Clarifications, Errors & Corrections 8:50 The number on the screen "1800" is correct, not the number I said "8100". (Thanks to Andrew.) 10:08 I say "T-44/85" it should be "T-34/85". (Thanks to Andrew.)
The biggest design change on the T-44 was the elimination of the hull gun and gunners position. This allowed for much greater frontal armor protection at almost no weight increase. Also, switching to a torsion bar suspension and not sloping the sides saved up a lot of interior space. Not only did the armor increase, but so did the ammunition stowage. The T-44 had low production numbers and never saw combat, but that doesn't mean it was a failure. The T-44 evolved into the T-54 which was the most produced tank of all time and still sees combat to this date.
I've heard that the main idea behind thid tank was to decrease silhouette as much as possible, so armor plates would have as less surface as possible, thus increasing its thickness without increasing weight. Also frontal armor plate was designed to be monolithic thus, hatches had to be moved to the top of the hull, and turret to center. And, basically, this least silhouette for lowest protection surface is the main idea behind Russian tank designs up to this day
do mind that making the sides vertical rather than sloped does decrease the effective armour of the vehicle, thus making it more vulnerable to attacks from the side. Most likely this wasn't considered a problem because of combat experience with the T-34 seeing the tank operate in an environment where the main (and often sole) threat was directly from the front because of the very rapid advance of the red army through Poland and Germany. That of course has been a big weakness of every MBT since designed by every nation.
@@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized It's the M3 video... Im not sure if it actually was Australia or if it was a joke about the emu war which planted a false memory... Here's the video: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-RIjLtAt1zII.html
I don't see it commonly appreciated that every Soviet and post-Soviet Russian tank was basically an upgraded T-44, and going back further an upgraded T-34. It's remarkable that a pre-war design was so fundamentally solid that it could have so much upgrade potential.
@@tHeWasTeDYouTh Not Really, so many different guns owe their internal design to the AR-18, where as the AR-10 just led to an AR-15 & a ton of clones of it. The AR-18 analogy makes so much sense, it’s the basis of a hell of a lot of different bullpups too. The Bushmaster, the British one, the Styer, the Atrax, etc, etc, etc
The Allies were doing something similar with their tanks. They had a 88m tank at the end but had a body of I believe a later Sherman can't remember exactly.
@@emperorfancypants2512 laughs in St. Javelin and Stugna-P and NLAW and now with the Russians down to “modernizing” 800 T-62’s just an RPG-7 would do the trick
Loving all the tank museum content. David Willey is a sharp fella, great amount of knowledge. It's very cool that they seem like they'll work with any RU-vidr over there, they're really one of the most forward thinking museums around. Bovington wouldn't be the pilgrimage site it currently is for military history buffs without people like Willey and Fletcher making it's contents available to us all over the world.
Totally agree. One thing I really appreciate about Bovington is how the physical museum experience is very accessible and immersive to people who are not tank geeks, but they also produce wonderful in-depth content and share it freely.
@@kentnilsson465 centurions frontal armor was not any better than a Panther until later in their cold war service. T-44 was better armored than Centurion, but most importantly, T-44 weighed 1 ton LESS than a T-34-85
What amazed me about the Russian German conflict was the way the factories were stripped and re built further East out of the range of the Luftwaffe, an amazing feat
@@thethirdman225 Russia was labelled the new enemy, so of course credit must be denied. The amount of people who don't even realise the Soviets were allies.
I have a 1:76 scale model of a T-44/85, which I've had since the late 1980's. It was produced by Red Star Models (Geoff Spain). There was also the later T-44/100 available, at the time, but I could only afford one model, so I chose the T-44/85 version.
Clarifications, Errors & Corrections 8:50 The number on the screen "1800" is correct, not the number I said "8100". (Thanks to Andrew.) 10:08 I say "T-44/85" it should be "T-34/85". (Thanks to Andrew.)
And the underrated T-44 is based of the even more criminally underrated T-34m- torsion bar suspension, vertical side armour to increase the turret ring diameter, I think it got rid of the front plate hatch too, plus a full blown commander's cupola in a Panzer III style turret. There was also the T-50, the would-be basic tank of the Soviet army and which was more or less a sovietized Pz III... Those two are the missing link between T-34 and T-44.
Thank you Military History for making an impromptu video in the T-44. It was nice to hear about this, what I consider, relatively little-discussed tank.
That question of switching production arose in the RAF. They had a huge debate over whether to ditch the Halifax bomber and re-tool to produce more Lancasters. Arthur Harris wanted to do this. But the interruption to bomber production was considered too great, so they continued producing both types through the war.
And they even continued to produce the Stirling. They found new roles for them, though, such as glider tugs, dropping paratroopers (always in short supply - see Market Garden) or as transports (Hastings). Even Hurricane production continued as the more basic techniques meant it could be produced in smaller factories by less skilled staff (many of whom thus became more skilled). The new role was in ground attack. It wasn't perfect for the role, but it was expedient.
Another RAF sxample: in 1939 Beaverbrook stopped all development on British heavy calibre defensive turrets, of which there was a lot, to ensure effort was concentrated on maximising the number of 303 armed turrets. (In 1939 not all bombers had powered turrets with belt-fed guns). In came back to bite the RAF around 1942 as it wasn't restarted early enough and/or US turrets not used, but it was the right choice in 1939.
Coastal Command were always requesting squadrons of Lancasters so that they could patrol further out into the Atlantic, to counter the U-Boat menace. They never got any !
great video, always wondered about these early cold war soviet tank models. a pet fave of mine is the t50, would greatly appreciate this proto-t34 lookin rare tank
What a pleasure it is to watch you blokes at the Tank Museum. I was there with my young sons in 2013 (from Australia) and it is such a mighty institution.
I've came across a statement that mid-turret design was chosen to improve armor protection, not to increase firing stability. Main idea was to make a monolithic frontal armor plate to improve protection, so hatches had to be moved to the top of the hull, thus, turret had to be moved to the center of the tank
Very important to mention Continuation orders. When I see people criticizing the US for keeping the production line open for Abrams tanks even though the Army doesn’t need new tanks, I have to constantly remind people about production lines and the need to keep them available. It also helps us in terms of sales, we can sell the Abrams to other countries or in the case of Ukraine… potentially donate them as through Lend-Lease. We could literally ship out hundreds of Abrams tanks in a matter of months by just checking the ones in storage, maki sure they are in good condition and then loading them on ships bound of whatever country ordered them.
thank you for this it was interesting. I know you have covered it before but I think it's so ABSOLUTELY important to understand just how long it takes and the effort it takes to put a new tank into production to understand ww2 (and likely more modern wars) in general but especially early war British and Russian decisions. having a tank that works half the time is better than having no tank at all if it means the difference between life, death, victory and defeat. EDIT. I have been convinced to add an edit that it was not fully the Russians involved in the decision-making if the war and that it would be more accurate to say it was Soviet decision making to more accurately reflect the multinational nature of the Soviet union.
russia did not exist during WW2, there was union of soviet socialists republics, when you say russia in context of WW2 you spiting into the face of other 30 nations and 100+ nationalities that were in soviet union.
@@lilandry while I understand your point given my own nation gets regularly overlooked in just about everything I think I'm sticking to my statement as it was the Russian command that called the shots to my knowledge. If you can decisively prove they weren't I'm willing to consider it.
@@Kv-2Heavy tell you what. As proving hundreds of officers non-russian is impossible and probably an unfair expectation I will agree if you can prove half the high command was non-russian
In a way, the T-44 sounds like it has similarities to the M3-Medium tank in that it was a developmental stage before a more successful design. It is sort of the awkward half sibling which lies between the T-34 and T-55.
ya I can see that, the t44 they got to mess around with cast turret armor and advances with tank design that happened in ww2, but couldn't be produced right at the moment, but by being bigger and a very promising side project let them keep developing it
Yes, but the hull design for the T-54 etc comes from the T-44. The T-54-2 essentially married the T-54 (and T-44) hull design, refined of course, with an IS-3 style turret. (to put it very simplistically)
@@CplBurdenR agree with all that, my comment was reaction to the statement in the video that the T54 took the dish turret from the T44...which isn't right
T44/85 was adequate opponent against Panthers G&F, Panther 2. T44 had advantages tested on T43/85 prototypes, and showed better balance of armour construction. T44/100 dwarfed SU100 and IS-1/100. T44/100 became T54.
@@alangordon3283 Panther2 prototype existed in physical form Also production line for Panther1 existed in Henschel factories. When Henschel launched King Tiger , it was also time for Panther2 because many components were identical [transmission, roadwheels,transport tracks, final drive reliability,engine,etc]. Henschel missed chance to produce more reliable tanks 1944~45, because Jagdtiger H wasn't need. The same situation did back in 1941-42 when Vapruef6 marginalized reliable vk3601h, which was more reliable than initial Panther1D , and can play panther's role better in first half of 1943 , supporting Tiger1 H; Vapruef6 will be doing better if forced Henschel to produce two compatible tanks and left Ferdinand Porsche to play Superheavy role exclusively. This will be lead to more reliable tanks + not significant less 128mm carriers . Porsche - Siemens electric transmission was slightly more economical for superheavy designs like Jagdtiger,Maus,Tortoise,etc. E100 will be also underpowered with Maybach. Just this Maybach hl234 used for " double lighter " tank AMX50. Maybach hl234 played good job in areas of E50-E75-AMX50A-AMX50B, but for E100 something else was need[ gass turbine like M1A1 ,M1A2 ].
Very nice Video and good pick in my opinion, The T-44 is an intersting what if tank and just like the M-26 and Centurion marked the point were the Allies absolutly and definetly cought up with German Tanks. If the war had gone longer, maybe this entire "German Tanks are the best" narrative would not exist, or be very different. I also like how there are some sound issues and most of your viewer base seems to be fine with that. Mine would have killed me :)
In spring of 1944 nobody was sure how long will war last, but in autumn was sure it will finish in Europe within a year. And Soviets did rush IS-3, which arrived just in time for victory parade in Berlin in front of Western delegations, but saddled Soviet military with decades of maintenance issues.
Very interesting statement by David Willey. I had the same thoughts just about 13 years before: The BT-series tanks. For a similar reason: Some of the stories about the T-34 may make you think that it came out of the blue. But to understand the origins of the T-34 you have to look at the BT-series tanks. Their weren't a dead end but the gate to the more modern T-34. I think that's an important point because of the great losses of tanks the Red army suffered in 1941 it seems like all their pre-war tank were just crap. But that's not true.
Christie suspension wasnt abandoned on Soviet tanks only because of the war. Tanks that can do 80km/h dont have a single moment of greatness in history. Its silly to assume that if Soviets didnt produce them, they wouldnt produce anything. If BT tanks and T-26 werent crap in 1941 they wouldnt be replaced with T-60 and T-70.
@@Paciat the M1 Abrams can do over 80 km/h (with its speed governor removed). Are you trying to say the way it decimated Iraqi tanks in the Gulf War wasn't a "moment of greatness"?
@@brucelamberton8819 Lol, with its speed governor removed :D. Why do you think that was installed in the first place? It wouldnt even be designed is going faster than 80km/h was a good idea.
@@brucelamberton8819 the main problem with bt tanks was that they were optimized for road mobility only. Sure, they could achieve incredible speeds even by nowadays standards, but they sacrificed off road capabilities for it, which isn't the case with modern tanks
BT7 - ends up as the BT7A prequelling 75mm support tanks but had sloped armour, got rid of the tracks and wheels and was the design prequel to the T34. OK - wireless is an issue but that was a soviet issue. Only 3 crew but had a two man turret which without the wireless operator was just about acceptable. Over 4.5K built compared to trivial numbers of UK and French so perceived technically superior systems, Let down by shite logistics; never really capable of deep penetration in the orders of several hundreds of kilometers, but nor was the wehrmacht. Just had to steal fuel from the french . Best tank by far in 1935 and predecessors were 4 years plus earlier.
@@frostedbutts4340 Yeah I know... Still, sounds... Scary 😱. Who knows what might be going on, some of these old vehicles might have the ghosts of their former users in them 😉
See, I would have said the T-26. It‘s the most important and most-produced interwar tank, but it plays no role in WWII simply because almost all of them were captured or destroyed in the first few months of the war, without ever getting the opportunity for the Soviets to really do anything with them. The Soviets in the early war were completely unable to use their tanks effectively, simply due to a lack of experienced personnel combined with no time to train the people they had-but under different circumstances there‘s arguably no reason the T-26 couldn‘t have been used as effectively as the Panzer II or the 38(t), both of which were used extensively by the Germans at a time when they were already fairly obsolete. Actually, the T-26 outguns both of those tanks with its 45mm cannon and it crucially has a separate gunner. So, compared to other tanks that saw use in the early war because they were available, it’s actually very good, and the USSR had over 10.000 of them at the start of the war-a potentially a significant strategic asset, had it been used effectively.
T-44 has a good case but I would have gone with the BT-7. It was there in Spain, Mongolia, Finland and before Moscow. With it's opponents in '41, it isn't surprising it was destroyed in large numbers. Given the Red Army's poor communications and inability to coordinate armor/infantry attacks routinely before '43, I blame the situation more than the tank.
At 5:17 and onwards you claim that center mounted turret makes a more stabile weapon platform in comparison to front mounted. I would like more detail on that, especially on how stabile was the T34 as a weapon platform. Influences on this from terrain, arcs of fire and how this would reflect on crew performance.
The commentator is incorrect. The T-34/85 was already being built when the T-44 was being developed. Where the Soviets erred was in not producing the uparmored T-34/85M, which could have resulted in a tank very resistant to the most common German tank gun, the 75mm pak 40, would have made a tank more resistant to both the 75 mm KwK 42 and the 88 mm KwK 36 at medium ranges.
I'd like to see a modernisation of a really old tank like the BT-5/7 with a modern engine , gun , turret , armor and everything else just keep the shape , now why do that ? -shits and giggles -interesting how a 80yo design would work with everything modernized -memes
I’m going to dare to disagree and say it was an interesting discussion about the T-44 and the decisions made between mid and late war tank production, but I’d say that doesn’t make the T-44 underrated - quite the opposite, it was well rated but undermined by production/political decisions. I’d argue for the BT-7 - its destroyed/captured in huge numbers, and frequently disparaged and dismissed, but it’s the precursor for what comes next, a huge influence on the design of the T-34, and itself wasn’t a bad vehicle, even the Germans had some favourable things to say about it, alongside its faults - its employment hopelessly undermined by Soviet early war command and control. So that’s my submission for most underrated……
In Hearts of Iron 4 terms, this would mean that the USSR researched Advanced Medium Tank (1943), but chose not to change production from the Improved Medium Tank (1940), instead choosing to just create a new variant of the Improved Medium Tank with a new 1943 or 1944 tank gun as main armament, since that wouldn't take as big of a hit to production efficiency from changing models. Even though the Advanced Medium Tank has greater speed and reliability, total war is a numbers game, and two good tanks are better than one great one, so they kept relying on Improved Medium Tanks with modern components until they won the war. Meanwhile, Germany kept upgrading tanks from model to model every time they researched a new tech or couldn't think of anything better to do with its Army Experience, took a big hit to production efficiency when the 1943 models became available, and put as many points as possible into tank speed and armor ratings, thinking "big number am good", even as losing air superiority and the numbers game more than nullifies that while keeping the same low reliability.
Jup, er war am 10. September auf der Panzerkonferenz. twitter.com/MilAvHistory/status/1568542968516165634 Wir hatten in den letzten Jahren wenig Zeit gemeinsam Videos aufzunehmen, mache jedes Jahr auch nur einen Trip: 2020: DPM, 2021: MHM, 2022: Tank Museum. Es kam ja auch jedes Jahr ein Buch raus bzw. dieses Jahr mit dem Panzerkonferenz Band sogar 2... und dann noch um die 70 Videos pro Jahr.
Honestly it would be underrated if it saw service past putting down hungarians. The thing was 100% better than the t34 with being noth lighter and better protected, it just never saw combat in large numbers
Two smart guys talking about tanks - but MHV has had a little too much fun, and his tank runs out of gas. No worries, he's still our favorite Austrian tank-head.
