Absolutely brilliant! I've been fascinated by tanks for as long as i can remember and spent countless hours reading and watching everything i can find about them and this is by far amongst the best i've ever seen. It's great to see your experts so obviously have such a crazy passion for their subject and I found them spellbinding to watch. Thank you for posting
I’m a huge fan of James Holland . I have a number of his books. I been a long time a military history buff. My dad fought in World War Two and the Korean War. I was always fascinated with his stories.
That Cromwell is a beauty. What an amazing restoration! As keeps being mentioned, British tanks do get a 'bad rap' (if they're mentioned at all) so it was nice to see. Certainly not the most ubiquitous, nor the most iconic tank, but in my humble opinion the Cromwell could possibly be, pound-for-pound, one of the 'best' tanks of the War. Fantastic.
British tanks were good tanks overall. All tanks has their pluses and minuses. Plus ww2 was really when the first good round of tanks came out u know so none of them weee perfect by no means. But the Matilda's and char b's really freaked the nazis out at first just like the t-34 did Honestly if the char b woulda been a little faster and the French generals woulda pulled their heads out of their asses and listened to the intelligence reports they woulda needed the war in France before it even began
I agree. Could it be argued that the Cromwell was a better tank than the Sherman?? Certainly its successor, the Meteor was a better tank than the Sherman.
I had an uncle who drove tanks for the NZ Division in North Africa and Italy during WWII. I remember him telling me when I was a kid that a gunner in another tank got hit in the head by the recoil during their training when they first arrived in North Africa. He suffered brain injuries and was sent home to New Zealand. My uncle said this guy was never right in the head again. A real life example of the risk of the guns recoil that they were referring to with the T-34 and the Jagdpanther.
Me too; I get fed up with having to ride the volume control between voice and music. At certain parts I would far rather hear the actual sound of the engine than some ‘music’.
As a Boilermaker tradesman I always look at the fitting of plates & especially the welding. I've looked at a T34 /85 which was horrific tbh. I could see plates with 10+mm gaps being bridged with diabolical welding which meant one hit & the tank chassis literally fell apart. Over hardened armoured plates which shattered, then needing spanners to open anything in the back because they weren't expected to survive to even need a service.
you should see the t-34 85 at bovington if you've never visited. that thing is missing most of its rivets on the rear plate. but there's a beauty to it to, they save on rivets and it's easier to take off for maintenance lol
The average expected survival time of a t34 in ww2 was something like 18 hours so maintenance and build quality were a 5th rate concern and early in operation barbarossa many survived only minutes into an engagement 😂😂
There is just something about those jagpanthers, I love the version with the added plates on the side, and this still looks much like the self propelled artillery the soviets still use today
idk about which tank was the best but as for looks,the tiger and panther are absolutely gorgeous,the panther is kinda like a sports car or something and the tiger looks like a jacked up fullback or something,just all muscle and force,beautiful machines
The Panther was just way too big for what it was. If they made it a bit lower to the ground, it would be more like a sports car, that and more reliability.
And the unreliable claim is an over exaggerated myth. The Tiger and Panther were not much more unreliable than the Panzer IV in 1944/45, as the operational ratios show.
@@lyndoncmp5751 you either exaggerate or you don't! To 'over exaggerate' would be to guild the lily! A bit like 'to boldly go' which is to 'split the infinitive'.
@@pcka12 No, there is exaggeration and over exaggeration. It's a viable term. To listen to some people it's a wonder the circa 650 Panthers and 140 Tigers even made it to Normandy, nevermind gave the allies a lot of problems. According to the modern myth they should have all conked out on the road marches and been unable to get repaired.
One thing that I didn't hear about the Sherman tank was that it could be up gunned. Example the 76 MM high velocity gun and the Firefly with the British 16 pounder. Another variant of the tank was the flame thrower that was used to great effect in the pacific.
Great video. All the points are very informative. One major thing however not covered. I watched a program that included allied, Soviet, and German tank crews of WW-2. As a 100% service connected disabled combat veteran, I can relate to what these WW-2 tankers all said. In actual tank combat, they ALL picked the Tiger as the tank they All preferred to fight in. Survivability is a front line soldiers # 1 priority for himself and his buddies!🙂👍🇺🇸
Always have said their is 1. Choice of Command & Control (primary concern is supply) and 2. The Soldiers Choice. Mever heard a soldier say "Just good enough is fine with me". I have read Russians tankers say how much they preferred the Sherman to the T34 for the crew amenities which were heaven in comparison. Might as well enjoy the ride to your death!
@@brennanleadbetter9708 True! But regardless crews loved the Tiger, and Soviets, and Allied Tank crews all said in battle they would rather be in a Tiger.
brennanleadbetter9708 Often over exaggerated. Tigers rarely broke down in battle. Most problems were drivers over exerting the engine on long road marches. A driver who treated it properly could reduce mechanical issues by 90% according to Otto Carius.
If you have not seen the wehicle upclose its very hard to apriciate the scale. Especially how tall the sherman is and how wide the T-34 compared to the massive chunk of steel of the Tigers.
The major reason it is considered a good tank is because there were so many of them. They were very simple, easy for the average joe to drive. Also like the sherman tank many tankers lost their lives in these vehicles. Its simplicity made it a good tank , and the thousands that were made...
I don't think I've ever seen an animal more opposed to the presence of an armored tank-killer in it's pasture than that bull, nor have I ever seen an animal more capable of dishing out some damage before it was machine-gunned off it's hooves...poor bullbullbull...
Lots of information / specs provided on the Sherman, but it only applies to an early variant. Later models had different tracks, different suspension, different guns, different engine, and a different body.
This is a 'cast steel' version of the Sherman, there are other Shermans built in other ways! I have know two Sherman commanders, both suffered head injuries, one severe burns, the other a metal plate in the skull, the first features in a famous photo in his Firefly with his crew around the tank.
It's the "M-4" story. Equipped with the most powerful AT gun the U.S. had at the time and went into batter with a mix of AT and HE shells, so designed to, as the expert says, fight hard and soft targets.
@@mohammedisaa9952 Yet thousands paraded after V-E Day, loon, and hundreds sit outside of buildings in the U.S. and hundreds fought in Korea and for Israel. How many Tiger Bs exist - two or three.? Stay off the drugs.
@@mohammedisaa9952there where less than 500 tiger 2s made vs 49234 Sherman’s. The tiger 2 wasn’t in any contest because it never was made in great enough numbers, it changed nothing in the war
@@2003AudiS3Tho they were saying the Germans would make things "too perfect/overcomplicated" It kinda makes a lil sense to me because they had alot less numbers than the allies. Imagine if they fought the allies with the MORE industrialized tanks the allies had themselves... they would surely get fucked i think. So it makes sense that the lower number force would prioritorize qualitity things: like creating a tank that from what i've heard anyway, could take out 2 or 3 of "ours". I see a small correlation in how America spends crazy amounts on military and weapon technologies, its because alot of potential conflicts could see the U.S outnumbered. The germans prob did go too far with some ideas and implications but I think the initial idea of "we gotta compete with numbers, so we gotta be/have better/more efficient killing methods and machines than them." is reasonable and makes sense. Tho the actual processes/ideas and those doing it may had not always done it right or actually created something more efficient....the initial idea i get. It just seems they didnt have everything they needed in resources nor time and preparation.
@@DrthSmittyWerbenJagermanJensen not really, even your superior tanks need to be produced in enough numbers because if they are as low as the tiger 2, you will need to kill a ridiculous amount of tanks to change the result of the war
Overall the Panther was the best overall design , setting aside transmission issues , engine fires etc etc , when properly sorted out and a great crew , the Panther was it .
@@Hopelesshobo1what he means their where issues when it first came out. They rushed it out before really proper testing it. After they resolved those issues it was defintly a good tank. Having said that. there is no such tank as the best tank. U design a tank with a specific purpose and then u can check how well it can execute that purpose. The s-tank makes very little sense for usa but for sweden its a very practical tank. Same can be said for the tanks israel uses.
@@Hopelesshobo1 Same goes for every tank design. Neither T-34 nor Sherman nor Cromwell worked on day 1. And if you find the time, read about Covenanter for some "fun". Usually, you won't bet all your chips on an untested design during a major offensive, which is what happened to Panther. The reliability issues were quickly sorted out and Panther was as reliable as Pz IV. Many so-called reliability issues came from actual battle damage and overall lack of maintenance time due to the front situation. Every tank will break down if not properly maintained (or being hit), even a Sherman; and if in addition you also lack the spare parts, the writing is on the wall. Which is not a design issue but a general strategic problem. In 1945 production quality on all German AFVs dropped seriously due to many raw materials and qualified workers missing. If you can't use the right steel for your transmission, you're asking for trouble. Even the armor quality became worse. Speaking of the transmission: it was indeed very complicated to produce, but it was very driver-friendly and easy to learn on. Contrary to the actual belief, German tank drivers had basic driver training on old/obsolete tanks before they were put in a Panther or Pz IV. They were not completely left-handed. Of course training was shortened as the war progressed; often for the lack of fuel. Again, not really a design issue.
Apart from the opinion of the commander of the tank army of the Third Reich, Guderian, who insisted that the German army needed several thousand PZ 3-4 in order to fight on equal terms with thousands of T-34s, instead of a couple of hundred effective on the tactical plan but useless on the strategic panthers. But Hitler made another mistake (like the commentators here on UA-cam), disobeyed his general and turned out to be adamant in his love for the "wunderwaffe", which ultimately exhausted the German industry, and was one of the reasons for the failure of the war (Imagine the confrontation between 6k panthers and 60k t-34, that's how many of them were built).
That's a misconception. The Panther was just 10% more expensive than a Panzer IV. Mostly because unlike the Panzer IV it was streamlined for mass production. They built those 60.000 t34 from 1940 till 1945. But if you look at the production numbers of 1944 you can see, that the Germans weren't that far off with their strategy. Soviets built 4500 T34/76 and 10000 t34/85 (14500 medium tanks) in 1944. Germany built 3800 Panthers and around 2500 Panzer IVs (6300 tanks) in 1944. So the production ratio was 1:2.25. But during 1944 they traded their tanks at a ratio of 1:4 in favor for the Germans. If Germany would not had to fight a two front war, the numbers seemed to would have worked out for them.
The primary tactic was to jam one up under the real German tanks and get them stuck until it got too noisy inside for the crew to put up wit while the others acted until the crew goof the tank
Seems everyone forgets the Armoured Fighting Vehicle with the most Kills was in Fact the Stug 3 in 1944 alone some 20,000 kills were attributed to the Stug 3 alone and whilst it was like so many WW2 tanks and Tank destroyers far from perfect the numbers of Kills attributed to the Stug 3 make it probably the most effective of them all in the real world. Easy to produce fairly cheap also but ultimately a very effective Tank killer. if not a general purpose weapons system like say a Sherman that could fill the role of Anti tank and Infrantry support weapons system. The Stug was undoubtably also used as a Tank like most Tank destroyers during the war for infrantry support and pillbox destruction but that was not very well recordered in Historical records.
More James holland WOOHOO never clicked anything faster And my brain had a dopamine dump when I saw it was 2 hours I’m typing this before watching but I hope it’s 2 hours of him he knows his shit and is so engaging in the way he explains it would love to have some brews with him and have a hardcore nerd WWII discussion lol. I highly recommend his books as well to anyone who hasn’t already had the pleasure.
Oh God, like a large turret ring is a thing they invented, the Panzer IV (in service the year before the T-34) could go from a short howitzer to the long KwK 40 / L48, arguably one of the best tank guns of the war.
-- Except 85mm L55 gun is better, then 75mm KwK 40/L48 gun. And starting mid 1944 turret travers in Pz-IV was replaced by internal fuel tank, so hand cranking the turret was a thing for Pz-IV crew in a "short legged" tank... Not to mention muzzle brake kicked more dust and dirt from the ground, so its not only showed enemy where Pz-IV is at, but also obstructed gunners next for sometimes until the dust settled.
Only a russian would be this dense. The T-34/85 could only manage maybe 4 RPM while the Panzer IV could manage over 8 rounds per minute , not only that the Russian 85mm could only manage 85mm @ 1000m while the KwK 40 could manage 85mm@ 1000m
@@paullakowski2509 wrote: "Only a russian would be this dense. The T-34/85 could only manage maybe 4 RPM while the Panzer IV could manage over 8 rounds per minute , not only that the Russian 85mm could only manage 85mm @ 1000m while the KwK 40 could manage 85mm@ 1000m" -- Paul, are you speaking for yourself because you Russian? Or what nationality are you, just curious? Let see where else you getting your info from and presenting it as facts? It looks like you getting T-34-76 with Ivan Grabin's F-34 gun specs and presenting it as T-34/85. Here is why: -- T-34/85 had ready to fire 16 rounds in the turret bustle, so T-34/85 could do better, then 4 RPM, and Pz-IV turret was not balanced, nor had bustle. -- While ballistics of 76.2mm F-34 and 75mm KwK40 gun was somewhat similar, because of similarity of caliber and projectile size, weight and muzzle velocity, hence similar gun performance, things for T-34/85 gun was a lot different, it adapted next caliber/class canon, similar to Tiger I anti-aircraft modified gun, with much longer barrel which resulted in much higher projectile velocity coupled with heavier round retained better ballistics and punched through much thicker armor, and that is just physics that you didn't study at school, that is the reason why you confusing tank gun performance.
I was kind of hoping that we would see a Sherman Firefly. That's definitely one of the top two or three tanks of World War 2. The Cromwell is just a beautiful machine.😊😊😊
"that makes things like a turret basket a good investment." I assume you're referring to a rear turret ammunition storage basket? Because a "turret basket" would generally refer to the part that supports the crew in the turret and keeps them rotating with the turret rather than having to move manually. And yes, that was still a thing with quite a few tanks in WWII. IIRC, the biggest problem was with the KV-2. If so, in theory, absolutely. But then you start working out the actual engineering stuff. And you find that it makes the turret bigger. And it makes the tank several tons heavier. And you need a larger turret ring to support it. And it requires several additional manufacturing elements. And you can't armor it properly. And it's actually quite difficult to guarantee that ammo blowing up doesn't kill everyone in the tank anyway. This is the reason why even several modern tanks does not use such ammo bins. It's a great idea in theory and an idea loved by the crews, at least as long as they work properly. But you have to make them work. And that's not nearly as easy as it may seem.
@@funkrates4778 we don´t have to make babies. to make new tankers. but each of the conscripts you take. have lived in society for at least 18 years. before they got conscripted.
Brilliant cinematography(a little too much glamour shots, though). The Jagdpanther skirt armor was to provide protection from anti tank rifles. A sin that engineers failed to compensate for in development. While the interleaved road wheels were over engineered, it was specifically to lower the ground pressure(and improve mobility in soft ground). They knew what they were doing. It just made maintaining that complex system much more labor intensive. The Sherman assisted tank/infantry communication by wiring a field phone into the intercom system on the rear of the tank. The commander could speak to ground units without opening the hatch or leaving the tank. The Sherman had a bolt on kit that turned it into a bulldozer! Great piece. I hope there is another vid planned to catch us up on more Axis armor.
It's only got 45mm of armor (all-around) on the hull. That's good for side&rear armor, and even frontal armor was good in 1941. But they failed to upgrade the armor, so by 1942 it was just mediocre when Germany came up with long-barreled guns, and I'm not even talking Tiger. A 7,5 cm L48 gun would punch right through the hull most of times. Or, and it really happened, a smaller shell would crack the often extremely bad welding seams. Just in case the way too brittle armor didn't just shatter on impact ... The turret armor on the T-34/85 as shown here was thicker, though, and IIRC they improved the metallurgy.
@@ottovonbismarck2443 wrote: "Or, and it really happened, a smaller shell would crack the often extremely bad welding seams. Just in case the way too brittle armor didn't just shatter on impact ..." -- On earlier T-34 tanks maybe, but once Eugene Patton implemented automatic submerged flux welding, this was not the case, the problems with welds were more prevalent over German heavy tanks in the second part of the war, since welds was done by "hand".
Sloped armour on T-34 didn't do any good because of poor quality of metal. They even had thermal hardening. About this mentioned British and American experts.
wrote: "Sloped armour on T-34 didn't do any good because of poor quality of metal. They even had thermal hardening. About this mentioned British and American experts." --Its laughable, since all Germans tanks after examining T-34 in November of 1941 had slopped armor there after, but not before, and this is written from Aberdeen T-34 test, mind you 50mm PaK38 was ran over by T-34 on the field where A.Porsche and others were taking photographs: II. Armour The Americans insist that the T-34 and KV tanks' plates are hardened shallowly, and most of the armour is soft steel. They suggest that we change the hardening technology, which will increase the armour's resistance to impacts. This opinion has no basis in reality, and was likely caused by poor analysis of the armour. The armour of the sent T-34 tank consisted of 8S steel. All T-34s are armoured this way. This steel is hardened to high hardness (2.8-3.15 mm on the Brinell scale). The KV tank's armour was medium hardness (3.35-3.6 mm on the Brinell scale)."
It was a good tank but when you look at the big picture I think the Sherman tank was the best in the war, the post conflict The Korean war proves that agianst the T34/85 tank. One thing not mentioned yes over 80,000 T34 tanks where produced but over 40,000 where destroyed during WW2.
I agree with this sentiment. The sherman was cheap easy to make but was still leagues above the t34 in quality. The sherman was the best balance of quality and value per unit. Once they sorted the wet stowage for ammo and upgraded to the 60mm sloped front plate they were an exceptional tank. That angled 60mm front plate gave it an effective thickness on par with a tiger.
"" That angled 60mm front plate gave it an effective thickness on par with a tiger."" Tiger I effective armour was circa 115mm to 130mm on the front due to the nickel-steel of Brinell Hardness of 265, along with the angle (24 degrees on the nose plate).
@lyndoncmp5751 Do you have a source for that? I have seen claims up to 105mm, but not beyond that. Also it was a 5-10 degree angle, not 24. Unless you're talking about the lower glacis?
@@Chopstorm. Sure. Thomas L Jentz, Germanys Tiger Tanks. Yes, the lower front plate, which is sometimes referred to as the nose plate. It was 24 degrees. The glacis where the driver's visor was was 10 degrees. Both plates were 100mm thick of 265 Brinell Hardness. The 265 Brinell Hardness, according to British tests on captured Tigers, gave it a circa 12% stronger resistance effectiveness than the best allied steel of the same thickness. Then add in the angling.
wrote: "One thing not mentioned yes over 80,000 T34 tanks where produced but over 40,000 where destroyed during WW2." -- You know why it was NOT mentioned!? Because its a dubious claim worthy LazerPig channel, since it does not taking into account war participation nor technological parity. For example: 1) For the beginning of the 1940-41 had a better 3" gun in a fully rotating turret with welded hull, that offered better armor protection then riveted hull of M3 tank, never mind 75mm main gun that placed inside sponson of tank hull. 2) If you read CIA report on captured T-34-85 tank in Korea in 1951, there on pages 5 and 6, you'll find a few interesting notes, that very insightful on American thoughts in comparison of US vs. USSR tanks of that time, under "1. Desirable Features of T-34/85 tank": (a) Materials were found ample for a job - better then those to be used in American tanks, in some instances. (i) The T34 is of lighter weight then current U.S. medium tanks, but carries gun only slightly smaller (85mm vs. 90mm) Mind you, M4 Sherman never had 90mm L53 caliber in length gun, so they comparing T-34-85 to M-26 Pershing which in WW2 by US of A considered to be a heavy tank, so is German Tiger I tank with its 88mm L56 caliber modified AAA main gun, so is T-34-85 L55 modified AAA main gun, which is a lot better, then M4 Sherman's 76mm L52 main gun. So "in a nutshell", you been "fooled" and/or fooling yourself, thinking that tank that is inferior in fire power, armor protection and mobility/maneuverability that M4 Sherman tank was, would perform better, then best WW2 tank which is T-34, that faced 80% of Wehrmacht and carried most of the fighting from Moscow all the way to Berlin, and won the war as "MVP"(Most Valuable Player).
Question 1: As the German Jagdpanther does not have a turret it is not obvious as to how the gun was aimed. It is obvious as to the vertical but not the horizontal. Does the whole tank have to be moved??? Question 2: For any or all tanks, was it possible or policy to have a live shell always in the gun??? If yes, how was an unused shell removed???
1. Rises in the ground or hillsides for elevation beyond fifteen degrees and straight on when on level ground. 2. The policies varied between armies but ordinarily rounds would be staged by likelyhood of use (if other tanks are the expectation then anti-armor/armor-piercing rounds were near-to-hand, if fortification were the expectation, HE rounds would be staged and if personnel were to be the targets, then disintegrating, shrapnel-producing rounds would be staged. Knowing the Americans I'll bet there were strict protocols governing when a round was fed into the breech (of course, all protocol goes out the window (hatch) as soon as the first explosion takes place.) and knowing the pragmatism of the Russian tankers they probably had a round in the gun before they ever left the factory. 3. Aren't most artillery-guns and tank-guns provided with an ejector mechanism that was both automatic when the gun fired and manual when a round had to be removed unfired?
1.The gun has limited traverse, which is ok for long-range engagements. For extreme trverse, you had to move the vehicle. Same for all vehicles without turret. 2. It very much depends on the situation. In a hurry, common procedure was/is to fire the round you have loaded anyway. It's probably faster to reload than to eject a live round and reload then. And no matter with what you hit the enemy, it will cause them a brown alert moment. If you don't hit, you can correct your second shot. There are multiple accounts of Allied tankers shooting HE first on German tanks, because that's what they had loaded at the moment.
The most idiotic post ever, highest allied ace fought in T-34-76 and was killed outside his tank in December 1941, no other allied tank aces came close to his score.
@@RussianThunderrr For this is only one reason. Such 'Ace' never existed. He was forged by Commy propaganda. Same as 38 heroes-panphilovtsy, etc. 3 months before Hitler attacked SU there was report of GBTY (main department of artillery and armoured troops of SU). This report compared T-4, bought from Germans, and T-34. Report found out COMPLETE domination of T-4, recommended to stop manufacturing T-34 and fix all problems. Those recommendations were rejected. Stalin beurocrats were not interested in making better model T-34M, because it can affect volumes. As a result thousands of brave Soviet tankists died. Later all innovations from T-34M were incorporated to T-44-85.
I heard somewhere that Soviet tank crews would put a bucket over the end of their turret to make their T34s look like an IS2 from a distance by giving the impression of having the distinct muzzle break that the IS series of tanks had
@@RussianThunderrr no T-34 was and is peace of junk that was hold togetrher bretty much with super glue and hopium 44,900+ cobat losses tells it isnt best tank it tells you exat opposite
@@no-nonseplayer6612 -- If this is would be the case, Germans would not rush their tank rearmament program that supposed to replace Pz-III and Pz-IV in October of 1942. T-34 was fast very maneuverable and scary tank as far as Germans were concerned, hence the rearmament. Beside, T-34-76 produced the highest scoring allied tank ace in December of 1941! ua-cam.com/video/0NHj9xA4zIo/v-deo.html It was best tank of WWII.
interesting british tank had the same engine as the plane , at the end of the video i like Cromwell better just more small moble than sherman. i remember using the cromwell in war thunder i higher tiers 7.0 still flanking enemy getting descent score capping
Ah, a "Grizzly" tank. 17-tooth drive sprockets and CDP tracks. General Steel shield logo on glacis. CDP tracks were not interchangeable with standard Sherman track types, and their shorter pitch also necessitated production of the new 17 tooth drive sprocket
Surely tank crews carried extra canteens to relieve themselves in? Was there any air conditioning? How hot could it get inside in places like North Africa or the south Pacific? I've read of Germans building fires beneath their tanks just to get them started in subzero temps.
I think many tanks, especially the Russian T-tank, had a maintenance hatch in the floor that you could piss through in a pinch...or pinch-off through when its pissing rain. I could be wrong...
a) In North Africa, temperatures inside the tanks got above 50°C. Imagine sitting in the tiny bow MG turret of a Crusader tank. b) True, mainly for the fat/oil getting too thick; and cooling water needed proper additives like glycol, which only helps so much, especially when everything is on short hand. But the Russians had to refer to similar procedures because Diesel engines were even worse to start because the fuel itself gets too thick. There are certain tricks around it, like adding petrol to the diesel, which in fact had to be done on diesels in winter until the late 70s. Otherwise you're pretty much f***ed.
@@ottovonbismarck2443 wrote: "But the Russians had to refer to similar procedures because Diesel engines were even worse to start because the fuel itself gets too thick. There are certain tricks around it, like adding petrol to the diesel, which in fact had to be done on diesels in winter until the late 70s. Otherwise you're pretty much f***ed." -- Otto, did we picked that bone a few years back? T-34 had a special heater for winter operation that would provide heat to tank's engine compartment. It mounted to the round hatch on the back of engine deck between exaust pipes, and can be seen here on this documentary in a couple of spots: ua-cam.com/video/tfRXsNhGFTQ/v-deo.html
@@RussianThunderrr Fu** me sideways, indeed we did ! 🙂 I hope you're doing well, Sir ! You are absolutely right, there were special heaters. And I came to the conclusion that they were as "widespread" as the German ones: sorry Comrade, not available this season. Tovarishch field manual says: from -20 to -30°C 10% kerosine from -30 to -35°C 25% kerosine from -35 to -50°C 70% kerosine (Comrade, if kerosine not available, use petrol. If petrol not available, make fire under engine) There is a myth about nitroglycerine working miracles, but I can't confirm it. Nitro makes sense, but not for a cold start, or does it ?
Many of the German tanks were so large and heavy there were many bridges they couldn't cross. American tanks were made my auto manufactures, the way they worked was to standardize as many parts as possible and keep it simple.
There were around 100, major and minor, variants of the Sherman. If anything, a Panzer IV from 1939 was more similar to a Panzer IV from 1945, than a cast armor M4A1 from 1943 to the M4A3E8 of 1945.
@@TTTT-oc4ebSherman was good in many different roles. Plus they didn't have enough of the same engines to put into so many Shermans so they used radial engines and such like in the E8.
One inch (25.4mm) thickness of most steels (varies slightly with alloy content) one square foot (30.48mm x 30.48mm = 929.03 square mm) in size weighs 40.8 pounds (18.51 kg). British and US Navies rounded the weight to only 40 pounds in most documents "20-pound" plate for 0.5" thickness, for example).
The Russians were the first to fit a large calibre tank gun=3" to the KV1 in fact the Germans in 1941 had great difficulty in knocking out KV's even with their PAK 38 50MM AT Gun so they were forced to use the 88MM Flak Gun deployed as an AT Weapon.
The Brits only made 3 decent tanks, the Matilda II, The Cromwell and the Meteor. They did a good job of converting the Sherman M4A4 into the Firefly but the rest were poor to appalling. Grateful for the Shermans and M10/18/26s to fill in the gaps.
😂 the t34 57 was a different variant to the 76… they started with a short 76mm variant realized they needed more penetrating power and went for the zis 4 57mm gun then went back to the 76mm with a longer barrel before developing the 85mm version
![EP. 72 LE GUERRE DEI DIADOCHI [amicizie di sangue]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YYshsCDn6M8/mqdefault.jpg)
2 hours of tank content...yes, yes, 1000 times yes!! 👍👌👍
Got all hyped for this then realized it’s videos I’ve seen before just crammed together. Dang it
In case you hadn't heard the first three times, the t34 weighed 32 tonnes.
i need to hear it more to believe it ;)
best tank ever built
Thanks didn't quite get it
How many tonnes> How tall? Please respomd!
Yessss and it's 7,5 meters long, 2.1 meters high 🤣🤣🤣🤣
Absolutely brilliant! I've been fascinated by tanks for as long as i can remember and spent countless hours reading and watching everything i can find about them and this is by far amongst the best i've ever seen. It's great to see your experts so obviously have such a crazy passion for their subject and I found them spellbinding to watch. Thank you for posting
Same here I hope you have got the plesure of seeing them up close.
I’m a huge fan of James Holland . I have a number of his books. I been a long time a military history buff. My dad fought in World War Two and the Korean War. I was always fascinated with his stories.
That Cromwell is a beauty. What an amazing restoration! As keeps being mentioned, British tanks do get a 'bad rap' (if they're mentioned at all) so it was nice to see. Certainly not the most ubiquitous, nor the most iconic tank, but in my humble opinion the Cromwell could possibly be, pound-for-pound, one of the 'best' tanks of the War. Fantastic.
British tanks were good tanks overall. All tanks has their pluses and minuses. Plus ww2 was really when the first good round of tanks came out u know so none of them weee perfect by no means. But the Matilda's and char b's really freaked the nazis out at first just like the t-34 did Honestly if the char b woulda been a little faster and the French generals woulda pulled their heads out of their asses and listened to the intelligence reports they woulda needed the war in France before it even began
Amen! I agree much so.
I love it so much that I'm building a RC 1/6 Cromwell ❤
I agree. Could it be argued that the Cromwell was a better tank than the Sherman?? Certainly its successor, the Meteor was a better tank than the Sherman.
@MrT67 Do you mean the Comet? The Comet was short-lived but it was the link between the Cromwell and the Centurion. 👌
I had an uncle who drove tanks for the NZ Division in North Africa and Italy during WWII.
I remember him telling me when I was a kid that a gunner in another tank got hit in the head by the recoil during their training when they first arrived in North Africa. He suffered brain injuries and was sent home to New Zealand. My uncle said this guy was never right in the head again. A real life example of the risk of the guns recoil that they were referring to with the T-34 and the Jagdpanther.
100 years of tv and they still can't keep the music at the same level as the conversation. Music volume 100, conversation volume 10.
Me too; I get fed up with having to ride the volume control between voice and music. At certain parts I would far rather hear the actual sound of the engine than some ‘music’.
This series is great, seeing the tanks in place in a museum is nothing next to them tearing up the countryside
As a Boilermaker tradesman I always look at the fitting of plates & especially the welding. I've looked at a T34 /85 which was horrific tbh. I could see plates with 10+mm gaps being bridged with diabolical welding which meant one hit & the tank chassis literally fell apart. Over hardened armoured plates which shattered, then needing spanners to open anything in the back because they weren't expected to survive to even need a service.
you should see the t-34 85 at bovington if you've never visited. that thing is missing most of its rivets on the rear plate. but there's a beauty to it to, they save on rivets and it's easier to take off for maintenance lol
The average expected survival time of a t34 in ww2 was something like 18 hours so maintenance and build quality were a 5th rate concern and early in operation barbarossa many survived only minutes into an engagement 😂😂
Russian trades are sh1t.
they are same as the T72, 80 and 90, they are only running Coffins carrying their Disposilble Crew
There is just something about those jagpanthers, I love the version with the added plates on the side, and this still looks much like the self propelled artillery the soviets still use today
I like the version with the cow...
“Precision is precise.” Profound
Thanks History Hit. Love James and love your channel.
James Holland's the Best!
idk about which tank was the best but as for looks,the tiger and panther are absolutely gorgeous,the panther is kinda like a sports car or something and the tiger looks like a jacked up fullback or something,just all muscle and force,beautiful machines
And very unreliable, then pretty much return to factory for repair!
The Panther was just way too big for what it was. If they made it a bit lower to the ground, it would be more like a sports car, that and more reliability.
And the unreliable claim is an over exaggerated myth. The Tiger and Panther were not much more unreliable than the Panzer IV in 1944/45, as the operational ratios show.
@@lyndoncmp5751 you either exaggerate or you don't!
To 'over exaggerate' would be to guild the lily!
A bit like 'to boldly go' which is to 'split the infinitive'.
@@pcka12
No, there is exaggeration and over exaggeration. It's a viable term. To listen to some people it's a wonder the circa 650 Panthers and 140 Tigers even made it to Normandy, nevermind gave the allies a lot of problems. According to the modern myth they should have all conked out on the road marches and been unable to get repaired.
That bull is a real tank enthusiast 😂
I was thinking the same.
And a great video by the way. Thanks.
Er ist ein schwererpanzerabwehrstier 1bis!
One thing that I didn't hear about the Sherman tank was that it could be up gunned. Example the 76 MM high velocity gun and the Firefly with the British 16 pounder. Another variant of the tank was the flame thrower that was used to great effect in the pacific.
Yeah but how much does it weigh?
@@normandegeorge6526 less than the tiger or king tiger that it could take out
Wow what amazing content I am subscribing keep it coming plz I love this show
If you like history and tanks, it doesn't get much better than this
Great series. Thank you very much.
Little known fact. Wartime Jagdpanthers generally had their tracks on back to front so they could shoot and reverse quicker.
Makes sense
…. Wow. Sometimes I put my tracksuit pants on back to front.
Great minds.
@@multipl3….for when you want to start a ruckus then Schnell the fuck out of Dodge asap.
Didn't they had horrible reverse speed?
@@0Turbox
No not really.
Awesome video.😍
@James Holland,.. his WWII vids really are some the best… thank you kind sir.
Really enjoyed this
Great video. All the points are very informative. One major thing however not covered. I watched a program that included allied, Soviet, and German tank crews of WW-2. As a 100% service connected disabled combat veteran, I can relate to what these WW-2 tankers all said. In actual tank combat, they ALL picked the Tiger as the tank they All preferred to fight in. Survivability is a front line soldiers # 1 priority for himself and his buddies!🙂👍🇺🇸
Always have said their is 1. Choice of Command & Control (primary concern is supply) and 2. The Soldiers Choice. Mever heard a soldier say "Just good enough is fine with me". I have read Russians tankers say how much they preferred the Sherman to the T34 for the crew amenities which were heaven in comparison. Might as well enjoy the ride to your death!
And then the Tiger’s mechanical issues kick in. As well as being a logistical nightmare.
@@brennanleadbetter9708 True! But regardless crews loved the Tiger, and Soviets, and Allied Tank crews all said in battle they would rather be in a Tiger.
brennanleadbetter9708
Often over exaggerated. Tigers rarely broke down in battle. Most problems were drivers over exerting the engine on long road marches. A driver who treated it properly could reduce mechanical issues by 90% according to Otto Carius.
@ genegarren833 do you remember what the program was? I’m interested.
That’s very impressive that he find that pieces and built it all by hand
"it"? What?
If you have not seen the wehicle upclose its very hard to apriciate the scale. Especially how tall the sherman is and how wide the T-34 compared to the massive chunk of steel of the Tigers.
Further it is a great upload, thanks for sharing :)
Nearly 2 hours of awesomeness !
james holland ...clicked as fast as a 17 pounder shell exiting the barrel of a firefly in normandy
The major reason it is considered a good tank is because there were so many of them. They were very simple, easy for the average joe to drive. Also like the sherman tank many tankers lost their lives in these vehicles. Its simplicity made it a good tank , and the thousands that were made...
I don't think I've ever seen an animal more opposed to the presence of an armored tank-killer in it's pasture than that bull, nor have I ever seen an animal more capable of dishing out some damage before it was machine-gunned off it's hooves...poor bullbullbull...
The gun is a story all it's own - and untold here.
Lots of information / specs provided on the Sherman, but it only applies to an early variant. Later models had different tracks, different suspension, different guns, different engine, and a different body.
It’s not even US a built it’s a Canadian Grizzly mk. 1
@@Panzer_CrazeNice spotting.
This is a 'cast steel' version of the Sherman, there are other Shermans built in other ways!
I have know two Sherman commanders, both suffered head injuries, one severe burns, the other a metal plate in the skull, the first features in a famous photo in his Firefly with his crew around the tank.
Er, no. Completely different tank.
@@SvenTviking who or what are you replying to?
The 'text' of the video refers to a variety of 'Sherman build methods'.
Enjoyed the cameo by the bull jumping around the Jagdpanther
It's the "M-4" story. Equipped with the most powerful AT gun the U.S. had at the time and went into batter with a mix of AT and HE shells, so designed to, as the expert says, fight hard and soft targets.
King tigers, wiped them into non exhistance....... like a mouse v.s a panther..... no contest
@@mohammedisaa9952 Yet thousands paraded after V-E Day, loon, and hundreds sit outside of buildings in the U.S. and hundreds fought in Korea and for Israel. How many Tiger Bs exist - two or three.? Stay off the drugs.
@@mohammedisaa9952there where less than 500 tiger 2s made vs 49234 Sherman’s. The tiger 2 wasn’t in any contest because it never was made in great enough numbers, it changed nothing in the war
@@2003AudiS3Tho they were saying the Germans would make things "too perfect/overcomplicated" It kinda makes a lil sense to me because they had alot less numbers than the allies. Imagine if they fought the allies with the MORE industrialized tanks the allies had themselves... they would surely get fucked i think. So it makes sense that the lower number force would prioritorize qualitity things: like creating a tank that from what i've heard anyway, could take out 2 or 3 of "ours". I see a small correlation in how America spends crazy amounts on military and weapon technologies, its because alot of potential conflicts could see the U.S outnumbered. The germans prob did go too far with some ideas and implications but I think the initial idea of "we gotta compete with numbers, so we gotta be/have better/more efficient killing methods and machines than them." is reasonable and makes sense. Tho the actual processes/ideas and those doing it may had not always done it right or actually created something more efficient....the initial idea i get. It just seems they didnt have everything they needed in resources nor time and preparation.
@@DrthSmittyWerbenJagermanJensen not really, even your superior tanks need to be produced in enough numbers because if they are as low as the tiger 2, you will need to kill a ridiculous amount of tanks to change the result of the war
I thinks the great thing about the shoimans was it's versatility and reliability, ease if maintenance as opposed to the German and russian tanks
Overall the Panther was the best overall design , setting aside transmission issues , engine fires etc etc , when properly sorted out and a great crew , the Panther was it .
"If you ignore all the flaws in the design, it really is a good design"
@@Hopelesshobo1what he means their where issues when it first came out. They rushed it out before really proper testing it. After they resolved those issues it was defintly a good tank. Having said that. there is no such tank as the best tank. U design a tank with a specific purpose and then u can check how well it can execute that purpose. The s-tank makes very little sense for usa but for sweden its a very practical tank. Same can be said for the tanks israel uses.
@@Hopelesshobo1 Same goes for every tank design. Neither T-34 nor Sherman nor Cromwell worked on day 1. And if you find the time, read about Covenanter for some "fun".
Usually, you won't bet all your chips on an untested design during a major offensive, which is what happened to Panther. The reliability issues were quickly sorted out and Panther was as reliable as Pz IV. Many so-called reliability issues came from actual battle damage and overall lack of maintenance time due to the front situation. Every tank will break down if not properly maintained (or being hit), even a Sherman; and if in addition you also lack the spare parts, the writing is on the wall. Which is not a design issue but a general strategic problem.
In 1945 production quality on all German AFVs dropped seriously due to many raw materials and qualified workers missing. If you can't use the right steel for your transmission, you're asking for trouble. Even the armor quality became worse.
Speaking of the transmission: it was indeed very complicated to produce, but it was very driver-friendly and easy to learn on. Contrary to the actual belief, German tank drivers had basic driver training on old/obsolete tanks before they were put in a Panther or Pz IV. They were not completely left-handed. Of course training was shortened as the war progressed; often for the lack of fuel. Again, not really a design issue.
Apart from the opinion of the commander of the tank army of the Third Reich, Guderian, who insisted that the German army needed several thousand PZ 3-4 in order to fight on equal terms with thousands of T-34s, instead of a couple of hundred effective on the tactical plan but useless on the strategic panthers. But Hitler made another mistake (like the commentators here on UA-cam), disobeyed his general and turned out to be adamant in his love for the "wunderwaffe", which ultimately exhausted the German industry, and was one of the reasons for the failure of the war (Imagine the confrontation between 6k panthers and 60k t-34, that's how many of them were built).
That's a misconception. The Panther was just 10% more expensive than a Panzer IV. Mostly because unlike the Panzer IV it was streamlined for mass production.
They built those 60.000 t34 from 1940 till 1945.
But if you look at the production numbers of 1944 you can see, that the Germans weren't that far off with their strategy.
Soviets built 4500 T34/76 and 10000 t34/85 (14500 medium tanks) in 1944.
Germany built 3800 Panthers and around 2500 Panzer IVs (6300 tanks) in 1944.
So the production ratio was 1:2.25.
But during 1944 they traded their tanks at a ratio of 1:4 in favor for the Germans.
If Germany would not had to fight a two front war, the numbers seemed to would have worked out for them.
I've ridden on the Jagdpanther a few times when I used to do 116th Panzer grenadier re-enactment
that jagdpanther is beautiful..
The Gepard is as well
The primary tactic was to jam one up under the real German tanks and get them stuck until it got too noisy inside for the crew to put up wit while the others acted until the crew goof the tank
Seems everyone forgets the Armoured Fighting Vehicle with the most Kills was in Fact the Stug 3 in 1944 alone some 20,000 kills were attributed to the Stug 3 alone and whilst it was like so many WW2 tanks and Tank destroyers far from perfect the numbers of Kills attributed to the Stug 3 make it probably the most effective of them all in the real world.
Easy to produce fairly cheap also but ultimately a very effective Tank killer. if not a general purpose weapons system like say a Sherman that could fill the role of Anti tank and Infrantry support weapons system.
The Stug was undoubtably also used as a Tank like most Tank destroyers during the war for infrantry support and pillbox destruction but that was not very well recordered in Historical records.
More James holland WOOHOO never clicked anything faster
And my brain had a dopamine dump when I saw it was 2 hours I’m typing this before watching but I hope it’s 2 hours of him he knows his shit and is so engaging in the way he explains it would love to have some brews with him and have a hardcore nerd WWII discussion lol.
I highly recommend his books as well to anyone who hasn’t already had the pleasure.
Looks like I’m not going to be getting anything done for the next 2 hours lol
Oh God, like a large turret ring is a thing they invented, the Panzer IV (in service the year before the T-34) could go from a short howitzer to the long KwK 40 / L48, arguably one of the best tank guns of the war.
-- Except 85mm L55 gun is better, then 75mm KwK 40/L48 gun. And starting mid 1944 turret travers in Pz-IV was replaced by internal fuel tank, so hand cranking the turret was a thing for Pz-IV crew in a "short legged" tank... Not to mention muzzle brake kicked more dust and dirt from the ground, so its not only showed enemy where Pz-IV is at, but also obstructed gunners next for sometimes until the dust settled.
Only a russian would be this dense. The T-34/85 could only manage maybe 4 RPM while the Panzer IV could manage over 8 rounds per minute , not only that the Russian 85mm could only manage 85mm @ 1000m while the KwK 40 could manage 85mm@ 1000m
@@paullakowski2509 wrote: "Only a russian would be this dense.
The T-34/85 could only manage maybe 4 RPM while the Panzer IV could manage over 8 rounds per minute ,
not only that the Russian 85mm could only manage 85mm @ 1000m while the KwK 40 could manage 85mm@ 1000m"
-- Paul, are you speaking for yourself because you Russian? Or what nationality are you, just curious?
Let see where else you getting your info from and presenting it as facts? It looks like you getting T-34-76 with Ivan Grabin's F-34 gun specs and presenting it as T-34/85. Here is why:
-- T-34/85 had ready to fire 16 rounds in the turret bustle, so T-34/85 could do better, then 4 RPM, and Pz-IV turret was not balanced, nor had bustle.
-- While ballistics of 76.2mm F-34 and 75mm KwK40 gun was somewhat similar, because of similarity of caliber and projectile size, weight and muzzle velocity, hence similar gun performance, things for T-34/85 gun was a lot different, it adapted next caliber/class canon, similar to Tiger I anti-aircraft modified gun, with much longer barrel which resulted in much higher projectile velocity coupled with heavier round retained better ballistics and punched through much thicker armor, and that is just physics that you didn't study at school, that is the reason why you confusing tank gun performance.
That is a very subjective and very situational of a question to answer.
I was kind of hoping that we would see a Sherman Firefly. That's definitely one of the top two or three tanks of World War 2. The Cromwell is just a beautiful machine.😊😊😊
Not!
@anthonynicholich9654 ?
The jagd is so gentle on the grass its crazy
i was hoping to see the elefant, i love that thing
Why would you love it?
An hour and a half long video on tanks... It's my lucky day
Hell yeah!
Such a great show we are big fans.
We started a project focusing on Soviet.
No consideration for 'soft factors.' The T-34 suffered enormous losses, and when it went up the crew died.
one thing to remember. you can make a tank in a month. the crew to man it takes +18 years. that makes things like a turret basket a good investment.
Except when you're the soviet union and you've got enough 18 year olds
"that makes things like a turret basket a good investment."
I assume you're referring to a rear turret ammunition storage basket? Because a "turret basket" would generally refer to the part that supports the crew in the turret and keeps them rotating with the turret rather than having to move manually. And yes, that was still a thing with quite a few tanks in WWII. IIRC, the biggest problem was with the KV-2.
If so, in theory, absolutely.
But then you start working out the actual engineering stuff. And you find that it makes the turret bigger. And it makes the tank several tons heavier. And you need a larger turret ring to support it. And it requires several additional manufacturing elements.
And you can't armor it properly. And it's actually quite difficult to guarantee that ammo blowing up doesn't kill everyone in the tank anyway.
This is the reason why even several modern tanks does not use such ammo bins.
It's a great idea in theory and an idea loved by the crews, at least as long as they work properly.
But you have to make them work. And that's not nearly as easy as it may seem.
18 years?! No. The population is not so small that you have to make babies because there’s no one to conscript. Lol
@@funkrates4778 we don´t have to make babies. to make new tankers. but each of the conscripts you take. have lived in society for at least 18 years. before they got conscripted.
This is only true once you've run out of 18 year-old's, before that a turret basket is a nice idea in theory but frivolous in practice.
Brilliant cinematography(a little too much glamour shots, though).
The Jagdpanther skirt armor was to provide protection from anti tank rifles. A sin that engineers failed to compensate for in development.
While the interleaved road wheels were over engineered, it was specifically to lower the ground pressure(and improve mobility in soft ground). They knew what they were doing. It just made maintaining that complex system much more labor intensive.
The Sherman assisted tank/infantry communication by wiring a field phone into the intercom system on the rear of the tank. The commander could speak to ground units without opening the hatch or leaving the tank.
The Sherman had a bolt on kit that turned it into a bulldozer!
Great piece. I hope there is another vid planned to catch us up on more Axis armor.
Amazing, that Comet just doesn't look like it'd haul that much arse, looks like something a kid drew and really weighty but 40mph😮 You Go boy
Perfectly good video, the Dan Snow sticks his pompous nose in at the end to ruin it!
Very informative-- I do wish they would have put all the tanks together to drive in a fantasy formation.
How heavy is it? Please tell me again
That guy's probably the only person to ever say that the Christie suspension is simpler than a torsion bar suspension system
Probably doesn’t remember seeing pics of what is behind the outer plates.
There are reasons why we don’t use the Christie suspension anymore.
This was great, but I was disappointed that he only covered one obscure German vehicle. I would like to see him do the Panzer IV.
And a stug
That sloped frontal armour on the T-34 looks like it’s designed to deflect incoming shells straight into the turret.
It's only got 45mm of armor (all-around) on the hull. That's good for side&rear armor, and even frontal armor was good in 1941. But they failed to upgrade the armor, so by 1942 it was just mediocre when Germany came up with long-barreled guns, and I'm not even talking Tiger. A 7,5 cm L48 gun would punch right through the hull most of times.
Or, and it really happened, a smaller shell would crack the often extremely bad welding seams. Just in case the way too brittle armor didn't just shatter on impact ...
The turret armor on the T-34/85 as shown here was thicker, though, and IIRC they improved the metallurgy.
@@ottovonbismarck2443 wrote: "Or, and it really happened, a smaller shell would crack the often extremely bad welding seams. Just in case the way too brittle armor didn't just shatter on impact ..."
-- On earlier T-34 tanks maybe, but once Eugene Patton implemented automatic submerged flux welding, this was not the case, the problems with welds were more prevalent over German heavy tanks in the second part of the war, since welds was done by "hand".
Sloped armour on T-34 didn't do any good because of poor quality of metal. They even had thermal hardening. About this mentioned British and American experts.
wrote: "Sloped armour on T-34 didn't do any good because of poor quality of metal. They even had thermal hardening. About this mentioned British and American experts."
--Its laughable, since all Germans tanks after examining T-34 in November of 1941 had slopped armor there after, but not before, and this is written from Aberdeen T-34 test, mind you 50mm PaK38 was ran over by T-34 on the field where A.Porsche and others were taking photographs:
II. Armour
The Americans insist that the T-34 and KV tanks' plates are hardened shallowly, and most of the armour is soft steel. They suggest that we change the hardening technology, which will increase the armour's resistance to impacts. This opinion has no basis in reality, and was likely caused by poor analysis of the armour.
The armour of the sent T-34 tank consisted of 8S steel. All T-34s are armoured this way. This steel is hardened to high hardness (2.8-3.15 mm on the Brinell scale). The KV tank's armour was medium hardness (3.35-3.6 mm on the Brinell scale)."
What about my personal fav the panzer iv
The T-34 was incredibly cramped and uncomfortable. When they decided on sloped armour, the crew wasnt taken into consideration
welcome in soviet union :D
Would love to see a present day made feature film all about the crew of a Jadgpanther ,and a T34 ,well hell why not a Cromwell also.
All of these tanks are excellent... The Cromwell though... Underrepresented and with its pimped out GT-40 doors I am smitten.
The T-34 meets the second set of engineering laws, KISS!
It was a good tank but when you look at the big picture I think the Sherman tank was the best in the war, the post conflict The Korean war proves that agianst the T34/85 tank. One thing not mentioned yes over 80,000 T34 tanks where produced but over 40,000 where destroyed during WW2.
I agree with this sentiment. The sherman was cheap easy to make but was still leagues above the t34 in quality. The sherman was the best balance of quality and value per unit. Once they sorted the wet stowage for ammo and upgraded to the 60mm sloped front plate they were an exceptional tank. That angled 60mm front plate gave it an effective thickness on par with a tiger.
"" That angled 60mm front plate gave it an effective thickness on par with a tiger.""
Tiger I effective armour was circa 115mm to 130mm on the front due to the nickel-steel of Brinell Hardness of 265, along with the angle (24 degrees on the nose plate).
@lyndoncmp5751 Do you have a source for that? I have seen claims up to 105mm, but not beyond that.
Also it was a 5-10 degree angle, not 24. Unless you're talking about the lower glacis?
@@Chopstorm.
Sure. Thomas L Jentz, Germanys Tiger Tanks.
Yes, the lower front plate, which is sometimes referred to as the nose plate. It was 24 degrees. The glacis where the driver's visor was was 10 degrees. Both plates were 100mm thick of 265 Brinell Hardness.
The 265 Brinell Hardness, according to British tests on captured Tigers, gave it a circa 12% stronger resistance effectiveness than the best allied steel of the same thickness. Then add in the angling.
wrote: "One thing not mentioned yes over 80,000 T34 tanks where produced but over 40,000 where destroyed during WW2."
-- You know why it was NOT mentioned!? Because its a dubious claim worthy LazerPig channel, since it does not taking into account war participation nor technological parity. For example:
1) For the beginning of the 1940-41 had a better 3" gun in a fully rotating turret with welded hull, that offered better armor protection then riveted hull of M3 tank, never mind 75mm main gun that placed inside sponson of tank hull.
2) If you read CIA report on captured T-34-85 tank in Korea in 1951, there on pages 5 and 6, you'll find a few interesting notes, that very insightful on American thoughts in comparison of US vs. USSR tanks of that time, under "1. Desirable Features of T-34/85 tank":
(a) Materials were found ample for a job - better then those to be used in American tanks, in some instances.
(i) The T34 is of lighter weight then current U.S. medium tanks, but carries gun only slightly smaller (85mm vs. 90mm)
Mind you, M4 Sherman never had 90mm L53 caliber in length gun, so they comparing T-34-85 to M-26 Pershing which in WW2 by US of A considered to be a heavy tank, so is German Tiger I tank with its 88mm L56 caliber modified AAA main gun, so is T-34-85 L55 modified AAA main gun, which is a lot better, then M4 Sherman's 76mm L52 main gun.
So "in a nutshell", you been "fooled" and/or fooling yourself, thinking that tank that is inferior in fire power, armor protection and mobility/maneuverability that M4 Sherman tank was, would perform better, then best WW2 tank which is T-34, that faced 80% of Wehrmacht and carried most of the fighting from Moscow all the way to Berlin, and won the war as "MVP"(Most Valuable Player).
Same with the Sherman, sheer weight of numbers.
The experts do an excellent job in spite of the guy with the fatigue jacket and his constant pointless interruptions. 😊
Informative and enjoyable looking video....thank you for sharing
Question 1: As the German Jagdpanther does not have a turret it is not obvious as to how the gun was aimed. It is obvious as to the vertical but not the horizontal. Does the whole tank have to be moved??? Question 2: For any or all tanks, was it possible or policy to have a live shell always in the gun??? If yes, how was an unused shell removed???
There was some horizontal traverse. But yes, the vehicle had to traverse with the tracks to aim horizontal.
1. Rises in the ground or hillsides for elevation beyond fifteen degrees and straight on when on level ground. 2. The policies varied between armies but ordinarily rounds would be staged by likelyhood of use (if other tanks are the expectation then anti-armor/armor-piercing rounds were near-to-hand, if fortification were the expectation, HE rounds would be staged and if personnel were to be the targets, then disintegrating, shrapnel-producing rounds would be staged. Knowing the Americans I'll bet there were strict protocols governing when a round was fed into the breech (of course, all protocol goes out the window (hatch) as soon as the first explosion takes place.) and knowing the pragmatism of the Russian tankers they probably had a round in the gun before they ever left the factory. 3. Aren't most artillery-guns and tank-guns provided with an ejector mechanism that was both automatic when the gun fired and manual when a round had to be removed unfired?
1.The gun has limited traverse, which is ok for long-range engagements. For extreme trverse, you had to move the vehicle. Same for all vehicles without turret.
2. It very much depends on the situation. In a hurry, common procedure was/is to fire the round you have loaded anyway. It's probably faster to reload than to eject a live round and reload then. And no matter with what you hit the enemy, it will cause them a brown alert moment. If you don't hit, you can correct your second shot. There are multiple accounts of Allied tankers shooting HE first on German tanks, because that's what they had loaded at the moment.
Cow seemed decidedly unimpressed with the Jagdpanther
Problem with Tigers was that the Germans lied about the diesel emissions and they all had to be recalled to avoid them being sued.
Was the editor having a stroke? I don’t think we needed the basic dimensions and weight 3+ times with amp up back music.
Youre publishing this again?
don't tell me "it's good" tell me WHY it's good.
T-34 wasn't good for fighting, it was good for dying. Tank men were real heroes.
The most idiotic post ever, highest allied ace fought in T-34-76 and was killed outside his tank in December 1941, no other allied tank aces came close to his score.
@@RussianThunderrr For this is only one reason. Such 'Ace' never existed. He was forged by Commy propaganda. Same as 38 heroes-panphilovtsy, etc. 3 months before Hitler attacked SU there was report of GBTY (main department of artillery and armoured troops of SU). This report compared T-4, bought from Germans, and T-34. Report found out COMPLETE domination of T-4, recommended to stop manufacturing T-34 and fix all problems. Those recommendations were rejected. Stalin beurocrats were not interested in making better model T-34M, because it can affect volumes. As a result thousands of brave Soviet tankists died. Later all innovations from T-34M were incorporated to T-44-85.
ua-cam.com/video/Vr7xqXUc6Bk/v-deo.html Two tank T-34 were destroyed by hand granades..
What did I learn today? The T34 is definitely rough and ready.
I heard somewhere that Soviet tank crews would put a bucket over the end of their turret to make their T34s look like an IS2 from a distance by giving the impression of having the distinct muzzle break that the IS series of tanks had
Bucket doesnt mattsr t34 was totally and utterly horroble tank
Lazerpig finally gets some statistical-truth to the propaganda!
@@RussianThunderrr no T-34 was and is peace of junk that was hold togetrher bretty much with super glue and hopium 44,900+ cobat losses tells it isnt best tank it tells you exat opposite
It is true, you can see it over here for T-34 "masskirovka" for IS-2:
ua-cam.com/video/tfRXsNhGFTQ/v-deo.html
@@no-nonseplayer6612 -- If this is would be the case, Germans would not rush their tank rearmament program that supposed to replace Pz-III and Pz-IV in October of 1942. T-34 was fast very maneuverable and scary tank as far as Germans were concerned, hence the rearmament. Beside, T-34-76 produced the highest scoring allied tank ace in December of 1941!
ua-cam.com/video/0NHj9xA4zIo/v-deo.html
It was best tank of WWII.
interesting british tank had the same engine as the plane , at the end of the video i like Cromwell better just more small moble than sherman. i remember using the cromwell in war thunder i higher tiers 7.0 still flanking enemy getting descent score capping
How much does the T-34 weight?
Ah, a "Grizzly" tank. 17-tooth drive sprockets and CDP tracks. General Steel shield logo on glacis. CDP tracks were not interchangeable with standard Sherman track types, and their shorter pitch also necessitated production of the new 17 tooth drive sprocket
What the difference between Cromwell and Comet?
It makes me want to play war-thunder. I only ever play with the T-34-85 because it's my favorite tank.
Haha Well said sir! I've spent so many hours playing War Thunder that I've developed PTSD.
For those of you not familiar with the metric system… that’s the equivalent of 32 tonnes.
lookin at the interior of the cromwell, where's the tea set?
Surely tank crews carried extra canteens to relieve themselves in? Was there any air conditioning? How hot could it get inside in places like North Africa or the south Pacific? I've read of Germans building fires beneath their tanks just to get them started in subzero temps.
I think many tanks, especially the Russian T-tank, had a maintenance hatch in the floor that you could piss through in a pinch...or pinch-off through when its pissing rain. I could be wrong...
I’ve even heard they would also use empty shell casings as well.
a) In North Africa, temperatures inside the tanks got above 50°C. Imagine sitting in the tiny bow MG turret of a Crusader tank.
b) True, mainly for the fat/oil getting too thick; and cooling water needed proper additives like glycol, which only helps so much, especially when everything is on short hand. But the Russians had to refer to similar procedures because Diesel engines were even worse to start because the fuel itself gets too thick. There are certain tricks around it, like adding petrol to the diesel, which in fact had to be done on diesels in winter until the late 70s. Otherwise you're pretty much f***ed.
@@ottovonbismarck2443 wrote: "But the Russians had to refer to similar procedures because Diesel engines were even worse to start because the fuel itself gets too thick. There are certain tricks around it, like adding petrol to the diesel, which in fact had to be done on diesels in winter until the late 70s. Otherwise you're pretty much f***ed."
-- Otto, did we picked that bone a few years back? T-34 had a special heater for winter operation that would provide heat to tank's engine compartment. It mounted to the round hatch on the back of engine deck between exaust pipes, and can be seen here on this documentary in a couple of spots:
ua-cam.com/video/tfRXsNhGFTQ/v-deo.html
@@RussianThunderrr Fu** me sideways, indeed we did ! 🙂
I hope you're doing well, Sir !
You are absolutely right, there were special heaters.
And I came to the conclusion that they were as "widespread" as the German ones: sorry Comrade, not available this season.
Tovarishch field manual says:
from -20 to -30°C 10% kerosine
from -30 to -35°C 25% kerosine
from -35 to -50°C 70% kerosine
(Comrade, if kerosine not available, use petrol. If petrol not available, make fire under engine)
There is a myth about nitroglycerine working miracles, but I can't confirm it. Nitro makes sense, but not for a cold start, or does it ?
57:09 - Angry English Bovine disagrees with German Invincibility claims - Jagdpanther my ass . . . . . "Think you're hard - Lets av It" !
Stephen Fry and Jeremy Clarkson had a baby.
Jagdpanther, each one came with its own cow!
Lieutenant Gruber's little tenk was my favourite...
25:50 T-34 penetrate king tiger?
Not sure who editied this video but I don't think they proofread is before posting.....
Why were such narrow tracks used on most tanks ?
I would think wider tracks for the inevitable mud bogs would have been used ???
Many of the German tanks were so large and heavy there were many bridges they couldn't cross. American tanks were made my auto manufactures, the way they worked was to standardize as many parts as possible and keep it simple.
There were around 100, major and minor, variants of the Sherman. If anything, a Panzer IV from 1939 was more similar to a Panzer IV from 1945, than a cast armor M4A1 from 1943 to the M4A3E8 of 1945.
@@TTTT-oc4eb Not making a joke but the Sherman was the hamburger of tanks, it could be made many different ways....
@@TTTT-oc4ebSherman was good in many different roles. Plus they didn't have enough of the same engines to put into so many Shermans so they used radial engines and such like in the E8.
@ badcornflakes6374 the Sherman was literally the Swiss Army knife of tanks.
@@brennanleadbetter9708 Never thought of it that way, but if the shoe fits........
One inch (25.4mm) thickness of most steels (varies slightly with alloy content) one square foot (30.48mm x 30.48mm = 929.03 square mm) in size weighs 40.8 pounds (18.51 kg). British and US Navies rounded the weight to only 40 pounds in most documents "20-pound" plate for 0.5" thickness, for example).
The Russians were the first to fit a large calibre tank gun=3" to the KV1 in fact the Germans in 1941 had great difficulty in knocking out KV's even with their PAK 38 50MM AT Gun so they were forced to use the 88MM Flak Gun deployed as an AT Weapon.
The Brits only made 3 decent tanks, the Matilda II, The Cromwell and the Meteor. They did a good job of converting the Sherman M4A4 into the Firefly but the rest were poor to appalling. Grateful for the Shermans and M10/18/26s to fill in the gaps.
The t34-76 is called just the t34-57 but there are alot of versions, t34 (1940) t34 (1941) t34 (1942) t34e stz and the list goes on
😂 the t34 57 was a different variant to the 76… they started with a short 76mm variant realized they needed more penetrating power and went for the zis 4 57mm gun then went back to the 76mm with a longer barrel before developing the 85mm version
The Sherman seems to be getting the better reputation that it deserves.
Before it got a worse reputation than it deserved . It all equals out. The M4 was not perfect but it was perfect for what it was intended for.
@ ronmailloux8655 it wasn’t perfect, but it was what the Allies needed to help win the war.
Sherman. Period.