Russia's T-34 - The Tank with a Lifespan Less than its Gas Tank
Вставка
- Опубліковано 31 лип 2024
- In June of 1941, the Third Reich launched the largest invasion in history, Operation Barbarossa, a massive attack on the Soviet Union. Over three million soldiers and 3,000 tanks stormed into the Motherland in a front that was more than 2,800 kilometers long.
The advance was relentless, and the German forces unstoppable. However, the brutal approach suddenly stalled with the surprising appearance of a new Soviet tank: the T34.
With a mass of 26 tons, a length of 6.7 meters, and a width of 3 meters, this medium tank was protected by an innovative thick, sloped armor that was almost impenetrable against the German Panzer IIIs. What’s more, the T34’s 76-millimeter gun could easily get rid of any enemy tank.
Still, the T34’s supremacy was just getting started, and the Germans were terror-stricken once the Soviets started pushing towards their own land…
6HFNNLBY21NOR6JB - Наука та технологія
Please enjoy this classic while you can! You might have noticed that I've been shifting the focus here to modern military tech and defense news. I'm considering another channel to cover old school weaponry. Either that is next, or I'll give in and start a UA-cam Shorts channel 😅
Although, to be fair... there are the jokes that Russia is considering hauling some old T-34s out for Ukraine. And there are some still actively kicking-about in Yemen (and good old North Korea!).
@@DarkMilitaryTech the ones still being used are often equipped with a cord to fire the gun from outside the tank in case it blows up.
Chassis is pronounced "SHASSEE"
Please please please talk about or make another Channel about the actual existence of aliens
And yes I am enjoying this episode it's super great footage is astounding
Soviets lost between 70k to 85k tanks during the entire war - lost, destroyed, broken down. Staggering numbers.
Plebs and fake historians claimed that the T-34 was a good tank. In 1942 Germany destroyed 13,000 T34 using none of their late war tanks or anti tank guns. They really were garbage. The pzIII and Sherman were far superior.
Why was the T34 so bad?
Tanks are tools, they have to fit the wielder in order to operate.
In the T34 the operators were: Blind, deaf, battered, frozen and miserably uncomfortable. Yes the later matters
The Bolsheviks had to actively censor tank crews writing home how their lend lease tanks had padded seats. The turret motor didn't spark and shock them. That the optics were clear. And they had heaters so didn't need to try and use the tank with thick mittens!
@@TheBelrick german 75 high velocity gun was installed in every tank even in armored cars and trucks an 1 34 was designed in 1940 from then Germany have tigers and panthers which could even pen t 34 at more than 2 km and majority of sherman are lightly armored than t 34 and both t 34 and sherman are slope tanks. and soviet have number one tank is weak but a battalion they make formidable tank and they have higher top speed, good suspension, and reverse speed that germans could dream of.
@Trevor Philips the Germans lost more than 62,000 tanks most of whom were destroyed by the Soviet's you shouldn't be an arsehole
They were very good for what they were. They significantly contributed to the attritional war.
The T34-85 was good in general.
Very flawed at the start of the war though granted
Legend is when confronted with how unreliable the aircraft engines were, rarely lasting for more than 2 hours of flight time the Yakolev factory pointed out that the typical lifespan of a Soviet pilot in the air was 30 minutes. So the engines had plenty of margin.
Hmm, they would have run out of pilots if that were the case. Doesn't claims like that make you wonder?
@@stewartmillen7708 some of them could have ejected and survived i guess
Rubbish
@@stewartmillen7708 It isn't that they didn't. They put barely legal age teens after a two hours explanation of how to handle the planes in the seats. Russia lost over 20 Million people during WWII. That is by far the most any country has suffered.
But Russia also had very, very grim tactics when fighting. The first guy gets the rifle and one mag, the next one only a mag to pick up the gun of the first one once he has fallen (which was expected to happen merely seconds after due to only having the mag in the rifle). And soldiers who didn't want to die a certain death and retreated were shot by own MGs to "avoid betrayal of the motherland" and to set a point for everyone to follow.
@@M3dicayne That's BS. Most of russian casualties were civilians.
Nice video, but the German advance wasn’t stalled by T34. I’ve read The Soviet’s had 1000 T34s at the start of Barbarossa but they were swept aside with the rest of the defences. The German advance stopped when it ran past it’s horse drawn logistics and then encountered the autumn mud on poor roads, followed by a harsh winter that they weren’t prepared for at all. Gave the Soviets the time to re group and train some officers up after all the purges. No doubt having 1000s more T34s helped them shove the allies back with thousands of lend lease tanks from UK/US that you rarely see as the propaganda photographers weren’t allowed to take them.
Also helped that the japanese signed a non-aggresion packed which meant that the divisions in the east, that literally were trained to fight in winter, could now join the front. And, german generals over confidence, the rivalry between them, and the unreliable equipment the germans had sure made an impact.
The T34 was nicknamed "Mickey Mouse" not because of a hexagon turret but because it looked like it had mouse ears with the top hatches open
Well yes, but ONLY the hexagonal turrets had those twin round hatches.
@@executivedirector7467 still doesn't change the fact it was called like that because of the hatches, not the turret.
T34 was USA heavy tank project prototype.
Fun fact: The V12 diesel engine used in the T-34, called the V-2, had different stroke lengths for its 2 cylinder banks. 180mm for the left bank and 186mm for the right bank
Maybe I am incorrect but, as the left and right bank share the same crank pin the stroke should be the same.
The connecting rods might be a slightly different length, but the stroke is going to be the same.
Multiple sources specify one bank has a longer stroke. The document in the link from my earlier comment also states the longer stroke bank has a higher compression ratio and a higher displacement per cylinder.
@@GPJACKSOGA Found this in a couple of places which seems to explain the difference: "Same thing goes with many soviet build engines, for example T-54/55 have basically the same engine. That odd stroke is because the pistons are linked to the central crank shaft by wrist connecting rods, which means that only six rods are directly connected to the crank shaft. This special design also results in a slightly lower stroke in both sides of the engine"
Longer rods on one side? Whatever for wouldn’t it vibrate like crazy?
In late 1942 the Soviet Cental Scientific Institute 48 (Metallurgy and Armor) conducted a study for the cause of destruction of T34 and T70 tanks. Overall it was determined that 65% of T34s were lost due to armor penetrations by enemy ordnance while 35% suffered mechanical break downs (primarily engine failure).The institution surveyed 154 T34s knocked out by enemy ordnance determining the cause of destruction and/or damage. The following list denotes the percent of T34s knocked out by type of German weapon: (Notes: [1] it's unlikely the 42mm listing refers to the German 42mm Pak41 squeeze bore for a couple reasons, the first being the rarity of the weapon, and second that the shot would have only produced a hole around 30mm (the institute judged the weapon type by diameter of penetrating hole). Instead 42mm probably refers to 45mm Russian anti-tank guns pressed into German service).
[2] No distinction was made between types of weapons within a specific barrel size, therefore 50mm likely includes both 5cm L/42 & 5cm L/60, while 75mm could encompass a range from 7.5cm KwK/StuK L/24 to 7.5cm Pak40 L/46.)
Destruction by caliber round
20mm 4.7%
37mm 10%
42mm 7.5%
50mm 54.3%
75mm 10.1%
88mm 3.4%
105mm 2.9%
The following lists the percent rate at which each caliber round bounced vs penetrating the T34's armor. (Note: neither range of penetrations or specific area on the tank were given in this chart, although the institution determined that overall 50.5% of penetrations occured on the flanks, 22.6% from the front, 26.9% from the rear.)
20mm bounce: 68% pen: 32%
37mm bounce: 68% pen: 32%
42mm bounce: 65% pen: 35%
50mm bounce: 56% pen: 44%
75mm bounce: 31% pen: 69%
88mm bounce: 06% pen: 94%
105mm bounce: 69% pen: 31%
The following shows the rate of bounces vs penetrations, by gun caliber, on the T34's glacis plate. (Note: it is highly unlikely that the 20mm penetrations were caused by 2cm KwK L/55 or 2cm Flak gun AP rounds, in all likelihood these are sub-caliber penetrations from 3.7cm L/45 Pak/KwK tungsten rounds [Pzgr40]).
20mm bounce: 80% pen: 20%
37mm bounce: 100% pen: 0%
42mm bounce: 100% pen: 0%
50mm bounce: 88% pen: 12%
75mm bounce: 80% pen: 20%
88mm bounce: 00% pen: 100%
105mm bounce: 80% pen: 20%
The following shows the rate of bounces vs penetrations, by gun caliber, on the T34's lower hull sides.
20mm bounce: 00% pen: 100%
37mm bounce: 33% pen: 67%
42mm bounce: 29% pen: 71%
50mm bounce: 38% pen: 62%
75mm bounce: 00% pen: 100%
88mm bounce: 00% pen: 100%
105mm bounce: 00% pen: 100%
The following lists the percentage of T34 that suffered catastrophic armor failure (rupture/collapse) by gun size:
20mm: 0%
37mm: 0%
42mm: 2.6%
50mm: 0.4%
75mm: 5.9%
88mm: 11.7%
105mm: 6.8%
Finally someone who brought hard data. I needed that after this emotional ejaculation on T-34 topic author made.
Lend lease also sent the USSR 35,000 tanks. More importantly, the USA sent something like 300,000 (or more) 6x6 Army trucks, with trailers, loaded with crucial supplies through Iran. Those trucks made a massive impact......giving the Red Army mobility for soldiers and the towing of massive artillery batteries. The USA also sent millions of tons of other aid......19,000 fighter aircraft,Avgas, munitions, key metals and entire rubber tire and chemical plants.
So how many tanks did they have initially? How many had the Axis have?
Yes according to America the Soviets done nothing 😂lmao. How many Soldiers did the Soviets lose that's the real story. 80 percent off the German armed forces were fighting on the Eastern front
Which the commies paid for. So what?
@@metapolitikgedanken612 The Soviets had a lot, and the Germans were never as well mechanized as the propaganda reels showed. Now the Afrika Corps started out tank heavy to the point Rommel had to request more infantry. Check out Military History Visualized. They explain a lot very quickly.
Tank supply was about 8000 machines, aircrafts were really good, all soviet aces flew Aerocobra, trucks appeared on front line around 43-44, when it was decided, but also were good. All of this was paid, in gold of course. T34 was superior to German tanks in the beginning of war. Total production of tanks in 41-45 were about 80000, so it was not possible to lose more than was produced.
The T-34 was a bit of a paradox. A single T-34 wasn't a particularly good tank when compared to its counterparts, but at the same time the Soviet Union probably would've lost if they'd fielded a "better" one.
I should also add that sloped armor wasn't any special "innovation" at the time and the Christie suspension was tried and found lacking in US service.
Similar thought process with the Sherman
@@wcm8909 I disagree. The thought process behind the Sherman was entirely different and I personally think it was the best tank fielded in that war overall. Hear me out...
The Soviet objective was to produce a tank that would perform adequately, could be mass- produced with unskilled labor and crude tooling, and was reliable enough to die fighting instead of breaking down on the way to the fight. The key was to just keep making them in huge numbers no matter how bad the logistical or industrial situation was.
The Sherman, OTOH, would harness the efficiency of American industry to mass produce a tank that was small enough to fit in cargo ships and fight across Europe while still being 100% reliable, safe and comfortable in order to maximize coordination and crew efficiency, and easily repaired with standardized parts. None of these criteria (luxuries, really) were considered for the T-34. The T-34 was basically a Molotov cocktail on tracks.
In both cases, the tanks were mainly intended to fight things other than enemy tanks, both performed their jobs well in their own way, and both were war winners. The T-34 was adequate, the Sherman was outstanding.
A lot of people compare tanks directly, like the war was simply 2 tanks facing off and the "better" tank won the war; literally "my tank can beat up your tank"... But armored warfare was never really about that. Can your tank beat up 5 tanks simultaneously while your factories are bombed and your transmission is burning out due to overload? Can you replace your burned- out transmission? Can you keep your tank fueled when your fuel supplies are cut off? How good is your ammunition against bunkers and infantry? Can you replace the tank and crew faster than your enemy?
War was about production, logistics, and attrition. Both the T-34 and Sherman were war winners because they were designed with this in mind, but they went about it in very different ways.
@@GoSlash27 There is much merit in what you give as an opinion, although you stray far wider than just the mechanised warfare aspects. To that extent, tanks must be viewed in the overall context of assembled forces, strategies, morale, etc, etc.
The T34 was conceptually a great machine, but like many other inventions was just thrown into battle prematurely. As a more mature machine, with ome development, training, strategy and good comms systems, its potential was massive.
There are other aspects to consider such as the arena it was designed for. Shermans would have got bogged down in the Russian steppes and snow due to their much higher weight psi.
As a general utility tank, the Sherman had advantages, but as a fighting machine in many circumstances it was inferior to the T34 design, especially once upgunned to 85mm.
@@Jester-Riddle Honestly for the most part GoSlash nailed it. It doesn't really matter what a vehicle is capable of once the kinks are ironed out. It matters how it performs in the moment it is in battle. My evidence to back up my statement would be the panther tank. Arguably stats on paper and nothing more it was the best tank of the war. Good enough sloped armour to defeat most threats, a very high velocity gun capable of defeating most if not all armour it would encounter. So probably going off that the best tank of the war. But, it had a lot of teething issues, the engine was susceptible to over heating and catching fire, it was very costly in terms of production because it hadn't been around long enough to be simplified for mass production. A few other issues that I won't go into. But based on your argument the panther should reign supreme. But in the reality of the war it falls far short. The other thing I'd mention is that most battles in WWII were infantry based (when I say battles i also want to state the vast majority of when the two forces clashed. We can all pick major battles where tanks clashed but the vast majority of the time its between infantry
). Most times tanks were never there to fight each other or it was tanks backing up infantry against infantry. So at that point it didnt really matter what your stats were if you had enough tanks to spread the love around so tanks are fun for the whole family you would have a decisive advantage in that engagement.
@@Jester-Riddle "you stray far wider than just the mechanised warfare aspects". Precisely my point. :) A tank isn't merely some tracked vehicle with a gun. It was a weapon for winning the war, period. As such, it needed to be a tool that fit the strategic situation. I concur with CaptainADD's assessment; It's not only misguided to compare one tank to another in a theoretical best- case scenario, it's pointless to compare one tank directly with another, period. At least in the context of WWII.
I definitely disagree with any scenarios involving the T-34 "maturing". That's not what it was built for, and maturation was never in the cards for it. That tank wasn't built to be maintainable, let alone upgradeable. It was built to be easily produced in mass very crudely, and sent to the front to fight as quickly as possible. It was built to be literally disposable.
I must disagree with one thing here. The Panzer IV after it was "up gunned "from the stump barrel was a match for the T-34. Until the T-34 was itself up gunned the only true advantage was mobility due to its wider tracks and the sheer weight in numbers of its production. 50,000 is a number I have seen often and that is impressive. Stalin is claimed to have said. "Quantity has a quality all it's own."
"50,000 is a statistic."
@@westrim why the quotation marks?
@@nudetaynehatwobble probably cause statistics lie however that’s with percentages and such. Soo i dunno
@@nudetaynehatwobble i think they mean that “it’s just a number” aka “a Soviet number” aka “disinformation”
@@nudetaynehatwobble Maybe not syntactically correct, but clear. Policing UA-cam connect? Really?
The panzer 3 with the long 50mm could penetrate the t-34 frontally pretty often
Gaijin pls
But at what range?
My grandfather drove an M4 during WW2 and had a chance to talk to some Soviet tankers at the end of the war in Berlin. He said a lot of them prefered the Shermans they received through lead-lease over the T-34s because they were more reliable, not so cramped, and much more user-friendly while having comparable amour protection and firepower.
You probably will like video by The chieftain (Nicholas Moran) where he debunked the myths on the M4's weaknesses and why it was the best tank for the US back then
@@shaider1982 Can you give me a link?
@@keithallver2450 here you go.ua-cam.com/video/98JbJuXE3JE/v-deo.html
Having played around the inside of our T-34/76 I can absolutely confirm the crampness factor. Between the sloped armor and the Chrisitie suspension springs mounted inside the hull it's absymally tight and umcomfortable. Can't imagine actually going to war in one.
@@tieleader7238 And we can add the fact it had a simple log for the driver, no seats for him or the bow mg gunner
@@alessiodecarolis Nope. They have seats, just not very good ones which added to the crews tiring faster. Its a very taxing vehicle to drive especially with the very first transmissions they were fitted with. Also the bow gunner's only outside view of the world is a hole about the width of your index finger just above the gun used to "aim" the MG. Strictly spray and pray affair. Perhaps you meant the log on the outside to unditch the tank?
The creator of the T34 died of pneumonia from travelling in the T34 during a 1200km test drive trip. After you said this I was waiting for you to say "so they added improved heating in the tank" but ....... no. Did many T34 crew die of cold related problems throughout the war?
Thats hilarious
@@jasonbloho8015 I guess I have a knack for making death hilarious. It's a gift......
@ John Ashmore Mostly heat related. Hot rounds coming in.
Not really, I don’t have any precise numbers, but what I do know is that when the tank was moving, the engine kept it warm, and when it was cold and the tank was not on the move, the soviet crews dug ventilated holes in the ground, set fires inside these holes and parked the tank over them, which kept the crew and the engine warm and ready to start. Learned this from a documentary, by Star Media as far as I can remember. Hope that answered your question:)
All this is propaganda to take away from Russia the credit for defeating the Germans. Jealousy is a terrible thing. There is a push lately to give the credit for defeating Germany to the Americans. Winston Churchill said “ the Russians tore the guts out of the German army”. If Russians died of the cold so must have some Germans. You are blaming the tanks for causing them to die of the cold. I think it might have been the weather
It is finally more popular to believe the T-34 kinda sucked. But if you make thousands of them, the enemy will run out of ammo.
Like Persian "Immortals"
Now can we get people to accept that the Sherman actually was a good tank? Normandy was a horrible location to deploy tanks offensively. German tanks failed just as badly on offense in the bockage.
@@TheBelrick I personally consider the Sherman to be the best tank in that war.
@@GoSlash27 I personally cannot argue with you. Its a valid position.
I think that the panther was a very good tank but too large for its role and therefor could of been a lot cheaper. Its side armour was designed to be proof against the F-34 75mm but wasn't for example.
@@TheBelrick I mean, the Panthers side armor even got penetrated by Soviet AT rifles (which were the best of the war but still)
Excellent documentary,good commentary,
a thoughtful and well sequenced
recording!
I remember seeing/hearing that the track pins didn't have any locks and they just used a ramp to hammer the pins back home while on the move.
Yes, it was a simple and reliable system for keeping the track pins in place. I saw the same system on a T54 in a museum once.
I am a fan of this channel, but this video is riddled with inaccurate information. Only 7% of the t-34s built conformed to the design specifications. They were on the front from day 1, but it wasn’t until competent commanders employing combined-arms tactics were the soviets able to push them back. The Germans say that the t-34 is amazing because it covers for their incompetence.
The Nazis did lose the war, after all. They were never supermen and their tanks were about average.
@@davidtrindle6473 FUCKING THANK YOU!
@@davidtrindle6473 but they lost the war due to the western allies, not Russia. Russia used casualties to hold the line for years with immense assistance from Lend Lease than Stalin admit they couldn't have won without, until the Western Allies came to their rescue by defeating Germany in Africa, Atlantic, Med, Italy, strategic bombing, destruction of the Luftwaffe, and finally in France.
@Solo Renegade ridiculous revisionism. The western front was a completely different animal to the eastern front. Frankly our 20th century mythos has blinded us and we have inflated our importance too far in many factors.
@@jamesmandahl444 Ridiculous revisionism? So…, is it your contention the Soviet Union could have defeated Nazi Germany without the Lend-Lease program or without the Germans having to battle the western allied powers during the years the Soviets fought the Germans?
My favorite image is that of an old T-34 in the Yemen Civil War and it's so old and worn the tank crew bale out with the gunner fires the main gun with a string at 20 feet.
I really like your work. I'm glad you've slowed down how fast you speak a little.
On some of your Dark skies ect vids I had to
Pause occasionally
Main design fault was the pressure put on the commander\loader\gunner in the 76 t-34-the provision for a second person in the turret in the 85 t34 was a major improvement because it increased the rate of fire to a rate comparable with the mark 3 and mark 4 panzer-the addition of a radio to all tanks was also a major improvement
I could just imagine old Ivan standing in his company formation when he gets the news “Comrades, today we installed radios in your tanks”. Ivan says, “ What is radio?”
@@Mike-tg7dj MAYBE THEY SAID AWESOME WE CAN LISTEN TO THE POLKA MUSIC AT LUNCH TIME OR RECESS !!!!!!?????HMMMMM!!??
The Russians were able to produce 1000 T-34s per month. At Stalingrad, they got about 250 new tanks per week. At the end of that week, they'd be down to about 5-10 operable tanks, the other 240 being killed primarily by German PKW-4s with long barrel, high velocity main guns. So the headline of this article is correct, the full load of fuel that the T-34s were issued with was somewhat still in the tank, never having to be refueled. On average, the life span of a T-34 was about a week.
Sources? 🤔
"The T-34 was the first tank to have all round sloped armour" -Virgin T-34 fans
"Hello? Yes, have you heard of our lord and saviour FCM 36" -Chad french armour enjoyers
Too many have fallen to that belief. Would love to see their faces when you show them pictures of older tanks that have sloped armor. And sloped armor has been known since medieval times. I’ve seen sloped edges on castles used to deflect cannonballs.
I love the commentary in the little sections were it like *a necessary replacement*
Enjoyed your video and I gave it a Thumbs Up
There is some amazing footage out there somewhere of a German anti-tank gun defending a crossroads somewhere in Russia. A T34 appears out of some trees and the anti-tank gun opens up on it, only for the projectiles to bounce right off the tank's armour. The gun crew manage to get a couple of rounds off (to no effect) before the tank begins to engage them with its own main gun, at which point the footage cuts off, unsurprisingly! (I saw this footage years ago on a British TV documentary about the T34, but have never seen it again since - it would be gold for a UA-cam history film maker, if they could find it).
There's so much footage of ww2, it's literally gonna rot possibly without ever being viewed. Even worse for UA-cam are the fakes. Their was alledgedly a series of films taken by an German officer as he fought his way to Stalingrad in 1942, but was soon found out as a fraud and removed.
That may have been a German 1943 training film called 'Men Against Tanks. ua-cam.com/video/xS6PjmlnOGc/v-deo.html
Germans did a study on which was more effective tank killer, the Stug or Anti-Tank gun. The Stug averaged, I think, 15 tanks before being knocked out. The Anti-Tank gun averaged 3.
It was probably a pak 37 a very light caliber
They prob using pak 36, a light anti tank gun... Same size of your smol pp, basically a heavy anti-tank rifle but on wheels
"early model 1940s had fuel cells at the sides of the hall that could also be easily breached by armor piercing rounds"
meanwhile players facing any t-34 in war thunder: "that goddamn t-34's fuel tank just absorb my tiger ap round"
"spaced armor"
Well done....I enjoyed this presentation.
It was ideal of the Russian tactic of "Throw an endless avalanche of cheap shit at the enemy until they run out of soldiers, there's always more tanks and poor bastards for the meat grinder where those came from."
There were 40,000 British troops sacrificed in one battle during the 1 st world war and that wasn’t the only time, but I guess you’re not outraged about that only about the Russians
The T-34 was produced to be in operation for only a 9 month period, after that, it was recognized that it would have to have a complete overhaul or scrapped. The average amount of time a T-34 lasted in battle was 12 minutes before put out of action. Superior quantity, with adequate quality, was a war winning strategy.
Adequate quality with engines that lasted less than 50 hours, horrendous optics etc. sure....
The T-34 was pretty mediocre. The Sherman was fundamentally superior, protected its crew better, and was more effective for squad support *and* anti-tank warfare. The Soviets would censor troops' letters for saying they preferred the American tanks, that they had padded seats, optics that they could see out of, and actually had heaters that kept them warm lol.
@Retired Bore, same for the best rooskie versions.
Rubbish
Yup often overlooked, yeah the Tank was Crude but the this was by design, make it Good enough but Cheap, because in the grand scheme of things, only the Gun and Armor Killed the Enemy, not necessarily Crew Comfort, Reliability and even Survivability,
The T 34 85 also improved the lay out but not remove all of the issues on crew comfort.
the morale factor of a soviet soldier seeing thousands of tanks ready to fight cant be understated.
Yes but, how many broke down as they tried to advance?
Fodder for the Germans!
Even today, the Rus tanks are having a bad day in Ukraine. The Ukrainians are playing Whack-a-mole with them.
@@nzs316 There is no tank today that would do well in Ukraine. The amount of javelins being supplied to Ukraine would make any tank crew on earth shit their pants.
@@Dimitri1221XxX Hence the standard issue adult diapers Rus crews have found in their kit!
@@nzs316 Russia bad! Am I right guys????
@randomguy9777 i guess thats why oppressive communism didnt work in the long run
Cramp interior of the T-34 was not only a function of sloped armor, but also caused by the Christie suspension system, which took up a lot of internal volume.
And for talking about flaws in the t34, never forget bad Soviet quality. Stalin may have believed that quantity has a quality of its own, but his factories often turned out garbage. In many cases, the steel for armor was of poor quality leading to fractures and spalling. Riveting and welding was done poorly and quickly. And that's before the invasion and the need to get tanks out even quicker often with factory workers, who were brand new.
The tanks were poor quality he says... ITS AS IF WE HAD THE SURVIVAL OF OUR FUCKING PEOPLE ON THE LINE
@@youdontneedtoknowwhoiam9612 It's amusing that you think I don't know the history. A few members of my family were in the red army. Many more members of my family were refugees from Poland in the Soviet Union, where they worked in a state at war.
Never had the chance to drop down into a T-34. Did get a chance to play with PT-76, T-55 and T-62 models. My most significant memory was shutting the hatch, letting my eyes adjust to the dark, and then watching all the stars appear. (light leaks from poor welds)
@@kenthaunschild2267 Well if you hit the hatch with your head, you're going to see other stars.
To be fair, there were times when the Soviets were forced to send tanks straight from the factory, even before they had paint. I believe they did this in Stalingrad and at Moscow.
British cruiser tanks were bolted together in the beginning, not because it was better but because all the decent welders were prioritised in ship building which had higher priority. Bolted armour is better than poor quality birdshit welding.
I don't know why everyone gives credit for slopped armor to the T-34 when in fact the very first tank, Little Willie, back in WW1 had slopped armor.
And even ancient war vehicles had sloped armor
Because the folks that report on such things for the general public simp for Russian/communist propaganda and happily spread it for them.
T-34 was a decent tank for its role. And it could have been a really good tank if Soviets werent Soviets and didnt constantly push for ultra-high production numbers at the expense of the very much needed updates.
Nobody wanted to fall short on their production quotas, because doing so meant a trip to the gulag (or a bullet). Quality is harder to measure, when it wasn't ignored altogether.
well, cant really blame them for wanting production rushed.... kinda hard to spend a lot of time making sure the tank is perfect when you have the Wehrmacht 200km down the road and you needed those tanks done yesterday. Theres lots of examples of Soviet tank crews driving their tank straight from the factory and into combat.
You did your homework, not many T-34 documentaries mention the early variants didn't have a turret basket! Good work! Must have been brutal to fight in the early variants!
He just copied from LazerPig. Copying homework is not the same as doing it.
It was a problema also for the early T54/55 models and their china-made copy the T59😢
Not just early variants. No T-34 ever had a turret basket. Neither did the Panzer III, but no one ever mentions that.
Another excellent video.
The UA-camr Lazer Pig did a video on the T34 being given way too much credit for being a good tank. It was an hour long but damn did he go into detail
Where do you think this guy got his idea and content from? Nothing on the Dark series’ is original.
@@davidb8373 nothing from anyone is original. Everyone gets their sources from history books
@@triadwarfare you’re confusing looking up sources with plagiarism
@@davidb8373 I don’t know about you, but I’m happy to watch both channels.
@@peterni2234 wouldn’t you be pissed off if you spent hours or days doing research, and some guy comes along and straight up copies your work, pretends it’s his own, and makes money from it? Now imagine that guy does it three times a day. The stuff he copies from The History Channel is copyrighted. They’re gonna be pissed when they find out.
As I remember from reading, the 5cmPaK38 was capable of taking on the T34 within 500m range-even from the front. There was no standoff kill capability, however. The tungsten core (APCR) round, (PzGr .39, widely available from 41-43, rare in the later part of the war), could pierce more than 70mm* of enemy armor at 500m. The T34 front hull plate was 45mm thick; though prodigally sloped it had many weak points-especially the driver's visor, hull MG mount, and the tracks (about 1/4 of the tank's frontal aspect.
*German standards were for 100% penetration. British and American standards were far more generous; 50% pen, rating the PzGr .39 at 85mm.
The British Six Pounder ATG (Anti Tank Gun) first saw action in May 1942. It could penetrate any enemy tank then in service. Maybe if Germany had properly prepared and fielded similar weapons, the T34 would never have gained its fearsome reputation. Even the previous 40mm Two Pounder could outperform the German 3.7 cm PaK 36 used against Russian tanks.
PzGr 40 was the special round. PzGr 39 are normal AP rounds.
@@davidelliott5843 Most of the Panzer III that were used in Barbarossa had the L44 version of the 5.0cm gun though Hitler had requested that the longer barrel L60 be fitted after the Battle of France. Hitler noted his orders had not been carried out which turned out to be due to a combination of German Army Ordinance not wanting over hanging barrels but primarily due to a lack of tooling. The 5cm was less powerful than the British 6 pounder but the Germans had actually planed a APDS round (called TS or Treibs Spiegel in German which ended up having either technical problems (probably degraded accuracy due to sabot separation issues) or being unattractive due to tungsten shortages and was never deployed.
-Edit: the Germans did actually eventually deploy APDS but the core was not made of tungsten just steal. It had greater penetration but not as good as tungsten.
@@davidelliott5843 the 2 pounder is not as versatile as the PaK 36 to begin with, the gun can't fire explosive ammo, and the PaK 36 can load a "Rifle Grenade" which can practically destroy any tank of that era within effective range, in the end the PaK 36 remained as "Door Knocker" after its production got cut
@@williamzk9083 the issue with TS shell are they goes way too fast, so fast that it shatter the projectile in mid air before impacting the armor, making them impractical in combat, also the other reason is lack of rare metallic for the ammo
I might be high but I think you guys got really good footage
thanks for your work
I suggest everyone to watch Lazerpig's video on the T-34! Thank me later ;)
I saw his video explaining a lot of the defects of the T34.
The T-34 is a piece of sh*t.
Yet another banger!
Go watch Lazerpigs video on the T34, its even more bangin!
The Imperial War Museum in London has a T34 and it was pretty cool to see one up close. A lot bigger than I expected.
The Tank Museum at Bovingdon has one as well. Not to mention more tanks of other kinds that you can shake a stick at.
Great video!
The tank was built for 20 hours of combat time. To place this in perspective, the first Abrams was built for 100 hours of combat time.
Then why with all this superior weaponry America can only beat poor countries like Grenada and Panama. They couldn’t defeat the peasant armies of Vietnam and Afghanistan. If they can’t defeat an enemy by carpet bombing they are done
The T34 was present in decent numbers during the first tank battle of operation barbarossa. The tank was noted by the germans but not as much as the much more heavily armored KV1 tanks. New means of anti tank warfare implemented by the german army from thatpoint on wasnt a response to the T34 but to the KV series. In operational effectiveness the T34 and Pnz III were pretty equal in the early stages.
What the T-34 had in gunnery and armour was made up by the Pz.III in ergonomics (much more space inside, crew could work much more faster), situational awareness (waaaay better optics), command and control (good radio comms) and much better quality of build (T-34 guns were inaccurate due to sloppy build margins, armour was not up to scratch either due to low-quality steel).
With these "soft skills" Pz.III units could more often than not "outplay" their deaf and blind opponents.
@@thomaskositzki9424 the quality of the T34 varied widely. Some were well build others were horrible. Depending on which plant produced them and the quality of the steel
@@TheDude50447 True. One could add "year of production" to that list of factors. Didn't want to write a huge sermon on the topic. ^^
Another quality and interesting video
The advance stopped under General Winter and over-extended supply lines. The T34 helped - later to reverse the gains. 10 to 1 productivity over heavy German tanks. Can’t beat numbers. Not then - at least!
"Slave labour"
What are you smoking?
there was no slave labour used in the production of T34s or any Soviet Military items.
Prison labour (like is common in USA TODAY) was used in railway construction and was restricted to being near the Prisons. Which were all in Siberia.
You are lying. All Soviet system was build on slavery. Farmers and laborers were slaves. Noone couldn't leave farm or factory. If you late for work for 20 minutes - 10 years in prison. Farmers worked for free. They weren't paid. In the end of year they were eligible for some food. Children as young as 12-13 years were working and they fell down from tiredness and malnutrition.
@@leotkawhat absolute rubbish.
@@MrRecrute Farmers can't even leave their place of residence. They had no passports. Salary they started to get from 1964. You are KGB troll.
The death toll of the T34 was as high as the German U-Boot death toll, about 75%. I understand, a lot had to do with the brittle armor, the cramped internal space, the explosive ammunition and difficulty in escaping. However, how ever you see it, the T34 was a death trap. The Sherman on the other hand was not. Its crews sometimes survived many knocked out tanks and were so experienced, that they were able to win against the Panthers. Look at the battle of Arracourt.
Well, germans called it "the Ronson", a popular lighter.
@joseburdeus3373 for the wrong reason
I had a relative that was a German tank gunner during WW2. He stated that the problem with the Shermans was that they were too reliable.
If your enemy is complaining about your equipment being too reliable. Then you bought the right product.
Hey man, I appreciate your work. It's fascinating on the things you can find. small fun facts and small details of war is fascinating. I was curious, are you allowed to do anything about the war on Ukraine and Russia just wondering? It would be fun to have a neutral point of view on what's going on today since it's always about this side or that side if you know what I mean I don't know man. Work your magic so far. I'm enjoying your channel. It's amazing! Cheers bud
Entertaining. Thank you.
Ah, yes, the objectively worst mass-produced tank of WWII. :)
I have been all over T-34's, T-34 mod `43, and T-34/85's. Literally all over them. I cannot begin to stress how crudely the wartime tanks were put together. Gaps in armor big enough for you to put 2 fingers into, castings that would never have passed as thirds or even seconds in the west, welds that you could have done better with a hot glue gun. I haven't encountered a pre-war T-34 to know if all of them were that bad or if it is all down to the war. All in all, what Russia managed to do was simply remarkable. I guess if you don't care how many soldiers it costs of your own, you can do the "remarkable".
Yet the British evaluation said as much: "crude where it was not important, but excellent quality, as good or better than our own tanks, where it was important".
When you can choose between making 10 mechanically and aestethically perfect tanks and a 100 crude tractors for the same amount of effort and funds, which decision is more likely to win in the end?
The Soviets obviously looked at the statistics, and concluded that the Germans can't possibly come close to a 10:1 kill ratio. Therefore, they were certain they would win in the end. Sure, it cost them many lives... But an individual's life was never of a great value in a communist system.
Something like the Americans dropping Napalm and Agent Orange on their own troops. The British lost 40,000 men in one battle in the First World War without gaining one inch of territory, because they were sent into an impossible situation. Remarkable if you don’t care how many of of your own soldiers it costs. Military history is littered with incidents where soldiers lives were sacrificed and they weren’t all Russian. Your anti Russian bias is very obvious
@@thatladfromthe40s82. In the First World War 40,000 British troops were thrown away in one battle without gaining one inch of territory and not the only example of cannon fodder which is where the term came from. Another attempt by a Russian hater at demonising Russia blown apart
@@thatladfromthe40s82 I agree with you but only if you have infinite amounts of supplies. No army has this tho. The problem stems from the fact that the russians in this a case would need 10 time the fuel, 10 times the men, 10 times the ammo. This also put a lot of stress on the logistics companies. Plus if only 4 of 10 (random number to help explain my point) of the tank crews survived this means that you would have a very low amount of combat experience tankers this will in turn lead to more losses do to most crews being unfamiliar with combat.
Great video.
Love your shows keep up the good work I like listening to history😊
The T-34 only had a lifecycle of 12 minutes once in combat. The Soviets built the tank to last no more than 9 months. But, like Stalin said, "Quantity has a quality all its own."
Thanks for another great video.
Another early t34 problem ( and some other soviet tanks) was poor or probably more likley inconsistant metallurgy, with spalling (metal fragments separating from the structure like shrapnel) from shell impact injuring or killing crew members.
When you actually see how some of the stuff was cast it is impressive it holds up as well as it does.
Actually, Soviet metallurgy might have been the best of all the combatants of WWII (at least insofar as tank armor is concerned, the US Navy wins the overall prize, but apparently they didn't share their secrets with the US army).
Worst metallurgy? The Germans, and the Czechs.
By Far, the most honest review of the tank! Thank You Sir!!
People idealize this beast, omitting the major issues with the first 2 years production and focusing on the very good tanks made later.
Interesting update on what really happened concerning the tank.
Thanks
The first Russian armored unit to enter Berlin did it in American Shermans. Tells you all you need to know about how the Trash 34 actually performed.
When I was younger, I read an autobiography of a Soviet tanker who'd fought in both the Sherman and the T34. Short summary: he liked the Sherman better because you'd get shot out of both of them, but you'd survive getting shot out of the Sherman.
@@purplefuzzymonster17 I know the book you're talking about, but can't remember the title or author. He also mentioned the Russian ammo was prone to igniting and catching the tank on fire when hit. Lazerpig did a great deep dive on the T34; seems that QC was also a huge part of the problem.
Wasn't the Sherman known as the "Tommy cooker" and the "Ronson" by its own crews?
@@daviddoran3673 Tommy cooker referred to desert combat conditions, not catching on fire. The Ronson thing is sort of controversial; check out The Chieftains UA-cam videos on it since he's an expert. After the introduction of wet stowage for ammo and improvements in the ammo itself it was a non issue. The T 34 was actually more prone to catch fire because of poor quality ammo and storage location, until improvements later in the war. One of the many reasons Russian crews preferred M4's.
@@MKJNS7086 It wasn't that the Sherman didn't catch fire. It did. (I can't remember whether it was the gasoline or diesel version that was particularly bad.) But you're right about the ammo and stowage; a burning Sherman wasn't necessarily going to blow up, whereas a T-34 definitely would.
The t34 was not an un destructible tank as this video describes it this was a myth made up by German high command to make up for there embarrassing defeat against the red army in the beginning of operation Barbarossa
It’s armor was brittle and shattered even when a panzer 3s cannon hit it
The survivability of it was horrible
It’s Simplistic design meant the crew would often injure themselves when inside the vehicle
In the early stages of Barbarossa it was not the spear head of Russian tank columns it was a rarity to see one on the battlefield and was easily countered by squads panzer 3s with radios
Poor visibility from inside the tank meant it was valuable to infantry
It was easily countered by later war German tanks like the stug 3 g, panther, tiger and many others
In short the t34 was not as formidable as these types of videos make it out to be
The victories won by the USSR (leaving aside the contributions of the west) was founded upon their God of War. Artillery. Russian artillery was constantly taking a toll of the Heer. Constantly destroying fortifications. And once Germany withdrew the Luftwaffe and focused on fighters , they had no real means to defeat the God of War. Tanks got the glory, Artillery won the war.
All this is true, but at the same time it was also an awesome weapon from a logistical standpoint. It was dirt- simple, easy to manufacture in crazy numbers, and was *just* reliable enough to make it to the battle and get some licks in. As goofy as it sounds, it was exactly the tank the Soviets needed in that war.
The German tanks you mentioned... 1 vs 1 they were arguably superior... *assuming* they actually made it to the battle (they often didn't) and assuming they were available in sufficient numbers (they weren't). But even with all that, armored warfare isn't 1 vs 1. This is one of the reasons the Germans ultimately lost.
@@GoSlash27 the t-34 was the perfect tank for an army full of mongals, it had the mobility needed to traverse the large landscape of the Soviet Union, they were cheap enough for an upcoming empire and simple enough mongols could use it. You pair the t-34 with the IL-2, Russian artillery and the sheer numbers of the Soviet Union and you could steam roll any nation in those days. Even though the Germans had the highest level of education and the best weaponry, it was not match for 1. The size of the Soviet Union, 2. The numbers the soviets were able to throw on the battlefield at any given time. Although, at the beginning of operation Barbarossa when the soviets weren’t at full strength, the German reconnaissance made it a few km from Moscow than hitler decided taking the Caucasus was more important than taking the soviets capital, why he did that I don’t know because that was well before winter and it seemed like from that point on the Germans made mistake after mistake. Hitler had the power to take Europe but for some reason he started sacking his generals and taking command himself, ultimately losing them the war. This is why a dictatorship never works out in a war against a democracy, I know the soviets were a dictatorship but allies weren’t either way in a Democracy the power of the military is given to the generals so there’s no delay in given commands, in a dictatorship everything has to be approved by the dictator resulting in command delays and lost battles. Part of the reason the Germans lost d-day, Hitler was sleeping till noon (again strangely for some reason) and it delayed and kind of effective counter attack. It’s almost like the Germans were meant to lose the war through some sort of planning because d-day should of been a massive failure for the allies the same as Barbarossa should of been a massive failure for the soviets.
@@PETER217-j6e Why the Germans went for the Caucuses instead of Moscow: 1) They understood that taking Moscow wouldn't win them the war, but 2) running out of oil would surely lose it.
Why D-Day succeeded: 1) Bodyguard 2) Ultra. We faked out the Germans (especially Hitler) into believing that the "real" attack would be in Calais, and he kept his reserves there until it was too late.
War is about industrial capacity, resources, logistics, intelligence, political will....
The history of WWII is like an onion. You just keep peeling back layer after layer after layer. :)
@@GoSlash27 it was not a cheep tank, it was simply made cheaply
on the bright side, soviet tank crew never have to worry about running out of fuel. they just fill their tanks up once and off they go.
0:39 Fun fact: According to Russian casualty reports of 1941, Most T-34 we taken out by the Pz.III.
A so called inferior tank that can't pen a T-34
3:19 The Christie suspension was very unstable and had poor cross-country capability. Unlike the Crusader which had a . The only thing that the Christie Suspension is good for is going fast. really fast. But the T-34 couldn't use it to its advantage, which I will touch on later. The T-34 got stuck in mud as often if not more then their German Counter parts.
3:31 In actuality the T-34 could never go 53km/h as it would take super human strength to put it into 3rd gear and you were better off braking the gear shift then to put it into 4th gear and this was a problem with its core design, so the tank could only go a little under 30km/h
3:53 the drive from Ukraine to Moscow wasn't as smooth as many people think. The two tanks broke down constantly and Koshkin caught pneumonia due to the tank not having sufficient heating.
6:17 Most Steel used on tanks is Heat-treated at about 300 Burnell while Russian tanks were Heat-treated at about 600 Burnell. This made the steel exceptionally Hard, but also made it extremely brittle. This meant that a if a Pz.III would hit the tank, the armor would either snap off, or look like a crushed cracker.
9:11 Fun fact: The real reason why Many German General called it the best Medium tank of the war was so that they could cover up their shortcomings and mistakes and that they could get on to NATO advisory positions.
The T-34 was a costly tank Made Cheaply. If a T-34/76 was Built to the standard, it would've cost more than an M4 Sherman, a Much better Tank with a marginally inferior gun
Before the flying turret models
Fun fact not only autoloader tanks fly there turrets even the leopard 2 has a high chance of poping its turret beacuse of the ammo in the front hull which has a high chance of getting cooked off and exploding and all that preasure will fly the turret
The greatest "flying turret" photo ever was a Ferdinand at Kursk.....look it up...and stare at it....
Unless I'm mistaken, it sounded like you said in 1941 the Soviets sent thousands of T34's in spearheads and sometimes used them to ram German tanks. There seemed to be mix ups between 1941 and 1943. In 41, T34's were used in small numbers along with KV-1 among large numbers of BT tanks. The 88's did take out a few, but the German tanks were able to easily take out the BT tanks which allowed them to get on the flanks of the T34 and KV-1 tanks.
ua-cam.com/video/CIZ6PFYUM5o/v-deo.html
@Khaotik_99 We are talking about initial encounters. At the start of the war there were under 1,000 available. The figure I saw for the year was 2300 destroyed. Sounds like a lot, but 20,000 other tanks were destroyed in the same time period. I found a link earlier today that said a German report said the T-34 and KV-1 were scattered around, but can't find it now. That was what I remembered reading.
The Germans called all T34s Mickey Mouse because that's what it looked like with both hatches open. The round hatches resembled mouse ears.
“BuT It’S BeTteR ThAn ThE SheRmAN”
Said no one ever
The top speed was 50+ km but that was hard to achieve in the field. The transmission, even the much improved later ones, was extremely difficult to shift. Do you keep trying to shift and break the transmission/shift linkage/clutch in the middle of combat or do you accept a slower speed that hopefully won't break the equipment and leave you a sitting duck?
And high speed maneuvers threw the track more often than other designs, making such tactics a poor choice anyway.
But it had a good gun and good armor, if bailing out was tricky at best(Lord help the poor bow gunner, and the driver wasn't much better) and the sights and crew visibility as a whole were terrible(there are reports of a T34 taking over 100 hits from a Pak36. Impressive, but begs the question, why? Because the crew couldn't find the gun that was shooting at them)
And Stalin launched an investigation into the T34 looking for crew sabatage as it's breakdown rate was so high.
And the T34 engaged , and destroyed, several panzer 38Ts on the first day of Barbarossa, not months into it.
I heard they were issued with sledge hammers to shift them.
The 76mm on the t34 was only as powerful in function as the Sherman's. The Sherman was an objectively better tank in every way. Reliable, fast, well built, with decent armor, a decent gun, survivable for the crew. 1v1 I'd give it to the Shermans just due to communication, considering they had extremely high quality radios.
Actually, the Soviets received a number of Sherman tanks as a result of the Lend-Lease program.
@@TaercEum are you a bot? Because that had nothing to do with what I said and I want to know if this is some new bot bullshit.
@@Tom_Cruise_Missile No, I am NOT a bot - you mentioned Sherman tanks in comparison with the T-34 with regards to armour and armament. I thought I'd offer my perspective - I'm assuming you are already aware of the Lend-Lease deal.
@@TaercEum Of course, I'm just not sure why you put "actually" in front of that?
@@Tom_Cruise_Missile Sorry - I didn't mean to mess with you.
Thanks for the vid 🤙🤙🤙✨✨✨✨
I like the " inative sloped armour " quote! Que the French turning around and pointing to the Renault fp from ww1
On my return from SVN I had a beer (or 2) with a mate I’d served with and his Father. His Father was a Waffen SS veteran from the Eastern Front, with a Knights Cross and a heap of Iron Crosses. The Germans had a quota system, kill 5 tanks single handed (satchel charges) you got an Iron Cross 2nd class. Kill 50 tanks solo, get a Knights Cross!
i guess you mean the Panzervernichtungsabzeichen, which was given for destroying a single tank in close combat. In 1945, hitler gave order, that soldiers who destroyed 6 tanks in close combat, will get the Ritterkreuz des Eisernen Kreuzes...
Most Panzervernichtungsabzeichen went to soldiers with around 20 destroyed tanks, so your numbers (50) are unrealistic and simply wrong
Günther Viezenz destroyed 21 tanks in close combat and he is known as the soldier with the most destroyed tanks in close combat. this guy received Iron Cross Class I and II and the Ritterkreuz. With your numbers (up to 50) Viezenz would have never reached the Ritterkreuz.
Cannot find any confirmation of your information, so i have to say, that what you wrote is wrong
The T-34 was not a good tank. If anything it was the right tank at the right time.
Just good enough to do what had to be done.
@@CharliMorganMusic Yes, wasting the ammo of the germans.
Exactly
In the intro he's talking about 76mm t34s but is showing footage of 57mm early war variants. Maybe should've mentioned from the get go the different calibers it was deployed with
3:10 Purpose of sloped armour isn't to deflected projectiles, it increases the effective thickness of said armour.
Lazerpig
Beat me to it by 4 min.
Came here for this 👍
Classic Russia, decent design, rubbish factory QC !
The steel where such brittel on these t-34s due to too high temperature used for heating it that a good hit from a 5cm cannon shattered like glass. There are even good pictures of it documented
i noticed you don't include source citations for your research.
where did you come up with the information for this video?
Chieftain does a good job analyzing the T34. In his videos he talks about things like the quality of the armor (or lack thereof), the fact that "sloped armor wasn't some great epiphany" and that the design was terrible for the crew. The only positive thing about the tank was the fact that it could be produced quickly and cheaply. They quite literally were death traps for the crews and it's flaws likely resulted in killing more men than the German guns.
IIRC, T34s and Shermans did actually square off in Korea and the US tanks wiped the floor with them. It wasn't a good tank. The Soviets just had a lot of them.
The Chieftain is a cold war tank and the t34 is ww2 tank so...
@@peterszabo654 chieftain is a UA-cam channel.
Well the sherman Was a newer tank and the Yankees had the time to work qll kinks out were the soviets had to litoraly push everything to the front they culd
All tanks are recognised as death traps
@@theobsoleteman7935 well i screw it up then
A good tank, produced poorly. The tank was a good design for the day, and had the production quality existed ... at all, the staggering loss rate could have been mitigated. But...we get metal tracks on metal road wheels, poor sights if installed at all, and so many short cuts to make as many as possible...that I'm surprised most even made it out of the factory.
I disagree. The T-34 was a tank that was *designed* to be produced poorly. That was the beauty of it and the reason the Soviets won that war.
@@GoSlash27 A couple of small improvements would decrease their losses considerably without adding any extra time to production. Sort of like Russians today, they dont get good combat boots, they dont get night vision, they dont get food, they dont get fuel, they dont get LBVs or modern helmets or plate carriers. This is an oversight, not a design choice. Typical Russian mentality, held over from Soviet times.
Getting your enemies to run out of ammo and freeze to death is barely a win in my books when you lost 6,000% more men than any other army. At what cost? so they could save some money on aiming sights, heater cores, road wheels, small things can make a huge difference, and Russians are STILL learning this lesson today.
@@paddington1670 They didn't care about "losses". Neither in materiel nor in manpower. They had both in limitless supply. You may argue that they should've focused more on quality and survivability if you wish, but #1 that's what the Germans did and they lost and #2 Unless your name happened to be Josef Stalin, your opinion would've been worthless at best and a quick trip to the gulag at worst.
@6:04 is a really interesting scene. It's a horse cavalry riding into battle alongside tanks. That's a mix of 19th century and 20th century war tactics. That scene really highlights how WWII was a transitional period in history. Absolutely amazing. It really highlights the concept of a "total war." They were throwing everything they had at the front.
ETA: "Beachheads of Cuba"?! What are you smoking?
Bay of Pigs. Castro directed the battle from a SU 76.
Interesting flash suppressor on the thumbnail. Metal pointing all kinds of directions.
WW2 Ork tank they still fight the same way....throw disposable Russian troops until kill limit reached ...Putin decides limit ..he's not really bothered.
What amount of BBC nonsence
Pro Ukraine 🐕🐶
You are the fool who thinks Ukraine is winning. What are you going to do when from one day to the next the lies catches up with reality and Ukraine's surrender is announced?
The real factors of russian victory was the incredible amount of North American GM trucks send to URSS,and the misterous and wrong german theory that Strategic bombers were not useful to Germany(?)
Half a million studebackers allowed for the Red Army to defeat the Wehrmacht decisively in Bagration. Supplies and mobility. Once the front was broken, the foot mounted troops and artillery of the Heer couldn't withdraw in thousands of isolated forgotten battles.
That's part of it, but it's also bc they're a people who can lose 30m men and keep moving.
@@CharliMorganMusic yep,is very stupid to enter deeply in Russia,that enormous coffin
Don’t forget Ford trucks-built in England, France, USSR, Hungary and Germany. Before, during and after WWII
@@jfb3567 of course,but only now WW2 researchers are beginning to understand the real,incredible magnitude of American contribution to red army,specifically trucks and tanks,Stalin keep is great debt with USA in deepest secret and silent,Germans were so naive Superb and misinformated about real,impressive industrial capability of USA...for sure this criminal error ends in their crushing defeat.
OK here are a few things you got technically wrong in the introductory,
1st the Germans faced the t34 and kv1 from day 1 of Barbarossa and not when the tied turned.
2nd you said that the t34 was inpenetrable by the pz3 while yes it couldn't directly penetrate it, die to things that have to do with the incredible high hardness of the steel (and the resulting brittleness ) the pz3 was responsible for nearly 60% of all t34 losses
Also to the top speed...
The transmission and dry clutch was usually so hard to use that you needed extreme streanghts to shift into 4th and superhuma streanghts to go into 4th gear.
On 4:00
The t34 broke down 3x during that drive.
11:06
Post war allied estimates showed that a t34 produced to combat ready Standart was as production costly as a Sherman or panther.
The t34 wasn't a cheap fast design, it was a expensive design that was produced cheap.
American tests at Aberdeen showed that the t34 whould it have been build to combat ready Standart, with the costs adjusted to American currency, the t34 whould have been as expensive as a Sherman if not more expensive
Why does everyone say the sloped armor was new? It had been used on tanks before the t 34. I mean the panzer 1 had sloped armor and French tanks used it also.
sheer number of slave labour in ussr- you say? not only soviets had millons of slaves, the germans had huge numbers of them too. the german industry was driven by captured slavs, french and other folks from conquered territories
For all it's faults, the T-34 was the tank that won the war.
Nope. The war was won regardless of the T34 if you study the war that is
No it wasn't. Russian blood, American factories, Polish/French espionage, and the English Channel won the war.
Saw a t34 2 days ago... Tanks are bigger then you imagine
Catchy title! :-)
The Russians willl need them soon in Ukraine.
Lol good one
lol might help 😁
Lmao no
Don't laugh, it's highly possible to get used as mobile artillery. There's still many around. Not to mention, losses would be a lot less costly as the current turret poppers are.
At one point, they expected each tank they sent off the assembly line had roughly a 20hr lifespan. They designed them cheaper and cheaper because they just needed them out there NOW, didnt care about gaps or finishing the metal they were slapped together. The transmissions were crude and didnt last, some carried an extra on them because they might break before they arrived. This wasnt ALL t-34's, there were variants and same variants made in different places which had their good and bad ways of building them. They worked for what they needed them for, and could make SO many of them, they just, kept, coming.
I heard that the manufacture standards were so low that a hit may not penetrate the hull but shrapnel would kill or hurt the crews in the t-34
I read some where they wouldn't even paint them because the joke was the paint wouldn't completely dry before they were knocked out.
The Russian still haven't managed to move the ammo out of the crew compartment. Who the fuck want's to be a tanker sitting on a ton of ammo during combat.
Watching Barbarossa docs is like watching a slow train wreck in progress.🤕
....but they made thousands upon thousands of them, so they overwhelmed the enemy with sheer numbers. The T-34 was never meant to be a "good tank", it was meant to be a "good enough tank".
Did the horizontal drive roll away after that ammo rack?