@@plazmica0323 goodpoint in fact T34-85 is still in use in some African and South American armies. They are way cheaper and quite reliable for it's time and climate. Also quite easy tank to learn and overal not bad gun. T-34 is the jack of all trades.
Most of these are probably 60-70. They were built up until 1958 and the war time models were notoriously lackluster in quality control. Well, understandably so, rushed to built in large numbers during the heat of the biggest war we've seen yet. Almost every single functioning example of T-34 is a late 50s model.
@@the-charlycode8117 more or less. The Russian version of "good quality" is yeah it'll break down more often then western shit, but it'd be easier to fix
@Steve Arthur i mean I've seen footage of the ones that are being fired like artillery with ripcords from outside. I was thinking maybe there were a few rolling down roads supporting the people on foot like "actual" tanks.
Красивый танк, особенно его вариант с 85 мм пушкой. Мой дедушка воевал в 1й танковой армии Катукова. Закончил войну взятием Берлина. Вечная память нашим предкам, павшим в той страшной войне и спавший весь мир от коричневой чумы!!!
@@bubassvaba6221 exactly, simpler and easier to maintain while also being more reliable. Of course the german tanks were better on the battlefield, but their drivetrains desintegrated whenever an incline was in sight and their engines melted every few kilometres.
@@TheJimyyy It didn’t matter if they had problems. Most of them were solved later in the war and the T-34s were easy to repair. There were a lot of them as well so the crew could just be given another one while their broken down tank could be transferred to the rear to be repaired
@@TheJimyyy Why is it dumb if the crew is given another tank? They had plenty of T-34s and would you rather have the crew wait and not do anything while their tank is being repaired or have them be in combat with another tank? And some issues the early T-34s had were fixed but not all. The mechanical problems didn’t bother them because of the reasons I stated and the T-34s fit the USSR’s doctrine during WWII so it worked for them
One important thing to note about the fact that these are still rolling around unlike, say, german tanks. This is mostly due to the difference in philosophy between eastern and western countries as to what “reliability” really means. In the west, “reliable” usually means it can be used for a long time without any major repairs or part replacements. This is useful in some respects, such as for ground support vehicles which assist regular infantry on the field, or when fighting an enemy less capable of fielding weapons capable of taking out a tank. However, a design like this is usually not any less likely to get knocked out of the fighting than any other tank, and when it happens it usually takes much longer to repair. In the east, “reliable” means something that is easy quick to repair. An engine that can go tens of thousands of kilometers without breaking down or needing parts changed isn’t useful for anything if it’s gonna be destroyed after only a few hundred, so it’s wiser to plan for things to break, and to just be able to swap it out and carry on than it is to spend every waking moment dreading the day when your vehicle is damaged. This eastern philosophy of planned obsolescence allowed the soviets to outproduce the germans by an enormous margin, with over 30 000 of the things made over the course of the war. Sometimes, cheap and simple is better than expensive and complex. Of course, as any wehraboo would tell you, the german tanks where formidable machines, but the way they developed and manufactured them was in many ways wasteful when considering their materials shortages and blitzkrieg tactics. A heavy tank with a big fuck-off gun can of course take a lot of hits and dish a lot of hits out, but the slower speed combined with the increased fuel consumption and stress on the transmission makes it less reliable and much worse for the fast-paced warfare that the germans were used to. Their use of light, fast tanks in combination with more powerful ones worked very well during the invasion of france, and it would probably have been smarter and more resource-efficient to focus on a combination of lighter, faster tanks and heavier ones. Of course, the Germans were never going to win WWII, but they definitely made questionable decisions on military technology (wow, nazis are dumb, who knew). Not sure if this is 100% accurate, as I wrote it all in one go from memory. Feel free to correct me if I got anything wrong in this comment (unless you’re gonna say that the germans could have won. They couldn’t, and that is an objective fact. The allies were much better at combined warfare than the axis were, and the axis was made up of a much smaller amount of countries with a much smaller combined economic ability. No matter what wunderwaffe any of the nazi scientists pulled out of their ass, germany COULD NOT WIN WWII.)
Well....when you make enemies..powerful enemies left and right...combined wit straight up ignorance to follow advice from smarter people..and causing so much pain and suffering that you must be stopped... naturally you sealed your fate from the get-go no matter what magic trick you pull from your hat..
Not strictly true... One of the reasons the M4 Sherman was so widely used by the Western Allies was the combination of it being easy to mass produce (American factories produced almost 50,000 of all variants), mechanically reliable, highly adaptable and simple to maintain. The Sherman benefitted from being almost a modular design, where everything from the engine, transmission and suspension systems could be removed and replaced in the field, and have a disabled tank back in action again within a matter of hours. It was also very simple to drive and maintain.
Exactly, most wars are decided by logistics, and this thing was as easy to maintain as possible, whereas the german tanks literally required specialized shops to fix them
@@salle6307 Apparently, before that, the author believed that a sea of pathos was needed to win the war. I agree, the Germans had very pretentious heavy tanks, starting from the name and ending with their exorbitant price, only the Soviet heavy tanks IS 2 released 2 times more tigers combined and they simply split the armor of German tanks with their 122mm shells if they could not penetrate them
Was one of the worst tanks of ww2.. Tanks made after ww2 were improved but during the war they were made with inferior steal which would just shatter upon being hit.. 90 percent mortality rate upon being hit once.. They broke down constantly and went through gear box's like they were made from plastic.. Utter shite
@@ИльяГенш-к4цsoviet HE shells from the SU-152 had more chance to kill the whole crew because of the shockwave rather than the actual shell penetrating
@@ObOBCEM я читал. тридцатчетверки немцы жгли десятками. у них снаряды кончались, но вот дешевые и примитивные совдеповские танчики не кончались. как и экипажи из расходников - русских иванов. (бабы еще нарожают). единственный период когда т34 представлял опасность - ранний период войны. и то, машины тех серий были сырые и крайне ненадежные, рациями не оборудовались, выучка у экипажей плохая. вкратце : количество победило качество.
@@zaddyaffaan8874 Well, okay-so what? If that's your position why didn't you say anything to sOikk3li about an Asian woman and an Asian car? That could not only be construed as "racist" but "sexist" as well. What about the comments further down that mock a Russian's lack of command of the English language? Where does it end Affaan? What made you respond so quickly? The fact that I made a comment that was meant to funny; but used the words "black man"? Oh no---not the holy black man! Everyone else is fair game for ridicule but the divine black man eh? It was meant to be a joke dude. But I guess it makes you feel better inside yourself to know that you defended the "black man" and called out a racist. Good for you! Now, take that same attitude and walk down the South Side of Chicago this Saturday night around 1am and see how far that it gets you.
Эти танки потом с помпой в России встречали ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-rTY-dnc2Efs.html и пофиг, что это были танки, произведённые уже после войны в Чехословакии )))
It is. Five of them were restored to combat-ready condition. Another 25 used for military parade on Red Square. T-34-85 from Laos. tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/9426371 and tass.ru/ural-news/9235735
Nice video here but the description is lacking where was this live-fire demonstration at.there are many countries that use the t-34 and in this case t-34 85 mm variant still to this day in 2020
@TEXOCMOTP Could you imagine the logistics of getting an M4 Sherman or T26 Pershing from the U.S or U.K over to Russia? not to mention field the ammunition to use in the games?
those still active T-34 are largely in Reserve and not front line or active duty service. North Korea and Cuba are said to have the largest numbers, but only estimates. Vietnam has 300 of them, but only 45 are actually active. the other Nations that still have them are either non-operational, training aids, or used in Reserve Units
remember that the only t34 variant used in real combat today is the ripcord variant, most of them are just sitting there or used for parades and demonstrations
Here is another video of tank biathlon on T34-85. Please note: at the bottom of the screen there is the current speed parameters of all cars participating in the race. The maximum speed for some cars was 55 km / h. The competition was in Alabino (Moscow region), where biathlon is also held on T-90, T-72 tanks ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-x5F96bZpm2w.html
Насколько же это эстетически гармоничная машина!.Правильно,у Танкового Бога золотистая Тридцать Четвёрка.Мой отец был командиром Т34.Он теперь там,на небе,у Танкового Бога.
@@panozesperantegtr-1gobrrrr141 not sure on the IS1 but not really the IS2 considering that the IS2 had a 122 mm gun which needed a different turret style
The fun thing is - during current-day civil wars in middle-east and africa it's still better to fight in T-34 than barefoot. Yes, this tank is totally outdated, but it still have 85mm gun and 2 mgs - quite nice vs hand-made ISIS's MG pickups. The only thing - stay out of RPG range.
Да... Вот раньше технику делали, через 70 лет ниче не сгнило, завелась и ездит и стреляет, не то что сейчас через два года на авто мотор на капремонт идет
The T34-85 is still a formidable weapon, seventy-five years after the fact. It may be obsolete/obsolescent, but it would still make an excellent infantry support weapon - provided it could stay clear of modern AT weapons and armored vehicles. "Shoot-and-scoot" like the old TDs used to do. They still have a place on modern battlefields, which was shown by their use in the 1990s Balkans civil wars. Were they the best option around? No, not by a long shot. But they were serviceable and had the virtue of being there, ready to use. And if your tank is the only one on the battlefield, then it doesn't much matter if it is seventy-five years old. If it is mobile, has some armored protection and has an operating main gun with ammunition, then it has at least the potential to do some damage.
I wonder how much better they would run with a single turbo since natural aspirated diesels tend to lag on power since they don’t have the boost of higher pressure air into the intake
@@MM-px3dj Those were T-34/76. The tanks in the video are T-34/85, an saw combat in 1944, long after Kursk. Entering quote mode: "When the first T-34-85’s appeared, they were given to the elite Red Guards battalions. However, they were in training during December 1943, so it is uncertain whether they saw action before January or February 1944." from: tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2/soviet/soviet_T34-85
These were live rounds, not blanks that you see on tank fests. You can tell simply by the massive recoil and noise. I wonder where do you get these 85mm live rounds from these days. Are the still being produced?
Simple, tough, and rolled the Nazi war machine up out of mother Russia. More is better when you can't shoot them fast enough with your Tiger 88mm. Swarming a Tiger takes balls. The US had to do it with the Sherman's too. Back in the 70's we told we had to kill 10 T-72s in the Fulda gap before we could allow ourselves to be taken out or else we would loose the war. Luckily never had to try.
@@bastikolaski8111 Exactly. The T-64 and T-72 were for a decently long time uncontested in terms of protection, which rushed the west to create upgraded ammunition for the 105mm L7 cannons and later to develop the 120mm L44. There were later Chieftain versions with addon composite armor for the turret that could stop the early Soviet APFSDS and almost all HEATFS rounds but that was much too late to answer to soviet weapons and armor. Sure, hull-down is still better than head-on due to a lower profile and so on, but that stuff is still very much propagandized. What really would have killed tanks (on both sides) during that time was non-tank based ATGM launchers, not enemy tanks. The west had a ton of ATGM launchers due to fears of the T-64 and T-72 hordes.
Kinda funny people always mention Tiger as the best Tank in WW2 completely forgetting the fact that T-34 stopped the German's invasion of Soviet in the critical moment and played great role in the counter offensive up to Berlin 1945.
The tank that won the war. T-34/85 was extremely reliable, highly mobile tank combined with good firepower. This is what the Soviets needed to defeat Germans.
Ah, the Philippines army T-34's that were gifted back to Russia a year ago! Indeed that was a sweet gift to receive fully functional T34's! You can see they got Philippines dark green paint, and no markings.
