i need to hear it more to believe it ;)

best tank ever built

Thanks didn't quite get it

How many tonnes> How tall? Please respomd!

Yessss and it's 7,5 meters long, 2.1 meters high 🤣🤣🤣🤣

Me too; I get fed up with having to ride the volume control between voice and music. At certain parts I would far rather hear the actual sound of the engine than some ‘music’.

British tanks were good tanks overall. All tanks has their pluses and minuses. Plus ww2 was really when the first good round of tanks came out u know so none of them weee perfect by no means. But the Matilda's and char b's really freaked the nazis out at first just like the t-34 did Honestly if the char b woulda been a little faster and the French generals woulda pulled their heads out of their asses and listened to the intelligence reports they woulda needed the war in France before it even began

Amen! I agree much so.

I love it so much that I'm building a RC 1/6 Cromwell ❤

I agree. Could it be argued that the Cromwell was a better tank than the Sherman?? Certainly its successor, the Meteor was a better tank than the Sherman.

@MrT67 Do you mean the Comet? The Comet was short-lived but it was the link between the Cromwell and the Centurion. 👌

I like the version with the cow...

Same here I hope you have got the plesure of seeing them up close.

Yeah but how much does it weigh?

@@normandegeorge6526 less than the tiger or king tiger that it could take out

Makes sense

…. Wow. Sometimes I put my tracksuit pants on back to front. Great minds.

@@multipl3….for when you want to start a ruckus then Schnell the fuck out of Dodge asap.

Didn't they had horrible reverse speed?

@@0Turbox No not really.

"it"? What?

And very unreliable, then pretty much return to factory for repair!

The Panther was just way too big for what it was. If they made it a bit lower to the ground, it would be more like a sports car, that and more reliability.

And the unreliable claim is an over exaggerated myth. The Tiger and Panther were not much more unreliable than the Panzer IV in 1944/45, as the operational ratios show.

@@lyndoncmp5751 you either exaggerate or you don't! To 'over exaggerate' would be to guild the lily! A bit like 'to boldly go' which is to 'split the infinitive'.

@@pcka12 No, there is exaggeration and over exaggeration. It's a viable term. To listen to some people it's a wonder the circa 650 Panthers and 140 Tigers even made it to Normandy, nevermind gave the allies a lot of problems. According to the modern myth they should have all conked out on the road marches and been unable to get repaired.

Always have said their is 1. Choice of Command & Control (primary concern is supply) and 2. The Soldiers Choice. Mever heard a soldier say "Just good enough is fine with me". I have read Russians tankers say how much they preferred the Sherman to the T34 for the crew amenities which were heaven in comparison. Might as well enjoy the ride to your death!

And then the Tiger’s mechanical issues kick in. As well as being a logistical nightmare.

@@brennanleadbetter9708 True! But regardless crews loved the Tiger, and Soviets, and Allied Tank crews all said in battle they would rather be in a Tiger.

brennanleadbetter9708 Often over exaggerated. Tigers rarely broke down in battle. Most problems were drivers over exerting the engine on long road marches. A driver who treated it properly could reduce mechanical issues by 90% according to Otto Carius.

@ genegarren833 do you remember what the program was? I’m interested.

you should see the t-34 85 at bovington if you've never visited. that thing is missing most of its rivets on the rear plate. but there's a beauty to it to, they save on rivets and it's easier to take off for maintenance lol

The average expected survival time of a t34 in ww2 was something like 18 hours so maintenance and build quality were a 5th rate concern and early in operation barbarossa many survived only minutes into an engagement 😂😂

welcome in soviet union :D

King tigers, wiped them into non exhistance....... like a mouse v.s a panther..... no contest

@@mohammedisaa9952 Yet thousands paraded after V-E Day, loon, and hundreds sit outside of buildings in the U.S. and hundreds fought in Korea and for Israel. How many Tiger Bs exist - two or three.? Stay off the drugs.

⁠@@mohammedisaa9952there where less than 500 tiger 2s made vs 49234 Sherman’s. The tiger 2 wasn’t in any contest because it never was made in great enough numbers, it changed nothing in the war

​@@2003AudiS3Tho they were saying the Germans would make things "too perfect/overcomplicated" It kinda makes a lil sense to me because they had alot less numbers than the allies. Imagine if they fought the allies with the MORE industrialized tanks the allies had themselves... they would surely get fucked i think. So it makes sense that the lower number force would prioritorize qualitity things: like creating a tank that from what i've heard anyway, could take out 2 or 3 of "ours". I see a small correlation in how America spends crazy amounts on military and weapon technologies, its because alot of potential conflicts could see the U.S outnumbered. The germans prob did go too far with some ideas and implications but I think the initial idea of "we gotta compete with numbers, so we gotta be/have better/more efficient killing methods and machines than them." is reasonable and makes sense. Tho the actual processes/ideas and those doing it may had not always done it right or actually created something more efficient....the initial idea i get. It just seems they didnt have everything they needed in resources nor time and preparation.

@@DrthSmittyWerbenJagermanJensen not really, even your superior tanks need to be produced in enough numbers because if they are as low as the tiger 2, you will need to kill a ridiculous amount of tanks to change the result of the war

It’s not even US a built it’s a Canadian Grizzly mk. 1

@@Panzer_CrazeNice spotting.

Er, no. Completely different tank.

@@SvenTviking who or what are you replying to? The 'text' of the video refers to a variety of 'Sherman build methods'.

-- Except 85mm L55 gun is better, then 75mm KwK 40/L48 gun. And starting mid 1944 turret travers in Pz-IV was replaced by internal fuel tank, so hand cranking the turret was a thing for Pz-IV crew in a "short legged" tank... Not to mention muzzle brake kicked more dust and dirt from the ground, so its not only showed enemy where Pz-IV is at, but also obstructed gunners next for sometimes until the dust settled.

Only a russian would be this dense. The T-34/85 could only manage maybe 4 RPM while the Panzer IV could manage over 8 rounds per minute , not only that the Russian 85mm could only manage 85mm @ 1000m while the KwK 40 could manage 85mm@ 1000m

@@paullakowski2509 wrote: "Only a russian would be this dense. The T-34/85 could only manage maybe 4 RPM while the Panzer IV could manage over 8 rounds per minute , not only that the Russian 85mm could only manage 85mm @ 1000m while the KwK 40 could manage 85mm@ 1000m" -- Paul, are you speaking for yourself because you Russian? Or what nationality are you, just curious? Let see where else you getting your info from and presenting it as facts? It looks like you getting T-34-76 with Ivan Grabin's F-34 gun specs and presenting it as T-34/85. Here is why: -- T-34/85 had ready to fire 16 rounds in the turret bustle, so T-34/85 could do better, then 4 RPM, and Pz-IV turret was not balanced, nor had bustle. -- While ballistics of 76.2mm F-34 and 75mm KwK40 gun was somewhat similar, because of similarity of caliber and projectile size, weight and muzzle velocity, hence similar gun performance, things for T-34/85 gun was a lot different, it adapted next caliber/class canon, similar to Tiger I anti-aircraft modified gun, with much longer barrel which resulted in much higher projectile velocity coupled with heavier round retained better ballistics and punched through much thicker armor, and that is just physics that you didn't study at school, that is the reason why you confusing tank gun performance.

The Gepard is as well

The primary tactic was to jam one up under the real German tanks and get them stuck until it got too noisy inside for the crew to put up wit while the others acted until the crew goof the tank

Probably doesn’t remember seeing pics of what is behind the outer plates.

There are reasons why we don’t use the Christie suspension anymore.

And a stug

"If you ignore all the flaws in the design, it really is a good design"

​@@Hopelesshobo1what he means their where issues when it first came out. They rushed it out before really proper testing it. After they resolved those issues it was defintly a good tank. Having said that. there is no such tank as the best tank. U design a tank with a specific purpose and then u can check how well it can execute that purpose. The s-tank makes very little sense for usa but for sweden its a very practical tank. Same can be said for the tanks israel uses.

@@Hopelesshobo1 Same goes for every tank design. Neither T-34 nor Sherman nor Cromwell worked on day 1. And if you find the time, read about Covenanter for some "fun". Usually, you won't bet all your chips on an untested design during a major offensive, which is what happened to Panther. The reliability issues were quickly sorted out and Panther was as reliable as Pz IV. Many so-called reliability issues came from actual battle damage and overall lack of maintenance time due to the front situation. Every tank will break down if not properly maintained (or being hit), even a Sherman; and if in addition you also lack the spare parts, the writing is on the wall. Which is not a design issue but a general strategic problem. In 1945 production quality on all German AFVs dropped seriously due to many raw materials and qualified workers missing. If you can't use the right steel for your transmission, you're asking for trouble. Even the armor quality became worse. Speaking of the transmission: it was indeed very complicated to produce, but it was very driver-friendly and easy to learn on. Contrary to the actual belief, German tank drivers had basic driver training on old/obsolete tanks before they were put in a Panther or Pz IV. They were not completely left-handed. Of course training was shortened as the war progressed; often for the lack of fuel. Again, not really a design issue.

Apart from the opinion of the commander of the tank army of the Third Reich, Guderian, who insisted that the German army needed several thousand PZ 3-4 in order to fight on equal terms with thousands of T-34s, instead of a couple of hundred effective on the tactical plan but useless on the strategic panthers. But Hitler made another mistake (like the commentators here on UKposts), disobeyed his general and turned out to be adamant in his love for the "wunderwaffe", which ultimately exhausted the German industry, and was one of the reasons for the failure of the war (Imagine the confrontation between 6k panthers and 60k t-34, that's how many of them were built).

That's a misconception. The Panther was just 10% more expensive than a Panzer IV. Mostly because unlike the Panzer IV it was streamlined for mass production. They built those 60.000 t34 from 1940 till 1945. But if you look at the production numbers of 1944 you can see, that the Germans weren't that far off with their strategy. Soviets built 4500 T34/76 and 10000 t34/85 (14500 medium tanks) in 1944. Germany built 3800 Panthers and around 2500 Panzer IVs (6300 tanks) in 1944. So the production ratio was 1:2.25. But during 1944 they traded their tanks at a ratio of 1:4 in favor for the Germans. If Germany would not had to fight a two front war, the numbers seemed to would have worked out for them.

Why would you love it?

Looks like I’m not going to be getting anything done for the next 2 hours lol

Not!

@anthonynicholich9654 ?

Maybe instead of the "perfect" killing machine ... the Germans shouldve focused on the the perfect balance of a killing machine. Keeping maintenance and all that in mind as well. Thats IF the narrative of their tanks and such being too complicated/not easily repaired is true..

@@DrthSmittyWerbenJagermanJensen The narratieve for Germans tanks is considerably skewed against them unfortunately

Except when you're the soviet union and you've got enough 18 year olds

"that makes things like a turret basket a good investment." I assume you're referring to a rear turret ammunition storage basket? Because a "turret basket" would generally refer to the part that supports the crew in the turret and keeps them rotating with the turret rather than having to move manually. And yes, that was still a thing with quite a few tanks in WWII. IIRC, the biggest problem was with the KV-2. If so, in theory, absolutely. But then you start working out the actual engineering stuff. And you find that it makes the turret bigger. And it makes the tank several tons heavier. And you need a larger turret ring to support it. And it requires several additional manufacturing elements. And you can't armor it properly. And it's actually quite difficult to guarantee that ammo blowing up doesn't kill everyone in the tank anyway. This is the reason why even several modern tanks does not use such ammo bins. It's a great idea in theory and an idea loved by the crews, at least as long as they work properly. But you have to make them work. And that's not nearly as easy as it may seem.

18 years?! No. The population is not so small that you have to make babies because there’s no one to conscript. Lol

@@funkrates4778 we don´t have to make babies. to make new tankers. but each of the conscripts you take. have lived in society for at least 18 years. before they got conscripted.

This is only true once you've run out of 18 year-old's, before that a turret basket is a nice idea in theory but frivolous in practice.

It's only got 45mm of armor (all-around) on the hull. That's good for side&rear armor, and even frontal armor was good in 1941. But they failed to upgrade the armor, so by 1942 it was just mediocre when Germany came up with long-barreled guns, and I'm not even talking Tiger. A 7,5 cm L48 gun would punch right through the hull most of times. Or, and it really happened, a smaller shell would crack the often extremely bad welding seams. Just in case the way too brittle armor didn't just shatter on impact ... The turret armor on the T-34/85 as shown here was thicker, though, and IIRC they improved the metallurgy.

@@ottovonbismarck2443 wrote: "Or, and it really happened, a smaller shell would crack the often extremely bad welding seams. Just in case the way too brittle armor didn't just shatter on impact ..." -- On earlier T-34 tanks maybe, but once Eugene Patton implemented automatic submerged flux welding, this was not the case, the problems with welds were more prevalent over German heavy tanks in the second part of the war, since welds was done by "hand".

Sloped armour on T-34 didn't do any good because of poor quality of metal. They even had thermal hardening. About this mentioned British and American experts.

wrote: "Sloped armour on T-34 didn't do any good because of poor quality of metal. They even had thermal hardening. About this mentioned British and American experts." --Its laughable, since all Germans tanks after examining T-34 in November of 1941 had slopped armor there after, but not before, and this is written from Aberdeen T-34 test, mind you 50mm PaK38 was ran over by T-34 on the field where A.Porsche and others were taking photographs: II. Armour The Americans insist that the T-34 and KV tanks' plates are hardened shallowly, and most of the armour is soft steel. They suggest that we change the hardening technology, which will increase the armour's resistance to impacts. This opinion has no basis in reality, and was likely caused by poor analysis of the armour. The armour of the sent T-34 tank consisted of 8S steel. All T-34s are armoured this way. This steel is hardened to high hardness (2.8-3.15 mm on the Brinell scale). The KV tank's armour was medium hardness (3.35-3.6 mm on the Brinell scale)."

Haha Well said sir! I've spent so many hours playing War Thunder that I've developed PTSD.

Watch the Bovington Tank Museum channel. @thetankmuseum They have more tank and vehicle reference videos on you tube and do show the interiors of many of them. Also, can't forget The Australian Armour & Artillery Museum @ausarmour They've also a huge amount of you tube videos about the vehicles they've rebuilt.

Hell yeah!

I agree with this sentiment. The sherman was cheap easy to make but was still leagues above the t34 in quality. The sherman was the best balance of quality and value per unit. Once they sorted the wet stowage for ammo and upgraded to the 60mm sloped front plate they were an exceptional tank. That angled 60mm front plate gave it an effective thickness on par with a tiger.

"" That angled 60mm front plate gave it an effective thickness on par with a tiger."" Tiger I effective armour was circa 115mm to 130mm on the front due to the nickel-steel of Brinell Hardness of 265, along with the angle (24 degrees on the nose plate).

​@lyndoncmp5751 Do you have a source for that? I have seen claims up to 105mm, but not beyond that. Also it was a 5-10 degree angle, not 24. Unless you're talking about the lower glacis?

@@Chopstorm. Sure. Thomas L Jentz, Germanys Tiger Tanks. Yes, the lower front plate, which is sometimes referred to as the nose plate. It was 24 degrees. The glacis where the driver's visor was was 10 degrees. Both plates were 100mm thick of 265 Brinell Hardness. The 265 Brinell Hardness, according to British tests on captured Tigers, gave it a circa 12% stronger resistance effectiveness than the best allied steel of the same thickness. Then add in the angling.

wrote: "One thing not mentioned yes over 80,000 T34 tanks where produced but over 40,000 where destroyed during WW2." -- You know why it was NOT mentioned!? Because its a dubious claim worthy LazerPig channel, since it does not taking into account war participation nor technological parity. For example: 1) For the beginning of the 1940-41 had a better 3" gun in a fully rotating turret with welded hull, that offered better armor protection then riveted hull of M3 tank, never mind 75mm main gun that placed inside sponson of tank hull. 2) If you read CIA report on captured T-34-85 tank in Korea in 1951, there on pages 5 and 6, you'll find a few interesting notes, that very insightful on American thoughts in comparison of US vs. USSR tanks of that time, under "1. Desirable Features of T-34/85 tank": (a) Materials were found ample for a job - better then those to be used in American tanks, in some instances. (i) The T34 is of lighter weight then current U.S. medium tanks, but carries gun only slightly smaller (85mm vs. 90mm) Mind you, M4 Sherman never had 90mm L53 caliber in length gun, so they comparing T-34-85 to M-26 Pershing which in WW2 by US of A considered to be a heavy tank, so is German Tiger I tank with its 88mm L56 caliber modified AAA main gun, so is T-34-85 L55 modified AAA main gun, which is a lot better, then M4 Sherman's 76mm L52 main gun. So "in a nutshell", you been "fooled" and/or fooling yourself, thinking that tank that is inferior in fire power, armor protection and mobility/maneuverability that M4 Sherman tank was, would perform better, then best WW2 tank which is T-34, that faced 80% of Wehrmacht and carried most of the fighting from Moscow all the way to Berlin, and won the war as "MVP"(Most Valuable Player).

Gotcha! PBS

I watched the first 5mins, that alone turned me off.

😂 the t34 57 was a different variant to the 76… they started with a short 76mm variant realized they needed more penetrating power and went for the zis 4 57mm gun then went back to the 76mm with a longer barrel before developing the 85mm version

There was some horizontal traverse. But yes, the vehicle had to traverse with the tracks to aim horizontal.

1. Rises in the ground or hillsides for elevation beyond fifteen degrees and straight on when on level ground. 2. The policies varied between armies but ordinarily rounds would be staged by likelyhood of use (if other tanks are the expectation then anti-armor/armor-piercing rounds were near-to-hand, if fortification were the expectation, HE rounds would be staged and if personnel were to be the targets, then disintegrating, shrapnel-producing rounds would be staged. Knowing the Americans I'll bet there were strict protocols governing when a round was fed into the breech (of course, all protocol goes out the window (hatch) as soon as the first explosion takes place.) and knowing the pragmatism of the Russian tankers they probably had a round in the gun before they ever left the factory. 3. Aren't most artillery-guns and tank-guns provided with an ejector mechanism that was both automatic when the gun fired and manual when a round had to be removed unfired?

1.The gun has limited traverse, which is ok for long-range engagements. For extreme trverse, you had to move the vehicle. Same for all vehicles without turret. 2. It very much depends on the situation. In a hurry, common procedure was/is to fire the round you have loaded anyway. It's probably faster to reload than to eject a live round and reload then. And no matter with what you hit the enemy, it will cause them a brown alert moment. If you don't hit, you can correct your second shot. There are multiple accounts of Allied tankers shooting HE first on German tanks, because that's what they had loaded at the moment.