Military Review

IS-2 and T-34 - where are the chances of survival for the crew?

161



We were frankly jealous

Mikhail Reznikov, for example, appreciated the possibilities to stay alive with the crews of the T-34 and the EC-2.

At the beginning of the war he fought on the KV-1, and at the end of the 1943 of the year, after staying in the reserve regiment, became the commander of the gun on the EC-2.

Here are the conclusions he came to: “From the personnel of the end of 1943, from crews tanks Approximately 25% of tankers reached Victory. This is a high percentage. Those who fought on the T-34 died much more often than us .. We were openly envious of us. Our 120mm frontal armor, our 122mm cannon. Our tanks were more tenacious, and in the "thirty-four" a couple of times went into battle and was ready - "fell the death of the brave." They called us “black skins,” because we wore black leatherette jackets. The Germans often retreated from the battlefield, seeing IS-2. If they didn’t have heavy tanks or just self-propelled guns, or direct-fire anti-aircraft guns on the defensive, the Germans preferred to step back. They recognized us from afar, unmistakably different from the T-34, by the long "knob" at the end of the barrel - the muzzle brake. So the tankers who fought on the T-34, thought of reinforcing on the trunks of their tank guns an ordinary bucket, which from afar could be mistaken for the "knob" of the IS-2. Seeing the approaching T-34 with this “invention” on the barrel, the Germans often left their positions and retreated. But there was no enmity between us. Both we and they burned in tanks and perished for our Motherland. ”

We could beat "tigers" and "panthers" from 1200-1400 meters

Opportunities to make observations and conclusions about the tank survival chances of Mikhail Reznikov were: “I was lucky in some way: all the time I fought in the 57 Guards Regiment of the 3 Tank Army, having survived three redevelopments after the losses incurred by the regiment. In the 3 th TA under the command of General Rybalko, our regiment was for a long time the only unit equipped with EC-2 tanks, so we were always at the forefront where the critical situation was created. The regiment began the military way, freeing Right-Bank Ukraine, then fighting for Lviv, Przemysl, Yaroslav, forcing the Vistula and fighting near Sandomir, taking control of the Oppeln fortress, bloody battles in Silesia and on the bridgeheads on the Oder, fighting near Breslau, breaking through the Neisse river, taking Berlin and the liberation of Prague is the glorious battle of the 57 Guards Poltava Red Banner Order of Bogdan Khmelnitsky and Suvorov heavy tank regiment. "

Not everyone had so long to fight in the same regiment. Time for the accumulation of information and understanding it was quite enough.

How exactly did Reznikov explain that those who fought on T-34 died much more often than those who went into battle on EC-2? First of all, of course, with the technical data of "Joseph Stalin":

“The EC-2 had thicker armor and an 122-mm cannon. We could beat "tigers" and "panthers" from a distance of 1200-1400 meters, and the Germans, in order to knock us down, had to go up to a distance of 500 meters, or beat us on board. "

But it was not only the technical capabilities of the EC-2, but also the peculiarities of their use: “Heavy tank regiments took care. We were extremely rarely thrown into the attack in front of us all. Usually T-34 marched forward, revealing the enemy firing points, such a kind of reconnaissance in force. The Germans opened fire, then we appeared, as they say, “our way out,” and with their guns and might they provided a breakthrough. ”

It is difficult to doubt that the more powerful EC-2 was taking care of more than the T-34. But the survival of his crew, Reznikov was largely considered the merit of the driver: “My best front-line friend was our tank driver Nikolai Popov. In the same carriage we went with him all our way in the war. Nikolai carefully watched the war machine, was downright in love with her. In moments of calm, when everyone was resting or “giving in,” he cleaned and repaired all the mechanisms. Our tank was always on the move. In battle, he skillfully maneuvered, many times he saved the crew from harm. Nikolai was awarded five military orders ... Largely thanks to Kolya, his courage and ability, our crew survived to Victory. " And to live to Victory was not easy.

Germans would burn us all to the last

According to Reznikov, the difference in losses between the EC-2 and T-34 disappeared by the end of the war: “At the end of the war, our EC-2 Germans began to incite in the same quantities as the T-34. In 44, the Germans began to use a new cumulative projectile, which burned through the armor of a tank, like a drill. After such a hit from the crew, even the belt was left. ”

Here is what he writes, for example, about the storming of Berlin: “In the Berlin battles, our regiment was ramming, punching defenses, we forced the Spree, and then we ran out of shells and fuels and lubricants. 27 on April 45 of the year, the regiment's tanks occupied all-round defense, sitting in a large clearing in a Berlin park, and did not take part in the battles for the city. If we were moved further to the center of the city, most likely, the Germans would have burned us one and all ... ".

Of course, excerpts from the memories given above - this is the opinion of only one veteran - tankman. Of course, any memories - the source is very subjective and the assessment - “those who fought on the T-34 died much more often than us” was made according to personal observations, which is called “by eye”. But it looks quite logical. The thickness of the armor of the EC-2 and the characteristics of the use of heavy tanks could well have made them less vulnerable than the Thirty Fours. And the alignment of losses by the end of the war can be explained not only by the appearance of a new cumulative projectile among the Germans. In the last months of the war, tankers in battles on the territory of Germany more often than before had to take part in street battles that were extremely inconvenient for them. Here and the loss of EC-2 from the actions of German faunters inevitably increased.

It is curious how the point of view of Mikhail Reznikov regarding the comparison of losses of EC-2 and T-34 is common among veterans of the tank crew?
Author:
Originator:
https://vpk-news.ru/articles/39367
161 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. UVB
    UVB 21 October 2017 08: 18
    14
    became the commander of the gun on the IS-2.
    What is this position? And an article such as reasoning on the topic when it is lighter, day or night?
    1. moskowit
      moskowit 21 October 2017 08: 57
      +5
      In February 1944, the breakthrough regiments available as part of the Red Army, equipped with KV tanks, were transferred to new states. At the same time, the formation of new parts equipped with IS vehicles, which became known as heavy tank regiments, began. Moreover, even during the formation they were given the name "guard". According to the state, in the new regiments there were 375 personnel, four IS tank companies (21 tank), machine gun companies, technical support company, anti-aircraft battery, engineer, business platoons and regimental medical center. The formation was carried out in the Tesnitsky tank camp near Tula. The peculiarity of the crew of the heavy IS tank was the presence of two officers in it - the tank commander and the senior driver-mechanic and two sergeants - gunner and loader (he is the junior driver-mechanic). Such a crew indicates the importance of the task that was assigned to the new vehicles and the guards regiments armed with them.


      You are right ... On many informational resources, there’s a purely sloppy attitude to the quality of information ... For example: yesterday, on the NTV program "Time", it was calmly stated that Serbia, referring to Yugoslavia, was a member of the Warsaw Pact ....
      1. Johns
        Johns 22 October 2017 12: 08
        +2
        Quote: Maxim Kustov
        Mikhail Reznikov, for example, appreciated

        Memoirs must be treated critically. Moreover, to the memoirs of an ordinary tankman. And the point here is often not at all truthfulness.
        Quote: Maxim Kustov
        We could beat "tigers" and "panthers" from 1200-1400 meters

        Here is an example. The author knows at what distance he could knock out the Tigers (in 1944 it was already old, because since this year the Royal Tigers have gone into the series) and Panthers. But he does not know how far they could hit the IS-2. And how did he know this, he did not study the German guns and their performance characteristics.
        Nevertheless, the armor penetration of the Tiger gun was about 76%, and Panthers about 84% of the level of armor penetration of the IS-2 gun. The picture looks very optimistic.
        But if the author wrote about the Royal Tigers (in the army since 1944), then the picture would change to the diametrically opposite. The penetration of their guns was approximately 125% of the level of the gun IS-2. And they didn’t make their way into the forehead with the IS-2 gun at all. But IS-2, they could hit in the forehead up to a range of 2,0-2,5 km.
        As for the damage to the IS-2, we do not forget that besides the frontal armor, there is another one. In addition to the Royal Tigers, the Germans in 1943-45 produced Jag Ferdinand, Jagdpanther, PaK43 / 1 (Sf) auf Pz and Pak43. They were all armed with an 88 mm PaK 43 cannon with the ballistics of a Royal Tiger gun. Only in 1943-44 2596 were made of them. Of these, 1297 pcs. in 1943 They somehow forget about it. At the same time, the widely discussed Soviet 100 mm (BS-3 and D-10S) guns in 1944. (in 1943 they were not yet) only 740 pieces were made.
        By the way, the armor penetration of the BS-3 was approximately 97% of the level of armor penetration of the PaK 43.
        1. Sanichsan
          Sanichsan 23 October 2017 18: 02
          +7
          Quote: Johns
          The penetration of their guns was approximately 125% of the level of the gun IS-2.

          nonsense. Check out the Tiger-B test report in 1944.
          Quote: Johns
          By the way, the armor penetration of the BS-3 was approximately 97% of the level of armor penetration of the PaK 43.

          I did not find reliable data on BS-3, but D10 had similar characteristics at a distance of up to 1500m, and over 1500m the best due to the larger mass of the projectile.
          1. Johns
            Johns 23 October 2017 18: 37
            +1
            Quote: SanichSan
            nonsense. Check out the Tiger-B test report in 1944.

            Why should I get to know nonsense?
            1. Sanichsan
              Sanichsan 31 October 2017 13: 54
              +5
              Quote: Johns
              Why should I get to know nonsense?

              Well, probably in order to build their conclusions on the basis of historical documents and the results of real tests and not make others laugh at their stupidity laughing
        2. AllXVahhaB
          AllXVahhaB 24 October 2017 09: 19
          +6
          Quote: Johns
          (in 1944 it was already junk, since since this year the Royal Tigers have gone into the series)

          So what? Over the course of the war, a little more than four hundred were released. And not% fight)
          “For three days of continuous battles between August 11 and 13, 1944, in the vicinity of the towns of Staszow and Szydłów, troops of the 6th Guards Tank Corps captured and destroyed 24 enemy tanks, 12 of which were new Tiger II heavy tanks. Moreover, three "Tiger II" (tower numbers 102, 502, 234) were abandoned by the crews and captured in good condition. According to the Soviet participant in this battle, the T-34-85 group jumped out of the forest onto the field where the Tiger II tanks were located bogged down in the ground by about 20 cm, losing mobility. The T-34-85 quickly approached, mixed up and began to fire at the Tigers II, whose towers did not have time to rotate. As a result, the crews of the Tigers II were forced to leave their immobilized vehicles and run from the battlefield, without undermining the abandoned equipment. Tanks 102 and 502 were delivered to Kubinka and subjected to comprehensive tests, the latter is now on display at the museum in Kubinka. "(C)
          N. Popel. Ahead of Berlin. AST Moscow 2001. from 55-58
          1. Johns
            Johns 24 October 2017 19: 39
            0
            Quote: AllXVahhaB
            According to the Soviet participant in this battle, the T-34-85 group jumped out of the forest onto the field where the Tiger II tanks were located, which were stuck in the ground by about 20 cm, having lost mobility. T-34-85 quickly became close, mixed up and began to fire at the Tigers II, whose towers did not have time to rotate. As a result, the Tigers II crews were forced to leave their immobilized vehicles and flee the battlefield without undermining the abandoned equipment.

            You should be reminded of how many T-34s were released, which in their memoirs so famously cracked down on Pz.VI-II. And in general, everything that moves. And not moving, either. I remind you, from 1941 to 1945, 58 546 pcs. And how many of these same T-34s were shot down by the Germans, too, to remind? Or will you find it yourself?
            1. AllXVahhaB
              AllXVahhaB 24 October 2017 19: 56
              +6
              Quote: Johns
              You should be reminded how many T-34s were released, which in their memoirs so famously cracked down on Pz.VI-II. And in general, everything that moves. And not moving, either. And how many of these same T-34s were shot down by the Germans, too, to recall?

              So what? You ask which is better: one wunderwafer or a series of workhorses? So the results of the war dotted all i ...
              And you recall how many Americans riveted carrier-based fighter jets, and how many Japanese Zero?
              So what?
              Your message is primitive and understandable: all the weapons that were produced, produced, and will be produced in the conditional West are at the top of engineering, works of art, and the ideal of functionality! The true weapon of VICTORY !!! On the contrary, everything that was produced by the Russian Empire \ USSR \ RF is a complete misunderstanding, squalor and absurdity!
              Just for some reason, the statistics of the history of the Victories suggests that you are, to put it mildly, not adequate. Even if we take African conflicts, under equal conditions the side armed with Kalash always won, and the side with M16 was in stock. Although the savages probably just did not know from which end to take the M16)))
              Well, the Americans, you know, knew during the Vietnam War? So what???
              I understand, it's a shame request
              1. Johns
                Johns 24 October 2017 20: 54
                0
                Quote: AllXVahhaB
                So the results of the war dotted all i ...

                What results do you take into account? I hope the loss figures of the armies of the warring parties?
                Quote: AllXVahhaB
                all the weapons that were produced, produced and will be made in the conditional West - the top of engineering, works of art and the ideal of functionality!

                More precisely, the best weapon (car, tape recorder, clock, etc., etc.) with a probability of approaching 100% will be produced in a more developed country in technical and technological terms. And in the West or in the East, think for yourself. Only the USSR from the list of applicants immediately exclude. The level there, even in the best years, was extremely low.
                Quote: AllXVahhaB
                On the contrary, everything that was produced by the Russian Empire \ USSR \ RF is a complete misunderstanding, squalor and absurdity!

                I generally never write about the Russian Federation. And extremely rare, about RI. Therefore, it is not necessary to "generalize".
                I have enough of the "charms of socialism" in the person of the USSR.
                Quote: AllXVahhaB
                Even if we take African conflicts, under equal conditions the side armed with Kalash always won, and the side with M16 was in stock.

                You are my dear. I want to upset you, but the "African conflicts" to the term "war" have roughly the same relation as yard hockey competitions to big sports. Therefore, your "thoughtful conclusions" are simply incorrect.
                Quote: AllXVahhaB
                Well, the Americans, you know, knew during the Vietnam War? So what???

                What did they know? Casserole secret or something cooler?
                Quote: AllXVahhaB
                I understand, it's a shame

                Understand.
              2. Aqela
                Aqela 10 May 2018 23: 19
                0
                Quote: AllXVahhaB
                Quote: Johns
                You should be reminded how many T-34s were released, which in their memoirs so famously cracked down on Pz.VI-II. And in general, everything that moves. And not moving, either. And how many of these same T-34s were shot down by the Germans, too, to recall?

                So what? You ask which is better: one wunderwafer or a series of workhorses? So the results of the war dotted all i ...
                And you recall how many Americans riveted carrier-based fighter jets, and how many Japanese Zero?
                So what?
                Your message is primitive and understandable: all the weapons that were produced, produced, and will be produced in the conditional West are at the top of engineering, works of art, and the ideal of functionality! The true weapon of VICTORY !!! On the contrary, everything that was produced by the Russian Empire \ USSR \ RF is a complete misunderstanding, squalor and absurdity!
                Just for some reason, the statistics of the history of the Victories suggests that you are, to put it mildly, not adequate. Even if we take African conflicts, under equal conditions the side armed with Kalash always won, and the side with M16 was in stock. Although the savages probably just did not know from which end to take the M16)))
                Well, the Americans, you know, knew during the Vietnam War? So what???
                I understand, it's a shame request

                Shermans also riveted quite a few ... request And by their combat qualities, they were not standing next to the T-3 laughing
    2. tchoni
      tchoni 21 October 2017 09: 03
      +5
      Position of gunner. It was just called that. As a "night director", "mare driver", etc.
    3. AlexVas44
      AlexVas44 21 October 2017 09: 10
      13
      Quote: UVB
      What is this position?

      In those years, the gunner was called the gunner, he was also called, even quite officially, the tower commander.
      1. Cherry Nine
        Cherry Nine 21 October 2017 11: 51
        +4
        Quote: AlexVas44
        The gun commander in those years was called the gunner, he was also called, even quite officially, the tower commander

        EMNIP, in T-34-76, the gunner was called the tank commander. And the commander of the tower - loader. Two commanders for 1420 millimeters.
        1. Lganhi
          Lganhi 21 October 2017 12: 11
          +4
          In fact, on the T-34-76, the tank commander was loading, and the tower commander was a gunner. Of course, if the tank commander believed that it would be more effective if he was a gunner, then he could well be a gunner himself, and set up a turret loader. But this was rarely practiced.
          1. Cherry Nine
            Cherry Nine 21 October 2017 12: 18
            +2
            Quote: Lgankhi
            Actually, on the T-34-76, the tank commander was loading, and the tower commander was a gunner

            OK, maybe confused. I remember that there were no kombenoshenki, but there were two commanders))))
          2. Johns
            Johns 22 October 2017 12: 12
            +2
            Quote: Lgankhi
            In fact, on the T-34-76, the tank commander was loading, and the tower commander was a gunner.

            Actually, you confused the T-34/76 with the BT-7.
            Quote: Cherry Nine
            OK, maybe confused. I remember that there were no kombenoshenki, but two commanders

            The commander in T-34/76 was alone. This is the tank commander. The gun commander was not there.
            But he was in the T-34/85. There, in the tower there were just 2 commanders, a tank and guns. And so it was in all triple towers.
            1. Cherry Nine
              Cherry Nine 22 October 2017 12: 37
              +2
              Quote: Johns
              The commander in T-34/76 was alone. This is the tank commander. The gun commander was not there.

              There are different opinions on this issue. There is, for example, the opinion of GABTU
              http://armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/WWII/T34/inbattle/?pag
              e = 3


              Quote: Lgankhi
              In fact, on the T-34-76, the tank commander was loading, and the tower commander was a gunner.

              It also says that CT - fires, and KB - prepares ammunition and charges.

              But maybe on the Internet everyone lies. It also happens.

              Quote: Johns
              But if the author wrote about the Royal Tigers (in the army since 1944)

              Stretch. I don’t know how many of them there were in the troops, especially in the East, but they were produced in the 44th year (and December 43rd) 329. Grandfathers at the same time - 2. Suddenly, grandfather was in terms of production volume closer to Panther (245 in the 3749th year), and here the comparison is not too joyful for the German.
              1. Johns
                Johns 22 October 2017 13: 06
                0
                Quote: Cherry Nine
                There are different opinions on this issue.

                I wrote about the gun commander.
                Quote: Cherry Nine
                Stretch.

                Let's compare the production of Soviet 122 mm guns on the BTT and German 88 mm guns on the new generation (1943) on the BTT.
                In 1943 435 German BTT guns and 35 Soviet BTT guns were made. Guess who started doing this BTT before?
                1. Cherry Nine
                  Cherry Nine 22 October 2017 14: 17
                  +1
                  Quote: Johns
                  I wrote about the gun commander.

                  I quoted the statement I answered.
                  Quote: Johns
                  Let's compare the production of Soviet 122 mm guns on the BTT and German 88 mm guns on the new generation (1943) on the BTT.

                  But why?
                  Well, yes, Fedi and Nashorn were produced in the 43rd. Even a couple of jagdpunter like. So what?
    4. The comment was deleted.
    5. alekc73
      alekc73 22 October 2017 18: 21
      +2
      All tanks burn well. Tankers are a heroic profession.
      1. Johns
        Johns 22 October 2017 20: 02
        0
        Quote: alekc73
        Tankers are a heroic profession.

        Profession?
    6. Strategy
      Strategy 25 October 2017 20: 20
      0
      E
      Quote: UVB
      What is this position?

      Before blurt out this on this portal, read the relevant literature and archival documents.
    7. Cyril Troekurych
      Cyril Troekurych 16 March 2018 16: 24
      0
      meaning shutter commander
  2. tchoni
    tchoni 21 October 2017 08: 25
    +7
    Maybe the IPs were burning and less often due to the somewhat more frugal attitude of the command and better security, but leaving the burning IP was a bit more difficult. The whole crew had to get out through two tower hatches.
    1. The leader of the Redskins
      The leader of the Redskins 21 October 2017 09: 44
      11
      Here I completely agree with you! I initially thought the article was about the layout of two tanks and the fire hazard. And it all came down to the banal quoting of the participant. Here is my grandfather, for example, during the year of the war he burned four times. Twice in T-34, once in “Valentine” and once in “Sherman”. His words - T-34 is better ... The diesel engine doesn’t light up like gasoline ...
      1. jjj
        jjj 21 October 2017 11: 07
        +2
        But there is another opinion that the crew noticed a fire from gasoline faster and faster left the car. Whereas on diesel tanks, fire detection was too late
        1. tchoni
          tchoni 21 October 2017 12: 14
          +1
          Everything is more complicated here. Gasoline and its vapor light up at a lower temperature - this is a fact. Gasoline vapors are more volatile. But the explosion of tanning vapor in a half-empty tank is much stronger. The whole question is detonation)
          1. Lganhi
            Lganhi 21 October 2017 12: 21
            +3
            Quote: tchoni
            But the explosion of solar vapor in a half-empty tank is much stronger

            Proofs? In my opinion, the explosion of vapors is that of gasoline, that solariums are approximately comparable in strength.
            1. IL-18
              IL-18 21 October 2017 12: 50
              +9
              In 1941, a batch of T-34s with M-17s was released in Gorky instead of the deficient (evacuation) B-2s. These tanks immediately came with welded extra armor. But the very first impression of the harsh fate of the tanker was a photograph with a windshield missing from the hull of such a tank. It was carried out by an explosion of gasoline vapors. By the way, if I remember correctly, I saw the same photograph in M. Svirin's book “Stalin's Armor Shield”. And in the same book there was an interesting comparison of the advantages of gasoline and diesel engines for tanks in the context of that time. As for the IS-2, by 1944 the Germans began to have problems with the production of armored steel due to the absence (including) of Nikopol manganese (for those who like to speculate on what should have been done after the liberation of Orel and Belgorod) , Tigers and Panthers, though they didn’t make their way, but broke through a 122-mm HE shell, with the corresponding finale for the crew. For the OFS, the shot distance did not matter anymore, as for armor-piercing, which provided additional advantages for the IS-2, it did not matter if there was a tank or a firing point in front of you.
              1. Johns
                Johns 22 October 2017 12: 20
                +2
                Quote: IL-18
                It was carried out by an explosion of gasoline vapors.

                Pairs of diesel fuel these sheets carried out no weaker.
                And in general, diesel on tanks of that time, this is an illustration of the proverb “cunning fiction invented.” In the USSR there was not enough gasoline. And the production capacity to produce it, too. And aviation desperately needed gasoline. But it was full of by-products of the simplest oil refining. It was under them that they made a clumsy diesel engine. Fuel is free. A more or less diesel tank engine was cured of diseases and normally mastered by production much later than the end of the war. And during the war it was that still a problem. Actually consumable item. One can imagine how much the operation of the "super-simple and super-cheap" T-34 cost.
                1. Glory1974
                  Glory1974 22 October 2017 18: 40
                  +2
                  illustration of the proverbial “invented fool”. In the USSR there was not enough gasoline.

                  But what about the Fritz? They didn’t have enough diesel for the fleet, but there was ersatz gas for land equipment. Therefore, they put gas engines on the tanks.
                  1. Cherry Nine
                    Cherry Nine 22 October 2017 19: 40
                    +1
                    Quote: glory1974
                    But what about the Fritz?

                    The Germans had a similar situation, a skewed fuel balance. Only he was skewed in the opposite direction - gasoline can be replaced with synthetic fuel, but not diesel fuel.
                    Quote: glory1974
                    therefore, gasoline engines were placed on tanks.

                    For many reasons. A gasoline engine is lighter in weight, simpler, more reliable. On the other hand, the USSR still did not have suitable engines for the tank. Nevertheless, we decided to take into account the situation with high-octane fuels and run into a diesel engine. Rare sanity at the time.
                    However, sanity ended there. Tank diesel engines in the USSR were made of aluminum, and fighter aircraft were made of wood.
                    Quote: Johns
                    And during the war it was that still a problem. Actually consumable item. One can imagine how much the operation of the "super-simple and super-cheap" T-34 cost.

                    During that war, the tank itself was a consumable item.
                    1. Glory1974
                      Glory1974 22 October 2017 19: 46
                      +2
                      However, sanity ended there.

                      Judging by the final result, there was more sanity in the USSR than in Germany.
                      Tank diesel engines in the USSR were made of aluminum, and fighter aircraft were made of wood.

                      So it seems that the engine block is still cast iron, and the lid is made of aluminum?
                      1. Johns
                        Johns 22 October 2017 20: 15
                        0
                        Quote: glory1974
                        Judging by the final result, there was more sanity in the USSR than in Germany.

                        The Anglo-Saxons had more sanity. And even more, the Spaniards with the Portuguese and other Swedes.
                      2. Cherry Nine
                        Cherry Nine 22 October 2017 20: 50
                        +1
                        Quote: glory1974
                        sanity was more in the USSR than in Germany.

                        The kid walked to success, it didn’t work, he didn’t fartanulo.
                        Not rebuilt in time from the blitzkrieg to a total war.
                        It does not all German decisions are erroneous as well all
                        Soviet - correct.
                        Quote: glory1974
                        So it seems that the engine block is still cast iron, and the lid is made of aluminum?

                        B-2 was made of aluminum almost entirely (by weight). Including cylinder block.
                        Quote: Johns
                        The Anglo-Saxons had more sanity.

                        It depends.
                        Quote: Johns
                        And even more, the Spaniards with the Portuguese and other Swedes.

                        Possible.
                      3. Johns
                        Johns 22 October 2017 23: 09
                        0
                        Quote: glory1974
                        Your statement is contrary to the facts.

                        Do not confuse facts with propaganda.
                        Quote: glory1974
                        that economically superiority was on the Russian side.

                        1. The "Russian side" did not participate in the WWII war. The "Soviet side" took part in it.
                        2. You make me laugh.
                        Quote: glory1974
                        From 41 to 45 years, the cost of manufacturing weapons in the USSR for various positions decreased several times.

                        It may very well be. But from this the end result did not become cheap. It just got cheaper. And these are two big differences.
                        Quote: glory1974
                        For example, PCA fell three times.

                        Maybe cheaper. It was a pity there was little benefit from him. Only a little more than from the completely bespontovy TT.
                        Soviet style, first we do, and then look at what happened in the end. Along the way, calling non-received things "legendary." After all, what is the demand from the "legend"?
                        Quote: glory1974
                        Therefore, the three-line one hundred years in service

                        You are still a Nagan revolver begin to be proud. Just they were originally from one author. And they served about the same.
                        Quote: glory1974
                        PPSh until then is used in battles

                        Have you ever wondered WHOM is used? Take an interest.
                        Quote: glory1974
                        T-34 fought in the Vietnam 60s

                        Did the Vietnamese have a choice?
                        Quote: glory1974
                        still fighting in the Middle East (a recent article was about Yemen)

                        Yemen. Wait, wait, is this the case not a spare center of world civilization? Second, after Washington?
                        Quote: glory1974
                        PPS-43 is one of the best in World War II, etc. etc.

                        PPS-43 is a cheap mobilization of inept rubbish. Yes, yes, exactly what you read I had in mind.
                        Quote: glory1974
                        Soviet artillery is used in Syria. In the Chechen war used mortars release 43 year.

                        And these are the “arguments” in favor of what?
                    2. Johns
                      Johns 22 October 2017 20: 13
                      0
                      Quote: Cherry Nine
                      During that war, the tank itself was a consumable item.

                      To some extent, with regards to Soviet tanks, especially the T-60, T-70 and T-34 of all kinds, one can say so. But the IS-2 is no longer there, not such a consumable. Again, all sorts of SU and ISUs weighing heavier than light, also not consumable. And the engine is the same everywhere, "consumable".
                      If you look at the Soviet weapons as a whole, it is clearly seen that the USSR in general fought not expensively, but very expensively. Literally all types of weapons were either very expensive or ineffective. And often, one and the other together.
                      1. Cherry Nine
                        Cherry Nine 22 October 2017 21: 04
                        0
                        Quote: Johns
                        But the IS-2 is no longer there, not such a consumable. Again, all sorts of SU and ISUs weighing heavier than light, also not consumable. And the engine is the same everywhere, "consumable".

                        By the advent of ISs, the engine was relatively (40th year) dopilen. In any case, there was no way to create a new engine under the IP in the USSR.
                        Quote: Johns
                        that the USSR in general fought not expensively, but very expensively

                        Economics is not a strong point of the socialists at all, you know. However, if we switch from the categories of efficiency to the categories of gross output, we stayed at the level of the rest, except for the Americans.
                        Quote: Johns
                        IS-2 typical ACS support.

                        Well, to hell with him. We will call them tanks for short.
                      2. Glory1974
                        Glory1974 22 October 2017 22: 11
                        +1
                        If you look at the Soviet weapons as a whole, it is clearly seen that the USSR in general fought not expensively, but very expensively.

                        Your statement contradicts the facts. If technologically German technology was superior to the Soviet, then economically superiority was on the Russian side. From 41 to 45, the cost of manufacturing weapons in the USSR for various positions decreased several times.
                        For example, PCA fell three times.
                        Literally all types of weapons were either very expensive or ineffective. And often, one and the other together.

                        Therefore, the three-year line has been in operation for a hundred years, the PPSh has been used in battles until then, the T-34 fought in the Vietnam 60's and is still fighting in the Middle East (a recent article was about Yemen). PPS-43 is one of the best in the second world war, etc. etc.
                        Soviet artillery is used in Syria. In the Chechen war used mortars release 43 year.
                      3. GTR 302
                        GTR 302 22 December 2017 09: 04
                        +2
                        As history and practice have shown, the war was won by the mass production cost of production and simplicity reliability - maintainability in the field. Therefore, T - 34 flaunts on pedestals, and “your” panther
                    3. Johns
                      Johns 22 October 2017 21: 38
                      0
                      Quote: Cherry Nine
                      By the advent of ISs, the engine was relatively (40th year) dopilen.

                      By 1944 B-2 stopped falling apart on the first couple of dozens of hours of work. And he was finished in the 50s. Now I don’t remember exactly what year. But sometime then. Then the tank factories were stopped for almost a year, putting an ultimatum to the minders.
                      Quote: Cherry Nine
                      However, if we switch from efficiency categories to gross output categories, then we stayed at the level of the rest

                      The gross output of the tanks was. It is a pity that besides this there was practically no release of anything else. And as soon as the USSR Lend-Lease needle was removed, famine immediately occurred in the USSR. And this is in peacetime. And what would be without Lend-Lease food during the war?
                      Quote: Cherry Nine
                      We will call them tanks for short.

                      In principle, I do not care. I just would like to put all the points in their places.
                      1. Cherry Nine
                        Cherry Nine 22 October 2017 22: 14
                        0
                        Quote: Johns
                        B-2 stopped falling apart on the first couple of dozens of hours of work

                        For wartime, this is all right.
                        Quote: Johns
                        And as soon as the USSR Lend-Lease needle was removed, there was a famine immediately in the USSR

                        In the USSR, famine also happened before the war. The party and government did not consider this a problem. They could even contribute, it happened.
                      2. The comment was deleted.
                    4. mat-vey
                      mat-vey 23 October 2017 13: 11
                      +2
                      Quote: Cherry Nine
                      gasoline can be replaced with synthetic fuel, but not diesel fuel.

                      You only do not tell chemists and technologists - they will laugh and spit ....
                      1. Cherry Nine
                        Cherry Nine 23 October 2017 23: 54
                        0
                        Quote: mat-vey
                        You only do not tell chemists and technologists

                        You are right, I am superficially familiar with the technology for the production of synthetic fuels.
                        Want to tell how this was the case? Feel free to ask you.
                    5. alexxxz
                      alexxxz 27 October 2017 15: 30
                      0
                      “Tank diesel engines in the USSR were made of aluminum” - well, so far, the cast-iron cylinder blocks are still on the descendants of those tank engines. But the cylinder head, yes, duralumin. But you cannot make one duralumin and one wing for a fighter.
                      They made fighter from plywood, not only because of the lack of "luminescence", but more out of habit. The technology has been tested on plywood. Quantities were needed, and that quantity was faster from plywood than from "luminium".
                    6. Simargl
                      Simargl 31 December 2017 13: 45
                      0
                      Quote: Cherry Nine
                      However, sanity ended there. Tank diesel engines in the USSR were made of aluminum, and fighter aircraft were made of wood.
                      Those. fighters had to be made of aluminum, and diesel engines of wood ?! wassat
                  2. Johns
                    Johns 22 October 2017 20: 04
                    +1
                    Quote: glory1974
                    They didn’t have enough diesel for the fleet, but there was ersatz gas for land equipment, so they put gas engines on tanks.

                    Did the Americans also lack gasoline?
                    And did the British also have a gas shortage?
                    1. Glory1974
                      Glory1974 22 October 2017 20: 12
                      +2
                      And did the British also have a gas shortage?

                      The British had a shortage of everything, because everything was imported. Therefore, according to Lend-Lease, there were more supplies to England than to the USSR. But they were delivered with difficulty, the German Navy and the Air Force interfered. (Battle of the Atlantic).
                      Did the Americans also lack gasoline?

                      The Americans were smart enough to draw the right conclusions.
                      1. Johns
                        Johns 22 October 2017 21: 20
                        0
                        Quote: glory1974
                        The British had a shortage of everything, because everything was imported.

                        The weight of diesel fuel and gasoline is about the same. However, the engines were made gasoline and drove gasoline. Think about why this is.
                        Quote: glory1974
                        The Americans were smart enough to draw the right conclusions.

                        I don’t know what you had in mind. But they put diesel engines only on the BTT of the Marines (the sailors did not use gasoline) and on those tanks that they shipped to the USSR.
                        And also think about why this is.
                      2. Cherry Nine
                        Cherry Nine 22 October 2017 22: 31
                        +1
                        Quote: Johns
                        However, the engines were made gasoline and drove gasoline. Think about why this is.

                        The engines put diesel on Vali / Moti and gasoline on heavier / high-speed cars. the diesel engine lacked power, and they were afraid to make twin engines, like the Americans, by lime - and so they were tormented with reliability.
                        Quote: Johns
                        But they put diesel engines only on the BTT of the Marines (the sailors did not use gasoline) and on those tanks that they shipped to the USSR.

                        Due to the senseless, judging by the British, the idea of ​​fuel unification. In real life, in order to get low-octane, but still aviation gasoline for the Sherman star (OT in the region of 70), it was necessary to take the aviation hundredth and load it with automobile 60th, it seems. Gasoline directly from the trucks did not fit the star. Unification, May Ass.
                        Caterpillar proposed making multi-fuel dieselbut they were sent by the forest
                    2. Cherry Nine
                      Cherry Nine 22 October 2017 20: 18
                      +1
                      Quote: Johns
                      Did the Americans also lack gasoline?

                      The Americans did not have enough brains, unfortunately. There were no people in the ground forces who thought long enough about what the tank should be (say, their Ginzburg), and there were no people in strategic intelligence who could pull out specialists, say, from France in time (there was no strategic intelligence itself) .
                      As a result, when Roosevelt gave the order to make an army worthy of Mordor, the hack-workers on the state mine grabbed the first large-scale engine of sufficient power that came across. An aviation star, what else.
                      In the 42nd it suddenly became clear that there might not be enough stars. Then went improvisations, incl. twin 71st diesel. They would have thought in advance - if, for example, they had made, on the basis of the 71st V-model, or had taken Alison instead of Wright, there would have been an American Meteor. But the first is time, and the second did not occur on time.
                      Quote: Johns
                      And did the British also have a gas shortage?

                      The British had a shortage of everything. What was available (option - what was sent from America), then they set it. There were diesels on Valiakh, and, let’s say, on Cruziders or Churchillas, gasoline. Towards the end of the war, the gas meteor became the standard.
                      1. Johns
                        Johns 22 October 2017 21: 29
                        +1
                        Quote: Cherry Nine
                        (say your Ginzburg)

                        What is this husband famous for? Killed ridiculously? That, yes. What else?
                        Quote: Cherry Nine
                        hack workers at the government ryad grabbed the first large-scale engine of sufficient power that came across. An aviation star, what else.

                        You can agree that the arms of the US Army during WW2 did not quite correspond to the level of technical development of the country. Yes, these weapons were not so bad (although the terrible weapons of the Red Army were not even a couple to him). But it could only be called good in some areas with a stretch. “Bad”, this term is more or less acceptable.
                        Although, if we take the individual small arms, then the American was the best among all.
                      2. Cherry Nine
                        Cherry Nine 22 October 2017 22: 00
                        +2
                        Quote: Johns
                        What is this husband famous for?

                        The fact that he considered it necessary to catch trends. And I caught the trend of the medium tank (single tank / bulletproof armor / 3 ") back in 36th. Americans, I recall, 3 years later they built and tried to put into the large series the medium tank M2 - 37mm cannon, 8 machine guns.
                        Quote: Johns
                        US Army weapons during WW2 did not quite match the level of technical development of the country.

                        There is still much worse. The armament of the US Army did not match the level directly of this weapon due to the tactical and technical illiteracy of the aircraft command. One A-36 Apache attack aircraft, which accidentally turned out to be a R-51 Mustang fighter, which is worth it. Who would have thought that an airplane designed as a fighter would suddenly turn out to be a fighter, not an attack aircraft?
                        Applied to tanks: good Sherman - Israeli Sherman. The Americans themselves did not even try to make Sherman right.
                        Quote: Johns
                        Although, if we take the individual small arms, then the American was the best among all.

                        And again, it did not even correspond to the “technical level of the country”, but to its own technical level due to illiteracy of command. So, the American Thompson PP weighed 4,8 kg, twice as much as the M2 carbine, had well-balanced automation that allowed the use of a much more powerful cartridge than 0.45. Ready machine, but no, not fate.

                        But be sure to make a rifle under the cartridge .30-06 to shoot, b, per kilometer with an open, b, sight. We’ll shoot at the cavalry regiments on the march.
                      3. Johns
                        Johns 22 October 2017 22: 43
                        0
                        Quote: Cherry Nine
                        The fact that he considered it necessary to catch trends.

                        45 mm cannon in a two-seat turret for an infantry tank, is that a "trend" of those times? Do not make me laugh. The T-126SP was hardly suitable for anything. Even converted from an infantry to an “operational” T-50 tank, it was still not needed by anyone. Therefore, I did not understand about trends.
                        Quote: Cherry Nine
                        And the trend of the medium tank (single tank / bulletproof armor / 3 ") caught in the 36th

                        But what did he never realize in his “capture”? He had nothing to do with the T-34. And nothing more fits your description.
                        Quote: Cherry Nine
                        So, the American Thompson PP weighed 4,8 kg, twice as much as the M2 carbine, had well-balanced automation that allowed the use of a much more powerful cartridge than 0.45. Ready machine, but no, not fate.

                        The fact is that I am not a supporter of automatic weapons on an intermediate cartridge with a classic bullet. Those. a series of Soviet weapons on a cartridge of 7,62x39 mm.
                        At the same time, I admit that the AK-47 / AK / AKM had some advantage over the M14 at a range of 0-50 m. And an undeniable advantage at a range of 50-100 m. And also this weapon was equivalent at a range of 100-300 m However, at a range of more than 300 m, the M14 had all the advantages.
                        As for the "balanced automation", the recoil momentum of the post-war Thompson on the cartridge .45 ACP + R was only 77,5% of the level of the recoil momentum of the AKM. Therefore, to a full-fledged automatic machine, he, like the AK-47 / AK / AKM, is far away. The first full-fledged automatic was M16A1, but it is already on the cartridge of a different operating principle.
                        At the same time, the post-war Thompson himself on the .45 ACP + R cartridge clearly exceeded the AK-47 / AK / AKM series weapons at close range. And quite a bit inferior to him at distances greater than average.
                        In other words, the M14 and Thompson perfectly complemented each other.
                        Quote: Cherry Nine
                        But be sure to make a rifle under the cartridge .30-06 to shoot, b, per kilometer with an open, b, sight. We’ll shoot at the cavalry regiments on the march.

                        You forget about logistics. The Americans in the advanced infantry had only 2 rounds. "Pistol" for the Thompson and Colt. And the "rifle" for the M14, LMG and sniper. And even for the "company", if desired. In fact, beauty. Almost ideal.
                      4. Cherry Nine
                        Cherry Nine 22 October 2017 23: 18
                        0
                        Quote: Johns
                        45 mm cannon in a two-seat turret for an infantry tank, is that a "trend" of those times?

                        I talked about his note at the end of the 36th year. The first such machine appeared a year later (four), and she was given ballistic armor in the 39th (model D)
                        Actually, the French, and the Americans, and the Soviets, and even the British came much later to such a tank concept. Sherman was 6 years old, not 7 months from February to September of the 41st.
                        Quote: Johns
                        The fact is that I am not a supporter of automatic weapons on an intermediate cartridge with a classic bullet

                        The concept of a high-speed low-pulse bullet (5,56) was not considered in the 40th year, according to my data. And the redundancy of a rifle cartridge for an individual infantry weapon in battles without cavalry is obvious. Everyone except the Americans of that time.
                        Quote: Johns
                        M14 and Thompson perfectly complemented each other.

                        What is M14, hello? M1 Garand. And he and Thompson were not supposed to complement each other (they were issued to different types of troops), but to BAR. Garand lacked the density of fire, and Thompson lacked perseverance. As a result, efficiency at the level of link-squad-platoon was far from the best. In fact, there was no link at all.
                        Quote: Johns
                        However, at a range of more than 300 m, the M14 had all the advantages.

                        A conscript soldier cannot realize these advantages in the open sight. And M14, since we are talking about it, generally wrecking. Starting with a cartridge.
                        Quote: Johns
                        The Americans in the advanced infantry had only 2 rounds.

                        And both are unsuccessful. Rather, even inappropriate.
                        Quote: Johns
                        Almost ideal.

                        For the adversary.
                      5. Johns
                        Johns 22 October 2017 23: 59
                        0
                        Quote: Cherry Nine
                        I talked about his note at the end of the 36th year.

                        Note, that's good. Notes can be written differently. But everything, what to do with products? Everything was not as good with Ginzburg's products as with notes. He and the front due to failure of work (next) with a very specific product (SU-76) were exiled.
                        And the Soviet tanks already had a 76 mm cannon. BT-7A. There was no full anti-ballistic armor, it was. But what were anti-tank guns in 1936?
                        And yet again, BT, this is not Ginzburg's estate.
                        In addition, Ginzburg offered inclined armor, as I recall. And a little earlier than in the mid-30s.
                        Quote: Cherry Nine
                        And the redundancy of a rifle cartridge for an individual infantry weapon in battles without cavalry is obvious. Everyone except the Americans of that time.

                        In fact, besides the USSR, no one in the world switched to weapons on an intermediate cartridge with a classic bullet. Even the Germans in the Reich considered the StuG44 only as a special weapon, but not at all infantry, as it was in the USSR. Yes, and it did not fit in the infantry. TTX was not good.
                        Quote: Cherry Nine
                        The concept of a high-speed low-pulse bullet (5,56) was not considered in the 40th year, according to my data.

                        Of course. Americans invented cartridges with such bullets only in the 60s. Initially, to replace .45 ACP + P, oddly enough.
                        Quote: Cherry Nine
                        What is M14, hello? M1 Garand. And he and Thompson did not have to complement each other (they were issued to different types of troops), but to BAR. Garand lacked the density of fire, and Thompson lacked perseverance.

                        TTX guarantees were not very different from the M14. Only at a range of 0-50 m was the difference noticeable. And the wartime Thompsons on the .45 ACP cartridge were simpler, but not by much. But in general, the situation did not differ much from the one I described above.
                        Quote: Cherry Nine
                        A conscript soldier cannot realize these advantages in the open sight.

                        Sodat draftee, this is not a synonym for the word "". All he can. If not from the first shooting, then from the tenth. And up to 400 m, it is simply obliged to be able to. According to the Charter.
                        Quote: Cherry Nine
                        And M14, since we were talking about it, generally wrecking. Starting with a cartridge.

                        Still disagree. Just like that, in short, I do not agree. And on the contrary, I consider wrecking weapons on a cartridge of 7,62x39 mm.
                        Quote: Cherry Nine
                        And both are unsuccessful. Rather, even inappropriate.

                        Those. cartridges 7,62x54R, TT and PM, they are successful, but these, no? You are somehow quite critical of American weapons. But in vain. For many, many years it has been, if not a reference, then one of the best examples in the world. At least during WW2, no one even came close to the level of Americans. And today, the key to success is the use of cartridges used by the Americans. Just because they, these cartridges, are right. And on the wrong cartridges you will not go far.
                      6. Cherry Nine
                        Cherry Nine 23 October 2017 00: 46
                        0
                        Quote: Johns
                        But everything, what to do with products?

                        The four were sent to Kharkov. Leningraders were instructed to make a troika. They did it, and with dignity, regarding the Kharkiv people.
                        Quote: Johns
                        In fact, besides the USSR, no one in the world switched to weapons on an intermediate cartridge with a classic bullet.

                        Nobody is NATO and its customers. Yes, they didn’t cross over, but only because the Americans were pushing their point of view. The Anglo-Belgians stood precisely for the intermediate, and not for 7,62x51, but they were crushed.
                        Only in the 80s did bronics and sights make 7,62x51 the right choice. And then when shooting per kilometer, 6,5 mm calibers, the spiritual descendants of Arisaki, for example 6.5 × 47mm Lapua and 6.5-284 Norma, are more popular
                        Quote: Johns
                        TTX guarantees were not very different from the M14

                        Well, if you saw off automatic fire from the M14, then yes. They sawed him, in fact.
                        Quote: Johns
                        And up to 400 m, it is simply obliged to be able to. According to the Charter.

                        And it is at these ranges that the rifles are drained to the machine guns in all respects.
                        Quote: Johns
                        And on the contrary, I consider wrecking weapons on a cartridge of 7,62x39 mm.

                        One other does not exclude.
                        Quote: Johns
                        Those. cartridges ... they are successful

                        7,62x54 - Deprecated
                        7,62x25 - optimal for the USSR. The Americans had the opportunity to take something under the kilojoule with a .357Mag ballistics for the PP and the heavy army pistol, but they did not.
                        9x18 - norms, while the standard was 0.380ACP.
                        Quote: Johns
                        You are somehow quite critical of American weapons

                        Yes. If the Soviet design school, most fakap can be attributed to poverty / frivolity, then the Americans do not have such a handicap. They had the opportunity to choose, and they chose this.
                      7. Johns
                        Johns 23 October 2017 01: 42
                        0
                        Quote: Cherry Nine
                        The four were sent to Kharkov. Leningraders were instructed to make a troika. They did it, and with dignity, regarding the Kharkiv people.

                        There was just a slightly different story. That is why fours and triples came out so flawed.
                        In Kharkov, they made a "cavalryman" to replace the BT-7, and in Leningrad, another UG to replace the T-26. Both were with double towers and 45 mm cannons. But later in ABTU they still decided to make an infantry tank with a 76 mm cannon. The “Leningrader” (T-126SP) was so microscopic that they could not penetrate the gun there. Rather, they could, but there was nowhere to put the ammunition. And the A-20 was noticeably larger, there was more of his BO. Therefore, there was a "castling". The A-20 then completely switched to the tracks, received a 76 mm gun in the tower and additional reservation. After which he became the T-34 infantry tank. As an infantry tank, the T-34 could be used quite normally. The trouble was that it was almost never used.
                        But the T-126SP, on the contrary, lost part of the armor, but received a larger shoulder strap of the tower and the third crew member in the tower. After which it became known as the T-50. And it was considered an operational (according to the Soviet classification) tank. The third in the tower there was no tail of the mare, so the wartime T-50s (with a cast tower) were produced with a double tower. Anyway, it was a tank of a dying concept. Therefore, the T-50 died in a very timely manner.
                        Quote: Cherry Nine
                        The Anglo-Belgians stood precisely for the intermediate, and not for 7,62x51, but they were crushed.

                        Do not fantasize.
                        Quote: Cherry Nine
                        And then when shooting per kilometer, 6,5 mm calibers, the spiritual descendants of Arisaki, for example 6.5 × 47mm Lapua and 6.5-284 Norma, are more popular

                        And again, do not fantasize. This is not an army weapon.
                        Quote: Cherry Nine
                        And it is at these ranges that the rifles are drained to the machine guns in all respects.

                        No, it is not. First of all, what kind of machine guns? Assault rifles on a 5,56x45 mm NATO cartridge. And that’s it. Machine guns on other cartridges at a distance of 400 m lose to rifles on rifle cartridges clearly.
                        In addition, the assault rifles on a cartridge of 7,62x39 mm are not infantry assault rifles, but assault rifles with a built-in PP function. Those. this is a self-loading weapon of a weakened battle (effective up to 300 m) with the ability to conduct aimed automatic fire at a range of about 100 m. You can shoot with automatic fire further, but FIG will get. You can shoot aiming with a single fire and further 300 m, but there it’s so lucky there are no guarantees.
                        A rifle on a rifle cartridge hollows itself at about 600-700 m. At 400 m on an open sight, and then with optics. And with a 100% guarantee.
                        Quote: Cherry Nine
                        7,62x54 - Deprecated
                        7,62x25 - optimal for the USSR. The Americans had the opportunity to take something under the kilojoule with a .357Mag ballistics for the PP and the heavy army pistol, but they did not.
                        9x18 - norms, while the standard was 0.380ACP.

                        You will laugh, but 7,62x54 mm, this is the ONLY air conditioning cartridge that was in the Red Army / SA. All other Soviet “innovations” are just a Soviet booth. Amateur art. Starting from the TT cartridge and ending with a 5,45x39 mm cartridge.
                        You see, it’s not enough to have red pants, a Mauser pistol and the “heart of a fiery revolutionary”. It would also be nice to have knowledge. And with this, it’s not even that in the USSR, in tsarist Russia it was tight. And in the USSR, there’s a complete blockage. From this and such a result.
                        Is it a joke to say that the first army pistol appeared only in the Russian army. And even then, after adopting the cartridge of steam. And before that, nothing. In the Red Army / SA, it never happened. As it was not, as a result of the lack of a pistol army cartridge, army submachine guns. Although there were some funny items with such names in the Red Army / SA.
                        But the infantry self-loading rifle on a rifle cartridge in the USSR could not be done at all. You see, the “stove”, from which everything “dances”, could not be made. Failed.
                        Quote: Cherry Nine
                        They had the opportunity to choose, and they chose this.

                        And I emphasize once again that I do not share your skepticism about American small arms. And I consider it, if not the best, then one of the best examples in the world.
        2. EvilLion
          EvilLion 21 October 2017 14: 54
          +3
          If something in the MTO lights up, then there is no great danger to the crew. The trouble is that tanks and ammunition are scattered everywhere in the tank, it is somehow strange not to notice a fire if something breaks out in the inhabited compartments.

          In this case, the receipt of the projectile itself will be so fucking that you know for sure.
      2. Cherry Nine
        Cherry Nine 21 October 2017 11: 53
        0
        Quote: Leader of the Redskins
        Here is my grandfather, for example, during the year of the war he burned four times.

        I understand you that "burned" - this is spontaneous combustion, and not getting into tanks.
      3. polpot
        polpot 21 October 2017 13: 10
        +5
        It’s bad to burn everywhere who burned in BMP or BMD will confirm the rest of the question in training and personal dexterity; my uncle changed 6 crews during the war and reached Vienna just learned before school in the school and taught well
      4. Monarchist
        Monarchist 21 October 2017 13: 22
        +2
        The leader, I knew the T34-85 mechvoda and he said that Sherman was a convenient and fast tank, but the “thirty-four” is better: it is shorter and singing whimsical.
        About the bucket on the T34 gun barrel, I didn’t hear him, apparently, not everywhere did it
      5. notingem
        notingem 25 October 2017 22: 49
        0
        So Sherman like two diesel engines?
  3. ICT
    ICT 21 October 2017 09: 00
    +1
    Quote: tchoni
    Maybe IPs burned less often

    advancing towards the city of Stallupenen, met stubborn resistance of heavy tanks and anti-tank guns buried in the ground. In this battle, Soviet tankers destroyed three "tigers" and ten guns, but they themselves suffered heavy losses - seven IS-2 tanks were burned and one was destroyed.
  4. Hurricane70
    Hurricane70 21 October 2017 09: 43
    +3
    The author, what personally hurt you? Turn the article normal at the beginning into a booth ... Leveling losses, mlyn !!! I phrased a phrase ... It seems that you are not talking about dead people! Do not work as an extra?
    1. Reserve officer
      Reserve officer 21 October 2017 16: 55
      +6
      I see this legendary IS-2 every day. We have at the Kirov plant in St. Petersburg, on a pedestal.
      And here, in VO, I saw the catchy title of the article, read - and faceless content. The topic was simply beyond the reach of the author.
      If you write such articles, then you need to respect the audience. VO - this is not the journal "Pioneer" or "Young Technician".
      1. Spitfire
        Spitfire 27 December 2017 11: 53
        0
        KV-85 there. Take a closer look. I also see him twice a day.
  5. Hurricane70
    Hurricane70 21 October 2017 09: 46
    +1
    Quote: TIT
    Quote: tchoni
    Maybe IPs burned less often

    advancing towards the city of Stallupenen, met stubborn resistance of heavy tanks and anti-tank guns buried in the ground. In this battle, Soviet tankers destroyed three "tigers" and ten guns, but they themselves suffered heavy losses - seven IS-2 tanks were burned and one was destroyed.

    It seems that he wrote and clapped his hands ...
  6. Settlement Oparyshev
    Settlement Oparyshev 21 October 2017 09: 59
    +1
    Of course they talk about it, but not so much. Not a human subject.
  7. mvg
    mvg 21 October 2017 10: 07
    +3
    “The EC-2 had thicker armor and an 122-mm cannon. We could beat "tigers" and "panthers" from a distance of 1200-1400 meters, and the Germans, in order to knock us down, had to go up to a distance of 500 meters, or beat us on board. "

    This is a masterpiece for shkolnikoff elementary grades.
    And the article is not even at the level of pioneers ... IN anneals. Put, pliz, Damantsev or Oleg, at this level they are just CCMs.
  8. Torins
    Torins 21 October 2017 11: 16
    12
    By the time the IS-2 appeared in front in sufficient quantities, 34 matches were not used to attack fortified defense lines in the forehead, at least in those areas where the Germans had a lot of anti-tank weapons, just heavy tanks and heavy ones were used for this purpose self-propelled guns (ISU-152 for example). 34 ki were used for ambush against enemy tanks, often used to develop an offensive and in counterattacks - when the enemy could not provide a well-organized defense. No one was stupid at the headquarters, everyone understood that by the second half of the war the T-34 armor stopped being anti-projectile and nobody was going to burn packs of stupidity with their own tanks. Yes, there were episodes where 34 matches were essentially sent to slaughter, but this was dictated by harsh necessity on a particular sector of the front and was not common practice. So the words that the IS-2 was more tenacious than the T-34 were not entirely true, they had different tasks at the front, and each tank was good in its own way based on its characteristics.
    1. mat-vey
      mat-vey 23 October 2017 13: 25
      0
      That he did not understand how it is possible to compare tanks on the forehead for different tasks ....
  9. shuravi
    shuravi 21 October 2017 11: 22
    +5
    Quote: mvg
    “The EC-2 had thicker armor and an 122-mm cannon. We could beat "tigers" and "panthers" from a distance of 1200-1400 meters, and the Germans, in order to knock us down, had to go up to a distance of 500 meters, or beat us on board. "

    This is a masterpiece for shkolnikoff elementary grades.
    And the article is not even at the level of pioneers ... IN anneals. Put, pliz, Damantsev or Oleg, at this level they are just CCMs.



    But actually, what doesn’t suit you? In a duel situation, the odds of the Tiger against the IS-2 were negligible. Another thing. that the IS-2 was advancing more, and the Tiger was already defending itself. It was possible to equip positions and to camouflage, and to strike from a favorable distance.
    1. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine 21 October 2017 11: 58
      +2
      Quote: shuravi
      Tiger’s chances against IS-2 were null and void.

      The chances of the Tiger and Panther against the early IS (with a broken forehead) are very high. The German, most likely, will see first, shoot first, get first, and then there the card will fall. The odds against the late IS are about the same as those of the T-34 or M4 vs Panther. That is, the forehead will not work, but there are other options.
      1. mat-vey
        mat-vey 23 October 2017 13: 29
        0
        All laugh?
    2. Lganhi
      Lganhi 21 October 2017 12: 18
      +6
      Thanks to unitary loading and a light cartridge, the Tiger had a rate of fire of 6-8 rounds per minute, while the IS-2 had a rate of fire of around 2 rounds per minute. And since both tanks easily pierced each other (with the exception of the IS-2's flattened forehead, but the Tiger gunners aimed at the tower, which even penetrated 88-mm shells on the forehead), it was everyone who first noticed the enemy and fired. If the IS-2 shoots first and misses, then the Tiger will have about 30 seconds to either retreat to cover, or find an enemy tank and shoot at it, or simply leave the tank. If the Tiger shoots first and misses, the IS-2 crew will only have 8-10 seconds to find the Tiger and shoot at it. Usually, with the second shot, the gunners almost with one hundred percent probability fell into the tank, as they noticed where the shell went during the miss and introduced the correction.
      1. Cherry Nine
        Cherry Nine 21 October 2017 12: 56
        +2
        Quote: Lgankhi
        Usually, with the second shot, the gunners almost with one hundred percent probability fell into the tank, as they noticed where the shell went during the miss and introduced the correction.

        Here you seem to be too optimistic. 100% chance to hit the target from the second shot (at a serious distance) is not achieved even now.
        But the fact that cats were much stronger as PTs than grandfathers is a fact. Offline, with the same armor penetration, the rate of fire + sight + visibility definitely covers alpha))
        I hope VoTovskaya terminology and emoticons do not insult too much the feelings of believers.
        1. Alf
          Alf 21 October 2017 23: 37
          +2
          Quote: Cherry Nine
          But the fact that cats were much stronger as PTs than grandfathers is a fact. Offline, with the same armor penetration, the rate of fire + sight + visibility definitely covers alpha))
          I hope VoTovskaya terminology and emoticons do not insult too much the feelings of believers.

          It may be enough to quote HERE as evidence? The toy is the toy.
          1. Cherry Nine
            Cherry Nine 22 October 2017 12: 40
            0
            Quote: Alf
            It may be enough to quote HERE as evidence?

            I wrote about terminology, no more.
            1. mat-vey
              mat-vey 23 October 2017 13: 32
              0
              And in HERE, the Tiger combat station is undergoing? And what would you have to be taught to get aiming?
      2. IL-18
        IL-18 21 October 2017 13: 01
        +3
        And where did the Tiger and IS-2 converge one on one? Just wondering, maybe something was like that, I have not met. Actually it’s interesting, if it doesn’t make it difficult, orient me, I would read. hi
        Only if not from WoT.
        1. NIKNN
          NIKNN 21 October 2017 15: 27
          +2
          Quote: IL-18
          where the Tiger and IS-2 converged one on one

          Well, they didn’t throw gloves directly to challenge the duel, and even then the whole war from the moment they appeared on the fronts ..., Well, read about the Balaon operation ...
      3. polpot
        polpot 21 October 2017 13: 37
        0
        The question always lies in the training and experience of the crews.
      4. WapentakeLokki
        WapentakeLokki 21 October 2017 14: 14
        +5
        How many of those Tigers were not on both fronts (East + West and even Africa). In reality, the most common was the T-4 (and with its body kit it was most often mistaken for the Tiger). The main enemy of our tanks was the PTO and Art Samohodoki and here IS with its 122 mm was steeper because of its landmines (by the way, unlike the Panther and the Tiger, it was an assault tank sharpened by a breakthrough of fortifications and the fight against tanks was already in second place, but the Germans had tank destruction in the foreground and 88 of them were this is imprisoned)
      5. EvilLion
        EvilLion 21 October 2017 14: 57
        0
        30 seconds is a lot in WoT. Real tanks were not so quick.
        1. mat-vey
          mat-vey 23 October 2017 13: 34
          0
          In real life, you still need to aim ....
    3. Johns
      Johns 22 October 2017 12: 24
      0
      Quote: shuravi
      In a duel situation, the Tiger's chances against IS-2 were negligible.

      Even less likely is a German sidecar motorcycle.
      But it is usually customary to compare comparable things. IS-2 fully went to the troops in 1944. Then the Royal Tiger also went to the troops. Here they should be compared.
      And the counterpart of the Tiger was KV-1. Try to compare them.
  10. shuravi
    shuravi 21 October 2017 13: 03
    +1
    Quote: Cherry Nine
    Quote: shuravi
    Tiger’s chances against IS-2 were null and void.

    The chances of the Tiger and Panther against the early IS (with a broken forehead) are very high. The German, most likely, will see first, shoot first, get first, and then there the card will fall. The odds against the late IS are about the same as those of the T-34 or M4 vs Panther. That is, the forehead will not work, but there are other options.


    Why should they be the first to see EQUAL CONDITIONS? Both have dimensions, and therefore the chances of detection, they have more.
    1. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine 21 October 2017 13: 29
      0
      Quote: shuravi
      Why should they be the first to see EQUAL CONDITIONS?

      I met the opinion that the superiority of the Germans in the review and sights remained until the end of the war, although grandfathers pulled themselves up in this regard. However, this is largely probabilistic.

      Quote: IL-18
      Really interesting, if not difficult

      I came across in the memoirs, but now it’s hard to search from the tablet. However, memoirs are hunting stories to one degree or another. HZ what was there in the distance, a tiger or a four, both square.
      However, there are general considerations that are not in doubt. The fact that at the first mutual miss at the Tiger against the grandfather 3 shots at one is a fact, unfortunately.
      1. aiw
        aiw 21 October 2017 18: 17
        +4
        about sights and visibility from 2MV tanks on the VO there was a good review article - and so, by 1943, our tanks, oddly enough, had much better visibility. Commander panoramas, a lot of instruments, etc.
        1. Cherry Nine
          Cherry Nine 22 October 2017 12: 46
          0
          Quote: aiw
          about sights and visibility from 2MV tanks on the VO there was a good review article - and so, by 1943 our tanks, oddly enough, visibility was much better

          Reprint from the site of Courage, if I understand you correctly. Sofa expert. I did not come across a normal review (based on the results of comparative polygon tests). Not sure if he is at all.
          1. mat-vey
            mat-vey 23 October 2017 13: 37
            0
            If not, where did you get the info? Over knowledge from a parallel world?
  11. shuravi
    shuravi 21 October 2017 13: 10
    +5
    Quote: Lgankhi
    Thanks to unitary loading and a light cartridge, the Tiger had a rate of fire of 6-8 rounds per minute, while the IS-2 had a rate of fire of around 2 rounds per minute. And since both tanks easily pierced each other (with the exception of the IS-2's flattened forehead, but the Tiger gunners aimed at the tower, which even penetrated 88-mm shells on the forehead), it was everyone who first noticed the enemy and fired. If the IS-2 shoots first and misses, then the Tiger will have about 30 seconds to either retreat to cover, or find an enemy tank and shoot at it, or simply leave the tank. If the Tiger shoots first and misses, the IS-2 crew will only have 8-10 seconds to find the Tiger and shoot at it. Usually, with the second shot, the gunners almost with one hundred percent probability fell into the tank, as they noticed where the shell went during the miss and introduced the correction.


    As far as I remember, one historian, a lover of Wehrmacht technology, clung to this rate of fire.
    In reality, a tank gun is not a machine gun. In addition to the shooting itself, there is also a refinement of the tip, a change of position and so on. Because the rate of fire of the IS-2 gun was enough for the eyes.
    But a more powerful projectile allowed to fire at ranges inaccessible to the guns of German tanks.
    At least shoot with 3 km. Undermining 25 kg of high-explosive shell (already a category of air bombs) on the armor is guaranteed to disable the crew.
    1. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine 21 October 2017 15: 53
      0
      Quote: shuravi
      At least 3 km shoot.

      Quote: shuravi
      allowed to fire at ranges inaccessible to the guns of German tanks.

      It’s a pity to upset you, but the DPV D-25T nifiga is not 3 km
      1. mat-vey
        mat-vey 23 October 2017 13: 42
        0
        I don’t want to upset such a specialist, but for a land mine, I don’t care a bit about DPV ...
    2. Johns
      Johns 22 October 2017 20: 21
      0
      Quote: shuravi
      Detonation of 25 kg of a high-explosive shell (already a category of air bombs) on the armor is guaranteed to disable the crew.

      And the nearby train station, too. Together with all the locomotives. Large-scale need to fantasize.
      For armored targets shoot armor-piercing. OFS can also shoot, but this is a force majeure. Either the BBS is over or the nature of the goal has changed dramatically.
      1. mat-vey
        mat-vey 23 October 2017 13: 44
        0
        Quote: Johns
        For armored targets shoot armor-piercing. OFS can also shoot, but this is a force majeure.

        What's behind these conclusions?
  12. Pan_hrabio
    Pan_hrabio 21 October 2017 13: 34
    0
    Expected more from the article. Still for the info

    From the personnel of the end of the 1943 of the year, from the crews of tanks, about 25% of tankers reached Victory. This is a high percentage.


    thank. This percentage of survival, and even assessed as high, is unpleasantly striking.
    1. BAI
      BAI 23 October 2017 11: 46
      +1
      And what about this percentage? “Of the conscripts born in 1923, 1924, 1-2 out of 100 survived.” (There is evidence that 3%).
    2. mat-vey
      mat-vey 23 October 2017 13: 47
      0
      It’s not clear here - they just reached Victory, or it’s tankmen .. My grandfather started as a tanker, near Katukov near Moscow, and ended up in artillery ... they wrote off mech-water from the wound ...
  13. shuravi
    shuravi 21 October 2017 13: 58
    +4
    Quote: noviczok
    Expected more from the article. Still for the info

    From the personnel of the end of the 1943 of the year, from the crews of tanks, about 25% of tankers reached Victory. This is a high percentage.


    thank. This percentage of survival, and even assessed as high, is unpleasantly striking.


    So a war against an equal in strength enemy. These are not remote punitive operations against the Papuans.
  14. Curious
    Curious 21 October 2017 14: 13
    11
    The last time at VO has become a good tradition on the weekend to spend days of youth military-historical work.
    The IS-2 and T-34-85 began to be produced and entered the troops almost simultaneously and became the main ones in the Red Army since 1944.
    On 01.01. 1944 in the Red Army there were 1600 heavy tanks (it is obvious that some of them were still KV, but to install this part is quite difficult). In 1944, 4000 heavy tanks arrived in the army. Total we have 5600. Losses amounted to 900 pieces. The percentage of losses is 16,1.
    On 01.01.1944/9200/34 in the Red Army there were 76 medium tanks. Naturally, among them are T-17000-26200 and Lend Lease. Received over the year 13800 pieces. Total 52,7. XNUMX were lost in a year. The percentage of losses is XNUMX.
    By 1945, the percentage of heavy tank losses was 14,5, and the average was 40,5.
    Of course, not with every tank did the crew die. But still the statistics are indicative. Let's just say “get into trouble” on an average tank was three times more likely than on a heavy tank.
    (http://tankfront.ru/ussr/losses.html)
    1. EvilLion
      EvilLion 21 October 2017 15: 05
      0
      In a Berlin operation, losses per operation in 2 weeks, not per year, 40% for T-34-85 and SU-76. IS-2 25%, various kinds of second-tier cars in the attack, like self-propelled guns, are even smaller.

      26200-13800 = 12400. Only medium tanks. But there were still numerous self-propelled guns, light tanks, not only at the front, but also in the Far East, where BT survived the Second World War and fought with the Japanese.

      Heavier turns 4700. You want to say that the Red Army had about 1.1.1945k tanks on 20?
      1. Curious
        Curious 21 October 2017 17: 41
        +1
        I brought the link, you can see everything. The numbers are given only for medium and heavy tanks, excluding light and self-propelled guns.
        In total, on 01,01,1945 in the Red Army there were 25 tanks and 400 self-propelled guns.
        1. EvilLion
          EvilLion 21 October 2017 23: 21
          0
          But the search does not confirm this.
          For example, the very first link on google http://zavtra.ru/blogs/1945-god

          "Victory over Germany. The 1945 year the Red Army met at the zenith of its power. The strength of the army was 6.750.000 soldiers and officers, 111.600 guns and mortars, 12.300 tanks and self-propelled guns, 16.950 aircraft."

          The Berlin operation involved 6 tanks.

          Large numbers of equipment will be already in the post-war time, when it will become more durable and, most importantly, will cease to be lost at great speed in battles.
          1. Curious
            Curious 21 October 2017 23: 49
            +2
            Google itself does not confirm anything at all. Why did I give a link? To see the source. The source from where I got the information is the book "The secrecy stamp has been removed. Losses of the USSR Armed Forces in wars, military operations and military conflicts. / Under the editorship of Colonel General G. F. Krivosheev. M .: Military Publishing House, 1993." In turn, the team of authors of the book in each case provides links to information sources.
            Now about your source. This is the blog of the newspaper Tomorrow. Authoritative publication. Especially on our subject. Where is the general there.
            The third line of your note indicates: "12.300 tanks and self-propelled guns."
            Next line: "On January 1, 1945, the combat strength of the USSR Army was:"
            The following is a listing of what was included, including "- 20.500 tanks and self-propelled guns;" What would that mean?
            So you hurried, clutching at the first figure that came across.
          2. Johns
            Johns 23 October 2017 18: 44
            0
            Quote: EvilLion
            1945 Red Army met at the zenith of its power. The strength of the army was 6.750.000 soldiers and officers,

            Well, what power? Since 1943 minors began to be drafted into the army. And by 1945. and they are already plainly gone.
            The USSR lost almost three of these armies in less than four years. This was the fourth.
    2. Glory1974
      Glory1974 22 October 2017 18: 47
      +1
      Of course, not with every tank did the crew die. But still the statistics are indicative. Let's just say “get into trouble” on an average tank was three times more likely than on a heavy tank.

      Thank you, sensible comment. The numbers are indicative. good
      According to statistics, there are three times more chances to survive on an APC than on an BMP. Although it would seem it should be the other way around.
    3. Johns
      Johns 22 October 2017 20: 30
      +1
      Quote: Curious
      On 01.01. 1944 in the Red Army there were 1600 heavy tanks (it is obvious that some of them were still KV, but to install this part is quite difficult). In 1944, 4000 heavy tanks arrived in the army.

      Have you even read the article? Does this phrase say nothing to you?
      “Heavy tank regiments cherished. We were extremely rarely thrown into the forehead, into the attack ahead of us all. Usually the T-34 marched forward, revealing the firing points of the enemy, such a peculiar reconnaissance in battle. The Germans opened fire, then we appeared, as they say, “our way out”, and with our guns and power we provided a breakthrough. ”

      Where are you, by the nature of using the BTT, besides the T-34, have you noticed any other tanks? "Tanker" calls them that? So what to take from him, what kind of education did he have?
      IS-2 typical ACS support. Only tower. And the nature of use, and the composition of weapons.
      Heavy infantry tanks, just like the breakthrough tanks (these are 2 different types of armored vehicles), advancing Ahead of the attacking formation. Covering with its fire and armor less heavy BTT.
  15. Per se.
    Per se. 21 October 2017 14: 51
    +4
    IS-2 and T-34 - where are the chances of survival for the crew?
    All the same, how to compare, T-IV and T-VI "Tigr" ... If you exaggerate, then the crew is more likely to survive in an air-raid shelter, an iron-concrete bunker with meter walls, where the tank would stand along with the crew. How many T-34s were released against the EC-2, since what year the war began to be used by the ISs, when the thirty-four were from the very beginning, in what types of battle did the tanks use, if, as a rule, KV and IS were command reserves? Finally, how correct is it to compare an average tank with a heavy one? The article is undoubtedly informative, but its semantic overtones, like the title itself, are controversial.
  16. horava
    horava 21 October 2017 17: 17
    +5
    had the luck to drive both cars burn the same maneuverability T 34 equalizes the chances in battle the caliber of the cannon is not exceeded during the war by any country but they were much smaller and it is not correct to compare
    1. WapentakeLokki
      WapentakeLokki 22 October 2017 15: 34
      0
      You’re not talking about the Fritz Yagd self-propelled YagdTiger self-propelled gun, but he had a 128 mm long-barreled gun, and even the T-28 super-self-propelled guns with 4 goose guns were tested at all in mattresses.
  17. CTABEP
    CTABEP 21 October 2017 20: 07
    0
    . There would be an analysis of the data on losses - how many irretrievably lost tanks were the crew members killed, how much on average for each tank, something like https://rostislavddd.livejournal.com/305866.html.
    But no, it’s just that the water in the mortar is shut down - oil is oil, 122mm is better than 76mm, the armor on the IS-2 is thicker than on the T-34.
  18. koshey1977
    koshey1977 21 October 2017 21: 06
    +2
    Quote: tchoni
    Everything is more complicated here. Gasoline and its vapor light up at a lower temperature - this is a fact. Gasoline vapors are more volatile. But the explosion of tanning vapor in a half-empty tank is much stronger. The whole question is detonation)

    An experience? Knowledge? At what temperature does DT soar / boil and how does it ignite? What about gas?
    http://chem21.info/info/395908/

    Almost 10% of diesel vehicles travel with leaking fuel pumps, and how they do not explode and burn lol
  19. voyaka uh
    voyaka uh 22 October 2017 10: 29
    0
    "Our 120-mm frontal armor, our 122-mm gun" ///

    Of course. The frontal armor of the T-34 case was 45 mm in the 41st year
    and remained in the 45th. By the end of the war, even most lungs
    tanks the forehead of the hull was better armored.
    Front rollers did not allow to build up armor on the forehead of the hull - not
    withstand the weight, because the tower is heavy and was so much moved forward.
  20. Glory1974
    Glory1974 22 October 2017 22: 19
    0
    Johns,
    Think about why this is.

    People acted in a specific situation. They made decisions owning the initial data, which now seems to us incorrect. They guessed for some positions, somewhere not. From the top of our aftercare, we can only discuss what led to certain actions. But we cannot say that these are fools, and these are smart.
  21. maximghost
    maximghost 23 October 2017 01: 15
    +1
    Quote: voyaka uh
    "Our 120-mm frontal armor, our 122-mm gun" ///

    Of course. The frontal armor of the T-34 case was 45 mm in the 41st year
    and remained in the 45th. By the end of the war, even most lungs
    tanks the forehead of the hull was better armored.
    Front rollers did not allow to build up armor on the forehead of the hull - not
    withstand the weight, because the tower is heavy and was so much moved forward.

    Well, 34 armor was at a good angle. If you compare the medium tanks, then everything goes well:
    the USSR
    T-34 - 90mm leads
    Germans
    Pz-3n - 50 + 20 spaced armor, no tilt
    PZ-4 J 80mm, no tilt
    The Americans
    Sherman the same 90mm cast
    British
    Comet 76 mm, no tilt
    Japanese
    Chi-well 50mm, no tilt
    Hungarians
    Turan II 50-60mm, no tilt
    Italians
    P26 / 40 50mm forehead, with a slight slope (I don’t know the exact numbers), so 70-80 millimeters will come out with a data
    French people
    Soma 36mm at an angle of 20-25 degrees, which gives millimeters 40-45 reduced.
    Argentina
    Nahuel - 80mm at 35 degrees, which gives about 100mm of armor.
    Which of the medium tank manufacturers have I forgotten?
    In general, 34 looks quite decent with its 45mm at 60 degrees. And at the end of the war, 44 were ready to replace her.
    1. Gransasso
      Gransasso 23 October 2017 01: 23
      0
      Quote: maximghost
      In general, 34 looks quite decent with its 45mm under 60 degrees



      Try reading a thread about the "normalization" of a projectile when meeting with inclined armor ... maybe then your ardor will decrease ... although I doubt it ...
      1. maximghost
        maximghost 23 October 2017 02: 20
        +2
        1.) Such shells were not everywhere and not always
        2.) For such shells, the reduced armor thickness of 34 will not be 90 degrees, but not 45.

        And I don’t have any particular ardor. I am not writing that 34 to 45 years old had a good reservation. It’s just that all of their competitors did not have much superior armor protection. The same triples and fours could break through the 45mm M-42 from 500m. The Americans, too, did not favor the armor of the Sherman and tried to pile on it at least sandbags, or artificially weld the armor cut off from the lined Sherman and Panther. So I didn’t lead to the fact that at 34 at the end of the war everything was wonderful, but to the fact that ALL medium tanks that appeared in the years 39-43 with armor were about equally bad. The next generation medium tanks were already protected much better, but they either did not have time for war, or they managed to fight quite a bit.
        1. Johns
          Johns 23 October 2017 16: 44
          0
          Quote: maximghost
          It’s just that all of their competitors did not have much superior armor protection.

          The competitors T-34/85 for the intended purpose were Pz.V. Take an interest in their protection and weapons. At the same time, classmates of the T-34/85 were Pz.IV. So the Soviet tank troops and tactics of their use were arranged. They could not make a heavy infantry tank in the USSR, the level of technological development did not allow it. So we got out as we could. The monastery has all sorts of exotic "attacking ligaments." And changing them every year. For example, the attacking bunch of 1944. It was called T-34/85 + IS-2. And the same combination of 1945. It was called T-44 + IS-3.
          Quote: maximghost
          Americans also did not favor Sherman armor

          And they did it right. Because at their level of development, they could have done their Pershing early. But they did it a bit late. Although Sherman was still much better than the T-34.
          Quote: maximghost
          Next-generation medium tanks were already protected much better.

          The next generation medium tanks were called Pershing, Centurion, etc. And only in the USSR did they have their own “medium tanks”. Which are called all over the world, where "cruising", and where "light."
          And why? But because the average tank of the USSR could not make a normal, by world standards, tank. All due to the same lag in technological development. Therefore, this lag had to be compensated for with a pun. They have "average" and we have "average". And the fact that these means are different, so who will figure it out? Ineta was not there.
          1. Glory1974
            Glory1974 23 October 2017 20: 35
            0
            Therefore, this lag had to be compensated for with a pun. They have "average" and we have "average". And the fact that these means are different, so who will figure it out?

            Either a pun in the names of tanks, then a pun in the designation of Nazi troops and Nazis. But didn’t you try to look deeper? See not only the form, but also the content?
            1. Johns
              Johns 23 October 2017 21: 33
              0
              Quote: glory1974
              Either a pun in the names of tanks, then a pun in the designation of Nazi troops and Nazis.

              Yes, that was the style of the Bolsheviks. Pout your cheeks and call a spade a spade. Wishful thinking.
              What was left to do? They could not "portray" anything like Panther, Pershing or Centurion. The technological peak of the USSR in terms of tank technology during the war was the T-44. What did he stand against the above trinity? Nothing. After the war, even the French made their medium (real medium) tank ARL 44. But the USSR could not. Limited to "Soviet average." Those. another inflating cheeks.
              Quote: glory1974
              But didn’t you try to look deeper? See not only the form, but also the content?

              No need to look for a black cat in a dark room. Especially if she is not there.
              1. stalkerwalker
                stalkerwalker 23 October 2017 21: 38
                +4
                Quote: Johns
                No need to look for a black cat in a dark room. Especially if she is not there.

                The circus has long left ... and the old clown is under the Czech flag. Only nicknames change. But the essence of delirium from this does not change ..... lol
              2. Glory1974
                Glory1974 23 October 2017 21: 44
                +1
                I wanted to say that in the USSR they gave names for their equipment, as they considered necessary, they called it that. What does cheating have to do with it?
                If they had made a tank and called it “Lord of the steppes,” then this is cheating.
                If they had made a tank, and called it “Panther Killer,” then it’s cheating.
                however, they did the technique, modestly called it, equaling only their classification. Maybe you don’t like the "cornflower" mortar, maybe the "fly" grenade launcher. We are a peaceful people, we do not pout. We just slowly walk down the mountain.
                and in our history there are ships: "maybe", "Heaven" and "Do not touch me." Also not the correct name?
                It's funny to discuss with you. honestly! I haven’t had such fun for a long time. thanks! good
          2. Cherry Nine
            Cherry Nine 24 October 2017 00: 55
            0
            Quote: Johns
            The competitors T-34/85 for the intended purpose were Pz.V

            Not quite. T-34/85 against Panther took unless an ambush or maneuver. If you consider the Panther as an average tank - then yes, it merged. If we consider Panther as a PT-amplification machine, then the combination of ISs and self-propelled guns coped with it, in the end. And by the number of grandfathers Panthers were quite consistent, as I already wrote.
            Quote: Johns
            Although Sherman was still much better than the T-34.

            Not quite. Korea did not show Sherman’s clear superiority over the T-34/85. The biggest drawback of Sherman is a completely insufficient progress after the emergence of a catman.
            Quote: Johns
            normal, by world standards, the medium tank of the USSR could not. All due to the same lag in technological development

            As far as I am aware of the matter, the partners did not think that Pershing and Centurion were somehow a generation better than the T-54. Moreover, in the same Korea Pershing somehow did not even convince against the T-34/85, although it would seem.
            Quote: Johns
            They have "average" and we have "average".

            Well, Persh and T-54 did not differ so sharply as T-72 and Abrash, for example.
            Quote: Johns
            They could not "portray" anything like Panther, Pershing or Centurion. The technological peak of the USSR in terms of tank technology during the war was the T-44.

            Which was quite at the level of the indicated trinity, with the exception of the gun. With the advent of the D-10T, it became relatively comfortable in this regard.
            1. Johns
              Johns 24 October 2017 08: 25
              0
              Quote: Cherry Nine
              T-34/85 against Panther took unless an ambush or maneuver.

              I took losses.
              Quote: Cherry Nine
              If you consider the Panther as an average tank - then yes, it merged. If you consider the Panther as a PT reinforcement machine

              Panther was a German medium infantry tank. This is clearly visible in the structure of German tank regiments. The Panther was never used for amplification PTs. For this, the Germans had self-propelled guns.
              Quote: Cherry Nine
              Korea did not show Sherman’s clear superiority over the T-34/85.

              I would not say that. In addition, do not forget, Korea is already slightly after 2MB. T-34/85 there were not as raw as they were in 1944.
              Quote: Cherry Nine
              The biggest drawback of Sherman is a completely insufficient progress after the emergence of a catman.

              Well, what did you want from him? This is the basic design of 1941. In 1945 this horse was already old. Even the more or less finite Pz.IV formation was younger, originally from the beginning of 1942. And since the end of 1943, unlike the Shermans, they have not been in the lead roles.
              The fact that the Americans with Pershing dragged on is beyond doubt.
              Quote: Cherry Nine
              the partners did not believe that Pershing and Centurion were somehow a generation better than the T-54.

              When you see the inscription "Soviet medium tank" on the Internet, so get ready to throw a slipper at it right away. In the "Soviet main tank" too, but only once.
              Quote: Cherry Nine
              Moreover, in the same Korea Pershing somehow did not even convince against the T-34/85, although it would seem.

              Tanks in a classic form after 2MB are generally few and what they are able to convince. The outgoing weapons, like cavalry. It was worn with them in the USSR, as with a written bag. For some reason, stamping tens of thousands.
              Quote: Cherry Nine
              Well, Persh and T-54 weren’t very different.

              They differ, and very much. You at least look at their guns. After all, you can’t look at the D-10T without tears.
              Quote: Cherry Nine
              Which was quite at the level of the indicated trinity, with the exception of the gun.

              This is another Soviet myth that the “Soviet magicians” of 32 tons could squeeze no less than the “bourgeois counterfeiters” of 43 tons.
              In fact, everything is exactly the opposite. Here are just the most basic jambs of the T-44.
              1. It’s not like a tank. The lack of a machine gun in those days made this BTT unsuitable for its intended use. Faustnik (rare at the time) in the trench in the direction of travel at a short distance could do with it whatever he wanted. And thick armor would not always save him. And the magnetic mines of the foot soldiers (not uncommon in those days), this is not to go to the doctor.
              2. The engine had a completely negligible engine life.
              3. The gun was simply ridiculous in 1945 for a tank of this purpose.
              Quote: Cherry Nine
              With the advent of the D-10T, it became relatively comfortable in this regard.

              Do you think the D-10T is suitable for use as a tank gun?
              1. Negro
                Negro 25 October 2017 01: 04
                0
                Quote: Johns
                I took losses.

                There was such
                Quote: Johns
                The Panther was never used for amplification PTs. For this, the Germans had self-propelled guns.

                Yes, how to say. It is widely believed that the Panther was made in view of just the T-34. In any case, the situation in the East in the 44th year from this side was more successful than in the West - there were several more antipanter devices, moreover, they were able not only to pierce the German, but also withstand his shots, at least in the forehead. Unlike Firefly, for example.
                Quote: Johns
                Well, what did you want from him?

                Quote: Cherry Nine
                good Sherman - Israeli Sherman

                For starters - a jumbo with 90 mm. T-34/85 American.
                Quote: Johns
                Tanks in a classic form after 2MB are generally few and what they are able to convince. Leaving arms like cavalry

                Nevertheless, fighting without tanks is uncomfortable. So consider both Jews and Americans, that is, the most well-educated guys in such matters. In relation to the times of the Korean War, by the way, just the position of the Jews on the tank issue deserves attention.
                Quote: Johns
                You see the inscription "Soviet medium tank", so just get ready to throw a slipper into it

                I will abstain.
                Quote: Johns
                After all, you can’t look at the D-10T without tears.

                Quote: Johns
                Do you think the D-10T is suitable for use as a tank gun?

                Yes. And do not agitate me that a 20-pound or L7 is better. Better, but the D-10T was enough.
                Quote: Johns
                "bourgeois counterfeiters" of 43 tons.

                If you are about Persh, then he was not at all some incredible luck.
                Quote: Johns
                The lack of a machine gun in those days made this BTT unsuitable for its intended use.

                Centurion?
                Quote: Johns
                The engine had a completely negligible engine life.

                For wartime - enough. For the peaceful - fixed.
                Quote: Johns
                The gun was simply ridiculous in 1945 for a tank of this purpose.

                Yes, the gun is so-so
                1. Johns
                  Johns 25 October 2017 10: 36
                  0
                  Quote: Negro
                  It is widely believed that the Panther was made in view of just the T-34.

                  What do the T-34 and Pz.V have in common?
                  Quote: Negro
                  the situation in the East in the 44th year from this side was more successful than in the West - there were slightly more antipanter devices

                  I don’t understand who had the most VET funds?
                  Quote: Negro
                  moreover, they were able not only to penetrate the German, but also to withstand his shots, at least in the forehead. Unlike Firefly, for example.

                  Is this the IS-2 an “anti-tank device capable of withstanding a KwK42 forehead shot”?
                  Or a T-45/85 "anti-tank device capable of withstanding a KwK42 forehead shot"?
                  You make me laugh.
                  The most washable and capable Soviet anti-tank device since 1944. there was an 85 mm gun. But she was put on the T-34. And their armor already in 1942 held little. Tens of thousands of dead T-34, this is not a joke.
                  Quote: Negro
                  Unlike Firefly, for example.

                  That's just Firefly was the anti-tank turret self-propelled guns. Because was armed not with a tank or universal, but with a purely anti-tank gun.
                  Quote: Negro
                  For starters - a jumbo with 90 mm. T-34/85 American.

                  You are confusing Soviet 85 mm guns with American 90 mm. But in vain.
                  Due to various reasons, the Soviet 85 mm guns were slightly inferior to the German, American and British 75-76 mm tank guns due to their armor penetration. 76 mm Soviet guns were not even next to them. Therefore, the 85 mm gun on the T-34, this is a necessary measure. Just such an option to normalize the situation with armor penetration. At the cost of lowering the OS fragmentation below the minimum acceptable level.
                  In general, BTT level T-34 and Sherman "doctor prescribed" 75-76 mm guns. Here you can argue about the American 76 mm M1, it also had certain jambs with fragmentation of the OS, which were solved by the Americans in a very expensive way. Problems with fragmentation of Soviet 85 mm guns during the war were not resolved, so they cannot be included in the number of tank guns. Accordingly, T-34/85 can not be called tanks, but only tower self-propelled guns.
                  But 90 mm M3 Sherman was not needed en masse. Her place at Pershing. So everything was logical here.
                  Those. once again, the lineup of analogues in armor penetration of various countries in descending order:
                  OQF 77 mm HV (76 mm). Tank, OS is not expensive and not cheap. Average for the price.
                  M1 (76 mm). The gun is conventionally tank, because the OS was very expensive. But the performance characteristics are quite normal.
                  KwK / StuK40-L48 (75 mm). Tank, the OS with the largest fragmentation and the cheapest.
                  D-5 / S-53 (85 mm). The gun is NOT a tank because The OS did not have enough fragmentation.
                  American 90 mm, German 75 mm KwK.42 and German 88 mm KwK.36, this is another "age category", older. And the German 88 mm KwK.43, one more, and not the next, but after one. Its analogue in armor penetration in the USSR, for example, was 100 mm D-10. But the 122 mm IS-2 guns for armor penetration were just located between KwK.43 and KwK.42 (and KwK.36). Nostril to nostril with 76 mm cannons of American anti-tank turret self-propelled guns Sherman-Firefly.
                  Quote: Negro
                  Yes. And do not agitate me that a 20-pound or L7 is better. Better, but the D-10T was enough.

                  This is not the case, the matter is the size and weight of the projectile. In the absence of an automatic (or at least semi-automatic) loading. The absence of this device made the cannon caliber of 85-88-90 mm and no more the ultimate tank caliber in those years.
                  All sorts of fabrications in those years on the theme of 100 mm or 122 mm guns, this is no longer a tank theme. And the theme is various specialized self-propelled guns.
                  And guns with a caliber of 85-88-90 mm and less, too, were not all suitable as tank guns. For example, OQF 17-pounder (Sherman-Firefly) was not suitable for the tank role. Therefore, the British had to do OQF 77 mm HV. And the American 76 mm M1 was suitable for this role conditionally. Because had an expensive OS. But at the same time, her performance characteristics were quite on the level. The Soviet 76 mm guns (they had the same "anti-aircraft" past) had exactly the same problems as the American 1 mm M85. But they didn’t go along the American path to the USSR, they could not afford it, so the Soviet 85 mm guns in the tank towers were not full-fledged tank tanks in terms of performance characteristics. Their OS was shattered at the level of OQF 17-pounder.
                  Apparently the same problem was with the Sherman coming in through Lend-Lease in the USSR, armed with 76 mm M1 guns. There are great doubts that in the USSR their shells, like in the USA, were equipped with expensive explosives. And without this, conditionally tank 76 mm M1 guns automatically turned into NOT tank.
                  Quote: Negro
                  Persh, then he was not at all some incredible luck.

                  No, he just appeared in the right place and a little late. Although structurally and in terms of performance characteristics it was quite normal.
                  Quote: Negro
                  Centurion?

                  In the USSR, Germany and Britain, the views on the tactics of using infantry tanks were very different. Therefore, these tanks were attacked in different ways. And so the composition of their weapons in different countries was needed different.
                  Quote: Negro
                  For the peaceful - fixed.

                  Already in the 50s.
    2. Johns
      Johns 23 October 2017 16: 27
      0
      Quote: maximghost
      Well, 34 armor was at a good angle. If you compare the medium tanks, then everything goes well:

      I don’t want to upset you, but these are all “the sensational discoveries of Runet.” The thickness of rolled armor can only be replaced by its cementation. And the thickness of the cast armor, its rental and / or cementation. And there are no more ways:
      - you can hope for a rebound. But then the tilt angles should be even larger, the tilt angles of the 34 armor are few. Those. the T-34 had no ricocheting armor at all. But just at KV (which supposedly is all square) it was.
      - while no one has canceled the breakthrough qualities of shells. And they begin to affect as soon as the thickness of the armor is equal to the caliber of the projectile. Those. on the armor of 34 matches, the PaK38 shell already had some breakthrough qualities.
      - no one canceled the normalization of the shell on the armor. Therefore, simply counting geometrically inclined armor is wrong.
      Quote: maximghost
      T-34 - 90mm leads

      There weren’t even any mention of any 90 mm coding. Maxim in the forehead was 76 mm given. Slightly smaller than Pz.KpfW.IV Ausf.G.
      Quote: maximghost
      And at the end of the war, 44 were ready to replace her.

      Another "masterpiece" from the carriage shed. Not far from the T-34/85 is gone.
      1. maximghost
        maximghost 23 October 2017 18: 26
        +4
        Honestly, I don’t even know what to answer all of this and whether it makes sense to answer at all. I have not seen such a spread of thoughts on the Internet for a long time ...
        1. Johns
          Johns 23 October 2017 18: 46
          0
          Quote: maximghost
          I have not seen such a spread of thoughts on the Internet for a long time ...

          So no one calls you to look in prison when you surf the Internet.
      2. Cherry Nine
        Cherry Nine 24 October 2017 01: 00
        0
        Quote: Johns
        I don’t want to upset you, but that's all

        I don’t want to upset you, but rational angles became the standard until combined armor appeared. For all nations. Moreover, the Americans, say, after the war preferred less quality armor (cast), but with maximum angles.
        1. Johns
          Johns 24 October 2017 08: 28
          0
          Quote: Cherry Nine
          I don’t want to upset you, but rational angles became the standard until combined armor appeared. For all nations. Moreover, the Americans, say, after the war preferred less quality armor (cast), but with maximum angles.

          Actually, I wrote that it’s impossible to solve all the problems with protecting the tank only with the angle of the armor. And then he revealed the main points that prevented this.
          You apparently did not understand what was written.
          1. Negro
            Negro 25 October 2017 01: 09
            0
            Quote: Johns
            only the angle of inclination of the armor all problems with the protection of the tank can not be solved

            The angles of the VLD of Sherman, Centurion, Tiger 2 and Panetra, EMNIP, are smaller. Persha is the same.
  22. shuravi
    shuravi 23 October 2017 09: 59
    +2
    Quote: Gransasso
    Quote: maximghost
    In general, 34 looks quite decent with its 45mm under 60 degrees



    Try reading a thread about the "normalization" of a projectile when meeting with inclined armor ... maybe then your ardor will decrease ... although I doubt it ...



    If this were so, long ago, inclined armor would have been abandoned in favor of a more rational use of the internal volumes of the tank, manufacturability, and much more. Nevertheless, no one refused her. Moreover, after the Tiger suitcase and Panther experience with oblique armor, the next variation of the Royal Tiger was already with oblique armor plates.
    Simply, normalization exists, but miracles do not. You have to pay for everything. Firstly, in order for this effect to occur in most cases, the armor-piercing shells thoroughly poached aerodynamics, and therefore the range of damage. Secondly, normalization, that is, a change in the trajectory eats up a lot of kinetic energy. Thirdly, normalization is never complete.
    Fourth, and most importantly, after the first shock from penetration with the effect of normalizing armor, the same (type) projectile pierced from the same distance and reduced armor at right angles.
  23. BAI
    BAI 23 October 2017 11: 37
    0
    Obviously, the loss of IS-2 was less:
    1. More powerful defense and weapons.
    2. The Ises marched on a prepared offensive, and not on each barrel a stopper.
    Which, in fact, was noted in the article.
  24. Kostadinov
    Kostadinov 23 October 2017 12: 08
    +1
    The T-34 has its own advantages:
    1. The size is slightly smaller than the IS-2 - it’s easier to cover and the probability of getting from a long distance into the tank is slightly worse
    2. Mobility is better than the IS-2 - also reduces the chances of the tank to avoid being hit.
    3. The rate of fire is higher than the IS-2. The close hit of RP grenades prevents the firing of enemy Fri cannons and tanks.
  25. Radikal
    Radikal 23 October 2017 12: 29
    0
    ... at the end of 1943, after being in the reserve regiment, he became the commander of the gun on the IS-2.
    The first time I hear about such a position in the crew of our tanks! belay
    1. Johns
      Johns 23 October 2017 16: 46
      0
      Quote: Radikal
      The first time I hear about such a position in the crew of our tanks!

      Get used to it. It was a full-time post of all Soviet WWII tanks with a triple tower. And self-propelled guns, tower and logging, this also concerned.
  26. DesToeR
    DesToeR 23 October 2017 20: 28
    +2
    Quote: Johns
    The competitors T-34/85 for the intended purpose were Pz.V.

    This is a lie; Panther was neither a T-34 nor a T-34-85. The only tank that the Panther was a competitor ... is the German heavy Tiger.
    Quote: Johns
    They could not make a heavy infantry tank in the USSR, the level of technological development did not allow it.

    Sensation! And who could? And what kind of new class of cars? Ahhh ... this is probably the Anglo-Saxons "could", right?
    Quote: Johns
    So we got out as we could. The monastery has all sorts of exotic "attacking ligaments."

    And I thought it was a tactical find a sinful thing ... But it turns out that the grandfathers "got out" ...
    Quote: Johns
    Because at their level of development, they could have done their Pershing early. But they did it a bit late.

    So what didn’t you do then? If it wasn’t really running out in their army, then others (through Lend-Lease) had huge demand. Why are you tired of the attack? In 1945 they made a kind of German Panther.
    Quote: Johns
    The next generation medium tanks were called Pershing, Centurion, etc.

    With us they went in the category of cords. This is in the west of the mastadons 40 + t called "average". Although it is strange that before that in the USA there was a completely different, rather clear gradation for light, medium (up to 40 tons) and heavy vehicles. What has changed suddenly? Has Pershing repeated the same story as with the German Panther?
  27. DesToeR
    DesToeR 23 October 2017 21: 00
    +2
    Quote: Johns
    The thickness of rolled armor can only be replaced by its cementation. And the thickness of the cast armor, its rental and / or cementation.

    You do not confuse thickness with strength as a sinful affair?
    Quote: Johns
    But then the tilt angles should be even larger, the tilt angles of the 34 armor are few. Those. the T-34 had no ricocheting armor at all.

    Wow! There is never much good. Did Panther have enough tilt angles? 1943 after all, and thousands of "unsuccessful" examples before my eyes were enough ...
    Quote: Johns
    at the same time, no one canceled the breaking qualities of shells.

    Here it is in the top ten! 122mm on the IS just "broke" the ridges of German cats ... even if they did not pierce through. And also by DOTIC it was possible to plant quite well with feeling. Dual technology grandfathers in action.
    Quote: Johns
    There weren’t even any mention of any 90 mm coding. Maxim in the forehead was 76 mm given. Slightly smaller than Pz.KpfW.IV Ausf.G.

    Well, here you should modestly add the year in which this modification of the four came out: the third year of the World War was on, however ...
    Quote: Johns
    Another "masterpiece" from the carriage shed. Not far from the T-34/85 is gone.

    Well, the barn was not bad! AND? And here you are right: the T-44 is really not far from the T-34-85 ... in terms of mass, but in terms of armor and mobility, the “praised” Panther “has slipped”. Such a good "carriage" turned out.
  28. Cherry Nine
    Cherry Nine 24 October 2017 00: 36
    0
    Quote: Johns
    Anyway, it was a tank of a dying concept. Therefore, the T-50 died in a very timely manner.

    In England, a tank of exactly this concept ended quite a long time, and, by the way, it grew almost to T-34-76 (Valentine 11). So, at the expense of timeliness, I would not be in a hurry. But that he was stillborn - without an engine - yes.
    Quote: Johns
    Do not fantasize.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.270_British
    Quote: Johns
    This is not an army weapon.

    And?
    Quote: Johns
    Machine guns on other cartridges at a distance of 400 m lose to rifles on rifle cartridges clearly.

    1. And at 300?
    2. Lose what? If possible, numbers, not general considerations.
    Quote: Johns
    At 400 m on an open sight, and then with optics. And with a 100% guarantee.

    A 100% guarantee, my friend, you will not get a normal shooter in the elevator. There were precedents.
    And the Germans dabbled in optics in those years with lousy results. Optics of small magnification as a standard appeared only at ShteyrAUG in the late 70s. And then 1,5 times the sight is designed for 300 meters.
    Quote: Johns
    the first army pistol appeared only in the Russian army. And even then, after adopting the cartridge of steam

    It seems that we have already discussed your idea to kick Stechkin in the head. I then, I remember, recalled Smith & Wesson Military & Police
    But the cartridge holder and automation are poorly combined. More precisely, with additional dances.
    1. Johns
      Johns 24 October 2017 08: 45
      0
      Quote: Cherry Nine
      In England, a tank of exactly this concept ended quite a long time, and, by the way, it grew almost to T-34-76 (Valentine 11). So, at the expense of timeliness, I would not be in a hurry. But that he was stillborn - without an engine - yes.

      Perhaps I did not quite accurately formulate my thought. Because if we are talking about Britain from the time of 2MB, then we need to consider the Comet A34 tank. Pz.IV moved into the same niche a little earlier after Pz.V. Sherman moved to the same niche after the Pershing appeared.
      And only the T-34/85 did not move anywhere. Because he had no "big brother". Although it was an absolute classmate of Pz.IV, Sherman and Comet.
      T-34, but not the T-50. And the T-50 was precisely the tank of the dying concept. Like Pz.III.
      Quote: Cherry Nine
      .270_British

      And what is British? Yes, experimented. Like everyone in those days. But experimenting refused. For uselessness.
      Quote: Cherry Nine
      And?

      Do we have a conversation about the army? Or not?
      Quote: Cherry Nine
      1. And at 300?

      I already wrote, are equivalent.
      Quote: Cherry Nine
      2. Lose what? If possible, numbers

      The effectiveness of the lesion. The numbers you do not get. Because at a distance of 400 m, a three-line bullet with a quality hit guarantees you 100% success. A bullet of 7,62x39 and 5,45x39 mm under the same conditions as it turns out. Random sampling method.
    2. Johns
      Johns 24 October 2017 20: 00
      0
      Quote: Cherry Nine
      A 100% guarantee, my friend, you will not get a normal shooter in the elevator. There were precedents.

      Only in case of low-quality contact. Those. right through. When shooting at ultra-short distances with rifle cartridges this happens at a close distance. That is why rifles had bayonets, and not because the cartridges spared. A bayonet in the bayonet range is more reliable.
      Quote: Cherry Nine
      And the Germans dabbled in optics in those years with lousy results.

      The Germans did not indulge in anything by the time the AK-47 and further M14 appeared.
      Quote: Cherry Nine
      We have already discussed your idea to move Stechkin on the head.

      Then a saber. And it looks impressive and acts reliably.
      Quote: Cherry Nine
      I then, I remember, recalled Smith & Wesson Military & Police

      And it would be necessary to recall the M1911.
      In general, I figured out for a long time what it was, the ideal pistol cartridge and the ideal army pistol in the pre-armor era. And to my surprise, I found such a cartridge. It is .40 S&W aka .40 Smith & Wesson aka 10 × 22 mm Smith & Wesson. And it appeared as "on time", only in 1990. So, there are enough stocks in the world of small arms. It's just that some constructor countries have these jambs just stubborn. And you can somehow put up with the shoals of others.
      1. Negro
        Negro 25 October 2017 01: 34
        +1
        Quote: Johns
        And the T-50 was precisely the tank of the dying concept. Like Pz.III.

        The three died off until the very 43rd year, at least.
        Quote: Johns
        But experimenting refused.

        I heard a much more dramatic story.
        Quote: Johns
        Do we have a conversation about the army?

        This example is about the fact that 6,5 caliber in some areas is considered the standard. Just at those ranges that interest you.
        Quote: Johns
        I already wrote, are equivalent.

        Self-loading and assault rifle? Remind me which army uses equivalent self-loading? Based on the fact that the distance of 300 meters is the main?
        Quote: Johns
        with a quality hit guarantees you 100% success

        No bullet guarantees success if hit out of place. There were stories about tearing off the limbs with the M193 cartridge bullet, but with the advent of the M855, enthusiasm was reduced.
        Quote: Johns
        The Germans did not indulge in anything by the time the AK-47 and further M14 appeared.

        The point is that optics in the standard appeared much later than the period under discussion. In WWII, the Germans experimented unsuccessfully with her.
        Quote: Johns
        And it would be necessary to recall the M1911.

        No reason. .45 by no means everyone considers a successful election. Starting with the American army.
        Nevertheless, a cartridge of 300 joules before the war didn’t soar anyone. 9x18, .380ACP, .38 Special
        Quote: Johns
        It's .40 S&W

        .40SW is a reflection on the aforementioned .357 Magnum revolving cartridge. During WWII, the Germans tried to think in this direction with the 9mm Mauser Export cartridge.
        1. Timeout
          Timeout 25 October 2017 05: 11
          0
          Quote: Negro
          .40SW is a reflection on the aforementioned .357 Magnum revolving cartridge.

          No, this is a descendant of 10 mm Auto.
          1. Negro
            Negro 25 October 2017 20: 50
            0
            I am aware that the .40SW is a trimmed 10 mm Auto. Actually, the direct adaptation of .357 Magnum was the son of .40SW - .357 SIG.
            The point was that cartridges with .40SW ballistic or close in the 40s already existed.
        2. Johns
          Johns 25 October 2017 11: 37
          0
          Quote: Negro
          The three died off until the very 43rd year, at least.

          Do not confuse Pz.KpfW.III Ausf. N and Pz.KpfW.III Ausf. M. These are two different types of BTT on the same platform. He died in 1942. only Pz.KpfW.III Ausf. M, who was a classmate of the T-50. And here is Pz.KpfW.III Ausf. N did not die in 1943 either. was replaced by more advanced BTT models.
          Quote: Negro
          I heard a much more dramatic story.

          Oh the evil Yankees who tipped the milestones? And I heard her. Like so many others.
          Quote: Negro
          This example is about the fact that 6,5 caliber in some areas is considered the standard. Just at those ranges that interest you.

          Can you give examples of "standard infantry weapons with a caliber of 6,5 mm?"
          And I assure you, they are not by chance. Caliber does not fit. Today there are 2 calibers suitable for infantry weapons, 7,62 and 5,56 mm. For cartridges with bullets of a different principle of action. There are no others and is not yet visible on the horizon.
          Quote: Negro
          Self-loading and assault rifle?

          And I repeat once again, at a distance of 100 (well, maybe with a stretch of 150) -300 m, self-loading and assault rifles according to the TTX are equivalent.
          Quote: Negro
          Remind me which army uses equivalent self-loading?

          In American used. M14 were called.
          Quote: Negro
          Based on the fact that the distance of 300 meters is the main?

          And why not 20 m? There is a real battle distance on an open sight. It is due to the physiological abilities of the human eye and is 400 m. For automatic weapons, this range is adopted a little more, about 450 m due to the fact that the fire is automatic, i.e. more dense.
          A weapon whose effectiveness satisfies this range is called infantry. In addition to the infantry, the army has a bunch of special weapons (one of them is an assault). There can be any numbers. However, the main is the infantry weapon.
          Quote: Negro
          No bullet guarantees success if hit out of place.

          A bullet of infantry self-loading weapons at a range of at least 400 m (automatic infantry at a range of at least 450 m) with a 100% quality hit guarantees the desired end result. Since it affects the central nervous system of an enemy soldier. With a completely unambiguous end result. Extremities and HLW here do not matter.
          Quote: Negro
          The point is that optics in the standard appeared much later than the period under discussion.

          That, yes. But the rifle cartridge was actively used precisely because of its versatility. It suited the entire range of light weapons, except for pistols and PP. And this is very convenient in terms of logistics.
          Quote: Negro
          Nevertheless, a cartridge of 300 joules before the war didn’t soar anyone. 9x18, .380ACP, .38 Special

          He soared everyone and always. Because only PM was assigned to the role of an army pistol. Although he was a special (police) pistol. Similarly, other pistols with low-power cartridges were special pistols.
          In general, army pistols, if it is 8,8 mm in caliber, not less than 500 J. It is better than 550 J. Although, if you increase the caliber, the cartridge power can be reduced. And vice versa.
          But not so simple. There is still such a thing as a recoil impulse. Therefore, the balance of these all factors is selected.
          Quote: Negro
          During WWII, the Germans tried to think in this direction with the 9mm Mauser Export cartridge.

          Rather, the Hungarians. More precisely, P. Kirali with his Danuvians. But Kirali did not make pistols. Mausers "dabbled" with pistols on this cartridge during the time of WW1. Even after 1MB, the American Colt M1911A1 / .38 was about the same in terms of performance characteristics.
          1. Negro
            Negro 25 October 2017 21: 09
            0
            Quote: Johns
            He died in 1942. only Pz.KpfW.III Ausf. M, who was a classmate of the T-50. And here is Pz.KpfW.III Ausf. N did not die in 1943 either. was replaced by more advanced BTT models.

            It would be important, but the T-34, according to your version, at the end of the 43rd just learned how to do it (and here you are largely right).
            Quote: Johns
            Oh the evil Yankees who tipped the milestones?

            Dementia and courage, rather. And the people telling it, damn well argue their position.
            Quote: Johns
            Can you give examples of "standard infantry weapons with a caliber of 6,5 mm?"

            No. But, you see, in the case of the Americans it is possible to discuss not the compliance of weapons with the given framework, but the choice of the framework itself. Therefore, the demand from them is higher.
            Quote: Johns
            at a range of 100 (well, maybe with a stretch of 150) -300 m, self-loading and assault rifles in TTX are equivalent.

            According to your concept, all armies prefer automation solely because of close combat.
            Quote: Johns
            In American used. M14 were called.

            When the M14 was adopted, it was claimed that it would replace both Garand and BAR. It turned out to replace just Garand. And it was not considered good luck.
            Quote: Johns
            And why not 20 m?

            Because the scope of the AUG, as mentioned above, is set to 300 in the standard
            Quote: Johns
            Since it affects the central nervous system of an enemy soldier.

            Listen to you, so the tales "I shot, but he did not fall" appeared exclusively among AKM operators.
            Quote: Johns
            In general, army pistols, this is, if the caliber is 8,8 mm, not less than 500 J. It’s better

            What time are you talking about? By the standards of WWII, even the 1911th was unlikely to have such energy. And 9mm (Highpower, Luger, P38) on those gunpowders - even more so. That is less.
            1. Johns
              Johns 25 October 2017 22: 28
              0
              Quote: Negro
              but the T-34, according to your version, at the end of the 43rd just learned how to do

              This is according to the version of Cherry Nine.
              Quote: Negro
              And the people telling it, damn well argue their position.

              It does not matter. The important thing is that if you looked at the armaments of the SA this year in 1990, you would see that the rifle cartridge there, as it was, is. But what kind of cartridge was not, so this is the same, outstanding 7,62x39 mm. And where was the weapon on it? That's right, in boxes waiting for departure to one of the fraternal African countries.
              The Americans were right.
              Quote: Negro
              and the choice of the framework itself.

              I can tell you quite competently that American small arms are extremely niche (framework). Extremely correct. Already sick. But the fact remains.
              Quote: Negro
              According to your concept, all armies prefer automation solely because of close combat.

              Not at all. And because of the density of fire. But to make an individual automatic infantry (and assault too) weapons are possible ONLY on "small things." Moreover, if you need infantry weapons, then you should pay attention to the 5,56x45 mm NATO cartridge. And only on him.
              Quote: Negro
              When the M14 was adopted, it was claimed that it would replace both Garand and BAR. It turned out to replace just Garand.

              I don’t know about BAR. And she replaced Garand. As for luck, I don’t know either. Actually not really better than Garanda. You could not splurge.
              Quote: Negro
              Because the scope of the AUG, as mentioned above, is set to 300 in the standard

              It depends on the weapon itself. Someone at 300 m. And someone at 400.
              Quote: Negro
              Listen to you, so the tales "I shot, but he did not fall" appeared exclusively among AKM operators.

              I don’t get it. AKM is fully capable of single fire at a range of 100 to 300 m. And automatic fire at a range of up to 100 m. And then 300 m, as lucky.
              It is not clear what you had in mind.
              Quote: Negro
              By the standards of WWII, even the 1911th was unlikely to have such energy.

              I wrote above that with an increase in caliber DE can be less. And this is just the case of 1911.
              Quote: Negro
              And 9mm (Highpower, Luger, P38) on those gunpowders - even more so. That is less.

              In fact, Luger was still r ... Not much good junk from the time of 1MB.
              HP's browning was better, but also rubbish. Only not old, but new.
              Walter (wartime) was more or less tolerant. And nothing more. Only the post-war Walter on the post-war cartridge of Para became completely normal.
              1. Negro
                Negro 26 October 2017 21: 41
                0
                Quote: Johns
                This is according to the version of Cherry Nine.

                It seems that you, too, argued that in the region of the end of the 43rd year (welding machines, five-step, filters) the T-34 began to fall apart from the correct (external) side of the factory fence. Sorry, if you messed up.
                Quote: Johns
                The important thing is that if you looked at the armaments of the SA in the year it was in 1990

                I heard so much bad on SA, incl. from you that the argument is not accepted.
                Quote: Johns
                And she replaced Garand. As for luck, I don’t know either. Actually not really better than Garanda

                Yeah, especially if you remove the fire mode switch. Some saw this as a problem.
                Quote: Johns
                It is not clear what you had in mind.

                I had in mind that your discussion of striking ability refers to spherical horses. In the real world, if a cartridge is acceptable for hunting a wild boar - and 7,62x39 is acceptable (at least when I was interested) - then there are no questions about its striking effect. Many people are ready to vouch for this life. And, unlike soldiers, these people can choose the caliber themselves.
                Quote: Johns
                Only the post-war Walter on the post-war cartridge of Para became completely normal.

                In my opinion, if all the warring parties in WWII (except, in part, the Americans) used the "non-army" short barrels - you should at least reduce the categorization of the statements.
      2. Timeout
        Timeout 25 October 2017 05: 07
        +2
        Quote: Johns
        Those. right through.

        Karabayn, you, as always in your repertoire, a rifle bullet even when wounded "on a fly" carries all nearby fabrics into the trash, due to very high energy, learn the materiel.
        Quote: Johns
        The Germans at the time of the appearance of the AK-47 and further M14 did not dabble in anything

        Yeah, and the ZF-4 was so easy to produce?
        Quote: Johns
        Pre-bulletproof era

        It is when? Times cuirassiers? The American police have been wearing bronics since 1976, the Soviet police since 1972. A .40SW is designed to confidently hit the target, but not in bulletproof vest, the bullet has a piercing effect at the level of 9 Pairs. So Karabayn, you, as always, are about one thing ... Infantry tanks, sports PPSh ... Enough to drive the blizzard.
        1. Johns
          Johns 25 October 2017 11: 43
          0
          Quote: Timeout
          Karabayn, as always in your repertoire,

          I'm glad for Carbine.
          Quote: Timeout
          A rifle bullet even when wounded "on the fly" carries all nearby tissue into the trash, due to very high energy

          Very very scientific. And "convincing" sounds.
          Launch the needle at a theoretical speed of several thousand m / s, and then see what it is and how, "due to its very high energy, it will smash it into the trash."
          Quote: Timeout
          learn materiel.

          The first sign of ignorance has gone.
          Quote: Timeout
          American police in bronics since 1976, Soviet police since 1972.

          Scientists argue about the time of creation of the world. But in vain. Timeout means perfectly, this is the 70s of the last century.
          Quote: Timeout
          Stop driving the blizzard.

          Exactly. Stop driving the blizzard, Timeout.
  29. mat-vey
    mat-vey 25 October 2017 06: 52
    0
    Cherry nine,
    Quote: Cherry Nine
    Cherry Nine October 23, 2017 23:54 PM ↑
    Quote: mat-vey
    You only do not tell chemists and technologists

    You are right, I am superficially familiar with the technology for the production of synthetic fuels.
    Want to tell how this was the case? Feel free to ask you.

    Well, it’s a “weak sign”, and we write down authoritative and most important peremptory statements
    Are you familiar with the technology of the production of fuel devices?
    But are you familiar with the secrets and methods of distributing military orders in the Reich and can you feel free to share them on the pages of the Military District?
    For chemists, I don’t care what kind of hydrocarbons from coal to make — for which order there is a “slurry” and they will work out the technology. Or do you think that there is some fundamental difference between gasoline and diesel fuel from the point of view of organic chemistry - then again, do not hesitate to share doubts ..
  30. mkpda
    mkpda 27 October 2017 15: 10
    0
    Firstly, these are tanks of different classes and a heavy tank (as a rule) is better protected than medium.
    Secondly, unfortunately, the T-34 retained the layout of the Christie tank, which reduced its survivability and the survivability of its crew, and the IS-2 retained a number of layout decisions of the T-28 (with tanks in the MTO).
    1. shuravi
      shuravi 27 October 2017 18: 02
      +1
      Every tank is a series of compromises. And on the same Tiger, many decisions are much worse.
  31. Simargl
    Simargl 31 December 2017 14: 09
    0
    Quote: Johns
    You are somehow quite critical of American weapons. But in vain. For many, many years it has been, if not a reference, then one of the best examples in the world. At least during WW2, no one even came close to the level of Americans.
    Come on! There are a lot of American weapons (models), but not from good ones, as I understand it.
    By and large, they are not able to develop weapons: pistols in the army are Italian, in the police - Austrian; own machine, but ... here the M60 turned out pretty good ...
    Desert Eagle was given to the Israelis to develop.
  32. Maksimov
    Maksimov 8 January 2018 20: 25
    +1
    Quote: Johns
    Quote: AllXVahhaB
    So the results of the war dotted all i ...

    What results do you take into account? I hope the loss figures of the armies of the warring parties?

    Do you know the numbers of BATTLE LOSS yourself? Losses in the battles of the Red Army and the Wehrmacht + satellites are approximately the same. I hope you don’t consider those killed in captivity and destroyed civilians as combat losses? Because this is not a characteristic of the combat qualities of an army, but a characteristic of its atrocities.
  33. iouris
    iouris 4 February 2018 13: 16
    0
    The problem was posed incorrectly, since the tanks were used in different conditions, and cannot be solved due to the lack of observation data.
    One of my grandfathers was a cook in a field kitchen, the other a machine gunner. Theoretically, one might ask: who has more chances to survive - the cook of the field kitchen, or the machine gunner? Answer: both died in 1943 in the Kursk region.
  34. Comrade Kim
    Comrade Kim April 22 2018 01: 16
    0
    Quote: voyaka uh
    The frontal armor of the T-34 case was 45 mm in the 41st year

    Somewhere in the archive came across a photo that depicts 34 loyal devotees of the Army of Ludova.
    So there the frontal armor is supplemented with 25-30mm sheets of metal.
    The photo shows that this was done quite accurately for wartime, probably in the factory.
    If I find a photo, I will definitely post it.
    In the meantime, here are a couple of ISs: