One of my favourite Sherman facts is that alot of crews opted to keep the 75mm M3 rather than upgrade to the 76mm M1 because it had better soft-target performance, which were far more common than hard targets. Favourite Tiger fact is that they made minor edits to the design of the tank so often that theres a change every fourth vehicle on average, compared to the Sherman which the designers lumped all the minor edits into blocks and implemented them every like 200 vehicles, so they didnt have this issue. Favourite T-34 fact is that not only was it a shitbox, it was a **precision-engineered** shitbox, which they cut as many corners as they possibly could without crippling the vehicles mission capability. Second-favourite T-34 fact is that despite its reputation as being a shitbox, apparently the original prototypes and first-production machines from '38 and early '39 were actually nicely-built vehicles.
My favorite T-34 fact is that while the T-34M never made it into production because of Barbarossa, some aspects of it did live on to an extent in the T-50, giving us a glimpse of what the T-34 could have been if the soviets had a little more time.
The post-war T-34-85s were decent too, the CIA analyzed a captured one from the KPA and realized they actually had well made engines and the armor steel was of a higher quality than our own tanks.
i've never really thought about it but tanks serve much more as a cover/supporting vehicle than tank fighters so it somewhat makes sense they'd want better seal clubbing abilities than a slightly better chance at fighting tigers
@emplikac0007 Example of unfunded and unrelated things blamed on a tank design, as most of the items on the list were. Poor welding, bad steel and so forth would happen to ANY tank design produced under the circumstances most (60%?) of T-34 were made when the factories were moved east of the Urals.
This is heavily biased information and i would dare say that no information that comes from a human can be unbiased... Case in point: his perception of the soviet army and their logistics
I just want to make clear that the T34 was not designed to be a poor quality tank easy to mass produce. The design was very solid but the quality issues were caused by the situation the soviets were in the early war. Things like poor steel quality and bad wielding were caused by the fact that the soviets were trying to get a sufficient number of tanks to hold the line against the germans. So the poor quality of the T34 was a bug, not a feature. Many of the issues of early T34s were solved in the T34/85 variant, produced when the soviets were not in a desperate position anymore allowing them to produce higher quality equipment. I say all this because, sadly, most of those who get into tanks or military history in general have the bad tendency of oversimplifying wars with popoular tereotypes (like "the soviet tactics involved rushing the enemy with superior numbers of low quality equipment") which often do not depict the full picture or are just false.
One of those photographed t34s had Lidice writen on it Lidice is the name of a Czech village which was massacred in retaliation for czech resistance to nazis.
One crucial point: each tank was the best for its respective army and period. The Soviets needed rapid production and could not manage highly technical manufacturing at the beginning of the war. Simplicity was key. The T-34, compared to the Panzer I or Panzer II, was a modern design with different requirements than earlier generations. While its production costs were not particularly low, the Soviets employed "spam tactics" to cut costs over time. The ability to set up factories near the front lines reduced repair and transport times. Additionally, sloped armor proved superior, and as their industry developed, they managed to produce it more effectively little by little improve the design itself. Higher quality might have led to longer production times and insufficient numbers and lack of specialist!, while lower quality risked making the tanks too vulnerable to enemy weapons. This was not a stopgap but all in. German tanks, on the other hand, were often unfinished designs. The Panzer III was essentially a quick fix or stopgap. The Tiger was more of a prototype than a mass-produced weapon, with an unrefined design born out of necessity. Facing overwhelming numbers of Soviet tanks and resource shortages, Germany prioritized heavy tanks like the Tiger and Panther. Manufacturing sloped armor was also a problem and this was mostly due to the industry, not due to the design. The German strategy of creating heavy tanks to dominate the battlefield may have been a mistake, but producing lower-quality tanks would have left them underpowered and wasted resources, including human lives. The Tiger II should be a finish design for the Germans(example due to slope armor), but it was simply too late and the fast fix consumed all resources and time before they finished the project. We can discuss if the requirements and the whole project was too complex and maybe something mediocre, but mass produced would be better than stopgap Tiger I, Panzer IV etc. But again... time... Also worth to note, that Panzer I and Panzer II on the end of war were mostly inferior to the others armor vehicle and simply German army wanted fill that gap as soon as possible resulting in creating many tanks with not always compatibility parts. Also the manufacture of tanks went low due to the lack of resources, manpower etc. Plus as you mentioned maintenance was costly and due to the situation not always possible. Also example lost of the track could cause of KIA of the tank due to lack of equipment to rescue or fix the tank and the frontline could change resulting in situation when the tank ended on the soviet side. The U.S. needed tanks as quickly as possible. However, their tanks, particularly Shermans, became outdated when compared to the latest German tanks and tank destroyers. The U.S. favored fast advances, even if risky, and didn't have time to develop better designs. While Shermans were adequate, they lacked the advancements required by the evolving battlefield. Additionally, the American crews and army lacked the experience of German veterans. Over-investing in quality might have resulted in insufficient tank numbers to protect soldiers, and since U.S. factories were located far from the battlefield, heavily damaged tanks were often abandoned. Conversely, lower-quality tanks would have been outclassed by German army, further lowering soldier morale, which was already a significant concern. Each nation made decisions based on their circumstances and available knowledge. While the U.S. could have allocated more resources to tanks, the overall western European offensive may have been a strategic mistake, arguably too late from a tactical perspective. Also German offensive on Soviet was little off... too late or too early or simply the war was decided much before 39 due to the power difference. Tanks never win the battle alone, each tank need a lot of different soldiers, to repair, protect, scout, supply, etc. Shermans were not balanced, it were around T-34. The Sherman enter the service in 1942 and T-34 in 1940 and Tiger II in 1944, also compared to the cost, you could have 2,5 of Sherman or 1 Tiger II. If we take Tiger I vs Sherman we have a cost 1:2 at the best for Sherman, but it is more close to 2:3. The issue is that, the Soviet also developed other tanks like IS-1. Example M4A1(76)W was 1944 and thus could be compared to IS-2 or even with IS-3. That is why USA was thinking to nuke all what they can as they were not sure if they could stop T-34 (85) and IS-2/IS-3. Ofc. if you compare The Sherman from 1945 to T-34 from 1940 you will see a gap in quality... Also keep in mind the task of the tanks, example to be able to penetrate the enemy tank. Somehow it could ended in situation when IS-3 and Tiger II are in different league compare to the Sherman. Answearing the question why Sherman is meh... it was not, it was good for US army, but... if we cut off the tank from country and compared it... the Sherman was less armored, less manoeuvre, had less firepower than counterpart of Soviet and German tanks.
What baffles me is what were they thinking making the Panthers transmission and making the engine sealed so tight that it became a Furness after a while.
don't care if everybody call the T-34 a shitbox, if you can drift like an RX-7 ( 6:26 ) and take half of europe in 4 years this is the best shitbox ever made.
Yea, because the T34 was the only thing on the battlefield and won the war by itself. Couldnt be something else. You can make a shit tank and still win a war. These things are not mutually exclusive.
The Soviets would have done even better if they didn’t have such ridiculous production quotas. It’s not that it’s a bad tank but it would have been a great tank if factories weren’t trying to pump out half baked tanks so they could reach production deadlines so they could get those sweet kickbacks.
I haven't watched the full video yet (4:19 in), but your take on the Sherman is based af. It wasn't just a tank, it was a recon vehicle, a tractor, an engineering vehicle, a troop transport, it could blow shit up if need be, etc. If you look at it only as a tank, meant for fighting other tanks, sure German vehicles beat it to shit, but the Sherman was reliable and was not in fact, only meant for fighting other tanks. I feel like many people don't recognize a tanks' true role in combat, where they rarely meets other tanks, and when they do, the battle between them only lasts 30 seconds at most. Edit: Finished the video, more based takes :3.
The UK only got mentioned only once! My poor chuchill was left un mentioned. Personally i recon the british where onto a winner with excelsior. But im sure they had there good reasons not to.
Great video my guy.😤👌 My favourite tank be the Kv1, King Tiger, The Churchills, Su-152 ISU-152 and the Ferdinand. I like my tanks to be heavy, slow, packing quite a punch for their time with a crap ton of logistical and mechanical problems.💪 But the M4A2, the M36, the T28E and the Dicker Max always have a special place in my heart.🥹
First time seeing your channel, very glad to see another high quality tank enthusiast channel emerging on youtube! I've already went and watched several more of your videos! Great stuff!
something else that you didn’t acknowledge at all about the t34 is how having so many tanks can cripple the morales of non AT infantry, as the quality of a tank doesn’t matter against infantry
IMO the question itself is flawed. Asking and answering the question of "what is the best tank of wwii?" is an attempt to paint a complex topic with a broad brush, simply because it is not specific enough. What we should ask instead is the same question but specifying the role, certain characteristic or time period. But going through this thinking process makes one's take on wwii tanks more nuanced and that person will less likely shout PAAAANTHHER or T-34!!! I would also say that the tanks in the video show the different philosophies regarding tank design in us, ussr and germany. T-34 was needed to quickly equip the large army ussr had to defend and later attack large front, but they also had a ton of different designes for various purposes. Germany tried to make the "absolute best" tank at all costs. On the other side of the pond, the us did not want and, frankly, did not need to make so many designes, so they made Sherman, a universal tank that could perform decently in many roles.
Everyone talks about how games like Warthunder spread historical misconceptions, well back in the day I played MenofwarAS2 (and still do) and you quickly learn why the Sherman is so good, and why wasting your money on a big ass German heavy tanks like the panther and tiger more often than not make you loose. You spend half the game saving up for a big ass tank only for it to loose its tracks to a tiny at gun firing HE from a bush and then a new AT gun across the map or worse a Bazooka/Panzershrek from inside a little trench or foxhole hits you in the side and the tank is dead. Your big ass tank is completely useless because you couldn’t get enough infantry to support it because you spent all your money on that big ass tank. The Sherman is great because it’s good enough to stop most light AT guns from the front and take them out with HE, but it’s also not expensive enough that you can’t afford a whole squad defending it from other infantry that will at the slightest chance nuke it with AT grenades. And if you’re playing Germany everyone eventually gave up on those big German tanks and realized Panzer IV’s could do that job just fine.
4:55 really? T-34? At least put something like T-60, this is just cringe. Honestly the whole introductory section feels like "I've already depicted you as crying tankie/werhaboo soyjak and myself as gigachad democracy™ enjoyer, therefore I win" meme.
Nah, I think we should bring back the Renault FT-17. The pros are… uh… it has a tail. It wouldn’t give you an advantage, but it would be cool. Uuuuh… it’s small. The cons are literally everything would probably outperform it. There’s my argument why we should bring it back. I just think it’s neat.
All of the tanks were made to fit the needs of the country that used them T-34s had corners cut and it's upgrades had to not compromise production numbers cause Soviets needed a lot of tanks fast and from their experience tanks didn't last long in combat(they didn't), the one t-34 model that had it's issues ironed out, t-44 wasn't put into mass production because by the time they could switch effectively war would be over, and after war they already had ideas how to improve on it Germans later in war didn't have enough fuel to field masses of panzer ivs (still doesn't make panther with it's 100km transmission a good tank) Americans had both time to constantly improve on their design and fuel for massive tank armies, leading to better design by virtue of better development conditions
The problem with discussing the "best" tank is that on which metric do we measure to determine the quality. I would argue the best world war 2 tank should be so future proof and ahead of its time, therefore the best tank is bob semple tank.
I would say the M4 leans more towards ease of production than quality. Its high sillhouette is a direct result of not wanting to slow production when a proper engine was available. Even when they could reduce its height, they didn’t to keep the exact same hull in production. Yes it is superior to contemporaries in crew survivability and its build quality was superior to the T-34 but it was still ultimately optimised for mass production more than ideal battlefield characteristics (which is what a wartime tank should do). Also, the Panther was never supposed to be an ultra expensive, perfect wonder tank. It was designed with simplification in mind, which resulted in it being only a fraction of the cost of a Tiger 1. This was a tank which made compromises for the sake of ease of production, probably moreso than any other German tank of the war.
Your spectrum has two dimensions, but let me propose a third: soft characteristics (ergonomics, optics, communication systems, maintanance) vs hard characteristics (firepower, mobility, protection).
In all honesty I love the Sherman, it just people will claim it is a "Bad" tank and say the gun is bad or armor weak and that is the only answer, and they go over and glaze over on the T-34, Like you said the tiger was a very good tank during the time but German couldn't field it right like German teammates in War Thunder. But in all this was an amazing video nice work on it.
12:00 i view belton cooper as a moron chasing clout. There is one and only one fault in M4 Shermans. Lack of high pen AP ammo for 76mm gun. That is not a faut of a tank , but fault of Ordnance Department. They reallly droped a ball on that one . Because if you look at the numbers , M4 had effective frontal armor almost equalt to Tiger 1 51 mm (2 inches) at a slope of 56 degrees equals to 90-100m of effective armor for M4 and 100 mm (3.9 inches), vertical for Tiger 1. Since Tiger 1 armor is not sloped at all , it had same effective armor as M4. What Made Tiger 1 such a beast was its gun. 88m L56 gun. Because it could reach up to 1500m ,realiably , to kill sherman , and sherman needed to be 500-800 meters to pen Tiger with his 76mm AP rounds. The HVAP rounds ( M93 rounds ) where intreduced too late ( 1944 ) for had impact on European western front. And even when they where , they where usually distributed amongst Tank destroyers ( M10 , M18 and M36 ). Mind you , M93 round could pen a Tiger II ( Konigs tiger , not it is not translated as king tiger , but as a bengal tiger from german ) at range of 1000m . So , yeah , M4 only shortcomming was Ordenance department being slow with HVAP rounds for 76mm gun.
wow first few seconds and i immediately feel attacked. i got 0:10 so bad i have 900 hours in simpleplanes in which i'm obsessed with creating realistic and perfectionistic working suspensions! XD
Just a suggestion for future videos. Instead of making time for specific segments in the description, you can use "segments" to make it easier for viewers to watch your videos. The way is just to download and open the UA-cam studio, in the left menu click "content", click description and add list of timestamps and titles, and done.
Hella nice video, loved your explanations (and War Thunder references) Amazing production quality, very underrated channel. Liked and subbed, you will blow up soon enough!
The t34 is good on paper, but its visibility is garbage and the russians lacked good lens and radio tech and production. So you basically got a brick with no way to coordinate and high reliability issues. Atleast it got a decent gun right? O wait, you have so many tanks, but none of the crew knows what they are doing. So, you got a brick that doesnt move, doesnt shoot, and doesnt know the fuck they are doing. The main reason the t34 was so successful was because the psychological damage it caused far overshadowed its real world usability.
Have a jolly Christmas, chap, and keep improving the quality of your videos. Always better to see entertaining videos made with heart than cheap flood of them.
In general, no German tank represents quality. Contrary to popular belief, American tanks had quality in every detail - but the concept of use failed, hence the Sherman's initially low firepower (poor concept, good production). The Germans had no concept, nor good production, but they knew how to improvise well. Soviet tanks were the best concept, i.e. a tank with maximum armor and firepower with minimal weight - this is a good example of technology but very poor production. If you compare Soviet, American and German vehicles (there are other nations), then at a time when production conditions were not very difficult, you can see that the best tank was... hard to determine. T34 - best design Sherman - great equipment, especially stabilization PzKpfw IV - a tank treated as a transitional tank that was only a basic tank out of necessity.
@@realah3001 Exactly, German machines had so many flaws that it is hard to debunk. From the concept itself, through production (e.g., uneven rotation of the turret) to mechanical issues (drive system) and engineering such as the dangerously retracting gun lock. So hypothetically, if there could be the best tank, the best hybrid tank would be the T34 with German armament but with equipment and production quality of US tanks
Wouldn’t say the T34 is the best design. It still had the issues of poor ergonomics, small hatches, no visibility, a longer reload time, poor protection for ammo, weaker armor frontally than a Sherman, and a really bad suspension for having a smooth ride because of the Christie suspension to name a few. The best designed tank of the war on paper, in my opinion, would be the Pershing or comet
@apersondoingthings5689 Note that I am not praising the t34 for its ergonomics, but I am criticizing its production quality. However, the t34 has a good concept. But as you write, ergonomics - another important aspect in which both German and Soviet tanks were weak for various reasons (Russian too poor, German lack of experience with larger tanks)
I think that more important than the Sherman being some super tank (which it wasn't) was the fact that the USA actually had pretty much cheat codes in terms of industrial power and being able to field a pretty good tank in large enough numbers. Soviets were able to field shit tanks in large numbers and better tanks in smaller numbers. Germans were able to sometimes field tanks.
I dont think that the sheerman still has a bad reputation anymore and that for a long time. Most tank debates I see these days are either between a shermann symphatiser or a german tank symphatiser. I rarely see people saying the T-34 was the best tank off ww2
Mostly just articles online proclaiming the T-34 as the best tank. As a Soviet tank enthusiast, I do NOT think the T-34 was as good as we say it is. The title for best Soviet tank should go to the IS-2, not the T-34.
Because the whole debacle is stupid. All WW2 tanks sucked in some way, but were good in the other. There's no point in arguing which one was the best, because all you'll be doing it downplaying why your favourite machine sucks and overemphasizing qualities it was used for.
@@comradederp1576I don’t like the IS-2 because it had many of the same if not worse problems than the T-34 yet the Soviets really had no excuse for its problems at that point in the war. Again on paper the IS-2 should be a good tank but due to very tight production deadlines corners where cut.
I remember in the early days of War Thunder when they added tanks how many myths were so common. It felt like 90% of people I'd talk to had thought the Germans tanks were the best thing in the world. Completely invincible and flawless while even saying that Sherman is good would fill the comment section with people making "Sherman Ronson haha" jokes or insulting the creator. xd
what about both ways of obtaining knowledge and reading books as well as LOOKING AT WHAT THE F***ING TANKS ARMOUR LAYLOUT IS AND IF IT BREAKS DOWN ALL THE TIME
5:45 wait the T-34 caused 9/11? So wait did they afix these things to 757's and 767's like those old T-60? (I think) Gliders or what? 5:56 wait it can impose Tariffs too. Busy bastard this tank.
But in the end you are a Sherman enthusiast. They were tanks as weak as good, good secondary equipment and weak basic equipment - but good quality of production much better than Pzkpfw IV because it is the equivalent of Sherman (but as I mentioned once, nobody wanted the Panzer 4 to be the main tank)
Well t 34 was a tank that was produced in a hurry it was later improved and the early model of t 34 had a thickness of 15-45mm which is good in early stages Of war . Then there t34/85 give 85mm. Of gun. Then there were a lot more tanks Soviet had and on top all had there own role t34 and Sherman are medium tanks while tiger 1 is a heavy tank while panther is said to be a medium tank it is 48 ton t34 is 26-30ton there is no chance of. T34 if you put in front of those tank no chance. Sherman was produced in USA far from nazi there factories were safe and there were many factors why Sherman was better and t34. T34 had better protection than Sherman because it was angled and had a bigger track that helped in the mud. T34 was there in front so the front did't collapsed while Sherman had so many loose while most of German soldiers were with Soviet the Sherman was good but saying t34 was cheap and bad is foolish it was there when need the Sherman came at end even if Sherman never came to Europe the Soviet had taken a huge victory in eastern front the nazi were going back as nepolian
What are you talking about? Standard gasoline freezes at -40 and diesel at -5. "At temperatures of -7 degrees Celsius and above, so-called paraffin crystals form in diesel, which can clog the fuel system and filter. Winter diesel contains special additives to ensure frost protection down to -20 degrees Celsius." There are storys from tankers talking about lighting a fire underneathe the tank to get it startet. Some reasons for why they probably took Diesel: 1. It is easyer to manufakture. Diesel is basicly just less refined gas. I personally think its because the Soviet Union was not very technologically advanced. Most people were simply peasants, without much experience in advanced industries. 2. You get more Diesel from the same amount of oil and it has more energy potential, meaning you can drive longer. 3. Diesel does not start to burn so quickly (That doesnt mean it cant catch fire). T34s for example have the fuel compartment inside with the crew, so it helps to "protect" the crew if hit, or at least more than gas. (I dont know how much this actually helped, because there were still a lot of T34 that burned out). I just googled, the max temperature ever messured in russia is -67. Why would you ever need more than -40. The regions where those temperatures occur will never see battle. Everything under -20 is basically impossible to fight in. This is also the reason why both the Nazis and the Soviets stoped majore offensives in the winter. Even today in Ukrain that is still the case.
@@user5343 "Everything under -20 is basically impossible to fight in. " Only for troops that have inadequate knowledge. Living at 61°N, I assure you that here -20 is regarded as a fully normal temperature. As proof of it being possible, I'd say it is hard to dispute that most of the Winter War was fought in temperatures well below -20.
@@johanmetreus1268 Living and fighting are two different things. There is a difference between "I just go home and heat the oven if I get cold" and "I have to stay in this ww2 trench for the next 4 weeks while our only resupply got stuck in the snow 200km from us. " The soviets suffert heavily and "lost" in the winter war because of the winter. Its the same thing. The Finns have the home bonus while the soviets are invading.
@@johanmetreus1268very big difference in combat. The coldest battle in history was the battle of the chosin reservoir and men froze to death. The battle of the chosin reservoir was arguably the hardest fought battles in history because of how cold it was. You can’t go inside and warm up. You stay relatively still for extended periods of time in a battle where the wind chill can feel like -100F.
Im a simple guy, but i just like the Tiger 1. Its got a distinct profile you'd never never mix it up with any other tank, I liked using it and capturing it when I could in Men of War: Assault Squad 2
my boyfriend spends alot of time digging through soviet documents and the original T-34s would have been equipped with a gun stabilizer like the M4 sherman how ever the stabilizers they had would have gone up to support the 85mm and would have been useable to speeds up to around 40kph
18:26 I'm interested when you said the panther has a fume extractor, are you referring to a barrel device or the ventilation system? I'm not trying to be critical I'm just a little confused ._.
Neither. Its something implemented into the Panthers Gun Breach. The Use of Compressed air allowed to toxic fumes from the breach to be pushed into another part of the vehicle
Truly one of the tank videos of all time
Holy crap it's the guy who did the StuG video
Holy crap it’s daddy eta
More sprocket videos pls
ETA I ADORE YOU
Omg it's the guy who did the Sherman video🫵🫵🫵
For people to imagine the "poor" ergonomics of the t34, it didn't even have a basket for the crew to sit in the turret. The crew didn't turn with it
Well it was hand cranked too right, it's not exactly turning very fast
@@Alphacuremom55 i mean, also most tanks had hand cranked turrets
You are lazerpig if lazerpig was not a lunatic
I think you mean drunk
is he just a lunatic? i thought it's more than that
A lunatic and unbearably annoying
@@Vulkan06110*drunk lunatic
lazerpig but not extremely obnoxious
One of my favourite Sherman facts is that alot of crews opted to keep the 75mm M3 rather than upgrade to the 76mm M1 because it had better soft-target performance, which were far more common than hard targets.
Favourite Tiger fact is that they made minor edits to the design of the tank so often that theres a change every fourth vehicle on average, compared to the Sherman which the designers lumped all the minor edits into blocks and implemented them every like 200 vehicles, so they didnt have this issue.
Favourite T-34 fact is that not only was it a shitbox, it was a **precision-engineered** shitbox, which they cut as many corners as they possibly could without crippling the vehicles mission capability.
Second-favourite T-34 fact is that despite its reputation as being a shitbox, apparently the original prototypes and first-production machines from '38 and early '39 were actually nicely-built vehicles.
My favorite T-34 fact is that while the T-34M never made it into production because of Barbarossa, some aspects of it did live on to an extent in the T-50, giving us a glimpse of what the T-34 could have been if the soviets had a little more time.
The post-war T-34-85s were decent too, the CIA analyzed a captured one from the KPA and realized they actually had well made engines and the armor steel was of a higher quality than our own tanks.
The post war T-34's were also good
i've never really thought about it but tanks serve much more as a cover/supporting vehicle than tank fighters so it somewhat makes sense they'd want better seal clubbing abilities than a slightly better chance at fighting tigers
@@donovanchau3483not accusing you or anything, but do you have a source uf possible?
I can't believe T-34 caused 9/11 😢
Spoiler 5 9/11 references + ( t-34 caused 9/11 )
@@SamCyrus-ug5zq crazy it were the soviets from the beginning on
What does t34 causing 9/11 even mean?
t-ThIrTy fOuR TrAvEl In SoViEt URA spEEd cAn'T bEnD StEEL
@emplikac0007they are evil
@emplikac0007 Example of unfunded and unrelated things blamed on a tank design, as most of the items on the list were.
Poor welding, bad steel and so forth would happen to ANY tank design produced under the circumstances most (60%?) of T-34 were made when the factories were moved east of the Urals.
wait wait wait
"but this one looks nice"
unbeatable
In combined arms warfare, there is no perfect equipment that kills everything, the real winner is the teamwork that comes from a unified force.
I was not aware that the T-34 caused 9/11. Very interesting!
APHEBC can’t pen steel beams!
@jackeyboy6538 yeah but a t34 going 2/3 the speed of sound can
Came for the Yukari Akiyama pfp, stayed for the non biased knowledge
This is heavily biased information and i would dare say that no information that comes from a human can be unbiased... Case in point: his perception of the soviet army and their logistics
The middle tank is clearly The Legendary Bob Semple
Undefeated In battle
I just want to make clear that the T34 was not designed to be a poor quality tank easy to mass produce. The design was very solid but the quality issues were caused by the situation the soviets were in the early war. Things like poor steel quality and bad wielding were caused by the fact that the soviets were trying to get a sufficient number of tanks to hold the line against the germans. So the poor quality of the T34 was a bug, not a feature. Many of the issues of early T34s were solved in the T34/85 variant, produced when the soviets were not in a desperate position anymore allowing them to produce higher quality equipment. I say all this because, sadly, most of those who get into tanks or military history in general have the bad tendency of oversimplifying wars with popoular tereotypes (like "the soviet tactics involved rushing the enemy with superior numbers of low quality equipment") which often do not depict the full picture or are just false.
Thank you
I would argue the best tank in any country was a Sherman variant.
Until the Centurion rolled along.
@@ZETH_27and then until MBTs came along
@@scyobiempire4450 The Centurion *is* the first MBT.
The middle tank is definitely the L3 33cc
Cringe
l3 would be way on the quality side
Cringe
That’s transition was crazy 13:27
One of those photographed t34s had Lidice writen on it Lidice is the name of a Czech village which was massacred in retaliation for czech resistance to nazis.
One crucial point: each tank was the best for its respective army and period.
The Soviets needed rapid production and could not manage highly technical manufacturing at the beginning of the war. Simplicity was key. The T-34, compared to the Panzer I or Panzer II, was a modern design with different requirements than earlier generations. While its production costs were not particularly low, the Soviets employed "spam tactics" to cut costs over time. The ability to set up factories near the front lines reduced repair and transport times. Additionally, sloped armor proved superior, and as their industry developed, they managed to produce it more effectively little by little improve the design itself. Higher quality might have led to longer production times and insufficient numbers and lack of specialist!, while lower quality risked making the tanks too vulnerable to enemy weapons. This was not a stopgap but all in.
German tanks, on the other hand, were often unfinished designs. The Panzer III was essentially a quick fix or stopgap. The Tiger was more of a prototype than a mass-produced weapon, with an unrefined design born out of necessity. Facing overwhelming numbers of Soviet tanks and resource shortages, Germany prioritized heavy tanks like the Tiger and Panther. Manufacturing sloped armor was also a problem and this was mostly due to the industry, not due to the design. The German strategy of creating heavy tanks to dominate the battlefield may have been a mistake, but producing lower-quality tanks would have left them underpowered and wasted resources, including human lives.
The Tiger II should be a finish design for the Germans(example due to slope armor), but it was simply too late and the fast fix consumed all resources and time before they finished the project. We can discuss if the requirements and the whole project was too complex and maybe something mediocre, but mass produced would be better than stopgap Tiger I, Panzer IV etc. But again... time...
Also worth to note, that Panzer I and Panzer II on the end of war were mostly inferior to the others armor vehicle and simply German army wanted fill that gap as soon as possible resulting in creating many tanks with not always compatibility parts.
Also the manufacture of tanks went low due to the lack of resources, manpower etc. Plus as you mentioned maintenance was costly and due to the situation not always possible. Also example lost of the track could cause of KIA of the tank due to lack of equipment to rescue or fix the tank and the frontline could change resulting in situation when the tank ended on the soviet side.
The U.S. needed tanks as quickly as possible. However, their tanks, particularly Shermans, became outdated when compared to the latest German tanks and tank destroyers. The U.S. favored fast advances, even if risky, and didn't have time to develop better designs. While Shermans were adequate, they lacked the advancements required by the evolving battlefield. Additionally, the American crews and army lacked the experience of German veterans. Over-investing in quality might have resulted in insufficient tank numbers to protect soldiers, and since U.S. factories were located far from the battlefield, heavily damaged tanks were often abandoned. Conversely, lower-quality tanks would have been outclassed by German army, further lowering soldier morale, which was already a significant concern.
Each nation made decisions based on their circumstances and available knowledge. While the U.S. could have allocated more resources to tanks, the overall western European offensive may have been a strategic mistake, arguably too late from a tactical perspective. Also German offensive on Soviet was little off... too late or too early or simply the war was decided much before 39 due to the power difference. Tanks never win the battle alone, each tank need a lot of different soldiers, to repair, protect, scout, supply, etc.
Shermans were not balanced, it were around T-34. The Sherman enter the service in 1942 and T-34 in 1940 and Tiger II in 1944, also compared to the cost, you could have 2,5 of Sherman or 1 Tiger II. If we take Tiger I vs Sherman we have a cost 1:2 at the best for Sherman, but it is more close to 2:3. The issue is that, the Soviet also developed other tanks like IS-1. Example M4A1(76)W was 1944 and thus could be compared to IS-2 or even with IS-3. That is why USA was thinking to nuke all what they can as they were not sure if they could stop T-34 (85) and IS-2/IS-3. Ofc. if you compare The Sherman from 1945 to T-34 from 1940 you will see a gap in quality... Also keep in mind the task of the tanks, example to be able to penetrate the enemy tank. Somehow it could ended in situation when IS-3 and Tiger II are in different league compare to the Sherman.
Answearing the question why Sherman is meh... it was not, it was good for US army, but... if we cut off the tank from country and compared it... the Sherman was less armored, less manoeuvre, had less firepower than counterpart of Soviet and German tanks.
SCREW the tiger and the t34, THE COMET AND CENTURION WERE THE BEST TANKS OF WWII! TEABOO FOR THE WIN!
Hate to break it to u, the cent was after the war. Firefly maybe?
NAH, THE (Insert kinda obscure tank that is barely talk about here) WAS THE BEST TANK OF WWII FOR SURE!!!😤👌
@the_Jimmyest_of_Jim so facts
Heresy! Clearly the crusader and the Churchill crocodile were the best tanks.
The only thing i will thank cooper is for the creation of the Super Pershing and repairing stuff up
Bro look at that ABSOLUTE CHAD Vlad drifting that mf T-34 @ 6:26
What baffles me is what were they thinking making the Panthers transmission and making the engine sealed so tight that it became a Furness after a while.
There is a Sherman like water it moulds into any cast
Willy Pete shells negate armor and have sent many big cats to the shadow realm
don't care if everybody call the T-34 a shitbox, if you can drift like an RX-7 ( 6:26 ) and take half of europe in 4 years this is the best shitbox ever made.
Yea, because the T34 was the only thing on the battlefield and won the war by itself. Couldnt be something else.
You can make a shit tank and still win a war. These things are not mutually exclusive.
@user5343 oh sorry Mr. Idon'thunderstandjokes Junior.
The Soviets would have done even better if they didn’t have such ridiculous production quotas. It’s not that it’s a bad tank but it would have been a great tank if factories weren’t trying to pump out half baked tanks so they could reach production deadlines so they could get those sweet kickbacks.
Kansei Drifto? 🗣️
War thunder's Panther II was based off of walter J spielberger's mistake in his book "Panther and its variants". Hence why it was removed
also would like to mention german did try to mount the 8,8cm L/71 in the schmalturm
The non existent tank that blew my existent tank into non existence 💀
17:49
If I recall correctly they put a spike on the bottom of that M3 Lee to prevent it from beating the Panther.
@@m808bscorpionmbt3 sounds like something they’d do.
@@chrisbacon3071it’s genuinely weird to me how people are so surprised that the Nazis lied. A lot.
Conclusion: Embrace the almighty L3 tank design
I haven't watched the full video yet (4:19 in), but your take on the Sherman is based af. It wasn't just a tank, it was a recon vehicle, a tractor, an engineering vehicle, a troop transport, it could blow shit up if need be, etc. If you look at it only as a tank, meant for fighting other tanks, sure German vehicles beat it to shit, but the Sherman was reliable and was not in fact, only meant for fighting other tanks. I feel like many people don't recognize a tanks' true role in combat, where they rarely meets other tanks, and when they do, the battle between them only lasts 30 seconds at most.
Edit: Finished the video, more based takes :3.
Acually as he pointed out, the Sherman has a very high KD against German tanks, 3.6 vs panthers for example
centrist ftw, both quality and quantity in one beautiful basket
How does this only have 3000 views? This channel reminds me of laserpig
The UK only got mentioned only once! My poor chuchill was left un mentioned.
Personally i recon the british where onto a winner with excelsior. But im sure they had there good reasons not to.
Sorry, mate, but putting tracks on a bunker doesn't make it a tank per se, even if it climbs better than most.
Great video my guy.😤👌
My favourite tank be the Kv1, King Tiger, The Churchills, Su-152 ISU-152 and the Ferdinand. I like my tanks to be heavy, slow, packing quite a punch for their time with a crap ton of logistical and mechanical problems.💪
But the M4A2, the M36, the T28E and the Dicker Max always have a special place in my heart.🥹
Sveroboys ftw
First time seeing your channel, very glad to see another high quality tank enthusiast channel emerging on youtube! I've already went and watched several more of your videos! Great stuff!
I wouldn't call my videos high quality
The music in this video is top tier and really fits!! Especially the halo music with the Sherman.
God I love the Sherman.
The Warthunder and GuP music coming out of nowhere gets me.
something else that you didn’t acknowledge at all about the t34 is how having so many tanks can cripple the morales of non AT infantry, as the quality of a tank doesn’t matter against infantry
sherman 76.2 mm gun was wild💀💀💀
IMO the question itself is flawed. Asking and answering the question of "what is the best tank of wwii?" is an attempt to paint a complex topic with a broad brush, simply because it is not specific enough. What we should ask instead is the same question but specifying the role, certain characteristic or time period. But going through this thinking process makes one's take on wwii tanks more nuanced and that person will less likely shout PAAAANTHHER or T-34!!!
I would also say that the tanks in the video show the different philosophies regarding tank design in us, ussr and germany. T-34 was needed to quickly equip the large army ussr had to defend and later attack large front, but they also had a ton of different designes for various purposes. Germany tried to make the "absolute best" tank at all costs. On the other side of the pond, the us did not want and, frankly, did not need to make so many designes, so they made Sherman, a universal tank that could perform decently in many roles.
Everyone talks about how games like Warthunder spread historical misconceptions, well back in the day I played MenofwarAS2 (and still do) and you quickly learn why the Sherman is so good, and why wasting your money on a big ass German heavy tanks like the panther and tiger more often than not make you loose. You spend half the game saving up for a big ass tank only for it to loose its tracks to a tiny at gun firing HE from a bush and then a new AT gun across the map or worse a Bazooka/Panzershrek from inside a little trench or foxhole hits you in the side and the tank is dead. Your big ass tank is completely useless because you couldn’t get enough infantry to support it because you spent all your money on that big ass tank.
The Sherman is great because it’s good enough to stop most light AT guns from the front and take them out with HE, but it’s also not expensive enough that you can’t afford a whole squad defending it from other infantry that will at the slightest chance nuke it with AT grenades. And if you’re playing Germany everyone eventually gave up on those big German tanks and realized Panzer IV’s could do that job just fine.
0:10 ammidietly liked and subscribed
erm actually its ‘immediately’
14:27 Lazer pig reference. I like it keep doing it 😂
Potential History's vibes this is an instant sub
Tiger and quality?
ye it had good gun, good armor and terrible reliability
It also had pretty bad combat statistics for 10 for about 12 Sherman’s which is pretty awful considering the cost
Hello. Soviet music enthusiast here. In case anybody is wondering, the song that starts at 5:11 is called “Cossack Patrol”. Thank you for your time.
Thanks for making a 20 minute video essay about why I'm so cool
4:55 really? T-34? At least put something like T-60, this is just cringe.
Honestly the whole introductory section feels like "I've already depicted you as crying tankie/werhaboo soyjak and myself as gigachad democracy™ enjoyer, therefore I win" meme.
the best tank of WW2 is obviously the Bob's semple tank
Nah, I think we should bring back the Renault FT-17. The pros are… uh… it has a tail. It wouldn’t give you an advantage, but it would be cool. Uuuuh… it’s small. The cons are literally everything would probably outperform it. There’s my argument why we should bring it back. I just think it’s neat.
Nah Char 2c… because it’s big… and bigger is better duh.
All of the tanks were made to fit the needs of the country that used them
T-34s had corners cut and it's upgrades had to not compromise production numbers cause Soviets needed a lot of tanks fast and from their experience tanks didn't last long in combat(they didn't), the one t-34 model that had it's issues ironed out, t-44 wasn't put into mass production because by the time they could switch effectively war would be over, and after war they already had ideas how to improve on it
Germans later in war didn't have enough fuel to field masses of panzer ivs (still doesn't make panther with it's 100km transmission a good tank)
Americans had both time to constantly improve on their design and fuel for massive tank armies, leading to better design by virtue of better development conditions
The problem with discussing the "best" tank is that on which metric do we measure to determine the quality. I would argue the best world war 2 tank should be so future proof and ahead of its time, therefore the best tank is bob semple tank.
I would say the M4 leans more towards ease of production than quality. Its high sillhouette is a direct result of not wanting to slow production when a proper engine was available. Even when they could reduce its height, they didn’t to keep the exact same hull in production.
Yes it is superior to contemporaries in crew survivability and its build quality was superior to the T-34 but it was still ultimately optimised for mass production more than ideal battlefield characteristics (which is what a wartime tank should do).
Also, the Panther was never supposed to be an ultra expensive, perfect wonder tank. It was designed with simplification in mind, which resulted in it being only a fraction of the cost of a Tiger 1. This was a tank which made compromises for the sake of ease of production, probably moreso than any other German tank of the war.
14:39 the new WT soundtrack goes hard ngl
The renault r35 was the goooooaaaat
Your spectrum has two dimensions, but let me propose a third: soft characteristics (ergonomics, optics, communication systems, maintanance) vs hard characteristics (firepower, mobility, protection).
My tank enthusiasm came from playing Seek and Destroy on the ps2 whee when I was 4 years old
13:22 was not expecting THIS from a person talking about the M4 sherman
1:54 GUP Katyusha playing in da background
Someone get this man on the Rounder Table!
In all honesty I love the Sherman, it just people will claim it is a "Bad" tank and say the gun is bad or armor weak and that is the only answer, and they go over and glaze over on the T-34, Like you said the tiger was a very good tank during the time but German couldn't field it right like German teammates in War Thunder.
But in all this was an amazing video nice work on it.
14:21 Enough lazerpig for you, buddy
You’re like a cuter lazerpig on a budget. New youtuber to binge watch acquired.
YWNBAW
Its a great video, thank you, i learned more about shermans today , you deserve way more likes and views!
12:00 i view belton cooper as a moron chasing clout.
There is one and only one fault in M4 Shermans. Lack of high pen AP ammo for 76mm gun.
That is not a faut of a tank , but fault of Ordnance Department.
They reallly droped a ball on that one .
Because if you look at the numbers , M4 had effective frontal armor almost equalt to Tiger 1
51 mm (2 inches) at a slope of 56 degrees equals to 90-100m of effective armor for M4 and 100 mm (3.9 inches), vertical for Tiger 1. Since Tiger 1 armor is not sloped at all , it had same effective armor as M4. What Made Tiger 1 such a beast was its gun. 88m L56 gun. Because it could reach up to 1500m ,realiably , to kill sherman , and sherman needed to be 500-800 meters to pen Tiger with his 76mm AP rounds. The HVAP rounds ( M93 rounds ) where intreduced too late ( 1944 ) for had impact on European western front. And even when they where , they where usually distributed amongst Tank destroyers ( M10 , M18 and M36 ). Mind you , M93 round could pen a Tiger II ( Konigs tiger , not it is not translated as king tiger , but as a bengal tiger from german ) at range of 1000m . So , yeah , M4 only shortcomming was Ordenance department being slow with HVAP rounds for 76mm gun.
wow first few seconds and i immediately feel attacked. i got 0:10 so bad i have 900 hours in simpleplanes in which i'm obsessed with creating realistic and perfectionistic working suspensions! XD
Me over here petting my little LT Vz.38 favourite tank because it's smol, looks good, and was a nice tank in the early war.
Just a suggestion for future videos. Instead of making time for specific segments in the description, you can use "segments" to make it easier for viewers to watch your videos. The way is just to download and open the UA-cam studio, in the left menu click "content", click description and add list of timestamps and titles, and done.
20:01 comedic genius
Hella nice video, loved your explanations (and War Thunder references)
Amazing production quality, very underrated channel. Liked and subbed, you will blow up soon enough!
The t34 is good on paper, but its visibility is garbage and the russians lacked good lens and radio tech and production. So you basically got a brick with no way to coordinate and high reliability issues. Atleast it got a decent gun right?
O wait, you have so many tanks, but none of the crew knows what they are doing. So, you got a brick that doesnt move, doesnt shoot, and doesnt know the fuck they are doing. The main reason the t34 was so successful was because the psychological damage it caused far overshadowed its real world usability.
Have a jolly Christmas, chap, and keep improving the quality of your videos. Always better to see entertaining videos made with heart than cheap flood of them.
In general, no German tank represents quality. Contrary to popular belief, American tanks had quality in every detail - but the concept of use failed, hence the Sherman's initially low firepower (poor concept, good production).
The Germans had no concept, nor good production, but they knew how to improvise well.
Soviet tanks were the best concept, i.e. a tank with maximum armor and firepower with minimal weight - this is a good example of technology but very poor production.
If you compare Soviet, American and German vehicles (there are other nations), then at a time when production conditions were not very difficult, you can see that the best tank was... hard to determine.
T34 - best design
Sherman - great equipment, especially stabilization
PzKpfw IV - a tank treated as a transitional tank that was only a basic tank out of necessity.
In other words the tiger sucks ass
@@realah3001 Exactly, German machines had so many flaws that it is hard to debunk. From the concept itself, through production (e.g., uneven rotation of the turret) to mechanical issues (drive system) and engineering such as the dangerously retracting gun lock.
So hypothetically, if there could be the best tank, the best hybrid tank would be the T34 with German armament but with equipment and production quality of US tanks
Wouldn’t say the T34 is the best design. It still had the issues of poor ergonomics, small hatches, no visibility, a longer reload time, poor protection for ammo, weaker armor frontally than a Sherman, and a really bad suspension for having a smooth ride because of the Christie suspension to name a few. The best designed tank of the war on paper, in my opinion, would be the Pershing or comet
@apersondoingthings5689 Note that I am not praising the t34 for its ergonomics, but I am criticizing its production quality. However, the t34 has a good concept.
But as you write, ergonomics - another important aspect in which both German and Soviet tanks were weak for various reasons (Russian too poor, German lack of experience with larger tanks)
I think that more important than the Sherman being some super tank (which it wasn't) was the fact that the USA actually had pretty much cheat codes in terms of industrial power and being able to field a pretty good tank in large enough numbers. Soviets were able to field shit tanks in large numbers and better tanks in smaller numbers. Germans were able to sometimes field tanks.
You forgot one more group, the gamer
Damn i watched your videos and i gotta say, you deserve much more views and subs this content is Eta320 and Potential History level.
I dont think that the sheerman still has a bad reputation anymore and that for a long time. Most tank debates I see these days are either between a shermann symphatiser or a german tank symphatiser. I rarely see people saying the T-34 was the best tank off ww2
Mostly just articles online proclaiming the T-34 as the best tank. As a Soviet tank enthusiast, I do NOT think the T-34 was as good as we say it is. The title for best Soviet tank should go to the IS-2, not the T-34.
@@comradederp1576 but the T-34 did indeed with the war for the Soviets
Because the whole debacle is stupid. All WW2 tanks sucked in some way, but were good in the other. There's no point in arguing which one was the best, because all you'll be doing it downplaying why your favourite machine sucks and overemphasizing qualities it was used for.
@@comradederp1576I don’t like the IS-2 because it had many of the same if not worse problems than the T-34 yet the Soviets really had no excuse for its problems at that point in the war. Again on paper the IS-2 should be a good tank but due to very tight production deadlines corners where cut.
@@comradederp1576true! The power to break fortifications and smash King Tigers on the weight of a fucken Panther..
I remember in the early days of War Thunder when they added tanks how many myths were so common. It felt like 90% of people I'd talk to had thought the Germans tanks were the best thing in the world. Completely invincible and flawless while even saying that Sherman is good would fill the comment section with people making "Sherman Ronson haha" jokes or insulting the creator. xd
Okay, this deserve more than 5.4k views!
bro woke me up even more
what about both ways of obtaining knowledge and reading books as well as LOOKING AT WHAT THE F***ING TANKS ARMOUR LAYLOUT IS AND IF IT BREAKS DOWN ALL THE TIME
5:45 wait the T-34 caused 9/11? So wait did they afix these things to 757's and 767's like those old T-60? (I think) Gliders or what? 5:56 wait it can impose Tariffs too. Busy bastard this tank.
Why do you think germans refered to their stolen T-34s as "Pz.Kpfw. T-34-747 (r)" xd
But in the end you are a Sherman enthusiast. They were tanks as weak as good, good secondary equipment and weak basic equipment - but good quality of production much better than Pzkpfw IV because it is the equivalent of Sherman (but as I mentioned once, nobody wanted the Panzer 4 to be the main tank)
Bro just explained UA-cam in a video essay on youtube
i mean... quality means it's not gonna break down easily so yeah the sherman is quality
bruh the video is 20s old and already a 9/11 meme, i can't
Well t 34 was a tank that was produced in a hurry it was later improved and the early model of t 34 had a thickness of 15-45mm which is good in early stages
Of war . Then there t34/85 give 85mm. Of gun. Then there were a lot more tanks Soviet had and on top all had there own role t34 and Sherman are medium tanks while tiger 1 is a heavy tank while panther is said to be a medium tank it is 48 ton t34 is 26-30ton there is no chance of. T34 if you put in front of those tank no chance. Sherman was produced in USA far from nazi there factories were safe and there were many factors why Sherman was better and t34. T34 had better protection than Sherman because it was angled and had a bigger track that helped in the mud. T34 was there in front so the front did't collapsed while Sherman had so many loose while most of German soldiers were with Soviet the Sherman was good but saying t34 was cheap and bad is foolish it was there when need the Sherman came at end even if Sherman never came to Europe the Soviet had taken a huge victory in eastern front the nazi were going back as nepolian
The only reason the T-34 uses Diesel is because Gas freezes in -40° temperatures so Diesel can survive that
Edit: How did I make a reply war?
and also the soviets used more diesel in general compared to gasoline
What are you talking about? Standard gasoline freezes at -40 and diesel at -5. "At temperatures of -7 degrees Celsius and above, so-called paraffin crystals form in diesel, which can clog the fuel system and filter. Winter diesel contains special additives to ensure frost protection down to -20 degrees Celsius."
There are storys from tankers talking about lighting a fire underneathe the tank to get it startet.
Some reasons for why they probably took Diesel:
1. It is easyer to manufakture. Diesel is basicly just less refined gas. I personally think its because the Soviet Union was not very technologically advanced. Most people were simply peasants, without much experience in advanced industries.
2. You get more Diesel from the same amount of oil and it has more energy potential, meaning you can drive longer.
3. Diesel does not start to burn so quickly (That doesnt mean it cant catch fire). T34s for example have the fuel compartment inside with the crew, so it helps to "protect" the crew if hit, or at least more than gas. (I dont know how much this actually helped, because there were still a lot of T34 that burned out).
I just googled, the max temperature ever messured in russia is -67. Why would you ever need more than -40. The regions where those temperatures occur will never see battle. Everything under -20 is basically impossible to fight in. This is also the reason why both the Nazis and the Soviets stoped majore offensives in the winter. Even today in Ukrain that is still the case.
@@user5343 "Everything under -20 is basically impossible to fight in. "
Only for troops that have inadequate knowledge. Living at 61°N, I assure you that here -20 is regarded as a fully normal temperature.
As proof of it being possible, I'd say it is hard to dispute that most of the Winter War was fought in temperatures well below -20.
@@johanmetreus1268 Living and fighting are two different things. There is a difference between "I just go home and heat the oven if I get cold" and "I have to stay in this ww2 trench for the next 4 weeks while our only resupply got stuck in the snow 200km from us. " The soviets suffert heavily and "lost" in the winter war because of the winter. Its the same thing. The Finns have the home bonus while the soviets are invading.
@@johanmetreus1268very big difference in combat. The coldest battle in history was the battle of the chosin reservoir and men froze to death. The battle of the chosin reservoir was arguably the hardest fought battles in history because of how cold it was. You can’t go inside and warm up. You stay relatively still for extended periods of time in a battle where the wind chill can feel like -100F.
i am an m4A3 (w) 76.2 main in war thunder
great tank. its all about flank
The legend uploaded another masterpiece
You forgot the third kind, angry WT players.
I came to the same conclusion from playing war thunder.
Ur name is literally me, +new sub
"people" overrating the panther as a reaction to thinking the tiger is overrated vs demigods knowing that the StuG was the greatest vehicle of the war
Im a simple guy, but i just like the Tiger 1.
Its got a distinct profile you'd never never mix it up with any other tank, I liked using it and capturing it when I could in Men of War: Assault Squad 2
my boyfriend spends alot of time digging through soviet documents and the original T-34s would have been equipped with a gun stabilizer like the M4 sherman how ever the stabilizers they had would have gone up to support the 85mm and would have been useable to speeds up to around 40kph
Yessir thats what im talking about, shermans on top
18:26 I'm interested when you said the panther has a fume extractor, are you referring to a barrel device or the ventilation system? I'm not trying to be critical I'm just a little confused ._.
Neither. Its something implemented into the Panthers Gun Breach.
The Use of Compressed air allowed to toxic fumes from the breach to be pushed into another part of the vehicle
@ oh shoot, thats really cool ngl. Thanks 😁
Very nice video, tickles my brain the way i like it
5:47 T-34 cause 9/11 is crazy and funny af😂😂😭
Truly an enlightened centrist
I began as teaboo because of early wot Matilda supremacy