Get Inside The Soviet T-34 Tank With Historian James Holland

Military historian James Holland gets inside an operational T-34 tank, the pride and joy of the Soviet Union during the Second World War.
Introduced in 1940, the T-34 was famously deployed with the Red Army against Operation Barbarossa - Nazi Germany's doomed invasion of Russia. Its 76.2 mm tank gun was more powerful than its contemporaries while its 60 degree sloped armour provided good protection against anti-tank weapons. But as James discovers, life for the crew of these tanks could be hazardous indeed!
Subscribe to History Hit TV today and get 50% off the first 3 months when you use the code TRUCE at checkout: bit.ly/3mkdo33
#JamesHolland #Tanks #HistoryHit

[@oli_marsh829]

I'm the one called Oli who was operating the turret and barrel, whilst my dad was driving it. It was very fun filming this documentary with James and Waitman.

[@timburr4453]

what an awesome experience.

[@stupitdog9686]

Would really have liked to see more of the "Inside"! I.E. How the commander could see out while battened down - what the gun site looked like - what the driver could see, how the gun was loaded,who shot the machine gun, how the crew ate and slept, where was the snooker room? etc. etc.

[@SkyWriter25]

Watch the Chieftain's Hatch series on the T34 kzbin.info/www/bejne/eIPXm5KKiLR7oNk kzbin.info/www/bejne/qIXRhGOOiJeUopo

[@patverum9051]

Gun SIGHT....

[@stupitdog9686]

@@SkyWriter25 Thank you - That's perfect. :)

[@AHotkovo]

More video kzbin.info/www/bejne/epqWfphslpp2iZI

[@AHotkovo]

More video. kzbin.info/www/bejne/qIXRhGOOiJeUopo

[@wawa_marek8491]

21:07 Operation manual in cocpit is in Polish language - very clear: Engine RPM Maximum: 1800 Normal 1600 - 1700 During engine start max: 600-800 Outgoing water: max 105°C Don't move until oil temperature reach 45°C and water temperature 50-55°C Start moving in lower gears Outgoing oil max: 100°C Oil pressure: Normal: 6-9 ATM At 600 800 rpm: 2ATM

[@Centurion101B3C]

Yes, everything points to at least the hull being originally from Polish origin (including the mis-matching road-wheels. The Turret otoh, is fully Russian in layout and what little info was present.

[@ghut487]

tachometer is in Czech "km/hod.", radio in Russian

[@Centurion101B3C]

@@ghut487 Ah, this baby may have many fathers. How cute!

[@tomservo5347]

I remember watching a series 'Survivors of Stalingrad' and one German infantryman (you could tell he still shuddered thinking about it 60 years later) recalled how seeing T-34's churning through the snow with infantry riding on the back was the infantryman's worst nightmare come true. Nearly breaking down he said "Animals can burrow and take shelter-we couldn't even do that."

[@thenevadadesertrat2713]

Compare that to the third battle of Kharkov for example. 350 000 Russian prisoners, three lost armies, 2,500 lost tanks, 850 artillery pieces. and so on.

[@dnickaroo3574]

The Wehrmacht had captured 90% of Stalingrad, and actually celebrated ‘Victory’ with Medals made for the “heroes”. Then the Soviets counter-attacked during a snow-storm in a pincer-movement, which isolated the Sixth Army. From the celebration of ‘Victory’ Germany had Three Days of Mourning for the loss of the Sixth Army. The psychological effects alone must have been devastating - Germany had lost the War. Churchill presented a specially minted Sword to Stalin, which was given to the Commanders responsible.

[@NastyCupid]

@@dnickaroo3574 I recently read a war memoir from the perspective of a Belgian SS regiment Corporal. He writes that when Stalingrad was attacked and the axis powers advanced towards the caucasus mountains (him included) they were absolutely convinced they had pushed the Sovjets back so hard that they'd probably surrender soon... When reality hit the Axis troops their morale sunk to their boots.

[@Klovaneer]

​@@dnickaroo3574 Well, the command back home started making medals. For troops on the ground, both sides, Stalingrad was an absolute hell. Nazi command was adamant in their ability to hold the skies and airdrop supplies for isolated units but then newly arrived Yak-9 erased that too. Stalingrad is considered the turning point in retrospect but in the moment Kursk was the pivot.

[@AlexanderTch]

@@thenevadadesertrat2713 You lie. Third battle of Kharkiv didn't do such heavy losses for Russian army. Where did you get that fantastic fake? You just hate Russia and scream anti russian slogans like Goebels

[@J1mston]

I love how James presents things and how he can bust out into those little stories that to most are little unknown tidbits from the war but he manages to make them feel like defining moments.

[@braddavid902]

James holland is the ww2 goat

[@TheCJUN]

Would like a documentary on the enormous endeavor of moving all the Soviet tank factories eastward.

[@paullakowski2509]

good call !!!!

[@ronmailloux8655]

@@paullakowski2509 to tankograd ...Ivan make tank not for looks but for amounts.

[@AussieStandsWithRussia]

Yes

[@oddballsok]

one video of WW2 neidell was about just that..the incredible efficient factory transportations to the east..

[@РамисГайфуллин]

есть филь документальный снятый американским режиссером в 70х годах. называется НЕИЗВЕСТНАЯ ВОЙНА! посмотри там всё есть!

[@геравадим]

I am Russian, and I was pleasantly surprised that our legendary tank is so well known abroad! Happy New Year!

[@burtvhulberthyhbn7583]

Are you kidding? Whatever it's shortcomings, and there were shortcomings, the T34 was a brilliant design and had so many things done right.

[@robleary3353]

I've been watching with great interest videos of Soviet armor being pulled from bogs and rivers etc in and around Russia and being not just restored to museum standard, but! Running and working... Respect to those doing that and respect to service personnel who manned, supported and kept them going Lest we forget.

[@fl3669]

The T34 is easily one of the most famous and recognizable tanks in the world.

[@rolandhunter]

@@burtvhulberthyhbn7583 Can you tell me only 1 Briliant thing about it? Please.

[@britishspy5477]

Однако в конце ролика советских танкистов назвали пушечным мясом, что досадно.

[@Mati_Panzer]

T-34: the art of having "good enough" in massive quantities

[@timothymcdonnell2466]

My favourite tank of all time. Even when it's stationary, the T34/85 looks like it's going somewhere with purpose.

[@jtfoto1]

Interesting to see the fully cast turret on the T-34 but it was not the first. That went to the British Matilda. My father was a gunner in the Matilda and if you think the T-34 is cramped the Matilda was way worse. Dad was 6' tall and I don't know how he did it. You mentioned how recoil from the gun was dangerous to the loader well in the Matilda there was 3/8" clearance from the breach to the turret wall on recoil. Quite a few loaders lost arms whilst training. Great video. Keep them coming.

[@michaeljensen6205]

That's very odd ;D Slavs use this thing where they pick tiny people for tanks. My father told me 5ft7 was too tall for tank in 70's... Ideal was lady sized men. Which btw back then were a norm. I think average soviet soldier was 5ft6-7 back then and they picked 5ft3 for tanks... just as capable just as smart just more compact :D:D:D

[@carkawalakhatulistiwa]

270 million Indonesians will consider this tank wide not narrow Because the average height of a man is 5 feet 1 inch

[@MrSpamaccount]

@@michaeljensen6205 Could be a post-war practice though, as war necessity sucked out all skilled tractor drivers in the first place. On the other hand, tall tractor drivers could have been used to drive army tractors :/

[@abrgepardabr]

"Матильда" была не первым танком с цельнолитой башней. Просто исторический факт. Со всем уважением к Вашему отцу. Да и ко всем, кто воевал или отдал жизнь в той войне. Знаете как у нас поют? Фраза из известной песни из известного у нас кинофильма (не знаю, к сожалению, правильно ли прозвучит в переводе): "Нет в России семьи такой, где бы не памятен был свой герой". В моем роду их пятеро, по крайней мере те, о ком я точно знаю - летчики, водитель, артиллерист, пехота, железнодорожница (думаю их было больше). С уважением.

[@jtfoto1]

@@abrgepardabr wish I could read Russian.

[@seewaldsja]

I remember a Kalashnikov quote " Its simple to make something complex,Its complex to make something simple". I think that's it if not close enough.

[@leachimy24]

Its simple when you have unlimited manpower to push through the meatgrinder till it breaks.

[@alamore5084]

Good analogy!

[@joshkent4888]

I liked the conversation but I would have enjoyed it more without the constant flash editing of the same footage repeated over and over again. A detailed walk around showing and explaining the hatches and accessories would have been nice.

[@Beemer917]

If you ever get a chance to watch James Holland's take on the Battle of Britain do so. Its a wonderful documentary and so game-changing.

[@xfirehurican]

Saw the T-34 in 'action' in Kosova '98-'99. Primarily deployed by the MUP (in dark blue police livery) as an escort for JNA troops and rolling stock retrograding back to their barracks in Serbia. Edit: Oskin captured all three of the Tigers. They were repaired and returned to service with Soviet crews. One, hull 502, is on display in a Russian museum. Tak!

[@--X--]

It's called "Kosovo" or more precisely "Kosovo and Metohija".

[@fakker8349]

@@--X--Republic of Kosovo that serbia can dream of having

[@--X--]

@@fakker8349 No, Kosovo is Serbia, always was and always will be. Terrorists have no place in the world. Живела уједињена Србија!

[@NordStar7]

@@--X-- 100%👍

[@romanszmyt9516]

If I'm not mistaken I saw Polish writings around the indicators and switches. Of course the tank was commonly used in Polish army. It was also the main character in a pretty silly, but enourmously popular tv series " Czterej pancerni i pies", "Four tankman and a dog". Lots of wonderful movie scenes with the tank including underwater crossing.

[@Tiverovich]

Сам ты глупый

[@FallNorth]

Yes @ 21:07 I'm looking at it, that's Polish - certainly not Russian!

[@UzzeRR]

It was T-44 in this movie. The tank was developed in 43, but the transition to a new model would slow down production. The T-44 had a torsion bar suspension, which allowed the engine to be placed across the hull, which allowed the turret to be moved back and the driver's hatch to be placed on top and the frontal armor plate to be made monolithic.

[@titus_livius]

Something to point out - According to David Glanz, there were approximately 800 T34's and 500 KV1's on 22 June 1941. Both the KV's and T34's were the initial production batch suffering from transmition and engine issues. Fast forward to the summer of 1942 to winter of 1943, majority of tanks in use were still the light tanks: T60 and T70 series. A Large concentrated force of T34/76's isn't really seen until summer of 1943 at Kursk, where it is outgunned by PanzercampfwagonV. T34/85 really comes into its own in 1944 with large numbers. Ironically, T34/85's went up against T34/76's in Curland...

[@bbrother92]

what is Curland

[@growlers90]

Way to go James Holland. KZbin is the future, excellent subject matter, well produced and good cinematography is the way to go. Since Covid lockdown TV needs to realise more people go to YT for this kind of output than the usual Documentary Channel/C4/Channel 5 output that only pays lip service grudgingly, usually with an agenda. Good luck for the future!!

[@robertcook2572]

KZbin is the present, never mind the future. TV has long had its day.

[@iwonaradecka7562]

This tank was produced in Poland by Zakłady Mechaniczne Bumar-Łabędy. The T-34-85 tank was not the first to be produced in Poland, but the first to be built on a mass scale. In 1951, Poland purchased a license for its production. Ultimately, it was planned to produce 3 thousand. cars every year. The vehicles were manufactured by Zakłady Mechaniczne "Łabędy" in Łabędy near Gliwice. The tank guns were produced by Huta Stalowa Wola, and the engines by Zakłady Mechaniczne no. 2 in Warsaw. Serial production started in 1952. By the time of its completion in 1956, a total of 1,380 tanks had been built, of which 1,108 were transferred to the Polish Army. The remaining 272 cars were intended for export. During operation in the Polish Army, some T-34-85 tanks were upgraded to the T-34-85M1 version (engine heater, crew of 4 soldiers, reinforced suspension) and M2 (additionally adapted to negotiate water obstacles on the bottom) . Modernization was carried out at the Military Mechanical Works in Siemianowice Śląskie.

[@FayazAhmad-yl6sp]

The Russian technology is simple and durable, I'm using a Russian refrigerator at my home (non stop) since 1988.

[@himoffthequakeroatbox4320]

@@FayazAhmad-yl6sp Is it just a cabinet with the back open to the outside?

[@Celebmacil]

@@himoffthequakeroatbox4320 Nah, you're thinking of the deluxe apparatchik model. The one being described is probably the baseline proletariat series: a wood shovel to dig a hole in the snow outside for your food.

[@Hillbilly973]

Absolutely love James Holland. He and Eleanor Janega, for me, are peerless in their fields and i really like their personalities and energy.

[@towarzyszbeagle6866]

The story of Oskin taking out the Tiger 2's is great. It also shows the complete contrast between the Soviets and Germans from the start of the war. At the time of Bagration the Red Army was operating as an experienced and well oiled machine whilst the Germans were starved of experience.

[@Pepe_Silvia]

The Germans were starved. That is right. Yet the russian losses...and in specific the 45k t-34 ... ach nevermind. Russia stronk! Throw a few more million poor suckers from satellite countries into the meatgrinder (crew survivability of when the t-34 was hit was about 15%. m4 was 80%. and that`s for all german at-weapons. and most of them were really, really bad. because the t-34 was a miserable piece of sh*t and one of the worst tanks ever built) - soon the enemy will run out of bullets! (..and, eventually, he did...)

[@mrhqyangtechnic_q_emx8180]

lol, they win by out number everything

[@Talosbug]

I think that’s a really interesting observation. In the beginning, the Germans had a very experienced army and the Russians didn’t. Russia’s casualties culled them of their less experienced soldiers. Germany’s casualties culled them of their experienced guys. As time wore on, that became more and more apparent. It was like the Russians had a buffer of flesh that allowed them to learn their lessons

[@СергейТурутин-ч6г]

@@Pepe_Silvia опохмелись , плохо видать тебе.

[@thenevadadesertrat2713]

Why did Russia lose 80 000 to 100 000 tanks.? I know, because of lousy German tanks.

[@bryanjames5256]

Can't wait to see episodes on the Sherman, and all the German tanks. Great content. Thank you.

[@someasiankid6214]

The model in the video is a T-34-85 Mid 1943 model because its mantlet is shaped more smoothly than the early 1943 version. The mid 1943 version had 90mm’s of frontal armor on the turret and also had external fuel tanks. The armor on the hull however stayed as 45mm with the drivers hatch being 75mm

[@adrianb7597]

It's clearly a T34-57 I know as I play it on war thunder all the time

[@dfsdfsdsfsdfsdfs6694]

The hull is sloped 60 degrees, the sloped armor is so much more effective that the protection is about the same (if we compare the spot near the barrel, which would be 0 degrees sloped, with the 60 degrees sloped hull)

[@dfsdfsdsfsdfsdfs6694]

@@adrianb7597 you clearly need a eyes surgery then, as the game is accurate in utmost details, and you would see the difference otherwise.

Replacing many light and medium tanks in Red Army service, it was the most-produced tank of the war, as well as the second most-produced tank of all time (after its successor, the T-54/T-55 series). With 44,900 lost during the war, it also suffered the most tank losses ever.

[@присягалСССР-ч7ч]

According to official Soviet data, the Red Army suffered irrecoverable losses of 96500 tanks and self-propelled artillery units. The heaviest losses were sustained in 1943 and 1944 - 47200 tanks and SAU (in 1943 due to temporary qualitative superiority of German armored vehicles which was especially manifested in the Battle of Kursk Bulge, and in 1944 due to extensive use by the Germans of new, revolutionary anti-tank weapons). Total resources of tanks and SAU available to the Red Army in the war with Germany amounted to 131700 fighting vehicles (22600 were in service of CA by June 22, 1941, plus production and supplies under Lend-Lease). By May 9, 1945 the Soviet Union had 35,200 tanks and SAU.

[@larrycable1948]

Also, according to some of the Soviet documentations available since the fall of the Iron Curtain, was that the mechanical reliability of the T-34 left a lot to be desired, a lot of which was the result of the use of the Christy Suspension system. Apparently it was common to have more T-34 being repaired than in service. So while I agree that both the German Tigers were too complicated for the time and support system and had reliability problems, the Soviets seemed to have suffered from as bad or worse reliability issues, just made it up in production numbers. While the M-4 Sherman has some of the same features that kept the T-34 in the War, ease of manufacture within the existing industrial base and the ability to produce in large numbers, some of the criticism of the Sherman was deserved, some overstated. It certainly went through a lot of the war under gunned, started out with too light frontal armor, and then made the mistake of storing Ammo in the turret, some of which was corrected, some not. However, it was mechanically reliable and very field serviceable and fast. Some of the criticism I don't find valid, the ammo in the turret was the reason that it became known as the "Tommy Cooker", and not the fact that it had a gasoline engine, as did most of the tanks of the period outside of the T-34.

[@присягалСССР-ч7ч]

@@larrycable1948 There were problems between 1941 and 1942. But since 1943 - they disappeared. By the way, here is what Americans wrote in the report on tests of T-34 at Aberdeen Proving Ground: "There is reason to believe that it (T-34) has higher operating speed, lower rolling resistance and better cross-country ability than American tank M4, but is inferior to it in thoroughness of design and reliability of operation".

[@USS_Grey_Ghost]

@@присягалСССР-ч7ч incorrect Even post war T-34 had bad armor quality that will shatter upon impact

[@присягалСССР-ч7ч]

@@USS_Grey_Ghost The first specimen of T-34-85 came into US hands in March 1951 as a trophy taken from North Korean army. At the same time some new American tanks reached the Soviet Union, where they were examined by our specialists. The T-34-85 tank that arrived in the US was incomplete - it had no tracks, only six extra tracks, and the B2 engine was delivered separately. Batteries were out of order, there were no machine guns, radio, observation equipment, sights. The vehicle itself was late 1945, the engine 1948. The Americans studied this tank thoroughly, compared it with the Aberdeen T-34-76 received from the USSR during the Second World War, intelligence reports, and seized German documents. In September 1951, a 462-page document entitled "Engineering Analysis of the T-34/85 Tank" was completed. The Americans had a very high opinion of the Soviet equipment. The T-34-85's armor was considered equivalent to that of American medium tanks. The armour itself, however, surprised the American engineers. Its impact toughness was higher than US Army specifications, and its Brinell hardness exceeded that of similar US armor by 100 points. The entire armour was well hardened. This is the American engineers' report. You should at least read some books before you embarrass yourself like this on the internet. You have confirmed the Russian saying "Americans are stupid". Congratulations!

[@edmundcharles5278]

A great tank- loved that diesel engine and 76/85 gun, much better than the Sherman IV.

[@edh9999]

Where did that half hour go? I feel like this video lasted all of five minutes. Love it. Keep going, guys.

[@marknewton7539]

My university professor would always say "The Germans could not build enough 'great' tanks, but the Soviets could build enough good enough tanks. And that's all you need."

[@Hordalending]

Especially when the Soviets also could _drown_ the outnumbered Germans with these good-enough tanks

[@julianshepherd2038]

@@Hordalending yes, turns out the USSR was big and cold with lots of people. Who knew ?

[@unclerojelio6320]

Quantity has quality all its own.

[@scottmurray5600]

@@julianshepherd2038 Not the boss obviously.

[@cleverusername9369]

@@scottmurray5600 Napoleon didn't get the memo either

[@craftpaint1644]

All I have to say about it's critics is that the T-34 put firepower in the direction of the Wehrmacht and all these years later we owe it's crews a debt of respectful memorial 🙋🇺🇲⚒️🇷🇺

[@paullakowski2509]

Soviets paid a hell of a price for that victory.

[@sy466]

@@paullakowski2509 As a Russian , I will say, It was the victory of all nations fighting against nazis)

[@paullakowski2509]

@@sy466 yes i gather that 46 nations were eventually involved. and the treaties that emerged from that war mostly remain to this day.

[@markelalagoz7363]

It’s nice to hear someone with an open mind

[@davidyasui4103]

@@sy466 +

[@richardmardis2492]

We had one at the museum, kids would jump on it and hang on the barrel. We’d yell at them, “you’re going to knock it over!” 🤣🤣🤣

[@Mi3k15]

Nothing a bit of glue won’t fix (If it’s soviet)

[@launcher1995]

@@Mi3k15 The glue will not be authentic. For Soviet (and Russian) weapons, use only Blue Duct Tape. Any Russian will confirm this to you.

[@вввв-ь5о]

t-34-85 - This is a medium tank, and the tiger is a heavy class. The tiger and the royal tiger were kneeling in front of the IS-2. One day, two IS-2s and six royal tigers met in an open field. as a result, 4 tigers were destroyed, two escaped, IS-2 returned without damage

[@luisnunes7560]

One day, one König Tiger blasted 12 IS-2 and returned without damage

[@markelalagoz7363]

@@luisnunes7560 🤣

[@sashijamir6182]

@@luisnunes7560 then the king tigers 88mm cannon fails to penetrate the IS 2s armour and then tries to close up some distance between them but the king tigers transmission breaks down. The King tiger gets flanked from all the sides and when the king tiger tries to counterattack its turrent stops responding. After the king tiger gets blasted to Oblivion by 12 IS 2s at once.

[@luisnunes7560]

@@sashijamir6182 kzbin.info/www/bejne/sIewZWpni558r8U

[@michaelpielorz9283]

yes they had to kneel because the could not roll on the floor laughing.

[@RobertLanz-hc8dm]

Greetings from Texas mr Holland great videos best regards dulce and Robert in Texas USA

[@rkbkirin5975]

Never knew how dangerous the inside of those T34s were! Impressive tanks but I'd never want to be in one either lol

[@zoranocokoljic8927]

What you must understand is that for ideological reasons ("western working class would raise against it's governments if they decide to attack USSR") Soviet military doctrine stated that if Red army had to fight the fighting will be on enemy's soil. Thus, most of military stores were located near the western border and were lost in the first days of the war. Consequently, Red Army throughout whole war experienced lack of resources, which was extremely acute till the factories evacuated to Ural started giving production. Also, many coal and iron mines were lost due to occupation by Wehrmacht. In these conditions manpower was practically only thing left for Soviet generals to try to stop the Germans. There was no time for finesses in design and production, nor was there time for long and thorough training of the crews. Tanks were needed on the frontline ASAP. T34 probably wasn't the best tank of WWII, but it combined combat characteristics with technological simplicity in production to be one of most effective tanks of the period. P.S. The 108 that is shown in this clip has signs in Polish; it was probably given by USSR to Poland and there decommissioned and put into storage.

[@Ailasher]

""western working class would raise against it's governments if they decide to attack USSR"" It was propaganda for civilians. Based on the "Hands Off Soviet Russia" movement in Britain, France and Italy, immediately after the First World War. Military plans never implied this, at least not in the form of non-aligned status. For example: the People's Commissariat of Railway Transport had neither plans nor equipment for re-equipping railway cars from the "Russian" gauge to the western one. "Soviet military doctrine stated that if Red army had to fight the fighting will be on enemy's soil." Can I see references to specific documents mentioning this? Thank you in advance. By the way, it won't be a problem that they are in Russian: this is my native language, after all. "Thus, most of military stores were located near the western border and were lost in the first days of the war." "Most military stores" what exactly? Are you even aware of the strategic division of the Red Army by districts and their borders? "In these conditions manpower was practically only thing left for Soviet generals to try to stop the Germans." Which is don't. In the summer of 1942, the territories controlled by the Soviet Union had less population than the territories of Germany and their allies on the Eastern Front, taking into account the Soviet territories occupied by Germany. Multiplying these stupid myths, you forget: fewer people lived and live in Siberia than in the west of Russia.

[@tibivaslo]

Good point at the end. The only thing more frightening than fighting against a soviet tank crew, is BEING a soviet tank crew.

[@MrMungus]

Being apart of any tank crew in ww2 would be terrifying. James is hyping that up a bit

[@Centurion101B3C]

Hm, That went for just about any tank crew in just about any army in WWII.

[@AHATOJIU4]

Двигатель дизель V12 500hp, производился в Челябинске. Его аналоги производятся до сих пор!

[@MrHarrytheJew]

James Holland: (Talks about the T-34) Video editor: 1:23, shows BT-7 You had one job 😅

[@Corellian_Smuggler]

I tried to overlook it, but it's just too annoying hahahahahaha

[@MrSTALINGRAD34]

a very informative review. I completely agree with the author. Simplicity, efficiency, cheapness and reliability...here are the factors for military equipment needed to win the war...in any war since the Roman Empire, these rules work.

[@Deltafrost-xh7sq]

it was a fairly expensive design of tank... also, its pretty crap

[@Pepe_Silvia]

"efficiency, cheapness and reliability" yeah, fun fact: that`s quite the opposite of what the t-34 stands for ...

[@thunderbird1921]

That's what the Sherman kind of was too. A tank that could be easily mass produced, yet produce impressive firepower and decent crew protection. The result was a vehicle that didn't exactly match up to monster tanks like the Tiger, but it was still effective in many areas.

[@detroitandclevelandfan5503]

The simplicity, efficiency, cheapness, and reliability, is more of the Sherman. Not the T34.

[@СергейТурутин-ч6г]

@@detroitandclevelandfan5503 надежность, дешевизна и тд это именно про т34 , шерманы не очень ценили в РККА, в отличие от Т34. В Т34 возможно не так комфортно, но он более технологичный танк, танк массового производства, более простой в техническом обслуживании, а в модификации Т34-85 85 мм пушка могла спокойно подбивать немецких кошек на равных дистанциях с ними.

[@Lapinskiy]

Это щит наш, и это меч, Это - наша прямая речь, Средство выжить народам моим В этом бешеном мире! Это скорость и сила огня Это люди, сильней чем броня Это слава моей страны, Т-34! Thank you!

[@ДмитрийСоколов-о8в1б]

These are both the shield and the sword These are our explicite words Tool for my people to deter Any imprudent foe! These are fire might and a speed People harder then armour indeed, This is pride of my country and more - This is T-34! Hello from Moscow. I've just translated the Russian poem of an unknown poet about this most popular WW2 tank.

[@yourlocalrussiankid9162]

molodtsa!

[@Lapinskiy]

@@ДмитрийСоколов-о8в1б спасибо. Это песня Михаила Калинкина Т-34

[@ДмитрийСоколов-о8в1б]

@@yourlocalrussiankid9162 no kidding man!

[@wkuntjoro6130]

The tank that did its job ... and did it mighty well

[@thomaslinton5765]

Not the question. "Greatest Ever Tank"?

[@gowdsake7103]

At the cost of any crew comfort at all

[@Pepe_Silvia]

>50% of the more than 2,3k t-34 knocked out in 1941 and the 6,6k t-34 in 1942 (btw more than the germans had in total at that time) were destroyed by pz3(! ffs yes, pz3 with a 3,7cm gun!!!). In theory only the 8,8cm flak should have been able to kill a t-34 at that time, but soviets lied...russian propaganda...german leaders trying to wash off their failures...blablabla -> this tank was sh*t. roughly 50k produced t-34 in 3 years of wartime. "44 900 T-34s were irrecoverably lost". crew survivaility of when the tank was hit was about 15%. that`s bad. this thing was good on paper and is hyped by russia fanbois but in reality it was just a fckng deathtrap. a meatgrinder for its own forces, built for goblins not taller than ~4 foot (kinda like russian tanks nowadays) - just so amazingly bad and sh**y built. but what do you expect when u force slave workers to build tanks with methods from the 19th century out of scrap metal? most of them built in one factory in the ural mountains that produced about 50% of all t-34 in ww2? right: a sh*tty piece of crap. production quality was so bad. 45k of them got lost in 3 years. end of story. propaganda begins. you guys chanting. -.- Was the t-34`s job to kill as many own tank crews as possible? Well yeah, then this junk did it`s job. Very, very well. :(

[@generalkayoss7347]

It's a little tin can shitbox that had an average lifespan of about 6 weeks

[@thomaslinton5765]

@@generalkayoss7347 Careful. Reality is often seen as offensive. Especially to true believers in myths.

[@jimjasper9851]

Probably the best tank made to do a specific job, and do it exceptionally well. Proper job

[@jimthorne304]

One interesting aspect of Russian tank production is that they didn't over specify the materials; a tank's working life was about 6 months, so materials and components were made to last 6 months! German emphasis on quality and technology effectively crippled their tank production.

[@tomtom21194]

To be fair the Germans didn't have that much in terms of raw material and fuel especially towards the end of the war so they emphasised quality over quantity. But yeah they did spend too much on developing king tigers and big ass expensive crap instead of just cranking out lots of upgunned panzers

[@rustykilt]

The fact that they were still being used 50 years later says a lot for their longevity...

[@greggm9021]

The Russians employed the same philosophy used for the AK47 as they did for their tanks ….not pretty, easily maintained, functional, simple and numerous.

[@rustykilt]

@@greggm9021 absolutely...

[@michaelpielorz9283]

sorry,absolutely wrong. why were 16000 german tanks and stugs capable to destroy more than 40000 russian and nearly 4500 american and british tanks ? a miracle that needs to be explained.

[@HiTechOilCo]

I've read that thie T-34 was such a, "great tank", it was expected to break down about every 55 kilometers. "Quality". Most of them also didn't have any radios for battle communications. Thousands and thousands of them were blown up in battle.

[@alexeikotov7769]

"expected to break down about every 55 kilometers" any source on this? Radios were scarce only at the beginning of the war. "Thousands and thousands of them were blown up in battle." nazis were supposed just to watch tanks go?

[@glendakuschnereit5537]

With 44,900 lost during the war, it also suffered the most tank losses ever

[@Anti_Everything]

Firstly, these are losses over the entire history of operation, and secondly, about 60,000 T-34s of all modifications were produced, including under license. And thirdly, these losses are very exaggerated and not accurate. It may be recalled that the Americans claimed to have destroyed more than 3,000 T-34s in Korea, assuming that North Korea had a total of 980 T-34s. Everyone lies and exaggerates the losses of the enemy. Such a number of tanks were lost, taking into account all the models of tanks produced by the Soviet Union.

[@ScrogginHausen]

That's because the Russians never built one to the standard that was on paper, which was mostly propaganda anyway.

[@modificator57]

Ja, ihr seid die Verlierer, Glenda. Die Verlierer für immer. Desweitern dein Verlierer Mentalität von dieser deiner Aussage.

[@andrewdowns3403]

Well done James , keep up the good work , happy new year , and looking forward to more videos next year

[@kanyewhite429]

Did anyone notice the mistake at 10:52 with the muzzle velocities. I think he meant 3000feet/s not 3000m/s. Because 1200m/s is not 3000m/s. Additionally the muzzle velocity of 1200m/s was only possible with sub calibre rounds (HVAP with tungsten core)

[@davidroman1342]

It's really weird to see a detailed look at the the tank my dad drove. Thanks 👍

[@Centurion101B3C]

Beautifully restored specimen. Unfortunately not all WWII specimens of comparable fighting vehicles are taken care of in this fashion.

[@himoffthequakeroatbox4320]

I think that's a post-war one. WW2 T34 wheels were plain without holes or ribs. Those look like the ones you find on cold war ones like the T55..

[@Klovaneer]

@@himoffthequakeroatbox4320 it's actually a 50s polish production. Wild they would even consider making these when T-54 already existed.

[@idreamofgenie2599]

Excellent video! Thank you for giving us a tour of the T-34!

[@rob_in_stowmarket_uk]

Regarding the 90mm armour of the frontal area of the T34, it should be remembered that, as well as the sloping armour deflecting a shot, the slope effectively increases the horizontal thickness requiring penetration to around 120-125mm.

[@nighthawk8053]

The front armor was 45 mm at 60 degree slope , giving a 90 mm thickness horizontaly .

[@rob_in_stowmarket_uk]

@@nighthawk8053 👍

[@bronnl5482]

Very decent review, one of the best part of which is outlining that connection between final product and historical background of what and how it was made on the level of country and persons-in-the-factory who were making it both -wise.

[@krystianslusarek1619]

Dear... this is not T-34 what is on the film. This is T-34-85. The T-34 had a smaller turret with a completely different gun than the T34-85. There were also differences in the composition of the crew.

[@Ebash-Banderu]

Польский танк, в смысле - служивший в Польских ВС, судя по табличке.

[@zjanez2868]

another note on the christie suspension there were plans to replace it with a more conventional system(which would have reduced costs), but because that would heavily impact production that naver happened

[@wastedangelematis]

Doesn't it have torsion suspension though???

[@Squeaktoymk2]

@@wastedangelematis All production T-34's had Christie suspension. Prototypes like the T-34M and T-43 were built with torsion bar suspension, but as ZJanez says it would have hampered production of existing models. The T43's turret design was used to create the T-34/85, but the hull remained mostly the same aside from a few upgrades. Ultimately going with the Christie suspension was one of the main flaws of the T-34 as it ate up precious interior space without offering any real benefit over torsion bar.

[@wastedangelematis]

@@Squeaktoymk2 a t34/85 having Christie suspension and rubber tires And 3 man turret sounds like a luxury hotel.....

[@alexattitude4085]

Great video! Thank you for this absolutely incredible history! This vehicle is for real men who would raher sacrifice themselfs, but protect their motherland.

[@choro3d191]

21:02 "the soldier exists to serve the machine" he said. But there was also something important at that time in the country: "the ruler exists to serve his citizens" (this is changed in modern Russia, the ruler serves now the big business).

[@Mark-g4z2s]

Best overall tank in ww2 IMO

[@davefellhoelter1343]

Love People keeping History ALIVE! Thank Who Ever is Keeping this History ALIVE for all to see, hear, smell, see, and Touch!

[@steveholmes11]

From an engineer's perspective I admire the capacity to upgrade. Same chassis and engine, but improvements to armour, electrics and weaponry.

[@averylividmoose3599]

The original prototype for the 85mm upgrade was actually a different hull and was thinner than the T-34's but after complications, funding issues and frustration from high command they basically decided to stick with the mass production doctrine and trial it on the T-34's hull and it ended up working well enough for them to justify continue using it, which in itself is admirable adaption and ingenuity

[@paullakowski2509]

i admire Pz-IV for the same reason.

[@ianwalton5156]

The T34 had limited interior space therefore the crew had to be of small stature & the armour was prone to spalling as the quality of the steel used was very poor. The tank had such a bad transmission that it was rarely driven beyond 2nd or 3rd gear & it was common practice for the driver to use a mallet to change gear. The gun was low velocity, inaccurate & the rounds provided for it very poor & the tank itself was very hard to see out of & hard to manoeuvre. From this engineers perspective I see nothing to laud, what I see is yet another example of poorly engineered Communist rubbish

[@cass7448]

@@ianwalton5156 If it achieves its design goals (winning a long large-scale ground war) it's not poorly engineered.

[@RussianThunderrr]

@@ianwalton5156 wrote: “The gun was low velocity…” - Really, the only low velocity gun featured on WW2 mass produced tanks were 7.5cm L24 tank gun for earlier Pz-4 and later variants Pz-3, T-34 F-34 76.2mm L42 was NOT a low velocity gun, nor AAA based T-34-85’s 56 calibers gun, was even higher velocity. So explain yourself please.

[@evanasselstine5665]

One of the draw backs of the T34 was there was one hatch in the front, that both driver and gunner had to get in and it was awkward to get into. The hatch became the targeting point for ant tank guns because it was on the sloping front. Overall it was a 7 out of 10. They were not comfortable to operate as well. But it was easy to maintain.

[@thedamntrain5481]

not gunner, but radio man

[@himoffthequakeroatbox4320]

@@thedamntrain5481 Hull gunner, you berk.

[@detroitandclevelandfan5503]

T34 is more like a 1 out of 10. It's the worst tank of ww2.

[@ГойкоАлександр]

@@detroitandclevelandfan5503 спасибо за твоё "экспертное" мнение. Ведь немцы, в середине войны, при проектировании танков не опирались на конструкцию Т34

[@Sneakyboson]

@@detroitandclevelandfan5503 holy hell what an opinion. Have you not seen any Japanese tanks during WWII? Or New Zealand's tank?

[@davidferrara1105]

"Get that tank off my lawn!" > "Get your lawn off my TANK!"

[@courierdog1941]

The Driver's seat was absolutely bare molded plywood, zero covering.

[@leonhummel3762]

The T-34 is a really epic tank, but maybe it's possible to take a look at the KV-2. It could be that it's not as epic but it's a beast, and it has really interesting story's.

[@AHotkovo]

Кv-2 video. kzbin.info/www/bejne/eabRfoOjgZuMrtU

[@buaidhnobas1ify]

There's no denying that this tank changed the game in tank design. What I'm more impressed by is how they did it. Factory to close to the fighting, they moved all that equipment and kept going. That's what blows me away. On the move and building this tank.

[@JeanLucCaptain]

in the Stalingrad tractot plant these were literally being hastily built while the assembly lined where directly under fire from German artillery. needles to say corners had to be cut but i think they got out somthing like 40 ish stalingrad T-34's before the tractor plant had to be abandoned.

[@detroitandclevelandfan5503]

Dude, that's a myth of it's legendary tank design. T34 was a piece of crap, and is the worst tank of ww2.

[@buaidhnobas1ify]

@@detroitandclevelandfan5503 Never said it was as reliable as let's say, a Sherman. USA had all the time in the world to make a tank. Russia was sending their tanks into battle out the front door. How good can they be without testing? Not that good I imagen.

[@detroitandclevelandfan5503]

@@buaidhnobas1ify I got yeah, my mistake, however, that's a myth that the T34s were made straight from the factories, then shipped to the front. That's Soviet propaganda. The T34 was around longer then people think. Just watch this video if you want to know the history of it, just watch this. kzbin.info/www/bejne/eXq9Z4N8jrqAa9E

[@csettles1841]

@@buaidhnobas1ify USA was also building trucks, planes, and ships to fight in the Pacific theater of operations. Russia didn't even fight Japan until after the USA had dropped the first nuke. And I think the T-34 was decent, for what it did. You don't need a tank to last more than 1 battle, especially if you win said battle. You can always haul it to the shop and fix it.

[@user-letnab]

Этот танк приехал в Берлин,освободив пол Европы,сколько погибло советских воинов,вечная память!!!!

[@samholdsworth420]

This tank arrived in Berlin having liberated half of Europe how many Soviet soldiers died eternal memory

[@futuristica1710]

And then they raped German girls and women …

[@timburr4453]

Holland is a brilliant historian. Thank you for this

[@normmcrae1140]

The T-34 is ICONIC! on Paper it is clearly not the "Best" tank of the war, but the Russians understood that there is a certain quality in QUANTITY. Dan mentions the fact that reliability and ease of maintenance are a HUGE factor. A "Perfect" tank that is broken is absolutely USELESS and in reality is a total waste of time and money. A "Good Enough" tank that is ON the battlefield is MUCH more valuable. And if you have THOUSANDS of them, compared to a couple dozen "Perfect" tanks - you're still going to win!.

[@raka522]

This ´good enough tank´ is the Sherman, not the T34. This was at least equivalent to the T34, and both in combat on a par with the Panzer4 with its long cannon. The 44,000, from 51000 at all T34 tanks that were built by the end of the war, written off as total losses, speak for themselves in terms of usefulness ... It's nice to bite into ONE weak point on a tank if you can't find anything else, but the mechanical failures due to undersized gears on the Panther and Tiger led to far fewer failures than is often shown, especially in comparison to the T34 😉, which was built as a disposable-tank

[@normmcrae1140]

@@raka522 Even the crews of the Sherman viewed it as a DEATH-TRAP. Including MY FATHER, who served for 3 years in them in WW2. It was thin-skinned, hard to escape, under-gunned, and the ammunition was packed in EXTREMELY vulnerable places. Canadian tankers said that the few good things about them were the Power turret (which usually let them get the first shot), their reliability and ease of maintenance, and the pure numbers of them. In Europe, on average - the Allies lost 4-5 Shermans for every German tank they knocked out. The British nicknamed them "Ronsonols" because they brewed up (burned up in fire) on the First shot! The Germans called them "Tommy-Cookers" for the same reason. For a tank of about the same weight class, the T-34 was probably the better tank over the Sherman. I was actually comparing the T-34 to many German tanks, not the Sherman, though! :)

[@ripayanami]

​ @Norm McRae It's is actually a myth about Tommy-Cookers and Ronsonols. They were not called so during the war. the Ronsonol term appeared after the war in 1950 when they got this slogan i.e. 5 years after the war. And the term Tommy-Cooker was not used by Germans in regards of M4. Tommy was the name for BRITISH soldiers. The one of reports with this phrase is used about Valentine tanks. So it possible that it was used in regards of any BRITISH tank that catches fire. Most likely the myth is based on USSR reports in regards of M3 Lee. The other terms that used by USSR army in regards of this tanks are: The grave for 7 or certain death for 7. Cause in case of fire outside or inside the tank it led to death for all crew according to the statistics. And in regards of M4 most of the feedback of USSR army was very positive. The tank was very comfortable to operate, the biggest problems were big silhouette and grip on mud. There was an episode of fear of M4 crews in Normandy when they met Panthers and Tiger II in battle, where they started to used debris to protect themselves. But it's not connected with flammability of the tank at all, but the fact that most german tanks used 8.8 sm gun by that time and it was HIGHLY effective both against Shermans and T-34

[@raka522]

@@normmcrae1140 The T34 was at least as big a death trap for the crew as the Sherman: Very narrow interior due to the sloping armor on the sides, difficult to escape through the hatches, blind crew due to too few or unusable periscopes, partially over-hardened armor which tended to splinter off inside even if it was not penetrated, killing the crew. The 76mm cannons of both tanks were roughly equivalent, as was their frontal armor. The T34s often drove into combat with the spare gearbox strapped on because they often failed, while the Sherman was often an easier target due to its height. Both types had worse target optics than German tanks, which is why the Germans could actually hit and destroy with the first shot at a greater distance.

[@normmcrae1140]

@@raka522 Good points!

[@alexattitude4085]

The main reason for success of the russian T-34 was definetely the effective production. Since 1941 russians ingineers made HUNDREDS of optimizations of the construction, which led to considerable time and cost saving together with optimization of its properties. Germans never got the point. Not even today.

Replacing many light and medium tanks in Red Army service, it was the most-produced tank of the war, as well as the second most-produced tank of all time (after its successor, the T-54/T-55 series). With 44,900 lost during the war, it also suffered the most tank losses ever.

[@alexattitude4085]

@ placing the number along is not enough. The details are important. Which model, when, by which circumstances. The most of them were light tanks and were lost in the first weeks of the war due to bad organization.

[@garyjohnson4778]

ALL the troops in WW II were cannon fodder, not just Soviets!

[@Centurion101B3C]

Correct. Anyone who served in whatever capacity in whatever army, know (or is made to understand) that the only important thing in any operation is 'The Objective'. It didn't matter in which army one found oneself in. The only that truly mattered was the measure up to which a commander would assess the economy of attainment of the objective versus the inevitable losses that it would take. In Zhukov, Rotmistrov and Rokosovski the Soviets had commanders with whom losses were rated distinctly lesser importance than obtaining the objective(s). Certainly when compared with their Western colleagues (with Gen. Patton maybe being the exception.). Still, for all went that the only job of a soldier is to soldier and if that means to sacrifice oneself in order to achieve the objective, then so be it.

[@seedy80]

That's soldiering.

[@craftpaint1644]

That's a way to look at the situation and sure the decisions of every belligerent provided evidence for the argument, but much of it arguably is tied to 1) surprise and the fog of war, 2) the geography of the battlefield, 3) the resources committed and timetable of each plan of attack, 4) the availability of medical attention for the wounded. WWII was awful, but WWI has no equal when waste is the outrage 🙅

[@patrickelliott-brennan8960]

That's a false equivalence. Soviet Union infantry injuries and deaths v Allied injuries and deaths. All infantry are obviously going to be on the pointy end of events. How they are used, care about their injuries and care about losses were very different depending on which army you were in. Denying the difference diminishes the hideousness of the lives of some infantry. I'd rather be Indian in 1944 than Japanese. I'd rather be a US Marine invading Okinawa that a Japanese infantryman and I'd rather be in the British Army at any point of the war than in the Army of the Soviet Union at any point of the war.

[@bertmathricks2024]

It was still easily the least qualitative army out of the main nations. They won through sheer numbers and little else. Of course, this is not the soldier's fault, they were brave and fought to death to defeat the Germans. We should not praise Stalin or communism for defeating Germany, we should praise the soviet people and soldiers.

[@Stephen-wb3wf]

2:25 Birds and Nature herself come to bless the knowledgeable James Holland doing his thing.

[@jamiebowen8250]

I've read over and over that they were quite over rated, mostly due to impossible ergonomics but also the long time it took the Soviets to implement an effective system of tank warfare

[@randallbelstra7228]

It would be noted that the versions of the T34s that we usually see are post war tanks. War time T-34s were great ideas, but were not well put together. The were several cases of frosted gun sights, or poor ammunition, or the abysmal transmission clutch, and gear shift. Also, while sloping armor is great, it also increased the chances of crew members being killed. It was a great tank when it worked, but, it didn't always work.

[@hoonaticbloggs5402]

It worked well enough to push back the tigers and panzers

[@ShadowFalcon]

@@hoonaticbloggs5402 To do that, they needed to have a K/D ratio of 2/4. They managed a 3/5. So sure, "the Russians won my guy". But barely, and largely because the Germans were crap at operational logistics and starved their own forces.

[@garywheeler7039]

The commander's hatch opening from the back makes the most sense, as it forms a steel shield for his body as he looks forward to the threat of the enemy. Yes they tried to protect people when they could.

[@ericgorder1]

I had a chance to watch a Russian movie (with English subtitles) called "T34". It's a good movies and I watched it a dozen times. I have great respect for the T34 and the Soviet Union and I'm American. I have respect and love for Russia too!

[@присягалСССР-ч7ч]

Thank you for your respect. I am from Russia. I love the history of military technology. However, USSR losses in tanks were very high. The irretrievable losses of tanks and SAU of the Red Army were, according to official Soviet data, 96500 combat units. Greatest losses were sustained in 1943 and 1944 - 47200 tanks and SAU (in 1943 due to temporary qualitative superiority of German armored vehicles which was especially manifested in the Battle of Kursk Bulge, and in 1944 due to extensive use of new revolutionary anti-tank weapons by the Germans). Total resources of tanks and SAU available to the Red Army in the war with Germany amounted to 131700 fighting vehicles (22600 were in service of the Red Army by June 22, 1941, plus production and supplies under the Lend-Lease program). By May 9, 1945 the Soviet Union had 35,200 tanks and SAU.

[@ericgorder1]

@@присягалСССР-ч7ч thanks for being kind to take the time to explain some more about the T34 tank. The losses in WW2 are very overwhelming when thinking about it! Peace to you and thanks!

[@ЭдуардСадретдинов-у9л]

Спасибо друг

[@latch9781]

That film is rather interesting. Visually spectacular but complete BS

[@MrFreebrowsing]

The T34 is like the battle droids of star wars, strength in numbers

[@pauloguerra391]

For some reason, when the German General von Kleist faced the T-34/76 for the first time in 1941, he called it “the best tank in the world”. And Hitler himself later told the Finns that he would never have invaded Russia if he had known the T-34! But I think it's funny that James Holland thanked the shy American who barely opened his mouth for his expertise. Holland is probably the single guy crazier than me for WWII!

[@дмитрийс-щ5и]

in fact , smart Americans can be counted on the fingers of one hand ...but there are a lot of loudmouths ..who inspire the whole world that they are smart!

[@kiwifruit27]

That’s 1 T34 built every 36 minutes , impressive

[@ronmailloux8655]

true for their needs but metal for aircraft carriers and cargo ships thank you America

[@rolandhunter]

They said 2 wrong "data": 1.55-58.000 T-34 built during WW2 not 84.000. 2.And it was not the most built tank..that was the T-55. with 86-100k built.

[@kiwifruit27]

@@rolandhunter still impressive

[@TuomioK]

My favorite tank. There is just something appealing in it to me. Like, I love Tiger because thats literally opposite of it in design with its beautiful sharp angles, complicated over-engineered over the top technology and weaponry. The Tiger is supposed to be the perfect weapon and essentially it is by numbers. But T-34 is just crude, simple, functional but really effective design, like they say in the video. T-34 does look really cool and seeing it here in this environment full HD color! It sends shivers down my spine!

[@TuomioK]

Also it is featured very nicely in Finnish movie Unknown Soldier (2017) where you can see it featured on both versions 76 and 85. They also properly show its manouverability in the movie as well its really cool and probably one of the best tank action in any movie. Though I am biased I strongly believe its one of the most realistic ones. There is no tank vs tank action though and only few scenes but those are done properly! I say quality over quantity. In movies that usually works, not in warfare it seems.

[@vassiligolikov4401]

You are comparing apples and oranges a bit. T-34 is a middle tank. Tigers/Panthers should be compared to IS family. IS-2 specifically.

[@TuomioK]

@@vassiligolikov4401 Yes I know that they are in completely different league. But thats why they are so close in my favourite rankings! They arent competing directly yes but in the war they were though. And one was made in tens of thousands while other over thousand only so it is kinda amazing they are comparable at all!

[@thunderbird1921]

Imagine if the Germans had managed to field the Maus (or the "Mammoth", as the generals liked to call it) by late 1944. The Allies would have been in BIG trouble due to the sheer armor and firepower on that thing. If Germany had just 1-2 more years to prepare for the war, the conflict would have been 3x harder and uglier than even the titanic struggle we actually fought with them. Their tech was unbelievably advanced.

[@quangtruongle7823]

@@thunderbird1921 If tanks cannot kill the Maus, call an airstrike or artillery strike

[@lovepeace9727]

If i had a choice of being a part of T-34-85's crew or Panther's crew, i'd probably choose the second option, however...imagine dealing with complicated problems of german tank in the middle of operation...literally hell. Then you gotta remember that 80% losses of tanks from both sides were not inflicted by other tanks, but by infantry, artillery, aviation and AT guns. And soviets had godlike Artillery and AT guns. Imagine being in panther and getting hit by a 152 / 203 mm high explosive shell. No WW2 armor would save you from death.

[@RussianThunderrr]

203mm is a fortification siege weapon, however chances of coming across 122mm that would not even need to punch through frontal armor were great, but even get hit from side with well camouflaged 76.2mm ZiS-3 gun(aka Russ-Boom), or even dug in T-34-76 was vulnerable in case of Panther tank sides.

[@cass7448]

Exactly. Throughout the war, the vast majority of tank losses were not inflicted by other tanks. Additionally, when tanks did fight each other (which was rarer than we give it credit for), the vast majority of engagements were won by the side that sighted the other first. That latter point was in large part responsible for the tendency of German tank crews to score more kills against their Allied/Soviet counterparts, since by the time such engagements were taking place often the Germans were on the defensive and thus able to set ambushes everywhere.

[@lovepeace9727]

@@cass7448 Yeah, and at the start of the war (1941), when USSR was at defence, some Soviet tank crews were scoring 30-40 german tank kills.

[@paullakowski2509]

@@lovepeace9727 many more Germans were accumulating many kills, but then those were T-26/BT tanks. ....

[@drowningcows7631]

Yeah, but if you’re in the panther and it breaks down, you’re in the front line with the infantry. I’d choose the most reliable tank over the ‘best’ one

[@N_Wheeler]

At 2:07 and 22:58 he's called "a former Cavalryman" but Dr. Beorn finally corrects this at 27:38 to "tanker" ... there is a difference.

[@Viewfromtheturret]

James do more of these. Go through the whole Bovington collection! You have a unique perspective and Dr Beorn was very good as well.

[@ГРИГОРИЙМихсй]

У Франции и Англии были превосходные танки, лучше чем у Германии, однако одну армию разбили в течении месяца, вторые прятались на острове, пока русские не начали побеждать.

[@egorwest5753]

👍👋

[@st4tor]

не русские, а советские

[@egorwest5753]

не Германия, а Третий Рейх

[@maxhammersmith1109]

@@st4tor Russkies )

[@lucyelkins7639]

powered by American diesel, with Katushas on American tracks, eating American canned meat - yeah guys, you did all by yourself. Amateurs think of tactics, and professionals think of logistics.

[@gymie1814]

Henry Ford sent machinery to Russia. He boxed-up his model "A" parts. He was already building and selling small trucks to Germany. He sent his Model "A" truck building parts to the Russians. He also lent the Russians some technicians to help the Russians correctly cut the large hole in the T-34 to mount the turret, since they were having problems making that "happen".

[@RussianThunderrr]

Henry Ford actually build Ford truck factory in Germany in 1938ish, and not just building and selling small trucks… Ford technicians helping Soviets “correctly cutting a hole in T-34 tank to mount a turret” is most likely a rumors, since Soviet Union had its own tank production for years, and producing more tank, prior to T-34 then the rest of the war combined.

[@paullakowski2509]

@@RussianThunderrr i recall Stalin had the blue prints of that truck factory copied and a number of more truck factories were built....smart cookie.

[@PRH123]

@@RussianThunderrr there’s a good video on u tube about that factory, with interviews of people who worked in it, it was in operation throughout the war, making vehicles for the Germans, and it was never bombed…

[@jimf1964]

It’s best attribute, other than numbers, was the large tracks. German tanks had much too narrow tracks being created for Central Europe.

[@thehobbyshop5306]

The Tiger 1 & 2 had such wide tracks they had to be swapped out for narrow travel versions just to fit onto rail cars. The Panther had wide tracks and where required, late versions of PzIV's and StuG's were supplied with wide "Ostketten" tracks.

[@mattanderson6336]

1:26 84,000 T-34’s built during the war and 45,000 destroyed (according to the KZbin site Panzer Archeology). Nearly as bad of a ratio as troops killed during the war. ‘Just keep sending them into the line until the German’s run out of shells.’

[@spoilerboy4026]

I really wish these tank videos put more focus on the sights and sounds of the tank as it is starting and driving around. The exterior shots where I really wanted to hear the approaching tank were either superimposed with loud music or hosts talking.

[@sergius4615]

guess T-34 for us Russians is about the same as Spitfire for Brits. Weapon of Victory...

[@adrianb7597]

My uncles uncle used to fly these against spitfire in ww1

[@KV-lk4wl]

На видео танк Т-34-85 производился в СССР с января 1944 года. На нем устанавливалась 85-мм танковая пушка. С 1940 по 1943 года выпускали танк Т-34-76 с 76-мм пушкой

[@Antonioivse]

Они так и сказали.

[@MisterMainiac]

Really gotta point out that saying the frontal armor of the T-34-85 is 90mm isn't quite correct. The frontal turret armor is 90mm, but the hull armor is still only 45mm all around. Even sloped the effective hull armor doesn't reach 90mm.

[@shishkin1527]

Yes it does ! The T-34's upper front plate is 45 mm thick sloped at 60 degree from the vertical, that's exactly 90 mm line of sight armor thickness, / effective armor thickness based on its geometry.

[@MAORI1969]

thanks from Thailand

[@horstebreedow8608]

The Soviets learned maintenance was important. 2022 hold my vodka.

[@neiljohnson6815]

Interesting side note, the Russian tanks were and are built to be low and small, harder to hit. When I was going through the armor school at Ft Knox in 1968 we were told that Russian tankers had to be no taller than 5' 6". I am 6' I" and had plenty of room in US M-60.

[@RussianThunderrr]

wrote: "the Russian tanks were and are built to be low and small, harder to hit. When I was going through the armor school at Ft Knox in 1968 we were told that Russian tankers had to be no taller than 5' 6". I am 6' I" and had plenty of room in US M-60." -- It is very true, the other reason(other then "smaller target") is tanks internal volume, that have to be covered with thick armor. The thicker the armor, the heavier the tank with all the problems that steams out like: tank less maneuverable, needs bigger engine, and more fuel, heavier tanks = more problems with transportation, bridges and ect...

[@danielstickney2400]

Those tanks were Soviet, not Russian The Soviets pushed a good idea too far because they were relying on overwhelming their foes with hordes of expendable tanks manned by equally expendable subject peoples from the Caucuses. Post-soviet Russian designs like the T-14 have largely abandoned Soviet philosophy because it just didn't work but also because the new demographics of the Russian Federation made tank crews far more valuable and far less expendable, so they combined less armored volume with a higher, more versatile silhouette by concentrating the armor around the crew.

[@Klovaneer]

@@danielstickney2400 Soviets were very much aware of tank ergonomics and it was always a compromise. One of the biggest reasons they went for autoloaders is that a human loader needs to actualy move around and thus a non-trivial amount of space, with T-72 each crew member has more than enough room to stretch their legs and what not but the height rule stayed in place because it was never a problem, i wager that T-14 is actually more cramped as three people sit abreast. Now onto "expendale subject peoples" - caucausian people are definitely higher on average than russians. You could go for eastern siberians but you obviously didn't think much about what you are saying.

[@T-riter]

As an American I’m glad we were allies with the Soviets at the time. I can only imagine how the Germans felt with thousands of these tanks rolling up on them 😬😬

[@bjornunder]

they rolled up on the finns, too. The finns destroyed them by the hundreds.

[@genek8630]

As the Germans destroyed more than hundreds, probably thousands.

[@pvillehick67]

The early engine parts were of poor quality, engine life was 50 hours. But most were destroyed well before that time in battle early on.

[@cineffect]

Just like Tiger 1 is the most menacing, T34-85 is the most beautiful tank ever made.

[@user-pw6ry6iy3m]

Very well done. Everything was nicely explained.

[@ГеннадийМасалов-ж8й]

From 4 to 11 November 1941, on the outskirts of Moscow, 15 Soviet tanks (of which only two KV and four Т-34/76) destroyed 144 tanks of the Guderian tank group, stopping the advance of the Germans, while losing six tanks. In 2000, the Company 90 paratroopers took part in battle with 2,500 Chechen militants and Arab mercenaries. 84 soldiers and officers died a heroic death, but did not retreat. In Syria, a Russian officer was surrounded by terrorists and caused artillery fire on himself, the pilot of the plane ejected from the wrecked plane - blew himself up together with the terrorists who surrounded him. Tankers in the Russian Army are no worse.

[@JagdWehrwolf]

Can we have a source on the first claim please?

[@Трезвостьнормажизни-ш4ж]

ой, и тут влез ура-патриот)

[@edmundantes7894]

@@Трезвостьнормажизни-ш4ж Иуда, ты бы мову своих господ учил, а русский забыл!

[@urosmarjanovic663]

@@JagdWehrwolf There might be that many of the mentioned tanks, but all kinds of artillery were so dense around Moscow that it just may be true.

[@tompurcell3088]

Interesting discussion. Wish I was there to participate! I learned something new - that T-34/85 that destroyed 3 King Tigers. That's impressive. The T-34/85 was a war-winner for the Soviets. Now, the King Tiger was a cumbersome, sluggish monster of a tank. A devastating gun on the King Tiger but the 70 ton monster was such a slow target, if not a sitting duck. I'm fond of the advanced technology and engineering on the German side, including the King Tiger. But the one T-34/85 taking out 3 King Tigers says all that you need to know about that stage of the war. The Germans had such limited industrial capacity by 1944, desperate for raw materials and fuel, I think they had no choice but to design and produce tanks that were superior to Allied tanks, because they would never match the quantity of tanks the Allies would produce. As impressive as the Tiger I and Tiger II were, perhaps Germany would have been better served to manufacture as many Panzer IV tanks as possible, as well as more Stugs and 88mm emplacements. Compared to German tanks, the T-34 and its variants weren't much more than crude lumps of metal with moving parts and a gun, but that proved to be what was needed to win the war. A butcher's cleaver can be fashioned much faster than a Samurai sword. An endless arsenal of cleavers will ultimately annihilate a limited number of elite swordsmen.

[@leachimy24]

Michael Wittmann destroyed more than 100 tanks with his Tiger.

[@tompurcell3088]

@@leachimy24 IDK the exact number but yes, indeed, Wittman was a tank ace. I built a model of his last Tiger I tank #007. I adore the Tiger, it's magnificent. But winning the war was more important. The problem with the Tigers is the complexity and sheer mass - impossible to produce enough sound Tigers to compete with the Allied tank production. The Germans could fight at 2:1, 3:1, even up to 5:1 odds against the Soviets and win. But then the Western front...

[@victorrumyantsev3718]

@@tompurcell3088 With all respect to engineering perfection and complexity of Tiger tanks, they suffered with the same simple gear box breakages, tracks or engine failures as "peasant's pile of moving parts with gun" T-34 did.

[@tompurcell3088]

@@victorrumyantsev3718 Yes, the Panzer V, VI and VII all suffered terribly from mechanical issues. Worse, the Tigers were extremely cumbersome to maintain and repair, whereas the T-34 was built for easy access to maintenance and repairs. In many ways the T-34 was a smarter approach, but in terms of excellent machinery and devastating battlefield impact, the Germans reigned superior. I think 10 out of 10 tank crewmen would choose to serve in Tigers over T-34s, for a long list of reasons. At best, the T-34 was extremely uncomfortable. It's a matter of practicality, really. Contrasted to the Allied industrial flexibility and capacity, the Germans were forced to make critical decisions based on the lack of raw material and limited industrial capacity. Since they would be outnumbered no matter what, better to have tanks like Tigers that can destroy a half dozen T-34s before taking a direct hit, which would barely dent the armor of a Tiger in most instances.

[@СергейУрманов]

Аnd what about the Western front?How did the Germans fight against the Anglo-Saxon tanks?

[@gjpopper3863]

Give the USSR it's due for the T-34 , Mig -15 and the AK- 47 .

[@markcollins6578]

they never comment on the biggest flaws - lack of radio, poor training of crews including maintenance and fighting and the lack of communication about what's happening - Russian high command divulged the minimum of info to the minimum of troops. By the time the T34-85 arrived Russian tactics had also changed with Tanks holding back and firing from range the norm

[@andrewwigglesworth3030]

Yeah, because you just made that up.

[@brianswanson9881]

No mention of the accuracy of the main gun. One of the major flaws of the T-34/85

[@zaynevanday142]

What was the T-34/85’s gun optics like ? Another thing that hobbled the Russian use of these was firing on the move minus any sort of gun stabilisation vs the German Doctrine of halting to fire was a major factor and shows in the destroyed ratio

[@МихаилЧерников-п2т]

Soviet tanks also stopped to fire, there were different instances, sometimes firing on the move was used

[@timsytanker]

The gunsight was articulated. The rear eyepiece was fixed whilst the front moved with the gun. It would have made shooting at higher elevation targets easier for the gunner.

[@RussianThunderrr]

wrote: "What was the T-34/85’s gun optics like ?" -- Just like about any Allied tank of WWII, in fact periscopes Mk-IV was copy of British tanks, which was a copy of Polish tank.

[@RussianThunderrr]

wrote: "Another thing that hobbled the Russian use of these was firing on the move minus any sort of gun stabilisation" -- Stabilization was only in vertical axis and really insufficient to fire on the move post WWII style with Vertical and Horizontal stabilization. -- As for short stop to just aim and fire the gun in earlier T-34-76 TC would tap driver in the back, or in T-34-85 would use intercom to yield to driver command - "Короткая"(Which means "Short stop, and resume drive after fire of the gun"), so in that regard it was just like any other tank of WWII. And, yes, I'm aware of Stalin's brief order for T-34 tanks to fire on the move..., but who want to waist ammo? Only rookies tankists.

[@alexattitude4085]

People, c'mon, please don't compare a middle tank with a heavy tank directly. Of course they were directly confronted in the battle field. But the real competitor of Tigers and Panthers was IS2. No chance for German machines under normal conditions.

[@raka522]

Compared to the Panzerkampfwagen VI Tiger, the IS-2 had more effective armor despite its 10 t lighter weight, as it had a better shape. The IS-2's 122mm cannon was more or less the same power as the Tiger's 8.8cm KwK. Compared to the Panzerkampfwagen V Panther, the IS-2 was better armored and only about 2000 kg heavier. However, the Panther had better mobility on the battlefield due to its higher engine power. The Panther's cannon was marginally superior to the IS-2's 122mm cannon, allowing the two tanks to take out each other at around 1000 meters. The IS-2 also had a significantly longer reload time for its cannon than the Panther, which gave the Panther a clear advantage in combat. Compared to the Panzerkampfwagen VI Tiger II, the IS-2 had the poorer main weapon and less armor. The Tiger II was already able to fight the IS-2 at great distances, which compensated for the significantly better maneuverability of the IS-2. In general, the 122 mm cannon of the IS-2 was not suitable for fighting tanks at greater distances, as the trajectory of the comparatively slow projectiles was very curved and the weapon was only poorly precise. However, at short and medium distances, it was able to penetrate all armor of enemy tanks.

[@alexattitude4085]

@@raka522 agree in general.