Military Review

How Solonin proletariat enlightened. Part of 5

16
Now we come to the German "grief-tanks"Close. Solonin tells us that the "1081" tank "of the invading army was a light Pz-I or Pz-II wedge" (p. 179). With the fact that Pz. I should be considered a wedge heel, I disagree because of the first rotating tower. The weapons of the “unit” consisted of two rifle-caliber machine guns, and the thickness of the main armored planes was 13 millimeters. The aggressor had 410 such vehicles.


How Solonin proletariat enlightened. Part of 5


But the security of 746 "twos" (someone obviously has problems with arithmetic) makes Solonin after a dozen pages to reconsider his "classification". True, with a big caveat: “In German tanks, even in the lightest Pz-II, armor is 30 mm thick, and in the Soviet T-26 only 15 — 10 mm. The BT-7 is slightly better - from 22 to 13 mm (here it should be taken into account that the BT-7 of the 1935 model of the year had 13 mm in the forehead and along the sides. - Note by author.). The number of 30 is twice the number of 15. And three times the number of 10. Does this mean that German tanks were more protected from enemy fire? To answer this question is extremely simple. It is necessary and sufficient to recall what kind of fire German tanks waited on the Eastern Front ”(p. 188). Further, strictly speaking, we are talking about our "magic" 45-mm anti-tank guns, which turned the 30-mm armor "Panzernikov" in anti-bullet ...

As for the firepower of Pz.II, in this regard the “expert opinion” of Corned beef is even more ruthless: “By its ballistic characteristics it was somewhat inferior to the parameters of the Soviet anti-tank 20-mm gun of Degtyarev. So the most accurate name for the new German “tank” Pz-II would be “a self-propelled anti-tank gun with a machine gun.” To perform the main tasks of the tank - the destruction of fire weapons, fortifications and enemy manpower - a projectile weighing in 14,5 — 120 g carrying (in different versions) from 145 to 4 g of explosive was negligibly weak ”(p. 20).

Firstly, this “useless” 20-mm gun was automatic, and, moreover, it was capable of firing in bursts, and with a single cartridge (for better accuracy).

Secondly, in the ammunition "twos" were shells with tungsten-carbide core (ammunition was called Panzergranatpatrone 40), can successfully fight the best at that time light tanks of the world - the Soviet BT-7 sample 1937 years and BT-7M diesel versions ( most protected among the “high-speed tanks”).

Third, the list of main combat missions assigned to light tanks never included the destruction of enemy field fortifications. The development of success after breaking through the enemy defenses, raids on its rear, reconnaissance in force, and the fight against infantry — that is the purpose of the “lightweights. Accordingly, the combat value of a vehicle representing this class of tanks is determined primarily by its dynamic characteristics (which, of course, does not cancel other parameters). How can we once again fail to recall the outstanding “expert” of military science and technology, Vladimir Rezun, who discerned the predatory grin of Stalinism in our “beteshkas”: “The main advantage of the BT tank is speed. This quality was dominant over the other qualities so much so that even the name of the tank was rendered - fast. BT is an aggressor tank. In all its characteristics, the BT resembles a small, but exclusively mobile, equestrian warrior from the innumerable hordes of Genghis Khan ”(Victor Suvorov, Ledokol, edition of 2007 of the year, p. 13).

Fourth, the comparison of the "main gun" Pz. II with the anti-tank gun Degtyarev (PTDD) is also incorrect because the development of the latter began only after the German attack on the USSR. The same applies to PTRS (Simonov). Soviet rifle divisions at the time of the Nazi invasion were not equipped with this kind weapons. The Germans were quite different: the Wehrmacht infantry division had an anti-tank rifle in 81 states. The main one was the PzB 39, the bullet of which pierced 20-mm armor from a distance of 300 meters.

"The difference between the Soviet and German cars was only in the fact that the bullet-proof booking of the" hopelessly outdated "Soviet light tanks T-26 (in road performance they were noticeably inferior to the German" two ". - Note by the author) and BT were rational, meeting the criteria “Reasonable sufficiency” (for protection against small arms fire, armor was quite enough in 10 — 15 mm) ”. ("Brainstorm. Fake история Great War ", p. 188.) No matter how strange it may sound, but anti-tank rifles are small arms ...

To be continued ...
Author:
16 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. brelok
    brelok 2 December 2016 06: 21
    +11
    How long can you sort out this nonsense? We ourselves advertise to these "writers"
    1. Fitter65
      Fitter65 2 December 2016 13: 02
      0
      This is a correct remark, at one time I somehow started to read Rezuno, it seems the ice drift, there were enough pages for 10-15.
      1. Tula gingerbread
        Tula gingerbread 2 December 2016 14: 55
        +4
        It’s not true, Rezun’s opuses are designed for a simple layman who is not burdened with knowledge, written in simple language, with a claim to sensationalism, like an adventure novel, therefore it reads easily and drips well on mogzi, especially on the unprepared.
  2. Monster_Fat
    Monster_Fat 2 December 2016 08: 14
    +9
    Author-why publish such "long" "stubs" from your "work"? Publish two or three sentences, you will stretch your "soap opera" for another 15-20 years, like "Santa Barbara, you will enter the Guinness Book of Records" ....
    1. svp67
      svp67 2 December 2016 09: 26
      0
      Quote: Monster_Fat
      Author-why publish such "long" "stubs" from your "work"?

      Well, "a serial with a sequel," according to all the canons of the genre ...
    2. potanot 253
      2 December 2016 14: 36
      +2
      I can't help but publish my "work" with "stubs". The hunt will torment you very much. You, as I understand it, are an ardent admirer of Sacher-Masoch. You understand, you don't like my "work", but you read it courageously. Looks like you are enjoying ...
  3. a
    a 2 December 2016 09: 42
    +4
    Author continue! We need all the Rezunov-Soloninsky dregs to the nail!
    1. potanot 253
      2 December 2016 11: 49
      +1
      Thank you for your support!
  4. Snoop
    Snoop 2 December 2016 12: 01
    0
    How much time does it turn out for the gentlemen to make money on Rezun))) Solonin decided to see squeeze all the last of Rezun’s few electorate)) Finally ...
    Solonin’s passages are still those of course, not even funny already ... and tired of ... one to one ..
  5. Bradypodidae
    Bradypodidae 2 December 2016 12: 04
    0
    Here Rezun sits in Britain and composes all sorts of nasty things. I do not argue, he writes with talent. Without careful checks and comparisons, he can pass for the truth. Only this is a double-edged sword, and Britain obviously has more "dark deals", but with a smell. There are no talented people in Russia who could write about this in a fascinating way? And then publish it all, but abroad, but on RT And when the limes go to g ... but, poke your finger at Rezun and say sho we have freedom of speech, like you. Cho?
    1. Tula gingerbread
      Tula gingerbread 2 December 2016 14: 53
      +2
      Here, rather, another definition is appropriate. Not "talented", but "fascinating", like any fantastic or adventure work.
  6. Alexey RA
    Alexey RA 2 December 2016 12: 42
    0
    Fourth, a comparison of the "main weapon" Pz. II with the anti-tank gun Degtyarev (PTRD) is also incorrect because the development of the latter began only after the German attack on the USSR. The same applies to PTRS (Simonova). Soviet rifle divisions at the time of the Nazi invasion were not equipped with such weapons.

    Heh heh heh ... nevertheless, even before the PTRS and PTRD entered the troops, the Red Army somehow managed to lose 1691 PTR.
    In general, quite an interesting one is dark, taking into account the fact that Kulik's "invaluable weapon" until 1 September troops managed lose 1691 pieces, and so much so that neither the enemy nor their opponents practically fixed them.
    © Ulanov
  7. Tula gingerbread
    Tula gingerbread 2 December 2016 14: 50
    +3
    For reference, the main striking force of the army of Genghis Khan, as in any army of the Middle Ages, was heavily armed cavalry, delivering the main ramming strike.
    Armaments and armor were not inferior to European knights, but often excelled. You can read in detail with A. Gorelik.
    So Rezun is not only a liar, but also poorly aware of history.
  8. Dekabrist
    Dekabrist 2 December 2016 14: 53
    +1
    If the author decided to make a name for himself, analyzing the pseudo-historical research with which the information space is full. then this is a dubious decision. Firstly, life is not enough to turn over this manure, and secondly - who cares? Those who are capable of thinking will understand everything, it’s useless for hamsters to explain something.
  9. Kostya Andreev
    Kostya Andreev 3 December 2016 13: 19
    0
    With the fact that Pz. I should be considered a wedge heel, I disagree because of the first rotating tower. The weapons of the “unit” consisted of two rifle-caliber machine guns, and the thickness of the main armored planes was 13 millimeters. Such vehicles were at the disposal of the aggressor 410 pieces.

    I propose to consider T-37 (2300 pcs), and T-38 (1140 pcs), T-40 (about 150 pcs) tanks because of the presence of a rotating tower.
    About t-2 could not be more detailed the number of pieces shielded to 30 mm forehead. armor. and the number of shielded t-26s, you can also mention the T-26 with a 76 mm gun.
    T-26 in driving performance they are noticeably inferior to the German "deuces"[i] [/ i] oh how! and what is the modification? but without question they were definitely superior in armament.
    About 20 mm carbide-tungsten shells, how many pieces were in the kit and why did they not live up to their expectations? At what distance will the BT penetrate, and at what distance will the BT penetrate the T-2?
    When writing about an automatic cannon. then readers may be of the opinion that it is made according to type 2A42 with tape power and the choice of tape type. But this is not so. she fired using 10 charge clips, that is, quickly change the type of projectile, in accordance with the chosen target. It was impossible. You probably think that if you hit the tank. is that all? Khan’s tank? And the impact of the HE shell on the infantry was not satisfactory (the same problem with the TNS).
    PzB 39. 7,92 caliber, with an enlarged sleeve (ashamed to write a caliber?) so that it was not useless, the Germans came up with a grenade launcher to hook on the barrel. The presence of such weapons is from hopelessness, it is a temporary cheap ersatz, an anti-tank gun is better.
    When you write about 300 meters, do you imagine what it is, 300 meters? serve in the army and look at the tank, at a distance of 300 meters when it goes at you. when you write about 300 meters. then you don’t understand that this is a fatal number for calculation, and the tank may not approach such a distance, why? Following your logic, the T-34 with a 76 mm gun did not lose its advantages over the tiger if it could penetrate its armor from a distance of 100-300 meters. and the tiger was not a great danger.
    When you write about armor penetration of 300 meters, then specify that these are tabular data, in reality they will be worse. the enemy’s tank does not always stand at an angle of 90 * to the normal, and what is the armored effect?
    And why did you modestly keep silent about BA with a 45 mm gun?
    Last time I read your article. and the armored personnel carrier realized this is a doomsday machine, in your opinion, but in my opinion it’s just a bus with armor, and its appearance on the front line will mean its quick destruction.
    1. potanot 253
      3 December 2016 17: 32
      +1
      "t-37 (2300 pieces), and t-38 (1140 pieces)" So I didn't call these samples tankettes! Another thing is that these were reconnaissance vehicles. The reconnaissance battalions of the Red Army infantry divisions had a company of T-37A and T-38 amphibious tanks (they had machine-gun armament). You are intensely "criticizing" me, but they did not manage to read my article "The Devil Wears" Pravda. There I told about amphibious tanks. And, by the way, it was also indicated there that Rezun seriously lied about booking a T-37A tank in order to make it (and, accordingly, the T-38 is an improved version of the T-37A) comparable in terms of combat capabilities with the Pz. I. Also, your idol said that the Pz. I had the same firepower as the T-37A (the latter had only one machine gun, like the T-38).

      About the Pz. II. Early modifications of these tanks, which had weak armor, were "revised" at the factories. The Germans were not, although Vityushka Severe depicts them as such.

      "T-26 in driving performance, they were noticeably inferior to the German" twos "[i] [/ i] about how! And what modification? But without question, they were definitely superior in armament" Look at least in popular science literature. Max. speed "twenty-sixth" on the highway - 30 km / h. The car accelerated slowly. That is, the dynamic characteristics were those that did not meet the realities of tank battles in 1941. "Reweighted" 30-mm armor tanks Pz. II developed 40 km / h. and accelerated faster.

      "PzB 39. caliber 7,92, with an enlarged sleeve (were they ashamed to write the caliber?) What is the armor action?" Enough to "stop" the same T-26 tank - the most massive in the Red Army at the beginning of the Second World War.

      Read books, my dear, and not just fill the "anti-Suvorovites" with your criticism.
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. The comment was deleted.