@@TankArchives yes many try for daily or weekly. I think that at once a month (or so) should do it. Your video was popped in my homepage although I have more than 400 subscriptions (and zero with the bell). Quality will do the rest.
If you see wartime photos of early Tiger, Pz IV, StuG F, you'll notice they censored the muzzle brakes on the long guns. They were trying to keep it a secret for as long as possible.
Thank you Peter. Nice analysis. Adoption of someone else’s battle proven artillery muzzle brake would have been an obvious time and money saving option. The foundries would have saved a huge amount of time in model making and casting before you even look at design work and range testing!
Nice video Peter, Buuuut, I always am looking at your models and the radio panel in the background during the show. Can we possibly have a vid about those interesting items sometime in the future ?
The radio is a WS No.19 that I'm slowly pulling parts together for, my ultimate goal is to make something where you can "tune in" to several pre-recorded messages as an exhibit at our booth at reenacting events. I don't know if it's something worth doing a video on unless viewers of the channel really want to know how an AM demodulator works. I'll do a video on the models in the next few months most likely unless I get other ideas. I don't really think about these very far in advance.
Soviets wanted a full spectrum of infantry weapons based on their kurz round right away - a carbine (to replace the rifle), an SMG and an LMG. And while people can try connecting the dots between StG 44 and AK all day long SKS and RPD were 100% homegrown concepts. SKS can be arguably compared to M1 Carbine of course but there is no denying it's just a scaled down PTRS-41.
@@TankArchives IIRC they also rejected it as the gun would have only been used on that one vehicle as it was previously rejected by the Heer due to it only being a marginal improvement over the 88mm Kwk43 and would have just added extra and unnecessary strain on already poor logistics and production for no real benefit.
Do you have any sources covering what the Germans thought of the T-70? I find it’s a tank that doesn’t get covered much even though it was manufactured in large numbers cause it’s overshadowed by the SU-76.
Sadly, nothing. The most I've seen was a photo of a T-70 with MG-34 machine guns, suggesting that at least someone somewhere through that it was a good enough tank to not just use, but also put effort into customizing.
Makes me wonder how much copied and applied German, British and American tech was put into post-war Soviet tank designs. They received so many types via lend-lease after all. Out of topic question here: Where were all those up-armored Soviet tanks of the early war upgraded? I heard KV-1E were build as such in the Leningrad factory and I'd guess it was the same with different up-armored T-34s, but how about older tanks like T-26 and T-28? There is also that odd up-armored T-50 in Parola armor museum. There are relatively many photos of wrecked T-50s, but none of them have such add-on armor, though it would also be strange for Finns to have up-armored just a single tank.
KV-1 tanks received bolted on armour in the summer of 1941, but most of it was quickly dropped in favour of thickening the main armour. The same thing happened to the T-60: the armour was temporarily improved with applique plates and then replaced with thicker monolithic armour. The T-34 actually had three different kinds of applique armour schemes developed for it, none of which were very popular. Unlike the T-60 and KV, the main armour was not thickened either. An effort was made to up-armour older tanks like the T-26, T-28, and BT before the war, but more interestingly there were similar upgrades performed during the war in Far East military districts that did not receive new tanks until 1945. They actually even upgraded T-37 and T-38 tanks with extra armour and a 20 mm gun instead of the stock machine gun! What is most interesting is that I have a document where they say that not just armour from scrapped Soviet tanks was used, but also from scrapped German tanks. The T-50 is an outlier here. The Finns developed the applique armour for it, the Soviets never did.
My poor understanding is that the German Tankers beret, at least in its original form was a cover over some form of padded head protection. Something like a medieval Secrete helmet (a skull cap often with a hat or bonnet attached to it). Also the 1928 Vickers 6 ton single turret version is considered the first tank with a co-axial machinegun with a cannon in a turret. The Leichttraktor came 2 years later. That the Soviets got a good look at both (and licence built the Vickers) here is a possibility that either or both were the influence. The Germans may have copied the Vickers idea, or it may have been parallel development that took a little longer to come to fruition because of the clandestine nature of its development. What is certain is just about everyone else bar the Japanese were copying the idea by the mid 1930s.
www.tankarchives.ca/2018/07/a-timely-purchase.html There were a couple of other German and Polish tanks stolen from a repair yard at Tomaszów Lubelski, but nothing was copied from any of those.
Of course, they sometimes copied not-so-good ideas, too. The T-35 seems to have evolved from the British A1E1 Independent, plans for which had been stolen by a spy, via the Grosstraktor and NbFz. That the Germans were still interested in such designs is shown by the mission to the USSR headed by Edward Grote (often misspelled 'Grotte'); there were several iterations of the "Tank Grote", of which only the first was practical but rejected for uncertain reasons. It may be that Soviet industry couldn't handle some of the innovations at the time, but it's equally likely that given the T-35 was a dead end it wasn't desirable to pursue such designs. The Soviets also received all that Lend-Lease equipment, and just off the top of my head I know they copied the DUKW, Ford GPA and B-29 after the war.
5TD is a derivative of Kharkov's locomotive engines, which themselves were possibly derived from Fairbanks-Morse marine engines leased to the USSR on some leased boats
The AK copied more from the M1 Garand than the StG44. The long piston gas operation, floating turn to lock bolt, and the trigger and hammer group were lifted from the M1 wholesale. The only thing they got from the StG was the overall dimensions and the box magazine.
This is such a ridiculous myth. Bolt + trigger ≠ entire gun. This is literally why they just dropped an M1 bolt in there. "Idiots will never know."... So on one side: bolt + trigger. I guess charging handle too. On ther side: the actual gas piston itself. The position and housing of the piston. The stamped construction. The sights. The overall form factor. The magazine is *extremely* similar. STG designer was forced to work on the project. The cartridge was directly copied from the same principle (if Russians used 8mm it would have been the exact same one). Even the wood hand guard was done basically how they wanted to do post-war STGs just a little clunkier. A few other small things as well. So yeah sure, obviously "muh bolt" means it's basically an M1 Garand never believe your lying eyes... 🙄
Soviets had no need to respect licenses or patents, because USSR was a command economy, not really connected to the market economy other than its network of foreign Corporations it used to purchase foreign goods through, similar to how DPRK does it today which even managed to purchase an M1A1 Abrams from either Iraq or Saudi Arabia, its funny how everything goes in full circle really. Personally, in my view it makes no sense to patent and protect an idea or design unless your sole reason is to profit from it, to my knowledge there were no such concept in USSR other than copyright for art such as movies, stories, music etc. But its interesting how respectful the Soviets are to name the source of their 'inspirations' you will never see such in German records when they outright copied the T-34 as the VK.3002.D, or when they stole the V-2 Diesel engine design, it just goes to show the difference in pride.
The 85mm gun is a 100% Russian development ! Only some elements of the gun carriage were taken from the Rheinmetall design. Even at the time it was no secret to Germany that Russia wanted German knowledge; it was in fact part of the whole deal. That early Pz III sold to Russia really stunned the Russians. It was almost as fast on tracks as a BT was on wheels. 37mm PAK was also copied by the USA; it became the standard light AT gun in the US Army. MG42 stood model for the M60. The Russian 120mm mortar was directly copied by Germany. Germany also "invented" an adapter to fit MP40 mags to PPSh-41. Germans loved that MP. As you've stated correctly, AK-47 had nothing to do with StG44. IIRC everybody was working on an assault rifle almost simultaneously.
The Soviet ARCOS spy-ring got hold of the plans of the British 'Independent' tank, which inspired the T-35, but more important they (like the Germans) got hold of the report on the operations of the Mobile Force on Salisbury Plain, which laid out the basis of 'Blitzkrieg'.
The T-35 was a "budget" T-39, whose evolution can be traced further back to superheavy tanks developed by foreign consultants like Grotte. While definitely inspired by foreign development, it wasn't British in origins, and definitely not a copy.
Tehnicly if u wached thru the volmar dokuments about his mkb 35 seris of pre stg he haved soviet fedorov avtomat (fedorov-medsen model) theat inspire him for his mashine karabinen project theat apires later again in beguining of ww2 so stg is no so german idea i ges
-- Thanks Peter, as always... Very Interesting video, however that last Soviet invention, that have German roots, might as well have Russian/Soviets roots as well in German invention of StG-1943/44, however we don't have any solid evidence to it... so lets leave it at that, for now. Avtomat, which "Great" Adolf misclassified as a Storm Rifle(aka Assault Rifle), which is strange, since its also great weapon in defence or trenches, at medium to point blank distance, and confined spaces like woods, so there is a reason why Soviet jump head onto, and made M43(aka 7.62x39mm) round, uniformly main stay across all infantry personal weapon(small fire arms, including LMGs) i.e. all previous work on ALL: SMGs, LMGs and Rifles just about seased to exist, all before even Wehrmacht could adopted 7.92 Kurtz across the "board" for all infantry. Why is that? Oh, BTW, it took American nearly 1/4 century, and Robert McNamara to "sell" the idea of "intermediate round" as brilliant! That 1944 CIA report on captured StG-1943/44 did not help to promote it(StG-1943/44) among USA "High Brass", as a great invention since "sliced bread", as it been praised right now. Why is that? P.S. Both CIA reports on capture StG-1944, and captured T-34-85 are great readings, and I think still available in google search for free, just like Aberdeen report on T-34-76 used to be, but no more.
I was just watching a "documentary" about the Tu-4 bomber which was literally a copy pasted B-29, which required a huge effort to update the soviet aviation industry to make in the first place, something the documentary tried to breeeze past 😂. The highly opinionated video was made by @paperskies th-cam.com/video/BVP_elhMz-A/w-d-xo.htmlsi=-0QIZb1iJmjoVJbI who went on a tear about "IF ONLY THE SOVIETS HAD LET US BOMBERS USE AIRFIELDS IN THEIR FAR EAST, USA WOULDN'T HAVE TO ISLAND HOP ALL THE WAY TO JAPAN AND WOULD HAVE SAVED SO MUCH TIME AND LIVES REEEEE!" ignoring of course that nobody was stupid enough to think those bombers once done with the Japanese would not have immediately turned to blowing up commies. 😂😂😂😂
And bomb what? Just the eastern ports before heading south and praying you can at least bail over Japan? Wouldn't those bombers be more at risk of being grounded in the Soviet Union? Something that the US Army (amoung other things) consider an unacceptable risk? Assuming the Soviets would change their stance on Japan earlier, I'll bet that it's too much of a hassle to have the Soviets transport the bombs/upkeep for the bombers when they are trying to get more lendlease.
Considering your very good blog, this channel just started late. It will boom, maybe not immediately, but likely.
Hopefully! The trick is posting regularly, which I haven't really been doing.
@@TankArchives yes many try for daily or weekly. I think that at once a month (or so) should do it. Your video was popped in my homepage although I have more than 400 subscriptions (and zero with the bell). Quality will do the rest.
@@TankArchives Being big is overrated- been known to provide quality content and having good insights is more important. :)
Impressive that even small details like muzzle breaks can be copied (on both sides!). I was not expecting it.
If you see wartime photos of early Tiger, Pz IV, StuG F, you'll notice they censored the muzzle brakes on the long guns. They were trying to keep it a secret for as long as possible.
Thank you Peter. Nice analysis. Adoption of someone else’s battle proven artillery muzzle brake would have been an obvious time and money saving option. The foundries would have saved a huge amount of time in model making and casting before you even look at design work and range testing!
Great video Peter!
my new favorite tank channel. I recently read your T-34 book, was an excellent read, gonna pick up the IS-2 one at some point too!
Nice video Peter,
Buuuut, I always am looking at your models and the radio panel in the background during the show.
Can we possibly have a vid about those interesting items sometime in the future ?
The radio is a WS No.19 that I'm slowly pulling parts together for, my ultimate goal is to make something where you can "tune in" to several pre-recorded messages as an exhibit at our booth at reenacting events. I don't know if it's something worth doing a video on unless viewers of the channel really want to know how an AM demodulator works.
I'll do a video on the models in the next few months most likely unless I get other ideas. I don't really think about these very far in advance.
Soviets wanted a full spectrum of infantry weapons based on their kurz round right away - a carbine (to replace the rifle), an SMG and an LMG. And while people can try connecting the dots between StG 44 and AK all day long SKS and RPD were 100% homegrown concepts. SKS can be arguably compared to M1 Carbine of course but there is no denying it's just a scaled down PTRS-41.
3:23 verdammt they know about our secret facility😂
Is German actually tried to up gun Tiger 2 with 10.5 CM? Because I see the tiger 2 with 10.5 in WoT and WT
The topic was explored, but the Tiger II's turret was way too small. Such a large gun would need two part ammunition and likely a second loader.
@@TankArchives IIRC they also rejected it as the gun would have only been used on that one vehicle as it was previously rejected by the Heer due to it only being a marginal improvement over the 88mm Kwk43 and would have just added extra and unnecessary strain on already poor logistics and production for no real benefit.
Do you have any sources covering what the Germans thought of the T-70? I find it’s a tank that doesn’t get covered much even though it was manufactured in large numbers cause it’s overshadowed by the SU-76.
Sadly, nothing. The most I've seen was a photo of a T-70 with MG-34 machine guns, suggesting that at least someone somewhere through that it was a good enough tank to not just use, but also put effort into customizing.
Gundlach Periscope, aka Vickers Tank Periscope MK.IV aka MK-4.
Makes me wonder how much copied and applied German, British and American tech was put into post-war Soviet tank designs. They received so many types via lend-lease after all.
Out of topic question here:
Where were all those up-armored Soviet tanks of the early war upgraded? I heard KV-1E were build as such in the Leningrad factory and I'd guess it was the same with different up-armored T-34s, but how about older tanks like T-26 and T-28? There is also that odd up-armored T-50 in Parola armor museum. There are relatively many photos of wrecked T-50s, but none of them have such add-on armor, though it would also be strange for Finns to have up-armored just a single tank.
KV-1 tanks received bolted on armour in the summer of 1941, but most of it was quickly dropped in favour of thickening the main armour. The same thing happened to the T-60: the armour was temporarily improved with applique plates and then replaced with thicker monolithic armour.
The T-34 actually had three different kinds of applique armour schemes developed for it, none of which were very popular. Unlike the T-60 and KV, the main armour was not thickened either.
An effort was made to up-armour older tanks like the T-26, T-28, and BT before the war, but more interestingly there were similar upgrades performed during the war in Far East military districts that did not receive new tanks until 1945. They actually even upgraded T-37 and T-38 tanks with extra armour and a 20 mm gun instead of the stock machine gun! What is most interesting is that I have a document where they say that not just armour from scrapped Soviet tanks was used, but also from scrapped German tanks.
The T-50 is an outlier here. The Finns developed the applique armour for it, the Soviets never did.
My poor understanding is that the German Tankers beret, at least in its original form was a cover over some form of padded head protection. Something like a medieval Secrete helmet (a skull cap often with a hat or bonnet attached to it).
Also the 1928 Vickers 6 ton single turret version is considered the first tank with a co-axial machinegun with a cannon in a turret. The Leichttraktor came 2 years later. That the Soviets got a good look at both (and licence built the Vickers) here is a possibility that either or both were the influence. The Germans may have copied the Vickers idea, or it may have been parallel development that took a little longer to come to fruition because of the clandestine nature of its development. What is certain is just about everyone else bar the Japanese were copying the idea by the mid 1930s.
During the interwar years, the two nations colaborated technologically in the Soviet Union...
Sorry can you post or say the source about the panzer III stolen in poland?
www.tankarchives.ca/2018/07/a-timely-purchase.html
There were a couple of other German and Polish tanks stolen from a repair yard at Tomaszów Lubelski, but nothing was copied from any of those.
@@TankArchives thank you
In Dutch we say: beter goed gejat, dan slecht bedacht
Of course, they sometimes copied not-so-good ideas, too. The T-35 seems to have evolved from the British A1E1 Independent, plans for which had been stolen by a spy, via the Grosstraktor and NbFz. That the Germans were still interested in such designs is shown by the mission to the USSR headed by Edward Grote (often misspelled 'Grotte'); there were several iterations of the "Tank Grote", of which only the first was practical but rejected for uncertain reasons. It may be that Soviet industry couldn't handle some of the innovations at the time, but it's equally likely that given the T-35 was a dead end it wasn't desirable to pursue such designs.
The Soviets also received all that Lend-Lease equipment, and just off the top of my head I know they copied the DUKW, Ford GPA and B-29 after the war.
5TD engine is also a derivative of german design
5TD is a derivative of Kharkov's locomotive engines, which themselves were possibly derived from Fairbanks-Morse marine engines leased to the USSR on some leased boats
The AK copied more from the M1 Garand than the StG44. The long piston gas operation, floating turn to lock bolt, and the trigger and hammer group were lifted from the M1 wholesale. The only thing they got from the StG was the overall dimensions and the box magazine.
And the M1 Garand was lifted almost entirely from the RSC1918
This is such a ridiculous myth.
Bolt + trigger ≠ entire gun. This is literally why they just dropped an M1 bolt in there. "Idiots will never know."...
So on one side: bolt + trigger. I guess charging handle too.
On ther side: the actual gas piston itself. The position and housing of the piston. The stamped construction. The sights. The overall form factor. The magazine is *extremely* similar. STG designer was forced to work on the project. The cartridge was directly copied from the same principle (if Russians used 8mm it would have been the exact same one). Even the wood hand guard was done basically how they wanted to do post-war STGs just a little clunkier. A few other small things as well.
So yeah sure, obviously "muh bolt" means it's basically an M1 Garand never believe your lying eyes... 🙄
Wasnt really copying something that was already know technology just borrowed some parts of the design.
Soviets had no need to respect licenses or patents, because USSR was a command economy, not really connected to the market economy other than its network of foreign Corporations it used to purchase foreign goods through, similar to how DPRK does it today which even managed to purchase an M1A1 Abrams from either Iraq or Saudi Arabia, its funny how everything goes in full circle really.
Personally, in my view it makes no sense to patent and protect an idea or design unless your sole reason is to profit from it, to my knowledge there were no such concept in USSR other than copyright for art such as movies, stories, music etc.
But its interesting how respectful the Soviets are to name the source of their 'inspirations' you will never see such in German records when they outright copied the T-34 as the VK.3002.D, or when they stole the V-2 Diesel engine design, it just goes to show the difference in pride.
The 85mm gun is a 100% Russian development ! Only some elements of the gun carriage were taken from the Rheinmetall design.
Even at the time it was no secret to Germany that Russia wanted German knowledge; it was in fact part of the whole deal.
That early Pz III sold to Russia really stunned the Russians. It was almost as fast on tracks as a BT was on wheels.
37mm PAK was also copied by the USA; it became the standard light AT gun in the US Army.
MG42 stood model for the M60.
The Russian 120mm mortar was directly copied by Germany.
Germany also "invented" an adapter to fit MP40 mags to PPSh-41. Germans loved that MP.
As you've stated correctly, AK-47 had nothing to do with StG44. IIRC everybody was working on an assault rifle almost simultaneously.
Most of that is wrong to some degree or another
@@gratefulguy4130 Elaborate.
The Soviet ARCOS spy-ring got hold of the plans of the British 'Independent' tank, which inspired the T-35, but more important they (like the Germans) got hold of the report on the operations of the Mobile Force on Salisbury Plain, which laid out the basis of 'Blitzkrieg'.
The T-35 was a "budget" T-39, whose evolution can be traced further back to superheavy tanks developed by foreign consultants like Grotte. While definitely inspired by foreign development, it wasn't British in origins, and definitely not a copy.
*Promosm* 🤗
Tehnicly if u wached thru the volmar dokuments about his mkb 35 seris of pre stg he haved soviet fedorov avtomat (fedorov-medsen model) theat inspire him for his mashine karabinen project theat apires later again in beguining of ww2 so stg is no so german idea i ges
-- Thanks Peter, as always... Very Interesting video, however that last Soviet invention, that have German roots, might as well have Russian/Soviets roots as well in German invention of StG-1943/44, however we don't have any solid evidence to it... so lets leave it at that, for now. Avtomat, which "Great" Adolf misclassified as a Storm Rifle(aka Assault Rifle), which is strange, since its also great weapon in defence or trenches, at medium to point blank distance, and confined spaces like woods, so there is a reason why Soviet jump head onto, and made M43(aka 7.62x39mm) round, uniformly main stay across all infantry personal weapon(small fire arms, including LMGs) i.e. all previous work on ALL: SMGs, LMGs and Rifles just about seased to exist, all before even Wehrmacht could adopted 7.92 Kurtz across the "board" for all infantry. Why is that? Oh, BTW, it took American nearly 1/4 century, and Robert McNamara to "sell" the idea of "intermediate round" as brilliant! That 1944 CIA report on captured StG-1943/44 did not help to promote it(StG-1943/44) among USA "High Brass", as a great invention since "sliced bread", as it been praised right now. Why is that?
P.S. Both CIA reports on capture StG-1944, and captured T-34-85 are great readings, and I think still available in google search for free, just like Aberdeen report on T-34-76 used to be, but no more.
I was just watching a "documentary" about the Tu-4 bomber which was literally a copy pasted B-29, which required a huge effort to update the soviet aviation industry to make in the first place, something the documentary tried to breeeze past 😂. The highly opinionated video was made by @paperskies th-cam.com/video/BVP_elhMz-A/w-d-xo.htmlsi=-0QIZb1iJmjoVJbI
who went on a tear about "IF ONLY THE SOVIETS HAD LET US BOMBERS USE AIRFIELDS IN THEIR FAR EAST, USA WOULDN'T HAVE TO ISLAND HOP ALL THE WAY TO JAPAN AND WOULD HAVE SAVED SO MUCH TIME AND LIVES REEEEE!" ignoring of course that nobody was stupid enough to think those bombers once done with the Japanese would not have immediately turned to blowing up commies. 😂😂😂😂
And bomb what? Just the eastern ports before heading south and praying you can at least bail over Japan? Wouldn't those bombers be more at risk of being grounded in the Soviet Union? Something that the US Army (amoung other things) consider an unacceptable risk? Assuming the Soviets would change their stance on Japan earlier, I'll bet that it's too much of a hassle to have the Soviets transport the bombs/upkeep for the bombers when they are trying to get more lendlease.