T-34's commonly kept driving forward after being hit, even when the crew were killed. This was because the driver had to press down on the clutch to stop the vehicle. If the driver is killed and he isn't pressing down on the clutch, the engine is still applying power to the transmission via the final drives, so it continues to drive forward.
Interesting theory but the more likely cause would be the clutch disks bending, or the driver being KiA'd with his foot off the clutch. The 5-speed in the 85 series was actually similar to a car, depressing the clutch disengaged it. (Not sure if it was hydraulic, if not I want to see that z-bar and see how stiff that pedal is😅) This adjustment to the design was intended to reduce heat buildup when braking a single tread, but multiple sources will prove that this didn't work. The problem was when overheated, the clutch material would warp, and eventually disintegrate and jam up the trans, or weld discs together. Not really an issue for the Russians in winter, but a tropical summer with more ambient heat did them in. Similar to German tanks in WW2 cooking their trans trying to push through mud, or P-40s in a Russian winter, Outside of its intended environment, new problems arise. Literally documented reports of the front machine gunner having to use both arms to help the driver shift and them using everything from mallets to rifle butts to try and smack the gear shift when it started failing . Some service intervals for transmissions were less than 200km. 😬
@@throttleblipsntwistedgrips1992 pretty interesting, I heard that early T-34s ate their transmissions so much they would sometimes carry an extra one around on the engine deck since it was supposedly easy to replace.
Pershing: "Now stand aside, worthy adversary". T34: '' 'tis but a scratch." Pershing: "A scratch? Your turret is pierced!" T34: "No, it isn't." Pershing: "What's that, then?" T34: "I had worse." You know the rest.
Pershing: "ok, we'll call it a draw" the T-34 turret on the ground: "Oh. Oh, I see. Running away, eh? You yellow bastards! Come back here and take what's coming to you. I'll bite your tracks off!"
@@georgbuchen9958 If a tank gets penetrated, there is no telling what happened on the inside. A lot of damage can be dealt to the internals, not to mention the crew. The turret would have filled up with smoke after the penetration, so even if the gun was operational, and the crew was alive, they would be too disoriented to do anything. If your tank gets penetrated, it is disabled.
North Koreans were super surprised to see Pershings, as they were expecting Chaffees and Shermans. They fired with their T-34s but couldn't even put a dent on the Pershing :D I think the T-34 in the video didn't stop because all crew inside died, tank was just stuck on throttle
E8 Shermans were about an even match for a T-34/85. In fact, they went back to Shermans because the Pershings were heavy and got stuck in terrain and the constant movement up hill was taxing on the lifespan of a Pershing's engine. Shermans did very well in Korea.
@@ApollonDriver The Sherman's survivability is the same or better than the other tanks of its time. Shermans had a lower chance of setting on fire or exploding compared to other tanks including the T-34-85 which was cramped and much less survivable. Survivability is practically identical for most tanks though because virtually all tankers were taught to abandon the tank if it was penetrated in combat during that era.
That addresses a question I posted. Why would American tanks be fighting tanks of the Red Army during World War II? As a result of operation Barbarossa in June, 1941 and then Hitler’s declaration of war against the US in December of that year, the US and the Soviet Union became allies during and immediately after World War II.
@@TurneyDean - I imagine that you are aware that the production of the T-34s was switched to the newer T-34-85s during the Great Patriotic War. "85" for the 85mm diameter of the shell. 3 mm short of the Tiger's and King Tigers's and 5mm short of the Pershing's...but 29mm more that the original Sherman's. of course, many other factors play into lethality.
Not surprising though, the Pershings were armed with a gun that was designed to fight King Tigers so taking out a T34 , not even break a sweat for the Pershings crew
@@konosmgr my brother In Christ only like 20 were made the Pershing was more produced and meant to fight tigers and panthers as they were up armoured and up gunned compared to Sherman’s and the British tanks they were using
@@calliope9040Look the normal m26 has next to no chance to frontaly penetrate the glacis or lfp or mantlet of a king tiger. Also the m26's 90mm is worse than the british 17pdr both the apcbc and apc and especially the apds ammo.
@@konosmgr the frontal armor of a king tiger could not be penned by any round of ww2 basically. The turret however could be penned by even a Sherman 76 let alone a Pershing. I’d even say a Sherman 75 firing HVAP at close range could pen it. The Sherman could pen a tiger in the front of it was less then 100 meters away. If a Pershing is fighting a king tiger from 1000 meters they would both not be able to kill each other. Within 500 meters it’s whoever shoots the others turret first. The weakness of the turret of the king tiger was realized by the Germans early on after they fought in Normandy, after that they never were allowed to store ammo in the turret again.
The Pershing would bounce on the t34s drivers hatch..... the t 34 would have shot the Pershing in its lower glacias just killed the driver and break the tranny the t34 moves to its side and right before it reloads it get shot in the back of the turret by a m18 detonating the ammo ..... the m18 helps with repairs then they both die to the revenge pe8
Before anyone posts another comment about the same thing for the millionth time the poster did not mean that the battle happened during WW2. He meant that the tanks were WW2 vintage vehicles. The battle was during the Korean War and was known as the Battle of No-Name Ridge
@@Yarnhub No worries, I saw quite a few people were confused by the wording so I thought I'd post a clarification so more people don't post the same sort of questions. The video was amazing by the way, both animation and the story telling were movie quality.
The narrator made a slight mistake. He first said in world war two, but I think the only time the Pershing tank came up against the T-34 was during the Korean War just a little heads up.
Fun anecdote for everyone of you’re not already aware but the Pershing came quite late in 45 and saw limited action on the Western Front, so only one was ever knocked out in WWII. The perpetrator was a German Nashorn, another incredibly rare AFV at the time.
Ryan, he never used the word "era" thus it was indeed confusing where one would think the time frame was WWII, when it was actually the Korean War. So use that reading comprehension my friend.
Your lack of likes is absolutely criminal!!! I'm not sure if the yarn hub is a team or just one guy but the work that is done on this channel is far and away some of THE BEST historical storytelling EVER!!!!!!!
@@trainknut well the M26 was more so a response to the Panther as the 76mm armed M4s were dealing with Tiger 1s just fine, the same could not be said about the Panther which was only vulnerable to the 76mm at ranges closer than 200m. The M26 boasted both the armor to keep the Panther's high velocity 75mm shells out at ranges greater than 500m (even closer if they were firing APCBC instead of the much rarer APCR) and punch straight through it's thickest armor out to a range of 1,100m. It's more apt to call the Pershing a direct counter to the Panther and outperformed the Tiger 1 by the circumstances of that design philosophy.
Makes sense given that the American 90mm M3 was very comparable (and a bit superior to) the German 88mm KwK36. Give or take about 20-30mm of penetration in favor of the Pershing at most ranges but by and large they had very similar effects on tanks and both were devastating tank killers of their time.
@@ThatGuyOrby You are absolutely correct, and it's worth noting that the Panther was not only a more formidable threat on the battlefield, but a much much more common one. By late 1944 the Panther was practically one of Germany's main armoured combat vehicles, up there with the Stug and Panzer 4. Meanwhile most of the surviving Tigers at this point in the war were being held in reserve, were down for repair, or simply could not be mustered in enough numbers to make any significant difference. It's interesting how the Tiger has a reputation of invincibility when the reality is, the period in which the Tiger was the undisputed heavyweight champion of heavy tanks in the world, was all of maybe two years. It was in many ways a land dreadnought... not literally obviously but in that it was so advanced and so feared for it's time that, ironically it made itself obsolete by forcing all the competition to get significantly better to the point where it was virtually useless by the end of the war... worse than, it was an incredible drain on resources, manpower, and morale at a time they were critically low on all of the above... All for a tank that at this point we could pretty much kill at any range.
Just imagine if germans didn't attack USSR and USSR joined the axis: more supplies to Afrika(oil production) USSR invasion of Mid-East(more oils from axis) + foods, oil & resources from Soviets
@@jayarr8866 Ehh no. The only reason why the Soviets managed to survive (aside from throwing meat shields till the enemy runs out of bullet) is by the shit tons of aid given by the mericans and the bri'ish. Germany was already in a borrowed time by the start of the war theres no way they would share their resources with the soviets
@@jayarr8866 hehe, nice dream you had there... unfortunately that would never happened (Hitler was in charge after all) regarding a IS-2 vs a Pershing...really depends how it would be used.
As a war thunder player, I am unqualified to tell you that those first two shells liquidated the turret crew, but the driver and machine gunner were fine.
hello, i’ve been a viewer for a very long time, i just want to let you know i’m very impressed by the quality of these videos now, i don’t have much to say, but thank you, these videos have been some of my favorites, it’s been an honor to watch you grow each month
The T-34 was designed to resist Panzer III and IV of 1941-42 and it did a great job of that. A T-34 could roll into a German camp at will and blow everything up - one after another. That is until the Panther and Tiger was deployed to stop them. The Americans deployed a tiger-type tank of their own in late 1944. That's it in the video.
Except PZ 3s had an extremely high kill ratio against T-34s. Ruskies were over heating the armor making it brittle and the 50mm had enough kinetic force to cause internal spall without even penetrating.
the crew in the t34s was inexperienced north Koreans in fact they don't know how to fight tank to tank...... if the crew we're experienced,then the t34 squadron wouldn't rush and fire at the enemy at long distance like 250m... edit: and also don't get mad at me cuz it was just an information I've gather for this moment
it wouldn't have increased their chances, the 85mm D-5T was incapable of frontally penetrating the M26 Pershing's armor. It's be about as useful as a 75mm armed M4 plinking at the frontal armor of a Tiger 1.
@@ThatGuyOrbyNot really, T34-85 was capable and did destroy Pershings as well as E8s. It can't penetrate frontal armor straight from the front but there are still weak spots from the front and one 85mm shell penetration will send Pershing to hell lol
T-34 was a vastly superior tank up until 1943. Her mass manufacturing capable design, sloped armor, medium caliber main gun 76.2mm was the game changer for the Soviet forces against the Germans light to medium tanks. T-34 by 1944 to 1945 relied heavily on the up gunned 85mm variant and the vast quantities produced to overwhelm even the low quantity high combat quality German heavy tanks in the Panther/Tiger 1/ Tiger 2. In Korea, the American M26 Pershing was considered superior to the Tiger 1 tank and slightly below the Tiger 2 tank in terms of main gun capability. Even the Tiger 1 tank had problems taking on the M26 in WW2. Only knocking out 1 M26 tank by a fluke one in a hundred thousand shot through the coaxial machine gun port. If not the Tiger's 88mm would have problems penetrating the M26 frontally. Whereas the T-34-85 has an inferior gun to the Tiger 1. Hence we have the stark quality difference by the Korean war. The M26 was developed to face the threats post 1945 Germany's advanced designs. Whereas the T-34-85 was developed in 1943 to counter 1940 German heavy tank design which was the Tiger 1 tank, first used in 1942.
The t34 was actually an absolutely terrible tank the only reason it was somewhat good was the amount of them they made cuz they chugged those things out like sausages cuz a lot of a bad thing is still bad but they made it work
Probably not……the Pershing is meant to kill Germany heavy tanks, it can easily crush poor quality, poorly made, poorly crewed, poorly used medium tanks
@@ant1579 tanks don't aim for tracks, they aim dead center for the best chance at a hit. Tanks still do so today. Tank cannons simply are not accurate enough to risk aiming at individual parts of a tank since it drastically increases the chance of missing.
Yarn hub I just want to say it’s absolutely amazing to see how far the animations have come! I have followed this channel for a long time and the animation has always been my favorite part of it It looks absolutely gorgeous now and I’m all for it!
@@SirEggo2412 That's the point, it wasn't the behemoth it was promised because it caused everyone to go "Ok, how we counter this thing?". It was basically a nightmare on tracks before the west made workarounds of it. I'm pretty sure I just described the cold war by accident again, God damnit it happens all the time.
The driver covered in blood and guts from everyone on the turret and too scared to look behind: "C-commander....just tell me when to stop advancing...commander"
comparing a 1945 tank with a 1939 tank is impossible. The war made tank development fly and I believe by the end of WWII, they realized how easy it was to counter a tank.
The T-34 was by no means an 'invincible' tank, the Panthers, the Stug 4's, the Tigers, the panzer 4's, and the 75mm HV anti-Panzer Cannons fielded by the Germans knocked out tens of thousands of them on the Eastern front, but it was superior to the un-battle-worthy Sherman M-4 in every way.
well that's just bluntly false, the M4 was actually better than the T-34 in every way. Like unironically. Thicker frontal armor (though only slightly), a gun with near identical penetration when compared to contemporary variants, a higher practical speed (the T-34 never reached it's maximum theoretical speed, while the M4s top speed was easily attained), the M4s had better sights, the M4s had a vertical stabilizer for the main gun in all variants, better gunner and commander vision, was only a quarter as likely to burn upon initial penetration, and there's also the fact that the M4 could ironically travel almost 50x further before maintenance was required. The myth of the worthless Sherman is just that, a myth.
@@ThatGuyOrby the Sherman was only bad against heavy German tanks and even the 76mm upgrade could take out tigers people forget Sherman’s performed great until they started fighting the newer heavier German tanks
@@SirEggo2412 Exactly and honestly I find people who rag on the Sherman for not being up to scratch with the likes of Tigers and Panthers to be ridiculous anyway since the Sherman wasn't designed with anything like those vehicles in mind. It was from the start supposed to be an adaptable multipurpose Medium Tank capable of taking on the most prevalent armored threats of it's time of design (those threats being the Panzer 3 and Panzer 4) with it's potent (for 1942) AP shell while still being capable of infantry support with it's excellent HE shell. It dealt with the threats it was designed for excellently, of course it didn't quite cut it against later German heavy armor. Tanks evolved fast during the war, one year of design difference made massive impacts. Besides as you pointed out once the M4s started receiving the 76mm M1 series of High Velocity Cannons they were quite capable of fending off the likes of Tiger 1 fairly well. My biggest gripe however would be that these big German tanks the M4 struggled with were exceptionally rare. Like much rarer than most people realize. At the height of their numbers Tiger 1, Tiger 2, and Panther only made up 1/5 of German tanks combined. By far the most common tank was the Panzer 4 which the M4 never really struggled to handle when comparing contemporary models.
I had a friend who participated in some live fire ballistics tests in the 80's. There a more than good chance the crew was killed by the overpressure and spralling from the first shot. A blow thru like that can leave a horrible mess inside.
Happened in the Korean War, the wording is poor because this is a clip from a much longer video which cuts out the explanation that this happened in Korea. The narrator meant to say "WW2 era T-34s", not that this happened in WW2
Inside the T34 must have looked like a bag a popcorn in the microwave, you know when you stop it too soon and like ah just a little bit more by the 3rd time you burnt it all up 😂😂
@@Игорьсуздальский Both of those were successful and werent known for their crews inability to escape if the tank was hit, or being virtually blind while buttoned up because their optics are polished metal instead of actual glass
T-34's commonly kept driving forward after being hit, even when the crew were killed. This was because the driver had to press down on the clutch to stop the vehicle. If the driver is killed and he isn't pressing down on the clutch, the engine is still applying power to the transmission via the final drives, so it continues to drive forward.
interesting.... so did it just keep going till it ran out of fuel or hit something sturdy enough to stop it?
@@RedVRCC yes, but not for long
Interesting theory but the more likely cause would be the clutch disks bending, or the driver being KiA'd with his foot off the clutch. The 5-speed in the 85 series was actually similar to a car, depressing the clutch disengaged it. (Not sure if it was hydraulic, if not I want to see that z-bar and see how stiff that pedal is😅) This adjustment to the design was intended to reduce heat buildup when braking a single tread, but multiple sources will prove that this didn't work. The problem was when overheated, the clutch material would warp, and eventually disintegrate and jam up the trans, or weld discs together. Not really an issue for the Russians in winter, but a tropical summer with more ambient heat did them in. Similar to German tanks in WW2 cooking their trans trying to push through mud, or P-40s in a Russian winter, Outside of its intended environment, new problems arise. Literally documented reports of the front machine gunner having to use both arms to help the driver shift and them using everything from mallets to rifle butts to try and smack the gear shift when it started failing . Some service intervals for transmissions were less than 200km. 😬
"I got this information from a schizophrenic dude"
-Ssethtzeentach
@@throttleblipsntwistedgrips1992 pretty interesting, I heard that early T-34s ate their transmissions so much they would sometimes carry an extra one around on the engine deck since it was supposedly easy to replace.
the steel was so thin they over penetrated 2 times
It’s not thin. Pershing had a 90mm gun that’s why
@@MiG-31893 its thin for the pershing
@@Burnerside22nd Pershing had 4 inches of armor vs t-34 had 3 inches
@@MiG-31893 thats not what i meant, i meant that the pershing's cannon is so powerful, that the t34's armor seemed thin
Meanwhile in War Thunder that would've bounced 🙄
The myth of the T34s invincibility had been shattered in 1942 already
Probably in 1940. T34's just about quantity,not qualitY
@@patriktoth3346 not really in 1940 as it didn't see widespread use there. And in 1941 it was still somewhat superior to German armour
@@vermas4654 And a lot of em break during the war. And had issues.
@@patriktoth3346 but that would still not make it 1940. 1942 is a better year
@@vermas4654 Lets say it. But those T34's changed a lot in that 2 years for good.
Pershing: "Now stand aside, worthy adversary".
T34: '' 'tis but a scratch."
Pershing: "A scratch? Your turret is pierced!"
T34: "No, it isn't."
Pershing: "What's that, then?"
T34: "I had worse."
You know the rest.
genuinely one of the best comments here lol
Pershing: "ok, we'll call it a draw"
the T-34 turret on the ground: "Oh. Oh, I see. Running away, eh? You yellow bastards! Come back here and take what's coming to you. I'll bite your tracks off!"
Ah, such wonderful memories Sir Black Knight.
T34: I’ve had worse.
Pershing: No you haven’t!
He destruido panthers y tigers que tan mal puede serr
The T-34-85 crew is like:” Do we answer?…No?…ok”
The turret crew were most likely dead after the first shot
@@trainknut just the commander
@@georgbuchen9958 Well... the commander is the guy who shoots... so... I mean the point still stands.
@@trainknut okay before the first shoot, the T-34-85 crews load Popcorn in to the gun and forget to shot or what
@@georgbuchen9958 If a tank gets penetrated, there is no telling what happened on the inside. A lot of damage can be dealt to the internals, not to mention the crew. The turret would have filled up with smoke after the penetration, so even if the gun was operational, and the crew was alive, they would be too disoriented to do anything.
If your tank gets penetrated, it is disabled.
North Koreans were super surprised to see Pershings, as they were expecting Chaffees and Shermans. They fired with their T-34s but couldn't even put a dent on the Pershing :D I think the T-34 in the video didn't stop because all crew inside died, tank was just stuck on throttle
That one shot through the cheek is a kill. Somehow or some way, those Pershing M82 Rounds go right through armor like a Hot Knife through butter
@@Mark3nd I think it just killed the turret crew and left the driver alive that’s why it was still moving.
E8 Shermans were about an even match for a T-34/85. In fact, they went back to Shermans because the Pershings were heavy and got stuck in terrain and the constant movement up hill was taxing on the lifespan of a Pershing's engine. Shermans did very well in Korea.
@@TSD4027 of course shermans are good, but they also don't have much survivability.
@@ApollonDriver The Sherman's survivability is the same or better than the other tanks of its time. Shermans had a lower chance of setting on fire or exploding compared to other tanks including the T-34-85 which was cramped and much less survivable. Survivability is practically identical for most tanks though because virtually all tankers were taught to abandon the tank if it was penetrated in combat during that era.
Ah yes… so this is where gaijin got the leaked documents for the ghost shells ☕️
💀
🤣🤣🤣🤝🤝🤝
Even if the turret shots were over penetration the solid slug would've killed at least 1 of the 2 men in the t34 turret. Was a very cramped vehicle
Also this was only the earliest version of the T-34. The later versions had very good armor
LOL
If anyone's wondering, this is during the Korean war, these are north Korean t34s, not Soviet crews
Thanks 😊
no shit???
That addresses a question I posted. Why would American tanks be fighting tanks of the Red Army during World War II? As a result of operation Barbarossa in June, 1941 and then Hitler’s declaration of war against the US in December of that year, the US and the Soviet Union became allies during and immediately after World War II.
@@TurneyDean - I imagine that you are aware that the production of the T-34s was switched to the newer T-34-85s during the Great Patriotic War. "85" for the 85mm diameter of the shell. 3 mm short of the Tiger's and King Tigers's and 5mm short of the Pershing's...but 29mm more that the original Sherman's. of course, many other factors play into lethality.
Duh
The Stalinium effect on the T-34s just expired lol. Edit: This is the first time I got 1K likes, and also what’s going on in the comments
They should've extend the subscription before the battle
@@Miko-le3wp yhea north korea didn't subscribe to stalinum
Lol
because Stalin expired and so did his stalinium
Oh it expired waaaaaay before Korea, actually early operation Barbarossa to be precise
Not surprising though, the Pershings were armed with a gun that was designed to fight King Tigers so taking out a T34 , not even break a sweat for the Pershings crew
The pershing cannot fight a king tiger, only a super pershing could.
@@konosmgr my brother In Christ only like 20 were made the Pershing was more produced and meant to fight tigers and panthers as they were up armoured and up gunned compared to Sherman’s and the British tanks they were using
@@calliope9040Look the normal m26 has next to no chance to frontaly penetrate the glacis or lfp or mantlet of a king tiger. Also the m26's 90mm is worse than the british 17pdr both the apcbc and apc and especially the apds ammo.
@@konosmgr the frontal armor of a king tiger could not be penned by any round of ww2 basically. The turret however could be penned by even a Sherman 76 let alone a Pershing. I’d even say a Sherman 75 firing HVAP at close range could pen it. The Sherman could pen a tiger in the front of it was less then 100 meters away. If a Pershing is fighting a king tiger from 1000 meters they would both not be able to kill each other. Within 500 meters it’s whoever shoots the others turret first. The weakness of the turret of the king tiger was realized by the Germans early on after they fought in Normandy, after that they never were allowed to store ammo in the turret again.
@@calliope9040 there were 500 king tigers made.
Imagine if this was a War Thunder match 🤣🤣
Both player will start to leak classified info about Pershing and t-34-85
It's is
@@kaitotara734 Uh...no it isn't, this is a historical retelling and animation of a Korean War tank battle. The Battle of No-Name Ridge.
Bro, I can't tell you how many times I've been killed by T-34-85s when im playing german tanks, its week hundreds of been at least
The Pershing would bounce on the t34s drivers hatch..... the t 34 would have shot the Pershing in its lower glacias just killed the driver and break the tranny the t34 moves to its side and right before it reloads it get shot in the back of the turret by a m18 detonating the ammo ..... the m18 helps with repairs then they both die to the revenge pe8
Wt be like: *"HIT"*
Or even worse "target undamaged" 😰
Ricochet
Shows gunner and commander on red t34 still shoots
Omg that animation was more smooth than anything you’ve done before, well done 👏
The crew inside:🎇🔥🔥🔥🔥🎇🔥🔥🔥🔥🎆🎆🎆
The crew inside the challenger 2 :🔥🔥🔥🔥💀💀💀🔥🔥🔥🔥
La torreta del leopard 2: 🚀
Unrealistic the t34 crew got out of the burning tank on time.
This is based off of a real event.
@@atheismisamentaldisorder1839 so they're lucky ones to notice it and escape the iron coffin, right?
@@atheismisamentaldisorder1839
T34's had horrible crew survivability rates. No one left that tank.
@@internetbodhi1009 Well, I'm glad you can contradict what was reported and not even be living at the time.
imagine being a t-34 driver look back and see crews in the turret missing head and torso
Bro the animation is soo good thats huge progression in the animation style!
Germans: "I don't remember this reputation."
This is north korean war.
@@valeriesallidao787 No, it’s the Korean War and they were talking about WW2. This track went up against German panzers
@@brysonkuervers2570 that is just what i said
That T-34s were shitty tanks or that the M26 was superior to the Tiger 1?
@@WaukWarrior360 M26 is just superior to Tiger 1 in every way. Even Panther is much superior to Tiger 1.
That would be hilarious in War Thunder, if some tanks would still moved forward after being destroyed until the tracks or drivetrain were damaged.
The myth of the T-34s invincibility has been shattered:
War Thunder still hasn’t gotten the memo
@bolshevik1017people act like t T-34 is god tier and war thunder sucks off that myth
@bolshevik1017 look at the death rates of t-34 crews were thay had around about 15% to 35% to get out of the tank after being hit
Trust me, it has 😔
@bolshevik1017wrong the most reliable tank in ww2 was the Sherman
@bolshevik1017and the t34 engine could only go for 2000km before breaking down
Before anyone posts another comment about the same thing for the millionth time the poster did not mean that the battle happened during WW2. He meant that the tanks were WW2 vintage vehicles. The battle was during the Korean War and was known as the Battle of No-Name Ridge
Note to self. Be more particular on the language next time. Thank you :)
@@Yarnhub No worries, I saw quite a few people were confused by the wording so I thought I'd post a clarification so more people don't post the same sort of questions. The video was amazing by the way, both animation and the story telling were movie quality.
@@ThatGuyOrby There’s no confusion. It says WWII, not WWII era tanks. The narrator voice is clearly referencing WWII, and incorrectly doing so.
@@mountainguyed67 go watch the full video, the intention is obvious
After listening a few times to the dialog I see it more clearly. Ww2 tanks not in ww2
Every russian warthunder player "I don't think so." 🤣
The narrator made a slight mistake. He first said in world war two, but I think the only time the Pershing tank came up against the T-34 was during the Korean War just a little heads up.
yes he made it sound like ww2 but it was the first meeting of those two tank from ww2.
Needs a correction from narrator for clarifcation "WWII tanks meet in Korean war..."
ww2.... T-34-85's, he means the vintage not the era/ cheers
Fun anecdote for everyone of you’re not already aware but the Pershing came quite late in 45 and saw limited action on the Western Front, so only one was ever knocked out in WWII. The perpetrator was a German Nashorn, another incredibly rare AFV at the time.
He meant that the tanks are from WW2...
He should have said "Word War Two *era* T-34..."
yeah i was really confused for a minute till i realized this was probably about the korean war
He did say that though 😂. He said two World War Two T34 against the Pershing. Use those ears you’ve got.
Ryan, he never used the word "era" thus it was indeed confusing where one would think the time frame was WWII, when it was actually the Korean War. So use that reading comprehension my friend.
But he DID say "WW2 T-34-85'S"! That not clear enough for you?
Comparing a pershing to a t34 is like comparing the mark 4 to the panzer 4
Y comparar un M4 con un T-34 es como comparar un panzer III y un panzer IV
Your lack of likes is absolutely criminal!!!
I'm not sure if the yarn hub is a team or just one guy but the work that is done on this channel is far and away some of THE BEST historical storytelling EVER!!!!!!!
Whoa, seriously chill - he's great and everything but... fuck just calm down
It's not even the right war lol. How is he the best?
@@justinweckler1 he said WW2 T-34s not during WW2
I love history. But some people don't do their research. It was the Korean War (or police action) 1950.
Gaijin: “no damage”
The German 88 did the same thing to the T-34/85 too at that range.
I feel like most guns above 70mm would go straight throught the turret at that range
I mean the M26 was a direct response to the flak 88 and Tiger, so... yeah...
@@trainknut well the M26 was more so a response to the Panther as the 76mm armed M4s were dealing with Tiger 1s just fine, the same could not be said about the Panther which was only vulnerable to the 76mm at ranges closer than 200m. The M26 boasted both the armor to keep the Panther's high velocity 75mm shells out at ranges greater than 500m (even closer if they were firing APCBC instead of the much rarer APCR) and punch straight through it's thickest armor out to a range of 1,100m.
It's more apt to call the Pershing a direct counter to the Panther and outperformed the Tiger 1 by the circumstances of that design philosophy.
Makes sense given that the American 90mm M3 was very comparable (and a bit superior to) the German 88mm KwK36. Give or take about 20-30mm of penetration in favor of the Pershing at most ranges but by and large they had very similar effects on tanks and both were devastating tank killers of their time.
@@ThatGuyOrby You are absolutely correct, and it's worth noting that the Panther was not only a more formidable threat on the battlefield, but a much much more common one. By late 1944 the Panther was practically one of Germany's main armoured combat vehicles, up there with the Stug and Panzer 4.
Meanwhile most of the surviving Tigers at this point in the war were being held in reserve, were down for repair, or simply could not be mustered in enough numbers to make any significant difference.
It's interesting how the Tiger has a reputation of invincibility when the reality is, the period in which the Tiger was the undisputed heavyweight champion of heavy tanks in the world, was all of maybe two years.
It was in many ways a land dreadnought... not literally obviously but in that it was so advanced and so feared for it's time that, ironically it made itself obsolete by forcing all the competition to get significantly better to the point where it was virtually useless by the end of the war... worse than, it was an incredible drain on resources, manpower, and morale at a time they were critically low on all of the above... All for a tank that at this point we could pretty much kill at any range.
Imagine having armor so shit that your enemy thought he missed you twice
Lo dice el wheraboo que cree que se la mama a chaplin
Step 1: put a tank on cruise
Step 2: point it at the enemy without any crew inside
Step 3: profit
Pershing: *enters the chat
Stalinium: *has been removed from the chat
What if North Korea purchase IS-2?
M-26 Pershing: our battle will be legendary!!👌🏿👌🏿
Yeah but I'm gonna be honest the is 2 is gonna one shot the pershing
@@ant1579 the only one tank that can match IS-2 is Tiger 2👌🏿👌🏿
Just imagine if germans didn't attack USSR and USSR joined the axis: more supplies to Afrika(oil production) USSR invasion of Mid-East(more oils from axis) + foods, oil & resources from Soviets
@@jayarr8866 Ehh no. The only reason why the Soviets managed to survive (aside from throwing meat shields till the enemy runs out of bullet) is by the shit tons of aid given by the mericans and the bri'ish. Germany was already in a borrowed time by the start of the war theres no way they would share their resources with the soviets
@@jayarr8866 hehe, nice dream you had there... unfortunately that would never happened (Hitler was in charge after all) regarding a IS-2 vs a Pershing...really depends how it would be used.
As a war thunder player, I am unqualified to tell you that those first two shells liquidated the turret crew, but the driver and machine gunner were fine.
You guys improved so much I thought this is a WoT promo video.
hello, i’ve been a viewer for a very long time, i just want to let you know i’m very impressed by the quality of these videos now, i don’t have much to say, but thank you, these videos have been some of my favorites, it’s been an honor to watch you grow each month
This was Korea, not WWII.
That’s correct but they were ww2 era tanks. Check out the longer video.
One would think that a tank designed to beat a King Tiger wouldn't think twice about some T34 myth😅
Why does he say WWII? When we didn't fight Russian tanks in WWII, he has to actually be talking about in Korean war.
He's talking about ww2 Era t34's.The script just got a bit jumbled up
@@KasumaSM yes I went and watched the whole video now so I get that it's taken out of context
There has never been a T-34 invincibility myth.The 85 mm cannon could do the same thing to a Pershing too though.
The T-34 was designed to resist Panzer III and IV of 1941-42 and it did a great job of that. A T-34 could roll into a German camp at will and blow everything up - one after another. That is until the Panther and Tiger was deployed to stop them. The Americans deployed a tiger-type tank of their own in late 1944. That's it in the video.
Long 75 mm IV's were more than a match 76 mm armed 34's
@@Wurstklauer That was the PZIV upgrade after being chased around by T-34's.
@@RonOside and came before Tigers and Panthers. Close up long 50 mm gun of pz III also kinda did the Job.
Except PZ 3s had an extremely high kill ratio against T-34s. Ruskies were over heating the armor making it brittle and the 50mm had enough kinetic force to cause internal spall without even penetrating.
So why Russians get many T-34 losses against Pz3 in Barbarossa Operation before introduction of Panther and Tiger?
You could make an unbelievable movie with your skills both as an animator and storyteller. Best content on utube by far.
Man they realy had a skill issue
No armour, is the best armour. -Gajin
Gaijin: "Best I can do is Ricochet"
The armor was so bad that it was good 💀
The pershing is my favorite american vehicle!
You should update that to the M46 Patton, looks the same, but is better in every way :)
War Thunder ghost shell explained in a minute
love this channel
The animation for the videos on this channel have gotten so much better
the crew in the t34s was inexperienced north Koreans in fact they don't know how to fight tank to tank...... if the crew we're experienced,then the t34 squadron wouldn't rush and fire at the enemy at long distance like 250m...
edit: and also don't get mad at me cuz it was just an information I've gather for this moment
it wouldn't have increased their chances, the 85mm D-5T was incapable of frontally penetrating the M26 Pershing's armor. It's be about as useful as a 75mm armed M4 plinking at the frontal armor of a Tiger 1.
@@ThatGuyOrby I didn't say that they can penetrate the armor, I said that the battle would be different
@@ThatGuyOrbyNot really, T34-85 was capable and did destroy Pershings as well as E8s. It can't penetrate frontal armor straight from the front but there are still weak spots from the front and one 85mm shell penetration will send Pershing to hell lol
The render is so good that the first few seconds i thought it was a video of a real t34
T-34 was a vastly superior tank up until 1943. Her mass manufacturing capable design, sloped armor, medium caliber main gun 76.2mm was the game changer for the Soviet forces against the Germans light to medium tanks.
T-34 by 1944 to 1945 relied heavily on the up gunned 85mm variant and the vast quantities produced to overwhelm even the low quantity high combat quality German heavy tanks in the Panther/Tiger 1/ Tiger 2.
In Korea, the American M26 Pershing was considered superior to the Tiger 1 tank and slightly below the Tiger 2 tank in terms of main gun capability.
Even the Tiger 1 tank had problems taking on the M26 in WW2. Only knocking out 1 M26 tank by a fluke one in a hundred thousand shot through the coaxial machine gun port.
If not the Tiger's 88mm would have problems penetrating the M26 frontally. Whereas the T-34-85 has an inferior gun to the Tiger 1.
Hence we have the stark quality difference by the Korean war. The M26 was developed to face the threats post 1945 Germany's advanced designs.
Whereas the T-34-85 was developed in 1943 to counter 1940 German heavy tank design which was the Tiger 1 tank, first used in 1942.
**driver casually exits smoldering tank and nonchalantly walks towards the enemy**
The t34 was actually an absolutely terrible tank the only reason it was somewhat good was the amount of them they made cuz they chugged those things out like sausages cuz a lot of a bad thing is still bad but they made it work
Pero del m4 obvio que no hablatas de como los m4 se incendiaron solos o que estos también fueron hechos solo para tener números y nada más
@@T_34_85I have never heard of an m4 spontaneously combusting that was however an issue with the Panther and tiger 1
Bro the improvement on the animations are insane!
Ww2 or Korean war?
During the Korean War, if you want more context, watch the original video
when youre SO over matched that you actually round back down to an even fight.
Im havin dejavus on the quality of russian armament💀💀
Nah fam,the gunner is shattered already from that first shot 😂
WW2 Era Tanks in Korea - Watch the full video ruclips.net/video/wLznvJ8k5UA/видео.html
The myth of T-34 invincibility ? 🤣😂🤣
Tbh if the t 34 hd numbers they'd probably win
But the gun wouldn't pen the Pershing right?
@@caroleansoldier382 they could tracked it and idk ram it?
@@ant1579 war thunder Moment
Probably not……the Pershing is meant to kill Germany heavy tanks, it can easily crush poor quality, poorly made, poorly crewed, poorly used medium tanks
@@ant1579 tanks don't aim for tracks, they aim dead center for the best chance at a hit. Tanks still do so today. Tank cannons simply are not accurate enough to risk aiming at individual parts of a tank since it drastically increases the chance of missing.
*a certain pig that shoots laser out of his eyes is shooting another strange white substance beneath him while watching this video*
Yarn hub I just want to say it’s absolutely amazing to see how far the animations have come! I have followed this channel for a long time and the animation has always been my favorite part of it
It looks absolutely gorgeous now and I’m all for it!
Gayijin's soviet buff be like
T-34 crew : *WE'VE BEEN HIT*
Also T-34 crew : So anyway, press forward please
Amazing leap from the classic animation style and the people look MUCH more realistic, well done Yarnhub!👍👍
Either this dude is a talented animator for literally animating the WRINKLES IN THE SKIN or he just has a professional animator team
"Oh my god this silly Soviet don't know how to make tan-"
The IS-3 behind some bushes:
Yet another Soviet paper tiger
@@SirEggo2412 Yeah, so much paper it scared NATO shitless and redefined the early heavy tanks of the cold war
@@Average_Slav yea it scared NATO and made them start producing tanks to fight it when it wasn’t truly what it promised
@@SirEggo2412 That's the point, it wasn't the behemoth it was promised because it caused everyone to go "Ok, how we counter this thing?". It was basically a nightmare on tracks before the west made workarounds of it.
I'm pretty sure I just described the cold war by accident again, God damnit it happens all the time.
There's a myth about the T34 somehow being invincible, like after 1942???
Yeah.... no.
”No armor is best armor”
the 2nd time Stalinuminum has failed
Not too different than today, but today they're using toys to destroy them....
My mind when i hear "no armor best armor":
I loved watching the long form version of this video
Pershing: *WE DIDNT EVEN SCRATCH EM*
I've never once heard anyone claim the T-34 was invincible.
This is good animation. I appreciate the work put into this project.
The driver covered in blood and guts from everyone on the turret and too scared to look behind: "C-commander....just tell me when to stop advancing...commander"
comparing a 1945 tank with a 1939 tank is impossible. The war made tank development fly and I believe by the end of WWII, they realized how easy it was to counter a tank.
Pershings and T34-85s were allies in WW2. This happened in Korea
Yes, we all know that
When the initials of your name sums up the battle
Holy shit the animation is incredible
To bad war thunder thinks differently
I think the turret crew would've been hit by that shell, it looks like it might have taken the head off a poor bastard
No armour is best armour
Dear Yarhub, title says Korea, comentary says WW2, GET YOR ACT TOGETHER!
The T-34 was by no means an 'invincible' tank, the Panthers, the Stug 4's, the Tigers, the panzer 4's, and the 75mm HV anti-Panzer Cannons fielded by the Germans knocked out tens of thousands of them on the Eastern front, but it was superior to the un-battle-worthy Sherman M-4 in every way.
well that's just bluntly false, the M4 was actually better than the T-34 in every way. Like unironically. Thicker frontal armor (though only slightly), a gun with near identical penetration when compared to contemporary variants, a higher practical speed (the T-34 never reached it's maximum theoretical speed, while the M4s top speed was easily attained), the M4s had better sights, the M4s had a vertical stabilizer for the main gun in all variants, better gunner and commander vision, was only a quarter as likely to burn upon initial penetration, and there's also the fact that the M4 could ironically travel almost 50x further before maintenance was required. The myth of the worthless Sherman is just that, a myth.
@@ThatGuyOrby the Sherman was only bad against heavy German tanks and even the 76mm upgrade could take out tigers people forget Sherman’s performed great until they started fighting the newer heavier German tanks
@@SirEggo2412 Exactly and honestly I find people who rag on the Sherman for not being up to scratch with the likes of Tigers and Panthers to be ridiculous anyway since the Sherman wasn't designed with anything like those vehicles in mind. It was from the start supposed to be an adaptable multipurpose Medium Tank capable of taking on the most prevalent armored threats of it's time of design (those threats being the Panzer 3 and Panzer 4) with it's potent (for 1942) AP shell while still being capable of infantry support with it's excellent HE shell.
It dealt with the threats it was designed for excellently, of course it didn't quite cut it against later German heavy armor. Tanks evolved fast during the war, one year of design difference made massive impacts. Besides as you pointed out once the M4s started receiving the 76mm M1 series of High Velocity Cannons they were quite capable of fending off the likes of Tiger 1 fairly well.
My biggest gripe however would be that these big German tanks the M4 struggled with were exceptionally rare. Like much rarer than most people realize. At the height of their numbers Tiger 1, Tiger 2, and Panther only made up 1/5 of German tanks combined. By far the most common tank was the Panzer 4 which the M4 never really struggled to handle when comparing contemporary models.
Wow yarnhub's animations are so mich better and realistic now!
Oh my god the animation quality is glorious
when your armor is so thin it actually works well
Bro didn’t use APHE on that t34 he must be running stock 💀
I had a friend who participated in some live fire ballistics tests in the 80's. There a more than good chance the crew was killed by the overpressure and spralling from the first shot. A blow thru like that can leave a horrible mess inside.
its cool how people think soldiers sounds all grumbly and grindy we just talk normal stop watching movies lol
When in WWII did the US fight against the Russians? Asking for a friend
Happened in the Korean War, the wording is poor because this is a clip from a much longer video which cuts out the explanation that this happened in Korea. The narrator meant to say "WW2 era T-34s", not that this happened in WW2
"Target undamaged"
When you accidentally matchmake in a higher battle rating match be like
Inside the T34 must have looked like a bag a popcorn in the microwave, you know when you stop it too soon and like ah just a little bit more by the 3rd time you burnt it all up 😂😂
Así quedaban los tripulantes de m4
T34 was well designed on paper, but due to shortages in Soviet manufacturing in WW2, many of its advantages rarely were included
even on paper it was a nightmare, something that cramped was always going to be a death trap for anyone unfortunate enough to have to crew it.
@@floppy2651 compare for what?
With American anti bullet buckets, or compare with pz3?
@@Игорьсуздальский compared to almost any other tank that saw service
@@floppy2651 so, let's compare Stuart or m3 Lee, with t34 :)
Oh god, m3lee was produced from 1941 AHAHHAHAHAHHAA, oh my god.
@@Игорьсуздальский Both of those were successful and werent known for their crews inability to escape if the tank was hit, or being virtually blind while buttoned up because their optics are polished metal instead of actual glass