T-24 - tank, ahead of its time

77
History it tank, which can be considered the grandfather of the T-34, for me personally began a very long time ago. While still a boy, in the journal “Science and Life”, in small pictures at the bottom of the page, made in black and white, I saw two tanks that hit me - T-24 and TG. Then I met the same “compilation” in the magazine “Young Technician”, but there was nothing about these tanks in either magazine. Then, a T-24 drawing with a short text was found in the book “Knights of Armor” by N. Ermolovich. And in 1980, I made my first tank - a model of the first Soviet tank “Freedom Fighter Comrade Lenin ”, who won the toy competition of the USSR Ministry of Industry and Trade. This was followed by the following series: T-27, T-26, BT-5, T-35, IS-2, which also became the winner of the 1982 competition. But ... I wanted to make a model of a previously unknown tank for the competition, which few people knew about and which, nevertheless, would play a certain role in the history of the development of the Russian BTT. And where I just did not go in search of his drawings, even to the famous Lenin - library to them. Lenin in Moscow, where, by the way, he found the drawings of the T-27 wedge ... in the list of chipboard ("top secret"), and they didn’t give them to me ... in 1988!


T-24 from the magazine Modelist Designer No. 9 for 1989



But then, when I wrote to NAMI, that, well, they say, I am such and such, and I need drawings of little-known tanks of the USSR, from where (it was already 1989 year) came a heavy envelope with ... blue T-24, T- 37 and T-27 with a gun! True, the last two cars were given fragmentary, the drawings were assembled “from pine forest”, but on the T-24 the blue was just in perfect condition, with all the signatures, performance characteristics and dimensions. And it was just awesome, on the scale of 1: 10, almost half a room! That is, so it was all there was not necessary, that they were glad to have all this to sell at least someone, and not just burn in the backyard.

That's how I became the owner of this rare blue and ... since here I was already a member of the MAFVA British Model Association, I decided to write an article about this tank in their journal. With great difficulty, I found a person who, on the basis of this blueprint, made me drawings on the scale of 1: 35 and a little material (and they also had a small Tankette magazine), who went there and was immediately printed. The second material, already large, went to the magazine "Model-Designer". And there they did not believe me! “Drawings are considered lost! Where did you get them from? ”I’m writing from blue, they say, and blue from US. “Send it to us for examination!” Sent, and as a result she’s covered in the editorial office, but a large article about T-12 / T-24 tanks appeared in Model Designer No. XXNX for 9 a year along with a very beautiful color tab. The article for the authorship of Romadin, Baryatinsky and Shpakovsky began with the words that, undoubtedly, the proposed material for all those interested in armored vehicles would be a real sensation, since nobody had previously written about T-1989 / T-12 tanks, moreover in such detail. And although my colleagues wrote a lot of it, especially about T-24, I was very pleased that there would not be my blueness, there was not this article either! And so, after some time after 12, the year was released to the joy of the model-collectors of the BTT, even the combined model T-1991.

And since there is hardly any special sense to repeat and write about what has already been written, it seems to me that there will be more interesting things, namely, to look at this tank through the prism of our current knowledge, to see the opportunities, missed chances and prospects of this car.


T-24 in war paint. Impressive, isn't it?

So, the tank appeared in the USSR at the turn, namely in the 1930 year. This year was a turning point in all respects, primarily because ... in the West another global crisis of capitalism began. And the crisis is the dissatisfaction of the working people, the revolutionary situation and the world revolution, about which then all the newspapers wrote, but which for some reason did not and did not go. But after all, if the proletariat had started “there” and “them,” we were asked, it would not have been the case for the carriages to rush to the West? Of course they would have rushed, but only with tanks then there would have been a problem: they simply did not exist. That is, there were, of course, MC-1, and many, but it was not at all what was required. They would not have reached the Atlantic Ocean. As A. Gaidar wrote in his story “The Commandant of the Snow Fortress” (although not about tanks, but about a tractor, but on the whole it’s very similar) - “the petrol tank is small and the gears are big”.

T-24 - tank, ahead of its time

T-24 on running trials without weapons.

But the most interesting thing is not that the tank arrived in time for the 1929 crisis of the year, but that it was developed in the USSR in the 1927 year, when no crises in the West even smelled, but full “prosperity” reigned there. And, nevertheless, we have begun work on a technically complex "maneuverable tank" with multi-tiered armament. Again, it is interesting that this design had both many advantages and many disadvantages. The advantage was the ability to fire at once in several directions at the same time, which was later proved on the American tanks M3 "Lee". And the disadvantage is the same as that of the “Li”: the high height of the tank, and the difficulty with rotating the upper and lower towers - turning the lower one brought down the tip at the top. The Kharkov Locomotive Plant was to produce the tank.

At first they made T-12 (and it’s interesting that it should have had twin 6,5-mm machine guns of Fedorov under the Japanese cartridge). The tank was tested, then it was upgraded, and that’s how the T-24 tank turned out. And now let's see, with which foreign tank 1927, 1928, 1929, can we compare it? There are no such! His peer Vickers Medium had an engine in the front, an exorbitant height, one 47-mm cannon and one machine gun in the turret, two sides, an 16-8 mm armor and 24 km / h speed.


Medium tank T-24: 1 - the steering wheel, 2 - the mechanism of the tension of the tracks. 3 - suspension truck, 4 - drive wheel, 5 - silencer, 6 - fender, 7 - main tower hatch, 8 - small tower hatch, 9 - armored dampers for fuel and oil tank necks, 10 - engine cover transmission unit, 11 - engine compartment compartment compartment compartment compartment compartment compartment unit - the three-leaved hatch of the mechanic-driver, 12 - a towing earring.

The T-24, which became the first Soviet medium tank launched into serial production, had a 45 mm caliber cannon and two DT machine guns in the turret, and two more machine guns in the upper turret and in the front hull plate. The thickness of the main armor was 20 mm. The speed is only two kilometers less than that of the “Englishman”.


Combined model of polystyrene tank T-24 scale 1: 35 company Hobby Boss. Respect our cars abroad, eh? And even such!

The T-24 crew was thought out very rationally: a commander, a gunner, a driver and two machine gunners. Booking was also rational - it had an inclined arrangement of armor plates on the front of the case. The rollers of the undercarriage had rubber bandages, and the vertical coil springs protected by armored casings served as elastic suspension elements. The tank had a traditional removable “tail”, but in this case it did not spoil it. 8 cylinder aviation the M-6 engine had a power of 300 hp, which was quite enough for an 18,5-ton tank, since its specific power was 16 hp per ton of weight. But during the first tests in the summer of 1930, the tank failed a badly designed cooling system, which even caused the engine to catch fire.

The gun ammunition included 89 shots, including armor-piercing, fragmentation shells and even ... canister. But only though the tank itself was ready for the 1930 year, the T-24 guns were received only in the 1932 year, and before that they drove only with machine-gun armament.


Tank during sea trials.

The first 15 serial T-24s were made in the second half of 1930 at the Kharkov Locomotive Plant, and armored hull tanks for them were made at the Izhora plant. Then they made another 10 T-24, after which the model of this tank was removed from production. In the battles, these tanks never participated, and were used solely as training. Also, a very interesting technical solution was the unification of the undercarriage of this tank with the artillery tractor "Comintern", which made it possible to significantly speed up the motorization of the Red Army and facilitate the development of the vehicle among the troops. That is, in all respects it was a tank ahead of its time in the 1927-29 years, corresponding to its time until the middle of the 30s and obsolete immediately after the start of the Spanish Civil War. However, all this time the equal to him was not in England, nor in France, much less in Germany and in Poland. That is, the level of design talent of its creators was not only satisfactory, but it was very high! What was bad then? But the bad, or rather, the bad was the technological basis of the then production! That is the embodiment of pans in the metal. Well, how to understand this when the tank is already in the metal and the gun for it is still being developed? Again, when the Americans needed the M3 tank, they made it from start to finish in just nine months and immediately launched into production. And here, with a high level of engineering design of the structure, technological "punctures" were counted in dozens: the engine burned, the tracks flew off, the friction clutches worked poorly. The equipment with which the tank was produced was useless. That is, many parts are customized in size with the help of a file. Naturally, the cost of such a tank "handmade" was very high. Unfortunately, 80 years have passed, but the low level of technological support is not completely obsolete today. Well, in the past he was almost the norm. Recall the termination of the acceptance of T-34 due to technological defects and even cracks in the armor, falling wings at the "yaks", a huge amount of marriage of the first radar, remote detonators, as the materials of the party archives clearly indicate. Come up with - anything you want! To do it in metal with the same quality (everything that was done at the end of the month, not to buy!) Is almost an impossible task - this is the scourge, and many years, of Soviet industry.


Assembled and painted model T-24.

Well, if we hypothetically look at the T-24, then we will have a tank, the development of which is a more powerful engine, thicker armor, more powerful gun, could determine the appearance of Soviet tank building for decades by successive transition from one modification to another. , more perfect! And, perhaps, T-34 would also appear on its basis much earlier. That is, this is a tank ... yes, it has overtaken its time, but because of the technological backwardness of the production of that time, it did not say its weighty word in battle and remained, in fact, an experienced machine.


Tank T-24, used as a target for artillery.
77 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +8
    19 September 2016 06: 49
    Or maybe it's for the best that this "monstrous" did not go into a large series. The tank is clearly overloaded with weapons and it also clearly lacks hatches, the losses among the crews would be monstrous. I would very much like to know how the duties in the crew were distributed, who played the role of the "offhand" and where the commander was ...
    1. +18
      19 September 2016 07: 14
      It's easy for us educated, well-read. request And in those conditions, design a machine for the armament that is, and even such that the recovering industry was able to produce it request Therefore, it is not surprising that samples appeared, both perfect for their time, and passing ones. But all the same, as a result, at the right time, in various roundabout ways, a "thirty-four" wink
      1. +6
        19 September 2016 07: 46
        But she would not have appeared if the T-24 had not appeared!
        1. +7
          19 September 2016 12: 48
          Why did it happen?
          The T-34 is a development of the Christie tank line - BT-2 - BT-5 - BT-7 - BT-7A. And it was the BT-2 that became the "killer" of the T-24.
          So the T-24 can be considered the reason for the appearance of the T-34 only in the sense that, looking at the T-24, the Soviet leadership decided to purchase licenses for tanks abroad - as a result, the BT line appeared, the crown of which was the T-34.
          1. +2
            16 January 2017 19: 06
            Forgive me, dear experts in the pre-war explosion of engineering, which in fact turned out to be frank trash.
            This is a great article for another failed war.
            And what was, what became, and fought with that. Very bad and not at all as expected. Not as expected by our chief commanders and their field marshals, but simply - standing to death.
            Glory to the tankmen!
      2. avt
        +3
        19 September 2016 10: 31
        Quote: Rurikovich
        Therefore, it is not surprising that samples appeared, both perfect for their time, and passing.

        And if you add the "fiery love" at that time of Marshal Misha to Ginzburg, then the car had no chance at all.
    2. Cat
      +12
      19 September 2016 07: 18
      He did not go into the series due to the weak technological base of the Soviet state in the late 20s. But the T-12 (T-24) and its peer T-18 (MS-1) gave our designers invaluable experience, which was implemented in subsequent combat vehicles, up to and including T-34.
      It was these nondescript cars that were the first "plasteel" of our designers like Koshkin, Morozov, etc.
      1. +11
        19 September 2016 07: 39
        Yes, that was exactly so. People learn from something ... But it's nice that even the first training casts came out like that! One would not be surprised if the tank did not go at all. And here is such a car!
        1. +6
          19 September 2016 08: 46
          Quote: kalibr
          Yes, that was exactly so. People learn from something ... But it's nice that even the first training casts came out like that! One would not be surprised if the tank did not go at all. And here is such a car!

          Thanks for the article, Vyacheslav Olegovich.
          hi
          Very interesting and rare material.
          It was read in one breath.)))
          good
        2. +3
          19 September 2016 19: 43
          For its time, just a breakthrough!
          You're right!
          Thank you!
          Take out the machine gun on the roof of the commander independent turrets and layout is absolutely modern.
          Yours!
      2. +2
        19 September 2016 16: 06
        experience not only was not in vain. The T-24 base went under the production of the Comintern artillery tractors, of which almost 1800 were produced, and 568 survived to the Victory (not a bad figure for a vehicle that met a war).
        IMHO, the attention was attracted by the side machine gun mount in the tower. Is it a tribute to time, or did Dyrenkov have a hand in it?
        1. +1
          19 September 2016 19: 47
          Most likely the first. Because it was the same on other machines, although the idea is dubious. And without that, the tower is cramped. But the idea was to stand across the trench and put it in two fires, without losing the goal ahead.
          1. 0
            19 September 2016 21: 55
            Yes, and the highest development of this, we can say, were the T-28 and T-35, although the British did similar machines - Mk I

            Dyrenkov made embrasures in general from all sides, this, one might say, was his characteristic style, which is why it was thought. He had interesting projects of armored vehicles, he even poked embrasures there. It seems you wrote about them? I can be wrong hi
    3. +5
      19 September 2016 07: 38
      Well, if we hypothetically look at the T-24, then we will see a tank, the development of which is a more powerful engine, a thicker armor, a more powerful gun, could for decades determine the appearance of Soviet tank construction by gradually moving from one modification to another more perfect!

      Yeah, if we approach the Renault FT in a similar way, we get the T-34, and if you go to the T-34, we get the T-62.
      I don’t remember which of the authors of many books about tanks wrote that it was necessary to develop the T-28 / T-29 concept and we would have a medium tank superior in its capabilities to the T-34 at a lower cost. So that there can be many opinions on this issue and each can be justified.
      Although, on the other hand, it’s a sin for anyone, but it’s a sin for us to complain that the development of domestic tank building went the way it went. As a result, it was the Soviet tank school that became the world leader, avoiding major mistakes and choosing the right directions for development ...
      1. +3
        19 September 2016 11: 15
        Quote: qwert
        I don’t remember which of the authors of many books about tanks wrote that it was necessary to develop the concept of the T-28 / T-29 and we would have an average tank superior in its capabilities to the T-34 at a lower cost.

        Uv. M. Svirin was very fond of setting an example of a modernized T-28 with a torsion bar suspension and without machine-gun turrets - "this is how a normal medium tank could look like." He generally considered the T-28 the most advanced Soviet tank of the interwar period.
        But he also said that the price of this tank would be the rejection of heavy tanks. For LKZ type 2 tanks will not stand - in real life the KV gobbled up the T-28, and the plant did not even complete the modernization of the tanks taken from the army (which then had to be looked for by the forces of an entire commission - and it found bare hulls and incomplete "guts"). Plus the limited production - the production rate at first would not have exceeded the T-28. Plus, in this version, it was necessary to do something with Kharkov, which could not produce anything except BT-like ones.
      2. 0
        20 September 2016 02: 11
        As a result, it was the Soviet tank school that became the world leader, avoiding major mistakes and choosing the right directions for development ...


        It depends on when and what your statement looks like. T-62, T-64, T-72 were at one time machines giving an advantage for a while, T-64 and T-72 are still not taken by anybody and do not risk an extra blow of 125 mm. But AZ and BC in the BO for today's realities means low crew survivability when breaking through the armor, that's why they are cutting Armata now.
    4. 0
      19 September 2016 07: 49
      In principle, remove the upper turret and there will be a classic WWII tank.
      1. +6
        19 September 2016 08: 02
        Here is the "turret" just to remove nowhere and is not necessary. It must be equipped with a maximum of observation devices, creating a classic "commander's cupola"
    5. +2
      19 September 2016 07: 53
      There were three hatches: a tricuspid one on the hull for the driver and machine gunner and two on the turret for the commander and loader. The loader served the DT machine gun and the shoulder-rest cannon, which. directed the "bashner". And the commander, as expected, sat in the upper turret, saw everything, knew everything and fired from the diesel fuel. I don’t know exactly how the connection was carried out, but somehow. Otherwise, such a scheme would not have been applied. And yes, of course, a couple more hatches would have been nice. But the T-34 initially had 2 hatches for 4!
      1. 0
        19 September 2016 08: 06
        Quote: kalibr
        tricuspid on the case for the driver and machine gunner and two on the tower - for the commander and loader.
        But judging by the article, there was ONE more, since the crew was of FIVE people. As I understand it, he also had to go out through the upper hatch, but first let someone in front of him. But the odds for him and the machine gunner were not very high.
        1. AUL
          +3
          19 September 2016 12: 18
          But the T-12 (T-24) and its peer T-18 (MS-1) gave our designers invaluable experience, which was implemented in subsequent combat vehicles, up to and including T-34.

          You know, I caught the main idea of ​​the article in a slightly different way.
          Our designers have developed many original and innovative designs. How successful they were in different ways. In this case, with a fairly successful design development (for that time), they could not make a car. The reason is the wild lag in industry in terms of technology, the lack of the necessary production base (machine park, necessary equipment), the lack of necessary technological processes, competent technologists and skilled workers. And these factors in our production to one degree or another manifest themselves to this day.
          There is such a sad joke (may moderators forgive me for a small flood!):
          Japanese specialists arrived at our factory. They are all shown, boasted of achievements ...
          After the reporters ask them:
          - How did you like our production?
          “You have very good children!”
          - Yes, children are our wealth. And our production is yours?
          - And everything you do with your hands is very, very bad!
          So it turns out that we can come up very well, we have a lot of talents. But we do it with our hands ...
          1. 0
            19 September 2016 19: 48
            You understood correctly!
        2. 0
          19 September 2016 13: 27
          Not. Only three!
  2. Cat
    +4
    19 September 2016 07: 08
    Many thanks to the author for the article. I dare to suggest that not far off is an article about another "invisible" 30-ies - the Grotto tank "TG". Waiting ....
  3. 0
    19 September 2016 07: 09
    Taps for water are still not good at learning how to talk about more serious products.
    1. +4
      19 September 2016 07: 13
      Yes, but we won the war and fly into space. Apparently on this and on "little things" forces are not enough.
    2. +14
      19 September 2016 07: 31
      Quote: Viktor fm
      Taps for water are still not good at learning how to talk about more serious products.

      And refrigerators, televisions, radios, etc. for half a century work. By the way, in old houses there are still overhead cranes on highways with grease seal and still work. And the Korean faucet, which I put at the entrance to the toilet barrel, covered me in 4 of the year. It is painful that we love to admire the West, it is painful that everything in them is beautiful, brilliant, and we, like magpies, are doing this. And dig a little deeper ..
      1. +1
        19 September 2016 07: 35
        Buy a domestic faucet in the kitchen, in the bathroom and enjoy.
        1. +5
          19 September 2016 07: 41
          Do they even exist? Where not to throw everywhere "made in China"
          1. 0
            19 September 2016 07: 45
            They are. I bought a Rostov faucet in the kitchen, flowed a month later. Chinese 3 years no problem. German has been in the bathroom for 5 years without problems, although the water is dirty every other day. But helicopters in Rostov are good, and I am proud of this.
            1. 0
              19 September 2016 14: 27
              There are also very good quality. I myself was surprised when after installing it on the box I read that the faucet is domestic, and the price pleased.
            2. 0
              19 September 2016 14: 29
              At home, domestic cranes from 99 worked, recently replaced. And then one was killed by stupidity.
              1. 0
                20 September 2016 02: 36
                The life cycle of all kinds of fenders depends not only on the quality of materials and development, but especially on the quality of the water and its composition.
        2. +2
          19 September 2016 07: 44
          There are also durable faucets "there", but they are expensive!
      2. +1
        19 September 2016 07: 43
        One does not cancel the other. Different approaches. We have one thing - they "buy fragile things more often." Clash of mentalities. What's better; a plastic machine that does not need to be cleaned and disassembled, or a Kalashnikov if both shoot the same? While the first robot drone is delivered on the first call, it is "plastic". But if the drone did not arrive ... then the Kalashnikov.
      3. 0
        20 September 2016 02: 32
        There are also westerners who have been working for half a century; for 80 years old grandmothers have been sewing with Singer sewing machines all over Russia. But our refrigerators were often the cause of the fire, and in general there were enough problems with the quality, not only worked for half a century, there was no constant quality, the same model of something could differ dramatically in quality. Western "Western" difference, there are brands that are responsible for the quality and approach there to the smallest detail, and there are those that only glue the logo of the former glory, but in fact, the components are supplied from Asia. Nothing less than tough competition and fair market economy, the best guarantee of quality.
    3. 0
      21 September 2016 16: 24
      [quote = Viktor fm] let's not. foreign from a single-use tap to a century-old. it all depends on the price. and manufacturer. therefore, it is not necessary to compare which hand is better and which hand can be dispensed with.
  4. +3
    19 September 2016 07: 36
    Artem Drabkin's book "I fought in a tank" recounts the memoirs of the Hero of the Soviet Union Ashot Apetovich Amatuni, describing the battles in the Salsk steppes in the summer of 1942, in which he participated as a cadet at an infantry school:
    "... From the Surovikino station we marched to the front line ... somewhere 120-140 km west of Surovikino we took up defensive positions ... the tanks posed the greatest danger for us, because the only means of dealing with them were only Molotov cocktails ... against us are not light tanks T-II, but medium T-III and T-IV, serious opponents. ”By the end of the battles, the British tanks" Matilda "and our T-24s began to support us, but these were small and bad tanks, that's really helped us T-26 ... "
    1. Cat
      +3
      19 September 2016 07: 51
      Earlier reading these lines, I doubted the reliability of the participation of the T-24 in the battles of the Second World War. Too few have been made. More likely, apparently an error of the editor or author. This is not about the T-24, but another tank model.
      1. +2
        19 September 2016 07: 55
        Cat... But an interesting fact .. the veteran could have made a mistake .. And then he confused with what tank .. T-24 .. very specific .. maybe confused with BT-2 .. although ..
        1. Cat
          +4
          19 September 2016 08: 14
          Maybe...
          I will give an example from life.
          My grandfather, who fought as a gunner from 1943 to 1945, was unshakably convinced until the end of his life that the German T1 (Pz1) was a heavy tank with a cannon. Moreover, the other WWII tanks were distinguished by silhouettes both in front and in profile. My father and I specifically experimented with cutting out the youth technology magazine in the early 90s. Grandfather put on glasses, and in my memory he was never mistaken. And the T-1 was for him a multi-turret heavy tank with a gun, which, well, wasn’t the same tankette with the coaxial machine guns that we showed him.
          1. +1
            19 September 2016 19: 51
            I had a retired colonel at my department: I firmly believed that the T-34/76 had a 5-man crew! And on the T-34/85 - 4 - "I fought on it." And no matter how much I showed him pictures from the Youth Technique and MK, the Soviet Encyclopedia - I stood my ground - "I fought on it!" - I got the whole department !!!
      2. PPD
        0
        19 September 2016 11: 13
        There was information that they participated in fortified areas as BOTs.
        And so, alas, lying. And more likely Drabkin.
        1. +1
          19 September 2016 11: 47
          Quote: PPD
          And so, alas, lying. And more likely Drabkin.

          Why is lying right away? There could be either a decryption error, or the veteran really believed that the tanks he saw were called T-24.
          Remember the textbook case with Penezhko and his "Rheinmetals".
          1. PPD
            0
            20 September 2016 12: 49
            I have a suspicion that Penezhko did not meet with Rheinmetall, but with our t 28.
            Which the Germans tried to use.
        2. +1
          19 September 2016 11: 54
          Quote: PPD
          And so, alas, lying. And more likely Drabkin.

          and what is not immediately Putin? if a
          Interview and literary adaptation: Y. Trifonov
      3. +1
        19 September 2016 13: 29
        Of course, this is a mistake!
    2. +1
      19 September 2016 11: 31
      Quote: parusnik
      British tanks "Matilda" and our T-24, but they were small and bad tanks, that really helped us T-26 ...

      There’s a veteran’s mistake. Perhaps it is connected with politics. Matylda - small and bad, also English, but the T-26 really helped? It must be kept in mind that people are fighting, not tanks. In 1942, the experimental on the T-26 was more painful than on the Matyldy. But in this case, one cannot fail to notice its armor against the bulletproof T-26 and diesel against gasoline, with other things being practically equal. I’m breathing unevenly towards the Matyldam, my grandfather fought after all. And burned, but not burned. As he said, set fire from a flamethrower. They drove off the tank, covered it with tarpaulin - it went out. T-26 in such a situation?
      1. -1
        21 July 2017 15: 53
        Well of course a mistake. How is it, an English tank - and suddenly not good. Each expert knows that all of ours is always worse than theirs.
    3. 0
      20 September 2016 08: 20
      Quote: parusnik
      our T-24, but they were small and bad tanks, that really helped us T-26 ...
      Drabkin was clearly mistaken. The T-24 cannot be called small, nor can the T-26 be considered as such. Everything is exactly the opposite. The T-26 was very compact.
      Now I’ll be thinking about which tank the veteran spoke ..... sad Maybe T-38? Or T-40? Or T-30 ?????
      1. +1
        20 September 2016 09: 57
        Quote: qwert
        Now I’ll be thinking about which tank the veteran spoke ..... sad Maybe the T-38? Or T-40? Or T-30 ?????

        Summer 1942? Perhaps the T-60 - and working only with a machine gun (because just in the summer of 1942 went mass failures TNSH).
  5. +1
    19 September 2016 07: 44
    Interesting article. Grotte read about this tank as well as about Tank in his youth in the Modeller - Constructor - there were no more access and materials - the only exception is the Historical Series in Technique - youth. For the article - Thank you!
  6. +1
    19 September 2016 08: 00
    Quote: qwert
    Quote: Viktor fm
    Taps for water are still not good at learning how to talk about more serious products.

    And refrigerators, televisions, radios, etc. for half a century work. By the way, in old houses there are still overhead cranes on highways with grease seal and still work. And the Korean faucet, which I put at the entrance to the toilet barrel, covered me in 4 of the year. It is painful that we love to admire the West, it is painful that everything in them is beautiful, brilliant, and we, like magpies, are doing this. And dig a little deeper ..
    lying, well, lying, for the refrigerators with reservations you can still believe it, but for the rest, no, I remember two telly from childhood, tauras black and white, and a color record, both were traditionally in the workshop every two to three months, and By the way, who knew how to repair the equipment then, they lived in chocolate, and a few words for the bourgeois household, my mother still has a Panasonic TV and a Mitsubishi refrigerator, the first 94 onwards, there are not even instructions in Russian, pure Japanese, the second 91g.w even a rubber band native on the door like new
    1. +2
      19 September 2016 08: 59
      And I have a biryusa refrigerator 92g.v. at home and quite operational. So once at a time it is not necessary.
      1. +2
        19 September 2016 10: 30
        And I have the Sviyaga of the 90th. And tired and throw a pity.
      2. +3
        19 September 2016 14: 33
        Saratov 1976 and still working
    2. +3
      19 September 2016 10: 56
      TV Start 6M, was bought somewhere in 1969 or 1970, as "substandard" for 160 rubles. Only the picture tube was changed because of one capacitor. He worked until 1984, and retired at the expense of a colored man, but working in all respects.
    3. +3
      19 September 2016 11: 35
      Quote: Perseus
      you're lying, well, you're lying

      At about the same time my friend and I entered into a dispute with our wives. Mine was throwing a "Russia" receiver at me. The entire body kit flew off from the impact on the furniture, but he did not stop working. Sonya was thrown at a friend. That one could not be restored.
    4. +2
      19 September 2016 11: 54
      Quote: Perseus
      lying, well, lying, for the refrigerators with reservations you can still believe it, but for the rest, no, I remember two telly from childhood, tauras black and white, and a color record, both were traditionally in the workshop every two to three months

      Heh heh heh ... You still remember the first Soviet color TVs. "Ruby" and "Rainbow" - fire in every house! smile
      And "Elektronika-Ts432" could be set up as a training stand in a school that produced adjusters and repairers of household equipment - 8 failures per year, each time for different reasons.
    5. +2
      19 September 2016 12: 41
      The Ocean radio receiver in 1986 still works, as well as the Vega 109 turntable and the Babinny Mayak-203, and the Record radio, such a floor-standing one, on legs.
    6. +3
      23 September 2016 08: 34
      Actually, an article about tanks. but once the topic went for refrigerators. tongue In the USSR, the best refrigerators were ZIL, Oka and, like Minsk, although I'm not sure here. At my house there is an Oka produced in 1992. Has transferred 5 crossings, from one intercity one and still works great. This is a fact. The rest of the brands were really not quoted by the population. It's the same with other household appliances. Those. I will repeat the thought that has already sounded: everything depends on the specific manufacturer. A frank marriage went already in the nineties, especially when the manufacturer's warranty was canceled. But this is already a question for our "reformers", an aspen stake to their grave am But again, I repeat: the conversation is for tanks. There are claims to tanks wink ? And by the way, with all due respect to the author: let's not forget that this was 1930. For three decades, the country suffered three wars (Japanese, World War I, civil), three revolutions (1905, February 1917, October 1917), half destroyed, plundered by "rescuers" and "allies" and nevertheless already designs and makes equipment itself unparalleled (again, according to the author). In my opinion, worthy of respect. But this is already a topic for another conversation.
  7. +2
    19 September 2016 08: 14
    However, all this time there were no equal to him either in England or in France, and even less so in Germany and Poland.
    This is SO a bold conclusion that I was taken aback at once. It turns out that the author "does not see" either the English "Vickers 10-ton" or the Czech "LT"?
    1. 0
      19 September 2016 12: 31
      T-24 began to be built in 1930, LT vz.35 entered the army only after 5 years, but Vickers 10 ton .... You do not specify the index of the machine, but somehow I can not hear. I recall only the Polish development of Vickers 6-ton, he is the Polish 7TP - ten-ton 10TP, but this was later.
      In any case, the T-24 was a huge step forward.
    2. 0
      19 September 2016 13: 31
      Svp67 answer. Look at the years ... Then when what happened. Then make me laugh! By the way, what is Vickers-10-ton? 6 and 16 I know. But 10?
  8. +8
    19 September 2016 08: 53
    I agree with both hands with those comments in which we acknowledge our "wisdom" and skepticism, looking at the creation of almost a century ago. Yes, it is now easy for us to disparagingly point out the shortcomings - the suspension is anachronistic ... the armament is located incorrectly ... the body should not be riveted, but cooked ... And what was it like for those engineers and mechanics who had only French Renault before their eyes, yes Angian "rhombus"? how not to copy, but to embody something new? And they went on bold, fantastic experiments for those times. Well, the fact that the tank turned out ... so-so ... He did his job. He helped engineers and the military to develop new concepts, choose the right direction.
  9. +1
    19 September 2016 09: 03
    A sad story with the state of industry was and it is a fact, although it was impossible to forget what happened, the pride and truth for the designers cannot but appear, and-16, tb-3, the same t-24 and much more.
  10. +4
    19 September 2016 10: 43
    "... where, by the way, I found the drawings of the T-27 tankette ... in the list of DSP (" sov.secret ") ..." belay laughing
    Chipboard is FOR OFFICE USE !!! BEFORE "Sov.secretno" Chipboard as up to a famous city in a famous pose!
    1. PPD
      0
      19 September 2016 11: 23
      Drawings, by the way, are oblique - look at the ledge on the machine gun case
      1. 0
        19 September 2016 13: 35
        Made with blue in 1 scale: 10!
    2. 0
      19 September 2016 13: 34
      I was also surprised - the year 27, but they do not give me to 1987!
  11. +1
    19 September 2016 13: 29
    yes, ahead of his time, but because of the technological backwardness of the then production, he never said his weighty word in battle and, in fact, remained an experimental machine.

    T-24 - tank, ahead of its time
    Everything must be done. when there are opportunities; and let him overtake, but they did. Raised (re-educated) peasants: from a horse and barge haulers to ICE and Airplane
  12. +2
    19 September 2016 22: 23
    definitely ahead of his time. a good idea, and technically at the highest level for that time.
  13. 0
    21 September 2016 10: 59
    Excellent article, everything is clear, concise, competently, without any admixture. There are more such articles, more often, the essence is in one paragraph, and the three-volume textbook, and even a bunch of links to other people's material. And as the article intensified plumbers and home appliances lovers! Let's also connect aviators - how long should the wings be attached to the tank and from which mountain should it be let fly? Accepted only clear mathematical calculations.
  14. +2
    21 September 2016 12: 21
    I had to serve and work NSC, so in the first in my life I learned that "DSP" (For official use) is similar to "SS" (Soviet secret). And so, according to the article itself, it is quite informative. In principle, in my non-professional opinion (well, I'm not a tanker!), The vehicle had options for modernization, such as: remove the machine-gun turret, replace it with the commander's turret, remove the onboard machine guns from the turret, install a more powerful weapon, welded or cast hull, BT rollers, etc. etc.
  15. 0
    23 September 2016 23: 04
    Interesting machine. I first learned about it from this article. Surprisingly))
    Thanks to the author!
  16. 0
    25 September 2016 19: 49
    . But if it had begun “there” and “their” the proletariat would have asked us,
    wouldn't the carts rush to the West?

    Strongly written. Not really, yes!
    Famously. Quotes and dashes anywhere except in the wrong place. It is necessary in the word "asked".
  17. 0
    April 7 2017 19: 22
    I haven’t been on the site for a long time, but then they remembered such a development.
    Firstly, the author is poorly versed in the topic and looks at it from the perspective of a modeler.
    Secondly, the T-24 looked good against the background of the T-18 (from the point of view of technical achievements, it was the other way round - the T-18 power unit was installed in a single unit across the body), but against the background of (the same age) Vickers 6-ton (cannon) already looked bad. And the Vickers had 12- and 16-ton models that completely surpassed the T-24. As a result, the T-26 (Vickers 6-ton) and BT-2/5 supplanted the T-24 from all possible niches.
    Thirdly, based on Vickers’s 16th ton, they made the T-28, which became the best tank in the world until the early 40s, which was the first attempt to make the main tank in the modern sense, which offered a level of comfort for tankers, repeated only in The 60s on domestic equipment, which could be brought to the level of T-44, but which had not had full-time cannon weapons all its life, although almost all tank guns of up to 95 mm caliber were worked on it.