A thing about durability: Soviet studies investigated how much was the average life of a tank in the front lines. The result is that the T-34 was built to be as reliable as possible around said average. No need to build something that will be reliable for 10 years when it probably won't last 1 year, or less.
The Soviet study in that regard was far more in depth. They found a Tank might last around 6 hours in Combat, be obsolete roughly 6 months before introduction, and would have an advantage that lasted roughly one year before something better came along to kill it. If I remember the layout of the study conclusions correctly.
@@FLJBeliever1776 They did take it seriously, also they made it so that the tank could be repaired with simple tools and improvised parts. if you couldn't fix it with a hammer, it wasn't worth fixing at all.
Interesting you pointed that out. During the Korean War, that was apparently the case. The T-34s that the Soviets had supplied to the North Koreans were mostly destroyed in the first 6-12 months if I remember correctly. They dominated light American tanks in the early weeks, but when modernized Shermans, new Pattons, and ESPECIALLY British Centurions arrived on the battlefield, the T-34 quickly lost its edge. A lot of World War II tech was rapidly fading in effectiveness by 1950. To some extent, that Soviet military study was proven correct here.
@@thunderbird1921 - The M4 Sherman wasn't really modernized for Korea. Refurbished yes, but very little was actually done to update them. The US Army had the M26 Pershing and M46 Patton. Both were better Tanks with 90mm guns and thicker armor. Though M4 Sherman still had a good war in 1950-1951. The Soviets had intentionally supplied obsolete Tanks to the North Koreans. The KV-1 had its last hurrah in Korea for example. Amazing any had survived that long. The T-34-85 was obsolete in 1945. The T-44 was online as was IS-3 with T-54 becoming available in numbers by 1950. So with no room left for upgrades, the T-34 could be expended.
Nice video, but I can't believe you didn't mention one of the Germans' biggest advantages against the Soviet tanks; that is, the Germans all had radios in their tanks; The Soviet Union did not. So the German commanders could communicate from the safety of their armor, while the Soviets had to expose themselves out the tops of their turrets, and hope that they were seen while using flags for signaling.
Not to mention that German tanks also had optics so the commander wouldnt have to open the hatch to see around the tank. British churchills didnt even have that ring of optics
Ah... They were not easy to repair. At all. They usually weren't repaired, you'd just get a new one. If you didn't die form the massive fire that started that you probably couldn't escape. They were easy to produce. Especially if you took out minor things like: Seats. And radios. And Rubber. And working transmissions. And didn't properly weld it. And didn't properly rivet it. And gave it a shelf life of 500 km.
Hopefully, they will make a part 2 of the vid. It wouldn't be surprising due to the tanks crazy long history of the tank and the sheer effort that goes into making a video like this ( the worst bit would be the animation).
Simple History has come along way in telling History in Animated form. I am happy to say I have been watching them for a long time and I am proud with how far they've come. Keep up the amazing videos!
Best joke I have every heard applied to both the T-34 and the Sherman. "The Tiger tank was as good as seven T-34/Shermans. The problem was there was always an eighth."
Ну, на самом деле конкретно Тигр - та ещё хрень, с точки зрения стратегии. Медленный, не такой уж неубиваемый как надеялись немцы, а главное он имел кучу "детских болезней" вроде шахматной подвески, застывавшей намертво после ночи в русской грязи (грязь каменела в колесах), двигателя способного загореться просто так, малого запаса хода и т.п.
This is by far one of the best videos released by Simple History. Id love to see the same type of thing but with all of the "big three" main fighting vehicles during WW2.
One interesting tidbit about the T-34 design issues: often times, the large bolts connecting all the treads together would come loose as the tank was in motion. This of course threatened to cause the treads to collapse and fall apart, rendering the T-34 immobile. To address this problem, the engineers came up with a crude but effective solution: they welded a steel wedge near the rear sprocket! So any tread bolts coming loose would be pushed back into place by simple physics! Soviet engineering at its finest!
Its sort of strange that on one hand you hear how the germans struggled to beat the T-34 while on the other hand reports show that they took them out Day 1 of the war, even with 20mm guns which the T-34 should in theory be immune to. Some historians believe that it was infact the KV that gave the T-34 its legendary reputation. Some old german news reels talk about the T-34 while showing an image of a KV-1. Just like all german tanks was a tiger 1 to the americans, maybe the T-34 had a similar fate where it got credit for the KV-1's work. This sort of explains how documentaries and what not always claim that the germans had to use the Flak 88 to take out the T-34 while battle reports tells a different story.
@@projectdvan4568 that was most of t-34s built to 1945 not just early varients due to half or so, of t-34s being built in 1 factory which you can assume they had rushed some parts which they did including but not limited to. No seats mostly the hull mg gunner, no turret basket, no seals for hatches (water gets inside), wheels were mixed matched meaning tracks might break. You can't forget poor welding meant the armor can shatter even from non penetrating hits. As you stated
No, the T-34's were a mixed bag. Over half of them came from one factory that was told to pump them out as quickly as possible which resulted in _numerous_ cut corners that caused many Soviet tankers to die. The lack of spare parts also accounted for numerous T-34 losses as some crews had to abandon the tank when they could not repair it. In fact, the T-34 was kind of a terrible tank.
@@peter4210 not so fun fact= an arms factory in stalingrad tested their weapons by shooting out of the factory because the germans were literally next door.
I don't understand how the animations can keep such awesome simplicity while continuing to gradually get more detailed, creative, and beautiful with every few videos. Seriously such an awesome channel.
The armor of the T-34 had a high Brinell rating, meaning it was very hard. This was advantageous in defeating antitank rounds of caliber equal or lower to the armor’s thickness but had the disadvantage that it could lead to spalling. Combined with manufacturing flaws in the construction of the tank this meant that the T-34’s crew was often in danger even when hit by tank rounds that did not penetrate the armor. The study ‘Review of Soviet ordnance metallurgy’, p3-5 says: ‘The armor components of the T-34 tank, with the exception of the bow casting which was unheat-treated, were heat-treated to very high hardnesses (430-500 Brinell), probably in an attempt to secure maximum resistance to penetration by certain classes of armor-piercing projectiles even at the expense of structural integrity under ballistic attack.’ ‘The quality of the armor steels ranged from poor to excellent. Wide variations in production technique were indicated; some rolled armor components were well cross-rolled while others were virtually straightaway rolled………The bow casting of the T-34 tank was very unsound and would have been rejected under American standards.’ ‘Shallow penetration, poor fusion, severe undercutting, porosity, and cracking was observed in most of the welds and probably resulted from improper manipulation of electrodes which might not have had suitable operating characteristics….. These obvious defects, together with low strength and pour metallurgical structure of ferritic weld deposits, indicate that the welded joints would have poor resistance to severe shock.’ ‘The results obtained from the metallurgical examination of these early world war ii Soviet tanks have been described in some detail since they are exactly the same as have been obtained from all examinations performed since then of Soviet tanks which were recovered in Germany after the end of world war ii, and on Soviet tanks which were captured in Korea during 1950-52. The Ordnance Corps has examined several Soviet JS-II which were found in Germany and several Soviet T-34 tanks from both Germany and Korea.’ 'Some of the armor steels have surprisingly high toughness considering the very high hardness levels but many of the armor steels, even the softer ones, are very brittle.’ ‘The very high hardness encountered in most Soviet tank armor has caused much unnecessary concern regarding the relative ballistic performance of the hard Soviet armor and the softer American armor. Many people associate high hardness with high resistance to penetration. Although this is true, within limits, in the case of attack of armor by undermatching projectiles (i.e. caliber of shot is less than the tnickness of the armor) particularly at low obliquities of attack, it definitely not true when the armor is attacked by larger caliber shot at higher obliquities of impact’
Honestly this my most favorite tank other than the Panzer 4. Also, you might have forgotten one thing, during 1941-42, the Russians were thinking about putting the 57 mm gun on the 1940 version of the T-34, but it was scrapped (I learned this from a book about the T-34 and also the game, War Thunder). Other than that pretty cool video
It wasn’t a protester it was somebody in the Turkish army who drove a 234 he started it up because even on the battery was removed he knew that it’s a 34 has a gas operated starter so I didn’t need the electric starter so he did was he hopped in the tank and then started driving it around So rioters couldn’t hijack it and use it in the riots
@@gamingismynation1562 I know the story it was a guy who was in the Hungarian army and he was actually apart of the Protest turned roots but quickly stopped and dismantled the tank as he realized the crowd around him was too uncontrolled
@@johnjiang487 Not if they are used in a way like in Escape from Tarkov which still uses hp but in a really advanced system with each body part having it's own hp
@@tilengtr5747 it makes the game playable but only realistic enough, I wish they at least did that in World of Tank's tank models, they just made certain shells do more damage to certain tank classes if you don't hit parts where armor is "too thick"
There is no such thing as a perfect tank, the T 34 was an effective tank for its time with armour armament and manoeuvrability but a lack of radios and inexperience crews reduced its effectiveness during the early fighting on the eastern front later upgrades and battlefield experience greatly improved it. My favour story on why they won involved a German anti tank gun defending a position the Russians couldn't out flank it so they had to do a frontal attack, they succeeded because the Germans ran out of ammunition before the Russians ran out of tanks.
Yeah when you read german memoirs it is apparent that everything soviets has from rifles to heavy bombers was utter trash and decades beyond kraut engineering, and soviets only won because endless resourse cheats or something.
Some considerations: It was the T-34 chassis that made it such a versatile tank. Good speed, and excellent ground pressure to weight traction in rough terrain and snow . The T-34 chassis made conversions easy--T-34/85, Su-85, Su-122, and Su-100, all good AFV's. Their proven design and simplicity made it possible to pump them out in the tens of thousands. Sure, the Tiger sand Panther were superior, but keep in mind there were never enough of them, and they couldn't be everywhere in the vast front of Russia. Besides, where theT-34's really excelled was committed fast and massive deep strikes to encircle and hit the German's rear, like a flood. They could perform the blitzkriegs they learned from Germans who themselves could no longer do with their heavier tanks, fuel shortages, and on the defensive everywherre after their last offensives at Kursk and Kharkov.
You just shot the argument that the T34 is the 'best' WW2 tank in the foot. In terms of tank on tank, it is not the best tank. In terms of production, it is the best. In terms of losses to amount constructed, it's one of the worst. This subject is the definition of 'loaded question'.
@@RedneckRapture The problem with it high losses has less to due to the tank itself than how it was employed. T-34's were foolishly used in mass armored charges that allowed the German AT guns and tanks to take them out easily at long range, and break up their formations. The Israelis did the same to the Syrian tanks at the Golan Heights, and the Syrians T-55's tanks were pretty decent. The Germans didn't do any better at Kursk with their Tigers, Panthers, or Elephants, or later in France at Mortain agasint the US troops. Montgomery lost hundreds of tanks in pointless frontal assaults at Caen. Now Rommel knew how to use armor, by employing AT guns screens ahead of his armor to fight the opposition tanks, then used his tanks for the purpose they were interned for, to mop up, out flank, and encircle the enemy. The Soviets used T-34's mobility to great advantage by sending a large task force of them deep into German lines to take out the Tatsinskaya Airfield, the last airfield supplying the German Sixth army at Stalingrad.
@@blank557 A task that could have been done with lighter tanks. All your post has done is reinforce that the T34 was not the best WW2 tank. Again, in tank to tank fighting, the Germans had better tanks. The loss ratio shows that the T34 did not do well given the tactics used. The only thing it was best at was ease of production, which is why the soviets were able to keep up with such losses. The simple truth is there is no 'best tank of WW2.'
@@RedneckRapture No, the raid on Tatsinskaya Airfield could not be done by light tanks alone. In fact, the raid would have been more effective, if they had not brought the T-70 light tanks. The Soviet T-70 light tanks only had two man crews, insufficient firepower, poor mobility, and used gasoline compared to the T-34's less flammable diesel. It complicated supplying both tanks with different fuel and ammunition. In any case, the day of light tanks ended when the Germans came up against the KV1 and T-34. You proved by argument that the T-34's did poorly becasue of the tactics used. The Tiger and Tiger II were defensive tanks. They could not lighting flank strikes due to their small range and susceptibility to braking down. The Tiger II were a liability trying to navigate on the narrow roads in the Ardennes. The T-34 could go where the German tanks could not, enabling them with the mobility to fight an offensive war.
And don´t forget the oil problems Germans had - as in Europe of that time the only oil wells were in Romania. Their tanks a TD´s often couldn´t move because the oil reserves ran low (and the same with their capital ships).
Also forgot to mention how the Panther tanks were also a response to the T34's and KV's. Produced in more numbers than the tiger and whilst not the most mechanically sound German vehicle either. It was still more reliable than the Tiger. I believe it's arguably better than the Tiger.
The Panther wasn't meant to compete with the Tiger. They were meant to have different roles. The Panther was meant to be a replacement for the Panzer III and Panzer IV and take on the T-34 and other allied tanks. The Tiger was to be assigned to Heavy Tank Battalions within a Panzer division and to be called upon to provide additional firepower in a Schwerpunkt situation. However, the worsening situation of the war for Germany meant both tanks were usually called upon to fight adhoc without any consideration to their originally intended roles.
Sorry, that's a common myth. The panther wasn't a response to Soviet T34s and KVs, it was already in development before the Germans ever encountered heavy Soviet armour. That said, they did accelerate the development process after encountering them (resulting in initial reliability issues)
@@ApostasyUnlimited It's true the Panzer V was already in development by 1941, but the T-34 definitely had an influence in the final design commission led by Guderian.
They weren't meant as a response to those, they were meant as a response to what the Germans believe the new generation of Russian tanks could be. They were OP compared to what they faced, I'd feel sorry for the T-34 tankers if they weren't spreading the most vile ideology the world has seen.
Exactly, I remember watching their vids back in 2019-2020 and having 2d simple animations to now seeing them use full blown 3d animations is a nice upgrade
something he forgot to mention with bolting the armor together is that when molotovs were thrown onto one of these tanks the bolts left gaps inbetween the armor so if a molotov was thrown on a tank the flaming liquid would seep in and disable the tank
Yeap. Apart from that rain, snow, mud, dirt and grease, all come in and damage the electric lines, cables, equipment. No use making your engine exhaust Molotov-proof when the crew can still take the damage, well spotted.
@@АлександарЂокић-ж9л yup that was the case at Krasny Bor, the Soviet Guards Rifle division lost most of their T-34s and brave tankcrews to Spanish Blau 250th Infantry Division Veterans of the Spanish civil war.
@@RussianThunderrr Simple History was explaining the main methods of tank production during the interwar and early war period. Yes, the T-34 didn't have bolted armor, but a lot of tank developped during the interwar did, such as the Panzer 38t (which was a tchek tank produced for the germans after 1938), or the various tanks and tankettes used by the Italians. I don't have the time to search for it, but a lot of other tanks used bolted armor at the beginning of the war.
Losses during the war amounted to almost 45,000 T-34 tanks! The total losses of the Soviet armored forces in 1941-1945 amounted to 96.600 units of armored vehicles. This is not a typo. Almost one hundred thousand. (Not taken into account the lost tanks received under the Lend-Lease)
Не стоит забывать так же.. Что у СССР было очень много легких танков такие как т-60.. БТ . которые засчитаны в эти почти 100 000.. А потери бронемашин Вермахта которых было уничтожено более 25000 нет.. Странные подсчеты? 😊
Однако, три корпуса из шести практически находились в стадии формирования, и только 4-ый, 8-ой и 9-ый механизированные корпуса могли рассматриваться как вполне боеспособные соединения[6]. В их составе числилось 1 515 танков, что более чем в три раза превосходило количество противостоящих им немецких танков с пушечным вооружением. Кроме того, в составе этих трех боеспособных корпусов числился 271 танк типов Т-34 и КВ, которые не только намного превосходили по вооружению и бронированию самые лучшие на тот момент немецкие танки, но и были почти неуязвимы для штатных противотанковых средств Вермахта. Результат - ПОТЕРИ 2648 танков против 186 танков немецких. За 15 суток войны безвозвратные потери составили: 4381 танк из 5826. Потери немцев к 4 сентября 1941 (1-я танковая группа Клейста): 222 машины ремонтопригодных + 186 безвозвратных. Странные подсчеты? 😊
На 22 июня 1941 года в составе всей немецкой Группы армий «Юг», в районе наступления которой состоялось данное сражение, было 728 танков, включая не менее 115 не имевших вооружения «командирских танков» Sd.Kfz. 265[4] и около 150 танков, вооруженных 20-мм пушками и/или пулеметами и (Т-I и Т-II). Таким образом, собственно танков - в общепринятом понимании этого слова - у немцев было 455 штук (Т-38(t), Т-III и Т-IV). Общее списочное количество танков в составе механизированных корпусов советского Юго-Западного фронта составляло 3 429[5] штук (кроме этого, некоторое число танков имелось в составе стрелковых дивизий фронта).
@@teodoziagalchin7765 конечно странные..вы имеете в виду сражение под дубно.. Таких массовых сражений всего 2 .. Еще Прохоровка.. Но счет идет за всю войну.. И тут очень интересный момент.. Почему потери Германии считают только по январь 45.. Почему не считают технику такую как БТР например.. У СССР вообще их не было .. Функции разведки и сопровождения выполняли легкие танки .. У которых броня была 15 мм.. А как же танки союзников? Италия.. Румыния.. А французские танки? Вот и вырисовывается картинка уже другая..
@@zloy8324 Ну да. И ещё 11000 танков по ленд-лизу. Да ещё 7000 единиц бронетехники? Вот и вырисовывается картинка уже другая.. Да, французских танков было аж 297 шт с 47 мм пушкой бронетехника СССР - ресурс 72 тыс: потери 37 тыс
My goodness, you have come a very long way. First your animations were simple then got more complex. I am proud, Mr. History. Your animation skill have gotten so much better.
Great video. I think it depends how you look at the vehicle. If you are just looking at fire power and armor in a vacuum then it's easy to think tanks like the Panther and Tiger 2 are the best. However if you look at it in terms of what makes a good tank for an army involved in a massive land war. Then things like range, reliability, numbers produced, ease of manufacture and ease of repair/replacement come much more to the forefront. In these aspects the T-34 and Sherman are basically neck and neck in being the best tanks of the war. I think the T-34 wins out here with its superior off-road performance but there is a very compelling argument for the Sherman being the best. Basically my view is the Germans had tanks which individually were monsters. But too few in number. The Soviets and Allies had tanks which were good enough to get the job done and available in great numbers. Which was all the difference in the end.
@@mitchspurlock3626 The Sherman’s 75mm gun was enough to take out a Tiger tank in the right spot. It’s all about tactics to not get your armored vehicles knocked.
I mean the T-34 also had including angle, 90mm of frontal armor. More or less as much as a tiger -12mm. Even raw armor the first t-34s were as armored as heavy armor
Another major problem was the unwieldy gearbox. It had poor reliability and it needed excessive force to change gears, leading to driver fatigue. The study ‘Engineering analysis of the Russian T34/85 tank’ says: 'Rough steering due to the use of clutch and brake steering control, and Difficulty in shifting due to the use of a spur gear clash-shift transmission (no synchronizers, no clutches) and a multi-disc dry clutch, undoubtedly make driving this tank a difficult and very fatiguing job.’ Initially the powerful V-2 engine (500hp) could not be used to the fullest due to the 4-speed gearbox. Changing gears required excessive force on behalf of the driver. The T-34 could use the 4th gear only on a paved road, thus the max speed over cross-country was theoretically 25 km/h but in practice it was only 15km/h because changing from 2nd gear to 3rd required superhuman strength. On later modifications there was a 5-speed gearbox which allowed for a cross country speed of 30 km/h. However it seems that even vehicles built late in the war were not guaranteed to have the new 5-speed gearbox. The tanks given to the Polish People's Army in late 1944/early 1945 and those used by the North Korean Army in 1950 had the old 4-speed setup
I can only imagine the hype when the Trebuchet or Catapults first came into a war scene back in ancient times. The aura must have had the same feeling as this Tank dominating the war zone.
@@joshuasimons7883 ah yes because a tank can’t beat something twice it’s weight makes it crappy plus most t 34s were lost to at guns AirPower and maintenance issues
@@ncpdswordshielddivision2240 nah bro, the maintenance issues and the fact that they were essentially designed to mop up Germany’s resources is what made it suck.
One of the biggest off putting things about the T-34 series is the amount of historical myth becoming historical fact and it's "fanbase" being rather extremist in their fanatical belief in those myths.
The T-34, one of the major factors who helped the allies win the war in armored warfare. While it may not have been the best of the tanks, it is without a doubt one lf the most important ones
You're thinking of the T-34 mate, not T34 T34 is an experimental heavy tank meant to fight the Siegfried Line built by the Americans, along with T29, T30 and T28/T95
Well? I am Russian. And we also have the expression: "Why reinvent the wheel?". As long as something works, and works well, you don't need to touch it.
@@vladcadar8557 Tanks don’t win wars just as planes, ships, and guns don’t. Manpower and industry win wars. However, Ill bite, tell me what makes you think the T-34 won the war. I can’t wait to hear this “intelligent” explanation.
Ah yes, the T34. The "we put so much protection we forgot to put enough eyeslit for the crew to see things" and "we forgot to install optics because high quotas and no one remind anyone because they're scared of being punished"
The T-34 basic design had some good features. When it entered service the T-34 was possibly the best in the world. But the quality of production was low. The early T-34/76 turret was too small to hold a loader and had terrible ergonomics. They lacked many useful features. Most WW2 T-34s lacked radios and intercoms. On paper, the T-34 performance was good. But in reality, it was average to poor. The design was generally reliable but poor construction made it much worse. Like Soviet equipment, it was rugged, simple and easy to repair. If parts were available. The T-34/85 was a significant improvement. With over 50 000 built during WW2 it made a vital contribution to winning the war. But at a high cost. Loss rates of T-34s was much higher than Sherman tanks. One of the quality problems was inconsistent armor manufacturing. Many had strong heating to improve armor penetration. But with overly heating of the armor made it more brittle. That made internal fragmentation of the armor was more likely to hit crews and ammunition. Like the effect of high explosive HESH ammunition. This was a production problem, and not a failure of the design. . Post war T-34/85 production could have been built with much better quality and accessories. Such as with radios and internal communications, more optics and better quality armor. The T-34/85 with a loader could have greatly improved firepower with much better target tracking, sight acquisition, faster aim adjusting with follow-up shots, the commander's situational awareness, and reload time. Situational awareness is vital for tank crews. And good quality armor could greatly reduced casualties and ammunition fires. Much of our WW2 history needs to be checked by many countries to overcome significant post war misinformation, propaganda and poor research. The Chieftain does and other Utube historians are trying to find original documents to check what information is accurate. Translation between language is also a problem and there is a massive amount of history documentation that is not in English. The history of the Battle of Midway is a very good example of misinformation that is now being studied again from original documentation. Misinformation is sometimes intentional, but often poor quality research. Sometimes just historians wanting to simplify very complex events. Veterans are a rapidly disappearing source of WW2 information. But this can be unreliable when a soldiers view of the war is mainly from in a trench. Historic interviews is a very complex issue. Different soldiers from different trenches often have a very different view. In regards to trenches, is an example that can be applied with many situations. The views of a private and a general is another example of very different views of the same situation. Even with current events, this can be a problem for historians. And historians often have a different agenda. For some writers, it can just be written to be more entertaining or increase popularity. As well as cultural differences.
This was a well done video, there are things that weren't mentioned of course but overall a wonderful video. I would love it if you guys did a video like this in the Sherman Tank as the one you do have is pretty basic and even included the ridiculous notion of 5 Sherman's were needed to take down a single Tiger tank. A video on the Sherman done in this style would do that tank justice in my opinion. I hope you guys consider it.
On average in late period of the war 3 Shermans were lost for each Tiger / 3 T-34. Tiger 1. This was a great ratio proving how much better Sherman / T-34 was as a tank. Late war Soviet losses were around 2.7 to 1. Compare to more then 10:1 at the beginning.
As an engineer, I admire the convenience and high technology of German tanks, but that's what ruined them. The German industry simply could not produce enough such expensive and complex tanks. In addition, heavy models often broke down and it was very difficult to repair them in the field. Here I really like the concept of the T-34 (simple, cheap, harsh, fast). This is truly the "best tank of wartime" (I mean, as a forced measure, it is beyond praise).
The Germans could've easily streamlined production but went with the "Craftsman" approach over absolute Industrial. Not to mention they also field tanks in record time so they were rushed significantly more than most other tanks of other nations, yet they remained somewhat more reliable (their reliability was more so a crew issue than mechanical, though final drive of the Panther's was a real issue).
@@youngrody2386 (though final drive of the Panther's was a real issue) Dident they fix this at the end? according to reliability files the 1944 panther was on par with the Panzer IV. and yes crew was most important.
I can’t really agree with the best tank of the board going to T34 for performance issues. I think it belongs to either the upgraded Sherman with a 76mm. The superior crew friendliness really clinches it in my opinion. I would classify T34 as good perhaps great. There were definitely issues with quality of the machines and quality of life for the crew, but the reality was the people making king it had to make some ruthless decisions about volume and economics so they could have enough, because they were facing the very real threat of extermination down to the last child if they didn’t get enough functioning tanks out the door, so in that circumstance cutting down on polish and comforts is absolutely the right choice. The armor was acceptable the gun was competitive the optics worked and it had enough mobility. The parts that mattered got the attention they needed.
I love how Simple History takes pains to be historically accurate as to things like the kind of rifles the Spanish Republicans were using, even when that's not the topic of the video. Around 3:10, they're using Mauser 98 variants; this is correct; Czech and Polish kar 98 copies were in common use among Republicans.
The T-34 was garbage. The KV-1 was the real winner. And only because it had the armor to handle combat with the Germans. T-34s were seen split in half, lengthwise, from direct front hits.
No. 50,000 T-34's were lost in WW2 (most of them lost in combat were destroyed by Panzer III's). Any other tank that took 50,000 losses would be laughed at as a total failure, but because the T-34 has some myths and legends behind it people just ignore the fact that it sucked unless it was massed in huge numbers.
In 41-42 the T-34 suffered terribly from lack C&C since only platoon, sometimes, and Company command tanks had radios. Because of this the T-34 had zero battle field awareness. Germans repeatedly talked about how they would first shoot the tank in the rear and then move forward. Each T-34 having no idea their platoon, or company, was being wiped out and failing to respond. Second the 2 man turret (which is constantly over looked) was a major design flaw which contributed to the T-34s already terrible situational awareness on the battlefield. The commander was not only responsible for guiding the tank while looking for threats, he also was responsible for aiming and firing the main gun. Ergo a commander could not actually do his job of spotting the enemy and killing the enemy at the same time. The lack of visibility from a buttoned turret and no commander copula, heaped more onto the already terrible SA the T-34 already had. Add onto this the very slow manually cranked turret and you have a nightmare for the crew of a T-34. It was just not a very good offensive tank when it was on the move. (Note: the 2 man turret was not increased to 3 until the introduction of the T-34/85 in '43) Oh, and lets not forget the horrible optics on a T-34. The video talks about the T-34's gun being able to penetrate Panzer armor at 1000 meters... yeah... in theory, but there was no way the commander could aim that far. This is why the Russians employed such aggressive tactics with the T-34 using maneuverability to close with the German forces to the point where they would just run over AT guns and machine gun positions instead of trying to engage them with their main gun. The Germans were shocked at first, but the daring of the Panzer commanders added to their experience and each tank in radio communication, ergo their C&C being excellent, they were able to outmaneuver, and get in very close to T-34s and KO them with track hits, engine hits, gun hits, or sometimes they would just shoot a T-34 so many times without the T-34 not being able to detect where the fire was coming from they could get the crew to abandon the tank. Through most of the war Panzer tanks, while some of the more famous ones were unreliable, the problem the Germans had with killing the T-34 was that they just didn't have enough ammo. Many surviving panzer crewmen tell stories of how they would shoot every round killing dozens of T-34s and more just kept coming. They could not believe it. While there may be some exaggeration in numbers the Panzers crews enjoyed a much higher survivability and so did their panzers. Even when KO'ed panzer were far more likeyl to be towed to the rear and repaired while the T-34 did not. I think of the 56k T-34s made 46k were total loses in combat. That is a pretty grim number if you rode in one. In the end the T-34 was just like the Russian soldier. Quantity over quality, and as seen with the American Sherman, you can out produce your enemy and win, you just don't have to care about casualties.
This is a revisionist myth. The Germans did have an advantage in its kill ratio, but that had much more to do with its anti-tank guns and not the German tanks. In order for the Germans to have had fewer rounds than the Russian had tanks they'd need to have produced well under 100,000 tank rounds. In reality, the Germans produced over a billion rounds of all kinds for artillery guns and tanks, they just simply did not have the stretegic foresight or tactics to resist the Soviets once they got going. In fact, even before Operation Bagration, the first time the Soviets really outnumbered the Germans in all areas, the Germans were suffering. They outnumbered the Russians in terms of equipment and soldiers at Moscow and that includes the Soviet counter offensive. Even in the first half of the battle of Kursk the Germans had a very similar number of tanks. They lost because their army was worse, both in terms of its size, doctrine and tactics. Btw the kill ratio in Germanys favour was never "dozens" to one it was more like two or three to one
Soviets count tanks that were damaged but returned to factory as "new". So actual numbers of tanks are a bit different. Germans produced just over 46,000 tanks and tank destroyers starting with panzer 3. Remember Soviets started with almost 10x as many tanks as Germans.
@@rolandhunter And most of them can easily prepared after battles and about 30,000 can reused in just few days while Tiger just suck when damaged and many platoon need to destroy or left them, that's the different. Not only that T34 super cheap compare to Tiger
@@tomk3732 what are you trying to say? The "46k" are total tanks produced I am guessing and it's still less than the Soviet T 34 alone. They started with 10x more tanks and they ended with more tanks which should not be surprising to anyone. How any of that information even relate your first statement that they counted returning tanks as "new".
Of the ~50,000+ T-34s built during the war, 85% of them were destroyed in combat beyond being salvageable. Sounds more like a design disaster than a "legendary" tank.
Actually the T-34 has a weak spot near the gun barrel on the left (where the ottics are) and also the previous models of Panzer (of course thank Hunter's) , could actually easily penetrate the Soviet thank shooting the driver's hatch. BTW nice video pretty interesting!
True, I only knew about it from finding a similar weekness in the Tiger Tank. Optics and veiwports are good targets, hard to hit without enough training and/or experience. Luck, experience, training, and strategy also play huge roles in who wins.
I think you're being optimistic if you think you can hit the sights whilst in combat. Hitting the tank would be a reasonable shot. Hitting it somewhere vulnerable would be a good shot. Hitting the sights would be dumb luck!
Panther was better once the bugs were worked out, but if you factor in ease of construction and ability to get more units to the field the T34 wins every time. The Soviets were driving them from the assembly line to combat. 💪
The T-34 was not that cheap and had serious production issues (like non standardized parts across factories...) but the Soviet industrial power was just that strong.
The StuG III was the most produced German armored fighting vehicle and was half the price of a Panther. The Germans did put some thought to economics in producing fighting vehicles.
Most of the t34 tanks didnt have mirror optics but polished steel plates. A lot of early t34 struggled to know where they took hits from. This was also bc the commander was the gunner even most of the t34-85's with the d5t cannon had a 4 man crew
idk about better tactics since german crews were very inexperienced near the end of the war. plus, tanks like the is-2 were being built, which could cut straight through tigers and panthers at pretty extreme ranges. not to mention the is-2 was more reliable than german heavy tanks, and was great when it came to supporting infantry because of its massive high explosive shell. all these advantages you’re listing are pretty questionable, especially since t-34’s were able to destroy german tanks from both sides. (a t-34 was even able to ambush 3 tiger ii’s and destroy all of them.)
@@siko9799 this is true, t34s dominated until the arrival of the tiger 1 and 2, 88mm gun and bigger tank destroyers, and even then the Germans where massively outnumbered.
Lets be honest, the tiger was the most feared tank of ww2, its firepower and armour was many times superior to others but since it was rushed it had engine/transmission problems and was hard and expensive to mass produce so it would be more logical to choose a "tommy cooker" which was cheap, easy to build and fix, and easy to transport all the while having a decent gun but that doesn't change the fact that the tiger was the best option by far in a 1v1 situation against any tank, it simply didn't had a rival
@Mark Spencer Saulog quantity not quality! Germany relied on quality The Soviets on quantity! 10,000 t 34 which were only destroyed by Tiger 1 says a lot about it. tiger1 only 1500 ~
You see a Russian tank:Panic You score a direct hit with anti-tank cannon:Calm Tank is still fine and it's now turning it's turret towards you:Extreme Panic
One interesting thing I noticed early on in the video... you mention the T-34s deployment coinciding with the Sept '39 German invasion of Poland... but you ignore the Sept '39 Soviet invasion of Poland--as part of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact--& especially the Nov '39 Soviet invasion of Finland. Both saw how ineffective the BT, earlier T-type, & the KV tanks were on rough terrain. It was the lessons learned there that made the T-34 design so effective (even if the rushed manufacturing compromised some areas).
If you consider that 44,900 of the 57,000 built during the war were destroyed no it was actually the tank with the most looses in the history of tanks.
additionally: “ [….] The average lifecycle of a tank or self-propelled gun in the red army at the front was rarely longer than three to seven day of combat operations.” Boris Kavalerchik, The Tanks of Operation Barbarossa, ISBN 1399014293, Page 152 Lines29-30
The IL2 Sturmovik needs a video dedicated to it, one of the most produced aircraft Ever produced. It was known as a playing tank by the germans form it’s firepower and survivability.
@@Hyduwegorz military magazine «foreign insight: telling you random contextless facts about foreign warfare"? I am not really criticizing, just trying to say that life was a bit more complicated than... than the thing you typed.
I still love the story of how when Stalingrad was invaded tanks where still being built and driven from the factory straight to the front line a few blocks away it’s like a top down multiplayer game when your land is being attacked and you send your factory’s to build vehicles and tell them drive to the fighting here
The crews didn't have to wait long either for a tow back to the factory for repairs since those hastily assembled T-34's would often break down before they reached the front lines.
That sounds like StarCraft games where I literally make zerglings during a defense because I’m not sure my sunken colonies will hold. I’m somewhat related note if you get a bit of forewarning or the attack takes a long time it’s possible to create a trio of ultralisks with time to spare. Because the AI tells units to prioritize other units over structures they will get targeted by your sunken colonies continue to wallop away on the attacking force with 40 damage a hit. Assuming they survive you can then order them to attack all the way to the enemy main base, not that they’re likely to succeed on their own, but because it’s absolutely hilarious and crazy effective to punish a failed assault with destroying part of their tech tree or killing their workers, and they are one of the few ground units with enough durability to inflict meaningful damage while ignoring enemy attacks.
Not true...T34 was an excellent tank at that time and it proved itself. German armor was over-engineered and useless in real warfare as history showed. Numbers alone do not win wars...
@@alexs7097 of course they don't. Otherwise the soviet union would have won from the start of the war, before Zhukov took over, but as we saw it nearly collapsed up until 1942. Tactics and strategies play a far more important role. But then again, don't try to undermine the fact that great numbers are an important advantage in war...
the intro cinematic. It would be more true if the t-34 crew didn't realize they were being shot for 20 minutes, before attempting to drive over them. And missing. :DDDD (T34 sights, besides the gunner sight. Were awful. Or atleast half of them were, due to a certain factory making shortcuts.)
All i have to say is please make a part 2! The animation was \amazing, the info was excellent, and the quality was amazing. Maybe you could expand it into other nations aswell!
A big problem the T-34 always had was the engine would leave a giant plume of smoke as it ran & stukas could use that to find it. They also tended to light on fire alot as they were made for short term service, no russian tank lasted over a year in battle
@@bbcmotd Well, about that: Tiger had a kill ratio of 20-30:1. So, it was more than able to take out 8 tanks at once. And it has been even proven. For an example: During the battle of Kursk a single Tiger I commanded by German Franz Staudegger engaged about 50 T-34s in a battle. The result of the battle was that Staudegger used all of his ammo and took down 22 of those T-34s making the rest of them to retreat. His Tiger took multiple hits in the process and was able carry on.
6:42 ''...barely been used up to that point'' 7TP, TKS Tankette, L3 Tankette, BT-7, BT-5, BT-2, R35, D2, FT, T26, Char B1 and many, many more tanks: am i a joke to you? Sorry, but just had to point this out. Still a great video, even with this small mistake! :D
No mention made about the sloped glacis on the T-34 being done to reduce materials needed for construction, rather than a means of improving protection?
![[TH] FS vs BME - VCT Ascension Pacific - Lower Bracket Final](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/wnygqsR2Fig/mqdefault.jpg)
A thing about durability: Soviet studies investigated how much was the average life of a tank in the front lines. The result is that the T-34 was built to be as reliable as possible around said average. No need to build something that will be reliable for 10 years when it probably won't last 1 year, or less.
The Soviet study in that regard was far more in depth. They found a Tank might last around 6 hours in Combat, be obsolete roughly 6 months before introduction, and would have an advantage that lasted roughly one year before something better came along to kill it.
If I remember the layout of the study conclusions correctly.
@@FLJBeliever1776 They did take it seriously, also they made it so that the tank could be repaired with simple tools and improvised parts. if you couldn't fix it with a hammer, it wasn't worth fixing at all.
Interesting you pointed that out. During the Korean War, that was apparently the case. The T-34s that the Soviets had supplied to the North Koreans were mostly destroyed in the first 6-12 months if I remember correctly. They dominated light American tanks in the early weeks, but when modernized Shermans, new Pattons, and ESPECIALLY British Centurions arrived on the battlefield, the T-34 quickly lost its edge. A lot of World War II tech was rapidly fading in effectiveness by 1950. To some extent, that Soviet military study was proven correct here.
@@NoobNoobNews - God help you if you lost that really big wrench all T-34 Tanks needed.
@@thunderbird1921 - The M4 Sherman wasn't really modernized for Korea. Refurbished yes, but very little was actually done to update them.
The US Army had the M26 Pershing and M46 Patton. Both were better Tanks with 90mm guns and thicker armor. Though M4 Sherman still had a good war in 1950-1951.
The Soviets had intentionally supplied obsolete Tanks to the North Koreans. The KV-1 had its last hurrah in Korea for example. Amazing any had survived that long.
The T-34-85 was obsolete in 1945. The T-44 was online as was IS-3 with T-54 becoming available in numbers by 1950. So with no room left for upgrades, the T-34 could be expended.
I must admit the animation quality has gotten a lot better. Solid work!
I was thinking the same thing!
The channels animation got progressively better through the years
Yeah, it looks more higher quality
New series?
True i love the way they did the tank
Nice video, but I can't believe you didn't mention one of the Germans' biggest advantages against the Soviet tanks; that is, the Germans all had radios in their tanks; The Soviet Union did not. So the German commanders could communicate from the safety of their armor, while the Soviets had to expose themselves out the tops of their turrets, and hope that they were seen while using flags for signaling.
Thanks for that information I didn't know that.
I think later on they equipped themselves with radios
@@RedCommissar Yeah, initially only the squad commander would have a radio, later on they added radios to all tanks.
Not to mention that German tanks also had optics so the commander wouldnt have to open the hatch to see around the tank. British churchills didnt even have that ring of optics
And they forget the best variant of the tank the T-34-85
They were not the best tanks of ww2. But they were simple to produce and easy to operate and repair. It was a huge advantage over German tanks.
T r a n s m i s s i o n
Ah... They were not easy to repair. At all. They usually weren't repaired, you'd just get a new one. If you didn't die form the massive fire that started that you probably couldn't escape.
They were easy to produce. Especially if you took out minor things like: Seats. And radios. And Rubber. And working transmissions. And didn't properly weld it. And didn't properly rivet it. And gave it a shelf life of 500 km.
They were the best tank for the UdSSR at that time and thatsthe important part
and EXPENSIVE
@@madhie-kun8614 the tigers? Yes
Considering how hyped this video is, I’m surprised that the late war variant T34/85 never made it into this video.
Or the T-34/100 and T-34/57 possibly
Yeah, they didn't talk about my favorite variant of the T-34.
The most tank in history
Hopefully, they will make a part 2 of the vid. It wouldn't be surprising due to the tanks crazy long history of the tank and the sheer effort that goes into making a video like this ( the worst bit would be the animation).
To be fair, most of the work was done by the 76's, they were there till the end of the war.
A 32-minute documentary, superb animation, and great dialogue? This is definitely Simple History's magnum opus so far.
Simple History has come along way in telling History in Animated form. I am happy to say I have been watching them for a long time and I am proud with how far they've come. Keep up the amazing videos!
i feel the same way.
First video from them I watched was on Desmond Doss.
He can lie now too
Best joke I have every heard applied to both the T-34 and the Sherman. "The Tiger tank was as good as seven T-34/Shermans. The problem was there was always an eighth."
Hahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahaha
Ну, на самом деле конкретно Тигр - та ещё хрень, с точки зрения стратегии. Медленный, не такой уж неубиваемый как надеялись немцы, а главное он имел кучу "детских болезней" вроде шахматной подвески, застывавшей намертво после ночи в русской грязи (грязь каменела в колесах), двигателя способного загореться просто так, малого запаса хода и т.п.
Well, certainly didnt help when the Sherman Easy 8 /E8 came.
even the nineth was no problem because usually they preferred to ran when Tiger roared
There is the black baron who was able to take out an entire armored division of 15 tanks with just 3 under his command
This is by far one of the best videos released by Simple History. Id love to see the same type of thing but with all of the "big three" main fighting vehicles during WW2.
th-cam.com/video/W9QVQvGSsKI/w-d-xo.html
It isn't a very accurate video though :)
Yup
One interesting tidbit about the T-34 design issues: often times, the large bolts connecting all the treads together would come loose as the tank was in motion. This of course threatened to cause the treads to collapse and fall apart, rendering the T-34 immobile. To address this problem, the engineers came up with a crude but effective solution: they welded a steel wedge near the rear sprocket! So any tread bolts coming loose would be pushed back into place by simple physics! Soviet engineering at its finest!
Yep, that's where the famous T 34 clacking comes from! Pretty ingenious
So simple keep driving, sounds like Russian engineering to me.
That’s fucking awesome lmao
That's Russian engineering in a nutshell. If it doesn't work, fucking hit it again until it does.
It’s so simple but somehow it’s genius
Its sort of strange that on one hand you hear how the germans struggled to beat the T-34 while on the other hand reports show that they took them out Day 1 of the war, even with 20mm guns which the T-34 should in theory be immune to. Some historians believe that it was infact the KV that gave the T-34 its legendary reputation. Some old german news reels talk about the T-34 while showing an image of a KV-1. Just like all german tanks was a tiger 1 to the americans, maybe the T-34 had a similar fate where it got credit for the KV-1's work. This sort of explains how documentaries and what not always claim that the germans had to use the Flak 88 to take out the T-34 while battle reports tells a different story.
Sounds like Russian propaganda
Yeah best Tank in ww2 has the most losses... axis 1:5 soviet ratio ain't in my head a good ratio.
@@projectdvan4568 that was most of t-34s built to 1945 not just early varients due to half or so, of t-34s being built in 1 factory which you can assume they had rushed some parts which they did including but not limited to. No seats mostly the hull mg gunner, no turret basket, no seals for hatches (water gets inside), wheels were mixed matched meaning tracks might break. You can't forget poor welding meant the armor can shatter even from non penetrating hits. As you stated
@@eemelianttonen8641 that was mainly down to rubbish Soviet tactics
No, the T-34's were a mixed bag. Over half of them came from one factory that was told to pump them out as quickly as possible which resulted in _numerous_ cut corners that caused many Soviet tankers to die. The lack of spare parts also accounted for numerous T-34 losses as some crews had to abandon the tank when they could not repair it. In fact, the T-34 was kind of a terrible tank.
My grandfather was a tank commander in the Soviet Army in WWII, including the Battle of Kursk. Thank you for this video!
really?! what tank did your father command?
@@Siuuuuuuuu507 YES!
Thanks for his service! He and the Red Army saved Slavic people!
Hitler: "How can they possibly make that many tanks so quickly!?"
Stalin: "Haha... Work force go screee!"
Workforce: *working in the middle of a battle*
*Quantity over quality mode enabled*
@@peter4210 not so fun fact= an arms factory in stalingrad tested their weapons by shooting out of the factory because the germans were literally next door.
@@alifio2183 safe to say they prooved their effectiveness very well
@@alifio2183 how to say hello to your Neighborhood
By stalin
Superb content! Well done!
th-cam.com/video/dQw4w9WgXcQ/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/W9QVQvGSsKI/w-d-xo.html
@@nottiramisu i clicked it but my inter net was slow so you failed
True
@@ImNotUsingMyAltBro I dont need to see the video, true chads know what the video is just by looking at the link
I don't understand how the animations can keep such awesome simplicity while continuing to gradually get more detailed, creative, and beautiful with every few videos. Seriously such an awesome channel.
Ayo, i seen you around in the blitz community
@@hosybosy1119 lol yep, that is I.
The armor of the T-34 had a high Brinell rating, meaning it was very hard. This was advantageous in defeating antitank rounds of caliber equal or lower to the armor’s thickness but had the disadvantage that it could lead to spalling. Combined with manufacturing flaws in the construction of the tank this meant that the T-34’s crew was often in danger even when hit by tank rounds that did not penetrate the armor.
The study ‘Review of Soviet ordnance metallurgy’, p3-5 says:
‘The armor components of the T-34 tank, with the exception of the bow casting which was unheat-treated, were heat-treated to very high hardnesses (430-500 Brinell), probably in an attempt to secure maximum resistance to penetration by certain classes of armor-piercing projectiles even at the expense of structural integrity under ballistic attack.’
‘The quality of the armor steels ranged from poor to excellent. Wide variations in production technique were indicated; some rolled armor components were well cross-rolled while others were virtually straightaway rolled………The bow casting of the T-34 tank was very unsound and would have been rejected under American standards.’
‘Shallow penetration, poor fusion, severe undercutting, porosity, and cracking was observed in most of the welds and probably resulted from improper manipulation of electrodes which might not have had suitable operating characteristics….. These obvious defects, together with low strength and pour metallurgical structure of ferritic weld deposits, indicate that the welded joints would have poor resistance to severe shock.’
‘The results obtained from the metallurgical examination of these early world war ii Soviet tanks have been described in some detail since they are exactly the same as have been obtained from all examinations performed since then of Soviet tanks which were recovered in Germany after the end of world war ii, and on Soviet tanks which were captured in Korea during 1950-52. The Ordnance Corps has examined several Soviet JS-II which were found in Germany and several Soviet T-34 tanks from both Germany and Korea.’
'Some of the armor steels have surprisingly high toughness considering the very high hardness levels but many of the armor steels, even the softer ones, are very brittle.’
‘The very high hardness encountered in most Soviet tank armor has caused much unnecessary concern regarding the relative ballistic performance of the hard Soviet armor and the softer American armor. Many people associate high hardness with high resistance to penetration. Although this is true, within limits, in the case of attack of armor by undermatching projectiles (i.e. caliber of shot is less than the tnickness of the armor) particularly at low obliquities of attack, it definitely not true when the armor is attacked by larger caliber shot at higher obliquities of impact’
You mean 500 Vickers*
Honestly this my most favorite tank other than the Panzer 4. Also, you might have forgotten one thing, during 1941-42, the Russians were thinking about putting the 57 mm gun on the 1940 version of the T-34, but it was scrapped (I learned this from a book about the T-34 and also the game, War Thunder). Other than that pretty cool video
Attack the D point!
Attack the D point!
Never!
Gramercy!
WoT's T-34 also had the 57mm gun as an option. most people consider it the most decent gun to use, better than the 76mm.
Fun fact: protestors once hijacked one during a riot.
It wasn’t a protester it was somebody in the Turkish army who drove a 234 he started it up because even on the battery was removed he knew that it’s a 34 has a gas operated starter so I didn’t need the electric starter so he did was he hopped in the tank and then started driving it around So rioters couldn’t hijack it and use it in the riots
At least I think that’s what you mean by protesters once hijacked one
Berlin Wall reunification?
True. Saw a video on that one.
@@gamingismynation1562 I know the story it was a guy who was in the Hungarian army and he was actually apart of the Protest turned roots but quickly stopped and dismantled the tank as he realized the crowd around him was too uncontrolled
WoT:
"Historically Accurate vehicles!!!"
Also WoT:
*has hitpoints*
HII
Yes, imagine playing a tank game that still uses hp
Hit points make any game unrealistic
@@johnjiang487 Not if they are used in a way like in Escape from Tarkov which still uses hp but in a really advanced system with each body part having it's own hp
@@tilengtr5747 it makes the game playable but only realistic enough, I wish they at least did that in World of Tank's tank models, they just made certain shells do more damage to certain tank classes if you don't hit parts where armor is "too thick"
There is no such thing as a perfect tank, the T 34 was an effective tank for its time with armour armament and manoeuvrability but a lack of radios and inexperience crews reduced its effectiveness during the early fighting on the eastern front later upgrades and battlefield experience greatly improved it. My favour story on why they won involved a German anti tank gun defending a position the Russians couldn't out flank it so they had to do a frontal attack, they succeeded because the Germans ran out of ammunition before the Russians ran out of tanks.
lol nice anecdote :)
Bruh, the T-34 wasn’t even effective.
@@hetzer5926 yes, so ineffective the russians made 70 000 of them ;)
Yeah when you read german memoirs it is apparent that everything soviets has from rifles to heavy bombers was utter trash and decades beyond kraut engineering, and soviets only won because endless resourse cheats or something.
That’s , not really a good thing for either side . Moral does exist XD
30 minute video, that must have been painfull to animate, thank you so much for putting time and effort into these videos
Some considerations: It was the T-34 chassis that made it such a versatile tank. Good speed, and excellent ground pressure to weight traction in rough terrain and snow . The T-34 chassis made conversions easy--T-34/85, Su-85, Su-122, and Su-100, all good AFV's. Their proven design and simplicity made it possible to pump them out in the tens of thousands. Sure, the Tiger sand Panther were superior, but keep in mind there were never enough of them, and they couldn't be everywhere in the vast front of Russia. Besides, where theT-34's really excelled was committed fast and massive deep strikes to encircle and hit the German's rear, like a flood. They could perform the blitzkriegs they learned from Germans who themselves could no longer do with their heavier tanks, fuel shortages, and on the defensive everywherre after their last offensives at Kursk and Kharkov.
You just shot the argument that the T34 is the 'best' WW2 tank in the foot. In terms of tank on tank, it is not the best tank. In terms of production, it is the best. In terms of losses to amount constructed, it's one of the worst. This subject is the definition of 'loaded question'.
@@RedneckRapture The problem with it high losses has less to due to the tank itself than how it was employed. T-34's were foolishly used in mass armored charges that allowed the German AT guns and tanks to take them out easily at long range, and break up their formations. The Israelis did the same to the Syrian tanks at the Golan Heights, and the Syrians T-55's tanks were pretty decent. The Germans didn't do any better at Kursk with their Tigers, Panthers, or Elephants, or later in France at Mortain agasint the US troops.
Montgomery lost hundreds of tanks in pointless frontal assaults at Caen. Now Rommel knew how to use armor, by employing AT guns screens ahead of his armor to fight the opposition tanks, then used his tanks for the purpose they were interned for, to mop up, out flank, and encircle the enemy.
The Soviets used T-34's mobility to great advantage by sending a large task force of them deep into German lines to take out the Tatsinskaya Airfield, the last airfield supplying the German Sixth army at Stalingrad.
@@blank557 A task that could have been done with lighter tanks. All your post has done is reinforce that the T34 was not the best WW2 tank. Again, in tank to tank fighting, the Germans had better tanks. The loss ratio shows that the T34 did not do well given the tactics used. The only thing it was best at was ease of production, which is why the soviets were able to keep up with such losses.
The simple truth is there is no 'best tank of WW2.'
@@RedneckRapture No, the raid on Tatsinskaya Airfield could not be done by light tanks alone. In fact, the raid would have been more effective, if they had not brought the T-70 light tanks. The Soviet T-70 light tanks only had two man crews, insufficient firepower, poor mobility, and used gasoline compared to the T-34's less flammable diesel. It complicated supplying both tanks with different fuel and ammunition. In any case, the day of light tanks ended when the Germans came up against the KV1 and T-34.
You proved by argument that the T-34's did poorly becasue of the tactics used. The Tiger and Tiger II were defensive tanks. They could not lighting flank strikes due to their small range and susceptibility to braking down. The Tiger II were a liability trying to navigate on the narrow roads in the Ardennes. The T-34 could go where the German tanks could not, enabling them with the mobility to fight an offensive war.
And don´t forget the oil problems Germans had - as in Europe of that time the only oil wells were in Romania. Their tanks a TD´s often couldn´t move because the oil reserves ran low (and the same with their capital ships).
Also forgot to mention how the Panther tanks were also a response to the T34's and KV's. Produced in more numbers than the tiger and whilst not the most mechanically sound German vehicle either. It was still more reliable than the Tiger. I believe it's arguably better than the Tiger.
The Panther wasn't meant to compete with the Tiger. They were meant to have different roles. The Panther was meant to be a replacement for the Panzer III and Panzer IV and take on the T-34 and other allied tanks. The Tiger was to be assigned to Heavy Tank Battalions within a Panzer division and to be called upon to provide additional firepower in a Schwerpunkt situation. However, the worsening situation of the war for Germany meant both tanks were usually called upon to fight adhoc without any consideration to their originally intended roles.
Nope...the Tiger and PzIV had availability ratios of 70%, the Panther in 1944 had ratios of 65% according to Thomas Jentz
Sorry, that's a common myth. The panther wasn't a response to Soviet T34s and KVs, it was already in development before the Germans ever encountered heavy Soviet armour. That said, they did accelerate the development process after encountering them (resulting in initial reliability issues)
@@ApostasyUnlimited It's true the Panzer V was already in development by 1941, but the T-34 definitely had an influence in the final design commission led by Guderian.
They weren't meant as a response to those, they were meant as a response to what the Germans believe the new generation of Russian tanks could be. They were OP compared to what they faced, I'd feel sorry for the T-34 tankers if they weren't spreading the most vile ideology the world has seen.
Tank: "Sir, it'll take ten tanks to destroy a single tiger tank."
Tank Commander: "Then bring 12 Tanks, comrade."
Use more gun, if that don’t work, use more gun.
The 2 extra tanks are used as blocking detachments incase the tanks were retreating!
Or bring some IS-2's
Third Reich:The Tiger can carry 92 shells
Stalin: Ivan, bring 93 T34's
The USSR has more men than the Germans have bullets after all lol
i like how over the years, every time I check on one of your videos the animation improves
but I don't know how were going to top this
These are some nice animations. You went from 2d to a full-blown 3d animation house. What an amazing journey this channel is.
Simplehistory: stonks
Exactly, I remember watching their vids back in 2019-2020 and having 2d simple animations to now seeing them use full blown 3d animations is a nice upgrade
something he forgot to mention with bolting the armor together is that when molotovs were thrown onto one of these tanks the bolts left gaps inbetween the armor so if a molotov was thrown on a tank the flaming liquid would seep in and disable the tank
Yeap. Apart from that rain, snow, mud, dirt and grease, all come in and damage the electric lines, cables, equipment. No use making your engine exhaust Molotov-proof when the crew can still take the damage, well spotted.
@@АлександарЂокић-ж9л yup that was the case at Krasny Bor, the Soviet Guards Rifle division lost most of their T-34s and brave tankcrews to Spanish Blau 250th Infantry Division Veterans of the Spanish civil war.
- Bolting armor together!? What tank exactly do you have in mind. Not a T-34 for sure.
@@RussianThunderrr Simple History was explaining the main methods of tank production during the interwar and early war period.
Yes, the T-34 didn't have bolted armor, but a lot of tank developped during the interwar did, such as the Panzer 38t (which was a tchek tank produced for the germans after 1938), or the various tanks and tankettes used by the Italians.
I don't have the time to search for it, but a lot of other tanks used bolted armor at the beginning of the war.
@@RussianThunderrr the video literally mentioned armor being bolted, please check your facts before you say im incorrect
I really appreciate the length of this video. It's much better than the 5 minute vidoes you normally post.
These videos are so informative thank you for making them
Losses during the war amounted to almost 45,000 T-34 tanks! The total losses of the Soviet armored forces in 1941-1945 amounted to 96.600 units of armored vehicles. This is not a typo. Almost one hundred thousand. (Not taken into account the lost tanks received under the Lend-Lease)
Не стоит забывать так же.. Что у СССР было очень много легких танков такие как т-60.. БТ . которые засчитаны в эти почти 100 000.. А потери бронемашин Вермахта которых было уничтожено более 25000 нет.. Странные подсчеты? 😊
Однако, три корпуса из шести практически находились в стадии формирования, и только 4-ый, 8-ой и 9-ый механизированные корпуса могли рассматриваться как вполне боеспособные соединения[6]. В их составе числилось 1 515 танков, что более чем в три раза превосходило количество противостоящих им немецких танков с пушечным вооружением. Кроме того, в составе этих трех боеспособных корпусов числился 271 танк типов Т-34 и КВ, которые не только намного превосходили по вооружению и бронированию самые лучшие на тот момент немецкие танки, но и были почти неуязвимы для штатных противотанковых средств Вермахта.
Результат - ПОТЕРИ 2648 танков против 186 танков немецких.
За 15 суток войны безвозвратные потери составили: 4381 танк из 5826.
Потери немцев к 4 сентября 1941 (1-я танковая группа Клейста): 222 машины ремонтопригодных + 186 безвозвратных.
Странные подсчеты? 😊
На 22 июня 1941 года в составе всей немецкой Группы армий «Юг», в районе наступления которой состоялось данное сражение, было 728 танков, включая не менее 115 не имевших вооружения «командирских танков» Sd.Kfz. 265[4] и около 150 танков, вооруженных 20-мм пушками и/или пулеметами и (Т-I и Т-II). Таким образом, собственно танков - в общепринятом понимании этого слова - у немцев было 455 штук (Т-38(t), Т-III и Т-IV).
Общее списочное количество танков в составе механизированных корпусов советского Юго-Западного фронта составляло 3 429[5] штук (кроме этого, некоторое число танков имелось в составе стрелковых дивизий фронта).
@@teodoziagalchin7765 конечно странные..вы имеете в виду сражение под дубно.. Таких массовых сражений всего 2 .. Еще Прохоровка.. Но счет идет за всю войну.. И тут очень интересный момент.. Почему потери Германии считают только по январь 45.. Почему не считают технику такую как БТР например.. У СССР вообще их не было .. Функции разведки и сопровождения выполняли легкие танки .. У которых броня была 15 мм.. А как же танки союзников? Италия.. Румыния.. А французские танки? Вот и вырисовывается картинка уже другая..
@@zloy8324 Ну да. И ещё 11000 танков по ленд-лизу. Да ещё 7000 единиц бронетехники? Вот и вырисовывается картинка уже другая.. Да, французских танков было аж 297 шт с 47 мм пушкой
бронетехника СССР - ресурс 72 тыс: потери 37 тыс
My goodness, you have come a very long way. First your animations were simple then got more complex. I am proud, Mr. History. Your animation skill have gotten so much better.
Great video.
I think it depends how you look at the vehicle. If you are just looking at fire power and armor in a vacuum then it's easy to think tanks like the Panther and Tiger 2 are the best.
However if you look at it in terms of what makes a good tank for an army involved in a massive land war. Then things like range, reliability, numbers produced, ease of manufacture and ease of repair/replacement come much more to the forefront. In these aspects the T-34 and Sherman are basically neck and neck in being the best tanks of the war. I think the T-34 wins out here with its superior off-road performance but there is a very compelling argument for the Sherman being the best.
Basically my view is the Germans had tanks which individually were monsters. But too few in number. The Soviets and Allies had tanks which were good enough to get the job done and available in great numbers. Which was all the difference in the end.
"A Tiger could handle 4 Sherman's, but there were always 5"
@@mitchspurlock3626 The Sherman’s 75mm gun was enough to take out a Tiger tank in the right spot. It’s all about tactics to not get your armored vehicles knocked.
I mean the T-34 also had including angle, 90mm of frontal armor. More or less as much as a tiger -12mm. Even raw armor the first t-34s were as armored as heavy armor
I disagree. The Sherman and Panzer IV were far better vehicles overall, taking into account factors other than just guns and armor.
@@revanofkorriban1505 panzer 4 was outdated. It is a mid 1930s tank in a 40s war
Another major problem was the unwieldy gearbox. It had poor reliability and it needed excessive force to change gears, leading to driver fatigue. The study ‘Engineering analysis of the Russian T34/85 tank’ says:
'Rough steering due to the use of clutch and brake steering control, and
Difficulty in shifting due to the use of a spur gear clash-shift transmission (no synchronizers, no clutches) and a multi-disc dry clutch, undoubtedly make driving this tank a difficult and very fatiguing job.’
Initially the powerful V-2 engine (500hp) could not be used to the fullest due to the 4-speed gearbox. Changing gears required excessive force on behalf of the driver. The T-34 could use the 4th gear only on a paved road, thus the max speed over cross-country was theoretically 25 km/h but in practice it was only 15km/h because changing from 2nd gear to 3rd required superhuman strength.
On later modifications there was a 5-speed gearbox which allowed for a cross country speed of 30 km/h. However it seems that even vehicles built late in the war were not guaranteed to have the new 5-speed gearbox. The tanks given to the Polish People's Army in late 1944/early 1945 and those used by the North Korean Army in 1950 had the old 4-speed setup
I can only imagine the hype when the Trebuchet or Catapults first came into a war scene back in ancient times. The aura must have had the same feeling as this Tank dominating the war zone.
Dominating the war zone? It has the highest number of casualties of any tank ever. Doesn't sound like dominating to me...
@@joshuasimons7883 but it was dominating tho. later t-34-85 will dominate too.
@@jabroni951 the 85mm was only really on par with the German L43 75mm
@@joshuasimons7883 ah yes because a tank can’t beat something twice it’s weight makes it crappy plus most t 34s were lost to at guns AirPower and maintenance issues
@@Aurora07 yeah but it had more he filler making better against soft targets which were the vast majority of targets
This is definitely one of my favorite tanks right next to the Tiger II.
The Tiger II SUCKED
@@Latrine1999 because of the IS-2?s
@@ncpdswordshielddivision2240 nah bro, the maintenance issues and the fact that they were essentially designed to mop up Germany’s resources is what made it suck.
@@HerrZhukov oh ok
@@ncpdswordshielddivision2240 No, because the Tiger II was an unreliable useless thing
One of the biggest off putting things about the T-34 series is the amount of historical myth becoming historical fact and it's "fanbase" being rather extremist in their fanatical belief in those myths.
Like what exactly?
@@vingerebise8714 Like not praising the M4 or being a wehraboo.
And there's also wehraboos that believe in myths against the T-34, which are far more common then T-34 favourable myths
i find wehraboos and western patriots hilarious when it comes to favoritism
what are these myths? is it something like “5 sherman’s for every tiger”?
This not a tank. This IS THE tank!!! 😍
What do the IS series of tanks have to do with this?
Yeah, they're both Soviet tanks, but still...
🤣😂 it’s not magical
The T-34, one of the major factors who helped the allies win the war in armored warfare. While it may not have been the best of the tanks, it is without a doubt one lf the most important ones
ah yes, the T34. The heavy yank that singlehandedly carried the yanks to Berlin in another universe
You're thinking of the T-34 mate, not T34
T34 is an experimental heavy tank meant to fight the Siegfried Line built by the Americans, along with T29, T30 and T28/T95
T-34 is the best tank for the Russian doctrine at the time
@@AHappyCub thats the meme.
T-34 can roll over, but when they meet the Finnish Jaeger's they will yell the mud is speaking Finnish.
Putting the "What ain't broke, don't fix." philosophy into tank design. It was a well capable, all around tank.
Well? I am Russian. And we also have the expression: "Why reinvent the wheel?". As long as something works, and works well, you don't need to touch it.
Nah it wasn’t
@@josh05683 you goofy ahh, this tank won the war
@@vladcadar8557 Tanks don’t win wars just as planes, ships, and guns don’t. Manpower and industry win wars. However, Ill bite, tell me what makes you think the T-34 won the war. I can’t wait to hear this “intelligent” explanation.
delusional
Next video I’m hoping for is the Churchill tank. Very good history on t-34
Ah yes, the T34. The "we put so much protection we forgot to put enough eyeslit for the crew to see things" and "we forgot to install optics because high quotas and no one remind anyone because they're scared of being punished"
T34 is an American heavy tank, the T-34 is the Soviet medium tank.
@@plaguedoctor9472 🙄 this guy. You must be fun at parties
@@andypozuelos1204 he ruins children's birthday parties by telling them Santa isnt real
Those issues were later fixed as the war continued
Here is an awesome movie about the soviet tank. th-cam.com/video/_aA0dVzCvn0/w-d-xo.html
The T-34 basic design had some good features. When it entered service the T-34 was possibly the best in the world. But the quality of production was low. The early T-34/76 turret was too small to hold a loader and had terrible ergonomics. They lacked many useful features. Most WW2 T-34s lacked radios and intercoms. On paper, the T-34 performance was good. But in reality, it was average to poor. The design was generally reliable but poor construction made it much worse. Like Soviet equipment, it was rugged, simple and easy to repair. If parts were available. The T-34/85 was a significant improvement. With over 50 000 built during WW2 it made a vital contribution to winning the war. But at a high cost. Loss rates of T-34s was much higher than Sherman tanks. One of the quality problems was inconsistent armor manufacturing. Many had strong heating to improve armor penetration. But with overly heating of the armor made it more brittle. That made internal fragmentation of the armor was more likely to hit crews and ammunition. Like the effect of high explosive HESH ammunition. This was a production problem, and not a failure of the design. . Post war T-34/85 production could have been built with much better quality and accessories. Such as with radios and internal communications, more optics and better quality armor. The T-34/85 with a loader could have greatly improved firepower with much better target tracking, sight acquisition, faster aim adjusting with follow-up shots, the commander's situational awareness, and reload time. Situational awareness is vital for tank crews. And good quality armor could greatly reduced casualties and ammunition fires. Much of our WW2 history needs to be checked by many countries to overcome significant post war misinformation, propaganda and poor research. The Chieftain does and other Utube historians are trying to find original documents to check what information is accurate. Translation between language is also a problem and there is a massive amount of history documentation that is not in English. The history of the Battle of Midway is a very good example of misinformation that is now being studied again from original documentation. Misinformation is sometimes intentional, but often poor quality research. Sometimes just historians wanting to simplify very complex events. Veterans are a rapidly disappearing source of WW2 information. But this can be unreliable when a soldiers view of the war is mainly from in a trench. Historic interviews is a very complex issue. Different soldiers from different trenches often have a very different view. In regards to trenches, is an example that can be applied with many situations. The views of a private and a general is another example of very different views of the same situation. Even with current events, this can be a problem for historians. And historians often have a different agenda. For some writers, it can just be written to be more entertaining or increase popularity. As well as cultural differences.
In school right now we're doing a ww2 unit in language arts and I'm basically teaching the teachers because of Simple history.
Lucky, what grade??????
7th grade but we're not done with the assignments
@@Gunslinger_VR lucky I wish I did that then
*Look at me, I'm the teacher now.*
@@hammyhamster01 hey you got simple history
This was a well done video, there are things that weren't mentioned of course but overall a wonderful video. I would love it if you guys did a video like this in the Sherman Tank as the one you do have is pretty basic and even included the ridiculous notion of 5 Sherman's were needed to take down a single Tiger tank. A video on the Sherman done in this style would do that tank justice in my opinion. I hope you guys consider it.
That myth is ridiculous. There are many instances where one sherman or t34 took out 5 tigers or 5 panthers
On average in late period of the war 3 Shermans were lost for each Tiger / 3 T-34. Tiger 1. This was a great ratio proving how much better Sherman / T-34 was as a tank. Late war Soviet losses were around 2.7 to 1. Compare to more then 10:1 at the beginning.
I'm very happy for you guys, after all these years following your channel I can say this was an outstanding video! Fantastic work! Congratulations!
As an engineer, I admire the convenience and high technology of German tanks, but that's what ruined them. The German industry simply could not produce enough such expensive and complex tanks. In addition, heavy models often broke down and it was very difficult to repair them in the field. Here I really like the concept of the T-34 (simple, cheap, harsh, fast). This is truly the "best tank of wartime" (I mean, as a forced measure, it is beyond praise).
T34 was an expensive tank made cheaply because if it was made to the same quality of m4 Sherman's it would be a failure
As an engineer, I admire the late 1943-44 panther.
The Germans could've easily streamlined production but went with the "Craftsman" approach over absolute Industrial. Not to mention they also field tanks in record time so they were rushed significantly more than most other tanks of other nations, yet they remained somewhat more reliable (their reliability was more so a crew issue than mechanical, though final drive of the Panther's was a real issue).
@@youngrody2386 (though final drive of the Panther's was a real issue) Dident they fix this at the end? according to reliability files the 1944 panther was on par with the Panzer IV. and yes crew was most important.
I can’t really agree with the best tank of the board going to T34 for performance issues. I think it belongs to either the upgraded Sherman with a 76mm. The superior crew friendliness really clinches it in my opinion. I would classify T34 as good perhaps great. There were definitely issues with quality of the machines and quality of life for the crew, but the reality was the people making king it had to make some ruthless decisions about volume and economics so they could have enough, because they were facing the very real threat of extermination down to the last child if they didn’t get enough functioning tanks out the door, so in that circumstance cutting down on polish and comforts is absolutely the right choice. The armor was acceptable the gun was competitive the optics worked and it had enough mobility. The parts that mattered got the attention they needed.
I love how Simple History takes pains to be historically accurate as to things like the kind of rifles the Spanish Republicans were using, even when that's not the topic of the video. Around 3:10, they're using Mauser 98 variants; this is correct; Czech and Polish kar 98 copies were in common use among Republicans.
where's Spanish Mauser M16 tho.
And yet they still overhyped the T34 it had a lot of problems and did not demolish as described in this Video
Spanish republic used any rifle they could buy
I like that you guys are posting videos more often and the animation is getting better
Yeah the first time I noticed an improvement in animation is in the green beret Vietnam war video
4:03
I like how the other tank reverses after the first tank got shot.
0:17 but really, everybody just finds a spot to sit and not move from all game.. or they run across the map like a lunatic and die instantly.
T-34 was the most destroyed tank in ww2. Does that count?
**anggry wehraboos noises**
The T-34 was garbage. The KV-1 was the real winner. And only because it had the armor to handle combat with the Germans. T-34s were seen split in half, lengthwise, from direct front hits.
@@M-a-r-c you do realize the t34 is Russian right?
@@angellara7040 you do realize what I mean yes?
@@M-a-r-c oh I know and it's nonsense. The t 34 suffered massively from terrible production and sometimes didn't even come with usable sights
1:19 to skip ad
No. 50,000 T-34's were lost in WW2 (most of them lost in combat were destroyed by Panzer III's). Any other tank that took 50,000 losses would be laughed at as a total failure, but because the T-34 has some myths and legends behind it people just ignore the fact that it sucked unless it was massed in huge numbers.
still better then Sherman that was a joke of a tank
@@gradimirmaravic5121 Sherman was amazing. Easy to produce, economical, adequate firepower, great survivability.
i agree that
*"If you can't produce good stuff, then just produce a lot of stuff."*
~The soviets
China today
This is the nicest and highest quality video from this channel to date. Very nice work, keep it up!
In 41-42 the T-34 suffered terribly from lack C&C since only platoon, sometimes, and Company command tanks had radios. Because of this the T-34 had zero battle field awareness. Germans repeatedly talked about how they would first shoot the tank in the rear and then move forward. Each T-34 having no idea their platoon, or company, was being wiped out and failing to respond. Second the 2 man turret (which is constantly over looked) was a major design flaw which contributed to the T-34s already terrible situational awareness on the battlefield. The commander was not only responsible for guiding the tank while looking for threats, he also was responsible for aiming and firing the main gun. Ergo a commander could not actually do his job of spotting the enemy and killing the enemy at the same time. The lack of visibility from a buttoned turret and no commander copula, heaped more onto the already terrible SA the T-34 already had. Add onto this the very slow manually cranked turret and you have a nightmare for the crew of a T-34. It was just not a very good offensive tank when it was on the move. (Note: the 2 man turret was not increased to 3 until the introduction of the T-34/85 in '43)
Oh, and lets not forget the horrible optics on a T-34. The video talks about the T-34's gun being able to penetrate Panzer armor at 1000 meters... yeah... in theory, but there was no way the commander could aim that far. This is why the Russians employed such aggressive tactics with the T-34 using maneuverability to close with the German forces to the point where they would just run over AT guns and machine gun positions instead of trying to engage them with their main gun.
The Germans were shocked at first, but the daring of the Panzer commanders added to their experience and each tank in radio communication, ergo their C&C being excellent, they were able to outmaneuver, and get in very close to T-34s and KO them with track hits, engine hits, gun hits, or sometimes they would just shoot a T-34 so many times without the T-34 not being able to detect where the fire was coming from they could get the crew to abandon the tank.
Through most of the war Panzer tanks, while some of the more famous ones were unreliable, the problem the Germans had with killing the T-34 was that they just didn't have enough ammo. Many surviving panzer crewmen tell stories of how they would shoot every round killing dozens of T-34s and more just kept coming. They could not believe it. While there may be some exaggeration in numbers the Panzers crews enjoyed a much higher survivability and so did their panzers. Even when KO'ed panzer were far more likeyl to be towed to the rear and repaired while the T-34 did not. I think of the 56k T-34s made 46k were total loses in combat. That is a pretty grim number if you rode in one.
In the end the T-34 was just like the Russian soldier. Quantity over quality, and as seen with the American Sherman, you can out produce your enemy and win, you just don't have to care about casualties.
This is a revisionist myth. The Germans did have an advantage in its kill ratio, but that had much more to do with its anti-tank guns and not the German tanks. In order for the Germans to have had fewer rounds than the Russian had tanks they'd need to have produced well under 100,000 tank rounds. In reality, the Germans produced over a billion rounds of all kinds for artillery guns and tanks, they just simply did not have the stretegic foresight or tactics to resist the Soviets once they got going. In fact, even before Operation Bagration, the first time the Soviets really outnumbered the Germans in all areas, the Germans were suffering. They outnumbered the Russians in terms of equipment and soldiers at Moscow and that includes the Soviet counter offensive. Even in the first half of the battle of Kursk the Germans had a very similar number of tanks. They lost because their army was worse, both in terms of its size, doctrine and tactics. Btw the kill ratio in Germanys favour was never "dozens" to one it was more like two or three to one
My granddad used to drive a tank like this in the Hungarian revolution in 1956.
T-34-76: 35,330 units
T-34-85: 25,914
PzKpfw IV: 8,573
Tiger I: 1,449
Panther: ~6000
Have you got any questions?!
Soviets count tanks that were damaged but returned to factory as "new". So actual numbers of tanks are a bit different. Germans produced just over 46,000 tanks and tank destroyers starting with panzer 3. Remember Soviets started with almost 10x as many tanks as Germans.
Nobody question that, the thing is what tank was better, plus if they have that the Germans with less did more damage.
Yes, 44,900 T-34 were destroyed....
@@rolandhunter And most of them can easily prepared after battles and about 30,000 can reused in just few days while Tiger just suck when damaged and many platoon need to destroy or left them, that's the different. Not only that T34 super cheap compare to Tiger
@@tomk3732 what are you trying to say? The "46k" are total tanks produced I am guessing and it's still less than the Soviet T 34 alone. They started with 10x more tanks and they ended with more tanks which should not be surprising to anyone. How any of that information even relate your first statement that they counted returning tanks as "new".
An excellent video about what is probably my favorite series of tanks from World War 2! The ones with the 85 mm cannons were superb!
Of the ~50,000+ T-34s built during the war, 85% of them were destroyed in combat beyond being salvageable. Sounds more like a design disaster than a "legendary" tank.
Actually the T-34 has a weak spot near the gun barrel on the left (where the ottics are) and also the previous models of Panzer (of course thank Hunter's) , could actually easily penetrate the Soviet thank shooting the driver's hatch. BTW nice video pretty interesting!
Thanks, I needed to know that.
Tbf most crews would not know this at first and hitting a tank is hard to begin with
True, I only knew about it from finding a similar weekness in the Tiger Tank. Optics and veiwports are good targets, hard to hit without enough training and/or experience. Luck, experience, training, and strategy also play huge roles in who wins.
I think you're being optimistic if you think you can hit the sights whilst in combat. Hitting the tank would be a reasonable shot. Hitting it somewhere vulnerable would be a good shot. Hitting the sights would be dumb luck!
@@tompiper9276 True, although I like to get as close to point blank range as possible, still same points apply.
Panther was better once the bugs were worked out, but if you factor in ease of construction and ability to get more units to the field the T34 wins every time. The Soviets were driving them from the assembly line to combat. 💪
I heard that those was untested D variants
The T-34 was not that cheap and had serious production issues (like non standardized parts across factories...) but the Soviet industrial power was just that strong.
@@blackfacts6137 the G late was the one who was fixed entirely for me the Panther G late was the best ww2 tank (per tank)
@@heuzame6198 What about A variant ???
The StuG III was the most produced German armored fighting vehicle and was half the price of a Panther. The Germans did put some thought to economics in producing fighting vehicles.
I don't know, but I seem to be killed by them way too much in War Thunder, even after taking a beating from my Sherman.
Cause STALINIUM POWERS THEM
It's because Gaijin has a huge Russian bias when it comes to the T34s.
I'm so early, Chamberlain declared peace in our time.
Narrator: it wasn't peace in our time
The animation quality has definitely gotten better over the years. Good work guys!
Most of the t34 tanks didnt have mirror optics but polished steel plates. A lot of early t34 struggled to know where they took hits from. This was also bc the commander was the gunner even most of the t34-85's with the d5t cannon had a 4 man crew
not to mention that if they had glass plates those often cracked when they fired their OWN weapon
1:53
Its flat
German advantages with tanks:
-Better armor
-Better firepower
-Better tactics
Soviet advantages with tanks:
-Better numbers
-Better numbers
-Better numbers
The soviets also had superior tanks during the early stages of the war
@@jakeweberzwier8655 i mean they also had superiour firepower IS1,IS2 ,IS3 ,SU76M ,KV1 ,KV2, KV6 BEHEMOTH T42
@@okie2464 basically the t34 outclassed the panzer 2, 3 and 4 in every way
idk about better tactics since german crews were very inexperienced near the end of the war. plus, tanks like the is-2 were being built, which could cut straight through tigers and panthers at pretty extreme ranges. not to mention the is-2 was more reliable than german heavy tanks, and was great when it came to supporting infantry because of its massive high explosive shell. all these advantages you’re listing are pretty questionable, especially since t-34’s were able to destroy german tanks from both sides. (a t-34 was even able to ambush 3 tiger ii’s and destroy all of them.)
@@siko9799 this is true, t34s dominated until the arrival of the tiger 1 and 2, 88mm gun and bigger tank destroyers, and even then the Germans where massively outnumbered.
The only gear that a t34 has is the forward gear
2:13 yeah I think I would be concerned 😂
I think there should be a part two to this. Leading to the T-34-85. Or perhaps a whole new episode on the battle of Kursk, that would be awesome.
Tiger 1, king tiger, t34, kv6, Karl ,Ratte, ladikarpanzer Gustav,kv44,levithan,kv 2 kv1 are my favouriteand very imporved animation 😏😏😏😏😍👏👏😏😏
WOW, your animations are getting REALLY good! They almost look like the Armchair Historian's.
Lets be honest, the tiger was the most feared tank of ww2, its firepower and armour was many times superior to others but since it was rushed it had engine/transmission problems and was hard and expensive to mass produce so it would be more logical to choose a "tommy cooker" which was cheap, easy to build and fix, and easy to transport all the while having a decent gun but that doesn't change the fact that the tiger was the best option by far in a 1v1 situation against any tank, it simply didn't had a rival
You should definitely make more tank videos just like this! Do the Panther or Tiger 1 next?
While Germany and the US arguably had better designed medium tanks, the USSR made the best expendable tank.
US create high quality but also a versatile tank (Shermans)
Hey, if it works, it works right?
@Mark Spencer Saulog quantity not quality! Germany relied on quality The Soviets on quantity! 10,000 t 34 which were only destroyed by Tiger 1 says a lot about it. tiger1 only 1500 ~
Every Polish person knows T34 "Rudy 102". Truly a legendary machine.
It wasn't, actually probably one of the worst for survivability. So there's your answer.
*anggry wehraboos noises*
The M4 Sherman wasn’t that great either, in fact it was outdated by the time of d day in comparison to their German counter-part
@@AuroraWolf655 still it could take out German tanks easily without having a bunch of them
@@AuroraWolf655 but shermans outnumbers the german tanks
@@e.r.uscout4940 don’t mean they’re invincible either
Great work on your animations! Really improving your channel, we all appreciate the extra effort you guys are giving
You guys did a top notch job on the animations
You see a Russian tank:Panic
You score a direct hit with anti-tank cannon:Calm
Tank is still fine and it's now turning it's turret towards you:Extreme Panic
Tank decides you aren't worth spending shells so it simply goes to roll over you:dies of panic.
2:00 my 2.3 realistic battles experience
21:07 My dirty brain…
?
One interesting thing I noticed early on in the video... you mention the T-34s deployment coinciding with the Sept '39 German invasion of Poland... but you ignore the Sept '39 Soviet invasion of Poland--as part of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact--& especially the Nov '39 Soviet invasion of Finland. Both saw how ineffective the BT, earlier T-type, & the KV tanks were on rough terrain. It was the lessons learned there that made the T-34 design so effective (even if the rushed manufacturing compromised some areas).
Nicely done. Looking forward for second part of the T-34 story. Be nice if an updated video on the Sherman tank was done too in the future.
If you consider that 44,900 of the 57,000 built during the war were destroyed no it was actually the tank with the most looses in the history of tanks.
additionally:
“ [….] The average lifecycle of a tank or self-propelled gun in the red army at the front was rarely longer than three to seven day of combat operations.” Boris Kavalerchik, The Tanks of Operation Barbarossa, ISBN 1399014293, Page 152 Lines29-30
The IL2 Sturmovik needs a video dedicated to it, one of the most produced aircraft Ever produced. It was known as a playing tank by the germans form it’s firepower and survivability.
Well in 1941, losses were that high, that pilot, to get a USSR Gold Star Hero bagde, had to take part in only 10 combat flights !
@@Hyduwegorz your sofa analytics is very essential to us.
@@worldoftancraft I can take you a picture of military magazine i u want
@@Hyduwegorz military magazine «foreign insight: telling you random contextless facts about foreign warfare"? I am not really criticizing, just trying to say that life was a bit more complicated than... than the thing you typed.
@@worldoftancraft What I wanna say is that it was overbiassed like a Tiger I.
I still love the story of how when Stalingrad was invaded tanks where still being built and driven from the factory straight to the front line a few blocks away it’s like a top down multiplayer game when your land is being attacked and you send your factory’s to build vehicles and tell them drive to the fighting here
The crews didn't have to wait long either for a tow back to the factory for repairs since those hastily assembled T-34's would often break down before they reached the front lines.
That sounds like StarCraft games where I literally make zerglings during a defense because I’m not sure my sunken colonies will hold.
I’m somewhat related note if you get a bit of forewarning or the attack takes a long time it’s possible to create a trio of ultralisks with time to spare. Because the AI tells units to prioritize other units over structures they will get targeted by your sunken colonies continue to wallop away on the attacking force with 40 damage a hit. Assuming they survive you can then order them to attack all the way to the enemy main base, not that they’re likely to succeed on their own, but because it’s absolutely hilarious and crazy effective to punish a failed assault with destroying part of their tech tree or killing their workers, and they are one of the few ground units with enough durability to inflict meaningful damage while ignoring enemy attacks.
This however isn't true. The city of Stalingrad had no power so any attempts to repair or build T34s would have been dubious at best.
German PAK crew: ineffective against target! What is that thing made of?!!
T-34 commander: STALINIUM BITCHES!!! 😆😂
We all know that T-34 wasn't the best ww2 tank, not even close, but just like the soviets themselves, the T-34's advantage was its huge numbers
Not true...T34 was an excellent tank at that time and it proved itself. German armor was over-engineered and useless in real warfare as history showed. Numbers alone do not win wars...
@@alexs7097 of course they don't. Otherwise the soviet union would have won from the start of the war, before Zhukov took over, but as we saw it nearly collapsed up until 1942. Tactics and strategies play a far more important role.
But then again, don't try to undermine the fact that great numbers are an important advantage in war...
the intro cinematic. It would be more true if the t-34 crew didn't realize they were being shot for 20 minutes, before attempting to drive over them. And missing. :DDDD (T34 sights, besides the gunner sight. Were awful. Or atleast half of them were, due to a certain factory making shortcuts.)
All i have to say is please make a part 2! The animation was \amazing, the info was excellent, and the quality was amazing. Maybe you could expand it into other nations aswell!
A big problem the T-34 always had was the engine would leave a giant plume of smoke as it ran & stukas could use that to find it. They also tended to light on fire alot as they were made for short term service, no russian tank lasted over a year in battle
The panzer I in the back behind the now destroyed Panzer I by the T-26 be like: "* CENSORD * no to the no no noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo"
Panzer V Panther is my favorite, love the style and his looks are awesome.
I prefer Tiger I but Panzerkampf V is still good due to penetration strength
@@scamhunter2346 true, but the Panzer 1 looks also awesome !
Fun fact : when the German make 1 Tiger tank .The Soviet already make 8 T34 tank
well, a tiger can take all 8 of em
@@bananagun6598 then the 9th one took the Tiger down
Easy
@@bananagun6598 Fun fact: After the unlikely situation of the Tiger taking down the 8 T34's, another 8 T34's would arrive.
@@bananagun6598 lmao no it can't. stop believeing in wheraboo magic.
@@bbcmotd
Well, about that: Tiger had a kill ratio of 20-30:1. So, it was more than able to take out 8 tanks at once. And it has been even proven. For an example: During the battle of Kursk a single Tiger I commanded by German Franz Staudegger engaged about 50 T-34s in a battle. The result of the battle was that Staudegger used all of his ammo and took down 22 of those T-34s making the rest of them to retreat. His Tiger took multiple hits in the process and was able carry on.
0:24
"the stratigict opsions are endless"
my team : soo hill top camping or rush blindly?
Mklh
.j
b
L9⁹ấm
Dklq
Kkloo
6:42 ''...barely been used up to that point''
7TP, TKS Tankette, L3 Tankette, BT-7, BT-5, BT-2, R35, D2, FT, T26, Char B1 and many, many more tanks: am i a joke to you?
Sorry, but just had to point this out. Still a great video, even with this small mistake! :D
No mention made about the sloped glacis on the T-34 being done to reduce materials needed for construction, rather than a means of improving protection?
T-34 really is THE archetypical WW2 tank that comes to mind.