The First Clash: How the Soviet T-34 Forced Germany to Rethink Tank Warfare

[@maxpower9979]

Awesome! Keep doing these specific documentaries.

[@FactBytes]

Thanks for the visit

[@blank557]

As long as the KV1's transmission held out, it was the Tiger tank of its day. One KV tank held up an entire German armored division for over a day. It sat on the road and knocked out AT guns and tanks, shrugging off hits like water off a duck, until the Germans brought up 88's to take it out.

[@andrewhodgson9750]

doesnt matter what you think ,specly when you are wrong , try reading some german combat teports , also the germans did get beaten

[@mariusvasilache888]

Exactly, until they got a AA gun....

[@donwalsh4445]

yeah they carried 2/two transmission inside the kv1 against 50mm gun panzer 1.... tigers ate kv1 for a snacks yeah thats why it was replace by the t34 KNOW YOUR FACTS NOT F ING HERESAY tigers had a 13 to 1 kill ratios against kv1 and t34s how is that tiger of its day

[@Slider_84]

@@donwalsh4445you don’t know your facts. The kv-1 came out in 1938. The tiger came out in 1942. During its time that guy was saying the kv-1 was the tiger of its time period in being able to take more hits from others and keep fighting just like the tiger did later in its day. Learn to spell and maybe calm down and think before you make comments.

[@donwalsh4445]

@@Slider_84 FUCK OFF how is that spelling

[@DeDeimos1]

I remember my grandfather telling me about his first encounter with a T-34. His unit lost four 3.7 cm anti-tank guns, but was only able to destroy one of the four attacking T-34s, and that was only because the tank tipped over into a ditch. No anti-tank gun shot could take out the T-34, despite direct hits on the hull and turret. This enemy was greatly feared by the German troops.

[@RBAILEY57]

The German anti-tank shells bounced off the T-34.

[@maxwess6892]

What a pile of BS. T34 was a unreliable peace of junk and before it was fitted with American gun it could not hit a barn at point blank range. There is a reason why Germans rolled over russians and so fast was standing by moscow, there is a reason why they where produced over 50 thousand units and little to none survived. It was a peace of poo.

[@Kamikaz459]

Flak-88: am i a joke to you?

[@poisonhand8078]

In my opinion, the German army had an advantage over its Soviet rival in the beginning of Operation Barbarossa was because of the following factors: 1) Surprise of attack; 2) Superior tactics; 3) Combined arms; 4) Air superiority; 5) Experienced troops; and 6) Inexperienced enemy. While after a period of time the German lost many of their initial advantages, namely: 1) Vast landscape and distance to cover; 2) Increasing unclear objectives; 3) Increasing Hitler's intervention; 4) Shortage of fuel problem; 5) Losses of personnel and materials; 6) Russian soldiers gained experience; 7) Increasing resistance from enemies; 8) Poor road condition and muds; 9) Poor German intelligence on enemy; 10) Opening of other fronts e.g., Africa 11) Russian extreme cold weather; and 12) Increasing Allies' helps to Soviet Union. There is nothing much to do with tanks or tank quality, as the German invaded Soviet Union initially with many Panzer I and Panzer II, if so how come the German could get an upper hand over its Soviet rival? There must be due to many factors mentioned above.

[@gerdlunau8411]

You forgot the overwhelming support by the local populations because of the unimaginable brutality of the German occupation forces. Even people who first greeted the Germans soon learnt that they were doomed. So they picked up anything considered a weapon and went into the woods forming underground armies. One of my grandfathers was a mechanical repair private in the Wehrmacht (basically in the 2nd echelon) but also a military message runner on a motorbike. An extremely dangerous job. The partisan movement picked up very quickly, became huge and sabotaged anything in the rear on a massive scale. It also became very brutal, because the official racist Nazi "activities" against the locals made them hating even ordinary soldiers to an absolute de-humanist level one can only hardly imagine. Huge German fighting forces were needed to keep the occupied areas in check and therefore away from the frontline. This is what my grandfather told me first hand. The rest you are writing is basically correct. Small correction: Africa was quite earlier but D-day certainly helped although at the time the Wehrmacht's doom was already sealed since 9 months (after Kursk). Also after successfully relocating all the armament industries the USSR had a much larger industrial capacity (the real land-lease help were not so much the weapons, but rather vehicles like trucks and motorbikes, transport planes, industrial raw materials of good quality, machinery to make weapons, know-how, medical supply, food stuff, field cables, radio equipment, clothing, fuel and lubrication fluids, chemicals ....) allowing the USSR not only to increase their weapon and ammunition production exceeding anything of Nazi-Germany but also improve the quality even the German engineers often could not match. Peace! from Dresden / Germany

[@masroor5672]

Very very wise and balanced analysis...

[@AlexKarasev]

@@gerdlunau8411 Your level of intellectual honesty and insight is almost unheard-of, certainly in the last 30 years - to say nothing of the modern discourse. My Russian grandfather bestowed upon me wire cutters off, he said, a Tiger I's service kit. Those aren't cutters - it's a song cast in steel. A song that's beautiful and gentle and loving and sad. Whenever I pick them up, I feel a German engineer's _kleines Lächeln_ who'd designed them. What you write about Nazi brutalities in the USSR, must've made perfect sense to Hitler, as the select few Nazi extremists administering those war crimes made the rest of, regular, German soldiers essentially hostages of those crimes and the understandable hostility they'd induced. To say that that tactic gives me dejavu feelings about the start of hostilities you-know-where, would be to say little indeed. I look at kzbin.info/www/bejne/d5y7gXdvZ6uaaMU and I see zero - ZERO - that separates all of us around the world today from those people.

[@HorseshitDetectionAgency]

Grass is green also.

[@pawelsawicki1750]

Stop watching history channels and movies, start to read on the subject. You may manage not to make a fool of yourself, showing your ignorance and complete lack of any fundamentals. Your assessment here is on the level of a school boy.

[@Kojak0]

Note however: in 1941, the Russians only had a small number of T-34s, with production just ramping up; most of its tank fleet consisted well into 1942 of especially T-26 and BT-7, which the 37 mm guns the Germans had could easily knock out. Also, in cases where the Germans did encounter T-34s without proper guns to counter it, they would call in air strikes or if that was not an option, deploy 88 mm flak to deal with them as mentioned. And that in turn is part of the explanation to why the Germans weren't stopped cold by the T-34s. Also worth taking into consideration is that the first T-34s didn't have proper optics, with one method of aiming being just looking down the gun barrel. Another factor was that the T-34s were technically bad and often broke down; the upside being that the tanks were a lot easier to repair than the German tanks - as long as there was a supply of spare parts.

[@BlaBla-pf8mf]

at the beginning of Barbarossa the soviets had about 1000 T-34s and 500 KVs. That's almost equal to half of the entire german tank force which also included large numbers of light tanks.

[@Kojak0]

@@BlaBla-pf8mf Regarding the T-34s and KV-1s: yes, I stand corrected; I must have thought about an earlier year. But in 1941, they did have about 1200 light tanks.

[@Ek_Ekvil]

​@@BlaBla-pf8mfThe Germans had 11,000 - 12,000 tanks at the beginning of 1941. Of all the tanks, 90% were used in the first days of the attack on the USSR, that is, approximately 10,000 tanks. Your version (more precisely, not your version, but the version of your masters) was invented by the same people who came up with the fake about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. As is known, Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction, but the United States officially stated at the UN podium that they had evidence and showed it, but everyone in the US government knew that this was a fake and a lie. After such facts of lies, you have to be an incredibly stupid person to continue to believe the West/Americans. Even from the reports and documents of the Germans it is clear that there were about 9,000 tanks, for each group of armies (north, center, south) at the same moment the reports say that 2000-3000 tanks were involved, 3000*3=9000. In any case, the fact that you just need to use your head, mathematics, add a couple of numbers and then the truth is revealed, but in the West no one does this, makes Western society of extremely low quality , your authorities turned your people into a formless creature without a brain and unable to think.

[@Jakez408]

Stalin did not prepare for a German invasion so let the Red Army down without providing any defence in June, July and August. A limited defence was mounted in September but it was not enough and only halted the German Army for two weeks. Even so by then 500,000 Germans had been killed and started to worry the Germans that this war would be very difficult. The vast distance to Moscow was not suitable for German soldiers walking or on bicycles as shown here. Four months into the campaign they were completely exhausted and weakened. Hitler had not prepared properly for war with Russia and in December they froze to death. In early 1943 Russia was producing 4000 T 34 tanks a month, unpainted and poorly welded to meet Stalin,s quota but nonetheless effective at Kursk in large numbers which hammered the Germans ability to defeat the Red Army.

[@jamiejones7325]

According to Soviet historians like Melevelensky? And Russian Slavinsky we ( my ancestors T34 and JS crew) were preparing to ‘blitz’ Europe just weeks before Hitler betrayed us first. We gut caught with totally worst deployment for defence. Kinda like calling run defence against punt.😂😮😢

[@davidjackson2179]

Germany had not suffered half a million dead by September. Where are you getting that information. They may have had that many killed, wounded, sick etc. but not 500k dead by Sept lol. They would have been stopped before December if that were the case.

[@Paul-zf8ob]

@@jamiejones7325 after the Soviet Union collapsed they found papers indicating what Stalin was up to! He was hoping Germany and the other western nations would bog down like in WW1 and wear each other out. He planned to invade Europe in 1943 when everyone was beat up!

[@phillmartin6196]

Great films with poor commentary

[@gerdlunau8411]

@@jamiejones7325 The USSR was for many reasons totally unprepared and the top brass including Stalin knew it. How did Hitler "betray" "you" when, according to your statement "you" were planning to attack him? Your whole comment is so confused and makes absolutely no sense within itself. Peace! from Dresden / Germany

[@keithd5181]

The T34 utilised sloped armour which was a brilliant design along with its wide tracks to spread its weight. If they had all had radio's they would have been even more effective.

[@MrPatrickpiet]

It was good for extra armour, but very bad for crew comfort, way less interior space

[@donwalsh4445]

the sloped armor was around before the t34 and it had NO effect against the 88

[@Foxrich99]

Sloped armor completely negated by the low quality steel that spalled and killed the crew when under fire from even 3.7cm guns

[@Wolf-hh4rv]

@@donwalsh4445they would have been in even more vulnerable to 88’s with flat glacis plates

Sloped armour is not 'brilliant', it's just common sense - which the Russians had in greater abundance than Germany.

[@RandyHill-bj9pc]

The T-34 set the all time record for most tanks lost at 45,000 because it was hard to drive, had poor visibility and gunsights, poor quality, and was a death trap to its crew from its too brittle armor spalling and locating fuel tanks inside the crew compartment. This made its mobility and good gun far less useful.

[@selfdo]

To be fair, a replacement for the T-34 was already underway by 1942 that, although it superficially resembled it, was a "clean sheet" design, incorporating lessons learned from combat and features already found on German vehicles. Known as the T-43, it was never produced, since the Soviets couldn't afford to halt T-34 production with the war raging. Instead, like what the Americans did with the likewise T23 medium tank that was intended to replace the Sherman, they plopped the T-43's three-man turret on the existing T-34 chassis. Intended to use an improved 76 mm gun, instead it got the D5T 85mm weapon, as sufficient firepower to duke it out with the German "Big Cats" was an imperative, though it made the turret cramped and the vehicle nose-heavy.

[@RandyHill-bj9pc]

@@selfdo I think that is typical of Russian tank development. Put the biggest gun in the cheapest tank, scrimp on crew ergonomics and safety, build in huge volumes where the finished product always fall short of spec, esp. in armor quality. Russia's attitude is we can always train more tank crews to replace the incinerated ones, why spend extra cost eliminating spalling or ammo cooking off in the crew compartment?

[@jholland3606]

Quantity has a quality all on its own...

[@schrimpf]

…said Joseph Stalin…

[@stonaciousstone4171]

Great post!!!

[@bigqlol1055]

Well explained, way better than most ww2 documentary in tv

[@genewest7271]

One thing soviets didn't have was radios in their tanks (1 radio in 20 or 30 tanks). All German tanks had radios. The germans used this to communicate with each other. The T-34 had significant break downs.

[@georgefox4982]

The main advantage the t-34 had throughout the war were numbers. ON average t-34 engines and transmissions lasted 60 miles before failing during combat

[@selfdo]

Typically less than HALF of the T-34s survived combat before their first 100 km. Many were patched up and returned to the front or were cannibalized for parts.

[@brealistic3542]

Actually it was the heavily armored French Tanks that forced that rethink and also the British Matilda.

[@GerbenWulff]

Not really. For the French campaign it was decided that 37mm guns would be enough. The lessons of the French campaigns made the Germans decide to start upgrading their Pz.III's to 50mm guns. The experience in Russia changed that to 75mm and 88mm guns and a new generation of tanks: the Panther and Tiger.

[@eriklarsson3188]

The English Matilda was kind of cool, also, the French (at the time) had better tanks than the Germans.

[@victorfinberg8595]

@@GerbenWulff apparently the tiger was already in the pipeline well before the invasion of the soviet union

[@GerbenWulff]

@@victorfinberg8595 Yes, early developments started even before the French campaign, but they upgraded the specifications in response to the experience in the Soviet Union.

[@gruenerteufelDD]

No, sorry Sir. Neither the French, nor the Brits contributed anything to tank development. Prove me wrong!

[@GaryFerguson-ii7xo]

Thanks!

[@FactBytes]

Welcome!

[@bobthebuilder9553]

Germany was already working on a superior tank called the Mark IV. In the works were heavier tanks like the Panther and Tiger I. The Mark II and III tanks could not cut it in any tank battle. Self- Propelled guns on tank chassis were also in the works. German 88mm guns were the best of the war. IF the Germans had enough of them and enough trained crew to man them in assault, they would have made victory for Russia that much more difficult. In the end, vast numbers of reserves and industry was on the side of Russia, not Germany. Hitler would have been better to have counted these things carefully before he considered invading Russia.

[@spencersmith4373]

The armor being difficult to penetrate does not make the tank invincible. The tracks and wheels can still be destroyed with smaller guns immobilizing the tank, and any direct hits to the t34 gun barrel will disable the main gun and force it to retreat. The armor is certainly an asset, but not something the Germans had no answer for even very early on.

[@lyndoncmp5751]

The T-34 panic in late 1941 because the likes of Guderian combined the features of both the T-34 and KV into one mythical supertank. Half the time Guderian was citing the T-34 he was actually talking about the KV as well. For example he said the T-34 had 100mm of sloped armour. He also claimed the KV was faster than the Panzer III. Guderian was responsible for much of the T-34 panic with his mixed up claims.

[@thomasbaagaard]

we se the same in the west with Americans. We all seen plenty of documentaries of American veterans talking about how it took 5 Shermans to take our one tiger I in Normandy. Only there we no, repeat no fights between a American Sherman and a Tiger I in france. When the Americans encountered a german tank, it was simply a tiger.

[@lyndoncmp5751]

​@@thomasbaagaard Well no Tiger I v American Shermans in France, true. Because they were all in the British and Canadian sector. However they did engage Tiger Is in Tunisia, Sicily and the Italian mainland. And as the US forces got to the Paris area right after Normandy they did encounter small numbers of Tiger IIs from Schwere Panzer Abteilung 503 and Schwere SS Panzer Abteilung 101. The only Tiger Is the Americans came across in France were some abandoned ones in eastern France.

[@gerdlunau8411]

@@thomasbaagaard According to Wiki, Wittmann duelled with a Firefly with the result of escaping from it. Later he was killed by Canadian firefly crews. So, I am not sure what you consider "American". But Shermans and Tigers certainly duelled. Peace! from Dresden / Germany

[@finlayames6216]

@@gerdlunau8411​​⁠​⁠​⁠Sherman firefly’s were not American tanks. Yes they were originally built in the US, but as regular Shermans. They were then given to the UK and commonwealth forces, who converted them into firefly’s (upgraded gun) and used by those armies. So any engagement that involved firefly’s were with commonwealth forces, not Americans.

Strange that despite their engineering prowess after the war the Soviets were never able to produce a motor vehicle that was successful on the world market. Cars such as the Moskvitch, Lada and Volga were never more than niche products.

[@polnoeceloe]

Советские конструкторы были ограничены ценой автомобиля. Мой отец был инженером конструктором автомобиля Лада. Они должны были найти максимально дешёвые решения, чтобы уложиться в требования государственного заказа. Государство диктовало цену автомобиля, директор завода не мог повлиять на это

[@vincnetjones3037]

T34's armour was no better than their German counterparts.... Please revaluate what you are saying. Replace T34 with KV1 in your statements and this may bear out to be true. Plus out of 24,000 tanks the Soviets had to start with only 1,000 or so of each were T34s or KV1s. And also a lot of their crews hadn't received that much training with them.

[@williamzk9083]

Your numbers are wrong. About 1800 T-34 were in the Soviet West facing Europe and 1200 T-34 in the Soviet East Facing Japan at the time of Barbarossa. The KV-1 was available in about 1/3rd that number. Russia had more T-34/76 at the opening of Barbarossa than the Germans had Panzer III and Panzer IV combined. In addition the Russians theoretical had 25,000 lighter tanks although only half that number were operational they Germans had nothing like that in Panzer II.

[@vincnetjones3037]

@@williamzk9083 Hi William, Overall production of T-34 tanks in all of 1941 was 3,000. So not sure where your figures for the start of Operation Barbarossa come from. Why would u have any T-34s in the East? Maybe that was the production figure after they moved the tank factories East of the Urals. Also total Soviet tank numbers as of June 1941 was 28,800. I am right about their initial armour being 40mm, similar to German P3 & P4s. So the German real fear in June was from very heavily armed KV1s.

[@vanlendl1]

German intel obviously made a bad job before Barbarossa about russian tanks.

[@infolover_68]

It was the engine of the T-43/76 that the difference since added superior speed and distance achieved. But the more advanced T-34/85 made the difference more obvious; logically it was the use of other tanks like the IS-2 and the self-propelled guns ISU class that smashed the Panzerwaffen.

[@tomk3732]

Yeah mobility of T-34 was very good, better than today's Challenger tanks UK has. Shows how bad UK tank design is.

[@vlad23i]

Rethink and readjust tank warfare yes but their overall focus on training and combined arms warfare tactics utilization still cost the soviets heavy losses in most engagements.

[@Imprudentman]

Even the loss of 15-16,000 tanks per year is not a mistake when your tank forces are capable of replenishing them and completing the combat missions that your command sets for you. If you attack, all the destroyed tanks will still remain on your territory and can be used in the future, unlike the side that loses territory and equipment. The Russians always quickly replenished their tank losses and smashed the Wehrmacht along the entire huge Soviet-German front. I would say that under the Soviet system of command and control, the German command always experienced tension and could not relax in any section of the Soviet-German front throughout the entire period of the war.

[@vlad23i]

@@Imprudentman the german army aas under tension because rhey were too thinned out across other theaters of war and ussrs superior man power and resources dominated germanies. If it was placed on a fair scale where both sides were even, ussr would not have won. Ussr tactics simply only succeded due to high man power pools and resource access, without those they would not have withstood the invasion.

[@Imprudentman]

@@vlad23i Other theatres of war are still other theatres. The Germans had other opponents there - Britain and the USA. You wrote about the Soviet-German front. I answered you.

[@vlad23i]

@@Imprudentman bud you obviously dont understand the complexity of the comparison. Germany, lower resources, lower manpower, occupied in other theaters of war that drains more resources manpower in africa, italy, england, europe fronts compared to ussr superior manpower, lend kease resources from the u.s., superior resources and only theater they were involdlved in was japan. Thats not a peer to peer comparison.

[@Imprudentman]

@@vlad23i You are moving from tank battles to the political configuration of the world, the alignment of political forces, resources - human, financial, production. This is a deviation from the topic and this is a separate large topic. But if you are talking about the USSR, then the socio-political system that allowed Stalin to organize huge Soviet armies, based on the limited material, human, production resources of the USSR is never taken into account. If the Russians mobilized more troops, this does not mean that the Russians had more people. By 1941, the Germans captured huge territories where there were many people, and with their allies in Europe, Germany surpassed the USSR in human resources, industrial production and had a raw material base that met the needs of the Wehrmacht. Nevertheless, they were defeated near Moscow. And in general, the Germans did not fulfill the company plan for 1941, except, perhaps, in the North.

[@adrianyallop2880]

Just discovered you, truly excellent content, if only others followed your measured style and informed details. You may need to work on your french pronunciation and accent tho! Keep it up. One of this joys of finding a gem like your channel is the back catalogue I can now enjoy working through.

[@FactBytes]

Thank you

[@swiftcee266]

*Since we crossed into these lands, I’ve come to understand that the Russian plains are not simply expansive-they are boundless. Sometimes, the horizon stretches so far that it feels as though the world has no edge. Even as we march forward, that line never seems to come any closer, and it leaves us feeling small, swallowed up by the sheer immensity of this land* German soldier October 1941

[@tomk3732]

Hitler, like leaders of todays Europe, believed Soviets just needed a strong kick to fall. They found out this was not the case when Soviets marched into Berlin.

[@8navarra]

Never mentioned that Germany attacked Poland (and Russia) with more than 1 million horses.

[@jimmiller5600]

German media played up armor and arty, not the reality that German logistic were miserable.

[@reinerdesouza9438]

I read it was 600,000 horses

[@selfdo]

Literal horsepower was still relevant in Poland which had fewer paved roads than most of Europe, and the USSR which, outside the major metro areas, had almost NONE. Outside a very fre privileged "Apparatchiks", private vehicle ownership was then-unknown in the USSR, and products and materials that had to be shipped long distances typically went by rail.

[@8navarra]

@@selfdo Yes, but the point is that German propaganda prohibited to show ANY pictures or films showing military with horses - but only tanks, trucks and other mechanized armament.

[@kiowhatta1]

Two points of interest: 1. How is it possible that the German army was completely unaware of these models? 2. Hitler reportedly ordered all Pz III’s to be up gunned to the 50mm kwk by the beginning of Barbarossa.

[@roderernst9990]

That was from experience in North Africa.

[@tomk3732]

Well, each time German intelligence told Hitler the power of Soviet industry he simply did not believe them. How can sub humans out produce Germany and how can they produce better tech?!

[@ronalddunne3413]

"This old world may never change / Not the way it's been / And all the ways of war / Can't change it back again / I've been searching..."

[@Khalifrio]

The early T34 was never as good as all the hype some people keep shoveling out. The crew was blind due to bad optics, it lacked radios, the metallurgy of the armor was super poor and failed more often than not, on average its engine only ran for around 100 hours before failing, the slopped side armor and the Christy suspension, made the tank super cramped inside meaning poor ergonomics. In addition to all that the turret was designed for a 45mm gun. Yet the T34 had a 76mm gun stuffed into that tiny turret forcing the commander to play loader instead of looking for targets. There was an instance of a T34 that got hit by around 23 37mm anti tank gun rounds before one round finally hit the turret ring and disabled the turret. The question you should be asking is why the T34 didn't see this pesky 37mm anti tank gun taking multiple shots at it? The answer is the optics were horrible and the commander, who should be looking for targets, was busy loading the gun. In short the T34 did not come into its own until the T34-85 model showed up around the middle of the war.

[@gerdlunau8411]

The commander of the T34/76 was also acting as the gunner, not the loader. Otherwise you are correct with some remarks but you should not forget the whole armament production was being evacuated at the time adding to a lot of quality problems which were quickly erased as soon as the factories were re-erected and up and running. Peace! from Dresden / Germany

[@joedapro7236]

Great unbiased video! from watching other vids of well respected analysist, the T 34 was a piece of crap, poorly engineered, BUT produced by numbers that Germany could not over come!

[@frank-rk5sq]

You begin with scenes of the onset of the Polish campaign in September 1939. You must have some German footage for June 1941. Don't be lazy!

[@ForrestProper]

Also, the tanks shown at .23 and .26 are Finnish tanks, involved in a separate campaign against Russia. Who does the photo editing, an AI bot??

[@chrisbea49]

Hitler ordered all PzIII armed with the 50mm L/60 a year earlier but the ordnance dept didn't want to re-tool after just changing to 50mm L/42 for the tank and towed AT gun.

[@FlorinSutu]

1:10 - The tank gave birth to a baby ! 🙂

[@FirstLast_Nba]

Barbarossa was NOT a surprise to ANY of the Allies in ww2. In fact not a single German operation was a secret throughout the entire war.

[@jonnyblayze5149]

VonMansteins Ardennes offensive would say different

[@KapiteinKrentebol]

Apparently it was a surprise for Stalin (despite all the warnings) as he (wrongly) thought Hitler would never attack Russia before having dealt with Britain which would be akin to a dagger in the back for Hitler. He had a mental breakdown and wasn't available for days and explains also the inadequacy of the Soviet army in the early days, at least according to some sources.

[@josephmountford2292]

It was a surprise to Stalin

[@williamzk9083]

​@@KapiteinKrentebol Stalin's plan was to let the Germans exhaust themselves fighting the western Allies and invade the remainder of Western Europe in 1941. Because non of the equipment was really ready the plan had to be put back to 1942. There were About 1800 T-34/76 tanks and 800 KV-1 facing the Germans on the Soviet West and another 1500 in the Far East but they were poor quality and full of defects. The Germans always claimed the invasion of the Soviet Union was a preventative invasion and that they had incontrovertible evidence. The Russians made sure most of the German high command was executed at Nuremberg but many lower ranking adjunct officers were present such as by Below, Nicolaus von Belows memoirs "At Hitler's side : the memoirs of Hitler's Luftwaffe adjutant 1937-1945" and recounted this belief. -After the fall of the Soviet Union many Russian Historians and Officers such as the ex USSR intelligence officer Vikor Suvorov began to examine this. Suvorov first book "Icebreaker" had mainly circumstantial evidence (a good read, he notes Russian forces were positioned offensively during Barbarossa) but Other Russians Historians found much more. Western Establishment Historians rejected this passionately with extreme ad hominem attacks, evidence they were attached ideologically to German and nazi war guilt and Communist/Soviet innocence but Russian and other Historians continued until Vladimir Putin made it illegal to write history suggesting this.

[@Rapid1453]

according to Stephen Kotkin the Soviet archives show that Stalin was aware of the intel on Barbarosso preparations but was convinced it was part of a campaign by British intelligence to goad him into breaking the Pact so there would be less pressure on Britain. Stalin never trusted British intel (and vice versa) for good reasons.

[@RoJikinNadhifa]

Terima kasih, salam kenal teruslah berkarya.

[@roderernst9990]

Remember the germans still had Panzer 1, 2, & Chec 35 ,38. T34 Aluminium V12 Diesel Motor. Panther was the result of meeting T34 & KV 1 & KV2

[@donwalsh4445]

and what was to soviet results of meetting the panther and tigers...NOTHING

[@gerdlunau8411]

@@donwalsh4445 Wrong. it was the T34/85. With this new powerful gun it became a match for the Panthers and Tigers. Peace! from Dresden / Germany

[@donwalsh4445]

@@gerdlunau8411 you are WRONG the 85 was no match for 7inch armor that is why they went to the 122 with same results they had the same inferior armor know your facts german tanks had 13 to 1 ratio kill ratio the b17 bomb the henschel factory and destoyed 650 tgers in varius stages of completion that more than than the 80,000 soveit tank lost trying to stop the panther &tigers

[@donwalsh4445]

@@gerdlunau8411 the panther high velo 75 mm gun could destroy any soviet tank oh and they put an88 high velo on the tiger 2=80,000 tank destroyed know your facts before you blabber

[@MrPatrickpiet]

Tiger 1 was not a reaction on the T34... It was already on the drawing boards way before germany encountered T34's...

[@paullevins5448]

@@MrPatrickpiet the panther was the tank designed to take on the T34.

[@Roodski]

@@paullevins5448well the Panzer 4 or something

[@TheoCapteijn-kh8nj]

Panzerkampfwagen V "Panther" was the German answer to the T34-78, T34-86.

[@lonestarbug]

What is “glassy armor”?

[@victorfinberg8595]

big mistake in the first 30 seconds: the soviets were not "deceived" about hitler's intentions. you have to dig a bit to realize this, but not very far.

[@RBAILEY57]

There was much evidence that Stalin was preparing to attack Germany through Poland, had Hitler not attacked first. Stalin had bought time with the 1939 Nazi-Soviet Pact.

[@piotrmalewski8178]

People always say that productiomn quality was the issue, but this tank was already broken in blueprints. Engineers were tasked with specs impossible to meet and disregarded everything that was not in specs to acheve that. The result was a tank that could just pass evaluation tests, saving their lives, but could not last long anywhere else. Best example is the V12 diesel codename W2. Usually it's praised for super-modern DOHC 4 valves per cyl. design, lighweight aluminium block and high power output. In real use however, the cooling system lacked capacity, causing overheating every 30-45 minutes of operation. The engine lacked stiffness to withstand diesel compression rates which resulted in random head gasket falilures, and the engine was losing power and becoming so much more unreliable with every hour of operation that Soviets tried to replace every 30 hours old engine before a major battle. Engineers were so desperate, they even removed the mufflers to give it 500hp, which meant the tank announced it's presence from miles away.

[@gerdlunau8411]

The W-2 engine for the T34 was in fact a gigantic success and after ironing out a few problems (particular gearboxes) in the beginning was extremely reliable. Large T34 columns moved hundreds of km on marches on their own (see the re-organizing of Soviet reserves during the battle of Kursk) with fewer and fewer break-downs during WW2. The USSR was a leading force in almost any field of science during the 1920s and 1930s and certainly masters of mining, metallurgy and engineering. The W-2 engine was the first and only aluminium-block-based Diesel engine for decades to come (the VW Golf / Rabbit Mk2 was the next mass-produced alu-based Diesel powered vehicle as far as I know). This gave the tank an excellent HP-to-weight ratio, very low consumption and a hard-to-ignite fuel. By looking back the engine was in fact one of the major reasons for this successful tank design. During the 1990s T34s were still used in the Yugoslav and some African civil wars. Tanks, which can be deployed after such a long time certainly do not have quality problems amassed. Most quality problems in 1941 occurred because almost all the hyper-modern Soviet armament industries needed to be evacuated due to the fast German advance and also different tank plants adopted different technologies - just whatever was available. ALL German tanks instead were chronically underpowered and needed to be "marched" by train closely to the battle field. For the Tiger tanks it meant so called transport tracks needed to be fitted. A logistical nightmare, as well as a dangerous, time-consuming and very exhausting process. And of course after the Tigers were close to the front and being driven off the trains, the crews had to refit the battle tracks. Replacing racks for whole tank units out in the open is a perfect moment for any air assault, the tanks are just sitting ducks with no way of escape. The T34 never had any mufflers or silencers. The exhaust system, while a pure two-hose system went from each cylinder bank straight to the rear and out. The same was with the T55 which inherited the same basic engine design. Although here it was a 2-in-1 system the smoke went straight out into the air. So this story cannot be true at all. Big Diesel engines would need gigantic mufflers in order to reduce the noise and in wartime this was not a priority. Also the much heftier vibrations of a Diesel engine would also add some engineering problems to make them last. Usually tanks attacked in larger units in those days and with a raging battle all around there is no need to be quiet. Reconnaissance was never the strength of the T34, except for the so-called "forced reccon" missions. Otherwise the Red Army had now other, quieter and lighter, vehicles for such a task. I am an engineer and I served in the East-German army as a T55 commander. During my time the very last T34/85 were scraped. No mufflers or silencers there. My Grandfather served in the Wehrmacht, recovering and repairing German combat vehicles, including tanks. He was complaining about the over-complexity and heavy weights of vehicles and parts, which hampered all recovery and repair efforts in the field. Which was bad, since the Red Army mostly replaced equipment while the Wehrmacht had to repair or abandon its vehicles. Peace! from Dresden / Germany

[@selfdo]

​The "few" problems of the Soviet W2 tank engine were its very low MTBF. T-34s typically were knocked out before breakdown, indicating either their poor design or poor crew training and field maintenance, or combo of all three. However, this engine, being adapted from a French aircraft diesel, was a tech leap forward. Like many Soviet weapons projects, especially their tanks, it was hampered by bureaucratic bungling, political pressures, and not having time to refine the design before hostilities broke out. As the war went on, many problems were fixed, and postwar work solved the rest.

[@Paul-zf8ob]

It wasn’t the tank it was the numbers!

[@handsomeman-pm9vy]

Numbers can make a difference. Some think that if the Germans had produced more panzer 4 tanks instead of large monster tanks, they would have had an advantage.

[@Paul-zf8ob]

@@handsomeman-pm9vy Stugs were very successful against Russian tanks and were easier and cheaper to build. Giant tanks were powerful but too slow!

[@Fenris8800]

​@@Paul-zf8ob my thoughts too. The Most successfull german tank was the Stug indeed. And if the german leadership could convince Hitler to give up His stupid oversized/weight tank Dreams...who knows.

[@benjaminlathem2745]

Mostly because the stug was in way larger numbers than any other armor.

[@putinugend]

It was the tank, as well: to defeat KV-1 and T-34 Germans had to rush producing Pak 40. Heavier anti-tank artillery, in its turn, slowed down German divisions.

[@jensleck547]

Future Design(T34) vs. future Taktiks(Germany)😳🖖

[@chadrowe8452]

The infantry learned how to knock out the t34 when the atg could do nothing

[@theshipoperator7227]

"at that time" 😂 at all times

[@antasosam8486]

The drivers doors literally say "kill me".

[@terraflow__bryanburdo4547]

Early short barreled 75mm pz4s.or stugs had some luck using HE rounds for concussive/spallling effects, and of course the tracks and lower sides. AP rounds were ineffective. The best WWII xhannel!

[@Lykyk]

Bit of a silly title since heavier tanks were already in the pipeline anyway (though the development was accelerated) while Hitler had demanded bigger guns before the French invasion already.

[@drmarkintexas-400]

⭐🙏🎖️🙏❤️‍🩹 Thank you for sharing this

[@FactBytes]

You are so welcome

[@petersclafani4370]

The main cause of german army failure was not stopping the flow of supplies coming from the north baltic sea. There was no naval ships

[@rokker333]

PAK38 = Panzer Anklopf Kanone (knock-on-tank cannon)

[@Wolf-hh4rv]

A sloped armour redesign of the Mk IV with a high velocity 75mm was probably Germany’s optimal response. Corrections--The 50mm PAK38 was introduced in 1941…. but much of the narration is factually incorrect.

[@christopherthrawn1333]

If obviously they are used

[@Rom3_29]

Wonder how many frontline German soldiers survived without wounds all trough soviet campaign?

[@Foxrich99]

Herbert Brunnegger did, even wrote a book about it

[@tankmeister8131]

T34 were knocked to oblivion even by a park gun, the 54 might have been different.

[@billd2635]

At 01:12... lol And they say Germans dont have a sense of humor.

[@patrickmcglynn5383]

If the middle east wars taught us anything it's that superior training and skill matters most of all in tank warfare.

[@Wattn_ditte]

The first german tank that could compete with the T34 was the Panzer IV and the Sturmgeschütz III which were equipped with the long-barreled 7.5 cm KwK 40 L/48 canon! It was only Hitler who want bigger and bigger tanks, The Pz. IV could have been modified further and further

[@brucesnyder690]

The soviet tank crews were totally inept compared to their German counterparts.

[@DE-ke2rf]

No radios didn’t help coordination of attacks.

[@billd2635]

I dont understand how German Intel didnt get info on the T-34 from the Finns during the Winter War. Oh, and I may be mistaken, but plans for sloped armor go back aways before the first encounters.

[@JohnnyReb-tr2fs]

Btw , the Tiger had the same ground pressure as the T 34/76

[@RobMiddelhuis]

Stalin soviet premier?? He was general-secretary of the communist party and he had other state functions. But soviet premier? I did not read in the book from Dmitri Volkogonov.

[@gerdlunau8411]

He was everything in one, supreme commander, general-secretary and (de jure the deputy) premier. Very efficient for a dictator. Peace! from Dresden / Germany

[@ulaysoe6742]

Every body was taken by surprise especially the Germans who encountered unknown quality & quantity of T34 with over hanging chassis,wide track etc.

[@MarttiMuinonen]

There are some Finnish films with catured Russian T24s?

[@mohammedsaysrashid3587]

It was an incredible and truthful introduction documentary about T-34 & KV 1 Soviet tanks... They had remarkable characteristics that challenged some German weapons successfully...generally Soviets crews low training and bad utilized during early years of WW2 made reduced capabilities of those Gaint monitors....thanks for sharing....

[@alexmoi2735]

It's an overpraising T34. I was good only on paper. The tank's quality was subpar. The four-speed transmission was an unsynchronised crash cog that only a very experienced driver could switch without destroying it. Two 300-liter fuel tanks were in the crew compartment-even small-caliber shell course tanks and crew to die. Air filters filtrate 40% of the air coming through, and the engine dies very fast. If you can find the US test in Aberdeen T34 KV1.

[@chrisjuricichxl5]

the nazi tankers had radio communications betwixt themselves while the russkis did not.

[@handsomeman-pm9vy]

We don't need no stinking radios!

[@gerdlunau8411]

The USSR had to evacuate quickly their armament factories. Plus electronics was not their strength (yet) in 1941. Here is one of the samples when the land lease became a great help to them. The Western allies supplied the Red Army with lots of radio equipment. The T34s soon received good intercoms and radio units. Electronics was a field were most of all the British and the Germans marvelled against the rest of the world during WW2. Development of RADAR and other electronic equipment for airplanes and V2-rockets controls etc. was a kind of technology battle among these two nations. The Colossus system in Bletchley Park (UK) to crack the Enigma coding machine (Nazi-Germany) are the most known samples of this technology warfare. Peace! from Dresden / Germany

[@MAP1-234]

@@gerdlunau8411 Only one tank factory was evacuated in 1941

[@MrIwan18]

Nice to see Finnish tanks in the first minute….😮

[@SmokinLoon5150]

I've always thought the T34 was an over hyped tank from the very beginning. Sloped armor was NOT new, it had been around a long time. Just because the Germans had to close the range to destroy it with the 3.7 cm and 5.0 cm AT guns doesn't mean the tank was a "shock" to the German forces and it certainly doesn't mean it was "superior". There are many factors that need to be taken in to consideration including many things the T34 couldn't compete in. Optics, radios, tactics, crew training, etc., etc.

[@HuiYingHong-b8q]

T34 is just cheap, and easy to build in large numbers which helps it overwhelm to enemy by sheer weight of numbers. Even so, the Soviets lost 80% of all T34 tanks produced in the war

[@LesterMoore]

The Communists up to today, maintain the same battle tactic. Overwhelmed in numbers rather than superior tactical maneuvering with superior made weaponry.

[@rdallas81]

No, sloped armor was not used for the purpose of deflection until the T 34.

[@donwalsh4445]

yes and how effective was slope armor agaisnt the 88

[@yvngxnightmare]

@@donwalsh4445not effective at all😂😂

[@romanpapierz5066]

a great tank the t-34, the steel was not handled properly, welds done by a blind man. Some places decided that heat treating engine parts properly only delayed production. who needs seats when we have crates. If america had built the t-34 it would have been twice the tank and would have been properly equipped and the turret problem would have been corrected with proper , not cloudly, optics

[@tomt373]

As with the American forces and the Sherman's in Europe, they simply threw more tanks at the Germans then the Germans had ammunition and personnel for. Any advantages in their design usually meant it took more skill to knock them out.

[@williamzk9083]

The Germans were certainly vastly outnumbered but they had more serious problem. They lacked the fuel to conduct offensive operations. They excelled at maneuver warfare but often had at most 5 loads of fuel for the tanks which is enough for retreat and defensive operations only. They often had to sit still for 2 weeks at a time or more which gave the Soviets and allies time to regroup. The Allied offensive drained the best German fighter pilots from providing cover for German troops. Synthetic fuel required enormous mining operations and construction of synthetic oil plant much more expensive than oil refineries and less efficient.

[@tomt373]

@@williamzk9083 Good points, but in this case the article is about the Russian counter-offensive in the Soviet Union, which did not incorporate either the Americans or British allies' either on the ground or in the air. So I assume you are referring to the Allied bombing campaign in Europe, especially when they got to hitting targets in Berlin which forced them to keep their most experienced like Adolf Galland with his Me-262 group, "close to home" in defense of the Reich. Of course, in Russia, the Me-262, with its high maintenance requirements, would have been useless in the primitive environment, which favored the Hs-123 biplanes in that arena.

[@williamzk9083]

@@tomt373 The Soviet Counter offensives relied on British and American Aid. Having Started WW2 in 1939 by invading Poland, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia Russia enjoyed a year of peace while Britain fought alone and effectively kept the Japanese of Russia's back. -When the German invasion of Russia "Operation Barbarossa" began in June 1941 Britain began sending lend lease aid within 3 months. Before 1942 was out Russia had received 2000 Matilda II and Valentine Tanks, 500 Spitfire V, 2000 Hurricane IVd (most with 4 x 20mm Hispano guns). The Matilda II had more Armour than the T-34 and its 2 pounder could penetrate any Panzer III or IV at the time. The Valentine latter received the 6 pounder with outperformed the T-34 75mm L30. This is before the US became involved in Lend Lease. We can add 2000 Lee grant passed on from the US. All of these tanks had great commander optics and radios much better than the ineffective T34/76 in 1941/42.. M4 Sherman then took over from 1942. -During the Battle of Stalingrad Germany surrendered 130,000 soldiers and all of their equipment in North Africa. Half the German transport fleet had been involved in supplying Rommel in North Africa and there is no doubt that the transport aircraft alone and their fighter escorts would have turned Stalingrad into Germany's favor. The extra 150,000 troops would have defeated Russia at Stalingrad. Of course the Allies didn't murder their POW like Russia did. Remember also Stalingrad relied on enigma decrypts of German battle plans which Churchill had passed on to Russia. -In Early 1943 the allies invaded Sicily and then in June 1943 they invaded Solerono Italy. This was the same time as the Kursk offensive and it severely depleted German manpower, air power and Armour that could have been used at Kursk against Russia. -In June 44 the allies invaded Normandy. -Russian claims it won the war alone and in reality the allies had land fronts against Germany in North Africa, Italy (Pattons troops entered Germany before Russia did via Italy) -Allied bombing of German factories cut production by over 40% and prevented modernization. -Without the western allies Russia would have faced 3 times the German forces easily and those forces would not be short of fuel or air support.

[@tomt373]

@@williamzk9083 So it sounds like this article is a vast oversimplification, with the author contending the T-34 "saved the day" over the German armor? 🙂

[@tomt373]

@@williamzk9083 So, then would you say this article's approach is oversimplified in its exalting the T-34?

[@John-q8m1u]

Adolf really said I would of had second thoughts..t34

[@situationalawarenes]

If I had known.. Maybe that is what P is thinking, Training costs money.

[@larrymead151]

If the pzkw 3 had the long 5cm the t-34 would have meant nothing.

[@karai-z7e]

Почитав коментарии поражаешся невежеству западного зрителя:геринг и гудариан были курсантами руских авио и танковых школ. Гудариан своими глазами видел конвеер где производились эти танки. Почему он не предупредил своих крестьян об этом можно пошутить😊

[@herrprepper2070]

Opinions are like bungholes. Everybody has one.

[@dannypinyan3949]

T-34 probably the best American Tank at that time.

[@davidgates4450]

Whatever pedantics you raise to support Western post-war ideologies, the T-34, it's derivatives and the sheer weight of Soviet man and fire power ultimately prevailed, a fact that we should all ultimately be thankful.... Nazism was only going to be crushed with fearless, relentless destructive power, a factor that also animated the Western Allies.. Remember, the Sherman prevailed through it's versatility and ease of manufacture.... Much like the Russian weapons generally....Russian crews in the early stages of the conflict frequently collected their tanks straight from the assembly line to drive to the Front......

[@donwalsh4445]

wrong the 8th airforce witrh the b17 was responsible for germany defeat

[@gerdlunau8411]

@@donwalsh4445 Wrong. The Red Army took the major onslaught. The allied bombing certainly helped but the war in Europe was definitely decided on the Eastern front. Peace! from Dresden / Germany

[@donwalsh4445]

@@gerdlunau8411 you are dead wrong after ploesti, german syntectic oil was bomb by us not overun by soviets war over all the germans factory were bomb night and day 1,000 b17 bombers the soviet kept demanding a second from from us to relieve german pressure on them with out the b17 and allied help with steel and other war material the reds would have been beatem in months the soviet could not do anything agaisnt the germans by themself without great help from the us just look how "invincable" they are against the ukraine by themself and they lost 40,000,000. against the germans

[@alaindaubresse2161]

Le panther était une copie améliorée à l allemande du t34

[@edgarbaumeister6450]

20.000 Russian tanks have been destroyed in the first year - the Germans attacked with around 3000 tanks. Tanks are a weapon to attack, not a weapon of defence.

[@ingostawitz1140]

What is often forgotten is the fact that the Red Army was much stronger than the Wehrmacht, it was the largest military force at that time. 3 times as many soldiers, 4 times as many tanks and the assistance of GB and the USA. According to Russian archive documents, the Soviet-Union would have attacked Germany only a few months later than Operation Barbarossa. This plan was devised together with GB.

[@robertmaybeth3434]

I believe you are absolutely correct, and even old records from the former Soviet Union prove it! The Russian defector "Victor Suvorov", wrote an entire book on the subject, relying on the Russian's own documents as proof. Stalin had deployed most of his army on his western borders with German territory, far in excess of what any defensive strategy would call for. The Red army was being carefully pre-positioned to attack in the west. The book is called "The Chief Culprit" and describes in endless detail exactly what preparations Stalin was making for just such an attack. And history proves Stalin and the Russians were no innocent victims - Hitler merely beat him to the first punch!

[@PieterVan]

The Red Army might have been numerically larger, they were poorly led, used outdated tactics and most of their equipment was outmoded. F.i., the majority of the fighter airplane force were Rata fighters, that were no match for the a German Messerschmidts. After the disastrous Finnish campaign, I very much doubt that the Stavka had serious ambition in invading Germany, that was visibly at the top of its strength. Stalin totally mistrusted the British, and there was no love lost between him and Churchill, even when they were allies lateron.

[@JimSmithInChiapas]

​@@robertmaybeth3434 If the Russian's deployment along the border was "far in excess" of what was needed for defense, then why did it fail to keep the Wehrmacht from coming within sight of Moscow?

[@wilhelmvonn9619]

​@@PieterVan Completely agree. Following Stalin's success in purging the Red Army of every officer capable of thinking for himself, the USSR was unable to defend itself. Russians still boast of the huge number of their people who died in the Great Patriotic War, but never explain how it was so easy for the Nazis to kill them.

[@ChipEstrada]

But was so poorly designed that the crews could not accurately aim the weapon. Communism limits innovation.

[@karlheinzvonkroemann2217]

The Soviets had 35k tanks and 20k aircraft that the Germans didn't know about. If they re-thought anything then that was the reason!

[@robertthweatt1900]

So the Germans encountered a tank so superior to their own in most respects that many advocated just copying it. Yet their superior training and doctrine enabled them to blunt its impact. In one respect, however, their own tanks were superior: ergonomically and operationally, especially in the 3 man turret and provision of radios (which Guederian insisted on from the beginning). The pattern here is the Russians neglect of, even contempt for, human factors, whereas the Germans emphasized them. This pattern can still be seen in the war in Ukraine.

[@gary7466]

Nothing changes then...

[@damirbajramovic5416]

Da su se Generali ,Vojna lica pitale za mnoge bitke bili bi Pozitvnijeg ishoda !! Nažalost Bože Žali izgubljene živote ( Čovječanstva ) 🕯️🕯️

[@JimSmithInChiapas]

_"How the Germans fought back in 1941"_ As I recall, it was the Soviets who fighting back, against the surprise German attack that violated a non-aggression pact. Guess I was wrong.

[@AndrewC.McPherson-xf5zw]

Dummies Inc. formulated Barbrossa.

[@olaflange5254]

Wrong title. It should read: How the Soviet T-34 Forced Germany to Rethink Tank Design.

[@BXM4648]

While i've enjoyed a number of FB's videos, I don't know that I would suggest the T-34 was revolutionary. I would encourage those interested to watch LazerPig's video on the T-34. This is not to say that Germany steel was that much more superior, hardly. Fact is thousands of T-34's were lost in combat, just like every other tank in the war. Many if not most had extreme reliability issues and were abandoned in the field (just like everyone else's tanks). Shots from German TDs with 75mm guns -- in service before Barbarrosa until the end of the war -- went through them, not just the 88s on Tigers. The T-34 was not the first tank with sloped armor. Soviet steel was produced improperly, weakening the armors effectiveness. Much of the T-34's status is to do with the "great patriotic war" narrative that was pressed by the Soviet Union during and especially after the war. Its really interesting reading. You all should check it out.

[@lyndoncmp5751]

Lazerpig is the last person anyone should cite as any kind of authority.

[@BXM4648]

@lyndoncmp5751 He can certainly be very brash, and I don't agree with all of his conclusions in all of his videos. In the case of the t34 however, He isn't wrong on some of the things I said before. I'm assuming you have some other documented sources to extol the performance of the t34. Please share I'd love to read them. Or do you just not like his videos? Because I can understand that.

[@vaughanerwin7195]

even the short barrel stug could take out a t34 as any shot between the turret and hull was fatal! the transmission of the t34 was nothing like the German where hammers were used to change gears and top gear was all most impossible to get into do to the huge gear ratios and final drives would last less than a week

[@Jakez408]

Reading too much Western propaganda. A lone T 34 took out 6 German tanks and could only be halted with concentrated large bore cannons like the 88 mm flak gun. But this could not be rotated fast enough or set up quickly. Mainly the dive bombers had to be called in if the weather was clear.

[@vaughanerwin7195]

@@Jakez408 I own a t34!

[@robertgonzalez2669]

@@vaughanerwin7195 cool deal

[@Jakez408]

@@vaughanerwin7195 I don't think you have ever driven it. U need to belt the gearbox with a hammer because Stalin ordered the driver needs to wield a hammer in case a german opened the turret hatch and he could belt him in the face. It was an important design priority of the T 34.🤣🤣

[@vaughanerwin7195]

@@Jakez408 how much do Russian trolls get paid you know nothing

[@floriangeyer3454]

Most soviet tanks had no radios.

[@FelixstoweFoamForge]

Well over 1000 T34 were lost in '41.......Best medium of that time, but by no means invulnerable. For one thing, poor heat treatment left the amour brittle, which was prone to cracking when hit.

[@csjrogerson2377]

I am unconvinced that the title has been proven at all. All the T-34 did was to prove that the Germans needed better tanks than the P-IIs, & P-IIIs and the P-IV needed a better gun. Tank warfare (Doctrine and Tactics) remained much the same. The statement that the T-34 changed the design of tanks and that the P-V & V I were designed in response to the T-34 is utter crap. Both German tanks were in design before the T-34 was encountered. The P-V had already identified the need for sloping armour and wider tracks.

[@AndrewC.McPherson-xf5zw]

Ob strum oder schient

[@michielstam8775]

If copied the germans would have had the same proplem gunner/commander

[@albertwolanski7688]

You can't copy Russian tank, how would you recognize your from enemies tanks?

[@billballbuster7186]

German tanks were not the unstoppable force the German propaganda machine made them out to be. It was artillery and the 8.8cm Flak.36 that stopped the Soviet tanks, luckily for the Germans the Soviet T-34 and KV tanks were fielded in small numbers. The T-34 did influence German tank design with its sloped armour, but the Panther was larger and much heavier, the same weight as the KV.

[@kamata93]

And then the Stugs came out and wiped the floor with everyone

[@5co756]

The early t-34 was a very cramped design , poor visibility and had no radios . The Germans had radios in every tank , they could coordinate their attack or fire at one tank . While the t-34's were kinda a one man show , this is how they beat them . There were not that much Flak 88 to push them back , this is nothing for a fast attack .

[@billballbuster7186]

@@5co756 Excellent communications was the single factor that allowed Blitzkrieg to work. I agree on the T-34 being cramped, not very ergonomic and relatively primitive.

[@jonnyblayze5149]

Really? Ask the whole of continental Europe, I would have to say they'd disagree. And about the armor.......So, the French influenced the Russians with THEIR sloped armor. What's your point.

[@jonnyblayze5149]

And guess what it wasn't just the 88 that "stopped the Russians" the Panthers 75 had better penetration then the tiger l's 88.

[@edlexvalencia9177]

❤❤❤ The AXIS & Nazi Forces, Panzer Tanks, Hitler's attacked Russia (USSR)! Hitler's attacked SOVIET UNION, 1940-45! GERMAN EMPIRE occupied Russia, 1945 to 1990! 🎉🎉🎉

[@antasosam8486]

For one correct statement there were two false, sorry.