What is Digg?99 Comments
- SQLDigger, on 07/09/2009, -6/+46Because in America we can appreciate the quality of engineering in other countries, even our former enemies. That's just how great we ***** are.
- Chompy, on 07/10/2009, -3/+39The T-34, individually, didn't pwn anything. The reason it was so successful is because it was cheap, reliable, and easy to operate. It was certainly a capable tank, but if you put a T-34 in an arena with an equivalent German tank, the German tank is going to win. The Germans generally had thicker armor, higher performance, and a much better (and earlier) understanding of sloping.
The German problem, in a nutshell, was that they went for quality over quantity.. and as Stalin said, "quantity has a quality all it's own". - decapitor, on 07/10/2009, -0/+31The narrator sounds like he's trying to sell you the actual tank.
- inactive, on 07/10/2009, -1/+23Quantity has a quality all its own.
- Gravey9, on 07/10/2009, -1/+22I think this is on greatamericans.com because the Russians were our Allies at the time of WWII and anything to defeat the Nazi's would be considered great.
- inactive, on 07/10/2009, -0/+19In 1942 the T-34 was more powerful than the Germans first generation of tanks.
Niether side was sitting on their hands. The Germans and the Russians continued to upgrade and improve their tanks.
The Germans developed the Tiger (88mm main gun) and the Panther (75L70 or long 75). Both were formidable but the Panther was the best all round tank of the war- bar none (speed, armor, gun). The Tiger was hard to kill and very deadly but it was slow and vulnerable to air strikes. When asked how he coped with German Tigers, Bradley said, "Call in an airstrike."
The Russians continued to upgrade the t-34 and came out with the T-34/85 in 1943 with an 85mm main gun. In addition to the T-34 family were the Joeseph Stalin line (JS-I, JS-II, JS-III), the KV series heavy tanks, the SU series tank destroyers and assault guns (SU-76,SU-85,SU-100,SU-152).
Technically, the German tanks were more advanced. The Russian tanks were merely adaquate. They Soviets won the productivity war and buried the Germans with greater and greater numbers as the war progressed. - drgkstep, on 07/10/2009, -6/+221) It was an American design, not a Russian one. Christie tried to sell his design to the Army, no dice -> Sold it to Russia.
2) While sloped armor might "deflect" an incoming round the more accurate way of describing the effect of sloped armor is that it increases the cross section of steel plate a round has to penetrate. 1 inch of steel placed vertically I - 1"- I becomes 1.5 or more when sloped / - 1.5" -/
Where the ***** does the Hitler channel find these mooks. - mrfish, on 07/09/2009, -11/+26So why wasn't this on the greatsovietrussia.com site?
- inactive, on 07/10/2009, -1/+14There was Pro-Nazi propaganda?
- inactive, on 07/10/2009, -4/+17because "great" americans can show appreciation for technology from ALL countries and not just their own
- ruskicommi, on 07/10/2009, -1/+11Actually that's the Military Channel
- doom777, on 07/10/2009, -0/+9tank.
Seriously, I speak russian. that's what it is. the 'a' sounds like 'u' in umbrella. - ManUnitdFan, on 07/10/2009, -0/+9This is the rest of the Top 10 (in abbreviated form):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWIpa6PRNDw - thcobbs, on 07/10/2009, -2/+10Or as we called them both in college... "The Hitler Channel"
- thcobbs, on 07/10/2009, -0/+8@dalittle
Didn't Cortez burn his ships? Just because we condemn an action doesn't mean we can't admire the brutal efficiency of it.
Also, the idea behind the Russian tanks was the same one that drove the Sherman and the Liberty Ships of WWII.
They may not be pretty or safe, but we can make a whole ***** batch of them and hope the numbers make up for the lack of defense. - charlietuna, on 07/10/2009, -1/+9I think this is in terms of historical significance, sort of like saying the Spitfire (or Stuka) was one of the greatest airplanes. Nobody is claiming that either of these planes would be superior to a modern F-22. Would Isaac Newton or Leibniz be "superior" to Archimedes? You might say the T-34 did more with less, which is possibly a greater achievement than building the biggest fastest most expensive Chobham plated mobile gun.
(but you knew all this) - Wakkyweed, on 07/10/2009, -4/+11You gotta hand it to the Soviets. They may not have always had the best technology, but they were hellacious engineers. The T-34, the Kalashnikov, the Mig, the Soyuz, all great machines.
- inactive, on 07/10/2009, -0/+6The Russians wanted equipment that farm kids could operate and maintain it without a lot of training.
As Stalin is often quoted saying: quantity has a quality of its own - inactive, on 07/10/2009, -2/+8The T-34 was unreliable junk compared to the Panzers. But like the American's, the Russian's built an ass ton more of everything compared to the Germans and that is one of the main reasons the allies won.
- Nintendesert, on 07/10/2009, -1/+7Yes, but they didn't engineer all those you listed.
- SirBruce, on 07/10/2009, -0/+6It's still "tank" (usually pronounced more like tankh or tyankh); they borrowed the word from English.
- FuZi0nDET, on 07/10/2009, -2/+8While I hate to be that guy, the program this is video clip came from is pretty darn old. I'd say at least 3 years old, it was a kick ass program though. While I'm at being "that guy" wtf is up with this being on greatamericans.com?
That being said the T-34 was always fun to use in BF1942! - Buckwyld, on 07/10/2009, -0/+6If anyone ever gets the chance, read about the Battle of Kursk. I don't mean on Wikipedia either. Actually get a book about the battle. It's truly the final turning point for the Germans in WW2 vs the Russians. Operation Citadel was really the last "great" offensive the Germans had besides the Ardennes Offensive (Battle of the Bulge). Let's just say, there was a lot of scrap metal after that fight.
Also, if you are looking for a bitching song about the Battle of Kursk and Operation Citadel:
Panzerkampf by Sabaton. - omgwtflawl, on 07/10/2009, -0/+5Quick, someone photoshop Honest Abe onto an M1.
Also, why wouldn't you say the M1A2, which is a later and much improved version of the M1A1. - bluekangaroo, on 07/10/2009, -0/+5Panzer is actually German for armour, not for tank.
- bluekangaroo, on 07/10/2009, -0/+5Russian tank factories were also out of reach of the Luftwaffe, so production could go on unimpeded.
- LupeFiasco, on 07/10/2009, -3/+7The Abraham M1A1 is a great tank, but it didn't win a war and shift the course of history.
To be honest I hope it will never get that opportunity. - splicerslicer, on 07/10/2009, -0/+4http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x7juo5_family-guy ...
Did I mention the tank is a tank?? - Phosphan, on 07/10/2009, -0/+4The T-34 was not directly an American design - it was the successor of the BT tanks, and they were built after the Christie design.
- brotherfranciz, on 07/10/2009, -0/+4As the saying goes, hindsight is 20/20.
- LibertyPrime, on 07/10/2009, -2/+6I always thought the German weapons in WW2 were far superior to any thing the allies and russia could crank out since a lot of weapons we have today are modeled after German weapons, like the AK for starters obviously and the M60.
- SQLDigger, on 07/10/2009, -0/+3That had more to do with Hitler's stupidity than the might of Soviet Russia. If Hitler had limited his focus to western Europe and the British empire, Stalin would have left him alone. If he had even timed his attack against the Soviet Union better, he probably could have pulled it off. Hitler tried to fight two wars on two major fronts, made several strategic mistakes, and paid the price for it. Personally, I'm just glad Hitler was an arrogant, incompetent megalomaniac.
- bot001220, on 07/10/2009, -0/+3No no, he's talking about the Jewish Abraham tank, the one used during the war with Syria... those tanks fired bagels and ran on cream cheese.
- unwiseone, on 07/10/2009, -0/+3The gauge under the video made me believe I was on Funny or Die. Kept waiting for the video to get funny.
- Jovian84, on 07/10/2009, -0/+3say what you will about The soviets. THEY beat Germany. not us. and i'm glad stalin was on our side. we wouldnt have won any other way. or if we did it would be as bloody an afair as it was for russia. and we wouldn't survive the war the same nation as when we entered it.
- Phosphan, on 07/10/2009, -0/+310 M1A2 do not carry enough ammunition to kill 10.000 T-34 - at least if you don't manage to pierce through a few of them at once. Once the T-34 have destroyed the tracks of the M1 and the M1 have used all ammunition, the remaining T-34 crews could spill some barrels of diesel over the M1 and burn them.
SCNR :-) - doom777, on 07/10/2009, -2/+5well you can buy them from Russian museums. but ten A1A2 would pwn them all.
- topcat5, on 07/10/2009, -0/+3The problem with the more technically advanced Panzer and other German tanks in WWII, is they were expensive to manufacture and their high quality tolerances required a huge amount of maintenence and special equipment to repair. Hit one with a hand held American bazooka and these high tech monsters were out of business. This is exactly something you don't want on the battle field.
The Soviet T34 was innovative as it countered many of the German advances in low tech ways, and the Soviets could build them by the 1000s and they were easy to repair in the field. The Soviets had exactly the right tank for this war because it allowed them to simply over whelm the Germans with numbers.
In comparison the other big tank in this war, The Sherman, was of similar quality to the T-34 though it had a fatal flaw in that it would easily catch on fire. The German name for it was "tommy cooker". Tommy was the name for American soldiers. The British called it The Ronson. Named after the Ronson lighter of the time because the adverts for it went "lights up every time". It also had inferior armor that could not withstand a hit. The Soviet design was much better, but it did suffer in other areas as compared to the Sherman. In any case it was another tank where the Germans were over whelmed by numbers. - rhedrick, on 07/10/2009, -1/+4Abrams
- graemee, on 07/10/2009, -0/+3The main advantage of sloping armour is not deflection. It's actually make the armour thicker than it is. The path of the incoming shell has to pass thru more material on a sloped surface than it's equivalent perpendicular or horizontal thickness. Basically it's like the difference between the sides of a triangle. The sloped side is longer, the same as the sloped side a right angle triangle. yet it weighs no more. It adds more armour thickness for the same weight.
- MatzahMan, on 07/10/2009, -1/+3What a beast!
- phew72, on 07/10/2009, -0/+2Is that narrated by Troy McClure?
- BotchaMcCoola, on 07/10/2009, -1/+3Panzer is German for tank but it sounds fiercer for sure. Anyone know what is Russian for tank?
- kamisama, on 07/10/2009, -0/+2The Germans used captured T34's as well. They pulled a whole bunch with german markings out of a lake in Estonia once. If I'm not mistaken another benefit of the T34 was that the engine could deal a lot better with extreme cold.
- bbbreak, on 07/10/2009, -0/+2The interesting thing is that initially, the Russians were at a peace with Germany (not QUITE "allies"), and helped Germany invade Poland to take land for itself. Only after the invasion of the USSR by Germany did they become our allies. The only reason for the peace agreement between the USSR and Germany was because Stalin was afraid of Germany invading since he was planning on taking multiple countries around Russia's border, and that they would divide Poland with each other. So, they don't get attacked (yet), and they get more land.
- memper, on 07/10/2009, -0/+2танк
http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Т-34 - rubberpipe, on 07/10/2009, -1/+3You mean like the P-39 Aircobras we sold them? Or the or TU-4. A nearly 1 to 1 copy of a B-29?
- Rapter09, on 07/10/2009, -1/+3Abraham Lincoln has his own tank?
Well that explains *everything* - inactive, on 07/10/2009, -0/+2Even more interesting, to me, is that poor, innocent Poland partook in annexing a chunk of Chekelslovakia along with Germany.
- inactive, on 07/10/2009, -3/+5if Hitler wasn't a meth addict he would have secured England's manufacturing bases BEFORE attacking Russia and we would all be speaking German right now. the panzers where far better tanks.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 100 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is