The over-rated (early!) T-34 

nice

Oof... *misunderstand, such

@OptimalOptimus50 Not as terrible as your lack of humour

@OptimalOptimus50 Ah, I guess we have the joke police, policing jokes which is a subjective medium.

In Belgrade military museum, we have one of early versions, that survived entire warand made it to Belgrade. It was Soviet propaganda move, to prove its nonexisting quality to future western youtuber.

^^End comments now, we have a winner

*gets snagged on hatch coaming* "Bugger."

OH BUGGER THE COMMENTS SECTION IS ON FIRE... With T-34 loving fanboys. Lol commie sons of bitches.

I made it out of there really quickly xD

ABANDON COMMENT SECTION!!

owo

Prepare for angry and opinionated people.

I don't clean Jewish street Stones

@@supercjs6044 to

Paul oppppp

He better start running a geiger counter over his potatoes on a regular basis, putin doesn't play.

only good commie is a dead commie

Only people who live under commie rule are in gulag range

@@Lehr-km5be Still in polonium range.

Just dont get any habits, any person skilled in intelligence knows that routine is one of your worst enemies. Thats why you dont get your coffee from the same place everyday

They don't care, it's not their glorious napkin paper Soviet high tier heavy tank.

wargaming shits on the sovjet tanks so thats why he works for them

T-34 was an excellent use of American technology.

@@phil20_20 you wish... day dreaming I see.

BLASPHEMY I SAY!!! /sarc

@John Cornell yeah, its hard to make out the engraving on the side through that rust pitting, but i believe it says "blc" wich was the factory code for zeiss

@John Cornell im not sure yet, its a nice thing but i might sell it for the right price and to the right guy, maybe some americans have the weapon it was desinged for in their backyard and are looking for the original scope for it ;D i believ now it was used for some kind of shortrange field howitzer since it has a range indicator scale on the side, going from 5 to 70, probably 50 to 700 meters.

@John Cornell here is a link to a very similar but not quite the same scope: www.lonesentry.com/ordnance/rbl-f-40-artillery-sights.html

Seems you would be the better candidate since you are experienced

I've hoped more people would realize that training is everything,but as good the soldiers are, they need good leaders and the soviet union had few of them at the beginning

Neither can you undervalue the importance of actually having fuel and ammunition for your tank. The 1941 Red Army had neither. A typical Russian tank had a quarter of the ammunition that they were designed to carry. The Red Army in 1941 was a logistical nightmare (but no-one was going to tell Stalin that). Basically Russia had quadrupled the size of its army without ordering extra supplies....

@@allangibson8494 "not telling" Stalin about that would lead to bad things, not "telling".

@@Shantykoff Telling him you had failed was bad, having him find out was worse. The Russians became masters of obfuscation at this point - padding numbers in reports became standard, the results of this came home to roost forty years later.

@@allangibson8494 source? Immagination?

Is that true? It sounds ridiculous, but Soviet Russia WAS ridiculous.

@@Aethgeir not true

The T-34 was secretly made at the Number 9 Locomotive Factory in Karkov. They got it moved followed by the FED Commune which made cameras, microscopes etc.

No, they'd just just distribute the mark 1 gearshift rock instead.

@@Aethgeir Not true. The joke is the T-34 needed a hammer to get it to go into gear. But it didn't need a sickle.

nice catch!

nope that the only t-34 that ever had a transmission on its back (as far as we know)

yes, thank you for telling me what the video says in the caption

You will find this is also true of modern Russian tanks.

the transmission on the deck is evidence of both the reliability problem and the logistics bottlenecks. If you have to haul around a transmission as dead weight into combat, then your maintenance and logistics are also unreliable regards.

When are we getting Military History Reenacted ?

@@violettray2679 bit rude

You’re fucking comment makes no sense this video was made a day ago

I'd like a medication that eliminates emotions so people who have no control over them or opinions made in the effect of emotion would have a chance to finally get what scientific research means. All scientist seem to be dicks to the people who seek for emotional confirmation/co-operation from a person that does only Data and Fact. It's like computer coding. You will get the error message until it is right. No emotions involved. Cry me a river. Call me a Dick. I'm a cat person.

@@violettray2679 Just curious since, how come the hate for MHV?

Sloped armor was even used on knights armor to deflect arrows, sloped armor isn't just some magic thing the Soviets invented.

How much of that was happenstance and how much of that was deliberate planning?

@@Ben..... Very deliberate considering they chose sloped armor over comfort and visibility.

If you mean the CSS Virginia, I think it was all deliberate planning. I'm sure they were angling the armor with the intention of deflecting cannon shot. If you are talking about the armor worn in the Middle Ages, a lot of the design was an effort to keep the weight down while providing protection. It would not be unreasonable to assume, therefor, sloping was mostly happenstance. However, we know certain helmet designs were intentionally made to deflect the strike of projectiles and blades. A pig snout bassinette is the clearest example I can think of. I am no expert, though, so you might want to ask someone like the Metetron or Shadiversity.

Wasnt the css merrimack the first ironclad with sloped armor?

Abrams

Ikr, I really want him to check out German vehicles.

Isn't the panzer 4 review been out for like 6 years o more?

Andrés Der Sleepy yeah but it was only like 7 minutes on the history and that’s about it

There are so many Pz. IV variants that it would be easily a couple hours. D, F, H, and then add in the various gun carriage designs Nashorn Hummel Jgdpz IV etc. oh yeah not to mention a Flakpanzer a Flammpanzer and then the Einhorn variant with Spruehregenbogen.

Why? It’s an assessment of the weapon system, not the guys using it

​@@looinrims A weapon is no good if you can't use it well. If we're keeping to theme here, the T-34 did have good armor early on and a fairly capable gun, however as Mr. Chieftain here has said the conditions for the crew were terrible and each crewman was often very overloaded. Because of this, they were not able to do their jobs effectively and could not put the armor and gun to good use, and so the vehicle suffered thusly. Not to mention that an experienced crew will likely do better in a vehicle than an inexperienced one. The guys using and their ability to use the weapon system do make a difference in the vehicle's performance and so they should be considered in an assessment of the weapon in question.

@@phosophorus8622 uh huh, that’s a criticism of the training regime, not the weapon The weapon in this case btw is dogshit, happily it fought an enemy that spent only 6% of their resources into armored vehicles and served a nation that while not fielding logistics trucks, its allies were happily giving hundreds of thousands of logistics trucks to it But the morons running it aren’t the weapon systems fault, well in this case it is cuz the service life of the T-34 didn’t allow any kind of training since the parts would all break but you know still

@@looinrims I guess so, but the point here is that the guys operating the weapon should not be completely left out, as they always will have some influence on the overall vehicle's performance. Sometimes the vehicle simply won't let them do well, other times it's the crew that let down the vehicle. It just depends. Going back to the T-34, the early models were horrendous with their setup, overloading the untrained crew and just not giving them very much of a fighting chance. But I also think it's safe to argue that if the crew were trained and had experience with it and knew what the vehicle was like before being issued with it, they likely would have done much better in it, no matter how bad it really was. Now that I'm thinking about it though, I believe we're thinking of two totally different things here. Analysis of a weapon based purely on its paper stats (ie. gun penetration, mobility, armor, etc.) vs. considering and including all the factors that would attribute to its overall effectiveness in a war. So because of that, debating this isn't going to go anywhere, and I'll leave it at that.

Not just how well people could use it, but also how well it was made. Cause damn, the T-34 had a lot of issues with production. Most was because workers were just handed welding tools and told “go weld that tank” More times than not the welds would break during combat and the tank fell apart.

This shit is horrible PP It is like Hey a new chieftan video! Fucking premiere... Wait you aren't dead?

Have you seen the video by Scotty from “Strange Parts”. Careful what you search for, but hes a good guy who built his own iphone. He tried Premiere and posted a video about how badly it went wrong. Be careful.

@@brunor.1127 it's a big cock tease option, and was the question directed to me? Because I did not know I was dead XD.

so it's a not-live stream?

It's very dead stream. Or maybe stillborn stream. It's "hey, I'm going to release a video called "X" in ten days! Let's chat for the next 20 minutes about something you haven't seen! There is no video when the chat is live.

A wild Matsimus has appeared ! :D

@@sting2death2 a magnificent creature in his natural habitat 😁

One of my favorite RU-vidrs who points out errors of NOT ONLY Russian and eastern tanks BUT ALSO western tanks. Literally every other RU-vidr channel post bias.

Loader/Commander/Gunner if you're French. :D pfft, who needs a crew.

No it was actually a brilliant design

@@bbcmotd Oh yes! But in the IKEA sense, if you understand what I mean. Brilliantly designed, to a price point where someone buying his first home can also afford all the necessary furniture. Not meant in a negative way at all, just a result of prioritising numbers over that last improvement in quality.

@@thomaslutro5560 yea and was a smart decision for the attriotional war the Russians found themselves, where numbers are very important

Very fast turret rotation compared to German tanks, but the actual reload speed was poor.

@@bbcmotd a brilliant design that was discontinued with the T-44 lol, Soviet fanboys are a crime against information

FWIW, General "Schnell" Heinz Guderian, who became the inspector-general of the Panzers, detested the "Big Cats", believing them to be overly large, expensive, over-engineered, hard to maintain, and generally troublesome in combat. He felt that the Panzer IV was all the tank the Panzerwaffe needed, or at least could sustain.

​@@selfdohe was most probably right lol

​@@selfdohe was right, except for the fact that the panzer iv was really slow to build. If they had created a better panzer iv, with a faster production, instead of balooning the weight it would probably be a great tank. The panzer iv ausf. G is probably my favorite german tank, good ol' (not so) reliable.

Basically: a larger turret, and that’s a lot You have a larger gun that have a chance to take out the panther and tiger, and you now have enough room for a three men crew in the turret, so that you are finding targets much faster and engaging them faster, and the crews generally sits comfortably in the turret, though the driver is still uncomfortable cuz the hull isn’t larger compare to the earlier T-34s also soviet crews are much better trained in 1944 in comparison to those tank crews earlier on There are other minor changes such as better quality, thus more reliable and stuff

Almost everything on the T-34/85s were better than the T-34’s. Primarily production quality though. T-34’s had a nasty habit of falling apart when shot, literally. Sometimes they were welded together so poorly a shell would hit the front and the side panel just kinda fell off. Sometimes the armor would just shatter on impact, sometimes both. Sometimes the damn thing didn’t start, so much so Stalin was worried that the tankers were trying to sabotage their vehicles so they wouldn’t have to fight. The crew couldn’t see out of the tank for shit. There’s one story about a German at-gun, I think a pak-37 or something like that, shot a T-34 about 37 times until the thing finally turned around and tried to run the gun over…and missed. The T-34/85 had a few of these problems, the shattering was still an issue, but the welds held, and the crew were able to see out the tank, and the armor was even thicker so honestly, and you could actually get the damn thing going. the 85 was leaps and bounds better than the 34. The 85 was on par, and sometimes better than the Sherman. But not the Firefly, that thing kicked so much ass Tiger Tanks feared it.

I do have an Inside the Hatch on the T-34/85

@Jimmy De'Souza Bob Semple was New Zealand's prototype for a tank. It wasn't made from proper armor plate, and instead used corrugated sheet metal. The armaments had I think one or two Vickers machine guns but don't be afraid to fact check that I'm going off my memory and even I don't trust it. This was done in the 1940s and is really just a joke of a vehicle. I don't think it would stand up to a Vickers 6-ton or a Ha-Go. At least those have cannons.

You know the only reason they didn't go through with the Bob Semple was because it is considered a weapon of mass destruction

The Semple, being a super tank, was too expensive to build. There just weren't enough of them. I mean getting enough dilithium crytsals for the warp drive was a nightmare.

Princeofcups Poc and also jumping between the warp and realspace requires massive amounts of space for the warp engines only the Tog 2 could hold. (If you're gonna use Star Trek references, I'll use 40k refrences)

The Bob Semple was such a devastating weapon that it was banned by the Geneva convention. It's also the only reason we haven't been invaded by aliens and been slaved yet, they know they won't stand a chance against the Bob, a weapon so powerfull that millions of people die simply by the airpressure from it's engine.

It’s probably still being edited (given that it premieres in 7 days), which is why this feature may exist (though other RU-vidrs don’t seem to use it properly)

@@Shepard_AU I think you can only premier it after it's been uploaded, or as it's being uploaded

He might be getting paid to do it? and if he can earn a few more bucks, to make more videos then Heck Yeah

Tcuel wrong

Imagine how cluttered youtube would be if every second video in my feed was a premiere. I'd barely be able to find a video to watch in the present moment

yeah, it's what the Chieftain called the T-34M, and what Wargaming puts in WoT as the A-43. It was, as you said, a somewhat shorter T-34 with torsion bars, a bigger model 1943-esque turret complete with a cupola reminiscent of german ones, way more space inside, and the intent of installing either the original 76mm F-34 or the anti-tank oriented 57mm ZiS-4.

The early Panthers were far more reliable. They had issues mostly with the exhaust transmission, engine, and exhaust manifold but that's because they were literally the very first production Panthers and the issues were quickly rectified after Operation Citadel. As opposed to the T-34, which by June 1941 had already been in service for over a year, had produced over 1200 units, and been widely supplied to units.

Yes, but the Soviets made them reliable and were pumping out thousands of them within a year. The Germans barely managed to make the Panther reliable by the end of the war and never managed make more than hundreds of them. The T-34s problems came from the engine anyway, while the Panthers came from bad design and selection of the final drive.

@@justforever96 No they never were reliable. Just so many of them and easy enough to fix that it wasn't a issue. Getting one to go 300km without breaking down completely was a miracle. But that doesn't matter when you have 3 more tanks for each lost and you can usually get the broken down ones back into functionality by the time the others have broken down. If you want reliable/easy to fix you look at the sherman. You want armored the matilda. You want fire power a tiger or IS-2. You want quick and dirty option to fight a war? Go with the t-34. You can throw someone with essentially no training in it and run it. You can run it till it breaks down and then hop into the spare that was brought up since they are so common. You can have people with barely any training pumping them out by the dozen. They are dead simple and were amazing specifically because they played to Russia's one real advantage while mitigating a whole bunch of disadvantages. It played to Russia's surplus of raw materials with a stupid simple design. So simple it was able to by quantity to deal with early logistic issues, it dealt with needing trained crews by being as easy to use as possible at the cost of performance and it dealt with the fact Russian guns rarely did as well as they could on paper by death of a thousand cuts. In summation it was a "okay" tank but what it did was play to what advantages few as they may have been and ended up leveraging it to make a extremely capable armored force.

But the later variants does the job good.

The later variants like the 1943 model(with the cupola and simplified production) as well as the T-34/85 variant yes, its just that whenhistory channels mention T-34s usually they mean the early-mid war version which had the aforementioned problems.

Just look how many tanks soviets lost in the continuation war here in Finland against Sturmgeschütz III Aus G used by finns. Corporal Olof Lagus son of renown Major General Lagus was able to destroy (as a StuG gunner) 4 T-34 tanks in a minute. A world record.

@@Jaeger958 Production of the Stug III G started on 1942. And production of the T-34 started in 1940 (after the winter war).

Chieftain is mistaken here. The gunner was indeed the commander and the loader was just the loader. It was a matter of rank. The TC had the highest rank, the gunner had the second highest, then the driver, then the loader, and then the bow machine gun operator. It would be highly unusual for the loader to also be the commander.

@@tankolad I believe that the Stuart had a TC/loader, but its a 37 so its not as big of a deal

I would like to know where they are getting this information as well. I have seen references to EXPERIMENTAL tests, where the TC was the loader instead of the gunner, but this was not adopted because it didn't improve the problems with a 2 man turret.

@@Crosshair84 Yeah. Another thing to mention is that the 360° rotating device is on the gunner's side of the T-34 hatch. It's pretty obvious that the gunner is the commander of the tank, not the loader.

You are correct. I’ve been mucking around with too many Stuarts recently or something. End result was the same, mind, poor situational awareness.

The angle of "effective !" slope is also dependent on the location , distance and elevation (angle) that the adversary's projectile is propelled from .

It was a good idea. France had a demographics problem, by 1940 Germany would have almost 3x the conscription age manpower of France. in WW1, forts and fortified positions had been incredibly influential. Forts can also be garrisoned by older men who are no longer fit for infantry service. So France used fortifications to make up for their manpower shortage that they knew they would have. The reasons things fell apart were: 1. Assuming that the Ardennes Forest was impenetrable. Had the Maginot Line covered that area like the rest, the Germans could not have flanked allied forces. 2. Not confronting Germany when Hitler sent troops into the Rhineland. France's defensive plans assumed Belgium to be an ally so that French troops could reinforce the Belgian defensive fortifications along their border with Germany. By not confronting Germany, Belgium went Neutral, leaving the French/Belgian border unfortified and open to attack. French troops could not enter Belgium until after Germany attacked.

@algogy It's okay. I just found out from some Russian RU-vidrs that the USA just massacred civilians and didn't do anything to fight the Nazis

@@chaosXP3RT Russians are masters of rewriting history.

At least they make some good songs

@@chaosXP3RT Its because they were speaking about Great Patriotic War as they do not teach about Wolrd War two for one reason, before 1941 attack on USSR whole German army was using Soviet oil, tanks were made from Soviet metals and tank comanders were trained in USSR -> The Kama tank school (German: Panzerschule Kama) was a secret training school for tank commanders operated by the German Reichswehr near Kazan, Soviet Union. The school was established in order to allow the German military to circumvent the military restrictions on tank research spelled out in the Treaty of Versailles. Apart from Kama, for the same reason Germany also operated the Lipetsk fighter-pilot school and a gas warfare facility, Gas-Testgelände Tomka...

Piotr Dudała alongside their communist friends in the communist workers party of China.

T-60s and 70s could be made in factories that weren't capable of producing the 34. Not sure about the T-50, but Wiki says it was designed at factory 174, which eventually made 34s anyhow. If you'd have to choose, another T-34 line is a better choice than opening one for the T-50, even if it wasn't the better tank. And frankly, I find the latter unlikely, even if the T-50 has a few neat features over the T-34. Hell, it's not like there wasn't a T-34 variant with torsion bars and a three-man turret, it just didn't enter production for fairly decent reasons!

Let's no forget that the situation on the front was a bit desperate the germans were literally plowing trough soviet lines so they needed numbers

I've read the book about Rommel's "panzer commander" Hans Von Luck, and it that book he talked about how much problems they had with the T-50's, they had to use 88's on them.

@@ricardo3760 Von Luck was reassigned to Africa in January 42. For any units that wouldn't have gotten the 5cm yet, the 88 would've been the smallest gun after the 37 at the time.

Afaik T-50 was almost as expensive as T-34 and was more akin to a light tank than a medium tank and Soviets were at the time realised that it is waste to build light tanks, there is no good use for them. T-60 were mostly used recoinnassance vehicles. T-70 was bad to say the least but the chassis lived bit longer in the form of SU-76 which was more useful and liked even if bit difficult to drive.

Unprepared was an understatement more like woke up in the middle of the night after a day of heavy drinking and lack of sleep in the couple of days

Middle of the night is always when bad news comes, it's tradition. After drinking, that's just icing on the cake.

This is a great point. AFV production, in numbers, reliability, maintainability, and technical features, is very much an indicator of the overall economy and industrial capabilities of the nation making them.

@BalF The Chieftain is one of the most famous and well informed tank experts ever, I've even seen him referred to as "Tank Jesus." His status as a very well informed tank expert is undeniable and you have provided precisely zero evidence to back up your claims. Yes it's true that German AT guns were usually deployed in groups but that doesn't mean that they would never find themselves alone, in many cases they did. The T-34 had absolutely horrendous vision, not just by 1941 standards, but by any years standards. As The Chieftain pointed out the Panzer 3 and also the Panzer 4 had cupolas for the tank commander, and the driver also had more and better vision ports and the radio operator actually had a vision port unlike the T-34 bow gunner who was practically blind. The gun sights of the T-34 were also less clear than the German ones and ths driver's vision port was incredibly narrow. Why would the Soviets themselves complain about the lack of vision on the T-34 if it wasn't a problem? And why did the Germans weld cupolas onto all of the T-34s that they captured and used?