British, American, and German tanks (with maybe something from Italy, if they are out on holiday) still inbound?

I guess it's understandable that they pick Katyusha for the GuP reference, but IMHO March of the Soviet Tankmen is more fitting in this context...

MERRY THREE COMRADES~

Bisko isn't likin' your lil statement there, Tashkent dear.

Heyyy, looks like ido took a trip to Saumur tank museum....

Asteriaphoenix said:

Heyyy, looks like ido took a trip to Saumur tank museum....

He should have gone to Kubinka, for PzKpfW VIII Maus shenanigans.

It's not so much a horde of tanks that stormed Berlin as a horde of cockroaches.
These tanks were durable and reliable (running all the way from Kharkov to Moscow is no easy feat), easy to make and repair (blew the turret off? just tow it back to fix a new turret in and we are good to go), cheap to make (about 260,000 rubles in 1942), got even cheaper in time (137,000 rubles by 1945), easy to operate (even a farmer to drive it)...

No wonder the German lost.

Demundo said:

reliable, easy to make and repair

The latter accounts for the former. They were in no way "reliable" in the way Westerners understand it, that is that they'd never break down. More that they could generally be fixed with baling wire and a hammer. Jingles explains it pretty well.

I feel like the Girls Und Panzer School teams should be in this. :)

Three happy comrades :D

Obligatory: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Yl-DvkX0hY

I did not expect any less for the Russian Tanks part of this strip.

Asteriaphoenix said:

Heyyy, looks like ido took a trip to Saumur tank museum....

Yes he did. There were some pics of his trip on his twitter.

Very killer ergonomic tho.
Poor Chief Moran had to struggle to fit in driver compartment.

OOZ662 said:

The latter accounts for the former. They were in no way "reliable" in the way Westerners understand it, that is that they'd never break down. More that they could generally be fixed with baling wire and a hammer. Jingles explains it pretty well.

Some of it stem from the fact that, compared to most western nations, the Russian (or the Soviets in this case) had harsher climates, relatively undeveloped infrastructure and staff, and vast amounts of territories to cover, so their military philosophy was based on situations where the common man can do things independently away from HQ and their engineers.

Demundo said:

It's not so much a horde of tanks that stormed Berlin as a horde of cockroaches.
These tanks were durable and reliable (running all the way from Kharkov to Moscow is no easy feat), easy to make and repair (blew the turret off? just tow it back to fix a new turret in and we are good to go), cheap to make (about 260,000 rubles in 1942), got even cheaper in time (137,000 rubles by 1945), easy to operate (even a farmer to drive it)...

No wonder the German lost.

I'm pretty sure the Germans blew up around 60,000 or more Soviet tanks during the war. If I remember correctly the Germans destroyed more Soviet tanks than the Soviets built during the war, just that the Soviets had had a lot of tanks before the war, and also used both captured German tanks (which included captured French tanks and British tanks), but also the Lend Lease stuff from Brittan and American adding to their numbers while the Soviet industrial machine rebuilt itself in the Urals.

ithekro said:

I'm pretty sure the Germans blew up around 60,000 or more Soviet tanks during the war. If I remember correctly the Germans destroyed more Soviet tanks than the Soviets built during the war, just that the Soviets had had a lot of tanks before the war, and also used both captured German tanks (which included captured French tanks and British tanks), but also the Lend Lease stuff from Brittan and American adding to their numbers while the Soviet industrial machine rebuilt itself in the Urals.

Actually it's closer to 83500 tanks lost. 33400 for light, 44900 for medium and 5200 for heavy tanks.

1941 - 22600 active tanks, 5600 tanks put in service, 20500 tanks lost (72.7%)
1942 - 7700 active tanks, 27900 tanks put in service, 15000 tanks lost (42.1%)
1943 - 20600 active tanks, 22900 tanks put in service, 22400 tanks lost (51.5%)
1944 - 21100 active tanks, 21200 tanks put in service, 16900 tanks lost (40.0%)
1945 - 25400 active tanks, 8500 tanks put in service, 8700 tanks lost (25.7%)

Please note that Soviet system does not distinguish combat and non-combat losses (i.e. abandoned, lost due to malfunction). It's also unclear whether repaired/recovered vehicles count as "put in service" or as non-loss.

4523 tanks lend-leased by UK, 6574 by USA, total of 11097 tanks (APCs not included for not being tanks).

OOZ662 said:

The latter accounts for the former. They were in no way "reliable" in the way Westerners understand it, that is that they'd never break down. More that they could generally be fixed with baling wire and a hammer. Jingles explains it pretty well.

I have heard that for the Russian, "Reliable" or "Quality" machine is that it is easy to use, make and repair, not sure tho...

Demundo said:

It's not so much a horde of tanks that stormed Berlin as a horde of cockroaches.
No wonder the German lost.

German POV by Smash Mouth:
Well the years start coming and they don't stop coming,and they don't stop coming, and they don't stop coming...

Justsome1passingby said:

German POV by Smash Mouth:
Well the years start coming and they don't stop coming,and they don't stop coming, and they don't stop coming...

Or as this Tiger experiences from all these times

ithekro said:

I'm pretty sure the Germans blew up around 60,000 or more Soviet tanks during the war. If I remember correctly the Germans destroyed more Soviet tanks than the Soviets built during the war, just that the Soviets had had a lot of tanks before the war, and also used both captured German tanks (which included captured French tanks and British tanks), but also the Lend Lease stuff from Brittan and American adding to their numbers while the Soviet industrial machine rebuilt itself in the Urals.

Every tank disabled in battle is a tank lost.
It's great to keep track of what you have to fight, but not good in numerical performance.
That means burned down is a loss, lost the main gun is a loss, lost the turret is a loss, engine broke down is a loss, etc...
That make the number of what they lost double, triple, or even quadruple the actual tank losses.

And Lend Lease program huh? Yes, they were great. But remember that it wasn't that much. As Gilgamesh404 pointed out, the tanks from that program (all of them) is still just a fraction of how many tanks lost-listed. And I dare say those tanks were one deal off kind of stuff. And as I recall, they are mostly reserved or just infantry tanks used in place of armored vehicles.