Stalinium or Rolling Coffins? | T -34 and T-70 Combat Damage Analysis

[@JeanLucCaptain]

considering the insane pressure they were working under its pretty damn impressive they were able to make anything that worked.

[@WildBillCox13]

The T70 was very useful, if not influential. The ubiquitous Su-76 was a stretched T70 chassis. Tens of thousands were produced. Everyone hated them, but, as you say, they were there.

[@karlhans6678]

Whats the point of the T-70 when the T-34 could accomplish the same missions?

[@steppedtuba50]

T-70 is a light tank. Cheaper, faster, better for reconnaissance

[@ToriusHeart]

​@@karlhans6678It was also harder to produce and it would take time before tank factories could produce them in large enough numbers, even with all the simplifications.

[@quan-uo5ws]

@@karlhans6678 the point is the T-70 could be produced by factories that couldnt produce the T-34, due to not having the necesarry tooling to produce medium and heavy tanks. Eventually in 1943 the production stopped all together, and it was replaced by the SU-76, which had some advantages over the T-34, like indirect fire ability, ability to cross swamps, being very light and easy to produce.

[@rosiehawtrey]

Interesting fact. You could buy at least 6 different versions of the moskvich 4**/2140 series car, with a 1.4 or 1.5 BMW derived engine. You just looked at the brochure and picked the version that matched the limb/hand/foot/eye etc you no longer have. So many Russians and Eastern European people came out of WW2 missing important bits, car manufacturers did conversions on the production line...

[@robertsperti5926]

Honestly don't know how you guys don't have more subscriber's!!this channel is awesome!

[@TanksEncyclopediaYT]

share our channel with your friends so we get more :D

[@tibchy144]

When i was on vacation in Croatian Dubrovnik i walked into a bookstore and the nice lady asked me what i'm looking for and i asked her if they maybe have some kind of tanks encyclopedia. The lady was mildly shocked and of course the didn't have any such thing or even remotely similar. The lesson in this is that target audience for such content is quite low.

[@22.calibermaster98]

@@tibchy144 Go to Serbia tank museum or Belgrade museum.

[@whatisup4811]

@@tibchy144 yes and no. Most people want DER KONIGSTIGER UND PANTHER and da comrade, 100 more divisions to the front not "Well the Germans had a bad logistics system and bad production efficiency." or "the Panzer IV E was first introduced in 1940" Basically what I'm saying is that most people want pop music and the tank encyclopedia is making jazz. Both have an audience, but only one breaks the top 10 billboard charts.

[@GerbenWulff]

A note about the first table. Obviously the Russian engineers didn't ask the Germans what gun they used to shoot at the Russian tanks. They measured the diameter of the impact and based on that guessed what the caliber of the gun was that caused the damage. So 42 means: the diameter of the impact was closer to 42 mm than 37 or 50 mm.

[@mikepette4422]

surprised at how few were damaged by landmines I would have thought this number much higher but i assume its because the red army was on the defensive mostly. 11:00 near the bottom of that report - This is the first time I've seen the Russians themselves addressing the lack of visibility or situational awareness of their tank crews mostly because of turret design and overworked commanders. The reason that German tanks were able to win more often than not even against much higher numbers was that the Germans were able to shoot first the commander wasn't worrying about loading the gun but just looking for targets. I saw a video ( maybe it was MHV or MHNV same guy ) where he read out a German tank commanders observations that while he was busily shooting Russian tanks, the Russians weren't even pointing their gun in his direction suggesting they weren't even aware he was shooting them.

[@dennisartstudio1389]

This is an incredible channel.

[@girthbrooks39]

Sure can be/ is most of the time. Lots of different presenters featured here however, some far better than others I've recently observed.

[@Anlushac11]

45mm could also refer to the Czech 4.7cm used on the PzJg.1

[@TanksEncyclopediaYT]

That is a possibility indeed!

[@mikepette4422]

good call !

[@guidor.4161]

Very interesting and unique information!

[@lmyrski8385]

The problem with these surveys is a bias is introduced because it appears that only tanks that were worthwhile repairing were used, not the total write offs as well. Odds are that there are a lot less failures to penatrate on those vehicles. An interesting study nevertheless.

[@TanksEncyclopediaYT]

We explicitly mention that.

[@alessandromazzini7026]

I still have to Watch the video, but i think anyone can understand how crappy and mediocre was the T-34 with the 2 man turret.. the myth about germans impresse by the T-34 Is Absolutely fake😂 as well as that they copied it

[@alessandromazzini7026]

T-34 was bad both for reliability, crew management, crew survivability, crew comfort and visibility, the usual myth about that single T-34 that got hit like 50 times before shooting back Is the best example of how people understanding Is mediocre and One sided... The reason why It didn't shoot back Is because they couldn't see the enemy and that's an ATROCIUS FLAW

[@ravenouself4181]

@@alessandromazzini7026 1. They were actually impressed when they first encountered the T-34 and KV-1 as they were practically immune to the German guns at the time, with the exception of the Flak 88. Previously all they had encountered was the BT-series and T-26. Furthermore the T-34 and KV-1 were able to easily penetrate most German tanks at the time. Of course, over time they weren't impressed - especially after using captured tanks and introducing the Tiger I and Panther. 2. True, they did not copy it, but they did use it as a stepping-stone when developing the Panther. 3. Please do keep in mind that when the T-34 was first put into service, with the 2-man turret - the Brits were still using the Matilda, the Germans were still using the Panzer III and short-gun Panzer IV and the Americans were still using the M2 Medium and M3 Medium. So, for the time - it was actually a pretty good tank. 4. Also, Please keep in mind that the T-34 that was put into service was the prototype-design and not the initially planned T-34M. So, yeah, again for the time and considering it was just a prototype that was rushed into production - it's pretty good.

[@nathangillispie51]

Thank you for this video. Very interesting!

[@nyctasiaselesq]

I wish people would understand that "better then nothing" does not equal "good".

[@elusive6119]

The T-70 was designed and tested in less than a month, without any proper conditions for this, and was produced in huge quantities in often inappropriate factories. The infantry loved these light tanks, you will be happy with any tank... if you have one. In addition, the T-70 has undeniable advantages: it is light and goes even where even the T-34 could not. It was smaller and lighter, easier to camouflage, it is much quieter. This means that you can take troops on the armor and go around the enemy's flank, for example, using ravines or through the forest. This is where the tradition of landing on the armor of the BMP came from. It was also equipped with radio stations when possible and used for artillery reconnaissance. Raids on the rear and reconnaissance in force, infantry support... Once the T-70 was able to burn a Panther with a hit to the side, using its stealth and terrain. And this was probably not an isolated case. And considering their numbers... Ambushes were also effective. After all, it was a tank, and hunting for unarmored vehicles and infantry was its element. You had to reckon with the fact that you could suddenly find tanks in your rear that weren't supposed to be there. Because they were passing through a swamp. And there were... a lot of them. The Germans called these tanks "steel locusts", because no matter how many were lost, there were only more of them.

[@adrielcamilo2564]

What about 42mm mean, pz3 and pak38 50mm apcr round? The MHV made a video about 20mm holes in t34 that probably are from APCR from the pz3. (I know the discrepancy, but small cores in the round right?)

[@TanksEncyclopediaYT]

It is possible, but hard to tell.

[@kimjanek646]

@@TanksEncyclopediaYT Well it's very likely since the sub-caliber core for the 50mm Pzgr. 40 is 21mm in diamter and a 20mm cannon has no chance to penetrate more than 45mm of armor with plain AP rounds.

[@JosipRadnik1]

Could it be that that misterious 42 mm gun actually was the austrian 47 mm gun used on the first tank destroyers (based on PZKW 1 chassis) or maybe italian or hungarian guns of equal calibre?

[@thomasmusso1147]

Interesting .. thanks. In a nutshell. They had lots of break downs .. by design, poor maintenance or both. Where their armour was thinner and less sloped, they got zapped.

[@FairladyS130]

It would be interesting to see a comparable examination of the Sherman's performance.

[@mathewkelly9968]

Sherman's fared quite well , tank crew losses for the US where fairly low . I don't know if this is a reflection of the intensity of the warfare on western front vs western front though .

[@FairladyS130]

@@mathewkelly9968 Yes, that's the usual line but complete (not partial) relevant hard facts tell the real picture.

[@kieranh2005]

Watch the Chieftain's video on the Sherman. Quite enlightening.

[@FairladyS130]

@@kieranh2005 Not that again, it's full of picked cherries.

[@828enigma6]

@@mathewkelly9968 Don't know how many were recovered and repaired, but surviving crews could count on having a replacement tank available as soon as they could make their way back to the resupply depot.

[@johnknapp952]

Would be more interesting to see what took out the other 14000 tanks that weren't recovered or examined. Of the examined tanks only a small % had penetrations by 88's (and survived), but how many smoking wrecks did the 88's and other large guns leave behind???

[@TanksEncyclopediaYT]

When you find that report, let us know. We'll gladly cover it.

[@spacehobo1095]

Probably been long answered by now, but I'd put money on 42mm referring to the 5cm KwK L/42 & 50mm referring to the 5cm KwK/PaK L/70.

[@appalachnik]

Very useful material.

[@captainfactoid3867]

Interesting that the 105 is the only caliber above “42” that bounces more than than it penetrates.

[@TanksEncyclopediaYT]

Well, the 105 mm probably refers to the 10.5 cm leFH 18, which didn't have amazing AT penetration. It was a field gun in the end.

[@jerrymiller9039]

These were repairable tanks. I would guess more of the larger round hits were left on the battlefield

[@Legitpenguins99]

So, to sum the T-34 up in memes the conclusion is "Nyet, tank is fine. Get good, scrub."

[@jamesmortimer4016]

The wehrmacht WASN´T using any numbers of 75mm AT guns durring barbarossa. In fdact, due to the experience in this campaign the army demanded that the PAK 40 be put into mass production as soon as possible and not one but 3 lines of 75mm AT guns entered production... in 42

[@seanhiatt6736]

Light tanks were useful for armored reconnaissance. The Germans tended to use Armoured cars for this task, but they did produce the Panzer 2 lynx (100) as a recon vehicle.

[@mattkeyes9153]

If correct, Used w some success in stalingrad

[@jamponyexpress7956]

Check this again-- 21:20 "Unfortunately, by the time of Operation Barbarossa the Wehrmacht was using large number of 75mm anti-tank guns," this is patently false- even a quick check of the development of the Wehrmacht's 75mm Pak will disprove this. The only 75 mm guns they fielded were the low velocity 75mm infantry guns-- and the low velocity short barreled 75mm guns on a relatively small number of Pz mark IVs fielded by Pz divisions (maybe around 400 Mark IVs) on June 22 1941.

[@davethompson3326]

Stugs?

[@jamponyexpress7956]

@@davethompson3326 The Stugs in 1941 Barbarossa were all short barreled 75mm- they (Army Group South- Ukraine) only started receiving the up gunned long barrel 75mm on Stugs just prior to the opening of the 1942 summer offensive towards Stalingrad and the Caucasus. Wouldn't be surprised if the total number of upgunned (long barrel 75mm) Stugs on the German Southern Front (in Russia) numbered less than 30 examples in June of 1942 - but yeah more were arriving every week.

[@davethompson3326]

@@jamponyexpress7956 Given the 75mm Stugs were often employed in anti tank roles, your point is?

[@jamponyexpress7956]

To me, the low velocity 75mm can't really be classified as an anti-tank gun- sure it was at times used in that role- but when we think of true 75mm anti=tank gun (at least vs T34- KV1 we cannot say that the low velocity (i.e., short barrelled) 75mm qualifies as one. As per my original statement the video states "by the time of Barbarossa (which I define as June 1941) the Wehrmacht was using large numbers of 75mm anti- guns" is misleading to some viewers who are not familiar with the nuance. in other words, it might lead the average person to think that long barrelled 75mm (high velocity purpose designed Anti tank) guns were widely available on the eve of Barbarossa (June 1941), when in reality you don't see them in any numbers until late spring early summer 1942. Thats the only message I'm trying to get across. @@davethompson3326

[@franciscojaviermartineztor9745]

​@@davethompson3326 The small quantity of StuGs in 1941 was also armed with the short 75 mm. There was no 75 mm gun longer than the 75 L24 at the moment of Barbarossa.

[@jakubstrumillo]

75mm are not clear due lack of info. We dont know did they recorded PZrIV (family) or Panther 75's

[@TanksEncyclopediaYT]

Since this report is from 1942, defo no Panthers.

[@jakubstrumillo]

@@TanksEncyclopediaYT oh right

[@davethompson3326]

Pz IV, Stug II maybe a Char B1? 😁

[@daddust]

I see a lot of bias in this analysis. I hghly doubt yhat 98% of 88 shots bounced off, maybe they were ricocheting. Looking at knocked out tanks - you are going to see more of those with bad crews thus more hits to the side and rear. A lot of 50mms might be used against the T34 but these tanks would be surviving without being analyzed. A propernstudy would be carried out by analyzing all tanks after combat, ie those still running, those being repaired and those knocked out. A kill biased analysis is just as bad as a survival biased survey.

[@TanksEncyclopediaYT]

We mention exactly that at the end of the video.

[@coachhannah2403]

You misinterpret the table. 6% 1 of 17) of 88 strikes bounced.

[@calessel3139]

You're confusing number of T34 destroyed by 88s as a percentage of the total destroyed by all weapons and the chance of the 88mm to penetrate in that sub-total. In the sub-total, 0.2% bounced out of 3.4%. That's a penetration rate of 94% according to the charts at 5:20 & 8:16. It's a much higher penetration rate than any of the other German weapons. For the study chart at 13:25 the "dent" (bounce?) rate ratio is 0.68% of 2.04% which comes to a penetration rate of about 66% -- the same as the 75mm Pak40 -- both of which are much better than the other weapons.

[@REgamesplayer]

Well, it is easy to say that you only needed to have more armor, but those tanks were already cutting edge when they were introduced. Their usage is as important as technical characteristics since even the best armor can be misused and destroyed at point blank range with anti tank guns despite being excellent all around otherwise.

[@TanksEncyclopediaYT]

In the article and in the video, the original Soviet authors make both points. Tactical employment needs to be improved by better training and sides need to be tougher.

[@REgamesplayer]

@@TanksEncyclopediaYT I do agree with them. However it is important to have clear vision for what your tank will be used. You could blame BT series for being under armored far more than T series. Yet, these tanks serve a different purpose and if BT series tanks would loose their mobility for protection, would they be as useful? In my eyes, weaponary and armor is directly correlated to how advanced engine you can manufacture and put into the tank. It is a heart of a tank around which you can build your design. Putting more armor on a light tank might sound as a great idea, but won't we come to a problem which Americans faced with their light tank series when their tanks between Stuart and M24 Chaffee were all just under armored medium tanks? Btw: An easy fix for those findings are spaced armor plates. At least 10 mm thick armor sheet would help quite a bit, but 20 mm would be far better as 10 mm sheet is likely to be just overmatched and penetrator would not be blunted or impeded sufficiently.

[@scoot155]

@REgamesplayer *FCM.36 would like to have a word with you.*

[@peterdenov4898]

@@scoot155 shuu shuu... They discus tanks not pyramids

[@gerryjamesedwards1227]

Did the Russians get any British tanks, early Valentines or Churchills, that had the 2-pounder? Perhaps that's what they meant by the 42mm? That's just over 40mm, I believe.

[@jordansmith4040]

These are extrapolated from hits inflicted by the Germans. I imagine the Germans didn't have many lend lease 2 pounder guns. Furthermore, a cursory check implies the 2 pounder is a 40x304mm round. I like your guess, but it unfortunately doesn't seem likely. Unless maybe the Minor axis powers brought some captured 2 pounder guns with them, I'd lean towards the study referring to the pak 41, as most of the (2 pounder) guns captured in north africa were used in north africa.

[@gerryjamesedwards1227]

@@jordansmith4040 thanks, yes, that makes much more sense.

[@allangibson2408]

The Russians got several hundred British tanks in late 1941 as British aid. 466 British tanks were in Russian service in December 1941 making up 30 to 40% of heavy tanks available at that time.

[@jordansmith4040]

@@allangibson2408 The problem is that these were hits on soviet vehicles caused by the weapons of the axis powers. The soviets were not experiencing high volumes of captured british equipment being used against the T-34. As these were primarily 1941 numbers, I can't imagine any of these being british weapons, as the Axis would have had to capture them in quantity and then use them against T-34 tanks for their be any data to record.

[@allangibson2408]

@@jordansmith4040 I was just pointing out the the Russians had thousands of British vehicles to play with by the end of 1943...

[@alessandromazzini7026]

The 2 man turret version was a complete crap

[@lawrencehubbard2985]

Killed by thousands of bits is how Germany lost. Not by the USSR having better tanks. Most USSR tanks could not move move more then 100km without breaking down. The German tanks were over worked and not enough. Most being lighter tanks.

[@davethompson3326]

Tanks do not like long distances, Very few if any of anyone's were designed for 100km between services. Modern vehicles can manage 2-3 times that without significant numbers of drop outs. Later in the war "Tiger I and Panther detachments couldn't drive for distances of over 100km without breakdowns becoming common." (Forczyk 2007, p. 33)

[@scoot155]

Incompetence: *T-34 was the first tank which introduced sloped armour!* Competence: *FCM.36 would like to have a word.*

[@hungryhedgehog4201]

Even the Little Willie had sloped armor, it's not that tank designers didn't knew about it, it's that sloped armor decreases the usable space inside a tank.

[@faatihh1130]

it confuses me why people said that the T-34 was the fist tank to use sloped armor

[@Orinslayer]

@@faatihh1130 History channel.

[@peterdenov4898]

@@faatihh1130 the first tank, not the first pyramid.

[@Stripedbottom]

@@faatihh1130 It's a statement that is the result of Chinese Whispers and not really understanding the history of tanks and tank design, similar to the statement "No King Tigers were ever lost due to enemy action!" In fact, the T-34 didn't really pioneer any of the main features that made it, ie. relatively thick sloped armour all round, big gun with good armour penetration, and wide tracks with good mobility. What it did was that for the first time it brought all of these features together in a package that was fairly simple, easy and cost-efficient to produce, and (once the teething troubles were sorted out) mechanically reliable. And it did so quite early in the war, at a time when it was simply hands-down better than anything anyone else had or could produce in numbers. In fact, as a general concept it was so pioneering that just as the Renault FT can be said to be the forefather of the modern tank, the T-34 is clearly the forefather of the MBT concept.

[@fasold2164]

0:30: Oh really, they conquered 1500 square kilometers within six months!? This is the area of Mexico City or slightly more than 10% of the area of Tokyo -and it took them half a year to achieve this. Either not very impressive or you don't know what you are talking about...

[@mikepette4422]

i subscribed today and went to see this video and noticed i was already unsubbed ? wtf

[@TanksEncyclopediaYT]

Might have double clicked. Or KZbin hates us :)

[@mikepette4422]

@@TanksEncyclopediaYT well I am watching the video again and I'm still subbed this time lol so maybe it was me

[@eikbolha5883]

T70 Light tank produced 4900 units lost 7200 hold up something isnt right 😂👌

[@TanksEncyclopediaYT]

Those numbers are not for the T-70, but for all light tanks.

[@nathaniel1207]

those numbers include the BT series, the earlier T-60, the T-50, and any other light tank fielded by the nation. think of it as a budget, not a bank account. you earned 4900 dollars, but you spent 7200. this means overall you lost money and didn't make enough to cover your spending.

[@828enigma6]

It's possible for a tank to be lost more than once. The could be lost, repaired, and lost again.

[@davethompson3326]

@@nathaniel1207 There would still have been a fair few T-26 as well.

[@nathaniel1207]

@@davethompson3326 T-26 may not have been classified as a light tank by the soviets, though im not sure. but if it is. it would definitely make up a substantial portion of those losses