Soviet Tank Repair in WW2
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 24 ต.ค. 2019
- Soviet Tank Repair is rather obscure, yet important topic. The video discusses how vulnerable tanks actually were, what the average repair rate was, rewards for repairing tanks, terminology on losses, a case study and many other topics. This video includes also footage from Museums and tank related events like Tankfest 2019.
Disclaimer I: I was invited by the Pivka Military History Park (Slovenia) 2017. www.parkvojaskezgodovine.si/en/
Disclaimer II: I was invited by the Panzermuseum Munster (Germany) in 2018. daspanzermuseum.de
Disclaimer III: I was invited by the Tank Museum (UK) to Tankfest in 2019. www.tankmuseum.org/home
/ park vojaške zgodovine...
/ daspanzermuseum
/ thetankmuseum
»» SUPPORT MHV ««
» paypal donation - paypal.me/mhvis
» patreon - / mhv
» subscribe star - www.subscribestar.com/mhv
» Book Wishlist www.amazon.de/gp/registry/wis...
»» MERCHANDISE ««
» teespring - teespring.com/stores/military...
» SOURCES «
Gary A. Dickson:Tank Repair and the Red Army in World War II, The Journal of Slavic Military Studies, 25:3, 2012, p. 381-392. doi.org/10.1080/13518046.2012...
Samsonov, Peter: Repair Rewards. Tank Archives, 2018, Accessed: 10th October 2019, tankarchives.blogspot.com/2018...
#Tanks #TankRepair #RedArmy
![กินอาหาร ถูก vs แพง!! จานละ 500,000 vs จานละ 50!! [Ver. 2024]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/FF_HppKg4vs/mqdefault.jpg)
The indiegogo campaign has ended, but you can still get your Panzer Company Regulation here: www.lulu.com/shop/bernhard-kast-and-christoph-bergs/german-army-regulation-on-the-medium-tank-company-h-dv-4707-mittlere-panzerkompanie-from-may-1941-deutschenglish/paperback/product-24459401.html
Want to see how it is inside a T-34 while it is driving? Check out this Video: th-cam.com/video/OG5RjXZOHRU/w-d-xo.html
The following museums helped me over the years:
Pivka Military History Park (Slovenia) www.parkvojaskezgodovine.si/en/ - th-cam.com/channels/Yzz0BwnsGzkfsogc9I54_Q.html
Panzermuseum Munster (Germany) daspanzermuseum.de - th-cam.com/users/DasPanzermuseum
Tank Museum at Bovington (UK) www.tankmuseum.org/home - th-cam.com/users/TheTankMuseum
i thought they mostly abandoned them and just got in a new tank?
I once spoke to a someone who was a Bundeswehr Leopard 2 commander and company XO in the 90s. In his words the _default_ state of a tank was "broken," and the job of a good tank crew was to make it less broken than normal so that it can at least accomplish the objective the unit was given.
lol nice description. I don't know how it works in the west but in the Soviet-like armies the position is called Driver/Mechanic for a reason. Tank, armored vehicle or just a truck drivers are a special breed and are usually exempt from mundane activities of soldiers life like guard duty. Instead they spend all their time tinkering with the vehicles. A NCO once told me - you can recognize a good tanker by his hands, his finger nails always have a traces of grease under them...
He was a company what?
@@cursedcliff7562
Iirc, "XO" is shorthand for "eXecutive Officer." Of course, I could be incorrect. 🤷♂️
The repair units at one 5th Air Force base during the Pacific War managed to build an off-the-books B25 out of cannibalized parts. Without armor or guns it was the fastest B25 ever and they used it to bring booze back from Australia. War is never as simple as people imagine.
One of my uncles was in New Guinea during WW2 in the Australian army. One of his stories was that the Yanks had no beer but the Aussie's did but it was warm. The deal that was worked out was that the Yanks would load the beer into an aircraft as supplementary cargo and take it on a mission. Afterwards they would share the cold beer.
This was really impressive. I've never seen something so in depth on Soviet tank repair. I'm so glad you were able to cover this particular topic and cover it so well.
I read an article once (which of course I can't find, just like all my favourite articles) comparing the Soviet and German medical systems and how due to advantages in the way the Soviets allocated resources and priorities for treatment, they were able to return 70% of wounded soldiers to active duty, compared to 58% for Germany.
Not only organizational matters played a significant role here. E.g
1. Soviet doctors had incomparably greater experience in treating frostbite due to objective reasons than the German ones. They treated cases that would result in amputation in German hospitals.
2. During World War II, the Soviet Union used bacteriophages to treat many soldiers infected with various bacterial diseases e.g. dysentery and gangrene. No one else in the world did this. Check out the wiki: Phage therapy.
That return rate might have had more to do with the Soviets getting much fewer heavily injured people to survive their injuries though, so if they lived long enough to make it into the records of a medical unit then they were already much more likely to survive and return to service, as everyone else had died before then. On the German side then they were able to save the lives of badly wounded or sick men at a much higher rate than the Soviets, but then as a result they'd have fewer patients then able to return to service as they were much more likely to be disabled due to their heavy woudns.
That is such a money quote, "The tank is basically threatened by several factors. Its own design, its construction, its crew, logistics, and only then by the enemy."
Have only heard this reference to Panthers,Tigers, and King Tigers. So, this applies to all tanks?
I'm not surprised tanks are vulnerable in transmission capabilities. It's a lot of weight for the engine and the transmission to haul around.
@Scott Joseph Their weight must've certainly contributed a lot to that. Pretty big tanks after all.
Also, I think the tracks themselves on tanks probably contributes to the issue. They give good traction obviously, but generally in all things mechanical, the more traction you have, the more friction and strain it will put on the engine and transmission.
A car is not nearly as heavy, but what it also has going for it is that it only have two, pretty small contact points with the road.
Accelerating the car puts the most strain on engine and transmission. But once you get it up to speed, it can lazily roll onwards by it's own momentum, only requiring a little extra gas to maintain the desired speed.
Can't really "roll" along on tracks as easily, so the engine has to work more during movement.
Look at it upside down. Why put a transmission that's massively too powerful into a vehicle? That's a waste. It's an engineering trade off to put the lightest and cheapest possible into any design. Topics like lifespan and usage are looked at very carefully during design (and redesign as modifications are made). Also, availability of parts like transmissions might not be what is required. Now imagine trying to balance those vehicle productions, sub-assembly production, resource allocation, etc. on a wartime footing. This is one of the reasons that I find WWII fascinating. Half of the world tooled up to build killing machines. Would make a good scifi story. I like studying logistics, damn it!
@@princeofcupspoc9073: This is also why I find warfare fascinating, and overall consider the phenomenon more of a benefit than a drawback for mankind.
Granted, it involves a lot of killing and destruction. But the quantum leaps made in engineering and technology is not only captivating, but also usually end up helping mankind in the end.
Most of the technological marvels and conveniences we use in our everyday lives can trace their origin to technologies developed for warfare originally.
My theory is that people are simply more spurred to be inventive during war than during peace. If you're not being more invetive than your rivals in peacetime, all you risk losing is market shares.
But if you're not more inventive than your rivals during war, you risk losing your life and the future for your whole society.
@@sevenproxies4255 yeah that's pretty accurate, the reason why a tank does not coast like a car when you stop accellerating is that a tank's tracks are designed to have has much friction with the ground has possible to render the tank capable of climbing steep hills (for example a Sherman is capable of climbing a 60% slope) but the track has to be made large eneugh to not make the tank dig itself into the ground by giving it a larger area to distribute it's weight.
Thing is tanks can coast like a car but most of them can only do that for a few meters has if you combine the ammount of energy you loose by drag and the generally slow speed of a tank you won't coast for long, Now I know that a tank is heavy and it gets a lot of inertia when moving tho that weight also goes to increasing grip on the tracks and so increasing drag and thus lowering how much distance you can coast. Wheeled tanks are able to coast tho that ability is completely useless wille crossing rough terrain which is exactly what tanks where made for in the first place, also the wheel's small contact surface with the road is why you don't see any particularly heavy tank with wheels has it whoud just sink into the ground
It is incredible how tanks are formidable in some circumstances and utterly vulnerable in others
It's all how they are used. It should have been obvious that tanks were more of a hindrance than asset in Vietnam when infantry spend more time protecting the tanks than the other way around. There is some credence to the argument that the best tank is a Ford pick up truck with a Tow missile launcher.
@@princeofcupspoc9073
That's a doctrinal error, not a tank error. The US invasion was trying to fight a WW2 style static war of attrition, while the Vietnamese fought a war of mobility as if Sun Tzu himself was their chief military adviser.
A more correct handling would've been to use them as mobile strongpoints that constantly move and add chaos while acting both as bait and a strikeforce against local concentrations.
It's not a unique mistake either. Israel suffered ridiculously high tank losses in Lebanon recently because of lack of tank crew training, and using them in a static role, pretty much parking them somewhere in the open, unconcealed, while Russia had made sure that Hezbollah terrorists had the very latest Russian army anti-tank missiles at their disposal.
3:37 bez-voz-vrat-nyi
bez = no (without)
vozvrat = return
nyi = "this is adjective"
remember that all the "-insky", "-itsky" "-ovsky", "-ovich", etc., suffixes in Russian names are simply adjective endings that mean "from" or "belonging to". So "Ivanovski" is basically just "Jones" or "Johnson".
@Paul Kachur are you sure you answered to correct message?
@@NoNameAtAll2 he did, he made the pile of information bigger
Disclaimer: I like those Disclaimers, they make feel save from mind bending hidden advertisements. Seriously, keep doing them
I'm impressed by this man's knowledge of military history. Also impressed by the knowledge of many of the commenters here. Thought I knew a lot about military history before I came here. Keep up the great videos!
Being too large and heavy to be towed or recovered following a breakdown / combat damage / terrain problems hasn't been the first thought in the minds of designers of certain tanks in the past.
Out of all the 62 x T-35 land battleship heavy tanks deployed during 1941, the majority were lost due to transmission failures (clutches) or ran out of fuel. They were too large to tow and required specialist repair equipment which pretty much sealed their fate once broken down or disabled.
The same problem occurred with one of the SMK heavy tanks during the 1939 Winter War with Finland when it was immobilised after it ran over a massive command mine during an attack on the Mannerheim Line. It was also unable to be towed despite efforts by a pair of T-28 medium tanks and had to be scuttled with explosives to avoid capture.
Out of the 4 x Nbfz. heavy tanks deployed and used in combat during the Norway campaign in 1940, one was blown up by the Germans to avoid capture, after it became stuck in boggy terrain and could not be towed out. The other 3 were all lost due to enemy action: One set on fire following repeated penetrating hits from a Boys AT rifle. One immobilised and subsequently set on fire following multiple penetrating hits from a British crewed Hotchkiss 25mm. L.72 AT gun and one set on fire following a petrol bomb barrage from Norwegian troops during street fighting in Oslo.
Oddly enough the Tiger.I.'s 88mm. L.56 KwK.36 was originally intended for the Nbfz. but the tank was so underpowered it was incapable of carrying the weight of the KwK.36, so instead they went for a lighter 37mm. L.45 / 75mm. L.24 combination mounting.
However, this is a very well done video, my friend, keep up with the good work!
Did they ever go as far as to give someone a medal for tank repair?
Yeah, the usual thinking always seemd to be...
"We should retreat" - Cowardly traitor! Shot him!
"Sir, we only have plans for the attack, not even maps for the case of retreat" - Cowardly traitor who thinks of retreat, shot him!
"Sir, we have to repair this tank" - "So you think we need broken tanks and communism is too weak to build new ones??? SHOT HIM!!!
:D
It's easy to check, there's online archive of Soviet war time documents.
I can say about aircraft repair - my grandfather was given a Medal "For Battle Merit" and later Order of the Red Star for the quick and quality repairs of Yak-9 engine, often under enemy shelling of airfield. He served in the north around Murmansk, they were protecting allied convoys as I understand.
Not sure about the soviets, but the US has plenty of general-purpose medals just for doing your job particularly well. I got an Army Commendation Medal for repairing and re-servicing a ton of computers when previously supply was just throwing them into a lockup and ordering new ones because nobody knew what they were doing.
@@Rauschgenerator You watch too much of "Enemy at the Gate". Please switch back to Disney channel.
@@eugeneperstube You watch too much serious stuff. Please have a look at "humour" in your dictionary or Wikipedia to understand my comment the way it is meant.
7:11 Ironically under Stalin The Soviet Union actually recognized and rewarded individual achievement.
Yes it was something that was lost during Khrushchev's rule.
Orders of lenin were given to "“Heroes of Socialist Labour.” as well as "heroes of the soviet union" which could be given to people for non combat related actions, like saving lives during a fire or whatever.. Tank production and repair was critical to the war.
gives you an idea of how desperate the situation was.
@@AlexanderSeven more like Brezhnev to be honest
What is ironical about it? Soviets have always urged people to be active in their free time - study communism theory, teach it to other people, learn their profession, work good and hard, find best ways to do their job and try to implement it, maybe even get a better education while working. That was image of the perfect communist which all people should be was in propaganda. People doing an outstanding work were rewarded and publicised, their methods were meant to be implemented. Managers and highly qualified professional would get big salaries. Those who did notable good work and made innovations would get a title similar to "Hero of the Soviet Union" - a "Hero of socialist labour". People were meant to make individual achievements in working for the nation or serving it and not to get rich and wealthy. This attitude can even be seen in field manual of 1985 (part 2 - battalion and regiment) which stated duties of political officer. One of them is inspiring soldiers to study weapons, tactics, additional specialisations and communism in their free time. This field manual also said that special attention should be given to tactical innovations made by "battlefield activist group" (those perfect communists i described before except they are soldiers and not workers).
That's just how soviet propaganda approached individual achievements since the Red October. There is no doubt that most people were just people - lazy, greedy, stupid jerks. But soviets did industrialise Russia making it a superpower with many scientific achievements, lots of gifted and hard working peasants went to universities and became specialists. I bet this propaganda played an important role in this success.
Frido von Senger und Etterlin, in his memories, recalls how tank and mechanized divisions "melt away" during the operations, leaving behind just an empty shell of all the ancillary units. It was a constant struggle to keep the formations up to strength. I made a video about this various months ago.
It takes tanks and artillery to make a breakthrough, but the reality is that it's the common foot soldier that takes and holds any terrain. Then the tanks are pulled back for repairs and reserve.
i think this is a big reason why the video game crowd always rates German tanks so highly and frown upon the more utilitarian American and Soviet designs, they only concern themselves with the shooty part of the war. The simpler designs were able to get back into action faster, which greatly increases practical effectiveness, and allows you to get back on the attack sooner, which is critically important on a strategic level
for the record. this is one of the best videos i've ever seen. certainly the best video about warfare i've ever seen.
Outstanding video as always
I remember reading about Rommel, he stressed to his commanders to control/own the battle field once the fighting was over. It allowed for the recovery of knocked out tanks and equipment and denied the enemy, recovery of their equipment.
That was one of the reasons that the Germans could not regain the initiative in the East after 1943. Big heavy tanks need big heavy recovery vehicles and repair facilities. But if the enemy controls the battle field time and time again, you are not able to recover those vehicles. This makes replacement equipment critical, and the German industrial production at the time, although streamlined and rationalized by Speer, was still not ready to pump out those replacement. (At least not until 1945 and the plethora of cheap volksgrenadier guns and vunderveapons started arriving.) When the Germans beseiged Leningrad, Stalingrad, and even briefly Moscow, the Soviet took tanks right out of the factory and rushed them to the fighting. The early German system would require post assembly, break in, training, etc. Later they did not have this luxury. For an example look at the Panzer IV types. The last ausf was not the more capable, it was the cheapest to produce. They even removed the turret motor, so it has to be rotated by hand. The ausf J resembles a T-34 in terms of construction more than any previous model.
@@princeofcupspoc9073 makes you wonder how different the war could have been if the Germans had actually been capable of realizing they were losing before it was already to late.
I've always thought that for all the technical wizardry that is a Tiger II, it was designed for completely the wrong strategic and logistical situation, and surprisingly had little to no effect on the war.
Such good quality research. Thank you.
Very well done Guy's. I learned a lot about W.W.2. Thank You.
dang i didn't know this channel existed. glad you linked it in your vid!
Logistics and maintenance, the bane of any military endeavour.
So just by not retreating, the Guards Tanks were able to drastically reduce their overall losses, while because they did retreat, the Panzers lost more.
I dunno why but crewmen that survived the T-34-76 look at the T-34-85 and go "comrades is it just me or is this tank awfully familiar to fix despite having new gun and turret?" and just repair their shit if they're not to be the spearhead.
I now start to pity the repair teams and crew trying to fix the lumbering KV-1, KV-2 and the heavy ass SU-152 and ISU-152...
It sounds like some absolute back breaking work
Or IS-2, yeah. The American repair crews didn't know how easy they had it.
@@princeofcupspoc9073 Well, in a presentation/lecture from around a year ago, Chieftain explains how Sherman came to be. And the conclusion was that M4 Sherman was a tank that valued fiability over anything else. This means it had to be easy to produce, easy to transport and easy to repair. And this was possible due to how distanced from the war US was. They had time to incorporate lessons made by others.
You'd most likely died if sent in fighting in the KV-1. It was a high priority target by everything German. Including the food!
Excellent Video, perticullary for those of us who have thrown track, like to the inside AND outside because we took a ditch at the diagonal instead of straight on (then sat there and watched four other M1s come in and either do the same thing or sink up to the turret in mud. It was a rough '85 REFORGER... 😉)
Ooo, i heard about those reforgers. Would have loved to do one. Sadly though I got to throw track in the Middle East and Grafenwöher.
Did the officer get it or the mechanic? Or split along the unit?
Excellent topic and coverage. The truth of WWII is finally coming out. Facts over hyperbole.
6.05 T34 road march failure rate was over 25 per cent for 400km
This reminds me of the Chieftain's Inside the Hatch episode on the t34 and how some tracks repair and maintenance was done. A German or an American repair team would have cried tears of sorrow over some Russian repair methods 🤣
I still remember what Chieftain said about the track link pins, and how they are maintained in between the track links
And yet the US tracks used 4 separate pins on each link, that is, if any of the 4 pins broke, the link failed. Four times more likely to fail from an engineer's standpoint. I'll take the German or Russian one link one pin system any day.
@@princeofcupspoc9073 How are the German ones?
With those unfair rewards some T26 are still waiting for repair crews to show up in 2019. :D
Not really. T-26 was a simple little bugger.
will you ever make a video on the Japanese tank forces or is the information too hard to come by in English?
very hard to come by period. very little in terms of japanese documentation survived the war, and after the war the japanese had little interest in preserving what was left. there were also few japanese tankers who survived to pass on first hand accounts, even if they'd felt inclined to do so.
as far as outside observations, most large scale tank operations by the IJA was in china, which was also unconcerned about preserving such things during and after the war. Against the other Allies, japanese tanks were as a rule so badly outclassed that they barely received notice if the action reports.
so yeah, there's just very little primary or secondary source information about IJA tank doctrine out there
@@petriew2018 feels bad man
Bernard, at 5:50 you say they had to cover a distance of 400 Kilometers B Line or as the crow flies. I've only ever heard someone use the B Line reference as in the following, "I made a B line to the store when I heard new Xbox was on sale. Here it is clear the speaker means he's going to the store as quickly as possible he's not actually going to travel how a crow flies to the store. I'm sure Bernard did his research and in everyday vernacular English speakers are misusing the phrase B line. Non Native English speakers sometimes teach you about your own language as they come at it from a unique perspective. Thanks Bernard!
Its the same thing, directly without detours. Though ironically bees do wander somewhat even when travelling towards a specific place, I believe its because wind affects their flight path severely.
Hammer and Sickle
Did either side develop " Calvary " either land or air based to hunt the maintenance personnel ?
It seems logical to hunt broken AFV and the troops that fix them rather than fight a repaired platoon.
Break through enemy lines, seek out repair facilities and destroy? I think if you are wandering around in the enemy's rear area you have more important things to consider, like getting the hell back to your own lines. If you are imagining something like US Civil War cavalry, there was a lot more empty terrain. In WWII all it would take would be one enemy with a radio to call down some artillery on your ass, and mission failed restart game. This one of the reasons that the US has such a woody about "smart weapons" that can recognize targets and take appropriate actions.
Not really. Retrieval of vehicles would take place only AFTER you owned the battlefield. So, if you were to call out AFVs and engineers, the enemy already has a good position to repell your 'raiding'/'cavalry' party.
If you want to aim for logistical concentration points (supply dumps, maintainance facilities etc.), those are generally located beyond enemy lines at quite some distance. And 1. it would be a hell of a job to get there and you have little to no chance to do that with a small unit. 2. If you are there, you are most likely also able to destroy enemy communication or command facilities, which are even more valuable.
not logistically worth it. a tank in a repair depot is a tank not on the front line, so as a strategic target they're of decidedly minimal importance. Yes, it's always nice to hit an enemies supply depot, but if you can get behind the lines it's far more useful to attack combat assets in the rear.
Yes. It's called breaking through to the operational depths and exploitation with mobile units.
I have a manual on the way!
I wonder if you will adress the repairable tanks not being counted as casualties thing.
This video seemed to talk about tank repair more then it did about the Soviets.
i got a idea, how many shermans was sent to england 1943 to 1945 how many was destroyed and repaired.
I expected it to be far more bureaucratic, like
0: no repair needed
1: repair after operation needed
2: not fit to continue operation
3: defenseless
4: no field repair possible (send back for factory repair)
5: to be gutted for spare parts
6: only scrap metal
From a doctrinal standpoint, sure. But from a "get this running quick before we are overrun" standpoint, it looks more like a Triage segment in the old TV show MASH.
@10:20 "ewents". 😂 To all non-german speakers, this is an example of linguistic overcompensation. My opa used to do it to. Sometimes he'd refer to his vest as his "west".
I remember our German friends visiting America and wanting to go see "Dess Walley"
I guess it's a myth that Soviet tanks were designed to not last much longer than they were expected to survive in combat. It would be interesting to know whether Soviet factories sent spare parts in the volume shipped to American units, or did Soviet repair depots have to rely on cannibalizing broken AFVs?
Not a myth. Even into t-62s and t-72s. But its designed to play to Soviet strengths. The T72 gun barrel is designed for a useful life of 100 rounds for example. But that means its cheap to make, so Russia made 10,000 of them. When a crews barrel or other part wore out they drove it to depot and got a repaired vehicle. Depot then repaired the turned in vehicle. In a war they have another 9000 in a warehouse. source: Steven Zaloga.
that's actually not a myth... life expectancy for a t34 from the factory was about 3-4 months. The soviets just knew keeping that unit in fighting condition for those months was pretty important as well.
Allright, I have asked this question so many times without answer, but I will give it aanother try. What does the magical word "Guards" mean in Soviet troop formations?? I mean, what is the difference between a 5th Tanks Guards Army and a 5th Tanks Army? Is this like some kind of trade secret among historians? And yes, I have tried googling it many times before. Can somebody please explain?
I'd also like to know the answer to this. I always assumed it was just a term for Soviet infantry that got the distinction of being a "guard" unit as opposed to just normal infranty
Obviously, prior distinction in combat is the key.One such example is Katukov's 4th tank brigade which distinguished itself in combat at Mtzensk in October of 1941 where it blunted spearhead(not alone,but still) of German 4th panzer division advancing from Orel towards Tula, after which it got renamed into 1st guards tank brigade.Or 4th sturmovik regiment which became 7th guards sturmovik regiment.Difference between 5th guards army and 5th guards tank army is the weight in armor given to later (3 tank or 2 tank and 1mechanised corps with each having several tank or SPG brigades). Infantry (later combined arms armies) have mostly about 3 rifle corps with up to 4 rifle divisions, although they often had small tank force, either in tank brigade attached to the rifle corps,or just small platoon or company in rifle division, although later they had even tank corps in some armies.They mostly had mediums like T-34 or heavy breakthrough tanks like KV--1,Matilda, Churchill or IS-1/2 which acted in initial stages of offensive operations, breaking through enemy defences and opening a gap for tank corps or armies to rush in and exploit it.
I dunno theres a whole wiki page on it. Your google-fu is terrible. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Guards
I remember watching a documentary a few years ago, that had been dubbed over from the original Russian and it said that it was an honour bestowed upon a unit that had performed particularly well, so the 5th Tank army became the 5th Guards Tank Army after performing well during a battle
'Guards' was a battle honor awarded to veteran formations that had performed well in actual combat. As a rule they got better equipment and better replacement soldiers to make them more effective fighting formations.
Basically these were the backbone units of the Red Army. the standard units were meant to hold the line, Guards units were the ones who punched through enemy lines or stemmed an enemy attack.
so the 5th Tank Guards army is the 5th Tank Army, it was just considered more capable and reliable than most other Tank Armies (and an 'army' is the rough equivalent of a division in western armies).
Next on mtv pimp my t34
An advancing army can recover damaged equipment. A retreating army loses their equipment.
1988 in Giessen, Germany: We drove our M110A1, 203mm Self Propelled Howitzers like we stole them!😝
The last time I was this early... I was two days late and the tank didn't make it to Berlin before the surrender...
Monetary rewards for the repair crews. That's some good communism there.
Imagine that paying someone extra for doing a good job.
Disclaimer IV: I was kindly reminding you lots, so stop spamming or i will loose all my hair... jees
Many WW2 tanks were notoriously unreliable due to design faults, expedient use of parts and systems not fit for purpose or poor manufacturing and quality control. Add in other factors such as harsh operating environments, poorly trained crews and sub-standard maintenance and you have issues even before entering combat. Little wonder all sides worked hard to recover and reuse disabled and damaged tanks.
You also have to factor in that a tank is an odd thing that requires you to force as many heavy moving parts into as small a space as possible while keeping it under a certain weight limit overall, and then find room for the crew and ammo. That leads to a lot of very fine tolerances in a lot of complicated systems, all of which have to more or less work at the same time for the thing to be of any use at all. That makes them a hell of a lot more fragile then one would assume just from the eye test.
Nice braces
pierce brosnan should watch this video.
You mean building new tanks?
Germans: New tank? Never heard of it.
@@AFT_05G When the Germans was in their prime. Invading other countries. Most of those tank numbers consisted both Panzer Is and IIs. They lost trying to strengthen individual tanks which pretty much was taxing their poor industrial capacity.
@@AFT_05G Heck the STUG which had more kills than the Tiger was a Panzer III chassis with a big gun.
TEAM TREES
Reminds me of the ex-DDR and ex-Soviet vehicles, MTLB and BMP-1 respectively, that Sweden bought (and refurbished in the Czech republic) in the 90's. Their reliability was often in question and it was often said that they were originally built to only reach the Atlantic coast and by then would be worn out.
I'm wondering what your opinion would be if anyone had tank transport vehicles if that would have made a difference to make it worth it? They are (on roads of course) faster, they save fuel, save wear and tear and allow the crew to get rested and repair the tank. I wonder your general idea of the idea, lol.
Tank transport exist. They are either ships or trains.
You mean tank transports on roads? Why? Like what do you gain? You do not save up fuel because you would need to transport the whole lot of the total weight of tanks plus the weight of the vehicle itself. And then you would have to carry fuel for the tanks in combat and the transports. The only thing that such a vehicle would solve would be to reduce the wear on the parts, but that's all.
For individual tanks, yes, you have 'towing' vehicles meant to transport imobilised tanks, yes, they exist, but in the ideea of a transport for large formations, nope.
@7:15
Monetary reward to encourage higher performance? How very Capitalist of them.
It's actually very much in line with the socialist principle of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his work".
@@jackvac1918
Are you pulling my leg? It's 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.'
@@5h0rgunn45 That's a vague line about Communism from the ''Critique of the Gotha Programme'', the other is from Lenin and the Soviet constitution.
Basically think of American and Russian tanks as road cars mass-produced on a production line. German tanks were like race cars built in small volumes.
@@5h0rgunn45 _"To each according to their needs"_ describes communism, which is a hypothetical endgame where productivity has advanced so much (e.g. by automation and AI) that work itself has been rendered redundant. However, for the socialist model, which reflects current levels of technological development and scarcity economics where work is still very much required, it is recognized that not only are incentives necessary, but on the principles of social justice people should be rewarded according to their contribution to the social product. Therefore _"to each according to their work"_ , or as Lenin rephrased it with a Biblical quote, _"he who does not work, neither shall he eat."_
I wonder if any of the repair teams lived long enough to spend all that money.
Most of the Soviet soldiers were sending money home to their families. There's not much you can by on the front anyway.
All on women and booze
Keep in mind that the actual number killed in any modern battle (with modern medicine) is much smaller than in previous wars. And repair crews were rear echelon troops. So, yeah, most of them did, second half of the war at least.
if most of them weren't, the Soviets would have lost the war because of the Germans constantly rampaging behind the lines.
even in a retreat situation, those are the guys far to valuable to leave behind, so would have been the first ones evacuated.
It is better to build a new one
The Soviets actually did repairs on their tanks and not just run them into the ground and strip them for parts?
Stripping a knocked out tank for parts on a whim was forbidden and a punishable offense. Abandoning a tank to be stripped was also forbidden. Knocked out tanks have to be kept on record and surrendered to a repair facility, where they would be either fixed up or written off and scrapped.
@@TankArchives unless in the East in 1945 in operation against Japanese, as fear Eastern had remaining old type tanks and those were abandoned when broken down, there was somewhere photos of broken BT-7 in 1945 used as a directions sign
"The fact that it did not retreat and lose its damaged tank pool, is why the 5 Guards Tank Army was able to reconstitute itself after the battle at Prokhorovka." What a fuck? The Germans captured the battlefield and, according to German sources, before the retreat, they destroyed all the knocked out Russian tanks. Damaged tank pool, was lost in Prokhorovka.
Maybe he refers to the whole battle of Kursk.
10:20 THAT GERMAN ACCENT THAT MAKES YOU WET THE CHAIR
Soviets didn’t care too much about tank repair.They just build more of them.
G'day,
Ah, Comrade, Kameraden, Buddy, Chum, Chap & Matey...; durink der recent Great Patriotic Waaauuh(!), the mighty Soviet Union did not repair Tanks at all....
Durink Great Patriotic Waaauugh(!) it was the Tanks..., which repaired the Soviet Union...!
Obliviously, you must immediately radically reframe all your Points of Reference, in order to propperly comprehend the inherantly manifold mysteries of Stalin's interpretive implementation, of Lennin's twisted notions about how to transition from Capitalism to Marxism...., via Peace Through Superior Firepower - OouuuRaaah,...! (?).
Take it easy,
Have a good one.....
;-p
Ciao !
Legend has it that a Soviet tank broke down once. Stalin responded with purging 20,000 officers.
This is the first I have heard of the Soviets using monetary rewards. I would have thought a double allocation of vodka would be sufficient for the repair teams. The front line men didn't need it. it took so long for paper work on roster strength to catch up that the actual number of men left in a unit was far less than the strength the supply people had on their documents
Is it strategically wise to keep your best units drunk?
I thought in Soviet Russia, you give tank vodka and it will run?
At least modern multi-fuel tanks can work on alcohol I think.
Ethanol is a well regarded fuel additive for some extra umph. The problem is that booze is also ethanol, and it can be sold for a lot more in little brown bottles than in giant fuel barrels.
German solider: Yes I took out a tank, take that you Bolshevik!
Ivan: Don't worry Hans there's more coming for you.
German solider: Scheiße......
Stalin would have had unlimited manpower if dead humans can be repaired
Chewing gum?
I can barely understand the guy
@15 is legal In Europe I like listening to TH-cam videos while I'm doing other stuff. And I can understand him in other videos. It's probably a combination of his speech, my speakers, the reverb in my desk etc.
I'm even Dutch so German accents should be slightly easier for me
So the communists never were communist. Both sides were nationalist. The old German/Slav grudge match.
Both sides called them selves "socialist".
I reality they were murderous nationalist dictatorships.
(see also the Chinese Communist Party who has fully embraced capitalism as long as the CCP owns everything)
Never believe in labels people give themselves and be especially suspicious of labels people give other people.
Especially when they are putting a whole group of people in one box when it's actually only the extreme outliers who are trouble.
@@Hebdomad7 that's a horseshit false equivalence and you know it. The Nazi concept of National Socialism is a distinct concept in its own right, and any mention of socialism was very much an attempt to steal supporters from contemporary socialist movements. They also proceeded to purge their socialist wing.
Both sides (all sides) are attempting to cast a broad net and capture as many souls as possible into the war machine so the labels they gave themselves to attract supporters are lies. So why do we refer to them by the name they would have us call them and not what they really are. Empires wielding propaganda tools. Something I find odd is how the Germans attempted to use Nordic/Scandinavian culture. (I've always thought it was intended to cause all types of northerners to unify under German leadership) So I guess what I'm saying is that no one is really communist so we should all stop calling anyone communist. The moment you are a true communist you are out of the game cos you have no economy and no army...so its inherent value is zero. Its a ghost a myth.
@@lllPlatinumlll yes, true communists have no army, because they've already made the world where there are no wars.
United Soviet *Socialist* Republics where socialist. They had public ownership of the means of production, while Germany hadn't.
For the Slavs themselves the war wasn't nationalist, it was rather people's war: they weren't occupying captured territories, making it their own, they weren't exterminating nations, their enemy was mostly "hitlerite" or "german-fascist conquer".
Nowadays Russian nazi tend to say that the win in the war was Russian nationalistic, but nazis of WW2 times were fighting on the German Nazi's side.
Dude, what is wrong with your teeth?
getting paid a bonus to do a job.........that is Capatalism.
If the repair teams succeeded to repair a tank, especially form an irrecoverable condition, or "bezvozvratnoe sostoyanie", they were given monetary prizes and extra vodka, if, however, they failed to do so, well then they were sent to clear minefields before advancing tank columns..