The over-rated (early!) T-34

This is a compantion piece to the one by Military History Visualized at • Panzer III vs. T-34 (f...
The T-34, rightfully, is one of the icons of WW2, and one of the most successful tanks ever built. It did not, however, have the most auspiscious start to its career, and though in modern culture it is viewed as a wondrous design, it didn't have anywhere near the impact against the Germans and their Panzer IIIs as common knowledge would have us believe. There are reasons for this, one of which is the design of the vehicle itself.

[@jamesmortimer4016]

You missunderstand the design intentions. The T-34/76 has sutch a small turret to leave no room for doubt in stalin

[@daveybernard1056]

nice

[@s3dchr]

Oof... *misunderstand, such

[@vitvarg1]

@OptimalOptimus50 Not as terrible as your lack of humour

[@captainangel1078]

@OptimalOptimus50 Ah, I guess we have the joke police, policing jokes which is a subjective medium.

[@OleDiaBole]

In Belgrade military museum, we have one of early versions, that survived entire warand made it to Belgrade. It was Soviet propaganda move, to prove its nonexisting quality to future western youtuber.

[@the51project]

'Oh my God, the Comments Section is on Fire..."

[@jandersuf1]

^^End comments now, we have a winner

[@thedungeondelver]

*gets snagged on hatch coaming* "Bugger."

[@alexc3504]

OH BUGGER THE COMMENTS SECTION IS ON FIRE... With T-34 loving fanboys. Lol commie sons of bitches.

[@vincee7389]

I made it out of there really quickly xD

[@TheAKgunner]

ABANDON COMMENT SECTION!!

[@lllFeanorlll]

A negative take on the T-34? RIP Wargaming career.

[@hyperiongm330]

They don't care, it's not their glorious napkin paper Soviet high tier heavy tank.

[@nikolajsivanovs3547]

wargaming shits on the sovjet tanks so thats why he works for them

[@phil20_20]

T-34 was an excellent use of American technology.

[@artankayd]

@@phil20_20 you wish... day dreaming I see.

[@wazza33racer]

BLASPHEMY I SAY!!! /sarc

[@MrRikersBeard]

Bold words for someone in gulag range.

[@tomstokoe5660]

He better start running a geiger counter over his potatoes on a regular basis, putin doesn't play.

[@MinecraftWithPAPike]

only good commie is a dead commie

[@Lehr-km5be]

Only people who live under commie rule are in gulag range

[@tomstokoe5660]

@@Lehr-km5be Still in polonium range.

[@Lehr-km5be]

Just dont get any habits, any person skilled in intelligence knows that routine is one of your worst enemies. Thats why you dont get your coffee from the same place everyday

[@25xxfrostxx]

As a testament to unreliability, the T-34 shown at 1:39 has a spare transmission strapped to the engine deck because they knew it was probably going to break in short order. I have seen this in quite a few photographs of Soviet tanks at the time.

[@bootymeat5875]

nice catch!

[@poggywoggy1999]

nope that the only t-34 that ever had a transmission on its back (as far as we know)

[@kodinamsinh1267]

yes, thank you for telling me what the video says in the caption

[@avrivah1101]

You will find this is also true of modern Russian tanks.

[@ricardokowalski1579]

the transmission on the deck is evidence of both the reliability problem and the logistics bottlenecks. If you have to haul around a transmission as dead weight into combat, then your maintenance and logistics are also unreliable regards.

[@hernerweisenberg7052]

like you mentioned, the german optics of that time where really impressive. i found a german artillery/flak sight in a partially caved in garden shed at my grandmas place some time ago. i assume it layed there for many decades, since it was all covered in rust and after cleaning up every metal surface on it had deep rust pitting, heres what really impressed me about it: the optic is still crystal clear, the side to side adjustment still works fine, up and down is frozen into place tho. it also has an illuminated reticle for night use. it is some variant of an Rbl F40, im still trying to figure out what weapon system it was used for as its not a standard Rbl F40, if there is such a thing, but so far had no luck completely identifying it.

[@hernerweisenberg7052]

@John Cornell yeah, its hard to make out the engraving on the side through that rust pitting, but i believe it says "blc" wich was the factory code for zeiss

[@hernerweisenberg7052]

@John Cornell im not sure yet, its a nice thing but i might sell it for the right price and to the right guy, maybe some americans have the weapon it was desinged for in their backyard and are looking for the original scope for it ;D i believ now it was used for some kind of shortrange field howitzer since it has a range indicator scale on the side, going from 5 to 70, probably 50 to 700 meters.

[@hernerweisenberg7052]

@John Cornell here is a link to a very similar but not quite the same scope: www.lonesentry.com/ordnance/rbl-f-40-artillery-sights.html

[@lumox7]

Each Soviet tank came with an official Soviet hammer. For transmission gear changes and downshifts. The People's Hammer Factory was the first one moved to the Urals. One errant bomb on the hammer factory and the war would be lost.

[@Aethgeir]

Is that true? It sounds ridiculous, but Soviet Russia WAS ridiculous.

[@jackvernian7779]

@@Aethgeir not true

[@tplyons5459]

The T-34 was secretly made at the Number 9 Locomotive Factory in Karkov. They got it moved followed by the FED Commune which made cameras, microscopes etc.

[@derekk.2263]

No, they'd just just distribute the mark 1 gearshift rock instead.

[@lumox7]

@@Aethgeir Not true. The joke is the T-34 needed a hammer to get it to go into gear. But it didn't need a sickle.

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

great idea for a video ;)

[@supercjs6044]

owo

[@supercjs6044]

Prepare for angry and opinionated people.

[@tigercat418]

I don't clean Jewish street Stones

[@tracycullen143]

@@supercjs6044 to

[@tracycullen143]

Paul oppppp

[@PSGE7]

I was a tank commander on an M48A3 tank in Vietnam. They were extremely effective in the infantry support role there, particularly since such a wide variety of ammunition was available for it's main gun.. (The M-73 coaxial MG was horrible, though) Will you ever do an analysis of this vehicle?

[@GeekBoy03]

Seems you would be the better candidate since you are experienced

[@3347861]

One can't overestimate the value of training. With at least serviceable equipment, a well trained soldier makes a world of difference. I spent years behind an M-16 and its variants. Long distance hits are the norm. Hand that same rifle to a newbie and watch the frustration...... Thanks for another great video!

[@roger5555ful]

I've hoped more people would realize that training is everything,but as good the soldiers are, they need good leaders and the soviet union had few of them at the beginning

[@allangibson8494]

Neither can you undervalue the importance of actually having fuel and ammunition for your tank. The 1941 Red Army had neither. A typical Russian tank had a quarter of the ammunition that they were designed to carry. The Red Army in 1941 was a logistical nightmare (but no-one was going to tell Stalin that). Basically Russia had quadrupled the size of its army without ordering extra supplies....

[@Shantykoff]

@@allangibson8494 "not telling" Stalin about that would lead to bad things, not "telling".

[@allangibson8494]

@@Shantykoff Telling him you had failed was bad, having him find out was worse. The Russians became masters of obfuscation at this point - padding numbers in reports became standard, the results of this came home to roost forty years later.

[@Shantykoff]

@@allangibson8494 source? Immagination?

[@StutleyConstable]

Sloped armor goes all the way back to Leonardo da Vinci's design. Also, the CSS Virginia is an early example of very effective sloped armor on a vehicle.

[@AmazingAce]

Sloped armor was even used on knights armor to deflect arrows, sloped armor isn't just some magic thing the Soviets invented.

[@Ben.....]

How much of that was happenstance and how much of that was deliberate planning?

[@AmazingAce]

@@Ben..... Very deliberate considering they chose sloped armor over comfort and visibility.

[@StutleyConstable]

If you mean the CSS Virginia, I think it was all deliberate planning. I'm sure they were angling the armor with the intention of deflecting cannon shot. If you are talking about the armor worn in the Middle Ages, a lot of the design was an effort to keep the weight down while providing protection. It would not be unreasonable to assume, therefor, sloping was mostly happenstance. However, we know certain helmet designs were intentionally made to deflect the strike of projectiles and blades. A pig snout bassinette is the clearest example I can think of. I am no expert, though, so you might want to ask someone like the Metetron or Shadiversity.

[@matthewnunya8483]

Wasnt the css merrimack the first ironclad with sloped armor?

[@od1452]

To ramble a bit...Many T 34 cmdrs actually drove the tank because they could control where it went more easily , they felt it was the safest crew station and left the hatch open a bit to aid in vision.They could button down if needed but many didn't because it was faster to bail out with an unlocked hatch. Drivers survived more than other crew members.They also felt they were pretty safe as they were closer to the ground. The Air cleaners ( at least up to 1942) were horrible and an engine was usually wrecked after about 200 miles. The armor (1942) wasn't treated well and so was weaker and created more weight than if it was treated to western standards. The Transmission made it a bear to drive and the starter was weak. The turret drive was bad and the teeth would break off. These are just a few of the problems that come to mind. So as you say , the early T 34s had under rated problems ( by modern aficionados .) But as you see later, improvements and training make it into an effective weapon. The Sherman is terribly under rated . It was very reliable and that is the most important issue for any piece of Army equipment. How many tanks can roll out to combat on any day.? Even the Russians gave it its due eventually.

[@chevysuarez7306]

Ynow I cant help but feel that half of our misunderstanding of these tanks came from that top ten show that the discovery channel used to air

[@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized]

well, so much for that sürprise :D

[@MrGreghome]

When are we getting Military History Reenacted ?

[@pinkyfull]

@@violettray2679 bit rude

[@user-qj6lj4iq2b]

You’re fucking comment makes no sense this video was made a day ago

[@TheTorakka]

I'd like a medication that eliminates emotions so people who have no control over them or opinions made in the effect of emotion would have a chance to finally get what scientific research means. All scientist seem to be dicks to the people who seek for emotional confirmation/co-operation from a person that does only Data and Fact. It's like computer coding. You will get the error message until it is right. No emotions involved. Cry me a river. Call me a Dick. I'm a cat person.

[@MRrealmadridRaul]

@@violettray2679 Just curious since, how come the hate for MHV?

[@bradjohnson4787]

Human factors should always be included in any assessment of a weapon system. Good job.

[@looinrims]

Why? It’s an assessment of the weapon system, not the guys using it

[@phosophorus8622]

​@@looinrims A weapon is no good if you can't use it well. If we're keeping to theme here, the T-34 did have good armor early on and a fairly capable gun, however as Mr. Chieftain here has said the conditions for the crew were terrible and each crewman was often very overloaded. Because of this, they were not able to do their jobs effectively and could not put the armor and gun to good use, and so the vehicle suffered thusly. Not to mention that an experienced crew will likely do better in a vehicle than an inexperienced one. The guys using and their ability to use the weapon system do make a difference in the vehicle's performance and so they should be considered in an assessment of the weapon in question.

[@looinrims]

@@phosophorus8622 uh huh, that’s a criticism of the training regime, not the weapon The weapon in this case btw is dogshit, happily it fought an enemy that spent only 6% of their resources into armored vehicles and served a nation that while not fielding logistics trucks, its allies were happily giving hundreds of thousands of logistics trucks to it But the morons running it aren’t the weapon systems fault, well in this case it is cuz the service life of the T-34 didn’t allow any kind of training since the parts would all break but you know still

[@phosophorus8622]

@@looinrims I guess so, but the point here is that the guys operating the weapon should not be completely left out, as they always will have some influence on the overall vehicle's performance. Sometimes the vehicle simply won't let them do well, other times it's the crew that let down the vehicle. It just depends. Going back to the T-34, the early models were horrendous with their setup, overloading the untrained crew and just not giving them very much of a fighting chance. But I also think it's safe to argue that if the crew were trained and had experience with it and knew what the vehicle was like before being issued with it, they likely would have done much better in it, no matter how bad it really was. Now that I'm thinking about it though, I believe we're thinking of two totally different things here. Analysis of a weapon based purely on its paper stats (ie. gun penetration, mobility, armor, etc.) vs. considering and including all the factors that would attribute to its overall effectiveness in a war. So because of that, debating this isn't going to go anywhere, and I'll leave it at that.

[@hetzer5926]

Not just how well people could use it, but also how well it was made. Cause damn, the T-34 had a lot of issues with production. Most was because workers were just handed welding tools and told “go weld that tank” More times than not the welds would break during combat and the tank fell apart.

[@PanzerPicture]

For the people that don't get this Premiere video, it's a new feature of KZbin that let's you know a release date and let's you chat with the creator. So the only thing redeeming of this new Premiere Feature of KZbin is the Chat option and if the creator doesn't join in, it's pointless.

[@brunor.1127]

This shit is horrible PP It is like Hey a new chieftan video! Fucking premiere... Wait you aren't dead?

[@lkchild]

Have you seen the video by Scotty from “Strange Parts”. Careful what you search for, but hes a good guy who built his own iphone. He tried Premiere and posted a video about how badly it went wrong. Be careful.

[@PanzerPicture]

@@brunor.1127 it's a big cock tease option, and was the question directed to me? Because I did not know I was dead XD.

[@cleanerben9636]

so it's a not-live stream?

[@lwilton]

It's very dead stream. Or maybe stillborn stream. It's "hey, I'm going to release a video called "X" in ten days! Let's chat for the next 20 minutes about something you haven't seen! There is no video when the chat is live.

[@chemiker494]

Too many times I had to read about the T-34 being that Wonder Weapon, like Stephen Sewell's "Why three tanks", where its detractors were simply jealous of not having invented it themselves. Thank you very much for kicking them right where it hurts

[@superuser3969]

Chieftain's hatch Panzer IV. Please

[@MrGreghome]

Abrams

[@das_edelweiss8736]

Ikr, I really want him to check out German vehicles.

[@laxcatthesleepycat2688]

Isn't the panzer 4 review been out for like 6 years o more?

[@das_edelweiss8736]

Andrés Der Sleepy yeah but it was only like 7 minutes on the history and that’s about it

[@QuizmasterLaw]

There are so many Pz. IV variants that it would be easily a couple hours. D, F, H, and then add in the various gun carriage designs Nashorn Hummel Jgdpz IV etc. oh yeah not to mention a Flakpanzer a Flammpanzer and then the Einhorn variant with Spruehregenbogen.

[@nomcognom2332]

7:46 "The all-around side had a 120º field vision which was fantastic!!! (If it wasn't obstructed by few other things)" xD

[@Palora01]

Love the video, wish you'd do more like this, or at least at more history of the vehicles you do inside the hatch of. Kinda how Ian does for Forgotten Weapons. What the crew thought of them, what the generals, how many were built and why, stuff like that to ground the videos.

[@the7observer]

Thanks for detailing the Christie suspension I tried finding pros and cons but couldn't find details. Is interesting to know the Germans faced T-34s from the beginning.

[@jasonharry645]

Thanks for the explanation, and explains in part the very heavy losses in 1941 to the point of essentially no tanks left. It must of been a tough life as a Russian tank crew in the early stages , brave men indeed.

[@frilime1710]

Thank you, please make more videos like this. It felt to be not biassed toward either of the sides and that made it really enjoyable for me.

[@tonymirarchi]

Seriously, thanks Nick. Even if the average person gets to see a museum we don't get to see the inside of the tank. Love this channel.

[@ultrablue2]

A very good primer video about the T34, I look forward to the next one about the later models. Will a discussion of the T34s used in Korea be a part of your analysis? I’ve heard mixed reviews of them from that war facing Shermans and Pershing’s.

[@megamihestia4049]

Knowing that there is a new video coming is nice, knowing that there is a 7 days wait is not very nice.

[@donaldparlettjr3295]

Love that you have your Cav Stetson. I got out in 1990 and I still have mine and I cherish the bugger. GO CAV !!

[@richpurslow3283]

could you do light tanks comparisons between some of the nations? would be very interested to hear what you have to say on the topic. Keep up the good work too btw, always love watching your vids.

[@gaustadtpanzer3606]

Love hearing about this kind of stuff! Really looking forward to something about the Pz IV. It seems everyone over looks this tank too much. It's one of the rare few tanks to pre date the war, survive the war(with upgrades, some good, some not so good) and was the workhorse of the German army. It seems the Pz IV got lost in the mammoth shadow of both Tiger and Panther tanks, which is kind of sad to be honest.

[@selfdo]

FWIW, General "Schnell" Heinz Guderian, who became the inspector-general of the Panzers, detested the "Big Cats", believing them to be overly large, expensive, over-engineered, hard to maintain, and generally troublesome in combat. He felt that the Panzer IV was all the tank the Panzerwaffe needed, or at least could sustain.

[@riccofernandez3130]

​@@selfdohe was most probably right lol

[@pedrofelipefreitas2666]

​@@selfdohe was right, except for the fact that the panzer iv was really slow to build. If they had created a better panzer iv, with a faster production, instead of balooning the weight it would probably be a great tank. The panzer iv ausf. G is probably my favorite german tank, good ol' (not so) reliable.

[@chelseachelseaboy]

Any Chieftain video is worth waiting for.

[@vanguardactual1]

Great Videos & Content as always Chieftain. Thank you

[@richarddixon7276]

Simply fascinating !, when the Chieftain speaks I listen , his opinion's are of course personal but born from genuine knowledge & experience and therefore valid and objective excellent , My one complaint ? I wish this episode was longer ! not a fault simply a matter of requirement within remit and perview . Thank You for imparting these facts , history was never this much fun at school !

[@thomaslutro5560]

I've always thought the greatest thing about the T-34 was the sheer number of them. At least considering the production capacity they had.

[@bbcmotd]

No it was actually a brilliant design

[@thomaslutro5560]

@@bbcmotd Oh yes! But in the IKEA sense, if you understand what I mean. Brilliantly designed, to a price point where someone buying his first home can also afford all the necessary furniture. Not meant in a negative way at all, just a result of prioritising numbers over that last improvement in quality.

[@specialweapon935]

@@thomaslutro5560 yea and was a smart decision for the attriotional war the Russians found themselves, where numbers are very important

[@calebr908]

Very fast turret rotation compared to German tanks, but the actual reload speed was poor.

[@looinrims]

@@bbcmotd a brilliant design that was discontinued with the T-44 lol, Soviet fanboys are a crime against information

[@wigon]

Great overview of the early T-34. However, one that I would LOOOVE to see is for you to do reviews of modern tanks especially some of the newer Russian tanks like the Sprut-SD airborne anti-tank/assault gun system. I'd be extremely interested in hearing what you think of such concepts in terms of practicality on a modern battlefield from someone who was a tanker on the modern battlefield. Likewise since you operated in an urban-combat environment in Iraq, it would be fascinating to hear what you think of dedicated urban combat tanks like the Russian BMP-T Terminator. As a former U.S. Army man (Corp of Engineers), I've often stated that it was a mistake to do away with the M728 CEV as it would have been fantastic in Iraq in an urban environment if updated with ERA and a bit of extra passive armor. It's snub-nosed cannon would have been excellent in terms of not hitting buildings and walls in tight streets and alley-ways. It's massive 165mm demolition gun likewise would have been fantastic for knocking out buildings in a very precise manner that would have minimized collateral damage. Sadly current M1 Abrams based CEVs removed the demolition gun which I think was a huge mistake. Given your experience Chieftain would you agree?

[@DC9622]

Looking forward to these, I recall the operation think tank videos, number 3 from memory and the impact of the T34 on the German tank strategy. Interestingly, the notification indicates 3 videos, would I be correct in thinking 2 are to come on the T36 76mm. Off to rewatch OTT video 3.

[@alekseev4715]

Sir, thank you for the video. It would be amazing to see a clip covering T-34-85 and, possibly some more models (eg. 57 mm).

[@TheChieftainsHatch]

I do have an Inside the Hatch on the T-34/85

[@gssheriff7278]

Whomever has the better trained crew will always take advantage of the situation. Germans early in the war knew how to operate their tanks even when going against better tanks.

[@vulturnuszan]

I believe one of the main factors in early performance of the T34 vs the Germans was that the Germans had radio communications and the T34 pilots were communicating with flags... add in experience and tactics. Which tank was actually better didn't matter so much.

[@yidingliu8663]

Not a man of tanks but love how you mentioned the myth of 'inventing sloped armour'. Sloped armour has existed as early as armour itself. Ships have been using them since the end of full-conforming wooden ship and most of the tanks considered 'unsloped' usually have at least some parts in slope. The problem really is 'where to' rather than 'if to'. And the T-34 is better desicribed as 'designed around sloped armour as a concept' than something akin to 'first one with sloped armour'. In the end, most later tanks kept the frontal slopes but eliminated the side slopes, something hardly surprising. Different from, say, ships, which can more comfortably angle their main belts and bulkheads, tanks can hardly afford to lose the raw protection in the front.

[@christopherjcarson]

Well done to the Chieftan and the production team for this informative lecture!

[@ARCNA442]

Now I really want to hear your thoughts on what made the T-34-85 so much better. Have you considered doing a video on the armor of the Korean War? That's a subject where I haven't seen much real discussion and it compares the T-35-85 and the M4 directly.

[@imperiumbrittanica8414]

Basically: a larger turret, and that’s a lot You have a larger gun that have a chance to take out the panther and tiger, and you now have enough room for a three men crew in the turret, so that you are finding targets much faster and engaging them faster, and the crews generally sits comfortably in the turret, though the driver is still uncomfortable cuz the hull isn’t larger compare to the earlier T-34s also soviet crews are much better trained in 1944 in comparison to those tank crews earlier on There are other minor changes such as better quality, thus more reliable and stuff

[@hetzer5926]

Almost everything on the T-34/85s were better than the T-34’s. Primarily production quality though. T-34’s had a nasty habit of falling apart when shot, literally. Sometimes they were welded together so poorly a shell would hit the front and the side panel just kinda fell off. Sometimes the armor would just shatter on impact, sometimes both. Sometimes the damn thing didn’t start, so much so Stalin was worried that the tankers were trying to sabotage their vehicles so they wouldn’t have to fight. The crew couldn’t see out of the tank for shit. There’s one story about a German at-gun, I think a pak-37 or something like that, shot a T-34 about 37 times until the thing finally turned around and tried to run the gun over…and missed. The T-34/85 had a few of these problems, the shattering was still an issue, but the welds held, and the crew were able to see out the tank, and the armor was even thicker so honestly, and you could actually get the damn thing going. the 85 was leaps and bounds better than the 34. The 85 was on par, and sometimes better than the Sherman. But not the Firefly, that thing kicked so much ass Tiger Tanks feared it.

[@benpeltola1364]

Tell that to Gaijin.

[@Fortress60]

This is really good, a marvelous and informative chat. More please!

[@MrFluidwill]

Great video, I didn't mind the wait and got a little pop up on my phone when the video did go live so had a pleasant user experience. PzIIIL has been one of my favourite tanks all the way back to my Squad Leader days.

[@barrylucas505]

I love this man's lecture voice...love the subject too

[@johnmarks227]

The Russian repair documents say that the majority of the rounds that knocked out t34's, were from the 50mm round used in the anti-tank guns. That same gun was also in some tanks the Germans used.

[@randyburks3004]

I wish you could put out more vids like this one at a bit faster pace ;) great vid loved it

[@dominicmauro7203]

great video buddy please make that t34-85 vs panzer iv f2 video you were talking about at the end, thanks!

[@lkchild]

Just wait for all the comments. To summarise, “my favourite tank was better than your favourite tank because reasons”. Followed by many replies of “I agree, that’s also my favourite tank”, and “No, my favourite tank is something else, and it was better for reasons”. None of these reasons will actually stand up to scrutiny, so lets kick this off well. Bob Semple fans - Assemble! Way better than T34 because the corrugations deflected incoming fire. Not a single unit was knocked out in combat. In other news, I’m actually quite looking forward to this video :)

[@alexc3504]

@Jimmy De'Souza Bob Semple was New Zealand's prototype for a tank. It wasn't made from proper armor plate, and instead used corrugated sheet metal. The armaments had I think one or two Vickers machine guns but don't be afraid to fact check that I'm going off my memory and even I don't trust it. This was done in the 1940s and is really just a joke of a vehicle. I don't think it would stand up to a Vickers 6-ton or a Ha-Go. At least those have cannons.

[@sirshotty7689]

You know the only reason they didn't go through with the Bob Semple was because it is considered a weapon of mass destruction

[@princeofcupspoc9073]

The Semple, being a super tank, was too expensive to build. There just weren't enough of them. I mean getting enough dilithium crytsals for the warp drive was a nightmare.

[@sirshotty7689]

Princeofcups Poc and also jumping between the warp and realspace requires massive amounts of space for the warp engines only the Tog 2 could hold. (If you're gonna use Star Trek references, I'll use 40k refrences)

[@ricardo3760]

The Bob Semple was such a devastating weapon that it was banned by the Geneva convention. It's also the only reason we haven't been invaded by aliens and been slaved yet, they know they won't stand a chance against the Bob, a weapon so powerfull that millions of people die simply by the airpressure from it's engine.

[@AlexanderSeven]

"Loader/Commander" - sounds like a problem description.

[@lordbaal4371]

Loader/Commander/Gunner if you're French. :D pfft, who needs a crew.

[@DrRich-mw4hu]

Well presented, thank you for the clarification 🤔👍👍

[@mcoke]

I've got that same Abrams model was really good value when I got it about 18 years ago... (I feel old)

[@Tcuel]

Please don't use this "Feature" of youtube... The only thing it says is well here is a video that you would like to see. But you just have to wait for it. Most of the time not knowing another video will come is way better

[@Shepard_AU]

It’s probably still being edited (given that it premieres in 7 days), which is why this feature may exist (though other KZbinrs don’t seem to use it properly)

[@Septimus_ii]

@@Shepard_AU I think you can only premier it after it's been uploaded, or as it's being uploaded

[@philbyrd5561]

He might be getting paid to do it? and if he can earn a few more bucks, to make more videos then Heck Yeah

[@Sammakko7]

Tcuel wrong

[@Igunaq]

Imagine how cluttered youtube would be if every second video in my feed was a premiere. I'd barely be able to find a video to watch in the present moment

[@Zamolxes77]

Pz III was a battle tested tank, veteran of 2 years of fighting in 1941, its teething problems were gone. T-34 was fresh off the assembly line, they barely had the time to test anything.

[@panzerfaust5046]

So the turret lacked room because of the gun, the hull lacked room because of sloped armor, and more room was then taken up by the suspension. It sounds like the T34 was cozy

[@cgross82]

Nice analysis! Very informative.

[@Myuutsuu85]

Finaly someone who uses his mind. Thank you.

[@WildBillCox13]

Sweet! I love these collaborations!

[@onewhosaysgoose4831]

11:10 The germans did start sloping their side armor on some of their late war projects. Panther had sloped upper side armor, but the section was small. The king tiger also used sloping on its upper side armor, albeit a pretty gentle angle.

[@richarddixon7276]

The angle of "effective !" slope is also dependent on the location , distance and elevation (angle) that the adversary's projectile is propelled from .

[@TheScorpionStrike]

People always talk about the three principles of tank design being armor, mobility, and firepower. I'm coming to the conclusion that there's really five of them: armor, mobility, firepower, communications (as put forward by Harry Yeide in Operation Think Tank), and ergonomics.

[@tankolad]

The three big principles of tank design simply describe the three necessary traits of any tank. Every design solution implemented in a tank should contribute towards these three aspects. If not, then it is superfluous. For example, communications and ergonomics have an effect on mobility and firepower, and armour protection has an effect on ergonomics and mobility. Tank silhouette size has an effect on protection and ergonomics, and engine size has an effect on armour.

[@dougstubbs9637]

TheScorpionStrike Availability, most important!

[@fulcrum2951]

I remembered there's a t 34m tank that was in development at the time equipped with improved armor, torsion bars and a proper 3 manned turret and it was planned to replace the existing t 34s with the 2 manned turrets Unfortunately Barbarossa has caused some issues to it

[@anthonyirwin6627]

yeah, it's what the Chieftain called the T-34M, and what Wargaming puts in WoT as the A-43. It was, as you said, a somewhat shorter T-34 with torsion bars, a bigger model 1943-esque turret complete with a cupola reminiscent of german ones, way more space inside, and the intent of installing either the original 76mm F-34 or the anti-tank oriented 57mm ZiS-4.

[@zebradun7407]

You have opened the Pandora's box of Russian indignation, be strong TC!

[@tomn.9879]

I enjoy your videos. I’d like to hear comparisons like this for modern tanks. I kept glancing at the Abrams during this video.

[@fancymcclean6210]

Great to see some much needed balance in the debate given by an intelligent ex-tanker with practical experience. Flaxen Saxon

[@arn_ice]

Interesting topic. The Panzer III is, imo, rather underrated/-estimated by many (at least depending on the timetable of the war, when the 50mm wasn't nearly enough anymore and such (or the PzIV's 75mm was far more favourable)).

[@tigara1290]

Would the much wider tracks of the T34 give it a noticable advantage over the Pz III in mobility over mud, snow etc?

[@MrDportjoe]

I enjoy these videos as a guy who spent his peace time army enlistment keeping TOW and Dragon systems up and running. You aint lived till you lose you grip on the lifting springs while working on the m113 TOW mount!

[@chuckvan1568]

Good information. Looking forward to the next one.

[@_Matsimus_]

KZbin PremREEEEEEEEiere

[@sting2death2]

A wild Matsimus has appeared ! :D

[@deptusmechanikus7362]

@@sting2death2 a magnificent creature in his natural habitat 😁

[@ushiki2212]

One of my favorite KZbinrs who points out errors of NOT ONLY Russian and eastern tanks BUT ALSO western tanks. Literally every other KZbinr channel post bias.

[@fabulouskarstodes1798]

hey chieftain what about the kv1 was it an efective tank?

[@jeroenstrompf5064]

Refreshing! Thank you

[@interdictr3657]

Please more content like this would be great

[@williamk1060]

The T34s were great tanks, if you didn't have to drive them far, and you parked them in a position where the gun can be slewed to a location where the enemy is expected to arrive with no surprises.

[@MarkSynthesis]

Another good, clear explanation from The Chieftain. It's sort of common sense, early tank models were pretty rubbish (including the original M4 or god help us, the M3s before it that even the Chinese described as particularly flawed), and the war gave us a tank arms race the likes of which has never been seen since as far as I know. The T-34 was no exception (and on top of that hey were a small fraction of the overall Red Army tank inventory--they were vastly outnumbered by older, poorer armed, poorer protected like the T-26 which, to its credit, had excellent reliability at least even if it was no match for the enemy). On top of that, the pre-war USSR was racked with material and technology shortages that were poorly or utterly unaddressed that couldn't have helped build quality. Plenty of countries had lots of interruptions to armour development, the USSR was definitely not an exception.

[@selfdo]

This is a great point. AFV production, in numbers, reliability, maintainability, and technical features, is very much an indicator of the overall economy and industrial capabilities of the nation making them.

[@alexissolaris]

Hey is there any chance we could see an "Inside the Hatch" video for the T29 tank? I know there's still a few around. Or maybe the T28/T95?

[@MrJayuk88]

Really informative ...thanks 😊

[@mangothecat2390]

*Stalin wants to know your location*

[@wmd202]

11:50 Christie suspension had an upper weight limit for the tank, as the tank weight tonnage kept going upwards the Christie drive system couldnt cope. Plus Stalin held back upgrade and fixes for the T34 in order to keep the production going to churn out as many as possible

[@Bialy_1]

"Christie suspension had an upper weight limit" contrary to every other typeof suspension that have no weight limit? hehe Did you read that explanation in "Pravda"?:P

[@wmd202]

@@Bialy_1 Yeah I totally made that completely up thats why all modern manin battle tanks abandoned Christie system for the Torsion suspension for some mysterious reason.

[@deptusmechanikus7362]

6:59 i can't find a good source but i once read they ran out of ammo and tried to ran over the canon

[@olivergentschog]

I have a question about panoramic periscopes/sights on early panzer 4's (and maybe 3's). There are some pictures of panzer 4's with these periscopse equippded but I can't find any information about them. I heard years ago that some periscopes were developed in cooperation with the russians before the war but I don't know if this is true. Maybe you can tell more about this topic in one of your future videos. Keep up the good work.

[@therealkillerb7643]

Thank you! Modern "scholars" -armchair and otherwise - often believe Soviet hype without appreciating that "pravda" was a tool of the Party - to be adjusted as needed. Of course, all governments are guilty of this, to some degree or another, but the Soviets were masters of propaganda. Nice to see you provide some balance.

[@chaosXP3RT]

@algogy It's okay. I just found out from some Russian KZbinrs that the USA just massacred civilians and didn't do anything to fight the Nazis

[@piotrd.4850]

@@chaosXP3RT Russians are masters of rewriting history.

[@jakartagamer6188]

At least they make some good songs

[@Bialy_1]

@@chaosXP3RT Its because they were speaking about Great Patriotic War as they do not teach about Wolrd War two for one reason, before 1941 attack on USSR whole German army was using Soviet oil, tanks were made from Soviet metals and tank comanders were trained in USSR -> The Kama tank school (German: Panzerschule Kama) was a secret training school for tank commanders operated by the German Reichswehr near Kazan, Soviet Union. The school was established in order to allow the German military to circumvent the military restrictions on tank research spelled out in the Treaty of Versailles. Apart from Kama, for the same reason Germany also operated the Lipetsk fighter-pilot school and a gas warfare facility, Gas-Testgelände Tomka...

[@Jonsson474]

Piotr Dudała alongside their communist friends in the communist workers party of China.

[@ChaosPootato]

I can't believe how embarassingly on point your question is at 6:57... xD

[@lowesmanager8193]

@BalF The Chieftain is one of the most famous and well informed tank experts ever, I've even seen him referred to as "Tank Jesus." His status as a very well informed tank expert is undeniable and you have provided precisely zero evidence to back up your claims. Yes it's true that German AT guns were usually deployed in groups but that doesn't mean that they would never find themselves alone, in many cases they did. The T-34 had absolutely horrendous vision, not just by 1941 standards, but by any years standards. As The Chieftain pointed out the Panzer 3 and also the Panzer 4 had cupolas for the tank commander, and the driver also had more and better vision ports and the radio operator actually had a vision port unlike the T-34 bow gunner who was practically blind. The gun sights of the T-34 were also less clear than the German ones and ths driver's vision port was incredibly narrow. Why would the Soviets themselves complain about the lack of vision on the T-34 if it wasn't a problem? And why did the Germans weld cupolas onto all of the T-34s that they captured and used?

[@JazzJaRa]

When will you do a Inside the Hatch video on the PzKfW III? also would like to see one on an M18 Hellcat, we sadly don't have any M18 GMC here in germany :(

[@twopsycle9778]

The Christie suspension was probably the related to the sloping side armor, needing the room for the side profile of the suspension system, but not that much, hence naturally suggestive of sloping side armor.

[@Shatnerpossum]

The whole Soviet experience early war is being badly unprepared and trying to make do. They had the beginnings of a good tank, but it was just that. Beginnings. And without the time to hone production and equip enough radios and train crews, everything kind of stacks up.

[@roger5555ful]

Unprepared was an understatement more like woke up in the middle of the night after a day of heavy drinking and lack of sleep in the couple of days

[@Shatnerpossum]

Middle of the night is always when bad news comes, it's tradition. After drinking, that's just icing on the cake.

[@ThePointblank]

The Chieftain in this screen looks... surprised....

[@VRichardsn]

Nice video! It was well worth the wait. By the way, I have seen some stuff written by Nigel Askey that has similar conclusions to your own. Is it part of a source list of yours?

[@TheChieftainsHatch]

Can’t say i am familiar with him.

[@VRichardsn]

@@TheChieftainsHatch He is doing some interesting work in a statistical analysis of the Eastern Front, and Barbarossa in particular, that apparently has been endorsed by guys like Zaloga and Glantz: www.operationbarbarossa.net/# On the side, he has some small myth busting articles, and he arrives to similar conclusions to you when it comes to the T-34: www.operationbarbarossa.net/the-t-34-in-wwii-the-legend-vs-the-performance/

[@russwoodward8251]

This is a summary of things The Chieftain has hinted at in other tank talks. Good stuff.

[@toddreaker2298]

What's this? Early T-34's were just as unreliable as early Panthers? Say it isn't so ! 😂😂😂😂😂

[@arsnova1321]

The early Panthers were far more reliable. They had issues mostly with the exhaust transmission, engine, and exhaust manifold but that's because they were literally the very first production Panthers and the issues were quickly rectified after Operation Citadel. As opposed to the T-34, which by June 1941 had already been in service for over a year, had produced over 1200 units, and been widely supplied to units.

[@justforever96]

Yes, but the Soviets made them reliable and were pumping out thousands of them within a year. The Germans barely managed to make the Panther reliable by the end of the war and never managed make more than hundreds of them. The T-34s problems came from the engine anyway, while the Panthers came from bad design and selection of the final drive.

[@spartanonxy]

@@justforever96 No they never were reliable. Just so many of them and easy enough to fix that it wasn't a issue. Getting one to go 300km without breaking down completely was a miracle. But that doesn't matter when you have 3 more tanks for each lost and you can usually get the broken down ones back into functionality by the time the others have broken down. If you want reliable/easy to fix you look at the sherman. You want armored the matilda. You want fire power a tiger or IS-2. You want quick and dirty option to fight a war? Go with the t-34. You can throw someone with essentially no training in it and run it. You can run it till it breaks down and then hop into the spare that was brought up since they are so common. You can have people with barely any training pumping them out by the dozen. They are dead simple and were amazing specifically because they played to Russia's one real advantage while mitigating a whole bunch of disadvantages. It played to Russia's surplus of raw materials with a stupid simple design. So simple it was able to by quantity to deal with early logistic issues, it dealt with needing trained crews by being as easy to use as possible at the cost of performance and it dealt with the fact Russian guns rarely did as well as they could on paper by death of a thousand cuts. In summation it was a "okay" tank but what it did was play to what advantages few as they may have been and ended up leveraging it to make a extremely capable armored force.

[@chemiker494]

Actually the Soviets also knew all this, and had developped the T-50 as a counterpart to the Pz. III, with a three-man turret, torsion bar suspension etc. but only managed to produce around 70 of these, and instead produced thousands of early T-34 with limited usefulness, and thousands more of the even worse T-60.

[@Neuttah]

T-60s and 70s could be made in factories that weren't capable of producing the 34. Not sure about the T-50, but Wiki says it was designed at factory 174, which eventually made 34s anyhow. If you'd have to choose, another T-34 line is a better choice than opening one for the T-50, even if it wasn't the better tank. And frankly, I find the latter unlikely, even if the T-50 has a few neat features over the T-34. Hell, it's not like there wasn't a T-34 variant with torsion bars and a three-man turret, it just didn't enter production for fairly decent reasons!

[@roger5555ful]

Let's no forget that the situation on the front was a bit desperate the germans were literally plowing trough soviet lines so they needed numbers

[@ricardo3760]

I've read the book about Rommel's "panzer commander" Hans Von Luck, and it that book he talked about how much problems they had with the T-50's, they had to use 88's on them.

[@Neuttah]

@@ricardo3760 Von Luck was reassigned to Africa in January 42. For any units that wouldn't have gotten the 5cm yet, the 88 would've been the smallest gun after the 37 at the time.

[@spudeism]

Afaik T-50 was almost as expensive as T-34 and was more akin to a light tank than a medium tank and Soviets were at the time realised that it is waste to build light tanks, there is no good use for them. T-60 were mostly used recoinnassance vehicles. T-70 was bad to say the least but the chassis lived bit longer in the form of SU-76 which was more useful and liked even if bit difficult to drive.

[@Articulate99]

Always interesting, thanks.

[@f1matt]

Really interesting video. Thanks.

[@ivankrylov6270]

5:22 What historical document says that the t-34 has a Loader/ Commander? I've never been able to find that reference outside of forum replies or the occasional passing statement. All sources that I could find, English and Russian name the turret positions as Loader and Gunner/TC. Granted that's not how it is on US tanks, but it's not a US tank.

[@tankolad]

Chieftain is mistaken here. The gunner was indeed the commander and the loader was just the loader. It was a matter of rank. The TC had the highest rank, the gunner had the second highest, then the driver, then the loader, and then the bow machine gun operator. It would be highly unusual for the loader to also be the commander.

[@ivankrylov6270]

@@tankolad I believe that the Stuart had a TC/loader, but its a 37 so its not as big of a deal

[@Crosshair84]

I would like to know where they are getting this information as well. I have seen references to EXPERIMENTAL tests, where the TC was the loader instead of the gunner, but this was not adopted because it didn't improve the problems with a 2 man turret.

[@tankolad]

@@Crosshair84 Yeah. Another thing to mention is that the 360° rotating device is on the gunner's side of the T-34 hatch. It's pretty obvious that the gunner is the commander of the tank, not the loader.

[@TheChieftainsHatch]

You are correct. I’ve been mucking around with too many Stuarts recently or something. End result was the same, mind, poor situational awareness.

[@Manuelslayor]

They where blind could not shot fast the armor was bridle and wellded so bad you could shot the plates of if you could not penetrate. They where slow because the gearbox was unusable and thats before they omitted "useless things" like ammo racks, lights, hatch sealing, the glass in the periscope, the rubber on the wheels, the seats, the turret basket, half of the bolts on the rear, hardened steel gears in the gearbox internal radio and more, they where of course incredibly cramped and had the fuel fighting the germans together with the crewmembers. The power traverse of the turret was good but by omitting the hatch sealing the electronics would get showered so it was not working most of the time. I get the argument number over quality but the t 34 was no cheap tank at least not cheap enough to offset the losses even if we don't consider that more tanks require more fuel, ammo and logistics. Though they wanted to replaced gearbox not even 50% had the new one at the end of the war which was still bad anyways. Now most of these problems can be traced to one factory.......problem is they produced around 50% of all t - 34. So joust as they where only good on paper they only really got beter on paper.

[@hashteraksgage3281]

Yeah, I'm sure the most mass produced tank in history and the one that won ww2 was bad, because you say it :)

[@nichevo1]

Wish you could elaborate more on the comparison of suspensions

[@DeutschPorsche]

Lol I look forward to this, but not having this at the top of my feed for the next week.

[@nathanokun8801]

Sloping armor compared to just making the plate thicker with no added slope only begins to work meaningfully at over about 45-50 degrees from the vertical/side (depending on the angle direction and the size of the enemy projectile compared to the plate thickness), though it rapidly gives better and better results as the angle goes up from there. As was mentioned here, sloping causes decrease in the room behind the plate (head room), but it also has the problem that it is IMAGINARY added armor; that is, the added armor is virtual and not really there for any other direction but the angle you expect the enemy to fire from (like an optical illusion such as the ever-rising staircase that only works from one very tight direction) -- if the enemy can fire downward or sideways to decrease the angle, the armor addition is reduced or disappears completely. Thicker, non-sloped armor does not have this problem. Note how many modern tanks have reduced the sloping portions -- especially on the turret face -- since sloping does not give enough benefit unless you virtually eliminate any room in the turret, so thicker armor of very unusual composition must now be used, enhanced by reactive armor and other things to assist in stopping the enemy weapon.

[@bbbabrock]

I think you are right. And I think trigonometry says a 10° slope increases effective armour thickness by only 1% or so.

[@danielcervantes7826]

I cringe every time a history channel like "The Greatest Tank Battles" mentions the T-34 as being "revolutionary" for its sloped armor and "perfect balance between armor, firepower and mobility". Completely looking over issues like crew ergonomics, Blindness(T-34 crews were basically blind), Subpar performance of components like the optics and early air filters, and especially the internal space taken up by the Christie Suspension.

[@katyusha1283]

But the later variants does the job good.

[@danielcervantes7826]

The later variants like the 1943 model(with the cupola and simplified production) as well as the T-34/85 variant yes, its just that whenhistory channels mention T-34s usually they mean the early-mid war version which had the aforementioned problems.

[@Jaeger958]

Just look how many tanks soviets lost in the continuation war here in Finland against Sturmgeschütz III Aus G used by finns. Corporal Olof Lagus son of renown Major General Lagus was able to destroy (as a StuG gunner) 4 T-34 tanks in a minute. A world record.

[@katyusha1283]

@@Jaeger958 Production of the Stug III G started on 1942. And production of the T-34 started in 1940 (after the winter war).

[@joechang8696]

math problem for tank designers: suppose we want to protect 24" with 4" of effective armor thickness against a shell traveling parallel to ground. What volume of metal is require vs. slope angle? we could also factor in that executing generals and colonel's did not seem to do much for replacement commander initiative

[@crossfirerambo]

Chieftain, can you do a "history buffs" sort of version of the movie "Pentagon Wars"? Just watched it, be interesting to see your take on it