LazerPig: The T-34 Is Not As Good As You Think Reaction

[@dulmater]

More over rated Russian tank content!

[@kazekamiha]

So... Every Russian tank ever made?

[@atomicshadowman9143]

Thanks for fixing the audio levels

[@mishamixailov]

Complete nonsense. After 1945, the main tanks of the USSR were the IS-3 and T54/T55 tanks, which were obviously superior to everything the West had then. And the T-34s were withdrawn into reserve or sent into service with friendly countries.

[@marcinzysko1653]

1:02:17 there are other things to consider, like tactics, logistics, even occasional weather.

[@TheRyderShotgunn]

a fun thing (well, not actually very fun but roll with me) i once heard about the T-34 was that the tank would accelerate by itself, and the driver had to stop the vehicle manually, rather than the other way around of the vehicle being stationary normally and the driver accelerating the vehicle. this was why there are so many stories of "heroic last ramming manouvers" by T-34s, because the driver got killed and sent the tank into a runaway charge since its driver was too dead to stop the vehicle anymore

[@stalinsoulz7872]

so a actually tank banzai? lmao

[@aaroncruz9181]

Literally Turns to Autopilot.

[@noahn627]

@@aaroncruz9181 T-34 have that build in Chat GPT

[@almasbaibolov1446]

12:45 You are partly correct. After all, first tanks were basically up-armoured tractors with cannons and machine guns. However, this particular factory was originally indeed just build only tractors. Not to mentioning it was rather small one, in May 1941 it has only 300 workers and production capacity was 15 tractors per month. And after war started here Soviets evacuated some elements of their facilities from Western part of USSR. But there were not enough people to assemble tanks, so they brought many GULAG prisoners, women from local towns/villages and unsuitable for service men. At 1942 they even put teenagers from foster homes for night shifts. As it been expected quality was extremely low, yet they managed to produce around 49% of all war-era T-34s. P.S. This factory was reconverted back to tractor’s production in April 1945 already. I wonder why?

[@almasbaibolov1446]

11:34 Not really. As Lazerpig said later in this video, Soviets got rid of all their T-34s as soon as T-54s were ready for mass production. Which started in September 1948. Keep in mind T-54 was designed by Ukrainian-born engineers back in middle of war.

[@riddler2127]

The song is Slav by Antonin Chachkine. Hardbass is actually a pretty good genre if you like EDM that goes, well, hard and heavy with the bass.

[@TheGallantDrake]

The whole usability discussion reminds me of a scene from the book “Use of Weapons” by Iain M Banks. There’s a scene where the main character is picking out equipment from an armoury containing weapons from a wide array of different civilizations. At one point he picks up a mysterious contraption and his robot companion tells him that it’s essentially a hyper-advanced autogun, giving the impression that it’s incredibly powerful, but “it feels weird to hold because thats a left-handed model” and that “it takes half a year to learn how to use it, never mind use it effectively, so you can’t have it.”

[@madmonkeys88]

The quality beats quantity argument he was making is i believe this. Russia would make a expensive tank, cheaply, and poorly, but also numerously. Doing so caused a ton of issues with the tank that if they had just built them well, they wouldnt have and would probably havw had better results. Because a tank does not exist in a vacuum, 3 tanks require 3x the manpower, fuel, logistics supply etc... And if one of those 3 shuts down on the march, the 2nd during a fight, and the third has massive flaws that depreciate its ability. It would have been cheaper and better to just build 1 tank well. Doing what they did worked, but it cost them much more lives and resources than may have been necessary.

[@almasbaibolov1446]

34:30 This picture based on horrible tactic of Soviet tank crews out of necessity (more like desperation) - ramming. Basically tank commander telling driver where is nearest German tank and coordinate attack with tank’s hull on full speed. For long time, especially at early stage of war on Eastern front, it was only working tactic to disable German tanks and shoot them at point blank range. As you may guess it already, that mean Soviet tank crews putted themselves into equally bad condition. If not worst, since commander has horrible options, driver sometimes couldn’t hear commands, gunner can’t shoot while tank was on move and tank was pretty slow. Overall, this was 85% suicide attack, which often cost 3-4 Soviet tanks to destroy/damage 1 German tank.

[@almasbaibolov1446]

18:17 I don’t really know how this one is called. But I know genre of this song - hardbass. This is basically hybrid of Russian chanson (don’t mistake with French chanson) with techno music. This is traditionally associated with gopniks (toxic wannabe street gangsters) and therefore in post-Soviet countries popular only among outcasts who got nothing better to do than drink cheap alcohol on playing ground all day and night. Yet, thanks to Ukrainian game franchises like “Stalker” and “Metro” it reached beyond Russian-speaking area and became popular thanks to memes. And since Lazerpig allegedly been in Russia multiple times and had romantic relations with at least one Russian boyfriend, surely he knows how embarrassingly worthless this genre is. Or I am wrong and he likes it.

[@iKvetch558]

OK...it has been said before that the Allies "deliberately delayed the invasion of Europe", and I am gonna have to say that is not correct. The date for the Normandy invasion was determined by the fact that the Allies did not "win" the Battle of the Atlantic until the 2nd half of 1943, and by the fact that it took until 1944 to produce enough landing craft and LSTs to perform a landing of the size needed for the invasion of France. In fact, the Soviets were asked in January 1942 if it was more important to them for the invasion of Europe to come sooner, or was it more important for the USA to keep sending as much food as possible...and they chose to get as much food as possible. If you have a source to back up the statement that the invasion of France was deliberately delayed, I would definitely be interested in hearing about it. ✌

[@dulmater]

Honestly have no source. Just something I've heard stated many times that is most likely apocryphal.

[@iKvetch558]

@@dulmater There was no chance that an invasion of Western Europe could happen in 1942, and the Dieppe Raid showed that there was really no shortcut possible, and that the job was going to have to be done with a full scale across the beaches invasion. The only way that the Allies could have considered invading in 1943 was if the Soviets had indicated that they were willing to accept a bit less Lend Lease aid, and as I said, Molotov told FDR, Marshall and King in late May of 1942 that the Soviets were NOT willing to accept a reduction in Lend Lease aid if that meant that the invasion could happen sooner. Since it would have required the US to refocus production capacity away from freighter tonnage for delivering supplies to the USSR, so that the materials and labor could be spent on building landing craft and LCTs more quickly, it was the Soviets' own choice that made the invasion possible only in 1944. Of course, if the Germans had given up on their U-Boat campaign in the Atlantic, things would have been different, but as long as the Battle of the Atlantic was still going on, the US could not BOTH continue to send the same amount of supplies to the USSR AND be ready to invade Western Europe in 1943. The idea that the Allies delayed invading France in order allow the Germans to kill a few more Soviets is not true, and is likely a result of the USSR's own post WW2 propaganda efforts...which I know that you are very aware of. ✌

[@coenisgreat]

@@dulmater If you really want to be pedantic about it, technically the allies *did* delay the invasion of Europe, but only by a day. Originally the landings were supposed to occur on June 5th, but heavy rains and fog meant rough seas that and poor visibility that made the commanders delay the operation by a day.

[@Rwscienceguy]

Diesel is an inflammable liquid, meaning it's ignition temperature is over 100 F. While Gasoline is a flammable liquid that has an ignition temperature below 100 F. This often confuses people and they believe inflammable means it will not burn.

[@A_Name_]

@44:28 the diesel doesn't catch fire thing is two fold in my experience. First is the fact tanks like the Sherman that used regular gasoline would light up so easily which they took as a sign that it had to be something else catching fire in the tanks like ammo. The 2nd reason is because of stupid videos where people put out a cigarette or cigar ECT in diesel which leads idiots to think it is not flammable which is amazing because if it wasn't combustible it wouldn't work in a.... Combustion engine lol

[@amandarhodes4072]

I think it goes hand in hand with the myth that fuel tanks explode when shot at in movies and the subsequent realisation that they in truth don't explode when hit that makes people think diesel fuel tanks don't explode. Diesel does ignite easily but shooting a bullet at a thin metal fuel tank will not cause enough heat or sparks to ignite the fuel within. If you hit the engine components as tell and they begin to spark off then it may explode. Bullets are not hot enough to ignite fuel when fired from a gun. Tracer rounds have an oxide coating on them so they burn brightly when hitting the friction from air resistance. These rounds are often used in training to see where the bullets are going. these do burn hot enough to ignite fuel tanks but were not very effective during ww2.

[@ripLunarBirdCLH]

About the myth of diesel fuel not catching fire. My father used to work as bus driver and in his company there were two cases of "diesel" fumes exploding when the driver was looking into the tank, trying to confirm how much fuel is in there. It exploded because drivers have developed a habit of taking a burning piece of cloth on a stick to have some light. Now, a proper diesel fuel would not ignite from that. Not even fumes. But when those two bus drivers burned to death (one of them burning right in fronty of my father), the resulting investigation would found out that the fuel was more like gasoline than diesel in terms of catching fire. Quite simply it was diesel with so much alcohol in it that it was way too prone to catch fire. But of course the difference isn't even in there when it's red hot anti-tank round we're talking about. The fuel in the tank is gonna catch fire, diesel or gasoline.

[@skyraider87]

Diesel just has a higher flash point at around 126° and 205°F (52 and 96 C). I'm not an expert but I think it has to do with the grade of it. When a tank gets hit, especially with an anti tank round or shaped charge, the temperature inside increases almost instantly, so those temperatures aren't inconceivable. The fuel tanks are also rather close to the engine, which would warm them up a fair bit

[@MalevolentSpirit234]

Tractors are actually pretty similar on a basic level to tanks - certain tractor types also used treads, like for example artillery tractors which the Soviets occasionally liked to use. The STZ-5, which was produced by the Stalingrad Tractor Factory (hence the STZ designation which stands for it), was one of those types. Its also telling some of the older tank engines used engines similar to tractors. So out of all the factory types, a tractor factory was the most qualified to be converted into a tank factory due to the similarities of the vehicles and the experience of the workers of dealing with their similar production and mechanics issues.

[@skyraider87]

I think what Pig meant when he said that German tanks weren't superior was that German tanks weren't the invincible things that Wehraboos think they were. They were better than Soviet tanks, but not perfect themselves

[@bobwill]

As far as sloped armor being something nobody had ever thought about, might I introduce you Confederate Casemate Ironclads of the Civil War. Or, the sloped/inclined armor belt on battleships starting with the Hood. Or, the turtleback armor of various warships since the 1870s.

[@stalinsoulz7872]

yeah sloped armor weren't really a Russia engineering thing, french and some brit designs gloss that, Russia did the slope armor cause that's the plausible thing yo accommodate they're doctrine and logistics. Ivan didn't create this genius idea he just used it as a practicality to what his Superiors wanted to do with the tanks

[@Dodsodalo]

Quantity is a quality all its own, is historically true but is not sustainable if you bumble into conflict after conflict, due to unsustainable losses. However back in the day things were easy to produce because of relatively low tech and people popped out kids like crazy.... Which started to no longer be feasible militarily in the 80s. Especially nowadays where small groups of highly equipped soldiers with nightvision, drones, electronic warfare and training can curbstomp a zerg force of men. You can see this in the Ukrainian war, where Russians in huge numbers are getting cut stomped by outdated 70's-90's NATO equipment in relatively small volumes. Add increases in military tech, the gap between quality and quantity is increasing, but surprisingly, morale is still a major factor in war to this day so, which is why major powers that hold back have difficulty facing goes with no morals or standards fighting gueriila style.

[@amandarhodes4072]

On the contrary quality will always beat quantity. In the ww1 trenches the British sent 10 thousand men up onto no mans land at the Somme. In this there were instances of 100+ soldiers with mass produced rifles gunned down by a better quality German made gun. A machine gun. Quality beat quantity 100/1.

[@michaelgranholm7598]

A new video of the Babylon bee has come out.

[@stalinsoulz7872]

hardbass, it's hardbass it vary but most time the you want are at top searches

[@BigGator5]

Suggestion: "The Mystery Of The Bomb Collar Bank Heist" by Wendigoon

[@hadesdogs4366]

As someone who lives the t34 it’s god tier in terms of on the paper but in reality wasn’t that good and as someone who’s seen an actual t34 I can definitely say it was built on a budget, where the armor was only about an inch thick and again whilst it did have good sloping armor, it’s sloping armor was also one of its biggest problem, where unless it was a solid piece like the front of a panther or king tiger but due to its u even surface actually made the armor much weaker such as say, having a massive hole cut out of it to allow a drivers hatch which wasn’t as armored as the body as well as the machine gun mantlet which caused stressing on the metal when being produced there fore weakening the armor slightly, but all of that can be easily forgiven if it wasn’t for Russias shoddy craftsmanship and poor metal technology compared to the Germans or even the Americans where for the same armor as that of say the side of the Sherman which was only two mm thick was stronger than an inch of Russian frontal armor due to its much lower quality and again, as much as I love the T-34 and it’s design it’s not that effective when it came to well other tanks which people tend to forget that the bulk of the soviet military mostly consisted of tanks sent to them by both the British in terms of things like the Matilda mk2, Churchill and even some Valentine tanks were sent to the Soviet Union in which they found mild success, the popular ones being typically the Churchill and Matilda seeing extensive uses as well as extensive modifications, but not only that but the US also sent the Russians a large number of Sherman’s and other bits of equipment as well as a massive bill to boot. And so in reality most tanks at the timer were literally like Frankenstein’s monsters where if it could be salvaged then the previous residents would simply be removed or mostly flushed out, anything essential to the tanks functioning was replaced or repaired along with any holes being simply patched up and welded over, after that any ammunition if possible and then sent to the frontlines, many American tanks are basically mixed and matched parts off of their Sherman’s as people would ((borrow)) bits and pieces that other tank crews wouldn’t notice missing if given the chance or simply traded with such as a cooling fan for a drive belt because theirs is running a bit thin and so on. Anything and everything was scavenged, recycled or collected later to be melted down into scrap or simply throw n over the side of a ship because they’re not worth the hassle of trying to sell them or use them and so it’s much cheaper to dump them overboard

[@almasbaibolov1446]

33:33 I believe it called “Red Sun in the Sky”. This is maosist’s propaganda song glorifying chairman Mao Zedong.

[@steffent.6477]

Aren't both the crusaders at 47:30 riveted?

[@Gsoda35]

armour steel is somewhat comparable with a kitchen knife.

[@samargrewal929]

react to US AFV Development in WW2, or why the Sherman was as it was. by the The Chieftain

[@dark_drakon6814]

on topic how long Russian army had problems that technology advancement and quality I recommend Russo Japanese war special "The Russian 2nd Pacific Squadron - Voyage of the Damned" by Channel "Drachinifel"

[@Xtra_Medium]

8:52 I still prefer the East Germany national anthem

[@dulmater]

I don't think I've ever heard it I'll have to check it out.

[@corwintipper7317]

Clarksoooon!!!

[@iKvetch558]

LOL...yup...who is that "Nigel" guy that dulmater mentioned? 😜

[@corwintipper7317]

I really don't know could be Nigell Mansell but he doesn't have that voice

[@iKvetch558]

@@corwintipper7317 LOL...that's who I thought it might be as well...I think that must be who he meant. 💯😁

[@dulmater]

Lol I thought it was Nigel Farage, didn't get a good look at him ahaha

[@iKvetch558]

@@dulmater Dang...that suggests that you have not had nearly enough Clarkson/Hammond/May in your life, or you would have instantly recognized Jeremy and his "SPEED" mating call.😜 Tell me, have you not watched all of their Top Gear episodes and all of The Grand Tour? It is ok to admit it if you have not, there is no shame...many many young people have been similarly deprived of Clarkson/Hammond/May...you are NOT alone. LOL 😂✌

[@U_Go_Boom]

Why do people just hate the T-34

[@proudfirebrand3946]

Criticism isnt hate.. blindly defending something without a shred of thought or consideration and just ignore said criticism though is bias..

[@U_Go_Boom]

@@proudfirebrand3946 How am I "blindly defending something?" How can you just assume that I haven't done any research? (I have btw) In response, I would say that you are blindly attacking something.

[@alfredwhite7773]

T-34 was the perfect tank for soviet doctrine. It was easy to mass manufacture it, and they had all the resources to support such a large tank army. For example to produce a more complicated design like the German Tiger, they would have needed more specialized factories with specific experts working on the tanks, but to produce a T-34 they just converted civilian factories and they could still produce it. It was the simplistic design that made it a powerful tank. Overall, the T-34's design aligned well with Soviet doctrine, which emphasized numerical superiority, mobility, and the ability to conduct deep operations. Its simplicity, combined with its combat effectiveness, made it a key factor in the Soviet Union's eventual victory on the Eastern Front.

[@kindlingking]

That is incorrect. Honestly, do you people even read books? Why do you keep repeating the same nonsense over and over again? No, you cannot convert civilian factoring to produce T-34, you're confusing it witb T-60, which actually was exactly what you have described. Except it was taken out of production in 1942, because, although numerous, cheap and easy to build, it just plain and simple sucked. T-34 started as complicated unreliable "wonder weapon" tank that had lots and lots of design problems, but was head and shoulders above it's contemporaries. Throughout 1941-42, soviet industry worked on ironing out those problems by upgrading or simplifying certain elements. This is how T-34 became reliable and easy to manufacture, but by that point german tanks had caught up and it's stats were no longer impressive. After establishing mass production of T-34, soviet begun making various updates to it so the machine can keep up with german "wonder weapons", however it was well understood that T-34 is reaching it's limit and a new machine is necessary, which was T-44, later developed into T-54. So when someone says "T-34 is good/bad", they have yo specify which T-34 they mean. Of course T-34-76 obr.1940 would be an unreliable above average piece of junk, where's T-34-85 obr. 1945 - a reliable mobilisation tank with good enough specs and T-34-85 obr. 1943 is somewhere in-between. Taking a flaw or an advantage of one machine from one specific period (sometimes also from one specific factory) and applying it to T-34 broadly is cringe. Hating on T-34 and being werhaboo (or americaboo) is cringe as well.

[@ilerien]

russia was at war with japan....

[@dulmater]

During WW2? They didn't declare war on Japan until the 7th of August 1945.

[@nightstorm5914]

@@dulmater some years before WW1 (1904-1905) about interest conflicts over korea and the Manchuria and russia lost hard (and lost many ships, since japan didn’t recognised russians surrender flags on their ships, since japan "dont knew" what surrender meant; their lost 35 from 38 ships ) it was the 1st time in the midern time, that a asian country won a war over a european country and also the precursor for WW1, since trench warfare with machine guns, barbed wire and field phones were used in this war (also after analysing the sea battle(s) the "Dreadnought" battle ship design was started) p.s US President Roosevelt proposed the peace treaty on 5. september 1905 ( "Treaty of Portsmouth") and was later giving the nobel peace prize for his action as 1st us president to ever get this prize

[@marionette8739]

A good thing, then, that the Soviet Union was literally never communist: it was fascist!

[@dulmater]

Kind of true, because fascism is essentially just communism in a single country instead of becoming global.

[@ВасяНосоглотов]

​@@dulmaterфашизм хотябы уважает правсоюзы а советская власть плевала на них

[@kindlingking]

Wtf are you on?