T-34: The Tank that won WWII 

Wonderful !

The title leaves a lot to be desired!😂

Loved it. Title is going to start a heated debate in the comments I'm sure, but no harm in that

Videos are always fantastic!!!

Loved it.... Best "war tank" of ww2?

I met a Czech man whose father worked in one of those open air factories under appalling conditions. Brutal cold. He was lucky enough to have a hat until one day he had to use a slit trench latrine and was hanging on to a something to avoid falling in. Since his hands were occupied, someone came up and just took his hat!

​@@fazoleпохмельный синдром лучше всего снимается огуречным рассолом, Алкозельцер тоже помогает но хуже. Похмелитесь, прочитайте свой комент, подумайте хорошо как станки на электротяге могут работать под дождём. Пожалуйста не пишите больше глупостей.

@@zippydastrange ancient egyptians who built the pyramid were mainly farmers who got paid for their job. The "slaves built the pyramids" is largely a hoax with no evidence whatsoever

soviet logistics 🫡

You do understand the 'slave labour' & cost in human lives that came about from this 'logistical superhuman feat'?

Or “good enough” if you don’t care about the lives of it’s crew.

In Brazil we have a saying "o ótimo é inimigo do bom" meaning "the best and the good are enemies"

@@stanleyspadowski235 No general staff cares about the lives of anyone in war. It only serves as a strategical data, so there's no "oh, our general staff is doing stuff for us to feel good out of the kindness of their heart". If the M4 was such a good tank to ride, it's because the US decided that having comfort and good morale for the crew was a worthy benefit. While the Soviets decided that comfort and ergonomics would not make you win as many battle as just having more tanks. There's also the fact that the Soviets fought for survival, thus were way less regarding towards comfort than the US who not only used a lot of volunteers, but also were not in the same predicament, hence the potential necessity to give more to your troops so that they're willing to go fight in good spirits.

@@stanleyspadowski235 People who don't know how military equipment works say so. Panther was 8 times more labour-intensive than T-34-85 and roughly the same about Sherman. It was also 1.5 times better on a battlefield than T-34-85 (according to soviets) and even more compared to Sherman. What is better: two platoons of T-34 or Shermans or one Panther? And how cool it was to be german tanker without a tank repelling enemy tanks as an infantryman?

@@Reginvalt I guess the reason why 45K T-34’s were destroyed was because of how great they were?

Leftover german parts is funny... cause Czech factories built tanks for the germans all through the war with a lot of them using up leftover czech parts and later reequipping the no longer frontline worthy chassis with different turrets and weapon emplacements to make SPGs (tank destroyers), AA vehicles and such... so what goes around comes around then?

the tank shown here is the earliest model. this is evidenced by the mask on the driver's hatch cover. such a mask stopped being made back in 1941. it's even surprising that such a rarity turned out to be on the review.

A few years ago, Russia imported a few T34/76 from Laos.

@@Ugly_German_Truths8

@@herosstratos Yes, thats what I am talking about. Those were made in Czechoslovakia after the war.

I'm sure I've read somewhere that a mallet was often used to "change" gear.

Yep, the "speed" of the tank is often massively over represented in my opinion as, whilst the engine may have been good, the gearbox and transmission was such a dogs dinner that actually getting it into top gear was nearly impossible and the conditions it put the crew under were so horrendous its not surprising that they suffered such incredible losses given theyd been beaten and frozen half to death

@@potrzebieneuman4702 I remember reading that about the KV series, but hadn't seen it in reference to the T-34. I don't mean to suggest you're mistaken, of course, simply that I've also read it, but only about the KV. Cheers

Drivers used cut down railway wheel tappers to bash the levers into gear during the winter.

@@steeltrap3800 as with everything the gearbox would have been "functional". I believe they worked on the principle that the tank would only last a short time in the field so no need to be over-engineered.

Mt grandfather on my father's side was an Omaha beach day soldier. I only got two things about the war out of him before he died. He was either ashamed of taking lives or eaten up with survivors guilt. I say the later may play a more important role as one of the stories he spoke of was of a merchant navy captain from England who he had made friends with on the way over. His ship struck a German sea mine in front of him. Killing everyone on board. War is an evil thing. Humans are disgusting for engaging in and pitiful for allowing rich fat elitists into playing gladiator for their entertainment under the guise of principles.

@@vegvisirskald2172 Well when you figure out how to fix humanity, let us know.

Respect Brother, my grandfather was also part of 3rd Ukrainian front, he fought also at Balaton alongs your's as a recon man

@@vegvisirskald2172 Thanks for this, i feel like those poor men went through hell and were forever damaged by it, so true its the elites that profit in these wars.

@ATomRileyA idk about u but I'm sick of it. I've studied history six ways from Sunday. It is riddled with elites pitting the poor against each other in their little colleseums for thousands of years. But the problem is they studied Rome too. They know that the people are nothing more than a mob. U give them something to bloody and they will eat the scraps out of their hands like the good little dogs they are.

I got close to a MiG-29 and saw it had round head rivets, not flush! Up close its panels resembled more like something from a bulldozer than a fighter jet.

IV heard of visiting Soviet/Russian air crew going to the hardware store to get nuts and bolts to hold their air frames together 😂

@@jimmy12347654 that's great! The US is the Germans of WW2 in tech. Massively overengineered and will never win in a battle against a real enemy.

Look this tank had a loss rate of 80%. How is this possible? The Germans and their allies scored a kill to loss rate of 4 to 1. The T34 was the military equivalent of the Lada. An acceptable design,but horrific quality control as is typical of Russian products. German quality ALWAYS wins out over Russian quantity. Without American aid the Russians would have been kicked beyond the Urals. Sadly, they won the war and thereby infected the world with the Communist virus. See Paul Kengor on this issue.

@@fazoleMIG 25 had steel welds and NO rivets.

The T-34s made during the war are far worse than the ones made after the war. The steel was too hard leading to excessive spawling and the tank sometimes just splitting into two, usually only the guner's sights were made properly, it was incredibly cramped on the inside, and a list of other factors really make it a quite terrible tank when you look at how the t34 was ACTUALLY made.

When I saw my first live T34 at the Patton Museum back in the day, I was stunned at the crude production of the glacis. If you weren't careful, you could literally cut yourself climbing up it.

Expected service life of T34's was about 3 months, so it's no wonder they didn't look like they'd last a year!

No, not at all a masterpiece of anything! Other than an overwhelming obsession with numerical advantage. The term used in the video "good enough" can easily be assigned to the Sherman. It was good enough to permit the soldiers to use it effectively, while meeting all the requirements of good mass production. Reliability, transportability and standardisation of parts/spares. But "good enough" cannot be used to describe the almost impossible to use effectively - T34. The tactics T34 was designed to exploit, were the equivalent of mass human wave attacks. With no consideration for numbers of casualties. Far from good enough by any civilised measure. NOT a masterpiece.

@@gusgone4527 human wave attacks? who are we talking about the Chinese? Soviets didn't do that tactic often, they utilized deep wave.

If you have enough Menschenmaterial u can prevail for Dshugash willi

Well yes a focus on quantity and a disregard for human life is what made it so effective

​@@SiegfriedDerDrachentoterfunny thing is that it wouldve been the same with any other tank, the t34 wasnt special.

T34 is an american heavy tank

​@@jurgschupbach3059 Near Berlin, the Russians had less manpower than the Germans. They crushed the Germans with powerful artillery and eventually took them into a huge "cauldron" under the village of Halbe, where they destroyed almost the entire 40 thousandth group. Since 43, the Russians have staged many cunning and brilliant operations to encircle and defeat the enemy. So, the words about throwing corpses, for the most part, are just part of anti-Soviet propaganda.

Thanks for the info, very interesting! My grandfather fought in the swedish speaking regiment IR-13. They fought at Svir and I still have his photos from the Svir power plant at the river and photos of knocked out BT-7 tanks.

Thank you for the information. Do you have an authorized reference book or authorized historical website that we can check this?

Maybe it was, but one fight doesn't win the war!

Are you talking about Rudy (ginger)?

Уже Т-44 полностью новый танк. У него и у семейства Т-54/55 с танком Т-34 общее только количество опорных катков.

T-34 was driven straight to the front and by the time it reached the front they had to replace the driver because he was basically dead

@@ms3862 lmao what they used train transportation

@@ms3862 The idea of T-34's being driven straight to the front is nothing but a silly myth that could have MAYBE been real in one highly specific case that's still debated today.

The corruption within the Soviet military and government really couldn't have helped. I don't necessarily think the T-34 HAD to be produced at such low standards, but the Soviet's inability to sort out their logistics problems and lack of highly skilled workers in bulk were the biggest factors. Sure, T-34's were mass produced at an insane rate because of their abysmally low production standards- but the Sherman was of, comparably, much better quality and still mass produced in impressive numbers. If the T-34 was produced at the standards set for it at it's inception, I believe it could have given the Sherman a run for it's money.

​@@ms3862fun fact: there is this thing called a train.

You measure with modern standards. Tractors were started by a handle back then, or by a rifle shot! The standard T-34 driver was a "Stalinez-60" tractorist, an adapted copy of "Cartepillar sixty". And the driving was the same.

Pure slavshit, or "smekalka" in Russian.

This is why T34 had this distinguished noise when it drives around. Like a ratchet.

Also, imagine thinking the Soviets didn't honour their war dead. Stick to talking about tanks please.

Haken cross, much older than 1918 and not a swastika at all. Convenient to use I suppose where there was the possibility (although unlikely unless aircraft) of meeting a German unit.

The most modern is Ukrainian units sporting them

I would go as far as to say that any Soviet tank from the T-34 onwards would trigger pretty heated debates.

Americans convinced they won the war. Also that they didn't lose Vietnam.

Mostly because attributing the outcome of the war to any single piece of equipment, even as a hyperbole, is tremendously insincere. It's like saying the M1 Garand won WWII because the Yanks used it. Not really how that works.

@@ISTHATAJOJOSREFERENCE You could more fairly say it would have been lost without it, though it would have been lost if anything of vital importance was absent.

@@viktoriyaserebryakov2755 It's a nuanced subject because you could argue that without the T-34 the Soviets would have just made a different tank- same with any other piece of equipment. The real problem with treating the T-34 as such an amazing machine is because it really wasn't. It was a rushed mess of a vehicle, and to be quite honest, I staunchly believe the Soviets COULD have done better, because losing nearly 90% of all tanks produced during a war is an absolutely outrageous amount.

Это не более 1% истории т34 и почему он был именно такой и почему были потери, мой дед прошел войну на т34 от начала до конца и после осколочного ранения продолжил воевать в Китае против японцев уже санитаром (медиком)

Radioman helped the driver a lot.

They built just as many Sherman's...

@@kenneth9874Sherman’s wasn’t as good

@@joshthemigpro1733 no, they were better all around

@@joshthemigpro1733 soviet tankers vastly preferred them for their comfort, reliability, and effectiveness.

@@sleepmnan22sleepman50 being somewhat comfortable will increase effectiveness and endurance sonny

Russia said it expected Tanks to last ONE WEEK pretty was not a consideration

Super cheap and quick to produce.

Its a state of mind, really. In Russian, we call this philosophy "smekalka". In the west, it is often dubbed "slavshit".

Right the T_34/76 that's first shown is known as a rolled plate turret and there were sub variants of this STZ's being the most notable there was also a cast version of that turret design that was very common as well.The secound 35/76 shown was the cast hexagonal version which came next first without any commanders cupola and then with though there was also a pressed version of the hexagonal as well known as the Fromochka which had a better armour rating than the cast variant. There were also subvariants of the hexagonal as well one being a type cast in many parts and welded together se really there were 4 main turret variants of the 35/76.When the 85 went into production they standardized alot more being one main design but again with a subvariant a 8 part composite cast welded from zavod 112,.The 3 different factory's that produced the 85 had slightly different patterns of weld seams also there was an early soft edge version and then a later hard edge.The T-34 is an absolutely massive subject more so than any other WW2 tank.Last thing in the video he talks about the hand rail on the 34/76 , that version from 183 never had any as they only appeared in early 43 with zavod 112 being the first literally covering the hull with them then the turret as well.

Each tank factory was given a lot of freedom to modify the design to optimize production.

Áno sú 3 typy T34,prvý bol vyrábaný zváranie veže a kanon 30mm v roku 1934 v Charkove.,druhý typ vyrábaný od roku 1937 mal inú vežu a kanon 76,2 mm.treti typ bol s vežou odlievanou v celku bez zvárania od roku 1941 s kanonom 85mm.

It’s wild to think about, honestly the Russians sort of “broke the back” of the German army. The western allies just finished the Germans off.

@@rakfarms9898I mean, it’s not strictly accurate is it? If the allies hadn’t attacked in Africa, then the med, the Germans would have had a hell of a lot more troops to face the Russians with, by the end of the war even the Russians were running out of men, if they had had to do it all on their own it wouldn’t have happened. Hitler was terrified about his ‘soft underbelly’ and millions of men and materiel were absorbed here that would have been used against the ideological enemy. Though really, the war was won when the battle of the Atlantic was won, after that the Germans never had a chance.

@@sykesm01 Italy being the 'soft underbelly' of Axis Powers turned out to be a myth. Sure, Italy itself would switch sides but on the battlefield itself, German units readily replaced Italian units and the battle through the Italian peninsula turned into a slow slogging match. Churchill should have known Italy has mountains. Or to be more precise: Italy is mostly mountains.

@@AudieHolland yes they did replace, but they had to come from elsewhere didn’t they, Italy and the fighting was horrendous, but it tied up so much that couldn’t be used elsewhere, for both sides. It wasn’t soft but making sure it wasn’t consumed vast amounts of resources

Often hear that d-day spelt the end of Germany, but if so how come Russia took Berlin. While we were struggling through the bocage (for which little thought seems to have been given) the Russians were as had been fighting from the Baltic to the Black Sea.@@rakfarms9898

hello fellow lazerpig viewer! All these idiots here are too brainwashed to see the tank was trash.

The Panzer III and Panzer IV had the following advantages over the T-34/76. The German tanks had a viewing cupola with vision slits that gave excellent situational awareness and kept the commander safe from Machine Gun Fire. The T-34/76 commander had no viewing cupola and was vulnerable (many died) when they had to raise their head out of the turret. The T-34/76 had a notoriously bad periscope with 27% of the light gathering capability of a German periscope so it was possible to attack a T-34/76 without it being even aware due to poor vision. -The Panzer III/IV were also roomy and the crew didn't need to wear helmets like Russian crew. -Panzer III/IV had good 2 way radios this was a key advantage. German tanks sometimes joined a Russian tank advance from behind and attacked the Russian formation from the rear. -German tanks had a 3 man turret which allowed a excellent turrets drill. The Commander focused on situation awareness. The loader probably doubling the rate of fire of the Panzers over the T-34. -These soft factors often gave the Germs first short first kill and allowed the T-34 threat to be dealt with. -Osprey book on Panzer III mentions that the Germans had a APDS tungsten round for the Panzer III 50mm gun but it failed its acceptance in 41 or 42.. (presumably sabot separation problems). Had the Germans had tungsten they might have easily dealt with the T-34

@@williamzk9083 exactly the kind of thing I’m talking about. The T34/76 should beat Panzer III and early versions of Panzer IV if you only look at the hard factors. But lack of situational awareness, poor communications and little to no training led to the T34 suffering massive losses during Barbarossa. Many of these problems continued to curse soviet tanks throughout the whole war

Absoultly correct but it wasn't till the Panzer 3 Special with the longer 50mm L60 gun and the Panzer IV G with the 7.5 cm KwK 40 L/43 that with firepower be able to destroy a T34 tank easier. Compared to the earlier Panzer main weapons and uparmoured they where uparmoured also. @@williamzk9083

I don't think that the Red Army gave that much thought to crew comfort and the tank's finish. Tanks' 'life expectancy' was measured in weeks - and sometimes days. They accepted these rates of attrition and knew that tank crews would not have to endure discomfort for long.

Mr Copson pointed out that running without tracks was a Christie feature on the earlier BT series that was not adopted into the T34's design in order to keep it simple.

Interestingly, the T-34 was American-designed! The tank was rejected by the US government! It figures!

It's an example - when quantity becomes quality.

The bigger gun is something that had to be implemented in all tanks The Panzer IV was a support tank, the Panzer III was completely scrapped from the AT role. The Sherman changed completely through the war, it's whole design

It's historically known the gears were changed with the use of brute force, even hammers were carried inside the tank for this purpose but in a battle drivers would often stick to using second gear only.

they thought it was trash. The testing proved it.

I'd suggest comparing the front and side angles of an M10 to a T-34. Also as soon as the M4 Sherman was completed, a project was immediately started in 1942 to make a low profile tank with the gearbox at the rear. So I suspect whatever the opinion of the tank itself that there was a profound influence on American design thinking. Though to be fair, with respect to the latter, this was how the Brits did it to and that could have had at least as much influence.

@@j.f.fisher5318 considering that project led to the m26 pershing, which has not much at all in common with a t-34, id say its more the british influence considering the similarities with later british tanks

@@ChrisZukowski88 and I am sure you have ZERO citations to back up that claim. LMAO

@@timothyhouse1622 He’s just going to cite the original test report without quoting it, because trust me bro

In almost all T-34 evaluations by the Allies, it is stated that where it matters, the quality was actually superb.

I had a similar experience at Ft. Polk, Louisiana with a T-55. I was about six feet tall and thought that regarding the Soviet Army - "All the short guys must be armor branch." A buddy who ended up as a USMC armor officer served in the M-60 tank in 1990-1991 Desert Storm. He was 6 ft 5 inches. I'm a little amazed he wasn't decapitated, but he is still with us.

@@amerigo88 I never got inside an M-60 but I did get inside the older M-48. The M-48's positively luxurious compared to the T-34!

You are right-- that quote doesn't belong to Stalin. It comes from Erich Maria Remarque, from his novel "All Quiet On The Western Front". Stalin was quoting from that, in a face-to face discussion with Winston Churchill, who seems to have misunderstood what Stalin was saying, iperhaps deliberately, in his eagerness to produce a juicy bit of propaganda...

Про чистки в армии - это довольно распространенное заблуждение, что именно из-за чисток РККА лишилась командиров. На самом деле русская армия лишилась командиров в 1917 году. Большинство командиров после 1917 года - это бывшие нижние чины царской армии, или вообще люди без какого либо военного образования. Среди них конечно были таланты и самоучки, но таковых было меньшинство. Чистки в армии были связаны с тем, что вчерашние красные командиры превратились в красных баронов. Собственно чистки были не только в армии, но и в партии. Вчерашние герои революции стали считать себя новой элитой, новой аристократией. Они искренне считали, что их активное участие в революции дает им право быть выше других и пользоваться всеми благами страны. Сталин был иного мнения. Если Вы ознакомитесь с личностью человека, то увидите, что Сталина можно обвинять в чем угодно, но только не в стяжательстве. Несмотря на абсолютную власть сам он жил вполне скромно, относительно своего положения. У него не было личных яхт, самолетов, вилл. Он не ездил по казино, не кутил по ресторанам. Все что у него было в распоряжении было государственное. И после его смерти родственникам наследства он не оставил. Он оставил наследство своей стране.

@@user-kr4fb1mm1h Не входя в причины и оправданость чисток, остается факт что они были и что что в их результате на места командиров продвинулись люды, может и талантливые но без опыта командования на этом уровне. Что касается Сталина, я бы сформулировал несколько иначе: все государственное было в его распоряжении. А про скромную жизнь надо еще посмотреть - банкеты на ближней даче, например, были очень обильными и цигареты на киоске он не покупал. Просто легко быть скромным когда все твои расходы на счет государства и евои книги печатают (и гонорары платят) в приказном порядке.

@@zoranocokoljic8927 по сравнению с современными чиновниками Сталин голодранец и аскет. В плане личного потребления благ.

@@zoranocokoljic8927 есть мысль, что войну для СССР выиграли молодые командиры, которых выучили в 1491-1943 годах. Кадровый состав РККА, вступившей в войну в 1941 году был практически полностью потерян. И это была объективная ситуация, не могли командиры мирного времени, вышедшие из героев революции и желавшие ехать на плодах революции всю дальнейшую жизнь, тягаться с германским офицерским корпусом, прошедшим первую мировую, Испанию и Польшу. Были конечно самородки из новых, и зубры из старых, по типу Шапошникова, но их было очень мало. Из-за чисток правда стало ещё меньше. Да, по поводу чисток. Выбирали ведь кого чистить не по указке Сталина. Часто люди сводили счеты и решали свои карьерные вопросы. Карма доносчикам правда тоже прилетала. Ведь оказавшись на желаем месте их некомпетентность зачастую через год-два становилась видна невооружённым глазом.

T-34 went on a crash diet - 43 version was almost three times cheaper (in material and man-hours) than 1941 one. Most of this was possible due to already pretty simple layout while Pz 4 was a constructional nightmare barely easier to make than a panther.

@@Klovaneer not only that, when Germany was originally designing the Panzer 4 in the 30s, they had basically no experience with tanks of that type and it resulted in an overengineered tank that was simplified as time went on with later variants. Especially variants with side skirts and additional anti HEAT armour had so many unnecessary hatches and optics that were simply covered and useless

English please or don't bother.

​​@@gusgone4527there's literally a translation feature baked into the site I pressed it and it read perfectly not everyone in the world has to type in English XD Korans an interesting language anyway

The reason for the triangle is that each hard factor constrains other factors. If you want more firepower for example you not only need a larger and heavier gun but more room for recoil, a larger turret ring to make room for the longer recoil when the gun is elevated, the ammunition takes up more interior volume, more volume requires more surface area of armor which then either increases the weight reducing mobility or has to be thinner for the same weight. If you take a holistic view of firepower and improve the gun depression then you need a turret that's taller above the gun. If you want a faster rate of fire the loader needs more room to work, etc. There isn't that kind of constraining factor on availability or many soft factors like communications, quality optics, having a good cupola and enough vision devices, etc. Ergonomics can become a hard factor to a degree but I'd say it's more useful to link the hard aspects of soft factors to the hard factors they impact. Making the commander load the gun reduces firepower by making it harder to spot targets and reducing situational awareness reduces survivability. If the driver's compartment has a terrible gearbox or is too cramped to drive effectively that reduces mobility. Tying this back to the T-34 the brilliance of the fundamental design is its ability to optimize multiple hard factors with few hard factor sacrifices, which is why it formed the basis of the tank arsenals of every communist and post-communist nation through the cold war and beyond. The failing as a tank was sacrificing soft factors but most of that sacrifice was not necessitated by the design - interior crew volume being the exception in that respect. But one could produce a tank that is claustrophobically cramped but otherwise improves many of the soft factor issues with the T-34-85.

Компромисс, делать мягкую сталь 100 мм как у немцев или прочную но хрупкую 45 мм и ставить под угол, но если взять американский шерман с похожей толщиной и наклоном, американская сталь пробивалась легче чем у т34

Yeah, but... We know that. 🙄

@@frontenac5083 Oh, you night be surprised, how ignorant some people are.

Хорошо, что "Матильд" и "Черчиллей" нам мало отправили. Танкисты очень любили очищать замороженную грязь в ходовой части. М3 "Генерал Грант" носил в Красной Армии гордое название "братская могила на шестерых". Хорошими танками ленд-лиза считались "Шерманы" и "Валентайны".

the Sherman shows what a tank crew could acchieve when the tank has very good ergonomics. the T34 was difficult to repair and a death trap what the crew was very aware of.

Not a problem: Russian tankers were expendable as they are today. Force protection is an unknown concept in Russia.

@@alexfortin7209 Yes, that is why their army - thanks god - performs so poor. And this principle leaves no time and capacity for improvement because they are forced to replace loses with even more inferior troops.

You make no sense. Why didnt Germans reverse-engineered it with their quality control? And where was their quality control when they fielded Panthers? In the Reich propaganda ministry maybe? Somehow there are T-34 all over that world that work, while there is a big event when Tiger I drives a few circles once a year. As for Guderian he was General Inspector of Armored Forces and he was responsible for mechanical failures of the Panther. Thats why you will never see him talk bad about tanks that he inspected (Panther) and approved for service. He will always try to blame others or say that every tank brakes down as often. Dosnt make it the truth.

If Hans said it, you can take it with a grain of salt.

Yeah, yeah, they were also catching fire from first hit 😂😂😂

@@timoteiafanasie4894 All tanks catch fire if the ammo is damaged. Contrary to the popular belief it wasn't the gasoline 90% of the time, it was the ammo. This problem was significantly reduced int he M4 Sherman via added on armor, in weak spots, and wet stowage for the ammo itself. People calling Sherman's Ronsons that catch fire "first time every time" are just spreading rumors. Ronson didn't even come up with that marketing slogan until the 1950's.

@@timoteiafanasie4894crew survivability depends on a lot more than a reputation for catching fire. Chances of escaping a destroyed T-34 only one in 4 from a T34/76. Compared to 4 out of five for a Sherman. Check the Chieftans videos.

One major problem with Western tanks was the tracks. The Soviets designed this tank to run in mud and snow, while the US designed theirs to run in the desert. 🤣

@@spyderfedden1507 i don't know if that is true, rubber pads are added to keep tarmac on the roads, not for better grip

Where does he say the T-34 is a bad medium tank?

@@nightjarflying I didn't say anything about him. He gave a completely objective assessment of this tank. But 90% of “Internet experts” simply forget why the T-34 is the way it is...

@@elkapusto2414 "When you say" is a bad start - it seems like you're addressing the person in the video. You should write "when people [not the guy in the video] say..." etc etc

@@nightjarflying Good desing horrendous quality, therefore the horrendous performance.

@@nightjarflying 👌 done

these tanks were produced by women and children... men were at the front

The thing is Germany wasnt ashes after WWI. They destroyed their own economy by mass printing money and didnt stop doing it when the war ended. After WWII Germany was ashes and it recovered quicker while paying both WWI and WWII reparations. But mostly I do agree with you.

@@Paciat And why do you think they mass printed money ? Just because they thought it would be funny ? The Treaty of Versailles was just the guarantee of a new war in Europe. We put the whole responsability of WWI on Germany despite them not being any more responsible for it than the UK or France. It's always easy to say "they shouldn't have invaded anyone" but people never bother thinking as to why a country would invade another in the first place. There's always deep-rooted issues and it's those that need to be adressed. It was applicable back then and it's applicable in today's wars as well.

@@Paciat They felt pressured to devalue their own currency due to war reparations and other mismanagement, the entire thing was handled badly, not just by Germany. Either way, it was stupid and it didn't have to happen. Many military people saw WWII coming. The first one didn't have to happen either. War is a Racket. Someone is always getting rich while soldiers and civilians die fighting for half-truths and lies.