so many haters and bitches here, its just a TV show.
there's no such thing "the best" in the world, were just humans. we even don't know if there another life in the universe, lets just shut up and enjoy the video..
The German Panther and King Tiger tanks were copies of T-34, not 100% copies ofc, but they were German versions of the T-34. Id still rather be in T-34 than M4 sherman if got hit by shell...
No the Panther and King Tiger were not copies of the T-34.
Beyond sloping armour on the front and sides they shared little in common.
Transmission was at the front, wheels were inter levered with torsion bar suspension, turret was set in the middle of the hull, the turret had a 3 man crew and they were expensive and well made tanks. Didn't have Diesel engines either. So besides the sloping front and side armour, what exactly was copied from the T-34?
@LaughingGravy31 Wider tracks for better offroad capabilty, better cleareance and sloping armor, but they forgot things like easy maintenance, easy crew training and easy & cheap mass production. Like i said Germans drew up plans first for actually copying the T-34 almost completely but they could not because of the diesel engine and their pride plus Hitler did not allow it.
Oh and also the Panther and King Tiger had turret baskets instead of having to stand on the hull floor like the T-34 and the Panther and King Tiger had driver and machine gunner/radio operator hatches located in the hull roof and not the front glacis plate like the T-34.
Panther and King Tiger was NOT copies of the T-34. The T-34's sloping armour 'influenced' their design but that was about all.
How is a 45 and 68 ton tank a 'copy' of a 26 ton tank?
@LaughingGravy31 Only noob crews could not get out from T-34s, veterans and those who passed on the knowledge at the early models of T-34 they put their leather belts just between the hatches, so if the T-34 got hit they could jump right away from, just pushing easily the hatch to open it fast and jump out. Russians cursed the Shermans again because they had poor manouvarability in Russian terrain because of the low clearence and i said they were not 100% copies, but first they though of copying
@LaughingGravy31 Actally Germans drew up plans for T-25 wich was almost 90% copy of the Russian T-34, their pride could not allow for copying and Hitler said no, so they made the Panther tank wich was "medium" by their standards and only implemented the sloping frontal and turret armor and wider tracks and very good mobility off-road. The Panther was diffrent tank but very much influenced by T-34. Only that Germans overcomplicated the Panther in every way like maintenance and mass production.
@Dreachon Only noob crews could not get out from T-34s, veterans and those who passed on the knowledge at the early models of T-34 they put their leather belts just between the hatches, so if the T-34 got hit they could jump right away from, just pushing easily the hatch to open it fast and jump out. Russians cursed the Shermans again because they had poor manouvarability in Russian terrain because of the low clearence and maintenace nightmare.
2 tracks a chaise a gun turret and machine gun turret n there we go a T 34
only reason it won was pure numbers 1000s of T 34 built but one tiger tank can kill dozens of them so i wouldnt want to be a T 34 commander rather be a tiger commander
@VAPOURIZE100 Only noob crews could not get out from T-34s, veterans and those who passed on the knowledge at the early models of T-34 they put their leather belts just between the hatches, so if the T-34 got hit they could jump right away from, just pushing easily the hatch to open it fast and jump out. Russians cursed the Shermans again because they had poor manouvarability in Russian terrain because of the low clearence. Yea it was more comfy but not so good as T-34 overall.
The single hatch in the eary t-34 was actually not easy to open at all due to it's size and weight, a wounded crewmember couldn't even open it.
And wrong, it was a very overall a good tank, the only problems came from having a higher centre of gravity and a higher ground pressure but it sure made up by beeing better for use in combat, those crews that fought on both the shermans and the T-34 preferred the sherman.
@Dreachon yeah" did you know rumor has it all Russians are vodka drinking alcoholics. that accusation just makes me angry we drink just as much beer too. I'm Gona drive my tank up your ass you fag. and pump you full of white supremacy. Get a life you dentist
Also do by all means please tell me why I supposedly have posted that or is it another case of your brain having another malfunction and your just making things up.
@rahulbond3m I meant exactly this, but the author called the tank "russian". Russian relates to Russia. If he said "soviet" that would have been correct, but he said russian which is not true at all. This tank you can call ukrainian(to relate its origin) or soviet (to relate the country where it was made and no longer exist).
I'm proud to be russian, also the other good thing about the t-34 it was very reliable simple cheap and could even have it's engine replaced on the battlefield
@hostihugen Well your comment sure does show how objective you really are. Not at all objective, my friend. First, I am not American, and second, you don't know me. So grow a brain before you embarrass yourself further.
@alpcns But you said that word Objective first. And this is American tv documentary. If you agree about it that means you are one of them. Of course I dont know you, my friends are not dumb.
@hostihugen I don't know if your friends are dumb or not. See? That is what is being objective. If you want to convince somebody, reinforce your argument(s) with facts, not opinions or insults, my friend. And no, I'm not "one of them" because you think so. It means merely that I agree with their choices. Clearly, you are the one who doesn't know what objective means. But guess what - you can believe whatever you want. That's called freedom of opinion.
Oh, how about the fact that when repairs were needed, the main gun or the transmission could be taken out WITHOUT taking off the turret - whereas the poor German bastards had to demount 1/2 the tank? I.e. the Russians could fix the T-34 "in the snow, with a hammer and a few choice words", whereas the Wunderwaffen required either a lot more effort, or in the case of E-100 and its ilk, a dedicated repair crew/mobile shop?
This was the tank that could be manufactured from scrap metal, take an aircraft or tank engine, run on gasoline or diesel, take a 76mm or 85mm or 100mm or even (IDK what they were thinking) 122mm howitzer. This was the tank that could be converted to a mine-clearer, a flamethrower, a mobile observation post, or an artillery tow. This was the first truly "open source" tank - and the fact that even 60 years later, modifications of the T-34 are happily running around, is a testament to its design.
@tjonnyc oh yeah, forgot the ZiS 57mm cannon, which under the right circumstances would fairly shred just about anything less than a Tiger (and even a Tiger if happened to be close enough). Toward the end of the war, a "tank destroyer" team of T-34's with the ZiS cannon was brought to the front, and killed (in 4 days): up to 1000 infantry, 34 various tanks, 210 light vehicles, 25 antitank crew weapons, 6 SPG's, and "other targets not included in this report".
Nice piece of soviet propaganda, firstly as the T-34 armed with 57mm were only produced in small numbr, less than a 100, they were also taken out of service by late 41/early 42.
The gun also had no HE for dealing with soft targets.
Wow that is just one big load of crap your talking.
T-34 could not be made from scrap metal as it would provide 0 defence against any projectile, it could not be fitted with an aircraft engine, it could not run on petrol nor did it ever get a 100mm or 122mm gun monuted in the turret.
Also all of those aspects had already been done with tanks before it entered service.
@Dreachon I never said they would put a 100mm or 122mm in the TURRET. I'd like to see how you get around the dimensions - the cannon is almost as big as the entire chassis. Look up "SU-122"...
@Dreachon and when I said "scrap metal", I was obviously exaggerating a little. However, compared to the German precision alloys using vanadium and molybdenum, the Russian tank production ran on pretty much whatever steel they could find - which led to much lower *quality*, nobody can deny that, but allowed them to produce the tanks in much greater *quantity*. Oh yeah, and the Krauts kinda ran out of moly and vanadium toward the end of the war, so their armor quality went down REALLY fast.
@Dreachon oh yeah... "Some tanks had appliqué armor made of scrap steel of varying thickness welded on to the hull and turret; these tanks are called s ekranami ("with screens"), although this was never an official designation for any T-34 variant."
@Dreachon "Due to a shortage of new V-2 diesel engines, the initial production run from the Gorky factory were equipped with the BT tank's Mikulin M-17 gasoline aircraft engine, and inferior transmission and clutch". So, gee, I guess they COULD be fitted with a (gasp!) aircraft engine that (double gasp!) ran on gasoline!
@Dreachon So you're saying that the guy who was responsible for most of the German tank strategy just... what... forgot to check what he was reading? Didn't know what he was talking about? Riiiight.
You can't argue the FACT that Heinz Guderian himself wrote that the new Russian tank was 44 tons with sloped armour 100mm thick and was faster than a Panzer III.
Guderian was describing the features of BOTH the T-34 and KV-1 into one single fantasy tank.
4th Panzer Division commander Langermann also made the same mistakes. Langermann also confused the T-34 wuith the KV-1 and said the best way to knock one out was to hit between the 5th and 6th road wheels...yet the T-34 only has 5.
He didn't smart ass, Guderian was given info on both tanks, he talked about an enemy heavy tank with sloped 100mm thick protection on the front going fster than the panzer II which was a fast tank at that time.
Heinz Guderian, after the war: "I've prepared a report about this situation, which is novel to us, and forwarded it to the Army Group. In specific terms, I've characterized the obvious advantages of the T-43 over our own Pz.IV and made the conclusions which should affect the future of our tank building..."
Heinz Guderian, October 1941: "The Soviet T-34 is a typical example of the backwards [...] technology. This tank cannot compare to the best examples of our tanks, created by the faithful sons of the Reich and often proving their superiority..."
This is why I came to hate Military Channel. Seriously, how can a tank that suffered a 5:1 attrition rate against the Panther be declared the best tank in history? You have to be seriously biased or have your head far up you arse to claim something like that. Yet today this "fact" is accepted without question.
@sergeikozin47 lidlbit off topic..they didn't win tanks or invasion...but because we didn't have anything to shoot anymore and soviets have more mens to put in front than we have bullets to shoo...so we surrendem... last hope was tali- ihantala artillery whit was successful defence victory.... that battle cause to moskow to peace talks..... but yes... we lose battle but not tanks... there where tjust far more manpower....and we ran out of mens.... then soviets leave us and start rush to berlin..
This is really ridiculous. T-34 being the best of all tanks of all time? Let's put a T-34 against Leopard, Challenger, Abrams or T-90, and then let's see who wins.
T-34 is indeed fast and it was produced like hell, but I think this is still ridiculous. Modern tanks with better armor, weaponry and electronics can kill a T-34 even before they know what hit them.
It's all about the tank's relativity and importance in their era. Sure, modern weapons are better but if somebody was to tell me the Eurofighter Typhoon is an all time 'greater' plane than the Supermarine Spitfire I'd go and tell them to blow it out of their arsehole.
Should a Eurofighter Typhoon be above a Spitfire in the list of top ten planes of all time? No bloody chance.
@CommandoFin i think you missed the point. you can't really compair this tank to a modern tank. this is a look at the historical impact of this tank. and as far as that goes, it proppably deserves to be #1 (or arguably #2. you could say that the first tank ever built has had more historical relevance, but that is up for debate)
@CommandoFin For love of god -.- When you compare tanks, you have to compare their impacts on the battlefield at the time they were used. Of course T-34 couldn't match any modern tank, its just common sense. Tiger and/or Panther is considered to be top tanks in WW2, and yet still they'd look like tin cans when facing a modern Leopard 2. But I agree, having T-34 as best tank of all times is ridiculous, it was just a cheap, weak, light and fast tank that was produced in huge numbers.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Is this an abstract concept. It's not like the Russians had this strange idear that the German panzer armies were a completely mechanized efficient well experienced ( due to the ease of their capture of the entire of western Europe in a couple of months) force that at the time of the invasion of Russia would be attacking with over 3 thirds of there military and calculate they will only make it to the Volga where suddenly they attack with over 1 million men
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Fuck world war two there is a battle of even bigger proportions and here on this video. And I'm willing to bet that even some of the vetarans of the top ten tanks-#1: the t-34 YouTube battle have forgotten that the reason this tank is at the top of the list is because of it's numbers and relitive quality. Ofcourse if Germany had built 3000 heavy tigers a month surely it would be at the top. But what use is it when it can not and did not field enough to complete the task. Fuck is this an abstrac
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@LaughingGravy31 ok chimp I'll put it this way Germany never won a main battle after Stalingrad . Oh and your big "brutal truth is" statement is bloated are saying the Germans had only 1800 heavy tiger tanks and nothing else against the medium t34's and are you saying the Russians out numbers the German Italian Rumanian finnish fishy French Croatian and even some free Russians forces. Dickhead just look up Stalingrad on Wikki look at the data on right side of screen
@flossy26 Original T-34 couldn't penetrate the Tiger's frontal armour at any range. The Germans lost because they were overstretched and weren't use to the very cold Russian winter
@BeamMeUpScotty245 tigers weren't mobile enough, and very unreliable, t-34 is what evolved into modern main battle tanks, tigers just weren't able to keep up
Sorry but your just repeating old myths, the tiger was very mobile, agile and fast, it's drawback was operational range.
Nor was is very unreliable, they were as reliable as the panzer III, IV and StuG III as throughout the war the tiger formations had a similair percentage to these tanks when it came to servibility.
Also T-34 did not evolve into modern tanks, were do you see modern tanks with a 2 man turret, no radio, no turret basket, low quality armour, poor gun etc.
@LaughingGravy31 heavy tanks became obselete after ww2, medium tanks such as the t-34 and t-54 evolved into main battle tanks, do a little research. i'm not saying that they're comparable to modern tanks, just that they're of the same class.
T-34's were able to compete against tigers, not just down to numbers, but also the fact they weren't over engineered, meant they could return to battle far easier than a downed tiger
The T-34 was a medium that was outdated and planned to replaced by a much better designed vehicle, namely the T-43 and T-44, the T-44 and the Panther have the right to calling themselves the first real MBT, they were fast, mobile and carried enough firepower.
The Abrams, Challenger 2 and Leopard 2 are all in the 60 tons plus weight category.
The Tiger I was the first real MBT type tank. It just didn't quite have a powerful enough engine to compliment it perfectly.
Tanks post WW2 most certainly did continue to be 'heavy' tanks. Its just that they then got the engines to compliment their huge bulk, heavy armour and huge guns.
@LaughingGravy31 not a matter of size but tactic use. t34 was a medium, tiger a heavy. MBT must be mobile, weith grows up after engines grow up, tiger was made with armor instead of mobility, MBT is a step after med tanks concept. us firefly or panther were more similar to mbt because were mobile but with a weapon that can pierce heavy armor, but in that time there were not used to perform mbt tactics but just med tank tasks. their succes in battle make the way to mbt concept.
@LaughingGravy31 wikipedia it if you want. tactically used in separete heavy tank battalions because slower than mk4 and other tanks, can't perform well mixed with faster vehicles
Wrong. Tigers were able to perform very well with Panthers and Panzer IVs.
The early Tiger battalions even had Panzer IIIs to make up the numbers.
There was a special heavy panzer unit comprised of Tiger Is and Panthers. This was Schwere Panzer Regiment Bake, and was formed in early 1944 to smash the Balabanowka pocket and also to rescue German troops trapped in the Cherkassy-Korsun pocket. Bake said Tigers were the best tanks.
Tiger is similar to Centurion, Chieftain, Leopard, Challenger, Abrams . All highly expensive (the best of the best) & all huge tanks with the biggest and best tank guns available and the thickest/strongest armour available.
Post war allied MBTs became heavy and highly expensive. The Rolls Royce of tanks.
The Soviets differed. Their MBTs were smaller and not as well made/expensive but many allied MBTs were similar to Tigers.
@LaughingGravy31 mbt: no other tanks in support, objective: tanks, troop support, artillery, whatever happens to be needed tiger: supported with med tanks, self propelled artillery. objective: kill the fucking t34. (first version didn't even had a machinegun)
so an mbt is a really evoluted concept, not a rush maded. overengineered. tracked 88mm gun.
I didn't care what you think either. You have no clue what you are talking about.
You claimed Tigers didn't work well with other faster tanks. WRONG. They did and they even had Panzer IIIs in the early Tiger battalions to make up for the lack of Tigers.
4 panzer divisions even had ORGANIC Tiger companies permanently and they often worked with other tanks and did so very well.
You seem to be very clueless about Tigers. Read books.
"" tactically used in separete heavy tank battalions because slower than mk4 ""
Nope. The Tiger battalions were not formed because the Tigers were slow. The Tiger battalions were formed becuase they wanted these battalions to be independent of the panzer divisions and to be able to be rushed from sector to sector like fire brigades when the situations were critical.
Regardless, there were actually 4 different panzer divisions with organic Tiger companies and they worked well.
""T-34's were able to compete against tigers, not just down to numbers, but also the fact they weren't over engineered, meant they could return to battle far easier than a downed tiger""
You are forgetting that the T-34 had a far higher attrition rate. The Tiger was tougher than the T-34s and crew Tiger survivability was much higher than the T-34.
A 'downed' Tiger usually suffered less damage than a T-34 and crews survived more.
The reason why the Soviets had to build so many T-34s (nearly 60,000) was because they were losing so many so quickly. The T-34s really did have a high attrition rate and the reason why they weren't well engineered was because they didn't need to be. Their combat life service wasn't expected to be long.
T-34s were EXPECTED to be lost in combat quickly and to be replaced by a new one.
The Germans didn't have that expectation with their Tigers so they built them to last.
""ok chimp I'll put it this way Germany never won a main battle after Stalingrad .""
Ok chimp and I will put it THIS way.
The Battle of Kharkov in Feb/March 1943 was a VERY MAIN battle.
It stopped the German southern front from total collapse, halted the Soviets, even pushed them back and gave the Germans the initiative in the east for the Kursk offensive.
Kharkov in Feb/Match 1943 was a MAIN battle that the Germans WON after Stalingrad.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@LaughingGravy huh duahhh hughhdgggg are you mentally deficient do you have sentence comprehension can you count to ten . Anyhoo champ I said every main battle there after. What do you want to hear boy I'll tell you what you want to hear the lighter lesser engineered t34 medium tank was inferior to the German heavy tanks and the Germans killed over 30 million Russians mostly civilians and destroyed over 2 thirds of there military. Does that make you feel good. Yet the Russians stormed Berlin ra
fear factor maximum ?? LOL... germans LOL'ed everytime t-34 fired at the tiger.. not to mention that t-34 had a good gun,but it was imprecise.. tiger could easily knock out t-34 out of range of 3km
Neer full points in firepower? It's week 76mm couldn't touch a Tiger or even a panthers frontal armour, even with the upgraded 85mm in the T34-85 it still had to be within a 500m to 400m range while the Panthers 75mm and Tigers 88mm could engage from a safe 2000m
It was the sheer numbers that the T-34 was awarded it's glory and it's fearful aura but even then the majority of German panzer losses were due to self sabotage when they ran out of fuel.
@Arkenald Near full points in firepower beccause at the time when it came out it could penetrate the frontal armor of any german PzKpwf 2/3/4 on the battelfield. Tiger tanks weren't introduced on the battelfield until 1942.
Also, about german tank losses. In the early stages of the russian campaign, yes the majority of german tank losses were due to sabotage and defunctional equipment, but later when soviet tank crews became better trained there were more combat losses.
@kataufen For example, most of the tiger 2 tanks lost on the eastern front were lost to T-35-85 fire and not sabotage, fuel shortaage or mechanical disfunctions.
""most of the tiger 2 tanks lost on the eastern front were lost to T-35-85 fire ""
Hehe where exactly do you get your information from?
Please tell me how many Tiger IIs battalion 503 (Felderrnhalle) lost to T-34/85s and please tell me how many Tiger IIs battalion 509 lost to T-34/85s??
@LaughingGravy31 Results depend on the divisions you are looking at.
For example, nearly half of Tiger 2's of the 501 were lost to T-34-85 fire because of ambushes in southern poland ( near Ogledow) If i remember corectly. The battalion was almost completely destroyed under Lisow by IS and Su-85/su-100.
As for the 503 ( Which was one fo the most successful german Heavy tank divisions) a quick search in Wikipedia reveals that it lost 45% of tanks to enemy fire.
Checking my sources (the 503's own history, Schneider, Jentz, Restayn etc) during it's Tiger II period on the eastern front, Schwere Panzer Abteilung 503 lost more Tiger IIs to self destruction than to enemy fire.
12 Tiger IIs were knocked out while over 35 were self destroyed.
For example on 7th December 1944 8 Tiger IIs stuck in mud had to be blown up as the Soviets were advancing near Siofok.
In April & May '45 most of the 26 Tiger IIs left were self destroyed during retreats.
@LaughingGravy31 The 509 had almost all of it's tanks incapacitated ( 10 of which were permanently destroyed) near lake Balaton in operation Konrad 3.
I admit I went a little overboard with my comment about the combat losses being specifically T-34-85 fire, but the general trend was that at the end of the war the tactical skills for the soviet tank crews began to catch up to their german counterparts and so soveit tank and tank destroyer fire was beginning to become a serious.
The experiences of Schwere Panzer Abteilung 501 that you noted was not the norm and was an anomaly to lose so many tanks in such a relatively short space of time.
And yes it's true that there were IS-2s, ISU-122/152s, SU-85s, SU-100s and also many anti tank guns so it wasn't just T-34/85s knocking out Tiger IIs.
Schwere Panzer Abteilung 509 also reported more Tiger IIs being lost to self destruction than enemy fire.
Of the 50 Tiger IIs that battalion 509 employed only 18 were lost to enemy fire. Some 32 Tiger IIs were self destroyed.
For example, on 25th March 1945 north west of Lake Balaton the battalion had to self destroy 14 Tiger IIs because there was no petrol left to move them and the Soviets were advancing. Only 13 Tiger IIs of the 27 left could be re-supplied and re-fueled.
Actually it was the other way round. Comparatively fewer German tanks were lost to self sabotage and dysfunctional equipment in the earlier stages of the campaign in the Soviet union because the Germans (being on the advance) could recover and repair damaged and non working tanks.
In contrast during the latter stages the Germans were being pushed back and losing ground & a higher ratio of damaged and non working German tanks were sabotaged because they couldn't recover them in time.
Soviet tank losses throughout the war were allways higher than the german losses, even in 1944 we see the russians loose 23700 fully tracked AFV against just 12000 German ones but these were for all fronts.
No but you were saying that the russians were getting on the tactical level getting equal to the germans, yet with the losses we see do not support that, despite have more men and equipment and the german suffering from considerable operational problems the russians are still losing far more men and material against an opponent they outnumber.
Agreed. The Soviets were NEVER the tactical equal of the Germans. If they were then the Soviets should NEVER have been losing more men and material to an enemy they vastly outnumbered.
If the Tiger was so far inferior to the T-34, then why did the Germans hold off the Russians so well ??? And don't tell me it was the Ger,ans superior tactics !!! Must be sheer numbers of this really good tank !?!?!
Not on equal terms under normal combat ranges. The Tiger I was still far superior to the T-34/85 in gun power, accuracy and armour protection.
The T-34/85 still had to rely on overwhelming numbers and mostly flank attacks because it couldn't penetrate the Tiger I frontally at ranges the Tiger I could easily knock the T-34/85 out first.
The T-34/85's 85mm gun was actually quite disappointing and CONSIDERABLY inferior to the Tiger I's 88mm L/56.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Put enough of them into battle . The Germans did not . So in that way it was shit because they did not make it further than Stalingrad look up Stalingrad on wilkki and all the data on the right side of screen and at the bottom it has a section .Location of Stalingrad Within Modern Russia. Look how far the Germans only made it into Russia lol now look at western Europe captured. You guys are idiots
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
But the tiger could not fire while moving. The t34 was notorious for moving over any terrain at speed. Only faggots need comfort maybe if the germans were not so concerned about comfort they would have had more succes. There tactics alone were good enough. However fact is once zuhkov sprung the trap at Stalingrad Russia won every main battle there after. Before allied invasion. Yeah anyone could have built great tanks with all the hard ware and soft ware the tigers had but how can any country
Oh how wrong you are, there are recorded instances were a tiger did fire on the move, Wittmann did this as well during his attacked on the british at Villers Bocage.
And again more nonsense form you, T-34 could not move at any speed and it has nothing to do with comfert but the fact that cause of it's poor suspension it will beat it's own crew into sumbmission if it wen't full speed on rough terrain.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@citronvand "Huh the program is doing exactly that" look at the stupid program do you understand the meaning of the list. It's firepower+mobility+armor+cost+ and my favorite fear factor . You don't have to be an pure blooded blond haired blue eyed member of the German master race to shit yourself when 5000 tanks moving at over 50 kilometers per hour are charging at you. But of course if your in a tiger tank you would feel safe. Ok champy
And were on the russians front will you find a paved landscapre large enough to have 5000 tanks travel at 50 km/h, cause the T-34 could reach that only on paved roads, you try that speed in a T-34 on rough terrain and your tank will grind to halt really soon thanks to an unconcious driver.
@citronvand yes if it was 1 Tiger vs. 1 T-34 the Tiger would dominate however, T-34's could be quickly manufactured therefore a higher number of T-34's could overpower a Tiger tank. Even though the Tiger was a fantastic tank it was just too expensive to get high numbers of them, especially to match the number of T-34's. The tiger is a better tank if it was a one on one, but the amount of T-34's was alot higher then the amount of Tigers.
@mikyjackson1 Yes, I agree. But it wasn't that I was disagreeing with in the first place. Obviously the T-34 should win the production category. But armor and firepower should go to the Tiger and NOT the T-34.
@alekzander2010 Too expensive and too fussy. If it ain't reliable all the time it looses points. Having said that I would still rater be in a running Panther - I'd rather on my couch watching YT.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@Dreachon you talk about Ifs and buts . Wasn't it free norwegians that dismantled the German heavy water plants. Hmm I did not know Norway incombassed USA lend lease I thought that was north west Europe and I'm sure the free Norwegians were acting in the best interest of the soviet union. Grow some balls you German nut hugger
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@Dreachon dude ive said from the start the t34 was no match for the tiger but intact was far superior to it's German equivalent the light panzers in which it was designed to counter and it was. If you can send me a link to some German world war 2 veterans who say otherwise than I would like to know because I have not found any such data. take into account the Russian crews were using tactics that favored German defensive tactics.
I will not sent a link to a person who is too stupid to read and who claims that all the countries invaded by the USSR in 1940 and 1941 were criminals.
And no you never said that from the start, you were adement that the T-34 trumphed all before it.
You didn't accept the losses of russian armour presented to you, nor what really happened at kursk.
And how was the T-34 superieur to the panzer III and IV and StuG III, it's most common opponenets since the 5cm L60 was almost equal to the 7.62cm F-34 while the 7.5cm L43 and L48 were far superieur.
As for links I can ask you the same, can you give me a link of german veteran post the initial shock saying they had no chance against a T-34.
Do you have stats that show the T-34 did not suffer horrible losses gaining only a handfull of german machines lost.
People who vouch for the T-34/76 almost NEVER look beyond the sloped armour and good gun (for the time).
The truth is, in combat, the T-34/76 suffered serious internal design features and flaws. The turret only had a 2 man crew. The commander had to load the gun as well as command. All round vision was a problem. The commanders didn't get a cupola until mid 1943 and lack in internal radio communication between tanks was a VERY SERIOUS defect.
""far superior to it's German equivalent the light panzers"2
Only in regards to armour and the gun in 1941/early 1942.
The lighter Panzers (Panzer III and short barrelled Panzer IV 75mm) actually had superior optics and aiming devices, superior radio equipment, superior periscopes and all round vision, proper 3 man turrets.
When the Panzer IV got the 75mm L/43 in summer 1942 it was superior to the T-34.
shit what they are saying Hitlers army was then times better then all other but they had not enought men, they hafe mutch better tanks then we(im american)
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@Dreachon exactly the tiger development was not owed to the t34's appearance . Lol exactly. I mean they wiped out western Europe in months with the light panzers . What do you say about that you little surrender monkey. I know you your the kind of person that would surrender rather than die. Your nothing "resorting to trolling" lol fag I have my facts and you have yours. Russia won the war against the racist weaklings
When we had our discussion on the T-34 you had nothing but nonsense, you have no facts at all and get this very clear in your vermin like ears, Russia would have been wiped out if the west hadn't fought at all, Russia would not have had an answer to germanies nucleair weapon which would have gone operational in 1945 or 46.
rpg40 (used for 2 whole years before Faustpatrone was even invented) led to the modern rpgs.
Contrary to popular belief, soviet rocket program was almost as good as western, and after WW2 until the 60s it was actually better than american, as they just copied german design while the soviet was much different (and more effective).
True about nuclear technology and halftracks.
Did you know that torpedo was invented in Croatia? what would the subs do without them?
so many haters and bitches here, its just a TV show.
there's no such thing "the best" in the world, were just humans. we even don't know if there another life in the universe, lets just shut up and enjoy the video..
sergeikozin47 5 hours ago
The T-34/85 was better, why dint they include it?
RockRebel1998 22 hours ago
@RockRebel1998
because it is not better,well t34 has more strategeic value as it zerg rush the enemy defenses...
acefarbringer 20 hours ago
The German Panther and King Tiger tanks were copies of T-34, not 100% copies ofc, but they were German versions of the T-34. Id still rather be in T-34 than M4 sherman if got hit by shell...
normison69 1 day ago
@normison69
No the Panther and King Tiger were not copies of the T-34.
Beyond sloping armour on the front and sides they shared little in common.
Transmission was at the front, wheels were inter levered with torsion bar suspension, turret was set in the middle of the hull, the turret had a 3 man crew and they were expensive and well made tanks. Didn't have Diesel engines either. So besides the sloping front and side armour, what exactly was copied from the T-34?
LaughingGravy31 1 day ago
@LaughingGravy31 Wider tracks for better offroad capabilty, better cleareance and sloping armor, but they forgot things like easy maintenance, easy crew training and easy & cheap mass production. Like i said Germans drew up plans first for actually copying the T-34 almost completely but they could not because of the diesel engine and their pride plus Hitler did not allow it.
normison69 20 hours ago
@normison69
Oh and also the Panther and King Tiger had turret baskets instead of having to stand on the hull floor like the T-34 and the Panther and King Tiger had driver and machine gunner/radio operator hatches located in the hull roof and not the front glacis plate like the T-34.
Panther and King Tiger was NOT copies of the T-34. The T-34's sloping armour 'influenced' their design but that was about all.
How is a 45 and 68 ton tank a 'copy' of a 26 ton tank?
LaughingGravy31 1 day ago
@LaughingGravy31 Only noob crews could not get out from T-34s, veterans and those who passed on the knowledge at the early models of T-34 they put their leather belts just between the hatches, so if the T-34 got hit they could jump right away from, just pushing easily the hatch to open it fast and jump out. Russians cursed the Shermans again because they had poor manouvarability in Russian terrain because of the low clearence and i said they were not 100% copies, but first they though of copying
normison69 20 hours ago
@LaughingGravy31 Actally Germans drew up plans for T-25 wich was almost 90% copy of the Russian T-34, their pride could not allow for copying and Hitler said no, so they made the Panther tank wich was "medium" by their standards and only implemented the sloping frontal and turret armor and wider tracks and very good mobility off-road. The Panther was diffrent tank but very much influenced by T-34. Only that Germans overcomplicated the Panther in every way like maintenance and mass production.
normison69 20 hours ago
@normison69
And that is the complete opposite of what russians tankers wanted, at leatst the ones that saw service on the shermans.
And that comes from their ammo, te shermans ammo had a tendency to burn with ignited were those of the T-34 had a tendency to explode violently.
A T-34 crew pinnend down and unable to get away from their struck T-34 was often a deathsentence.
Dreachon 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Dreachon Only noob crews could not get out from T-34s, veterans and those who passed on the knowledge at the early models of T-34 they put their leather belts just between the hatches, so if the T-34 got hit they could jump right away from, just pushing easily the hatch to open it fast and jump out. Russians cursed the Shermans again because they had poor manouvarability in Russian terrain because of the low clearence and maintenace nightmare.
normison69 20 hours ago
2 tracks a chaise a gun turret and machine gun turret n there we go a T 34
only reason it won was pure numbers 1000s of T 34 built but one tiger tank can kill dozens of them so i wouldnt want to be a T 34 commander rather be a tiger commander
VAPOURIZE100 1 day ago
@VAPOURIZE100 Only noob crews could not get out from T-34s, veterans and those who passed on the knowledge at the early models of T-34 they put their leather belts just between the hatches, so if the T-34 got hit they could jump right away from, just pushing easily the hatch to open it fast and jump out. Russians cursed the Shermans again because they had poor manouvarability in Russian terrain because of the low clearence. Yea it was more comfy but not so good as T-34 overall.
normison69 20 hours ago
@normison69
The single hatch in the eary t-34 was actually not easy to open at all due to it's size and weight, a wounded crewmember couldn't even open it.
And wrong, it was a very overall a good tank, the only problems came from having a higher centre of gravity and a higher ground pressure but it sure made up by beeing better for use in combat, those crews that fought on both the shermans and the T-34 preferred the sherman.
Dreachon 18 hours ago
Finnish Stopped 3000 of em... with 33 tanks and other weapons...
dcrypter87 2 days ago
@dcrypter87 stop playing COD
sergeikozin47 5 hours ago
@sergeikozin47 i hate cod its and Noob arcade game... and what does this have to do with my comment? check out the facts...
dcrypter87 5 hours ago
@dcrypter87 where did you get your facts?? in wikipedia?? :DDD
sergeikozin47 1 hour ago
@Dreachon yeah" did you know rumor has it all Russians are vodka drinking alcoholics. that accusation just makes me angry we drink just as much beer too. I'm Gona drive my tank up your ass you fag. and pump you full of white supremacy. Get a life you dentist
flossy26 3 days ago
@flossy26
Nice to see what a total ass you really are.
Your just a sad little kid that has no life and has to make himself feel better by raging on youtube, how sad.
Also for your info given you still can't seem to read I am not a dentist but a dental technician, 2 very different jobs.
Dreachon 2 days ago
@flossy26
Also do by all means please tell me why I supposedly have posted that or is it another case of your brain having another malfunction and your just making things up.
Dreachon 2 days ago
this is NOT a russian tank. It was developed and first manufactured in Ukraine by designers which worked in Kharkiv. What the hell !!!!!!
chizhr 4 days ago
@chizhr And u mean to say that in WW2 ukraine was not a part of Soviet Union? lol
rahulbond3m 2 days ago
@rahulbond3m I meant exactly this, but the author called the tank "russian". Russian relates to Russia. If he said "soviet" that would have been correct, but he said russian which is not true at all. This tank you can call ukrainian(to relate its origin) or soviet (to relate the country where it was made and no longer exist).
chizhr 2 days ago
@chizhr to western ppl soviet union and russia are same.....which is of course not accurate
rahulbond3m 1 day ago
I'm proud to be russian, also the other good thing about the t-34 it was very reliable simple cheap and could even have it's engine replaced on the battlefield
bluedemon9985 4 days ago
When Americans confess this, it must be the truth. After all, its Russian Tank.
hostihugen 5 days ago
@hostihugen It's not a matter of "confessing", it's called being objective.
alpcns 2 days ago
@alpcns LOL you americans are pretty much objective. Please shut up, you dont even know what the word objective means.
hostihugen 1 day ago
@hostihugen Well your comment sure does show how objective you really are. Not at all objective, my friend. First, I am not American, and second, you don't know me. So grow a brain before you embarrass yourself further.
alpcns 1 day ago
@alpcns But you said that word Objective first. And this is American tv documentary. If you agree about it that means you are one of them. Of course I dont know you, my friends are not dumb.
hostihugen 1 day ago
@hostihugen I don't know if your friends are dumb or not. See? That is what is being objective. If you want to convince somebody, reinforce your argument(s) with facts, not opinions or insults, my friend. And no, I'm not "one of them" because you think so. It means merely that I agree with their choices. Clearly, you are the one who doesn't know what objective means. But guess what - you can believe whatever you want. That's called freedom of opinion.
alpcns 12 hours ago
Oh, how about the fact that when repairs were needed, the main gun or the transmission could be taken out WITHOUT taking off the turret - whereas the poor German bastards had to demount 1/2 the tank? I.e. the Russians could fix the T-34 "in the snow, with a hammer and a few choice words", whereas the Wunderwaffen required either a lot more effort, or in the case of E-100 and its ilk, a dedicated repair crew/mobile shop?
tjonnyc 5 days ago
@tjonnyc
Again more junk, removing the engine of a panzer did not require half disassembling the vehicle.
Dreachon 5 days ago
@tjonnyc
The Panzer IV had transmission access panels on the front plate.
LaughingGravy31 4 days ago
This was the tank that could be manufactured from scrap metal, take an aircraft or tank engine, run on gasoline or diesel, take a 76mm or 85mm or 100mm or even (IDK what they were thinking) 122mm howitzer. This was the tank that could be converted to a mine-clearer, a flamethrower, a mobile observation post, or an artillery tow. This was the first truly "open source" tank - and the fact that even 60 years later, modifications of the T-34 are happily running around, is a testament to its design.
tjonnyc 5 days ago
@tjonnyc oh yeah, forgot the ZiS 57mm cannon, which under the right circumstances would fairly shred just about anything less than a Tiger (and even a Tiger if happened to be close enough). Toward the end of the war, a "tank destroyer" team of T-34's with the ZiS cannon was brought to the front, and killed (in 4 days): up to 1000 infantry, 34 various tanks, 210 light vehicles, 25 antitank crew weapons, 6 SPG's, and "other targets not included in this report".
tjonnyc 5 days ago
@tjonnyc
Nice piece of soviet propaganda, firstly as the T-34 armed with 57mm were only produced in small numbr, less than a 100, they were also taken out of service by late 41/early 42.
The gun also had no HE for dealing with soft targets.
Dreachon 5 days ago
@tjonnyc
Wow that is just one big load of crap your talking.
T-34 could not be made from scrap metal as it would provide 0 defence against any projectile, it could not be fitted with an aircraft engine, it could not run on petrol nor did it ever get a 100mm or 122mm gun monuted in the turret.
Also all of those aspects had already been done with tanks before it entered service.
Dreachon 5 days ago
@Dreachon I never said they would put a 100mm or 122mm in the TURRET. I'd like to see how you get around the dimensions - the cannon is almost as big as the entire chassis. Look up "SU-122"...
tjonnyc 4 days ago
@Dreachon and when I said "scrap metal", I was obviously exaggerating a little. However, compared to the German precision alloys using vanadium and molybdenum, the Russian tank production ran on pretty much whatever steel they could find - which led to much lower *quality*, nobody can deny that, but allowed them to produce the tanks in much greater *quantity*. Oh yeah, and the Krauts kinda ran out of moly and vanadium toward the end of the war, so their armor quality went down REALLY fast.
tjonnyc 4 days ago
@tjonnyc
That is another soviet lie, although the german armour quality did see a decline it was still within the parameters set at the start of the war.
Mr. Jentz has found this nice info and it seems like crappy german armour is just another soviet created lie.
Dreachon 4 days ago
@Dreachon oh yeah... "Some tanks had appliqué armor made of scrap steel of varying thickness welded on to the hull and turret; these tanks are called s ekranami ("with screens"), although this was never an official designation for any T-34 variant."
tjonnyc 4 days ago
@Dreachon "Due to a shortage of new V-2 diesel engines, the initial production run from the Gorky factory were equipped with the BT tank's Mikulin M-17 gasoline aircraft engine, and inferior transmission and clutch". So, gee, I guess they COULD be fitted with a (gasp!) aircraft engine that (double gasp!) ran on gasoline!
tjonnyc 4 days ago
@tjonnyc
That is still a different engine and certainly not what you tried to claim that it's normal engine could run on petrol.
Dreachon 4 days ago
Heinz Bloody Guderian HIMSELF admitted that the T-34 was superior. End of argument.
tjonnyc 5 days ago
@tjonnyc
Guderian had faulty data, when he made the comments on the T-34, he receievd on 2 tanks different tanks.
Dreachon 5 days ago
@Dreachon So you're saying that the guy who was responsible for most of the German tank strategy just... what... forgot to check what he was reading? Didn't know what he was talking about? Riiiight.
tjonnyc 4 days ago
@tjonnyc
You can't argue the FACT that Heinz Guderian himself wrote that the new Russian tank was 44 tons with sloped armour 100mm thick and was faster than a Panzer III.
Guderian was describing the features of BOTH the T-34 and KV-1 into one single fantasy tank.
4th Panzer Division commander Langermann also made the same mistakes. Langermann also confused the T-34 wuith the KV-1 and said the best way to knock one out was to hit between the 5th and 6th road wheels...yet the T-34 only has 5.
LaughingGravy31 4 days ago
@tjonnyc
He didn't smart ass, Guderian was given info on both tanks, he talked about an enemy heavy tank with sloped 100mm thick protection on the front going fster than the panzer II which was a fast tank at that time.
That is not the T-34 and not the KV-1.
Dreachon 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@tjonnyc
""Heinz Bloody Guderian HIMSELF admitted that the T-34 was superior. End of argument.""
Mate if you read the actual report it's clear that Guderian was talking about the KV-1 half the time he was talking about the T-34.
Guderian combined the features of the T-34and KV-1 into one tank.
Guderian said the T-34 was a 44 ton tank that was faster than the Panzer III and had 100mm thick armour.
Sounds to me like he was confusing the various features of both tanks into one 'super tank'.
LaughingGravy31 4 days ago
Heinz Guderian, after the war: "I've prepared a report about this situation, which is novel to us, and forwarded it to the Army Group. In specific terms, I've characterized the obvious advantages of the T-43 over our own Pz.IV and made the conclusions which should affect the future of our tank building..."
tjonnyc 5 days ago
Heinz Guderian, October 1941: "The Soviet T-34 is a typical example of the backwards [...] technology. This tank cannot compare to the best examples of our tanks, created by the faithful sons of the Reich and often proving their superiority..."
tjonnyc 5 days ago
Run Nazi! Run!
davemccarthy707 6 days ago
This is why I came to hate Military Channel. Seriously, how can a tank that suffered a 5:1 attrition rate against the Panther be declared the best tank in history? You have to be seriously biased or have your head far up you arse to claim something like that. Yet today this "fact" is accepted without question.
FlitkoSLO 1 week ago
"russian mud, russian ice, russian snow".... but then become Finnish swamps...... stuck....
leksss4 1 week ago
@leksss4 but the russians win the war, hand down///
sergeikozin47 5 hours ago
@sergeikozin47 lidlbit off topic..they didn't win tanks or invasion...but because we didn't have anything to shoot anymore and soviets have more mens to put in front than we have bullets to shoo...so we surrendem... last hope was tali- ihantala artillery whit was successful defence victory.... that battle cause to moskow to peace talks..... but yes... we lose battle but not tanks... there where tjust far more manpower....and we ran out of mens.... then soviets leave us and start rush to berlin..
leksss4 2 hours ago
@leksss4 shoot*
leksss4 2 hours ago
@leksss4 but they win the war...
sergeikozin47 1 hour ago
the announcer is too happy
legomaster101 1 week ago
This is really ridiculous. T-34 being the best of all tanks of all time? Let's put a T-34 against Leopard, Challenger, Abrams or T-90, and then let's see who wins.
T-34 is indeed fast and it was produced like hell, but I think this is still ridiculous. Modern tanks with better armor, weaponry and electronics can kill a T-34 even before they know what hit them.
CommandoFin 1 week ago
@CommandoFin
It's all about the tank's relativity and importance in their era. Sure, modern weapons are better but if somebody was to tell me the Eurofighter Typhoon is an all time 'greater' plane than the Supermarine Spitfire I'd go and tell them to blow it out of their arsehole.
Should a Eurofighter Typhoon be above a Spitfire in the list of top ten planes of all time? No bloody chance.
LaughingGravy31 1 week ago
@CommandoFin i think you missed the point. you can't really compair this tank to a modern tank. this is a look at the historical impact of this tank. and as far as that goes, it proppably deserves to be #1 (or arguably #2. you could say that the first tank ever built has had more historical relevance, but that is up for debate)
BuecherFuerAlle 1 week ago
@CommandoFin For love of god -.- When you compare tanks, you have to compare their impacts on the battlefield at the time they were used. Of course T-34 couldn't match any modern tank, its just common sense. Tiger and/or Panther is considered to be top tanks in WW2, and yet still they'd look like tin cans when facing a modern Leopard 2. But I agree, having T-34 as best tank of all times is ridiculous, it was just a cheap, weak, light and fast tank that was produced in huge numbers.
JohQx3 1 week ago
@CommandoFin no lol... tietty nykyajan tankit on parempia ku ww2 tankit -.-
leksss4 1 week ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Is this an abstract concept. It's not like the Russians had this strange idear that the German panzer armies were a completely mechanized efficient well experienced ( due to the ease of their capture of the entire of western Europe in a couple of months) force that at the time of the invasion of Russia would be attacking with over 3 thirds of there military and calculate they will only make it to the Volga where suddenly they attack with over 1 million men
flossy26 1 week ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Fuck world war two there is a battle of even bigger proportions and here on this video. And I'm willing to bet that even some of the vetarans of the top ten tanks-#1: the t-34 YouTube battle have forgotten that the reason this tank is at the top of the list is because of it's numbers and relitive quality. Ofcourse if Germany had built 3000 heavy tigers a month surely it would be at the top. But what use is it when it can not and did not field enough to complete the task. Fuck is this an abstrac
flossy26 1 week ago
tiger 88 mm gun 100 mm armor
T-34 76.2 mm gun 65 mm armor
how is it far superior?
kpcpcpc 1 week ago
@kpcpcpc
Take not that the 65mm of armour in only on the gunmantlet, the hull is just 45mm thick and of a far more brittler quality than the Tiger I armour.
Dreachon 1 week ago
@Dreachon so the tiger had 45mm on the body of the tank?
kpcpcpc 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@kpcpcpc
""so the tiger had 45mm on the body of the tank?""
No,
The Tiger I had 100mm to 110 mm frontally and 80mm on the sides and rear. Lower hull side (behind the wheels) was 60mm.
Only the top and bottom were thinner.
The Tiger I's armour quality was by some margin the highest quality steel of any tank of WW2.
The T-34s armour, in contrast, was of far inferior quality and very brittle.
LaughingGravy31 1 week ago
@kpcpcpc
No, the T-34 has the 45mm on the hull, tiger I has 100mm on the hull and 110mm on the gunmantlet.
Dreachon 1 week ago
@kpcpcpc because they win the war, period..
sergeikozin47 5 hours ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@LaughingGravy31 ok chimp I'll put it this way Germany never won a main battle after Stalingrad . Oh and your big "brutal truth is" statement is bloated are saying the Germans had only 1800 heavy tiger tanks and nothing else against the medium t34's and are you saying the Russians out numbers the German Italian Rumanian finnish fishy French Croatian and even some free Russians forces. Dickhead just look up Stalingrad on Wikki look at the data on right side of screen
flossy26 1 week ago
@flossy26 Original T-34 couldn't penetrate the Tiger's frontal armour at any range. The Germans lost because they were overstretched and weren't use to the very cold Russian winter
BeamMeUpScotty245 1 week ago
@BeamMeUpScotty245 tigers weren't mobile enough, and very unreliable, t-34 is what evolved into modern main battle tanks, tigers just weren't able to keep up
DirtyMosha 1 week ago
@DirtyMosha
Sorry but your just repeating old myths, the tiger was very mobile, agile and fast, it's drawback was operational range.
Nor was is very unreliable, they were as reliable as the panzer III, IV and StuG III as throughout the war the tiger formations had a similair percentage to these tanks when it came to servibility.
Also T-34 did not evolve into modern tanks, were do you see modern tanks with a 2 man turret, no radio, no turret basket, low quality armour, poor gun etc.
Dreachon 1 week ago
@DirtyMosha
Tigers were not all that more 'unreliable' then the Panthers and Panzer IVs.
The Tiger's overall operational status ratio average was 70% in the east and 65% in the west.
The Panzer IV's overall operational status ratio average was 68% in the east and 71% in the west.
Not too much difference.
Source is JENTZ, Thomas L.; Germany's TIGER Tanks - Tiger I and II: Combat Tactics;.
It is a MYTH that the Tiger was very unreliable.
LaughingGravy31 1 week ago
@DirtyMosha
"" t-34 is what evolved into modern main battle tanks,""
Really?
Is that why modern MBTs are of enormous size and weight with huge guns and super thick/strong armour?
The Abrams, Challenger 2 and Leopard 2 share more in common with the Tiger than the T-34.
Even the Centurions and Chieftans were more like Tigers than T-34s.
LaughingGravy31 1 week ago
@LaughingGravy31 heavy tanks became obselete after ww2, medium tanks such as the t-34 and t-54 evolved into main battle tanks, do a little research. i'm not saying that they're comparable to modern tanks, just that they're of the same class.
T-34's were able to compete against tigers, not just down to numbers, but also the fact they weren't over engineered, meant they could return to battle far easier than a downed tiger
DirtyMosha 1 week ago
@DirtyMosha
The T-34 was a medium that was outdated and planned to replaced by a much better designed vehicle, namely the T-43 and T-44, the T-44 and the Panther have the right to calling themselves the first real MBT, they were fast, mobile and carried enough firepower.
Dreachon 1 week ago
@DirtyMosha
'heavy tanks became obselete after ww2'
The Centurion was around 50 tons.
The Chieftain was around 55 tons.
The Abrams, Challenger 2 and Leopard 2 are all in the 60 tons plus weight category.
The Tiger I was the first real MBT type tank. It just didn't quite have a powerful enough engine to compliment it perfectly.
Tanks post WW2 most certainly did continue to be 'heavy' tanks. Its just that they then got the engines to compliment their huge bulk, heavy armour and huge guns.
LaughingGravy31 1 week ago 6
@LaughingGravy31 not a matter of size but tactic use. t34 was a medium, tiger a heavy. MBT must be mobile, weith grows up after engines grow up, tiger was made with armor instead of mobility, MBT is a step after med tanks concept. us firefly or panther were more similar to mbt because were mobile but with a weapon that can pierce heavy armor, but in that time there were not used to perform mbt tactics but just med tank tasks. their succes in battle make the way to mbt concept.
drughello 3 days ago
@drughello
The Panther tank was a 'heavy' tank by anyone's standards except the Germans.
The Tiger was actually mobile. It had good floatation and could pivot on a coin. It's just that the engine was not 'quite' up to it although.
If the Tiger had a better engine it actually would have been quite nimble.
Post war engines were more powerful and tanks the size of the Tiger were mobile.
The Tiger I actually had decent mobility. If you listen to silly post war revisionism it could hardly move.
LaughingGravy31 3 days ago
@LaughingGravy31 wikipedia it if you want. tactically used in separete heavy tank battalions because slower than mk4 and other tanks, can't perform well mixed with faster vehicles
drughello 3 days ago
@drughello
""wikipedia it if you want""
Wikipedia is not a valid source. Anybody can write wikipedia.
LaughingGravy31 2 days ago
@LaughingGravy31 wikipedia not a valid source as yuri gagarin not a valid astronaut.
i have no more time to waste with you.
drughello 17 hours ago
@drughello
Good.
Fvck off then you ignoramus.
LaughingGravy31 16 hours ago
@drughello
""can't perform well mixed with faster vehicles""
Wrong. Tigers were able to perform very well with Panthers and Panzer IVs.
The early Tiger battalions even had Panzer IIIs to make up the numbers.
There was a special heavy panzer unit comprised of Tiger Is and Panthers. This was Schwere Panzer Regiment Bake, and was formed in early 1944 to smash the Balabanowka pocket and also to rescue German troops trapped in the Cherkassy-Korsun pocket. Bake said Tigers were the best tanks.
LaughingGravy31 2 days ago
@LaughingGravy31 after 20 hr of russian and others documentaries i form my opinion, tiger is not similar to an MBT. don't care about what you think.
drughello 1 day ago
@drughello
""tiger is not similar to an MBT.""
Yeah man.
Tiger is similar to Centurion, Chieftain, Leopard, Challenger, Abrams . All highly expensive (the best of the best) & all huge tanks with the biggest and best tank guns available and the thickest/strongest armour available.
Post war allied MBTs became heavy and highly expensive. The Rolls Royce of tanks.
The Soviets differed. Their MBTs were smaller and not as well made/expensive but many allied MBTs were similar to Tigers.
LaughingGravy31 1 day ago
@LaughingGravy31 mbt: no other tanks in support, objective: tanks, troop support, artillery, whatever happens to be needed tiger: supported with med tanks, self propelled artillery. objective: kill the fucking t34. (first version didn't even had a machinegun)
so an mbt is a really evoluted concept, not a rush maded. overengineered. tracked 88mm gun.
drughello 17 hours ago
@drughello
"kill the fucking t34. (first version didn't even had a machinegun)""
Are you fvcking crazy?
LaughingGravy31 16 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@drughello
"" don't care about what you think.""
I didn't care what you think either. You have no clue what you are talking about.
You claimed Tigers didn't work well with other faster tanks. WRONG. They did and they even had Panzer IIIs in the early Tiger battalions to make up for the lack of Tigers.
4 panzer divisions even had ORGANIC Tiger companies permanently and they often worked with other tanks and did so very well.
You seem to be very clueless about Tigers. Read books.
LaughingGravy31 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@drughello
"" tactically used in separete heavy tank battalions because slower than mk4 ""
Nope. The Tiger battalions were not formed because the Tigers were slow. The Tiger battalions were formed becuase they wanted these battalions to be independent of the panzer divisions and to be able to be rushed from sector to sector like fire brigades when the situations were critical.
Regardless, there were actually 4 different panzer divisions with organic Tiger companies and they worked well.
LaughingGravy31 2 days ago
@DirtyMosha
""T-34's were able to compete against tigers, not just down to numbers, but also the fact they weren't over engineered, meant they could return to battle far easier than a downed tiger""
You are forgetting that the T-34 had a far higher attrition rate. The Tiger was tougher than the T-34s and crew Tiger survivability was much higher than the T-34.
A 'downed' Tiger usually suffered less damage than a T-34 and crews survived more.
Over 45,000 T-34s were destroyed in WW2.
LaughingGravy31 1 week ago
@DirtyMosha
The reason why the Soviets had to build so many T-34s (nearly 60,000) was because they were losing so many so quickly. The T-34s really did have a high attrition rate and the reason why they weren't well engineered was because they didn't need to be. Their combat life service wasn't expected to be long.
T-34s were EXPECTED to be lost in combat quickly and to be replaced by a new one.
The Germans didn't have that expectation with their Tigers so they built them to last.
LaughingGravy31 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@flossy26
""ok chimp I'll put it this way Germany never won a main battle after Stalingrad .""
Ok chimp and I will put it THIS way.
The Battle of Kharkov in Feb/March 1943 was a VERY MAIN battle.
It stopped the German southern front from total collapse, halted the Soviets, even pushed them back and gave the Germans the initiative in the east for the Kursk offensive.
Kharkov in Feb/Match 1943 was a MAIN battle that the Germans WON after Stalingrad.
LaughingGravy31 1 week ago 2
5:15 did he say that its the most produced tank that are mad? cuz t54-55 are the most produced tank in the world!
MrSpy3000 1 week ago
самое главное победили фашизм а на танки посрать
stimerstimer 1 week ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@LaughingGravy huh duahhh hughhdgggg are you mentally deficient do you have sentence comprehension can you count to ten . Anyhoo champ I said every main battle there after. What do you want to hear boy I'll tell you what you want to hear the lighter lesser engineered t34 medium tank was inferior to the German heavy tanks and the Germans killed over 30 million Russians mostly civilians and destroyed over 2 thirds of there military. Does that make you feel good. Yet the Russians stormed Berlin ra
flossy26 1 week ago
@flossy26
I'll say it again.
The Battle for Kharkov in Feb/March 1943 was a MAIN battle that took place after Stalingrad.
The Germans actually WON the Battle of Kharkov. This gave them the impetus to attack further in summer '43 at the Battle of Kursk.
LaughingGravy31 1 week ago
fear factor maximum ?? LOL... germans LOL'ed everytime t-34 fired at the tiger.. not to mention that t-34 had a good gun,but it was imprecise.. tiger could easily knock out t-34 out of range of 3km
dunavidrava 1 week ago
The brutal truth is this.
1800 Tigers made a far bigger impact out of all proportion of their numbers than 60,000 T-34s.
If just 1800 T-34s were built does anyone really think they would have become so famous?
Of course not.
LaughingGravy31 1 week ago 22
@LaughingGravy31 same reasoning for the challenger vs abrams in modern day
DirtyMosha 1 week ago
@LaughingGravy31 Well, make your 1800 tigers into medium tanks and history would be the same.
mrsayrocknoanime 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mrsayrocknoanime
""Well, make your 1800 tigers into medium tanks and history would be the same.""
LOL, then they wouldn't be 'Tigers' anymore if they were medium tanks would they?
LaughingGravy31 4 days ago
For Mother Russia блеать!
Shmacktop 1 week ago
Neer full points in firepower? It's week 76mm couldn't touch a Tiger or even a panthers frontal armour, even with the upgraded 85mm in the T34-85 it still had to be within a 500m to 400m range while the Panthers 75mm and Tigers 88mm could engage from a safe 2000m
It was the sheer numbers that the T-34 was awarded it's glory and it's fearful aura but even then the majority of German panzer losses were due to self sabotage when they ran out of fuel.
Arkenald 1 week ago
@Arkenald Near full points in firepower beccause at the time when it came out it could penetrate the frontal armor of any german PzKpwf 2/3/4 on the battelfield. Tiger tanks weren't introduced on the battelfield until 1942.
Also, about german tank losses. In the early stages of the russian campaign, yes the majority of german tank losses were due to sabotage and defunctional equipment, but later when soviet tank crews became better trained there were more combat losses.
kataufen 1 week ago
@kataufen For example, most of the tiger 2 tanks lost on the eastern front were lost to T-35-85 fire and not sabotage, fuel shortaage or mechanical disfunctions.
kataufen 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@kataufen
""most of the tiger 2 tanks lost on the eastern front were lost to T-35-85 fire ""
Hehe where exactly do you get your information from?
Please tell me how many Tiger IIs battalion 503 (Felderrnhalle) lost to T-34/85s and please tell me how many Tiger IIs battalion 509 lost to T-34/85s??
This should be, er, interesting.
LaughingGravy31 1 week ago
@LaughingGravy31 Results depend on the divisions you are looking at.
For example, nearly half of Tiger 2's of the 501 were lost to T-34-85 fire because of ambushes in southern poland ( near Ogledow) If i remember corectly. The battalion was almost completely destroyed under Lisow by IS and Su-85/su-100.
As for the 503 ( Which was one fo the most successful german Heavy tank divisions) a quick search in Wikipedia reveals that it lost 45% of tanks to enemy fire.
kataufen 1 week ago
@kataufen
Checking my sources (the 503's own history, Schneider, Jentz, Restayn etc) during it's Tiger II period on the eastern front, Schwere Panzer Abteilung 503 lost more Tiger IIs to self destruction than to enemy fire.
12 Tiger IIs were knocked out while over 35 were self destroyed.
For example on 7th December 1944 8 Tiger IIs stuck in mud had to be blown up as the Soviets were advancing near Siofok.
In April & May '45 most of the 26 Tiger IIs left were self destroyed during retreats.
LaughingGravy31 1 week ago
@LaughingGravy31 The 509 had almost all of it's tanks incapacitated ( 10 of which were permanently destroyed) near lake Balaton in operation Konrad 3.
I admit I went a little overboard with my comment about the combat losses being specifically T-34-85 fire, but the general trend was that at the end of the war the tactical skills for the soviet tank crews began to catch up to their german counterparts and so soveit tank and tank destroyer fire was beginning to become a serious.
kataufen 1 week ago
@kataufen
The experiences of Schwere Panzer Abteilung 501 that you noted was not the norm and was an anomaly to lose so many tanks in such a relatively short space of time.
And yes it's true that there were IS-2s, ISU-122/152s, SU-85s, SU-100s and also many anti tank guns so it wasn't just T-34/85s knocking out Tiger IIs.
LaughingGravy31 1 week ago
@kataufen
Schwere Panzer Abteilung 509 also reported more Tiger IIs being lost to self destruction than enemy fire.
Of the 50 Tiger IIs that battalion 509 employed only 18 were lost to enemy fire. Some 32 Tiger IIs were self destroyed.
For example, on 25th March 1945 north west of Lake Balaton the battalion had to self destroy 14 Tiger IIs because there was no petrol left to move them and the Soviets were advancing. Only 13 Tiger IIs of the 27 left could be re-supplied and re-fueled.
LaughingGravy31 1 week ago
@LaughingGravy31 concern for the germans.
kataufen 1 week ago
@kataufen
Actually it was the other way round. Comparatively fewer German tanks were lost to self sabotage and dysfunctional equipment in the earlier stages of the campaign in the Soviet union because the Germans (being on the advance) could recover and repair damaged and non working tanks.
In contrast during the latter stages the Germans were being pushed back and losing ground & a higher ratio of damaged and non working German tanks were sabotaged because they couldn't recover them in time.
LaughingGravy31 1 week ago
@kataufen
Soviet tank losses throughout the war were allways higher than the german losses, even in 1944 we see the russians loose 23700 fully tracked AFV against just 12000 German ones but these were for all fronts.
Dreachon 1 week ago
@Dreachon Did I ever say the opposite?
kataufen 1 week ago
@kataufen
No but you were saying that the russians were getting on the tactical level getting equal to the germans, yet with the losses we see do not support that, despite have more men and equipment and the german suffering from considerable operational problems the russians are still losing far more men and material against an opponent they outnumber.
Dreachon 1 week ago
@Dreachon
Agreed. The Soviets were NEVER the tactical equal of the Germans. If they were then the Soviets should NEVER have been losing more men and material to an enemy they vastly outnumbered.
LaughingGravy31 1 week ago
If the Tiger was so far inferior to the T-34, then why did the Germans hold off the Russians so well ??? And don't tell me it was the Ger,ans superior tactics !!! Must be sheer numbers of this really good tank !?!?!
buschmann69 2 weeks ago
@buschmann69
T34-85 could fight with Tigers
SAVSAV1212 2 weeks ago
@SAVSAV1212
Barely
Dreachon 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
LaughingGravy31 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SAVSAV1212
"T34-85 could fight with Tigers""
Not on equal terms under normal combat ranges. The Tiger I was still far superior to the T-34/85 in gun power, accuracy and armour protection.
The T-34/85 still had to rely on overwhelming numbers and mostly flank attacks because it couldn't penetrate the Tiger I frontally at ranges the Tiger I could easily knock the T-34/85 out first.
The T-34/85's 85mm gun was actually quite disappointing and CONSIDERABLY inferior to the Tiger I's 88mm L/56.
LaughingGravy31 1 week ago 2
Can they take down a Tiger tank by ramming on2 it wiv a T-34??? Will the T-34 damage by doing it???
iiisoposol2020 2 weeks ago
@iiisoposol2020
The answer to the first question is no, the best it can do is damage the tracks and or the front drive sprocket.
The answer to the second question is yes, your ramming a 56 ton vehicle with a 28 ton tank, you start doing the math.
Dreachon 2 weeks ago
@Dreachon Thx 4 da tip, Dreach...
iiisoposol2020 1 week ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Put enough of them into battle . The Germans did not . So in that way it was shit because they did not make it further than Stalingrad look up Stalingrad on wilkki and all the data on the right side of screen and at the bottom it has a section .Location of Stalingrad Within Modern Russia. Look how far the Germans only made it into Russia lol now look at western Europe captured. You guys are idiots
flossy26 2 weeks ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
But the tiger could not fire while moving. The t34 was notorious for moving over any terrain at speed. Only faggots need comfort maybe if the germans were not so concerned about comfort they would have had more succes. There tactics alone were good enough. However fact is once zuhkov sprung the trap at Stalingrad Russia won every main battle there after. Before allied invasion. Yeah anyone could have built great tanks with all the hard ware and soft ware the tigers had but how can any country
flossy26 2 weeks ago
@flossy26
Oh how wrong you are, there are recorded instances were a tiger did fire on the move, Wittmann did this as well during his attacked on the british at Villers Bocage.
And again more nonsense form you, T-34 could not move at any speed and it has nothing to do with comfert but the fact that cause of it's poor suspension it will beat it's own crew into sumbmission if it wen't full speed on rough terrain.
Dreachon 2 weeks ago
@flossy26
""However fact is once zuhkov sprung the trap at Stalingrad Russia won every main battle there after.""
Really?
And I thought it was the GERMANS who won the battle for Kharkov in Feb/March 1943, which was AFTER Stalingrad.
By the way, the Germans actually made it to the Caucasus Mountains and also to the River Terek near Grozny.
LaughingGravy31 1 week ago
If this would be the best tank in history then the best car in the world would be a Lada.
Cheap, Russian crap
The155mmHowitzer 2 weeks ago
@The155mmHowitzer ,,|,,
sergeikozin47 5 hours ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@citronvand "Huh the program is doing exactly that" look at the stupid program do you understand the meaning of the list. It's firepower+mobility+armor+cost+ and my favorite fear factor . You don't have to be an pure blooded blond haired blue eyed member of the German master race to shit yourself when 5000 tanks moving at over 50 kilometers per hour are charging at you. But of course if your in a tiger tank you would feel safe. Ok champy
flossy26 2 weeks ago
@flossy26
And were on the russians front will you find a paved landscapre large enough to have 5000 tanks travel at 50 km/h, cause the T-34 could reach that only on paved roads, you try that speed in a T-34 on rough terrain and your tank will grind to halt really soon thanks to an unconcious driver.
Not surprising you talk nonsen once more.
Dreachon 2 weeks ago
@Dreachon
The T-34 was also notoriously hard to drive. Very tough on the arms due to the lever sticks. Primitive driving mechanism.
The Tiger I on the other had had a powered steering wheel. You could drive the Tiger with 2 fingertips.
LaughingGravy31 2 weeks ago
what made t34 so good was the number of production
pyllywaltteri 2 weeks ago
@pyllywaltteri Nah, the 34 had slopped armor. it also helped, the sherman was a shitty tank but won because of numbers.
Xelvielll 2 weeks ago
@citronvand yes if it was 1 Tiger vs. 1 T-34 the Tiger would dominate however, T-34's could be quickly manufactured therefore a higher number of T-34's could overpower a Tiger tank. Even though the Tiger was a fantastic tank it was just too expensive to get high numbers of them, especially to match the number of T-34's. The tiger is a better tank if it was a one on one, but the amount of T-34's was alot higher then the amount of Tigers.
mikyjackson1 2 weeks ago
@mikyjackson1 Yes, I agree. But it wasn't that I was disagreeing with in the first place. Obviously the T-34 should win the production category. But armor and firepower should go to the Tiger and NOT the T-34.
citronvand 2 weeks ago
buuuuuuuuuuuuuuh
CoDGAMIINGZ 2 weeks ago
I can accept the Mobility and production score but max Armor and nearly max Firepower? Bull, the tiger easily wins in those categories.
citronvand 2 weeks ago
@citronvand you can't compare a heavy tank and a medium tank
MrHeyobitch 2 weeks ago
@MrHeyobitch Hah, the program is doing exactly that.
citronvand 2 weeks ago
@citronvand this program is comparing how well it performs in their own generation.not comparing how powerful they are
MrHeyobitch 6 days ago
why isnt the Panther Ausf.G in this list? the Panther DESTROYED ANY russian tanks
alekzander2010 2 weeks ago
@alekzander2010 Too expensive and too fussy. If it ain't reliable all the time it looses points. Having said that I would still rater be in a running Panther - I'd rather on my couch watching YT.
JustaSmuck 2 weeks ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@Dreachon you talk about Ifs and buts . Wasn't it free norwegians that dismantled the German heavy water plants. Hmm I did not know Norway incombassed USA lend lease I thought that was north west Europe and I'm sure the free Norwegians were acting in the best interest of the soviet union. Grow some balls you German nut hugger
flossy26 2 weeks ago
@flossy26
Norwegian commandoes who had been trained and equipped by the british and if any need to gorws ball it you.
And why suddenly bring in lend-lease ,we were not discussing it at all.
Dreachon 2 weeks ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@Dreachon dude ive said from the start the t34 was no match for the tiger but intact was far superior to it's German equivalent the light panzers in which it was designed to counter and it was. If you can send me a link to some German world war 2 veterans who say otherwise than I would like to know because I have not found any such data. take into account the Russian crews were using tactics that favored German defensive tactics.
flossy26 2 weeks ago
@flossy26
I will not sent a link to a person who is too stupid to read and who claims that all the countries invaded by the USSR in 1940 and 1941 were criminals.
And no you never said that from the start, you were adement that the T-34 trumphed all before it.
You didn't accept the losses of russian armour presented to you, nor what really happened at kursk.
Dreachon 2 weeks ago
@flossy26
And how was the T-34 superieur to the panzer III and IV and StuG III, it's most common opponenets since the 5cm L60 was almost equal to the 7.62cm F-34 while the 7.5cm L43 and L48 were far superieur.
As for links I can ask you the same, can you give me a link of german veteran post the initial shock saying they had no chance against a T-34.
Do you have stats that show the T-34 did not suffer horrible losses gaining only a handfull of german machines lost.
Dreachon 2 weeks ago
@flossy26
People who vouch for the T-34/76 almost NEVER look beyond the sloped armour and good gun (for the time).
The truth is, in combat, the T-34/76 suffered serious internal design features and flaws. The turret only had a 2 man crew. The commander had to load the gun as well as command. All round vision was a problem. The commanders didn't get a cupola until mid 1943 and lack in internal radio communication between tanks was a VERY SERIOUS defect.
These flaws lead to THOUSANDS of losses
LaughingGravy31 2 weeks ago
@flossy26
""far superior to it's German equivalent the light panzers"2
Only in regards to armour and the gun in 1941/early 1942.
The lighter Panzers (Panzer III and short barrelled Panzer IV 75mm) actually had superior optics and aiming devices, superior radio equipment, superior periscopes and all round vision, proper 3 man turrets.
When the Panzer IV got the 75mm L/43 in summer 1942 it was superior to the T-34.
LaughingGravy31 2 weeks ago
im russian and im proud that we russians created this tank and im rolling through!
dimitboris 2 weeks ago
shit what they are saying Hitlers army was then times better then all other but they had not enought men, they hafe mutch better tanks then we(im american)
Bratwurst544 3 weeks ago
wrong the lopard v2 is the best tank in the world
Bratwurst544 3 weeks ago
KISS
Keep it simple stupid.
donnyab 3 weeks ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@Dreachon exactly the tiger development was not owed to the t34's appearance . Lol exactly. I mean they wiped out western Europe in months with the light panzers . What do you say about that you little surrender monkey. I know you your the kind of person that would surrender rather than die. Your nothing "resorting to trolling" lol fag I have my facts and you have yours. Russia won the war against the racist weaklings
flossy26 3 weeks ago
@flossy26
You have nothing, your just a lowlife vermin.
When we had our discussion on the T-34 you had nothing but nonsense, you have no facts at all and get this very clear in your vermin like ears, Russia would have been wiped out if the west hadn't fought at all, Russia would not have had an answer to germanies nucleair weapon which would have gone operational in 1945 or 46.
Dreachon 3 weeks ago
@murra84 oh comon..
rpg40 (used for 2 whole years before Faustpatrone was even invented) led to the modern rpgs.
Contrary to popular belief, soviet rocket program was almost as good as western, and after WW2 until the 60s it was actually better than american, as they just copied german design while the soviet was much different (and more effective).
True about nuclear technology and halftracks.
Did you know that torpedo was invented in Croatia? what would the subs do without them?
out
someawesomeguy69 3 weeks ago
@someawesomeguy69
The RPG40 was nothing like the faustpatrone and panzerfaust, it was a grenade they had to throw and could penetrate only 20mm of armour.
Dreachon 3 weeks ago
@Dreachon i just said about rpg -7 and etc that built after war
murra84 3 weeks ago