Comments by "" (@TheArklyte) on "British & American T-34 Tanks - A True Story" video.

@jaggerfoxland8103l "I wonder what else you stole or destroyed over there." they destroyed iraqi chemical weapons, that were used against kurdish and iranian civilians just so that you can cry about how Saddam never had weapons of mass destruction despite tens of thousands of iranian cripples, who suffered from them. Go to Tehran and cry a river about how much you love Saddam and what he did😂
4
Shermans and Churchill's were unlikely to be replaced even in AU, but what could have happened is that T-34 could have intermingled with british cruiser line, who themselves were designs based on (cursed) Christie suspension. They even used Liberty engine spinoffs just like BT-2/5 did. They were armored unlike those though😅 And some say that KV-1 was already used, a few myths state that it's testing helped nudge US towards finally settling on torsion bars and thus allowed T26 to enter the war instead of being stuck in same eternal design/redesign limbo as american heavy tanks like T29 for example.
2
Neither KV-1, nor T-34 are such tanks. Nor ANY version of KV or T-34 series. US had such tank, it was T26. It wasn't rushed as it was deemed unnecessary at the time. Likewise a 90mm armed version of M4 was deemed unnecessary for the landings. US expected Panther to make up less then 20% of tanks they'd encounter. Contrast that with brits, who put 17 pounder on every chassis that could fit it and on 50% of those, which couldn't.
1
@piotrmalewski8178 pretty much. However when not crancked up by soviet factories without any quality control or skilled workers, it wasn't the worst design ever. I just heavily dislike original turret(designed for 45mm gun back on A-20 and then upgunned to 76mm without increasing its size), Christie suspension(screw maintaining that, be it on T-34/85 or even Comet), angled sides, forward turret position, vulnerable driver hatch and the fact that it uses the same bottleneck components as KV-1 thus defeating the whole purpose and putting the "it was cheap argument" in its grave. Otherwise(is there anything good left) it wasn't that bad;) My favourite soviet medium tank among produced ones was KV-1S, which technically was called heavy, but was closest to being "soviet Sherman". T-43 and KV-13 were also cool, but they remained just prototypes. By same margin US had T20-T23 prototypes with gun stabilisation and autoloading back during the WWII so it's pointless to mention such fantasies as "if they could have been produced en masse". Though yes, if fantasies are allowed, just scrap both T-34 and KV-1 and produce T-34M chassis with straight hull sides buffed to 55mm, perpendicular engine placement and turret of KV-1. Ie T-44 at home model 1940:D However I talked about brits. And they literally produce such tanks, just not with such bad production quality. Put infantry Valentine XI hull onto cruiser Cromwell engine and suspension and you literally get T-34/76 with abysmally cramped turret and that damn suspension. So further studies of another de facto cruiser tank could have influenced the change in british cruiser line.
1