It´s a part from the polish movie Four Tankist and the Dog. When I was the young boy this movie was running in our television..... and nearly everly dog in our village was called Šarik.
If you drive the T-34-85 really fast over a big ditch you didn't see, the gun will dig the ground and warp the barrel. Try to fire it afterward will split open the barrel like a ripe banana. Hence why they drive around with the gun pointing backwards
@Natalia99a In what dream land would a T 34 or T 34 85 ever beat a Tiger 1. Maybe Alice in "Russia"nland. Here are the gun and armor figures: *Tiger/Hull Armor Front: 100mm,Sides:82mm,Rear:82mm/Turet: Front 100mm,S:82mm,R:82mm.Gun: 8.8mm 36L/56. T-34-85(the later version of the first T34): Hull Armor Front:45mm,Sides:45mm,Rear:45mm. Turet Front: 115, Sides: 90mm, Rear: 75mm. Gun: 76mm S-54. Get your shit straight before talking smack.
Vivat to T-34 , killing machnine for Nazi's Army!! For you, bastards, we are preparing a modified nuclear bombs.. WE ARE LIKE YOU, GUYS!!! DO NOT DISSAPONTED AND GIVE A CHANCE TO DROP THEM ON YOUR HEADES, .PLZ!!!!
why does so many ppl think the T34 a good tank it was infact crappy and weak it was mass produced by the corrupt psych stalin for bieng a cheap tank what make it cheap is its crappyness. did you guys knew that its max. armor is 45MM? did you guys knew it had one of the wierdst turret guns in the world? its design makes its gun only manned by one guy while other tanks where a gunner loader and commander would man the gun but T34s design makes its gun manned by 1guy which makes it very slow firing
@dividednation44 makes it very slow to fire .... But obviously the German tank crews lacked the pace to fire:) 45 mm, this body armor of this tank. Why do you give distorted information?
@Imprudentman 45MM or 40MM whats the fucking differance? the german tanks werent slow firing, infact the panther was even though bieng so powerful and strong was high rate firing. the PZIV was an exellent tank can be compared with any other WW2 tank and has better sights and better armor. but less firepower. so STFU
@dividednation44 I think Panther tank is better compared to the heavy tank IS-2. These tanks have the same mass. And I think the IS-2 at distances greater than 1000 -1300 meters is more likely in a personal duel with a Panther tank. Good luck.
@dividednation44 JS-2 was released around 2500 during the Second World War. Tiger tanks 1 - 1200 pieces. Tiger 2 (King Tiger) - 400 pieces. It was released a lot of tanks Panther - 5992 tank. Typically, the JS-2 were transferred to other tank units for amplification. IS-2 was a great assault tank. 25 kg fragmentation high-explosive projectile spread to shreds any entrenchment of Germans. Projectile 122-mm gun of the JS -2 had huge traction.
@Imprudentman but it ate hit and died. never heard or saw IS 2's in germany. most were the brakefast and primary targets of stukas. were shitty tanks when compared to tiger II or panthers. panther is widely regarded as the best of the best tank design of WW2 hence how more then 5000 of them were produced by the collapsing industry of germany. they were awesom tanks. one version had an awesom 60MM side armoring. how's that for advanced tanks?
@dividednation44 During the storming of Berlin's heavy tank IS-2 were used extensively. They can be seen on the newsreel shots storming of Berlin in April 1945. They are also widely used in the Soviet Army in 1944. Russian tanks being used in the breakout fortified defense, and almost always successful. Also known to the German command ordered not to enter into battle with heavy Russian tanks, if German troops do not have numerical superiority. These were formidable fighting machine.
but if theres a tiger II it will reduce it to a toy car. tiger II's 180MM armor is un-penetrateble from the front no matter what you'd do with your IS 2
@dividednation44 400 pieces Tigers-2 issued for all time of the Second World War could not seriously affect thesituation on the the front . In addition, these tanks had some technical problems like Panther tanks.
@Imprudentman panthers techincal problems were completley solved and elimnated in the new version. tiger II was'nt much of a technical fail tank. its well know.
@dividednation44 The Panthers were tanks with interesting technical solutions. But they conceded the JS-2 in armor protection and the power of artillery shells.
Rudy 102 is a fictitious tank with a fictitious crew that was a polish tv show. the russian music makes me sick, why would you ever depict this as russian, is insulting to us Pols.
@hunter4hire And I like these songs. These Polish and Russian, Georgians are heroic people who defeated the German fascists. Filmmakers of this film is extremely lucky when they shoot such wonderful people, real heroes.
@vidukas111 Read more sweet German statistics, which wrote the German officers that could reassure themselves. And also for friends of the propaganda departments of Goebbels. These figures can be safely reduced by half.
@vidukas111 Tell your father that he would not fuck your mother-mare. Maybe your dad did it out of academic considerations. His scientific experiment can not be called successful. After what you wrote here an idiot.
this clip is tanken from a very famous soviet tv show four tankers and a dog its like soviets version of the A-team.the tv serial is about a polish tank crew who fight in the russian army against the germans.the tank crew isn,t what you call normal a dog is a part of the crew.the tank call sing rudy means in polish the red head.i have seen it and its very very good tv show
The T-34's were just plain good, the most bang for your buck (and time) there was in the war. That's really what matters, not a 1 vs. 1 or a numbers comparison.
@MrSatchboogie33 T-34 was released in 1939. In 1941 Russian with this tank were able to halt the offensive near Moscow. Hero of the Soviet Union Lavrinenkov for 2,5 months of fighting near Moscow knocked on the T-34 / 76 54 enemy tanks.
The big confrontation was the Battle of Kursk. Germans invested alot of machinery and manpower in their big offensive. I believe head to head tank battles are rare and few and far between, there Tiger's were greeted with a lot of anti-tank and land mines. Good machiney gone to waste. DON'T tangle with the Red Army because they play the heavy ground game. 20 armies,6500 T-34,8500 aircraft will show up at your doorstep in Berlin in'45 then split your country in half and then we will airlift food.
Yes, the Tiger 2 emphasized firepower and heavy armor, but there are insulting difficilties to all tanks. Anti-tank guns that are not even connected to tanks, vulnerable places of tanks like the underbelly, sprockets,tracks, lighter side armor, vision slots,machine-gun slots,panzerfausts and the most insulting of all, seeing a snot-nosed schoolboy hurling an incendiary bomb(molotov) with his sock stuffed in the opened end of the bottle. Germans heavy tank w/88,T-34w/76-85 with elusive speed.
"Czterej pancerni i pies" ("Four Tankmen and the Dog") was neither propaganda or documentary movie. It was a TV series aimed mostly at young audience to entertain and educate in pleasant way. It was based on a book written by Janusz Przymanowski, a colonel in Polish 1st Corp. fighting along Russian Army. I believe he was inspired by another Polish writer, Henryk Sienkiewicz, who made a great story about Polish noblemen fighting Swedes and Turks in XVII century.
Folks, my genetic roots are German, Russian, Ukrainian. I was born and raised in Canada and am 49 years of age.
I speak neither Russian nor German but am simply a man trying to understand his past through history! I wish to understand as much as I can and pass it on in an accurate way before it is entirely forgotten by the younger generations.
Never have I seen such a tank so PRIMITIVE, RUGGED, ILLOGICALLY ANTI-ERGONOMIC, STIFF TO CONTROL & POORLY SENSITIVE as the T34s, Despite T34 was the Sov. 2nd GENERATION mass productive tanks with sloped armor, faster speed & bigger caliber gun, they ONLY PROVED themselves ALWAYS EXPENDABLE to the well organized OUTNUMBERED German 1st GEN. panzers, these POOR COORDINATED FOOLHARDY russian ramming boars BRAINLESSLY BLUNDERED INTO KwK fire without firing a shot thus were hunt in rows.
-not to flog it to death but one other nasty aspect of the early T34/76 was the frontwards opening commander's hatch which exposed him to flanking fire. Human life was just as throw away as the equipment in Russia during "The Great Patriotic War" and it reflected in the designs of their military equipment.
With the T34 series Koshkin and Morozov took a radical leap forward. What do you think and all out clash in numbers between M4 and T34/76 would have amounted to? Just curious.
T34 was best designed tank of WWII. It had sloppy armor, making its 45 mm front plate as tick as 90 mm, a hard-hitting 76.2 mm gun and wide tracks allowing it to operate in difficult terrain. German Panther (Panzerkampfwagen V) was based on the design of T34, yet too expensive to be manufactured in sufficient quantities to make an impact on the outcome of the war.
The armour was of poor quality reducing it's protection, the 76.2mm gun was anything but hard hitting, it was hopelesly outclassed when the german brought their long 75mm guns in mid 1942 into the field, coupled to this were poor quality optics.
The visibility within the tank was poor, effeciency within the tank was poor, communication again was poor, this tank is full of design flaws that caused for huge losses even in 1941.
How many Tigers, Panthers and 75 mm guns were German able to produce? There were about 1000 T34 getting of assembly lines each month. T34 was roughly finished and not of highest quality, because it was not kind of a tank to last long, but to be used in quick, decisive offensives. In my opinion this was the tank that won WWII.
Production numbers can be found on the net, but if you are just gonna call the T-34 the best tank just because it was mass produced than you are only fooling yourself.
The sheer losses already show there are problems with the T-34, it never reached a kill-ratio of better than 3:1 in the enemies favour.
Germany produced around 50439 AFV and only around 2/3 of this faced the Russians, Russian losses are at least 96000, possibly even higher.
T34 had characteristics that influenced post war tank design more than any other tank. None of the tanks in 1941 had the combination of protection, mobility and fire power what T34. Without studying T34, Germans would never come up with their Panther. Yet Panther was still heavier, slower, more complicated and difficult to manufacture, especially towards the end of the war as Nazi were short of raw materials. Decision to build Panther and Tiger II was a big strategic mistake.
-also, early versions of the T34-76 had unreliable final drives. This was a vehicle that took the best of foreign concepts and was mass produced for a conscript army. By no means was this tank the best of the best in design alone but much like the M4 Sherman was a war winner because of it's numbers. It was a throw away tank for a nation that could afford to do so in the later stages. Quantity vs. quality(apples and oranges), but still an outstanding if not crude design!
-easy to manufacture and operate are the two key elements missing here. Agreed that it was war winner but so was a much poorly designed M4 series of American tanks.
The principle was the same, mass produce a standard tank and throw it into the field in numbers.
T34-76 is where I would have staked my life on because of it's superior range and mobility. Lack of training and tactics are the one thing that held this amazing tank back . Best of the best was the T34!
What also held it back were a number of seriosu design flaws.
There were considerable problems with the steering, christie suspension was very prone to damage after long road marches, it also didn't allow for a smooth ride.
Visibility within the tank was also rather poor, optics once again of a poor quality, lack of radios until 1944, commander that also had to act as the gunner.
@Tull29 I hardly agree with the T34 was easy to operate, it was fast but WAS STIFF TO OPERATE the control rods, moreover it was ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE TO CHANGE GEARS WITHOUT A WOODEN HAMMER TO HARD HITTING the machanisms. The optics were obscure, the driver had to open the front hatch otherwise dropped the crap into ditches or crash to the posts, the commander failed to discover, the gunner couldn't aim well & were killed by SUPERIOR FCS KwK, The housing of suspension system OBSTRUCT DECENT WORKS.
@9394JP731 what I meant by ease of use was that the vehicles(T32 and T34) were designed to be as quick to manufacture and throw into the field as possible. Crew training was not a viable option given the Russian situation at the time so the series was designed to be as stupid simple as possible and also to suit the then Russian manufacturing capabilities. This resulted in a primitive tank that was built to a superior design and in the end the numbers told!
To put it another way, the T-34 was a ‘war winning’ tank but this should not detract from the fact that at a tactical level its performance during four years of continuous war was relatively poor. If there was ever a case for not basing a tank’s overall combat power on over simplified parameters such as thickness and slope of frontal armour, and penetration of a single round from its main gun, then the T-34’s case is it.
@vochinin Well it is by me, sure it was basically just an all round better T34. Read any good book on armour of the Second World War and it will say the Panther most of the time.
@fallschirmjager0000 Did you book told you that Panther was almoust 2 times heavier(the weight of IS-2!) and appeared 2 years after?.Think about purposes of middle tanks and expected qualities.
@vochinin yes but you need to remember that even at over 4o tons it was still classed as a medium tank by German standards. It was the German response tot he T34 when it first appeared. What makes it so good is its combination of firepower, armour and mobility, so like the t34 it was a very well rounded tank.
@fallschirmjager0000 And why should I talk in german standards. Russians won, and in soviet standarts it was heavy(as i mentioned above). Don't you think it is strange to compare tanks that has 2 times difference in sizes. Of course one should have advantage in armour as it is much more heavier(it would be a shame if it wouldn't). Panther had some advantage as it was designed to counterpat T34, which dominated in the beginnig. And pahther had no advantage on iS-2.
@vochinin because the Panther was a German tank, that is why you should talk in German standards. Its not strange to compare the two at all and comparisons are often made, you cant say the Panther is not comparible just because it is a heavier tank, the two are medium tanks. Well it goes without saying that the IS-2 well outclassed the Panther, but the IS-2 was a heavy tank. The IS-2 would be better compared with the King Tiger or another German heavy tank.
@vochinin I use the German method of classification of tanks into light, medium and heavy. I do this because the Panther is a German tank so therefore I will use the German method, which states that the Panther is a medium tank because it is below 50 tons weight, and as far as I know the Russians also classed the t34 as a medium tank. I think what is confusing you is that the Panther, by Russian standards, is considered a heavy tank.
@fallschirmjager0000 You couldn't compare tnings measuring one of them in german system and second in russian. It's like comparing meters with inches. You should convert them to one common system. According to german classification (under 50 t) - IS-2 was also medium. Right?
Panther had several advantages over the IS-2, yet I am not surprised to see such an incorrect statement coming fron another Russian.
Panther was more mobile than IS-2, it had a higher RoF, it shells were more capable of penetrating armour, it had better optics and a far larger ammo capacity.
There is an account were a single Panther in the outskirt of a city halted a IS-2 tank formation as it fired 1-2 shell before relocating itself to another spot.
@Dreachon Really, I'm not surprised to hear it from another hollander. You are some strange sort of combination of nazi nostalji and smoking drugs.I said "pahther had no advantage on iS-2." That means overall advantage not "any". "It had higher Rof" tell it to you grandma.IS-2 armour was much more harder to penetrate. IS-2 could penetrate panther at 1500m(panther could do it to IS-2 only in 800m)
@Dreachon When i said nazi nostalji. Read carefull. It is known many hollanders to be valuanteers in german army. IS-2 was harder to penetrate - face it.
@Dreachon The fact that German engineers had never shared their tanks by weight. They classify their tanks by the caliber guns. Therefore, the Panther tank falls into the category of medium tanks (size 75 mm guns), although it strongly comes out in 40 tons in weight. When the main caliber of German tanks was 37 mm (T -3 1941) Tank KV -1 Germans called - superheavy tank (size 76 mm gun - twice as many German). On this fact even laugh Russian dissidents - the historians.
True but in those days many countries had their own kind of classifications, during the war the cocepts also changed like what was considered as a heavy tank in the early years would be a medium or even light by the end of the war.
@Dreachon Yes of course. Changing demands of military personnel - will inevitably changed and technology. Approximately 60 s were divided by weight of the tanks. Up to 20 tonnes - light, up to 40 tons - average, over 40 tons - heavier. This classification was used English engineers, the Americans and Russian. German classification was somewhat different - but this, too!
@Dreachon yes there was also such a classification, which resulted in you. Tanks are classified (distributed) on the application, weight, arm and base.
@Dreachon Tanks of World War I were classified by weight, on average, light and heavy. Russian adopted this classification - it was the most complete and correct. Also according to the classification of the British - you will not be able to correctly classify the T-34. This tank had the properties of the infantry and cruiser tanks. Tank IS-2 and especially Is-3 in general is not possible to classify on the British and French methods of assessment. However, it was a beautiful heavy tank assault.
If it was harder to penetrate then have a good luck at the large number of freak occurences with regards to the IS-2, getting penetrated by 7.5cm L48, penetrated by 8.8cm L56 at ranges of 500-800m, lower hull beeing penetrated by a german anti-tank rifle.
Something is seriously wrong with the quality of it's armour then.
@Dreachon I can't understand you, decript your words before posting. What have you smoked? I repeat panther could penetrate IS-2 armour only in distances almost twice lower that could do IS-2.
Name your source of knoledge. I think it's some preprocessed german tankman memories. Right?
Think again. the turret could be penetrated by the 7.5cm l70 at a distance of 1000 to 1500m.
The hull could be done at combat ranges thanks to soviet quality of armour.
Standard soviet armor was almost exclusively in the 350-400 bhn range, designs like the IS2 suffered because they have half the equivalent armor thickness. Thats why you see IS2 being killed frontally by kwk40 at medium range, and 88mm at 800+m sometimes. Many of them only had 50mm equivalent armor strength.
@Dreachon It's really hard to understand you. You're naming some "facts" as you were their and collected statistic of armour application. You're saying that IS-2 have weak armour accoding soviet standarts?I know that threre were tests during the war that showed that IS-2 armour is harder to penetrate to geman shells. At the same time IS-2 gun showed itself good in penetrating german tanks, 122 mm gun of IS was more powerfull than german. IS had better armour to weigth rate and some other adv.
If you are refferring to the Kubinka test a lot of these were staged to impress the top officials.
The one test where the muzzlebrake exploded and nearly killed a fieldmarshall was at long time claimed that it penetrated a Panther frontally at 1500m, later on it turned out to be from the side.
Another Panther that was penetrated frontally at 2000m later turned out to have been completely burned out, making it's armour useless.
The t34 had to be mass produced because it was being MASS DESTROYED by the germans,STUKAS, STUG III, JAGDPANZER, JAGDPANTHER, TIGER, PANTHER,MARDER, even panzerfaust, yes they eventually won because produced more than were destroyed, but proves that a 10 year old HITLER YOUTH could and did knock out a t34.
@MrBobe9 LOL im not even talking about how many shermans were destroyed.... small armour small gun can be mass produced but it was still big pile of shit sure americans thought it was good when they went against type 97 japaneese tanks but when they faced german tanks.... whole different story .... there were 2 times more shermans destroyed than there were produced .. seriously t-34 was a good tank even one of german panzer commanders said it
@MrBobe9 LOL im not even talking about how many shermans were destroyed.... small armour small gun can be mass produced but it was still big pile of shit sure americans thought it was good when they went against type 97 japaneese tanks but when they faced german tanks.... whole different story .... there were 2 times more shermans destroyed than there were produced .. seriously t-34 was a good tank even one of german panzer commanders said it was the best tank ever made
@MrBobe9 the only fucking reason americans were alive in world war 2 is because they were far away from germans and if they were in russian place... i wonder if they used shermans instead of t-34 at battle of kursk? shermans would probobly destroy like 3 german panzers in total. T-34 is the best allied tank ... plus hitler youth wanker kids didnt drive tigers u fucking retard
10 years old Polish resistance fighter could destroy 57-tonnes Tiger tank with a petrol bomb. As to German fighting superiority - I recommend studying of Battle of Studzianki in which Russian 8th Guards Army supported by a Polish tank brigade inflicted heavy casualties on three German divisions, including up to 40 tanks. This battle practically finished off Parachute-Panzer Division Hermann Göring.
Russian losses were always high, mainly due to disregard for human life. But at Studzianki there clashed 3 German divisions (including 2 panzer) against 2 Russian divisions and one Polish brigade. So the numbers were in favour of Germans. Furthermore, "HG" was fresh from Italian front while Russians were worn in offensive lasting over 6 weeks. "HG" caused so much trouble for Americans in southern Italy, yet they could not destroy it.
According to Polish sources, the Poles lost 18 tanks destroyed and 9 damaged, while destroying enemy 10 tanks, 16 artillery pieces and 6 armoured vehicles. I could not find Russian losses, but if the Allies lost 27 tanks in total, that would mean Russian lost only 9 tanks. This could be close to true, as 35 and 57 guard divisions were made up mostly of infantry units.
27 is the number given for the tank lost by the Polish along 89 men, wouldn't surprise me if this is another Kursk style lie by the soviets given they had a habit of decreasin their own losses and inflate the enemies.
@Zaza3512 tiger was the best tank that is the fact haha :) T-34 was nowhere to the tiger. as i told already, just because of the MASS they won againts the tigers. with very huge losses.
nossa os t34/85 eram realmente bons um canhão de 85 mm e uma blindagem semelhante ao Tiger I ou Panzer IV Austf. B,C,E ou F era fácil de invecibilizar aquele lerdo do T34/76 que era uma porcaria só o canhão era bom um AP 76 mm e aquele KV-1 ou 3 olha nem vou falar
the next scene shows the red stalinist russian and polish army mass rape of eastern prussian women and girls! how many innocents murdered by these war criminal troops in 1944-1945? historic fact! /@ milwaukee
This is a polish movie, then why the hell are the songs in russian? This move has many of their own songs ,so why in the bloody hell did you add russian music? You screwed the video clip , congrat. only dumbos can do this.
@Schwitzbuster Zmuś mnie. Obydwoma językami posługuje się bez problemu, ale nie mam w zwyczaju dostosowywać się, gdy drugi rozmówca wrzeszczy. Polecam słownik.
os russos meteu o cacete no cú dos alemães
hojeda1000 1 week ago
super
Damian3641 2 weeks ago
ewidentnie świetny film :]
Matti8482 1 month ago
name of the movie ?
magnvsmarcvs 1 month ago
@magnvsmarcvs This name is a "Czterej pancerni i pies" "Four tankman and dog"
konzo26 1 month ago
Czterej Pancerni i Pies
91KyloPL 2 months ago
T34 eto gromadnaya sila i gordost Krasniy armii, T34 kashmar dlya nemchev
naruto4486 2 months ago
dokłądnie polska :)
MAJORKISZKA13 3 months ago
It´s a part from the polish movie Four Tankist and the Dog. When I was the young boy this movie was running in our television..... and nearly everly dog in our village was called Šarik.
howtocall 5 months ago
if one army lost one war , they lost in post war films too
but one fact are Numbers vs Quality LoL
even for the Study of IDF in 1957 the german army was the best in WW2
but Numbers kills Quality and dont forget IDF are the JEW army LoL
AmYisraelCrap 5 months ago
super !!!
MrLotnik171 5 months ago
Dobra robota
KolorowyGameplay 6 months ago
Comment removed
dm1968r 6 months ago
Comment removed
dm1968r 6 months ago
if i just own one of it
pt0hema 6 months ago
If you drive the T-34-85 really fast over a big ditch you didn't see, the gun will dig the ground and warp the barrel. Try to fire it afterward will split open the barrel like a ripe banana. Hence why they drive around with the gun pointing backwards
Temstar04 7 months ago
Why did they carry the gun pointing backwards during combat?
rva1945 7 months ago
buy some german oil for those tanks
Gulegilly 7 months ago
I like the crazy guy at the beginning with the white wife beater shirt throwing a hand grenade to start, thats funny.
haiherosner 7 months ago
T-34 wouldn't hole a Tiger head on...
IronManXXX 8 months ago
@IronManXXX
T34 85 would have little trouble with tiger, especially at the ranges they were fighting in the movie.
Natalia99a 4 months ago
@Natalia99a In what dream land would a T 34 or T 34 85 ever beat a Tiger 1. Maybe Alice in "Russia"nland. Here are the gun and armor figures: *Tiger/Hull Armor Front: 100mm,Sides:82mm,Rear:82mm/Turet: Front 100mm,S:82mm,R:82mm.Gun: 8.8mm 36L/56. T-34-85(the later version of the first T34): Hull Armor Front:45mm,Sides:45mm,Rear:45mm. Turet Front: 115, Sides: 90mm, Rear: 75mm. Gun: 76mm S-54. Get your shit straight before talking smack.
wintershub 22 hours ago
"Three tankists and dog"!! Amazing tank, Gloria to Polish Army!!:-)))
MyVladimir33 8 months ago
Vivat to T-34 , killing machnine for Nazi's Army!! For you, bastards, we are preparing a modified nuclear bombs.. WE ARE LIKE YOU, GUYS!!! DO NOT DISSAPONTED AND GIVE A CHANCE TO DROP THEM ON YOUR HEADES, .PLZ!!!!
MyVladimir33 8 months ago
Proszę usuń to... Chyba nie muszę tłumaczyć czemu.
1989Ulan 8 months ago
the best movie... "4 tank's troopers & dog"
AlexKoso 8 months ago
why does so many ppl think the T34 a good tank it was infact crappy and weak it was mass produced by the corrupt psych stalin for bieng a cheap tank what make it cheap is its crappyness. did you guys knew that its max. armor is 45MM? did you guys knew it had one of the wierdst turret guns in the world? its design makes its gun only manned by one guy while other tanks where a gunner loader and commander would man the gun but T34s design makes its gun manned by 1guy which makes it very slow firing
dividednation44 9 months ago
@dividednation44 makes it very slow to fire .... But obviously the German tank crews lacked the pace to fire:) 45 mm, this body armor of this tank. Why do you give distorted information?
Imprudentman 9 months ago
@Imprudentman 45MM or 40MM whats the fucking differance? the german tanks werent slow firing, infact the panther was even though bieng so powerful and strong was high rate firing. the PZIV was an exellent tank can be compared with any other WW2 tank and has better sights and better armor. but less firepower. so STFU
dividednation44 9 months ago
Comment removed
Imprudentman 9 months ago
@dividednation44 I think Panther tank is better compared to the heavy tank IS-2. These tanks have the same mass. And I think the IS-2 at distances greater than 1000 -1300 meters is more likely in a personal duel with a Panther tank. Good luck.
Imprudentman 9 months ago
@Imprudentman IS2? there was some rare porotions of it that got to see barely some action in WW2.
the tiger II king tiger would make a short-work of it.
dividednation44 9 months ago
@dividednation44 JS-2 was released around 2500 during the Second World War. Tiger tanks 1 - 1200 pieces. Tiger 2 (King Tiger) - 400 pieces. It was released a lot of tanks Panther - 5992 tank. Typically, the JS-2 were transferred to other tank units for amplification. IS-2 was a great assault tank. 25 kg fragmentation high-explosive projectile spread to shreds any entrenchment of Germans. Projectile 122-mm gun of the JS -2 had huge traction.
Imprudentman 9 months ago
@Imprudentman but it ate hit and died. never heard or saw IS 2's in germany. most were the brakefast and primary targets of stukas. were shitty tanks when compared to tiger II or panthers. panther is widely regarded as the best of the best tank design of WW2 hence how more then 5000 of them were produced by the collapsing industry of germany. they were awesom tanks. one version had an awesom 60MM side armoring. how's that for advanced tanks?
dividednation44 9 months ago
@dividednation44 During the storming of Berlin's heavy tank IS-2 were used extensively. They can be seen on the newsreel shots storming of Berlin in April 1945. They are also widely used in the Soviet Army in 1944. Russian tanks being used in the breakout fortified defense, and almost always successful. Also known to the German command ordered not to enter into battle with heavy Russian tanks, if German troops do not have numerical superiority. These were formidable fighting machine.
Imprudentman 9 months ago
@Imprudentman i have to agree
but if theres a tiger II it will reduce it to a toy car. tiger II's 180MM armor is un-penetrateble from the front no matter what you'd do with your IS 2
dividednation44 9 months ago
@dividednation44 400 pieces Tigers-2 issued for all time of the Second World War could not seriously affect thesituation on the the front . In addition, these tanks had some technical problems like Panther tanks.
Imprudentman 9 months ago
@Imprudentman panthers techincal problems were completley solved and elimnated in the new version. tiger II was'nt much of a technical fail tank. its well know.
dividednation44 9 months ago
@dividednation44 The Panthers were tanks with interesting technical solutions. But they conceded the JS-2 in armor protection and the power of artillery shells.
Imprudentman 9 months ago
Rudy 102 is a fictitious tank with a fictitious crew that was a polish tv show. the russian music makes me sick, why would you ever depict this as russian, is insulting to us Pols.
hunter4hire 9 months ago
@hunter4hire
For whom it is abusive friend? I do not understand you.
Imprudentman 9 months ago
@Imprudentman not abusive, insulting, diffrent meaning,
It should be polish song, not russian.
hunter4hire 9 months ago
Comment removed
Imprudentman 9 months ago
@hunter4hire And I like these songs. These Polish and Russian, Georgians are heroic people who defeated the German fascists. Filmmakers of this film is extremely lucky when they shoot such wonderful people, real heroes.
Imprudentman 9 months ago
This is a tank T 34/76mm a name is Rudy 102
998112998 9 months ago
T-34 was an American design that was rejected in favor of the Sherman design . . . .
KyRipsnorter 9 months ago
very motivating song, i don't understand it but it is nice
subzero92MK 9 months ago
1 tiger = 10 russian dead tanks :) weak ass russians, german army was strongest in the world
vidukas111 9 months ago
@vidukas111 truth
ukramms 9 months ago
@vidukas111 Read more sweet German statistics, which wrote the German officers that could reassure themselves. And also for friends of the propaganda departments of Goebbels. These figures can be safely reduced by half.
Imprudentman 9 months ago
@Imprudentman Read more sweet Russian statistics you communist pig :)
vidukas111 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@vidukas111 Tell your father that he would not fuck your mother-mare. Maybe your dad did it out of academic considerations. His scientific experiment can not be called successful. After what you wrote here an idiot.
Imprudentman 9 months ago
LOL, Those knocked out tigers are the most fake tigers ever.
Yayo015 9 months ago 2
@Yayo015 lol
vidukas111 9 months ago
@Yayo015 lol kid u really think so?
ukramms 9 months ago
this clip is tanken from a very famous soviet tv show four tankers and a dog its like soviets version of the A-team.the tv serial is about a polish tank crew who fight in the russian army against the germans.the tank crew isn,t what you call normal a dog is a part of the crew.the tank call sing rudy means in polish the red head.i have seen it and its very very good tv show
ToomasTelling 9 months ago
this clip is tanken from a very famous soviet tv show four tankers and a dog
ToomasTelling 9 months ago
Славянским народам дружить надо, а не ерундой заниматься...
sirena823 10 months ago
Over here!!!
deltamp3000 11 months ago
The T-34's were just plain good, the most bang for your buck (and time) there was in the war. That's really what matters, not a 1 vs. 1 or a numbers comparison.
MrSatchboogie33 11 months ago
@MrSatchboogie33 T-34 was released in 1939. In 1941 Russian with this tank were able to halt the offensive near Moscow. Hero of the Soviet Union Lavrinenkov for 2,5 months of fighting near Moscow knocked on the T-34 / 76 54 enemy tanks.
Imprudentman 10 months ago
@Imprudentman Alright then...
MrSatchboogie33 10 months ago
The big confrontation was the Battle of Kursk. Germans invested alot of machinery and manpower in their big offensive. I believe head to head tank battles are rare and few and far between, there Tiger's were greeted with a lot of anti-tank and land mines. Good machiney gone to waste. DON'T tangle with the Red Army because they play the heavy ground game. 20 armies,6500 T-34,8500 aircraft will show up at your doorstep in Berlin in'45 then split your country in half and then we will airlift food.
mistressofaminer 11 months ago
Yes, the Tiger 2 emphasized firepower and heavy armor, but there are insulting difficilties to all tanks. Anti-tank guns that are not even connected to tanks, vulnerable places of tanks like the underbelly, sprockets,tracks, lighter side armor, vision slots,machine-gun slots,panzerfausts and the most insulting of all, seeing a snot-nosed schoolboy hurling an incendiary bomb(molotov) with his sock stuffed in the opened end of the bottle. Germans heavy tank w/88,T-34w/76-85 with elusive speed.
mistressofaminer 11 months ago
@17bluemoon1
It's even more amazing how many T-34 were destroyed by german tanks.
Dreachon 11 months ago
co ja vim tak t-34 se nemohlo rovnat tygrovy mnělo slapši panciř a pod. tychle tygry na videu jsou je přestavěne tečka:)
stukinify 11 months ago
пендосня малолетняя, про тигр пару фильмов увидали и ппц, но если уж амеры признали танк Т34 лучшим...это о много говорит
Zaza3512 11 months ago
ha ha hu hu
The tiger had many lacks of a design, was long repaired, had small passableness.
Against a tiger Russian had tank IS, IS-2 - these tanks killed a tiger from 2000 meters.
At whom the tank is better on all parameters - the price wins, simplicity of training, simplicity of service.
The tiger is a coffin on wheels!
ha ha - learn history!
Zaza3512 11 months ago
It is the best tank, his America was afraid, it is the fact! sherman гавно
Zaza3512 1 year ago
епать, пендосы Т34 дерьмом называют, а сами этого дерьма в 45-м боялись...
Zaza3512 1 year ago
LOL so fake... t34 was a piece of shit, it was only good cus the soviets had the economy for mass....
t34 zerglings againts tiger zealots thats it
DemeterHUN 1 year ago
@DemeterHUN shit it's you and not the T-34
Imprudentman 10 months ago
@Imprudentman so you are a shit, okay but i didnt really care. Why did you tell me that you are a shit?...
Keep it yourself.
DemeterHUN 10 months ago
Очень хороший фильм, я его в детстве очень любил...
RomanRUS163 1 year ago
And by that I do not mean propaganda films such as this.
Tull29 1 year ago
@Tull29
"Czterej pancerni i pies" ("Four Tankmen and the Dog") was neither propaganda or documentary movie. It was a TV series aimed mostly at young audience to entertain and educate in pleasant way. It was based on a book written by Janusz Przymanowski, a colonel in Polish 1st Corp. fighting along Russian Army. I believe he was inspired by another Polish writer, Henryk Sienkiewicz, who made a great story about Polish noblemen fighting Swedes and Turks in XVII century.
pakehha 1 year ago
Folks, my genetic roots are German, Russian, Ukrainian. I was born and raised in Canada and am 49 years of age.
I speak neither Russian nor German but am simply a man trying to understand his past through history! I wish to understand as much as I can and pass it on in an accurate way before it is entirely forgotten by the younger generations.
M. Engel
Tull29 1 year ago
Never have I seen such a tank so PRIMITIVE, RUGGED, ILLOGICALLY ANTI-ERGONOMIC, STIFF TO CONTROL & POORLY SENSITIVE as the T34s, Despite T34 was the Sov. 2nd GENERATION mass productive tanks with sloped armor, faster speed & bigger caliber gun, they ONLY PROVED themselves ALWAYS EXPENDABLE to the well organized OUTNUMBERED German 1st GEN. panzers, these POOR COORDINATED FOOLHARDY russian ramming boars BRAINLESSLY BLUNDERED INTO KwK fire without firing a shot thus were hunt in rows.
9394JP731 1 year ago
-not to flog it to death but one other nasty aspect of the early T34/76 was the frontwards opening commander's hatch which exposed him to flanking fire. Human life was just as throw away as the equipment in Russia during "The Great Patriotic War" and it reflected in the designs of their military equipment.
With the T34 series Koshkin and Morozov took a radical leap forward. What do you think and all out clash in numbers between M4 and T34/76 would have amounted to? Just curious.
Tull29 1 year ago
@Tull29
Well first question off course would be which version of the M4 shermans, it will have a large impact.
But asuming you mean the series with a 75mm I will go for the m4, better optics, stabilisers and the 75mm was better than the 76.2mm.
Dreachon 1 year ago
@Dreachon you are correct, which version?, I was eluding to the M4 75mm armed version of the Sherman in both welded and cast hulls.
There seems to be quite the debate developing here. Hope to hear from you again!
Tull29 1 year ago
T34 was best designed tank of WWII. It had sloppy armor, making its 45 mm front plate as tick as 90 mm, a hard-hitting 76.2 mm gun and wide tracks allowing it to operate in difficult terrain. German Panther (Panzerkampfwagen V) was based on the design of T34, yet too expensive to be manufactured in sufficient quantities to make an impact on the outcome of the war.
pakehha 1 year ago
@pakehha
The armour was of poor quality reducing it's protection, the 76.2mm gun was anything but hard hitting, it was hopelesly outclassed when the german brought their long 75mm guns in mid 1942 into the field, coupled to this were poor quality optics.
The visibility within the tank was poor, effeciency within the tank was poor, communication again was poor, this tank is full of design flaws that caused for huge losses even in 1941.
Dreachon 1 year ago
@Dreachon
How many Tigers, Panthers and 75 mm guns were German able to produce? There were about 1000 T34 getting of assembly lines each month. T34 was roughly finished and not of highest quality, because it was not kind of a tank to last long, but to be used in quick, decisive offensives. In my opinion this was the tank that won WWII.
pakehha 1 year ago
@pakehha
Production numbers can be found on the net, but if you are just gonna call the T-34 the best tank just because it was mass produced than you are only fooling yourself.
The sheer losses already show there are problems with the T-34, it never reached a kill-ratio of better than 3:1 in the enemies favour.
Germany produced around 50439 AFV and only around 2/3 of this faced the Russians, Russian losses are at least 96000, possibly even higher.
Dreachon 1 year ago
@Dreachon
T34 had characteristics that influenced post war tank design more than any other tank. None of the tanks in 1941 had the combination of protection, mobility and fire power what T34. Without studying T34, Germans would never come up with their Panther. Yet Panther was still heavier, slower, more complicated and difficult to manufacture, especially towards the end of the war as Nazi were short of raw materials. Decision to build Panther and Tiger II was a big strategic mistake.
pakehha 1 year ago
-also, early versions of the T34-76 had unreliable final drives. This was a vehicle that took the best of foreign concepts and was mass produced for a conscript army. By no means was this tank the best of the best in design alone but much like the M4 Sherman was a war winner because of it's numbers. It was a throw away tank for a nation that could afford to do so in the later stages. Quantity vs. quality(apples and oranges), but still an outstanding if not crude design!
Tull29 1 year ago
@Tull29
I fully agree with that, tacticly it was terrible but strategicly it was just what the russian needed and WWII was all about the numbers.
Dreachon 1 year ago
-easy to manufacture and operate are the two key elements missing here. Agreed that it was war winner but so was a much poorly designed M4 series of American tanks.
The principle was the same, mass produce a standard tank and throw it into the field in numbers.
T34-76 is where I would have staked my life on because of it's superior range and mobility. Lack of training and tactics are the one thing that held this amazing tank back . Best of the best was the T34!
Tull29 1 year ago
@Tull29
What also held it back were a number of seriosu design flaws.
There were considerable problems with the steering, christie suspension was very prone to damage after long road marches, it also didn't allow for a smooth ride.
Visibility within the tank was also rather poor, optics once again of a poor quality, lack of radios until 1944, commander that also had to act as the gunner.
Dreachon 1 year ago
@Tull29 I hardly agree with the T34 was easy to operate, it was fast but WAS STIFF TO OPERATE the control rods, moreover it was ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE TO CHANGE GEARS WITHOUT A WOODEN HAMMER TO HARD HITTING the machanisms. The optics were obscure, the driver had to open the front hatch otherwise dropped the crap into ditches or crash to the posts, the commander failed to discover, the gunner couldn't aim well & were killed by SUPERIOR FCS KwK, The housing of suspension system OBSTRUCT DECENT WORKS.
9394JP731 1 year ago
@9394JP731 what I meant by ease of use was that the vehicles(T32 and T34) were designed to be as quick to manufacture and throw into the field as possible. Crew training was not a viable option given the Russian situation at the time so the series was designed to be as stupid simple as possible and also to suit the then Russian manufacturing capabilities. This resulted in a primitive tank that was built to a superior design and in the end the numbers told!
Tull29 1 year ago
To put it another way, the T-34 was a ‘war winning’ tank but this should not detract from the fact that at a tactical level its performance during four years of continuous war was relatively poor. If there was ever a case for not basing a tank’s overall combat power on over simplified parameters such as thickness and slope of frontal armour, and penetration of a single round from its main gun, then the T-34’s case is it.
tranmere789 1 year ago
i love the red army choir.
PrepSurvivor 1 year ago
russian fanatic crap.
nolifemerc 1 year ago
T34 - the best WW2 middle tank.
vochinin 1 year ago 16
@vochinin
all in all best tank in ww2 ;)
komerzaragorn 1 year ago
@vochinin Actually its considered to be the German Panther
fallschirmjager0000 8 months ago
@fallschirmjager0000 Considered by whom?:) Not by me, even if in russian classification panther was heavy.
vochinin 8 months ago
@vochinin Well it is by me, sure it was basically just an all round better T34. Read any good book on armour of the Second World War and it will say the Panther most of the time.
fallschirmjager0000 8 months ago
@fallschirmjager0000 Did you book told you that Panther was almoust 2 times heavier(the weight of IS-2!) and appeared 2 years after?.Think about purposes of middle tanks and expected qualities.
vochinin 8 months ago
@vochinin yes but you need to remember that even at over 4o tons it was still classed as a medium tank by German standards. It was the German response tot he T34 when it first appeared. What makes it so good is its combination of firepower, armour and mobility, so like the t34 it was a very well rounded tank.
fallschirmjager0000 8 months ago
@fallschirmjager0000 And why should I talk in german standards. Russians won, and in soviet standarts it was heavy(as i mentioned above). Don't you think it is strange to compare tanks that has 2 times difference in sizes. Of course one should have advantage in armour as it is much more heavier(it would be a shame if it wouldn't). Panther had some advantage as it was designed to counterpat T34, which dominated in the beginnig. And pahther had no advantage on iS-2.
vochinin 8 months ago
@vochinin because the Panther was a German tank, that is why you should talk in German standards. Its not strange to compare the two at all and comparisons are often made, you cant say the Panther is not comparible just because it is a heavier tank, the two are medium tanks. Well it goes without saying that the IS-2 well outclassed the Panther, but the IS-2 was a heavy tank. The IS-2 would be better compared with the King Tiger or another German heavy tank.
fallschirmjager0000 8 months ago
@fallschirmjager0000 What is your criterion of deviding tanks in middle and heavy classes?
vochinin 8 months ago
@vochinin I use the German method of classification of tanks into light, medium and heavy. I do this because the Panther is a German tank so therefore I will use the German method, which states that the Panther is a medium tank because it is below 50 tons weight, and as far as I know the Russians also classed the t34 as a medium tank. I think what is confusing you is that the Panther, by Russian standards, is considered a heavy tank.
fallschirmjager0000 8 months ago
@fallschirmjager0000 You couldn't compare tnings measuring one of them in german system and second in russian. It's like comparing meters with inches. You should convert them to one common system. According to german classification (under 50 t) - IS-2 was also medium. Right?
vochinin 8 months ago
@vochinin
Panther had several advantages over the IS-2, yet I am not surprised to see such an incorrect statement coming fron another Russian.
Panther was more mobile than IS-2, it had a higher RoF, it shells were more capable of penetrating armour, it had better optics and a far larger ammo capacity.
There is an account were a single Panther in the outskirt of a city halted a IS-2 tank formation as it fired 1-2 shell before relocating itself to another spot.
Dreachon 8 months ago
@Dreachon Really, I'm not surprised to hear it from another hollander. You are some strange sort of combination of nazi nostalji and smoking drugs.I said "pahther had no advantage on iS-2." That means overall advantage not "any". "It had higher Rof" tell it to you grandma.IS-2 armour was much more harder to penetrate. IS-2 could penetrate panther at 1500m(panther could do it to IS-2 only in 800m)
vochinin 8 months ago
@vochinin
Wrong because of poor casting and poor quality which led to many IS-2 tanks having only the equivelant of 50 to 90mm of armour plate .
The turret front was also a measly 100mm thick which could also be pierced by the Panther easily at 1000m.
And yes Panther had a far higher Rate of Fire, it fired more shells in a shorter time.
10-12 rounds per minute compared to the IS-2 measly 2 per minute.
Really mature to start calling others nazi if you can't handle the truth.
Dreachon 8 months ago
@Dreachon When i said nazi nostalji. Read carefull. It is known many hollanders to be valuanteers in german army. IS-2 was harder to penetrate - face it.
vochinin 8 months ago
@vochinin
Right, take a good look at your own country, Russia has one of the largest concentration of neo-nazi's.
Dreachon 8 months ago
@Dreachon The fact that German engineers had never shared their tanks by weight. They classify their tanks by the caliber guns. Therefore, the Panther tank falls into the category of medium tanks (size 75 mm guns), although it strongly comes out in 40 tons in weight. When the main caliber of German tanks was 37 mm (T -3 1941) Tank KV -1 Germans called - superheavy tank (size 76 mm gun - twice as many German). On this fact even laugh Russian dissidents - the historians.
Imprudentman 7 months ago
@Imprudentman
True but in those days many countries had their own kind of classifications, during the war the cocepts also changed like what was considered as a heavy tank in the early years would be a medium or even light by the end of the war.
Dreachon 7 months ago
@Dreachon Yes of course. Changing demands of military personnel - will inevitably changed and technology. Approximately 60 s were divided by weight of the tanks. Up to 20 tonnes - light, up to 40 tons - average, over 40 tons - heavier. This classification was used English engineers, the Americans and Russian. German classification was somewhat different - but this, too!
Imprudentman 7 months ago
@Imprudentman
And at first british tanks were classed as either a cruiser or an infantry tank, French had something similair.
Dreachon 7 months ago
@Dreachon yes there was also such a classification, which resulted in you. Tanks are classified (distributed) on the application, weight, arm and base.
Imprudentman 7 months ago
@Dreachon Tanks of World War I were classified by weight, on average, light and heavy. Russian adopted this classification - it was the most complete and correct. Also according to the classification of the British - you will not be able to correctly classify the T-34. This tank had the properties of the infantry and cruiser tanks. Tank IS-2 and especially Is-3 in general is not possible to classify on the British and French methods of assessment. However, it was a beautiful heavy tank assault.
Imprudentman 7 months ago
@Imprudentman
I do prefer a classification on weight as well, it's more clear.
Dreachon 7 months ago
@Dreachon You are right. For tanks of World War II is correct.
Imprudentman 7 months ago
@vochinin
If it was harder to penetrate then have a good luck at the large number of freak occurences with regards to the IS-2, getting penetrated by 7.5cm L48, penetrated by 8.8cm L56 at ranges of 500-800m, lower hull beeing penetrated by a german anti-tank rifle.
Something is seriously wrong with the quality of it's armour then.
Dreachon 8 months ago
@Dreachon I can't understand you, decript your words before posting. What have you smoked? I repeat panther could penetrate IS-2 armour only in distances almost twice lower that could do IS-2.
Name your source of knoledge. I think it's some preprocessed german tankman memories. Right?
vochinin 8 months ago
@vochinin
Think again. the turret could be penetrated by the 7.5cm l70 at a distance of 1000 to 1500m.
The hull could be done at combat ranges thanks to soviet quality of armour.
Standard soviet armor was almost exclusively in the 350-400 bhn range, designs like the IS2 suffered because they have half the equivalent armor thickness. Thats why you see IS2 being killed frontally by kwk40 at medium range, and 88mm at 800+m sometimes. Many of them only had 50mm equivalent armor strength.
Dreachon 8 months ago
@Dreachon It's really hard to understand you. You're naming some "facts" as you were their and collected statistic of armour application. You're saying that IS-2 have weak armour accoding soviet standarts?I know that threre were tests during the war that showed that IS-2 armour is harder to penetrate to geman shells. At the same time IS-2 gun showed itself good in penetrating german tanks, 122 mm gun of IS was more powerfull than german. IS had better armour to weigth rate and some other adv.
vochinin 8 months ago
@vochinin
If you are refferring to the Kubinka test a lot of these were staged to impress the top officials.
The one test where the muzzlebrake exploded and nearly killed a fieldmarshall was at long time claimed that it penetrated a Panther frontally at 1500m, later on it turned out to be from the side.
Another Panther that was penetrated frontally at 2000m later turned out to have been completely burned out, making it's armour useless.
Dreachon 8 months ago
@Dreachon You should bring some approvements of what you're saying. You suspect these tests to be falsificated as I consider be exploures you refer.
vochinin 8 months ago
The t34 had to be mass produced because it was being MASS DESTROYED by the germans,STUKAS, STUG III, JAGDPANZER, JAGDPANTHER, TIGER, PANTHER,MARDER, even panzerfaust, yes they eventually won because produced more than were destroyed, but proves that a 10 year old HITLER YOUTH could and did knock out a t34.
MrBobe9 1 year ago
@MrBobe9 That's shame.
vochinin 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrBobe9 That's shame for you=)
vochinin 1 year ago
@MrBobe9 LOL im not even talking about how many shermans were destroyed.... small armour small gun can be mass produced but it was still big pile of shit sure americans thought it was good when they went against type 97 japaneese tanks but when they faced german tanks.... whole different story .... there were 2 times more shermans destroyed than there were produced .. seriously t-34 was a good tank even one of german panzer commanders said it
ichirakudreamer 1 year ago
@ichirakudreamer 2 times more shermans destroyed than were produced ! Nice one Lol,
It proves- it is not how good it is , but how and where it is used that counts.
bisleybob3 1 year ago
@MrBobe9 LOL im not even talking about how many shermans were destroyed.... small armour small gun can be mass produced but it was still big pile of shit sure americans thought it was good when they went against type 97 japaneese tanks but when they faced german tanks.... whole different story .... there were 2 times more shermans destroyed than there were produced .. seriously t-34 was a good tank even one of german panzer commanders said it was the best tank ever made
ichirakudreamer 1 year ago
@MrBobe9 the only fucking reason americans were alive in world war 2 is because they were far away from germans and if they were in russian place... i wonder if they used shermans instead of t-34 at battle of kursk? shermans would probobly destroy like 3 german panzers in total. T-34 is the best allied tank ... plus hitler youth wanker kids didnt drive tigers u fucking retard
ichirakudreamer 1 year ago
@MrBobe9
10 years old Polish resistance fighter could destroy 57-tonnes Tiger tank with a petrol bomb. As to German fighting superiority - I recommend studying of Battle of Studzianki in which Russian 8th Guards Army supported by a Polish tank brigade inflicted heavy casualties on three German divisions, including up to 40 tanks. This battle practically finished off Parachute-Panzer Division Hermann Göring.
pakehha 1 year ago
@pakehha
Do tell us how many russian tanks were lost in that fighting.
The Poles themselves already lost 27 tanks and unsurprisingly nothing is known of russian losses.
Dreachon 1 year ago
@Dreachon
Russian losses were always high, mainly due to disregard for human life. But at Studzianki there clashed 3 German divisions (including 2 panzer) against 2 Russian divisions and one Polish brigade. So the numbers were in favour of Germans. Furthermore, "HG" was fresh from Italian front while Russians were worn in offensive lasting over 6 weeks. "HG" caused so much trouble for Americans in southern Italy, yet they could not destroy it.
pakehha 1 year ago
@pakehha
HG was not fresh from the Italian front, they had gone through heavy fighting there.
Dreachon 1 year ago
@Dreachon
According to Polish sources, the Poles lost 18 tanks destroyed and 9 damaged, while destroying enemy 10 tanks, 16 artillery pieces and 6 armoured vehicles. I could not find Russian losses, but if the Allies lost 27 tanks in total, that would mean Russian lost only 9 tanks. This could be close to true, as 35 and 57 guard divisions were made up mostly of infantry units.
pakehha 1 year ago
@pakehha
27 is the number given for the tank lost by the Polish along 89 men, wouldn't surprise me if this is another Kursk style lie by the soviets given they had a habit of decreasin their own losses and inflate the enemies.
Dreachon 1 year ago
@Dreachon probably 3-4 x more than german losses but mass won...
DemeterHUN 1 year ago
@DemeterHUN
T 34 the best tank WW2 is the fact, under all characteristics, deny if you can
Zaza3512 1 year ago
@Zaza3512 tiger was the best tank that is the fact haha :) T-34 was nowhere to the tiger. as i told already, just because of the MASS they won againts the tigers. with very huge losses.
DemeterHUN 11 months ago
PC GAME RED ORCHESTRA: HEROES OF STALINGRAD RULES. google it
BFinFlavin 1 year ago
Ať žije Sovětský svaz!!! Ať žije komunismus!
lgastovski 1 year ago
guess the russians needed new tanks after losing 3500 in 3 months trying to invade finland.
balticwater 1 year ago
vk or tigers?
kristof515 1 year ago
четыре танкиста и ебаная собака!!! :))
Rawego 1 year ago
Propaganda by Russian Production
DieKerze1981 1 year ago
@DieKerze1981
oops, you crapped the bed. That is Polish TV series.
sergeontheloose 1 year ago
The winner makes the movie ,,, but does it have to be so bad :) ?
Stoerkraft 1 year ago
@Stoerkraft
What is so bad about it? For its time one of the best war series in the Warsaw Pact countries.
My childhood old time favorite.
sergeontheloose 1 year ago
Tri Polaka,Gruzin i sobaka:)
SlavaSvarogu 1 year ago
nossa os t34/85 eram realmente bons um canhão de 85 mm e uma blindagem semelhante ao Tiger I ou Panzer IV Austf. B,C,E ou F era fácil de invecibilizar aquele lerdo do T34/76 que era uma porcaria só o canhão era bom um AP 76 mm e aquele KV-1 ou 3 olha nem vou falar
Felipebrazil100 1 year ago
@Felipebrazil100 du - so oder gaaaaaanz anders seh ich das auch.
dulle3000 1 year ago
very stupid film!!
Yurik0Omega 1 year ago
@Yurik0Omega Avise isso a Hitler ao discursar que iria vencer a guerra
Felipebrazil100 1 year ago
Lol DP-28 and MP40. That guy tried sprayin but failed
ikeownage46 1 year ago
the next scene shows the red stalinist russian and polish army mass rape of eastern prussian women and girls! how many innocents murdered by these war criminal troops in 1944-1945? historic fact! /@ milwaukee
headlesshessian76 1 year ago
@headlesshessian76 Wow.
The germans of course in poland and i russia had only helped people from 1939 to 1945.
kursk1111111111 1 year ago
@kursk1111111111 ah fala outa
Felipebrazil100 1 year ago
This is a polish movie, then why the hell are the songs in russian? This move has many of their own songs ,so why in the bloody hell did you add russian music? You screwed the video clip , congrat. only dumbos can do this.
Bluenbrick 1 year ago
Comment removed
Bluenbrick 1 year ago
was für ne umgekippte badewanne...tsts ein nicht im vergleich zum tiger
Schwitzbuster 1 year ago
@Schwitzbuster Sam żeś jest wanna! Z resztą, i tak niewiele Tygryski zdziałały bo na front za późno pojechały.
PaladinRageOldsql 1 year ago 2
@PaladinRageOldsql speak german or english but not this fucking polish!!!
Schwitzbuster 1 year ago
@Schwitzbuster Zmuś mnie. Obydwoma językami posługuje się bez problemu, ale nie mam w zwyczaju dostosowywać się, gdy drugi rozmówca wrzeszczy. Polecam słownik.
PaladinRageOldsql 1 year ago 7
@Schwitzbuster Next XXI century nazi.
kursk1111111111 1 year ago
what are the names of the songs?
Ahathian 1 year ago