T-34-57 was a beast!!!

War Thunder player i presume.

funniest part of the prototype t-34-100 was that the gun was way to powerful for the turret, and the original had its turret ring break and the whole turret itself break off from the hull just by firing it once.

I had heard the T-34-57 predated the T-34-76 and was seen early on. But there were only so many built and their losses were so severe that the T-34-76 quickly became the sole T-34 in production (aside from variants and special models). Then came the T-34-85. The Soviets also built the T-44. A successor to the T-34, I believe it also had a 100mm gun due to being larger.

I wonder how fast a kammunist runs from a German tank

@orange and lemon 🅥 no body cares bot

And they still got stuck in mud a lot,

​​​@@WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot3267 true, during the battles of kursk, i heard they would burry the t 34s under ground, you would only see the turrent sticking out, this was a way to reduce the chances of getting the engine hit (over all, artillery would hit the turrent, but it wouldn't always disable the t 34.)

@@HybridPhage I wouldn't say buried but had deep enough trenches or bunkers. This allows for a "Hull Down" cover protecting the lower fighting compartment and an overall smaller profile if concealed enough.

I didn't know that.

i mean they have world of tanks for a reference to make it more realistic

It's a program bro

@@replynotificationsdisabled oh yeah they just hit a key and the program draws and animates an entire video for them lol

That kind of missile wasn't a thing back then

@@thecommunistdoggo1008 by missiles he meant the ones from the katyusha launchers

@@johnjimmy8385 Those are not missiles, those are unguided rockets

@The Communist does not matter how it’s called. He has a point either way

@@thecommunistdoggo1008 what about v1 rocket?

That is just nonsense. That doesn't find any support at all in the records of both the 653rd and 654th.

@@Dreachon i think the joke based on the first time the Tiger(P) debut and the Ferdinand's engine getting overheat really quick

@@jabaited They didn't have their engines overheat that quickly compared to other Germans vehicles.

Same for the t-34 bud in fact i think the maus was faster on road than the scap pile that the t-34 was even though the maus coverted into scrap before it even saw combat

Transmission consisted of a generator and an electric motor, there was literally nothing to explode here. Well, that is, with the exception of the engine itself, which had a terrible tendency to overheat.

The final sherman update resulted in the M50 Super Sherman

@@generalfluffyproto A beautiful tank to be sure.

Funny how T-34 and Sherman served all the way up until late 50s and 60s while Panther got scrapped and phased out of service. It served 1 or 2 years in French army, but that's it. T-34 and Sherman were both great designs for their specific roles.

well it and some other tanks weren't great - but having them could be great in many encounters never the less. a lot of tank engagements were not against other tanks back then, but against machine gun posts, support for infantry and such. (edit: especially post war. tanks are great if your opposition is some riffraff rebels or smaller countries who have absolutely none and didn't have any anti tank weaponry either)

@@slavicemperor8279 The Panther would've been a nightmare to try to continue post 1945. Interestingly enough, a few dozen STUG III assault guns were still being used by the Syrians in 1967 until they broke down or were knocked out.

Somebody tell laser pig.

70% of T-34’s broke down within the first 200km driven from the factory in 1943. That dropped to 10% by late 1944…

@@allangibson2408 ....ehhhh From what I've read they started bringing spare parts along with them And the logistics lines got better and longer So driving was done less, shipping was done more That decrees is less from in an increase in quality But an excess of spair parts (which they didn't have earlier on) And the lengthening of the supply lines, making trains the only way to move them, meaning extending the train lines to the factories It's pretty interesting Most of the surviving ww2 t-34s ended up in Chinese, Korean, and Vietnamese service And thanks to the Korean and Vietnam wars we got to see how shoddily made even late war variants where

@@jidk6565 There was another video I saw that talked about a study done on a post war made tank from the late 40s; it was unreliable and the metallurgy in the armor was incredibly poor. The T34 was a piece of junk, but the Soviets couldn't really do better and it was good enough at least.

@@ashfox7498 the CIA reports state that the t34 armor was of a higher hardness then us armor. Main "defect" that the report state is about the welds not being up to us standard.

The Communists made terrible tanks to crush the German number Thanks to the USA and Ukraine, the Communists were able to win by throwing the corpses of the Germans

Nope. Citation: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/frJ-gqRz1KuwcmQ.html

Yep. Allied strategy for winning in WW2 was to outproduce the enemy

@@grievetan it was a total war

At least the Soviet complain about the Sherman give to them, most T-34 crew did not complain because they end up dead.

@@grievetan no it wasnt think about what you just said

quality is not needed due of the war, i recall some T-34 didn't have primer paints and just straight out to the front, some are not even managed to do finishing touches such as grinding for excess metal and other impurities in the metal

It's better for you if you are in a Sherman Fun fact The Sherman Russian crews had to guard there tanks out of fear that the t-34 crews will steel the leather seats or anything else because the Sherman is a high quality tank

@@joshuajoaquin5099 and please what was the casualty rate of your run of the mill T34? Also let's not forget the amount spent on training the crew, the fuel needed to keep the thing going, the ammunition that it needs to fire for every cheap T34 spawned from factory 183 That is double the amount that would have been better spent while I can build a high quality tank, where I have a high chance of survival, and can go to train new tank crewmen.

I’d be scared to be a tank crewman at any time period for Russia

@@marseldagistani1989 Well, your high quality tank can be destroyed just the same, with one well placed round. Keep in mind, Red Army tankers were facing a war of anihilation, so their casualty figures kinda make sense. Besides, tankers are not often taken as prisoners either. And with all of that, T-34s were made to break down. Soviet High Command analysed and noticed that the average tank did not live more than 6 months without being destroyed, and also understood Germany would not win a war of atrition, due to the Soviet Union's incredibly large industrial output capacity (thanks to Stalin), so it just seems logical that you'd create tanks that are easier and faster to produce, and easier and faster to maintain, so what if casualty rates are high? That's to be expected.

This tank was a death trap, but it didn't matter at the time. It often remained long enough in tact to kill something else.

There is a reason you don’t hear about t-34 aces

@@charlesmcgill2974 Brutal, but true.

@@charlesmcgill2974 (in drunk Russian accent) *What you mean comrade?” *slaps side of tank* “You see ‘dis tank; ‘any of ace’s made by T-34!” *slab of armor falls off* (Whispers)“What! What do you want Artyom?! Tank aces aren’t made by how many tanks you loose?!… Suka!”

@@arkad6329 ..

I feel the t-72 is the most iconic Russian tank, but the t-34 is a close second

@Don't read profile photo I read your name

@@nickumstead He said in the war.

@@EldishRinger He said “In the entire history of war”

Soviet tank

A fellow cultured lazarpig enjoyer

Next week - Simple History: The A-10 friendly fire incident

Lazerpig did the video way better

@@Shenaniganator101 yah becouse he knows what he is talking about unlike this youtuber

@@bigtimegamer7776 also lazerpig demolishes all the arguments of cheap, as he did provide the stuff about 1 t 34 being the same cost as a sherman or something like that

Lmao

Yeah.. but what have western allies agains king tiger

@@davidfans5852 Thats an easy answer - Air Force, Close air support with no opposition.

Not to fight the tiger mind you. The engines are just that unreliable.

It’s not a Soviet joke

Who would survive? T 34 with 45mm of sloped armor. Or the Sherman with 51mm of sloped frontal armor?

Found the cope comment

@@user-et5jt5xs5q good for him. And I am surprised enough that he came out of it alive considering the cramped conditions of it, and not get hit by the spalling

@@marseldagistani1989 there were more T-34s manufactured than there were Shermans though.

@@robertbalazslorincz8218 those are post war production with higher quality. And last I checked the casualty rate of Russian tanks and German Panzers was 7:1. With 44,900 T-34s destroyed

how it was good in 1941?

bro there were like 2 t34s in 1941 😭😭😭

@@void1n after their massive mechanical breakdowns XD

@@void1n there were either 1000 or 3000 operational t34s at the start of operation barbarossa. i forget which

@@AJ-tr5ml Around 900 actually. Out of 23-24k ish tanks the soviet Union fielded at the beginning of operation Barbarossa, around 550 of them were of the KV-series, more than 900 were the T-34s and the rest of them T-26s and various variants of BT tanks.

"Absolutely not" is an answer that came out randomly. "absolutely Yes" it did help win the ww-2 what's the doubt in that? T-34 kept on improving and till the last date of the fight it was the main strike tank supported by IS-2, SU-76, SU-85, SU-100, SU-122 and ISU-152

Bruh what? T-34 was the backbone of Soviet armor, without it, and instead going with other models,the Soviet would had lost ,either dropping even more quality or making any models more expensive at the time.

@@jabaited long story short, German commanders liked to use the T34 as their excuse for sucking some off. Especially the ones that wanted a new job at NATO post war. The Soviets just never bothered correcting them. But I'm more pointing at the title implying the T34 was the only reason the Allies won the war. Not calling it a horrible tank, it was well designed. There was just a few thousand other factors that lead to the fall of the German Reich.

@@livingroomtheatre174 uncanny doubtful, 1 theater doesn't win a war. allies were already in Italy and Africa

Tankie

Safe isn’t taken into consideration when it comes to tanks, the Sherman while regarded as one of the best tanks was almost on Parr with the T34, they still had habits of trying to kill its own crew,one main issue was with the breach, while loading a round into a Sherman the problem is the Breach closes as soon as it knows a round is inside,there have been multiple cases of men losing they’re fingers just trying to load the main gun,another problem was the Sherman wasn’t built with Survivability in mind, despite they’re numbers they had some of the biggest losses of the war, despite the Sherman having large numbers they were built with quantity over quality, and of course the Sherman was built to deal with Infantry and light armored vehicles,not tanks like the Germans had, even the panzer 4 couldn’t be attacked head on, then there’s the chance that a Sherman comes across a Tiger,despite what some will say, there’s a lot more to it then just shooting. So overall the Sherman was modular but that doesn’t make it much better than a T34

Пепельницу нужно было в танк устанавливать? Русскому воину освободителю нужно было защищать Родину и Отечество, а не думать как его заду будет удобно.

We just don't agree woth the doctrine anymore. It just very...unrespectful of your own soldiers welfare and motivation.

The tank didn’t last 6 months. If you are the driver of one you’d rather commit suicide then drive it, and in 1941-42 more where destroyed then produced. And even the Red army couldn’t afford the high losses, and it wasn’t strategically genius, it was the only thing they had. It was lacking in hard and soft factors and unlike the Sherman was extremely unreliable with terrible sights and a useless radio, extremely cramped and a Topspeed of 20kph on road, due to the transmission being horribly overstressed. The armor was also heattreated way to high, so it was so brittle it would shatter if any HE shell hit it.

@@dougwillis5069 Well, warfare changes as time progresses. The soviets were very pragmatic, I like to compare their idea to Grant and Sherman (the Generals), to win a war is to bring it to a satisfactory conclusion as quickly as possible. And to do that, people gotta die, it's sad but it's true.

@@_me___ Soviets believed in mass mobilization doctrine and rather focused more on quantity than quality to attempt to overwhelm the enemy. It's often painful, but can be effective when pulled off correctly.

@@_me___ true they had high losses, but i wasnt because of that tank, but because of tactic soviets used

T-34 heroes? What did the Russians do after ww2?

i preferbthe sherman, safer and mobile. t34 has its problems but i will take those than any german tanks that either constantly break down or no fuel to function 😂

@@derpynerdy6294 i mean t34s didn't have fuel until later and it broke down sm that crews carried new transmissions

Nope the t34 never arrived this Citation: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/frJ-gqRz1KuwcmQ.html

It could be true for Early T-34s or Kv-1s however later in the war the Soviets manufactured tanks that were good in quality.

Are you saying the Soviets didn’t use tactics

Another thing to add is that actually German Tanks started becoming worse in quality as the war progressed, at the later stages Germany didn't simply have resources, oil and steel were running low many factories got bombed.

Mass produced (quantity over quality) outdated tanks/IFVs operated by inexperienced, poorly trained and ultimately "expendable" crews... Thank goodness the contemporary Russian military doesn't... Oh... Erm... 😬

A lot were due to the fact stalin killed most of the general staff before the war. A genius idea, i agree

honestly t-34/85 is a crudely produced tank and isnt a nice sight to see but it is fairly decent it could drive quite fast, had decent armor and a 85 mm gun that could go up against the tiger, panther, panzer 1,2,3,4 and sure its quality wasnt the best but it made up for that in numbers most german tanks at the later years were panzer 3, panzer 4 and stug 3 which made up for a big majority these were the tanks that the t-34/85 were usually facing and it could face them because it was betrer armored than these tanks and also had a bigger gun that could oenetrate these tanks with relative ease, the tiger 1, tiger 2, panther, jagdpanther and the jagdtiger were in minority of tanks that the t-34/85 face, about 1500 tiger, about 500 tiger 2s and 7000 panthers were produced over the course of the entire war so these tanks were rare and the t-34 could go up against a tiger and penetrate it from the front the only thing that it couldnt do is face a tiger 2 or panther from the front, what it couldnt do in quality it made up in quantity, the germans had a lot less tanks than the SU, or the western allies so they were usually outnumberd, ghere was german saying that a tiger could destroy 5 t34s but there were 6 the t 34 could just come in from the side and penetrate the tiger 2 and panther just by overwelming it in sheer number

@@The_last_prime 1 sherman can destroy a Tiger same for a single T34.

A tad overhyped?

The t-34 is definitely not overhyped all the trash German tanks that would break down after every 20km were very overhyped

yeah

I just say which varient of the t34 im talk8ng about, example being, t34 76

This it true

Is that why Americans using XM these days for prototype?

Hahahaha NO

@@marinlukacek7821 yes

Зато русский воин освободитель защищал Родину и Отечество, а немцы убивали мирных граждан.

​@@user-zg5ev1ck3yRussians killed civilians too and they definitely weren't kind to civilians, especially German and Eastern European civilians.

Interesting

That just means the Germans had a positive KDR.

@@noahbarton9723no they actually didnt it was japan that did most the lifting same with italy or egypt whichever one mussilini was

What was used?

@@Agustin-jd9iq yeah but it depends on which time it was made.after the cold war they removed that feature as for my source just try to find a blueprint because the soviet achieves have been down ever sense Russia invaded Ukraine

Idk if it’s so much the Soviet troops lacked the ability to take initiative, as much as it was that if they did, they would be shot by their own officers lol. Valid point tho

the T-34 had plenty of flaws. it was cannon fodder that gave Russia a fighting chance. but it was inferior to other WW2 tanks. Even the Russians preferred the M4 Sherman.

agree, they won't look on other designs. For them T-34 matters

There faces when I show them the FCM 36

Bro, the mf little willie had sloped plates

@@TomasLeGamer try telling that to the commieboos

The idea of sloped armor has been around for centuries. Even medieval castles used it

I think that if you want to acurately compare tanks, you must look at both quality and production numbers. For example: Of course 1 King Tiger can destroy 1 T-34, there's no doubt about it. The problem is that, they wouldn't fight 1v1. For 1 King Tiger there was going to at least 3 or 4 T-34-85s, so that's why production cost should also be looked at. But let's take it a step further. Soviets, as we know, had more resources and were not fighting a two front war, so I think that a fair test would be the following: We should look at how much T-34-85s could the Germans produce(if they only produced them) vs how much King Tiger could they produce (if they produced only them). Then train all crews the same and let them all fight. Repeat the test a few times with King Tigers being the attacker 5 times, and T-34-85s being the attackers 5 times. Maybe do a few tests without any air support, some with King Tigers controling the skies, and some with T-34-85s. Airplanes should of course also all be the same and with equal numbers and equipment. I of course know that this test is impossible to do, expect maybe in hoi4 (maybe it's not even irl, I really hope it isn't and that some experts will do it), but with this kind of test I think we would finally find out which is superior. Of course you can do this with any kind of tank, not just T-34-85s and King Tigers

this comment needs to be pinned

@@getimpaled3460 this. It was not about out engineering the Germans for the soviets. It was about out producing them because they knew German production and fuel limitations. And they were right. It just needed to be good enough - not the best.

@@KazeHorse Correct, it is about the question of how much tanks you can realistically produce. The German industry back then was not large nor do they have much resources to use, but what they have is a high quality industry dating back to the 1850s. With that in mind, let us think of this premise. If the Germans were to build T-34s, how many do you think they could make in a month ? At best, a thousand or two because they just don't have the capacity to build more. Even if they were to cut off quality completely, where can they find the metal to build tens of thousands of these tanks to begin with ? Then, if either the Americans or Soviets were to build King Tigers or Panthers, they could build much more than the Germans could, but these machines requires a high quality industry to both build and maintain. Simply, the engineering challenge requires not a high quantity industry, but a high quality industry. Overall, if one were to argue about a tank being inferior, these were design choices that suits a nation's industrial state and capability, and of course their limitations. In real life, I once heard about a German engineer in the early stages of WW2 who proposed to the High Command to build T-34s themselves. They could build their own, with German specs, all plans laid out and a unit is ready for production, but the High Command rejected it. This is because they understood the above concept, about the limitations of their industry, and how this Soviet Beast is unsuitable for their small scale, high quality industry. They instead end up with the Panther and Tiger.

​@@getimpaled3460 A _Bengal_ tiger isn't even the same type of tank as the t-34. That's like comparing an artillery piece to a machine gun. The comparable German tank is a long barrel PzIV or Panther. Production numbers also have virtually nothing to do with the tank, that has to do with the industry producing them.

Yes, because 1.6mm mistake is something to write home about

@@enyaliosares4301 75mm guns and 76.2 mm guns have major differences in ballistic performances. A 75mm american gun cannot pen a tiger armor while a 76.2mm american gun can

@@Minute_Sniper you are missing the .2 now ITS 76.2mm or simply ten time 7.62 caliber

@@Minute_Sniper not really to do with the diameter of the barrel but rather the increased velocity of the gun

@@Minute_Sniper And the shells in the 75mm and 76mm American tanks are exactly the same size - the cartridge cases on the 76mm are however twice as long and bigger in diameter…

Then get liquidiise by anti tank artillery guns or run out of ammo?

@@Deaglan753 all of the above

@@Deaglan753 like I said, it's a death trap either way, might as well be blasting some music while your going 45 km an hour and then see entire enemy team slowly aiming towards you but your just ats enough o outrun them all for just a few seconds.

No tank is perfect. The T34 is proven to be very adaptable to war situations and is adequate enough to deal with any challenges. The Soviets continued to upgrade and improves its design and its chassis become the basis to many variants of new tanks and gun carriers. Although many T34s are destroyed or disabled, its simpler design allows many to be salvaged, rebuild and reenter military service. Quantity is as important as quality as military equipment are lost, captured and destroyed. Getting them replaced is essential.

it would be good if done in quality but since its war they have to be sacrificed

In my opinion There's no best tank of WW2 but if we have something close it will be the Sherman

@@xahmadx6442 Agreed

@@xahmadx6442 If you ask me its the Panther, the Sherman was just another tank to explode immediately on the frontline.

@@PuellaMagiHomuraAkemi Another myth. Shermans had brilliant survivability statistics.

Kolobanov would be proud for you. 😂

The Germans loved the Tommy Cookers. Kept them warm at night.

@@someguy7629 Fun fact: the sherman crew have higher % of survive than anything other tank in ww2

@@canthi109 yep, and it’s still way more reliable than any of the over-engineered German tanks lol

@@titan_tanker X2

2 different tanks, from 2 different nations fighting 2 different types of war. USA wasn't being invaded and the Americans valued the lives of their tankers. Russian was desperate and motivated to defend their land to their last man so tanks were produced with only numbers in mind. There's nothing more scary than a nation that has nothing left to lose.

Same

Mehh but the T-34/85 I do think is very nice much more than the 34/76.

Look at the Sherman Firefly

Only the t34 85 imo is a good looking t34 or the type t34 (chinese t34)

What the gasoline run Sherman though? They did fought during winter in Belgium, right?

@@Joshua_N-A They had diesel powered ones sent in lend/lease. But the T34 was the backbone, very easy to manufacture, maintain and able to handle the extreme weather conditions.

Ahh those times when it used to be uncommon that generals die.

@@boerekable these days, they're all about high pay and a nice office with air conditioning.

Bro, T-34 is medium ranked tank, when Tiger is Heavy lol.

NEW SPACE FORCE!!!!!

isn't that every tank?

@@comradekenobi6908 No, Western Tanks have blow out panels and Blast doors to protect the crew. Russian Tanks and Chinese Tanks don't

@@Tanker000 what period of Western tanks?

@@comradekenobi6908 no, western tanks such as the Abrams and Challenger 2 store their ammo in the back of the turret with pop off panels and such to direct the blast away from the crew compartment if its hit. Soviet era tanks store their ammo under the crews feet, thats why their turrets always fly when they get hit.

If the tank was hit a sherman crewman had like an 80% chance of getting out. T-34 not so much.

small reminder: for a correct citation you sghould also name the lines

And the most important lend-lease for Soviets is US trucks, millions of them shipped to USSR to replace those be destroyed during first stage of Operation Barrabosa and another provide constant line of supply for T-34s.

@@superspies32 433,967 trucks and jeeps, page 1 Hyperwar Lend lease Shipments Ordnance--Motor Transport Vehicles All trucks made in USSR before and during the war were licensed copy's of US trucks.

Lend-Lease Vehicles in the Red Army in Russian, quantities in video, oil is in metric tons. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/jbllaqiZqpaaY5c.html

too true

It wasn't cheap. It was an expensive tank produced cheaply. If produced to American standards, it would cost roughly the same as a Sherman

@@kimdaniel98 well because of rushed mass production it's cheap because most of t-34 doesn't have radio, low quality metal and cheap labors on job working it. It's a tank that designed to be a expensive good tank but because of Germans are getting closer it ended like medium quality or low quality.

@@jst7675 exactly! Ergo: not a good tank. The post war productions were better, but still not great

Using diesel doesnt lower this tank chance of catching on fire because the fucking fuel tank are around the crew

@@billytheshoebill5364 what are you talking about did you see the other documentary how t-34 survive at direct hits? diesel is also less flammable bruh

I swear to God they just appear out of thin air and destroy my tank usually from *behind*

hahahaha so true

Depends who shoots first but the sherman crew even if hit, actually survives, gets on another one, then destroy the T-34s.

The T-34 sucked in Corea, overall, the Shermans destroyed 47 T-34's but loosing 25 of their own. The Pershing just eat them like nothing.

I made it to a point where i mass produced only battleships however i did mix and match different types of ship types and designs

@@Deaglan753 one good set up I did was 1 titan with the regen fleet ability + neutron launchers. Approx 24 battle ships with neutron launchers and lancers. Approx 66 Corvettes with disruptors. While your titan and battleships are at artillery range, the Corvettes would swarm the fleets confusing AI targeting. At the end, I just replace a couple of Corvettes.

@@chibidakis1 well the biggest ship i can build is the battleship because i dont have any DLCs but am a huge navy buff so i try to make space ships based of ww2 and cold war ships,