How Bad Was The T-34?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 21 сен 2024
- After doing videos on the M4, Panther, Tiger, and other various maligned tanks, the Soviet T-34 medium tank was heavily requested. The T-34 has this reputation as a mass produced pile of junk, so let's see just how accurate that statement is.
Check the channel "About" section for the link to the creator of my profile picture.
Sources:
Soviet T-54 Main Battle Tank - James Kinnear and Stephen L. Sewell
T-34-85 Medium Tank 1944-94 - Steven J. Zaloga and James Kinnear
Engineering Analysis of the Russian T-34/85 Tank - Central Intelligence Agency
Designing the T-34: Genesis of the Revolutionary Soviet Tank - Peter Samsonov
T-34 Shock: The Soviet Legend in Pictures - Francis Pulham, Will Kerrs
Panther vs T-34 - Robert Forczyk
The Tanks of Operation Barbarossa - Boris Kavalerchik
Tanks of the USSR - Alexander Ludeke
T-34 in Action - Artem Drabkin
Songs used (in order from first to last):
Halo Infinite - Various Unnamed Tracks
Halo 3: ODST - Rain (Deference for Darkness)
Sound mods:
Epic Thunder (Pre-release)
Armored Warfare Crew Voices
Sponsor: apexgamingpcs....
Second channel: / @spookstoon
Patreon: / spookston
Twitter: / spookston
Reddit: /u/spookston
Discord: See my Patreon page.
Twitch: / spookstonwt
Steam: goo.gl/BYQjC9
#warthunder #tanks #tankhistory
Small mistake; I said the commander had to both load and direct the gunner, but he actually was the one in charge of gunner duties. It was still incredibly taxing for him though, trying to engage tanks while also directing the rest of the crew.
Even tough Japan's tank's where mainly the worst tanks of the war, they where also the most suc6full. Why? If we take a look at a main key factor of the tanks, their weight, you realize how easy it was to transport them. This was huge, because Japan in WWII mainly fought infantery. Only when America started putting Shermans to the front, the Jappanese realised they couldn't handle such suporior tanks themselfs. Even in modern days Japan's tank weight is always taken heavily into consideration, mainly due to unstable coastlines.
Could you make a video on this? (Note to take everything with a grain of salt, my memory isn't that great but i still get the main line) I really think that people need to start realizing every country has difrent designs, because combat enviroment is difrent.
Seeing as recently this series has been covering the main tanks of every nation involved in world war 2, will you be covering the churchill in the near future?
Saw u in game today
@@last_dutch_hero258 **laughs in italian**
They did try having the commander be the loader, but this didn't really work any better.
It always amazes me that people are suprised when others tell them that a military machine did what it was designed for
Multiple factors attribute to that, propaganda at the time, which was then taken at face value by people and made into historical fact, the next generation skimming over said information with disinterest, bias(yes bias) of the equipment's notoriety dependent on whether the nation is one of the Victor's of the war.
@@proudfirebrand3946 I understand those factors but it still suprises me
@@gabornemes6932 ; Because people think flaws = bad.
@@FirstDagger those people are called "wehraboos"
@@FirstDagger well, they are
it just depends on whether they are offset
Also good to remember that old saying.
"If the first T-34 doesn't get them, the next five will."
Oh, the dumb saying that you just made up, I remember it
Don't you mean the next swarm of 50,000 will?
(Yes I know only ~88,000 T-34's were produced)
@@phunkracy you must be fun at partys.
who said that? Stalin...? yeah he never had care about his people or soldiers.
@@hansc.o8999 yeah but stalin didn’t control the red army, Marshall Zhukov did and he was know for not just throwing his soldiers at people and actually using strategy and caring very much for the lives of his people.
Potential history did a good job explaining this.
Every tank each nation produced were the best tanks for that specific country.
Russia needed tanks that could outproduce and outnumber the Germans, so the T-34 was the perfect tank.
America needed a round tank that could fit any roll, so they created the M4 Sherman.
Germany needed heavy tanks to counter the Russian tank swarms at long distances, so they invented the big cats AKA Panther's and Tiger's.
All in all, every tank is good at a certain role for a specific nation with certain strategic roles and tactics.
Well put 👏
Just spitting facts
Sad FCM36 noises
Exactly
u forgot Japan ! .
The smoke going from the exhausts after some shots (the real life footage in the beginning) means the driver had his foot on the gas pedal and he pressed it a bit because of the recoil.
HA! i was wondering
wow, this is new for me, thanks for the info man :)
Or it was turned off while being left and gear, the tank rolling back under recoil turned the engine over momentarily and let out some smoke. You have to keep in mind with the amount of gear reduction coming off the transmission, 1 foot of track movement is easily 15+ revolutions of the engine if it was in 1st gear.
Same philosophy to Bump-starting a manual car or bike.
"Your tank broke down comrade?"
"Da..."
*"No problem, here's another one!"*
Even though the Russians could not even do that
@@Chosen_Ash That is debatable, but I see your point.
@@Chosen_Ash Oh they could. But what the author of comment above hasn't mentioned is that STAVKA would have had him shot and then put new crew in a new tank.
@@thedevilneveraskstwice7027 I don’t want to sound rude, but what kind of idiot does one have to be to shoot a trained and experienced (since he survived the battle) tanker?
@@DmitryLia That guy is just bullshitting you to sound edgy...
Broke down, but was easily repaired or replaced. Tanks disabled in combat refitted in factories to be used again. Germany always underestimated number of fielded tanks by the Soviet Union
Yh
They didn't under estimate the Finns told them ahead of time.
@@magnuscritikaleak5045 I think theirs an actual famous recording of Hitler reacting to it after hearing the news. He was basically like "Yeah GG" lol.
Hitler said in 1945. something like "if I knew about Soviet heavy tanks I would never invaded USSR". It was Abwehr mistake.
the most deastroyed tank.and the crews knew they had a death trap.
“It had transmission issues” aren’t those like a given at this point?
When you combine wartime production and big hunks of steel problems are bound to arise
Tanks: exist
Transmission: i have decided that i wish to die
Historical footage shows T-34s with a spare transmission strapped on the back. The Soviet idea of reliability was something you could repair quickly and easily, rather than something that kept working all the time.
@@bigbrowntau intrestingly at the beginning of the war they lacked repair crews and their according equipment. The idea itself is already not that good but ok if you have the corresponding personell. But the soviets lacked exactly these at the beginning of the war. So why make an unreliable tank when you are unalbe to repair it?
The most fascinating thing about t-34-75 for me is its periscopic sight. It's a weird hybrid of gunsight and panoramic sight. There is an articulated scale for shooting and a linkage to synchronize the angle of elevation of the sight head with the gun, but it could also be disconnected for the sight head to be rotated 360 degrees (user's end remains stationary). It's by far the most overengineered and sophisticated optic of the time, but also a bad idea: it was bad for observation due to narrow FOV, and also not very accurate for shooting since the gun linkage wasn't super tight. A great example of using advanced technology to make a bad tool.
Edit: Also, t-34s were initially planned to have two such sights, for each turret man, which would improve situational awareness, but shortages and aggressive streamlining ensured that the second sight would only remain on paper.
T-34-76 bro 76
@@Miikkii_21 ah shit
@@eugenebebs7767 sh*t happens bro :(
@@eugenebebs7767 your are going into gulag now western spy
soviet army uses only 76mm guns
A very informative comment.
There’s an alt timeline where Barbarossa gets delayed and the T-34M enters production
There's also an alt timeline where the detractors get their way and the T-34 never gets produced. The Soviets waste time testing out different designs and there's no T-34s rolling off the factory floor and into battle outside of Moscow in 1941.
There's also an alt timeline where you don't exist and you don't post this comment
@@max1me103 Indeed. For every person or thing there is a timeline where that person or thing doesn't exist, or exists in an alternative form. You can accept that, or you can be whiny about it. I choose to accept it. Do you?
@@hhale They would have probably shifted their focus on KV-1 production in that case which would still cause a lot of pain in the ass to Nazi Germany
@@slavicemperor8279 With more BT tanks for a fast multi-purpose support tank, operated by Slavs who are angry because the Nazis ruined their Christmas.
Potential History also made a pretty good video on this.
The components were meant to break down and be of low quality, because why have a component that runs forever when the tank is going to be destroyed in X amount of time? The T-34 was the perfect tank for the war the Soviets were fighting, and when contextualized, is one of the best from WW2.
planed obsolescence, or in this case more precisely reliability was the name of the game. The Soviets made tanks that would break after less than a month of service, but since they would be shot before that happens, it was never a problem.
@@ZETH_27 I am sure the crews were really appreciative of this ingenious design.
@@dogactual4663 Most tank crew did not die when their tanks broke/got combat loss'd. They would simply hop into a new T-34 that came out of the factory because by late 1943, the amount of t-34s outpaced the amount of crewman available (i.e. there was literally more t-34s than the soviets had crewmen for them).
@@ZETH_27 I wouldn't call it planned obsolescence, more an extreme, but well calculated trade-off
@@dogactual4663 The fallacy you run into is comparison of flawed design vs streamlined design, while reality is either having flawed tank or not have tank at all.
Could soviets produce better tanks? Yes. That would mean low production numbers and that in turn would mean that only few selected units get any. This in turn would turn into even more people dead (Russians lost millions more non-combatants than whole severely oversized token group which cancels anyone who try to re-evaluate their tragedy, it's not like giving up would save people) and probably would cost USSR a war.
There's a Russian saying that explains the German's relatively low tank production compared to the Soviet Union. *Perfection is the enemy of **_good enough._*
Лучше враг хорошего -
Better is the enemy of good.
To be more literal.
@@kingbreaker1972 Whilst you were setting the record straight I built 3 more tanks. Thank you for providing an example.))
However Finland produced no tank yet still sent Timoshenko & Stalin's arese flying.
That thinking resulted in me having 3 marriages.. I am with the perfection stuff now...
@@magnuscritikaleak5045 ... Finland lost the war my guy.
Broke: The T-34 was a bad tank
Woke: The T-34 was a part of an effective system of systems.
All warfare is a system of tactics, strategy, and logistics. Even nukes are impractical if everybody ends up destroying everything worth conquering or fighting over.
“An Army is a team. It lives, sleeps, eats, and fights as a team. This individual heroic stuff is a stupid lie."_ Patton
Most tanks will sound sucks and great simutanously if you compare them directly to other tanks. But when taking into the context of the army they were in, they suddenly make sense.
If effective meant destroying the Soviets. The T-34 was so bad that Germany could’ve still trampled through all of the T-34s that were ever built. But hey, being an anti-authoritarian communist myself. I’m glad to see an authoritarian non-communist state like the USSR collapse.
It was actually an ineffective part of an even more ineffective system.
@@randomystrangery9730 Army group center would disagree
I have not watched the video yet, but here is my pre video knowledge:
The T-34 was not the greatest tank ever, nothing ever will be, but it served the Soviets purpose, being a relatively simple design at it's inception, and a viable tank to be mass produced under less than ideal conditions. With the factory move to the Urals, the Soviet industrial base required time to ramp up and properly tool and train their factories. This lead to vastly variable quality concerning the T-34 with some using extremely low grade steel and poor wields, meaning that even AT rifles could create spal with directed at the tanks, combined with the teething issues of early production models being rushed to the front, giving the T-34 the scrap iron mythos it has today.
However those where early war tanks, and the mythos generally stuck with the German command, and with the onset of the Cold War, the west generally stuck to this early war mythos. As for the mid and late war, many of the issues that plagued early war T-34s would be hammered out. Quality would rise and become consistent as the tooling and training of the factories finished. While like the Shermans, the Germans, and by extention west, still viewed Germany's tanks as superior, in concern to the Tigers and Panthers, and while 1v1 on an open range, a Tiger or panther would typically slaughter a T-34, or Sherman for that matter, these scenarios would never occur, it would always be platoons of T-34s against smaller platoons of Panthers. I could go on more, but this post is already to long, and the various mythos of the T-34, both good and bad, are far too numerous.
Basically, the wehraboo'ism mistake the trees for the forest, something plenty of armchair strategists mistake putting tatics over strategy.
Nerd
I wouldn't say the tiger would sluaghter a late war t34 in a 1v1 though, as the 85mm varient could kill a tiger frontally at normal combat ranges. But against the panther it was a bit more lopsided to the Germans cuz the panther had thicker frontal armor, so the 85mm had more trouble against the panther at the front at normal ranges, but in close range it was competitive. Although this does rlly matter for the reasons you already said about the reality of tank combat in ww2, and there is also the bigger fact that most tank engagements happen when one side flanks the other, whoever gets the first shot generally wins most engagements anyway, and the attack needs a 2:1 advantage against the defender because of the higher losses the attack will take and we know the Russians (atleast when it came to tanks by 1944-45) had that advantage.
@@potatosinnato1767 The panther did not have thicker frontal armour, and its effective thickness wasn't much superior either. But yeah T-34-85 v. Tiger would be a fair fight.
@@happygnomev2576 I'm pretty sure it did though, although I don't have any number values so take this with a grain of salt, but what I do know that the 76mm gun on later sherman varients could pen the front of a tiger at normal combat ranges with hvap round, but the panther was immune to the 76mm frontly even with hvap frontally for the entire war, I know this for a fact. So I assumed that that ment that the panther had thicker frontal armor, but maybe the hvap lost more pen becuase of the frontal slope idk
Personally, I don't think the T-34 was a bad tank. Did it have flaws? Yes. but it got the job done. My gripe stands with the fact that history channels n such make it out to be the best tank ever designed, and shat all over the sherman.
Funnily enough, it is the opposite here, in russia.
I agree man. 100% with that history channel nonsense on the T-34 being OP please nerf. While the Sherman sucked.
Trust me if we had gone after Russians after beating Germany in 1945 our Sherman's could have held their own. The long barrel 76mm could pen the T-34 and even the short 75 could too.
But have a good one.
personally i've never heard that the T-34 was praised by the history channel, if they ever talked about iy
@@warhawk4494 You mean after Russian beated germany.. Germany was fucked in 1944 because USSR was in Poland when US just landed in Normandy.
@@onlyhereformoney175 The T-34 was named the #1 best tank of all time on the History Channel show "Top Ten" (Tiger was #3 and Sherman was #10 behind the Panzer IV)
T-34s were incrementally improved, just not during the production run.
The way it worked was when a factory completed an order run, it set up to re-tool the next run. The issues that were found during the last run were recorded and consolidated among all factories,and technical solutions would be available to all factories.
So when a factory began to retool their lines, the retooled for the incrementally improved version.
Just like every tank. T-34 was by faaaaaar the best tank in the world in 1940/1. (excluding KV-1).
Germans about T-34.
- Guderian: "vastly superior" over German tanks.
- von Kleist : "It's the finest tank in the world."
- von Mellenthin: “We had nothing comparable”
- von Reichenau: "If the Russians ever produce it on an assembly line we will have lost the war."
They actually planed to literally copy it but Hitler objected.
@@albogypsy2842 _"Just like every tank. T-34 was by faaaaaar the best tank in the world in 1940/1"_
Not even close, the foolish decision to heat treat them at 600 units meant that they were more prone to spalling than any other nation's tanks and could even shatter despite not being pierced. It's lack of radios meant they couldn't properly coordinate, which was something the Germans took advantage of in both their armor and AT guns. Nevermind the fact that 2,000+ of the original ~3,000 in 1941 were lost during the opening of the war. The Germans had sufficient tanks and guns to screw over the T-34 and it shows with the casualty count, which only increased despite minor improvements to the tank.
@@captainbadassitude1845 most t34 were abandoned and later recoverd
As Potential History said "why make parts that will last 7 months when the tank will only last for 6 months". Many people forget it was intentionally designed bad to cut down price so they could crank it out in ludicrous amounts. To the point where new tanks outnumbered trained men to crew them.
Because the trained men did not survive because their tank broke down in a battle.
@@nickdanger3802 If you put americans into the same battle intensity, their tankman won't last long either
wrote: "As Potential History said "why make parts that will last 7 months when the tank will only last for 6 months". Many people forget it was intentionally designed bad to cut down price so they could crank it out in ludicrous amounts. To the point where new tanks outnumbered trained men to crew them."
-- You are taking some "youngster" wild imagination for a factual event, T-34 was NEVER intentionally designed BAD, in fact quite the opposite(good optics, dedicated radio operator and ect.), however war did put many "adjustments" into production plans. Just think a little before you type something dumb.
@@shermanfirefly5410 They did well enough in Korea.
@@nickdanger3802 Yes, but against whom? PLA infantries that hardly have any heavy weapons and North Korean soldiers that got a very limited amount of training?
1:59 look where he penned this damn thing, its nearly impossible to do that
They debuffed volumetric, and I've been having very good luck with guns like th 17pdr which were kinda hit and miss due to volumetric.
@@panzerofthelake506 well ofc 17 pounder would pen that but the zis-4?? im not so sure
Its a F2 model, not the G version with 80mm
He's playing the 57mm version, nothing wrong there.
Glorious stalinium defeats OP optic ports
I think what a lot of people fail to understand is that the combat role of a tank as a breakthrough vehicle doesn't require that it only be used against other tanks. If you're fighting on a front thousands of miles wide and your opponent has a few hundred really good tanks but only in a few places while you have thousands of mediocre tanks all over the front, you'll end up winning everywhere where they're not. There are countless examples of crack Panzer divisions winning local battles but being forced to retreat because the soviets overran the infantry divisions guarding their flanks. Tactically German panzer divisions were mostly superior against all the allied nations. But on an operational and strategic basis their limited presence on the vast frontline left gaps that could be exploited by the simple superiority of numbers. So the T-34 with all it's flaws performed it's job as intended and that was wining the war.
It should also be noted that the soviet armored forces had been steadily increasing their quality and proficiency so by mid-late war, while they didn't outclass the German armored forces, they were at least able to level the playing field.
@@901Sherman I mean, IS-2 alongside with ISU-122 and ISU-152 gave any German tank a run for their money. Let alone the IS-3 which only just missed out on WW2 action, and in an alternate reality 1954-46 would be absolutely destroying any German tank it saw.
Soviet tank designs at the end of WW2 were literally world's most advanced.
@@bbcmotd nah all Soviet tanks are garbage low quality and bad designs only good for mass production
-everybody on the internet
@@bbcmotd On a practical level, both side's tanks can go head to head and destroy each other in typical combat conditions later in the war (not like earlier, when Tigers and Panthers could bounce shot after shot), so in that regard the two sides were evenly matched.
@@901Sherman not true. The 88 on the tiger I could not penetrate the front plate of the IS-2 and definitely not the turret, while the 122mm would completely obliterate a tiger I’s front plate. In fact, towards the end of the war, the german panzers were given specific orders to avoid engaging the IS-2
To expand further:
By 1942 basically all new tank crews had a part of their training in the factory while their tank was being build so thay they would be familiar with how the T34 operates and how to fix problems. This mitigated the issue with tanks being left by the side of a road du to an easy-fix problem.
T34 losses 1941-42 can in large part be attributed to poor tactics.
T34 losses over the ourse of the whole war can also in large part be attributed to them basically always being sent on the offensive. While defending, soviet commanders almost always sent their tanks in on a counter attack, and while attacking...well then they were obviously om the attack. Attacking always leads to more losses compared to the defender. A perfect example of this is Kursk. Soviet higher command ordered the soviet tank armies to counter-attack the german tank offensive. Katukov, who commanded the 1st Guards Tank Army, argued fiercly for his army to not counter-attack the german forces but instead, as he proposed, dig in the tanks and perform ambushes. His plan was approved and he suffered fewer losses.
On the other hand Rotmistrov and his 5th Guards Tank Army counter-attacked the germans as instructed and suffered great losses.
Right on my dude!
Gotta say I have great respect for both the sherman and the t-34, they're classic examples of good medium tanks done right. The t-34 on one hand was streamlined in production and rugged enough to get it's job done, easy to repair etc. While the Sherman had great upgradability and could easily be tailored to a country's needs. By no means were either perfect, but they got their intended roles done pretty dang well if I do say so myself.
A good part too was, to put in modern terms, an easy user interface. German tanks would almost require a crew member to have a masters degree in engineering to fix or upkeep the tank where the T-34 was more like "You drive tractor, yes? Horosho, no need read tovarish! Tiller forward. Tank forward."
@ANTI what the soviets in 1943 and onward had more spare parts than th egermans had tanks
You didn't bring up the fact most factories just didn't add shit like protection for the radio, removed armor, removed the turret basket among other things to cut down production time. No t-34 was ever built to a good quality and the cia saying adequate was them saying "its good enough" not that any were built to any sort of quality. Welds were so bad on every t-34 and the heat treating was to such a high degree a solid smack from a round even if it didn't pen would either destroy the welds or crack of huge bits of the t-34's exterior. The heat treating also caused a massive amount of spalling I'm pretty sure the large majority of crew deaths were due to intense spalling. Gun and shells were so bad that if they didn't let the gun cool down after every shot they ran the risk of blowing up the round before firing. This caused them to fire if I'm not wrong around or less than 10 rounds a minute. The oil filter bit I'm pretty sure the americans tested a t-34 without the filters and the reliability being so shit was written by a soviet engineer presiding over the test itself. Later models never fixed any issues and the kristie suspension was a technological dead end giving no real benefits while giving all the drawbacks of horrible off road performance horrible firing on the move performance. Hell the british who loved it had to compensate by adding massive shock absorbers to cope with the issues the suspension system had. The t-34's transmission was so horrible that changing gears needed Olympic level strength and moving to fourth gear was assisted by wacking it with a hammer. Though it was so damn hard most of the time the gear shift broke entirely. Was supposed to go at like 30 miles an hour or something but engine and transmission issues even in post ww2 t-34's (which never received an upgraded transmission) that it could only get to about 9 kilometers per hour (15 miles an hour) on a good day. Calling it cramped is also an understatement even north korean tankers I believe it was had issues getting in, out of, and moving about the tank. I honestly can't stand people defending such a shit tank so vehemently as the t-34's fanbase does and to put into perspective how cheap they made it. The t-34 I'll admit was a decent design on paper and the americans found that if it was built to their standard it would cost as much as the latest sherman model. The russians didn't have the infrastructure, economy, and work force to actually build it to any standard even after the war.
The Russians have always built things that look a little odd and aren’t the most refined and tuned, but those things usually will run rain snow or shine, dust dirt and grime
The T-34s, especially production, had such abysmal reliability that they made the tiger and panther at their worst look like Sherman. Engine lives of about 100 hours is not good.
@@MaxCroat Even the T62 is a very much decent tank, two-plane stabilized, decent armour, the first APFSDS and an 115mm smoothbore, it's really a monster of its time
@@jsn1252 Not really, no. The T34 had by far the best reliability of any heavy or medium tank of ww2 with an average runtime of 350 hours of nonstop driving. The next best tank was the M4A4 Sherman. The engine life of the Panther for comparison was just 80 hours on road (30 hours off road)
for example the AK47. butt ugly, loose tolerances, easy to maintain [or junk] accuracy is ok, as long as it isn't over 100m cheap to manufacture.
@@BigSkyCurmudgeon the ak47 is really beautiful
"The transmission only last XXX Miles, this is awful!"
"If the tank itself lasts to XXX miles then you're doing it wrong..."
Are you sure? A tank's job is not to be destroyed but to punch through a frontline without being destroyed
@@Atesz222 in Soviet Union, a tank's job is only to punch through a frontline, and not being destroyed is a bonus
@@Atesz222 in soviet doctrine T-34 is made to rush while carrying troop behind it, they dont give a fuck about the tank being destroyed, as long as they manage to break down the enemy defenses
If a T-34 killed 1 german tank before being destroyed it was a good trade off. They made so many that the germans were outnumbered. Mostly the kill ratio was better in favour of the soviets. A good TC in a Tiger oa Panther did get a lot of kills, but how many german tankers did not? Soviets just zerg rushed them when needed and used beter tactics later in the war when comanders got xp and Stalin wasn't sticking his nose so much. T34 armour and gun were good enough to kill all tanks that are not a Tiger (unless outflanking it and hitting the thin armour) Later versionswith 3 man turret and 85mm gun and thicker armour did better. Remember all tanks had their problems. The tank that could be easyly repaired and produced wins (T34 and Sherman)
I think the problem is the difference in perspective of what a "tank strength" is. Armor, Mobility, reliability are concrete things you can find on a tank. These are concrete traits a tank inherently has. Whenever you here "T-34's strength is in mass producibility", that's not a strength of the tank; it's the strength of the war industry to produce tanks. To say mass producibility is just a sterilized/utilitarian way of saying the tank and crew are disposable and being disposable usually isn't seen as something you yourself as a tanker would normally see saying is a good thing.
But it’s more then just being able to be mass produced. The T-34 is the right tool for the job so to say, very few other tanks could have done what it did
If the soviets had build a different tank, they might not be standing, even if it was „better“ which makes it a good tank
The thing is, while not being impressive, T-34 was an adequate tank. Dont get the impression that it was shit because it was mass-produced: history proves numerous times that just numbers and nothing else can't win a fight.
But that's not true though. Different tank designs are differently easy or difficult to design. a 10-ton tankette is much easier and cheaper to produce in large numbers than a super heavy tank.
The second part of your comment is kinda true, but its also depends on from what prospective you are judging the tank from. A general and a tanker will have different opinions on what is a good tank.
Well, the T-34 is noted for being a very good balance of the fundamental aspects of a tank for the time, it was found lacking on the other, less "lauded", aspects of tank operation, like ergonomics, communication and awareness.
The utilitarian part of the T-34s war economy is the fact that it basically went into wartime emergency last-ditch production.
I do think that is important in the strategic side of things and producibility requires a design that has the ease of manufacturing engraved in it. Even though US had massive production power during WW2 they still can't pump out a lot of tommy guns and have to turn to the M3 grease gun. Another example would be the M3 Medium Tank which used a lot of bolted and welded parts to use existing plants.
And sometimes you can simply use the mass to overwhelm the enemy if a better option has only marginal benefits. IIRC the US scrapped a heavy tank project when they decided that they can just use 2 medium instead.
But to be honest I don't think T34 is really a easy to manufacture tank after this video especially taking account of the logistical burden the unstandardized parts put on.
I am amazed at how much people hat the t34. It was a great tank, especially the t34/85. It depends on how you look at a high-quality vehicle. In the west, high quality meant being reliable, having thick armor, bigger gun, being an extremely powerful opponent to face, ect... In the east, high quality meant being easy to produce, easy to repair, and being powerful at the same time. I think the t34 was a perfect representation of this.
Quantity has a quality of its own.
I always joke that to defeat a tiger, the soviets just built a tank factory in front of it and rammed t34s into it until it exploded
"Comrade my seat has a little tear in it"
"Don't worry a new tank is already been shipped"
Quantity has a quality of its own, a phrase Stalin never said but people think he did
The Red Alert method, I see.
@@johntitor1256 Only in Red alert, the quality is a big powerful tank and very powerful blimp lol
T-34 is 1940/1 tank, tiger is 1942/3 tank. Like comparing Pz2 and Pz4.
In 1940/1 T-34 was the best tank in the world.
I remember from the Chieftain's hatch that the T-34 didn't need any Form of maintence which is why repairs were really hard specially if it involves the engine. You are more likely to get your tank destroyed than your tank breaking down.
One thing i feel you forgot to mention was crew maintenance which was non existent early in the war, while during 42/43 the soviets started training new crews extensively on maintenance and rotating veteran crews to give them proper training which definitely reduced the losses due to lack of maintenance ability that were significant in the early war and not just on the T-34s
On the point of Transmissions, I will still find it funny that Stalin hated knowing the Red Army's tanks transmissions were inferior to the Panzer III.
Good thing the bigger cat came to negate that problem
@@azzarnthelizard
The T-34’s transmission was still worse than the Panther’s unless it was the rare one came out of a good factory where the workers weren’t half starved and chained to the assembly lines.
@@MDPToaster and the panther's was terrible no matter where it came out of
@@azzarnthelizard Eh, no.
@Hans Blitzkrieg German kill counts were inflated.
You mentioned that the two-man turret lead to crew overload, with the commander having to also reload the gun. I would be interested in your opinion of the finnish way of to man the turret, with the gunner being also the commander, and the loader being just a loader.
I think that ("the finnish") way is preferable, as the gunner is already constantly looking out of the tank, while the loader would also have to look inside to load. Also that way the gunner can better try to get a good shot, etc. Also usually the gunner has better optics.
(I used the name "finnish way" because I am not that familiar with other countries' twin man turret arrangements)
Also, there was another way that was used by soviet tankers - commander sitting in drivers seat.
That method may or may not be better then the normal method, but the best method of dividing duties in two man turrets is to not do it and get a bigger turret
That is the modern way if gunner was not available.
That was also the setup in Polish 7TP tanks
wrote: "I would be interested in your opinion of the finnish way of to man the turret, with the gunner being also the commander, and the loader being just a loader."
-- Yes, he made a numerous mistakes, Tank Commander(TC) was a gunner in T-34-76, loader was a loader.
I think the recruitment requirements for USSR tanker had height limits because of how cramped the interior of the t-34 was
every tank have height limit
The lack of height and stature is a great asset for a tank crew. You usually have a hard limit on weight of the tank due to weight limit of bridges. Tanks which are heavier than most bridges will have very poor strategic mobility. Given the hard weight limit, the smaller you can get away with in the internal space the less area you need to protect, and in turn it means thicker armour for the same weight. Thus people who are 1.9 m tall are no good for being a tank crew, they are just physically unsuitable.
This is normal for many branches of military service.
The statement of the T-34 being cramped is somewhat of a mixed bag to me. While the 76 one definitely had interior space deficit, the improved 85 features much more turret space.
Of course, there was "just enough" space for movement when I was alone in the turret, so with other 2 people the conditions would've been somewhat worse, but I feel like that it still got the job done. Also, the turret felt more spacious than the one in a T-72/T-80.
I get the feeling that the whole "cramped" thing is based on a western point of view, in a way. Simply put, we measure the ergonomics based on our standarts, what we are used to, which may be substantially different from Russian, so eastern, standarts.
Along with that, I remember reading that despite the T-34 taking the blame, the loader in a Churchill, and the driver in a Panzer III also lacked space, and yet I do not remember it being mentioned as much, as if most of the negatives were being pointed at Russian tanks, but that just might be my personal feeling.
When it was built, the average Soviet soldier was smaller than Russians of today, let alone AMERICANS. The famed 163 cm height limit on Soviet designed tanks through the T-80 wasn't a big deal during the "Great Patriotic War"; i.e., they had little trouble finding crewmen that fit in and worked proficiently. It got to be more of an issue as the Soviet population became better fed and got better medical care in the years afterwards, as tooling issues tended to discourage a turret redesign that'd accomadate larger men without frustrating production goals.
Just nitpicking as usal, these Mickey Mouse revisionists love to make some ridiculous flaws... in reality T-34 was the best tank in the world in 1940/1 by far.
- Guderian: "vastly superior" over German tanks.
- von Kleist : "It's the finest tank in the world."
- von Mellenthin: “We had nothing comparable”
- von Reichenau: "If the Russians ever produce it on an assembly line we will have lost the war."
They actually planed to literally copy it but Hitler objected.
Actually the soviets themselve admitted that the T34s turret was cramped. and planned to improve that with the T34M that never came into production.
@@albogypsy2842 Hitler actually chose Germanic copy of T-34. But as it would need to wait for turrets and engine, he was convinced by some Generals or commission(don't remember which) unanimously to chose Panther. So he did.
@@tizi087 Dropping the T43's turret onto the T34 and then stuffing the ZiS-5 85mm gun gained most of the benefits of the "better" tank without having to shut down production for several months to retool their "Tankograd" factory.
What happens when I shoot a T34 in game: UNDAMAGED, UNDAMAGED, HIT, HIT
What happens when I play a T34: comrade, we decided to make our tank out of cookie dough
I like the t 34 quite a lot. For me it's my kind of tank. When I first started looking at it. I can see so much I could do with this tank.
I see it as a tank with a lot of design opportunity. I have been designing newer versions of the t34 since then. Keeping to the simple, crude characteristic as it actually gives me design freedom.
Fun fact: If I recall some of factory 183’s T34s had periscopes made of polished metal, rather than glass. And sometimes, when production was rushed, the sights weren’t even polished
i remember hearing a russian tanker in an interview say in regard to the t34 "its the only tank ive ever know which when it rains outside , it also rains inside"
Wdym
My thing with the t-34 is that the crew losses with the tank losses were also staggering, unlike the Sherman where it was also mass produced to a ridiculous level but had low crew losses because the designers actually cared
I'd say the T-34 was exactly the tank the Soviet union needed at the time and it eventually played a huge part in bringing down the third Reich
The T-34 didn't really have any specific qualities that made it the best for the job. It could do the job, but the real reason it was kept in production was because it just so happened to be the main tank in production at the time of the invasion. The Soviets needed as many tanks as possible, and major alterations to the production lines would have slowed down production to an unacceptable degree
@@jackwalters5506 I never said it was the best for the job. It was the best they had and they kept optimizing it and elimination the flaws until it reached its limits. But it was exactly what they needed at the time. A capable tank that could be mass produced
@@jackwalters5506 wrote: "The T-34 didn't really have any specific qualities that made it the best for the job. It could do the job, but the real reason it was kept in production was because it just so happened to be the main tank in production at the time of the invasion."
-- Oh, really, Soviets had the best WWII tank in production by accident(or it just happened)?
-- So, what happened with best German tank(or two, since both were not "Bueno", you know) in production for the time of the inversion. And why did Hitler flew into rage when he found out in fall of 1941, that his tanks was not good, and he need a better tank? And why did he delayed operation Citadel, so his best main tank(but not the best tank of WWII) went into production, and could be made in sufficient numbers to loose that battle? Curious minds want to know...
@@RussianThunderrr the T-34 was hardly the best tank of the war, what with it's poor visibility, unacceptably poor crew survivability, poor reliability, and, in the early models, extremely cramped and overworked crews. It's only saving grace was having strong armor, but in the early years of the war they still consistently lost against tanks which were completely incapable of penetrating them. By 1943, some of the problems had been improved, but the biggest factor in the tanks success was that there were a lot of them. On a unit by unit basis, the Panzer 3s/4s and Shermans were better in most ways. Germany switching to other tanks was more due to political interference and poor strategic planning then any dire need
@@jackwalters5506 wrote: "the T-34 was hardly the best tank of the war, what with it's poor visibility, unacceptably poor crew survivability, poor reliability, and, in the early models, extremely cramped and overworked crews."
-- No, T-34 was easily the best tank of WWII. Best Allied tank Ace Dmitry Lavrenenko was a commander of T-34-76 was killed outside his tank in December of 1941, and that is after he help stop H. Guderian at battle of Mtsensk on South of Moscow city, then drove to the North to fight tank to the North of Moscow city. There was a poor tank crew training, and that is one of the main reason why for frequent break downs at the beginning of the war. Once manned by a crack crew, T-34 was very formidable weapon platform. Many German tank Aces begin their carrier on captured T-34 tanks.
Im always early when it comes to spookston like within 30 seconds
Political Cumpiss
@@SkyFlaks yep
biggest t-34 struggle at begining was lack of amunition, almost complete lack
I love how Russia keeps there T 34s in good condition. They still shoot and they drive for parades. I wish the US army was like that.
Don't they have a T-35 still driving around?
@@utzius8003 Yeah I looked I at it and yes, they do.
@@LordAlacorn Really? I bet is really easy to do that assuming they don't demill their tanks.
@@utzius8003 No, as far as I know the T35 Russia currently has is not original. It is technically a real tank but produced very recently solely for the purpose of parades.
@@utzius8003 There's also an operational comet in the myanmar， they got it out for parade once in a while
Another thing to note is that, as shown by historians like David Glantz, Jonathan House, and Steven Zaloga, by mid - late war, the Soviets had a good deal of quality to back up their ludicrous quantity. Quality control improvements meant that tanks were operating many times their life expectancy. Soviet tankers were effectively using their experiences, lessons in battle, and increased freedom of initiative, improvisation, and experimentation to good use. And with the advent of new T-34/85s, Is-2s, and various tank destroyers and assault guns, the Soviet armored forces had achieved a level of parity with their German counterparts. Not enough to completely dominate but at least good enough..
Indeed. Not only did the quality of the tanks improve, so did the doctrine, strategy, and tactics used on the front; couple this with more veteran crews, and you've got yourself a good group of fighters
Hm, A tank is not so much an individual weapon, but more a system and a means of conducting warfare. The Germans, to their agonizing discomfort while being being defeated and killed, created individually wonderful pinacles of armour in the form of their big cats (and rodents) however, they never really got around to applying them in their designed roles on the battlefield and thus failed as a combat system.
The T-34 (as with the M4 Sherman) was consistently most successful when applied as a weapons system for the roles that it was designed for and the war leaders who were responsible for that by and large consequently assigned their application(s) accordingly. Hence the success of their system over vastly technologically superior adversaries. The T-34 (in all of its variants) was such a successful system and will be known in history as such.
That said; As to the technical level and survivability as an individual tank, the T-34 in its latest iteration in the war was not that much inferior to anything the AXIS could bring into battle against it. It was fast, maneuverable, had decent armour and with the 85mm gun using proper ammunition and in a 3 man turret had good armament and firing-rate. This made it defeat the big cats (and rodents for as much as applicable) and last longer than much more modern and sophisticated tanks like the M47, m48, M60 and almost even as long as its (more or less) contemporary, the Centurion.
The T-34 was "successful" in the sense that between the US bombing German industry into oblivion while also plugging countless holes in soviet industry, the Wehrmacht couldn't keep up with the attrition. In other words, it gets credit for a logistical victory it was only tangentially involved in.
@@jsn1252 Hm, The T-34 was there and gave the Germans more than the occasional "Oh Scheisse!" moment long before the US was, screaming and kicking and in true
'johnny come lately' form, dragged into the war by Japan. And so was the KV-1 and so was the KV-2.
The USSR did benefit from the Lend-Lease, but not until 1942 with significant US participation. Prior to that, most Lend-Lease stuff came from GB.
Now if you go back and actually read what I stated before, you see that I intended to convey that the T-34 became a successful combat system when applied according to its role and design and that the Germans essentially defeated themselves by applying their fabulous cats and rodents in ways that they were not designed or intended for.
I wouldn't say the Germans ever applied their rodents at all, since the Maus was never deployed. It is certainly a matter of interest though what exactly they intended to do with that thing. I can think of two possible roles.
1) As a breakthrough tank. If sent against a heavily fortified and dug in enemy, it's armor would make it immune to virtually any weapon they could throw at it, and it's armament could destroy enemy tanks and fortifications with ease.
2) As a sort of mobile defensive strong point. Park it in a spot you need to defend and it is, once again, extremely difficult to kill and able to destroy any enemy unit approaching it.
Neither of these made any sense in Germany's current situation. The first doesn't make sense because they had long since been on the defensive. The ability to destroy fortifications was not what they needed in the slightest, they needed to DEFEND fortifications. In the case of the second, if you're going to use the tank as a bunker, just build a bunker, it's vastly cheaper and more effective in a static defensive role.
And beyond that, something like the maus is only at all useful if you can defend it from air attacks, which Germany couldn't at this point. It's yet another perfect illustration of how completely out of touch so much of German high command was with the war they were fighting. Their late war heavy and superheavy projects just didn't have a purpose, they didn't fit into a doctrine or suit Germany's situation.
@@zoro115-s6b Yes, the 'rodents' never entered into actual deployment and it is extremely doubtful if they ever could have done so in a conceivably sane and useful, let alone successful fashion. On the other hand, they did enter into the hostilities in the informational and propaganda sense, since they tried to build the image of image of superiority, built on the fame and perceived near invincibility of the earlier 'cats' and other Wunder-Waffen that they had produced.
The despair, however showed on the German side in the actual deployment of things like the 'Elephant' and other spectacularly failing dead-rabbits pulled out of Hitler motley hightop that reflected the prevailing infatuation with 'Bigger is Better'.
By the way, that infatuation was strictly speaking, not unique or specifically limited to Nazi-Germany, as evidenced by the numerous abortive attempts by all involved combattants to field super-heavies and it lasted a lot longer than the hostilities as evidenced by products like the IS-7, the Conqueror and the M103.
@@jsn1252 wrote: "The T-34 was "successful" in the sense that between the US bombing German industry into oblivion while also plugging countless holes in soviet industry, the Wehrmacht couldn't keep up with the attrition. In other words, it gets credit for a logistical victory it was only tangentially involved in."
-- Really!? When did US bombing German industry into oblivion started? After Pz-V entered the battlefield, right? And why did German tank rearnament(Pz-III and Pz-IV), and development of Pz-V Panther started? Because of T-34, right? So T-34 not only "get credit for a logistical victory it was tanginatly involved in", but rather NOT getting enough credits for a battle it was directly involved in by people like you! So you getting a thumb up for knowing cool trigonometrical terminology, by total "F"(Fail) in WWII history. Sorry mate!
“Quantity is its own quality”
A phrase Stalin never said but people think he did
@@garlkurzer I'm sure he agreed with that sentiment. Neither were all the "Yogisms" uttered by one Lawrence Peter Berra (1925-2015). Nor can we be sure that IJN Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto actually utter misgivings in the ebullient wake of Pearl Harbor about "awakening a 'sleeping giant' and filling him with a 'terrible resolve' ". Finally, the late Senator Everett Dirksen claimed he never said "A million here, a million there, and soon you're talking 'real' money", but he agreed with that.
"most german guns couldnt penetrate the armor" - on paper. Battle report shows that the germans took them out day 1. Even with guns that were not supposed to kill it. The fact that the soviets lost nearly all of the 80k(rough estimate) t-34s produced speaks volumes in how bad it actually was.
If I remember right. The cheiftan talked about how the t-34's manuals were filled with solutions and checkups that the crew had to do, after afew kilometers. In one of his inside the cheiftans hatch videos
0:03 I love the smoke puffing out of the exhaust when the gun fires!
I constantly read this "quantity has a quality of its own", but in original quote it just means that the more you produce something, the better you get at producing it.
That's the fun of pithy quotes. You can fire them off in any direction you choose.
@@Centurion101B3C This particular quote is usually attributed to Stalin or Lenin, but they didn't say or write something like that. Stalin, on the other hand, said that quantity turns into quality. Maybe it quoted wrong due to the poor translation, I dunno.
@@user_imyarek I heard that it is a Napoleon quote.
@@user_imyarek Well, Mr. J. Stalin actually remarked (and I translate, though my Russian is a smidge rusty):
Quantity has a quality on and of its own (or itself.).
The big thing about with most Soviet vehicles is that while they can break often and everything , they can also as easily be repaired. "Gets repaired via a hammer and swearing"
I remember reading something about the air filters , saying that a big problem was the low quality fuel that the Soviets used. Meaning any filter you put in it would still be more or less the same , so the Soviets decided that it would be better to put in a cheap filter and replace often , then to put in a good one and still have to replace it more less as much.
My best friend is russian and his grandfather (Passed away in 2007 RIP) was a loader in a T-34 and took part in The battle of Seelow Heights. My friend told me one time that his grandfather hated the T-34 so much he described it as a Rolling tin can full of matches, and the amount of destroyed T-34s and bits of body parts from and around wrecks he kept seeing after battles just disgusted him. Although since their 34 had some speed and their driver was good, he just accepted to be in it since he doesn't have a choice anyway but he still hated it. His grandfather was just thankful he survived the war and that's all that matters in the end, he just wished the Red Army could've had something better than the 34.
There are a few WWII tankers that went from Sherman tank to serve back to T-34, because it offered better armor protection, and was much faster and agile. Just about any tank is a can full of matches and explosives, and if it was not for T-34, then Red Army would have a "real tin cans" like T-26 and BT tanks. T-34 had serious and very advanced armor for the time.
@@RussianThunderrr True.
@@RussianThunderrr the armor wasn't new other tanks before (even medieval castles) has slop armor. The steel was also heated to around 600 which sounds good when allied tanks were heated to 300 but since it was so hot the armor mix with the poor welding a shot can shatter the armor, sometimes the armor in the tanks will get shot everywhere inside the tank injuring most of the crew. Also if u think numbers could save them, most broke down or crash due to poor sight.
That moment when Spookston starts talking about the cons first: Alright prepare for the upswing that's supposed to make up for the flaws :D
Was working on one few years ago in Poland, i was amazed that you can still find spare parts for this guy. Its hard to drive, its noisy but can be fixed quite easy, with basic tools. And the engine is not that bad.
The engine was a modified V-12 aero engine that was simple to service (if a bit often then normal) but it worked and any man that worked on a tracktor could service it. That is why they say that a T34 drives like a tracktor - it was ment for guys that probably only ever had contact with a tracktor when it came to motorised vehicles. The tank was made simple to use for poorly educated people like the AK that came later.
Penultimate means next to last. As you mentioned no further developments after the 85, the word must have been used incorrectly.
Glad to help. Keep it up. 😉
Anyone into hobby modeling and the T34 I highly reccomend the AFV Club T34-76 1942/43 (183rd factory). They make it with full interior, including everying from the engine to the crew compartment. There was a limited transparent top version available as well.
T-34 wasn't designed as anti-tank weapon, it was made primairly for support infantry. And it was perfectly fit to this role. German tanks was just too overingeneered for war in wide front.
@Mr D J In Success You cannot stop Me LoL uhmm, russia have a doctrine about tanks role on carrying troop behind it
@Mr D J In Success You cannot stop Me LoL did you know medium tank are made to be support a tank? thats why you only see T-34 carrying troop while rushing through the enemy line instead of KV-1, yet different country have different doctrine
wrote: "T-34 wasn't designed as anti-tank weapon, it was made primairly for support infantry. And it was perfectly fit to this role."
-- What do you smoke, Владислав? Infantry support tank was T-26, however T-34 predosestor was a "cavalry" class tank, but by the time T-34 was designed British armoured forces doctrine was abandoned. T-34 was envisioned by M. Koshkin as "universal"("универсальный танк") which means it could be used for any occasion i.e. wiped out any enemy tanks, or any other soft target/anti personnel. It was Word first MBT(Main Battle Tank) that Germans tryed to copy, but failed in doing so.
@Mr D J In Success You cannot stop Me LoL wrote: "It was never given any specialized role, it was tasked to breakthrough, hold position, support or spearhead. Anyone who said this are utter bullshitting themselves.
"
-- Exactly it was "Universal" tank.
@@RussianThunderrr but universal and support itself were pretty much the same thing,
Ironic that i was actually in an argument an hour ago about this exact topic
In theory the armor of the T-34 could stop most enemy rounds, but in reality the armor cracked like an egg shell most the time without even being penetrated. This was due to the heat treatment of the armor being hundreds of degrees hotter than what was considered effective.
When you're so early the video is struggling to buffer
"Everyone has the impression T-34 is a big pile of scrap"?
I wonder which side of the iron curtain you heard that from lol
Literally everyone in Russia/the East loves and adores the T-34. It is seen as the war winning vehicle and the symbol of genious engineering in incredibly difficult times.
It really depends from where are you. On the west the wehraboos myths about the eastern front are still alive.
Over here in Europe, everyone thinks the Sherman was a massive pile of shit. Which it was.
@@bnipmnaa depend on what side
Russian loves Sherman, one of them was a tanker that receives the hero of the soviet union award, he serves in Sherman and loves the tank.
@@bnipmnaa hey man leave the Sherman alone :( Just bully the m3 Lee its way easier to shit on.
T-34 was by far the best tank in the world in 1940/1. (excluding KV-1). Germans were absolutely impressed, from Guderian to von Reichenau, they even consider to literally copy-paste it.... yet today we have these revisionist imbeciIes and internet 'experts' saying how T-34 was bad and whatever Mickey Mouse nonsense.
the T34s design was pretty great. The early production models were a bit questionable, but that's a problem seen in literally every tank designed during war. The later models were great in design, the only bad thing was the extremely questionable production standards. To me that says the people building the tank are shit not the tank itself.
How good of an armored vehicle is the M35 Mako from Mass Effect?
I want to see a video on this!
I just imagined an M35 with a red star on its side dryhumping the Reichstag. Someone turn that into a picture please
It survived Shepard's driving. It's borderline indestructible.
From an engineering standpoint I can appreciate the simple solutions to their problems like the track pins not needing retaining clips if there is an angled block to shove the pins back in. This isn't going to last forever but it won't cause any problems in a battle. Simple enough to work fine and that's all they required.
I remember hearing a quote about the t-34 and it was:
“Quantity is a quality all of its own”
"In every war where quality has met quantity, including World War Two, quality has won."
Soviets could afford to "lose" tanks in their own country and replace them with new ones. Breakdowns are just written off as losses to get new ones.
The germans wouldn't write off their recoverable tanks as losses (hence you see wehraboo touting "muh kill ratios" same way they try to assign western penetration standard numbers to western vehicles and russian penetration standard numbers to russian vehicles, anything higher for russians means BUSSIAN RIAS). For both propaganda and practical purposes(since their tanks need to be shipped from elsewhere).
First time Panther and Ferdinand were used(Kursk), 184 Panther(some were gone right off the bat) dropped to 40 within 2 days according to Guderian himself, but the total writeoffs are only 31 by July 11 with only 38 operational. With only 80-something being from enemy fire.
"It might not have been overly impressive on an individual basis but..."
But I thought the entire point of the series was to look at the tanks on an individual basis? I do appreciate the big in numbers fact, but still.
And that means the T-34 was just not as good as it currently sits in the game.
I do love the fact that you mentioned the quality per production plant heavily influences the outcome of the tank. That is entirely true. However, you missed some parts:
- The early T-34's had no radio and the T-34's that did have a radio were extremely bad. They used flags to communicate with other tanks.
- The transmission was so unreliable that in order to navigate offroad, the max speed was about 15 KM/U, advised.
- The overheating of the engine was so bad that the max speed was 25 KM/U on the road, advised and anything faster was only to be used in emergency situations. Engine needed to be cooled for a long while after doing so though.
- Many T-34's (those that came from the 'bad' production plants) did not have all their exterior bolts equipped or welding points completed. This meant that a german shell did not even need to penetrate to disable a tank. Sometimes a ricochet was enough to fully disable a T-34 because the armor or components lodged themselves stuck or got completely blown off.
This also brings me back to some T-34 story I read in a museum, about how a T-34 was not equipped with seats due to production being so fast, so the first thing the assigned tank crew did was commandeer seats from a local home/restaurant and cushions.
I never understood why it is so important for people that Tanks, guns and uniforms have to look good. You try to win a war not a beauty contest.
It should be noted that soviet bureau led by Adolph Dik had been working on "new generation" tank (which, for all I know, could have been similar to outcome of Koshkin's work). But, as Stalin loved to undertake purges, the whole team responsible for the work was sent to gulag in 1937 during The great purge. And Mikhail Koshkin worked under pressure, knowing that if he'd failed he'd been sent to gulag as well. So all in all, origins of T-34 or namely it's constructors weren't any good.
wrote: "And Mikhail Koshkin worked under pressure, knowing that if he'd failed he'd been sent to gulag as well. So all in all, origins of T-34 or namely it's constructors weren't any good."
-- Where did you get this info? Koshkin worked under pressure, because war was imminent, not because Stalin's purges. In fact he was ordered to improve BT series tanks, but he came up with better overall tank that Commissariat never ordered. Constriction was excellent, since it offered heavy tank armour protection against Anti Tank guns, offered the same fire power i.e. long 76.2mm gun, and speed and maneuverability no WWII tank had, because its 500 hp aluminum block diesel engine. German considered T-34 more dangerous then KV series tanks. That is why Hitler ordered design and development of Panther tank.
Honestly, before watching it I always thought "The T-34 fit its role, but I wouldn't want to man one.", mainly due to the Chieftains video on the T-34.
No tank is worth manning
The opinion on the T-34 isn't split? It is often named as the best tank of all time.
It's amazing how fast you explain everything about the t34 . It's a good tank one time I bounce a kv 2 round with it . People always forget about the angle armour
angled 45mm isnt actually that much when compared to other tanks of its era, the t34 had only one purpose of infantry support, had it been a pz iv long 75 or close range kv-2 youd be toast, t34 was a medium tank, balanced armor and firepower, also you cant forget kv-2 he shell wich with overpressure would f it,
At of all the RUclipsrs (that I have seen) in my opinion you are the best at stating facts and delivering answers without being biased or adding something you shouldn’t. This real keep the videos true to the question it asks. So thanks for that and the video are amazing :D
It's crazy how much quality could vary. A T-34 from one factory could be on the same level of quality as German or American tanks while one from another could have welds so poor that there were open gaps in the tank. Regardless, a tank is a tank and it's better than no tank.
The "quantity over quality" thing of Soviet equipment has some merit but just isn't completely true in all cases. In the cold war, the T-64, despite having serious teething issues, was miles ahead of anything fielded in the west at the time when considering raw specifications and capabilities. Composite armor, smoothbore guns, autoloaders. Remember that western tanks did not have protected ammo stowage yet and had large ammo racks that could reach the hull roof. The T-72 autoloader was even lower down than the one of the T-64, if no extra ammo was carried the only ammo in the tank was at the very bottom, an unlikely place to be hit in actual combat.
definetely not on the level of german or american tanks
Glorious T-34 would destroy a star destroyer from the Empire with ease.
And don't you dare argue with me cuz the Soviets won without losing a single soldier!
- Internet war experts.
The Panther and Tiger would destroy literally every soviet tank on the planet without even aiming just after leaving the factory as German tanks never failed.
And don't you dare argue with me because muh superior German engeneering and 1 : 1000000 German K/D ratio!
- Internet war experts...
Can you make a video on the M60 since in war thunder it performs mediocre and i feel like it performed better IRL
M60 combat record isnt that impressive irl either being deem inferior to Centuarion mk10 and T-55 by isreali tanker
Of course it performed better,almost everything in that tank is wrong.Armor is underperforming,weapon and ammo are underperforming,cupola shouldn't be a OHKO weaspot et cetera.
I'm surprised its mobility wasn't nerfed,but maybe i'm wrong about that.
Seems hard enough to kill with a T-55.
A tank's merit is judged by the combination of factors that make it great. T34 is considered World War II best tank not because of any one factor but because of combination of factors. It was certainly one of the fastest tanks of World War II. The tiger had a more powerful cannon but it was difficult to repair and it was slow.
The T-34, due to its incredibly badly designed transmission and gear shifter, was actually fairly slow. The 50-ish kilometer per hour top speed is purely hypothetical, since shifting the tank into fourth gear would require superhuman strength, and the effort would likely just snap the gear lever.
Quality was probably very poor in tanks produced on Mondays, too. Many workers hung over...
When you open youtube just to see that the cc you were looking for just posted.
Short concise and very accurate. Good job. Some t-34's from factories didn't even bother to finish the welds on the hull. So rushed to make as many as possible.
wrote: "Short concise and very accurate. Good job."
-- It surely is not accurate, with many mistakes made on the subject. Welds on the hull was finished, and held pretty good, once Eugen Patton welding methods were adapted, so why care about cosmetics, if it will only loose a war? German tanks are case in point.
Inaccurate, biased and total nonsense. Sure, some T-34s were rushed, for a simple reason - there were a few million German soldiers in Russia, sometimes literally just outside factory. Germans tank in 1944/5. were not much better.
This guy I wouldn't call the T34 bad🤣 transmission issues poor air filters lack of interchangeability of spare parts if you could get spare parts and he forgot to mention a few other things that hurt the T34s effectiveness in combat. The armor was actually bad. The Soviets were heat treating their steel too high and the welding of the armor plates were shit. Also the Christie suspension is highly overrated and lacks in good off road capabilities and takes up space in the already cramped interior. That and the T34 didn't have a turret basket to help the crew. In my opinion the T34 was one of the worst tanks of the war.
The most good enough tank of the war, maybe in history.
Depends on who you ask.
@@ArcticWolf00Alpha0 What's your pick?
@@DerZerstorer119 I personally would take the German Panzer 4, but there's more to it then that.
Let me ask you a question, if you were a Tanker who has been assigned to a Tank in WW2 (Any tank for any side) what would be the first thing that comes to your mind?
A) Wow, this tank can be easily mass produced and it can be replaced easily if need be.
or B) Wow this tank is reliable, can take more than 1 shot, and it can protect me, my crew, and it has easy access of escape incase we have to bail out and i can rely on it not to break down for a long period of time.
Im asking a genuine question.
A true's Solomon statement... :-)
@@ArcticWolf00Alpha0 I pick B most of the time however, if let say the situation of the war proved to be a war of attrition, i'll pick a
*attrition is the name of the game*
One line to explain Soviet tank design.
Great video 🔥
T34 is a tank where ONLY grand strategic requirement is important, not even on an individual, squad base, or tactical level.
One of the best comments I found here.
That still doesn't change the fact that Gaijin intentionally ignores everything you just said.
I mean most of the issues are to do with reliability and there are no breakdowns in War Thunder so what he says mostly isn't important when it comes to the in game T34
@@NSEBMB except for years they built poor quality armor into the tigers.. and tried to hide and lie about it...war thunder Devs are very good at leing gambling and censorship
Personally I always saw the T-34 as a good design, mostly thanks to its sloped armor and big gun without sacrificing speed. And thanks to what I know now from folks like Potential History, I see it as definitely doing its job of being powerful, but also easy to maintain (or at least swap out parts).
Not swap out the parts, swap out the whole tank
@@johnfrancisterne1072 Yeah, I'm honestly more a Sherman man myself.
Another flaw was that the drivers vision ports only face forward. The driver had to depend on the commander for directions. You often find pictures of knocked-out T-34"s by themselves or in groups generally facing the same direction.
because they didn't have radio communication between tanks, and were generally poorly trained, they tended to group up close together as well.
The driver has two periscopes with a reasonable viewing arc. Not dissimilar to most tanks of that era. Every tank driver in the world relies on the TC to give directions.
You see tanks of all kinds knocked out facing the same direction....that's because tanks maneuver as units.
"it aint pretty but it gets the job done"
-T-34 oversimplified
Was waiting for this video ever since I saw you in-game :)
Great balanced assessment. Thanks!
After LaserPig's vid, this hasn't aged verry well.
German Engineering: "we will built the best tanks that could last for 100 years"
Soviet Engineering: "See Ivan, if they were destroyed after 3 days into battle why bother making them last for 4 days"
Except that German tanks barely lasted a day
@@dwarow2508 after shredding 20+ Russian tanks with its cannon.
Not too far off. Certainly the Soviets were pragmatic, if not at times BRUTAL, in their engineering. Hard to argue with the net results. The nice thing about being led by the "Boss" (Stalin), at least for him, is he wins all the "arguments". You say, "what arguments?". EXACTLY.
@@FinnishHammerItOn
Before getting it's entire tank column blown tf out by a single T34
Think the myth of certain tanks being near invincible is why options seem to go in extremes, a tank is ether perfect or garbage. Everyone who praises the Panther for outfighting multiple Shermans or T-34s seem to forget the Panther was built to be a significantly bigger tank with more armor and a bigger gun to be scarier than any lighter tank 1 on 1. Hell, the evolution of the T-34 almost runs parallel to how fast the Soviets turned around their whole industrial base despite years of purges and significant loses to the Axis war machine, it was the little tank that went 'Nyet!'
The Brave Little Deathtrap That Could.
wrote: "Panther was built to be a significantly bigger tank with more armor and a bigger gun to be scarier than any lighter tank 1 on 1."
-- Actually many don't even know that Panther tank owned its existence solely to T-34-76 tank.
it was not elegant, nor was it perfect, also it was uncomfortable to work in, but it was there, where they needed it and did his job well and i think thats what matters
Hi The R3 must have Thermals Night Device for balance.
I hope you're joking
bruh i stopped at the beginning, t34 was class for its time . Good gun, decent mobility, good angled armor, diesel engine who starts at low temp and doesn't catch fire as easily as the petrol ones... The finnishing was really bad that's true, but the core was good... Only yt historians and ppl who get their information out of yt and comments on the internet( 🤦) think it was really bad, but was actually good cuz lots of them were produced....
you had something wrong on them
Sure the T-34 were somewhat good against early German Panzers, but the quality of the tanks is quite bad, and it doesn't help for the fact that in 1941, most of Soviet tanks were T-26 and BTs, not T-34 and KV-1
It's the most destroyed tank in the history of tanking. Id say pretty piss poor just like 90% of Soviet/Russian tanks.
In fairness, it's also the most produced tank of the second word war and the most battle tested tank. It's bound to see losses.
@@dyn01234567 Agreed but having a life span of 3-6 days on the battlefield, carrying an extra transmission on the engine bay and having a 90% attrition rate meant that they had no choice but to produce more than were getting destroyed in order to even get a chance at winning the war.
This "rehabilitation" of the T-34 I see in the comments, by putting a spin on its flaws ("it was bad by design"), is silly. The Soviets complained about its faults all the time. The tank was bad enough that it was to be replaced with the T-34M and only the start of the war prevented it. Even the commissar of tank production complained that it was unreliable and inferior to the panzer III.
The thing is that the T-34 might've broken down a lot, but after the Soviets were in an advancing war?
That didn't matter anymore, since the disabled tank was on friendly territory. So it could be repaired
germans: Your tanks are shit!
soviets: *laughs in russian bias*