The death of the company EC-1, revenge on the EC-2 and the possibility of its high-explosive fragmentation projectile

183


IS-2 - Victory Tank. With these formidable vehicles, along with the modernized T-34s, our tank crews completed the Great Patriotic War. Armament tank IS-2 allowed him to hit German tanks at a distance of two - two and a half kilometers.



The first version of the heavy tank, the EC-1, was developed in the second half of the 1942. The heavy tank EC-1 with the 85-mm cannon D-5T (aka the EC-85 or “237 Object”) was created in the summer of 1943. But it soon became clear that this gun was too weak for a heavy tank. In October, the 1943 of the year was carried out to develop a variant of the IS tank with a more powerful D-25 tank gun of the 122-mm caliber. The tank was sent to the test site near Moscow, where from its gun from a distance of 1500 meters the German Panther tank was fired. The first projectile broke through the frontal armor of the Panther and, without losing its energy, pierced all the guts, struck the stern of the hull, tore it off and dropped it a few meters away. Under the brand EC-2 in October 1943, the tank was accepted into serial production, which was deployed at the beginning of 1944.

And what is the fight on the EC-1 and EC-2? How big was the loss of the crews of these powerful cars?

Captain Gmiryansky's company, destroyed in a few seconds

Boris Zakharov has fought on ISA since the beginning of 1944. In the 13-th separate guards heavy tank regiment for the post of commander of a tank platoon he was enlisted on 13 of January 1944 of the year by order number 13. Under his command was a company commander’s tank and two linear tanks. In the second platoon of the company there were two tanks. In total, the regiment consisted of 21 tank IS-1. Unfortunately, the regiment was not destined to experience the joy of full-fledged combat victories on these machines. But it is unlikely that the reasons for this should be sought in the design flaws of the EC-1. The case was quite different:

“At the beginning of 1944, our regiment was sent to the 2-th Ukrainian Front. At first, we stood on the defensive near the village of Dzhurzhentsy, and at dawn 15 February, we were taken to the position near the village of Lysyanka. During the redeployment, my tank hit a mine. The explosion knocked out the first roller, jammed gearbox. However, since the sloth remained intact, we managed to pull the caterpillar and bring the car to the designated area. Another tank of my platoon showed a leak in the gearbox (the side gearboxes on the EC-1 were very weak and quickly failed). Thus, only one effective tank remained in the platoon, and three in the company. The regiment, and with it our company, was stationed on a wooded hill in front of Lysyanka. The outskirts of the village, which was about half a kilometer away, and the embankment of the narrow-gauge railway, along which sugar was taken from the sugar plant to Potash station, were clearly visible from it. She walked parallel to the settlement, and she needed to cross to get to the town. The next morning, the regimental commander, having received the task of attacking the village of Lysyanka, decided to use the first company, in which all five tanks were operational. Captain Gmiryansky commanded her ... The first attack I had to see left a heavy impression. Heavy, because later, having a certain combat experience, I estimated the actions of the regimental command as ill-conceived. Without any intelligence, without fire support, the company was thrown at the enemy. Turning into a line, five tanks went ahead, and when they began to climb this embankment, the German anti-aircraft guns, installed on the outskirts of Lysyanka, literally destroyed them within a few seconds. Some tanks continued to roll until they got stuck in the snow, some caught fire. The whole company died. "

How much blood cost not only tank crews, but also the entire Red Army, a considerable manner, alas, the number of bosses to throw troops into the attack without reconnaissance and artillery preparation.

The most annoying thing is that the terrain completely allowed the company of captain Gmiryansky to attack differently:

“In the 1974 year, when the 30 anniversary of the liberation of the region was celebrated, we went with regimental veterans to places of military glory. We stopped in Lysyanka, visited the site of this battle. When they passed a little to the right from the location of our regiment, they saw a small ravine. If reconnaissance had been carried out, it would probably be possible to bypass this Lysyanka in the lower reaches and go to the Germans in the rear. In addition, our tanks, which remained in reserve, could support the attack with fire, but no tank mission task was set. The question is why? The expectation was that these new tanks were invulnerable, that they could pass through any fire. ”

There was no luck further: “Having reached the middle of the bridge, the tank collapsed on its left side, turned over and fell into the river, having gone under water so that only the right caterpillar stuck on the surface. I sat in front of the driver’s hatch, carrying the road carrying light (we did not turn on the lights, fearing a German attack aviation) I was thrown into the water, but I easily got out first to the tank, and from it to the remains of the bridge, and the crew remained in the tank ... The regiment, crossing in another place, went ahead, and I remained to wait for the evacuation to pull out the tank, bury the crew . I caught up with the regiment already in Moldova somewhere in early May. There were practically no materiel in the regiment: they lost a lot for technical reasons, as well as as a result of hostilities. ”

It was a slaughter. The Germans did not have time to make a single shot!

The surviving tankers were loaded into the echelon and sent to Tesnitsky camps under Tula to receive new EC-2 tanks with an 122-mm gun. On these tanks, the fighting looked different. The regiment was more than able to pay for the company of Gmiryansky: “As part of the advanced detachment of the 6 mechanized corps, we went to the Charn Nida river. Approached the bridge that was located near the mill. The bridge was weak, and our scouts went upstream in search of a ford, and we dispersed, hiding the tanks behind a stone fence. It was the end of the day, when on a high-rise in our rear we noticed the appearance of either an armored personnel carrier or a tank. We did not shoot at him - far away. Apparently, not finding us, the reconnaissance vehicle, and it was she who gave the command to the convoy of German tanks and armored personnel carriers to move forward. When the first car hit the bridge, we opened fire from an ambush. It was a slaughter. The Germans did not have time to make a single shot! A few minutes later, two dozen fires were burning on the road. ”
During the fighting, it turned out that even the high-explosive fragmentation projectile of the EC-2 cannon is deadly for German armored vehicles:
“The regiment moved along a local asphalt road (there was little left after passing the tank column from the asphalt). The Germans on the road made piles of fir trees growing next to the road, and anti-tank mines were placed in the crown of a fallen tree. My tank went first. I, in order to protect myself, shot the crowns of the trees with fragmentation shells, and I let the tank on the butt, bare part of the trunk. So we moved along this road, when in front about three hundred meters I saw that the road was coming out of the forest to a T-shaped intersection. The gun commander, Misha Kozak, an excellent shooter, noticed some stir in the bushes that grew right near the intersection.

As it turned out, there was a self-propelled artillery installation "Artsturm", which, apparently, had to turn around slightly, in order to take us into the sight. Our high-explosive fragmentation projectile was loaded in our gun, and we had no choice but to shoot them. Self-propelled gun caught fire from the very first shot! Leaving the intersection, I turned left. The driver of the tank that was following me lost control, the tank fell into a ravine that was on the right side of the road, and was stuck. I got out of the car, leaving the commander of the driver, and he went to see and organize the pulling. Approaching the tank, I gave the command to the crew of the third vehicle to make a bundle of cables, hook the tank and pull it back up. At this time, the loader came running with a shout: “Tanks !!!” I ordered the crews of the two cars to evacuate, and he ran to the car, sat down and gave the order to move forward to turn the road. Coming to its middle, I saw that the enemy pillar was moving about eight hundred meters away from me. Only the front tank was visible, the rest were covered with dust. The commander of the gun was burnt by the first fragmentation shell ”.

Of course, the IS-2 fragmentation projectile was not always able to hit a German tank: “Suddenly, a German tank was pulled out of the village, covered with human figures, so that the tower was not visible at all. He was like a hedgehog! I say to the gun commander: “Do you see the target?” - “No, I do not see” - “Come on, turn the turret to the left”. And the tank is already leaving. Still, the gunner noticed this tank and broke the fragmentation shell. He did not destroy the tank, but he was already completely naked, he was completely swept away by the whole human mass. ”

But the powerful IC-2, of course, were not an invulnerable miracle - weapons. Until the very end of the war the regiment, where Zakharov served, suffered heavy losses: “Under Berlin, our regiment took part in mastering small settlements, in particular the town of Lyukenvalde. My company, in which there were only a half dozen tankers, by that time was left without tanks. At the end of April, we were ordered, armed with small arms and captured faust bullets, to cover the intersection of roads near the village of Ennikendorf. ”

An ideal super-weapon that allows you to destroy an enemy without loss, never in stories did not exist. And the formidable "Joseph Stalin" in the version of EC-1, and in the version of EC-2 was not an exception to this rule ...
183 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +9
    30 September 2017 07: 47
    in 43 they did such nonsense, and yet the commanders were already experienced eternal maybe all the same, the Hans competently fought
    1. +13
      30 September 2017 08: 09
      Quote: SUYUNBEK KAZYBAYEV
      in 43 such nonsense did, but the commanders were already experienced

      There would be such commanders, but in ordinary battalions, for retraining.
      1. +8
        30 September 2017 23: 19
        One of the first to engage in battle was the 13th Guards Heavy Breakthrough Tank Regiment. February 15, 1944, having in its composition 21 tanks IS-85, he arrived in the area of ​​Fastov - Bila Tserkva. After the march, the regiment received the task of supporting the attack of the 109th tank brigade on
        village Lisyanka, for which a regiment commander was allocated a company — five IS tanks. By the time she entered the battle, the last T-34 of the 109 tank brigade, attacking Lisyanka in the forehead, had been hit by the "panthers" and German anti-tank and assault guns. Having launched the ISs at a distance of 600 – 800 m, German tanks and self-propelled guns opened heavy fire and within 10 minutes they knocked out all our heavy vehicles, while two of them burned down. Each tank received from 3 to 7 hits. The next day, vil. The fox was surrounded and taken. It captured the Panthers, two Pz.IV and two assault guns abandoned without fuel by 16.
        Something like this!
        On March 5, 1944, 15 IS-85s of the 13th Guards Heavy Tank Regiment of the Breakthrough supported the attack of the 50th Tank Brigade on Uman. During the battle, five tanks were hit by the fire of 88-mm anti-aircraft guns, three vehicles were out of order for technical reasons, and one fell from the bridge near the village of Polkovnichye and turned over.
        There is one thing in the memoirs! The reports are “slightly” different!
        1. +1
          2 October 2017 19: 01
          It captured 16 “panthers” abandoned without fuel, two Pz.IV and two assault guns.

          I recognize this episode. Svirin described hi
          1. +1
            3 October 2017 10: 12
            Both Svirin and Baryatinsky.
    2. +3
      30 September 2017 09: 40
      Quote: SUYUNBEK KAZYBAYEV
      in 43 they did such nonsense, and yet the commanders were already experienced eternal maybe all the same, the Hans competently fought

      The fact that nonsense was done is certainly unfortunate, but one should not assume that the Fritz were ideal warriors and there were no fools in their army, although of course many of our mistakes could probably have been avoided.
      1. jjj
        +14
        30 September 2017 12: 10
        In the armed forces of all countries at all times there is enough mess. Especially in war. The strength of Russia is that we know how to live in this mess and, as Mikhail Zadornov rightly noted, we respond to every trick with unpredictable stupidity. The ability to adapt to a mess is our trump card
        1. +3
          30 September 2017 13: 10
          Quote: jjj
          The strength of Russia is that we can live in this mess

          This phrase is a masterpiece, it really is! good
    3. +4
      30 September 2017 12: 32
      Quote: SUYUNBEK KAZYBAYEV
      in 43 they did such nonsense, and yet the commanders were already experienced eternal maybe all the same, the Hans competently fought

      And at 44 and even at 45 this was, and ALL warring parties. The "golden rule" worked, the tanks worked perfectly on the defensive and suffered heavy losses in the offensive.
      1. 0
        17 January 2018 15: 18
        this is not entirely true. the German offensive in the Ardennes showed that the Allied tanks were far from being "excellent" in defense. Another example is the numerous episodes in France, when the Allied tanks suffered heavy losses in defense or oncoming battles.
        1. 0
          28 December 2018 19: 33
          And in the summer of 41, we also qualified "excellent"!
    4. The comment was deleted.
  2. +1
    30 September 2017 08: 24
    That's why the offensive ... in defense, the losses are completely different ...
  3. +1
    30 September 2017 08: 58
    An ideal superweapon that always allows destroying an enemy without loss has never existed in history. And the formidable Joseph Stalin, both in the IS-1 variant and in the Is-2 variant, was no exception to this rule ...

    Strange conclusion. And who considered ISs a "superweapon"? And who is the exception, "Mouse" or something?
    1. +8
      30 September 2017 09: 10
      Quote: kvs207
      Strange conclusion. And who considered ISs a "superweapon"?

      Everything is described above on top. As a reassessment of the capabilities of the IS-1 tank, the fathers-commanders led to the death of the tank company.
      This now happens regularly.
    2. 0
      30 September 2017 16: 24
      I don’t know whether to consider them a wunderwaf, or NOT to count, but it was Yagdpanther who turned out to be the most successful ... TANK of the 3rd Reich ...
      Yes Yes.
      It is FREAKY
      the car managed to fully fulfill the duties ... of a tank in battle, formally being a pure tank destroyer in fact!
      Although the Deutsch did not count on it at all, and of course, it turned out quite by accident simply as a result of the experience of combat use ...
    3. 0
      30 September 2017 17: 44
      The Mouse is not an exception, the Ratte, which was not built, became an exception, but it would be funny with this monster; only aviation could compete
  4. +2
    30 September 2017 09: 36
    but for the entire Red Army, the manner, alas, of a considerable number of authorities, was to throw troops into the attack without reconnaissance and artillery preparation.
    The most annoying thing is that the terrain completely allowed the company of captain Gmiryansky to attack differently:

    PSYCHOLOGY, THINKING OF A PEASANT - WHERE EVEN MORE. THERE ARE BETTER SEARCH AS SUBSCRIBERS FULFILL THE ORDER.
    And in the ravine it is worse to cut hay
    1. +2
      30 September 2017 14: 21
      "And in the ravine it is worse to cut hay [/ quote]
      First, mow the grass. Secondly, where it is better, if necessary, it is also in the ravine, but usually there is almost no grass suitable for hay in the ravine, the soil is washed away by rains because of this the ravine itself was formed ... The army at that time was entirely working peasant, not the reason, the reason for the slavishness of some representatives of humanity, specifically the commander who gave such an order ...
      1. 0
        30 September 2017 14: 24
        mow grass, and harvest, in the end, hay
        and dishonesty - from psychology-dishonesty to some representatives of humanity, specifically the commander who gave such an order ..-- peasants. and most likely that commander is not the worst representative .com composition was
      2. +6
        30 September 2017 14: 41
        Maybe it’s not the commander’s dishonesty, the superior called him and immediately hinted that he had been calving with the village for a long time, so let’s go by the evening, but about the peasants, gentlemen, where would you go without peasant industriousness and ingenuity.
        1. 0
          30 September 2017 15: 36
          He called the mobile phone ?!))),
          They’re practically moving to ... behind enemy’s rear lines, what’s the same thing they’ll get in touch with the headquarters for new introductory communications, they themselves are in the position of reconnaissance in battle, and if there were any deadlines for taking a particular locality, they must have been agreed upon in advance task setting ...
          1. +2
            30 September 2017 18: 47
            yeah, on a mobile phone, there are such commanders who are only on the strategic map, and in a situation, they immediately begin to communicate with the headquarters, clarify and clarify, no matter what happens, and then it's not me they are. It was already at the end of the war that our tank units detached from the rear and went far away, but most likely the situation was different, the headquarters were nearby, the messenger came running, or rode at your convenience and handed the mother to rend, etc. here we go. My great-grandfather went through the whole war as a tankman, the first battles were described like this - before the battle the commanders told us about patriotism and only forward, the attack, we jump out and forward, we look at the commander’s car, the commander from the tank and into the forest, the others behind him, the tower of a neighboring tank unfolds and turn from dt through the forest, immediately stopped running.
            1. +5
              30 September 2017 20: 35
              Quote: Cadet
              . My great-grandfather went through the entire war as a tankman, the first battles were described like this - before the battle, the commanders told us about patriotism and only forward, attack, we jump out and forward, we look at the command vehicle stops, the commander from the tank and into the forest, the rest behind him,

              Wow. And how old were you when your great-grandfather described this to you? My grandfather told a completely different story. And the commanders in their forest did not run to the dalnyak.
              1. +1
                1 October 2017 18: 35
                I was 12 years old, and my great-grandfather was born in 1910, lived to be 97 years old; among the commanders there were exceptions who ran, but in general about the commanders only on the positive side).
      3. 0
        3 October 2017 12: 19
        But here I do not agree. The order was: Occupy the village! Fulfillment of the order and how to execute it
    2. +1
      30 September 2017 14: 43
      Be so kind as to dispense with all the despised peasants in the next world war, only by the forces of the townspeople, let's see how you sing.
      1. +1
        30 September 2017 17: 22
        I am for the peasants.
        who was at the IVS with those and won.
        just trying to explain what and why - and not otherwise.
      2. +2
        5 October 2017 19: 24
        I’m afraid that the peasants will not be left soon, the villages were ordered to live long as their inhabitants ...
  5. +13
    30 September 2017 10: 38
    in February 1944, the villages of Lisyanka and Rizino changed hands at least three times and the decision of the regiment immediately to counterattack the just lost outskirts of the village was at least justified. By the way, this is a ravine about which the brave platoon narrates very well that she tried to get out of it to the embankment, the Leopold battle group of the 3rd Panzer Division, while trying to release the Korsun-Shevchenkovsky boiler. The ravine turned out to be heavily mined by both German and Soviet mines. The German tank and motorized infantry battalions, from the battle group, had to repeat the sad path of Captain Gmyryansky’s company (without reconnaissance, in a snap, on prepared defense). By the way, they broke through, but with very heavy losses, including there was also the group commander, Lt. Col. Theodor Von Leopold (his gnanomag came into the view of the gunner of a Soviet tank)
    1. 0
      30 September 2017 11: 32
      Nivasander, your comment once again repeats the folk wisdom: "without knowing the ford, do not poke into the river"
      1. 0
        21 November 2018 12: 17
        Attacking a village in the forehead under such conditions is suicide anyway. German 88-mm anti-aircraft guns pierced the frontal armor and the turret of all our tanks at the range of their direct shot. In addition, they managed to dig in and shoot in advance there. if it wasn’t possible to organize reconnaissance and fire training, then it was necessary to at least go around the village from the flanks, rear, arrange a smoke screen so that the tanks suddenly appeared right in front of the position of anti-aircraft gunners. And this is a duel situation. Who is the first. Here, fragmentation and machine guns and caterpillars and infantry on the armor would be very useful. And, as described, this is stupidity, stupidity and unjustified heavy losses.
    2. +1
      1 October 2017 12: 54
      An excellent answer to all those who resent an attack on the forehead without knowing all the details of the situation.
  6. +5
    30 September 2017 11: 27
    Quote: Vard
    That's why the offensive ... in defense, the losses are completely different ...

    If the commander is "especially gifted" he can "distinguish himself" in defense. And the Germans really knew how to use all our mistakes.
    How much I talked with veterans, read literature and declare: attempts to force the Germans as an enemy are utter stupidity and the compulsion of our heroism!
    1. +2
      3 October 2017 12: 20
      test word: bring
    2. SAF
      0
      14 March 2018 20: 17
      If the commander is "especially gifted" he can "distinguish himself" in defense. And the Germans really knew how to use all our mistakes.
      How much I talked with veterans, read literature and declare:еreaping the Germans as an enemy is utter stupidity and priеa living of our feat!

      You are illiterate "Monarchist."
      And the epaulettes are fake
  7. ogi
    0
    30 September 2017 12: 27
    Quote: Maxim Kustov
    IS-2 - Victory Tank.

    The IS-2 is the same “tank” as the DP “machine gun”. Those. in fact, the IS-2 is not a tank.
    Quote: Maxim Kustov
    The first version of the heavy tank IS-1

    And the IS-1 was not a tank either. Although he had much more "tank" than the IS-2.
    Quote: Maxim Kustov
    German anti-aircraft guns mounted on the outskirts of Lysyanka literally destroyed them within a few seconds.

    I note that guns with such obsolete ballistics were on Pz.VI-I. The Pz.V and Pz.VI-II were equipped with much steeper guns.
    In general, attacking the enemy with IS tanks in the first line was crazy. Even without anti-aircraft guns, the German infantry would have burned them a little later. Design Features.
    Quote: Maxim Kustov
    During the fighting, it turned out that even the high-explosive fragmentation shell of the IS-2 gun is deadly for German armored vehicles

    Is this some kind of dignity or something? OFS must solve its problems.
    1. AUL
      +11
      30 September 2017 13: 07
      Troll woke up!
    2. +2
      30 September 2017 13: 09
      Do you understand what was considered a tank in the Soviet Union? What is the difference between a tank and self-propelled guns and what is the difference between a tank and tank destroyers.
      1. +6
        30 September 2017 15: 22
        Does the Ogi Campaign mean a tank with a caliber of up to 100 mm and quick reloading of a gun with a unitary shot?
        1. ogi
          0
          30 September 2017 17: 16
          Quote: Fayter2017
          Does the Ogi Campaign mean a tank with a caliber of up to 100 mm and quick reloading of a gun with a unitary shot?

          Campaign tank gun can not be separate loading. A tank cannot be armed with a tank gun.
          And even the presence of a tank gun and a tower, this also does not mean “tank”.
          1. +6
            30 September 2017 18: 43
            Quote: ogi
            Campaign tank gun can not be separate loading.

            Why?
            So that the loader does not relax? 8)))
            1. +5
              30 September 2017 19: 02
              Quote: Spade
              Why?
              So that the loader does not relax? 8)))

              Yes, a person has an Eclipse of the mind. Do not pay attention.
              He understands the issue SURFACE. Haya Soviet IS-2, for the sake of interest, he would have looked at the creation of the "gloomy German genius." The 12,8 cm PaK 44 anti-tank gun, which the Mouse was about to equip.
              1. ogi
                0
                30 September 2017 19: 05
                Quote: svp67
                for the sake of interest he would have looked at the creation of the "gloomy German genius." The 12,8 cm PaK 44 anti-tank gun, which the Mouse was about to equip.

                Why translate arrows? Like, "were also worse than us"? So this is not a sign that "we are smart."
                1. +8
                  30 September 2017 19: 14
                  Quote: ogi
                  Why translate arrows? Like, "were also worse than us"? So this is not a sign that "we are smart."

                  U ... You look completely gone. Take a sedative. It’s not worth joking with a heart attack.
                  And when you calm down, then try to understand who is smart and who is better known at the end of battle and war.
                  What they had, then applied. And we are not alone. If you want to understand this issue more deeply, then check out the post-war stage of development of heavy tanks in the USA. There they did not shun the separate loading, because they had something and used it. They even had 105-mm guns of separate loading, unlike our "100". A person simply does not understand how to mess with heavy and long "pigs" inside an armored box. The pleasure is even more ... The higher the caliber, the easier it is to handle a separate artillery shot. All tank-building countries went through stages of installation of separate loading cannons in tanks, since there was simply no other way.
                  1. ogi
                    0
                    30 September 2017 19: 58
                    Quote: svp67
                    A person simply does not understand how to mess with heavy and long "pigs" inside an armored box.

                    Before the introduction of automatic loaders, tank guns could not be more than 90 mm in caliber. And they weren’t.
                    1. +9
                      30 September 2017 20: 41
                      Quote: ogi
                      Before the introduction of automatic loaders, tank guns could not be more than 90 mm in caliber. And they weren’t.

                      8)))
                      That is, the Abrams is not a tank?
                      1. ogi
                        0
                        30 September 2017 21: 02
                        Quote: Spade
                        That is, the Abrams is not a tank?

                        So how many times can you be advised to develop a written understanding?
                      2. +3
                        1 October 2017 09: 28
                        Quote: Spade
                        That is, the Abrams is not a tank?

                        Well, if you use the logic of our opponent, then NO. He is an anti-tank self-propelled gun.
                      3. 0
                        1 October 2017 13: 47
                        Quote: svp67
                        Quote: Spade
                        That is, the Abrams is not a tank?
                        Well, if you use the logic of our opponent, then NO. He is an anti-tank self-propelled gun.

                        No.
                        The restriction on the caliber of tank guns was caused, of course, not by the caliber itself, but by the maximum permissible size and weight of the shot.
                        MBTs have unitary loading lighter than then shots. The weight of the M830 (multi-purpose) shot is 24 kg, and the M829 uranium scrap is even less. Length - 98 cm. Weight of the calibrated BB PzGr.39 / 43 of Tiger B - 23,4 kg, shot length - 117 cm. You can’t do this and that anymore. Caliber BB shot to the D-10T of the T-54 (53-UBR-412) weighed 30,1 kg (91 cm), and this is too much. On her counterpart - L7 - caliber BBs were not used, and OBPS shots weighed in the region of 20 kg (L64A4, for example, 18,9 kg). Gold hash bombs - a bit more.
                    2. +3
                      30 September 2017 21: 16
                      Quote: ogi
                      So how many times can you be advised to develop a written understanding?

                      That is, I can’t wait for a concrete answer to a specific question.
                      As always...
                    3. +4
                      1 October 2017 09: 20
                      Quote: ogi
                      Before the introduction of automatic loaders, tank guns could not be more than 90 mm in caliber. And they weren’t.

                      Lord, certainly if you decided to punish someone, then you are losing your mind ... I could list you a few dozen types of tanks, multiplied in millions of copies, which had guns with a caliber MORE THAN 90 mm but did not have automatic loaders. You are stupid.
                2. +2
                  30 September 2017 19: 25
                  Quote: ogi
                  Like, "were also worse than us"?

                  Like "... someone also had the brains to understand that manually loading a tank unit weighing 44 kg is a nontrivial task"
                  8)))
                  1. +3
                    30 September 2017 19: 35
                    Quote: Spade
                    Like "... someone also had the brains to understand that manually loading a tank unit weighing 44 kg is a nontrivial task"

                    No, this commentator believes that this is a “one left” job ... Yeah, dreamers. To drive him into a tank, but to force him to work as a “zakidny”, immediately would “enlightenment” of thought occur.
              2. +2
                30 September 2017 19: 18
                Quote: svp67
                Quote: Spade
                Why?
                So that the loader does not relax? 8)))

                Yes, a person has an Eclipse of the mind. Do not pay attention.
                He understands the issue SURFACE. Haya Soviet IS-2, for the sake of interest, he would have looked at the creation of the "gloomy German genius." The 12,8 cm PaK 44 anti-tank gun, which the Mouse was about to equip.




                A person is VERY well versed in the topic and not only in this
                1. +5
                  30 September 2017 19: 20
                  Quote: Gransasso
                  A person is VERY well versed in the topic and not only in this

                  Somehow it is not noticeable. What he excelled at was in UNPROVED utterances.
                  1. +2
                    30 September 2017 19: 32
                    Quote: svp67
                    Quote: Gransasso
                    A person is VERY well versed in the topic and not only in this

                    Somehow it is not noticeable. What he excelled at was in UNPROVED utterances.



                    A person is not obliged to engage in an educational program of elementary things ... it is assumed that anyone who gets into the discussion should have a certain level of at least basic knowledge in this topic ...


                    In this case, to know what a Tank is and what a self-propelled guns are ... and how they differ ... or at least go to enlighten yourself if you don’t know these basic things ... if you did this you wouldn’t write now about FREEDOM
                    1. +4
                      30 September 2017 19: 41
                      Quote: Gransasso
                      In this case, to know what a Tank is and what an SPG is ...
                      at least go to enlighten yourself if you don’t know these basic things ...

                      I can only say one thing:
                      Yeah ... Thanks Barin, enlightened ...
                      Apparently because of the EXCELLENT knowledge of the differences between the tank and self-propelled guns, by the way, the Italian tank builders did not want to make the world happy with something outstanding. And for what, they already know the meaning of life ...
                      You can understand that all the characteristics of military equipment are set by the General Staff for a certain tactic and strategy, and even designers and manufacturers give out what they can and can.
                      1. +2
                        30 September 2017 20: 06
                        Quote: svp67
                        Quote: Gransasso
                        In this case, to know what a Tank is and what an SPG is ...
                        at least go to enlighten yourself if you don’t know these basic things ...

                        I can only say one thing:
                        Yeah ... Thanks Barin, enlightened ...
                        Apparently because of the EXCELLENT knowledge of the differences between the tank and self-propelled guns, by the way, the Italian tank builders did not want to make the world happy with something outstanding. And for what, they already know the meaning of life ...
                        You can understand that all the characteristics of military equipment are set by the General Staff for a certain tactic and strategy, and even designers and manufacturers give out what they can and can.



                        Here are such kinds of opuses as yours right now they immediately give out a person who is an idiot in the subject but really want to say something .... and write just such dregs for nothing .. transfusion from empty to empty fresh water in fresh oil ... Pique Vests ..
                    2. +5
                      30 September 2017 20: 06
                      Quote: Gransasso
                      In this case, to know what a Tank is and what an SPG is .. and how they differ ...

                      Let me explain you quite simply. Here the infantry flees to attack. The fact that in front of her is a tank, that behind it is an ACS.
                      And it doesn’t matter which weapon is installed on this.
                      1. ogi
                        0
                        30 September 2017 21: 16
                        Quote: Spade
                        Let me explain you quite simply. Here the infantry flees to attack. The fact that in front of her is a tank, that behind it is an ACS.

                        What you wrote is a very original interpretation.
                        What in this case should be with the Germans? They had 2 battalions in the tank regiments, one on Pz.V and the other on Pz.IV. Pz.IV in tactical formations just kept behind. Were they self-propelled guns?
                      2. +1
                        30 September 2017 21: 41
                        Quote: Spade
                        Quote: Gransasso
                        In this case, to know what a Tank is and what an SPG is .. and how they differ ...

                        Let me explain you quite simply. Here the infantry flees to attack. The fact that in front of her is a tank, that behind it is an ACS.
                        And it doesn’t matter which weapon is installed on this.



                        Yeah ... simple and tasteful ... that's because of this holy simplicity, the war cost the country what it was worth ...
                      3. +4
                        1 October 2017 09: 34
                        Quote: Spade
                        Let me explain you quite simply. Here the infantry flees to attack. The fact that in front of her is a tank, that behind it is an ACS.
                        And it doesn’t matter which weapon is installed on this.

                        I will say a little differently. A tank is a universal armored-fire means of supporting troops, which has a strict balance of armor, weapons and mobility, but a self-propelled gun is a special one, “sharpened” to perform special tasks by the fire of its main gun and to solve these problems, an self-propelled gun can be “unbalanced”, that is, it is weakened in reservation, even deprived of armor, but can be sharply and strengthened in reservation, can be without a rotating tower, slow-moving ... everything for the convenience of the main gun. In short "gun cart"
                      4. 0
                        1 October 2017 22: 19
                        This is so in the Soviet army. But in English or Israeli - no.
                        Tanks support the infantry, moving behind it.
                2. +2
                  30 September 2017 19: 26
                  Understanding the topic, the comrade built his classification theory, but this does not mean they will agree with his theory ... hi
                  1. ogi
                    0
                    30 September 2017 20: 28
                    Quote: faiver
                    fellow built his classification theory

                    If you are not familiar with the BTT classification system generally accepted in the world and have heard about it from me, this does not mean that it is mine.
                    Although, of course, I would like to note something similar. But alas.
                    1. +3
                      30 September 2017 20: 32
                      Quote: ogi
                      If you are not familiar with the generally accepted BTT classification system in the world

                      This does not exist.
                      1. ogi
                        0
                        30 September 2017 21: 55
                        Quote: Spade
                        This does not exist.

                        And you knock a question.
                    2. +3
                      30 September 2017 22: 09
                      Quote: ogi
                      And you knock a question.

                      It is impossible to study nonexistent.

                      It is enough to recall the first "Merkava", which the Israelis considered tanks. Strv.103, which the Swedes considered tanks, "Scorpions", which the British considered tanks ... well, so on
                  2. +5
                    30 September 2017 20: 42
                    Quote: faiver
                    Understanding the topic, the comrade built his classification theory, but this does not mean they will agree with his theory ...

                    Are you talking about Carbine, or otherwise, ogee-izdabol? Spit. You cannot argue this type.
                3. +4
                  30 September 2017 19: 27
                  Quote: Gransasso
                  A person is VERY well versed in the topic and not only in this

                  Who? This is ogi?
                  Are you his lawyer or the second incarnation?
                  Your client does not understand the issue.
                  It does not understand at all.
                  1. +2
                    30 September 2017 19: 37
                    Quote: Pancir026
                    Quote: Gransasso
                    A person is VERY well versed in the topic and not only in this

                    Who? This is ogi?
                    Are you his lawyer or the second incarnation?
                    Your client does not understand the issue.
                    It does not understand at all.




                    No ... I’m not his lawyer .. a person perfectly copes with this myself .. I don’t agree with some of his statements .. but I admit that they are based on knowledge ... the difference in conclusions that can be made on the basis of this knowledge ... .


                    and his opponents respond with lyrics mainly and not with the same knowledge
                    1. +3
                      30 September 2017 19: 56
                      Quote: Gransasso
                      man copes with this very well

                      With what? In issuing pearls at VO everyone laughs at? Why?
                      Quote: Gransasso
                      the difference in conclusions that can be drawn based on this knowledge

                      There is NO knowledge, from the word there is absolutely no.
                      Read- svp67 Today, 18:56 ↑
                      What knowledge of ogi can we talk about ???
                      1. ogi
                        0
                        30 September 2017 22: 00
                        Quote: Pancir026
                        In issuing pearls at VO that everyone laughs at?

                        Who's everyone? You?
                        In addition, the proverb about the sign of foolishness has not been canceled.
                        Quote: Pancir026
                        There is NO knowledge, from the word there is absolutely no.

                        You somehow do not look like a person who can give this kind of assessment.
          2. +6
            30 September 2017 18: 56
            Quote: ogi
            Campaign tank gun can not be separate loading. A tank cannot be armed with a tank gun.
            And even the presence of a tank gun and a tower, this also does not mean “tank”.

            Here is a cool definition for the ENGLISH TANKSTROITRY, although it seems like they, as PUPPIES, may not agree. Of course, the use of CARTOUS loading, this is NONSENS ... But who is the decree to the KINGS.
            You at least understand the issue before you broadcast something.
        2. +6
          30 September 2017 18: 53
          Quote: Fayter2017
          Does the Ogi Campaign mean a tank with a caliber of up to 100 mm and quick reloading of a gun with a unitary shot?

          Yes, this user and his astral twins consider all self-loading vehicles as KV-2, IS-2, IS-3, T-10, IS-4, M103 and FV 214 “Conqueror” assault towers (listed are armed, maybe someone forgot). The national classification of the three countries does not convince him.

          However, these are trifles, in fact.
          1. ogi
            0
            30 September 2017 19: 02
            Quote: Cherry Nine
            Yes, this user and his astral twins consider all separately charged vehicles as assault turrets

            And it seemed to me that I indicated quite clearly that the IS-1 was not a tank either.
            1. +4
              30 September 2017 19: 06
              Quote: ogi
              The IS-1 was not a tank either.

              Yes? Sorry, I did not follow the development of your views on tank building.
              1. ogi
                0
                30 September 2017 20: 57
                Quote: Cherry Nine
                Your views on tank building

                You flatter me.
          2. +3
            30 September 2017 19: 22
            Quote: Cherry Nine
            Quote: Fayter2017
            Does the Ogi Campaign mean a tank with a caliber of up to 100 mm and quick reloading of a gun with a unitary shot?

            Yes, this user and his astral twins consider all self-loading vehicles as KV-2, IS-2, IS-3, T-10, IS-4, M103 and FV 214 “Conqueror” assault towers (listed are armed, maybe someone forgot). The national classification of the three countries does not convince him.

            However, these are trifles, in fact.



            The difference from the tank is that the self-propelled gun is a full-fledged artillery gun on a self-propelled chassis, while the tank is equipped with a special artillery gun - a tank gun.

            The types and purpose of self-propelled guns are very diverse: they can be either armored or not armored, use a wheeled or tracked chassis.

            Self-propelled guns can have a fully rotating turret or fixed cutting installation of the gun. Some of the self-propelled guns with a turret mounted guns very much resemble tanks, but they differ from tanks in the balance of "armor-weapons" and tactics of combat use.


            And what is the Ogi user wrong about in this case?
            1. +3
              30 September 2017 19: 32
              Quote: Gransasso
              The difference from the tank is that the self-propelled gun is a full-fledged artillery gun on a self-propelled chassis, while the tank is equipped with a special artillery gun - a tank gun.

              Sure? Sure?
              From what. More precisely, from what weapon was the tank version of the armament of the BT series tanks made? Which weapon was used for the armament of the t34-85? WHAT WEAPON WAS USED ON THE KV-2?
              You are here together with ogi, decided to write a virtual history of tank building?
              1. ogi
                +1
                30 September 2017 20: 54
                Quote: Pancir026
                more precisely, from what weapon was the tank version of the armament of tanks of the BT series made? Which weapon was used for the armament of the t34-85? WHICH WEAPON WAS USED ON THE KV-2?

                Great way you got into trouble. And more than once.
                1. Because the BT-7 tanks were armed with forty. And forty-five were redone by the Germans for anti-tank guns 47 mm naval guns Hotchkiss arr. 1885 But before this, even under the king, they tried to make trench guns. As a result of all this, there was a fragmentation grenade in the ammunition set of forty-five, which is not typical for anti-tank guns. But very useful tank guns. Therefore, the pre-war magpies (53-K) are more correctly called tank guns on a field carriage. Here they were.
                Frankly, I’m very upset that before the war, forty-five did not scale to another, larger caliber. Very, very successful were the guns (which are short). And very competently designed. No, the wrong gun in the USSR was taken as a basis.
                2. The T-34/85 was equipped with a 52-K anti-aircraft gun. In fact, the cannon for the tank did not fit very well, because its OS, when loaded with cheap explosives, had low fragmentation. As befits an "anti-aircraft" shell. The American former anti-aircraft 76 mm M1 had a similar problem, but there they solved the problem by using an expensive explosive in a tank shell too, which makes the gun’s artillery shells quite expensive for their caliber. In the Soviet "tank" 85 mm OS, the content of explosives (already cheap) was increased by 12%, which was like a dead poultice to him. On that and calmed down.
                KV-2 was not a tank.
                1. 0
                  1 October 2017 06: 01
                  KV-2 was not a tank
                  - I agree with this, the use of a howitzer as a weapon makes it a very unsuccessful self-propelled gun hi
                  1. +1
                    1 October 2017 11: 25
                    But Sturmpanzer IV for you what it is - an assault tank or self-propelled guns! The Germans dubbed it the STORM TANK!
                    hi
                    1. +1
                      1 October 2017 17: 43
                      it's definitely sau
                      1. 0
                        1 October 2017 19: 07
                        Here! For you and me self-propelled guns!
                        Of course, it would be better if the same 152-mm howitzer (standing on the KV-2) was installed in a fixed wheelhouse and it would have turned out already in 1940 the SU-152! But they just would not lose them in the battles of 1941? How to deal with self-propelled guns then thought poorly - they saw tanks without towers in them!
                        Armored cars from BA-27 to BA-11 were thrown in support of the infantry against the German anti-tank missile!
            2. +4
              30 September 2017 19: 39
              Quote: Gransasso
              The difference from the tank is that the self-propelled gun is a full-fledged artillery gun on a self-propelled chassis, while the tank is equipped with a special artillery gun - a tank gun.

              It does not matter.
              An ACS differs from a tank solely in its purpose and in battle formations associated with this place.
              Well, the tool can be anything. Starting with anti-aircraft, and ending with dynamo-reactive.
              1. +1
                30 September 2017 19: 46
                Quote: Spade
                Quote: Gransasso
                The difference from the tank is that the self-propelled gun is a full-fledged artillery gun on a self-propelled chassis, while the tank is equipped with a special artillery gun - a tank gun.

                It does not matter.
                An ACS differs from a tank solely in its purpose and in battle formations associated with this place.
                Well, the tool can be anything. Starting with anti-aircraft, and ending with dynamo-reactive.




                And what was the purpose of the IS-2 ?.
                1. +2
                  30 September 2017 19: 59
                  Quote: Gransasso
                  And what was the purpose of the IS-2 ?.

                  What is not clear - Soviet heavy breakthrough tank IS-2M
                  http://ww2history.ru/is_2m.html
                  not understood?
                  Well then, still
                  http://wartools.ru/tanki-ussr-vov/tank-is-2
                  1. +1
                    30 September 2017 20: 10
                    Quote: Pancir026
                    Quote: Gransasso
                    And what was the purpose of the IS-2 ?.

                    What is not clear - Soviet heavy breakthrough tank IS-2M
                    http://ww2history.ru/is_2m.html
                    not understood?
                    Well then, still
                    http://wartools.ru/tanki-ussr-vov/tank-is-2



                    And what was entot heavy breakthrough tank supposed to do directly on the battlefield? ...


                    Find out for yourself .. and then compare these tasks of the BREAK HEAVY TANK with the tasks of tanks .. and artillery for example ... and then you will have less chaos in your head ...
                    1. +3
                      30 September 2017 20: 36
                      Quote: Gransasso
                      Find out for yourself .. and then compare these tasks of the BREAK HEAVY TANK with the tasks of tanks .. and artillery for example ... and then you will have less chaos in your head ...

                      Chaos and you with ogi - synonyms - there is no one on the network, the second appears.
                      And the speeches are the same .. Not tired?
                      1. +1
                        30 September 2017 21: 45
                        Quote: Pancir026
                        Quote: Gransasso
                        Find out for yourself .. and then compare these tasks of the BREAK HEAVY TANK with the tasks of tanks .. and artillery for example ... and then you will have less chaos in your head ...

                        Chaos and you with ogi - synonyms - there is no one on the network, the second appears.
                        And the speeches are the same .. Not tired?




                        With paranoia and persecution mania is a psychiatrist .. I advise you to contact so as not to start the process ... is medicine in Russia still free?
                    2. +3
                      30 September 2017 20: 37
                      Quote: Gransasso
                      And what was entot heavy breakthrough tank supposed to do directly on the battlefield? ...

                      To tread. In conditions of increased concentration of PT funds.
                      Quote: Gransasso
                      and then compare these tasks of the BREAKTHROUGH HEAVY TANK

                      The same. Just "heavy breakthrough tanks", unlike just "tanks", will suffer less losses, and the likelihood of them performing a combat mission will be higher.
                      Quote: Gransasso
                      and artillery

                      And artillery support the offensive. She herself will not be able to do this.
                2. +1
                  30 September 2017 20: 19
                  Quote: Gransasso
                  And what was the purpose of the IS-2 ?.

                  To advance, to defend, to engage in a battle and so on.
                  Unlike self-propelled guns, whose task was to support, including tanks, during the performance of their combat mission.
                  And it doesn’t matter what they did, supported tanks or infantry by direct fire, carried out the functions of anti-aircraft defense or air defense, supported by fire with a closed air defense - this was support. They did not perform independent functions during the battle.
              2. ogi
                +1
                30 September 2017 20: 56
                Quote: Spade
                An ACS differs from a tank solely in its purpose and in battle formations associated with this place.

                Exactly. From this moment in more detail, if possible. And how did we use IS-1 and IS-2? If right, not like in the article?
                1. +2
                  30 September 2017 21: 17
                  Quote: ogi
                  And how did we use IS-1 and IS-2?

                  Like tanks.
            3. +1
              30 September 2017 19: 41
              Quote: Gransasso
              And what is the Ogi user wrong about in this case?

              Honestly, I and T-34/76, and howitzer Valyu (to a lesser extent Motyu), and, naturally, a machine with a gun in the hull (Grant, B1, Churchill), I am ready to consider self-propelled guns. I just see no reason to make a religious question out of this.

              It is important for me how they were used, and not in which branch of the potato they should be placed more correctly.
              1. +1
                30 September 2017 19: 50
                Quote: Cherry Nine
                Quote: Gransasso
                And what is the Ogi user wrong about in this case?

                Honestly, I and T-34/76, and howitzer Valyu (to a lesser extent Motyu), and, naturally, a machine with a gun in the hull (Grant, B1, Churchill), I am ready to consider self-propelled guns. I just see no reason to make a religious question out of this.

                It is important for me how they were used, and not in which branch of the potato they should be placed more correctly.



                For me, it’s also not so important .. what’s forehead on my forehead ...


                But the accusations of unprovenness and lack of knowledge by the user are wrong ... in this matter, he is right
                1. +2
                  30 September 2017 20: 20
                  Quote: Gransasso
                  But also charges of unprovenness and ignorance

                  Well, what if it is really unproven and ignorance?
            4. +3
              30 September 2017 20: 57
              Quote: Gransasso
              The difference from the tank is that the self-propelled gun is a full-fledged artillery gun on a self-propelled chassis, while the tank is equipped with a special artillery gun - a tank gun.

              You're right...
              Quote: Gransasso
              And what is the Ogi user wrong about in this case?

              Yes, at least in the fact that a new gun was put for the IS tank. It’s a cannon for a tank, not a tank for a cannon.
      2. ogi
        0
        30 September 2017 17: 14
        Quote: garri-lin
        Do you understand what was considered a tank in the Soviet Union?

        In the USSR, during the Second World War, any BTT with a tower was considered a tank. Like any automatic small arms was considered machine guns (some quite correctly called a submachine gun).
        However, the world did not agree with such definitions. Therefore, according to the classification adopted around the world, except for the USSR since the time of the Second World War and Great Patriotic War, the DP-27 was an automatic rifle. And the IS tanks were heavy turret guns. For different purposes.
        1. +9
          30 September 2017 19: 00
          Quote: ogi
          And the IS tanks were heavy turret guns. For different purposes.

          Gee ...
          In fact, these were airplanes disguised as heavy tanks.
        2. +5
          30 September 2017 19: 39
          What is such a world? At the time of WWII there were 2 two logical schools of tank building. TWO LOGIC who clashed on the European difficult TVD. They flashed off honing their skills on each other. And the rest of the world was watching, terrified and trying to catch up. It didn’t work for everyone.
          All the rest of the world can invent everything that a revelry of fantasy will provide.
          If such a connoisseur, give an example of a heavy tank from WWII. The nation does not matter.
          1. ogi
            +1
            30 September 2017 20: 24
            Quote: garri-lin
            At the time of WWII there were 2 two logical schools of tank building. TWO LOGIC who clashed on the European hard TV

            German and British? Or German and American? Which of the 4?
            Quote: garri-lin
            And the rest of the world was watching, terrified and trying to catch up.

            Who were trying to catch up with the Shermans? And comets who were catching up? And Pershing? Yes, what can I say, whom did Churchill catch up with, for all their faults?
            However, to some extent they competed with German tanks. Soviet tanks ended on KV-1C and T-34/85. And they were nothing special by themselves. Contrary to the tales of Sovagitprop.
            Soviet tank designers had a serious problem (one of them); in the USSR there were no normal tank guns. And field too, but now not for that. Not at all. From this and "perversions" such as IS-2 and the like. And the T-44 is also fully applicable. Because where the whole world managed with a caliber of 75-76 mm, the USSR required 85 mm. And then to the level of "foreigners" did not reach.
            Quote: garri-lin
            WWII heavy tank example

            There were a lot of them. In all armies except the Red Army. I will not list.
            1. +3
              30 September 2017 20: 29
              Quote: ogi
              Who were trying to catch up with the Shermans? And comets who were catching up? And Pershing? Yes, what can I say, whom did Churchill catch up with, for all their faults?

              Germans.
              But they did not catch up.
              "garri-lin" because about two schools wrote, right?
              But you, as usual, prefer not to notice
              1. 0
                30 September 2017 20: 51
                Quote: Spade
                Germans.

                The Germans in the 40th did not have this. It was the French.

                As it turned out later, this was the wrong decision. And the KV-1 was the right decision, despite all its sores.
                1. +1
                  30 September 2017 21: 19
                  Quote: Cherry Nine
                  The Germans in the 40th did not have this

                  There were no tanks?
                  Scary.
                  Your "story" is increasingly alternative.
                  1. 0
                    30 September 2017 22: 04
                    Quote: Spade
                    There were no tanks?

                    There were no tanks with a muzzle of 100 on board 80 and a cannon in the frontal sheet, of course. Churchill has never looked like a four. But on B1 - yes.
                    1. +1
                      30 September 2017 22: 15
                      There were tanks. So there was a tank school. And if it did not provide for machines with serious protection at that time, this is a feature of this particular school at this particular moment in time.
                      They are not spherical horses in a vacuum, they are created under the prevailing principles of combat use, and not vice versa
                      1. 0
                        30 September 2017 22: 48
                        Quote: Spade
                        They are not spherical horses in a vacuum, they are created under the prevailing principles of combat use, and not vice versa

                        Of course. Therefore, it is impossible to say that the Germans were brought together in limes. Churchill was created under their stupid concept, as Motya, multiplied by 2 by armor.
                2. ogi
                  0
                  1 October 2017 11: 10
                  Quote: Cherry Nine
                  And the KV-1 was the right decision, despite all its sores.

                  As history shows, the KV-1 was not the right solution. This is a dead end in tank building.
                  The correct decision was KV-1C. But not timely, he was late. And to do something similar, but more powerful, Soviet industry was not able to. Therefore, it was precisely because of their wretchedness that they spread to the production of various self-propelled guns, calling them “heavy tanks”.
                  In fact, the KV-1C, if you put a tower on it from the T-34/85, was the peak of the technological capabilities of the Soviet tank industry during the war. So-so would be a tank. Better T-34/85, of course, but not by much.
                  1. +2
                    1 October 2017 11: 18
                    Quote: ogi
                    As history shows, the KV-1 was not the right solution. This is a dead end in tank building.

                    Whose story is alternatively gifted?
                    Kv-1. Subsequent develop-KV-2, for infantry support when prop = rush of fortified defenses saturated with fortifications.
                    Quote: ogi
                    The correct decision was KV-1C. But not timely, he was late. And to do something similar, but more powerful, Soviet industry was not able to.

                    Yeah .. well, it’s necessary. I was late .. and where did the Czechs and Soviets 35 and 38 come late? French with Somua and other Balls? Where did the British come with Ma = otami and valentines. Not to mention the amers with their Grants? Something comparable to KV did all of these have?
                    Quote: ogi
                    Therefore, it was precisely because of their wretchedness that they spread to the production of various self-propelled guns, calling them “heavy tanks”.

                    Oh, how ... why did the Germans breed all sorts of Ferdinades, Marders, Hetzer, rhinoceros and Hummel bumblebees and other things?
                    Quote: ogi
                    In fact, the KV-1C, if you put a tower on it from the T-34/85, was the peak of the technological capabilities of the Soviet tank industry during the war. So-so would be a tank. Better T-34/85, of course, but not by much.

                    Oh, how, well, this discovery draws on the Shnobel Prize. No less.
                  2. 0
                    1 October 2017 13: 24
                    Quote: ogi
                    As history shows, the KV-1 was not the right solution.

                    As history shows, HF was the right decision, but somewhat superior to the capabilities of Soviet industry. This, I note, not only the Soviet misfortune, the Germans had about the same thing - the new tanks corresponded to the capabilities of Man and Daimler and did not allow "Shermanization" - mass production in automobile / railway industries.
                    The pre-war attempts to find the maximum for the KV platform gun were an even more correct decision.
                    Quote: ogi
                    Therefore, it was precisely because of their wretchedness that they spread to the production of various self-propelled guns, calling them “heavy tanks”.

                    Having a fine to the level of technology and the level of workers, exchanging the tactical inconvenience of reckless vehicles for armor and a gun was the only right decision. Not to mention the exchange for the same rate of fire in the IS-2. And there were ISUs or Shtugs “really” tanks or self-propelled guns - do not care, honestly.
            2. +1
              30 September 2017 20: 32
              Quote: ogi
              There were a lot of them

              Like one TigrB, it turns out. Tiger I to a lesser extent.
              Quote: ogi
              Who were trying to catch up with the Shermans?

              Four, of course. Excuse me, there is no need to talk about the American tank school for the 41st year.
              Quote: ogi
              And comets who were catching up?

              Panther, but it turned out so-so. Top of Farfly, bottom of Cromwell.
              Quote: ogi
              And Pershing?

              Panther, it worked out well.
              Quote: ogi
              Yes, what can I say, whom did Churchill catch up with, for all their faults?

              T-35))). B1 as a whole.
              And the schools were probably the truth 4. German, Soviet (reverse engineering), English (left-handed) and French.
              1. +1
                30 September 2017 20: 57
                Quote: Cherry Nine
                And the schools were probably the truth 4. German, Soviet (reverse engineering), English (left-handed) and French.

                The French did not manage to show themselves because of the quick surrender.
                And the development of the British was greatly complicated.
                Firstly, the "birth injury" of the First World War in the form of dividing the tanks into "infantry support" and "cruising". I think this greatly complicated its development.
                Secondly, the scarcity of resources and the need to quickly restore what was lost on the continent.
                1. 0
                  30 September 2017 21: 09
                  Quote: Spade
                  The French did not manage to show themselves because of the quick surrender.

                  Yes, it didn’t work out. However, it was the French ideas of the late 30s (Char G1) that turned out to be the most promising. Build the Americans instead of Grant - it would not have seemed.
                  Quote: Spade
                  It was very complicated.

                  Oh no more than in the USA, where he was not at all.
                  Quote: Spade
                  in the form of dividing tanks into "infantry support" and "cruising"

                  This is a common theme before the war.
                  1. +2
                    30 September 2017 21: 32
                    Quote: Cherry Nine
                    This is a common theme before the war.

                    It's just that the British, as the ancestors of this "tank delusion," held on to it for longer than all 8)))
                    Quote: Cherry Nine
                    Oh no more than in the USA, where he was not at all.

                    Here at the time to talk about the "American school", in which the focus was placed on manufacturability associated with the need to ensure mass production without loss of quality.
                    By the way, this mass, in addition to everything else, exerted pressure on the "British tank school." Why invest in the design and manufacture of their cars when the Americans lent out 17 thousand with pennies of Sherman to the British for Lend-Lease?
                    1. 0
                      30 September 2017 21: 56
                      Quote: Spade
                      Here at the time to talk about the "American school", in which the focus was placed on manufacturability associated with the need to ensure mass production without loss of quality.

                      Here is more likely an American school of tractor engineering. "Let's produce tractors, but only armored"
                      To Stuart, this applies to a lesser extent. to Grant and Sherman - to a greater extent. Erzatsi like SU-76, but at the American technical level. But this level was such that it was enough to fill up the Panther with a number, and the T-34 of the 42nd year with quality.
                      Quote: Spade
                      Why invest in the design and manufacture of their cars when the Americans lent out 17 thousand with pennies of Sherman to the British for Lend-Lease?

                      Do not tell. Sherman's supplies allowed Lime to take Panther, and, without rushing, to finish all its jambs, of which it consisted entirely. A properly made Panther does not contain anything from the Panther and is called the Centurion. Very nice car. Sorry, they did it too slowly.
                      1. +1
                        30 September 2017 22: 21
                        Quote: Cherry Nine
                        Sherman’s supplies allowed Lime to take Panther, and, without rushing, finish all its jambs

                        This "not rushing" was precisely the result of the pressure of the "Sherman". Limitations in means and resources result either in loss of quality or in loss of time.

                        Quote: Cherry Nine
                        But this level was such that it was enough to fill Panther with a number

                        I would not say that they "flunked" Panther with a "number." There was also a large cohort of PT self-propelled guns present, providing acceptable losses while "filling up".
                      2. 0
                        30 September 2017 23: 00
                        Quote: Spade
                        Limitations in means and resources result either in loss of quality or in loss of time.

                        To whom it is, but for me, the bulk supplies of the Sherman freed up resources, not limited them. If the limes had to establish mass production of Mot in evacuation, it would not be accurate for Centurion.
                        Quote: Spade
                        There was also a large cohort of tank destroyers.

                        Useless cohort, with the exception of Sherman Firefly and Acher. Punching Panther Jackson appeared in November 44th. But they easily made their way to her. Sherman, he is Sherman.
                        In terms of protection, from mid-43rd to February 45th, all Allied tanks, except Sherman Jumbo and Churchill, are vehicles with bulletproof armor by European theater standards. The Soviet move - heavy pieces based on KV - turned out to be much more adequate than Wolverin and Hellcat.
                2. ogi
                  0
                  1 October 2017 12: 04
                  Quote: Spade
                  And the development of the British was greatly complicated.

                  What?
                  Matilda appeared before the war and were discontinued on time.
                  Comets appeared in 1943.
                  Churchill, back in 1941.
                  I do not see any global complications. Of course, the old Churchill did not reach the level of Pz.V and Pershing explicitly. And Centurion appeared after the war.
                  But with all this, to one extent or another, only the British could compete in the Germans in tanks.
                  Quote: Spade
                  Firstly, the "birth injury" of the First World War in the form of dividing the tanks into "infantry support" and "cruising". I think this greatly complicated its development.

                  Yes? But nothing, that this division was preserved in all countries of the world until the end of the war? Only in the USSR there was no such division, because there was nothing to divide. The choice of tanks was simple, the T-34 and all.
                  Quote: Spade
                  Secondly, the scarcity of resources

                  You mixed up Britain with Germany.
                  Quote: Spade
                  and the need to quickly restore what was lost on the continent.

                  Nothing was especially lost there. Just the British built ships. But there were few land weapons.
              2. ogi
                0
                1 October 2017 11: 47
                Quote: Cherry Nine
                Like one TigrB, it turns out.

                I would first call Pz.V. Pz.VI-II was a strange tank. A breakthrough tank, like Pz.VI-I, he was no longer. But for a heavy infantry tank, it was too heavy. This is the fruit of the shortages of German industry. As a result of which the Germans decided to take not quantity, but quality. From this and such a BTT.
                Quote: Cherry Nine
                Four, of course. Excuse me, there is no need to talk about the American tank school for the 41st year.

                Yes, Pz.IV. As a result, the Yankees caught up with Pz.IV. But it was all very expensive. Unlike Pz.IV, which was cheap in everything.
                Moreover, conceptually already in the middle of 1943. Pz.IV and Sherman had nothing in common. And against Pz.V, the Shermans were weak. Therefore, they could compete (until the Pershing appeared in 1945) only with the T-34/85. In other countries in the production of machines of this class after 1943. was gone.
                Quote: Cherry Nine
                Panther, but it turned out so-so. Top of Farfly, bottom of Cromwell.

                No, not Panther, but the same Pz.IV. This was precisely the conceptual classmate of the Comet.
                Those. Once again, Sherman and T-34/85 in 1944. were on their own. And Pz.IV and Comet, in themselves. A little later, since 1945. conceptually, Sherman joined Pz.IV and Comet.
                Heavy infantry tanks at the same time were Pz.V and Churchill (with all its shortcomings). At the end of the war, the Americans made their heavy tank Pershing, transferring the Shermans (conceptually) to the company to Pz.IV and Comet. In the USSR, due to the weakness of the mattekhbaza, they could not create a normal heavy tank, although they tried (KV-1C). Therefore, until the end of the war, it was necessary to attack the enemy in medium infantry tanks T-34/85. Strictly speaking, the Americans attacked the Shermans until the end of the war. Because saturation of troops with Pershing until 09.05.1945/XNUMX/XNUMX Did not happen.
                Quote: Cherry Nine
                Panther

                I agree with this.
                Quote: Cherry Nine
                T-35))). B1 as a whole.

                Well no. Churchill, of course, was so-so. But the claims are mainly to their weapons. And the security was completely nothing.
                Although their OQF 75 mm was noticeably better than the F-34 and ZIS-5. But for a heavy infantry tank, of course, is not enough. Those. from the T-35 we smoothly come to the conclusion that Churchill was in everything better than the KV-1C arr. 1942
                1. +1
                  1 October 2017 14: 25
                  Quote: ogi
                  I would first call Pz.V

                  The Panther, NYA, was conceived as the “main” tank, and in this role was not perfect. We have already discussed the volumes of its production. The design was discussed a lot without us. Heavy turret tank destroyer rather. A more successful design than the light tower tank destroyers of the Americans, but the trouble is that the Germans for some reason passed it off as a tank. After four they did not have tanks.
                  Quote: ogi
                  Pz.VI-II was a strange tank.

                  An even heavier turret tank destroyer. The only reason for his appearance is that in the 42nd they were greedy with Panther epaulettes. Here is the anti-IS version of Panther with KvK43 - it would be quite in place. Actually, she was. YagdPanthera.
                  Quote: ogi
                  As a result, the Yankees caught up with Pz.IV. But it was all very expensive. Unlike Pz.IV, which was cheap in everything.

                  And what do you think? Try it in the watch.
                  Quote: ogi
                  And against Pz.V Shermans were weak

                  Yes.
                  Quote: ogi
                  Therefore, they could compete (until the Pershing appeared in 1945) only with the T-34/85

                  They competed 5 years later. They performed well, but far from overwhelmingly. This is my main complaint against Sherman. The Soviets, with their 3 classes of central vocational schools, dipped after Kursk T-34 as best they could. The United States, having completely incomparable conditions, put a 3-inch anti-aircraft gun and calmed down. They also sprayed saliva for a long time, such as nafig, tanks do not fight tanks, put it on Hellcat, and leave Sherman a thin-walled OFS.
                  It is incredibly unfortunate that in the 41st he glued the flippers of E. Chaffee, and not L. McNair. Even Americans are not always lucky.
                  Quote: ogi
                  In other countries in the production of machines of this class after 1943. was gone.

                  You are wrong, I gave you the numbers.
                  1944: PzKpfw V - 3, PzKpfw IV - 3, T-34 - 3 976 + 10 663, M4 - 12 925.
                  And the rest, yes, the Americans threw Shermans for free. Although, let's say, Centiel sheeplovewaters was much better thought out machine than any english tank on the same date.
                  Quote: ogi
                  No, not Panther, but the same Pz.IV. This was precisely the conceptual classmate of the Comet.

                  I do not agree. Comet's task was to attach a 17-pound to the English chassis. Four-pound 17-pound unnecessarily. The English four was just Cromwell.
                  Quote: ogi
                  Heavy infantry tanks at the same time were Pz.V and Churchill (with all its shortcomings).

                  Here are absolutely different cars. Heavy infantry tank and tank reinforcement (although it was considered the main).
                  Quote: ogi
                  Shermans and T-34/85 in 1944. were on their own. And Pz.IV and Comet, in themselves. A little later, since 1945. conceptually, Sherman joined Pz.IV and Comet.

                  It seems. You are confused in your classification. I remember one of your brothers transferred Sherman to light tanks in the 45th. With the four together.
                  Quote: ogi
                  Although their OQF 75 mm was noticeably better than the F-34 and ZIS-5

                  You are cheating. Churchill received this gun by the 44th. year. Initially, in the tower of a forty-ton car two pound., and gatsbitsa in the forehead. And that was, of course. Smooth Grant, one to one, only the sides are thicker.
            3. +1
              30 September 2017 21: 07
              And you strain. And list but it’s heavy. And it is tanko.
              1. ogi
                0
                1 October 2017 12: 08
                Quote: garri-lin
                And you strain. And list but it’s heavy.

                And what will I have from this?
                Moreover, I have already listed.
                KV-1S (unsuccessful), Churchill (outdated by the middle of the war), Pz.V, Pershing.
                It could also be called Pz.VI-II, but it is a hybrid of a breakthrough tank and a heavy infantry tank.
                1. +1
                  1 October 2017 12: 16
                  Quote: ogi
                  call Pz.VI-II, but it is a hybrid of a breakthrough tank and a heavy infantry tank.

                  Stunned ... A heavy German tank and light German, equivalent, for the greatest convincingness, blundered about the hybrid ...
                  What is T6-http: //vspomniv.ru/T6
                  And this is something like t2 - http://vspomniv.ru/t2
                  And what is t6b, self-propelled guns?
                  In general, in your altreality of Warhammer, everything is confused ...
            4. +2
              1 October 2017 09: 20
              Let's be honest and frank, the concept of tanks and self-propelled guns for all countries was different; take the same usa; the tanks were divided into infantry and cruising pershing took into heavy tanks only because there were no heavy tanks except jumbo and the same Sherman current with thicker armor and a more powerful gun
            5. +1
              2 October 2017 14: 57
              Quote: ogi
              Soviet tank designers had a serious problem (one of them); in the USSR there were no normal tank guns. And field too, but now not for that. Not at all. From this and "perversions" such as IS-2 and the like. And the T-44 is also fully applicable. Because where the whole world managed with a caliber of 75-76 mm, the USSR required 85 mm. And then to the level of "foreigners" did not reach.


              Why did ogi fixate on breaking through the BTA - but didn’t think about the field fortification and the defeat of anti-tank weapons — which makes up the vast majority of goals for the tank?
              BC: initially the ammunition of the T-34 was 77 rounds. On the T-34 model of 1943, it was increased to 100 rounds. Standard ammunition consisted of 19 rounds of BR-350AAP, 53 rounds of F-354 or OF-350XE and 5 rounds of CX-350.
              The ratio of HE to armor-piercing shells is taken from the practice of target ratios.

              And look at the caliber of the IS-2 tank gun and modern tank guns ...
              1. +2
                2 October 2017 20: 27
                Quote: DimerVladimer
                Why did ogi fixate on breaking through the BTA - but didn’t think about the field fortification and the defeat of anti-tank weapons — which makes up the vast majority of goals for the tank?


                Why. Why, because there is no elementary knowledge of tactics, but you can’t get everything out of net. So he throws a lot of unnecessary detailed and sometimes unrelated information (look at the smart and experienced as well).
    3. +4
      30 September 2017 17: 13
      again this comrade from a parallel universe, kanesh IS-2 is not a tank, I suspect that the parachute hi
      1. +1
        30 September 2017 19: 32
        Quote: faiver
        again this comrade from the parallel universe

        There are now two of them ...
        1. ogi
          0
          30 September 2017 20: 06
          Quote: Pancir026
          There are now two of them ...

          What is your name, legion?
          1. +4
            1 October 2017 09: 50
            Quote: ogi
            And your name

            Pancir026
            As for you, Carbine in the past, even having your second clone in the branch does not save you from the fact that all your pearls, to put it mildly, are complete ignorance and enchanting fantasy, nothing more.
  8. 0
    30 September 2017 17: 14
    Forgive me more like a note from the pioneering truth ....
  9. +2
    30 September 2017 21: 25
    Quote: Spade
    Quote: Gransasso
    And what was entot heavy breakthrough tank supposed to do directly on the battlefield? ...

    To tread. In conditions of increased concentration of PT funds.
    Quote: Gransasso
    and then compare these tasks of the BREAKTHROUGH HEAVY TANK

    The same. Just "heavy breakthrough tanks", unlike just "tanks", will suffer less losses, and the likelihood of them performing a combat mission will be higher.
    Quote: Gransasso
    and artillery

    And artillery support the offensive. She herself will not be able to do this.



    Listen .. I’m not interested in this interesting writing, where you have to insert your own for each comma of your opponent and be sure to have a “against” sign ....


    Any discussion in this style very quickly loses its meaning ... the topic itself becomes only a secondary background for other processes ..


    Therefore, I will answer in a simple way. Tanks were then created from them — the corps and the army — for entering into the breakthrough and further in the text ... trades, encirclements, destruction of warehouses, reserves, headquarters, disorganization of everything and everything in the rear, etc., etc. .


    The key moment is Breakthrough ... that is, when the defense is already broken ...


    Mostly the infantry had to break through the defense, artillery with the help of aviation ..is-2- was created as a “tank” of a breakthrough ... that is, it was supposed to create conditions for entering tank formations into battle ... in fact it was a heavy, well-armored self-propelled gun ..

    When they tried to use it "according to the tank", it turned out what was described in the article .. because it was not created for this .. its weapon is not for tank battles .. and it was not suitable for this in the form in which it was created ..
    1. +1
      30 September 2017 21: 54
      Quote: Gransasso
      The key moment is Breakthrough ... that is, when the defense is already broken ...

      No, you misunderstood.
      And you confuse the USSR with the British. Breakthrough tanks were never cruising tanks.
      And if they were, then they would have priority not on security or firepower, but on speed and fuel supply.
      A “breakthrough tank” is a tank that breaks through, not a tank that is introduced into a breakthrough. This and the T-34 could perfectly cope, or "Shermans"
    2. +2
      30 September 2017 23: 29
      The article does not describe everything that happened on that day! That's the problem!
      One of the first to engage in battle was the 13th Guards Heavy Breakthrough Tank Regiment. February 15, 1944, having in its composition 21 tanks IS-85, he arrived in the area of ​​Fastov - Bila Tserkva. After the march, the regiment received the task of supporting the attack of the 109th tank brigade on the village. Lisyanka, for which a regiment commander was allocated a company — five IS tanks. By the time of its entry into battle, the last T-34s of the 109th tank brigade, which attacked Lisyanka in the forehead, were hit by “panthers” and German anti-tank and assault guns. Having allowed ISs to a distance of 600-800 m, German tanks and self-propelled guns opened heavy fire and within 10 minutes knocked out all our heavy vehicles, while two of them burned down. Each tank received from 3 to 7 hits. The next day, vil. The fox was surrounded and taken. It captured 16 “panthers” abandoned without fuel, two Pz.IV and two assault guns.
      In this case, the Germans threw fuel in barrels from planes! The tanks were abandoned by the Germans with empty tanks and almost no BK!
      1. +1
        1 October 2017 06: 18
        oh here’s where the dog rummaged ..., shove onto twenty well-armored vehicles with 75mm guns actually with anti-aircraft ballistics, on five ISs you have to be completely hit on the head ... hi
        1. 0
          1 October 2017 11: 31
          There was an order - SUPPORT! Only those whom it was necessary to support have already been knocked out
          but no one canceled the order! And the infantry surrounded the village and took it with decent trophies!
          But we can only guess about the reasons for such orders ... hi
    3. 0
      30 September 2017 23: 31
      Why was all such an indestructible Pz.VI "TIGER" created?
      For defense or BREAKTHROUGH fortified defense?
      1. +1
        1 October 2017 06: 21
        in order for his technicians and rear services to be in business laughing , change of tracks, towing with three tractors, dismantling the tower to replace the gearbox laughing
      2. ogi
        0
        1 October 2017 12: 15
        Quote: hohol95
        Why was all such an indestructible Pz.VI "TIGER" created?

        Pz-VI-I is a typical representative of the concept of breakthrough tanks. She died in the course of 2MB, because anti-tank equipment increased so much that no armor already saved the tankers. And such tanks could no longer break through the defense.
  10. +3
    30 September 2017 21: 48
    Quote: ogi
    What in this case should be with the Germans? They had 2 battalions in the tank regiments, one on Pz.V and the other on Pz.IV. Pz.IV in tactical formations just kept behind.

    Behind the attacking infantry?
    Then yes, self-propelled guns. Well, or detachment
    Damn, here you write a game ...
    To be in the second echelon or reserve is not to "stay behind."
    Accordingly, at any time, the father-commander can give the command, and this “keep behind” quickly ends, and the tanks of the units before the second echelon or reserve are in front of the infantry.
    Self-propelled guns on such "accomplishments" will not succeed, they are, in principle, not independent.
    1. +2
      30 September 2017 22: 47
      Quote: Spade
      tanks of units earlier than the second echelon or reserve face infantry.

      :
      Lopatov I could not explain the term to the term yesterday reserve and you started to fight with a helmet the next term second tier and yesterday belay
      . Well, take pity on the man, his nervous system will not stand bully
      1. ogi
        0
        1 October 2017 12: 28
        Quote: chenia
        I couldn’t explain LOPATOV yesterday the term reserve

        Another "voluminous explanator." He fired from the M-30 and, on this basis, claims to be "well versed in artillery." Along the way, stubbornly trying to "explain" something to me.
        Can I not explain anything to me? Here explain to Lopatov. He needs it.
        1. +5
          1 October 2017 12: 37
          Quote: ogi
          Can I not explain anything to me?

          It is useless to explain to you, you need to LEARN. And first of all, respect for the opponent.
          Quote: ogi
          Here explain to Lopatov. He needs it.

          Lopatov is an artilleryman; he clearly does not need such services. Since it has basic theoretical knowledge, and most importantly practical skills.
          And what do you possess? What is your basic knowledge and practice?
          1. +1
            1 October 2017 12: 43




            And why on the forum practical skills in shooting? ... here they’re scribbling from the clave ... not from the howitzer ..
            1. +3
              1 October 2017 12: 49
              Quote: Gransasso
              And why on the forum practical skills in shooting? ... here from Claudia are scribbled from howitzers ..

              Listen, yes, today is a GREAT DAY, another "client has merged" ... Yeah, knock on the "clave", this is not a battle to plan and to make calculations for shooting. There is no need to worry about people's lives.
              So, I ACCEPT your emotional statements and do not meddle in matters that are little versed.
            2. 0
              2 October 2017 14: 28
              Quote: Gransasso
              And why on the forum practical skills in shooting? ... here they’re scribbling from the clave ... not from the howitzer ..


              Because here the nerds who only mastered the claudia are not welcome.
              Here - the "fragments" of the Soviet army "sharpening the lasses", but the young growth runs in.
        2. +4
          1 October 2017 13: 09
          Quote: ogi
          Can I not explain anything to me?

          It is impossible. Your knowledge base is too small, unlike your aplomb

          The complete lack of practice and theorizing connected with this forces you to pile up complex concepts where the answer is extremely simple.
          Anyone who at least once loaded a gun from 100 mm and above will immediately understand that the need for a separate case arises where a unitary seriously slows down loading due to the weight of the shot. And do not make new theories, adding tanks to self-propelled guns, self-propelled guns to tanks, inventing some "world classifications of tanks" which do not exist, the answer is extremely simple
          That's just to "find" it can only be done in practice, having pulled shells and shells, having worked as a follower at high elevations ... But you just do not have this practice ...
    2. +1
      1 October 2017 06: 39
      Yes, there were no reserves - this is the standard construction of tanks in the Wehrmacht in attack - the most thick-armored tanks are ahead, followed by tanks with armor narrower .. if there were tigers, then they were put on the cutting edge in the first line, and after them all the others , if the tigers were dumb, then the panthers went ahead, if the panthers were dumb, they put the most thick-armored modifications of the Pz.IV, in order to identify the anti-tank defenses and destroy with minimal losses of armored vehicles ...
      1. +3
        1 October 2017 08: 11
        Quote: faiver
        Yes, there were no reserves - this is the standard construction of tanks in the Wehrmacht in attack - ahead are the most heavy-armored tanks, followed by tanks with armor thinner

        Well this is separation
      2. +2
        1 October 2017 12: 40
        Quote: faiver
        Yes, there were no reserves - this is the standard construction of tanks in the Wehrmacht in attack - the most thick-armored tanks are ahead, followed by tanks with armor narrower .. if there were tigers, then they were put on the cutting edge in the first line, and after them all the others , if the tigers were dumb, then the panthers went ahead, if the panthers were dumb, they put the most thick-armored modifications of the Pz.IV, in order to identify the anti-tank defenses and destroy with minimal losses of armored vehicles ...

        Their tactical formations were ENOUGH, for almost all occasions. The main thing is based on the existing technology. They could have built a "bell" when the "tongue of the bell" was made up of the "Tigers", which took the fire of our tanks and anti-tank vehicles, and the "walls" were T-4, which covered the center of resistance from the flanks ...
    3. ogi
      0
      1 October 2017 12: 21
      [quote = Shovels] [/ quote]
      And you jerked again. The conversation was about your dictum that "if it is behind, then this is an SPG." And here you, realizing that you got into a puddle, started into lengthy discussions of a completely different kind. Along the way, I have traditionally convicted me of something. You do not care what, the process itself is important to you.
      1. +3
        1 October 2017 12: 42
        Quote: ogi
        You do not care what, the process itself is important to you.

        How exactly did YOU describe yourself ... Self-criticism, that's good. It means that not everything human in you has perished. There is a chance.
      2. +2
        1 October 2017 12: 47
        Quote: ogi
        And you jerked again. The conversation was about your dictum that "if it is behind, then this is an SPG."

        That you distorted. And fully aware of this.
        Even being in the second echelon or in reserve, tanks can be in front of the infantry chain at any time. And self-propelled guns - never, they are simply not intended for this.
    4. 0
      1 October 2017 22: 33
      In the IDF, tanks also move behind the attacking infantry. Any: Centurions, and Pattons, and Merkava. This is an English tactic. And you studied Soviet.
      1. +2
        2 October 2017 12: 48
        Quote: voyaka uh
        This is an English tactic.

        Everything about them is not like people. They also have a steering wheel in cars in the passenger seat.
  11. +1
    30 September 2017 22: 15
    Quote: SUYUNBEK KAZYBAEV
    in 43 they did such nonsense, and yet the commanders were already experienced eternal maybe all the same, the Hans competently fought

    And they purged the war, suffering equal losses with us among combatants, and yes, they were literate laughing
  12. +2
    30 September 2017 22: 18
    Quote: ogi
    Quote: Maxim Kustov
    IS-2 - Victory Tank.

    The IS-2 is the same “tank” as the DP “machine gun”. Those. in fact, the IS-2 is not a tank.
    Quote: Maxim Kustov
    The first version of the heavy tank IS-1

    And the IS-1 was not a tank either. Although he had much more "tank" than the IS-2.
    Quote: Maxim Kustov
    German anti-aircraft guns mounted on the outskirts of Lysyanka literally destroyed them within a few seconds.

    I note that guns with such obsolete ballistics were on Pz.VI-I. The Pz.V and Pz.VI-II were equipped with much steeper guns.
    In general, attacking the enemy with IS tanks in the first line was crazy. Even without anti-aircraft guns, the German infantry would have burned them a little later. Design Features.
    Quote: Maxim Kustov
    During the fighting, it turned out that even the high-explosive fragmentation shell of the IS-2 gun is deadly for German armored vehicles

    Is this some kind of dignity or something? OFS must solve its problems.

    Again you are talking nonsense to the masses! lol
    1. ogi
      0
      1 October 2017 12: 23
      Quote: Protos
      Again you are talking nonsense to the masses

      I do not have your habits.
      1. 0
        2 October 2017 18: 20
        Quote: ogi
        Quote: Protos
        I do not have your habits.

        laughing believe me, and even very
  13. +1
    30 September 2017 22: 27
    Quote: Gransasso
    The key moment is Breakthrough ... that is, when the defense is already broken ...

    In the USSR, the role of tanks was seen more broadly. here and the presence of tank battalions in the divisions. Further development led to tank divisions and corps.
    Quote: Gransasso
    Mostly infantry and artillery were to break through the defense with the help of aviation.

    This is a rollback to the PMV with all the shortcomings. It must be understood that the tactics of the assault units in combination with self-propelled guns developed only in the second half of WWII.
    Quote: Gransasso
    IS-2- was created as a “tank” of a breakthrough ... that is, it had to create conditions for the introduction of tank formations into battle ... in fact, it was a heavy, well-armored self-propelled gun ..

    Well, the logic here is somehow strange ... In fact, it makes no sense to invent your own classifications for Soviet cars. The role, place, purpose of the tank in the Red Army was justified by the Charter, and not by the virtual "whole world." The IS tank fought not in a vacuum, but, as a rule, as part of the OGvTTP, it was given the “linear” part as a gain. A direct analogy with the German TTB suggests itself, but then, according to your logic, the Tiger is an SPG ?!
    Quote: Gransasso
    his weapon is not for tank battles .. and he himself, in the form in which it was created, was not suitable for this ..

    Here is a simple question: why?
    1. 0
      2 October 2017 18: 00
      Quote: DesToeR
      A direct analogy with the German TTB suggests itself, but then, according to your logic, the Tiger is an SPG ?!
      the funny thing is that according to the American classification, the tiger is precisely Fri-Sau. Its main purpose is the destruction of enemy tanks, and the rest of the assignment from the evil one smile By the way, Mouse, this is also Fri-Sau ...
    2. 0
      2 October 2017 18: 15
      Quote: DesToeR
      Quote: Gransasso his gun is not for tank battles .. and he himself in the form in which it was created was not suitable for this .. Here is a simple question: why?

      Compare the performance characteristics of 100 and 122mm guns, read the literature. To write a lot in scrap wink
  14. 0
    30 September 2017 23: 24
    The first combat clashes with enemy tanks revealed an insufficient reservation of the frontal part of the ISov corps. At the beginning of 1944, they tried to increase the armor resistance of the hull, hardening it to a very high hardness, but in practice this led to a sharp increase in the fragility of the hull parts. When firing at an IS tank firing range of March 1944 from a 76-mm ZIS-3 cannon from a distance of 500-600 m, its armor burst from all sides, and the bulk of the armor-piercing shells did not penetrate the armor, but caused the formation of large masses of secondary fragments. This fact largely explains the significant losses of the IS-85 and IS-122 tanks in the battles of winter - spring 1944.
    In February 1944, TsNII-48 received an assignment to conduct research on the topic "Study of the armored resistance of the hull of an IS heavy tank." The work carried out showed that with the existing form of the frontal part of the hull, it will be guaranteed against penetration by German 75- and 88-mm shells only if armor is used with a thickness of at least 145-150 mm (that is, 20-30 mm more than the standard one). On the recommendation of the Central Research Institute-48, the hardening modes were changed, as well as the design of the frontal part of the body. The new case, with the so-called "straightened nose", retained the previous thickness of the armor. The driver’s hatch was removed from the front sheet, which significantly reduced its strength. The sheet itself was positioned at an angle of 60 ° to the vertical, which ensured that, with the course firing angles of + 30 °, it could not be penetrated from the 88-mm German KwK 36 tank gun even when shooting at point-blank range. The vulnerability was the lower frontal sheet, which had an angle of inclination of 30 ° to the vertical. To give it a greater angle of inclination required a significant change in the design of the control compartment. However, given that the probability of getting into the lower frontal sheet is less than in other parts of the body, they decided not to touch it. In order to enhance the armor protection of the lower frontal sheet, from July 15, 1944, laying of spare tracks was started on it between the towing hooks.
    1. +1
      1 October 2017 12: 48
      We fought here with such IS-3 armies of Egypt.

      They did not perform very well in 1967, but at first they brought out a racket ...
      It was difficult to knock them out, but they also didn’t knock anyone out because of the low
      rate of fire. In general, our Super Shermans and French AMXs
      they could not cope with them, but they also managed to dodge their shells. And the ISs were forward.
      I had to fit the Centurions with a 105-mm cannon and they began to knock out the ISs in turn.
      It turned out that the weld on the frontal armor was falling apart from armor-piercing ingots.
      And the kummas pierced the sides easily. Killed all the ISs.
      1. +1
        1 October 2017 13: 03
        Well, so is-3s were inferior to the centurions in tasks, all the same, tanks like Joseph Stalin were mostly breakthrough tanks and the Centurion had 2 designations, the middle tank and the obt, and if my memory serves me well, then 105 milititions are modified MK5
      2. 0
        1 October 2017 14: 32
        Quote: voyaka uh
        It turned out that the weld on the frontal armor was falling apart from armor-piercing ingots.

        Sorry? What is the BB part for L7?
        1. +1
          1 October 2017 17: 17
          Uh ... intrigued. Well there was in 1967 besides the usual cumm. and high-explosive?
          Sub-caliber armor-piercing should have been.
          There were no blanks of full caliber.
          I definitely read about diverging plates at the seams. But maybe not from the Centurions?
          1. 0
            1 October 2017 18: 07
            Quote: voyaka uh
            Well there was in 1967 besides the usual cumm. and high-explosive?

            Gauge BBs were not supposed to be with her (wrote above), I thought, for some reason, the Jews did it for themselves. I wanted to know why.
            Supposedly subcalibers and hash bombs. Hashfugas could theoretically smash the VLD. Or a caliber BB from the Jewish-fascist 4-inch Isherman. I don’t know if there were any, but in theory they could have been.
          2. 0
            2 October 2017 13: 32
            So from what caliber WELL SEAMS?
            You already specify.
      3. 0
        1 October 2017 17: 47
        By the way, where did Israel come from? After all, the main operators were Saudi Arabia, Greeks and Spaniards, not counting the French themselves
        1. 0
          1 October 2017 17: 55
          AMX-13 was bought from France. 180 pieces arrived before 1956.
          But they turned out to be a disappointment in the six-day war.
          Mobile, but with weak armor and a gun.
          "Elusive Joe" - elusive, because, nafig, nobody needs.
          Here is a photo from a parade of the 50s and 60s.
          (Since 1974, military parades in Israel have been banned forever.)
          1. 0
            1 October 2017 18: 00
            Damn I thought there were amx30
          2. 0
            1 October 2017 19: 53
            Quote: voyaka uh
            Since 1974, military parades in Israel have been banned forever

            Why?
            1. +3
              1 October 2017 22: 36
              Instead of parades, doctrines. The 1973 war sobered us. Then canceled forever and drill. Concept: in the army to study only what is needed directly in the war and there is nothing other than this.
              1. +2
                1 October 2017 23: 16
                Quote: voyaka uh
                in the army to study only what is needed directly in the war and there is nothing but this.

                Well, and do not teach to sweep?
                Ugh, not an army soldier
  15. 0
    1 October 2017 17: 55
    Quote: voyaka uh
    I definitely read about diverging plates at the seams. But maybe not from the Centurions?

    The seam of the frontal part of the hull was diverged from hit by 100mm armor-piercing projectile (D-10T or BS-3, I don’t remember exactly) when testing the hull for armor resistance in the USSR.
    1. 0
      1 October 2017 17: 57
      By the way, if my memory serves me, then in the USSR they always first tried tank armor on their guns
  16. +4
    1 October 2017 20: 01
    IS-2 Victory Tank. The rest is a miserable lowing of losers.
  17. +1
    2 October 2017 14: 12
    Conclusions of the company commander of the Tigers about the collision with the IS-2. September 1944
    1. When the Tigers appear, most IS-2s retreat and avoid entering into a tank duel.
    2. In many cases, the IS-2 allows you to enter into combat contact with them only at a great distance (more than 2000 meters), and also only if they are in a more advantageous position (at the edge of a forest, village, or under the cover of a natural terrain).
    3. IS-2 crews tend to leave their tank immediately after the first hit of a Tiger shell.
    4. In all cases, the Russian crews try to prevent the serviceable IS-2 from falling into our hands. They are either towed or explode.
    5. The IS-2 can be shot down at long distances even if there is no penetration of the frontal armor (a report from another unit of the Tigers shows that the Tiger can penetrate the frontal armor of the IS-2 only from a distance of less than 500 meters).
    6. The best results are achieved with a massive shelling of the sides and rear of the IS-2.
    7. In addition, you should join a tank duel with the IS-2 unit of at least a platoon of Tigers. A separate Tiger in such a duel is doomed to destruction.
    8. It has been tested in practice that it would be useful after the very first hit in the IS-2 to blind him with a high-explosive projectile shot.
    Notes by the inspector general of armored forces G. Guderian to this report:
    1. This report confirms those received from other units of the Tigers, and is seen as trustworthy.
    2. Regarding paragraph 4: all our crews should be guided by the same principles, an intact Tiger should never fall into the hands of the enemy.
    3. Concerning paragraphs 5 and 6: if the enemy has 122 mm and 57 mm anti-tank guns on the Eastern Front and 92 mm guns on the Western Front and Italy, the Tigers can no longer ignore the tactical methods of battle defined for other types of tanks. Like other tanks, the Tigers are no longer entitled to advance on higher ground for reconnaissance. In one of these situations, three Tigers received direct hits from 122 mm shells and were destroyed. As a result, two members of their crews died. The principles of tank tactics are as follows: tanks can cross hills only as part of a unit, quickly and under cover of artillery fire. If it is impossible to comply with these conditions, the hill should be circumvented, and this rule is well known in the heavy tank battalions of the Tigers. Formulations such as "pachyderms," ​​"invulnerable," and "safe," used by the crews of the Tigers, and which came into use of other tank units with their light hands, should be excluded from use. Instead, Tiger crews need to pay close attention to observing the basic combat rules applicable to tank dueling.
    4. Concerning paragraph 7: This conclusion is correct, but, nevertheless, the three Tigers should not retreat before the five IS-2s simply because they cannot engage in battle with them as part of a full platoon. In many cases, a full platoon may simply not be in such a situation. In many cases, the results of such a battle do not depend on the number of tanks, but on a higher tactical training of the crews.
    5. Regarding paragraph 8: according to the above report, it seems possible that the IS-2 can be hit in the side or stern not only by the Tiger and Panther tanks, but also by the Pz-IV and StuG.
  18. The comment was deleted.
  19. 0
    6 October 2017 16: 15
    Quote: 4-th Paradise
    the funny thing is that according to the American classification, the tiger is precisely Fri-Sau.

    This is not true, but your invention. The United States has never introduced such a classification simply because it is not necessary. The tiger was used by the Germans precisely as a tank, and it shot at tanks or infantry to the classification has nothing to do.
    Quote: 4-th Paradise
    By the way, Mouse, this is also Fri-Sau ...

    And why not mobile anti-ship coastal artillery?
    Quote: 4-th Paradise
    Compare the performance characteristics of 100 and 122mm guns, read the literature. To write a lot in scrap

    Compare, read ... so what? In the USSR, the IS tank was considered a tank, and so it was used. And he solved tank problems on the battlefield, but how successfully he "worked" for one or another purpose is a separate issue. It was simply believed in the USSR (quite justifiably) that creating a small-scale (by the standards of the USSR) heavy tank with a medium-caliber quick-fire gun was a waste of resources. 85mm and T-34-85 "pulled". With a caliber of 122mm, Russians “guessed” 100%.
  20. 0
    6 January 2018 19: 42
    Quote: hohol95

    village Lisyanka, for which a regiment commander was allocated a company — five IS tanks. By the time she entered the battle, the last T-34 of the 109 tank brigade, attacking Lisyanka in the forehead, had been hit by the "panthers" and German anti-tank and assault guns. Having launched the ISs at a distance of 600 – 800 m, German tanks and self-propelled guns opened heavy fire and within 10 minutes they knocked out all our heavy vehicles, while two of them burned down. Each tank received from 3 to 7 hits. The next day, vil. The fox was surrounded and taken. It captured the Panthers, two Pz.IV and two assault guns abandoned without fuel by 16.
    Something like this!


    This is just our case as an example of defeat.
    In German reports, this would be an undeniable victory:
    Twenty armored vehicles were captured, for their part, there were no losses (the Germans even a burned-out tank is not irretrievably lost if they could evacuate the wreckage).