Most underrated Soviet Tank
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 27 ก.ค. 2024
- In this video I ask the curator of the Tank Museum at Bovington David Willey what he thinks is the most underrated Soviet Tank of the Second World War.
Disclaimer: I was invited by the Tank Museum at Bovington in 2022.
/ thetankmuseum
tankmuseum.org/
Cover design by vonKickass.
»» GET OUR BOOKS ««
» Stukabook - Doctrine of the German Dive-Bomber - stukabook.com
» The Assault Platoon of the Grenadier-Company November 1944 (StG 44) - sturmzug.com
» Army Regulation Medium Panzer Company 1941 - www.hdv470-7.com
»» SUPPORT MHV ««
» patreon, see videos early (adfree) - / mhv
» subscribe star - www.subscribestar.com/mhv
» paypal donation - paypal.me/mhvis
»» MERCHANDISE ««
» teespring - teespring.com/stores/military...
» SOURCES «
our brains
#tanks #underrated #soviettanks
00:00 Intro
00:46 Why not T-34 / Why T-44?
02:15 Why upgrade not new tank?
04:34 Short History of the T-44
10:40 MHV speechless
![BOWKYLION - เจ้านายคะ (work-life imbalance) [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/6bFj8G2pOi4/mqdefault.jpg)
Clarifications, Errors & Corrections
8:50 The number on the screen "1800" is correct, not the number I said "8100". (Thanks to Andrew.)
10:08 I say "T-44/85" it should be "T-34/85". (Thanks to Andrew.)
NO, you are wrong. T-44 was absolutely another tank, much different from T-34/85/
@*Uncle Joe* Sorry, my mistake.
check ukrainian 2014 prototype T-55AGM
The biggest design change on the T-44 was the elimination of the hull gun and gunners position. This allowed for much greater frontal armor protection at almost no weight increase. Also, switching to a torsion bar suspension and not sloping the sides saved up a lot of interior space. Not only did the armor increase, but so did the ammunition stowage. The T-44 had low production numbers and never saw combat, but that doesn't mean it was a failure. The T-44 evolved into the T-54 which was the most produced tank of all time and still sees combat to this date.
I've heard that the main idea behind thid tank was to decrease silhouette as much as possible, so armor plates would have as less surface as possible, thus increasing its thickness without increasing weight. Also frontal armor plate was designed to be monolithic thus, hatches had to be moved to the top of the hull, and turret to center. And, basically, this least silhouette for lowest protection surface is the main idea behind Russian tank designs up to this day
do mind that making the sides vertical rather than sloped does decrease the effective armour of the vehicle, thus making it more vulnerable to attacks from the side.
Most likely this wasn't considered a problem because of combat experience with the T-34 seeing the tank operate in an environment where the main (and often sole) threat was directly from the front because of the very rapid advance of the red army through Poland and Germany.
That of course has been a big weakness of every MBT since designed by every nation.
@@jwenting I guess vertical sides is a result of common compromise of internal volume vs sloped armor
This guy gets it. 👍
The biggest design change of T-44 is rotating the engine 90 degrees and changing the transmission. T-44 would see combat in 1956 Hungary.
That background noise though... Still not as bad as chieftains trip to Australia. The birds... Ooh... THE BIRDS!
Birds?
@@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized
It's the M3 video... Im not sure if it actually was Australia or if it was a joke about the emu war which planted a false memory... Here's the video:
th-cam.com/video/RIjLtAt1zII/w-d-xo.html
The T-44 is the AR-18 of tanks. A proof of concept for a successful family of later designs.
you can also say the AR10
Budget version.
Some have a hard time praising Soviet / Russian designs…
…that’s why he had a hard time commenting.
Your analogy is perfect.
I don't see it commonly appreciated that every Soviet and post-Soviet Russian tank was basically an upgraded T-44, and going back further an upgraded T-34. It's remarkable that a pre-war design was so fundamentally solid that it could have so much upgrade potential.
@@tHeWasTeDYouTh Not Really, so many different guns owe their internal design to the AR-18, where as the AR-10 just led to an AR-15 & a ton of clones of it. The AR-18 analogy makes so much sense, it’s the basis of a hell of a lot of different bullpups too. The Bushmaster, the British one, the Styer, the Atrax, etc, etc, etc
IS-7 has to be my favourite soviet tank ever. Rest in piece my forgotten boy. You were too beautiful (and heavy) for this world
They are restoring it to running order now.
Loving all the tank museum content. David Willey is a sharp fella, great amount of knowledge. It's very cool that they seem like they'll work with any TH-camr over there, they're really one of the most forward thinking museums around. Bovington wouldn't be the pilgrimage site it currently is for military history buffs without people like Willey and Fletcher making it's contents available to us all over the world.
Totally agree. One thing I really appreciate about Bovington is how the physical museum experience is very accessible and immersive to people who are not tank geeks, but they also produce wonderful in-depth content and share it freely.
I suppose that's what it's all about at the end of the day and to be pragmatic it's free publicity
Hear hear.
Absolutely. Their ability to adapt and be passionate is incredible.
Excellent comment 😊
T-44 was perhaps the most advanced tank design in 1944, it was more lightweight than the Sherman for basically double the armor
The Allies were doing something similar with their tanks. They had a 88m tank at the end but had a body of I believe a later Sherman can't remember exactly.
The Pershing was technically a medium
@@dgmt1 true, look at the ukraine war. You can see thesame tactics just keep throwing more tanks and crews at the enemy until they run out of ammo
@@emperorfancypants2512 laughs in St. Javelin
and Stugna-P and NLAW and now with the Russians down to “modernizing” 800 T-62’s just an RPG-7 would do the trick
@@dgmt1 So the crown of the best tanks of WW2 goes to the sherman and the panzer IV and III.
I'm glad this tank is getting recognition, it truly is the predacessor to MBTs, particularly in armor.
I would argue the Centurion
@@kentnilsson465 centurions frontal armor was not any better than a Panther until later in their cold war service.
T-44 was better armored than Centurion, but most importantly, T-44 weighed 1 ton LESS than a T-34-85
This is a very logical, rational assessment. I was secretly hoping to hear about an obscure, early war, light tank. Oh well.... Thank you for this.
BT-7
T-26
Clarifications, Errors & Corrections
8:50 The number on the screen "1800" is correct, not the number I said "8100". (Thanks to Andrew.)
10:08 I say "T-44/85" it should be "T-34/85". (Thanks to Andrew.)
I see the Ghost of the Vehicle Conservation Area was in full cry.
What amazed me about the Russian German conflict was the way the factories were stripped and re built further East out of the range of the Luftwaffe, an amazing feat
And one that gets little - if any - recognition in the West. There are not many feats by any combatant nations that can compare with that.
@@thethirdman225 Russia was labelled the new enemy, so of course credit must be denied. The amount of people who don't even realise the Soviets were allies.
@@viktoriyaserebryakov2755 More like it was situational ally, but always was and still is an adversary.
@@user-zv4jf8ag8p Incorrect. Always was an adversary?
Fantastic interview series. Shows the best of both David and Bernhard - brings in smiles and the odd laugh.
And then David goes full on funny-man - and I'm just a footnote in history🤔😉😄😄😄
Hear, hear :)
Nice to see you getting ready for Halloween with ghostly background sounds around 0:04:00
someone was having fun at 3:49
Ghost
Is the Tank Museum haunted? Wtf is that ethereal wailing…..😳
It's very very close to a primate rescue centre so that is probably Gibbons being gibbons
It was the museum’s mustache trying to get out of it’s cage.
@@SlappyTheElf Lmao I love the sign with Tank Museum one way, Monkey Rescue the other
@@frostedbutts4340 Wait.. A monkey rescue? Just how many monkeys are running around the in UK?!
@@SlappyTheElf Huh. Perhaps I can convince the girlfriend of a visit after all🤔
I have a 1:76 scale model of a T-44/85, which I've had since the late 1980's. It was produced by Red Star Models (Geoff Spain).
There was also the later T-44/100 available, at the time, but I could only afford one model, so I chose the T-44/85 version.
Love the very human, two guys talking freely about tanks special feel to this video!
Yes, they work very well together don't they.
And the underrated T-44 is based of the even more criminally underrated T-34m- torsion bar suspension, vertical side armour to increase the turret ring diameter, I think it got rid of the front plate hatch too, plus a full blown commander's cupola in a Panzer III style turret. There was also the T-50, the would-be basic tank of the Soviet army and which was more or less a sovietized Pz III... Those two are the missing link between T-34 and T-44.
That question of switching production arose in the RAF. They had a huge debate over whether to ditch the Halifax bomber and re-tool to produce more Lancasters. Arthur Harris wanted to do this. But the interruption to bomber production was considered too great, so they continued producing both types through the war.
And they even continued to produce the Stirling. They found new roles for them, though, such as glider tugs, dropping paratroopers (always in short supply - see Market Garden) or as transports (Hastings). Even Hurricane production continued as the more basic techniques meant it could be produced in smaller factories by less skilled staff (many of whom thus became more skilled). The new role was in ground attack. It wasn't perfect for the role, but it was expedient.
Another RAF sxample: in 1939 Beaverbrook stopped all development on British heavy calibre defensive turrets, of which there was a lot, to ensure effort was concentrated on maximising the number of 303 armed turrets. (In 1939 not all bombers had powered turrets with belt-fed guns). In came back to bite the RAF around 1942 as it wasn't restarted early enough and/or US turrets not used, but it was the right choice in 1939.
Coastal Command were always requesting squadrons of Lancasters so that they could patrol further out into the Atlantic, to counter the U-Boat menace. They never got any !
Thank you Military History for making an impromptu video in the T-44. It was nice to hear about this, what I consider, relatively little-discussed tank.
David Willey is a British national treasure.
Time for a gong in the Christmas list?
I'm kinda glad you weren't familiar with the t44, it means you haven't wasted your precious time on this Earth playing War Thunder.
Thanks for leaving in the humorous part at the end, had a good chuckle 🙂
Loving these little chats with David
Great vid :) Loved the adlibs at the end! I was hoping you might discuss the T 70 at some point :)
What a pleasure it is to watch you blokes at the Tank Museum. I was there with my young sons in 2013 (from Australia) and it is such a mighty institution.
Thank you for the insightful discussion on the effects of stopping production and re tooling the factories.
great video, always wondered about these early cold war soviet tank models. a pet fave of mine is the t50, would greatly appreciate this proto-t34 lookin rare tank
Really like the cooperation with Bovington. Great video, especially the joke at the end!
I really like David Willey, such a nice, measured and knowledgable guy.
Really enjoying these MHnV/ Tank Chats!
Thank you for the great video. I especially like the end: "You got me!" 😄
😁
That’s the stuff well worth listening to. Learning and having a chuckle.
Sounds like you got Judge Doom from Roger Rabbit getting melted in the background.
Another terrific vid! 👍
Thanks, great time to listen to you both...
Yup, I knew when I saw that silhouette in the thumb nail. T-44 never gets the limelight even though it was a really good tank
What's with the Banshee?
David explained it was drilling in the workshop
@@alexfeeney4522 yeah I typed that comment before it was explained. 😅
It's the museum's senior curator.
I've came across a statement that mid-turret design was chosen to improve armor protection, not to increase firing stability. Main idea was to make a monolithic frontal armor plate to improve protection, so hatches had to be moved to the top of the hull, thus, turret had to be moved to the center of the tank
Make sense as well
In a way, the T-44 sounds like it has similarities to the M3-Medium tank in that it was a developmental stage before a more successful design. It is sort of the awkward half sibling which lies between the T-34 and T-55.
Great stuff - thank you
Any video with David gets an automatic thumbs up!
Thank you for spotlighting a little known vehicle .
thank you for this it was interesting. I know you have covered it before but I think it's so ABSOLUTELY important to understand just how long it takes and the effort it takes to put a new tank into production to understand ww2 (and likely more modern wars) in general but especially early war British and Russian decisions. having a tank that works half the time is better than having no tank at all if it means the difference between life, death, victory and defeat.
EDIT. I have been convinced to add an edit that it was not fully the Russians involved in the decision-making if the war and that it would be more accurate to say it was Soviet decision making to more accurately reflect the multinational nature of the Soviet union.
russia did not exist during WW2, there was union of soviet socialists republics, when you say russia in context of WW2 you spiting into the face of other 30 nations and 100+ nationalities that were in soviet union.
@@lilandry while I understand your point given my own nation gets regularly overlooked in just about everything I think I'm sticking to my statement as it was the Russian command that called the shots to my knowledge. If you can decisively prove they weren't I'm willing to consider it.
@@00yiggdrasill00 Rossovsky was polish, Stalin was Georgian.
@@Kv-2Heavy tell you what. As proving hundreds of officers non-russian is impossible and probably an unfair expectation I will agree if you can prove half the high command was non-russian
@@00yiggdrasill00 Considering about half of the population of the Soviet Union was Russian, that's fair.
Love these videos. The audio's a bit excessive though. Levels need to be lowered a bit. Other than that, jolly good show. Carry on!
ya I can see that, the t44 they got to mess around with cast turret armor and advances with tank design that happened in ww2, but couldn't be produced right at the moment, but by being bigger and a very promising side project let them keep developing it
Most underrated Soviet armored vehicle is the SU-85. Highly underrated.
This makes me so happy! I've loved the T-44 ever since I first learned about it.
I never thought about it that much but definitely, the t44 manages to be as well armored as many heavy tanks, and more mobile than many mediums.
I love the kid siren! lol
T44/85 was adequate opponent against Panthers G&F, Panther 2. T44 had advantages tested on T43/85 prototypes, and showed better balance of armour construction. T44/100 dwarfed SU100 and IS-1/100. T44/100 became T54.
There was no Panther 2
@@alangordon3283 Maybe they're counting the jagdpanther?
@@alangordon3283
Panther2 prototype existed in physical form
Also production line for Panther1 existed in Henschel factories. When Henschel launched King Tiger , it was also time for Panther2 because many components were identical [transmission, roadwheels,transport tracks, final drive reliability,engine,etc]. Henschel missed chance to produce more reliable tanks 1944~45, because Jagdtiger H wasn't need. The same situation did back in 1941-42 when Vapruef6 marginalized reliable vk3601h, which was more reliable than initial Panther1D , and can play panther's role better in first half of 1943 , supporting Tiger1 H;
Vapruef6 will be doing better if forced Henschel to produce two compatible tanks and left Ferdinand Porsche to play Superheavy role exclusively. This will be lead to more reliable tanks + not significant less 128mm carriers . Porsche - Siemens electric transmission was slightly more economical for superheavy designs like Jagdtiger,Maus,Tortoise,etc. E100 will be also underpowered with Maybach.
Just this Maybach hl234 used for " double lighter " tank AMX50. Maybach hl234 played good job in areas of E50-E75-AMX50A-AMX50B, but for E100 something else was need[ gass turbine like M1A1 ,M1A2 ].
Very important to mention Continuation orders.
When I see people criticizing the US for keeping the production line open for Abrams tanks even though the Army doesn’t need new tanks, I have to constantly remind people about production lines and the need to keep them available.
It also helps us in terms of sales, we can sell the Abrams to other countries or in the case of Ukraine… potentially donate them as through Lend-Lease. We could literally ship out hundreds of Abrams tanks in a matter of months by just checking the ones in storage, maki sure they are in good condition and then loading them on ships bound of whatever country ordered them.
Excellent
most underrated tank museum curator if you need another topic.
I wish the second WW2 ended the Soviets had stopped making the T-34 and went full throttle with the T-44.
T44 didn't have a dish shaped circular T54 style turret. It had a T34/85 style turret. The dish turret style comes from JS3
Yes, but the hull design for the T-54 etc comes from the T-44. The T-54-2 essentially married the T-54 (and T-44) hull design, refined of course, with an IS-3 style turret. (to put it very simplistically)
@@CplBurdenR agree with all that, my comment was reaction to the statement in the video that the T54 took the dish turret from the T44...which isn't right
I bought several T44 Roco Minitanks when I was a kid in the 1960s. 1/87 scale.
In spring of 1944 nobody was sure how long will war last, but in autumn was sure it will finish in Europe within a year. And Soviets did rush IS-3, which arrived just in time for victory parade in Berlin in front of Western delegations, but saddled Soviet military with decades of maintenance issues.
Haha - the kids are having fun in the background! :--)
BT7 - ends up as the BT7A prequelling 75mm support tanks but had sloped armour, got rid of the tracks and wheels and was the design prequel to the T34. OK - wireless is an issue but that was a soviet issue. Only 3 crew but had a two man turret which without the wireless operator was just about acceptable. Over 4.5K built compared to trivial numbers of UK and French so perceived technically superior systems, Let down by shite logistics; never really capable of deep penetration in the orders of several hundreds of kilometers, but nor was the wehrmacht. Just had to steal fuel from the french . Best tank by far in 1935 and predecessors were 4 years plus earlier.
I hoped he'd say Valentine.
What happened to the IS-series of tanks?
There is a typo or a mispeak, you say 8100 but show 1800 for num built, at about 8:50
thanks, forgot to put the pinned comment down, there is another error as well.
Very nice Video and good pick in my opinion, The T-44 is an intersting what if tank and just like the M-26 and Centurion marked the point were the Allies absolutly and definetly cought up with German Tanks. If the war had gone longer, maybe this entire "German Tanks are the best" narrative would not exist, or be very different.
I also like how there are some sound issues and most of your viewer base seems to be fine with that. Mine would have killed me :)
At 5:17 and onwards you claim that center mounted turret makes a more stabile weapon platform in comparison to front mounted. I would like more detail on that, especially on how stabile was the T34 as a weapon platform. Influences on this from terrain, arcs of fire and how this would reflect on crew performance.
I vote T-70. A numerically very important tank almost nobody talks about.
3:50 early halloween
Very interesting statement by David Willey. I had the same thoughts just about 13 years before: The BT-series tanks. For a similar reason: Some of the stories about the T-34 may make you think that it came out of the blue. But to understand the origins of the T-34 you have to look at the BT-series tanks. Their weren't a dead end but the gate to the more modern T-34. I think that's an important point because of the great losses of tanks the Red army suffered in 1941 it seems like all their pre-war tank were just crap. But that's not true.
Christie suspension wasnt abandoned on Soviet tanks only because of the war. Tanks that can do 80km/h dont have a single moment of greatness in history. Its silly to assume that if Soviets didnt produce them, they wouldnt produce anything. If BT tanks and T-26 werent crap in 1941 they wouldnt be replaced with T-60 and T-70.
I agree, and chose the BT-7
@@Paciat the M1 Abrams can do over 80 km/h (with its speed governor removed). Are you trying to say the way it decimated Iraqi tanks in the Gulf War wasn't a "moment of greatness"?
@@brucelamberton8819 Lol, with its speed governor removed :D. Why do you think that was installed in the first place? It wouldnt even be designed is going faster than 80km/h was a good idea.
@@brucelamberton8819 the main problem with bt tanks was that they were optimized for road mobility only. Sure, they could achieve incredible speeds even by nowadays standards, but they sacrificed off road capabilities for it, which isn't the case with modern tanks
The T44 was steered more easily than the T34? Does that mean they could get by with a smaller steering hammer?
See, I would have said the T-26. It‘s the most important and most-produced interwar tank, but it plays no role in WWII simply because almost all of them were captured or destroyed in the first few months of the war, without ever getting the opportunity for the Soviets to really do anything with them.
The Soviets in the early war were completely unable to use their tanks effectively, simply due to a lack of experienced personnel combined with no time to train the people they had-but under different circumstances there‘s arguably no reason the T-26 couldn‘t have been used as effectively as the Panzer II or the 38(t), both of which were used extensively by the Germans at a time when they were already fairly obsolete.
Actually, the T-26 outguns both of those tanks with its 45mm cannon and it crucially has a separate gunner. So, compared to other tanks that saw use in the early war because they were available, it’s actually very good, and the USSR had over 10.000 of them at the start of the war-a potentially a significant strategic asset, had it been used effectively.
My choice was the BT-7 light tank.
3:55 so that's why this is uploaded in October
That noise is a grinder or a air tool.
I knew what tank it was just from the thumbnail.
T-44 has a good case but I would have gone with the BT-7. It was there in Spain, Mongolia, Finland and before Moscow. With it's opponents in '41, it isn't surprising it was destroyed in large numbers. Given the Red Army's poor communications and inability to coordinate armor/infantry attacks routinely before '43, I blame the situation more than the tank.
Very funny David!
What's that psychedelic noise in the background? Some psychological warfare torture in the dungeons? 😁 😱
Lmao he said drilling from the workshop
@@frostedbutts4340 Yeah I know... Still, sounds... Scary 😱. Who knows what might be going on, some of these old vehicles might have the ghosts of their former users in them 😉
We must be using different criteria. I would have said the BT. :) Without it, there would have been nothing.
About 4 minutes in it sounds like a howler monkey is knife fighting a screaming toddler as they fall to the earth at terminal velocity.
The commentator is incorrect. The T-34/85 was already being built when the T-44 was being developed. Where the Soviets erred was in not producing the uparmored T-34/85M, which could have resulted in a tank very resistant to the most common German tank gun, the 75mm pak 40, would have made a tank more resistant to both the 75 mm KwK 42 and the 88 mm KwK 36 at medium ranges.
I think the T-44 saw combat in Hungary 1956 (if one considers crushing protesters combat).
Drilling noise? I thought someone was practicing their head voice singing.
For clarification: perpendicular to which direction in the hull?
Perpendicular to parallel. Glad I could clear that up for you
Transverse mounted. If the tank is traveling forward due north, the engine is situated in a way that the largest dimension is east to west.
@@owensteam is that perpendicular to the ground or some other frame of reference? Ditto for parallel? Perpendicular just means at 90 degrees to some frame of reference.
@@Aperson156 just like the original Mini.
@@neiloflongbeck5705 perpendicular to the direction where the tank drives
Thumbs up for the dentist-comment alone >_
It might be my ADHD but I enjoy the A7V in the background peeking over the other tanks like: "Hallo!"
A7V replica.
Thought the drilling was a kid screaming 😂
Man hört nichts mehr von Roman Töppel. Gehts ihm gut?
Jup, er war am 10. September auf der Panzerkonferenz. twitter.com/MilAvHistory/status/1568542968516165634
Wir hatten in den letzten Jahren wenig Zeit gemeinsam Videos aufzunehmen, mache jedes Jahr auch nur einen Trip: 2020: DPM, 2021: MHM, 2022: Tank Museum. Es kam ja auch jedes Jahr ein Buch raus bzw. dieses Jahr mit dem Panzerkonferenz Band sogar 2... und dann noch um die 70 Videos pro Jahr.
I would say T-60 series light tanks during ww2
nobody going to comment on the ghost making noise in the background?
wow 50.000 T-34 in WW2 ... that is a lot
I love the T-44 in world of tanks
I'd like to see a modernisation of a really old tank like the BT-5/7 with a modern engine , gun , turret , armor and everything else just keep the shape , now why do that ?
-shits and giggles
-interesting how a 80yo design would work with everything modernized
-memes
The Brazilians did that with a Stuart already
T44 - the right tank. T34 - the right tank now
The T-55 was a T-44 dull with a new turret
The haunted tank museum. Workshop or ghost?
Also they already was developing t54 so there was no point in producing t44
Thought the drilling was a dog for a while.
Honestly it would be underrated if it saw service past putting down hungarians. The thing was 100% better than the t34 with being noth lighter and better protected, it just never saw combat in large numbers
The T-44 was the Soviet M-47??????