Eastern Front Tank Warfare 1944 - WW2 Documentary Special

In this conflict, we’ve seen armored warfare on a greater scale than anything before or since. Indy takes a look at some of the tanks slugging it out on the Eastern Front, from the long-serving Panzer III and IV, to the newer and more powerful Tiger and T-34 85, and the monstrous IS-2.
Join us on Patreon: / timeghosthistory
Or join the TimeGhost Army directly at: timeghost.tv/signup/
Check out our TimeGhost History KZbin channel: / timeghost
Between 2 Wars: • Between 2 Wars
Follow WW2 Day by Day on Instagram: @ww2_day_by_day
Follow TimeGhost History on Instagram: @timeghosthistory
Like us on Facebook: / timeghosthistory
Hosted by:Indy Neidel
Director: Astrid Deinhard
Producers: Astrid Deinhard and Spartacus Olsson
Executive Producers: Astrid Deinhard, Indy Neidell, Spartacus Olsson
Creative Producer: Marek Kamiński
Community Management: Ian Sowden
Written by: Markus Linke, Indy Neidel
Research by: Markus Linke
Map animations by: Daniel Weiss
Map research by: Sietse Kenter
Edited by: Karolina Dołęga
Artwork and color grading by: Mikołaj Uchman
Sound design by: Marek Kamiński
Colorizations by:
Mikołaj Uchman
Source literature list: bit.ly/WW2sources
Archive footage: Screenocean/Reuters - www.screenocean.com
Image sources:
Bundesarchiv
Narodowe Narchiwum Cyfrowe
Imperial War Museums: P 233, CL 2557
SA-kuva 155186
RIA Novosti
National Archives NARA
Not Less O rEqual from Wikimedia
Soundtracks from Epidemic Sound:
Break Free - Fabien Tell
Dark Beginning - Johan Hynynen
Imperious - Bonnie Grace
It's Not a Game - Philip Ayers
Last Man Standing 3 - Johannes Bornlöf
Last Point of Safe Return - Fabien Tell
March Of The Brave 10 - Rannar Sillard
Other Sides of Glory - Fabien Tell
Rememberance - Fabien Tell
Weapon of Choice - Fabien Tell
A TimeGhost chronological documentary produced by OnLion Entertainment GmbH.

[@WorldWarTwo]

What’s your favourite tank of the war, and why?

[@Username67357]

I love the Tiger 1. The fact that it was no rush job during development and its shape is very kawaii

[@a84c1]

T-34

[@kingericson490]

How can I only choose 1?

[@edvineyard1143]

Panther. Once the bugs were worked out, it seemed to have the best balance of abilities.

[@timothypowell6298]

I'm going to have to say king tiger thankfully they did not have many and came late in the war . But consider how the war would go if they had them in late 42 onwards and in good numbers most of all on the eastern fronts .

[@gafeleon9032]

Just a quick correction, the SU-76 isn't built on the chassis of the T-34 but a lengthened T-70 chassis and while it has some limited anti-tank capabilities by 1944 the 76mm is mostly only useful for close support Love your work

[@stephenwood6663]

Was just about to write something similar!

[@timothyhouse1622]

Correct. The SU 85 / SU 100 / SU 122 were based on the T34 chassis.

[@davidwoody5228]

Me too. Love them tanks!

[@davidwoody5228]

And the ISU-122 and ISU152 “Zveroboys” were built on the IS chassis

[@sylvananas7923]

Isn't the SU 76's gun better used as mobile artillery ?

[@HistoryHussar]

Hungarian 1st Army received 10 Tigers in the Summer of 1944. They were effective in combat, but most of them would be lost within a few months, mainly due to mechanical breakdowns and a lack of fuel. Since the Hungarians did not have anything that could tow a Tiger (aside from another Tiger, which exposed both tanks to enemy fire), they proved to be too heavy and cumbersome to operate over the long term. By October, 3-4 were left, but we are not sure what happened to them.

[@user-nt5fu7no4k]

Someone in Hungary is hiding them in his basement I'm sure

[@pigeonandpigeon3158]

Also towing a tiger with a tiger for more couple kilometers would brake the other tiger too so you know have 2 broken tigers😅

[@dudududu1926]

@@pigeonandpigeon3158 That's why you use a 3rd Tiger to tows the first two. :D

[@pennings855]

OMG I CAN'T WAIT TO SEE HOW WELL THE FERDINAND PERFORMED

[@iVETAnsolini]

😂😂😂

[@Ronald98]

I got some baddddd news for ya buddy 😅

[@jorikrouwenhorst7220]

In the words of a wise man. “Fucking thing sucks!”

[@USS_Grey_Ghost]

BURN BABY BURN disco inferno

[@tsardean7438]

Who gon tell him?

[@Red_Four]

The Tiger 1 we have in the US Army Armor and Cavalry collection at Fort Moore was captured in a maintenance area towards the end of the North Africa campaign. Some of the parts on that tank contain serial numbers that belonged to around a dozen other Tigers from that unit.

[@podemosurss8316]

6:02 About tungsten, being Spanish, I remember hearing stories on the ways that our government (aligned with Germany) used to transfer them tungsten through the borders without the Allies knowing: It was in small ore chunks, the size of a fist, that could be carried easily. Children in border towns would be hired for extra cash and given those "stones" to play throwing the stones onto the other side of the border, where German agents collected those stones. They also tied them to dogs and made it look like a kid's prank.

[@carriertaiyo2694]

Sounds like a solid logistics strategy, sure to lead to success...

[@watcherzero5256]

Spain was selling Tungsten (or rather unrefined Wolfram) to both sides, though the Wolfram they were supplying to Germany was mainly to offset the countries debt payments to Germany rather than for direct financial remuneration.

[@podemosurss8316]

@@watcherzero5256You mean the debt that the dictator contracted with the nazis for them helping him get into power by waging war on his own people?

[@notmenotme614]

@@watcherzero5256 Sweden was also selling metals and minerals to both sides. Openly and knowingly. Apparently it caused a lot of embarrassment when both sides transportation would turn up at the same time. It just goes to show what a scam war is, when neutral countries are blatantly profiting from it. When I hear every B-17 bomber cost $2.6 million to produce and every M4 Sherman cost between $600,000 to $880,000 (figures adjusted for inflation) I’ve always wonder where all that money went?

[@murmurrrr]

Which borders?

[@Ralphieboy]

The USA sent some 225,000 2.5 ton cargo trucks, 1,000 locomotives and around 7,000 railway freight cars. That not only freed up a lot of Soviet heavy industry to concentrate on tanks, but it gave them the logistical ability to successfully support deep battle.

[@biffmarcum5014]

USA also supplied steel. The russian steel production was low during the war. Also, a little known fact is that 40% of the raw resources used by the USA came from Mexico. Mexico played a bigger role than 99% of the people/historians think.

[@atheistyoda8915]

I'm curious though, do you think the Soviets would've outright lost if it were not for the lend lease? Or would they be able to stop the German advance but be unable to advance themselves?

[@Ralphieboy]

Things might well have turned out very differently without it.

[@lyndoncmp5751]

@atheistyoda8915 Zhukov himself said the Red Army wouldn't have been able to advance from 1943 without American Lend Lease transport. Also, British supplied Lend Lease tanks and planes were quite important in the Battle of Moscow in late 1941/42.

[@matheuscerqueira7952]

I will always defend that these trucks were the most important part of the lend-lease

[@michaelmorley7719]

As The Chieftain has pointed out in multiple videos, the Panther also featured challenging ergonomics. It is a very difficult tank to learn to use effectively.

[@ZER0ZER0SE7EN]

The T34 was cramped inside because of the sloped armor.

[@Klovaneer]

@@ZER0ZER0SE7EN Sloped armor was never an issue - provided lots of volume for the driver and side fuel tanks, big ass christie spring housings were

[@martijn9568]

​@@KlovaneerSloped armour took up internal space from the tank, it didn't create space. If the tank is big enough, that doesn't matter. On smaller tanks, such as T-34, it matters.

[@HaVoC117X]

It was one of the first WWII tanks he visited, after seeing him crawl through the british an Russian tanks, I am not so sure if the Panther was realy that challenging for wwii. Not a Panzer IV or a sherman, but Bettes than most.

[@nathanworthington4451]

Thx for repeating what hes said in this and multiple other videos

[@OneofInfinity.]

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder Indy, the T-34/85 is a looker to me.

[@pianowhizz]

Gotta love that Christie suspension! Americans + Russians working together = unbeatable 😊

[@carrickrichards2457]

Lendlease sent over 4100 Sherman tanks to the soviets. About half each 75 mm and 76 mm armed. 1st Guards Mechanized Corps, the 3rd Guards Mechanized Corps, 6th Guards Tank Army and the 9th Guards Mechanized Corps, were fully lend lease equiped. The Sherman was widely liked, much more than the 2850 other western tanks supplied in the Lendlease program (including nearly 1400 Valentines armed with 40mm or 57mm). The radios, trucks and spares (and 15 million pairs of boots) may have been as important.

[@mister_jayHD]

Russians like to forget that.

[@alley4978]

@@mister_jayHD Putin's Russia like to forget for obvious reason. There is in-depth video about lend-lease on one of the opposition youtube channel with 1m views. There are English subtitles, if you're interested I can send a link

[@ZER0ZER0SE7EN]

The USA also sent huge amounts of rolled steel to the USSR through Lend Lease so the Soviets could make T34 and other armored vehicles.

[@dogcarman]

The number of trucks sent by lend lease to the USSR until 1944 exceeded the number of trucks Germany produced 1939-1945. On top of that the US produced trucks for UK, Canada, Australia and themselves, and fuel to run them.

[@denisduchesne2899]

@@mister_jayHD They also like to forget they collaborated with the Germans before the war and up until June 22 1941.

[@Maus5000]

To be fair to the PzKpfw III I think the torsion bars themselves stand the test of time as a great method in general, and the III's specifically seem to have worked just fine. What let down the running gear overall was the narrow track, and perhaps the smaller diameter of the roadwheels themselves compared to T-34

[@ZER0ZER0SE7EN]

The wider T34 treads kept them from getting bogged down on less firm ground.

[@Palora01]

@@ZER0ZER0SE7EN there's more to not getting bogged down than wider tracks, which come with the downside of being double the weight usually, the overall weight of the tank and the output of the engine play a big part. As is being able to see where you shouldn't take a tank to begin with. Wider tracks might have helped the Panzer 3 a bit with the mud but made it much worse everywhere else by having the engine pull heavier tracks around.

[@Centurion101B3C]

Hm, the constellation of a Tank's drive train and running-gear is critically dependent on the combined design and adjustment of it. You don't change and adapt that that willy-nilly to the battlefield conditions, if only due to standardization issues and the resulting logistical mayhem that it will cause. By the end of 1943, the PzIII (a good-enough tank, but NOT a gleaming example of battlefield invincibility) was old, tired and of obsolete design and concept. It had been designed to be used under Western Europe's conditions/infrastructure and therefore could be allowed to be a tank wearing high-heels or ballerina-shoes. The problems were attempted to be addressed with the Tiger and Panther tanks, but it took a bit (and too long) to iron out the deficiencies on those platforms. The T-34, from the get-go were designed with broader tracks and more powerful (and less flammable) Diesel engines and Christie-suspension drivetrains and that concept stuck with it throughout and WAY beyond its effective service-life.

[@OneofInfinity.]

@@ZER0ZER0SE7EN Don't forget the tree logs.

[@nickthenoodle9206]

Also, the Pz III wasn't reliable until the J version, by which time, it was obsolete.

[@althesmith]

Sometimes "good enough" is pretty damn awesome.

[@Conn30Mtenor]

if you can produce 10 to the enemy's 3 then yeah. Quantity is a quality all it's own.

[@wbertie2604]

​@@Conn30Mtenorif you read James Holland's book about the Sherwoods you see them getting a Sherman shot out from under them, next day they are in a new one. It happened so smoothly they didn't even question it.

[@Legitpenguins99]

Alot of good enough is better than perfect. After "good enough" you hit a point of diminishing returns.

[@gunman47]

I always like Special episodes like these, at this late stage of the war you can really see how tank warfare has evolved over time. Thank you Sparty and team as always!

[@dbassman27]

Thanks for another excellent video. BTW, the SU 76 was actually based on a modified T 70 chassis. Cheers.

[@thanos_6.0]

FINALLY! Another special episode! I really missed these🥳

[@matejadonkov4642]

12:29 I just want to say that the soviets produced 102 000 tanks in ww2 and they received around 12000 armored vehicles out of which only 7000 were tanks so, even though lend lease shortened the war by providing the soviets with a lot of trucks and other raw materiel (especially aluminum) and other stuff that is needed to establish good logistics, I personally think it is unfair to say that the soviets received a substantial amount of tanks from lend lease.

[@tenarmurk]

If you're on the frontline and 7000 tanks are coming at I would like to see you convince the guy next to you that these 7000 tanks are an insubstantial amount

[@matejadonkov4642]

@@tenarmurk I didn't want to make anyone angry and that is why I said that the west did help the soviets a lot but first of all those 7000 tanks were not delivered all at once and they didn't make up a majority of the soviet tank force. They were not insignificant, especially in the early stages of the war when the whole soviet economy was "on wheels", they did help but they, nor the other lend lease stuff that the soviets got, were the reason for soviet victory. That does not mean that lend lease wasn't important, it was, as I said in the original comment it was super important on helping the soviet logistics and what i did not mention is that it saved a lot of lives by helping the soviets recover much quicker. So in conclusion I just wanted to say that the lend lease helped a lot in a variety of different ways but it wasn't a reason for soviet victory on the eastern front.

[@OuijTube]

I nearly snorted my morning coffee with that Lord Humungous opening

[@Ronald98]

Same! 😂 but what is that a reference to?

[@Fractured_Unity]

@@Ronald98 The villain in Mad Max 2

[@konstantinriumin2657]

@@Ronald98 To Amongous

[@Ronald98]

@@Fractured_Unity Thanks!

[@OuijTube]

@@Ronald98 kzbin.info/www/bejne/n2PKh4uabKutnrMsi=lvmky9lIy3ib2nA-

[@johnclements5888]

Hook, line, and sinker with the Mad Max intro.

[@nodirips_8537]

There is a mistake at 11: 43, the SU 76 self propelled gun is not based in the T-34 hull, it is based in the T - 70 light tank hull. The advantage of the " turretless tank" is that a bigger gun can be installed in the same hull. The T-70 tank features a 45 mm gun the SU 76 spg wich is based on the basic T-70 hull features a 76 mm gun.

[@steved5495]

For those who want to know why, it's because the size and recoil of a turretless tank gun is dependent on the length of the vehicle while one in a turret is dependent on its width., i.e. the size of the turret ring. Yes, you can have an overhanging turret, but I don't think any of those really worked.

[@sealove79able]

A great video.From the 37-40mm to 122-128mm tank guns in just 5 short years.

[@alansewell7810]

"The [Soviet] tank brigades had a battalion of infantry, riding in American trucks, and a few pieces of artillery, some of it self-propelled, but the mainspring of the thrust, once it hit open country, was the redoubtable T34. It seems to have been used for every task which in more sophisticated armies was allotted to particular and specialised units and vehicles. Charging ahead in reconnaissance, massed side by side as artillery, dug in as pillboxes; towing, crushing, bulldozing; carrying infantry or, still more perilous, bringing up ammunition chained in boxes to its flat afterdeck, this crude, cramped, poorly ventilated but immensely tough and reliable instrument of war played its many roles. The few early models which had so alarmed the Germans in front of Moscow in 1941 had spawned a limitless progeny. In the one year from January to December 1944 over 22,000 were produced." - Alan Clark, Barbarossa.

[@lllordllloyd]

The inevitable correction here, Soviet infantry rarely had transport. US trucks were mostly used to get artillery and its ammunition forward in 1944/5. Postwar statements by Soviet commanders make it clear this was the major benefit of US trucks.

[@alansewell7810]

@@lllordllloyd It's interesting that Soviet-made patriotic movies like "Liberation" from the 60s and modern Russian films like White TIger show U.S.-made Jeeps and Studebaker trucks, acknowledging that this was one of the most important contributions we made to their war effort, by enhancing their mobility for the rapid advances of their men and supplies. Our Studebaker trucks were the most common platform for the Katyusha rockets. Soviet infantry also rode on the tops of the tanks whenever they could. There's a book called Tank Rider by a Russian WWII vet.

[@proleterriert8075]

@@lllordllloydthey did have trucks… they just had a boner for turning them into Katyushas

[@jamesrowlands8971]

@@proleterriert8075 I mean technically that's still an ammunition carrying truck.

[@ivanvoronov3871]

​@@alansewell7810white tiger is a really underrated film

[@a84c1]

In Siberia there were T-34 factories that was making 2000 tanks a month, soon as they were finished straight to the front.

[@modest_spice6083]

I think that's Chelyabinsk.

[@daviddura1172]

Herein lies the German failure to understand tactical vs Strategic bombing The Germans never had the ability to reach out and strike industrial production Using tactical aircraft, They had trouble hitting England from France… much less the hinterland of Russia..

[@Klovaneer]

@@modest_spice6083 well it's ever so slightly technically in siberia as it's past the urals

[@Vulpine407]

IIRC, one of the T-34 factories was so close to the front for a few weeks that tanks rolling out of the factory were engaging in combat in less than an hour.

[@jmi5969]

There was only one tank plant in Siberia, plant 174 in Omsk (now Omsktransmash), which produced 5882 tanks through the war (out of total 116136 tanks and SPGs). The largest "proper" tank plants operated in Tagil (28952 tanks) and Chelyabinsk (19529). The other main hub was Gorky (later renamed Nizhny Novgorod), with >33 thousands built (more than half of them light "emergency" designs and SU-76).

[@Intreductor]

I remember when 1940 and in France the average panzer division had 300 tanks. For Barbarossa it was reduced to 200.

[@chaptermasterpedrokantor1623]

British tank divisions had two tank brigades in 1940 too, with only a single infantry battalion as well. As everybody would learn, tanks by themselves are vulnerable and they work best as part of an all combined arms force of tanks, infantry, artillery and engineers. Both the British and Americans would adopt armored divisions that had an equal mix of tanks and infantry battalions (4/4 and 3/3 respectively), and especially the British struggled with transporting that infantry in vehicles that could both keep up with the tanks and offered equal protection. The halftrack that the Americans and Germans favored was considered far from ideal, which lead to the development of the Kangaroo. A Sherman without a turret so as to house infantry. German panzer divisions sacrificed ever more tanks in exchange of ever more infantry, eventually settling on a mix of 2 tank battalions vs. 4 motorized infantry battalions. Interestingly in the Italian theater British and Commonwealth armored divisions would adopt the German model by having 2 infantry brigades to a single armored brigade.

[@zachsmith1676]

Kangaroo was a turret-less Grizzly not a turret-less Sherman

[@ronin6737]

Mostly II’S

[@miracleyang3048]

Meanwhile in 1943 an entire panzer army had 240 tanks or less

[@ballagh]

@@zachsmith1676the original kangaroo was based on a “defrocked” M7 Priest self propelled gun, but later there were versions based on Sherman, Churchill and Canadian Ram tanks. Having said that there were definitely Grizzly versions as well as some were sold to Portugal after the war.

[@user-bm7bj6kq9e]

Indy, I know you've got a lot of people behind you on the show (and they're amazing too), but I gotta hand it to you, I love your voice and delivery - even after 4 years (?) it's always spot on.

[@AndrewVasirov]

I want to make a small correction at 9:00, the photo you used is a T-34 equipped with a 57mm ZiS-4 gun, which is in some regards an improvement to the 76.2mm gun, and this model was quite rare. I have a question, did you use War Thunder models for the T-34 models you've shown here? They look very familiar to me. :)

[@shaider1982]

Those books on Indy's table looks like they have lovely tank illustrations.

[@terraflow__bryanburdo4547]

Panzerporn

[@BleedingUranium]

Man, what a fantastic special episode, incredibly well researched and presented, to the point where this is the quality I'd expect from a dedicated tank channel. :)

[@callumgordon1668]

Brilliant, clear description. Very well researched and presented. 👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻

[@RubberToeYT]

Great special and analysis, thoroughly enjoyed

[@nickhaynie5980]

The lend lease item that helped the soviet armor divisions the most was the American Trucks ,GMC, Ford and Studebaker. The trucks brought up the feul and ammo to the front keeping up with the advance. The USSR relied so heavily on those trucks that they didn't put an emphasis on thier own truck manufacturering

[@elbeto191291]

I love how the T-34-85 looks. Probably the most beautiful tank of the war next to the Tiger

[@terraflow__bryanburdo4547]

It's bulbous turret looks ad hoc. Nothing matches the killer lines of the Panther.

[@jakoverslept3096]

I disagree its a pretty ugly tank imo. I think the best looking tank is probably the tiger 2, with the best looking armored vehicle being the jagdpanther. However the IS3 could've been had it been used druing the war.

[@terraflow__bryanburdo4547]

@@jakoverslept3096 "OK, I'll take the blonde, you take the redhead." 🤣

[@RussianThunderrr]

@@jakoverslept3096 wrote: "I disagree its a pretty ugly tank imo. I think the best looking tank is probably the tiger 2" -- He-he, especially the variant of early Tiger II aka "Porsche Turret" that was copied from earlier T-34-76 earlier model.

[@jakoverslept3096]

@@RussianThunderrr I totally agree with you the tiger 2 "(p)" is much less of a looker than the tiger 2 "(h)". Should've specified I meant the latter. Not saying the USSR had bad tanks, they just were not very good looking.

[@Paladin1873]

"Good enough" was definitely a Stalin mantra. As part of a class lecture I received from Sergei Sikorsky he told the story of a Soviet aircraft engine designer who was ordered to report in person to Stalin to explain why his powerful new design had not yet been put into production. The rightfully nervous designer told Stalin the engine had yet to survive more than 50 hours of running time before it failed. Stalin responded that any pilot who managed to survive 50 hours of combat flying had to be a coward and should be shot. He then ordered the engine into immediate production or he would have the engineer shot. The engine went into production.

[@hyrondongle2473]

Again, a great piece of content Indy and team! You and your team are a blessing in the time of general bad documentaries and clickbait content! I wish you well!

[@MinhVo-ig7no]

Every German tank crews gangster until they see a lone KV-2 standing in the middle of the road.

[@naveenraj2008eee]

Hi Indy Wonderful special episode. Need more like this. Thanks.

[@zulubeatz1]

What a great overview of Tank strengths and weaknesses.

[@alansewell7810]

The "Cross of Iron Tank Attack" snippet on KZbin (taken from the Cross of Iron movie) is an excellent film rendition of the T-34 in attack against German positions.

[@zeddevalons]

I really love those specials! Favorite tank is a tricky one. I go with the Jagdpanther, its just an awesome piece of machinery.

[@Curry_Communist]

Mine has to be IS-2 with second being the badass kv1 flamwthrower variant.

[@robertbruce1887]

Thank you Lindy, a well done presentation, very informative but easy to understand in your straight forward speaking style.

[@denisduchesne2899]

No mention about the radios ? Ussr tank brigades were completely disorganized before the ussr received radios from USA. It is not a convenient way on the battlefiled for the tank commanders to get out of the tank, meet up to discuss how to proceed and then return to their tanks to execute the plan.

[@wertsatr294]

Well, what American radio station was there? They installed 9-R "Tur" (factory code "Tapir") - a Soviet tank HF radio station.

[@feltwedge]

My understanding is that the T34 was not an incredibly reliable tank so much as it was not difficult to fix and had a very short life expectancy anyway (a couple of weeks or so). Also sloped armor and Christie suspension had advantages but also made the tank uncomfortable (and thus less effective) to fight in.

[@bingobongo1615]

T-34 was nearly impossible to fix since every production plant build the tank slightly differently so spare parts where a nightmare… But yeah,didn’t matter when the tanks anyhow where quickly destroyed

[@mikehjt]

The biggest factor working against the Germans, on all fronts, in 1944 was that the average tactical engagement that included tanks was one with some tanks on the Allied side and no tanks on the German. As much as German tanks had their individual superiorities, that's just not important if they just are not there. Like they say in sports, the best ability is availability.

[@Elongated_Muskrat]

Tanks for the video.

[@nickdanger3802]

Zhukov «Right now they say that the Allies never helped us... But you cannot deny that Americans drove many materials, without which we would not be - 119 - able to form our reserves and could not continue the war ... And how much steel they supplied! Could we quickly establish the production of tanks, if not for American aid? And now they show it in a way that we had plenty of sources.» pdf Food and other strategic deliveries to the Soviet Union under the Lend-Lease Act, 1941-1945

[@sylvananas7923]

Hoping to see the same concept of episode with planes ! Or even navies of the major powers !

[@jamesd3472]

Fun video, although I had been hoping that we'd see more of the excellent collaboration between you and the Chieftain that we saw earlier in the series around the battle for France and in North Africa. I guess that didn't work out, thank you for the content anyway!

[@christianjohnsalvador1121]

Chieftain is probably busy with military stuff

[@RussianThunderrr]

@@christianjohnsalvador1121 wrote: "Chieftain is probably busy with military stuff" -- Yes, very boring videos lately...

[@BillViall]

That was really great Indy. Thank you!

[@yosawin3018]

The main front where allies tanks were actually the main force was in the Caucasus since they were cut off for quite while but they usually preferred their own tanks over British tanks or whatever light tanks the Americans sent them, they quite liked the Sherman though.

[@cottonmoore8801]

Favorite tank is the M18 Hellcat, there's one outside of the airport in Lubbock TX. Grew up climbing all over that thing.

[@chaptermasterpedrokantor1623]

It's not a tank, it's a tracked tank destroyer. Just because it looks like a tank does not make it so. This is a mistake that especially journalists make ALL THE TIME.

[@martijn9568]

​@@chaptermasterpedrokantor1623You're just being pedantic. It's a tank. What mechanical difference is there that separates it from actual tanks?

[@Tecmaster96]

@@martijn9568fixed gun, can’t rotate its gun, the gun always faces forward. This is good to destroy tanks but has implications for its maneuverability, recon, and ability to flank. Tanks look to break through and flank, you need a turret for that. Tank destroyers show up to destroy tanks, you don’t need a turret for that, because you know where they are in a general sense. Remember that tanks don’t want to fight tanks (though they often do) they want to fight less equipped units to break through. The lower profile of a lack of turret on a destroyer also makes it harder to spot, easier to hide behind low cover and able to ambush, because again they’re deployed with specific enemy tanks in mind, while tanks were thought in the early war to be best to ride off onto the enemy rear echelons where who knows what’s waiting for them.

[@1987retroman]

@@martijn9568 It is most certainly not. For the M-18, the differences are light armor and an open-topped turret as well as a highly distinct tactical role.

[@1987retroman]

The M-18 did not have a fixed gun.

[@jeffersonkee6440]

This is the first time that I've watched an armored warfare episode without my eyes glazing over. I appreciate the technical explanations without getting too far in the weeds, and I cannot in any way get sleepy listening to Indy!! Kudos to all the Time Ghost Team!!

[@patttrick]

Watch Lazerpig.

[@longdeath51]

Great lecture--thank you.

[@MGB-learning]

Great video and presentation.

[@indianajones4321]

Yes! A special!

[@r-saint]

8:59 This is T-34/57, not T-34/76. Are you kidding me?

[@stc3145]

You mean 9:00

[@r-saint]

@@stc3145fixed

[@ComissarYarrick]

To be honest, this is mistake only true tank nerds could pick up on ;) . 57 is one of quite rare versions of T-34 :D

[@Lex-dw7ng]

It's worth noting the heavy IS-2 weighed less than the "medium" panther.

[@DRSpillard]

Great episode

[@HootOwl513]

I'm going to guess that the M-3 AFV at frame [12:46] was modified from a Grant [w/ its exclusive squat turret] into a CDL. Code named ''Coastal Defense Lights'' they were M-3 Tracks with a huge carbon arc spotlight inside the turret, coupled with a shutter mechanism, to create a strobe effect. The stroboscopic output [@120 FPS] of scores of these tanks were to distract and disorient German bombers attacking the Suez Canal. Also used later in the Rhine Crossing. The vertical slit between the dummy cannon and dummy Besa MG, housed a prism, intensifying the effect. The dummy guns are for camouflage. Since they were highly classified, photos of CDLs are rare. I was unaware of the Dummy Gun set dressing.

[@wbertie2604]

Canal Defence Lights. They used a few other chassis, e.g. Matilda II.

[@HootOwl513]

@@wbertie2604 True. I saw the same modified M3 [at 12:46] on the Wikipedia page. The article also showed other tanks they converted to CDLs.

[@_ArsNova]

"The Panzer III's torsion bar suspension is outclassed by the T-34's Christie suspension". I'm sorry Indy and team, but this is just patently false. Torsion bars are still used today by modern MBTs and are objectively superior in practically every conceivable metric barring cost and maintenance. In fact, the Soviets wanted to put torsion bars on the T-34 (the T-43 project), but decided against it largely because it would be too expensive to convert existing production lines. The Panzer III was an extremely forward-thinking design.

[@brokenbridge6316]

Nicely done video

[@shawnr771]

Thank you for the lesson.

[@daniellooney8878]

Always remember OIL and logistics! Germany did not the get OIL in 42. Someone once said "amateurs study tactics, pros study logistics." Excellent episode to maybe educate someone. Will get the get it? Doubt it. But thank you for trying.

[@HontasFarmer80]

You watch that TIK fellow? He talks a lot about that.

[@mylifeisajoke1]

Doesn't matter how good the tank is if it never gets to the battlefield.

[@wildbikerbill6530]

"Amateurs study tactics. Professionals study logistics." - Omar N. Bradley

[@tando6266]

@@HontasFarmer80 He also believes that the NAZI were not nationalistic enough and if they just went at the Jews harder they could have won. The guy has 0 creditability in mainstream circles.

[@noobster4779]

Easy to say if your the USA and sit on all the natural ressources you need for any war already while your homeland is safe from any invasion or bombardmeant. Harder to say if your Germany with coal as your only natural resssource and your industrial heartland being only a days drive from the french border. If your enemy can cripple your economy with a single attack, you focus on tactics and not logistics. What good is heaving the best logistics if your enemy has already occupied your industry with superior tactics?@@wildbikerbill6530

[@user-qe5cj2on5t]

Heinz Guderian was so shocked by his meeting with the Soviet T-34 during Barbarossa that he asked Hitler to copy it for mass production in Germany. Moreover, the first prototype of the new medium German tank from Daimler-Benz in 1942 were very similar to the T-34, but the Germans did not stoop to such a “shame” and accepted the version of the Man company, which became known as the Panther.

[@josephglatz25]

There is something to be said for bogey suspension. It may not offer similar speed or ride quality when compared with torsion or Christie suspension, but it is much easier to repair, and reduces production costs significantly. Christie suspension has most of it's major parts present on the inside of the hull, which takes up more space and complicates repairs. Generally the T-34 wasn't built for a long operational life anyway, being built to last about as long as it was expected to live before getting destroyed in action, and admittedly, it was easy to fix, if not terribly reliable from the standpoint of part lifespan.

[@edmundcowan9131]

Indy you and your team are number one on history. Displayed knowledge is amazing. As an Ameri 13:16 can Tank officer from 1974 until 1994 ( we went from the m48 and M60 in that 20 years) to the M1A1 you are clearly qualified as an honorary tanker. Want a natural high sit in the turret while firing these beauties at 20 miles and hour at night.

[@dillonhunt1720]

8:58 I don't think that's a T-34/76. The gun barrel is way too long and skinny. That looks much more like a T-34/57 which I think only about 10 were ever made to make more room for T-34/76 production. Considering how few 57's were built and how many 76's there were its actually kind of impressive how a photo of a 57 would get mistakenly put in place of the most produced tank variant of WW2.

[@tommy-er6hh]

While the # of tanks [7,000 tanks, about 1,386 of which were M3 Lee and 4,102 M4 Sherman] in Lend Lease was important, just as important and often ignored is the trucks, the fuel and the food sent. Remember that the breadbasket of the USSR had been scorched earth 2x, once by Stalin and once by the Axis. Stalin had ordered the oil fields set on fire when the Axis got close, and the high tank production of the USSR was in part because they converted farm and truck production, so they needed trucks. So Lend Lease sent tanks and truck, and the food and fuel - along with other important stuff like radios [50% of Russian tanks had a Lend Lease radio.] But of course Stalin said all that was insignificant.

[@honoraresapientia7835]

🤡

[@spqr1945]

During the war Stalin said that without lendlease it was impossible to hold on, but after the war he drastically changed his rethorics

[@ballagh]

One forgotten element of lend lease was the Anglo Soviet invasion of Iran in August 1941 to secure supply routes to the USSR from the Persian gulf. Yet, as you say, Stalin said Lend lease was insignificant?

[@flarvin8945]

@@spqr1945the lend lease did not start in any significant numbers until after the Soviets stopped the Nazis at the gates of Moscow. And the vast majority was delivered until after war was decided. The lend lease shortened the war, it did not decide it.

[@bobjoned3398]

The USA supplied the machine tooling that allowed the Soviets to make the turret ring for the T34-85. No lend lease, no 3 man turret.

[@jonasnee]

the thing about the Lend lease is perhaps that its biggest contribution is trucks, think about it, if you get a 1000 trucks its a 1000 trucks you dont have to produce yourself, or it means you can support a higher amount of tanks, without those trucks the soviets could not have produced and operate nearly as many tanks as they did.

[@ablackghostmyguy3741]

PLEASE PLEASE do it for the western front as well

[@joshy7759]

New tank doctrine videos with the chieftain at some point? I use them to think wargames tactics and organize my command structure.

[@Redmanticore]

7:03 to my knowledge the stug 3 had the greatest kill ratio of all tank models in ww2. at only 2.16 m (7 ft 1 in) tall it was easy to conceal. this was highly useful when setting an ambush and made for a small, hard to pinpoint target even after the battle started.

[@tedhodge4830]

Incorrect. The StuG III had a 2-1 kill ratio, it is true. The Tiger I had a 6-1 kill ratio. What made the difference is that the StuG III cost 1/3 as much, meaning it's effective cost-to-kill ratio was the same as the Tiger I.

[@lyndoncmp5751]

Tiger and Ferdinand did. Over 10:1.

[@lyndoncmp5751]

@tedhodge4830 Tigers "kill" ratio in direct engagement was 12.2 to 1. Source. Sledgehammers, Strengths and Flaws of Tiger Tank Battalions in World War Two by Christopher Wilbeck, page 185.

[@HaVoC117X]

9:50 the Panzer IV was not the focus anymore. They produced 2500 real Panzer IVs with a turret during 1944, but 3800 Panthers. In 1944 the soviets produced 10500 T34/85 and 4500 T34/76. So the production ratio of medium tank was actually 1/2.25 and and not 1/6. A ratio which would not have worked for the soviets, if germany did not had to split their forces after the fall of Italy and the Landing in normandy. In 1944 Soviets and germans traded their tanks at a ratio of 1 to 4 or sometimes even higher in favor for the germans. So germany actually did not to bad of a job when it comes down to tank production. The two front war was unwinable anyway at this point. But speaking of a total missmanagement of german tank production is a bit far fetched. They could not operate more tanks anyway without bigger fuel and oil supplies, they could not even maintain the tanks they already had.

[@borromine]

Wow. One of your best ever!

[@MrMaltheChannel]

My mothers uncle was in the hitlerjugend. The first generation of it. He was a tank driver and drove both Panzer IV and Panther

[@porksterbob]

We need one of these on Chinese forces at the end of 1944.

[@cedricbaccay633]

Western front tank warfare 1944 🥺👉👈

[@JTA1961]

TANKS for sharing

[@WorldWarTwo]

Tank you for the support!

[@JTA1961]

@@WorldWarTwo...&... here's to hoping you stay on "track"...

[@ccccccc95]

Love the content from the team.

[@BrezhnevStan]

Fun fact the IS-2 1944 version featured effectively impenetrable armor that would stop even the long 88mm on the elephant and king tiger and of course the outdated 88mm of the regular tiger. In contrast the regular tiger had only 100mm of unangled frontal armor, meaning an IS-2 would have no problem penetrating the tiger even at extreme ranges like 2km

[@nickthenoodle9206]

Even more fun fact (actually not), the IS-2's turret armour was hardened so much, that while it resisted almost all attacks, the armour would spall on the inside, shredding the crew.

[@BrezhnevStan]

@@nickthenoodle9206 There was one case where an IS-2 survived several hours of getting shot by an elefant

[@HaVoC117X]

​​@@BrezhnevStanthat is about as true as the 3 day special operation. The Time the IS2 needed to reload the other have shot 4 to 6 times.

[@1987retroman]

Possibly at extreme long range an IS could deflect shots from the KwK 43, but I highly doubt it. At such a range the IS would have a very tough time engaging a Tiger 2 due to poorer optics and handling difficulties of the larger ammunition. All that said, the IS-2 was not designed to go toe-to-toe with German heavies. It was made to smash bunkers and absorb punishment.

[@nickthenoodle9206]

I have Peter Samsonov's book on the IS-2. In trials, the armour took 11 hits in the side, and 6 hits to the side without cracking. However, it does not mention spalling. OTOH, Michael Baryatinskiy in his book does. He also notes an after action report that states "existing cast armour is penetrated by 88mm ammunition from a range of 800-1000m due to its low quality eg low density and bubbles".@@BrezhnevStan

[@HaVoC117X]

For clarification. Panther was ment to replace both Panzer III and IV and it was planned to share its drivetrain, track and roadwheels with the Tiger II (Tiger I was just planned as a gap filler until Tiger II was ready from the beginning, yes that is actually true). This could not be realized because of the bombing of the bottlenecks of the german war industry and the Tiger production plant aswell. Panthers and Tiger IIs already used the same engine, but the Panther never got the transmission upgrade to the Maybach Olvar because of shortages. So the Panther was forced to use a simpler steering and transmissions system compared to Tigers, Cromwells, Churchills, Comets and Centurion. So its not that they did not planed the simplification of the Logistics between the types, they simply could not realize it. Furthermore the Panther was planned to be the platform for all types of fighting vehicles like Flak, mobile Arty, ARVs, TDs.....just like the Sherman or later the Leopard 1.

[@HaVoC117X]

Panzer IV was not the focus anymore. They produced 2500 real Panzer IVs with a turret during 1944, but 3800 Panthers. In 1944 the soviets produced 10500 T34/85 and 4500 T34/76. So the production ratio of medium tank was actually 1/2.25 and and not 1/6. A ratio which would not have worked for the soviets, if germany did not had to split their forces after the fall of Italy and the Landing in normandy. In 1944 Soviets and germans traded their tanks at a ratio of 1 to 4 or sometimes even higher in favor for the germans. So germany actually did not to bad of a job when it comes down to tank production. The two front war was unwinable anyway at this point. But speaking of a total missmanagement of german tank production is a bit far fetched. They could not operate more tanks anyway without bigger fuel and oil supplies, they could not even maintain the tanks they already had.

[@watcherzero5256]

There were other attempts to rationalise their logistic train as well, the Panzer 3/4 which used parts from both to produce one vehicle and the E Series which would have been a new common platform for all vehicles. But it exemplifies the problem with the Germans, their solution to reducing logistic complexity was always to design a new vehicle which would introduce even more unique components.

[@HaVoC117X]

@@watcherzero5256 that's why none of the project you named were followed through. Panther was the future.

[@watcherzero5256]

@@HaVoC117X Panzer 3/4 was in development from 1941 to July 1944, it was approved for full rate production in June 1944 then cancelled a month later. Then in 1945 it was dusted off and reapproved as the chassis for the new Jagdpanzer IV E. The Entwicklung series started development in 1944. So both projects were after Panther (designed in 1942 and entered service in 1943).

[@HaVoC117X]

@@watcherzero5256 dont confuese research and projects with production. The allied also had shit tons of projects running. Tortoise, T28/T95, the US T10, T14, T29-T34, Shermans with Torsionbar suspension, the russians aswell T43, T44 etc....Thats just normal. The Panther had a troubled start, thats why alternativs were kept on developed. The US also gambled with the B29, so they also developed the B32 Dominator as a back up. You fu.. it up, if you do it like the british finding the new cruiser tank. They actually built 2000 Centaurs and Cavaliers for the scrap yard just to settle for the Cromwell a year later in 1944. That was a messed up clusterfu.. .

[@PaleoCon2008]

The Soviet SU-76 was built on a lengthened version of the T-70 light tank chassis. It did not use the T-34 chassis.

[@websystema]

Thank you

[@janusx66]

Most of the problems are as you said due to a lack of oil for the Germans, that is why Hitler from 1933 on wanted to capture te Kaukasus for the oil fields there, from crude oil is not only fuel made but also lubricants what was also a issue for the Germans, there was not enough.

[@agripinaa8684]

Weird how he redirected forces away from the Caucasus to the relatively unimportant city of Stalingrad then

[@GrandSnow469]

@@agripinaa8684 Stalingrad is literally the gateway to Caucasus. Without it supplying the Caucasus would be impossible

[@TTTT-oc4eb]

Both the Tiger and Panther were reliable by WW2 standards by 1944, readiness rates from the units showed this. The former was probably one of the most reliable late war tanks - if maintained properly. Maintenance was a problem, as tanks, spare parts, fuel and work shops were targeted by allied bombers right from the factory out to the front. And they only used about as much fuel as a late war M4A3, and about 30% more than a Panzer IV. The keywords are power to weight ratio (PTWR). Both the Tiger 1 and Panther had a good PTWR, and it's a well known fact that a heavy vehicle with a good PTWR may use as little fuel as a lighter vehicle with poor PTWR due to less stress on the engine. The Tiger II OTH... Soviet vehicles often looked excellent on paper - in reality they often performed far worse than "expected" - a factor even today in Ukraine.

[@stc3145]

One of the reasons Soviets liked allied tanks especially the Sherman, more reliable and much more comfortable and easier to work on than a T 34. Just to refuel a T 34 you needed a big wrench to unscrew a couple of bolts to get access

[@Ronald98]

And that's why Germany lost.. because the Soviets didn't focus on an "ultimate tank", they focused on "alot of good tanks"...and that's a fight Germany could never win, quality or not

[@TTTT-oc4eb]

@@Ronald98 The Panther was designed to be easy to maintain and mass produce. There are two reasons why more Panthers were not produced: 1) it was a late war design, and 2) almost half of the production was destroyed by allied heavy bombers on the factory floor. If not for allied bombing, we would have been looking at: 1500 Tigers 9,000 Panthers 9,000 Panzer IV and 10,000+ assault guns and jagdpanzers - in 1944 alone! The Soviets could focus on tanks and warplanes because they were given huge amounts of more "boring" vehicles from their allies.

[@honoraresapientia7835]

​@@TTTT-oc4ebCould you provide proof of your words? Because in many studies I have read, the Allied bombing did not have a serious impact on the economy, but rather on the civilian population.

[@TTTT-oc4eb]

@@honoraresapientia7835 There are multiple sources on this, but Speer himself repeatedly said both during and after the war that it caused crucial production problems. As an example: 5 bombing raids between 22 September and 7 October 1944 destroyed 95 percent of the floor area of the Henschel plant. It is estimated that this caused the loss in production of some 657 Tiger IIs.

[@richardearl3815]

I'm enjoying this.

[@657449]

Do a show on how the lend lease equipment worked for the Russians.

[@p51cMustangFUYTGIVEMEBACK]

ppl like to talk about lend lease tanks and planes the shiny glorious stuff. im sad they dont talk about the hundreds of thousands jeeps and trucks fuels and food that even made it possible for the soviets to field such large tank forces in the first place (plus probably help a soviet economic collapse which was looming until mid 1944)

[@wesleybarton3871]

El Alamein when Monty tricked Rimmel into going south through the Qattarra Depression in Egypt while a minefield added to the danger. Then artillery and tanks the British unleashed,the infantry advancing, all made for a victory. Utt may not have involved a large tank battle on both sides, but the strategy stopped the Desert Fox advance into Egypt.

[@DiegoTorres-mh3mv]

hehe, efficiency vs effectiveness: that was really well summed up and you touch on some unique aspects of the nature of breakthrough armored warfare that is lesser discussed in the WW2 community. The only thing left to do is an all out data analysis!

[@user-ms5qt1zq6d]

this channel is bad ass

[@neilreynolds3858]

The increasing efficiency of the Russian Army sounds like what's happening in Ukraine. Unlike what NATO assumes, the Russians learn from experience and, yes, lots of good enough is good enough and little of great is not. If it ain't broke, don't fix it and especially don't try to fix it with something complicated, unreliable, expensive, and hard to repair.

[@agripinaa8684]

Truly wonderful, the mind of an armchair general is

[@Centurion101B3C]

Hm, Too bad for them. If only they had vehicles left to implement that gained insight and proficiency with. (tongue firmly planted in cheek.). The current Rossian army is a bleak and faint leftover scrap of what the USSR Red Army once was. Oh and lest I forget; That USSR Red Army was generally led by......wait for it.....Ukranian and Polish-extraction officers and Generals. For crying out loud, the USSR even used to have a thoroughbred Ukrainian as Soviet Chairman in the Kremlin (Chairman Nikita Crutchev was one heck of a crafty Ukranian. That is why he gave Crimea back to Ukraine.).

[@wertsatr294]

@@Centurion101B3C Where did you eat shit? Shit - give an example, the key people were Russians (Zhukov at least). Khrushchev was not a Ukrainian, but he had a lot of Ukrainian blood spilled during the period of collectivization on his hands and he tried to rehabilitate himself before them.

[@ALimbOfGreatTree]

Very interesting, need to repeat the famous quote from “the big moustache” regarding the t-34 etc. “Quantity is a quality of its own.”

[@SasBald]

Thanks!

[@WorldWarTwo]

Thank you so much!

[@Conn30Mtenor]

The Russian tank factories were designed by the renowned Detroit industrial architecht Albert Kahn and they were vastly more efficient than German tank production. The Russians tooled their parts to looser tolerances, kept production to a limited number of models and kept modifications to a minimum. The Germans, on the other hand actually bragged that each Tiger required 300,000 man hours to complete. Insane. On the western front, tank on tank engagements were pretty rare. One historian studied it through US Army quartermaster records. American tank units submitted their requisitions for resupply of tank ammunition and the consumption of HE ammunition outpaced AP ammuntion by about 4 tx; this meant that US armored units were more likely to be engaging soft targets and infantry rather than tanks. I highly recommend Jonathan Parshall's presentation on the video of Kursk with Robert Citino. He lays out the systems differences in Russian, German and American tank production. "Kursk: The Epic Armored Engagement (2013)"

[@lyndoncmp5751]

Tank v tank engagements were common for German tank crews on both fronts. There were allied tanks more or less everywhere along the front lines. German tank crews almost always faced allied tanks wherever they were deployed.

[@KingOfBattle25]

11:40 the SU-76 didn’t use the t34 chassis, it used the t70 chassis.

[@DBMirageIX]

Really love you did another video as this the point in the war, where you could see some truly titanic clashes between the monsters of the Eastern front. Unfortunately, however, none of the heavy tanks was really all that good.... Hence my favorite tank is still the Sherman/Sherman Firefly for its high quality, availability and immense battlefield reliability. Also glad Indy mentioned the improvement in capability of the Red Army. Worth noting here was the effectiveness of the IL2 at this point. Earlier on, they would miss most of the time, didn't know what to shoot at, couldn't kill tanks and were shot down in droves. By 1944, they worked closely with Forward air controllers, had P-tab anti-tank bomblets and were concentrated in very high numbers all along the frontline. The constant attacks meant the Germans could never regain their positions after the initial artillery bombardment and the IL2's would wreak havoc in the rear areas too. Combined arms indeed! Couple of points on the German and Russian vehicles too. Aside from the lack of materials and inability to say good enough, the Germans are constantly tinkering with upgrades to their production lines, hence there are hundreds of different versions of the Panzer III and IV, requiring work stoppages, retooling and screwed up component logistics. There were about 3 versions of the T-34/76 by comparison. With regards to the Panther, even though they did get over most of the initial teething problems, they never fixed the final drive, meaning they were constantly breaking down in the field and replacing a transmission there was impossible. The gun was great though, with a seemingly smaller 76 mm shell, but fired at a huge velocity, making it a superb tank killer. The transmission was a major factor for the Tiger I and Tiger II, which basically had the same engine and transmission, but got progressively heavier. Already a weakness in the Tiger I, more of the heavies would be lost to breakdowns and inability to recover them than through combat. Sure, they could kill anything from very long range, but the frontlines were constantly moving back, with no way of retreating quickly. On the Soviet side, sure the IS-2 had a massive 122 gun, but the projectiles were so big and heavy, they had to be stored in two parts, they could only carry 22 shells and the time between shots was about a week.... not great if a German heavy tank can fire 2-3 shots in the meantime. Worth mentioning is also the most Russian armored vehicle I can think of, the ISU 152, an absolute beast of a machine with the 152 mm howitzer on an IS 2 chassis. The velocity was slow and the shells had no armor penetration capability, but they didn't need them. The sheer concussive force of the blast could blow the turret or tracks off a Tiger. It had a good chance of killing the crew too just by the splinters worked loose from the blast flying around inside the enemy tank.

[@marcbjorg4823]

The kill ration of the PzIV was 5 to 1. The kill ratio of the Panther was 5 to 1. But the Panther used 2x the steel to be made.

[@greghammer5321]

Great channel

[@KingBaldwinTheFirstOfJerusalem]

good video