Was the T-34 Really the Best Tank of WW2?

Download World of Tanks PC for FREE and use the code TANKMANIA to receive the Excelsior tank and other rewards by clicking this link: tanks.ly/3s3FBPe
T-34: An armoured legend. Learn who created this legendary tank, it's long road filled with different and difficult challenges, from defeats to victory. The iron fist of the Red Army, the T-34 became one of the synonyms for the victory in WWII, paving the way for the modern battle tanks yet having a very humble start even before WWII.
Become a Simple History member: kzbin.info...
Support us on Patreon: / simplehistory
Copyright: DO NOT translate and re-upload our content on KZbin or other social media.
SIMPLE HISTORY MERCHANDISE
Get the Simple History books on Amazon:
www.amazon.com/Daniel-Turner-...
T-Shirts
teespring.com/stores/simple-h...
Simple history gives you the facts, simple!
See the book collection here:
Amazon USA
www.amazon.com/Daniel-Turner/e...
Amazon UK
www.amazon.co.uk/Daniel-Turner...
/ simple-history-5494376...
/ simplehistoryyt
Credit:
Created by Daniel Turner (B.A. (Hons) in History, University College London)
Script and Animation: Aleksandar Djokic
Narrator:
Chris Kane
vocalforge.com/

[@coleman4840]

I must admit the animation quality has gotten a lot better. Solid work!

[@potatoeyboi]

I was thinking the same thing!

[@moa1846]

The channels animation got progressively better through the years

[@maritesssalboro3524]

Yeah, it looks more higher quality

[@La_Pucelle_dOrleans]

New series?

[@thunderstorm4306]

True i love the way they did the tank

[@GrimpakTheMook]

A thing about durability: Soviet studies investigated how much was the average life of a tank in the front lines. The result is that the T-34 was built to be as reliable as possible around said average. No need to build something that will be reliable for 10 years when it probably won't last 1 year, or less.

[@FLJBeliever1776]

The Soviet study in that regard was far more in depth. They found a Tank might last around 6 hours in Combat, be obsolete roughly 6 months before introduction, and would have an advantage that lasted roughly one year before something better came along to kill it. If I remember the layout of the study conclusions correctly.

[@NoobNoobNews]

@@FLJBeliever1776 They did take it seriously, also they made it so that the tank could be repaired with simple tools and improvised parts. if you couldn't fix it with a hammer, it wasn't worth fixing at all.

[@thunderbird1921]

Interesting you pointed that out. During the Korean War, that was apparently the case. The T-34s that the Soviets had supplied to the North Koreans were mostly destroyed in the first 6-12 months if I remember correctly. They dominated light American tanks in the early weeks, but when modernized Shermans, new Pattons, and ESPECIALLY British Centurions arrived on the battlefield, the T-34 quickly lost its edge. A lot of World War II tech was rapidly fading in effectiveness by 1950. To some extent, that Soviet military study was proven correct here.

[@FLJBeliever1776]

@@NoobNoobNews - God help you if you lost that really big wrench all T-34 Tanks needed.

[@FLJBeliever1776]

@@thunderbird1921 - The M4 Sherman wasn't really modernized for Korea. Refurbished yes, but very little was actually done to update them. The US Army had the M26 Pershing and M46 Patton. Both were better Tanks with 90mm guns and thicker armor. Though M4 Sherman still had a good war in 1950-1951. The Soviets had intentionally supplied obsolete Tanks to the North Koreans. The KV-1 had its last hurrah in Korea for example. Amazing any had survived that long. The T-34-85 was obsolete in 1945. The T-44 was online as was IS-3 with T-54 becoming available in numbers by 1950. So with no room left for upgrades, the T-34 could be expended.

[@brianschwatka3655]

Best joke I have every heard applied to both the T-34 and the Sherman. "The Tiger tank was as good as seven T-34/Shermans. The problem was there was always an eighth."

[@jblsc08]

Hahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahaha

[@user-yz9ko1yj2e]

Ну, на самом деле конкретно Тигр - та ещё хрень, с точки зрения стратегии. Медленный, не такой уж неубиваемый как надеялись немцы, а главное он имел кучу "детских болезней" вроде шахматной подвески, застывавшей намертво после ночи в русской грязи (грязь каменела в колесах), двигателя способного загореться просто так, малого запаса хода и т.п.

[@KillingfalkONroblox]

Well, certainly didnt help when the Sherman Easy 8 /E8 came.

[@michaelpielorz9283]

even the nineth was no problem because usually they preferred to ran when Tiger roared

[@thegothhistorian3336]

There is the black baron who was able to take out an entire armored division of 15 tanks with just 3 under his command

[@Zztoph]

They were not the best tanks of ww2. But they were simple to produce and easy to operate and repair. It was a huge advantage over German tanks.

[@polar8469]

T r a n s m i s s i o n

[@invidatauro8922]

Ah... They were not easy to repair. At all. They usually weren't repaired, you'd just get a new one. If you didn't die form the massive fire that started that you probably couldn't escape. They were easy to produce. Especially if you took out minor things like: Seats. And radios. And Rubber. And working transmissions. And didn't properly weld it. And didn't properly rivet it. And gave it a shelf life of 500 km.

[@imper818]

They were the best tank for the UdSSR at that time and thatsthe important part

[@madhie-kun8614]

and EXPENSIVE

[@polar8469]

@@madhie-kun8614 the tigers? Yes

[@jmanj3917]

Nice video, but I can't believe you didn't mention one of the Germans' biggest advantages against the Soviet tanks; that is, the Germans all had radios in their tanks; The Soviet Union did not. So the German commanders could communicate from the safety of their armor, while the Soviets had to expose themselves out the tops of their turrets, and hope that they were seen while using flags for signaling.

[@eldridgedavis]

Thanks for that information I didn't know that.

[@RedCommissar]

I think later on they equipped themselves with radios

[@bbcmotd]

@@RedCommissar Yeah, initially only the squad commander would have a radio, later on they added radios to all tanks.

[@eageraurora879]

Not to mention that German tanks also had optics so the commander wouldnt have to open the hatch to see around the tank. British churchills didnt even have that ring of optics

[@Henry1500G]

And they forget the best variant of the tank the T-34-85

[@edrickang2338]

Considering how hyped this video is, I’m surprised that the late war variant T34/85 never made it into this video.

[@prathyushareddy9404]

Or the T-34/100 and T-34/57 possibly

[@carronade2456]

Yeah, they didn't talk about my favorite variant of the T-34.

[@azimisyauqieabdulwahab9401]

The most tank in history

[@cameronnewton7053]

Hopefully, they will make a part 2 of the vid. It wouldn't be surprising due to the tanks crazy long history of the tank and the sheer effort that goes into making a video like this ( the worst bit would be the animation).

[@Playliste1975]

To be fair, most of the work was done by the 76's, they were there till the end of the war.

[@Maxim89Il]

My grandfather was a tank commander in the Soviet Army in WWII, including the Battle of Kursk. Thank you for this video!

[@KakennRi]

really?! what tank did your father command?

[@CsImre]

The armor of the T-34 had a high Brinell rating, meaning it was very hard. This was advantageous in defeating antitank rounds of caliber equal or lower to the armor’s thickness but had the disadvantage that it could lead to spalling. Combined with manufacturing flaws in the construction of the tank this meant that the T-34’s crew was often in danger even when hit by tank rounds that did not penetrate the armor. The study ‘Review of Soviet ordnance metallurgy’, p3-5 says: ‘The armor components of the T-34 tank, with the exception of the bow casting which was unheat-treated, were heat-treated to very high hardnesses (430-500 Brinell), probably in an attempt to secure maximum resistance to penetration by certain classes of armor-piercing projectiles even at the expense of structural integrity under ballistic attack.’ ‘The quality of the armor steels ranged from poor to excellent. Wide variations in production technique were indicated; some rolled armor components were well cross-rolled while others were virtually straightaway rolled………The bow casting of the T-34 tank was very unsound and would have been rejected under American standards.’ ‘Shallow penetration, poor fusion, severe undercutting, porosity, and cracking was observed in most of the welds and probably resulted from improper manipulation of electrodes which might not have had suitable operating characteristics….. These obvious defects, together with low strength and pour metallurgical structure of ferritic weld deposits, indicate that the welded joints would have poor resistance to severe shock.’ ‘The results obtained from the metallurgical examination of these early world war ii Soviet tanks have been described in some detail since they are exactly the same as have been obtained from all examinations performed since then of Soviet tanks which were recovered in Germany after the end of world war ii, and on Soviet tanks which were captured in Korea during 1950-52. The Ordnance Corps has examined several Soviet JS-II which were found in Germany and several Soviet T-34 tanks from both Germany and Korea.’ 'Some of the armor steels have surprisingly high toughness considering the very high hardness levels but many of the armor steels, even the softer ones, are very brittle.’ ‘The very high hardness encountered in most Soviet tank armor has caused much unnecessary concern regarding the relative ballistic performance of the hard Soviet armor and the softer American armor. Many people associate high hardness with high resistance to penetration. Although this is true, within limits, in the case of attack of armor by undermatching projectiles (i.e. caliber of shot is less than the tnickness of the armor) particularly at low obliquities of attack, it definitely not true when the armor is attacked by larger caliber shot at higher obliquities of impact’

[@daianerviti3563]

You mean 500 Vickers*

[@musicloverandclassicalmusi698]

A 32-minute documentary, superb animation, and great dialogue? This is definitely Simple History's magnum opus so far.

[@ekparatrooperfilms9668]

The animation is so smooth and detailed

[@MrGab1.0]

It could have been better if it was cgi graphics

[@1911Zoey]

@@MrGab1.0 Ya but it wouldnt be simple anymore is it? The simplicity and style of animation gives this channel its charisma.

[@ekparatrooperfilms9668]

Exactly

[@MrGab1.0]

Ill look into that

[@kholeka8475]

@@MrGab1.0 CG is overrated

[@nocturno7660]

4:07 I love how that tank just slowly drives back xD

[@mymumdroppedmeinthewomb367]

Its been an absolute pleasure to watch this channel and its associated channels grow and improve in every way over the years, more content and also higher quality and more detailed than ever, keep up the awesome work guys!!!

[@kadentam2946]

I love the improved animation especially at 6:10 I really enjoyed the time and effort put into this grand beast of a tank 21:42 is also great, the visual representation makes so much more sense I can stop fanning over this video, 24:26 and it's representation is so clear and makes so much sense

[@kurudo6432]

the representation seems like a collaboration with wargaming. similar graphics to their old videos, if I remember correctly.

[@vegitoblue5000]

That is true, but "simple history" could do more than just "simple" designs, especially of people. It literally proved that by the immense detail found on the animation of the tanks and how it moves. If only the animation for people were as good as that. Even if they can't do that, the bare minimal they could do is at least make the faces and overall design of well known people be better. Stalin was literally a copy and paste of the person before him, if you could make a 30 minute video with a lot of detail on the tanks, then you could do the same for people. That is all I have to say for now.

[@nottiramisu]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/jWq0h4SsfLimgas

[@gmx0413]

5:32

[@wanekiacook9257]

Simple History has come along way in telling History in Animated form. I am happy to say I have been watching them for a long time and I am proud with how far they've come. Keep up the amazing videos!

[@koalasevmeyenkola9105]

i feel the same way.

[@claytonpactol8851]

First video from them I watched was on Desmond Doss.

[@zdenekhrdy9919]

He can lie now too

[@brandonly27]

I really appreciate the length of this video. It's much better than the 5 minute vidoes you normally post.

[@teodoziagalchin7765]

Losses during the war amounted to almost 45,000 T-34 tanks! The total losses of the Soviet armored forces in 1941-1945 amounted to 96.600 units of armored vehicles. This is not a typo. Almost one hundred thousand. (Not taken into account the lost tanks received under the Lend-Lease)

[@zloy8324]

Не стоит забывать так же.. Что у СССР было очень много легких танков такие как т-60.. БТ . которые засчитаны в эти почти 100 000.. А потери бронемашин Вермахта которых было уничтожено более 25000 нет.. Странные подсчеты? 😊

[@teodoziagalchin7765]

Однако, три корпуса из шести практически находились в стадии формирования, и только 4-ый, 8-ой и 9-ый механизированные корпуса могли рассматриваться как вполне боеспособные соединения[6]. В их составе числилось 1 515 танков, что более чем в три раза превосходило количество противостоящих им немецких танков с пушечным вооружением. Кроме того, в составе этих трех боеспособных корпусов числился 271 танк типов Т-34 и КВ, которые не только намного превосходили по вооружению и бронированию самые лучшие на тот момент немецкие танки, но и были почти неуязвимы для штатных противотанковых средств Вермахта. Результат - ПОТЕРИ 2648 танков против 186 танков немецких. За 15 суток войны безвозвратные потери составили: 4381 танк из 5826. Потери немцев к 4 сентября 1941 (1-я танковая группа Клейста): 222 машины ремонтопригодных + 186 безвозвратных. Странные подсчеты? 😊

[@teodoziagalchin7765]

На 22 июня 1941 года в составе всей немецкой Группы армий «Юг», в районе наступления которой состоялось данное сражение, было 728 танков, включая не менее 115 не имевших вооружения «командирских танков» Sd.Kfz. 265[4] и около 150 танков, вооруженных 20-мм пушками и/или пулеметами и (Т-I и Т-II). Таким образом, собственно танков - в общепринятом понимании этого слова - у немцев было 455 штук (Т-38(t), Т-III и Т-IV). Общее списочное количество танков в составе механизированных корпусов советского Юго-Западного фронта составляло 3 429[5] штук (кроме этого, некоторое число танков имелось в составе стрелковых дивизий фронта).

[@zloy8324]

@@teodoziagalchin7765 конечно странные..вы имеете в виду сражение под дубно.. Таких массовых сражений всего 2 .. Еще Прохоровка.. Но счет идет за всю войну.. И тут очень интересный момент.. Почему потери Германии считают только по январь 45.. Почему не считают технику такую как БТР например.. У СССР вообще их не было .. Функции разведки и сопровождения выполняли легкие танки .. У которых броня была 15 мм.. А как же танки союзников? Италия.. Румыния.. А французские танки? Вот и вырисовывается картинка уже другая..

[@teodoziagalchin7765]

@@zloy8324 Ну да. И ещё 11000 танков по ленд-лизу. Да ещё 7000 единиц бронетехники? Вот и вырисовывается картинка уже другая.. Да, французских танков было аж 297 шт с 47 мм пушкой бронетехника СССР - ресурс 72 тыс: потери 37 тыс

[@RippinBeefers]

This is by far one of the best videos released by Simple History. Id love to see the same type of thing but with all of the "big three" main fighting vehicles during WW2.

[@nottiramisu]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/jWq0h4SsfLimgas

[@TimDutch]

It isn't a very accurate video though :)

[@goose1291]

Yup

[@calthepeacelovingclover5935]

Hitler: "How can they possibly make that many tanks so quickly!?" Stalin: "Haha... Work force go screee!"

[@peter4210]

Workforce: *working in the middle of a battle*

[@lasombra1469]

*Quantity over quality mode enabled*

[@alifio2183]

@@peter4210 not so fun fact= an arms factory in stalingrad tested their weapons by shooting out of the factory because the germans were literally next door.

[@alejandroelluxray5298]

@@alifio2183 safe to say they prooved their effectiveness very well

[@Mr0_0Gaming]

@@alifio2183 how to say hello to your Neighborhood By stalin

[@davey7452]

There is no such thing as a perfect tank, the T 34 was an effective tank for its time with armour armament and manoeuvrability but a lack of radios and inexperience crews reduced its effectiveness during the early fighting on the eastern front later upgrades and battlefield experience greatly improved it. My favour story on why they won involved a German anti tank gun defending a position the Russians couldn't out flank it so they had to do a frontal attack, they succeeded because the Germans ran out of ammunition before the Russians ran out of tanks.

[@flexprime2010]

lol nice anecdote :)

[@hetzer5926]

Bruh, the T-34 wasn’t even effective.

[@flexprime2010]

@@hetzer5926 yes, so ineffective the russians made 70 000 of them ;)

[@Steir12]

Yeah when you read german memoirs it is apparent that everything soviets has from rifles to heavy bombers was utter trash and decades beyond kraut engineering, and soviets only won because endless resourse cheats or something.

[@scorchclasstitan6727]

That’s , not really a good thing for either side . Moral does exist XD

[@HomingRocket1]

Putting the "What ain't broke, don't fix." philosophy into tank design. It was a well capable, all around tank.

[@user-ms9lv5sv5o]

Well? I am Russian. And we also have the expression: "Why reinvent the wheel?". As long as something works, and works well, you don't need to touch it.

[@josh05683]

Nah it wasn’t

[@vladcadar8557]

@@josh05683 you goofy ahh, this tank won the war

[@josh05683]

@@vladcadar8557 Tanks don’t win wars just as planes, ships, and guns don’t. Manpower and industry win wars. However, Ill bite, tell me what makes you think the T-34 won the war. I can’t wait to hear this “intelligent” explanation.

[@calmc]

WoT: "Historically Accurate vehicles!!!" Also WoT: *has hitpoints*

[@Cubingnerd1]

HII

[@tilengtr5747]

Yes, imagine playing a tank game that still uses hp

[@johnjiang487]

Hit points make any game unrealistic

[@tilengtr5747]

@@johnjiang487 Not if they are used in a way like in Escape from Tarkov which still uses hp but in a really advanced system with each body part having it's own hp

[@calmc]

@@tilengtr5747 it makes the game playable but only realistic enough, I wish they at least did that in World of Tank's tank models, they just made certain shells do more damage to certain tank classes if you don't hit parts where armor is "too thick"

[@Kenruli]

Seen two of these in a museum here in Finland. That tank is quite cool. It's fun how tanks feels so small in videos and Video games, but once you see tanks in real you can realy see how big they are. Edit: Location of the Museum: Hattulantie 334, 13720 Parola.

[@AudieHolland]

LOL, look at some WWI era light tanks and you're afraid to step on them and cause damage.

[@votpavel]

i never seen one, would be cool to really dudge the size of one in person

[@Kenruli]

@@AudieHolland yeah I have seen French one here in Finland. What was fun is that there was this very small tank too I believe it was Italian tank if im not mistaken but it was bassically small children chair with armor, tracks and Engine. Dont want to sound edgy or anything but almost every tank that was from Ww2 era had Swastika on the side, there were tanks like Sturmgeschütz III, Panzerkampfwagen IV, BT-42, T-34, T-37A, T-26, Vickers 6-ton and Renault FT-17. And that was only most Ww2 era tanks I saw in that museum there is cold war era and modern era tanks and other vehicles and some anti-tank gear. Theres also cool Castle and Artilerry museum close to that Tank museum.

[@aymonfoxc1442]

@@Kenruli You should change your name to Friendly Finnish Officer Kenruli cos you're so polite.

[@hdogg21]

@@aymonfoxc1442 I know, he’s such a soft luutnantti.

[@worldwarnerf4130]

It's been forever sense I've watched this channel. The animation has gotten amazing! Nice job!

[@benman540]

the quality control defects should really be touched more on. something like half the T34s made would fail before they even reached combat. it was a good tank, but the lack of skilled labor in the ussr really hurt the t34.

[@DrumsTheWord]

Superb content! Well done!

[@dumbass82748]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/moLaZapvjMyLmbM

[@nottiramisu]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/jWq0h4SsfLimgas

[@dumbass82748]

@@nottiramisu i clicked it but my inter net was slow so you failed

[@boratunastopmotion]

True

[@ramiroloria2185]

@@dumbass82748 I dont need to see the video, true chads know what the video is just by looking at the link

[@Sierra026]

One interesting tidbit about the T-34 design issues: often times, the large bolts connecting all the treads together would come loose as the tank was in motion. This of course threatened to cause the treads to collapse and fall apart, rendering the T-34 immobile. To address this problem, the engineers came up with a crude but effective solution: they welded a steel wedge near the rear sprocket! So any tread bolts coming loose would be pushed back into place by simple physics! Soviet engineering at its finest!

[@breckenhelsley4831]

Yep, that's where the famous T 34 clacking comes from! Pretty ingenious

[@beanie640]

So simple keep driving, sounds like Russian engineering to me.

[@hughquigley5337]

That’s fucking awesome lmao

[@turtlegamez4274]

That's Russian engineering in a nutshell. If it doesn't work, fucking hit it again until it does.

[@MrVidman14]

It’s so simple but somehow it’s genius

[@napoleonwilson3912]

Excellent video. The longer format is appreciated.

[@joshfritz5345]

Your animations have gotten a lot better, and more historically accurate.

[@jayr399]

It’s distorted propaganda.

[@DSMCasual]

Soviet Worker: “How many Tanks you need?” Stalin: *DA!*

[@maximiliankanaki7813]

Great job covering the history of the T-34 tank. One small gripe though, however - you didn’t cover the version armed with 85 mm anti-tank cannon and you can’t talk about T-34 without talking about the T34-85, the tank that everyone thinks of when they hear the name T-34

[@steur5693]

there is also the less known 57 mm

[@vampi-chan3793]

that's because the t-34/85 appeared very late in the war and it was the early models of the t-34 which did mostly all the job trying to stop the german army during all those tough years, so it is normal that when someone makes a video of the t-34 it is divided between the t-34 and the t-34/85.

[@StressmanFIN]

@@steur5693 Ah yes, the needler. Very good penetration, very fast-firing but so little 'oomph' behind every shell.

[@maximiliankanaki7813]

@@vampi-chan3793 I see the logic in that, so point taken.

[@crispedurchin6186]

The 85 was less common during the war than most people think and was only produced during the later points of the war. In addition the tide of the war had already been mostly turned by the time the T34-85 was introduced

[@Footalicous-tr3p7]

Thank you for making this. I used this video to research my entire interest project

[@CsImre]

Another major problem was the unwieldy gearbox. It had poor reliability and it needed excessive force to change gears, leading to driver fatigue. The study ‘Engineering analysis of the Russian T34/85 tank’ says: 'Rough steering due to the use of clutch and brake steering control, and Difficulty in shifting due to the use of a spur gear clash-shift transmission (no synchronizers, no clutches) and a multi-disc dry clutch, undoubtedly make driving this tank a difficult and very fatiguing job.’ Initially the powerful V-2 engine (500hp) could not be used to the fullest due to the 4-speed gearbox. Changing gears required excessive force on behalf of the driver. The T-34 could use the 4th gear only on a paved road, thus the max speed over cross-country was theoretically 25 km/h but in practice it was only 15km/h because changing from 2nd gear to 3rd required superhuman strength. On later modifications there was a 5-speed gearbox which allowed for a cross country speed of 30 km/h. However it seems that even vehicles built late in the war were not guaranteed to have the new 5-speed gearbox. The tanks given to the Polish People's Army in late 1944/early 1945 and those used by the North Korean Army in 1950 had the old 4-speed setup

[@bbb7452]

Its sort of strange that on one hand you hear how the germans struggled to beat the T-34 while on the other hand reports show that they took them out Day 1 of the war, even with 20mm guns which the T-34 should in theory be immune to. Some historians believe that it was infact the KV that gave the T-34 its legendary reputation. Some old german news reels talk about the T-34 while showing an image of a KV-1. Just like all german tanks was a tiger 1 to the americans, maybe the T-34 had a similar fate where it got credit for the KV-1's work. This sort of explains how documentaries and what not always claim that the germans had to use the Flak 88 to take out the T-34 while battle reports tells a different story.

[@deancorrigan1548]

Sounds like Russian propaganda

[@eemelianttonen8641]

Yeah best Tank in ww2 has the most losses... axis 1:5 soviet ratio ain't in my head a good ratio.

[@priestoffrogsandfatherofam8659]

@@projectdvan4568 that was most of t-34s built to 1945 not just early varients due to half or so, of t-34s being built in 1 factory which you can assume they had rushed some parts which they did including but not limited to. No seats mostly the hull mg gunner, no turret basket, no seals for hatches (water gets inside), wheels were mixed matched meaning tracks might break. You can't forget poor welding meant the armor can shatter even from non penetrating hits. As you stated

[@longshanks7157]

@@eemelianttonen8641 that was mainly down to rubbish Soviet tactics

[@captainbadassitude1845]

No, the T-34's were a mixed bag. Over half of them came from one factory that was told to pump them out as quickly as possible which resulted in _numerous_ cut corners that caused many Soviet tankers to die. The lack of spare parts also accounted for numerous T-34 losses as some crews had to abandon the tank when they could not repair it. In fact, the T-34 was kind of a terrible tank.

[@Frosty_tha_Snowman]

I don't understand how the animations can keep such awesome simplicity while continuing to gradually get more detailed, creative, and beautiful with every few videos. Seriously such an awesome channel.

[@hosybosy1119]

Ayo, i seen you around in the blitz community

[@Frosty_tha_Snowman]

@@hosybosy1119 lol yep, that is I.

[@FerRod2113]

I love this channel, with the animations, it always feels like I’m watching a movie while learning about some amazing history related stories and info

[@T-34-57]

Honestly this my most favorite tank other than the Panzer 4. Also, you might have forgotten one thing, during 1941-42, the Russians were thinking about putting the 57 mm gun on the 1940 version of the T-34, but it was scrapped (I learned this from a book about the T-34 and also the game, War Thunder). Other than that pretty cool video

[@the_defaultguy]

Attack the D point!

[@yeesssirr4848]

Attack the D point!

[@haltinsniperz0]

Never!

[@ChosenNomad]

Gramercy!

[@Wolvenworks]

WoT's T-34 also had the 57mm gun as an option. most people consider it the most decent gun to use, better than the 76mm.

[@Robbstark2024]

11:20 “even at point blank range, penetration was not guaranteed” Basically sums up my wedding night

[@gen169]

lmao that's a good one

[@flak8857]

lmfao

[@bbcmotd]

wait you're Rob Stark, your wedding night was... cut short

[@ATruckCampbell]

Yea man gotta up gun to a long 75 or the 88 to ensure penetration.

[@kingofcrimson4177]

Can we get a video on other tanks too? The M4 Sherman and its many variations come to mind. Excellent work!

[@Rakettihamsteri]

I know another legend, that can stop T-34. It's the good ol' Birch log. Hello from Finland :D

[@michaelhowell2326]

One would think the Germans would have caught on to the fact their rounds weren't having much effect on T-34 and started going for mobility or firepower kills.

[@giovannicervantes2053]

Blow off a track and find a way to flank it sounds like the best way to fight a t34

[@chiefmagua7160]

@@giovannicervantes2053 To successfully hit a track of a tank moving on uneven terrain is a virtual miracle.

[@giovannicervantes2053]

@@chiefmagua7160 indubitably

[@mjatriumxironreign8969]

Flank a tiger tank in its turrets on the side than u are safe

[@erichvondonitz5325]

clearly Russian bias

[@GuhTheBruh]

30 minute video, that must have been painfull to animate, thank you so much for putting time and effort into these videos

[@andreasdalsgaard3354]

These new animations are so good! Keep it up!

[@ritabloom4642]

You are putting so much effort into your videos. Great.

[@jamesdees4955]

Wow! 32 minutes?? Dang SH did a lot of work on this one

[@carronade2456]

This was a great video! Learned some new things about my favorite tank from WW2. I was disappointed you didn't cover the T-34/85 though. Maybe you can do a part two and talk about the Post-War uses of the T-34.

[@DerDop]

T34-85 was a late war version.

[@rihan364]

this channel is getting better after every video. Congrats!

[@harryjohnson9215]

I would like to see a video on the development of the Churchill. Half of tanks lovers in my home town say its their favourite tank because its built in the very town we live in

[@blank557]

Some considerations: It was the T-34 chassis that made it such a versatile tank. Good speed, and excellent ground pressure to weight traction in rough terrain and snow . The T-34 chassis made conversions easy--T-34/85, Su-85, Su-122, and Su-100, all good AFV's. Their proven design and simplicity made it possible to pump them out in the tens of thousands. Sure, the Tiger sand Panther were superior, but keep in mind there were never enough of them, and they couldn't be everywhere in the vast front of Russia. Besides, where theT-34's really excelled was committed fast and massive deep strikes to encircle and hit the German's rear, like a flood. They could perform the blitzkriegs they learned from Germans who themselves could no longer do with their heavier tanks, fuel shortages, and on the defensive everywherre after their last offensives at Kursk and Kharkov.

[@RedneckRapture]

You just shot the argument that the T34 is the 'best' WW2 tank in the foot. In terms of tank on tank, it is not the best tank. In terms of production, it is the best. In terms of losses to amount constructed, it's one of the worst. This subject is the definition of 'loaded question'.

[@blank557]

@@RedneckRapture The problem with it high losses has less to due to the tank itself than how it was employed. T-34's were foolishly used in mass armored charges that allowed the German AT guns and tanks to take them out easily at long range, and break up their formations. The Israelis did the same to the Syrian tanks at the Golan Heights, and the Syrians T-55's tanks were pretty decent. The Germans didn't do any better at Kursk with their Tigers, Panthers, or Elephants, or later in France at Mortain agasint the US troops. Montgomery lost hundreds of tanks in pointless frontal assaults at Caen. Now Rommel knew how to use armor, by employing AT guns screens ahead of his armor to fight the opposition tanks, then used his tanks for the purpose they were interned for, to mop up, out flank, and encircle the enemy. The Soviets used T-34's mobility to great advantage by sending a large task force of them deep into German lines to take out the Tatsinskaya Airfield, the last airfield supplying the German Sixth army at Stalingrad.

[@RedneckRapture]

@@blank557 A task that could have been done with lighter tanks. All your post has done is reinforce that the T34 was not the best WW2 tank. Again, in tank to tank fighting, the Germans had better tanks. The loss ratio shows that the T34 did not do well given the tactics used. The only thing it was best at was ease of production, which is why the soviets were able to keep up with such losses. The simple truth is there is no 'best tank of WW2.'

[@blank557]

@@RedneckRapture No, the raid on Tatsinskaya Airfield could not be done by light tanks alone. In fact, the raid would have been more effective, if they had not brought the T-70 light tanks. The Soviet T-70 light tanks only had two man crews, insufficient firepower, poor mobility, and used gasoline compared to the T-34's less flammable diesel. It complicated supplying both tanks with different fuel and ammunition. In any case, the day of light tanks ended when the Germans came up against the KV1 and T-34. You proved by argument that the T-34's did poorly becasue of the tactics used. The Tiger and Tiger II were defensive tanks. They could not lighting flank strikes due to their small range and susceptibility to braking down. The Tiger II were a liability trying to navigate on the narrow roads in the Ardennes. The T-34 could go where the German tanks could not, enabling them with the mobility to fight an offensive war.

[@morriganmhor5078]

And don´t forget the oil problems Germans had - as in Europe of that time the only oil wells were in Romania. Their tanks a TD´s often couldn´t move because the oil reserves ran low (and the same with their capital ships).

[@getgaijoobed6219]

7:38 damn they even animated the low slung L-11 correctly :)

[@padraigpearse1551]

Yess we need more full documetaries like this

[@generalsquirrel9548]

Amazing video like allways, keep up the great work

[@SpaceMonkeyBoi]

Fun fact: protestors once hijacked one during a riot.

[@gamingismynation1562]

It wasn’t a protester it was somebody in the Turkish army who drove a 234 he started it up because even on the battery was removed he knew that it’s a 34 has a gas operated starter so I didn’t need the electric starter so he did was he hopped in the tank and then started driving it around So rioters couldn’t hijack it and use it in the riots

[@gamingismynation1562]

At least I think that’s what you mean by protesters once hijacked one

[@jhasimmacalimpao1036]

Berlin Wall reunification?

[@zane5805]

True. Saw a video on that one.

[@nazeonrave2501]

@@gamingismynation1562 I know the story it was a guy who was in the Hungarian army and he was actually apart of the Protest turned roots but quickly stopped and dismantled the tank as he realized the crowd around him was too uncontrolled

[@vapingcat8923]

i like how over the years, every time I check on one of your videos the animation improves but I don't know how were going to top this

[@LichsuhoathinhDrabattle]

Amazing video. Videos of channel helps linking so many little historical anecdotes together and interesting✨😎‼

[@ricardoperez8879]

2:27 Me after that first shot did nothing to stop the tank

[@cheesegaming629]

These videos are so informative thank you for making them

[@wolfenstien13]

These are some nice animations. You went from 2d to a full-blown 3d animation house. What an amazing journey this channel is.

[@Randomfish2]

Simplehistory: stonks

[@JHACVader]

Exactly, I remember watching their vids back in 2019-2020 and having 2d simple animations to now seeing them use full blown 3d animations is a nice upgrade

[@echo8481]

This is the longest solo Simple History video I've watched, and I thoroughly enjoyed it.

[@CapitalTeeth]

What a lot of people tend to forget is that a shell does not necessarily need to penetrate a plate of steel to kill the crew, if not cause so much pain that they can't fight anymore. This is because of a little thing called spalling, which is when odd little bits and pieces of steel detaches from the plate as a result from an impact. Even an earlier model Panzer 4 with the howitzer was sufficient to kill a T-34 through spalling alone. But spalling doesn't exist in games like War Thunder because that wouldn't make for a fun game, so nobody thinks about it. APHE was not a good shell for the time because it explodes inside the tank like in War Thunder. It just caused more spalling because of the explosion.

[@AEWYU]

something he forgot to mention with bolting the armor together is that when molotovs were thrown onto one of these tanks the bolts left gaps inbetween the armor so if a molotov was thrown on a tank the flaming liquid would seep in and disable the tank

[@user-nf7px4ht9z]

Yeap. Apart from that rain, snow, mud, dirt and grease, all come in and damage the electric lines, cables, equipment. No use making your engine exhaust Molotov-proof when the crew can still take the damage, well spotted.

[@VisualdelightPro]

@@user-nf7px4ht9z yup that was the case at Krasny Bor, the Soviet Guards Rifle division lost most of their T-34s and brave tankcrews to Spanish Blau 250th Infantry Division Veterans of the Spanish civil war.

[@RussianThunderrr]

- Bolting armor together!? What tank exactly do you have in mind. Not a T-34 for sure.

[@Paludion]

@@RussianThunderrr Simple History was explaining the main methods of tank production during the interwar and early war period. Yes, the T-34 didn't have bolted armor, but a lot of tank developped during the interwar did, such as the Panzer 38t (which was a tchek tank produced for the germans after 1938), or the various tanks and tankettes used by the Italians. I don't have the time to search for it, but a lot of other tanks used bolted armor at the beginning of the war.

[@AEWYU]

@@RussianThunderrr the video literally mentioned armor being bolted, please check your facts before you say im incorrect

[@SlickCookie]

1:19 to skip ad

[@daveypanzermeijer7285]

Panzer V Panther is my favorite, love the style and his looks are awesome.

[@scamhunter2346]

I prefer Tiger I but Panzerkampf V is still good due to penetration strength

[@daveypanzermeijer7285]

@@scamhunter2346 true, but the Panzer 1 looks also awesome !

[@user-xl8pt4gl7d]

Thank you very much for this video! It is very educational and good to study both tank history and English at the same time =)

[@piercepayumo4212]

Tank: "Sir, it'll take ten tanks to destroy a single tiger tank." Tank Commander: "Then bring 12 Tanks, comrade."

[@infinitememegod]

Use more gun, if that don’t work, use more gun.

[@pyrobytee]

The 2 extra tanks are used as blocking detachments incase the tanks were retreating!

[@AlexMappingHD]

Or bring some IS-2's

[@FUT4RO_KOBAYASHI]

Third Reich:The Tiger can carry 92 shells Stalin: Ivan, bring 93 T34's

[@lasombra1469]

The USSR has more men than the Germans have bullets after all lol

[@crazymixture57]

Also forgot to mention how the Panther tanks were also a response to the T34's and KV's. Produced in more numbers than the tiger and whilst not the most mechanically sound German vehicle either. It was still more reliable than the Tiger. I believe it's arguably better than the Tiger.

[@jonhart7630]

The Panther wasn't meant to compete with the Tiger. They were meant to have different roles. The Panther was meant to be a replacement for the Panzer III and Panzer IV and take on the T-34 and other allied tanks. The Tiger was to be assigned to Heavy Tank Battalions within a Panzer division and to be called upon to provide additional firepower in a Schwerpunkt situation. However, the worsening situation of the war for Germany meant both tanks were usually called upon to fight adhoc without any consideration to their originally intended roles.

[@Chepicoro]

Nope...the Tiger and PzIV had availability ratios of 70%, the Panther in 1944 had ratios of 65% according to Thomas Jentz

[@ApostasyUnlimited]

Sorry, that's a common myth. The panther wasn't a response to Soviet T34s and KVs, it was already in development before the Germans ever encountered heavy Soviet armour. That said, they did accelerate the development process after encountering them (resulting in initial reliability issues)

[@jonhart7630]

@@ApostasyUnlimited It's true the Panzer V was already in development by 1941, but the T-34 definitely had an influence in the final design commission led by Guderian.

[@user_____M]

They weren't meant as a response to those, they were meant as a response to what the Germans believe the new generation of Russian tanks could be. They were OP compared to what they faced, I'd feel sorry for the T-34 tankers if they weren't spreading the most vile ideology the world has seen.

[@feeder117shindig9]

i love these vids. so much information and very intriguing

[@src6339]

Did you really spend 32 minutes shouting "NOOOOOO...." into the mic? man that is both hard core and totally called for.

[@Spitfiresammons]

Next video I’m hoping for is the Churchill tank. Very good history on t-34

[@anm10wolvorinenotapanther32]

This is very well done! It's nice to see that the now legendary T-34 is getting recognition unlike German heavies being so praised despite having little to no impact on the war. The T-34-85 going completely unmentioned is a questionable decision though as to why, perhaps the video is getting too long? This gives me hope that they'll remake their M4 Sherman video as their current M4 Sherman video is filled with myths such as: "American doctrine stated that the M4 Sherman is an exploitation vehicle and are not anti-tank" "Tank Destroyers like the M10 kill tanks, while the M4 Sherman kill everything else" "When it was first deployed to El-Alamein, the M4 Sherman is equal to the early Panzer IV variants" "The M4 Sherman is poorly armored" "Americans emphasized on mass-production rather than improving the M4 Sherman which is why it was obsolete by D-Day" "The true and best anti-tank Sherman is the British Sherman Firefly, not the M4A3E8 'Easy Eight' Sherman" I don't think I have to explain why such statements are false as anyone that hasn't been living under a rock knows already. It's about damn time the M4 Sherman got the recognition and praise it deserves

[@SCP--op2eq]

if ur careful enough with the repair cost

[@menotu3318]

I was quite sad about the lack of T-34/85 but it may be due to it being developed in the latter half of the war in 1944. I must say however that I highly dislike the Sherman tanks because of many many reasons including but not limited to the lack of gunpower, the thing is ugly as sin, lack of armor, and just being highly outclassed by many late war panzer IV-VI

[@annguyenlehoang7779]

@@menotu3318 but soviet tanker like it because compare to T34 sitting inside Sherman feel very comfortable

[@anm10wolvorinenotapanther32]

@@menotu3318 If you're being sarcastic, I'm very sorry. I'm horrible at detecting sarcasm in KZbin comments. And if you're reading this that means I made up my mind and posted this despite my doubts so here we go: "Lack of gunpower(firepower)" The Sherman's 75mm is the main anti-tank gun of the US Army at the start of WWII and is a medium velocity gun which outclassed the Panzer III's 50mm gun(the main anti-tank medium tank of Germany early war) and especially the early Panzer IV only armed with a short-barrel low-velocity 75mm which is only good for shooting HE shells. Panzer V and Panzer VI comparisons are highly one-sided as both tanks we're especially designed to counter the Soviet T-34, KV and IS tanks in the East and late war German doctrine favored small number of heavy tanks that can kill lots of tanks before getting killed rather than mass production of medium tanks which the Americans favored. It being outclassed by the Panzer IV is utter nonsense however as the only advantage the mid-late war Panzer IV really have over the Sherman is it's long range 75mm and commander cupola that gave the commander better visibility, every other category such as ease of maintenance, reliability, armor, crew comfort, ergonomics etc. are better in the Sherman. 76mm Shermans are readily available before D-Day but American commanders didn't see the point as the 75mm is doing an amazing job and didn't want to waste resources on training crews on a new tank, the tank being outclassed on Europe is the commanders' fault, not the tank. America also developed HVAP ammo for the Sherman which greatly improved range and armor pen but didn't developed it further before the war's end, a massive mistake. The M4A3E8 is the absolute best Sherman sporting a long barrel 76mm which solved all the firepower issues the 75mm is having in 1944-45 and better mobility and armor but was introduced rather late in 1944 which is why the majority of Shermans are still armed with either a 75mm or short barrel 76mm "Lack of armor" The Sherman has 3.6 inches of frontal armor, the Tiger 1 has 4 inches in comparison. What do you mean "lack of armor"? "Ugly as sin" Highly subjective topic, some people think the Sherman is beautiful and even 'cute' while the others think it looks like an obese lump of metal. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder Honestly, I'm starting to look like someone that simps the M4 Sherman more and more so I'll stop here, if you have any other thoughts about the Sherman's capabilities, check out this video by The Chieftain discussing all the myths and misconceptions about the Sherman ranging from why the Sherman was the way it was to nonsense claims such as "Sherman is a deathtrap", it's very well-made and he only uses official archive sources from actual American military archives: kzbin.info/www/bejne/mH_NoZJqn75rprs If you don't trust links because you think I'm about to send you on an inappropriate video, the video's title is "Myths of American Armor. TankFest Northwest 2015"

[@k-874]

@@menotu3318 "lack of gunpower", "lack of armor", "Highly outclassed by Panzer IV" *GODZILLA HAD A STROKE TRYING TO READ THIS AND FUCKING DIED* You must be one of the people that's been living under a rock that he mentioned in the comment. There's already a bunch of videos that proved these claims are false with historical and logical proof. Please explore outside the rock for sometime

[@harlander-harpy]

Lazerpig has a good video on the T34

[@paullakowski2509]

much better than this rubbish

[@terminusest5902]

The T-34 basic design had some good features. When it entered service the T-34 was possibly the best in the world. But the quality of production was low. The early T-34/76 turret was too small to hold a loader and had terrible ergonomics. They lacked many useful features. Most WW2 T-34s lacked radios and intercoms. On paper, the T-34 performance was good. But in reality, it was average to poor. The design was generally reliable but poor construction made it much worse. Like Soviet equipment, it was rugged, simple and easy to repair. If parts were available. The T-34/85 was a significant improvement. With over 50 000 built during WW2 it made a vital contribution to winning the war. But at a high cost. Loss rates of T-34s was much higher than Sherman tanks. One of the quality problems was inconsistent armor manufacturing. Many had strong heating to improve armor penetration. But with overly heating of the armor made it more brittle. That made internal fragmentation of the armor was more likely to hit crews and ammunition. Like the effect of high explosive HESH ammunition. This was a production problem, and not a failure of the design. . Post war T-34/85 production could have been built with much better quality and accessories. Such as with radios and internal communications, more optics and better quality armor. The T-34/85 with a loader could have greatly improved firepower with much better target tracking, sight acquisition, faster aim adjusting with follow-up shots, the commander's situational awareness, and reload time. Situational awareness is vital for tank crews. And good quality armor could greatly reduced casualties and ammunition fires. Much of our WW2 history needs to be checked by many countries to overcome significant post war misinformation, propaganda and poor research. The Chieftain does and other Utube historians are trying to find original documents to check what information is accurate. Translation between language is also a problem and there is a massive amount of history documentation that is not in English. The history of the Battle of Midway is a very good example of misinformation that is now being studied again from original documentation. Misinformation is sometimes intentional, but often poor quality research. Sometimes just historians wanting to simplify very complex events. Veterans are a rapidly disappearing source of WW2 information. But this can be unreliable when a soldiers view of the war is mainly from in a trench. Historic interviews is a very complex issue. Different soldiers from different trenches often have a very different view. In regards to trenches, is an example that can be applied with many situations. The views of a private and a general is another example of very different views of the same situation. Even with current events, this can be a problem for historians. And historians often have a different agenda. For some writers, it can just be written to be more entertaining or increase popularity. As well as cultural differences.

[@sir.sherman-8925]

My goodness, you have come a very long way. First your animations were simple then got more complex. I am proud, Mr. History. Your animation skill have gotten so much better.

[@jd.anyway]

I'm very happy for you guys, after all these years following your channel I can say this was an outstanding video! Fantastic work! Congratulations!

[@RSOxSPEC4x]

these animations are getting so much better with every new vid

[@nissan300ztt]

Ive seen quite a few T34s in person. And Ive literally seen T34s with massive gaps in Weld Joints. Place where a small 7.62 or even 30-06 round could pass through. So imagine a 75mm HV from the Panther could literally make the T34 a shrapnel fest. T34s were just so massed produced. There suspension was amazing thanks to an American Christie and his suspension the US Army didnt want. And the fact that T34s armor had an angle made it a tad more survivable.

[@yugoslavball1945]

This is definitely one of my favorite tanks right next to the Tiger II.

[@Latrine1999]

The Tiger II SUCKED

[@ncpdswordshielddivision2240]

@@Latrine1999 because of the IS-2?s

[@HerrZhukov]

@@ncpdswordshielddivision2240 nah bro, the maintenance issues and the fact that they were essentially designed to mop up Germany’s resources is what made it suck.

[@ncpdswordshielddivision2240]

@@HerrZhukov oh ok

[@Latrine1999]

@@ncpdswordshielddivision2240 No, because the Tiger II was an unreliable useless thing

[@felipefspb]

What an amazing upgrade to visual production quality of this most recent vídeo. I loved the new improved version with in-depth 3d animation. Good job guys! I'm a big fan of your channel.

[@gerbandnl]

Most of the t34 tanks didnt have mirror optics but polished steel plates. A lot of early t34 struggled to know where they took hits from. This was also bc the commander was the gunner even most of the t34-85's with the d5t cannon had a 4 man crew

[@tizi087]

not to mention that if they had glass plates those often cracked when they fired their OWN weapon

[@laernulienlaernulienlaernu8953]

You should do a video on the difference between WWI and WWII. Nations involved, number of deaths and casualties, areas of the world involved, weapons, fighting and tactics.

[@towarzyszbeagle6866]

Great video. I think it depends how you look at the vehicle. If you are just looking at fire power and armor in a vacuum then it's easy to think tanks like the Panther and Tiger 2 are the best. However if you look at it in terms of what makes a good tank for an army involved in a massive land war. Then things like range, reliability, numbers produced, ease of manufacture and ease of repair/replacement come much more to the forefront. In these aspects the T-34 and Sherman are basically neck and neck in being the best tanks of the war. I think the T-34 wins out here with its superior off-road performance but there is a very compelling argument for the Sherman being the best. Basically my view is the Germans had tanks which individually were monsters. But too few in number. The Soviets and Allies had tanks which were good enough to get the job done and available in great numbers. Which was all the difference in the end.

[@mitchspurlock3626]

"A Tiger could handle 4 Sherman's, but there were always 5"

[@Dr.KarlowTheOctoling]

@@mitchspurlock3626 The Sherman’s 75mm gun was enough to take out a Tiger tank in the right spot. It’s all about tactics to not get your armored vehicles knocked.

[@warbrain1053]

I mean the T-34 also had including angle, 90mm of frontal armor. More or less as much as a tiger -12mm. Even raw armor the first t-34s were as armored as heavy armor

[@revanofkorriban1505]

I disagree. The Sherman and Panzer IV were far better vehicles overall, taking into account factors other than just guns and armor.

[@warbrain1053]

@@revanofkorriban1505 panzer 4 was outdated. It is a mid 1930s tank in a 40s war

[@BasedBlackPrism]

Not even a mainstreaming service could deliver such a clear and cohesive documentary about a tank. Awsome Job!

[@Tutel9528]

Videos like this gives tankies so much confidence.

[@teodoziagalchin7765]

The T-34, which was being tested at the Aberdeen Proving Ground, was built at the best Soviet factory, materials of the highest quality were used, but its engine stopped working after 72.5 hours. This did not happen due to American intervention - a Soviet mechanic (engineer Matveyev) was seconded from Moscow with the tanks, who was responsible for operation. The quality of these tanks was much better than that of conventional tanks as it covered a distance of 343 km. According to Fedorenko, head of the Red Army's armored vehicle department, the average mileage of the T-34 before major repairs during the war did not exceed 200 kilometers. This distance was considered sufficient, since the life time of the T-34 at the front was much shorter. For example, in 1942 it was only 66 km. In this sense, the T-34 was indeed "reliable" because it was destroyed before it could break.

[@billwilson3609]

The US engineers surprised Matveyev by showing him the blueprints for the T-34 transmission that the US Army still had on file. It was an agricultural tractor transmission that the Army rejected in 1921 for being too primitive to use in a tank. The engineers also knew that the T-34 engine was prone to overheat and seize-up. They found that the water and oil radiator tubes barely touched the fins since those were held in place with a dab of solder and not soldered around the entire tube. It also didn't help matters much with the radiators positioned directly above the exhaust manifolds. Cooling air was pulled in from the vents on the side of the engine deck and blown out from a vent above the transmission. The rear vent could be closed off with adjustable louvers controlled by a lever inside the fighting compartment. The engineers noticed that the lever could be nudged closed by vibration without being noticed by the loader.

[@simplicius11]

@@billwilson3609 "The US engineers surprised Matveyev by showing him the blueprints for the T-34 transmission" Nonsense, that was the KV transmission.

[@konservendose3239]

the factory workers where lazy and didnt built the tank as planed. they improvise and let parts away

[@invidatauro8922]

@@konservendose3239 I think it was less laziness and more "Build more tanks or front lines for you".

[@ATruckCampbell]

@@invidatauro8922 Either make something for the front line or be the front line.

[@gaufrid1956]

An excellent video about what is probably my favorite series of tanks from World War 2! The ones with the 85 mm cannons were superb!

[@carlolavanda4794]

Wonderfully made episode about a legendary tank. Animation quality is superb, I can tell a lot of work was put into this. Keep it up!

[@dwaynevenzon643]

2:00 my 2.3 realistic battles experience

[@peterszar]

I'm kind of weird in the sense that I seem to find the little inconsequential things. Take for example, the bogie/road wheels. They show the rubber tire, and the detail showing the hollow tube structures that allowed flexing and also made them quieter. Pretty cool video.

[@drewburt4315]

This is the most informative documentary on the T-34 I have seen, particularly with details regarding their construction. Very much worth watching.

[@Chunchunmaru01]

A very well made and throughout video on this legendary WWII tank! I would really enjoy the same type of quality and lenght videos about more legendary WWII vechicles like the M4 Sherman, Panzer V and ofcourse the Tiger!

[@Its_Katyusha232]

I still love the story of how when Stalingrad was invaded tanks where still being built and driven from the factory straight to the front line a few blocks away it’s like a top down multiplayer game when your land is being attacked and you send your factory’s to build vehicles and tell them drive to the fighting here

[@billwilson3609]

The crews didn't have to wait long either for a tow back to the factory for repairs since those hastily assembled T-34's would often break down before they reached the front lines.

[@Mortablunt]

That sounds like StarCraft games where I literally make zerglings during a defense because I’m not sure my sunken colonies will hold. I’m somewhat related note if you get a bit of forewarning or the attack takes a long time it’s possible to create a trio of ultralisks with time to spare. Because the AI tells units to prioritize other units over structures they will get targeted by your sunken colonies continue to wallop away on the attacking force with 40 damage a hit. Assuming they survive you can then order them to attack all the way to the enemy main base, not that they’re likely to succeed on their own, but because it’s absolutely hilarious and crazy effective to punish a failed assault with destroying part of their tech tree or killing their workers, and they are one of the few ground units with enough durability to inflict meaningful damage while ignoring enemy attacks.

[@dogwoodhillbilly]

This however isn't true. The city of Stalingrad had no power so any attempts to repair or build T34s would have been dubious at best.

[@CsImre]

The T-34 had limited internal space due to the sloped armor in the front, the sides and the back of the vehicle. There were fuel tanks in the engine compartment and at the sides of the hull. The presence of fuel tanks inside the fighting compartment made any penetration of the tank likely to lead to the complete loss of the vehicle. According to author Steven Zaloga in ‘T-34-85 vs M26 Pershing: Korea 1950’, p23: ‘Armor data provides only part of the picture of a tank's protection. Other factors in assessing the vulnerability of a tank include the internal arrangement of fuel and ammunition. The T-34-85 is a clear example of the trade-off between the benefits and drawbacks of steeply angled protective armor. Although the T-34's sloped sides reduced the likelihood of the tank being penetrated by enemy projectiles, it also led to a decrease in internal hull volume. In the event that the T-34 was penetrated, the projectile was far more likely to produce catastrophic damage among the fuel and ammunition stored in such a small space. The side sponsors of the T-34's fighting compartment in particular contained fuel cells that if penetrated could lead to fire and the destruction of the tank.’ Apart from the limited internal space there were two more serious design flaws. One was the lack of turret basket (a rotating floor that moves as the turret turns) for the loader. This meant that the person loading the shells had to follow the movement of the gun and at the same time keep an eye on the floor so he doesn’t trip on the spent casings. The other major issue was the two-man turret which forced the commander to also act as the gunner. This drastically limited combat performance as the commander could not focus on leading the tank but instead had to engage targets. A three-man turret was finally introduced with the T-34/85 in March ’44.

[@alastair9446]

Considering they made 57 000 during the war, I doubt a full vehicle loss is not such a big concern. With a Tiger tank with 1300 produced that is a big problem. And combat preformance doesn't matter when you outnumber the enemy which makes up for the extra work load.

[@haydenagnew]

@@alastair9446 with more tanks you need more men and trucks to operate and maintain the tanks you also need more ammo and fuel and food for the extra men quantity isnt always better than quality...not saying the tiger is the best mainly because it struggled to even get to the battle never mind fighting in it

[@sarawilson3423]

It's annoying how T-34 are hailed just because of sloped armour not battlefield efficiency

[@randyproduction8056]

This is the nicest and highest quality video from this channel to date. Very nice work, keep it up!

[@zenboi9004]

4:03 I like how the other tank reverses after the first tank got shot.

[@williamchupin4842]

thank you for the code and the video the video helped me understand more

[@therealpatrickstar8778]

Could you do a KV series like this?? That would be awesome!🔥

[@justinhough3169]

Great work on your animations! Really improving your channel, we all appreciate the extra effort you guys are giving

[@harry3338]

My granddad used to drive a tank like this in the Hungarian revolution in 1956.

[@billcutting6287]

Really good and detailed video! Thanks!

[@TinKnight]

One interesting thing I noticed early on in the video... you mention the T-34s deployment coinciding with the Sept '39 German invasion of Poland... but you ignore the Sept '39 Soviet invasion of Poland--as part of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact--& especially the Nov '39 Soviet invasion of Finland. Both saw how ineffective the BT, earlier T-type, & the KV tanks were on rough terrain. It was the lessons learned there that made the T-34 design so effective (even if the rushed manufacturing compromised some areas).

[@Blank55600]

The animation quality has definitely gotten better over the years. Good work guys!