ThathumanHayden

+1
I haven't watched the video but it does sound like it makes overly broad generalizations.
--------
Another key ingredient in the rejuvenation of the Soviet tank fleet was the improvement in quality control. Through 1943 output quantity had remained the emphasis; quality control was weak, as mentioned in the previous chapter. The Nizhni-Tagil design bureau had been pressing the GABTU to allow them to impose greater uniformity on the several plants manufacturing the T-34/85 and to put more emphasis on quality control at the subcontracting plants. This began to pay off in 1944. The policy of testing new T-34 tanks on a test track in 1943 found that only a small fraction could run the minimum requirement of 300 kilometers before breaking down. By early 1944 this dismal record had been overcome and T-34 reliability finally reached acceptable levels. During February 1944 tests 79 percent of tanks reached 300 kilometers, and of the test batches 33 percent reached 1,000 kilometers. This became immediately apparent to the tank troops. The deputy commander of the 1st Guards Tank Army, P. G. Dyner, commented that tanks in 1943 would reach only 75 percent of their guaranteed life span in engine hours and mileage, but in 1944 they reached 150 percent.
-- Steven Zaloga, Armored Champion

There's lots of good assessments of T34s out there, but for all the negative features it did something that none of the british tanks were doing in 1941 -- causing serious trouble for the germans (despite all the things wrong with it) -- note that the panther was not designed based on matilda, it was based on T34.  It was the best thing (w KV1) the russians had and as it improved over time it was more and more a factor on the battlefield.  Those of us here, I think, mostly already know the T34 negatives.
But some of the claims, as Erwin notes above, are ludicrous.  They all break down after 50km??  Then how did they drive the Germans back over 100km at a time, over & over & over?  I bet a lot of them broke down in 1941, but I also bet that number decreased significantly over time.  So this might be cherry picking the data from 1941 and extrapolating that forward in time.  Heck, in 1941 there was a serious shortage of soviet 76mm ammo which very significantly reduced T34/KV1 effectiveness, probably as much as anything else. 
We know the poor crew ergonomics & lack of commander were an issue -- this reduced efficiency but it didn't render the crew catatonic.  And top speed is often less important than mobility, and the wide tracks did have better mobility than the germans.  And it was waaaaaay faster than the matildas.
The steel quality was often poor -- yet we know this same armor was very resilient against the main german gun of 1941 -- the 37mm.  And pretty good against the 50mm.  Yeah, hit it with a high velocity 75mm and it's in trouble, but those were non-existent in 1941 and still a minority in 1942.
And 2 rounds per minute??  Does that sound correct to anyone?  That sounds more like SU122 or SU152 firing rate.
Anyway, whether the video is over-hyped or not it's always fun to see tank discussions
 

You've got to be kidding me...
 
50+ 130 mm guns do not damage a single subsystem other than tracks to yellow. This weight of artillery falls onto these 3 tanks and yet every AA MG on the three tanks remains intact.
 
I just ran a quick test in Black Sea and showed the same issue unless I'm expected to believe that 12.7mm machine guns are made of Unobtainium.





------------------

What seems to be happening is that fragmentation effect will not do any damage to tank subsystems^1 . I've tested that by dropping a stupid amount of artillery onto tanks in airburst mode. After hundreds of rounds the tank can just drive off as if nothing as occurred.

I've also ran tests using general and again tanks will not take subsystem damage^1 when a round lands nearby. A shell landing onto a tank will sometimes cause subsystem damage but its not 100% (might be due to ERA?) but that also seems sorta incorrect.



^1 The only subsystem that will show any damage is tracks. No other subsystem will.

Well, the Soviets have not been shy to invest in money when they think it's worth it - missile-armed tanks, gas turbine tanks, night vision, titanium hulled subs, all of which would demand the best available at the time. I think one of the big reasons is that ... the early thermal imagers just aren't that good, due to their very low number of elements.
This is what a M1 might look like through an optical sight with vertical FOV of 35 milliradians (~2 degrees) at 1000m:

Here's what it might look like in thermal. It's hot, so it's white, but we are now in grayscale:
A "Generation 0" sight (such as 1PN59) is said to use only 50 elements, so the vertical resolution is 50 pixels:

↑Despite the picture being maximally simplified and the tank is white to simulate how a tank pops out from its environs due to heat, does that even still look like a tank? It might be a good toy for specially trained recce troops, perhaps by making the straw even narrower. As a tank sight ... needs work.

↑This, with 100 lines, is about the level of a 1st generation tank sight. Agava-1 is said to be 100 lines. Leopard 2's first sight, EMES 15, would also be about this level (at 120 elements). Definitely getting better, but if it is say at 2000m, or the tank is hull down so its bottom is blocked, or you are thinking your target are much smaller and cooler infantrymen, or we degrade its contrast ratio by putting a real background behind it, put coverings on it to reduce its heat transmission ... etc, do you want to pay a substantial amount and look through 35 mrad straws for this?

↑Agava-2, at 256 elements. Ah, definitely becoming useful here. That's when the Soviets decided they finally had a viable tank sight ... but then the Soviet Union broke up.
That may well be the main differential point between NATO and the Soviets - whether to accept a resolution less than the 144p which is the crappiest resolution on Youtube or wait for 240p. I think NATO can accept the lower resolution because they are thinking they need to attack hot, mobile Soviet tanks and are willing to shoot at blobs that are only a bit better than a dot. The Soviets wanted something that can help them hunt down hull down tanks, small TOW jeeps and infantry.

I just hope that game engine 5 improves optimization for more modern machines. It's understandable that optimization doesn't always keep up if you have a small team, but lag does hamper my enjoyment quite a bit. 😥

I just hope that game engine 5 improves optimization for more modern machines. It's understandable that optimization doesn't always keep up if you have a small team, but lag does hamper my enjoyment quite a bit. 😥

I just hope that game engine 5 improves optimization for more modern machines. It's understandable that optimization doesn't always keep up if you have a small team, but lag does hamper my enjoyment quite a bit. 😥

I just hope that game engine 5 improves optimization for more modern machines. It's understandable that optimization doesn't always keep up if you have a small team, but lag does hamper my enjoyment quite a bit. 😥