Not literally sir if it was it would BE russian , I shall retire now a happy man knowing I have made an important contribution to society by being a smarmy, know all,,aw the best from sunny Troon 😊
@@Millermacs torsion bars, 3 return rollers, focus on ground pressure management(interleaved on VK30, small road wheels on KV-1). But that's where similarities end. KV-1 is 43-45 tons depending on factory and mood, that thing is 32 tons. One has forward transmission and sprockets, the other - rearward. So not really.
Same canon, similar armor(later on), but not same engine and thus not a similar in complexity and price gearbox. However it indeed does share one key similarity with KV-1. Which one? The home country of the design would have been better of producing lightened version of the heavy as their medium instead of actual medium😅 KV-1 costs almost as much as T-34 due to shared key components, the fact that angled side of T-34 make the hull welding very time consuming, skill dependent and unreliable and that KV-1 component base was planned for 40 tons max, not it initial weight of 43-46 tons and definitely not the 50-55 tons of KV-1E. Take KV-1, install angled frontal plate, reduce armor thickness across the board to have weight below 40 tons and use that as de facto MBT. You have soviet Sherman😅 Faster and easier then whiping fat A-20 aka T-34 into shape by going through the trouble of introducing T-34M and then replacing its turret with 3 men turret of KV-1 anyway.
Disclaimer: not an expert. My reading suggests that this vehicle was meant for disassembly into three sections for easier transport by rail or sea. As a technology demonstrator, this makes sense. Even today, we claim that the US M3 and M4 tanks were made to fit inside limitations of standard cargo ship cranes and holds. Beyond that . . . opinion here . . . Ultimately, however, the German war was a ground war. Most tanks sent by ship were lost during transit to Africa (thanks to the Royal Navy’s submarine service and aircraft fitted for the antishipping role). As for ground transport, the Krupp 50 ton transport railcar was at first doubled, with one Tiger supported by two cars, then upgraded to allow transport of heavier loads by single cars. The three-piece transport idea was in the end unnecessary. That seems to be an important reason that heavy tank development in the USA was put on the back burner.
The VK 30.01H according to my data was not intended to be broken apart. There was another vehicle which was. The VK 65.01H looked like a enlarged VK 30.01H that broke down into sections for rail transport and was to be assembled at the staging area. Where the driver normally sat was a small turret with a machine gun otherwise it looked a lot like the VK 30.01H
The three different parts were for ease of production more likely. I think in the Panzer III video they explain this, or maybe in the video of the early Panzer IVs, it was one of those two.
There is an opinion online that what basically killed these early german heavy tanks was capture of french design bureaus which were working on projects like FCM F1 or ARL Tracteur C that made germans realize that what they understand under heavy tank may not translate so well to other languages. And while those projects may seem like completely delusional, take a look at them again and just cut off the second turret and whole section dedicated to crew serving the smaller turret. Suddenly you have much shorter and lighter tank which boast armor and armamanet comparable to Tiger. And guess what, that's EXACTLY what soviets did with twin turreted 60 ton SMK to get 45(40 on paper) ton KV-1, they cut it down. There was also T-100. And that's before we mention KV-220 and KV-4/5 craze. Germans likely realised that such design adaptation could happen naturally... though they didn't realize later on what a menace Churchill can become by slapping even more armor to it so they might have been not as forward thinking as this I portray here😅 P.S.: no, nobody called them superheavy. The term appeared later.
The side hatches are an interesting design choice! Much more interwar than WWII. I am also always a fan of any tank turrets used as static defensive bunkers. I love that idea. I wish they had gone through with the squeeze-bore gun idea, as that too is a fascinating concept to me. Great stuff as always TE!
Very good documentary very good graphics I think this tank could made a huge difference if it was adphathed and brought into mass production before the war
Not an engineer... But I have a feeling that is the Tiger I final design ended like the VK 36 it would have been a better tank. Basically just a bigger and more armored Panzer III. Maybe it would have been somewhat lighter, and as such the transmission wouldn't have suffered as much.
The reason they didn't is that there were no production lines for the VK 30.01 chassis. There were only those handful of prototype hulls. When it was decided that Krupp (who never built any Panzer IIIs and did build the Panzer IV) should manufacture StuGs, they went with the obvious solution of using a modified Panzer IV hull to make the StuG IV. Had the VK 30.01 (H) ever actually reached full production, its hull probably would have been well-suited for an assault gun. Possibly a "heavy StuG" armed with the Tiger I's 8.8cm L/56 gun.
Excellent info, but the graphics are amazing, does anyone know where to get graphics/website/programme like that on military vehicles, planes ships etc. For reference and modelling. I thank you in advance.kudos to this video. Subbed.
9:52 Just a small note: By fortified positions, its meant things like wooden pillboxes, machine gun nests made out of sandbags or other loose material, or fortified civilian buildings. To get rid of a real reinforced concrete bunker like the one in the WoT footage, you need at the very minimum something like the KV-2 or StuPa 3, or better yet a heavy siege artillery or a group of sappers equipped with shaped charges and flame throwers.
I run improved hardening, rammer, and optics on mine standard. After over 100 battles on WOT I report the gun is very reliable and with optics equipped it can spot its on targets… though if it could get a speed buff of 5mph it would be welcomed. This tank would have no problem dealing with IS-2’s or T-34 variants or other allied tanks under tier 7. With my years of valuable WOT Combat experience it would’ve won the war if massed produced. Feel free to thank me for my WOT Combat Service
Given that the Panzer IV was able to be upgraded with a long 7.5cm gun (first L/43 and then L/48), with the VK 30.01 (H) being 7 tons heavier and slightly wider, I can't imagine it would've been difficult at all to do the same. with it. Just that when it was cancelled, there was no reason to.
Would it be a great early-war tank? Well, maybe, kinda. BUT it was much more expensive and much less mobile than Panzer IV, even though it provided nothing but an improved armor protection, and even that was at the expense of mobility. So it was just a tradeoff, not an improvement of any kind (even though, as my teacher of automotive engineering always said, "there are no improvements, only tradeoffs"). It seriously lacked either a bigger gun to deal with tanks, or a lot of machineguns to deal with more infantry. But like it was, it was just a slower Panzer IV that could take a few more hits.
Even Pz IV eventually got the same armor (50mm) without too much trouble and this extra armor had been specified since 1939 (for an implementation in 1940-41). At least the original spec from 1935 which was downgraded into the DW and VK 30.01(H) considered a 600hp engine for good mobility and a 75mm gun with around 700 m/s muzzle velocity, so it could have fit a niche. The VK 30 really didn't.
I wonder if German invasion of the Soviet Union had been more successful if Germany had equipped all the Panzer IVs with the longer 7.5 cm KwK 40 guns by the beginning of operation Barbarossa?
They didn't have that gun when they attacked. Only after the Germans realized the Soviets had new and better tank designs, did they sped up the anti-tank gun program. For a while they even used Russian 76.2mm field guns on their early tank hunter designs until the 75mm was finished.
When it comes to Sturer Emil, it wasnt a great tank by typical standards, but as a self-propelled anti-tank gun it was really excellent, as proven by its kill record. It would be perfectly reasonable to rework all 4 hulls into this type of unit, even if the hull wasnt made out of armor-grade steel.
One thing that always gets me is the way people often judge experimental designs as if they should have been suited to the changing nature of warfare and equipped to fight years after they were designed, even though most reliable platforms that made it into service required substantial upgrades as the years, an decades, passed by. Of course, a tank with armament suitable to the interwar period became outdated during the war but a vehicle like probably could have been upgraded like the Pz.III, Pz.IV, Sherman, T-34, KV-1, and just about every other service vehicle was. Yet, so often people bicker over how 'good' or 'outdated' a prototype that advanced its nation's technological capabilities actually was. 🤔 If it did its most important job, I'd say it was successful and I'd say these prototypes fit that bill.
Not much better than a PZKW VI with the same gun and 50 mm of armor. Also the Mark VI was easily upgraded with thicker armor and longer 75 mm guns. Germany wisely dropped a design that wasn't needed and already obsolete.
The KV-1 of Germany, literally. Same cannon as the mainline tank but with bigger hull and thicker armor
Not literally sir if it was it would BE russian , I shall retire now a happy man knowing I have made an important contribution to society by being a smarmy, know all,,aw the best from sunny Troon 😊
@@gorbalsboySoviet not Russian 😅
Interesting that they both had torsion bar suspension also
@@Millermacs torsion bars, 3 return rollers, focus on ground pressure management(interleaved on VK30, small road wheels on KV-1). But that's where similarities end. KV-1 is 43-45 tons depending on factory and mood, that thing is 32 tons. One has forward transmission and sprockets, the other - rearward. So not really.
Same canon, similar armor(later on), but not same engine and thus not a similar in complexity and price gearbox.
However it indeed does share one key similarity with KV-1. Which one? The home country of the design would have been better of producing lightened version of the heavy as their medium instead of actual medium😅
KV-1 costs almost as much as T-34 due to shared key components, the fact that angled side of T-34 make the hull welding very time consuming, skill dependent and unreliable and that KV-1 component base was planned for 40 tons max, not it initial weight of 43-46 tons and definitely not the 50-55 tons of KV-1E. Take KV-1, install angled frontal plate, reduce armor thickness across the board to have weight below 40 tons and use that as de facto MBT. You have soviet Sherman😅 Faster and easier then whiping fat A-20 aka T-34 into shape by going through the trouble of introducing T-34M and then replacing its turret with 3 men turret of KV-1 anyway.
Disclaimer: not an expert.
My reading suggests that this vehicle was meant for disassembly into three sections for easier transport by rail or sea. As a technology demonstrator, this makes sense. Even today, we claim that the US M3 and M4 tanks were made to fit inside limitations of standard cargo ship cranes and holds.
Beyond that . . . opinion here . . .
Ultimately, however, the German war was a ground war. Most tanks sent by ship were lost during transit to Africa (thanks to the Royal Navy’s submarine service and aircraft fitted for the antishipping role). As for ground transport, the Krupp 50 ton transport railcar was at first doubled, with one Tiger supported by two cars, then upgraded to allow transport of heavier loads by single cars. The three-piece transport idea was in the end unnecessary. That seems to be an important reason that heavy tank development in the USA was put on the back burner.
The VK 30.01H according to my data was not intended to be broken apart. There was another vehicle which was. The VK 65.01H looked like a enlarged VK 30.01H that broke down into sections for rail transport and was to be assembled at the staging area. Where the driver normally sat was a small turret with a machine gun otherwise it looked a lot like the VK 30.01H
Ah . . . many thanks for straightening that out for me.@@Anlushac11
The three different parts were for ease of production more likely. I think in the Panzer III video they explain this, or maybe in the video of the early Panzer IVs, it was one of those two.
感謝你的英文字幕，老天，YT 的自動字幕都壞掉了，有這些文字輔助真得更好
I've been a subscriber to this channel since the beginning. The quality has steadily improved over the years. Good job!
There is an opinion online that what basically killed these early german heavy tanks was capture of french design bureaus which were working on projects like FCM F1 or ARL Tracteur C that made germans realize that what they understand under heavy tank may not translate so well to other languages.
And while those projects may seem like completely delusional, take a look at them again and just cut off the second turret and whole section dedicated to crew serving the smaller turret. Suddenly you have much shorter and lighter tank which boast armor and armamanet comparable to Tiger. And guess what, that's EXACTLY what soviets did with twin turreted 60 ton SMK to get 45(40 on paper) ton KV-1, they cut it down. There was also T-100. And that's before we mention KV-220 and KV-4/5 craze.
Germans likely realised that such design adaptation could happen naturally... though they didn't realize later on what a menace Churchill can become by slapping even more armor to it so they might have been not as forward thinking as this I portray here😅
P.S.: no, nobody called them superheavy. The term appeared later.
Another great video. Thank you!
Another great video, thanks!
Great video as always!
Fascinating to see the development. Tanks.
Very interesting video....well done on the detailed reasearch!
The side hatches are an interesting design choice! Much more interwar than WWII. I am also always a fan of any tank turrets used as static defensive bunkers. I love that idea. I wish they had gone through with the squeeze-bore gun idea, as that too is a fascinating concept to me. Great stuff as always TE!
always a good place to learn something new thanks
Great content!
Very good documentary very good graphics I think this tank could made a huge difference if it was adphathed and brought into mass production before the war
VK also stood for Versuchskonstruktion which translates to experimental design.
So the 30 meant itd weight, .01, its version, and H for its manufacturer.
@@lonemarkkingoftypos3722 yes, but the VK didn't stand for "Volketten"
Not an engineer... But I have a feeling that is the Tiger I final design ended like the VK 36 it would have been a better tank.
Basically just a bigger and more armored Panzer III. Maybe it would have been somewhat lighter, and as such the transmission wouldn't have suffered as much.
I'm suprised the Germans didn't use the chassis of the VK30.01 as a StuG and who knows, it could've been successful like the StuG III.
The reason Why they stug is good is because you could mount a big weapon on a Small and Fast Chassis, using the Panther hull defeat the purpose
@@ballbender9thousand944 jagdpanther moment
That would be a Panzer 3 chassis.
The reason they didn't is that there were no production lines for the VK 30.01 chassis. There were only those handful of prototype hulls. When it was decided that Krupp (who never built any Panzer IIIs and did build the Panzer IV) should manufacture StuGs, they went with the obvious solution of using a modified Panzer IV hull to make the StuG IV.
Had the VK 30.01 (H) ever actually reached full production, its hull probably would have been well-suited for an assault gun. Possibly a "heavy StuG" armed with the Tiger I's 8.8cm L/56 gun.
I'm pretty sure they made it into the Strurer Emil
Man I wish I could get the authentic guns to display in World of Tanks whilw using the better one.
Excellent info, but the graphics are amazing, does anyone know where to get graphics/website/programme like that on military vehicles, planes ships etc. For reference and modelling. I thank you in advance.kudos to this video. Subbed.
9:52 Just a small note: By fortified positions, its meant things like wooden pillboxes, machine gun nests made out of sandbags or other loose material, or fortified civilian buildings.
To get rid of a real reinforced concrete bunker like the one in the WoT footage, you need at the very minimum something like the KV-2 or StuPa 3, or better yet a heavy siege artillery or a group of sappers equipped with shaped charges and flame throwers.
Or a Sturmtiger with its 38cm rocket mortar.
wow! I didn't know about this tank but I loved it, I will make a 3D model of it
I run improved hardening, rammer, and optics on mine standard. After over 100 battles on WOT I report the gun is very reliable and with optics equipped it can spot its on targets… though if it could get a speed buff of 5mph it would be welcomed. This tank would have no problem dealing with IS-2’s or T-34 variants or other allied tanks under tier 7. With my years of valuable WOT Combat experience it would’ve won the war if massed produced. Feel free to thank me for my WOT Combat Service
Thank you for your service
Different parts are from the
Panzer 3
Panzer 4
Gun from the panther tank
Given that the Panzer IV was able to be upgraded with a long 7.5cm gun (first L/43 and then L/48), with the VK 30.01 (H) being 7 tons heavier and slightly wider, I can't imagine it would've been difficult at all to do the same. with it. Just that when it was cancelled, there was no reason to.
Would it be a great early-war tank? Well, maybe, kinda. BUT it was much more expensive and much less mobile than Panzer IV, even though it provided nothing but an improved armor protection, and even that was at the expense of mobility. So it was just a tradeoff, not an improvement of any kind (even though, as my teacher of automotive engineering always said, "there are no improvements, only tradeoffs"). It seriously lacked either a bigger gun to deal with tanks, or a lot of machineguns to deal with more infantry. But like it was, it was just a slower Panzer IV that could take a few more hits.
Even Pz IV eventually got the same armor (50mm) without too much trouble and this extra armor had been specified since 1939 (for an implementation in 1940-41). At least the original spec from 1935 which was downgraded into the DW and VK 30.01(H) considered a 600hp engine for good mobility and a 75mm gun with around 700 m/s muzzle velocity, so it could have fit a niche. The VK 30 really didn't.
I wonder if German invasion of the Soviet Union had been more successful if Germany had equipped all the Panzer IVs with the longer 7.5 cm KwK 40 guns by the beginning of operation Barbarossa?
They didn't have that gun when they attacked. Only after the Germans realized the Soviets had new and better tank designs, did they sped up the anti-tank gun program. For a while they even used Russian 76.2mm field guns on their early tank hunter designs until the 75mm was finished.
@@crapshot321Yes I know that this 75mm gun was not available in June 1941. I mean what if the Germans developed this gun earlier?
Is it me or do these 2 tanks resemble the Panzer IV?
When it comes to Sturer Emil, it wasnt a great tank by typical standards, but as a self-propelled anti-tank gun it was really excellent, as proven by its kill record. It would be perfectly reasonable to rework all 4 hulls into this type of unit, even if the hull wasnt made out of armor-grade steel.
? He said they never saw combat and a few were cannibalized into other tanks lol
Do Pz iv k next😋
One thing that always gets me is the way people often judge experimental designs as if they should have been suited to the changing nature of warfare and equipped to fight years after they were designed, even though most reliable platforms that made it into service required substantial upgrades as the years, an decades, passed by. Of course, a tank with armament suitable to the interwar period became outdated during the war but a vehicle like probably could have been upgraded like the Pz.III, Pz.IV, Sherman, T-34, KV-1, and just about every other service vehicle was.
Yet, so often people bicker over how 'good' or 'outdated' a prototype that advanced its nation's technological capabilities actually was. 🤔 If it did its most important job, I'd say it was successful and I'd say these prototypes fit that bill.
The dreaded Kitten
The Roman numeral is wrong. It should read IV not VI. You are saying PK 6 not the PK 4.
The roman numeral is NOT wrong. It was the Panzer VI.
They're so cute ^^
Not much better than a PZKW VI with the same gun and 50 mm of armor. Also the Mark VI was easily upgraded with thicker armor and longer 75 mm guns. Germany wisely dropped a design that wasn't needed and already obsolete.
You mean a IV not a VI
@dubsy1026 Yes, PZKW- IV, not the Tiger.
The 3001H was the perfect balance of nothing: slow, poorly armored, a large target, and an archaic gun. Good for nothing but being a test bed.
new vehicle for war thunder
By any chance are you telling us about the VK30.01? You didn't make that clear in your nairation.
Yes. It's in the title, and he mentioned it multiple times.
@@JimmyStiffFingers I thought he might be doing a drinking game.
when and how outside of soviet propaganda were soviet tanks superior
dense panzer3/4 goofy ass thing