We found a Sherman 105 outside Taji, Iraq in early 2004. Still worked, too. It was loaded onto a HEMTT and trucked back to base. As far as I know, this Sherman was taken back to the States and sits as a guard for some armored battalion.
@@alfnoakes392Isn't it heavily radiated? I know The Bovington Tank Museum UA-cam channel has done several videos on their tanks, including the KV1, and it is mentioned that they can't tour the inside because of radiation.
@@arostwocentsit is a scam. The snail will consume any and all of your free time if you let it. Is it a scam financially? Only if you’re a fool and use ge to upgrade parts
There is another lesson for you. The role of the USA in the Victory of 1945 is negligible. For three years they waited and sought to bleed the USSR. On November 6, 1943, at a solemn meeting dedicated to the 25th anniversary of the Great October Socialist Revolution, at the most tense time for our country, when the fate of the Fatherland was being decided, Stalin said: “The main reason for the tactical successes of the Germans on our front this year is that that the absence of a second front in Europe made it possible for them to carry out this operation without any risk to themselves. And how did the United States and its allies fight? For example, at the same time, when millions of soldiers and officers of the Red Army bravely and wisely fought near Stalingrad and on other fronts of the Great Patriotic War, the Allies carried out the only operation on the European continent, insignificant in terms of the number of forces and means involved. On August 17, 1942, a landing force of 5,000 Canadians was landed in the area of the French city of Dieppe. The Germans, of course, quickly defeated the Canadians: 900 Canadian soldiers were killed, about 2,000 were taken prisoner. Such operations only raised the spirit of the Nazi army, but had no effect on the battles on the Soviet-German front. Having a significant superiority over the German troops in forces and means, the Allied troops began to retreat. “In a matter of days, Hitler’s troops broke through the weak defenses of the 1st American Army on a front of up to forty kilometers, by December 22 they captured the cities of Saint-Hubert and Marsh and, soon reaching the Meuse River, found themselves at the line of Dinant, Liver, without introducing for the development of this offensive no reserves. Thus, having penetrated 100-110 kilometers into the territory occupied by American troops, they expanded the breakthrough front to one hundred kilometers, dividing the British and American troops into two parts. The world glorifies the armies of the USA and England, despite the fact that they did not learn how to conduct military operations in 1944. On June 6, 1944, and in the following days, Hitler did not take any effective measures against the landing troops of the United States and England. He clearly considered their armies incapable of fighting the troops of Germany and he threw all his forces and means against the advancing troops of the Red Army...
@@monaliza3334 I studied World War II a great deal since high school, when it was presented in the terms you described, and agree that the Soviet Union sustained far more losses and had a superior army by the time the United States entered the war. At the same time, the United States was not a combatant in the initial phases of the war, aside from its war with Japan, which triggered Hitler to declare war against the United States as well. This was an odd decision, considering that the Japanese refused to open their own front against the Soviet Union in the east, which in turn allowed Stalin to reassign those divisions to the west and stop the German advance. The United States contributed to that effort by supplying food and vehicles that would have been difficult for the Soviet Union to produce at the time, which was certainly not negligible under the circumstances. And despite putting off the D-Day invasion until near the end of the war, the US was involved in the air campaigns prior to that time, which eroded Germany's industrial base. And much of Stalin's lack of preparedness at the beginning of the war what's caused by his own mistakes. He purged his own high ranking military officials, which likely had a lot to do with the disastrous showing in Finland that bolstered Hitler's resolve. He also made the critical mistake of trusting Hitler after signing the Warsaw Pact, which was obviously something the West opposed, despite Hitler's violations of other treaties and clearly stated intent to expand to the east. Then he ignored warnings from both his own and western intelligence agencies when Hitler was amassing three million soldiers near the border. All of this was preventable in a system with more openness and transparency, but the climate of fear enabled all of these things to happen. Thankfully, the two sides did not turn on each other at the end of the war, but Soviet Union was certainly a powerful nation at that time, and likely would have won a land battle without nuclear weapons. Putting so much power in one man's hands had a lot to do with why the losses were so catastrophic later on. No more fascinating time in history than this, but watching China discover that it's missiles are filled with water is easily similar to Stalin finding out the status of his armies in Finland. I have a feeling we are looking at another world conflict sometime in the near future, but hopefully cooler heads will prevail eventually.
We didn't have that option: the Japanese drew us in. Anyway, it seems you favor totalitarianism, if you would have preferred either Hitler or Stalin to rule Europe?@@jimborovicka
@@monaliza3334 No doubt that the Red Army fought valiantly and at great cost. But this is a very selective examination of the war. You jump from Dieppe to...what? The Battle of the Bulge? So much happened before and in between - the Lend-Lease program, the mobilization of US industry, the fighting in North Africa, Italy, and of course in the Pacific Theatre, where the US fought Japan almost single handedly. The logistical challenges of fighting a multi-front war at opposite ends of the world were enormous to the point of unimaginable, and the US and its allies can take pride in an extraordinary accomplishment. In the end, we all won. So kindly save your disjointed narrative for the Young Pioneers.
Until Holland and the Low Countries were invaded.... And Germany had access to the Dutch East Indies... Indonesia, then Germany had access to the World's largest rubber plantations. But it's true that during WWI, through Switzerland....Britain, France and Belgium traded Rubber with Germany for Zeiss Optics for weapons and binoculars. A German Infantryman commented about being shot by a British Sniper using a German made scope whilst he was wearing British rubber galoshes..... Shows how much the politicians didn't care about the Men fighting the War but cared about the financial aspects of the War 😳🤔🤔 nothing much has changed! 🤬🤬🤬
Japan’e expansion into the pacific was driven by their rubber needs too. And the only navy in the area that could stop them was stationed in Hawaii. Rubber caused Pearl Harbor.
I would like to suggest 3 subjects for consideration: 1) American and Canadian Chinese pilots who flew for the Nationalist Chinese Air Force prior to the AVG. Such as Art Chin (Portland, OR - 8.5 aerial victories) and John “Buffalo Wong (Los Angeles. CA - first Gloster Gladiator ace) 2) Frank “Foo” Fujita: Half Japanese American sergeant captured in Java (separate artillery battalion of Texas Division) and how the Japanese tried to use him for propaganda purposes and failed. 3) The military career of Merian C. Cooper, this famous Hollywood film director and producer (King Kong, The Quiet Man, etc) fought in 2 world wars, the Polish-Soviet War and the Villa campaign as well as removed from Annapolis in his final term.
For Cooper’s WWI experience, “History of the Twentieth Aero Squadron” by Clarence G. Barth, originally published in 1920 and reprinted in 1990 by The Battery Press. Page 59 has the recommendation for a DSC for Cooper.
@@johnanita9251 Much of his work on “King Kong” was based on his travels through the Indian Ocean basin and South East Asia including Komodo Island. His silent films “Grass” and “Chang” were produced during that period.
@@StevenKeery Shared victories are very common if both friendly aircraft fired and caused significant damage . “Gabby” Gabreski has a combined total for WWII and Korea of 37.5 victories. There are many examples of that also official methods of counting. Merian Cooper is credited with half a victory for the aircraft his observer shot down as that was squadron policy at the time.Look up the tallies and you will see how common it is.
Fascinating! I knew nothing of this T-34 initiative. I knew of course about British shipments of arms to the USSR but the sheer magnitude astounded me. How such vast amounts were manufactured in our small country is fantastically impressive.
The UK outproduced Germany on many items, aircraft and ships as well as tanks. And whilst the German tanks were better than ours Spitfires, Mosquitoes and Lancasters were as good if not better.
I mean it's only logical? Britain didn't field that big of an army, so naturally they shipped their equipment where it can be used against Germany instead of sitting in storage.
@@Ronald98Britain and the commonwealth had 15 million troops 1.6 million Indian volunteers alone I know the Russians suffered a lot of casualties but the axis suffered more loses in North Africa than Stalingrad
@@Jermster_91Surprised that World of Tanks hasn't already made it as a premium, since they're far more willing to do "paper tanks" that never got built in reality.
A good friend was the curator of Arms and Armor at Aberdeen Proving Ground when it moved to Fort Lee. The T-34/76 is still in the collection along with a T34/85 captured in Korea. I also have in my possession the entirety of the dissassembly and reassembly photos they took of the K5E Anzio Annie.
@@rockym2931 as of right now it's just the museum folks and myself that have them. As far as I know there is copies with CMH the Center of Military History. It's the Civilian branch that oversees all of the US Army Museums on military bases.
I was greatly disappointed when they closed the US Army Ordinance Museum before I had the opportunity to visit and see everything. For over a decade afterwards, I occasionally researched to find out when the "replacement museum" was to open, but alas, it still hasn't happened.
Just because you have a copy of some thing you want to make, it will require a lot of time to gear up to make a tank. There will be a massive job to tool up your factory to make it. The factory will need hundreds of jigs and fixtures as well as the machine tools to machine the parts. It is much easer to carry on with what you are already making.
You have some logic. But you can read how soviets COPIED B-29 and created Ту-4. For example they have to fight with imperial units. The sheathing was 1/16 inches. This is 1.5875mm. But this cannot be done. make it 1.6mm - the plane will be heavy, make it 1.5 - strength is not guaranteed. And that's just one small problem...
That wasn't even even the main problem. The tank required a complete redesign to be considered usable by any British or American standard. The engine was notoriously overheating, the air filters didn't work, the engine block and cylinder head were not stiff enough to withstand diesel combustion rate and after just 30 hours of operation the risk of engine failure was very high. The gearbox lacked synchromesh which together with faulty cluth meant it was impossible to change gears without damaging and eventually breaking the gearbox, not to mention it required excessive use of force from the driver. The steering didn't work well either, everyone soon found out that manuvering in T-34 causes transmission oil leaks. Germans deliberately forced Soviet T-34s into manuvering to trigger those leaks and make the tank completely unable to change direction. What else, the armour was excellent for deflecting shells up to 40mm caliber, but anything higher, the high hardness would make it crack inside the tank, wound or killing the crew even if the shell didn't penetrate. Ammo storage was difficult to take shells from to say the least, the guns lacked muzzle velocity, the optics were poor quality and vision from inside the tank was terrible. One German report about operation of platoon of captured T-34s mentions: 'the visibility from inside the tank is terrible. On one day, the tanks accidentally fell inside a trench and destroyed the equipment they were supposed to capture. On the next day, a similar accident happened.' If British and Americans wanted to make T-34, it would have required designing a tank from absolute scratch, and at the end of the day it could only look similar. Sherman was far superior to T-34.
@@CatEatsDogs Yes, but as pointed out in the American report, T-34 lacked necessary features that were known for many years (synchromesh) or used things that were already retired in the US (centrifugal filter). Sherman was made later only because the US thought they didn't need tanks and in emergency was designed around spare engine but it could have been made earlier with same or better results. The issue T-34 has not only it was based on underdeveloped industry, it's a typical example of a system made in huge centralised organization as a direct order from high management. It looks great on paper but has no actual chance of working properly. Sherman had a certain performance, because that's what slowly developed in market competition parts could do together. T-34? Deflects 37mm rounds - pass, reaches 50kph, pass. Who cares it can't turn too much because oil will leak, that you mustered 500 horsepower because you took mufflers off and enemy will hear the tank from miles away, that engine will blow head gasket on the first day or that you can't change gears or that the crew may be killed cracking armour because you had to use only high hardness steel to combine demanded armour effectiveness with demanded top speed. The order from high ground didn't mention the tank can't have any of those issues! Pretty much the same how current big corporations work. New high rank manager wants to show off and gets 9 women to produce him 1 baby in a month.
As a person who Volunteers at the Oshawa regiment museum. we have a t34 t55 and t72 and BMP troop carriers. And Shermans. centurion. and Chaffee's etc. Just a mechanical note the T34s and others are designed to be worked on by a person with little mechanical ability. the turrets some have no baskets and if you Arnt quick on the move you can be in a lot of trouble. the Shermans turret baskets and when they start up a lot less smoke. the Russian tanks well not so much. As always, I love your videos Mr. Felton Keep up the good work.
Whether it be modern tanks or tanks of WW2, I still would rather not be inside of these lumbering beasts. However, I have endless respect for tank crews then and now. Tanks are such a priority target that they have to be sorted out directly. Damned dangerous. Dr. Felton must have thousands of hours at this point researching and producing content for both of his channels, for that I'm grateful. Cheers from the States!
@@Joseph-z7s3b Yeah I agree with you on that. I would rather die in the open and have an open casket funeral than be buried in a metal coffin and blown to bits 😅
The Germans also considered cloning the T-34 but decided it was too difficult and manufactured the Panther instead. There is a vid on the evaluation and rejection for reasons put up by, I think, Chris, on his military channel.
Right, Bernard on "Military History Visualized." As far as the Germans were concerned coming up with a new tank of their own would have been a better choice than copying a T-34 since all-new tooling, jigs, dies, and other implements would have to be made anyway.
@@piotrmalewski8178 PoIak bs as usual... German commanders considered T-34 a great tank, but HitIer didn't want to copy something from bolsheviks, also friendly fire was a major potential problem.
@@bdleo300 Rubbish... T-34 is belowed tank in Poland because of the 'Four Tankmen and Dog' series. Read some actual German reports. After the initial awe on how T-34 could deflect 37 mm rounds at any distance, Germans got some of them and learnt how difficult it was to operate and how unreliable it was. German trials found that because of poor visibility and crew configuration T-34 would lose fights to Pz. III. Reports also suggested just blinding it with machinegun fure and forcing to manuver because Germans found that under heavy manuvering it would leak oil on steering brakes and become completely unable to change direction. They also found the tank had to stop every 30 minutes to cool the engine down. One report also points out that visibility from inside the tank was so poor one of German T-34 equipped companies accidentally destroyed cannons they were supposed capture, and suffered a similar accident the very next day because from inside they couldn't tell where they were going. T-34 was great on paper but terrible in reality, and as two American reports proove, it was not just because of poor production quality, but mainly because of inherent design flaws. Speaking of Americans reports, they are comedy gold. Reading them, it seems there was not a single component in T-34 that would work properly, maybe except for turret traverse system. Soviets were aware of these problems as well. Hence several high rank meetings, some of them including Stalin himself complaining how German tanks can routinely cover hundreds of kilometers but T-34 supposedly having a better engine is completely unable to do so.
The amount of aid/equipment provided to Russia is astounding. The T-34 apparently a good tank. Another interesting, entertaining, informative video, thanks Mark.
What is «astounding» is that after the war, due to political reasons, some god-chosen nation decided that the receiving side must be busy with not restoration of bombed into the oblivion country, but collecting all non-consumable equipment and sent it back. Because you know, it's very adequate that one side is spilling the blood, while other is spilling only sweat on a factory, so after the war it would be placing price labels on everything they've done.
@@gordonbergslien30 The Canadian Army's tank forces grew from maybe a couple of dozen Vickers Light Tanks armed with one or two machine guns at the start of the war, to fielding two armoured divisions and several armoured regiments. All of Canada's five divisions in Europe came together in early 1945, as part of the multi-national 1st Canadian Army. British, Polish, Czech and even a few US units formed the Army. The Royal Canadian Navy grew from less than a dozen destroyers to numerically the third largest Allied navy by 1945. The vast bulk of the RCN's warships were corvettes and frigates to counter the German U-boat threat. By 1945, the RCN was responsible for 40% of the convoys crossing the Atlantic. The Royal Canadian Air Force started the war with a few Hurricane fighters along with some obsolete Inter-War types. It expanded to well over 40 squadrons of fighters and bombers just in Europe alone. And through the British Commonwealth Air Training Program, thousands and thousands of air crew from all over the world were trained in Canada. Plus Canadian war production was enormous - for a country that didn't have that much industrial output in 1939. While the overall number pale to what the US produced, Canada indeed punched well above its weight. In trucks alone more than 800,000 were churned out of Canadian factories. Totaled together, about 1 million Canadians served in the military during the war - the vast majority joining up without conscription. All this with a population of around 15 million.
At the start of WW2 the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) had 246 aircraft, at the end of hostilities they had the world's 4th largest airforce ,6000 aircraft in 60 squadrons, 217000 serving in the wartime RAAF ,Australia's population of the time was 7 million. About 1 million served in ww2 and I'm proud of my Dad serving as ground crew on Catalina's ,pacific theatre, my Uncle Bill at Tobruck North African campaign and my Auntie Joan WAAF driver.@@glenhallick3953
600 Matilda II were also pressed into service in the defence of Moscow. If you visit the Moscow museum and memorial to the Great Patriotic War, A Matilda is proudly parked with the Russian Amour and a model Matilda is on display on the upper floor of the museum. I don’t think it would have made much sense for the British to build T34s when the US could supply well built Sherman hulls that could be equipped with a turret mounting a 17-pounder anti tank gun rather than working up a production line of T34s at the expense of other tank production.
It would probably have been better if the Americans had just produced the firefly from scratch considering how poor the regular Sherman was in tank v tank combat
They looked at the firefly and reported that it was impossible to fight in it due to appalling ergonomics. Not a lot of room left in the turret for the squashy mammals.@@toekneekerching9543
@@toekneekerching9543The Us can't build 17-pounders as all of its production is geared towards 75mm and 76mm. Besides, the Firefly is a British creation made in Britain...
So many think the Sherman was the Holy grail of tanks as they refer to stats....the only thing that made the Sherman look good was total air dominance.
@@wirelessone2986 *Ah yes, because you want your enemy to have as much of a chance as you do.* *Air superiority may have been a notable factor, but that was not all that made the Sherman effective. It was an all round tank that could be modified to fit many specific niches, that the Sherman family tree could even have their own museum if there wasn't one already. Not to mention that the tank itself was not meant to go up against other tanks* (though, not that it didn't) *but to support the infantry, provide armor, and counter enemy armor. Which by no means only means tanks. Half tracks, anti-tank guns, ok, maybe even the Panzer or Stug.* *The thing is, what made the Sherman so successful were its soft factors. Comfort for the crew, Reliability of the engine and tank, Visibility through scopes and sights, those were what more than made up for the lackluster hard factors. Take the Panther, it has excellent armor, decent mobility, good firepower. But it had the worst kill ratio and is probably a factor in speeding up Germany's defeat.* *No tank is meant to act alone unless told otherwise. It is a branch of a tree and is the finger on a hand.* *America had total air dominance. This gave the ground forces breathing space and emboldened commanders and soldier alike, thus giving the tank crews the luxury of pushing in rather confidently. In turn, the infantry followed close by the armor. Something that a German soldier in 1944 could only hope for.*
How about a Maginot Line report Mark? I've been inside several, abandoned AND tourist sites, and boy oh boy are they ever something to behold! There are even artillery pieces still in situ in the turrets at some locations!
I'd like to know more about the Seigfreid line too. Quite often it doesn't get much more than a passing mention as a post script to the Battle of the Bulge. I wonder why they persevered with building one when the made a mockery of the French original? I think perhaps (unlike modern Western Nation's) there was something sacred about "home" soil and it may have been as much an "emotional" response as a practical proposition?
I think the Seigfried Line was different in as much as there wasn’t an immediate route around it, unlike the Maginot Line. As I understand it the French created the Madge to prevent invasion through the Alsace/Lorraine etc. instead channeling any German advance into the countryside on the Belgian/French border which was better suited to fighting and much easier to defend whilst maintaining a war of movement. Of course history records that the Germans simply came through the Ardennes instead which France thought was not possible. To the best of my knowledge no Maginot Line forts fell to direct assault, at least from the direction it was supposed to defend. The Germans ‘turned around’ some of the forts and Patton found himself held up for a serious amount of time by one in particular even though he was attacking the relatively under defended rear of the fort.
@@martinjf467 What the French actually thought - I'm paraphrasing what Pétain said in 1934 - was that a successful German attack through the Ardennes would be impossible "provided certain measures were taken". Those measures were essentially to hold the German advance on the second line of defence - the Meuse river - for long enough to allow the sector to be reinforced. They felt this could be done by second line units, mainly composed of older reservists, allowing them to concentrate their best troops much further west to spearhead a drive deep into Belgium, where they expected to meet and stop the main German attack.. In the event, of course, Belgian resistance collapsed surprisingly quickly, while the successful crossing of the Meuse at Sedan by Guderian did not give the French time to carry out their planned reinforcement. But they did have a plan.
Thank you very much for that, I appreciate your reply. I wasn't fully aware of the complete reasoning - only that the Ardennes "wangle" the Germans carried out came as a bit of a shocker! Your explanation is enlightening. Cheers!@@plunketgreene3646
I live in Luxembourg and 25km away is a section on the line called Fort Hackenberg at Veckring. It is maintained by a "friends" group and is almost as it was during the war. At weekends they run tours in multiple languages which include a 10km underground small train ride, visits to fully equiped gun turrets, hospital, kitchens,generator rooms and a lecture about its history. You also visit outside bunkers destroyed by the allies tanks when they had to drive the Germans out at the end of the war. The tour takes over 2 hours and is well worth the visit. There is also a free virtual tour on the web. Look for Hackenberg and Veckring.
you live in America, I understood tis because you posted the comment 4 mins ago and you say morning while now in my country is 20:52. West countries are late and East countries are forward
The obvious question about mounting a 17 pounder in a T34 turret is which version was being considered for the conversion. The T34/76 is shown in the video, but that would have been an extremely tight fit. Either the British also had a T34/85, or they had plans to make extensive modifications on the 76 turret to make the 17 pounder fit and leave room for the turret crew to function.
I understand that for the Firefly, they had to cut the back out of the Sherman turret and weld a bustle to the back to accomodate the radio and leve more room for the gun.
That is correct. The British had to mount the radio on the rear of the Firefly turret due to space limitations. The breach of the 17lbr was so large that the entire gun had to be mounted sideways in order for it to be loaded inside the turret. And although the Firefly carried up to 77 rounds, only 23 could be stored in the turret. The remainder could not be accessed while the tank was in action. Those rounds could only be transferred from the hull to the turret from outside the vehicle. Not a optimal scenario in combat! The Firefly was certainly a fearsome and effective weapon but was really intended only as a stopgap measure until a purpose-designed tank such as the Comet and Crusader arrived on the scene. Thus, only a few hundred were built.
Fantastic video mr. Felton! I thoroughly enjoy your work, as it includes incredible information, never before seen media and a wide variety of interesting topics!
Another big part of lend lease was gasoline, though the Soviet Union had very large petroleum reserves, they lacked the refining technology to produce the high octane gasoline (petrol to the Brits) necessary for high performance aircraft. A T-34 with patriotic slogans written on it in English would have been an interesting sight. Thanks Dr. Felton.
Good point - I have read elsewhere that the Soviet Union war effort would have collapsed by the end of 1942 if it were not for US aid, particularly the fuel.
Soviet, German, Japanese and Italian aircraft and tank engines were designed to work with lower octane fuel. They were generally reliable, but lower in effective horsepower as a result of lower quality fuel.
I read somewhere that an initial problem with the trucks the Americans supplied was that they could not properly run on the 80 octane fuel that was standard in the USSR. So not surprised to hear it was an issue with aircraft, even the UK did not initially have 100 octane fuel needed to facilitate getting the best performance out of new aircraft designs.
@@timonsolus Jimmy Doolittle worked with the American petroleum industry in the 1930s to work out getting production capacity for 100 + Octane fuel. Critical work in peacetime led to much higher performance in aero engines in wartime.
There is MUCH in this program that is new to me, and surprising, What is not surprising is the fact that Mark Felton Productions has, yet again, soared beyond the conventions of World War II archival reporting - typical of the excellence I expect from this source.
I remember hearing and reading that the soviet troopers very much liked the sherman. They found it to be not only very robust, but quite comfortable. The only complaint was the higher profile. I also heard they outfitted an entire division with shermans.
Yeah, the Sherman was a reliable design, less cramped than the T-34, with smoother-working controls, less leaky seams, etc. The Soviets had no time to spend on the fit and finish of their own tanks, making the Shermans seem like Cadillacs.
I've read the memories of a soviet M4 commander in which he says they had to keep an eye on their vehicles because crews from other tank units would sneak in at night and rip the seats out of any M4 they could.
Honestly, just looking at it in the video, it's definitely more difficult to make out the exact shape of the vehicle. At least to me, it seems to be working as intended.
The railway track question would have been answered the same way as Churchill mentioned. The questions about radio equipment would have been answered by installing an external bustle outside the turret, but you'll need to balance the turret out. Improve the gear box and transmission, not to mention the ergonomics inside the vehicle. Moving out of the way of the recoiling breech before firing, not to mention the cramped space. The question is how long it would have taken for testing and mass production. American tanks were already in widespread use, so there would had been no greater strain in logistics.
Sherman surpassed T-34 in every aspect except for offroadability, but even there it was actually better because if it struggled more on a first few obstacles or got stuck here and there, at least it could keep trying untill it got somewhere, while T-34 would overheat the engine after 30 minutes, was likely to break gearbox, loose ability to turn after oil leak on steering clutches, suffer cylinder head gasket failure and was loosing tracks randomly. T-34 would require a complete redesign of every single part to be considered comparable to Sherman. It wasn't because Soviet engineers were stupid, but because they were given impossible specifications and had to work with underdeveloped industry, so they sacrificed every practical aspect of the tank just to meet the specifications given.
I can't speak from personal experience with a KV-1 but I HAVE been inside a T-34 and let me tell you, it's TIGHT in there! I'm six feet tall and at the time I weighed 165 pounds and I had a hard time moving around in the thing. I can't speak for the British obviously but the tight confines of the T-34 alone would have disqualified it for American use, to say nothing of the awkward transmission. In fact from what I've read the Russians who manned Lend-Lease M4 Shermans liked the roomy interiors and ease of driving, more so than their T-34's. (The Russians also tried using captured German Panthers and didn't like them at all. Interesting.) Still, the Lend-Lease aid the Russians were the most appreciative of were the American and British trucks, they could never quite make enough trucks of their own. Another interesting one Doctor Felton, you continue to amaze!
This is along the lines of my first thoughts too. The T-34 was so tight, they left away the loader and handed the job to the commander. Now add that big 17pounder plus it's large rounds and a radio...at least the efficiency/rate of fire was likely to drop. (And the crews might have been cursing the designers all the way to Germany.)
@@viandengalacticspaceyards5135 Right. I should have added the T-34 I was in was the T-34/85 variant, the later model with the larger turret. I can't imagine how tight the older 76mm gun turret was like. A two-man turret would have been totally unacceptable for American practice.
They did not put big people in tanks. Most WW2 soldiers were far smaller than today. Malnutrition was so bad in England prior to the war many young men were the English equivalent. The need for healthy conscripts was part of the Socialist approach of post war Britian.
Lend-Lease Trucks may be more important to ultimate victory over nazi germany than all these tanks. Mechanisation of troop transport allowed red army to have same operational mobility as wermaht, you can really see the diffrence how soviet operations progressed in 1944+ vs 1942 and earlier.
@@shawnr771 I can't speak for the Brits or the Russians for that matter but the average size of an American WW2 soldier was 5'10". If you were designing equipment for the American army in those days you had to keep that in mind. You have to keep it in mind today. As far as malnutrition is concerned when the US began the peacetime draft in 1940 one-third were rejected due to malnutrition, the effects of the Great Depression were that bad. When the war came standards had to be relaxed, the idea was the services would put the weight on the men once they were getting three square meals a day. So it proved.
They did the same with The Claas combine factory. The Germans were convinced that as part of the 'Spoils of war,' The Claas Combine harvester that the British took back home with them after the war would be 'cloned' and manufactured in The UK. Instead, The British helped to get the Claas factory up and running again back in Germany.
Fantastic material Mark, I'm an old fart who has read a LOT of material regarding WW2 (especially in Europe) throughout my years and this is something I have NEVER previously come across. Thank you also for relating to your many viewers the normally ignored massive supply of material from the UK to the USSR, which was conveyed largely via the "Arctic run" to Murmansk & Archangel under terrible conditions by our largely unsung merchant marine. Not forgetting too the enormous supply of fuel from British owned oil fields in Persia which the soviets used to bolster their own oil production.
Some of those Valentine tanks would be rolling into the streets of Berlin. When Molotov was in London in 1943 he asked for more Valentines, despite the British thinking it obsolete
Valentine was a tough reliable vehicle that was useful as a light tank when the Russians had sufficient T34/KV/IS vehicles. It is a much underrated vehicle. There is a considerable prejudice against British vehicles that is often difficult to understand.
@@cheften2mk Wdym? T-60/70 were already occupying said niche, possessing superior 45mm (to 2 pounder at least) or autocannon on very light (and cheap) base. Instead it was used as assault tank, where its heavy armor (and outdated axis AT equipment) served well, alongside other infantry tanks.
You can occasionally see on eBay an old Red Army wartime Xmas card, with soldiers making merry around a Valentine ! And when I went to Kubinka tank museum in 2005, there were 5 tanks thought worthy of being the gate guardians, and one of these was a Valentine !
I have been studying WWII for over 35 years and I still find it amazing that the Soviets were able to accomplish so much and triumph over such adversity. I've read that 70-75% of all German battle losses were on the Russian Front. The Germans through everything they had at the Russians and failed. I find it amazing...... After the lessons of Napoleon in 1812 and Hitler in 1941-44, I have concluded that it is basically impossible to defeat Russia. Russia is too large, too cold, to be occupied.
Hitler started the Barbarossa campaign against Russia a month or two later than the German generals wanted and Hitler also interfered in the major decisions in that 1st year of the Russian war instead of letting his generals run the campaign, had Hitler done what his generals wanted completely there’s a good chance they would have defeated the Red Army or gained a major portion of Russia’s oil reserves before those deadly winter conditions saved the Red Army in 1941 and gave them valuable time to regroup and fight back effectively
It would make an interesting alternate history scenario if the British actually did choose to make T-34 Fireflies. Maybe they could have put 6 pounders or the Cromwell's 75mm on the T-34 and the 17 pounder on the KV-1.
The Sherman turret ring where the turret was seated was 69 inches, the early T-34 had a 56-inch ring. With the 17 pounder gun the firefly turret on a Sherman body was cramped. I can not think that the T34 was a better option, since it could only support a smaller turret. Of course in the last year of the war the newest T34 had a 63-inch turret ring for the 85mm gun, but that too late to get to Britain by the end of the war.
From what I've heard manning a T34 was brutal, I wonder what damage (physical and psychological) was suffered by Soviet troops stuffed into those things in battle.
From what I've heard manning a T34 was brutal, I wonder what damage (physical and psychological) was suffered by Soviet troops stuffed into those things in battle .
The timeline is a bit unclear to me. In 1941 Soviet welding and T-34 reliability were subpar. In 1944 these issues were resolved. Late war T-34's were very reliable tanks. On par with the A2 Sherman's. The US evaluation of the T-34 doesn't sit right with me. They did develop a Sherman with Christie suspension, thought they didn't went through with its production. Adapting this suspension was going to be controversial in any case. In '44 the British T-34 would most likely have been based on a /85. That would fit the 17 pounder at least as easily as a Sherman. Lack of space really hindered the Firefly's effectiveness.
Mark, you never seem to amaze me with your well researched historical events. I can’t get enough of history! Next time I’m in the UK let’s meet up at your favorite Pub! Beer is on me!
A wonderful channel that deserves the best regards, appreciation, admiration and pride. It provides accurate and useful information. I thank you for all the beautiful words and sincere feelings for your distinguished posts. I wish you continued success and all the best. My utmost respect and appreciation
A great video Dr. Felton! I've been reading books on WW2 since a child and have a graduate degree in history. I knew that the Americans had appraised the T34/76, resulting in a negative opinion, because of spalling of the armour when hit. Having said this, I had no idea that the British had thought of producing them and improving upon the original design. I often wondered why the Brits did not think of using the T34/76. Now I know! Thank you for sharing your research.
Since the British barely able to fit the 17-pdr in the older Sherman turret (by giving it a more compact recoil system, turning the breach of the gun 90 degree to allow loading on the side, and add a bustle at the back of the turret to put their radio), I can hardly believe they can fit the 17-pdr in the even smaller T-34 (1940) turret... maybe possible if it's the T-34-85 turret. That may be another reason for them not to proceed with adopting the T-34. More reliable logistical support, and long term international alliance probably (democratic USA vs red USSR) put the final nails in the coffin of that idea too.
The Comet is my favourite tank. I'm told that in the training manual there's a photo of a Comet "getting air" over an obstacle with the caption "this is to be avoided". The engine was a Rolls Meteor (a de-rated Merlin from a Spitfire) so performance was quite lively, but the suspension would suffer.
he is not a doctor and he's plagerising a 2013 tank archives article thats based on one russians letter which he bases off of something an english factory worker told him.
The logistical problems caused by the T-34's width because of the narrower standard gauge British/American/West European rail compared to the broader Russian/Soviet rail gauge probably ensured that Western production of the T-34 (or KV-1) wouldn't occur unless the tanks provided significant improvements compared to contemporary Western allied designs of similar size.
Stalin, "We did the fighting all on our own, with no assistance." Soviet People eye the Valentine and Lee tanks, the American-made food, ammunition, and British made aircraft. "What about all this stuff?" Staling, "GULAG FOR YOU!"
To be honest, Stalin appreciated lend-lease, and it can be found in many of his speeches (I google it); the modern Russian opinion about allay help and lend-lease is pretty modern and began about 8-10 years ago, and it's really sad.
I remember reading about a British spy in Yugoslavia who got proudly told about superior Soviet truck engineering by a red army driver in regards to his Ford. He made the decision not to clarify the misunderstanding to the chap. His other interesting tidbit was witnessing pressure activated Italian grenades blowing up in the middle of a dance due to the partisan habit of festooning their belts with the things.
@@vorynrosethorn903Zis and Gaz trucks of the time are both licensed produced and 1:1 reverse-engineered copies of US trucks like Ford and Chrysler. Both companies help build motor vehicle factories in the USSR during the 3rd Five Year Plan...
TY. The British T-34 , with a Diesel engine, could have helped in most battles I know of , and the issue of width was not really the big problem it was thought to be. Nice work on the unknown factor of tank use not used.
with the loss of armoured force there wasn't time to retool. It's why there were so many different British tanks. Just built what we could with what we had at the time.
Interesting that the British, Americans and even the Germans, all thought of copying the T-34. The Germans at least used a number of captured examples to equip a few of their tank regiments, after modifying them somewhat for Panzerwaffe service first.
@@digitalnomad9985 Germans used everything they captured either to fill the holes in their own losses or to supply their allies like Romania who desperately needed anything. In 1939 Poland technically was in alliance with Romania, but the our command concluded it's pointless to call an ally who's army relies on XIXth century equipment.
Germans only initially were in ave, after they saw that Pak 36 coulnd't do a thing to T-34 at any distance or angle, but just like American reports, once they put their hand on T-34 German reports also say a lot bad things about it. Not just terrible visibility, poor optics or crew arrangement. Germans also mentioned that for every 30 minutes of march, T-34 needed at least 15 minutes break to cool down. The issue was that Soviet engineers got an order to make a tank immune to 37mm high velocity and bigger caliber low velocity guns, while reaching speeds comparable to BT tanks and using diesel, but it was not just not possible with available technology. Their best shot was to convert Liberty V12 engine to diesel but they were not able to reinforce it enough for diesel compression rate while keeping the required weight. As a result, the engine wasn't stiff enough not to quickly suffer head gasket failure, the cooling system was inefficient (the engine itself has little cooling channels), and it was the loudest thing within several miles away except for airplanes.
I've read the US report on the T34. The US got an early model T34. The vehicle was still in the APG museum until they broke up the collection. The US Army was critical of the T34s lack of mechanical reliability, and commented that gaps in the welding seams allowed water in when it rained that actually shorted the electronic equipment inside. The Army was also concerned about the transportability of the vehicles. Remember that every American tank had to be loaded on ships to get to the war. My read is that the T34 was an effective tank, but the qualities that the Soviets cared about were not those that the Army wanted. I just think it would have been too much of a leap in philosophy for the western allies to produce and use the Soviet vehicles.
Actually, T-34 along with Kv was perfect for railways and transportability...in soviet union. They were following same model of a tank, just suited for their own needs. T-34 was about high performance after delivery by train to the frontline, sherman was about being fit to fight far away from infrastructure (and US). Which didnt stop usage of T-34 on japanese front, and quite successfully (late war models were miles ahead of early ones) in same role as sherman, an expeditionary tank.
@@alexturnbackthearmy1907 Precisely. A T34 could get to any Soviet front on a railway car. Also, German tanks could go by train as well. This is why the US never produced large numbers of anything larger than the Sherman. Every American tank had to go on a ship to get where it was going. T34s, IS2s, the big German cats, all could go where they needed to by train (except the Tiger's that went to North Africa, and the M26, but those are stories by themselves).
Well, US reports on T-34 was indeed quite consistent with the soviet ones. It was an awful tank, even much later versions. And production quality was awful as well.
@@nonamesplease6288 exactly right. I wish more people would understand this when they talk down about the Sherman. The Germans didn't have to ship entire armies across oceans (fortunately, we all ended those plans before they got to that point)
One of the best and more often overlooked features of the T-34 was its engine. It was V-12 design with dual overhead camshafts per cylinder bank, four valves per cylinder, direct injection and an aluminum block. Resilient, powerful (500 to 700 hp depending on the model) and relatively light, it was very advanced for its time. I am surprised that the British never considered keeping this engine. By the way, the Soviets executed the engine designer, Konstantin Chelpan, on trumped - up political charges because he was of Greek descent.
Historians often praise it but the most overlooked thing about the engine is American report from T-34 tests in 1942 as well as German reports and Soviet practice showing the engine was pretty terrible. It mentions that; 'the engine is basically a diesel-converted copy of Liberty V12 engine which Walter Christie always used in his tanks because they were plentiful and thus cheap, but the Soviets did little to reinforce it for required combustion rate'. The' report also mentions air filter: 'it does exactly the opposite of what it is supposed to do.' and 'only a sabouteur could have designed such a device. The improved versions of air filter received the following notes: 'Not all of the changes were deemed successful (..) Centrifugal separation of dirt from air was abandoned several decades ago in America as being very ineffective'. About: two tractor type air cleaners: 'poor design, rapid loss of any filtering action'. (...) "these filters seemed wholly inadequate by any possible standard' Reports also mention that for every 30 minutes of march, the tank required at least 15 minutes of cooling down. It is also known that before a battle, Soviets would endevour to replace not only gearboxes, but also all engines that had as little as 30 hours of operation on the clock. Not only that high power output was partly achieved just by not using exhaust mufflers, as a result Germans could tell exact position of T-34s from miles away, just by listening to engine noise. Also the engine was not 'robust' at all. Not only it had terrible filters and insufficient cooling system, the cylinder block and head is just not rigid enough to withstand diesel combustion rate for long periods of time. The reason why the British didn't keep the engine was probably it required a complete redesign of engine block and cylinder head and that basically means designing a new engine. In Soviet's defence, General Motors did exactly the same mistake decades later with 1980s V8 diesel in Oldsmobile cars when they stupidly converted petrol V8 although engineers told the management beforehand it can't work.
@@randymagnum143 Imho it was a typical big corporation-like issue, where decision makers don't know a thing. There was a specification to make a tank as quick as BT tanks, but immune to typical 1930s anti tank guns, and using diesel engine. This meant everything had to be as light as possible. Same problem is seen in T0-34s armour. To keep the weight low while reaching the required strenght it uses only high hardness steel which makes it dangerous to the crew. A proper solution would have been high-hardness steel attached to low-hardness monocoque, just like Cromwell's turret but it would have been heavier slowing it down, and that would cost the designers an execution... So they converted Liberty V12 to diesel with minimal reinforment and removed mufflers from exhaust system. Specs didn't mention the tank was to be quiet. Similar thing happens today with cars. They are required to meet Euro 6D norm, so manufacturers use stuff like low viscosity, low saps oil, variable water pump, low oil pressure etc. and the car meets specifications, but after 200 thousand kilometers it only makes economic sense it suffers so many failures and the core engine parts are so worn out, it only makes economic sense to send it back to steelworks and produce a ton of CO2, where's a 90s or early 2000s car could do 500 to 800 thousand km without engine rebuilt.
T-34 was a death trap, Soviet tankers having a higher DELETION rate then Sherman tankers, and ergonomically it was a poor design as well. Soft factors like reliability and crew comfort matter. The British were far better off with the US Sherman. I do know the Soviets were adamant to getting the T-34 into Western production as lend-lease supplied T-34's instead of M3's, M4's, Mathildas and Valentines would have simplified Soviet logistics.
Thanks for this video, Mark. Honestly War tank technology has come a very long way when these WW2 era tanks are compared to what's out there today. Wow!
No mention of the British Cromwell tank, Dr Felton? In the round, the Cromwell was comfortably the equal of the M4 Sherman. Cromwells had become available in volume just in time for D-Day.
The amount of aid sent to Stalin by the US is positively staggering. Some much canned meat (Spam, for the most part) was sent to the Soviets they nicknamed it "Second Front". Millions of pairs of boots, enormous quantities of material for uniforms, POL, Small Arms ammo, jeeps, trucks, millions of tons of steel and base metals...the list goes on.
It might be worth mentioning that the sentence "second front" in the context of Lend-Lease was a derogatory term used by the Soviet soldiers. It was an insult about the perceived cowardice of the western allies who refused to face the enemy head on. The Soviets repeatedly asked for the formation of an actual Second Front (i.e invasion of France) already in 1941 and several times after that. The lack of any meaningful military action in the west between 1940 and 1943 (or even 1944) was perceived by the Soviet soldiers as cowardice or betrayal. And this attitude again was perceived as ungreatfullness by the Western Allies. This is one of the issues that Cold War was later based on. Mutual mistrust and misunderstandings (sometimes made wilfully by both sides) about the fundamental differences between the realities in western and eastern fronts.
@@petteriusima4106 , that’s mainly because the Soviet soldier had no choice but to “face the enemy head on” because Stalin sacrificed millions of them to defend the Rodina. If they slowed down or stopped, they were shot by their own side. The Allies were not ready to invade NW Europe between 1940 and 1944. Britain was still hanging on in 1940, fighting on several fronts. The Battle of the Atlantic was absorbing resources at an astounding rate. The Soviets were not involved at sea, except to receive their merchandise. They weren’t fighting in Africa and later Italy. The Yanks didn’t enter the war until 1941, and were certainly not ready to fight on land in Western Europe until 1944 (even if they thought they were, as they had enough trouble in Africa and Italy, not to mention the Pacific). Let’s not forget that Stalin was Hitler’s buddy early on. Churchill certainly didn’t.
@@garywagner2466 The Soviets fought "head on" because othervise they would all have been killed anyway. War in the east was a war to annihilate all slavic people. Not so in the west. And please! Not that "shooting the troops if they do not advance" rubbish. That myth has been debunked so many times that it is getting tiresome to hear it. Not arhuing that a lot of people were not executed for "cowardice" in Soviet Union but there were no troops shooting anybody in the back in the eastern front. Also Britain was saved by the Channel and US of course was never in any danger because of a small thing called "The Atlantic Ocean". I know the reasons western allies did not attack mainland Europe earlier. However these reasons undoubtedly sounded hollow to a Soviet soldiers who were dying by the million and who lost their families to starvation and brutality caused by the Germans. It also bears to remember that the western allies were not really that friendly towards the Soviet Union. It was a longstanding dream for the British to have the Germans and Soviets fight themselves to death. That was one reason why west was happy to make the Munich sell-out in 1938. Which made Stalin and Hitler friends for a while. Churchill might not have been a "friend" of Hitlers but he certainly disliked Stalin more. And that was quite a common view in the leadership of UK before 1939.
If the British were using imperial units, would tooling be problematic when manufacturing the T-34 and supplying tools to the front? American tanks were most likely in imperial units as well. Has logistics become an issue in this?
In recent years, a Russian YT channel discussed the Sherman v. T-34, and which was better. A number of Russians concluded that the Sherman was the better vehicle, as far ergonomics for the crew, division of labor, and visibility of the battlefield from within. They nicknamed the Sherman, the "Em-Cha", for the letter "M", and the first letter of the Russian word for "4", "четыре", or "chetyre", the "ч" representing a "ch" sound.
That's interesting to hear, especially as the Sherman is generally considered to be way behind the T-34! It was less-reliable, a bigger target for enemy tanks/guns, and was under-armed.
@@rubbishmodeller They all came with radios, too. Only the command tank in a T-34 tank formation had a radio. It is possible that the T-34 had the less mechanically experience Soviet soldier in mind in it's design. In US and British experience, the Sherman was quite mechanically reliable.
I remember reading that was a problem with American railway tunnels as well. At that time really large machines coming out of Detroit heading east had to go through the Erie Canal.
No disrespect intended but you may be confusing the Erie Canal with the Erie Railroad. The Erie RR had VERY generous clearances so it was ready-made for shipments of oversize articles. The Erie Canal was still around ( or I should say the updated version of it) but it wasn't the way to ship if you were in a rush. Canal boats just can't move as fast as trains and canals can freeze in the winter making them useless.
My dad, a Korean war vet, told many interesting stories of his Patton tanks blasting T-34s to pieces all over the peninsula from '50-'53. (And the 34s did little damage to the American M46s and M48s.) He and his tanker buds had very little respect for, and no fear of, Russian armor.
No they didn't you have just looked at STT reports. While the vehicles get a mix of praise in some areas and condemned in others there is absolutely no plans or desire to put these into service in the UK. The STT evaluated Tigers and Panthers too and no they didn't want those either. The UK had no plans to use the T-34 despite what a few over eager Russians might have thought to themselves, it is not considered an option in the DTD or tank board minutes or in the PM records. but ill call your bluff, show me the English discussion and documentation on the UK planning on using T-34's. because all you've done it take some information written on the Tank Archives site, cut out the bits that suit your narrative and made up some fantasy filler.
We found a Sherman 105 outside Taji, Iraq in early 2004. Still worked, too. It was loaded onto a HEMTT and trucked back to base. As far as I know, this Sherman was taken back to the States and sits as a guard for some armored battalion.
GR8 post,
Thx👍💯😎
absolutely insane that you can just steal a whole tank from a country without consequence. fuck the allies.
I brought back an Iraqi fedayeen helmet😮
@@ak9989 Vader Helmet😀
So you stole it from Iraq. I wonder what else you stole or destroyed over there.
The KV-1 that resides at the Tank Museum at Bovington is one of the tanks given to the British for evaluation.
Given Russia's current situation they may well be asking for it back ...
@@alfnoakes392what situation would that be?
@@alfnoakes392Isn't it heavily radiated? I know The Bovington Tank Museum UA-cam channel has done several videos on their tanks, including the KV1, and it is mentioned that they can't tour the inside because of radiation.
I was half expecting to see a Z painted on it.@@alfnoakes392
@@alfnoakes392 soo they can waste it in the war by getting it destroyed by ukrainian bradley or just abandoned
Ah Yes a war thunder thumbnail
i click when its the snail thumbnail
You just know a game is a total scam.....I mean great game ... When it is advertised constantly on youtube
@@arostwocentsI mean if you think about it, Gaijin is a perfect example of the majority of the things wrong with capitalism
@@arostwocents Great game, bad developers...Not that mutch uncommon...
@@arostwocentsit is a scam. The snail will consume any and all of your free time if you let it. Is it a scam financially? Only if you’re a fool and use ge to upgrade parts
If Professor Felton was my teacher in high school, I would have never skipped history class.
There is another lesson for you.
The role of the USA in the Victory of 1945 is negligible. For three years they waited and sought to bleed the USSR. On November 6, 1943, at a solemn meeting dedicated to the 25th anniversary of the Great October Socialist Revolution, at the most tense time for our country, when the fate of the Fatherland was being decided, Stalin said: “The main reason for the tactical successes of the Germans on our front this year is that that the absence of a second front in Europe made it possible for them to carry out this operation without any risk to themselves.
And how did the United States and its allies fight? For example, at the same time, when millions of soldiers and officers of the Red Army bravely and wisely fought near Stalingrad and on other fronts of the Great Patriotic War, the Allies carried out the only operation on the European continent, insignificant in terms of the number of forces and means involved.
On August 17, 1942, a landing force of 5,000 Canadians was landed in the area of the French city of Dieppe. The Germans, of course, quickly defeated the Canadians: 900 Canadian soldiers were killed, about 2,000 were taken prisoner. Such operations only raised the spirit of the Nazi army, but had no effect on the battles on the Soviet-German front.
Having a significant superiority over the German troops in forces and means, the Allied troops began to retreat. “In a matter of days, Hitler’s troops broke through the weak defenses of the 1st American Army on a front of up to forty kilometers, by December 22 they captured the cities of Saint-Hubert and Marsh and, soon reaching the Meuse River, found themselves at the line of Dinant, Liver, without introducing for the development of this offensive no reserves. Thus, having penetrated 100-110 kilometers into the territory occupied by American troops, they expanded the breakthrough front to one hundred kilometers, dividing the British and American troops into two parts.
The world glorifies the armies of the USA and England, despite the fact that they did not learn how to conduct military operations in 1944. On June 6, 1944, and in the following days, Hitler did not take any effective measures against the landing troops of the United States and England. He clearly considered their armies incapable of fighting the troops of Germany and he threw all his forces and means against the advancing troops of the Red Army...
@@monaliza3334 I studied World War II a great deal since high school, when it was presented in the terms you described, and agree that the Soviet Union sustained far more losses and had a superior army by the time the United States entered the war.
At the same time, the United States was not a combatant in the initial phases of the war, aside from its war with Japan, which triggered Hitler to declare war against the United States as well. This was an odd decision, considering that the Japanese refused to open their own front against the Soviet Union in the east, which in turn allowed Stalin to reassign those divisions to the west and stop the German advance.
The United States contributed to that effort by supplying food and vehicles that would have been difficult for the Soviet Union to produce at the time, which was certainly not negligible under the circumstances. And despite putting off the D-Day invasion until near the end of the war, the US was involved in the air campaigns prior to that time, which eroded Germany's industrial base.
And much of Stalin's lack of preparedness at the beginning of the war what's caused by his own mistakes. He purged his own high ranking military officials, which likely had a lot to do with the disastrous showing in Finland that bolstered Hitler's resolve. He also made the critical mistake of trusting Hitler after signing the Warsaw Pact, which was obviously something the West opposed, despite Hitler's violations of other treaties and clearly stated intent to expand to the east. Then he ignored warnings from both his own and western intelligence agencies when Hitler was amassing three million soldiers near the border. All of this was preventable in a system with more openness and transparency, but the climate of fear enabled all of these things to happen.
Thankfully, the two sides did not turn on each other at the end of the war, but Soviet Union was certainly a powerful nation at that time, and likely would have won a land battle without nuclear weapons.
Putting so much power in one man's hands had a lot to do with why the losses were so catastrophic later on. No more fascinating time in history than this, but watching China discover that it's missiles are filled with water is easily similar to Stalin finding out the status of his armies in Finland. I have a feeling we are looking at another world conflict sometime in the near future, but hopefully cooler heads will prevail eventually.
We didn't have that option: the Japanese drew us in. Anyway, it seems you favor totalitarianism, if you would have preferred either Hitler or Stalin to rule Europe?@@jimborovicka
@@monaliza3334 No doubt that the Red Army fought valiantly and at great cost. But this is a very selective examination of the war. You jump from Dieppe to...what? The Battle of the Bulge? So much happened before and in between - the Lend-Lease program, the mobilization of US industry, the fighting in North Africa, Italy, and of course in the Pacific Theatre, where the US fought Japan almost single handedly. The logistical challenges of fighting a multi-front war at opposite ends of the world were enormous to the point of unimaginable, and the US and its allies can take pride in an extraordinary accomplishment. In the end, we all won. So kindly save your disjointed narrative for the Young Pioneers.
i feel sory for u
Rubber was a strategic commodity in WWII. Germany had to produce synthetic rubber as they were cut off from any production from the tropics.
Epic reach around…Reich around😂
The US supplied a tire factory to USSR.
Until Holland and the Low Countries were invaded.... And Germany had access to the Dutch East Indies... Indonesia, then Germany had access to the World's largest rubber plantations. But it's true that during WWI, through Switzerland....Britain, France and Belgium traded Rubber with Germany for Zeiss Optics for weapons and binoculars. A German Infantryman commented about being shot by a British Sniper using a German made scope whilst he was wearing British rubber galoshes..... Shows how much the politicians didn't care about the Men fighting the War but cared about the financial aspects of the War 😳🤔🤔 nothing much has changed! 🤬🤬🤬
Japan’e expansion into the pacific was driven by their rubber needs too. And the only navy in the area that could stop them was stationed in Hawaii. Rubber caused Pearl Harbor.
US made synthetic rubber also, as most of the natural rubber was controlled by Japan.
I would like to suggest 3 subjects for consideration:
1) American and Canadian Chinese pilots who flew for the Nationalist Chinese Air Force prior to the AVG. Such as Art Chin (Portland, OR - 8.5 aerial victories) and John “Buffalo Wong (Los Angeles. CA - first Gloster Gladiator ace)
2) Frank “Foo” Fujita: Half Japanese American sergeant captured in Java (separate artillery battalion of Texas Division) and how the Japanese tried to use him for propaganda purposes and failed.
3) The military career of Merian C. Cooper, this famous Hollywood film director and producer (King Kong, The Quiet Man, etc) fought in 2 world wars, the Polish-Soviet War and the Villa campaign as well as removed from Annapolis in his final term.
For Cooper’s WWI experience, “History of the Twentieth Aero Squadron” by Clarence G. Barth, originally published in 1920 and reprinted in 1990 by The Battery Press. Page 59 has the recommendation for a DSC for Cooper.
I vote for number 3. I was triggered by king Kong
@@johnanita9251 Much of his work on “King Kong” was based on his travels through the Indian Ocean basin and South East Asia including Komodo Island. His silent films “Grass” and “Chang” were produced during that period.
MichaelTelson: How did he manage .5 of a victory? Did he only shoot off one wing?
@@StevenKeery Shared victories are very common if both friendly aircraft fired and caused significant damage . “Gabby” Gabreski has a combined total for WWII and Korea of 37.5 victories. There are many examples of that also official methods of counting.
Merian Cooper is credited with half a victory for the aircraft his observer shot down as that was squadron policy at the time.Look up the tallies and you will see how common it is.
Fascinating! I knew nothing of this T-34 initiative.
I knew of course about British shipments of arms to the USSR but the sheer magnitude astounded me. How such vast amounts were manufactured in our small country is fantastically impressive.
The UK outproduced Germany on many items, aircraft and ships as well as tanks. And whilst the German tanks were better than ours Spitfires, Mosquitoes and Lancasters were as good if not better.
It sure puts to bed Putin’s lies of Britain being Russia’s eternal enemy
The Brit’s bought with cash and non government loans lot of American weapons for the Soviets
I mean it's only logical? Britain didn't field that big of an army, so naturally they shipped their equipment where it can be used against Germany instead of sitting in storage.
@@Ronald98Britain and the commonwealth had 15 million troops 1.6 million Indian volunteers alone I know the Russians suffered a lot of casualties but the axis suffered more loses in North Africa than Stalingrad
At first i thought it was a war thunder video on the t34-57, but i noticed it was a 17 pounder 😂😂.Great video Dr. Felton!
All you got to do is make a suggestion to the Devs to make it a Event Vehicle and then play it
@@Jermster_91annual Mark Felton event in WT
@@Jermster_91Surprised that World of Tanks hasn't already made it as a premium, since they're far more willing to do "paper tanks" that never got built in reality.
Looks so cool with a 17 pounder
A good friend was the curator of Arms and Armor at Aberdeen Proving Ground when it moved to Fort Lee. The T-34/76 is still in the collection along with a T34/85 captured in Korea. I also have in my possession the entirety of the dissassembly and reassembly photos they took of the K5E Anzio Annie.
Please make sure that there are copies of those photos, for posterity.
Interesting post.
@@rockym2931 as of right now it's just the museum folks and myself that have them. As far as I know there is copies with CMH the Center of Military History. It's the Civilian branch that oversees all of the US Army Museums on military bases.
Do us a big favor and post them with comments.
@@rockym2931 Amen to that. Those photos are a real piece of history.
I was greatly disappointed when they closed the US Army Ordinance Museum before I had the opportunity to visit and see everything. For over a decade afterwards, I occasionally researched to find out when the "replacement museum" was to open, but alas, it still hasn't happened.
I'm a simple man. I see Mark Felton release a video, I hit like.
Just because you have a copy of some thing you want to make, it will require a lot of time to gear up to make a tank. There will be a massive job to tool up your factory to make it. The factory will need hundreds of jigs and fixtures as well as the machine tools to machine the parts. It is much easer to carry on with what you are already making.
You have some logic. But you can read how soviets COPIED B-29 and created Ту-4. For example they have to fight with imperial units. The sheathing was 1/16 inches. This is 1.5875mm. But this cannot be done. make it 1.6mm - the plane will be heavy, make it 1.5 - strength is not guaranteed. And that's just one small problem...
@@CatEatsDogs This happened only because of idiotic direct order from Stalin. The engineers didn't want to do it at all.
That wasn't even even the main problem. The tank required a complete redesign to be considered usable by any British or American standard.
The engine was notoriously overheating, the air filters didn't work, the engine block and cylinder head were not stiff enough to withstand diesel combustion rate and after just 30 hours of operation the risk of engine failure was very high.
The gearbox lacked synchromesh which together with faulty cluth meant it was impossible to change gears without damaging and eventually breaking the gearbox, not to mention it required excessive use of force from the driver.
The steering didn't work well either, everyone soon found out that manuvering in T-34 causes transmission oil leaks. Germans deliberately forced Soviet T-34s into manuvering to trigger those leaks and make the tank completely unable to change direction.
What else, the armour was excellent for deflecting shells up to 40mm caliber, but anything higher, the high hardness would make it crack inside the tank, wound or killing the crew even if the shell didn't penetrate. Ammo storage was difficult to take shells from to say the least, the guns lacked muzzle velocity, the optics were poor quality and vision from inside the tank was terrible. One German report about operation of platoon of captured T-34s mentions: 'the visibility from inside the tank is terrible. On one day, the tanks accidentally fell inside a trench and destroyed the equipment they were supposed to capture. On the next day, a similar accident happened.'
If British and Americans wanted to make T-34, it would have required designing a tank from absolute scratch, and at the end of the day it could only look similar. Sherman was far superior to T-34.
@@piotrmalewski8178T-34 was 3 years older than sherman
@@CatEatsDogs Yes, but as pointed out in the American report, T-34 lacked necessary features that were known for many years (synchromesh) or used things that were already retired in the US (centrifugal filter). Sherman was made later only because the US thought they didn't need tanks and in emergency was designed around spare engine but it could have been made earlier with same or better results.
The issue T-34 has not only it was based on underdeveloped industry, it's a typical example of a system made in huge centralised organization as a direct order from high management. It looks great on paper but has no actual chance of working properly.
Sherman had a certain performance, because that's what slowly developed in market competition parts could do together. T-34? Deflects 37mm rounds - pass, reaches 50kph, pass.
Who cares it can't turn too much because oil will leak, that you mustered 500 horsepower because you took mufflers off and enemy will hear the tank from miles away, that engine will blow head gasket on the first day or that you can't change gears or that the crew may be killed cracking armour because you had to use only high hardness steel to combine demanded armour effectiveness with demanded top speed. The order from high ground didn't mention the tank can't have any of those issues!
Pretty much the same how current big corporations work. New high rank manager wants to show off and gets 9 women to produce him 1 baby in a month.
Another fantastic obscure history lesson from Dr Felton 👍
A strong cup of coffee & a shiny new video from Dr. Felton...
The best way to pass a Monday morning!
Dr Felton you always find the most interesting things ever
Mark Felton is in my top five. No one captures my attention with military history. Always look forward to new posts.
As a person who Volunteers at the Oshawa regiment museum. we have a t34 t55 and t72 and BMP troop carriers. And Shermans. centurion. and Chaffee's etc. Just a mechanical note the T34s and others are designed to be worked on by a person with little mechanical ability. the turrets some have no baskets and if you Arnt quick on the move you can be in a lot of trouble. the Shermans turret baskets and when they start up a lot less smoke. the Russian tanks well not so much. As always, I love your videos Mr. Felton Keep up the good work.
Another day, another great Mark Felton tank crossover video.
Whether it be modern tanks or tanks of WW2, I still would rather not be inside of these lumbering beasts. However, I have endless respect for tank crews then and now. Tanks are such a priority target that they have to be sorted out directly. Damned dangerous. Dr. Felton must have thousands of hours at this point researching and producing content for both of his channels, for that I'm grateful. Cheers from the States!
Beats walking
@@JeffHenry-cq3is If you don't mind being ventilated by anti tank munitions.
Better than being ventilated by every single bullet or shard of shrapnel...
@@Joseph-z7s3b Yeah I agree with you on that. I would rather die in the open and have an open casket funeral than be buried in a metal coffin and blown to bits 😅
I have pretty much the same attitude about submariners on all sides - so many subs just never came back, loss unknown.
The Germans also considered cloning the T-34 but decided it was too difficult and manufactured the Panther instead. There is a vid on the evaluation and rejection for reasons put up by, I think, Chris, on his military channel.
So there is a world where the Soviets, Germans, Americans and British all use their own T-34 variants.
Right, Bernard on "Military History Visualized." As far as the Germans were concerned coming up with a new tank of their own would have been a better choice than copying a T-34 since all-new tooling, jigs, dies, and other implements would have to be made anyway.
I don't think it was difficult. Panther was a lot more difficult to produce, they just recognized the flaws of T-34 just like everyone else.
@@piotrmalewski8178 PoIak bs as usual... German commanders considered T-34 a great tank, but HitIer didn't want to copy something from bolsheviks, also friendly fire was a major potential problem.
@@bdleo300 Rubbish... T-34 is belowed tank in Poland because of the 'Four Tankmen and Dog' series.
Read some actual German reports. After the initial awe on how T-34 could deflect 37 mm rounds at any distance, Germans got some of them and learnt how difficult it was to operate and how unreliable it was.
German trials found that because of poor visibility and crew configuration T-34 would lose fights to Pz. III. Reports also suggested just blinding it with machinegun fure and forcing to manuver because Germans found that under heavy manuvering it would leak oil on steering brakes and become completely unable to change direction.
They also found the tank had to stop every 30 minutes to cool the engine down. One report also points out that visibility from inside the tank was so poor one of German T-34 equipped companies accidentally destroyed cannons they were supposed capture, and suffered a similar accident the very next day because from inside they couldn't tell where they were going. T-34 was great on paper but terrible in reality, and as two American reports proove, it was not just because of poor production quality, but mainly because of inherent design flaws. Speaking of Americans reports, they are comedy gold. Reading them, it seems there was not a single component in T-34 that would work properly, maybe except for turret traverse system. Soviets were aware of these problems as well. Hence several high rank meetings, some of them including Stalin himself complaining how German tanks can routinely cover hundreds of kilometers but T-34 supposedly having a better engine is completely unable to do so.
The amount of aid/equipment provided to Russia is astounding. The T-34 apparently a good tank. Another interesting, entertaining, informative video, thanks Mark.
What is «astounding» is that after the war, due to political reasons, some god-chosen nation decided that the receiving side must be busy with not restoration of bombed into the oblivion country, but collecting all non-consumable equipment and sent it back. Because you know, it's very adequate that one side is spilling the blood, while other is spilling only sweat on a factory, so after the war it would be placing price labels on everything they've done.
Always gets me seeing the Canadians rush forward onto Juno beach when the doors open. Brave kids.
I'm American but I think Canadians deserve far more credit than they get for Allied victories in World War I and World War II.
@@gordonbergslien30 It was, from 1942 onwards especially, a TEAM effort.
@@gordonbergslien30ABZACs and Canadians won it in 1918.
But.
The americans won ww1. Only there for 5 minutes but yean👍
@@gordonbergslien30 The Canadian Army's tank forces grew from maybe a couple of dozen Vickers Light Tanks armed with one or two machine guns at the start of the war, to fielding two armoured divisions and several armoured regiments. All of Canada's five divisions in Europe came together in early 1945, as part of the multi-national 1st Canadian Army. British, Polish, Czech and even a few US units formed the Army.
The Royal Canadian Navy grew from less than a dozen destroyers to numerically the third largest Allied navy by 1945. The vast bulk of the RCN's warships were corvettes and frigates to counter the German U-boat threat. By 1945, the RCN was responsible for 40% of the convoys crossing the Atlantic.
The Royal Canadian Air Force started the war with a few Hurricane fighters along with some obsolete Inter-War types. It expanded to well over 40 squadrons of fighters and bombers just in Europe alone. And through the British Commonwealth Air Training Program, thousands and thousands of air crew from all over the world were trained in Canada.
Plus Canadian war production was enormous - for a country that didn't have that much industrial output in 1939. While the overall number pale to what the US produced, Canada indeed punched well above its weight. In trucks alone more than 800,000 were churned out of Canadian factories.
Totaled together, about 1 million Canadians served in the military during the war - the vast majority joining up without conscription. All this with a population of around 15 million.
At the start of WW2 the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) had 246 aircraft, at the end of hostilities they had the world's 4th largest airforce ,6000 aircraft in 60 squadrons, 217000 serving in the wartime RAAF ,Australia's population of the time was 7 million. About 1 million served in ww2 and I'm proud of my Dad serving as ground crew on Catalina's ,pacific theatre, my Uncle Bill at Tobruck North African campaign and my Auntie Joan WAAF driver.@@glenhallick3953
600 Matilda II were also pressed into service in the defence of Moscow. If you visit the Moscow museum and memorial to the Great Patriotic War, A Matilda is proudly parked with the Russian Amour and a model Matilda is on display on the upper floor of the museum.
I don’t think it would have made much sense for the British to build T34s when the US could supply well built Sherman hulls that could be equipped with a turret mounting a 17-pounder anti tank gun rather than working up a production line of T34s at the expense of other tank production.
It would probably have been better if the Americans had just produced the firefly from scratch considering how poor the regular Sherman was in tank v tank combat
They looked at the firefly and reported that it was impossible to fight in it due to appalling ergonomics. Not a lot of room left in the turret for the squashy mammals.@@toekneekerching9543
@@toekneekerching9543The Us can't build 17-pounders as all of its production is geared towards 75mm and 76mm. Besides, the Firefly is a British creation made in Britain...
So many think the Sherman was the Holy grail of tanks as they refer to stats....the only thing that made the Sherman look good was total air dominance.
@@wirelessone2986
*Ah yes, because you want your enemy to have as much of a chance as you do.*
*Air superiority may have been a notable factor, but that was not all that made the Sherman effective. It was an all round tank that could be modified to fit many specific niches, that the Sherman family tree could even have their own museum if there wasn't one already. Not to mention that the tank itself was not meant to go up against other tanks* (though, not that it didn't) *but to support the infantry, provide armor, and counter enemy armor. Which by no means only means tanks. Half tracks, anti-tank guns, ok, maybe even the Panzer or Stug.*
*The thing is, what made the Sherman so successful were its soft factors. Comfort for the crew, Reliability of the engine and tank, Visibility through scopes and sights, those were what more than made up for the lackluster hard factors. Take the Panther, it has excellent armor, decent mobility, good firepower. But it had the worst kill ratio and is probably a factor in speeding up Germany's defeat.*
*No tank is meant to act alone unless told otherwise. It is a branch of a tree and is the finger on a hand.*
*America had total air dominance. This gave the ground forces breathing space and emboldened commanders and soldier alike, thus giving the tank crews the luxury of pushing in rather confidently. In turn, the infantry followed close by the armor. Something that a German soldier in 1944 could only hope for.*
Great topic. Great supporting video. Thank you Dr. Felton.
More interesting information i never would have learned anywhere else but from Dr Felton. 👏👏 Bravo sir.
Amazing forgotten history…thank you Dr. Felton.
How about a Maginot Line report Mark? I've been inside several, abandoned AND tourist sites, and boy oh boy are they ever something to behold! There are even artillery pieces still in situ in the turrets at some locations!
I'd like to know more about the Seigfreid line too.
Quite often it doesn't get much more than a passing mention as a post script to the Battle of the Bulge.
I wonder why they persevered with building one when the made a mockery of the French original?
I think perhaps (unlike modern Western Nation's) there was something sacred about "home" soil and it may have been as much an "emotional" response as a practical proposition?
I think the Seigfried Line was different in as much as there wasn’t an immediate route around it, unlike the Maginot Line. As I understand it the French created the Madge to prevent invasion through the Alsace/Lorraine etc. instead channeling any German advance into the countryside on the Belgian/French border which was better suited to fighting and much easier to defend whilst maintaining a war of movement. Of course history records that the Germans simply came through the Ardennes instead which France thought was not possible. To the best of my knowledge no Maginot Line forts fell to direct assault, at least from the direction it was supposed to defend. The Germans ‘turned around’ some of the forts and Patton found himself held up for a serious amount of time by one in particular even though he was attacking the relatively under defended rear of the fort.
@@martinjf467 What the French actually thought - I'm paraphrasing what Pétain said in 1934 - was that a successful German attack through the Ardennes would be impossible "provided certain measures were taken". Those measures were essentially to hold the German advance on the second line of defence - the Meuse river - for long enough to allow the sector to be reinforced. They felt this could be done by second line units, mainly composed of older reservists, allowing them to concentrate their best troops much further west to spearhead a drive deep into Belgium, where they expected to meet and stop the main German attack.. In the event, of course, Belgian resistance collapsed surprisingly quickly, while the successful crossing of the Meuse at Sedan by Guderian did not give the French time to carry out their planned reinforcement. But they did have a plan.
Thank you very much for that, I appreciate your reply. I wasn't fully aware of the complete reasoning - only that the Ardennes "wangle" the Germans carried out came as a bit of a shocker! Your explanation is enlightening. Cheers!@@plunketgreene3646
I live in Luxembourg and 25km away is a section on the line called Fort Hackenberg at Veckring. It is maintained by a "friends" group and is almost as it was during the war. At weekends they run tours in multiple languages which include a 10km underground small train ride, visits to fully equiped gun turrets, hospital, kitchens,generator rooms and a lecture about its history. You also visit outside bunkers destroyed by the allies tanks when they had to drive the Germans out at the end of the war. The tour takes over 2 hours and is well worth the visit. There is also a free virtual tour on the web. Look for Hackenberg and Veckring.
The supply from the allies to the USSR was what changed the tide of war. Change my mind.
The Russians hate to admit this fact.
Mark, you make the most interesting videos every time. Thank you and keep making them.
Tanks, very much, for another great video
Thanks!
What a great way to start my morning, a new video from Dr. Mark Felton!
you live in America, I understood tis because you posted the comment 4 mins ago and you say morning while now in my country is 20:52.
West countries are late and East countries are forward
here us a cookie for you@@EuropeAryan
It’s always a good day when Mark Felton drops a new video!
The obvious question about mounting a 17 pounder in a T34 turret is which version was being considered for the conversion. The T34/76 is shown in the video, but that would have been an extremely tight fit. Either the British also had a T34/85, or they had plans to make extensive modifications on the 76 turret to make the 17 pounder fit and leave room for the turret crew to function.
Later one. They got 85 one only from korea, same with americans.
I understand that for the Firefly, they had to cut the back out of the Sherman turret and weld a bustle to the back to accomodate the radio and leve more room for the gun.
That is correct. The British had to mount the radio on the rear of the Firefly turret due to space limitations. The breach of the 17lbr was so large that the entire gun had to be mounted sideways in order for it to be loaded inside the turret. And although the Firefly carried up to 77 rounds, only 23 could be stored in the turret. The remainder could not be accessed while the tank was in action. Those rounds could only be transferred from the hull to the turret from outside the vehicle. Not a optimal scenario in combat! The Firefly was certainly a fearsome and effective weapon but was really intended only as a stopgap measure until a purpose-designed tank such as the Comet and Crusader arrived on the scene. Thus, only a few hundred were built.
They would have made a larger turret, just like the Red Army...
Fantastic video mr. Felton! I thoroughly enjoy your work, as it includes incredible information, never before seen media and a wide variety of interesting topics!
Another big part of lend lease was gasoline, though the Soviet Union had very large petroleum reserves, they lacked the refining technology to produce the high octane gasoline (petrol to the Brits) necessary for high performance aircraft. A T-34 with patriotic slogans written on it in English would have been an interesting sight. Thanks Dr. Felton.
Good point - I have read elsewhere that the Soviet Union war effort would have collapsed by the end of 1942 if it were not for US aid, particularly the fuel.
And a boatload of machinery to speed up they armament production etc.
Soviet, German, Japanese and Italian aircraft and tank engines were designed to work with lower octane fuel. They were generally reliable, but lower in effective horsepower as a result of lower quality fuel.
I read somewhere that an initial problem with the trucks the Americans supplied was that they could not properly run on the 80 octane fuel that was standard in the USSR. So not surprised to hear it was an issue with aircraft, even the UK did not initially have 100 octane fuel needed to facilitate getting the best performance out of new aircraft designs.
@@timonsolus Jimmy Doolittle worked with the American petroleum industry in the 1930s to work out getting production capacity for 100 + Octane fuel. Critical work in peacetime led to much higher performance in aero engines in wartime.
There is MUCH in this program that is new to me, and surprising, What is not surprising is the fact that Mark Felton Productions has, yet again, soared beyond the conventions of World War II archival reporting - typical of the excellence I expect from this source.
I remember hearing and reading that the soviet troopers very much liked the sherman. They found it to be not only very robust, but quite comfortable. The only complaint was the higher profile. I also heard they outfitted an entire division with shermans.
They Outfitted their best units with Shermans, The Gard Armored divisions
Yeah, the Sherman was a reliable design, less cramped than the T-34, with smoother-working controls, less leaky seams, etc. The Soviets had no time to spend on the fit and finish of their own tanks, making the Shermans seem like Cadillacs.
@@Jorqell .
The Russians did build their tanks to last as long as they were expected to last in combat.
I've read the memories of a soviet M4 commander in which he says they had to keep an eye on their vehicles because crews from other tank units would sneak in at night and rip the seats out of any M4 they could.
@@grahvis Post-war produced T-34's were built to a higher standard, time wasn't of the essence anymore.
1:43 Nice winter cam job! I can imagine the driver working on it felt happy with his effort.
Honestly, just looking at it in the video, it's definitely more difficult to make out the exact shape of the vehicle.
At least to me, it seems to be working as intended.
Might have to see about getting a 1/72 model and painting it like that...
The railway track question would have been answered the same way as Churchill mentioned. The questions about radio equipment would have been answered by installing an external bustle outside the turret, but you'll need to balance the turret out. Improve the gear box and transmission, not to mention the ergonomics inside the vehicle. Moving out of the way of the recoiling breech before firing, not to mention the cramped space. The question is how long it would have taken for testing and mass production. American tanks were already in widespread use, so there would had been no greater strain in logistics.
Sherman surpassed T-34 in every aspect except for offroadability, but even there it was actually better because if it struggled more on a first few obstacles or got stuck here and there, at least it could keep trying untill it got somewhere, while T-34 would overheat the engine after 30 minutes, was likely to break gearbox, loose ability to turn after oil leak on steering clutches, suffer cylinder head gasket failure and was loosing tracks randomly.
T-34 would require a complete redesign of every single part to be considered comparable to Sherman. It wasn't because Soviet engineers were stupid, but because they were given impossible specifications and had to work with underdeveloped industry, so they sacrificed every practical aspect of the tank just to meet the specifications given.
timely post. thanks
Best war thunder youtuber
Brilliant, as usual. How you turn out these beautifully researched and produced videos like clockwork is beyond me.
I can't speak from personal experience with a KV-1 but I HAVE been inside a T-34 and let me tell you, it's TIGHT in there! I'm six feet tall and at the time I weighed 165 pounds and I had a hard time moving around in the thing. I can't speak for the British obviously but the tight confines of the T-34 alone would have disqualified it for American use, to say nothing of the awkward transmission.
In fact from what I've read the Russians who manned Lend-Lease M4 Shermans liked the roomy interiors and ease of driving, more so than their T-34's.
(The Russians also tried using captured German Panthers and didn't like them at all. Interesting.)
Still, the Lend-Lease aid the Russians were the most appreciative of were the American and British trucks, they could never quite make enough trucks of their own.
Another interesting one Doctor Felton, you continue to amaze!
This is along the lines of my first thoughts too.
The T-34 was so tight, they left away the loader and handed the job to the commander.
Now add that big 17pounder plus it's large rounds and a radio...at least the efficiency/rate of fire was likely to drop.
(And the crews might have been cursing the designers all the way to Germany.)
@@viandengalacticspaceyards5135 Right. I should have added the T-34 I was in was the T-34/85 variant, the later model with the larger turret. I can't imagine how tight the older 76mm gun turret was like. A two-man turret would have been totally unacceptable for American practice.
They did not put big people in tanks.
Most WW2 soldiers were far smaller than today.
Malnutrition was so bad in England prior to the war many young men were the English equivalent.
The need for healthy conscripts was part of the Socialist approach of post war Britian.
Lend-Lease Trucks may be more important to ultimate victory over nazi germany than all these tanks. Mechanisation of troop transport allowed red army to have same operational mobility as wermaht, you can really see the diffrence how soviet operations progressed in 1944+ vs 1942 and earlier.
@@shawnr771 I can't speak for the Brits or the Russians for that matter but the average size of an American WW2 soldier was 5'10". If you were designing equipment for the American army in those days you had to keep that in mind. You have to keep it in mind today.
As far as malnutrition is concerned when the US began the peacetime draft in 1940 one-third were rejected due to malnutrition, the effects of the Great Depression were that bad. When the war came standards had to be relaxed, the idea was the services would put the weight on the men once they were getting three square meals a day. So it proved.
Brilliant as usual sir. Thank you very much
Dr Felton, please do a story on the re-establishment of the Volkswagen factory by the British post WW2 in Germany
They did the same with The Claas combine factory. The Germans were convinced that as part of the 'Spoils of war,' The Claas Combine harvester that the British took back home with them after the war would be 'cloned' and manufactured in The UK. Instead, The British helped to get the Claas factory up and running again back in Germany.
There is a good video on this subject on UA-cam.
I always enjoy Dr.Felton’s videos, he always delivers the best content! Ngl
Thanks for posting❤❤
Fantastic material Mark, I'm an old fart who has read a LOT of material regarding WW2 (especially in Europe) throughout my years and this is something I have NEVER previously come across. Thank you also for relating to your many viewers the normally ignored massive supply of material from the UK to the USSR, which was conveyed largely via the "Arctic run" to Murmansk & Archangel under terrible conditions by our largely unsung merchant marine. Not forgetting too the enormous supply of fuel from British owned oil fields in Persia which the soviets used to bolster their own oil production.
Some of those Valentine tanks would be rolling into the streets of Berlin. When Molotov was in London in 1943 he asked for more Valentines, despite the British thinking it obsolete
Valentine was a tough reliable vehicle that was useful as a light tank when the Russians had sufficient T34/KV/IS vehicles. It is a much underrated vehicle. There is a considerable prejudice against British vehicles that is often difficult to understand.
@@bitterdrinker As i understand they used it as a light infantry support tank, which they didn't really have themselves.
@@cheften2mk Wdym? T-60/70 were already occupying said niche, possessing superior 45mm (to 2 pounder at least) or autocannon on very light (and cheap) base. Instead it was used as assault tank, where its heavy armor (and outdated axis AT equipment) served well, alongside other infantry tanks.
You can occasionally see on eBay an old Red Army wartime Xmas card, with soldiers making merry around a Valentine ! And when I went to Kubinka tank museum in 2005, there were 5 tanks thought worthy of being the gate guardians, and one of these was a Valentine !
@@alexturnbackthearmy1907 Military History Not Visualised talked about this topic in a video.
I have been studying WWII for over 35 years and I still find it amazing that the Soviets were able to accomplish so much and triumph over such adversity. I've read that 70-75% of all German battle losses were on the Russian Front. The Germans through everything they had at the Russians and failed. I find it amazing...... After the lessons of Napoleon in 1812 and Hitler in 1941-44, I have concluded that it is basically impossible to defeat Russia. Russia is too large, too cold, to be occupied.
Hitler started the Barbarossa campaign against Russia a month or two later than the German generals wanted and Hitler also interfered in the major decisions in that 1st year of the Russian war instead of letting his generals run the campaign, had Hitler done what his generals wanted completely there’s a good chance they would have defeated the Red Army or gained a major portion of Russia’s oil reserves before those deadly winter conditions saved the Red Army in 1941 and gave them valuable time to regroup and fight back effectively
It would make an interesting alternate history scenario if the British actually did choose to make T-34 Fireflies. Maybe they could have put 6 pounders or the Cromwell's 75mm on the T-34 and the 17 pounder on the KV-1.
The Sherman turret ring where the turret was seated was 69 inches, the early T-34 had a 56-inch ring. With the 17 pounder gun the firefly turret on a Sherman body was cramped. I can not think that the T34 was a better option, since it could only support a smaller turret.
Of course in the last year of the war the newest T34 had a 63-inch turret ring for the 85mm gun, but that too late to get to Britain by the end of the war.
From what I've heard manning a T34 was brutal,
I wonder what damage (physical and psychological) was suffered by Soviet troops stuffed into those things in battle.
From what I've heard manning a T34 was brutal, I wonder what damage (physical and psychological) was suffered by Soviet troops stuffed into those things in battle .
@@tommy-er6hh Don't forget that the Red Army simply put on a bigger turret for the 85mm... One can assume the British engineers also knew how.
You always find an interesting story I haven't heard before! Keep up the great work, sir!
A T-34 with a 17-pounder and a meteor engine would have likely been a pretty good tank.
But with the larger turret for the 85 as the 2 man turret for the 76 model was tiny
Logistics not withstanding, that would have been a very good tank
@@cheften2mk : Agreed, the ergonomics for the 17 pounder gun in a 76 model turret would have been appallingly bad.
The timeline is a bit unclear to me. In 1941 Soviet welding and T-34 reliability were subpar. In 1944 these issues were resolved. Late war T-34's were very reliable tanks. On par with the A2 Sherman's. The US evaluation of the T-34 doesn't sit right with me. They did develop a Sherman with Christie suspension, thought they didn't went through with its production. Adapting this suspension was going to be controversial in any case. In '44 the British T-34 would most likely have been based on a /85. That would fit the 17 pounder at least as easily as a Sherman. Lack of space really hindered the Firefly's effectiveness.
USSR made a larger turret, one assumes the British engineers would have also cooked up a larger turret.
Mark, you never seem to amaze me with your well researched historical events. I can’t get enough of history!
Next time I’m in the UK let’s meet up at your favorite Pub! Beer is on me!
Kv-1 with a 2lb gun with little john adapter..... shall call it the kv stinger 😅. Love your videos
Afternoon Doctor F. Hope your well. Thanks for uploading more videos about things I didn't know. Nice to keep learning new things
Thank you Dr. Felton! A good day to you and thank you for this amazing research and historical research.
A wonderful channel that deserves the best regards, appreciation, admiration and pride. It provides accurate and useful information. I thank you for all the beautiful words and sincere feelings for your distinguished posts. I wish you continued success and all the best. My utmost respect and appreciation
Best ww2 youtube channel out there, never stop
A great video Dr. Felton! I've been reading books on WW2 since a child and have a graduate degree in history. I knew that the Americans had appraised the T34/76, resulting in a negative opinion, because of spalling of the armour when hit. Having said this, I had no idea that the British had thought of producing them and improving upon the original design. I often wondered why the Brits did not think of using the T34/76. Now I know! Thank you for sharing your research.
Since the British barely able to fit the 17-pdr in the older Sherman turret (by giving it a more compact recoil system, turning the breach of the gun 90 degree to allow loading on the side, and add a bustle at the back of the turret to put their radio), I can hardly believe they can fit the 17-pdr in the even smaller T-34 (1940) turret... maybe possible if it's the T-34-85 turret. That may be another reason for them not to proceed with adopting the T-34. More reliable logistical support, and long term international alliance probably (democratic USA vs red USSR) put the final nails in the coffin of that idea too.
The king of all things WW2 Mark Felton…a legend
The Comet is my favourite tank. I'm told that in the training manual there's a photo of a Comet "getting air" over an obstacle with the caption "this is to be avoided". The engine was a Rolls Meteor (a de-rated Merlin from a Spitfire) so performance was quite lively, but the suspension would suffer.
2:59 I couldn't help but imagine Mark holding his pinky close to his mouth doing his best "Doctor Evil" impression when he says "180 Billion Dollars"
Another reason may have been the British started developing the Centurion in 1943 which went into production in 1945.
Always a good day when Dr. Felton uploads a new history lesson.
Yeah it'd be even better if it was remotely truthful.
@Twitchy1 I'll take Dr. Feltons word over random utube commenter thanks.
he is not a doctor and he's plagerising a 2013 tank archives article thats based on one russians letter which he bases off of something an english factory worker told him.
The logistical problems caused by the T-34's width because of the narrower standard gauge British/American/West European rail compared to the broader Russian/Soviet rail gauge probably ensured that Western production of the T-34 (or KV-1) wouldn't occur unless the tanks provided significant improvements compared to contemporary Western allied designs of similar size.
As usual, very interesting video, thanks Doc
Stalin, "We did the fighting all on our own, with no assistance."
Soviet People eye the Valentine and Lee tanks, the American-made food, ammunition, and British made aircraft. "What about all this stuff?"
Staling, "GULAG FOR YOU!"
They marched off to the gulag in their British made boots lol
To be honest, Stalin appreciated lend-lease, and it can be found in many of his speeches (I google it); the modern Russian opinion about allay help and lend-lease is pretty modern and began about 8-10 years ago, and it's really sad.
I remember reading about a British spy in Yugoslavia who got proudly told about superior Soviet truck engineering by a red army driver in regards to his Ford. He made the decision not to clarify the misunderstanding to the chap.
His other interesting tidbit was witnessing pressure activated Italian grenades blowing up in the middle of a dance due to the partisan habit of festooning their belts with the things.
@@vorynrosethorn903 Not really a misunderstanding. You see...Fords are not really that far from Zis trucks because of their origin.
@@vorynrosethorn903Zis and Gaz trucks of the time are both licensed produced and 1:1 reverse-engineered copies of US trucks like Ford and Chrysler. Both companies help build motor vehicle factories in the USSR during the 3rd Five Year Plan...
TY. The British T-34 , with a Diesel engine, could have helped in most battles I know of , and the issue of width was not really the big problem it was thought to be. Nice work on the unknown factor of tank use not used.
with the loss of armoured force there wasn't time to retool. It's why there were so many different British tanks. Just built what we could with what we had at the time.
Mark Felton, Dr. “Primus inter pares “. So much information without “babaloosia explainitirum “. Kudos
Interesting that the British, Americans and even the Germans, all thought of copying the T-34. The Germans at least used a number of captured examples to equip a few of their tank regiments, after modifying them somewhat for Panzerwaffe service first.
They also used all the Czech light tanks they captured in their invasion of Czechoslovakia in their later invasion of France.
@@digitalnomad9985 Germans used everything they captured either to fill the holes in their own losses or to supply their allies like Romania who desperately needed anything. In 1939 Poland technically was in alliance with Romania, but the our command concluded it's pointless to call an ally who's army relies on XIXth century equipment.
Germans only initially were in ave, after they saw that Pak 36 coulnd't do a thing to T-34 at any distance or angle, but just like American reports, once they put their hand on T-34 German reports also say a lot bad things about it.
Not just terrible visibility, poor optics or crew arrangement. Germans also mentioned that for every 30 minutes of march, T-34 needed at least 15 minutes break to cool down. The issue was that Soviet engineers got an order to make a tank immune to 37mm high velocity and bigger caliber low velocity guns, while reaching speeds comparable to BT tanks and using diesel, but it was not just not possible with available technology.
Their best shot was to convert Liberty V12 engine to diesel but they were not able to reinforce it enough for diesel compression rate while keeping the required weight. As a result, the engine wasn't stiff enough not to quickly suffer head gasket failure, the cooling system was inefficient (the engine itself has little cooling channels), and it was the loudest thing within several miles away except for airplanes.
What I love about this channel is I always learn something new. Great job👍❤
I've read the US report on the T34. The US got an early model T34. The vehicle was still in the APG museum until they broke up the collection. The US Army was critical of the T34s lack of mechanical reliability, and commented that gaps in the welding seams allowed water in when it rained that actually shorted the electronic equipment inside. The Army was also concerned about the transportability of the vehicles. Remember that every American tank had to be loaded on ships to get to the war.
My read is that the T34 was an effective tank, but the qualities that the Soviets cared about were not those that the Army wanted.
I just think it would have been too much of a leap in philosophy for the western allies to produce and use the Soviet vehicles.
Actually, T-34 along with Kv was perfect for railways and transportability...in soviet union. They were following same model of a tank, just suited for their own needs. T-34 was about high performance after delivery by train to the frontline, sherman was about being fit to fight far away from infrastructure (and US). Which didnt stop usage of T-34 on japanese front, and quite successfully (late war models were miles ahead of early ones) in same role as sherman, an expeditionary tank.
@@alexturnbackthearmy1907 Precisely. A T34 could get to any Soviet front on a railway car. Also, German tanks could go by train as well. This is why the US never produced large numbers of anything larger than the Sherman. Every American tank had to go on a ship to get where it was going. T34s, IS2s, the big German cats, all could go where they needed to by train (except the Tiger's that went to North Africa, and the M26, but those are stories by themselves).
Well, US reports on T-34 was indeed quite consistent with the soviet ones. It was an awful tank, even much later versions.
And production quality was awful as well.
@@nonamesplease6288 exactly right. I wish more people would understand this when they talk down about the Sherman. The Germans didn't have to ship entire armies across oceans (fortunately, we all ended those plans before they got to that point)
@@Chastity_Beltwhat? Dude... cmon
Another interesting video from Lord Felton.
One of the best and more often overlooked features of the T-34 was its engine. It was V-12 design with dual overhead camshafts per cylinder bank, four valves per cylinder, direct injection and an aluminum block. Resilient, powerful (500 to 700 hp depending on the model) and relatively light, it was very advanced for its time. I am surprised that the British never considered keeping this engine.
By the way, the Soviets executed the engine designer, Konstantin Chelpan, on trumped - up political charges because he was of Greek descent.
Historians often praise it but the most overlooked thing about the engine is American report from T-34 tests in 1942 as well as German reports and Soviet practice showing the engine was pretty terrible. It mentions that;
'the engine is basically a diesel-converted copy of Liberty V12 engine which Walter Christie always used in his tanks because they were plentiful and thus cheap, but the Soviets did little to reinforce it for required combustion rate'. The' report also mentions air filter: 'it does exactly the opposite of what it is supposed to do.' and 'only a sabouteur could have designed such a device.
The improved versions of air filter received the following notes: 'Not all of the changes were deemed successful (..) Centrifugal separation of dirt from air was abandoned several decades ago in America as being very ineffective'.
About: two tractor type air cleaners: 'poor design, rapid loss of any filtering action'. (...) "these filters seemed wholly inadequate by any possible standard'
Reports also mention that for every 30 minutes of march, the tank required at least 15 minutes of cooling down. It is also known that before a battle, Soviets would endevour to replace not only gearboxes, but also all engines that had as little as 30 hours of operation on the clock. Not only that high power output was partly achieved just by not using exhaust mufflers, as a result Germans could tell exact position of T-34s from miles away, just by listening to engine noise.
Also the engine was not 'robust' at all. Not only it had terrible filters and insufficient cooling system, the cylinder block and head is just not rigid enough to withstand diesel combustion rate for long periods of time.
The reason why the British didn't keep the engine was probably it required a complete redesign of engine block and cylinder head and that basically means designing a new engine.
In Soviet's defence, General Motors did exactly the same mistake decades later with 1980s V8 diesel in Oldsmobile cars when they stupidly converted petrol V8 although engineers told the management beforehand it can't work.
I guess when your tanks have an average life expectancy of 45 minutes in combat, it would seem reliable enough.
@@piotrmalewski8178GM didn't even want to spring for a forged crankshaft, because it would have been $2 a unit.
@@randymagnum143 Imho it was a typical big corporation-like issue, where decision makers don't know a thing. There was a specification to make a tank as quick as BT tanks, but immune to typical 1930s anti tank guns, and using diesel engine. This meant everything had to be as light as possible. Same problem is seen in T0-34s armour. To keep the weight low while reaching the required strenght it uses only high hardness steel which makes it dangerous to the crew. A proper solution would have been high-hardness steel attached to low-hardness monocoque, just like Cromwell's turret but it would have been heavier slowing it down, and that would cost the designers an execution...
So they converted Liberty V12 to diesel with minimal reinforment and removed mufflers from exhaust system. Specs didn't mention the tank was to be quiet.
Similar thing happens today with cars. They are required to meet Euro 6D norm, so manufacturers use stuff like low viscosity, low saps oil, variable water pump, low oil pressure etc. and the car meets specifications, but after 200 thousand kilometers it only makes economic sense it suffers so many failures and the core engine parts are so worn out, it only makes economic sense to send it back to steelworks and produce a ton of CO2, where's a 90s or early 2000s car could do 500 to 800 thousand km without engine rebuilt.
I guess we must be reading reports with completely opposite conclusions in them. @@piotrmalewski8178
a great very interesting video Mr Felton as usual.have a good one.
Imagine if the snail added an americam and british t34 and kv1
I hope we keep hearing WW2 storys for another 80 years. Amazing
T-34 was a death trap, Soviet tankers having a higher DELETION rate then Sherman tankers, and ergonomically it was a poor design as well. Soft factors like reliability and crew comfort matter. The British were far better off with the US Sherman. I do know the Soviets were adamant to getting the T-34 into Western production as lend-lease supplied T-34's instead of M3's, M4's, Mathildas and Valentines would have simplified Soviet logistics.
Thanks for this video, Mark. Honestly War tank technology has come a very long way when these WW2 era tanks are compared to what's out there today. Wow!
'You paid with materials...we paid with blood' - Stalin
Yes, but we valued the materials.
No mention of the British Cromwell tank, Dr Felton? In the round, the Cromwell was comfortably the equal of the M4 Sherman. Cromwells had become available in volume just in time for D-Day.
The amount of aid sent to Stalin by the US is positively staggering. Some much canned meat (Spam, for the most part) was sent to the Soviets they nicknamed it
"Second Front". Millions of pairs of boots, enormous quantities of material for uniforms, POL, Small Arms ammo, jeeps, trucks, millions of tons of steel and base metals...the list goes on.
Trucks, cars and food with metals are most important things. Everything else...just a nice touch to a secured resource base.
Yes, and they lost 10 million well dressed soldiers.
It might be worth mentioning that the sentence "second front" in the context of Lend-Lease was a derogatory term used by the Soviet soldiers. It was an insult about the perceived cowardice of the western allies who refused to face the enemy head on.
The Soviets repeatedly asked for the formation of an actual Second Front (i.e invasion of France) already in 1941 and several times after that. The lack of any meaningful military action in the west between 1940 and 1943 (or even 1944) was perceived by the Soviet soldiers as cowardice or betrayal. And this attitude again was perceived as ungreatfullness by the Western Allies.
This is one of the issues that Cold War was later based on. Mutual mistrust and misunderstandings (sometimes made wilfully by both sides) about the fundamental differences between the realities in western and eastern fronts.
@@petteriusima4106 , that’s mainly because the Soviet soldier had no choice but to “face the enemy head on” because Stalin sacrificed millions of them to defend the Rodina. If they slowed down or stopped, they were shot by their own side. The Allies were not ready to invade NW Europe between 1940 and 1944. Britain was still hanging on in 1940, fighting on several fronts. The Battle of the Atlantic was absorbing resources at an astounding rate. The Soviets were not involved at sea, except to receive their merchandise. They weren’t fighting in Africa and later Italy. The Yanks didn’t enter the war until 1941, and were certainly not ready to fight on land in Western Europe until 1944 (even if they thought they were, as they had enough trouble in Africa and Italy, not to mention the Pacific). Let’s not forget that Stalin was Hitler’s buddy early on. Churchill certainly didn’t.
@@garywagner2466 The Soviets fought "head on" because othervise they would all have been killed anyway. War in the east was a war to annihilate all slavic people. Not so in the west. And please! Not that "shooting the troops if they do not advance" rubbish. That myth has been debunked so many times that it is getting tiresome to hear it. Not arhuing that a lot of people were not executed for "cowardice" in Soviet Union but there were no troops shooting anybody in the back in the eastern front.
Also Britain was saved by the Channel and US of course was never in any danger because of a small thing called "The Atlantic Ocean".
I know the reasons western allies did not attack mainland Europe earlier. However these reasons undoubtedly sounded hollow to a Soviet soldiers who were dying by the million and who lost their families to starvation and brutality caused by the Germans.
It also bears to remember that the western allies were not really that friendly towards the Soviet Union. It was a longstanding dream for the British to have the Germans and Soviets fight themselves to death. That was one reason why west was happy to make the Munich sell-out in 1938. Which made Stalin and Hitler friends for a while. Churchill might not have been a "friend" of Hitlers but he certainly disliked Stalin more. And that was quite a common view in the leadership of UK before 1939.
Another excellent video thank you!
A Tea-34, if you will.
Nobody knows the story, nor tells the truth about the story as completely or better. Thank you Sir!
Was " Unintelligible " the first or last name of the reporter in the report?
Happy Lunar New Year to you and your family Dr Felton! Thanks for all the quality content you've been giving us 🙏
If the British were using imperial units, would tooling be problematic when manufacturing the T-34 and supplying tools to the front? American tanks were most likely in imperial units as well. Has logistics become an issue in this?
I've just watched another video on WWII logistics, and there was a number of 409000 trucks alone supplied by the US via Lend Lease.
In recent years, a Russian YT channel discussed the Sherman v. T-34, and which was better. A number of Russians concluded that the Sherman was the better vehicle, as far ergonomics for the crew, division of labor, and visibility of the battlefield from within. They nicknamed the Sherman, the "Em-Cha", for the letter "M", and the first letter of the Russian word for "4", "четыре", or "chetyre", the "ч" representing a "ch" sound.
That's interesting to hear, especially as the Sherman is generally considered to be way behind the T-34! It was less-reliable, a bigger target for enemy tanks/guns, and was under-armed.
@@rubbishmodeller They all came with radios, too. Only the command tank in a T-34 tank formation had a radio. It is possible that the T-34 had the less mechanically experience Soviet soldier in mind in it's design. In US and British experience, the Sherman was quite mechanically reliable.
I remember reading that was a problem with American railway tunnels as well. At that time really large machines coming out of Detroit heading east had to go through the Erie Canal.
No disrespect intended but you may be confusing the Erie Canal with the Erie Railroad. The Erie RR had VERY generous clearances so it was ready-made for shipments of oversize articles.
The Erie Canal was still around ( or I should say the updated version of it) but it wasn't the way to ship if you were in a rush. Canal boats just can't move as fast as trains and canals can freeze in the winter making them useless.
My dad, a Korean war vet, told many interesting stories of his Patton tanks blasting T-34s to pieces all over the peninsula from '50-'53. (And the 34s did little damage to the American M46s and M48s.) He and his tanker buds had very little respect for, and no fear of, Russian armor.
As always, amazing content!
It's interesting reading the official soviet post war propaganda where they downplay any significance of the lend lease program.
Doc, you've done it again 👏
No they didn't you have just looked at STT reports. While the vehicles get a mix of praise in some areas and condemned in others there is absolutely no plans or desire to put these into service in the UK. The STT evaluated Tigers and Panthers too and no they didn't want those either. The UK had no plans to use the T-34 despite what a few over eager Russians might have thought to themselves, it is not considered an option in the DTD or tank board minutes or in the PM records. but ill call your bluff, show me the English discussion and documentation on the UK planning on using T-34's. because all you've done it take some information written on the Tank Archives site, cut out the bits that suit your narrative and made up some fantasy filler.
My guess is Mark is overstating a western allied evaluation of the soviet tanks to increase viewership.
A very appropriate number plate for this video @5:17