Military Review

The "indestructible locust" broke through the blockade

89
The "indestructible locust" broke through the blockadeRecently, in the archive of the former Moscow tank-building enterprise, which is already 101 years old, an unpublished manuscript of the armored vehicles designer, Hero of Socialist Labor, Doctor of Technical Sciences Nikolai Astrov was found, who in two weeks in August 1941 at the Moscow Tank Plant No. 37 created the first Russian small gun in metal tank T-60. The designer noted in the manuscript: “From the autumn of 1941 to March 1942, more than 6 thousand were surrendered to the Red Army. tanks T-60. " This is the second largest tank after the T-34, released in the Great Patriotic War. "Baby" and her designer are undeservedly ignored in the domestic military stories, and some experts even criticize T-60, nicknamed the Wehrmacht by the "ineradicable locust" for allegedly low combat qualities.


In the manuscript, Nikolai Astrov writes that T-60s were produced by tank factories in Moscow, Gorky, Sverdlovsk, Sarept, Kirov. In the Red Army, the tank was called "baby." However, despite the size, the combat vehicle was “toothy” and effective. He was the first of light and amphibious tanks to be armed with an automatic aviation a ShVAK or TNSh cannon of 20 mm caliber and a DT machine gun of 7,62 mm caliber, protected from bullets and fragments of rolled, high hardness armor. Already in September 1941, the tank was adopted and began to be mass-produced at factory number 37 (now NIIDAR) in Moscow. On November 7, 40 T-60 tanks participated in a parade on Red Square. He proved himself well in the battle of Moscow as an infantry support tank, reconnaissance. The War Council of the Western Front expressed gratitude to Plant No. 37.

In 1942, the T-60 was shipped by river and Ladoga Lake camouflaged from fascist aviation on barges with coal. In the besieged Leningrad, the front command set up an 61 Tank Brigade of Colonel V. Khrustitsky. In the area of ​​the Novosaratov colony near Shlisselburg, where the enemy did not look through our defenses, in early January, 1943, under the leadership of Marshal Clement Voroshilov, underwent exercises to overcome the wide Neva on ice. Under the ice failed average T-34. For heavy KV-1, the teachings were canceled. Two T-60 quickly overcame the water barrier and easily reached the high, icy opposite bank of the river. The commander of the Leningrad Front, Colonel-General Leonid Govorov, ordered the 61 Brigade to force the Neva River, to overcome the ice-covered high bank of the specially-bathed German sappers, and to break through the long-term defense of the enemy troops.

On the night of January 12, 1943, our troops concentrated in the area from Shlisselburg to Nevskaya Dubrovka. The first to attack in a number of breakout areas on the ice went 140 light T-60. The Germans did not expect the Soviet troops to deliver the main attack against 1, 2 towns, Marino, near Shlisselburg, where their defenses passed along the steep, drenched waters and the frozen banks of the Neva. Before the T-60 battalions, the Germans set up a barrage of artillery and mortar fire. However, the "little ones" broke through the river and stepped onto a steep bank, firing at enemy positions from aircraft cannons and machine guns. The tank crews of the 61 Brigade suffered heavy losses, but reached the main point: for some time the enemy forces were distracted from the main grouping of troops, which under heavy fire with great difficulty, but reached the bank of the Neva and on January 12 captured two isolated from each other small bridgeheads . One on the site 2-th Town, Marino on the front of 5 km and depth of 3 km. The other is in the area of ​​Moscow Dubrovka along the front of 2,5 km and into the depth of 1,5 km. The seizure of these bridgeheads allowed the engineers of the 67 Army in the evening of January 12 to begin building an ice crossing for medium and heavy tanks. At this time, the 45-I Guards Rifle Division, with the remnants of the 118-th separate tank battalion T-60, sought to expand the bridgehead opposite Nevskaya Dubrovka. To support the 941 Infantry Regiment of the 268 Infantry Division, the 86 Tank Battalion T-60 was sent. By five o'clock in the evening of January 12, units of this division, together with the tank crews of the 61 Brigade, captured the points of Dacha, Garage and continued the offensive. The 136 Infantry Division, which was given the 548 Tank Battalion T-60, was a success.

On January 18, units of the 86 Rifle Division and tank crews of the 61 Tank Brigade liberated Shlisselburg. For their heroism and successful fighting, the “babies” brigade was later transformed into the 30 Guards Tank Brigade.

The chief designer of the Moscow Plant No. 37, Nikolai Astrov, creating this light tank in October 1941, may have already assumed the further development of a similar type of armored armament. The photo of the wartime from the factory archive of T-60 clearly shows the contours of the future airborne assault vehicle (BMD), which was later created at the defense plant in Mytishchi by the designer and scientist Nikolai Astrov.

Today, the only in Russia copy of the light T-60 produced in 1941 in Moscow at plant number 37 (the current NIIDAR) is located in the Armored Museum in Kubinka near Moscow. Unfortunately, in the national military history, the role and importance of the domestic light tanks in the Great Patriotic War have practically not been studied and are not highlighted. On the battlefield, the trained T-60 crews were effective and formidable light combat vehicles for Wehrmacht infantry and equipment.
Author:
Originator:
http://nvo.ng.ru/history/2018-01-26/11_981_sarancha.html
89 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. svp67
    svp67 27 January 2018 07: 11
    11
    T-60 - the ersatz tank, which was able to temporarily compensate for the loss of tanks and fill our tank troops with equipment, but it was immediately clear that the tank was weak in all its technical and combat characteristics. And you can once again be amazed at the courage of our people who went to battle on the "babies."
    1. Amurets
      Amurets 27 January 2018 08: 12
      10
      Quote: svp67
      T-60 - the ersatz tank, which was able to temporarily compensate for the loss of tanks and fill our tank troops with equipment, but it was immediately clear that the tank was weak in all its technical and combat characteristics.

      However, these found their place in the weapons system of the Red Army: In the weapons system of the armored units of the Red Army, small - with a weight of up to 6 tons - machine-gun tanks were always foreseen. They were intended primarily for front-line reconnaissance with the possibility of overcoming natural obstacles encountered, as well as for fighting assault forces, infantry and cavalry of the enemy, military guard and escort of mechanized convoys, and finally, for communication. Modest bullet-proof armor protection, weak armament - usually one machine gun - and the small number of crews were compensated by mobility, small dimensions, especially height, and good patency due to low ground pressure, and often the ability to swim. Away. Light tanks T-40 and T-60
      1. antivirus
        antivirus 27 January 2018 21: 36
        +1
        cavalry guards century short-lived ...
      2. Mikado
        Mikado 27 January 2018 23: 50
        +6
        In the photo of the military pore from the factory archive at T-60, the contours of the future landing assault vehicle (BMD) are clearly visible, which was subsequently created at the defense enterprise in Mytishchi by designer and scientist Nikolai Astrov.

        read briefly about Astrov and about BMD, nowhere to find a relationship. Speculation. Nikolay,
        Moreover, the author could at least give an example from Wikipedia about the T-60:
        Bursting ahead, at dawn on January 18 at Workers' Village No. 5, they noticed three tanks. The Volkhovites wanted to jump out of the car, run towards them, but saw that it was Hitler’s tanks that were launching a counterattack. What to do? It is pointless to start a duel with the enemy on your baby having a 20-mm cannon. The decision has ripened instantly. The tank commander gave the command to the driver: “Go back to the grove on the edge of which our guns took firing positions!”

        The tank, maneuvering, making unexpected and sharp turns, escaped the fire of Hitler’s tanks, while Osatyuk fired at them, trying to blind, stun the enemy. The duel lasted a few minutes. There were moments when it seemed that armored monsters were about to overtake, collapse and crush. When it was about 200 meters before the grove, Osatyuk's car turned sharply to the left. The Hitlerite head tank also turned around, but came under fire from our guns and flamed. Then the second tank was hit, and the third left the battlefield.

        “Now, Vanyusha, go ahead!” The commander ordered the driver. Having caught up with their company, they saw an interesting picture - the tankers had driven the enemy’s infantry into a huge pit. The Nazis stubbornly resisted, bombarded our tanks with grenades. It was clear that it was impossible to hesitate, the fascists would have time to dig in. Osatyuk orders Makarenkov to roll a trail to the precipice, to lay a rut. Then the tank, picking up speed, rushed to the pit, flew in the air and crashed into the fascists.

        "Well done! Shouted the lieutenant. “Now act!” The machine rushed at high speed along the bottom of the pit, destroying the Nazis with fire and caterpillars. After making several circles, the tank slowed down, went to the middle of the pit and stopped. It was all over. They approached their own.

        For this battle, the entire crew was awarded the title of Hero of the Soviet Union.

        Regards to the administration! hi
        I just have to visit the Museum of the Blockade Breakthrough and write my article. She will probably be stronger. Once again, with respect to the administration! hi yes, by the way, diorama guides talk about Osatyuk’s feat ...
        1. hohol95
          hohol95 28 January 2018 18: 44
          +3
          Little is written about the T-60 tanks in memoirs. All information basically comes down to Leningrad and the breaking of the blockade.
          But nevertheless, information comes from other fronts of the Great Patriotic War -
          T-60s made up a significant part of the combat vehicles of the 1st Panzer Corps (commander - Major General M.E. Katukov), together with other units of the Bryansk Front that repelled the German offensive on the Voronezh direction in the summer of 1942. During the fighting, the Katukov corps, which formed a single combat group with the 16th tank corps, fell into a difficult position. Here is how M.E. Katukov himself describes this situation and the actions of T-60 tanks:
          “The Nazis, conducting continuous attacks, sought to find the most vulnerable spots in the battle formations of groups. Finally they managed to do it. In the area where we had little firepower, the fascist infantry broke through the front line and wedged into our defense. The situation was threatening. Having made a breach, the Nazis continued to deepen the breakthrough in order to divide the troops of the group and go to their rear.
          It should also be taken into account that at this moment the enemy was pressing along the entire front line, which means that all the available forces of our group - tanks and infantry - were fully involved. In my reserve were two light T-60 tanks. But these fighting vehicles, “babies” and tanks, could only be called conditionally. They were armed with 20 mm ShVAK guns.
          The reader probably imagines what the twelfth caliber of a hunting shotgun is. So, the cannons, which are armed with the T-60, have the same caliber. To fight against German tanks, the T-60 was not suitable. But against the manpower of the enemy, the "little ones" acted excellently and more than once with their automatic fire inflicted enormous damage to the fascist infantry. So it was near Mtsensk, and near Moscow.
          And now, in the fateful hour of the German breakthrough, the “baby” tanks helped us out. When the fascist infantry penetrated our defenses for half a kilometer, if not more, I threw the last reserve into battle.
          Fortunately, rye at that time rose almost to the height of a man, and this helped the “little ones”, hiding in the rye, to go behind the Nazis, leaked into our battle formations. T-60 from a short distance with heavy fire hit the German infantry. A few minutes passed, and the chains of the advancing fascists were thrown back. ”
    2. sabakina
      sabakina 27 January 2018 12: 40
      16
      Quote: svp67
      T-60 - tank ersatz,

      “And on small tanks, if you wish, you can also fight well!”
      I.V. Stalin

      Who said a song with a joke has no place in the war?
      To the guitar with the balalaika, placed on the armor,
      About the blue handkerchief, two tankers sang beneath Mgoy.
      And tomorrow they will attack, maybe - in the last battle ...

      It was a heavy forty-third, mid-January.
      Light tank, sixties, but, in truth,
      Of the advantages - only speed. And armor is a vigorous louse!
      The general said with annoyance, "You will break through a slingshot!"

      But the kobrig Khrustitsky knows - the spool is expensive, even though small -
      After all, he personally trained the brigade before the fight.
      The crew of the lightweight machine perfectly trained -
      The commander barely conceived, but the mechanic picked up ...

      At the working village (under the "excellent" number "five")
      The light tank brigade aims to support the infantry.
      There are two tank crews in the crew - the company one, Dima Osatyuk,
      And sitting at the leverage Vanya MakarEnkov - a friend.

      Here the infantry went forward, their task was to cover up.
      Suddenly out of the woods - a pair of "Tigers" ... "Rescue
      We urgently need infantry, otherwise they will beat everyone!
      Go to the ram - to no avail, and the shells will not flash ...

      It is necessary to distract the fascist. Come on, Vanya, dance! ”
      Jumped to the "Tiger" famously - he was led, stunned!
      Thought: “I’ll knock a little thing, and I’ll write a victory ...”
      But the "little girl" does not give up - "I’m not so dancing yet!"

      Vanya with levers fused - a step forward, and two back,
      Famously right, right left, teases, "substituting" the backside.
      The German pounding that there is a fool, but try, hit -
      Lead rains are pouring out of a fuzzy little girl!

      Blind and knock down the sight, do no harm to the forces ...
      "Tiger" rushed in pursuit, and the second followed him.
      Soviet tank dashingly rushing, "performing numbers."
      - "Vanya, push to the edge of the forest!" Push Now! Exactly! It's time! "

      Osatyuk touched his shoulder - he gave the agreed signal.
      The tank turned on the spot, to the "Tiger" stood right side.
      It’s the cannon’s turn again - it hits the viewing gaps,
      It does not allow to aim, visibility reducing “to zeros”.

      MakarEnkov Vanya suddenly pulled away, and along the edge of the forest,
      Carrying after him, he “dragged” the Germans under the guns.
      Turning sideways to the artillery ambush, he immediately received
      Two shells the first "Tiger", and pulled, and smoked!

      Then I ran into the "distribution" and the second that followed.
      - “Vanya, lured a fool! Also found his death! ”
      “Yes, the little one did not fail! - Vanya answered a friend.
      And it turned out that Khrustitsky himself was watching the battle.

      The crew of our military became the Heroes of the Union ...
      And today this feat of the front-line was not forgotten.
      Remember Leningrad saved those who, sacrificing themselves,
      Here they broke through the blockade - they went fearlessly into a terrible battle!
    3. The brightest
      The brightest 27 January 2018 16: 42
      +5
      Quote: svp67
      ersatz
      don't talk bullshit please. Erzats - this means a fake, a surrogate, a low-quality replacement for the original. And it was a full-fledged light tank, a light tank.
      1. svp67
        svp67 27 January 2018 17: 37
        +2
        Quote: Lightest
        And it was a full-fledged light tank, a light tank.

        And can you find out what it was a full tank? What was created on the basis of AUTOMOTIVE Knots and UNITS, in automobile production, instead of the trucks so needed by the Red Army? The lack of a full-fledged gun, which simply turned this tank into a moving machine-gun point, unable to fully support the infantry in battle.
        Quote: Lightest
        don't talk bullshit please.
        This is you before you say something, better think than you will argue.
        1. zadorin1974
          zadorin1974 27 January 2018 17: 56
          +4
          Sergey, then, according to your logic, Sherman is also nedotank, but having an aircraft engine, the navigator is even worse, like the BTS?
          1. svp67
            svp67 27 January 2018 18: 08
            +1
            Quote: zadorin1974
            Sergey, then, according to your logic, Sherman is also nedotank, but having an aircraft engine, the navigator is even worse, like the BTS?

            I didn’t say anything about the engine, I pointed to the use of automotive NODES and UNITS, and this implies MUCH more than one automobile engine. T-60, in fact, deprived the Red Army half of trucks, own production. And do not remind me, but what was the armor and the gun on the Sherman "car"?
            1. zadorin1974
              zadorin1974 27 January 2018 18: 33
              +3
              Sergey, automobile units were also used on the Sherman. Well, the country had no other option at that time, it came to armored tractors. At the T-1 and T-2 level it was not bad, the problem was in use.
              1. svp67
                svp67 27 January 2018 18: 45
                +1
                Quote: zadorin1974
                Well, the country did not have another option at that time, it even reached armored tractors

                And I don’t deny this, therefore I call it an ersatz tank. There would be slightly different times and conditions, he would never have appeared with us.
          2. Amurets
            Amurets 28 January 2018 00: 30
            +1
            Quote: zadorin1974
            and having an aircraft engine, is it even worse, like BTs?

            Here Sergey is right: we are praying for a V-2 diesel engine, but before that we had aircraft engines in our tanks. Aircraft engines M-5, M-17 were converted into tank engines, stood on serial tanks BT; T-28; T-35. In 17, they tried to put the tank version of the M-1941 engine on the T-34 and KV tanks. Teeth. "Tank engines."
            Now on the engines for the T-60 and T-70 tanks. They were preparing to produce a new series of trucks on Gaza and built a new engine production for this, in fact a new plant, but this plant was given to the NKAP for the production of M-105P engines for Pe-2 bombers. This is the first loss of the automotive industry: it was not possible, in the right quantities, to organize the production of six-cylinder engines Gas-11 and its modifications. And the lack of aluminum also played a role: I had to sculpt all sorts of sparks such as Gas 202 to get the necessary power. So much for the loss, not only in engines. but power supplies, electrical equipment and other units.
            The Americans, too, didn’t start to put radial (star-shaped) engines on tanks from a good one. Here and the lack of engines of the required power, and fuel supply, and a number of other things. If the M-3 medium tanks went only with aircraft engines, then Sherman has several modifications only for engines.
            1. hohol95
              hohol95 28 January 2018 01: 05
              +2
              Yeah, the Sherman experimented in terms of engines -
              radial, diesel engine MGM, 8-cylinder Ford, 5 petrol Chrysler Multibank A-57 in a single unit ... belay diesel Caterpillar RD1820 !!!
        2. Mikado
          Mikado 28 January 2018 00: 06
          +5
          And can you find out what it was a full tank?

          military ersatz, released "not from a good life," in order to somehow cover up the infantry in the attack. hi The T-60 did not become a "symbol of Victory. But in many ways it took upon itself the severity of the battles of the 42nd .. soldier
          1. hohol95
            hohol95 28 January 2018 01: 08
            +3
            Here, either push and do not produce an imposed T-50, or create and produce something that can really help in difficult times ...
            The main thing was not to bother and spend resources on different “wunderwaffles”, unlike the rivals, when they were struck by convulsions of agony ...
            1. Mikado
              Mikado 28 January 2018 11: 36
              +5
              Alexei, I wrote there above that I did not find the relationship of Astrov, T-60 and the creation of BMD. Perhaps he got excited. Astrov created the first armored vehicles for the Airborne Forces - the “nude Ferdinand” ASU-57 (Lord, and here the “nude” laughing ) And in her appearance, his achievements on the T-40,60,70. soldier

              Here or push and do not produce an imposed T-50

              T-34 also planned to be replaced by the T-34M before the war. But during the war it is necessary to produce what has already been debugged in production. request
              1. hohol95
                hohol95 28 January 2018 18: 48
                +1
                Before the war, tank production was also planned in Stalingrad and Chelyabinsk! But alas, before the start of the war, these industries were not put into operation ...
                So it turns out - only 3 tank production! In Moscow, Kharkov and Leningrad! For such a huge country ...
                1. Mordvin 3
                  Mordvin 3 28 January 2018 18: 51
                  +2
                  Quote: hohol95
                  Moscow, Kharkov and Leningrad!

                  Do not write nonsense then.
                  1. hohol95
                    hohol95 28 January 2018 19: 48
                    +1
                    And, where else in the USSR until 1941 did tanks produce? Enlighten, Do not let die illiterate ... crying
                    Can you rank the production of MS-1 (T-18) in Perm, in 1925-1926? And the production of the T-27 on the GAZ-e in the early 30s?
                    1. Mordvin 3
                      Mordvin 3 28 January 2018 20: 51
                      +1
                      And where is Chelyabinsk?
                      1. hohol95
                        hohol95 28 January 2018 22: 11
                        +1
                        And when in Chelyabinsk began to produce tanks?
                        Serial production of KV tanks started in February 1940 at the Kirov Plant. In accordance with the decree of the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR and the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks of June 19, 1940, the Chelyabinsk Tractor Plant (ChTZ) was also ordered to begin production of HF. On December 31, 1940, the first HF was built at ChTZ. At the same time, the construction of a special building for the assembly of HF began at the plant.
                        In 1941, it was planned to produce 1200 HF tanks of all modifications. Of them at the Kirov plant - 1000 pcs. (400 KV-1, 100 KV-2, 500 KV-3) and another 200 KV-1 at ChTZ. However, only a few tanks were built at ChTZ before the war.

                        I thought you would chastise me with the Stalingrad Tractor -
                        As early as December 19, 1939, by decree No. 442 of the USSR Defense Committee, it was obliged to organize the production of T-34 tanks at the STZ and stop preparations for the production of T-26 tanks. The main drawings for the production of "thirty-four" were to be sent to the STZ in February 1940. But due to the heavy employment in deploying the production of T-34, Kharkov plant No. 183 was unable to send documents until the end of April 1940, and even then not in full - 1400 drawings out of 3500 put. Nevertheless, work on the manufacture of parts of the installation lot was begun. On May 13, 1940, the Armored Directorate banned the STZ from making changes to the details, components and design of the T-34 tank and decided to coordinate any changes with Plant No. 183 and ABTU.
                        In total, in 1940, 23 T-34 tanks were assembled at the STZ, of which only six vehicles were accepted.
                        The plan for 1941 provided for a sharp increase in the production of T-34: by the end of the year, the plant was supposed to produce 1000 tanks. To ensure the implementation of this plan, new complete sets of drawings and process maps were delivered to Stalingrad from plant No. 183. In addition, 5 engineers came to the plant from Kharkov to assist in organizing the production of the T-34 tank. All this led to a correction of the situation: in March 1941 the STZ produced 47 tanks, and from the beginning of the year - 75 vehicles. March 4, 1941 30 T-34 tanks were sent to the 12th Panzer Division of the Kiev Special Military District.

                        So, that until 1940, and actually until 1941, tanks were produced in 3 cities at 4 plants !!!
                      2. Mikado
                        Mikado 28 January 2018 22: 40
                        +3
                        don't swear only
        3. The brightest
          The brightest 28 January 2018 05: 49
          +2
          Quote: svp67
          that was created on the basis of CAR NODES and UNITS

          And how does that prevent you from being a light tank? If a car’s engine is a tank, then it’s not a tank anymore, then following your logic, if you put a tank on a car, will it become a tank? Maybe you have a t-80 helicopter?
          So, the fact that this is a COMPLETE LIGHT TANK, your argument does not cancel.
          1. svp67
            svp67 28 January 2018 06: 20
            +2
            Quote: Lightest
            Maybe you have a t-80 helicopter?

            Well, sometimes they called him that, like "vacuum cleaner"
            Quote: Lightest
            If a car’s engine is a tank, then it’s not a tank anymore, then following your logic, if you put a tank on a car, will it become a tank?

            This is your LOGIC, since you seem incapable of understanding the opponent’s arguments because of your TECHNICAL LITERACY. Once again, for you personally, I repeat that AUTOMOTIVE Knots and UNITS are more, much more, than just one car engine.
      2. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 29 January 2018 13: 39
        0
        Quote: Lightest
        don't talk bullshit please. Erzats - this means a fake, a surrogate, a low-quality replacement for the original. And it was a full-fledged light tank, a light tank.

        Full-fledged light tank - this is the T-50. Which plant number 37 could not produce - there was no necessary equipment.
        And then Astrov made a "mobilization" T-60 tank based on automobile units and a floating T-40. And he armed it with a 20-mm TNSh, because it was not possible to put a 45-mm on a modified T-40 chassis right away.
        The fact that this was a tank is best indicated by reviews from the army:
        From a report on the actions of tanks of the 1st shock army in winter.
        On country roads near the front, T-34 and KV tanks pass without difficulty, T-60 land on the bottom.
        Snow from 25 to 50 cm on the battlefield. Tanks KV and T-34 pass without difficulty, T-60 with a depth of snow more than 25 cm. Burrow and land.
        .
        From experience in the operations of tanks of the 20th Army in winter conditions
        Practice has shown that it is best to use the T-60 and T-40 in the winter to guard and defend headquarters, to pursue the enemy along roads and in settlements. T-60 and T-40 in offensive combat because of the large snow cover can not participate off-road.

        Tank units of the 5th army.
        T-60 when lifting 15-20 degrees with an average icing of the lift was not taken.

        From the report to the head of ABTU of the Western Front.
        Light tanks T-60, T-40, T-30 in a snow cover of 30-40 cm. Cannot move in the snow. A narrow caterpillar cuts snow to the ground, sits on the pressed snow at the bottom and skids. Examples: 13.1.42 when attacking the Ilyinsky 145 Tbr, T-60 tanks were used in the amount of 17 pieces. All tanks, as soon as they turned off the road for deployment, were stuck at the edge of the forest.
        The crews of the T-60 tanks of the 31st Tank Brigade in the amount of 5 pieces were tasked with capturing Aksenovo. The personnel took all measures to accomplish this task, and in spite of this, not a single tank reached Aksenovo. All tanks were stuck in the snow at the time of deployment.

        And when the summer came and the snow melted, the T-60 began mass failures TNSH. The delicate automation of the former air cannon could not withstand dust - and refused even after marches along the country road.
    4. alekc73
      alekc73 27 January 2018 18: 37
      +3
      The T-60 tank is equal to T-26 in mobility and armor protection. Of course, these characteristics are not enough by 41-42. The question was whether to have such tanks in bulk or not have a light tank at all.
      The T-50 tank developed before the war could not be mass-produced for technological reasons and the lack of a diesel engine in serial production (half of the T-34 6 cylinders).
      1. svp67
        svp67 27 January 2018 18: 46
        +3
        Quote: alekc73
        The question was whether to have such tanks en masse or not to have a light tank at all.

        I am afraid that at that time, the question was posed differently whether to have at least such a tank in armored and mechanized troops or to have almost no armored forces as such
        1. Amurets
          Amurets 28 January 2018 08: 02
          +2
          Quote: svp67
          I am afraid that at that time, the question was posed differently, to have at least such a tank in armored and mechanized troops

          Here you are right. By October 1941, we had no tank factories producing heavy and medium tanks, except for the STZ, but he also lacked corps. And if we already go to the end, that is, to start the technological chain from the beginning, we will find ourselves in the situation that only Mariupol and Izhora plants could roll a thick armor plate. Izhora at that time was in a blockade, Mariupol evacuated. This is thanks to the workers of the Magnitogorsk Iron and Steel Works, they started rolling armor on blooming. And the books of the metallurgist V.E. Emelyanov. "Where did it begin."
          "Well, tell me, what is being done? How many tank corps do you make per day?" I began.
          - And we have not yet begun to produce them, - somehow stammering and, as it seemed to me, Tyryshkin said through force.
          - How did you not start? - I expected everything - and difficulties in production, interruptions in work, but I could not even imagine that the plant had not yet started to manufacture the hulls. - What's the matter?
          - Firstly, there is not a single sheet of armor steel at the plant, and secondly, and this is perhaps the most important thing - we only recently received a stamping press. The foundation for the press was built, but the installation has not yet begun. We do not have such a category of specialists either - the plant never had large-scale pressing equipment, and of course there was no experience. "And if we could not organize the production of T-60 tanks, thin-armored, with an unreliable TNSh (ShVAK) cannon, but after all, a tank, we really wouldn't have anything, and here you are three times right.
      2. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 29 January 2018 13: 50
        0
        Quote: alekc73
        T-60 tank on mobility and armor protection is equal to T-26.

        I still wildly apologize, but where on the T-26 in the frontal projection to find 30-35 mm inclined armor? wink
        As for mobility ... the fact is that the T-26 of the last years of release was extremely heavy. The original Vickers-6 t recovered up to 10-10,5 tons, and the engine managed to force only 15 hp. Plus, there were complaints about the suspension overload. Already in the mid-30s, the GABTU began to look for a tank to replace the T-26 - they even wanted to buy the future Pz.35 (t) from the Czechs or at least see it.
        Quote: alekc73
        The T-50 tank developed before the war could not be mass-produced for technological reasons and the lack of a diesel engine in serial production (half of the T-34 6 cylinders).

        For the T-50, it was touched by 200 V-4 engines. But then Salzman appeared - and there was no hurt.
        The problem is that the B-4 competed in production with the B-2. And the choice "make an engine for the T-50 or increase the production of engines for the T-34 and KV"in 1942 was obvious. Not from a good life on the T-34 and KV appeared M-17 ...
  2. Olgovich
    Olgovich 27 January 2018 07: 13
    +5
    T-60 was built in such quantities, because medium and heavy tanks were not enough and they were replaced by these light ones.
    Accordingly, their losses were very large.
    1. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 27 January 2018 13: 25
      +5
      Light tanks have a strictly defined task - supporting infantry. When they are not abandoned to fight on enemy tanks, they are very useful. T-60, T-70, Walentine tankers loved MORE than the T-34.
      Because the T-34 was always thrown into the battle forward - on tanks, on anti-tank positions.
      And the T-60 only sometimes, due to the stupidity of the commanders (as under Prokhorovka, for example).
      Therefore, the chances of survival on average in the T-60 were higher than in the T-34.
      After all, the armor of the T-34 forehead, as it was 45 mm in 1941, remained 45 mm in 1945.
      In short, by 1943 it was already pierced by everything that the Germans had.
      1. Olgovich
        Olgovich 27 January 2018 14: 15
        +2
        Quote: voyaka uh
        Light tanks have a strictly defined task - supporting infantry. When they are not abandoned to fight on enemy tanks, they are very useful.

        In 1941 and 42, they performed the tasks of medium and heavy tanks, which were unusual for light tanks, and, therefore, they died en masse.
      2. alekc73
        alekc73 27 January 2018 18: 41
        +1
        It’s debatable about survival. The T-60 burned terribly. All BPS of the Germans pierced their armor. Soldiers sayings are simple and accurate "mass grave for two"
  3. martin-159
    martin-159 27 January 2018 07: 14
    +6
    The words "indestructible locusts" are poorly associated with low combat qualities, rather with a large number.
    1. sabakina
      sabakina 27 January 2018 12: 29
      +6
      Well, the Wehrmacht soldiers then knew better than to us now from the sofas.
  4. sibiryouk
    sibiryouk 27 January 2018 07: 29
    +7
    The author made a mistake - the T-60 tank was NOT the 2nd most popular tank, the second most popular was the T-70
    1. Cat
      Cat 27 January 2018 08: 07
      15
      The author has not one mistake, but many!
      For example, we learn from the article that the T-60 was a floating tank?
      He is the first of the lungs and floating tanks was armed with an automatic aircraft gun ShVAK or TNSh 20 mm caliber and DT machine gun 7,62 mm caliber, protected from bullets and fragments of rolled, high hardness armor.

      The author clearly confuses it with the T-40 in the modification of the T-30s. “C” means land.
      The author is interesting about the PT series, did you hear something?
      The second "stupid" statement of the Author that the T-60s were "forgotten"? Perhaps confirms that the author in the topic "not in the tooth with a foot"! T-60 by reference among Russian armored vehicles in honorable 5th place! It is the honorary and the fifth!
      Lunge towards Astrov? I think the watchdogs of VO are a little surprised that they think for them that we don’t know who he is and what he did for the country during the years of World War II.
      Well, the last thing, if you write about the T-60, then not in such scanty volumes. Minimum article cycle!
      Sincerely, Kitty!
      1. hohol95
        hohol95 27 January 2018 17: 18
        +1
        Ilya Borisovich Moshchansky
        Light tanks of the T-40 family. "Red" scouts
        Thus, it turned out that the use of floating vehicles, which was the T-40, was limited, but light tanks were chronically lacking. To technologically simplify the machine, the designers eliminated all navigational equipment: a propeller with a cardan drive (shaft), a power take-off, water (water) rudders, a bilge pump, a heat exchanger, a water baffle, and a compass. If possible, they refused from the radio station. Starting in July, when 60 vehicles with a new configuration were already manufactured, such tanks were produced under the symbol 40C (“Land” - however, in the documents of plant No. 37 this index is not found) using a large reserve of the previous armored hulls with a screw niche. Contrary to popular belief, the armament did not change - the ShVAK gun was installed only on the modified T-40S firing range, the only surviving tank of this type, now stored in the museum of armored vehicles in Kubinka.
        ... Starting from August 1941, the stern sheet of the hull began to be made straight, without a screw niche, and due to the mass of the eliminated navigational units, they increased, albeit slightly - up to 15 mm, the thickness of the front and side sheets of the hull and up to 20 mm - the armor of the turret box , the sides of the tower and the masks of a twin installation [* Subsequently, this modification of the tank was called T-30.]. The T-30 facilitated the management of on-board friction clutches and their maintenance: instead of cam layings, ball-type, the famous "tears", were introduced, as on the T-34. On some machines in the chassis, instead of stamped discs of the track rollers, cast spoked track wheels with external cushioning were used. The proximity of the fuel tanks was 206 liters, the tank’s cruising range along the highway reached 300 km.
        In terms of its armor protection, the new modification was not inferior to the 10-ton T-26 widespread in the Red Army and had a higher average speed in the area. Since this version of the tank bore factory index 030, it was sometimes semi-officially called the T-30. Such tanks in the documents of the plant number 37 passed as the T-30, they had the same index in the army, although this brand did not become popular.

    2. Proxima
      Proxima 27 January 2018 13: 18
      +1
      Quote: sibiryouk
      The author made a mistake - the T-60 tank was NOT the 2nd most popular tank, the second most popular was the T-70
      Do not make up! This was not said in the text. It was about the period of World War II.
      1. Cat
        Cat 27 January 2018 15: 12
        +4
        Quote: Proxima
        Quote: sibiryouk
        The author made a mistake - the T-60 tank was NOT the 2nd most popular tank, the second most popular was the T-70
        Do not make up! This was not said in the text. It was about the period of World War II.

        Hmm .... what
        We read the article by the author.
        The designer noted in the manuscript: “From the autumn of 1941 to March 1942, more than 6 thousand T-60 tanks were surrendered to the Red Army.” This is the second largest tank after the T-34, released in the Great Patriotic War.

        That is, the designer (Astrov) speaks of over 6 tanks produced between 000 and 1941.
        And what does the author say?
        This is the second largest tank after the T-34, released in World War II.

        These are not the conclusions of the designer but the author!
        Now we take reference books and read:
        T-60 in 1941 produced - 1818 units, in 1942 - 4474 units, total - 6292 units.
        T-70 in 1942 - 4883 units, in 1943 - 3343 units, total - 8226 units.

        Compare 6292 <8226! Conclusion T-70s were produced more than T-60s. hi
  5. parusnik
    parusnik 27 January 2018 07: 51
    17
    The writer Viktor Potanin, in his book Tankers in the Battle of Leningrad, writes about the courage of the T-60 crew consisting of Lieutenant Commander D. I. Osatyuk and foreman’s driver I. Makarenkov: “Breaking forward, at dawn on January 18 They noticed three tanks of workers' settlement No. 5. The Volkhovites wanted to jump out of the car, run towards, but saw that it was Hitler’s tanks counterattacking. The decision ripened instantly. The tank commander gave the command to the driver: "Go to the grove where our guns took firing positions!" , tried to blind, stun the enemy. The duel lasted several minutes. There were moments when it seemed that the armored monsters were about to overtake, collapse and crush. When there were about 20 meters to the grove, Osatyuk’s car sharply rushed to the left. Hitler’s head tank also turned around, but fell under the fire of our guns and burned. Then the second tank was shot down, and the third left the battlefield. “Now, Vanyusha, go ahead!” The commander ordered the driver. Having caught up with their company, they saw an interesting picture - the tankers drove the enemy infantry into a huge pit. The Nazis stubbornly resisted, threw grenades at our tanks. It was clear that it was impossible to procrastinate, the Nazis would have time to dig in. Osatyuk orders Makarenkov to roll a trace to the cliff, to track. Then the tank, gaining speed, rushed to the pit, flew in the air and crashed into the Nazis. “Well done!” The lieutenant shouted. “Now go!” The machine rushed at high speed along the bottom of the pit, destroying the Nazis with fire and caterpillars. After making several circles, the tank slowed down, went to the middle of the pit and stopped. It was all over. They came up with their own. "And yet the T-200 is among the best models in its class, but by 60 the time of such machines irretrievably passed, and only exceptional and tragic circumstances for the USSR caused its appearance to life.
  6. avt
    avt 27 January 2018 09: 38
    +5
    Weak article, to say the least. negative Well there was a T-60/70 series big. And why in the presence of the T-50? The author did not try to think? Well, before writing this eulogy.
    Quote: svp67
    T-60 - tank ersatz

    Yes. That's why I did not receive further development.
    1. Cat
      Cat 27 January 2018 15: 17
      +1
      Quote: avt
      Weak article, to say the least. negative Well there was a T-60/70 series big. And why in the presence of the T-50? The author did not try to think? Well, before writing this eulogy.
      Quote: svp67
      T-60 - tank ersatz

      Yes. That's why I did not receive further development.

      With all due respect and absolute agreement with the first part of your comment, I strongly disagree with - the second.
      The T-60 was continued and developed in the face of the T-70 and T-80. And later the Su-76 was reborn.
      1. avt
        avt 27 January 2018 16: 40
        +2
        Quote: Kotischa
        T-80.

        bully How many were there? It is possible in grams. bully
        Quote: Kotischa
        And later the Su-76 was reborn.

        bully Excuse me about remaking trophy panzerwagen No. 3? The base of the Su-76M self-propelled gun was based on the chassis, but this had nothing to do with TANKs, from the word, actually. Just take it for granted no one is going anywhere
        Quote: Kotischa
        later reborn
        and tanks in self-propelled guns all the more. Read Gorlitsky in the presentation of Svirin. There will be an understanding of when and why they took in the Patriotic riveting self-propelled guns such as they were. Like the Germans in the second half of the war.
        1. hohol95
          hohol95 27 January 2018 17: 46
          +2
          In total, during the serial production of the S-1 control system at the plant 37 201 self-propelled guns were produced (including, probably, up to 20 "command" ones).


          Mikhail Nikolaevich Svirin
          Self-propelled guns of Stalin. History of the Soviet self-propelled guns 1919 - 1945
          1. avt
            avt 27 January 2018 18: 05
            +2
            Quote: hohol95
            Mikhail Nikolaevich Svirin
            Self-propelled guns of Stalin. History of the Soviet self-propelled guns 1919 - 1945

            Well, there Misha
            .... and on March 21, 1943, self-propelled guns were recommended for use under the index SU-1, SU-76 (S-1), and the production of SU-76 (SU-12) was stopped
      2. hohol95
        hohol95 27 January 2018 17: 34
        +2

        Read and learn all about the birth of Soviet self-propelled gun mounts! Including SU-76 !!! hi
        1. Cat
          Cat 27 January 2018 18: 21
          +2
          1. T-80 produced in the amount of 120 pcs. + In a small series, by 1945, 12 pieces of ZSU-37 were riveted.
          2. It is sad if the book you have indicated is the only one in the library. I have the opportunity to join the primary sources.
          SU-76 is a Soviet self-propelled artillery mount (SAU) used in the Great Patriotic War. Self-propelled guns made on the basis of light tanks T-60, T-70 and was intended to directly accompany the infantry, had bulletproof armor.

          At the Kalinin plant, many interesting things remained, but the production and technological succession of the T-70 and SU-76 is obvious.
          3. And where is the SU-76I?
          1. hohol95
            hohol95 27 January 2018 18: 55
            +2
            And what do the primary sources say about the birth of the SU-76 "Bitch"?
            January 1943 - SU-76 (SU-12);
            May 1943 - SU-76M (SU-12M);
            Autumn of 1943 - SU-76 (SU-15M);
            1944 - SU-76M.
            Or do your sources provide other information?
            1. Cat
              Cat 27 January 2018 19: 43
              +2
              Again?
              Su-76 and Su-76M are based on the light tank T-70!
              Su-76I - based on captured equipment.
              Technologically and ideologically, the Su-76 and Su-76M receivers T-60 and T-70.
              ZIK was preparing for the production of T-70, and T60 produced in considerable quantities, so that when comparing the drawings, the applicability of the ideas of T-70 and T-80 embodied in the "dryers" can be seen.
          2. hohol95
            hohol95 27 January 2018 19: 38
            +2
            You don’t worry about my library ... You won’t buy and download everything ...
            1. Cat
              Cat 27 January 2018 20: 22
              +1
              I currently have 15 books in paper, and you?
  7. sergo1914
    sergo1914 27 January 2018 11: 21
    +7
    During the Battle of Kursk, the T-60 crew chalked up the Tiger. They just drove up behind the ambush as they went about their business and the frostbitten commander fired a grenade into the open hatch. After that he reported that he had been destroyed in battle. The whole headquarters arrived. They thought they found a new vulnerability out of the fluff. They laughed for a long time at the voice when they saw it. The T-60 commander was introduced to the GSS.
    1. hohol95
      hohol95 27 January 2018 19: 42
      +3
      You have a bit of incorrect information -
      August 21, 1943 in the 178th tank brigade. When repelling an enemy counterattack, the T-70 tank commander, Lieutenant A. L. Dmitrienko, noticed a retreating German heavy tank (it’s possible that the medium one is also, which is not so important). Having caught up with the enemy, the lieutenant ordered his driver to move next to him (apparently in the "dead zone"). You could shoot at point blank range, but noticing that the hatch in the tower of a German tank was open (German tankers almost always went into battle with open tower hatches. - Approx. Author), Dmitrienko climbed out of the T-70, jumped onto the armor of an enemy machine and threw it into hatch grenade. The crew of the German tank was destroyed, and the tank itself was towed to our location and soon, after a little repair, was used in battle.
  8. gla172
    gla172 27 January 2018 14: 03
    +4
    .... What can I say, the tank was good ... despite some underestimation .....


    Voto good photo .... the truth is 70 but the essence is the same ...

    Glory to our gunsmiths and engineers !!!!
    1. Cat
      Cat 27 January 2018 15: 24
      +7
      That "60", that "70" found its application even at the last stage of World War II. Often they were used as tractors of anti-tank guns, command vehicles in the regiments of self-propelled artillery, including for direct use in both reconnaissance and combat security.

    2. hohol95
      hohol95 27 January 2018 17: 26
      +2

      It was about how to use it ...
      1. Cat
        Cat 27 January 2018 18: 32
        +2

        Can you bend a horseradish too? What's next!
        Perhaps a comparative analysis of the "iron" has serious flaws due to the different knowledge, skills and abilities of the "gaskets between the steering wheel and the saddle"?
        1. hohol95
          hohol95 27 January 2018 19: 52
          +2
          The photos of T-60 and T-70 you presented with guns on a trailer while chasing a retreating enemy.
          And mine to the battles for Kharkov in March 1943!
          Fighting in the city against medium and heavy German tanks was deadly for them!
          And in the battles for Stalingrad, many light T-60s and T-70s were used.
          In the summer battles on the approaches to Stalingrad, they practiced ambushes of 1 KV-1 (immovable) and one T-60.
          The crew of the KV-1 shot ammunition and returned to their own on the T-60.
          1. Cat
            Cat 27 January 2018 20: 42
            +3
            In 1941-1942, the practice of mixed brigades was practiced in tank units. The 1st and 2nd companies were completed from KV-1 and T-34, the 3rd from T-60 and T-70. This is on paper.
            With the advent of the Guards heavy tank regiments, the KV-1 line brigades fell in scant numbers, and therefore, crews in heavy and medium tanks were “sent” to strengthen the obviously weakest 3 companies.
            This sometimes led to unjustified losses of the KV-1, since in the event of a breakdown only another KV-1 or two T-34s could tow it and then not far.
            By the way, fighting in the city is deadly for any tank.
            1. hohol95
              hohol95 27 January 2018 23: 52
              +1
              Paper endured and is suffering ...
  9. hohol95
    hohol95 27 January 2018 17: 23
    +4
    To complement. Dear author, you forgot about armored cars, which were many in parts of the Leningrad Front! And who made no less contribution to the defense of Leningrad and the breakthrough of the blockade!
    ... For example, on July 27, 1942, the 61st Tank Brigade had 64 tanks in two tank battalions (63 T-60 and 1 T-26) and 39 armored vehicles as part of a separate armored battalion (16 BA-20 and 23 BA- 10). In this situation, the BA-10 forces outnumbered tanks and were the main firepower of the brigade.
    1. gla172
      gla172 27 January 2018 17: 32
      +3
      Yes, there was a lot of things that it wasn’t "accepted" to write and talk about .... but on every corner they talk about the invincibility of the Wehrmacht ..... and how they (that is, the Wehrmacht) taught us to fight ....
    2. Cat
      Cat 27 January 2018 18: 18
      +2
      And you forgot to include in the list of armored vehicles a single BA-11 and a dozen Brontosaurus - Izhora plant.
      An article about the T-60.
      hi
      1. hohol95
        hohol95 27 January 2018 18: 59
        +2
        So shine with knowledge and information, and write an article on the use of AD in battles in breaking the blockade of Leningrad!
        1. Cat
          Cat 27 January 2018 20: 03
          +3
          The author has enough in the article, so to speak, to put it mildly "roughnesses."
          Regarding armored cars? Make a link in the internet to the brigade you mentioned, it directly indicates that BAs were usually used in defense in tank dangerous directions. Moreover, the quote you quoted is taken from a book where the events of the Leningrad Front are analyzed in detail.
          By the way, by 1942 the command personnel had already figured out that the BA’s offensive was still the “trump card”. So, by 44, all medium-sized BAs were guarded or used as mobile firing points.
          1. Cat
            Cat 27 January 2018 21: 14
            +4

            By the way, one of the examples of the “combat” use of the B-10 as the “checkpoint” on the Leningrad Front in 1944. Without irony, it is a necessary and important work.
            1. hohol95
              hohol95 27 January 2018 23: 52
              +1
              Do you happen to have a BA-10 photograph on the ZIS-5 chassis?
              In the presented photo of the GAZ-AA chassis.
              1. Cat
                Cat 28 January 2018 06: 43
                +1
                There are several books on armored cars in the house. In one, God forbid, I remember the memory of "Stalin's armored vehicles" Unfortunately, I do not remember the author. There is a photograph of the B-10 on the ZIS chassis precisely in the role of the “Mobile Checkpoint” and the second as a trophy. I looked for these photos on the Internet, but what I found was a little different. If it happens, I’ll go to the house and rummage. After unsubscribe.
          2. hohol95
            hohol95 27 January 2018 23: 47
            +2
            By the way, by 1942 the command personnel had already figured out that the BA’s offensive was still the “trump card”. So, by 44, all medium-sized BAs were guarded or used as mobile firing points.

            By 1942, there were only a few units of medium and light BA pre-war production on the central and southern fronts! The Far East "held" the Japanese.
            And only the Leningrad Front used in battles until April 1944 the 1st separate armored battalion - the last battle of this formation (the first took place on February 11, 1943):
            On April 3, 1944 at 1.40 the 1st separate armored battalion attacked the villages of Yavanovo and Pavlovo and after a fierce battle occupied them, defeating up to two companies of infantry with anti-tank guns. Having taken firing positions, the armored cars kept the occupied line until the approach of their infantry, but the attempt made after that to attack the German positions outside the villages of Yavnovo and Pavlovo was unsuccessful. Machines came under artillery fire on the forehead and from the flanks and were soon destroyed. Only 3 BA-10s of the 1st platoon of the 3rd company survived, which cruised along the Oleshino-Yavnovo road, supporting the fire attack. At 6.30, picking up all the wounded, the platoon retreated to Oleshno. During the battle, the 1st Jabb suffered huge losses - 15 people were killed, 22 wounded and 18 were missing, 15 BA-10s burned down. After that, only 3 armored vehicles remained in the battalion, he was withdrawn to the second echelon, and he no longer participated in battles.
  10. Cat
    Cat 27 January 2018 18: 13
    +2
    1. T-80 produced in the amount of 120 pcs. + In a small series, by 1945, 12 pieces of ZSU-37 were riveted.
    2. It is sad if the book you have indicated is the only one in the library. I have the opportunity to join the primary sources.
    SU-76 is a Soviet self-propelled artillery mount (SAU) used in the Great Patriotic War. Self-propelled guns made on the basis of light tanks T-60, T-70 and was intended to directly accompany the infantry, had bulletproof armor.

    At the Kalinin plant, many interesting things have accumulated, but the production and technological succession of the T-70 and SU-76 is obvious.
    3. And where is the SU-76I?
  11. BAI
    BAI 27 January 2018 22: 26
    +3
    in the domestic military history, the role and importance of domestic light tanks in the Great Patriotic War were practically not studied and adequately covered.

    Why not studied. Studied, moreover, in the book with the eloquent title "Tanks-Mortals".
    1. Cat
      Cat 28 January 2018 06: 47
      0
      A colleague, besides the book you have cited, many more books about the tanks of Kotorin, Shpakovsky, etc.
      And Shpakovsky is our "Caliber"!
  12. Mordvin 3
    Mordvin 3 28 January 2018 23: 26
    0
    Mikado,
    No, we won’t. drinks
  13. Mordvin 3
    Mordvin 3 28 January 2018 23: 28
    0
    hohol95,
    Well, okay, I won’t argue. hi
  14. Nemesis
    Nemesis 29 January 2018 06: 42
    +1
    In 1941, 410 German Pz-1 tanks armed with two 7,92 mm machine guns, 746 Pz-2 tanks armed with 1 7,92 mm machine gun and 1 20 mm cannon crossed the USSR border. In 1941, due to a lack of tanks, Germany resumed production of the Pz-2 tanks. In 1941, 233 Pz-2 tanks were produced. In 1942, 291 Pz-2 tanks were produced. The basis of the Italian army consisted of tankettes, which, at different times, were produced with different weapons, from rifle-caliber machine guns, to 20 mm guns. In total, more than 3000 Italian tankettes took part in the battles.
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 29 January 2018 14: 25
      0
      Quote: Nemesis
      In 1941, 410 German Pz-1 tanks armed with two 7,92 mm machine guns, 746 Pz-2 tanks armed with 1 7,92 mm machine gun and 1 20 mm cannon crossed the USSR border.

      The ambush is that the KwK 30 is far from a TNS.
      Tnsh, in girlhood - ShVAK - is a large-caliber mutant machine gun. No wonder it is often called in documents of that time 20 mm machine gun. The fact is that in order to reduce the development time in production and to guarantee that this production will be at all, the ShVAK-20 was made from the already-manufactured ShVAK-12,7. But for this I had to take a 20-mm shot with the length of the DShK cartridge - that is, sacrifice the power of the projectile, initial velocity and external ballistics. Got a short shot with a short projectile, quickly losing its initial speed and having the smallest mass of explosives.
      1. Nemesis
        Nemesis 29 January 2018 14: 58
        0
        Under the tank, this gun was completely redone, this time, so that, in the end, nothing was left of the machine gun in it. In addition, the guns were put by those that were at hand. Even the T-34 went to the front with both 45 mm guns (three models) and 57 mm (two modifications) and 76 mm L-10, F-32 (two modifications, with different shells), KT-28, KT- 26, and then 85 mm ... ShVAK and B-60 and VYA-20 and DShK and much more were installed on the T-23 ... By the way, the T-60's ammunition was larger than that of the Pz-2. Although, more correctly would call all these T-60s and similar domestic and foreign models tankettes ... they no longer pulled tanks
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 29 January 2018 15: 55
          0
          Quote: Nemesis
          Under the tank, this gun was completely redone, this time, so that, in the end, nothing was left of the machine gun in it.

          Since the ammunition of the TNSH remained the same as that of the ShVAK - 20x99R, there were no major alterations. Both TNSh and ShVAK-20 are ShVAK-12,7, converted to 20 mm.
          Moreover, in spite of all the refining, the HPH just like ShVAK did not tolerate dust.
          Quote: Nemesis
          Even the T-34 went to the front with both 45 mm guns (three models) and 57 mm (two modifications) and 76 mm L-10, F-32 (two modifications, with different shells), KT-28, KT- 26, and then 85 mm ..

          Ahem ... but is there a photo of the T-34 with 45 mm, L-10, KT-28 and F-32? And then because of the complexity in the development and production of the same F-32s, they were not enough even for KV - why, in fact, they had to make a new ZIS-5 for it.
          Quote: Nemesis
          ShVAK and B-60 and VYA-20 and DShK and much more ...

          Again, news from parallel reality ... smile
          B-20 adopted GKO Decree No. 6681 “On the Adoption of the Red Army Air Force Lightweight B-20 Aviation Automatic Gun 20 mm Caliber Design Comrade Berezin” from 10 1944 October, the.

          With VYA-23 - the picture is the same as with F-32: in 1942 they were enough only for IL-2.
          1. Nemesis
            Nemesis 29 January 2018 16: 04
            0
            1) On IL-2 also put everything that was at hand ... And ShVAK and B-20 and VYA-23. 2) ZIS-5 Grabin did on his own initiative, since everything that came before her had aiming knobs vertically and horizontally on both sides of the barrel, and on the ZIS-5 everything was redone on one side so that it could control one, not two a gunner, as on F-32 and USV ... 3) There are a lot of photos of the T-34 with different guns, turrets and different chassis, although there are a lot of them, although you need to search to find something interesting ... For example, in 1942, in Stalingrad, produced the T-34 with rubber bandages on the ice rinks ...
            1. Alexey RA
              Alexey RA 29 January 2018 18: 26
              +1
              Quote: Nemesis
              1) On IL-2 also put everything that was at hand ... And ShVAK and B-20 and VYA-23.

              Only the ShVAK was abnormally put on the IL-2. Because citizen Taubin never brought to mind his 23-mm air gun, under which at least 2 cars had already been put in series. As a result, the fighter and attack aircraft were without regular cannon weapons - and received ShVAK. As soon as Volkov and Yartsev made a normal (well, more or less) working 23-mm air gun, the IL-2 immediately acquired regular weapons.
              Quote: Nemesis
              ZIS-5 Grabin did it on his own initiative, since everything that came before her had aiming knobs vertically and horizontally on both sides of the barrel, and on the ZIS-5 everything was redone on one side so that one and not two gunners could control it, both on F-32 and SPM ...

              ZIS-5 has never been an initiative development. This gun was created according to the order of Marshal Kulik on February 19, 1941 on the installation of the F-34 in the KV-1 tower.
              The reason for the order is simple - difficulties with the release of the F-32, even in peacetime.
              True, the ZIS-5 was created in three stages. At first, Grabin was engaged in work on the reinforced F-27 (tank gun based on the F-34 with ballistics of the 76-mm 3-K anti-aircraft gun), the work on which was carried out in accordance with the resolution of the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR and the Central Committee of the CPSU (B) No. 1288–495ss dated July 17, 1940. The gun was soon renamed ZIS-5, made in metal, tested and ... postponed, since the original 3-K anti-aircraft gun was discontinued + there were problems with armor penetration.
              Well, said Grabin - and put forward the following iteration for testing - the ZIS-5 with a 51-caliber barrel from the F-22. The system passed the tests ... but the war was already going on, and there were no F-22 barrels in production. And it was impossible to restart the series in the summer of 1941.
              The situation was aggravated by the fact that with the outbreak of war, the already small production of the F-32 and its reserves began to rapidly decrease
              As of September 1, 1941, only 13 F-32s were available.
              © Pasholok
              And then Grabin issued a cannon for KV according to the very order of Kulik - a cradle F-27 + barrel F-34. This is how the well-known ZIS-5 turned out.
              Quote: Nemesis
              For example, in 1942, in Stalingrad, produced the T-34 with rubber bandages on the ice rinks ...

              Bandages are, of course, good. But I would like to see proofs on the T-34 with 45 mm, L-10, KT-28 and F-32.
              1. Nemesis
                Nemesis 29 January 2018 18: 33
                0
                Kulik, by definition, opposed everything new, including against PPD, PTR, T-34 ... True, in different literature they write differently, who paid the author, that (slippers) ... But there is a photo, but they need look ... Mention of the installation of 34 mm guns on the T-45 and other things, due to a lack of staff, I met in the literature ....
                1. Alexey RA
                  Alexey RA 29 January 2018 18: 42
                  0
                  Quote: Nemesis
                  Kulik, by definition, opposed everything new, including against the RPD, PTR, T-34 ..

                  Kulik in the late 30s organized the release of the PDA in strict accordance with the government decree. And he opposed him in those days when the PPD cost 1350 rubles, and the DP - 787 rubles. That is, a submachine gun cost like two full-fledged light machine guns!
                  Quote: Nemesis
                  MTS

                  And why the PTR army, which does not penetrate the side armor of German tanks? Or did you forget that in 1940 the PTR of Rukavishnikov did not penetrate the BB with a bullet of 30 mm German armor from any distance?
                  Quote: Nemesis
                  T-34

                  If Kulik had not tried to stop the T-1941 reception twice in early 34, Kharkov would not have started to bring the tank to the requirements of TK. For what was produced in the 1940-early 1941 under the name "T-34" was worse than even the "Sormovsky" military release. And the plant simply ignored all the requirements of the military.
                  1. Nemesis
                    Nemesis 29 January 2018 19: 45
                    0
                    Well, the armor of German tanks was brought up to 1941 mm in 60, which is why it wasn’t pierced by 45 mm anti-tank guns of the 1938 model, capable of penetrating 47 mm of armor from 1000 meters ... The PTR of Degtyarev and Tokarev had armor penetration not higher than PTR of Rukavishnikov, but at front come in handy. By the way, the Germans themselves used not only captured Soviet PTRs, but also their own, 13 mm caliber and captured Polish, caliber 7,62 mm ... Kulik, this is a very controversial figure and a dark horse, which wrote a lot of different and ambiguous .. .
                    1. hohol95
                      hohol95 29 January 2018 21: 20
                      +1
                      The Germans and their PTR was at 7,92mm
                    2. hohol95
                      hohol95 29 January 2018 21: 22
                      0
                      A book was published on the theme of tank destruction by infantry -
                    3. Alexey RA
                      Alexey RA 30 January 2018 10: 40
                      +1
                      Quote: Nemesis
                      Well, the armor of German tanks was brought up to 1941 mm in 60,

                      In the frontal projection. The board remained 30 mm. And German tanks did not penetrate the board of PTR Rukavishnikov with a B-32 bullet. And BS-41 appeared only in 1941, and even at the beginning of 1942 it was a rare animal - in some parts there were 4 rounds per barrel.
                      © Drag Prech Ulanov
                      Quote: Nemesis
                      because it was not pierced by 45 mm anti-tank guns of the 1938 model, capable of penetrating 47 mm of armor from 1000 meters ...

                      Yeah ... perfect shell in ideal conditions. 47 mm per 1000 m is the theory, Jacob de Mar in its purest form.
                      In fact, at the beginning of 1941 the picture was as follows:
                      As you should know, the tests of shelling a new German tank (T-3) conducted in the autumn of 1940 showed that to combat it, a 45-mm anti-tank gun mod. 1937 is unsuitable, as it is capable of penetrating its armor at a distance of no further than 150-300 m ... The audit found that to increase the penetration ability of a 45-mm gun, it is necessary to develop a new type of ammunition, but an order was made by the People's Commissariat of Ammunition for carrying out this work so far not enrolled ...

                      The frequency response of the Kulik raised the alarm about the lack of armor penetration of the 45-mm anti-tank gun.
                      Quote: Nemesis
                      Kulik, this is a very controversial figure and a dark horse, and which wrote a lot of different and ambiguous ...

                      Just Kulik himself did not leave any memories. So we know about him, for the most part, from the memoirs of those same designers and production workers whom he crumbled and relegated, preventing "raw" weapons from being shoved into the army.
                      The same Grabin, remembering, painted a tyrant-Kulik who cut down the legendary ZIS-3. But at the same time, he did not say a word about the fact that the gun of the first model presented to Kulik turned into ZIS-3 only after improvements, and that it was Kulik in 1941 that he twice signed the order on the manufacture of the ZIS-3 batch for military tests.
  15. hohol95
    hohol95 29 January 2018 21: 17
    0
    Mikado,
    Will be done drinks