Tank Grote - "the result of politics and the sacrifice of technology"

71
Perhaps nowhere ideology had such an impact on the processes of creating armored weapons, as in the USSR. Moreover, everything, in general, was good until the “black Thursday” of October 24 1929. This day is considered the day of the beginning of the global economic crisis. True, there was still a short-term rise in prices on October 25, but then the fall took a catastrophic character on Black Monday (October 28) and then Black Tuesday (October 29). October 29 Day 1929 of the year is considered the day of the collapse of Wall Street. Throughout the year, the US economy gradually collapsed, until at the end of 1930, investors began to massively withdraw their money from banks, which also led to the bankruptcy of banks and the wild contraction of the money supply. The second banking panic came in the spring of 1931 ...

Tank Grote - "the result of politics and the sacrifice of technology"

Tank TG. Photo 1940 of the year.



Well, how did all this react in the USSR? Already on December 27, 1929, Stalin in his speech at a conference of Marxist agrarians called for a transition to a policy of continuous collectivization of agriculture and the elimination of the kulaks as a class. And already on December 30, 1929, I. Khalepsky’s commission went abroad “to buy Tanks". At the same time, negotiations began in Germany with the aim of inviting knowledgeable BTT design specialists to work in the USSR.

The connection between all these events is evident. Before that, in the West, there was a recession of the revolutionary wave, and in the United States they started talking about the “period of prosperity”, suffered a defeat of the revolution in Germany and Hungary, and now only Pravda wrote about the world revolution, but dreamed Makar Nagulnov in Sholokhov "Raised virgin soil." And then suddenly a crisis, and at that time even the child knew that after the crisis came revolutions.


TG TG on tests in 1931 year.

And it seemed to be obvious that they were about to come, the proletariat of the Western countries would rise up to fight, ask us for help, and that was when we would extend to him ... no, not a helping hand, but an iron armored fist, which should wipe out all the remaining bourgeoisie from the face of the earth. But ... just with a fist, and there were big problems. At that time there were no tanks in the USSR suitable, firstly, for mass production, and secondly, our western adversaries, superior tanks of Poland, France and England, superior in their performance characteristics.


Tank TG. Front view.

And it was then that Khalepsky went to the West to look for all this, but in addition from Germany in March 1930, designer Edward Grote arrived in the USSR in April, who was given the task in April to design a tank of 18-20 tons, which has a speed of 35- 40 km / h and armor thickness 20-mm. The armament of the tank was supposed to be very powerful at that time: two 76 and 37-mm caliber guns and in addition five machine guns. All other characteristics of the tank were left to the discretion of the designer. The control over the work of the Grote group was carried out by the Technical Department of the OGPU - that is, the organization is more than serious. Meanwhile, the Khalepsky Time Commission did not lose the gift and in March 1930 also acquired the Vikkers Mk.II in England, the Karden-Loyd Mk.VI tankettes and another the Vikkers 15-ton tanker in March, the latter was bought together with the license for its production. Well, a month later, Walter Christie in the United States bought two of his tanks, T.6, but without towers and weapons.


Tank TG. Back view.

To develop a prototype at the Leningrad plant "Bolshevik" created the design office ABO-5, where, in addition to the Grote itself, young Soviet specialists worked, for example, N.V. Barykov, who became his deputy from our side, and then one of the famous creators of the national armored vehicles.

A new tank, designed as a medium or “powerful medium tank,” as it was often called in the documents at that time, was given the designation TG (Tank Grote). Work on the tank went under the strict supervision of the OGPU and were considered top secret. 17 – 18 November 1930 of the year came to the plant itself Commissary Voroshilov. First of all, to check how the work with the TG is going, especially since the Grotto in Soviet Russia managed to fall ill and it turned out that the whole burden of fine-tuning the prototype fell on the shoulders of Soviet engineers.


TG TG on tests overcomes the rise in 40 degrees. Autumn 1931

However, the tank was ready as early as April 1931, after which its tests were immediately launched. It was decided that if they were successful, they would release the first series of 50-75 machines in the same year, and start mass production of them with 1932, and produce at least 2000!

But what did Soviet military specialists get after so much trouble and ... paying a considerable salary to foreign technical specialists, who, as we know, did not agree to work for us cheaply? And they got an average tank of an unusual layout for those years, and in addition with a three-tier arrangement of cannon-machine-gun weapons and, as was indicated, only with bullet-proof armor.


Tank TG. Side view. Pay attention to the identification "stars". For the first and last time they were first riveted, and then painted.

The hull, as well as the tank turret, was made completely welded (and this was done in the USSR for the first time in the world!). The tank had a nose with armor that had rational angles of inclination, a streamlined form of wheelhouse and a hemispherical rotating tower on it, topped with a stroboscope. According to the project, this cutting was also supposed to rotate. That is, it would be more correct to say that the tank would have to have a tower with a two-tier arrangement of armament in the lower and upper turret with individual rotation, but it so happened that the epaulet of the lower turret deformed during assembly and we had to make the first sample with a turret, welded to the body, and willy-nilly turned into a "cabin". Although in the future this defect was wanted to be eliminated, and, as planned, to make the lower tower rotating. The booking of the hull was three-layered, and the thickness of the armor reached 44 mm. On the sides, the armor had a thickness of 24 mm, and at the deckhouse and the upper tower was equal to 30 mm. But the main advantage of the TG tank was, perhaps, the most unprecedented weaponry for that time.


Another drawn projection of the TG tank. The lack of manholes for such a large crew is striking. Well, if only they could arrange the doors in the back of the cabin.

So, on it stood 76,2-mm semi-automatic gun A-19 (PS-19) - at that time the most powerful tank gun in the whole world. Designer P. Syacintov developed it on the basis of the 76,2-mm anti-aircraft gun model 1914 / 15. (the Lender or Tarnovsky-Lender cannons), which was seriously redone for installation on a tank, is equipped with a barrel cushion and, in addition, a muzzle brake - which for the tanks of that time was just something out of the ordinary!

The gun was installed on the axles in the front plate in the cabin of the tank. She had a semi-automatic loading, which allowed her to have a rate of fire of about 10 – 12 per minute. Well, the initial velocity of the projectile was 588 m / s at all, that is, according to this indicator, it was only slightly inferior to the later guns that stood on the T-34 and the American cannon on the M3 Lee / Grant tanks. She could shoot 6,5-kilogram shells from the "three-inch", which made her very, very destructive weapons, because even her shrapnel, put “on strike”, could easily smash 20 mm armor of any tank of that time. However, when shooting, it turned out that the semi-automatic firing of this gun provided by the project is actually impossible, since semiautomatic often fails, and then it has to be discharged manually. Ammunition shells to it consisted of 50 shots of different types, that is, it was a weapon to become!

The 37-mm PS-1 high-power cannon, also designed by P. Syachintov, was used as the second gun in the upper spherical turret. At the same time, it not only had a circular attack, but also such an angle of ascent that it could shoot at planes. The large barrel length allowed the initial velocity of the projectile to be provided in 707 m / s. True, according to this indicator, it was inferior to the 37-mm anti-tank gun model 1930 of the year, but it was adapted to be mounted on a tank. Its ammunition, located in the upper tower, was 80 shells.

Auxiliary weapons for some reason were three machine guns "Maxim" in the gun-house and two DT in the sides of the hull. The latter fired through round embrasures in the armor screens. It can not be said that the TG machine guns would be well thought out. So, in particular, the installation of the Maxim machine guns in the wheelhouse made it extremely difficult to use them; moreover, they needed water, and their covers, unlike the machine guns that were placed on British tanks of those years, were not armored and therefore vulnerable to bullets and splinters. To machine gun relied ammunition from 2309 cartridges, both in tapes and in disk stores.


And here it is clearly seen that the gun barrel is too short, and the control compartment, and the headlights located here will be affected by a very strong muzzle wave.

The three-tiered armament of the tank, according to its creators, was supposed to create a high density of fire in all directions. For example, it was believed that a tank could stand across the trench and shoot it with machine gun fire from both sides. However, in practice, all these theoretical installations turned out to be of little use, but the technical solutions that provided them made it very difficult for tank crews to perform more important and real tasks.

But the creators of TG took care of installing the most up-to-date observation devices on their tank. Thus, for aiming the guns, sights covered by dome strobe lights were used, each having two cylinders of armor steel inserted one into the other with slots 0,5 mm wide, which rotated towards each other with their own electric motor with speed 400 - 500 rpm. Similar strobe lights stood on the roof of the small gun turret, and in the place of the driver’s mechanic. Moreover, to observe the terrain, the latter had three “windows” in the frontal hull sheet at once, but his head was inside the stroboscope, so he looked through them, being protected by his armor!

The engine on the tank was also not quite ordinary, and it, just like the tank itself, was developed by Edward Grote. It was distinguished by a number of specific features, in particular, it had an unusual lubrication and cooling system for that time, a low noise level and (theoretically) had high reliability at a power of 250 hp. The last indicator for a machine of this weight can be considered insufficient, in addition, Grotte’s engine could not be brought to “mind”, so they put it on an experimental tank aviation 6-liter M-300 engine with. But since the M-6 was slightly larger than the Grotte engine, it had to be put in the casing openly. By the way, with this engine this tank was again very close to the American M3 “Lee / Grant”, whose engine power was 340 hp. weighing 27,9 tons, while the TG weighed 25, their performance in this regard was almost equal, although the American car was a decade younger than ours!


TG - clearly visible angles of inclination of the frontal armor of the hull.

The transmission of the tank included a main dry-friction disk friction clutch, a gearbox, side clutches, and single-row final drives. The gearbox was designed in such a way that it allowed the tank to move at the same speed both forward and backward in four gears and smoothly shift them. Chevron gears were used in the gearbox design.

The controls of the tank also differed from the generally accepted ones: instead of two levers, the designer put an aviation-style handle on it. That is, to turn the tank left-right, it was necessary to reject it in the right direction. Moreover, the transmission of force was not mechanical, but by means of pneumatic drives, which greatly facilitated the driver to control such a heavy machine.

Inside the track, the tank had five large-diameter rollers with semi-pneumatic “Elastic” tires, a spring suspension and pneumatic shock absorbers, four rollers supporting the track, the sloth in front and the driving wheel at the rear. All this in combination provided the Grote tank with a very soft and smooth ride.

The brakes on the tank were also pneumatic, and they were not only on the driving wheels, but also on all of the road wheels. It was believed that in the event of a caterpillar break, this would make it possible to instantly slow down the tank, and he would not have time to turn his aircraft over to the enemy.

Since practically everything was original in this tank, the caterpillars put an unusual type on it too. At the Grote tank, they consisted of two roller chains, between which stamped tracks were fixed. This design increased the breaking strength of the caterpillar; however, it was much more difficult to repair it in the field than the usual one.


Climbing into the tank was, of course, not too convenient!

It was repeatedly noted that the TG, thanks to its undercarriage on a flat and dense surface, could be freely rolled by the efforts of only a few people, while with tanks of other types it was simply not possible. For communication, a German-style radio station was to be installed on the tank.

The tank crew consisted of five people: the commander (he was the gunner of the 37-mm guns), the driver, the machine-gunner (who was to serve his numerous machine guns), the commander of the 76,2-mm guns and loader. But one machine gunner was not enough for designers, and in one of the versions of their project they added another one to the cabin with a gun, although there it was already very close. The tests of the tank took place from June 27 to October 1 1931, and this is what happened in the course of them.

The planned speed in 34 km / h was achieved. The tank was well managed and had sufficient permeability. The TG transmission on the chevron gears proved to be durable and reliable, and the pneumatic drives made the tank unusually easy to drive, although due to the poor quality of the tires, they constantly failed.

At the same time, it turned out that the gun-house was too close for 76,2-mm guns and three machine guns, and it was simply impossible to shoot them while firing from the gun. One single gearbox housing and side clutches made it difficult to access them during repairs, and it also overheated when driving. The brakes worked again not too satisfactorily due to the poor tightness of the seals, and the caterpillar showed poor cross on soft ground due to the low height of the lugs.

October 4 1931, by order of the USSR government, created a special commission, which was to study the new tank and its test data very carefully and decide its fate. And the commission did all this and decided that the TG tank could not be accepted for service, but could only be considered a purely experienced tank and nothing more.

As a result, ABO-5 was immediately disbanded, and the German engineers with the Grotto at the head in August 1933 were sent back to Germany. Attempts were made on the basis of the obtained developments to create tanks more acceptable to the domestic industry, but nothing came of this venture either. The technological level of Soviet industry was very low at that time.

What happened to the TG tank itself is unknown. Judging by the photos in 1940, it still existed in the metal, but did not survive World War II, but rather, was sent to be melted down.


The French tank Char de 20t Renault, 1936, better known as Char G1Rl, was a pathetic parody of the TG tank.

Nevertheless, it should be noted that even with the help of German designers, in the USSR it was possible to create a tank, which in its performance characteristics determined all other vehicles for a decade. The tank had the highest firepower, good armor protection, the most modern means of observation, would have to have a radio station, and besides, its creators almost for the first time in stories BTT was concerned about the convenience of the crew. The tank was much "stronger" than the T-28 tank that was being developed at the same time, not to mention the modern foreign tanks. However, all these qualities would be depreciated primarily by its low reliability, which, in turn, was the result of the extremely low level of technology development of the domestic industry of the time. TG required a lot of complex and accurately manufactured parts, and this meant the practical impossibility of its mass production and meeting the needs of the Red Army in tanks in the context of the impending "world revolution", which ultimately determined its fate. But he certainly gave some experience, and this experience was more or less successfully used by our engineers later. By the way, it is worth noting that the foreign analogue of the TG - the British tank Churchill Mk IV had an 350 horsepower engine. and two guns - a turret, caliber 42-mm and a howitzer caliber 76,2-mm in the front hull plate. However, the latter had a low power, and it is impossible to compare it with the gun of a TG tank. In France, in 1936, they tried to create (and created) a prototype of a Char G1Rl tank, but he was armed with only an 47-mm gun in the wheelhouse and two machine guns in the turret and could not be compared with the TG.


English tank "Churchill-I" Mk IV in 1942, in one of the training units in England. TG he surpassed only his booking ...

Well, now let's think a little and imagine what it would be if the creators of TG had somewhat “reduced their speeds” and constructed their car “by standing on the ground, rather than floating in the clouds”. Well, let's say, would get rid of pneumatic drives, put the usual levers, would not create a new engine, but would make a tank under the M-6 immediately, and, of course, would remove all maxims from the wheelhouse, and extend the gun barrel at least by 30 cm (by the way, this would increase its armor-piercing qualities) so that the driver’s viewing windows are not under the muzzle of the barrel and the muzzle brake.

Then they could have had a tank of “their time”, and the level of tank building that was ahead of that time was not so radical. It could well be released in a small series, and ... who knows how this would affect the overall level of development of domestic BTT. By the way, there are a number of alternative projects of the “more perfect TG” that could, say, be already implemented in Germany. For example, it could be tanks with an upper turret from the T-III and 75-mm German tank gun in the wheelhouse, with its subsequent replacement with a long-barreled gun with high penetrating power of the projectile. However, the Germans didn’t do anything of this either, and our TG remained “by itself”, the only and unique “supertank” of the beginning of the 30-s!
Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

71 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Cat
    +9
    4 October 2016 06: 20
    Hooray!!! I waited for an article about TG. Low bow to the author for such "small" joys and a big human thanks to VO.
    Regards your cat
  2. +8
    4 October 2016 06: 55
    Extremely interesting. I read about this tank in the encyclopedia of Kholyavsky. But it is not so detailed. Thank. Auto RU. Keep it up. I look forward to continuing on the history of the creation of armored vehicles. good
  3. +8
    4 October 2016 06: 58
    Hmm.
    An interesting article ... and instructive.
    Excess weapons and the desire for gigantomania lead to disastrous results.
  4. +9
    4 October 2016 06: 58
    The tank was good, but the cost of the prototype was 1,5 million rubles, for comparison, the cost of the experimental BT Christie is 92 thousand rubles and the t-26 is still half the price. The high cost and complexity of production prevented adoption. Chopping on the TG was a forced decision; during welding, a shoulder strap was triggered and in order not to delay the tests, the tower had to be welded tight. At least until the 38th year, the tank was considered a secret, even forbidden to show at the parade.
    1. Cat
      +3
      4 October 2016 08: 40
      If the USSR in the 30s of the last century was a little richer ...
      1. +3
        4 October 2016 08: 55
        Quote: Kotischa
        If the USSR in the 30s of the last century was a little richer ...

        To whom or what? Isn't that irony? The fact is that many prominent engineers and scientists did not accept the revolution. And they moved science and technology, but only in Europe or the USA. I will not list all, there are too many of them. Sikorsky, Seversky, Kartvelli, Zvorykin, Lutsk, Yurkevich. These are representatives of various branches of science and technology, but they are Russian and before the revolution they worked in the Republic of Ingushetia.
        1. Cat
          +8
          4 October 2016 11: 48
          I can continue the list: Kegress. Averyanov, etc., but history does not like syllables and these people, like Rachmaninoff, did not return to Russia (USSR), therefore the best WWII tanks were developed by former peasants: Koshkin, Kotin, Morozov, etc.
          Everyone had a choice, someone remained as Fedorov, someone left, but the USSR was a great tank power, and not the Russian Empire with two samples of metal tanks for 1917: Tsar Tank and All-Terrain Vehicle.
          1. +3
            4 October 2016 14: 53
            Quote: Kotischa
            therefore, the best WWII tanks were developed by former peasants: Koshkin, Kotin, Morozov, etc.

            Yeah ... and Firsov and Dick were just next to Koshkin and Morozov. wink ,
            Especially when you consider that Koshkin was the head of the serial design bureau, and Dick's design bureau was engaged in promising models.
            1. Cat
              +5
              4 October 2016 17: 40
              Firsov, Dick, Tsyganenko, Baryshnikov, Kravtsov and many others stood at the origins and glory of Russian tank building, everything from the designer to the handyman, who put their hands and head, at 30 'frost and 30' heat stood at the machines and drawers, all of them deep bows for victory.
          2. +2
            4 October 2016 22: 25
            Quote: Kotischa
            with two samples of tanks

            and they were not tanks, but a misunderstanding.
        2. +2
          4 October 2016 14: 36
          Quote: Amurets
          Sikorsky, Seversky, Kartvelli, Zvorykin, Lutsk, Yurkevich. These are representatives of various branches of science and technology, but they are Russian and before the revolution they worked in the Republic of Ingushetia.

          And in the 30s, many of them collaborated with the USSR. smile
        3. 0
          6 December 2016 18: 20
          "but they are Russians, and before the revolution, they worked in the Republic of Ingushetia" - and what have they gained in the impoverished Republic of Ingushetia?
    2. +2
      4 October 2016 14: 24
      Quote: mark1
      The tank was good, but the cost of the prototype was 1,5 million rubles, for comparison, the cost of the experimental BT Christie was 92 thousand rubles and the T-26 was still half the price.

      And the cost of the experienced BT or T-26 includes the entire volume of R&D carried out by the developer - Christie or Vickers?
      It should be considered comparable - tanks, developed from the very beginning in the USSR. For the same experienced KV, Zaltsman initially asked for 1 million. And this despite the fact that "Voroshilov" was made with the use of developments on the serial T-28 (for which they burned themselves - for example, taking for the electric drive the twice heavier KV tower a motor from the T-28).
      1. Cat
        +2
        4 October 2016 14: 58
        There is a legend that when working with HF we used the best practices from the T-100. Both had a torsion bar suspension, interchangeable track rollers, and more.
        Moreover, the first KV variant had two guns in one turret with a caliber of 76.2 mm and 45 mm.
        1. +2
          4 October 2016 15: 18
          Quote: Kotischa
          There is a legend that when working with HF we used the best practices from the T-100. Both had a torsion bar suspension, interchangeable track rollers, and more.
          Moreover, the first KV variant had two guns in one turret with a caliber of 76.2 mm and 45 mm.

          This is not a legend, because the machines were developed at the same factory. See the book Solyankin, Pavlov. Pavlov. Yellow. Soviet heavy tanks 1917-1941.
          1. Cat
            +1
            4 October 2016 17: 50
            I know that they were developed at the same plant in Leningrad. But the main ones in the program were the T-100 and the SMK. KV was designed later and was a "pack" in KB Kotin. Only comparative tests in 1939 during the Soviet-Finnish war showed the absolute superiority of the KV over its older brothers. Moreover, at the suggestion of Kotin and Kulik, they tried to immediately "spoil" him by equipping him with a 152mm howitzer.
            1. +2
              4 October 2016 23: 28
              Quote: Kotischa
              Moreover, at the suggestion of Kotin and Kulik, they tried to "spoil" him immediately by equipping him with a 152mm howitzer.

              Do not fence in nonsense. The lack of self-propelled artillery made the 152mm howitzer to be installed on the KV. Which was so needed during the assault on the "Mannerheim Line." Try to deliver towed cannons, especially of high power, under the fire of snipers for a direct shot, otherwise you will not destroy the pillbox. I will not describe what the structures of the Mannerheim Line were, who are interested can look at the Northern Fortress portal. There are photographs of these structures. The field 45mm and 76,2mm cannons could not fight these structures. As for the armament of the KV tank, look at the first prototypes of the KV tank.
              The L-11 and F-32 guns were weaker than the F-34 mounted on the T-34, in parallel with the L-11.
      2. 0
        5 October 2016 07: 27
        Interestingly, what do you mean by the concept of R&D in the 20s and 30s of the XX century? The inspiration of the designer, his salary (maybe) and the cost of manufacturing a prototype. In the USSR, due to the weakness of the production and technological base, the main cost was just in the manufacture of a prototype and not any R&D - just OCD
      3. +1
        5 October 2016 07: 42
        Quote: Alexey RA
        For the same experienced HF, Salzman initially requested 1 million.

        Zaltsman could not even blink an eye and request three million, a typical effective maneuver, as they would say now, he worked in the same vein during the years of the Second World War.
  5. +2
    4 October 2016 07: 34
    Why TG? Indeed, in the USSR it was customary to designate tanks with the letter T with a digital index. Why was this tank an exception? Although then there were HF and IP. But they are not named after the constructor.
    1. Cat
      +3
      4 October 2016 09: 45
      30 years of the era of the formation of tank building, the time of experiments and innovations. There was no harmonious classification. For example, the T-18 was called MS-1 (small escort), Christie tanks - BT - 2, 5, 7, 7m (fast tank), PT, etc. Moreover, the TG is the factory index of the model, and the military - adopted. From where all the QMS, HF and even IP.
  6. +5
    4 October 2016 07: 41
    Then there were no tanks in the USSR, suitable, firstly, for mass production, and secondly, superior in their performance characteristics to tanks of our western probable opponents, that is, tanks of Poland, France and England.
    .
    ..To inheritance from the Republic of Ingushetia, tractor plants did not get ... Yes, and in the Republic of Ingushetia they built one Lebedenko tank, on which Maybach engines stood, from a downed airship .. Where did the experience come from ..
    The Soviet government then refused the services of Gotte and his team and he returned to Germany. In Germany Grotte was involved in the construction of submarines in the Ministry of Armaments, but in June 1942 he presented to Hitler a project of a super-heavy tank "Land Cruiser" weighing about 1000 tons. The project received the symbol "Rat". But by the decision of Speer, at the beginning of 1943 the project was closed.
  7. +3
    4 October 2016 08: 00
    "and, of course, they would remove all the 'maxims' from the cabin, and lengthen the barrel of the gun by at least 30 cm (by the way, this would increase its armor-piercing qualities)"
    The gun can be more authentic. The wheelhouse is rotary, and instead of the upper tower put the commander's cupola. Would then be just handsome. And if in this form I could have fought, I would be very famous.)
  8. +8
    4 October 2016 08: 11
    Tank Grotte? An interesting and innovative car. This ruined her. The author spoke a lot about weapons. But I am not a supporter of multi-tier weapons, for the simple reason that it is very difficult to ensure the independence of rotation of the upper and lower towers. Technologically, the tank was very complicated, but I do not agree that the servos needed to be removed. I can’t say anything about the engine, I don’t know the design of the Grotte ICE, but the gearbox and transmission on chevron gears are really very complicated. These are gear links for comparison.
    Plus more electric armor. Therefore, such a complex machine turned out. But the car is interesting in which many innovations are applied and these innovations could move the automotive industry of the USSR.
    If pneumatic actuators were worked out, one would not have to suffer from mechanical brakes on automobiles, and pneumatics in control systems would not hurt. Here is my opinion. Thanks to the author. I learned a lot of interesting things from this article.
    1. Cat
      +4
      4 October 2016 11: 53
      We had to refuse from pneumatic drives, we live in Russia, and not in Africa. The principle was what the Germans did after the winter of 1941 on the Czech Pz38t, which were also equipped with pneumatics.
      1. +1
        4 October 2016 14: 42
        Quote: Kotischa
        We had to refuse from pneumatic drives, we live in Russia, and not in Africa. The principle was what the Germans did after the winter of 1941 on the Czech Pz38t, which were also equipped with pneumatics.

        Soviet pre-war machines had mechanical brakes, complex and unreliable in operation. The first post-war YaAZ-200 and YAZ-210 were equipped with pneumatics for power steering and pneumatic brake actuators. Now all trucks have not only pneumatic brake actuators, but also electropneumatic valves for actuator actuators, and for some reason in Siberia and Far East they do not freeze . But let's not talk about the present. Pneumatic brakes on tank rollers can always be modified for cars and tractors. Lend-Lease cars were also equipped with pneumatic brakes. You don’t need to focus on only one product. A lot of developments on armored vehicles came from racing formulas and aviation. That's why I urge you to look wider.
        1. Cat
          +4
          4 October 2016 18: 25
          I draw your attention to the SHELF 1931!
          USSR technologies did not allow serial production of high-pressure rubber air hoses.
          Example: GAZ67B, which was 10 years younger than TG. He had only 5 rubber parts - tires (4 main wheels and 1 spare). Even the bonnet and electrical insulation was made of tarpaulin.
          The level of the chemical industry in Germany and our allies was an order of magnitude higher.
          Example: how a Matilda tank started up in the cold - ether was introduced into the fuel system with a special syringe.
          How to start in the cold T34, using a fire under the bottom.
          I don’t remember in whose German memoirs I met a mention, where the purpose of the kvalda in the Russian KV was described in horror. "They Russians switch gears with her" sledgehammer ". Further snot ...........
          Findings. We won, not they.
      2. +2
        5 October 2016 01: 14
        Kitty Yesterday, 11:53 ↑
        We had to refuse from pneumatic drives, we live in Russia, and not in Africa. The principle that the Germans did after the winter of 1941 on the Czech Pz38t, which were also equipped with pneumatics

        .KOTISH is right, and AMURETS is wrong in its categorical nature. Pneumatics are 50% rubber seals. At -20, -30, "drain the water" as the driver said then. Now the tires are different.
  9. +4
    4 October 2016 08: 25
    "while the TG weighed 25, their performance in this regard was almost equal, although the American car was older than ours by a whole decade!"
    Who is older? M3, what, the 20th year?
    1. 0
      4 October 2016 09: 07
      Here is the jamb of the author, but forgive him
      1. +3
        4 October 2016 09: 17
        What a jamb? Ours at 31, their M3 at 41, their ten years older than ours. What's wrong?
        1. +4
          4 October 2016 09: 46
          Oops ... we arrived. If so, I’m older than my father :)
          1. +3
            4 October 2016 10: 22
            I recall the American comedy "Do not threaten South Central": "My father was a good guy, and he could always give me good advice. One thing was embarrassing: he was a couple of years younger than me." wink drinks have a nice day!
          2. +1
            4 October 2016 11: 01
            So how should it be? Their tank appeared 10 years later than ours, which means it is older. I think this is the only reasoning. For ten years, tank building has gone far ahead, "aged" by 10 years.
            1. +2
              4 October 2016 11: 48
              More than years have passed since the creation of the TG, which means it is the eldest. See the dictionaries of Dahl, Ozhegov, etc. And in this case, you can simply say, as you put it, that the M3 was created 10 years later.
            2. +3
              4 October 2016 12: 30
              Well, actually, from the point of view of the Russian language "LI" is younger than "TG" by 10 years. As an example, in 1951 the TG project was 20 years old, and LI was only 10 years old. We're not talking about the age of tank building, but about the age of projects.
              And the rest of the article is an interesting unifying disparate information on this tank. It’s interesting, of course, that there is a grotte for the engine.
  10. +4
    4 October 2016 09: 54
    So there are only two hatches for the whole car above the control compartment? If the frontal armor was broken through, it would have turned into a mass grave .. But the Germans poked hatches on the "troikas" and "fours" wherever possible.
    Thanks to the next author!
    The Germans in our "Kama" tested the "grossstractor" "Krupp" and "Rheinmetall". I wonder if these vehicles had any impact on German tank building?
    1. +2
      4 October 2016 12: 03
      Quote: Mikado
      But the Germans poked hatches on the "troikas" and "fours" wherever possible.

      Our tankers on the captured T-3s really liked the manholes at the bottom of the hull sides, they were very upset when (in my opinion from 1943) the Germans removed this option.
      1. +3
        4 October 2016 12: 46
        Germans liked it too, the crew’s morale clearly benefited from the abundance of such hatches. Yes, it seems that the manholes were removed, but on later modifications on board the anti-cumulative screen, as a rule, went, and it would be difficult to use.
        I found a photo, on the "four" hatches in the tower were up to the very end, only the doors did not open in one direction, but hinged. And, accordingly, also the doors on the screen.
    2. 0
      5 October 2016 15: 21
      Grandson more about "Kama". I'm in Perm now.
  11. +2
    4 October 2016 10: 33
    Throw out excess weapons and make a suitable apparatus.
    1. +2
      4 October 2016 10: 37
      then it was fashionable. Anti-tank artillery was in its infancy, it was believed that the more machine guns, the better it was to break through the enemy’s defenses, stand in the middle of the trench and mow infantry in both directions. The concept of using tanks was also to be worked out ..
      1. +2
        4 October 2016 18: 36
        Quote: Mikado
        then it was fashionable.

        ГThundering with fire, sparkling with a gleam of steel,
        The cars will go on a furious campaign,
        1. +1
          4 October 2016 20: 51
          a symbol of the power of the Red Army! and the development limit of multi-tower tanks ..
        2. +3
          5 October 2016 23: 09
          and now it’s fashionable for the Medal For Courage
          1. +1
            6 October 2016 21: 13
            from compared so compared my grandfather's exactly the same only in 1941. Nothing that the design has changed, well, except for the pad.
  12. jjj
    +5
    4 October 2016 11: 21
    I read it with interest. Conclusions for themselves: people making decisions on armaments were still responsible. An expensive, difficult to manufacture and operate a tank cannot be massive. As a result, the victory tank became the T-34. And from him, by the method of consistent modernization, we received the development of the Soviet tank school.
    Later, the story repeated in a slightly different form. Almost the whole country worked on the creation of the T-64. And the main tank was the T-72, created on an initiative basis as a tank for mass use in wartime by reserve crews
    1. Cat
      +3
      4 October 2016 14: 10
      The answer is simple solutions like with the T-72, more long-lived and effective.
    2. +1
      4 October 2016 14: 59
      Quote: jjj
      An expensive, difficult to manufacture and operate a tank cannot be massive.

      T-64 looks at this thesis with bewilderment. smile
      Quote: jjj
      As a result, the victory tank became the T-34.

      Which in 1941 was expensive, difficult to manufacture and operate. And which became widespread only because the planned base tank of the T-50 mechanoconnections was too late to start the series at the beginning of the war.
      1. +1
        4 October 2016 15: 06
        I can’t say anything about comparing the T-64 and T-72, but during the war it was cheaper to produce the T-34 than the T-50. Engine .. And debugging production. Interestingly, Svirin brought the states of tank brigades arr. 41 of the year (wartime) - the command actually equalized these two tanks according to their capabilities.
        1. +3
          4 October 2016 15: 21
          Quote: Mikado
          I can’t say anything about comparing the T-64 and T-72, but during the war it was cheaper to produce the T-34 than the T-50. Engine .. And debugging production.

          So ... it was production (more precisely, the lack of a series) that put an end to the T-50. A production T-50 would be cheaper than a T-34. But the T-34 was already in the series at 2 factories, and the T-50 was poked between Peter, Omsk and Barnaul.
          The same with the engine - Yaroslavl burned down (putting a parallel cross on a diesel tractor with the Soviet GMC), Barnaul did not fix the series on time.
          1. +2
            4 October 2016 15: 38
            and as an ersatz measure with the aim of replenishing tank troops, it was necessary to stamp T-60-T-70 on an exhausted base, which in the 42-43th fought, sometimes, and as main battle tanks.
            I didn’t know about the diesel tractor. thank!
          2. Cat
            +3
            4 October 2016 17: 18
            With all the pros and cons, the T50 was weaker than the T34 in terms of armor and weapons, while it was equivalent in complexity in production. But Barnaul and Omichi simply failed the order, although they are justified by the weakness of the technological base. On the other hand, if Sverdlovsk ZIK and Uralmash were given the task of putting in the T50 series, rather than T34 and T60. Perhaps the T50 entered the series. Just formally, the Ural factories are more powerful.
      2. +2
        10 October 2016 11: 42
        past. t50 cost close to t34. in terms of complexity, he was equal. and had only a 45mm gun. and in FIG he needed this tank in 1941?
    3. +2
      4 October 2016 15: 15
      Quote: jjj
      Later, the story repeated in a slightly different form. Almost the whole country worked on the creation of the T-64. And the main tank was the T-72, created on an initiative basis as a tank for mass use in wartime by reserve crews

      The main tanks of the USSR were T-64 and T-80 - it was they who made up the backbone of the forces of the first echelon of the BTV SA on the ETVD. And the T-72 was in the second line and in the eastern part of the USSR.

      The T-72 became the main one in the BTV of the Russian Federation - because it would be the only tank that still had a living manufacturing plant. But our neighbors became the main T-64, and the T-72 was actively sold.

      By the way, is 8000 vehicles produced a mass tank or not? wink
      1. Cat
        +1
        4 October 2016 16: 57
        Ukraine actively offered T64 and its modifications on the market, but nobody needs it. A T72 at dumping prices tore off with his hands.
  13. 52
    0
    4 October 2016 15: 01
    Shpakovsky in his repertoire.))))
  14. hip
    +3
    4 October 2016 17: 57
    I read comments with interest, I can’t call myself a specialist in BT, but one question doesn’t give rest: the tank is designed in the early 30s, the influence of the first world is on the face, the general trend is maximum weapons on one platform
  15. +2
    4 October 2016 21: 25
    Interesting article. to the author plus. and as always ahead of the constructor time. very interesting car, I would also like to read an article about it.)))
  16. +2
    5 October 2016 00: 36
    Informative article, amazing photo. But CALIBER is true to its ideology.
    "... the proletariat of the Western countries will rise up to fight, ask us for help, and then we will give it ... no, not a helping hand, but an iron armored fist, which will have to sweep off the face of the earth all the still unbroken bourgeoisie."[i] [/ i]
    Probably, the historian does not know Stalin's words: "... if we do not pass in ten years the path that the Western countries have traveled in a century, they will crush us. Colonize." Exactly ten years later, the war began. The country had time to prepare.
    1. +1
      9 October 2016 17: 52
      Probably you have forgotten the Virgin Lands raised at school and why Makar Nagulnov began to study the "angelic language" there. This phrase quite accurately conveys his words ... But he also did not think of this himself, Pravda was constantly writing about the fact that the world revolution was not far off.
      And by the way, Stalin said that. This is the path we have passed. The Germans won. But why, then, is the double-headed eagle on coins, the flag of the traitor Vlasov above the Kremlin, and Tsar Nicholas II canonized as a saint?
    2. 0
      14 October 2016 19: 53
      Alas, I didn’t quite succeed! ...
  17. 0
    5 October 2016 01: 19
    old_pferd,
    old_pferd Yesterday, 11:48 ↑
    More than years have passed since the creation of the TG, which means it is the eldest. See the dictionaries of Dahl, Ozhegov, etc. And in this case, you can simply say, as you put it, that the M3 was created 10 years later

    CALIBER never admits its mistakes. It's time to get used to it.
  18. The comment was deleted.
  19. 0
    5 October 2016 07: 44
    Cat,
    Thank you for the gypsy, of course, but there was Lieutenant Tsyganov.
  20. Cat
    +1
    5 October 2016 17: 11
    Amurets,
    So it was necessary to do assault self-propelled guns.
    At what during the Second World War they began to build for these purposes. SU122, SU152, ISU152 and ISU122.
  21. +1
    5 October 2016 21: 22
    Handsome man! It looks retro-futuristic.
  22. +2
    6 October 2016 16: 48
    Well, now let's think a little and imagine what it would be if the creators of TG had somewhat “reduced their speeds” and constructed their car “by standing on the ground, rather than floating in the clouds”. Well, let's say, would get rid of pneumatic drives, put the usual levers, would not create a new engine, but would make a tank under the M-6 immediately, and, of course, would remove all maxims from the wheelhouse, and extend the gun barrel at least by 30 cm (by the way, this would increase its armor-piercing qualities) so that the driver’s viewing windows are not under the muzzle of the barrel and the muzzle brake.

    Then they could have turned out to be a tank of "their time", and ahead of the then level of tank building is not so radical.



    And there wouldn’t be anything special.
    Firstly, the weapon was put into the tank as it was. Based on the concepts that the military professed. For example, the Maxims were not removed in either the T-26, or the T-28, or the T-35. Numerous machine guns were considered at that time the main weapon of the tank, since they did not think about battles between tanks and tanks at that time, tanks had to fight the infantry. Therefore, the only thing that could save the TG hull from "maxims" was the additional towers.
    The length of the gun was then determined not only by the designer's wish, but also by the limited production capabilities. It could well be that lengthening the gun "by at least 30 cm" was then technologically impossible for the USSR. And this is most likely the case. Moreover, the author is somewhat confused. The 76 mm gun was not planned as an anti-tank gun. For these purposes, the top 37-mm served. And the 76-mm was needed for shelling all the same infantry and fortifications. To do this, it must have a completely flat trajectory of the projectile, and an increase in the projectile speed here worsened rather than improved its properties. In addition, the higher the speed of the projectile at the exit of the barrel, the greater the recoil impulse, which means the more powerful the recoil devices. And the tower did not hurt that spacious it left.

    Well, about "right under the M-6". I hasten to disappoint, the Hispano-Suiza 8Fb engine produced in Zaporozhye as an M-6 from 1923 (first batch in 1925) to 1928 ceased to satisfy its customer - aviation and in 1931 it was discontinued. Now attention! The largest annual production of these motors was in 1928. HUNDRED PIECES. The last batch consisted of 14 pieces. The plant began to manufacture another engine. Therefore, "designing for M-6" would be simply stupid. At the time the tank was put into production, the engine would no longer be in production.

    By the way, Grotte's tank was not that much ahead of its time. In fact, it only has an exotic look due to the two guns one above the other. And so he is quite in spirit and "stream".
  23. 0
    9 October 2016 17: 47
    Quote: abc_alex
    For example, the Maxims were not removed in either the T-26, or the T-28, or the T-35.


    Did they have "maxims" on them?
    1. 0
      11 October 2016 15: 59
      No, but the author did not mean the model of the machine gun, but the onboard firing points. And me too. Therefore, I wrote "... the only thing that could save the TG hull from the" maxims "was additional turrets" that is, they did not want to refuse to fire from the side perpendicular to the course without turning the main turret, it was a conceptual requirement, and the T-26 two-turret and T-28 had such an opportunity. Only there the model of machine guns was replaced. I don't think that in the case of TG it would have saved the situation.
  24. 0
    10 October 2016 19: 11
    @ a rotating tower topped with a strobe *

    After this phrase, I immediately wanted to immediately pour and drink for a journalist who did not understand the primitive ...
    I continue to observe the stroboscope arrows of the oscilloscope. belay The glorious work of the great journalist is alive and PROMISES !!!
    1. +2
      11 October 2016 16: 03
      You just don't know that in those years, a stroboscope was not called a blinking lamp, but an observation device. These are two metal cylinders with vertical slots. Inserted one into the other. One of them rotates rapidly, resulting in the effect of a "movie". The observer inside the stroboscope looks through it as if the stroboscope is transparent, and it is impossible to hit the observer with a bullet or a fragment.

"Right Sector" (banned in Russia), "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) (banned in Russia), ISIS (banned in Russia), "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" formerly "Jabhat al-Nusra" (banned in Russia) , Taliban (banned in Russia), Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Anti-Corruption Foundation (banned in Russia), Navalny Headquarters (banned in Russia), Facebook (banned in Russia), Instagram (banned in Russia), Meta (banned in Russia), Misanthropic Division (banned in Russia), Azov (banned in Russia), Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), Aum Shinrikyo (banned in Russia), AUE (banned in Russia), UNA-UNSO (banned in Russia), Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People (banned in Russia), Legion “Freedom of Russia” (armed formation, recognized as terrorist in the Russian Federation and banned)

“Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"