T-34 vs Wikipedia - Top 3 Errors
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 8 ต.ค. 2019
- Peter Samsonov from tankarchives and author of an upcoming T-34 book speaks about the the 3 "biggest" errors on the T-34 Wikipedia page.
»» SUPPORT MHV ««
» paypal donation - paypal.me/mhvis
» Patreon Perks » patreon - / mhv
» subscribe star - www.subscribestar.com/mhv
» Book Wishlist www.amazon.de/gp/registry/wis...
»» MERCHANDISE ««
» teespring - teespring.com/stores/military...
» SOURCES «
Samsonov, Peter: Designing the T-34: Genesis of the Revolutionary Soviet Tank. Gallantry: 2019.
www.mortonsbooks.co.uk/produc...
tankarchives.blogspot.com/
Wikipedia Logo
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikiped...
#T-34 #Wikipedia #Errors
1941: T-34 Vs Panzer IV
2019: T-34 Vs Wikipedia
Actually Panzer III. PzIV was initially an infantry support vehicle.
@@DexMaster881 until later in the war where they switched
@@DexMaster881 Doesn't mean they didn't encounter each other.
@@cptant7610 that version of Panzer IV couldnt even penetrate the armor of T-34. It was a slaughter with Germans on receiving end
@@lukabajic9729 - Like saying a Sherman could not out maneuver and/or get the drop on and defeat a Panther.
Asking for a friend... When did the Germans field the Wikipedia ? I am assuming it was on the Eastern Front. Where they in Stalingrad ? How did the Sherman & Cromwell compare to the German Wikipedia ?
German wikipedia was higher velocity, more accurate and praised by its crews despite being rushed into production.
The allies copied it but introduced many errors which found their way into the original german version post-war.
July 1940, north coast of Scotland
@ lol
I think that the main issue with German Wikipedia during the Second World War was that their crews knew all about enemy vehicles but had no means of stopping them. Not much has changed.
The Wikipeda was a propaganda weapon invented by western intelligence. Its proved quite effective against foes who lack an understanding of nuance, but not as well against those with a flawed sense of humor.
We are fortunate to have young guys studying WWII, and have the interest in (and access to) primary sources.
@wood1155 not necessary after so many decades of Cold War propaganda on all sides? That is still ongoing? For f//cks sake, the whole "superior german technology" myth was born out of ALL Allies trying to hide their incompetense under the excuse that the other side had better everything. Japanese warcrimes is a taboo theme in western world to this day. WTF do you mean by not necessary? Most people know history of the events at "Enemy at the Gates" level! It's a damned disaster.
The Japanese did research into developing a Death Ray. It was a dead end.
Before the British developed radar their first question was: how do we kill someone with this? It took a physicist to point out that a death ray was impractical
@@qqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqw they literally had to roast a labrat first and test it on POWs before concluding that any other weapon would be more cost effective...
I too read that
@@qqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqw Somebody had read H.W. Wells ( The Way of the Worlds ).
IIRC ... it was like a microwave transmitter but it was a very large, fixed device that needed the enemy to be at very close range in order to kill them with it. So - yes - they could build one but it was useless.
One problem they had with early radar production/testing was that they had painted the windows black in the facility where they were working with the radars so no one could see in side. There was supposed to be this wall right outside the building where people would sit and eat their lunch. These people were getting cooked by the radar's microwaves. I don't remember if any one died.
.
I'm still looking for Peter's link in the footnotes.
I found Peter's blog here: tankarchives.blogspot.com/ He also has a Facebook page (search by his name).
If you want to check out Peter's book: Designing the T-34: Genesis of the Revolutionary Soviet Tank. Check it on amazon or here:
www.mortonsbooks.co.uk/product/view/productCode/15014
Did you correct the mistakes
Bravo, outstanding video. Thank you for this slice of insight into both you and Mr. Samsonov’ care in research into the facts you present to us in your videos. I hope you never forget how invaluable you are in educating all of us who don’t necessarily have the time or abilities to do the heavy research into the important history that you content creators present to us.
I have a B.A. in History and though I haven't exactly gone on to use my degree, I still find myself checking the sources of any non fiction book I take an interest to.
Are you only interested in non fiction books every few years?
@@pietersteenkamp5241 I'm not quite sure what you're getting at. I go through phases, but as far as checking the sources go, I don't throughly investigate each one. I can usually get a pretty good read on the quality of the source material by just looking at what's listed.
Too few people check the sources.
The comment that one thought all 76mm were the same opens up another topic, namely, the difference between bore diameter, weapon, and cartridge. For example, in American small arms (firearms) we have the 7.62 Tokarev (So called .30 Tok in USA), 7.65 Parabellum ( aka.30 Luger), 7.63 Mauser (aka .30 Mauser) (all pistols), .30 M1 Carbine, .30 WCF (30-30 Winchester), 7.62x39 AK/SKS (carbines), .30-06, 7.62 NATO (and the civilian variant .308 Winchester) , 7.62 Mosin-Nagant (at one time .30 Russian, in USA parlance) .300 Win Mag and .300 Weatherby, which are all nominally .30 in the bore, but are all very different cartridges, fired from different weapons for different purposes. One can't appreciate the differences unless one becomes familiar with the individual cartridges, otherwise, well, they're all just .30 calibres.
In terms of guns used in armored vehicles in WW2 US Army service, there were the 75mm M3 (Sherman) , 75mm M6 (Chaffee), 3-Inch M5 (Tank destroyers), 76mm and of course the British 17-Pounder, all different cartridges, with different cannon, but all nominally 76mm or 3 inches in the bore, and unfortunately all frequently confused.
The Soviets had .30 (7.62mm), .50 (12.7mm) and 76mm weapons, as did the US Army, but they were of course all different weapons and cartridges.
Thomas L Are you sure the Chafee used a shorter round? You’re probably thinking of the 75MM Pack Howitzer on the M8 SPG/SPH that was a shorter case length.
@Thomas L
Thank you for that. Meanwhile I am tired of telling that again and again.
Fun fact: Even the widely in the Soviet Union available brand of cigarettes "Belomorkanal" introduced in 1932 till this day have a diameter of .30 😁
I thought I had replied that I was mistaken about the M6 in the Chaffee. It did indeed fire the same round as the M3 in the Lee/Grant and the Sherman. My mistake.
No wonder someone proposed a death ray, given that "The Garin Death Ray" was published in USSR in late 1920s.
Lovely to hear a discussion about footnotes. My favorite footnotes are In "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" by Gibbon. My copy keeps the notes on the page which is CRUCIAL as he puts all the funny stuff in the footnotes.
What edition do you have? Asking for me.
@@PadraigTomas The Heritage Press, New York (3 volumes) 1946.
Thanks, one of my favorite subjects. I hope there is a lot on the STZ.
You should definitely get in touch with the author of tankograd blog if you ever plan to cover cold war era soviet tanks.
That gun part sounds like the whole history how the T-72 could have come in service XD
Cool concept. Interesting points.
Now, I hope you actually propose these corrections for the Wikipedia article. :)
With references, of course.
Might work.
Or there will be a reversion based on GYTPA and TCPH, and then reaching no consensus will trigger CVYBP, someone will also complain that some new sources are not reliable based on whatever reliable means in their head (but also on FYIA and CCTVBBQ) . After 5 months of deliberation, edit wars and random topic bans a crippled version of those corrections will end up on the page, though split between two separate paragraphs. _Assuming there will be no politics involved._
Or someone will pay "reliable" editor like the immortal Ryulong and necessary changes will be forced even if they suddenly include T-34 being inspired by Leman Russ tanks :)
@@Saeronor Well. Let's hope nothing of that happens, shall we?
Edit: Well, except the intention, and act, of review.
@@Saeronor Also, I have no idea what any of those abbreviations mean.
@@Jarlerus They mean absolutely nothing. Which is approximately the value of the actual abbreviations used, outside of a Byzantine system entrenched editors thrive in. A parallel world, if you like, and often a sad parody of a real one.
@@Saeronor Hah. Well, I trust that most of the info on there is better, in average, than written down info. So I'm still a fan xD
(and no, I don't use Wikipedia as a source, if I can help it :P )
The Great thing about Wikipedia is that it is very handy, you can look up a lot of things on it and then post a link to the articles. When I wrote my thesis, I was using a physical card catalog - not an electronic one so there was a lot more physical effort involved. The problem with Wikipedia is that some of the things haven't really been that well researched and on occasion I've seen the author of the article forming their opinion on the incident in question from something they are reviewing. So, most serious historical sources won't accept Wikipedia citations. I will note however that I've seen errors in published books too ... so ... that is why, for a serious work - you need multiple sources - that don't all go back to the same source ...
However, just as books have all those sources at the end (and yes - going to the back of the book first is a historians trait ...) Wikipedia sources are referenced by number at the bottom of the page. A problem with some of these sources - is that they list a source - which isn't there any more and you have to try and dig out earlier versions of the article to find the actual source instead of just a reference to it. For example in something like "Big Missiles and Guns by Terry Pendergaster" (not a real book), instead of having a source link like "Pendergaster, Big Missiles and Guns" - all they have is "Pendergaster, pp. 103-107" - with no base link containing the name of the book ...
They are also subject to Graffiti ... I saw an article on the holing of the Card where the name of one of the Vietcong commandos had been changed to One Hung Lo ... (they seem to have fixed that and I can't find a note on the change).
Anyway - it's a handy source but for serious academic work - rather than TH-cam Arguments - you need something more rigorously reviewed.
The other thing is - Wikipedia is a truly massive source and as such really is quite an achievement.
.
Wikipedia housed several articles on fake conflicts and events just a few years ago. Nowadays it's gotten better, it's just biased and unreliable:D
@@TheArklyte Wikipedia's great glory is also it's Achilles Heal.
The basic idea is a Free Online Encyclopedia. Now - there are other Online Encyclopedia's - but they aren't free.
In order to be free - Wikipedia is reliant in volunteers to research and write it's articles. Just about anyone who really wants to - can be a Wikipedia contributor.
Because of that - you do not have one personality to the site - but thousands of individual personalities and a decidedly mixed bag of articles.
One joke on "The Big Bang Theory" was
The nerds are bored so Raj suggests
"Let's logon and fuck up Wikipedia" (or words to that effect)
And that kind of thing is what happens when you have all these volunteers putting something together.
It is popular among researchers to put Wikipedia down for it's flaws while ignoring it's real contributions. There is a degree of snobbery in this but then snobbery is nothing new to academia ...
For the casual person looking for some information or an article they can cite in some TH-cam Comment - Wikipedia is great.
Even for a serious researcher - the sources listed for it's articles can be very useful. I've found a LOT of information and detailed reports on military technology by digging around in Wikipedia Sources.
So - while - yes, it has it's flaws - anyone who would let the denigrators deprive them of this MASSIVE resource - is making a mistake.
.
Dude, Wikipedia is rubbish. You can see where people have just added their own little bits and bobs. I'm truly horrified by the spread of disinformation , lies and myth . Especially recently. And the biggest culprit of all is probably Wikipedia. Not that Wikipedia is the only culprit, mind you, far from it.
My own area of interest has always been tanks so that is where I spot the biggest amount of Bs , but I'm sure that this trend covers all topics. Today I spotted a concluding paragraph that had clearly been added by someone else, not the original author of the piece. There was no acknowledgement at all. It contained some serious disinformation. How can this possibly be regarded as a suitable source for academic work?
@@andrewwoodhead3141 no one uses it for academic work(if they're at least serious about it and their superiors care about their reputation), the problem is that popular opinion isn't forged by academic work.
Want to see the worst? Check several language versions of same articles. For example I can look up english, german, polish and russian. In theory even google translate can be used to view them. Polish version will blatantly ignore all russian sources and vice versa, germans suprisingly agree on many points with russians, but english version also ignores both, russians quote english sources, but do so in regards to translated and edited versions. And so on. I'd even go so far as to say that german versions of WWII related articles are the most objective. They're not afraid to admit what they have done and thus also have no fear of exposing/supporting others resulting in the most broad selection of sources and opinions that gets filtered instead of being dismissed simply by the nation of origin.
It's an ideological battleground of Cold War(which apparently ended long ago in said public opinion:)), what have you wanted?
@@andrewwoodhead3141
It isn't a suitable source for academic work.
It's a suitable source for TH-cam Arguments and a quick easy reference for a lot of things. And - most of these articles have references - as I said - which researchers can use to further their study. A lot easier than the Physical Card Catalogs I had to use when I was researching my Thesis.
As I said - Wikipedia would not exist if it weren't for the efforts of volunteers - but - sometimes the quality of the work they do is mixed. And yes - sometimes they (like Raj on TBBT) think it's funny to fuck things up.
Now - if you look at a lot of the books out there you will find that a lot of them are mixed in their accuracy as well. Memoirs are really taking a shellacking in the academic world now - whereas before they were considered primary sources - because they were written by first person participants.
There ARE NO unassailably reliable sources.
Rubbish? No. It's a highly useful took - but not one that is going to do all the work for you.
And - as I said - it's fucking free. Go to any military hobbies store and you'll find racks of these relatively thin books on specific aircraft or vehicles. You know the ones. You can also get them from Amazon. What do those cost you? They aren't cheap, especially if you need to buy a bunch of them. Wikipedia is - again - free.
And lastly - look at all the videos posted by military expert presenters ... Are those suitable for Academic Research? Yeah ... right ... you just cite a TH-cam Video as a source in any academic study and see what happens.
.
I look forward to people correcting those errors on the wikipedia article with Peter's new information. :)
Good luck with that!
4:40 don't talk crap about the death ray, the british air force was interested in the idea and offered 1000£ to anyone who could demonstrate a death ray able to kill a sheep at 100 yards. the bounty went unclaimed.
Don't forget the Japanese!
@@edi9892 You beat me to it! That project diverted resources from their nuclear program, and by war's end neither was successful. Not that either attempt had any realistic chance of succeeding .
How bout the wapanese?
Can I still claim this bounty?
I Use wiki to get a general idea of soemthing then look into it on my own while keeping ears open for info that is false or sources that can confirm myths.
Wiki is often great at finding relevant sources (not to use Wiki as a source).
General overview and roadmap to divergent sources and alternate views!
Why not just use wiki and then check their references?
Closed captions, please.
But, also very good video, especially on the subject of sources and historical accuracy.
Primary sources is something you should do more often. Just saying.
Have to ask: which language wiki page are you both talking about? Am i assuming right if i think it is the english one? I'm asking because wiki articles are seldom translated between languages, and over the years i noticed that articles for the same thing can differ substantially in different languages.
English
@@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized thanks!
Peter should've talked about the molten iron tank.
Crazy proposals that the GABTU received during the war could be the topic of a whole video. Yuri Pasholok wrote an entire book about sphere tanks alone!
Zamn you Schtalin :)
the way Stalin operated was to work through the administration , the man was a public servant from hell
he got away with it because he read the reports and had a good understanding of the issues
he would have a meeting with the concerned administrations , then speak last
usually summarizing the consensus
I'm curious, I've heard a lot about the T-34-85 having a 90mm glacis. Every one I've seen represented has had the standard 45mm. I'm wondering if this is true and if anyone here has info on it? Thanks.
90mm would be insane the IS-2 armour in front was 120mm. The glacis armour is what you mentioned 45-47mm. There are some diagrams in Russian about the T-34 85 showing its armour at 45mm.
@@SouthParkCows88 The T-44 had armour that was 90mm on the glacis and it's not that much much more massive than the T-34. I read this in a book about tanks and, if I recall correctly, David Willy from the tank museum seemed to mention an up-armouring of the T-34/85.
90mm was the thickness of the turret front.
As I understand it, the T34 was up armored to 80 mm in 1944. Previous models had had 60mm of armor on the front glacis. It's important to be aware that the T34 is being talked down right now . That is why you see a plethora of articles on the early models, especially pre 1942. Like most of the medium tank of WW2 , the T34 went through a constant series of improvements in all areas related to it's performance.
Source pls? Afaik, T-34 hull armor never went above 47mm straight from the factory, but add-on armor was bolted on in the field
The very good thing about Wikipedia is that you can suggest/correct the article. I hope you will do this :)
Easier said than done but maybe if it's something as pedantic as these corrections fewer will care to fight. :)
And some dunning-kruger "tank expert" wiki editor will revert everything back almost immediately.
@@princeofcupspoc9073 Those who do not try already have failed. If you quote sources, they have to let the change happen.
@ Yep. My hat is off to you sir. And it's no laughing matter, either. It's got to the point whereby the younger generation simply doesn't even understand the concept of 'truth' , and I don't blame them.
Wow! This is how to do TH-cam on serious issues - as a useable resource. I know .. ! .. like .. testable scholarship: Wow!
I like Peter. 👍
Had you considered correcting it
Could you put an amazon.co.uk affiliate link?
sorry for the late answer, due to changes in laws, I removed all affiliate links in general. Thanks for your support!
TL;DR: Wikipedia editors don't understand how the soviet economy or political system worked whatsoever.
Such a good series of videos, but this one sticks out the wrong way. You should tell much more interesting details about the T34 other than "Stalin did not order it made", "the T34 was a sequential development number" and "the gun was not chosen as written in Wikipedia". Like "why was the Christie suspension discarded after the T34" or "how effective was the 85 mm gun compared to other guns in German and American tanks". For the rest: I truly admire all you other videos.
thank you, yet, the title is rather clear.
The author of a properly researched book based on primary documents challenging aspects of a Wikipedia entry on the same topic is total overkill.
When I first started getting into tanks like 8 years ago as a little kid, I also thought that the Soviets were ahead of the US in WWII because they had a "76mm" gun, not realizing how different the M1 was from the F34, L11, etc. Same with the Desert Eagle; always thought it was just as powerful as the Barret M82 until I started educating myself on the topic beyond videogames.
Wikipedia (English) is in error on the ballistics of the F-34.
They have the BR-350 and BR-350A with a muzzle velocity of 655 m/s. Actually, the BR-350 and BR-350A have a muzzle velocity of 662 m/s. The ZiS-3 firing the BR-350B had a muzzle velocity of 655 m/s. In all probability the same is true when the BR-350B is fired from the F-34.
The Russian wiki doesn't have these error. Says something of caliber of those who update these sites.
ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Т-34
ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/76-мм_дивизионная_пушка_образца_1942_года_(ЗИС-3)
The trail of half-remembered facts is so reminiscent of WW2 historiography.
Didn‘t the Germans try to design a bunch of crazy sci-fi weapons like a sound cannon and crap like that. Or was that just another questionable Phoenix Documentary I watched?
GIVE ME MY DEATH RAYS! HELLMARCH INTENSIFIES!
What about T-34-57?
Amazing that bureaucrats had the guts to proceed with producing weapon systems the motherland needed but the leadership couldn't foresee!
When the train line to Siberia was well worn.
I hope you corrected the article! :)
Comments are just footnotes for a video. Prove me wrong!
You can correct this if it's wrong but I doubt anyone really knows what happened in the Soviet Union at that time as what is written and the truth in any bureaucracy is dubious at best I know I worked in one.
Knowledge is powerful.
A Soviet T-34 is more powerful
I'm only here to know, why i should not play the russian bias in WT
There's nothing worse than "history" books written by journalists with a distinct lack of foot/endnotes. First steps on choosing a book, 1. Publishing house, 2. Foot/endnotes. The first element isn't an automatic no-go (unless a horrid company/college). The second is non-negotiable.
In defense of Wikipedia, encyclopedias, in general, tend to have various errors in them. I can get my old 1990 Encyclopedia Britannica (hard bound), grab a volume, on any topic, and find an error in it. Your typical encyclopedia compiler is not an expert in these matters. Encyclopedias are good for grade school reports, and a starting point. They are clearly NOT the end-all authority on ANY TOPIC !
I love how Germans pronounce Stalin
I always love the people that claim the Soviets invented the concept of sloped armor.
there are errors on wikipedia? shocking! :P
Better than all the rest thought so point?
Bernard mein kamarade i agree with you. And your comrade Peter. I’ve read the books for the T-34/76. As a history major, I’m not dumb enough to believe Wikipedia anymore. No offense to those who do. Keep up the great work! -The Tank Commander
Well i thought as you did 15 years ago but i grew out of my arrogance and maybe you will too....
Pieter Steenkamp listen. I used to read Wikipedia all the time. The issue Bernard states is true. If you have more paper books like I do, you should consider reading them more. You have a problem with something that I said “No Offense” for, you should keep your mouth shut about your personal thoughts. I don’t do this to trigger anyone. Obviously, you couldn’t keep arrogant thoughts inside. So tough crap. That’s your own fault.
T 34 is a better website
Thom Hartman, the number 1 progressive radio host in the US tells a story about a tour of a right wing think tank he was given, where in the basement there were dozens of young people editing wikipedia. Non impartial entities with money and an interest in historical revisionism edit wikipedia all the time.
They try but they are up against twenty year veterans who know how to keep things as they are without MAJOR fights. Unfortunately or fortunately it's male ego's at play so the idea that some basement troll farm can make serious and comphrensive long term edits without significant funding/bribes is nonsense. Thom hartman also believs that the Russians hacked the American election so clearly isn't a great help the the general progressive movement when he falls for century old red baiting anti progressive reactionary tricks.
I always see people saying that Wikipedia isn't a credible/good source but I have never seen people actually show why that is.
it really depends on a lot of stuff, e.g., in Computer Science wikipedia was a "regular source", which is also due to the fact that it is a rather "hard science" and most stuff "works" or it "doesn't". Some dismiss wikipedia outright, because ??? Apparently, these people don't know how much errors there are in regular books etc.
I get that some disciplines are more negative about it, but outright dismissal in general(!) is usually problematic. Non-general dismissals, e.g., for intro courses into doing "basic research" for reason X, yes, I get that.
Probably the most idiotic commemts are those that I get on my RE: Bren vs. Spandau video that note "wikipedia is not a source", where I used it to show how many countries still use the MG42 in its modified form, for which wikipedia might be one of the best sources, since not many other publications actually track that.
Some subjects are covered much more accurately and comprehensively in Wikipedia than others. Mathematics and Computer Science are especially well represented. History has always been one of its weaker points. Though history on wikipedia is much stronger now than it was five years ago.
Well willie Wikipedia isn't perfect but just happens to be the best thing around that more than makes up for it's mistakes with the breadth and the communal effort. It will get even better in time if people that have read more than 10 non fiction books ( or watched 100 history channel 'documentaries' ) don't shit on it as they tend to. :(
Unless you want to read the change logs, and get to know the contributors, you are always at the risk of any article being someone's personal battleground, reverting changes back to "his" idea of what is true. To change anything in "his speciality" means that "he" is wrong, and that won't stand.
lol @ personal battlegrounds, if thats the case then wikipedia should be written off as unreliable for facts if theres some sort of ego war going on with it
00:29 did he say 'shoot some Poles'? Oh no! 😔
Wikipedia is as accurate as hollywood.
Blaming Wikipedia is only valid when it's an unsourced claim. And even then, there's "citation needed".
Not always. It's the choice of some source to include that is the problem. I've found a few.
True true
Just because something has a citation on wikipedia does not mean its true. Often, especially in politics, you'll get a wikipedia page citing a very innacurate opinion piece from a newspaper. You also get citations from books where the book is just wrong as well.
@@laurie1183 my point is that (when there is a citation) one should blame the citation, not the encyclopedia author who cites the citation.
@@RonJohn63 Disagree. If you're so blind that you cite obviously biased and innacurate sources while editing then that's your fault.
Wikipedia can be wrong?
I like his website, when he always just using USSR sources to debate the german tanks reliability.
Does he really do that? that sounds stupid...
Because this is the sources he has ? He is kind of unique in this aspect, being one of the very few guys that have acces to russian archive documents and he speaks both russian and english and he translates them.Is common thing among historians that the opening of russian archives have started sort of a small revolution because they revealed so many things.
@@Vlad_-_-_ So that is legitimize you to ignore german soruces abut german tanks? o.O
@@rolandhunter Can't remember saying that really.But the sources that often credit some guy in a Tiger tank for example with dozens of kills, yeah those ones you should label as bullshit.There are so many instances when the germans are outright lying about kill claims.
@@Vlad_-_-_ Yeah, and the soviet sources was more legitim and less lying..Don't compare them like that please.
By 1942, the Iraq Levies consisted of a Headquarters, a Depot, Specialist Assyrian companies, 40 service companies and the 1st Parachute Company, which consisted of 75% Assyrian and 25% Kurd. The new Iraq Levies Disciplinary Code was based largely on the Indian Army Act.
By 1943 the Iraq Levies strength stood at 166 British officers controlling 44 companies; 22 Assyrian, five Mixed Assyrian/Yizidi, ten Kurdish, four Marsh Arabs, and three Baluchi. Eleven Assyrian companies served in Palestine and another four served in Cyprus. The Parachute Company was attached to the Royal Marine Commando and were active in Albania, Italy and Greece. In 1943/1944 the Iraq Levies
No subtitles... i didnt understand most of the video...
Austrian and Russian are speaking in English on the phone - no surprise it's hard to understand :-)
@@AlexanderSeven yes, but the facts they had the english accent, it's difficult to understand when you are french 😊
@@goldy_ag4578 Play at 0,5 speed or something like that, that might be of some help
Learn English?
Inzilbeth X we speech American here not English. If you don’t like, well you can jus geeet out! 1776 WILL COMMENCE AGAIN!
Why no one talks about 2 men turret. It was disaster. The tank did not really have a commander. When he was working with the gun, the tank was basically left without commanding.
MHV did talk about this when he did his breakdown video about the T34
Chieftain talks about it all the time everywhere, including this channel.
th-cam.com/video/1xTQ-oyo-G4/w-d-xo.html
@@darthcalanil5333 I have seen it. But I would like to see details just how difficult it was to spot and especially aim the enemy without someone helping you. LIndybeige has done a video about one man turret. That is somewhat helpful
I do discuss it in the book at some length. Long story short: the idea of having a two man turret crew was unacceptable from the start, and the T-34M was going to have a 3-man turret, but when the war came there was simply no replacement for the T-34 available. Several 3-man turrets were designed and tested, none of them offered enough benefit to offset the hit to production.
@@TankArchives yes. That is true.
If Wikipedia is wrong and you have the correct sources and references, instead of complaining simply correct the entry. Wikipedia is peer-reviewed and anyone can add to it and remove incorrect information replacing it with accurate information backed up by sources. Back up your video by fixing the Wikipedia entry.
you might want to talk with the Chieftain about it: twitter.com/ChieftainWG/status/1181985034229686272
I should add here that I have met few people that were as diligent and patient as him.
Wikipedia is ruled by ignorant and biased people who have s lot of free time, you have to dedicate a significant part of your life to it to be able to change something there.
Well, to be honest I think that you missed that it works both ways: "anyone can add to it and remove CORRECT information replacing it with INACCURATE information backed up by sources".
The funniest case that I've seen recently - after heavy edit wars, on Wikipedia it was decided that according to sources considered as authoritative all ethnic groups have the same size of penises. Mystery, why Zimbabwe health care minister publicly complained that Chinese condoms were too small, still remains unsolved.
@@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized, maybe you should have a look at the article?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M36_tank_destroyer
Yes, the process can be arduous, especially when multiple sources are to be assessed, but the results will usually be correct in the end.
@@useodyseeorbitchute9450 I assume you talk about this article?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_penis_size#Size_and_race
All listed studies are fairly recent, as in published this millennium.
Feel free to find recent studies that contradict them, as well as any studies that support that Zimbabwe's health care minister was a) indeed correct in that the condoms were too small, and b) that the same condoms were of adequate size for the Chinese population.
I think you by now realise where the problem lies.
The German forces destroyed over 40000 T34s from 1941 to 45. If a T34 was hit crew fatality was 80%.
Easy to build, reliable but that's about it.
"The German forces destroyed over 40000 T34s from 1941 to 45"
And guess where the war ended.
@@AlexanderSeven if the Russians had been equipped with Shermans instead of T34 in the same quantity, the result would have been the same. Germany defeated.
@@michaelsalt4565 definitely, but my point was that T-34 did the job, despite all it's flaws, and it's simplicity allowed Soviets to build enough of them so they could attack enemy with tanks instead of on foot with rifles.
And if Soviets tried to build better tank with better crew survivability etc, they would build much less of them as a result... and lose much more people in the end because having not perfect tank is much better than having nothing.
And what I am saying is that any competent tank design , T34, Sherman, etc, would have achieved the same result. By 1942 the T34 was inferior to most German tanks.
The only advantage it had was sheer weight of numbers.
When the Panther turned up in 43, the T34 was at a distinct disadvantage hence the heavy losses suffered by the Red army
@@michaelsalt4565 Most German tanks were Panzer 4 with 75mm... The T34 was pretty solidly equal to the panzer 4. The Tiger entered service in 42 in pretty low numbers, and never exceeded Panzer 4, and panther was 43 with low numbers aswell. The best tank is the tank that works for that country. The best tank for USSR was no doubt the 34, Sherman for America, and Panzer 2,3,4 for Germany. Each country has different needs and different variables it has to account for.
Ah the voice of Russian Bias ^_^
#122mmDoesNotMeltGermanKruppSteel xD
Damn. I played WT and shot a T34 with my Jagdtpabther from point blank and a perfect angle and it bounced off... He shot me through my sloped 80mm with his lousy 75mm and totally obliterated my SPG...
I changed to Soviet and bought an IS6 and scored 3x as many kills...
@@edi9892 You betrayed our Vaterland! The Reich needs every tanker it can get! We are getting slaughtered on 5.7 by speedy boi hellcats and the T34-85s.
"Before ww2,oh before the Great Patriotic War"
😑
Different conflicts although the second is part of the former.
When your name is Samsonov, and you write a book on something Soviet, questions of bias will naturally arise.
Same with any Western or German historian when they talk about the Soviets.
@@speedyguydima Much less so. The government sponsored rise of the cult of the red army, where in putin's Russia records are hidden and it is a crime to criticize the red army is a lot worse than any nationalistic influence that arises out of modern non-Russian historians. Try reading up on it.
Fry voice very annoying
You should ask for a refund.