real life the Soviets used superior tanks numbers to cover the weak flanks. And BMPs and Infantry units should cover the tanks as the platoon of Tanks breaks through enemy defense line.
This is a thing that should only be added in simulator battles then and some vehicles in nato countries such as the german and hungarian t-72s should be placed on the side of the soviets
I think it's very interesting how you don't actually play very well with real life tank knowledge. A veteran war thunder player will prefer the APHE any day of the week and opt to shoot weakspots, while you prefer highest pen and often just shoot centre mass, which is definitely the way to go IRL. It goes to show how even though War Thunder is right below tank sims in terms of realism, it is such a far cry from real life.
Flamethrowers are not banned and are not a war crime. it's just a myth. They are banned by specific countries for use in those countries' military, which is where the misconception likely derives from. I love your videos. Keep up the great content
It's kinda funny how I've naturally used these strategies in wt. The hill tactic i always called the sniper; reserved for "sniper tanks" (any tank with fast reverse or sharp depression) as they could excel on hill combat. The strategy feels very passive/defensive with little mobility. The low land strat i often referred as cornering/ Snaking. Very fast paced and often weaving in the cover of valley or city alleys. It was always rapid mobility and sudden strikes. Super aggressive but easily out numbered on success.
@@Q...........-no its called annoying players that are just bushes frontally on, and snipe from their spawn. Thats one of the few things WOT has better than WT, good luck sniping anything.
"I swear I'm not trying to make the Soviet tanks look bad" continues to call them targets TWICE and offensive to tanks, "I'm doing a soviet missile thing.confusing a road for a target"
6:45 it looks weird because all the visual effects are way brighter than everything else. That messes up with ur brain and it’ll start to think that the area is bright evn though it’s actually dark.
6:45 I actually see that kind of sky very often here in Eastern Canada during winter. When the Sun is low (that is, in the early morning or late afternoon, and it happens more often in winter than in summer), the clouds can take this dark grey look, but with the light being so diffuse, the ground looks quite bright, resulting in that kind of stunning contrast. I believe the issue is that we see this way more often than in reality in War Thunder. It should be uncommon, not a recurring thing. 😆
4:25 On the T-44/54/55/62 series, the commander sits behind the gunner in the left half of the turret, so the left hatch is actually the commander's hatch, which is also the gunner's hatch. The right hatch with the HMG is the loader's hatch, since that is where the loader's position is.
I'd love to see you do this kind of video but with a T-64 or a T-80. As far as I'm concerned that's when the technology available to the Soviets and their tactics really came together with regards to mobility, low profile and large calibre armament. Soviet tanks get a bad rap and rightly so for the most part, but there was quite a long time from the development of the T-64 where they really outshined western tanks in a lot of respects.
@@PanzerPaw go to tankograd's T-80 article and for the t64 i would recommen you wacth Let's talk about tanks - T-64, T-64A and T-64B armor evolution. by Broń Pancerna Świata and also the T-80B and T-64B use the same FCS it being the 1A33 FCS and 1G42 gunsight hope this helps :)
I disagree that soviet tanks 'rightly so' get a bad rap. Their weaknesses or its affect in actualy combat is often overstated, especially in the context of soviet doctrine. Just like western tanks would weaknesses affect them less in their doctrine.
@@matthiuskoenig3378 I could've worded my comment better to be fair. I think they're justifiably criticised in certain areas, but I absolutely agree that a lot of their weaknesses are exaggerated. For example, it's very easy to look at the performance of the T-72 in Iraq and conclude that they're horrendously outmatched by its western counterparts, when in reality they were export variants with thinner armour than the T-72A, were utilised by poorly trained crews and were used with near complete disregard for the doctrine they were designed for. I do think their reverse speed is objectively horrendous though lol
@@BobertherWell T72A were built in 70s, where the west only had M60s and Leopard 1s, not to mention it's price where was intentionally cheapened compared to better and earlier T64s. If you played HOI4 you'd know it's more important to having tanks into the army than have the best tank where you can not spit out enough number
LOL, accuse the soviets for flamethrowers while US used Napalm in Vietnam 24/7. Also you said to avoid open confutation and use cover. 99% of all your deaths are in the middle of the road with zero cover near.
just a question: why is it illegal to mount a flamethrower to a tank? the usage of flamethrowers is not banned by any convention... just regulated via Protocol III of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons...
My understanding of it is that because of Protocol III, it's pointless to mount it since there's very few circumstances where you could use it. It's pretty indiscriminate in nature so, you're going to always run the risk of breaking the rules by bringing it out. Also, it's not _that_ useful for tanks to carry around anyway.
@@PanzerPaw ahhh alright^^ thanks for taking your time to answer me :) makes sense calling it illegal due to its indiscriminating nature :) also thanks for bringing me back to war thunder :D forgot how much fun this game is^^
Overall, it's not really possible to represent Soviet armor tactics in War Thunder scale (at most a battalion-level tactical engagement on a very narrow section of the frontline, with the number of vehicles per side present on the battlefield at a given moment in time representing at most a reinforced company), since those tactics are oriented towards exploitation of enemy weak points (with fewer anti-tank assets present to impede the assault, including opposing enemy armor) and rapid breakthrough into enemy rear with intent to cut off and encircle enemy formations on the operational level.
The USA neglected to sign the documents, making many weapons restricted or illegal under the international law. However as the creator is in Canada they are indeed illegal for his armed forces.
@@PanzerPaw somewhat it turns into "do tneu wojak" with a weird mirrored E and K, but it doesn't actually mean anything the wojak part made me giggle though
Wait wait wait, I was just looking up Cold War tank Tactics for the T-55 a couple days ago, didn’t find much but why are you looking up my search history
I would love to see you hop into the M60A1 AOS and see how NATO tactics work with its big ass commander cupola. You could possibly compare it to the Magach 6b, since it's practically the same, but without the giant cupola.
Would be really interesting if WT implemented mortar carriers/mortar AFVs. ie. M113/equivalent with 105 or 120mm mortar up to Grkpbv90120 Mjölner or Grkpbv90120/Patria360 AMOS/NEMO 😊
I'd still love to know why Russia decided their tanks just wouldn't be able to aim *down*, like all their shit... at least in WT... has 5-degrees or less.
Lots of reasons but the main ones being that their Western front is very flat so elevations aren't as big an issue. And also, their tactics didn't involve using ridges as much. But also, lower gun depression means needing more internal space = bigger/taller turret. And they wanted smaller tanks overall too. (Oversimplifying it a lot here to fit in a comment but that's the gist of it AFAIK)
I was gonna say the same thing. As far as I know, flamethrowers are less a jet of fire and more a pressurized hose blasting a mix of flammable liquids past a lighter. The mix of slow burning fuels like diesel and stuff allows you to get a lot more range and would float on top of water like an oil slick. Of course, knowing War Thunder, they probably didn't think of that when they implemented it and it was totally unintentional.
“…let’s be honest, gun accuracy that isn’t really as high or even in the same category as it’s Western equivalents…” That statement is just plain stupid. Why would its accuracy be lower if it has a two-axis stabilizer, a rifled barrel (that is also slightly longer than the L7’s barrel) and APDS shells? Just because it’s Soviet doesn’t mean it is somehow worse than its direct Western counterpart for no reason, and no amount of personal bias will change that.
You can still use flame 🔥 thowers in war it is not against the laws of war "For use against the enemy they are still legal, just not used in practice. Air-dropped incendiary weapons cannot be used against military targets if they are within a civilian-concentrated area (such as a base in the middle of a city) but that's beyond the scope of flamethrowers."
And that's where the problem is: It's indiscriminate enough that it'd be a problem. Hence, better to just not use it and going with something more effective and accurate.
thats actually lot like what winter/overcast often looks like here in finland. no sun visible but still light outside but no shadows either. looks weird just like in the game.
Technically flame throwers aren’t illegal they are still used as engineering equipment the US and most western militaries just don’t use them anymore because they aren’t as good as other systems
out of curiosity, what other different tank tactics are there? Nato represents the general use of defensive tanks, while the Warsaw Pact is offensive use of tanks. So what else do we have?
Every country has its own variation actually. I just have to find old documents or stuff that I can actually use for videos and then I'll test them out.
5:00 because t26, bt, t50, t34/76 are tanks with a 2 man turret where the gunner is the tank commander. Meanwhile, on the M2 Stuart USA tank, which also has a turret, 2 people are the tank commander. and M4 Shermans produced before 1943 did not have a hatch for the loader. So who would have thought that Loder would take over Commander's job? 9:52 why not do ovensif like Soviet 😂 16:59 only Vietnam have good time. When they take. South Vietnam capital.
@@kidpagronprimsank05they are effective against fortifications but there are many other alternatives (napalm strikes, incendiary strikes, etc) that are safer and just all around better for the operator
@@pyrobytee eh, you dont always have air superiority, although russian TOS-1 heavy flame throwers do show it is better to use thermobaric instead of the good old kind
What you explained sounds just like what I do. Completely aggressive, moving from cover to cover and flanking enemy or brawling close range. And it surprisingly works very well for me.
1. Thing... I think that there isn't a tank, tht would have a good time in sandy place like the sinai... 2. Your cregits were down. Please, restrain yourself from talking about the square massacre that never ever happend and is only western propaganda.
@@PanzerPaw I'm not saying having troubles in the sand or weather. I meant it in the mechanical meaning. Sand is hard on moving parts, hot weather is cruel for the crew etc. Don't get me wrong, we saw how abrams were and are good in sandy places. But the mechanisms don't like it...
@@PanzerPaw yeah, I knew that 😂 but I'm more onto the technical side. The stuff, you need to adjust for things to be able withstand the harsh conditions of sandy place is crazy... Air filters, radiators, overall cooling, lubrication, sealings etc... It just goes on.
About not knowing what to do a GHPC video about: -Hell, go through Campagin mode and do a whole video series: 1 video per operation. And since campaign is procedurally generated... After you finish one campaign you could actually start a new one and it will be different. Also you can shift focus between campaigns: Once prioritizing MBTs, other IFVs... Also changing factions, of course. -There are a lot of Instant Action missions: a LOT. You can fight Day, Night, NATO, WP, Tanks, IFVs... It is literally the same idea that you would do with War Thunder, just on GHPC. Showcasing different vehicles, trying different strategies, under different conditions (attacking, defending, having the upper hand, being the underdog, etc) -Tutorials and more instructing material about tactics, FCS, other tank systems... Also relating all that to the Cold War contexr or comparing it with similar conflicts in that era. -Soviet forces coming soon (next week?) So an update is always a good excuse to make a video. We'll see soviet versions of the vehicles already in the game but also a new T-64A. -If you manage to get audience engaged with GPHC... Leopards shouldn't take too long to come to GHPC... wink, wink.
Flamethrower tanks arent illegal to use they simply have some restriction on where they can be used but thats about it, doesnt really mean theyre not allowed, much like regular flamethrowers and such, the whole point is just to not burn down forests by accidents
I just feel, when I excel in society tanks like the T-55 is purely positioning, and patience. You’re reload, accuracy, speed, gun guidance angles, etc is just not good enough to make you stand out. You aren’t great at anything, especially reload. Use that low silhouette and be where they don’t expect. You want to just be good with your aim to make up for the fact you don’t have a rangefinder when everyone else does. And hit people in the side. I find that the IS-2 Peakaboo doctrine works best. But it’s weird because on certain maps I can CRUSH, and other maps in the T-55 I just get demolished. However, my best kills in this era was during atomic thunder in the M-60A1 AOS. I believe that was 17 kills? But the most I got in T-55 was 9-10kills. After a while the disadvantage stack the longer you stay in a match.
Very good video! Though, I think you need to get better at shooting, situational awareness, use of terrain, attention, driving, teamwork, eyeballing, choosing ammunition, angling, looking at the map, gaming chair, headphones, computer building, astronaut, cooking, getting a girlfriend, happy birthday, and dog before trying to use tactics that require more than just camping on a hill!
As someone who is fairly new to WT but has played a ton so far, I love the unique tanks that are kind of fun to play but not really that useful. Although I'd rather they focus on things like the maps where you get spawn camped endlessly, or if they could find a way to do something about the half of my team that inevitably goes afk once they find out they've been up tiered. Also, is it really as hard as it seems to find a decent squad that isn't full of random bots and people using vpns?
17:03 You went on the hill 😅. To be fair I don’t want to fight at B, or A either but your best bet is maybe A, or maybe in between A-B if you didn’t go up on that high area at C. Overall that map isn’t EZ for the 55 imo.
The gunner doesn't get a hatch in the T-55, or any other soviet tank. The hatch to the left(relative to WT camera position) is TC hatch and the one to the right is the loaders hatch
Something worth bearing in mind. The Cold War Soviet tactics played out to be subpar. The no gun depression, valley following, face charge concept only really worked when you had hordes to overwhelm with. Something War Thunder doesn't really provide you outside of dumb luck with the right team. Additionally, this method often simply resulted in a great way to throw away vehicles and crew, neither being infinite. As time wore on and advances made that tactic became increasingly bad for a host of reasons not the least of which is the necessity to bunch your armor up before the push. Something that has become a VERY bad idea on today's battlefield and rather unviable for obvious reasons in War Thunder. All that said, good on you for doing what you could with it in game. Keep up the great work. I've found this, and the NATO counterpart, interesting.
This implies that Soviet doctrine is just "rush forward into the enemy's forces until you break trough". Which is a rather significant oversimplification based on "haha stupid incompetent soviets".
@@Someone-lr6guYeah, you ould make that claim right up until they proved it is that stupidly simple and they are in fact incompetent in the field for a multitude of reasons. Trust me they themselves and the rest of the world were fairly surprised. I could bore you with a dissertation on the details but suffice to say they spent more focus on propaganda then actually training troops. Not a winning scenario on the modern battlefield.
@@Someone-lr6gu You can pretend the current conflict is somehow irrelevant if you like. It's telling. Given their performance the current conflict is indeed a "peer" fight. They could not compete at any level against a stronger opponent. Best of luck with your mental gymnastics.
@@machinech183 You accuse me of mental gymnastics while claiming that the Soviet armed forces and their doctrine is the same as the Russian armed forces and their doctrine, which is objectively not true and incorrect, but seems to be comfortable enough for your own beliefs. This blatant disregard of the modern history of the Russian military is pretty obvious. Seeing how you instantly go for the personal arguments -- accusing me of mental gymnastics and saying that I am "pretending" without bothering yourself to explain your actual point -- you are clearly holding this position due to your personal and political beliefs. Otherwise you would already supplement your words with any sort of argument to show that you know what you're talking about. Not too late to do so, though.
Я потратил 48 боев чтобы исследовать подкалиберный снаряд на т-54-1951 Из 10 боев 9 были в низу списка (моя техника имеет ранг 8.0, техника врага 8.7-9.0) Я ненавижу эту игру
Not gonna lie and as I love soviet history and playing soviet vehicles Your gameplay seems more like NATO and less of Soviet Using Hills to traverse instead of going around You also mainly want to use 2/3 APHE and 1/3 HEATFS with the T-55A And Dont constantly shoot with the DShK towards the enemy you shoot You reveal the position and the advantage of a Low Profile soviet tank. Something tells me despite the provided Doctrine documents that are even de-classified you still could not manage to play like one.
Interesting point about that: The documents I referred to (linked in the description) are actually a report on Soviet tank tactics during the Cold War written by US DoD. Meaning, it's literally a Western interpretation of what they _believed_ Soviet tankers would do. So, it actually makes sense that it looks more western styled than actually Soviet.
