Since YT got rid of annotations years ago for reasons I can only guess at, and I don't particularly feel like downloading and re-editing this, said annotations labelling what does what are gone. Important to note though: TWI got the animations messed up for turret controls. The *left* hand controls traverse, the *right* hand controls elevation. The traverse wheel is a neat piece of design: with the handle locked into a recess on the wheel and folded flat it acts as a 3-position switch (anticlockwise/neutral/clockwise), with the handle unlocked it acts as a conventional hand crank.
@@jaroslavkotouc2322 now you can there is a game called 'Enlisted' its made from same war thunder engine and war thunder developer, this game is about ww2 battle, and you can ride tank with First Person look and its still open beta so the russian tank is only T-34-85, T-26, BT-7, T28, T-60
Most of the problems with the T34 (T34/76 as the Germans called it) were due to the fact that the USSR never managed to find the time to work out the design flaws inherent in any new equipment. The first T34 regiments went into action in the last week of June 1941 in penny packets, without air cover, and armed not with armour piercing ammunition but with high explosive for infantry support. The crews, not very well trained in any case, hardly even had the opportunity to get to know their new vehicles before being sent into combat. By autumn 1941, T34 regiments were going into battle straight from the factories. Even though the flaws of the vehicle became evident early on, it was impossible to correct them given the exigencies of the situation. The need was more tanks, not more refined tanks. It was only after the issue of who would win the war was settled once and for all in 1943 that the first major changes were made to the T34 design, with the vastly superior T34/85 appearing in early 1944. But even the T34/85 wasn't the definitive version; the USSR designed the T44 but couldn't afford the reduction of production it would entail to switch manufacture from the T34 series to it. As a tank the T34 (/76) is often unfairly maligned these days. It was a superb machine for the day, and it did the job it needed to do in the extremely difficult period between the battles of Moscow and Kursk. By that time it had become the victim of technological advances on the enemy side, but that was hardly its fault. In terms of combat suitability, it was the best tank of that period of the war, not because it was the best in any one factor (in fact except for performance in snow it was probably the best in nothing) but because it offered the best in what would today be called "value for money". Superb animation, by the way. I've seen many real videos of T34/85s being driven, but this is the first time I've seen the inside of a T34 (/76)
+jpbab00 It didn't have one, like many tanks of the time. Main ammo stowage area was under the 'floor' of the fighting compartment, which would've been made inaccessible with a full basket. It's widely cited as a criticism against the design, often without any acknowledgement that the Centurion - widely considered one of the best tanks of its era - didn't have a full turret basket either, only a small partial one beneath the gun. Take this with a grain of salt as I wasn't a tankie, but I don't see why it's considered to be such a huge strike against the tank - turret baskets really weren't hugely common at the time and don't seem to have had any real impact on the effectiveness of the tanks back then.
jpbab00 the first Soviet tank as far as I'm aware to have a turret basket was the late model T54. The T34 and T34/85 had a few rounds in canisters in the turret and the rest in ammunition boxes on the floor. This sounds messier than it was because the average combat didn't last beyond three or four shells anyway. If the tank won the loader could reload the turret canisters in safety. If it lost it didn't matter anyway. Even the T55 only had three shells in turret stowage. The rest were in the hull side boxes, and if the combat extended beyond those shells the loader would have to get on to the turret floor to load the gun.
1:21 The only unfortunate thing is that the movement of the turret turning crank and the upset angle crank can be seen in reverse. The crank in the turret ring should rotate the turret.
They only have two tanks i'm afraid, they did an ambitious job with the tank mechanics but ended up feeling too overwhelmed\lazy to make anymore tanks. In theory we'll get a unniversal carrier, a German half-track, a T-60 and a Panzer III and possibly a Stug and a Su-76 in the future and a Stuart and a Chi-Ha for Rising Storm. I wouldn't hold my breath though.
Il-2 Great Battles' latest addon is quite similar in terms of interior detail, though it lacks proper crew animations currently. There are a few other sims with this level of detail as well, such as Steel Armour: Blaze of War, T-34 vs Tiger, and of course Steel Beasts (although SB lacks crew models, from memory).
3:28 Is that the solenoid cable? (forgive me for my poor knowledge on tank gun at the moment of talking) Isn't DT machine gun mechanism is "normal", so you can take the gun out of the tank when you abandon the tank
I believe so, allowing the gunner to fire it. The commander can still fire it in an emergency and the gun can indeed be dismounted from the tank if needed.
Not sure to be honest, I haven't played for a long time. There were a lot in Red Orchestra: Ostfront, but I don't remember many existing at all in RO2 when I did play. There weren't many tank-friendly maps, and most of the bigger ones weren't popular.
@@rossmum Im playing warthunder, i seek for another more Sim game exlussive for tanks with many people online. I mean something like Simulator my friend, what about Battlefield maybe?
There are some rounds usually stowed in 'ready racks' around the turret and hull sides, where they can be easily accessed when needed (as opposed to the main stowage under the floor). The loader has a jumpseat but if standing, since the T-34 has no turret basket, he has to shuffle around inside with the movement of the turret. Tanks with a turret basket allow the loader to stand on the floor and be rotated around with the turret itself. Generally speaking, you want to use short lulls in the fighting to replenish your ready racks - those are the times when the loader is typically going to be working around the floor, and the times which are most dangerous for him if the tank is suddenly forced to engage the enemy.
I don't have a fucking clue how a commander of a t-34/76 could command his tank and have goof observational sight of the battlefield through a panoramic sight and a gun sight. Like how the fuck could you command your tank or worse a tank platoon through two circles roughly the size of a quarter.
The French tanks were even worse in that aspect. The gunners were also the commanders. The commander had to peak out his hatch to spot an enemy tank, get back into the turret, aim the gun at the last known location of the enemy tank - and by that time its probably already gone. Otherwise - the tanks were even better overall than the invading German tanks.
Xspy70 The T34s were practically the same because the gunners were also the commanders and had shit visibility, however unlike french tanks the commander didn't have to load the gun, but loading a 47mm could be done one handed so the were more of less equal
A loader was still an important crew member for those times. The commander would have to get out the hatch, find the target, get back in the hatch, load the correct ammunition, aim the turret at the previous known location, find the target's new location, and fire. And then you can't keep your sight on that target (also mind the smoke) - you have to go back, remove the hot shell case from the gun with a thick glove, pick another shell and load it in, then try to find the target, then fire if you're lucky to see it again. If not - you go back up the hatch to find it again and the process repeats. And then there is the high chance of missing your first shot, and redoing all the process. This all takes a lot of precious seconds that can mean the difference between life and death. The commander in T-34 had less delay between spotting and firing, and also could keep track of and aim at the target's position in real time while the loader did his job. The loading part takes time and requires carefulness even with light ammunition, and I'm not really sure about the whole one eye on the target and one hand loading the cannon. At the very least - this is an extra tiring effort for the commander. Another difference is the weird hatch design. Most of the french tanks had a hatch at the back of the turret on which you had to sit on once out (the cupola on top could not be opened). It might not be a huge deal, but I assume that popping up and dropping in from the top required less effort and time than from a back hatch. I'm basing this on the fact that very few tanks had such a hatch design (escape hatches not included), and I think none do today. Eventually, the T-34-85 version had a separate gunner (5 man crew, except for the D-5T version). Not saying that T-34s were great and reliable, but 2 man turret was indeed better than just 1 man turret. The modern (for those times) french tanks were actually better than the german tanks invading them in all categories but the turret design, but they were mostly beaten due to having mostly old WW1 tanks and poor spread-out defense tactics that didn't work against the german blitzkrieg tactics.
Tripwire got it backwards when animating. The wheel on the left is traverse and is connected to the electric gearbox that drives the power traverse; the handwheel to the right is the elevation wheel, and you can see the elevation gears for the gun mount directly beside it. The T-34-85's power traverse also featured a novel system where the same wheel could be used for manual traverse based on the position of the handle relative to the wheel - I'm not sure if the earlier versions used the same, but you can see it in action here: ruclips.net/video/SuiNsy42SFI/видео.html
The cannons were of krupp, which was the best on the whole tank. Were sold in the 30 years. T34/76 had no distance measuring device and no aiming tube, so aim was quite shit. The Russians had therefore first shot with the tower Mg to determine the range. And each factory had its own characteristics not everyone would be built the same
Source? Everything I've read states the F-34 was a design by Grabin in 1940, and its full nomenclature even describes it as the "76mm tank gun model of 1940, F-34" ; the gunsight clearly exists, and has rangefinding stadia much as German or US and British tanks of the same era had (and further to that, T-34s of all models also had a panoramic gunsight which terminated in a rotating periscope housing on top of the turret, as well). I think you might be confusing the recounts of Stalingrad-produced T-34s driving directly into battle from the factory for general T-34 production? Many of those entered combat without finishing like paint or gunsights due to the fact that the Germans were quite literally within the factory grounds and threatening to overrun the production line. Each factory displaying variance is definitely true, as some adopted different production methods (for example cast turrets) and had differences in their machinery settings and jigs. However, T-34s were still common in dimensions to others produced at the same plant, while German and British tanks varied individually due to their outdated assembly line ethos - this is why restoring British or German tanks of the period is so difficult, no two will have the exact same dimensions.
Do not trust the whole geiler by people who never sat in one of these things, ask German or russian veterans of all the first t 34/76 were built with what was there. With cannons sold by German the later models have their own Russian cannons But on cannons from the first t34 / 76 stands krupp
Since YT got rid of annotations years ago for reasons I can only guess at, and I don't particularly feel like downloading and re-editing this, said annotations labelling what does what are gone. Important to note though: TWI got the animations messed up for turret controls. The *left* hand controls traverse, the *right* hand controls elevation. The traverse wheel is a neat piece of design: with the handle locked into a recess on the wheel and folded flat it acts as a 3-position switch (anticlockwise/neutral/clockwise), with the handle unlocked it acts as a conventional hand crank.
There's an extension for Firefox that brings annotations back, and for me they're still here. Even things like 'Fire extinguisher'.
Want to see War Thunder like this
same
@@jaroslavkotouc2322 now you can there is a game called 'Enlisted' its made from same war thunder engine and war thunder developer, this game is about ww2 battle, and you can ride tank with First Person look and its still open beta so the russian tank is only T-34-85, T-26, BT-7, T28, T-60
@@entarte2610 yes i know but i have potato pc
Most of the problems with the T34 (T34/76 as the Germans called it) were due to the fact that the USSR never managed to find the time to work out the design flaws inherent in any new equipment. The first T34 regiments went into action in the last week of June 1941 in penny packets, without air cover, and armed not with armour piercing ammunition but with high explosive for infantry support. The crews, not very well trained in any case, hardly even had the opportunity to get to know their new vehicles before being sent into combat. By autumn 1941, T34 regiments were going into battle straight from the factories. Even though the flaws of the vehicle became evident early on, it was impossible to correct them given the exigencies of the situation. The need was more tanks, not more refined tanks. It was only after the issue of who would win the war was settled once and for all in 1943 that the first major changes were made to the T34 design, with the vastly superior T34/85 appearing in early 1944. But even the T34/85 wasn't the definitive version; the USSR designed the T44 but couldn't afford the reduction of production it would entail to switch manufacture from the T34 series to it.
As a tank the T34 (/76) is often unfairly maligned these days. It was a superb machine for the day, and it did the job it needed to do in the extremely difficult period between the battles of Moscow and Kursk. By that time it had become the victim of technological advances on the enemy side, but that was hardly its fault. In terms of combat suitability, it was the best tank of that period of the war, not because it was the best in any one factor (in fact except for performance in snow it was probably the best in nothing) but because it offered the best in what would today be called "value for money".
Superb animation, by the way. I've seen many real videos of T34/85s being driven, but this is the first time I've seen the inside of a T34 (/76)
Я иногда хожу в эту игру громить нацистов)))
+Bill Purkayastha What do you know of the turret basket or lack there of in the T34/76 and 85?
+jpbab00 It didn't have one, like many tanks of the time. Main ammo stowage area was under the 'floor' of the fighting compartment, which would've been made inaccessible with a full basket. It's widely cited as a criticism against the design, often without any acknowledgement that the Centurion - widely considered one of the best tanks of its era - didn't have a full turret basket either, only a small partial one beneath the gun. Take this with a grain of salt as I wasn't a tankie, but I don't see why it's considered to be such a huge strike against the tank - turret baskets really weren't hugely common at the time and don't seem to have had any real impact on the effectiveness of the tanks back then.
jpbab00 the first Soviet tank as far as I'm aware to have a turret basket was the late model T54. The T34 and T34/85 had a few rounds in canisters in the turret and the rest in ammunition boxes on the floor. This sounds messier than it was because the average combat didn't last beyond three or four shells anyway. If the tank won the loader could reload the turret canisters in safety. If it lost it didn't matter anyway.
Even the T55 only had three shells in turret stowage. The rest were in the hull side boxes, and if the combat extended beyond those shells the loader would have to get on to the turret floor to load the gun.
Bill Purkayastha not true
I will never get used to the quality and how real time 1080p60 looks!
Amazing how much of a simulator this game is.
My grandpa used to drive one of these bad boys
So he was the driver?
@@deejim4767 if he said that he used to drive of course he was the driver no ?
He was obviously the gunner smh
God bless him.
If it was a t34 made at afctory 213
My condolences
If it was made elsewere
Probobly went well
1:21
The only unfortunate thing is that the movement of the turret turning crank and the upset angle crank can be seen in reverse. The crank in the turret ring should rotate the turret.
Literally the only view of a T-34/76 on the RUclips
They only have two tanks i'm afraid, they did an ambitious job with the tank mechanics but ended up feeling too overwhelmed\lazy to make anymore tanks.
In theory we'll get a unniversal carrier, a German half-track, a T-60 and a Panzer III and possibly a Stug and a Su-76 in the future and a Stuart and a Chi-Ha for Rising Storm. I wouldn't hold my breath though.
That would be great if we had light tanks
At least we have apcs and t60-pz3
If you’re the commander,how did you made the driver go foward right,left and backward?
WASD. Only works if the driver is AI, for obvious reasons.
Using the legs, the right shoulder - to the right, to the left - to the left
Crazy Running Cruasder you tell them
For sure, this game has the best tank interior model
imagine if wot is like this
War thunder simulator more like.
Not sure I want to. Pubbies have bad enough situational awareness when they can already see everything around their tank...
rock ok when America goes back to being British it will happen
so never
play warthunder is some what like Ro2
rock ok war tbunder is far better. and much closer. wot doesnt deserve to exist
World of Twinks
They got the animation for the gunner wrong I think because he was moving the elevation wheel to traverse the turret
They did. Are the annotations showing? I'm on mobile at the moment and can't see them.
Nope
Best-made tanks interiors in games history... I hope ArmA 4 will looking like this...
Il-2 Great Battles' latest addon is quite similar in terms of interior detail, though it lacks proper crew animations currently. There are a few other sims with this level of detail as well, such as Steel Armour: Blaze of War, T-34 vs Tiger, and of course Steel Beasts (although SB lacks crew models, from memory).
@@rossmum Thanks for the answer! I thought IL-2 only included planes
Must say Reforger's interiors look good, there are even animations for most of the things.
@@dogus4728 Yeah, you are right
3:28 Is that the solenoid cable? (forgive me for my poor knowledge on tank gun at the moment of talking) Isn't DT machine gun mechanism is "normal", so you can take the gun out of the tank when you abandon the tank
I believe so, allowing the gunner to fire it. The commander can still fire it in an emergency and the gun can indeed be dismounted from the tank if needed.
man... being inside a T-34-76 looks really cramped, even for a Soviet vehicle.
that's what tanks were like.
Andrew Wang it was like a metal coffin.
+Holo The Wise Wolf (Holo.) that had a turnable head with a gun
@@brainwasher9876 no specifically the t-34 was cramped
Also a video on the T-34-85(if they have in the game) please.
i wish this game will be free
you can get it for 5$ on steam
Nope. 19.99.
Ross why does this keep happening
is there a loader position?
Only for AI.
it would have been so cool to be the loader. that is too bad
Tholaran97 sorry why would u be a loader in the first place?
Shix Lo It just seems like a fun position to play. It would need quite a few features to keep others interested though.
+Tholaran97 oh that does seem good wen u think about it for a while
Is there any multiplayer server only for tank battles?
Not sure to be honest, I haven't played for a long time. There were a lot in Red Orchestra: Ostfront, but I don't remember many existing at all in RO2 when I did play. There weren't many tank-friendly maps, and most of the bigger ones weren't popular.
@@rossmum Im playing warthunder, i seek for another more Sim game exlussive for tanks with many people online. I mean something like Simulator my friend, what about Battlefield maybe?
Okay this is the gunners area
RO2 = Red Orchestra 2
Thank you
great game
I would be very thankfull if you tell me name of game :)
red orchrstra 2
hey guys what if the turret are rotating and how the crew reload it ????
There are some rounds usually stowed in 'ready racks' around the turret and hull sides, where they can be easily accessed when needed (as opposed to the main stowage under the floor). The loader has a jumpseat but if standing, since the T-34 has no turret basket, he has to shuffle around inside with the movement of the turret. Tanks with a turret basket allow the loader to stand on the floor and be rotated around with the turret itself.
Generally speaking, you want to use short lulls in the fighting to replenish your ready racks - those are the times when the loader is typically going to be working around the floor, and the times which are most dangerous for him if the tank is suddenly forced to engage the enemy.
thanks
0:49 how use it? i cant
I don't remember, middle mouse maybe? It's been years since I played the game so that feature may even have been removed.
@@rossmum I find the key button. Its that for "aim yes/not", because i use to aim holding the button. So i put a key for that.
whats the name of the game?
Red Orchestra 2: Heroes of Stalingrad.
What's the name of the game
Red Orchestra 2: Heroes of Stalingrad
I don't have a fucking clue how a commander of a t-34/76 could command his tank and have goof observational sight of the battlefield through a panoramic sight and a gun sight. Like how the fuck could you command your tank or worse a tank platoon through two circles roughly the size of a quarter.
Short answer: you couldn't. Huge, glaring flaw in an otherwise quite good machine. Quite a common one in 1940-41, though.
The French tanks were even worse in that aspect. The gunners were also the commanders. The commander had to peak out his hatch to spot an enemy tank, get back into the turret, aim the gun at the last known location of the enemy tank - and by that time its probably already gone. Otherwise - the tanks were even better overall than the invading German tanks.
Xspy70 The T34s were practically the same because the gunners were also the commanders and had shit visibility, however unlike french tanks the commander didn't have to load the gun, but loading a 47mm could be done one handed so the were more of less equal
A loader was still an important crew member for those times. The commander would have to get out the hatch, find the target, get back in the hatch, load the correct ammunition, aim the turret at the previous known location, find the target's new location, and fire. And then you can't keep your sight on that target (also mind the smoke) - you have to go back, remove the hot shell case from the gun with a thick glove, pick another shell and load it in, then try to find the target, then fire if you're lucky to see it again. If not - you go back up the hatch to find it again and the process repeats. And then there is the high chance of missing your first shot, and redoing all the process. This all takes a lot of precious seconds that can mean the difference between life and death. The commander in T-34 had less delay between spotting and firing, and also could keep track of and aim at the target's position in real time while the loader did his job. The loading part takes time and requires carefulness even with light ammunition, and I'm not really sure about the whole one eye on the target and one hand loading the cannon. At the very least - this is an extra tiring effort for the commander.
Another difference is the weird hatch design. Most of the french tanks had a hatch at the back of the turret on which you had to sit on once out (the cupola on top could not be opened). It might not be a huge deal, but I assume that popping up and dropping in from the top required less effort and time than from a back hatch. I'm basing this on the fact that very few tanks had such a hatch design (escape hatches not included), and I think none do today.
Eventually, the T-34-85 version had a separate gunner (5 man crew, except for the D-5T version). Not saying that T-34s were great and reliable, but 2 man turret was indeed better than just 1 man turret. The modern (for those times) french tanks were actually better than the german tanks invading them in all categories but the turret design, but they were mostly beaten due to having mostly old WW1 tanks and poor spread-out defense tactics that didn't work against the german blitzkrieg tactics.
name of this game
Red orchestra 2
What game is this?
Вячеслав Малышев red orchestra 2
T34-76 - t34-85
that's the elevation wheel not the traverse wheel.
Tripwire got it backwards when animating. The wheel on the left is traverse and is connected to the electric gearbox that drives the power traverse; the handwheel to the right is the elevation wheel, and you can see the elevation gears for the gun mount directly beside it.
The T-34-85's power traverse also featured a novel system where the same wheel could be used for manual traverse based on the position of the handle relative to the wheel - I'm not sure if the earlier versions used the same, but you can see it in action here: ruclips.net/video/SuiNsy42SFI/видео.html
Move forwards
Move fast
Left
what game is it
+Shawn Wang Red Orchestra 2
что тут ?
2종보통
Hahahahahaha.
RO2 only has two tanks because it is a bad, unfinished game. RO1 had over 20, but no fully realised interiors.
Dvue
The cannons were of krupp, which was the best on the whole tank. Were sold in the 30 years. T34/76 had no distance measuring device and no aiming tube, so aim was
quite shit. The Russians had therefore first shot with the tower Mg to
determine the range. And each factory had its own characteristics not everyone would be built the same
Source? Everything I've read states the F-34 was a design by Grabin in 1940, and its full nomenclature even describes it as the "76mm tank gun model of 1940, F-34" ; the gunsight clearly exists, and has rangefinding stadia much as German or US and British tanks of the same era had (and further to that, T-34s of all models also had a panoramic gunsight which terminated in a rotating periscope housing on top of the turret, as well).
I think you might be confusing the recounts of Stalingrad-produced T-34s driving directly into battle from the factory for general T-34 production? Many of those entered combat without finishing like paint or gunsights due to the fact that the Germans were quite literally within the factory grounds and threatening to overrun the production line.
Each factory displaying variance is definitely true, as some adopted different production methods (for example cast turrets) and had differences in their machinery settings and jigs. However, T-34s were still common in dimensions to others produced at the same plant, while German and British tanks varied individually due to their outdated assembly line ethos - this is why restoring British or German tanks of the period is so difficult, no two will have the exact same dimensions.
Do not trust the
whole geiler by people who never sat in one of these things, ask German
or russian veterans of all the first t 34/76 were built with what was
there. With cannons sold by German the later models have their own Russian cannons But on cannons from the first t34 / 76 stands krupp
2종보통