Super heavy trophy

124
German super heavy tank Pz.Kpfw. Maus left a noticeable mark on stories tank building. It was the heaviest tank in the world, designed as an assault vehicle, virtually invulnerable to enemy fire. In many ways, the fate of this tank It turned out to be similar to the fate of another giant - the French FCM 2C, which still bears the title of the largest (in size) tank in the world. Like the French superheavy cars, the German never entered the battle: in both cases, the crews blew up their tanks. Another similar feature in their fate was that the demolished tanks became trophies and objects of careful study.

Unlucky defender of the German General Staff



Works on super heavy tanks and self-propelled rigs based on them in Germany were officially rolled up in the second half of July, 1944. In practice, the order of the 6 Division of the Armaments Department on the delivery of a reserve of shells and towers for scrap, handed over to 27 in July, was not even executed. Concern Krupp hid the available backlog in warehouses, where they were later discovered by the British and Americans.
19 August, Krupp management informed Porsche that the Arms Service had instructed to stop work on the Typ 205 project. Specialists who assemble the second prototype left Boeblingen. However, this did not mean that the tests Pz.Kpfw. Maus is over.

In the fall, the second prototype of the tank, bore the designation Typ 205 / II, received a new engine. Instead of a gasoline Daimler-Benz MB.509, the car received a diesel MB.517. For the first time this motor was supposed to be put on a tank in the fall of the 1942 of the year. At the same time, the engine was already available in a turbocharged version, thanks to which its power increased to 1200 horsepower. It is not known exactly when MB.517 was installed in a tank, but in a correspondence dated 1 on December 1944 of the year, it is stated that the engine is installed in the Typ 205 / II, and its tests have not yet been carried out.

By the way, Porsche managed to install the engine to bypass the SS, which oversaw its development. When the SS men came to their senses, it turned out that one of the two engines, each of which cost the Germans in the 125 000 Reichsmarks, is already in the super heavy tank.


The latest "lifetime" photograph of prototypes Pz.Kpfw.Maus. It was made at the warehouse of the railway station Ruchleben in January 1945

The only effective way to stop work on fine-tuning a super-heavy tank was to seize the “favorite toy” from Porsche. At the end of December 1944, both samples are Pz.Kpfw. Maus was transported from Böblingen to a warehouse near the railway station Ruchleben on the western outskirts of Berlin. There they stayed at least until the end of January 1945, after which they were sent to the Kummersdorf test site, located in 25 kilometers south of Berlin. Here a technical description of the second prototype was made (at the same time the only one that had the turret and the armament), after which the tanks were placed in the hangar, which Porsche could no longer reach.

What happened to these machines from January through March of the year 1945 is unknown. There is no reliable evidence that they participated in any trials. However, it was precisely at this time that tests of the first prototype, designated the Typ 205 / I, could be carried out.


So Typ 205 / II discovered by Soviet troops

In March, the 1945 of the year Typ 205 / II was driven under its own power to Wünsdorf, 2,5 kilometers south of Zossen, where the headquarters of the German General Staff was located. In Soviet documents, by the way, this place was often designated as Stamlager. The car was included in the structure of the forces that were guarding the headquarters, in the area of ​​Zossen also passed the outer ring of the defense of Berlin.

Much has been written about how Typ 205 / II was used in the battle for Berlin; quite a few copies have been broken in disputes on this subject. With a certain degree of confidence, we can only talk about with whom the super heavy Porsche tank could potentially fight. From the southeast, the 3 units of the Guards Tank Army attacked Berlin. 21 April 1945 of the 6 Guards Tank Corps, which was part of this alliance, reached the Topkhin, Tselensdorf line. There was quite a bit of time left for Zossen, he was captured during the night attack from 21 on April 22. Thanks to the confusion, the headquarters of the German General Staff was able to leave Zossen at the time of his employment with the 6 Guards Tank Corps. According to the memoirs of the commander of the 53-th Guards Tank Brigade, V. S. Arkhipov, before leaving, the SS men shot some of the staff officers, the rest were evacuated.


He's from the stern, in the background - the destroyed building of the cinema

As for Pz.Kpfw. Maus, his fighting career turned out to be short and sad. During the maneuvering engine crash occurred. The immobilized car was at the intersection of Zeppelinstrasse and Tsersensdorferstraße in Wünsdorf, not far from headquarters. She stood up so that it could not be used even as a fixed firing point. As a result, her crew simply had no choice but to undermine the tank. In short, no heroic defense happened, the super-heavy tank turned out to be a colossus with clay feet.


On the left side of the damage were minimal. In the background you can see the guard house, now in its place is a travel agency

In the memoirs of Arkhipov Pz.Kpfw. Maus V2 is mentioned, but with a clear distortion of the picture:

“In the town we captured three huge tanks. The hatches were open, everything was in order inside, even the ammunition was prepared for battle - they were removed from the factory grease. The tanks were so big that even the “Royal Tiger” would have looked like a wedge next to them. The tower is flat like a pancake. Armed with a tank 155-mm cannon. It looks like a very impressive car, but, having drawn an analogy with the “Royal Tiger”, I am sure that its driving characteristics were low. ”


The explosion blew off and an additional fuel tank. In the background you can see the bathhouse

Whether the literary editor has mixed Pz.Kpfw.Tiger II and Pz.Kpfw.Maus captured on the Sandomierz bridgehead, or Arkhipov has already confused something, but the reality turned out to be different. The tank went to the Red Army already undermined. By the force of the explosion, the right side of the hull was torn off to him and the tower was torn down along with a sub-towed shoulder strap.

Underestimation of combat mass

In view of the general confusion during May, no one had anything to do with the super heavy tank that was blown up at the intersection of the super heavy tank. The fact that the Germans not only developed, but also built superheavy tanks, Soviet specialists learned after the end of hostilities. Only at the end of May did a more detailed study of the military-technical heritage of the Third Reich, scattered around the German capital, begin. 29 June 1945 to the leadership of the State Defense Committee (GKO), including Stalin and Beria, were sent a memorandum signed by Marshal of the Armored Forces Y. Fedorenko, Chief of the Main Automobile and Armored Directorate of the Red Army (GABTU KA):

“I report that 4 of June this year, the Soviet occupying forces in Germany found two super heavy German tanks.
One of them, with an armed turret and a diesel engine, is 40 km south of Berlin in the Stamlagere region; a second tank with an untreated turret and a carburetor engine - in 62 km south of Berlin in the Kummersdorf area.
A special feature of super heavy tanks is the use of electric transmission and twin guns - large-caliber (128 mm) and caliber 75 mm.
According to the testimony of German engineers who worked at the tank range, superheavy tanks were designed by the designer Porsche in the Stuttgart-Boblingen region and were manufactured by Nibelungenwerk (in Austria).
At the end of December 1944, both tanks were delivered to the tank test site, from which one (armed) sample in March of this year was delivered under its own power to Stamlager.
I present the tactical and technical characteristics of the super heavy tank.
The characteristic is indicative, since both tanks were undermined and have not been studied in detail by specialists.
More accurate information I will report to you after a thorough study of these tanks by specialists. ”


The second sample of the super heavy tank caused the greatest interest. Despite the fact that the internal explosion caused him very serious damage, they studied mainly him. The fact is that the first model did not have weapons, and instead of a tower a mass-dimensional model was installed on it.

Super heavy trophy

With the explosion of the tower hatches were torn out

To the place of detection arrived specialists, who began to study the wrecked tank. To begin, it was decided to make a brief technical description of the machine. The report turned out to be small - only on 18 pages. This was due to the fact that the order came from above to make a description of the detected machine as soon as possible. Such a rush did not look strange: in the hands of the Soviet military was a tank that looked like a much more dangerous enemy than all the combat vehicles with which they had previously met.


Destroyed the explosion and the guidance mechanisms of the gun

The contradictory testimony of German prisoners of war and severe injuries caused a number of inaccuracies in the written description. For example, the combat weight of the tank was estimated at 120 tons. The reason for this inaccuracy was not the mistake of the Soviet military. Exactly the same fighting mass was indicated at the end of 1944 of the year by German prisoners of war who were among the Allies. And this was not intentional misinformation. Prisoners of war told the truth, Pz.Kpfw. Maus really once weighed 120 tons. True, it was still at the “paper stage”: this was the initial design weight of the tank, dated by the beginning of June 1942. Since then, the machine embodied in metal has had time to "get better" more than one and a half times.


A shell reservation scheme prepared by Soviet specialists, basically corresponding to the real picture

Another serious inaccuracy crept into the description of weapons. In addition to the 128-mm long-barreled and 75-mm short-barreled guns, two machine guns of the strange caliber 7,65 mm were included in the description. Much more surprising is the fact that among the weapons was indicated and automatic gun caliber 20 mm. It appeared in the description, probably also from the words of prisoners of war. Strange as it may sound, such information is also not complete disinformation. Indeed, at the beginning of 1943, in projects Pz.Kpfw. Maus featured the MG 20 / 152 20-mm automatic cannon as anti-aircraft weaponry. True, this idea was prudently abandoned, since it was only vertically guided, and the use of a huge tank turret for pointing anti-aircraft guns horizontally was a ridiculous idea.


The layout of the super-heavy tank units

Despite such errors, in general, the technical description gave a very detailed picture of the internal structure of the tank and its body armor. Of course, there were some inaccuracies here too, but they turned out to be relatively small.


MB.517 diesel engine, the failure of which forced the Germans to blow up a tank

Special attention was given by Soviet experts to the power plant and transmissions of the super-heavy tank. Almost half of the technical description was devoted to these questions. Such attention does not look surprising: a year before in the USSR, there was an active work on the electric tank transmission, which ended in general unsuccessfully. Now, in the hands of the Soviet military was a tank with electric transmission, and even super heavy. Experts dismantled its engine on the spot and studied it. Also received with a guitar (gear transmission) and the drive wheel. The undercarriage of the tank was also studied in detail.


Study of the electric transmission of the tank

In the middle of summer 1945, the technical description went to Moscow. Meanwhile, the Kummersdorf training ground captured by the Red Army was gradually investigated by Soviet specialists. At the same time prisoners of the German military and engineers were interrogated. The amount of information on super heavy tanks began to grow sharply. The captured documents of the German Ministry of Weapons fell into the hands of the Soviet military, thanks to which, by the end of the summer of 1945, exact data on Pz.Kpfw were obtained. Maus. In addition, part of the factory drawings was found.


It is clearly seen that the perforated track rollers were again replaced by solid ones.

As already mentioned, both prototypes of the Pz.Kpfw fell into the hands of the Red Army. Maus. The first car was built on the shooting range of the Kummersdorf test site. Although, according to the information originally received, Typ 205 / I was also undermined, the available photographs refute this information. If they tried to blow up the car, it was clearly unsuccessful: I did not receive damage comparable to the damage of the second tank received from the detonation of ammunition. More like the fact that the car is already partially dismantled at the shooting range.


In this form, the first prototype of the tank was found on the shooting range. Visible traces of shells falling into the side of the hull and the layout of the tower

Interestingly, by the time this tank was discovered, there were four marks on its left side of the hull from hitting large-caliber armor-piercing shells. Another mark was on the left side of the mass-dimensional model of the tower.


Preparation for dismantling the tower layout

The fact that these markings may be the result of the shelling of a tank with Soviet guns is excluded. Numbers of nine similar in character were on the front hull sheet. The tank also stood parallel to the forest, and it was impossible to fire at a frontal projection from another point. By the time the machine was found at the shooting range, it was in a non-working condition, and it was physically impossible to deploy it for firing. In a word, the Germans themselves fired at the car, it is even possible that the Typ 205 / I fire led the second prototype. By the time the tank was detected, on the undercarriage protection against frontal fire, there were weldings for spare tracks, and in the area of ​​these nodes there were three hits.


In order to pull off the tower, it took to hook for her a pair of cables

During the summer and early autumn of 1945, both cars gradually began to be dismantled. This was due to the fact that it was impossible to bring any of them into working condition. In addition, the units of tanks were of interest separately. To simplify the procedure for dismantling the mass-dimensional model of the tower with the first prototype tank thrown off. Removed components and assemblies were immediately described. In the autumn of 1945, the units removed from the tanks went to Leningrad to the branch of Experimental Plant No. XXUMX. Just at that time there was work on the design of a new heavy tank, and one of its versions involved the use of electric transmission.


Through the opening of the hatch is visible tank dashboard

A completely different fate awaited the tanks themselves. At the end of the summer of 1945, it was decided to assemble a “hybrid” using the Typ 205 / II tower and the Typ 205 / I chassis. This task turned out to be non-trivial, since it was not easy to evacuate just the 50-ton tower, which was resting on a torn under sheet. The problem was solved with the help of a whole chain of German half-tracked tractor units (mainly Sd.Kfz.9). Not without difficulty, this cavalcade dragged the tower to Kummersdorf, where it was possible to detach the padded shoulder strap. Already in September, a copy of Pz.Kpfw.Maus assembled from parts of both tanks was loaded onto a special platform that survived the war.

Interestingly, the hull numbers and turrets of different tanks are the same: a hull with the same 35141 serial number is installed on the hull with the 35141 serial number.


Pz.Kpfw.Maus, assembled from two tanks, Kummersdorf, autumn 1945 of the year

In this form, in Kummersdorf tank stood for quite some time. Despite the fact that he was ready to be sent back in the fall of 1945, the order to transport it to NIABT Polygon was given only six months later. According to the landfill list, the car arrived in Kubinka in May 1946. Here, the study of the tank continued, but in a simplified mode. Since its units went to Leningrad, there was no question of any running trials. Mainly in Kubinka, materials were prepared on the study of the elements of the undercarriage. Firing tests were also excluded, since the gun mount was damaged by an explosion, and the 128-mm cannon barrel was practically loose.


As you can see, on the front sheet of the hull there are marks from hitting projectiles

One of the few tests that were conducted on the NIABT Polygon was shelling. It was produced in abbreviated form. One shot was made on the frontal part of the hull and starboard, as well as in the front of the tower and its starboard. All other traces of hitting the tank are of “German” origin.


Tank from starboard

Unlike the super-heavy tank E-100, which the British sent for scrap metal, its competitor was more fortunate. After studying Pz.Kpfw. Maus towed to the museum at the site. At that time it was an open area. A full-fledged museum appeared here already at the beginning of the 70-ies, when the tank took its place in the hangar of the German armored vehicles.

Recently, the idea arose to restore the car to running condition, but the project did not go beyond the preparatory work. This idea is, of course, interesting, but as a result of its implementation, it is unlikely that you will get something other than a stuffed animal with dubious prospects from the point of view of reliability. After all, not only is all the units removed from the machine, one of the carts is also missing. The resource of the huge tank tracks is very low, and repairing a torn 180-ton vehicle track in the field is a dubious pleasure. And this is only a small part of the problems that will inevitably arise when trying to restore this tank to the running state. In the end, even just to transport it is a very difficult task.

Growth generator

We should also mention the influence of the captured German super-heavy tank on the development of Soviet tank building. In contrast to the British and Americans, who almost did not respond to the detected materials on the E-100 and Pz.Kpfw. Maus, the reaction of the Main Armored Directorate of the Red Army (GBTU KA) turned out to be lightning.

There is nothing surprising in this. 5 June 1945 was presented the draft design of a heavy tank "Object 257", which had increased armor protection and 122-mm gun BL-13. It was assumed that this machine will be a real leap forward for the Soviet tank building. And then, quite unexpectedly, it turned out that a tank was found in Germany, which was penetrated with difficulty by a promising cannon, and the gun mounted on it completely pierced the armor of the 257 Object.


German super heavy tank on NIABT polygon. Cuban, 1946 year

11 June 1945, a draft tactical and technical requirements for the new heavy tank was developed. His combat weight was approved within 60 tons, the crew increased to 5 people. The armor was supposed to protect the tank from the 128-mm German cannon. In addition, in addition to the BL-13 gun, there was a requirement for another weapon, caliber 130 mm. In addition to the launch of a program to create an "anti-mouse" tank, these tactical and technical ones are difficult to explain. It was from them that the tank was born, known as the EC-7.


Same front

The German tank discovered provoked a second wave of the arms race, similar to the one that generated the KV-3, KV-4 and KV-5. Instead of focusing on improving the existing good samples, the designers began work on the creation of steel monsters. Even the EC-4 now seemed outdated: according to the plans for the second five-year plan of the 40-s, from 1948, it was planned to produce heavy-duty tanks of the new type (EC-2760) per year. By the way, the “7 Object” was far from the heaviest and heavily armed. In Chelyabinsk, they worked on a heavy tank project called “The 260 Object”, the heaviest version of it was to have a 705 caliber gun, and the combat weight would be 152 tons. In addition to tanks, self-propelled units based on EC-100 and EC-4 with long-barreled guns of caliber 7 mm were also studied.


On the museum site, 50's. It is clearly visible that a trace appeared from the front hit sheet

Harmful all this vigorous activity caused no less than the development of steel monsters in the spring and summer of 1941 year. It came to making prototypes of the EC-7, although the government did not dare to launch a large series. Of course, the tank turned out outstanding, but too heavy. 18 February 1949, by decree of the USSR Council of Ministers No. 701 – 270ss, the development and production of heavy tanks weighing more than 50 tons was stopped. Instead, they began the development of a heavy tank, better known as the EC-5. Later it was adopted as the T-10.

The tragedy of the situation was that four years for Soviet tank building were largely wasted. The only worthy opponent for the EC-7 all this time was on the museum site in Kubinka. As for the former allies of World War II, they turned down the development of their armored monsters after the war. There was simply no one to fight the promising Soviet heavy tanks.
124 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +18
    April 15 2017 16: 07
    With such a mass and slowness it can be called "Self-propelled pillbox"
    1. +12
      April 15 2017 16: 36
      Quote: san4es
      With such a mass and slowness it can be called "Self-propelled pillbox"

      Rather, "sometimes a self-propelled pillbox"
    2. +5
      April 17 2017 19: 31
      SUDDENLY.
      It was designed for this purpose.
      He was supposed to plug holes in the defense where stationary bunkers are already destroyed.
      1. +8
        April 17 2017 19: 44
        ... Wehrmacht cakes
        1. +6
          April 17 2017 21: 34
          This is the line of Mozhino ....
  2. +5
    April 15 2017 17: 33
    Really the Germans did not understand all this. It was clear that it was a dead end.
    1. +6
      April 15 2017 18: 04
      In the seventies, I read somewhere: a tank made a strong impression on Hitler in the PMV and he demanded the creation of heavy vehicles
  3. +16
    April 15 2017 17: 38
    In general, no matter what, the Germans had good engineers
  4. +7
    April 15 2017 18: 51
    Yuri plus, but can, if not difficult, an article on the Grille project?
    1. 0
      April 15 2017 21: 53
      About him have repeatedly written on the VO.
      https://topwar.ru/96435-samohodnaya-artilleriyska
      ya-ustanovka-15-cm-sig-33sf-auf-pzkpfw38t-ausfm-g
      rille-germaniya.html
      https://topwar.ru/109345-samohodnye-gaubicy-vtoro
      y-mirovoy-voyny-chast-5-sturmpanzer-38t-grille.ht
      ml
      https://topwar.ru/18673-bronetankovaya-tehnika-ge
      rmanii-vo-vtoroy-mirovoy-voyne-samohodnaya-ustano
      vka-sturmpanzer-38t-grille.html
  5. +4
    April 15 2017 19: 26
    the engine was already available in a turbocharged version,

    and didn’t you sell turbo boosts?
  6. +4
    April 15 2017 19: 32
    And what about Wargaming on Mouse? I remember that a couple of years ago the office promised to repair MICE with a pomp to a running state, even released a video on this subject. What, threw this venture?
    1. +5
      April 15 2017 19: 54
      The article gives the answer to your question. Neither x ... I will not succeed in view of many reasons, they can only promise! laughing The snail will be better in this regard. They restored the T-2 and T-44 about 35 years ago.
      1. +1
        April 15 2017 23: 26
        Oblodyat budgets of 31 billion rubles. Potato could for the sake of interest and to rejuvenate the Muscle)))
        1. +3
          April 16 2017 08: 49
          Their face will crack from such expenses laughing
  7. +4
    April 15 2017 20: 34
    This is just music, frozen in steel very beautifully, if there had been enough time, Porsche would have created a dream tank.
    1. +10
      April 15 2017 21: 02
      Very doubtful statement. Mouse is kitsch, with such mass, size and mobility, a guaranteed corpse on the battlefield and armor with a gun are not helpers here.
      1. +10
        April 15 2017 21: 15
        Quote: LastPS
        a guaranteed corpse on the battlefield and armor with a gun are not helpers here.

        In fact, this MAUS was planned to be used as a means of ensuring the flanks of its troops, a kind of mobile armored pillbox.
        With such an instrument, with the appropriate support, it would not be so easy to hit this wunderfaffenkolymagu. And an armored box could spoil the nerves of the advancing force. A type of pillbox on the tracks could.
        But based on experience ... yes., The gloomy Teutonic genius gave birth to the MOUSE, completely useless already in those conditions and at that time.
        His time would be full if the Germans built such a monster in the years of World War I.
        1. 0
          April 16 2017 09: 34
          Quote: Pancer
          In fact, this MAUS was planned to be used as a means of ensuring the flanks of its troops, a kind of mobile armored pillbox.

          Well, if they have more than 40% of the Tigers dropped out for technical reasons, then this is the eighth wonder of the world ...
          1. +2
            April 16 2017 19: 04
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            Well, if they have more than 40% of the Tigers dropped out for technical reasons, then this is the eighth wonder of the world ...

            Yes, it is. Chasing the wunderwaffen nags
            . Lost in quantity, they would have to upgrade 3,4 to the stream, but chased after miracles, the result is indicative of defeat.
            1. 0
              April 19 2017 22: 10
              W has exhausted the resource of modernization, and 4 - yes, a workhorse.
        2. +2
          April 17 2017 10: 35
          With such an instrument, with the appropriate support, it would not be so easy to hit this child prodigy.

          This is in theory - but in practice, our bomber (and dive including) aviation would immediately connect. And it was not necessary to hit exactly. If he "sat" in a close funnel from an aerial bomb - the result would be the same. To pull such a mastodon out of the pit really in a battle could only be the same - and that is unlikely.
          The Germans understood this with the Rat project - and nothing went further than paper.
    2. 0
      April 18 2017 14: 28
      Quote: Liger
      This is just music, frozen in steel very beautifully, if there had been enough time, Porsche would have created a dream tank.

      The dream would live until the first attack of the attack aircraft laughing
  8. +2
    April 15 2017 21: 47
    All this boisterous activity did no less harm than the development of steel monsters in the spring and summer of 1941. It came to the manufacture of prototypes of the IS-7, although the government still did not dare to launch a large series. Of course, the tank turned out outstanding, but too heavy

    But in the end, now all modern MBTs are from 50 tons and above, and it is the medium and light tanks that have died out as a class. The IS-7 and the Mouse tanks are clearly ahead of their time, too complex, extremely expensive, and war is primarily an economy.
    The same “mouse” is now to treat children's sores in the form of a weak chassis, put a pair of gas turbine engines in the amount of 6000 horses or more, there are many places in the MTO, and it will turn out to be a major haemorrhage for any opponent. In addition to tactical weapons or their own damage, such a colossus will not be able to do anything harm.
    Of course, these are just my own fantasies, but who knows what will happen next.
    1. +14
      April 15 2017 23: 38
      You’ll have to hook a couple of cars with fuel back. And also his pair of anti-aircraft guns of the type Tor / Tunguska / Shell should be guarded. Well, and still (so that the major hemorrhoids did reach the enemy), you need to give him a couple of engineering units so that they build a road in front of him and strengthen the bridges. Although then it’s better to install it immediately on the rails - then a good armored car will work. Well, and finally it’s probably worth mentioning that the reservation of which it consists (i.e., homogeneous and also lightly alloyed 200 mm in the thickest place) is currently breaking through total anti-tank. hi
      1. 0
        April 16 2017 00: 07
        well .... he needs all kinds of fuel less than the jet aircraft that is constantly paralyzing in the sky. 5 tons has been poured and should be enough for a long time, anti-aircraft gun cover for conventional MBTs is much more important, and here the half-fire with a spike is not so scary. Engineering parts are also not needed, on soft ground, in the swamp he has nothing to do, and he will overcome water bodies in the ford.

        And then you got it .... no one is going to take their museum exhibit 70 years ago from Kubinka, I just disputed the author’s conclusion about the dead-end development of heavy tanks, because today's MBTs are heavier than heavy tanks of those years and there is a tendency towards further weighting, so It’s possible that we’ll see the grandchildren of the Mouse, they’ll already have normal steel and armor plates at the same time with batteries, which will seriously save weight.
        1. +6
          April 16 2017 01: 29
          The school of German tank building during the period of Nazi Germany issued "on the mountain" many examples of excellent technology. Without exception, all tanks had an excellent transmission, which allowed, for example, to accelerate an early three-wheeler to speeds unattainable for the T-34. The four who started the war with a 75-mm cigarette butt, by 1943, received a good long-barreled gun, which allowed them to hit the T-34 from distances unattainable for it, and fight the T 34-85 on equal terms. Everything is clear about panthers and tigers.
          Conditions for the crew were set as one of the priorities, starting with the same troika. About optics and communications is not even worth mentioning. As well as the fact that the Germans self-propelled guns were already in the 41st.
          The mouse was a pilot project. And if you know what his fate would be on the battlefield, start its development a year earlier. You can recall how much royal tigers and ferdinandas spoiled the blood, for all its apparent slowness.
        2. +3
          April 16 2017 01: 47
          Quote: Großer Feldherr
          well .... he needs all kinds of fuel less than the jet aircraft that is constantly paralyzing in the sky. 5 tons poured and should last for a long time

          Yes, hardly less. The dearly beloved Abrams with a 1500-strong gas turbine engine is roughly 450 km long on the highway. This is for some kind of miserable 55-63 tons. And if you increase the power 4 times ... then what internal volume will have to be sawn for tanks?
          All these projects of the prodigy “impenetrable” tanks just logically ended precisely with what they ended. It is like a perfect gas or perpetual motion machine. Now it is clearly visible when they began to fully analyze the economic side of any weapon. The tank is getting more expensive, getting heavier, and the efficiency does not increase significantly, but only by miserable interest. Upgrades of the type “new SLA” and “shells with a core more authentic” can hardly change much here. At the same time, the tank, in general, was never a “superweapon” (except perhaps in the 1st World War) and it was not: it had to fulfill its task, of course, but no more. Losses among them - though a sad thing, but objective. And in the end, they won not, those with better tanks, but those with more tanks. Yes, now the conditions of use have changed a lot, but in this matter ("price-effectiveness"), I think that our designers, like no one else, managed to "find" a middle ground for the near future in the form of the T-90 of the latest modifications (T-14 is still unknown "what for the beast "). After all, if there is no way to increase the "quality", then it remains no matter how corny it is to "take by quantity." And this principle in the future (distant), I think, will be even wider: either the “tanks” will begin to be built around a person in the form of certain exoskeletons, or they will become completely unmanned, getting rid of many of the limitations of manned vehicles. When the Americans cut enough on their "super-universal" F-35, and older aircraft will completely crumble with dust, I think that we can return to the concept of a "swarm of drones" which, mixed with cruise missiles, can be used to "spam" any air defense and air forces. And the same thing can be done on earth. And it is slowly being done. Unmanned boats are also designing ... In general, now more than ever, the best defense is an attack. And with mobile bunkers, it’s good to level clay houses only.
          1. 0
            April 16 2017 03: 16
            So the fuel in the abrams is 1300 liters, having increased power by 4 times, the consumption will increase by 4 times. 5 tons should be enough for a long time, I have never heard of a shortage of fuel from the Abrams.
            Projects of superheavy tanks were prettified only by the economy, in those days at the price of one is7 it was possible to produce 10 tons54. Now they are changing, there are trends specifically for qualitative growth, the main cost is not in metalworking, but in technology, i.e. tanks of 50 tons and 150 tons can cost almost the same, it depends only on the configuration.
    2. +5
      April 16 2017 06: 13
      And it will turn out to be a useless thing) destroyed by an assault for 2 kilometers) and also not transportable
    3. AUL
      +3
      April 16 2017 09: 37
      The same “mouse” is now to treat children's sores in the form of a weak chassis, put a pair of gas turbine engines in the amount of 6000 horses or more, there are many places in the MTO, and it will turn out to be a major haemorrhage for any opponent. In addition to tactical weapons or their own damage, such a colossus will not be able to do anything harm.

      Well, a very controversial statement! Even if an acceptable power density and chassis reliability are achieved, the mobility of this machine will be severely limited. Not every road can withstand such a car, not to mention bridges. And in the fields - forests - ravines even more so, the soil also has a limit of permissible load. Modern warfare is maneuverable; mobility has a very high price. Well, breaking through armor in one way or another is now no longer a big problem.
    4. +8
      April 16 2017 09: 37
      Quote: Großer Feldherr
      The same "mouse" is now to treat children's sores in the form of a weak chassis, put a couple of gas turbine engines in the amount of 6000 horses or more, there is a lot of space in the MTO, and it will turn out to be a major hemorrhoids for

      own command. It is impossible to transport along the railway, it is impossible to use a trawl, not a single bridge - in general, by the time he gets to the enemy, the war will just end
      1. 0
        April 16 2017 20: 48
        All of this is solvable.
        The tower can be made quick-detachable, then even ordinary railway platforms can easily be accepted. The bridge can be bypassed. With normal power density and mobility will be appropriate where it is necessary in time.
        1. +2
          April 17 2017 11: 42
          Quote: Großer Feldherr
          The tower can be made quick-detachable, then even ordinary railway platforms can easily be taken


          But it’s not easier to make 4 T-90 instead of one such horseradish. The metal will go as much, but the benefits will be 50 times more.
        2. +2
          April 17 2017 18: 56
          Quote: Großer Feldherr
          All of this is solvable.

          No.
          Quote: Großer Feldherr
          The tower can be made quick-detachable

          I am embarrassed to ask who and how will shoot this heresy in the field.
          Quote: Großer Feldherr
          then even ordinary railway platforms can easily be accepted

          The tank weighs 180 tons. Even having cut it in half, you get 90 tons. The heaviest railway platforms drag a little more than 70 tons.
          Quote: Großer Feldherr
          The bridge can be circled.

          wassat What is it like? Here, for example, is a bridge across the Dnieper. How will you go round it? Mouse on the bottom of the Dnieper ?! So the enemy will thank you - you’ve built him a free DneproGES laughing
          Or do you offer a tank to go around the Dnieper? laughing Well, yes, the mad mouse is 2285 km away laughing good
          Quote: Großer Feldherr
          With normal power density and mobility will be appropriate

          It will not, since mobility depends on a mass of factors, including the specific pressure on the ground
          Quote: Großer Feldherr
          where it is necessary in time.

          There is WWII practice - EMNIP approximately 43% of Tigers (not royal, but ordinary) are lost for non-combat reasons. Just some 60-ton tank, and this, with some German thoroughness ...
    5. +9
      April 16 2017 23: 46
      put a pair of gas turbine engines in the amount of 6000 horses or more, there are many places in the MTO

      Better is "Flow Concentrator", then all the questions about the movement can be solved. lol For one and PMV using the Mouse to win. feel
    6. 0
      April 17 2017 12: 29
      medium and light did not die out, rather they moved to support the infantry and to the rear
      and from the battlefield they were supplanted by the development of anti-tank weapons.
    7. 0
      April 18 2017 14: 32
      Quote: Großer Feldherr
      and it was the medium and light tanks that became extinct as a class

      Suddenly, the T-14, which is the Armata, is classified by the Ministry of Defense as a medium tank.
  9. +3
    April 16 2017 01: 23
    When refined, a formidable weapon would be. I don’t know, our self-propelled guns -su (ISU) -152, could destroy it or not. Although immobilizing it, it was possible to burn. and on the topic, a great article. author, write about our answer to Mouse - IS-7.
    1. +5
      April 16 2017 10: 05
      A couple of bombings and from this misunderstanding only memories would remain.
    2. +1
      April 17 2017 12: 30
      a couple of landmines from the su-152 and the tank is no longer important - whole or not, because the crew is not combat-ready.
  10. +4
    April 16 2017 01: 56
    The tragedy of the situation was that four years for Soviet tank building were largely wasted. The only worthy opponent for the EC-7 all this time was on the museum site in Kubinka. As for the former allies of World War II, they turned down the development of their armored monsters after the war. There was simply no one to fight the promising Soviet heavy tanks.

    Well, I would not say that. Yes, for tanks, time was wasted, but the experience of creating electric transmissions was useful in civilian life when creating tractors.
    * The development of electric drives, increasing their competitiveness is another step towards the creation of more advanced equipment through the expansion of standardization, the purchase of finished units, assemblies. The big arrival of electric cars in road construction machinery seems like a natural, logical continuation of technological progress. Today is the forecast. Specialists of ChTZ Ustyantsev L.P. (1936-2006), Zakharov V.N. took part in such a forecast. and others. It coincides with the opinion of a number of specialists from Caterpillar, Volvo and other companies. *
    Anyone interested can read the article at the link: http://t-magazine.ru/pages/elektrotransmission
    On the DET-250, in particular, an electric transmission was used, known to the designers of ChTZ in the German Ferdinand self-propelled artillery mounts. In April 1956, the tractor was manufactured. The real need for powerful bulldozers helped in the development of production. The car turned out unique. There were no analogues.
  11. +3
    April 16 2017 03: 17
    As they say, nothing is new under the moon. Much earlier Porsche, the equally brilliant Russian scientist Mendeleev, already tried to do something similar, with a naval gun of a large, at that time, caliber. But apparently our command was much more perspicacious than the German.
    1. +2
      April 16 2017 03: 19
      I almost forgot, here is a photo of this iron monster.
  12. +6
    April 16 2017 06: 28
    Great article, but no photo from Kubinka

    I pounded the tower with my fist in a jump, not really plywood.
    1. +6
      April 16 2017 07: 44
      It was necessary to have a head.
  13. +5
    April 16 2017 06: 49
    The meaningless generation of the gloomy Teutonic genius. They needed to rivet the T-4 en masse, and not indulge in all sorts of prodigies such as Panther, Yagdpanther and other Royal Tigers. Instead of 6 thousand Panthers, it was possible to produce 12 thousand T-4s, which would do much more harm to the enemy.
    1. +3
      April 16 2017 07: 39
      This is a moot point. But the Germans would have had enough tankers for these tanks, fuel so that twice as many tanks rolled, molybdenum and nickel for armor?
      I just can’t understand Hitler’s logic, what prevented him (even with concessions) from agreeing with Stalin and quietly conquering England? Huge resources, both production and human. After the occupation of England, it was quite realistic to challenge even the US economy, having a huge industrial base in Europe and a raw material USSR.
      1. +5
        April 16 2017 08: 01
        It’s easy to train a tanker, it’s not for you to prepare a pilot or artilleryman. As for molybdenum and nickel, the T-4 weighed 23 tons, the Panther weighed 45 tons. So that would be enough. And comparing the consumption of a 45-ton tank with the consumption of a 23-ton is simply ridiculous.
        Well, as for Hitler, it is no secret that he was an Anglophile. He sincerely admired the British for how they managed to conquer the whole world, he expressed admiration for how a handful of British governs giant India. In addition, the British belong to the Germanic peoples, therefore, according to his theory, the British were also considered Aryans. Hitler sincerely despised the Slavs and considered them subhuman. It was not without reason that he went to the Kaiser army in the WWI and not to the Austro-Hungarian one, because he did not want to serve in the army, where there are many Slavs.
        Hitler did not even think of landing on Britain, he longed to make an honorable peace with the British. He even sent Rudolf Hess to them for negotiations. In short, he was a real demoniac. If he hadn’t been obsessed with Aryanism and stopped dividing people into non-governing and governing women, he would have acted logically as you wrote: you would have captured Britain, Iceland, lived in peace with the USSR and directed your interest in Africa, which after the capture of France and the fall of Britain, became no man's land. With all of Europe, the Middle East and Africa in hand, Hitler would have become invincible. Then the world could become as in 1984: the German Reich (Europe, the Middle East and Africa), the USSR, the USA (both Americas) and the Japanese Empire (the rest of Asia and Australia).
        1. 0
          April 17 2017 19: 37
          To train a tankman for 2 years at least actually ...
          1. 0
            April 18 2017 01: 37
            It is in peacetime. In wartime, even komvzvodov prepared for six months. The arrow-radio operator and driver-mechanic can be trained in a couple of weeks, it is not necessary to teach the loader at all, it is more difficult with the gunner and commander, but since the gunner in the tank always shoots direct fire, you can train in a month. You can also prepare a commander for a month. Total tank crew can be put together in a month. This is not for you to prepare a fighter pilot or an artilleryman shooting from a closed position.
      2. +2
        April 16 2017 17: 53
        Quote: demiurg
        what bothered him

        Yes, a lot of things prevented
        1. English fleet and air force
        2. USA
        3. 29 mechanized corps
        Quote: demiurg
        I just can not understand Hitler's logic

        And there is nothing special to understand. The pact is a mistake, further actions are mainly forced. And the farther, the worse the situation.
      3. 0
        April 19 2017 06: 30
        Hitler organically hated the USSR
      4. 0
        April 19 2017 16: 26
        a challenge to the us economy? it was no war until 2mv, will unite with Germany? this is how it will now unite with the usa europe well, and china, it would be possible to capture the planet, no one could stop
        1. 0
          April 19 2017 17: 26
          although the “economy” we didn’t have, like the United States, up to 2mv, we would only be a burden, only 2mv boosted our economy and the usa, our “economy” tightened only during the war and they needed “everything for the front” first to capture England or oil fields, but they didn’t have much fuel, and all the same, we would have remained “stuck in their throat” with its amazing ability to become stronger during the war as a 2003 hulk
      5. 0
        April 19 2017 22: 51
        The demoniac was still a weirdo. In addition, the yudo and the Slavophobe, on which he burned.
    2. +1
      April 16 2017 07: 54
      True statement
      1. AUL
        +3
        April 16 2017 09: 57
        If, yes, if only ... History does not suffer a subjunctive mood!
    3. +1
      April 16 2017 18: 05
      Quote: Comrade_Stalin
      They had to rivet massively T-4

      They had to go into total war in the 39th year. Fortunately, they did not.
  14. +2
    April 16 2017 07: 43
    The gloomy Teutonic genius always gravitated towards gigantism. And with the prodigies in particular.
  15. +1
    April 16 2017 09: 42
    Quote: Pancer
    Quote: LastPS
    a guaranteed corpse on the battlefield and armor with a gun are not helpers here.

    In fact, this MAUS was planned to be used as a means of ensuring the flanks of its troops, a kind of mobile armored pillbox.
    With such an instrument, with the appropriate support, it would not be so easy to hit this wunderfaffenkolymagu. And an armored box could spoil the nerves of the advancing force. A type of pillbox on the tracks could.
    But based on experience ... yes., The gloomy Teutonic genius gave birth to the MOUSE, completely useless already in those conditions and at that time.
    His time would be full if the Germans built such a monster in the years of World War I.

    I completely agree with you, the stillborn “Mouse”, I suspect a sickly cut of folk remedies. One pass IL-2 with PTAB and the end to “Mouse” !!!
    1. +1
      April 16 2017 09: 55
      Capitalism is such capitalism. German industrialists profited very well on military orders. Judging by the mess that was going on in their tank troops, there was no sense of rationalism at all, only the development of the budget. What is the adoption of the T-3 and T-4. Wasn’t it easier to accept one tank with different weapons, such as the purely anti-tank T-34-57 (analogue of T-3) and the universal T-34-76 (analogue of T-4). So then, they adopted the Panther, but continued to produce the T-4. , so you put on your underpants or hang up a cross.
      1. +6
        April 16 2017 14: 14
        Quote: Comrade_Stalin
        What is the adoption of the T-3 and T-4

        They were taken into service when the appearance of the tank forces was not yet fully understood, although the direction was chosen correctly. The T-3 was a “linear tank” - that is, the main workhorse, and the T-4 was a “support tank”, it was supposed to help the T-3 with its short-barreled howitzer to solve fire problems in battle, when the relics of a 37-mm T-3 gun obviously becoming few. I agree that, of course, it was necessary to use one base chassis, and not exchange for two, basically equivalent, but time put everything in its place, the T-4 survived, and the T-3 left.
        We also created similar machines, these are BT-7A and T-26A
        Quote: Comrade_Stalin
        So then, they adopted the Panther, but at the same time continued to produce the T-4. , so you put on your underpants or hang up a cross.

        This is good for us, since the Germans simply drove themselves. It would be worse if they abandoned the Tiger and created a tank with Panther’s uniforms, but with the weapons of the Tiger. Then, yes ... They would have spoiled a lot of blood for everyone.
        1. +3
          April 16 2017 14: 26
          Quote: svp67
          It would be worse if they abandoned the Tiger and created a tank with Panther’s uniforms, but with the weapons of the Tiger. Then, yes ... They would have spoiled a lot of blood for everyone.

          Such an attempt has taken place. But failed.
          But on Tiger VI B (royal), a tower with Panther features is clearly visible. And the 88-mm KwK cannon, model 43, was more powerful than the one installed on the production Tiger.
          According to M. Baryatinsky "German tanks in battle"
          The deterioration in the quality of armor on German tanks and the decrease in the quality of welds were also noted by the Allies after they examined the captured “royal tigers”. Nevertheless, this heavy German tank remained a "hard nut".
          Which saved our tankers to some extent.
          1. +1
            April 16 2017 14: 29
            Quote: stalkerwalker
            But on Tiger VI B (royal), a tower with Panther features is clearly visible.

            And the shape of the case, but the mass !!!!! She crossed out everything. And of course, on the basis of the Panther, it would be a more massive tank, that was its main danger.
            1. +3
              April 16 2017 14: 37
              Quote: svp67
              And the shape of the case, but the mass !!!!!

              No doubt ...
              The panther appeared in the Panzervaffen forces in the summer of the 43rd. And it worked well. By the 44th, "childhood illnesses" were overcome.
              As already mentioned above, if there was time, the Royal Tiger would be brought to mind.
              Quote: svp67
              And of course, on the basis of the Panther, it would be a more massive tank, that was its main danger.

              I will not say that the Germans sprayed forces on the variety of tank and self-propelled nomenclature, because it turned out them not bad. They also released “fours”, and Panthers and Tigers, not counting self-propelled guns and artillery assaults based on them. The budget Hetzer is also good.
              In general - as it was, it was ...
        2. +2
          April 16 2017 18: 02
          Quote: svp67
          It would be worse if they abandoned the Tiger and created a tank with Panther’s forms, but with the armament of the Tiger

          There is another opinion. Panther and Tiger - wrecking, the right tank - a Shermanized four with corners. Shermanized - means suitable for mass production in non-specialized enterprises.
          Quote: stalkerwalker
          And the 88-mm KwK cannon, model 43, was more powerful than the one installed on the production Tiger.

          Too powerful, too PT. Tiger 88/52 was enough for everything except the late IS-2.
          1. +1
            April 16 2017 18: 16
            Quote: Cherry Nine
            There is another opinion. Panther and Tiger - wrecking, the right tank - a Shermanized four with corners. Shermanized - means suitable for mass production in non-specialized enterprises.

            The Quartet, the Quartet, but the Germans also needed a tank for “qualitative reinforcement”. So, some of these "wrecking" all the same had to be put on the conveyor.
            1. +1
              April 16 2017 18: 31
              Quote: svp67
              "quality gain" was required

              Against what? A-19 began to be put only in the 44th. In the West, generally until the 45th year, there was nothing better than Sherman.
              If you want high-quality amplification - put your KwK43 on Shtug. Judging by the fact that they put 15-pdr on the Wali chassis in 17 tons - this is quite possible for a 25 tons car.
              Little of. Both the panther gun and the panther engine got up on the four. And with some tricks - and KwK36 can be shoved, it does not contradict the laws of physics. See Superhallcat with a Persh gun or Israeli Shermans with a shortened 10,5 cm FlaK 38 from the promising TigerB
              1. +1
                April 16 2017 18: 48
                Quote: Cherry Nine
                Against what?

                Not a valid question. "For what?" This is how it should sound. And the answer is simple, for a confident and quickest breakthrough a lot of layered enemy defense.
                Quote: Cherry Nine
                In the West, generally until the 45th year, there was nothing better than Sherman.

                But this does not mean that the same Americans did not understand the weakness of this situation and did not seek how to eliminate it. As a result, they appeared M26 "Pershing"
                Quote: Cherry Nine
                If you want high-quality amplification - put your KwK43 on Shtug. Judging from the fact that they put a 15-pdr on the Wali chassis in 17 tons - this is quite possible for a 25 tons car.

                Well, a tank is not only a cannon, but also armor, which was supposed to cover not only the crew, but also the infantry following him in the attack.
                1. 0
                  April 16 2017 19: 07
                  Quote: svp67
                  "For what?" That's how it should sound

                  Depends on tactics.
                  Quote: svp67
                  for a confident and quickest breakthrough, a lot of layered enemy defense.

                  Neither Panther nor the Tigers were defense breakthrough tanks. Both there and there - strongly expressed PT qualities, both in terms of guns and armor. The first tiger is possible.
                  Quote: svp67
                  As a result, they appeared M26 "Pershing"

                  In February of the 45th, if not mistaken.
                  Quote: svp67
                  Well, a tank is not only a cannon, but also armor, which was supposed to cover not only the crew, but also the infantry following him in the attack.

                  From this point of view, all the rules. But in the East, the main anti-aircraft gun is the ZiS-3. In the West, no tanks decide. So Stug’s armor up to Su-85 at least was enough. And in the 44th, the panther gun gave normal chances.

                  Again. Right WWII tanks are the T-34, Sherman and the Four. Four is the earliest, the most fought, and, therefore, the 42nd year is the most finished. However, the Germans, instead of focusing on purely economic problems, posed as hell.
                  1. +3
                    April 16 2017 19: 17
                    Quote: Cherry Nine
                    However, the Germans, instead of focusing on purely economic problems, posed as hell.
                    What I can not help but rejoice at. And it would be a year or two with them ...
                    Quote: Cherry Nine
                    Again. Right WWII tanks are the T-34, Sherman and the Four.

                    The first time I meet with such a classification. Not quite true, but you can agree with something.
                    Quote: Cherry Nine
                    Neither Panther nor the Tigers were defense breakthrough tanks.

                    Panther, this is your opinion, what should have become the "right tank", but it never did. And he received his combat debut precisely when he tried to break through, on the Kursk. And the “Tiger-B” or what we call the “Royal Tiger”, the very first combat use was precisely an attempt to break through, and not fight with tanks
                    1. +1
                      April 16 2017 19: 28
                      Quote: svp67
                      What I can not help but rejoice at. And it would be a year or two with them ...

                      Well, yes, anything could go.
                      Quote: svp67
                      The first time I meet with such a classification.

                      Pretty common place. The correct main tank is a tank that can work with the main anti-tank vehicles of the enemy. For the Germans, this is ZiS-3 (so Panther is a mistake), for allies starting in the 42nd year it is Pak 40, so Sherman is a mistake, and the T-34/85 is poverty.
                      Quote: svp67
                      Panther, this is your way, what should have become the "right tank"

                      He was not the right tank, since he did not provide either a shaft, nor logistics, nor reliability.
                      Quote: svp67
                      Their first combat use was precisely an attempt at a breakthrough, and not a battle with tanks

                      Panthers, too, near Prokhorovka were used in a peculiar way, drowned in a ravine. It does not follow from this that the Panther is such an unsuccessful amphibian. The 88mm cannon for a car of 68 tons is far from the characteristics of the IS-2. But ballistic hellish.
                  2. +2
                    April 16 2017 19: 37
                    Quote: Cherry Nine
                    But in the East, the main PT-gun - ZiS-3

                    Since when has the 76mm ZiS-3 divisional gun become anti-tank?
                    Quote: Cherry Nine
                    In the West, no tanks decide

                    Probably Luftwaffen with Kriegsmarine steamed?
                    1. +1
                      April 16 2017 19: 48
                      Quote: stalkerwalker
                      Since when has the 76mm ZiS-3 divisional gun become anti-tank?

                      They lie, dogs?

                      Quote: stalkerwalker
                      Probably Luftwaffen with Kriegsmarine steamed?

                      In general, yes. If wider - logistics.
                      1. +2
                        April 16 2017 20: 14
                        Quote: Cherry Nine
                        They lie, dogs?

                        They lie ...
                        The Red Army and the 45-mm guns were armed with IPTAP.
                        Only the penetration ability of ZiS-3 was not much higher than the ability of the “forty-five” in defeating the Wehrmacht armored vehicles.
                        But ZiS-2 was not enough for everyone.
                        At the end of 1941 - at the beginning of 1942, the German command managed to quite quickly "plug holes" in the anti-tank harrow with captured weapons. I note that with the exception of third-rate divisions, where the production unit was before 1918, the Germans did not have 76-mm divisional guns. They were replaced by 105 mm light howitzers. But the Germans captured several thousand 75-mm French cannons arr. 1897 and Soviet 76-mm guns F-22 mod. 1936
                        The Germans initially used the 76-mm F-22 divisional guns (model 1936) in their original form as field guns, giving them the name 7,62 cm FK296 (r). But at the end of 1941, German engineers, having studied the gun, found out that it had a large margin of safety. As a result, by the end of the year, a project was developed to convert the F-22 into an anti-tank gun of 7,62 cm Pak 36 (r).
                        A chamber was bored in the cannon, which made it possible to replace the sleeve. The Soviet sleeve was 385,3 mm long and the flange diameter 90 mm, the new German sleeve was 715 mm long, and its flange diameter was 100 mm. Thanks to this propellant charge was increased 2,4 times. To reduce the recoil force, the Germans installed a muzzle brake.
                        I note that the Germans did what Grabin proposed back in 1934–1935, but Tukhachevsky and his supporters in the Art Administration categorically forbade doing it.
                        As a result, from the end of 1941 until mid-1943, the F-22 Hrabin gun modernized by the Germans was the most powerful anti-tank gun in the world. It is curious that the leadership of GAU even considered the issue of launching the production of 76-mm Pak.36 (r). But Grabin resolutely refused, since he had already designed more powerful systems.
                      2. 0
                        April 16 2017 20: 18
                        Quote: stalkerwalker
                        They lie ...
                        The Red Army and the 45-mm guns were armed with IPTAP.
                        Only the penetration ability of ZiS-3 was not much higher than the ability of the “forty-five” in defeating the Wehrmacht armored vehicles.
                        But ZiS-2 was not enough for everyone.

                        And how to understand your text in relation to the definition of the main PT in the East? If 53-K, this does not change the matter, as you correctly noted.
          2. +2
            April 16 2017 19: 06
            Quote: Cherry Nine
            Too powerful, too PT. Tiger 88/52 was enough for everything except the late IS-2.

            Cannons are too powerful. As there is not much vodka.
            Panther’s 75-mm gun had a directivity PT. And the 88-mm caliber was chosen for a more powerful high-explosive charge effect.
            A similar dilemma was also taken up in the USSR when they chose between the 107-mm and 122-mm caliber for the future IS-2. It turned out by the saying, “They counted on paper, but forgot about the ravines”, i.e. about separate loading, they were so impressed with the striking force of the A-19.
            1. 0
              April 16 2017 19: 13
              Quote: stalkerwalker
              Cannons are too powerful. As there is not much vodka.

              Bullshit said. The right machine is the right balance.
              And there is an opinion that the first quality of a combat vehicle is quantity. The second is reliability.
              Quote: stalkerwalker
              And the 88-mm caliber was chosen for a more powerful high-explosive charge effect.

              Neither Tiger-1. With Tiger-2, everything is more complicated.
              Quote: stalkerwalker
              A similar dilemma was also taken up in the USSR when they chose between the 107-mm and 122-mm caliber for the future IS-2.

              There was no dilemma there. The A-19 was the only weapon available.
              Quote: stalkerwalker
              those. about separate loading

              What is the 107 mm unitary gun? Not M-60 / ZiS-6 by the hour?
              1. +2
                April 16 2017 19: 18
                Quote: Cherry Nine
                Bullshit said. The right machine is the right balance.

                Quote: Cherry Nine
                There was no dilemma there. The A-19 was the only weapon available.

                Quote: Cherry Nine
                What is the 107 mm unitary gun? Not M-60 / ZiS-6 by the hour?

                Did you understand what you wrote?
                1. 0
                  April 16 2017 19: 37
                  Quote: stalkerwalker
                  Did you understand what you wrote?

                  Quite. What exactly seems strange to you?
                  Or should I clarify that D-25T does not need to be pushed into Sherman (but tried), the A-19 was the only weapon produced in the 43rd year more powerful than the 52-K, which can still be hardly pushed into the tower, and the phrase
                  Quote: stalkerwalker
                  A similar dilemma was also taken up in the USSR when they chose between the 107-mm and 122-mm caliber for the future IS-2. It turned out by the saying, “They counted on paper, but forgot about the ravines”, i.e. about separate loading, they were so impressed with the striking force of the A-19.

                  looks strange considering that the Soviet 107-mm gun had separate loading?
                  1. +2
                    April 16 2017 19: 55
                    Quote: Cherry Nine
                    Quote: stalkerwalker
                    Did you understand what you wrote?
                    Quite. What exactly seems strange to you?

                    About the "excess" power of the guns.
                    Quote: Cherry Nine
                    looks strange considering that the Soviet 107-mm gun had separate loading?

                    In addition to the rammer proposed by Grabin, there were chances to establish the production of a 107-mm shell
                    But here one can only guess "... what would happen if ..."
                    1. +1
                      April 16 2017 20: 05
                      Quote: stalkerwalker
                      About the "excess" power of the guns.

                      The power of the gun is excessive when there are no targets for the theater of operations under it, while the gun itself, taking into account the other solutions, inflates the machine to 70 tons.
                      The task of "punching 3 Sherman in a row" has never been. It is enough to pierce the forehead.
                      Quote: stalkerwalker
                      there were chances to establish the production of a 107-mm shell

                      A projectile is a unitary shot, did you mean? Come on. You’re not writing about the USSR of the 43rd year, right? Are you aware of the dimensions and weight of the 4 "unitary units?
                      1. +2
                        April 16 2017 20: 26
                        Quote: Cherry Nine
                        The power of the gun is excessive when there are no targets on the theater

                        In the 41st, the Grabin Zis-2 seemed to have excess power. and in the 43rd it turned out that its capabilities are just enough.
                        T.N. excess power allowed to hit armored vehicles at maximum ranges without the risk of falling into return fire. As an example - Prokhorovka, when the T-34 and T-70 were shot at a distance of 800-1000 m.
                        Quote: Cherry Nine
                        A projectile is a unitary shot, did you mean? Come on. You’re not writing about the USSR of the 43rd year, right? Are you aware of the dimensions and weight of the 4 "unitary units?

                        I said that this is probability theory ...
                        Of course, the economy and production capacities of the USSR did not allow mass development of new types of BP. In fact, over the years of the war, not a single cannon was massively launched in a series. Everything rested on pre-war groundwork. But here it is a sin to blame the Soviet people and their leadership.
                      2. +1
                        April 16 2017 20: 35
                        Quote: stalkerwalker
                        In the 41st, the Grabin Zis-2 seemed to have excess power. and in the 43rd it turned out that its capabilities are just enough.

                        What was the TigraB just enough for and the Yagdpanthers missing?
                        Quote: stalkerwalker
                        I said that this is probability theory ...

                        There were no probabilities here. The USSR took strictly what was already in production.
                        Quote: stalkerwalker
                        But here it is a sin to blame the Soviet people and their leadership.

                        And he did absolutely right.
          3. 0
            April 19 2017 22: 20
            In principle, 75, that of the panther, that 4 was more than enough.
    2. 0
      April 16 2017 13: 50
      Andrewkor, I don’t remember something that ILs could well click tanks (Drapkin didn’t see this), but the German “thing” pounded our tanks, one of the Fritz with his “thing” almost beat half of our ISs.
      I knew the driver T34 / 85 and once asked about ISs, he said: they were strong
      1. +4
        April 16 2017 14: 04
        Quote: Monarchist
        I don’t remember something that ILs could well click tanks

        Have you been a participant in those events?
        Quote: Monarchist
        (Drapkin did not see this)

        You wanted to say: "did not read"? There are other sources as well. Read about the use of PTAB-2,5 aerial bombs.
        Quote: Monarchist
        nearly one half of our ISs was beaten by one Fritz with his “thing”.

        Do not read the German bad "fiction" at night ...
        Quote: Monarchist
        I knew the driver T34 / 85 and once asked about ISs, he said: they were strong

        In comparison with what?
      2. +2
        April 16 2017 15: 54
        To the monarchist. On the Kursk Bulge, IL-2 with 300 pieces of PTAB showed itself well. PTAB is a kind of predecessor of modern cluster munitions, bombing on a convoy or combat order is not a point target to hit. Well, and probably our pilots did a little work on the application of this type of defeat . Remember how the top-mast bombing appeared on ships from the same IL-2.
  16. 0
    April 16 2017 10: 54
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    Quote: san4es
    With such a mass and slowness it can be called "Self-propelled pillbox"

    Rather, "sometimes a self-propelled pillbox"

    And most of all - IRON KAPUT!
  17. 0
    April 16 2017 12: 49
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    not a single bridge - it’s impossible in general, by the time he gets to the enemy, the war will just end

    As for bridges, there was an original idea. More precisely, one of the first development of river forcing along the bottom, using a snorkel for the crew, and a cable for running.
  18. 0
    April 16 2017 13: 37
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    Quote: Pancer
    In fact, this MAUS was planned to be used as a means of ensuring the flanks of its troops, a kind of mobile armored pillbox.

    Well, if they have more than 40% of the Tigers dropped out for technical reasons, then this is the eighth wonder of the world ...

    On this occasion, there are opposing opinions, for example, read Kraus (the commander of the battalion of "tigers") or read the comments of some of our comrades, especially admired one with the star of David) - a miracle of technology
  19. +1
    April 16 2017 15: 26
    Yeah. A pile of metal.
    1. +1
      April 16 2017 19: 02
      Quote: Rabinovich
      Yeah. A pile of metal.

      ... merkava - that one. But not a pile not a pile ...
  20. +2
    April 16 2017 15: 47
    Quote: Comrade_Stalin
    The meaningless generation of the gloomy Teutonic genius. They needed to rivet the T-4 en masse, and not indulge in all sorts of prodigies such as Panther, Yagdpanther and other Royal Tigers. Instead of 6 thousand Panthers, it was possible to produce 12 thousand T-4s, which would do much more harm to the enemy.

    I completely agree with you, and also my wondrous opinion about the uselessness of Bismarck, Tirpitz. If there were funds in tanks, there would be a mess. These monsters only amazed Hitler’s vanity and nothing more. !!!
  21. +3
    April 16 2017 17: 58
    Reminded ...
  22. 0
    April 16 2017 19: 01
    Quote: lFelix
    A couple of bombings and from this misunderstanding only memories would remain.

    ... well, yes, if the Israeli - one is enough ...
  23. +1
    April 16 2017 19: 04
    Quote: Cherry Nine
    Quote: demiurg
    what bothered him

    Yes, a lot of things prevented
    1. English fleet and air force
    2. USA
    3. 29 mechanized corps
    Quote: demiurg
    I just can not understand Hitler's logic

    And there is nothing special to understand. The pact is a mistake, further actions are mainly forced. And the farther, the worse the situation.

    ... the pact is a mistake. Ha, here is the opinion of the ignoramus and the beaters of the Indians on the reservation. Maple syrup got drunk or something ...
    1. 0
      April 16 2017 20: 24
      Quote: Polkanov
      opinion of ignoramuses and beaters

      Not only them. There is an opinion that it is possible to live without the Danzig corridor, but with it, as practice has shown, no.
  24. +2
    April 16 2017 22: 16
    Cherry nine,
    Quote: Cherry Nine
    Quote: stalkerwalker
    In the 41st, the Grabin Zis-2 seemed to have excess power. and in the 43rd it turned out that its capabilities are just enough.
    What was the TigraB just enough for and the Yagdpanthers missing?
    Quote: stalkerwalker

    Are you bored?
    No one to discuss with?
    1. +1
      April 16 2017 22: 46
      Quote: stalkerwalker
      Are you bored?

      Let's just say the thing that I do all day is not going belay
      But the idea was that the gun above the KwK 36 on the tank was not useful to the Germans until the 45th year. And this, given the volumes of production and the combat path of the TigraB, seems to me quite obvious.
  25. 0
    April 17 2017 13: 13
    Quote: Cherry Nine
    But the idea was that the gun above the KwK 36 on the tank was not useful to the Germans until the 45th year. And this, given the volumes of production and the combat path of the TigraB, seems to me quite obvious.

    8,8 L = 71 on a tank is a German dream since its inception. I just don’t understand why the Nazis put Kwk36 on the Tiger if they already had crawlers crawling with a 105mm long-barreled gun. The ideal balance of a breakthrough tank would be a Tiger with a 105mm cannon with unitaries and under 100mm armor, but no ... Why, can anyone know why they didn’t want 105 for the first Tiger?
    1. +1
      April 17 2017 18: 04
      Quote: DesToeR
      This is the dream of the Germans since its inception.

      Here it is necessary to clarify which of the Germans. It is unlikely that this issue was submitted to a referendum.
      Quote: DesToeR
      maybe someone knows why they did not want a 105-ku for the first tiger?

      Quote: DesToeR
      already crawling crawlers with a 105mm long-barreled gun

      What kind of panzer are these? I only know about cars with leFH18, with separate loading and a barrel of 28 cal, and then not on tanks, but on self-propelled guns. You, as I understand it, are talking about 10.5 cm FlaK 38 with a unit 116 cm long and under 30 kg weight. Above, having carried away, I put this gun on the super-Sherman, but, naturally, this and that gun had nothing in common, including the shells used (in the 60s there were no heavy caliber warheads).
      Let me remind you that the Germans considered the high rate of fire crucial, therefore they took the smallest possible shoulder strap for 88 1850 mm. The Soviets climbed into the same epaulet D-25T.
      And most importantly - why, for heaven’s sake, do they need this gun in the 41st year? In real life, its analogue - L7- appeared not just because of the general steepness, but in view of the T-54 and IS-3. Who with such a gun to hunt in the 42nd year, the cruiser? The mentioned leFH18, and even more so sIG33, was quite suitable for bunkers.
      Quote: DesToeR
      yes under 100mm armor,

      Is it a board? And without corners? And how much does it weigh? And why do you need 100 mm if the ZiS-3 and 80 do not break, but the A-19 and ML-20 do not make a difference?
  26. 0
    April 18 2017 00: 21
    Quote: Cherry Nine
    What kind of panzer are these? I only know about cars with leFH18, with separate loading and a barrel of 28 cal, and then not on tanks, but on self-propelled guns

    I meant the 10,5 cm schwere Kanone 18 that the Germans installed on the Dicker Max. excellent gun with excellent ballistics.
    .
    Quote: Cherry Nine
    And most importantly - why, for heaven’s sake, do they need this gun in the 41st year?

    For the sake of giving the latest heavy tank the ability to effectively fire at field targets. 88mm with its 10kg shell was frankly weak in a high-explosive fragmentation impact on the target.
    Quote: Cherry Nine
    Is it a board? And without corners? And how much does it weigh? And why do you need 100 mm if the ZiS-3 and 80 do not break, but the A-19 and ML-20 do not make a difference?

    Well, the Tiger had these same 100 + mm in the forehead, and the 80mm board was chosen quite well - the Soviet cannons 45 ... 76mm practically didn’t take it. 85mm with the ballistic of the "anti-aircraft gun" is the same with difficulty - at an angle she could easily give a rebound. The Panther with its 45mm was completely “taken” 76mm from a distance of up to 500m. It should be understood that 100mm, 122mm and especially 152mm "on the tracks" were very few, and in the anti-tank artillery there were none at all. Yes, and they appeared on self-propelled guns and tanks by the middle of 1943, and massively only in the second half in 1944, when Tiger 1 was already discontinued.
    Quote: Cherry Nine
    Here it is necessary to clarify which of the Germans. It is unlikely that this issue was submitted to a referendum.

    A "referendum" is to say the least. I think there throats to each other bit for one or another option. Most likely the military based on the results of the battles of the summer of 1941. made a bet on the gun that successfully coped with the KV-1. And this is an 88mm anti-aircraft gun.
    1. 0
      April 18 2017 11: 59
      Quote: DesToeR
      I meant the 10,5 cm schwere Kanone 18 that the Germans installed on the Dicker Max. excellent gun with excellent ballistics.

      And separate loading. Maybe he was looking badly, but did not see data on the conversion of this gun to a unitary.
      And why did you write about the only Dicker Max "panzer"? The second was counted, which could not?))
      Quote: DesToeR
      For the sake of giving the latest heavy tank the ability to effectively fire at field targets. 88mm with its 10kg shell was frankly weak in a high-explosive fragmentation impact on the target.

      You do not understand the concept. German tanks were not made as tanks breaking through no matter how they were called. The Germans always came from Fri. Specifically, the Tiger was created for a specific requirement - to punch Churchill's face - and for this be equipped conical the gun. With this approach, it would be an enlarged Sherman Firefly on sub-calibers or T-34/57.
      The rejection of the conical gun in favor of 88 is motivated not so much by the explosiveness that Konica lacks, but by a deficit donata tungsten on a full gold.
      Quote: DesToeR
      with her 10kg shell

      And no longer intermeddle.
      You are trying to match the Germans with the T-54. But the T-54 with so.z. WWII wrong machine (for guns) Both Germans and Americans believed that the correct unitary weight was about 15-20 kg, otherwise the rate of fire would fall. That is, a caliber of 90 mm, not more. Therefore, they did not need a 30 kg unitary gun D-10. Do you understand? They are did not want to put this gun on the tank, although high-ballistic naval guns in caliber 4 ", of course, were in bulk. Moreover, the transition of the USSR to the B-34 cannon was not due to the fact that the councils were cool, but in the opposite way - they simply could not do in the USSR a panther gun in normal caliber.An English post-war 83 mm gun, I recall, pierced the battleship armor (300+)
      The transition to L7 is also the transition to lighter shells, hashes and sub-calibers. The WWII could not afford this.
      And as for the bunkers - the Germans had assault guns for this, the Americans - Shermans with 4 " howitzer, the British again with a howitzer tanks "close support" (CS), the Soviets first made artillery tanks with howitzers (bt-7a, kv-2), then switched to self-propelled guns. By the way, tanks with the D-25T are also, to some extent, self-propelled turrets, and not tanks.
      Quote: DesToeR
      It should be understood that there were very few “100mm, 122mm and especially 152mm“ on tracks ”, but they weren’t in the anti-tank artillery at all

      I wrote above. Soviet PT is 45 mm or ZiS-3. Further guns RVGK.
      Quote: DesToeR
      Most likely the military based on the results of the battles of the summer of 1941. made a bet on the gun that successfully coped with the KV-1. And this is an 88mm anti-aircraft gun.

      In the summer of the 41st, everything was on the ointment for a long time. Spring of the 40th, tankers vs mochi
  27. 0
    April 18 2017 15: 12
    I completely disagree with the conclusion that the IS-7 tank is useless. This is not a 200-ton mouse, it is only 68 tons with excellent mobility and handling, excellent armor protection and the most powerful weapons for its time. I repeat - 68 tons, in very limited mass. Of course, the use of this tank as a massive heavy one would be reckless - then there were few bridges of such carrying capacity, maneuvering by units equipped with it was limited or required engineering support. But as a small-series destroyer of the enemy’s heavy beast, the IS-7 would be useful in the event of a possible conflict. And how many new technologies and engineering solutions were developed during its design! The testers remembered the IS-7 as a machine that was unusually easy to operate, which was unusual for our tanks of that time.
  28. 0
    April 18 2017 21: 06
    Quote: Cherry Nine
    And separate loading. Maybe he was looking badly, but did not see data on the conversion of this gun to a unitary.

    Unlikely. Ammunition total 16 pcs. in an open spacious cabin, not burdened with a swivel mechanism. In the same conditions for the D-25T, more than 20 shells were placed in the IS tank, and even in 122 mm caliber. Most likely a unitary shell. But not a fact ...
    Quote: Cherry Nine
    And why did you write about the only Dicker Max "panzer"? The second was counted, which could not?))

    But the matter in quantity? The main thing is that they were not just built, but also tested in real combat conditions. And there were two of them, or as some I think that three are not important. One would be enough.
    Quote: Cherry Nine
    Specifically, the Tiger was created for a specific requirement - to punch Churchill's face - and for this equipped with a conical gun.

    Oh, and you flatter the namesake of the British Prime Minister. I think KV was interested in where, especially if they did test the case from KV-220.
    Quote: Cherry Nine
    The rejection of the conical gun in favor of 88 is motivated not so much by the explosiveness that Konica lacks, but by the deficiency of tungsten donate on the full gold.

    Do not forget about the third competitor - the 75 mm gun of the future Panther. Without conicity and expensive tungsten, but with a huge initial projectile speed
    .
    Quote: Cherry Nine
    But the T-54 with so.z. WWII wrong machine (for guns) Both Germans and Americans believed that the correct unitary weight was about 15-20 kg, otherwise the rate of fire would fall. That is, a caliber of 90 mm, not more. Therefore, they did not need a 30 kg unitary gun D-10. Do you understand?

    Well, yours (or theirs) the Germans were not confirmed by history, and the Americans very quickly revised their “beliefs”. From the beginning it’s 105 mm, and then it turned out that the Negroes do a good job with the 120 mm “unitar”, and with little hands, without MH ... The rate of fire drops not only and not so much on the weight of the projectile as on the convenience of loading and the perfection of the OMS. It was practically impossible to charge the same “firefly” quickly due to the small distance between the “breech” of the gun and the wall of the tower, and there were only 4 pieces of first-round shots. - for the rest it was still necessary to crawl. So on paper 6-8 h./min., But in reality 3-4pcs. Do you understand?
    Quote: Cherry Nine
    Moreover, the USSR’s transition to the B-34 cannon is not due to the fact that the councils are cool, but in the opposite way - in the USSR they simply could not make a panther gun in normal caliber.

    In the USSR, they were just able, but did not see any point in releasing a 85mm cannon for new shells, if 100mm on regular did the same, but had much more stable results with an increase in distance of 1000 + m. The sense of firing a cannon at 70 ... 100 calibres was only a sub-projectile that was effective up to 500m. Over 500m it was much more profitable to shoot with a larger caliber, but with an ordinary armor-piercing projectile. The powder charge (and the size itself) of a 75mm Panther gun shot was the same as the charge for a 100mm T-44 projectile, but these are two big differences.
    1. 0
      April 19 2017 01: 01
      Quote: DesToeR
      Unlikely

      What does "hardly" mean? If you have information about the use of unitaries on this weapon (which seems strange to me, given the size of the series) - indicate the source. Field K18 was with a separate-case loading. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10_cm_schwere_Kanon
      e_18
      Quote: DesToeR
      But the matter in quantity?

      If you write "crawling crawlers with a 105mm long-barreled gun," it’s somehow difficult to figure out that you are talking about a single instance.
      Quote: DesToeR
      Oh, and you flatter the namesake of the British Prime Minister.

      According to the technical specifications of the spring of 41, the tank was to penetrate 100 mm of armor. At that time, such armor was on the Tiger itself (which was not there), and on Churchill, which appeared a couple of months later, in June of the 41st. As for the HF, especially the heavier versions, I do not know the information that until the end of the 41st year these tanks were taken into account.
      Quote: DesToeR
      75mm future Panther gun

      KwK42, it’s not hard to guess, this is the 42nd cannon. There were considerations of putting her in the Tiger, but since a lighter tank was already being designed with her, this idea was considered strange. The main work on the Tiger took place in the 41st year. AhtAht without options.
      Quote: DesToeR
      Well, yours (or theirs) not confirmed by history

      Have you tried to read my posts as a whole, and not through a paragraph? I write about the weight of the shot, not the caliber as such. Specifically, according to the abrash, the weight of the M829A3 subcaliber with the famous uranium scrap is 22,3 kg, as well as the M830A1 HE bomb. So the concept hasn’t changed so much. Although the Negroes gobbled up and pumped up since then, not without it.

      Quote: DesToeR
      It was practically impossible to charge the same “firefly” quickly due to the small distance between the “breech” of the gun and the wall of the tower, and there were only 4 pieces of first-round shots. - for the rest it was still necessary to crawl. So on paper 6-8 h./min., But in reality 3-4pcs.

      I have no idea what kind of firefly you have there. In any case, I never argued that the bad cannot be done worse.
      A rate of 6-8 rounds per minute for the tank of the Germans categorically did not suit.
      Quote: DesToeR
      In the USSR they could

      What could they do? Not up to date.
      Quote: DesToeR
      if 100mm on staff

      A 100 mm cannon is a marine gun placed on the ground. Initially, nothing of the kind was planned. In this caliber for the 41st year was M 60.
      Quote: DesToeR
      The meaning of firing a cannon in 70 ... 100 calibers

      The barrel length of the aforementioned 17-pdr is 58 cal, 20-pdr is 64 cal (5,4 m), D10T is 56 cal (suddenly, 5,35).
      Quote: DesToeR
      which were effective up to 500m

      It's good that the British are not up to date. They continue to think that the 46-year-old caliber pierces 307 mm per 1 km.
      Quote: DesToeR
      Over 500m it was much more profitable to shoot with a larger caliber, but with an ordinary armor-piercing projectile.

      Yeah. Ammunition Panthers 81 shot, T-54 - 34 shots. Well, the rate of fire is 2-3 times lower than that. And “ordinary armor-piercing” is poverty, you know. Not a vice, but there is nothing to be proud of.
      Quote: DesToeR
      Powder charge

      The powder charge is 5,5 kg. Shot weight is a shell and a shell. 14,3 (Pzgr. 39/42) and 30,1 (53-UBR-412)
      Quote: DesToeR
      Yes, and the size itself

      893 mm Pzgr. 39/42, 910 mm 53-UBR-412. Yes, it seems.
      Quote: DesToeR
      but these are two big differences

      This just means that the Germans went to the PT-gun and leaned on ballistics, and the advice - on the universal, so that they pushed with the same charge more than 2 times more heavy shell.
      Quote: DesToeR
      charge to the 100mm shell of the T-44 gun

      Sorry?
  29. +1
    April 19 2017 05: 40
    The value of Pz.Kpfw. "Maus" is more MUSEUM. But that’s why enough WORKING German armored vehicles weren’t brought to the USSR - Pz 4, Pz 5 Panther, Pz 6 Tiger, self-propelled and assault guns of different models - NOT UNDERSTAND.
    Therefore, in films about World War II, German armored vehicles usually portray the Soviet T-44, with welded bulwarks. It looks very unconvincing. But after the war, dozens of units of serviceable German armored vehicles went to martin.
  30. 0
    April 19 2017 07: 18
    Quote: Cherry Nine
    If you write "crawling crawlers with a 105mm long-barreled gun," it’s somehow difficult to figure out that you are talking about a single instance.

    I kind of write in Russian. There were at least two of them.
    Quote: Cherry Nine
    According to the technical specifications of the spring of 41, the tank was to penetrate 100 mm of armor. At that time, such armor was on the Tiger itself (which was not there), and on Churchill, which appeared a couple of months later, in June of the 41st. As for the HF, especially the heavier versions, I do not know the information that until the end of the 41st year these tanks were taken into account.

    At that time, the 105mm armor was also on the HF. Therefore, to face hundreds of such tanks in 1941. and do not take them into account ...
    Quote: Cherry Nine
    AhtAht without options.

    This is just the most interesting thing that there were options, but why did you choose 88mm ?!
    Quote: Cherry Nine
    I write about the weight of the shot, not the caliber as such.

    And I write that the weight did not stop anyone, because the weight of one shell for a 152 or 155mm gun will be 40 + kg. The practical rate of fire in the WWII depended more on the convenience of the location of the ammunition, their ability to load into guns and the perfection of the MSA. Those. the unitary length must also be taken into account, especially if you have a 1600 mm turret (Panther) or a breech close to the tower (Sherman Svetlyak).
    Quote: Cherry Nine
    A 100 mm cannon is a marine gun placed on the ground. Initially, nothing of the kind was planned. In this caliber for the 41st year was M 60.

    So what, what was not planned?
    Quote: Cherry Nine
    It's good that the British are not up to date. They continue to think that the 46-year-old caliber pierces 307 mm per 1 km.

    Exactly a caliber? Or a sub-caliber feathered shell, a “crowbar” in the common people? Than by the way the British and shot from 17 pounds. But the rest fired just a caliber, which determined the limit of the use of these shells exactly 500 meters.
    Quote: Cherry Nine
    This just means that the Germans went to the PT-gun and leaned on ballistics, and the advice - on the universal, so that they pushed with the same charge more than 2 times more heavy shell.

    Probably because the "councils" tested these miracle cannons and understood something in the design of tanks. Particularly amazing results were shown by these German guns when firing at inclined armor, especially at long range.
    1. 0
      April 19 2017 21: 09
      Quote: DesToeR
      I kind of write in Russian

      drove through
      Quote: DesToeR
      At that time, the 105mm armor was also on the HF

      Oh where?
      Quote: DesToeR
      Therefore, to face hundreds of such tanks in 1941. and do not take them into account ...

      Either you, as usual, have not read the text you are commenting on, or you don’t know when the German experts got the opportunity to inspect the production of the LKZ.
      Quote: DesToeR
      what were the options, but why did you choose

      The most powerful army gun with unitary loading existing in the 41st year. Exactly for the same reason as the 52-K on the T-34/85.
      A more correct question is why the Panther was not immediately made under this gun.
      Quote: DesToeR
      weight did not stop anyone

      Weight did not stop people who made self-propelled guns, not tanks.
      Quote: DesToeR
      Practical rate of fire in WWII depended more

      First from the characteristics of the gun, then from a lot of other things. And this then it could be such that it’s impossible to shoot at all.
      Quote: DesToeR
      breech close to the tower

      Who told you about "butt"? And the Panther shoulder strap was 1650, i.e. more than T-34/85. Already on what, and sin in Panther to complain of tightness.
      Quote: DesToeR
      depended on the convenience of the location of the ammunition

      All normal people put the ammunition on the floor, and who did otherwise - then redid it. Loading by loading, but tankers also want to live.
      Quote: DesToeR
      Exactly a caliber? Or a sub-caliber feathered shell, a “crowbar” in the common people?

      I communicate a little with the common people, perhaps. APDS, subcaliber with detachable pallet. No, not feathered. APFSDS (BOPS) are used mainly with smoothbore guns. If you only call coils as subcaliber, like 53-UBR-365P, then the secret of their production in England by 1946 was long lost.
      Quote: DesToeR
      tested these miracle cannons

      Who would have thought.
      Quote: DesToeR
      Particularly amazing results were shown by these German guns when firing at inclined armor.

      No wonder. And the inclined armor should forehead IS-2, and preferably IS-3.
      Penetration D-10T projectile 53-UBR-412 was 135 mm normal from a distance of 1000 m. About the English shell wrote above. The same armor penetration of the D-10T gun was provided by a 3UBM11 shot. Just by the way, BOPS. 1977, my friend, the year of adoption.
  31. 0
    April 20 2017 11: 33
    That's for sure: war is the engine of progress ...
  32. 0
    April 20 2017 12: 17
    Quote: Cherry Nine
    Oh where?

    In many places, 75mm + 30mm screen = 105mm.
    .
    Quote: Cherry Nine
    Either you, as usual, have not read the text you are commenting on, or you don’t know when the German experts got the opportunity to inspect the production of the LKZ.

    I read the text carefully. In June-July 1941 they looked at hundreds of LKZ samples. And some especially gifted even wrote down their diaries.
    Quote: Cherry Nine
    Who told you about "butt"?

    Metrology. And what is wrong?
    Quote: Cherry Nine
    And the Panther shoulder strap was 1650, i.e. more than T-34/85. Already on what, and sin in Panther to complain of tightness.

    It was the inconvenience of the loader that was the hallmark of this heavy German tank. Compared to the Tiger. With a 1620mm turret turret of the T-34-85 tank, the loader had more free space for loading the gun. Moreover, the Panther shell was longer than that of the T-34-85.
    Quote: Cherry Nine
    If you only call coils as subcaliber, like 53-UBR-365P, then the secret of their production in England by 1946 was long lost.

    This is the business of the British that they lost - they all fired precisely with “coils”. And they, due to their relatively small elongation, low weight, and almost gauge diameter, quickly lost their ballistic properties with increasing distance. So 500m is the limit. I am not interested in prototypes in single samples. To create such a “thing” is not a problem for any country, the question is different - how to launch production and set up troops with this weaponry. And then all of these “306mm Linkor’s” quickly merge - then the barrel and shell are equivalent in weight to a piece of gold of the same mass, then 30% of the ballistics is shot in the first 50 shots. But the main point is to produce a shell of a smaller caliber using a sleeve with a powder charge of a larger caliber gun? 306mm normal with 1000m is certainly good, but what about 120mm at an angle of 60g. at the same distance? Doesn’t go into a rebound?
    Quote: Cherry Nine
    All normal people put the ammunition on the floor, and who did otherwise - then redid it. Loading by loading, but tankers also want to live.

    But why didn’t they remake it in the Tiger and Panther? Probably the survivability of the tank depends not only on the location of the stacking battle (a factor of reducing vulnerability when a tank is defeated), but also on the ability to shoot quickly in response (a factor reducing the likelihood of a tank being defeated in general)?
    Quote: Cherry Nine
    Who would have thought.

    GABTU, for example.
    Quote: Cherry Nine
    No wonder. And the inclined armor should forehead IS-2, and preferably IS-3.

    It was they who were shot. As a result, the whole "logic" of booking tanks was revised, especially in the tower. The IS-7, for example, already "held" not only a 128mm German anti-aircraft gun from its forehead, but also its own 130mm at the actual shooting distance, of course.
    Quote: Cherry Nine
    Penetration D-10T with a 53-UBR-412 projectile was 135 mm normal from a distance of 1000 m.

    But not at an angle of 30g? Normally, only the Germans seemed to check their guns for some reason? Well, according to your posts, the British still ... By the way, the 100mm shell of the Soviet gun "split" the frontal armor of the IS-3 at the seams, which the German 88mm cannon shell with a barrel of 71 cal could not do.
    1. 0
      April 20 2017 20: 55
      Quote: DesToeR
      In many places, 75mm + 30mm screen = 105mm.

      Since June 19, 1941 (GABTU document). Factory document - May 13.
      Quote: DesToeR
      In June-July 1941 they looked at hundreds of LKZ samples

      In June, July, and specifically in October. Hundreds of samples were not required. Based on the results of the inspections, they ordered Panther.
      Quote: DesToeR
      I read the text carefully

      Quote: Cherry Nine
      According to the technical specifications of the spring of 41, the tank was to penetrate 100 mm of armor.

      Quote: Cherry Nine
      According to the specifications of the spring of the 41st year

      Quote: Cherry Nine
      spring of the 41st year

      Quote: Cherry Nine
      of spring

      In May of the 41st. So it comes?
      Quote: DesToeR
      Метрология

      Is this the name of the author or the name of the book?
      Quote: DesToeR
      It is the inconvenience of charging

      Again. Where did you get information about problems with loading on the Panther? I, sort of, more or less in the subject, but I never saw a mention of such problems. Moreover, the maximum possible rate of fire was a Panther chip.
      Quote: DesToeR
      But why didn’t they remake it in the Tiger and Panther?

      That is why.
      In general, this is a difficult question. The tankers naturally wanted to gasp faster. Therefore, for example, they demanded that the old combat unit be returned to Sherman. On the other hand, the commanding fathers believed that reducing the risk of detonation was worth increasing the risk of missing the first strike.
      Quote: DesToeR
      I am not interested in prototypes in single samples.

      APDS - the main shell of the English PT artillery starting at 6 pounds and starting with the 43rd year.
      Quote: DesToeR
      306mm normal with 1000m is certainly good, but what about 120mm at an angle of 60g. at the same distance? Doesn’t go into a rebound?

      Jews with the help of Arab partners several times conducted full-scale experiments. It seems they did not complain.
      Quote: DesToeR
      The IS-7, for example, already "held" not only a 128mm German anti-aircraft gun from its forehead,

      which had armor penetration of 1000 meters 230 mm at an angle of 30 degrees (German methodology, homogeneous armor, PzGr.43 shell).
      Quote: DesToeR
      By the way, a shell of a 100mm Soviet gun "split" the frontal armor of the IS-3 at the seams, which could not make a shell of a German 88mm gun with a barrel of 71 cal.

      That is, neither one nor the other, the armor was not pierced.
      By the way, will it not make it difficult for you to indicate a specific projectile, as well as the distance when you talk about armor penetration?
  33. 0
    April 21 2017 11: 14
    I have not seen many photos. And I didn’t know about the shelling. I was in Kubinka did not see hits. Did they sound sticky? Or am I not attentive?
  34. 0
    April 21 2017 13: 06
    Quote: Cherry Nine
    Since June 19, 1941 (GABTU document). Factory document - May 13.

    I don’t see any logic: the Germans saw KV tanks in June 1941. Although they should have seen at the May parade, where the diplomatic representatives of the Third Reich were present. Tanks "Churchill" in June 41st only began to go off the assembly line, in the UK. But the Germans “laid” (for some reason?) 100mm armor penetration for the future heavy tank based on experience with an English tank. Do not forget about the KV2 tanks, which had a reservation in the forehead of up to 75 ... 110mm. The Germans met these tanks in the Baltic states, i.e. almost in the early days of the war. So it comes? And if we assume that the Germans, the Finnish allies in the Winter War, not only drank schnapps, but at least communicated with Finnish intelligence, then even earlier. The Finns conveyed to the Germans the results of the inspection of the wrecked Soviet SMK tank, and photographs of the other two (T-100 and KV) in addition.
    Quote: Cherry Nine
    Again. Where did you get information about problems with loading on the Panther? I, sort of, more or less in the subject, but I never saw a mention of such problems. Moreover, the maximum possible rate of fire was a Panther chip.

    Out of nowhere. The Panther’s loading and, accordingly, rate of fire was the same as that of other tanks, no better and no worse. But the free space for the loader in the German tank was slightly less than in the T-34-85. Plus a long unitary ammunition, plus a rather high line of location of the gun in relation to the turret. I don’t understand the arguments about the rate of fire, which was supposedly limited by heavy shells or separate loading. Because today, in modern tanks with their perfect SLAs and automatic loaders, the practical rate of fire rarely exceeds 4 rounds per minute.
    Quote: Cherry Nine
    In general, this is a difficult question.

    This is a matter of military statistics and mathematical data processing methods.
    Quote: Cherry Nine
    APDS - the main shell of the English PT artillery starting at 6 pounds and starting with the 43rd year.

    The British are of little interest to me. I already wrote that you can do anything - this is not a problem for the designer. If you want an automatic transmission based on 40s technology - please, want a gun stabilizer - please, want an effective distribution of the tank’s mass on a track, and even in a minimum L / B ratio - keep a chess suspension. The designer will always give a decision, but whether it suits the army is a question. The Germans fired "coils" - their effective range is about 400 ... 500m, which was confirmed by tests.
    Quote: Cherry Nine
    That is, neither one nor the other, the armor was not pierced.

    So the fact of the matter is that both did not strike! But a heavier shell, if it didn’t penetrate, then broke or split armor.
    1. +1
      April 22 2017 00: 37
      Quote: DesToeR
      should have seen at the May parade

      Hmm, that's a tough question. There are a couple of Soviet books of the 70-80s, where it says that yes, there was a case. But I didn’t find any photos, newsreels, or memoirs with a take-off. Only BT, T-28 and T-35, as usual. Not only that, the little ones write that they were not supposed to be there - the 7th MK went to the parade, to which this equipment did not enter.
      http://dr-guillotin.livejournal.com/89072.html#co
      moments
      Quote: DesToeR
      The Germans “laid down” 100mm armor penetration for the future heavy tank (for some reason?) Based on experience with an English tank

      Hm. I, let’s say, sloppily formulated, and you understood it literally.
      1. In the spring of the 40th, the Germans encountered mochi with armor of 70-78 mm side-lob. In June, all these tanks remained with the Germans.
      2. Not even a year had passed before the Germans swung onto a new tank, which made it possible to deal with existing and promising British infantry tanks. Motya at that time did not try any tank guns, including on board. New tank db punch 100 mm for 1.5 km.
      3. Since the British were swaying much faster, and already in May of the 40th they issued specifications for Churchill, the "promising" infantry tank with a forehead of 100 appeared to the British almost immediately, as the task for VK 3006 appeared.
      Quote: DesToeR
      The Germans met these tanks in the Baltic states, i.e. almost in the early days of the war. So it comes?

      You see, someone deceived you when you said that the Porsche Panzer Commission was riding on the armor of Gepner’s tanks. In real life, she appeared much later. Moreover, in the summer there was no need for it, because the Bolsheviks had to capitulate from day to day. When the rains began, the depresnyak fell in and it seemed that with a blitzkrieg Something went wrong - then they began to collect commissions.
      Quote: DesToeR
      And if we assume that the Germans, the allies of the Finns in the Winter War

      Since it is impossible to forget who was an ally to whom in the 39th year, I conclude that you were not interested in this at all.
      Quote: DesToeR
      photographs of the other two (T-100 and HF) in addition.

      But, this, my friend, EMNIP, is specifically from Rezun. For such "sources" in decent places they can piss.
      Quote: DesToeR
      inspection results of a wrecked Soviet QMS tank

      A tank with 75/60 ​​front / side armor was nothing special in this sense. Mochi figures above.
      Quote: DesToeR
      Out of nowhere

      In alternative history forums, it is customary to share real history (RI) and your fantasies (AI) to indicate this in the text.
      Quote: DesToeR
      issue of military statistics

      Statistics, how many tanks did not have time to shoot? Oh well.
      Quote: DesToeR
      you can do anything

      Uh, a bold statement in the context of the pre-war USSR.
      Quote: DesToeR
      a heavier shell, if it didn’t penetrate, then broke or split armor.

      This suggests that with the welding of armor in the USSR was so-so. Nothing more. In Germany, the 44th year with armor, too, by the way, everything is bad.
  35. 0
    April 21 2017 14: 18
    Thanks to the author.
  36. 0
    April 22 2017 07: 21
    Quote: Cherry Nine
    You see, someone deceived you when you said that the Porsche Panzer Commission was riding on the armor of Gepner’s tanks. In real life, she appeared much later.

    And it’s not the designer’s business to go “on the armor”. He (Porsche) was not supposed to be there. Constructor from the MILITARY, i.e. from the CUSTOMER, receives the required characteristics of the future tank.
    Quote: Cherry Nine
    But, this, my friend, EMNIP, is specifically from Rezun. For such "sources" in decent places they can piss.

    I agree. Then I’m not responsible for the bazaar ...
    Quote: Cherry Nine
    In alternative history forums, it is customary to share real history (RI) and your fantasies (AI) to indicate this in the text.

    This is not fantasy, but common sense and ... the opinion of an American professional, and not of "couch" tankmen blindly believing passport characteristics. There is a training ground, but there is a battle. So in battle, all the heavy / medium tanks drove 10 ... 20km / h and fired 3-4 high / min. Everything else is from the evil one. Yes, it was possible to "drive" and 45km / h - you burn the engine and the gearbox or tear the track. Yes, it was possible to fire 6-8 shells, but only for one purpose, without transferring fire - but is it necessary? Given that the direct range of the Tiger was 800 ... 1000m - even the sight could not be adjusted. Lupanut 8 shells in the caliber 75 ... 88mm in one tank, when 1-2 pcs. "for eyes"?
    Quote: Cherry Nine
    Statistics, how many tanks did not have time to shoot? Oh well.

    And this can also be taken into account. No problem. I do not understand sarcasm in this regard. My personal opinion is that the Germans with the analysis in this area were all very bad. For the "justify" 88mm gun, albeit with unique ballistics, on a 1944 tank. weighing 70 tons, it is possible only by the lack of analysis about the role and place of TT in the armed forces.
    1. +2
      April 22 2017 12: 37
      Quote: DesToeR
      Constructor from the MILITARY, i.e. from the CUSTOMER, receives the required characteristics of the future tank.

      Quote: DesToeR
      I read the text carefully

      Quote: Cherry Nine
      in the summer there was no need for it, because the Bolsheviks had to capitulate from day to day. When the rains started, the depressiac fell in, and it seemed that something went wrong with the blitzkrieg - then they began to collect commissions.

      Quote: Cherry Nine
      specifically in October

      Quote: DesToeR
      There is a training ground, but there is a battle

      There are "how to design" and "how it happened"
      Quote: DesToeR
      fired 3-4 high. / min

      Either your professional does not consider the IS-2 and KV-2 tanks, or what for such a professional.
      In any case, such reasoning only applies in a world where all goals are struck the first time.
      Quote: DesToeR
      can be taken into account. No problem. I do not understand sarcasm

      The history teacher apparently didn’t explain you.
      When you talk about RI, you cannot use the words "can", "need", "must" and so on. Only that which was real. Try to find a real document in which the analysis proposed by you is carried out.
      Quote: DesToeR
      on the tank in 1944 weighing 70 tons, it is possible only by the lack of analysis about the role and place of TT in the armed forces.

      You see, everything was crap with tanks more or less.
      1. The Germans went to the PT tanks and put them on logistics, canceling the requirement for a mass of 30 tons, which was introduced following the results of the French company. Screwed up with the Panther, and then insanity went on.
      2. The Soviets before the war adopted a very progressive, paper-based tank made entirely of shit, having no idea what to do. As a result, the entire technology had to be built in not very pleasant conditions of evacuation.
      3. The British, having normal guns (25 pounds, 32 pounds), were not going to make a tank for them throughout the war. But at least they learned a lesson, and Centurion initially designed with the largest shoulder strap that is generally possible (Centurion and IS-7 have the same shoulder strap). Australians, for example, in Sentiel replaced the 6-pound with almost the first 25-pound that they were given.
      4. By the 44th year, Americans fired Sherman with the right gun (Jackson) and the right armor (Jumbo), but categorically refused to do this on the same machine for religious reasons (for holy scripture tanks and tanks don’t fight the charter, and if you give the tankers a normal car, you’ll forbid horseradish then. It is necessary either a tank destroyer without armor, or an infantry tank without a serious gun, because nefig).
      1. 0
        11 December 2017 10: 03
        Wow, refuse from religious considerations))).
  37. 0
    11 August 2017 10: 56
    Another one for himself, "The Mouse" wassat It is fortunate that our tank builders did not enter the very dead end of the super-large tank monsters during the war. soldier
  38. +1
    6 December 2017 17: 03
    It would be better if we thoroughly engaged in the development and serialization of the E-50 project only with the 10,5 cm KWK-46 L / 68, and in the future with the more powerful 10,5 cm KWK L / 70, which was developed in parallel with the anti-aircraft gun of the same caliber.
  39. 0
    11 December 2017 10: 01
    Thank you for the article . Although there is a question, why was it necessary to shoot part of the general staff and part to evacuate.