Молодец.Спасибо.Собрал лучшие,самые классные кадры,смонтировал тематически,музыку наложил тоже,очень удачно.Прямо видешь и понимаешь,какой вклад внесли эти танки в Победу..что эти танки были лучшими.
there was no other tank concept that was as suitable for the red army as the T-34-85. The T-34 was perfect for a massive and rapid war of aggression on a scale such as the Second World War in the second half. Major offensive after major offensive over thousands of kilometers with the greatest robustness and reliability. Inexpensive, quick to produce, available in bulk, quickly maintainable. Very good mobility, especially in difficult terrain, good fire power and noteworthy armor in international comparison to other medium tanks. A very low ground pressure, high acceleration and top speed, high traverse speed, fast turret rotation speed are excellent properties of the T-34. Commonly known minor disadvantages such as too hard armor (420 HB), rather poor optics, no gun stabilization like the M4A3E8 Easy Eight, small interior volume and a rather bumpy ride due to the lack of suspension travel of the shock absorbers are all more or less negligible compromises. The T-34-85 was the best tank of the war, hands down.
@@willliam8857 This claim is not true either from a technical or operational point of view. Furthermore, the historical past does not confirm your statement. The past confirms the following: The M4 Sherman was a good tank with good crew ergonomics, good gun stabilization and by the end of the war even a good gun. But it was slow, had even worse suspension than the T-34-85, was a very easy target as its armor was not sloped enough in relation to its armor thickness. The Germans had the Tiger, whose armor was also barely sloped, but they compensated for this with armor thickness. But the Sherman didn't even have armor thickness. The steel quality was also almost as poor as that of Russian tanks. The Sherman is a huge tank that's very easy to hit, even at long range. And because of the poor armor, hits from anti-tank guns and cannons from standard German tanks (Pz IV) almost always resulted in armor penetration. So, the major disadvantages of the Sherman are summed up: it was slow so that tactical maneuvers were hardly possible, it was so large and of such proportions that it was very easy to spot. Because of its size, it's easy to hit, and because of its poor armor, it's almost always successfully penetrated. On top of all this, it wasn't even cheap for what it can do, but rather expensive to produce. Some tanks were much more expensive than him, like Tiger or Panther. But they could also provide the equivalent value on the battlefield. In tank battles, however, the Sherman always drew the short straw. Don't get me wrong, good crew ergonomics, gun stabilization, and high crew survivability from hits are good attributes of the Sherman. But the disadvantages of the Sherman's design and concept outweighed the disadvantages, and reality confirmed this. The Germans did not fear the Sherman, it was an easy target and an easy opponent. For these reasons, the entire Sherman concept was discontinued after the war. After the war, the Americans developed tanks that were completely different from the Sherman, m46, m47, m48, m60. These tanks no longer have anything to do with the Sherman, neither in technology nor in design. The Sherman died out. While the Panther was realized in the Leopard 1 and the T-34 lives on in the T-44, T-54, T-55, T-62, T-64, T-72, T-80, T90. Key elements of the Panther and T-34 influenced all western and eastern tank development after the war. The Sherman didn't affect anything at all.
@@clapper3530 your comment about the M4 Sherman "having no armor thickness" and how "it was an easy target and it's armor wasn't sloped" is completely wrong, the M4 Sherman had 50mm frontal armor sloped at 56 degrees, and it's side armor was 38mm flat. in comparison the T-34-76 had 45mm frontal armor sloped at 60 degrees, and it's side armor was 40mm sloped at 40 degrees. Yes the T-34's side armor was superior but that's what you would expect for a tank built around sloped armor. But that does not mean the Sherman "had no armor thickness" In fact there was a variant that you definitely know, the M4a3e2 Sherman Jumbo, it had 102mm thick frontal armor sloped at 56 degrees aswell, with 76mm flat armor on it's sides. The Sherman was tall and easy to hit with anti-tank guns, sure but that's where it's crew survivability and reliability comes into play, if a M4 Sherman was still in the hands of American soldiers they are still able to easily repair the tank and send it again into battle, or if the Sherman was truly lost/destroyed then the crew are able to escape with ease and fight in another Sherman, tank numbers weren't a problem since 50,000+ Shermans were produced in WW2. Also don't even bother mentioning the Panther, it was a horrible tank.
@@clapper3530 also "The Germans did not fear the Sherman, it was an easy target and an easy opponent." really? an easy opponent? yeah sure say that to the Easy Eight, the Sherman was never an easy target
Yes im from Germany and I have to say T 34 was the best Tank in WW2 because it was cheap, fast a good cannon and if you know how to use the Tank than no one can stop you
Without red army there was no victory.. absolutely true. West started pushing AFTER it was basically decided that germans cannot win. But yes, western campaign shortened the war by about 2 years by keeping some nazi units locked in Italy and France + bombardment affected german military production.
That's very disrespectful of you to downplay the Western front's role in the war. EVERYBODY put their share of work in taking down the Reich, to say one nation alone did so is spitting on the grave of those who fought them, it's especially NARCISSISTIC.
@@starred1096 Yes sure i agree with you but there are people on this planet that dont want to understand that the Ussr did the most and suffers the most
Except the Polish, Slovaks, Hungarians, Latvians, Estonians, Lithuanians, Romanians, Czechs and a few more. Not to belittle the role of the USSR and the red army in the defeat of nazism, but saying they gave the Europeans freedom is bit on the positive side of reality.
С ДНЕМ ПОБЕДЫ! Замечательные живые лица русских солдат, солдат-победителей, солдат-освободителей. Эта правда документального кино никогда, ни кем не может быть опровергнута, никакой ложью и глумлением. Слава Русскому Оружию! Слава Русскому Солдату!
Superior in what? Range? Gun handling? There nothing superior in a German tank, the Soviet tank is cheaper, their gun is just as good as German guns, they have just as good accuracy, Soviet tank is far more reliable, easier to transport and most of the time better armoured but weights less. Soviet tank was made for one thing, to be good in combat, the German tanks were made with an idea that tank battles would happen over very long ranges something that never panned out, ultimately German tank designs became a liability and Germany failed to make enough of them to have substantial effect in the war.
@@SMGJohn Its more complicated. German tanks in later part of war were mainly focused on tank-tank battles. But in fact SPGs were more effective for that role and german leaders had problems understanding it. Undeniably german tanks mostly had better optics and guns like 88mm and 75mm were performing a bit better than 85mm soviet cannons with looser tollerances and sometimes wild production variability. I'm not saying that 85mm ZiS-3-53/D-5T was bad, but it had its limits. And for example 88/71 KwK43 was much more powerful beast. (Of course 100mm, 122mm or 152mm cannons used on ISU SPGs and 122mm on IS-2 tanks were something different) But soviet tanks were designed to provide general support for infantry. They were not main anti-tank weapons. And they mainly fought against thousands of german dugouts, fortified positions, houses filled with infantry, anti tank guns, machinegun nests and other very common things. They also enjoyed quite nice advantage in numbers later in the war. But the reliability was not that excellent as you might thing. Yes those wehicles are mostly simple and crude, but many had issues when they left factories. The good thing is, that those problems could often be fixed even in field conditions, or tank was simply replaced by other during 1944/45 era. German tanks had many severe issues, especially large heavy cats, but most numerous Panzer IV was quite effective counterpart to T-34 during later part of war.
Russian tanks had diesel engines with lower fuel consumption, higher speed, and better mileage; better quality and sloped armor; comparable weapons; worse ergonomics and optics. And they were much easier to produce and hence to outnumber Germans. So Russian tanks were better in general.
@@UncleQ57 The sloped armor was one of the reasons why the T-34 suffered along with it's other variants, it made the tank completely cramped with little space for the crew to escape once a fire has started inside the tank. You also mentioned the T-34 had "better quality" but in reality, yes the armor was indeed tough but it was also very brittle meaning even non-penetrating rounds could destroy the T-34's armor like glass, the Soviets heat treated their armor way too much, in fact half of the T-34's produced in the war was like this due to them being made by the Ural Tank Factory.
"Сормовский уродец" - распространенное в войсках обозначение танков Т-34, сошедших с конвейера Сормовского завода в первые годы ВОВ. По различным причинам машины, произведенные на данном заводе, отличались низкими надежностью и качеством, что приводило ко множеству проблем в ходе их эксплуатации. Плохое качество танков, произведенных на конкретном заводе, ничего не говорит о самом танке. Очень сомнительный байт со стороны неосведомленного дегенерата, попробуй снова.
Ono něco jiného je vyrábět válečné stroje v zemi,kde se neválčí,jako Německo zpočátku bylo, jiná věc je vyrobit tank v zemi,kde je Německý agresor a muži na frontě.Pro Německo pracovala celá poražená Západní Evropa a statisíce totálně nasazených a přesto je t34 převálcoval.
![เปิดบ้านสุดหรู "เเจ็ค the ghost" ลั่นถ้าป๋องกพลลำบากผมเลี้ยงเอง!! l [Nickynachat]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/1xbW4vULqGc/mqdefault.jpg)
That BA-64 was an unexpected surprise.
Молодец.Спасибо.Собрал лучшие,самые классные кадры,смонтировал тематически,музыку наложил тоже,очень удачно.Прямо видешь и понимаешь,какой вклад внесли эти танки в Победу..что эти танки были лучшими.
there was no other tank concept that was as suitable for the red army as the T-34-85. The T-34 was perfect for a massive and rapid war of aggression on a scale such as the Second World War in the second half. Major offensive after major offensive over thousands of kilometers with the greatest robustness and reliability. Inexpensive, quick to produce, available in bulk, quickly maintainable. Very good mobility, especially in difficult terrain, good fire power and noteworthy armor in international comparison to other medium tanks. A very low ground pressure, high acceleration and top speed, high traverse speed, fast turret rotation speed are excellent properties of the T-34. Commonly known minor disadvantages such as too hard armor (420 HB), rather poor optics, no gun stabilization like the M4A3E8 Easy Eight, small interior volume and a rather bumpy ride due to the lack of suspension travel of the shock absorbers are all more or less negligible compromises. The T-34-85 was the best tank of the war, hands down.
that's cool and all but the M4 Sherman is the best tank of WW2 there's no denying it
@@willliam8857 This claim is not true either from a technical or operational point of view. Furthermore, the historical past does not confirm your statement. The past confirms the following: The M4 Sherman was a good tank with good crew ergonomics, good gun stabilization and by the end of the war even a good gun. But it was slow, had even worse suspension than the T-34-85, was a very easy target as its armor was not sloped enough in relation to its armor thickness. The Germans had the Tiger, whose armor was also barely sloped, but they compensated for this with armor thickness. But the Sherman didn't even have armor thickness. The steel quality was also almost as poor as that of Russian tanks. The Sherman is a huge tank that's very easy to hit, even at long range. And because of the poor armor, hits from anti-tank guns and cannons from standard German tanks (Pz IV) almost always resulted in armor penetration. So, the major disadvantages of the Sherman are summed up: it was slow so that tactical maneuvers were hardly possible, it was so large and of such proportions that it was very easy to spot. Because of its size, it's easy to hit, and because of its poor armor, it's almost always successfully penetrated. On top of all this, it wasn't even cheap for what it can do, but rather expensive to produce. Some tanks were much more expensive than him, like Tiger or Panther. But they could also provide the equivalent value on the battlefield. In tank battles, however, the Sherman always drew the short straw. Don't get me wrong, good crew ergonomics, gun stabilization, and high crew survivability from hits are good attributes of the Sherman. But the disadvantages of the Sherman's design and concept outweighed the disadvantages, and reality confirmed this. The Germans did not fear the Sherman, it was an easy target and an easy opponent. For these reasons, the entire Sherman concept was discontinued after the war. After the war, the Americans developed tanks that were completely different from the Sherman, m46, m47, m48, m60. These tanks no longer have anything to do with the Sherman, neither in technology nor in design. The Sherman died out. While the Panther was realized in the Leopard 1 and the T-34 lives on in the T-44, T-54, T-55, T-62, T-64, T-72, T-80, T90. Key elements of the Panther and T-34 influenced all western and eastern tank development after the war. The Sherman didn't affect anything at all.
@@clapper3530 your comment about the M4 Sherman "having no armor thickness" and how "it was an easy target and it's armor wasn't sloped" is completely wrong, the M4 Sherman had 50mm frontal armor sloped at 56 degrees, and it's side armor was 38mm flat. in comparison the T-34-76 had 45mm frontal armor sloped at 60 degrees, and it's side armor was 40mm sloped at 40 degrees. Yes the T-34's side armor was superior but that's what you would expect for a tank built around sloped armor. But that does not mean the Sherman "had no armor thickness" In fact there was a variant that you definitely know, the M4a3e2 Sherman Jumbo, it had 102mm thick frontal armor sloped at 56 degrees aswell, with 76mm flat armor on it's sides. The Sherman was tall and easy to hit with anti-tank guns, sure but that's where it's crew survivability and reliability comes into play, if a M4 Sherman was still in the hands of American soldiers they are still able to easily repair the tank and send it again into battle, or if the Sherman was truly lost/destroyed then the crew are able to escape with ease and fight in another Sherman, tank numbers weren't a problem since 50,000+ Shermans were produced in WW2. Also don't even bother mentioning the Panther, it was a horrible tank.
@@clapper3530 also "The Germans did not fear the Sherman, it was an easy target and an easy opponent." really? an easy opponent? yeah sure say that to the Easy Eight, the Sherman was never an easy target
@@willliam8857 1 Sherman vs 1 Panther? whos winning?
Многие кадры увидел впервые, как ни странно. Спасибо!
Сразу вспоминается название фильма: они сражались за родину!
Pz.III, Pz.IV, Jagdpanzer IV, Tiger, Panther, King Tiger. And T-34 fought and defeated them all during World War II.
Yes im from Germany and I have to say T 34 was the best Tank in WW2 because it was cheap, fast a good cannon and if you know how to use the Tank than no one can stop you
@@dominikconrad280 No. It might be cheap but that price comes at a cost. That makes the tank have a lot of QC issues and break dowwns
С Праздником Товарищи! Вспомним наших дедов!
such historical documentaries, are pure gold.
This is our victory, not the false Americans. 30 million Soviet people died in this terrible war, but we reached Berlin.
Without red army there was no victory.. absolutely true. West started pushing AFTER it was basically decided that germans cannot win. But yes, western campaign shortened the war by about 2 years by keeping some nazi units locked in Italy and France + bombardment affected german military production.
@ no
@@xmeda My Grandfather was a soldier of the red army he was hit by a grenade at the shoulder and at the Leg
That's very disrespectful of you to downplay the Western front's role in the war. EVERYBODY put their share of work in taking down the Reich, to say one nation alone did so is spitting on the grave of those who fought them, it's especially NARCISSISTIC.
@@starred1096 Yes sure i agree with you but there are people on this planet that dont want to understand that the Ussr did the most and suffers the most
A lot of footage i had not seen before, like the vehicle at 11:00 with a knocked out main gun by a frontal turret penetration! Great work!
Вечная память воинам красноармейцам!
Thanks for this 👍
Отличный ролик 👍, а где обещанный про су 37 🤔
Ok, that dude at 12:41 is cool af. He is legend.
Well Done Mr. Yolk ! YYZ , Mohawk-Planker .
True Heroes, those soldiers defeat narzism and gave all european people freedom
Except the Polish, Slovaks, Hungarians, Latvians, Estonians, Lithuanians, Romanians, Czechs and a few more. Not to belittle the role of the USSR and the red army in the defeat of nazism, but saying they gave the Europeans freedom is bit on the positive side of reality.
@@martijnb5887 well my grandmother and grandfather from Lithuania were happy in that time
nice historical video
Was surprised to see T-34/85's running on non waffle pattern tracks.
С ДНЕМ ПОБЕДЫ!
Замечательные живые лица русских солдат, солдат-победителей, солдат-освободителей.
Эта правда документального кино никогда, ни кем не может быть опровергнута, никакой ложью и глумлением.
Слава Русскому Оружию!
Слава Русскому Солдату!
Ну да, ну да. А остальные, казахи, татары, узбеки, туркмены, башкиры, чеченцы, дагестанцы, армяне, грузины, киргизы, азербайджанцы, кумыки, якуты, буряты, чукчи, манси, ханты, тувинцы, черкесы, адыгейцы, осетины, каракалпаки, уйгуры, дунгане, прибалты, украинцы, белорусы-просто прогулялись до Берлина и обратно?!
what victory? Germany lives, your country is no longer in existence
@@juri8723he means in the 1940s😒😒😒
👍🏼👍🏼
USSR 👍
From who this song?
Stalin muôn năm
@yolkhere what was the name of the first song?
Леонид Утесов - Тёмная ночь
@@yolkhere thanks for collecting such Soviet machine. We all know the t34 saved the world..
💯💯💯♥️♥️♥️👏👏👏🇷🇺🇷🇺🇷🇺🌹🌹🌹
A time when fighting a common enemy. Instead of fellow workers.
I know german tanks are much superior (except transmission) but goddamn there's something special about the russians
Superior in what? Range? Gun handling? There nothing superior in a German tank, the Soviet tank is cheaper, their gun is just as good as German guns, they have just as good accuracy, Soviet tank is far more reliable, easier to transport and most of the time better armoured but weights less.
Soviet tank was made for one thing, to be good in combat, the German tanks were made with an idea that tank battles would happen over very long ranges something that never panned out, ultimately German tank designs became a liability and Germany failed to make enough of them to have substantial effect in the war.
@@SMGJohn Its more complicated. German tanks in later part of war were mainly focused on tank-tank battles. But in fact SPGs were more effective for that role and german leaders had problems understanding it. Undeniably german tanks mostly had better optics and guns like 88mm and 75mm were performing a bit better than 85mm soviet cannons with looser tollerances and sometimes wild production variability. I'm not saying that 85mm ZiS-3-53/D-5T was bad, but it had its limits. And for example 88/71 KwK43 was much more powerful beast.
(Of course 100mm, 122mm or 152mm cannons used on ISU SPGs and 122mm on IS-2 tanks were something different)
But soviet tanks were designed to provide general support for infantry. They were not main anti-tank weapons. And they mainly fought against thousands of german dugouts, fortified positions, houses filled with infantry, anti tank guns, machinegun nests and other very common things. They also enjoyed quite nice advantage in numbers later in the war. But the reliability was not that excellent as you might thing. Yes those wehicles are mostly simple and crude, but many had issues when they left factories. The good thing is, that those problems could often be fixed even in field conditions, or tank was simply replaced by other during 1944/45 era.
German tanks had many severe issues, especially large heavy cats, but most numerous Panzer IV was quite effective counterpart to T-34 during later part of war.
Russian tanks had diesel engines with lower fuel consumption, higher speed, and better mileage; better quality and sloped armor; comparable weapons; worse ergonomics and optics. And they were much easier to produce and hence to outnumber Germans. So Russian tanks were better in general.
@@UncleQ57 The sloped armor was one of the reasons why the T-34 suffered along with it's other variants, it made the tank completely cramped with little space for the crew to escape once a fire has started inside the tank. You also mentioned the T-34 had "better quality" but in reality, yes the armor was indeed tough but it was also very brittle meaning even non-penetrating rounds could destroy the T-34's armor like glass, the Soviets heat treated their armor way too much, in fact half of the T-34's produced in the war was like this due to them being made by the Ural Tank Factory.
Т-34 - худший танк Второй мировой войны. Даже Сталин его называл "Сормовский уродец". :-)
"Сормовский уродец" - распространенное в войсках обозначение танков Т-34, сошедших с конвейера Сормовского завода в первые годы ВОВ. По различным причинам машины, произведенные на данном заводе, отличались низкими надежностью и качеством, что приводило ко множеству проблем в ходе их эксплуатации.
Плохое качество танков, произведенных на конкретном заводе, ничего не говорит о самом танке.
Очень сомнительный байт со стороны неосведомленного дегенерата, попробуй снова.
Ono něco jiného je vyrábět válečné stroje v zemi,kde se neválčí,jako Německo zpočátku bylo, jiná věc je vyrobit tank v zemi,kde je Německý agresor a muži na frontě.Pro Německo pracovala celá poražená Západní Evropa a statisíce totálně nasazených a přesto je t34 převálcoval.