Comparison between the Panzer IV and the S-35 Somua with Tankfest 2018 footage here: ua-cam.com/video/XKC4UcW7Tgc/v-deo.html If you like in-depth researched videos on Military History, consider supporting me on Patreon: patreon.com/mhv/ Corrections: 14:55 The speed for the T-34 should be 34 miles/h not 43, the 55 km/h is correct. thx to Freek.
Please do an analysis of the battle of Arras 1940, My Grandad served as an AT gunner with a 2pdr in the Royal Artillery with the BEF, related to this video, the Wehrmacht must have known the utility of the 88mm Pre war as Rommel used it so effectively with the correct AP ammunition at Arras
Awesome video. I know this had probably been asked before. But the German tank museum doesn't do English speaking videos. It would be fantastic for a collaboration. Of coarse I don't know your circumstances but it would be sweet to see. Thank you for the videos, super informative. Love the no BS approach. Das ist güte. Man I wish I know better German lol.
Anubis Einheit 33 I would prefer to see the tactical solutions employed, rather than the technical ones. To be fair though, he did say this was a technical comparison.
@@ВячеславСкопюк the is1 was designed to combat the panther, but the cheaper t3485 was coming into production with the same firepower. The is series were taken to a actual heavy tank with the is2 with the 122mm, which was found to be more effective. The is1 was a upgraded kv85, which was only a stopgap measure, until a better tank could take over, in this case that tank was the is2.
@@ethanedwards422 IS-1 was designed as replacement for KV-1, capable of withstanding 75mm and 88mm shells. So, you can't compare it with T-34-85. But 85mm cannon was not enough
As a long time amateur war historian, of all the good and less good video makers on war history, I consider you the best. Your humor and accent are a bonus. Thanks!
The performance of Soviet tank forces in 1941 was crucially damaged by the extent to which the formations were understrength in infantry, artillery, mortars, trucks and ammunition, so that even if the tank crews had been perfectly trained, as units they were almost bound to fail, because tanks without support infantry, services and adequate resupply (trucks) are virtually defenceless.
Completely correct. Of course there are well known examples of single Soviet tanks holding up German advances for hours or sometimes days. When you are defending your country, you dont think about sloped armour, the size of your gun, the speed of your vehicle. Most of the time these defenders died at their positions.
@@derekcollins9739 Veterans are actually worse than fresh troops. War eats away the nerves and destroys morale over time. But yes, there were serious troops in Normandy.
Not to mention the BIGGEST problem the T34 had, NO RADIOS! Only 1 T34, in 4 had a radio. So in practice you had one tank equipped with radio and the other 3 just followed along to where that one went! Naturally if that tank got knocked out right away it was not just a matter of swapping the radio, the other tanks were seriously hindered on the battlefield. Meanwhile EVERY Panzer had (or was supposed to have) a radio. Command and control were crucial and without those radios the Panzers could never have been as effective as they turned out to be.
I love the Chiefton mentioning that he is 198 cm tall. Can you imagine a Soviet or German tanker being selected for this duty when they were 198 cm tall? All armies in WW2 would have selected for shorter men to fit into their vehicles.
Another way to put it, with the information that I recall having, is that American tanks are designed to accommodate the 95th percentile crewman, whereas Soviet tanks were designed to accommodate the 5th percentile or maybe the 15th percentile crewman. It's all fun and games until you run out of short guys. Plus which, short guys are probably less strong and less able to load heavy shells, shift a stubborn transmission, change treads, etc.
@@nichevo1 Shorter guys are bio mechanically stronger in their weight up until the limits of their frame, shorter guys would likely be stronger as I doubt the caloric intake and access of free time to work out would breed many buff tall people.
Indeed. Folks seem to have this misplaced idea that the goal of diplomacy is to avoid war. This just isn't so. The goal of diplomacy is to further the political objectives of a nation when those objectives relate to its relationships with other nations. War is not necessarily a failure of diplomacy (though it can be), but the role of diplomats (at least good ones) is to make every possible effort/attempt to shape the international political landscape to further the national interests of the nation(s) they represent. If war is on the horizon, the diplomat's sole priority will be to set the stage so that the armed forces of the nation they represent will have the most favorable war posture possible.
A few points that never really come in for consideration: first of all, the PzKpfw III was a mature tank whose development was a lot longer than it might have been because of the difficulties with the suspension. If I remember correctly it was nearly cancelled because it was taking so long. By contrast, the T-34, despite its numbers, had not been in production for very long when the war on the Eastern Front broke out. It was a pre-war design that was developed in circumstances of no threat. Secondly, the PzKpfw III was very much a combat proven weapons by the time it was committed to Barbarossa. The tank crew were no longer in a position of trying to find out how best to operate it. It had done well in both France and North Africa and was a known quantity in practically all kinds of conditions. Finally - and this is almost never pointed out - the T-34 was produced in conditions that were not experienced in the same way by any other combatant nation in WWII or, indeed, any other war. Much is made in any video about the quality of design and manufacture of the T-34 without acknowledging that it was built by people who were unsuitable for front line combat and occasionally, such as in the Leningrad factory, under the most horrendous conditions. It's certainly true that in some tanks you could put your finger between the plates. It's true that some parts were badly designed (you should see the _original_ turret design) and it's true that many of them broke down in the early part of the war. But when you stop to consider the fact that the factories had to be moved to safety behind the Urals, that practically all the skilled workers were at the front and those manning the factories were mostly old, very young or unskilled, the fact that they were able to produce anything at all is quite amazing. Whether by design or coincidence, the T-34 was not terribly difficult to build. Overall, it's hard to imagine amore difficult situation in which to build and perfect and complex piece of machinery like a tank. On top of that, the Red Army had little time in which to learn how to use it to best effect. And by the way, I can't recall anyone saying the T-34 was actually revolutionary. The Germans were certainly very interested in the sloped armour and it was an influence in later tank designs. Even the BT series tanks had sloping armour.
There is an idea that revolutionary was not technical design of T-34 which was full of old and dropped later technical decisions but the overall concept of one universal tank instead of several specialized designs for different roles. I know that that time and even after war in Red Army have been present multiple different specialized designes as heavy, mid and light tanks with different roles. But the idea that experience of implementing of this tank led later all countries to different tank doctrine when only one common role tank is used in army which can solve all kind of tasks. Sorry for my English.
It was by design. As Chieftain elucidates in another video about Soviet tank development as a whole, production design came built-in as it were, as a byproduct of the Central Planning system. They assumed very high attrition, so that tanks would only likely need to run for a few hundred kilometres before becoming inoperable, per Deep Battle doctrine, so the all important consideration was cost of production, so that they could be churned out in vast numbers. By relentlessly finding ways to reduce the per unit cost, they streamlined the production process and cut out unnecessary refinements so that they could be made very quickly and with less complex work for the factory workers. The same applied with artillery pieces, anti-tank guns and AA guns - standardised calibres, so they could all fire the same 76.2 mililimetre shells, for instance, and then 100mm, 120 mm and 150 mm (where all those giant calibre SP guns came from - they were making the calibres of shell for AA guns and naval guns, so why not make AT guns to match). And not bothering with smoothing and polishing the outside surface of artillery gun barrels which doesn't affect the flight of shells in any way, but does consume time and resources in the factory.
@@patrickholt2270 I'm pretty sure Chieftain wouldn't put it in those words. Some of what you said is right. A bit of it is not. But the foundation statement is misleading and it likely leads to people making the wrong assumptions (and they always do) about Soviet war planning.
When it said some were knocked out by 20mm shells, before you mentioned they were Pzgr. 40 I just had the image of a flak gun relentlessly pinging the armour until the crew couldn't take it anymore
You sir have an excellent channel! May the eyes of Mars always be upon you. Plus I can finally figure out the correct pronunciation of all the German technical terms. Cool that you teamed up with The Chieftain, both of you are two of the best.
@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized We Americans missed Mars because of a conversion error between SI and Imperial. You're not doing so bad by comparison. Imperial is homey and fun. SI is what the big girls and big boys use.
@@jamallabarge2665America landed on the moon just fine with imperial alone. It's the conversion process that brings a significant probability of error into the process.
@@MaxRavenclaw Totalbiscuit was a youtuber (recently deceased). His content included reviews of PC games. In these reviews, he would take a look at the graphics settings of the games, where he would often talk about the Field Of View (FOV) slider as an adjustable option in these games.
@@MaxRavenclaw He was all about the FOV sliders :) It took me moment to get it too (pausing the video and noticing the acronym). Dirty editor jokes :)
Although the plain tortoise and the pyramid had sloped armor neither had the offensive capability when engaging the enemy.....Enter Triceratops,,,ADJUSTABLE armor slope,,Heavy and medium weapon deployment ability and able to resupply deep in enemy territory (eat grass) Truly the best breakthrough and exploitation weapon Getting the Cretaciuos panzer vector deployment correct was a true winner as only rogue T Rex units could engage usually with no combined arms support..
The T-34 was cheaper, quicker to produce and easier to repair, too. Meaning that though in a one-on-one it really depended on range and conditions, in the grand strategy sense a busted T-34 was quickly and cheaply replaced, while a Panzer III was considerably more expensive and much, much more time-consuming to build and repair. That also meant shoddy and inconsistent build quality, but that doesn't matter so much in a war of attrition.
Even in 1941, there were 1800 T34s produced and in operation at some time. To my knowledge, the Pzr 3 with 50mm didn't amount to 800 vehicles in 1941, when the Germans were winning. Later on, the Soviets really outstripped the Germans in logistics particularily.
@Adrian Shephard When an army is on fallback or even retreat then many vehicls will be blown up because its unable to transport them into repair stations. This is true for germans at 1943-45 same as for soviets at 1941-1942.
Fascinating, illuminating, insightful. Keeps me coming back for more. Great content. Thanks for integrating all the different sources and constructing a better understanding of the realities.
Hat mit diesem Video nichts zu tun - trotzdem ein großes Dankeschön: Ich habe einer Oberstufe im Geschichtsunterricht dein Video über die Feldpostbriefe gezeigt, und gebe dir hiermit ein sehr großes positives Feedback weiter!
" "So no PzGr 40 spam" I lol'd xD You telling me there was no gold spammers on the Eastern front? I hiiighly doubt it xD" At least, Wargaming make this ammo useful ... contrary to Gaijin.
@@dse763 it was useful, too useful in fact so gaijin decided to slap an absurdly unrealistic slope modifier in it. It was basically an early rank APDS that lost pen faster with distance
@@dse763 Nope , in warthunder apcr was NEVER usefull against sloped armor , however it is usefull against something like KV1 flatish armor where the standard apcbc would never go through , i do agree apcr need a bit of a buff , or it should not afect the battle rating of the tank at all ( like the t34 57 at 4.7 and Tiger E at 6.7) , anyway , in war thunder ealier T-34s are more powerfull than real life , but in game they face lots and lots of Panzers 4 F2s and Gs which will kills T-34 like wingless flies with a flamethrower.
Plus diesel engines are much more fuel efficient than petrol engines, thus requiring considerably less fuel, and consequently logistical support to keep the tanks moving, a significant advantage.
@D L The US did supply the Soviet Union with aluminium after 1943. However, two facts to remember. The T34 engine head was aluminium before this. Second fact is that the Soviet Union at the time had some of the worlds largest resources and production of aluminium. The Germans considered copying the T34 but rejected the idea because aluminium was needed for aircraft production. So no candy on that one.
Making equipment and ability to deliver it where it was needed decided WW2 once it was clear that German operational skill could not give them early victory.
Excellent work, thank you, I really enjoyed your work here. BTW, the T-34 crew commander was the gunner, not the loader. Which, in my opinion, only makes things worse. :)
Hard statistics don't tell the whole story. On the other hand, they are much less open for interpretation than soft stats. I feel that the soft stats have been attributed too much value in this assessment. For example, optics give an advantage at greater ranges but at greater ranges, the Panzer III H's main gun was less effective against the protection of the T-34.
Christian Dauz Tbf, China would have preferred to have any kind of tank during their war against China. Their tank force in WW2 pretty much consisted of tankettes that were in no way fit against Japanese tanks.
I'm curious how many of those 37mm kills were from side penetrations. The 37mm was notoriously ineffective against the T-34 in general, netting it the nickname 'the army's door knocker' among German gun crews. As for the Christie suspension, it benefited mobility off-road. The drawback of taking up so much space should have been noted at the ergonomics part. Mobility wise alone it was quite advantageous. The reason it wasn't used past WW2 is because most armies decided the ergonomic drawbacks were not worth it.
Another reason Christie suspension was used prior to and during WW2 was ease of manufacture; torsion bars weren't nearly as perfected and reliable as Christie at the time. This changed as technology progressed, and that + interior space considerations made the advantages obvious.
You mean the "Panzeranklopfgerät" aka tank knock-at device. There are some reported frontal penetrations usually through the lower front plate at very short range. Also apparently some AT gunners were able to get an HE round through an open drivers hatch when firing at short range. Apparently because of sometimes faulty drivers optics this seemed to have happened at least a few times.
If we base it off other tank studies some 70% of hits are to the sides and rear. Tanks are actually very rarely able to hide the sides and rear unless dug in
Doesn't Christie also tend to just scale poorly after around 25 tonnes, as well? Hence the intention to switch the T-34M to torsion bars before...stuff happened.
@@kittyhawk9707 ok the information source sometimes could be biased, but for the most part he's neutral, probably making some bias jokes here and there
The video seems to take the panzer 3's strong points and shove them into as many categories as possible to give it an advantage.... Optics brought up in both the firepower and ergonomics section? Crew space brought up in both the ergonomics and armour sections???
Nick . . . WG STILL hasn't released your take on the Panzer IV. Since T34 (both principal models), Sherman (both main types), and Panzer III und IV are the main armored opponents, I am amazed at that choice. I want to hear your estimations of the side turret doors (all crewmen have easily accessed hatches! Praise Patton!), the crew layout and task distribution, and how the smaller, more confined, Pz IV turret was worked with that big "75" taking up all its room.
Not sure if someone has pointed this out in the last 2 years, but that mph conversion is way off on the T34 speed. 55 km/h is only 34.2 mph, not 43.2 mph. That's a huge difference. But the graph scale looks accurate though.
It just hit me: The Chieftain is the Eric Brown of tanks. Great collaboration, MHV! Here's to more similar initiatives in the future! A typo: at 8:58 it states that the Commander is also the Loader, while it should be the Gunner.
The biggest takeaway for me after watching MHV's take on tanks is how it changed my perception of tank warfare. I always viewed tank vs. tank when I looked at it, but now I realize that it's not the only or even main focus of tank warfare. It's mostly tanks vs. infantry and infantry defense lines. All of a sudden, a tank becomes a very different tool that just a duel fighter. Why IS-2 tanks, for example, had lower velocity, slow-rate of fire guns but were highly successful. Or why Panther and King Tiger were flawed designs... etc.
@@JC-fy8wh i generally agree with your statement, when it comes to understanding of history as a whole. But, when it comes to something so specific, one aspect, you need to be a historian, not to be forced to rely on one source. Afterall, should people be expected to read multiple sources on radios, submarines, tanks, bombers, fighters, artillery, encoding and decoding machines, railroads, rifles, etc etc etc just to form a view not even on WWII, itself, but just the military aspect of its technology? I think your comment is misplaced in this instance. However, any lover of history would need to ready multiple books/sources on WWII to have an informed view...
The sustainable speed of the Pz III is higher than noted, and can maintain that speed for longer than the T-34. Rated speeds are what the armed forces and engineers recommend, and countries had different emphasis. The Soviets captured a Pz III and performed extensive tests on it and it was their conclusion that the Pz III had a higher top speed and could maintain that speed. That's because they didn't care nearly as much about engine wear, just like they didn't care as much about that on the T-34, so they pushed the Pz III to it's limits.
An excellent video addressing one of the crucial comparisons between the best medium tanks both sides had to offer, and no one so far has dealt - in depth with the stats and detailed comparisons. I would love to see how much-improved tank kills were for the Germans after the mid '42 introduction of the 75mm Pak 40, which I think was mounted on the PzIVF2 onwards?
I'm going to have to dispute The Chieftain here. The positive effect of sloping armour date back at least to the High Middle Ages, if not earlier. Go take a look at the dog-face bascinet, the visored barbute, or the typically sloped design of 15th-century cuirasses. Granted that these were designed to deflect lances, not bullets, one should recall that a cavalry lance develops a fairly impressive amount of kinetic energy.
It may not be clear, but he was talking about the side armor. The T-34's side armor was sloped while the T-44's sides were not. Sloped side armor is a waste of space
An interesting video, although I would've pointed out that when explaining the differences you made a strong emphasis on delving into T34's problems as if no PzIII problems ever existed in terms of "paper" - "reality" picture. Surely PzIII had some discrepancies too. Also, optimization for mass production was a huge factor that was merely mentioned at the end.
> Also, optimization for mass production was a huge factor that was merely mentioned at the end. hint: technical-tactical level NOT strategic level. At was mentioned in the end, because it didn't fit the comparison.
@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized Please do a video on the T-34, I've heard a lot about reliability issues but the proof I've seen is at best vague or anecdotal
I've loved tanks for a long time and idk how i've only discovered your channel now. The information and statistics in your videos are very in-depth and entertaining.
Hetzer was a beautiful example of last ditch engineering turning an obsolete tank into something that can bring the pain and is a reasonably hard target, but it pales in comparison to any purpose built tank destroyer, like Jagdtpanzer IV, Jagdtpanther, Jagdttiger or the Su and ISU 85/100/122/152. The Hetzers Gun had no room to swivel and the tank was horribly crowded. The one cool feature it had was a roof-mg controlled via periscope. In any case it was meant as a mobile artillery piece for setting up ambushes, rather than hunting tanks in the open as it's name implies... To a lesser extend this is true for pretty much every SPG. Also comparing Panther and IS2 is very lopsided as the Panther was a medium tank and the IS2 a heavy tank. IMHO even the Tiger was more of a (sluggish) medium tank regarding its cannon (comparable to t34/85!) and rather weak amour (turret and side were not much better than the Panther and IMHO still inferiour to the IS2). The Tiger II had at least an excellent cannon, which had better penetration, accuracy and range and rate of fire than the IS2 (which however had far more explosive cargo).
The IS-2 is only 2tons heavier than the Panther and has a comparable, still worse gun, worse manuverbility but better armor. The Hetzer is a great example how you can use greatly oldend material to make a reasonable, functioning vehicle which is able to fight the most threads it would face! As the G13 did it even serve till 1973!
IS-2 is a Tank Destroyer thought and that it had a 122mm gun the panther only had a high penetration 75mm so Panther and IS is not fair by firepower wise better comperason is Tiger II vs IS-2
@@TheLPN05Fan The IS-2's 122mm gun was in no way worse than the panther's, it was unwieldy and took much longer to load. But the 122mm shell it fired was so heavy and impacted with so much energy it was able to break the hull and welds of tiger2 tanks even without penetrating.
Two iconic tanks measured against their factors is insufficient, of course. Ease of maintenance, ergonomics and crew task distribution are keys to any tactical lock.
The only one of those not talked about was Ease of maintenance, but I was under the impression none of them where particularly painful to maintain. Its not like we are talking about a panther or an early lee.
At 11:12, what did he say? T-44 was an evolution of the T-34 and saying that they got rid of the sloped armor because it was a dumb idea? I think not, because it's sloped just as much. Plus every modern tank has sloped armor too, obviously it's a good idea if you can do it right. Also at 12:50, I'm sure those smaller ones went into the sides or back. I'm pretty sure when people say that "the T-34 is immune to x" they really mean that the front is immune.
It seems like the difference here was in the 'maturity' of the designs. The Panzer 3 was a more 'mature' design with more non-competitive specs but better technical support and a better understanding of its limitations and how to counteract them. The T-34 was a more 'advanced' design that suffered from design issues that were yet unsolved.
I should admit, that there is a minor mistake in the video: the commander in early T-34 wasn't the loader as well - he was a gunner AND commander. And the second guy in turret was a loader. Commander was a loader in, for instance, British tanks, such as Valentine. Edit: Christie suspension is still used on modern tanks. Merkava has such type of suspension.
The thing about the T-34 is that many people talked like it was the invention and debut of sloped armor. The concept existed for centuries before; that's why many knights' helmets were so pointy and chestplates jutted out in the middle. It also had been used on tanks before, just never even close to the same extent as it was on the T-34.
I think this goes a long way towards explaining why the Germans didn't "simply" copy the T34. At the point in time when the decisions where made, the T34 would have looked significantly inferior to the Pz III in lots of operational ways and it's not surprising that the Germans concluded that what they needed was essentially a bigger Pz III with sloped armour, wide tracks and a gun capable of defeating any likely opponent. In other words, the Panther...
@Jimmy De'Souza perhaps, but I think you're missing the point. The widespread question is "why didn't the Germans EXACTLY copy the T34?" Why did they design an ultimately unsuccessful (in that it didn't win them the war) "Germanised" version in the form of the Panther and not simply build an identical (or near identical) copy of the Russian wonder-weapon? The answer may well be that by the end of 1941 the T34 really didn't look all that wonderful to the Germans. Therefore applying the good bits (the gun, the armour, the tracks) to apparently superior German underpinnings is by far the most logical path forwards.
They did build a Exact copy. Down to the nuts and bolts. Guderian wanted the simpler copy, Hitler chose panther, end of story. Alit of people don't know that the Germans built an exact copy of the t34.
Very disapointed you didn't also attempt to say the Russian designations in their mother language as you did the German ones. In the interest of fairness, of course... ...but also humour.
+@@builder396 If you use another language as much as or more then your native language it's incredibly easy to mix them up in some situations (at least if they're related).
@@Luredreier Im well aware of that, as I too speak both english and german, though I can pride myself in most people thinking that my accent is british.
A fantastic video that shows reality is different than what is percieved. I'd like to see more videos like this, specifically maybe between the M26 Pershing and the Panther tank or to keep it on the Eastern Front T-34/85 vs the PKW 5 Panther. Maybe the Sherman tank vs the PKW IV G/H models. Were many of those flaws in the 1941 T-34 corrected in later variants? Was the T-43/85 an overall improvement sans better armor or no? Hope to see more videos like this in the future. Thank you.
Great video, but I am curious as to the choice of order of the "stats": 1. Firepower 2. Ergonomics & Visibility 3. Armour Protection 4. Mobility 5. Communications Does this order have any significance? Because in my humble opinion those aren't ranked from most to least important... especially for medium tanks.
@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized Read your comment with your accent. Will still strongly stand against any neurologist that suggests that a lesser amount of MHV videos should be watched.
+Mermaid Man Is this implying a Panzer III could somehow take out 7 Shermans? You have to remember that the majority of Germany's armored forces on the Western Front consisted of their standard Panzer IIIs and IVs, mixed with support such as the StuGs or other captured vehicles. As covered by the Chieftain himself, the Sherman was an operational king and given the sub par competition, a tactical king on the Western front. If you were plopped into France in 1944 and asked to crew a tank, you would most definitely want to be in a Sherman.
Germans generals about T-34: - Guderian: "vastly superior" over German tanks. - von Kleist : "It's the finest tank in the world." - von Mellenthin: “We had nothing comparable” - von Reichenau: "If the Russians ever produce it on an assembly line we will have lost the war."
Interesting side note: the early/mid production Panzer-IIIs ( Ausf.E, F, G & H) fitted with the 10 speed Variorex 328/145 transmission actually had a higher top speed than the T-34s (67 kph vs 53 kph). However, governors were added to reduce the speed of these vehicles to 40 kph in both the 9th & 10th gears to avoid damaging the transmissions.
Well...very technically you could make the full designation of the T-34 into : Tank of armored corps enhancement program of 1934... but only if you are VERY nitpicky. That's actually one of the things I like about a clear and detailed designation system. Talking about a Panzerkampfwagen VI Ausführung H gives you a very detailed model of equipment to look for...where as T-34 you first have to determine if you are talking about the US or Russian one, and don't get me started about the "M1" designations that literally EVERYTHING in the US arsenal had at some point
First models of T34 (M1939 and M1940) were not equipped with F34 gun, but L-11. F-34 came with M1941. L-11 was a lot less effective gun than F-34, being L30.5 long, with muzzle velocity only 612m/s. (it could penetrate 62mm of armor at 500m sloped at 30 degrees, or 56mm at 1000m. )Also you mentioned penetration at 30 degrees, but then used data for F-34 with 0 degree penetration (75mm). At 30degree and 500m F-34 was able to penetrate just 69mm of armor. Which means front hull plate of PzIIIH had a chance to stop the APHE projectile, if it hit the tank at some angle (not direct 90degree hit)
Yep. A picture for comparison: two gentlemen on the right are T-34 M1940 with a short L-11 and T-34 M1941with a noticably longer F-34 and a somewhat bigger turret. upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7d/T-34_prototypes.jpg
@@3458-s3q then it should be compared to PzIIIJ which was 1941 german tank, not PzIIIH which was 1940.. of course, J version came later in 1941, but so did T34 M1941.
Sloped armor in WW1 was implemented for an esthetical reason, not to increase thickness. Revolutionary was a single turret idea in 1934, hence the name t-34.
early T-34's we're an experiment have not been battle tested first time they were was in 1941 the soviets learned from the mistakes of the early and fixed most of them in the newer Models.
Although I’ve seen nothing officially documented, I can't help but wonder if the strength of the low-quality Russian armor was further reduced by cold temperature effects. When most structural steel alloys are subjected to low temperatures they can transition from a ductile failure mode where the material yields and stretches to that of a brittle nature where the failure becomes more glass-like and sudden. These effects are exacerbated by the presence of defects, structural geometry, and residual stresses. Also, brittle failures can occur at lower loadings and are more sensitive to shock. In WW2 the US was very concerned with the problem and did much research regarding it. Several early Liberty ships were lost in the North Atlantic for no apparent reason (i.e., not from U-boats) but it was later surmised that the combination of their low quality steel, expeditious right-angle notches, and residual stresses from poor welds were the probable causes of their sinkings. This conclusion was based on the analysis of one of the newly-launched ships cracking in half while conveniently sitting at a dock before its first trans-Atlantic voyage. I believe their solution to the problem was to keep the steel that was being used (they probably had no choice because of cost and availability) but to eliminate any sharp notches and perform better quality welds (or at least do a better job of inspecting them) in critical areas. This had no impact on the material's transition temperature but reduced its stresses to an acceptable level. It would be interesting to see if at that time the probability-of-kill of a T-34 was correlated with ambient temperature.
*_"I can't help but wonder if the strength of the low-quality Russian armor was further reduced by cold temperature effects. When most structural steel alloys are subjected to low temperatures they can transition from a ductile failure mode where the material yields and stretches to that of a brittle nature where the failure becomes more glass-like and sudden."_* That's what happens when your factory roof gets blown off in the middle of winter and your tank is made by old people and children because everyone else is at the front.
Actually this supposition is very well conceived and likely mostly correct in general, if not exactly, on the particulars. Metallurgy is a highly specific art, and stress loadings over time was not fully understood across the board then like it is today. A variety of factors will cause failure, the most common being the state of the materials at the location of shock impact, over and above angle, distance, and velocity.
Considering the russians already heat treated their armor to extremely high temperatures, making them brittle, add the ductility reduction due to the low temperatures of winter, and you have armor that's very hard, but so brittle it'll likely kill the crew just from the spall of being hit.
Can someone explain me how armour plates were welded together? I know that riveted plates were disastrous when hit with HE shells. Any superficial weld would be even worse. Especially with the heavy tanks, I wonder how they fused those plates together without ruining the heat treatment. Similarly, how do cast turrets work, when even today you can't cast a sword as it would either shatter or bend on impact?
this is mentioned in Kavalerchik's book that basically soviet welding early to mid war did cause armour weakness where welding on the nose plates took place. It meant even lighter guns like a 37 mm could penetrate if the heat treat had been messed up
Pre war and early war, they were welded together with arc welders. Later they went to submerged arc welding. Arc welding is the traditional stick welding by hand. Submerged arc is a more industrial process and is much faster while giving a better result. He mentions in this vid that the welding burnt many of the alloying elements out of the hardened steel, resulting in weaknesses along the weld seams. Furthermore, look up photographs of the tank hulls... they were anything but superficial welds. And probably full depth, too.
In addition to these answers the Germans dovetail cut armor plates so that they physically interlocked in later models and heavy tanks. Cast turrets are just that giant steel castings. By the end of WW2 the Soviets are casting turrets with 200mm thick frontal areas (IS-7, T-55)
Interesting. Although the T-34 is frequently over-rated, I still think that firepower and armour are the key in battle. No matter if the Panzer III was able to spot the T-34 quicker and fire more shots off, if the rounds had significantly less chance of penetrating the T-34, the latter still had the advantage, as it would only take one hit from it's gun to knock the Panzer III out in most cases. I also think that crew training played an important factor, as this helped the German crews who had far more experience than the Russian ones. I realize you were comparing tanks, but your statistics included figures for which crew quality played a factor, not least the overall effect the T-34 had during Operation Barbarossa. If the crews had been of similar experience to the Germans, the impact would have been much greater.
The most important fact in any battle is spotting your enemy before the enemy spots you. After that you can worry how to destroy it. Cheiftain points out a situation, where a T-34 was hit by 23 shells of a 37mm and only the last jammed the turret ring. The question he asks: "Why did it get hit 23 times at all?" Answer: "Because they didn't see the enemy -- or because they couldn't put a round on target." Now imagine this had been a PzIII with 50mm gun (which was in widespread use at the eve of Barbarossa, compared to Fall Rot). Do you really think a T-34 would've taken 23 shots of a 50mm KwK 38 L/42? Probably not. tl;dr; Yes, armour and firepower are important. But you need to see your enemy to hit him.
@@Ruhrpottpatriot Your comment also proves my point. It took 23 hits to knock out the T-34. For all we know the T-34 was out of ammo. The only thing we know for sure was it took a shit ton of hits before it was knocked out. Thanks for proving my point.
@@Cervando The T-34 that manages to withstand many hits is a statistical outlier, what if the German squad had access to any one of the more powerful anti-tank guns in use at the time? It was unlucky for the particular German squad that they lacked a significantly stronger antitank gun at the time and that none of their hits managed to influct critical damage to the tank until the 23rd hit, but we know the 50mm was perfectly capable of knocking out a T-34, and it would only take one antitank gun that the Russian commander couldn't see to knock it out. In this case it worked well for the Russian crew to have a T-34, but there's also many situations where having better optics, crew ergonomics, etc. would result in the tank crew being able to fight back instead of blindly hoping they can take out their target by sheer luck.
@@Uberrandom You make many assumptions. The only thing that is stated is that it took 23 hits before one managed to disable the tank. There is zero evidence to support your premise that the reason the T-34 did not destroy any guns was because of it's optics or field of vision. Like I said the only thing the example proves is how robust the armour is. Even if they had been 88mms and the T-34 was knocked out by the first shot, it still doesn't prove the issue was either the optics or vision. It is just as likely that the tank had no ammo left with which to retaliate, a shell was blocking the breach, the crew had abandoned the vehicle etc. You simply picked what suited your agenda and ignored the actual facts which support my viewpoint. Finally, your observation that it was lucky that the Germans did not have larger calibre AT guns, further reinforces my point that a larger gun is more preferable than better optics. In short, in a fight I would prefer a kevlar vest and a pistol than a sniper rifle firing low velocity peas.
@@Cervando My point still stands: Why could the T-34 been hit with a 37mm 23 times at all? In every other encounter this is a death sentence. German battle reports (from which we know the encounter) don't report any losses. This is all mentioned in "Zaloga, Steven J., Peter Sarson (1994). T-34 Medium Tank 1941-45 (New Vanguard 9), Oxford: Osprey Publishing" Being able to be hit 23 times and not take out any enemy is not an indicator of good design on your part. And a Military Commissariat Report of the 10th Tank Division, dated 2 August 1941 reported that within 300-400 m the 37 mm Pak 36's armour-piercing shot could defeat the frontal armour of a T-34. Also, according to soviet examination in '43 nearly 55% of all T-34 losses were inflicted by the 50 mm KwK 39 L/60. The T-34 is one of the best tanks on paper, but in reality it left much to be desired.
Would have liked more attention paid to the relative costs of the tanks. I grant that the numbers at the front in 1934 were similar, but it's not clear how readily each side could build, and replace, a tank. If there are myths in that area, debunking them would be very educational. I feel the strategic implications of cost should not be overlooked.
Well costs are relative. Both countries relied on slave labour, so you can't really compare it with currencies. Usually they compare them by man hours, and the germans invested way more in their tanks than the russians. I think it's more important to have the context of each country: germany starts having problems supplying rare materials/metals and diesel towards the mid/end of the way, where as russia has basically an unlimited supply of natural resources. Therefore sheer quantities were enough to topple up any tank that the germans could invent.
35k t-34 were built in ww2, the germans produced a total of 25k tanks (not counting tank destroyers). Granted, the germans knew their tanks were too complicated, so they simplified the design with the panther, they built 6k panthers from 43 to 45, meanwhile 8.8k panzer iv were built from 36 to 45, so the panther was much better in terms of man-hours per tank (contrary to popular belief).
Even by the time of operation barbarossa the T-34 second version was more common than the first. And the second version had a different radio set and other upgrades too. I feel like you're using the rarest model to misrepresent the line as a whole.
@@redbaron4908 Germany wasn't better. Her weapons were.Why, because they had to be, for Germany to even have a chance. The most important weapon on the battlefield is the soldier. Tanks ,guns trucks, planes can be built it a relatively short time but it takes 18 years to grow a soldier. With enemies on all sides ,especially after the tide turned Germany was out numbered.
But it still didn't have a 3-men turret and it still had bad optics and poor visibility (which are the most important points in a battle tank, because if you can not see the enemy you can not shoot). And even if the new radio set was better than the old one that it replaced, it still didn't change the fact that most of those T-34 didn't even have a radio to begin with. You think just because it got a new radio set that all of those mentioned critic points somehow get irrelevant? Also I like how you said "and other upgrades", without mentioning what those "other upgrades" were. Just excuses, excuses, excuses....
@@johnkendall6962 Germany has the finest armed forces in the world up until the end of 1942, and then it was a downhill run all the way to Berlin. Losses in men and equipment could not be easily maintained, while the allied powers got exponentially better in every way.
@@perihelion7798 I think we are saying the same thing . For Germany to even have a chance she needed the best weapons. and hope for a short war. In a war of attrition you are right she had no chance. It matters little how many tanks planes or guns an army has if it doesn't have oil and it still takes 18 years to grow an effective soldier.
ratio of 50 mm t34 kills corrected by ratio of 50mm guns to 37mm guns finds that the percentage kills per unit in the field is more like 90 per cent effectiveness of 50mm versus 2 per cent for 37mm (though I say this having only approximated how many 88s and higher calibres where in the field). another great video. thank you
The top hat when discussing FOV was a nice touch. Many will not understand. Also, the main question is "was the 50mm good enough to kill its primary adversaries?" If it was, then the smaller gun actually becomes an advantage since you can carry more ammo and it's much less work for the loader and much better for the crew in general since you're not working around a cannon that's too big for the turret it's crammed into.
"Shock absorbers are like food, not everybody gets them" LOL - you might have an army of the same idiots who descended on the comment section of your Reagan/East Germany video pop up here if they figure out what that's a reference to! :-p
That's funny. Due to what I know, the T-34 (1941) was way more fearful to the Germans than the subsequent 1942 and the 85mm model. Due to what I know, the armor on the 1940 production and early batch of 1941 models had great armor rigidity as they were all well done and the heat treatment was done to par on what was required but it was those tanks that was done during Barbarossa that was in trouble as war broke out and with many tanks already lost like those T-26, new tanks need to be replenished and many methods were cut short so newer tanks can plug the gap between their own numbers and the German's push. It took them till 1944 that the pre-war standards of armor returned as the war was not on their front anymore and with the Germans running out of everything, they have the spare time to return things back to normal and the collective post-war T-34-85 that the Americans faced in Korea was excellent like it was 1940 all over again.
LUNAR BLOODDROP dude the US alone unfortunately had 35,000 deaths in Korea. The T-34-85 WAS a great tank. It’s just that the North Koreans couldn’t use them on the same level that the Soviets did in WW2. Its kinda like the battle of arracourt where the Germans had greater numbers and better tanks, but the Americans had more experience tank crews so the Germans were smashed with heavy loses. The American tankers in Korea would obviously be better then the North Korean ones due to American experience in WW2.
the fact is that the Germans couldn’t deliver anything to the Soviet T 34 at the beginning of the war, because of this they were afraid of him. But in 1942, with the release of modification PZ 4 F2 with a 75 mm long-barrel caliber gun, the Germans leveled their strength
@gillecroisd 92 feared of t34 german have too many time before german made tigar and other big tank. In beggining of war german not have tank better then rusia thet why scery of t34....
A very good analysis, very thorough. I read Otto Carius book, "Tigers in the Mud" and I believe what you have found in your research is definitely confirmed by his front line experiences.
About optics, i have read somewhere(long time ago now) that the new factory that started production just before Barbarossa and which was created with the assistance of Zeiss, was, when it went into production, supposed to have been the best in the world, and that it had time to deliver a limited number of optics for T-34s before it was captured/evacuated(supposedly, key equipment was intentionally captured by the Germans exactly to prevent the Soviets to produce any more such high quality optics or to copy the machinery(and was also claimed as one of the reasons why Hitler apparently felt Germany "had to" attack in 1941, as several important new high quality Soviet factories built with parts from Germany were entering production)). Never been able to find another source, but what i read suggested several(a few?) hundred high quality optics for T-34 were delivered and made a noticeable difference. Information on the optics in question have been near impossible to find at all. The 2 times i've found anything, it was german sources basically stating that they had ran into T-34s whose optics were "slightly/marginally better" than their own. This also connects to another issue i've read about, production quality of T-34s and timing. Because after reading a fair amount, i've become somewhat convinced that it is a relevant issue. Essentially, that initial serialproduction T-34s were drastically better quality than the vast majority produced later. When looking, i found several accounts of veteran tank crews who would literally do anything to patch up their "old" T-34s rather than accept a "brand new" one, because especially the armour treatment for those produced late -41 and onwards varied between "not good" all the way to "nonexistant", ie. the "armour" was basically just normal steel, with the norm being "poor". Similar issues with engines, early serialproduction engines seems to have been decently reliable and put out the specificed HP, while later ones were more messed up, rougher and appears to have dropped at least a fifth of the HP, as well as often running needlessly hot(early T-34s supposedly did NOT do this). Crews that managed to retain their early serial production T-34s, also seems to have been amazingly more "lucky" about surviving. And while some of those tanks actually survived the whole war, absolutely zero T-34s from the new, rushed factories built in -42 apparently survived(or their crews didn't). This would also help explain why there is such a severe dichotomy between the outright terror T-34s sometimes wreaked on German troops in 1941, and at the same time when evaluated by US/UK(just to mention one source) were found to have extremely severe flaws that simply should have made such near onesidedness impossible. And while sloped armour at ALL was not revolutionary in the slightest, applying it ALL OVER THE TANK as the T-34 did, very much WAS. It also reduced the number of plates that made up the hull armour, greatly reducing the number of shottraps. Now, for the overall comparison? The Pz-III is a sub-20t tank which continually got more and more weight added, eventually becoming more and more overweight, with a suspension and drivetrain that just couldn't handle it. While the T-34 started at a nice and balanced 27t. In short, as long as the tanks compared are not drastically different in design style and quality, the heavier tank wins. No, the M4 doesn't live up to this, but that's mostly just because it has some design "features" that were stupid flaws that didn't need to be there.
@@jerryudonneedtoknow3903 Indeed it is, i just wish i could find some actually reliable sources about any of it rather than the uncertain or nebulous "maybe's" that i've found over the years.
Another terrific well rounded presentation. Kudos. I would only remark that you barely mentioned at the very end that parts shortages influenced availability. I would add model specific trained technicians/mechanics as well. Look, I'm aware the T-34 had a designed mechanical operational life of 250 hours; but you still need SOMEONE on hand to fix the relatively minor scheisse. Just keep in mind those old sepia photos and newsreels of endless columns of Russian POWs contained more than just infantry, arty gunners, and truck drivers. The Minsk, Kiev. and Bryansk encirclements gobbled up whole echelons of Soviet maintenance as well. At Glantz's "Great Brody Tank Battle" of Sept of 41; the Germans captured as many inop Soviet tanks around the battle area as they actually knocked out. While I know your video primarily focused on an "a mano a mano" comparison. If you can't get to the fight, you lose by default. A mobility kill doesn't need to be a shot off track, a simple mechanical breakdown, with no mechanic on hand, has the same effect.
Considering that tanks usually fight infantry, the Panzer 3 is the clear winner for me. At least if the comparision is made between the same number of each tanks. I would be interessted how much cheaper the t34 was in both production and upkeeping. Maybe it was the better tank from a cost effectivness point of few. But im not sold on that yet.
hey military history. nice video. it would be cool if you could make the same kind of video comparing the Tiger 1 to the Sherman. both tanks are considered 1 of the best tanks of the war for different reasons.
how good panzer 4 was against m4 shermans? "desert fox" once said that m3 Grant (even😱) was best allies tank againt panzer 4 during Africa campaign. .. German heavy tank were best ..but what about Germans medium tanks vs allies m4/t-34?
P4 F2+every following version + Panther are in my opinion superior to T-34 and M4. Every german 7,5cm gun had more penetration, accuracy (thanks to the barrel and the optics) and gun handling than the mentioned russian and american medium tanks. (and as a side note on tactical warfare: Since the german Army was after 1942 mostly in the defense, they had the upper hand against attacking tanks, because they could fire from larger ranges more precisely than their counterparts)
The Panther was much better against T-34 than M4, because it fought the Ruskies mostly on open plains whereas against the M4 it was a lot of Bocage warfare, forest fighting and such. All this aside, the Panther was an awful tank, I mean really xD No telescopic sight for the gunner, horrible mechanical unreliability... Maybe it would've done better in a war where the Germans could contest Allied air superiority and provide sufficient fuel for their tanks, but such wasn't the case.
@@Paveway-chan The Panther had a very good telescopic sight for the gunner. The problem was that it ONLY had a telescopic sight, with a relatively small field of view. Once a target was sighted by the gunner, it was very accurate, but it was difficult for the gunner to FIND the target because of the small view angle associated with a telescopic sight. The M4 telescopic sight was not as good as the German sight, but the M4 also had the periscopic unmagnified sight which allowed quick acquisition of targets and the ability to quickly lay the gun on with enough precision to easily pick up the target in the telescopic sight.
The M3 Grant tends to get an undeservedly bad rep. Keep in mind that prior to the M3 Grant, the British did not have a tank with HE shells. I don't think I have to point out that the lack of HE is not ideal when fighting enemy tank guns and FlaK 88s.
you are right with the small field of view for the gunner, but thats where the commander comes to play. he decides which is the next target to aim at, so he directed the gunner onto the target. while the gunner was aiming, the commander himself could already search for the next target.
Everyone knows the T-34 was better because it had both 3, and 4 functionality, whereas the Panzer, while running the superior Roman numeral character set, only supported 3 based tactics.
You know what's Ironic? The same things you start to talk about at 20:55 could be said about the Panther and Tiger in 44 and 45. But just the top row of circles, since no German tanks were designed for mass production.
On sloped armor: for a given vertical height, the same amount of material is required for a given horizontal thickness - cross section area is independent slope angle. Look up the formula for parallelogram area. Sloped armor does have the advantage that a shell is more likely to glance off.
![[Barbarossa] The Major Errors and Blunders - Or why Barbarossa Failed](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/A_3R-Rkn_98/mqdefault.jpg)
Comparison between the Panzer IV and the S-35 Somua with Tankfest 2018 footage here: ua-cam.com/video/XKC4UcW7Tgc/v-deo.html
If you like in-depth researched videos on Military History, consider supporting me on Patreon: patreon.com/mhv/
Corrections:
14:55 The speed for the T-34 should be 34 miles/h not 43, the 55 km/h is correct. thx to Freek.
Are you german? Your pronunciation is really good. :D
Nice channel keep going!
He is Austrian.
Please do an analysis of the battle of Arras 1940, My Grandad served as an AT gunner with a 2pdr in the Royal Artillery with the BEF, related to this video, the Wehrmacht must have known the utility of the 88mm Pre war as Rommel used it so effectively with the correct AP ammunition at Arras
Awesome video. I know this had probably been asked before. But the German tank museum doesn't do English speaking videos. It would be fantastic for a collaboration. Of coarse I don't know your circumstances but it would be sweet to see. Thank you for the videos, super informative. Love the no BS approach.
Das ist güte. Man I wish I know better German lol.
Actually the Panzermuseum Munster just announced a few days ago they will begin to release English videos in the future.
me at 10 pm: "Let's go to sleep early today"
me at 3 am: "Panzer III vs. T-34 (featuring Chieftain)"
Ok
Every damn time.
Reading this at 1am glad that I'm not the only person that gets sucked in like this.
literally started this at 3am xD
I google "Panzer IV" daily....
Would love to see a follow up, maybe with the Panzer IV and the T-34/76 in 1942 or 1943, to see how they adapted to the problems.
Panther vs IS 1?
@@Romanotieu look at the number produced. About 100 IS-1. By the wartime USSR standards it's nothing more than experimental design
Anubis Einheit 33 I would prefer to see the tactical solutions employed, rather than the technical ones. To be fair though, he did say this was a technical comparison.
@@ВячеславСкопюк the is1 was designed to combat the panther, but the cheaper t3485 was coming into production with the same firepower. The is series were taken to a actual heavy tank with the is2 with the 122mm, which was found to be more effective. The is1 was a upgraded kv85, which was only a stopgap measure, until a better tank could take over, in this case that tank was the is2.
@@ethanedwards422 IS-1 was designed as replacement for KV-1, capable of withstanding 75mm and 88mm shells. So, you can't compare it with T-34-85. But 85mm cannon was not enough
As a long time amateur war historian, of all the good and less good video makers on war history, I consider you the best. Your humor and accent are a bonus. Thanks!
I second this entirely.
Vat achzent??
What do you think of TIK? Pretty reliable and trustworthy, or no?
@@Mineav Hes great also...
@@Mineav tik is good too, but hes no political scientist.
The performance of Soviet tank forces in 1941 was crucially damaged by the extent to which the formations were understrength in infantry, artillery, mortars, trucks and ammunition, so that even if the tank crews had been perfectly trained, as units they were almost bound to fail, because tanks without support infantry, services and adequate resupply (trucks) are virtually defenceless.
Well, yes, this is not a landing in Normandy in 1944 where the Allies fought against Hitler Yugens) Against children who are 15-17 years old)
Completely correct. Of course there are well known examples of single Soviet tanks holding up German advances for hours or sometimes days. When you are defending your country, you dont think about sloped armour, the size of your gun, the speed of your vehicle. Most of the time these defenders died at their positions.
@@КовровецК-175 Germany had veterans from the Eastern front fighting the landing in Normandy. The allies fought valiantly against a serious enemy.
@@derekcollins9739 Veterans are actually worse than fresh troops. War eats away the nerves and destroys morale over time.
But yes, there were serious troops in Normandy.
Not to mention the BIGGEST problem the T34 had, NO RADIOS! Only 1 T34, in 4 had a radio. So in practice you had one tank equipped with radio and the other 3 just followed along to where that one went! Naturally if that tank got knocked out right away it was not just a matter of swapping the radio, the other tanks were seriously hindered on the battlefield. Meanwhile EVERY Panzer had (or was supposed to have) a radio. Command and control were crucial and without those radios the Panzers could never have been as effective as they turned out to be.
I love the Chiefton mentioning that he is 198 cm tall. Can you imagine a Soviet or German tanker being selected for this duty when they were 198 cm tall? All armies in WW2 would have selected for shorter men to fit into their vehicles.
Another way to put it, with the information that I recall having, is that American tanks are designed to accommodate the 95th percentile crewman, whereas Soviet tanks were designed to accommodate the 5th percentile or maybe the 15th percentile crewman. It's all fun and games until you run out of short guys. Plus which, short guys are probably less strong and less able to load heavy shells, shift a stubborn transmission, change treads, etc.
@Lex Bright Raven it's not strength it's room
@@nichevo1
Shorter guys are bio mechanically stronger in their weight up until the limits of their frame, shorter guys would likely be stronger as I doubt the caloric intake and access of free time to work out would breed many buff tall people.
i think its about legroom
"War is a team effort"
Remember guys, you need sly diplomats as well as good cannon fodder.
Never underestimate the value of teamwork. It gives the enemy somebody else to shoot at.
I only need vodka and a T80
@@charlesshepperson7102 and i only need is vodca with a rag and lighter n a good arm
Indeed. Folks seem to have this misplaced idea that the goal of diplomacy is to avoid war. This just isn't so. The goal of diplomacy is to further the political objectives of a nation when those objectives relate to its relationships with other nations. War is not necessarily a failure of diplomacy (though it can be), but the role of diplomats (at least good ones) is to make every possible effort/attempt to shape the international political landscape to further the national interests of the nation(s) they represent. If war is on the horizon, the diplomat's sole priority will be to set the stage so that the armed forces of the nation they represent will have the most favorable war posture possible.
Best of all, use the sly diplomats for cannon fodder!
"Even Communists were unable to make Soviet Russia run out of mud and snow."
This is pure gold.
I LOL'd at this too. Zing!
I lolled at the rubber duck icon for low quality manufacturing of armor.
No it's acutally a pretty trivial catchphrase
@@TTuoTT
Well that's just like... your opinion bro.
Yet Nazis lost, go chew on that one.
A few points that never really come in for consideration: first of all, the PzKpfw III was a mature tank whose development was a lot longer than it might have been because of the difficulties with the suspension. If I remember correctly it was nearly cancelled because it was taking so long. By contrast, the T-34, despite its numbers, had not been in production for very long when the war on the Eastern Front broke out. It was a pre-war design that was developed in circumstances of no threat.
Secondly, the PzKpfw III was very much a combat proven weapons by the time it was committed to Barbarossa. The tank crew were no longer in a position of trying to find out how best to operate it. It had done well in both France and North Africa and was a known quantity in practically all kinds of conditions.
Finally - and this is almost never pointed out - the T-34 was produced in conditions that were not experienced in the same way by any other combatant nation in WWII or, indeed, any other war. Much is made in any video about the quality of design and manufacture of the T-34 without acknowledging that it was built by people who were unsuitable for front line combat and occasionally, such as in the Leningrad factory, under the most horrendous conditions. It's certainly true that in some tanks you could put your finger between the plates. It's true that some parts were badly designed (you should see the _original_ turret design) and it's true that many of them broke down in the early part of the war. But when you stop to consider the fact that the factories had to be moved to safety behind the Urals, that practically all the skilled workers were at the front and those manning the factories were mostly old, very young or unskilled, the fact that they were able to produce anything at all is quite amazing. Whether by design or coincidence, the T-34 was not terribly difficult to build.
Overall, it's hard to imagine amore difficult situation in which to build and perfect and complex piece of machinery like a tank. On top of that, the Red Army had little time in which to learn how to use it to best effect.
And by the way, I can't recall anyone saying the T-34 was actually revolutionary. The Germans were certainly very interested in the sloped armour and it was an influence in later tank designs. Even the BT series tanks had sloping armour.
There is an idea that revolutionary was not technical design of T-34 which was full of old and dropped later technical decisions but the overall concept of one universal tank instead of several specialized designs for different roles. I know that that time and even after war in Red Army have been present multiple different specialized designes as heavy, mid and light tanks with different roles. But the idea that experience of implementing of this tank led later all countries to different tank doctrine when only one common role tank is used in army which can solve all kind of tasks. Sorry for my English.
It was by design. As Chieftain elucidates in another video about Soviet tank development as a whole, production design came built-in as it were, as a byproduct of the Central Planning system. They assumed very high attrition, so that tanks would only likely need to run for a few hundred kilometres before becoming inoperable, per Deep Battle doctrine, so the all important consideration was cost of production, so that they could be churned out in vast numbers. By relentlessly finding ways to reduce the per unit cost, they streamlined the production process and cut out unnecessary refinements so that they could be made very quickly and with less complex work for the factory workers. The same applied with artillery pieces, anti-tank guns and AA guns - standardised calibres, so they could all fire the same 76.2 mililimetre shells, for instance, and then 100mm, 120 mm and 150 mm (where all those giant calibre SP guns came from - they were making the calibres of shell for AA guns and naval guns, so why not make AT guns to match). And not bothering with smoothing and polishing the outside surface of artillery gun barrels which doesn't affect the flight of shells in any way, but does consume time and resources in the factory.
@@patrickholt2270 I'm pretty sure Chieftain wouldn't put it in those words. Some of what you said is right. A bit of it is not. But the foundation statement is misleading and it likely leads to people making the wrong assumptions (and they always do) about Soviet war planning.
What was the original turret and why was it so bad?
@@Zorro9129 Two man crew turret I think. Commander was also the loader so it overworked the crew if I’m remembering right.
When it said some were knocked out by 20mm shells, before you mentioned they were Pzgr. 40 I just had the image of a flak gun relentlessly pinging the armour until the crew couldn't take it anymore
Ти Урод в смислі вродливий, чи в смислі потворний?
Lol
i bet at one point during the war this exact situation did happen.
There is an account of a Wirblewind which was equipped with 4 20mm flak guns shooting a SU-100 at close range and destroying it.
The prisms for the sights will surely be damaged by a hail of 20 mm autocannons. If you can't see you might likely bail out.
You sir have an excellent channel! May the eyes of Mars always be upon you.
Plus I can finally figure out the correct pronunciation of all the German technical terms.
Cool that you teamed up with The Chieftain, both of you are two of the best.
@Markiplier777, the roman god for war, based on the greece god Ares if i remember right.
just a little correction from a mathematical aspect: 55 km/h are 34.2 mph, not 43
Edit: I am reffering to 15:00
the Imps got me again...
@Soren G In some older English texts, numbers like 24 are written like "four and twenty" as well.
@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized We Americans missed Mars because of a conversion error between SI and Imperial. You're not doing so bad by comparison.
Imperial is homey and fun. SI is what the big girls and big boys use.
@@jamallabarge2665 muricans!!!
@@jamallabarge2665America landed on the moon just fine with imperial alone. It's the conversion process that brings a significant probability of error into the process.
Nice little totalbiscuit reference at 3:23
*FOV INTENSIFIES!!!*
F for respect
I don't get the reference. Could you explain, please? I mean, I get the hat, but is there more to it?
@@MaxRavenclaw Totalbiscuit was a youtuber (recently deceased). His content included reviews of PC games. In these reviews, he would take a look at the graphics settings of the games, where he would often talk about the Field Of View (FOV) slider as an adjustable option in these games.
@@MaxRavenclaw
He was all about the FOV sliders :)
It took me moment to get it too (pausing the video and noticing the acronym). Dirty editor jokes :)
10:45 bloody leonardo da vinci's design had sloped armour
The Spartan "Tortoise" phalanx position had sloped armor!
Actually, the plain old tortoise has sloped armor...winner by 200 million years!
The Pyramids had slopped armor!
Although the plain tortoise and the pyramid had sloped armor neither had the offensive capability when engaging the enemy.....Enter Triceratops,,,ADJUSTABLE armor slope,,Heavy and medium weapon deployment ability and able to resupply deep in enemy territory (eat grass) Truly the best breakthrough and exploitation weapon Getting the Cretaciuos panzer vector deployment correct was a true winner as only rogue T Rex units could engage usually with no combined arms support..
andrew piera
3 hours ago
lol thanks...I just realized my love of tanks started with my love of dinosaurs as a young lad. Triceratops FTW
No mention of CSS Virginia/Merrimack?
The T-34 was cheaper, quicker to produce and easier to repair, too.
Meaning that though in a one-on-one it really depended on range and conditions, in the grand strategy sense a busted T-34 was quickly and cheaply replaced, while a Panzer III was considerably more expensive and much, much more time-consuming to build and repair.
That also meant shoddy and inconsistent build quality, but that doesn't matter so much in a war of attrition.
Even in 1941, there were 1800 T34s produced and in operation at some time. To my knowledge, the Pzr 3 with 50mm didn't amount to 800 vehicles in 1941, when the Germans were winning. Later on, the Soviets really outstripped the Germans in logistics particularily.
The Soviets wished they had Panzer IIIs during the Russian Civil War
7 million deaths becomes a few hundred thousand
@Adrian Shephard When an army is on fallback or even retreat then many vehicls will be blown up because its unable to transport them into repair stations. This is true for germans at 1943-45 same as for soviets at 1941-1942.
But as they were on the defensive they couldnt always go and take the damaged tank and then repair it
@@thurbine2411 No, but simple field maintenance and repairs were a lot easier and faster compared to the over-engineered German tanks.
Fascinating, illuminating, insightful. Keeps me coming back for more. Great content. Thanks for integrating all the different sources and constructing a better understanding of the realities.
Marvel: "Infinity War is the most ambitious crossover event in History"
Me: 5:37
Chieftain Visualised
I'm reminded how "The Squire" makes guest of other youtubers in his shows and have fun
Chieftain don't need five stones to entertain.
Hat mit diesem Video nichts zu tun - trotzdem ein großes Dankeschön: Ich habe einer Oberstufe im Geschichtsunterricht dein Video über die Feldpostbriefe gezeigt, und gebe dir hiermit ein sehr großes positives Feedback weiter!
danke!
Deine Videos sind einfach immer klasse! Weiter so ^^
1:05 "So no PzGr 40 spam" I lol'd xD You telling me there was no gold spammers on the Eastern front? I hiiighly doubt it xD
" "So no PzGr 40 spam" I lol'd xD You telling me there was no gold spammers on the Eastern front? I hiiighly doubt it xD"
At least, Wargaming make this ammo useful ... contrary to Gaijin.
@@dse763 it was useful, too useful in fact so gaijin decided to slap an absurdly unrealistic slope modifier in it. It was basically an early rank APDS that lost pen faster with distance
@@bassbusterx Let me think : too many PZ III used it as primary ammo and destroyed many T34 so they make it useless for the comfort of T34 drivers ?
@@dse763 Russian Bias
@@dse763 Nope , in warthunder apcr was NEVER usefull against sloped armor , however it is usefull against something like KV1 flatish armor where the standard apcbc would never go through , i do agree apcr need a bit of a buff , or it should not afect the battle rating of the tank at all ( like the t34 57 at 4.7 and Tiger E at 6.7) , anyway , in war thunder ealier T-34s are more powerfull than real life , but in game they face lots and lots of Panzers 4 F2s and Gs which will kills T-34 like wingless flies with a flamethrower.
They forgot about the main one. The engine of the t34 was aluminum and consumed the cheap diesel. A CHEAP vehicle designed for mass production.
Did you say mass production?
Plus diesel engines are much more fuel efficient than petrol engines, thus requiring considerably less fuel, and consequently logistical support to keep the tanks moving, a significant advantage.
@D L The US did supply the Soviet Union with aluminium after 1943. However, two facts to remember. The T34 engine head was aluminium before this. Second fact is that the Soviet Union at the time had some of the worlds largest resources and production of aluminium. The Germans considered copying the T34 but rejected the idea because aluminium was needed for aircraft production. So no candy on that one.
Making equipment and ability to deliver it where it was needed decided WW2 once it was clear that German operational skill could not give them early victory.
@@UmbraHand t 34 were far less reliable than the german panzers early t 34 had an engine life of 100 hrs
and often carried a transmission on the back
Excellent work, thank you, I really enjoyed your work here. BTW, the T-34 crew commander was the gunner, not the loader. Which, in my opinion, only makes things worse. :)
Nooooooo, I think that the commander loved to multi-task. =)
Well then
@@ognjenlazarevic4120 maybe thats why they used women tankers lul
@@christianhoffmann8607 ye of course, how could I forget
Great research. Thanks for siting your sources. This is marvelously good. Thank you for your hard work.
Nice video, like to see a comparison between a late 1944 T34/85 and a PZKW IV of the same era.
Hard statistics don't tell the whole story. On the other hand, they are much less open for interpretation than soft stats. I feel that the soft stats have been attributed too much value in this assessment.
For example, optics give an advantage at greater ranges but at greater ranges, the Panzer III H's main gun was less effective against the protection of the T-34.
China wished it had Panzer III tanks which would have allowed them to easily defeat the Japanese in the Second Sino-Japanese War, 1936-1945
Christian Dauz
Tbf, China would have preferred to have any kind of tank during their war against China.
Their tank force in WW2 pretty much consisted of tankettes that were in no way fit against Japanese tanks.
Sick TB reference my man. Loved the rest of the video, ofc
FOV sliders are cool
Armoured Champion has to be my favourite tank book and a must read for every WW2 tank enthusiast. Glad you read it :)
I'm curious how many of those 37mm kills were from side penetrations. The 37mm was notoriously ineffective against the T-34 in general, netting it the nickname 'the army's door knocker' among German gun crews.
As for the Christie suspension, it benefited mobility off-road. The drawback of taking up so much space should have been noted at the ergonomics part. Mobility wise alone it was quite advantageous. The reason it wasn't used past WW2 is because most armies decided the ergonomic drawbacks were not worth it.
Another reason Christie suspension was used prior to and during WW2 was ease of manufacture; torsion bars weren't nearly as perfected and reliable as Christie at the time. This changed as technology progressed, and that + interior space considerations made the advantages obvious.
You mean the "Panzeranklopfgerät" aka tank knock-at device. There are some reported frontal penetrations usually through the lower front plate at very short range. Also apparently some AT gunners were able to get an HE round through an open drivers hatch when firing at short range. Apparently because of sometimes faulty drivers optics this seemed to have happened at least a few times.
If we base it off other tank studies some 70% of hits are to the sides and rear. Tanks are actually very rarely able to hide the sides and rear unless dug in
80% of Russian tanks used during 1941 were vulnerable to 37mm
Doesn't Christie also tend to just scale poorly after around 25 tonnes, as well? Hence the intention to switch the T-34M to torsion bars before...stuff happened.
0:55 "... Since I focus on the *tachical tachical* level."
Well said, you are redefining our understanding of warfare.
He said technical tactical. Watch for four seconds after your own timestamp and prepared for your mind to be blown
Very good evaluation of the relative strengths & weaknesses. Thank you.
Good, unbiased information... And good jokes. Perfect channel.
Bollox ... unbiased my ass ..you must be a fucking Kraut ..idiot ...
@@kittyhawk9707 ok the information source sometimes could be biased, but for the most part he's neutral, probably making some bias jokes here and there
The video seems to take the panzer 3's strong points and shove them into as many categories as possible to give it an advantage.... Optics brought up in both the firepower and ergonomics section? Crew space brought up in both the ergonomics and armour sections???
@@kittyhawk9707 you yourself sound biased as fuck.
@@Seawiiplay But it only really counted once and crew space etc. is part of those categories
building a model panzer IV ausf. h while watching, this is perfect in the background.
Nick . . . WG STILL hasn't released your take on the Panzer IV. Since T34 (both principal models), Sherman (both main types), and Panzer III und IV are the main armored opponents, I am amazed at that choice. I want to hear your estimations of the side turret doors (all crewmen have easily accessed hatches! Praise Patton!), the crew layout and task distribution, and how the smaller, more confined, Pz IV turret was worked with that big "75" taking up all its room.
That is a WG decision I have no sway over, i’m afraid
Thank you for great videos. While I work, I put your videos on to listen too while working. Keep up the great work!
Not sure if someone has pointed this out in the last 2 years, but that mph conversion is way off on the T34 speed. 55 km/h is only 34.2 mph, not 43.2 mph. That's a huge difference. But the graph scale looks accurate though.
It just hit me: The Chieftain is the Eric Brown of tanks. Great collaboration, MHV! Here's to more similar initiatives in the future!
A typo: at 8:58 it states that the Commander is also the Loader, while it should be the Gunner.
The biggest takeaway for me after watching MHV's take on tanks is how it changed my perception of tank warfare. I always viewed tank vs. tank when I looked at it, but now I realize that it's not the only or even main focus of tank warfare. It's mostly tanks vs. infantry and infantry defense lines. All of a sudden, a tank becomes a very different tool that just a duel fighter. Why IS-2 tanks, for example, had lower velocity, slow-rate of fire guns but were highly successful. Or why Panther and King Tiger were flawed designs... etc.
Maybe you should learn another lesson and not take your whole entire perspective from a single youtube channel
@@JC-fy8wh i generally agree with your statement, when it comes to understanding of history as a whole. But, when it comes to something so specific, one aspect, you need to be a historian, not to be forced to rely on one source. Afterall, should people be expected to read multiple sources on radios, submarines, tanks, bombers, fighters, artillery, encoding and decoding machines, railroads, rifles, etc etc etc just to form a view not even on WWII, itself, but just the military aspect of its technology? I think your comment is misplaced in this instance. However, any lover of history would need to ready multiple books/sources on WWII to have an informed view...
The sustainable speed of the Pz III is higher than noted, and can maintain that speed for longer than the T-34. Rated speeds are what the armed forces and engineers recommend, and countries had different emphasis. The Soviets captured a Pz III and performed extensive tests on it and it was their conclusion that the Pz III had a higher top speed and could maintain that speed. That's because they didn't care nearly as much about engine wear, just like they didn't care as much about that on the T-34, so they pushed the Pz III to it's limits.
An excellent video addressing one of the crucial comparisons between the best medium tanks both sides had to offer, and no one so far has dealt - in depth with the stats and detailed comparisons.
I would love to see how much-improved tank kills were for the Germans after the mid '42 introduction of the 75mm Pak 40, which I think was mounted on the PzIVF2 onwards?
I was never that interested in tanks until I watched your video .An Excellent production and would expect nothing less from a German . Thanks !
I'm going to have to dispute The Chieftain here. The positive effect of sloping armour date back at least to the High Middle Ages, if not earlier. Go take a look at the dog-face bascinet, the visored barbute, or the typically sloped design of 15th-century cuirasses. Granted that these were designed to deflect lances, not bullets, one should recall that a cavalry lance develops a fairly impressive amount of kinetic energy.
I guess he wanted to stay with mechanized stuff
It may not be clear, but he was talking about the side armor. The T-34's side armor was sloped while the T-44's sides were not. Sloped side armor is a waste of space
@@habe1717 butt better be in sloped then in same amor who not sloped... be safet mm more. ;)
An interesting video, although I would've pointed out that when explaining the differences you made a strong emphasis on delving into T34's problems as if no PzIII problems ever existed in terms of "paper" - "reality" picture. Surely PzIII had some discrepancies too. Also, optimization for mass production was a huge factor that was merely mentioned at the end.
> Also, optimization for mass production was a huge factor that was merely mentioned at the end.
hint: technical-tactical level NOT strategic level. At was mentioned in the end, because it didn't fit the comparison.
@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized Please do a video on the T-34, I've heard a lot about reliability issues but the proof I've seen is at best vague or anecdotal
“And the bow gunner had no hatch oh his own so god help him if he has to bail out”
That’s the thing Y O U R N O T M E A N ‘ T TO
“Fool! There is no retreat! THERE IS NO SURRENDER!”
@@looinrims but, but I just wanted to get in another tank :(
I've loved tanks for a long time and idk how i've only discovered your channel now. The information and statistics in your videos are very in-depth and entertaining.
THAT was an EXCELLENT video, mate! thank You! :)
What an amazing video! Next time Panther vs IS-2? Or Hetzer vs Su-85? We need our Jagdpanzer 38 (t)!
Hetzer was a beautiful example of last ditch engineering turning an obsolete tank into something that can bring the pain and is a reasonably hard target, but it pales in comparison to any purpose built tank destroyer, like Jagdtpanzer IV, Jagdtpanther, Jagdttiger or the Su and ISU 85/100/122/152. The Hetzers Gun had no room to swivel and the tank was horribly crowded. The one cool feature it had was a roof-mg controlled via periscope. In any case it was meant as a mobile artillery piece for setting up ambushes, rather than hunting tanks in the open as it's name implies... To a lesser extend this is true for pretty much every SPG.
Also comparing Panther and IS2 is very lopsided as the Panther was a medium tank and the IS2 a heavy tank. IMHO even the Tiger was more of a (sluggish) medium tank regarding its cannon (comparable to t34/85!) and rather weak amour (turret and side were not much better than the Panther and IMHO still inferiour to the IS2). The Tiger II had at least an excellent cannon, which had better penetration, accuracy and range and rate of fire than the IS2 (which however had far more explosive cargo).
The IS-2 is only 2tons heavier than the Panther and has a comparable, still worse gun, worse manuverbility but better armor.
The Hetzer is a great example how you can use greatly oldend material to make a reasonable, functioning vehicle which is able to fight the most threads it would face! As the G13 did it even serve till 1973!
IS-2 is a Tank Destroyer thought and that it had a 122mm gun
the panther only had a high penetration 75mm so Panther and IS is not fair by firepower wise
better comperason is Tiger II vs IS-2
ThE tIgEr 2 JuSt HaD a HiGh VeLoCiTy 88Mm GuN
@@TheLPN05Fan The IS-2's 122mm gun was in no way worse than the panther's, it was unwieldy and took much longer to load. But the 122mm shell it fired was so heavy and impacted with so much energy it was able to break the hull and welds of tiger2 tanks even without penetrating.
Both tanks were THICC
buster117 I mean like the t-34 is a sexy looking tank but the inside is just crap
@@The_Furless T34 inside is tight if you know what I mean ;)
Alexandru Bucur Dan ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
@@The_Furless 😂😂😂
Grab a meme on the go thicc and thight :^)
Two iconic tanks measured against their factors is insufficient, of course. Ease of maintenance, ergonomics and crew task distribution are keys to any tactical lock.
And whether supported by aerial or infantry or not
@@fulcrum2951 Yes. Tactical implementation and coordination is part of why certain sides are victorious.
Lots of factors go into the decision, so in my opinion it all depends on the what if’s
The only one of those not talked about was Ease of maintenance, but I was under the impression none of them where particularly painful to maintain. Its not like we are talking about a panther or an early lee.
Nice FOV tribute, rest in peace TB, also great video!
Great! Best video about these two tanks!
Viele Sachen wußte ich nicht und alles sehr fundiert und toll gemacht! Danke!
At 11:12, what did he say? T-44 was an evolution of the T-34 and saying that they got rid of the sloped armor because it was a dumb idea? I think not, because it's sloped just as much. Plus every modern tank has sloped armor too, obviously it's a good idea if you can do it right.
Also at 12:50, I'm sure those smaller ones went into the sides or back. I'm pretty sure when people say that "the T-34 is immune to x" they really mean that the front is immune.
He was talking about the side armor of the T-44 and most modern tanks don't have their armor sloped that much
It seems like the difference here was in the 'maturity' of the designs. The Panzer 3 was a more 'mature' design with more non-competitive specs but better technical support and a better understanding of its limitations and how to counteract them. The T-34 was a more 'advanced' design that suffered from design issues that were yet unsolved.
I should admit, that there is a minor mistake in the video: the commander in early T-34 wasn't the loader as well - he was a gunner AND commander. And the second guy in turret was a loader.
Commander was a loader in, for instance, British tanks, such as Valentine.
Edit: Christie suspension is still used on modern tanks. Merkava has such type of suspension.
Correct. I wonder if it would have been better to have seperate gunner rather than loader.
@ALEX HUANG, for instance, Merkava
@ALEX HUANG Probably none. Does it matter? The OP was simply pointing out that Christie suspension was not a complete disaster.
Two man turrets were the norm for most tanks of the period. 75mm guns were not.
@ALEX HUANG Typo. Doesn't change anything though. Guns of that calibre were not the norm for that period, whether they were 75mm or 76.2mm.
Excellent videos, glad I found your channel.
The thing about the T-34 is that many people talked like it was the invention and debut of sloped armor. The concept existed for centuries before; that's why many knights' helmets were so pointy and chestplates jutted out in the middle. It also had been used on tanks before, just never even close to the same extent as it was on the T-34.
I think this goes a long way towards explaining why the Germans didn't "simply" copy the T34. At the point in time when the decisions where made, the T34 would have looked significantly inferior to the Pz III in lots of operational ways and it's not surprising that the Germans concluded that what they needed was essentially a bigger Pz III with sloped armour, wide tracks and a gun capable of defeating any likely opponent. In other words, the Panther...
yeah, if you look at the captured T-34s the Germans usually built in the commanders cupola on top.
@Jimmy De'Souza perhaps, but I think you're missing the point. The widespread question is "why didn't the Germans EXACTLY copy the T34?" Why did they design an ultimately unsuccessful (in that it didn't win them the war) "Germanised" version in the form of the Panther and not simply build an identical (or near identical) copy of the Russian wonder-weapon? The answer may well be that by the end of 1941 the T34 really didn't look all that wonderful to the Germans. Therefore applying the good bits (the gun, the armour, the tracks) to apparently superior German underpinnings is by far the most logical path forwards.
They did build a Exact copy. Down to the nuts and bolts. Guderian wanted the simpler copy, Hitler chose panther, end of story. Alit of people don't know that the Germans built an exact copy of the t34.
@Jimmy De'Souza I don't think it's possible for me to miss my own point.
@@rickmoreno6858 Do you mean the VK3002 (DB)? It looks very similar to the T34, but it's not an exact copy.
Audience: clearly the T-34 is a better tank than the Panzer-3
narator: well yes but actualy no
eventually
It's more like:
History: hordes of Russian tanks prevailed Germans tanks
Some guy in internet: I'm disagree, because *30 min explanation of why
Very disapointed you didn't also attempt to say the Russian designations in their mother language as you did the German ones.
In the interest of fairness, of course...
...but also humour.
Djemiaj Well, he speaks German so of course he could pronounce them. I don't think he speaks Russian however.
+@@andreivaldez2929 I think that was part of Djemiaj's point. ;-)
I actually found it funny when he was talking about radios, and he said "Fu zwei, and Fu five..."
Cant he at least settle for one language?
+@@builder396 If you use another language as much as or more then your native language it's incredibly easy to mix them up in some situations (at least if they're related).
@@Luredreier Im well aware of that, as I too speak both english and german, though I can pride myself in most people thinking that my accent is british.
This is fast becoming a favorite channel. Keep on keeping on please :)
Excellent comparison, thank you! It's always refreshing to hear an expert's opinion.
A fantastic video that shows reality is different than what is percieved. I'd like to see more videos like this, specifically maybe between the M26 Pershing and the Panther tank or to keep it on the Eastern Front T-34/85 vs the PKW 5 Panther. Maybe the Sherman tank vs the PKW IV G/H models.
Were many of those flaws in the 1941 T-34 corrected in later variants? Was the T-43/85 an overall improvement sans better armor or no? Hope to see more videos like this in the future. Thank you.
Great video, but I am curious as to the choice of order of the "stats":
1. Firepower
2. Ergonomics & Visibility
3. Armour Protection
4. Mobility
5. Communications
Does this order have any significance? Because in my humble opinion those aren't ranked from most to least important... especially for medium tanks.
the ranking was due to scripting reasons, I assumed firepower would be the most interesting for the majority and also feature Chieftain soon.
@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized No arguing with that logic! :p Would you consider doing this for more tanks?
@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized Read your comment with your accent. Will still strongly stand against any neurologist that suggests that a lesser amount of MHV videos should be watched.
+Mermaid Man Is this implying a Panzer III could somehow take out 7 Shermans? You have to remember that the majority of Germany's armored forces on the Western Front consisted of their standard Panzer IIIs and IVs, mixed with support such as the StuGs or other captured vehicles. As covered by the Chieftain himself, the Sherman was an operational king and given the sub par competition, a tactical king on the Western front. If you were plopped into France in 1944 and asked to crew a tank, you would most definitely want to be in a Sherman.
Germans generals about T-34:
- Guderian: "vastly superior" over German tanks.
- von Kleist : "It's the finest tank in the world."
- von Mellenthin: “We had nothing comparable”
- von Reichenau: "If the Russians ever produce it on an assembly line we will have lost the war."
grass is always greener on the other side, among many other points.
Crazy how von Reichenau predicted the future 💀
8:36 Pretty sure that the turret crew set up for the T-34/76 tanks was commander-gunner and loader rather than commander-loader and gunner.
Interesting side note: the early/mid production Panzer-IIIs ( Ausf.E, F, G & H) fitted with the 10 speed Variorex 328/145 transmission actually had a higher top speed than the T-34s (67 kph vs 53 kph). However, governors were added to reduce the speed of these vehicles to 40 kph in both the 9th & 10th gears to avoid damaging the transmissions.
Clearly a longer name makes a vehicle more capable. Thats why german vehicles are clearly superior.
Well...very technically you could make the full designation of the T-34 into : Tank of armored corps enhancement program of 1934...
but only if you are VERY nitpicky.
That's actually one of the things I like about a clear and detailed designation system. Talking about a Panzerkampfwagen VI Ausführung H gives you a very detailed model of equipment to look for...where as T-34 you first have to determine if you are talking about the US or Russian one, and don't get me started about the "M1" designations that literally EVERYTHING in the US arsenal had at some point
@@Chrinik "if youre very nitpicky" can be directly translated into "if youre very german" :D
@@BraindeadCRY Coincidentally I AM :D
@@Chrinik I figured as much :D
Panzerkampfwagen VIII
I see that you're using ft as a metric, but as an American, I can tell u none of us know how far 4921 ft is. I suggest yards and miles in that order.
Who cares about imperial system ? It's trash
well how about literally every single country that does not use Imperial? you Americans are only in the minority
First models of T34 (M1939 and M1940) were not equipped with F34 gun, but L-11. F-34 came with M1941. L-11 was a lot less effective gun than F-34, being L30.5 long, with muzzle velocity only 612m/s. (it could penetrate 62mm of armor at 500m sloped at 30 degrees, or 56mm at 1000m. )Also you mentioned penetration at 30 degrees, but then used data for F-34 with 0 degree penetration (75mm). At 30degree and 500m F-34 was able to penetrate just 69mm of armor. Which means front hull plate of PzIIIH had a chance to stop the APHE projectile, if it hit the tank at some angle (not direct 90degree hit)
Yep. A picture for comparison: two gentlemen on the right are T-34 M1940 with a short L-11 and T-34 M1941with a noticably longer F-34 and a somewhat bigger turret. upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7d/T-34_prototypes.jpg
In the video je compared the Panzer with the T34 model 1941, so were is the problem.
@@3458-s3q M1941 was not present in large numbers at the start of operation Barbarossa.. M1940 was most numerous version.
@@JaM-R2TR4 But he is only comparing the 1941 model, not the current most used tank
@@3458-s3q then it should be compared to PzIIIJ which was 1941 german tank, not PzIIIH which was 1940.. of course, J version came later in 1941, but so did T34 M1941.
Panzer III development:
1. Designing
2. Production
3. Fixing flaws
4. Simplyfying design.
T-34 development:
1. Designing
2. Simplyfing design
3. Production
4. Fixing flaws
Sloped armor in WW1 was implemented for an esthetical reason, not to increase thickness. Revolutionary was a single turret idea in 1934, hence the name t-34.
Wow, did not know that, thank you.
early T-34's we're an experiment have not been battle tested first time they were was in 1941 the soviets learned from the mistakes of the early and fixed most of them in the newer Models.
Although I’ve seen nothing officially documented, I can't help but wonder if the strength of the low-quality Russian armor was further reduced by cold temperature effects. When most structural steel alloys are subjected to low temperatures they can transition from a ductile failure mode where the material yields and stretches to that of a brittle nature where the failure becomes more glass-like and sudden. These effects are exacerbated by the presence of defects, structural geometry, and residual stresses.
Also, brittle failures can occur at lower loadings and are more sensitive to shock.
In WW2 the US was very concerned with the problem and did much research regarding it. Several early Liberty ships were lost in the North Atlantic for no apparent reason (i.e., not from U-boats) but it was later surmised that the combination of their low quality steel, expeditious right-angle notches, and residual stresses from poor welds were the probable causes of their sinkings. This conclusion was based on the analysis of one of the newly-launched ships cracking in half while conveniently sitting at a dock before its first trans-Atlantic voyage. I believe their solution to the problem was to keep the steel that was being used (they probably had no choice because of cost and availability) but to eliminate any sharp notches and perform better quality welds (or at least do a better job of inspecting them) in critical areas.
This had no impact on the material's transition temperature but reduced its stresses to an acceptable level.
It would be interesting to see if at that time the probability-of-kill of a T-34 was correlated with ambient temperature.
*_"I can't help but wonder if the strength of the low-quality Russian armor was further reduced by cold temperature effects. When most structural steel alloys are subjected to low temperatures they can transition from a ductile failure mode where the material yields and stretches to that of a brittle nature where the failure becomes more glass-like and sudden."_*
That's what happens when your factory roof gets blown off in the middle of winter and your tank is made by old people and children because everyone else is at the front.
Actually this supposition is very well conceived and likely mostly correct in general, if not exactly, on the particulars. Metallurgy is a highly specific art, and stress loadings over time was not fully understood across the board then like it is today. A variety of factors will cause failure, the most common being the state of the materials at the location of shock impact, over and above angle, distance, and velocity.
Considering the russians already heat treated their armor to extremely high temperatures, making them brittle, add the ductility reduction due to the low temperatures of winter, and you have armor that's very hard, but so brittle it'll likely kill the crew just from the spall of being hit.
Came over from the Chieftain's channel. Love the video's you guys did please do more.
A very interesting video as always. Great content.
Great and fair comparsion mate!
16:08 Christie suspension is still used nowdays in Israeli Merkava tanks, and IDF is one of the most capable and combat-ready modern armies.
Well suspention is maybe good for limousine, but tank does not really need it...😂
Can someone explain me how armour plates were welded together? I know that riveted plates were disastrous when hit with HE shells. Any superficial weld would be even worse. Especially with the heavy tanks, I wonder how they fused those plates together without ruining the heat treatment. Similarly, how do cast turrets work, when even today you can't cast a sword as it would either shatter or bend on impact?
this is mentioned in Kavalerchik's book that basically soviet welding early to mid war did cause armour weakness where welding on the nose plates took place. It meant even lighter guns like a 37 mm could penetrate if the heat treat had been messed up
Question Krupp.
Pre war and early war, they were welded together with arc welders. Later they went to submerged arc welding.
Arc welding is the traditional stick welding by hand.
Submerged arc is a more industrial process and is much faster while giving a better result.
He mentions in this vid that the welding burnt many of the alloying elements out of the hardened steel, resulting in weaknesses along the weld seams.
Furthermore, look up photographs of the tank hulls... they were anything but superficial welds. And probably full depth, too.
In addition to these answers the Germans dovetail cut armor plates so that they physically interlocked in later models and heavy tanks. Cast turrets are just that giant steel castings. By the end of WW2 the Soviets are casting turrets with 200mm thick frontal areas (IS-7, T-55)
Interesting. Although the T-34 is frequently over-rated, I still think that firepower and armour are the key in battle. No matter if the Panzer III was able to spot the T-34 quicker and fire more shots off, if the rounds had significantly less chance of penetrating the T-34, the latter still had the advantage, as it would only take one hit from it's gun to knock the Panzer III out in most cases.
I also think that crew training played an important factor, as this helped the German crews who had far more experience than the Russian ones. I realize you were comparing tanks, but your statistics included figures for which crew quality played a factor, not least the overall effect the T-34 had during Operation Barbarossa. If the crews had been of similar experience to the Germans, the impact would have been much greater.
The most important fact in any battle is spotting your enemy before the enemy spots you. After that you can worry how to destroy it. Cheiftain points out a situation, where a T-34 was hit by 23 shells of a 37mm and only the last jammed the turret ring.
The question he asks: "Why did it get hit 23 times at all?" Answer: "Because they didn't see the enemy -- or because they couldn't put a round on target."
Now imagine this had been a PzIII with 50mm gun (which was in widespread use at the eve of Barbarossa, compared to Fall Rot). Do you really think a T-34 would've taken 23 shots of a 50mm KwK 38 L/42? Probably not.
tl;dr; Yes, armour and firepower are important. But you need to see your enemy to hit him.
@@Ruhrpottpatriot Your comment also proves my point. It took 23 hits to knock out the T-34. For all we know the T-34 was out of ammo. The only thing we know for sure was it took a shit ton of hits before it was knocked out. Thanks for proving my point.
@@Cervando The T-34 that manages to withstand many hits is a statistical outlier, what if the German squad had access to any one of the more powerful anti-tank guns in use at the time? It was unlucky for the particular German squad that they lacked a significantly stronger antitank gun at the time and that none of their hits managed to influct critical damage to the tank until the 23rd hit, but we know the 50mm was perfectly capable of knocking out a T-34, and it would only take one antitank gun that the Russian commander couldn't see to knock it out. In this case it worked well for the Russian crew to have a T-34, but there's also many situations where having better optics, crew ergonomics, etc. would result in the tank crew being able to fight back instead of blindly hoping they can take out their target by sheer luck.
@@Uberrandom You make many assumptions. The only thing that is stated is that it took 23 hits before one managed to disable the tank. There is zero evidence to support your premise that the reason the T-34 did not destroy any guns was because of it's optics or field of vision. Like I said the only thing the example proves is how robust the armour is. Even if they had been 88mms and the T-34 was knocked out by the first shot, it still doesn't prove the issue was either the optics or vision. It is just as likely that the tank had no ammo left with which to retaliate, a shell was blocking the breach, the crew had abandoned the vehicle etc. You simply picked what suited your agenda and ignored the actual facts which support my viewpoint. Finally, your observation that it was lucky that the Germans did not have larger calibre AT guns, further reinforces my point that a larger gun is more preferable than better optics. In short, in a fight I would prefer a kevlar vest and a pistol than a sniper rifle firing low velocity peas.
@@Cervando My point still stands: Why could the T-34 been hit with a 37mm 23 times at all? In every other encounter this is a death sentence. German battle reports (from which we know the encounter) don't report any losses. This is all mentioned in "Zaloga, Steven J., Peter Sarson (1994). T-34 Medium Tank 1941-45 (New Vanguard 9), Oxford: Osprey Publishing"
Being able to be hit 23 times and not take out any enemy is not an indicator of good design on your part. And a Military Commissariat Report of the 10th Tank Division, dated 2 August 1941 reported that within 300-400 m the 37 mm Pak 36's armour-piercing shot could defeat the frontal armour of a T-34. Also, according to soviet examination in '43 nearly 55% of all T-34 losses were inflicted by the 50 mm KwK 39 L/60.
The T-34 is one of the best tanks on paper, but in reality it left much to be desired.
I really admire your knowlegde and your ability to share it. Thank you!
Great video and very informative. Keep up the good work.
Would have liked more attention paid to the relative costs of the tanks. I grant that the numbers at the front in 1934 were similar, but it's not clear how readily each side could build, and replace, a tank. If there are myths in that area, debunking them would be very educational. I feel the strategic implications of cost should not be overlooked.
Well costs are relative. Both countries relied on slave labour, so you can't really compare it with currencies. Usually they compare them by man hours, and the germans invested way more in their tanks than the russians. I think it's more important to have the context of each country: germany starts having problems supplying rare materials/metals and diesel towards the mid/end of the way, where as russia has basically an unlimited supply of natural resources. Therefore sheer quantities were enough to topple up any tank that the germans could invent.
35k t-34 were built in ww2, the germans produced a total of 25k tanks (not counting tank destroyers).
Granted, the germans knew their tanks were too complicated, so they simplified the design with the panther, they built 6k panthers from 43 to 45, meanwhile 8.8k panzer iv were built from 36 to 45, so the panther was much better in terms of man-hours per tank (contrary to popular belief).
Even by the time of operation barbarossa the T-34 second version was more common than the first. And the second version had a different radio set and other upgrades too. I feel like you're using the rarest model to misrepresent the line as a whole.
@@redbaron4908 Germany wasn't better. Her weapons were.Why, because they had to be, for Germany to even have a chance. The most important weapon on the battlefield is the soldier. Tanks ,guns trucks, planes can be built it a relatively short time but it takes 18 years to grow a soldier. With enemies on all sides ,especially after the tide turned Germany was out numbered.
But it still didn't have a 3-men turret and it still had bad optics and poor visibility (which are the most important points in a battle tank, because if you can not see the enemy you can not shoot). And even if the new radio set was better than the old one that it replaced, it still didn't change the fact that most of those T-34 didn't even have a radio to begin with. You think just because it got a new radio set that all of those mentioned critic points somehow get irrelevant? Also I like how you said "and other upgrades", without mentioning what those "other upgrades" were. Just excuses, excuses, excuses....
@@redbaron4908 The looks don't matter in combat. Though, I like the looks of the T34, it's actually a cute tank design
@@johnkendall6962 Germany has the finest armed forces in the world up until the end of 1942, and then it was a downhill run all the way to Berlin. Losses in men and equipment could not be easily maintained, while the allied powers got exponentially better in every way.
@@perihelion7798 I think we are saying the same thing . For Germany to even have a chance she needed the best weapons. and hope for a short war. In a war of attrition you are right she had no chance. It matters little how many tanks planes or guns an army has if it doesn't have oil and it still takes 18 years to grow an effective soldier.
11:51 "Hmm... How to depict low quality manufacturing? Ah, DUCK IT!"
ratio of 50 mm t34 kills corrected by ratio of 50mm guns to 37mm guns finds that the percentage kills per unit in the field is more like 90 per cent effectiveness of 50mm versus 2 per cent for 37mm (though I say this having only approximated how many 88s and higher calibres where in the field). another great video. thank you
The top hat when discussing FOV was a nice touch. Many will not understand.
Also, the main question is "was the 50mm good enough to kill its primary adversaries?" If it was, then the smaller gun actually becomes an advantage since you can carry more ammo and it's much less work for the loader and much better for the crew in general since you're not working around a cannon that's too big for the turret it's crammed into.
"Shock absorbers are like food, not everybody gets them" LOL - you might have an army of the same idiots who descended on the comment section of your Reagan/East Germany video pop up here if they figure out what that's a reference to! :-p
Wait, how did you write this 2 days ago?
@@TheRealAwtoh patreon viewers get it early I assume.
To a bullshit propaganda myth...
Podemos URSS Found the first idiot.
@@andreivaldez2929 Righ here, he calls himself Andrei.
That's funny. Due to what I know, the T-34 (1941) was way more fearful to the Germans than the subsequent 1942 and the 85mm model.
Due to what I know, the armor on the 1940 production and early batch of 1941 models had great armor rigidity as they were all well done and the heat treatment was done to par on what was required but it was those tanks that was done during Barbarossa that was in trouble as war broke out and with many tanks already lost like those T-26, new tanks need to be replenished and many methods were cut short so newer tanks can plug the gap between their own numbers and the German's push. It took them till 1944 that the pre-war standards of armor returned as the war was not on their front anymore and with the Germans running out of everything, they have the spare time to return things back to normal and the collective post-war T-34-85 that the Americans faced in Korea was excellent like it was 1940 all over again.
LUNAR BLOODDROP dude the US alone unfortunately had 35,000 deaths in Korea. The T-34-85 WAS a great tank. It’s just that the North Koreans couldn’t use them on the same level that the Soviets did in WW2. Its kinda like the battle of arracourt where the Germans had greater numbers and better tanks, but the Americans had more experience tank crews so the Germans were smashed with heavy loses. The American tankers in Korea would obviously be better then the North Korean ones due to American experience in WW2.
the fact is that the Germans couldn’t deliver anything to the Soviet T 34 at the beginning of the war, because of this they were afraid of him. But in 1942, with the release of modification PZ 4 F2 with a 75 mm long-barrel caliber gun, the Germans leveled their strength
@gillecroisd 92 feared of t34 german have too many time before german made tigar and other big tank. In beggining of war german not have tank better then rusia thet why scery of t34....
Ray Z “Germans smashed with heavy losses” you’re 42,000,000 dead tend to disagree with you .
A very good analysis, very thorough. I read Otto Carius book, "Tigers in the Mud" and I believe what you have found in your research is definitely confirmed by his front line experiences.
Although i would read Otto Carius with a lot of skepticism, as well as most of war memoirs. Especially coming from Germans.
@@clouster75 I would say all of them in general.
About optics, i have read somewhere(long time ago now) that the new factory that started production just before Barbarossa and which was created with the assistance of Zeiss, was, when it went into production, supposed to have been the best in the world, and that it had time to deliver a limited number of optics for T-34s before it was captured/evacuated(supposedly, key equipment was intentionally captured by the Germans exactly to prevent the Soviets to produce any more such high quality optics or to copy the machinery(and was also claimed as one of the reasons why Hitler apparently felt Germany "had to" attack in 1941, as several important new high quality Soviet factories built with parts from Germany were entering production)).
Never been able to find another source, but what i read suggested several(a few?) hundred high quality optics for T-34 were delivered and made a noticeable difference. Information on the optics in question have been near impossible to find at all. The 2 times i've found anything, it was german sources basically stating that they had ran into T-34s whose optics were "slightly/marginally better" than their own.
This also connects to another issue i've read about, production quality of T-34s and timing. Because after reading a fair amount, i've become somewhat convinced that it is a relevant issue. Essentially, that initial serialproduction T-34s were drastically better quality than the vast majority produced later. When looking, i found several accounts of veteran tank crews who would literally do anything to patch up their "old" T-34s rather than accept a "brand new" one, because especially the armour treatment for those produced late -41 and onwards varied between "not good" all the way to "nonexistant", ie. the "armour" was basically just normal steel, with the norm being "poor".
Similar issues with engines, early serialproduction engines seems to have been decently reliable and put out the specificed HP, while later ones were more messed up, rougher and appears to have dropped at least a fifth of the HP, as well as often running needlessly hot(early T-34s supposedly did NOT do this).
Crews that managed to retain their early serial production T-34s, also seems to have been amazingly more "lucky" about surviving. And while some of those tanks actually survived the whole war, absolutely zero T-34s from the new, rushed factories built in -42 apparently survived(or their crews didn't).
This would also help explain why there is such a severe dichotomy between the outright terror T-34s sometimes wreaked on German troops in 1941, and at the same time when evaluated by US/UK(just to mention one source) were found to have extremely severe flaws that simply should have made such near onesidedness impossible.
And while sloped armour at ALL was not revolutionary in the slightest, applying it ALL OVER THE TANK as the T-34 did, very much WAS.
It also reduced the number of plates that made up the hull armour, greatly reducing the number of shottraps.
Now, for the overall comparison? The Pz-III is a sub-20t tank which continually got more and more weight added, eventually becoming more and more overweight, with a suspension and drivetrain that just couldn't handle it.
While the T-34 started at a nice and balanced 27t. In short, as long as the tanks compared are not drastically different in design style and quality, the heavier tank wins. No, the M4 doesn't live up to this, but that's mostly just because it has some design "features" that were stupid flaws that didn't need to be there.
Interesting
@@jerryudonneedtoknow3903 Indeed it is, i just wish i could find some actually reliable sources about any of it rather than the uncertain or nebulous "maybe's" that i've found over the years.
Nicely done, a lot of excellent information.
Another terrific well rounded presentation. Kudos. I would only remark that you barely mentioned at the very end that parts shortages influenced availability. I would add model specific trained technicians/mechanics as well. Look, I'm aware the T-34 had a designed mechanical operational life of 250 hours; but you still need SOMEONE on hand to fix the relatively minor scheisse. Just keep in mind those old sepia photos and newsreels of endless columns of Russian POWs contained more than just infantry, arty gunners, and truck drivers. The Minsk, Kiev. and Bryansk encirclements gobbled up whole echelons of Soviet maintenance as well. At Glantz's "Great Brody Tank Battle" of Sept of 41; the Germans captured as many inop Soviet tanks around the battle area as they actually knocked out. While I know your video primarily focused on an "a mano a mano" comparison. If you can't get to the fight, you lose by default. A mobility kill doesn't need to be a shot off track, a simple mechanical breakdown, with no mechanic on hand, has the same effect.
In practice the T34 was still operational in 2010 in many countries
okay, you are getting really good with your puns, Berndt, keep it up mate ^w^
Should have shown a graphic for the ubiquitous hammer supplied with each T34 in order for the driver to change gears.
Considering that tanks usually fight infantry, the Panzer 3 is the clear winner for me.
At least if the comparision is made between the same number of each tanks.
I would be interessted how much cheaper the t34 was in both production and upkeeping.
Maybe it was the better tank from a cost effectivness point of few.
But im not sold on that yet.
hey military history. nice video. it would be cool if you could make the same kind of video comparing the Tiger 1 to the Sherman. both tanks are considered 1 of the best tanks of the war for different reasons.
how good panzer 4 was against m4 shermans? "desert fox" once said that m3 Grant (even😱) was best allies tank againt panzer 4 during Africa campaign. .. German heavy tank were best ..but what about Germans medium tanks vs allies m4/t-34?
P4 F2+every following version + Panther are in my opinion superior to T-34 and M4. Every german 7,5cm gun had more penetration, accuracy (thanks to the barrel and the optics) and gun handling than the mentioned russian and american medium tanks. (and as a side note on tactical warfare: Since the german Army was after 1942 mostly in the defense, they had the upper hand against attacking tanks, because they could fire from larger ranges more precisely than their counterparts)
The Panther was much better against T-34 than M4, because it fought the Ruskies mostly on open plains whereas against the M4 it was a lot of Bocage warfare, forest fighting and such.
All this aside, the Panther was an awful tank, I mean really xD No telescopic sight for the gunner, horrible mechanical unreliability... Maybe it would've done better in a war where the Germans could contest Allied air superiority and provide sufficient fuel for their tanks, but such wasn't the case.
@@Paveway-chan The Panther had a very good telescopic sight for the gunner. The problem was that it ONLY had a telescopic sight, with a relatively small field of view. Once a target was sighted by the gunner, it was very accurate, but it was difficult for the gunner to FIND the target because of the small view angle associated with a telescopic sight. The M4 telescopic sight was not as good as the German sight, but the M4 also had the periscopic unmagnified sight which allowed quick acquisition of targets and the ability to quickly lay the gun on with enough precision to easily pick up the target in the telescopic sight.
The M3 Grant tends to get an undeservedly bad rep. Keep in mind that prior to the M3 Grant, the British did not have a tank with HE shells. I don't think I have to point out that the lack of HE is not ideal when fighting enemy tank guns and FlaK 88s.
you are right with the small field of view for the gunner, but thats where the commander comes to play. he decides which is the next target to aim at, so he directed the gunner onto the target. while the gunner was aiming, the commander himself could already search for the next target.
Everyone knows the T-34 was better because it had both 3, and 4 functionality, whereas the Panzer, while running the superior Roman numeral character set, only supported 3 based tactics.
God, this sounds like card game bonuses lol.
Still love the Soviet tanks though, much easier to repair and was a very versatile platform
You know what's Ironic? The same things you start to talk about at 20:55 could be said about the Panther and Tiger in 44 and 45. But just the top row of circles, since no German tanks were designed for mass production.
On sloped armor: for a given vertical height, the same amount of material is required for a given horizontal thickness - cross section area is independent slope angle. Look up the formula for parallelogram area. Sloped armor does have the advantage that a shell is more likely to glance off.