Incels are truly deluded with these ridiculous YT-polls of theirs xD
>>526493575all objectively true tho
>>526494386Wut? Lets leave Stalin alone, it is a matter of taste, but claiming that Panzer IV was more effective than T-34 is a pure cope. The T-34 (especially early models) was more effective in 1941-42 due to sloped armor, mobility and shock value. You can read plenty of German soldiers diaries how shocked and demoralized they were about capabilities of this tank. The upgunned Panzer IV (F2 onward) gained parity or edge in firepower and accuracy by 1943. Late-war T-34/85 regained superiority in armor and mobility tho. Overall, T-34 proved more effective through mass standarized production and battlefield impact.
>>526494386But they lost?
>>526493575>most impressive nicknameThat's a pajeet behind the account
>>526494830>russian scrap>better than a panzerlol, lmao
>>526494830the t34 is a piece of shit
>>526495727>>526496308Sloped armor provided effective protection equivalent to 90-120 mm vertical plate while keeping weight very low that vastly improved mobility. Wide tracks and Christie suspension gave excellent cross-country performance in mud, snow and soft terrain that was critical on the East Front where narrower-tracked Panzer IVs often bogged down. V-2 diesel engine was reliable, fuel-efficient (longer range), and far less fire-prone than gasoline engines. Simplicity and ruggedness allowed operation in extreme cold, dust etc and with minimal maintenance, crude finish was deliberate for mass production (57k units produced vs only 8k Panzer IV). T-34/85 (1944+) mounted 85mm gun comparable to KwK 40 L/48 in penetration with better frontal armor and mobility. Late-war Panzer IVs only superiorities were very good Zeiss optics, turret ergonomics with better accuracy, and good universal radios but these features were not decisive for war outcome
>>526494386Only the 2nd one you stupid meme flag nigger.
>>526496578sloped armor is not unique to the t34 people have been sloping armor for thousands of years retard. the armor of the t34 is almost nonexistent from the heat treatment they got, the tanks would be so brittle a single 88 would burst them at the joints. they had the worst overland performance of the war and their gear box required hammers to shift gears. one of the worst tanks of the war.
>>526493575>pole unironically simping for commushits Post your address, I hope some of your countrymen show up and make your faggot ass disappear.
>>526496895T-34s extensive all-around sloping on a fast medium tank was _revolutionary_ in 1941, vastly increasing effective thickness without added weight, something no contemporary tank matched. Early T-34 armor was hard but brittle indeed, this was largely fixed by mid-1943 with improved heat treatment. Early gearboxes were notoriously stiff indeed but later 5-speed boxes were much better. T-34 was a perfection in the making.
>>526497639>fast lmfao maybe on paper but t34's realistically had a speed of 15-20 mph. again their gearbox was trash and required hammers. you can sloped that armour at what ever thickness you want doesn't change the fact the heat treat made the armor ineffective and the hulls where spot welded together with inferior materials leading them to be destroyed with ease. the t34 was one of the worst tanks of the war.
>>526497989T-34 road speeds often exceeded 30 mph in practice, cross-country mobility was superior due to wide tracks as i explained earlier. The "hammer to shift gears" myth mainly applies to KV tanks, early T-34 gearboxes were stiff but improved dramatically by 1943. Brittle armor/spalling issues (mostly 1941) were fixed with better heat treatment as i said, sloped 45mm still equated to 90mm effective. Welds were crude but fully welded and strong.
>>526498697cope
The Panzer IV having working radios and glass put ahead of an individual T-34Individual and needs fuel
>>526493575This mf really put ataturk in there with hitler, stalin, and champagne lmao
>>526493575what is wrong about that? it's all true whether you like it or not.
