This tank and its crews were a big part in stopping the Nazis.. it was vastly superior in that the Germans could not produce a superior tank in adequete numbers to counter it.
no you weren't VendPrekmurec.......just in your dreams. Anyways, the T-34 is not the ultimate tank. Just like the Americans, it only succeeded in great numbers like the Sherman. Know and own your history-most don't. Fools.
@japan906 It's not the ultimate tank but it was easily good enough to go toe to toe with the PIV which were available in smaller numbers. T34 probably saved us all form German victory in the east which is why it get's overrated all the time. Because of it's impact on the war.
@diramonsky: The T34 is absolutely nót overrated! It was indeed better than what the German's had. Even the mighty Tiger1 had difficulty in destroying the T34, because of it's sloped armour and the fact that the T34 was faster than the Tiger. There was no other allied tank wich could destroy a Tiger1 on it's own, until the Americans brought in the Pershing tank.
Could anyone tell me if T-34's were part of the Soviet armor in the 1939-1940 Winter War with Finland? Specifically I'd like to know if it was possible any were used in fighting in the area just north of Lake Ladoga? Please message me if you can answer this.
@TheDARIEN54321 See your comparing a modern tank with a modern gun,loading system and armor and you don't see how much the T-34 revolutionized combat. Sloped armor,reliable and damn near invincible
@TheDARIEN54321 At range the Tiger had trouble penetrating it's frontal and superior sloped armor which could take a pounding plus is the American Sherman any better? that thing is a fucking nuke on wheels when hit 85% of the time it goes up like its predecessor the M3 Grant/Lee
Ay what distance did a Tiger i have trouble penetrating the frontal armour of a T-34.
T-34's frontal armour is equal to 90mm of flat armour, even less given poor quality of soviet armour.
The 8.8cm L56 gun can penetrate 91mm of armour sloped at 30 degree at a distance of 1500m and 84mm of armour sloped at 30 degree at 2000m, that is more than enough to deal with a T-34 and way beyond the T-34 ability to fight back.
@Dreachon Depends on what part of the sloped armor it hits anyway the inclined armor on the the T-34 was angled precisely at 47 degrees as was the German Panther as at that angle you have double if not a little over more protection that if it was flat. Anyway in the mid-late stages of the war German was starting to lose reliable Armor Piercing shells and materials to build a Tiger
Germay only lost materials for the rarer panzergrenate 40, the panzergrenate 39 which was the standerd german APCBC remained the same throughout the war, I also took it's penetration value and not the PzGr 40.
And no it doesn't matter at all were on the front the Tiger hits the T-34, at 1500 it will go right through it.
@TheDARIEN54321 Idea of T-34 was make it fast,easy to produce and make lots of them,so this strategy work,thats all,tanks dosnt win war,only good tactics
@SlavaSvarogu Correction, A combination of tactics and tanks win wars. Look at Patton, he used the Sherman for all of its advantages and won himself one of the best commanders in history.
Not really because I mainly see yet another russian who believes that Russia has done all of it's own, that it never needed any help at all.
Is that what you truly believe, that your country could have survived WWII if it had the full focus of Germany, if Germany never hd to worry at all about the western allies?
@Dreachon1 Your good question made me think. The answer is ambiguous yet: YES. Firstly, our country had such leader as Stalin greatly respected by other leaders. One example of his work. You know about evacuation in the beginning of the war of industry to Siberia, and plants began working before walls and ceilings are ready. But what about foundation? You can't place machine on clean ground. The foundations for plants were prepared before war. Secondly, all Europe worked on Reich military orders
2 US also and gave credits but it didn't help nazi. Thirdly, Britain and US afraided to leave alone against Germany. Fourthly, our idealogy of dialectic helped us to create such mechanics as T-34. Nevertheless the great help of allies and land-lease is superb. Then my turn question; why the second front was opened so late?
The 2nd front was already there even before Barbarossa started, it's called North Africa, then in 1943 comes the invasion of both Sicily and Italy.
3rd front comes in 1944 with invasion of Normandy.
As for Normandy not beeing until 1944, it takes a lot of preparation for making an amphibious assault on that scale let alone making sure it goes right the first cause had Overlord failed the allies would not have had a 2nd chance and operation Bagration would have been cancelled.
@Dreachon (1) Indeed, in Africa and Italy, the Anglo-American troops for the first time after 1940 performed relatively large-scale military operations against Germany and Italy. However, the Soviet Union considered the second front only such military actions that might distract from the Soviet-German front, large forces of the German army, at least - 30-40 divisions.
@Dreachon (2) Neither Africa nor in Italy didt. Military operations in Africa in 1942-1943. were a total of 17 German and Italian divisions, while the Soviet-German front was more than 260 divisions of Germany and its allies.
@Dreachon (3) Churchill told Stalin about the operations in North Africa: "The scale of these operations are small compared with the huge operation, which you preside." In Italy, in 1943, fought 18 German divisions, while the Soviet-German front remained the 221 division of Germany and its allies. As a result, in Africa and Italy against Britain and the U.S. were only 6-7% of the German armed forces.
@Dreachon (4) Victory Anglo-American troops in North Africa and Italy had a great strategic and political importance, and they struck heavy blows on Nazi Germany and its army, but did not replace the Second Front, which demanded that the Soviet Union. Successful
Unfortunately, T-34 and AK-47 ( in my days) already getting olg, BUT we have invented for you, bastards, new nuclers weapons!! Just give me a chance, I am dreaming to drop...
design for ak began in 1945 and they started using it in 1949, stg 44 was designed in 44 and there also was also some deigns in 43 (stg 43).
kalashnikov did copy the gas operating system of the StG44, and used it in the design of the AK-47 and made some changes to rounds and looks so it could be cheap...
@ClipMaster93 nope, both guns do use gas operating system but AK is using rotating bolt StG uses tilting bolt, therefore both are very different....why can't Soviet Union make their own assault rifle themselves?
my german relatives died fighting in russia-i can see why id shit my pants if i saw that thing rolling towards me...-with 20 other rolling out non stop
The Panther had only 1 thing in common with the T-34 and that is using sloped armour, it is NOT a copy as the T-34 lacked a lot.
two-way radio, good quality armour, 3 man turret, powerfull main gun, good optics, turret basket, excellent suspension that provided a stable gun platform.
@waffenss893 10 to 1 ??? Bullshit. Germans fought against USSR together with Romania, Slovakia, Austria, Finland, Italiy, Hungary and ss troops from other countries. Learn history, godsoldier)) And by the way- one german general of WW1(first!!!) said that number of soldiers doesnt play a main role in modern war, technology plays. Brains.))
@Zveroboy51 yea how many soldiers from those samall countrys joined the fight?. u should learn history every fight in the eastern front the germans were out numbred.
el final de la 2ª guerra estuvo bueno, lástima los comunistas soviéticos que se la jugaron toda para demostrar 45 años después qué eran lo que eran :) casi un sorete mal cagao.
Russia produced 97% of its own weapons..And I mean everything from100% of their own small arms, to the AK-47, to their T-34 which was the best tank in WW II.
You've got to hand it to them, as soildiers they really are amazing!
I hope your respected source isn't the one that lets you list the AK47 as beeing a WWII weapon cause that basicly makes another other claim defunct.
Also look at the losses or are you another one of those people that go for the old soviet myths, like the one they have been claiming that Kursk was a great victory, that is was the deathride of the panzers when it fact it turnso ut that Kursk was a disaster for the russian tank force.
@aluston91 Ponyal. Prosto vse razgovory, naprimer "Tigr protiv T34" - tam rech o tom, chto Tigr prizelno strelyaet na 1,5 km a t34 - na 500m. Vozmojno, oni na hodu stryelyali sblizivshis s protivnikom metrov na 200...
Keep producing them because there is a TIGER on the the corner to blown them to pieces.
Anyway it was a great tank, light/ wide tracks/sloped armor/ nice 76 canon easy to assemble easy to fix/greatest tank of WWII until TIGER and then PANTHER came around.
No doubt in mind there were many tanks in ww2 that were great the tiger I, M4 Sherman, Jagdpanther. But the russian t-34 was a major outbreak for russian troops and matched their tour of duty well in the fight.
The T-34 was the first modern tank in the world. When this tank rolled of the line, the tank had found the form it still have. A fast, well-armoured, mobile, sturdy and reliable machine with one gun in a turet, able to fire AP and HE ammo.
The 76 mm gun was not weak in 1940. In fact it was superiour to any other tank-gun in the world. Over the years it did of course become increasingly obsolete and underpowered, until -44, where it was replaced with a 85 mm high-volocity gun in a new turret..
The T-34 fell at an almost 3-4 rate to German Mark 3's and 4's, it was almost at 6-7 to one or more for Panthers, Tigers, Tiger Twos and King Tigers. Also it had a fairly weak gun compared to the armor it had to penetrate. I like the T-34, but it had some serious flaws, like very few replacement parts. If a tank was hit in the track then the Russians would just give them a new tank.
I agree what really surprises me is that so many call the T-34 the greatest tank ever produced but when one takes a closer look it's actually quite poor in it's performance, the vast majority, over 80% of the production was lost.
When it first appeared it was mechanicly unreliable, it lacked many refinements that tankers of other countries needed to work more effeciently and it never got a better killration than 3:1 in german favour.
@Dreachon Funny that. The Germans happily conscripted all T-34's they captured into the Werhmacht, where they served under the name PzKW-34.
Besides that, the memories of Manstein, Guderian and other high-ranking German officers quite clearly states that in -41 and early -42, they had nothing that could compare with the T-34. However, in -41 the Sovjet army had less than 500 operational T-34's. The bulk of Sovjet armour in the early months of the war was obsolete T-26 and BT-series tanks.
If you believe that than care to explain how the soviets managed to loose so many T-34 during those years of warfare, strategic a sound tank but tactical it was poor.
2300 T-34 in 1941, 6600 in 1942, 14700 in 1943 and between 15000 and 16000 in 1944.
Russia produced close to 55000 T-34 during the war but managed to lose 82%, that around 44000 lost to the germans.
@Dreachon I meant that it was the best for what they wanted to achive. I think they could have make a better tantkbut in fewer number. Ther was a plan to improve the tank beyond the t-34/85 but was too expensive.
@Dreachon How to lose t34s that were invincible in 1941? The bolshevik commanders like Zhukov found many ways: mass-breakthroughs instead of retreating and preparing defences, ordering crews to not respond to provocations or else, not assigning crews to new tanks, then - not training crews before sending to battle...
@Dreachon What do you mean by 'lost'? I mean lost under bombings or just dropped, abandoned in hundreds. In normal battle, these machines were invincible.
Lost to enemy fire, breakdowns, inability to recover, but if you truly believe that t-34 were invincible in 1941 then god help you.
It got even worse in 1942 when 15100 tanks were lost of which 6600 were T-34 and 1200 KV-1, the russian even held a study at what cased most knock-outs of tank from june 41 to september 42, turned out it was the long 5cm gun with 54.3% followed then by the 7.5cm with 10.1%
Given it is classed as a long 5cm gun it would either be a 5cm pak 38 or the gun from a panzer III ausf. J late.
These weaposn needed to be dangerously close and in most cases firing at the side or rear.
The fact that such weapons could get so close and a considerable percentage in T-34 losses already shows one the T-34 greatest design flaws, poor all-round vision, the inability to quickly acquite an enemy target all lead to a poor Fire Control Effeciency.
@Dreachon Ok, so only AA guns and panzer III ausf. J '41, very close range and firing from side or rear. To me, it proves t34 was invincible, how could it prove design flaws?
The 5cm Pak 38 is a purpose design anti-tank gun, and its not only this and latyer model panzer III, short 5cm, short 7.5cm and 8.8cm guns all took their toll on russians tanks.
The pak 38 could also knock out the T-34 from the front.
Again this stupid word on invicibility, tell are you one of those people that still believe that Kursk was great soviet succes and the death ride of the panzers cause if so you are gonna be in a world of pain when you learn the truth.
@Dreachon So just why this word of invincibility of t34 is stupid?
And why was Kursk not a great victory? Don't tell me about the score, because that's a wrong way to judge.German forces were lured into a trap and lost most of their potential and innitiative.
Because even in 1941 the germans had weapon and tactics to defeat it, the fact that the russian lost 2300 T-34 and 900 heavy tanks compared to the germans losing 2758 tanks in total, russian medimu and heavy losses were already than germans losses in total.
Why is Kursk so bad?
Because at Prokhorovka the LSSAH only lost 7 AFV and 25 damaged, the russian lost 134 AFv with 125 damaged, that 32 german vs 259 russian tanks lost.
At Prokhorovka there were only LSSAH with around 100 AFV against the 18th and 29th tank corp fielding 421 AFV, that is not the mythical thousands of tanks.
At Kurks the germans 323 AFV while the russians lost a staggering 1600 to almost 2000 AFV.
When the counter-attack was doen germany had lost 720 AFV against the 6064 AFV the russian had lost.
Kursk had turned out to be a nightmare for the russian tank units involved and although german losses were felt they weren't crippling.
@Dreachon One thing is for sure: since Kursk, Germans were continiously "leveling the front" (retreating) till they lost Berlin. Also, Germans failed all their objectives at Kursk. - that is no victory
For Soviets, the losses taken were not as critical as those Germany suffered
Did you just totally ifnore what I said to you, the germans losses at Kurk were not critical at all and this is reflected into the rest of 1943 and 1944 when the german army is still inflicting staggering losses on the russian tank force.
23500 tanks lost in 1943 and 23700 tanks lost in 1944 despite having the strategic initiatieve and large operational losses for the germans.
Add to that that in 1944 only 60% of the german army fought on the eastern front.
@Dreachon You say they were not critical and I say they were, ok. By critical i mean: they failed their offensive, and since then they've been retreating. Strategically, the tide has turned in Kursk. By critical I don't mean the loss of 90% of personnel.
It's true that Soviet propaganda overestimated the ratio in Kursk.
Needless to say the Russians exploited their victory to the full. There were to be no more periods of quiet on the Eastern Front. From now on, the enemy was in undisputed possession of the initiative.
Although it wasn't even their victory, the russian had already plannend this counter-attack before operation citadel was underway.
Multiple attack were laucnhed against the germans acros other parts of the fonts, this is the main reason of what forced Hitler to cancel citadel and transfer troops to other places and not like some people believe the allied invasion of sicily and italie.
The Germans used all the T34's they captured. They discovered one T34 with German army insignia in a swamp in Finland I think.
Although the Panther was a better medium tank it also came later, and was far more complex and expensive to make. Also, repairs and service in the field was difficult to say the least.
Танк T-34 тем неоспоримым фактом что русские нация выше и сильнее всяких жалких европейцев которые ничего лучше не могли придумать.... тигр был отстоем.. он был мега сложен конструкционно и не всегда заводлся в мороз.. что иногда превращало его в кучу дерьма .
Мне стыдно, что такой как ты пишет русскими буквами. Ни одна нация не является выше и сильнее других. Мне очень интересно как бы ты пытался доказать обратное. По поводу тигра: по мнению танкистов был очень удачный танк, а при правильной эксплуатации работал на "ура", хотя был немного капризен(Отто Кариус, ас панцерваффе "Тигры в грязи")
а мне стыдно, когда мы русский народ. который смог отстоять свою независимость и волю в кровавой битве, сейчас должны подхалимничать и унижаться перед амеко-западом..... мы купились на их ВЕЩИ.... да они умеют делать красивые вещи качественно...чтоб наживаться... ради денег...их смысл жизни... деньги....это путь в пропасть. Если захотим.. мы всё сможем....
Very simple design, high maneuverability, good firepower, good speed, good armor, cheap to build, light, and good slope armor design to deflect certain frontal attack. The T34 is truly legendary specially the T34/85 version.
T34 was the best tank fielded in WW2. I know all about the Tigers and Panthers, but if you want to compare dollar for dollar, plus mechanical reliability the T34 is far superior to either. After battle you would see very expensive Tiger tanks sitting immobile due to mechanical failure and too heavy to be recovered. T34's were easy to mass produce and VERY mechanically reliable. By April '45 there weren't any Tigers left, but there were still about 50,000 T34's. That says it all...
if it was so good must attribute the massive losses to inept cowardly crews and cowardly leadership. if Deutschland had such a technical advantage only the oceans would have stopped them. by the way t34 was largely an American development.
@eagerbeaver53 tahts the good thing about the russians, they make mass produced cheap stuff that last for ever and almost never fails, for example the ak47
T-34! Most cost efficient tank in the entire war! We thank Russia for all the sacrifices they made in WW2 to push back the facist invaders and to free Europe!!!
@Lurkmoarmygoodsir Duidelijk nooit echt sterk in geschiedenis geweest he...
Wie was verantwoordelijk voor de Berlijnse muur?
Wie heeft nog enkele miljoenen onschuldige doden meer dan Hitler op zijn kerfstok staan?
"Free Europe"??? schande! Ze hebben gewoon de ene dictator voor de andere ingeruild en de vrede in pand gegeven. Oost-Europa is pas na 1980 bevrijd en NIET dankzij de Russen!
@Lurkmoarmygoodsir How did you reach your remarkable knowledge level regarding WWII - by playing kind of a pirate "Call of Duty" made by Russkies??
There was red fascism too which lasted for the next 46 years after the war in half of Europe. The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact on August -39 included The Additional Secret Protocol, check it out, Mr. Ignoramus.
Agree, T-34 was a good choice for a recreational vehicle when hard-working Homo Sovieticus wanted to relax abroad without having a passport.
@bambinonero Mr. Victim of Propaganda, Commies and Nazis, including the prefix "neo-" with 'em belong in the same category under the sign of Fascism... So, you're either an member of the Putinjugend - Nashi and Nazi are equal, or you're just an average chronically pissed off ex-Homo Sovieticus who can't stand the truth. On the other hand that's understandable after decades of lies and brainwashing which still continues.
wikipedia: Moreover, the main armament of the Tiger II was capable of knocking out any Allied tank frontally at ranges exceeding 2.5 kilometres (1.6 mi), beyond the effective range of Allied tank guns.
@Russian Boy Be proud of what the men and women of the Soviet Union accomplished fighting the Nazis. Don't let their sacrifices ever be forgotten. Death to Fascists everywhere!
21 Nazis where driving Panzer 4
NewSoviet507 6 days ago
This tank and its crews were a big part in stopping the Nazis.. it was vastly superior in that the Germans could not produce a superior tank in adequete numbers to counter it.
SuperGetitgotitgood 4 weeks ago
Hollywood actor Brad Pitt bought a T-34 tank.
MrSrgj 1 month ago
@MrSrgj he also bought a bunch of surplus kids with angelina jolie,,,
SuperGetitgotitgood 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
If you mess with God's chosen people, God will throw 80,000 T-34's at you!
BoyJewish 2 months ago
If you mess with God's chosen people, God will throw 80,000 T034's at you!
BoyJewish 2 months ago
first tank with angled armour. german artillary would just bounce right off it.
573JAH573 2 months ago
no you weren't VendPrekmurec.......just in your dreams. Anyways, the T-34 is not the ultimate tank. Just like the Americans, it only succeeded in great numbers like the Sherman. Know and own your history-most don't. Fools.
japan906 3 months ago
@japan906 It's not the ultimate tank but it was easily good enough to go toe to toe with the PIV which were available in smaller numbers. T34 probably saved us all form German victory in the east which is why it get's overrated all the time. Because of it's impact on the war.
diramonsky 2 months ago
@diramonsky: The T34 is absolutely nót overrated! It was indeed better than what the German's had. Even the mighty Tiger1 had difficulty in destroying the T34, because of it's sloped armour and the fact that the T34 was faster than the Tiger. There was no other allied tank wich could destroy a Tiger1 on it's own, until the Americans brought in the Pershing tank.
Kirovets7011 3 weeks ago
@Kirovets7011 the sloped armour was useless against the 88 and Kwk 75
in 1941 2 things could destroy a t34 the 88 and planes
alekzander2010 1 week ago
@Kirovets7011 you mean the T34/85 that's the only only T34 that could take out a Tiger
NewSoviet507 6 days ago
I was driving and shooting with one of these ! In Call of Duty 1. Nice times :)
VendPrekmurec 3 months ago in playlist T-34 tank new
Hey I was driving and shooting with one of these ! In Call of Duty 1. Nice times :)
VendPrekmurec 3 months ago in playlist T-34 tank new
Could anyone tell me if T-34's were part of the Soviet armor in the 1939-1940 Winter War with Finland? Specifically I'd like to know if it was possible any were used in fighting in the area just north of Lake Ladoga? Please message me if you can answer this.
misterbill1911 4 months ago
19 people got crushed by soviet tanks
Artanys62 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬ஜ۩۞۩ஜ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
ＤＡＭＮ ＴＨＩＳ ＣＯＭＭＥＮＴ ＩＳ ＦＡＮＣＹ！
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬ஜ۩۞۩ஜ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
just like that tank
atomalex1 5 months ago
on this video is T34 and T34-85
MsOrfen 5 months ago
Batman drives one to......
BladeStrikes 5 months ago
T-34-76-1939, T-34-76-1941, T-34-85
IgorKnyaz 6 months ago
t 95 black eagle ))
pravdadn 6 months ago
One of the best tanks ever made
GeneralNutcase 7 months ago
@GeneralNutcase Sure, even though 20 Abrams wiped out over a thousand T-34's and only suffered minimum damage.
TheDARIEN54321 7 months ago
@TheDARIEN54321 See your comparing a modern tank with a modern gun,loading system and armor and you don't see how much the T-34 revolutionized combat. Sloped armor,reliable and damn near invincible
GeneralNutcase 7 months ago
@GeneralNutcase The T-34 wasnt anywhere near invincible. In WWII a panzer could take down up to 14 t-34's before getting overwhelmed.
TheDARIEN54321 7 months ago
@TheDARIEN54321 At range the Tiger had trouble penetrating it's frontal and superior sloped armor which could take a pounding plus is the American Sherman any better? that thing is a fucking nuke on wheels when hit 85% of the time it goes up like its predecessor the M3 Grant/Lee
GeneralNutcase 7 months ago
@GeneralNutcase Where did the Sherman come up? One on one, the T-34 would always be beat by german forces.
TheDARIEN54321 7 months ago
@GeneralNutcase
Ay what distance did a Tiger i have trouble penetrating the frontal armour of a T-34.
T-34's frontal armour is equal to 90mm of flat armour, even less given poor quality of soviet armour.
The 8.8cm L56 gun can penetrate 91mm of armour sloped at 30 degree at a distance of 1500m and 84mm of armour sloped at 30 degree at 2000m, that is more than enough to deal with a T-34 and way beyond the T-34 ability to fight back.
Dreachon 7 months ago
@Dreachon Depends on what part of the sloped armor it hits anyway the inclined armor on the the T-34 was angled precisely at 47 degrees as was the German Panther as at that angle you have double if not a little over more protection that if it was flat. Anyway in the mid-late stages of the war German was starting to lose reliable Armor Piercing shells and materials to build a Tiger
GeneralNutcase 7 months ago
@GeneralNutcase
Germay only lost materials for the rarer panzergrenate 40, the panzergrenate 39 which was the standerd german APCBC remained the same throughout the war, I also took it's penetration value and not the PzGr 40.
And no it doesn't matter at all were on the front the Tiger hits the T-34, at 1500 it will go right through it.
Dreachon 7 months ago
@TheDARIEN54321 Idea of T-34 was make it fast,easy to produce and make lots of them,so this strategy work,thats all,tanks dosnt win war,only good tactics
SlavaSvarogu 6 months ago
@SlavaSvarogu Correction, A combination of tactics and tanks win wars. Look at Patton, he used the Sherman for all of its advantages and won himself one of the best commanders in history.
TheDARIEN54321 6 months ago
@TheDARIEN54321 Patton fought with almost overcomed nazi
IgorKnyaz 6 months ago
@IgorKnyaz I dont understand that. Can you say it again in perhaps better english?
TheDARIEN54321 6 months ago
@TheDARIEN54321 Little work remained for Anglo-Americans after Russians
IgorKnyaz 6 months ago
@GeneralNutcase
That's a good laugh, near invicibility.
Do tell how the russian then lost 2300 in 1941, 6600 in 1942, 14700 in 1943 and 14500 in 1944, don't have the numbers for 1945.
These are al just the T-34 losses.
Dreachon 7 months ago
@Dreachon Because Russians broke german army and Patton walked in jeeps with girls
IgorKnyaz 6 months ago
@IgorKnyaz
your answer makes no sense.
Dreachon 6 months ago
Comment removed
IgorKnyaz 6 months ago
You don't see sense? Perhaps you are senseless
IgorKnyaz 6 months ago
@IgorKnyaz
Not really because I mainly see yet another russian who believes that Russia has done all of it's own, that it never needed any help at all.
Is that what you truly believe, that your country could have survived WWII if it had the full focus of Germany, if Germany never hd to worry at all about the western allies?
Dreachon 6 months ago
@Dreachon1 Your good question made me think. The answer is ambiguous yet: YES. Firstly, our country had such leader as Stalin greatly respected by other leaders. One example of his work. You know about evacuation in the beginning of the war of industry to Siberia, and plants began working before walls and ceilings are ready. But what about foundation? You can't place machine on clean ground. The foundations for plants were prepared before war. Secondly, all Europe worked on Reich military orders
IgorKnyaz 6 months ago
2 US also and gave credits but it didn't help nazi. Thirdly, Britain and US afraided to leave alone against Germany. Fourthly, our idealogy of dialectic helped us to create such mechanics as T-34. Nevertheless the great help of allies and land-lease is superb. Then my turn question; why the second front was opened so late?
IgorKnyaz 6 months ago
@IgorKnyaz
The 2nd front was already there even before Barbarossa started, it's called North Africa, then in 1943 comes the invasion of both Sicily and Italy.
3rd front comes in 1944 with invasion of Normandy.
As for Normandy not beeing until 1944, it takes a lot of preparation for making an amphibious assault on that scale let alone making sure it goes right the first cause had Overlord failed the allies would not have had a 2nd chance and operation Bagration would have been cancelled.
Dreachon 6 months ago
@Dreachon (1) Indeed, in Africa and Italy, the Anglo-American troops for the first time after 1940 performed relatively large-scale military operations against Germany and Italy. However, the Soviet Union considered the second front only such military actions that might distract from the Soviet-German front, large forces of the German army, at least - 30-40 divisions.
IgorKnyaz 6 months ago
@Dreachon (2) Neither Africa nor in Italy didt. Military operations in Africa in 1942-1943. were a total of 17 German and Italian divisions, while the Soviet-German front was more than 260 divisions of Germany and its allies.
IgorKnyaz 6 months ago
@Dreachon (3) Churchill told Stalin about the operations in North Africa: "The scale of these operations are small compared with the huge operation, which you preside." In Italy, in 1943, fought 18 German divisions, while the Soviet-German front remained the 221 division of Germany and its allies. As a result, in Africa and Italy against Britain and the U.S. were only 6-7% of the German armed forces.
IgorKnyaz 6 months ago
@Dreachon (4) Victory Anglo-American troops in North Africa and Italy had a great strategic and political importance, and they struck heavy blows on Nazi Germany and its army, but did not replace the Second Front, which demanded that the Soviet Union. Successful
IgorKnyaz 6 months ago
Please!!! Please!!! Give s a minimal chance!! I pray you, bastrads, minimal chance!!!
Just to use and ...
MyVladimir33 7 months ago
Unfortunately, T-34 and AK-47 ( in my days) already getting olg, BUT we have invented for you, bastards, new nuclers weapons!! Just give me a chance, I am dreaming to drop...
MyVladimir33 7 months ago
Gloria to T-34, killing machine for German soldiers and officers of II WW and other bastards, which I hate personally!!
MyVladimir33 7 months ago
the advanced version of this tank, is still useful
8900609 7 months ago
even though the t.34 was russian all the way the russians stole the design of the stg 44 compare it to the ak-47
jasincl 8 months ago
@jasincl WRONG, the Stg and Ak may look the same, but don't judge a book by it's cover, AK-47 is different inside
8900609 7 months ago
@8900609
no its true look at ak 46 its almost same as stg 44 then they changed something and made ak 47.
and many other countries used german tech after ww2
ClipMaster93 7 months ago
@ClipMaster93 what? look at it's operation clearly
8900609 7 months ago
@8900609
its changed you can fucking see it i dont why its so hard to admit it???
ClipMaster93 7 months ago
@ClipMaster93 =_= what changed? did you know that Kalshnikov already planned a gun before the StG was introduced?
8900609 7 months ago
@8900609
planed a gun AFTER stg 44 was introduced...
ak 47 is just an updated version of stg 44.
design for ak began in 1945 and they started using it in 1949, stg 44 was designed in 44 and there also was also some deigns in 43 (stg 43).
kalashnikov did copy the gas operating system of the StG44, and used it in the design of the AK-47 and made some changes to rounds and looks so it could be cheap...
ClipMaster93 7 months ago
@ClipMaster93 WTH? ever heard of AK-1?
8900609 7 months ago
@8900609
oh boy...
know what fuck off dont want to talk anymore...
ClipMaster93 7 months ago
@ClipMaster93 hehe getting mad of saying profane words....haha typical kid.....
8900609 7 months ago
@8900609
No I'm not mad and I'm 17, I just can't belive how ignorant can you be...
Admit it faggot AK 47 is copy of STG 44...
ClipMaster93 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ClipMaster93 nope, both guns do use gas operating system but AK is using rotating bolt StG uses tilting bolt, therefore both are very different....why can't Soviet Union make their own assault rifle themselves?
8900609 7 months ago
my german relatives died fighting in russia-i can see why id shit my pants if i saw that thing rolling towards me...-with 20 other rolling out non stop
jasincl 8 months ago
the sowiets copy many german wepons in and after the war...the biggest copy is the AK from the STG44
OddjobHut 9 months ago
i think the panther was better but it was a copy of the T.34 and the T34 came before so i guess it is better
jasincl 10 months ago
@jasincl
The Panther had only 1 thing in common with the T-34 and that is using sloped armour, it is NOT a copy as the T-34 lacked a lot.
two-way radio, good quality armour, 3 man turret, powerfull main gun, good optics, turret basket, excellent suspension that provided a stable gun platform.
Dreachon 10 months ago
im starting a fight german soldiers were better.
waffenss893 10 months ago
@waffenss893 Best soldiers dont lose.
Zveroboy51 8 months ago
@Zveroboy51 yes but when outnumbrde 10 to 1 godsoldiers becomes worthless
waffenss893 8 months ago
@waffenss893 10 to 1 ??? Bullshit. Germans fought against USSR together with Romania, Slovakia, Austria, Finland, Italiy, Hungary and ss troops from other countries. Learn history, godsoldier)) And by the way- one german general of WW1(first!!!) said that number of soldiers doesnt play a main role in modern war, technology plays. Brains.))
Zveroboy51 8 months ago
@Zveroboy51 yea how many soldiers from those samall countrys joined the fight?. u should learn history every fight in the eastern front the germans were out numbred.
waffenss893 8 months ago
A GDZEI
KOBIETY KTÓTE PRACOWAŁY PRZ Y PRODUKCJI TYCH ARMAT
iskagreen 11 months ago
el final de la 2ª guerra estuvo bueno, lástima los comunistas soviéticos que se la jugaron toda para demostrar 45 años después qué eran lo que eran :) casi un sorete mal cagao.
sebagato01 1 year ago
My favorite Russian tanks are the T-34 and the BT-7
parakeetman22 1 year ago
HOW DID THE RUSSIANS WIN?
They had better soldiers
They had better weapons....and more of them
They had better generals
The German generals came from aristocracy
The British generals came from gentry
The Russian generals came from peasantry
Russia produced 97% of its own weapons..And I mean everything from100% of their own small arms, to the AK-47, to their T-34 which was the best tank in WW II.
You've got to hand it to them, as soildiers they really are amazing!
Eedgit 1 year ago
@Eedgit
1. they didn't have better soldiers, this becomes clear when you look at the russian losses compared to german losses
2. they did not have better weapons, once again look at the losses, they did have more of their stuff.
3. best generals were from germany once again look at the losses under their command
4. russia made heavy use of lend-lease to provide her armies with trucks since had stopped truck production in favour of tank production.
Also AK47 didn't appear in WWII.
Dreachon 1 year ago
@Dreachon I beg to differ.
I'm looking at a well respected source, and I will send you the site via your channel.
No need for me to prove it, others have for me.
Eedgit 1 year ago
@Eedgit
I hope your respected source isn't the one that lets you list the AK47 as beeing a WWII weapon cause that basicly makes another other claim defunct.
Also look at the losses or are you another one of those people that go for the old soviet myths, like the one they have been claiming that Kursk was a great victory, that is was the deathride of the panzers when it fact it turnso ut that Kursk was a disaster for the russian tank force.
Dreachon 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Dreachon I sent you the link, so what do you think of it's claims now?
Eedgit 1 year ago
the tank that won the war
bougabouga 1 year ago
best tank ever this tank lead the russians to berlin
TheAndrey316575 1 year ago
best tank ever
TheAndrey316575 1 year ago
Bolshoe preimychestvo vsex tankov -kak t-34,KV, SAY bylo takim--oni stelayli s xody
,t,e ne tratili ni sekyndy na ostanovky.V otlichii ot nemezkix -kotorym nyzno bylo stat
,chto by zdelat vystrel.A dlay voiny neskolko seckynd reshayt isxod poedinka.
aluston91 1 year ago
@aluston91 A kuda ty popadesh s hodu - nikuda.
mizukami999 1 year ago
@mizukami999 Po vospominaniam dryga moego otza -Popova komandira I.S--tak i strelayli s xody.
POsmotri film Osvobozdie ,gde na Kyrskoi Dyge nashi T-34 strelayut s xody.
A voobshe ay tankistom ne byl i davat sovety delo palenoe.
Starshii leitenant mor pexoty Sovetskogo Souza.Sevastopol 81-89.
aluston91 1 year ago
@aluston91 Ponyal. Prosto vse razgovory, naprimer "Tigr protiv T34" - tam rech o tom, chto Tigr prizelno strelyaet na 1,5 km a t34 - na 500m. Vozmojno, oni na hodu stryelyali sblizivshis s protivnikom metrov na 200...
mizukami999 1 year ago
Videl ix svoimi glazami zelye kollony na konservazii v 1978 gody ,gde to mezdy
Donezkom.A posle T -34,kv, i SAY otpravili v na Vietnamsko -Kitaiskyu voiny.
Vot kak i posle Otechestvennoi Voiny eche slyzili raznym stranam.
Nashi batki delali tanki na sovest ,
aluston91 1 year ago
I used to climb into one as a kid. We had it in the park till the USSR collapsed and it all came to dilapidation and the tank was removed.
ForeverKIS 1 year ago
Keep producing them because there is a TIGER on the the corner to blown them to pieces.
Anyway it was a great tank, light/ wide tracks/sloped armor/ nice 76 canon easy to assemble easy to fix/greatest tank of WWII until TIGER and then PANTHER came around.
MrBobe9 1 year ago
это символ нашей победы!!!!слава руси
warjg1 1 year ago
Remember! 27 million Soviet citizens died to defeat Fascist forces
mikeeshaq 1 year ago
J. Walter Christie's tank
00Zeb22300 1 year ago
@00Zeb22300
There is only Christie's suspension in this tank from Christie.
sergeontheloose 1 year ago
@00Zeb22300 christie's idea + socialisic work + siberian iron + plan on 120% = T-34
Yuri244 1 year ago 2
лучший танк ....
stas19689889 1 year ago
Chief Designer Mikhail Ilyich Koshkin.
Ermako4 1 year ago
BEST!!!
JustAk103 1 year ago
No doubt in mind there were many tanks in ww2 that were great the tiger I, M4 Sherman, Jagdpanther. But the russian t-34 was a major outbreak for russian troops and matched their tour of duty well in the fight.
legofan547 1 year ago
The T-34 was the first modern tank in the world. When this tank rolled of the line, the tank had found the form it still have. A fast, well-armoured, mobile, sturdy and reliable machine with one gun in a turet, able to fire AP and HE ammo.
The 76 mm gun was not weak in 1940. In fact it was superiour to any other tank-gun in the world. Over the years it did of course become increasingly obsolete and underpowered, until -44, where it was replaced with a 85 mm high-volocity gun in a new turret..
LarS1963 1 year ago
The T-34 fell at an almost 3-4 rate to German Mark 3's and 4's, it was almost at 6-7 to one or more for Panthers, Tigers, Tiger Twos and King Tigers. Also it had a fairly weak gun compared to the armor it had to penetrate. I like the T-34, but it had some serious flaws, like very few replacement parts. If a tank was hit in the track then the Russians would just give them a new tank.
yeehaawww1 1 year ago
Reads memoirs German and Russian officier.
Lhunter801 1 year ago
@yeehaawww1
I agree what really surprises me is that so many call the T-34 the greatest tank ever produced but when one takes a closer look it's actually quite poor in it's performance, the vast majority, over 80% of the production was lost.
When it first appeared it was mechanicly unreliable, it lacked many refinements that tankers of other countries needed to work more effeciently and it never got a better killration than 3:1 in german favour.
Dreachon 1 year ago
Comment removed
LarS1963 1 year ago
@Dreachon Funny that. The Germans happily conscripted all T-34's they captured into the Werhmacht, where they served under the name PzKW-34.
Besides that, the memories of Manstein, Guderian and other high-ranking German officers quite clearly states that in -41 and early -42, they had nothing that could compare with the T-34. However, in -41 the Sovjet army had less than 500 operational T-34's. The bulk of Sovjet armour in the early months of the war was obsolete T-26 and BT-series tanks.
LarS1963 1 year ago
@Dreachon T-34 was the best because about 40000 was produced versus 6000 panther and 1300 tiger. Quantity won over quality.
JamesVonRaynor 1 year ago
@JamesVonRaynor
If you believe that than care to explain how the soviets managed to loose so many T-34 during those years of warfare, strategic a sound tank but tactical it was poor.
2300 T-34 in 1941, 6600 in 1942, 14700 in 1943 and between 15000 and 16000 in 1944.
Russia produced close to 55000 T-34 during the war but managed to lose 82%, that around 44000 lost to the germans.
Dreachon 1 year ago
@Dreachon I meant that it was the best for what they wanted to achive. I think they could have make a better tantkbut in fewer number. Ther was a plan to improve the tank beyond the t-34/85 but was too expensive.
JamesVonRaynor 1 year ago
@Dreachon How to lose t34s that were invincible in 1941? The bolshevik commanders like Zhukov found many ways: mass-breakthroughs instead of retreating and preparing defences, ordering crews to not respond to provocations or else, not assigning crews to new tanks, then - not training crews before sending to battle...
mizukami999 1 year ago
@mizukami999
T-34 invincible in 1941 well that is another fine myth.
The rusians lost 2300 T-34 and 900 KV in 1941.
Also if you would read up on Zhukov you'll find that although he got the job done is was almost with frightening losses in both men and material.
Dreachon 1 year ago
@Dreachon What do you mean by 'lost'? I mean lost under bombings or just dropped, abandoned in hundreds. In normal battle, these machines were invincible.
mizukami999 1 year ago
@mizukami999
Lost to enemy fire, breakdowns, inability to recover, but if you truly believe that t-34 were invincible in 1941 then god help you.
It got even worse in 1942 when 15100 tanks were lost of which 6600 were T-34 and 1200 KV-1, the russian even held a study at what cased most knock-outs of tank from june 41 to september 42, turned out it was the long 5cm gun with 54.3% followed then by the 7.5cm with 10.1%
Dreachon 1 year ago
@Dreachon What sort of 5cm gun was that? And what was the most popular hit range?
mizukami999 1 year ago
@mizukami999
Given it is classed as a long 5cm gun it would either be a 5cm pak 38 or the gun from a panzer III ausf. J late.
These weaposn needed to be dangerously close and in most cases firing at the side or rear.
The fact that such weapons could get so close and a considerable percentage in T-34 losses already shows one the T-34 greatest design flaws, poor all-round vision, the inability to quickly acquite an enemy target all lead to a poor Fire Control Effeciency.
Dreachon 1 year ago
@Dreachon Ok, so only AA guns and panzer III ausf. J '41, very close range and firing from side or rear. To me, it proves t34 was invincible, how could it prove design flaws?
And what would it be like without the t-34...?!
mizukami999 1 year ago
@mizukami999
The 5cm Pak 38 is a purpose design anti-tank gun, and its not only this and latyer model panzer III, short 5cm, short 7.5cm and 8.8cm guns all took their toll on russians tanks.
The pak 38 could also knock out the T-34 from the front.
Again this stupid word on invicibility, tell are you one of those people that still believe that Kursk was great soviet succes and the death ride of the panzers cause if so you are gonna be in a world of pain when you learn the truth.
Dreachon 1 year ago
@Dreachon
Then comes the fact that you seem to be unable of thinking the T-34 having design falws which is did and it's flaws were quite significant.
There's a damn good reason why T-34 losses increase with each year.
In 1942 another 6600 T-34 are lost, this rises to a staggering 14700 lost in 1943 and another 15300 in 1944.
Dreachon 1 year ago
@Dreachon So just why this word of invincibility of t34 is stupid?
And why was Kursk not a great victory? Don't tell me about the score, because that's a wrong way to judge.German forces were lured into a trap and lost most of their potential and innitiative.
mizukami999 1 year ago
@mizukami999
Because even in 1941 the germans had weapon and tactics to defeat it, the fact that the russian lost 2300 T-34 and 900 heavy tanks compared to the germans losing 2758 tanks in total, russian medimu and heavy losses were already than germans losses in total.
Why is Kursk so bad?
Because at Prokhorovka the LSSAH only lost 7 AFV and 25 damaged, the russian lost 134 AFv with 125 damaged, that 32 german vs 259 russian tanks lost.
29th tank corps lost 75% of it's strenght.
Dreachon 1 year ago
@Dreachon
At Prokhorovka there were only LSSAH with around 100 AFV against the 18th and 29th tank corp fielding 421 AFV, that is not the mythical thousands of tanks.
At Kurks the germans 323 AFV while the russians lost a staggering 1600 to almost 2000 AFV.
When the counter-attack was doen germany had lost 720 AFV against the 6064 AFV the russian had lost.
Kursk had turned out to be a nightmare for the russian tank units involved and although german losses were felt they weren't crippling.
Dreachon 1 year ago
@Dreachon One thing is for sure: since Kursk, Germans were continiously "leveling the front" (retreating) till they lost Berlin. Also, Germans failed all their objectives at Kursk. - that is no victory
For Soviets, the losses taken were not as critical as those Germany suffered
mizukami999 1 year ago
@mizukami999
Did you just totally ifnore what I said to you, the germans losses at Kurk were not critical at all and this is reflected into the rest of 1943 and 1944 when the german army is still inflicting staggering losses on the russian tank force.
23500 tanks lost in 1943 and 23700 tanks lost in 1944 despite having the strategic initiatieve and large operational losses for the germans.
Add to that that in 1944 only 60% of the german army fought on the eastern front.
Dreachon 1 year ago
@Dreachon You say they were not critical and I say they were, ok. By critical i mean: they failed their offensive, and since then they've been retreating. Strategically, the tide has turned in Kursk. By critical I don't mean the loss of 90% of personnel.
It's true that Soviet propaganda overestimated the ratio in Kursk.
mizukami999 1 year ago
@mizukami999
The offensieve didn't fail, it was called off by Hilter as german forced needed to be diverted to other portions of the eastern front.
It is though an offensief that should not have happened at all or immediatly when Manstein proposed it.
Dreachon 1 year ago
@Dreachon Look what Guderian wrote:
Needless to say the Russians exploited their victory to the full. There were to be no more periods of quiet on the Eastern Front. From now on, the enemy was in undisputed possession of the initiative.
mizukami999 1 year ago
@mizukami999
Although it wasn't even their victory, the russian had already plannend this counter-attack before operation citadel was underway.
Multiple attack were laucnhed against the germans acros other parts of the fonts, this is the main reason of what forced Hitler to cancel citadel and transfer troops to other places and not like some people believe the allied invasion of sicily and italie.
Dreachon 1 year ago
@JamesVonRaynor Where quality? in 1943 Kursk - 240+ Panther moving to frontline - arrived - 80. 160+ craps. QUALITY :)
Lhunter801 5 months ago
Zinoviy Kolobanov (KV-1) -in one battle 22 tanks.
Lhunter801 1 year ago
Dmitriy Lavrinenko: 2 month - 52 tanks :) Wittman looser :)
Lhunter801 1 year ago
faile tank mechael wittman destroyed 135 with one tiger alone stupid tank glory to russion :D
TERMINAL36 1 year ago
batman begins and dark knight music? Well I guess it fits.
goseaanz 1 year ago
The tanks that swept Japan from China!
Sunder61 1 year ago
It was numbers baby, nothing else.
3shacks1house 1 year ago
The Germans used all the T34's they captured. They discovered one T34 with German army insignia in a swamp in Finland I think.
Although the Panther was a better medium tank it also came later, and was far more complex and expensive to make. Also, repairs and service in the field was difficult to say the least.
Truly the tank which won WW2.
McLarenMercedes 1 year ago
@McLarenMercedes what the fuck with finnland...yes ussr lost alota troops at that war..but not because finnish heroes...
and russians shoulden send south ussr dudes to fight that war ...
those troops from siberia could kick all your scandinavian asses in like 2 weeks ...
well they fought japanise at that time.....im glad they were back for stalingrad fight
btw tiger is a heavy tank...t-34 is medium one..almost light
KV was havy on russian side
MrBumbooo 1 year ago
fast powerfull and a tons of armors german was on the run after this tank came out of the factory
utubesuckbad 1 year ago
Genius ideia, the T-34 tank series was the best in ww2
I really love this tank.
Reichx4 1 year ago
the crap had name T-34!
Zonkerus 1 year ago
@Zonkerus
Танк T-34 тем неоспоримым фактом что русские нация выше и сильнее всяких жалких европейцев которые ничего лучше не могли придумать.... тигр был отстоем.. он был мега сложен конструкционно и не всегда заводлся в мороз.. что иногда превращало его в кучу дерьма .
hagen2363 1 year ago
@hagen2363
Мне стыдно, что такой как ты пишет русскими буквами. Ни одна нация не является выше и сильнее других. Мне очень интересно как бы ты пытался доказать обратное. По поводу тигра: по мнению танкистов был очень удачный танк, а при правильной эксплуатации работал на "ура", хотя был немного капризен(Отто Кариус, ас панцерваффе "Тигры в грязи")
Netbek12345 1 year ago
@Netbek12345
а мне стыдно, когда мы русский народ. который смог отстоять свою независимость и волю в кровавой битве, сейчас должны подхалимничать и унижаться перед амеко-западом..... мы купились на их ВЕЩИ.... да они умеют делать красивые вещи качественно...чтоб наживаться... ради денег...их смысл жизни... деньги....это путь в пропасть. Если захотим.. мы всё сможем....
hagen2363 1 year ago
@hagen2363 And all so tiger and t 34 are diferent class of tank so they shud not be directly compared.
BGSlopy 1 year ago
@Zonkerus The only crap here is you!!!
RussianTrue 1 year ago
They even in half a century in good repair. Has filled with fuel and has gone. The superreliable tank.
hagen2363 1 year ago
Very simple design, high maneuverability, good firepower, good speed, good armor, cheap to build, light, and good slope armor design to deflect certain frontal attack. The T34 is truly legendary specially the T34/85 version.
Nickael7 1 year ago 6
T34 was the best tank fielded in WW2. I know all about the Tigers and Panthers, but if you want to compare dollar for dollar, plus mechanical reliability the T34 is far superior to either. After battle you would see very expensive Tiger tanks sitting immobile due to mechanical failure and too heavy to be recovered. T34's were easy to mass produce and VERY mechanically reliable. By April '45 there weren't any Tigers left, but there were still about 50,000 T34's. That says it all...
randy95023 1 year ago 3
T-34 is the best tank in military history. Look at it. It is awesome and i can say pretty despite fatass Tiger or ugly Matilda.
Go1andec 1 year ago
Hans was a good choice for this video. Ironic that he is German.
EyeOnTheTV 1 year ago
T-34 it is like Kalashnikov: cheap, simply and deadly.
fantozzi80 1 year ago 18
they are old but they are still good at firepower, mobility, protection and ruggedness.
CMDai1 1 year ago
T-34 = Panzerfaust meat
TigerIPanzer 1 year ago
if it was so good must attribute the massive losses to inept cowardly crews and cowardly leadership. if Deutschland had such a technical advantage only the oceans would have stopped them. by the way t34 was largely an American development.
barackscat 1 year ago
First sloped armor in the world.
Hatinonthehaters 1 year ago
its so simple looking its funny how russia always makes really good stuff for the cost and the simplicity
eagerbeaver53 1 year ago 6
@eagerbeaver53 tahts the good thing about the russians, they make mass produced cheap stuff that last for ever and almost never fails, for example the ak47
SuperMachinegunner 1 year ago
Best tank in history of men....
nedeljko031 1 year ago 4
T-34! Most cost efficient tank in the entire war! We thank Russia for all the sacrifices they made in WW2 to push back the facist invaders and to free Europe!!!
Greetings,
Holland
Lurkmoarmygoodsir 1 year ago 28
@Lurkmoarmygoodsir Duidelijk nooit echt sterk in geschiedenis geweest he...
Wie was verantwoordelijk voor de Berlijnse muur?
Wie heeft nog enkele miljoenen onschuldige doden meer dan Hitler op zijn kerfstok staan?
"Free Europe"??? schande! Ze hebben gewoon de ene dictator voor de andere ingeruild en de vrede in pand gegeven. Oost-Europa is pas na 1980 bevrijd en NIET dankzij de Russen!
crimelight 11 months ago
@Lurkmoarmygoodsir How did you reach your remarkable knowledge level regarding WWII - by playing kind of a pirate "Call of Duty" made by Russkies??
There was red fascism too which lasted for the next 46 years after the war in half of Europe. The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact on August -39 included The Additional Secret Protocol, check it out, Mr. Ignoramus.
Agree, T-34 was a good choice for a recreational vehicle when hard-working Homo Sovieticus wanted to relax abroad without having a passport.
OttovonEarth 9 months ago
@OttovonEarth judging by your language, you sir is a fine piece of the so-called neo-nazi crap
bambinonero 9 months ago
@bambinonero Mr. Victim of Propaganda, Commies and Nazis, including the prefix "neo-" with 'em belong in the same category under the sign of Fascism... So, you're either an member of the Putinjugend - Nashi and Nazi are equal, or you're just an average chronically pissed off ex-Homo Sovieticus who can't stand the truth. On the other hand that's understandable after decades of lies and brainwashing which still continues.
OttovonEarth 9 months ago
@OttovonEarth Putinjugend... pissed off ex-Homo Sovieticus... Looks like you need some real good brainwashing sir :))
bambinonero 9 months ago
@Lurkmoarmygoodsir Yes, free Europe so that the Muslims can come and invade it now.
Dercommandingofficer 8 months ago
perfect medium tank.
JAGDPANTHER20 1 year ago
it may be an ugly son of a bitch but it can get the job done .
MrBrian987987 1 year ago
Dark Knight theme
patrickc1193 1 year ago 3
good old machines...
YUCplNT 1 year ago 26
T-34 The average tank, and a tiger heavy.
And Germans copied Pantra with Т-34.
It is better to compare ИС-2 or КВ to a tiger
russiantodropabomb 1 year ago 4
На английском не говорят average tank, это значит посредственный танк. Правильно сказать - Medium tank
Dez563 1 year ago 3
wikipedia: Moreover, the main armament of the Tiger II was capable of knocking out any Allied tank frontally at ranges exceeding 2.5 kilometres (1.6 mi), beyond the effective range of Allied tank guns.
any questions?
dulle3000 1 year ago
I'm a russian boy and i loved that vedeio
mesh240 1 year ago
I'm a Russian boy and I loved that veadeo
mesh240 1 year ago
@Russian Boy Be proud of what the men and women of the Soviet Union accomplished fighting the Nazis. Don't let their sacrifices ever be forgotten. Death to Fascists everywhere!
ExistentialNihilist 1 year ago 4
@ExistentialNihilist So you consider Stalins leadership in Sovjet as not facist? Ignorant left idiots as always.
I would love to get suprised one day and speak to a resonable Commie.
Miratesus 1 year ago