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
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😂
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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"
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.
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. 😆
"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"
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.
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.
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.
it's actually harder to make the T-55 work compared to say the Chieftain or Centurion. but when it works, you bully 90's to modern main battle tanks and one-tank wallet warriors with a 60-year-old granny tank and it's very satisfying. only 2 things i keep in mind while driving the T-55: "use your friends as distractions" and "if you're shooting at something from the front, you did something wrong". i LOVE the T-55. (hate the T-54) but it's so hard to love it sometimes.
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
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.
8:44 No, this is exactly how a 2-stroke diesel engine with opposingly moving pistons sounds like (5TD engine family on T-64 series and their design predecessors (obj. 430/435)).
The water being on fire makes sense because the flamethrower is spewing out fuel which is less dense than water. So it floats up and continues to burn. Its why you don't pour water on grease fires. The grease and oil floats up. Its also why if you dive beneath the fuel when it is on fire, you are actually pretty safe. How to get around a burning pool of oil above you is another story though.
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.
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
@@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
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.
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.
A cool idea for a video. You could do some more irl tactics videos but with subscribers to help you out! Like 2 more people in a squad. Seeing 3 T55's in formation running towards you must be terrifying!
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
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
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)
“…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.
If you look at both US and Russian tactics when it comes to tank warfare, it's almost the same but also slightly different. For the Soviet/Russian concept, it's the tried and true "send in the tanks and then envelop the enemy with numbers" tactics where they'll send vast amounts of tanks towards the enemy to push against them, beat them at close range whilst the infantry pushes by the sides and flank the enemy. Then the other tanks would start pouring fire and rain hell on the enemy. For the US, it's about the same but their armoured core are more heavily involved in mutual support. Case in point, Battle of 73 Eastings. Schwarzkopf used the tried and true Blitzkreig method but modified it to modern standards where he'll have the whole armoured column push ahead till contact point, have the tanks act as covering guns and snipers to take out tanks and such whilst having lighter, tank-killing ability vehicles like the Bradley to creep forwards under suppressive fire from the Abrams whilst the Bradleys are carrying troopers forwards whilst hitting Soviet supplied tanks that the Iraqi got with anti-tank rockets.
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.
I know you’ve made a video on NATO tank tactics, but I’d love to see how you recommend playing each nation’s top tier tanks, I for one would love to learn the best tactics for the Abrams.
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.
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.
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.
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^^
@@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
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.
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.
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?
Like your previous video on tank tactics it was cool, even when the tank felt super weak. Maybe soviet tanks relied more on apcs and infantry to help them?
All sides definitely used combined arms tactics in their own ways. But I do feel like the tactics described in the document would work in larger groups. Trying to do it solo is a lot less effective haha
@@PanzerPawThe Soviets always had 5x more tanks than the United States. The United States always had 2.5x more planes than the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union had 10x more anti-aircraft missiles than the United States. while the United States always had 5x more aircraft carriers than the Soviet Union.
@@PanzerPawInteresting fact: because at the start of Operation Barbarossa the Soviet Union lost 5,000 planes in just 1 week. The Soviets invested heavily in anti-aircraft weapons. Even if all their planes were destroyed the United States would not gain air supremacy. This large number of anti-aircraft weapons makes it difficult for Ukraine and Russia to gain air supremacy. in fact in 1992 right when Ukraine became independent. Ukraine alone has more tanks and anti-aircraft weapon than the United States even though it is only a fraction of the Soviet Union
@PanzerPaw it's not just numbers though, it's also the fact that soviet tanks are supposed rely on missile armed vehicles/infantry for overwatch and artillery suppressing terrain that could be used to attack an advance. Speaking of, the soviet army was an artillery army, with great emphasis on artillery shaping the battlefield. In warthunder artillery is an afterthought. While both nato and soviet doctrine is combined arms, soviet doctrine leans more heavily into the 'just a cog in a larger machine' aspect. Nato is much more about flexability and so while still not the doctrinal ideal their tanks tactics can handle isolation better than soviet tank tactics.
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 swear I'm not trying to make soviet tanks look bad or anything."
Also Panzer
"... Soviet targets, I mean tanks."
Suprisngly, id say soviet tanks between 1945-1965 were at their prime and were very good. But yeahh after that its traaash 😂😂😅
I have a friend who played 8.0 Russia in full soviet uniform for full immersion 😂
I do this too but with porn......
That's awesome! I have a buddy in the USAF that gave me a flight suit, i'm going to have to start wearing it whenever I fly my A-10. 🤣
@@SpookyPINAwat 🗿 but you are doge...
wait what@@SpookyPINA
@@SpookyPINAayo😫🤨😩
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.
whats so wrong about the "incorrect"?
@@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
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.
well at some moment in the history, western Europe supposed to fight 5 T64s and 10 T72s with 2 M60s and 3 Leopard 1s
Won't most cold war tactics fail in game? Due to both sides not having the full advantages of infantry and such
@@Jason-jb1vsthen why didn't iranian m60 tanks perform good against t64s and t72s of iraqi army in iran iraq war
@@rightfeelIwell, many well-trained crew of Iran were either got out of the country or in prison. Also Iraq didn't equipped with T-64, only 72
@@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😂
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.
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
I'll definitely look into trying this at some point! :)
@@PanzerPawYou can try it with viewers or smth that way you can get more people in a game.
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.
real if they added infantry the flamers would have use
@@iplaygames8090 How about PVE Zombie mode?
@@ReviveHF would be cool for helloween or april fools
@@ReviveHF pve where you support infantry going trough a town or somethign would be really fun
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
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.
“Who is hitting me? I can’t see what I’m shooting at!” That’s 100% of my WT experience and why I stopped playing.
lol
thats just being bad
@@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.
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.
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.
8:10 a tank like the T72 is not going to be retreating any time soon with its reverse gear
9:58 that’s real tanker’s muscle memory😅
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.
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"
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.
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. 😆
"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"
I really like your video concepts, and you manage to pull them off really well. Keep it up bro.
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.
I think the flame thrower on this and the Churchill should be able to melt tires on wheeled vehicles immobilizing them at least
it does
@@masonharkness6437 they do damage tires
08:02 ''Soviet Targets'' 💀
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.
I think the tactic of using valleys and ditches works a lot better with combined arms recon
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.
My favorite era
it's actually harder to make the T-55 work compared to say the Chieftain or Centurion. but when it works, you bully 90's to modern main battle tanks and one-tank wallet warriors with a 60-year-old granny tank and it's very satisfying. only 2 things i keep in mind while driving the T-55: "use your friends as distractions" and "if you're shooting at something from the front, you did something wrong".
i LOVE the T-55. (hate the T-54) but it's so hard to love it sometimes.
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.
I'd have to see if I can find some usable info for the newer tanks and try it for sure. It's a very different way to play.
@@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
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.
8:44 No, this is exactly how a 2-stroke diesel engine with opposingly moving pistons sounds like (5TD engine family on T-64 series and their design predecessors (obj. 430/435)).
Got home from school and see that ppaw made a new video, automatically a good day
Japanese cold war/modern tank tactics using the hydropneumatic suspension
The water being on fire makes sense because the flamethrower is spewing out fuel which is less dense than water. So it floats up and continues to burn. Its why you don't pour water on grease fires. The grease and oil floats up. Its also why if you dive beneath the fuel when it is on fire, you are actually pretty safe. How to get around a burning pool of oil above you is another story though.
I believe you can actually set water on fire. The fuel sits on the top so the water can't extinguish it.
Yeah I've seen that with oil fires before. I just wasn't sure if that's intentional with WT tho haha
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.
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
The word declassified is as big a red flag to me now as the word leak. All thanks to WT.
when your primary means for ranging targets is the stadiametric reticle of your gun sight and the training of your gunner
panzer paw: insults soviet tanks
soviet tanks: t-64s vs m48s
Best place to get real declassified documents its from an Ex-Military 👍🏻
Love ur vids man
Pov you can read russian and the title becomes totally changed
Does it really change that much?
@@PanzerPaw honestly i dont know x)
I can read it but i dont understand it for now
@@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
Yes, more tank tactics plz :)
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.
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.
Challeng: next time play a wheeled tank ( obviously the best, the Italian Centauro with the 120mm cannon)
half way in the video "maybe its easier to brawl than to try to snipe with them."
yes.... thats.. like..... _sigh_
Yeah I was having to continuously remind myself to do it. It feels very _very_ unnatural to me lol
My favorite warthunder UA-camr👍🏻
I know of a country that extensively used flamethrowers and it's not the soviets.
16:59 Well , I remenber that one time in china...
Panzer this video is EXACTLY how I play Russia i never climb hills unless i have to
A cool idea for a video.
You could do some more irl tactics videos but with subscribers to help you out! Like 2 more people in a squad.
Seeing 3 T55's in formation running towards you must be terrifying!
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
Best up and coming WT content maker 🦘🦘🦘
🦘🦘🦘
I love how especially as a real tank commander you have to make sure to say DECLASSIFIED info
Yeah, although it's mainly for people watching since it's such a meme with War Thunder lol
@@PanzerPaw fuel to the meme fire and also covers your own ass😅
Do more tactics gameplay❤❤ Köszönöm
nice video again😃
Very interesting subject. I hope the vid will be good
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
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)
"Then again, I don't think there has been a time in history, where the t-55s had a good time."
1956, Budapest.
Against civilians...
If u think that this winter map weather doesn’t look like anything of this earth then u clearly never visited Russia
“…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.
Flame throwers are actually legal if used on military targets
So thats whyyy there always is a turms T in our spawn within first 5 minutes of a match
just wanna say i watched your leopard video ;ast night and it was awesome, i like your stuff so cool!
If you look at both US and Russian tactics when it comes to tank warfare, it's almost the same but also slightly different.
For the Soviet/Russian concept, it's the tried and true "send in the tanks and then envelop the enemy with numbers" tactics where they'll send vast amounts of tanks towards the enemy to push against them, beat them at close range whilst the infantry pushes by the sides and flank the enemy. Then the other tanks would start pouring fire and rain hell on the enemy.
For the US, it's about the same but their armoured core are more heavily involved in mutual support. Case in point, Battle of 73 Eastings.
Schwarzkopf used the tried and true Blitzkreig method but modified it to modern standards where he'll have the whole armoured column push ahead till contact point, have the tanks act as covering guns and snipers to take out tanks and such whilst having lighter, tank-killing ability vehicles like the Bradley to creep forwards under suppressive fire from the Abrams whilst the Bradleys are carrying troopers forwards whilst hitting Soviet supplied tanks that the Iraqi got with anti-tank rockets.
"That did not stop Soviets from doing that"
USA with M67 flamethrower tanks be like: "Wait! That's illegal! Only we can do illegal things!"
Hey panzer, what we should do is you open a custom and we see how many of us warthunder players is required to knock you out in your leopard
That.... might actually be kind of fun 🤔
@@stickmouse5002 projecting much? Also, who pissed in your breakfast?
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.
8:03 non biased behaviour shown right here he innocently called the targets I mean tanks
I know you’ve made a video on NATO tank tactics, but I’d love to see how you recommend playing each nation’s top tier tanks, I for one would love to learn the best tactics for the Abrams.
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 China Joke get me Dying
You really forgot targets on the map, like the light tank and Vidar behind and to the side respectively.
there is one time in china got me :D
I’m really starting to like ur edititigg style. But in those longer vids, how do you have the patience to make such small edits so often. Respect
I just have very good editors haha. I actually used to edit everything myself until recently but yeah it's very tiring for sure.
@@PanzerPaw just keep ’em good vids coming!
I prefer quality over quantity
I love him referring to Soviet tanks as targets 😂😂😂
17:03 social credits -10000000000 XD
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.
Flamethrowers arnt illegal. America used them till 1978. The US stopped because of the horrible moral effect it had on their own troops.
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.
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^^
If you're playing the soviet team for a while the people automaticly doing the tactic in uptier
Flame throwers are not illegal in warfare
Ok then it's just very heavily restricted in usage, short ranged and ineffective against most modern targets lol. 😂
@@PanzerPaw i think it still effective against fortification. You goal is not burnt them, but suffocate them in their bunker like in Pacific War
@@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
@@PanzerPaw yeah that's why they are not used there's just way better incendiary weapons now lol
Me reading the title in cyrillic: Do tneu woyak?
I'm currently playing war thunder and I am getting brain failure becouse of germany in 8.0
16:59 EmOTiOnAl DaMaGe!
so the lack of gun depression makes sense
Soviet tank tactics require a full squad and 3/4 of you die so the 4th can get the kill.
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.
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.
@@machinech183 who proved what? what are you talking about? USSR never took part in a peer fight since 1945 and neither did USA
@@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.
Current russian tactic... Press w and stop in an open field
That's crazy I play the soviets and just smash everything late game 8.0+ and easy money..
I saw you in a Match today
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!
Great video as per usual, interesting concept and made for an entertaining watch
Would you like to see "451°F" decal for TO-55 or Churchill Crocodile?
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?
Never use APDS as main ammo on T-54/55
Like your previous video on tank tactics it was cool, even when the tank felt super weak. Maybe soviet tanks relied more on apcs and infantry to help them?
All sides definitely used combined arms tactics in their own ways. But I do feel like the tactics described in the document would work in larger groups. Trying to do it solo is a lot less effective haha
@@PanzerPawThe Soviets always had 5x more tanks than the United States. The United States always had 2.5x more planes than the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union had 10x more anti-aircraft missiles than the United States. while the United States always had 5x more aircraft carriers than the Soviet Union.
@@PanzerPawInteresting fact: because at the start of Operation Barbarossa the Soviet Union lost 5,000 planes in just 1 week. The Soviets invested heavily in anti-aircraft weapons. Even if all their planes were destroyed the United States would not gain air supremacy. This large number of anti-aircraft weapons makes it difficult for Ukraine and Russia to gain air supremacy. in fact in 1992 right when Ukraine became independent. Ukraine alone has more tanks and anti-aircraft weapon than the United States even though it is only a fraction of the Soviet Union
@PanzerPaw it's not just numbers though, it's also the fact that soviet tanks are supposed rely on missile armed vehicles/infantry for overwatch and artillery suppressing terrain that could be used to attack an advance. Speaking of, the soviet army was an artillery army, with great emphasis on artillery shaping the battlefield. In warthunder artillery is an afterthought.
While both nato and soviet doctrine is combined arms, soviet doctrine leans more heavily into the 'just a cog in a larger machine' aspect. Nato is much more about flexability and so while still not the doctrinal ideal their tanks tactics can handle isolation better than soviet tank tactics.
Is it possible in war thunder to use SPGs like the soviet 2s3 akatsiya the way it’s supposed to be used or are all the maps not big enough.
Technically yes, but you're right about the maps being a little too small.
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 😊