American industrial architects and engineers were integral in constructing the Soviet tractor and ultimately tank factories. They were hired by Stalin in the late 20’s & early 30’s to jump start Soviet industrialization. The Stalingrad tractor factory was designed by Detroit industrial architect Albert Kahn, a German-American Jew. The factory was built using prefabricated steel elements from the US and outfitted with American machinery. The designs of this and dozens of subsequent factories were optimized toward the mass production techniques pioneered by the US automobile industry.
Thank you for this. Very good points I never considered. I knew we sent machinery but not that the US helped to design the Soviet tank production lines.
Kahn designed a lot of factories worldwide - that was his specialty. The Stalingrad plant had to close in the early stages of the battle in the city and never reopened during the war.
... and the foreign exchange for that was obtained by starving millions and selling the wheat overseas. The Soviets were very smart in developing a good, powerful tank engine in the 30s. One reason US but especially British tank development was so lacking was the absence of a tank-class engines. Aero engines and doubled-up (or more) truck engines were poor compromises.
Want to preface - this is not to take away from the respected speaker (I am enjoying the presentation). But I did want to point out some slips in the sections T-26 vs BT: T-26 was “танк сопровождения», which is essentially “infantry tank”. It was underarmored not because of any sort of grand designs for speed, but for the simple reason that it was outdated. It’s especially strange that it was called “exploitation” tank given that right after T-26 the presentation moved onto into BT-7, which was indeed an equivalent of a “Cruiser tank” (and identified as such). But then BT series wasn’t amphibious- there was another pre-war tank T-38 (a tiny thing) meant to be used for reconnaissance purposes and spec’d to be amphibious.
More balanced view of Soviet tanks. Could have said more about crew ergonomics. Mainly in the T-34/76. Also situational awareness of the tank crews where German tanks had an advantage. And Panzer 3 and 4s were still being used effectively against T-34 tanks using more effective tactics. Helped by better communications. T-34s could have easily been much better tanks given some basic improvements. The basic designs were good. Quality control a problem. A reliable design but impaired by poor quality production.
~ 4.00 minute mark, with the Soviets and French coming up with multi-turrent tanks like little battleships. I draw your attention to the Vickers Independent, another in the long line of Vickers tanks bought or copied by just about every major army up to 1935.
Very good, thank you. Is that not a picture of a later KV 1s, rather than KV 1? Another major deficiency of the T-34 was its two-man turret, which overworked the commander, and was not great for situational awareness. This was not helped by poor vision when the turret was 'buttoned up'. Add the paucity of radios and crew intercoms, and cramped interior, it is no wonder that the Germans often describe the the T-34 as 'blundering about' the battlefield. These aspects resulted in some heavy losses. Of course, many of these problems were addressed in the T-34-85, which did have a three-man turret, and cupola. I read recently that Soviet optics were not as bad as one might think and even on par with those used by the Western Allies, but need to check that information. Just to note that the Panther first saw battle at Kursk, not afterwards. And many Soviet tankers apparently really liked the M4, so that would seem an overstatement to suggest that the Red Army didn't like them. I think that in general the Red Army's sentiment was actually the opposite of that. Interestingly, the Germans used armoured skirts (shurzen) on their tanks from 1943 to combat Soviet anti-tank rifles, not hollow charge weapons like the bazooka. Matilda II used two engines as well. So some thoughts on some further aspects. Thanks and best
Good presentation. However, I find this is like historic aviation books and videos in that the engines get almost no discussion. Engines are the heart of mobile machines. It has been said that the design of an airplane starts with the chosen engine and the rest is designed around it. You did mention that Germans used gasoline engines and Russians used diesel engines. This was new to me. And curious. Based on my Vietnam experience with river patrol boats, diesel engines, standard on all navy watercraft, had the singular advantage of being far less inflammable when hit. The German tank must have been a bomb when hit.
Really enjoyed this discussion of Soviet tank development. Despite the quibbles, I learned a great deal. I think we all can appreciate the probability of misspeaking once or twice in a lengthy and detailed presentation. Tank manufacture quality, underlying design, tactics, and numeric performance in battle are always of great interest along with repair challenges, logistical support needs, and crew training/survivability. Off to view the rest of tank week--
I would like to see the evidence that the T-34 was employed at kahkim gol battle in 1939 against the Japanese -all reports i have read say they were not present. Im not saying he's wrong I would just like to see the evidence. The Germans do not report encountering the T-34 until october1941 and in small numbers. If the tank had been tested in battle against the Japanese, they would have surely gone out of their way to report it to the Germans and maybe capture one. The Japanese are great imitators, would have copied it and realized how far behind their tank development was compared to the soviets.
Slowly catching up on these talks. I think we can blame the confusion on Beevor who claimed there were prototypes of the T-34 at Khalkhin Gol. Peter Samsonov's work suggests this is well nigh impossible. I would like to ask Peter if there's any indication that Khalkhin Gol affected the development of the T-34 or if the it all stemmed from the Spanish Civil War.
T-34s hadn't even entered production at the time of Nomohan so that's clearly impossible. They were, however, in combat from the first days of the 1941-45 war. There was a famous encounter in October that resulted in a report going to the German high command about the effect of T-34s....but they were in action even in June 1941.
T-34 the ‘first tank with sloping armour’? I refer you to Nick Moran gentlemen. Also - too much sloping armour. The sides for example. This - plus the Christie suspension - meant it was very cramped inside for it’s size. Optics crap and few radios. Transmission crap. Build quality crap. I am not the only person with a Military history degree to reckon that the T-34 was a great design but crappily built. Agree abut German military intelligence - that was crap too.
Early in the war many of the Russian tank crews abandoned a great number of machines with only minor malfunctions. Apparently to address this, new tank crews were trained in the mechanics of the tanks that they were to crew as they were being built at the factory, so that they were more familiar with the workings as their tank rolled off the production line and could carry out emergency repairs in the field, to either enable them to carry on the fight or withdraw to better equipped facilities away from the battle.
A nice intro for those not familiar with Soviet Armour. I have all Pritt's WW1 East Front books and many of his WW2 EF ones. However I would add a couple of observations as FYI for future viewers: Re: Assault Guns: The SU-152 shown in the pictures is actually the ISU-152 as it was based on the IS/KV chassis and had much heavier armour than the SU-152 (based on the T-34 chassis). These are two completely different vehicles although both were used primarily as assault guns and other than armour and speed essentially similar. There was also the ISU-122 which had the long barrelled 122mm (a variant of the IS-2's gun) and was primarily used (like the SU-85 and SU-100) as a tank destroyer. Again its armour was significantly heavier than those, being based on the IS/KV series. The 122mm could incapacitate vehicles with HE almost as effectively as the 152mm could (that Pritt describes in the video). Re: Side skirts and spaced armour against HEAT & Hollow Charge rounds: Sorry but Pritt's got that a bit wrong with his passing comments about these types of armour: Side Skirts: these are not for use against HEAT and hollow charge, that's the old 1950's to 1980's trope - one of the classic WW2 myths that still get repeated - the Germans developed their side skirts specifically against Soviet Anti-Tank Rifles. Nothing to do with HEAT or HC projectiles and skirts are only of limited use against these (look closely at NWE and how many German vehicles in photos actually have them versus Eastern Front; also Tiger and similar didn't have them because their side armour was thick enough to defeat 14.5mm ATR fire, if they were useful against hollow charge they would have them in Normandy, etc. It's only the lighter armoured AFVs with weak side armour, incl. Panther, that have them...). As Pritt stated it was only with Composite (or Cobham) armour in late 1970's is an effective defensive against HEAT & HC developed. Spaced Armour also was not designed to defeat HEAT or HC nor was it particularly effective against them. It was specifically for use against Kinetic Energy rounds (i.e. AP from smaller calibre or lower velocity weapons), and was most effective against uncapped rounds (AP or APBC) versus APC or APCBC (i.e. rounds with a hard tungsten cap to aid penetration). It worked by shattering the point (or sometimes the whole projectile) against the outer thin armour plate and/or reducing the velocity making the round ineffective at penetrating the thicker inner plate _if_ the round didn't significantly overmatch the armour (e.g. a 75mm AP round with good velocity would significantly overmatch a 20mm + 30mm spaced armour defence). Because of this you rarely see it late war., due to the larger gun calibres. There's also more to it (such as face hardening, BHN hardness, etc), but point is it has nothing to do with HEAT/Hollow Charge. It does obviously assist against ATRs because it's effectively a very heavy side skirt. Anyway just my 2c worth - great work Pritt and @WW2TV
The T-34 was on Khalkhin Gol in 1939, and the BT-7 is the main tank of the USSR in 1941... One story is more amazing than another. Spoiler: The T-34 prototype was shown to the customer in September 1939, just as the conflict with the Japanese ended. Spoiler number two: the most massive Soviet tank at the beginning of the war was the T-26, the Soviet licensed version of the Vickers 6 tons. The whole story about the BT-76 is just lol wut.
@52:41 The diesel version of the Sherman supplied to both British and Soviets has two engines as does the Cadillac engined of the Stuart. @54:50 AP capped and ballistic caps have been around since WW1.
T34 never faught at Khalkin gol in 1939! It wasnt prototyped until start of 1940. The KV1 shouldn't have been a surprise as the first 20 vehicles were used in Finland in Feb40, & the Finns had seen it
The later German tanks are so over engineered . Maybe when they had time to train crews it might be ok but after heavy losses the Germans didn't have time to train crews to the same standards as before . The Panther and Tiger needed much more skill to operate . Even the complicated suspension / interleaved wheels could easily clog .
Mark Felton mentions a T35 or a similar tank being used as a stationary defence point by the Germans in the battle of Berlin. If memory serves it was dragged out of a museum or exhibition.
Thank you for this really interesting and detailed presentation but did I miss the bit where Prit spoke about the T34/85? Rather strange to omit this important marque from a talk about WW2 Soviet tank development. As you mentioned at the end, a talk solely about the T34 would be well worth putting together. Nevertheless, thank you for another fascinating presentation.
Armored skirts in WW2 had nothing to do with HEAT rounds. They were used to protect from kinetic rounds. Even late war tanks could be damaged by smaller caliber kinetic weapons at a distance. Oh Jesus, this is a basic mistake.
Side Skirts were to counter Soviet anti-tank rifles. These could penetrate the side armor of the Panzer III, IV, Stug, and even the Panther above the road wheels at close ranges. The skirts did reduce the effect of HEAT rounds but that was just an unintended bonus. This myth keeps popping up.
I think people might be making it a lot bigger deal than it was in reality, most people think of tank deployment being something similar to warthunder or other videogames. Turret basket and cramped space is a problem but you wouldn't be swinging that turret much anyway, all of your targets would be mostly somewhere far in front of you.
Almost no tank in 1941 had a turret basket. In June 1941, the only ones that come to mind are the Panzer IV, the T-28, and the T-35. So if we're going to beat up the T-34 for this alleged fault, you've got to make the same criticism of every German tank except the panzer IV.
One of the first things Soviet did right is equipping their tanks with universal cannons capable of firing equally well at armor and soft targets (76mms)
Well all that did no look all that straightforward. Big universal shells might be extreme overkill, and why make 1 76 high velocity shell when you can make 3 low velocity shells with more explosive filler on a lighter shorter cannon? Especially in a time where tanks were unreliable. That said. There are also resources. Germans loved the 57 mm anti tank guns. Small light and high penetration But it needed ammo with Tungsten in it which quickly got in short supply so the long 75 mm of the Panther was required so they could just use more available resources. So yes. Soviet universal guns were nice. But they had something the Germans hadnt. The Soviets could work with it. An advantage they rightly pressed
Mr. Buttar, you have been my favorite WW2 author because of two things. 1) As a guy who loves Military history you are telling the world about the TRUTH of the Eastern Front that many of us Americans did not know really anything about because we were to busy champion our own role in WW2 which bled into the Cold War. 2) As an old Cold War Tank commander I can say without a doubt you get "IT". You understand what matters to a Tank Commander and crew across the generations until even now, but rarely talked about: What can my tank do, where can it do it, and how fast and far away it can do it from, verses, what my tank can't do, where it can't do it, and how slow and close will my tank have to be to get it done. You understand that communication really set the Russian tank doctrine free to eventually grow into a very flexible, technically advanced, netcentric, armor force it is today. Russian Deep Battle Doctrine was forged in WW2 and has been modified and changed as lessons have been learned throughout the decades since. You understand it like an armor crewman. Thank you for your great writing and knowledge sir!
Communication to the driver of the T34 was done by well aimed kicks in the back, left shoulder for turn left and right shoulder for turn right. Not sure about stop and go. perhaps a kick in the middle for go and a kick in the head to stop. Of course they did have those padded helmets to stop head injuries when bouncing around when traveling. Igor was tough.
I guess my one question is can the development of Russian tanks be sensibly viewed in isolation given the 1000s of US and UK tanks Russia received, used, assessed and took apart e.g. in terms of equipment deployed the Valentine was significantly more important than a number of the tanks discussed here. Saying that, great presentation with lots of food for thought.
Most of their pre-1939 designs were close copies of foreign designs, and of course the most common tank in the world from the mid-1930s to 1941 was the T-26, which was an upgrade of the Vickers Six-Tonner. But, post 1939, most of their designs were original and set the pace for the tank quality race of WW2.
There was a whole slew of differences - Russian tank historian Yuriy Pasholok has an article on that. To name a few points from it: engine is GM 6004 (British would use that too starting from Fall of 1941) 24-volts electric system, Browning 1919A4 machine guns (on all but few tanks), using cast parts instead of ones connected by bolts, etc.
