Wehraboos trying to argue that their precious Tiger 1 could beat an Abrams (it’s still in the depot after it’s transmission blew out for the 5 the time and it got mud in its tracks)
Tiger transmission had more distance than the Sherman The t34 used to drive with an extra transmission mounted above the engine to replace it in the battlefield, double clutch allowed the tiger to get less mud on the tracks than single track rotation tanks due to the latter burring themselves in the mud as they turn, and any WW2 tank can destroy an Abrams or a leopard 2 the side armor is trash.
@@SantiagoPerez-yv9wubrother you watched one lazar pig video and believe it 100%. You do know tank development and reliably takes time that’s why the early T-34-76 had terrible quality control and reliability because it was a new design. It was worked out though and became a very successful design and decently reliable. As for the Tiger 1 even the same thing although it’s road wheels where so unnecessary complicated and it was underpowered so yeah. As for the panthers and most of all Tiger 2 they never fully ironed out their reliability issues
@@SantiagoPerez-yv9wu you found one source on the Tiger tank having a better transmission than its counterparts over the T-34 and Sherman. Go to any other source that is actually reliable and it will tell you other wise. And as for any WW2 tank can destroy an Abrams or a leopard because its side armor is "trash", you just pulled that straight of your ass because it happens in war thunder and you still believe that war thunder is an extremely realistic game. Those tanks have composite and chemical armor on its side which is a lot more than 4 inches of steel put together like tanks from WW2 would have to fight against. You clearly know nothing of this topic so you shouldnt even be speaking of it
@@SantiagoPerez-yv9wu Tiger transmission had less distance than the Panzer IV lmfao. The T34 had the longest transmission time of them all, some few 1940 model T34s do not matter compared to tens of thousands of 1945 era T34s.
0:43 The one German seasoned tank commander explaining the complicated tasks on how to turn on a Tiger 1 to the 14 year child soldier driver (the transmission will break anyway once they start moving)
The Black Baron, for whom the war was just camping with extra murder, returning to Germany and wondering why every one of his peers decided to be incompetent all of a sudden.
The panther got all the good stuff State wise But a disturbing amount of people treat armor with video game logic No way you can use that good firepower or armor if you break down before you get close to the battlefield
The ammount of coping here is insane, I need to find their supplier of copium But in my opinion, late war US tanks were among the best We need a part 2 if everyone just coping
@@anthroimperzia3927 The quality to last basically eternally, traverse any terrain, by highly mobile, be able to deal with even the heaviest of tanks and have excellent armor for a medium tank, especially at the time of it's introduction. No other tank of the war was as versatile and as efficient as the T34. That is what is quality. Bigger gun and bigger armor does not mean quality.
@@dwarow2508 the T-34 was a fucking deathtrap with a ton of manufacturing issues, especially when it was just introduced some of those issues didn't much improve with the upgraded versions, no matter how much War Thunder would make you think it did
@@dwarow2508 Wow. Simp and cope harder Commieboo. As much as I love the T-34 myself it had *LOADS* of problems. It was so poorly ventilated its designer died of pneumonia while test driving it during its early trials. The transmission was about as reliable as that of the Tiger (granted it was easier to fix). It had horrible optics which is part of why it had awful accuracy. Early models didn't even have a gunner spot in the turret and the *COMMANDER* had to aim and fire the main gun (though it did have a loader, which is good). Its hull rivets were of awful quality so if it got hit by Anti-Tank rounds parts of the hull armor would break at the corners and the turret was often likely to snap off of the turret ring when hit (which is why when you see pictures of destroyed T-34s their turrets are often missing). The engine's Christie cyclone filters were notoriously easily clogged and the T-34's diesel engine was infamous for easily overheating and got stuck in the mud as often as any other tank (so all terrain, my ass). "Bigger gun and bigger armor does not mean quality." ...and the piece de resistance of your hypocrisy and cluelessness is right about... there. The Soviets tried *EVERYTHING* during the war to give the T-34 a bigger gun and more armor introducing the T-34-85 which when it was ready and it was better than the original T-34 in *EVERY WAY* . If you want proof that the T-34 is overrated from a comparison standpoint look at what happened to them when they went up against Shermans in Korea.
@@BlackWACat Gotta love how you couldn't even stay on topic and decided to make up some random bs about the T34 lol. What manufacturing issues did the 1945 moderl T34/85 have? What DESIGN issues, you know, the actual topic here, did it have? What was the empirical pre-penetration survivability rate of it and other tanks? The T34 was not a deathtrap lmfao. It has exactly zero manufacturing issues which isn't even part of the discussion. We are talking about the designs of the latest ww2 versions. Like, no matter how much War Thunder you play, the T34 always was and always will be superior to any other ww2 tank. Cope harder.
The same Tiger when reinforcements arrive 5 minutes later and proceed to overwhelm their position and their transmission blew in the meantime as they retreated:
Wahraboos when 2 king tigers with advantage in distance get knok out by shermans, and lost some of the crew. Suprise, suprise, if you shoot many times in same spot, you will start to deal damage, even if armor is thicc. "Even more suprised Pikachu Face".
My teacher in high school his dad was a Sherman tank driver the way he put it one of our tanks fires their tank goes DING one of their tanks fires our tank goes BOOM
The design was above average but not a single t-34 was produced up to spec. (During the war) Therefor the t-34 absolutely sucked, absolute death machine for the crew too. Then again that last thing doesnt matter if your country employs “penal tank battalions”
@@pollball598 They did, just not enough to consider sloped armor as something that doesnt have serious downsides. If sloped armor is such a revolutionary concept that makes or breaks a tank: Surely the Renault R-35 is an incredible warwinning beast?
Idk, when T-34 entered the battlefield in 1941 it was the strongest tank at the front. 50 mm front, 40 mm boards and back. 75 mm canon and most importantly it‘s armor was slopped. All the German Pkw 3 and 4 had square shape. In battle for Moscow germans had 10 times more tank, still didn't manage. When Germans started producting "Tigers" it became clear, that heavy tanks are better then medium onces. Tigers played quite well in battle of Prohorovka. USSR answered with T-34-85, equipped with 85 mm canon, able to kill Tigers effectively. Then there came IS series and IS-2 was the first tank in history equipped with 122 mm canon. Today all the modern tanks use this calliber. Quantity over quality is a myth, the soviet tanks bested germans due to the slopped armor technology and higher caliber.
@@koekiejam18 That is nothing but propaganda. T-34 was stronger then any Pzkw 3. It's armor was heavier and it was slopped. It's canon was better. Pzkw 4 was an equal rival T-34, but still it had this stupid square shape whlist T-34 had slopped armor. Tiger of course was more modern, heavier armor, heavy 88-mm canon. T-34 didn't match a Tiger. But T-34-85 could, and IS-2 bested Tiger at all the questions. All the modern tanks use 120+ mm canons, IS-2 was a pioneer in this question. If quantity over quality really worked, why didn't Italy beat up everyone with a swarm of their tanks? Or Britain?
@@jacobfrost2131 The T-34's main rival was the Pzkw 3, not the 4. It was the 3 at the start of the war and it was the 3 at the end of the war. You also keep mentioning sloped armor but i believe you have absolutely no idea what the pro's and con's of sloped armor are otherwise you wouldn't have mentioned it twice now. I also have no idea why you deem it valid to consider the IS-2 a pioneer for modern day tank munitions, the casing length (and projectiles/projectile length) are completely different, the IS-2 also wasn't equipped with the first 120mm ever made. A good way to reevaluate your opinion on this is to look at the T-55/54 which was considerably more modern than the IS-2 and uses a 100mm cannon. To your last question ill give you an answer aswell: Quantity over Quality: DOES NOT WORK. It absolutely never does. The T-34 (and any other tank from WW2) had incredibly little influence on the outcome of the war. The war was won by the allies opening up a second front, supplying the soviet union with so much supplies it was essentially considered "life support", the decrypting of german communications and the stagnation of germany due to internal factors all play a way bigger role in winning the war.
What most people don't understand is that T-34s were actually good. Sure, you mustn't rely on it doing anything remotely well, but it was a good cheap tank (especially the 85mm variant)
The British when all anyone talks about is their failures: T-34 factory workers trying not to turn a good design bad due to horrendous manufacturing: impossible Wehraboos after saying stug life: Freedom-boos trying not to bring up how they won both wars: Commieboos trying not to say ‘I’m a numbers guy” Wehraboos when the information they get from Girls und Panzer is incorrect: The M3 Lee trying not to be stupid: Germany when they have low amounts of metal, fuel and equipment: build something BIGGER German generals trying not to say they would have won the war if they got their way: impossible France as soon as the war starts: 🥖🥐📉 Tiger crews enjoying the space they get in their moving box: T-34 crews when they smell each other’s feet: Sherman Firefly crews when they go blind: IJN planning another massive attack to destroy the american pacific fleet: Trying to find truth about the desert campaign: needle in a haystack Who would win? Panther side armour Small arms fire Wehraboos when you have a favourite tank that isn’t on the Tiger scale:
the panther had issues with its final drives (not technically it’s transmission but the part that transfers the output of the transmission into the drive sprocket) and a huge part of that idea comes from that the tigers and panthers transmissions where much harder to change or repair then there allied counterparts
@@andthenhedead6076Yes it was sensitive. But there are reports (even on wkipedia) the germans could travel 1800-4200 km with original final drives. The tiger from mid 1943 had no problems with the transmission but with the engine until 1944 jan like the Panther. But with a good driver the both tank were good as anything else. About the replace: for the panther you could detach the upper armor above the driver/radio man for transmission change. For tiger: yeah you had to remove the turret, that sucks, but the tiger had much much stronger transmission than the panther. Panther were designed to be mass produce, so they choose a cheaper transmission for it.
Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Also late ww2 German production was extremely low quality due to shortages in materials due to the bombing of factory’s also another big issue is Germany had very few spare parts because of manufacturing shortages meaning if there was a mechanical issue unless there was a nearby tank of the same type to salvage the tank had to be abandoned and even if you had the necessary components changing the transmissions in most German tanks was much more intensive compared to its things like the Sherman
@@andthenhedead6076 Wikipedia is a reliable source, I checked them personally. About the Panther reliability book authors took the claims from the reports. I do not believed in them, so I checked the reports myself. Yes, Germany had problems with fuel: No training for drivers --> sensitive final drive will brake. Wikipedia reports mention this. Yes, german troops had problems with spare parts. Both is counted when we talking about combat readiness. We talking about the tank mechanical reliability, what was good with good, trained drivers. As the report mention, a panther drove 1878 km without any parts change. Or with bergepanther, they drove 4200 km, and during that 4200km they towed other panthers for 1000 km. Still parts were not changed in the tank. So the tank was mechanically reliable, BUT more sensitive to break the final drives than a sherman. Panther had lower ground pressure than a sherman, and it was more mobile on ground, despite the fact, the panther was 15 tonnes heavier.
I mean brother If your tank is cheap,reliable,and easy to mass-produce while your enemy's tanks cost like a bajillion deutsch marks to manufacturer then why worry about quality over quantity
Sadly the T-34 wasn't cheap. It was around the price of the Sherman ~50,000$ USD for the T-34-85 made in early 1945. The Sherman was around 44,556$ USD to 64,455$ USD depending on the variant. While that is still cheaper than the German Tigers (100,000$ USD) it wasn't a cheap tank to produce. Neither was it reliable, as during the war very few if any units were produced to the paper standard. Their armour was overheated, combine this with poor welding made by peasants who had never done this before, made large impact shatter the armour like glass. They didn't put rubber on the road wheels making tracks wear faster. They removed the gunners basket (the metal grate that keeps the gunner aligned with the gun) forcing him and the commander to continuously move and make sure they weren't being smacked by the breach. The driver had to carry a hammer as in the early T-34s the four speed gear box would often break, forcing the drivers to bang it back into place. The 85 tried to fix it with the five speed but the same problem was there, you physically couldn't move it into the fifth gear. The mirrors for the driver, commander, machine gunner were often polished metal and impossible to see through. The rubber seals for the sights were poor causing it to fog up often. The engine had a tendency to be overworked, causing it to have to be replaced every 300km or 100hr (whichever came first) they would replace it. There were no radios meaning nobody could communicate, causing commanders to communicate to their unit with hand signals, (and I shit you not) flags like in 18th century naval combat. the gun could only depress -3 degrees which is abysmal. While buttoned up you could barely see anything leaving the T-34 to be one of the most blind tanks on the battlefield. There were no lights on the tanks, causing one instance where several T-34s followed around a German tank for hours because it had a light and they couldn't tell what it was. The hull in both variants was ungodly cramped, combine that with the poor suspension and you would be tossed around often as seats were commonly not installed in the first place (making the crew sit on boxes) meaning when you reached the battlefield everyone was bruised and the driver was exhausted from the manual labor of moving the gear box The T-34 was not the perfect work horse Soviet propaganda has made it out to be. It was a cramped, expensive, poorly made, and unreliable tank propelled into stardom by a regime that killed its dissenters, sent millions into death camps, and starved the rest of their population.
@@mariosmatzoros3553on paper alot of the soviet designs were good and had considerable advantages in their own fields. However if your factory barely has enough fuel to keep the lights on you will never produce a tank that is up to standard. The t-34 is an amazing example of this since it was almost never produced up to standard during the war.
@@koekiejam18 That's true, however the later t34s such as the 85 model were pretty good. Also, kv1s could withstand multiple enemy tank shells and destroyed a lot of German tanks. The late 1944-1945 tanks (such as the t44 and t54) were excellent (for their time) and much better than the Sherman and the Pershing.
The thing is no German, American, Japanese, French or British tanks have ever killed their own crews by detonating their own ammo racks, unlike the Russians, during WW II, Also banquets & croisonts Austrian not French, #sadfrenchnoises#
Eh yes they did? Storing ammunition in the crew compartment was standard practice for decades and is still today in many tanks. Do you know how many Shermans and Tigers or Panthers got their turrets sent to orbit by ammunition explosions?
British cooking Centurion, only to it not take part in war
The Cromwell looked cool, I'd say. But you cannot disagree that the FV-4005 looked coo- *funny
I've grown to love british tanks. They're so ugly it's beautiful
Also is 3 and t 44
The Comet!!
The centurion saw action in the Yom kippour War
Engineer explaining 262 cas capabilities to hitler (it has none)
Engineer explaining why they should turn a bomber hunter into a bomber (they rendered the first jet fighter useless)
i reccomend lordhardthrashers video about me262. very funny, interesting and informative.
@@HaydenFideler ErM AcTuALly it was hitler himself who wants the 262 to become a bomber instead of a bomber hunter🤓
What do you mean the engine has 25 hours of life? There are TWO of them lol
@@michaelyourlocalmemestealer040 correct
German engineers consistently putting underpowered and underdeveloped drive trains into increasingly heavier tanks
Wehraboos trying to argue that their precious Tiger 1 could beat an Abrams (it’s still in the depot after it’s transmission blew out for the 5 the time and it got mud in its tracks)
Tiger transmission had more distance than the Sherman
The t34 used to drive with an extra transmission mounted above the engine to replace it in the battlefield, double clutch allowed the tiger to get less mud on the tracks than single track rotation tanks due to the latter burring themselves in the mud as they turn, and any WW2 tank can destroy an Abrams or a leopard 2 the side armor is trash.
@@SantiagoPerez-yv9wubrother you watched one lazar pig video and believe it 100%. You do know tank development and reliably takes time that’s why the early T-34-76 had terrible quality control and reliability because it was a new design. It was worked out though and became a very successful design and decently reliable. As for the Tiger 1 even the same thing although it’s road wheels where so unnecessary complicated and it was underpowered so yeah. As for the panthers and most of all Tiger 2 they never fully ironed out their reliability issues
I’m pretty sure LP would launch in a 20 minute tirade just for saying a ww2 tank can pen an abrams.
@@SantiagoPerez-yv9wu you found one source on the Tiger tank having a better transmission than its counterparts over the T-34 and Sherman. Go to any other source that is actually reliable and it will tell you other wise. And as for any WW2 tank can destroy an Abrams or a leopard because its side armor is "trash", you just pulled that straight of your ass because it happens in war thunder and you still believe that war thunder is an extremely realistic game. Those tanks have composite and chemical armor on its side which is a lot more than 4 inches of steel put together like tanks from WW2 would have to fight against. You clearly know nothing of this topic so you shouldnt even be speaking of it
@@SantiagoPerez-yv9wu Tiger transmission had less distance than the Panzer IV lmfao.
The T34 had the longest transmission time of them all, some few 1940 model T34s do not matter compared to tens of thousands of 1945 era T34s.
You can like tanks. But if you like the wrong ones the internet will take your head.
i like the L3 and i think that the L3 could beat the abrams and T90 simultaneously
@@justacat2OFF WITH THE HEAD!
@@justacat2wet slimy stinky diarrhea
@@justacat2very true
@@justacat2
Real
least cutest italian tank
“least cutest”
@@meyr1992🤓
play on 1.25 speed for better effect
I find it interesting that doing that causes some of the musical chords to morph.
0:43 The one German seasoned tank commander explaining the complicated tasks on how to turn on a Tiger 1 to the 14 year child soldier driver (the transmission will break anyway once they start moving)
The Black Baron, for whom the war was just camping with extra murder, returning to Germany and wondering why every one of his peers decided to be incompetent all of a sudden.
New Zealand got a mention. Thank you Sir!
Not a good one 💀
Don’t you dare insult tog 2* like that! He’s my favourite sausage
Yours is my fav
@@IcyFrost200-eu8srW rizz
@@damnyejustgotbewitchedbyth2802 thank you. And your sausage shall be my next fav
@@IcyFrost200-eu8sr we making hotdogs with this one🔥🔥🔥
@@damnyejustgotbewitchedbyth2802 yeaaaaaaa you know it
1:07
I screamed so much that i died
Germans when planes exist (no armor will save you from my HVARs)
APBFSDS:
Armor Piercing Baguette Fin Stabilized Discarding sabot.
HEBH:
High Explosive Baguette Head
HEFB:
High Explosive Fragmental Baguette.
APCB:
Armor Piercing Composite Baguette.
APCBBC:
Armor Piercing Composite Baguette Ballistic Capped.
🅱️ESH:
🅱️igh Explosive Squash Head
APBFSDS never existed in ww2
@@JaHail-oy6vq it was a joke, doesn't even exist IRL
Being a ww2 enthusiast. Funny video
Most of it is low hanging fruit to me considering I've heard all these tank jokes before... but whatever.
"I'm a ww2 enthusiast"
Insert Buzzlight year meme
@@thesovietduck2121 😂
As a war thunder player, i can confirm this is true
The first one was true
Slavaboos when you tell them T-34s were only expected to last 6 months before needing a complete overhaul (quantity over quality)
The hell is "slavaboo"?
@@kindlingking more wider and general term for a commieboo...
@@kindlingking people who glaze Slavic countries (especially Russia) or pretend they are from Eastern Europe
@@HaydenFideler gloryboo it is them. Слава роду!
@@HaydenFidelerAren’t they just tankies, or a good portion of them somewhat?
KV-1 being almost unstoppable during Operation Barbarossa
*Chad face*
So was almost every new tank not just the KV-1
@@milchbrot0608 KV-1 has been around for at least 2 years at that stage. Not really brand spanking new by the time the Wehrmacht copped on
@@pyroshilov8474 so?
Pak40 can easily penetrate KV-1 from 2000 meters lol i don't really see your point
@@pyroshilov8474
Except that literally is brand new?
Wheraboos telling homeless strangers about how good the panther was ( does not mention the engine )
The engine problem got fixed during 1944 at this point it's just cope since it's the only thing American's can pick on
The engine was fine, the final drive in the transmission was the problem.
@belugachonky You cannot say anyone else is coping when you yourself are coping (10x as hard as shermanchads)
The panther got all the good stuff
State wise
But a disturbing amount of people treat armor with video game logic
No way you can use that good firepower or armor if you break down before you get close to the battlefield
@@panzersusmander3728 "Shermanchads" is this rehtorical? You're literally proving my point like oh my days this is literally the definition of cope
Polish designers making one of the best early designs only to build 300 of them (Germans got thousands):
The ammount of coping here is insane, I need to find their supplier of copium
But in my opinion, late war US tanks were among the best
We need a part 2 if everyone just coping
0:09 that tank is beautiful. Don’t know what you even mean
Damn now I'm waiting for most menacing Italian tank vs least menacing Italian stand user
The T34 featured both quality and quantity which made it so great in the first place
What quality.
@@anthroimperzia3927 The quality to last basically eternally, traverse any terrain, by highly mobile, be able to deal with even the heaviest of tanks and have excellent armor for a medium tank, especially at the time of it's introduction.
No other tank of the war was as versatile and as efficient as the T34. That is what is quality.
Bigger gun and bigger armor does not mean quality.
@@dwarow2508 the T-34 was a fucking deathtrap with a ton of manufacturing issues, especially when it was just introduced
some of those issues didn't much improve with the upgraded versions, no matter how much War Thunder would make you think it did
@@dwarow2508 Wow. Simp and cope harder Commieboo.
As much as I love the T-34 myself it had *LOADS* of problems. It was so poorly ventilated its designer died of pneumonia while test driving it during its early trials.
The transmission was about as reliable as that of the Tiger (granted it was easier to fix).
It had horrible optics which is part of why it had awful accuracy.
Early models didn't even have a gunner spot in the turret and the *COMMANDER* had to aim and fire the main gun (though it did have a loader, which is good).
Its hull rivets were of awful quality so if it got hit by Anti-Tank rounds parts of the hull armor would break at the corners and the turret was often likely to snap off of the turret ring when hit (which is why when you see pictures of destroyed T-34s their turrets are often missing).
The engine's Christie cyclone filters were notoriously easily clogged and the T-34's diesel engine was infamous for easily overheating and got stuck in the mud as often as any other tank (so all terrain, my ass).
"Bigger gun and bigger armor does not mean quality."
...and the piece de resistance of your hypocrisy and cluelessness is right about... there.
The Soviets tried *EVERYTHING* during the war to give the T-34 a bigger gun and more armor introducing the T-34-85 which when it was ready and it was better than the original T-34 in *EVERY WAY* .
If you want proof that the T-34 is overrated from a comparison standpoint look at what happened to them when they went up against Shermans in Korea.
@@BlackWACat
Gotta love how you couldn't even stay on topic and decided to make up some random bs about the T34 lol.
What manufacturing issues did the 1945 moderl T34/85 have? What DESIGN issues, you know, the actual topic here, did it have? What was the empirical pre-penetration survivability rate of it and other tanks?
The T34 was not a deathtrap lmfao. It has exactly zero manufacturing issues which isn't even part of the discussion.
We are talking about the designs of the latest ww2 versions. Like, no matter how much War Thunder you play, the T34 always was and always will be superior to any other ww2 tank.
Cope harder.
Can you do one for aircraft.Also the new zealand one is relatable
I am tired of arguments from both side
0:54 good luck to the engineers who explain the crap they make any normal human being
"Chinese Domestic Tank Designs". "1930-1957"
More like "Complete historical list of original Chinese tank designs". 😆
Frenchs: i have no mutions but i have baguettes 0:26
WWII German engineers….we must make 50 different over-engineered tanks of all sizes instead of making 3 - 5 perfected designs.
Allies when they use Transmission joke for the 82318123219038902319th time agaisnt German Engineering:
Germans after their transmission breaks for the 82318123219038902320th time:
Americans when a Tiger decimates their whole infantry squad: “Surprised Pikachu Face”
tigers trying not to break their transmission every 2 seconds (impossible)
The same Tiger when reinforcements arrive 5 minutes later and proceed to overwhelm their position and their transmission blew in the meantime as they retreated:
Wahraboos when 2 king tigers with advantage in distance get knok out by shermans, and lost some of the crew. Suprise, suprise, if you shoot many times in same spot, you will start to deal damage, even if armor is thicc. "Even more suprised Pikachu Face".
Germans when an AT squad wipes a whole Panzer division.
Wehraboos when they learn a Sherman rammed into and disabled a Tiger 2
My teacher in high school his dad was a Sherman tank driver the way he put it one of our tanks fires their tank goes DING one of their tanks fires our tank goes BOOM
"quantity over quality" mfs after realising that you cant replace trained crewmen:
Americans after destroying hundreds of Tigers (most of them was a Panzer IV) :
Not everything was a tiger
@@pilotbug6100 hence the joke bro
1:19 Blame hans he put a battleship cannon instead of working on a better transmission
If they just kept cranking panzers instead of worrying about tigers
Hey no British tank slander
Rivet-obsessed mfs who cant even measure their guns and armor right. “Oi its a bloody six pounder ona chassis with three inch armor!”
The British made littreal shit boxes until the centurion and that was made after the war 😂
@@BelugaChonkythe Comet?
@@EllisJohnstone oh yeah the comet wasn't that bad
@@BelugaChonky I’d say the last shitbox British tank was the Cromwell
Wow the first tank youtuber that isnt some weeb degen. Subscribed.
Tbh the T-34 was REALLY good for its time, the germans even copied it and that resulted in their most successful WW2 tank lol
The design was above average but not a single t-34 was produced up to spec. (During the war)
Therefor the t-34 absolutely sucked, absolute death machine for the crew too.
Then again that last thing doesnt matter if your country employs “penal tank battalions”
@@koekiejam18 and your tanks are assembled by child labor
@@koekiejam18Shells literally reflected because of the armor
@@pollball598 They did, just not enough to consider sloped armor as something that doesnt have serious downsides.
If sloped armor is such a revolutionary concept that makes or breaks a tank: Surely the Renault R-35 is an incredible warwinning beast?
@@pollball598no they didn't. Look up a photo of a shot T34, notice the cracking
rasenai in nutshell
Idk, when T-34 entered the battlefield in 1941 it was the strongest tank at the front.
50 mm front, 40 mm boards and back. 75 mm canon and most importantly it‘s armor was slopped. All the German Pkw 3 and 4 had square shape.
In battle for Moscow germans had 10 times more tank, still didn't manage.
When Germans started producting "Tigers" it became clear, that heavy tanks are better then medium onces. Tigers played quite well in battle of Prohorovka.
USSR answered with T-34-85, equipped with 85 mm canon, able to kill Tigers effectively.
Then there came IS series and IS-2 was the first tank in history equipped with 122 mm canon.
Today all the modern tanks use this calliber.
Quantity over quality is a myth, the soviet tanks bested germans due to the slopped armor technology and higher caliber.
@@koekiejam18
That is nothing but propaganda. T-34 was stronger then any Pzkw 3. It's armor was heavier and it was slopped. It's canon was better.
Pzkw 4 was an equal rival T-34, but still it had this stupid square shape whlist T-34 had slopped armor.
Tiger of course was more modern, heavier armor, heavy 88-mm canon.
T-34 didn't match a Tiger.
But T-34-85 could, and IS-2 bested Tiger at all the questions.
All the modern tanks use 120+ mm canons, IS-2 was a pioneer in this question.
If quantity over quality really worked, why didn't Italy beat up everyone with a swarm of their tanks? Or Britain?
@@jacobfrost2131 because they didn't have swarms. Brits produced around 25k tanks of every variety, meanwhile ivans produces 80k of T34 alone
@@KIT2142LAW pity for them.
@@KIT2142LAW God loves big battalions.
@@jacobfrost2131 The T-34's main rival was the Pzkw 3, not the 4. It was the 3 at the start of the war and it was the 3 at the end of the war.
You also keep mentioning sloped armor but i believe you have absolutely no idea what the pro's and con's of sloped armor are otherwise you wouldn't have mentioned it twice now.
I also have no idea why you deem it valid to consider the IS-2 a pioneer for modern day tank munitions, the casing length (and projectiles/projectile length) are completely different, the IS-2 also wasn't equipped with the first 120mm ever made.
A good way to reevaluate your opinion on this is to look at the T-55/54 which was considerably more modern than the IS-2 and uses a 100mm cannon.
To your last question ill give you an answer aswell: Quantity over Quality: DOES NOT WORK. It absolutely never does.
The T-34 (and any other tank from WW2) had incredibly little influence on the outcome of the war.
The war was won by the allies opening up a second front, supplying the soviet union with so much supplies it was essentially considered "life support", the decrypting of german communications and the stagnation of germany due to internal factors all play a way bigger role in winning the war.
The NZ one felt personal lmao, what are we going to do with our own tank design, invade the south island? 😂
everyone being recommended this
Nah bro leave the bob semple tank out of this
German tanks design, ending up twice as heavy as planned - show some binge eating video
Italy had some decent tank destroyers.
0:26 these shells, can Pierce tigers armor😂😂
1:14 German engineer having to fix a Tiger's track wheels for the second time (literal nightmare)
Literally takes days just to replace its wheels
What most people don't understand is that T-34s were actually good. Sure, you mustn't rely on it doing anything remotely well, but it was a good cheap tank (especially the 85mm variant)
Italians with their modern tanks with weak armor:
French use roof tiles for their "munitions"?
The last was in Stalingrad
Now do the cold war tanks
I appreciate you for taking out the annoying „vocals” xd
Canadians sad they didn't get mentioned
Nice.
New Zealand got me 🤣🤣🤣
Hey... at least we had a tank program.
-coughs in China's direction-
@@VhenRaTheRaptor true 👍🏻
The British when all anyone talks about is their failures:
T-34 factory workers trying not to turn a good design bad due to horrendous manufacturing: impossible
Wehraboos after saying stug life:
Freedom-boos trying not to bring up how they won both wars:
Commieboos trying not to say ‘I’m a numbers guy”
Wehraboos when the information they get from Girls und Panzer is incorrect:
The M3 Lee trying not to be stupid:
Germany when they have low amounts of metal, fuel and equipment: build something BIGGER
German generals trying not to say they would have won the war if they got their way: impossible
France as soon as the war starts: 🥖🥐📉
Tiger crews enjoying the space they get in their moving box:
T-34 crews when they smell each other’s feet:
Sherman Firefly crews when they go blind:
IJN planning another massive attack to destroy the american pacific fleet:
Trying to find truth about the desert campaign: needle in a haystack
Who would win?
Panther side armour
Small arms fire
Wehraboos when you have a favourite tank that isn’t on the Tiger scale:
0:34 killed me 😂
1:08 They created Tank for sniper riffle😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Americans when you ask them about the t-28 or the m6
Yeah pretty much😂
I know it's a meme.
Like the german transmission meme-->what is based on a myth. Broooo
the panther had issues with its final drives (not technically it’s transmission but the part that transfers the output of the transmission into the drive sprocket) and a huge part of that idea comes from that the tigers and panthers transmissions where much harder to change or repair then there allied counterparts
@@andthenhedead6076Yes it was sensitive.
But there are reports (even on wkipedia) the germans could travel 1800-4200 km with original final drives.
The tiger from mid 1943 had no problems with the transmission but with the engine until 1944 jan like the Panther. But with a good driver the both tank were good as anything else.
About the replace: for the panther you could detach the upper armor above the driver/radio man for transmission change.
For tiger: yeah you had to remove the turret, that sucks, but the tiger had much much stronger transmission than the panther.
Panther were designed to be mass produce, so they choose a cheaper transmission for it.
today its treated like it a stated fact for every internet ww2 expert.
Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Also late ww2 German production was extremely low quality due to shortages in materials due to the bombing of factory’s also another big issue is Germany had very few spare parts because of manufacturing shortages meaning if there was a mechanical issue unless there was a nearby tank of the same type to salvage the tank had to be abandoned and even if you had the necessary components changing the transmissions in most German tanks was much more intensive compared to its things like the Sherman
@@andthenhedead6076 Wikipedia is a reliable source, I checked them personally.
About the Panther reliability book authors took the claims from the reports.
I do not believed in them, so I checked the reports myself.
Yes, Germany had problems with fuel: No training for drivers --> sensitive final drive will brake. Wikipedia reports mention this.
Yes, german troops had problems with spare parts. Both is counted when we talking about combat readiness.
We talking about the tank mechanical reliability, what was good with good, trained drivers.
As the report mention, a panther drove 1878 km without any parts change.
Or with bergepanther, they drove 4200 km, and during that 4200km they towed other panthers for 1000 km.
Still parts were not changed in the tank.
So the tank was mechanically reliable, BUT more sensitive to break the final drives than a sherman.
Panther had lower ground pressure than a sherman, and it was more mobile on ground, despite the fact, the panther was 15 tonnes heavier.
Thank you for leaving out the disgusting sounding lyrics.
I mean brother
If your tank is cheap,reliable,and easy to mass-produce while your enemy's tanks cost like a bajillion deutsch marks to manufacturer then why worry about quality over quantity
The situation is very different depending on the war.
@@anthroimperzia3927 in a war of attrition the more you out produce the enemy the better.
Those cheap tanks still need mechanics fuel ammunition and spare parts. A hell of alot more than a properly produced tank.
Sadly the T-34 wasn't cheap. It was around the price of the Sherman ~50,000$ USD for the T-34-85 made in early 1945. The Sherman was around 44,556$ USD to 64,455$ USD depending on the variant. While that is still cheaper than the German Tigers (100,000$ USD) it wasn't a cheap tank to produce. Neither was it reliable, as during the war very few if any units were produced to the paper standard.
Their armour was overheated, combine this with poor welding made by peasants who had never done this before, made large impact shatter the armour like glass.
They didn't put rubber on the road wheels making tracks wear faster. They removed the gunners basket (the metal grate that keeps the gunner aligned with the gun) forcing him and the commander to continuously move and make sure they weren't being smacked by the breach. The driver had to carry a hammer as in the early T-34s the four speed gear box would often break, forcing the drivers to bang it back into place. The 85 tried to fix it with the five speed but the same problem was there, you physically couldn't move it into the fifth gear.
The mirrors for the driver, commander, machine gunner were often polished metal and impossible to see through. The rubber seals for the sights were poor causing it to fog up often.
The engine had a tendency to be overworked, causing it to have to be replaced every 300km or 100hr (whichever came first) they would replace it. There were no radios meaning nobody could communicate, causing commanders to communicate to their unit with hand signals, (and I shit you not) flags like in 18th century naval combat.
the gun could only depress -3 degrees which is abysmal. While buttoned up you could barely see anything leaving the T-34 to be one of the most blind tanks on the battlefield. There were no lights on the tanks, causing one instance where several T-34s followed around a German tank for hours because it had a light and they couldn't tell what it was.
The hull in both variants was ungodly cramped, combine that with the poor suspension and you would be tossed around often as seats were commonly not installed in the first place (making the crew sit on boxes) meaning when you reached the battlefield everyone was bruised and the driver was exhausted from the manual labor of moving the gear box
The T-34 was not the perfect work horse Soviet propaganda has made it out to be. It was a cramped, expensive, poorly made, and unreliable tank propelled into stardom by a regime that killed its dissenters, sent millions into death camps, and starved the rest of their population.
More tank=more fuel consumed; More tank=more crew=people needed to train those crew=more food for those men
Soviets had quantity over quality, the US had Quantity AND Quality.
Hard not to when your only producing one cheap tank
T34-85s? Kv1s? Tank destroyers like the su models? The Soviets had some pretty good tanks.
What 4 years of complete development in safe conditions does to a mf:
@@mariosmatzoros3553on paper alot of the soviet designs were good and had considerable advantages in their own fields.
However if your factory barely has enough fuel to keep the lights on you will never produce a tank that is up to standard.
The t-34 is an amazing example of this since it was almost never produced up to standard during the war.
@@koekiejam18 That's true, however the later t34s such as the 85 model were pretty good. Also, kv1s could withstand multiple enemy tank shells and destroyed a lot of German tanks. The late 1944-1945 tanks (such as the t44 and t54) were excellent (for their time) and much better than the Sherman and the Pershing.
The thing is no German, American, Japanese, French or British tanks have ever killed their own crews by detonating their own ammo racks, unlike the Russians, during WW II,
Also banquets & croisonts Austrian not French, #sadfrenchnoises#
Bold statement.
sauce?
@@DanY-mj4glhis ass
Objectively wrong. Early shermans were know to explode when hit
Eh yes they did? Storing ammunition in the crew compartment was standard practice for decades and is still today in many tanks. Do you know how many Shermans and Tigers or Panthers got their turrets sent to orbit by ammunition explosions?
all of the jokes here are so tired and stale
Like the French AP rounda
😂😂😂😂😂
Have admit white tiger had a nice reference of the panzer ace Franz Staudegger who single handedly destroyed 45 t34 tanks