Military Review

T-44 on the background of "thirty-four": evaluation of the front-line tank-tester

287



T-44 (Object 136) - the Soviet medium tank, created in 1944 by the Uralvagonzavod design bureau under the leadership of A. A. Morozov, was intended to replace the T-34 as the main medium tank. However, the T-44 did not become the successor to the Thirty-Four - the appearance of the T-54 prevented it.

Tactical and technical characteristics of the medium tank T-44:
Combat weight - 31,8 tons;
Crew - 4 person;
A gun:
Brand - ZIS-C-53 model 44 of the year;
Caliber - 85 millimeters;
Engine:
Brand - B-44;
Type - diesel;
Power - 500 l. with.;
Highway speed - 51 km / h;

Until the first thousand kilometers all went well

A tankman, a war veteran, Rem Ulanov (the “I remember” site) after the war — in 1947 — 48 had a chance to experience T-44. The Main Armored Directorate decided to conduct a life test of the T-44 tank. Three new cars were selected that were supposed to run each 6000 km. Tank commanders - test technicians appointed Lieutenant Ulanov, Captain Borisov and Senior Lieutenant Kaplinsky.

The test program included after each 1500 km of run, shooting, disassembling the machine, measuring wear. After assembly - the mileage of the next kilometers. Only four stages. The test site was assigned to the research test armored (NIIBT) test site of the Red Army - Kubinka station of the Western Railway, military unit 68054.

Already after the first acquaintance with the T-44, it became clear: "This is not a thirty-four." The smoothness and acceleration dynamics were significantly higher. "

The main time spent on testing accounted for running on the highway. At that time, it was the main one, in the form of a closed ring with a length of about 30 km, located north of the military town of the landfill. On the route, the tanks were transported on heavy trailers. For daylight it was necessary to drive at least one lap. The next day, the crew serviced the cars, and the test technician made out the test report of the previous day.
“Before the first thousand kilometers, everything went well. And then began to arise all sorts of trouble. At Borisov, due to a malfunction of the friction safety clutch of the fan drive, when the engine stopped abruptly, it twisted seven times and the shaft broke. When I shifted gears, I switched on two speeds at once, which caused a gear failure. Kaplinsky flew engine. True, the reason for this was bravado. In an effort to show that it was him, Kaplinsky, “forty-four” the best and most powerful, he towed in tow a heavy tank EC-3, which the engine refused. ”

The potato landing sergeant Kalistratova and coats of officer wives

Testers of tanks had to solve for themselves the food problem - 1947 was a very difficult year for the USSR: “The feeling of hunger was constantly present. By the end of the summer, it became easier: having departed from the base, a “landing” was planted in the form of sergeant Kalistratov, who had a bucket, a knife and a pinch of salt in the soldiers' kitchen. While we were doing our job, moving along a bumpy highway, the “landing” secretly got potatoes, peeled, cooked and crushed tolkushkoy. Having made a circle, we stopped at Kalistratov, who was looking out of the bushes, turned off the engine and set about the desired meal. ”

What would the Americans say about this if they found out? They would have laughed or thought - well, how can we fight with such an adversary, if even in peacetime he routinely endures military hardships? The grounds were both to laugh and to think.

In winter, new problems were added: “Due to incomplete draining of water from the cooling system, caused by a change in the drive of the water pump in order to reduce the height of the engine, the roller flew off when the impeller was frozen. Replacing the roller in the field occurred as an acrobatic number. Two people took the third by the legs and lowered upside down in the engine compartment. There he unscrewed the fasteners and took out the broken roller. He (the man) was pulled out and, giving breath, lowered again with a new roller. If he did not have time to finish the work, then he was pulled out and lowered again. ”

During the winter tests, Ulanov froze, which the authorities reacted with commendable efficiency: “After three days, all the officers ... received woolen sweaters, fur vests, which were given out to us during the war, white brand new fur coats, combed galoshes for engineers and thick gray felt boots for technicians. In addition, the testers were given tank helmets with a white merlushkoy lining and fur mittens on a leather cord ”.
The management did not stint, providing subordinates with warm clothes.

Only the received good was often used not at all in the way that it was intended: “Soon, in the town one could see the officer's wives flaunting their husband’s fur coats”. But this situation could, I suppose, be repeated in many countries, without surprise anyone. The principle - “it suits me more, I will wear it” is deeply apolitical and international.

Damming rinks began to appear after a run in 2500 km

As the tests were carried out, the fulfillment of the task set - to make a mileage of 6000 kilometers, became more and more problematic: “It turned out that the rollers of the track rollers were falling earlier than expected. To increase the service life of the chassis of rollers and balancers, the new tank has a small camber of twin road wheels. In this case, more load falls on the outer rollers. In process of run the camber disappears, and both skating rinks - external and internal are loaded evenly. The last stage of the run comes with a blockage of the road roller. The inner roller is more loaded. On our machines, a roll of skating rinks began to appear after a run in 2500 km. To complete the 6000 km, it required replacement of expensive undercarriage components. ”

It was not only in skating rinks: “By the middle of the third thousand kilometers, the cars got old, worn out… The engine of my car got old, it started to start up badly. Oil pressure has dropped to 2-3 atmospheres. When loads began to smoke, releasing a black jet to the side. The caterpillar broke off several times. ”

It became clear that the machines had exhausted their resources, showing everything that they were capable of. 6000 miles without major repairs, they did not pull. After the 3000 km run, the tests were completed. Soon Kubinka from Nizhny Tagil on railway platforms, covered with a tarpaulin and guarded by profit tanks T-54 - for testing.

Rotate the engine with installing it across the machine

What conclusions did the tester of Ulanov come to about T-44? Here they are: “A bunch of innovations were introduced into it (T-44). The main was - turn the engine with installing it across the machine. This bold decision predetermined the layout of tanks for subsequent modifications for many decades to come. It was hard to go for it. All previous medium and heavy Soviet (and not only Soviet) tanks were linked with the engine located along the hull. At T-34, a main clutch with an air turbine for cooling radiators was installed on the toe of the crankshaft. Engine power to the box was transmitted by a pair of bevel gears. Exhaust gases through the manifolds and exhaust pipes exited through the rear wall of the housing to the outside. On both sides of the engine were installed obliquely two radiators. The space left between them and the engine was filled with batteries. The one who was not engaged in the replacement of batteries on the legendary “thirty-four”, does not know what it cost to install in the cramped and dark, fix it in place, connect the terminals of four wooden boxes weighing 64 kg each. They were fed into the tank through the close hatch of the driver or on the ropes through the upper tower hatches. Skeptics (and they always were, are and will be) said: you can’t put a high-speed V-shaped 12-cylinder engine with a displacement of almost 40 liters across the movement of the car - there can be trouble up to the broken rods of the trailed group. They (skeptics) believed that reducing the volume of the engine's transmission part of the tank for the sake of increasing the volume of the warhead was an unnecessary undertaking. Moving the turret backwards can reduce the angle of reduction of the vertical cannon. But all these were major fears, stupid adherence to traditions.

Turning the engine allowed to solve many problems. A significant reduction in the length of the engine compartment allowed to move the tower back. The axis of its rotation is located in the middle of the body. At the same time, without disturbing the alignment of the machine and without increasing its weight in comparison with the T-34, it became possible to more than double the thickness of the frontal armor. In the T-34 tank, the thickness of the armor was 45 mm round, except for the bottom and the roof. To start the second world war that was enough. The improvement of the T-34 during the Great Patriotic War affected the increase in the caliber of the gun (from 76 to 85 mm), the reinforcement of the turret armor and other innovations. But the tank hull remained the same - weak. The increase in the fighting compartment due to the rotation of the engine made it possible to remove the underground ammunition, from which it was extremely inconvenient to take projectiles, bumping into the spent cartridges, and transfer it to the side volumes. At the same time, the overall height of the tank, while remaining virtually unchanged, was reduced by 300 mm. Getting rid of the taper pair in the transmission allowed the gearbox to be made more compact, to improve the management of the onboard clutches and brakes. Sharply improved control of the machine in the stowed position, as the shift of the tower back, lowering the height of the hull made it possible to transfer the driver’s hatch from the frontal part to the hull roof and provide him with excellent visibility, to get rid of the driver’s overwhelm with water. Chassis received torsion bar suspension, ensuring smooth ride over irregularities. “Thirty-four” on the move was tough, shaking. Caterpillars of the new machine were borrowed from its predecessor. The Forty Quarter was the last domestic medium tank with ridge-engined caterpillars. But their tensioning mechanism was greatly improved. For T-34, for tensioning the caterpillar, it is necessary to unscrew the crank from engaging with the body by unscrewing the two crank nuts inside the body, by hitting the sledge hammer. After its tension, the sledgehammer was also needed to land the crank in place. After which he was fixed in place. Up to three people participated in the tension operation of the T-34 track to the sound of non-print expressions. On the T-44, the caterpillar could easily be pulled by one person without a sledgehammer. The rotation of the engine somewhat complicated the transmission by introducing an additional gearbox - a guitar and a fan drive. At the same time, the maintenance of the engine compartment has improved. Its cover, turning with the radiator, opened up good access both to the engine and its equipment, and to all elements of the transmission and to the batteries. In general, it was a fundamentally new car. ”

Who did not have time - he was late

That's just fatally unlucky for this really fundamentally new car. If you had time to create and launch it into mass production before July 1943, the Germans would get a very unpleasant surprise at the Kursk Bulge. But T-44 was late with the date of birth.

And at the end of the war, T-44 was not destined to show its qualities. Although it was put into service, produced in small batches so as not to interfere with the production of the T-34-85, it did not hit the T-44 front.

And then the "big road" he blocked the T-54. Compete with him, with his 100-mm. T-44 could not. We tried it on T-44 100-mm. to install a gun - the modernized machine turned out to be overweight and was not adopted for service ...
Author:
Originator:
https://vpk-news.ru/articles/40558
287 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Kot_Kuzya
    Kot_Kuzya 30 December 2017 07: 11
    15
    I wonder why the T-34 did not put a torsion bar suspension? After all, HF was created in a similar period, and he received torsions. Well, since the T-44 is a work on the mistakes in creating the T-34: the suspension is torsion bar, there is a commander’s turret, the engine is transverse, which allowed the tower to be carried back and the driver’s hatch made on the roof, the useless radio operator arrow was removed. If these innovations were introduced immediately on the T-34, then it would be wonderful.
    1. svp67
      svp67 30 December 2017 07: 53
      33
      Quote: Kot_Kuzya
      I wonder why the T-34 did not put a torsion bar suspension?

      For this you need to know the history of the T-34, it was created as a development of BT tanks, which had Christie suspension. But they wanted to switch to torsion bars and in the T-34M project it already was. The timing of this tank’s testing was disrupted by the beginning of the war, and could not release more than one of the copies.

      Quote: Kot_Kuzya
      If these innovations were introduced immediately on the T-34, then it would be wonderful.

      To do this, you had to have much more experience in designing ...
      1. Amurets
        Amurets 30 December 2017 08: 18
        +4
        Quote: svp67
        For this you need to know the history of the T-34, it was created as a development of BT tanks,

        I agree completely and somewhere came across, EMNIP that already in the T-34M they wanted to put the engine across the hull of the tank.
      2. Cherry Nine
        Cherry Nine 30 December 2017 11: 15
        15
        Quote: svp67
        To do this, you had to have much more experience in designing ...

        To do this, it was necessary to rebuild the head.
        In the 40th year it was perceived that the troika would be the main tank of the war, like the Germans. In 41-42, the Germans did so. The Soviet three were designed by Leningraders (T-50) and they had torsion bars.
        The Kharkovites designed the four, which was perceived as something like an amplification tank (and the result was the Soviet Valentin KS). Based on their production base, which was believed to be torsion niasilite.
        Give GABTU the task of designing a single tank to replace the T-26 with a mass of 25-30 tons - you would have torsion bars, but the tank would probably be Leningrad.
        1. Kot_Kuzya
          Kot_Kuzya 30 December 2017 14: 31
          +7
          According to pre-war plans, the T-50 was to become the main tank in the Red Army, everything was in order with it, because it was made with an eye on a decent German T-3. The T-50 had a torsion bar suspension, a triple tower with a commander’s turret, the radio operator gunner was removed, so there was no machine-gun ball mount on the front sheet that weakened the armor. It is a pity that the T-50 was adopted only at the beginning of 1941, and it was planned to start mass production only in the 4th quarter of this year. At the beginning of the war, the production of the T-50 was not mastered, so all efforts were devoted to the production of the already established T-34 and the production of cheap T-60 based on the production of T-40. Since a new turret with an 34 mm cannon was installed on the T-85, I assume that it was possible to put a turret with a 50 mm cannon on the T-76.
          1. svp67
            svp67 30 December 2017 15: 48
            14
            Quote: Kot_Kuzya
            It’s a pity that the T-50s were adopted only in early 1941,

            Alas, no. The T-50 was commensurate in labor costs with the T-34, the difference was minimal. But the T-50 did not have that modernization reserve that the T-34. What were his prospects for increasing firepower - minimal. In 1943, he would still have to look for a replacement, that is, to make a completely new tank, after going through all the stages of life, especially the stage of “childhood diseases”. In the case of the T-34 cost modernization, albeit large, but not complete.
            1. Kot_Kuzya
              Kot_Kuzya 30 December 2017 21: 35
              +6
              How could a tank weighing 13 tons, having a 45 mm gun and diesel in 6 pots, have the same price as a T-34 tank weighing 29 tons, with a 76 mm gun and 12 pots diesel? !!! Here you explain to me! Do not just copy-paste the opinion of Rezun. In his opinion, QMS was better than HF.
              1. Cherry Nine
                Cherry Nine 30 December 2017 22: 24
                +4
                Quote: Kot_Kuzya
                Here you explain to me!

                It is not difficult.
                The price of a pre-production car is compared with the price of a serial one.
                1. Kot_Kuzya
                  Kot_Kuzya 31 December 2017 02: 21
                  +1
                  The T-50 in the series should be half the price of the T-34.
                  1. svp67
                    svp67 31 December 2017 05: 01
                    +5
                    Quote: Kot_Kuzya
                    The T-50 in the series should be half the price of the T-34.

                    No. He demanded greater involvement of metal-cutting and metal-working machines, which increased its price
                    1. Kot_Kuzya
                      Kot_Kuzya 31 December 2017 05: 35
                      +1
                      Due to what? In fact, the shape of the hull of the T-50 is simpler due to the lack of a cutout for the ball mount of the radio operator's machine gun. The diameter of the tower shoulder strap T-50 is again smaller than that of the T-34. The thickness of the armor plates is 37 mm, not 45 mm as in the T-34. The only thing that could be more complicated is the presence of a commander’s turret, but this is hardly likely to dramatically increase the manufacturing complexity.
                    2. Cherry Nine
                      Cherry Nine 31 December 2017 11: 25
                      +2
                      Quote: Kot_Kuzya
                      The diameter of the tower shoulder strap T-50 is again smaller than that of the T-34

                      Lolshto?
                      Quote: Kot_Kuzya
                      The thickness of the armor plates is 37 mm, not 45 mm as in the T-34

                      It was proposed to take cemented armor, it is much more expensive than rolled.
                      Quote: Kot_Kuzya
                      The only thing can be more difficult

                      Have you definitely studied the materiel well?

                      Another thing is that the T-34 was also that sweet, so writing about him as a porridge from an ax, which is often done, is unreasonable.
                      1. Kot_Kuzya
                        Kot_Kuzya 31 December 2017 11: 39
                        0
                        Is a tank with a 45 mm cannon a tower shoulder strap wider than a tank with a 76 mm cannon?
                      2. The comment was deleted.
                    3. Cherry Nine
                      Cherry Nine 31 December 2017 11: 54
                      0
                      Quote: Kot_Kuzya
                      turret broader than a tank with a 76 mm cannon?

                      Have you tried to see? The shoulder strap is the same, 1420. Moreover, the T-50 immediately had the task of broadening the shoulder strap to 1500, like Chaffee, for example.
                      1. Kot_Kuzya
                        Kot_Kuzya 31 December 2017 12: 17
                        0
                        Rave. In terms of dimensions, the T-50 case is already the T-34 case.
                      2. Cherry Nine
                        Cherry Nine 31 December 2017 12: 38
                        +1
                        Select expression. You are told facts that you, for some reason, did not consider it necessary to find out before writing a comment
              2. hohol95
                hohol95 31 December 2017 00: 12
                10

                Read it ...
                Serial production of the T-50 was to be carried out at the factory No. 174, for which from January 1, 1941 the production of the T-26 at it was discontinued. However, the restructuring of production for the technologically more complex T-50 was very slow and in the first half of 1941 the plant produced only 116 flamethrower tanks OT-133. Serious difficulties also arose with the development of the production of the V-75 diesel engine at the Kharkov plant No. 4.

                In May 1941, Moscow Plant No. 37 received the task of mastering the production of a new generation light tank, the T-50. The task received shocked the management of the plant - its modest production capabilities clearly did not correspond to the new facility. Suffice it to say that the T-50 had a complex planetary 8-speed gearbox, and gear cutting production has always been a weak point in this enterprise.
                Lighter does not mean easier and CHEAPER !!!
              3. svp67
                svp67 31 December 2017 04: 59
                +5
                Quote: Kot_Kuzya
                How could a tank weighing 13 tons, having a 45 mm gun and diesel in 6 pots, have the same price as a T-34 tank weighing 29 tons, with a 76 mm gun and 12 pots diesel? !!!

                It all depends on the manufacturability and use of the machinery. As a result of the T-34, the 1941 model, it cost about 269 rubles, and the T-000, at the same time, about 50. From the first days of the war, the designs of these tanks began to be simplified, reducing metal processing, as a result, the price of the T-200 was reduced to a little over 000, and the T-34 to 150 ....
                1. Kot_Kuzya
                  Kot_Kuzya 31 December 2017 05: 36
                  0
                  If the T-50 went into production, then the cost would fall to 90-100 thousand rubles.
                  1. svp67
                    svp67 31 December 2017 06: 47
                    +6
                    Quote: Kot_Kuzya
                    If the T-50 went into production, then the cost would fall to 90-100 thousand rubles.

                    Perhaps, but the trouble is, by this moment it would be hopelessly outdated and it would have to be changed on the conveyor ....
                    1. Cherry Nine
                      Cherry Nine 31 December 2017 11: 13
                      0
                      Quote: svp67
                      , by this moment it would be hopelessly outdated and would have to be changed to

                      And here you are, unfortunately, right. Lucky, to some extent, that did not have time to deploy production.
                      However, in a world without a T-34, the KV-1s would be for it. Is it possible to produce it in such quantities - it must be considered.
                    2. Hog
                      Hog 1 January 2018 19: 47
                      +1
                      Alas, but no, the T-50 had a good modernization reserve. Before the advent of PAK-40, Pz4 with L43 / 48 and the Tigers, the T-50 was better than all other German tanks.
                      If not for the engine, the T-50 would be put in a large series, instead of the T-70/80, which it excelled in all performance characteristics.
                      1. svp67
                        svp67 1 January 2018 20: 41
                        +3
                        Quote: Hog
                        Alas, but no, the T-50 had a good modernization reserve.

                        And what did he express himself in?
                        Quote: Hog
                        If not for the engine, the T-50 would be put in a large series, instead of the T-70/80, which it excelled in all performance characteristics.

                        One of the opportunities missed by Stalin and his People’s Commissar is that they did not beg the United States for a license and equipment for the production of automotive diesel, relied on their capabilities and strengths, but they weren’t enough ....
                      2. Cherry Nine
                        Cherry Nine 1 January 2018 22: 43
                        +2
                        Quote: Hog
                        PAK-40, Pz4 with L43 / 48 and Tigers

                        Pak40 is November 41st, everything else (they still forgot the top three J with a 60klb cannon) is the 42nd year.
                        So in this regard, the T-50heaters are right. To Kursk, the car would go over to the roles of Valentine and Stuart approximately. The role is important, but supportive. In the world without Kharkov, it would have been necessary to make the KV series the main tank from the age of 43, there are no options here.
                        Quote: Hog
                        instead of the T-70/80, which he excelled in all performance characteristics.

                        No. The T-70/80 were ersatz designed for the automotive / tractor manufacturing base. The T-50 was a normal tank, it required a tank factory and did not use commercial (i.e. civilian) components.
                      3. Cherry Nine
                        Cherry Nine 1 January 2018 23: 48
                        +1
                        Quote: svp67
                        One of the opportunities missed by Stalin and his People’s Commissar is that they did not beg the United States for a license and equipment for the production of automotive diesel, relied on their capabilities and strengths, but they weren’t enough ....

                        Are you talking about YaMZ-206? It’s a good thing, and there were such efforts, but here it is necessary to cancel the Finnish war. 6-71 - the engine is new, the 38th year, so it’s difficult to catch the finca. And for the T-50, yes, it would fit perfectly.
          2. svp67
            svp67 31 December 2017 09: 48
            +4
            Quote: Kot_Kuzya
            According to pre-war plans, the T-50 was to become the main tank in the Red Army

            Now imagine where it could be used? It was designed to replace the T-26, that is, in the tank battalions of rifle divisions. Accordingly, its mission on the battlefield is NPP (direct support of infantry). And what would you begin to equip mobile units and associations? The T-50 was not suitable for them, it did not possess unnecessary combat qualities, or range. That is, all the same, it would have been necessary to produce another machine for these formations and associations, of the T-34 type. If there had been no war, apparently this would have happened. But the war has its own calculations. As a result, the T-50 was abandoned, turning the T-34 into a universal tank
            1. Cherry Nine
              Cherry Nine 31 December 2017 11: 10
              +1
              Quote: svp67
              NPP (direct infantry support). And what would you begin to equip mobile units and associations?

              Him. It seems like the T-50 was an attempt to make a single tank at an inexpensive price. You forget that in the 41st year tank groups, mainly three, two and 38 (t) fought, against which the T-50 looked quite adequate.
              1. svp67
                svp67 1 January 2018 20: 50
                +2
                Quote: Cherry Nine
                Him

                And that would be a complete failure.
                Quote: Cherry Nine
                You forget that in the 41st year tank groups, mainly three, two and 38 (t) fought, against which the T-50 looked quite adequate.

                Well, there were the Quartet. And do not forget about the technological advantage of the Germans, who had the ability to produce powerful guns of small caliber. In response to our T-50s, T-34s and KVs, already in 1942 powerful “50 mm” guns appeared on the “troika” and “deuce”, the USSR could not boast of such a “feat”. The production of the 57-mm gun went with a "huge creak" and in fact could only be established in 1943.
                Not only that, the Germans increased the thickness of the “skin” of the “triples” and especially the “fours” and our 45-mm cannon did not always cope with them.
                And it turns out that in 1943, we would have to start production of a more powerful tank with a 76,2 mm gun, the production of which was less "stressful"
                1. Cherry Nine
                  Cherry Nine 1 January 2018 22: 57
                  +1
                  Quote: svp67
                  And that would be a complete failure.

                  This was a failure with the T-34 after the appearance of the Pak-40. The above machines pierced both the T-50 and T-34 without a difference.
                  Quote: svp67
                  Well, there were the Quartet.

                  With cigarette butts. You see, I assume that the armor of the T-34 and T-50 had the same projectile resistance. There are, however, doubts that in wartime it would have been possible to maintain the quality of the body of heterogeneous armor. As far as I remember, the issue of the case from rolled or cast parts was worked out.
                  Quote: svp67
                  Not only that, the Germans increased the thickness of the “skin” of the “triples” and especially the “fours” and our 45-mm cannon did not always cope with them.

                  Here you are right, the Reich industry was more flexible. A lighter base vehicle would have made the situation of the 42nd year more difficult. Although HZ, there is also with the quality of misunderstanding.
                  Given the troubles of the early T-34s, as I wrote above, it is difficult to say that they surpassed the Valentine Mk XI in anything but, except, the ammunition.
                  And you can put the F-34 on the T-50, the shoulder strap allows.
            2. Kot_Kuzya
              Kot_Kuzya 31 December 2017 11: 13
              0
              Why is this T-50 not suitable for mobile connections? Weight T-50 14 tons, engine power 300 hp Weight T-34-85 32 tons, engine power 500 hp So which tank will be more mobile and maneuverable? The T-50 has a fuel tank capacity of 350 liters; it was enough for 344 km along the highway. The T-34-85 has a capacity of 540 liters of internal tanks, plus another capacity of two external tanks of 90 l each, a cruising range along the highway, taking into account external tanks, 380 km.
              1. svp67
                svp67 1 January 2018 21: 17
                +2
                Quote: Kot_Kuzya
                Weight T-34-85 32 tons, engine power 500 hp

                And the modern T-50 for 1941 T-34?
                Quote: Kot_Kuzya
                So which tank will be more mobile and maneuverable?

                In this case, the weight and power of the engine do not fully characterize these machines. It also affects the characteristics of the chassis itself and has already been tested on BT, the CHP with large rollers was more perfect and faster than the T-50.
                And further. Take a look at this T-50 photo, how many holes it contains from the 37 mm anti-tank gun.
                1. turcom
                  turcom 1 January 2018 23: 20
                  0
                  I don’t understand what Kot_Kuzya wants to prove after so many years? The dullness or illiteracy of those military leaders at that time? Answer please
                  1. Kot_Kuzya
                    Kot_Kuzya 2 January 2018 00: 13
                    +4
                    Dullness and illiteracy. Do you approve of Tukhach, who raved with universal divisional cannons and who completely cut off all attempts to develop small-caliber anti-aircraft guns of the division level and attempts to mass-produce large-caliber machine guns for the battalion and regimental levels? Or his passion for dynamo-cannons? Or are his hobbies riveting thousands of bulletproof tanks, which in a real war, and not in theory, were immediately burned by the PTA? But it was precisely because of Tukhach that the production of 37-mm machine guns and DShKs was started only in 1940, and on June 22, 1941 they were desperately lacking, as a result of which our troops were defenseless against enemy aircraft. This I concern only the technical part. And what damage did the theory of cell defense do? It is generally impossible to evaluate! Come on! The experience of the First World War showed that there is nothing better than trench trenches! And then, damn it, the Unter First World War, who had fallen into generals, introduced cells instead of trenches! Or in the fighter tactics of triples instead of deuces? For a year, our fighters fought according to this flawed scheme, although even from Spain it was clear that pairs were more effective than triples!
                    1. Cherry Nine
                      Cherry Nine 2 January 2018 00: 39
                      +4
                      Quote: Kot_Kuzya
                      Stupidity and illiteracy

                      You see, colleague, it's easy to be smart on the couch with Wikipedia in 80 years.
                      All decisions then had their pros and cons. And the result that the War summed up the pros and cons in the 30s was someone guessing something, but no one knew for sure.
                      And there were no fools. Generally.
                      1. Kot_Kuzya
                        Kot_Kuzya 2 January 2018 00: 59
                        +6
                        Well, it's just common sense! So in which country did the “universal” divisional guns adopt? Or in which country mass-produced multi-tower useless monsters like the T-35 were produced? In which country did cell defense tactics and fighter troika take? You do not need to have seven spans in your forehead to understand that the divisional guns cannot be anti-aircraft! That five-tower tanks are a dead end! That triple fighters cannot be maneuverable! That dynamo-guns cannot be anti-tank due to their low initial velocity! What level of disguise DRP tends to zero! Well, the most apotheosis is the rifle cells! Well, really, the generals who went through the First World War in their experience could not understand that a solitary soldier in his cell is not a soldier, but just a useless clump of fear?
                        By the way, Tukhach was a fool. And for this he paid with his life. It is a pity that due to his stupidity, millions later died through his fault.
                      2. Cherry Nine
                        Cherry Nine 2 January 2018 03: 16
                        +4
                        Quote: Kot_Kuzya
                        was a fool. And for this he paid with his life.

                        This argument does not honor you. In those years, many who paid with their lives. Judging their intelligence by their fate is not for you and not for me.
                        Quote: Kot_Kuzya
                        millions later died through his fault.

                        The fault of 4 years as a shot person? Oh well.
                        Little of. It is believed that the purge of the Red Army influenced the result of 41-42 years much stronger than all the shoals of Tukhachevsky.
                        Quote: Kot_Kuzya
                        “universal” division guns?

                        Almost everyone went this way. Reasonable people in the end screwed anti-aircraft guns. It turned out right WOW how cool. The idea was screwed up in the USSR.
                        Quote: Kot_Kuzya
                        serially produced multi-tower useless monsters

                        All



                        I will tell you more. If in the USSR, at least, there was no doubt about the tower, then partners until the middle of the war strove to stick a gun in the face, then in the corner of the hull.
                        Quote: Kot_Kuzya
                        fighter threes?

                        Everywhere. The Germans switched to deuces. Then the Finns. Limes - after BZB, mattresses - by the end of the 41st, japas and threes flew almost the entire war.
                        Quote: Kot_Kuzya
                        Dynamo-guns cannot be anti-tank due to their low initial velocity

                        Stupidity.

                        November 1940, XNUMX
                        Quote: Kot_Kuzya
                        Well, the most apotheosis

                        I do not understand infantry tactics.
                    2. Alf
                      Alf 2 January 2018 22: 26
                      +1
                      Quote: Kot_Kuzya
                      For a year, our fighters fought according to this flawed scheme, although even from Spain it was clear that pairs were more effective than triples!

                      No, well, Russian stupid, that’s understandable. But advanced British, too, switched to a couple only in the spring of 1941. The explanation is simple - it was necessary to rebuild the entire structure of fighter aircraft.
                      1. Cherry Nine
                        Cherry Nine 2 January 2018 23: 08
                        +1
                        Quote: Alf
                        The explanation is simple - it was necessary to rebuild the entire structure of fighter aircraft.

                        You're dramatizing. They write that the same Safonov flew in pairs almost from the first days. In wartime, making the regiment fly in a different way than he wants is difficult even for the Soviet regime.
    2. hohol95
      hohol95 30 December 2017 09: 58
      11
      Torsion is good - when their quality suits everyone! But at first the torsion bars in our country were "damp" in terms of quality! You forgot about the T-40! And he was on a torsion bar suspension!
      If you are interested in BTT -

      There is an online reading room!
      1. svp67
        svp67 30 December 2017 10: 20
        +3
        Quote: hohol95
        You forgot about the T-40! And he was on a torsion bar suspension!

        So KV was on torsion bars, and in front of him and QMS ...
        1. Amurets
          Amurets 30 December 2017 10: 46
          +6
          Quote: svp67
          So KV was on torsion bars, and in front of him and QMS ...

          It all started with the T-28 tank.
          "Torsion bar suspension - was tested in February - March 1939 as part of SKB-2 design and development work on the SMK tank. For testing on the T-28 serial number (serial number 1552), the standard suspension was dismantled and the torsion bar was installed. Torsion shafts were placed directly under the bottom machines, and to limit the course of the balancers, steel stops with rubber dampers were installed. During the tests, the tank traveled 1851 km. Three types of track rollers were tested, differing in diameter, weight and type of elastic element. Tests showed the overall reliability of the torsion bar suspension, which in the modified It was used on experimental tanks SMK and KV. In addition, the torsion bar suspension was recommended for use in the construction of the new T-28, but in the production of the T-28 with a torsion bar for a number of reasons they were not mastered. " http://oruzhie.info/tanki/229-t-28
        2. hohol95
          hohol95 30 December 2017 10: 55
          +5
          In his comment, Cat Kuzya mentioned KV! I just recalled the T-40!
          KV and T-40 fought in World War II!
          The QMS was an experimental machine that participated along with the T-100 and KV in the Finnish war.
          1. Cherry Nine
            Cherry Nine 30 December 2017 11: 59
            +9
            Quote: hohol95
            KV and T-40 fought in World War II!

            Yes, but there really were problems with the torsion bars in the 40th year. The torsion bars were either soft enough, but did not hold a lot of weight, or stiff, like on HF, but then the ride was mediocre. The Germans didn’t make their dishes out of a good life, but the British held on to Christie’s suspension throughout the war, and they generally put carts on Centurion.
    3. Sharikov Polygraph Poligrafovich
      Sharikov Polygraph Poligrafovich 30 December 2017 12: 16
      +5
      Well, why not ?!
      It turned out to be very possible.
      And all of the above you Morozov did in the spring of 1941 !!!
      But when he embodied all this, then Morozov eventually turned out ... Pacerkampfvagen Dry Ausfyurun Ash :-)))


      Well, except for the cardan, of course, and with the familiar rear transmission for us.
      The modernized “thirty-four” in the series as early as 1941 was to become just such an almost complete copy of the German “three-ruble note” ...
      In the summer in Mariupol, even several new buildings were already welded ... BUT ...
      The war broke out and everything quickly stopped: - (((
      Only new towers were then able to evacuate to Tagil ...
      Of which much later they made the famous "nut".
    4. kpd
      kpd 30 December 2017 13: 33
      +4
      Just then the production of torsion bars was just getting better and their production volumes did not allow the mass production of tanks.
      1. IL-18
        IL-18 30 December 2017 17: 06
        +7
        The main problem is that there was no experience in operating torsion bar suspensions to give the task of metallurgy. As a result, one was not taken into account, the other was not foreseen. So, it turned out that on the same HF some torsion bars were broken, while others were twisted. In this regard, the T-34, even with a candle pendant was preferable, because of reliability. In some ways, the war helped by intensifying the use of technology. IS-2 was already quite reliable in terms of suspension. Yes, and the late HF were not bad in this regard.
    5. NF68
      NF68 30 December 2017 20: 57
      +3
      Quote: Kot_Kuzya
      I wonder why the T-34 did not put a torsion bar suspension? After all, HF was created in a similar period, and he received torsions.


      It would be too expensive and difficult for the pre-war USSR.
    6. aKtoR
      aKtoR 1 January 2018 15: 42
      +5
      T-34 to some extent created as an initiative version of the new tank. The designers of the design bureau of the Kharkov plant had the experience of creating such a construction site only on the basis of the experience of tanks of the BT family. They also left their imprint on the design of the future tank, the short deadlines of the initial design work (if there was a fairly small team of designers who were to accompany the serial production of tanks including), the desire to use the factory-made serial units and excessive secrecy.
      The pledged design decision to change was already problematic: the T-34 had numerous shortcomings that needed to be fixed first.
      It is difficult to say right away what was better: the production of a crude tank or the expectation of a new car (T-34M)
      1. Alf
        Alf 1 January 2018 21: 26
        +5
        Quote: aKtoR
        It is difficult to say right away what was better: the production of a crude tank or the expectation of a new car (T-34M)

        It was necessary to wait for the T-34M. Nothing at all, since a year. And alozych would be met on the T-26 and BT. Then it would be just like a parade in Moscow, but only the Germans.
      2. Cherry Nine
        Cherry Nine 1 January 2018 23: 26
        +2
        Quote: aKtoR
        The T-34 was to some extent created as an initiative version of the new tank.

        These are tales.
        Quote: aKtoR
        It is difficult to say right away what was better: the production of a crude tank or the expectation of a new car (T-34M)

        As if the T-34M would not come out raw. Take an interest in how long the T-54 was put into production.
        1. aKtoR
          aKtoR 3 January 2018 07: 08
          +5
          Incomprehensible comment ...
          About the stories. Probably, you know more and come facts (for example, TZ) that A-32 was not developed as an alternative option on the initiative of Kharkov KB?
          What does the production of T-54? You are trying to compare different times ...
          We need to come to the conclusion that, before the war, aircraft were tested for over 10 for years like T-50)))
          1. Cherry Nine
            Cherry Nine 3 January 2018 19: 24
            0
            Quote: aKtoR
            About the tales.

            Well, given the “some degree” clause, it’s impossible to refute your thought.
            As for the history of the appearance of the A-32, I focus on the interpretation of Svirin
            It was widely believed in our literature that the author of the T-34 concept, as a purely tracked thick-armored tank armed with a 76 mm cannon, was the “unrecognized genius” Mikhail Ilyich Koshkin, while the military, they say, were retrograde hindering the appearance of this advanced machine.
            But even the most cursory analysis of archival documents of the time shows that this is not at all the case. In the birth of the T-34 as a heavy-armored vehicle with a diesel engine, slanted armor, and weapons from a 76-mm gun, the military is most “guilty”. It was the military who possessed the main thing - the experience of using tank forces, which none, even the most super-genius single designer, has. "The designer is not an inventor. He is not obliged to invent something completely new that he personally wants, but to be able to combine what the customer needs and what our industry is capable of ... This is his genius ...", L. said. Gorlitsky, and today the author completely and unconditionally agrees with this definition.
            On May 9, 1938, a meeting of NPOs on the weapons system of the Red Army took place. It was attended by TT. Lysenko, Pavlov, Bondarko, Koshkin, Vetrov, Borisov and others. Those present again examined the draft of the BT-20 tank of plant No. 183. The protocol of the decision on this meeting stated: “Comrade Pavlov’s proposal to create a 183 caterpillar tank plant to be considered expedient with increased booking in the frontal part up to 30 mm. To adapt the turret of the tank for the installation of 76 mm guns. The crew - 4 people ... Adopted unanimously. " So, it seems that in the history of the T-34 the many-headed “Customer” became the initiators of the strengthening of armaments and armor, as well as the transition to a caterpillar track

            However, Svirin’s interpretation is not the only one, of course.
            Quote: aKtoR
            What does the production of the T-54 have to do with it?

            Moreover, the staging of the tank in a series in the USSR is a long-term process. Even in peacetime, and not in 1941.
            1. aKtoR
              aKtoR 4 January 2018 10: 45
              +3
              "Moreover, putting a tank into a series in the USSR is a long-term process. Even in peacetime, and not in the 1941 year."

              Why speak common truths that everyone knows? So does your self-esteem increase?
              1. Cherry Nine
                Cherry Nine 4 January 2018 14: 45
                +1
                Quote: aKtoR
                Why speak common truths that everyone knows?
                Quote: aKtoR
                It is difficult to say right away what was better: the production of a crude tank or the expectation of a new car (T-34M)

                Apparently not for everyone. Moreover, according to the version of Kolomiyets, the choice was like "wean these children, or give birth to new ones?" Those. finish the T-34 or make a new tank. Moreover, the 183rd design bureau stood for the second option throughout the war, and the first, as it could, sabotaged. The result of his activities was just the T-44.
            2. aKtoR
              aKtoR 4 January 2018 10: 48
              +5
              Let's face it. My comment relates to user question: “I wonder why they didn’t put a torsion bar suspension on T-34? After all, KV was created in a similar period, and he received torsions ... "

              My comment: “T-34 to some extent created as an initiative version of the new tank. The designers of the design bureau of the Kharkov plant had the experience of creating such a construction site only on the basis of the experience of tanks of the BT family. They also left their imprint on the design of the future tank, the short deadlines of the initial design work (if there was a fairly small team of designers who were to accompany the serial production of tanks including), the desire to use the factory-made serial units ... "

              You casually attached a shortcut to my post, what are these stories. Since my words are tales, you should know everything for sure! At my request to place link to documentary materialwhich refutes my words you put the answer: “Well, given the reservation on“ some degree ”, it is impossible to refute your thought. As for the history of the emergence of A-32, I am guided by the interpretation of Svirin. ”

              If you focus on the interpretation of Svirin, which is not documented, then why did you give yourself the right to teach other users? Judging by your comments: you are well versed in tank issues. The weirder your character quality is to condescendingly lecture others without really thinking ... There is another version expressed by the tank designers. She does not suit you and it is like "forgery"...

              What the Internet has on this issue. M.I. Koshkin - from 1934, he worked in the design bureau of the plant # 185 in the position of designer-… -dead of the design bureau (in the same design bureau he had a pre-diploma practice). KB with 1933 began work on designing a wheeled-tracked tank T-29 (booking up to 20… 30 mm, 76-mm gun), and from 1936 onwards, the design work on the T-111 tracked tank (factory designation T-46-5, 45-mm gun, booking up to 40 ... 45 mm. After 1937, the military demand to increase the thickness of the armor to 60 mm appeared).

              It turns out that Koshkin should have had some idea of ​​the modern (for that period) requirements for medium tanks. The designer tries to fulfill all requirements in the tank design. These requirements are often contradictory ...
              1. aKtoR
                aKtoR 4 January 2018 10: 52
                +4
                M.Koshkin, participating in the development of T-29, identified the main directions for improving the T-29 project and reported them to the people's commissar of heavy industry. We see that Koshkin proposes directions for improving the design of the tank (which probably goes against the requirements of the military) and reports (seeks report) to their commissary.

                And why the military did not participate in this issue? Or could they talk about tanks and plan their combat use in wartime only theoretically driving through the fields and jumping over obstacles? Another 13.2.31 was adopted by the PT gun under the name "37-mm anti-tank gun obr.1930 g.". Their production began in the 1931 year. In March, the 1932 of the year was adopted by the new PT gun "45-mm anti-tank gun obr.1932 g.". It took several years for the specialists of GABTU to be firmly established in the thought of a tank with anti-bullet armor (against the shells of the most common PT cannons). In addition, GABTU specialists assign 76-mm tank guns only the role of defeating field fortifications, and not fighting enemy tanks with anti-bullet booking. There is nothing to condemn them for - this is a vision of tanks at that period, incl. and German specialists. A designer could think about what kind of armor needed a tank. Likewise, the military of another department did not think about the possibility of 76-mm divisional guns to fight against tanks moving at relatively high speed.

                28.12.36, the People's Commissar of Heavy Industry, signed the Order to send M.I.Koshkin to Kharkov to Plant No.183 for the position of the head of the tank XB-190. 48 KB designers were overworked. In terms of the 1937 year, the forces are distributed to 14 areas, including the installation of the B-7 diesel engine on the BT-2, the development of an ACS based on the tank, the development of the new BT-9 (order from the GABTU) and the BT-IS (project based on the Tsyganov, transferred from the factory number XXUMX).

                7.5.37 Koshkin proposes to combine similar projects of the BT-9 and BT-IS in order to save power, the proposal supports the 8-e GU NCOP, which is subject to plant number XXUMX.

                20.8.37 inspector from ABTU sends a memorandum to ABTU on this issue: “... The presented draft had gross errors, as a result of which it was rejected. The project gives a new car with a wider body, a new chassis, etc. In essence, this is not BT-9, because It does not correspond to the TTT ABTU on the BT-9 and not the BT-7IS, because the body, radiators, wheels, etc. are changing. Moreover, the design is initially subordinated only to the convenience of production and commercial considerations ... "

                We see that Koshkin is able to make independent decisions, which are at variance with the vision of the staff of the GABTU. Can promote these decisions in life. He stupidly "under the hood" does not fulfill all the "wishes" of the staff of the GABTU, without taking into account the real capabilities of the KB.

                The inspector also accused Koshkin of attempting to disrupt the work of designer A. Dick, who was sent to the plant from GABTU in the summer of 1937, with the goal of developing variants of the draft design of the BT-IS tank. 28.9.37 of the year, the directive of the 8-th GU NKOP “On the organization of a special design bureau” (OKB) comes to the plant. Before the design bureau, the goal is to design and, by the year of 1939, prepare the mass production of high-speed wheeled-tracked tanks with a synchronized course. A.Dick was appointed Head of the Design Bureau. The plant is obliged to perform all work related to the design bureau in an extraordinary order. As a result, Koshkin's KB-190 was practically drained, 48 best designers were transferred from 19 people to the Design Bureau.

                13.10.37 ABTU issued tactical and technical requirements for the new tank BT-20 (factory index А-20) (in the armament part it was noted: “Armament: 1 × 45-mm, 3 DT, flamethrower for self-defense or 1 × 75-mm, 3 DT, flamethrower.”). In October 1937, the specialists of the GABTU themselves do not know what is best for the tank: 45-mm or 76-mm gun. It turns out that the design bureau should develop two projects for different weapons systems. This is a common practice of draft (layout) projects to choose which option is best. And what can be placed in the tank. Of course, we understand that the 76-mm gun is heavier than the 45-mm. A constructor who considers everywhere masses of parts and components understands this better than the military. After receiving the updated TTT, the KB-24 team began reworking the already complete project of the BT-20 wheeled / tracked tank.
                1. aKtoR
                  aKtoR 4 January 2018 10: 58
                  +7
                  At the end of October, the commission arriving at the plant stated that the OKB could not cope with the work A. Dick was arrested. The contribution of A. Dick, who had not long occupied the design bureau with questions of tank mobility, to the creation of the future T-34 tank was an important idea for the undercarriage to install another support roller and the inclined arrangement of the suspension springs (a fundamental decision was laid on the design of the undercarriage of the future T-34 tank, and there would be no time and money left to rework this solution. In addition, torsion bars appeared in the design of domestic tanks after 1938.). The OKB was disbanded, and the head of the GABTU was soon arrested. After that, the specialists of GABTU could fear to insist on new solutions in their work. In early November, 1937 of the year in order to continue work on BT-20, Koshkin forms a new KB-24, and the management of KB-190 passes to N. Kucherenko.

                  In March 1938, the draft BT-20 (A-20) is approved. 28.4.38 Koshkin in Moscow at a meeting of NGOs seeking permission to manufacture and test along with a wheeled-tracked A-20, a purely tracked tank (the original factory designation A-20G, later received an index A-32). There is no evidence to support the fact that the proposal to develop a purely tracked tank did not come precisely from M. Koshkin. Therefore, this version has the right to life. I stated exactly that in my first report. This is exactly what initiative in my understanding. And then it was Koshkin’s headache and his designers: to develop two projects with the help of a limited number of specialists. The Internet also says that Koshkin was supported by Stalin, by proposing do not restrict the initiative of the plant. You probably also do not have data to refute this version. Also Koshkin, perhaps, on his own initiative intercepts the development of a disbanded design bureau.

                  It is clear to any production worker that the simpler the design, the simpler it is to design, manufacture, test and deliver it to the customer. The design of a purely tracked tank is simpler than the design of a wheeled-tracked tank, and this is more understandable for designer Koshkin than for a military officer from the Bolshoi Television and Film Institute. The design of a pure tracked tank is lighter. This is more pronounced when placing 76-mm guns.

                  At the end of October, 1938, Plant No. 183, presented the designs of two variants of the tank, the wheeled-tracked and tracked, which received factory indices A-20 and A-20Г, respectively. The drawings of these prototype machines were reviewed at a meeting of the Red Army Main Military Council (GVS) held on 9-10.12.38. Taking into account the comments made at the GVS meeting, the personnel of KB-24 to 15.1.39 produced working drawings of the wheeled-tracked A-20 tank (except for hulls and towers) and the production of working drawings for the A-20Г tracked tank was started. Despite the lack of designers, by mid-February 1939, KB-24 had completed the production of working drawings and models of both versions of the tank.
                  1. Cherry Nine
                    Cherry Nine 4 January 2018 15: 32
                    +1
                    Quote: aKtoR
                    Let's figure it out.

                    WOW.
                    This is the most enchanting fart explosion that I have seen on the Internet in recent years. Congratulations.
                    I am surprised that such vulnerable people still exist on the Internet somehow.
                    Quote: aKtoR
                    why did you arrogate to yourself the right to teach other users?

                    This is the Internet, my friend, get used to it.
                    And it is precisely in this case that I somehow cannot find “teachings”. If in the first remark ("tales") I reacted to one part of your statement ("initiative option"), then in the second remark I drew attention to neighboring words ("to some extent") and turned back.
                    Quote: aKtoR
                    You are well versed in tank issues

                    Not at all. So, a little curious in this direction.
                    Quote: aKtoR
                    Therefore, this version has the right to life.

                    Quote: Cherry Nine
                    However, Svirin’s interpretation is not the only one, of course.

                    And what doesn’t suit you?

                    A number of general considerations (right now there will be teachings). Since you are about to argue, try not to use phrases such as "The Internet also says ...". Kindly find an authorized source.
                    Quote: aKtoR
                    It doesn’t suit you and it’s like a “forgery” ...

                    If you are in a polemic with me, then I expect that you will be quoting my words, and not invented by yourself. The word "forgery" was not in my messages.
                    Quote: aKtoR
                    You probably also have no data to refute this version.

                    It would be wise to review the monograph I am referring to briefly before putting forward a thesis. This question has been examined there.
                    Svirin M.N. Armor shield of Stalin. History of the Soviet tank (1937-1943)
                    Today, the author sees such a development at a meeting of the Defense Committee, which, in his opinion, most logically describes the entire episode indicated:
                    M. Koshkin at the said meeting reported on the state of affairs on A-20 and A-32. It is doubtful that KB-24, having begun designing the tracked vehicle only on January 13-15 and not having completed it by February 15, was able to submit the final draft to the meeting on February 26-27. Apparently, this is precisely why the question arose: "Will the KB-24 and the plant as a whole make both tanks and A-20 and A-32 on time and by July 1 provide the state commission with the indicated machines after factory tests and the elimination of the shortcomings noted during the last? Is it worth it to allocate money (and considerable) to the plant for the development of a new machine? " Apparently, this is precisely why the majority of the military, knowing well the "agility" of the factories in those years, was in favor of removing the A-32 from the test program this year, since this led to unjustified, in their opinion, expenses. M. Koshkin (and some old people said that not only M. Koshkin, but also Y. Maksarev) insisted that the A-32 tank be left in the plan, making sure that the plant had time to make it too. And then the statement of I. Stalin sounded quite logical that he believed the factory workers, let them build both tanks ... And the plant was released the required funds for the manufacture and testing of both of these tanks this year.

                    Moreover, M.N. emphasizes that the foregoing is his hypothesis and is not documented. His monograph is clearly poppy and non-academic, including, unfortunately, in terms of work with sources.
      3. NF68
        NF68 20 June 2018 18: 15
        0
        Quote: aKtoR
        It is difficult to say right away which was better: the production of a crude tank or the expectation of a new machine (T-34M


        In that situation, the production of the T-34 with all its shortcomings turned out to be correct. Otherwise, the Red Army could not keep Moscow at the end of the 1941 year and Stalingrad in the 1942 year. and for the entire USSR, the situation could become even more difficult and the defeat of the USSR in 1942 was much more likely than in reality.
    7. igog
      igog 8 January 2018 02: 30
      0
      this can be said: if my grandmother had something, then what would happen?
    8. Arakius
      Arakius April 6 2018 08: 05
      +1
      I wonder why the T-34 did not put a torsion bar suspension?

      There were modernization projects for the T-34 (A-43, for example) with torsion bar suspension. But their introduction would temporarily reduce the number of tanks produced by factories. But the General Staff could not go for it in any way, a command was given to introduce into production exclusively those innovations that would not interfere with an increase in the production of t-34

      Well, one more thing: the steel for torsion bars (unlike Christie’s suspension) had to be of higher quality and contain more alloying additives, and this, in conditions of military shortage, was a big minus for a mass and cheap wartime tank
  2. verner1967
    verner1967 30 December 2017 07: 22
    +8
    And then the "big road" he blocked the T-54. Compete with him, with his 100-mm. T-44 could not. We tried it on T-44 100-mm. to install a gun - the modernized machine turned out to be overweight and was not adopted for service ...
    Well, why regret it if the T-54 was better. It is a pity, of course, that during the war the tank did not go into production. I do not know
    The Germans would have received a very unpleasant surprise on the Kursk.
    but the life of our T-44 tankers would have made it easier for sure.
    1. svp67
      svp67 30 December 2017 07: 56
      +6
      Quote: verner1967
      It is a pity, of course, that during the war the tank did not go into production. I do not know

      Here you didn’t guess, it was during the Second World War that he went into series and it was under him that the Kharkov plant was restored and, moreover, the newly formed Kharkov Tank School was just created to train platoon commanders on the T-44
      1. verner1967
        verner1967 30 December 2017 10: 19
        +7
        Quote: svp67
        Here you did not guess, just during the Second World War he went into a series and went

        Yes, I’m not a fortuneteller, to guess, I read the article to the end and had in mind in a mass series such that I would go to the front in time, but he didn’t fight:
        Although he was accepted into service, manufactured in small batches, so as not to interfere with the production of the T-34-85, the T-44 never got to the front.
        if you read the article carefully to the end.
        1. svp67
          svp67 30 December 2017 10: 24
          +7
          Quote: verner1967
          I read the article to the end and had it in mind in a mass series, such that I would go to the front in time, but he did not fight:

          And there wasn’t a mass series. They were released in small batches. And that did not fight. So they were not completely sure of him; it was not for nothing that it was precisely after the war that they conducted these tests. And for those operations that were carried out at the end of the war, a RELIABLE machine was needed. Our command did not want to repeat German mistakes when the new Panther and Tigers tanks broke down in the first tens of kilometers ....
          So the T-34 \ 85, with its reliability, and most importantly the super-duper maintainability and assimilation in the army, was at that moment the most necessary machine.
          1. verner1967
            verner1967 30 December 2017 10: 36
            +4
            Quote: svp67
            And there wasn’t a mass series.

            and I’m talking about this and there’s nothing to spin around like a frying pan
            Quote: svp67
            and most importantly super-duper maintainability
            another blooper
            their tension mechanism has been significantly improved. For the T-34, for tensioning the track, it is necessary to unscrew the two crank nuts located inside the body and knock the crank out of engagement with the body with a sledgehammer. After pulling the sledgehammer, it was also needed to put the crank in place. After which he was fixed in place. In the operation of the tension of the T-34 track, up to three people participated to the sounds of unprintable expressions. On the T-44, a caterpillar could easily be pulled by one person without a sledgehammer.
            the same in the same article about replacing batteries. Try re-reading the article.
            1. svp67
              svp67 30 December 2017 15: 50
              +8
              Quote: verner1967
              and I’m talking about this and there’s nothing to spin around like a frying pan

              Do you have hallucinations or you do not fully understand the meaning of your own written Russian words?
              Quote: verner1967
              I meant in the mass series
              Have you written? To which you received an answer ...
              And there wasn’t a mass series. They were released in small batches.

              Quote: verner1967
              another blooper

              You DO NOT understand what you're talking about. What is written in the article and quoted by you is not a repair work, but a maintenance service. Track tension is very important and affects the speed and maneuverability of the tank. But the fact that the T-34 was already mastered in the army and do not look at the huge pile of flaws, they KNEW and were ABLE to restore it very quickly. The T-44 was a NEW machine, and there was a NEW 70 percent there, people had to be retrained, at the same time to identify its shortcomings and treat "childhood diseases".
              1. verner1967
                verner1967 30 December 2017 16: 26
                0
                Quote: svp67
                Quote: verner1967
                I meant in the mass series
                Have you written? To which you received an answer ...
                And there wasn’t a mass series. They were released in small batches.

                and before that there was an answer
                Quote: svp67
                just during the Second World War he went into a series and went

                Is a small batch a series?
                Quote: svp67
                Do you have hallucinations or you do not fully understand the meaning of your own written Russian words?
                are you right to yourself I appreciated lol
                Quote: svp67
                simultaneously identify its shortcomings and treat "childhood diseases".

                this is exactly what I had in mind when I regretted that it was not put in the series, because the series is not only 100500 tanks on the stream immediately after the assembly of the first samples. So there is no need to seem the smartest and discover America. But the fact that
                Quote: svp67
                NEW there was 70 percent, people had to retrain,

                there’s nothing wrong, at that time they learned a lot of new things, at least the same Lend-Lease technique, and not 70% were new there.
                1. svp67
                  svp67 30 December 2017 16: 38
                  +4
                  Quote: verner1967
                  Is a small batch a series?

                  Yes. Since this tank was produced from 1944 to 1947, a total of 1823 tanks of this type were produced. Like it not, but it's a SERIES
                  Quote: verner1967
                  there’s nothing wrong, at that time they learned a lot of new things, at least the same Lend-Lease technique, and not 70% were new there.

                  From the second half of the war, people were SELECTED on Lend-Lease vehicles and only in this way were they able to ensure their normal use. In a country where the majority of people were with primary education and much less with secondary education, it was not possible to wait for another.
                  How do you like these numbers?
                  Here, for example, as was the case with privates in the 31st Panzer Division of this mechanized corps:
                  "Illiterate - 30,
                  Grade 1 - 143,
                  2 classes - 425,
                  3 classes - 529,
                  4 classes - 1528,
                  5 classes - 682,
                  6 classes - 464,
                  7 classes - 777,
                  8 classes - 167,
                  9 classes - 116,
                  Average - 320,
                  Higher - 20 ".
                  And in the 203rd motorized:
                  "Illiterate - 26,
                  Grade 1 - 264,
                  2 classes - 444,
                  3 classes - 653,
                  4 classes - 1815,
                  5 classes - 749,
                  6 classes - 437,
                  7 classes - 684,
                  8 classes - 199,
                  9 classes - 122,
                  Average - 374,
                  Higher - 33 ".

                  And this is before the war itself, and during the war years the situation with education only worsened ....
                  Quote: verner1967
                  and not 70% there was new.
                  There was even more, because even what "came" to her from the T-34 was recalculated. And so, the new ones are the hull, tower, transmission, chassis, support systems ...
                  1. verner1967
                    verner1967 30 December 2017 20: 26
                    +1
                    Quote: svp67
                    Yes. Since this tank was produced from 1944 to 1947

                    Quote: verner1967
                    It is a pity, of course, that during the war the tank did not go into production.
                    Well, if you had a Second World War until 1947, then ....
                    Quote: svp67
                    In a country where for the most part people were with primary education and significantly less with secondary

                    nevertheless, these people mastered the T-34, and they were released no more, no less, but 35 thousand of each type, mastered a series of IS and ISU, aircraft, automotive, no need to make fools of people, especially since this The T-44 was by no means the pinnacle of technical excellence.
                    Quote: svp67
                    And this is before the war itself, and during the war years the situation with education only worsened ....

                    you would be careful with these figures and conclusions, otherwise the adherents of the USSR will run away and there will be no wet place from you)))
                    Quote: svp67
                    And so, the new ones are the hull, tower, transmission, chassis, support systems ...

                    especially the new hull and tower are very difficult to operate laughing
                    1. svp67
                      svp67 31 December 2017 05: 13
                      +3
                      Quote: verner1967
                      Well, if you had a Second World War until 1947, then ....

                      Yeah, did it end in 1943?
                      Quote: verner1967
                      no need to make fools of people, especially since this T-44 was not at all the height of technical perfection.

                      Fools from those people - no, they were poorly educated, but not fools.
                      Quote: verner1967
                      The T-44 was by no means the pinnacle of technical excellence.

                      Technically, it was more complicated than the T-34, in terms of design, and all these innovations had to go through the stages of "childhood diseases"
                      Quote: verner1967
                      you would be careful with these figures and conclusions, otherwise the adherents of the USSR will run away and there will be no wet place from you)))

                      Are they ready to refute me with numbers? Please, but simply “cries” that this cannot be, because it cannot, I do not take it as evidence. Let refute the Soviet data
                      Quote: verner1967
                      especially the new hull and tower are very difficult to operate

                      If you touched on the issues of operation, then the case could not stand it, it turned out to be "weak, as a result of which they changed it on the T-54, making it more" tough ""
                    2. Doliva63
                      Doliva63 31 December 2017 18: 15
                      +7
                      "adherents of the USSR" guess that if a soldier came to the war with 4 classes, then he would end it with them.
                      1. svp67
                        svp67 1 January 2018 21: 35
                        +4
                        Quote: Doliva63
                        "adherents of the USSR" guess that if a soldier came to the war with 4 classes, then he would end it with them.

                        But do they realize that growing up, but not yet of draft age, children, in fact, during the war, learned to WORK more, that is, they acquired working specialties, and not general knowledge. And the worst thing is that the knowledge they acquired was not taken into account during the call. For example, in Sverdlovsk they assembled a V-2 engine for tanks, using the labor of FZU students for this, but when it was time for their call, the whole issue was sent to both infantry and aviation, but not by minders, but by radio-gunners. AND NOT ONE in the tank troops ...
          2. Cherry Nine
            Cherry Nine 30 December 2017 11: 31
            +3
            Quote: svp67
            for those operations that were carried out at the end of the war, a RELIABLE machine was needed

            And she was at the end of the war, called emcha. Issues with the reliability of the T-34 were resolved by the UKN program by the 50s.
            1. Kot_Kuzya
              Kot_Kuzya 30 December 2017 14: 37
              +5
              Well, actually, by 1944, the T-34 had become a completely reliable machine, with a guaranteed mileage of 3000 km. By wartime standards, of course reliable. In peacetime, when tanks have served for decades, reliability, of course, was no good.
            2. svp67
              svp67 30 December 2017 16: 02
              +4
              Quote: Cherry Nine
              And she was at the end of the war, called emcha.

              But not for the Red Army. Any machine, and even more so a military one, has the property of breaking down, given that the enemy makes every effort to this. And the tank then simply needs to be written off or repaired. With the T-34, this was made easier.
              1. verner1967
                verner1967 31 December 2017 11: 00
                0
                Quote: svp67
                With the T-34, this was made easier.

                yes, but emcha broke less often
                1. svp67
                  svp67 31 December 2017 11: 08
                  +3
                  Quote: verner1967
                  yes, but emcha broke less often

                  But it was a "foreign" tank, the number of which was less than the T-34. And if he really had less mechanical breakdowns, then the combat damage was almost a little less, as a percentage
          3. Simargl
            Simargl 30 December 2017 23: 27
            +1
            Quote: svp67
            And for those operations that were carried out at the end of the war, a RELIABLE machine was needed. Our command did not want to repeat German mistakes when the new Panther and Tigers tanks broke down in the first tens of kilometers ....
            How so?! Hurray patriots require 100500 T-14 and Su-57. Let raw, but a lot like F-35 and F-22.
            1. svp67
              svp67 31 December 2017 06: 45
              +5
              Quote: Simargl
              Let raw, but a lot like F-35 and F-22.

              In contrast to the really "raw" "F-22" and especially "F-35", our "Su-57" is still from the "dry" ....
        2. 11 black
          11 black 30 December 2017 12: 34
          +3
          Quote: verner1967
          Yes, I’m not a fortuneteller, to guess, I read the article to the end and had in mind in a mass series such that I would go to the front in time, but he didn’t fight:

          He did not fight only because in urban battles he did not have significant advantages over the T-34-85 tanks, at the same time on the flat terrain he had a very significant superiority over the T-34-85, and over any German / allied medium a tank, they’ve just fought in the cities, and the loss of such a machine could tell the Allies much ...
          And yet, I can confuse something, correct if I am mistaken, but I am convinced that the T-44-100 is an example of the pre-production fifty-four, and the T-54 itself is a deep modernization of the T-44.
          PS is handsome. Here is a photo from the museum in Pyshma, and below the fifty-four.

          T-44

          T-54 different years
          1. svp67
            svp67 30 December 2017 16: 04
            +4
            Quote: 11 black
            but I am convinced that the T-44-100 is a sample of the pre-production fifty-four, and the T-54 itself is a deep modernization of the T-44.

            T-44 \ 100 is not a pre-production "fifty-four", there even the shape of the hull, its bottom is different. And I agree that a deep, and a very deep modernization.
          2. Simargl
            Simargl 30 December 2017 23: 35
            +2
            Quote: 11 black
            And yet, I can confuse something, correct if I am mistaken, but I am convinced that the T-44-100 is an example of the pre-production fifty-four, and the T-54 itself is a deep modernization of the T-44.
            I think the tanks that affected whole world - Mark I, Renault FT-17, T-44, T-14. Even the T-34 is not included in this rating.
            Mark I - a pioneer,
            Renault FT-17 - a classic layout that lasted until the T-14,
            T-44 - layout improvement (engine across and torsion bars),
            T-14 is the first step to remote control (in principle, it can now be made uninhabited cheaply).
            1. Kot_Kuzya
              Kot_Kuzya 31 December 2017 02: 22
              +1
              What about HF? The first tank with bulletproof armor? He became the first classic single-turret heavy tank.
              1. Cherry Nine
                Cherry Nine 31 December 2017 02: 36
                0
                Quote: Kot_Kuzya
                The first tank with bulletproof armor?

                In the sense of the first? The first Soviet?
                1. Kot_Kuzya
                  Kot_Kuzya 31 December 2017 03: 06
                  0
                  First in the world.
                  1. Cherry Nine
                    Cherry Nine 31 December 2017 11: 04
                    +1
                    Quote: Kot_Kuzya
                    First in the world.

                    And the second motya with 7 cm in a circle in the 37th is what? Ginzburg's note, where he writes about French tanks with bulletproof armor in the 36th year does not mean anything?
                    1. Kot_Kuzya
                      Kot_Kuzya 31 December 2017 11: 15
                      +1
                      Matild was not enough, as far as the French heavy tanks were, they were completely useless tanks with a flawed layout, where in the tower there was only one person, who was the tank commander, and the loader, and the gunner, and even in addition to this, the platoon or company commander .
                      1. Cherry Nine
                        Cherry Nine 31 December 2017 12: 12
                        +2
                        Quote: Kot_Kuzya
                        Matild was not enough

                        Less than HF in 37th?
                        Quote: Kot_Kuzya
                        applies to french heavy tanks, so these were completely useless tanks

                        Firstly, what is the point of futility if you need the "first"? Secondly, you, as I understand it, are not aware that we are talking about light infantry tanks of the 35th year of Renault and Hotchkiss with a 40-45mm face-board. I did not write about B1, although yes, he is the 34th year. There is already close to 2C)))
                  2. aKtoR
                    aKtoR 3 January 2018 06: 54
                    +2
                    What about T-46-5? He is T-111
              2. aKtoR
                aKtoR 1 January 2018 15: 44
                0
                It is important to clarify here: with respect to what caliber it should have been counter-equipped and at what distance ...
                1. Cherry Nine
                  Cherry Nine 1 January 2018 23: 31
                  +2
                  Quote: aKtoR
                  with respect to what caliber he was supposed to be anti-shell and from what distance ...

                  Relative to the most common enemy equipment and at typical battle distances. Thus, the T-34 or Sherman ballistic reservation in 43-44 but became bulletproof. Parts receiving the Chaffee wrote that in the realities of the West European theater of operations, Chaffee is practically not inferior to Sherman in protection and surpasses in survivability due to the lower silhouette, dynamics and reliability.
                  At the same time, Shermans, of course, remained the tanks of ballistic reservation on the theater of operations.
                2. Alf
                  Alf 3 January 2018 19: 34
                  0
                  Quote: aKtoR
                  It is important to clarify here: with respect to what caliber it should have been counter-equipped and at what distance ...

                  T-34 was tested on a 47-mm cannon, the main anti-tank weapon of the West at that time.
              3. Simargl
                Simargl 2 January 2018 07: 11
                0
                Quote: Kot_Kuzya
                What about HF? The first tank with bulletproof armor? He became the first classic single-turret heavy tank.
                1 - What is bulletproof armor?
                2 - What is a single turret tank?
                2 * - How many T-14 tank turret?
                3 - What is a heavy tank?
                1. CooL_SnipeR
                  CooL_SnipeR 2 January 2018 16: 24
                  0
                  1. Which protects from shells, the cap prompts. starting from 25mm. The very first tanks could protect only from heavy-caliber cartridges. With the use of artillery, it became obvious that it was necessary to increase the reservation. By the way, at the time of 41 years, only we were armed with heavy tanks. 50% of the tanks of the Wehrmacht (T1-T2) were light - which essentially conquered Europe "Zerg rush" so to speak. And these wedges merged about the T34 and KV-1 even with illiterate use and the lack of experience of their crews.
                  2. Cap says who has one tower. T35 sends greetings
                  2 *. I didn’t see the second tower
                  3. Which, personally responsible cap - heavy in terms of weight, from 50-60 tons, which in those days in fact was directly proportional to the reservation. And since they still couldn’t reach rational tilt angles on the TT (HF, tiger) - it was the thickness that played the role and in fact it accounted for 80-90% of the weight of the tank itself. After the T-34, rationalization appeared on both panthers (1 and 2) and t6 (the royal tiger). But there were too few to play a role. More than half of the losses were due to technical reasons, as in 41-42, when the resource of tanks was 300, 600 km
                  1. Simargl
                    Simargl 2 January 2018 18: 48
                    0
                    1 - Ask the cap, and which X had a PTR of a completely rifle caliber (there, after all, according to the classification, bullets) and will a 20-25 mm projectile, say, 3OF32, penetrate? And what will the B-3 do with the tank (say, Mouse)?
                    The enemy cap (brechopedia) hints that bulletproof armor is up to 10mm.
                    2 - is it that simple?
                    2 * - this is how to calculate: in the shown version (at the parade), on the main tower - machine gun, i.e. two, but if we consider habitable - not a single wassat
                    3 - only by weight, but 50-60t - somehow vague, and by the thickness of the armor - even more vague, because the same T-44s, with the same weight as the T-34s, had armor x2 in thickness.
                    The Enemy Cap (Brechopedia) claims that:
                    In the Soviet Army, the mass classification continued to be officially used until at least the 1970s:
                    light tank - up to 20 tons (PT-76);
                    medium tank - up to 40 tons (T-54, T-55, T-62, T-64, T-72);
                    heavy tank - over 40 tons (T-10).
          3. Doliva63
            Doliva63 31 December 2017 18: 41
            +5
            When I was a schoolboy, we had T-10M and 62 (10 Guards TD) in our garrison. When he entered college, he studied PT-76, 54, 55. laughing Even drove them! It is clear that there were 62, 64, 72, 80. In general, our generation found everything post-war! drinks
            And in Pyshma, it seems, they are not allowed inside. Well, what a thrill it would have been - to remember with your hands the launch order, for example!
    2. Amurets
      Amurets 30 December 2017 08: 40
      +4
      Quote: verner1967
      but the life of our T-44 tankers would have made it easier for sure.

      I agree, but here purely technological reasons To bore shoulder straps and grind the mating surfaces of the hull and turret of a tank with a diameter of 1800 mm until 1943 was not possible, the USA received the necessary equipment in 1943. Yes, and the 85mm D-5 gun was adopted in June 1943.
      1. Cherry Nine
        Cherry Nine 30 December 2017 16: 58
        +2
        Quote: Amurets
        it was not possible to grind the mating surfaces of the hull and turret of a tank with a diameter of 1800 mm until 1943

        The opportunity, of course, was on KV / IS machines. It was not possible to do this for the main (in terms of quantity) tank.
    3. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine 30 December 2017 11: 27
      +1
      Quote: verner1967
      The Germans would have received a very unpleasant surprise on the Kursk.

      The author of the article, which is generally interesting, wrote complete nonsense in the last paragraph. The T-44 to Kursk could have appeared in the series with one single option - if the Americans had flashed it right in the summer of 41, and they would have put it into production instead of Sherman (maybe they could handle it in a year and a half, but hardly).
      A good option, but no T-44 in the 41st was not close.
  3. Evdokim
    Evdokim 30 December 2017 07: 36
    +3
    T-44 is truly a revolutionary tank.
    1. svp67
      svp67 30 December 2017 08: 07
      +8
      Quote: Evdokim
      T-44 is truly a revolutionary tank.

      You can argue, for me it’s at the top of course T-54/55, but the T-44 certainly deserves attention and its place in history ...
      And the fact that they were not of high quality is worth remembering that they were produced in a restored tank production, when the best equipment and personnel were still in Nizhny Tagil.
      1. Evdokim
        Evdokim 30 December 2017 08: 38
        +1
        Quote: svp67
        You can argue of course, for me it’s on top of the T-54/55 course,

        I agree T-54/55 is much more perfect, but this is the next generation of machines, they are a continuation of the T-44.
        1. svp67
          svp67 30 December 2017 08: 53
          +4
          Quote: Evdokim
          I agree the T-54/55 is much more perfect, but these are the machines of the next generation, they are the continuation of the T-44

          And behind it was the T-62, but it was the T-54/55 that remained the TOP of development.
          1. verner1967
            verner1967 30 December 2017 11: 05
            +5
            Quote: svp67
            it was the T-54/55 that remained the TOP of development

            Well, yes ... then it was only worse and worse, and so we got to the T-90, well, it sucks laughing
            1. Amurets
              Amurets 30 December 2017 14: 01
              +4
              Quote: verner1967
              Well, yes ... then it was only worse and worse, and so we got to the T-90, well, it sucks

              And with the T-64 tank, a new class of tank began: *** main, *** having a mass and armor of a medium tank and armament of a heavy tank.
              1. Kot_Kuzya
                Kot_Kuzya 30 December 2017 14: 41
                +3
                Modern main tanks have long stepped over into the class of heavy tanks by the standards of World War II. Abrams and Leopard with their weight of 63 tons can even be attributed to the class of super-heavy tanks, because they are very close to the weight of the Royal Tiger. The Russian Armata weighs 50 tons, also by the standards of the Second World War, a pure heavyweight.
              2. Simargl
                Simargl 30 December 2017 23: 48
                +1
                Quote: Amurets
                And with the T-64 tank, a new class of tank began: *** main, *** having a mass and armor of a medium tank and armament of a heavy tank.
                In fact, MBT began with the T-54/55, which is a continuation of the T-44: Most are familiar and quite familiar with the silhouette of the T-55, but the majority will classify the IS-3, IS-4 as a military generation.
                1. CooL_SnipeR
                  CooL_SnipeR 2 January 2018 16: 50
                  0
                  Quote: Simargl
                  In fact, MBT began with the T-54/55, which is a continuation

                  Do not smack the crap ... MBT began with t64 - which at that time was revolutionary in terms of technology and layout. Automatic loading, composite armor, etc. 54 was just a "deep" modernization put on 34 and 44, like the T62. Well, then I think you know ... T64 became T72, and it was upgraded to T90 and T90M. And all this operating time at the facilities 140, 165, 166 and, in fact, the 430 itself, which in the end, after many improvements 432 and renamed to T64
                  1. Simargl
                    Simargl 2 January 2018 18: 18
                    0
                    Quote: CooL_SnipeR
                    Do not smack the crap ... MBT began with t64 - which at that time was revolutionary in terms of technology and layout. Automatic loading, composite armor, etc. 54 was just a "deep" modernization put on 34 and 44, like the T62. Well, then I think you know ... T64 became T72
                    This, for the most part, is nonsense!
                    MBT is a far-fetched classification! BMP-3, for example, is also a tank!
                    There was nothing revolutionary about the T-64 compact AZ. Just able to pack in a relatively small case.
                    T-64 became T-72 ?! belay In fact, there are more differences than the T-44/54!
                2. mkpda
                  mkpda 10 January 2018 15: 00
                  0
                  Formally, MBTs began with the T-28, which had armament and armor equivalent to the T-35, and in terms of speed on rough terrain was at the BT-5 level (the T-28A version could only outperform the T-64)
                  1. Simargl
                    Simargl 22 January 2018 20: 46
                    0
                    Here's the thing: we have now There is a MBT based on the T-72 carcass.
                    Nona is also, in fact, a tank. BMP - the same.
                    The coalition is certain.
                    MBT is a generally incomprehensible classification.
            2. svp67
              svp67 30 December 2017 16: 08
              +6
              Quote: verner1967
              Well, yes ... then it was only worse and worse, so we got to the T-90, well

              Do you even understand what to write? Better not try to touch on this topic. I served on these machines and I know it well, in a constructive way, because I declare once again that on the line of development of the so-called tanks of the "first post-war generation", which we ended with the adoption of the T-62, the best tank is the T -54 \ 55. But the T-90 is from another generation. And he has his own path of development.
              1. verner1967
                verner1967 30 December 2017 16: 13
                +2
                Quote: svp67
                Do you even understand what to write?

                YES, with b / w it’s really hard ....
              2. Cherry Nine
                Cherry Nine 30 December 2017 16: 56
                +1
                Quote: svp67
                the so-called tanks of the "first post-war generation", which we ended with the adoption of the T-62, the best tank is the T-54 \ 55.

                It is understood that you do not like the T-62?
                1. svp67
                  svp67 30 December 2017 18: 07
                  +4
                  Quote: Cherry Nine
                  It is understood that you do not like the T-62?

                  I love - I do not like, this is not that category. Just evaluating their characteristics, you understand that it’s better to go to battle from this pair to the T-55, there are more chances to survive.
                  1. verner1967
                    verner1967 30 December 2017 20: 27
                    0
                    Quote: svp67
                    from this pair it is better to go to battle on the T-55, more likely to survive.

                    justify
                    1. svp67
                      svp67 30 December 2017 22: 56
                      +4
                      "Half a hundred" is smaller in size, because of which it is lighter, more responsive and maneuverable, its gun more accurate
                    2. CooL_SnipeR
                      CooL_SnipeR 2 January 2018 16: 53
                      +3
                      Quote: verner1967
                      justify

                      Forget it, he replayed at 54 before transferring it to HD wassat drinks She was constantly thrown into the top, she could take Kumuli Yagi E100 not with ice cream. And if there was a gold, and then more silver - just annihilated everything. 140 miserable shadow of 54-ki, which also after the transfer to HD is also hidden nerfanuli
              3. verner1967
                verner1967 31 December 2017 11: 10
                0
                Quote: svp67
                which we ended with the adoption of the T-62, the best tank - T-54 \ 55. But the T-90 is from another generation. And he has his own path of development.

                Yesterday the comment did not go away, I will not repeat it about straining with h / w, but try to state your thoughts more clearly. If you had in mind the T-44-T-62 branch, then write like that, maybe they will agree with you, or, judging by your comment, it’s as if our development of tank building stopped in the 50s
          2. Doliva63
            Doliva63 31 December 2017 18: 54
            +5
            "And behind him was the T-62, but it was the T-54/55 that remained the TOP of development ..."
            Hm. The peak of the development of this line was just 62, even with M, even without - they are all of the same blood, but the 62nd, of course, was modern.
            1. svp67
              svp67 1 January 2018 21: 40
              0
              Quote: Doliva63
              Hm. The peak of the development of this line was just 62, even with M, even without - they are all of the same blood, but the 62nd, of course, was modern.

              Again I do not agree. T-62, this is an overgrowth tank. The transmission scheme and mechanisms developed for the T-44 and brought to perfection on the T-54, already performed worse on their duties on the T-62. In addition to the USSR, only one country, and then out of hopelessness, launched the production of T-62 at home, this is the DPRK. All the rest produced T-54 \ 55.
      2. axxenm
        axxenm 30 December 2017 10: 50
        +3
        Quote: svp67
        Quote: Evdokim
        T-44 is truly a revolutionary tank.

        You can argue, for me it’s at the top of course T-54/55, but the T-44 certainly deserves attention and its place in history ...

        Actually, the T-54/55 is a modernization of the T-44, although very deep, and even its index was originally T-44B.
        So if we consider the role in the concept and setting trends, the most outstanding and breakthrough tank of the 20th century is the T-44.
        1. svp67
          svp67 30 December 2017 16: 40
          +3
          Quote: axxenm
          even its index was originally T-44V.

          But he did not last long at all, as it became clear that this was in many ways a NEW car
      3. Simargl
        Simargl 30 December 2017 23: 42
        +1
        Quote: svp67
        Quote: Evdokim
        T-44 is truly a revolutionary tank.

        You can argue, for me it’s at the top of course T-54/55, but the T-44 certainly deserves attention and its place in history ...
        There’s nothing to argue about! T-44 - tank exactly revolutionary! His layout lasted, in fact, to the T-14. Any T-54/55 is, in fact, finishing up the T-44 to the realities of the time when 90 mm in the forehead was already not enough.
        1. svp67
          svp67 1 January 2018 21: 59
          0
          Quote: Simargl
          His layout lasted, in fact, to the T-14.

          No, before the T-64 ...
          Quote: Simargl
          Any T-54/55 is, in fact, finishing up the T-44 to the realities of the time when 90 mm in the forehead was already not enough.

          This is just a cursory glance. There are enough other changes that made this tank a "long-liver."
          1. Simargl
            Simargl 2 January 2018 07: 20
            0
            Quote: svp67
            Quote: Simargl
            His layout lasted, in fact, to the T-14.

            No, before the T-64 ...
            Is it because of the MOH? And what fundamentally changed in the T-64: changed torsion bars to springs, set the engine diagonally? What? Even RenaultFT-17 has an almost classic layout!
            Quote: svp67
            Quote: Simargl
            Any T-54/55 is, in fact, finishing up the T-44 to the realities of the time when 90 mm in the forehead was already not enough.

            This is just a cursory glance. There are enough other changes that made this tank a "long-liver."
            It’s clear that this is a practically new tank, but is it very different? No.
            1. svp67
              svp67 2 January 2018 12: 29
              +2
              Quote: Simargl
              And what fundamentally changed in the T-64:

              A lot of what has already been used on other tanks, but together it came together on the T-64. This is a multi-layer reservation, and mechanical loading of ammunition, a multi-fuel engine, hydraulic control, a closed anti-aircraft installation, the possibility of firing a rocket through the barrel of a gun, etc., etc. ...
              1. Simargl
                Simargl 2 January 2018 14: 15
                0
                Quote: svp67
                Many things
                You do not seem to understand what an extensive path is and an intensive one.
                MKI >> MKII >> MKIII >> Mk IV >> MkV >> MkVI >> MkVII>
                > MkVIII >> MkIX is an extensive path.
                MK >> Renault FT 17, although they are from different countries, is intense. I have already said that, by and large, there is no fundamental difference between the FT 17 and, say, the T-55 (even the T-90). Between MK and T-90 - there is. Do you understand the idea?
                I already wrote that I consider only 4 tanks to be key, I explained why.

                Let's go in order:
                Multilayer booking (built-in, please note, because the T-190 even has a built-in DZ, but nothing has changed fundamentally) - the forerunner - banal screens, hanging boxes with sand. It could be used starting with MK, i.e. not fundamentally.
                MH - also not important: to put in the MK NS-45 - a completely automatic shooting. Why not put in the T-34?
                A multi-fuel engine, how is it different from a diesel?
                Is hydraulic control important? Fundamentally different from electric? Now they are putting the EUR instead of the power steering - what has changed?
                Anti-aircraft that?! The anti-aircraft machine gun was removed from the tank due to inexpediency (since front-line aviation speeds increased significantly, and the successful firing of an aircraft flying at high speed became unlikely). From the brechopedia. Helicopters (with anti-aircraft weapons) will appear - they will return the machine gun.
                A missile through the barrel ... yeah ... actually, you can shoot a missile through the barrel even from a muzzle-loading Unicorn! Here you don’t notice anything else - the whole point was not just to shoot, but also to control it!
                The concept of reduction of the reserved volume was applied, which was applied on ... MS-1
                Something like that.
  4. bistrov.
    bistrov. 30 December 2017 08: 09
    +4
    The author did not understand that the frontal armor on the T-44 was 90mm., Which is only 1cm. thinner than the frontal armor of the "Tiger" in which it was 100 mm.

    During the war they managed to release 655 T-44s, they were armed with guards tank brigades, some of them took part in hostilities, i.e. the tank managed to fight. For some reason, the author is not aware of this
    1. SerB60
      SerB60 30 December 2017 08: 50
      +8
      This is where and when the forty-four brigades managed to fight? It would be very interesting to know.
    2. svp67
      svp67 30 December 2017 08: 56
      +9
      Quote: bistrov.
      those. the tank managed to fight

      Only as an EXPERIENCE, he did not participate anymore. Moreover, he remained SECRET under seven seals, as he was to become the BASIC machine of our tank troops. And our command went on declassifying the IS-3, but did not show the T-44, so that the "surprise" would not be spoiled for our "Western partners" if they climbed on us ...
      1. SerB60
        SerB60 30 December 2017 09: 12
        +2
        This is just a well-known fact, which is why I was very surprised by the “warring T-44 brigades”.
      2. Cherry Nine
        Cherry Nine 30 December 2017 17: 44
        +1
        Quote: svp67
        but it didn’t show the T-44, so that it wouldn’t spoil the “surprise” for our “western partners”,

        Pretty strange thought. Partners are not the same as in 44. They had plenty of anti-panther equipment, and it would be difficult to surprise them with a more mobile Panther. In terms of its combination of qualities, the T-44 roughly corresponds to the Comet. More armor, but worse gun.
        1. 11 black
          11 black 30 December 2017 19: 40
          +5
          Quote: Cherry Nine
          Pretty strange thought. Partners are not the same as in 44. They had plenty of anti-panther equipment, and it would be difficult to surprise them with a more mobile Panther. In terms of its combination of qualities, the T-44 roughly corresponds to the Comet. More armor, but worse gun.

          Absolutely different cars.
          Firstly - what exactly is the gun worse?
          Secondly - armor lot more.
          In a dueling situation, the forty-four would “fool” like a carpet of women Zina and Komet, and any other ST allies.
          And finally - the “forty-four” is not just a more maneuverable panther, it is a fundamentally different tank. This is the most mobile and passable ST with frontal reservation from a heavy tank. Steeper was only the T-54, which, among other things, also had a gun from anti-tank self-propelled guns ... laughing
          1. Cherry Nine
            Cherry Nine 30 December 2017 20: 13
            +1
            Quote: 11 black
            what exactly is the gun worse?

            In armor penetration and ammunition.
            Quote: 11 black
            Secondly, there is much more armor.

            For seventeen pounds no difference.
            Quote: 11 black
            any other CT allies.

            While the perks were considered heavy.
            Quote: 11 black
            Steeper was only the T-54, which ...,

            ... in series since 49
            1. 11 black
              11 black 31 December 2017 10: 50
              +2
              Quote: Cherry Nine
              In armor penetration and ammunition.

              Of course it is, but for the fragmentation and high-explosive action?
              Quote: Cherry Nine
              For seventeen pounds no difference.

              You are mistaken - there is a difference. The subcalibers will ricochet perfectly from sharp inclinations, and the QF17 armor-piercing shells weren’t so cool (although the gun was certainly excellent) ...
              However, it doesn’t matter, the forty-four would somehow “exhaust” the comet without any problems, because the C-53, although inferior to the hole punch, is also not a bore — it could have pierced the comet from the forehead a mile and a half away.
              At the same time, the T-44 has an 180 mm equivalent in its forehead at sharp angles - OQ-17 subcalibers will be able to penetrate this from a distance of no more than a kilometer, and thanks to sharp angles, even from such distances, 2 / 3 will ricochet. IMHO.
              Quote: Cherry Nine
              While the perks were considered heavy.

              He was heavy laughing
              1. Cherry Nine
                Cherry Nine 31 December 2017 11: 50
                0
                Quote: 11 black
                but for fragmentation and high explosive action?

                For this, there was a thin-walled NOT on a reduced charge.
                Quote: 11 black
                and the QF17 armor-piercing shells weren’t so cool

                Not so about what?
                Quote: 11 black
                she could penetrate a comet in the forehead as much as one and a half kilometers.
                At the same time, the T-44 in the forehead has 180 mm equivalent at sharp angles -

                This is if you first agree to shoot strictly at the VLD. And if they slam into the tower, then what?
                Quote: 11 black
                such a break from a distance of not more than a kilometer

                No matter how two and a half.
                What are we talking about. Cars are quite breakable for each other. One has a weak VLD, the second has a turret and a cannon. The rest are similar. Reliability, they say, is much better for an Englishwoman (at least I don't know anything about UKN in her respect). By the number - on July 1, 3-4 comets against 1 T-44 approximately (T-44 of the first months of release, it seems, were educational, made of structural steel).
                1. 11 black
                  11 black 31 December 2017 15: 57
                  0
                  Quote: Cherry Nine
                  No matter how two and a half.

                  Two and a half Karl! - Yes, even after two and a half bottles I wouldn’t give out laughing Railgun just laughing Burn however good
                  Quote: Cherry Nine
                  What are we talking about. Cars are quite breakable for each other.

                  That's just the T-44 makes its way with a comet from a kilometer (in the VLD), and the comets make its way with a forty-four from one and a half kilometers (in the whole frontal projection of the hull).
                  Of course, the T-44 from QF-17 could also be penetrated from distances over 1 km by getting into the area of ​​the tower adjacent to the mask, here you are right, it is possible in the NLD (there is 135 mm equivalent), but still the majority of hits in the battle of two tanks as a rule, it falls on the VLD, especially from kilometer distances.
                  Here are all the vulnerable areas of the T-44 - even if you hit one and a half kilometers.

                  For Comet, from the one and a half KM, absolutely the whole body was breaking through (the forehead of the tower could hold a blow), but from the distance 1000-1100 the whole Comet was breaking through, and the T-44 still had a chance to rebound (acute angle VLD + subcalibers).
                  PS Happy New Year! drinks
                  1. Cherry Nine
                    Cherry Nine 31 December 2017 17: 35
                    0
                    Quote: 11 black
                    Railgun just

                    No, this is data on tabular armor penetration. In practice, however, everything could be different.
                    At 200 yards one fair hit with each of the standard ammunitions failed to penetrate the glacis of tank No.2 (best plate). The relative depths of the partial penetrations at this range were as follows:
                    (a) 17pdr APCBC - 2 "
                    (b) 17pdr SABOT - 1 7/8 "
                    (c) 76mm HVAP - 1 5/16 "
                    (d) 76mm APC, M62 - 1 "

                    In the tests in 44g they did not penetrate the Panther VLD with a 17-pound subcaliber from 180 meters, 187 mm of data.
                    On the other hand
                    For an objective assessment of the tank’s armor resistance, it was decided to shell the hull and turret of the captured vehicle with tower number 102 with shell shelling.
                    The shelling tests were carried out in the autumn of 1944, in Kubinka, and the following results were obtained:
                    .
                    8. The hull side plates and turret of the tank are punched by armor-piercing shells of the 85-mm domestic and 76-mm American cannon from the 800-2000 distance m.
                    .
                    10. American 76-mm armor-piercing shells penetrate the side sheets of the Tiger-B tank from a distance of 1,5-2 times greater than the domestic 85-mm armor-piercing shells

                    The capabilities of the real Br-365K are also slightly different from the imagined.
                    Nonetheless. Practitioners believed that 17 pounds of calibers and 76mm sub-calibers for a real battle with real Panthers was enough. The T-44 forehead is slightly stronger than the panther, mainly the quality of the armor.
                    Quote: 11 black
                    comets make their way in forty-four from one and a half kilometers (in the entire frontal projection of the hull).

                    As you rightly noted below, confidently punching 100 mm, the S-53 started at 1 km. (comet tower). In real life, she was tearing Tiger 1 with only 600, but the tiger is heterogeneous, and the comet is rolled.

                    And about NG, yes. I wish you to survive safely. winked
              2. Alf
                Alf 31 December 2017 20: 50
                0
                Quote: 11 black
                You are mistaken - there is a difference. Podkalibery perfectly ricochet from sharp tilt angles, and armor-piercing shells "QF17" were not so cool

                At the same time, all authors carefully forget how many sub-calibers were real in the BC. If the Shermans in the BC had 2-3 pieces and for happiness it was considered to have 5 of these shots. But the United States was then the greatest economy in the world, and where was the economy of Britain at that time?
                1. Amurets
                  Amurets 2 January 2018 01: 33
                  +2
                  Quote: Alf
                  But the United States was then the greatest economy in the world, and where was the economy of Britain at that time?

                  Economy-economy, but during WWII there was a large shortage of tungsten, molybdenum, cobalt which went not only for the production of sub-caliber shells, but also for the production of high-performance tools and heat-resistant steels.
    3. hohol95
      hohol95 30 December 2017 10: 14
      +2
      655 pieces - where did you get such data?
      In total, from January to July 1, 1945, plant No. 75 produced 240 T-44s, and including assembly vehicles of 1944, the total number of tanks produced was 265 units (the production of “forty-fours” ended in 1947, but the further development of these tanks is not in this book considered).

      Maxim Kolomiets THIRTY-FOUR-FOUR HEATERS T-34M, T-43, T-34-100, T-44.
    4. hohol95
      hohol95 30 December 2017 10: 16
      +5
      None of the T-44 tanks produced before the end of World War II were sent to the army. Cars were shipped to training units (4th and 9th tank training brigades, located in the Kharkov region), military schools (Kharkov, Sivash, Taman, Leningrad tank schools, the Academy of Armored Forces, Kazan Higher Officer School) and to ranges ( Gorokhovetsky Academy of Sciences of Moscow In addition, 156 “forty-fours” left for the Lvov and Baranavichy military districts - these tanks entered the staffing of tank divisions, the formation of which began in June 1945.

      Maxim Kolomiets THIRTY-FOUR-FOUR HEATERS T-34M, T-43, T-34-100, T-44
    5. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine 30 December 2017 11: 39
      +2
      Quote: bistrov.
      the frontal armor on the T-44 was 90mm., which is only 1cm. thinner than the frontal armor of the "Tiger" in which it was 100 mm.

      If you are talking about the first tiger, then the T-44's forehead is thicker due to the slope. There are really doubts about the quality of the armor.
      Quote: bistrov.
      During the war, managed to release 655 T-44,

      LOL what? Until May, it seems, released 190 pieces. Have you counted until the end of September?
    6. Alf
      Alf 30 December 2017 22: 44
      +1
      Quote: bistrov.
      The author didn’t figure it out,

      This is still nonsense. You read the other "pearls" of the author, ofigete. Especially he famously about the Boston article pushed, I'm tired of commenting.
  5. Brigadier
    Brigadier 30 December 2017 08: 57
    +3
    Eh ... Such a car, but in the 41st year ...
    1. Mikado
      Mikado 30 December 2017 10: 55
      14
      Eh ... Such a car, but in the 41st year ...

      I have already said, I have a rare book, The Price of Mistakes. So her author, a tanker of the Red Army, having spent almost 4 years in German camps, was shocked by our new equipment, on which the liberating soldiers came. And he also said approximately the same phrase as you. drinks But technology in general has developed very much during the war years. Therefore, this is all empty, I think. what Svirin remarkably described the condition of the tank troops before the war, and gave the following verdict - they could be given any equipment, up to the T-90, Leclerc and Merkav, and it would still be a defeat, no matter how sad. The winner is the one who has more trained people and a well-functioning and balanced structure of departments and management, who has more experience ... request with respect, hi
      1. hohol95
        hohol95 30 December 2017 21: 52
        +4
        And this is true! Gun stabilizers for the 20K on the BT-7 had already been created, but the gunners had to be LEARNED FOR LONG AND QUALITY! They taught us a plus - shortage, flight, hit (considered hit from the first shot as a pure coincidence)!
        The Germans tried to get from the first shot! Etc. drinks
        1. Mikado
          Mikado 31 December 2017 16: 06
          +3
          Alexey, my comment is not related to the discussion, but the day obliges ..
          This year I met many wonderful people at VO, and with you personally, including. Thank you this year for this! You and the rest of the forum - Happy New Year! Happiness, health, prosperity to you and your families! May the New Year bring us all the good! drinks
        2. Doliva63
          Doliva63 31 December 2017 19: 02
          +5
          "The Germans tried to get from the first shot! And so on. Drinks."
          However, in the 80s, they had a “set-off” with 5 shots, and in the SA with 3 shots.
          1. hohol95
            hohol95 31 December 2017 21: 20
            +2
            The 80s is not the 40s!
            But at the same time (according to a man who served at the tank training ground at the GSVG), in the absence of a definite "agreement", the PRIZE tank crews did not fall into the target! Sleight of hand staff and the target did not fall! With another arrangement - sleight of hand - the projectile is past, and the target falls! Asya, the matter is the amount of condensed milk and other joys of soldier's life ...
      2. Amurets
        Amurets 31 December 2017 05: 42
        +1
        Quote: Mikado
        The winner is the one who has more trained people and a well-functioning and balanced structure of departments and management, who has more experience ...

        Kolomiyets writes the same thing in the book "Tanks on Khalkhin-Gol." But the conclusions from those battles were relevant and the years of the Second World War, but alas .....
        1. Mikado
          Mikado 31 December 2017 11: 22
          +1
          Conclusions from the Finnish War were made right, but alas ... request
          1. Amurets
            Amurets 31 December 2017 11: 42
            +1
            Quote: Mikado
            Conclusions from the Finnish War were made right, but alas ...

            Namesake. First: Happy New Year! Secondly, I completely agree with you.
            1. Mikado
              Mikado 1 January 2018 01: 38
              +1
              My namesake, my dear! Happy New Year! May all our dreams come true! Happiness to all of you, and your families!
          2. mkpda
            mkpda 10 January 2018 15: 27
            +1
            Conclusions were made, in many respects correct, but not in everything. Often took half measures. Well, with the tanks and the states of the tank units, they were smart at the level of Tukhachevsky.
            1. Mikado
              Mikado 10 January 2018 15: 33
              0
              Well, with the tanks and the states of the tank units, they were smart at the level of Tukhachevsky.

              Yes. They understood that large connections were needed, but nobody knew how to organize this. Meretskov at the April meeting on the results of the Finnish war saw a way out in the creation of mechanized divisions. But in the end, heaped up the case. By the way, at the same meeting, he also vaguely voiced the need for armored personnel carriers - “special armored vehicles”. request
    2. verner1967
      verner1967 30 December 2017 11: 34
      +5
      Quote: Brigadier
      Such a car, but in the 41st year ...

      for the 41st, that 34 was enough, but the experience of the commanders of the 44th model could have been borrowed.
    3. svp67
      svp67 30 December 2017 16: 10
      +3
      Quote: Brigadier
      Eh ... Such a car, but in the 41st year ...

      She would have suffered the same fate as our many T-34s and KVs. That is, we would LOSE them
      1. Amurets
        Amurets 31 December 2017 05: 54
        +4
        Quote: svp67
        She would have suffered the same fate as our many T-34s and KVs. That is, we would LOSE them

        I agree with your opinion, the conclusions made in 1939-1940 by the commanders of the Red Army, of which M. Klomiets writes in the book: "Tanks on Khalkhin Gol." The polemic is interesting. All forum users who participated in the discussion of the article are poisoning with the upcoming New Year 2018. We have a few hours left on the Far East. Happy New Year, Druya!
        1. Mikado
          Mikado 31 December 2017 11: 32
          +2
          Nikolay, I’ll join. drinks personally to you, and other forum users - Happy New Year!
          Happiness, health to you and your families, success in everything, well-being! drinks
  6. shinobi
    shinobi 30 December 2017 09: 02
    0
    6000km off-road, how is it considered normal? Who in the subject, enlighten.
    1. svp67
      svp67 30 December 2017 09: 43
      +6
      Quote: shinobi
      6000km off-road, how is it considered normal?

      For war - more than, for peace - LITTLE ...
    2. Kot_Kuzya
      Kot_Kuzya 30 December 2017 14: 46
      +3
      Given the average tank speed of 20 km / h, then the engine life of 300 hours, this is quite normal. For T-64 and T-72 tanks, the engine life is 300 hours, or 5000 km, after which a major overhaul of the tank is necessary. The T-80 has a motor life of 500 hours. In general, the military equipment had a small resource when it served, the BTR-70 resource was only 25 thousand km, after which the BTR was sent for overhaul. Compared to civilian cars that run 300-400 thousand kilometers without replacing the engine, this is certainly a miser.
      1. kirgiz58
        kirgiz58 30 December 2017 18: 37
        +1
        Quote: Kot_Kuzya
        Compared to civilian cars that run 300-400 thousand kilometers without replacing the engine, this is certainly a miser.

        Invalid comparison. You compare ton-kilometers and here the engines of military equipment are in the black. winked
        1. Simargl
          Simargl 30 December 2017 23: 55
          +2
          Quote: kirgiz58
          Invalid comparison. You compare ton-kilometers and here the engines of military equipment are in the black. winked
          Well, let's. Compare the tonkilometers of the tractor that this tank and tank carry.
        2. Amurets
          Amurets 31 December 2017 01: 43
          +1
          Quote: kirgiz58
          Invalid comparison. You compare ton-kilometers and here the engines of military equipment are in the black. winked

          For some reason, the operating conditions are not compared. On roads of various categories, an internal combustion engine only 25-33% percent operates in variable and accelerating modes and maximum power, and in armored vehicles, at best, 80-85%, and in the worst, up to 95% percent. Take the same KAMAZ-4310: on public roads, its fuel consumption was about 40 liters per 100 km, on off-road fuel consumption rate increased by 1,5-1,75 times. So consider the resource of technology.
      2. kirgiz58
        kirgiz58 30 December 2017 19: 00
        +2
        Quote: Kot_Kuzya
        The T-72 engine life is 300 hours, or 5000 km, after which a major overhaul of the tank is necessary.

        The new T-72 (engine life of 500 hours) to an average repair of 8000km, from medium to overhaul 6000km, total 14000km.
        T-72 is overhauled to an average of 7000 km, from medium to kapitalki 5000 km. 2500km are allowed to be removed from a combat trainer per year (two standards can be removed, but another UBM should be "on the joke"). The number of UBM in any part allows you to complete the training program for all personnel in full volume.
      3. svp67
        svp67 2 January 2018 12: 31
        0
        Quote: Kot_Kuzya
        For T-64 and T-72 tanks, the engine life is 300 hours, or 5000 km, after which a major overhaul of the tank is necessary.

        10 000 km of run ... and on the T-80 is already 11 000
  7. hohol95
    hohol95 30 December 2017 10: 07
    +2
    For all BTT lovers -

    Download or read online!
  8. hohol95
    hohol95 30 December 2017 10: 17
    +3
    Let's see what would happen if all the factories that produced thirty-fours began to transfer to the production of “forty-fours”. This can be done, since there are numbers of the number of standard hours spent on the production of one T-44 and T-34-85 of plant No. 183 (data as of January 1, 1945). So, for one thirty-four, 3251 normo / hour was required (including the time spent on assembling the hull and tower), and for the “forty-four” -7945 normo / hour. And this does not take into account the time for the manufacture of the building (they were supplied by plant No. 264 in Stalingrad) and the tower (Mariupol Plant named after Ilyich). Thus, the complexity of the T-44 was at least 2,5 times greater than that of the T-34-85. Consequently, when switching to the production of “forty-fours” instead of thirty-fours, the production of tanks would be reduced almost three times!
    In addition, it should be noted that the T-44 was superior to the T-34 only in armor, and in terms of armament these tanks were the same. And if you take into account that the reliability of the T-44 was much lower than thirty-four, it becomes clear that putting this machine into mass production would be a big mistake. This mistake could cost the Red Army a lot of blood in 1944.
    So, in connection with a decrease in the height of the T-44 body, the working conditions of the driver have significantly worsened. Thus, the test report of the Forty-Four issued in August 1945 states: "Driving a tank with the driver’s hatch closed is very difficult due to the inconvenience of using sight gauges."
    The T-44 was inferior to the thirty-four and in terms of range - 235 kilometers versus 350. And the difference of more than 100 kilometers was quite significant in combat conditions.
    Well, the reliability of the “forty-fours” left much to be desired. So, in the conclusion of the test report of six T-44 tanks of September 1945 release it was said:
    “A significant number of breakdowns and malfunctions that occurred during the tests of the tanks of the September release of 1945, shows that the quality of the machines is at a low level. To date, the plant has not been able to eliminate the defects that have been identified during the operation of the tanks. ”
    The main shortcomings were called torsion shaft breakdowns, insufficient strength of the rubber tires of the road wheels, destruction of the shafts and gears of final drives (the reliability of the T-44 tanks was increased only by the middle of 1946, but until its completion in 1947 there were all problems with this machine failed to resolve).
    Thus, the refusal in the summer of 1944 from the complete transition of tank factories from T-34-85 to T-44 was not only the right, but also the only possible solution in wartime conditions. As can be seen from the above data, with serial production of the T-44 there would have been a drop in the number of manufactured tanks by at least 3 times, and besides, the “forty-four” had a significant number of drawbacks. To eliminate the latter would take at least one and a half to two years. The same amount (if not more) would be required to increase the production of tanks (for example, to the level of T-34-85 in the summer of 1944).

    Maxim Kolomiets THIRTY-FOUR-FOUR HEATERS T-34M, T-43, T-34-100, T-44
    1. 11 black
      11 black 30 December 2017 15: 19
      +3
      Quote: hohol95
      In addition, it should be noted that the T-44 was superior to the T-34 only in booking

      The competence of the author after such opuses is in question.
      The T-44 was superior to the T-34-85 not only in booking:
      - reservation of the frontal projection, without increasing the mass of the tank (thanks to the sharp angles of inclination of the armored plates) brought to the level of heavy tanks.
      - the new B-2-44 engine, and most importantly, the new checkpoint made the tank more mobile and passable (most likely, by these indicators, it occupied a leading position among medium tanks in world tank building)
      - the projection of the machine became lower by 300 mm.
      - Improved crew living conditions.
      If the author had in mind that in conditions of predominantly urban battles, the difference between the T-34-85 and the T-44 was minimal, then I certainly agree, but on the plains forty-four did not know equal.
      1. hohol95
        hohol95 31 December 2017 00: 21
        +1
        Think about it here -
        “A significant number of breakdowns and malfunctions that occurred during the tests of the tanks of the September release of 1945, shows that the quality of the machines is at a low level. To date, the plant has not been able to eliminate the defects that have been identified during the operation of the tanks. ”
        The main shortcomings were called torsion shaft breakdowns, insufficient strength of the rubber tires of the road wheels, destruction of the shafts and gears of final drives (the reliability of the T-44 tanks was increased only by the middle of 1946, but until its completion in 1947 there were all problems with this machine failed to resolve).

        And remember the quality of the T-34 and KV-1 in 1941 - a lot of them were thrown due to breakdowns !!!
        Do you think it was necessary to put the "raw" car into the troops and just look at the "tweaks and jumps" of tankers and production workers ???

        Soviet T-34 tank abandoned due to a malfunction in Lviv. 1941 year.
  9. vnord
    vnord 30 December 2017 10: 52
    +3
    Quote: Kot_Kuzya
    If these innovations were introduced immediately on the T-34, then it would be wonderful.

    They didn’t have time to upgrade in 1941, the war began. And then there was no time for this ..
  10. KVU-NSVD
    KVU-NSVD 30 December 2017 11: 18
    +7
    A good but a couple of years late tank
  11. Nemesis
    Nemesis 30 December 2017 19: 37
    +3
    The death knell for the T-44 was an attempt to build it in the Ukrainian SSR, where there were neither specialists nor equipment, and the quality of the tanks was nowhere lower, which did not correspond to peacetime conditions ...
    1. Kot_Kuzya
      Kot_Kuzya 30 December 2017 21: 38
      +2
      Again these skakuasy in your repertoire am
      1. Amurets
        Amurets 31 December 2017 02: 09
        +4
        Quote: Kot_Kuzya
        Again these skakuasy in your repertoire

        And here are the skakuasy? We must really approach the situation. Kharkov several times passed from hand to hand and you think that the Germans, understanding the beginning of the KhPZ, left something intact? I had to restore everything. A team of experienced production workers? He was taken to the Urals. Read Kartsev, how Kharkovites from UVZ, after the war, rushed home, was that not a problem? Morozov writes the same thing in his diaries. And where to get the equipment? So the list of problems comes up only in the production plan, and without skakuazov. KhZTM, in the first place, was a steam recovery plant. After the Second World War, in addition to the production of T-44 tanks, it was necessary to master the construction of diesel and diesel locomotives. For some reason they forget about it.
    2. Simargl
      Simargl 31 December 2017 00: 00
      +3
      Quote: Nemesis
      The death knell for the T-44 was an attempt to build it in the Ukrainian SSR, where there were neither specialists nor equipment ...
      In fact, it has ceased to be relevant! It was necessary to carry a 100mm gun, and the T-44 did it with difficulty.
    3. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine 31 December 2017 01: 49
      +1
      Quote: Nemesis
      The death knell for the T-44 was an attempt to build it in the Ukrainian SSR

      Kolomiyets quite reasonably writes that this decision was the only right one, which did not allow a drawdown of the T-34 release. However, with his so-called all the fuss with the T-44 was mischief, if not direct wrecking.
  12. hohol95
    hohol95 31 December 2017 00: 24
    +3

    Residents of Lviv are considering the Soviet T-34 tank, standing next to the building of the former Austrian guardhouse. 1941.
    T-44 could also be looked at by the Germans if they had to be abandoned due to poor quality, like the T-34 in 1941 !!!
  13. Kot_Kuzya
    Kot_Kuzya 31 December 2017 12: 43
    0
    Cherry nine,
    The T-50 is narrower than the T-34. So, by what magic can a T-50 tower shoulder strap be larger than a T-34 tower shoulder strap? Do we have a Harry Potter world?
    1. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine 31 December 2017 13: 48
      0
      Quote: Kot_Kuzya
      The T-50 is narrower than the T-34.

      Have you fallen from the sky? Google has been invented in the world for a long time. We collect "t-50 shoulder straps of the tower", read. Above is a link to the monograph of Kolomiyets, buy / steal, read.
  14. horava
    horava 1 January 2018 10: 18
    +3
    it was possible to drive a T-34 car moving speed for 60 km per hour. T-44 didn’t drive. They stood in the bang of notes. T-54 is an excellent car for its time. Whoever didn’t have time was late. T44 Transitional to the new medium tank T62
  15. Olezhek
    Olezhek 1 January 2018 11: 55
    0
    In principle, it was not in vain that he was "secret"
    At the end of the war, making a lot of T 44 and crushing the enemy was unrealistic
    But declassifying it before the allies would be frankly stupid ...
    Nothing happened before Korea (and our tankmen didn’t fight there)? And thank God!
    1. family tree
      family tree 1 January 2018 19: 05
      +2
      Yes, hell knows who is up there for Morozov
      44, raw, fur with a closed hatch, almost blind, had to be brought to 54/55 at UVZ,
      Then 64, with Junkers' suitcase, which Charomsky tried to stick into the horizon, and one fig heater with a plus. Then the St. Petersburg team, brought up, and as a result of the T-72, with a four-stroke, BKPP and AZ, broken with a fight in the Moscow Region. Morozov has one revolution, 44, 64 and UVZ evolve them, in 54/55, in 72.
      Well, sort of from ...., T-14, for a long time, fine-tuning, no one will finish the Urals, Cho what
  16. Alf
    Alf 1 January 2018 21: 22
    0
    svp67,
    Production license of what? An automobile diesel engine in 500 mares? Can you name an American car diesel of such power?
    1. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine 2 January 2018 00: 20
      +3
      Quote: Alf
      Can you name an American car diesel of such power?

      6046, of course. This is not a V-sampler (V-samplers of the 71st series appeared only in the 57th), but it worked fine.
      However, there is another option. To order a multibank from the good Americans on the basis of the Hercules six ZiS-5. It is customary to make fun of this engine, but it proved to be quite reliable and, unlike the star, consumed automobile fuel. It is important for the USSR that it, and only it, could be produced at existing automobile capacities using relatively well-developed technology. Plus, the engine is cast iron, not aluminum.
      However, all this is also trepidation. Neither the present level of friendship with mattresses, nor the present level of technical competence and foresight, made such decisions
      1. svp67
        svp67 2 January 2018 02: 29
        +1
        Quote: Cherry Nine
        6046, of course.

        Thank. But I didn’t even count on such a powerful one. A family of engines with a power of 100-200-300 hp would be enough, and this engine could be used not only on light, medium and heavy trucks, but also on light tanks. And this would give us a further impetus, in development ... But these are all dreams.
        1. Cherry Nine
          Cherry Nine 2 January 2018 03: 45
          +2
          Quote: svp67
          A family of engines with a power of 100-200-300 hp would be sufficient, and this engine could be used not only on light, medium and heavy trucks, but also on light tanks. And that would give us a further impetus, in development ... But these are all dreams.

          What other dreams? I repeat, you are talking about the YaAZ-206 engine, in a series from 47 years old. He is GMC 6-71 6004, which produced 210 hp. on late valentines.
          6046 Sherman is two such units with one output shaft, 375 hp.
          But this is after the war. There is no way to be in time before the war because of Finland.
        2. Amurets
          Amurets 2 January 2018 06: 33
          +3
          Quote: svp67
          Thank. But I didn’t even count on such a powerful one. A family of engines with a power of 100-200-300 hp would be enough, and this engine could be used not only on light, medium and heavy trucks, but also on light tanks

          Before the Second World War, ZiS-D-7 and KOJU diesel engines were worked out, but unfortunately the Ufa Motor Plant in 1940 was transferred to the NKAP for the production of aircraft engines, the same was done with the new gas engine production Gas. And the 200-300 hp family included 1/2 B2 diesel engines, B-3 and B-4 diesel engines http://engine.aviaport.ru/issues/04/page18.html
          1. Cherry Nine
            Cherry Nine 2 January 2018 11: 28
            0
            Quote: Amurets
            Diesels ZiS-D-7 and KOJU worked out, but unfortunately

            Unfortunately, there is nothing special to regret. ZiS-7 was issued for testing, MD-23 - prepared for the series, but was not yet in the series. It was staging into the series that was the weakest point in Soviet and not only industry, how many dances with a tambourine were to be held in Ufa - no one would say. But quite a lot, the engine is very peculiar.
            So for a stable engine, start it produce necessary in the early 30s, like Ford AA or the mentioned Hercules - ZiS.
      2. Alf
        Alf 2 January 2018 22: 02
        0
        Quote: Cherry Nine
        6046, of course.

        500 horses? Oh well.
        1. Cherry Nine
          Cherry Nine 2 January 2018 22: 44
          0
          375, wrote the same. However, I did not hear the talk that Sherman did not have enough.
          For ISs, however, is no longer a fact.
          1. Alf
            Alf 2 January 2018 23: 09
            0
            Quote: Cherry Nine
            375, wrote the same. However, I did not hear the talk that Sherman did not have enough.
            For ISs, however, is no longer a fact.

            So I say so. 375 mares for the T-34 would be clearly not enough. But in this case, both KV and Is would be left without a “fiery heart”.
            1. Cherry Nine
              Cherry Nine 2 January 2018 23: 37
              0
              Quote: Alf
              for the T-34 it would be clearly not enough

              Again. Sherman was enough. Weighed the same. The transmission, however, is significantly better.
              Quote: Alf
              KV, and Is would be left without a "fiery heart."

              Would remain with Churchill's mobility. You are right, it would be uncomfortable, although not fatal.
              1. Alf
                Alf 3 January 2018 00: 04
                0
                Quote: Cherry Nine
                Would remain with Churchill's mobility. You are right, it would be uncomfortable, although not fatal.

                7,9 horses per 1 ton. It is not uncomfortable, it is fatal.
                1. Cherry Nine
                  Cherry Nine 3 January 2018 01: 28
                  +1
                  Slightly smaller than the Fed, but significantly more than on the T-60, if the AA engine is put into it.
                  However, I do not want to bazaar in vain. Essentially you are right, 375 hp IS is not enough.
  17. Mavrikiy
    Mavrikiy 1 January 2018 22: 10
    +1
    Mdya 6 km to the T000 overhaul (from Moscow to Paris and back) ... And what was the T44's mileage? I think much less. A couple of thousand?
    1. svp67
      svp67 2 January 2018 02: 39
      +3
      Quote: Mavrikiy
      I think much less. A couple of thousand?

      Yes, the first T-34s from the 40th year had just such a factory guaranteed resource, 2000 km, but they couldn’t stand it ...
      Memorandum of the Chief of the GABTU KA in NPO on the state of tank construction

      28th of January 1941

      I am returning material on the state of tank construction. I personally reported this document to the People’s Commissar of Defense on January 27.1.1941, XNUMX.
      The document correctly illuminates the state of tank construction and is compiled mainly on the basis of materials available at the GABTU of the Red Army.
      The People's Commissar ordered you to report this document again.
      Attachment: letter for number 4cc on 8 sheets.

      Head of the GABTU of the Red Army, Lieutenant General of Tank Troops Fedorenko

      application

      Central Committee of the CPSU (B.) - T. STALIN I.V.
      SNK of the USSR - T. MOLOTOV V.M.

      ABOUT THE STATUS OF TANKING

      According to your instructions, in December 1940, workers of the KO apparatus were sent to the following factories producing tanks and armor for them: Kirovsky, Izhorskiy and No. 174 (Leningrad), No. 183 and No. 75 (for detailed familiarization with the state of tank construction) Kharkov), Mariupol, STZ and No. 264 (Stalingrad) and No. 37 (Moscow).
      According to the data obtained by these workers, the qualitative condition of the new types of tanks and the implementation of the program is characterized by the following data:
      ... Tank "T-34" (plant number 183 of the NKSM, Kharkov)

      On 1.1.1941, the plant delivered 115 pieces to the Red Army. tanks "T-34" with an annual plan of 500 pcs.

      The delay in the production of T-34 at plant No. 183 was caused by the lack of technological process and the insufficient equipment of the production with devices, tools and equipment.

      Military tests carried out in October - December 1940 along the route Kharkov - Kubinka - Smolensk - Kiev - Kharkov - with a total length of about 3000 km, including 1000 km along the highway and 2000 km on various soils with overcoming natural obstacles showed that factory warranty mileage to overhaul of 2000 km not aged. Separate units of the tank are not strong enough and fail after 800-1200 km due to the following defects:
      a) disks of the main clutch are warped and fired;
      b) cast tracks of the track quickly wear out and break down;
      c) fan blades break;
      d) the gearbox is not strong enough and structurally not finalized, gears are difficult to shift, gear teeth are quickly activated, there are cases of gear jamming on the splines of the shafts.

      The visibility from the tank is unsatisfactory, the observation devices are located inconveniently, with a small viewing angle (53 ° from the tower) and it is impossible to clean them of dirt without leaving the tank.

      The ventilation of the tank’s fighting compartment is insufficient: after 12 rounds, the CO content is 0,5 mg / l with an allowable 0,1 mg / l, which can adversely affect the crew.

      It’s crowded in the tank’s tower, the ammunition is not worked out, which complicates the work of the crew and does not provide the required rate of fire. The Defense Committee, by its resolution of November 19.11.1940, 183, ordered the plant No. 34 of the NKSM to eliminate the shortcomings of the T-XNUMX tanks and to bring the overhaul mileage of the tank to 7000 km, and the chassis of the tank to 3000 km since February 1, 1941.
      1. Mavrikiy
        Mavrikiy 2 January 2018 09: 59
        +1
        And we are talking about the pace of life today. The war made it spin like a squirrel in a wheel. 1940 - 2000 km, 1946 - 6000 km. The Germans 1941 - TIV, 1945 - TVIB, we 1941 - KB2, 1945 - IS3. "Huge distances" Fighting - a multiplier of the development of thought.
        I think the Germans also run no higher than our 2000, but they climbed out due to the organization, discipline, training and experience of the crews.
        Yes, and materiel (in terms of workmanship) HTZ and Skoda ....
        But to bring the overhaul mileage of the tank to 7000 km, and the chassis of the tank to 3000 km from February 1, 1941. it’s from the great mind of the big bosses.
        We write 7, we get 3. Perhaps the head will remain intact.
        1. Kot_Kuzya
          Kot_Kuzya 2 January 2018 10: 26
          0
          The Germans also had problems with the resource of tanks. For example, with the Anschluss of Austria, a lot of T-1s and T-2s were sidelined due to breakdowns, so with the Anschluss of the Sudetenland and the Czech Republic, the Germans carried tanks on transporters. This then, taking into account the experience of the Anschluss, the Germans brought their T-3 t T-4 to a resource of 5000 km. And before the Anschluss, their T-1 and T-2 rarely ran 500 km without breaking.
  18. Alf
    Alf 1 January 2018 22: 55
    +1
    Cherry nine,
    Pak40 is November 41st,

    The Pak-40 went into production in November of the 41st, but mass production was established only in February of the 42nd. She began to enter the front only in March-April of the 42nd.
    1. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine 1 January 2018 23: 37
      0
      Quote: Alf
      She began to enter the front only in March-April of the 42nd.

      I agree. Let's move to the 42nd summer-autumn company. Blau.
  19. Kot_Kuzya
    Kot_Kuzya 2 January 2018 03: 38
    0
    Cherry nine,
    Was Tukhach a “talented” general? What about his shameful defeat at the Vistula in 1920? Draped from the Poles to Minsk. Blucher, who destroyed the Special Far Eastern Army, is also a "talented" general? I think that few of them were cleaned by Stalin. Take the same Pavlov, who stupidly merged the Western Special Military District. If there was another general in his place, if we took at least the same Zhukov, Rokossovsky, Tymoshenko, then there would not have been such a catastrophe as there was in Belarus.
    The fault of 4 years as a shot person? Oh well.

    Millions died due to a lack of air defense systems, the construction of which began only in 1938, and mass production only began in 1940. This was followed by boilers in which millions of Soviet soldiers and commanders were welded in 1941, and the siege of Leningrad, in which a million died Leningraders from cold and hunger.
    Almost everyone went this way. Reasonable people in the end screwed anti-aircraft guns. It turned out right WOW how cool. The idea was screwed up in the USSR.

    And who? Only in Germany and the USSR did the swinging part of anti-aircraft guns be made by anti-aircraft missiles and tank guns. The Yankees and the Britons separately designed anti-tank missiles and the guns of their tanks.
    I will tell you more. If in the USSR, at least, there was no doubt about the tower, then partners until the middle of the war strove to stick a gun in the face, then in the corner of the hull.

    Oh really? Only General Lee comes to mind. From February 1942, the Yankees began mass production of Sherman, and the British had long ago produced only single-turret tanks without guns on the hull.
    Stupidity.
    This DRP has a cumulative shell. Without cumulative shells, DRPs are useless.
    1. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine 2 January 2018 04: 21
      0
      Quote: Kot_Kuzya
      Was Tukhach a “talented” general?

      Colleague, who are you talking to? I didn’t appreciate Tukhachevsky’s military talent, I don’t understand anything about this.
      Quote: Kot_Kuzya
      There would be another general instead, take at least the same Zhukov, Rokossovsky, Tymoshenko, then such a disaster,

      Unfortunately, who should be taken and who not, it became clear to the 44th year. It was high time for some to be brought before the tribunal, and they were all taken and taken. Here is at least D. MacArthur to take.
      Quote: Kot_Kuzya
      came around with boilers in which millions of Soviet soldiers and commanders were welded in 1941, and the blockade of Leningrad, in which a million Leningraders died from cold and hunger.

      And all because of poor air defense? Wow.
      Quote: Kot_Kuzya
      The Yankees and the Britons separately designed anti-tank missiles and the guns of their tanks.

      You just do not know. The English 3,7-match was the final Fri before the appearance of the 17 pound, although she did not have such vivid episodes as the aht-aht. As for the Americans, their 76, 90, and after the war and 120 mm anti-aircraft guns became the main tank and anti-tank guns above six-pound.
      Quote: Kot_Kuzya
      Only General Lee comes to mind.

      I say, you are not in the subject. B1 and Churchill. Therefore, it didn’t seem strange to the Americans at the first moment.
      Quote: Kot_Kuzya
      started mass production of Sherman,

      Well, so in the USSR they tied up with multi-tower in the 40th.
      Quote: Kot_Kuzya
      the British had already produced

      About six months later they abandoned the howitzers on Churchill.
      Quote: Kot_Kuzya
      Without cumulative shells, DRPs are useless.

      Useless as a PT? Maybe you need to watch the test results.
      1. Kot_Kuzya
        Kot_Kuzya 2 January 2018 06: 30
        +1
        Quote: Cherry Nine
        And all because of poor air defense? Wow.

        Of course! It is no secret that the main factor in German success in 1941 was air supremacy. German planes shot and bombed Soviet troops with march and convoys, railway trains, stations and bridges with almost impunity, knocked down plans for the supply of supplies and reinforcements.
        1. Cherry Nine
          Cherry Nine 2 January 2018 11: 35
          +1
          Quote: Kot_Kuzya
          the main factor in German success in 1941 was air supremacy

          Colleague, you say so strange things that I start to suspect you of a troll. The factors of the disaster of the 41st year were a million, all the main ones, but the dominance of backlashes was not among them. Because there was no domination. Excellence yes, it was.
          And it is impossible to protect transport columns with artillery. On the other hand, storming them with backlashes was also nothing special.
          1. Kot_Kuzya
            Kot_Kuzya 2 January 2018 21: 45
            +1
            I can suspect a troll in you. It is impossible to deny the influence of the superiority of the Luftwaffe in the successes of the Germans in 1941.
            Quote: Cherry Nine
            And it is impossible to protect transport columns with artillery

            Four DShK anti-aircraft mounts and single 37-mm anti-aircraft guns could well, as proved by the M15 and M17 Lend-Lease.
            Quote: Cherry Nine
            On the other hand, storming them with backlashes was also nothing special.

            How is it nothing? What about the Yu-87? Yes, and Me-109 also shot them with impunity during the "free hunt."
            1. Cherry Nine
              Cherry Nine 2 January 2018 22: 56
              0
              Quote: Kot_Kuzya
              the influence of superiority

              и
              Quote: Kot_Kuzya
              the main factor in German success in 1941 was air supremacy

              This nifiga is not equivalent expression. Understand what you mean, please.
              Quote: Kot_Kuzya
              Four DShK anti-aircraft mounts and single 37-mm anti-aircraft guns could well, as proved by the M15 and M17 Lend-Lease.

              These settings somehow depicted object Air defense, with moderate success. They stood still. Protect a convoy or artillery defense train in move impossible.
              And by the way, the quad machine gun against the thing - the idea is so-so. Messer, who is dead of boredom and impunity, may drive him away.
              Quote: Kot_Kuzya
              What about the Yu-87?

              Is the stormtrooper thing? In the 41st? And how many of them, by the way, were on the whole theater, were not interested?
              1. Kot_Kuzya
                Kot_Kuzya 2 January 2018 23: 07
                0
                The Germans had precisely air supremacy. And due to the lack of air targets, German fighters shot Soviet columns, both military and refugee columns.
                Yu-87 was precisely an attack aircraft, the Germans used it as an attack aircraft. By June 1941, the Luftwaffe had about a thousand U-87s. For your information, the Germans did not have an analogue of the IL-2, so the Yu-87 attacked the Soviet troops. In total, Yu-87 of all modifications was released about 6500 pieces. Xsh-129 began to be produced in 1942, and few were produced, only 865 pieces. Toward the end of the war, when Soviet aviation had already gained air superiority, the FV-190s were converted into attack aircraft, strengthening their reservations and making them easier by removing part of the guns, making it possible to hang bombs on them.
                1. Town Hall
                  Town Hall 2 January 2018 23: 23
                  0
                  Quote: Kot_Kuzya
                  Yu-87 was an attack aircraft, the Germans used it as an attack aircraft


                  The Germans used the Yu-87 rather as a long-range high-precision artillery. Mostly they cleared the way for tank wedges.
                  At defense nodes interfered with the advancement of tanks. They didn’t attack the marching columns.


                  Quote: Kot_Kuzya
                  By June 1941, the Luftwaffe had about a thousand U-87s.


                  Are you sure? On the summer of the 41st? .. on the Soviet-German front?
                  1. Kot_Kuzya
                    Kot_Kuzya 2 January 2018 23: 28
                    0
                    By June 1941, about 1800 U-87s of all modifications were produced. Losses in the Polish and French campaigns, as well as in the battle for Britain, Yu-87 were relatively small, so that 1000 Yu-87 by June 22, 1941 is the minimum figure.
                    1. Town Hall
                      Town Hall 2 January 2018 23: 37
                      +1
                      Quote: Kot_Kuzya
                      By June 1941, about 1800 U-87s of all modifications were produced. Losses in the Polish and French campaigns, as well as in the battle for Britain, Yu-87 were relatively small, so that 1000 Yu-87 by June 22, 1941 is the minimum figure.



                      do not write numbers from the ceiling ....

                      "... Despite the differences in the production of" Stuck ", their number in Luftwaffe aircraft parts remained almost unchanged. By the time of the German attack on the USSR on June 22, 1941, the Germans managed to assemble 324 diving Ju 87 bomber from the Soviet borders, of which 233 were combat-ready. This is less than during the invasion of France ... "



                      "... At the time of the invasion, the 8th air corps included headquarters, I. and III./ StGl with 77 aircraft (57 combat-ready), headquarters, I. and III./StG2 with 83 aircraft (46 combat-ready). 2- The 77st air corps had headquarters, I., P., and III./StG122 with 94 aircraft (2 combat-ready). All formations were part of General Kesselring's 5nd air fleet of Army Group Center. In the north in Norway, in the 42th air 87 Ju-36 (29 combat-ready) from IV (St.) / LGl (as of June 33 - 87 Ju-39R under the command of Captain A. Blazig), 20 on June 1941, 77 "pieces" from I. / SIG50 arrived at the airport of Biala Podlask 2 km from the border with the USSR in the Brest region. The main task of the group in the early days of the fighting on the Eastern Front was to support from the air the XNUMXnd tank group of General G. Guderian ... "
                      1. Kot_Kuzya
                        Kot_Kuzya 2 January 2018 23: 46
                        +1
                        That is, the Yu-87 were only in Army Group Center and in the north of Norway? lol
                        Only from June 1940 to July 1941 was released 616 Yu-87. It turns out that the Germans carefully stored them on a "rainy day"?
                    2. Cherry Nine
                      Cherry Nine 3 January 2018 00: 21
                      0
                      Quote: Kot_Kuzya
                      1000 Yu-87 by June 22, 1941 is the minimum figure.

                      Colleague, who has bothered you to count things in terms of output, when you can just take and find out how many there were in the East? They are, as it were, all read.
                      A little more than 300. 42 (33 combat-ready) in the 5th fleet at Stumpf in Norway (which was so far as to Barbarossa). All the rest are in the second fleet of Kesselring. 7 groups in 3 StG. Less than 200 combat-ready vehicles from the Baltic to the Danube Delta.
                      Quote: Kot_Kuzya
                      it was air supremacy

                      The Germans, purely physically, could not gain dominance in a theater of this size by such forces. Dominance is when aviation deprives a maneuver of ground forces. France 44. There has never been such a thing in the East.
                      Quote: Kot_Kuzya
                      Yu-87 was an attack aircraft,

                      Sorry to upset you, but no. As an attack aircraft, it was used much later, unsuccessfully and not for long.
                      Quote: Kot_Kuzya
                      For your information, the Germans did not have an analogue of the IL-2,

                      Thank you, colleague, but I was already a little interested in this topic. It seems to be a guess.
                  2. Dalailama
                    Dalailama 3 January 2018 00: 58
                    0
                    Quote: Town Hall
                    The Germans used the Yu-87 rather as a long-range high-precision artillery. Mostly they cleared the way for tank wedges.
                    At defense nodes interfered with the advancement of tanks. They didn’t attack the marching columns.

                    All were engaged, mainly knocking out VET. On the battlefield, of course.
  20. Amurets
    Amurets 2 January 2018 05: 56
    +2
    Kot_Kuzya,
    Quote: Kot_Kuzya
    That dynamo-guns cannot be anti-tank due to their low initial velocity!

    Even Stalin said about recoilless guns and the work of Kurchevsky: "Together with the water they threw out the child." The anti-tank capabilities of the guns depend on the ammunition. Both in the years of WWII and after it, DRPs were used as anti-tank, using cumulative ammunition. Here is a review of recoillessness: https://topwar.ru/?newsid=42747
    Quote: Kot_Kuzya
    Do you approve of Tukhach, who raved with universal divisional cannons and who cut down all attempts to develop small-caliber anti-aircraft machine guns of the division level and attempts to mass-produce large-caliber machine guns for the battalion and regimental levels?

    Work on anti-aircraft guns was not chopped by Tukhachevsky, but by scammers No. 8 of the Kalinin factory. Shirokorad. "Anti-aircraft guns" TiV No. 10 of 1996.
    1. Kot_Kuzya
      Kot_Kuzya 2 January 2018 06: 37
      0
      If they wanted to, they would start making normal, appropriate guns. Only now they abandoned the fine-tuning of the MZA, concentrating all their forces on the development of a 76-mm universal anti-aircraft gun. For example, the machine gun DK was adopted in 1931, they were released only a few dozen pieces, and in 1935 they stopped production altogether. And only in 1938, when Tukhach was no longer there, they were given the task of remaking the recreation center for belt power, and in 1939 they adopted the DShK, and in 1940 they launched its mass production. But before the war, they were released very few, only about 2 thousand pieces. And if the Palace of Culture would be remade into the Children's Palace of Culture in 1932 and would begin its mass production in 1933? How many pieces would they release before the start of the war? I think that by the beginning of the war the troops would have been fully provided with heavy machine guns.
      1. Amurets
        Amurets 2 January 2018 08: 09
        +2
        Quote: Kot_Kuzya
        If they wanted to, they would start making normal, appropriate guns. Only now they abandoned the fine-tuning of the MZA, concentrating all their forces on the development of a 76-mm universal anti-aircraft gun.

        About DShK, so there they did without Tukhachevsky.
        Understanding your dissatisfaction with MZA, I can only say one thing: still read that article the link to which I gave you above. For some reason, the Bofors, Rheinmetals and Ericksons worked all over the world, but those produced under license at Kalinin Plant No. 8 in Podlipki refused to work. By universal and semi-universal guns? They were not affiliated with MZA. And different factories and design bureaus were engaged in them. Specifically, the design bureau of the Krasny Putilovets factory — a universal gun and the GKB-38 — a semi-universal gun, and which subsequently came out with the F-22 gun. Tukhachevsky has done many miracles, but you don’t have to hang everything on him.
        1. Kot_Kuzya
          Kot_Kuzya 2 January 2018 08: 51
          0
          For some reason, it was after the removal of Tukhach that they began to design and produce 37-mm anti-aircraft guns, DShK machine guns, tanks with bulletproof armor, normal divisions of the SPM, technical projections ceased, etc.
          1. Amurets
            Amurets 2 January 2018 10: 40
            +2
            Quote: Kot_Kuzya
            For some reason, after the removal of Tukhach,

            I got the impression that Tukhachevsky is your personal enemy. You just can’t understand that there were others besides Tukhachevsky. Yes, Tukhachevsky set the technical policy as deputy commissar of the Red Army for armaments, but he fulfilled the orders of the Main Military Mobilization Directorate of the People's Commissariat of Heavy Industry of the USSR. And led NKTP and VSNH Ordzhonikidze. And they took up the defense industry during the Civil War in Spain. It was she who showed the vulnerability of our tanks from the VET. It was then that the first tank with T-46-5 / T-111 bulletproof armor was created
            1. Kot_Kuzya
              Kot_Kuzya 2 January 2018 11: 05
              +1
              No, he is not my personal enemy. But it can be seen from it that it was because of him that our troops were left without 37-mm cannons and 12,7-mm machine guns. He also blames the "universal" guns and the refusal to design cannons under machine guns. In the USSR, at the beginning of the war, heavy machine guns would be extremely useful!
          2. Cherry Nine
            Cherry Nine 2 January 2018 11: 49
            +1
            Quote: Kot_Kuzya
            began to design and produce 37-mm anti-aircraft guns, DShK machine guns, tanks with bullet-proof armor, normal USV guns

            Everything that you listed was “started to design” or completely discussed under Tukhachevsky. Accents yes, perhaps, have changed.
            1. 4thParasinok
              4thParasinok 12 January 2018 20: 13
              0
              Quote: Cherry Nine
              Everything that you listed was “started to design” or completely discussed under Tukhachevsky. Accents yes, perhaps, have changed.
              you look for the dates of the execution of Tukhachevsky and the beginning of work on these topics, be surprised.
      2. Alf
        Alf 3 January 2018 00: 14
        +1
        Quote: Kot_Kuzya
        If they wanted to, they would start making normal, appropriate guns.

        To want and to be able are completely different things. BS until the end of the 42nd year shot with constant delays. Why? Could not bring the technological chain. Wildly lacked machine tools, tools, skilled workers.
  21. Alf
    Alf 2 January 2018 22: 29
    0
    Kot_Kuzya,
    Quote: Kot_Kuzya
    In which country did ..and fighter troika take?

    In Britain. Take an interest in the structure of the FACC fighter aircraft.
  22. Town Hall
    Town Hall 2 January 2018 23: 56
    0
    Quote: Kot_Kuzya
    That is, the Yu-87 were only in Army Group Center and in the north of Norway? lol
    Only from June 1940 to July 1941 was released 616 Yu-87. It turns out that the Germans carefully stored them on a "rainy day"?



    You have very poor knowledge of this topic. It can be said to be near-zero. Explore the question and talk
    1. Kot_Kuzya
      Kot_Kuzya 3 January 2018 00: 06
      +1
      Clear. You can’t argue where 616 released after the French U-87 campaign disappeared.
      1. Town Hall
        Town Hall 3 January 2018 00: 18
        +1
        Quote: Kot_Kuzya
        Clear. You can’t argue where 616 released after the French U-87 campaign disappeared.



        I can of course. A person with at least minimal knowledge on the topic.

        Between June 40 and June 41, the Yu-87s were heavily used in the Battle of Britain, the attacks of British ships in the North Sea, the Covoys in the Mediterranean Sea, the bombing of Malta, the capture of Crete, the war in North Africa, the campaign in Yugoslavia and Greece.



        They were also written off in accidents and simply for technical reasons.
        1. Kot_Kuzya
          Kot_Kuzya 3 January 2018 00: 19
          0
          Are there any loss figures? Can you bring?
          1. Town Hall
            Town Hall 3 January 2018 00: 22
            0
            Educate yourself on health.


            http://www.airpages.ru/lw/ju87bp.shtml
            1. Dalailama
              Dalailama 3 January 2018 00: 53
              0
              Strange and who bombed Odessa and Sevastopol from a dive? Really flew from the "Center"? In the north, they forgot about Finland.
              1. Town Hall
                Town Hall 3 January 2018 01: 03
                0
                Quote: DalaiLama
                Strange and who bombed Odessa and Sevastopol from a dive? Really flew from the "Center"? In the north, they forgot about Finland.



                Nothing strange. This is the usual German tactics of using aviation in that war. In many respects it was forced due to a shortage of aircraft. The maximum concentration of everything that flies only in the most important directions. In June of the 41st, this is the Army Group Center. In September, when there was a pause, they threw it on Lennangrad and Kiev. in October, again in the center.
                1. Dalailama
                  Dalailama 3 January 2018 01: 08
                  0
                  Well, who then had enough aircraft so it was with them, and on June 22 they threw all that was against the USSR.
              2. Cherry Nine
                Cherry Nine 3 January 2018 01: 24
                0
                Quote: DalaiLama
                forgot about Finland.

                The Finns did not have a single StG, only in the 5th fleet in Norway.
                And in Sevastopol - you will find out which StG, see where it is registered. What is the problem?
                1. Dalailama
                  Dalailama 3 January 2018 01: 28
                  0
                  Did they fly from Norway to Petrozavodsk and Leningrad?
                  1. Cherry Nine
                    Cherry Nine 3 January 2018 06: 35
                    0
                    Quote: DalaiLama
                    They storm from Norway to Petrozavodsk and

                    Storm, of course not, bombing happened. In Karelia, it seems, yes, I don’t know about Leningrad.
                    1. Dalailama
                      Dalailama 3 January 2018 06: 47
                      0
                      The assault is not necessarily from the guns, which he also had.
          2. Dalailama
            Dalailama 3 January 2018 01: 14
            0
            By the time of the attack on the USSR, more than 1900 U-87 aircraft were produced, the author suggests that we believe that almost all of them were lost in secondary sectors of the war.
            1. Cherry Nine
              Cherry Nine 3 January 2018 01: 22
              0
              Quote: DalaiLama
              the author invites us to believe

              You see, colleague. Your problem with the cat is that people in the material are categorically not interested in looking for your 600 cars. Backlash until the 45th year with reporting had all the rules, so that data on the participation of a particular machine in a particular operation is taken as is. Do not want to - do not believe it.
              And where did the cars that were not in the East go to - dig yourself.
              1. Dalailama
                Dalailama 3 January 2018 01: 29
                0
                Strongly do not want to.
                It is so normal that when torpedoing the Tirpitz K-21, then in all the ship's magazines there were not enough pages.
                1. Cherry Nine
                  Cherry Nine 3 January 2018 06: 33
                  0
                  Quote: DalaiLama
                  Strongly do not want to.

                  See
                  Quote: DalaiLama
                  when torpedoing Tirpitz K-21

                  We don’t know about the Junkers, will we go with Tirpa? Oh well.
                  1. Dalailama
                    Dalailama 3 January 2018 06: 36
                    0
                    We all know. And about what you need to look for not 600 but 1900 (minus losses).
                    About Tirpitz, too, it is clear that I do not want to.
  23. Alf
    Alf 3 January 2018 00: 09
    0
    Cherry nine,
    Squadron of 9 cars. We must do 10. We must take the tenth pilot somewhere. Where? Rip the adjacent squadron. Where to get technicians for the 10th aircraft? From there. And the squadron of the remaining eight where to go? Derban it further or supplement to ten? The chain is long and it is rather difficult and long to change it. And as for the reason, since the beginning of the 42nd KBF pilots began to fly in pairs, but not because of tactical sophistication, there simply weren’t enough airplanes.
    1. Town Hall
      Town Hall 3 January 2018 00: 24
      0
      Quote: Alf
      Squadron of 9 cars. We must do 10. We must take the tenth pilot somewhere. Where? Rip the adjacent squadron.



      When all the same switched to “couples” how did you solve the problem? ... pulled the neighboring squadron or in another way?
      1. Alf
        Alf 3 January 2018 19: 23
        0
        Quote: Town Hall
        Quote: Alf
        Squadron of 9 cars. We must do 10. We must take the tenth pilot somewhere. Where? Rip the adjacent squadron.

        When all the same switched to “couples” how did you solve the problem? ... pulled the neighboring squadron or in another way?

        Nobody says that this cannot be done, just for this it took time and the information collected.
        1. Town Hall
          Town Hall 3 January 2018 19: 53
          0
          Quote: Alf
          Nobody says that this cannot be done, just for this it took time and the information collected.



          In front-line realities, a fully-staffed squadron / regiment was an exception to the rule and not a rule. So that was not the problem
    2. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine 3 January 2018 00: 33
      0
      Quote: Alf
      Squadron of 9 cars. Need to do 10

      A colleague, it’s ridiculous to say, but pairs are, in fact, “four fingers”. So do not find the 10th, but remove the 9th.
      1. Alf
        Alf 3 January 2018 19: 26
        0
        Quote: Cherry Nine
        Quote: Alf
        Squadron of 9 cars. Need to do 10

        A colleague, it’s ridiculous to say, but pairs are, in fact, “four fingers”. So do not find the 10th, but remove the 9th.

        True, but then on the 9th, where to put it? To the next squadron? But there will be 10, also not a standard. As I said above, all this could be done and was done, but for this it took time and understanding what, where and when.
        1. Cherry Nine
          Cherry Nine 3 January 2018 19: 37
          0
          Quote: Alf
          but then on the 9th, where to go?

          The Germans resolved the issue. And even with tremendous bust.

          Colleague, your considerations are reasonable for peacetime. In wartime, another math.
          1. Alf
            Alf 3 January 2018 19: 40
            0
            Quote: Cherry Nine
            Colleague, your considerations are reasonable for peacetime. In wartime, another math.

            I will not argue, accumulated and switched.
  24. Alf
    Alf 3 January 2018 00: 10
    0
    Kot_Kuzya,
    North Africa, Britain.
    1. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine 3 January 2018 00: 42
      0
      And a lot of training machines. Rudels on trees do not grow.
      1. Dalailama
        Dalailama 3 January 2018 00: 51
        0
        Rudel’s car is better than a training one and immediately planted on a tree
        1. Cherry Nine
          Cherry Nine 3 January 2018 01: 17
          0
          Quote: DalaiLama
          immediately planted on a tree.

          Well, one was found, and we’ll find another 615)))
          1. Dalailama
            Dalailama 3 January 2018 01: 25
            0
            It was about what it’s growing on and what it is in terms of flying skills.
      2. Town Hall
        Town Hall 3 January 2018 00: 53
        0
        More supplies to the allies. Italy alone, about 200
        1. Dalailama
          Dalailama 3 January 2018 01: 24
          0
          She then did not fight against the USSR?
          1. Cherry Nine
            Cherry Nine 3 January 2018 06: 29
            +1
            Quote: DalaiLama
            She then did not fight against the USSR?

            By these machines? It seems not.
            1. Dalailama
              Dalailama 3 January 2018 06: 33
              0
              Which else? Why not?
              1. Cherry Nine
                Cherry Nine 3 January 2018 19: 27
                +3
                Quote: DalaiLama
                Which else? Why not?

                Again Twitter ran their social equivalence to propagate.
                1. Dalailama
                  Dalailama 4 January 2018 01: 04
                  0
                  It would be with anyone.
              2. Alf
                Alf 3 January 2018 19: 27
                0
                Quote: DalaiLama
                Which else? Why not?

                Show at least one photo of the Stuck with tricolor in the USSR.
                1. Dalailama
                  Dalailama 4 January 2018 01: 04
                  0
                  The fact that you have not seen such something proves?
                  1. Cherry Nine
                    Cherry Nine 4 January 2018 01: 57
                    +1
                    Quote: DalaiLama
                    The fact that you have not seen such something proves?

                    No, It is Immpossible.

                    They didn’t return the blacklist here, no one knows?
                    1. Dalailama
                      Dalailama 4 January 2018 02: 04
                      +1
                      Learn how to live with it somehow.
                  2. Alf
                    Alf 4 January 2018 18: 22
                    0
                    Quote: DalaiLama
                    The fact that you have not seen such something proves?

                    So show me, unknowing.
                    1. Dalailama
                      Dalailama 4 January 2018 19: 51
                      0
                      Please show a photo of all the lost Ju-87 from 1900 pcs. issued at that time?
                      1. Alf
                        Alf 4 January 2018 20: 14
                        0
                        Quote: DalaiLama
                        Please show a photo of all the lost Ju-87 from 1900 pcs. issued at that time?

                        And there is nothing to say ...
                    2. Dalailama
                      Dalailama 4 January 2018 20: 23
                      0
                      Quote: Alf

                      And there is nothing to say ...

                      Do you have voices?
                      Released by that time 1900, not 616. In the Battle of England, much less than 100 were lost and these losses were heavy, the plane was withdrawn from combat after August 18, 1940, left only for attacks on shipping.
  25. sd68
    sd68 3 January 2018 15: 28
    +1
    Already after the first acquaintance with the T-44, it became clear: "This is not a thirty-four." The smoothness and acceleration dynamics were significantly higher. "

    And how to explain it?
    T-34 and 44 weigh the same, they have the same engine, B-2 500 hp.
    And the dynamics of acceleration is significantly higher?
    What a revolution in technology?
    1. Alf
      Alf 3 January 2018 19: 32
      +1
      Quote: sd68
      Already after the first acquaintance with the T-44, it became clear: "This is not a thirty-four." The smoothness and acceleration dynamics were significantly higher. "

      And how to explain it?
      T-34 and 44 weigh the same, they have the same engine, B-2 500 hp.
      And the dynamics of acceleration is significantly higher?
      What a revolution in technology?

      Different running springs and torsion bars.
      A new B-44 engine with a capacity of 520 liters was used on the tank. with. and a new 5-speed gearbox. Due to the improved fuel equipment, it was possible to raise power by 20 liters. with. with the same cylinder volumes. Once again, after the T-18, a transverse engine layout was applied. In the tank’s transmission, a new unit was used to transfer force from the engine to a parallel-mounted gearbox - a “guitar”, a gearbox with a gear ratio of 0,7. Due to the fact that the number of revolutions increased, and the transmitted loads decreased, the gearbox was made lightweight and compact. A new type of air purifier was transferred from the collapse of the cylinders to the side. In place of the fan, which protruded beyond the dimensions of the crankcase, a compact flywheel was installed. The fan itself was shifted to the aft sheet. Oil and water radiators were placed horizontally under the cover of the transmission compartment in a uniform air stream. Such a cooling system was more efficient. The turning mechanism is through the onboard clutches, like the T-34.
      1. sd68
        sd68 3 January 2018 21: 02
        +1
        torsions have nothing to do with the dynamics of acceleration, they affect the ride, this is understandable, on the T-34 the suspension was a cave, everyone knows that.
        no fans have a relation to the thrust-to-weight ratio either, and the “guitar” worsens this indicator, since it reduces the transmission efficiency.
        The power of both variants of the V-2 engine is the same - 500 hp, if you believe the directories, even if there were an additional 4 percent increase in power, then they affected the acceleration dynamics only slightly, unless they compensated for the decrease in efficiency in the new gearbox.
        The question - how did it happen that "the acceleration dynamics were significantly higher" remains open
        1. Cherry Nine
          Cherry Nine 4 January 2018 00: 51
          +2
          Quote: sd68
          The question - how did it happen that "the acceleration dynamics were significantly higher" remains open

          It’s not very clear what doesn’t suit you.
          Firstly, an equipotent motor may have a better torque curve (this is a hunch).
          Secondly, the T-44 also had a five-speed, but another gearbox (this is a fact). A more successful selection of gear ratios could affect the dynamics much more than engine power. See above discussion of GMC 6046 vs B-2.
          1. sd68
            sd68 4 January 2018 13: 05
            +1
            with a torque curve - this is understandable, but the subtlety is that the maximum torque of a diesel engine is always shifted towards lower revs and the change range there is much lower than that of gasoline engines.
            The T34 has maximum torque at 1100-1200 rpm, there is not much to shift
            http://pro-tank.ru/teh-dok/tank-t-34-85-rukovodst
            vo? start = 2
            A tank is not a car, it is not actually operated in the entire speed range, so the question arises of how much something can be changed there by changing gear ratios in a gearbox with a 5-speed gearbox?
            Not to mention the fact that the T-34s were modernized, were they unable to find the optimal gear ratios?
            Gear numbers for the T-34 are here, unfortunately, I did not find the manual for the T-44, it would be interesting to compare gear ratios and revs at which the maximum torque is reached.
            1. Cherry Nine
              Cherry Nine 4 January 2018 14: 36
              +1
              Quote: sd68
              The T34 has maximum torque at 1100-1200 rpm, there is not much to shift

              I did not find data specifically for B-44, but judging by B-54, the characteristics in this regard did not change much. On the other hand, your link says (I honestly got out of my head) that the operational capacity of the V-2 was 400, not 500.
              Quote: sd68
              could not find the optimal gear ratios?

              No idea. Not only that, when the tester says, “This is not a thirty-four,” we don’t know which thirty-four he holds in his head for the standard, they come across very different.
              And the gear ratio, at least on-board friction clutches, the T-44 is different. I didn’t find a pro at once.

              PS. Post war engines

              Sp-wife from here
              http://otvaga2004.ru/na-zemle/na-zemle-1/bm-1945-
              1965_14 /
  26. Vadivak
    Vadivak 5 January 2018 21: 44
    +1
    Quote: Cherry Nine
    This argument does not honor you. In those years, many who paid with their lives.

    For which he fought and paid
    “Hostages are taken from among the most prominent people (priests, teachers, paramedics, etc.). Then the volost gathering gathers, on which orders for numbers 130 and 171 are read out, as well as the sentence of this volost. All its residents are given two hours to issue weapons and hiding bandits and their families. The entire population of the volost is informed that in case of refusal to extradite all hostages will be shot. If, after two hours, no weapons will be handed out and all those in question, then again, the gathering is reassembled and hostages are shot before the eyes of its participants. And it all starts all over again. ”
    Decree No. 116, author Tukhachevsky M.N.
    1. sd68
      sd68 5 January 2018 23: 57
      0
      Terror was official politics in those days, sometimes at the highest level.
      Decree of the SNK of the RSFSR of September 5.09.1918, XNUMX On the "Red Terror"
      The first chairman of the Revolutionary Tribunal of the RSFSR K. Danishevsky:
      “The military tribunals are not guided and should not be guided by any legal norms. These are punitive organs created in the course of the most intense revolutionary struggle. ”
      And what you quoted is an order of the Plenipotentiary Commission of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee, signed by the Chairman of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee, the famous Bolshevik, Antonov-Ovseenko.
      The arrests and executions of hostages by the Bolsheviks in those days were quite commonplace.
      Dzerzhinsky:
      "... the most effective is taking hostages among the bourgeoisie, based on the lists you compiled to collect the indemnity imposed on the bourgeoisie ... arrest and imprisonment of all hostages and suspects in concentration camps"
      Lenin complements this proposal:
      "I suggest that you take no" hostages ", but appoint them by name on the volosts. The purpose of the appointment is precisely the rich, since they are responsible for indemnification, are responsible for the immediate collection and dumping of excess bread in each volost"
      Tukhachevsky was no better and no worse than others in this matter.
      1. Cherry Nine
        Cherry Nine 6 January 2018 05: 01
        0
        Quote: sd68
        Tukhachevsky was no better and no worse than others in this matter.

        + + + + +
  27. Kostadinov
    Kostadinov 8 January 2018 11: 38
    0
    Quote: sd68
    Terror was official politics in those days, sometimes at the highest level.

    This applies to two parties in the civil war, as well as to foreign invaders who, for some reason, acted only against the Reds.
    The only difference is that the first beat terror against the Reds, and they only responded to terror with terror.
    1. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine 8 January 2018 15: 20
      0
      Quote: Kostadinov
      the first beat terror against the Reds

      Joke, thanks.
  28. 4thParasinok
    4thParasinok 10 January 2018 23: 13
    0
    After the war, tanker - front-line soldier Rem Ulanov (the site “I Remember”) had to test the T-1947 in 48–44. The Main Armored Directorate decided to conduct life tests of the T-44. Three new cars were allocated

    You can not read further as the tank tests were carried out in the spring and summer of 1944, including the military, at the front. what resource tests are involved if the 47th was already adopted by the T-54?
    The article is a fat minus. When will such insidious scribblers be banned?
  29. E.S.A.
    E.S.A. 20 June 2018 09: 11
    +1
    Quote: svp67
    Quote: Kot_Kuzya
    If the T-50 went into production, then the cost would fall to 90-100 thousand rubles.

    Perhaps, but the trouble is, by this moment it would be hopelessly outdated and it would have to be changed on the conveyor ....

    They would just replace the 45-mm cannon from the tank analogue of 53-K with the M-42, and then with the ZIS-4 (analogue of the ZIS-2) - and we could continue to fight.
    1. 4thParasinok
      4thParasinok 27 January 2019 17: 06
      0
      Quote: E.S.A.
      Only...
      I agree completely, especially considering that even with the original gun he could fight on equal terms against the Pz-4. Do not forget that the T-50 had dimensions less than that of the T-34, with it equal protection from shells and a full-fledged commander, and not a gunner of the acting commander as on his older brother. The only thing when using ZiS-4 would have to either abandon the commander’s turret, or make a new tower. At the same time, do not forget that there was more space inside the T-50 than in the T-34, and the torsion bar suspension was originally designed for frontal and side armor of 55 mm (this was exactly the one on the prototype). It was reduced at the request of the customer.
      1. Axel Pervolianinen
        Axel Pervolianinen 23 June 2019 11: 12
        0
        1.Bt-4 could also fight with the 7th, with the correct tactical actions. There are examples on the same wiki. The concept of "equals" is very relative ...
        2. T-50 on the body is a more complex machine. And to build up armored protection would not work. Cemented armor In itself, it is difficult to manufacture as well as subsequent assembly (German tanks were not just angular, this is a simplification of assembly).
        3. The engine. This is a major pain. B-2 mastered and put on bt-7m, 34, apt, Voroshilovite. But half of the V-4 is another engine. Pollution of the halves from the V-shaped does not pass painlessly.
        4. Only here with 55 mm of armor did this tank turn out to be overloaded ... Yes, and I doubt much about the more spacious one. The tank was frankly very cramped.
        5. At the time of creation, 50 had already exhausted the possibilities for modernization. And it is not realistic to reduce the cost of the tank at all (replacing bent sheets of cemented armor with castings as in 34 will not work, or the protection will suffer or the mass is 1.5 years old, and the suspension and engine are already at the limit ...