The legendary T-34. From the Korean War to the Breakup of Yugoslavia

The T-34 tank is considered the most famous Soviet a tank and one of the most recognizable symbols of World War II. This medium tank is rightly also called one of the symbols of victory. The T-34 became the most massive medium tank of the Great Patriotic War, it was recognized by many experts as the best tank of the war. This combat vehicle combined good technical characteristics and combat capabilities with high technological design and ease of production, which ensured mass production of the tank even in difficult military conditions using low-skilled labor.

The tank was mass-produced in the USSR from 1940 to 1945 year, starting from 1944, the plants were going to the T-34-85 variant, which received a new turret and more powerful gun - C-85 tank gun. This version of the legendary “Thirty-Four” is especially common today, it can be seen on numerous monuments in many countries of the world. The T-53-34 was mass-produced in the Soviet Union from 85 to 1944 a year, that is, before the mass production of the T-1950 tank began. Under the USSR license, 54 tanks of this type were also produced, they were assembled in Czechoslovakia in 3185-1952, and 1958 tanks were assembled in Poland from 1980 to 1953 a year.

The tank proved to be excellent in the war years. Remaining in service with the Red Army throughout the Second World War. For example, by the end of 1943, the T-34 accounted for up to 79 percent of all tank production in the Soviet Union. By the end of 1944, its share increased to 86 percent of the total production of tanks in the USSR. T-34 took part in almost all military operations of the Great Patriotic War, was widely used by the Soviet troops during the storming of Berlin. After the end of World War II, T-34-85 tanks were in significant quantities delivered to various countries in Europe and Asia, where they were widely used in numerous military conflicts, including the Korean War, the Six-Day War and numerous military conflicts in the former Yugoslavia at the beginning of the 1990's yo

T-34-85 and the Korean War

The first major armed conflict after World War II, in which armored vehicles were widely used, including the Soviet T-34-85 medium tanks, was the Korean war of 1950-1953. Tanks played a key role in the battles during the first 9 months of this conflict. The success of the invasion of North Korean troops into South Korea was largely due to the massive and skillful use of available armored resources, as well as weak anti-tank defense of South Korea.

It is worth noting that the tank forces of North Korea began to form only in the 1948 year, they were created with the active participation of China and the USSR. So in 1948, in Sadong, with the participation of the Soviet troops, the 15 training tank regiment was formed, which was deployed in a suburb of Pyongyang. In the created unit there were only two T-34-85 tanks, while Korean tankers trained the 30 tank officers from the Soviet Union here. In May 1949, the regiment was disbanded, its cadets became officers of the new 105-th tank brigade. This unit Kim Il Sung expected to use for the main attack on South Korea. On the preparation of the brigade for hostilities spared neither the strength nor the means. The 105-I tank brigade consisted of three tank regiments, which subsequently received numbers: 107, 109, and 203. By October 1949, the brigade was fully equipped with medium tanks T-34-85. The 206 th motorized infantry regiment also joined the brigade, the 308 th armored battalion consisting of 6 SAU SU-76M was to support the infantry. The 1950 fighters and officers of this brigade spent the whole spring in intensive exercises.

By the time of the invasion of South Korea, the North Korean People’s Army National Aviation Inspectorate was armed with 258 T-34-85 tanks, of which about half were in the 105 tank tank brigade. About 20 medium tanks were in the 208-th training tank regiment, which was planned to be used as a reserve. The remaining Thirty-Fours were distributed among the newly formed tank regiments - 41, 42, 43, 45 and 46 (in fact, they were tank battalions that sometimes had 15 tanks) and the 16 and 17 units by tank brigades, which were more likely to be equipped with tank regiments (40-45 combat vehicles).

The enemy in the face of the army of South Korea was armed much worse. The South Korean military had very few effective anti-tank weapons, the army was less well equipped and poorly trained. The available anti-tank weapons were mainly represented by inconvenient and ineffective 57-mm caliber anti-tank guns (an American copy of the famous British 6-pound cannon).

The Korean War began in June 1950, when North Korean troops crossed the 38 parallel (the border along which the United States and the Soviet Union agreed to divide Korea), invading the territory of their southern neighbor. Due to the rapid advance of the North Korean troops, the Americans quickly had to transfer part of their troops from Japan to South Korea, in particular one of the companies of the 78 heavy tank battalion, which was equipped with M24 “Chaffee” tanks, which turned out to be almost completely useless against the T-34 -85.

At the initial stage of the war, success was accompanied by the NASK, on ​​whose side there was both initiative and superiority in technology. Most South Korean soldiers have never seen tanks in their lives, and the extremely low efficiency of 60-mm bazookas and 57-mm anti-tank guns only increased the demoralizing effect of the use of North Korean armored vehicles. To fight the tanks, the South Korean military resorted to improvised high-explosive satchel charges and trotyl sticks tied with grenades. Trying to undermine tanks with such charges, a large number of South Korean soldiers were killed, only in the 1 Infantry Division the order of the 90 man was lost. The helplessness of the South Korean infantry in front of the T-34-85 caused panic attack of tanks, which significantly weakened the defenses.

After several months of painful battles, the Americans began to transfer to Korea a large number of modern armored vehicles. The rapid onset of the UN forces from Busan in September 1950 of the year was due primarily to the mechanization of US military units, which was their strength. Heavy fighting with the participation of tanks continued in Korea from August to October 1950. In November, the North Korean tank could hardly be found on the battlefields. By the beginning of the war, the NSCC had an advantage in tanks over the enemy, but by August the numerical superiority was already behind the Americans. If the beginning of the war the DPRK had 258 tanks T-34-85, plus 150 has been received from the Soviet Union after the war began, the Americans by the end of 1950 years received 1326 tanks: 138 M24 «Chafii", 679 medium tanks M4AZE8 "Sherman" 309 M26 Pershing and 200 M46 Patton. At the same time, the “Thirty-fours” could fight on equal terms only with the first two, the M26 and the M46 exceeded them in their technical characteristics.

Until the end of the war in Korea, 119 tank battles took place, of which 104 included tanks of the US Army and 15 tanks of the US Marine Corps (1-I tank battalion of marines). Most of these battles had the character of minor skirmishes, only in 24 battles from North Korea more than three tanks participated in the battle. In total, North Korean tankers and self-propelled guns knocked out the 34 of the American tank, of which the 15 combat vehicles were lost forever, the rest were repaired and put into operation. In turn, the American tankers knocked out 97 tanks T-34-85.

Medium tank T-34-85 was more susceptible to the action of tank fire. His armor could penetrate all the guns of American medium tanks, whereas the Thirty-Four was able to penetrate the armor of the M26 and the M46 with difficulty. Tank battles demonstrated lack of training of Korean crews. Acting quite well against the enemy infantry and its light tanks, North Korean tankers were poorly prepared for oncoming tank battles. They shot slowly and inaccurately. For unknown reasons, some Korean crews fired high-explosive shells at enemy tanks and, even achieving hits, did not cause them significant harm. At the same time, the American Pershing 90-mm cannon put the T-34-85 out of operation with a single hit, and the American tank crews were well prepared. Often they fired several shots at the enemy’s tank in order to cause a fire or a detonation of ammunition, which led to the fact that losses among North Korean crews reached 75 percent. At the same time, American tank losses were caused mainly by mine explosions and the effects of anti-tank artillery. So from 136 American percent 1950 lost in battles of the year, 69 was blown up by mines.

In general, the T-34-85 proved to be an excellent tank, but the training of North Korean tank crews was no match for the training of the Americans. In terms of its combat characteristics, the T-34-85 roughly corresponded to the American M4-3-X8 Sherman and excelled Chaffee in everything. Despite the fact that the M4А3Е8 was armed with a smaller caliber gun than the T-34-85, the extensive use of sabot projectiles (Т4 HVAP-T) compensated for the difference in caliber. Thanks to a more powerful cannon, the Soviet medium tank T-34-85 at conventional combat distances would break through the M4AZ8 armor without any difficulties. At the same time, due to the difficult terrain conditions (hilly terrain and mountains), tank battles were often conducted at close distances. The American tanks M26 and M46, which the T-34-85 had to face, were of a newer generation and clearly outnumbered the “Thirty-Four”, corresponding to the rather heavy Soviet tank EC-2M.

T-34-85 in battles in the Middle East

After the end of the Korean war, the T-34-85 tanks were widely used in the Arab-Israeli wars. In particular, this tank was widely used during the 1956 Suez crisis of the year. After Colonel Gamal Abdel Nasser came to power in Egypt, the state changed its foreign policy course, reorganizing into cooperation with the Soviet Union and the socialist countries. In 1953, Nasser signed an agreement on the supply of weapons, including 230 tanks (most of the T-34-85) from Czechoslovakia. They all took part in the Suez War, which lasted from October 1956 to March 1957. Egypt nationalized the Suez Canal, which did not please Britain and France, who did not tolerate such a prejudice of their political and economic interests in the region.

T-34-85 at the parade in Cairo

All this resulted in full-scale hostilities. October 31, 1956 English-French aviation attacked Egyptian airfields, and on November 1, Israeli troops launched an offensive on the Sinai Peninsula. During the operation "Cadet", the Israelis destroyed, among other things, 27 T-34-85 tanks, losing 30 of their vehicles. The Israelis fought on the French tanks AMX-13 and the American "Sherman". On November 5, the intervention of the French and British began, but there were no military clashes between the tanks of the European armies and the Egyptian troops.

The Suez crisis pushed Egypt into even closer cooperation with the socialist countries in the military sphere. Until the end of the year, 120 T-34-85 tanks were supplied from Czechoslovakia, and in 1962-63 Egypt received another batch of "Thirty-Fours", only Egypt received the last 1965 T-67-160 tanks, later Cairo more modern T-34 and T-85.
At the beginning of the 1960-ies a significant number of tanks T-34-85 turned out to be in service with the Syrian army. In Syria, the T-34 tanks fought side by side with their recent adversaries — the German PzKpfw.IV tanks and the StuG.III assault guns, the German trophy equipment hit Syria from France. The Soviet T-34-85, together with the former German “fours”, took part in battles with Israeli “Shermans”, this happened in November 1964 of the year on the Golan Heights.

The last war in the Middle East, in which the T-34-85 tanks were used for their intended purpose, was the Six-Day War 1967 of the year. This conflict ended with the defeat of the Arab armies. As a result of the war, Israel gained control of the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, East Jerusalem, the Golan Heights and the Sinai Peninsula. The fighting in Sinai ended with the defeat of the Egyptian troops. In the battles, the Israelis destroyed more than 820 Egyptian tanks, including 251 T-34-85, the Israeli army’s own casualties were 122 of the Sherman tank, AMX-13 and Centurion. On the Syrian front, the loss ratio was in favor of the Arabs, who lost the 73 tank (T-34-85, T-54 and PzKpfw.IV), destroying the Israeli tanks 160.

Padded and abandoned Syrian T-34-85, Golan.

After this conflict, the T-34-85 was never used again in the Middle East in direct clashes and tank battles, they were replaced by more modern combat vehicles. The Thirty-Fours were no longer used as tanks, the remaining combat vehicles were often used as fixed firing points, a significant number of T-34-85 tanks were turned into chassis for various SPGs.

T-34-85 in conflicts in the Balkans

In 1991, hostilities began in the territory of the former Yugoslavia. In the summer of 1991, the war began in Croatia, during the conflict the parties used tanks, artillery and aircraft. These hostilities then escalated into a full-scale civil war, the cause of which was the coming to power of Slovenia and Croatia by nationalists who had decided to secede from Yugoslavia, as well as the decision of Belgrade to prevent the collapse of the country by force.

Along with the tanks created after the Second World War (Soviet T-55 and M-84 - the Yugoslav version of the main battle tank T-72), T-34-85 tanks still in combat were involved in the battles. At the same time, the Thirty-Fours used all parties to the conflict in battles. The Croats seized some of these tanks from the Serbs; some of the vehicles were literally hijacked into the formations of the Croatian National Guard by crews who deserted from the Yugoslav People’s Army.

In the autumn of 1991, the T-34-85 was used in the battles in the Dubrovnik and Konavle areas, used by both the Serbs and the Croats. At the same time, due to the low combat readiness of obsolete tanks, they were used as means of fire support, mainly as self-propelled artillery installations, most of their ammunition was high-explosive fragmentation shells. Despite the fact that by that time the tanks were already hopelessly outdated machines, they showed themselves well in combat operations. For example, a Croatian tank with the inscription “MALO BIJELO” experienced two hits of the Malyutka anti-tank guided missile, and its crew destroyed a truck, two armored vehicles and one T-55 Serbs. The Croats tried to compensate for the weakness of the T-34-85 armor by placing sandbags on the sides of the turret and the hull of the tank.

Used T-34-85 and during the fighting in the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Their use was sporadic. This period includes a photograph of an unusual screened Serbian tank T-34-85 with the inscription "With Vera!" On the tower, he went through the entire Bosnian war. After the end of hostilities, all the remaining Thirty-Fours as part of the armies that had arisen on the site of the former Yugoslavia of the states were, after a short time, removed from service.

Information sources:
http://otvaga2004.ru/tanki/v-boyah/tanki-t-34-v-koree
http://otvaga2004.ru/tanki/v-boyah/t-34-after-war
http://www.aviarmor.net/tww2/tanks/ussr/t-34-85_5.htm
https://www.gazeta.ru/army/2018/03/30/11701598.shtml?updated
Open source materials

Comments

[arhPavel]

Informative article, the grandfather fought well.

[Anatole Klim]

Quote: arhPavel

good grandfather fought.

He is still fighting: in Yemen, in the Donbass, spotted in Syria

[URAL72]

We in the Donbass, the T-34 is not at war. There were attempts to use the restored monument, but this is for fighting spirit. The article does not describe the "adventures" of the car in Africa, in the reflection of the landing in Cuba, Vietnam, etc.

[Proxima]

Quote: URAL72

The article does not describe the "adventures" of the car in Africa, in the reflection of the landing in Cuba, Vietnam, etc.

Not only that, it seems to me that the accents were a bit wrong about the Korean War, namely, that the T-34 coped well with the South Korean units, completely demoralized them, but the American units pulled themselves together and gave the North Koreans a good thrash. This is not entirely true. Here is one of the many cases of a T-34 combat clash with the Americans:
July 10, 1950 the first tank battle took place between T-34-85 and M24 from company A of the 78th tank battalion. Two M24 were shot down, "thirty-four" had no losses. 75 mm American shells did not penetrate their frontal armor. The next day, company A lost three more tanks, and by the end of July it practically ceased to exist - it remained two tanks out of 14! Such results completely demoralized American tankers and quite afflicted the foot soldiersThat now they did not see any effective anti-tank weapons in M24.
So, the Chaffee together with the arsenal of anti-tank weapons at first could not withstand even the average trained crews of the North Korean T-34.

[Kot_Kuzya]

It `s naturally. Chaffee was armed with a 75 mm gun with an initial speed of 610 m / s and a projectile weight of 6,3 kg. The T-34-85 had 85-mm guns with 9,2 kg shells and an initial speed of 800 m / s. T-34-85 beat Chaffee from 1500 both on the forehead and on board as they wanted, and the Amer tanks had to approach the T-34-85 at 500 m, but they were not allowed at such a distance. That is, the situation was similar to the situation between the T-34 and the Panther in the summer of 1943, when the T-34 could penetrate Panther’s armor to the side from a distance of 500 m, while the Panther could penetrate the T-34’s forehead from a distance of 1500 m.

[Proxima]

Quote: Kot_Kuzya

It `s naturally. Chaffee was armed with a 75 mm gun with an initial speed of 610 m / s and a projectile weight of 6,3 kg .....

Naturally, the North Koreans could not compete with the next generation heavy tanks (with the Pershing and Patton) (do not forget about the higher level of training of the American crews), but it was possible to deal with the Sherman. “Sherman” was slightly inferior to the T-34 only in firepower. If the T-34-85 without difficulty hit the Sherman at a distance of a direct shot with conventional armor-piercing shells, then the American tank achieved a similar result only when using sub-caliber and cumulative shells.
One example: “The first battle of the T-34-85 with the“ Shermans ”took place on September 27. 10“ thirty-four ”attacked M4AZE8 of the 2nd platoon of the company From the 70th tank battalion. Three "Sherman" were hit in a matter of seconds. Then one T-34-85 ironed the transport column, smashing 15 trucks and jeeps into chips, and was shot down at point-blank range from a 105 mm howitzer. Four more T-34-85 were victims of bazooka fire, and two North Korean tanks knocked out the main forces of the 70th tank battalion that came from the rear. "
The Americans rated the T-34-85 as an “excellent tank,” while noting specific training for their crewswho were able to effectively attack the defense unprepared in anti-tank terms, but at the same time could not fight on equal terms with the American tank in tank duels.
In a word, the T-34-85 in Korea proved to be very worthy, despite the fact that he had to face the next generation enemy tanks and their more trained crews in battles.

[redf]

Quote: Proxima

but with the “Sherman” it was possible to fight.

Yes? And with what account?

Quote: Proxima

“Sherman” was slightly inferior to the T-34 only in firepower.

Already in the goiter stole. Are you saying that the 85 mm S-53 was better than the 76 mm M1? In what place, if not secret?

Quote: Proxima

If the T-34-85 without difficulty hit the Sherman at a distance of a direct shot with conventional armor-piercing shells, then the American tank achieved a similar result only when using sub-caliber and cumulative shells.

Did you come up with this or read somewhere on the left?
If we proceed from the security and armament of the T-34/85 and Sherman with the M1, then the T-34/85 had no chance, all else being equal.
And his gun was a little worse. And less armor in the forehead. And the armor itself is worse.

Quote: Proxima

One example:

For your one example, 100 examples of the opposite meaning can be given.

Quote: Proxima

The Americans rated the T-34-85 as an “excellent tank”

Do not make up. The findings of the Aberdeen landfills were rather negative.

Quote: Proxima

but at the same time they could not fight on equal terms with American tankers in tank duels.

This tanks could not fight on equal terms.

Quote: Proxima

In a word, the T-34-85 in Korea proved to be very worthy, despite the fact that he had to face the next generation enemy tanks and their more trained crews in battles.

Controversial statement. Especially considering the fact that the Juche Maoist Communists did not capture Korea.

[nikoliski]

The cumulative projectile was on Sherman only in the version with the 105mm assault projectile (which had only 2 types of fragmentation shells and cumulative with 100mm armor penetration) ordinary Shermans equipped with a 76mm cannon used caliber armor-piercing shells (Shermans subcaliber only in arcade potato production Of Tanks) otherwise everything was written correctly.

[Cherry Nine]

Quote: Proxima

So, “Chaffee” in conjunction with an arsenal of anti-tank weapons at first could not resist

It seems that the article describes this quite adequately. Of course, oncoming fights with the T-34-85 Chaffee are contraindicated. The light tank has other functions. So there are more questions to the command.

[redf]

Quote: Proxima

the first tank battle took place between T-34-85 and M24

You can also compare the battle of T-34 with motorcycles. Then the advantage of the T-34 will be even greater.
But if you compare the battle of T-34 with Pz.IV or Sherman, then that's it, T-34 cranks.

[Cherry Nine]

Quote: redf

But if you compare the battle of T-34 with Pz.IV or Sherman, then that's it, T-34 cranks.

To T-34 krants, Sherman must be Israeli, 51st. In all other cases, the outcome of the battle will not be determined by the technique, but by other circumstances.

[redf]

Quote: Cherry Nine

To T-34 krants, Sherman must be Israeli, 51st.

Not at all. Lend-Lease would also be enough.
Sherman with M1 was better than the T-34/85 in almost all elements. Somewhere the advantage was great. Somewhere, smaller. But it was almost everything.

Quote: Cherry Nine

In all other cases, the outcome of the battle will not be determined by the technique, but by other circumstances.

I wrote, "all other things being equal."

[Cherry Nine]

Quote: redf

Somewhere the advantage was great. Somewhere, smaller. But it was almost everything.

It seems that I have already said this somewhere. Sherman's advantage was, but he did not become a Panther from this. The only military version of Sherman with which the T-34-85 could not do anything on the forehead is the artisanal Jumbo, rearmed with anti-aircraft guns (such were, but were not produced). But there were too few and too late.
Not only that, and I also said that. The Red Army well rounded in the 43rd, as a result, learned something. The Americans in the 43rd did not want to study, as a result, they were raked in their bins. The Soviet set of equipment of the summer of 44th year - T-34-85 + heavy and self-propelled artillery towers and towers (let the IS be the self-propelled guns, it makes no difference to you, but you are pleased) is noticeably stronger than the American Sherman 76 + Hellcat + Wolverin. Not even Slugger.

[redf]

Quote: Cherry Nine

but he did not become a Panther from this.

How can he become a Panther if Panther is Pershing?

Quote: Cherry Nine

The only military version of Sherman with which the T-34-85 could not do anything in the forehead

Usually classmates can do everything with each other.
It’s only in RuNet it’s customary to compare the T-34 with the Tiger. And even to find in the T-34 at the same time some "undeniable advantages."

Quote: Cherry Nine

T-34-85 + heavy and turret heavy self-propelled guns (let the IS be the self-propelled guns, it does not matter to him, but you are pleased)

I will tell you even more, from a formal point of view, the tanks in the course of the war in the Red Army were only T-70s. With their 45 mm cannon 20-K.
More NO tank guns in the USSR during the war were not made.
They were not three-inch mounted on the BTT.
They were not 85 mm guns mounted on the BTT.
Etc.
Because a "tank gun" is a certain set of requirements for it.
In the same way, the “anti-aircraft gun”, “sea gun”, etc. have their own set of requirements.
So, of all the Soviet guns installed on the BTT, only 45 mm 20-K met these requirements. The remaining guns did not satisfy these requirements. Therefore, they cannot be called "tank guns" by formal terms. Could not create such.
Therefore, all these T-34s and KVs are not tanks, but at best "tanks." Those. some assumption, nothing more.
By the way, Sherman with M1, this is also a "tank". And precisely on the same grounds. The most sloppy art during the war was the USSR and the Americans. The USSR is worse.

Quote: Cherry Nine

noticeably stronger than the American

Not sure. The fact is that the Anglo-Saxons managed to crush a fair amount of Germans (about a third of the demographic losses of the Reich Germans accounted for the fronts with the Anglo-Saxons) with completely ridiculous losses of their own.
This would be impossible to do with poor technology.

[Cherry Nine]

Quote: redf

How can he become a Panther if Panther is Pershing?

Exactly.

Quote: redf

classmates can do everything with each other.

Not in this case. The 85mm Jumbo forehead is almost invulnerable. Like a panther. Unlike firefly, slugger and comet, which, despite the cannon, remain in the scheme, the first one saw - the first shot - the first one hit. That is, the outcome of the collision is determined mainly by the training of the crew and external circumstances, despite the obvious advantage of Western cars. I seem to be saying this somewhere.
On the other hand, the standard Jumbo gun is like that of Chaffee. That is, it becomes a serious tank only when re-equipped on the spot. How many were there is unknown. But crumbs.

Quote: redf

I will say more

Not necessary. Your views on Soviet artillery are generally known to me.

Quote: redf

about a third of demographic losses

You remembered it in vain. Demographic loss is a dubious success and an undoubted crime.
The fact is that from the summer of 44 to the summer of 45 the Allied army passed the same mileage as the Soviet, carrying military losses of about 1: 1 to the Germans, which is close to the military losses of the Red Army of the same period relative to the losses of the Reich on the Eastern Front. At the same time - and here you are right - the Allies had tremendous technical, industrial and political (they do not like to talk about this) superiority. That is, they fought more than average. Until the Americans of '91 (we’ll outbid half of the enemies, shoot the rest as in a dash) - this is still a long way to go.

[redf]

Quote: Cherry Nine

Demographic loss is a dubious success and an undoubted crime.

Those. do not kill the enemy in battle?
And who do you think then soldiers of the warring countries? Criminals?
I gave you the data of the distribution of losses German military.

Quote: Cherry Nine

suffering military losses of about 1: 1 to the Germans, which is close to the military losses of the Red Army of the same period relative to the losses of the Reich on the Eastern Front.

Approximate losses of the Reich Germans (specify, military losses) not in the East amounted to about 1714 thousand people.
In this case, the loss of the British (on all fronts) amounted to 286200 people.
Losses of Americans in Europe 108470 thousand people.
I can be wrong, but in my opinion 400 thousand people, it is less than 1700 thousand people.
At the same time, the Germans lost about 3604 thousand people on the Eastern Front. And the Red Army, about 19000 thousand people.
Therefore, it is not clear to me that you are writing about "equal losses." It’s enough to recall how Zhukov “stormed the Seelow Heights”. Not even a single British or American (and even German) general would have gotten it into his head. And for the Soviet "commander" this was the norm. I judge this by the fact that he wasn’t demoted and they didn’t give him to the tribunal. So, it was normal for the Soviet level to act.

Quote: Cherry Nine

That is, they fought more than average.

Do not make up. The Americans in the course of 2 MB solved all the tasks that they faced. That’s literally everything. And enjoy the fruits of that still their victory to this day.
Therefore, they fought not just well, but perfectly. Just extremely effective.

[Cherry Nine]

Perhaps we will discuss this topic at a more appropriate time. It does not apply to the article. In vain I supported this conversation

[Pissarro]

Not sure. The fact is that the Anglo-Saxons managed to crush a fair amount of Germans (about a third of the demographic losses of the Reich Germans accounted for the fronts with the Anglo-Saxons) with completely ridiculous losses of their own.

Exactly what demographic. To wipe the city from the face of the land in the rear is their level. That Dresden with Konigsberg then, that Rakku with Mosul now. The effectiveness of the military is zero, war crimes are there, but this is the level of these barbarians. We can’t even think of fighting like that. An abomination causes a normal person

[redf]

Quote: Pissarro

Exactly what demographic.

Actually, it says about Military demographic losses.

Quote: Pissarro

To wipe the city from the face of the land in the rear is their level. What Dresden with Koenigsberg

Are you German? Why are you so upset then?

Quote: Pissarro

that rakku with mosul

Are you syrian Why are you so upset then?
Try less to think globally. If you are Russian, it is not clear why you are interested in cancer with Dresden. After all, the Syrians to one place Tsushima, and the Germans, the battle on Kalka.

Quote: Pissarro

We can’t even think of fighting like that.

"Us," who is this? Emirates?

Quote: Pissarro

war crimes are evident

The Nuremberg Tribunal disagrees with you.

Quote: Pissarro

An abomination causes a normal person

You need to learn Russian.

[Proxima]

Quote: redf

Quote: Proxima

the first tank battle took place between T-34-85 and M24

You can also compare the battle of T-34 with motorcycles. Then the advantage of the T-34 will be even greater.
But if you compare the battle of T-34 with Pz.IV or Sherman, then that's it, T-34 cranks.

You probably think that you wrote something witty. I dare to remind you that "wit" comes from catching "mind."

[redf]

Quote: Proxima

You probably think that you wrote something witty.

Not witty, but true.

[Kot_Kuzya]

Are you another reincarnation of carbine?

[cobalt]

A small number of T-34s took part in the battles in Cyprus in 1974 on the side of the Greek army, while tank battles with Turkish tanks were not recorded. The Greeks used them to support the infantry.

[Strashila]

A tank always remains a tank, given a gun it can always work from a distance ... to get it requires that serious ... or a gun, or ATGM. The main intelligent crew and streamlined interaction with the infantry.

[Alexey RA]

The tank has proven itself in the war years. Remaining in service with the Red Army throughout the Second World War. For example, by the end of 1943, the T-34 accounted for up to 79 percent of all tank production in the Soviet Union. By the end of 1944, its share increased to 86 percent of all tank production in the USSR.

Ahem ... don't give out need for virtue. The T-34 remained in production until the end of the war only because no one would allow for half a year or a year (or even more - see the T-44 epic) to reduce the production of medium tanks for production in a series of another model, and even get with This is again a tank with a bunch of childhood diseases. In the same way, the Germans remained in the “four” series - simply because, unlike the three, the transition from the “four” to the “panther” would be much longer.
In fact, even before the war, the T-34 was considered a passing model and was supposed to give way to more advanced tanks in 1942. The reason is simple - in connection with the strengthening of the capabilities of the German PT-T-34, in the spring of 1941 it was no longer considered a "ballistic reservation tank," plus there were a huge number of flaws in the design of the tank, to eliminate which it was easier to make a new tank.
But the war began ... and our tankers had to fight for 4 years with the 45-mm body armor. The tower was strengthened on the T-34-85, but at the cost of overloading the front rollers. A more radical steps, such as the transition to the release of the T-43, killed "His Majesty's gross output". If Kharkov had been freed earlier, then the T-43 might have gone to the series (the new plant allowed putting a new tank into the series without reducing the shaft to the old ones) ... but alas, the Kharkov factory arrived in time only for the T-44. But on This tank was late for war.

[stalkerwalker]

Quote: Alexey RA

The reason is simple - in connection with the strengthening of the capabilities of the German T-34 PTI, in the spring 1941 ceased to be considered a "tank for projectile reservation"

I would not be so categorical.
The basis of the Wehrmacht’s anti-tank warfare in the summer of 41 was Pak 35 / 36 3,7-cm anti-tank gun of the 1935 / 1936 model of the year. Of particular note is Pak-36r, which appeared at the end of the 1941. And then VET began to saturate Pak-38.
But the main event was the use of cumulative shells of caliber 75 mm. What particularly negatively affected the battles near Stalingrad, when the monstrous gun 7,5 cm Pak 97 / 38, despite its extremely weak ballistics, allowed to hit both the T-34 and KV-1 in any projection with the right lead.
Well, I won’t mention Pak-40 and further developments, as Soviet tankers, through bitter experience, realized that substituting for a shot was, to put it mildly, unsafe. And in the first months of the war, a tank standing motionless at the battle line was a common occurrence.

[Alexey RA]

Quote: stalkerwalker

I would not be so categorical.

I wouldn’t be either. But contemporaries of the T-34 were.

... in a report prepared in 1940 entitled “The state of tank weapons and the need to create new classes of tanks”, the author — engineer of the Leningrad Experimental Mechanical Engineering Plant No. 185 Koloev — indicated that, “... considering, based on practical data, that the guns have an initial speed [projectile] about 900 m / s, pierce armor [thickness] 1,6 of their caliber ”, 45-mm armor of the T-34 tank will reliably protect it from shells of anti-tank guns and anti-tank rifles with a caliber of up to 25 mm. At the same time, “events in Finland showed that armor 45 mm thick at close range can be penetrated by a 37 mm anti-tank gun, not to mention the 45 mm and 47 mm anti-tank guns, which easily penetrate such armor at all major distances ". On this basis, Koloyev proposed to classify the T-34 tank as an easy reservation tank, protected only from fragments, small arms fire, heavy machine guns and anti-tank rifles with a caliber of not more than 20-25 mm, and consider that “A-34 tank with an armor thickness of 45 mm at close range cannot successfully fight the 37-47-mm anti-tank artillery, therefore it does not correspond to its intended purpose, caused by an insufficiently clear idea of ​​the state of modern anti-tank artillery and insufficiently justified approach to this issue "

© Shein / Ulanov. Order in the tank troops?

Quote: stalkerwalker

But the main event was the use of cumulative shells of caliber 75 mm.

The main event was Pak-38 - more than half of the dangerous hits on the T-34 at the beginning of the war. Already her armor penetration allowed quietly knock out the T-34.

50-mm anti-tank gun PaK.38, ordinary armor-piercing:
The 75-mm sheet normal showed the back strength limit of 700 m, the through penetration limit of 400 m. That is, starting from a distance of 700 m and closer PaK.38 can penetrate unshielded HF armor, with 400 m it is guaranteed to break through.
The 45-mm sheet along the normal showed the through penetration limit of 1500 m, at an angle of 30 degrees to the normal 1300 m.
That is, PaK.38 confidently hits the T-34 in the side and the tower at any real combat distance.

© litl_bro AKA Shein

Quote: stalkerwalker

And in the first months of the war, a tank standing motionless at the battle line was a common occurrence.

I’ll tell you more - on the Luga line one of the infantry combatants forbade the repair team to approach the immobilized KV standing in the defense zone of his battalion, playing the role of the bunker - "as soon as the tanks leave, the infantry will immediately run".

[stalkerwalker]

Quote: Alexey RA

© Shein / Ulanov. Order in the tank troops?

Well, if we once again engage in the search for the weaknesses of the T-34-76, both of the earlier releases and those that were produced before the 1944, there will not be enough space.

Quote: Alexey RA

Koloyev proposed to classify the T-34 tank as an easy reservation tank

Yeah ... And everything turned out that the whole line - T-26, BT-2, BT-5, BT-7 had to be handed over to warehouses that did not meet the requirements of real time?

Quote: Alexey RA

The main event was Pak-38 - more than half of the dangerous hits on the T-34 at the beginning of the war. Already her armor penetration allowed quietly knock out the T-34.

Pak-38 in the Wehrmacht’s vocational school at the beginning of World War II totaled about 2-x hundreds of units. The massive attacks and counterattacks of the mechanized corps in the summer of 41, in which the lion's share was represented by the same T-26, BT-2, BT-5, BT-7, were perfectly handled by Pak 35 / 36. And when meeting with the T-34 and KV-1, field guns of the 10,5 cm caliber and Flak anti-aircraft guns came into play. And if it was very tight, they called U-87 to help, for which it was not difficult to hit light tanks with fragmentation bombs.

[Alexey RA]

Quote: stalkerwalker

And everything turned out that the entire line - T-26, BT-2, BT-5, BT-7 had to be taken to warehouses, as they did not meet the requirements of real time?

Back in 1938 - following the results of Spain. They even pierced their skin with a 37-mm anti-tank gun from all distances - what Pavlov cried about in 1937 and demanded a tank with a 76-mm gun with divisional ballistics and anti-ballistic armor.
But the USSR did not have other tanks - and the old light tanks were left in service and in production at the time the army was saturated with new light tanks, STs and TTs. And the reservation of Pavlov’s new tank, while it reached the series, already ceased to be anti-ballistic. Actually, the situation here is the same as with the Il-2: during its design it was a standard attack aircraft, which was invulnerable to fire by standard infantry air defense (ZPU). When he went to the units, the infantry had already acquired a 20 mm MZA.

Quote: stalkerwalker

Pak-38 in the Wehrmacht vocational school at the beginning of World War II totaled about 2 hundred units.

At 01.06.1941, the Germans had 1047 anti-tank guns of the caliber 50 mm. The beginning of the Barbarossa is usually indicated by a number in the 1200 Pak-38.

[stalkerwalker]

Quote: Alexey RA

But the USSR did not have other tanks - and the old light tanks were left in service and in production at the time the army was saturated with new light tanks, STs and TTs

I think that those rehearsals that took place in the State Academic Bolshoi Theater during and after the war in Spain, as well as in the People’s Commissariat of Defense, simply cannot be counted. You read Shirokorad, Baryatinsky and other researchers, and your head goes around. It's like with Pavlov and Rychagov - they seemed to know how to fight. And we got to leadership positions ...
So with the technology - I-16 paired with the T-26 were, as they say, at a height of 1936. But Me-109 appeared, and the donkey wilted. And against T-26 there was an antidote.
I see the answer in the form of a von Sect figure who managed to save the backbone of the army. And Germany did not go through the devastation of the Civil War. And with technology in Europe it was two orders of magnitude better. And off we go ...

Quote: Alexey RA

At 01.06.1941, the Germans had 1047 anti-tank guns of the caliber 50 mm. The beginning of the Barbarossa is usually indicated by a number in the 1200 Pak-38.

Wrong. One has fallen from memory ...

[redf]

Quote: stalkerwalker

It's like with Pavlov and Rychagov - they seemed to know how to fight. And we got to leadership positions ...

They did not know how. Neither command nor fight.
There was no one to teach them. And even the point is not that pest specialists were basically either expelled from Russia or shot. The fact is that there were practically none of them in the Russian army.
And with a tutorial, it’s useful to learn to play the balalaika. But no more than that.

Quote: stalkerwalker

And Germany did not go through the devastation of the Civil War.

Yes, in Germany there were no Bolsheviks.

[redf]

Quote: stalkerwalker

T-26, BT-2, BT-5, BT-7 had to be delivered to warehouses, as they do not meet the requirements of real time?

BT-7 arr. 1937 and 39 years were quite normal, for those functions for which they were built, machines. There were them (namely 37-39 years) in the Red Army at the beginning of the war "only" 3453 pieces. 3190 of them are in combat-ready condition.
The T-50 that was replacing them was, of course, better. But not radically.

Quote: stalkerwalker

Pak-38 in the Wehrmacht vocational school at the beginning of World War II totaled about 2 hundred units.

1047 piece.
+ 1268 PaK 181 (f) is about the same as PaK 38.
+ approximately 400 pcs. Pak 36 (t) is slightly weaker than the first two.
There were also PaK M37 (t), PaK 35/36 (ö) and PaK 36 (p) - a total of about 2000 pcs. But they were weaker than Pak 36 (t), although better than PaK 35/36.
In total, about 4700 guns are more armor-piercing than PaK 35/36 (there were 14459 more). Of these, 2300 units, this is the PaK 38 and its equivalent in armor penetration PaK 181 (f). This is slightly more than 200.

Quote: stalkerwalker

T-26, BT-2, BT-5, BT-7, Pak 35/36 did an excellent job. And when meeting with the T-34 and KV-1, field guns of 10,5 cm caliber and Flak anti-aircraft guns came into play.

PaK 35/36 did a great job (on the bot) with the T-34. That’s what they couldn’t cope with. But there were few of them and they traveled poorly.
If they arrived, then they were dealt with by the same PaK 35/36 using the sub-caliber shells included in their ammunition. As well as more powerful anti-tank guns and / or 10,5 cm field howitzers (actually guns).
8,8 see Flak in the state of German divisions was not, at the beginning of the war they mainly served in the Luftwaffe. Therefore, meetings of Soviet tanks with 8,8 cm anti-aircraft guns were extremely rare.

Quote: stalkerwalker

And if it was very tight, they called U-87 to help, for which it was not difficult to hit light tanks with fragmentation bombs.

Gee-gee-gee. It’s ridiculous.

[stalkerwalker]

Quote: redf

8,8 see Flak in the state of German divisions was not, at the beginning of the war they mainly served in the Luftwaffe. Therefore, meetings of Soviet tanks with 8,8 cm anti-aircraft guns were extremely rare.

Air defense units, including "ahte-ahte" were included in the tank groups.

Quote: redf

And if it was very tight, they called U-87 to help, for which it was not difficult to hit light tanks with fragmentation bombs.
Gee-gee-gee. It’s ridiculous.

Laughing, really, not sinful .. But who laughs last?

as massive bombardments stopped the counterattacks of the mechanized corps in the real 1941, as well as in the 1942 and 1943, they will stop the advance of the “first strike” mechanized corps deep in German defense.
If in the summer of 1943, German aviation stopped the advance of the 1-th tank corps near Orel, then what prevents it from stopping the mechanized corps in the "strike first"? Especially considering that both the 37-mm automatic anti-aircraft guns and the ammunition for them in the real summer of 1941 were in great short supply. We also note that in 1941 the Soviet light tanks were still much more vulnerable to air attacks than in the summer of 1943. The Soviet tank commanders who participated in the counterattack near Lepel in July 1941 almost unanimously speak of high losses from aircraft.

A. Isaev, Unknown 41, p. Xnumx

To some extent, the area contributed to the increase in the activity and effectiveness of the Luftwaffe. The 1-th Panzer Corps came out of the woods onto an open treeless plain, intersected by ravines and beams. In the morning, German aircraft attacked the orders of the 1-th tank corps. Tank brigades were attacked from the air 10 – 12 times.
The report of the headquarters of the 1 tank corps based on the results of the battles described the following episode: “Enemy aviation, which attacked in the morning 16.7 groups of 15-20 planes on corps columns, launched a fierce bombardment of the corps battle orders with 12.00, which continued to 22.00. Making methodical raids every 30 minutes in groups of 50 – 60 planes, she hindered the activity of the troops, pressing them to the ground. ”

Isaev, The Liberation of 1943. “The war brought us from Kursk and Oryol ...”, p. 231-232

[redf]

Quote: stalkerwalker

Air defense units, including "ahte-ahte" were included in the tank groups.

Included. And they worked on aviation. Maybe sometime on BTT. But that was a rarity.

Quote: stalkerwalker

A. Isaev,

Quote: stalkerwalker

Isaev

Information from the series "one grandmother said."
In fact, all attempts to adapt aircraft to destroy tanks failed. Moreover, everyone. Well, the aircraft could not cope with this, could not. A fragment of a tank (even an ancient one) cannot be taken. And guns (IL-2), you will not get. Even the PTABs helped very poorly.

[stalkerwalker]

Quote: redf

Included. And they worked on aviation. Maybe sometime on BTT. But that was a rarity.

Well again, twenty-five. KV-1, as well as the bunkers of the fortified districts, were dealt with exactly by “ahte-ahte”.

Quote: redf

Information from the series "one grandmother said."

Name your research on the research of the Great Patriotic War or a monograph in the study of weapons ... Or turn the current language bags?

Quote: redf

In fact, all attempts to adapt aircraft to destroy tanks failed.

Well, do not be lazy ... Study the works and find out how the German infantry called Yu-87 when repelling the counterattacks of the Soviet mechanized corps in the summer of 41 ...

[redf]

Quote: stalkerwalker

KV-1, as well as the bunkers of the fortified areas, were dealt with precisely by “ahte-ahte”.

Already with bunkers?

Quote: stalkerwalker

Or turn the current language bags?

Nope. Current fingers rattle on the keys.

Quote: stalkerwalker

Well, do not be lazy ... Study the works and find out how the German infantry called Yu-87 when repelling the counterattacks of the Soviet mechanized corps in the summer of 41 ...

Dear, if I write about something, it’s not just the same.
Examine the percentage of BTT aircraft hit. Marvel at its insignificance.
And who, as whom he called, is gossip and fabrication. Interest is approximately 100%.

[stalkerwalker]

Quote: redf

Already with bunkers?

Your ignorance of History, as a breakthrough of the URs of the Vladimir-Volyn region, but by the way a breakthrough of the Maginot line, does not honor you ...

Quote: redf

Examine the percentage of BTT aircraft hit. Marvel at its insignificance.

You do not look in reference books, but in the works of historians.
And we will be happy ....

[redf]

Quote: stalkerwalker

Your ignorance of History, as a breakthrough of the URs of the Vladimir-Volyn region, but by the way a breakthrough of the Maginot line, does not honor you ...

Already Maginot ...
This is in what area, in Uryupinsky?

Quote: stalkerwalker

You do not look in reference books, but in the works of historians.
And we will be happy for you ...

I'm better off in Murzilka then. The values ​​of the information are about the same, but Murzilka also has pictures. Watch more fun.
Only directories and other official documents can be the source of more or less reliable information. The rest is not even interesting.

[Alexey RA]

Quote: redf

Included. And they worked on aviation. Maybe sometime on BTT. But that was a rarity.

Judging by the actions of the division of Wilibald von Langermann und Erlenkamp - not so rare.
October 6, 1941 - to fight the T-34, two 8,8-cm are advanced - both are lost.
October 9, 1941 - the Lutwitz group, bypassing positions on the highway, stumbles on the T-34 and loses two 8,8-cm - seriously damaged.

[redf]

Quote: Alexey RA

two 34 cm are put forward to fight the T-8,8

Two, of course, a lot.

[stalkerwalker]

Alex,

The right thing, eyewash is not worth it .... It is useless to argue with the reincarnation of Boris Johnson ....

[redf]

Quote: stalkerwalker

Uselessly arguing

Arguing is always helpful. But for this you need to know the material of the dispute. You have this bad. Therefore, you need not argue, but ask questions. Those. learn how Ilyich bequeathed on your avatar.

[Pissarro]

You may be interested in asking questions only to the doctor. So few were able to demonstrate stupidity on the site

[redf]

Quote: stalkerwalker

But the main event was the use of cumulative shells of caliber 75 mm. What particularly negatively affected the battles near Stalingrad, when the monstrous gun 7,5 cm Pak 97 / 38, despite its extremely weak ballistics, allowed to hit both the T-34 and KV-1 in any projection with the right lead.

Do not make up. PaK 97/38 mainly used BBS 7.5 cm K. Gr. Patr. Pz. (p).
She used cumulative shots too. But the Germans began to abandon the idea of ​​a cumulative artpatron back in late 1941, i.e. by the time PaK 97/38 arrived.
Why is it monstrous? Compact and light was a gun. Then, in her image, they made the ZIS-3 arr. 1942. Nothing monstrous.

[stalkerwalker]

Quote: redf

PaK 97 / 38. Why is it monstrous?

What can be the symbiosis of a gun carriage adopted for arming a gun in 1938 and a barrel of a French gun adopted for arming a gun in 1897?
I will not provide references to ballistics here. As well as the results of its use near Stalingrad as an anti-tank using a cumulative projectile.
His ambition save for yourself ....

[redf]

Quote: stalkerwalker

What can be the symbiosis of a gun carriage adopted for arming a gun in 1938 and a barrel of a French gun adopted for arming a gun in 1897?

Hmm.
Remind you of the gun carriage of the light cannon of the VET (no matter what year) and the Russian cannon, adopted for service at the very beginning of the 20th century? Moreover, her "mother" was just the very same French gun of 1897.
Moreover, the "mother" was still very advanced. And I’ll even tell you a “secret”, nor a Russian three-inch arr. 1902, nor the Soviet three-inch of the 30s could not get close to it.
Yes, so what am I talking about?
Soviet products are everywhere called "legendary." Despite its disgusting performance characteristics. But German, with the same components, but the best performance characteristics, why is it monstrous?

Quote: stalkerwalker

I will not provide references to ballistics here.

Do not. And then, "trample."

Quote: stalkerwalker

As well as the results of its use near Stalingrad as an anti-tank using a cumulative projectile.

That is, German on French components and with German (and Polish) ammunition, this is "monstrous."
And the Soviet on Soviet components (only the Germans stole the DT design, they couldn’t do their own for field guns), this is “legendary”. Even though with the ammunition, she, too, was all bad.
You just make me laugh. So you will soon come up with the idea of ​​delivering the pre-war USSR in terms of technical and technological development on a par with Poland. But what about Poland, on a par with France and Germany. And that would be doubly funny.

[stalkerwalker]

Quote: redf

And then, "trample."

Trampler will not break ....?

Quote: redf

You just make me laugh.

Do not mow under Odessa, especially smart .... You do it badly.

[redf]

Quote: stalkerwalker

Trampler will not break ....?

No, it will not break.

Quote: stalkerwalker

Do not mow under Odessa,

Dear, your "Odessa" is not necessary here. This is surzhik, an adverb like that. I know a few phrases on it.

Quote: stalkerwalker

You do it badly.

"And who are the judges?"

[Cherry Nine]

I was waiting for someone to switch to the topic of the Second World War (article, still fundamentally about something else). Somewhat surprised that it is you.

Quote: Alexey RA

do not give out need for virtue. T-34 remained in production until the end of the war only because no one would allow for six months to a year

This is a very controversial concept. All the main vehicles of the war - the four, T-34 and Sherman - in fact, pre-war. The departure of the Germans from this idea towards Panthers as the main tank causes a lot of criticism among a number of Germans.
As for the percentage of production, this is certainly good. When you consider the percentage of which "tanks" decreased.

Quote: Alexey RA

the transition from the Quartet to the Panther would be much longer.

From a distance it seems, but still the situations are different. In the USSR, the discussion was mainly about the dampness of new technology and the entire production chain, in Germany - about the complexity of the Panther, which did not allow it to be produced at secondary enterprises. By your logic, and Persh can be entered in the same outline)))

Quote: Alexey RA

T-34 already in the spring of 1941 ceased to be considered an "anti-ballistic reservation tank",

You, nevertheless, got excited. The topic of ballistic reservation was closed by Pak 40 towards the end of 42 years. Sherman, by the way, this also applies.

Quote: Alexey RA

plus the design of the tank had a huge number of flaws, to eliminate which it was easier to make a new tank.

As the T-54 experience showed, a new tank takes about 5 years. A T-34 also took 5 years, up to 44 years old: automatic welding machines, a five step, filters, a new tower, etc.

Quote: Alexey RA

then the T-43 might have gone to the series ... but alas

At the expense of “alas” there is an opinion, if I’m not mistaken, of Kolomiyets that the whole movement with the T-43, and the release of the T-44, was a conspiracy of Kharkov pests, who completely refused to do their main job - to bring the T-34 to an acceptable state.

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Cherry Nine

This is a very controversial concept. All the main vehicles of the war - the four, T-34 and Sherman - in fact, pre-war. The departure of the Germans from this idea towards Panthers as the main tank causes a lot of criticism among a number of Germans.

With the “panther” the Germans simply had no options. A single medium tank to replace the "three-ruble" and "four" - as it was originally planned - it would not be, because in 1942-1943 to discontinue both the "three-ruble and four" meant to remain without tanks in the midst of heavy fighting (initially the transition it was supposed to be on the “panther” after the successful completion of the “Barbarossa” - in relatively peacetime.) But it was also impossible not to put it into production - since the alternative was to continue the production of the finally outdated “three”. But the transition from the “three” to the “four” would take as much time as on the transition to the "quartet" on the "Panther" - that is also not an option.

Quote: Cherry Nine

You, nevertheless, got excited. The topic of ballistic reservation was closed by Pak 40 towards the end of 42 years. Sherman, by the way, this also applies.

It was not I who got excited, but the engineer of the Leningrad Experimental Engineering Plant No. 185 Koloyev in 1940.

... A-34 tank with an armor thickness of 45 mm at close range cannot successfully fight with 37-47 mm anti-tank artillery, therefore it does not correspond to its intended purpose, caused by an insufficiently clear idea of ​​the state of modern anti-tank artillery and an insufficiently substantiated approach to resolve this issue

[Cherry Nine]

Quote: Alexey RA

It was not I who got excited, but the engineer of the Leningrad experimental engineering plant No. 185 Koloyev in 1940

Well, then a lot of people got excited. There and HF was not sufficiently armored.

Quote: Alexey RA

The transition from the "three rubles" to the "four" would take as much time as the transition from the "four" to the "panther" - that is, also not an option.

Lost your thought. The four had any problems with production in the 42nd?

Quote: Alexey RA

With the "panther" the Germans simply had no options

Come on.

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Cherry Nine

Lost your thought. The four had any problems with production in the 42nd?

I just considered all the possible options.
In the initial ones for 1942, the Germans in the established series had two STs - a three-wheeler and a four. "Three rubles" has exhausted its modernization potential and is suitable only in the role of a chassis for the "thing". "Four" still meets the requirements.
1. If you do not enter the “panther” and change the “three” to “four” in the series (as Guderian wanted), then this replacement will take longer than switching from “three” to “panther”. After Stalingrad and before the "Citadel" - not an option.
2. If you introduce the “panther” as a single CT and change both the “three-ruble note” and the “four” to “panther” in the series (as originally envisaged), then the transition from the three-ruble note to the “panther” will be as in real life. But the transition from the “four” to the “panther” will take about the same as the transition from the “three” to the “four” in Option 1. After Stalingrad and before the “Citadel” - not an option.
So, having in conditions of minimal drawdown time for the gross output of tanks and the need to replace the morally obsolete "troika" - there is only a real option: leave the "four" and change the "three" to the "panther".

[Cherry Nine]

Quote: Alexey RA

If you do not introduce the “panther” and change the “three-ruble note” to the “four” in the series (as Guderian wanted it to),

If I remember correctly, everything is somewhat more complicated.
Guderian wanted a massive tank, three-four, German Sherman. And not a panther, which in all of Europe 3 plants could produce. Given the realities of the eastern front, ZiS-3 forever, the four was quite an adequate tank. And in the West, 17 pounds were far from every bush.
Actually, Panther’s criticism is that the German T-34 turned out to be the exact opposite of the original conceptually.

[redf]

Quote: Cherry Nine

Panther's criticism is that the German T-34 was the exact opposite of the original conceptually.

Did the Panther have anything to do with the T-34?
Do not exaggerate.

[redf]

Quote: Alexey RA

In the initial ones for 1942, the Germans in the established series had two STs - a three-wheeler and a four.

We also forgot Pz.II and Pz. 38 (t). BTT was quite relevant at the beginning of 1942.

Quote: Alexey RA

the need to replace the obsolete troika

Treshka is conceptually outdated. It was not initially discontinued, but converted into a light infantry escort and support tank Pz.KpfW.III Ausf. N, instead of Pz.Kpfw. 38 (t). But in this role, he did not show himself well, so in 1943 he was replaced by Pz.KpfW.IV Ausf.H. And the Germans said goodbye forever.
At the same time, the Pz.KpfW.IV Ausf.G infantry escort and support tank was replaced by the Pz.KpfW. V "Panther".
And instead of the representative of the outdated concept of "tank breakthrough" Pz.KpfW. VIE "Tiger" launched the production of a completely new niche tank, the heavy infantry tracking and support tank Pz.KpfW. VIB "Tiger II".
Those. in fact, during the war, the Germans "changed their shoes" more than specifically.

[voyaka uh]

"because the alternative was to continue the production of the finally obsolete" three rubles "." /////

In my opinion, they did not want to touch the treshka. She was very useful as an auxiliary tank. And infantry support, and commander.
In heavy. 2-3 Treshki kept the tank battalions for one Tiger, which covered them, warned them of the dangers by radio and went to reconnaissance (they were low-noise). They were not thrown into battles against tanks.
The problem turned out to be the Four. She reached the top (and dead end) in upgrades. The motor and chassis did not pull heavier armor.

[stalkerwalker]

This problem was MBT panzervaffen, her workhorse.

[redf]

Quote: voyaka uh

In heavy. tank battalions for one Tiger kept 2-3 Treshki

That's right. And in the Soviet tank divisions (pre-war) it was exactly the same (as planned). KV-1 served there along with BT (they were then planned to be replaced by T-50). Conceptually, Pz.III (except N) and BT / T-50, are one and the same.
At the same time, KV-1 (Pz.VI) rammed the enemy’s defense. And BT / T-50 (Pz.III), under their cover, cleared the flanks and launched an offensive in the first echelon (before meeting with a serious enemy).
And behind the breakthrough, the mechdivisions on the T-34 were pulled in (again, according to the pre-war idea).

Quote: voyaka uh

The problem turned out to be the Four.

There was no problem. If you follow the chain of evolution: Pz.Kpfw. 38 (t) further Pz.KpfW.III Ausf. N further Pz.KpfW.IV Ausf.H / J, the latter was actually a light infantry support and support tank. Although officially he was never called that.
And what special can be expected from a light tank?
Although his counterpart was the T-34/85. Which in the Red Army was considered a full-fledged medium tank. Pz.KpfW.IV Ausf.H / J and T-34/85 are somewhat similar. But the “German” is really noticeably stronger.
The third in this trinity was Sherman with M1. And fourth, A34 Comet. This last one was just a plague on caterpillars. "You won’t drink skill." Merkava then just grew out of it. And not at all from the T-34.

[redf]

Quote: Alexey RA

A single medium tank to replace the "three rubles" and "four" - as it was originally planned

Oooooooooooooooooooooooo
Pz.III was representative of the pre-war concept of "armored cavalry." And he had nothing to do with Pz.V. Even indirectly. In the USSR, the BT and T-50 were representatives of this concept.
As for Pz.IV, then Pz.V was originally supposed to replace it. But the rudimentary state of the Soviet anti-tank artillery and tank artillery allowed the continuation of the release of Pz.IV, which gave the Germans a gain in the amount of BTT.
But at the front with the Anglo-Saxons, everything happened as it was originally intended.
Therefore, on the Eastern Front, as if the medium tank was Pz.IV.
And on other fronts, Pz.V. Which on the Eastern Front was like a heavy tank.
At the same time, Pz.VIB was supposed to be used on the front with the Anglo-Saxons as a heavy tank.
But Pz.VIE was a representative of the pre-war concept of a “breakthrough tank” (German KV-1, but not KV-1C). He had no heirs.

[redf]

Quote: Cherry Nine

All the main vehicles of the war - the four, T-34 and Sherman - in fact, pre-war.

Everything here is very difficult. Yes, tanks are basically pre-war. But their purpose in the course of the war changed in the most radical way.
Take the T-34/76. What was this BTT as conceived by the Soviet "strategists"?
It was the BTT of the mechanized divisions of the mechanized corps. Mechdivisions were supposed to clean up the breakthroughs made by the tank divisions of the mechanized corps of the Red Army, armed (for ramming the enemy’s defense) KV. Also, the tank divisions were supposed to be armed with T-50s (they were actually armed with BT-7s), which, under the guise of KVs, as intended, carried out the initial cleansing of the area. After the secondary cleaning of the terrain by mechanical divisions (using T-34/76), this section was surrendered to rifle divisions.
Those. The T-34/76 was, by design, somewhat similar to an assault turret. In which the enemy on the sides was not and could not be. Therefore, a strong side protection and a triple tower they did not need.
SU-76 then became something similar (weak likeness). And the Germans (a much stronger "likeness"), StuG III / IV.
Formally, it was an average infantry support and escort tank. And in this post, he replaced the light tank support and escort of infantry T-26.
Was the T-34/76 used as a turret assault gun?
Yes, never. From this and most of his stocks. This often happens if the soup is a fork.

Quote: Cherry Nine

The departure of the Germans from this idea towards Panthers as the main tank causes a lot of criticism among a number of Germans.

The fact is that during the war the German (as well as the Soviet) concept of tank warfare changed beyond recognition. And in this new concept there was no way without Pz.V. Not at all. But without Pz.IV they would have trampled in extreme cases. And without Pz.V, no way.

Quote: Cherry Nine

The topic of ballistic reservation was closed by Pak 40 towards the end of 42 years.

I would say by the middle. And maybe earlier. After all, the number of T-34 and HF in the winter of 1942 was extremely small.

[redf]

Quote: Alexey RA

the Germans remained in the “four” series - simply because, unlike the three, the transition from the “four” to the “panther” would be much longer.

Pz.IV remained exclusively for the German Eastern Front. This does not mean that during force majeure they could not be met on other fronts. But the main place of their deployment was there.
This was due to the fact that the Soviet artillery of the VET and standing on the BTT for almost the entire war was approximately in the same embryonic state as at the beginning of the war. Therefore, for the Eastern Front, Pz.IV was enough.
On the Eastern Front, Pz.IV played the same role that Pz.V. played on other fronts.
And Pz.V, the same role as Pz.VIB.
As for the Pz.III, this is a tank of an outdated dual-use concept, which died out almost immediately after the outbreak of war in the USSR. Its Soviet counterpart T-50 for the same reason was abandoned in 1942.

[Catfish]

In the summer of 1968, in our unit (54th OTP, ZVO, EAO, the village of Babstovo) armed with T-54s, ten T-34-85s unexpectedly appeared. They were driven by civilian mechanics from Birobidzhan to UR on the Amur.
They stopped to rest near our tank park, and the entire regiment ran to look at them as "museum exhibits." On the tanks on the back, spare barrels for solariums were pulled, with a capacity of about one and a half to two times smaller than ours. From the stamped inscriptions on the sides of these barrels, we were all a little swollen: "Deport", "Standard" and the Wehrmacht 1942 in complete decay. The mechanics on them, men all around forty years old, laughing, advised us to look between the rinks. Many tanks had brewed holes from hits, most likely Faustpatrons. They stayed with us for two hours and set off in a convoy towards Leninsky on the Amur, there were 8-10 kilometers in a straight line, if I remember correctly. I went down in July 1969, and during that time there were no clashes with the Chinese, and what happened to these tanks later - God knows. So here they are, many years after the end of the Great War, they were ready to serve ... if possible.

[Kot_Kuzya]

The car, of course, is nice, and fought well. But there were a lot of flaws. They were partially corrected on the T-34-85, but the suspension remained the same candle, not torsion, the engine remained along and not across the hull, which did not allow the tower to be moved back and the mechwater hatch was moved to the roof, as well as the frontal armor was strengthened by due to the thickening of the armor of the forehead and getting rid of the ball machine gun and hatch, the useless radio operator also remained. The T-44 did not have these shortcomings, but this tank would become an ideal tank for the period of the Great Patriotic War.

[Cherry Nine]

Quote: Kot_Kuzya

But there were a lot of flaws.

You do not seem to be the first day on the Internet. It is strange that you still have not been told enough basic things. You see, tanks without flaws appear, usually when the war is over. In 5-10 years. T-54 and T-10 in particular.
As a matter of fact, they are without flaws because they take into account the experience of war. What a shame, these tanks often fall into other wars, where new circumstances come out.

Quote: Kot_Kuzya

the suspension remained the same candle, not torsion,

The torsion bar suspension of those years was not such an ideal solution. The Germans didn’t just finish their dishes, but the British put carts on Centurion.

Quote: Kot_Kuzya

the engine stayed along, not across the hull,

First, where do you get it in the 39th year?

Quote: Kot_Kuzya

move the driver’s hatch to the roof, as well as strengthen the frontal armor by thickening the forehead and getting rid of the ball machine gun and hatch, the useless radio operator also remained

All this became reasonable in the course of the war. In the 39th, the rejection of the gun driver and the machine gun was categorically unacceptable. Weakened areas in the forehead are also more important for BOT. In real life, there were no complaints about the driver’s hatch, on the contrary. Extra chance for a driver.

Quote: Kot_Kuzya

The T-44 did not have these shortcomings, but this tank would become an ideal tank for the period of the Great Patriotic War.

Soviet Panther in the worst sense. The T-44 became a normal machine in the 49th. And it was no longer the T-44.

[Kot_Kuzya]

The torsion bar suspension of those years was not such an ideal solution. The Germans didn’t just finish their dishes, but the British put carts on Centurion.

Did you know that when creating the T-40, they tested two samples: the first with torsion bars, and the second with trolleys? And the torsion bars showed their advantage. HF torsion bars also had no particular complaints.

First, where do you get it in the 39th year?

So hard to put the B-2 across? V-2 was already in 1939, it was put on HF.

In the 39th, the rejection of the gun driver and the machine gun was categorically unacceptable

It is not necessary to have seven spans in the forehead, so as not to understand that there should be three crew members in the tower, and the tank commander should deal with the walkie-talkie, and not load the cannon. Yes, and the machine gun was useless, I read the memories of tankers, so they complained that the review was useless, you could only look through the sight of the tank, and the angle of view was literally 2 degrees. Not without reason in the post-war tanks was no longer a machine gun course.

In real life, there were no complaints about the driver’s hatch, on the contrary. Extra chance for a driver.

To do this, there must be a lower emergency hatch for the driver. And as experience has shown, the tanks were most struck in the tower, since the tank’s body was hidden by folds of terrain, read the tankmen’s memories, they remembered that the driver had the most chances to escape, well, they praised the hatch on the forehead, remembered that it was enough to get up, and you already leaned out of the hatch from the waist. Well, I’ll also add that on the T-44 the forehead had a thickness of 90 mm and Pak-40 did not break through. What do you think tankers would choose: a forehead of 90 mm without a ball machine gun and a mechanical drive hatch, or a forehead of T-34 with 45 mm?

Soviet Panther in the worst sense. The T-44 became a normal machine in the 49th. And it was no longer the T-44

The T-44 was already a normal machine in 1945. You just don’t confuse the combat operation of the tank, where it overwhelmingly serves a maximum of 2-3 attacks, produces a maximum of 200-300 hours of motor resources, with operation in peacetime, where the tank should be used for decades. The T-44 resource of the 1945 sample was quite enough for combat use.

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Kot_Kuzya

So hard to put the B-2 across? V-2 was already in 1939, it was put on HF.

For KB KhPZ - difficult. Because it will be necessary to completely rebuild the MTO. And this epic will end with the fact that the T-34 with the transverse engine will go into production in the summer of 1941. And you have to fight on the BT and T-26.
The T-34 in the form known to us was obtained by the method of successive approximations from BT-7A - this was the maximum capacity of the design bureau and the plant. At it, even the checkpoints were designed in such a way that they could be done on existing equipment (hence all the perversions with demultipliers in 34 T-1941M projects). What is the transverse arrangement of the engine — on the first T-34s, the observation devices in the tower were above the gun breech, because their location flowed smoothly from the project of the tower with a 45-mm gun - and no one paid attention to this.

Quote: Kot_Kuzya

It is not necessary to have seven spans in the forehead, so as not to understand that there should be three crew members in the tower, and the tank commander should deal with the walkie-talkie, and not charge the gun.

No problem. Only such a tower can be made only at LKZ - in Kharkov there is no machine for processing shoulder straps of a tower with a diameter of more than 1500 mm. And without expanding the epaulette, at least up to the diameter of T-34-85, three people will not fit into the tower.

Quote: Kot_Kuzya

What do you think tankers would choose: a forehead of 90 mm without a ball machine gun and a mechanical drive hatch, or a forehead of T-34 with 45 mm?

Without the transverse position of the engine, the mechanical drive hatch cannot be moved up - there is the shoulder strap of the tower, which cannot be shifted towards the center of the tank with the longitudinal engine.

Quote: Kot_Kuzya

The T-44 was already a normal machine in 1945.

According to the plans of the NKTP, by the end of 1945, 850 pieces were to be manufactured. T-44B with a total order of 1200 combat vehicles. But the first tanks handed over by the plant were still considered "of limited suitability", as some of the new items in the series did not yet ensure reliable operation of the tank (MP, torsion shafts, final drives). And therefore, until the end of May, T-44s were surrendered only to training units, while the plant continued to "lick" them in production. Only in June, the first batch of new tanks was recognized as "fully satisfying the assignment" and dispatched to the troops, and in August the tank unit, equipped with new vehicles, went to the Far East in the army.

[Cherry Nine]

Quote: Kot_Kuzya

Do you know that when creating the T-40, they tested two samples: the first with torsion bars, and the second with trolleys? And the torsion bars showed their advantage.

Do you know that the T-40 weighed 5,5 tons? There were no questions on HF until he rode, you know.
The problem with the torsion bars was that they turned out either too soft - they needed a lot, so the plates, or too hard - then there were problems with a smooth ride, like on HF. This problem was solved for about 10 years. Even the Americans and Perche were not all right. Torsion IS-7 look.

Quote: Kot_Kuzya

no need to have seven spans in the forehead, so as not to understand that there should be three crew members in the tower, and the tank commander should deal with the walkie-talkie, and not load the gun.

Precisely what is not necessary. And so you would know that the Soviet radios of the beginning of the war demanded a hell of a lot of attention - they did not keep the frequency. This is if there is a walkie-talkie at all. The commander, who is engaged in a walkie-talkie, does not monitor the situation. The decision became reasonable no earlier than the appearance of American walkie-talkies.

Quote: Kot_Kuzya

Not without reason in the post-war tanks was no longer a machine gun course.

You forget a little nuance. Post-war tanks were made strictly under the interaction with the motorbike. In the 39th, no one knew about motorized infantry. The tank was supposed to fight off by itself. Such a pichalka.

Quote: Kot_Kuzya

The T-44 was already a normal machine in 1945.

Yeah. Almost like a T-34 in the 41st.

Quote: Kot_Kuzya

200-300 hours of motor resources

I drove to the gates of the plant myself - not bad at all.

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Cherry Nine

In real life, there were no complaints about the driver’s hatch, on the contrary. Extra chance for a driver.

In real life, there were just complaints about the driver’s hatch. And for the first time this problem was encountered in April 1941 - at the first proving ground tests of two armored hulls of the T-34 tank with turrets

However, this seemed a trifle in comparison with the clearly demonstrated weakness of the design of the driver’s hatch - the first hit of the projectile hinges were damaged, and after the second shell hit the driver’s hatch fell inside the tank (accordingly, the report on the test results stated that “in general the hatch in the bow sheet greatly weakens the frontal protection of the machine, and therefore, when designing new models, it is necessary to achieve the design of the bow sheet without the driver’s hatch ”).

And here is a quote from the combat report of the commander of the 10th Panzer Division, Lieutenant Colonel Sukhoruchkin:

With a direct hit of a shell, the front hatch of the driver falls through.

Moreover, the problem of the mechanical drive hatch was included in the four shortcomings of the T-34 in the front-level report:

When used in combat in front of the T-34 tanks, the following disadvantages were identified:
1) The mask of the installation is weak and often either breaks through by shells, or warps and jams ...
3) When a projectile hits the driver's front hatch, the hatch falls into the tank and incapacitates the driver...
4) The top hatch of the tower is often knocked down due to the hinges that go out ...

Source - The incredibly scandalous work of the desecutor defilers Andreas and Dimitros “Is faith strong?” Where have the children of God the Emperor gone? ... umm, that is Shein / Ulanov. Order in the tank troops?

[Cherry Nine]

Quote: Alexey RA

the problem of the mechanical drive hatch was included in the four shortcomings of the T-34 in the front-level report

Of these shortcomings, the driver’s hatch could save the driver’s life, and the rest could not. In the world with the Pak-40, the weakening of the T-34 VLD was of little importance.

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Cherry Nine

In the world with the Pak-40, the weakening of the T-34 VLD was of little importance.

The problem is that the weakening of the VLD manifested itself in the world of Pak-35/36 and Pak-38 - it turned out that even a 75-mm infantry gun could be destroyed from the tank.

[Cherry Nine]

Quote: Alexey RA

manifested itself in the world of Pak-35/36 and Pak-38 - it turned out that it is possible to disable a tank even with a 75-mm infantry gun.

In the world, Pak 38 no longer showed up, as you wrote above. As for the infantry gun, it’s easier to aim the board than the hatches.
Again. Yes, a weakened forehead is bad. But specifically in the case of the T-34: ballistic, after a year, armor, all armor, and nasty survival - the hatch is very good.

[redf]

Quote: Cherry Nine

Soviet Panther in the worst sense.

The Soviet Panther was the KV-1C.
Well, in the sense of such a Panther. Frail from birth.
But conceptually they were classmates.
T-44 is like ... And FIG knows what it's like. But with Panther they are BTT of a different class.
They have nothing in common.

[redf]

Quote: Kot_Kuzya

On T-34-85 they were partially fixed

It's okay, there are new ones.

Quote: Kot_Kuzya

the useless shooter-radio operator also remained

Hm. Do not write like that, this is not true.

Quote: Kot_Kuzya

The T-44 did not have these shortcomings, but this tank would become an ideal tank for the period of the Great Patriotic War.

Those. his shit gun doesn’t bother you at all?

[Cherry Nine]

Quote: redf

Those. his shit gun doesn’t bother you at all?

Colleague, you are scorching.
Regarding the Panther, in the worst sense, I had in mind a complex and damp machine that drastically squandered production.

[redf]

Quote: Cherry Nine

Regarding the Panther, in the worst sense, I had in mind a complex and damp machine that drastically squandered production.

I don’t know who, what, and where I slipped, but the Germans needed Panther. And everyone else needs it too.
But in the USSR this could not be created in general.
The Americans did Pershing.
The British came with Centurion after the war.
Even the French after the war made their counterpart Panthers.
And in the USSR, I repeat, they could not. Do not consider the full-fledged Panther to be largely a cartoon of KV-1C? Although conceptually this is the "Soviet Panther". Well, sorry, as you could.

[DesToeR]

Quote: Kot_Kuzya

HF torsion bars also had no particular complaints.

And were there any complaints about the "candle" suspension of the T-34? The only drawback of such a suspension, which the "grandfathers" lead to, is the loss of reserved useful space.

Quote: Kot_Kuzya

So hard to put the B-2 across?

In 1939, no one saw the advantages of such an engine design, because the tank turret was relatively light and did not create excessive pressure on the front rollers.

Quote: Kot_Kuzya

Yes, and the machine gun was useless, I read the memories of tankers, so they complained that the review was useless, you could only look through the sight of the tank, and the angle of view was literally 2 degrees.

Then why was the course machine gun on practically all tanks of that period, even on the supernova “Panther” and “Tiger” did not hesitate to put it, and on the “Ferdinand”, so finally the “windshield” had to be cut under the machine gun. Something I did not hear about the stabilized machine gun installations in the frontal sheets of a German menagerie.

Quote: Kot_Kuzya

Not without reason in the post-war tanks was no longer a machine gun course.

Well, why wasn’t it? They were on the T-54 / T-55 tanks, only the mechanical driver controlled them by turning the entire tank hull.

Quote: Kot_Kuzya

To do this, there must be a lower emergency hatch for the driver.

Here are no recollections of veterans about the effectiveness of the lower hatch in the control unit. But something tells me that with a tank clearance of 400 ... 500mm, you could use this hatch only on solid ground. Yes, and while you swivel the driver’s seat, you will dodge in the cramped control compartment and open the hatch, climb under the tank’s bottom ... You’ll burn out soon.

Quote: Kot_Kuzya

The T-44 was already a normal machine in 1945.

Maybe. An interesting modification was the T-34-85 with 75mm frontal armor of the hull - at least the PAK-40 could be removed from a distance of 500mm. But for 1943. all were already equal to other German guns. The Red Army was advancing and the reliability of driving performance was a more significant parameter than combat survivability. For the number of broken tanks on the march would be a multiple of combat losses.

[Kot_Kuzya]

Then why was the course machine gun on practically all tanks of that period, even on the supernova “Panther” and “Tiger” did not hesitate to put it, and on the “Ferdinand”, so finally the “windshield” had to be cut under the machine gun. Something I did not hear about the stabilized machine gun installations in the frontal sheets of a German menagerie.

You do not confuse course machine guns, controlled by a radio operator gunner, and rigidly mounted machine guns of post-war samples. Even they showed their complete uselessness, and then, as the tanks improved, Rigidly fixed machine guns were removed, as they were useless. Not without reason in all of these T-64-T-80s, Abrams, Leopard and Leclerks are not there.

[redf]

Quote: Kot_Kuzya

Edar in all of these T-64-T-80, Abrams, Leopard and Leclerc they are not.

The nature of the tank battle has changed, so there are none.
And during the war, even on reckless tanks (this category of self-propelled guns), the Germans put course machine guns. And they did it right.

[Alexey RA]

Quote: DesToeR

The only drawback of such a suspension, which the "grandfathers" lead to, is the loss of reserved useful space.

Not only - more cutouts in the sides weaken the protection of the tank. In field tests of two armored hulls of the T-34 tank with turrets in April 1941 it was found that:

... when hit by track rollers in the area of ​​cutouts for the passage of the balancers, the projectile easily passes beyond the armor through the rims, the cutout in the armor and the balance spring.

[Cherry Nine]

Quote: DesToeR

were there complaints about the "candle" suspension of the T-34

Yes. Buildup. But this is not to the suspension, but to the lack of shock absorbers. Regarding the loss of volumes, this is not for grandfathers, grandfathers do not care. Grandfathers dealt with two problems that followed from this: 1. Weakening of the sides 2. (main) Monstrous solution to the tanks.

Quote: DesToeR

supernovae Panther and Tiger

It is more interesting hung with machine guns IS-7. But the Cat drowns purely for continuous VLD, it seems.

Quote: DesToeR

Yes, and while you swivel the driver’s seat, you will dodge in the cramped control compartment and open the hatch, climb under the tank’s bottom ... You’ll burn out soon.

Actually, speaking, this is one of the main problems of the T-34. The ratio of dead tankers and lost tanks. There was evidence that on Sherman it was better than more than twice. That is, the lost late Sherman on average took away, EMNIP, 0.6 tankmen, and T-34 -1.6. Fans of counting millimeters usually do not pay attention to this.

Quote: DesToeR

reliability of driving performance was a more significant parameter than combat survivability.

That is again emcha is better)))

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Cherry Nine

There was evidence that on Sherman it was better than more than twice. That is, the lost late Sherman on average took away, EMNIP, 0.6 tankmen, and T-34 -1.6.

SW M.N.Svirin at one time cited the following data:

However, statistics. We take only for sunbathing. On average, in 1944, for one burned T-34-76 two and eight tenths of the dead (2,8), on the IS - two and four tenths (2,4), on the SU-76 - one and two tenths (1,2) .

[redf]

Quote: Alexey RA

on SU-76 - one and two tenths (1,2).

Apparently the driver is almost always, and sometimes someone else from the gunners.

[redf]

Quote: Cherry Nine

But this is not to the suspension, but to the lack of shock absorbers.

And the lack of shock absorbers is not a feature of the suspension.

[redf]

Quote: DesToeR

The only drawback of such a suspension, which the "grandfathers" lead to, is the loss of reserved useful space.

But low-tech and high cost, is that so, nothing?

[igor67]

somewhere on the Golan Heights stands this T4, the Syrian army, an Internet photo, I never found this tank. it's 34-85 Syrian, also in the Golan Sherman there

[igor67]

better seen and 34 ka near

[Svarog51]

Igor I corrected the photo of Sherman, otherwise it is not convenient to rotate the monitor.

[igor67]

Thank you, I turned over the photo on my computer, but still, it’s uploaded to the site only

[Svarog51]

Igor Using a standard image viewer, but only a saved file. I did just that.

[igor67]

Quote: Svarog51

Igor Using a standard image viewer, but only a saved file. I did just that.

thanks, I will know for the future

[Svarog51]

Contact, I will always help.

[igor67]

on my computer the photos are normally not upside down, but when I upload to the site again sideways . the same Sherman pictured at the Latrun Museum

[Svarog51]

Here, I saved the image, by viewing the images of Windows, I turned it 90 degrees and voila, laid it out again.

[igor67]

I’m the tenth one, I never used it, I had a tablet for five years, but on my computer the photo was not upside down,

[Svarog51]

Any graphic program allows you to rotate the picture. Do it on the desktop, check and lay out. It should work.

[DesToeR]

Quote: Kot_Kuzya

You do not confuse

I am not confusing anything. What about the course machine guns on the German "menagerie" 1942 ... 1944?

Quote: Kot_Kuzya

Even they they showed their complete futility

But not everyone will agree with you, especially after studying the combat experience of using exchange machine guns in urban battles of 1944-1945.

[Kot_Kuzya]

For a tank crew, an extra pair of hands to work with a shovel or to help pull the tracks is quite out of place. So I think that they are this useless crew member in battle, brought to the staff to help the crew for work.

[Cherry Nine]

Quote: Kot_Kuzya

So I think that they are this useless crew member in battle, brought to the staff to help the crew for work.

You reproduced the argument of the Negro supporters on Abrams)))))

[redf]

Quote: Kot_Kuzya

So I think that they are this useless crew member in battle, brought to the staff to help the crew for work.

Well, why are you so stubborn? That's right Destoer writes to you.
The nature of the battles in WW2 suggested an active impact tanks on enemy infantry in frontal projection. Bashner was usually occupied by a cannon, so the machine gun coaxial with it did not count. And without a machine gun course танкIt was an easy booty for infantry.
Another thing, support self-propelled guns, which in the USSR were also mistakenly called tanks (IS-2 for example). And this is all the confusion.
Support self-propelled guns operated from the depths of battle formation, therefore, as a rule, there was no enemy in front of them. Therefore, they did not need an exchange machine gun.
The same applies to the features of the use of post-war tanks, examples of which you gave above.

[DesToeR]

Quote: Cherry Nine

Regarding the loss of volumes, this is not for grandfathers, grandfathers it does not matter. Grandfathers dealt with two problems that followed from this: 1. Weakening of the sides 2. (main) Monstrous solution to the tanks.

The weakening of the sides is not a problem - the likelihood of such a "golden shell" was extremely low - the terrain prevented. But the fact that the “candles” forced the designers to arrange “dancing with a tambourine” during modernization (expanding the turret strap) is a fact. With tanks, the same is not so clear: the solution is not bad (on modern tanks it is considered to be additional protection against cumulative ammunition), but it was necessary to set the air purge of empty space with exhaust gases as in aviation - it was enough to see the money or it wasn’t enough.

Quote: Cherry Nine

There was evidence that on Sherman it was better than more than twice.

Sherman had a much larger armored space, plus more hatches due to the "German" layout of the power units.

Quote: Cherry Nine

That is again emcha is better)))

Well, there is no arguing against the peacetime industry. I don’t know by resources, but something tells me that Sherman will be more expensive in terms of material consumption and machine-hours.

[Cherry Nine]

Quote: DesToeR

on modern tanks it is considered additional protection against cumulative ammunition

It seems that you were a little hasty with the Soviet Merkava.

Quote: DesToeR

but something tells me that in terms of material consumption and machine hours, Sherman will be more expensive.

It is unlikely. Sherman - a semi-commercial machine, armed with a branded tractor. Well, with what, but with technological adaptability he has exemplary.
Although it is difficult to directly compare the conditions of the Soviet economy.

[DesToeR]

Quote: Cherry Nine

It seems that you were a little hasty with the Soviet Merkava.

On Soviet tanks, starting with T-64 starting, tanks located on the fenders are included in the common fuel system and are additionally protected against cumulative ammunition. Merkava is still a good ten years old.

Quote: Cherry Nine

Although it is difficult to directly compare the conditions of the Soviet economy.

Why? The used machine park in terms of nomenclature and machine hours, plus material consumption - this is already possible to compare.

[Cherry Nine]

Quote: DesToeR

Soviet tanks, with the T-64 starting

You hurried a bit with the T-64.

Quote: DesToeR

here it is already possible to compare.

I do not know such work. Although in the framework of two specific plants, theoretically, one can imagine.
But for general reasons - you are still mistaken. If for comparison we take M4A1, and this is the most widespread version of the outbreak of war and closest to the concept - Sherman is easier in almost everything. A molded case instead of a very difficult welded rolled one (more complicated than a welded Sherman), much simpler commercial engine. Cletrac differential i.e. Cleveland Tractor Company. Anyway, you see, Sherman was collected almost entirely from the waste of tractor, automobile, aviation and carriage production. American T-60.

Adjusted for industry level, of course.

[redf]

Quote: Cherry Nine

But for general reasons - you are still mistaken.

I would add the very expensive T-34 diesel engine itself. Which, due to an insignificant motor resource, was changed like gloves.
In addition, a very expensive S-53 gun. And very expensive artillery rounds to it.

[Cherry Nine]

The engine is mentioned. The gun is the same. I stipulated that we are talking about the early M4A1.

[redf]

Quote: Cherry Nine

The gun is the same.

You can’t even imagine how much you are right.

Quote: Cherry Nine

I stipulated that we are talking about the early M4A1

I didn’t notice.

[Cherry Nine]

Quote: redf

HOW you are right.

Are you talking about the 1897th again? So I am in the know.

[redf]

Quote: Cherry Nine

Are you talking about the 1897th again? So I am in the know.

No, this time I'm talking about shells for them.

[nikoliski]

I see what a hot discussion flared up about the use of the T34-85 in Korea. I will answer immediately to all the ill-wishers of our car - What did you attack the tank model 43 years ?? Of course, he could not compete with pershing in Korea, and even less so with M103, because we also sent North Korean friends one more secret present about which few know Is-3 (and they still remained in the DPRK warehouses (which means the Americans couldn’t interrupt them?) Here, compare Is-3 with your Pershing and other husks (and potatoes, remember one thing in the WOT game, this tank is mercilessly depleted "for balance", but in fact the armor is not a hundred (as in the game), but screens up to 214mm (made to not break through faustniki and tigers into the side) forehead thickness b Ashni is even thicker than in the game (although it doesn’t make it there due to the tilt - they honestly described inconsistencies with the historical prototype for everyone doubting Wikitans) so compare Is-3 (a tank of 45, like your perching), compare with them, and not scoff over the old man T34-85 In my opinion, the Is-3 should be equipped with an Arena and he would have chased barmales in Syria (the side armor is thicker than that of the T-90)

[da Vinci]

Like it or not, the era of the T-34 ended in the 1945 year.

[stalkerwalker]

Quote: da Vinci

Like it or not, the era of the T-34 ended in the 1945 year.

How MBT Red Army USSR-yes ....
Under the unfavorable course of the Great Patriotic War, the technical fleet and personnel that existed, it was the only possible type of tank that could be mass-produced at tank-building (and not only) plants.
Nevertheless, even in the context of the evacuation of KhTZ beyond the Urals, it was possible, albeit at an extremely low level in quantity and quality, to maintain the pace of production of the "thirty-four", followed by modernization in the T-34-85.
Subsequent development through T-44, T-54 / 55, etc. and set the foundation for the Soviet school of tank building.
Talking about how good or bad he was is pointless. There are no perfect tanks or cars. And the basis for the successful use of armored vehicles lies both the level of training of the crews and the organizational structures in which this armored vehicle fought.

[Svarog51]

Ilyich, welcome Thirty-four and after the 45th fought not weakly. Those who want to know the story know. And for those who do not want to explain, only waste time in vain.

[hohol95]

The medium tank T-34-85 was more exposed to tank fire. All the cannons of American medium tanks could penetrate his armor, while the Thirty-Four managed to break through the armor of the M26 and M46 with difficulty.

According to the classification of the Second World M-26 “PERSHING” (43,1 tons) and M-46 “PATTON” (43,9 tons) are HEAVY.
And against the 32 ton “thirty-four”, these American “GENERALS” with their 90mm guns and 102mm armored “foreheads” were as strong as the German “TIGERS”.
But with the M4 "SHERMAN" (her peer), the T-34-85 coped confidently!

By the end of the year, the DPRK troops lost 239 T-34-85 tanks, most of which were hit by bazookas and aircraft. In battles with tanks, according to American data, 97 T-34-85 were shot down. North Korean tanks destroyed only 34 US combat vehicles with return fire. At the same time, the T-34-85 clearly exceeded the M24 Chaffee in all respects. By their characteristics, the "thirty-four" were close to the M4AZE8, but had more powerful weapons. If the T-34-85 without difficulty hit the Sherman at a distance of a direct shot with conventional armor-piercing shells, then the American tank achieved a similar result only when using sub-caliber and cumulative shells. Only the M34 "Pershing" and the M85 "Patton", which had more powerful armor protection and weapons, were not "tough" of the T-26-46 in Korea.

[redf]

Quote: hohol95

According to the classification of the Second World M-26 “PERSHING” (43,1 tons) and M-46 “PATTON” (43,9 tons) are HEAVY.

Watching whose. Different countries had different classifications.
American, yes, heavy. And in German, average.

Quote: hohol95

But with the M4 "SHERMAN" (her peer), the T-34-85 coped confidently!

And the Shermans with the T-34 also coped confidently.

Quote: hohol95

if the T-34-85 without difficulty hit the Sherman at a distance of a direct shot with conventional armor-piercing shells, the American tank achieved a similar result only when using sub-caliber and cumulative shells.

It would not be worth quoting all kinds of nonsense. The penetration of 76 mm M1 was slightly better than the penetration of 85 mm S-53.

[hohol95]

Your comment is interesting -

American, yes, heavy. And in German, average.

Why?
Even according to the old German classification for the caliber of guns - at 88 - 90mm these are heavy tanks!
They recorded the “Panther” in the average ones not by weight, but by the caliber of the guns of 75 mm.
And you should not write nonsense about classification! The Americans transferred all their heavy tanks after the Second World War to medium! So they wanted to! But by Soviet standards, they were heavy.

[Cherry Nine]

Quote: hohol95

But with the M4 "SHERMAN" (her peer), the T-34-85 coped confidently!

We have already written above that the passage you highlighted is illiterate. Cumule at the gun M1 was not. There were subcalibers, and they were willingly used in Korea, but, above all, because the Americans were already not in short supply at that time. Americans are never greedy for expensive shells, even when there is no particular need. The penetration of such a shell was approaching the D-25T.

Quote: redf

The penetration of 76 mm M1 was slightly better than the penetration of 85 mm S-53.

With military release shots.

[DesToeR]

Quote: redf

And in German, average.

Justify ... if not difficult.

[Cherry Nine]

Quote: DesToeR

Justify ... if not difficult.

Most likely, I mean "medium-cannon" according to the German classification. However, I was always confused in it.

[Mihail28]

The T-34 tank was an excellent tank during the Great Patriotic War.
But I do not understand why, after its completion, they continued production of this tank, and did not switch to the production of T-44. Moreover, the T-44 ceased production in 1947, and the production of the T-34-85 in the USSR continued until 1950.

[Cherry Nine]

Quote: Michael28

But I don’t understand why, after its completion, they continued production of this tank, and did not switch to the production of T-44

Because the T-44 is outdated already in the 45th. His gun - the same as that of the T-34 - as rightly stated in the article, did not decide against Pershey and Centurions (and Panthers). In the spring of testing was the T-54, a tank with a more current gun, which in the 46th was adopted and put into series. The tank, again, came out raw, was discontinued and altered until 49-50. During this "temporary" period, work was underway on the T-34, both in the sense of UKN and production, albeit on a small scale.

[stalkerwalker]

Quote: Cherry Nine

Quote: Michael28
But I don’t understand why, after its completion, they continued production of this tank, and did not switch to the production of T-44
Because the T-44 is already outdated in 45. His weapon - the same as that of the T-34 - as rightly stated in the article, did not decide against Pershey and the Centurions (and Panthers). In the spring of testing was the T-54, a tank with a more current gun, which in 46 was adopted and put into series

T-44 managed to visit the troops, and even starred in the film "Father of the Soldier."

[Cherry Nine]

Quote: stalkerwalker

managed to visit the troops

Who argues. He was there for about 30 years, like at a dance. But the T-34 did not become a replacement, his time passed without starting.

[Mihail28]

All the same, the logic is not clear. If the T-44 is so "catastrophically" outdated, then the T-34 should be considered obsolete in the square or in the cube (compared to the T-44). Especially for the period of the "temporary period" of bringing to mind the T-54.
But even after the war, T-34s continued to be produced in parallel with the T-44s. And even longer for several years.

[NF68]

Quote: Michael28

All the same, the logic is not clear. If the T-44 is so "catastrophically" outdated, then the T-34 should be considered obsolete in the square or in the cube (compared to the T-44). Especially for the period of the "temporary period" of bringing to mind the T-54.

The T-44 still needed to be completed, and the T-34-85 could simply continue to be released until a more promising T-44 T-54 in which WWII realities were fully taken into account was brought. Why do we need an unfinished, “intermediate” type of medium tank when, after a couple of years, you can still get an equally unfinished, but much more powerful T-54?

[Cherry Nine]

Quote: Michael28

Especially for the period of the "temporary period" bringing to mind the T-54.

You somehow think that the T-44 is some kind of finalized machine, suitable for launching in a series. While this machine was actually pre-production and required the same amount of work on refinement and preparation of production as the T-54.

[Svarog51]

On the 44th, the chassis for the 54th worked out. They ran in and took, but a tower with a 100-mm gun is much more promising. That's all on the 44th because of this ended. Moreover, the T-54 was not produced for long, in the new conditions the T-55 with protection against WMD was needed.

[DesToeR]

Quote: Michael28

But even after the war, T-34s continued to be produced in parallel with the T-44s. And even longer for several years.

Analysis of the fighting in 1941 showed the correctness of the pre-war production of tanks. Hit the 20000 tanks was wasted in the first months of battle. After WWII, the T-34-85 tank remained in release in the event of the outbreak of a full-scale war with the former allies.

[DesToeR]

Quote: Cherry Nine

Most likely, I mean "medium-cannon" according to the German classification. However, I was always confused in it.

And you are not alone. Especially if you remember the caliber of the gun of the German heavy tank Tiger ...