ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 16 ต.ค. 2024
- Join The Channel for more perks : / @factbytes
The Panzer IV for Germany and the T34 for the Soviet Union formed the backbone of their armored divisions for much of the war. These were the most widely produced, cost effective, longest serving and successful tanks for Germany and the Soviet Union.
In the early stages of the war, Panzer leader General Heinz Guderian asserted that the T-34 had vast superiority over contemporary German tanks.
It was faster, far more mobile off-road, easier to maintain, better armored and had a better gun.
The shock of encountering the Soviet T-34 and KV1 tanks made the Germans quickly develop a newly mounted gun capable of piercing the Soviet armor.
In Early 1942, the Panzer IV was equipped with a long barrel high velocity 75 millimeter L43 cannon and the improved variant was designated as model F2.
This was able to penetrate the T34s armor at all angles from distances up to 1000m.
In late 1942, the Model G was initially equipped with the same L43 gun but was later upgraded to a more powerful, longer 75 millimeter, L48 cannon.
The introduction of the T-34/85 with a longer 85 millimeter cannon, created in 1943 and entering mainline service in 1944 was the Soviet response to keeping it competitive.
Copyright fair use notice
All media used in this video is used for the purpose of education under the terms of fair use.
All footage and images used belong to their copyright holders.
#WW2TankBattle #PanzerIV #t34
I agree with the final conclusion of this video. Some side notes:
The T34 was so cramped, not because of the sloped armour, but because of the Christie suspension. Every wheel is supported by a very big spring that takes up space in the hull. Look for a an image of an exploded T34 with those springs hanging out and you see what I mean. Modern tanks all have torsion suspension. Maybe post war T34 models had torsion suspension too?
Pantzer iii and iv were revolutionary when they appeared in the mid thirties; they had a three man turret and radio.
Turret was cramped too (no suspension). Side sloped armour made it worse in the chassis. Sherman's side armour was not sloped for better storage even though Americans understood that it makes the protection weaker. Still, agree that suspension was also a great deal in making the tank harder to operate. Reds wanted to Cheng's it but war broke out. Regards
The T-43, which was seriously considered as a mid-war replacement for the T-34, did have the torsion bar suspension. So did its direct evolvement, the T-44, which started production in late 1944 but, AFAIK, was never issued to combat units until after the war ended.
@@selfdo But there was t34m which also had torsion bar suspension but due to urgent need of increasing the volume of production, the project was abandoned.
Bad optics and an inferior gun. It could take more abuse though and Stalin could really crank out T34's in mass, and he could care less about how many tank crews he lost. Unlike the tigers and panthers the up-gunned panzer IV just worked like the up-gunned stug, didn't brake down could cross light bridges muddy fields etc.
Not all modern tanks have torsion bars, the Challenger 2 and K2 have hydro-pneumatic suspension.
It is important not to underestimate the practical, but less "sexy" reasons for why the Pzkw IV was very effective against the T-34: 1) The 5-man crew of the Pzkw IV compared to the 4-man crew of the T-34 (prior to the introduction of the T-34/85 allowed for the German tank commander to not be distracted by serving also as the gunner; 2) German tanks all had radios installed, with not all T-34's being equipped with radios; 3) German optical sights were superior to Russian optical sights.
The T-34 was à good basic design but various refinemets to the Mk IV Aufs F and upward make it overall à superior fighting platform. Better crew accommodation, better sighting, better cannon. Layout simply better. Also superior personnel manning the tanks, just being real. T-34 despite being good at taking hits definitely took more hits and losses than the Panzer IVs because not only were they plentiful in number to target, the Germans were simply better at puttng rounds onto enemy armor than vice versa. My father served in the Soviet era army in the late 80s and 90s and this was the prevailing view among officers even if on official documentation they weren't supposed to hype up German equipment.
Yes, German tanks had very good optics and perfect radio communications in their tanks. But the Red Army also had similar technologies. In addition, the British and Americans supplied good radio stations on their equipment. The Allies supplied equipment to the Russians under Lend-Lease. As stated here, the T-4 is better than the T-34. However , the German generals and officers thought otherwise . The T-4 did not provide any superiority over the Soviet tank. Superiority in technology is what the German tankers wanted. But it was not there. The Germans soon reduced production of the T-4 and deployed production of tank destroyers and assault guns on its chassis.
Do you think so Doctor?
@@PlumSack79 such are the facts
Yeah..Andrzej Panzer IV AHS poor mobility. Zero chances against T-34.
@@zepter00 Zero chance, yet the worst panzerabteilung in the German army had a kill ratio of 2:1 in the Eastern front.
Excellent video and a very good delineation of comparative strengths and weaknesses of the two vehicles.
Enjoyed your video and I gave it a Thumbs Up
Very good job on this video, really enjoyed it
Watching tank videos for many years I have to say this one is one of the best.
Glad you enjoyed it
It all came down to numbers, reliability, and fuel. Like the Sherman, the T34 was produced in astonishing numbers, was sufficienty reliable and easy to repair, and could rely on Russia's vast oil fields to supply ample fuel. German tanks may have had better guns, but like the Sherman, the T34 was good enough, and got better as the war progressed.
Was not reliable at all. Watch lazerpigs on the t-34. It was a good design but was manufactured like crap. On average couldnt go 50 km without a major breakdown. Couldnt see out of it. Slow rate of fire, bad ammo, bad wields, no rubber in the tracks. Bad trans and drive shafts.
If it was such a good tank, why was it knocked out at numbers more then most countries produced tanks period?
Germans had limited numbers of the big tanks. Most losses of t-34s were to panzer 3, 4 and mobile anti tank guns. They were in mass day 1 of the invasion of russia. Since then propaganda was made to hide the loses and cover up sending men to battle in a poorly manufactured, not always a great design, hard to see out of and hit anything with bad ammo and optics and armour even if it hold, shoots pieces of mental inside the tank killing the crew with 1 command radio that cant talk back to headquarters nor any other tank.
Way more to tanks then armour, speed and gun armour penetration which is done in ideal conditions with good ammo.
Like in 1942 panzer 3s killed 26000 t-34s alone.
@@theodoresmith5272 I doubt, that the Russians were able to field 26k T-34 in 42'. Just looked it up, the Russians build till 42' 16k T-34.
@@theodoresmith5272kek imagine quoting an actual propagandist as a source
@@theodoresmith5272 The T-34 started out as crap, but so did the Pz IV. Pz IV's started out as support tanks, in nowhere near sufficient numbers, and unlike the T-34, which was constantly refined and upgunned, serving as long and successfully post-war as the Sherman, the Pz IV was mostly abandoned in favor of the Panther and Stug III. And even the Panther was not really used meaningfully post-War.
The t-34-85 was way better than the early version of t-34, and was slightly superior to the panzer 4 late in terms of firepower and armor, however German exelent optics played a huge bonus during any combat situation.
Don't forget German tanks all had radios while Soviet tanks did not. A huge advantage for the Germans.
@@vonbennett8670 depends on what timeline, if it's early in operation barbarosa, than yes any German tank was better with radios and good optics. With the late model of t-34-85 most got radios and some t-34 that got captured by Germans their Crews kept using the Soviet radio, they only modified the gun and added a commander copula.
@@vonbennett8670 The T-34 got a 5-men turret since mod. 1943.
@@Ext3rmin4tor You mean a 5 man crew for the tank? This was a result of the larger turret that came with the T-34/43.
Von Bennett,
Even the T-34/76 model 1943 hexagon turret still retained only a 2 man turret.
The T-34/85 was the first T-34 to have a 3 man turret.
When all is said and done, they initily seem quite equal, but the post war following of the Panzer puts it, light years ahead of the Reds.
But knocking out Ivan 3, 4 or 5 to one , seems to favor the Panzer during the war. I vote for the Panzer IV.
Great video, thanks very much.
It is tactics such as radio, deployment, artillery and air support
6000 panzer 4s, 84000 T34s. Sloped armour, simplicity, debatably superior firepower and equal top speed. The T34 has everything you want from a tank better than a panzer 4.
@@chadrowe8452 The air support not necessarily, seeing as the soviet Air Force was superior from 1943+.
Today the same story, Russia was floundering in 1941 it was a disaster. But later in 1942 and then on they had experience and skills. The German tanks were gas engines, not suited for cold weather, narrow tracks and supply line problems. Russia's tanks today are superior in maintenance, reliability and simplicity. Having high-tech tanks in the real world when facing an equal opponent that can out produce you is useless. History is repeating itself again, in the Ukraine (Russia is winning).
@@2ndcomingofFritz but it's cramped and has low crew survivability
The sloped armour is brittle it means if hit even if it didn't penetrate it will still send fragments inside the tank killing the crew
While German factories were being decimated by American & British Bombing Raids .. Russian factories were relatively left alone. Numbers had a lot to do with this battlefront.
What I would have liked to see was a straight up battle with the T-34 vs The Tiger in equal numbers. Not counting Kursk because the Russians knew what was coming and the T-34 to Tiger head to head was nowhere in comparison.
But could the Factories meet the quotas?
With K/D ratio
Great Video
Hard to separate tank designs from the proficiency of the crews than man them, or their leadership, or their respective tactics and logistics, when analyzing battlefield results. It's hard to say how the Germans or Americans would have done with massive amounts of T-34s. When either had a chance to produce a similar design, it was rejected.
The Panzer IV was a decent, basic medium tank that was just able to accomadate the excellent Pak 40 L48 main weapon. FWIW, the panzer general that ended up being taken off front-line service after the reverses of the 1941-1942 winter, and made Inspector-General of the Panzerwaffe, Heinz Guderian, thought this tank was all the "main battle tank" the Heer needed. He did not like the "Big Cats" at all. Akin to the excellent Czech-made Panzer 38(t), it also served as a basis for many specialty AFVs, like Panzerjager (PzjG IV/70), Sturngeschutzen (StuG IV and Hummel), Bergepanzer (BrgPz IV), and "Mobelwagen" (two different Panzer IV chassis mounting a rapid-fire AA gun, these also proved devastating against ground target). But as a tank, it was produced from start to finish for the war.
The T-34's issues were known even as Barbarossa broke out. There were actually almost a thousand of them at or near front-line units whe the fighting start, but there were many reasons not even related to the tactical problems of the design why most of them were quickly lost. Many were sent out from the factories not fit for combat at all due to the Soviet bureaucracy; when "Comrade" Stalin wanted certain production and provisioning goals met, they were *ahem*, "met"! There were few, if any, spare parts, and the vehicles having bad tranmissions didn't help things. Well into 1943, it was not uncommon to see T-34s in front line units with spare gear boxes, usually salvaged from wrecks, chained to their rear decks! As when the planning had been for their own attack, originally slated for July 6, 1941 (I doubt that date would have been met), named Operation "Groza", or Thunder, many tank divisions had gotten only HE rounds, as they expected to, with their "Deep Operations" battle doctrine, be engaging either forts, of which many existed in Poland and East Prussia, or enemy supply depots and command posts. This left quite a few tank units helpless against German armor that they otherwise out-matched.
The Soviets were already developing a replacement main battle tank, the T-43, which incorporated a three-man turret. As switching over to this design, though it very much looked like a T-34, would have meant extensive re-tooling of the tank factories, which in turn would have necessitated long shutdowns that would have stopped the flow of tanks, at a moment when ANY tank was needed, it was never put into production. Instead, the turret was made to fit the existing T-34 chassis, and, with their experience of the battles of Kursk and the Orel salient (Operation "Kutusov") showing that an increase in firepower, more than better armor protection, was badly needed to have any chance against the German "big Cats", the D-5T 85 mm tank gun was fitted to the new turret. This resulted in the famed T-348/85 tank, which, one-on-one, was at least equal on "paper" to the up-gunned Mark IVs, and had a decent chance against the Panthers and Tigers. However, it fared poorly in Korea in 1950 against American armor, especially the M4A3E8 "Easy Eight" Shermans, which utterly pasted them in the August and September 1950 battles along the Naktong river. But again, was that due to respective technical merits, or due to stark differences in training, leadership, logistics, doctrine, and use with other arms (infantry, artillery, close air support)? A better comparison would have been IF the T-34/85s had been crewed by, say, a Soviet tank "army", with officers and senior non-coms with experience in the "Great Patriotic War" or "August Storm". However, unlike what they did with the MiG-15s, the Soviets weren't willing to risk their personnel being captured or even identified in the combat theater.
Honestly it depends on who shoots first.Unlike what most people think latest variants of Panzer IVs were pretty capable tanks being able to take out Shermans and T-34s at medium ranges pretty easily with an accurate shot.
Overall i’d say T-34 has the speed advantage while Panzer IVs were generally more crew-friendly and reliable.
military history visualised does an excellent job breaking this kind of thing down.
Sloped armor has been a thing for centuries. Some castle walls had slopes to deflect cannonballs.
The Germans were aware of slope effects. Sloping the Armour however degrades the quality of the usable volume and that then forces you to increase size and weight a little. The Germans thought 15 degrees was optimal. Obviously they changed heir minds on Panther, Tiger II and Jagdpanzer IV etc where angles of 45-50 were common. Htzer even had 60
a wonderful compares between two different designed tanks during all upgrading of two tanks during WW2 Panzer IV remained as Superior Fire powers & T-34 remained as Superior in fast Maneuvre capability
I agree with most of this, there is a thing about mobility, yes with the wider tracks the T-34 is more mobile, however the crew took a freaking beating so how efficient would they be if they trekked awhile and had to fight, the suspension is rough on a T-34
Very little between them overall. The PIV H version was as good as it got but it had been going since the Mid 30's. The T-34 started later and so had more room for life extensions. All of this was paralleled by the M4 Sherman, which again has advantages and disadvantages, but overall is comparable to both. Odd that all 3 were the mainstays, but not the best, of all 3 Armies.
Well if we are talking Eastern front or the Caen area, and North Africa.. the last tank I would want to be in, would be a Sherman. Maybe the upgraded Sherman with a 76mm gun, but definitely not a regular Sherman with a howitzer 75.
@JuergenGDB on the Eastern Front, the last thing I wanna be in is a T-34.
There were already plenty of tanks with sloped armor. T-34 did not begin the sloping of armor.
It would better to say the T-34 survived better than other early Soviet tanks due to the sloped armor. But yes, not the first.
Well, the success of the T-34 was due to far more than that hyped sloped armor. It was the COMBINATION of protection, firepower, and mobility, the "Holy Trinity" of armor, that made it what it was, in effect, although considered a medium tank, it was closer to a main battle tank of today.
Excellent video.
These guys take a list of characteristics of a Soviet tank and a German tank. Then they compare them and draw their conclusion. I wonder what people who actually fought on this technique would say? I think their opinion was somewhat different from what the authors of the channel proclaim. Comparison of the basic characteristics of tanks is an important but not the only aspect when it comes to talking about the advantages of various combat vehicles. It should also be mentioned what effect different models of tanks produced on the enemy. The Russians on their T-34s achieved more effect than the Germans on the T-4s. I liked the video. These guys told a true story that was based on facts
The Germans developed the Pz. IV earlier as a support tank. The Pz III was designed to fight enemy tanks.
In early years the German Panzertruppe trained their crews very strong and throroughly. Like the Luftwaffe did it with their crews.
I'd love to see a comparison btwn the T-34 vs the Panther tank. The Panthers seemed to break down a lot too.
That is a myth started by a few authors. If you read 'Panthers" by Thomas L. Jentz it goes very deep into it. For example, in 1943 battle of Kursk, the Panther D's had issues, were sent back to the Factory, and returned as Panther A's, Panther G had everything worked out, the issue was Logistics, crew training, fuel, parts, and not sufficient recovery vehicles.
@@JuergenGDB There is a post-war study by the French army (who had very good reason to consider continuing using Panthers, since they got a bunch free) that concluded that they were really not good tanks. Yes they had great armor, great gun and great optics, but they had horrid transmissions and, IIRC, severe problems fighting on slopes. And they were too heavy for easy rail or ocean transport. So they kept them but limited them to home defense duty
@@nctpti2073 Sounds odd, but they are French. Most of the MBT out of 46 were heavier or around the same. Jentz books of whom I would trust more than the French looking to get free stuff, and their AMX tank sucked... for reliable info.
@@JuergenGDB You know, that sounds a lot like "Don't like the answer so it cannot be accurate." Who was still using Panthers post war vs using T-34's? Edit: More importantly, T-34 production continued until 1956. Who was still making Panthers post war? And why not, if they were so fantastic?
@@nctpti2073 Seriously? Germany was ripped in half, so I don't think they could produce the Panther.. duh. Secondly, the US already had the Pershing, which was pretty shitty, it's why it was replaced quickly by the M48. The UK had the Centurian... France might have used them for a time till their crap AMX came out, in fact, the LecLre has never even really been tested. So not to sound brash but post war had Germany still been intact had plans already for a replacement MBT to replace both King Tiger and Panther. So your question was sort of dumb.
In the end both tanks shown to be on par when both sides upgraded their tanks to stay competitive. And both tanks shown to have their own advantages and disadvantages, but the T-34/85 would go on to serve after the war.
I'll still stand by the better armored better gunned Panzer IV, while still acknowledging the strengths of the T-34 that rivals it.
PzIVs where too put into service after the war, nations like Bulgaria, Hungary, Switzerland and Denmark had them but inna shorter timespan thou .
Don’t forget, he didn’t talk about Panthers! A tank that made t34 look like Neanderthal
@@geldoncupi1 This was Panzer IV vs T-34, the Panther has nothing to do with this so I don't know what you're trying to go for but this clearly not Panther vs T-34. After all look at the title, it clearly says Panzer IV vs T-34.
@@karstenseterbakken3617 Yes, but those would have been surplus units or something and the tanks would basically just fill the tank role until newer tanks would come out. The T-34 itself served in proper militaries for many years to come only being phased out of standard military service sometime after Korea.
@@karstenseterbakken3617
the last battles with Panzer IV had been in the 6 days war of 1967. The syrian army used Panzer IV.
Stug production was 10,000, Panzer 4 including all variants was 8000. Sloped armour wasn't standard after the T34. I wasn't used on the Tiger I, wasn't used on many tank destroyers like stug III, like nanshorn. It was used on Hetzer, Stug IV, Panther, Jadpanther some on King Tiger.
Plenty of facts left out here...
The PzIV was originally intended to provide infantry support. It's short barrel gun was intended to take out enemy bunkers and fortifications. It was never intended to be used in tank on tank warfare. The PzIII was developed to provide that.
When it came to up-gunning a tank the PzIII did not have a large enough turret or ring to accommodate the larger gun... so the PzIV was chosen.
The standoff armor ypu see on many PzIVs was meant to tumble anti tank rifle shells.
Sloped armor was well known by many countries... look at German Halftracks etc designed in the 30s to see this. "Sloped armor" was also used in medieval knights armor...
The T34s greatest attribute... along with the Sherman... was quantity. Prewar Germany was roughly the size of the state of Montana going up against the world's largest countries. A war of attrition was unwinnable.
Originally, the Panzer III was meant to be the "main battle tank" of the Panzerwaffe, and the Panzer IV was to be the "heavy" support vehicle. Yeah, when conceived, the Mark IV was actually the "heavy" tank, with the Mark V "Neubaufahrzeug", of which a few examples were produced, never seeing actual combat, the super-heavy tank. It should be kept in mind that these designs came out only a few years after the Treaty of Versailles, which forbad Germany from producing tanks, was openly repudiated. That these two basically incompatible designs were produced at all shows the inherent problems of the competing interests in the German war industry. A single medium tank chassis would have served the Panzerwaffe so much better.
What's also interesting is that, over time, the Panzer III and Panzer IV more or less swapped roles. As you pointed out, the Panzer IV could take the larger 75mm L48 weapon, the Panzer III could NOT. By that time, though, the Panzer III chassis was doing well as the StuG III, which DID use that weapon on a fixed mount, and, of all things, it racked up the most enemy armor "kills" of any type! Being low-slung, like also the "Hetzer", it was hard for the enemy to see it. Many left-over Panzer III chassis were also fitted with the original Panzer IV's 75 mm L24 weapon, often for use along with Panther and Tiger battalions.
@@selfdo interesting stuff, thanks
And in Korea, The US Sherman tank with the 76mm gun had a 2:1 kill ratio over the T34/85.
Sherman tanks deserve some respect...
The ratio of losses would suggest the Panzer IV was far superior.
Everything is so, but the Russians entered Berlin on the T-34. T-4 did not reach Moscow .. alas
@@Imprudentman They entered with T-34s on US made diesel fuel
@@karstenseterbakken3617 The Russians were fine with diesel fuel. The problem was with American technology. Because the Studebaker, for example, was a great car, but it required higher octane gasoline. Russian oil companies, due to the quality of the oil, could not provide such fuel. They used Russian gasoline, but the car often needed repairs and broke down much earlier. It was a problem for the military who maintained this equipment. This is said by those Russians who used this technique during the war. This is not my conclusion.
@@Imprudentman All oil manufactories which that oil came from where kept alive with US money, and even that the US shipped fuel which where made by the US to them during lend lease. USSR itself is a creation of Jacob Schiff and Warburgs banking cartel.
@@karstenseterbakken3617 have you ever heard of Lenin, the Bolsheviks, the proletarian movement? You write complete bullshit.
I read a article about 4 yrs ago which said that Germany would of better off producing panzer 4s in big numbers than wasting time on a few heavy tigers and king tigers …certainly research and development of the tigers was essential for the future but would the extra tanks of helped defend the reich …but it would not of prevented the allies victory certainly in the west air superiority was overwhelming….
This is a common claim. German doctrine at the time called for a small number of heavy specialist breakthrough tanks such as the Tiger I to use their heavy Armour and fire power to create breakthroughs in difficult areas that would be exploited by medium tanks. The Tiger I was never intended for high volume production, not even 10% of the force it seems. . It also wasn't expensive. If pessimistic high end cost are used a Tiger I is about 2 x the cost of a Sherman or T-34. With Panther at 1.5 or the 1 x (the same) depending on date and figures. There is a claim that the Tiger needed 143,000 man hours to produced. In fact that's the price in Reichsmarks. Most tanks were around 6000 man hours to produce. Man hour costs are about the same as any other tank x 1.5 to 2 which is good considering the low production numbers so Tigers were just over 10,000 hours.
Tiger was brought forward to create a breakthrough and then underwent maintenance.
Some errors in the video worth mentioning. The T-34s sloped armor (45 mm @ 60 degrees from the vertical) provided protection equivalent to 120 mm against 75mm projectiles. Even though the line of sight thickness is 90 mm, the sloping provided significant benefits against WWII projectiles of the time, giving it an effective thickness of 120 mm. There is no point angling the armor only to gain the line of sight thickness, (i.e. 90 mm flat armor weighs the same as 45 mm @ 60 degrees).
depends on which variants we are talking about.
The crews made that huge difference.russian crews knew about the shortcomings of their tank while the germans fought with more confidence,a victory of quality over quantity
Very well written!
A comparison of the reliability and maintenance of the various tanks might show how tank builds changed the number of available fighting machines ?
If I would have to choose in year 1941 - early 1942, I choose Panzer IV always, BUT with L48 gun (for which Im not sure was availible in 1941, and if not than L43). It was much crew friendly, better optics, radio, and be4 introduction of T34 was by far the best tank in any theater (from 1939 until late 1941, P4 was the finest tank in the world, for 2,5 yrs). But then again, it was up to the Ausfuehrung. What could that short barrelled low velocity 75mm on early models do to T34 - not much on distances above 400meters.
Dangerus battle video
What irritates in reviews like these, is that the author(s) indirectly communicate the idea that the cosine rule was discovered only sometime around 1939-40. Which is very doubtful to say the least. Sloped and vertical armors have both their advantages and disadvantages and the designers of the era were certainly perfectly aware of this.
The crews are at times the factor of making a tank a metal casket or a metal beast
Early T34 later Panzer4 G or h (the big adv was that german tanks had radio and a 4 crew member
Anyone who played Germany religiously in Company of Heroes 2 should know how important Panzer Iv was in holding the line against T34 and KV1 until more powerful tanks like Panther arrived to change the tide.
I've watched a documentary saying the T-34 had transmission problems throughout the war, including having spare transmissions mounted in the back of the tank for faster maintenance. Not sure how true that is, but if so, that makes the T-34 even more over hyped than it already is.
t-34 looks only good on paper
T-34 did have transmission problems much like the Tigers and Panther tanks did, but it isn’t talked about nearly as much because of the huge access panel in the back to change transmissions.
The T-34 was very successful similarly to how the Sherman was successful, it was easy to build, reliable, and easy to fix, although the Sherman was better all around compared to the T-34 because of better production mainly. That’s why so many T-35-85’s and M4A3E8’s clashed in the Korean War.
I know I didn’t even touch on the main rival in the video, Panzer 4, but I tried to compare it to another famous tank.
@@thevortex6754 in fact, the T-34 had long levers that went to the rear of the tank that switched the transmission. The driver on the T-34 had to be a strong guy and experienced in order to turn on the selected gear. The German tanker needed much less effort to switch the transmission due to the front location of the drive rollers.
@@thevortex6754 And the Shermans, in the relatively few armored engagements of the Korean War, notably the 1950 battles along the Naktong river, utterly pasted the T-34/85s. But, given the differences between the US Army and the DPRK People's Army in terms of experience, leadership, doctrine, training, logistics, and working with combined arms (infantry, artillery, and close air support), those lopsided losses aren't proof of comparative technical merits.
@@karstenseterbakken3617 wrong
what about T34 & PZIV vs SHerman /American tanks or British etc? I think Sherman was interior to T34 & PZIV but Im not so sure....
very good show !!
The t 34 was said to break down before it finished its first tank of gas. Also the sop was to ram German tanks so the longer gun wouldn't let them shoot the t 34. Not to mention it would probably break down before long. Honestly other than the sloped armor the t 34 wasn't a very good tank. Lots of French tanks had sloped armor and even German tanks did. I don't know why they went away from it unless it was to make more room.
Some say the T34 had the range of its gas tank. The Russians knew nothing about hardening steel, so the T34 steel was too hard, so when hit, even if not punctured, internal spawling killed the occupants of the tank.
Win to loss ratio / quantity must never be under estimated.
Need some help in math? 45mm armour with a slope of 45° gives you an effective thickness of 64mm. Best regards from Pythagoras, and yes, you can call me a smartass 😅
Sloping armor was common, starting in WW I.
The T34 was not the first rtank to use sloping armor. That is a myth. Fontal sloping armor was common to British and French tanks well prior to WW2. Some French tanks had sloping turret armor on the sides as well. The T34 just did more of it. Particularly on the sides. The Germans were the ones with boxy fronted tanks as a rule. They were influenced by the T34 to use a greater slope. The greater penetration of the soviet 75mm was a factor as well. They knew all the allies and their own teams were developing more powerful tank and AT guns as well. If the T34 came with boxy armor and that powerful 75 the Germans would still have gone to sloped frontal armor as a response. They knew all about it from warship design anyway.
On paper, the Panther should steam roll the T34 7 times out of 10.
Problem is like the Tiger, the Panther was not cost effective, difficult to maintain, and could not be manufactured at the rate of the T34.
Apart from horrific communist leadership, the other major problems for the Russian tanks were quality, lack of maintenance, dearth of training, & lack of radios which meant that Russian tank commanders had to stand up with the hatch open & signal the other tanks with flags which made them prime targets & which were hard to see by subordinate tanks who were probably buttoned up.
The fuel and range comparison is missing
comparing the machines is a game for children. tank is a tool for winning wars.
whatever its short-comings, t34 played a vital part of the victory over germany.
should keep in mind, stormovic, 'katyusha', 'burp gun' all played a role, different manifestations of a production program that was simply beyond german capability.
PZiv with the 75 could kill up to 1500 m while the t34 could barely get a hit.
Both vehicles had strengths and weaknesses. Was either truly 'better' than the other? In an even numbers, (yeah, right), fight, I would favour the panzer 4, due to co-ordination the T34 was incapable of, and the quality of German crew training.
Training on the front end, but after 1942 the losses Germany had along with freezing in winter. The Russians had better training after 1942 on and endless supply of tanks and man power.
@@mt1885 Imagine the Germans having worse training but still being able to inflict 16:1 losses with Grossdeutschland and in general inflicting more losses in every battle, even if they lost it. In late 1944 maybe their training was worse, but in 1942 definitely not.
@@mt1885 That's not true Russia had a male population about 2x the size of Germany nothing crazy.
Germany had 22million and 18million served at some point in ww2.
Russia 40million and 36million served at some point in ww2.
The Russians also had by the time 1945 ended 30,000 tank's, of that about 20k to 25k were soviet built.
When Germany surrendered the t34 had lost about 45,000 tanks, with about 800 operating and 800 under repair.
About 10,400 were built between German surrendered and the end of 1945.
@@brianlong2334 Russia would have won regardless. Just like Napoleon, the winter comes in and they freeze. They have never been defeated when invaded. History repeats itself, sad part most do not know history.
@@mt1885 That's not how it works, winter effects both just as much, now Germany first winter in Russia was the worest because they didn't think the war would last that long so didn't suply them with winter clothing.
This caused a higher amount of frost bite and related death's, about 250,000 Germany troops got frost bite and 20,000 of that were amputated on in 41/42 alone numbers dropped dramatically after that winter about 100,000 for the rest of the war.
By comparison the red army had about 100,000 total frostbite injuries in the war and 20,000 in the invasion of Finland befor ww2 started.
The winter argument has been debunked for about 3 decades now.
The reality is the biggest factor for Germany lossing the war is believed to be oil, but looking at the numbers I personally don't think the Soviets would have won the war alone, even Stalin him self said that, but don't take my word for it research it.
This brings the question start Operation Citadel early while the defenses unprepared without waiting for Panthers & Tigers?
Finally an authentic video that acknowledges the PzIV has was better in several categories compared to the t34 especially its gun. Only the late Sherman's with its 76 and laye t34s 85mm were its equals. Something the trash game war thunder does not replicate or give the russians special shells.
The Panzer IV with the long 75 mm gun was superior to any T-34.
That 75 mm L 48 KwK 40 gun could take any T-34 at 1000 meters away, and the 76mm gun of the T-34 wasns't able to do that,only at distances of 500 meters or less it could do major damages on the Panzer IV.
0:06 first front tank did it was KV-2 ?
The Panzer IV was more expensive to produce and complex to repair, and it's number of units made fell far behind those of the T-34/76...
Actually if i remember. Although it doesn't correlate, there was a endurance test for the t34 where it had to be repaired 3 times and someone died
@@AKX-DTGRSMP It had some big flaws, like the turret where only two men fit, so the commander has to be artillery guy as well. One more was the shift gear that needed a heavy hammer to be changed...
@@explorer1968 and if you got it from factory 183, the factory that produces half of the t34, you will find repair to be the least of your problems.
@@AKX-DTGRSMP That's why they had to resort to its succesor, the T-34/85, more efficient to take it on the Tiger I and the Panther tanks.
@@explorer1968 if the powder weren't bad then yes. Although nobody brought high velocity ammo because it has a tendency to explode when you're firing a lot .
Guderian said that in the end of 1941,with the disaster of taking Moscow. When the Panzwe lv was equiped with the high velocity 75mm Pak 40. the T-34 had no change at long ranges. Afterall the Pak 40 was the most successeful AT gun of the war. It was the gun the Stug 3,with more kills that every panzer combined. A real Devastating gun. And can a tank be so good,without a radio..??!!!! only in 1944 the T-34 start using radios as a standard tool. What a Nonsense when many people say the T-34 was the best tank of the war. The most produced,yes but the better...Never, in anyones mind smart enough to see the differences.
The Pz IV F2 later became the Pz IV ausf G.
Hilariously wrong on numerous accounts
- sloped armor was already known, the sherman had it, so did the crusader, so did tanks already going back to WWI russia didn't invent sloped armor
- the longer barrel 75mm gun on the pz IV was in development in 1939, long before they encountered the first time the germans encountered t34's in 1941
- T34 utilized aluminum block diesel engines which were never perfected. They were usually sent to the front with the intention the tank wouldn't last long enough that the engine would matter
- literally states the t-34's were breaking down then says "there was no difference between their reliability" what?
Loss ratios are very iffy during WW2 especially since different sides counted them differently. In general I'd try to avoid them. Even the somewhat better "% of crew survived after hit" metric is hard to gauge due to incomplete info plus it doesnt paint the full picture of a mission kill or a mobility kill or outright destruction.
The Russians and German's actually are very similar in terms of what the Russians say they lost and what the German's think they destroyed, the German high command was actually the only ww2 combatant to think they destroyed less tanks then they actually did.
Lose rate are not straightforward as in 1v1 or even a company of tank's, it's everything in that area you have vs everything they have.
@@brianlong2334 The problem is that what counts as a loss is different. For Germany a knocked and recovered tank isnt lost. For the USSR, a tank that didnt see combat when it was supposed to is lost for that battle.
Both make perfect sense, but mingling both leads to weird outcomes. Also, when a battle or operation stats differs from country to country.
@@CharcharoExplorer Getting knocked out and repired doesn't count as destroyed, that's what we are descusing, the Russian records I am descusing have had multiple historian's comb over it to get the more accurate number for total destroyed.
Total destroyed Russian tank's of all type's is over 96,000 but with lend-lease losses it's over 109,000 the German's estimate they destroyed 85,000.
The German's lost as in total destroyed an estimated 43,000 tank's to the soviets, according to the soviets.
The German recorded 33,000 at the end of 1944 to the Russians only, they either lost/ destroyed there 1945 record's or didn't bother keeping them, but they estimated a few more thousand lost in 45 just to the Russians.
We can also look at Russia aircraft they lost some 128,000 aircraft including lend-lease, the German's some 76,000 but if we take away all but combat destroyed the Russians lost some 46,000 to 64,000 including lend-lease losses in the bigger number, the German's by comparison lost 40,000 in combat to all of it's enemies.
@@brianlong2334 I am sorry but that is US Wehraboo BS.
There is a reason why modern Western historians debate the Asiatic Hordes myth as silly, do not use K/D ratios and even prove that the M4 Sherman is superior to almost all German tin cans.
@@CharcharoExplorer So much for a debate/descusion fanboy found!
The Sherman is a match for the t34 and Panzer 4, the Sherman wasn't a super tank it wasn't even a swiss army knife, it didn't win the war alone....
No historian worth his salt would agree with you sorry, I guarantee any historian who you get your idears from have been proven to have a biased opinion on particular thing's.
Edit: The German's weren't the best all the time, or had the best equipment all the time, they however at times did, just like the allies and Soviets, the German's unfortunately for us were just better over all and had advantages, however they were not enough to win the war or in a significant enough number for say losses or kill rates to case some sort of cease fire / early peace like the Japanese planed/ hoped for.
Late Panzer 4 with long barrel was the best .
See Lazer Pig's discussion on the T 34 ...
9:37 The T-34/85 *was* newer, but had also reached it's size limit, being noticeably slower and less mobile than the 76 version (this was noted earlier). It was never upgraded because of this. Otherwise a very good video comparison.
The T34 was officially withdrawn from service only in 1995. For example, a few years ago, the armored forces of Laos still used the T-34-85 in their training units. There are many upgrade versions of the T-34-85 in the People's Army of the GDR, the Soviet Army. Various equipment was installed on this tank after World War II. New radio stations were installed, measures were taken to improve visibility, changes were made to the cooling system, and other equipment was installed. The tank was brought up to new military technical standards after the war. The T-43 is an interesting vehicle based on the T-34-85. She did not go into series, although it was a deep modernization of the T-34-85 during the war. T-44 tank, which solved those problems that were so clearly indicated on the T-34-85.
@@Imprudentman It's actually the other way around for the T-43. Although it LOOKS like the T-34, it was actually an all-new design, as the Christie suspension had been replaced by a torsion-bar type. This, in turn, made the interior layout much roomier and crew-friendly. The T-44 was a further development of the T-43 with a newer, cross-drive gear box and a lowered hull, it never saw combat, AFAIK, but formed the basis to develop the long line of T-54s, T-55s, and T-62s, many of which STILL serve today!
@@selfdo You're right . The T-43 was a further upgrade of the T-34-76. The tank had 75 mm sloping frontal armor. However, the fighting compartment was not large. The mass of the tank also increased. The tower from the T-43 began to be installed on the T-34-85, and the torsion bar suspension was used in the T-44. The T-34 tank was modernized during the war.
其實看戰損比，就可以知道甚麼坦克你會想要搭乘了
Pretty sure the two man turret of T-34 featured the Commander as the loader and not the gunner.
The T-34/76 was vastly inferior to the Pzr IV. Primarily because of the two man turret and lack of communications.
The T-34/85 was superior to the later Pzr IV’s.
Ultimately, success hinged on doctrine, training and experience. Your typical German crew was superior to the Russian crew.
Pz 4 F1 or earlier < T34-76 1943
It just depends on the variant
sloping armor was uncommon huh?
When you compare tanks, you look at where most of them are built and most of them destroyed. I think German tanks win.
I often feel strange sympathy and some regret, watching how Wehrmacht from badest army in all human history decayed. Im not a german, nor I have feelings for the Nazis, very strange. Their weapons of war were so good looking. From Bismarck, Panzers, Jagdpanzers, Stugs, Me109, FW190, Me262, MG34 and 42, MP44, Panzerfausts...to Walther P38 - like they hired a fashion designer. I often think what would happen if Wehrmacht defeated SSSR ... Could USA and UK "give" 30 million casualties and so many hardware as SSSR did and still win ? I dont think so.
Pz IV vs T-34 in the end was an issue of numbers & training of the crew.
This is easy. The panzer 4. Although the t-34 was a very good design, the manufacturing was garbage. The main gun was good by design but the powder in the shells was garbage. Sorry but the panzer 3 destroyed like 26000 t-34s with its pop gun. Armour thickness is just 1 part of actual protection. The heating of the steel is also very important and the t-34 had steel way to over heated. They couldnt go 50 km without a major breakdown. Although a fast tank by design 3rd gear was almost impossible and 4th was.
You couldnt see out of it well. Slow to fire. Bad communication to command and none to other tanks. Bad ammo.
The panzer was a solid tank and one of the best 75 mm medium tanks that were the backbone of all armies. (Cromwell, Sherman, t-34, panzer 4)
if you ask me which one I wanted in a fight vs the other, its not even close, the panzer 4.
Watch lazerpigs t-34.
Pardon me, could you give a source on 26 000 destroyed T-34 by Panzer 3?
@@aaltuxovnever ask a Wehraboo for a source
Silly question in the heading. At what stage/date of WW2? Which versions of the tanks mentioned? Under which operational conditions? What about the combined arms context?
PzIV lost only because of the hopeless situation of logistics for the wehrmacht. Technically the PzIV and even the PzIIIs where already more then enough to destroy T-34s.
You must have failed Trigonometry.
German tanks are best in whole ww2 just look at ww2 like this how many tanks produce soviet union americans franch and british and how many were produce by germans
The very first tanks used by the British in WW1 had sloped frontal armour. So by the time the T-34 arrived the idea was not new. In fact if you look back to the American Civil War armoured trains and river boats they had sloped armour.
@Big Blue
True, that's a myth that gets repeated over and over again. French tanks like the S-35 had Sloped Frontal Armor, as did the Sherman. Panzer 3 & 4 used applique armor instead. The Sherman fought in every theatre of WWII, but the myth surrounding it as a death trap doesn't mention that 45,000 T-34's were destroyed during the conflict on the Eastern Front
@@charles1964 the sherman is a 1942 tank. The t34 is 1940
@@l.a.wright6912
And the French Somua S-35 was built in 1935 with Sloped Cast Armor. The point is that Military designers were aware of sloped armor multiplying effective thickness, it wasn't Invented by the Soviets with the T-34. Also, the T-34 is so Hyped as the greatest tank of WWII, but it only fought in one theatre of the War with Losses of 45,000 Tanks Destroyed
@@charles1964 yes, hell technically the ft17 even had sloped armour. My point was that the sherman was an irrelevant example to your point and including it only Made your comment worse.
@@l.a.wright6912
Tanks were first envisioned as "Land Battleships" in WWI, and were developed with Royal Navy designers who were well aware of the benefits of sloped armor in relation to effective thickness. "The T-34's sloped armor surprised everyone" Myth is as stupid as Maxim gunners filling their water jackets with urine Myth that these shows perpetuate
T34 was...cost effective ??oh boy ...this is Gonna be a rough video huh
*edit*
It was
Panzer IV always seemed the best tank to me. I think I'd rather be in the Panzer.
Considering their loss ratios I’d feel much safer in a panzer and also way more comfortable.
These two are almost equal
Kinda cool how through fault of this or that became better where as American tank just a straight up fail
Verses the Mark4 F2 or better: The T34-85 was better, the three man turret T34-76 was basically equal give or take a few things and the two man turret was inferior.
Quantity versus quality. So for the Russians it was a win win situation. The same thing applied when the allies invaded Europe.
Hitler sure loved new and shiny toys over tried and tested ones.
it's better to field a dozen acceptable tanks over a single expensive one.
Pz4 is not quality... But stupidity
@@VikingTeddy I believe the t34 was tried and tested to be terrible, but not because it's a terrible tank. It was bad because nobody cared about its quality from the top brass who thinks is corporate sabotage to the bottom who doesn't know how to weld.
yes...
The long barrel Panzer 4 could go against any T34, the 4 also had a turret cage, a definite advantage.
The Panzer MK4 H annihilated those Soviet rust bucket deathtraps. MK4 H equiped with hull and turret side skirts blasted the T34s to smithereens!!
Stug was better than both. Even the Russians loved the captured stug
Где перевод???
Well then you have to go off How many tanks each side knocked out vs how many lost liars figure but figures don’t lie
Lost tanks were destroyer by arty aviation at guns infantry and mines not by other tanks
F4 phantom better
I think the T-34 would have been superior in 1941.
Germany had supply line problems, so much red tape and bureaucracy, the USSR at the front end did poorly but they poured it on later in 1942/43.
The Sovietunion had over 1000 T-34/76 in service when Germany attatecked during operation Barbarossa. They where viped out by the Germans. So not a superior Tank.
WHY? it had a shitty turret where the comander had to be the Loader to. He couldn't spot new targets and load the gun at the same time. Also sticking your upper body out of the tank to communicate with the other tanks in your Platoon, using flags was BAD. ( it had no Radio ) Especially during Battle. The later T-34/85 was a different beast had a 3 man turret a better gun. + a radio.
The Main difference between the T34 and the Panzer 4 was the crew. At the beginning of the war the soviets hadn't been training with their tanks a lot. some hadn't been training with them at all. while the German crews had a lot of experience.
That changed a lot during the war. German replacements had a lack of training. Especially after Germany created the Panzer division Lehr.
They had 1000
But they were not in service
@@harsha6937 They where but where destroyed. they also had a lot of KV-1's The Russians lost more T-34's and Kv-1's in the first months of the invasion. than the Germans had brought Panzer III and Panzer IV to the fight.
@@torbenjohansen6955 what I meant is
They had 1000 t 34 , yea it's true
Not all were on eastern front
And Also It was mainly dominated by BT7
The actual fact is these are not defensive tanks and the Soviets wwre unprepared
So such huge loss was expected
@@harsha6937 Just like the Germans! where the most common tank was the Panzer II.
6 weeks after the Germans invaded the Soviets had lost 1303 T-34's
th-cam.com/video/TFmr7zaH3SI/w-d-xo.html
@@harsha6937 oh forgot to say the Soviets had about 15.000 tanks in service when the Germans invaded. so yes 1000 T-34 ( 935 ) is only a small part og them you are right about that.
All things equal, the Germans had better tank crews, better tactics, smarter commanders. The Russians could produce more tanks, faster and throw more men into the fight than the Germans.
Ah, but over time, the Soviet Army did have its own "crack" armored units, and reknowned "tankists" like Akim Lysenko.
👍👍👍