In Finnish army we had one day training with armored corps where we were laying on the ground and had to dodge moving T-72 before her tracks hit us (nco told us when need to dodge), we had to crawl underneath moving T-72 with full battle gear, we rode on T-72 and we got to see abilities of T-72 turret turning time etc. Same with PMB-2. We were told that modern Russian tanks abilities are far better and we propably get to live around 10 minutes in battle against Russian armored forces we were supposed to face in war time. We had Sisu Pasi XA-185's as our vechiles with 12,7mm machine gun main weapon. In combat If we were to survive out of the vechile we had 4 anti tank mines attached to our gear and 2 law's on our back. We were told that when we shoot a tank with law the tank will automaticly calculate our position and fire back accurately in few seconds and kill us. At least they were honest in the Finnish military training :D
Sounds a bit like the Royal Air Force training lectures about Soviet tactics that I recieved in the late 1980's. 'They will either close the airfield with a small nuke or Spetznats commandos'. Yep, made those 30 rounds a year at the range seem all worthwhile!
@@hugomuller9373 tank was moving very slow (5km/hour) when we dodged it :) crawling underneath was more unpleasant with full battle gear on I got stuck midway and felt like tank will break my back. Fortunately it was sandy terrain and I could dig myself forward
The comments at the 15:00 mark are interesting. Not much has changed since WWII. When I was in the Army, I was occasionally sent to train the infantry on armor (armour for my friends across the pond and down under!) capabilities and tactics. The light/leg/airborne infantry were the most ignorant of armor and cavalry limitations and capabilities. The mechanized infantry were not as bad. I used to do a lot of cross training with the mechanized infantry in my division for just the reasons you describe. As I mentioned above, not much has changed. Often the non mechanized infantry would try to create tank obstacles that were woefully inadequate. Their tank ditches were usually a third as wide as needed. Concertina wire was usually one, occasionally two rolls deep. Not only would this not stop a tank, but the tank would have it caught on parts of the tank and would drag along long lengths of it (30 meters/100 feet at times), creating real danger for the defending infantry. It was not uncommon for us to scoop up an infantryman or two as we passed through their defenses. This was considered bad when it was just training. The infantry considered it f#$&%^g bad! They also didn't understand how quickly the turret would traverse, how much depression or elevation the gun and co=axial machine gun had, secondary armaments, vulnerable spots, etc. In particular they had little to no understanding of the dangers and range of the smoke grenades. Keep in mind that these were phosphorous grenades that not only generated instant smoke, but also burned while generating this smoke. The burning could not be put out by water or normal fire extinguishers. Likewise they didn't understand how to work with supporting tanks. The theory is of course the supporting infantry should never let enemy infantry get close enough to attack a tank with sticky grenades, magnetic mines, petrol bombs, etc. Great observations and research. Keep up the good work!
Britain: Germans cannot have tanks! Its against the treaty of Versailles! Also Britain: Yeah, lets sell them a tank that will start their whole tank industry. Why not.
English corporations have been selling out their people for a long time, and continue to this day. They also sold copious gear to the Japanese between the wars. They most famously sold engines for Mig-15s during the Cold War.
More like "how did they get HERE?". Because how light they were, they could cross terrain assumed too soft for tanks, giving Soviets nasty suprise. You don't haul AT weapons, where tanks can't reach. There is similar story about Indian Stuarts during First Kashmir War, Pakistani soldiers were completely unprepared to face tanks so high in mountains, and assault ended a complete success.
When Germany invaded the Soviet Union in June 1941, the Panzer I was no longer a front line tank, and there were none left in the panzer divisions. Only total conversions like the Panzerbefehlswagen I command tank (big superstructure, no turret) and the Panzerjager I tank destroyer were in front line service. The Panzer I turreted tank served only on rear area security duties in Russia, like protecting supply convoys from partisans (who usually had no anti-tank weapons of any kind).
Regarding the point at the end concerning Czech armour, I suggest that you read Otto Carius's book Tigers in the Mud. He was quite outspoken about it. If I recall correctly, he complained that the crew had a higher chance of getting hit by pieces of the brittle armour which had broken off, than by pieces of shrapnel from the actual projectile. You will remember that he himself was wounded in the face by the brittle armour and a fellow crew-member lost his arm from ONE frontal hit on his Panzer 38(t). Just for interests sake he also mentions his Tiger getting a direct hit from another Tiger in a case of mistaken identity. The hit to the turret close to the gun mantlet did some damage but did not disable the tank in any way..
The Soviets uniquely got to test German, British and American tanks - via lend lease. We'd send one or two of each model as a sample and they'd put them on the range, long distance runs etc before deciding whether to buy them. Constant theme was that German armor was rubbish, especially later on in the war when they lacked strategic materials. American armour mediocre and that ours was good but could vary in quality even across a single plate. They were often very sniffy about the quality of ammunition too with some AP rounds shattering. Overall their appraisals make for very interesting reading.
First Panzer I was captured in the "Parque del Oeste" in Madrid, next to University City. There are a couple of photos of the vehicle in the spot where it got stuck, which have enabled us to pin point the exact place.
Peter from tankarchives is misquoting Jentz about Czech armor quality (ie - 60mm = 30mm std. armor). Jentz refers only to the low quality Siemens-Marteneit high carbon steel used in the production of the Jagdpanzer-38T (a low-grade German armor) not native produced Czech armor used in earlier 38T series tanks and its variations. The Siemens-Marteneit low alloy armor presented an equivalent of about 65% the resistant compared to standard German armor plate, and only used due to the lack of high quality alloys available to the Germans at the end of the war.
Czech armor was too hard. That was ok while it was thin and onle against bullets. But thicker armour gets more deformation from a shell, so it must be tough. And with toughness there was a problems. Some also mention sabotage of czechs. Anyway armour was not for thick plates against shells. And that was not something special for chechs, Vickers 6t also had same problem at the start. T34 had such problem in the mid of 42, when quality fell down. Metallurgy is a kind of science, it is not easy to obtain the desired steel even if you have anything for that, technology means a lot.
@@Vsvld_Kstkn Yeah I agree and I'm certainly not defending the quality of either Czech armor (or anyone else). I'm just correcting the comment that claims Jentz stated Czech armor was essentially awful. In only one publication he makes the statement that the armor of a Czech AFV is inferior to "normal" armor and that's Panzer Tracts No.9 where he describes the makeup of the side and rear high carbon armor plating of the Jagdpanzer-38.
@@czwarty7878 Yes, according to Jentz the frontal armor plates were the same used on other German tanks and tank destroyers. To quote Jentz" [For the Jagdpanzer-38 (source: Panzer Tracts No.9 "Jagdpanzer-38 to Jagdtiger" (page.9-2)] "The frontal armor was to be proof against attack from most anti-tank guns, but side armor was to be proof only against armor-piercing bullets...The 20mm thick sides and rear, made out of low alloy ( Siemens-Marteneit) steel,...[were] equivalent to 14.5mm of 153 kg/mm2 armor plate, provided protection only against 7.92mm armor piercing bullets." 153 kg/mm2 armor plate being "normal" E11Z (5mm-14.5mm thick) armor plate used in German armored cars and half-tracks. Also it must be stated that Siemens-Marteneit armor displayed very low resiliency and would shatter quite easily, even for German armor which had a tenancy to do so in the first place. According to German data charts given by Jentz the Jagdpanzer-38's front plates would have been composed of "normal" E22 armor the same used, for example, in the Pzkpfw-III and Pzkpfw-IV. "Proof against attack from most anti-tank guns," would mean, in practical terms, that the frontal armor would have had to sustain multiple APC & APCBC rounds from a 75mm Pak40 on a German test firing range. If the Jagdpanzer-38T's 60mm thick front plate (sloped at 60 degrees) was made of Siemens-Marteneit armor it would have only had the resistance of (roughly) 80mm of standard German E22 armor at vertical which would have been easily penetrated by a Pak40. So if you know the design specifications and a little about German armor resistance tests it doesn't make sense that the frontal armor would have been Siemens-Marteneit plates. I think you can also support the above statements with photographic evidence. It's quite common to find pictures of destroyed Jagdpanzer-38s with fractured, shattered or even caved-in side and rear plates. I know of one photo that shows a JgzPz-38 with a caved in flank caused by the concussion of a large caliber US artillery round that was a near miss (probably a 155 shell). Other photos showing various Jagdpanzer-38s with side and rear armor that display catastrophic failure aren't hard to find. In contrast I've yet to see similar failure for the vehicle's frontal armor, something that would be both evident and common if it were composed of Siemens-Marteneit armor. (By the way as far as I know this poor quality Siemens-Marteneit armor was of German origin - not Czech.)
10:07 that advice eventually filtered through to the western allies. Which I always point out when saving private ryan is discussed. Even if there is armor glass, it makes life dificult for the tiger driver.
I remmember reading something about Soviet officers going to Germany before Barbarossa to inspect the tanks Germany had at the time. The Germans have shown them the Panzer IV as a heavy tank and when the Soviet officers saw it, they thought the Germans were lying. They couldn't believe the Panzer IV was their heavy tank.
That story sounds apocryphal for the following reasons: 1) the Pzkpfw-IV was never designated a heavy tank and 2) any German in the Panzerwaffe (those who would have been giving a tour) would have been well aware that fact.
@@THX11458 yes, I don't have the sources and I don't know if what I read was correct. There's some time already that I read it. If someone could confirm me if what I read did happened, I would be glad. But, in the case of the Pz IV, even if the Pz IV wasn't actually a heavy tank strictly speaking, it shared many aspects with other heavy tanks as it was conceived as a support weapon for the Pz III, had the highest caliber gun in the tank forces when it appeared and it was meant to be built in fewer in numbers than the Pz III. So, a less proportion ratio. And despite weighing something equivalent to the Pz III, the tank itself was bigger, had a bigger turret ring, as it could fit the longer 75 mm gun and for that reason capt being used until the end of the war, unlike the Pz III. So, it's not difficult for one writting about it to see it as a heavy tank or make any kind of confusion.
@@TheStugbit I read the anecdote once (translated into Spanish), and it was more that when the were on the tour and saw the German Panzer III and Panzer IV they asked if they had any heavy tank, and the German officer who guided them answered: "these are the heaviest tanks we have".
@@podemosurss8316 yes, something like that. And I think this happened before the war, not during. But plans for heavy tanks were already made by the germans, just not accepted till then. And still quite light with 35t or 45t.
I really enjoyed this conversation. Panzer 1 was an interesting tank to me as it participated in small numbers in Spain and even smaller numbers in China. Then large numbers in Poland, France and finally early stages of Russia. With two machine guns and armor that could be penetrated by AP rifle ammunition . Yet it carried on. I became interested in this machine starting as a model builder in the early 1970s when kits for it were rare. I also must say I enjoy the Tank Archive and never tire of reading Translations of Soviet reports. From SKS to Sherman, their wartime views are fascinating . As for Military History visualized aI have the same experience. I enjoy hearing translated first source German documents from wartime. Examples opinions on particular machines, foreign militaries strengths and weaknesses. After that an in depth summary. These two sources are like having university courses at my leisure to learn and enjoy. Thank you both so much for the excellent lecture
Czech armor could be better or worse depending on production date. Armor made before annexation could have been superior but after the annexation, there was widespread sabotage. I know one specific example from factory near Těšín where the workers were secretly putting small metal tubes into the welds to significantly reduce the quality of the turret. I think Pz IIIs or Pz IVs used to be produced in that specific factory.
Fascinating talk, gents. And here I was listening to this podcast-style until I finally looked at my phone to see that it has video, so I restarted it so as to see how my imagination stacks up to the filmed real stuff. Tanks much!
Just another point of interest.. I had read that the Panzerkampfwagen 1 weighed slightly more than ONE track of the Tiger II.. Amazing how tanks progessed in size and weight in just a few short eyars..
We did the same training in the US in 1982 as Ninaa Kari did (The Finnish Army) One thing I remember is putting our hand on the ground and pulling it away before the track hits it. And a big thing was finding a hole deep enough for the tank to roll over us, this was supposed to a be a go-to move, lol. Something I do not see talked about a lot is something called "Tank Fright" and IMO, this is a big reason this is done. History shows that the first time that men see tanks, they tend to run. But you survive the first time, you get used to it. I remember holding a lightweight "LAW" while an M-60 was coming and thinking "I'll fire this and It will roll over me without even noticing".
red orchestra 2 still has tank...2 tanks on each side. I'm always surprise as an infantry that a tank could spot me in those bushes about 150m away when i couldn't see shit when i drove the tanks. usually, I could spot some if i see flashes or movement.
@@vsiegel Yeah, conceptually of the same effect as explosive-reactive armor but would have been quite difficult to make it work in the proper direction even if it were possible to contain..
Peter you made a slight mistake around Minute 17 when you pointed out the Panzer 1 had belt fed machine guns. Actually the MG-13 used 25 round box magazines. They also had fixed barrels, hence the reason there was 2.
The Armor officers wanted the 50, but logistics insisted that the gun use the same ammo as the gun on the towed anti-tank guns. They eventually compromised by building the tank large enough to support the 50, but they armed them with the 37, to be later upgraded.
Pz 35 and/or Pz 38 had riveted armor, which is bad. The rivets turn into bullets and the plates don't stay on. So it's likely not a metallurgy problem but a rivet problem. Grant/Lee also had riveted armor, so did the Italian tanks.
The biggest misconception I hear about the Panzer 1 is that it's machine guns are belt fed MG-34s. Actually they used the Magazine fed MG-13s. Most likely using only one gun at a time to keep the barrels cool.
If they were in a T-34 or KV-1 and it shot at them, I imagine their first impression went something like this: "Taking fire from that cute little Panzer... Fucking adorable, like a puppy... KILL IT!"
I recall there was a German tank commander, I believe it was Carius, who absolutely hated Czech armor plates. He wrote that it was too brittle and popped joints easier than German made tank armor. Though of course if it was Carius, his experience with German made tanks consisted of Tigers and Jagdtigers, while his Czech tank experience would be limited to the 38; so it's hard to say exactly how true any of those claims about Czech armor being bad are, it could just be the usual propaganda.
I was hoping you would mention a bit about the Panzer I Ausf. F. Very interesting little variant and was only produced in small numbers; Approximately 40 vehicles built. It was significantly up-armored with a higher horse-powered engine and substantially wider tracks. It also was supposed to be retrofitted or up-gunned with a 20mm auto-cannon (although the two original MG34’s did remain it’s primary weapon system). The Germans were going to use them in a planned amphibious assault of allied-held Malta, but of course the operation never occurred. In 1943, 37 of the variant were ultimately sent to the Eastern Front and participated in combat around Kursk, later they assumed anti-partisan and police operations for Army Group South. My guess it probably never amounted to much due to the introduction of the Panzer II, but I’ve read that more than one military historian considers for it’s time period the Ausf F could and/or should have been an entire new separate class of German light tank not just another modification of the Panzer I. I believe currently there are two surviving Pz. I Ausf F; One at the Kubinka Armored Vehicle Museum outside of Moscow, and the other at a military museum in Belgrade.
When the topic of Panzer I comes up, I never hear any discussion concerning Panzer I Ausf F, it was an up-armored, and significantly “wider-tracked” version of Panzer I the Germans produced in limited numbers. Any thoughts on this subject?
"I was born in the Soviet Union" Man I can't imagine what it's like to say that you were born in a country which government literally doesn't exist anymore. That's very rare
@@Realkeepa-et9vo well yes but coming from an American, it's something that I've never really thought about nor have ever had to worry about in my lifetime
@@DivePlane13 Well that explains it, there are ton of former USSR Citizens here in Germany because they are ethnic Germans that 'returned' after the collapse. So you meet them here all the time.
Yep. Molotov said on the radio that Soviet planes were dropping food rations--when the Soviet bombers were dropping bombs. A Finnish wag said that, 'if those things they are dropping is dinner, here's our cocktail'. (Molotov dinner = bombs, Molotov cocktails = Molotov cocktails).
Czech armour was ok for certain purpose. It was very hard, that would be ok if it is thin and dedicated only against the bullet. But when armour becomes thicker, the more important toughness becomes, to flexibly resist punch of a mass of a shell without ripping of inside layers of a plate. Thick plates of hard metal easily gat kracked, Carius also mentioned that.
The Soviets had good Test Engineers and their work can be viewed here: www.tankarchives.ca/2016/11/hesh-vs-spaced-armour.html Including Spaced armor vs HEAT ammo.
You are talking about games that have 3thr person vieuw, but Post Scriptum has multiperson operated tanks and limited visability , definitly check it out
I've been enjoying this game immensely since the beta. Shame the launch was rushed because I think they missed building adequate hype. The game still has some bugs, but it's already so fun in its current state, especially with all the attention it gets from the dev's.
@@mrchuck21521 That seems logical, given the video indicates unexpected differences in tank engineering when Germany took it over. But you're missing my point. I doubt most workers on a wage in czechoslovakia saw much difference in their work before the war. Not to mention many Czech tanks were built for Czechs before Germany took over.
Italian metalurgy was terrible; so perhaps Italian plates wound up on some German panzers? Also, note that by late 1944 German metallurgy was also bad, because of shortages of raw materials: so panthers would have brittle armor, e.g. This was especially seen at Baloton. (sp) the battle in Hungary.
terrible how? german tests in 1944 (that I read) found it comparable to german plates of 1943 (which they were comparing them to) which is before the germans were forced to use more brittle armor (which means if italian plates sucked so did german, then again soviet tests of german armor in 1942 found it inferior to their own, so perhaps axis steel in general was bad)
*When* in 1944? January 1944 is VERY different from October 1944. By autumn 1944 German metallurgy was of low quality because of chronic shortages of raw materials.
@@matthiuskoenig3378 I just can't believe you. Maybe I am just wrong, you are, or it's all propaganda, but german tests of russian armor found the soviet'€ inferior every time throughout the war. Also, the Italian M13/40 tank was notorious for spalling because of very brittle steel and was also basically called a "coffin" by its crews.
@@johnnothe British, American and Russian tests of German armour all showed it to be of exceptionally poor quality, especially for the big cats. Indeed the Russians tested a Maus and that had the worst of the lot. A Tiger captured and tested by the British in January 1944 resulted in the following speculations as to why their armour was so poor... 1. Economic reasons. It is very possible that the very amount of armour overloaded the German capacity to manufacture it, and Germany was forced to utilize heavier manufacturing, usually tasked with manufacturing simple armoured plates. There might be a shortage of equipment capable of processing thick armoured plates. 2. Mechanical finish problems. The three aforementioned vehicles have interlocking armoured plates to increase the strength of the welds. Regular step connections were preserved. The combination of these two connections reduced the ability to produce a large number of armoured hulls. Perhaps the softer plates were introduced to remedy these problems. 3. Ballistic factors. The three aforementioned vehicles were built for the purpose of long ranged combat. It is possible that the enemy introduced softer armoured vehicles knowing that the Allies use armour piercing capped shells. Use of these shells against soft armour is suboptimal. If soft armour continues to be used, we must explore the question of ballistic caps. However, it is necessary to collect more information, as this armour could still be surface hardened. In fact Germany simply lacked the access to raw materials to produce good quality plates. This might not fit with the modern internet memes or computer games but all sources agree.
Carius also wrote that Allies should join the Reich and drive onto Moscow together. And that Soviets were bad soldiers. Then few chapters later, that Americans were bad soldiers and Soviets were actually good soldiers. Also, Carius thought that German civilians who offered any help to Allies were the worst traitors, despite the fact that earlier he expected a Soviet kid to give him all dispositions of Red Army’s troops just because.
@@SinOfAugust for a german soldier i think it is understandable to want help against soviets. It was not that rare an idea in the west. I would say that an average soviet soldier was bad, when compated to german vetetans, since soviets were forced to replace so many men. He thought that Americans were genetally bad soldiers due to the lack of combat experience, if i remember correctly. Of course soldiers think that people helping enemies are traitors, but that has never prevented anyone from using enemy traitors. The fact that carius was not objective observer does not affect the fact that german tankers thought czeck armor to be worse.
Pekka Mäkelä - I’ve given a list of examples how Carius was blatantly biased against anyone who was not an (obedient) German - that does not cast doubt on stuff he says about the quality of foreign workmanship? Also, I can remember at least six other German war memoirs, and of them all, Carius’ book is by far the most arrogant, bitter, and hostile to both East and West. Man had literally learned nothing from the war, which is just baffling.
You know, I’d like to learn more about Hans von Seeckt. He was the father of the Wehrmacht and a major cause of the “Blitzkrieg” successes early in the war, but very few people talk about him or if they do they don’t go in depth.
Heinz guidarian based his panzer theory from seeckt I think .so his work did have an impact. he’s quite an interesting figure. I’m sure this channel will eventually get to that. Give it some time.
Ah, Red Orchestra the game series that doesn't care about your feelings. The Pz III and IVs have undeniably better ergonomics and much better view for the commander.
I never see in any “generally available” information or discussions regarding the Panzer l, any mention of the Panzer l Ausf F. It seems to me this was a fairly serious attempt to beef up the tank, but I can’t find any background details on the Ausf F. The hows, why’s, and subsequent “why not’s” regarding this major redesign variant. Do you have any information concerning the history of the Ausf F...? Or anyone else for that matter have a clue as to why they appeared to put so much effort into a Ausf change like the F and then just stopped producing at so few units; I assume in favor of the Panzer ll? Oops. And I just now realized I posed this question in the comments five months ago! Didn’t get any answers then, so I guess I’m flogging a dead horse here as the saying goes. Sorry for being repetitive.
The pz 1,as designed, was not intended to be used in combat . It was better than quite a few other tanks,but helpless against most of them. Something that beat nothing.
> The pz 1,as designed, was not intended to be used in combat . that is wrong, although often repeated (I did it quite a while myself) since Guderian stated it. More info here: ruclips.net/video/Gp5Q7ZIUiHE/видео.html
By the late 1930s the tank forces were still mostly Pz-I plus a smattering of medium tanks .....so Pz-I more or less formed All the Panzer Divisions until enough "tanks" joined the force structure. Even by 1939 Panzer-1 accounted for 1/2 numbers but not more that 1/3 of the actual battalions/regiments. The 34 tank battalions had average of 29 Pz-1 each; while the rest averaged 31 Pz-II and 15 medium tanks plus 5 command tanks. Thats 80 tanks per battalion....with 3 companies each that should be TOE of maybe 22 tanks and 23-24 with command tanks. Thats 8-11 tanks surplus to need per BN , which says nothing of the 600-700 other Panzer-I, not even included in polish invasion fleet . Back in 1937 the tanks per panzer battalion was ~ 100-110 , when the TOE should be 84 tanks per panzer battalion.....suggesting in 1937 there was already a standing surplus of 300-500 Pz I. If it were me i would have converted those 500 surplus tanks into panzerjagers mounting PaK-37 in a simplified PanzerJadger I mount. You would have to do without 164 instwagen and the two dozen Zg XII /XVIII semi tractors mounting 88 flak,,, but it would be a worthwhile trade off.
I don't believe fiting at vision slits with rifle calibre would be effective at all against a pz3 or pz4. I mean there is at least 5cm of "bulletproof" glass between shooter and the interior of the tank. no ww2 era rifle goes through that.
pff... Compressed air amour is way better then spaced armour! If it get punctured it blows away the shot! And you get a cooling effect to as the air expand chilling you down ;)
Military History not Visualized, What I German changed the name of the panzer 1 to armored tracked scout vehicle by 1939. would still change your option of this vehicle.
@@TheAngelobarker wasn't the CV33 also faster (42 km/h vs 37/25 km/h) and had more sploted armor (as the mantlete gave it slope) and was smaller (making it harder to spot and hit, british records say that it was almost impossible to hit with anything other than magine guns when it moved [the CV33]) hell the germans even used captured CV33 long after they stopped useing panzer 1s.
Many see the Nazi tanks as the best of WWII, but didn´t the Soviets have far superiour capabilities in mass production, making stronger engines, more reliable transmissions and lighter cannons, altogether allowing them to produce heavíer armoured tanks with bigger cannons. For instance, for a Panzer IV with it´s 75mm, they produce multiple T34/85 with its 85mm and for an 85mm Tiger, they have multiple 122mm IS2...
One could argue that the Kharkiv V-2 engine that powered T-34s, KV-1 and -2, IS-2 and several SUs was the most significant piece of technology of the war, as it allowed Soviet tanks and assault guns to be fairly compact, tactically and operationally mobile and powerful at the same time.
Soviet tanks of early war (like T-34-76) had bad quality and were not reliable, especially engines and transmission. Later they were much improved and also T-34-85, IS-1 and IS-2 appeared, but at the same time Germans had much technically superior Panther and Tiger tanks. So I would say Germans had more technologically advanced tanks but Soviet tanks were much better designed for mass production, cheap repair and field maintenance. And on the battlefield the one who has more battle ready tanks here and now usually wins.
@@AlexanderSeven I don't think there's a case saying that panzers were technically much superior to Soviet tanks. T-34-85 and IS-2 were really good tanks until war's end. Especially IS-2 was quite an advanced tank for its time. Soviet tank quality varied wildly by factories, and indeed quality was generally poor in early war when industry suffered from transfer to inner country and noob workforce. Both of these were to a degree addressed over time when front stabilized and workers gained experience.
@@Alpostpone 2 shots per minute good... People often fail to see past technical characteristics of their vehicles and in this case, IS-2 having such abysmal crew ergonomics that it took ages for it to reload and to fire again.
@@REgamesplayer The IS-2 wasn't as optimized for tank vs tank role as the big kitties, but for bunker busting and infantry support role that is pretty much adequate. Those were what IS-2 was mostly designed for and ended up doing most of the time, so I count that as a success. Soviet ergonomics were generally behind other belligerents, but that's more down to focusing on "hard" parameters than level of technical advancement. Late Shermans were generally superior in ergonomics and crew safety to everyone else, but in turn lacked somewhat in said "hard" parameters against contemporary panzers and Soviet tanks. In turn, Panther, for all its sophistication, was deployed too early and suffered from technical bugs because of that. As for technical superiority, that is very much a split case. So ultimately I don't think neither US, Germany or SU had really technologically superior tanks compared to the other two.
Difficult to hit a tank's vision slit with a rifle. Unless it's a sniper rifle with a scope, and snipers are few in number - or unless you are dangerously close to the tank. The Panzer I was the most numerous German tank in the Polish Campaign in 1939. In 1940, the Germans concentrated the Panzer I's against the Low Countries (the Netherlands and Belgium), which were poorly equipped when it came to anti-tank weapons.
@ : The Panzer II is not the tank under discussion - we're only talking about the Panzer I here. When Germany invaded the Soviet Union in June 1941, the Panzer I was no longer a front line tank, and there were none left in the panzer divisions. Only total conversions like the Panzerbefehlswagen I command tank (big superstructure, no turret) and the Panzerjager I tank destroyer were in front line service. The Panzer I turreted tank served only on rear area security duties in Russia, like protecting supply convoys from partisans (who usually had no anti-tank weapons of any kind).
@ A bit rich that you call others a "fantasist" when you insist that the Panzer I and II could be *destroyed* "by rifles from any angle." The idea of destroying any sort of tank with a rifle is fantasy on the level of that scene in _Saving Private Ryan_ in which Tom Hanks is shooting at an approaching Tiger I with his 1911. Even if I assume that by "rifles" you meant _anti-tank rifles_ this would still be incorrect. The Panzer I, II, III, and even some variants of the IV could be _disabled_ by anti-tank rifles. There's an important distinction between _destroying_ the tank and _disabling_ it that could mean the difference between life and death on the battlefield. You see, it's not enough to just hit a tank (unless you are using something so ludicrously overmatched, like a 1000 lb bomb or a shell from a battleship's 14" guns). You need to hit it in a critical spot that will either destroy key components and/or kill the crew. Shoot even a Panzer I with a PTRD and if you don't know where to aim, you won't do more than just piss off the crew by putting a new vision hole in their hull and let them know exactly where you are. Second, the Panzer I was _not_ vulnerable to ball ammo from rifles. It could be penetrated by armour-piercing rifle bullets, but those were not exactly in standard issue among most infantrymen--and your average conscript in the early war would have likely never seen or handled an armour-piercing cartridge, or perhaps even knew that they existed. Ditto for even knowing what a Panzer I was or how to deal with it--chances are, most of those men had never seen (or even heard of) a tank before they entered the army, and depending on what army they were in, they might have never seen a tank before they faced one in combat. Finally, use a little sense. If the Panzer I's armour was as thin and easily perforated as you claim, then what use was the armour on vehicles like the Sdkfz 251 half-track and Sdkfz 222 recon vehicles which were even lighter and _less_ armoured than the Panzer I? The Germans could have just saved on the weight and manufacturing costs and ferried their troops into battle in school buses. The problem that the Panzer I and II had was not with infantry AT weapons as much as with other tanks, which they weren't designed to fight anyway. It's similar to the problem that the Shermans first had when the Americans landed in Europe, although on a larger scale. The Shermans with their 75mm, medium-velocity guns were great at shooting up infantry and lighter vehicles, but struggled a bit when they encountered actual German tanks. This was acceptable to the US Army, since dealing with tough enemy armour was the job of tank destroyers like the M18 Hellcat and M36 Jackson, whilst the M4 Sherman was intended to support infantry pushes and breakthroughs.
@@timonsolus Exactly. And even if they had been well-equipped with AT weapons, who's to say that they would have had them available when needed? That 3.7 cm AT gun would do a number on a Panzer I, but it isn't so useful to you if it's sitting back at the depot because the powers that be assumed that the Germans wouldn't be bringing any tanks... or even attacking in your area. It also isn't very useful if you have no idea of how to use it since you weren't trained on that weapon system, and the only people who did know how to use it got splattered by a 50 kg bomb from a Stuka on their way over. Learning how to traverse and sight in an AT gun takes some practice, and the worst time for a crash course in anti-tank warfare is when a group of enemy tanks is bearing down on your position.
4 года назад
@@Schwarzvogel1 It's a good thing I write faster than most people speak. I'm sorry. I wrote you an initial post where I called you a lot of quite elaborately made names: mostly the insults were various versions of calling you stupid and autistic. I ended with an elaborate story where I assumed you were in a school for retarded children. I apologize. I do. To be quite frank, you earned that response. You made up an entire conversation in your head (complete with assumptions about what was meant by every word) and responded to that internal conversation that didn't exist. You were engaging in a far more extensive version of a straw man argument: It seemed not only autistic at the same time, but also very slow: almost like you were trying to be wrong. But that's not all. I then went on to another elaborate insult: I assumed you didn't know what dihydrogen monoxide was (it's water), and then began to explain it to you like you were a child who was too stupid to understand adult words: that was in response to you making up the disabled/destroyed categories. Again. I apologize. I have calmed down since I wrote that, erased it and will now more positively respond. Obviously I meant the PTRD and its companion rifle. Obviously I did *not* mean 7.62 ball or even 12.7 ball: I considered that so completely obvious I didn't need to mention it. I should not have had to mention it: that very subject was referenced in the video this is under and thus should have been part of the conversation you assumed I was making. I should have had the benefit of that doubt: especially because I wrote only 22 words. Obvious to any rational person, and I am confident it will be obvious to you too after some reflection, your theoretical distinctions between destroyed and disabled are...I'm trying not to be mean here, a little silly. That is a silly set of assumptions you made off fewer than 30 words in what was clearly an offhand comment. As for the final two paragraphs, that seems like another conversation entirely.
There is seriously absolutely no point making fun of the Panzer 1 or 2 because they were training tanks/heavily armoured recon and not meant to go up against t34’s or shermans. This video is sort of fucking stupid to point out all the flaws of it
get your facts straight: 1) they were NOT training tanks for more information see this video: ruclips.net/video/Gp5Q7ZIUiHE/видео.html 2) nobody makes fun of the tank. 3) I point out flaws and strength on all side, check out this one about a Soviet weapon or more the context around it: ruclips.net/video/04gTGbdoE1k/видео.html Also if you use a German soldier as avatar, how about you stop whining like a child?
By the time of Operation Barbarossa in June 1941, the Panzer I was no longer considered a front line tank and none were left in the panzer divisions (except for total conversions like the Panzerjager I tank destroyer, Panzerbefehlswagen I command tank, and Panzermunitionschlepper I supply and repair vehicles). So there's not many cases of a Panzer I encountering a T-34. And even fewer cases of one encountering an M4 Sherman. The Panzer I was already obsolescent in 1936, and completely obsolete by 1941. But it's important because it's the first Panzer the Wehrmacht had, and because it saw action in Spain and China in 1937.
In Finnish army we had one day training with armored corps where we were laying on the ground and had to dodge moving T-72 before her tracks hit us (nco told us when need to dodge), we had to crawl underneath moving T-72 with full battle gear, we rode on T-72 and we got to see abilities of T-72 turret turning time etc. Same with PMB-2. We were told that modern Russian tanks abilities are far better and we propably get to live around 10 minutes in battle against Russian armored forces we were supposed to face in war time. We had Sisu Pasi XA-185's as our vechiles with 12,7mm machine gun main weapon. In combat If we were to survive out of the vechile we had 4 anti tank mines attached to our gear and 2 law's on our back. We were told that when we shoot a tank with law the tank will automaticly calculate our position and fire back accurately in few seconds and kill us. At least they were honest in the Finnish military training :D
I was in the US Army on M60s. In the late 70s our life expectancy was 8 minutes if the Soviets crossed the border. Thank you for your service. 😊
Sounds a bit like the Royal Air Force training lectures about Soviet tactics that I recieved in the late 1980's. 'They will either close the airfield with a small nuke or Spetznats commandos'. Yep, made those 30 rounds a year at the range seem all worthwhile!
How does it come, that no one got smashed by a T 72?
@@hugomuller9373 tank was moving very slow (5km/hour) when we dodged it :) crawling underneath was more unpleasant with full battle gear on I got stuck midway and felt like tank will break my back. Fortunately it was sandy terrain and I could dig myself forward
Bullshit nothing in the ussr army works!
The comments at the 15:00 mark are interesting. Not much has changed since WWII. When I was in the Army, I was occasionally sent to train the infantry on armor (armour for my friends across the pond and down under!) capabilities and tactics. The light/leg/airborne infantry were the most ignorant of armor and cavalry limitations and capabilities. The mechanized infantry were not as bad. I used to do a lot of cross training with the mechanized infantry in my division for just the reasons you describe.
As I mentioned above, not much has changed. Often the non mechanized infantry would try to create tank obstacles that were woefully inadequate. Their tank ditches were usually a third as wide as needed. Concertina wire was usually one, occasionally two rolls deep. Not only would this not stop a tank, but the tank would have it caught on parts of the tank and would drag along long lengths of it (30 meters/100 feet at times), creating real danger for the defending infantry. It was not uncommon for us to scoop up an infantryman or two as we passed through their defenses. This was considered bad when it was just training. The infantry considered it f#$&%^g bad! They also didn't understand how quickly the turret would traverse, how much depression or elevation the gun and co=axial machine gun had, secondary armaments, vulnerable spots, etc. In particular they had little to no understanding of the dangers and range of the smoke grenades. Keep in mind that these were phosphorous grenades that not only generated instant smoke, but also burned while generating this smoke. The burning could not be put out by water or normal fire extinguishers.
Likewise they didn't understand how to work with supporting tanks. The theory is of course the supporting infantry should never let enemy infantry get close enough to attack a tank with sticky grenades, magnetic mines, petrol bombs, etc.
Great observations and research. Keep up the good work!
Britain: Germans cannot have tanks! Its against the treaty of Versailles!
Also Britain: Yeah, lets sell them a tank that will start their whole tank industry. Why not.
They sold them a tractor not a tank. FOCUS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
@@alastair9446 One could say a "light tractor", or a "leichttraktor"
Farming in Germany was pretty dangerous back in the days.
English corporations have been selling out their people for a long time, and continue to this day. They also sold copious gear to the Japanese between the wars. They most famously sold engines for Mig-15s during the Cold War.
Soviet in 1939: Ahhh, that thing is so cute!
Same soviet, in 1941: How can they go so fast?!
More like "how did they get HERE?". Because how light they were, they could cross terrain assumed too soft for tanks, giving Soviets nasty suprise. You don't haul AT weapons, where tanks can't reach.
There is similar story about Indian Stuarts during First Kashmir War, Pakistani soldiers were completely unprepared to face tanks so high in mountains, and assault ended a complete success.
@@kireta21 well, if it was like that pretty ironical how germans were flanked through marshes in operation baration
The English did the same using Churchill tanks. It was great to for climbing up hills.
@ At the Time, they were pretty Fast, considering how they looked.
kireta21 Bullshit.
Soviets already had tanks with wider treads that could cross terrain better (and were faster).
Stalin must have been like:they're invading us with what?
He was like
Glorious chad T-28 vs Virgin Panzer1
Stailn: how this cute thing can kill something?
When Germany invaded the Soviet Union in June 1941, the Panzer I was no longer a front line tank, and there were none left in the panzer divisions. Only total conversions like the Panzerbefehlswagen I command tank (big superstructure, no turret) and the Panzerjager I tank destroyer were in front line service.
The Panzer I turreted tank served only on rear area security duties in Russia, like protecting supply convoys from partisans (who usually had no anti-tank weapons of any kind).
@@Starwarsgeek-98 Boss, You killed a child
"And I'll fucking do it again"
Regarding the point at the end concerning Czech armour, I suggest that you read Otto Carius's book Tigers in the Mud. He was quite outspoken about it. If I recall correctly, he complained that the crew had a higher chance of getting hit by pieces of the brittle armour which had broken off, than by pieces of shrapnel from the actual projectile. You will remember that he himself was wounded in the face by the brittle armour and a fellow crew-member lost his arm from ONE frontal hit on his Panzer 38(t). Just for interests sake he also mentions his Tiger getting a direct hit from another Tiger in a case of mistaken identity. The hit to the turret close to the gun mantlet did some damage but did not disable the tank in any way..
The Soviets uniquely got to test German, British and American tanks - via lend lease. We'd send one or two of each model as a sample and they'd put them on the range, long distance runs etc before deciding whether to buy them. Constant theme was that German armor was rubbish, especially later on in the war when they lacked strategic materials. American armour mediocre and that ours was good but could vary in quality even across a single plate. They were often very sniffy about the quality of ammunition too with some AP rounds shattering. Overall their appraisals make for very interesting reading.
First Panzer I was captured in the "Parque del Oeste" in Madrid, next to University City. There are a couple of photos of the vehicle in the spot where it got stuck, which have enabled us to pin point the exact place.
Red Orchestra is still going, some days I’ll see about 8 servers with 64 people each. Not huge but alive.
Jacob Britt I always try to share the word about how great the game is.
Jonny B Red Orchestra 2. It’s da best.
@@jacobbritt8124 still my favorite game!
They should have made a new one. Amazing tank combat, sadly, there’s too little of it.
The tank combat was the good bit in the first one. Not enough in the second. Real teamwork.
"Compressed air armour"? This just makes me think of steampunk tanks, you shoot it and a giant stream of steam blasts out!
"compressed air armour" man that was funny
Peter from tankarchives is misquoting Jentz about Czech armor quality (ie - 60mm = 30mm std. armor). Jentz refers only to the low quality Siemens-Marteneit high carbon steel used in the production of the Jagdpanzer-38T (a low-grade German armor) not native produced Czech armor used in earlier 38T series tanks and its variations. The Siemens-Marteneit low alloy armor presented an equivalent of about 65% the resistant compared to standard German armor plate, and only used due to the lack of high quality alloys available to the Germans at the end of the war.
specifically a shortage of manganese to create better alloys
Czech armor was too hard. That was ok while it was thin and onle against bullets. But thicker armour gets more deformation from a shell, so it must be tough. And with toughness there was a problems. Some also mention sabotage of czechs. Anyway armour was not for thick plates against shells.
And that was not something special for chechs, Vickers 6t also had same problem at the start. T34 had such problem in the mid of 42, when quality fell down. Metallurgy is a kind of science, it is not easy to obtain the desired steel even if you have anything for that, technology means a lot.
@@Vsvld_Kstkn Yeah I agree and I'm certainly not defending the quality of either Czech armor (or anyone else). I'm just correcting the comment that claims Jentz stated Czech armor was essentially awful. In only one publication he makes the statement that the armor of a Czech AFV is inferior to "normal" armor and that's Panzer Tracts No.9 where he describes the makeup of the side and rear high carbon armor plating of the Jagdpanzer-38.
@@THX11458 so that was only issue with side and read of Jgpz38t? The front was from "normal" RHA or what?
@@czwarty7878 Yes, according to Jentz the frontal armor plates were the same used on other German tanks and tank destroyers. To quote Jentz"
[For the Jagdpanzer-38 (source: Panzer Tracts No.9 "Jagdpanzer-38 to Jagdtiger" (page.9-2)]
"The frontal armor was to be proof against attack from most anti-tank guns, but side armor was to be proof only against armor-piercing bullets...The 20mm thick sides and rear, made out of low alloy ( Siemens-Marteneit) steel,...[were] equivalent to 14.5mm of 153 kg/mm2 armor plate, provided protection only against 7.92mm armor piercing bullets."
153 kg/mm2 armor plate being "normal" E11Z (5mm-14.5mm thick) armor plate used in German armored cars and half-tracks. Also it must be stated that Siemens-Marteneit armor displayed very low resiliency and would shatter quite easily, even for German armor which had a tenancy to do so in the first place. According to German data charts given by Jentz the Jagdpanzer-38's front plates would have been composed of "normal" E22 armor the same used, for example, in the Pzkpfw-III and Pzkpfw-IV.
"Proof against attack from most anti-tank guns," would mean, in practical terms, that the frontal armor would have had to sustain multiple APC & APCBC rounds from a 75mm Pak40 on a German test firing range. If the Jagdpanzer-38T's 60mm thick front plate (sloped at 60 degrees) was made of Siemens-Marteneit armor it would have only had the resistance of (roughly) 80mm of standard German E22 armor at vertical which would have been easily penetrated by a Pak40. So if you know the design specifications and a little about German armor resistance tests it doesn't make sense that the frontal armor would have been Siemens-Marteneit plates.
I think you can also support the above statements with photographic evidence. It's quite common to find pictures of destroyed Jagdpanzer-38s with fractured, shattered or even caved-in side and rear plates. I know of one photo that shows a JgzPz-38 with a caved in flank caused by the concussion of a large caliber US artillery round that was a near miss (probably a 155 shell). Other photos showing various Jagdpanzer-38s with side and rear armor that display catastrophic failure aren't hard to find. In contrast I've yet to see similar failure for the vehicle's frontal armor, something that would be both evident and common if it were composed of Siemens-Marteneit armor. (By the way as far as I know this poor quality Siemens-Marteneit armor was of German origin - not Czech.)
10:07 that advice eventually filtered through to the western allies.
Which I always point out when saving private ryan is discussed.
Even if there is armor glass, it makes life dificult for the tiger driver.
It was still in the US Army's manual well into the 1980s. It won't take out the tank but if the tank crew can't see they can't fight.
I remmember reading something about Soviet officers going to Germany before Barbarossa to inspect the tanks Germany had at the time.
The Germans have shown them the Panzer IV as a heavy tank and when the Soviet officers saw it, they thought the Germans were lying. They couldn't believe the Panzer IV was their heavy tank.
*laughs in KV-2*
That story sounds apocryphal for the following reasons: 1) the Pzkpfw-IV was never designated a heavy tank and 2) any German in the Panzerwaffe (those who would have been giving a tour) would have been well aware that fact.
@@THX11458 yes, I don't have the sources and I don't know if what I read was correct. There's some time already that I read it. If someone could confirm me if what I read did happened, I would be glad.
But, in the case of the Pz IV, even if the Pz IV wasn't actually a heavy tank strictly speaking, it shared many aspects with other heavy tanks as it was conceived as a support weapon for the Pz III, had the highest caliber gun in the tank forces when it appeared and it was meant to be built in fewer in numbers than the Pz III. So, a less proportion ratio. And despite weighing something equivalent to the Pz III, the tank itself was bigger, had a bigger turret ring, as it could fit the longer 75 mm gun and for that reason capt being used until the end of the war, unlike the Pz III.
So, it's not difficult for one writting about it to see it as a heavy tank or make any kind of confusion.
@@TheStugbit I read the anecdote once (translated into Spanish), and it was more that when the were on the tour and saw the German Panzer III and Panzer IV they asked if they had any heavy tank, and the German officer who guided them answered: "these are the heaviest tanks we have".
@@podemosurss8316 yes, something like that. And I think this happened before the war, not during. But plans for heavy tanks were already made by the germans, just not accepted till then. And still quite light with 35t or 45t.
I really enjoyed this conversation. Panzer 1 was an interesting tank to me as it participated in small numbers in Spain and even smaller numbers in China. Then large numbers in Poland, France and finally early stages of Russia. With two machine guns and armor that could be penetrated by AP rifle ammunition . Yet it carried on. I became interested in this machine starting as a model builder in the early 1970s when kits for it were rare. I also must say I enjoy the Tank Archive and never tire of reading Translations of Soviet reports. From SKS to Sherman, their wartime views are fascinating . As for Military History visualized aI have the same experience. I enjoy hearing translated first source German documents from wartime. Examples opinions on particular machines, foreign militaries strengths and weaknesses. After that an in depth summary. These two sources are like having university courses at my leisure to learn and enjoy. Thank you both so much for the excellent lecture
Czech armor could be better or worse depending on production date. Armor made before annexation could have been superior but after the annexation, there was widespread sabotage. I know one specific example from factory near Těšín where the workers were secretly putting small metal tubes into the welds to significantly reduce the quality of the turret. I think Pz IIIs or Pz IVs used to be produced in that specific factory.
Fascinating talk, gents. And here I was listening to this podcast-style until I finally looked at my phone to see that it has video, so I restarted it so as to see how my imagination stacks up to the filmed real stuff. Tanks much!
Just another point of interest.. I had read that the Panzerkampfwagen 1 weighed slightly more than ONE track of the Tiger II.. Amazing how tanks progessed in size and weight in just a few short eyars..
While watching military history on tv with my dad, he saw the Panzer 1 for the first time and exclaimed "That's a tank? It's so little!"
We did the same training in the US in 1982 as Ninaa Kari
did (The Finnish Army) One thing I remember is putting our hand on the ground and pulling it away before the track hits it. And a big thing was finding a hole deep enough for the tank to roll over us, this was supposed to a be a go-to move, lol. Something I do not see talked about a lot is something called "Tank Fright" and IMO, this is a big reason this is done. History shows that the first time that men see tanks, they tend to run. But you survive the first time, you get used to it. I remember holding a lightweight "LAW" while an M-60 was coming and thinking "I'll fire this and It will roll over me without even noticing".
*laughs in Bob Semple
red orchestra 2 still has tank...2 tanks on each side. I'm always surprise as an infantry that a tank could spot me in those bushes about 150m away when i couldn't see shit when i drove the tanks. usually, I could spot some if i see flashes or movement.
"Compressed Air Armor"
LMAO
I know right? They made a pretty good explanation of how or why intelligence may have gotten it confused with spaced armor though.
If the pressure is high enough, that could work pretty well (but it's not possible to contain that pressure)
@@vsiegel Yeah, conceptually of the same effect as explosive-reactive armor but would have been quite difficult to make it work in the proper direction even if it were possible to contain..
Peter you made a slight mistake around Minute 17 when you pointed out the Panzer 1 had belt fed machine guns. Actually the MG-13 used 25 round box magazines. They also had fixed barrels, hence the reason there was 2.
the Panzer III started with the 37mm always with plans to put the 50mm on it but they went with what they had at the time
The Armor officers wanted the 50, but logistics insisted that the gun use the same ammo as the gun on the towed anti-tank guns. They eventually compromised by building the tank large enough to support the 50, but they armed them with the 37, to be later upgraded.
Pz 35 and/or Pz 38 had riveted armor, which is bad. The rivets turn into bullets and the plates don't stay on. So it's likely not a metallurgy problem but a rivet problem.
Grant/Lee also had riveted armor, so did the Italian tanks.
@@Agustin-jd9iq Welded is definitely superior but also more difficult and costly.
Oh, Red Orchestra is still running!
The biggest misconception I hear about the Panzer 1 is that it's machine guns are belt fed MG-34s. Actually they used the Magazine fed MG-13s. Most likely using only one gun at a time to keep the barrels cool.
Basically, it's a Universal Carrier with a turret.
and without the ability to transport people and material safely
"air gapped" armor is probably what was meant
---insightful!
If they were in a T-34 or KV-1 and it shot at them, I imagine their first impression went something like this: "Taking fire from that cute little Panzer... Fucking adorable, like a puppy... KILL IT!"
I recall there was a German tank commander, I believe it was Carius, who absolutely hated Czech armor plates. He wrote that it was too brittle and popped joints easier than German made tank armor. Though of course if it was Carius, his experience with German made tanks consisted of Tigers and Jagdtigers, while his Czech tank experience would be limited to the 38; so it's hard to say exactly how true any of those claims about Czech armor being bad are, it could just be the usual propaganda.
A mate of his lost his arm because of spalling in a jagdpanzer 38. That's where his hate comes from.
I was hoping you would mention a bit about the Panzer I Ausf. F.
Very interesting little variant and was only produced in small numbers; Approximately 40 vehicles built.
It was significantly up-armored with a higher horse-powered engine and substantially wider tracks.
It also was supposed to be retrofitted or up-gunned with a 20mm auto-cannon (although the two original MG34’s did remain it’s primary weapon system).
The Germans were going to use them in a planned amphibious assault of allied-held Malta, but of course the operation never occurred.
In 1943, 37 of the variant were ultimately sent to the Eastern Front and participated in combat around Kursk, later they assumed anti-partisan and police operations for Army Group South.
My guess it probably never amounted to much due to the introduction of the Panzer II, but I’ve read that more than one military historian considers for it’s time period the Ausf F could and/or should have been an entire new separate class of German light tank not just another modification of the Panzer I.
I believe currently there are two surviving Pz. I Ausf F; One at the Kubinka Armored Vehicle Museum outside of Moscow, and the other at a military museum in Belgrade.
When the topic of Panzer I comes up, I never hear any discussion concerning Panzer I Ausf F, it was an up-armored, and significantly “wider-tracked” version of Panzer I the Germans produced in limited numbers. Any thoughts on this subject?
"I was born in the Soviet Union"
Man I can't imagine what it's like to say that you were born in a country which government literally doesn't exist anymore. That's very rare
Considering the Soviet Union had like 200 Million citizens it's not that rare actually
@@Realkeepa-et9vo well yes but coming from an American, it's something that I've never really thought about nor have ever had to worry about in my lifetime
Coming from Serbia (ex Serbia and Montenegro, ex SRJ and ex SFRJ) unfortunately I dont need to imagine that. :)
@@ivankotan4993 what's it like man?
@@DivePlane13 Well that explains it, there are ton of former USSR Citizens here in Germany because they are ethnic Germans that 'returned' after the collapse. So you meet them here all the time.
I believe the term 'Molotov Cocktail' was coined during the Russo-Finnish war. The first one, not the Continuation War!
Yep. Molotov said on the radio that Soviet planes were dropping food rations--when the Soviet bombers were dropping bombs. A Finnish wag said that, 'if those things they are dropping is dinner, here's our cocktail'. (Molotov dinner = bombs, Molotov cocktails = Molotov cocktails).
Czech armour was ok for certain purpose. It was very hard, that would be ok if it is thin and dedicated only against the bullet. But when armour becomes thicker, the more important toughness becomes, to flexibly resist punch of a mass of a shell without ripping of inside layers of a plate. Thick plates of hard metal easily gat kracked, Carius also mentioned that.
Interesting to see that the PzKpfw 1 has three headlights, so I would assume he get the same rights of way as a train in traffic?
:D
The Soviets had good Test Engineers and their work can be viewed here: www.tankarchives.ca/2016/11/hesh-vs-spaced-armour.html
Including Spaced armor vs HEAT ammo.
?
I was born in Yugoslavia...
You should advertise this a bit more on your other channel, good stuff!
Well he did mention this video in the beginning of the other video that kind of goes with this one.
Compressed air armor? Hmmm... The Lt vz. 38 had steering that was assisted by compressed air, and that’s likely where the mistranslation came from
No translation issue, they just had unsatisfactory armour protection.
Yeh Red Orchestra is such an amazing game!! I wish it was more popular!
You are talking about games that have 3thr person vieuw, but Post Scriptum has multiperson operated tanks and limited visability , definitly check it out
I've been enjoying this game immensely since the beta. Shame the launch was rushed because I think they missed building adequate hype. The game still has some bugs, but it's already so fun in its current state, especially with all the attention it gets from the dev's.
About bad armor (production)... You need to account for sabotage from forced labor...
I'm not sure that was the issue. Forced labour would be late war, and I doubt they bothered building these. The armour is just thin.
@@tamlandipper29 would you be happy building weapons for occupants even without forced labor?
@@mrchuck21521 I'm no communist, but I think most industrial workers pre war propaganda didn't care much who bossed the line.
@@tamlandipper29 I doubt that Czechoslovakia made tanks (or it's parts) for Germans before war...
@@mrchuck21521 That seems logical, given the video indicates unexpected differences in tank engineering when Germany took it over. But you're missing my point. I doubt most workers on a wage in czechoslovakia saw much difference in their work before the war. Not to mention many Czech tanks were built for Czechs before Germany took over.
“Op plz nerf” - Soviet Union
Oh god Peter's Russian pronunciation. I love it
I was literally thinking about Red Orchestra when they mentioned unrealistic tank vision in videogames haha
Italian metalurgy was terrible; so perhaps Italian plates wound up on some German panzers?
Also, note that by late 1944 German metallurgy was also bad, because of shortages of raw materials: so panthers would have brittle armor, e.g. This was especially seen at Baloton. (sp) the battle in Hungary.
terrible how? german tests in 1944 (that I read) found it comparable to german plates of 1943 (which they were comparing them to) which is before the germans were forced to use more brittle armor (which means if italian plates sucked so did german, then again soviet tests of german armor in 1942 found it inferior to their own, so perhaps axis steel in general was bad)
*When* in 1944? January 1944 is VERY different from October 1944. By autumn 1944 German metallurgy was of low quality because of chronic shortages of raw materials.
@@matthiuskoenig3378 I just can't believe you. Maybe I am just wrong, you are, or it's all propaganda, but german tests of russian armor found the soviet'€ inferior every time throughout the war. Also, the Italian M13/40 tank was notorious for spalling because of very brittle steel and was also basically called a "coffin" by its crews.
@@johnnothe British, American and Russian tests of German armour all showed it to be of exceptionally poor quality, especially for the big cats. Indeed the Russians tested a Maus and that had the worst of the lot. A Tiger captured and tested by the British in January 1944 resulted in the following speculations as to why their armour was so poor...
1. Economic reasons. It is very possible that the very amount of armour overloaded the German capacity to manufacture it, and Germany was forced to utilize heavier manufacturing, usually tasked with manufacturing simple armoured plates. There might be a shortage of equipment capable of processing thick armoured plates.
2. Mechanical finish problems. The three aforementioned vehicles have interlocking armoured plates to increase the strength of the welds. Regular step connections were preserved. The combination of these two connections reduced the ability to produce a large number of armoured hulls. Perhaps the softer plates were introduced to remedy these problems.
3. Ballistic factors. The three aforementioned vehicles were built for the purpose of long ranged combat. It is possible that the enemy introduced softer armoured vehicles knowing that the Allies use armour piercing capped shells. Use of these shells against soft armour is suboptimal. If soft armour continues to be used, we must explore the question of ballistic caps. However, it is necessary to collect more information, as this armour could still be surface hardened.
In fact Germany simply lacked the access to raw materials to produce good quality plates. This might not fit with the modern internet memes or computer games but all sources agree.
Otto Carius wrote that Czeck armor was brittle, when compared to german.
Memoirs don't lie!
Carius also wrote that Allies should join the Reich and drive onto Moscow together. And that Soviets were bad soldiers. Then few chapters later, that Americans were bad soldiers and Soviets were actually good soldiers.
Also, Carius thought that German civilians who offered any help to Allies were the worst traitors, despite the fact that earlier he expected a Soviet kid to give him all dispositions of Red Army’s troops just because.
@@AlexanderSeven i'm not saying it is a fact
@@SinOfAugust for a german soldier i think it is understandable to want help against soviets. It was not that rare an idea in the west.
I would say that an average soviet soldier was bad, when compated to german vetetans, since soviets were forced to replace so many men.
He thought that Americans were genetally bad soldiers due to the lack of combat experience, if i remember correctly.
Of course soldiers think that people helping enemies are traitors, but that has never prevented anyone from using enemy traitors.
The fact that carius was not objective observer does not affect the fact that german tankers thought czeck armor to be worse.
Pekka Mäkelä - I’ve given a list of examples how Carius was blatantly biased against anyone who was not an (obedient) German - that does not cast doubt on stuff he says about the quality of foreign workmanship? Also, I can remember at least six other German war memoirs, and of them all, Carius’ book is by far the most arrogant, bitter, and hostile to both East and West. Man had literally learned nothing from the war, which is just baffling.
One panzer1=50000 t34
You know, I’d like to learn more about Hans von Seeckt. He was the father of the Wehrmacht and a major cause of the “Blitzkrieg” successes early in the war, but very few people talk about him or if they do they don’t go in depth.
Heinz guidarian based his panzer theory from seeckt I think .so his work did have an impact. he’s quite an interesting figure. I’m sure this channel will eventually get to that. Give it some time.
Thats because he died years before the war and so people like Guderian got all the credit.
As I recall,he was dismissed by a Nazi conspiracy and was old enough he did not participate in WWII. Time to see what Google has,I suppose.
your guest speaks awesome american!
English it is called .
Nice
Gut Gemacht!
Ah, Red Orchestra the game series that doesn't care about your feelings. The Pz III and IVs have undeniably better ergonomics and much better view for the commander.
I never see in any “generally available” information or discussions regarding the Panzer l, any mention of the Panzer l Ausf F.
It seems to me this was a fairly serious attempt to beef up the tank, but I can’t find any background details on the Ausf F. The hows, why’s, and subsequent “why not’s” regarding this major redesign variant.
Do you have any information concerning the history of the Ausf F...? Or anyone else for that matter have a clue as to why they appeared to put so much effort into a Ausf change like the F and then just stopped producing at so few units; I assume in favor of the Panzer ll?
Oops. And I just now realized I posed this question in the comments five months ago!
Didn’t get any answers then, so I guess I’m flogging a dead horse here as the saying goes. Sorry for being repetitive.
Please, do one on the Panzerkampfwagen 38t.
Are your podcasts on Spotify?
No, I stopped publishing out of RUclips due to low numbers, cost and time.
AMAZING
The pz 1,as designed, was not intended to be used in combat . It was better than quite a few other tanks,but helpless against most of them.
Something that beat nothing.
> The pz 1,as designed, was not intended to be used in combat .
that is wrong, although often repeated (I did it quite a while myself) since Guderian stated it. More info here: ruclips.net/video/Gp5Q7ZIUiHE/видео.html
By the late 1930s the tank forces were still mostly Pz-I plus a smattering of medium tanks .....so Pz-I more or less formed All the Panzer Divisions until enough "tanks" joined the force structure. Even by 1939 Panzer-1 accounted for 1/2 numbers but not more that 1/3 of the actual battalions/regiments.
The 34 tank battalions had average of 29 Pz-1 each; while the rest averaged 31 Pz-II and 15 medium tanks plus 5 command tanks. Thats 80 tanks per battalion....with 3 companies each that should be TOE of maybe 22 tanks and 23-24 with command tanks. Thats 8-11 tanks surplus to need per BN , which says nothing of the 600-700 other Panzer-I, not even included in polish invasion fleet .
Back in 1937 the tanks per panzer battalion was ~ 100-110 , when the TOE should be 84 tanks per panzer battalion.....suggesting in 1937 there was already a standing surplus of 300-500 Pz I. If it were me i would have converted those 500 surplus tanks into panzerjagers mounting PaK-37 in a simplified PanzerJadger I mount.
You would have to do without 164 instwagen and the two dozen Zg XII /XVIII semi tractors mounting 88 flak,,, but it would be a worthwhile trade off.
I don't believe fiting at vision slits with rifle calibre would be effective at all against a pz3 or pz4. I mean there is at least 5cm of "bulletproof" glass between shooter and the interior of the tank. no ww2 era rifle goes through that.
pff... Compressed air amour is way better then spaced armour! If it get punctured it blows away the shot! And you get a cooling effect to as the air expand chilling you down ;)
What is "here", where he came to?
Yaa!
Are tank has a 50 cal!!! Are tank comes with 2 shovels!!!!
?
AESTHETIC
Military History not Visualized, What I German changed the name of the panzer 1 to armored tracked scout vehicle by 1939. would still change your option of this vehicle.
Gonna preamble my tought and say rather bad since they had an superior tank themselfs.
See people say positive things about the panzer 1 but then laugh at the cv33.
That's because a ride on lawnmower would be better than the cv33.
@@tamlandipper29 rhe the only difference is the cv33 lacked a turret but could be equipped with flamethrowers and anti tank guns.
@@tamlandipper29 Which means that a ride on a lawnmower would be better than a ride not eh Pzkpfw I as well....
That's a serious hardcore way of moving the grass if you ask me. ;p~
@@TheAngelobarker wasn't the CV33 also faster (42 km/h vs 37/25 km/h) and had more sploted armor (as the mantlete gave it slope) and was smaller (making it harder to spot and hit, british records say that it was almost impossible to hit with anything other than magine guns when it moved [the CV33]) hell the germans even used captured CV33 long after they stopped useing panzer 1s.
PETA is talking about *tanks* now??? My goodness that's a bit out of character!
@MHnV
Born in the Soviet Union, moved over here.... Where the hell is 'here'?
Endless gales of laughter?
Play Post Scriptum, just do it come on.
Whack a Mole is the arcade game
Studying mil history for 5 years?? Geez, I been reading mil history for over 40 years, and wargaming for 32years, and STILL learning new stuff.
Many see the Nazi tanks as the best of WWII, but didn´t the Soviets have far superiour capabilities in mass production, making stronger engines, more reliable transmissions and lighter cannons, altogether allowing them to produce heavíer armoured tanks with bigger cannons. For instance, for a Panzer IV with it´s 75mm, they produce multiple T34/85 with its 85mm and for an 85mm Tiger, they have multiple 122mm IS2...
One could argue that the Kharkiv V-2 engine that powered T-34s, KV-1 and -2, IS-2 and several SUs was the most significant piece of technology of the war, as it allowed Soviet tanks and assault guns to be fairly compact, tactically and operationally mobile and powerful at the same time.
Soviet tanks of early war (like T-34-76) had bad quality and were not reliable, especially engines and transmission.
Later they were much improved and also T-34-85, IS-1 and IS-2 appeared, but at the same time Germans had much technically superior Panther and Tiger tanks.
So I would say Germans had more technologically advanced tanks but Soviet tanks were much better designed for mass production, cheap repair and field maintenance. And on the battlefield the one who has more battle ready tanks here and now usually wins.
@@AlexanderSeven I don't think there's a case saying that panzers were technically much superior to Soviet tanks. T-34-85 and IS-2 were really good tanks until war's end. Especially IS-2 was quite an advanced tank for its time.
Soviet tank quality varied wildly by factories, and indeed quality was generally poor in early war when industry suffered from transfer to inner country and noob workforce. Both of these were to a degree addressed over time when front stabilized and workers gained experience.
@@Alpostpone 2 shots per minute good... People often fail to see past technical characteristics of their vehicles and in this case, IS-2 having such abysmal crew ergonomics that it took ages for it to reload and to fire again.
@@REgamesplayer The IS-2 wasn't as optimized for tank vs tank role as the big kitties, but for bunker busting and infantry support role that is pretty much adequate. Those were what IS-2 was mostly designed for and ended up doing most of the time, so I count that as a success.
Soviet ergonomics were generally behind other belligerents, but that's more down to focusing on "hard" parameters than level of technical advancement. Late Shermans were generally superior in ergonomics and crew safety to everyone else, but in turn lacked somewhat in said "hard" parameters against contemporary panzers and Soviet tanks.
In turn, Panther, for all its sophistication, was deployed too early and suffered from technical bugs because of that. As for technical superiority, that is very much a split case.
So ultimately I don't think neither US, Germany or SU had really technologically superior tanks compared to the other two.
I'd love to just pull up on someone driving a Panzer 1 with a M1 Abrams
Panzertitten! wooo!
i think they actually stole the tank design and make it into t60
pls talk about the japanese tanks
He doesn't sound old enough to have actually experienced the Soviet union. Maybe he was a month old when it collapsed but yeah
Oh, World of Tanks Console, where art tho? What a fuckin disaster of a game that has become :(
How in fuck did the Germans manage to take over countries with tanks that can be taken out by a guy with a rifle?
Difficult to hit a tank's vision slit with a rifle. Unless it's a sniper rifle with a scope, and snipers are few in number - or unless you are dangerously close to the tank.
The Panzer I was the most numerous German tank in the Polish Campaign in 1939. In 1940, the Germans concentrated the Panzer I's against the Low Countries (the Netherlands and Belgium), which were poorly equipped when it came to anti-tank weapons.
@ : The Panzer II is not the tank under discussion - we're only talking about the Panzer I here.
When Germany invaded the Soviet Union in June 1941, the Panzer I was no longer a front line tank, and there were none left in the panzer divisions. Only total conversions like the Panzerbefehlswagen I command tank (big superstructure, no turret) and the Panzerjager I tank destroyer were in front line service.
The Panzer I turreted tank served only on rear area security duties in Russia, like protecting supply convoys from partisans (who usually had no anti-tank weapons of any kind).
@ A bit rich that you call others a "fantasist" when you insist that the Panzer I and II could be *destroyed* "by rifles from any angle." The idea of destroying any sort of tank with a rifle is fantasy on the level of that scene in _Saving Private Ryan_ in which Tom Hanks is shooting at an approaching Tiger I with his 1911.
Even if I assume that by "rifles" you meant _anti-tank rifles_ this would still be incorrect. The Panzer I, II, III, and even some variants of the IV could be _disabled_ by anti-tank rifles. There's an important distinction between _destroying_ the tank and _disabling_ it that could mean the difference between life and death on the battlefield. You see, it's not enough to just hit a tank (unless you are using something so ludicrously overmatched, like a 1000 lb bomb or a shell from a battleship's 14" guns). You need to hit it in a critical spot that will either destroy key components and/or kill the crew. Shoot even a Panzer I with a PTRD and if you don't know where to aim, you won't do more than just piss off the crew by putting a new vision hole in their hull and let them know exactly where you are.
Second, the Panzer I was _not_ vulnerable to ball ammo from rifles. It could be penetrated by armour-piercing rifle bullets, but those were not exactly in standard issue among most infantrymen--and your average conscript in the early war would have likely never seen or handled an armour-piercing cartridge, or perhaps even knew that they existed. Ditto for even knowing what a Panzer I was or how to deal with it--chances are, most of those men had never seen (or even heard of) a tank before they entered the army, and depending on what army they were in, they might have never seen a tank before they faced one in combat.
Finally, use a little sense. If the Panzer I's armour was as thin and easily perforated as you claim, then what use was the armour on vehicles like the Sdkfz 251 half-track and Sdkfz 222 recon vehicles which were even lighter and _less_ armoured than the Panzer I? The Germans could have just saved on the weight and manufacturing costs and ferried their troops into battle in school buses.
The problem that the Panzer I and II had was not with infantry AT weapons as much as with other tanks, which they weren't designed to fight anyway. It's similar to the problem that the Shermans first had when the Americans landed in Europe, although on a larger scale. The Shermans with their 75mm, medium-velocity guns were great at shooting up infantry and lighter vehicles, but struggled a bit when they encountered actual German tanks. This was acceptable to the US Army, since dealing with tough enemy armour was the job of tank destroyers like the M18 Hellcat and M36 Jackson, whilst the M4 Sherman was intended to support infantry pushes and breakthroughs.
@@timonsolus Exactly. And even if they had been well-equipped with AT weapons, who's to say that they would have had them available when needed? That 3.7 cm AT gun would do a number on a Panzer I, but it isn't so useful to you if it's sitting back at the depot because the powers that be assumed that the Germans wouldn't be bringing any tanks... or even attacking in your area. It also isn't very useful if you have no idea of how to use it since you weren't trained on that weapon system, and the only people who did know how to use it got splattered by a 50 kg bomb from a Stuka on their way over. Learning how to traverse and sight in an AT gun takes some practice, and the worst time for a crash course in anti-tank warfare is when a group of enemy tanks is bearing down on your position.
@@Schwarzvogel1 It's a good thing I write faster than most people speak.
I'm sorry. I wrote you an initial post where I called you a lot of quite elaborately made names: mostly the insults were various versions of calling you stupid and autistic. I ended with an elaborate story where I assumed you were in a school for retarded children. I apologize. I do.
To be quite frank, you earned that response. You made up an entire conversation in your head (complete with assumptions about what was meant by every word) and responded to that internal conversation that didn't exist. You were engaging in a far more extensive version of a straw man argument: It seemed not only autistic at the same time, but also very slow: almost like you were trying to be wrong. But that's not all.
I then went on to another elaborate insult: I assumed you didn't know what dihydrogen monoxide was (it's water), and then began to explain it to you like you were a child who was too stupid to understand adult words: that was in response to you making up the disabled/destroyed categories. Again. I apologize.
I have calmed down since I wrote that, erased it and will now more positively respond.
Obviously I meant the PTRD and its companion rifle. Obviously I did *not* mean 7.62 ball or even 12.7 ball: I considered that so completely obvious I didn't need to mention it.
I should not have had to mention it: that very subject was referenced in the video this is under and thus should have been part of the conversation you assumed I was making.
I should have had the benefit of that doubt: especially because I wrote only 22 words.
Obvious to any rational person, and I am confident it will be obvious to you too after some reflection, your theoretical distinctions between destroyed and disabled are...I'm trying not to be mean here, a little silly. That is a silly set of assumptions you made off fewer than 30 words in what was clearly an offhand comment.
As for the final two paragraphs, that seems like another conversation entirely.
Czechoslovekia?😁
I came here for a Soviet impression of the Panzer I, not to listen to some yank.
There is seriously absolutely no point making fun of the Panzer 1 or 2 because they were training tanks/heavily armoured recon and not meant to go up against t34’s or shermans. This video is sort of fucking stupid to point out all the flaws of it
get your facts straight: 1) they were NOT training tanks for more information see this video: ruclips.net/video/Gp5Q7ZIUiHE/видео.html
2) nobody makes fun of the tank.
3) I point out flaws and strength on all side, check out this one about a Soviet weapon or more the context around it: ruclips.net/video/04gTGbdoE1k/видео.html
Also if you use a German soldier as avatar, how about you stop whining like a child?
By the time of Operation Barbarossa in June 1941, the Panzer I was no longer considered a front line tank and none were left in the panzer divisions (except for total conversions like the Panzerjager I tank destroyer, Panzerbefehlswagen I command tank, and Panzermunitionschlepper I supply and repair vehicles).
So there's not many cases of a Panzer I encountering a T-34. And even fewer cases of one encountering an M4 Sherman.
The Panzer I was already obsolescent in 1936, and completely obsolete by 1941. But it's important because it's the first Panzer the Wehrmacht had, and because it saw action in Spain and China in 1937.
Stick to UFC, casual
born in the soviet union? yeah no i think you mean Russia
I assume he's over ~27 years old, therefore Soviet Union. Unless I'm not getting something here...
Soviet Union is not a geographical location, it's a myth that lives on in the hearts of every person born on post-Soviet territory. :heart:
@@peasant8246 he was born in the soviet union, which is now russia. the soviet union existed back then, so he was born in that state.