T-34: German Perspective Soldiers & Generals
Vložit
- čas přidán 2. 06. 2024
- In this video Dr. Roman Töppel and I talk about the German perception off the TV 34 saw that tank during the Second World War. We compare the soldiers and generals’ perspective, the issue of perception, the battles of kursk and dubno, and briefly the Tiger and IS-2.
Cover design by vonKickass.
»» GET OUR BOOKS ««
» Stukabook - Doctrine of the German Dive-Bomber - stukabook.com
» The Assault Platoon of the Grenadier-Company November 1944 (StG 44) - sturmzug.com
» Army Regulation Medium Panzer Company 1941 - www.hdv470-7.com
» Achtung Panzer? Zur Panzerwaffe der Wehrmacht - panzerkonferenz.de
»» SUPPORT MHV ««
» patreon, see videos early (adfree) - / mhv
» subscribe star - www.subscribestar.com/mhv
» paypal donation - paypal.me/mhvis
»» MERCHANDISE ««
» teespring - teespring.com/stores/military...
» SOURCES «
our brains
#t34 #ww2 #germanperspective
00:00 Intro
00:21 War-time vs Post-War
02:44 General's Memoirs
03:17 Grass always greener on the other side
04:20 Kursk
06:26 Most dangerous Tank: Every Tank a Tiger
08:34 IS-2
12:46 Dubno
The mentioned article is completed (this video was recorded about 4 years ago), sadly the English version is behind a paywall:
www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13518046.2021.1990559
The German version is freely available here:
www.portal-militaergeschichte.de/http%3A//portal-militaergeschichte.de/toeppel_prochorowka
The fear/respect of the T-34 from the German soldier reminds me of something David Fletcher said about the early WW 1 tanks. 'From the outside it was a unstoppable behemoth but they didn't see or comprehend the absolute suffering and confusion going on inside the tank'
No matter how bad it is inside the tank, outside it's still worse.
@@ottovonbismarck2443 I dunno about that. Seen enough of the after effects of disabled and destroyed tanks from the war. Tank crews don't seem to be doing too well when their vehicles are getting disabled, destroyed. There's ammunition going off, fires, spalling. For the tank commander who has to expose himself, he's a marked man. If he's buttoned up, then the situation awareness for the tank goes to zilch and the tank is easier to destroy.
When you're buttoned up and the only only thing you can see around with are with a few small vision slits and periscopes, all while there's anti-tank teams working around you. It doesn't sound too good.
@@Warmaker01 Consider poor injury protection, poor insulation causing hypothermia, and so on, too. The Russians were extremely ineffective in the early war for a reason, and a large part of Russia turning the tide was lend-lease and the Germans borderline blowing their own legs off with restructuring, doctrinal stubbornness, and the consequence of prior overconfidence.
@@ottovonbismarck2443i dunno t 34 were kinda guaranteed to be destroyed in combat within 2 days. Tankers probably thought the tank would be their coffin.
@@Warmaker01 This is all true. Photos of Russian tankers who were burnt to death are quite famous, and T-34 was THE death trap for its crew as far as tanks are concerned. But have you seen photos of infantrymen who took an artillery hit (spoiler: there are none because there was nothing left to take a picture of) ? Or just a mortar round ? Or were cut in half by an MG ? Whatever happens to you in a tank, there's still plenty more of it outside. 50% of US tank crew losses in WW2 were killed outside their tanks; I have no reason to believe this was much different in other armies. The highest losses were always with the infantry. German infantry battalions in Normandy lasted for two weeks tops. Several US infantry divisions "went through" their frontline strength 7 or 8 times in one year. And this is still the lower end of combat losses compared to the Eastern front.
At the battle around the Oktiabr'skii State Farm at Kursk about 40% of the tanks in the Soviet tank battalions were T-70 light tanks. These look very much like T-34s at a distance.
Similarly, M5 Stuarts were frequently misidentified as M4 Shermans on the West Front by the Germans.
@@Oppen1945 "It's a Tiger!" effect is truly universal
This is the first time I hear that name outside of Panzer General. Hard to kill but did little damage
Hans it's a KV1; Hans call Emil to erase that map grid!
Identification errors can easily happen. In WWII this happened all the time. Fog of War, uncertainty, stress, lighting, weather conditions, training, etc. Lots of factors.
Destroyers were being mistaken for Cruisers (Battle of Samar). BIG DEAL because the Japanese were expecting a lot of Cruisers protecting Carriers, so they loaded Armor Piercing shells. AP shells weren't good against small Destroyers, who ended up surviving a lot longer than they should have. Cruiser and Battleship AP shells were going in one side and right out the other of those scrawny Destroyers.
In the same battle, again, the Japanese expected to fight American Carriers. The big stuff like Essex-class fleet carriers. This was another reason why the Japanese had AP shells on the ready. Big Ships need Big AP shells to smash them. The Japanese were firing AP shells at fleeing American "fleet carriers." These "fleet carriers" were in reality, small, slow, cheaply made Escort Carriers. But at a distance they looked like the bigger ones. One of the Japanese heavy cruisers got close enough to positively identify. They had been wasting time firing AP shells with minimal effect and then finally switched to high explosive, which worked better.
Cruisers being mistaken for Battleships. Happened several times in the Pacific. Heavy Cruiser Prinz Eugen was mistaken for Battleship Bismarck. In the Pacific instances, the Japanese admiral would get erroneous spotting reports of Battleships and Cruisers approaching is fleet composed of only Destroyers. You bet that affects what the admiral is thinking and deciding. But the reports were wrong and it was really only a number of American Destroyers. It didn't matter. By the time the Americans & Japanese clashed, the Japanese believing they were badly outgunned by so many larger, superior ships, were already worried. When the American gunfire from the actual DDs peaked, what remained of the Japanese force broke cohesion and retreated. Again, there were never any American Cruisers and Battleships. It was all in the Japanese crews' heads due to the wrong spotting reports.
In the air it easily happens. You look at a F4F Wildcat and a F6F Hellcat, they look pretty close to each other. It's kind of a big deal in 1943 when the Hellcat entered service and Zero pilots treated them like the weaker powered, older Wildcat. The Hellcat flew nothing at all like the Wildcat and had power to spare. I recall reading an account of a fight between Hellcat pilot and a Zero ace. The Hellcat was new at the time. The Zero ace didn't know, he did maneuver going vertical that baited Wildcat pilots earlier in the war. The Wildcat would sputter and stall out in the vertical while the Zero dived down and got the easy kill. But the new Hellcat had far more power. The Zero ace ended up getting killed in the vertical.
It’s similar to the German’s confusing the Spitfire and Hurricane in the early war. Very few pilots reported being attacked by the Hurricane despite the massive numerical probability as there were so many. To an expert the difference is obvious but in a stressful situation and at closing speeds of 600+ mph it is very hard to spot.
To be honest if they were actually getting attacked by Hurricanes it didn't really matter, Spitfire was similarly armed but turned slightly worse, the only real downside of a Hurricane is its drastically lower top speed...which doesnt really matter that much when attacking bombers and their escorts, who are kind of stuck near the bombers anyway and dont have much fuel to spare anyway
@@ZealothPL The Bf 109E’s obsolescent manual electric variable pitch propeller had equivalence with the T 34’s two man turret. The RAF fighter’s in the late summer of 1940 all had constant speed automatic hydraulic propellers removing the need to juggle propeller pitch against changing airspeed and engine safe vs maximised power output engine revs all of which distracted the 109E pilots from fighting their opponents. The constant speed propeller also allowed the engine boost to be safely raised to take the maximum possible advantage of the recently available 100 octane fuel with a narrow but adequate margin from detonation and pre ignition. Plenty of 109Es were shot down by Hurricanes and a common theme among surviving pilots was that they didn’t see the plane that hit them.
I remember my WW2 professor in college argued that the T-34 was the best tank in the war; however, he wasn’t saying it was the most powerful or best in a one-on-one fight. He meant that, as a reasonably capable tank that was simple enough to produce in large numbers, it was the best at helping its side win the war. I don’t know if he was right, but his way of looking at things does seem better than a simple tank vs. tank comparison.
Eh, it was good enough once the visibility for the crew was improved. Production wise they werent the cheapest or quickest to make (vs say M4), and virtually impossible to repair given the Christie suspension.
Same could be said for the sherman. Easy to make, relaible and got the job done
You could really say the same thing about the Panzer IV or the StuG III too though.
your prod was right. only idiots and kids talk tank vs tank. wars and fights are won by systems working as a team. hence the myth of 5 Sherman's per tiger. of course it took 5, because a us tank platoon was 5 tanks and a platoon was the smallest unit we used!
Actually the T-34 was not a simple design to be made cheaply, it was a ordinarily expensive design that was made cheaply - which added many problems to an already troublesome design.
Had they kept it up in price, they would very likely have suffered fewer casualties.
As it were, they were basically running out of medium tanks.
I'm always happy to see Dr. Roman Töppel.
Overtaxed or overwhelmed? Yeah, close enough. Point taken and quite clear.
Tank misidentification is universal? Makes sense, doesn't surprise me. Seeing the Panzergruppe troops saying 'It's T-34's as far as the eye can see!'? Well, it has a certain ring that I think certain historians might have overplayed.
Considering the Terrain, 'as far the eye can See" meant maybe single Line of tanks😅.
It is universal, though I didn't fight in WWII, I was in anti tanks, the amount of hours spent on learning identification is astounding. Just to avoid such situations.
@@jhnshep In Ukraine they're using Russian tanks to fight Russian tanks. Good luck figuring out who is who at 4 kms. I was trained in vehicle identification but I was FDC. If FDC is close enough to visually ID an enemy tank sh!t has hit the fan and we're being over run.
@@readhistory2023 Yea, WWII is one thing, my training was early 2000's, I can imagin the problem looking through thermals using running gear outline and engine to see that they're are both the same tank. 'Shine a spotlight to see if they have a little blue yellow fanion or a Z!'
the early T34 had a two man turret and they weren't all equipped with radios. Overtaxed works too - tax also means strain - so you were correct originally too. Intelligent and interesting discussion as usual - thanks
Pak 36 we cant pen them
T34 we cant see them
Pak 36 crew doesn't know that though. He's not shooting back! He's playing with us!
Another great video! I always believed that: "That the great strength of the T-34 was it's concentration on essentials; gun, armour, mobility." from Douglas Orgill in his "T-34 Russian Armor" 1971 Ballantine Books, Inc. New York, NY. Thanks & keep the information coming.
We were young, and it was all we had to go by.
I always thought the greatest strength of the T-34 were the numbers fielded.
Thank you Bernhard and Roman. Always good to hear the results of quality research.
I had the impression that the T34 hadn’t really shaken down early in the war. Transmissions were especially erratic for some reason. But over time there were so many up grades that a lot of what could be upgraded. Other things would require a redesign. Also I’ve read that with the removal to the Urals of factories, a lot of parts had to be made in smaller machine shops. Parts standardization was a nightmare in plants originally designed for assembly line production. Also heard optics and communications poor to worse, interior design a crew nightmare and overloaded commander. Really seems didn’t have time or leasure to properly upgrade. Don’t know what they could have done about some of the design issues-trade offs-and radios, etc.
Sherman, chieftain describes, was continuously upgraded during war, solving a lot of early problems, like safety of ammunition stowage. Final upgrade, almost a new tank, was only much used in Italy mixed with older tanks, to good effect I’ve heard. T-34 with new gun extended life, though replacement in the works.
The races between design, implementation, production and trade offs is truly fascinating. Many similar issues seen in Ukraine. Seems to me a lot of T-72 shortcomings due partly to obsolescence and development of more effective hand held anti tank systems and smarter ammunition than in the 70s and 80s. But I’m not a tank expert.
A PZ IV looks closly like a tiger at range.
Its not so easy with those old optics to identify different vehicles.
If it's a box with a gun in it, it's a German tank.
If it's got more curves than your girlfriend with a gun in it, it's Soviet.
Germans confusing KV-1 for T--34; Americans confusing Panzer Mk. IV's for Mk. VI's. Fear makes you see what you want to.
I see a german tank!
What kind is it?
The kind that shoots you!
Assume the worst case
Thank for work for making available this channel and this most interesting video. Greetings from Poland.
Always great information and perspective! Thanks for your hard work keeping History alive and fresh!
Regardless of the views of the Germans, the late-war T-34 with the 3-man turret and 85mm gun should definitely be a contender for best tank in the war. Of course, it always depends on what you factor in. If you don‘t factor in cost and reliability, the heavy tanks (both German and Soviet) come out better, but ultimately it‘s the medium tanks that are fighting most of the war.
IS-2 was still very cheap for its performance. Overall for effect I'd probably hand it to either the T-34 or Sherman.
Overall, the finest WWII info. channel on CZcams.
Dr. Roman Toppel is a top G
Ayyyy dr. Roman Töppel ia back! It's always nice to see him here
12:31 it wasn‘t just logistics. The Soviet tanks in the early war very clearly suffered from overwhelmingly inexperienced crews, inexperienced officers and field commanders and subsequent inability to employ tanks effectively or cooperate with the infantry. This was further hampered by constantly being flat-footed and having to respond to German attacks with whatever forces were at hand, regardless of whether they were suited to the task or given any time at all to prepare for it. This situation basically continued until Stalingrad.
According to Glantz, the Red Army also started the war with many frontline units simply not deployed for battle. Stalin forbade it in hopes of delaying the inevitable, and as a result many units got caught out on the way to their intended defensive positions (which often no longer existed) and not prepared for a fight. This was likely a major factor in the rapid success of Army Group Center in the summer of 1941.
These are problems that always need to be factored in when making a judgement on the capabilities of the Soviet Tanks. Even in the late war, the Red Army was probably never at the level of tactical aptitude that the Germans were in 1941 and 1942, but in the early war it was a total nightmare. All their tanks will have suffered from this, including BT and T-26, which were pretty decent interwar tanks and available in huge numbers. It‘s likely that they would have had a much bigger impact in better hands.
Thank you for the good talk gentlemen.
Love your work Bernard
Great interview, thank you.
Recorded at the hotel during Stahl auf der Heide 2019 I presume 🙂 how time flys.
Nice talk, many good and intersting points.
Nope, but close.
Thanks for the video
great discussion from lots of different aspects
Please drop that reliability issue.
That picture with transmission was from evacuation of Kiev repair shop.
It is explained and please get yourself informed .
Your friend Simomonov did video about it.
"Overtaxed at work" is a common saying in Australia btw. "He was overtaxed" is fine.
Bout time to have good Dr. back 👍😊
Excellent discussion.
I think this Video is pretty grate and some good aspects were discussed like mixups with tanks (the T34 and KV1 example) from books or historical accounts and the overwhelmeing situation inside a T34 Turret.
i know the inside of a T34 gets very loud so that should even add to the srtess the crews must have endured.
PS: in the description is minor Mistake where is written "perception off the TV34 saw that tank" thats a bit of a hickup better would be "perception of the T34 that saw combat..."
Everyone is talking about if germany just produce more tigers or panthers.
Well how are you goner move them without fuel ?
The production and logistic argument. One that winds some up but is a fact. Germany was never going to out produce the Allies and had limited access to fuel. December 1941 was the end for Hitler when he declared war on the US. It was only the Pacific distraction that slowed it down. It was not if just when. No I am not from the US.
The Chieftan thinks otherwise. He says on a whole the PZIII was a better tank than the T34/76.
True, tho any tank is better than no tank
On the whole T-34 was a better tank, because it could mount a larger, better turret with T-34/85 while PzIII has reached its maximum in 1941 with J version, measly armor and 50 mm gun. Same applies to Pz4.
To be more specific, he was referring to the early t34s.
Yeah the Pz III had the edge against T-34 but the gun just wasn’t competitive for future threats. The Pz IV solved it with the bigger gun but lacked armor and mobility.
Early T34s specifically, because early T34s were a fucking disaster
Glad to see you
Yes I love Dr. Toppel
Can't recall where, but I'd heard that many T-34's suffered badly from poor construction issues - gaps between armour plates due to poor welding, armour that was too brittle as it'd not been face-hardened properly, as well as engine and transmission issues. I think that when comparing tanks, it needs to be made clear whether you are comparing tank designs, or tanks as they were actually built. For a modern example, consider the Chieftan - on paper, looks great - but was horribly unreliable, I gather. So a properly constructed T34/85 might well have been the best tank of WW2 (for all I know) - 3 man turret, decent main gun, sloped armour, wide tracks giving good cross-country mobility... -the question is, how many of them were well made and according to specs?
Fast forward to the North Korean with T34/85 blitzing South Korea. Then they met 90mm armed American tanks. Plus M4E8 Sherman with the 76mm gun
It depends on the factory they were made in. Which is a near universal problem. Russians started in an undesirable state and got better. Germans were the opposite. When one side makes mistakes, everybody makes mistakes. When the other side makes mistakes, it becomes a part of public perception.
I think some of the bias from soldiers may come from the suddenness of the contrast in quality between earlier tanks and this one.
Like, you think you got it all figured out and are on top of it, and suddenly your trusted 37mm seems worthless.Even if you have other means to fight it, it may be shocking.
Excellent
Tigers in the mud, i think by Carius is a great book. Brutal combat.
Overtaxed is definitely the right word! (Overwhelmed works too). Ich weiss nicht, wie man das auf Deutsch sagt. Überaufgetragen?
Oh, Sie haben das gesagt, überfordert!
Only 1485 Tiger 1 produced. They cannot be everywhere across such a wide front. 57,000 T34s made during WW2. They could be everywhere!
Overall, you are correct; a bad tank is better than no tank. Especially when - as was the case for Germany - you have 2 and a half fronts to defend, things get stretched thinly ... . In 1944, about 30% of German armed forces were deployed in the West.
But you're also comparing apples to peaches. Tiger was a heavy tank, not a medium, and it wasn't meant to be mass produced to begin with. How many Russian heavies were built during the war ? How many US heavy tanks ? How many British ? Well, way less than T-34, that's for sure.
Roughly 5K Panthers, 9K Pz IV, 10K StuGs (I know, technically not even a tank, but it was the no. 1 tank killer regarding absolute kill numbers) are the numbers you are looking for.
Tigers and StuGs alone are ESTIMATED to have killed around 34K (9K + 25K) enemy tanks. Take these kill numbers with a bucket of salt, because everybody willingly and unwillingly cheated on them.
Overall kill/loss ratio of tanks/StuGs/TDs on the Eastern Front was 5:3 for Germany. At 6:3 (or 2:1), the Russians would MATHEMATICALLY have run out of tanks. But since this was a combined arms effort, they would have won anyway.
Russian tank crew losses were enormous ! T-34 had the worst crew survivability rate of all major tanks. Dead crews don't gain experience. Maybe a better design in less impressive numbers would have served Russia better ? It is well known though often overlooked that by 1945 even Russia had reached a critical leveI of available manpower !
I really don't know, but it's a question worth thinking about.
As for production numbers alone, the Bf-109 was the most produced aircraft, if not ever so at least in WW2. They were everywhere. And there were never enough (actually, by late 1944 there were enough but they ran out of pilots and fuel).
@@ottovonbismarck2443 The guy was a bit wrong comparing production numbers between two different classes of tanks yes but his point is still pretty valid.
And if you do a quick search online you will see that even in the heavy tank numbers the soviet had a massive advantage so if you add to the count tank destroyers and self propelled guns the advatage is even more impressive. And as for your question I dont think a better but less produced tank would have been better. They won the war with it, so it must have been good enough no?
but thats not on the tank itself; thats an external factor
@@Keckegenkai No
The Soviets internally pretty explicitly acknowledged the T-34 was unfinished and rushed into the service, but they also realised it kind of didnt matter that much, when some of them were literally built basically right at the front and never lasted long enough for the short lifespan of components to matter, because the tanks would get knocked out so fast. They didn't have the luxury of entire continent of undamaged industry and years of basically sitting on the sidelines to design a better one.
When will we see Dr Töppel here in England? Now I know he speaks good English I would love to attend a lecture or two!
He was on Tiger Day in April. Also this is an old interview from 2019, there are several more with him on my channel from that time.
First Pak 36 shell
Plink, plonk!
A two man turret with an auto loader works well. :)
Before the appearance of either T-34 or KV-1 the German Army had no issues to knock out Soviet armor even with Infantry AT Rifles.
The Shock was that the Soviets not only had tanks that could not easily be knocked out anymore but were a entirely different weight class compared to their own.
Both Pz III and IV started out with around 15-16 tons, approaching +20t when they added more armor but the T-34 and KVs were already much heavier with more powerful guns.
Before that the Wehrmacht was on the offensive but now they had to face tanks that could break their defensive lines unless they had some heavy firepower available.
At the time the T-34 just had never seen before armor, mobility and firepower in a medium tank.
😬 There's a lot there that is ahistorical, post war propaganda. German tanker diaries & anti-tank crews for example, from spring of '41 talk very little about "shock" regarding Russian tanks. Instead, they're almost universally sneering, or contemptuous in regards to Soviet armor performance.
But German tanker/AT memoirs go to great lengths to describe t34 shock. And how their kit was ineffective to these previously unforeseen wonders.
Isn't that curious? 🤔
It should be noted that, according to translated documents from the Soviet wartime archives, 7/10 if all t34s made wound up as being a total loss. And from those destroyed vehicles, the crew loss rate was 80%. This suggests that the Nazis had no trouble killing Soviet armor throughout the war, so why didn't they win?
Because WW2 wasn't an armor war in any theater. It was an infantry slog, by & large, with artillery playing a key role & logistics dominating every aspect. The Nazis were logistically inept, & the Soviets even more so in '41 & early '42. Only one side on the eastern front pulled their thumb out, & that was mostly because of US lend-lease, & the defenders advantage of having shorter supply lines to untangle.
@@TrollOfReason I wouldn’t say that. Tanks were an important asset on nearly all theaters. Of course they were only one element of the whole picture but not something you would want to miss. They provided mobile firepower for offensive and defensive operations.
A weapon doesn’t need to be the best but you at least want to have it to supplement your capabilities.
When we say they were "shocked", how were they shocked? They were familiar with the BT series from spain, and the KV series was observed in finland. So with both lighter faster tanks, and heavier slower tanks known, what exactly about the t34 was shocking?
Offroad mobility close to BT series, armor and gun functionally close to KV series as far as late interwar anti-tank guns and tanks were concerned. And numbers. The numbers. They're everywhere. You finally manage to knock out one in front of you, only to see three new ones replace it.
They had no knowledge about the KV series, at least their ID charts from summer 1941, did not include KV-1, KV-2 and T-34. Even if they had known, the regular troops and probably also the AT gunners would have a shock since their guns could do very little against them.
The good speed and mobility of the T-34 would have been a major issue...
Keep in mind that many of the issues the Western countries had when they were surprised that the Japanese could do things as well or better than them also applies to the German views of Slavic People's. It was simply a known fact for much of the German military that the Russian communists couldn't make a decent tank.
Your shells bounced off and there was a lot of them
The BOOGIEMAN changes from person to person but human nature just inserts the image necessary. Good Talk danke !🤔🇺🇦
Töpple 👍👍👍
There is too much misinformation going around this topic on how the t34 was so fine well no first it had reliability issues and even when you look at Soviet reports from 1942 a,good portion of t34s was taken out of action by 50mm guns and add on that even Soviet engineers suggested improving the tank engine so if soviet reports that are known to be a biased suggest you improve the tank performance you know you are in trouble
There is also survivor bias..
If a tank is knocked out by infantry, it's much less likely that the crew will escape due to the proximity needed by man portable wepons of the era.
That means that there are more stories of crew that survived and escaped after seeing their shot bounce/hordes of enemy tanks/trope of choice about the T-34..
Compare that to survivability of crew when hit by a mine/artilary/Infantry at close range..
Throw in the propoganda and roumors that were everywhere.. First hand accounts are always biased.
The interview was a bit hard to understand. I would have preferred it in German with subtitles.
German 37mm Anti Tank Gun can't knock out the T 34 at the front, but side and rear shots get the job done.
Not really, it was able to resist 37 mm shots from the sides at ideal 90' angle as well
Not very helpful considering there's likely another T-34 on each side.
Not even rear shots could kill the T34 with the 37mm
@@luckyo11when the Panzer III was armed with the 37mm gun 1941, working t34 were actually very rare. The 50mm Panzer III was probably superior in finding tracking and killing the enemy first.
T34 fired 2 to 4 rounds a minute Panzer III more than 10. The pure volume of fire and the three man turret made Panzer III much better.
@@HaVoC117X better at anti tank, but the HE round was meh
Have you ever see a tank coming for you? Gun is moving too fast to avoid. Wide tracks to get you out of existence.
Waiting for lazerpig to show up.
The good speed and mobility of the T-34 would have been a major issue...
That's ironic, isn't it ? Into 3rd gear with a hammer and out of 3rd gear with a crowbar lets your speed drop a bit; plus a good chance of breaking the gear lever. Mobility is only guaranteed, if your transmission actually works. All the while you can't see where you're going and have no idea whatsoever what your platoon mates are doing.
I get the feeling that (top) speed and mobility are very flexible stats.
I don't know where this idea came from. Pv. III, IV, M4, most soviet light tank etc. were more maneuverable and the T-34 was highly speed limited, with most drivers not being able to get into 3rd gear reliably. The only real advantage is wider track allowing slightly better traction in some excessively loose surfaces.
@@ArchOfficial And the early tracks didn't have much grip either ! Ground pressure on soft ground (mud, snow, sand) was better, compared to Pz III, IV and M4, that's all. Panther and Tiger I had less ground pressure than T-34.
Adding wider tracks also adds weight; IIRC the wide tracks on M4A3E8 are about 1.5 tons per track(!) heavier than on an ordinary M4. It's a very fine balancing act, often overlooked. You could otherwise add 3 tons of armor (and get stuck ...).
side note: The Russians tested captured German tanks as early as 1941. They were deeply impressed - or shocked - by the speed of Pz III. According to the report, it was faster and more maneuverable than any Russian tank. These were of course earlier, lighter models of Pz III without the armor upgrades !
@@ottovonbismarck2443 I don't think the ground pressure thing is true. It is basically impossible practically to make a vehicle twice the mass have less ground pressure than one half the mass.
It doesn't get split evenly, and while more wheels helps, you need to consider the pressure under the track chain for loose-surface stuff. Tracks are not as good at splitting the pressure as people think and it's not a linear calculation where twice as wide track = half pressure IIRC.
There's just more to maneuverability anyway than just ground pressure, hence why modern MBTs of 70+ tons are still much faster and more maneuverable than any WWII tank.
When using a PAK 36 feels like throwing garbanzo beans against a T 34, the only option is to run!
Now MHV not only sounds like Arnold, he's starting to look like Arnold too. There's some serious lifting going on.
BTW would views go down if you had these conversations in German with subs? For me it would add to the experience.
lol, thanks video is 4 years old
@@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized Your editor sure took his time with this one...
@@IamOutOfNames I edit them myself, this was edited 4 years ago, but I kept it for a later release and it got lost.
If memory serves, Ahnuld was tank driver during his military service.
@@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized You should have just said your editor is master of his craft and refused to release nothing short of perfection.
Finally some historians unlike the laser pig.
Well it depends on the T34. Ones made in 44 & later are infinitly better than the ones made in the dark days between mid 41 & 43, in just about every way.
Which tanks worked in the unbelievable cold outside Moscow during the devastating counterattack? The Germans who survived were the ones who were not in action.
Always got to wonder how much propaganda/expectations played into both Army's perspectives at the outbreak of war, with Russians perhaps overestimating the panzer divisions and Germans underestimating Russia's tanks with both ending up being surprised at the playingfield being more level than they thought it would be.
One on one the T-34 was weaker than other tanks, but being mass produced allowed them to overwhelm other tanks. Ease of manufacture seems to be its strong side more than its armor and weapons.
Of course, Germany could not simply copy the design and mass produce their own. They did not have the fuel to keep them all running. So the T-34 fit the Soviet case well.
Keep telling yourself that if you want to keep your Russian visa.
Otherwise, if the Russians had gone for a better design - as they had indeed planned if it wasn't for a German surprise visit - they possibly wouldn't have lost that many T-34 in the first place, which also would have allowed crews to actually survive and gain experience. T-34 was a death trap.
The ease of manufacture was another problem. Leaving out certain things doesn't improve quality at all.
2nd point absolutely correct. Peolpe often talk about Germany could have built five StuGs or four Pz IV for one Tiger. They forget that you also need 5 times the crews, 5 times the ammo and - let's estimate - 3 to 4 times the fuel.
The Germans didn’t try making a cheap mass produced tank even after tank generals ask for them
@@tickleboi6581 Well, it doesn't come as a surprise. For the sake of argument, let's pretend it's 2,5 times the fuel. Does this make it any better ?
Edit: but generally it's more than that because you also need more trucks for distribution.
Generals are not tankers. Perhaps general would say it's best tank of the war because it was everywhere and it could do the job. Move over difficult terain better then other tanks. From someone who commands units that might be more important.
Realistically, it is sign of arrogance if Germans did not work on better tank gun after fighting in France. It was clear that long 75mm might be needed to fight with heavier tanks like Char B.
They were developing new guns before and during the early war years as well, they used the year of developement in the design name, like 5 cm PAK 38 or KWK 39. But re-tooling factories from current production to a new item takes a lot of time, money, training for the workers and the last factor is of course the political decisions.. The 7,5 cm PAK developement started in 1939, but the producion version arrived only in 1942
@@krisztianracsko2257 However, that process was later accelerated, otherwise best German weapons of WWII would have been ready after 1945.
@@mladenmatosevic4591 yeah, as you know, it's always up to the politicians, especially in a hardcore dictatorship like that was
@@krisztianracsko2257 It is still mistake, out of arrogance since they expected to crush Soviet Union with bunch of own tin cans like Panzer I and II.
@@mladenmatosevic4591 mistake or not, it was a kind of necessity due to some various reasons (poltical, economical) at that time. Tech-wise, the Pz I were small in numbers, the main tank was the Pz III, Pz II following in numbers when Op Barbarossa started. But it's not really matters because the German forces used combined arms tactics anyway, so their tanks lured the enemy to the field of fire of their artillery, infantry and anti-tank guns. Tank on tank battle were to be avoided if possible, it was seen as a risk to loose an expensive tank. Also the soviet forces used the older BT and T-26 tanks mostly, the newer T-34 and KV tanks were rare at the beginnig of the operation.
T-34 really wasnt a bad tank. The German/Swiss tank ace Emil Seibold scored most of his 69 (nice) tank kills on a T-34 begleitpanzer. So do not judge the horse for jockey´s mistakes...
Given the economic and manpower limitations of the USSR, the T 34 was the best tank for the USSR nad it's geography.
Only because the USSR had outside help could the T-34 succeed. It's one the worst tanks ever designed. It had a kill:loss ratio of 1:3 at best and yet is hailed as the greatest tank of ww2 in many discussions. No other tank, the Sherman, Tiger, Panther, etc would ever be hailed as such with those same ratios. They would all be called disasters.
@@rainyvideos3684 "It had a kill:loss ratio of 1:3 at best" Kid, this isn't an online shooter's session. T-34 was the main and basic working horse of the Red Army, which was used wherever it's possible.
The main organizational unit of the Red Army armored forces from 1941 to 1943 was the "tank brigade". In August of 1941 the composition of these units was: 7 KVs, 22 T-34s, 64 light tanks (T-26/BT-7/T-60). Later on, the number of tanks per brigade formation was reduced, but this proportion was maintained. In July 1942 the formation changed: 24 Т-34s, 16 Т-70s and 32 Т-34s, 21 Т-70s. All heavy tanks, tank destroyers, and SPGs were relegated to separate organizational units such as "divisions" or "regiments". Of course, this tank had huge losses: because more often than not, the Axis troops on the Eastern Front saw this particular vehicle after the fall of 1941.
@@Ailasher It doesn't have to be an online shooter this is the truth and it's not because it was the eastern front that it had huge losses. It had a critcal design flaw and that flaw was in it's fire control. And it was so bad that a guard unit traded in all their T-34s for Shermans. That is cited from a book I have that is the first volumn of an analysis of Operation Barbarossa that is in the notes in the back of the book which I highlighted. The Germans also get knocked on for not having simpler tanks, but they also had many design subtlties that were considered essential by western tanks. The T-34's sacraficed these and the results were a huge human price which you are minimizing by trying to compare my argument to that of an online shooter.
It is further worth noting that if you remove the western allies and move all German armored fighting vehicles (AFVs) from west to east the kill:loss ratio will be such in the German favor that every single soviet AFV will be destroyed to the extent that it will cover at least their entire AFV production. That is not counting the other effects of removing the western allies such as no strategic bombing reducing German AFV production, 10,000 heavy anti-tank guns going east with full complement of supply, and the effects of Luftwaffe superiority on the Eastern Front. The point is the T-34 was a hindrance and succeeded in spit of it's flaws only because it had outside help at the strategic level AND you need an war machine that is effective enough that it can kill more then it is destroyed. Slight tanget, over 80% of T-34s were irrecoverably lost meaning the factory can't fix them. Back to the main point that was being made, the war machine needs to be able kill faster then it is being lost AND produced. If you can make them cheap and quick great, but it means nothing if the pace of loss outstrips your ability to produce them.
Here's the source of my argument and note that it's sources also include those from the Russian Archives.www.operationbarbarossa.net/the-t-34-in-wwii-the-legend-vs-the-performance/
And here's the book from which I cite with the project and analysis still ongoing in later volumes. www.operationbarbarossa.net/the-book/volume-i-the-project-concepts-and-general-structure-and-analysing-weapon-system-effectiveness/
@@rainyvideos3684 "It doesn't have to be an online shooter this is the truth and it's not because it was the eastern front that it had huge losses." You still don't get it. It's not a "huge losses", it's particular losses due to the fact that all units of the Axis forces on the Eastern Front primarily dealt with T-34s as enemy armored vehicles.
"And it was so bad that a guard unit traded in all their T-34s for Shermans." Please state the title of this Guard unit.
"That is cited from a book I have that is the first volumn of an analysis of Operation Barbarossa that is in the notes in the back of the book which I highlighted." It would be great to see that quote with the source.
"It is further worth noting that if you remove the western allies and move all German armored fighting vehicles (AFVs) from west to east the kill:loss ratio will be such in the German favor that every single soviet AFV will be destroyed to the extent that it will cover at least their entire AFV production." Kid, you're trying to calculate the average temperature of patients in a hospital, including the "inhabitants" of the morgue. It doesn't work that way. Plus, you're clearly trying to mix things up here: specifically, the different intensities of military action in different years of the war, carried out by the Axis, the US and UK in the West, and the USSR in the East.
@@Ailasher You didn't read the linked essay and it shows. It has nothing to do with the eastern front. It has to due with the design of the T-34 and I'll compare it to the German Panzers to make the point. The T-34 suffers from poor fire control. That is the ability to identify the target, acquire the target, and then destroy it. The Soviets instead opted for stronger armor while the Germans realized if you can't get the first shot, make sure you hit the enemy more often. Why do you think modern tanks dedicate so much to optics and fire control? To further make this point the T-34 was routinely destroyed by so called "obsolete tanks" due it's inability to identify targets. In fact there is one instance in which a T-34 was shot 23 times by a 37mm gun. Why is the crew letting themselves be shot 23 different times? Why can't the quickly find the target like the Germans and their Western Allied counter-parts which would be appalled to let any ATG get off a 2nd shot before they returned fire? And once heavier ATGs showed up, and they rapidly did the T-34 was destroyed. Even if you made the case that most were operational losses in 1941, which they were, later in the war as the Soviets acquired equal then superior crews, and then operationally controlled the battlefield (recovery of lost tanks = lower losses), they still suffered from poor fire control. Why? Because of their poor quality of their optics AND their field of view from their sights and periscopes was less then that of any of their counter-parts. And you say kid, I am 30 and a NCO in the military and I cite directly from two separate sources, one of which is linked for you to read the second of which you can buy.
But as high I'll tell you exactly where you can find it. In fact, you can even buy the book on google books. You will find it on page 214-215 (according to google books where I have my copy) in Part II: The Methodology Used for Analyzing Weapon System Effectiveness, and the Structure of the 1941 Soviet and Axis Resource Database, chapter 4, part h note number 223. And what a surprise in comparing the T-34 and the Sherman in detailing why the guards turning in their T-34s it essentially says the Shermans had better fire control from turret layout, superior optics, increased ammunition capacity, etc. Don't take my word for it, by the book and you'll find it exactly where i say. In fact it's worse then I recalled where as I thought it was a single guard unit, it turned out to be 3 of 9 guard corps preferred Shermans. That's 1/3 preferring a foreign weapon system over their native weapon system.
Finally I calculate nothing. All calculations are done by a professional military historian and for his very good and well researched reasons. I merely cite him. The fact that it is the eastern front has nothing to do with it, but everything due to terrible design because you can have a great tank crew, but if you give them a terribly designed tank they can only do so much. That's why even later in the war when they had superior crews and better optics and even GREATER numerical superiority they still suffered 1:3 kill loss ratio at best. The greater numerical superiority is worth noting because by standard military doctrine you make it a 3:1 fight to overwhelm your enemy, not with numbers, but firepower and they still couldn't manage better then a 1:3 kill:loss ratio. Meanwhile the Sherman's were managing that just fine. Nevermind the myth of 3 Sherman's being lost to destroy 1 tiger, that's a myth based on the military doctrine which I just explained.
The German armies were facing T-34s by the thousands with 3.7cm PaKs, Panzer IIs, and early Panzer IIIs & IVs. Didn't seem to be much of a problem for them, Battle of Brody being an excellent case study.
@@readhistory2023 It really wasn't though. It had a lot of effective armor and big gun, but that's about it. Was plagued with myriad issues and really wouldn't come into its own until the T-34/85, which is a different tank for all intents and purposes.
It was so much of "not a problem" the germans rushed the 75mm P4, despite the chassis already being kind of obsolete and overloaded, literally considered just outright copying the T-34, made the disastrous and rushed Tiger design, overloaded the Panther with so much extra armor the design never really worked properly...right
@@ZealothPL "Not a problem" in the sense their presence, in concentrated and very large numbers, did little to halt the colossal German gains from day one of Barbarossa through 1942. The Pz IV's up-gunning program long predated Barbarossa. The Tiger had been in development since 1936, and its design really wasn't rushed. Panther was not "overloaded" with armor, and following the Ausf. D's initial troubles, proved to be a reliable AFV. I don't think you really have a clue what you're talking about.
@@_ArsNova god, the amount of copium...
@@ZealothPL "Copium"? I calmly addressed each of your individual points. Yet you seem unable to formulate a response.
I accept your concession!
My god plz get a better mic or get a room that has better sound
It comes back to production philosophy. The Germans were fielding higher performance tanks and crews like Mercedes but in smaller numbers. The Russians produced huge numbers of less refined tanks. They won. The same on the Western front with the Sherman.
If you pause to remember that at least about 40.000 T-34 got destroyed during WW2, I still go with quality over quantity.
@@Myuutsuu85Then you lose.
@@akula9713 Well, Germany would have defeated any country apart from the US in a fair fight. The lesson here is to try not to fight the whole world.
@@ArchOfficial 🤡💩
@@akula9713 They defeated Russia several times, alongside the rest of Eastern Europe, most of Britain's army, France's army etc.
Without the US and UK specifically, Russia would have been entirely taken over. They lost their standing army several times over, and all those tanks they lost wouldn't have even existed if it wasn't for the US giving them most of their lighter vehicles. So yes, quality wins in this case.
The only reason they wouldn't beat the US is because US equipment was largely superior on an operational level AND more numerous by an order of magnitude.
I want to correct slighlty that historian - about that quote: usually when i heard discussions in russian about T34 and that it was best in WW2- usually they quote Churchill. Another point is that they imply 'best' considering all the factors- so that it shouldnt be too hard to build considering many unskilled workers and not always the best hardware in factories. Smth adoptable for mass production. But at the same time strong enough to counter best german tanks. So a bit of propaganda from your side.
Today's "fan" of WWII history, definitely not a wehraboo: "lol, a T-34 was a shitty tank! Bad engine, terrible gearbox, absolutely disastrous turret! I saw the Laserpig's vids, it's a base!"
An average Wehrmacht soldier on the Eastern Front: "*cough* You're alive, Hans? *cough* Damn Bolsheviks and their tanks!"
In late 1942, Tigers did not worry about T-34s. And if you could produce 10,000 Tigers a year, that would matter.
Super quiet video
x vs y. allways fun but combat doesnt happen in a vacum
Like the Sherman, there were thousands of T34s againt hundreds of German tanks. As long as the tankers were willing to sacrifice themselves while challenging more capable German tanks, numbers ruled the day.
The T-34, Panzer IV, and Sherman (speaking broadly, at various times and places it could vary) were all easily close enough that other factors were far more important than a simple comparison of the vehicles.
Not how it works
There is a great diffrence between t34 produced during the war and the specification that it shouls have been produced to, which russian propaganda make sure everyone forgot about
not that the t34 that was actually built following specifications were great anyways, youd get a better tank for cheaper with a sherman
Yes, theoretically, if you only look at the theoretical hard points of the T-34, then the Soviets should have won WW2 by 1942 or 1943 at the very least. No way Germany could have destroyed this insane amount of T-34s, especially while they were still running PzKpfw 1, 2, 3 and 4 plus 3,7 cm pak. But because these things didn't live up to their technical specification, due to horrible construction and design flaws, they lost more of them, than Germans build tanks in total.
This gives us a very distorted view on the T-34. Perfect tank, reliable, simple, well armoured, fast and equiped with a powerful gun - far superior to their German counterparts. But only if you believe in their specs. Specs they propably never matched in reality.
I have a theory on this. The T-34 was BETTER and MUCH BETTER than the tanks the germans had encountered thus far, when the T-34 came it was a shock, not becuse of the superior nature of the machine, but the shock that this machine was that good and came about now. and this "surprise" made it into Legend.
the Surprise of a suddenly "good" tank, and then a subsequent defeat.......it was the "new weapon" and the "better than we have encouterd upto now" that is the T-34 myth
"If you were a Tiger commander," but you wouldn't have been. It's like saying "if you were a Navy SEAL" except there were fewer Tigers built during the entire war than there are currently serving Navy SEALs. The tank you don't have cannot be the best tank.
Im full volume and can barley hear you
Well, in one sense, the T-34 easily was the best tank of WW2, because of the enormous amount produced. With a 1000 km frontline, there were always plenty of areas where there were no Tigers, or Pz IV's, or even a STuG 3. The combined production of Tiger I and Tiger II's was less than 2000 vehicles. I dont remember offhand Pz. IV production, but i think Germany made something in the vincinity of 9000 of them. The Soviet Union made what, around 50.000 T-34's ?
In 1941 when it was introduced, i think the Soviet Union made less than 1000. Then for every year thereafter, they made 15.000+ (in addition to a plethora of other vehicles like the KV series, the IS series, tank destroyers, assault guns, etc etc).
Alone, no, the T-34 was nowhere near the best tank of WW2, but considering the amount of them, they certainly made the difference. Marxist theory was basically that quantity trumped quality (massively oversimplified of course).
Yep. And the same theory was used in respect to their soldiers. The Soviets did not drown the German soldiers in their own blood, but rather in Soviet blood. ........
The Marxist(- Leninist) theory is that enough quantity will make qualitative change
@@icantaimpg3d776 He he, unfortunately always to the worst 🙂
Well, if every T-34 would have been build to match their specifications and without flaws, if all production and design flaws were corrected, than Soviets would have won this war much earlier and with far fewer losses of human life. A bit more quality would have been a better choice, than just stupid maximum quantity.
@@dnocturn84 True enough, but Stalin specifically forbid any improvements and fixes as it would slow production, which i guess in his mind, trumped everything.
in the early phase of the war the t34 was definitely tge best tank
the problem was that there were only 900 of them in 1941.
700 of them used at the battlw of moscow.
The T34 had so many shortcomings, this explains it`s heavy losses right from the start, but a lot of people like stories about frightend german soliders
@@michaelpielorz9283 yes ot did.but one of it was not Jamin in the cold like the panzer
The T-34 is a great tank.
Even into the early 1990s, some Chinese armies were still using the T-34-85.
And rightfully so, it's an artillery gun on tracks
That probably says more about the Chinese Army at the time than the T-34.
T-34s were great in their day, but no amount of upgrades would make them decent front line tanks in the 1990s.
@@88porpoise the t34 was shit in its day and it was even more shit after the war, it was more expensive and worse than a sherman, well, the ideal t34 was, the war built t34s were so cost cut its amazing they even functioned at all
There’s a war in ukraine
Look it up
And pretty soon we will probably see it in action again when it burns up Abrams, Leos and Challengers...🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
“There is nothing we can do.” - German Anti-tank crew
2300 lost T-34s in 1941 creates a different picture. And many of them lost to Pzkmpfw III and good old 3,7 cm Pak 36. All losses combined, it lead to a tank-lost-ratio of 7 Soviet tanks destroyed for every German lost tank.
That's why the Soviets began perfecting ambush tactics instead of head on attacks (even though the other continued to the end)
Pony tail alert!
HUH HUH lot of talk 🥱
The T34 was superior to a Stug3. As an infantry support AFV it was scary. Plus there were so many of them.
The gun got improved overtime and that just made it a better anti tank vehicle.
It had short falls. But as an Assault gun they were formidable through out the war.
If Germany could have produced more mark 3 & mark 4 tanks for anti tank use the T34 would have gone extinct early in the war. Likewise is Ivan had replaced all of his light tanks which T34’s he would have crushed Fritz in 1941.
Here comes the wehraboo swarm
please do a video on these
(this is a copy and paste list for a few channels)
units and tactics/evaluation of loadouts of troops (from different jobs (and other branches)
the tank doctrine of countries
evaluation of tank veiw ports
evaluation of tanks/armored vehicles of different countries
navil ship cross sections (all the rooms and how it all works)
evaluation of types of ships
or evaluation of navil warfare
flag ship vs capital ship,
battleship vs dreadnought
air craft carrier strike group formations exsamples,
ancient persan ships,
ancient veneti ships (gauls that fought ceaser)
better for squads to be 2 teams of 5 or 3 teams of 3,
and probably the esayest, better to keep troops well feed or starved like an animal
how dose age effect comsnders eg napoleon got older so took less risks,
ancient urban warfare
ww2 tactics in Asia, tactics in the Chinese age of warlords,
tactics in the ruso jap war
cold war navil tactics,
Korean war tactics,
strange tactics or unque battles from the American war of independence and America civil war
why did the Japanese empire fall, dont just say "America" like things like how there army and navy argued alot
Drachnifiels and subbrief are good for naval things
A lot of this has been covered by various channels, so if you look around you may find what you're looking for.
@@RobinTheBot already have, what ive found was eather unsatisfactory due to very poor quality, wrong or not enough informative or the source doesn't exist...
I have been researching things like this for about 4 years now slowly building a library....
Donate to Bernard an appropriate amount for his time then .
@@alangordon3283 with what?
All i can ever do is come up with video ideas, post the comment, watch as others agree with me and i get a few likes, and hope to god him or one of the other yts i post this set of ideas on... just hope obe of them sees it
Theres nothing else i can do,
I would do it all myself but not much point as of how low quality it would be and it would be much use to my library,
Plus he and the other yts have far far more experience, time as this is there job, and resources/sorces then i could ever get