The KV might have been known better at the start of Barbarossa in 1941 as they had been used against the Finnish during the Winter War. So when a tough tank was encountered the Germans might have just said “it’s a KV!” when it was really a T-34. Sort of how the Western allies tended to see Tigers everywhere even though they were a somewhat rare tank by 1944.
Most of the Shermans were killed by the Panzer IV, but the later model IV's with the side skirts and especially the turret skirt did look like a Tiger at some distance.
Different suspension ... and armor ... and primary anti-tank round (hello HESH) ... but other than that, all is normal. And after all, the Brit GUN itself is spectacular, just look at how many other nations (USA, Germany...) use variants of Royal Ordinance tubes.
@@cryptobox128 Is that why anyone with any sense in the modern era is building licensed copies of Rheinmetall's guns? And not the rifled-bore relic the brits keep on hand so they can get rid of their HESH stockpiles.
Great vid mate. I got upclose with the T34-85 out here in Australia, as you say, they weren't poorly built, by boy are they rough! When we asked for a T34, the Russians shipped us one, complete with ammunition for our war memorial, nice of them, ay?
@@rus0004 Last time I saw it, she was in storage at the Mitchell Complex of the Australian War Memorial. Out here, it's probably not running foul of any laws, after all if you own something which the ammunition is not available for, then it's classed as legal. That's how people own things like Bofors, tanks and other assorted artillery pieces. In any case, the AWM is owned by the government so I doubt she was de-milled.
@@rhoetusochten4211 I don´'t know about you, but i would say that the celebration of someone that survived a significant emotional event is pretty much side by side with the celebration of the birth of our lord and savior RNGesus
@@benwinter2420 The Queens staff just quit because they have been illegally detained from their children. Sometimes there are less casualties and sacrificing sons in war than in peaceful tyranny.
idk who in hell ever talked about that "nobody knew of sloped armor before t-34 rolled out"-idea? The sloped armor in t-34 is mentioned in the context that it was sloped on ALL sides without (or almost without) any death-traps. Also it's utter nonsense to pick only one of its concept and design features and point out afterwards that "they didn't invent it". Nobody said that soviets INVENTED those feautres. However they managed to COMBINE them into ONE tank. Like first IPhone combined all the good stuff in one smartphone which int he end worked as it was intended and promised. T-34 was a good tank because of ALL its features COMBINED. Maneuverable, endurable, well armored, well armed, upgradable, cheap to produce, easy to manufacture, conveyor belt production, easy to train crews, easy logistics.
@@cccpredarmy That's true of the T34-84. The original T34 was kinda garbage, the reliability was just not there yet. If memory serves correct the standard Pak AT gun the Nazis dragged around couldn't penetrate the front upper or lower plate. Obviously an 88 goes in one side and out the other. Oh, the T34 had sightly overworked crew of 4, which hurt the fightability of the tank. The T34/76 had a crew of 4 and a small 2 man turret: T34/76. T34/85 Turret 1 Loader. Loader Turret 2. Commander/ Commander Gunner. Turrett 3. n/a. Gunner Tank 4. Driver. Driver Tank 5. Bow Gunner? Bow Gunner
@@cccpredarmy Honestly the History Channel was saying the T-34 was the first tank with sloped Armor. back when they made bad history documentaries rather than UFO videos.
There used to be an almost mythical appreciation for the T34, that it supposedly scared the pants off the invading Germans who didn’t know what to do once they saw their shells careening off of this magically sloped armor. Truth be told, I used to say things like that myself. And the Germans may not have been all that impressed anyway, seeing how they destroyed them by the bushel. But it was indeed crude, more like an axe than a rapier. There wasn’t even a turret basket, so the already overworked loader had to be mindful where his feet were as the turret traversed, lest he lose them. And the early periscopes weren’t even glass, but of polished steel. Then there’s the matter of the 76.2mm main gun’s ability to penetrate German frontal armor, when in fact it was about as powerful as the Sherman’s “anemic” 75mm.
Trust me, the periscope is made from glass. It wouldn't work well as a periscope it if wasn't. Steel is just not transparent enough to light to work well as a lens. What you are talking about is the _reflector_ , the mirror. And polished metal is a standard way of making mirrors. How do you make a mirror out of just glass? You can make them by putting a reflective backing onto a sheet of glass, but glass itself won't reflect much. And it is my understanding that polished metal is superior, not inferior, to a thin layer stuck to a sheet of glass. Not having a turret basket was not unusual for the time, and is just not that big a deal. That is like saying "the transmission didn't even have syncromesh"! This was in the late 30s, no one was surprised by that. As for the gun, the M4 Medium's gun was never "anemic" until they started encountering lots of Panthers and Tigers in the Ardennes counter offensive. Against any tank from before 1944, it was plenty powerful, and so was the 76.2mm. What people confuse about the T-34 is they assign the reputation it rightly received in the early part of the war to the entire war. In 1942 it _was_ very powerful, a good tank. It was still pretty good in 1945 due to the bigger gun and turret. But it was no longer as good as it was in 1942, compared to what it was facing. Pretty much the same as the M4. The Germans may have destroyed a lot of T-34s, it was not invincible, the thing is that they found it a lot more difficult than they had expected, which is important. That effects your plans, your time tables, you need to find bigger guns or take more time and effort to do it. The Allies also destroyed a lot of Tigers and Panthers, but that doesn't mean they were no good. For that matter, the Germans destroyed a lot of M4s, but that also doesn't mean it was no good.
You don't know the history of the war very well. The events were unfolding continuously, and time must be taken into account. "They destroyed them in batches" not earlier than 43, and at the beginning of the war it made an impression, and the Germans tried to copy it (because the T34 was clearly better than the Germans of that time).
@@ironmanos It was designed so that everything on the tank broke at about the same time, which was the vehicle's average life expectancy. Anything that wasn't expected to last that long was strengthened so it would, and anything that lasted notably longer than that was weakened to save time, material, and money
@@hailexiao2770 It was hardly a new concept. The Russians just took it the extreme. Same as with sloped armor. Not a new concept by any means, one that had been used by every nation to some extent, but the Russians took it the extreme
its armor is made out of an early version of stalinium. this was flawed, leaving the tank weakened, but was necessary for the development of the magical armor we all know and love on later model tanks.
It is a good thing that joke never ever gets old or stale, so it is funny no matter how many times people repeat it on TH-cam videos. Hah hah, "stalinium"! WOT tanks is biased towards Soviet tanks! Oh, you are killing me! So funny! Almost like I never heard it before a thousand times!
I remember the quality depending on what factory made the tank, some saw important components as not as necessary, and unfortunately the worst factory made the most t-34s, and by most I mean around 50% partially cuz they made them to a very low standard it saved a lot of time when making them. thought they got better and the quality improved there is a lot of nuance to it that a short "World of Tanks" video can't explain and a longer "Chieftain" video is needed.
Helpful series of observations. I think Kama on the Volga was one of the more famous manufacturing plants,aswell as Stalingrad.The fact that they were Ordered to be made in 1934 does show some degree of forward planning. The Russian High Command must have had some serious misgivings about German intentions despite the signing of the Molotov Ribbentrop pact Pact in the late 1930’s. With furthur reading the tactic patterns in the field were a type of replay from training in joint sorte’s during the 1920’s when there were officer exchanges aswell as joint training initiatives, on the part of both countries! To learn more of this,worth chasing up some of field Marshall Rommell’s writings!
One thing to add, the T-34s weren't horribly built, they were built efficiently like you explained. However, the steel they used for the armor was heat treated. That alone would not be a problem, heat treating increases the hardness of steel, however they over-treated the steel by such a ridiculous amount that the steel would sometimes shatter instead of bending when a sheel hit the tank, which sent shrapnel flying everywhere on the inside of the tank. At least, that's what I've heard from a certain youtuber who did a video on this tank.
Maybe T-34 wasnt the first to have sloped armour but the first one to use it intentionally as armour multiplier.Yes even some ww1 tanks have slopes but are propably just the design
@@Feffdc 1) it would be rather surprising that sloped armor was "accidentally" or even just incidentally applied to early tank designs when the benefits of sloped armor were well known and had been applied in warship design way before tanks were even a thing. 2) it may just be a matter of wording, but contrary to popular belief designing a tank with sloped armour doesn't magically increase the effective thickness of its armour (you need the same amount of material to achieve a given thickness regardless of the angle), its main use is messing with the velocity vector of an incoming shell, causing it to either bounce off or penetrate at a less optimal angle.
@@Feffdc Goes all the way back to the CSS Virginia, which them "Damned Yankees" insisted on still calling the USS "Merrimack", even though "our" side raised and refitted it, fair and square. Note the "sloped" armor which proved highly resistant to Union naval guns. Do also note that the turret of its most well-known opponent, the USS Monitor, was a cylinder with vertical sides rather than a conical turret, as that design had a wide aspect ratio as it was. Still, the Monitor's gun turret was relatively small and likewise shed hits from the Virginia. The Monitor relied mainly on being partly submerged, with it's main deck practically awash, to avoid hostile fire. Of course, won't do much good against mines, which were also called "torpedoes" in those times.
@@thethirdman225 The frontal armor of the initial T-34 did prove to be a shot trap, though. In fact, there is an account of a 37mm Pak 36 crew knocking out a T-34 by a round impacting under the turret, not penetrating it but still jamming it, rendering the tank inoperable. What's really interesting about THAT particular encounter was that it was the 23rd round fired by the German AT crew! Given that a proficient gun crew could at best get off five shots a minute, this means that for nearly FIVE minutes, the T-34 failed to acquire and engage the puny enemy AT gun that was engaging it! It would cause one to wonder if the T-34 was that difficult to operate, or simply the crew was that badly trained! The trouble with comparing technical details of AFVs and counter-measures is that they alone don't necessarily predict the outcome of battles. There are such things as morale, training, logistics, command, and doctrine. Israeli PM Ariel Sharon, himself quite the tanker in his early days, professed that in their battles with their Arab opponents, had they switched equipment, the outcome scarcely would have been different. That Israel itself re-purposed and used captured enemy hardware quite successfully give credence to Sharon's boast.
@@selfdo ALL tanks have shot traps. The one you refer to is near universal. The first Tiger to be captured was the result of the British disabling the turret ring with a 6 pounder in North Africa. The Panther added a lower skirt to the mantlet to reduce the likelihood of a shot going under. But if you compare the sloped armour Nick Moran refers to on tanks like the Matilda II with the T-34, you’ll see that there are far fewer places for a round to be trapped than on a Matilda. This is why this point is frankly boneheaded. If you consider sloped armour only from that perspective and ignore the reduced number of facets and shot traps on the T-34, as Moran does, then you ignore the reason it was considered revolutionary in the first place.
@@danam0228 understandable as they used the same gun. They probably described the KV as a heavy tank with a 76mm Main armament and with something like 30t even the T-34 was quite large, heavy and well armored for the time.
The Soviets lost droves and of tanks during Barbarossa, they needed new tanks QUICKLY. They needed SOMETHING, to fill the tank divisions. The t-34 was this “something” it was not necessarily a cheap design, BUT with multiple shortcuts and removal of different items that wasn’t necessary for it to work, made it extremely cheap. HOWEVER, these shortcuts made it impossible for the crew to use the full potential of the tank (no radios, sights, lights, ammunition racks, etc) and the quick production often showed itself as defects in quality of armor, transmission etc. BUT it filled the tank divisions and got the Soviets to Berlin. It worked, somehow, but calling it “good” as you would for a quality item, IS WRONG and quantity does NOT have a quality of its own. It just worked.
What the author didn`t mention was that the steel and manufacturing quality of the T34 did vary a lot. - The steel quality of the soviets did vary more than ideal. - The welding quality varied as well. Quite often a brittle steel or welding quality made a 37mm grenade pierce thru the armor that should not. This is similar to the Panther/Tiger at the end of the war. In this case the alloy materials were that scarce in the alloy and the allowed tolerance that small that in cases the steel became brittle and whole plates broke.
@@bingobongo1615 All nations at war faced this issue and you face it quite often in modern vehicles as well....When components from different suppliers are used.
Many of T-34 and KV was not lost because destroyed by Germans guns, but also destroyed by grenades etc. when sent to unprepared counterattacks without infantry and artilleries, and of course lot of them - maybe majority - abandoned when "appeared" without fuel, have less or more serious technical problem, disorganization of units, or other reasons, like when units feels "surrounded" etc...
Good points raised here! I specially like the mention of the F-34 gun. Many forget about the poor thing, but it was a solid gun. As for the last point... well, a few more things were in a sorry state. The engine had a lot of troubles, barely getting past 100 km, and the final drive would make the Panther blush.
And the visibility! Shockingly bad. The first thing that the germans did when they pressed them into service was cut a hole into the turret roof and weld a cupola on.
Regarding the "destruction by 5cm or less" talk: i'm under the impression that a a whole lot of the infantry's job has been disregarded. One of the biggest tank killers during Barbarossa would be the good old infantry, using Teller mines, teller mines on planks, bundle grenades, or other large handheld explosives. Indeed, quite often, the germans would break armor/infantry unity, and isolate the tanks. And as mentioned, T-34 had very poor visibility, meaning infantry could easily sneak up on them. So yeah, tons of losses are to the credit of things other than AT guns.
Here's a question for you: If better tank treads are a big part of the reason for the obsolescence of the Christie system, who (designer, country, etc.) led development in tread design?
The whole concept of the Christy suspension was to be able to run without tracks on roads. The T-34 dropped that function along with the drive to the wheels.
ahh yes nerds... and the cristy can change its track so it can go on wheels and... you know what happened when there's a wheel in a tank fight **eurobeat intensify**
The biggest reason for Christie suspension fading away from use was that it required a significant volume that was stolen from the crewmembers, decreasing crew efficiency drastically, and it didn't work on heavier tanks. So you have a light tank that needs to be big, thus being a big target and less stealthy, not what you want. It worked fine on BT tanks because they carried a 45 and almost no armor. I guess you're asking that in regards to the capabilities of the christie to switch to roadwheels ? This capability was never anything more than a gadget, if you aren't moving your tanks to the front via train and instead driving them around, you've already made a mistake somewhere, and taking off the tracks and putting them back on is not a quick job either, so it's useless once you're on the front.
The US entered the war with the best tank tread design because their pins were bushed in rubber while others used pins with bearings that required periodic inspection and regreasing. The Soviets used dry pins (no lube) so the pins and thru holes in the treads wore out fast. The US produced various track designs for use on different terrains with rubber pads for the rubber covered road wheels to roll on. The Germans changed tread designs to reduce weight and provide better traction. I believe the Soviets used the same tread designs that their tanks had when introduced with their short service life being due to the use of dry pins and poor production practices at the foundries where cast. The Germans switched over to using dry pins to eliminate the lengthy task of regreasing the pins. J. Walter Christie's fast tanks had the suspension struts with shock absorbers mounted at an angle on the outside of the hull for easier servicing. The US Army had Christie design a "combat car" to their specs that had the struts inside the hull that was made wider because the struts took up space inside the fighting compartment. Christie sold those plans to the British and Soviets after the US Army gave the contract to produce the combat car to American-LaFrance (they only made fire engines up to that time). I don't know what the Brits used as struts. The Soviets stood theirs straight up using long coil springs with no shocks to reduce costs. The absence of shock absorbers made the T-34 rock up and down when traveling over uneven terrain at a fair rate of speed and would continue to rock for a while after coming to a stop to fire the main gun. The German tankers noticed that early on so tried to get the T-34's to chase after them so the Soviets would be sitting ducks after coming to a stop. Later in the war the Soviets added shock absorbers to control the rocking. The US Army ditched the Christie suspension because it took up too much room inside the hull, was time consuming to maintain/repair and couldn't withstand a prolonged pounding like the vertical volute suspension could.
Thank you, Tovaritch. Frankly speaking, some can't make clear the distiction between a T-34 and a KV-1 or a samovar. This makes my life a lot easier when rowing against the tides of ignorance and misconception while dicussing tanks over tea. And such a good choice of music too!
I think organizational (i.e., command, communications, logistics) failures plagued the early T-34 operations more than anything else throughout much of 1941-42. This is glaringly evident in much of the battles involving Soviet mechanized corps launching counterattacks against Army Group South in the opening battle. The Soviets had over 3,000 tanks vs. much smaller German tank inventory (only about 1/10 of what the Soviets had mustered), but much of the Soviet mechanized corps evaporated, although this apparent disaster succeeded in deflecting the 1st Panzer Group away from Kiev. Oh yeah ...... the question of how much angle to slope has been a major philosophical question for both tank designers and crews. I think sloping can be more challenging for tanks than for turretless AFVs: the need to have a turret that provides adequate working space. I think comparing the turrets of T-34/76 and T-34/85 is illustrative; the latter is boxier than the former, but roomier. Using the boogie-man ... *ahem* ... super-tank T-34 as a universal excuse by the Germans, while industrial dislocation by the Soviets: understandable. One of the constants in human history: the need for easy excuses when something inconvenient needs to be "explained". ;)
I remember reading a CIA analysis of a North Korean T-34-85 and they were shocked to find that many internal components were of very high quality aluminum and rubber and that the armor was of better quality than even our tanks.
@@andersonrobotics5608 He's talking about the Korean war, and there were Shermans and Pershings there, Pershings were extremely short on maintenance since they hadn't been used in years and Shermans... well, are Shermans, composite armour wasn't even a thing yet
Love your analysis and presentation, as always, Sir. Favorite comment - "brutally and efficiently built". Pretty good description of Soviet design and construction!
You forgot to state than one of the weaknest of the T-34 was the lack of radio communications with the rest of the tanks that lasted for many years during the war that made the tank commander to have signal the other tanks with flags what made them exposed and slower in that task.
Well, that was not really a fault of the design. The T-34 was intended (and the interior designed) to have radios in every tank, it's just that the Soviet electronics industry was in its infancy and couldn't keep up with tank production, so more often than not just command tanks got radios.
@@ProfessorPesca That's less incentive for WG to keep running them, as they're part of an ad campaign. Going "the vids are an expense that don't help us" is a very good way to get them pulled.
@@DuraLexSedLex tbh, better to just subscribe directly to Nick's channel, The_Chieftain. Although, I guess Nick having WG's backing for higher production value presentations is still nice.
If I recall correctly, quite a significant number of T-34s were lost due to equipment failures early/mid in production. I found this out when Wargaming claimed that it (the T-34) was the most reliable tant in WWII. and while from what I found, that's not exactly wrong, but things like the Sherman that the Americans had were recounted as being much more reliable
The T-34? Reliable? HA Maybe if it was built to specs it would've been, but it wasn't. There is a reason why most 34 crews carried an extra gearbox into battle with them,
"1000 KVs" in 1941?! As of June 22, 1941, the Red Army had no more than 300 KVs of both types (KV-1 and KV-2). There was nearly zero KV production after Germans invaded the USSR in June, so there 's no way Red Army could lose 1000 (!!!) KVs in 1941.
People have been complaining that the T-34 was poorly made and therefore it sucked. In some way, it is true. It was poorly made but does that make it bad? No and there might be a logical and also, a concrete proof on why they built it that way. The Soviets actually realized that the new T-34s were actually feared by the Germans and with their T-26s already proving their weakness in Spain while losing so many during the initial phase of Barbarossa, they need this new tank quick. However, losses were extremely high when the Germans caught the Russians off guard so in order to increase production rate, whatever that could cut short the production times was used as long as it holds on the battlefield. Welds isn't fully welded but it holds? Send it. Doesn't have a co-axial but the main gun works? Send it. Engine doesn't last more than 300 miles? Who cares about that when tank lasts only 15mins estimate during combat? Send it. These are the few problems that plagued the T-34s but the problems lile missing equipment or bad welds only lasted till the F-34 variant mostly. By the time the T-34-85 happened, situation has improved and because of all the stop-gap measures the Kremlin pulled, they managed to outproduce the Germans and even with shoddy build quality, these tanks flipped the tide of battle, especially in Kursk and Kharkov which in turn gave the factory workers time to improve the designs and by late 1944, most T-34-85s had full welded chassis, full working equipment and tons of spare engines and gearboxes to lead them to Poland and Berlin without any fear.
@@demrandom ? Price had very little to do with it. Did being the most expensive tank in WW2 make Tiger ii the best? No. Even compared to the IS3 the Pershing was deemed effective, and both of those vehicles had pretty bad records. We can completely remove the Pershing from the situation though. Of the 119 tank battles logged by the US in Korea, 50% involved M4A3E8's with 24 T34s destroyed to 7 Shermans.
@@SCM223 Same logic the germans had beating the soviets tank v tank. If your T-34's cost peanuts and your pricy tank costs a bunch, you can't field too many of them, and the conversion rate for for example panthers and T-34's, whilst it was in the panthers favor significantly, it was very much not so in price ( 3:1 kill ratio for panthers but on a 1:20 price ratio). The only reason the germans even built tigers was to protect their remaining experienced tank crews since they had lost so many pushing into the soviet union, they were pretty much out of them altogether. The pershing was comparable in cost to the IS-2, as well in armor and speed (the major factor being the IS-2's slow reloads). Of course the pershing will look good vs t-34s, the same way t-34's look good going up against pz1's- they're not in the same class of cost, weight, speed, anything really. M4A3E8's 1 v 1 would have a similarly poor track record against an IS-2, assuming similar crew training (which they obviously did not have).
"Armor steel had a special place in these shipments, especially in the production of tanks, self-propelled guns and other equipment. Mobilization reserve of armored steel in the Soviet Union before the war was small and did not cover even 6-month industry needs. According to some data, 525.4 thousand tons of rolled steel of all types was delivered to the USSR under Lend-Lease. Every month, the country received about half of average amount of Soviet production of armored steel. Special steel for gun barrel drifting was also delivered." page 118 Food and other strategic deliveries to the Soviet Union under the Lend-Lease Act, 1941-1945 pdf
I have always wondered why the commanders hatch on the turret of the T34 opened forward. I assume the commander can see over it when opened, and it would give him some protection, but it just looks weird.
This is an excellent format ! Short, very catchy and attractive and both instructing and interesting. Animation are fluid, rhythm is good, facts are pertinent and supported by number, it's really good ! One remark though, the repetition of the panel "5 things people don't understand about the T-34" is redundant. Something different for each transition would carry a better effect.
Depends who you listen to. The quality of construction, according to a number of sources, varied wildly. It wasn't just a matter of quality, it was often a matter of tanks missing important systems entirely. The common perception is that the T-34 was a simple, cheap design made for mass production, but it's arguable that it was more a case of a highly engineered and expensive design produced cheaply and frequently shoddily.
And for an even earlier example look for fortresses build from 16th century onwards, where meters thick sloped walls have been developed to withstand shots from a bombard ;)
@@thomasbaagaardVery true, Except perhaps King Harold II, who for some reason liked his men carrying around big kites. But in fairness it's popularly believed he was shot through the vision slit.
@@thomasbaagaard Yep medieval plate armor most notable the helmet and breastplates were designed so strikes would glance off. Sloped and oblique impact angles has been known for centuries. The myth doesn't even make any sense.
The comment about them being badly built is accurate. They were at the start of the war. The tanks were designed for numbers so as long as they had enough they could break down because there would be more coming. When they could they refined the engines and transmissions to work better and for longer and increased as quality parts increased in quantity
@@EdyAlbertoMSGT3 But my 4th grade history teacher made no mention of it and said it was the immune to anything the Germans could throw at it. I learned later that this was not true.
I've always been intrigued by the sprocket design, or the way the T-34 drives the track via the sprocket in the middle of the track not by cogs on the outside. I haven't been able to find any documentation on pro's / con's of this design, however. I thought maybe this would be covered here, but so far not. Great article in any event, upvoted.
One thing the Soviet military designers were good at was making hardware that worked when used by poorly trained soldiers. The T34 was a decent tank, but more importantly it could be built quickly in large numbers and was easy to use (as much as a tank can be).
"Another event hit us like a ton of bricks: the first Russian T-34 tanks appeared! The amazement was complete. How could it happen that up there, they did not know about the existence of this excellent tank? The T-34, with its good armor, perfect shape and magnificent 76.2-mm long-barreled gun, thrilled everyone, and all German tanks were afraid of it until the end of the war. " Otto Carius "Tigers in the mud. Memories of a German tankman "
Ohoo that ll be blood bath :D And I already see allies fappers will say transmission and final drive boring memes, and who trying to argue with them, they just gonna say: do not cry wehrabooo.
During Jan 1940, Koshkin, the designer of the T 34, drove his 2 prototype tanks to Moscow, where they were presented to Stalin. (1200 miles) They were then driven up to Finland where they used the L11 76 mm gun to destroy captured Finish bunkers, a feat that neither German 37mm, nor the Russian 45 mm gun could accomplish. They then drove back to Kharkov via Minsk and Kiev, rather impressive for a tank that was unrealiable, as Chieftan claims. Over 2500 miles.
And you think it's possible that this propaganda exercise is a reflection of reality in the front line? Also, a "prototype" is not going to be the same as a vehicle made in a factory in wartime production.
You need to rad more about how that feat was accomplished. A lot of work for mechanics, spares etc. It was almost a miracle. Sherman's could do it much easier. What is also important parts of Sherman's were interchangeable but for russian tanks it was try and go. Maybe it would fit... A nightmare. Best regards
I guess you could say, the T34 was the tank that met the needs of the Soviet Army similar to the Sherman meeting the needs of the American Army. The Germans, on the other hand, were too szchiophrenic to figure out what tank best met their needs so just kept jumping from tank to tank to tank.
During WW2 USSR did build T-26, BT-5, T-60, T-70, T-28, T-34, KV-1, IS-2 (and assult gun and tank destroyers based on the hulls) and tanks that was made in smale numbers like T-44, KV-13 and did have crazy pre-war tanks like T-35 and tele-tank.
@@kirgan1000 you have a point but look at the variety among the German Armor and the fact that they were producing two tanks to fill the roll of their main tank, the PZ IV, and the Panther. Both were capable and by churning out both you create a logistic, maintenance, and manufacturing nightmare. For the most part the Soviets stuck to the T34 and just upgraded it just as the Western Allies relied on the Sherman. Those were the true workhorse tanks.
@@KnifeChatswithTobias the panzer 4 was in production that long because they couldnt produce more panthers. The germans also tried a different approach than ussr and USA. They tried to always have a better tank because they simply could not out produce anyone material wise. The Panther was supposed to be the german T34 or Sherman, but they went full "german engineering" on it and you know the rest
@@zamlat8118 good question. the thing is they couldnt. If the would have been able to mass produce tanks in similar numbers to america for example, they would have gotten that steel from somewhere. remember there also was a steel shortage. I should have added to my comment that one of the reasons for the panzer 4 production into the late war was the fact that the germans couldnt build panther production lines easily, but the panzer 4 production lines still existed so they had to build them or they wouldnt have any tanks except for a few panthers.
Yes, but the 37mm was actually fine for fighting most Soviet armoured equipment until about mid-end 1943, when they finally got the remnants of the pre-WWII equipment out of the TO&E of front-line units, as T34 production finally got to the point of being enough. There were a LOT of BT-series, T26s', armoured cars and other lightly armed vehicles in the 1941 inventory, and the 37mm continued to serve on the German 251/10 until very late-was, when it was sometimes replaced with the /17, which carried a PzII turret instead
You don't need to cut clean through a tank to "knock" it out of action. A remarkable thing about battle-scarred WW2 tanks is the abundance of smaller caliber impacts around the turret ring area and track area. In contrast to some tanks with giant holes in the center of the frontal hull.
There's also the simple fact that the early T-34 wasn't that good. They rapidly upgraded the armor and other aspects of it, but the initial example encountered by the Germans would have been underwhelming.
2 ปีที่แล้ว +2
And they were also there were problems with heat threating wich caused armor to be very hard and easy to splinter most of war time(especially early war) t-34s were knocked out by non penetrating hits
And V2 diesel engine is indestructible. There was a T34 in the local military school, standing as a monument for nearly 50 years. They made it run....with its original engine. Now, it's the only operational T34 in this particular part of the world 😊
Another reason why such small guns could damage the T-34 was due to the over hardened steel and the poor welds (at the time of WW2) that's why you can see T-34s with cracked holed within the armour instead of the regular bullet hole
The whole Russian army could have used radios earlier. A shortage in vacuum tubes not made up till late by American lend lease made that shortfall impossible to correct
@@tacomas9602 I believe that if this turns into something people watch ,they will cover most famous tanks (it's low cost ,low effort ,but good quality content ,that happens to both make them money and advertises their game ,why would they not)
If you have a time to kill, look up Chieftains talks myths of American armour and the Sherman development (plus his tank destroyer videos). You can get a lot of that stuff.
The main advantages of T-34 were its time of production, simplicity of production, simplicity of required materials and being so - cost, and lastly all of that for a machine capable of solving lots of tasks. Like mentioned in the video.
Can you make a part 2 talking about the following: Lack of good optics, contributing to less accuracy and vision as mentioned in this video. 2 man tank crew with no commander cupola again contributing to less vision and overworked crew as mentioned in the video. Lack of turret basket making the loader's job a nightmare. Poor quality of automotive components. It's often mentioned that the driver needed a hammer and "superhuman" strength to switch gears. Engines also reportedly often failed on long marches. Poor welds on the armor meaning the seams cracked often and easily. Lack of good and enough hatches decreasing crew survivability rates. Crews being generally untrained and the same people who produced the tank at the factories just jumped on it and went to the front. These are all of the points for now but I might add more a little bit later if new ones come up.
1) Lack of good optics is an overrated problem when it comes to accuracy. They couldn't spare the time to boresight the guns, often as not. 2) Not unusual for its time. 3) Again, not unusual for its time. 4) The heavy operational loads were as much a matter of technique and experience as anything else. 5) Welds were often done by unskilled workers because all the skilled ones were at the front. 6) Hatches were a problem for all tanks. The T-34 hatches were just a level worse than the others. 7) Myth. Certainly true they were poorly trained though. Hardly surprising when you consider the circumstances.
Hopefully the next video will be about a german tank, like the Tiger, to finally clarify that is was not as amazing and allpowerful as wehraboos believe?
@@fullgreys0n738 What misconceptions are there about the panzer IV? Other than it being overshadow by pop history by the Tiger and Panther heavy tanks.
I'm aware of some time during the Southern African Bush War, the reason why forgotten, three temporary 'displaced' Paras found a couple (three perhaps?) of abandoned T34's. They had much fun playing with, while at the same time learning how to operate them. Even more fun was had shooting the other/s out using their one of choice. They then drove back to base with the remaining tank. Apparently the Steering / Gearbox Controls were so hard to operate, that only the strongest of the three could do so. Needless to say, on their return, they were 'on the carpet' for destroying perfectly usable enemy equipment. Perhaps that's why the 34's were abandoned in the first place .. and the close proximity of the SADF.
The T-34/76 had several different guns through its service life. It's first gun in 1941 was the L-11, a short-barreled low-velocity weapon. After the war began a new model fitted with the F-34 gun was built, a longer-barreled higher-velocity weapon with greater armour penetrating capability. The American QF 75mm was a mid-velocity weapon roughly comparable to the F-34. Both guns were eventually left behind by advancing armour strengths and had to be replaced by weapons with greater armour penetration capability.
I've made basically the same comment about the M4 vs T-34, taking each as a whole, previously. T-34 is great, M4 is a death trap, blah, blah, then we get to Korea with the late WW2 models and they're both competitive with the other. Big difference during WW2 is that the T-34-85 went straight to the front while the M4a3e6 (with 76 mm gun M1) had several hundred languishing in depots in England because no one thought the bigger gun was going to be needed.
They were built under circumstances no other nation had to face. Not only was the country overrun but most of the skilled labour force was at the front. Emergency circumstances mean compromises.
With over 55,000 T-34's destroyed during the course of the war, the T-34's biggest distinction by far is that it is the most destroyed tank of all time. A record that will never be broken or be even close to being broken.
@@haroldfiedler6549 it's biggest distinction are the 84,070 T34s that were produced making it the second most produced tank in the world only beaten by the T 54/55 and by far the most produced tank of WW2.
@@ushikiii It's biggest distinction is how many were destroyed. It was poorly designed, poorly constructed, no radio so attacks could not be coordinated. Ergonomics were abysmal because it didn't have a turret basket. Tank management sucked big time due to a shortage of crew members. The main gun was incredibly weak due to its short, almost comical length. The turret was placed forward on the hull making upgrades to the main gun detrimental and ramming the gun tube a real problem. The Christie suspension used up a lot of interior space. The real question was not what was good about the T-34. Because there was nothing good about it. The question is answering how many bad things were wrong with the tank. And that list is a very long one.
@@haroldfiedler6549 nah that simply isnt true. The T 34 76s had good armour when they first came out. Not impregnable but they were better protected when compared to the Germans PZ4s and PZ3s when they first came out. The mobility of the tank was very good despite its armour being as effective as a KV1. It's not like they didn't plan the tank to not have radios and later in the war the majority. Yeah it made them extremely ineffective at times but every tank has pros and cons. And more of them later did get radios I hope you know. The gun was the most powerful on a tank when it came out. It's in no way weak in fact it is imo the second strongest point of the T-34 the only reason why it could be considered bad was it's bad reload time but it had great pen and HE rounds for infantry. Idealistically the Soviets would have liked their all crews to be fully trained on how to use a T 34 but that wasn't possible because the Germans were attacking deep into their nations. That isn't a fault of the tank that's the fault of, like you said, the crew management and the lack of trained men. Later in the war the T 34 crews got better since the ones that survived became battle harden. The Christies suspension made it as quick as it was. It's not better than the torsion bar system but it's not bad and the space inside the tank wasn't bad in the hull, the main thing holding it back was the space in the turret. The chieftain is a large dude, don't take the war time Soviets to be anything close to his height. The welds are bad because they don't have to be good, he literally said that in the video. You are just pointed every defect of the T 34 with out pointed out it's strengths nor it's improvements in the war. Like you can explain why a tank is bad with that bias approach. They used that tank throughout the war and didn't change, if it was bad they would have developed a new tank quickly but they didn't because they didn't have time nor did they need to because the tank did it's job.
Well done! Numbers can be used to "prove" just about anything you want them to. Facts are another matter entirely. It's too bad all of our Russian Front history came from the Germans for so long. Had the Soviets been more forthcoming with their data after the war our views today would be much different. And more accurate. It's been decades since the files were opened and yet we're still struggling to get the full picture. Ironically, the West's appreciation for the Soviet's sacrifice and valor is in high esteem now. Had they been more honest with us right after the war, that esteem could have prevailed throughout the Cold War and served them well. Thankyou for your work Mr. Moran.
Oh yes, my mother always asks about the misconceptions around the T-34 when we are at the table
Especially if you are sitting down to a dinner of Sauerbraten
🤣👍
You have a cool mom
Yeah but everyone knows your Mums a Panther fangirlie.
Well she is a well informed woman I am sure.
The KV might have been known better at the start of Barbarossa in 1941 as they had been used against the Finnish during the Winter War. So when a tough tank was encountered the Germans might have just said “it’s a KV!” when it was really a T-34. Sort of how the Western allies tended to see Tigers everywhere even though they were a somewhat rare tank by 1944.
Most of the Shermans were killed by the Panzer IV, but the later model IV's with the side skirts and especially the turret skirt did look like a Tiger at some distance.
Darn good point !!!!! 🙂
ITS A KING TIGER RUNNNN
Using a suspension different from everyone else must be a mandate of British tank design.
Lay back in your steel coffin & think of the mother Queen of the colony
Different suspension ... and armor ... and primary anti-tank round (hello HESH) ... but other than that, all is normal.
And after all, the Brit GUN itself is spectacular, just look at how many other nations (USA, Germany...) use variants of Royal Ordinance tubes.
I thought not working properly was the key element of british design:)
@@cryptobox128 Is that why anyone with any sense in the modern era is building licensed copies of Rheinmetall's guns? And not the rifled-bore relic the brits keep on hand so they can get rid of their HESH stockpiles.
@@fulgrimventris8506 Well more to do with Royal Ordinance not being around any more as a significant factor.
Great vid mate. I got upclose with the T34-85 out here in Australia, as you say, they weren't poorly built, by boy are they rough! When we asked for a T34, the Russians shipped us one, complete with ammunition for our war memorial, nice of them, ay?
Well, what good is a tank with out ammo? The Russians do have a bit of a sense of humor.
What was the de-mill process like?
@@rus0004 As far as I know, it just needs a new clutch, not sure it was de-milled at all.
@@mattsmith7019 To display it here in Australia? Geez, I'd have thought that would be the first thing they did.
Where is it displayed?
@@rus0004 Last time I saw it, she was in storage at the Mitchell Complex of the Australian War Memorial. Out here, it's probably not running foul of any laws, after all if you own something which the ammunition is not available for, then it's classed as legal. That's how people own things like Bofors, tanks and other assorted artillery pieces. In any case, the AWM is owned by the government so I doubt she was de-milled.
Merry significant emotional event comrades!
I mean, i like Chieftain videos, but significant emotional event?
@@rhoetusochten4211 I don´'t know about you, but i would say that the celebration of someone that survived a significant emotional event is pretty much side by side with the celebration of the birth of our lord and savior RNGesus
Irish people are all Christians except for atheists, Atheists are the ones with strong beliefs about God.
An holy mountain of the God tree giving us his son Christ/Mars to us . . to you sir . . a good day
@@benwinter2420 The Queens staff just quit because they have been illegally detained from their children. Sometimes there are less casualties and sacrificing sons in war than in peaceful tyranny.
German tank commander 1940-41: every tank we encounter is a KV-1!
Allied tank commander 1944-45: every tank we encounter is a Panther/Tiger 2!
Sloped armour was used in battleships long before tanks, so it was very much an understood concept!
idk who in hell ever talked about that "nobody knew of sloped armor before t-34 rolled out"-idea? The sloped armor in t-34 is mentioned in the context that it was sloped on ALL sides without (or almost without) any death-traps. Also it's utter nonsense to pick only one of its concept and design features and point out afterwards that "they didn't invent it". Nobody said that soviets INVENTED those feautres. However they managed to COMBINE them into ONE tank. Like first IPhone combined all the good stuff in one smartphone which int he end worked as it was intended and promised.
T-34 was a good tank because of ALL its features COMBINED. Maneuverable, endurable, well armored, well armed, upgradable, cheap to produce, easy to manufacture, conveyor belt production, easy to train crews, easy logistics.
@@cccpredarmy
That's true of the T34-84.
The original T34 was kinda garbage, the reliability was just not there yet.
If memory serves correct the standard Pak AT gun the Nazis dragged around couldn't penetrate the front upper or lower plate.
Obviously an 88 goes in one side and out the other.
Oh, the T34 had sightly overworked crew of 4, which hurt the fightability of the tank.
The T34/76 had a crew of 4 and a small 2 man turret:
T34/76. T34/85
Turret 1 Loader. Loader
Turret 2. Commander/ Commander
Gunner.
Turrett 3. n/a. Gunner
Tank 4. Driver. Driver
Tank 5. Bow Gunner? Bow Gunner
@@MostlyPennyCat Reliability is never there when something technically complex is introduced. You can see this in software too.
@@cccpredarmy Honestly the History Channel was saying the T-34 was the first tank with sloped Armor. back when they made bad history documentaries rather than UFO videos.
@@MrChickennugget360 And how shall we call others who quote History Channel as a reliable source to make their argument or counterargument more valid?
I don’t even play world of tanks anymore, I’m only subscribed for the enormous amount of knowledge inside chieftains head.
The germans was using gold against t-34
Yeah but only 5% of their shots were gold.
Dam gold noobs ;)
theu were gold spamming like the machine gun's of tank
5 Things People Don't Understand About the T-34
*"Why does it have health bars?"*
Conceptual model.
Imagine getting linked to this and within the first 20 seconds you're called "lesser informed". Beautiful.
There used to be an almost mythical appreciation for the T34, that it supposedly scared the pants off the invading Germans who didn’t know what to do once they saw their shells careening off of this magically sloped armor. Truth be told, I used to say things like that myself. And the Germans may not have been all that impressed anyway, seeing how they destroyed them by the bushel.
But it was indeed crude, more like an axe than a rapier. There wasn’t even a turret basket, so the already overworked loader had to be mindful where his feet were as the turret traversed, lest he lose them. And the early periscopes weren’t even glass, but of polished steel. Then there’s the matter of the 76.2mm main gun’s ability to penetrate German frontal armor, when in fact it was about as powerful as the Sherman’s “anemic” 75mm.
Trust me, the periscope is made from glass. It wouldn't work well as a periscope it if wasn't. Steel is just not transparent enough to light to work well as a lens. What you are talking about is the _reflector_ , the mirror. And polished metal is a standard way of making mirrors. How do you make a mirror out of just glass? You can make them by putting a reflective backing onto a sheet of glass, but glass itself won't reflect much. And it is my understanding that polished metal is superior, not inferior, to a thin layer stuck to a sheet of glass.
Not having a turret basket was not unusual for the time, and is just not that big a deal. That is like saying "the transmission didn't even have syncromesh"! This was in the late 30s, no one was surprised by that. As for the gun, the M4 Medium's gun was never "anemic" until they started encountering lots of Panthers and Tigers in the Ardennes counter offensive. Against any tank from before 1944, it was plenty powerful, and so was the 76.2mm. What people confuse about the T-34 is they assign the reputation it rightly received in the early part of the war to the entire war. In 1942 it _was_ very powerful, a good tank. It was still pretty good in 1945 due to the bigger gun and turret. But it was no longer as good as it was in 1942, compared to what it was facing. Pretty much the same as the M4.
The Germans may have destroyed a lot of T-34s, it was not invincible, the thing is that they found it a lot more difficult than they had expected, which is important. That effects your plans, your time tables, you need to find bigger guns or take more time and effort to do it. The Allies also destroyed a lot of Tigers and Panthers, but that doesn't mean they were no good. For that matter, the Germans destroyed a lot of M4s, but that also doesn't mean it was no good.
You don't know the history of the war very well. The events were unfolding continuously, and time must be taken into account. "They destroyed them in batches" not earlier than 43, and at the beginning of the war it made an impression, and the Germans tried to copy it (because the T34 was clearly better than the Germans of that time).
bruh 1 view? never been so early, WITNESS ME NICHOLAS
So shiny. So chrome.
@@WorldoftanksNAarchived
thats my lad ;)
@@julmdamaslefttoe3559 Thou art witnessed.
@@TheChieftainsHatch this is indeed a significant emotional event
@@WorldoftanksNAarchived? So what?
Great video, a nice fill in for 'Inside the Chieftain's Hatch' since those cant be filmed right now. Looking forward to more!
I loved the point on the T-34 being brutally/efficiently built more than poorly. Absolutely!
The Soviets always built to the lowest common denominator, and they even found ways of lowering that people in the West couldn’t think of.
they didn't expect the tanks to have much life expectancy, so they did it efficient enough for fullfil its function
@@ironmanos It was designed so that everything on the tank broke at about the same time, which was the vehicle's average life expectancy. Anything that wasn't expected to last that long was strengthened so it would, and anything that lasted notably longer than that was weakened to save time, material, and money
@@filmandfirearms The Soviets were the OG implementers of planned obsolescence.
@@hailexiao2770 It was hardly a new concept. The Russians just took it the extreme. Same as with sloped armor. Not a new concept by any means, one that had been used by every nation to some extent, but the Russians took it the extreme
its armor is made out of an early version of stalinium. this was flawed, leaving the tank weakened, but was necessary for the development of the magical armor we all know and love on later model tanks.
Oh, I thought the armor was made of leninum on the earlier models. Thanks for the info.
@@hermanspaerman3490 You are both correct.
"Stalin" actually means "Man Of Steel." So stalinium would be a mixture of steel and human flesh???
@@TheGreatAmphibian yes. stalin's flesh.
It is a good thing that joke never ever gets old or stale, so it is funny no matter how many times people repeat it on TH-cam videos. Hah hah, "stalinium"! WOT tanks is biased towards Soviet tanks! Oh, you are killing me! So funny! Almost like I never heard it before a thousand times!
I remember the quality depending on what factory made the tank, some saw important components as not as necessary, and unfortunately the worst factory made the most t-34s, and by most I mean around 50% partially cuz they made them to a very low standard it saved a lot of time when making them. thought they got better and the quality improved there is a lot of nuance to it that a short "World of Tanks" video can't explain and a longer "Chieftain" video is needed.
Glad you mentioned that! Some things like these fet overlooked so often.
Helpful series of
observations.
I think Kama on the Volga was one of the more
famous manufacturing plants,aswell as
Stalingrad.The fact that they were
Ordered to be made in 1934 does
show some degree of forward
planning.
The Russian High
Command must have had
some
serious misgivings about
German intentions despite
the signing of the Molotov
Ribbentrop pact Pact
in the late 1930’s.
With furthur reading the tactic
patterns in the field were
a type of replay from training
in joint sorte’s during the
1920’s when there were
officer exchanges aswell
as joint training initiatives,
on the part of both
countries!
To learn more of this,worth
chasing up some of field
Marshall Rommell’s
writings!
One thing to add, the T-34s weren't horribly built, they were built efficiently like you explained. However, the steel they used for the armor was heat treated. That alone would not be a problem, heat treating increases the hardness of steel, however they over-treated the steel by such a ridiculous amount that the steel would sometimes shatter instead of bending when a sheel hit the tank, which sent shrapnel flying everywhere on the inside of the tank. At least, that's what I've heard from a certain youtuber who did a video on this tank.
The slope armored belief always baffled me lol. Must have come from people who had only learned about the panzer IV before learning about the T-34
Maybe T-34 wasnt the first to have sloped armour but the first one to use it intentionally as armour multiplier.Yes even some ww1 tanks have slopes but are propably just the design
@@Feffdc 1) it would be rather surprising that sloped armor was "accidentally" or even just incidentally applied to early tank designs when the benefits of sloped armor were well known and had been applied in warship design way before tanks were even a thing.
2) it may just be a matter of wording, but contrary to popular belief designing a tank with sloped armour doesn't magically increase the effective thickness of its armour (you need the same amount of material to achieve a given thickness regardless of the angle), its main use is messing with the velocity vector of an incoming shell, causing it to either bounce off or penetrate at a less optimal angle.
@@Feffdc Goes all the way back to the CSS Virginia, which them "Damned Yankees" insisted on still calling the USS "Merrimack", even though "our" side raised and refitted it, fair and square. Note the "sloped" armor which proved highly resistant to Union naval guns. Do also note that the turret of its most well-known opponent, the USS Monitor, was a cylinder with vertical sides rather than a conical turret, as that design had a wide aspect ratio as it was. Still, the Monitor's gun turret was relatively small and likewise shed hits from the Virginia. The Monitor relied mainly on being partly submerged, with it's main deck practically awash, to avoid hostile fire. Of course, won't do much good against mines, which were also called "torpedoes" in those times.
@@thethirdman225 The frontal armor of the initial T-34 did prove to be a shot trap, though. In fact, there is an account of a 37mm Pak 36 crew knocking out a T-34 by a round impacting under the turret, not penetrating it but still jamming it, rendering the tank inoperable. What's really interesting about THAT particular encounter was that it was the 23rd round fired by the German AT crew! Given that a proficient gun crew could at best get off five shots a minute, this means that for nearly FIVE minutes, the T-34 failed to acquire and engage the puny enemy AT gun that was engaging it! It would cause one to wonder if the T-34 was that difficult to operate, or simply the crew was that badly trained!
The trouble with comparing technical details of AFVs and counter-measures is that they alone don't necessarily predict the outcome of battles. There are such things as morale, training, logistics, command, and doctrine. Israeli PM Ariel Sharon, himself quite the tanker in his early days, professed that in their battles with their Arab opponents, had they switched equipment, the outcome scarcely would have been different. That Israel itself re-purposed and used captured enemy hardware quite successfully give credence to Sharon's boast.
@@selfdo ALL tanks have shot traps. The one you refer to is near universal. The first Tiger to be captured was the result of the British disabling the turret ring with a 6 pounder in North Africa. The Panther added a lower skirt to the mantlet to reduce the likelihood of a shot going under.
But if you compare the sloped armour Nick Moran refers to on tanks like the Matilda II with the T-34, you’ll see that there are far fewer places for a round to be trapped than on a Matilda.
This is why this point is frankly boneheaded. If you consider sloped armour only from that perspective and ignore the reduced number of facets and shot traps on the T-34, as Moran does, then you ignore the reason it was considered revolutionary in the first place.
I would like to thank you for the assistance in the arguments that inevitably develope when our modeling group gets together.
Yeah you gotta keep a lid on things when modeling groups get together or they spiral out of control. Anything can happen then. 😀
Did you learn anything about the T-34 that you didn't already know?
@@danam0228 understandable as they used the same gun. They probably described the KV as a heavy tank with a 76mm Main armament and with something like 30t even the T-34 was quite large, heavy and well armored for the time.
Nope.
I didn't know T-34s were mistaken for KV-1s.
What music did y'all use in this video? I love it. I want to listen to it while I am playing tanks!
The explanation about build quality.
This format will do well with an episode on every tank ever.
**Bespectacled Hans gesturing at a photo of a KV-1**
Is this a T-34?
or a pz?
His point is that confusion reigned
*monocled
The Soviets lost droves and of tanks during Barbarossa, they needed new tanks QUICKLY. They needed SOMETHING, to fill the tank divisions. The t-34 was this “something” it was not necessarily a cheap design, BUT with multiple shortcuts and removal of different items that wasn’t necessary for it to work, made it extremely cheap. HOWEVER, these shortcuts made it impossible for the crew to use the full potential of the tank (no radios, sights, lights, ammunition racks, etc) and the quick production often showed itself as defects in quality of armor, transmission etc. BUT it filled the tank divisions and got the Soviets to Berlin. It worked, somehow, but calling it “good” as you would for a quality item, IS WRONG and quantity does NOT have a quality of its own. It just worked.
What the author didn`t mention was that the steel and manufacturing quality of the T34 did vary a lot.
- The steel quality of the soviets did vary more than ideal.
- The welding quality varied as well.
Quite often a brittle steel or welding quality made a 37mm grenade pierce thru the armor that should not.
This is similar to the Panther/Tiger at the end of the war. In this case the alloy materials were that scarce in the alloy and the allowed tolerance that small that in cases the steel became brittle and whole plates broke.
Yes and different factories built to different standards. He briefly touched on it but for repairs that was a major issue
@@bingobongo1615 All nations at war faced this issue and you face it quite often in modern vehicles as well....When components from different suppliers are used.
That's a total bullshit made by wehraboos
Many of T-34 and KV was not lost because destroyed by Germans guns, but also destroyed by grenades etc. when sent to unprepared counterattacks without infantry and artilleries, and of course lot of them - maybe majority - abandoned when "appeared" without fuel, have less or more serious technical problem, disorganization of units, or other reasons, like when units feels "surrounded" etc...
honestly poor logistical support will wipe out tanks faster than any anti-tank weapon.
3:35 As Military History Visualized put it: "It's not CSI Stalingrad"
Good points raised here! I specially like the mention of the F-34 gun. Many forget about the poor thing, but it was a solid gun. As for the last point... well, a few more things were in a sorry state. The engine had a lot of troubles, barely getting past 100 km, and the final drive would make the Panther blush.
And the visibility! Shockingly bad. The first thing that the germans did when they pressed them into service was cut a hole into the turret roof and weld a cupola on.
@@kieranh2005 Absolutely. Poor guys were almost blind inside.
Regarding the "destruction by 5cm or less" talk: i'm under the impression that a a whole lot of the infantry's job has been disregarded.
One of the biggest tank killers during Barbarossa would be the good old infantry, using Teller mines, teller mines on planks, bundle grenades, or other large handheld explosives.
Indeed, quite often, the germans would break armor/infantry unity, and isolate the tanks.
And as mentioned, T-34 had very poor visibility, meaning infantry could easily sneak up on them.
So yeah, tons of losses are to the credit of things other than AT guns.
That's very true, but the common misconception isn't "nothing can kill it", it's more "no german tank gun can kill it"
and early T-34 lacked radio as standard, that contributes to bad situation awareness.
The most deadly weapon on the battlefield - the infantryman.
A long barrell 5 cm can kill a t/34.
Ridiculous.
Always good to see Nicholas, he is such a nice chap.
Here's a question for you: If better tank treads are a big part of the reason for the obsolescence of the Christie system, who (designer, country, etc.) led development in tread design?
Christie suspension was an American design that the USSR thought it could be useful, and bought the design in the mid 30s!!
The whole concept of the Christy suspension was to be able to run without tracks on roads. The T-34 dropped that function along with the drive to the wheels.
ahh yes nerds... and the cristy can change its track so it can go on wheels and... you know what happened when there's a wheel in a tank fight **eurobeat intensify**
The biggest reason for Christie suspension fading away from use was that it required a significant volume that was stolen from the crewmembers, decreasing crew efficiency drastically, and it didn't work on heavier tanks. So you have a light tank that needs to be big, thus being a big target and less stealthy, not what you want. It worked fine on BT tanks because they carried a 45 and almost no armor.
I guess you're asking that in regards to the capabilities of the christie to switch to roadwheels ? This capability was never anything more than a gadget, if you aren't moving your tanks to the front via train and instead driving them around, you've already made a mistake somewhere, and taking off the tracks and putting them back on is not a quick job either, so it's useless once you're on the front.
The US entered the war with the best tank tread design because their pins were bushed in rubber while others used pins with bearings that required periodic inspection and regreasing. The Soviets used dry pins (no lube) so the pins and thru holes in the treads wore out fast. The US produced various track designs for use on different terrains with rubber pads for the rubber covered road wheels to roll on. The Germans changed tread designs to reduce weight and provide better traction. I believe the Soviets used the same tread designs that their tanks had when introduced with their short service life being due to the use of dry pins and poor production practices at the foundries where cast.
The Germans switched over to using dry pins to eliminate the lengthy task of regreasing the pins.
J. Walter Christie's fast tanks had the suspension struts with shock absorbers mounted at an angle on the outside of the hull for easier servicing. The US Army had Christie design a "combat car" to their specs that had the struts inside the hull that was made wider because the struts took up space inside the fighting compartment. Christie sold those plans to the British and Soviets after the US Army gave the contract to produce the combat car to American-LaFrance (they only made fire engines up to that time). I don't know what the Brits used as struts. The Soviets stood theirs straight up using long coil springs with no shocks to reduce costs. The absence of shock absorbers made the T-34 rock up and down when traveling over uneven terrain at a fair rate of speed and would continue to rock for a while after coming to a stop to fire the main gun. The German tankers noticed that early on so tried to get the T-34's to chase after them so the Soviets would be sitting ducks after coming to a stop. Later in the war the Soviets added shock absorbers to control the rocking.
The US Army ditched the Christie suspension because it took up too much room inside the hull, was time consuming to maintain/repair and couldn't withstand a prolonged pounding like the vertical volute suspension could.
Thank you, Tovaritch. Frankly speaking, some can't make clear the distiction between a T-34 and a KV-1 or a samovar.
This makes my life a lot easier when rowing against the tides of ignorance and misconception while dicussing tanks over tea.
And such a good choice of music too!
I think organizational (i.e., command, communications, logistics) failures plagued the early T-34 operations more than anything else throughout much of 1941-42. This is glaringly evident in much of the battles involving Soviet mechanized corps launching counterattacks against Army Group South in the opening battle. The Soviets had over 3,000 tanks vs. much smaller German tank inventory (only about 1/10 of what the Soviets had mustered), but much of the Soviet mechanized corps evaporated, although this apparent disaster succeeded in deflecting the 1st Panzer Group away from Kiev.
Oh yeah ...... the question of how much angle to slope has been a major philosophical question for both tank designers and crews. I think sloping can be more challenging for tanks than for turretless AFVs: the need to have a turret that provides adequate working space. I think comparing the turrets of T-34/76 and T-34/85 is illustrative; the latter is boxier than the former, but roomier.
Using the boogie-man ... *ahem* ... super-tank T-34 as a universal excuse by the Germans, while industrial dislocation by the Soviets: understandable. One of the constants in human history: the need for easy excuses when something inconvenient needs to be "explained". ;)
I remember reading a CIA analysis of a North Korean T-34-85 and they were shocked to find that many internal components were of very high quality aluminum and rubber and that the armor was of better quality than even our tanks.
Sounds more like NK propaganda than a CIA report.
when was the analysis made because i highly doubt any form of T-34 armor would be better than modern composite armor
@@andersonrobotics5608 He's talking about the Korean war, and there were Shermans and Pershings there, Pershings were extremely short on maintenance since they hadn't been used in years and Shermans... well, are Shermans, composite armour wasn't even a thing yet
CIA Information Report Number 00-T-00061. Engineering Analysis of the Russian T34/85 Tank
Does make sense, its not a ww2 production T-34-85
Love your analysis and presentation, as always, Sir. Favorite comment - "brutally and efficiently built". Pretty good description of Soviet design and construction!
You forgot to state than one of the weaknest of the T-34 was the lack of radio communications with the rest of the tanks that lasted for many years during the war that made the tank commander to have signal the other tanks with flags what made them exposed and slower in that task.
Well, that was not really a fault of the design. The T-34 was intended (and the interior designed) to have radios in every tank, it's just that the Soviet electronics industry was in its infancy and couldn't keep up with tank production, so more often than not just command tanks got radios.
For the record, 'the chieftain' videos are the only reason I'm still playing WoT. All the other wargaming nonsense makes me not want to play it.
You can watch the video without playing World of Tanks tho....
@@ProfessorPesca That's less incentive for WG to keep running them, as they're part of an ad campaign. Going "the vids are an expense that don't help us" is a very good way to get them pulled.
I havent played WoT in like 2-3 months but watching this has really made me consider getting back into it
@@smokey3764 If grinding is your problem, I can tell you now it is 200% easier and faster to grind new tanks.
@@DuraLexSedLex tbh, better to just subscribe directly to Nick's channel, The_Chieftain. Although, I guess Nick having WG's backing for higher production value presentations is still nice.
If I recall correctly, quite a significant number of T-34s were lost due to equipment failures early/mid in production. I found this out when Wargaming claimed that it (the T-34) was the most reliable tant in WWII. and while from what I found, that's not exactly wrong, but things like the Sherman that the Americans had were recounted as being much more reliable
The T-34? Reliable? HA
Maybe if it was built to specs it would've been, but it wasn't. There is a reason why most 34 crews carried an extra gearbox into battle with them,
"1000 KVs" in 1941?! As of June 22, 1941, the Red Army had no more than 300 KVs of both types (KV-1 and KV-2). There was nearly zero KV production after Germans invaded the USSR in June, so there 's no way Red Army could lose 1000 (!!!) KVs in 1941.
He probably meant t-34. There were about 1640 t-34 and KV in 1941. Majority were on the western front (Europe).
People have been complaining that the T-34 was poorly made and therefore it sucked. In some way, it is true. It was poorly made but does that make it bad? No and there might be a logical and also, a concrete proof on why they built it that way.
The Soviets actually realized that the new T-34s were actually feared by the Germans and with their T-26s already proving their weakness in Spain while losing so many during the initial phase of Barbarossa, they need this new tank quick. However, losses were extremely high when the Germans caught the Russians off guard so in order to increase production rate, whatever that could cut short the production times was used as long as it holds on the battlefield.
Welds isn't fully welded but it holds? Send it. Doesn't have a co-axial but the main gun works? Send it. Engine doesn't last more than 300 miles? Who cares about that when tank lasts only 15mins estimate during combat? Send it.
These are the few problems that plagued the T-34s but the problems lile missing equipment or bad welds only lasted till the F-34 variant mostly. By the time the T-34-85 happened, situation has improved and because of all the stop-gap measures the Kremlin pulled, they managed to outproduce the Germans and even with shoddy build quality, these tanks flipped the tide of battle, especially in Kursk and Kharkov which in turn gave the factory workers time to improve the designs and by late 1944, most T-34-85s had full welded chassis, full working equipment and tons of spare engines and gearboxes to lead them to Poland and Berlin without any fear.
The t34-85 got slapped around by Pershings and E8's in Korea. Pershings...
@@SCM223 Given the price point difference, not that suprising. Roughly equal would be a normal pershing vs an IS-2.
@@demrandom ? Price had very little to do with it. Did being the most expensive tank in WW2 make Tiger ii the best? No. Even compared to the IS3 the Pershing was deemed effective, and both of those vehicles had pretty bad records. We can completely remove the Pershing from the situation though. Of the 119 tank battles logged by the US in Korea, 50% involved M4A3E8's with 24 T34s destroyed to 7 Shermans.
@@SCM223 Same logic the germans had beating the soviets tank v tank. If your T-34's cost peanuts and your pricy tank costs a bunch, you can't field too many of them, and the conversion rate for for example panthers and T-34's, whilst it was in the panthers favor significantly, it was very much not so in price ( 3:1 kill ratio for panthers but on a 1:20 price ratio). The only reason the germans even built tigers was to protect their remaining experienced tank crews since they had lost so many pushing into the soviet union, they were pretty much out of them altogether.
The pershing was comparable in cost to the IS-2, as well in armor and speed (the major factor being the IS-2's slow reloads). Of course the pershing will look good vs t-34s, the same way t-34's look good going up against pz1's- they're not in the same class of cost, weight, speed, anything really.
M4A3E8's 1 v 1 would have a similarly poor track record against an IS-2, assuming similar crew training (which they obviously did not have).
@@demrandom I think you're getting too much information from video games.
loving this series already, quick message and neutrally told, let's hope this neutrality holds to the american tanks
He maintains the neutrality throughout. Watch his video about the creation of the M4 also the one on the Pershing
@@glengearhart5298 yeah, he always makes it clear that every tank design involves a bunch of trade-offs
There was nothing neutral about this and no, you don’t have to be pro-Soviet or anti whatever to see it.
"Armor steel had a special place in these shipments, especially in the production of tanks, self-propelled guns and other equipment. Mobilization reserve of armored steel in the Soviet Union before the war was small and did not cover even 6-month industry needs. According to some data, 525.4 thousand tons of rolled steel of all types was delivered to the USSR under Lend-Lease. Every month, the country received about half of average amount of Soviet production of armored steel. Special steel for gun barrel drifting was also delivered." page 118
Food and other strategic deliveries to the Soviet Union under the Lend-Lease Act, 1941-1945 pdf
I have always wondered why the commanders hatch on the turret of the T34 opened forward. I assume the commander can see over it when opened, and it would give him some protection, but it just looks weird.
You just solved a subject sure to come up at Thanksgiving dinner. Thanks, Nick.
so, when we should expect a video about Tiger?
Thanks for the suggestion, we'll add the Tiger to the list as well.
You have taken your Graphics to a whole new level. Thanks for the excellent video.
This is an excellent format ! Short, very catchy and attractive and both instructing and interesting. Animation are fluid, rhythm is good, facts are pertinent and supported by number, it's really good !
One remark though, the repetition of the panel "5 things people don't understand about the T-34" is redundant. Something different for each transition would carry a better effect.
Lazerpigs video on it goes even further in depth. its amazing that the ussr allowed so many shortcuts in the production of it.
Outstanding video and presentation.
Very entertaining and fun to watch! Kudos to the new series.
Depends who you listen to. The quality of construction, according to a number of sources, varied wildly. It wasn't just a matter of quality, it was often a matter of tanks missing important systems entirely. The common perception is that the T-34 was a simple, cheap design made for mass production, but it's arguable that it was more a case of a highly engineered and expensive design produced cheaply and frequently shoddily.
For an even earlier example of sloped armor, look at the Confederate States Ship Merrimack (CSS Virginia).
And for an even earlier example look for fortresses build from 16th century onwards, where meters thick sloped walls have been developed to withstand shots from a bombard ;)
or any random piece of medieval armor...
DaVinci's tank had sloped armor as well...
@@thomasbaagaardVery true, Except perhaps King Harold II, who for some reason liked his men carrying around big kites. But in fairness it's popularly believed he was shot through the vision slit.
@@thomasbaagaard Yep medieval plate armor most notable the helmet and breastplates were designed so strikes would glance off. Sloped and oblique impact angles has been known for centuries. The myth doesn't even make any sense.
The comment about them being badly built is accurate. They were at the start of the war. The tanks were designed for numbers so as long as they had enough they could break down because there would be more coming. When they could they refined the engines and transmissions to work better and for longer and increased as quality parts increased in quantity
I love how some still thought the T-34 was invincible against German guns. "Allow me to introduce myself" - the 88mm FLAK.
Nobody said it was inmune to the 88mm....
@@EdyAlbertoMSGT3 But my 4th grade history teacher made no mention of it and said it was the immune to anything the Germans could throw at it. I learned later that this was not true.
It's always a good day when there is a new Chieftain series.
Top notch ladies and gentlemen! :)
One of my dads mates said the T34 was ok but you had to be carefull you did not get injured by the interior casting dags that were seldom removed.
amazing video
especially the background music
that intro has so much stuff in it. "m3 lee most powerful?" lol
Triple KV-2
@@yeetadog KV-2-2-2*
@@neurofiedyamato8763 da tovarich)))))
I've always been intrigued by the sprocket design, or the way the T-34 drives the track via the sprocket in the middle of the track not by cogs on the outside. I haven't been able to find any documentation on pro's / con's of this design, however. I thought maybe this would be covered here, but so far not.
Great article in any event, upvoted.
One thing the Soviet military designers were good at was making hardware that worked when used by poorly trained soldiers. The T34 was a decent tank, but more importantly it could be built quickly in large numbers and was easy to use (as much as a tank can be).
"Another event hit us like a ton of bricks: the first Russian T-34 tanks appeared! The amazement was complete. How could it happen that up there, they did not know about the existence of this excellent tank? The T-34, with its good armor, perfect shape and magnificent 76.2-mm long-barreled gun, thrilled everyone, and all German tanks were afraid of it until the end of the war.
"
Otto Carius "Tigers in the mud. Memories of a German tankman "
...WELL DONE CHIEFTAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Great video as usual !!! (Retired Army Bradley Master Gunner!)
Finally, a video that addresses all of the noise! Next up, please do the Panther.
Ohoo that ll be blood bath :D And I already see allies fappers will say transmission and final drive boring memes, and who trying to argue with them, they just gonna say: do not cry wehrabooo.
He's already done the Panther. Do a search and you'll find it.
@@haroldfiedler6549 I've seen the inside the Chieftain's Hatch episode. Is there another?
@@haroldfiedler6549 That is old and has many miss information.
During Jan 1940, Koshkin, the designer of the T 34, drove his 2 prototype tanks to Moscow, where they were presented to Stalin. (1200 miles) They were then driven up to Finland where they used the L11 76 mm gun to destroy captured Finish bunkers, a feat that neither German 37mm, nor the Russian 45 mm gun could accomplish. They then drove back to Kharkov via Minsk and Kiev, rather impressive for a tank that was unrealiable, as Chieftan claims. Over 2500 miles.
And you think it's possible that this propaganda exercise is a reflection of reality in the front line?
Also, a "prototype" is not going to be the same as a vehicle made in a factory in wartime production.
You need to rad more about how that feat was accomplished. A lot of work for mechanics, spares etc. It was almost a miracle. Sherman's could do it much easier. What is also important parts of Sherman's were interchangeable but for russian tanks it was try and go. Maybe it would fit... A nightmare. Best regards
I guess you could say, the T34 was the tank that met the needs of the Soviet Army similar to the Sherman meeting the needs of the American Army. The Germans, on the other hand, were too szchiophrenic to figure out what tank best met their needs so just kept jumping from tank to tank to tank.
During WW2 USSR did build T-26, BT-5, T-60, T-70, T-28, T-34, KV-1, IS-2 (and assult gun and tank destroyers based on the hulls) and tanks that was made in smale numbers like T-44, KV-13 and did have crazy pre-war tanks like T-35 and tele-tank.
@@kirgan1000 you have a point but look at the variety among the German Armor and the fact that they were producing two tanks to fill the roll of their main tank, the PZ IV, and the Panther. Both were capable and by churning out both you create a logistic, maintenance, and manufacturing nightmare. For the most part the Soviets stuck to the T34 and just upgraded it just as the Western Allies relied on the Sherman. Those were the true workhorse tanks.
@@KnifeChatswithTobias the panzer 4 was in production that long because they couldnt produce more panthers. The germans also tried a different approach than ussr and USA. They tried to always have a better tank because they simply could not out produce anyone material wise. The Panther was supposed to be the german T34 or Sherman, but they went full "german engineering" on it and you know the rest
@@offset7711 And even if Germans were able to mass-produce more tanks, where would they find oil to fuel them all?
@@zamlat8118 good question. the thing is they couldnt. If the would have been able to mass produce tanks in similar numbers to america for example, they would have gotten that steel from somewhere. remember there also was a steel shortage. I should have added to my comment that one of the reasons for the panzer 4 production into the late war was the fact that the germans couldnt build panther production lines easily, but the panzer 4 production lines still existed so they had to build them or they wouldnt have any tanks except for a few panthers.
Wow, this video packed so much information. Great video as always!
Speaking of welding - T-34s (late ones) were first to introduce partly automated hull welding.
love the Kalinka-type remix on this vid
So 37mm "door knocker" still seems valid.
Yes, but the 37mm was actually fine for fighting most Soviet armoured equipment until about mid-end 1943, when they finally got the remnants of the pre-WWII equipment out of the TO&E of front-line units, as T34 production finally got to the point of being enough. There were a LOT of BT-series, T26s', armoured cars and other lightly armed vehicles in the 1941 inventory, and the 37mm continued to serve on the German 251/10 until very late-was, when it was sometimes replaced with the /17, which carried a PzII turret instead
It was called firecracer in like 1943+
You don't need to cut clean through a tank to "knock" it out of action. A remarkable thing about battle-scarred WW2 tanks is the abundance of smaller caliber impacts around the turret ring area and track area. In contrast to some tanks with giant holes in the center of the frontal hull.
Very nicelly done - catchy, brief, effective.
There's also the simple fact that the early T-34 wasn't that good. They rapidly upgraded the armor and other aspects of it, but the initial example encountered by the Germans would have been underwhelming.
And they were also there were problems with heat threating wich caused armor to be very hard and easy to splinter most of war time(especially early war) t-34s were knocked out by non penetrating hits
And even the later war versions were woefully inadequate due to the speed in which they were produced *looks disappointingly at factory 183*
That was a great summation, least for me, of T-34 facts. Thanks Nick.
My dad was in stalingrad then drove a T34 to Berlin. He loved his. Broke down a lot.
So did most tanks of the era. At least the crew could fix any problems on their own (except for engine failure.)
how old is your dad?
@@boranates1320 my dad was born 1923
@@davidroman1342 Not to be rude but when did your dad die?
@@boranates1320 1999
Excellent summation with some great old footage and a fine outro. I look forward to the whole of the series!
And V2 diesel engine is indestructible. There was a T34 in the local military school, standing as a monument for nearly 50 years. They made it run....with its original engine. Now, it's the only operational T34 in this particular part of the world 😊
See Ukraine
@@howardchambers9679 I'm not from Ukraine.
I reckon the size of holes will be a good guide to what was knocking them out
you know you don't need to put that "five things people..." card in every 20 seconds
Yeah, that's a personal problem you're experiencing. It's literally not an issue. You lost maybe 12 seconds over the course of the entire video.
He has to do that to remind the attention deficient WoT children what the video is about.
@@jasonmcleod8914 it's pretty unnecessary and pointing that out is constructive criticism of the video production.
Another reason why such small guns could damage the T-34 was due to the over hardened steel and the poor welds (at the time of WW2) that's why you can see T-34s with cracked holed within the armour instead of the regular bullet hole
Next Episode-5 things people don't know about the Rota Trailer
Oh, Chieftain. You are a gem.
Yeah, i think the chieftain has it right when he calls this tank efficient. could do with a radio earlier on, tho...
The whole Russian army could have used radios earlier. A shortage in vacuum tubes not made up till late by American lend lease made that shortfall impossible to correct
That is lack of resource, not lack of design and built.
Who needs a radio when you have flags?!
@@kevinsullivan3448 Flags aren't everything though, you also need élan!
Soviets had shortage of radios even for what they had
They had like 50% of what they needed
So putting radios in every tank would be just impossible
The T-34 was manufactured by what is referred as Planned Obsolescence
Hey can you guys at WOT do one of these on M4 Shermans?
We'll add it to the list Rebecca!
@@WorldoftanksNAarchived please cover the M26/M47/M48/M60 Pershing and Patton tanks too! We love your videos.
@@tacomas9602 I believe that if this turns into something people watch ,they will cover most famous tanks (it's low cost ,low effort ,but good quality content ,that happens to both make them money and advertises their game ,why would they not)
If you have a time to kill, look up Chieftains talks myths of American armour and the Sherman development (plus his tank destroyer videos). You can get a lot of that stuff.
I like this new series.
The 37mm could disable the t-34 and the KV quite easily. People forget that a crippled tank is a death trap and generally people don't stay in them.
"could" sums it up nicely
KV was impenetrable for door knocker
@@abdulabdanahib9617 Tracks are the most vulnerable part of the tank, you don't need to penetrate the main hull to render a tank useless.
@@uproar8745 without tracks KV still can fire main gun and machineguns
@@abdulabdanahib9617 and? Real life isn't a video game, if you get over run you're practically dead.
Would like to see an episode of this on the churchill tank.
The main advantages of T-34 were its time of production, simplicity of production, simplicity of required materials and being so - cost, and lastly all of that for a machine capable of solving lots of tasks. Like mentioned in the video.
Can you make a part 2 talking about the following:
Lack of good optics, contributing to less accuracy and vision as mentioned in this video.
2 man tank crew with no commander cupola again contributing to less vision and overworked crew as mentioned in the video.
Lack of turret basket making the loader's job a nightmare.
Poor quality of automotive components. It's often mentioned that the driver needed a hammer and "superhuman" strength to switch gears. Engines also reportedly often failed on long marches.
Poor welds on the armor meaning the seams cracked often and easily.
Lack of good and enough hatches decreasing crew survivability rates.
Crews being generally untrained and the same people who produced the tank at the factories just jumped on it and went to the front.
These are all of the points for now but I might add more a little bit later if new ones come up.
1) Lack of good optics is an overrated problem when it comes to accuracy. They couldn't spare the time to boresight the guns, often as not.
2) Not unusual for its time.
3) Again, not unusual for its time.
4) The heavy operational loads were as much a matter of technique and experience as anything else.
5) Welds were often done by unskilled workers because all the skilled ones were at the front.
6) Hatches were a problem for all tanks. The T-34 hatches were just a level worse than the others.
7) Myth. Certainly true they were poorly trained though. Hardly surprising when you consider the circumstances.
Hopefully the next video will be about a german tank, like the Tiger, to finally clarify that is was not as amazing and allpowerful as wehraboos believe?
Very interesting presentation on the need to study all aspects!
Disappointing if the next episode in this "new" series isn't about the M4 Sherman.
Our the Panzer IV
@@fullgreys0n738 What misconceptions are there about the panzer IV? Other than it being overshadow by pop history by the Tiger and Panther heavy tanks.
@@coryfice1881 Quite simply, its importance for the German army, which is often overlooked.
@@fullgreys0n738 Other than that it doesn't have the exaggerated myths the Sherman and T-34 have been plagued with for decades.
I'm aware of some time during the Southern African Bush War, the reason why forgotten, three temporary 'displaced' Paras found a couple (three perhaps?) of abandoned T34's. They had much fun playing with, while at the same time learning how to operate them. Even more fun was had shooting the other/s out using their one of choice. They then drove back to base with the remaining tank. Apparently the Steering / Gearbox Controls were so hard to operate, that only the strongest of the three could do so.
Needless to say, on their return, they were 'on the carpet' for destroying perfectly usable enemy equipment. Perhaps that's why the 34's were abandoned in the first place .. and the close proximity of the SADF.
Chekhov - Wussians inwented Christie suspension.
And Scotch vas inwented by leetle olt lady from Leningrad.
They never claimed that.
Always interesting, thank you.
I've always found the people who think that the T-34's 76mm gun was great, while the American 75mm is garbage....really hilarious.
The 75mm is good enough the tankers didn't even request the 76mm sherman
@Dwarov 1 mostly fear of the tiger and pushing of higher ups.
The T-34/76 had several different guns through its service life. It's first gun in 1941 was the L-11, a short-barreled low-velocity weapon. After the war began a new model fitted with the F-34 gun was built, a longer-barreled higher-velocity weapon with greater armour penetrating capability. The American QF 75mm was a mid-velocity weapon roughly comparable to the F-34. Both guns were eventually left behind by advancing armour strengths and had to be replaced by weapons with greater armour penetration capability.
I've made basically the same comment about the M4 vs T-34, taking each as a whole, previously. T-34 is great, M4 is a death trap, blah, blah, then we get to Korea with the late WW2 models and they're both competitive with the other. Big difference during WW2 is that the T-34-85 went straight to the front while the M4a3e6 (with 76 mm gun M1) had several hundred languishing in depots in England because no one thought the bigger gun was going to be needed.
@@kemarisite never understood the hate for sherman its a great tank
Very informative. I definitely didn't need background music.
the tank is coated with stalinium armor
Visuals are getting pretty good.
Americans seeing German Tanks in WWII *Tiger!*
Germans seeing Russian Tanks in WWII *KV!*
The Ferdinand had left some impression too, the Russians claimed to have at least 500 of them destroyed...
@@jorgsobota2228 but there were only 92 buil-
@@racelkatyusha403 Right? But they took every self propelled gun with a long barrel like the Hornisse for a Ferdinand...
I’ve heard there was big enough gaps in t34s armor that you could stick your hand into
They were built under circumstances no other nation had to face. Not only was the country overrun but most of the skilled labour force was at the front. Emergency circumstances mean compromises.
Cheap,durable,easy for maintaince and indestructible by numbers makes a legend lives name T-34
With over 55,000 T-34's destroyed during the course of the war, the T-34's biggest distinction by far is that it is the most destroyed tank of all time. A record that will never be broken or be even close to being broken.
@@haroldfiedler6549 it's biggest distinction are the 84,070 T34s that were produced making it the second most produced tank in the world only beaten by the T 54/55 and by far the most produced tank of WW2.
@@ushikiii It's biggest distinction is how many were destroyed. It was poorly designed, poorly constructed, no radio so attacks could not be coordinated. Ergonomics were abysmal because it didn't have a turret basket.
Tank management sucked big time due to a shortage of crew members. The main gun was incredibly weak due to its short, almost comical length. The turret was placed forward on the hull making upgrades to the main gun detrimental and ramming the gun tube a real problem.
The Christie suspension used up a lot of interior space.
The real question was not what was good about the T-34. Because there was nothing good about it. The question is answering how many bad things were wrong with the tank. And that list is a very long one.
@@haroldfiedler6549 nah that simply isnt true. The T 34 76s had good armour when they first came out. Not impregnable but they were better protected when compared to the Germans PZ4s and PZ3s when they first came out. The mobility of the tank was very good despite its armour being as effective as a KV1.
It's not like they didn't plan the tank to not have radios and later in the war the majority. Yeah it made them extremely ineffective at times but every tank has pros and cons. And more of them later did get radios I hope you know.
The gun was the most powerful on a tank when it came out. It's in no way weak in fact it is imo the second strongest point of the T-34 the only reason why it could be considered bad was it's bad reload time but it had great pen and HE rounds for infantry.
Idealistically the Soviets would have liked their all crews to be fully trained on how to use a T 34 but that wasn't possible because the Germans were attacking deep into their nations. That isn't a fault of the tank that's the fault of, like you said, the crew management and the lack of trained men. Later in the war the T 34 crews got better since the ones that survived became battle harden.
The Christies suspension made it as quick as it was. It's not better than the torsion bar system but it's not bad and the space inside the tank wasn't bad in the hull, the main thing holding it back was the space in the turret. The chieftain is a large dude, don't take the war time Soviets to be anything close to his height.
The welds are bad because they don't have to be good, he literally said that in the video. You are just pointed every defect of the T 34 with out pointed out it's strengths nor it's improvements in the war. Like you can explain why a tank is bad with that bias approach.
They used that tank throughout the war and didn't change, if it was bad they would have developed a new tank quickly but they didn't because they didn't have time nor did they need to because the tank did it's job.
Well done! Numbers can be used to "prove" just about anything you want them to. Facts are another matter entirely. It's too bad all of our Russian Front history came from the Germans for so long. Had the Soviets been more forthcoming with their data after the war our views today would be much different. And more accurate. It's been decades since the files were opened and yet we're still struggling to get the full picture. Ironically, the West's appreciation for the Soviet's sacrifice and valor is in high esteem now. Had they been more honest with us right after the war, that esteem could have prevailed throughout the Cold War and served them well. Thankyou for your work Mr. Moran.
Everyone knew the sacrifices made by the Russians even during the Cold War. Outside of the USA anyway.