T-34: The Tank that won WWII
Vložit
- čas přidán 2. 06. 2024
- The Soviet T-34 was the most prolifically produced tank of WWII. Basic and austere in design, it was highly effective and capable of mass production. In this video we take a close look inside and out at the tank that made victory over Nazi Germany possible.
Watch David Willeys Tank Chat on the T-34:
► • Tank Chats #68 T-34 | ...
Support The Tank Museum & Get great perks:
► Patreon: / tankmuseum
► CZcams Membership: / @thetankmuseum
00:00 | Intro
01:00 | T-34 Origin
02:47 | T-34/76
11:45 | T-34/85
13:48 | See Inside The Tank
#tankmuseum #t3485 #t34 #soviettank
Hey tank nuts, what did you think of this video?
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?
The relocation of virtually all of the Russian heavy industry, the dismantling and reconstruction of so many factories over 1000 km away is one of those logistical superhuman feats that gets scant attention in WW2 history. That’s a shame.
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'?
The T-34 was the first Tank I ever got to see IRL up close and personal. I even got to crawl around inside of it. It was an old Cuban T-34/85 to be exact. This was around August of 2021.
Not sure if it's been mentioned but the red highlights you use to display the current talking point is really helpful!
That poor gearbox. Talk about Grind it till you find it!
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.
It is worth mentioning that many T-34s and other Soviet tanks were made in Czechoslovakia under a license after the war. These typically have much better welds and overall craftsmanship and interestingly feature some leftover German parts. These were then sold to third countries and with great irony got reimported to Russian Federation for ceremonial purposes a couple of years ago. So the T-34 you might seem on the Red Square during Victory Day parades is actually a Czech-built tank with German headlights that didnt serve in the war but was in Laos until 2018...
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.
A great example of never letting perfection get in the way of "good enough".
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?
My grandfather's tank... He never talked me about war. It was too hard memories for him... He joined battles near Balaton lake (Hungary).
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.
T-34/76, Finnish registernumber Ps.231-2 (earlier R-105 in finnish service), was captured 2-3nd of October 1941 near Svir power plant. It had been abandoned by its Soviet crew after getting stuck on two tree stumps, from which Finnish soldiers got rid of with a saw and little bit of explosives. Vehicle was a factory new STZ-manufactured T-34 model 1941 which was completely intact with only four shells missing from it's ammunition racks. In December 1941 the tank played pivotal role in Karhumäki-Poventsa offensive operation, during witch the tank fell in to the river. Recovered and used untill the 1961.
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!
Working the flight line at Washington Dulles, I was exposed to many Soviet Era airframes. What was always interesting was the logic behind a design. Visual inspections of wing roots landing gear vision ports cargo doors and engines revealed simple functional operations with limited intelligence man power. Placement of servicing acces was almost always at ground level and could be preformed in unimproved airfields or very remote areas.. it's no surprise these tanks are almost identical in design assembly and d function to the airframes.
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 most amazing thing to me about the T34 is that the Soviets lost 35k+ of them and that they still came out ahead.
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.
Grew up watching a old
Ww2 Polish tv show called “ four tankers and a dog”( English translation: Polish is, czterech pancernych i pies) that series got me into world war 2 and made me
Fall in love withrbeb t-34. Obviously this machine ain’t perfect but it definitely stint the wort thing out their.
Are you talking about Rudy (ginger)?
"One death is a tragedy, but a million is statistic". That's not a quote from Josef Stalin. It is taken from Erich Maria Remarque's "Black Obelisk" book and attributed to Stalin falsely. Just like some other parts of the video not directly related to the tank.
Also, imagine thinking the Soviets didn't honour their war dead. Stick to talking about tanks please.
Hard to judge the craftsmanship when the tank actually had to go to the front straight to the front from the factory floor in stalingrad. American tank factories didnt have to face similar conditions hence had the time, material and luxury to put the best thing forward
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.
Thanks for the explanation on the markings. In Finland it's known as a hakaristi. In many places it has been removed because of its resemblance to the other marking.
The usual very high quality video we expect from Tank Museum.
Nice clips of tank in action.
Enough info to understand the tech, but not too much. Nicely paced descriptions.
Highlighting in red the components the narrator was talking about is a very nice touch.
Very important insights into the political environment these tanks operated in.
I have been to the Tank Museum 3 times. It is a great visit as it is always very informative as they seem to change the displays regularly.
Great video!
I have seen the T-34 in the tank museum in Munster (Germany) and first I was amazed on how sleek and sharp the design is in persona. Also on how small it actually is in real life. But the closer I got to it the more I realised how incredibly crude the weld was and how it really was just crudely cut metal plates bolted together without care.
In closeup nothing about this tank looks like it was made to last more than a year. But seen from afar it all blends into a piece many (myself included) find aesthetically pleasing.
Truly a masterpiece of pragmatism and mass production. But I don’t want to imagine the horror of beeing crew in such a vehicle… even if you survive the war in that thing, you are probably still partially crippled from living in it.
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.
What's remarkable to me is the first prototype was made in 1937, but the fundamental design was sound enough that not only was it the mainstay of Soviet forces throughout the war but upgraded variants of this design dominated every major communist and post-communist tank arsenal through the entire cold war and beyond. No other pre-WW2 design can come close to such a boast.
Уже Т-44 полностью новый танк. У него и у семейства Т-54/55 с танком Т-34 общее только количество опорных катков.
It is possible to realise that the T-34 was a good tank if you only look at hard factors (armour, firepower and mobility) and in the way it was designed, a terrible tank if you consider how the tank was actually built and also many of the soft factors such as crew comfort, reliability, quality of manufacture, visibility and coordination, but it was absolutely the tank that the Soviets needed. It was simple enough that it could be built (to a terrible but functional standard) by mostly untrained peasants, cheap enough to produce that they could be built in their tens of thousands and easy enough to operate that training could be reduced (at massive detriment to the crews).
Its similar to the Panther in that people will argue back and forth whether it was a good or bad tank and both sides being right.
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.
Amazing work to the Bovington Tank Museum on detail review on the T-34
In regard to the markings from Finland: I have seen a sturmgeschutz with three markings visible. The first (and faintest) is the German balkenkreuz. The second (also mostly painted over) is the Finn version of the swastika, a symbol used since 1918, long before the nazis were a thing. The third is the more modern Finn roundel, which was painted on Finn tanks and aircraft after Finland and Germany fell out.
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
Excellent episode. For some reason I was unaware that 45,000 of the 55,000 T34’s were destroyed during WW2. The Soviets lost a staggering 86,000 tanks of all types during the war. The loss of life both civilian and military for the Soviets just defies comprehension.
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
Definitely a title that can trigger a debate in the comment section lol
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.
I've been waiting for this since the tank chat for it!! Thank you for answering our prayers!!
Great video, thank you for the closeup details.
This was a great tank for its time . Thanks for sharing this information with us.
Seeing someone actually operate that machine was quite interesting. What incredible strain put on the driver.
Radioman helped the driver a lot.
The red accents showing us the interior components was a great touch
My grandmother and her family was a refugee in Nizhniy Tagil. And her uncle was the head of a shop (department) in Tankograd
As an American, I have never really understood the vastness of the Russian front in WWII; in this perspective I can understand the argument that the T-34, by sheer mass, is the most influential tank of the war.
With the low light and silver paint, it's easy to imagine freezing inside that tank during the winter campaigns.
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
Great Video Chris, love how detailed you get with these "Inside" Videos. Felt so sorry for the poor guy that had drive the T34/85 though
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.
That little bit about the track pin on the T34 floored me!! Never knew that, beautifully simple and crude, but s effective. Thank you so much for uploading
Pure slavshit, or "smekalka" in Russian.
This is why T34 had this distinguished noise when it drives around. Like a ratchet.
Great vid! As always.
With that title, the comment section should be fun
Love the system to keep the track pins in place. Looks like something a backyard mechanic would design: an advantage over highly-trained engineers.
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".
Learned a great deal on this video. Awesome!
Excellent talk,
pleasure to
listen!
One question I have. There appears to be three main "designs" of T-34. 1. There is the crude looking welded turret we see in the T-34/76 in this video. 2. Then there is the smoother looking T34-/76 that appears to have a more rhombus shaped ...."cast"?...turret? 3. The T34/85. We never hear or see much about the difference between the smoother T34/76 and the early crude welded version. What can you tell us? Great video!
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.
What did the western allies think of the T-34
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
If this tank museum is where I think it is in NorCal then I have been inside it and it is simply amazing. I actually got to personally sit in several of them while working out there 2 decades ago. Great content BTW, very informative!
I really like the sections detailing the interior and highlighting components in red
Thanks!
The Russians used submerged arc welding on the t34, a semi automatic process able to be used by essentially unskilled workers at a very high speed.
An excellent video. Thank you!
Quality work! Thank you.
I typically have focused on US tanks during WWII. T-34 has always been interesting to me and wanted to learn more, great work on this video!
Interestingly, the T-34 was American-designed! The tank was rejected by the US government! It figures!
Great video, looking forward to theT-34-85 one. Oh hey, what was the pack life of the T-34?
Russia said it expected Tanks to last ONE WEEK pretty was not a consideration
Those racks on the turret are important. I rode outside of an M60 when I was serving as a Combat Engineer and I thought I was going to fall off a couple of times.
These videos are great, thanks
The T34 is a perfect example of 'better is the enemy of good enough'. The problem with that idea is that if 'good enough' is not improved, then it stops being good enough. Hence the three man turret and bigger gun taking so long to be implemented.
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
The “Armoured Triangle” is actually a diamond, Availability being the missing leg on the chair. Availability covers logistics, ease of manufacture, maintenance and men, survive ability in combat. But, shallowness in populist knowledge structure shows how, for instance, never do I see ground pressure quoted in mobility data….you drive along around long enough, you soon learn that ground pressure will decide how your day turns out. I wish thid triangular stuff could be replaced with priority accorded by the actual user, not ease of production of this magazine style, ridiculously lacking technical data which small one man operations seem to include on Utube with supreme outcomes. Cheers
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.
Excellent, as always
Seriously good presentation. The legend of the T34 well explained along with the background.
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)
It's funny to consider that the T34-85, the apex variant of the T34, was 40-60% cheaper than the Panzer 4 J, the desperation tank of Germany. When people ask if the T34 was a good tank, we need to consider if the Soviet Union would have won against Germany if they used any other tank.
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
Awesome
Thank you for some objective love to our T34, recognition of its cons and pros, and appreciate for avoiding using verbiage used in the review by the other guy from few years ago.
Probably one of the most controversial tanks of ww2 imo
Its a beautifull piece of history, a nice tank over all, sure it had its weak sides, the quality was not the best but not the worst either, there is a guy who is at the moment restaurating a T-34, he waterblasted a tank and when you watherblast the well made steel should have like shiny silver or grey colour but the T-34 had much black spots, thats the mark of bad armor casting, but you could see that some parts didnt have black spots (like gun) witch means that it was well made, so it would be safe to say like Chieftain did "it was not the best quality but the parts that should have been well made were well made"
In almost all T-34 evaluations by the Allies, it is stated that where it matters, the quality was actually superb.
Excellent documentary as ever. Don't let Mr Hewes see that engine on a stand!
Very interesting facts which I was unaware of such as the clever track-pins retention system and the fact it could run without tracks.
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.
Where is the log at the back of the tank?
The crew survival rate for Shermans in US Army was about 85% in a case of complete tank loss.
The crew mortality rate for T-34s was over 80%. It wasn't unheard of to lose the whole crew to a non penetrating hit due to armor spaling or joint failure.
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.
The t34-76 is a classic example of how good armour, firepower and mobility can only be fractionally utilized by the crew. Most of the tank's great stats on paper is unusable by having a poor 2 man turret without a full-time commander/spotter and terrible internal ergos, effectively neutering the fightability of the tank. Not to mention terrible transmission reliability. The t34-85 in 1944 made the tank far more fightable, but no turret basket and still awful interior still compromised the tank.
A crew could squeeze full utility out of a sherman, particularly the 76mm sherman, due to decent ergos.
Hands down I'd say the versatility and reliability of the sherman platform is more worth of the "won ww2" remark.
A good look from a different angle. Thanks, i enjoyed that.
Swastika was also used as insignia of Latvian Air Force and armed forces in general - on medals, swords, everywhere. Like in Finland it was before Nazis came to power in Germany, so for starters, it's not Nazi insignia at all. Numerous variations of swastika as a symbol of sun, fire and luck have been used for millennia in traditional dressing along with other symbols for water, earth, wheat, stars etc. And of course it was not called by the foreign name "swastika", it was either general "kāšukrusts" (something like "a cross of angles" or "a cross of corners") or ugunskrusts (fire cross) and pērkonkrusts (thunder cross) for right and left side versions of it.
Yeah, but...
We know that. 🙄
@@frontenac5083
Oh, you night be surprised, how ignorant some people are.
First, "shturmovik", applied to a plane, means attacking plane (from German "strum" - attak). The plane in question is IL2, but since there were no other models in that role in Soviet airforce in WWII, "shturmovik" was used interchangeably toname it.
Second, the purges in the Red Army led not only to the elimination of qualified officers (some, like Rokossovsky, were pardoned and sent to the front when war begun), but also their places were filled by lower rank commanders who were, as a rule, objectively unfit to command their units. Also, for ideological reasons it was ruling doctrine that if there was a war the fightings would soon be transfered to enemies territory and, consequently, stores of ammunition and war material were located near the borders and lost to theenemy in the first days off fightings. So, if we add the fact that most of the industry was on the move to Ural in late 1941 and couldn't produce any tanks, we see that Red Army generals were in the situation that they had manpower, but very little of other equipment to stop the German advance. Minor but still important factor is weak Soviet radio industry, which lead to lack of coordination in the battle (same applies to airforce) a therefor higher loses.
NB, I don't think that quote belongs to Stalin.
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.
Hi : ) it’s the Finish Hakoristi ..It’s the ethnic symbol of Finland .
Love your own people and heritage & symbols ❤ : )
Incredible video and very educational thankyou
Thank you for this fascinating upload.
At 20:13 you say "It is in the nature of totalitarian states to disregard losses in people and material as long as the objective is cheap."
Doesn't this chilling statement also apply to the huge losses of Sherman tanks and Sherman crews ?
I don't know the answer. I just know that war is a dreadful, horrible thing.
What stuck with me is the comment attributed to Guderian. He sent back captured T-34s and requested they be reverse-engineered rather than the delay expected to produce an equivalent. The response from Germany’s industrialists was that they could not. The reason being that not one component down to the individual nuts and bolts would pass German quality control.
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.
Thanks for this video
We captured or shot out quite a few T34 tanks in Angola in the late 80's, these were used amongst T54 tanks.
Seeing how the technician deals with the gear shifter makes me worry that he'll destroy the gearbox. I'm absolutely sure that the gears weren't synchronized, so double-clutching was definitely necessary. That requires some training, but I'm sure it is possible to change gears without the grinding noise of destruction...
But besides that, very informative video with lots of interesting details!
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.
When some people say the T-34 is a bad medium tank... consider 3 things:
1) Designed since 1937. Remember any medium tank of the USA, France or cruising England from 1939 to early 1942, nothing even close to the T-34 in terms of performance characteristics.
2) Do not forget that the T-34 was not supposed to become the main battle tank of the USSR; Already in 1940, the Soviets planned its deep modernization. (Eventually converted to T-44 in 1944)
3) The production of the T-34 became a necessary measure (as did its simplification)
This was due to the fact that in 1941, after the largest invasion in human history, ALL USSR factories were either captured, destroyed, or evacuated to Siberia. It was urgently necessary to make up for the losses in armored vehicles. The T-34 was versatile and simple enough to compensate for the losses of light, medium and heavy tanks.
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
Excellent! Thank you!
Git 'R done ethos in motion.
My grandfather drove an M4 during WW2, and he told me that he had a chance to talk to some Soviet tankers in Berlin at the end of the war. He said a lot of them preferred the Sherman that they had received through lend-lease over the T-34 for reasons like it was more reliable, more user-friendly, and not nearly as cramped, all while having comparable firepower and armor protection.
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
When I was an officer student at The Basic School (For Marine Officers) in Quantico Va in 1975 there was a T-34/85 on static display on the grounds. It had been knocked out and captured during the Korean War, in fact you could see the hole and cracks in the front glacis plate where the anti-tank round hit that knocked out the tank, or actually the crew inside.
Anyway it was wide-open for anyone to go inside and check out. I did so myself, in fact the turret traverse and gun elevation mechanisms still worked! Although it took some effort to turn them!
Let me tell you though, it was TIGHT in there! I'm six feet tall and I had a hard time moving around inside that turret. I didn't even try to get in the drivers seat! The impression I got was if the Soviets ran out of shorties to crew their tanks they'd have lost the war!
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!
The simple design of the track pins not only simplified production, but also greatly facilitated the repair of a damaged track: it was enough to simply drive the track pin back
The most notable part of this tank is how the armor used to just crack due to intense kinetic foorce
The russians used heat treatment on the metal that made it so hard but also brittle
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
Very fair overview on this legendary tank that played a very big part in winning the WWII for the world.
Very British thing to do taking dig at Russia and the Soviet Union at the end there, that was unnecessary but hay.
Can’t imagine getting to “Work” at the tank museum as I can’t imagine thinking of that as work. Yes I know a lot of work goes into to maintaining these tanks but how cool would it be.
Subject is really interesting. Music is really loud and distracting ~ perhaps also a bit mismatched with the handpan/spacey sound... using music from the era, especially military music seems more on topic? 🤔
떼-34와 떼-34-85는 한국전쟁을 겪으신 분들에게는 공포 그 자체로 느끼십니다... 우리 어머니도 사진을 보기만 하셔도 경기를 일으키실 정도죠.. 우리에겐 매력적으로 보이지만, 전쟁을 겪으신 분들에게 모든 무기들은 그저 살인도구 그 이상도 그 이하도 아닌 것 같네요...ㅠㅠ
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
4:50 my great-grandfather ran almost to Berlin using this grip handle. before signing the surrender. on fast runs, the escort group was placed on top of the armor. This grip handle is very good.
a tank without an escort squad is a good target
Wells Reclaimation👷🏻♀️ near Glastonbury 🇬🇧had one for many years. What amazed me was how small it was. 🚘
I can't help but laugh at the idea of superior speed and mobility for the T34 when changing gears seemed to require using a sledgehammer and herculean efforts. Nevermind trying to make any sort of complex maneuver in an active battlezone.
Granted, not all T34s would have been so rough on the driver giving the varying build quality, but it does seem to be a universally commented upon thing.
Its not a car. You could maneuver on a single gear. And British tanks that also had the transmission in the back had this problem because of how far away the gearbox is from the driver. Soviets changed its gearbox later in the war cause the first gear was too fast and infantry would tire running behind it. But T-34 never lacked engine power so it didnt have to shift gears often.
@@Paciat sure, you could maneuver on a single gear... and spend all of the 3+kms you're in visual range on the Russian steppe at a barely 5kph crawl. You *can* do that. Don't like your chances of not having a 8.8cm Pzgr39 knocking on your driver's hatch or entering through your turret in explosive fashion if you try that, though.
Yes, we Brits also had infantry tanks and cruiser tanks and the relevant doctrines, and when we came up against anything that could outrange us on an open battlefield with very limited cover we didn't have great success either when you spend the most lethal 20 minutes of your life watching enemy fire range, bracket and then pick off your tanks one by one because those tanks can barely move faster than an infantryman's light jog.
@@Karelwolfpup I just told you that T-34 was faster than a man walking on the slowest gear when you didnt touch the accelerator. And that you had enough power to run it at any single gear.
So why are you making stuff up about a 5kph crawl? It was hard to drive a T-34 at low speed. 20-30km/h was optimum but you could go much faster. And definitly faster than Panzer IV.
Also you think that a Panzer IV driver in 1942 had better chances of surviving when Soviets knocked with a 76,2mm divisional gun? Cause that gun was far more common than the 8,8 and far easier to conceal.
@@Paciat slowest gear? You mean the gear meant for climbing high angle embankments/hillsides or for marshalling duty so they could get the vehicle on and off train cars without flipping the tank?
Tis not a question of if it had the power, which it did, tis a much more salient question of *if* the driver could actually utilise that power through a god awful clutch system, under duress, with minimal training, assuming the gearbox was built close to spec at all.
Keep in mind that the driver is by and large doing all this in an effective vacuum, when it comes to communication and his actual awareness of what's going on.
Not sure why we've meandered onto talking about 76.2mm Soviet field guns, but alright, a Pz IV driver was more likely than not to be driving something with a long barreled 75 and with the upgraded armour package (even if that was bolted on), and the Zis-3 was a mediocre anti-tank gun which could just about knock out a PzIV G frontally from 600ms, farther if it managed a hit on the turret and that caused the crew to bail. That's a damn sight shorter than an 88 could reach you.
Then again, if we're going to be fair and turn this around, as a T34, you were far more likely to be knocked out by F-22/Pak36(R), Pak 38s and Pak40s in 1942 at similar to longer ranges than the Russian equivalent, depending on the gun in question.
Of course, this is all moot in the face of the T34's utter lack of ability to actually spot what was shooting at it and communicate that effectively under combat conditions to other tanks in its platoon/company, which partially explains the absolutely pisspoor combat record of T34 until 1944.
@@Karelwolfpup Lol, clutch system? You mean clutch? What is your source of information on the the "awful clutch system" cause Im guessing you are making this stuff up. Ive seen a working T-34 and people didnt have problems with it.
If German tanks were less likely be knocked out by guns give me numbers of how many % of witch German tanks were not knocked out.
And didnt Germans have so much AT weapons cause the feared T-34 more? Soviets never stopped producing 45mm guns and even ramped up production of AT rifles witch were enough to penetrate the vision slits of a PzIV.
I can't help but to respect the T-34. It was the tank the Soviets needed, just as the Sherman was the tank the Western Allies needed.
The Germans needed... To not invade anyone, and leverage their soft, cultural, economic and scientific power instead.
They could have risen from the ashes without being obliterated again, IMHO.
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.
Great video
A masterclass, a paragon of a video. The only thing I would add is that Soviet crews much preferred these to the Lend Lease Shermans and other western tanks they were given. Loved the interior shots, and so clearly presented. Please do similarly form- to-function, societal context videos.
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".
it seems that the the Lazerpig brigade has already arrived
Very much so. But no one say anything otherwise he might talk about tanks again and get in another pissing match.
You mean the LaserPig echo chamber.
The key was that the Ford Motor Company built the Soviets state of the art factories that were transportable also. With them replacing the badly antiquated WWI factories production of tanks and planes was dramatically higher giving T34 staggering numerical advantages.
you forgot to mention that Henry Ford also had been a Nazi. Hitler had his photo above his desk due to huge financial contribution he made to Nazi party and Ford Werks factories had been working in Berlin all the way till 1943 using POW labor making machines for german army. GM also had been working for Nazis as well... classical american aproach. Nothing personal, just business.
Great video, i appreciate the red highlights amongst the busy interior . The eastern front wouldve been a different story if it wasnt for this tank
49.000 of 55.000 T-34 were lost, in comparison, of 50.000 Shermans 11.000 was destroyed during ww2.
Also worth a mention is crew survival rates. The Sherman was far superior to the T34 in that regard.
But your numbers ignore the fact that the T-34s on the Eastern front were up against 80% of the wehrmacht, whereas those Shermans faced the remaining 20% across all other fronts. This suggests that for the amount of action they saw, Sherman losses were disproportionately high compared to T-34s.
Don’t forget the German Panthers design was based off a captured T34 .it was the best considering it’s revolutionary sloped armour,speed and firepower.Most German tanks adopted the T34s design up until the end of the war ,huge respect for this tank !
Love the video
thank You 4 delivering all the relevant information in the subtle british manner.tank that won ww2 was also a joke title given to polish tv series " czterej pancerni i pies" , might b worth checking out; get some screenshots of the radio+ i think they used different drum magazines
I always thought it would’ve been hellish working in the factory building the T34, absolutely brutal to be a crewman fighting the Germans and simply deadly if you were on the receiving end of a T34.
these tanks were produced by women and children... men were at the front
The T-34 had the same design philosophy that all the later Soviet/Russian tanks followed. The crew was just another component of the vehicle and were just as disposable.
Soviet design philosophy was all encompassing. At least it the 1970's, Soviet tank crew requirements stipulated maximum height of crew members was 5'6", to minimize height of the tank. Also, the drivers chair reclined to further reduce hull height. The US would never disqualify a 6'6" candidate fot tank duty because of his height. Discrimination!!
Still are
The tank crews of every country we're disposable. It'd be naive to think otherwise.
The ergonomics of the T34 might have been rubbish, but it worked. As the video states it was designed with a diesel engine to reduce fire risk ( unlike other countries using petrol ). The Germans didn't call Sherman's "Tommy cookers" for nothing. Soviet crews were also given tanker helmets to reduce head injuries unlike other countries, so claiming they weren't considered doesn't entirely stack up.
Not all crews died with their tanks either, a lot of crews escaped from combat damaged tanks and were supplied with another one if available. This was much easier to do with both T34's and Sherman's because of the numbers game. Their old tank possibly being recovered from the battlefield if not totally destroyed ( and patched or broken for parts ) if you hold the battlefield.
It's much easier to recover and re use a tank or its parts if the engine and electrics haven't been destroyed by the petrol catching fire.
So it doesn't mean that just because 35k T34's we're destroyed that all of their crews were too. And if you've got another T34 rolling off the massive production line the crew, or those left just "go again", in another tank, with a bit more experience than before. Means of production and attrition wins the war.
Notice how the Finns filled in the barrel with cement or concrete. That would make unusable but they should have left the end hollow for a more realistic effect.