Military Review

Alexander Matrosov. Part of 2. Anatomy of the feat

75
Alexander Matrosov. Part of 2. Anatomy of the feat



We continue the theme of the exploits of our ancestors and the parsing of these "by bone". But in other way. Enough We too often witness the ugly attitude to the exploits of our grandfathers and great-grandfathers in World War II. Some (not the best, not the best) part of the society, clinging to the details, inconsistencies, idealization of the heroes, often casts doubt on the feat itself.

Including, unfortunately, on our website. The standard approach is to cling to trivia, and there the curve will be taken out.

And it began not yesterday. And then, when the liberals were not liberals in the modern sense of the word, and the scoundrels were called just scoundrels.

The feat in question in this article has been subjected to "critical analysis" since the 70s of the last century. No, perhaps, a person who would not have doubts about the veracity of certain facts. With all the simplicity of the feat of Alexander Matrosov, the official version looks really doubtful.

That is why today we will talk about the fact of the feat. About the mechanism of its commission, if you like. As the fact of the destruction of the German bunker in this way became possible.

The battalion of Matrosov was supposed to take the height near the village of Chernushki, Pskov region. The direction was important, and therefore the Germans prepared for defense thoroughly. It was a classic defense.

At the height of the three bunkers were arranged. They were positioned in such a way as to be able to block off the neighbor’s shelling sector and prevent the enemy from attacking from the dead zone. That is, in a “checkerboard” order, the benefit of any height, as a fold of the terrain, allows for this due to its relief. Square elevations in nature does not exist.



Next, you need to make a small excursion into the device of the German bunker of the Second World War. For many readers, the concepts of "pillbox" and "bunker" are identical. However, the differences in these structures are significant.

Dot - capital construction. It was built of concrete or brick for long-term combat. Dot (Dos) - a long-term firing point (structure) for firing from machine guns or guns.

Bunker - wooden ground firing point. You understand that the reliability of this structure is several times weaker than the dota. However, the speed of construction reduces to this disadvantage. Yes, and concrete is not needed. Everything is done with shovels and axes.



Bunker crashed into the natural fold of the area. This significantly saved man-hours and the two side walls in the most reliable way protected the calculation of the machine gun from anything. Three rows of logs and 70-100 cm of primer on top is also good.



Plus, the entrance to the strengthening of the rear side. The Germans were equipped with a solid door, which always (bold underscore) must be locked. It was to ensure that particularly clever of the enemy did not come secretly from the rear and did not arrange an exemplary shooting.

And there was ventilation in the ceiling. Since 34-th, 42-th “machine-hitting” differed by the rate of fire of up to 1200 shots per minute, it could, therefore, easily deprive the calculation of the possibility to see something, firstly, and easily poison it with powder gases, and secondly.

Yes, you could use an inlet as a hood. "Welcome, gentlemen liquidators." The Germans were not fools in any way, because the hoods were built and the doors were installed.

And one more nuance.

For the Germans (before 1944), the front wall was not raised very high above the ground. This was the standard that has been in effect since the First World War. The calculation was repelled by the fact that the machine gun was installed on the machine, which gave considerable advantages both in accuracy, reliably fixing the machine gun in the sector, and in terms of convenience.



And the loopholes were somewhat different. They were narrower and longer. Bringing a long trunk MG-43 out of the loophole did not make sense. If there was a construction of a number of bunkers covering each other, then the calculations needed only to stop yawning and stop all attempts to get around the flank.



Of course, the bunker was not something serious and from the category of "not taken." Aviation a bomb of 50 kg, a shell from a cannon with a caliber of 45 mm and higher, a mine from a 120 mm mortar (or a few 82 mm mm) - and the problem is solved. Well, of course, a tank with a gun. This is generally scrap, against which the bunker with receptions is weak.

Problems began when none of the above was on hand. It's hard to say why. In 1943, as it were, such problems no longer existed, as in 41 in terms of equipment.

But we have what we have. The advancing corps in this sector had NOTHING, judging by the way the commanders solved the arisen bunkers problem.

Why? Most likely, we will not receive the answer to this question. Probably, intelligence overlooked, and it is possible that there was no intelligence. The brigade, as it becomes clear from the documents, entered the 25 position in February, and 27 had already begun the offensive.

And in the process, the 2nd battalion came across a bunker system and lay down. No artillery at the disposal of the battalion commander. Tanks also no. Ask the headquarters for aviation support? Not the times, as it were ... And the country is not that.

It is clear that the bunkers were a very unpleasant surprise for the command. Otherwise, in the case of possessing information about the presence of firing points, something more serious would have been invented than what our fighters had realized.

Then what was not included in the official history of the battle, but can be traced through various reports and award documents.

Combat takes the only right decision. Send experienced soldiers to destroy bunkers, and the battalion to divert attention by fire through embrasures.

Senior sergeant Sharipov, Private Galimov and Private Intelligence Officer Ogurtsov went to destroy the bunkers. Since Ogurtsov had the most complicated object, a recent cadet Private Sailor was allocated to help him. Despite the fact that it was only the third day of his front, he was respected by soldiers and officers as a sufficiently trained warrior. This was already mentioned in the first part.

Next, the battle will be considered by the political report of the head of the political department of the 91 brigade.

The first to destroy "his" bunker Art. s-nt Sharipov. The crew shot from a machine gun through the ventilation and seized a machine gun. In the future, alone fought from the captured weapons. The safety of the bunker helped to temper the ardor of the Germans in the attacks on Sharipov.

The next task was performed by private Galimov. He shot "his" bunker with an anti-tank rifle and managed to occupy a fortification. Then Galimov acted in the same way as Sharipov. But then the attacks were angrier. The Germans tried to repel the bunker many times. After the battle, only officially registered more than 30 killed by the Nazis Galimov.

However, the third bunker practically negated previous victories. Obviously, it was the central bunker. And the battalion could not rise in the attack. Peter Ogurtsov already on the way to the object was seriously wounded. Sailors left alone.

Then Alexander acted quite competently, but the lack of experience of the war affected. Lack of skills experienced soldier.

According to Ogurtsov, who was observing the actions of a friend, the Sailors crawled up to the bunker and threw a grenade into the embrasure. Some sources say - anti-tank.

Yes, with an ideal hit, this would have been enough, if not to destroy the bunker, then to suppress it. Just get an anti-tank grenade in a fairly narrow embrasure difficult even in training. Under heavy fire, lying down, it is almost impossible.

It is enough to see the performance characteristics of the Soviet anti-tank grenades. RPG-40 - 1,2 kg. RPG-41 - 2,0 kg. At best, the average throw range is 20-25 meters. Lying under the machine gun fire, I don’t know, but I don’t want to talk about range and accuracy at all.

Plus, you still need to get so accurately that the grenade flew into the interior of the breech and hit it about something. Otherwise, the fuse will not work. Ideally, of course - in the side wall of the bunker, closer to the machine gun to cause a collapse. But we are not talking about ideals.

However, the force of the grenade explosion stunned the machine gunner. The bunker was silent. The battalion rose to the attack. And here the bunker came to life. The task was not completed. It was then that the Sailors and closed the embrasure with his body ...

Here again, there are doubts. The fact is that technically it is very difficult to close the embrasure. The embrasure wall is almost vertical. It is constructed in such a way as to exclude the possibility of this “body closing” or blockage with any objects during shelling by artillery.

Imagine how this happens. A man stands on the ground and closes the embrasure. He dies, his legs give way and ... Everything. You can talk about any plants or staples to hold on to. Only the dead can not firmly squeeze hands. Add to this the machine gun fire. 1200 rounds per minute. With a speed of 750 meters per second. The body will drop in a couple of seconds.

So, in our opinion, Matrosov died a little differently. Using precisely the weak point of the bunker. Covered not embrasure, and ventilation. Even if not wanting to. Most likely, Alexander climbed onto the roof to use his PCA and shoot the Germans through the hood that was above the machine gun. But, apparently, he was shot either by the Germans at the rate, or from somewhere in the trenches where the other participants of this battle were defending.

Here it all comes together. Even a machine gun such as MG will not be able to lift the killed up by force of fire. The Germans were simply forced to leave the shelter to release the hood. Considering that the battalion was conducting a distracting fire on the bunker, this is still a pleasure.

It was possible for the Germans to open the door. Perhaps that is what they did. The fact is that in any case, the actions of Matrosov made it possible for the infantrymen to get close to the bunker. Where further bullets and grenades flew - into the embrasure or the open door - is no longer important.

It is important that the Germans accepted the death, most likely, a quick one, and the task was completed.

In the further interpretation of the feat, the names of Senior Sergeant Sharipov, Private Galimov and Ogurtsov are not mentioned. In the award documents on Matrosov about their exploits there is no information.

The only document where they are is the order for the brigade with the number 40. About awarding the distinguished. Sharipov received the medal "For Courage", the Galimov Order of the Red Star. The name of Peter Ogurtsov disappeared altogether.

It is clear that such feats were many. In particular, the commander of a platoon, Lieutenant Mikhail Lukyanenko, about whom nothing is known even today, accomplished the same feat on almost one day with Matrosov. Literally in the next village. And for the entire war officially registered over 200 repetitions feat Matrosov.

And this list of heroes began not Alexander Matrosov. He began his junior political director Alexander Konstantinovich Ponkratov. It was precisely the political instructor of the tank company 125 of the tank regiment 28 of the tank division (commander colonel Chernyakhovsky) of August 24 1941 of the year in battle for the Kirillov monastery on the bank of the Volkhov that was the first in the history of the Great Patriotic War to cover the enemy machine gun with his own body. A few seconds won was enough to organize the attack and the capture of the monastery by our troops ...

It is possible that the story was about the same as we described. Based on all written, we can draw the following conclusions.

If the Sailors fell on the embrasure of the German firing point, then:

1. He would not have closed it, in view of the embrasure's elevation on the ground. The fighter would get a series of bullets and fell under the weight of his own body. Physics.

2. The MG-42 rate of fire (1200-1500 per minute), the body could simply be thrown off from the embrasure. Also physics.

3. The most important point. Our soldiers were not idiots. This is a fact that is proven by the May 1945 of the year. And in 1943, they already knew how to fight. Therefore, by the way, more experienced Galimov and Sharipov survived in a similar situation. Story.

But there were plenty of examples of the curvature of the then writing brethren. The same soldiers of General Panfilov are the best (if I may say so) example. And such examples are wagons.

We are sure that there is something similar here. It was written for the "masses". And there it does not matter where this embrasure was: in the frontal or rear part. Or even on the roof. The main thing - that was. And her sailors closed. And further in the text.

But, nevertheless, an asteroid, especially in the gentlemen's garden of the “truth-hunters”.

The feat is always a feat. You can search for inaccuracies in the official version. You can catch commanders in distorting real information. But it is impossible to take away his feat from the soldier. You can select a reward. You can select papers from the archive.

But the memory of those whom he saved with his own death cannot be taken away. And really grateful descendants, the memory is also not easy to wipe.

We are confident that we were able to explain most of the controversial moments that occurred 75 years ago in the Pskov region.

And, in our opinion, the feat of the Soviet soldiers, Ponkratov, Matrosov and their followers, our conclusions did not detract.
Author:
Articles from this series:
Alexander Matrosov. Part of 1. Gods are not overthrown from pedestals
75 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. The comment was deleted.
  2. x917nt
    x917nt 14 March 2018 07: 15
    +6
    The author’s version of how everything was beautiful. But upon closer examination, there are many serious inconsistencies. For instance:
    1. Senior Sergeant Habit Sharipov and Dr. Yarulla Galimov, who, according to the author, were sent to destroy the bunkers, were assigned to different battalions of the brigade. Sharipov - in 2 OSB, and Galimov in 3 OSB. It is clear that these fighters had not only different commanders, but also battalion positions. How and who could send them at the same time to carry out a combat mission is not clear.
    2 Galimov - the 2nd calculation number PTR. .It is not clear how it is possible to send one (!) Fighter out of the calculation, and even the 2nd number alone with a heavy and cumbersome PTR to destroy the bunker?
    3. Well, and most importantly. Both Sharipov and Galimov participated in the destruction of enemy bunkers in the area of ​​the village of Chernushki February 26 1943. This is clearly reported in the award lists for these fighters.
    Alexander Matrosov died February 27 1943, i.e. a day later, which is recorded in the loss report of the 2nd OSB 91 OSBr.
    1. Vard
      Vard 14 March 2018 07: 35
      +7
      The conclusions of the feat do not diminish ... The dead do not shame ...
      1. x917nt
        x917nt 14 March 2018 08: 14
        +3
        Conclusions lead to clean water those who are trying to cling to the feat.
    2. chenia
      chenia 14 March 2018 21: 38
      +2
      Quote: x917nt
      listed in different battalions of the brigade. Sharipov - in 2 OSB, and Galimov in 3 OSB. It is clear that these fighters had not only different commanders, but also battalion positions. How and who could send them at the same time to carry out a combat mission is not clear.


      Well, and how far did they advance from each other?
      Here is a diagram of three bunkers at 300 m - GP, where it is not particularly necessary to pervert above the structure. From each bunker there is a "mustache" with an infantry squad which covers the bunkers. But it is closer to the URs and something is too modern (we are similar to Charyn (mountainous Kyrgyzstan-KSAVO-did.).

      What happened in that case is most likely an intermediate position already in the depths of the German defense, and in a secondary direction. Our detached from artillery (and artillery support in such areas is weak, and the tanks didn’t get there), the support tools lagged behind and in the process it was necessary to solve the problem.

      And the bunkers were at least 400 m apart from each other (or even more), so that they completely fit into the offensive zone of the two battalions (most likely incomplete - the standards were less).
  3. igordok
    igordok 14 March 2018 07: 35
    +3
    I doubt about the creation of channels for ventilation in the bunker. To complicate the fight against embrasure, a diamond ditch was created. But he was in the bunker, in the bunker he escaped extremely rarely.

    In the photo 1944., A group of correspondents, accompanied by military personnel, at the site of the feat of A. Matrosov.
    1. The comment was deleted.
  4. parusnik
    parusnik 14 March 2018 07: 48
    +4
    A feat always remains a feat.
    .... And no other way ....
    1. Reptiloid
      Reptiloid 14 March 2018 11: 01
      +3
      The victory over fascism, the victory of the USSR in the Great Patriotic War is the most important, the most important achievement. It is in order to diminish the significance of this victory for the whole world and there are attacks, blabbering. On the pretext of clarification ----- attempts to substitute meanings. Since, over the past 72 years after the Second World War, the Western world has not done anything that could compare with the Great Victory.
  5. parma
    parma 14 March 2018 07: 51
    +9
    The author needs to decide for himself ... Was there a feat or not ... And start with the definition of the word "feat" ... From the words of the author (by the way, the author himself confirms this), it follows that Sailors died during a combat mission ... Did he her? Partly yes ... The question arises, if Sailors died while performing a combat mission, is he a hero? Undoubtedly, like all participants in the Second World War ... But in fact, he did not close the bunker (and in this context, the bunker or bunker is just an empty polemic, it has nothing to do with the act itself), which means another lie ... It’s possible to continue blindly to believe in a feat, you can not believe it is everyone’s business, but to call those who don’t believe in any kind of swearing, write 2 articles about it (moreover, while acknowledging the fact of the forgery of concepts yourself) is some kind of sacrilege ... The author himself starts another holivar on the subject of exploits, and thereby (in my opinion) more whistleblowers dunk Matrosov in the mud, rubbing this topic for the millionth time and justifying propaganda ... Why? unclear....
    1. gsev
      gsev 14 March 2018 19: 14
      +2
      The definition of a feat lies in the military culture in the mentality of the people. Roughly speaking, the Japanese will receive a reward after the victorious end of the war, the German for specific indicators. The USSR then estimated what a man sacrificed in that war, how selflessly. Therefore, the main characters of that war were Kosmodemyanskaya, Sailors, Gastelo. Regarding the assessment of the feat, there is a work of the pilot and writer Hoffmann, although this topic is also carefully raised there. Which definition is correct or effective? When they say that the German criterion is vicious, they give an example. The most successful fighter pilot, Hartman, when defending an oil refinery from an American raid, threw a serviceable aircraft by parachute, while his less experienced wingman fought off and brought his fighter to the airfield.
      1. parma
        parma 15 March 2018 06: 52
        +2
        I understand perfectly well that in the Soviet understanding, a feat (partly in the Russian one) ... And therefore I spoke of something else, that the author himself admits, did not cover the Sailors with the bunker (in a fit of heroism, for sure), that he was killed by inexperience and I didn’t fulfill the task itself ... But the death itself allowed the others to finish what they had begun, paralyzing the work of the firing point, the rest being the work of propaganda ... Does the Sailors cease to be a hero from this? For me, yes, like all participants in the war, propaganda made a legendary personality of Alexander ...
  6. igordok
    igordok 14 March 2018 07: 59
    +7
    2. The MG-42 rate of fire (1200-1500 per minute), the body could simply be thrown off from the embrasure. Also physics.

    Hollywood and physics, things are incompatible.
    For some reason, everyone forgets that they studied at school and studied such a subject as physics, and there are all sorts of laws in it, including the "law of conservation of momentum." If we take the mass of a person 60 kg, then in order to fly off at a speed of 5 m / s, you must get an impulse 300 kgm / s. In order to report such an impulse (provided that the bullet does not penetrate the person, but gets stuck in his body), a bullet weighing 15 g (0,015 kg) should have a speed of 20000 m / s (20 km / s), i.e. even above third cosmic velocity. Only meteorites can have this speed. The actual bullet speed for the Colt 45 caliber is 260 m / s.
    1. chenia
      chenia 14 March 2018 10: 39
      +5
      Quote: igordok
      Hollywood and physics, things are incompatible.


      That's right, better Discovery. There was an experiment, shooting at a pig carcass hanging on a straight pin. Shot from all types up to 12,7 mm. I didn’t fall.

      But it was enough for Matrosov (covering his body) to limit observation and create a dead zone when it would be impossible to cover approaches.
      1. Luga
        Luga 14 March 2018 12: 58
        +6
        Quote: chenia
        But it was enough for Matrosov (covering his body) to limit observation and create a dead zone when it would be impossible to cover approaches.

        Most likely you are right.
        The version with clogging of the ventilation hole by the body, presented by the authors, I like less.
      2. BAI
        BAI 14 March 2018 16: 24
        +5
        I will say more. The Legend Destroyers checked whether a small-arms bullet could push a person back. The result cannot. (Checked different weapons).
        1. Almera
          Almera 15 March 2018 23: 50
          0
          There is no bullet. And sitting in the bunker? They took the scrap and threw it back.
    2. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 14 March 2018 10: 53
      +7
      Quote: igordok
      Hollywood and physics, things are incompatible.

      Duc ... if the body were discarded by the bullets falling into it, then in this case the machine gunner, when firing from his hands, could fly on traction from the machine gun. smile
      1. igordok
        igordok 14 March 2018 10: 59
        +4
        Quote: Alexey RA
        Duc ... if the body were discarded by the bullets falling into it, then in this case the machine gunner, when firing from his hands, could fly on traction from the machine gun.

        I completely agree. But opponents will indicate that the machine gun is easel, bolted to the ground.
        1. Almera
          Almera 15 March 2018 23: 53
          0
          Machine gunners also want to live, and yes, in case of collapse, they have measures. Even if Sailors was a log.
  7. Vard
    Vard 14 March 2018 08: 16
    +8
    It is absolutely impossible for the present plankton to believe that it is possible to close the embrasure with the body ...
  8. antivirus
    antivirus 14 March 2018 08: 34
    0
    antivirus Yesterday, 8:19 | Alexander Matrosov. Part 01. Gods are not overthrown from pedestals
    yes, I remember the "truth-tellers" of perestroika.
    But even the death of Alexander gave his comrades these necessary seconds for a throw.
    WHY IT SEEMS TO ME. THAT SASHKA HAS CLOSED THE MACHINE FOR HIS PAPIOSA TIGHTENING .- CANNOT ALLOW THE FRIEND OF A FRIEND WHO HAS GIVEN HIM TO SMOKE BEFORE ATTACK ("do not breathe your breath before death")

    just comrades A Matrosova appreciated the sacrifice and "asked" the commanders to note "killed for his own friends"
    1. kalibr
      kalibr 14 March 2018 10: 09
      +7
      In today's material of emotions is less and that’s good. But it is bad that the authors use many abusive words in relation to those with whom they disagree. No matter how these people disgust you personally, it should be remembered that such words always testify rather of weakness, but not of strength and conviction in their rightness. No wonder the Romans said, "Jupiter, you are angry, then you're wrong!" The journalist should not be in the pose of such a "Jupiter." Just a neutral presentation affects the public the most. Especially if it is confirmed by photographs of documents or scans of relevant articles from newspapers.
      1. Reptiloid
        Reptiloid 15 March 2018 10: 15
        +1
        Quote: kalibr
        In today's material of emotions is less and that’s good. But it is bad that the authors use many abusive words in relation to those with whom they disagree. No matter how these people disgust you personally, it should be remembered that such words always testify rather of weakness, but not of strength and conviction in their rightness. No wonder the Romans said, "Jupiter, you are angry, then you're wrong!" The journalist should not be in the pose of such a "Jupiter." Just a neutral presentation affects the public the most. Especially if it is confirmed by photographs of documents or scans of relevant articles from newspapers.

        Where the authors use abusive words MUCH --- I didn’t find. But these Authors are essentially the same. Moreover, when compared with the present, they don’t scoff at the readers that they know less than the Authors, or think differently.
  9. Romka47
    Romka47 14 March 2018 10: 04
    +4
    Near my native village of Verkhny Mamon, Prokatov repeated the feat of Matrosov, no need to go far.
  10. sxfRipper
    sxfRipper 14 March 2018 10: 43
    +3
    We are confident that we were able to explain most of the controversial moments that occurred 75 years ago in the Pskov region.
    I don’t know about the rest. To me personally - YES!
    The front-line writer Viktor Astafyev, discussing the feat of Alexander Matrosov with another front-line soldier, Vyacheslav Kondratiev, said: “Of course, he didn’t throw his chest on the pillbox ... Embrasure, you know, you can’t even close a well-fed commissar’s ass ...”)
    © V. Beshanov, Leningrad massacre. The terrible truth about the blockade.
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 14 March 2018 12: 54
      +6
      You would quote from Rezun or Boryusik Sokolov. smile
      Beshanov is a second-wave revisionist, known for masterfully pulling an owl onto a globe - fitting facts to theory. "bloody and stupid Savetsky regime, which drove people to the slaughter by force". It’s impossible to read his" Tank Pogrom of 1941 "without laughter - the author collected and carefully laid out all the myths of perestroika and the 90s.
      1. sxfRipper
        sxfRipper 14 March 2018 12: 58
        +5
        I recommend Beshanov read without laughing. Although for individuals grown on a memoir, this kind of companion Zhukova is not available.
        Threat - and he quotes two great Russian front-line writers, and not Glavpurovskaya shushera.
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 14 March 2018 13: 18
          +8
          Quote: sxfRipper
          I recommend Beshanov read without laughing. Although for individuals grown on a memoir, this kind of companion Zhukova is not available.

          It was an answer in the style of Bader - very weighty and half a meter past. ©
          Read the documents of that time. And books based on these very documents.
          A retelling of tales and memoirs, which is presented as historical research, is extremely difficult to read without laughter. If the author writes tanks in combat-ready vehicles that require military repairs (which cannot be done without spare parts), this is already a clinic. As well as counting the number of German tanks according to Muller-Hillebrand.
          Quote: sxfRipper
          Threat - and he quotes two great Russian front-line writers, and not Glavpurovskaya shushera.

          Do you consider the front an indulgence and a guarantee of the veracity of what was said? Well, Solzhenitsyn is also a front-line soldier.
          And Victor Astafyev is the same person who wrote in 1989 about the uselessness and inhumanity of the defense of Leningrad:
          A million lives - for the city, for the boxes? You can restore everything, down to the nail, but you won’t return your life ... But near Leningrad? People preferred to kill other people for a stone. And what a painful death! Children, old people ...
          1. sxfRipper
            sxfRipper 14 March 2018 13: 25
            +2
            I'm not going to convince you. The article is not about this, and the flood is not my element.
    2. gsev
      gsev 14 March 2018 18: 58
      +6
      A famous writer is not necessarily an objective specialist. He simply knows how to express his thoughts in an elegant syllable, just to raise issues of concern to people and society. For example, in the works of A.S. Pushkin battle scenes by participants in those wars were assessed as unreliable. Viktor Astafyev in his works has a certain respect for the criminal world and something in between the distrust, contempt and alienation of state institutions.
    3. Sugar Honeyovich
      Sugar Honeyovich 15 March 2018 06: 16
      +7
      Astafyev wrote something absurd about Matrosov (as well as about many other things): "... having fallen to the top of the bunker, he tried to pry out his arms or tilt the machine gun barrel to the ground, but the bunkers who were shown to us in the movies were sitting in the bunker,. .. and they pulled him with a machine gun from above and into the embrasure, riddled the kid. "
      Ie it was possible to "get" to the top of the bunker, how would I get drunk not in my entrance? To pry out or tilt the machine gun barrel to the ground, the barrel must protrude from the embrasure at least 30 centimeters, which is unrealistic.
      "... they pulled him by a machine gun from above and into the embrasure .." - that is, they pulled the machine gun toward themselves deep into the bunker, and Matrosov continued to hold on to the CURSED trunk and they pulled him INSIDE the embrasures like on a rope?
      And does the front-line soldier write this? There are no words, only expressions ...
  11. Glory1974
    Glory1974 14 March 2018 11: 29
    +10
    Covered not embrasure, but ventilation

    And for the whole war, over 200 repetitions of Matrosov’s feat were officially registered.

    That is, according to the authors, all of them closed the ventilation of bunkers (bunkers)?
    Bredsivecable, you can’t say otherwise.
  12. bubalik
    bubalik 14 March 2018 12: 01
    +2
    And there was ventilation in the ceiling
    recourse request





  13. Alexey RA
    Alexey RA 14 March 2018 13: 00
    +8
    Here again, there are doubts. The fact is that technically it is very difficult to close the embrasure. The embrasure wall is almost vertical. It is constructed in such a way as to exclude the possibility of this “body closing” or blockage with any objects during shelling by artillery.

    Judging by the photograph of the same bunker, its embrasure is located almost at ground level. So to close her body is quite possible.
    The height of the embrasure above the ground is generally the eternal headache of engineers. On the one hand, it would be nice to raise the embrasure - in order to provide an overview so that the firing sector does not overlap with the slightest bumps and that it is not easy to embed the embrasure with something or fill up the ground from a close gap. On the other hand, the height of the embrasure above the ground directly affects the height of the DOS itself - and this height should be as low as possible so as not to unmask the DOS and not make it a good guide for artillery.
    1. Galaxy
      Galaxy 15 March 2018 22: 15
      +2
      I agree, if the bunker in the photograph is the same, then it is quite possible that A. Matrosov closed the embrasure with his body. The hitch (possibly short) in the shooting and made it possible for Soviet soldiers to attack. And the version with ventilation looks unconvincing.
  14. BAI
    BAI 14 March 2018 16: 39
    +4
    As I wrote yesterday:
    in accordance with paragraph 73 of the Battle Manual, they went on the attack and captured a bunker: "Any weakening of the enemy’s fire and intensification of their fire should be considered an order to immediately advance the separation forward."

    any attenuation of fire is a signal to attack.
    Sailors could fall in front of the embrasure, thereby blocking the view or limit the shelling sector. Those. reduce the effectiveness of fire. And then according to the Charter - to attack.
    Judging by the photo that presented igordok, the human body could create difficulties when firing from a given bunker.
    By the way, at the expense of embrasure height. Directly stood next to several pillboxes (not bunkers) of the Pulkovo border - embrasures strictly at ground level.
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 14 March 2018 17: 30
      +2
      Quote: BAI
      By the way, at the expense of embrasure height. Directly stood next to several pillboxes (not bunkers) of the Pulkovo border - embrasures strictly at ground level.

      The current position of the earth, PMSM, is not an indicator: for 70 years, a concrete box could settle, and the earth could rise (they raked it with a bulldozer, poured it, and in the end it caused wind to the wall).
      We must look at the photos of that time. And then everything was different. Here, for example, Šiauliai UR:
      1. igordok
        igordok 14 March 2018 19: 39
        +2
        In the photo presented by you, the orilons are not sprinkled with soil. Those. these are not completed dos. And it will be wrong to judge the height of the embrasure.
        As you say, they tried to belittle the embrasure, and therefore the height of DOS. And so that the enemy could not close the embrasure or put a charge of explosives under the embrasure, a diamond ditch was built. And the embrasure was no longer at ground level. But this was done in the bunker, in the bunker almost never.
    2. The comment was deleted.
  15. Victor Red
    Victor Red 14 March 2018 18: 14
    +4
    Quote: Vard
    It is absolutely impossible for the present plankton to believe that it is possible to close the embrasure with the body ...

    You are absolutely right. All these revelatory-foolish comments from such as x917nt and others like them, all this from a complete misunderstanding of the motives driving Alexandra Matrosov, they do not see the point of their act. For them it does not matter whose army to feed, if only their feeder was full.
    I propose to write the third part to the authors - about Roger Young. Describe how his memory is honored in the United States.
    It will be interesting to look at the nineteen seventeen, how they will ulcerate.
    1. Prometey
      Prometey 14 March 2018 18: 48
      +6
      Quote: Victor Red
      they do not see the point of their action.

      You do not want to hear that. Not a single comment showed the humiliation of Matrosov’s feat. The question is different - why was this feat to be replicated so that another 200 people would repeat it, instead of teaching them to suppress bunkers with the fire of shells and mines, and not with the heroic bodies of people? For the Soviet-Finnish, for breaking the Mannerheim line, closing the embrasures with bodies for some reason was not required ...
      1. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 14 March 2018 19: 27
        +2
        Quote: Prometey
        For the Soviet-Finnish, for breaking the Mannerheim line, closing the embrasures with bodies for some reason was not required ...

        On LM, another trouble was: closing embrasures may and was required. That's just where these embrasures - no one knew.
        The defense system of the main Finnish SDs was opened only by February 1940. And before that they attacked in the best traditions of the WWI: first, artillery armament over areas, and then chains with tanks for machine guns and anti-tank missiles. The brigade of heavy tanks managed in a week to reduce almost to zero in four attacks.
        On the other hand, they began to use OM and BM artillery on direct fire at the Special Forces, bringing firing positions to the enemy’s small arms fire zone.
        1. Almera
          Almera 16 March 2018 00: 05
          +1
          So you answered. Instead of waiting for artillery, they decided to heroize. This is 43 years old!
      2. x917nt
        x917nt 14 March 2018 19: 46
        +7
        When the author writes that the command sends three bunkers to destroy three or four fighters (one for each firing point), there is a strong feeling that he did not read anything on this issue, except for reports from the political departments.
        The task of destroying bunkers in the Red Army was long ago solved, and even there were special instructions that clearly and clearly set out the technology of this operation, the forces and means involved. Naturally, it never occurred to any of the commanders to send one fighter to suppress the bunker. Here is how it looked in the special instructions.

        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 15 March 2018 10: 16
          +1
          Quote: x917nt
          The task of destroying bunkers in the Red Army was long ago solved, and even there were special instructions that clearly and clearly set out the technology of this operation, the forces and means involved.

          The problem of the Red Army was that until 1944, it was not just instructions, but the Charter that often remained only good wishes - few of the commanders read and applied them in practice. Remember the circumstances of the loss of mortars in the very battalion in which the sailors served?
          Quote: x917nt
          Naturally, it never occurred to any of the commanders to send one fighter to suppress the bunker.

          It occurred to the commanders under the threat of weapons to make the tanks spend the night in a clean field in front of the trenches of the infantry - as a guard. The result - in the morning the tanks were shot by a PTA dragged by the Germans.
          In general, judging by the SBD, the provisions of the Charter and instructions had to be communicated to the commanders in the form of orders.
          1. x917nt
            x917nt 15 March 2018 15: 51
            0
            Quote: Alexey RA
            not just instructions, but the Charter often remained only good wishes - few of the commanders read them

            Perhaps in some parts the way it was. But not in the 91st OSBr.
            The command of the 6SK, which included this brigade, just decided to spend the time allotted for a break after the December battles for the full-fledged study of its staff.
            By order of the corps No. 056 of January 23.01.1943, 12, it was prescribed in the corps brigade to organize training companies in which training was to take place. We studied very tightly, XNUMX hours a day.
            There were “our” questions in that training program, namely the action of the rifle units during the attack on the bunker. Education, according to the order, ended with the mandatory passing of knowledge to a special commission.
            So the commanders of Matrosov knew, and knew well, how and by what means the enemy firing points were blocked in battle.
            Fragment of the Order

            A fragment of the curriculum (Appendix to Order 056 from 23.01.43/6/XNUMX to XNUMX SC)

        2. Victor Red
          Victor Red 15 March 2018 16: 54
          +3
          Good afternoon. I saw the documents. Agree, it would be strange if there were no such instructions. I will not attract the ears of theory, as your previous opponents. Reading your comments, I have a question.
          I understand why the authors published the article:
          - to honor the memory of Alexander Matrosov
          - to honor the memory of fallen soldiers
          - pay tribute to the dedication of the Soviet people
          - to acquaint readers with the version of the feat, in their opinion, the most logical.
          Question: What is the purpose of your comments, what do you want to convey?
          1. The comment was deleted.
            1. chenia
              chenia 15 March 2018 19: 23
              +3
              Quote: x917nt
              And if there were such instructions, and the commanders were familiar with the methods of destroying enemy bunkers,


              You are generally familiar with this system, I see that it is not. In the combat training department, you can have two carts of documents with the final resolutions - speed up, complete. bring, report on the implementation, etc. .. Mass recommendation on maintaining the database in various conditions. Unfortunately, even the control unit could not always be carried out, given that both the staff and weapons did not correspond to the rank of formation.

              It’s much easier to destroy such targets with artillery (and should), and there might not have been any (practical) testing of this issue (look at how many there are).
              So they say if you stumble and there is no support for tanks and artillery, then ...... and on the fingers explained.

              Quote: x917nt
              And the exploit of Matrosov, which could be part of one of them, developed in a completely different scenario?


              The final thing here is self-sacrifice, and that was what we will remember for.

              Do you question that?
              1. x917nt
                x917nt 15 March 2018 20: 31
                +1
                Quote: chenia
                Here the finale is important

                And most importantly - we won. And what was there is not important and uninteresting.
                Did I understand you correctly?
                1. chenia
                  chenia 15 March 2018 20: 40
                  +3
                  Quote: x917nt
                  And most importantly - we won.


                  And this is also true.
                  And you specify the claims, what is wrong?
                  And how would you be a strategist, organize a task (without artillery and tanks)?
                  1. x917nt
                    x917nt 15 March 2018 21: 18
                    +1
                    Quote: chenia
                    And how would you be a strategist, organize a task (without artillery and tanks)?

                    Would fill up with corpses.
                    Are you waiting for such an answer?
                    1. chenia
                      chenia 15 March 2018 23: 01
                      +4
                      Quote: x917nt
                      Are you waiting for such an answer?


                      It happened in every way. Nemchuru pinned, those and children were thrown into battle.
                      But here, what begs Matrosov’s feat? What? And do not answer the question with a question.
                      Did not work out. he had grenades to undermine the bunker, made a decision thereby contributing to the unit's performance with minimal losses. At the cost of his life.
                      Feat? Definitely! Hero? Definitely!
                      Remained in memory deservedly!
                      1. x917nt
                        x917nt 16 March 2018 05: 06
                        +3
                        Quote: chenia
                        Did not work out. he has grenades to blow up the bunker

                        Yes, do not undermine the bunkers with grenades single soldiers! How can you not understand this? It is impossible and pointless. For this, there were special techniques and skills that were taught to soldiers and commanders. Blocking a bunker is always a mandatory preliminary reconnaissance, constant monitoring, development of a plan, and a small but always carefully prepared operation. There is simply no place for singles!
                2. rew
                  rew 15 March 2018 20: 58
                  +1
                  Quote: x917nt
                  And most importantly - we won.

                  This is not a valid statement.
                  The USSR was only among 4 main winners and 53 simply winners of the Axis countries.
                  Quote: x917nt
                  And what was there is not important and uninteresting.

                  How is it "unimportant and uninteresting"? This is the most important thing to eat. Because the descendants of those 19 million Soviet troops who died during WWII will never be again.
                  1. chenia
                    chenia 15 March 2018 22: 46
                    +2
                    Quote: rew
                    Because the descendants of those 19 million Soviet troops who died during WW2,


                    And so little? 2 billion. When 2x2 = 40, the arguments are useless.
                    1. rew
                      rew 15 March 2018 23: 21
                      0
                      Quote: chenia
                      When 2x2 = 40, the arguments are useless.

                      And what could be the arguments against the declassified in 2017 figures of the USSR State Planning Committee (CSB)? Except perhaps empty fabrications.
                      1. chenia
                        chenia 15 March 2018 23: 30
                        +2
                        Quote: rew
                        And what could be the arguments


                        The main argument is that the population is not enough.
                        And it still stretches from RI.
                        Here it is necessary either to refuse losses in the GV, and all famines and repressions, or to reduce losses from the Second World War.

                        And the question is - why do you not recognize official losses?
                    2. rew
                      rew 15 March 2018 23: 34
                      0
                      Quote: chenia
                      The main argument is that the population is not enough.
                      And it still stretches from RI.
                      Here it is necessary either to refuse losses in the GV, and all famines and repressions, or to reduce losses from the Second World War.

                      So I say, except for empty fabrications.
                      1. chenia
                        chenia 15 March 2018 23: 37
                        +1
                        Quote: rew
                        So I say, except for empty fabrications.


                        Quote: chenia
                        And the question is - why do you not recognize official losses?


                        So I say, except for empty fabrications.
            2. Victor Red
              Victor Red 16 March 2018 16: 25
              +2
              Quote: x917nt
              In general, it turns out that in reality everything was not as it actually was ...))

              That is, you, with all those comments in both parts, just tried to ask a question: "Was there a boy?" laughing hi Then the answer is, purely secret, why do you need this?
              1. x917nt
                x917nt 16 March 2018 17: 57
                0
                Quote: Victor Red
                That is, you, with all those comments in both parts, just tried to ask a question: "Was there a boy?

                You confuse me with someone.
      3. domokl
        domokl 15 March 2018 04: 29
        +5
        Quote: Prometey
        why was this feat to be replicated so that more 200 people would repeat it,

        Well yes. Do you remember the corporal from the MTR, whom Putin awarded last year? Such a surprised guy with a Hero of Russia Star? Like, what did I do that I became a Hero?
        So, this guy repeated the feat of another Hero. That starling, which caused fire on itself, when it was calculated by the terrorists. Repeated one to one.
        And under the fire of our own VKS was. It was just luck. Comrades appeared on time. Provided an exit.
        He also did this only because he had read enthusiastic comments about the comrade’s deed, or because the soldier? Russian soldier? "Die yourself, and help a comrade" is probably not about you ...
      4. Victor Red
        Victor Red 15 March 2018 16: 13
        +3
        Quote: Prometey
        Not a single comment was the belittling deed of Matrosov

        Subject to doubts of expediency, there is a belittling of a feat, this is firstly. Secondly, the feasibility of resistance as a whole is being questioned, and this is already the belittling of the feat of the entire Soviet people in the Second World War.
        Quote: Prometey
        Why was this feat replicated?

        "Propaganda and agitation is one of the main tasks of the Bolsheviks" V.I. Lenin
        "Duplicated" is not a way to deal with long-term firing structures, but a willingness to sacrifice for the sake of saving the lives of other people and completing assigned combat missions, the final result of which is victory in the war.
        to be repeated by another 200 people, instead of being taught to suppress bunkers with the fire of shells and mines, and not with the heroic bodies of people

        No matter how blasphemous it may sound, but only two hundred (the numbers you brought). Not 2000 or 20000, or 200 thousand, but this suggests that the troops, an article about Alexander Matrosov, were not perceived as a guide to action. Nobody massively shut up embrasures with bodies. Or maybe you are trying to argue that in the period from February 43 to May 45, the Red Army encountered only two hundred DOS. Then this is another belittlement of the feat.
        For the Soviet-Finnish, for breaking the Mannerheim line, closing the embrasures with bodies for some reason was not required ...

        How do you know, only because it is not "replicated". Before Matrosov, such cases are known. I think something similar was in the Wehrmacht. The Allies definitely had, by the way, also widely replicated.
        To you a question: What do you think of Roger Young.
        1. Prometey
          Prometey 16 March 2018 07: 25
          +1
          Quote: Victor Red
          Subject to doubts of expediency, there is a belittling of a feat, this is firstly. Secondly, the feasibility of resistance as a whole is being questioned, and this is already the belittling of the feat of the entire Soviet people in the Second World War.

          Sorry, I did not find this in any comments.
          And the analysis is not Matrosov’s act. I always had and still have one question - was it possible to suppress the firing points in that place by artillery fire, tanks, etc.?
          1. Victor Red
            Victor Red 16 March 2018 16: 00
            +1
            Sorry, I did not find this in any comments

            When the "scorched" scans are given and on their basis it is concluded that the soldiers went on the attack with almost bare hands, is that what you think? (my comment concerned both parts)
            Quote: Prometey
            I always had and still have one question - was it possible to suppress the firing points in that place by artillery fire, tanks, etc.?

            I understood you. If you are really interested in my opinion, answer about Roger Young, I did not just ask. At least say that you know about whom it is.
  16. Was mammoth
    Was mammoth 14 March 2018 21: 54
    +5
    About 400 soldiers of the Soviet army entered the same way as A. Matrosov. Can the authors conclude? Slipped on the ventilation?
    Shameful article.
    1. domokl
      domokl 15 March 2018 04: 35
      +2
      Please quote the words of the authors confirming your words. Or did you make that conclusion? And are you trying to pass off your own conclusions as copyright? Don't you think this is somewhat vile?
      People of such a profession as you have in Russia were called the beautiful word -Zolotar. But now, to gold, alas, this relationship had no ...
      1. Was mammoth
        Was mammoth 15 March 2018 08: 03
        +3
        Quote: domokl
        People of such a profession as you have in Russia were called the beautiful word -Zolotar. But now, to gold, alas, this relationship had no ...

        Did you look in the mirror?
        I consider the fact of the attempt to "disassemble" the bones "myths" as sacrilegious.
        PS In the photo from 7:35 take a look again. "Physics", damn it!
      2. The comment was deleted.
  17. Djusha
    Djusha 15 March 2018 09: 10
    +1
    Паnkrat

    https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Панкратов,_Александ
    r_Konstantinovich

    And, yes, it’s impossible to “cast aside a bullet” a person’s body, it’s a cinematic stamp, refuted many times.
  18. Doliva63
    Doliva63 15 March 2018 19: 09
    +9
    Father, an officer who passed the Second World War, instructed: study, damn it, tirelessly, otherwise you have to become a Hero, like Sailors. He did not detract from his feat in the least, but believed that the dead Hero was worse than a living fighter who had more than one bunker “crashing”. Front-line soldiers, they were still cynics.
    1. Almera
      Almera 16 March 2018 00: 27
      +3
      You always have time to die as a hero, but not always to complete a task ... Your father is right.
  19. chenia
    chenia 16 March 2018 10: 01
    +1
    x917nt,
    Quote: x917nt
    Yes, do not undermine the bunkers with grenades single soldiers!


    And where did I say that Sailors was alone? He alone (from the group) made it to the bunker.

    Bunkers are generally crushed by artillery and tanks along the way.
    And how the circumstances were, that there was neither one nor the other, I do not know.
    And so, in order not to slow down the pace of the offensive (by the way, this sharply reduces overall losses), the commanders (did not wait), but sent assault groups.

    Sailors grenades could not complete the task. But performed differently.
    1. The comment was deleted.
      1. Doliva63
        Doliva63 16 March 2018 18: 52
        +5
        Through ...., excuse me, discuss other topics.
  20. faiver
    faiver 16 March 2018 11: 02
    +3
    I have to admit that the authors approached the writing of the article very superficially
    A bomb in 50 kg, a cannon shell with a caliber of 45-mm and higher, a mine from a mortar 120-mm (or several mines 82-mm) - and the problem is solved
    - it seems to be easy to read ..., but first remember a meter of soil on top of the bunker, and then - in the 50 kg explosive bomb 25 kg, in the OFS 45mm guns 100-150gram, and in the 120mm th mine 1,5-3kg, don't understand either one of two
    then the version that Matrosov tried to close the bunker’s ventilation hole does not stand up to criticism, since the effect of smoke and gas pollution on the bunker is not instantaneous, one version says that he tried to shoot machine gunners in the bunker through the ventilation hole - this seems more like the truth
    and thirdly, based on the fact that the photo of the bunker given in the article is reliable and it was Matrosov who closed it himself, then this is quite real
    And in the fourth, the question arises - if two of the three bunkers are already neutralized, why the heck should they shove on the forehead to the third - his fire sector is limited, the other two bunkers do not cover him ...
    somehow like this hi
    1. Almera
      Almera 16 March 2018 17: 06
      0
      The author is right, but you are not. but plus I will put upfront.
    2. The comment was deleted.
      1. faiver
        faiver 16 March 2018 17: 50
        +2
        someone hike nursery has already begun ...
  21. beeper
    beeper 26 March 2018 14: 03
    +1
    I don’t remember, either about Chernushka, or else about what kind of battle for the Russian village I read in the memoirs of war veterans. But the canoe was such, the PTO artillerymen, given to the attacking battalion, flatly refused to roll out the cannon for direct fire under machine-gun fire, enter, take it into a duel with the Hitler bunkers, obviously losing to them, and the commander had to send less valuable infantrymen to suppress request .
    Several groups died before they succeeded in completing the assigned combat mission, because the cornerstones in the stability of enemy defense of the bunkers were covered by the fire of all Hitler's infantry and attached artillery (and even the use of regular Hansa mortars were recognized masters), and not just the neighboring machine guns!
    In addition to well-equipped positions, the Nazis used the usual soldier tricks - after trying to undermine the bunkers, they renewed fire at the most favorable moment when the Soviet infantry, confident in the destruction of the enemy machine gun, was attacking ...
    For pushing away foreign objects (including the bodies of killed enemy soldiers) from the embrasure without going outside during the battle, I don’t know how the Soviet ones did, but the Hitler machine gunners in the bunker always had a long poker!
    And already there were enough killed near the bunker near the village of Chernushka — Alexander Matrosov had something to hide for, to crawl closer and who to lie in front of the embrasure to obscure the shelling sector ...
    Also, which was noted by many of our comrade fighters, Hitler machine gunners used to shoot at the bodies of our dead soldiers, turning them into a shapeless pile of human flesh chopped up by bullets mixed with tattered clothes and ammunition ...
    Of course, the number of such heroic acts on the part of the Soviet soldiers was much greater than the rewards for them! And before the feat of Alexander Matrosov, and throughout the war, including the victorious 45m, in the war with the Nazis and the Japanese!