Comments by "Ronin Kraut" (@roninkraut6873) on "The Courland Pocket 1944-45 FULL BATTLESTORM History Documentary" video.

  1. I think the Soviets greatly underrated their appreciation for allied help. Call me crazy but I’d much rather have the M4 medium than a T-34
    6
  2. Fiddlers Green No. The survival rate of the T34 was abysmal. The 75mm would handle those panzer 3s and 4s but more importantly it had a good HE round for troops and guns. Have you ever been in a T34? There’s no comparison in terms of comfort and ergonomics
    3
  3. Fiddlers Green Ok. Except stats show the M4 burned at the same rate or less as the other allied tanks and once the wet storage was installed it became significantly less. I didn’t realize these old myths were still being perpetuated but here we are.
    2
  4. Fiddlers Green Those statistics were gathered from after action field reports and can be found in the national archives. It’s a myth that the M4 burned up all the time. If you’re looking for it on YouTube then the Chieftain from world of tanks has written a book on TD’s but in his research from the game he has a ton of excellent stats from the archives. Zolaga isn’t another source in print. The truth about the lend lease M4s may be lost because the Cold War started at the end of WWII and the soviets wouldn’t admit to the West how they really felt about them and for the fact that the T34 became the symbol for the great patriotic war. If you want the best examples of the T34 vs the M4 then check out the Korean War where they went head to head and the M4 came out decisively on top. Also, the M4 was the main battle tank for the US and it was our only tank so it went everywhere from Africa to Japan. They couldn’t put it in some area to lower the stats because it was what we had. Despite current feelings on American exceptionalism the M4 was the best tank of the war
    2
  5. Fiddlers Green If you don’t have the time to read the archives then read the books by those that did do their research in the archives. The Korean War doesn’t count because it wasn’t Soviet forces in the tanks? GTFO
    2
  6. Fiddlers Green You’re points don’t hold especially now since we are getting actual field reports from Russia that were kept locked up during the Soviet era. Even those stats show how well liked the M4 was by the Russian troops. Memoirs are biased. The stats bias makes no logical sense. The Korean War is a good example of the comparisons between the two tanks. The M24 faired very poorly against the T34 despite crew training and combined arms. Read up on the Korean War and you’ll see. Same goes for the M26 being superior to the T34. The M4 has superior armor protection on the front slope and better crew ergonomics. The 75mm had a better HE round and when the 76mm came into being with the HVSS suspension the M4 was a much better tank. The T34 had better off road speed because of the Christie suspension but even that was seen as a design flaw and newer versions were going to replace it with torsion bars. And it also had superior side and rear protection because of the slopes Armour everywhere but that cut deeply into crew space. Same goes for the M4’s 3 man turret. Again, the M4 was the better built, better performing and easier maintained tank. It was the best tank in the war
    1
  7. Fiddlers Green We are obviously getting nowhere. The US didn’t hold back their M4s for statistics. The entire soviet nation was well aware of what was safe and appropriate to say especially about US products. Russia has released its stranglehold on its archives and researchers are now able to see actual field reports from battles that took place during the war and those reports paint a different picture than wait you are trying to portray. The M4 burned at similar rates of its contemporaries and when the wet storage came into being it burned and a lesser rate. These are stats pulled from actual field reports and not memoirs written years to decades after the fact
    1