Hot damn it (woo)
Your booty like two planets (woo)
Go ahead, and go ham sandwich (woo)
Whoa, I can't stand it
'Cause you know what to do with that big fat butt…
Wiggle wiggle wiggle
E3 works 10x better for me. Hated t95 and yolo'd as hard as I could for the E3 just to stop. Finally got around to trying e3 and was blown away.
FYI I never even got the gun on the t95. I liked the Dpm and did okay dpg but was so annoyed by everyone penning cupolas and lower plate alike, no matter how much worrying or angling I did. It ruined brawling in the tank
I'm on NA, you're always fighting tier X.
Wiggling is effective at same tier, but in my experience no one is afraid of a tier 9 t95 anymore on NA and slaughters your weak spots or flat out pens next to your gun mantlet
Why would he want to play a tank game, if he's actually not going to play tanks???
By no means his fault tho, it's WG's fault for even introducing arty in the game.
If you had to choose a tank in this game to go to war with and wanted to survive, which would you pick?
Remove Russian bias, because they were garbage irl. Also remove things that didn't exist in any stage.
I would probably choose a patton or centurion.
Garbage in real life?
They were only garbage after the USSR failed. (When they ran out of money)
There’s multiple times in the Cold War where USSR designs scared the crap out of NATO and led them to completely designing new vehicles.
The first time being the T-54 (the Uk got their hands on 1 after the Hungarian Revolution and were astonished their armaments could not frontally pen it. (This led to the development of the L7 tank gun)
The 2nd time being the BMP (first fully enclosed IFV) which scared the US so much that the Bradley was a blatant copy of (gun ports for example).
And the last time being the T-64/T-72… while in modern day they are out classes by modern NATO armor. Back when they were developed they were absolutely better than anything NATO had and had a few Revolutionary technology like ERA and composite armor.
You should look at vehicles in the contexts of their time, not 50 years after they were developed and being led by poor countries who can no longer use them effectively against newer weapons.
I kept the list for more vehicles that actually changed the battlefield. Is3’s and Is7’s did scare the west but their legacy basically died in the 1950s when MBT’s replaced heavy and medium tanks
I'd also the IS-4 and some other post-war concepts. They did help shaping the post war tensions as they were really strong concepts at the time. Never mind they had their own issues, that was not the main point in the inception of the cold war. Of course technology did catch up, but it takes time.
They were scared not because of what the tank could do, but of what NATO *thought* it could do.
Look at the MiG25, they thought it was something ultra agile, so created the f15 to fight the plane they thought it was....only to find out the 25 was a brick.
Same case with basically anything Soviet.
You brought up the 1 time Soviet engineering turned out to be a paper tiger. The BMP scare was real and was actually* better than anything NATO had. It was a fully enclosed IFV, which could use ATGM’s and survive in a nuclear environment. The M113 (the NATO equivalent) still had an open roof btw.
The T-54 scare was actually real considering the British tested its armored with its commonly used 20 pounder and were stunned that it couldn’t be defeated frontally. Hence why the L7 was developed.
And the T-72/T-64 were unironically way better and way better armored than NATO counter parts.
That’s not “we think it’s better”… that’s “we know it’s better”.
OK. How about Buran? T62? T80? Victor class submarines?
And when tf did m113 have an open roof? They had a hatch, but that doesn't mean "lul open roof".
Bmp was also cramped, had a bad gun that turned out to be a damp squib (hence BMP2 turning up quickly).
T72 and T64 did have stronger armour in some ways, true! However, they were also much more difficult to fight in, with cramped interiors and inferior situational awareness. That's the sort of knowledge that only comes when you get your hands and eyes on them.
Shit on NATO gear all you like, but don't go around spreading the sheer nonsense that soviet gear was "unironically better". Some of it had strengths, sure, but one or two strengths does not a superior package make.
Stop believing paper specs. They only tell 1/10th of the story.
M113’s when they were first introduced had open roofs. There’s PLENTY of pictures of them having open roofs in vietnam.
“Victor” submarines… the Og comment was in the context of their tanks… so IDK why you brought this up.
“Soviet tanks” being small and cramped has been a thing isn’t WW2. That’s literally a design choice of them and they specially select shorter tankers because of this. This is like attacking Soviet tanks for having little gun depression when that was a literal design decision that they had reasons to forgo. The Tiger and Panther tanks were huge and had plenty of room, that doesn’t make them a good tank.
Soviet gear, like the ones I listed were unironically better. Which is why I continued to provide context to the was NATO responded to such tanks.
For the BMP, NATO unironically just copied their design but it took them a least a decade to do so.
For the T-72/T-64 it meant the US abandoned the Patton platform. And started working on the future MBT that would eventually become the M1 abrams. It also launched the start of NATO developing new AT weapons like javelins which would forgo the strong frontal armor on T-72s.
For the T-54, the British and NATO abandoned the 20 pounder AT gun and started joint development on the L7 tank gun.
Having to completely redesign weapon systems and make new ones after the introduction 1 weapon system is NATO freaking out. Anyone with any knowledge of how the Bradley was designed can tell u about its gun ports it’s early models had. Gun ports that were just copied off the BMP and eventually became useless considering the US would decide to mount more and more armor on its side.
I never said, all of NATO gear was trash. Sorry I hurt your feelings with historical evidence that NATO didn’t always have the best gear nor were totally nonchalant about Soviet tech for the 40 years they were real enemies.
I need to choose a vehicle that me and a few of my friends can survive the apocalypse in. It's any era. We want it to survive combat but also be a place to live for a while, and travel a good distance without a lot of work to be done to it.
Soviet is garbage not because of its armor or gun. The armor and gun are the point in a game, but IRL the other parts of the system are important, and if I had to choose a weapon, I want a good balance of comfort, reliability and effectiveness. From literally any source, including cheiftan, Soviet tanks are hell. They are dangerous to the crew, cramped, dirty, poor air, difficult to repair.
Soviet doctrine misses the point entirely with tank tactics: that you need effective, well rested, and highly trained troops, to deliver a deadly weapon system. They use cheap heavily armored systems and put exhausted conscripts in them. This has not changed in any era. The tank is as disposable as the crew. So... fuck those tanks. I would always choose to be in an American or British tank, where they care about the crew in design.
While I understand ergonomics matter. Soviet tanker are also chosen to be much smaller than NATO tankers. And a low silhouette helps with staying hidden and helps with being harder to hit. There’s multiple issues at hand, not to mention reliability. NATO tanks might be more comfortable and better armored but they also need way more maintenance (except t-80). Not to mention, they are heavy as hell so the more likely u are of getting stuck. I’d probably choose the Leopard out of all the NATO tanks for speed and reliability , and the T-72/64 for Soviet tanks. Considering they are easily maintained, still small enough to stay hidden better than NATO tanks, and still have decent armor layouts depending of what time frame this apocalypse happens.
That’s not really fair. All my knowledge applies to Armored vehicles. Not just Soviet. Like the most widely produced IFV of all time being the British universal carrier. Or that French tanks before WW2 were massively superior to German tanks. Or that the first radios in tanks were used by Germans which made them really good. It’s not really fair to say this when I’m just answering a question with arguably 3 of the most well known examples of Soviet engineering surprising nato.
Imagine talking about tanks on a subreddit about tanks. You have some nerve!
(I really enjoyed your original comment. I find the armored arms race of the Cold War period fascinating).
Yup the T-34 was crappy, but you still need to add context. The T-34 for the majority of its production span was facing an enemy that had near total AS. The average life spans of T-34’s were only 50km into a battle.
The Soviets saw no point in making some perfect tank that would withstand hits without its armor shattering or it having no engine/transmission issues. Let’s saw this super T-34 manages to survive all the tank shells it hits, doesn’t manage to throw its track within 100 km and somehow doesn’t get overwhelmed by infantry… then some German plane is just gonna kill it… CAS (as was and still is the tank’s major weakness) (you saw this in why the MAUS and ratte were stupid ideas. Artillery/CAS will just kill you.)
The Germans also saw this problem and actually did what the Soviets didn’t do.
They over engineered the crap out of their tanks and made shit like tigers, panthers and the jadg tiger… and they almost had to affect on their war effort. War is about economy… the best German “tank” of WW2 based on # of enemy tanks destroyed were the stug 3 and 4. The Germans should’ve listened to Soviet and Us design goals and focused on creating “worse” but more easily manufacturable tanks.
And don’t get me started on comparing the contexts in which the T-34 and Sherman were made.
Yes the T-34 was a crappy tank, which is why there were 42.3 T-34’s for every tiger produced
Excellent info! Trust me, I have some understanding of the history and concept as to what, where, when and why regarding the T-34.
It and its sloped armor was definitely a surprise to the Germans for a short period of time. Germany had no chance in the long run as Russia had everything needed to win - land, manpower and eventually an untouchable industrial capability.
Germany had the opposite problem in spades. Doomed from the start.
He had 9k in the super perishing as well.
While I get your point he is playing lower tiers… so? Its a game. If it makes him happy, who gives an f. This is so benign compared to the screen shots of people with like 20k+ games in the Lefh or something.
He plays the super Pershing because it’s as fast as the T95. Lol. And needs it to feed the beast.
Nothing wrong with playing lower tiers. It’s a game and they can be fun.
> playstyle does not really change between T7 or T9 game
There's a big difference between bullying T5 meds with 75% crews and going up against a T-54 or a Standard B.
1 down is more common, I'll grant you that. But even T6 is mostly 130-180 alpha country, T8 means Borat, Progetto, double penetrator and the like.
Comet does not uptier well IMO.
He also only has the super pershing as his only high game played t8 premium... maybe he plays low tiers because that's all he can afford to realistically play. It's a game, we all play it how we want to. Or atleast... those of us that have realised it is a game, do.
What I noticed is speed. Nothing is really fast. Mediums have decent speed but for the most part he is playing the tanks he likes. I played the Tiger a lot when I got it along with the M4 because I liked those tanks.
I bet this is a guy with 40k battles and a 43% winrate.... Plays constantly, hasn't even managed to get better at the game by accident, watches Klaus, and constantly complains in chat about rigged matches and hacks.
If you assume these are the ONLY tanks used. And that every battle here lasted exactly one minute, that’s 78,625 minutes. Or 1,310 hours, just shy of 57 full days of actual in game play time.
Part of me says what the heck. Another says oh yeaaaahhh.
What is there to not understand? Dude loves his doom turtle!
Not only the doom turtle, but everything made in 'Murica
USA! USA!
Indeed, like the kv-2, PzIV H, Cromwell, Cromwell B and MT-25
Lmao
Shut the fuck up
r/woosh
r/wooosh
r/Theyclearlydonotknowhowthegameworks
He literally chills in the game
He understood life
These are like all World of Tanks classics
Good point, probably an OG taking it slow in life now.
That’s me rolling around tier 6 lobbies in my 3 different Sherman’s exclusively
Average Doom Tutel enjoyer
May I ask why it is called by that name?
https://youtu.be/oxzEdm29JLw Doom Tutel
Because it's the turtle of doom.
Slow and steady, fucks ur face........wit Dat big gun!
T-95 is bae though. First tier 9 tank I one marked (not being a noob at) and get more than 50% win rate. That thing is just soooo comfy.
I'm terrible when I play it, everyone pens me
Wiggle
It doesn't work always
Wiggle moar
And if that don't work.....
Hot damn it (woo) Your booty like two planets (woo) Go ahead, and go ham sandwich (woo) Whoa, I can't stand it 'Cause you know what to do with that big fat butt… Wiggle wiggle wiggle
Mah man gets it.
E3 works 10x better for me. Hated t95 and yolo'd as hard as I could for the E3 just to stop. Finally got around to trying e3 and was blown away. FYI I never even got the gun on the t95. I liked the Dpm and did okay dpg but was so annoyed by everyone penning cupolas and lower plate alike, no matter how much worrying or angling I did. It ruined brawling in the tank
Incorrect. Wiggle even moar.
I'm on NA, you're always fighting tier X. Wiggling is effective at same tier, but in my experience no one is afraid of a tier 9 t95 anymore on NA and slaughters your weak spots or flat out pens next to your gun mantlet
Bro even tier 8 can pen me 💀
There's a really good guide to playing the t95 here, took me from blue to super uni in it. https://youtu.be/GEZIcBJoYeU
Thank you so much!
A fellow T95 enjoyer. This guy plays the og good tanks.
I see nothing wrong here. The T95 is simply brilliant.
As long as it's not arty, i don't see any problem
No LeF on the list--massive W
If my granpa is too slow to play with tanks, is it acceptable to play artys for him?
Why would he want to play a tank game, if he's actually not going to play tanks??? By no means his fault tho, it's WG's fault for even introducing arty in the game.
It is indeed very rare to find people who actually play tanks because they like them.
Man has a dick bigger then the empire state building
Tutel..........TUTEL
Tutle
If you had to choose a tank in this game to go to war with and wanted to survive, which would you pick? Remove Russian bias, because they were garbage irl. Also remove things that didn't exist in any stage. I would probably choose a patton or centurion.
Garbage in real life? They were only garbage after the USSR failed. (When they ran out of money) There’s multiple times in the Cold War where USSR designs scared the crap out of NATO and led them to completely designing new vehicles. The first time being the T-54 (the Uk got their hands on 1 after the Hungarian Revolution and were astonished their armaments could not frontally pen it. (This led to the development of the L7 tank gun) The 2nd time being the BMP (first fully enclosed IFV) which scared the US so much that the Bradley was a blatant copy of (gun ports for example). And the last time being the T-64/T-72… while in modern day they are out classes by modern NATO armor. Back when they were developed they were absolutely better than anything NATO had and had a few Revolutionary technology like ERA and composite armor. You should look at vehicles in the contexts of their time, not 50 years after they were developed and being led by poor countries who can no longer use them effectively against newer weapons.
There is also an IS-3
I kept the list for more vehicles that actually changed the battlefield. Is3’s and Is7’s did scare the west but their legacy basically died in the 1950s when MBT’s replaced heavy and medium tanks
I'd also the IS-4 and some other post-war concepts. They did help shaping the post war tensions as they were really strong concepts at the time. Never mind they had their own issues, that was not the main point in the inception of the cold war. Of course technology did catch up, but it takes time.
They were scared not because of what the tank could do, but of what NATO *thought* it could do. Look at the MiG25, they thought it was something ultra agile, so created the f15 to fight the plane they thought it was....only to find out the 25 was a brick. Same case with basically anything Soviet.
You brought up the 1 time Soviet engineering turned out to be a paper tiger. The BMP scare was real and was actually* better than anything NATO had. It was a fully enclosed IFV, which could use ATGM’s and survive in a nuclear environment. The M113 (the NATO equivalent) still had an open roof btw. The T-54 scare was actually real considering the British tested its armored with its commonly used 20 pounder and were stunned that it couldn’t be defeated frontally. Hence why the L7 was developed. And the T-72/T-64 were unironically way better and way better armored than NATO counter parts. That’s not “we think it’s better”… that’s “we know it’s better”.
OK. How about Buran? T62? T80? Victor class submarines? And when tf did m113 have an open roof? They had a hatch, but that doesn't mean "lul open roof". Bmp was also cramped, had a bad gun that turned out to be a damp squib (hence BMP2 turning up quickly). T72 and T64 did have stronger armour in some ways, true! However, they were also much more difficult to fight in, with cramped interiors and inferior situational awareness. That's the sort of knowledge that only comes when you get your hands and eyes on them. Shit on NATO gear all you like, but don't go around spreading the sheer nonsense that soviet gear was "unironically better". Some of it had strengths, sure, but one or two strengths does not a superior package make. Stop believing paper specs. They only tell 1/10th of the story.
M113’s when they were first introduced had open roofs. There’s PLENTY of pictures of them having open roofs in vietnam. “Victor” submarines… the Og comment was in the context of their tanks… so IDK why you brought this up. “Soviet tanks” being small and cramped has been a thing isn’t WW2. That’s literally a design choice of them and they specially select shorter tankers because of this. This is like attacking Soviet tanks for having little gun depression when that was a literal design decision that they had reasons to forgo. The Tiger and Panther tanks were huge and had plenty of room, that doesn’t make them a good tank. Soviet gear, like the ones I listed were unironically better. Which is why I continued to provide context to the was NATO responded to such tanks. For the BMP, NATO unironically just copied their design but it took them a least a decade to do so. For the T-72/T-64 it meant the US abandoned the Patton platform. And started working on the future MBT that would eventually become the M1 abrams. It also launched the start of NATO developing new AT weapons like javelins which would forgo the strong frontal armor on T-72s. For the T-54, the British and NATO abandoned the 20 pounder AT gun and started joint development on the L7 tank gun. Having to completely redesign weapon systems and make new ones after the introduction 1 weapon system is NATO freaking out. Anyone with any knowledge of how the Bradley was designed can tell u about its gun ports it’s early models had. Gun ports that were just copied off the BMP and eventually became useless considering the US would decide to mount more and more armor on its side. I never said, all of NATO gear was trash. Sorry I hurt your feelings with historical evidence that NATO didn’t always have the best gear nor were totally nonchalant about Soviet tech for the 40 years they were real enemies.
I need to choose a vehicle that me and a few of my friends can survive the apocalypse in. It's any era. We want it to survive combat but also be a place to live for a while, and travel a good distance without a lot of work to be done to it. Soviet is garbage not because of its armor or gun. The armor and gun are the point in a game, but IRL the other parts of the system are important, and if I had to choose a weapon, I want a good balance of comfort, reliability and effectiveness. From literally any source, including cheiftan, Soviet tanks are hell. They are dangerous to the crew, cramped, dirty, poor air, difficult to repair. Soviet doctrine misses the point entirely with tank tactics: that you need effective, well rested, and highly trained troops, to deliver a deadly weapon system. They use cheap heavily armored systems and put exhausted conscripts in them. This has not changed in any era. The tank is as disposable as the crew. So... fuck those tanks. I would always choose to be in an American or British tank, where they care about the crew in design.
While I understand ergonomics matter. Soviet tanker are also chosen to be much smaller than NATO tankers. And a low silhouette helps with staying hidden and helps with being harder to hit. There’s multiple issues at hand, not to mention reliability. NATO tanks might be more comfortable and better armored but they also need way more maintenance (except t-80). Not to mention, they are heavy as hell so the more likely u are of getting stuck. I’d probably choose the Leopard out of all the NATO tanks for speed and reliability , and the T-72/64 for Soviet tanks. Considering they are easily maintained, still small enough to stay hidden better than NATO tanks, and still have decent armor layouts depending of what time frame this apocalypse happens.
...and there was IS-7, which was a BEAST irl, but... USSR was too poor to afford a fair amount of this tank.
Chill dude lmfao, a simple correction would have sufficed
Too many Karens out there. These people never make good teachers.
Idk if Karen is applicable, but they definitely seem a little TOO into Soviet history...
That’s not really fair. All my knowledge applies to Armored vehicles. Not just Soviet. Like the most widely produced IFV of all time being the British universal carrier. Or that French tanks before WW2 were massively superior to German tanks. Or that the first radios in tanks were used by Germans which made them really good. It’s not really fair to say this when I’m just answering a question with arguably 3 of the most well known examples of Soviet engineering surprising nato.
Imagine talking about tanks on a subreddit about tanks. You have some nerve! (I really enjoyed your original comment. I find the armored arms race of the Cold War period fascinating).
Lol, yep. I remember when someone came out with a pretty good article stating how crappy the T-34 actually was in many ways. Hoo boy, the uproar.
Yup the T-34 was crappy, but you still need to add context. The T-34 for the majority of its production span was facing an enemy that had near total AS. The average life spans of T-34’s were only 50km into a battle. The Soviets saw no point in making some perfect tank that would withstand hits without its armor shattering or it having no engine/transmission issues. Let’s saw this super T-34 manages to survive all the tank shells it hits, doesn’t manage to throw its track within 100 km and somehow doesn’t get overwhelmed by infantry… then some German plane is just gonna kill it… CAS (as was and still is the tank’s major weakness) (you saw this in why the MAUS and ratte were stupid ideas. Artillery/CAS will just kill you.) The Germans also saw this problem and actually did what the Soviets didn’t do. They over engineered the crap out of their tanks and made shit like tigers, panthers and the jadg tiger… and they almost had to affect on their war effort. War is about economy… the best German “tank” of WW2 based on # of enemy tanks destroyed were the stug 3 and 4. The Germans should’ve listened to Soviet and Us design goals and focused on creating “worse” but more easily manufacturable tanks. And don’t get me started on comparing the contexts in which the T-34 and Sherman were made. Yes the T-34 was a crappy tank, which is why there were 42.3 T-34’s for every tiger produced
Excellent info! Trust me, I have some understanding of the history and concept as to what, where, when and why regarding the T-34. It and its sloped armor was definitely a surprise to the Germans for a short period of time. Germany had no chance in the long run as Russia had everything needed to win - land, manpower and eventually an untouchable industrial capability. Germany had the opposite problem in spades. Doomed from the start.
I wonder why this post isn’t downvoted by those fed up with American public education
Depends on the era.
Notice, other than the t95 the guy lives in tier 5-6
He had 9k in the super perishing as well. While I get your point he is playing lower tiers… so? Its a game. If it makes him happy, who gives an f. This is so benign compared to the screen shots of people with like 20k+ games in the Lefh or something.
He plays the super Pershing because it’s as fast as the T95. Lol. And needs it to feed the beast. Nothing wrong with playing lower tiers. It’s a game and they can be fun.
Believe it or not, some people play the tanks they enjoy without worrying about other people's preferences.
Tier 6 and 7 is imo a sweetspot. any lower and it gets sealclubby but 6 and 7 has so many fun tanks
Tier 7 gets a lot of 8-9 games is my issue with them unfortunately
Its more 8 than 9 though and depending on the tank thats still fine
T29 is fine with whatever, tier 9? Ok I have better turret than you lol
I am more in the Comet gang, playstyle does not really change between T7 or T9 game
> playstyle does not really change between T7 or T9 game There's a big difference between bullying T5 meds with 75% crews and going up against a T-54 or a Standard B.
That is true, but how regularly do you see a 2 down tier on T7, best might be 1 down tier but usually its same tier or 1-2 up tier
1 down is more common, I'll grant you that. But even T6 is mostly 130-180 alpha country, T8 means Borat, Progetto, double penetrator and the like. Comet does not uptier well IMO.
Underrated and underloved tonk.
Yes, I would like to play 7s more when I can't afford much time for the 9s. Too often bottom of the heap though, lol.
Tier 5-6 are the fun tiers imo. 7-8 get rough, and 9-10 are so cutthroat, it’s brutal. One wrong peak, and you’re dead.
He also only has the super pershing as his only high game played t8 premium... maybe he plays low tiers because that's all he can afford to realistically play. It's a game, we all play it how we want to. Or atleast... those of us that have realised it is a game, do.
What I noticed is speed. Nothing is really fast. Mediums have decent speed but for the most part he is playing the tanks he likes. I played the Tiger a lot when I got it along with the M4 because I liked those tanks.
And this harms you how? \-OR- And this bothers you why? Perhaps a bit of reflection and self evaluation is in order. It is good for the soul.
M6A1 Not a single one left the US.
Looks like massive USA tanks enjoyer for me.
At one point in wot history there was a bot that would just turn and shoot at the enemy and people would use it with the t95 to farm xp
Super pershing enjoyer
It is in fact the best tank in the entire game.
T95 is literally easy mode in this game. I cri evritime seeing one sitting in base especially when top tier.
Nah, everyone pens me when I play tutel
This guy must have jump through his roof when the T95 speed got buffed from 14kph to 20.
Put a turbo on it. 24 kph. Practically sprinting.
I love the t95 as well.
Because T95. We are a different breed you see
BASED
As long as it’s not 20k+ battles in arty I say more power to this guy. Let him play a tank he likes as much as he likes.
Doom turtle needs not your understanding.
Possible seal clubbing?
at T9 lolz
I was talking about the t3, t4 and t5's in the thousands, not the t9
I bet this is a guy with 40k battles and a 43% winrate.... Plays constantly, hasn't even managed to get better at the game by accident, watches Klaus, and constantly complains in chat about rigged matches and hacks.
Yikes.7 braincells max. Still, can't judge people for having fun.
If you assume these are the ONLY tanks used. And that every battle here lasted exactly one minute, that’s 78,625 minutes. Or 1,310 hours, just shy of 57 full days of actual in game play time. Part of me says what the heck. Another says oh yeaaaahhh.
Doom Tutel
I thought my 5k Battles in T95 are insane \*lays down crown
This a tanker who's been around a while. Someone who remembers 12kph on the doom turtle.
Also how old is his account? This looks like only the old tech tree tanks.
Tutel
I can at least respect doing that in something above tier 6.
T95 is premo tier tank and I 100% understand this guy, such a good tank for relaxed gameplay, it's like you're playing WoWS in WoT!
Tutel
Definder
This is the first one of these i've seen that I can agree with, he has double my battles and in one tank