Jump to content


Inside the Chieftain's Hatch: T-34-85 Part 2


  • Please log in to reply
25 replies to this topic

Content_WG #1 Posted Sep 10 2014 - 17:37

    Wargaming America

  • Administrator
  • 0 battles
  • 3,238
  • Member since:
    01-17-2011
The Chieftain continues his tour in Russia to bring us more about the T-34-85! Find out how and why the T-34 was upgraded to the T-34-85!

Full news text


ForcestormX #2 Posted Sep 10 2014 - 17:38

    Major

  • Players
  • 10420 battles
  • 11,791
  • Member since:
    06-22-2011
You know, if you release the vid a day or so earlier, maybe, just maybe, you might want to sync up the Content_WG bot to release nearly at the same time.

TwixOps #3 Posted Sep 10 2014 - 17:38

    Major

  • Players
  • 51637 battles
  • 4,545
  • Member since:
    04-29-2011
You're only a day and a half late with this one, good job.  

Ildasm #4 Posted Sep 10 2014 - 17:39

    Captain

  • Players
  • 50300 battles
  • 1,814
  • [HARMZ] HARMZ
  • Member since:
    01-29-2012
Chieftain doesn't really like USSR tanks :trollface:. Nice that we finally see one tank start and move a bit :great:

Xlucine #5 Posted Sep 10 2014 - 17:40

    Major

  • Players
  • 7663 battles
  • 7,603
  • [C-BOO] C-BOO
  • Member since:
    03-03-2011

View PostXlucine, on Sep 09 2014 - 21:15, said:

huh, so you don't ignore first apart from on very steep hills? I was under the impression that was standard on heavy military vehicles, since the load on steep hills/when towing is so much greater than the load on flat concrete.

 

Also, pls demonstrate floor escape hatch usage in future

Evalithia #6 Posted Sep 10 2014 - 18:35

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 16427 battles
  • 496
  • [PBKAC] PBKAC
  • Member since:
    02-08-2011

View PostIldasm, on Sep 10 2014 - 09:39, said:

Chieftain doesn't really like USSR tanks :trollface:. Nice that we finally see one tank start and move a bit :great:

 

Most USSR tank crewmen were required to be about a foot shorter than the Chieftain, so of course he'll be super uncomfortable.

UrsusMiNor #7 Posted Sep 10 2014 - 19:08

    Corporal

  • Beta Testers
  • 8761 battles
  • 21
  • Member since:
    01-24-2011

Yeah, a smaller man is better suited for a soviet made tank. In the east german army (NVA) we had a limit of 1.80 meters. Boys bigger than that were not used for tanks. The rule was to take strong and short guys for the tanks and for them the T-34, T-55, T-72 worked well.

My personal experience with the T-34/85 was on the "Brandmittelplatz", what means a training area were you learned how to fight a fire, how to come out of a burning tank etc. And there i climbed out of the drivers hatch without real problems and i'm 1.82 meters tall. What means, that i was a little more agle than the Chieftain today. :teethhappy:



kadin9999 #8 Posted Sep 10 2014 - 19:12

    Private

  • Players
  • 13936 battles
  • 1
  • [OOF] OOF
  • Member since:
    12-24-2013

Hi



T99_Armata #9 Posted Sep 10 2014 - 19:36

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 7467 battles
  • 123
  • [YANKY] YANKY
  • Member since:
    10-19-2013
I liked his video.  Thorough as ever.  However, what could have been more important to Russians at the time than producing as many these tanks as quickly as possible in order to annihilate the Germans?  Certainly crew comfort was secondary, if not tertiary.   I think the tank's "anti comfort" design was reflective of the desperate situation Russia (USSR) was in during WW2.   Great review, chieftain.

BlackForestPike #10 Posted Sep 10 2014 - 21:37

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 9721 battles
  • 964
  • [UFP] UFP
  • Member since:
    09-01-2011

I liked that little bit about the Hungarian protests and supporting infantry.



SafariJohn #11 Posted Sep 10 2014 - 22:28

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 22840 battles
  • 729
  • Member since:
    04-13-2013
Chieftain is missing his AC (American Comfort). :tongue: And heater, too!

White_Tiger117 #12 Posted Sep 11 2014 - 01:47

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 13717 battles
  • 661
  • Member since:
    10-13-2012

View PostHartLord, on Sep 10 2014 - 14:28, said:

Chieftain is missing his AC (American Comfort). :tongue: And heater, too!

 

XD! But he could of offered to ride the new Russian Missile with a cowboy hat on :D

.

....

 

(to soon?)



TheCarthaginian #13 Posted Sep 11 2014 - 02:21

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 14465 battles
  • 536
  • Member since:
    09-03-2013

A very good demonstration that a 'war winning design' doesn't exactly equate to a 'well thought out' design.

I also have, for some reason, a guy at the Red Army Draft Bord sitting beside one of those little amusement park height requirement signs.

Every time someone taller than that sign goes by, they hand him a rifle and send them out to the front.

Every time someone shorter than that sign goes by, he is handed a leather helmet and thrown on the back of a truck to ride to the armor school.



Meplat #14 Posted Sep 11 2014 - 02:29

    Major

  • Players
  • 6774 battles
  • 7,831
  • [C-BOO] C-BOO
  • Member since:
    11-27-2012
For it's time the T34 was considered "too luxurious" by critics in the Red Army.  Think about that.

Tea_of_Doom #15 Posted Sep 11 2014 - 05:26

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 18097 battles
  • 108
  • [IOC] IOC
  • Member since:
    12-30-2011

View PostTheCarthaginian, on Sep 11 2014 - 03:21, said:

A very good demonstration that a 'war winning design' doesn't exactly equate to a 'well thought out' design.

I also have, for some reason, a guy at the Red Army Draft Bord sitting beside one of those little amusement park height requirement signs.

Every time someone taller than that sign goes by, they hand him a rifle and send them out to the front.

Every time someone shorter than that sign goes by, he is handed a leather helmet and thrown on the back of a truck to ride to the armor school.

 

Agreed, some parts of the tank could have been thought out better (especially concerning ergonomics), but as the Chieftain points it out himself, it's a crude but elegant design. Some elements are actually really well thought out (turret traverse handle), and the tank actually accomplished its' design purpose supremely well. 

CapturedJoe #16 Posted Sep 11 2014 - 09:03

    Captain

  • Players
  • 4214 battles
  • 1,917
  • Member since:
    09-18-2013

Very nice video!

In one of my favorite TV series, there is a T-34-85 crew and the biggest guy of them, who is very strong, is the loader; in the series he doesn't seem to have trouble with the low roof and tricky footspace though, he can stand up allright while loading although he is as tall as the Chieftain!

 

BTW, the TV series is called "Czterej pancerni i pies", which is Polish for "4 tankmen and a dog"; maybe you've heard from it.

 

Also the dog barking at 24:55... it's a sign! Sharik is back! :veryhappy:


Edited by CapturedJoe, Sep 11 2014 - 09:12.


Highlord #17 Posted Sep 12 2014 - 07:34

    Staff sergeant

  • Beta Testers
  • 5227 battles
  • 450
  • Member since:
    09-16-2010
It does make me wonder what Russian tankers, used to ergonomic hell, think of American tanks, when they get to try them out.

Chopa #18 Posted Sep 12 2014 - 15:09

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 40923 battles
  • 491
  • [DOG5] DOG5
  • Member since:
    07-30-2011
They are very impressed with the boiling vessels and cup-holders. They heat their schchee on the exhaust manifolds, and it always winds up tasting of diesel.

Walter_Sobchak #19 Posted Sep 12 2014 - 16:00

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 236 battles
  • 5,140
  • Member since:
    11-22-2010
I wonder if the issue of the drivers head being inside the turret ring was an issue on the original T-34 models, or if it only became as issue once the turret ring was enlarged for the T34-85.  Anyhow, very interesting video.  Personally, I prefer videos like this one of the more common vehicles rather than the more obscure models. 

Xlucine #20 Posted Sep 12 2014 - 17:52

    Major

  • Players
  • 7663 battles
  • 7,603
  • [C-BOO] C-BOO
  • Member since:
    03-03-2011
Looking at how Chief leant forward to reach the levers, and extrapolating to an average height back then/average height in a 3rd world country that has to resort to using those in 2014, I'd be surprised if it was an issue in service




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users