Oh yes, my mother always asks about the misconceptions around the T-34 when we are at the table
@williamjeffersonclinton69
3 жыл бұрын
Especially if you are sitting down to a dinner of Sauerbraten
@Captain-flash-heart-boom
3 жыл бұрын
🤣👍
@Masada1911
3 жыл бұрын
You have a cool mom
@CTNZ2000
3 жыл бұрын
Yeah but everyone knows your Mums a Panther fangirlie.
@jdove6883
3 жыл бұрын
Well she is a well informed woman I am sure.
@canoli72
3 жыл бұрын
German tank commander 1940-41: every tank we encounter is a KV-1! Allied tank commander 1944-45: every tank we encounter is a Panther/Tiger 2!
@Idaho-Cowboy
3 жыл бұрын
Using a suspension different from everyone else must be a mandate of British tank design.
@benwinter2420
3 жыл бұрын
Lay back in your steel coffin & think of the mother Queen of the colony
@cryptobox128
3 жыл бұрын
Different suspension ... and armor ... and primary anti-tank round (hello HESH) ... but other than that, all is normal. And after all, the Brit GUN itself is spectacular, just look at how many other nations (USA, Germany...) use variants of Royal Ordinance tubes.
@texx1985
3 жыл бұрын
I thought not working properly was the key element of british design:)
@fulgrimventris8506
3 жыл бұрын
@@cryptobox128 Is that why anyone with any sense in the modern era is building licensed copies of Rheinmetall's guns? And not the rifled-bore relic the brits keep on hand so they can get rid of their HESH stockpiles.
@Flakey101
3 жыл бұрын
@@fulgrimventris8506 Well more to do with Royal Ordinance not being around any more as a significant factor.
@thijshagenbeek8853
3 жыл бұрын
Merry significant emotional event comrades!
@rhoetusochten4211
3 жыл бұрын
I mean, i like Chieftain videos, but significant emotional event?
@luisromero9414
3 жыл бұрын
@@rhoetusochten4211 I don´'t know about you, but i would say that the celebration of someone that survived a significant emotional event is pretty much side by side with the celebration of the birth of our lord and savior RNGesus
@practicing1
3 жыл бұрын
Irish people are all Christians except for atheists, Atheists are the ones with strong beliefs about God.
@benwinter2420
3 жыл бұрын
An holy mountain of the God tree giving us his son Christ/Mars to us . . to you sir . . a good day
@practicing1
3 жыл бұрын
@@benwinter2420 The Queens staff just quit because they have been illegally detained from their children. Sometimes there are less casualties and sacrificing sons in war than in peaceful tyranny.
@mikhail_tal1866
3 жыл бұрын
5 Things People Don't Understand About the T-34 *"Why does it have health bars?"*
@mattsmith7019
3 жыл бұрын
Great vid mate. I got upclose with the T34-85 out here in Australia, as you say, they weren't poorly built, by boy are they rough! When we asked for a T34, the Russians shipped us one, complete with ammunition for our war memorial, nice of them, ay?
@GeorgeSemel
3 жыл бұрын
Well, what good is a tank with out ammo? The Russians do have a bit of a sense of humor.
@rus0004
3 жыл бұрын
What was the de-mill process like?
@mattsmith7019
3 жыл бұрын
@@rus0004 As far as I know, it just needs a new clutch, not sure it was de-milled at all.
@rus0004
3 жыл бұрын
@@mattsmith7019 To display it here in Australia? Geez, I'd have thought that would be the first thing they did. Where is it displayed?
@mattsmith7019
3 жыл бұрын
@@rus0004 Last time I saw it, she was in storage at the Mitchell Complex of the Australian War Memorial. Out here, it's probably not running foul of any laws, after all if you own something which the ammunition is not available for, then it's classed as legal. That's how people own things like Bofors, tanks and other assorted artillery pieces. In any case, the AWM is owned by the government so I doubt she was de-milled.
@Daesarul
3 жыл бұрын
The germans was using gold against t-34
@Rubashow
3 жыл бұрын
Yeah but only 5% of their shots were gold.
@Marcelo-ft3pm
3 жыл бұрын
Dam gold noobs ;)
@britishneko3906
3 жыл бұрын
theu were gold spamming like the machine gun's of tank
@dylanmilne6683
3 жыл бұрын
Imagine getting linked to this and within the first 20 seconds you're called "lesser informed". Beautiful.
@julmdamaslefttoe3559
3 жыл бұрын
bruh 1 view? never been so early, WITNESS ME NICHOLAS
@WorldoftanksNAarchived
3 жыл бұрын
So shiny. So chrome.
@julmdamaslefttoe3559
3 жыл бұрын
@@WorldoftanksNAarchived thats my lad ;)
@TheChieftainsHatch
3 жыл бұрын
@@julmdamaslefttoe3559 Thou art witnessed.
@julmdamaslefttoe3559
3 жыл бұрын
@@TheChieftainsHatch this is indeed a significant emotional event
@dagamer9978
3 жыл бұрын
@@WorldoftanksNAarchived? So what?
@MostlyPennyCat
3 жыл бұрын
Sloped armour was used in battleships long before tanks, so it was very much an understood concept!
@cccpredarmy
3 жыл бұрын
idk who in hell ever talked about that "nobody knew of sloped armor before t-34 rolled out"-idea? The sloped armor in t-34 is mentioned in the context that it was sloped on ALL sides without (or almost without) any death-traps. Also it's utter nonsense to pick only one of its concept and design features and point out afterwards that "they didn't invent it". Nobody said that soviets INVENTED those feautres. However they managed to COMBINE them into ONE tank. Like first IPhone combined all the good stuff in one smartphone which int he end worked as it was intended and promised. T-34 was a good tank because of ALL its features COMBINED. Maneuverable, endurable, well armored, well armed, upgradable, cheap to produce, easy to manufacture, conveyor belt production, easy to train crews, easy logistics.
@MostlyPennyCat
3 жыл бұрын
@@cccpredarmy That's true of the T34-84. The original T34 was kinda garbage, the reliability was just not there yet. If memory serves correct the standard Pak AT gun the Nazis dragged around couldn't penetrate the front upper or lower plate. Obviously an 88 goes in one side and out the other. Oh, the T34 had sightly overworked crew of 4, which hurt the fightability of the tank. The T34/76 had a crew of 4 and a small 2 man turret: T34/76. T34/85 Turret 1 Loader. Loader Turret 2. Commander/ Commander Gunner. Turrett 3. n/a. Gunner Tank 4. Driver. Driver Tank 5. Bow Gunner? Bow Gunner
@ImperativeGames
3 жыл бұрын
@@MostlyPennyCat Reliability is never there when something technically complex is introduced. You can see this in software too.
@MrChickennugget360
2 жыл бұрын
@@cccpredarmy Honestly the History Channel was saying the T-34 was the first tank with sloped Armor. back when they made bad history documentaries rather than UFO videos.
@cccpredarmy
2 жыл бұрын
@@MrChickennugget360 And how shall we call others who quote History Channel as a reliable source to make their argument or counterargument more valid?
@nicholaspratt8473
3 жыл бұрын
I loved the point on the T-34 being brutally/efficiently built more than poorly. Absolutely!
@kokofan50
3 жыл бұрын
The Soviets always built to the lowest common denominator, and they even found ways of lowering that people in the West couldn’t think of.
@ironmanos
3 жыл бұрын
they didn't expect the tanks to have much life expectancy, so they did it efficient enough for fullfil its function
@filmandfirearms
3 жыл бұрын
@@ironmanos It was designed so that everything on the tank broke at about the same time, which was the vehicle's average life expectancy. Anything that wasn't expected to last that long was strengthened so it would, and anything that lasted notably longer than that was weakened to save time, material, and money
@hailexiao2770
2 жыл бұрын
@@filmandfirearms The Soviets were the OG implementers of planned obsolescence.
@filmandfirearms
2 жыл бұрын
@@hailexiao2770 It was hardly a new concept. The Russians just took it the extreme. Same as with sloped armor. Not a new concept by any means, one that had been used by every nation to some extent, but the Russians took it the extreme
@skeptic_lemon
Жыл бұрын
One thing to add, the T-34s weren't horribly built, they were built efficiently like you explained. However, the steel they used for the armor was heat treated. That alone would not be a problem, heat treating increases the hardness of steel, however they over-treated the steel by such a ridiculous amount that the steel would sometimes shatter instead of bending when a sheel hit the tank, which sent shrapnel flying everywhere on the inside of the tank. At least, that's what I've heard from a certain youtuber who did a video on this tank.
@mikem6176
2 жыл бұрын
There used to be an almost mythical appreciation for the T34, that it supposedly scared the pants off the invading Germans who didn’t know what to do once they saw their shells careening off of this magically sloped armor. Truth be told, I used to say things like that myself. And the Germans may not have been all that impressed anyway, seeing how they destroyed them by the bushel. But it was indeed crude, more like an axe than a rapier. There wasn’t even a turret basket, so the already overworked loader had to be mindful where his feet were as the turret traversed, lest he lose them. And the early periscopes weren’t even glass, but of polished steel. Then there’s the matter of the 76.2mm main gun’s ability to penetrate German frontal armor, when in fact it was about as powerful as the Sherman’s “anemic” 75mm.
@justforever96
2 жыл бұрын
Trust me, the periscope is made from glass. It wouldn't work well as a periscope it if wasn't. Steel is just not transparent enough to light to work well as a lens. What you are talking about is the _reflector_ , the mirror. And polished metal is a standard way of making mirrors. How do you make a mirror out of just glass? You can make them by putting a reflective backing onto a sheet of glass, but glass itself won't reflect much. And it is my understanding that polished metal is superior, not inferior, to a thin layer stuck to a sheet of glass. Not having a turret basket was not unusual for the time, and is just not that big a deal. That is like saying "the transmission didn't even have syncromesh"! This was in the late 30s, no one was surprised by that. As for the gun, the M4 Medium's gun was never "anemic" until they started encountering lots of Panthers and Tigers in the Ardennes counter offensive. Against any tank from before 1944, it was plenty powerful, and so was the 76.2mm. What people confuse about the T-34 is they assign the reputation it rightly received in the early part of the war to the entire war. In 1942 it _was_ very powerful, a good tank. It was still pretty good in 1945 due to the bigger gun and turret. But it was no longer as good as it was in 1942, compared to what it was facing. Pretty much the same as the M4. The Germans may have destroyed a lot of T-34s, it was not invincible, the thing is that they found it a lot more difficult than they had expected, which is important. That effects your plans, your time tables, you need to find bigger guns or take more time and effort to do it. The Allies also destroyed a lot of Tigers and Panthers, but that doesn't mean they were no good. For that matter, the Germans destroyed a lot of M4s, but that also doesn't mean it was no good.
@alexandero9936
3 жыл бұрын
I don’t even play world of tanks anymore, I’m only subscribed for the enormous amount of knowledge inside chieftains head.
@niclyx7970
3 жыл бұрын
**Bespectacled Hans gesturing at a photo of a KV-1** Is this a T-34?
@britishneko3906
3 жыл бұрын
or a pz?
@jonathanbarraclough5917
3 жыл бұрын
His point is that confusion reigned
@godweenausten
3 жыл бұрын
*monocled
@Stuka87
3 жыл бұрын
Great video, a nice fill in for 'Inside the Chieftain's Hatch' since those cant be filmed right now. Looking forward to more!
@thelieutenant7732
3 жыл бұрын
I remember reading a CIA analysis of a North Korean T-34-85 and they were shocked to find that many internal components were of very high quality aluminum and rubber and that the armor was of better quality than even our tanks.
@haroldfiedler6549
3 жыл бұрын
Sounds more like NK propaganda than a CIA report.
@andersonrobotics5608
3 жыл бұрын
when was the analysis made because i highly doubt any form of T-34 armor would be better than modern composite armor
@hoshyro
3 жыл бұрын
@@andersonrobotics5608 He's talking about the Korean war, and there were Shermans and Pershings there, Pershings were extremely short on maintenance since they hadn't been used in years and Shermans... well, are Shermans, composite armour wasn't even a thing yet
@fulcrum2951
3 жыл бұрын
CIA Information Report Number 00-T-00061. Engineering Analysis of the Russian T34/85 Tank
@startingbark0356
3 жыл бұрын
Does make sense, its not a ww2 production T-34-85
@geckotheben447
2 жыл бұрын
I remember the quality depending on what factory made the tank, some saw important components as not as necessary, and unfortunately the worst factory made the most t-34s, and by most I mean around 50% partially cuz they made them to a very low standard it saved a lot of time when making them. thought they got better and the quality improved there is a lot of nuance to it that a short "World of Tanks" video can't explain and a longer "Chieftain" video is needed.
@themanfromupover2020
Жыл бұрын
Glad you mentioned that! Some things like these fet overlooked so often.
@christopherjcarson
Жыл бұрын
Helpful series of observations. I think Kama on the Volga was one of the more famous manufacturing plants,aswell as Stalingrad.The fact that they were Ordered to be made in 1934 does show some degree of forward planning. The Russian High Command must have had some serious misgivings about German intentions despite the signing of the Molotov Ribbentrop pact Pact in the late 1930’s. With furthur reading the tactic patterns in the field were a type of replay from training in joint sorte’s during the 1920’s when there were officer exchanges aswell as joint training initiatives, on the part of both countries! To learn more of this,worth chasing up some of field Marshall Rommell’s writings!
@opperbuil
3 жыл бұрын
This format will do well with an episode on every tank ever.
@gorkivalenzuela6940
2 жыл бұрын
You forgot to state than one of the weaknest of the T-34 was the lack of radio communications with the rest of the tanks that lasted for many years during the war that made the tank commander to have signal the other tanks with flags what made them exposed and slower in that task.
@anderskorsback4104
Жыл бұрын
Well, that was not really a fault of the design. The T-34 was intended (and the interior designed) to have radios in every tank, it's just that the Soviet electronics industry was in its infancy and couldn't keep up with tank production, so more often than not just command tanks got radios.
@tfoldyna
3 жыл бұрын
Many of T-34 and KV was not lost because destroyed by Germans guns, but also destroyed by grenades etc. when sent to unprepared counterattacks without infantry and artilleries, and of course lot of them - maybe majority - abandoned when "appeared" without fuel, have less or more serious technical problem, disorganization of units, or other reasons, like when units feels "surrounded" etc...
@MrChickennugget360
2 жыл бұрын
honestly poor logistical support will wipe out tanks faster than any anti-tank weapon.
@petethebastard
3 жыл бұрын
I wish I had dinner-table conversations that included discussing attributes of AFVs. I wish I had dinner-table conversations... I wish I had a dinner-table, really....
@PORRRIDGE_GUN
2 жыл бұрын
I wish I had dinner.
@petethebastard
2 жыл бұрын
@@PORRRIDGE_GUN You have the Internet...! My diet is watch YT recipes, and DON'T cook and eat 'em!
@largol33t1
3 жыл бұрын
I love how some still thought the T-34 was invincible against German guns. "Allow me to introduce myself" - the 88mm FLAK.
@EdyAlbertoMSGT3
Жыл бұрын
Nobody said it was inmune to the 88mm....
@largol33t1
Жыл бұрын
@@EdyAlbertoMSGT3 But my 4th grade history teacher made no mention of it and said it was the immune to anything the Germans could throw at it. I learned later that this was not true.
@WorldoftanksNAarchived
3 жыл бұрын
Did you learn anything about the T-34 that you didn't already know?
@kimjanek646
3 жыл бұрын
@@danam0228 understandable as they used the same gun. They probably described the KV as a heavy tank with a 76mm Main armament and with something like 30t even the T-34 was quite large, heavy and well armored for the time.
@JohnDiabol
3 жыл бұрын
Nope.
@SeaPhantom
3 жыл бұрын
I didn't know T-34s were mistaken for KV-1s.
@isaiahdickson1395
3 жыл бұрын
What music did y'all use in this video? I love it. I want to listen to it while I am playing tanks!
@petesheppard1709
3 жыл бұрын
The explanation about build quality.
@g10118
3 жыл бұрын
For the record, 'the chieftain' videos are the only reason I'm still playing WoT. All the other wargaming nonsense makes me not want to play it.
@ProfessorPesca
3 жыл бұрын
You can watch the video without playing World of Tanks tho....
@DuraLexSedLex
3 жыл бұрын
@@ProfessorPesca That's less incentive for WG to keep running them, as they're part of an ad campaign. Going "the vids are an expense that don't help us" is a very good way to get them pulled.
@smokey3764
3 жыл бұрын
I havent played WoT in like 2-3 months but watching this has really made me consider getting back into it
@AllMightyKingBowser
3 жыл бұрын
@@smokey3764 If grinding is your problem, I can tell you now it is 200% easier and faster to grind new tanks.
@TheAmazingCowpig
3 жыл бұрын
@@DuraLexSedLex tbh, better to just subscribe directly to Nick's channel, The_Chieftain. Although, I guess Nick having WG's backing for higher production value presentations is still nice.
@PalleRasmussen
3 жыл бұрын
Always good to see Nicholas, he is such a nice chap.
@thomashogan9196
3 жыл бұрын
For an even earlier example of sloped armor, look at the Confederate States Ship Merrimack (CSS Virginia).
@der_fuxs
3 жыл бұрын
And for an even earlier example look for fortresses build from 16th century onwards, where meters thick sloped walls have been developed to withstand shots from a bombard ;)
@thomasbaagaard
3 жыл бұрын
or any random piece of medieval armor...
@Bagledog5000
3 жыл бұрын
DaVinci's tank had sloped armor as well...
@thomashogan9196
3 жыл бұрын
@@thomasbaagaardVery true, Except perhaps King Harold II, who for some reason liked his men carrying around big kites. But in fairness it's popularly believed he was shot through the vision slit.
@neurofiedyamato8763
3 жыл бұрын
@@thomasbaagaard Yep medieval plate armor most notable the helmet and breastplates were designed so strikes would glance off. Sloped and oblique impact angles has been known for centuries. The myth doesn't even make any sense.
@Shrike58
3 жыл бұрын
Here's a question for you: If better tank treads are a big part of the reason for the obsolescence of the Christie system, who (designer, country, etc.) led development in tread design?
@letsexchangecansandbadadvi4245
3 жыл бұрын
Christie suspension was an American design that the USSR thought it could be useful, and bought the design in the mid 30s!!
@allangibson8494
3 жыл бұрын
The whole concept of the Christy suspension was to be able to run without tracks on roads. The T-34 dropped that function along with the drive to the wheels.
@britishneko3906
3 жыл бұрын
ahh yes nerds... and the cristy can change its track so it can go on wheels and... you know what happened when there's a wheel in a tank fight **eurobeat intensify**
@amicaze9570
3 жыл бұрын
The biggest reason for Christie suspension fading away from use was that it required a significant volume that was stolen from the crewmembers, decreasing crew efficiency drastically, and it didn't work on heavier tanks. So you have a light tank that needs to be big, thus being a big target and less stealthy, not what you want. It worked fine on BT tanks because they carried a 45 and almost no armor. I guess you're asking that in regards to the capabilities of the christie to switch to roadwheels ? This capability was never anything more than a gadget, if you aren't moving your tanks to the front via train and instead driving them around, you've already made a mistake somewhere, and taking off the tracks and putting them back on is not a quick job either, so it's useless once you're on the front.
@billwilson3609
3 жыл бұрын
The US entered the war with the best tank tread design because their pins were bushed in rubber while others used pins with bearings that required periodic inspection and regreasing. The Soviets used dry pins (no lube) so the pins and thru holes in the treads wore out fast. The US produced various track designs for use on different terrains with rubber pads for the rubber covered road wheels to roll on. The Germans changed tread designs to reduce weight and provide better traction. I believe the Soviets used the same tread designs that their tanks had when introduced with their short service life being due to the use of dry pins and poor production practices at the foundries where cast. The Germans switched over to using dry pins to eliminate the lengthy task of regreasing the pins. J. Walter Christie's fast tanks had the suspension struts with shock absorbers mounted at an angle on the outside of the hull for easier servicing. The US Army had Christie design a "combat car" to their specs that had the struts inside the hull that was made wider because the struts took up space inside the fighting compartment. Christie sold those plans to the British and Soviets after the US Army gave the contract to produce the combat car to American-LaFrance (they only made fire engines up to that time). I don't know what the Brits used as struts. The Soviets stood theirs straight up using long coil springs with no shocks to reduce costs. The absence of shock absorbers made the T-34 rock up and down when traveling over uneven terrain at a fair rate of speed and would continue to rock for a while after coming to a stop to fire the main gun. The German tankers noticed that early on so tried to get the T-34's to chase after them so the Soviets would be sitting ducks after coming to a stop. Later in the war the Soviets added shock absorbers to control the rocking. The US Army ditched the Christie suspension because it took up too much room inside the hull, was time consuming to maintain/repair and couldn't withstand a prolonged pounding like the vertical volute suspension could.
@TheGranicd
3 жыл бұрын
So 37mm "door knocker" still seems valid.
@talltroll7092
3 жыл бұрын
Yes, but the 37mm was actually fine for fighting most Soviet armoured equipment until about mid-end 1943, when they finally got the remnants of the pre-WWII equipment out of the TO&E of front-line units, as T34 production finally got to the point of being enough. There were a LOT of BT-series, T26s', armoured cars and other lightly armed vehicles in the 1941 inventory, and the 37mm continued to serve on the German 251/10 until very late-was, when it was sometimes replaced with the /17, which carried a PzII turret instead
@Glebasik148
3 жыл бұрын
It was called firecracer in like 1943+
@christianguzman8228
3 жыл бұрын
You don't need to cut clean through a tank to "knock" it out of action. A remarkable thing about battle-scarred WW2 tanks is the abundance of smaller caliber impacts around the turret ring area and track area. In contrast to some tanks with giant holes in the center of the frontal hull.
@ravenouself4181
8 ай бұрын
I need to add this list: The T-34 is often criticized for having sloped side armor on the basis that it eats up interior space and reduces the diameter of the turret ring. What isn't noted, is that the T-34 is a further development of the BT-series and that the angled sides overhang the tracks, the hull of the BT-series is fully between the tracks. Thus compared to it's predecessor, the T-34 has gained interior space.
@Chris-iy6du
3 жыл бұрын
so, when we should expect a video about Tiger?
@WorldoftanksNAarchived
3 жыл бұрын
Thanks for the suggestion, we'll add the Tiger to the list as well.
@degeneratemainframe9966
3 жыл бұрын
you know you don't need to put that "five things people..." card in every 20 seconds
@jasonmcleod8914
3 жыл бұрын
Yeah, that's a personal problem you're experiencing. It's literally not an issue. You lost maybe 12 seconds over the course of the entire video.
@howardchambers9679
3 жыл бұрын
He has to do that to remind the attention deficient WoT children what the video is about.
@ushikiii
3 жыл бұрын
@@jasonmcleod8914 it's pretty unnecessary and pointing that out is constructive criticism of the video production.
@williamjeffersonclinton69
3 жыл бұрын
Americans seeing German Tanks in WWII *Tiger!* Germans seeing Russian Tanks in WWII *KV!*
@jorgsobota2228
3 жыл бұрын
The Ferdinand had left some impression too, the Russians claimed to have at least 500 of them destroyed...
@racelkatyusha403
3 жыл бұрын
@@jorgsobota2228 but there were only 92 buil-
@jorgsobota2228
3 жыл бұрын
@@racelkatyusha403 Right? But they took every self propelled gun with a long barrel like the Hornisse for a Ferdinand...
@Waterflux
3 жыл бұрын
I think organizational (i.e., command, communications, logistics) failures plagued the early T-34 operations more than anything else throughout much of 1941-42. This is glaringly evident in much of the battles involving Soviet mechanized corps launching counterattacks against Army Group South in the opening battle. The Soviets had over 3,000 tanks vs. much smaller German tank inventory (only about 1/10 of what the Soviets had mustered), but much of the Soviet mechanized corps evaporated, although this apparent disaster succeeded in deflecting the 1st Panzer Group away from Kiev. Oh yeah ...... the question of how much angle to slope has been a major philosophical question for both tank designers and crews. I think sloping can be more challenging for tanks than for turretless AFVs: the need to have a turret that provides adequate working space. I think comparing the turrets of T-34/76 and T-34/85 is illustrative; the latter is boxier than the former, but roomier. Using the boogie-man ... *ahem* ... super-tank T-34 as a universal excuse by the Germans, while industrial dislocation by the Soviets: understandable. One of the constants in human history: the need for easy excuses when something inconvenient needs to be "explained". ;)
@marseldagistani1989
3 жыл бұрын
The T-34 was manufactured by what is referred as Planned Obsolescence
@amann2547
2 жыл бұрын
Love your analysis and presentation, as always, Sir. Favorite comment - "brutally and efficiently built". Pretty good description of Soviet design and construction!
@claudgurr431
3 жыл бұрын
One thing the Soviet military designers were good at was making hardware that worked when used by poorly trained soldiers. The T34 was a decent tank, but more importantly it could be built quickly in large numbers and was easy to use (as much as a tank can be).
@johnlenin830
3 жыл бұрын
"Another event hit us like a ton of bricks: the first Russian T-34 tanks appeared! The amazement was complete. How could it happen that up there, they did not know about the existence of this excellent tank? The T-34, with its good armor, perfect shape and magnificent 76.2-mm long-barreled gun, thrilled everyone, and all German tanks were afraid of it until the end of the war. " Otto Carius "Tigers in the mud. Memories of a German tankman "
@nathaniel1207
3 жыл бұрын
that intro has so much stuff in it. "m3 lee most powerful?" lol
@yeetadog
3 жыл бұрын
Triple KV-2
@neurofiedyamato8763
3 жыл бұрын
@@yeetadog KV-2-2-2*
@yeetadog
3 жыл бұрын
@@neurofiedyamato8763 da tovarich)))))
@uproar8745
3 жыл бұрын
The 37mm could disable the t-34 and the KV quite easily. People forget that a crippled tank is a death trap and generally people don't stay in them.
@dilianaran6845
3 жыл бұрын
"could" sums it up nicely
@abdulabdanahib9617
3 жыл бұрын
KV was impenetrable for door knocker
@uproar8745
3 жыл бұрын
@@abdulabdanahib9617 Tracks are the most vulnerable part of the tank, you don't need to penetrate the main hull to render a tank useless.
@abdulabdanahib9617
3 жыл бұрын
@@uproar8745 without tracks KV still can fire main gun and machineguns
@uproar8745
3 жыл бұрын
@@abdulabdanahib9617 and? Real life isn't a video game, if you get over run you're practically dead.
@MrLolx2u
3 жыл бұрын
People have been complaining that the T-34 was poorly made and therefore it sucked. In some way, it is true. It was poorly made but does that make it bad? No and there might be a logical and also, a concrete proof on why they built it that way. The Soviets actually realized that the new T-34s were actually feared by the Germans and with their T-26s already proving their weakness in Spain while losing so many during the initial phase of Barbarossa, they need this new tank quick. However, losses were extremely high when the Germans caught the Russians off guard so in order to increase production rate, whatever that could cut short the production times was used as long as it holds on the battlefield. Welds isn't fully welded but it holds? Send it. Doesn't have a co-axial but the main gun works? Send it. Engine doesn't last more than 300 miles? Who cares about that when tank lasts only 15mins estimate during combat? Send it. These are the few problems that plagued the T-34s but the problems lile missing equipment or bad welds only lasted till the F-34 variant mostly. By the time the T-34-85 happened, situation has improved and because of all the stop-gap measures the Kremlin pulled, they managed to outproduce the Germans and even with shoddy build quality, these tanks flipped the tide of battle, especially in Kursk and Kharkov which in turn gave the factory workers time to improve the designs and by late 1944, most T-34-85s had full welded chassis, full working equipment and tons of spare engines and gearboxes to lead them to Poland and Berlin without any fear.
@SCM223
3 жыл бұрын
The t34-85 got slapped around by Pershings and E8's in Korea. Pershings...
@demrandom
2 жыл бұрын
@@SCM223 Given the price point difference, not that suprising. Roughly equal would be a normal pershing vs an IS-2.
@SCM223
2 жыл бұрын
@@demrandom ? Price had very little to do with it. Did being the most expensive tank in WW2 make Tiger ii the best? No. Even compared to the IS3 the Pershing was deemed effective, and both of those vehicles had pretty bad records. We can completely remove the Pershing from the situation though. Of the 119 tank battles logged by the US in Korea, 50% involved M4A3E8's with 24 T34s destroyed to 7 Shermans.
@demrandom
2 жыл бұрын
@@SCM223 Same logic the germans had beating the soviets tank v tank. If your T-34's cost peanuts and your pricy tank costs a bunch, you can't field too many of them, and the conversion rate for for example panthers and T-34's, whilst it was in the panthers favor significantly, it was very much not so in price ( 3:1 kill ratio for panthers but on a 1:20 price ratio). The only reason the germans even built tigers was to protect their remaining experienced tank crews since they had lost so many pushing into the soviet union, they were pretty much out of them altogether. The pershing was comparable in cost to the IS-2, as well in armor and speed (the major factor being the IS-2's slow reloads). Of course the pershing will look good vs t-34s, the same way t-34's look good going up against pz1's- they're not in the same class of cost, weight, speed, anything really. M4A3E8's 1 v 1 would have a similarly poor track record against an IS-2, assuming similar crew training (which they obviously did not have).
@SCM223
2 жыл бұрын
@@demrandom I think you're getting too much information from video games.
@chiquilio
3 жыл бұрын
loving this series already, quick message and neutrally told, let's hope this neutrality holds to the american tanks
@glengearhart5298
3 жыл бұрын
He maintains the neutrality throughout. Watch his video about the creation of the M4 also the one on the Pershing
@danielkorladis7869
3 жыл бұрын
@@glengearhart5298 yeah, he always makes it clear that every tank design involves a bunch of trade-offs
@thethirdman225
3 жыл бұрын
There was nothing neutral about this and no, you don’t have to be pro-Soviet or anti whatever to see it.
@kiwiruna9077
3 жыл бұрын
Next Episode-5 things people don't know about the Rota Trailer
@Tankperv
3 жыл бұрын
The comment about them being badly built is accurate. They were at the start of the war. The tanks were designed for numbers so as long as they had enough they could break down because there would be more coming. When they could they refined the engines and transmissions to work better and for longer and increased as quality parts increased in quantity
@dposcuro
3 жыл бұрын
I've always found the people who think that the T-34's 76mm gun was great, while the American 75mm is garbage....really hilarious.
@deezboyeed6764
3 жыл бұрын
The 75mm is good enough the tankers didn't even request the 76mm sherman
@deezboyeed6764
3 жыл бұрын
@Dwarov 1 mostly fear of the tiger and pushing of higher ups.
@gamebook727
3 жыл бұрын
The T-34/76 had several different guns through its service life. It's first gun in 1941 was the L-11, a short-barreled low-velocity weapon. After the war began a new model fitted with the F-34 gun was built, a longer-barreled higher-velocity weapon with greater armour penetrating capability. The American QF 75mm was a mid-velocity weapon roughly comparable to the F-34. Both guns were eventually left behind by advancing armour strengths and had to be replaced by weapons with greater armour penetration capability.
@kemarisite
3 жыл бұрын
I've made basically the same comment about the M4 vs T-34, taking each as a whole, previously. T-34 is great, M4 is a death trap, blah, blah, then we get to Korea with the late WW2 models and they're both competitive with the other. Big difference during WW2 is that the T-34-85 went straight to the front while the M4a3e6 (with 76 mm gun M1) had several hundred languishing in depots in England because no one thought the bigger gun was going to be needed.
@deezboyeed6764
3 жыл бұрын
@@kemarisite never understood the hate for sherman its a great tank
@nickdanger3802
2 жыл бұрын
"Armor steel had a special place in these shipments, especially in the production of tanks, self-propelled guns and other equipment. Mobilization reserve of armored steel in the Soviet Union before the war was small and did not cover even 6-month industry needs. According to some data, 525.4 thousand tons of rolled steel of all types was delivered to the USSR under Lend-Lease. Every month, the country received about half of average amount of Soviet production of armored steel. Special steel for gun barrel drifting was also delivered." page 118 Food and other strategic deliveries to the Soviet Union under the Lend-Lease Act, 1941-1945 pdf
@denisstanley6546
3 жыл бұрын
One of my dads mates said the T34 was ok but you had to be carefull you did not get injured by the interior casting dags that were seldom removed.
@garylawless3608
3 жыл бұрын
I have always wondered why the commanders hatch on the turret of the T34 opened forward. I assume the commander can see over it when opened, and it would give him some protection, but it just looks weird.
@1joshjosh1
3 жыл бұрын
#6 It is illegal to show the inside of a T-34/76 because nobody on KZitem seems to want to do it.
@davidroman1342
3 жыл бұрын
My dad was in stalingrad then drove a T34 to Berlin. He loved his. Broke down a lot.
@naphackDT
3 жыл бұрын
So did most tanks of the era. At least the crew could fix any problems on their own (except for engine failure.)
@boranates1320
3 жыл бұрын
how old is your dad?
@davidroman1342
3 жыл бұрын
@@boranates1320 my dad was born 1923
@boranates1320
3 жыл бұрын
@@davidroman1342 Not to be rude but when did your dad die?
@davidroman1342
3 жыл бұрын
@@boranates1320 1999
@budafarms
3 жыл бұрын
I’ve heard there was big enough gaps in t34s armor that you could stick your hand into
@thethirdman225
3 жыл бұрын
They were built under circumstances no other nation had to face. Not only was the country overrun but most of the skilled labour force was at the front. Emergency circumstances mean compromises.
@gregorstamejcic2355
3 жыл бұрын
Yeah, i think the chieftain has it right when he calls this tank efficient. could do with a radio earlier on, tho...
@Flakey101
3 жыл бұрын
The whole Russian army could have used radios earlier. A shortage in vacuum tubes not made up till late by American lend lease made that shortfall impossible to correct
@CloneDAnon
3 жыл бұрын
That is lack of resource, not lack of design and built.
@kevinsullivan3448
3 жыл бұрын
Who needs a radio when you have flags?!
@jukahri
3 жыл бұрын
@@kevinsullivan3448 Flags aren't everything though, you also need élan!
@Glebasik148
3 жыл бұрын
Soviets had shortage of radios even for what they had They had like 50% of what they needed So putting radios in every tank would be just impossible
@WardenWolf
3 жыл бұрын
There's also the simple fact that the early T-34 wasn't that good. They rapidly upgraded the armor and other aspects of it, but the initial example encountered by the Germans would have been underwhelming.
2 жыл бұрын
And they were also there were problems with heat threating wich caused armor to be very hard and easy to splinter most of war time(especially early war) t-34s were knocked out by non penetrating hits
@kostakatsoulis2922
2 жыл бұрын
And even the later war versions were woefully inadequate due to the speed in which they were produced *looks disappointingly at factory 183*
@vtbmwbiker
3 жыл бұрын
Finally, a video that addresses all of the noise! Next up, please do the Panther.
@rolandhunter
3 жыл бұрын
Ohoo that ll be blood bath :D And I already see allies fappers will say transmission and final drive boring memes, and who trying to argue with them, they just gonna say: do not cry wehrabooo.
@haroldfiedler6549
3 жыл бұрын
He's already done the Panther. Do a search and you'll find it.
@vtbmwbiker
3 жыл бұрын
@@haroldfiedler6549 I've seen the inside the Chieftain's Hatch episode. Is there another?
@rolandhunter
3 жыл бұрын
@@haroldfiedler6549 That is old and has many miss information.
@davidm3118
3 жыл бұрын
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I understand that most Soviet tanks also lacked radios and depended on watching platoon or battalion level command vehicles (which DID have radios) to communicate through signal flags - where as all German vehicles were linked by radio.
@thethirdman225
3 жыл бұрын
That is mostly true. The Red Army hadn't integrated radios at the start because they hadn't set up the factory before Barbarossa. It was resolved later. At the time of Barbarossa, the Germans were using all kinds of tanks and not just the ones you might think of. A lot of French SOMUA S35 tanks made it to the Eastern Front and I don't believe they had radios either.
@MGB-learning
3 жыл бұрын
Outstanding video and presentation.
@tomnesler2089
3 жыл бұрын
Very entertaining and fun to watch! Kudos to the new series.
@clangerbasher
3 жыл бұрын
That is some savings by switching to torsion bars.
@ДмитрийМарков-х6и2щ
3 жыл бұрын
Switching to torsion bars allowed to make a 90mm glassis on a T-44
@Commander_Thunder
3 жыл бұрын
Cheap,durable,easy for maintaince and indestructible by numbers makes a legend lives name T-34
@haroldfiedler6549
3 жыл бұрын
With over 55,000 T-34's destroyed during the course of the war, the T-34's biggest distinction by far is that it is the most destroyed tank of all time. A record that will never be broken or be even close to being broken.
@ushikiii
3 жыл бұрын
@@haroldfiedler6549 it's biggest distinction are the 84,070 T34s that were produced making it the second most produced tank in the world only beaten by the T 54/55 and by far the most produced tank of WW2.
@haroldfiedler6549
3 жыл бұрын
@@ushikiii It's biggest distinction is how many were destroyed. It was poorly designed, poorly constructed, no radio so attacks could not be coordinated. Ergonomics were abysmal because it didn't have a turret basket. Tank management sucked big time due to a shortage of crew members. The main gun was incredibly weak due to its short, almost comical length. The turret was placed forward on the hull making upgrades to the main gun detrimental and ramming the gun tube a real problem. The Christie suspension used up a lot of interior space. The real question was not what was good about the T-34. Because there was nothing good about it. The question is answering how many bad things were wrong with the tank. And that list is a very long one.
@ushikiii
3 жыл бұрын
@@haroldfiedler6549 nah that simply isnt true. The T 34 76s had good armour when they first came out. Not impregnable but they were better protected when compared to the Germans PZ4s and PZ3s when they first came out. The mobility of the tank was very good despite its armour being as effective as a KV1. It's not like they didn't plan the tank to not have radios and later in the war the majority. Yeah it made them extremely ineffective at times but every tank has pros and cons. And more of them later did get radios I hope you know. The gun was the most powerful on a tank when it came out. It's in no way weak in fact it is imo the second strongest point of the T-34 the only reason why it could be considered bad was it's bad reload time but it had great pen and HE rounds for infantry. Idealistically the Soviets would have liked their all crews to be fully trained on how to use a T 34 but that wasn't possible because the Germans were attacking deep into their nations. That isn't a fault of the tank that's the fault of, like you said, the crew management and the lack of trained men. Later in the war the T 34 crews got better since the ones that survived became battle harden. The Christies suspension made it as quick as it was. It's not better than the torsion bar system but it's not bad and the space inside the tank wasn't bad in the hull, the main thing holding it back was the space in the turret. The chieftain is a large dude, don't take the war time Soviets to be anything close to his height. The welds are bad because they don't have to be good, he literally said that in the video. You are just pointed every defect of the T 34 with out pointed out it's strengths nor it's improvements in the war. Like you can explain why a tank is bad with that bias approach. They used that tank throughout the war and didn't change, if it was bad they would have developed a new tank quickly but they didn't because they didn't have time nor did they need to because the tank did it's job.
@cromwell7785
2 жыл бұрын
This lad must have some tank conversations at the dinner table
@4exgold
3 жыл бұрын
love the Kalinka-type remix on this vid
@NormAppleton
2 жыл бұрын
World's largest Leprechaun. Mr. Moran is a lot of fun.
@SomeRenoGuy
3 жыл бұрын
I know it's not tank related but you can go back to the Civil War and see that the CSS Virginia had sloped armor.
@MasterChiefSnake19910128
2 жыл бұрын
If anyone seen the Russian movie which is like Fury was called “T-34”, they’re lucky before 2022. T-34 movie just came out on 2019 the same year where Laos (the country where my parents are from) gave all T-34 tanks back to Russia.
@thethirdman225
3 жыл бұрын
Meh... Let’s look at a couple of those comments in some sort of context. Quality and reliability are not absolute in the case of the T-34 or any other long-running program. Both varied over time and both have to be seen in the context of their time periods. Secondly, there are probably not many projects like this which have had to endure what the T-34 or KV-1 did. When the Soviet Union was invaded, 1,500 factories were moved east of the Urals on something like 50,000 trains. Then they had to be re-established and tanks were being produced in places like Chelyabinsk before the factory was even finished. Also worth remembering that a lot of the skilled workforce were already off at war and the tanks frequently built by old people and children. Then there’s the question of losses in 1941. Yes: the Red Army started with about 800 T-34s but there things take a bit of a diversion. Recent research in Russia shows that a very large number of T-34s which were considered losses had never left the factories. They were there, incomplete, in places like Kharkov, when the factory was overrun by the Germans. That is not the same as a loss on the battlefield. There are other examples of this, where incomplete tanks were captured before they could have been salvaged. Then there’s the question of what constitutes a loss. When it came to enemy tanks, the Germans recorded pretty much anything that was stopped as a “loss”, implying “destroyed”. If you shot the track off a T-34 and it stopped, it was recorded as a loss. The Germans repeated this farcical counting method at Kursk. As for sloped armour, yes; all those tanks mentioned used sloped or angled armour. They also had a pretty sizeable collection of shot traps. The T-34 simplified the matter by removing a lot of those shot traps and simultaneously lowering the cost with a much simpler design and far fewer facets. There really wasn’t anything new in this except that it was all contained in one short video. Danger: the internet is in love with the idea that there are simple answers to complex questions/problems. That is a regrettable and dangerous illusion. All in all, a bit of a grab bag of Aunt Sallys and not up to your usual impeccable standard, Mr Moran.
@JV-bj4kx
3 жыл бұрын
True fact my man
@justforever96
2 жыл бұрын
LOL, about the "invulnerable" part, you can blame wikipedia for that. that is _exactly_ what wikipedia says, on the page on the Pak 36. The T-34 and KV-1 were "invulnerable" to them. I just left a comment on the talk page complaining about that a couple days ago. No tank is "invulnerable", there are always weak places. Having frontal armor theoretically too thick to penetrate doesn't make a tank "invulnerable" any more than wearing body armor makes you invulnerable to bullets.
@leshiq4214
3 жыл бұрын
The main advantages of T-34 were its time of production, simplicity of production, simplicity of required materials and being so - cost, and lastly all of that for a machine capable of solving lots of tasks. Like mentioned in the video.
@hurch1915
3 жыл бұрын
Sloped angles? How about the civil war Ironclads? Hell, how about Leonardo Da Vinci's drawing of a "tank"? Sloped armor most likely goes way back before even those days.
@Twister-10228
3 жыл бұрын
I examine a T-34 in a museum in Luxemburg and the welds was very bad. I done welding as as profession for elevator company. And I could stick my fingers in the front top armor and the side armor on the hull. And I have large hands and fingers. So yes there welding had other large gaps in the welding in the turret too. So yes Russian welding kinda sucked a little. So this one was made on a Monday or Friday. Before the weekend or after a weekend of vodka drinking. ..lol
@allangibson8494
3 жыл бұрын
Russians didn’t stop drinking on Mondays (or any other day with a y in it).
@Articulate99
2 жыл бұрын
Always interesting, thank you.
@topoffpancake3570
3 жыл бұрын
Wow, this video packed so much information. Great video as always!
@Rob-cr1hb
3 жыл бұрын
1:40 someone know the song Name?
@szymonpartyka1259
3 жыл бұрын
Red September
@Rob-cr1hb
3 жыл бұрын
@@szymonpartyka1259 thank you very much. You didn't know how long I searched this.😀
@JimFortune
2 жыл бұрын
Suggested improvement to T-34 transmission: Bigger hammer.
@youknowmyfirstlastname3206
2 жыл бұрын
1_ other nations did the slope but it was accident, and didn't pay attention 2_If t-34's suspension wasn't best why other all nations using suspension even in 2021?
@thomasmusso1147
3 жыл бұрын
I'm aware of some time during the Southern African Bush War, the reason why forgotten, three temporary 'displaced' Paras found a couple (three perhaps?) of abandoned T34's. They had much fun playing with, while at the same time learning how to operate them. Even more fun was had shooting the other/s out using their one of choice. They then drove back to base with the remaining tank. Apparently the Steering / Gearbox Controls were so hard to operate, that only the strongest of the three could do so. Needless to say, on their return, they were 'on the carpet' for destroying perfectly usable enemy equipment. Perhaps that's why the 34's were abandoned in the first place .. and the close proximity of the SADF.
@mr.pavone9719
3 жыл бұрын
5 Facts You Already Knew about the T34 1 They could not fly until 1952 2 If someone farted in the turret it usually smelled like cabbage. 3 The crews had a tendency to drink the radiator fluid 4 No T34 ever went to the moon 5 Until they were fielded, no T34 was ever destroyed in combat.
@dagamer9978
3 жыл бұрын
The only thing I know is that I can never deflect shots with that tonk. It just has no armor
@finncarlbomholtsrensen1188
2 жыл бұрын
I remember first seeing a T34 in Stetzin in Poland, where they guarded a Russian Cemetary, with very cheaply made tombstones (Made from a material also used for making floors in a bathroom), mostly in a bad state, as the Poles didn't care about them anymore, after the Russians had left! But the actual tanks, put on pillars outside, looked like something having been welded by an apprentice in his or hers first years!
@zinodavidoff5665
2 жыл бұрын
People really overestimate it as a glorious tank. Or the losses....at what the people should REALLY look at.
@Dafttar
3 жыл бұрын
Love the Russian tea glass.
@builder396
3 жыл бұрын
Its filled with "apple juice"
@MaxRavenclaw
Жыл бұрын
3:36 They weren't able to. It's a typo. The original document in Russian doesn't differentiate. Short 50 is actually 42 mm. The mistake was made by Aleksandr Shirokorad, I believe, the source which Zaloga cites.
@edwardhewer8530
3 жыл бұрын
T34-85’s are still fighting in Yemen today. One was recently destroyed this past week.
@CZ350tuner
3 жыл бұрын
At least Christee suspension has proved to be more successful on motorcycles, replacing vertical plunger rear suspension starting in the mid 1950's and still popular with motorcycle manufacturers today.
@JustinTuthill
2 жыл бұрын
The last point about being poorly built doesn't seem complete or debunked "lasting as long as they need to" sometimes meant 15 minutes or a few miles to the front line
@maximumaut712
3 жыл бұрын
5 things ppl dont know about russian tanks in the game. 5 russian bias 4 russian bias 3 russian bias 2 russian bias and 1. oh ye. russian bias
@thethirdman225
3 жыл бұрын
Of course, that explains everything, doesn't it? SMH
@istoppedcaring6209
2 жыл бұрын
their armor was also to hard though, you see a ton of these things just being shattered like pottery due to high velocity amunition
@Swordman85
2 жыл бұрын
For some reason Chieftain, as most of Western specialists, ignore a very important weekness of the T-34, its lack of radio. Soviet commanders had to use flags for communication. Plus, quite often Germans mistook BT-5 for T-34.
@Conserpov
2 жыл бұрын
There wasn't any "lack of radio" on T-34s.
@teamidris
2 жыл бұрын
The lady said she had to rest for three days after the first time she drove one. She got the way of it though :o) She also said they would climb out of the hatches and cheer every time someone got a kill. Crazy stuff :o
@petersmythe6462
3 жыл бұрын
If 20% are dying to small guns, that means 80% aren't. That sounds to me like they're pretty tough to those guns. At least at sensible ranges and angles with the most common ammunition.
@willyvereb
3 жыл бұрын
It's a bit more complicated, IIRC the way they estimate kills is via individual reports from the war. So you have a gunner behind a 37mm who claims to have disabled a T-34, that's one. But obviously anti-tank guns aren't the only weapons that engage tanks. For the record 20% roughly reflects the overall WW2 contribution of anti-tank gun pieces to take down enemy tanks. Then there are losses attributed to mechanical breakdown or other problems with the vehicle. Crippled tanks on the battlefield are also almost universally were abandoned. So altogether if the small anti-tank guns contribute 20% I'd say that's a pretty decent ratio and kind of confirms that said weapons were sufficient to defeat the T-34 if utilized correctly.
@JaM-R2TR4
2 жыл бұрын
@@willyvereb Soviet documents show, that 10% of T34 losses in 1941-42 came from 37mm guns, 7.5% from short 50mm guns, 54.3% from long 50mm guns, 10% from 75mm guns, 3.4% from 88mm guns, 2.9% from 105mm guns, and 7.1% were destroyed by unknown weapons..
@jorgsobota2228
3 жыл бұрын
The idendification issue plagued the russians as well, they took everything boxy for a Tiger. Recently read "Tank Rider" from Evgeni Bessonov and he had - in his memory - run always into Tigers. As well as the Russians claimed to have more than 500 Ferdinands killed if i recall corectly because they took every TD (Nashorn, Hornisse) with a long barrel as Ferdinand...
@christophercripps7639
3 жыл бұрын
Not sophisticated, maybe so. Effective given the typical life in combat? Certainly. One effective tank in production is worth two wonder weapons in development which are two years away from production. Given the situation, quantity had a quality all its own.
@billrich9722
3 жыл бұрын
Oh, Chieftain. You are a gem.
@matthewyang7893
3 жыл бұрын
Russia took a lot of great inventions and made them *ours*
@jasonharryphotog
3 жыл бұрын
I reckon the size of holes will be a good guide to what was knocking them out
@fatdad64able
3 жыл бұрын
Very informative. I definitely didn't need background music.
@andreinarangel6227
3 жыл бұрын
Soviet Tank Officer once said: A lot of T34 crews went into battle with a spare gearbox strapped to its back because they could barely get 100km out of one.
@thethirdman225
3 жыл бұрын
That is true for the early part of the war. There are photographs. But it was eventually resolved.
@johngwinner9941
Жыл бұрын
I've always been intrigued by the sprocket design, or the way the T-34 drives the track via the sprocket in the middle of the track not by cogs on the outside. I haven't been able to find any documentation on pro's / con's of this design, however. I thought maybe this would be covered here, but so far not. Great article in any event, upvoted.
@scotttilson8876
3 жыл бұрын
Sloped armor is actually a good thing. It makes it easier to deflect a shell.
@gwtpictgwtpict4214
3 жыл бұрын
It also reduces the internal volume of your vehicle. So, swings and roundabouts.
@thethirdman225
3 жыл бұрын
@@gwtpictgwtpict4214 It's not that simple.
@Tamburahk
3 жыл бұрын
cant wait for Tiger or Panther ............
@TigerBaron
3 жыл бұрын
Can you make a part 2 talking about the following: Lack of good optics, contributing to less accuracy and vision as mentioned in this video. 2 man tank crew with no commander cupola again contributing to less vision and overworked crew as mentioned in the video. Lack of turret basket making the loader's job a nightmare. Poor quality of automotive components. It's often mentioned that the driver needed a hammer and "superhuman" strength to switch gears. Engines also reportedly often failed on long marches. Poor welds on the armor meaning the seams cracked often and easily. Lack of good and enough hatches decreasing crew survivability rates. Crews being generally untrained and the same people who produced the tank at the factories just jumped on it and went to the front. These are all of the points for now but I might add more a little bit later if new ones come up.
@thethirdman225
3 жыл бұрын
1) Lack of good optics is an overrated problem when it comes to accuracy. They couldn't spare the time to boresight the guns, often as not. 2) Not unusual for its time. 3) Again, not unusual for its time. 4) The heavy operational loads were as much a matter of technique and experience as anything else. 5) Welds were often done by unskilled workers because all the skilled ones were at the front. 6) Hatches were a problem for all tanks. The T-34 hatches were just a level worse than the others. 7) Myth. Certainly true they were poorly trained though. Hardly surprising when you consider the circumstances.
@derin111
3 жыл бұрын
What's the problem when armour gets too sloped as mentioned about the earlier Shermans? Thanks
@TheChieftainsHatch
3 жыл бұрын
There were two issues. It was complicated and inefficient to build (because of the 'projections' for the two crewmen in the hull), and also reduced internal volume.
@derin111
3 жыл бұрын
@@TheChieftainsHatch Thank you for that explanation.
@ilyaszaim6494
2 жыл бұрын
Nobody not gonna talk about the bt 2 doing a sick jump
Пікірлер: 1 М.