Own among strangers - 4. Porthos, repeating the path of Napoleon

87


The purpose of the next article is to talk about the service of the French heavy tank B1 (or Char B1 / B1 bis) in the ranks of the Wehrmacht. Therefore, it makes no sense to fully describe history the creation and combat path of the tank in the ranks of the French army, reflect only the most necessary to complete the picture.



At the end of the First World War, France was the owner of the largest tank fleet, but most were battered in battles and demanded replacement. A new machine, except for the heavy 2C, was not.

Therefore, in 1919, the French General Staff developed a new program for the development of tanks. It was adopted in June 1920, and assumed the creation of the so-called. “Battle tank” Char de Bataille. In January, 1921 was formulated by the TTT project, and its development was entrusted to General Etienne (Chairman of the Technical Section of the General Staff). Delaunay-Belleville, FAMN, FCM, SRA (Schneider-Renault type A) and SRB (Schneider-Renault type B) were involved in the development.

The first prototypes were introduced in 1924. Despite the common task, the machines were noticeably different. It was felt the influence of the British tank school since the First World War. To maintain secrecy, the car received the designation "Tracteur 30". Tractor...

The work done made it possible to clarify the requirements for the tank and continue to work, but because of difficulties with financing, Renault only collected the first prototype in 1929 year. And in April, 1930 of the year could carry out modifications, mount the gun and roll out the car for testing. This prototype received the 101 number, had a 35 mm reservation, armed with the Schneider 75-mm tool instead of the one planned from Saint-Chamon. In the tower was mounted 2 machine gun. At the same time, there is a change in the designation "Tracteur 30" to "Char B", where the letter "B" indicates the type of tank - combat (Batalie).

In the spring of 1930, a prototype No. 102 from FAHM was received (in fact, it was built by Renault), and in September 1930, the company FCM introduced its own tank No. 103. Despite internal structural differences, prototypes of a heavy tank looked almost identical.

In October, the Experimental Division (Detachement d 'Experimentation), stationed at Camp de Chalons, was formed in 1931, to which experienced tanks were transferred in December. Here Char B was tested in winter conditions. The machines underwent various tests up to April 1934. On the tests, prototypes No.102 and No.103 for the main indicators turned out to be almost identical to No.101.

The same spring 1934, the tank is adopted under the symbol B-1, after 13 years after the first technical specification. This fact suggests that the machine is morally obsolete by the time of the release of the series.

The first order for 35 tanks was completed in the 1937 year, this amount was enough for the armament of one battalion, and in the 1938 year he began to carry out military service. Armed with a tank "Char B1" 75-mm gun SA-34 in the sponson in the front hull sheet, and 47-mm gun APX-1 in the tower, as well as machine guns.

Immediately after launching the series, it was decided to upgrade the tank, one of the reasons was also the high cost of the vehicle, about 1,5 million francs (the cost of 10 medium tanks).

Major improvements included:

- increase the thickness of the frontal armor to 60 mm and onboard to 55 mm;

- installation of tower type АРХ4 with 47-mm gun SA35 (with barrel length 32 caliber);

- Reduction of ammunition for 75-mm howitzers to 74 shots;

- dismantling of the course machine gun;

- track width increased to mm 500;

- added the ability to tow a Schneder type cargo trailer weighing up to 800 kg;

- a number of other changes.

The new car received the designation Char B1 bis (which means “second”).


Char B1 bis

In 1936, 70 improved tanks were ordered, and the total order was 1144 tanks, but only 369 machines managed to deliver to the customer.

There was another modification of the tank, named Char B1ter, it was an attempt to completely modernize the tank. The French managed to build only three cars, during evacuation the transport with tanks sank.

The Char B1 and Char B1 bis received their baptism of fire during the French campaign. The first battles took place in Belgium. The French army had a total of 8 battalions of B1 heavy tanks. This was the tank that old Charles de Gaulle preferred because of his great height, and it was in this tank that Pierre Billot performed his feat, these vehicles were quite capable of withstanding small-caliber anti-tank fire artillery Wehrmacht, but due to technical problems, lack of spare parts and fuel, many vehicles were abandoned, irrational use coupled with the impact of the German aviation also led to heavy losses. But local and outstanding successes, like the battle of captain Boyot, could not change the situation.

The Germans got 160 tanks (according to other data, 161) as trophies according to the results of the battles. In the Wehrmacht, the tanks received the designation Panzerkampfwagen B2 740 (f), or, abbreviated, Pz.Kpfw.B2 (f).

Impressed by the collision with these tanks, the Germans decided to certainly find their use in their army. The vehicles were brought to German standards, the improvement included the installation of an additional armor plate to protect the shoulder strap of the tower and the German radio station FuG 5, and German commander's turrets were also installed on some of the vehicles.

Part of the tank was converted into a tractor, alteration was the dismantling of all weapons. And part - in training machines, the same changes, plus the installation of handrails and German equipment. The car was named Fahrschulpanzer B2 (f).





26 May 1940 of the year during the inspection of tanks by Hitler was the idea of ​​converting some of the machines into a flamethrower. Initially issued an order for the conversion of 25 machines, and later increased by another 35 units. The total number of converted tanks is estimated at 60 machines, although it is believed that their number was still greater, since after the transfer of orders for conversion to French factories in 1943, information is lost.

The tank received the name Flammwagen auf Panzerkampfwagen B2 (f), and since the name didn’t stick too much, the machine is called Flamm.Wg.B2 or Pz.Kpfw.B2 (Flamm) in the literature. In total there were three versions of the machine, the differences in flamethrowers and methods of their installation.

Own among strangers - 4. Porthos, repeating the path of Napoleon


The first option is Flamm.Wg.B2. The flamethrower was mounted directly in place of the 75-mm guns with minimal rework, horizontal guidance was carried out by turning the hull. The driver carried out the functions of a flamethrower gunner.


Pz.Kpfw.B2 (Flamm) first version

The second version. The flamethrower was installed in a rotating turret of the same type as on the Sd.Kfz tank. 122 Panzerkampfwagen II Flamm "Flamingo". The flamethrower was already controlled by the gunner, and the visor was made in the armor plate of the hull for ease of aiming.


Sd.Kfz. 122 Panzerkampfwagen II Flamm






Pz.Kpfw.B2 (Flamm) 2 version

After creating the previous two, it was decided to make the third, final version of the tank. It was equipped with a flame thrower rotating in a ball mount, an armored wheelhouse was built for the gunner, and the stockpile of fire mixture was placed in the rear part of the machine in an armored tank with wall thickness 30 mm (before that, as far as the author knows, the fire mixture was placed in tanks inside the machine). The reserve was enough for 200 bursts of a duration of 3-4 seconds, the firing range to 50 meters.


Pz.Kpfw.B2 (Flamm) 3 version


Pz.Kpfw.B2 (Flamm) 3 version: view of the fire tank

The first converted tanks Pz.Kpfw.B2 (f) entered service with the 201 and 202 tank regiments (Pz.Rgt.201 and Pz.Rgt.202), but in the spring of 1941, they were reduced to the 102 tank battalion ( Pz.Abt.102). There is no exact date for this event. Initially, the unit consisted of 24 flamethrower tank Flamm.Wg.B2, but soon they included the 6 “linear” Pz.Kpfw.B2 (f). The tanks were equally divided between the two battalion companies. The cars carried standard German colors, the identification marks were small crosses on the front of the sides and white snakes with an open mouth on the back of the boards.



On 22 June 1941, the battalion was part of the 4 Army Corps Army Group South, and was intended to break through the defense of the Red Army in Western Ukraine.

23 June 1941, the battalion is transferred to the subordination of the headquarters of the 17 Army, which stormed the bunkers of the Przemysl fortified area. June 24 tanks Pz.Kpfw.B2 (f) assisted in the attack of the 24 Infantry Division, and on June 26 the attacks continued, but in conjunction with the 296 Infantry Division “on one of the large forts”. With the participation of flamethrower tanks, a Komsomolets dot was captured in Rawa-Russkoy fortified area. In the report of the commander of the 2 th battalion of the 520 th infantry regiment, a picture of the battle using flamethrowing tanks is visible:

"In the evening of 28 June, the 102 battalion of flamethrower tanks reached the indicated initial positions. The enemy opened fire with cannons and machine guns to the sound of tank engines, but there were no casualties. With a delay caused by thick fog, 5.55 mm Flak opened direct fire on 29 June embrasures of the pillboxes. The anti-aircraft gunners fired up to 8.8, when most embrasures were struck and silenced.

On the green rocket The 102nd Flamethrower Tank Battalion launched an attack at 7.05:88. Engineer units accompanied the tanks. Their task was to plant high explosive charges under the enemy's defensive fortifications. When some pillboxes opened fire, the sappers were forced to take cover in an anti-tank ditch. 1-mm anti-aircraft guns and other types of heavy weapons returned fire. Pillboxes No. 4-XNUMX were suppressed by flamethrower tanks.

The engineers were able to achieve the assigned goals, to lay down and undermine the high-explosive charges.

Dots number 1, 2 and 4 were heavily damaged by 88-mm guns and could only fire periodically. Flame-throwing tanks were able to get close to the pillbox almost closely. Defenders of the pillboxes, despite the significant damage and loss, provided desperate resistance. Two flamethrower tanks were hit by an 76,2-mm Dota No. 3 gun. Both tanks were burned, the crews managed to leave the wrecked cars. The wounded tankers were saved thanks to the brave actions of non-commissioned officer of the sanitary service Kannegisser. Flame-throwing tanks did not manage to hit the pillboxes. The combustible mixture could not penetrate the globular installation inside the dota. The defenders of the fortifications continued to fire. ”


From the report it can be concluded that flamethrowing tanks could only blind and suppress fire. June 30 The 102 Battalion was again transferred directly to the 17 Army headquarters, and July 27 was disbanded due to its low efficiency.

On the use of Pz.Kpfw.B2 (f), the data was preserved in our reports as well. For example, the command of the 20 tank division of the 9 mechanized corps reported that after the battles with units of the 13 tank division of the Wehrmacht, German, Czechoslovak tanks, as well as Renault, Schneider Creuse tanks and English tank shoes were discovered Carden-Lloyd. " Schneider Creuse - is nothing like Pz.Kpfw.B2 (f).

Another unit that was sent to the Eastern Front was the 223 Tank Battalion (Pz.Abt.223), attached as a means of strengthening the 22 Tank Division. The battalion was equipped with 5 tanks Pz.Kpfw.B2 (f) and 12 Flamm.Wg.B2. At the beginning of 1942, these cars were near Sevastopol, taking part in another attempt to storm the city. Subsequently, the battalion was again sent to the Western Front, where its tanks were used in battles against the Anglo-American allies.


Tanks Pz.Kpfw.B2 (f) fought as part of the Wehrmacht 14 Panzer Division.



14-I TD fought in Ukraine, near the Sea of ​​Azov and was eventually surrounded and destroyed in Stalingrad. But in the summer, 1943 of the year re-created on the Eastern Front. At what period of time the tanks Pz.Kpfw.B2 (f) took part in the battles, the author could not be established.

TTX.

Combat weight, t - 32.
Crew, pers. - 4.

Body length, mm - 6520.
Case width, mm - 2500.
Height, mm - 2790.
Clearance, mm - 450.

Booking:

Type of armor: cast steel and rolled.
Body forehead, mm - 60.
Body side, mm - 60.
Body feed, mm - 55.
Bottom, mm - 20.
Housing roof, mm - 25.
Front of the tower, mm - 56.
Board turret, mm - 46.
Feed chopping, mm - 46.
The roof of the tower, mm - 30.

Armament:

Caliber and brand of gun:
75-mm SA 32.
47-mm SA 35.
Gun ammunition:
74 pcs for 75-mm.
50 pcs for 47-mm.
Machine guns: 2 × 7,5-mm "Reibel".

Mobility:

Engine power, l. with. - 307.
Speed ​​on the highway, km / h - 28.
Cruising on the highway, km - 150.

Overcoming rise, hail. - 40.
Breakable wall, m - 0,95.
Overcoming ditch, m - 2,75.
Passable ford, m - 1,45.

In general, de Gaulle's favorite tank (at that time, the commander of the 5 army equipped with these tanks) was rather weak for a heavy infantry support tank.


Colonel Charles de Gaulle shows his tanks to French President Albert Lebrun, October 1939

Not bad armored for its time, it was frankly heavy and slow, and the complex design of the chassis and transmission led to the fact that under high loads or due to driver errors, they easily broke down. During hostilities for this reason, many Char B-1 will be lost.

In addition, all members of the crew, except the radio operator, were assigned additional tasks.

The driver was both a driver and a gunner 75-mm guns. Since the 75-mm howitzer-gun was directed by the crew only vertically, the driver had to carry out horizontal guidance to the entire hull of the tank.



The charger had to not only manage to load two guns, first screwing in the fuse caps and throwing out the spent cartridges, but also pointing the 75-mm gun vertically. And throw away spent cartridges through a special hatch in the floor, so that the crew does not poison powder gases.

Given that the horizontal and vertical 75-mm gun induced two different people, I think we will not talk about accuracy and rate of fire.



The tank commander, instead of watching the battlefield and making decisions, had to direct the 47-mm gun, and if the loader did not have time, then charge it. In addition, each crew member had a machine gun from which they had to periodically fire.

In general, to fight for B1 was a very difficult task.

It is quite clear that the Germans, faced with the problem of the complete absence of heavy tanks from them, happily seized on the idea of ​​using the 1 in their units. The disappointment that befell them was comparable to this joy. Hence the conversion of tanks into a flamethrower, from tanks of the battlefield into tanks of support.

In addition, it turned out that the Russian roads are absolutely not for this tank. B1, as soon as summer ended, began to get stuck everywhere, where there were no prepared roads. That is, everywhere.

The latest information on the use of B1 on the Eastern Front dates back to 1942. The fate of B1 and all its modifications was associated with the Western Front.

A complete list of German units that used the Char B1 / Char B1 bis infantry tanks:

Panzer-Brigade 100.
Panzer-Regimente 100.
Panzer-Ersatz-Abteilung 100.
Panzer-Abteilung (F) 102.
Panzer-Abteilung 213.
SS-Panzer-Abteilung 'Prinz Eugen'.
Panzer-Kompanie zbV 12.
Panzer-Abteilung 223.
Beutepanzer-Kompanie 223.
I./Artillerie-Regiment 93 of 26. Panzer-Division.
II./Panzer-Regiment 1 of 1. Panzer-Division.
Panzer-Regiment 2 of 16. Panzer-Division.
I./Panzer-Regiment 36 of 14. Panzer-Division.
Panzer-Abteilung 205.
Panzer-Kompanie 206.
Panzer-Kompanie C (ND) 224.
Panzerjager-Abteilung 657 (PK 224).

Sources:
Favorite of General de Gaulle // Tankomaster. 1998. No.1.
Flame-throwing tanks of the Second World War // Armored collection. 2005. No.2.
French tanks of World War II (part of 1) // Armored collection. 2004. No.3.
AFV Weapons Profile 58 French Infantry Tanks: part I (Char 2C, D and B).
Trackstory 03 - Les Chars B B1-B1bis-B1ter.
http://warspot.ru/304-boevoy-tank-char-b-1-chast-i
http://warspot.ru/326-frantsuzskiy-tank-char-b-1-chast-ii
http://warspot.ru/387-frantsuzskiy-tank-char-b-1-chast-iii
http://www.aviarmor.net/tww2/tanks/france/char_b1.htm
http://www.worldwarphotos.info/gallery/france/tanks-france/b1_bis/panzerkampfwagen-b2-740-f-5/
https://panzerserra.blogspot.com.by/2014_02_01_archive.html
87 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +2
    31 October 2016 07: 24
    The latest information on the use of B1 on the Eastern Front dates back to 1942. The fate of B1 and all its modifications was associated with the Western Front.
    ..It’s clear that the roads in Russia are not the same ... Thank you ..
  2. +2
    31 October 2016 07: 44
    [quote] [/quoteThe work done allowed us to clarify the requirements for the tank and continue the work, but due to difficulties with financing, the Renault company assembled the first prototype only in 1929. And they were able to make improvements, mount the gun and roll out the vehicle for testing in April 1930.]
    Why did I take this phrase for quotation? I have repeatedly come across a statement that the French Ministry of Finance refused to write off the tanks of the Civil War and sparingly allocated money for new developments. The first time I read in the book Mostovenko "Tanks" seems to be a 1957 edition.
    The rest of the article is quite informative. Thanks to the author. From this article, I first learned that the Germans used flamethrower tanks to storm the UROV. The fact that the Germans had special assault sapper companies I knew for a long time, even from books about the defense of the Crimea in 1941-1942. He knew that these companies participated in the assault on the pillboxes of the Molotov line.
    1. avt
      +2
      31 October 2016 08: 39
      Quote: Amurets
      I repeatedly came across the assertion that the French Ministry of Finance refused to write off tanks of the Civil War and sparingly allocated money for new developments.

      In fact, in general, their tank building has not advanced much from the models of the First World War, unlike the Germans.
      Quote: Amurets
      The rest of the article is quite informative.

      Well, somehow in the format - yes. Overview and illustrated quite well. Of course, a fan of armored vehicles will find fault with something, well, with the lack of some constructive gadgets laughing , but again - all claims are not against such a review format. It’s quite a plus.
      1. +1
        31 October 2016 10: 39
        Yes, in fact, in general, their tank building did not move very well from the models of the First World War, unlike the Germans themselves.

        Somua and Renault 35 are quite modern cars and were superior to German classmates. Another question is that these machines were not subjected to further modernization and development.
      2. +2
        31 October 2016 11: 32
        Quote: avt
        tank building didn’t move very well from World War I models, unlike the Germans themselves.

        The Germans began to make advanced tanks starting only in 1942. When they, later than everyone, by the way, began to switch to the new structure of the Panzervaffe.
        And up to this point, all of their tanks are just funny little boxes. Of which not a single one fell into the new structure. Well, perhaps Pz.VI, and even that underwent changes BEFORE the start of its serial production.
        You can also recall the Pz.IV, which was converted from "infantry" to light German ones (in the world, its counterparts were called medium ones until 1946). Fortunately, the design backlog was large and the design allowed it.
        All. All other "formidable German tanks" 1941. by the beginning of 1944. (the transition to the new panzerwaffe structure was carried out in 1942-43) "grunted".
        1. +4
          31 October 2016 15: 19
          rjxtuh: "You say:" .. these are just funny korobchenki ", but these korobchenki" walked well "across Europe and the Red Army men were also" troublesome "with them.
          If you compare all of these Panzervaffe with our T34 or IS it is heaven and earth, but in 1941 it was ....
          1. +2
            31 October 2016 15: 38
            Quote: Monarchist
            but these "korobchenki" well "walked" across Europe

            Why not go if no one really wanted to fight them. Perhaps the Poles, but they were very weak turned out to be against the Germans.
            Quote: Monarchist
            and the Red Army men were also "troublesome" with them

            Well, this is a very difficult question. Layered. And the weakness of Soviet field artillery is just the tip of the iceberg.
            Quote: Monarchist
            If you compare all these panzervaffe with our T34 or IP it is heaven and earth

            Of course, German products were noticeably better than Soviet classmates.
            Although, what classmates.
            For the entire war of the USSR, only in 1944. it was born medium (in the German army such tanks were considered light) tank T-34/85.
            Also right up to the middle of 1944. produced "infantry" tank T-34/76, which was forced to perform the tasks of medium tanks.
            I forgot about the Soviet "strange tank" KV-1S. In fact, it was a tank with weak weapons, but good protection. It is difficult to classify it correctly.
            Quote: Monarchist
            but in 1941 there was ....

            And in 1941, too. In 1941 Soviet tanks were ineffective. There were many factors.
            1. +5
              31 October 2016 19: 11
              Quote: rjxtufh
              Also right up to the middle of 1944. produced "infantry" tank T-34/76, which was forced to perform the tasks of medium tanks.

              The T-34 was intended from the very beginning for mechanized units and performed the tasks for which it was developed. The T-50 was supposed to be used as an infantry tank. The low efficiency of Soviet tanks at the beginning of WWII has completely different reasons. And in general - what kind of evil liar are you
              1. 0
                31 October 2016 22: 01
                Quote: mark1
                and performed those tasks for which it was developed

                Those. was he not a medium tank? Or was it?
                And if he was, how could he fully carry out his tasks, if he had 2 people in the tower?
                Quote: mark1
                As the infantry was supposed to use the T-50.

                Enchanting nonsense. You generally do not mind the caliber of the T-50 gun?
                Quote: mark1
                And in general - you are some kind of evil deceiver

                Well, that is "There are no arguments, out of habit I will switch to the opponent's personality."
                1. +4
                  1 November 2016 08: 16
                  Quote: rjxtufh
                  Those. was he not a medium tank? Or was it?
                  And if he was, how could he fully carry out his tasks, if he had 2 people in the tower?

                  Yes, he was a medium tank because the number of people in the tower does not affect the weight classification. He carried out his tasks with dignity (and who we have without flaws)
                  Quote: rjxtufh
                  Enchanting nonsense. You generally do not mind the caliber of the T-50 gun?

                  I agree about the "fairy-tale nonsense", I would also add puppyish enthusiasm. "Matilda", "Valentine", "Churchill", T-26, and, surprisingly, T-60 and T-70 - infantry tanks with small guns, different numbers of people in the turret and different weight and armor.
                  Quote: rjxtufh
                  Well, that is "There are no arguments, out of habit I will switch to the opponent's personality."

                  Well, you yourself positioned yourself that way. The funny troll did not work out of you.
                  1. 0
                    1 November 2016 11: 44
                    Quote: mark1
                    Yes, he was a medium tank because the number of people in the tower does not affect the weight classification.

                    The T-34/76 performed the functions of medium tanks to the best of its modest strength. But in fact it was still an "infantry" tank of the pre-war concept. Extending the barrel by 10 calibers did not change anything in this.
                    The first real medium tank in the USSR was the T-34/85 mod. 1944
                    Quote: mark1
                    He carried out his tasks with dignity (and who we have without flaws)

                    He performed them through increased losses. Because he could not fully fulfill them. The design did not allow.
                    Quote: mark1
                    and, surprisingly, the T-60 and T-70 are infantry tanks with small guns

                    T-60 and T-70 are not infantry, but light tanks.
                    It is difficult to communicate with opponents who do not understand the basic things.
                    Quote: mark1
                    The funny troll did not work out of you.

                    It’s just that the troll cannot come out of me.
        2. avt
          +2
          31 October 2016 15: 42
          Quote: rjxtufh
          The Germans began to make advanced tanks starting only in 1942.

          laughing Read the reports of tests at the NIBT proving ground in 1939. Then make up fairy tales based on GlavPur's
          Quote: rjxtufh
          All. All other "formidable German tanks" 1941. by the beginning of 1944. (the transition to the new panzerwaffe structure was carried out in 1942-43) "grunted".
          1. 0
            31 October 2016 17: 29
            Quote: avt
            Read test reports at the NIBT test site in 1939

            What for? You need, you and read.
            Quote: avt
            Then compose fairy tales based on GlavPur

            I do not have such a habit. And I do not advise you.

            Arguments, as I look, you can not refute anything. Have you decided to take emotions? Will not work.
            1. avt
              +2
              31 October 2016 18: 01
              Quote: rjxtufh
              Arguments, as I look, you can not refute anything. Have you decided to take emotions?

              laughing Arguments are when specific data from at least the tests of the samples that were received at the proving ground in terms of running gear, gun firings and the actual firing of the sample from the available anti-tank gun, and a report on the installed devices are discussed, but it seems that this
              Quote: rjxtufh
              What for? You need, you and read.

              Well suck your misli from the finger on which I really
              Quote: rjxtufh
              You cannot refute anything.

              request medical fact. bully It's really worth discussing something with someone who doesn't want to know anything, I definitely have
              Quote: rjxtufh
              Will not work.
              What to do request the shortcomings of Soviet technical education with the habit of weighing in grams, and the temperature should not be measured in Greenwich, but at least in Celsius. bully
              1. 0
                31 October 2016 22: 07
                Quote: avt
                this is when the specific data of at least tests of trapped samples at the training ground in terms of running, shelling of the gun and actually shelling of the sample from the existing anti-aircraft defense system, and the report on installed devices are discussed

                Those. right now you are trying to tell me that all these funny korobchenki in 37 and 50-mm cannons, as well as 75-mm "cigarette butts" were quite at the level of at least a fairly affordable Pz.KpfW.IV Ausf.G mod. 1942? It’s not even funny.
                1. avt
                  +1
                  31 October 2016 22: 14
                  Quote: rjxtufh
                  Those. right now you are trying to tell me that all these funny korobchenki in 37 and 50-mm cannons, as well as 75-mm "cigarette butts" were quite at the level of at least a fairly affordable Pz.KpfW.IV Ausf.G mod. 1942? It’s not even funny.

                  One more time for ..... ,, not stupid. ”My second try
                  Quote: avt
                  Well suck your misli from the finger on which I really
                  Quote: rjxtufh
                  You cannot refute anything.
                  medical fact. It's really something to discuss with someone who doesn't want to know anything, I definitely have
                  Quote: rjxtufh
                  It won't work. What can you do about the shortcomings of Soviet technical education with the habit of weighing in grams, and measuring temperature not in Greenwich, but at least in Celsius.

                  again for an encore
                  Quote: avt
                  Well, these are like "carbine cartridges". You've found someone to knock on the door with!
                  Quote: rjxtufh
                  By the way, and the T-26, too. It was just replaced by the T-34/76.
                  Quote: svp67
                  But according to the plans of the T-50 was supposed to replace the T-26 in the troops.
                  "Do not read the Bolshevik newspapers before breakfast. And if there are no others, then do not read any at all." Bulgakov wrote this. Well, very many years ago. You should listen to him.
                  He doesn't read anything at all! In the sense of completely - only describes his glitches. So if you suddenly try to explain to him that the T-26 was being made to replace the T-126, and as a result of the tests, object 136, aka T-50, began to do. Bitterly awaken and remember the old biblical from Matthew - "do not throw pearls in front of pigs"

                  So real
                  Quote: rjxtufh
                  It’s even somehow not funny.

                  When an ignoramus has not bothered to get a little acquainted with the DOCUMENTS of those years, he begins to sculpt an alternative story
                  1. +1
                    31 October 2016 22: 41
                    Quote: avt
                    When an ignoramus has not bothered to get a little acquainted with the DOCUMENTS of those years, he begins to sculpt an alternative story

                    Well, why are you so about yourself? This is in the sense of a layman.
                    And about the "documents", it's really funny.
                    Quote: avt
                    T-26 was replaced by T-126, and as a result of testing, they began to make object 136, which is also T-50

                    Look at the book, and there you see the usual fig.
                    In fact, the T-126SP really did to replace the T-26. But the T-50 was not made to replace, but instead of the T-26. Those. instead of the T-26 in the assembly shop of the plant. And to go into the troops they were to replace the BT-7M.
                    Around the same time, the BT-7M was replaced by the A-20. But then it was redone in A-32 and T-34/76. Which was supposed to replace the T-26.
                    Those. the chains are simple: T-26 - - - T-34/76.
                    BT-7M - - - T-50.
                    At least study the main types of pre-war tanks. And also the performance characteristics of new models. It's all elementary, isn't it? No, they're chewing over some dull crap, composed somewhere and by someone.
                    1. avt
                      +1
                      1 November 2016 12: 38
                      fool
                      Quote: rjxtufh
                      Actually

                      For the rapid formation of mechanized corps, due to the high cost of the T-34, ABTU decided to order a light tank, which was named in the DOCUMENTS, and not the glitches of the current "classifiers," a single tank with improved armor ", hence the planning of production to fill the shortage of BT- 7 in the AGAIN FORMED mechanized corps in the amount of 500 units namely T-50, since
                      Quote: avt
                      that the T-26 was replaced by the T-126, and as a result of the tests, they began to make the object 136, aka the T-50.
                      ...... but I believe that this does not fit into the head of an alternate reality for a millimeter. Well, here I am powerless - not a medical practitioner.
                      1. 0
                        1 November 2016 14: 42
                        Quote: avt
                        but I believe that this does not fit into the head of an alternate reality for a millimeter.

                        I got it. The moment the transition of the Red Army to the new structure slipped past you. So you are at a loss, clapping your ears.
  3. +2
    31 October 2016 08: 08
    I'm generally surprised by the French command of the 30s. Well, really, it was necessary to have 7 spans in the forehead in order to understand that if there is one person in the tower performing the duties of a gunner, commander, loader, or even unit commander, then this will have an extremely detrimental effect on the view from the tank, timely detection of the target, rate of fire guns, its accuracy, and the general command of the attacking unit? After all, the platoon commander in the attack should command the platoon, and not frantically shoot and load from his gun, distracting from observation and command. Moreover, their allies - the British, placed at least two people in the towers of their tanks - a commander and a gunner. Could they not spy on their allies?
    1. +5
      31 October 2016 08: 53
      Quote: Comrade_Stalin
      I'm generally surprised by the French command of the 30s. Well, really, it was necessary to have 7 spans in the forehead in order to understand that if there is one person in the tower performing the duties of a gunner, commander, loader, or even unit commander, then this will have an extremely detrimental effect on the view from the tank, timely detection of the target, rate of fire guns, its accuracy, and the general command of the attacking unit?

      Does the command of other countries, including the USSR, surprise you less? In fact, only the Germans managed to create tanks in which the duties of the crew were more or less reasonably distributed and the commander really became a commander, not a jack of all trades.
      1. +1
        31 October 2016 09: 19
        Well, 2 people in a tower are much better than only 1 person. And by the way, in the USSR they came close to the three crew members in the tower, for example, in the KV-1, created in 1939, there is a loader in the tower, despite the fact that they came to the USSR on their own without copying from anyone. Well, in the T-50, created at the end of 1940, with an eye on the German T-3 that the Soviet military really liked, there are also three crew members in the tower, and the machine gunner was removed in this tank - a completely innovative technique, because in post-war tanks universally abandoned the fifth crew member - a machine gunner radio operator.
        1. 0
          31 October 2016 09: 33
          Quote: Comrade_Stalin
          Well, 2 people in a tower are much better than only 1 person.

          Oh... To say that, you just have to sit in the turret of a tank and understand what a pound of trouble is there... Believe me, 2 people are not much better than 1. The commander must be a commander, that is, constantly monitor the battlefield and the actions of his crew and those with whom his tank interacts. He should not be distracted by other tasks, since this can cost the entire crew too much.
        2. 0
          31 October 2016 09: 40
          Quote: Comrade_Stalin
          in the KV-1, created in 1939, there is a loader in the tower, despite the fact that they came to this in the USSR on their own, without copying from anyone.

          But they could not reach the commander's cupola with their own minds, and they did not think of the observation devices. So, that here it seemed to be moving in the right direction, but did not reach the goal. And at the expense of "independence". Look at the location of the crew of our T-28 tank, but we "spied" it from the British ...
          Quote: Comrade_Stalin
          Well, in the T-50, created at the end of 1940, ... and in this tank the radio operator-machine gunner was removed - a completely innovative technique
          Yeah, "innovative", will you show me such a machine gun on the "Vickers-6 ton" or on our version of its T-26 tank. Let me remind you that the T-50, just to replace it, and went ... By the way, on the BT, the same would like to see him. Show?
          1. +1
            31 October 2016 10: 29
            Were the Vickers radio-controlled? Why would they then be a radio operator? Well, you are Petrosyan :)))). As for the BT, these are wheeled and tracked tanks, and therefore their muzzle was narrow to allow the wheels to turn inward. And just technically in the BT could not get a gunner-radio operator.
            But they could not reach the commander's cupola with their own minds, and they did not think of the observation devices. So, that here it seemed to be moving in the right direction, but did not reach the goal. And at the expense of "independence". Look at the location of the crew of our T-28 tank, but we "spied" it from the British ...

            The costs of evolution. In the T-50, they provided for a battens, in the T-34-M, too. If the war had been delayed for at least a year, then the Victory tank would have been not the relatively unsuccessful T-34, but the T-34-M, or even the T-43.
            1. 0
              31 October 2016 11: 05
              Quote: Comrade_Stalin
              Were the Vickers radio-controlled?

              Yes they were. Moreover, there was a modification with a machine gun exchange rate.

              Quote: Comrade_Stalin
              As for the BT, these are wheeled and tracked tanks, and therefore their muzzle was narrow to allow the wheels to turn inward.
              That is, the caterpillar mover here is the main criterion? But what about this?

              Quote: Comrade_Stalin
              If the war had been delayed for at least a year, then the Victory tank would have been not the relatively unsuccessful T-34, but the T-34-M, or even the T-43.

              If the war would be delayed for a year ... No one knows what would have happened then and how it would have ended. We can only guess. In any case, the timing of the design of the T-34M, not to mention the tests, were disrupted more than once. And with the release of the T-34, everything was not so smooth, too many complaints came from the troops. And the capabilities of KB KhPZ simply did not have enough to drive a production car and design a new one, it could fully engage in just one thing.
            2. +1
              31 October 2016 15: 31
              Comrade Stalin (however, you have conceit), you have forgotten that in the early 30s there was a kind of tank "fashion": walkie-talkies in tanks were considered superfluous. We thought that in a combat situation it would be possible to use flags as in exercises.
          2. +1
            31 October 2016 11: 56
            Quote: svp67
            It’s just that they couldn’t get to the commander’s tower with their own mind, and they didn’t even think of observation with instruments.

            With the instruments, the observations were well thought out, and the commander’s turret was a temporary rush, which quickly passed.
            In fact, after 2MV, the observation devices of tanks around the world were, like the KV-1, and not at all like the Pz.IV.
            With regard to the location of the crew in the turret, only the KV-1S mod. 1942 Then the commander's cupola appeared on it. Due to the lack of observation devices.
            And on the KV-1 they used an not entirely successful scheme, where there was no released commander, but a machine gunner. By the way, the commander’s turret there was simply nowhere to attach. Yes and no reason.
            Quote: svp67
            Show me such a machine gun on the 6-ton Vickers or on our version of the T-26 tank. Let me remind you that the T-50 was going to replace it ...

            In fact, the T-26 was replaced by the T-34/76. Infantry to replace the infantry. And the T-50 replaced the BT-7M. Operational to replace operational.
            1. +1
              31 October 2016 14: 38
              Quote: rjxtufh
              With the instruments, the observations were well thought out, and the commander’s turret was a temporary rush, which quickly passed.

              Did you come up with this yourself or did someone tell you? You don't know the material at all. I won't even dwell on the tanks of the 50s, 60s, 70s and 80s, let's go through more or less modern ones. Here is a Chinese tanker climbing out of the COMMANDER'S TURQUOISE, pay attention to how many observation devices there are to make it easier for the commander to observe

              Here is a Japanese tanker who also crawled out of the commander’s turret.

              This is German

              It's british
              Quote: rjxtufh
              By the way, the commander’s turret there was simply nowhere to attach. Yes and no reason.

              Yes?????? Here is a photo of KV-1C and the place was found, and most importantly the need

              Here is the KV-85, and there is a commander’s turret

              Quote: rjxtufh
              In fact, the T-26 was replaced by the T-34/76. Infantry to replace the infantry. And the T-50 replaced the BT-7M. Operational to replace operational.

              Listen to me, it’s not interesting with you anymore ... Where did you get this Nonsense? Which infantry? We did not have INFANTRY tanks, this is an ENGLISH classification.
              Serial production of the T-50 was planned to start at the plant number 174, in connection with which 1 January 41 of the year it stopped the production of the T-26 tank. But the restructuring of production under the technologically more complex T-50 was carried out slowly, therefore, in the first half of 41, the plant produced only 116 flame-throwing tanks OT-133. Significant difficulties arose with the development of the production of diesel B-4 at the plant number 75 (Kharkov). But according to the plans T-50 was to replace the troops in T-26. According to the original plan for the rearmament of the armored troops troops, this tank was supposed to be the most massive (it should be noted that the first order for T-34 tanks was only 600 units.) In 40 — 41, this plan was adjusted as the decision was made to form mechanized corps . However, for them it was necessary to not less than 14 thousand data tanks. The fact that the T-50 tank was considered as a component of the national tank fleet can be judged by a joint decree of the SNK of the USSR and the Central Committee of the CPSU (b) "On increasing the output of KB, T-34 and T-50 tanks, artillery tractors and tank diesel engines III and IV quarters of 1941, ”which was adopted on 25 on June 1941 of the year after the meeting of the Political Bureau of the Central Committee.
              1. 0
                31 October 2016 14: 57
                Quote: svp67
                Did you come up with this yourself or did someone suggest it? You do not know the materiel at all.

                Oh, I'm poor, miserable dunno. By the way, Mr. Znayka, can you please tell me what kind of observation equipment the KV-1 tank was equipped with? Well, so to speak, to fill my knowledge gaps in this matter.
                Quote: svp67
                I will not even dwell on tanks of the 50s, 60s, 70s and 80s

                Well why. It would be useful for them to stop.
                Quote: svp67
                Here is a Chinese tankman crawled out of the COMMANDER TOWER

                But have China and the Chinese already become part of the Russian Federation? When? For some reason, I missed this moment.
                Or were they once part of the USSR?
                Quote: svp67
                Here is a Japanese tanker who also crawled out of the commander’s turret.

                Quote: svp67
                This is German

                Quote: svp67
                It's british

                This is necessary. And everything is part of the USSR?
                Quote: svp67
                Here is a photo of KV-1C and the place was found, and most importantly the need

                Read and try to understand what they write to you.
                Quote: svp67
                Here is the KV-85, and there is a commander’s turret

                And again, read and understand.
                By the way, the KV in the picture has only a sight out of all the "observation devices". How can he do without a kombuchenka?
                Quote: svp67
                Listen to me with you is no longer interesting ...

                You would know how I am not interested in you ...
                Where did you get this nonsense? Which infantry? We did not have INFANTRY tanks, this is an ENGLISH classification.
                And the "tank of immediate support of the infantry", is it not an "infantry tank"?
                Well, okay, especially for you I will write TNPP T-34/76.
                By the way, and the T-26, too. It was just replaced by the T-34/76.
                Quote: svp67
                But according to the plans of the T-50 was supposed to replace the T-26 in the troops.

                "Do not read the Bolshevik newspapers before breakfast. And if there are no others, then do not read any at all." Bulgakov wrote this. Well, very many years ago. You should listen to him.
                1. +1
                  31 October 2016 15: 47
                  Quote: rjxtufh
                  By the way, Mr. Znayka, can you please tell me what kind of observation equipment the KV-1 tank was equipped with? Well, so to speak, to fill my knowledge gaps in this matter.

                  Yes, what are the problems:
                  The aiming gunner had two sights:
                  - TMFD-7 telescopic sight (magnification 2,5x, field of view 15 °),
                  - periscope sight PT4-7 (magnification 2,5х, field of view 26 °),
                  - for shooting from course and stern 7,62mm machine guns DT used riflescopes PU,
                  - to illuminate the target in the dark a searchlight was installed on the gun mask.
                  The commander for target detection had:
                  - commander's panorama PT-K,
                  - 4 periscopic observation devices around the perimeter of the tower.
                  In addition, there were two reticle in the sides of the tower.
                  The driver had at his disposal:
                  - 2 periscopic observation device (on some tanks one) and a viewing slot located on the VLD of the hull in the center.
                  Quote: rjxtufh
                  Well why. It would be useful for them to stop.

                  As you want, but specifically name the country and year? The list here is painfully long, since all countries put it on their tanks.
                  Quote: rjxtufh
                  This is necessary. And everything is part of the USSR?

                  This is called "turn on the fool." Well, here's a photo of Soviet modern tanks with commander's turrets, but we don't have any ...
                  This is a T-64

                  This is a T-72

                  T-80
                  Quote: rjxtufh
                  And the "tank of immediate support of the infantry", is it not an "infantry tank"?

                  But imagine NO. So called tanks ALLOCATED for direct action with the infantry. Well, which in principle is clear by name. AND WHAT these tanks were decided specifically in the situation before the fighting. It could be light T-26 and BT, and medium T-28 and T-34, tan and heavy T-35 and KV.
                  Based on your logic, then at the same time we should have LONG tanks, as it was envisaged to have
                  Long-range tanks
                  intended (allocated) for a breakthrough into the depths of the enemy’s defense in cooperation with rifle units (infantry); (provided by the theory of deep battle and deep operation) and FAR INFANTRY.,
                  Infantry Support Tanks
                  (TDPP) [4], intended to suppress machine-gun and mortar fire of the enemy to a depth of 1-2 km ahead of the advancing infantry.
                  Quote: rjxtufh
                  Well, okay, especially for you I will write TNPP T-34/76.

                  And what kind of TDPP, and which TDD? To write like that ... Yes, by the way, do not forget about TON ...
                  1. 0
                    31 October 2016 17: 21
                    Quote: svp67
                    Yes, what are the problems:

                    The problem you have is to compare this list with the "list" of German tanks. And only then to understand why they put kombuchenki on German tanks.
                    Quote: svp67
                    The list here is painfully long, since all countries put it on their tanks.

                    Nevertheless, just in case, try to understand what I wrote to you about.
                  2. 0
                    31 October 2016 17: 26
                    Quote: svp67
                    This is called "turn on the fool."

                    What is your favorite trick? I just got that feeling.
                    By the way, I want to ask, where did you notice the kombenenko in the photo? Ordinary periscopes stood. On an elevated platform.
                    You, it seems, do not even fully understand what it is, a kombenashka.
                    Quote: svp67
                    But imagine NO

                    Now I’ll fall under the table. You surprised me so much.
                    Quote: svp67
                    AND WHAT these tanks were decided specifically in the situation before the fighting. It could be light T-26 and BT, and medium T-28 and T-34, tan and heavy T-35 and KV.

                    This only happened in the Red Army. Because "the Russian woman is still giving birth." The essence of such an action is a crime.
                    Quote: svp67
                    Based on your logic

                    Don't "proceed from my logic". You, for a start, cope with yours.
                    1. +3
                      31 October 2016 19: 32
                      Quote: rjxtufh
                      By the way, I want to ask, where did you notice the kombenenko in the photo?

                      Dear, I actually studied these tanks at a military school, and then served for a long time in the army .. Here are the commander’s turrets at a factory, shot


                      By the way, where did you study the materiel of tanks?
                      1. 0
                        31 October 2016 22: 11
                        Quote: svp67
                        Dear, I actually studied these tanks at a military school, and then served for a long time in the army.

                        This makes me feel terrified for the "peaceful sleep of citizens." What if all the "defenders" are like that?
                        Quote: svp67
                        Here are the commander turrets at the factory, shot

                        Well, okay. What is the commander's cupola of the times of 2MB you do not understand. And you are trying to give out periscope surveillance devices as commander towers.
                        At least for the sake of interest, you will learn the design of any 2MB kombenashka.
                2. +1
                  31 October 2016 15: 50
                  Quote: rjxtufh
                  You should listen to him.

                  After reading Bulgakov's "Heart of a Dog", I can say one thing that director Bortko very, very smoothed out the image of Professor Preobrazhensky, judging by the book, this is NOT a VERY GOOD PERSON, although not a bad specialist, it is not in vain that nepmen went to him to improve their sexual health and to rejuvenate, than it looks like and did not disdain the party bonds, creating a reliable "roof" for this professor
                  One story, how he agreed to have an abortion to a 14-year-old girl, if only the WIFE and the PUBLIC would not condemn some KNOWN PERSONALITY
                  The girl is 14 years old and some kind of cattle "knocked her over", and this "professor" agrees to have an abortion. Yes, YOU HAVE A GOOD IDEAL and ADVISOR.
                  So what is my advice - READ ORIGINALS
                  1. 0
                    31 October 2016 17: 18
                    Quote: svp67
                    Director Bortko very, very smooth the image of Professor Preobrazhensky

                    I'm not talking about Preobrazhensky. And not about Bulgakov.
                    I mean, don't believe what was written in the Soviet press. And especially in the area of ​​weapons. Because historians wrote on this topic. Those. people without special education. Therefore, in some places it turned out funny. Here's how it said that "the T-26 was replaced by the T-50." Although, on the assembly line, yes. but in the army, no. And it says what exactly is in the troops, which is fundamentally wrong.
                    Quote: svp67
                    So what is my advice - READ ORIGINALS

                    Take it easy. ORIGINS on these topics does not exist. This is understandable, I hope?
                    1. +1
                      31 October 2016 19: 27
                      Quote: rjxtufh
                      Take it easy. ORIGINS on these topics does not exist.

                      "Heart of a Dog" has been printed in sufficient quantity.
                3. 0
                  31 October 2016 15: 52
                  Quote: rjxtufh
                  By the way, the KV in the picture has only a sight out of all the "observation devices". How can he do without a kombuchenka?

                  Yes, the Germans also thought so and installed their commander's turrets on the captured KV-1
                  1. 0
                    31 October 2016 17: 14
                    Quote: svp67
                    Yes, the Germans also thought so and installed their commander's turrets on the captured KV-1

                    Apparently on the KV-1C. KV-1 did not have a place under the turret.
                    1. +1
                      31 October 2016 19: 26
                      Quote: rjxtufh
                      Apparently on the KV-1C. KV-1 did not have a place under the turret.

                      In the photo KV-1 with a gun L-11, and mean from the FIRST series. On the KV-1C, this gun did not.
                      1. 0
                        31 October 2016 22: 15
                        Quote: svp67
                        On the KV-1C, this gun did not.

                        So the German kombenoshenka was not put on the KV-1C. However, it is worth it.
                        In addition, I am far from certain that this is the L-11. There are several points that confuse me.
                4. The comment was deleted.
              2. avt
                +3
                31 October 2016 18: 20
                Quote: svp67
                Which infantry? We did not have INFANTRY tanks, this is an ENGLISH classification.

                Yes etozh like, carbine cartridges bully Found with whom to bang! laughing
                Quote: rjxtufh
                By the way, and the T-26, too. It was just replaced by the T-34/76.
                Quote: svp67
                But according to the plans of the T-50 was supposed to replace the T-26 in the troops.
                "Do not read the Bolshevik newspapers before breakfast. And if there are no others, then do not read any at all." Bulgakov wrote this. Well, very many years ago. You should listen to him.

                He doesn't read anything at all! I mean, not at all - he only describes his glitches. So if you suddenly try to explain to him that the T-26 was made to replace the T-126 and as a result of the tests they started making the object 136, also known as the T-50. You will be bitterly disappointed and remember the old biblical line from Matthew - "don't cast pearls before swine"
                1. 0
                  1 November 2016 19: 59
                  Quote: avt
                  So if you suddenly try to explain to him that they replaced T-26 with T-126 and as a result of tests they began to make object 136, it’s also T-50

                  Those. For some reason you are trying to explain to me what I wrote about earlier?
                  What for? Are you a parrot? Or are you stuck?
                  Do you understand what the conversation is about? Apparently not. But, as usual, "actively participate".
                  Quote: avt
                  remember the old biblical from Matthew - "do not throw pearls in front of pigs"

                  Yes, it concerns you fully.
            2. The comment was deleted.
        3. 0
          31 October 2016 11: 47
          Quote: Comrade_Stalin
          And by the way, in the Soviet Union came close to three crew members in the tower, for example, in the KV-1, created in 1939, in the tower there is a loader

          KV-1 was a breakthrough tank. And such a tank freed commander was required, as well as the later medium and heavy.
          By the way, the commander of the KV-1 was not completely released. He was a machine gunner commander. And only on KV-1C arr. 1942 he became liberated.
          Quote: Comrade_Stalin
          and in this tank the radio operator-machine gunner was removed - a completely innovative technique

          This did not happen from a good life. In addition, in wartime tanks, the tower was double, the liberated commander simply could not fit there. But returning the machine gunner was more difficult.
          It is good that the T-50 was taken out of production quite early. The victims of this pepelats' yuzan could be large.
      2. 0
        31 October 2016 09: 22
        Excuse me, I will interfere: we are talking about single towers, not about the combined functions of the commander. In a single tower the "lodger" is doomed to be a "multi-stationer". Our tanks, with the exception of the amphibious family, did not have single turrets. In vain you are surprised at the command of the USSR.
        1. 0
          31 October 2016 09: 29
          Quote: SerB60
          In vain you are surprised at the command of the USSR.

          And I am not only surprised by him, but also by the command of Britain and Poland.
      3. 0
        31 October 2016 10: 42
        In fact, only the Germans managed to create tanks in which the duties of crew members were distributed more or less reasonably

        Also to the Americans. The Sherman is a pretty well-thought-out machine. In general, it was comfortable to fight on the Americans
        1. +2
          31 October 2016 11: 28
          Quote: Hupfri
          More Americans.

          What year did it happen then? By this time we already had the T-34 with the "nut" turret, and the KV-1s and KV-85 ...
        2. 0
          31 October 2016 12: 01
          Quote: Hupfri
          More Americans. Sherman is a pretty thoughtful car.

          And that is not all.
          "Dumb and eternally backward Americans" managed to release the first full-fledged medium tank FIRST IN THE WORLD. In February 1942. The Germans were honored to do this in March 1942. USSR - already in the spring of 1944.
          I won’t talk about the quality of the products, but the constructs were released precisely at this time.
        3. 0
          31 October 2016 15: 47
          I personally spoke with the driver of the T34 (in training there was a "Sherman"), he highly praised the American's controls, but in general he scolded the Sherman: noticeable, demanding in technical maintenance (our tankers neglected this)
      4. 0
        31 October 2016 11: 42
        Quote: svp67
        Does the command of other countries, including the USSR, surprise you less?

        For the old structure of tank forces, the T-34/76, as an "infantry" tank, as it was from birth, was quite good for itself.
        The catastrophe happened later, when he was taken, and appointed a medium tank. What he has never been.
        And the first more or less full-fledged medium tank in the USSR appeared only in the spring of 1944. In the form of T-34/85. But at the same time, the T-34/76 was released until the middle of 1944.
        Quote: svp67
        In fact, only the Germans managed to create tanks in which the duties of the crew were more or less reasonably distributed and the commander really became a commander, not a jack of all trades.

        In fact, the Pz.IV-F1 was the same "infantry" tank as the T-34/76. And like the same Char B1 bis. But he had a very unusual feature for "infantry" tanks, a three-man tower. It was this fact that made it possible to convert it into Pz.IV-F2 rather quickly and with little blood. The first German medium (in the Panzerwaffe it was considered light) WW2 tank.
        1. +1
          31 October 2016 11: 56
          Quote: rjxtufh
          For the old structure of tank forces, the T-34/76, as an "infantry" tank, as it was from birth, was quite good for itself.

          You are here something FAVORED that I can not understand you. WHAT is old? The creation of MEKHKORPUSOV, is that it? And by the way, in the USSR there was no division into infantry and non-infantry tanks. And the main one was considered not T-34, but T-50. It was under the T-50 that a giant tank factory was built in Stalingrad. And what is INTENDED to be average? Somehow bother to explain.
          Quote: rjxtufh
          But he had a very unusual feature for "infantry" tanks, a three-man tower.

          But what about PZ.III.Ausf. E
          1. 0
            31 October 2016 15: 26
            Quote: svp67
            I can not understand you

            My condolences.
            Quote: svp67
            And by the way, in the USSR there was no division into infantry and non-infantry tanks

            Really? And which tank was the T-26? And what was the prototype of the T-126SP? And what was the A-32? And what was the T-34/76?
            Don't like the term "infantry tank"? Like the official term "infantry support tank" more? It takes a very long time to write, so I will write "infantry tank".
            By the way, the T-34/76, which was a strong-willed decision and without any major structural changes, was replaced by the medium tank, after a long break the SU-76 came. Well, infantry cannot be accompanied by fire and armor. Even as dead as the SU-76.
            Quote: svp67
            And the main one was considered not T-34, but T-50

            Have you been considered? Or writers of historical sciences?
            Nobody anywhere T-50 was not considered. Just because 34 tank plants were built to produce the T-76/2. For the production of HF, a second plant was built and completed at the end of November 1941. And for the T-50, one plant was upgraded neither shakily, nor roll. Especially slowly. There was no such priority as the T-50 before the war. And with the outbreak of war, there was no such tank. And there he is dear.
            Quote: svp67
            It was under the T-50 that a giant tank factory was built in Stalingrad.

            How are you feeling? But nothing that STZ back in 1940. was supposed to make 100 T-34/76 (did not pass a single one, although he collected 23 tanks)?
            But nothing that the plan for 1941. STZ for the production of T-34/76 was already 1000 pieces?
            Enchanting nonsense about STZ and T-50.
            Quote: svp67
            And what is INTENDED to be average?

            Nothing. The tank was "infantry" (or NSP, if it is more convenient for you), but it was called "average" without any special changes. And thrown into the solution of the problems of "medium tank". Although in this category he was poorly suited for his performance characteristics.
            Quote: svp67
            But what about PZ.III.Ausf. E

            So Pz.III-E was an operational tank (strategic, cavalry, cruiser - the name depended on the country, but they were all of the same class; in the USSR such a tank was BT-7, which was replaced by T-50). Therefore, it had no chance to fit into the new structure of tank troops. For some time, they made an "infantry" tank Pz.III-N out of it. But not for long, and in 1943 the history of Pz.III as a tank ended. From then on, it was used only as a chassis.
            1. 0
              31 October 2016 17: 13
              Quote: rjxtufh
              So Pz.III-E was an operational tank

              ?????? Live and learn. Where did you read this? Or have you thought of it yourself? How was the use of the Pz.III-E different from the use of the "four"? What kind of special "operational" subdivisions, units of the formation were equipped with them? And why couldn't they be equipped with other tanks?
              1. 0
                31 October 2016 22: 25
                Quote: svp67
                How was the use of the Pz.III-E different from the use of the "four"?

                Are you out of your mind? EVERYONE!
                Pz.IV model F1 was an "infantry" tank. Those. direct support of the infantry. And only with the Pz.IV-F2 model it became a German light tank (in the world such a BTT was called a "medium tank").
                The Model M Pz.III was an operational tank. And only in the form of the Pz.Kpfw.III Ausf.N model it became an "infantry" tank. It was the Pz.Kpfw.III Ausf.N that replaced the Pz.Kpfw.IV Ausf.F1. After that, he was finally ousted by the StuG III / IV ACS.
                Of course, in different ways tanks were classified for a reason. And different types of tanks were used in different ways.
                Quote: svp67
                What kind of special "operational" subdivisions, units of the formation were equipped with them? And why couldn't they be equipped with other tanks?

                Well, read something about this. It is everywhere. By golly, too lazy to fill.
            2. +1
              31 October 2016 19: 40
              Quote: rjxtufh
              The tank was "infantry"

              We did not have INFANTRY tanks. Your fantasies, your fantasies will remain. Since "tanks of direct support of the infantry" is not a class of tanks, but their tactical purpose, according to the requirements of charters and instructions.
              1. +1
                31 October 2016 22: 28
                Quote: svp67
                We did not have infantry tanks. Your fantasies

                Hm. What about the T-26? What about the T-34/76?
                What were your tanks?
                Quote: svp67
                Since "tanks of direct support of infantry" is not a class of tanks, but their tactical purpose

                Soon you will announce that there were no attack aircraft. Because they were not needed, and any plane that received such an order could deal with the attack.
                there were specialized tanks for various military operations, do not hesitate.
            3. 0
              31 October 2016 19: 48
              Quote: rjxtufh
              How are you feeling? But nothing that STZ back in 1940. was supposed to make 100 T-34/76 (did not pass a single one, although he collected 23 tanks)?
              But nothing that the plan for 1941. STZ for the production of T-34/76 was already 1000 pieces?
              Enchanting nonsense about STZ and T-50.

              But you are not surprised that the Leningrad plant No. 174, which has rich experience in the production of tanks, could not establish the production of the T-50, in 1941 it was only 50 units .. It was simply that this tank turned out to be low-tech and lost much in this T-34. Therefore, the Stalingrad plant was quickly redirected to the release of the T-34.
              1. 0
                31 October 2016 22: 31
                Quote: svp67
                But you are not surprised that the Leningrad plant No. 174, which has rich experience in the production of tanks, could not establish the production of the T-50, in 1941 there were only 50 units.

                No, not surprising. Because for him the T-50 was very overwhelming.
                Quote: svp67
                Therefore, the Stalingrad plant was quickly redirected to the release of the T-34.

                Actually, the original idea was to make the T-20 at the STZ (tracked variation of the A-20). But the T-50 does not do at all.
                But then they replayed, STZ loaded the T-34/76, and at the plant named after Voroshilov still decided to make the T-50. But quickly failed. The difference was too much between the T-26 and the T-50.
    2. 0
      31 October 2016 09: 32
      Before Pz.III was not fussed or fuzzed, few of the designers thought about this. And the tankers got used to it, because there was no good example.
    3. +1
      31 October 2016 16: 09
      "in order to understand that if there is one person in the tower, performing the duties of a gunner, commander, loader, or even a subunit commander, this will have an extremely detrimental effect on the view from the tank, timely target detection, and the rate of fire of the gun" ////

      Not only the French were trapped in a small tower.

      The T-34-76 was a little better in a cramped tower, almost completely occupied by the breech of the gun.
      Therefore: the commander fired, the gunner loaded, and the gunner-radio operator helped the driver.
      to shift the tight gearshift levers together.
      Only in 1944 in the T-34-85 with a spacious tower and 5 crew members all began to go about their business.

      Convenient towers were in German tanks. In addition to the Panther, perhaps.
  4. 0
    31 October 2016 08: 57
    Thanks for the article ....... I didn’t know that there were several versions of the conversion into a flamethrower tank. For the illustration, I thank you separately - I read it with pleasure.
  5. +1
    31 October 2016 10: 17
    Eh !. but as films about the war do not watch, so some tigers at us with armada perly. And even about the multiple advantage of the Germans in tanks at the beginning of the war, read ... Well, our "historians" calculated everything. Both Czech trophy riveted, and French riveted did not hesitate to summarize.
    1. 0
      31 October 2016 10: 48
      Well, our "historians" calculated everything. Both Czech trophy rivets and French rivets from the First World War did not hesitate to summarize.

      What don't you like about them? Czech vehicles were actually pretty good. By 41 they had additional armor, and they had reliable running gear.
      Another thing the Germans had was a machine gun T 1 in the amount of 400 pieces. And T 2 - pieces 700.
      These are certainly not fighters
      1. 0
        31 October 2016 12: 08
        Quote: Hupfri
        Czech cars were generally quite good.

        Pz. 38 (t) -E and F. The rest were very slop.
        Quote: Hupfri
        Another thing the Germans had was a machine gun T 1 in the amount of 400 pieces. And T 2 - pieces 700.

        Pz.I did not participate in the hostilities at all.
        Pz.II was used as a commander, flamethrower, reconnaissance, etc.
        1. +1
          31 October 2016 15: 46
          and in what actions did 400 Pz.I tanks participate as part of tank divisions? :)
          1. 0
            31 October 2016 17: 28
            In no way.
            374 German Pz.I were used as training, messenger and counterguerrilla machines.
            1. +2
              31 October 2016 17: 51
              on June 22, Pz.I tanks were in the tank battalions of the 9,12,17,18,19,20 tank divisions, in addition, Pz.I were in the combat battalions of the majority of the Wehrmacht tank divisions (and they are no longer considered tanks, although it did not stop being a tank)
              1. 0
                31 October 2016 17: 57
                So what? I wrote to you about training and messenger cars. They were them.
                1. +2
                  31 October 2016 18: 37
                  no, they were not messenger cars :) they were manned by these divisions because there were no other tanks and therefore compensated for the weakness of these divisions by the number - the tank regiments of these divisions were of three battalion composition, just like the tank regiments of divisions equipped with Czech tanks ...
                  and Pz.I combat engineer battalions were generally at the forefront of attack - their task was to discharge the charge of explosives to make passages in the enemy's defensive structures
                  1. 0
                    1 November 2016 20: 01
                    Quote: faiver
                    and Pz.I combat engineer battalions were generally at the forefront of attack

                    Once again, I repeat, Pz.I did not participate in the hostilities. Just because a German’s life was valuable.
        2. 0
          31 October 2016 20: 01
          Quote: rjxtufh
          Pz.I did not participate in the hostilities at all.

          Yeah, he just drove by.
          1941 Army Group Center, drove here ...
          The beginning of 1942, the 7th TP 10th TD, then slowed down
          1943 the city of Great Luke froze ...
          1943 year. Eastern front Not only did it warm, it multiplied ...
          1. 0
            31 October 2016 22: 35
            Quote: svp67
            1943 year. Eastern front

            Something I do not see there fights? What are they doing? In reserve shelves train cadets? Or is it a messenger team on vacation?
          2. 0
            1 November 2016 06: 13
            in the last photo there is a modification of the Pz.I 42 year, with 80mm forehead armor and a staggered arrangement of rollers ...
            1. 0
              1 November 2016 11: 48
              Quote: faiver
              in the last photo there is a modification of the Pz.I 42 year, with 80mm forehead armor and a staggered arrangement of rollers ...

              PzKpfw I was discontinued in 1937.
              And the armor of the forehead of the hull in the coolest modification was 13 mm (vertical).
              1. +1
                1 November 2016 18: 32
                sometimes it’s better to keep silent ....
                In 1942, 30 tanks were built, which received the designation Pz. I Ausf. F (VK 1801) and having a fundamentally different chassis with individual torsion bar suspension rollers arranged in a checkerboard pattern. The maximum thickness of the armor reached 80 mm. The combat weight increased to 21 tons, but the armament still consisted of only two 7,9-mm machine guns. Tanks Pz.I Ausf. F were used to fight partisans or used as command vehicles.
                they are in the photo, moreover they are pretty different from their ancestors of the thirties ...
                1. 0
                  1 November 2016 20: 10
                  Quote: faiver
                  sometimes it’s better to keep silent ....

                  That's it.
                  Quote: faiver
                  In 1942, 30 tanks were built, which received the designation Pz. I Ausf. F (VK 1801)

                  Panzer I VK1801 nA Verst
                  And another 40 Panzer I VK1801 nA.
                  70 pcs They don’t pull on serial production.
                  By the way, yes, I looked closely, these are similar to them.
                  Quote: faiver
                  Tanks Pz.I Ausf. F were used to fight partisans or used as command vehicles.

                  And other Pz.I were not involved in the database either.
                  1. +1
                    1 November 2016 20: 16
                    Rest already, this is for the USSR 30 or 70ed. not a series, but for Germany it’s quite a series, and 76mm shell you like a mosquito bite :), know comments ..
                    1. 0
                      1 November 2016 20: 53
                      Quote: faiver
                      rest already

                      Thank you, master.
                      Quote: faiver
                      This is for the USSR 30 or 70 units. not a series, but for Germany it’s quite a series

                      Just in case, I’ll inform you that 1493 pieces were made of ordinary Pz.I. (smaller than all other models, even the Tigers they made more). Only 21 times larger than nA and nA Verst. Therefore, 70 pieces, this is not even a series for the Germans.
                      Quote: faiver
                      and a 76mm shell like a mosquito bite :)

                      Did you come up with this yourself?
    2. +2
      31 October 2016 11: 08
      And then you can remember about our wedges and amphibious tanks, which made their way with machine guns and armed with DT? It’s not necessary to score everything with one goal. So for the films and we had one T-34-85.
  6. 0
    31 October 2016 11: 22
    Quote: Alexander Prokurat, Roman Skomorokhov
    Given that the horizontal and vertical 75-mm gun induced two different people, I think we will not talk about accuracy and rate of fire.

    But I will. The rate of fire was excellent. I recommend paying attention to how medium-caliber anti-aircraft guns are aimed at the target. And what kind of rate of fire they have.
    In addition, I recommend a closer look at the Soviet three-inch field guns arr. 1936 and 1939. Both of them had 2 gunners. But then they refused it, because field guns have a decrease in calculation.
    but with a tank, it is very doubtful.
    In addition, it was not a cannon, but a howitzer (if the authors understand the difference). A special howitzer fire is not needed.
    Quote: Alexander Prokurat, Roman Skomorokhov
    It was such a tank that old Charles de Gaulle preferred

    Were the authors on friendly terms with de Golem? No? In this case, the word "old" is not appropriate here.
    Quote: Alexander Prokurat, Roman Skomorokhov
    The tank commander, instead of observing the battlefield and making decisions, had to aim a 47-mm gun

    But this already looks like a jamb. But in fact, it is not a jamb. Because:
    1. This is an "infantry" tank. And for such tanks a freed commander was desirable, but not necessary at all (remember the "infantry" T-34/76 tank). These tanks cannot be used as medium tanks. Or it is possible, but with great losses.
    2. The commander controlled the anti-tank gun. Those. in the absence of booked targets on the battlefield, he was completely freed.
    Quote: Alexander Prokurat, Roman Skomorokhov
    Not badly armored for its time, it was frankly heavy and slow

    Predyava is not entirely clear. Normal infantry tank.
    Quote: Alexander Prokurat, Roman Skomorokhov
    from battlefield tanks to support tanks

    They have always been support tanks. Only art first, and then flamethrowers.
    1. +2
      31 October 2016 22: 36
      Quote: rjxtufh
      In addition, I recommend a closer look at the Soviet three-inch field guns arr. 1936 and 1939. Both of them had 2 gunners. But then they refused it, because field guns have a decrease in calculation.

      The F-22 divisional gun and, following it, the USV had separate guidance drives as a consequence of their unrealistic "anti-aircraft" capability (the USV was probably left with them out of inertia). Therefore, when the anti-aircraft-divisional concept was abandoned (ZIS-3), the anti-aircraft "crap" with separate guidance became unnecessary, and the control flywheels were moved to one side. The loss of the crew with the subsequent replacement of the gunner clearly has nothing to do with it.
      Quote: rjxtufh
      A special howitzer fire is not needed.

      Damn controversial assumption.
      Regarding attempts to link the rate of fire and accuracy of fire with the number of gunners - I agree with you, this is nonsense.
  7. 0
    31 October 2016 13: 04
    Quote: guzik007
    Eh !. but as films about the war do not watch, so some tigers at us with armada perly. And even about the multiple advantage of the Germans in tanks at the beginning of the war, read ... Well, our "historians" calculated everything. Both Czech trophy riveted, and French riveted did not hesitate to summarize.

    perhaps this video will interest you, it is quite accessible -
  8. +1
    31 October 2016 13: 46
    Quote: Hiss
    Quote: guzik007
    Eh !. but as films about the war do not watch, so some tigers at us with armada perly. And even about the multiple advantage of the Germans in tanks at the beginning of the war, read ... Well, our "historians" calculated everything. Both Czech trophy riveted, and French riveted did not hesitate to summarize.

    perhaps this video will interest you, it is quite accessible -


    Boris Yulin is, to put it mildly, not an expert in this field. He was made to understand this when the video was released.
    One of the authors of the article is the host of the "Armory" channel on which this video was analyzed in detail. pleasant viewing.

    1. 0
      31 October 2016 17: 08
      both Yulin and the guys criticizing him are standing next to each other, one compares light tanks with medium tanks, while on June 22nd the ZIS-3 is already entering the troops, and the Voroshilovets and Komintern tractors have been relegated to the category of slow-moving ones (one with a diesel engine from a T-34 and the other with aviation gasoline)....
  9. 0
    31 October 2016 19: 09
    complete shit, the commander, instead of searching for targets and controlling the fire of both his tank and the unit, was engaged in all kinds of crap, the turret’s volume couldn’t allow the tank to be modernized to deal with the enemy’s armored units, but the radio operator didn’t do a damn thing, and indeed if the barn wasn’t it’s beautiful and its fighting qualities will be rickety, you look at the overcoat and generally the field form of the paddling pools or at the plates in the attics of the Glycans and it’s immediately clear whether such a mustache can fight or not