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

[@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.

[@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

[@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

[@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

[@musicloverandclassicalmusi698]

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

[@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

[@Maxim89Il]

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

[@Siuuuuuuuu507]

really?! what tank did your father command?

[@elchinpirbabayev5757]

@@Siuuuuuuuu507 YES!

[@bartosz7706]

Thanks for his service! He and the Red Army saved Slavic people!

[@DrumsTheWord]

Superb content! Well done!

[@She_was_a_He]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/moLaZapvjMyLmbM

[@nottiramisu]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/jWq0h4SsfLimgas

[@She_was_a_He]

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

[@boratunastopmotion]

True

[@ramiroloria2185]

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

[@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

[@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

[@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

[@ЮраСидоров-т4э]

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.

[@TheFenrirulfr]

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

[@edrickang2338]

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

[@Frenchdefense9404]

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.

[@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.

[@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

[@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*

[@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.

[@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

[@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

[@VanlaRiee]

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.

[@brandonly27]

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

[@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.

[@cheesegaming629]

These videos are so informative thank you for making them

[@DSMCasual]

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

[@nocturno7660]

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

[@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.

[@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

[@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

[@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.

[@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

[@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"

[@HomingRocket1]

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

[@АлексейРожков-й2з]

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

[@nicuciocan-wd40]

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

[@josh05683]

@@nicuciocan-wd40 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.

[@night7185]

delusional

[@GuhTheBruh]

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

[@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

[@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).

[@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.

[@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

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@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

[@АлександарЂокић-ж9л]

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]

@@АлександарЂокић-ж9л 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

[@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!

[@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.

[@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

[@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.

[@BasedBlackPrism]

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

[@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

[@getgaijoobed6219]

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

[@jamesdees4955]

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

[@Spitfiresammons]

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

[@randyproduction8056]

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

[@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

[@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!

[@Kitkat-986]

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

[@jayr399]

It’s distorted propaganda.

[@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!

[@christiandizon1815]

I like that you guys are posting videos more often and the animation is getting better

[@Kraed3]

Yeah the first time I noticed an improvement in animation is in the green beret Vietnam war video

[@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

[@rosalbafuda447]

This not a tank. This IS THE tank!!! 😍

[@TheoHawk316]

What do the IS series of tanks have to do with this? Yeah, they're both Soviet tanks, but still...

[@flight2k5]

🤣😂 it’s not magical

[@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!

[@user-leshiy99rus]

As an engineer, I admire the convenience and high technology of German tanks, but that's what ruined them. The German industry simply could not produce enough such expensive and complex tanks. In addition, heavy models often broke down and it was very difficult to repair them in the field. Here I really like the concept of the T-34 (simple, cheap, harsh, fast). This is truly the "best tank of wartime" (I mean, as a forced measure, it is beyond praise).

[@oofchanneltv6813]

T34 was an expensive tank made cheaply because if it was made to the same quality of m4 Sherman's it would be a failure

[@cedricvanhove7716]

As an engineer, I admire the late 1943-44 panther.

[@youngrody2386]

The Germans could've easily streamlined production but went with the "Craftsman" approach over absolute Industrial. Not to mention they also field tanks in record time so they were rushed significantly more than most other tanks of other nations, yet they remained somewhat more reliable (their reliability was more so a crew issue than mechanical, though final drive of the Panther's was a real issue).

[@cedricvanhove7716]

@@youngrody2386 (though final drive of the Panther's was a real issue) Dident they fix this at the end? according to reliability files the 1944 panther was on par with the Panzer IV. and yes crew was most important.

[@Mortablunt]

I can’t really agree with the best tank of the board going to T34 for performance issues. I think it belongs to either the upgraded Sherman with a 76mm. The superior crew friendliness really clinches it in my opinion. I would classify T34 as good perhaps great. There were definitely issues with quality of the machines and quality of life for the crew, but the reality was the people making king it had to make some ruthless decisions about volume and economics so they could have enough, because they were facing the very real threat of extermination down to the last child if they didn’t get enough functioning tanks out the door, so in that circumstance cutting down on polish and comforts is absolutely the right choice. The armor was acceptable the gun was competitive the optics worked and it had enough mobility. The parts that mattered got the attention they needed.

[@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

[@luckycharm1]

I can only imagine the hype when the Trebuchet or Catapults first came into a war scene back in ancient times. The aura must have had the same feeling as this Tank dominating the war zone.

[@joshuasimons7883]

Dominating the war zone? It has the highest number of casualties of any tank ever. Doesn't sound like dominating to me...

[@jabroni951]

@@joshuasimons7883 but it was dominating tho. later t-34-85 will dominate too.

[@Aurora07]

@@jabroni951 the 85mm was only really on par with the German L43 75mm

[@yeetyeet5079]

@@joshuasimons7883 ah yes because a tank can’t beat something twice it’s weight makes it crappy plus most t 34s were lost to at guns AirPower and maintenance issues

[@yeetyeet5079]

@@Aurora07 yeah but it had more he filler making better against soft targets which were the vast majority of targets

[@mediumunwell]

One of the most recognizable tanks from WWII!

[@oscargrouch7962]

. . . and the Korean War.

[@Footalicous-tr3p7]

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

[@alifio2183]

Ah yes, the T34. The "we put so much protection we forgot to put enough eyeslit for the crew to see things" and "we forgot to install optics because high quotas and no one remind anyone because they're scared of being punished"

[@plaguedoctor9472]

T34 is an American heavy tank, the T-34 is the Soviet medium tank.

[@andypozuelos1204]

@@plaguedoctor9472 🙄 this guy. You must be fun at parties

[@joshuablair252]

@@andypozuelos1204 he ruins children's birthday parties by telling them Santa isnt real

[@Kalashnikov413]

Those issues were later fixed as the war continued

[@mudboy9762]

Here is an awesome movie about the soviet tank. kzbin.info/www/bejne/lZKkYZeMr6ippJI

[@LordOmnissiah]

That statement of the tanks being used while they were still on the factory floor 🏭 is both amazing, heroic, and hilarious all at the same time. I’m picturing it now: Stalingrad 1942: “Damnit Pyotr the transmission in this one is still acting up.” “Well that’s unfortunate” *Sudden boom of the 75mm followed by the sound of a Panzer exploding nearby* “At least the gun works fine.” “Da that’s true, maybe we take turret from this one and put it on that one Sasha is working on.” “Good idea”

[@AudieHolland]

Forget it! Just load the gun and fire

[@worldoftancraft]

Perhaps the name is "Pjotr"? Or Russian was officially considered as English/Latin language?

[@detroitandclevelandfan5503]

That is a myth it never happened. kzbin.info/www/bejne/eXq9Z4N8jrqAa9E the truth of T-34.

[@invidatauro8922]

It's also not true! Even funnier!

[@GunsIinger_YT]

In school right now we're doing a ww2 unit in language arts and I'm basically teaching the teachers because of Simple history.

[@hammyhamster01]

Lucky, what grade??????

[@GunsIinger_YT]

7th grade but we're not done with the assignments

[@hammyhamster01]

@@GunsIinger_YT lucky I wish I did that then

[@EthanJaye]

*Look at me, I'm the teacher now.*

[@GunsIinger_YT]

@@hammyhamster01 hey you got simple history

[@harlander-harpy]

Lazerpig has a good video on the T34

[@paullakowski2509]

much better than this rubbish

[@TheStealthEcho]

​@@paullakowski2509 this video is on paper while Lazerpig realizes how the tank was in reality

[@zawchs]

What makes the T-34 a really good tank? -easy to mass produce -simple design -MADE OUT OF TOP TIER STALINIUM But holy cow, this video is one of the best video ya have made! keep it up!

[@justinhough3169]

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

[@miguelosorio2230]

You guys did a top notch job on the animations

[@ricardoperez8879]

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

[@Blank55600]

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

[@CT-Clone]

The T-34, one of the major factors who helped the allies win the war in armored warfare. While it may not have been the best of the tanks, it is without a doubt one lf the most important ones

[@nitsu2947]

ah yes, the T34. The heavy yank that singlehandedly carried the yanks to Berlin in another universe

[@AHappyCub]

You're thinking of the T-34 mate, not T34 T34 is an experimental heavy tank meant to fight the Siegfried Line built by the Americans, along with T29, T30 and T28/T95

[@devon5154]

T-34 is the best tank for the Russian doctrine at the time

[@richieThach]

@@AHappyCub thats the meme.

[@VisualdelightPro]

T-34 can roll over, but when they meet the Finnish Jaeger's they will yell the mud is speaking Finnish.

[@alexrudolph301]

This makes me think of Call of Duty Finest Hour. Along with being a super underrated game, the russian missions have you defend a tractor factory making one of the last T-34s in Stalingrad and then a bunch of missions controlling the T-34

[@worldwarnerf4130]

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

[@dinobuddy]

I love how Simple History takes pains to be historically accurate as to things like the kind of rifles the Spanish Republicans were using, even when that's not the topic of the video. Around 3:10, they're using Mauser 98 variants; this is correct; Czech and Polish kar 98 copies were in common use among Republicans.

[@kamerad_marzuki3631]

where's Spanish Mauser M16 tho.

[@darkmaster7124]

And yet they still overhyped the T34 it had a lot of problems and did not demolish as described in this Video

[@thanksmaybe4103]

Spanish republic used any rifle they could buy

[@gabrielagustinhomas]

WOW, your animations are getting REALLY good! They almost look like the Armchair Historian's.

[@PennsyPappas]

This was a well done video, there are things that weren't mentioned of course but overall a wonderful video. I would love it if you guys did a video like this in the Sherman Tank as the one you do have is pretty basic and even included the ridiculous notion of 5 Sherman's were needed to take down a single Tiger tank. A video on the Sherman done in this style would do that tank justice in my opinion. I hope you guys consider it.

[@PowellPeraltask8er]

That myth is ridiculous. There are many instances where one sherman or t34 took out 5 tigers or 5 panthers

[@tomk3732]

On average in late period of the war 3 Shermans were lost for each Tiger / 3 T-34. Tiger 1. This was a great ratio proving how much better Sherman / T-34 was as a tank. Late war Soviet losses were around 2.7 to 1. Compare to more then 10:1 at the beginning.

[@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 !

[@harry3338]

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

[@jamesvalentine2845]

One of the biggest off putting things about the T-34 series is the amount of historical myth becoming historical fact and it's "fanbase" being rather extremist in their fanatical belief in those myths.

[@vingerebise8714]

Like what exactly?

[@kurczakpl1866]

@@vingerebise8714 Like not praising the M4 or being a wehraboo.

[@solthegamer3769]

And there's also wehraboos that believe in myths against the T-34, which are far more common then T-34 favourable myths

[@archravenineteenseventeen]

i find wehraboos and western patriots hilarious when it comes to favoritism

[@siko9799]

what are these myths? is it something like “5 sherman’s for every tiger”?

[@nerdomatic2489]

Animation wise, the video was legendary. I was amazed by the graphics. Simple History, you have definetily improved animation quality by not just up one notch but several notches. Genuinely appealing animation. History wise... there are lots of inaccuracies here that frequently conflict Soviet and German military doctrines and military practices on the battlefield, as well as the documentations of a T-34 tank's quality lifespan. The video's writing was definetily heading for a hyped up propped up presentation of the tank, that'd be fine if you went over the theoretical aspect of the tank, but in practice and execution the T-34 had countless grave issues and was deemed mechanically more unreliable than even German tanks. The early Pak anti tank cannons could penetrate the T-34 from closerange, it is in long range where they struggled, and the Panzer III could engage the T-34 at medium range as well due to its superior crew ergonomics and its far better optics. Often times the T-34 armor plates broke apart from the force of collision of enemy tank rounds on the armor plating, which was inadequately designed and meant to only last several days, with the quality gradually improving starting late 1942 once the Soviet industry was kicking up, but it still took time. That being said, I am not biased for the German tank industry, infact a lot of Simple History's videos on the German tanks overplayed them as well. I also do acknowledge that the channel is named "Simple History" in that the history is meant to be retold without going into complex difficult details and analysis that would turn it into a full blown historical documentary, but given the fact that the video is over half an hour long and, at its core, no matter how simple, history, it should've reviewed Soviet and German army doctrines and the documents regarding the usage of T-34 tanks and Pak anti tank guns to create a more accurate assessment. The video appears like a fantasy tale of a legendary tank. I do not discredit the T-34 tank, but I cannot say that it was as legendary as portrayed in the video. Cheers!

[@raketny_hvost]

Sadly true. Even 34-85 wasn't that strong especially without old hull which was still pierced by most massive ATG-pak40. But soviets learned a lot so they could use T-34s as effective as it was possible while having number supremacy which means that more tasks can be done in same amount of time. Funny thing that Germans started war with blitzkrieg on fast and comfortable light panzers against monsters like KV-1 and ended up with huge unreliable monsters like tiger 2 overwhelmed by largest amount of T-34 and IS-2

[@nerdomatic2489]

@@raketny_hvost Indeed. (Also I just noticed they changed the title to "Was the T-34 Really the Best Tank of WW2?")

[@ArcticWolf00Alpha0]

@@nerdomatic2489 The title being changed is really odd to me. First it was saying the T-34 was a legend among tanks. Now its asking a question in the title but the video...doesn't even answer it...

[@shark8996]

Don't forget the fact that most Russian tank crews had next to no training & most T-34s had next to no testing. The video is very goofy as of course the T-34 wasn't the best, it was far form that especially if you compare it with later tanks in the war.

[@rolandhunter]

Fun facts: The T-34 could sink in the mud aswell. At Battle of Warsaw, the soviets attacked through a soaked field: From 17 T-34, 15 sunk and get stuck in the mud, only 1 T-34 could manage to escape. " The T-34 was supposed to be a simple and rugged vehicle that seldom broke down. Authors like to compare it to the more complex German tanks that supposedly broke down often. The concept of the T-34 as a reliable tank is another myth of WWII. The majority of vehicles in 1941 were lost due to equipment malfunction. The same reliability problems continued during the period 1942-44. The evacuation and relocation of industrial facilities combined with the loss of skilled workers could only lead to the fall of reliability. In 1941 T-34 tanks often had to carry a spare transmission strapped on the back to counter equipment failures (10). In 1942 the situation worsened since many vehicles could only cover small distances before breaking down. In the summer of 1942 the following Stalin order was issued to units (11): ‘Our armored forces and their units frequently suffer greater losses through mechanical breakdowns than they do in battle. For example, at Stalingrad Front in six days twelve of our tank brigades lost 326 out of their 400 tanks. Of those about 260 owed to mechanical problems. Many of the tanks were abandoned on the battlefield. Similar instances can be observed on other fronts. Since such a high incidence of mechanical defects is implausible, the Supreme Headquarters sees in it covert sabotage and wrecking by certain elements in the tank crews who try to exploit small mechanical troubles to avoid battle.’ Henceforth, every tank leaving the battlefield for alleged mechanical reasons was to be gone over by technicians, and if sabotage was suspected, the crews were to be put into tank punishment companies or "degraded to the infantry" and put into infantry punishment companies.' The constant complaints from the front forced the authorities to investigate the problems with T-34 production. In September 1942 a conference was held at the Ural tank factory by the Commissariat of tank industry (12). The conference was headed by Major General Kotin, People’s commissar of the tank industry of the USSR and chief designer of heavy tank ‘Kliment Voroshilov’. In his speech he said: ''Now ... there are a lot of complains about the T-34. You all know the reasons for flaws in the tanks. The first reason -inadequate visibility from the tank; the second reason, and this is the weak link that always accompanies our vehicle in the Army - final drive. And third, the main issue that we have today - insufficient strength of the idler wheel's crank. These issues are the major defects of the T-34 today. Having considered these issues from engineering and technological points of view I would like to discuss another issue, the one that directly resulted solely from our production deficiencies. They are: negligence during production of combat vehicles in the factories, carelessness of assembly and quality control of vehicles. As a result during combat employment our tanks sometimes cannot reach the front lines, or after getting to the territory occupied by the enemy for conducting combat operations, sometimes they are forced to remain on enemy's territory because of some little things... We have to make sure that as a result of this conference all shortcoming will be uncovered and following this conference all corrections in the tank will be implemented in the shortest possible time... Recently comrade Morozov and I visited comrade Stalin. Comrade Stalin drew our attention to the fact that enemy tanks cover a lot of ground freely, and our machines although are better, but have a disadvantage: after 50 or 80 kilometers march they require repair. What are we talking about? It is because of control gear; also, as comrade Stalin said, because of drive gear, and he compared it with the Pz.III, which is in service with the German army, and which is inferior in armor protection, and in other features, and in crew's layout, and does not have such a fine engine, which the T-34 got, moreover its engine is gasoline, not diesel. But the question аrises - why its drive gear is developed better? Comrade Stalin gave directives to engineers, to the People's Commissar comrade Zaltsman, to factory's CEOs and ordered them to fix all defects in the shortest time. A special order of the State Defense Committee has been issued on the subject as well as directives of the People's Commissariat of the Tank Industry. Despite all these resolutions have been made by Government and orders of the People's Commissar of the Tank Industry, despite repeated instructions from army units and from Main Directorate of the Armored Forces, which is in charge of combat vehicles operation, nevertheless all of these defects on vehicles are going on... We have to reveal all these flaws, and suggestions have to be made on at this conference how to modify machine component better and faster in order to make the T-34 tank, which is recognized in the army as a good tank, even better fighting machine.'' The situation continued to be problematic even in 1943-44. There were constant problems with the gearbox and the engine filters. The Aberdeen evaluators noted: ‘On the T-34 the transmission is also very poor. When it was being operated, the cogs completely fell to pieces (on all the cogwheels). A chemical analysis of the cogs on the cogwheels showed that their thermal treatment is very poor and does not in any way meet American standards for such mechanisms.’ ‘The deficiency of our diesels is the criminally poor air cleaners on the T-34. The Americans consider that only a saboteur could have constructed such a device’ The same problems were identified in a T-34/85 built in 1945. The US study ‘Engineering analysis of the Russian T34/85 tank’ noted (13): ‘Wholly inadequate engine intake air cleaners could be expected to allow early engine failure due to dust intake and the resulting abrasive wear. Several hundred miles in very dusty operation would probably be accompanied by severe engine power loss.’ The same study says in page 451 about the transmission: ‘The transmission had by American standards already failed, although with extreme care it could have been used further. Teeth ends on all gears were battered as the result of clash shifting. Many pieces of gear teeth had been broken off and were in the transmission oil. The failure is due to inadequate design, since excellent steel was used through the transmission.’ The mental image of the T-34 travelling hundreds of kilometers without stopping is fantasy. A German unit that used the T-34/76 model ’43 in combat noted (14): ‘Regardless of our limited experience, it can be stated that the Russian tanks are not suitable for long road marches and high speeds. It has turned out that the highest speed that can be achieved is 10 to 12 km/hr. It is also necessary on marches to halt every half hour for at least 15 to 20 minutes to let the machine cool down. Difficulties and breakdowns of the steering clutches have occurred with all the new Beute-Panzer. In difficult terrain, on the march, and during the attack, in which the Panzer must be frequently steered and turned, within a short time the steering clutches overheat and are coated with oil. The result is that the clutches don't grip and the Panzer is no longer manoeuvrable. After they have cooled, the clutches must be rinsed with a lot of fuel.’ Soviet tests on newly built T-34’s (15) showed that in April 1943 only 10.1% could complete a 330km trial and in June ’43 this went down to 7.7%. The percentage stayed below 50% till October 1943 when it rose to 78%, in the next month it dropped to 57% and in the period December ’43 - February ’44 the average was 82%. Preliminary inspection of tanks built at the Ural tank factory No 183 (largest producer of the T-34) showed that in 1942 only 7% were free of defects, in 1943 14% and in 1944 29.4%. In 1943 the main problem was damage to the gear teeth (16) The V-2 engine had serious reliability problems (17). Depending on the source in 1941 it supposedly lasted for 100 hours on average (18). This figure went down in 1942 since some T-34’s could not travel more then 30-35 km. The T-34 tested at the Aberdeen centre was built at the best factory using materials of superior quality but its engine stopped working after 72.5 hours. This was not due to American interference as there was a Soviet mechanic (engineer Matveev) charged with maintaining it. Still it was much better than the standard tanks since it covered a distance of 343km. According to the head of the Armored Directorate of the Red Army N.Fedorenko, the average mileage of the T-34 to overhaul during the war, did not exceed 200 kilometers. This was considered adequate since the T-34’s service life at the front was considerably less. For example in 1942 only 66km. In that sense the T-34 was indeed ‘reliable’ because it was destroyed before it had a chance to break down on its own! Still there are examples of T-34’s breaking down during assaults even late in the war (19). For instance the 5th Guards Tank army in 1943 lost as much as 31.5% of its tanks during its march to Prokhorovka. In August ’43 the 1st Tank army lost 50% of its tanks due to malfunction. As late as the second half of 1944 tank units tried to replace engines with more than 30 hours of operation before a major attack All WWII tanks had a hard time when travelling and they needed repairs and maintenance or they broke down. There is also the question of standardization. The T-34 was produced at several factories. Each factory produced a slightly different variant. Could spare parts from Nizhny Tagil be used on a T-34 from Gorky? Doubtful." Source: christos millitary and intelligence WWII Myths - T-34 Best Tank of the war

[@Inquisitor6321]

Of the ~50,000+ T-34s built during the war, 85% of them were destroyed in combat beyond being salvageable. Sounds more like a design disaster than a "legendary" tank.

[@Frosty_tha_Snowman]

0:17 but really, everybody just finds a spot to sit and not move from all game.. or they run across the map like a lunatic and die instantly.

[@ryanduffy5301]

You should definitely make more tank videos just like this! Do the Panther or Tiger 1 next?

[@CrhisLulz]

I kinda miss the old Soviet artstyle, but nonetheless it's a good improvement. I'm surprised you mentioned the cramped space of the T34, which is often times ignored, but you should have mentioned it's Radio and Intercom system aswell. Maybe it'll be featured in part 2?

[@worldoftancraft]

And are you surprised when someone mentioned cramped interior of panther? Oh sure you aren't, because this isn't a popular narrative although the turret isn't spacious at all.

[@paullakowski2509]

@@worldoftancraft maybe but T-34 could only manage "first shot" in 30 seconds due to the cramp turret that forced the tank commander to double as gunner, while the loader could only chamber a shell in12 seconds . The Pz IV/III could manage " first shot" in 10-15 and reloads every 5-6 seconds.

[@Aethelhald]

No. 50,000 T-34's were lost in WW2 (most of them lost in combat were destroyed by Panzer III's). Any other tank that took 50,000 losses would be laughed at as a total failure, but because the T-34 has some myths and legends behind it people just ignore the fact that it sucked unless it was massed in huge numbers.

[@gradimirmaravic5121]

still better then Sherman that was a joke of a tank

[@Aethelhald]

@@gradimirmaravic5121 Sherman was amazing. Easy to produce, economical, adequate firepower, great survivability.

[@lelouch_5904]

i agree that

[@lorenzobartolini8460]

Actually the T-34 has a weak spot near the gun barrel on the left (where the ottics are) and also the previous models of Panzer (of course thank Hunter's) , could actually easily penetrate the Soviet thank shooting the driver's hatch. BTW nice video pretty interesting!

[@macekreislahomes1690]

Thanks, I needed to know that.

[@spikeybridge1700]

Tbf most crews would not know this at first and hitting a tank is hard to begin with

[@macekreislahomes1690]

True, I only knew about it from finding a similar weekness in the Tiger Tank. Optics and veiwports are good targets, hard to hit without enough training and/or experience. Luck, experience, training, and strategy also play huge roles in who wins.

[@tompiper9276]

I think you're being optimistic if you think you can hit the sights whilst in combat. Hitting the tank would be a reasonable shot. Hitting it somewhere vulnerable would be a good shot. Hitting the sights would be dumb luck!

[@macekreislahomes1690]

@@tompiper9276 True, although I like to get as close to point blank range as possible, still same points apply.

[@28ebdh3udnav]

I'm so early, Chamberlain declared peace in our time.

[@cebenify]

Narrator: it wasn't peace in our time

[@zenith-boi]

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

[@AFT_05G]

Videos like this gives tankies so much confidence.

[@fastwalker2163]

T-34-76: 35,330 units T-34-85: 25,914 PzKpfw IV: 8,573 Tiger I: 1,449 Panther: ~6000 Have you got any questions?!

[@tomk3732]

Soviets count tanks that were damaged but returned to factory as "new". So actual numbers of tanks are a bit different. Germans produced just over 46,000 tanks and tank destroyers starting with panzer 3. Remember Soviets started with almost 10x as many tanks as Germans.

[@gamestycon2239]

Nobody question that, the thing is what tank was better, plus if they have that the Germans with less did more damage.

[@rolandhunter]

Yes, 44,900 T-34 were destroyed....

[@fakerolnando]

@@rolandhunter And most of them can easily prepared after battles and about 30,000 can reused in just few days while Tiger just suck when damaged and many platoon need to destroy or left them, that's the different. Not only that T34 super cheap compare to Tiger

[@ushikiii]

@@tomk3732 what are you trying to say? The "46k" are total tanks produced I am guessing and it's still less than the Soviet T 34 alone. They started with 10x more tanks and they ended with more tanks which should not be surprising to anyone. How any of that information even relate your first statement that they counted returning tanks as "new".

[@notanaveragedoktah8390]

*"If you can't produce good stuff, then just produce a lot of stuff."* ~The soviets

[@fbyi2940]

China today

[@mattpatterson3415]

Panther was better once the bugs were worked out, but if you factor in ease of construction and ability to get more units to the field the T34 wins every time. The Soviets were driving them from the assembly line to combat. 💪

[@blackfacts6137]

I heard that those was untested D variants

[@bingobongo1615]

The T-34 was not that cheap and had serious production issues (like non standardized parts across factories...) but the Soviet industrial power was just that strong.

[@heuzame6198]

@@blackfacts6137 the G late was the one who was fixed entirely for me the Panther G late was the best ww2 tank (per tank)

[@blackfacts6137]

@@heuzame6198 What about A variant ???

[@jonhart7630]

The StuG III was the most produced German armored fighting vehicle and was half the price of a Panther. The Germans did put some thought to economics in producing fighting vehicles.

[@shaggygabe728]

6:42 ''...barely been used up to that point'' 7TP, TKS Tankette, L3 Tankette, BT-7, BT-5, BT-2, R35, D2, FT, T26, Char B1 and many, many more tanks: am i a joke to you? Sorry, but just had to point this out. Still a great video, even with this small mistake! :D

[@bensipiorski6645]

Nicely done. Looking forward for second part of the T-34 story. Be nice if an updated video on the Sherman tank was done too in the future.

[@TheHalogen131]

Every Polish person knows T34 "Rudy 102". Truly a legendary machine.

[@finniusii4978]

Wow. Great long, informitive video. Smooth animation and incredible detail. 9/10 Would Watch again (Btw the different welding and armour making techniques were insane)

[@azimisyauqieabdulwahab9401]

The based of true story adapted to big screen

[@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