Military Review

Perfect tank 1950 of the year. Version of Life International magazine

86
While employees of special design bureaus are engaged in the development of full-fledged projects of armored combat vehicles, the interested public can take up controversy over the appearance of the new technology. In the course of such disputes, different opinions, assessments and forecasts will be expressed. It is obvious that part of the predictions in the future to some extent be justified. For example, now we can confidently argue about the correctness or erroneousness of estimates and opinions of past years.


Attempts to determine the ideal appearance of a combat vehicle have always been undertaken not only by amateurs of military equipment, but also by the press. So, your version of the ideal tank, combining all the best features of existing machines, at one time offered Life International magazine. At the beginning of the fall of 1950, this publication turned around for a note entitled Combining Heavy Fire-Power with Speed ​​and Maneuverability: A Drawing of a Composite Tank Incorporating the Best Features of American and Russian Designs. maneuverability: a drawing of a combined tank combining the best drawings of American and Russian projects ”). The material turned out to be so interesting that it was soon reprinted by other publications.



Most of the two pages were given under the scheme of the proposed tank, and the accompanying text was placed in the "basement". The latter was necessary to explain the current situation and describe the prerequisites for the "development" of the original combat vehicle.

Starting the article, its author Rolf Clap recalled that the military is only to see the perfect tank. Such a machine does not exist yet, because designers have to find a compromise between conflicting demands on speed, durability of protection, firepower and mass of the structure. It was emphasized that exactly the same problems faced the developers of warships. Also, the typical tasks in the creation of tanks were reducing the size and ensuring high maneuverability in all landscapes.

R. Clap called the Soviet T-34 the best tank of the Second World War. Moreover, this machine showed itself well even in the early stages of the Korean War, where it had to face the tanks of the United States. Only the arrival of the first Patton family tanks helped the American troops rectify the situation.

The author wrote that the T-34 weighs 33 tons and carries a gun with a caliber 86 mm (exactly). At the same time, it is faster than the American tank M4 Sherman. At the same time, the Soviet machine had less powerful reservations, which was partially offset by a low silhouette. The Patton tank, in turn, had a combat mass at the level of 48 t and was equipped with an 90-mm gun. Air cooled engine with power 810 HP allowed it to accelerate the highway to 35 miles per hour (56 km / h). The height of such a tank was 9 feet 1 inch (2,5 m).

The author noted the interesting features of the two projects reviewed. Thus, the design of the T-34 and Patton tanks clearly showed that the Soviet and American tank builders agreed with each other on two issues. First of all, they believed that the tank should literally be built around the cannon. In addition, two tanks differed in speed and maneuverability, which should have been achieved, including at the cost of weakening protection.

Taking into account the main ideas of well-known projects of different countries, R. Clap formed the approximate look of a “combined” tank. It included all the most relevant decisions of one kind or another, characteristic of the projects of the USA and the USSR. The author assumed that such an architecture of a combat vehicle would provide the maximum possible characteristics and combat capabilities. In addition, it was possible to reduce the negative effects of compromises between armor, maneuverability and firepower.

Consider the picture attached to the note. The foreign author suggested not to use any overly bold or complex ideas, and therefore to build an “ideal” tank based on well-known technical solutions. Thus, it was planned to build a classic-style armored vehicle with a homogeneous armor and a tracked undercarriage. At the same time, it was proposed to introduce some new devices that would improve the basic characteristics in comparison with the existing equipment.

R. Clap believed that the tank of the future should have a homogeneous reservation, built using rational angles of inclination. To obtain the desired protection, the machine had to be equipped with an 5-inch (127 mm) inclined frontal part. Sloping sides and feeds should have an 3 inch thickness (76,2 mm). The lower part of the protected hull should have rectangular lines, while the upper part resembled a truncated pyramid with an elongated base.

It is curious that the proposed tank received a characteristic driver's hatch, located in the opening of the front sheet. A similar device was used on the Soviet T-34, but was a reason for criticism, because the extra hatch weakened the frontal projection protection. The author of a note in Life International, for some reason, considered such a hatch suitable for use on the tank of the future.

To enhance the protection of the side projection, the author suggested using removable side screens. They were to consist of several polygonal armor plates. The screen assembly, mounted on the fender niche of the hull, covered the lower part of the side and some elements of the chassis.

The “project” proposed the use of a large tower of complex shapes that is large enough to install the required weapons. The turret was supposed to have armor as thick as 5 inches in the frontal part. In addition, she needed a large forage niche.

In the aft engine compartment it was proposed to install the engine and transmission. As the basis of the power plant, an air-cooled gasoline engine was considered, which develops the power of the HP 900. Numerous grids were provided for the supply of cooling air in the stern roof. With the engine connected transmission, transmitting power to the stern drive wheels.

The chassis R. Clap proposed to build on the basis of six support rollers of average diameter on each side. Rubber rollers should have been mounted on an individual suspension. In this case, as the illustration shows, the odd rollers were located in front of the suspension nodes of their own balancers, and even - behind them. There were guide wheels in the front of the hull, and in the stern - leading wheels with bolt-on gear. It was suggested to use a track on the basis of rubber and metal parts.

The main weapon of the "combined" tank was to be a rifled gun caliber 90 mm, characterized by a high initial velocity of the projectile. The gun should be mounted in the front embrasure of the turret and equipped with pickups, connected to the gyroscopic stabilizer. The cannon drawn by R. Clapp had a developed muzzle brake. The gun mount was supposed to have mechanized drives, but it was proposed to load the loader manually.

On one machine with a gun, a twin rifle-caliber machine gun was to be mounted. The use of a large-caliber anti-aircraft machine gun was also suggested. For the latter, the author proposed a simple pivot installation mounted at the stern of the tower.

The main-caliber ammunition could consist of 80-90 unitary shots with high-explosive and armor-piercing shells. The ammunition was planned to be placed in the fighting compartment, both on the spinning basket and beyond. In addition, racks for ammunition of machine guns were provided at the right side of the compartment.

The “Project” by R. Clap proposed the use of modern fire observation and control systems. Thus, the crew would have had their own optical instruments, including periscopes and sights. In order to increase the accuracy of firing, a radar rangefinder, the antenna of which was placed on the roof of the tower, should be connected to the fire control equipment. Interestingly, the small lattice rangefinder antenna in the presented figure has no protection.

An armored vehicle could carry a developed complex of internal and external communications. The crew had to communicate through a wired intercom. Liaise with other tanks, supporting command aviation etc. would be provided by a radio station located in the stern of the tower. Means of communication with the accompanying infantry were also provided. For this purpose, the author placed a loudspeaker with a wired connection with the tankers on the aft sheet of the hull.

To manage the tank of the future was a crew of four. In front of the case fit the driver. He had his own front door hatch. The hatch cover was equipped with viewing instruments for driving in a combat situation. Three other tankers were supposed to work in the tower. In front of the left there was a gunner's seat, immediately behind him was the loader standing. Commander post was at the starboard. Above the commander and loader in the roof of the tower had their own hatches.

For driving or conducting combat operations in the dark, headlights were placed on the front hull sheet and the front wings of the tracks, covered with light protective frames. On the sides of the hull it was proposed to transport the entrenching tool, towing cable and other necessary devices. Inclined aft hull sheet had attachments for transporting spare track tracks.

The author did not specify the dimensions, combat weight and driving characteristics of the proposed machine. Nevertheless, the known information allows us to present some of these characteristics. The presence of the engine power 900 hp allowed to get an acceptable power density (15-20 hp per ton) with a combat weight from 45 to 60 t. Obviously, the weight of the tank with frontal armor 5 inches thick and 3-inch sides should be closer to this range . At the same time, with the required characteristics of the transmission and running gear, it could show good mobility parameters for its time.

For obvious reasons, the “ideal” combo tank, authored by Rolf Clap, was not intended for use by any army. He did not have a single chance not only to get into the troops, but even to go to the test. An article in Life International considered the hypothetical look of a promising combat vehicle, reflecting the latest developments in the field of tank construction. According to its author, the best tank with the highest performance and the most extensive capabilities as at 1950 year should look exactly like that.

Recalling the development of tanks in the fifties, it is possible to draw conclusions as to what R.Klap was right and what was wrong. It is easy to see that his tank of the future to some extent resembles some medium and heavy tanks of that time. At the same time, certain features of a hypothetical machine were not widely used in new projects of real combat vehicles.

Taking into account the known tendencies, the author correctly determined the further growth of the caliber of the guns, as well as the addition of guns with several machine guns for different purposes. He was also able to predict the subsequent improvement of fire control systems, supplemented by high-precision equipment for measuring the distance to the target. In general, the correct thoughts were expressed on how to enhance the protection of the onboard projection.

Simultaneously, R. Clap did not guess some of the features of the new tanks. For example, the post-war tanks were no longer equipped with driver hatches of the type used on the T-34, since they posed a certain danger to the car. In addition, over time, a combined frontal projection armor appeared and became widespread. She allowed to abandon the further increase in the thickness of armor plates and reduce the weight of the hull, without losing the level of protection. Over time, tank builders also abandoned air-cooled engines, which were poorly suited to work in the confined space of the engine compartment. The machine gun turret, located on the stern of the turret, was also eventually rejected in favor of installations on the crew hatches.

The publication of Life International in 1950 offered its own version of the most successful and perfect tank, combining the main features of modern designs from several countries. The result was of some interest, but had no real prospects. Like other hypothetical samples offered in various contexts, the tank for the authorship of R. Clap remained on paper, and on the pages of the press, but not on unrealized drawings.

After many years, you can again review the old publication of a foreign publication and compare the main ideas expressed in it with known information about the projects of military vehicles of that period. In addition, using the experience now available, certain conclusions can be drawn. In this case, the main conclusion will be simple and understandable - not all proposals should be implemented, but in the future many of them may represent at least historical interest.


Based on:
https://tankandafvnews.com/
https://militaryfactory.com/
Author:
Photos used:
Life International / tankandafvnews.com
86 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. otto meer
    otto meer 25 December 2017 15: 30
    21
    It is evident that our designers did not read such waste paper, therefore
    1. Fight
      Fight 25 December 2017 16: 36
      0
      The engine is weak, and so +!
      1. svp67
        svp67 25 December 2017 16: 46
        +4
        Quote: Fight
        The engine is weak, and so +!

        It was enough for him ...
    2. Lexus
      Lexus 25 December 2017 19: 20
      +2
      It is evident that our designers did not read such waste paper, therefore

      In 1949, they developed a new modification of the T-52-2, which was taken as the basis for the 1951 modification, in which there were an infrared sight, anti-atomic protection and anti-aircraft weapons.
    3. Captain Pushkin
      Captain Pushkin 25 December 2017 20: 21
      +2
      Quote: otto meer
      otto meer Today, 15:30 New
      It is evident that our designers did not read such waste paper, therefore

      Once at a military training camp out of curiosity climbed into such a T-54. It was used as a duty tractor. Judging by the markings, that tank was made in 1946, i.e. it was one of the first T-54s. At those training camps he examined several other retro-models: the D-43 cannon on the BTR-40 trailer.
    4. reg
      reg 26 December 2017 22: 50
      0
      Quote: otto meer
      It is evident that our designers did not read such waste paper, therefore

      But does the gun D-10T not bother you at all? Do you think it is suitable for the tank of that time?
      1. otto meer
        otto meer 27 December 2017 10: 56
        +1
        Quote: reg
        Do you think it is suitable for the tank of that time?
        For a tank of THIS TIME, the gun is just wonderful. And only in the 60s, with the massive introduction of L7 began to lose ground. However, very soon the D-54TS, and then the U-5TS regained parity.
        1. reg
          reg 27 December 2017 11: 05
          0
          Quote: otto meer
          For a tank of THIS TIME, the gun is just wonderful.

          But nothing that her cartridge weighed 30 kg with manual loading? Have you ever tried to put this cartridge in the tower on the go to put it in the chamber? Try it, recommend it.
          1. otto meer
            otto meer 27 December 2017 12: 50
            +4
            I will ignore terms such as
            Quote: reg
            cartridge
            и
            Quote: reg
            chamber
            for guns / guns, these things are called differently. But essentially. First, not all shots weighed 30 kg each. They were also heavier - UBR-412D - 30,4 kg. It was much easier - 3UBK4 - 22,6 kg, 3UBM6 - 20,9 kg. The second one. Take shots for a modern tank, for example, the M1A1 with the M256 gun. We have a lot of shots: M829A3 - 22.3 kg, M830 - 24,2 kg, M829A3 APFSDS-T - 25,9 kg.
            And what turns out for us that the weight of the shot in the 50s was excessive, but for the Americans in 2018 is not bad? Moreover, the Americans and others like them Germans and other British do not even plan to give up shots of such a mass. Is it that we have loaders who are thinner or are they specially grown in test tubes in the west?
            I think the question is closed by the mass of the shot? What else was bad in the D-10T?
            1. Cherry Nine
              Cherry Nine 27 December 2017 13: 50
              0
              Quote: otto meer
              3UBK4 - 22,6 kg, 3UBM6 - 20,9 kg

              Quote: otto meer
              such a shot weight was excessive in the 50s

              Why cheat? These are shots of 62 and 66 years respectively.
              Quote: otto meer
              We have a lot of shots: M829A3 - 22.3 kg, M830 - 24,2 kg, M829A3 APFSDS-T - 25,9 kg.

              That's right, mostly 20-25 kg. This comes from the American estimates of WWII, according to which it is undesirable to make a unit heavier than 25 kg for large loading angles (we were talking about anti-aircraft guns).
              Naturally, 25 kg is not some kind of physical constant. Maybe a little more, maybe a little less. + Convenience of ammunition, general ergonomics, etc. We need to look not at the firing cycle in seconds, but at the real rate of fire, at least polygon.
              And yes, you are right. The current Negroes are not Soviet recruits of the post-war years.
              1. otto meer
                otto meer 28 December 2017 11: 39
                +2
                Quote: Cherry Nine
                Why cheat? These are shots of 62 and 66 years respectively.
                As you wish. But the main goal was to show that the difference in mass shots is 5-7 kg. And this is not so critical, especially considering the age difference between the D-10T and M256.
                Quote: Cherry Nine
                We need to look not at the firing cycle in seconds, but at the real rate of fire, at least polygon.
                All the same, it will be far from real, and even more so in combat conditions. In general, talking about rate of fire about systems with manual loading is somewhat incorrect, there are a lot of poorly predicted factors that significantly affect this indicator.
                Quote: Cherry Nine
                And yes, you are right. The current Negroes are not Soviet recruits of the post-war years.
                Of course, the Soviet conscript is right, especially after the war, will give a hundred points ahead of the modern hamburger-steroid black.
                1. The comment was deleted.
                2. Cherry Nine
                  Cherry Nine 28 December 2017 12: 39
                  0
                  Quote: otto meer
                  it’s a little incorrect to talk about rate of fire about systems with manual loading,

                  You're right. But this indicator cannot be discarded, otherwise your Panther with the IS-2 will be compared solely by the "power of the projectile." Well, more ammunition.
                  Quote: otto meer
                  Soviet draftee, especially after the war,

                  Do not foolishly. The diet of the Soviet post-war draftee is more or less known
                  1. otto meer
                    otto meer 28 December 2017 15: 58
                    +2
                    Quote: Cherry Nine
                    But this indicator cannot be discarded.
                    Without a doubt, but agree that this value is very floating. And the same IS-2 could be recharged faster than the Panther, especially if the one with the ersatz group or the barman is wounded, sick, etc., etc., and in IS there are old warriors. It is quite possible that. Although, all other things being equal, of course.
                    Quote: Cherry Nine
                    Do not foolishly.
                    There wasn’t even a thought. I remember my grandfather, uncles, my dad and compare with the blacks pitching - I saw it personally, so they are not even suitable for our soldiers. Sawed in due time firewood with the grandfather Druzhba-2. I was about 17 years old, a sportsman-discharger, did not smoke, did not drink, and then grandfather was under 80 - he had been drinking and smoking all his life. Since he, like an automatic machine, could cut all day, I had about 5-6 hours. Or look at the same Ivan Perepelitsa - everything is just like a selection, sinewy runners, for them I think it wasn’t a problem to throw 30kg onto a tray and for a high pace they fit much better than blacks with high cubic capacity.
                    1. Cherry Nine
                      Cherry Nine 28 December 2017 18: 32
                      +2
                      Quote: otto meer
                      the IS-2 could recharge faster than the Panther,

                      One-time cases could be anything, but they do not cancel the fact that the Panther is built around rate of fire, and IP - around alpha. Thus, leaving the rate of fire outside the brackets, you remove the Panther’s crown chip. It turns out Rezun.
                      Quote: otto meer
                      personally saw, so they are even in soles of our soldiers

                      Don't you think this is a somewhat crazy conversation?
                      Quote: otto meer
                      Ivan Perepelitsa look

                      Maxim.
                      Do you judge people by movie? You think, sorry, and the members of all are as they show there?
                      Quote: otto meer
                      So he like a machine gun could cut all day

                      Your grandfather was engaged in this activity regularly. If I go up to the 15th floor relatively easily, it doesn’t mean that I get into sports, but it means that I do it almost every day.
                      1. otto meer
                        otto meer 29 December 2017 07: 23
                        0
                        Quote: Cherry Nine
                        One-time cases could be anything
                        Absolutely. And note, I did not compare either the IS or the Panther, I just noticed that the recharge time in the presence of the human factor is a very, very conditional value.
                        Quote: Cherry Nine
                        It turns out Rezun.
                        What Rezun? This gentleman, although of course does not deserve respect, but at least deserves attention.
                        Quote: Cherry Nine
                        Do you judge people by movie? You think, sorry, and the members of all are as they show there?
                        That's about the members, to tell you the truth, I somehow did not think about it. But the endurance and performance of people of that generation will remain at their own.
                        And in general, the dispute has come to a logical impasse. In general matters, it seems like we are converging, but in the little things ....
                        In short, Happy New Year! My most sincere congratulations and wishes!
            2. reg
              reg 27 December 2017 18: 28
              0
              Quote: otto meer
              I will ignore terms such as
              Quote: reg
              cartridge
              и
              Quote: reg
              chamber

              Yes, I already understood that you do not know the basic terms and device of the gun.
              Quote: otto meer
              But for Americans, and in 2018 is not bad?

              Did you notice any difference in the mechanization of the tower? Or still not?
              Quote: otto meer
              I think the question is closed by the mass of the shot? What else was bad in the D-10T?

              Why is it closed? Just very open.
              If you want to put D-10T in the towers of modern tanks, then well. And in those days, she was out of place there. Didn't fit.
              1. otto meer
                otto meer 28 December 2017 11: 58
                +1
                Quote: reg
                Yes, I already understood that you do not know the basic terms and device of the gun.
                Yes, in fact, I didn’t pretend, it’s enough that you know that in the cannon (or rather, by the way, to say the gun - the gun is not something that is not right, but somehow outdated) there is a chamber where the cartridge is inserted. I see the tank business in good hands.
                Quote: reg
                Did you notice any difference in the mechanization of the tower? Or still not?

                I don’t know what mechanization of a tower is, I know what mechanization of loading a gun is. And between M1A1 and T-54, I did not notice much difference in this parameter. Maybe the skin color of the loader? Not?
                Quote: reg
                If you want to put D-10T in the towers of modern tanks, then well.
                And if I do not want? Or did I write somewhere that this is my obsession?
                Quote: reg
                And in those days, she was out of place there. Didn't fit.
                Well, that means Morozov was incompetent in these matters.))) Your option?
        2. Cherry Nine
          Cherry Nine 27 December 2017 12: 34
          0
          Quote: otto meer
          For a tank of THIS TIME, the gun is just wonderful

          The tank of TOGO time is the T-34-100 of the beginning of 45 years. And even he would have had problems with Panther VLD, with penetration of the default projectile 53-BR-412 135 mm normal to 1000 m. It is undesirable to fight in such matters with Persh, and especially the centurion.
          When the enemies woke up and in the 52nd year they made an M48 with a 180-220 lead-in for the whole face, to go even with a 53-BR-412D 53rd year projectile with a penetration of 185 mm by 1000 meters normal became fraught with. That is, in fact, the alignment returned approximately to the realities of 44 years of the T-34/85 vs Panther.
          Quote: reg
          But nothing that her cartridge weighed 30 kg with manual loading?

          And how much did the caliber BB weigh 90 mm, say?
          1. reg
            reg 27 December 2017 18: 41
            0
            Quote: Cherry Nine
            And how much did the caliber BB weigh 90 mm, say?

            M82 - 24.11 lb (10.94 kg)
            1. Cherry Nine
              Cherry Nine 27 December 2017 19: 17
              0
              Quote: reg
              M82 - 24.11 lb (10.94 kg)

              Did you really think that this will do the job? Or rolling Vika does not correlate the figure with the 20 pounds mentioned many times?
              24lbs is a projectile, of course. The M82 shot weighed 42,75 pounds. 19,7 kg Shot length 97 cm (Soviet slightly shorter, 91).
              I don’t argue, throwing 20 kg is much easier than 30. But, nevertheless, this is horror, not horror-horror-horror.

              By the way, you mentioned the mechanization of the Abrash tower in vain. Not his strong place.
  2. inkass_98
    inkass_98 25 December 2017 16: 40
    +8
    The T-54 / 55 turned out to be much more ideal tanks.
  3. svp67
    svp67 25 December 2017 16: 46
    +8
    R. Klap called the best tank of World War II the Soviet T-34.
    And he took it as a model, he just did not see the T-44. Not to mention the T-54 ....
  4. Alf
    Alf 25 December 2017 21: 04
    +2
    with a combat weight of 45 to 60 tons. Obviously, the mass of the tank with frontal armor 5 inches thick and 3-inch sides should have been closer to the upper limit of this range.

    But the T-54 and T-55 with the same armor did not fall into this interval. They generally with a mass of 36 tons did not reach him. And the T-64, with a mass of 37 tons in thickness, left this miraculous-judo-Amersky far behind.
  5. groks
    groks 25 December 2017 21: 50
    0
    The upper frontal with a reverse kink from a large overall height, and the height from the engine and air intake system. Accordingly, there is nowhere to put the hatch. The pyramidal case will not allow to make a larger shoulder strap.
    Since the upper frontal is large, then the weight is rushing. The tower also looks high.
    Probably already then the USA did not intend to contrast their tanks with a serious army.
  6. DesToeR
    DesToeR 25 December 2017 23: 40
    12
    How could you draw this squalor after the Victory Day parade of the Allied forces in Berlin?
    46 tons and 122 mm:
    1. reg
      reg 26 December 2017 22: 52
      +1
      Quote: DesToeR
      How could you draw this squalor after the Victory Day parade of the Allied forces in Berlin?
      46 tons and 122 mm:

      Yes, the IS-3 was perhaps a squalor. And he did not live long.
      1. otto meer
        otto meer 27 December 2017 11: 01
        +3
        Quote: reg
        IS-3 was perhaps a squalor
        What is your opinion based on?
        Quote: reg
        And did not live long
        Yes, this is a strong argument, about the onset of the era of MBT I hope you are aware?
        1. reg
          reg 27 December 2017 11: 12
          0
          Quote: otto meer
          What is your opinion based on?

          There is not specified, wretched like a tank. Since this is not a tank, this is a 122 mm self-propelled gun. A necessary measure, a self-propelled 122 mm gun in general was not really needed.
          1. Cherry Nine
            Cherry Nine 27 December 2017 12: 42
            +1
            Quote: reg
            This is a 122 mm self-propelled gun.

            If suddenly someone is not in the know, then I report that SW. reg refers to the self-propelled 122 (approximately) mm guns of the M103 Heavy Tank, FV 214 Conqueror, as well as all British MBTs from Chiften to Challenger 2. IS Films should not take this to heart.
            1. reg
              reg 27 December 2017 18: 57
              0
              Quote: Cherry Nine
              all British MBTs from Chiften to Challenger 2.

              Do not make a cult of food. And from British post-war tanks, too.
              1. Cherry Nine
                Cherry Nine 27 December 2017 19: 03
                +1
                Quote: reg
                from British post-war tanks

                Why tanks? Self-propelled five-inch guns.
          2. otto meer
            otto meer 27 December 2017 12: 56
            +1
            Quote: reg
            wretched like a tank
            And what exactly was wretched in him? A gun? Weight? MTG? Armor? Communication systems? Let’s specifically. And also let's choose a reference TT, any modern IS-3 and with such a requirement of the customer, from whom we will dance. If this is still being sought.
            1. Cherry Nine
              Cherry Nine 27 December 2017 13: 39
              0
              Quote: otto meer
              reference TT, any modern IS-3

              Modern is strictly the 45th year or until the T-10 (until the 54th?).
              1. otto meer
                otto meer 28 December 2017 12: 04
                0
                Quote: Cherry Nine
                or to the T-10 (until the 54th?).
                What a friend you are a cunning!))) Until the IS-3 was removed from service, until the middle of the 46th.
                1. Cherry Nine
                  Cherry Nine 28 December 2017 13: 05
                  +1
                  Quote: otto meer
                  Before decommissioning the IS-3

                  Well, who, b * pulled the tongue))))?
                  The tank was withdrawn from service by the RF Ministry of Defense by Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of September 26, 1997. Its modern counterpart (in terms of gun caliber) is M1A2 (from the 92nd, 2 years to M1A2 SEP) and Leopard 2A5 (appeared six months later). Will it go)))?

                  If you are talking about the production period, then there was nothing for the 46th year, except for tiger b and fake TT T26E4
                  1. otto meer
                    otto meer 28 December 2017 16: 03
                    0
                    From here we have eaten))) I agree. Of course
                    Quote: Cherry Nine
                    If you are still talking about the production period
            2. reg
              reg 27 December 2017 18: 56
              0
              Quote: otto meer
              And what exactly was wretched in him? A gun? Weight? MTG? Armor? Communication systems? Let’s specifically.

              1. The platform. She just wasn’t tank. You can not continue further.
              2. The gun. She just wasn’t tank. Further, you can not continue.
              What will remain with us? Swivel tower? So this is not a sign of a tank. Fully self-propelled guns with turrets.
              Quote: otto meer
              reference TT

              What is TT? Heavy tank?
              1. otto meer
                otto meer 28 December 2017 12: 10
                0
                Quote: reg
                What will remain with us? Swivel tower? So this is not a sign of a tank. Fully self-propelled guns with turrets.
                I wanted to start a discussion, but I read
                Quote: Cherry Nine
                If suddenly someone is not in the know, then I report that SW. reg refers to the self-propelled 122 (approximately) mm guns of the M103 Heavy Tank, FV 214 Conqueror, as well as all British MBTs from Chiften to Challenger 2.
                and all desire was gone.
                Quote: reg
                What is TT? Heavy tank?
                No, damn it, Tula Tokarev! What are we talking about?
      2. cast iron
        cast iron 21 February 2018 02: 28
        0
        Is-10 - development of Is-3, lived in the USSR army until the end of the 1980s
  7. Cherry Nine
    Cherry Nine 25 December 2017 23: 44
    +2
    I am forced to note that the author of a non-specialized American magazine was rather poorly versed in the topic. With this SW. Mr. Ryabov is also not strong in tanks.
    Regarding the perfect tank of the 50th year. The ideal American tank of the 50s went to the 49th breadboard commission and in the 51st went to the test. This, of course, T43, which turned into a heavy M103 and medium M48. The alternative was the heavily armored bulldog T42, somewhat reminiscent of just Soviet tanks, but the tank with a molten hull turned out to be more promising. The Soviet comrades also thought this way, but did not grow together.
    About the shortcomings of American tanks, too, everything was pretty obvious. Low mobility, low range, weak (relatively British) gun. The author of life fixed only one of them.
    Mr. Ryabov’s comments are also surprising. The growth of the caliber is the L7 (M68) of the 59th year, in the 50th it was very far from it. Combined armor is generally a Challenger with an abrash of the early 80s, and in the USSR - T-64, also not in the 50th year of the sample. On engines - Americans' dislike of JOs on tanks is a racial feature and, it seems, persists until abrashi inclusive.
    1. Cxnumx
      Cxnumx 26 December 2017 06: 45
      0
      Quote: Cherry Nine
      I am forced to note that the author of a non-specialized American magazine was rather poorly versed in the topic.

      in the comments there are a lot of examples of the fact that the author does not understand at all)))
      1. Cherry Nine
        Cherry Nine 26 December 2017 07: 21
        0
        Quote: K0
        in the comments there are a lot of examples of the fact that the author does not understand at all)))

        In the comments, the American Latynina is convicted of the fact that she is not familiar with the T-54 tank (which even the CIA parasites do not really know about in the 50th year), as well as the IS-3 (which at that time was the 4th year not done). At the same time, very clever commentators, like Mr. Klep, refuse to delve into American tank realities.
  8. DesToeR
    DesToeR 26 December 2017 00: 17
    +2
    Quote: Cherry Nine
    The Soviet comrades also thought this way, but did not grow together.

    It did not grow together because the "Soviet comrades" did not see the advantages in casting precisely for the corps. Especially after WWII.
    Quote: Cherry Nine
    The growth of the caliber is the L7 (M68) of the 59th year, in the 50th it was very far from it.

    A strange statement, given that the tank in the article is a compilation of the best in the world of tank building in 1950. Or did the Americans not know about 122mm Soviet guns on tanks of the mid 40s? Maybe they didn’t have any information about the Panzervaffe guns in 128mm? Was the "civilized" world not familiar with the Yagdtiger?
    1. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine 26 December 2017 01: 03
      +3
      Quote: DesToeR
      It did not grow together because the “Soviet comrades” did not see the advantages in casting precisely for the corps.



      The Soviet comrades saw such advantages, but barely dopped by the mid-50s the T-54 and IS-8 to the state of a peacetime tank (and not an emergency period). And in the 60s, the most beautiful rational booking did not solve anymore.
      Quote: DesToeR
      Or did the Americans not know about 122mm Soviet guns on tanks of the mid 40s? Maybe they didn’t have any information about the Panzervaffe guns in 128mm? Was the "civilized" world not familiar with the Yagdtiger?

      From the proximity of the calibers of the IS and MBT it is not necessary to conclude that the five-inch was a progressive solution in the 40s and 50s. The best tank gun in the world before the L7 was, of course, the Ordnance QF 20 pounder with its insane APDS. The T44 HVAP American 90 mm gun M41 was worse, but not by much. The armor penetration of both was higher than the D-25T by the post-war projectile BR-471D by 1,5-2 times.
  9. Dimon19661
    Dimon19661 26 December 2017 00: 34
    +1
    After the 86 mm gun, further delirium can not be read.
  10. otto meer
    otto meer 26 December 2017 09: 59
    +1
    Yes, do not say, but in tanks we are strong like no one else. A trifle, but damn nice.
  11. DesToeR
    DesToeR 26 December 2017 11: 53
    +2
    Quote: Cherry Nine
    Soviet comrades saw such advantages,

    The Soviet comrades saw the advantage of casting the hull in the economic sphere, but also clearly recognized the shortcomings of the mine clearance.
    Quote: Cherry Nine
    but barely finished by the mid-50s T-54 and IS-8 to the state of a peacetime tank (and not an emergency period)

    And that someone was "pushing" behind in tank building? The British and Americans "stamped" around the reservation and armament of the Tiger 2 mid-forties.
    Quote: Cherry Nine
    The best tank gun in the world before the L7 was, of course, the Ordnance QF 20 pounder with its insane APDS.

    Very controversial statement. Firstly, the German 88mm KwK43 tank gun, which was unable to penetrate the forehead of the IS-3 tank, had similar characteristics. Secondly, why does a tank with such a gun need infantry? What can he destroy with his relatively light projectile?
    Quote: Cherry Nine
    From the proximity of the calibers of the IS and MBT it is not necessary to conclude that the five-inch was a progressive solution in the 40s and 50s.

    All Western tanks approached MBT on this caliber, but several decades later.
    1. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine 26 December 2017 12: 39
      0
      Quote: DesToeR
      Soviet comrades saw the advantage of casting the hull in the economic sphere

      Not only. The molded case has a lot of advantages.
      Quote: DesToeR
      And that someone was "pushing" behind in tank building? The British and Americans "stamped" around the reservation and armament of the Tiger 2 mid-forties.

      They were running in front, you know. The D-10T gun with a 53-BR-412B projectile did not (confidently) penetrate the Centurion from a kilometer in the frontal projection. From 48 meters it didn’t pierce the M500 in the forehead in any way, including with the new 53-BR-412D projectile of the 53rd year. Mentioned 20lbs. caliber BB had armor penetration higher than 130 mm gun IS-7.
      Since the 52nd year of the USSR lag behind on the tanks. In the 59th, this lag became catastrophic. To close it, I had to take a revolutionary design at that time. In this period - the time of the first MBT from the mid 60s to the 80s - we can talk about significant Soviet superiority, both quantitative and qualitative.
      Quote: DesToeR
      First, the German 88mm KwK43 tank gun, which was unable to penetrate the forehead of the IS-3 tank, had similar characteristics.

      KwK43 didn’t even have such ammunition.
      Quote: DesToeR
      Secondly, why does a tank with such a gun need infantry? What can he destroy with his relatively light projectile?

      This tank, in addition to the subcalibers, had landmines. Do not forget that from the 43rd year until the massPTUR the main role of the tank is the mobile anti-tank. First PT, then everything else.
      Quote: DesToeR
      All Western tanks approached MBT on this caliber, but several decades later.

      When it became a reasonable decision, and not a consequence of the poverty of the USSR on high-ballistic guns and advanced shells.
      1. reg
        reg 26 December 2017 23: 03
        0
        Quote: Cherry Nine
        Since the 52nd year, the USSR began to lag behind in tanks.

        He "began to lag behind" from the moment of its birth. Due to the constant technological lag from the whole world. Especially catastrophic was the situation before and during the war.
        In the second half of the 40s, due to the emergence of captured technologies and German specialists, the situation slightly improved. But after a short time, maybe from 1952, the lag resumed.
        Quote: Cherry Nine
        In this period - the time of the first MBT from the mid 60s to the 80s - we can talk about significant Soviet superiority, both quantitative and qualitative.

        You know how to make fun.
    2. reg
      reg 26 December 2017 22: 57
      0
      Quote: DesToeR
      and the German 88mm KwK43 tank gun, which couldn’t penetrate the forehead of the IS-3 tank.

      Really?
      Quote: DesToeR
      Secondly, why does a tank with such a gun need infantry? What can he destroy with his relatively light projectile?

      Like what? Calculation of anti-tank guns (ATGM, ATGM). More tank "fragment" is not required to destroy anything, this is not an assault gun.
      Quote: DesToeR
      All Western tanks approached MBT on this caliber, but several decades later.

      Have come. After the autoloaders were invented. But not earlier than this moment.
      1. Cherry Nine
        Cherry Nine 27 December 2017 06: 28
        0
        Quote: reg
        Due to the constant technological lag from the whole world.

        There is one. However, as the war in Korea has shown, if nothing is done, then one can lag behind the USSR.
        Quote: reg
        You know how to make fun.

        Not at all. M60 was definitely stronger than the T-54/55, but not the T-62, and especially not the T-64 and T-72. Before Abrashi (more precisely, even M1A1), the situation for the USSR was noticeably better than between the M48 and T-64 (in technical terms).
        In the post-war period, when the USSR had the T-44 and T-34/85 / IS-3 UKN, and the vrazhin had the same Sherman, the situation was also quite favorable for the USSR.
        Quote: reg
        More tank "fragment" is not required to destroy anything, this is not an assault gun.

        Not quite. The role of the tank as an assault vehicle / infantry support vehicle could be more or less important, but it cannot be completely ruled out in any period. Now it is generally basic.
        Quote: reg
        After the autoloaders were invented.

        No, AZ has nothing to do with it. After the tankers abandoned the caliber warheads and switched to burning shells. Now a unitary shot weighs less than a five-inch AP of those years. BB separate loading.
        Limes, however, have a special opinion on this issue.
        1. reg
          reg 27 December 2017 11: 45
          0
          Quote: Cherry Nine
          as the war in Korea has shown, if you do nothing, you can lag behind the USSR.

          I would not be so critical of that experience.
          Quote: Cherry Nine
          In the post-war period, when the USSR had the T-44 and T-34/85 / IS-3 UKN, and the vrazhin had the same Sherman, the situation was also quite favorable for the USSR.

          What about Pershing and Cromwell? I couldn’t even depict anything like the USSR. Mattehbaza did not allow. Instead of an adequate response, the T-44 sprang up and praised. What is there to praise? There were no guns, as there were none. The platform there may be more or less tolerant. For the "rich USSR". Because normal diesel engines in the USSR learned to do only in the 50s. Just the level of technological development reached this level then. And before that it was very convenient, the oil in the engines was not changed. Changed the engines themselves.
          You can go down a notch, a little earlier, to the Sherman and Comet. These are contemporaries and classmates of the T-34/85. What is there to compare?
          Quote: Cherry Nine
          but it cannot be completely excluded in any period.

          This is the concept of the pre-war period and the first period of the war, when "infantry tanks" were in use in the USSR and in the world. They are infantry escort tanks. There were a lot of them - light, medium and even heavy (KV-1C, Pz.V). But during the war, the USSR was forced to abandon this concept, focusing on the release of "universal" T-34 tanks. There was another name in use, "medium." That's just from their imaginary universality and there were such losses.
          At the same time, a light infantry tank (NPP tank) T-70 was also produced. He came to replace the pre-war T-26. Later, the release of such a BTT was refused. Due to the loss of relevance.
          In the USSR, specially for assault purposes, from the second half of the war, the SU-76 was produced. Now we will not dwell on her performance characteristics, but the fact is that she was. In fact, the troops conceptually replaced the pre-war T-34 and T-26 (T-70). As replaced, this is another conversation.
          Quote: Cherry Nine
          Now it is generally basic.

          Now it’s appropriate to start talking about tanks in the past tense. The time for this weapon is gone.
          1. Cherry Nine
            Cherry Nine 27 December 2017 13: 26
            0
            Quote: reg
            Now it’s appropriate to start talking about tanks in the past tense. The time for this weapon is gone.

            No, his role has changed (although in Iraq, even in 2003, quite deep operations were observed). The rifle time went even earlier, but, as far as I know, they have not given up on it yet.
            Quote: reg
            What about Pershing and Cromwell?

            What else is Cromwell? Chariotir? There was no glory to God. The Persh tank is very jamb, which was never finished. It is impossible to call him ubernagibuchy against T-54, IS-3 IS-4. And there were not so many of them.
            Quote: reg
            to the Sherman and Comet. These are contemporaries and classmates of the T-34/85.

            Post-war? Compared in Korea. It seems to be the norm.
            Quote: reg
            This is the concept of the pre-war period.

            This is a constant concept, only tanks, as you rightly noted, have become universal (more or less successfully). The assault on human settlements is the main occupation of Abrash and Merkas today.
            1. reg
              reg 27 December 2017 19: 03
              0
              Quote: Cherry Nine
              even in 2003, quite deep operations were observed in Iraq

              Tank? Or "marders"?
              Quote: Cherry Nine
              What else is Cromwell?

              I apologize. Wrote "Cromwell", but had in mind Centurion, of course.
              Quote: Cherry Nine
              It is impossible to call him ubernagibuchy against T-54, IS-3 IS-4.

              How would the T-54 is much later. And ISy, this is generally off topic.
              Quote: Cherry Nine
              Post-war? Compared in Korea. It seems to be the norm.

              Norm? Where does the "norm" come from? They, especially Comet, have a gun such that the T-34/85 does not shine at all. But "at the cost of mass sacrifices and heroism", it, of course, can achieve a lot.
              Quote: Cherry Nine
              The assault on human settlements is the main occupation of Abrash and Merkas today.

              There is no war today. So, petty skirmishes and police operations. No more.
              1. Cherry Nine
                Cherry Nine 27 December 2017 19: 37
                0
                Quote: reg
                Tank? Or "marders"?

                Do not understand.
                Quote: reg
                Centurion, of course.

                Centurion against the T-54 was used and proved to be more or less even. With good Israeli tankers.
                Quote: reg
                How would the T-54 be much later

                As if from the age of 49. I think it’s possible to forgive the Soviet tank dealers that this time they made the tank before it was put into service, and not as usual. (Well, almost to, one time is not considered). By the 49th year, nothing was better than Centurion, and the bourgeois had no hastily completed feathers.
                Quote: reg
                ISy, this is generally off topic.

                Why? Like, the Bolsheviks would not use them for reasons of fair play?
                Quote: reg
                especially in the Comet, the gun is such that the T-34/85 doesn’t shine at all

                The T-34/85 position against Panther is not new. But the Comets in Korea were not convinced.
                Quote: reg
                There is no war today.

                But there are tanks.
                1. reg
                  reg 27 December 2017 21: 38
                  0
                  Quote: Cherry Nine
                  Do not understand.

                  Something I have today with my head. The second time I’m writing is not what I mean. Bradlievsky, of course.
                  Quote: Cherry Nine
                  Like, the Bolsheviks would not use them for reasons of fair play?

                  No, everything is much simpler. They perfectly understood that in which case they would be guaranteed a kayuk. Therefore, they would not apply at all. They even prudently played back during the Cuban crisis. All of the same pragmatic considerations.
                  And when it really became “possible”, and this time came already after Khrushchev, the “leaders” did not become those. And then only the islanders of some tropical island could scare the USSR with their relics. And then, with an incomprehensible result.
                  Quote: Cherry Nine
                  But the Comets in Korea were not convinced.

                  How not convinced? And who pushed a whole bunch of Koreans, Chinese and Soviet “advisers” over the 38th parallel? Including and they.
                  Quote: Cherry Nine
                  But there are tanks

                  Is it really tanks? Which cities are storming.
                  1. Cherry Nine
                    Cherry Nine 27 December 2017 22: 36
                    0
                    Quote: reg
                    Bradley, of course.

                    Tanks and motorized infantry, everything is as it should.
                    Quote: reg
                    No, everything is much simpler.

                    No, everything is much more complicated. Kayuk was not provided for by the Bolsheviks. As a matter of fact, when the kayuk suddenly came on its own, it turned out that there was no understanding what to do with this happiness.
                    And in the 50s, containment was provided. Tanks including. Containing on the M26 T-54 / IS-3 is difficult.
                    Quote: reg
                    How not convinced? And who pushed a whole bunch of Koreans, Chinese and Soviet “advisers” over the 38th parallel? Including and they.

                    That is, with their own. So what is fuss about?
                    Quote: reg
                    Is it really tanks?

                    Merkava with abrash? Yes, of course.
                    1. reg
                      reg 27 December 2017 23: 51
                      0
                      Quote: Cherry Nine
                      Kayuk was not provided for by the Bolsheviks. As a matter of fact, when the kayuk suddenly came on its own, it turned out that there was no understanding what to do with this happiness.

                      The inner kayuk and the outer kayuk are two different kayuk.
                      After the war, "the USSR consistently and persistently fought for peace."
                      Why? Why such a drastic change of vector?
                      Because the leadership of the so-called The party made very clear and unambiguous conclusions from the course and results of 2MB. They were simple, any war with conventional weapons will be lost to the USSR. And lost very quickly. In blitzkrieg mode.
                      The only way to reduce this war in a draw is to destroy life on earth.
                      The winning option was not visible even in pink dreams.
                      Therefore, the USSR decided to replay the West and, above all, the United States in a different kind of war. Economic. Then the slogan “We catch up and overtake America” appeared. Perhaps some of this would have happened. But the military-industrial lobby intervened, and after the deposition of Khrushchev it was in very great strength, and by its further actions led the USSR to collapse. "Defended."
                      As for the quality of the manufactured equipment, then it makes no sense to consider it. Because it was half scrap. And the fact that there was no scrap metal did not have qualified crews. Everything as usual. And again, I did not plan to fight the USSR with conventional weapons. Because in this case, he had no chance of self-preservation.
                      I'm generally at a loss, how is it, what magic spells did the military manage to shove the USSR into Afghanistan? Indeed, for the Politburo it was just a break in the template. Maybe some dementia is to blame? Or insanity?
                      1. Cherry Nine
                        Cherry Nine 27 December 2017 23: 59
                        0
                        You see. I am aware of your views on Soviet power. They seem to me too extravagant, although I really do not like the USSR.
                        Therefore, I will not maintain a conversation on the topic of the post-war international situation.
                  2. reg
                    reg 28 December 2017 00: 12
                    0
                    Quote: Cherry Nine
                    I am aware of your views on Soviet power.

                    I do not think.
                    Quote: Cherry Nine
                    Therefore, I will not maintain a conversation on the topic of the post-war international situation.

                    I wrote about the quality of the post-war BTT. And about what role she was given.
  12. DesToeR
    DesToeR 26 December 2017 22: 33
    +2
    Quote: Cherry Nine
    D-10T ore with a 53-BR-412B projectile did not (confidently) penetrate Centurion from a kilometer in the frontal projection.

    If you think the 90mm M-48 gun is very good, then the 100mm D-10T is clearly not worse. Just for this gun there were no adequate targets in the late 40s, except for Centurion. Not western guns are good, but shells for them. But, as practice has shown, if necessary, then we could create quite competitive shells. The D-10T with an initial armor-piercing projectile speed of 900 m / s and compactness suitable for a medium tank was clearly not bad for its time and goals.
    Quote: Cherry Nine
    Mentioned 20 pound caliber BB had armor penetration higher than 130 mm gun IS-7.

    It could not be. The 84mm light cannon shells of the English cannon are clearly overestimated, moreover, the data is given for normally installed armor. This is indirectly confirmed by the development of the L7 cannon to replace the 20-pound after meeting the Soviet T-54A medium tank in 1956. And if we consider L7 as almost an outstanding masterpiece in artillery, then we should remember that this is 1959. And in 1961, a 115mm smoothbore gun - the U-5TS "Hammer" appeared on domestic tanks.
    Quote: Cherry Nine
    KwK43 didn’t even have such ammunition.

    Strange, but in the sources of armor penetration KwK43 and 20 pounds go "head to head" - the difference is only 20 mm in favor of a newer English gun. Which, however, and not surprisingly, ballistics, is the same - about 1000m / s AP shell.
    Quote: Cherry Nine
    Do not forget that from the 43rd year until the massPTUR the main role of the tank is the mobile anti-tank. First PT, then everything else.

    I do not agree. The tank must be able to deal with field goals. Otherwise, it is inferior and too expensive as a PT.
    Quote: Cherry Nine
    When it became a reasonable decision, and not a consequence of the poverty of the USSR on high-ballistic guns and advanced shells.

    This reasonable decision in the USSR came through WWII battles, i.e. through experience, and not because of poverty. For how to explain the presence of a 125mm tank gun with separate loading on the USSR MBT? And time has absolutely nothing to do with it. For guns with a caliber of up to 100mm, it makes no sense to introduce even a standard for the destruction of only one or another field target. It cannot be calculated with an acceptable probability due to the insufficient power of the projectile. The Russians found the perfect caliber in 1943, and then decided how to increase the rate of fire. We decided on the IS-7 with 130mm and then on the T-64 with 125mm.
    1. reg
      reg 26 December 2017 23: 24
      0
      Quote: DesToeR
      A 90mm M-48 gun is very good, then a 100mm D-10T gun is clearly no worse.

      For the tank is clearly worse.
      Quote: DesToeR
      It could not be.

      But it could. True, not much, but it is.
      In general, 122-mm and 130-mm guns in Soviet tanks, this is from the technological backlog of the USSR. They were not tank, they did not fit there. From this, the whole BTT armed with them, these are not tanks, it is something else. Also with armor, but not tanks. And to compare them with tanks is incorrect.
      Quote: DesToeR
      ballistics, then the same - about 1000m / s BB shell.

      Ballistics is compared not only with a s / a shell, but also with calibers and weight. These factors are called "ballistics". External.
      Quote: DesToeR
      The tank must be able to deal with field goals.

      This assault gun is required.
      Quote: DesToeR
      Otherwise, it is inferior and too expensive as a PT.

      In fact, the tank was indirectly related to PT tasks. For this there were tank destroyers.
      You, it seems, just do not understand what kind of beast such a tank is. And for the solution of what tasks he serves.
      Rather, served. The time of tanks is coming to an end.
      Quote: DesToeR
      The Russians found the perfect caliber in 1943

      Apparently still Soviet.
      Quote: DesToeR
      found the perfect caliber in 1943,

      They found such a caliber from the inferiority of Soviet artillery. There were no powerful guns in the Red Army, they could not do it. I had to somehow get out. While doing a good face with a bad game.
      Quote: DesToeR
      We decided on the IS-7 with 130mm

      Yes? How?
    2. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine 27 December 2017 06: 48
      0
      Quote: DesToeR
      If you think the 90mm M-48 gun is very good,

      No. Americans have always lagged behind limes in this matter. In the late 50s, as you know, they generally spat and switched to English, then the German cannon. Well, God didn’t give, it happens.
      Quote: DesToeR
      100mm D-10T is clearly no worse.

      In addition to a heavier and larger shot. And ammunition.
      Quote: DesToeR
      Just for this gun there were no adequate targets in the late 40s, except for Centurion.

      And M46 / 47. But when they appeared - M48 - this weapon was somehow immediately lost.
      Quote: DesToeR
      Not western guns are good, but shells for them.

      Both that and that.
      Quote: DesToeR
      then we could create quite competitive shells.

      15 years later, it seems.
      Quote: DesToeR
      The effect of light shells 84mm English guns is clearly overestimated, in addition, the data are given for armor normally installed

      As for the S-70.
      Vika, it happens that she’s lying. Do you have test data?
      Quote: DesToeR
      Indirectly, this is confirmed by the development of the L7 gun to replace the 20-pound

      Writing. What is more interesting, the need for this gun was not seen 10 years after meeting with the IS-3.
      Quote: DesToeR
      L7 as almost an outstanding masterpiece in artillery, it should be remembered that this is 1959. And in 1961, a 115mm smoothbore gun appeared on domestic tanks

      Yes, in the form of an experiment. Which turned out to be successful, I must admit.
      Nevertheless, the enemy with their L7 normally reached right up to the 84th year.
      Quote: DesToeR
      The tank must be able to deal with field goals. Otherwise, it is inferior and too expensive as a PT.

      You see, a 20-pound is not a 6-pound without OFS, after all.
      Quote: DesToeR
      For how to explain the presence of a 125mm tank gun with separate loading on the USSR MBT?

      Excuse me, what are you talking about? About 2A46?
      Quote: DesToeR
      those. through experience, and not because of poverty.

      The experience was that the largest anti-aircraft gun - 85mm - did not penetrate the Panther and the Tiger. Yes, and T-4 / Shtug later versions are not always.
      Quote: DesToeR
      For guns with a caliber of up to 100mm, it makes no sense to introduce even a standard for the destruction of only one or another field target

      You again recall WWII standards. Moreover, artillery, not tank. Roll up a 6-inch self-propelled gun and forward.
      Quote: DesToeR
      increase rate of fire. We decided on the IS-7 with 130mm

      Two loaders?
  13. DesToeR
    DesToeR 26 December 2017 23: 16
    +1
    Quote: reg
    Really?

    Yeah. I could not, which, incidentally, is not surprising.
    Quote: reg
    The calculation of the anti-tank gun.

    Hemorrhagic, however, it is necessary to get directly into the gun, or very close to it. The little one is small, and disguised by the most indulge. And the calculation of a gun of 6-8 people stubbornly does not want to die entirely from one or two close gaps.
    Quote: reg
    The tank does not need to destroy anything else, this is not an assault gun.

    What are you saying! I wonder how. And where are these assault guns to pick up in the British and American tank divisions? Yes, so that with guns so 127mm and higher? And if your counterattack on breaking through the rear of the Russian tank division (or army) falls in the field defense prepared by the motorized infantry? What will we do then? Wait for self-propelled guns from the "reserve of the high command"? So the bill goes not for hours, but for minutes. The a priori tank is an offensive weapon, and the first thing it encounters on the battlefield is the infantry with its field fortifications. It was then, in the depths of the enemy’s defense, that the enemy’s tanks would appear. Now I would survive the field, and overcome the dominant skyscraper.
    Quote: reg
    Have come. After the autoloaders were invented. But not earlier than this moment.

    And many automatic loaders on western MBT? Thousands of 120mm NATO cannons on tanks do without them. This is the "earlier" for the US Army has not yet come, as well as for the army of Great Britain, Germany, Italy, Israel.
    1. reg
      reg 27 December 2017 13: 00
      0
      Quote: DesToeR
      Hemorrhagic, however, it is necessary to get directly into the gun, or very close to it. The little one is small, and disguised by the most indulge. And the calculation of a gun of 6-8 people stubbornly does not want to die entirely from one or two close gaps.

      Are there any other options? Except how to stand under her fire?
      Therefore, fragmentation of their OFS (OS) is so important for tank guns. Unfortunately, in the USSR, full-fledged tank guns were not produced during the war and before it. Therefore, I had to use all kinds of ersatz substitutes. At the same time, incurring inevitable additional losses.
      Artillery in the USSR during the war was generally very bad. Almost all. Even the one that did not require any high-tech things. "Devastation, she’s not in the toilet, she’s in the head." I am especially touched by the one that was declared "legendary" after the war. This is a sure sign that it's rare.
      Quote: DesToeR
      Yes, so that with guns so 127mm and higher?

      And who told you that the assault guns of infantry from the time of 2MV have a caliber of 127 mm and higher? The Germans had 75 mm. The Red Army has 76 mm. Even heavy German assault infantry self-propelled guns dispensed with a 105 mm caliber. In the USSR, their analogues were produced in caliber 122 mm. But for their intended purpose they were never used regularly, so talking about them is not appropriate.
      Quote: DesToeR
      And if your counterattack on breaking through the rear of the Russian tank division (or army) fall in the field defense prepared by the motorized infantry? What will we do then? Wait for self-propelled guns from the "reserve of the high command"?

      You have cereal in your head. You obviously do not know what types of transportable and self-propelled artillery are divided into. All of you should have tanks instead of them. "Both the Swiss and the Reaper."
      Quote: DesToeR
      So the bill goes not for hours, but for minutes.

      Why for minutes? The offensive, even in the form of a counterattack, is a serious matter. You can proceed from "the bill goes for minutes" and put people in batches. And you can carefully prepare any attack and manage with a minimum level of losses.
      I understand your choice. I heard a lot about him.
      Quote: DesToeR
      The a priori tank is an offensive weapon, and the first thing it encounters on the battlefield is the infantry with its field fortifications.

      Infantry in shattered field fortifications. Many hours of preliminary, and sometimes many days of artillery bombardment. It is with this that a normal tank meets, if the line of defense is really solid and you can’t get around it. And just such a method allows us to talk about human conservation.
      Quote: DesToeR
      It was then, in the depths of the enemy’s defense, that the enemy’s tanks would appear.

      They usually do not occur. Because the attack is carried out on infantry units of the enemy. But they do not have tanks. Oncoming tank battle, this is a rare occurrence. Caused by incompetence or poor intelligence by the advancing side. It is about 2 MB.
  14. DesToeR
    DesToeR 26 December 2017 23: 43
    +1
    Quote: reg
    In general, 122-mm and 130-mm guns in Soviet tanks, this is from the technological backlog of the USSR. They were not tank, they did not fit there. From this, the whole BTT armed with them, these are not tanks, it is something else. Also with armor, but not tanks. And to compare them with tanks is incorrect.

    You when your stream of consciousness write the word IMHO at the end add.
    Quote: reg
    Ballistics is compared not only with a s / a shell, but also with calibers and weight. These factors are called "ballistics". External.

    I talked with a professional, I lowered such trifles immediately. It’s clear to me that 84mm and 88mm will give a difference of a few percent.
    Quote: reg
    This assault gun is required.

    So where are they the most serial assault self-propelled guns in 1950?
    Quote: reg
    In fact, the tank was indirectly related to PT tasks. For this there were tank destroyers.

    Well, where are these serial tank destroyers in 1950?
    Quote: reg
    You, it seems, just do not understand what kind of beast such a tank is. And for the solution of what tasks he serves.
    Rather, served. The time of tanks is coming to an end.

    This you apparently do not understand simple things. The armies of all countries are fighting according to the CHARTER, where it is written in red (blood) on white what a tank is and for what tasks it serves.
    Quote: reg
    Apparently still Soviet.

    This is how anyone likes it. I do not share.
    Quote: reg
    They found such a caliber from the inferiority of Soviet artillery. There were no powerful guns in the Red Army, they could not do it. I had to somehow get out. While doing a good face with a bad game.

    Well, that is a given! Plagiarism of Tiger 2 in the form of Centurion with identical armor and armament a couple of years later is the top achievement for the nation of the ancestor of tank building. And for the sake of interest, take an interest in what the letter "T" means at the end of some markings of Soviet tank guns. And then, if not in scrap, delve into the design differences with the “field” counterparts. Learn a lot of interesting things. Could and done.
    1. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine 27 December 2017 06: 51
      +1
      Quote: DesToeR
      Tiger 2 plagiarism as Centurion

      Panthers, I'm sorry.
      And yes, a well-made Panther is a very powerful tank.
    2. reg
      reg 27 December 2017 19: 20
      0
      Quote: DesToeR
      You when your stream of consciousness write the word IMHO at the end add

      I did not find such a word in the Dahl dictionary. Therefore, I will not write.
      Quote: DesToeR
      It’s clear to me that 84mm and 88mm will give a difference of a few percent.

      You don’t understand anything. Because a long 84 mm projectile ceteris paribus will give a larger DE than a short 88 mm projectile. For example, the Soviet 76 mm BR-350A weighed 6,3 kg. A German 7.5 cm Pzgr. 39 weighed 6,8 kg. That's it.
      Quote: DesToeR
      So where are they the most serial assault self-propelled guns in 1950?

      Quote: DesToeR
      Well, where are these serial tank destroyers in 1950?

      And where does 1950? Times have changed, and weapons have changed.
      Quote: DesToeR
      The armies of all countries are fighting according to the CHARTER, where it is written in red (blood) on white what a tank is and for what tasks it serves.

      Actually printed on the printer. And besides, do not make dogma of charters. Otherwise, it will have to be rewritten in blood.
      Quote: DesToeR
      I do not share.

      Why don't you share? The fact that the USSR fought against the Reich?
      Quote: DesToeR
      this is the pinnacle of achievement for the nation of the ancestor of tank building.

      "The ancestor of tank building," this is not a synonym for the term "knows how to make tanks."
      I'm not hinting at anything. Just for order.
      Quote: DesToeR
      And for the sake of interest, take an interest in what the letter "T" means at the end of some markings of Soviet tank guns.

      Yeah, and also look into the letter C?
      In fact, the differences were minimal. Somewhere replaced the shutter. And somewhere did not change. But basically T meant that the gun does not have a horizontal aiming mechanism.
      Quote: DesToeR
      Could and done.

      So they did nonsense.
  15. DesToeR
    DesToeR 27 December 2017 11: 37
    +1
    Quote: Cherry Nine
    Do you have test data?

    No, but the British have a real T-54 tank. And I think these very results did not please them very much.
    Quote: Cherry Nine
    What is more interesting, the need for this gun was not seen 10 years after meeting with the IS-3.

    They did not have an IS-3, only beautiful photos. IS-3 had a reservation stronger than the T-54A.
    Quote: Cherry Nine
    Nevertheless, the enemy with their L7 normally reached right up to the 84th year.

    This gun survived until 1984 only due to the presence in the world of a huge number of T-54/55 and T-62 tanks. Against the T-64, it is no longer effective.
    Quote: Cherry Nine
    The experience was that the largest anti-aircraft gun - 85mm - did not penetrate the Panther and the Tiger. Yes, and T-4 / Shtug later versions are not always.

    Not only this experience. The Russians knew very well that they would break through both Panther and the Tiger, because long before their appearance, armor of 100 ... 120 mm was already tested by them on experimental tanks. As a matter of fact, and art systems in larger than 85mm caliber. B1943 decided not to return to the experimental products, but immediately put 122mm, which would be for sure. My personal opinion was that it was a rational choice that forced Western designers to reconsider not only the reservation system, but also the principle of constructing individual tank structures that were vulnerable to impact.
    Quote: Cherry Nine
    You again recall WWII standards. Moreover, artillery, not tank.

    What is the difference? The shell of a tank gun operates according to the same physical laws as the field one.
    Quote: Cherry Nine
    Roll up a 6-inch self-propelled gun and forward.

    Few in the world had a sufficient number of 6-inch self-propelled guns, and even with anti-shell armor.
    Quote: Cherry Nine
    Two loaders?

    Two loaders and a charging mechanism with electric drive.
    1. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine 27 December 2017 12: 59
      0
      Quote: DesToeR
      Two loaders and a charging mechanism with electric drive.

      You do not confuse AZ and mechanized styling?
      Quote: DesToeR
      a sufficient number of 6-inch self-propelled guns, and even with anti-shell armor.

      Pulling really close is not required.
      Quote: DesToeR
      What's the difference?

      The fact that tanks should bypass the centers of resistance, and not take them by storm. For the destruction of bunkers are responsible artillerymen and engineers.
      Quote: DesToeR
      do not return to experimental products, but immediately put 122mm, which would be for sure

      To go nuts how long it was to put experimental guns and new ammunition into production.
      Quote: DesToeR
      The Russians knew very well that they would break through both Panther and the Tiger,

      Yeah. Artillery RGK.
      Quote: DesToeR
      Against the T-64, it is no longer effective.

      This gun survived to the 84th year on the Central European theater of war, where the notorious Mongol hordes were expected to, attention, T-72 and T-80. In other places, she still feels fine.
      Quote: DesToeR
      IS-3 had a reservation stronger than the T-54A.

      Which was still lacking against the centurion of 20 lbs.
      Quote: DesToeR
      but the British have a real T-54 tank. And I think these very results did not please them very much.

      What does "think" mean? So is it or not? Or are you talking about the notorious lineup that diplomats replaced the D-10T in Hungary?
    2. reg
      reg 27 December 2017 19: 42
      0
      Quote: DesToeR
      B1943 decided not to return to the experimental products, but immediately put 122mm, which would be for sure.

      But "not for sure"? What were the alternatives? Is it really a choked 85 mm gun? So she was decommissioned from IS-1. Due to her weakness. This is the 100th time converted German anti-aircraft gun arr. 18 g. Yes, and a cartridge with a truncated sleeve. 629 mm instead of 821 mm for the Germans. Both laughter and sin.
      Quote: DesToeR
      My personal opinion was that it was a rational choice that forced Western designers to reconsider not only the reservation system, but also the principle of constructing individual tank structures that were vulnerable to impact.

      Penetration of 122 mm gun IS-2 was 119% of the level of 75 mm KwK 42 and the British 76 mm "77 mm", 110% of the level of 90 mm M3, 80% of the level of 88 mm KwK 43. It is not an outstanding result for the artillery system of such power , dimensions and weight.
      1. Cherry Nine
        Cherry Nine 27 December 2017 20: 05
        0
        Quote: reg
        and the British 76 mm "77 mm", 110% of the level of 90 mm M3

        What shell? Or are you indulging in formulas again?
        1. reg
          reg 27 December 2017 21: 43
          0
          Quote: Cherry Nine
          What shell? AND

          APCBC
          Soviet APC. There was no other.
          Source: "Tank Armament in World War Two," Paul Woodman, in: Airfix Magazine, Vol. 3 No. 5,
          Alan W. Hall (publications) Ltd, August 1991, page 174.
  16. DesToeR
    DesToeR 27 December 2017 11: 53
    +2
    Quote: Cherry Nine
    And yes, a well-made Panther is a very powerful tank.

    Who argues Panther - a strong opponent. But where to get them well-made ones? Transmission - shit, Side armor - shit. Cruising range and patency - shit. Excellent gun and good frontal armor - that's basically it. Not a lot, to be honest, for 1943.
    1. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine 27 December 2017 12: 44
      0
      Quote: DesToeR
      But where to get them well-made ones?

      You did not understand. A well-made Panther is Centurion.
      Quote: DesToeR
      Not a lot, to be honest, for 1943.

      Enough when skillfully.
    2. reg
      reg 27 December 2017 19: 46
      0
      Quote: DesToeR
      But where to get them well-made ones?

      In Germany, they usually appeared.
      Quote: DesToeR
      Transmission - shit, Side armor - shit. Cruising range and patency - shit.

      Have you tried to compare with the Soviet BTT?
      Quote: DesToeR
      Not a lot, to be honest, for 1943.

      The allies were even, and Pz.V fought mainly against them, because they thought that enough against the Soviet artillery and Pz.IV, they didn’t.
  17. DesToeR
    DesToeR 27 December 2017 16: 27
    +2
    Quote: Cherry Nine
    You do not confuse AZ and mechanized styling?

    No, I don’t confuse.
    Quote: Cherry Nine
    Pulling really close is not required.

    Yeah - on the range of a direct shot. Business then for five cents!
    Quote: Cherry Nine
    For the destruction of bunkers are responsible artillerymen and engineers.

    Field defense rarely contains bunkers, but bunkers and anti-tank guns in bulk, and full-profile trenches with machine gun nests.
    Quote: Cherry Nine
    To go nuts how long it was to put experimental guns and new ammunition into production.

    Well 1941. put an end to a lot.
    Quote: Cherry Nine
    Yeah. Artillery RGK.

    Well, why? The Tiger will penetrate both the 95mm divisional gun and the 107mm M-60. But why, if there is 122mm in the stream and in bulk shells.
    Quote: Cherry Nine
    This gun survived to the 84th year on the Central European theater of war, where the notorious Mongol hordes were expected to, attention, T-72 and T-80.

    And what can this gun do in the frontal projection (+ -30 degrees) of the T-72 or T-80?
    Quote: Cherry Nine
    Which was still lacking against the centurion of 20 lbs.

    Do you have data on shelling the IS-3 with this gun? Or are you talking about the notorious ruler ...
    1. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine 27 December 2017 17: 26
      0
      Quote: DesToeR
      No, I don’t confuse.

      OK. This is me, in response to the Ministry of Health, wrote about AZ, you are right. IS-7 had ammunition on the floor and something like a drum for 6 shots in a tower niche. But I wouldn’t get the OBT carousels from him.
      Quote: DesToeR
      Aha - on the range of a direct shot

      Absolutely not necessary.
      Quote: DesToeR
      Field defense rarely contains bunkers, but bunkers and anti-tank guns in bulk, and full-profile trenches with machine gun nests.

      As reg correctly noted, launching tanks in such places is undesirable. After the advent of ATGMs and RPGs especially.
      Quote: DesToeR
      Well 1941. put an end to a lot.

      Quote: DesToeR
      But why, if there is 122mm in the stream and in bulk shells.

      They are talking about this to you. Put A-19, because there is nothing more.
      Quote: DesToeR
      107mm M-60.

      That is, this one has not been in production since 41 years.
      Quote: DesToeR
      95mm divisional gun

      But this one never happened.
      Quote: DesToeR
      And what can this gun do in the frontal projection (+ -30 degrees) of the T-72 or T-80?

      Well, there were separate battles, but I wouldn’t even put on the M60, even American (and not Iranian). Therefore, I declare that from T-64 to M1A1 and Leo2 the USSR had a significant advantage in tanks. The reason is the failure of the MVT-70, which made the clearly outdated M60 main tank an extra 15 years.
      Quote: DesToeR
      Do you have data on shelling the IS-3 with this gun?

      Where will I get them from you? The Jews did this a couple of times (with the help of the Egyptians), but these were already other weapons. So you have to believe millimeters of data and armor penetration.
    2. reg
      reg 27 December 2017 19: 50
      0
      Quote: DesToeR
      The Tiger will penetrate both the 95mm divisional gun and the 107mm M-60. But why, if there is 122mm in the stream and in bulk shells.

      Maybe they would have struck. But where could they be taken? In commodity quantities, they walk only on the expanses of Runet.
      Quote: DesToeR
      But why, if there is 122mm in the stream and in bulk shells.

      Expensive shells, I note.
  18. DesToeR
    DesToeR 28 December 2017 12: 11
    +1
    Quote: Cherry Nine
    As reg correctly noted, launching tanks in such places is undesirable. After the advent of ATGMs and RPGs especially.

    I already answered that it is impossible to fulfill this ideal condition in offensive operations. In any case, the tank will enter the field defense of the infantry, and it will be possible for him to get around this same defense - a big question. Especially at the time of a counterattack on the enemy who broke through. The Germans in 1941 showed this tactic well, when the motorized infantry with anti-tank guns covered the flanks of the advancing tank fist. And the counterattack of the retaliatory Soviet tank fist at the base of the breakthrough often broke its teeth against the field, hastily constructed, defense of the infantry units of the Wehrmacht. A tank without assault self-propelled guns (they are not in tank divisions) will have to break this line.
    Quote: Cherry Nine
    They are talking about this to you. Put A-19, because there is nothing more.

    That there is nothing in your concept? There are created and tested samples of guns (F-28 - 95mm or 107mm - M-60). This is the choice of the country's leadership what exactly to put into service. If the Soviet leadership wanted to go the German way, then promising tanks would equip 85mm with high-ballistic experienced cannons, but new shells had to be created. What the Germans and the British did by the way. 88mm shells from the Tiger were different than to the 88mm cannon of the Tiger 2. This is their choice, but I also think the Soviet way is rational.
    Quote: reg
    Expensive shells, I note.

    More expensive than a tank? Or Pak40 anti-tank gun?
    1. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine 28 December 2017 12: 48
      0
      Quote: DesToeR
      A tank without assault self-propelled guns (they are not in tank divisions) will have to break this line.

      Maybe. However, in this case, your recollections of the projectile consumption standards are inappropriate. They belonged to concrete bunkers.
      Quote: DesToeR
      That there is nothing in your concept?

      Not in the production of guns and ammunition. There is no way to get them quickly.
      Quote: DesToeR
      If the Soviet leadership wanted to go the German way, then promising tanks would equip 85mm with high-ballistic experienced cannons

      I wanted and could - different things. That ZiS-2 wanted, and so what?
      Quote: DesToeR
      What the Germans and the British did by the way

      Yes, they could afford it. But the USSR could not.
    2. reg
      reg 28 December 2017 14: 59
      0
      Quote: DesToeR
      There are created and tested samples of guns (F-28 - 95mm or 107mm - M-60)

      95 mm existed only at the paper stage. And before the series she was another 3-4 years.
      Equipment and equipment for the production of M-60 were lost in 1941. For a second production it would take a year or two.
      Therefore, there was no alternative to 100 and 122 mm guns. Either 85, or 100, or 122 mm. Between them in the USSR were holes.
      Quote: DesToeR
      If the Soviet leadership wanted to go the German way, then promising tanks would equip 85mm with high-ballistic experienced cannons

      You have a very optimistic view of the possibilities of Soviet industry. If you only knew what REALLY had to fight the Red Army. Indeed, almost Soviet wartime weapons have little in common with the performance characteristics of pre-war Soviet weapons. Even if on paper it was called exactly the same.
      Quote: DesToeR
      More expensive than a tank? Or Pak40 anti-tank gun?

      Of course not. But it is not necessary to cut a twig with a sawmill.
  19. DesToeR
    DesToeR 28 December 2017 22: 56
    +1
    Quote: Cherry Nine
    However, in this case, your recollections of the projectile consumption standards are inappropriate. They belonged to concrete bunkers.

    Not only. There are standards for the destruction of tree-and-earth field structures - bunkers, equipped with machine-gun points, anti-tank guns.
    Quote: Cherry Nine
    Not in the production of guns and ammunition. There is no way to get them quickly.

    So the Germans and the British did not have them. They put them into production under WWII. Hence the scanty number of 88mm L71 cannons on the armored vehicles - about 1000 copies, which by the standards of WWII is nothing. Why do you think that it was impossible to launch a unique type of gun in the USSR? The 100mm tank guns for 1943 were the same absent as the armor-piercing shells for them, but the WWII fields were seen by vehicles armed with this gun, though by the end of 1944. One year from the decision to serial combat vehicles. The USSR did not understand the meaning of a specialized, not mass heavy tank armed with a medium caliber gun. Why is such a tank needed?
    Quote: Cherry Nine
    Yes, they could afford it. But the USSR could not.

    I agree in Great Britain, but not in Germany.
    1. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine 29 December 2017 00: 59
      0
      Quote: DesToeR
      There are standards for the destruction of tree-and-earth field structures - bunkers, equipped with machine-gun points, anti-tank guns.

      Yes. And, importantly, 5 inches is not required for this. 5 inches advanced in the USSR precisely on the basis of concrete-breaking considerations.
      The British went through the war in 25lbs, the Germans and Americans - with a 4-inch. More than enough for field fortifications.
      Quote: DesToeR
      the scanty number of 88mm L71 cannons on armored vehicles is about 1000 copies, which by the standards of WWII is nothing

      L71 - Outstanding idiocy.
      Quote: DesToeR
      I agree in Great Britain, but not in Germany.

      The Pak40 with all its sisters, like the KwK42, are also wartime weapons. War is not only the 44th year.
      Quote: DesToeR
      Why do you think that it was impossible to launch a unique type of gun in the USSR?

      Because I imagine a little n * t that was going on in Soviet industry for the 41st year. Literally nothing could be done to work. What can we say about the evacuation.
      A unique type launched. And M-60, and ZiS-2. Somehow it didn’t work.
      Quote: DesToeR
      The 100mm tank guns for 1943 were the same as the armor-piercing shells for them.

      Production was. The 100 mm is a truly adapted naval gun, as reg. BB yes, new.
  20. DesToeR
    DesToeR 28 December 2017 23: 04
    +1
    Quote: reg
    Therefore, there was no alternative to 100 and 122 mm guns. Either 85, or 100, or 122 mm. Between them in the USSR were holes.

    You do not see an alternative based on the logic of the Soviet leadership. But if you apply the logic of Germany or Great Britain, then the USSR had options. But you reproach this to one, and elevate the others to the pedestal. So what's the logic? The fact that the USSR did not have guns with an initial velocity of an armor-piercing projectile of 1000 m / s? Or maybe you need to look not at speed, but at armor penetration, as an effective indicator of the effectiveness of the artillery system?
    Quote: reg
    If you only knew what REALLY had to fight the Red Army.

    About the same as Germany fought in 1944 ... 1945. When the time for free nishtyakov is over.
    Quote: reg
    Of course not. But it is not necessary to cut a twig with a sawmill.

    When do you go to the woods as you choose a knife: cut a sausage or sharpen a stake?
    1. reg
      reg 29 December 2017 00: 32
      0
      Quote: DesToeR
      You do not see an alternative based on the logic of the Soviet leadership. But if you apply the logic of Germany or Great Britain, then the USSR had options.

      What kind? Quickly develop a new gun?
      I remind you that I’m unfortunate ZIS-2 Grabin mocked from 1940 to 1943. And only then did she more or less learn to shoot. At the same time, it weighed 20% more and, in particular, had other retractable devices. Much more powerful.
      Understand that any new product is a disaster for the USSR. Only the alteration of the old, another is not given. And preferably simpler. Because there are no constructors. And your "high power guns" are exactly the new guns. For the USSR, this was impossible. Of would have finished a few years after the end of the war.
      In the segment of 85 mm and less options were. Including and quite efficient and economical. In the segment over 85 mm there was no choice. And 85 mm in the USSR during the years of the war was very not bad.
      Quote: DesToeR
      But you reproach this to one, and elevate the others to the pedestal. So what's the logic?

      The fact that these countries were at completely different stages of technological development. And what they could and even needed was a disaster for the backward USSR.
      Quote: DesToeR
      The fact that the USSR did not have guns with an initial velocity of an armor-piercing projectile of 1000 m / s?

      What for? Who needs such tools?
      In addition, the standard cuts of gun barrels in the USSR took such BBS speeds extremely painfully. The absurd ZIS-2 and M-42 are fully applicable. Their steepness of cutting trunks did not match the speeds of their BBS. That was their "ingenious design." Therefore, their trunks served extremely briefly.
      Quote: DesToeR
      But for armor penetration, as an effective indicator of the effectiveness of the artillery system?

      You have to look at everything. Including on the design and quality of the BBS. Here the USSR was far behind the entire planet.
      Quote: DesToeR
      About the same as Germany fought in 1944 ... 1945.

      Lord, how can we compare the weapons of Germany and the weapons of the USSR? This is heaven and earth.
      The musket against the sternum. But if there are a lot of rogatin and horn-bearers, then they can also crush the musketeers. At the cost of heavy losses.
      Quote: DesToeR
      When do you go to the woods as you choose a knife: cut a sausage or sharpen a stake?

      PaK 40 arr. 1941 (in fact, it’s just cheap, but in terms of armor-piercing-price ratio this is the best German 2MV gun) completely coped with the entire BTK of the Red Army until the very end of the war. After all, it has not practically changed since then, the main type of BTT was the same low-successful T-34. For the same reason, the Germans did not stop production of the Pz.IV armed with the KwK 40, a ballistic counterpart to the PaK 40. Why keep the Pz.V in the east if the cheap Pz.IV is enough?
      Quote: DesToeR
      Why do you think that it was impossible to launch a unique type of gun in the USSR? The 100mm tank guns for 1943 were the same absent as the armor-piercing shells for them, but the WWII fields were seen by vehicles armed with this gun, though by the end of 1944. One year from the decision to serial combat vehicles.

      100 mm D-10T, this is a converted anti-aircraft B-24BM / PL mod. 1936 Or maybe B-34 arr. 1940. Now I don’t remember exactly. Yes, and they did not differ much.
  21. DesToeR
    DesToeR 30 December 2017 15: 57
    0
    Quote: reg
    Understand that any new product is a disaster for the USSR.

    Understand you. that for ANY country a new product is a disaster. Examples of weapons are darkness for both the UK and Germany. Do not be biased towards the USSR. Neither the Germans nor the British did any artillery revolution for WWII.
    Quote: reg
    Therefore, their trunks served extremely briefly.

    ??? Long compared to what? Do you think there are 500 rounds for 88mm / 71? Why should a tank or a PT cannon have the possibility of a large shot? The life of these weapon systems is two to three standard-set. Then everything is open-hearth, at best a repair shop with scraping of burnt crew remains / crew.
    Quote: reg
    PaK 40 arr. 1941 (in fact, it’s just cheap, but in terms of armor-piercing-price ratio this is the best German 2MV gun) completely coped with the entire BTK of the Red Army until the very end of the war.

    I like your epithets so much: "full", "cheap", "scanty," etc. Military statistics do not operate on such "data." Namely, it (military statistics) underlies the characteristics of weapons systems. And only a fool will make a tank with a motor resource of 5000 hours for a loss of money and a kilo of man-hours, if the tank does not produce even half of this reserve. And if the tank itself dies, then the gun will not be able to "shoot" more than 500 shots. There were certainly unique ones / lucky ones, but ... this is an exception that only confirms the rule. Before you hang up epithets, you need to understand the logic of making certain decisions, then look at what the enemy was doing in a SIMILAR situation. Compare. But there is an example - Germany and its weapon systems in 1944-1945. Everything is the same as the USSR in 1941, with a local bias and colors
    .
    Quote: reg
    100 mm D-10T, this is a converted anti-aircraft B-24BM / PL mod. 1936 Or maybe B-34 arr. 1940. Now I don’t remember exactly. Yes, and they did not differ much.

    What is the difference from what "remade"? The Germans, you know, developed their 88mm guns not from a vacuum for tanks. And the tank version of the anti-aircraft or sea is different as heaven and earth, but one thing in common - the barrel with its unique ballistics. The advantage of 100mm over 95mm was in greater power, and over 107mm - a unitary cartridge. This same 100mm was put into production. If you start from the presence of shells, then the M-60 would be a clear favorite.