Anti-aircraft guns against tanks. Part 2

Germany

After the defeat of Germany in the First World War by the Versailles Treaty, it was forbidden to have and create anti-aircraft artillery, and the already built anti-aircraft guns were to be destroyed. In this regard, work on the design and implementation of new anti-aircraft guns in the metal was carried out in Germany secretly or through front companies in other countries. For the same reason, all the anti-aircraft guns, designed in Germany before 1933, had the designation “arr. 18. Thus, in the case of requests from representatives of England and France, the Germans could answer that these were not new tools, but old ones created during the First World War.

In the early 30s, due to a sharp increase in the combat characteristics aviation - the speed and range of flight, the creation of all-metal aircraft and the use of aviation armor, an acute question arose of covering troops from attacks by attack aircraft. Under these conditions, large-caliber machine guns and small-caliber anti-aircraft machine guns of 12,7–40 mm caliber, capable of effectively hitting rapidly moving low-flying air targets, proved to be in demand. Unlike other countries, in Germany they did not create large-caliber anti-aircraft machine guns, but concentrated their efforts on anti-aircraft guns (MZA) of 20-37-mm caliber.

In 1930, the Rheinmetall firm created a 20-mm anti-aircraft gun 2,0 cm FlaK 30 (German 2.0 cm Flugzeugabwehrkanone 30 - a 20-mm anti-aircraft gun of the 1930 model). The ammunition used for firing is known as 20 × 138 mm B or Long Solothurn. 20 × 138 mm B - means that the caliber of the projectile is 20 mm, the length of the sleeve was 138 mm, letter "B" indicates that this is an ammunition with a belt. Projectile weight 300 grams. This ammunition was widespread: in addition to the 2.0 cm FlaK 30, it was used in the 2.0 cm Flak 38 anti-aircraft gun, in tank KwK 30 and KwK 38 cannons, MG C / 30L aircraft cannon, S-18/1000 and S-18/1100 anti-tank guns.

Anti-aircraft gun 2,0 cm FlaK 30 in the version for ground forces mounted on the towed wheel carriage. Weight in the fighting position was 450 kg. Combat rate of fire - 120 – 280 rds / min, food was carried out from a round magazine on 20 shells. Aim range - 2200 meters.

2.0 cm FlaK 30

In the Wehrmacht guns began to come from the 1934 year, in addition, 20-mm Flak 30 were exported to Holland and China. This anti-aircraft gun had a rich combat history. The baptism of 20-mm anti-aircraft guns took place during the Spanish Civil War, which lasted from July 1936 to April 1939. 20-mm FlaK 30 were in the composition of the anti-aircraft units of the German Legion "Condor".

The F / 88 artillery unit consisted of four heavy batteries (88-mm guns) and two light (originally 20-mm guns, and later - 20-mm and 37-mm guns). Mostly ground targets were fired by 88-mm anti-aircraft guns, which had a long range and high destructive action of projectiles. But the Germans did not miss the opportunity to test the effectiveness of small-caliber machine guns when firing at ground targets. FlaK 30 was mainly used to bombard Republican positions and destroy firing points. It is not known whether they were used against tanks and armored vehicles, but given the fact that the maximum thickness of the T-26 armor was 15 mm, and the 20-mm armor-piercing incendiary tracer PzGr weighing 148 g gr 200 meters pierced the 20 mm armor, it can be considered that FlaK 30 represented a mortal danger for Republican armored vehicles.

According to the results of the combat use of 20-mm Flak 30 in Spain, Mauser carried out its modernization. The upgraded sample was called 2,0, see Flak 38. The new installation had the same ballistics and ammunition. The Flak 30 and Flak 38 had basically the same design, but the Flak 38 had a lower fighting weight on 30 kg and a significantly higher rate of fire, which was Xirm-220 rpm instead of Xnumx-Xnumx rpm for Flak-480. This determined its greater combat effectiveness when firing at air targets. Both cannons were mounted on a light wheeled carriage, which provided in a combat position a roundabout with the highest angle of elevation 120 °.

Before the beginning of the Second World War, each Wehrmacht infantry division was relied on 16 units. Flak 30 or Flak 38. The advantages of the 20-mm anti-aircraft guns were the simplicity of the device, the ability to quickly disassemble and assemble, and the relatively low weight, which made it possible to transport 20-mm anti-aircraft guns by conventional trucks or SdKfz 2 semi-tracked motorcycles at high speed. For short distances, anti-aircraft machines could easily roll by the forces of calculations.

There was a special collapsible "pack" version for mountain army units. In this version, the Flak 38 gun remained the same, but a compact and, accordingly, lighter carriage was used. The gun was called 2-cm by the mountain anti-aircraft gun Gebirgeflak 38 and was intended to destroy both air and ground targets.

In addition to towed, it was created a large number of self-propelled guns. Trucks, tanks, various tractors and armored personnel carriers were used as chassis. To increase the density of fire on the basis of Flak-38, a quad unit 2-cm Flakvierling 38 was developed. The effectiveness of anti-aircraft installation was very high.

During battles in Poland and in France, 20-mm Flak 30 / 38 had to fire only a few times, reflecting enemy ground attacks. Quite predictably, they showed high efficiency against manpower and lightly armored vehicles. The most advanced serial Polish tank 7TP, which was, like the Soviet T-26, the British version of the Vickers 6-ton, was easily hit by 20-mm armor-piercing shells at real combat distances.

During the campaign of the German troops in the Balkans, which lasted 24 of the day (from 6 to 29 on April 1941 of the year), 20-mm anti-aircraft guns showed high efficiency when firing at the embrasures of long-term firing points.

In the domestic memoir and technical literature describing the course of hostilities in the initial period of the war, it is considered that the Soviet T-34 and KV tanks were completely invulnerable to the fire of German small-caliber artillery. Of course, 20-mm anti-aircraft guns were not the most effective anti-tank weapon, but several cases of destruction of medium T-34 and immobilization or disabling of weapons and surveillance devices of heavy HF were reliably recorded. Adopted in 1940, a sub-caliber projectile at a distance of 100 meters along the normal pierced the 40 mm armor. The long burst, released at close range, it was quite possible to “gnaw” the frontal T-34 armor. In the initial period of the war, quite a few of our tanks (first of all light) were hit by 20-mm projectiles. Of course, not all of them were fired from the barrels of anti-aircraft machine guns; similar weapons were also armed with German light tanks Pz.Kpfw. Ii. And taking into account the nature of the defeat, it is impossible to determine from what type of gun the projectile was launched.

In addition to the Flak-30 / 38, the 20-mm automatic machine 2.0 cm Flak 28 was used in smaller quantities in German air defense. This anti-aircraft gun conducts its lineage from the German "Becker gun", which was developed as early as the First World War. Firm "Oerlikon", so named by location - the suburbs of Zurich, acquired all the rights to develop a gun.

2,0 cm Flak 28

In Germany, the gun was widely used as a means of anti-aircraft defense, but there were also field versions of the gun, which were widely used in the Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe anti-aircraft forces under the designation 2.0 cm Flak 28 and 2 cm VKPL vz. 36. During the period from 1940 to 1944, Werkzeugmaschinenfabrik Oerlikon supplied 7013 20-mm cannons and 14,76 million projectiles to the armed forces of Germany, Italy and Romania. Several hundred such anti-aircraft guns were seized in Czechoslovakia, Belgium and Norway.

The scale of the use of 20-mm cannons is indicated by the fact that in May 1944, the ground forces had 6 355 cannons, and the parts of the Luftwaffe providing German air defense were more than 20000 20-mm cannons. If after 1942, the Germans used 20-mm guns for firing at ground targets quite rarely, by the middle of 1944, more and more small-caliber anti-aircraft guns were installed in stationary defensive positions, which was an attempt to compensate for the lack of other heavy weapons.

For all its merits, 20-mm anti-aircraft guns had a small armor penetration and their shells contained a tiny amount of explosive charge. In 1943, Mauser made the Flak 30 anti-aircraft gun 103 cm Flak 20 / 38 an anti-aircraft X-gun of the MK-3.0 X-gun and an anti-aircraft cannon. The action of the machine’s mechanisms was based on a mixed principle: the unlocking of the bore and cocking was done by the energy of the powder gases discharged through the side bore in the barrel, and the feed mechanisms were operated by the energy of the rolled back barrel. The new 103-mm unit had two-way tape power. Automation tools allowed to fire bursts with technical rate of fire 38 - 30 rds / min. Flak 360 / 420 is launched in 103 year. Total produced 38 gun. In addition to single-barreled, twin and quad 1944-mm units were produced in a small number.

3.0 cm Flak 103 / 38

In 1943, the Waffen-Werke facility in Brunn based on the 30-mm air cannon MK 103 created an anti-aircraft automatic gun MK 303 Br. From Flak 103 / 38 it was distinguished by the best ballistics. For a projectile weighing 320 g, its initial velocity for the MK 303 Br was 1080 m / s versus 900 m / s for Flak 103 / 38. As a result, the MK 303 Br projectile had greater armor penetration. At a distance of 300 meters, an armor-piercing sub-caliber (BPS), named Hartkernmunition (German for hard-core ammunition), could penetrate 75 mm armor along the normal. However, in Germany during the war there was always an acute shortage of tungsten for the production of BPS. The 30-mm units were much more efficient than the 20-mm, but the Germans did not have time to develop a large-scale production of these anti-aircraft guns and they did not have a significant impact on the course of the hostilities.

In 1935, the 37-mm automatic anti-aircraft gun 3.7 cm Flak 18 entered service. Its development began at Rheinmetall in the 20s, which was an unconditional violation of the Versailles agreements. Automation anti-aircraft guns worked by the recoil energy in the short course of the barrel. The shooting was carried out from the thumb carriage, leaning with the help of a cruciform base on the ground. In the stowed position, the gun was mounted on a four-wheeled wagon. A significant drawback was the bulky four-wheeled carriage. It turned out to be heavy and clumsy, so it was replaced by a new four-carriage carriage with a separating two-wheeled course. The 37-mm anti-aircraft automatic cannon with the new two-wheeled gun carriage is called 3.7 cm Flak 36.

In addition to regular gun carriages, 1936, 37-mm Flak 18 and Flak 36 submachine guns were installed on various trucks and armored personnel carriers and on tank chassis. Production of Flak 36 and 37 was carried out until the very end of the war in three factories (one of them was in Czechoslovakia). In April, the 1945 of the Luftwaffe and the Wehrmacht had about 4000 37-mm anti-aircraft guns.

In 1943, on the basis of 3.7 cm Flak 36, Rheinmetall developed a new 37-mm 3.7 cm Flak 43 machine. The gun had a fundamentally new scheme of automation, when part of the operations was carried out at the expense of the energy of the exhaust gases, and partly at the expense of rolling away parts. The Flak 43 magazine accommodates 8 cartridges, while the Flak 36 has been designed for 6 cartridges. Flak 37 43-mm machines were installed on both single and vertically paired installations. In total, more than 20000 37-mm anti-aircraft guns of all modifications were built in Germany.

37-mm anti-aircraft guns had a good ability to combat armored vehicles. Armor-piercing shell model Pz.Gr. at a distance of 50 meters at the angle of the meeting 90 ° punched 50 mm armor. At a distance of 100 meters, this figure was 64 mm. At the end of the war, the enemy actively used 37-mm anti-aircraft guns to enhance the anti-tank capabilities of infantry units in the defense. Especially widely 37-mm machines were used at the final stage during street battles. Anti-aircraft guns were installed in fortified positions at key intersections and camouflaged in doorways. In all cases, the calculations sought to fire on the sides of the Soviet tanks.

Captured by the Germans 37-mm automatic anti-aircraft gun arr. 1939

In addition to their own 37-mm anti-aircraft guns, in Germany there was a significant number of captured Soviet 37-mm 61-K and Bofors L60. Compared with German-made anti-aircraft guns, they were much more often used for firing at ground targets, as they often did not have anti-aircraft centralized control devices and were used by German troops not as standard weapons.
Medium-caliber anti-aircraft guns have been designed in Germany since the middle of the 20's. In order not to give rise to accusations of violating the Versailles agreements, the designers of the Krupp company worked in Sweden, in agreement with the Bofors company.

At the end of 20's, Rheinmetall created 75-mm 7.5 cm Flak L / 59 anti-aircraft guns, which also did not suit the German military and was later proposed by the USSR as part of military cooperation. It was quite a modern weapon with good ballistic characteristics. Its carriage with four folding beds provided circular fire, with a weight of 6,5 kg, the vertical firing range was 9 km.

In 1930, the 75 cm Flak L / 7.5 anti-aircraft 60-mm anti-aircraft gun with a semi-automatic shutter and a cruciform platform began. This anti-aircraft gun in the German armed forces was not officially accepted into service, but was actively produced for export. In 1939, unrealized samples were requisitioned by the German Navy and used in coastal defense units.

In 1928, the designers of the firm Friedrich Krupp AG began designing the 88-mm anti-aircraft gun in Sweden using 7.5 cm Flak L / 60 elements. Later, the design documentation was secretly delivered to Essen, where they produced the first prototypes of anti-aircraft guns. The prototype was tested in 1931 year, but the mass serial production of 88-mm anti-aircraft guns began after Hitler came to power. So there was the famous acht-acht (8-8) - from the German Acht-Komma-Acht Zentimeter - centimeter 8,8 - 88-mm anti-aircraft gun.

For its time, it was a very perfect tool. It is recognized as one of the best German guns of World War II. The 88-mm anti-aircraft gun had very high characteristics for that time. A fragmentation projectile with a mass of 9 kg could hit targets at an altitude of 10600 m, the horizontal flight range was 14800 m. The mass of the gun in the combat position was 5000 kg. Rate of fire - up to 20 rds / min.

The gun, which received the designation 8.8 сm Flak 18, passed "baptism of fire" in Spain, where it was often used against ground targets. The power of the 88-mm anti-aircraft guns was abundantly enough to “disassemble any tank or armored car that the Republicans had for spare parts”.

The first combat episodes of 8.8 with m Flak 18 are recorded in 1937 year. Since there were practically no decent targets for these powerful guns in the air, the destruction of ground targets became their main task at that time. After the fighting in the north of Spain, five anti-aircraft artillery batteries were concentrated in the vicinity of Burgos and Santander. During the offensive of the Republican forces near Terualem, two F / 88 batteries were used to defend Burgos, Almazany and Zaragossa. In March, 1938, two batteries supported by fire the actions of the Francoists in the Villaneva de Heva district. At the same time, anti-aircraft guns were successfully used to suppress Republican artillery batteries.

The combat experience gained in Spain was subsequently taken into account when creating upgraded samples of 88-mm caliber anti-aircraft guns. The most notable innovation was a shield to protect against bullets and shrapnel. Based on the experience gained during operation in the troops and in the course of hostilities, the gun was modernized. Modernization mainly affected the design of the trunk, developed by Rheinmetall. The internal structure of both trunks and ballistics were the same. The upgraded 88-mm gun (8.8 сm Flak 36) entered service in the 1936 year. Later the gun was modified in 1939 year. The new sample was named 8.8 with m Flak 37. Most of the nodes of guns arr. 18, 36 and 37 were interchangeable.

Modifications of the Flak 36 and 37 guns differed mainly in the mast design. The Flak 18 was transported on a lighter Sonderaenhanger 201 wheeled cart, so it weighed almost 1200 kg more easily in the stowed position than the later modifications carried on the Sonderaenhanger 202.

In 1941, Rainmetal manufactured the first prototype of a new 88-mm gun, designated 8.8 сm Flak 41. This gun was adapted for firing ammunition with enhanced propelling charge. The new gun had a rate of fire of 22-25 shots per minute, and the initial velocity of the fragmentation projectile reached 1000 m / s. The gun had a swivel-type carriage with four cruciform beds.

88-mm guns became the most numerous heavy anti-aircraft guns of the III Reich. In the middle of 1944, the German army deployed more than 10 000 of such guns. 88-mm anti-aircraft guns were arming anti-aircraft battalions of tank and grenadier divisions, but more often these weapons were used in the anti-aircraft parts of the Luftwaffe, which were part of the Reich air defense system. With success 88-mm guns were used to fight the enemy tanks, and also acted as field artillery. 88-mm anti-aircraft gun served as a prototype tank gun for the "Tiger".

At the beginning of World War II, during the Polish campaign, heavy anti-aircraft batteries armed with Flak 18 / 36 cannons were used very little for their intended purpose. MZA caliber 20-mm and 37-mm coped well with Polish aircraft at low altitudes, providing effective protection to their troops. For all the time of the campaign in Poland, heavy anti-aircraft batteries bombarded Polish aircraft only a few times, but they were widely attracted to destroy ground targets. In some cases, the calculations of anti-aircraft guns, located in the advanced combat order of the German troops, had to engage in hand-to-hand combat with counterattacking Poles. Eighteen anti-aircraft batteries concentrated around Warsaw took part in the shelling of the Polish capital. Batteries 88-mm guns supported and the actions of the German infantry during the battle of Bzur.

8.8 cm Flak 18 (Sfl.) Auf Zugkraftwagen 12t

The 8.8 cm Pak 18 self-propelled guns on the chassis of the Zugkraftwagen 12-ton tractor showed themselves very well when firing ground targets. Considering the fact that the SAU reservation was weak, they changed positions after 2-3 shots and the Polish gunners simply did not have time to detect them. 10 SAU were in the 8-th separate heavy artillery anti-tank battalion (Panzer-Jager Abteilung 8). Production of self-propelled guns of this type was limited to 25 units, since the chassis was considered not very successful.

In the spring of 1940, this division was attached to the 2 Tank Division, which was part of the 19 Corps under the command of General Heinz Gudarin. Self-propelled gun also showed itself well in France. 13 May 1940 of the SAU 8.8 cm Pak 18 were used to combat the enemy's long-term firing points on the Meuse River. 88-mm anti-aircraft guns successfully coped with their task, suppressing the resistance of the French pillboxes, which made the French soldiers in this area capitulate. Self-propelled guns went through the entire campaign, successfully applied to combat French tanks. Later they took part in the invasion of the Soviet Union. The last of the SAU of this type were lost in the USSR in March 1943 of the year. Subsequently, the Germans widely installed 88-mm anti-aircraft guns on various semi-tracked and tracked chassis. These machines were used as ACS and ZSU.

On a much larger scale than the ACS, towed anti-aircraft guns were used in France. For example, 22 in May 1940 of the 88-mm cannon from the 1-th division of the anti-aircraft regiment (Flak Lehr Regiment) fired heavy B1 bis tanks from the French 1-th tank division from close range. For several minutes, 7 tanks were hit. Two days earlier, a large group of tanks from the 29 th Dragoon Regiment and the 39 Tank Battalion fell into an ambush set up by the gunners of the 1 Battalion of the Hermann Gering anti-aircraft artillery regiment. The 88-mm anti-aircraft guns easily pierced the frontal armor of both the French B1 bis Char and the British Matilda Mk I.

The acht-acht cannon became for the Germans a real “magic wand”, effective both in air defense and against ground targets. During the campaign in the West 1940, the gunners of the 1 anti-aircraft corps destroyed on the ground: 47 tanks and 30 pillboxes. The 2 th anti-aircraft corps, supporting the actions of the 4 and 6 armies, hit the 284 tank, destroyed the 17 bunkers.

During the African campaign, the 88-mm anti-aircraft flak 18 / 36, available in the German African Corps, proved to be a lethal anti-tank tool, largely devaluing the British superiority in the number and quality of tanks. Rommel's troops who arrived in Africa had only 37-mm Cancer-36 / 37 anti-tank guns, T-II tanks with 20-mm gun, T-III with 37-mm gun and T-IV with 75-mm short-barreled gun. The British had well-armored Krusader, Matilda, Valentine tanks, low-vulnerable for German tank and anti-tank guns. Therefore, the 88-mm anti-aircraft guns for the German troops were the only effective means of fighting enemy tanks.

Rommel originally had 24 Flak 18 / 36, but they managed to make a big impact on the course of the fighting. The guns were placed in hiding places and well disguised, which was an unpleasant surprise for British tankers. The Matild Attack of the 2nd 4 Tank Brigade ended in disaster for the British, 15 from 18 tanks was lost. In the trap that Rommel created by placing his 88-mm cannons near the pass, rightly called by the English soldiers “hellfire pass”, only one of the 13 tanks “Matilda” survived. ” After only two days of fighting in early June 1941, the British lost the 64 tank "Matilda". At the beginning of the African campaign, 88-mm anti-aircraft guns were installed in well-fixed stationary firing positions, later they were increasingly used in maneuvering operations, often firing directly from the wheels in the transport position. With this method of shooting accuracy decreased slightly, but the time of coagulation-deployment decreased many times. Using the features of the North African theater, German troops actively used 88-mm guns during offensive operations. Before the attack, the guns secretly advanced to the front and, during a tank attack, supported their vehicles with fire. In this case, British tanks were shot from a distance at which their return fire was ineffective.

In 1941, the only German artillery systems capable of penetrating the armor of Soviet KV heavy tanks were 88-mm anti-aircraft guns, if you don’t take case artillery into account, of course. During the war, 88-mm towed anti-aircraft guns were actively used to fight Soviet, British and American tanks on all fronts. Especially their role in the VET increased after the transition of the German troops to a strategic defense. Until the second half of the 1942 year, when the number of 88-mm guns at the front edge was relatively small, they did not hit so many T-34 and KV tanks (3,4% - 88-mm guns). But in the summer of 1944, the 88-mm guns accounted for up to 38% of wounded Soviet medium and heavy tanks, and with the arrival of our troops in Germany in the winter - in the spring of 1945, the percentage of wrecked tanks ranged from 50 to 70% (on different fronts). Moreover, the greatest number of tanks was hit at a distance of 700 - 800 m. These data are given for all 88-mm guns, but even in 1945, the number of 88-mm anti-aircraft guns significantly exceeded the number of 88-mm anti-tank guns of special construction. Thus, at the last stage of the war, German anti-aircraft artillery played a significant role in land battles.

The 8.8 anti-aircraft guns with m Flak 18 / 36 / 37 / 41 were very effective against any tank that participated in World War II. Flak 41 stood out in particular in this regard. At a distance of 1000 meters, a caliber armor-piercing projectile Panzergranate 39-1, weighing 10,2 kg, fired from the barrel of this gun at a speed of 1000 m / S, normalized through 200 mm armor. Reliable protection against its fire was realized only in the Soviet IS-3 heavy tank, which did not have time to take part in hostilities. The EC-2 of the 1944 model of the year was the best in durability against 88-mm guns among the fighting machines. In the general statistics on the irretrievable loss of heavy tanks EC-2, the losses from 88-mm guns are about 80% of cases. Any other serial tank of the USSR, USA or Great Britain did not provide its crew with any kind of protection against 88-mm anti-aircraft guns at all.

In 1938, the 105-mm anti-aircraft gun 10.5 cm Flak 38 was adopted. Initially, it was developed as a ship's universal anti-aircraft gun. The gun had a semi-automatic wedge bolt. Semiautomatic mechanical type cocked when reeling. The 10.5 cm Flak 38 gun originally had electro-hydraulic pointing drives identical to the Flak 8,8 and 18 36-cm, but the 1936 introduced the UTG 37 system used on the Flak 8,8 gun. At the same time, a free-tube barrel was introduced. The system thus upgraded was given the name 37 сm Flak 10.5. Both types differed mainly in the structure of the carriage. The initial velocity of the fragmentation projectile weighing 39 kg was 15,1 m / s, the armor-piercing mass 880 kg - 15,6 m / s. The armor penetration of the gun at a distance of 860 meters - 1500 mm. Rate of fire - up to 138 rds / min.

10.5 сm Flak 38

The guns were in production throughout the war. Due to the large mass that made up the 14600 kg in the stowed position, the gun was mainly used in the Reich air defense system, they covered industrial facilities and krigsmarine bases. In August, 1944, the number of 105-mm anti-aircraft guns reached a maximum. At that time, the Luftwaffe had 116 cannons placed on railway platforms, 877 cannons mounted stationary on concrete bases and 1025 cannons equipped with conventional wheel carriages. Until 1944, they were practically not used against tanks. The situation changed after the Red Army entered the territory of Germany. Due to the extremely low mobility of 105-mm anti-aircraft guns were located as an anti-tank reserve in advance positions in the depth of defense, in case of a breakthrough of Soviet tanks. On real combat distances, the 105-mm anti-aircraft gun could destroy any tank with a single shot. But because of the large mass and size of a large role, they did not play. Only 105-mm shells were hit no more than 5% of medium and heavy tanks. The 105-mm guns with a firing range at ground targets over 17000 meters were of much greater value in the case of counter-battery combat.

In 1936, the company Rheinmetall began work on the creation of 128-mm anti-aircraft guns. Prototypes were presented for testing at 1938. In December, the first order for 1938 installations was given to 100. At the end of 1941, the troops received their first batteries with 128-mm 12,8-cm Flak 40 anti-aircraft guns. This automation system was characterized by a high degree of automation. Guidance, supply and delivery of ammunition, as well as the installation of the fuse were made using four three-phase asynchronous electric motors with voltage 115 B.

12,8-cm Flak 40

128-mm guns 12,8 cm Flak 40 were the heaviest anti-aircraft guns used during the Second World War. With a mass of fragmentation projectile 26 kg, which had an initial speed of 880 m / s, the height reachability was more than 14000 m.

Anti-aircraft guns of this type were received in parts of the crigsmarine and the Luftwaffe. They were mainly installed on stationary concrete positions, or on railway platforms. Initially, it was assumed that mobile 12,8-cm installations would be transported on two wagons, but later it was decided to restrict one to a four-axle wagon. During the war, only one mobile battery (six guns) entered service. By virtue of stationary placement in the fight against tanks, these guns did not participate.

Among the Soviet weapons, which fell into the hands of the Germans, was a large number of anti-aircraft guns. Since these guns were practically new, the Germans readily used them. All 76,2 and 85-mm guns were recalibrated to 88-mm so that you can use the same type of ammunition. By August 1944, the German army had 723 cannons Flak МЗ1 (r) and 163 cannons Flak М38 (r) cannons. The number of these guns captured by the Germans is not precisely known, but it can be said that the Germans had a significant number of these guns. For example, the Daennmark anti-aircraft artillery corps counted 8 batteries on 6-8 such guns, about twenty similar batteries were located in Norway. In addition, the Germans used a relatively small number of other foreign medium-caliber anti-aircraft guns. The most widely used are the Italian 7.5 cm Flak 264 (i) and 7.62 cm Flak 266 (i) cannons, as well as the Czechoslovak 8.35 cm Flak 22 (t) cannons. After the capitulation of Italy, a large number of Italian weapons turned out to be at the disposal of the German troops. In the 1944, the service in the German army was at least 250 90-mm Italian anti-aircraft guns, called 9 cm Flak 41 (i). It is safe to say that some of these trophy anti-aircraft guns were used in the battles of the final stage of the war against our tanks and allied tanks.

In the course of the war, German anti-aircraft guns of medium and large caliber, in addition to their intended purpose, proved to be an excellent anti-tank weapon. Although they cost significantly more than specialized anti-tank guns and were used for lack of the best, the anti-aircraft guns available in the anti-aircraft battalions of tank and grenadier divisions and in the anti-aircraft units of the Luftwaffe had a noticeable effect on the course of the hostilities.

To be continued ...

Based on:
http://www.xliby.ru/transport_i_aviacija/tehnika_i_vooruzhenie_2000_11_12/p8.php
http://domfaktov.ru/poznavatelno/armija-i-flot/voennaja-tehnika/nemeckie-88-mm-zenitki-flak-18-36-37.html

Comments

[Amurets]

The baptism of fire of a 20-mm anti-aircraft gun took place during the Spanish Civil War, which lasted from July 1936 to April 1939. 20-mm FlaK 30 were part of the anti-aircraft units of the German Legion "Condor".

Sergei! As always Plus. When a meeting was held with Stalin on the development of tanks on October 13, 1937, these photographs also appeared. The use of small-caliber artillery brought the tankers an unpleasant surprise. Here is the link6
http://tank.itishistory.ru/4_tank_50.php


Unfortunately, I did not find photos with holes in which there was an approximate size of holes.

[Volga Cossack]

Thank you - the article is a definite plus - everything is sensible and orderly. I read it with pleasure.

[igordok]

Please tell me the so-called Germany's anti-aircraft towers were a danger to ground operations? In theory, these towers have a large dead zone, with the exception of small-caliber missiles.

[Amurets]

If Popular Mechanics magazine is right, then no. Here you are right, a big dead zone. Here is a link, though not to Popular Mechanics, but very informative.
http://dr-rusi4.livejournal.com/6017340.html
https://topwar.ru/1517-zenitnye-bashni-nacistov.h
tml Well, the second link is on.

[Lopatov]

Quote: igordok

Please tell me the so-called Germany's anti-aircraft towers were a danger to ground operations?

In theory, not really. The main idea of ​​anti-aircraft turrets is to raise observation / aiming equipment and anti-aircraft guns above roof level. Thereby providing fewer dead spots.
On the other hand, these same roofs made it practically impossible to fire direct fire at ground targets.

[Stas57]

In 1941, the only German artillery systems capable of penetrating the armor of Soviet KV heavy tanks were anti-aircraft guns of the 88-mm caliber, unless, of course, the hull artillery was taken into account.

why not take it?

But in the summer of 1944, the 88-mm guns accounted for up to 38% of wrecked Soviet medium and heavy tanks, and with the arrival of our troops in Germany in the winter - in the spring of 1945, the percentage of wrecked tanks ranged from 50 to 70% (on different fronts).

These data are given for all 88-mm guns, but even in the 1945 year the number of 88-mm anti-aircraft guns significantly exceeded the number of 88-mm anti-tank guns of a special construction. Thus, at the last stage of the war, German anti-aircraft artillery played a significant role in land battles.

and? ok, 8,8 cm Pak. Xnumx
and what is the proportion of the actual anti-aircraft guns, and what is the 8,8 cm KwK 36 L / 56?

[rjxtufh]

Quote: Sergey Linnik

In the late 20s, Rheinmetall specialists created a 75-mm anti-aircraft gun 7.5 cm Flak L / 59, which also did not suit the German military and was subsequently proposed by the USSR as part of military cooperation.

It can be offered and it was. But this weapon was not purchased by the USSR.

Quote: Sergey Linnik

So the famous acht-acht (8-8) appeared

The enthusiasm for this rather old (by the time of WW2) product is not entirely clear. Apparently each country should have its own "legend", i.e. a product that sucked (of varying degrees of suck), but which is not accepted to scold.
Already in 1943. German ground forces (not for air defense and not for air defense) began to abandon the guns with its outdated ballistics (they finally abandoned them in 1944). Simply because of the ideological antiquity of the product, because its roots go back to the 20s. Therefore, for the purposes of air defense (by the beginning of WW2), and for the purposes of anti-tank defense (by the middle of WW2), they were "not very good".
In the USSR in 1944. they have just introduced their own guns with their ballistics in the ground (armored) forces, which is often presented as "a great achievement of advanced Soviet weapons."
But the Germans had small-caliber anti-aircraft guns that were really hurt. Nothing of the kind was even in the USSR. It could have been produced, but all Soviet warheads the mustachioed Joe ditched by installing on the IL-2. Which they were like a cow saddle.
As a result, Soviet ground forces were left without MZA at all. Apart from the slop 61-K. And quite good, but low-power for the fight against aviation DShK.

Quote: Sergey Linnik

The IS-2 of the 1944 model was the best in resistance to fire from 88-mm guns among the fighting vehicles. In the general statistics on the irretrievable losses of heavy IS-2 tanks, lesions from 88-mm guns account for about 80% of cases.

Just in case, let me remind the author that in 1943-44. German ground forces received 2973 PaK / KwK43 88mm cannons. Moreover, 2280 of them are in the anti-tank version of the PaK43. The ballistics of these guns had nothing to do with the ballistics of the "famous acht-acht". Heaven and earth. Moreover, the sky is PaK / KwK43.
During the same period, they received 1270 88 mm KwK36 cannons on Tiger tanks and 845 88 mm Flak 36 anti-aircraft guns for air defense purposes. So they were just with the ballistics "famous acht-acht". In the anti-tank version, the "famous acht-acht" was never produced. And just because of their poor armor penetration. And high cost. For this, the Germans had a 75 mm PaK40.
It is easy to estimate that the IS-2 was mostly "perforated" with more modern 88-mm guns. And the "famous acht-acht" have very little to do with this.

Quote: Sergey Linnik

In 1938, a 105-mm anti-aircraft gun 10.5 cm Flak 38 was adopted.

But it was really a very good air defense weapon.

Quote: Sergey Linnik

At real combat distances, a 105-mm anti-aircraft gun could destroy any tank with one shot. But because of the large mass and dimensions, they did not play a large role.

The use of anti-aircraft guns for the purpose of VET, this is generally an emergency. A rare case. Swollen in runet to incredible sizes.

[Alexey RA]

Quote: rjxtufh

It could have been produced, but all Soviet warheads the mustachioed Joe ditched by installing on the IL-2. Which they were like a cow saddle.

Since when has Citizen Taubin been called "Joe"?
The use of 23 mm assault rifles exclusively in the Air Force is the result of the failure of the pre-war work on infantry and tank assault rifles of this caliber. Because the only chance to give the infantry normally working ground 23-mm MZA was only before the war - when it was possible to conduct normal tests, establish a series and lick the MZA according to the results of operation in the army. And also introduce these guns in the OShS, creating appropriate structures for them.
During the war, the "side" directions were dealt with on a leftover principle - the basis was the maintenance of serial production. In addition, like any aircraft cannon, the original VYa-23 worked extremely poorly "on the ground" and required improvements. The army team was easier and closer to 72-K, plus they already had a sad experience with TNSh.
In real life, it took almost 23 years to make a working 15 mm anti-aircraft gun of the post-war USSR.

[rjxtufh]

Quote: Alexey RA

In addition, like any aircraft cannon, the original VYa-23 worked extremely poorly "on the ground" and required improvements. The army team was easier and closer to 72-K, plus they already had a sad experience with TNSh.

Nobody argues with this and does not say that VYa had to be cut off with IL-2 and screwed to something on the ground.
The point is that the efforts that have been expended in the development and development of VW could have been expended in its land version. And in this case, the North Army would have a quality MZA, which they did not have at all.
Moreover, I myself think that VYA for the tasks of MZA is not very successful (and 72-K, too, if that, although they are not classmates at all). In my opinion, the caliber of the projectile is not quite right. 21 mm at 165 g and 910 m / s would be quite enough.
And the easiest way was to buy from "German friends" (there was such a period at one time) 20 mm Flak-30/38 and not fool yourself. Although you can't call them ideal - they were a bit weak.

[Alexey RA]

Quote: rjxtufh

The point is that the efforts that have been expended in the development and development of VW could have been expended in its land version.

And leave the Air Force without a 23-mm cannon, with one "re-machine gun" ShVAK 20-mm? Sabotage!
In addition, the appearance of a 14,5 mm anti-tank anti-aircraft machine gun was expected in small-caliber army air defense systems.

Quote: rjxtufh

And the easiest way was to buy from "German friends" (there was such a period at one time) 20 mm Flak-30/38 and not fool yourself.

German MZA once already tried to do with us - nothing came of it.
Everything rests on industry. If domestic developments at the very least take its capabilities into account, then imported ones will have to be completely processed. Or to establish the production of years old that way 3-5. Or drive a small series of manual assembly.

[rjxtufh]

Quote: Alexey RA

And leave the Air Force without a 23-mm cannon, with one "re-machine gun" ShVAK 20-mm? Sabotage!

Not at all. I remind you that VY was only placed on IL-2/10. Where they were simply superfluous. And fighters fought to / to the machine gun.
NS-23 for Soviet aviation was more than enough. After WWII, they became widespread. Unlike unsuccessful aviation for VY.

Quote: Alexey RA

in small-caliber army air defense systems, the appearance of a 14,5-mm anti-tank anti-aircraft machine gun was expected.

In the USSR and communism, the appearance was expected. And much more.
Nothing more impossible than a 14,5 mm field machine gun can be invented. And to make, all the more. Even the DShK for a normal field machine gun is slightly unnecessarily powerful.
Such a machine gun could be made. But only exclusively for the Air Force. That's just maybe instead of VY.
It could also be made as part of multi-barreled field installations. To compensate for the low rate of fire by the number of trunks.
It could be made for air defense of the Navy (water-cooled).
But single KPV and KPVT, these are strange products. Actually, they are not machine guns in their performance characteristics. Only so called.

Quote: Alexey RA

German MZA once already tried to do with us - nothing came of it.

Yes, there was such a story.

[Bloodsucker]

Quote: rjxtufh

I remind you that VY was only placed on IL-2/10. Where they were simply superfluous. And fighters fought to / to the machine gun.

Opinion of mediocrity.

Quote: rjxtufh

Nothing more impossible than a 14,5 mm field machine gun can be invented. And to make, all the more. Even the DShK for a normal field machine gun is slightly unnecessarily powerful.

Another stupid thing is that the warriors of the couch, who have absolutely no understanding in military affairs.

Quote: rjxtufh

But single KPV and KPVT, these are strange products. Actually, they are not machine guns in their performance characteristics. Only so called.

Even more stupid.
I’m gibbering that you will be amusing your site with clowning for a long time, from carbine and vintage cartridges to strategic tanks and the opinion that the best machine guns in the class are, like, not machine guns .. and Amer’s stumps will be transferred to what category, like 12,7 Browning, ancient like mammoth dung ..

[rjxtufh]

Quote: The Bloodthirster

Opinion of mediocrity.

Quote: The Bloodthirster

Another stupid thing

Quote: The Bloodthirster

Even more stupid.

Boubusenka, you are my favorite. And crawled here to boob.
I look, I didn’t get any adequacy at all. That is OK. I'll wait.
Next time, use the expressions "colossal stupidity" and "tremendous stupidity". Well, just to step away from your standard set of phrases at least once.

Quote: The Bloodthirster

the best machine guns in the class, sort of like not machine guns .. and Amer’s stumps in what category we will transfer, such as 12,7 Browning, as old as mammoth dung ..

But I think that Browning will be a little better than DShK. And just because of the slightly excess power of the latter. That does not allow him (also slightly) to be a full-fledged machine gun.
But Browning is okay with that. And just because of a little less power.

[Bloodsucker]

Quote: rjxtufh

But I think that Browning will be a little better than DShK. And just because of the slightly excess power of the latter. That does not allow him (also slightly) to be a full-fledged machine gun.
But Browning is okay with that. And just because of a little less power.

Well, continue to delight your opus.

[rjxtufh]

Quote: The Bloodthirster

Well, continue to delight your opus.

Can?
Oh thank you. Barin is good today.
And then I, sinfully, wanted to tie. But since the good gentleman permits ...

[Bloodsucker]

Quote: rjxtufh

And then I, sinfully, wanted to tie. But since the good gentleman allows

I permit, dancing clowns entertain.

[rjxtufh]

Quote: The Bloodthirster

dancing clowns entertain.

And often you dance, and thus have fun?

[Stas57]

The use of anti-aircraft guns for the purpose of VET, this is generally an emergency. A rare case. Swollen in runet to incredible sizes.

and for this in the tank armies, in 41 88 were introduced in the first breakthrough divisions?

[rjxtufh]

Quote: Stas57

and for this in the tank armies, in 41 88 were introduced in the first breakthrough divisions?

Of course. In the divisions of the Wehrmacht, the Germans had their own air defense. In 1941 the Wehrmacht received 126 88-mm anti-aircraft guns for these purposes.

[igordok]

Quote: rjxtufh

The use of anti-aircraft guns for the purpose of VET, this is generally an emergency.

Actually, war is the state of emergency.

[rjxtufh]

Quote: igordok

Actually, war is the state of emergency.

It's not the same for everybody. In theory, this is normal for the military category. Because they have been preparing for it for 25 years.

[AUL]

Armor-piercing projectile model Pz.Gr. at a distance of 50 meters with a 90 ° meeting angle, pierced 50 mm armor. At a distance of 100 meters, this figure was 64 mm.

Maybe the other way around?

[Octopus]

Quote: rjxtufh

Simply because of the ideological antiquity of the product, because its roots go back to the 20s. Therefore, for the purposes of air defense (by the beginning of WW2), and for the purposes of anti-tank defense (by the middle of WW2), they were "not very good".

Something I'm confused about your arguments. To make the product out of date
1. It should cope poorly with its functions.
2. There should be a better analogue.
What is wrong with 88? Just that the Germans in the 43rd something more authentic appeared? What about others at this time? 90 and 94 mm?

Quote: rjxtufh

Apart from the slop 61-K.

But what about this? It is commonly believed that he is Bofors. Do you think the 61K is not Bofors or Bofors sucks?

[rjxtufh]

Quote: Octopus

1. It should cope poorly with its functions.

But did Flak 36 do a good job with its functions? With her fragmentation shell?
Such an air defense gun was good, it could be back in the 30s. But during WW2, the planes grew so much and got stronger that guns with shells of this weight were already ineffective.

Quote: Octopus

2. There should be a better analogue.

The Germans had them. It was called 10.5 cm Flak 38. Not an analog, of course. But just quite capable air defense gun. Unlike Flak 36.

Quote: Octopus

It is commonly believed that he is Bofors. Do you think the 61K is not Bofors or Bofors sucks?

Bofors, it is different. Very good "marine" (water cooled). About slop land. The Soviet 37-mm anti-aircraft guns also sucked. At the same time, they did not even bother to make a water-cooled version for marine variations. It is not surprising that the German aviation practically melted all the ships it could reach. And at the Black Sea Fleet, for example, they all crowded together in Batumi and Poti. Away from the Germans.

[Octopus]

Quote: rjxtufh

Such an air defense gun was good, it could be back in the 30s. But during WW2, the planes grew so much and got stronger that guns with shells of this weight were already ineffective.

Tearing patterns again? The general public, including myself, believes that a breakthrough in the effectiveness of air defense occurred with the introduction of radio fuses. But the mass of the shell did not particularly solve. Therefore, the main caliber of air defense after the war became 75mm.
Nobody disputes that FlaK 38 and FlaK 41 will be better (albeit heavy). But the pre-war counterparts of 88 are three-inches, 52-K and English 3.7 ", also under 10 tons.

Quote: rjxtufh

Oh slop land

It seems that they didn’t think much better. Germans including.

[rjxtufh]

Quote: Octopus

But the mass of the shell did not particularly solve.

Hm. But what about the area (in the case of air defense, this is the volume) of effective destruction?

Quote: Octopus

Therefore, the main caliber of air defense after the war became 75mm.

There were other planes during WW2. It is important.
Apparently your numbers are confused in some places.

Quote: Octopus

It seems that they didn’t think much better. Germans including.

Here, a tricky question. The fact is that the pursuit of the power of the cannons led to the fact that the field MZA rested against the laws of physics. And this led to a decrease in its rate of fire.
Therefore, the choice was simple, either multi-barreled "large-caliber" (relatively, of course), or single-barreled small-caliber.
The Germans used mainly single-barreled small-caliber guns, which were innumerable. But they did not disdain the "large-caliber" double-barreled DLM 42U.
I somehow do not remember the use of double-barreled land 37-mm guns in the Red Army. Like the double-barreled Bofors. From this failure in the density of fire.
And they tried to replace the place of single-barrel small-caliber machine guns with DShK machine guns, which was impossible. From this failure in the power of fire.
Therefore, I am saddened by the land analogue of VYa (since their production was available). Or 72-K. Although they are not classmates at all, despite the similar caliber.

Quote: Octopus

Tearing patterns again?

In principle, it turns out that way. I had never thought that in RuNet so many strange tales are spinning.

[Octopus]

Quote: rjxtufh

Hm. But what about the area (in the case of air defense, this is the volume) of effective destruction?

Does not mean anything. When the target does 150 meters per second, an additional 10 meters of the affected area will not solve anything. The increase in caliber and ballistics of anti-aircraft guns is explained by 1. Requirements for altitude. 2. (For marine) requirements for versatility.

Quote: rjxtufh

Apparently your numbers are confused in some places.

No. I'm not talking about the C-60, but about the pre-missile guns sharpened for VT fuzed. 3 "/ 50 Mark 27 onwards.

Quote: rjxtufh

I somehow do not remember the use of double-barreled land 37-mm guns in the Red Army. Like the double-barreled Bofors. From this failure in the density of fire

That is, the only complaint to 61-K was not paired?

[rjxtufh]

Quote: Octopus

When the target does 150 meters per second, an additional 10 meters of the affected area will not solve anything.

Logical.

Quote: Octopus

Requirements for altitude.

It also mattered.

Quote: Octopus

That is, the only complaint to 61-K was not paired?

Not at all. The main complaint is excess power. And from this, a low rate of fire. and from this a weak density of fire. Mating 61-k was possible in stationary installations, for example, marine (mated). Extensively increasing fire density. But in land-based installations this was probably not possible. Due to the size and weight of the installation itself.

[demiurg]

Read your other colleagues, couch analysts, and I wonder. The combat generals who passed the WWII and fought in WWII, that they adopted something, were praised.
But no, there is an incredibly smart, talented strategist, technologist and engineer who will say that they are stupid, and it was necessary to do everything differently.
Stoker, in your garden pebble
Although maybe I'm wrong, and under this nickname Shoigu is having fun on the forum?
Be tolerant of those people. They obviously were not dumber than you. At least 60 years later, they argue about their actions. Are you sure that in 2080 someone will refer to your opinion?

[rjxtufh]

Quote: demiurg

The combat generals who passed the WWII and fought in WWII, that they adopted something, were praised.

What was praised? What did I praise? Well, let them be praised.
What didn’t you like? That I scolded Flak36 ballistics for tank and field guns? So the Germans (the very military generals including) scolded her too. And during 1943 replaced by KwK / PaK43. With a completely different ballistics.
And the old Flak36 (i.e. the anti-aircraft gun) was left only because it was mediocre for air defense purposes, but its production was established. And such an urgent need as the field and tank guns, in its replacement was not.
As for the Soviet 85-mm tank guns mod. 1944, then fish without fish and cancer. Those. after the "legendary three-inch" 85-mm cannon with sufficient slop in 1944. ballistics, seemed just manna from heaven. Those. everything is relative.
In addition, there was NOTHING more powerful that could be inserted into the T-34/85 tower in the USSR. D-10 for tanks of this size was practically unsuitable. However, D-25, too. This completes the list of candidates. Because ZIS-4M quite rightly was recognized as unnecessary.

Quote: demiurg

Are you sure that in 2080 someone will refer to your opinion?

I don't even care if someone refers to him tomorrow or not. And even today.

[demiurg]

Quote: rjxtufh

1. What was praised? What did I praise? Well, let them be praised.
What didn’t you like? That I scolded Flak36 ballistics for tank and field guns? So the Germans (the very military generals including) scolded her too. And during 1943 replaced by KwK / PaK43. With a completely different ballistics.
And the old Flak36 (i.e. the anti-aircraft gun) was left only because it was mediocre for air defense purposes, but its production was established. And such an urgent need as the field and tank guns, in its replacement was not.
As for the Soviet 85-mm tank guns mod. 1944, then fish without fish and cancer. Those. after the "legendary three-inch" 85-mm cannon with sufficient slop in 1944. ballistics, seemed just manna from heaven. Those. everything is relative.
In addition, there was NOTHING more powerful that could be inserted into the T-34/85 tower in the USSR. D-10 for tanks of this size was practically unsuitable. However, D-25, too. This completes the list of candidates. Because ZIS-4M quite rightly was recognized as unnecessary.

2. I don’t even care if someone refers to him tomorrow or not. And even today.

1. You gave an answer twice why. Because it is needed now, and what can be mass-produced.
Expensive testimony to Christ's Day.
To talk about what needs to be adopted, we need to know the capabilities of our industry.

2 You are lying)))) Much more than 100% of what you're lying :))

[rjxtufh]

Quote: demiurg

To talk about what needs to be adopted, we need to know the capabilities of our industry.

So we know them very well today. I’ll even tell you more, they were well known then. Those who should.
But sometimes decisions were made ... strange.

Quote: demiurg

2 You are lying)))) Much more than 100% of what you're lying :))

You can be sure.
Or do you think that for this purpose I chose the rjxtufh login that is easy to remember and sonorous?

[demiurg]

Quote: rjxtufh

1. But sometimes decisions were made ... strange.

2. You can be sure.
Or do you think that for this purpose I chose the rjxtufh login that is easy to remember and sonorous?

Manager You are, however, in a bad sense of the word. Not a producer ever. A man on the spot, with his own experience, made some sort of decision. One could say that I think that most likely ... But no, you write something directly. In 30-40 years you were at factories in Germany or the USSR, talked with technologists and engineers? Or maybe you injected 1 TA into the breakouts or the Dead Head?
I reached the master of the final assembly site at the factory. And what they wrote in booklets and showed on TV, and probably will remain in history, did not correspond to the realities of ELSIB.

2. Confess that you're lying and parting friends

[rjxtufh]

Quote: demiurg

One could say that I think that most likely ... But no, you write something in plain text.

What I write means "I think ...". The questions are historical. And with the help of a time machine, we did not move in those days. And they did not occupy leading positions in the government.
So, all these are value judgments and nothing more.
And on the other hand, no one will convince me that in the USSR no one knew that long trunks for the ZIS-2 arr. 1941 will not be able to drill serially. Exactly the same as they could not drill for the F-22. But anyway, the gun was adopted and its whole year tried to put into production.
What is it called?
In 1937-38. started the modernization of the forty-five. What for? Was it really incomprehensible that her days were numbered? The history of this "masterpiece" stretches back to 1885, from the 47-mm ship's gun of Hotchkiss. And everything has its limit.
DE forty-five was 414 kJ. But back in 1936. there was a Czech 47-mm gun with DE 496 kJ. In 1937 - French 47-mm gun with DE 631 kJ. In 1938 - German 50-mm gun with DE 718 kJ. As it was possible in 1937-38. bet on an anti-tank gun with a 414 kJ DE? Especially in conditions of catastrophically inflexible production.
What is it called?
Three-inch at the end of 1940. finally discontinued. And what did you come up with in return for her? Absolutely not technological 57-mm ZIS-2. Yes, and highly specialized, anti-tank. What would they put on tanks? All the same three-inch slop. Why? Yes, because there was nothing to put, nothing suitable was developed. And to put a 57-mm gun was stupid.
What is it called?
About how before the war, under the production of T-34 (from the birth of an obsolete tank with archaic suspension) they built a whole plant (STZ) to write? Is this a wise, balanced decision by professionals? And I'm still silent, like this tank did. And what in the end they did.
And such examples, even a dime a dozen. Yes, and to hell with them, but as a result, all these shoals were paid for by the blood of thousands and thousands of compatriots. But this is already important and serious. Therefore, all this was not just an annoying nuisance that you can only laugh at.

Quote: demiurg

2. Confess that you're lying and parting friends

I don’t even care whether we part with you or not.

[demiurg]

Quote: rjxtufh

What I write means "I think ...". The questions are historical. And with the help of a time machine, we did not move in those days. And they did not occupy leading positions in the government.
So, all these are value judgments and nothing more.
And on the other hand, no one will convince me that in the USSR no one knew that long trunks for the ZIS-2 arr. 1941 will not be able to drill serially. Exactly the same as they could not drill for the F-22. But anyway, the gun was adopted and its whole year tried to put into production.
What is it called?
In 1937-38. started the modernization of the forty-five. What for? Was it really incomprehensible that her days were numbered? The history of this "masterpiece" stretches back to 1885, from the 47-mm ship's gun of Hotchkiss. And everything has its limit.
DE forty-five was 414 kJ. But back in 1936. there was a Czech 47-mm gun with DE 496 kJ. In 1937 - French 47-mm gun with DE 631 kJ. In 1938 - German 50-mm gun with DE 718 kJ. As it was possible in 1937-38. bet on an anti-tank gun with a 414 kJ DE? Especially in conditions of catastrophically inflexible production.
What is it called?
Three-inch at the end of 1940. finally discontinued. And what did you come up with in return for her? Absolutely not technological 57-mm ZIS-2. Yes, and highly specialized, anti-tank. What would they put on tanks? All the same three-inch slop. Why? Yes, because there was nothing to put, nothing suitable was developed. And to put a 57-mm gun was stupid.
What is it called?
About how before the war, under the production of T-34 (from the birth of an obsolete tank with archaic suspension) they built a whole plant (STZ) to write? Is this a wise, balanced decision by professionals? And I'm still silent, like this tank did. And what in the end they did.
And such examples, even a dime a dozen. Yes, and to hell with them, but as a result, all these shoals were paid for by the blood of thousands and thousands of compatriots. But this is already important and serious. Therefore, all this was not just an annoying nuisance that you can only laugh at.

I don’t even care whether we part with you or not.

The trunks for the ZIS-2 started up the stream. But they were expensive and redundant in '41. It is logical that they curtailed production.
Forty is not that at 38, it was sufficient until the age of 42. Not even, before the mass appearance of the Panthers, and this is the end of 43 years. Pazikov, real iron laborers, she was full of holes. Tigers were piece by and large.
T-34 obsolete and archaic? Oh how. The fact that he was "raw" in 41 years is yes. But the tank, which for the first time collected in itself anti-cannon armor with rational angles, a diesel, a fairly large-caliber gun, can be called archaic .... Probably T-4 40 onwards. or samua, or even God forbid m-3 were advanced machines? Or Matilda 2, with 15 km / h speed?
Well, tell me, what was there in 1940 at the assembly line in the advanced world?

Well, okay. I’ll probably survive :))

[Bloodsucker]

Quote: demiurg

Well, tell me, what was there in 1940 at the assembly line in the advanced world?

Do you hope for an adequate response from a clown mired in his fantasies and hallucinations?
Completely to you ... as soon as I remember his enchanting fantasies about vintage and carbine cartridges, so to this day laughter makes out, when I remember about strategically tanks ... so in general, in general, a conversation with this "expert" from the category of empty to empty, this is a mine of fantasies ...
In general, this unique, all that German, French English and Amerov’s engineering tops, all our bad, strange, why then our Flag over defeated Berlin?

[rjxtufh]

Quote: The Bloodthirster

Do you hope for an adequate response from a clown mired in his fantasies and hallucinations?

What do you. No one has been expecting anything adequate from you for a long time.

[rjxtufh]

Quote: demiurg

Trunks for the ZIS-2 launched the same

Let’s go. In 1943 After receiving equipment from the USA.

Quote: demiurg

But they were expensive and redundant in '41.

As for redundancy, I recommend reading the documents. Well, for example, about the conclusions of the Voskresensky commission on this issue. Then ZIS-2 arr. 1941 It was discontinued.
And about the "road" ... Do you think that the lives of Soviet artillerymen were free?

Quote: demiurg

Forty is not that at 38, it was sufficient until the age of 42.

It is a pity that you cannot tell this to the anti-tank front-line soldiers in the prime of life. What they would do to you would be fair.

Quote: demiurg

Pazikov, real iron laborers, she was full of holes.

They are even German "infantry" Pz.IV arr. 1940. holes from pistol distances. And after the Germans converted the Pz.IV into a medium tank, things took a very bad turn.
As a result, the well-deserved and "honorable" title "goodbye, Motherland".
Just in case, I’ll inform you that the situation was exactly the same deplorably for the forty-five with other German tanks model 1940, Pz.III (starting with H) and Pz.38 (t) (starting with E).

Quote: demiurg

who for the first time has put together a round-robin reservation with rational angles,

I apologize wildly, but where did you find the "anti-cannon armor" on the T-34)? Didn't you confuse it with the KV-1 for an hour?

Quote: demiurg

diesel,

And what is this advantage? On the contrary, this is a rather significant drawback.

Quote: demiurg

rather large-caliber gun

A large-caliber and powerful weapon is not the same thing.
You forgot to write about the T-34 suspension. That's where there was ugliness, so ugliness. No one in the world during the years of WWII and beyond had such a miracle for a long time.

Quote: demiurg

Well, tell me, what was there in 1940 at the assembly line in the advanced world?

It does not matter. The important thing is that it corresponded to the structure of the tank forces of their countries. And the T-34/76 did not match her. Here, categorically. Those. it was made as an infantry escort tank, and used as a medium. And this is a rather different range of tasks. The first more or less similar to a real medium tank in the USSR appeared only in 1944. It was a T-34/85.
You can also recall the KV-1C arr. 1942, but it was difficult to call it average (due to weight).
At the same time, the first American medium tank (remember the Runet shnyag about the ever-lagging Americans?) Went to the troops in February 1942. The first German medium tank joined forces in March 1942.
The difference between 1942 and 1944. Do you understand?

[demiurg]

Quote: rjxtufh

Let’s go. In 1943 After receiving equipment from the USA.

As for redundancy, I recommend reading the documents. Well, for example, about the conclusions of the Voskresensky commission on this issue. Then ZIS-2 arr. 1941 It was discontinued.
And about the "road" ... Do you think that the lives of Soviet artillerymen were free?

It is a pity that you cannot tell this to the anti-tank front-line soldiers in the prime of life. What they would do to you would be fair.

They are even German "infantry" Pz.IV arr. 1940. holes from pistol distances. And after the Germans converted the Pz.IV into a medium tank, things took a very bad turn.
As a result, the well-deserved and "honorable" title "goodbye, Motherland".
Just in case, I’ll inform you that the situation was exactly the same deplorably for the forty-five with other German tanks model 1940, Pz.III (starting with H) and Pz.38 (t) (starting with E).

I apologize wildly, but where did you find the "anti-cannon armor" on the T-34)? Didn't you confuse it with the KV-1 for an hour?

And what is this advantage? On the contrary, this is a rather significant drawback.

A large-caliber and powerful weapon is not the same thing.
You forgot to write about the T-34 suspension. That's where there was ugliness, so ugliness. No one in the world during the years of WWII and beyond had such a miracle for a long time.

It does not matter. The important thing is that it corresponded to the structure of the tank forces of their countries. And the T-34/76 did not match her. Here, categorically. Those. it was made as an infantry escort tank, and used as a medium. And this is a rather different range of tasks. The first more or less similar to a real medium tank in the USSR appeared only in 1944. It was a T-34/85.
You can also recall the KV-1C arr. 1942, but it was difficult to call it average (due to weight).
At the same time, the first American medium tank (remember the Runet shnyag about the ever-lagging Americans?) Went to the troops in February 1942. The first German medium tank joined forces in March 1942.
The difference between 1942 and 1944. Do you understand?

Serial production of the gun was carried out in 1941 and from 1943 to 1949. Mastering the serial production of guns at Gorky Plant No. 92 was difficult - compared with the previously manufactured guns ZIS-2 was distinguished by increased complexity. Particular problems were caused by the manufacture of a long barrel, accompanied by a large number of defects. During the development of serial production, the department of the plant’s chief designer carried out a lot of work to improve the production culture [5], but it was not possible to finalize the technology. In November 1941, it was decided to suspend the serial production of ZIS-2. This decision was caused by a number of reasons [4] [6]:

excessive power of the gun and the lack of acute need for it. Information about the heavily armored tanks was not confirmed, the thickness of the frontal armor of German armored vehicles in 1941 did not exceed 60 mm, the side - 40 mm [7]. Under these conditions, the effectiveness of 45 mm and 76 mm guns well mastered in serial production was sufficient;
low manufacturability and high cost of tools;

This is Vika, this is an encyclopedia. The collective mind has decided that it is correctly written, but you seem to know that what is hidden from everyone else.

The Magpie had problems with ammunition, and not with muzzle energy. Do you know the principle of reasonable sufficiency?

45mm with a reduced thickness greater than 60mm, which tank release Until 40 year penetrated such armor at least seven hundred meters?

Diesel flaw? Thanks, burst out laughing. Leopards, K-2, Leclerc, Challenger ALL!!!! Modern MBT except Abrams on diesel engines. That ignoramus who is stubborn is sitting there. Urgently tell them that they are wrong.

L-11 was holed up by any tank of the world at that time at all real battle distances, it was debugged in production and relatively inexpensive.
Best the enemy of the good.

Enlighten me, why the T-34 did not correspond to the proud title of a medium tank, but was just an infantry? (Don't mention bugs with visibility, box, etc.)

The suspension was working, nowhere and never met comments on the T-34 suspension.

Once again, tell me which average the tank exceeded the t-34 in 1940 in a duel situation.

[rjxtufh]

Quote: demiurg

Serial production of the gun was carried out in 1941 and from 1943 to 1949.

No mass production in 1941. not conducted. Production was conducted at the pilot production plant. In scanty amounts and with a huge cost.
You in vain spread copy-paste from murzilka. This is not interesting to anyone.

Quote: demiurg

The collective mind has decided that it is correctly written, but you seem to know that what is hidden from everyone else.

So.

Quote: demiurg

45mm with a reduced thickness of more than 60mm, which tank release until 40 years penetrated such armor from at least seven hundred meters?

But why punch in the forehead if the tank is blind, like a mole? And could you easily punch him aboard? What the Germans did with their beater.

Quote: demiurg

Diesel flaw?

The disadvantage is significant. First of all, in the cost of manufacturing. Well. and in the fire hazard for the crew, of course.

Quote: demiurg

ALL!!!! Modern MBT except Abrams on diesel engines.

Do you want to equate MODERN MBT to T-34? Not worth it.

Quote: demiurg

L-11 was holed up by any tank of the world at that time at all real battle distances, it was debugged in production and relatively inexpensive.

And the funny German beater hit the T-34 in the side once or twice. Preventing him from reaching "any sign of the world."

Quote: demiurg

Enlighten me, why the T-34 did not correspond to the proud title of a medium tank, but was just an infantry? (Don't mention bugs with visibility, box, etc.)

Find out how the tasks of a medium tank differ from the tasks of an infantry escort tank (infantry tank). And you will understand everything yourself.

Quote: demiurg

The suspension was working, nowhere and never met comments on the T-34 suspension.

Have you ever tried swaying on swings to get somewhere pebble? Try to tell if you can do it. And the T-34 tankers were forced to hit. For them, it meant life.
In addition, the suspension devoured a huge internal volume in a generally small tank. Leaving space with a gulkin nose. From this, the fuel tanks were, in particular, in the fighting compartment. And tankers often just burned about getting there.

Quote: demiurg

Once again, tell us which medium tank exceeded the t-34 in 1940 in a duel situation.

This was not the case in 1940. medium tanks. Neither the Germans nor the Americans. The first medium tanks appeared only at the beginning of 1942.
And in the USSR, at the beginning of 1944. (T-34/85). Although such tanks in the structure of the tank forces should have been before. But their role was played by the pre-war "infantry tank" T-34/76.

[Octopus]

Quote: demiurg

Diesel flaw ?.

Yes. Or not. Not exactly known.
1.DT gives advantages (in terms of flow rate, fire risk) when switching to a fully diesel army (a / t too). The Red Army could not do this. Using DT in of tanks are not such a good idea.
2. The use of an expensive, complex, resource-intensive (both in materials and labor) engine in a short-lived wartime tank is not justified.
Conclusion: Americans and Germans were right.
3. The Soviets, for one thing, did not have a tank engine that could run on gasoline, and aviation even lacked aviation. At one time, it was possible to shoot almost all the leading specialists in oil refining.
Conclusion: it is quite possible that the Soviets were also right for their situation.

And after 20 years, but in peacetime - yes, diesel.

Quote: demiurg

L-11 was holed up by any tank of the world at that time at all real battle distances, it was debugged in production and relatively inexpensive.

Seriously? It seems the ballistics of the filed three-inch Lee, no? And at the expense of production did not get excited?

Quote: demiurg

Once again, tell us which medium tank exceeded the t-34 in 1940

There were no averages, and so any tank on the go. As according to Svirin, the T-34 of the 40th year was not a tank at all, but an art object.
He became a tank by the 43rd year: five-step, Cyclones, radios, automatic welding machines, castings. The Americans did the same almost a year earlier. At the same time, they walked from the opposite side: Lee was a defiant freak, but from the point of view of production and operation, he was initially very good. Put the gun in place - it turned out the best tank of its time. Well, to the mass of Panther.

[Niccola Mack]

2. The use of an expensive, complex, resource-intensive (both in materials and labor) engine in a short-lived wartime tank is not justified.
Conclusion: Americans and Germans were right.
3. The Soviets, for one thing, did not have a tank engine that could run on gasoline, and aviation even lacked aviation. At one time, it was possible to shoot almost all the leading specialists in oil refining.

The USSR had a lot of oil, and throughout the war (without the krismarine) Germany traveled and flew practically on "synthetics".
All the diesel fuel processed from their own and Romanian (and not only) oil was almost completely "sucked" by the Kriegsmarine.
This is the "secret of gasoline engines". Although the Germans produced and used during the war and aviation diesel fuel for its intended purpose.
We fully provided ourselves with gasoline and diesel fuel, although, let's face it, of mediocre quality. Under Lend-Lease, fuel and lubricants were supplied for the same "capricious" Lend-Lease vehicles.
The Americans had the same problem, but from a very interesting angle. Diesel fuel was more than enough for them, but diesel from everywhere "carefully" raked out the fleet for itself. If you know the history of the release of the M4, then remember that in the USA such tanks with a diesel engine went only to the Marines (one tank with the fleet) and to the USSR under Lend-Lease.
So there is no need to "shoot" all Soviet oil workers here.

[Octopus]

Quote: Nikkola Mac

The USSR had a lot of oil

You can’t fill the tank with oil.

Quote: Nikkola Mac

This is the "secret of gasoline engines".

What is the secret there. Just not needed.

Quote: Nikkola Mac

We fully provided ourselves with gas and diesel fuel, although - frankly, of mediocre quality.

Yeah. Therefore, the M-17T engine required the 74th gasoline. If you do not know, such gasoline was aviation in those years. Automotive - 55-60.

Quote: Nikkola Mac

but the diesel from everywhere "carefully" raked out the fleet for itself. If you know the history of the release of the M4, then remember that in the USA such tanks with a diesel engine went only to the Marines (one tank with the fleet) and to the USSR under Lend-Lease.

You read your post. Listen to you, the holy Yankees of the diesel engine were found only for the allies, they tear off the fleet with blood. There was no army left.

No. They were not saints. Both the fleet and the army sought to simplify logistics. Army on gasoline, fleet on diesel.

However, the fleet was more flexible in logistics. He had both diesels and gasoline on the same Stuarts. And there is no understanding that diesels were better.

[Octopus]

Quote: rjxtufh

You forgot to write about the T-34 suspension. That's where there was ugliness, so ugliness. No one in the world during the years of WWII and beyond had such a miracle for a long time.

Oh yes. Not at all? Cromwell? Comet?
Although the decision is perhaps unsuccessful, we can agree.

[rjxtufh]

Quote: Octopus

Not at all? Cromwell? Comet?

Crusader yet. All of them in addition to the springs used double-acting shock absorbers. Like the later Merkavas. Those. possessed modern, even by today's standards, suspensions.
Only the T-2 had a swing-type suspension during WW34.
I don’t remember exactly about the Coventor arr. 1939 But in any case, he did not take part in the hostilities, because It was considered not obtained. Those. it can be ignored.

[Octopus]

Quote: rjxtufh

85-mm guns with sufficient slop in 1944 ballistics

I understand your idea, but you are not too attached to ballistics? Here is the "best gun of war" 5/38. Well, squalor in ballistics, so what?

[rjxtufh]

Quote: Octopus

I understand your idea, but you are not too attached to ballistics?

It's not me hooking on her. This is the needs of the armed forces attached to it.

Quote: Octopus

Here is the "best gun of war" 5/38.

I don’t know this.

[Octopus]

Quote: rjxtufh

This is the needs of the armed forces attached to it.

The Germans increased ballistics, caliber tips. Maybe the Germans were right, but the Soviet version wasn’t completely merged. Even if you count the ISI SPGs.

Quote: rjxtufh

I don’t know this.

5 "/ 38 (12.7 cm) Mark 12

[rjxtufh]

Quote: Octopus

The Germans increased ballistics, caliber tips. Maybe the Germans were right, but the Soviet version wasn’t completely merged. Even if you count the ISI SPGs.

In tanks of those times, it was difficult (almost impossible) to use cartridges with a caliber of more than 90 mm. Therefore, the Germans improved ballistics.
As for the IS-2, this is not a tank, but a self-propelled gun turret. And precisely because of its gun. Which is never a tank.

Quote: Octopus

5 "/ 38 (12.7 cm) Mark 12

I understand everything, except why this is "the best gun of the war."

[Octopus]

Quote: rjxtufh

As for the IS-2, this is not a tank, but a turret self-propelled gun

And even so. Weak tanks and turret self-propelled guns with PT functions. Exactly Americans to Pershing.

Quote: rjxtufh

I understand everything, except why this is "the best gun of the war."

Well, the Americans cannot admit that they did not have a single successful gun. And here at least we can say that the only full-fledged universal. Speaking of universal guns)))
In any case, it completely coped with its functions.

[rjxtufh]

Quote: Octopus

Exactly Americans to Pershing.

But what are Shermans not happy with? Quite decent medium tanks were. For its time.
By the way, Sherman was the first medium tank of WW2. So much for the "backward Americans in the field of tank building." The Pz.IV-F2 was released even a month earlier.

[Octopus]

Quote: rjxtufh

Quite decent medium tanks were. For its time.

So I do not argue. The best tank of its time. Approximately like the T-34/76, if it were done as it should.
Only now the time of both of them ended in the summer of the 43rd.

Quote: rjxtufh

So much for the "backward Americans in the field of tank building"

They are not retarded. They just fooled around.
Some I know, Sherman had two problems.
The second problem was called L. McNair. If your chief of general staff does not know that any weapon becomes obsolete exactly at the moment you enter service (and often earlier) - you did not guess with the chief of general staff. McNair, they say, had its own strengths, but it would be worth keeping it from a technical policy per kilometer. Better a mile.
Accordingly, thanks to such figures, the Americans entered France on a very good T-34/76. The idea did not justify itself.
The first problem is even worse. Her names were Nadsen and Keller.
It is well known how to do some thing that you do not know how to do. You need to find at least a couple of knowledgeable people, carefully look around, find (buy, steal) the most promising technical solutions, put them together in your project, and then bring manufacturability. This was done, for example, Mustang.
We do not need to guess what tanks built on such principles could be. GABTU and, above all, Leningraders did something about that. The result was T-126, T-50 and KV, that is, something very similar to Pershing and Chaffee. And in the 39th year.
And what did the aforementioned gentlemen and their business partners from the War Department do? Shouting "Save America!" "The enemy is at the gate!" riveted some sheds for 1000 a month and only along the way decided to find out what the tank looks like in general. As a result, Sherman ended up with a lot of unjustified jambs, like a high crankshaft, and the necessary decisions (adaptation of the Alison to Ford GAA, independent suspension, maximum gun, Churchill-level armor) left for several years to the right.
The suspension, by the way, is the least significant. Centurion and so managed.

[rjxtufh]

Quote: Octopus

Only now the time of both of them ended in the summer of the 43rd.

I do not agree, neither about Sherman, nor about T-34/76.
The Sherman, for all its weaknesses, was quite comparable to the German Pz.IV in the "medium tank" variant (starting from the Pz.IV-F2 model and onwards, while in the Wehrmacht it was not a medium, but a light tank).
And the time of the T-34/76 never started. At first it was decided to use it "temporarily" as an "operational tank" in mechanized corps. That with a sin in half he could still do.
But in January 1942. disaster happened. In the absence of another tank in the USSR, the T-34/76 (originally the tank of direct infantry escort) was appointed a medium tank by volitional decision. Without any changes. It cost Soviet tankers a lot.
At the same time, a real medium tank in the USSR was made only in the spring of 1944. This trinity, T-34/76, Sherman and Pz.IV were then absolute classmates. And you can and should compare them, as you like.
At the same time, there were no analogues to the German Pz.V and Pz.VI in the Soviet and American armies. Only at the very end of the vine appeared M26 Pershing, an analogue of Pz.V.

Quote: Octopus

Accordingly, thanks to such figures, the Americans entered France on very good T-34/76

What do you mean? A cannon? So the Americans had Shermans with a 76 mm M1.

Quote: Octopus

The result was T-126, T-50 and KV, that is, something very similar to Pershing and Chaffee. And in the 39th year.

Pershing and Chaffee could fight. But Soviet tanks, no. This is the USSR. First they did something. And then for many years they "brought it to mind". But the moment of entry into service was always considered not the moment of completion of the refinement, but the moment of acceptance into service. This is in vain.

Quote: Octopus

The suspension, by the way, is the least significant. Centurion and so managed.

Harstman's pendant, this is not Christie's pendant. Although there is something in common between them.
By the way, the Americans in Shermans used shock absorbers in Hartsman's pendants.

[Octopus]

Quote: rjxtufh

Sherman, for all his weaknesses, was quite comparable with the German Pz.IV

I don’t argue. Only a little of this, in May 44th.

Quote: rjxtufh

T-34/76 time did not start

I said "if it is done well." If this happened with this tank, it was not long and too late.

Quote: rjxtufh

Here is this trinity, T-34/76, Sherman and Pz.IV

34/85, apparently.

Quote: rjxtufh

At the same time, there were no analogues to the German Pz.V and Pz.VI in the Soviet and American armies. Only at the very end of the vine appeared M26 Pershing, an analogue of Pz.V.

IS-1?

Quote: rjxtufh

What do you mean? A cannon? So the Americans had Shermans with a 76 mm M1.

I mean the discrepancy between this gun and this armor to the battlefield with cats and PaK40. And the M1 was rather worse than the ZIS-S-53, than better.

Quote: rjxtufh

Pershing and Chaffee could fight. But Soviet tanks, no.

Maybe. But Pershing was an almost exact copy of the IS-1 on an American technical base (except for the transmission). But Sherman has almost nothing in common. Not that the Americans licked, but simply nowhere to go. IP, by the way, just the quality of components, especially the gun, was not enough, I had to push the A-19.
This is what we are talking about. The Americans had everything to make a tank as it should in the 40th year. Engine, gun, armor welding technology. They did. By February 45th. And I see no excuses.

Quote: rjxtufh

Harstman's pendant, it's not Christie's pendant

I know. But trolleys are a rather archaic solution for the 50s. Nevertheless, they managed.

[rjxtufh]

Quote: Octopus

Only a little of this, in May 44th.

This, yes, is not enough. But at the same time, the appearance of an exemplary classmate of Sherman, T-34/85 in the spring of 1944, is presented as a very great achievement.

Quote: Octopus

I said "if it is done well."

Yes, if you make a good T-34/76. If you make a good KV-1. These "ifs" are everywhere.
The interesting thing is that all these tanks are good to make back in 1940. was DONE real. And nothing was needed for this inaccessible or high-tech.
But they didn’t. And they did, if only it were.

Quote: Octopus

34/85, apparently

Yes.

Quote: Octopus

IS-1?

With his flapper? The Soviet 85-mm tank gun in its performance characteristics was approximately equivalent to the German 75-mm KwK40. But not the 88mm KwK36.

Quote: Octopus

And the M1 was rather worse than the ZIS-S-53, than better.

That, yes. The fragmentation of M1 was noticeably worse. But the armor penetration is about the same.

Quote: Octopus

But Pershing was almost an exact copy of the IS-1 on an American technical base

When I hear about American copies of Soviet products, I feel funny. And when about German, too. Even about a 120 mm mortar.

Quote: Octopus

They did. By February 45th.

Well, let's just say, no one has such tanks at all until the summer of 1943. did not have. Here the Germans overtook the Americans, although with the medium tank in front were the Americans.
The tiger stands a perfect mansion, such tanks are not that they did not, they did not.
In addition, do not forget about powerful self-propelled guns. The USSR took this path, firing turret and turretless self-propelled guns with 122-mm guns instead of a heavy tank.
The Americans have a certain analogue (very conditionally, of course) can be considered a 90-mm turret self-propelled guns M36.
But then, the Americans did not have a special need for Pershing. Neither before their appearance, nor later. They did not go on the attack like the Soviet soldiers went. Or even German. Their battle tactics were different.

[Octopus]

Quote: rjxtufh

Sherman’s exemplary classmate, T-34/85 in the spring of 1944, is touted as a very great achievement.

If where it is presented, then I have not seen. We put a bigger cannon (the only one that was at hand). Eliminated some of the shortcomings known at the time of acceptance. No illusions about the meeting of this vehicle with tanks from 45 (Pershing / Panther II / Centurion) (this is the topic "the second front was not needed"). And the usual Panther was quite enough. The Panther is more compared to the IS-2 than to the T-34/85.

Quote: rjxtufh

But not the 88mm KwK36.

And I'm not talking about the Tiger at all. We will consider the IS-1 Panther. Well, there, pre-production, or defective, or damaged)).

Quote: rjxtufh

The fragmentation of M1 was noticeably worse. But the armor penetration is about the same.

And what the hell is she so needed? Panther is not enough, the groove is normal. Even with an 80 mm forehead, there was a subcaliber (HVAP T45).

Quote: rjxtufh

When I hear about American copies of Soviet products, I feel funny.

I repeat, I do not mean that the Yankees made HF reverse engineering. I mean, the KV (F-30) solutions were uncontested - layout, maximum armor angles, the maximum possible anti-aircraft gun with a unitary shot (with the F-30 they were a little too sophisticated), a V-shaped aircraft engine, torsion bars - all this was with the KV and Persha, and did not have Sherman. And what hindered?

Quote: rjxtufh

The interesting thing is that all these tanks are good to make back in 1940. was DONE real. And nothing was needed for this inaccessible or high-tech.

Yeah. And here comes the theme of total lies, fraud, assault and hack. Somewhat unexpected, given the reputation of your favorite "effective manager")) However, the "tough" managers do this all the time.

Quote: rjxtufh

The USSR took this path, firing turret and turretless self-propelled guns with 122-mm guns instead of a heavy tank.

The USSR had no options. And there were problems with the shells, and with guns of special power. So just increase the caliber, proceed to separate loading.
And the Anglo-Saxons had options. Nevertheless, after the war they went the same way, pushed a 120 mm anti-aircraft gun with separate loading into the tank. Will you also consider FV 214 and M103 turret self-propelled guns?

Quote: rjxtufh

But then, the Americans did not have a special need for Pershing. Neither before their appearance, nor later. They did not go on the attack like the Soviet soldiers went. Or even German. Their battle tactics were different.

Do not give out need for virtue. Calling aviation from England to every Tiger is not such a thing, but a phakoff. As well as paving the way through the field defense of the Liberators. If the partners had normal tanks (among other things) - Robertson and Silvashko could not hug on the Elbe, but on the Oder, or even the Vistula. By the way, more people would return home.

[rjxtufh]

Quote: Octopus

The Panther is compared with the IS-2 more than with the T-34/85.

The T-34/85 had its classmate, Pz.IV.

Quote: Octopus

We will consider the IS-1 Panther. Well, there, pre-production, or defective, or damaged))

You can count anything. But the 85 mm D5T versus the 75 mm KwK42 was just a toy.

Quote: Octopus

there was a subcaliber

You still have to get to the sub-caliber distance. Caliber, it is more reliable.

Quote: Octopus

all this was with KV and Persh, and not with Sherman. And what hindered?

Well, let's say, where does the anti-aircraft gun come from? Only if you do not mean KV-85.
But on Sherman put anti-aircraft guns. 76 mm M1, this is exactly the ancient anti-aircraft gun.

Quote: Octopus

given the reputation of your favorite "effective manager"

Mine? You confused me with someone.

Quote: Octopus

Will you also consider FV 214 and M103 turret self-propelled guns?

Well, there were the M36 turret self-propelled guns. Why not these?

Quote: Octopus

By the way, more people would return home.

I am for it". But the fermentors will be against it.

[Sergey S.]

Quote: rjxtufh

At the same time, there were no analogues to the German Pz.V and Pz.VI in the Soviet and American armies. Only at the very end of the vine appeared M26 Pershing, an analogue of Pz.V.

Kopets, or rather a complete kopek logic and common sense.

I understand the situation as follows.
Germany was defeated in reality.
It is defeated by military means, the economy is destroyed, the state is dissolved, ideology is prohibited.

But followers in separate heads remained.

New historical conditions came, and a modern myth was invented for the modern man: the fascists created all the best, their pilots. sailors and tankers are the most qualified, ...
At the same time, individual rare facts are selected from the general situation, as a rule of little significance, and declared the most important events.

In this case, it makes sense to declare the Americans as winners in the "refrigerator" and "popcorn" categories.
And for the USSR to secure the Victory, "Katyusha" and the Communists with the Komsomol members.
The Germans leave the concentration camps, Sonderkommando and the Nuremberg Tribunal.

[Octopus]

Quote: rjxtufh

The T-34/85 had its classmate, Pz.IV

Yes, but by June 44th he was a type of auxiliary. With regard to this period, the "grandfathers fought" on the IS-2 (and other machines with the D-25T, which did not reach the front) and T-44 (about 200 of them were produced by May 7, however, Pershey, most likely, in Europe was even less). T-34/85 is not particularly praised. Although, maybe I just don't read everything.

Quote: rjxtufh

But the 85 mm D5T versus the 75 mm KwK42 was just a toy.

And the rest is Panther))). Well, you never know, they stuck a gun from a groove in Panther, it happens, they got it wrong.

Quote: rjxtufh

Caliber, it is more reliable.

This is not a reason to sacrifice explosiveness. Especially if, according to your doctrine, tanks do not fight tanks. Here I am inclined to agree with McNair and others. You need to be consistent, even when you're wrong. Half measures make the situation worse.

Quote: rjxtufh

Well, let's say, where does the anti-aircraft gun come from? Only if you do not mean KV-85.

I wrote what I mean. F-30. The same 52-K, in fact, it was one and was more powerful than three-inches and with a unitary. One of the options for HF is 1288-495ss dated 17.06.40/XNUMX/XNUMX.

Quote: rjxtufh

But on Sherman put anti-aircraft guns. 76 mm M1, this is exactly the ancient anti-aircraft gun.

I wrote, "the maximum possible anti-aircraft gun with a unitary shot." The Soviets had it 52-K. But the Americans did not put the maximum gun on the Sherman (like, only for self-propelled guns). This is not to mention the fact that the most powerful available weapon with a Unitar was not the M2, but the English QF 3.7-inch, aka 32-pdr, which the Americans did not take at all for religious reasons.

Quote: rjxtufh

You confused me with someone.

There was an unanimated smiley

Quote: rjxtufh

Well, there were the M36 turret self-propelled guns. Why not these?

Well, like, they themselves say that "tanks".

[Octopus]

Quote: Sergey S.

Germany was defeated in reality.

Yes. No need to worry so much.

Quote: Sergey S.

But followers in separate heads remained.

Yeah. Too many people believe that if Hitler was byaky, this is no reason to prohibit roads and vegetarians. However, in Russia the roads were banned much in advance, and vegetarians will soon get there.

Worse, people who ban anything for an imaginary connection with Hitler are exactly what cosplay fascism. And yes, there have been a lot of such people lately.

Quote: Sergey S.

the fascists created all the best, their pilots. the most skilled sailors and tankers

Not everything, and not always the most. Pilots, sailors and tankers were different, some certainly outstanding. And it was not the fascists who created it, but the German engineers. Their political views in relation to muzzle energy do not matter.

Quote: Sergey S.

In this case, it makes sense to declare the Americans as winners in the "refrigerator" and "popcorn" categories.

And also the dollar, rock and roll and the atomic bomb. Not a little at all.

Quote: Sergey S.

And for the USSR to secure the Victory, "Katyusha" and the Communists with the Komsomol members.

Victory will have to be shared if you are not talking about the GAZ M-20. Take the rest, no questions.

Quote: Sergey S.

The Germans leave the concentration camps, Sonderkommando and the Nuremberg Tribunal.

The life of states and peoples is long. 33-45 years is not exhausted. We don’t want to know anything about your country during this period? Some communists with Komsomol members?
As for the tribunal, the article of the Criminal Code 354.1. "Rehabilitation of Nazism", unconditional moral authorities of our time, gathered by God's providence in the State Duma of the 6th convocation, have finally put an end to this issue. Prior to the appearance of this article, all sorts of lying scum, which we now angrily brand, used to assert that the Nuremberg trial was a crime before justice, like everything to which A.Ya. Vyshinsky. And the heroes are people like C.A. Nimitz, who was not afraid to say that he was doing exactly the same thing as the accused Raeder, or Radhabinod Pal, the judge of the Tokyo Tribunal, who called the mentioned event an ordinary reprisal against the defeated.

Now, thanks to the gentlemen of the deputies, we know that this is a lie, and the Nuremberg Tribunal is right in everything.

It was from Nuremberg that the disgusting manner of attaching "crimes" to the vanquished, while remaining morally irreproachable, began. The Tribunal for Yugoslavia, which established that crimes during the civil war were committed strictly by one side, is a direct continuation of the ideas of Nuremberg.

By the way, I can not resist the denunciation. As I recall, one of the facts established by the verdict of the International Military Tribunal for the trial and punishment of the main war criminals of the European axis countries was the Germans' fault in the Katyn execution of Polish officers. There was a time, V.V. Putin has publicly denied this fact using his official position and in the media. It would be necessary to interrogate. Up to three years.

[rjxtufh]

Quote: Octopus

Yes, but by June 44th he was kind of auxiliary.

Yes, the main one was still Pz.V. But the ratio released in 1944. tanks are not so much in their favor, compared with Pz.IV. 54,5% versus 45,5%. Therefore, in 1944. Pz.IV was also relevant. Although less than in 1943. Interestingly, exactly the same proportions of output were preserved in 1945.

Quote: Octopus

With regard to this period, "grandfathers fought" on the IS-2

How to say. Issue IS-2 in 1944. amounted to 13,4%. A T-34/76, for example, 21,9%.

Quote: Octopus

Well, you never know, they stuck a gun from a groove in Panther, it happens, they got it wrong.

Well, maybe something like that. Then the statement is approximately true.

Quote: Octopus

This is not a reason to sacrifice explosiveness.

I agree, there are questions with the KwK42 HE. Although, everything is relative. For example, it is widely believed that there were no problems with the OFS for three inches. However, its OFS contained 621g. BB In OFS KwK42 was 620 BC. At the same time, it is also widely believed that KwK42 had global problems with OFS.
Rumors filled the earth ...

Quote: Octopus

I wrote what I mean. F-30.

Grabin was a great optimist. Once his (or Kulik, most likely the latter) optimism played a cruel joke with the Red Army. This is about ZIS-2 arr. 1941, if that. Here is the F-30, this is another manifestation of such optimism.
The only option for the USSR, how it was possible to provide the KV-1 with a normal cannon, is to recall all F-22s from the troops and disassemble them. To bore the barrel group (chamber) under the "anti-aircraft" cartridge and put it in the KV-1. Carriages, well, it was VERY interesting to do with them.
And the lack of divisions so beloved in the Red Army followed in 1941. make up for the continuation of the release of the F-22USV. And in no case do not bother unrealistic in 1941. ZIS-2.
But this required:
Or downright crystal honesty and "party principles" of real actors. Which was not actually observed.
Or throwing a fellow in those days.
There were no other options.
But here is such a KV-1, and even with a normal gearbox, and even with normal filters in 1941. (they were made only in 1942) would be a "bomb". And who knows how things could have turned out if such a tank in 1941. was in the Red Army.
And you don’t need to think about the 85 mm cannon on the KV-1 before the war. For it is empty. Valuantarism.

Quote: Octopus

But the Americans did not put the maximum weapon on the Sherman (like, only for self-propelled guns)

Yes, they put it only on Pershing. But there she was not very. Weak.
The gun was good, but not great at all. Noticeably worse than the German 88 mm KwK43. But much more powerful than the KwK40 / C-53 / M1, which were on the "sweet trinity" Pz.IV / T-34/85 / Sherman.
Who knows, maybe the 90 mm M3 didn’t fit into Sherman, did not allow the shoulder strap?
As for the Ordnance QF 17 pounder Mk.IV, then you need to carefully understand it. I think the matter there was the weakness of the OFS. And the Americans attached OFS power to great importance. For this reason, they changed the 75 mm M3 to M1 with a big creak.

[Octopus]

Quote: rjxtufh

How to say. Issue IS-2 in 1944. amounted to 13,4%. A T-34/76, for example, 21,9%.

So I'm not saying that the grandfathers in real life had only ISs. It's just that the topic "we are the coolest" does not go with the T-34/85.

Quote: rjxtufh

I agree, with the KwK42 high-priority questions there are

Stop. I'm not talking about KwK42. I'm talking about the American 75/76 mm in the Sherman. The Germans had a different situation and a different tank.

Quote: rjxtufh

For example, it is widely believed that there were no problems with the OFS for three inches. However, its OFS contained 621g. BB In OFS KwK42 was 620 g. BB

Because Sprgr. 42 operators compared with Sprgr. 34. And about the three-inch did not understand what kind of projectile we are talking about. It seems like up to 815 g for the F-34 or ZiS-3 (F-354M).

Quote: rjxtufh

And you don’t need to think about the 85 mm cannon on the KV-1 before the war. For it is empty. Valuantarism.

Not understood. What else to think about? There are only two options for relatively quickly strengthening the gun, 3-K / ZiS-5 and 52-K / S-53. Both of them were being worked on. And then systems with separate loading (M-60 / ZiS-6, A-19 / D-25T) or naval guns (B-34 => D10). The second option is not fast, the first dramatically reduces the rate of fire. Everybody worked out. And they were right, more or less.
Short 75mm for 50t. the tank is clearly not enough. Such a cannon in the 16t Valentine Mk XI crammed in the end. They tried on Stuart.

Quote: rjxtufh

But there she was not very. Weak.

Panther was enough. But yes, they again cheated. This gun fit in Hellcat, for a tank in 43t. could pick up better. They were able to drill long trunks, and even marine guns with powerful ballistics in abundance.

Quote: rjxtufh

maybe 90 mm M3 didn’t fit into Sherman, the shoulder strap did not allow

You will not believe. The shoulder strap was 1750, the same for everyone. Sherman, Pershing, Jackson, Hellcat. Only Chaffee had a smaller one, 1500. The Soviets thrust the D-1825T almost in the same epaulet (10).

Quote: rjxtufh

And the Americans attached OFS power to great importance. For this reason, they changed the 75 mm M3 to M1 with a big creak.

All the same people creaked, above all McNair. And he creaked for a reason, from a bad character. He knew the Charter. The charter clearly stated that tanks support infantry, and self-propelled guns are fighting with enemy tanks, cutting off enemy tank wedges. Therefore, the Hellcat 76mm set without talking. They could have delivered 17-pdr if the army did not have an overdose of patriotism. The fleet and aviation looked at things much easier. We need Merlin instead of Alison, Oerlikon or Hispano instead of Browning - go ahead, get a license.

I note that Hellcat, created in the same stupid manner, turned out to be a much more advanced machine. A special tsimes is the underload of the front rollers revealed during testing of the prototype T70 GMC. There would be a normal frontal armor set, and a tower. No, they shifted the transmission forward. A light tank was made in parallel and a year later.

[Octopus]

Quote: rjxtufh

T-34/85 were not similar. But there were many. Lots of..

Have you decided to troll me? In the 44th there were 10,6 thousand. Against almost 7 thousand. Panthers and grooves.

Quote: rjxtufh

At the same time, even repair kits were sent to the troops, so that there they could replace the guns of already launched tanks.

The first time I hear this. There, it seems, the other tower relied.

Quote: rjxtufh

But faced with the fact that their 75 mm M3 against German tanks is already weak, the Sherman 76 mm M1 went into service.

Everything is much worse. Indeed, a forced decision by which the ground forces tried to break away from the ideas of the gunners (Ordnance Corps) by replacing Sherman with the T23. We took the upper half of T23 (a tower with a gun), the lower half from Sherman, a compromise.
No systematic work was done to find the most armor-piercing solution for Sherman. In particular, the issue of Tiger 76mm armor penetration with a gun was not decided at the training ground, but by postal voting. In the summer of the 44th, it turned out that democratic procedures for determining armor penetration are not quite good.

Tearing apart in the field of work on tanks causes me great irritation, especially the lack of a clear position of Marshall or any other person who can make a final decision. The FDR, which was not without reason called a dictator from the first day of his presidency, did not bother to introduce unity of command in the army. The role of the GABTU was the Research and Development Division of the US Army's Ordnance Department, which was engaged in nothing and which the tankers themselves (AGF) did not consider authority.

Quote: rjxtufh

And as for the 90 mm M3, I think that there were problems with its installation in the Sherman.

Yes, there were awesome problems. While McNair was alive. And until Eisenhower pecked the roasted cock. Both that and another - the summer of 44th. The thought will take care of the tanks in advance, at least in the year 43, Aiku never occurred to him, like, not his question.

Quote: rjxtufh

Yes, 1750 mm. Therefore, I doubt it.

Again. On Persh the same epaulette.

Quote: rjxtufh

Moreover, on the KV-85 and IS-1 with a pursuit of 1800 mm was D-5T.

And what, sorry, could have stood in the 43rd year? M-60? A-19? M-10T, maybe?

Quote: rjxtufh

As for Pershing, I have no data on his pursuit

No pity
http://www.vn-parabellum.com/us/m26-data.html
http://afvdb.50megs.com/usa/m26pershing.html

Quote: rjxtufh

it can be assumed that the Americans in his tower were very crowded. What are they not used to

Do you think they made a decision by interviewing tankers? Have you seen Stuart's tower basket?

118,7 shoulder straps. They also stuffed 75mm (Scott M8), though with a shoulder strap 1384. Valentine 1270, incl. with a 75 mm gun.

Honestly, you read about American tanks, and come from envy. It is necessary to expand the epaulette - please, the torsion bar suspension - as you order, the engines - 5 options, including a multi-fuel diesel (we’ll take the worst, because Ford’s best engine, and the tank is initially made by Chrysler and GM), penetrating the 17-pdr gun please put no, fuck off. In such conditions, not making a tank normal for the 44th year is a miracle simple. But they could.

Quote: rjxtufh

By the way, the projectile 90 mm M3 armor penetration was so-so. Slightly better than KwK42, but noticeably worse than KwK43. But the fragmentation was excellent, better than the KwK43, almost like the KwK36

So it was required. Punching Panther VLD with a Tiger gun’s explosiveness. Well, yes, I didn’t take Tiger2 with Fedya, but Fedi was killed by May 44th, and Tigrov2 on May 01.05.44, 27 was XNUMX pieces. And they barely drove, actually.

Quote: rjxtufh

It turns out that the best 2MV heavy tank was ... Pershing

He would be the best if he appeared on time, i.e. a year earlier. And the 45th year is already IS-3 and Centurion. And even a little T-54.

Quote: rjxtufh

I still disagree. Maybe the American statutes said so, I don't know. But "infantry support tanks" in the course of the war were reformatted into "assault self-propelled guns". Those. into well-protected field guns.

It was said. Therefore - a surprise! - The Americans did not have assault guns either. Like, that’s what the Shermans should have done. Well, maximum, Sherman Jumbo.
Obviously, the captain believes that to support the infantry it was necessary to sculpt just assault guns, exchanging the turret, rate of fire and mobility for caliber and armor. But tanks to pump armor-piercing. But the Americans, as you know, did exactly the opposite. The theme of "assault tanks" degraded into a hundred-ton monsters. Tank destroyers without armor were supposed to rush along the front with flies, shooting tank wedges from the flanks, and tanks - to crush with the infantry. Before that, it would be necessary to buy out all PaK40s from the Germans so that Sherman could crush something, but they did not slightly modify it. Yes, and instead of tank wedges, the Germans began to burst into the ground for some reason, cheaters. I had to start up the start-ups, how else to fight the anti-tank defense system, in fact.

[rjxtufh]

Quote: Sergey S.

Germany was defeated in reality.

Does anyone argue with this?

Quote: Sergey S.

a new myth was invented: the fascists created all the best, their pilots. sailors and tankers are the most qualified, ...

How to say. There were still areas of science and technology where the Germans were ahead of the rest.
And there were areas of science and technology where they had everything badly or mediocre enough.
Moreover, the situation changed at different times. Those. the situation was quite dynamic.

Quote: Sergey S.

And for the USSR to secure the Victory, "Katyusha" and the Communists with the Komsomol members.

And where did you divide the Soviet people? Not communists or Komsomol members. And ordinary Soviet citizens? Non-partisan? Do you think it was extras? Grey mass?
You are mistaken, and very much.
Questions of a VERY technical nature are discussed here. And your attempt to turn the discussion into an "ideological channel" will be wrong.

[rjxtufh]

Quote: Octopus

It's just that the topic "we are the coolest" does not go with the T-34/85.

That, yes. On the coolest T-34/85 were not similar. But there were many. Lots of.

Quote: Octopus

I'm talking about the American 75/76 mm in the Sherman.

They were not going to sacrifice it. But faced with the fact that their 75 mm M3 against German tanks is already weak, the Sherman 76 mm M1 went into service. At the same time, even repair kits were sent to the troops, so that there they could replace the guns of already launched tanks.
Those. it was a forced move. And as for the 90 mm M3, I think that there were problems with its installation in the Sherman.

Quote: Octopus

And about the three-inch did not understand what kind of projectile we are talking about.

OF-350, cartridge UOF-353M and UOF-354M.
815 Propulsion VV was in the old Russian high-explosive grenade (not shell) F-354, cartridge UV-353 and UV-353M. But:
1. Such a cartridge used a truncated powder charge (480 g), so the grenade was not long-range.
2. Such cartridges (UV-353 and UV-353M) were not included in the ammunition load of tank guns.

Quote: Octopus

You will not believe. Epaulet was 1750

Yes, 1750 mm. Therefore, I doubt it. Nevertheless, the ZiS-S-53 was more or less normal on the T-44 with a shoulder strap of 1700 mm. Moreover, on the KV-85 and IS-1 with a pursuit of 1800 mm was D-5T.
And the 90 mm M3 was larger than these two guns.
As for Pershing, I have no data on his pursuit. But even if his shoulder strap was 1750 mm, it can be assumed that the Americans in his tower were very crowded. What are they not used to. But there was no way out, if the 76 mm M1 in the Sherman’s tower against the background of the KwK40 and C-53 looked pretty wow, then in the Pershing tower she had nothing to do.
By the way, the projectile 90 mm M3 armor penetration was so-so. Slightly better than KwK42, but noticeably worse than KwK43. But the fragmentation was excellent, better than the KwK43, almost like the KwK36. Those. KwK42 the Americans jumped by the end of the war, but the Germans did not manage to release Panther-2 with KwK43. So it turns out that the best 2MV heavy tank was ... Pershing. At the same time, the Tigers were super-heavy tanks and their analogues were not produced by the Allies. I already wrote about IS-2/3 above, in fact it was not tanks, but turret self-propelled guns.

Quote: Octopus

The charter clearly stated that tanks support infantry

I still disagree. Maybe the American statutes said so, I don't know. But "infantry support tanks" in the course of the war were reformatted into "assault self-propelled guns". Those. into well-protected field guns.
But just heavy and medium tanks were supposed to storm the enemy defenses in the main directions with great advance inland. With the support of just the infantry. Those. on the contrary, infantry from supported was gradually turned into a supporting force.

[rjxtufh]

I apologize, but I have to answer there. where the site allows, and not where it should be.

Quote: Octopus

In the 44th there were 10,6 thousand. Against almost 7 thousand. Panthers and grooves.

I would consider only 3126 Pz.IV. Yet for the Panthers and Tigers were IS-2, ISU-122 and SU-100. In my opinion, of course.

Quote: Octopus

The first time I hear this.

The amazing thing is that in the source where I read it, right now I can not find this information. Although I well remember where I saw her about. There were even cleanly converted tanks. Now I have not found this. If I find it, I'll post a screen.

Quote: Octopus

There, it seems, the other tower relied.

Yes, in theory, the T23 tower was supposed to be. But I read it! Directly with the number of converted tanks. And there was nothing about the tower.

Quote: Octopus

And what, sorry, could have stood in the 43rd year?

But why then 1800 mm?

Quote: Octopus

But they could.

I read somewhere that the Americans had their own concept of tank warfare. And the Sherman, in their opinion, was still an "infantry" tank, not a medium tank. But for anti-tank warfare they had tank destroyers. Those. division of labor was assumed, which later fell short of expectations.
In fact, again, according to the Americans, they switched to the new tank troops structure only in 1945. with the advent of Pershing. Well, and a little forced in 1944. (Shermans with 76 mm guns) when they realized that they could’t fight the old structure. And before that, they drove the Shermans with 76-mm guns into a land lease.
Although it was Sherman with a 75 mm M3 in February 1942. and became the first full-fledged 2MV medium tank. But the Americans did not use it like that. And they didn’t even plan to use it like that. And he gradually degraded in this form until 1944. That's what is interesting. For 2 years, nothing new has been done.
Although, precisely as an infantry, Sherman in 1944. was so-so. Of course, it cannot be compared with the SU-76. But StuG IV was more powerful, although without a tower. In general, of course the Germans had a series of PaK / KwK / StuG40, like a lifesaver. Good for everyone. Including and at a price.
I already wrote above, the Germans switched to the new Panzerwaffe structure in 1942-43. And since 1944. their structure was completely new.

Quote: Octopus

And the 45th year is already IS-3 and Centurion

IS-3 is not far from IS-2. All the same tower self-propelled guns. And as for Centurion (and IS-3), he didn’t have time for the war. Therefore, Centurion can be compared with the tanks of the Korean War.

Quote: Octopus

The Americans also did not have assault guns. Like, that’s what the Shermans should have done.

Yes, that’s how he considered them. Infantry tank instead of assault guns.
The USSR was forced to abandon infantry tanks at the end of 1941. (and actually "temporarily" before the war).
The Germans finally abandoned them in 1943. Their last infantry tank was the Pz.KpfW.III Ausf. N.

[BAI]

Quote: rjxtufh

It could have been produced, but all Soviet warheads the mustachioed Joe ditched by installing on the IL-2. Which they were like a cow saddle

And what are the T-60 tanks armed with?

[rjxtufh]

Quote: BAI

And what are the T-60 tanks armed with?

Apparently a tank forty.

[hohol95]

TNSh was installed on the T-60. The "grounded" variant of the ShVAK!

[rjxtufh]

Quote: hohol95

TNSh was installed on the T-60. The "grounded" variant of the ShVAK!

Actually, the TSSh was installed on the T-40S.

[rjxtufh]

Quote: hohol95

TNSh was installed on the T-60. The "grounded" variant of the ShVAK!

Quote: BAI

And what are the T-60 tanks armed with?

Yes, I apologize, mixed up the indices.
The T-60 was armed with a TNS.
Forty-five was armed with a T-70.
At the same time, the T-40C cannon varieties were still armed with the ShVAK-T, which is also the TNSh.

[Niccola Mack]

Octopus,

It would be necessary to interrogate. Up to three years.

Better interrogate Powell - a test tube with which powder - "tide" or "ariel" he waved to the UN under the guise of the plague.
And then he apologized - you see, he didn't know - but there was no country, and Saddam's "chemistry" was found.
Lifetime, with confiscation - the smallest.
Also, along the way, figure out how many thousand tons of defoliants were poured by the United States in Vietnam (I'm not talking about conventional weapons). And also ...
In short, the second Nuremberg USA is enough for the eyes.
About Katyn - Goebbels died, but his work lives on.

[Octopus]

Quote: Nikkola Mac

Better interrogate Powell - a test tube with which powder - "tide" or "ariel" he waved to the UN under the guise of the plague.

Yes figs with him, with the UN Security Council. It turns out that he misled Congress. Considering the impeachment attempt by Clinton, who just refused to tell the peasants which of the girls was banged for blowjob, the lack of complaints against Bush, Powell and Tenet, who killed thousands of Americans with his lies (naturally, I do not consider Iraqis), does not honor American democracy. Unfortunately, Obama is not principled. The tenet, however, was appointed an extreme and fired.

However, Blair continues to get to the bottom of that story. Maybe they’ll even put him in jail. In my humble opinion, the trial of the head of state, who started the war by deception, will greatly ennoble international relations. The most important precedent will be created.

Quote: Nikkola Mac

the second Nuremberg USA is enough for the eyes.

You see, in Vietnam almost everyone has died. If you bring justice, then there are later cases where everyone is alive and even in office. And it's not just about the United States, unfortunately.
And the main problem. To spend your Nuremberg, you first need to win the war.

Quote: Nikkola Mac

About Katyn - Goebbels died, but his work lives on.

Absolutely agree. And even much more alive than 3 years ago.

[Niccola Mack]

Nikkola Mac,

You can’t fill the tank with oil.

Absolutely true (although at the beginning of the 20th century they even experimented with vegetable oil in a tank) - but when you distill it, you get about 2 units. diesel fuel and 1 unit of light fractions (gasolines of all kinds, esters, etc.). Although the numbers may vary depending on the quality of the distillation. So to transport oil to "diesel fuel" is much "more interesting". I will not remind about the efficiency of diesel engines - in the end, this was not always the case.

What is the secret there. Just not needed.

Do you bring the fuel balance of the Reich?
How many Germans released submarines during the war - you yourself probably know about diesel engines on other ships too - all this required diesel fuel.
But with the volume of production of synthetic diesel fuel there were problems - unlike gasoline.
And I had to process it from oil - Romanian, mine, Hungarian and any other.
And far from the entire volume, diesel fuel and gasoline were obtained - mainly fuel oil and bitumen (and much more).

No. They were not saints. Both the fleet and the army sought to simplify logistics. Army on gasoline, fleet on diesel.

The situation with the fleet is more complicated - forget about the Stuarts - remember the enormous volume of naval and especially carrier-based aircraft - is it gas - although maybe I'm a little mistaken - did anything Americans fly on diesel engines?
Here the Germans - flew in the fleet (although officially all the aircraft was near Goering) - but again, on a special aviation diesel fuel - you cannot fill one tank with the fleet from the same tank.

After the war, all the same, they all came to diesels - and now diesel is the main engine (although there are many gas turbine engines).

Somehow, during the war, the British did not bother too much with logistics - the Americans supplied them with diesel M4s and of the modifications of the most massive British tank, the Valentine, only one (the first) was carbureted, the remaining 10 were diesel. Apparently, they had enough diesels.

[Octopus]

Quote: Nikkola Mac

What is the secret there. Just not needed.
Do you bring the fuel balance of the Reich?

And what do you see as a contradiction? I write that the Maybachs were better suited, and you write this, but with different arguments.

Quote: Nikkola Mac

did anything Americans fly on diesels?

No one flew at least massively.

Quote: Nikkola Mac

After the war, all the same, they came to diesels

Not immediately.

Quote: Nikkola Mac

Apparently, they had enough diesels.

Not enough power. Therefore, they began to put gas meteors. It was possible to increase the diesel power, but this price and weight were considered irrational. From Sherman’s engines, a gas-powered Ford GAA produced 500 hp, and a diesel -375, however, like the original star.

[Niccola Mack]

I write that the Maybahs were better

Yes, there was no diesel fuel. Even on experimental models of diesel tanks - only in theory.

No one flew at least massively.

I also thought so about 2 years ago - and then I came across a German Jumo 205 diesel engine. With a capacity of as much as 867 hp. - “Spark” would easily “pull” the “Mouse”.
The Germans released about 1400 aircraft with him - this is far from a unique production - rather a mass one.
On Wikipedia, as I recall, there is a list.
One type is a high-altitude scout, all the rest are naval flying boats.

With the M4, the Americans immediately put on it an “aviation star”, and then began, to put it mildly, “experimenting”

From the Sherman engines, the gasoline Ford GAA gave out 500 hp,

I can understand this, but how to understand the installation on the M4A4 modification already 30 cylinder !!! Chrysler A57 multibank power plant as 5 !!! 6 cylinder engines in one block. 30 cylinders - he probably had fewer trucks. And okay, the experiment - 7500 pieces were released.

And now the most interesting question about logistics - the Sherman Continental R975 requires aviation 80 octane gasoline. A bunch of samples drove another 975 - M18, M3, Sexton and beyond.
What kind of logistics could there be if you had to carry tanks for any tank from the continental US plant — aviation gasoline, and all the rest of the equipment — automobile gasoline. They brought 93, and then they diluted it to a car - I doubt it.
But there was one diesel fuel - it would be much more logical to exploit the entire army on diesels.
There were no powerful diesels? - yes no - the same GM 6046 M3 tank 420 hp - for the M4 would be quite enough.

[Octopus]

Quote: Nikkola Mac

Even on experimental models of diesel tanks - only in theory.

Because Maybachs were better. From your posts it seems that the Germans struggled to put diesel on the tanks, but could not, they cried, were upset, depression, drank poison.
I write that carburetor engines suited them perfectly. From a mass of considerations. Fuel, power, labor, material consumption, maintenance, work in the cold, etc.
Therefore, diesel engines appeared on Western tanks in 10-20 years, when diesel became the standard for any heavy equipment.

Quote: Nikkola Mac

The Germans released about 1400 aircraft with him - this is far from a unique production - rather a mass one.

Did you consider it yourself?
Junkers quickly abandoned these engines on the 86-x. About 900 diesel engines were produced (the entire series).

At the end of 1937. five Ju.86d-1s were sent to Spain for running in with the Condor Legion. They later took part in the battles over Extremadura. By this time, the Luftwaffe no longer relied on the Junkers bomber. The He.111B showed complete superiority over the Ju.86d in almost all aspects, and the Jumo-205C diesels did not live up to expectations. They worked well under constant and prolonged load, but they did not tolerate the change in speed, which was required during combat maneuvering. An inexplicable mystery was the sharp drop in power at an altitude of more than 5000m. This drawback was never overcome before the tests in Rechlin showed the unsuitability of installing the Jumo-205C on a bomber, despite the excellent efficiency of the engine.

Junkers already had serious doubts about diesels, but for a different reason. While the Ju 86's flight performance was not phenomenal, it was sufficient to attract interest overseas. But potential buyers did not like diesels because of their low power density compared to gasoline counterparts. In addition, diesels required careful maintenance by specially trained personnel. As a result, after the release of the first Ju.86a-0, the Junkers began to look for new engines.

Found a BMW-132F.

[Niccola Mack]

By and large, you are now playing at my goal.
Although, according to my data, the engines have not been changed for them and released more than 800 (aircraft) units - and also that they flew in the air forces of Sweden, Hungary and South Africa. This is not counting about 600 different flying boats - the Allies were pretty well known for Blom and Voss BV.138. I repeat once again - they flew in a special aviation diesel fuel.
But agree, comparing Jumo 205 and "Tiger" Maybach HL 230 - Power 867/700 hp. Weight 595/1200 kg!
Not entirely correct, of course - obviously you need to "coarse" a little - but even so it looks attractive - and even more so in terms of consumption. And tanks rarely go up to 5000 meters, and the engine was well developed - the Tigers and Panthers had big problems with this ..
Our V-2 also has a history of aviation diesel, and by and large its main problem was bad rings (especially oil scraper) and poor production culture.

[Octopus]

Quote: Nikkola Mac

You are playing at my gate now.

What does your gate mean? The use of gasoline engines by the Germans is a fact. The difference is that you consider this decision forced, but I do not. Actually, these are the details.

Quote: Nikkola Mac

Although according to my data

OK, let's watch the sources. Mine on failure on junkers
http://www.airwar.ru/enc/bww2/ju86b.html
by number of engines
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junkers_Jumo_205

Quote: Nikkola Mac

But agree, comparing Jumo 205 and "Tiger" Maybach HL 230 - Power 867/700 hp. Weight 595/1200 kg!

I do not agree.
1. The use of light alloys in a tank engine is irrational. This and the B-2 with the Ford GAA concern. Especially for Germany. So forget about 595 kg.
2. About 867 hp forget too. The dismounting of aircraft engines leads to a drop in power (relative to the takeoff mode) at times. The meteor was twice as inferior to Merlin, and 3,5 times inferior to the stubborn late versions. Charomsky’s engine was 2 times larger in volume than V-1,5, and about three to four in power (there are doubts that the 2-year-old V-41 was delivering its 400 hp, not to mention 500).
3. It is written that it is difficult even for aircraft technicians, and did not like changes in speed. It’s not suitable for a tank, except to put an electric transmission.

Quote: Nikkola Mac

the engine was well developed - the "Tigers" and "Panthers" had big problems with this.

Relatively used aircraft engine does not mean the absence of problems on the tanks. Engines of this type — with counter piston movement — only appeared on tanks in the 60s (5TDF T-64, Leyland L60 Chieftain). I think, not without reason.

Quote: Nikkola Mac

by and large, his main problem was poor rings (especially oil scraper) and poor production culture.

Well, this is by and large. And so the mountain of problems. Ask about its cost relative to the M-17T. Well, the "culture of production" of precessional parts of the injection pump, when you have collective farmers at the machines, is also a topic.

[Niccola Mack]

Actually, these are the details.

Sorry, but this was originally our subject for discussion.
But the rest are arguments.

Okay, let's try to close the gaps and come to the main thing - diesel on tanks in the Germans and diesel in the Americans.

Gaps:
by Jumo 205 (Wikipedia) -
- it also says about a power drop at altitudes of more than 5000 - I did not deny this, but I did not accidentally mention the Junkers Ju 86 as a high-altitude reconnaissance - the Germans managed to force 205 (became 207) to 1000 hp. 750 hp at takeoff at an altitude of 12, and when using afterburner they climbed as much as 200 m. Again, the question is 14 l / s - is it still power at ground level or takeoff mode? I think the first is still. Your link gives 400 and 867 which is clearly a different modification than Wikipedia -510.
- It also indicates that 822 of all were produced - and the engine is only a diesel - which again contradicts the same text. So how real was it with diesels ?, if half - then it's 400 pieces * 2-800 engines of various modifications.
- Boat Blom End Foss BV 138 - in the same Wikipedia the number is given in 279? copies with 2 motors.
Gasoline engines flash only on experimental machines. Again, the article further signs the modifications - and it turns out more than 300 * 2.
But there are still 4 types of seaplanes - there is confidence that they were completely diesel engines.
600 engines fail.

The dismounting of aircraft engines leads to a drop in power (relative to the takeoff mode) at times.

I do not agree, takeoff mode and afterburner are critical working conditions and the air density drops in proportion to the height. But this is a very long conversation. Again about the "aviators."

It’s written that it’s difficult even for aircraft

Although both ours and the Americans with might and main put "aviators" on tanks - it was a clear palliative - of course such diesel engines would be different. But still there was an advantage. And I think the Germans with their production culture would be at their best. Especially considering their problems with the first (and not quite) Tigers and Panthers. Maybe I'm wrong, but we have an increase in diesel power was simpler.

So, now the main thing! I have already spoken about the shares in the production of diesel fuel from crude oil.
The Germans received everything, let’s say, in 1943, Romanian and other oil, produced 4756 thousand tons of crude oil (which still needed to be distilled) from everywhere, and produced 5887 thousand tons of synthetic fuel.

In 43, we produced 19 thousand tons of oil, we all distilled ourselves. I don’t know whether the Allies supplied us with diesel fuel or crude oil, but as a rule, all “ground” gasoline went to the same allied equipment. With aviation it was somewhat different.

The activity of our submarines was not comparable with the kriegsmarine, and each exit to the sea required 20-60 tons of diesel fuel. But the submarines did not end far - not only was there a diesel-generator electrical installation on each ship, in addition, such large ships as heavy cruisers of the Deutschland type also went on diesels.

What is most interesting - the Germans were able to make synthetic diesel fuel - but the real volumes were not comparable in comparison with the hydrogenation processes and the Fischer-Tropsch process.

As for the Americans - I remain of my opinion - the fleet loaded diesel production capacities.
But with aircraft engines in tanks, I honestly do not understand the situation.
Let's say the same Continental 975 has several modifications - from S-1 to S-4, judging by the Wikipedia article (English), they all require different gasoline - from 73 to 91.
And there it is written that both M-4 and M-18 were installed on the M1 (like the M4).
What is it like? - And also different gasoline for aircraft engines of the same type of tanks?
The situation of "one barrel" is somehow too out of control!

[Octopus]

Quote: Nikkola Mac

this was originally our subject of discussion.

Then the argument is in the wrong steppe.
If we are talking about the Germans' perception of this situation, then we need not look for rational reasons ourselves, but look at the conclusions of the commission on VK 3002 (DB), as well as the attitude of Vibikke and Aders to the situation with dvigl, + the history of the competition for the 4th 34th years (Jumo was already, but I don’t know anything about trying to put him in a tank).
Maybe I'll do it later.

Quote: Nikkola Mac

Is it still power at ground level or take-off mode?

The wiki for aircraft engines is almost always given a takeoff mode. Your article about the Junkers explicitly states that 1000 for the 207th is take-off.

Quote: Nikkola Mac

510 and 600 are given according to your link, which is clearly a different modification than Wikipedia -867

Yes. The link is an early version on Junkers, on wiki a late version with B&V.

Quote: Nikkola Mac

It also indicates that 822 all were released

You are reading inattentively. The 86th article talks about changing the engine

In 1937, the Ju-86E-1 with BMW 132 star engines entered service.

Details
http://www.airwar.ru/enc/bww2/ju86e.html

Quote: Nikkola Mac

600 engines fail.

not 600, but 900. Enough for the boats.
If you want to refute the English wiki, you do not need to count aircraft, but look for engine output, this is hardly a secret. I'm not in a hurry yet.

Quote: Nikkola Mac

Maybe I'm wrong, but we have an increase in diesel power was simpler.

Installing a marine diesel engine on the IS-7. Maybach eventually gave out the same 1000 hp, at about the same time in French attempts to make a tank.

Quote: Nikkola Mac

So, now the main thing!

I will not argue with the calculations on the fuel balance. But they have nothing to do with pre-war or post-war tanks. Gasoline, with the exception of the Soviet ones, with rare exceptions.

Quote: Nikkola Mac

I remain of my opinion - the fleet loaded diesel production capacities

Opinion should be supported by facts. For example, where the fleet used the GMC 6004

Quote: Nikkola Mac

judging by the Wikipedia article (English), they all require different gasoline - from 73 to 91.

For this article, the 80th and 91st required E-3 and R9-A. These are aviation models for which take-off power is indicated (Power, takeoff).
If the 73rd, it would be normal. Willis and GMC also ate it (not lower than the 68th), that is, unification on the 73rd fuel. But in other places they write that both the star and the Ford GAA poured the 80th. So I haven’t figured it out yet. Plus, I can’t find the gasoline production in the USA by grades.
Neither the 73rd nor the 80th - during WWII, did not go to American aviation. From 100 and above. So there is no unification with aviation either.

Quote: Nikkola Mac

The situation of "one barrel" is somehow too out of control!

Yes, in the course of the workers of the American tank building it was necessary to put against the wall. But first, deal with American gasoline. If I find out, I will unsubscribe.

[Niccola Mack]

Honestly, everything is already dragging on.

TOTAL for aviation diesels - let it be 900 - but in any case this is not unique or small-scale production. Here we have on the PE-8 - it really was a unique production.

But they have nothing to do with the pre-war ...

They directly have - on what will we really fight (and live) after the closure of the crane with external oil? And the Germans really understood this already in the early 20s.
By the way, Luftwaffe aviation also flew 80-85% on "synthetics" - and chemists quite well raised the octane rating on it.
What is very interesting - from 4 tons of coal, 1 ton of gasoline -25% (Fischer-Tropsch process) was obtained - the result is now unattainable for oil. The Germans had enough coal for the whole war — only carry.
Before the war, Japan also dealt with synthetics and, oddly enough, the USA.
Our experts very well represented the situation during the war:

“The use by the Germans of a carbureted engine, rather than a diesel engine, on a new tank released in 1942 can be explained:
a) the specifics of the fuel balance of Germany, in which the main role is played by synthetic gasolines, benzenes and alcohol mixtures, unsuitable for burning in diesel engines; (Design features of the engine "Maybach HL 210 P45" and the power plant of the German heavy tank "T VI" ("tiger"). GBTU KA. 1943).

and then further they completely reject the “bright idea” about the greater fire hazard of gasoline engines against diesel engines:

c) a very significant in combat conditions, the percentage of fires of tanks with diesel engines and the lack of significant advantages over carburetor engines in this regard, especially with the competent design of the latter and the availability of reliable automatic fire extinguishers;

But all the same, without point a) - everything else (albeit correct) is a hypothetical situation.
These are the arguments.

On American diesels, what you inattentively read:

fleet loaded diesel production facilities

Not specific engine models!
With the army during the Great Depression it was just bad - but with tanks it was even worse, but the fleet was still trying to "hold" - this is the natural position of the "sea" states - the USA, England, Japan. And sometimes there was simply nothing to replace a diesel engine in the fleet, and after Pearl Harbor the fleet’s “appetites” increased significantly.
This is so - with the "broad gesture" the United States was declared a country with unlimited production capabilities and resources - the reality was somewhat different. During the war, the recognized unprofitable mines with rare metals were re-launched. There was a sharp shortage of workers - and skilled workers too, and female labor was widely used. And unskilled labor in agriculture involved prisoners of war Germans and Italians.

For example, where the fleet used the GMC 6004

Most likely, he was not used anywhere in the fleet - I do not have such information. But this is a car engine.

But GM 268 of comparable power of -100,200,400,800 kW (electrical installations at the output) was used very actively as part of auxiliary D / G electrical installations.
This is in addition to the main GM 278 and other companies.

In the end - it turned out that not everything was so good with the "single barrel of the fleet" - almost all US torpedo boats went on powerful gasoline engines (in addition to aviation). I didn’t know that.

[Octopus]

Quote: Nikkola Mac

let it be 900 - but in any case it’s not unique or small-scale production

Just small batch. However, there are no questions regarding the Germans' ability to produce.
OK, let's go.

Quote: Nikkola Mac

what will we really fight (and live on) after the closure of the crane with external oil? And the Germans really understood this already in the early 20s.

So-so argument. To confirm it, you need to look for statements specifically Todt, Blomberg, or other significant people on this topic. Let me remind you that the fleet just went to diesel engines instead of boiler plants that were more universal in fuel.

Quote: Nikkola Mac

What is very interesting - from 4 tons of coal, 1 ton of gasoline was obtained -25%

They write, not coal, but "conditional condensed fuel" after the 1st stage of processing. However, I don't know much about it.

Quote: Nikkola Mac

Our experts were also very well aware of the situation.

Yes, I came across this. This is the opinion of Soviet, not German, experts, as you can see. However, it is very likely that it was so. Specifically for Germany and specifically for the 43rd year.

By the way, there were diesel engines on Val and Motya. But on later British tanks - no.

Quote: Nikkola Mac

On American diesels, what you inattentively read:

Quote: Nikkola Mac

used GM 268 comparable power -100,200,400,800 kW

Quote: Nikkola Mac

This is in addition to the main GM 278 and other companies.

Submarine engines prevented the production of car diesel engines? Only Land Liz enough? From the apparently harmful GM considerations, when they were told to look for a replacement for Conti for Lee, they offered a twin diesel engine.
Are you kidding, or are there facts?

Quote: Nikkola Mac

almost all US torpedo boats were powered by powerful gasoline engines (in addition to aviation). I didn’t know that.

Well, it’s not for nothing that tryndim. Almost all WWII TCs, as far as I know, were gasoline, except for German, with the same fuel balance, by the way.

[Niccola Mack]

Submarine engines prevented the production of car diesel engines?

It is interesting if your production is loaded (at least partially) with diesel engines of comparable power and the order for marine engines increases sharply - your resources will not be exhausted and you will not have to develop rapidly extensively.

Are you kidding, or are there facts?

It is interesting how such facts should look like - official letters from GM about the impossibility of issuing in the indicated volumes, or the decision of some US body (we had GKO) on the distribution of production resources between the fleet and the army (specific decisions). I have no such information.
Incidentally, I was interested in the question at one time - Who was doing this? America could no longer “dance till the drop” - planning and distribution was necessary. I only know that the president (according to the law) was engaged in the distribution of supplies according to Lend-Lease. My argument (GM production) is of course indirect.

The discussion dragged on, so it's probably time to end. Although it was interesting to "delve" into the information!

Finally, think about the following “information for consideration”:

But was the “epic” with our pre-war diesel engines a consequence of the peculiarities of the fuel balance of the USSR — the presence of crude oil and the lack of production of “synthetics” ???
I have already spoken about the "shares" of heavy fuel in the distillation of oil. Our fleet consumed little, heavy fuel did not affect aviation.
We would not write, say, German specialists about the B2 T-34 diesel engine in 1941, the following:
“The use of diesel, with all its shortcomings, can be explained by the specifics of the fuel balance of the USSR - the absence of a deficit of heavy fuel.”
If this is true, then instead of a license for the M-17 Mikulin (BMW 6), a license for a well-developed diesel engine should be purchased from MAN or GM.
And even better - to specifically order for development a “line” of diesel engines of 4-8-12-16 cylinders of the same type and a similar design of the same GM, competently setting the terms of reference. With the condition to facilitate the organization of production and training of specialists. Pay good money for it, but immediately get rid of many "childhood diseases."
Part of the “corners” would certainly remain, but if you look at the release of our “pre” and “military” diesel engines, this would be a fantastically successful investment.

[Octopus]

Quote: Nikkola Mac

It is interesting if your production is loaded (at least partially) with diesel engines of comparable power and the order for marine engines increases sharply - your resources will not be exhausted and you will not have to develop rapidly extensively.

Pretty slurred.
GM 268 this is it, it seems.

How many such installations were made + submarine engines? By what resource did fleet order growth limit automotive production?

Quote: Nikkola Mac

It is interesting how such facts should look like - official letters from GM about the impossibility of issuing in the indicated volumes

To begin with - the transition of the British back from GM diesel engines to AEC diesel engines. Any information on the limitations of the release of American tanks for the lack of diesel engines. GM's attempts to urgently make its own gasoline engine, like the same multibank.

Quote: Nikkola Mac

I only know that the president was engaged in the distribution of supplies under Lend-Lease (by law)

Full tryndets was with it. Roosevelt’s reddish administration got their hands on crushing tomatoes (yes, it wasn’t invented in Russia either), but they didn’t get their hands on writing a US industrial mob plan in case of war. Despite the fact that Mr. Roosevelt did everything he could to make this case a reality.
Private initiative gave rise to both successful solutions (Mustang, Liberty), and certainly unsuccessful (Ford's refusal of a license for Merlin, for example). The lack of a normal relationship between the military and the military-industrial complex led to a lack of understanding by the military of the possibilities of industry and technical realities (for example, ordering aircraft on Alison, P-38 - P-40)
The absence of any tangible technical and industrial policy is one of the most important US fails during WWII. The fleet is the least affected (although there were problems there, one mess with radars is worth it), more aircraft, and very bad - in the army.

Quote: Nikkola Mac

with our pre-war diesel engines due to the peculiarities of the fuel balance of the USSR - the presence of crude oil and the lack of production of "synthetics" ???

Too smart. I don’t know evidence that oil refining problems seriously interested SNK and somehow influenced the requirements of the State Academic Bolshoi Technical University.

Quote: Nikkola Mac

a well-developed diesel license should be obtained from MAN or GM.

There were no such diesels of sufficient power. Jumo does not think so. Is it MB 507, but Adolf's friend is not a fact that he would sell a license. Yes, and the Japanese, for example, the production of German engines went wrong. Here you are not Germany.
American - 6046 Diesel - was a double (U-shaped) - in fact, two engines. The decision of the "special period".

Quote: Nikkola Mac

And even better - to specifically order for development a “line” of diesel engines of 4-8-12-16 cylinders of the same type and a similar design of the same GM, competently setting the terms of reference

Even more clever. As far as I know, only the Japanese tried to do this (naturally, without GM). With dubious success. Neither the Germans, nor the British, nor the Americans reached the "engine line". They bet anything.

[Niccola Mack]

How many such installations were made + submarine engines?

GM ECP * -278A - "main" power plant (asterisk - the first number - the number of cylinders) - submarines (usually 2 per piece), destroyers with diesel engines (escort types Evans, Cannon, Edsel), powerful electric power plants on large ships and various stationary objects - bases, lighthouses, weather stations, etc. (I do not know why it was not put on torpedo boats). The civilian fleet also did not go anywhere with the beginning of the war.
GM EMD 645 is the same destination but in a different series - at the heart of the "diesel" engine.
Not to be unfounded - the composition of the engines of escort destroyers such as "Cannon":
Main installation 2 × GM-EMD 16-645E7 (also found 4 × GM 278) 6000 l / s
Auxiliary plants: 2 × GM-EMD 8-268A 200 kW Generator
1 × GM-EMD 3-268A 100kW Generator
Built 71 units.

GM ECP * -268A - “auxiliary” power plant - I know for sure that the line began with 60 kW (approximately 90 kW is the engine power). Less powerful (compared to 278) electric D / G installations on large ships, destroyers (as “auxiliary” with “steam” or “main”), minesweepers, and the same submarines. Widespread use at stationary facilities - repair bases, service points, remote weather stations, etc. It was very widely used on auxiliary vessels of the fleet in the same quality.
In this series there were also very powerful engines - 16 cylinders each
Your video is from this “topic”.

So for this or another reason - GM diesel engines in the fleet were more than enough.
And I so strongly suspect that GM's list of naval suppliers did not end far (unlike tanks).
Again, the same GM was in full swing, and before and during the war, diesel locomotives were produced.

Now that doesn’t play “my gate”:

- GM had 2 diesel divisions before and during the war - Cleveland (Ohio) and Detroit (Michigan).
I know for sure that 278 and 268 were produced in Cleveland.
Did they produce them in Detroit (where they made the GM 6046) - the question?
But it is well known that Detroit was loaded to the eyeballs - in 43, he produced 57 diesel engines.
Compared to this (over the year), the number of diesel engines in tanks ???
The rest also “sailed away” closer to the “naval barrel with diesel fuel” - this is an obvious explanation.
In the end - I did find a German "tank" (in fundamental quotes) diesel MB-507 - it was installed in the "Karl" mortar and planned for the "Panther". There is also information that the Sla16 diesel engine was installed on some "Jagdtigers".

[Octopus]

I did not expect such a detailed answer. Thank you.
You do not seem to understand what the question was.

Quote: Nikkola Mac

submarines (usually 2 per piece)

The engines used were Fairbanks-Morse and GM Cleveland. Torch - 10 pcs., Of which 1 with GM engines, Balao - did not find the layout for the engines, let's say all 120, Gato - 77 (Fairbanks-Morse, and Hooven-Owens-Rentschler were installed on Balao and Gato). Tambor (10) can no longer be considered. Total, 198x2 = 396 engines.

Quote: Nikkola Mac

destroyers with diesel engines (escort type Evans, Cannon, Edsel)

Evarts-class - 97 ships, for example, 4 diesel engines each.
Cannon-class - 72 ships, for example, 4 diesel engines.
Edsall-class - 85 ships, but Fairbanks-Morse engines
676 GM engines.

Quote: Nikkola Mac

electric D / G installations on large ships, destroyers (as “auxiliary” for “steam” or “main”), minesweepers, the same submarines.

How many cars do you need for all this? 1000? 2000? 10?
And what was the volume of car manufacturers?

Quote: Nikkola Mac

it is well known that Detroit was loaded to the eyeballs - in 43, he produced 57 diesel engines.

Yeah

By 1943, GM Diesel employed 4,300 people, more than 1,400 of them women. Together, these employees produced 57,892 engines in 1943 alone.

And, basically, those same, 71st series

With World War II heating up, GM Diesel produced its first model: the Series 71. Tanks, landing craft, road building equipment and standby generators needed compact, lightweight, two-cycle engines

https://www.demanddetroit.com/why-detroit/history
.aspx
Enough for all Shermans for all years of production. And a third of the Stuarts to the heap.
It seems to me that the figures you quoted allow us to conclude. As many Americans wanted diesel tanks, they built as much. If we wanted more, we would have done more.

Quote: Nikkola Mac

GM didn’t end with a list of naval suppliers (unlike tanks)

Sorry?
Stuarts used a Guiberson T-1020 diesel (star)
To Sherman, Caterpillar sawed off the RD1820 star, finally multi-fuel. True, I washed it down late, but no one had asked before.

By the way, what does Caterpillar do throughout WWII? He does his bulldozers and is not steamed.

1945 Caterpillar introduces the first company-designed-and-built bulldozer blade

http://www.caterpillar.com/en/company/history/194
0.html
No strain on tank diesels. Well, in general.

Quote: Nikkola Mac

In the end - I did find a German "tank" (in fundamental quotes) diesel MB-507 - it was installed in the "Karl" mortar and was planned for the "Panther

)))

Quote: Octopus

see the findings of the commission for VK 3002 (DB)

Quote: Octopus

Is it, MB 507, but for him friend Adolf is not a fact that he would sell a license

He did not plan on the Panther. Just refused. Including from the fuel mappings outlined by you for the 43rd year.

Quote: Nikkola Mac

There is also information that the Sla16 diesel engine was installed on some "Jagdtigers".

Not set. Sla16 is Dr. Porsche’s next attack on the prodigy. It seems to be a talented engineer, and the x-th one was engaged in the whole war. Not otherwise, pacifist.
However, these developments came in handy after the war.
http://warfiles.ru/show-45158-vtoroe-dyhanie-dlya
-korolevskogo-tigra-dizelnyy-dvigatel-simmering-s
la-16.html

[Octopus]

Quote: Nikkola Mac

Sherman Continental R975 requires aviation 80 octane gasoline.

But this is the right question. Thank. I will find out.

[Octopus]

Moved down, bothered to look for where the site will allow a response.

Quote: rjxtufh

for Panthers and Tigers were IS-2, ISU-122 and SU-100

The concept is not good. If you transfer the T-34/85 to the sandbox, you get
For the 44th year, 3749 panthers, 623 tigers, 377 Tigers 2, 1054 self-propelled guns with a long gun (from JagdPz IV with Stuk 42 L / 70 and above), total 5 803 units
IS-2 2210, SU-100 500, ISU-122 170, ISU-152 (for example, this is also a PT) 1340, totaling 4 units.
http://www.feldgrau.com/afvstats.html
http://pro-tank.ru/bronetehnika-sssr/samohodnie-u
stanovki / 98-isu-122
It turns out that in the 44th year of the USSR, the production of heavy armored vehicles was inferior to the Reich. Gap template.

Quote: rjxtufh

There were even cleanly converted tanks.

Perhaps it was a 17-pound. Here they really poked.

Quote: rjxtufh

But why then 1800 mm?

Relatively healthy D-5T + 3 people in the tower. 1535 mm KV-1 is clearly not enough. Why not 1800? There is no need to be greedy with epaulettes. The British got sick with their 6-pdr farts, and at Centurion they immediately made the maximum possible shoulder strap, 2300 (the same in IS-7), and then they upgraded themselves slowly for 40 years.

Quote: rjxtufh

I read somewhere that the Americans had their own concept of tank warfare. And the Sherman, in their opinion, was still an "infantry" tank, not a medium tank. But for anti-tank warfare they had tank destroyers.

Something like that

Quote: rjxtufh

Although, precisely as an infantry, Sherman in 1944. was so-so. Of course, it cannot be compared with the SU-76.

And why not compare. Mobility is similar (except for reliability), there is no armor (against PaK40), M3 / M5 guns are no worse, and f * c is much worse in infantry (390 g. TNT M42A1 Shell versus 621 g OF-350, not to mention old-style shots) 3 times less weight of the machine.
Conclusion: if it burns like that right, you could take Stuart, make on its basis a line of self-propelled guns (Pieces with M2A1 (M101A1) howitzer / Hetzer with M5 or 17-pdr) and not steam with medium tanks at all. It would turn out norms in terms of functionality and much better in terms of resources.

Quote: rjxtufh

That's what is interesting. For 2 years, nothing new has been done.

Until fig new done. The T20 line. Nothing reached the field except the T23 tower. There were dudes who pushed the medium and light heavy T25 / T26 with 90 mm guns in the 43rd year, but managed to fight off them. If Ike had seen his sight earlier than in the summer of the 44th (when he refused to order any tanks with 45 / 75mm cannons except light ones for the 76th year), Norman Sherman would no longer be at least at the base.

Quote: rjxtufh

All the same tower self-propelled guns.

Who cares? Well self-propelled guns so self-propelled guns. Like a T-10 or M103. Works in the same battle formations with tanks and okay.

Quote: rjxtufh

And as for Centurion (and IS-3), he didn’t have time for the war.

And how many Pershey did? 20, it seems?

Quote: rjxtufh

Infantry tank instead of assault guns.

This is not so bad. The trouble was that they did not have tanks instead of tanks. So the "best" Sherman can be considered very limited.

[Niccola Mack]

Octopus,

676 GM engines.

In fact, a few more - the same Cannon 4 main +3 auxiliary.
My phrase about submarine engines correctly should have sounded like "usually 2 per boat or more" -4 was also not uncommon. Anyway, the numbers are comparable.
But the most important thing was not this - these were engines of a completely different class - much more powerful and for round-the-clock operation. In this regard, they should have disproportionately loaded production in all respects. But this is plus the volume of raw materials and components - including rare metals and other things.

How many cars do you need for all this? 1000? 2000? 10?

I think we are talking about tens of thousands, if not hundreds, of the war — the auxiliary and merchant fleet also had to “buy goods” somewhere. Remember how “stamped” “Liberty”.
In any case, such warehouses in Cleveland were commonplace (note - different types of diesel).

By the way, what does Caterpillar do throughout WWII? He does his bulldozers and is not steamed.

Here, the “Caterpillar” just had to be “steamed” in full - the “sea bees” drove its products throughout the Pacific Ocean and later - across Europe.

Again, there was domestic consumption - the depression ended - orders began - and a lot of people went into the army and navy.
So, all the same, the picture was not complicated - there are many arguments - both there and against.
As Savage and Heidemann say, “believable.”

[Niccola Mack]

Where do the photos go?

[Niccola Mack]

By the way, with diesel M3 - is it not in the marines?
Is very similar.

[Octopus]

Quote: Niccola Mack

In fact, a few more - the same Cannon 4 main +3 auxiliary.

OK

Quote: Nikkola Mac

Remember how “stamped” “Liberty”.

With steam engines.

Quote: Nikkola Mac

Here, the “Caterpillar” just had to be “steamed” in full - the “sea bees” drove its products throughout the Pacific Ocean and later - across Europe.

They were not involved in the manufacture of BT engines, so as not to interfere with the more important production of bulldozers?

Quote: Nikkola Mac

I think it’s about tens of thousands, if not hundreds, of the war.

Quite possible. But, this is an order of magnitude less than the production of automobile engines.

Again. You wrote that the production of only the 7th GMC series by one plant with 4 workers (from the smallest Soviet tank factory - Omsk No. 300 - employed more than 174 thousand people, and from Kirovsky - under 12,6 thousand) exceeded the entire American production armored vehicles. And this engine appeared before Sherman. I’m not ready to accept the version that the engines were used for more important applications, and the tanks were supplied according to the residual principle, and at first - the English ones.

Quote: Nikkola Mac

By the way, with diesel M3 - is it not in the marines?

Are you talking about the Stuarts? Yes, at the ILC. The army did not like diesel engines so much that it could not eat.
If about Grant - initially they were just looking for an alternative to Wright, they believed that there would be a shortage of them. Chrysler proposed a multibank, GM dual diesel, it seemed easier to them, but gasoline engines in incredible quantities went to trucks. Ford was not asked because the contracts were divided between Nadsen and Keller.

The fact that an air star was a shitty decision (both for operational and layout reasons) did not occur to the Americans for a very long time.

[Niccola Mack]

With steam engines.

It was just about the "auxiliary" on these ships and others.
I do not know about the "main" in the US Navy on ships larger than an escort destroyer or submarine - unlike the Germans.

They were not involved in the manufacture of BT engines, so as not to interfere with the more important production of bulldozers?

Exactly - the depression is over and apart from the "sea bees" a large military construction began in the United States itself - in fact, new cities according to the "Manhattan Project" (Oak Ridge was not built with shovels).

.Quite possible. But, this is an order of magnitude less than the production of automobile engines.

And yet these are engines of a different class and different production costs, especially the class 278th and GM EMD 645.

Ford was not asked, because the contracts were divided between Nadsen and Keller.

This is more than a justified reason for these phenomena - war by war - and business with ambitions - business.
Let's say you mentioned Fairbanks-Morse diesels, and so - they were put in several series - along with GM. What was the reason - either GM did not cope (it was she who was the main supplier), or saw it in its own way - but from the point of view of servicing such large machines at remote sites, this is just a ready-made "headache".
About Omsk Plant No. 174 - this is not from our conversation.
MB 507 caused my surprise by staging as many as 8 !!! pieces in a mortar "Karl".

[Octopus]

Quote: Nikkola Mac

I do not know about the "main" in the US Navy on ships larger than an escort destroyer or submarine - unlike the Germans.

Yes. And this, by the way, is funny. The Germans had the diesel engine, the Americans had the electric transmission, and no one had the diesel electric passages.

Quote: Nikkola Mac

Exactly - the depression is over and apart from the "sea bees" a large military construction began in the United States itself - in fact, new cities according to the "Manhattan Project" (Oak Ridge was not built with shovels).

So-so argument. Engines for M4A6, do you think, figures from Cat out of wrecking considerations did? Just big uncles did not let them to this cake. They would not have let Ford out, if not for the cries of the FDR about 2 thousand tanks per month (which, generally speaking, was superfluous).

Quote: Nikkola Mac

And yet these are engines of a different class and different production costs, especially the class of the 278th and GM EMD 645

I fully understand that. I am writing to you that really built engines, without any "if only" were enough for anything. And I don’t need to say that it was in the generators that these engines were more needed, and it was impossible to replace them in generators with the same GMC 270 from GMC CCKW (563 thousand units), there would be at least some need for it.

Quote: Nikkola Mac

You are about Fairbanks-Morse diesels, and so - they were put in several series - along with GM. What was the reason - whether GM could not cope (it was just the main supplier)

I do not know. It seems that after WWII Fairbanks-Morse became the standard, on the same sticks. By the way, the design is just c * have Jumo 205.
And the Amer fleet is known for never (in those years) putting all its eggs in one basket. This had its advantages, but also its disadvantages, of course.

Quote: Nikkola Mac

About Omsk Plant No. 174

I just gave an example that 4 people are not such a big plant.

Quote: Nikkola Mac

already 8 !!! pieces in a mortar "Karl".

Stop. There were only 7 of them, sort of.

Quote: Nikkola Mac

and a business with ambition is a business.

This is not business, this is wrecking.
The main disadvantage of Sherman is the dibile layout with an inclined crankshaft from the star. Already on the grant were multibank and GMC, which allowed to lower the crankshaft. This was not done for two reasons:
1. The Americans did not know that the tank needed to be made lower. It is more convenient to hide behind a high triangular profile tank. As they accepted this idea in the 30s, we went.
2. To lower the crankshaft, you need to standardize another engine. Someone has to make a decision. Radial engines have been on American tanks since the 30s, because were the only turnkey solution for high power. So they left it on Sherman, and more suitable options remained improvisations. Therefore, for example, the shaft of the V-shaped Ford GAA was very high - at the same height as the crankshaft of the star. This is not a bug, but a feature - to rearrange less.

In principle, a radial air-cooled engine offers elegant solutions - for example, to lay it horizontally, and the transmission - under it. But elegance is not about the guys from Illinois (and Maryland). They were not designers, but technological engineers. From the point of view of manufacturers, that Grant, that Sherman - just great cars.

[Octopus]

Amendment.

Quote: Octopus

To Sherman, Caterpillar sawed off the RD1820 star, finally multi-fuel. True, I washed it down late, but no one had asked before.

Immediately and gash, in the 42nd year. The Cat D200A engine ate anything from heavy fuel oil to 100 gasoline inclusive. The idea was to make it a single Sherman engine. (Do you understand? Just sign a piece of paper and get a single engine for 50 tanks. Nobody asked the question "can we produce it?"). But the idea was abandoned. Baryatinsky cites the bestial hatred of the American military for diesel engines as a basis, but it is hard to believe that the topic of business interests did not take place.

[Niccola Mack]

With "Karl" really a typo -7 (of which 1 prototype).
For me personally, 2 questions remained unexplained:
The degree of cooperation of diesel units of the same GM - indeed they were so independent of each other. After all, they are located very close.
Where did the rest of Detroit's diesel engines "sail away"?

Did you understand? Just sign a piece of paper - and get a single engine for 50 thousand tanks. In general, no one raised the question "can we produce?

This is just not an argument, having built additional capacities (again, probably with a government loan), more could have been done. The question is profitability (or maybe a cut).
And finally, remember the scene from Scorsese's "Aviator" in Congress with Howard Hughes.
“You accuse me of stealing $ 56 million for undelivered planes, but the government paid more than $ 6 billion for equipment that was never delivered.”
I think Hughes knew what he was talking about - a lot of people in the US did not take a steam bath with the question "can we produce it."

[Octopus]

Quote: Nikkola Mac

The degree of cooperation of diesel units of the same GM - indeed they were so independent of each other. After all, they are located very close.

Who cares? Volumes of production of Detroit Diesel are known, you brought them. Cleveland disturbed them or not - it doesn’t matter anymore.

Quote: Nikkola Mac

Where did the rest of Detroit's diesel engines "sail away"?

Wrote the same.

Tanks, landing craft, road building equipment and standby generators

Landing boats, road / construction equipment, generators.

Quote: Nikkola Mac

having built additional capacities (again, probably under a government loan), more could have been done

I am not aware of the construction of additional capacities for this engine. And the M4A6 series was launched in October 43rd. After 4 months they changed their minds. Produced for Detroit Tank Arsenal controlled by Chrysler. Why is it that they did not go to the production of a tank with a "foreign" dviglom, I can't imagine.

Quote: Nikkola Mac

I think Hughes knew what he was talking about.

No doubt. Details about Roosevelt's America (and before that - the Roosevelt state of New York) can be read, for example, in the novel The Godfather. And the dashing 90s, and socialism, and state business in the style of Mrs. Vasilyeva - all at once.

[Niccola Mack]

Landing boats, road / construction equipment, generators.

Exactly at the angle of the fleet - well, in any case, nothing definite is obtained anyway.
The mess with the engines for armored vehicles was still the same - everyone went crazy in their own way - from their own considerations - often green .. We also had a little better.

[Octopus]

Quote: Nikkola Mac

We were also a little better.

We had exactly the opposite.
Brilliant conceptually machines with poor implementation. IMHO, the ideal WWII tanks are the T-50-2 / LTTB, T-44B / 100 (T-54) and Ob.701 / IS-4.
American-made))

[Niccola Mack]

It was then - and before the war - searches in all directions -, T-26 (in different versions), T-28, T-35, SMK, BT-5, KV-2, A-20 as the main one, (experimental and upgrades - the list will take a page).
In my opinion, the Americans drove this because of the “late ignition” - they managed with more “run-in concepts” - the M3 (Stuart and Lee / Grant) and the M4 - although the M3 also came to Africa with a “sponsor”.
The situation with the engines according to the nomenclature was clearly better for us (in any case, we did not set “aviation stars” in large quantities) - but it was very bad with the quality. A used M-17 is certainly good, but a used V-2 (in all forms) would have been much more needed by the year 39 (we could have figured out the rings and not had to carry oil in a separate barrel on the T-34).

As for the "diesel line" - the GM 268 has all the signs - but for the fleet.

About the T-50 (if I understood correctly) - it simply “got lost” at the beginning of the war. And if he had not been lost, where would he be in the states? - He was already taller than the “lung”.
But in reality, in my opinion, there should have been two types of lungs - floating - of the T-40 type (reconnaissance, security, reconnaissance of fords, patrolling).
And something like T-70, T-80 - support for medium tanks, the fight against thin-armored vehicles, reconnaissance and security.
And uniform unified platforms on their basis for self-propelled guns, commander tanks, advanced artillery observer vehicles, anti-aircraft guns, etc.
It was not necessary to book them heavily - it was better to work out well and correctly apply them.
Spain also finished with the “main” lungs.

[Octopus]

Quote: Nikkola Mac

and before the war - searches in all directions

Not quite

To equip the spacecraft with modern tanks ... there is no need to have two different types of light tanks, [the more] the real combat value of the BT and T-26 tanks is approximately equal (in terms of range, the T-26 tank sometimes surpasses the fuel consumption in rough terrain BT tanks and is sometimes no less suitable in this way for communications operations). To solve all the problems facing light tanks, it is enough to have one universal escort tank, having the following characteristics:
- weight - 14-18 tons;
- armament - 45 mm cannon and 2-3 machine guns;
- max speed - 40-45 km / h;
- speed along the country road - up to 30 km / h;
- power reserve - 250-300 km.
The mover of the tank should be tracked with a small chain, and the streamlined armored body with the slope of the front and side sheets should protect the tank at a distance of 400 m from the fire of a 37 mm anti-tank gun from any angle ...
The engine of the tank weighing 18 tons. must have a power of at least 195 to 300l.s. and the ability to feed heavy grades of fuel, less prone to spontaneous combustion.
The width of the tracks - 380-400mm is selected based on the achievement of the specific pressure of the tank not exceeding 0,6 kgf / sq.cm ...
The armament of the escort tank can be brought up to a 76-mm gun and three machine guns, which levels its firepower with the T-28 medium tank, in front of which it will get certain advantages ... But to create such a tank we have no experience in joining thick armor plates by welding, and we also don’t everything is clear with the suspension of such a tank.

From Ginzburg's certificate "On the progress of tank building abroad" Cit. after Svirin "Stalin's armor shield. The history of the Soviet tank 1917-1943".
I note that Svirin describes something very similar to the late Valentine, only more mobile. The commencement of work is the 38th year.

Quote: Nikkola Mac

In my opinion, the Americans drove this because of the "late ignition" - they cost more already "run-in concepts" - M3 (Stuart and Lee / Grant) and M4

No, that's the point.
Stuart was a reflection of the Spanish experience. Only in the USSR did this experience mean a transition to ballistic armor and a 75mm cannon, while the Americans were left with bulletproof and 37mm, defended themselves only against machine guns.
Unlike the USSR, I know nothing about the American analysis of the state of the world tank building and the purchase of foreign samples for comparison and "reverse engineering". And the United States had much more opportunities than the USSR.

Quote: Nikkola Mac

The situation with the engines on the nomenclature was clearly better

To a certain degree. In the USSR, it was understood that the tank engine should be on the tank, and not what comes across.

Quote: Nikkola Mac

As for the "diesel line" - the GM 268 has all the signs - but for the fleet.

Maybe. But this was not the case in tanks.

Quote: Nikkola Mac

About the T-50 (if I understood correctly) - it simply “got lost” at the beginning of the war. And if he had not been lost, where would he be in the states? - He was already taller than the “lung”.

Not quite. Light Chaffee weighed 18. T-50 - 14 tons. Unlike Chaffee, he had a ballistic reservation at the level of T-34 (and Sherman).
One of the options for this tank was the project LKZ with a molded hull. They thought that it would not be possible to implement it in the USSR, it was too difficult, but in the USA there was just a different alignment.
The T-50-2 is an elaborated version of the transition of this tank to a 57-mm cannon (it was supposed to broaden the shoulder strap from 1420 to 1500 mm). Accordingly, the M5 gun from Chaffee also becomes quite possible. This is at least. A 75mm howitzer got into Valentine with a 1270 pursuit.

Quote: Nikkola Mac

But in reality, in my opinion, there should have been two types of lungs - floating - of the T-40 type (reconnaissance, security, reconnaissance of fords, patrolling).

Ginzburg did not agree with you. The T-40 tank was useless shit a purely niche solution. For the United States, it was possible to create a floating Locast or an armored car based on DUKW.
To fit the armor-resistant armor and an adequate gun, at least 15 tons were needed. In those years, they did not know how to swim such things.

The described machine, as expected in the USSR, could become the main tank instead of the T-34 (Lee / Sherman). Light, relatively cheap, adequately (no worse than Sherman) armored and armed. Sherman was badly (for his weight) armored and poorly armed, so it was quite realistic to achieve the same results within 20 tons. Actually, in the USSR they were reached by IRL, but could not establish mass production.

Quote: Nikkola Mac

And uniform unified platforms on their basis for self-propelled guns, commander tanks, advanced artillery observer vehicles, anti-aircraft guns, etc.

Exactly. Just needed in the region of 20 tons. 5-ton T-40 is clearly not enough.

Quote: Nikkola Mac

Spain also finished with the “main” lungs.

The Americans just got it bad.

[rjxtufh]

Quote: Octopus

Unlike Chaffee, he had ballistic armor at T-34 level

Still 37 and 45 mm of armor, these are 2 big differences. No. It was proposed to make 37 mm of cemented armor. But who took it seriously?

Quote: Octopus

One of the options for this tank was the project LKZ with a molded hull.

But they made a cast tower. Along the way, having thrown out the commander from there, there was no room left for him. With a molded case, there would probably not be room for a mechanical driver.

Quote: Octopus

the worked out variant of the transition of this tank to a 57-mm gun (it was supposed to broaden the shoulder strap from 1420 to 1500 mm)

That’s what the T-50 could have been more or less successfully remade into a tank destroyer. And the epaulette did not need to be broadened, it was enough and 1420 mm with 2 crew members in the tower.
But there was a problem with the 57 mm gun itself. Yes, and with the tank itself. There was nothing for this distributor, simply put.
He was no longer particularly suitable for anything. Correctly done that they were discontinued.

[Octopus]

Quote: rjxtufh

No. It was proposed to make 37 mm of cemented armor. But who took it seriously?

I come from the factory settings))
You see, since we switched to AI, this tank is produced in the USA))). That is, probably a molded case, but thicker. Therefore, I’m talking about 20 tons, not 14.

Quote: rjxtufh

With a molded case, there would probably not be room for a mechanical driver.

Come on. Cast Sherman differed from the welded one by a 7% reduced ammunition load (90 vs. 97).

Quote: rjxtufh

But there was a problem with the 57 mm gun itself. Yes, and with the tank itself. There was nothing for this distributor, simply put.

That is yes. The subcontractors let us down))). In general, I am a supporter of Shtug / Pieces / Hetzer, or even Acher, and not American tower PTs. A tower is not needed for an ambush, and maneuverable battle with tanks is contraindicated for such devices.

Quote: rjxtufh

Correctly done that they were discontinued.

Yes, how to say. A much more advanced design than the T-34-76. Until the 43rd year - more than normal. Especially for an African or Pacific theater.

[rjxtufh]

Quote: Octopus

That is, probably a molded case, but thicker

52 cast mm in armor resistance was approximately equal to 45 mm. You wrote about "protection like the T-34".
52 mm is noticeably larger than 37 mm. Well, in 20 tons, he probably would have met.

Quote: Octopus

Allies pumped up

Subcontractors did not disappoint. Connecting late connected. Only at the end of 1942, the beginning of 1943.

Quote: Octopus

In general, I am a supporter of Shtug / Pieces / Hetzer

Yes, the Germans after their throwings with Pz.KpfW.III Ausf. N, too, eventually came to this.

Quote: Octopus

A much more advanced design than the T-34-76

I like only the chassis. I don’t like the rest. In addition, it is far from a fact that a 1600 mm shoulder strap could be inserted into it.
Oh yes. All the time I forget that he is kind of American.
Then there will be no problems with the gun.))
Or will they? Where will the Americans get such a gun? QF 6 pounder Mk III / V? But which is the "fighter"? Although, if somewhere like in Asia ...

[Octopus]

Quote: rjxtufh

2 cast mm armor resistance was approximately equal to 45 mm. You wrote about "protection, like the T-34"

Well, if roughly, 52 cast = 45 rolled = 37 heterogeneous. However, all this floats very much. In particular, the better the angles, the less cast armor loses. And on account of the idea of ​​improving the reservation of tanks due to heterogeneous armor - they did not guess in the USSR, I agree.

Quote: rjxtufh

Well, in 20 tons, he probably would have met.

That's what I'm talking about)
IRL in the 42nd was 17,9 with armor 40 forehead / side.

Quote: rjxtufh

Connecting late connected. Only at the end of 1942, the beginning of 1943.

Everything is complicated there. No engine, no gun. It would be more successful if they immediately laid down the F-34. And GMC-6004))).

Quote: rjxtufh

I like only the chassis. I don’t like the rest.

Chassis and review. Seems to be significantly better reliability (although not much data). Overall, a much better design.

Quote: rjxtufh

Or will they? Where will the Americans get such a gun? QF 6 pounder Mk III / V? But which is the "fighter"?

You see. In my alternative tank universe))) virtual McNamara (real 20 years old), appointed in the 36th year as Minister of War instead of Woodring's bobblehead, began to put things in order not with tanks, but with artillery. Accordingly, the projects of 90mm guns were canceled, 3 "remained only in the regimental artillery (in the form of the Belgian Canon de 76 FRC), customers of anti-aircraft guns with separate loading 120 mm M1 gun generally sit in the American Gulag for sabotage. The number of calibers has been reduced to the required minimum. naval calibers of separate loading 8/6/5 inches are standardized (since there is no getting away from them in the navy), and 88mm are adopted as a single caliber for unitars, which is close to the maximum (according to Americans) reasonable 90 mm. British (i.e., 88).

Accordingly, on my virtual T-50 there is a tower from the Australian Sentiel with this gun (triple, in the original there was a shoulder strap of 1372, I don’t know how they shoved it). For the first time, the possibilities are enough. In the future, the growth of ballistics to the German 56/70/100 klb and the English subcalibers, which IRL on an 84mm gun pierced 305 mm of armor, or the cumulative which the IRL were developed for this gun, but were canceled with the advent of 17-pdr. A tank of 100 tons cannot handle a 20 klb cannon, but 56 klb is enough. Hellcat withstood the Persh cannon (with a muzzle brake).

[Octopus]

Quote: rjxtufh

QF 6 pounder Mk III / V? But which is the "fighter"?

Well something like that. If less alternative, Valentine, but with more justified claims for the role of medium tank. So 6-pdr and OQF 75 mm. About 6-pdr You should not take 142 mm, which is more than the ZiS-2 BB, with the late APDS caliber. + Just the Anglo-Saxons did not bother to grow the trunk.

[rjxtufh]

Quote: Octopus

About 6-pdr You should not take 142 mm, which is more than the ZiS-2 BB, with the late APDS caliber. + Just the Anglo-Saxons did not bother to grow the trunk

Subcaliber, that's good. But not really. Because near. BB is better.
In addition, the sub-caliber of tank destroyers is not suitable. They must a priori shoot from afar.

[Niccola Mack]

Octopus,
Firstly - let's all all - so somehow stay away from peremptory opinions!
Secondly, it’s not tanks fighting or even people (guns, machine guns, planes) that fight — the structures that connect them are fighting. And always these structures will have an appointment, tactics and technology of warfare.
Let's say that Rezun (under the pseudonym Suvorov) painted “epic paintings” as thousands of amphibious tanks force water barriers and rush along freeways in the heart of Germany. Stalin de created this for them. They don’t need bridges - they are floating.
If you look at the T-37 and T-38, the thought immediately arises - “no, it can’t be, probably there is still a tank with that index - we had 2 tanks with the T-34 index.”
No, everything is fine - it is he.
Mr. Rezun (former tanker) - did you see him yourself?
We look at the classification - the main tank is a type of reconnaissance tank (somewhat wisely).
We look at the states - reconnaissance of armored, cavalry, infantry and airborne divisions.
What should he do - move in front and side of units - to prevent a sudden attack, scout fords and enemy units in front, destroy on the move small units of the enemy and his reconnaissance.
And if he ran into serious forces - quickly move away under the cover of tanks or artillery deployed on the defensive from marching orders.
This is normal warfare technology. Need a T-37? - needed, although better than the T-40. It is needed precisely with its lightness and buoyancy. And if they hit one, it’s bad, but he will save a lot of other equipment and lives - cynically, but correctly. And he does not need anti-cannon armor - a powerful engine would not interfere when you need to "wiggle the pistons".
Now, examples where they did it differently:

A lot of photographs (German) of the USSR tank equipment stuck in swamps and rivers of the USSR in 41– did not find the T-37 (or desire) to evaluate the condition of the soil and fords.

“Oil Painting” - Alan Clark “The Barbarossa Plan”

“On the evening of October 11, when the vanguard of the 4th Panzer Division cautiously entered the flaming suburb of Mtsensk, the division stretched for 15 miles along a narrow road, where supporting artillery and infantry were almost beyond radio communications.
For Katukov, the time has come to deliver the next blow. The T 34 tanks moved quickly through the freezing earth at dusk, and their wide caterpillars freely carried them where the German T IV got stuck sitting on armored bottoms. The Russians swiftly and fiercely attacked the German column, breaking it up into pieces that were systematically destroyed.

Guderian urgently requires the formation of a commission to evaluate Russian tanks.

“I made a report on this situation, which is new for us ..
For the first time in the eastern campaign, the absolute superiority of the Russian 26 ton and 52 ton tanks over our Pz.Kpfw.III and IV .. ”

Which is new ?, and what did you inspect before October by dozens of abandoned and lined on roads across the Western Front.
In fact, the situation is called - "the lack of intelligence and combat security, which led to beating in marching columns." Commander 4 TD von Langeman did not bother to put forward and side reconnaissance Pz 2 (or even Pz 1) and a predictable result was obtained. We need 2 and 1 - here they are needed.

Here are the niches for the T-40 and T-70 (80) - the T-70 is more powerful (but does not float).
The same situation with the platforms - if the weight allows - then the T-40 or T-70, no - the main battle "or" heavy ".

For the United States, it was possible to create a floating Locast or an armored car based on DUKW.

For God's sake. I also think that a floating "centipede" like the BTR-60, BRDM-2, or "Luhs" (which is SpPz 2) would be more successful here - but the rich are the more happy.

From Ginzburg's certificate "On the progress of tank building abroad"

The Germans in 36-40 actively promoted military science - especially in the operational breakthroughs of tank units. So all this alignment quickly became outdated. But an interesting fact was that the Germans, after the success of their Cancer36 in Spain, did not worry about thickening their armor - unlike us.
And even more interestingly, even before the Germans (Poland and France), Zhukov famously carried out a “blitzkrieg” on Khalkhin Gol - and even on such a remote theater - the Germans in Poland had problems with this. All the laurels of the "discoverers" to attribute to them is incorrect.

The mover of the tank should be tracked with a small chain,

And yet the A-20 - the main competitor of the T-34 was wheeled - tracked - searches continued.
I think, after all, PzKpf III put an end to it - it really can be.

Not quite. Light Chuffy weighed in at 18. T-50 - 14 t

A -20 also weighed 16,5 and with such an engine it was possible to increase the mass.
What ended up for Pz III and IV thin armor? yes the same increase in armor and mass - further to the "average".
With the T-50 - you need 5 crew members, you need to expand, you need a new engine, etc.
And the predictable “drift” from light to medium - but we already have the T-34.
In general, the classification is quite a muddy thing.
What was Pz III in the USSR - “post-light” or somewhat “less-medium” - and if you also take into account that on the western front IV did not reach the average?
What to do with the Panther? Medium (we have IS-2 weighed so much) or heavy - where is the Tiger then?
What is Ferdinand - a heavy anti-tank self-propelled gun or a super-heavy tank of a special design (as it was used on the northern face of the Kursk Bulge - without success).
You can argue endlessly, but really did something, and then they tried to figure it out!

[rjxtufh]

Quote: Nikkola Mac

What to do with the Panther? Medium (we have IS-2 weighed so much) or heavy - where is the Tiger then?

The Panther in the Panzervaff was a medium tank. Tiger, heavy. Pz.IV (starting with model F2), lightweight. And according to the F1 model, inclusive, an infantry (infantry escort tank).

[Octopus]

Quote: rjxtufh

Pz.IV (starting with model F2), light

The Germans were slightly perverted. It is more convenient to consider F2 average, like the T-34 and Sherman.

[rjxtufh]

Quote: Octopus

It is more convenient to consider F2 average, like the T-34 and Sherman.

Maybe more convenient. But since 1946. Americans and with them gradually the whole world switched to the German classification. From this their Pershing became average, and Sherman light. As a result, only the T-34/85 remained as if average.
In principle, it can be considered as convenient. There is no problem. But considering Sherman, T-34/85 and late Pz.IV medium, Panthers should be considered heavy. And the Tigers are superheavy.

[Octopus]

Quote: Nikkola Mac

Firstly - let's all all - so somehow stay away from peremptory opinions!

Are you offended by the T-40? I crossed out)))
But seriously, as far as I know, none of the warring parties went in this direction. The USSR, it seems, only did what it was trying to screw a gun to the T-40. With which he, an infection, was drowning, but this was no longer considered a problem.

Quote: Nikkola Mac

that Rezun

Do you seem to be recently on the site? This author is better not to mention here. Not being a fan of the USSR at all, I have to regret to note that anti-Soviet authors often lie even thicker than Soviet ones, and Mr. Rezun is the first example.
Moreover, you should not start a discussion with an imaginary Rezun.

Quote: Nikkola Mac

move front and side units

I mean, not on the road? In Russia? In France, I can still admit, and then not everywhere.
I hardly perceive your concept.
And yes. In the 42nd (trial operation - from the 43rd) an ultimatum answer appeared. Sikorsky R-4 Hoverfly

Quote: Nikkola Mac

Many photographs of (German) Soviet tank technology stuck in swamps and rivers

Not an argument. Photos stuck T-72 or Abramsov also in bulk. Moreover, at their own training ground.

Quote: Nikkola Mac

there was no T-37 (or desire) to evaluate the condition of the soil and fords

Skill.

Quote: Nikkola Mac

The same situation with the platforms - if the weight allows - then the T-40 or T-70

Does not allow. Archer 15, Hetzer 16, Shtug 3 23, M-41 20. Is Vespe 11, like the SU-76 based on the T-70.
And the T-40 weighed 5,5 tons. About nothing.

Quote: Nikkola Mac

type BTR-60, BRDM-2, or "Luhs" (which is SpPz 2)

1960, 1963, 1975. The alternative is okay, but the fellow soldiers are not mine)))
There were no floating vehicles weighing 20 tons in WWII (Luhs), there wasn’t all. Only machine guns.

Quote: Nikkola Mac

The Germans in 36-40 actively promoted military science - especially in the operational breakthroughs of tank units. So all this alignment quickly became outdated.

Sorry? Outdated three-inch tank with bulletproof armor? But didn’t the Germans go in the T-3 / T-4 until the 43rd year?

Quote: Nikkola Mac

very famously held a “blitzkrieg” on Khalkhin Gol

A very long topic.

Quote: Nikkola Mac

A-20 - the main competitor of the T-34 was wheeled - tracked - searches continued.

Comrade Beria caught spies and wreckers, his hands did not reach the fools. When they reached - comrade Khrushchev shot)))

Quote: Nikkola Mac

What ended up for Pz III and IV thin armor? yes the same increase in armor and mass - further to the "average".

So I drown for a tank capable of "growing" along with the T-4))

Quote: Nikkola Mac

With the T-50 - you need 5 crew members,

What for?

Quote: Nikkola Mac

on the western front and IV already did not reach the middle?

And where is the West, in France? In the 40th he reached, and this is to say the least, in the 44th, too, if you look at Sherman, and not at Panther.

Quote: Nikkola Mac

What to do with the Panther?

German medium tank of the 43rd year.

Quote: Nikkola Mac

What is Ferdinand

Self-propelled guns that were misused.

[Niccola Mack]

Are you offended by the T-40? I crossed out)))

Yes, not at all - but you still do not want to understand stubbornly - that no one makes a miracle of world tank building out of the T-40. But he is needed in his niche. The Panzerwaffe began precisely from this - sewn up plywood with cars or even ran around with mock-ups - and looked for a concept and learned along the way.
And then they “filled” the concept with tanks - and modernized, and again studied.

This author is better not to mention here.

I often mention him as a starting point - here for him (a former tanker, if he doesn’t lie as always) everything is definitely and simply (without appeals) - like Mohr’s in Utopia.

I mean, not on the road? In Russia?

I want to remind you that tanks (far from 5 tonnes) need to drive through something in order to be ambushed. And to drag something “corps” or 88 to where the T-40 does not pass is a very non-travial task.

And the T-40 weighed 5,5 tons. About nothing

It is quite possible to land an artillery or aviation observer - a sniper will not get it, a crazy fragment too, but you don’t have to climb on the rampage - here the IS-2 armor will not save either.

I hardly perceive your concept.

She's not even close to mine.
Pre-war PU-39:

The reconnaissance group may consist of motorized infantry with the strength to the company, reinforced with tanks, armored vehicles, individual infantry artillery guns, or from units of tanks and armored vehicles.
The bandwidth of the reconnaissance unit is determined by the strength and composition of the unit, the network of roads and the nature of the terrain ....
145. Troops should always have security appropriate to the situation. For the protection of troops organized: on the march - marching guards, when located on the spot - guard, in battle - military guards ...
146. Tasks of protection:
a) prevent the unexpected attack of a ground and air enemy; ...
319. Early reconnaissance of the crossing area is based on aerial photographs, geographical descriptions, a map study and a survey of local residents. All these funds cannot replace the intelligence work of commanders and special engineering intelligence at the waterfront itself.....

If you were defeated in a marching column or tanks got stuck at a crossing (in a swamp), they will be judged primarily for failure to fulfill direct duties. But Langeman turned away - "impenetrable Russian tanks" (they had a similar Charter).

Archer 15, Hetzer 16, Shtug 3 23, M-41 20. Is Vespe 11, like the SU-76 based on the T-70.
And the T-40 weighed 5,5 tons.

Take the T-34, remove the tower, weld a box of thinner armor (not forgetting that it is carrying), you can put the engine weaker and here is the platform - both Germans with Pz 3-4-5-6, and ours (SU -85/100, ISU122,152) did so. True, our reservation was left almost the same.

To solve all the problems facing light tanks, it is enough to have one universal escort tank, having the following characteristics:
The armament of the escort tank can be brought up to 76 mm guns and three machine guns, which levels its firepower with the T-28 medium tank,

Sorry? Outdated three-inch tank with portable armor?

They broke through the defense of tanks in World War I - and then what?
The Germans again built a new line of defense and “sealed” the breakthrough - there is no speed.
“Exhaust” - much less loss during a breakthrough - that's it. And then again, "pat."
And where is the “blitzkrieg”.
For the Germans in France, the blitzkrieg consisted precisely in introducing a “mobile connection” into the breakthrough — light tanks Pz2 + “medium” Pz 3-4 + motorized infantry + motorized artillery + “all on wheels”. Although there is sufficient reason to argue that the Pz 4 was conceived as a "breakthrough tank" (more on that later). But in fact, a "breakthrough" was provided by artillery and infantry - as in WWII.
We have a T-28 - “breakthrough tank” (one can argue), BT-7 - a light “operational breakthrough” tank (which is displayed here together with the T-26 as a "infantry escort tank"), where is the average? (future T-34) and where - "all on wheels." The song BT-7 as a “main battle” was sung in Spain.
The classification here is extremely muddy due to the formation of concepts as such.
But the most important question - why do we want to increase the mobility of tanks, if they just want to support foot infantry and carry artillery on horses and tractors?
It turned out that France and England “arrived” with their concept of using tanks (with such numbers) - first to Dunkirk, and then France “went” further to Compiegne.
And how we like to compare the French and Germans in centimeters and tons!

With the T-50 - you need 5 crew members,
What for?

Still needed on the T-34-85 - and a new tower too.

And where is the West, in France? In the 40th I reached, and this is putting it mildly

From the 4th, my considerations are as follows - he was thinking in tandem with the 3rd as two tanks for different purposes - this is obvious. But the third one was designated at the development stage as “a tank of a platoon commander” - it is very incomprehensible. The 3th was designated even more incomprehensibly - according to one data as a “battalion tank” according to others as a “support tank”.
That is, all the same, it was implied 3 - “main battle”, 4 “breakthrough tanks” or direct infantry support. What 4 and the Tiger later became (a breakthrough heavy tank).
It was precisely this classification that was used in our pre-war source - it is not clear, but where is it from?
Perhaps in Poland it was so! And finally it went exactly to the USSR, because after France the Germans did not bother either with additional reservations or with significant modernization.
This version is supported by a more definite position of the Germans on VK3001 (H) and VK3601 (H) - a possible change of 3 and 4. The second (VK3601 (H)) in organizational structure was clearly planned as the future "Tiger"

It was assumed that from the VK 3601 (N) tanks units from 20 vehicles that would be part of the tank divisions would be formed. The main task of such units was to break through the defense, for the subsequent offensive of weakly protected tanks

What is Ferdinand
Self-propelled guns that were misused.

And did they use Panther on Kursk? with her punch 70 caliber gun?

[rjxtufh]

Quote: Nikkola Mac

We have a T-28 - “breakthrough tank” (one can argue), BT-7 - a light “operational breakthrough” tank (which is displayed here together with the T-26 as a "infantry escort tank"), where is the average? (future T-34) and where - "all on wheels." The song BT-7 as a “main battle” was sung in Spain.

BT is definitely an operational tank. And he never had anything to do with infantry. The infantry tank, as you indicated, was the T-26. Which was to be replaced by the infantry T-34/76.
Medium tanks did not exist in the days of "operational" and "infantry". These are gradations of different generations.
In fact, the first more or less true medium-sized tank of its own production in the USSR appeared only in the spring of 1944. in the form of T-34/85. Some call KV-1C arr. 1942 the first Soviet medium tank, but this is not so. If only because of its weight. Therefore, the first medium tank in the USSR was ... American Sherman.
At the same time, the Americans themselves began to consider Sherman an average somewhere closer to the end of the war. And since 1946. and completely transferred it to the lungs. And so, from the moment of its appearance, they considered it an "infantry" tank. Those. they switched to a new structure of tank forces towards the end of the war.

Quote: Nikkola Mac

I still needed the T-34-85

T-50 and T-34/85 are far from classmates. Not classmates are also T-50 and T-34/76. Therefore, the T-50 with a double tower was quite acceptable. After the start of manufacturing cast towers for him, this happened, the tower became double.
No, it’s clear that a triple would be better. But a double was also acceptable.

Quote: Nikkola Mac

But the third one was designated at the development stage as “a tank of a platoon commander” - it is very incomprehensible. The 3th was designated even more incomprehensibly - according to one data as a “battalion tank” according to others as a “support tank”.

The Pz.II was a German "reconnaissance" tank. In the USSR, these tanks were called "small". In 1943. its release is discontinued.
Pz.III was an analogue of cavalry, cruising, operational (depending on the country) tanks. It was later converted into an "infantry" tank (model N).
The Pz.IV was an "infantry" tank. Since the spring of 1942. became a light German tank (something like an average Soviet or American).
Pz.VI did like a breakthrough tank. And they did it like a heavy German tank. He had no analogues with the allies.
The Pz.V index was left in reserve for the new German medium tank. Its counterparts in the Allied armies were usually considered heavy tanks.
Those. it is obvious that in 1942. Germans have already begun to switch to a new structure of tank troops. This transition was finally completed in 1943.

[Octopus]

Quote: rjxtufh

more or less a real medium tank of its own production in the USSR appeared only in the spring of 1944. in the form of T-34/85.

Quote: rjxtufh

Therefore, the first medium tank in the USSR was ... American Sherman.
At the same time, the Americans themselves began to consider Sherman average somewhere near the end of the war.

From these considerations, we can conclude that the classification of tanks of WWII is a rather scholastic thing. One writer T-34 is infantry, and BT is operational, the second T-34 is medium, and BT, respectively, is light.
Or you, say, IS-2 - a tower assault gun, and someone Panther with Tiger 2 - turret tank destroyers. Or, conversely, the ISU-152 is a reckless tank. Or Ferdinand.

Well, figs with them, in my opinion. I look at what tasks were set for the machines. Including, according to the technique of the enemy. T-34 was tied off on the infantry - that became a medium tank. Strange, but there were still no others.

Quote: rjxtufh

Some call KV-1C arr. 1942 the first Soviet medium tank, but this is not so. If only because of its weight

And what's the difference, how much did he weigh?

Quote: rjxtufh

And since 1946 they completely transferred him to the lungs.

I have not heard about this. This is where they wrote?

[Alf]

Quote: Octopus

I have not heard about this. This is where they wrote?

And this is in his head. They even flooded him from a site such as Alternative History. Even there they could not bear his delirium.

[Octopus]

Quote: Alf

They even flooded him from a site such as Alternative History. Even there they could not bear his delirium.

1. On the site you mentioned came across quite reasonable materials and quite meaningful threads. At least I ran across it from time to time. So "even" is for nothing.
2. On this site there are not many participants, unfortunately, who post something meaningful. In particular, an earlier branch with the participation of the criticized author convinced me specifically that my old opinion on Soviet tanks and artillery was incorrect and needed to be revised. As it turned out, I considered for the truth the once long-read pro-Soviet and anti-Soviet (Rezgunov) agitation, which coincided on this issue. Naturally, the posts of the criticized author are not inspired and should, if necessary, be checked by literature. His position on a number of issues, in particular, political history, I am ready to ignore.

[rjxtufh]

Quote: Alf

And this is in his head.

Not all I write from myself. Even sooner, extremely rare. But what I am writing about is frank about this.

Quote: Alf

They even flooded him from a site such as Alternative History. Even there they could not bear his delirium.

Waugh, another one. Will you also call me "Nikolai"? Even "Andrey from Chelyabinsk" (he will be more intelligent) has already figured out that this is not so. And he stopped calling me that. I thought there was only one stoned Comrade left. Which differs from the telegraph pole only in that it is not made of wood.
But no. He was not alone. Here, one more turned up.
And this case is not a hidden advertisement of the Alternative History site? It will be necessary to read it, there, as I look, literate people meet.

[rjxtufh]

Quote: Octopus

the classification of WWII tanks is a pretty scholastic thing. One writer T-34 is infantry, and BT is operational, the second T-34 is medium, and BT, respectively, is light.

That, yes. Such a clear transition as the Germans in the Red Army did not have. Probably because there was no variety of technology.
But there are also limits to assumptions - the T-34/76 cannot be considered average in any way, simply because it is constructively "infantry". The same applies to the IS-2, which is actually a turret-type self-propelled gun.
But Sherman was constructively "average". Although the Americans planned to use it as an "infantry". The T-34/85 mod. 1944
It would seem that everything is very complicated with the KV-1S arr. 1942 The tank is, as it were, heavy, but the cannon, completely to hell. But in fact, this is actually a pre-war "breakthrough tank". They could act like medium tanks, only they were quite expensive. By the way, it was something like "the second medium tank of the Red Army", after the Lend-Lease Shermans.

Quote: Octopus

and someone has Panther with Tiger 2 - turret tank destroyers.

Well, I wouldn't say that. The fact is that tanks, and heavy ones in the first place, mostly needed a powerful armor-piercing gun. With an OFS of sufficient power. What is this "power enough"? I don’t know, but as a "stove" we can easily choose the OFS of a Soviet three-inch tank. I didn’t have to read anywhere that the OFS of the three-inch was somehow weak there. And the tank didn't need more, for greater impact there were specialized self-propelled guns. The same artillery self-propelled guns.
And what do we see? For the OFS KwK42 and F-34, for example, the charge is exactly the same, 421 g in a three-inch projectile and 620 in a "German". Those. the power of the Panther OFS was ENOUGH. But the armor penetration was super.
As for KwK43, he has nothing to say about it. There was plenty of everything.
And then, the tank destroyer has a different ratio of defense and attack. The same KwK42 in the version of the tank destroyer, the Germans put on the platform Pz.IV. And they already installed KwK43 on the Pz.V platform.

Quote: Octopus

T-34 was tied off on the infantry - that became a medium tank.

Well yes. That’s how it happened. It is said that from now on average means average. Everything is simple, not like that of others.

Quote: Octopus

Strange, but there were still no others.

It is, yes. How the USSR was preparing for war, it is impossible to describe with a pen. But as soon as it began, it turned out that, for example, there were no normal tanks in the country. And almost nothing. Such was the "preparation".

Quote: Octopus

And what's the difference, how much did he weigh?

Well, still no one canceled the formal approach. For the average KV-1C weighed excessively.

Quote: Octopus

I have not heard about this. This is where they wrote?

This I myself "conjectured". Based on the fact that in May 1946. The Americans transferred Pershing from heavy to medium tanks (a promise of a known fact). Well, since they are not classmates, I "conjectured". And so the Shermans until May 1946. in production did not survive.

[Octopus]

Quote: rjxtufh

The T-34/76 cannot be considered average in any way, simply because it is constructively "infantry".

I wrote. I do not care. If I hammer in nails, then I have a hammer in my hands, even if "constructively" it is a microscope. How good is my choice of tool, and whether I have had the opportunity to use it more effectively is another question.

Quote: rjxtufh

Sherman was constructively average.

Sherman was constructively a grant with a tower. The Americans did not know what a medium tank was, and therefore could not construct it. You yourself wrote about it.
Another thing is that as a medium tank was successful. First time.

Quote: rjxtufh

difficult with KV-1C arr. 1942

I do not see the difficulty. Lightweight HF for improved reliability. In turn, the KV is a pre-war multi-tower tank (breakthrough or infantry, how to look), from which extra towers were already picked up, but still did not understand how to correctly use free weight and volume.

Quote: rjxtufh

Well, still no one canceled the formal approach. For the average KV-1C weighed excessively.

Pershing, Panther, Centurion.

Quote: rjxtufh

The fact is that tanks, and heavy ones in the first place, mostly needed a powerful armor-piercing gun.

However, the emphasis on PT capabilities is quite noticeable. For the prototype MBT, the 36th gun could be a more balanced weapon.
Answer T-34 and KV, after all.

Quote: rjxtufh

Everything is simple, not like that of others.

Everyone is the same. The first medium tanks, of course, were designed as part of previous concepts.

Quote: rjxtufh

But as soon as it started, it turned out that, for example, there were no normal tanks in the country.

I do not see anything unusual here for the Soviet regime. Therefore, I have much more complaints about the Roosevelt administration regarding the unsatisfactory preparation for WWII.

Quote: rjxtufh

This I myself "conjectured"

It is worth indicating when you go to IMHO and AI.

Quote: rjxtufh

Well, since they are not classmates, I "conjectured

With this argument, you make the T-34-85 light with the advent of the T-54 in the same year 46

[Octopus]

Quote: Nikkola Mac

Nobody makes the T-40 a miracle of world tank building. But he is needed in his niche.

Niche BRM? Quite possible. It’s just that none of the belligerents attached such importance to such machines, as far as I am informed.

Quote: Nikkola Mac

I often mention it as a reference point

Your right. But I will not waste energy delving into the texts of the authorship of this gentleman. There, for every quote and every number you need to climb to check the source, this is tiring.

Quote: Nikkola Mac

I want to remind you that tanks (far from 5 tonnes) need to drive through something in order to be ambushed.

The ambush party usually has more time and knows the area better. In any case, he is poorly informed about the organization of marching columns of armored vehicles at that time.

Quote: Nikkola Mac

Take the t-34

Quote: Nikkola Mac

SU-85/100, ISU122,152

Be careful when cornering. ISU at another base.
The Germans, with their 44th year program and the Americans with the Light Combat Team, came to the conclusion that the line of cars is more convenient to do on a relatively light chassis. Just the T-34 for the most needed calibers is absolutely not necessary to take, until you cure the chassis, engine and suspension. And nothing else.

Quote: Nikkola Mac

And how we like to compare the French and Germans in centimeters and tons!

You all wrote this to the fact that Verkhmakht was a more advanced organizational structure? Quite possible.

Quote: Nikkola Mac

Still needed on the T-34-85 - and a new tower too.

You confuse warm with soft. The tank commander was lost on T-34-76, a gunner rode for him. Accordingly, the 5th person, the commander, was quite useful.
And in the T-50, the commander was like that, and you want to shove the assistant mechvod / gunner-gunner. Not the most intelligible topic, especially if there is no machine gun in the VLD and the walkie-talkie is made normally.

Quote: Nikkola Mac

From the 4th my considerations are as follows - he thought in tandem with the 3rd

Quote: Nikkola Mac

3 - “main battle”, 4 “breakthrough tanks” or direct infantry support.

The skewers. Cruising and infantry tanks, all like everyone else. The Americans even in the 44th managed to spoil this scheme using Firefly (Wolverine) / Jumbo

Quote: Nikkola Mac

And did they use Panther on Kursk?

Panther used just bad. And the Germans had fakaps, and not so rarely.
By the way, about the Panther. Some comrades wrote that the Panther, with its highly differentiated armor and high-ballistic gun, was more of a tank destroyer than a breakthrough tank (which is a breakthrough tank in FIG. This is not so stupid as it seems at first glance.

[Niccola Mack]

The ambush party usually has more time and knows the area better.

In relation to, say, reconnaissance of a division, it is a very powerful and well-armed unit - usually a battalion. Which is just engaged in reconnaissance and military security. And it can have medium tanks.
For example, the regular reconnaissance battalion of the tank division of the state 010/11 of 1940:
BT-19 tanks
Armored vehicles -18 pcs.
The personnel of 414 people.

The Germans, with their 44th year program and the Americans with the Light Combat Team, came to the conclusion that the line of cars is more convenient to do on a relatively light chassis.

If your gun weighs 4 tons - like the Pak 43 - you still need an appropriate chassis - whatever platform concept you have.

Just the T-34 for the most needed calibers is absolutely not necessary to take, until you cure the chassis, engine and suspension.

Well, yes - you have to wait until the end of the war, and then deal with the suspension, platforms, concepts.
I looked here at a conversation about pendants - mostly about nothing. Here is the T-34 transmission (especially friction clutches) - this is critical.

especially if there is no machine gun in the VLD and the radio is done normally.

Again the same thing! - and if there is a machine gun and a walkie-talkie? –– a rather complicated unit requiring work skills (and sometimes still have to work by telegraph - like 71-TK-3 on the first 34s and FuG 5 on Pz 3 and 4)?

Cruising and infantry tanks

Honestly, I'm tired of trying to classify. Maybe you will give an example of how the cruising Pz 3 led a cavalry breakthrough, or completely independently (only tanks and tankers) carried out an operation on the environment.
In accordance with the English, French and our concept of their (cruising tanks) pre-war use (for me it is completely incomprehensible).
Ours caught up with "everything on wheels" just before the war in a rather "raw" form - the mechanized corps.
True, we still had horse - mechanized groups (KMG) - but this is a separate interesting conversation (an impromptu pancake that did not come out lumpy).

[Octopus]

Quote: Nikkola Mac

reconnaissance tank division of the state 010/11 1940:
BT-19 tanks
Armored vehicles -18 pcs.

What about the T-40 tanks? Or cost?
However, it doesn’t matter. I write that the primary task, the medium tank, was set back in the 36th, but was not satisfactorily solved before the T-44.

Quote: Nikkola Mac

If your gun weighs 4 tons - like the Pak 43 - you still need an appropriate chassis

Again. Superhellcat. After the war - AMX-13. There was enough chassis.

Quote: Nikkola Mac

Well, yes - you have to wait until the end of the war, and then deal with the suspension, platforms, concepts.

And I am writing. They took the only thing that was in the series. At the same time, the early T-34 as a platform was generally bad for everything, every element. Caterpillar, suspension, transmission, engine. Manufacturability and performance. Even the layout.

Quote: Nikkola Mac

I looked here at a conversation about pendants - mostly about nothing.

Christie's suspension problems are well known. GABTU demanded to abandon it immediately. Everyone who used it in WWII changed their minds, even the British with shock absorbers.
In general, Christie’s suspension on the T-34 was the same design fail as the star on Sherman. Stupid continuity with the previous model.

Quote: Nikkola Mac

if there is a machine gun and a walkie-talkie? -

The refusal of a machine gun in the VLD, the installation of a walkie-talkie to the commander, the abandonment of the 5th crew member are reasonable steps that all countries have taken, and the USSR is the first on the T-44.

Quote: Nikkola Mac

Maybe you’ll give an example of how the cruising Pz 3 led a cavalry breakthrough,

As you correctly wrote, by the year 40, the Germans had made great progress in tactics. The concept has changed.

[Niccola Mack]

What about the T-40 tanks? Or cost?

Staffing the T-38 were in infantry divisions.
Before the war they were removed from there (by the way, there was aviation there).
There were "big searches" with mechanized corps and tank divisions just before the war.
But the T-38, T-70 (80) periodically appeared in the states.
Of course, the "automatic" concept does not mean that a particular tank fits well with it.
I think if we had a PT-76 before the war, it would have firmly settled down in the states and it would have been much better with platforms.

Christie's suspension problems are well known. GABTU demanded to abandon it immediately. Everyone who used it in WWII changed their minds, even the British with shock absorbers.

Either I'm looking at things wrong, or is it just so customary here?
Suspension type "Christie", torsion bar, leaf spring, etc. determines the type of "springs" used and may also be a kinematic scheme.
Do you put shock absorbers on it - on all rollers, on part of the rollers - this does not depend on the type of suspension.
The Jews on their Merkava classify the suspension exactly as Christie and no one talks about her problems.
Shock absorbers may not be on torsion bars and springs!
And I call this suspension exactly "spring":

So maybe the T-34 did not have shock absorbers (and not “depreciation”)?

Refusal of a machine gun in the VLD, installation of a walkie-talkie to the commander, refusal of the 5th crew member

The technique has changed dramatically - it’s become much easier to set up the walkie-talkie - say in R-173 (T-72B) the frequency (pre-configured) is changed by pressing a single button –– and nothing needs to be adjusted. Over time, it became possible to abandon the fourth person - and now already from the third.
But in the T-34 and Pz 4 it was necessary to be able to work with the radio and “knock” on the key.

[Octopus]

Quote: Nikkola Mac

If we had a PT-76 before the war, it would have firmly settled down in the states, and it would have been much better with platforms.

Absolutely agree. A floating tank with a three-inch cannon is the theme. But if you already have the opportunity to carry tanks from 1951 to "before the war", bring the IS-7 right away, why waste time on trifles?
Again. In the 40s, the task of installing a normal gun on a floating machine could not be solved. To nobody.

Quote: Nikkola Mac

So maybe the T-34 did not have shock absorbers (and not “depreciation”)?

I did not quite understand the pathos.
One of the problems with Christie's suspension on the T-34 was "laxity", large vertical vibrations. The British, who, unlike the Red Army, put shock absorbers on the tanks, partially fixed this shortcoming. But the rest of the shortcomings remained.
According to Merkava - you see, the suspension of the tank of the 79th year is somewhat different from the suspension of the T-34.

Quote: Nikkola Mac

let's say in R-173 (T-72B)

But what all pulls you in the future? Now the year 1985.
The radio was handed over to the tank commander just in the 40s. I mentioned the T-44 as the first medium tank without a mechanic’s assistant, but that was a general trend. The Germans and Americans were lagging behind, but the Red Army did it on almost all new (Chelyabinsk) cars. KV-13 (1942), KV-85, IS-1, IS-2.
The British went this way on Valentine, but slowed down to Centurion. The Americans had a walkie-talkie on top (in the tower niche) starting with Sherman and Stuart M3A3 (i.e., also from the 42nd year), but they continued to roll the useless assistant mechvod until the 3rd Patton, 52nd year.

[Niccola Mack]

I did not quite understand the pathos.
One of the problems with Christie's suspension on the T-34 was "laxity", large vertical vibrations.

And there is no pathos, just people on the forum substitute one for another. "Christie" (coil springs), torsion bars, springs - all these are different types of springs that must somehow be installed in the tank (torsion bars are very convenient). So maybe, after all, it was the lack of shock absorbers on the T-34 (at least for several rollers), and not the fundamental flaws of the Christie's suspension. They wanted to install torsion bars (judging by the documents) primarily to increase free space - and on old balancers and rollers. In any case, all plans to improve the suspension were pushed back by the war - although the same T-40 torsion bars received before the war (like the KV).

The Germans and Americans were lagging behind, but the Red Army did it on almost all new (Chelyabinsk) cars.

To have or not have a unit in the crew was determined by the need for a particular tank (and with specific equipment). There was no loader on the T-34 - on the T-34-85 entered (and expanded the tower).
SU-85 four people was enough for the eyes, but ISU-152 received a second loader and 5 people

[Octopus]

Quote: Nikkola Mac

So maybe, after all, it was the lack of shock absorbers on the T-34 (at least for several rollers), and not the fundamental shortcomings of the Christie's suspension

Again. The British had shock absorbers. However, they eventually switched to trolleys. Not even torsion bars.
Christie's suspension was specially designed for wheeled and tracked tanks. The tracked tank needed her chips much less. But its disadvantages are placement inside the hull => inflation of the reserve volume and weakening of the sides, restriction on the angles of booking the side, high laboriousness of the repair, which in theory is compensated by better security, but in practice it is not - have not gone anywhere.
You can, of course, place Christie's suspension with shock absorbers outside the case, as on Merkava. But this year to the 80th.

Quote: Nikkola Mac

although the same T-40 torsion was received before the war (like KV)

Yes, here the Soviet comrades did not blunder. Just with HF is more interesting. On a light tank (German, disguised as Swedish), the Landsverk L-60 torsion bars appeared in the 34th year, but the Leningraders on the QMS and then KV were the first, as far as I know, to screw them onto a heavy machine. At the same time, the Germans themselves quickly appreciated the idea and tried back in the 35th year to put the torsion bars on the T-4, but then the customer wasn’t able to finish the production. On the T-3, torsion bars appeared only in the 38th, on E, almost simultaneously with the QMS.

Quote: Nikkola Mac

There was no loader on the T-34 - on the T-34-85 entered (and expanded the tower).

Do you want to troll me, or really off topic? On the T-34/76 was charging. There was no tank commander. Yes, and in figs he was needed there, still nothing is visible.

Quote: Nikkola Mac

ISU-152 received a second loader and 5 people

Naturally. A second loader was useful for the gun with separate loading. But not an assistant driver (although the Americans on Chaffee portrayed something like that).

[Niccola Mack]

You can, of course, place Christie's pendant

In my opinion, the most realistic option was to install shock absorbers on part of the rollers - on the existing circuit.
With a "low start" in production, this was the best way out - but again, the question is - was it really necessary? You won’t especially accelerate in the USSR, but we already drove on the autobahns at 44. Here are the friction clutches - this is serious and the automatic welding too.

Do you want to troll me, or really off topic? On the T-34/76 was charging. There was no tank commander.

All they want to troll you! - and the Main Automobile Armored Directorate of the spacecraft is especially - not only that it introduced the tank commander to the T-34/76 staff, but also removed the gunner and the loader from there - and planted the "commander of the tower." Still, do not call them - but a fact:

23. The crew of the T-34 tank consists of 4 people: a gank commander, who is placed on the seat to the left of the gun, at instruments and aiming mechanisms; driver, located in the control unit; the commander of the tower, which is located on the seat to the right of the gun, and the radio telegraph operator, who is located in the control compartment, to the right of the driver (in a tank without a radio station, to the right of the machine gunner). (GABTU KA. T-34 TANK in BATTLE. Short manual. Military Publishing House of the USSR NCO, 1942)

And then it explained what the "tower commander" must do:

39. In battle, the tower commander must:
a) quickly load the cannon and coaxial machine gun in accordance with the commands of the tank commander and report on readiness;
c) conduct continuous monitoring of the battlefield in their sector, search for targets, monitor the tank, platoon commander and report to the tank commander about everything that was noticed;

And in IS-2, the “commander of the tower” was acting as a gunner.

A second loader was useful for the gun with separate loading.

But on the IS-2 he did not have enough space.

[Octopus]

Quote: Nikkola Mac

In my opinion, the most realistic option was to install shock absorbers on part of the rollers - on the existing circuit.

Real? I mean, were they produced in the USSR?

Quote: Nikkola Mac

not only did it introduce a tank commander to the T-34/76 staff, but in addition removed the gunner and loader from there - and planted the “tower commander”

Even in the most difficult days of the war, the real Communists were engaged in the most important thing - they drove bullshit.

Quote: Nikkola Mac

don’t call them - but a fact:
...
the tank commander, who is placed on the seat to the left of the gun, at instruments and aiming mechanisms
...
the commander of the tower, located on the seat to the right of the gun
...
a) quickly load the cannon and coaxial machine gun in accordance with the commands of the tank commander and report on readiness;

This is a gunner and loader, which are called commanders. Two commanders for 1420 mm.

The real commander should look around, and not at the telescopic sight. To do this, he needs a turret. Which was not. There was no tank commander.

All the proposed obstacles (ravine, palisade of wooden arches, entwined with barbed wire, swampy gorge, counter-escarp, slope) were overcome by the tank with a rating of "good". The driver drove the tank with the hatch open and made all decisions himself. The rest of the crew could not report practically anything intelligible about the progress of the tests, since no one saw either the positions of the camouflaged 45-mm PTA, or the trenches of the "enemy infantry", hidden a little to the side of the route. Only two conditionally destroyed machine-gun firing points could somehow sweeten the bitter pill.
In the conclusion, according to the test results, the visibility flaws from the tank and other design flaws of the T-34 were again noted.

Quote: Nikkola Mac

And in IS-2, the “commander of the tower” was acting as a gunner.

More correctly, this stupid position was assigned to the gunner.

Quote: Nikkola Mac

But on the IS-2 he did not have enough space.

Naturally. In shoulder strap 1800 4 people do not fit. It climbed only in 2300 on the IS-7.

[Niccola Mack]

Real? I mean, were they produced in the USSR?

Well, you don’t lower the pre-war automobile industry of the USSR below the baseboard - the GAZ-11-73 before the war already had double-acting shock absorbers (however, it’s easy to guess where). They would have ordered - done (the question is only in quality).

This is a gunner and loader, which are called commanders.

Let's just say - two crew numbers between which the responsibilities of the commander, gunner and loader are distributed (according to the later classification). Next is the question of terminology - sometimes obscure.
For example, Adolf never took a steam bath with this - with a stroke of the pen he renamed the infantry in the tank divisions into “panzergrenadiers”, and the absolutely unmistakable “machine gun” MP-44 into the cool “stormtrooper” Stg44.

It climbed only in 2300 on the IS-7

IS-7 did not "live out" to the job description. But if there was 1 loader — a cannon with separate loading and 7 machine guns (the commander must have loaded the “installation” at the top), then I think that pets of the sports section of weightlifting across the country would be immediately booked for this position (even with the loading mechanism).

[Octopus]

Quote: Nikkola Mac

GAZ-11-73 before the war already had double-acting hydraulic shock absorbers (however, it is easy to guess)

Does the weight of the machines bother you? Terms of Use? Quality of service?

Quote: Nikkola Mac

the question is only in quality

Yeah. Therefore, the GABTU required torsion bars. And not only so.

Quote: Nikkola Mac

Next is the question of terminology - sometimes obscure.

Initially, the issue was specifically in the role of the 5th crew member. I wrote that they added the tank commander, you - that loader. Here the issue of bullshit terminology is key.

Quote: Nikkola Mac

pets in the sports section of weightlifting across the country would be immediately booked for this position

What does weight lifting have to do with it? The biggest is the weight of the projectile, it does not change. And here is the speed reload drum feeding shells and charges into an automated warhead would be very sad. However, in all real cords, there was one loader.

[Niccola Mack]

I wrote that they added the tank commander, you - that loader.

Yes, I didn’t say so - 2 numbers - one (your loader) performs the duties of the loader and part of the duties of the commander. The second (your gunner) is the duties of the gunner and commander.
In the T-40 crew number acts as commander, gunner and loader.
The Germans in the Pz 2 still could not do without a "commander" and a loader.
In general, there’s nothing to talk about.

The biggest is the weight of the projectile, it does not change.

And the machine guns had an apparently endless belt - reloading the CPV on the go (box with 10 kg tape) - remembering that you still can’t forget about shells and everything else?
I read somewhere (I don’t remember anymore) that for ISU-152 there was actually a selection of a projectile loader (almost 50 kg BB) - it was very difficult for a person of average physique.

Does the weight of the machines bother you? Terms of Use? Quality of service?

Would do! They did the guns - if you look, the same hydraulic shock absorber, and even with a hydropneumatic knurling (instead of the spring).

[Octopus]

Quote: Nikkola Mac

Yes, I didn’t say that.

Quote: Nikkola Mac

There was no loader on the T-34 - on the T-34-85 entered (and expanded the tower).

Hm. Well, let's say I misunderstood you.

Quote: Nikkola Mac

In general, there’s nothing to talk about.

Actually, this is an important question. Frankly "censorship" the in-person attitude of the Kharkovites to the tankers became, perhaps, the main reason for what a coffin the progressive on paper T-34-76 was.

Quote: Nikkola Mac

a person of medium build was very difficult.

Specifically, the shell of a 130-mm S-70 gun weighed 34 kg, 122 mm - 25 kg. Maybe for pumped up blacks and norms, but the dystrophic conscript of the war years really does not fit. However, the second loader was introduced not to help lift the projectile, but to simultaneously put the charge sleeve and thereby slightly increase the rate of fire.

Quote: Nikkola Mac

Would do! They did the guns - if you look, the same hydraulic shock absorber, and even with a hydropneumatic knurling (instead of the spring).

First, be careful with the word "would". If we are talking about alternatives, it is better to stick to the actually produced devices. In none of the Soviet WWII tanks, up to the T-44 and IS-3, inclusive, shock absorbers were not used (German - all except the T-4, American - starting with Sherman, English - all the main ones, except Churchill). Shock absorbers were used only for the post-war generation of PT-76 / T-54 / T-10 tanks.

Secondly, "the same" is complete bullshit, sorry.

[Niccola Mack]

However, the second loader was introduced not to help lift the projectile, but to simultaneously put the charge sleeve and thereby slightly increase the rate of fire.

IS-7 - 6 SGMT (tape 250 p.) 2 KPVT (tape 40 p) 60 units for the gun (fenders and floor). A total of 20 boxes and 60 shells and charges - and still need to be removed somewhere shells. If this is the normal mode of operation for one loader (although with nuances - the commander must have charged the installation at the top and fired back 1), then the conversation can not be continued.

really produced devices.

We somehow completely forgot about aviation (chassis).
And I remember, in the beginning there was a lot of talk about American aircraft engines that hurriedly "stuffed" into tanks and "multibanks" with 30 "pots" that urgently had to be "really" produced.

In no Soviet WWII tank, up to and including T-44 and IS-3, shock absorbers were not used

Is it still a joke on the first Soviet tank (in Kubinka) - or is it what I think (shock absorbers) ?:

[Octopus]

Quote: Nikkola Mac

If this is normal operation for one charger

Perhaps, they overdid it with machine guns. Nonetheless.

All post-war serial heavy tanks had one loader.

Quote: Nikkola Mac

We somehow completely forgot about aviation (chassis).

At first glance, it sounds reasonable. However, it is necessary to find the facts that aviation shock absorbers at least tried on tanks.

Quote: Nikkola Mac

which urgently had to be "really" produced.

You see, if you are designing an American tank, the conversation is different.

Quote: Nikkola Mac

or is that what I think (shock absorbers) ?:

Thinking here is not required. It is required to read, at least, an article on the T-18 wiki. And the first shock absorbers on the tank appeared in 1930 in the USA.

[Niccola Mack]

Thinking here is not required. It is required to read, at least, an article on the T-18 wiki. And the first shock absorbers on the tank appeared in 1930 in the USA.

In the photo (from Wiki) - clearly 2 front rollers are blocked and along with springs have a shock absorber - and the rest are the same. This has nothing to do with the description of a real tank (rollers are pairwise on springs and the front roller is a separate spring at an angle). However, this is a fact (someone did).
Before the appearance of the concept of "cavalry" tanks, shock absorbers were simply not needed - the speeds were not the same.
But if there was a need, they would.
Back in the 80s of the 19th century, Baranovsky's speed-gun had a rather compact oil shock absorber ("hydraulic rollback brake").
Because the concept of "rapid-fire" lost its meaning, if the gun drastically knocks down the aiming with each shot.

[Octopus]

Quote: Nikkola Mac

fact (someone did).

1 When did? What does WWII tanks have to do with it?
2. What you consider a shock absorber is a metal pin + spring + casing.
3. The speed of the device on the terrain of 6,5 km / h

Quote: Nikkola Mac

there was a fairly compact oil shock absorber ("hydraulic recoil brake").

I can’t forbid you to consider a rollback brake as a car shock absorber. But I’m not ready to discuss it.