No, I don’t think I will

the T-38?

​@@Micha-wb9oz probably meant panzer 38(t)

@@qwertzy121212 LT-38*

@@Micha-wb9oz My bad, I should have put 38-T.

Not sure if the Germans could easily afford the costs for upgraded/new tooling by 1940/41, anyway.

I perfer the tech tree T 25 with the actual 3 round clip, it only takes 8 sec to reload 3 rounds and is very fun

@@nobodyspecial115 The tech tree version is more enjoyable but it's also tier 6, only downside of tier 5 one is the poor viewrange but high pen is a godsend.

Been a few years since I played it but the premium tier 5 from what I remember it's armor was weak and gun handling pretty mediocre. Not a very good tank and I don't think it even got premium MM.

@@stuglenn1112 It also gets eaten by arty and derp guns, the sides can be penned by them easily and even non-penning shots do a lot of damage. Whenever i encounter one i just see it as free damage because low tier skodas rarely if ever give me any trouble.

@@nobodyspecial115 Shame the tech tree Škoda T 25 got nerfed some time ago, it was a fun tank that imo didn't derserve to be nerfed

my f2p account has the t25 german and i always use it to grind credit for 5 years☠️

Pocket size tank is hard to hit if you even see it.

I would say good thing it did not for the allies. :D Prob would not change much, but It could have been a fair hindrance.

TLDR

😂😂

Everything has tradeoffs. Narrow tank makes it hard to steer but means smaller frontal hull armor. It lacks the big disadvantage of the Panther being too heavy and overly complex.

@@j.f.fisher5318 narrow tank also means bad crew comfort and little space for fuel, ammo, radio equipment, cables, transmission, final drives and the other complex things inside a tank, significantly reducing the overall effectiveness and efficiency. contrary to propaganda, the germans had very good and valid reasons to make the tanks they way they were, not sloping armor meant more space inside and it meant better structural integrety, just to name one example regarding this vehicle compared to the Panzer 4. the ground pressure of the supposed „too heavy“ german tanks is another thing constantly in debate, factum is, Panther‘s suspension, stability and ability to be driven over rough terrain or over terrain with the fear of sinking in, was better than that of the allied tanks and was on levels that was only reached again in the cold war due to the suspension system, the steering system and the wide tracks. that came at the cost of mechanical complexity and required training, but that was not a design flaw, every tank could be broken by mishandled steering, or lost due to accidents, that just was unlucky, since trained crews were another chronical scarcity in the time and this dramatically increased these accodent chances, meaning many drivers broke the suspension or final drives. a thing that definetely was a design flaw in contrast, was the need for special tracks on railway transportation, or the shot trap on the turret, whose were design flaws, not due to requirement, these could have been avoided. on an unrelated note, i read in one account from the SS-Panzer Division „Hitlerjugend“, that some of their very young drivers drove the tanks off their railway carriages and directly into a tree, and that resulted in a transmission break and an engine fire, where the automatic fire extinguisher fuel had been during training used to clean the uniforms, and so the tank burned out entirely, take that with a sack of salt since it is a memoire, that is not necessarily related, but you could also take that overall as a design flaw, they could have designed it easier to handle, but designing a handling for untrained crews, and considering the german tanks already were really easy and smooth to steer, i dont think that is a valid point to make. again, i am saying, these tanks were not necessarily unreliable, simply harder to maintain and learn to use, not a fault of the tank or its design, it is due to the overall situation the german army and industry was in, many were also built by slave labour and with inferior material, resulting in further vulnerability to mishandling, breakdowns and faulty repairs. they were also not underpowered as propganda would make you believe, their Ps to weight ratio was very similar to allied tanks, the Tiger II for example had the same PS/Weight ratio as the IS2, for example. in addition, the Panther would have had maybe a worse maximum speed, but that is only a videogame statistic, what matters is offroad speed and manouverability, in battle, maximum speed in not really a factor. so while the german tanks had worse top speeds and strategical manouverability, but again, mainly due to the overall wartime situation, bombed roads, impossible to move troops during daytime, unable to cross smaller bridges. and the chronical lack of fuel, meaning it had to be strictly rationed and all engines were only allowed to run on a certain maximum RPM to save fuel, they had excellent cross country manouverabiltiy, designed for the extremely harsh conditions of the soviet territory. this T vehicle in constrast, with its high center of gravity and thin tracks with small roadwheels, would in the conditions of the eastern front very likely immediately get stuck in the mud just like the Shermans did, if not tip over first. in regards to complexety, again, there was very good strategic reasons as to why german vehicles where built to what specifications, and assuming you talk about the suspension, transmission and internal systems of the Panther, no, they are not „overly complex.“ they were just designed for very rough terrains and conditions. german vehicles were not more unreliable than others, they simply were not able to be repaired more often than not and then would be cannibalized for parts, resulting in a loss of the vehicle. but that was not a designs flaw, that was the chronical lack of spare parts hurting them, unreliability is inherent to any complex system like a tank, the german reputation comes down mainly to propaganda, shermans and t34 broke down constantly too, or had mechanical failures, the difference was just that the allies of the time always had reserve vehicles and enough spare parts to maintain the vehicles instantly so they would not need to send every damaged tank back to the assembly plant or cannibalize other tanks on the spot. also, as i mentioned before, the automatic loading mechanism alone would in this stage of time be so unreliable that i can‘t really understand why you say this vehicle is not equally as „overcomplex“, because if such a system would have been aviable and ready for service, then military‘s would have picked it up.

nice

because it was very much substandard.

​@@hannesromhild8532Substandard? In what way?

@@Mercurywheeler They were very limited in what they could build wich is why they never got involved in making german Tanks or Stugs. the largest they could make was the Jagdpanzer 38 and that was already the limit. Also they have been behind in welding capacity wich is why there czech tanks are all riveted. In many ways Skoda was not up to german standards.

​@@hannesromhild8532 I would say it had something to do with Protectorate of B&M.

@@Krejza82 That has absolutely nothing to do with it.

They probably did. Furthermore all kind of vehicles based on the Pz38(t) chassis, like self-propelled howitzers, Marder III and Hetzer.

Except it's not a tank by any means, it's a wheeled SPG 🤦

It's an antenna

An issue is that Skoda would have needed a lot more rebuilding to really change what it was doing, and that would have been potentially expensive and time-consuming. It is well-documented (consult Doyle and other prominent names) that the Germans found the Skoda factories lacked the tools and infrastructure to process vehicles larger than the Panzer 38(t), as the Czechs had never got around to installing bigger cranes, rails, and other equipment necessary to physically moving the incomplete components around the factory; Can't really make a tank with a 20-tonne hull if your cranes can only lift 16-tonnes, that sort of thing. That was one of the big incentives to make Panzerjaeger 38(t), because it could be made with basically the same tools as the original tanks without major modification to the factory. It is probably this problem of tooling, the need to rebuild the factory to make large numbers of bigger tanks like T25, that is why Germany declined to invest in the T25 project in favor of building new factories for more promising Germany designs.

What do you want? Hetzer, that can be built now, in existing factories, with existing machine tools, that consume little material, or the unproven T-25, that need factorys to be retrofitted with new machine tools, that is only marginal better then the venerable Panzer IV, that is now proven and in full production. T-25 do also take great technical risk, a 2 man turret with a autoloader. Like all the German allierd tanks, they was at best marginal better, so they fall on, we have the Panzer III and Panzer IV in full production, the change is not worth the effort. 38(t)/Hetzer get a pass, Czechoslovakia did already have the factorys and the machine tools, to make them on a large scale.

@@kirgan1000 you don't get it. Skoda T-24/25 was 1941-1942 project. Hetzer entered the field in 1944. Meaning that had they accepted 1942, the factories would have been already expanded and modernized by the time they decided to produce Hetzer. If you can somehow suggest Hetzer to germans in 1942, be my guest:D

@@TheArklyte I missed the date. But my question still stand, T-25 is at best marginal better then Panzer IV, so why re-tool the production lines for the unproven T-25? Why rebuild the Czechoslovakian (t)38 factories (that is maxed out in tank size) Then light tanks still can perform useful task 1941-1942 and Gremany can use the same resursers to build out the Panzer IV factories.

@@kirgan1000 1)Skoda produced T-21/22 prototype on that very production line. You might know it by the name Turan in hungarian services or R-3 in romanian (planned) licensing. Moreover production facilities were modified either way. One of the most notable examples being changing the tooling and production line to widen the hull for production of Grille SPG. 2)not same resources. Expanded resource pool with more tooling, more workers and more factories involved. T-24/25 wasn't going to use factories built from scratch and workforce imported from Germany. If anything, it's production capacity that failed Germany before the resources did. Allied bombing had seen to the fact that Germany failed to turn all captured equipment into steel to produce "superior" german equipment instead. So there were soviet tanks that were possible to restore to combat condition that were rotting away in the field instead. Same thing here. This is an increase into production capacity of medium tanks and assault guns. 3)this is hypothetical scenario that relies on post-WWII knowledge. Of course germans in 1942 believed that they _wouldn't stoop so low as to use obsolete czech vehicles._ Until they did exactly that 2 years later :D

I mean, it was the panther's prototype before production

No it's not? The vk 16. 02 is the leopard​@@ivorynargie

@@Leopard-2A6.. oh shit, yeah, mistook it with the panther's prototype

Yep me too

Both are sprockets, but only the rear ones are powered.

@@TanksEncyclopediaYT but from a design aspect that makes no sense as free wheeling sprockets or sprocketed idlers would just cause extra design cost and track wear.

It's something the Czechs did a lot. It reduced the chance of the track slipping off.@@alancox5777

@@alancox5777trust czech engineering man, still a major player in vehicle and gun design

@@TanksEncyclopediaYT that’s surely a Czech “isum” or something as we all know it’s as I previously stated. If it were that good and idea or was effective at stopping a shit driver throwing a track we would see it on Abram’s t-series. 55 up to present. Leopard challenger ect ect

im pretty sure that already exists in wot man

But this was meant to be autoloaded

Pretty sure your mark is wrong

@@filipbitala2624 I originally wanted to contradict you. But on second glance, it is clearly a P-II-a prototype from ČKD and not a serial version of the LT vz.34. But in any case, it is not a LT vz.35 from Škoda.

@@michalman717You are right, I wrote it before making sure it's P-II-a. To say it simply, it's a tank by ČKD/Praga and not Škoda.

Yes, it appears weaker, in an unrealistic arcade game, against an incredible amount of heavy tanks and vehicles two tiers higher. And against vehicles so heavy that they would break before they even hit the battlefield. In real combat, against T-34s, Valentines, Cromwells, and M4s, without the absurd hit point system, this vehicle would be much better than it appears in the game.

It does.

0:57 "embraced by gamers" is most likely a reference to most of us knowing the tank because it was depicted in WoT/WoTB

I would say that czechia and poland weren't alies at that time!

It is important to the remember that just because people have common enemies does not mean they are friendly to each other, geopolitically-speaking. Czechoslovakia and Poland were hostile to each other over border disputes from the earliest days of their formations following the Great War. Poland, in particularly, invaded their neighbor multiple times INCLUDING NOVEMBER OF 1938. Yes, not even a year before the Germans invaded Poland, Poles invaded Slovakia. The Czechoslovaks had very little love for Poles and indeed, many Slovaks, despite being "occupied" by the Germans at that point, actively helped Germany fight Poland because they hated the Poles more than the Germans. Long and short, the nature of alliances and cooperation between nations in great wars is never as simple as one side is the good guys everyone should want to be fighting for and the other are the bad guys no one should want to fight. It usually is more a bunch of peoples picking the side that seems to offer the best path to success after the war based on what they know at the time, and changing their minds as the situation evolves.

@@genericpersonx333 thanks for expanding

You are welcome. I must admit I was shocked myself when I first learned just how bitter relations were all over Europe on the eve of the Second World War with most everyone at odds with everyone else. It is really an important part of European history that is just overlooked way too often by the big histories of the war. @@Narses_the_aremnian

They actually did, sort of, there was a mutual support agreement between the SSSR and Czechoslovakia, and there was also a mutual support agreement between the western powers(brittain and france) and SSSR, so by proxy there was an agreement between czechoslovakia and the western allies

also, JPz 38 production was motivated by damage to StuG III lines due to allied bombing.

"CKD and Skoda largely worked with the tooling inherited from Austria-Hungary" What do you mean? These two companies existed during imperial times. So how they inherited the tooling from themselves...?

OwO looks like a cat

@@Narses_the_aremnian It kinda is lol

They were basically occupied and annexed

@@rubberwoody even more reasons to be less cooperative. Or at least not help the nazis improve their military

@@lebien4554 it was slave labor

​​@@lebien4554which is what they did. The technical director Vilem Hromadko even leaked info to the soviets that the Germans are planning to invade. Furthermore, there were a lot of purposful defects in the production at the beginning, however the Germans noticed and then imposed brutal measures to eliminate people who were responsible or just sluggish. Don't forget, the factory wasn't Skoda during the war, it was owned by the conglomerate HermannGoeringWerke, Goerings brother was put in place as a director. (Altough he was actually a good one, he cooperated with the resistance)

That gun in the Skoda A 18 Tiger 1 is so much fun, I even have a hero skin for my T25. Screw the German one though with it's single shot

@@nobodyspecial115 yeah

The tier V non premium in the Czech tree does have the autoloader

@@rubberwoody6

skill issue

Doubt. Its ballistic efficiency is pretty poor, it has worse frontal armor than the Sherman overall. The gun was decent, but not better in penetration than the KwK40 on the panzer 4 F2-J. We don't know enough about it to make that call, plus what really matters is whether it was easier to maintain and repair than indigenous german tanks, which were generally awful in this regard.

@@kobeh6185 and for its time it might have been speed demon

In what way is the T-25 so superior to the now proven Panzer IV, that its worth the effort to re-tool the factorys in Germany for T-25.

@@kobeh6185 In what way was the T-25 so superior in maintain and repair compare to the Panzer IV? Never herd about Panzer IV was hard to repair or maintain, compared to other medium tanks of that era.

@@kirgan1000 the “ 3shit automatic cannon” the improved angular armor, and( depending on one’s source) it has increased speed🤔👍

skill issue

Shut it bot. Go stay in the corner and droll over your WT. Both games is awesome. Nuff said.

WOT Is trash,bot.@@AmadarianArkwing

@@AmadarianArkwingdont even bother about these typical type of wt player being slave of russia 😂