T-60 - suicide tank

Many samples of military equipment and weapons used during the Great Patriotic War passed it from beginning to end, which indicates the success of their design and the most complete compliance with tactical and technical requirements (TTT). However, a number of products of the Soviet defense industry, with which the Red Army entered into confrontation with the German troops, did not live to see its completion due to either outdated or inconsistencies with this most notorious TTT. But the same fate was shared by some combat vehicles created during the wartime, including the T-60 light tank.

Counteroffer

In May 1941, Moscow Plant No. 37 was tasked with mastering serial production of the lung tank the new generation of the T-50, which caused a shock among the management of the enterprise, whose modest production capabilities clearly did not correspond to the new facility. Suffice it to say that the T-50 had a complex planetary eight-speed gearbox, and gear cutting production has always been a weak point in this factory. At the same time, workers at Plant No. 37 concluded that it was possible to create a new light tank for direct infantry escort. At the same time, the use of a used engine-transmission installation and the chassis of the floating T-40 tank was assumed. The case was supposed to have a more rational shape, reduced size and enhanced booking.

Convinced of the feasibility and advantages of such a solution, the chief designer N. A. Astrov, together with the senior military representative of the enterprise, Lt. Col. V.P. Okunev, wrote a letter to I.V. Stalin, in which he substantiated the impossibility of releasing the T-50 tank and, on the other hand, the reality of a quick mastering the production of a new tank. The letter in the prescribed manner was lowered into the mailbox at the Nikolsky Gate of the Kremlin in the evening, Stalin read it at night, and already in the morning the deputy chairman of the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR V. A. Malyshev arrived at the plant, who was entrusted with the new machine. He examined the tank’s model with interest, approved it, discussed technical and production problems with the designers, and advised replacing the DShK machine gun with a much more powerful 20 mm ShVAK automatic gun, well mastered in aviation.

Already in the evening of July 17, 1941 was signed by the Resolution of the State Defense Committee No. 179 “On the production of T-60 light tanks at plant No. 37 Narkomsredmash”. It should be noted that this decree was not about the classic “sixties”, but about the T-60 (030) tank, which is apparently identical to the T-40 except for the hull's stern sheet and better known under the unofficial designation T-30.

For T-60 (already in the 060 version), designer A. V. Bogachev designed a fundamentally new, more durable all-welded case with a much smaller volume than the T-40, reserved by volume and low silhouette - with a height of just 1360 millimeters, and feed sheets made of homogeneous rolled katana. The smaller dimensions of the hull made it possible to increase the thickness of all frontal sheets to 15 – 20 millimeters, and then using shielding and 20 – 35, onboard - to 15 millimeters (later to 25), and fodder - to 13 millimeters (then in places to 25). The driver was located in the middle in the forward protruding cabin with a frontal shield and upper landing hatch reclining in a non-combat situation. The driver's viewing device - a quick-changeable mirror glass block “triplex” with a thickness of 36 millimeters was in the front shield (initially and on the sides of the wheelhouse) behind a narrow slit covered by an armored guard. In the bottom thickness of six - ten millimeters there was an emergency hatch.

The new tower with a height of 375 millimeters, designed by Yu. P. Yudovich, had a cone-shaped octahedral shape. It was welded from flat armor plates with a thickness of 25 millimeters located at large angles of inclination, which markedly increased its resistance to shelling. The thickness of the front zygomatic armor plates and weapon masks subsequently reached 35 millimeters. In the roof there was a large hatch commander with a round lid. In the side faces of the tower, to the right and left of the arrow, narrow slots were made, equipped with two triplex-type viewing instruments. The tower was shifted to the left side.

On the second prototype T-60 (060), instead of DShK, we installed a quick-firing 20-mm SHVAK-tank gun with caliber 82,4 barrel length, created on the basis of the wing and turret versions of the ShVAK-20 air cannon. Refinement of the gun, including the results of front-line use, continued in parallel with the development of its production. Therefore, it was officially put into service only on December 1, and on January 1, 1942 of the year received the designation TNSh-1 (Nudelman's tank - Spit) or TNSh-20, as it was later called.

For ease of targeting, the gun was placed in the turret with a significant offset from its axis to the right, which made it necessary to introduce amendments to the readings of the TMFP-1 telescopic sight. The tabular range of the direct shot reached 2500 meters, the sighting - 700, the rate of fire - up to 750 rds / min, the mass of a second volley of armor-piercing shells - 1,208 kilogram. The gun had a tape feed capacity of 754 projectile (13 boxes). The ammunition consisted of fragmentation-tracer and fragmentation-incendiary shells and armor-piercing-incendiary shells with a carbide-tungsten core and a high initial velocity Vo = 815 m / s, which made it possible to effectively hit light and medium-armored targets, as well as machine gun points, anti-tank guns and manpower of the enemy. Subsequently, the introduction of the subcaliber armor-piercing incendiary projectile increased the armor penetration to millimeters 35. As a result, the T-60 could fight at short distances with the German medium tanks Pz.III and Pz.IV of early versions when shooting at the side, and at distances up to 1000 meters - with armored personnel carriers and light SAUs.

To the left of the cannon, a DT machine gun with 1008 ammunition ammunition (16 disks, later 15) was housed in a single unit mounted with it.

Manufacturers

15 September 1941 Moscow plant number 37 released the first serial T-60, but due to the evacuation that followed soon after, production was already stopped on October 26. In total in Moscow made 245 T-60 tanks. Instead of the originally assumed Tashkent enterprise, the enterprise was sent to Sverdlovsk, where it soon earned a new tank factory number 37. Collected on it from 15 December 1941, mainly from parts brought from Moscow, the first two dozen T-30 and T-60 passed 1 January 1942 on the Sverdlovsk streets. In total, up to September, 1942 T-1144 was built in the Urals by 60, after which the plant No. 37 was converted to manufacture components and assemblies for T-34, as well as ammunition.

The workshops of the Kolomna Kuybyshev Machine-Building Plant were involved in the production of armored hulls of the T-60 tank. In October, 1941 of the year, part of them, including those that produced the hulls of the T-60 tanks for Plant No. 37, were evacuated to Kirov, to the site of the local machine-building plant named after 1 May. A new plant No. 38 was created here, and already in January of the 1942, the first T-60 came out of its gates. Since February, 38 began their planned production, while at the same time supplying the rest of the enterprises with cast tracks of tracks, which were previously made only by the FCZ. In the first quarter, an 241 machine was produced, until June, another 535 unit.

T-30

T-40

T-70

Attracted to the production of T-60 and the plant number 264 (Krasnoarmeysky Shipyard in the city of Sarepta near Stalingrad, previously produced river armored boats). He received technical documentation for the tank in a timely manner, but later drove the car on his own, without resorting to the help of the parent company, but not trying to modernize it. 16 September 1941 was joined to the factory team by workers of the evacuated XTZ, who were familiar with tank building, and began working on the production of T-60 in Kharkov. They arrived at 264 with the already prepared reserve of tools, patterns, dies and tank blanks, so the first armored shell was welded to 29 in September. The transmission and undercarriage units were to be delivered to the FCZ (Plant No. 76). The T-34 and B-2 diesel engines loaded by the manufacturer, also at the end of 1941 of the year, their only producer, the Stalingrad enterprise and supplying the T-fours to X-NUMX T-264 for the Thirty-Four, couldn’t pay the same weight to the light T-60 attention. Nevertheless, in December, managed to collect the first 52 machine. In total to June 1942, the 830 T-60 was released here. A significant part of them participated in the Battle of Stalingrad, especially in its initial phase.

GAZ became the head and the largest factory producing T-60, where in October 16 of the year NN A. Astrov came to full-time work with a small group of Moscow colleagues for design support of production. Soon he was appointed deputy chief designer of the enterprise for tank design, and at the beginning of 1941, he received the Stalin Prize for creating T-1942 and T-40.

In a short time, GAZ completed the manufacture of non-standard technological equipment and from October 26 began mass production of T-60 tanks. Armored hulls for them in increasing quantities began to be supplied by the Vyksa Crushing and Milling Equipment Plant (DRO) No. 177, and later - the Murom Locomotive Repair Plant. Dzerzhinsky number 176 with its powerful boiler production, technologically similar tank hull, and, finally, the oldest armor factory number 178 in the city of Kulebaki. Then they were joined by part of the Podolsk Plant No. 180, which was evacuated to Saratov on the territory of the local steam engine repair plant. And yet, armored hulls were chronically short, which held back the expansion of the mass production of T-60. Therefore, soon their welding was additionally organized at GAZ. In September, only three T-60 tanks were manufactured in Gorky. But in October - 215, in November - 471. Until the end of 1941, 1323 machines were released here.

In the 1942 year, despite the creation and adoption of a more efficient lightweight tank T-70, the production of T-60 parallel with it was maintained at GAZ until April (just for 1942 - 1639 machines), at the Sverdlovsk plant No. 37 - until August , at the factory number 38 - to July. For 1942, the 4164 tank was made at all plants. The last 55 machines plant number 37 handed over at the beginning of 1943-th (until February). In total, 1941 T-5839 was released from 60, the army adopted 5796 machines.

Baptism of fire

The first massive use of T-60 refers to the battle for Moscow. They were available in almost all tank brigades and individual tank battalions defending the capital. 7 November 1941 of the year in the parade on Red Square was attended by 48 T-60 from the 33 Tank Brigade. It was a Moscow-made tank, Gorky T-60 first entered the battle near Moscow only December 13.

On the Leningrad front, T-60 began to arrive in the spring of 1942, when 61 vehicles with crews were allocated to form the 60 tank tank brigade. Curiously story their delivery to the besieged city. Tanks decided to transport on barges with coal. It was not bad in terms of disguise. The barges carried fuel to Leningrad, became familiar to the enemy, and not every time they were actively hunted. In addition, coal as a ballast provided the necessary stability for river vessels.

The combat vehicles were loaded from the pier above the Volkhov hydroelectric station. Timber decks were laid on coal, tanks were placed on them, and the barges set off from the shore. Enemy aviation failed to detect the movement of our military unit.

The baptism of the 61 Tank Brigade fell on January 12 1943 - the first day of the operation to break the blockade of Leningrad. Moreover, the brigade, as well as the 86 and 118 tank battalions, which were also armed with light tanks, operated in the first echelon of the 67 army and forced the Neva across the ice. The units equipped with medium and heavy tanks were brought into battle only on the second day of the offensive, after a bridgehead of two or three kilometers was captured, and the sappers reinforced the ice.

T-60 fought on the Southern Front, especially actively in the spring of 1942 in the Crimea, participated in the Kharkov operation and in the defense of Stalingrad. T-60 was a significant part of the combat vehicles of the 1 tank corps (commander - Major General M. E. Katukov), together with other units of the Bryansk Front, which reflected the German offensive on the Voronezh direction in the summer of 1942.

By the beginning of the counter-offensive of the Stalingrad, Don and South-Western Fronts 19 in November 1942, quite a few combat vehicles of this type remained in the tank brigades. The insufficiently armored and weakly armed T-60 had very low stability on the battlefield, becoming easy prey for the enemy’s medium and heavy tanks. For the sake of justice, it must be admitted that the tankers did not particularly like these lightly armored and weakly-armed vehicles with fire-hazardous gasoline engines, calling them BM-2 - a mass grave for two.

The last major operation in which T-60 was used was the lifting of the Siege of Leningrad in January 1944. Thus, 88 T-1 was among the 21 machines of the 60 tank tank brigade of the Leningrad Front, 220 were in the 18 tank brigade, and only 124 of the Volvo Tank Regiment in the 16 of January 1944 was available combat vehicles: two T-10, two T-34, five T-70 and even one T-60.

Based on the T-60, the BM-8-24 (1941) jet installation was produced, and prototypes of the tank with the 37-mm ZIS-19 gun, 37-mm anti-aircraft self-propelled gun (1942), 76,2-mm self-propelled artillery installation, anti-aircraft tank T-60-3 with two twin 12,7-mm machine guns DShK (1942) and self-propelled artillery installation OCU-76 (1944). All these machines were not very successful, as the T-60 tank was clearly not suitable for use as a base for self-propelled guns.

Why were these cars produced?

Usually T-60 is compared with a “colleague” in armament - the German light tank Pz.II. This is all the more interesting because these machines met in real combat. Analyzing the data of these tanks, we can say that the Soviet tank builders managed to achieve almost the same level of protection with the German machine, which, with a smaller mass and dimensions, significantly increased the invulnerability of the T-60. Almost similar and dynamic characteristics of both machines. Despite the high power density, the Pz.II was not the fastest "sixties". Formally, the weapon parameters were the same: both tanks were equipped with 20-mm cannons with similar ballistic characteristics. The initial velocity of the Pz.II armor-piercing projectile was 780 m / s, T-60 - 815 m / s, which theoretically allowed them to hit the same targets.

In fact, everything was not so simple: the Soviet gun TNSh-20 could not fire single shots, and the German KwK 30, as well as KwK 38, could, which significantly increased the accuracy of shooting. Even when firing in short bursts, the T-60 cannon recoil aside, which did not allow for the effective firing of infantry or group targets (for example, a cluster of vehicles). "Two" was more effective on the battlefield and due to the size of the crew, consisting of three people and who also had a much better overview of the tank than the crew of the T-60. An important advantage was the presence of a radio station. As a result, Pz.II as a front-end car was significantly superior to the "sixties". Even more, this advantage was felt when using tanks for reconnaissance, where the inconspicuous, but “blind” and “mute” T-60 was practically useless. The situation was no better when using the T-60 as an infantry escort tank: the “sixties” armor too weak was easily hit by almost all anti-tank weapons and heavy weapons Wehrmacht infantry.

As a result, we can conclude that the T-60 tank was absolutely not needed by the Red Army, since no TTT (if they were developed for it at all) did not correspond. These machines, rarely surviving one attack, are often called suicide tanks. Nearly six thousand T-60 literally burned in the furnace of war. Moreover, they burned almost without a trace: there are relatively few front-line photographs of these vehicles left, little is stored in archives and documents about their combat use. To this day literally survived several tanks of this type.

The question naturally arises: why were they released at all? Plant motivation number 37 is clear, but why the Supreme Command rate agreed with this motivation? The latter circumstance can be explained by the desire to make up for the huge losses in the tanks - on the one hand, and the greatly overestimated number of the German tank fleet - on the other. Imagine that the Germans, having five times fewer tanks than the Red Army, succeed thanks to a well-designed organizational structure of tank formations, excellent cooperation with other branches of service, good controllability and advanced tactical methods of their use. could Alas, at that time we could not oppose anything except a quantitative advantage.

Well, if not T-60, then what? Yes, what the Red Army badly lacked throughout the war was armored personnel carriers! Imagine something resembling a T-60 chassis, but without a turret, or, say, with a pivot or turret (which is better) installation of a DT or DShK machine gun and an anti-tank rifle in addition, capable of carrying at least four to five infantrymen. This is the way the lend-lizov tracked armored personnel carrier “Universal” was equipped, valued fighters worth its weight in gold. And we got them only two thousand. If instead of the T-60, as, by the way, and the subsequent T-70, the 14 of thousands of tracked armored personnel carriers came to the troops, then really, they would be much more confused.

But the history of the subjunctive has not. That was, that was, and nothing can be fixed. And do not resurrect the carriages of mass graves for two. Eternal memory to them, eternal glory to them!

Comments

[AK-74-1]

Interesting article. I learned a lot for myself. Especially regarding the creation of the T-60. At the same time, I strongly disagree with the author about the title of the article. In his opinion, it turns out that a man who sat behind the levers of T-60 would defend a suicide bomber. Then those who bombed Berlin in 1941 are also suicide bombers, and people who until the last defended the pillboxes near Grodno and the stolen Brest Fortress, who remained in Sevastopol in 1942, they are who. Other examples of heroism and self-sacrifice can be cited. The author needs to be more careful with the epithets.

[nitro]

And really, why did the wise and all-seeing comrade Stalin allow this tank to be produced, and even in such huge quantities? In defense, he is absolutely not needed, then for what? Are there tankers on the site?

[freedom]

According to the article, of course, +, but the fact that the author is smarter than the Supreme Command of the time is doubtful, to say the least.

[Alf]

No, the author is really smarter than Stalin and Headquarters and the General Staff. All the books of this "expert", firstly, are signed as a "leading expert" (which is indecent in itself), and secondly, in all his books the central thought is that everything Soviet-Russian is bad, and German-American is the best in the world ...

[Hedgehog]

The tank was created as TEMPORARY! measure, while the factories increased production of heavier machines. Not all plants could master the production of 34 or KV so as to fill this gap and such tanks were created. Another thing is that ours attacked the same rake tank as the T-34 blind crew 2 human. SHVAK is too fast-firing gun, but this gun was not intended for land. I would like to ask why, in those factories whose capacities used for the production of such vehicles did not try to transfer to the production of other tanks? Why did the t-45 armor remain the same for 34 years? -Why the tank, no matter how they tried to fix it, was blind even with the command tower? Why did tankers send complaints to all factories about the 45 mm cannon demanding more power? As a result, by the year 85, the t-44 began to break through like foil from almost all the enemy’s anti-tank equipment. That 34 mm in the forehead is not armor, everyone has long realized. Those who fought on the t-45 were considered ahead of time people doomed and doomed because they were burning like a skaan infantryman, "like straw." In contrast to IP, there was still a chance to survive ..

[Uncle Murzik]

Igel, what are you fantasizing, the experience of using the war in Korea says the opposite! ”A significant event happened a week later - on July 5, 33 T-34-85 tanks of the 107th KPA regiment attacked the positions of the 24th US Army Infantry Division. The Americans tried to repel the tank attack with 105-mm howitzers and 75-mm recoilless guns fire, however, it turned out that high-explosive shells were ineffective, and there were only six 105-mm cumulative shells, and they managed to knock out two tanks from a distance of 500 yards. During this battle, the American infantry fired 22 shots on tanks from 2,36-inch bazookas - all to no avail!

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 - there were two out of 14 tanks left in it! Such results completely demoralized the American tankers and very upset the infantrymen, who now did not see any effective anti-tank weapons in the M24. "The first battle of the T-34-85 with the Shermans took place on September 27. 10" thirty-fours "attacked M4AZE8 of the 2nd platoon companies from the 70th tank battalion. Three Shermans were shot down in a matter of seconds. Then one T-34-85 ironed the transport convoy, smashing 15 trucks and jeeps into chips, and was shot down at point-blank range from a 105-mm howitzer. four T-34-85 were victims of bazooka fire, and two with the European Korean tanks were knocked down by the main forces of the 70th tank battalion that came from the rear.

[vezunchik]

needed armored vehicles. And intelligence could be carried out on it. This is better than riding a horse. Now it’s easy to judge, but if you find yourself yourself at that time, what would you do?

[loft79]

No tank as a scout. Poor visibility, there is no radio station, the commander must shoot, charge, conduct reconnaissance, command the driver. But with the shelling of the infantry, the suppression of machine-gun points should be good (ZZU based on Pz-I coped with this well). IMHO

[Alf]

As for the radio, I agree, but about loading and shooting, "if the scout entered the battle, this is a bad scout."

[4thParasinok]

Quote: loft79

the commander must shoot charge, ....

How often do I need to charge the DShK or ShVAK? They have a tape of not one dozen each, but according to the article at ShVAK, it has 58 shells ...

[loft79]

"shoot, charge" in this case meant: to fulfill the duties of a gunner.

[xXx__SET__xXx]

yes, 58 shells agree, but the gun is an automatic machine, so it’s 4-5 bursts and everything is empty reloading

[alex-defensor]

Quote: nitro

Indeed, why did the wise and all-seeing comrade Stalin allow this tank to be produced

1. I think that each leader relies on the opinion of trusted specialists;
2. Who said that Stalin is wise? Of course, if it were not for the fear of being shot, it would not be a fact that the USSR could recover after the war, but if it were not for the repression of the officers at 37, then the course and results of the war would be different. Well, much more can be said about this, but laziness.

[Charon]

No need to say anything about this. You, dear, are using the Khrushchev-liberal propaganda. And they are already pretty tired of everyone.
So it’s better to be lazy.

[alex-defensor]

Quote: Charon

No need to say anything about this. You, dear, are using Khrushchev-liberal propaganda. And they are already pretty tired of everyone.
So it’s better to be lazy.

My great-great-grandfather (lieutenant general) was repressed in the 37th. He and his wife were shot, the house was boarded up, and the children (4) were thrown out into the street (in winter).

Their friends and relatives then picked them up for different families.

My great-grandfather repressed brother, then for many years I searched for everyone and sought rehabilitation, because under Khrushchev it was already possible. He achieved rehabilitation, as he proved that his brother is not an enemy of the people.

And this despite the fact that my grandfather did not pass a membership card even in the light of the collapse of the USSR (he remained true to the idea). I myself am a social democrat and I consider the collapse of the USSR - a betrayal.

So do not talk about agitation, dear Charon. No need to say, knowingly !!! Waiting for an apology!!!!

[Charon]

Alex.
I do not like to flaunt ulcers, but in this case I have to.
During the years of collectivization, my great-grandfather was exiled to Kazakhstan only because he was a priest. There was no trial. Just sent and that's it. His son (cousin), who came to visit his father, was seized and taken away. They did not hear anything more about him.
However, after the publication of Comrade Stalin's article "Dizziness with Success," the great-grandfather was also released without explanation.
Who is to blame for the troubles of my family? Stalin or that activist who shouted in the street: "Grab the priest's son"? And to whom does the great-grandfather owe his life?

Speaking of repression, you, Alex, confuse 37 and 38 when Stalin and Beria began the rehabilitation of innocent prisoners. But Khrushchev, who was responsible for the events of precisely 37 years, modestly kept silent about this in his speech at the 20th Congress. This is exactly what I mean when I talk about Khrushchev’s agitation.
In no way do I want to cast a shadow on your great-grandfather because I don’t know. However, he was not rehabilitated in 38, along with those who were accused absolutely innocent. Perhaps the slander against him was very convincing.

I’m ready to apologize for the fact that for the first time I did not quite express my idea.

But along the way I will give friendly advice: study history more thoroughly. Especially in the part that is used to denigrate our country. Remember that those who poke us in the face with these repressions and claim to have created this system of Lino Stalin are not friends to us.
I strongly suspect that these truth-seekers are to a large extent the descendants of those freaks who condemned the innocent in 37, but he himself took their place on the bunk and in 38 thanks to Beria. Now they are taking revenge on us.

[alex-defensor]

I agree, according to the denunciation, they shot to Stalin, this is generally a distinguishing characteristic of revolutions, they also executed (without a real court) in France (ochlocracy However). That is why we do not need color revolutions in Russia.

And again, you are right when you say that many people participated in this and no Stalin could have arranged anything like this if it were not for these same "many".

And I know that Khrushchev put the signatures under the execution lists (I do not need to be taught history). However, it was Stalin who did not put an end to this, but used this situation and exacerbated it.

Your evidence to the contrary, sir ?!

As proof of my position, I will cite the following according to the principle of "Occam's Razor" - Stalin was idolized, therefore he had the maximum political weight, therefore he could change the state of affairs, but the change in the state of affairs did not happen under him, therefore ...

[Charon]

Just I say that Stalin put an end to the chaos of the 37th year by cutting out the executioners who arranged this chaos. He did this because of his political weight.

However, from the fact that he was idolized, he did not become God. He dealt with those people who existed at that time and with the mentality that was instilled in the years of the dictatorship of the proletariat in the 20s by our Lenin Guard and the Comintern.

Performers can bring any even the most sensible thought to absurdity. As well as sabotaging direct orders. I believe you are well aware of this.
I believe that a positive change of state of things happened under him, but what did not happen did not happen due to Khrushchev's fault.
I believe that in that situation no one would have led the country better than Stalin. And no one would have led worse than Khrushchev. I mean the ultimate efficiency, forced to abstract from methods. This is a topic for a separate big conversation.

So Occam’s razor is not applicable here.

Our discussion has deviated so much from the topic of the article that if you want to continue the exchange of views, you can do this through personal correspondence.
I’m not sure that I can drastically convince you, but it’s quite possible to soften the contrasts.

[OlegLex]

I join your opinion about Khrushchev, but I just want to both of you (I’m going to Alex) to remind you that the king is made by his retinue. We now live in the time of Putin, Our Supreme is so great that they fear and respect him, love and hate him, in general in different ways, but his retinue hates them for, with rare exceptions. And under the same Stalin it was like that when he grabbed his head from the deeds of the performers, and wrote articles about dizziness from success, and under Putin the same thing, only he does not write articles but communicates personally with the people, albeit virtually, but all the same. But Khrushchev himself taxied no one allowed, and as soon as the ridge cracked and it was necessary to delegate power to like-minded people and he grumbled. These are not my words, my second cousin grandfather of the MGB General, he once held Ukraine, and then chewed and spat out his Khrushchev. "Though I didn’t shoot it all right," the grandfather so often said the truth not to me but to his father, but he saw him only once, but I don’t remember a damn thing.

[4thParasinok]

Quote: alex-defensor

However, it was Stalin who did not put an end to this, but used this situation and exacerbated it.

your words prove that you don’t know the story at all. Stalin began to receive power over the NKVD only in December 1938. But this is not the fastest process ... Prior to this, the NKVD headed by Yezhov was neither subordinate to anyone. He tried to serve both Stalin and Trotsky at the same time, and according to eyewitnesses, he picked up a pair, paired with a little manezhnichka (just like Count Tolstoy).

As People's Commissar of Internal Affairs, Yezhov became one of the main organizers of the mass repressions of 1937-1938, also known as the Great Terror. The year 1937, during which Yezhov headed the NKVD, became a symbolic symbol of repression, and the period during which the peak of repression of the Soviet era fell was called Yezhovism. In 1939 he was arrested, and a year later shot on charges of preparing an anti-Soviet coup.

And in the 39th, on the orders of Stalin, the NKVD purged, but unfortunately too weak, for 20 years the Trotskyists, and simply maniacs with varying degrees of shift, settled well there. And the faithful Trotskyists in the Cheka-NKVD were all the leaders from Dzerzhinsky to Yagoda inclusive.

[Alf]

On the repression of officers, read the excellent book-The Great Slandered War of Igor Pykhalov.

[xXx__SET__xXx]

Yes, enough already rasusolivat Comrade Stalin that he had to wipe every snot or serve a handkerchief and
but the tank is easier than you are talking about armored personnel carriers and the like, the author also didn’t reveal the reasons for adopting this vehicle, but there are several reasons and they are commonplace
1 tank losses by the beginning of 42 years approached the 90 percent mark and as a result, a machine was needed that would compensate for these losses and went t -60 a lot cheaply and quickly for nothing the Germans called it locusts
2 tank was built using automobile units launched in a series and already produced
3 to compare the t-2 and t-60 well, it’s not quite correct; these machines are completely different in class; it would be more correct to compare the t-1 with the t-60, which is one that is different and the t-2 universal
regarding the reprisals of officers during the Winter War, Mehlis wrote that he was embarrassed to drive these barchuk to the forefront, I advise you to pay special attention to the word BARCHUK and what it means. It’s not Stalin who carried out the repressions, and I even ask you to carefully look at the date of Beria’s appointment and someone Ezhev’s about this man I advise you to search and read And in 1 anyway, if you say the results of the war, yeah, they would only meet the Germans not on tanks but on armored tractors and other agricultural equipment

[ZUI]

There are tankers. It is a light tank of direct infantry support. A tank with an automatic cannon in the ranks of the advancing infantrymen is more effective than the same HF, and light armor is compensated by maneuverability
And do not forget what German tanks and anti-tank equipment our country faced in 1941 - 60 percent were T-3, 15% - T-2, 15% - every Czech-French trophy rabble, and only 10% more or less average T-4 tanks.
So the tank given above arranged an army for those times.

[panzersoldat]

At one time they wanted to remake it into an airborne tank. At the end of 41 was the design of the CT-wings of the tank.

[late]

This project was declared unsuccessful after testing in the fall of the 42nd and was closed. There is a known case of using the T-60 tank for other purposes — from specially equipped motorized bots to support sea landing in the summer of 1942, a separate tank battalion consisting of 36 tanks was landed in the area of ​​Novorossiysk, which significantly facilitated the position of paratroopers. It is also noted that the tank successfully operated in a wooded wetland when lifting the blockade of Leningrad. And one more thing, the BM-60-8 multiple launch rocket system was created and mass-produced on the basis of the T-24 tank, and its importance for military operations can hardly be underestimated. So the T-60 is a real warrior and served well.

[Alex]

Quote: ZUI

15% - any Czech-French trophy rabble

Czech tanks on the 1941-th - the beginning of the 1942-th, IMHO, the best in the Wehrmacht (T-IV does not count - it has a different tactical niche, more self-propelled guns than a tank). There is no data on the use of French tanks in battles on the Eastern Front, they are not mentioned in the list of tanks of German tank divisions either (rather, they were used in Europe for police actions) So do not blurt out your tongue, not knowing.

So the tank given above arranged an army for those times.

This is for what "those"? At the end of the 1941-th - the beginning of the 1942-th and up to the 1943-th inclusive? Do you seriously believe that mass production of tanks equal to the German T-II, when they were discontinued in Germany, is it from a good life? The Red Army needed the T-34 and KV, but their production was transferred to the rear and there was simply nothing to make up for the losses, except for the Astrov improvisations. Turn on logic at least sometimes.

[4thParasinok]

Quote: Alex

Czech tanks in 1941 - the beginning of 1942, IMHO, the best in the Wehrmacht

Do not confuse WoT and real life ...

[veteran66]

Quote: ZUI

60 percent were T-3, 15% - T-2, 15% - any Czech-French trophy rabble, and only 10% more or less medium T-4 tanks.

The article correctly noted that the Germans who were close to him in terms of performance characteristics were T-2, and T-3 and T-4 were superior to our seventy, besides

Quote: ZUI

every Czech-French trophy rabble

Compared with the T-40 - T-70 series, it was also good, in total this gives, judging by your own estimates, that 80% of the fleet of German vehicles exceeded the T-70 in battle and 15% were equal.
So

Quote: ZUI

arranged an army for those times

T-70 tank? I regret one thing, as a child I met one grandfather who fought on these tanks (and remained alive!), But did not bother to ask him more about those times.

[ecolog]

About 800 Russian tanks participated in the attack on the USSR (it would be enough to equip 4 tank divisions, which is not enough). Unlike the French, the Czech tanks the Germans raked under clean. 37-mm gun, quite representative for LT armor, acceptable speed.
T-3 was about 1000, but not less than 60%, and those that are with a 37 mm cannon are comparable to Czech ones, although of course it is more modern.

[AlexxNik]

Comrade Stalin was not sitting idle anyway, all the key types of weapons passed through his office, the T-60 wasn’t, but Pavlov decided that one person was enough to charge, fire and still watch, and there would be a walkie-talkie , so he would also keep in touch. There were no tactics in the Red Army at that time, there were only strategists, there was no one to imitate a clash on tanks of that time, there was no one to study the experience of France. As for Stalin, at the beginning of the war he was engaged in industry, but it did not work badly, even though the generals had a half of the country, the most industrialized

[Alex]

Quote: AlexxxNik

t-60 was not him, but Pavlov decided

And Pavlov to the T-60? When it was launched into production, Pavlov was already doing that ... Yes, and he did not deal with the issues of designing tanks, he was more and more involved in the formation of formations against the background of a discussion of the corps / division / brigade.

[samoletil18]

TTZ on the T-34 was formulated by Pavlov

[Alf]

Then, that with huge losses of tanks and relocation of tank factories beyond the Urals and, consequently, the inability to produce T-34 and KV on a large scale, such a tank is better than a magnificent tank, but which is not.

[MoJloT]

March 26, 1944 Junior Lieutenant Pegov from a light tank T-70 knocked out two tanks of the Panther type

[Insurgent]

True for 41-42, the tank is quite normal. The tiger gun pierced the t-34 from 1,5 km so that the t-34 crew are also suicide bombers. It should also be noted that the defensive phase of the Great Patriotic War did not cancel the need for troops in such niche models technicians like the T-40. Suffice it to say that during the transition to the offensive, Soviet commanders more than once recalled the need for amphibious tanks, sometimes involving even the single surviving T-38s. DUKW-353 amphibious cars, delivered under Lend-Lease, solved the problem only partially - they did not have a reservation and weapons, and they were not enough. River flotillas of armored boats also could not always help. Therefore, more than once the Soviet soldiers crossed the water obstacles on improvised boats without any support, incurring heavy losses from the machine-gun and mortar fire of the enemy. The maneuverable, fast and floating T-40 could more than seriously help the Soviet troops in capturing and holding bridgeheads on the other side of the forced water barrier. Moreover, lightly armored machine-gun floating vehicles are widely represented in modern armies, only the mover has changed - large wheels with adjustable pressure turned out to be more advantageous than tracks. An example is the Soviet BRDM.

Among the samples of modern foreign technology for that time, the light tank T-40 has practically no analogues. Among land vehicles in its overall weight category, it is almost equivalent in booking to the German light tank PzKpfw I, Italian L6 / 40 and Japanese “Ha-Go” or “Ka-Mi”. Outperforming the German armament machine (machine guns of 12,7 mm and 7,62 mm caliber versus two 7,92 mm), the T-40 is inferior in armament to the Italian L6 / 40 and the Japanese "Ha-Go" or "Ka-Mi" ( 20 mm automatic and 37 mm non-automatic guns, respectively). However, the cannon modification of the T-40 makes it almost equivalent to the Italian tank and somewhat smoothes the advantage of the Japanese. However, the L6 / 40 and Ha-Go could not swim, and the Ka-Mi required special external floats to maintain buoyancy, which must be set in advance and discharged after going to land. The T-40, unlike the Ka-Mi, was ready to force the water barrier on the move without any preliminary preparation. The American amphibious LVT Amtank transport vehicle with equivalent or stronger armor and weapons (depending on version) had a mass of 16,5 tons and was not comparable with a 5,5-ton T-40. Given the high reliability and manufacturability of the design, it is possible to evaluate the T-40 as a successful car and the success of N. A. Astrov and his employees, but the tragic circumstances for the USSR of the beginning of the Great Patriotic War did not allow the “magpie” to fully display all its positive qualities in that role, on which she was counting.

[edit] surviving instances

[bocsman]

I want to add about the "futility" of the T-60. During the defense of Leningrad, I emphasize one alone, the T-60 tank skillfully stopped the German attack! I think the author’s lack of information on the effective and competent use of the T-60 is not a reason for the indiscriminate and unreasonable announcement of the T-60 as a useless machine!

[Victor Red]

Quote: bocsman

alone, the T-60 tank with skillful actions stopped the Germans attack

I read about it, there he strongly plucked the infantry, artillery, knocked out one or two medium tanks, while he survived.
Perhaps our tankers called the T-60 a mass grave, but, here the Germans called the tank "indestructible locust". It is a pity that the author did not mention this in his article.

[ecolog]

Just the other day I watched a video with A. Isaev about a counterattack near Moscow. It mentioned just the T-60, or rather its inability to walk in deep snow, unlike the KV and T-34.

[brr77]

Article +, that's right.

[borisst64]

"the T-60 tank was completely unnecessary for the Red Army"

Saying an amateur, despite the fact that the article is competent and full.
There weren’t enough tanks at the front, the task was to create a tank based on automobile units. The T-60 is a cheap mass tank for supporting infantry, and it is not necessary to oppose it with other tanks of the T-II type, it should not have fought with them. And about the need for not need - imagine going on the attack when a couple of T-60s are riding nearby or when there is NOTHING going. They could not provide everywhere support for the T-34 tanks, they were not enough at that time.

[Chicot 1]

I would not call M. Baryatinsky an amateur in matters relating to tanks and tank building ...
He gives the T-60 rating of course from the height of today. And in many ways he is right. And objectively, the T-60 was a combat vehicle that had more shortcomings than advantages ...

[4thParasinok]

Quote: Chicot 1

I would not call M. Baryatinsky an amateur in matters relating to tanks and tank building ...
He gives the T-60 rating of course from the height of today. And in many ways he is right. And objectively, the T-60 was a combat vehicle that had more shortcomings than advantages ...

another pseudo-analyst ...
I’m probably worried that in our technical case they couldn’t set up the production of the first truly revolutionary tank, the best WWII light tank, in the 41st, but that doesn’t mean that the T-50 was completely unsuitable for the army. It was he who helped to hold out in the 60nd. until the necessary number of more modern tanks appeared.

[Sergl]

I recall a Soviet war film in which the hero of M. Gluzsky says with regret the following words: "We are opposed by a well-functioning military machine, and we can only oppose it with a mass ...".

The T-60 is a temporary machine designed to make up for losses in the initial period. Then, at its base, the T-70 was created, which along with the T-34 was pulling a military company on itself already in 1943.

[Reddragon]

Temporary? I needed a light tank. Due to the prevailing situation, it was made on machine components. And it turned out raw. And finished off all this is not entirely successful use of the tank.

[Alf]

The use of automotive components and assemblies on light tanks and armored personnel carriers was normal in those years in all the armies of the world where the tanks were.

[Alf]

Yeah, we must also recall the Soviet films in which all German soldiers are fully armed with the MP-40 (in reality, the Wehrmacht’s infantry division relied on TWO MP-40), and all of our infantrymen run solely with warlocks, while the first echelon of the Red Army was almost completely armed with self-loading Tokarev SVT-40.

[Kostyan]

feces of course ... but it's just that we have feces .. in the hands of our mines ... and so if you look so small bunker .. on the defensive it’s wonderful ..... well so in the Soviet army everything is through opu .. ....

[leon-iv]

and now we smile and wave panzers 1 and 2 or Czech tanks))))

[Brummbar]

The picture of the T-70 inaccurate is the T-60. The T-70 has a 45mm gun, and the last modification of the T-80 was with an enlarged turret since the crew was increased to 3 people. The T-80 was not produced in a large series of only a few hundred vehicles, since by that time a sufficient number of medium tanks had been launched. But the T-60 was created as opposed to the German T-2 and in many respects surpassed the German, and then they were released a lot (5800 pieces) and quickly from automobile nodes. In general, the author was so vain about the T-60 that they weren’t released from a good life, but because at that time all the equipped tank factories were evacuated and could not yet give the front full tanks. And fantasies on the topic of what if instead of doing armored personnel carriers are generally frivolous, they did what they could do and fought heroically on what happened.

[Alex]

Quote: Brummbar

And the T-60 was created as opposed to the German T-2 and in many respects surpassed the German

Clarify by what ... Or rather, by no means and in the article this is said quite skillfully.

[4thParasinok]

Quote: Alex

Clarify by what ... Or rather, by no means and in the article this is said quite skillfully.

you can say anything, especially in the article, even about the fact that the tower was unfolding when firing, only other sources do not say anything about it, which means that the article is an ordinary deliberate lie, in the best case, an obscenity for a "red word" ...

[Filin]

Now the role of this light suicide tank is played by BMP, BMD of all modifications. BUT .... used after all !!! and quite successfully. Although now the saturation of the RPG, ATGM and so on ... is much higher than in the 40s.
T-40 ... T-70 provided cover for an infantry attack, worked on the DotA, restrained enemy infantry, and so on.
I do not agree with the author of the article, because I saw how our BMPs work and what it means to get help from her on time.
The 20 mm quick-fire gun is a formidable weapon against infantry and lightly armored targets. If we now send modern infantry fighting vehicles to attack anti-tank guns of the 40s, then their fate is known in advance, but the actions from ambushes and support from the second line are just that.
I agree that it would be necessary to lengthen the base, weld the sides and make an armored personnel carrier out of this tank for transporting 6 people, in addition to the crew. It would be much more effective and increased infantry mobility at times.

[Ragnarov]

Many thanks! An interesting article about the domestic infantry tank.
Recently, I saw a picture in Osprey, where 5 of these kids were towing the Tiger on the Leningrad front :)

[zadorin1974]

if not hard, where to look

[Rjn]

Somehow these BM-2s are already getting out (3, 4, 5, 6, 7). Any tank can become a mass grave, but this does not mean that all tankers are suicide bombers. And how did the Germans fight all the time with "fire hazardous gasoline engines"? More touching - "became an easy prey for medium and heavy tanks."

[Num lock U.A.]

Wait, come Kars and will clarify everything

[Kars]

What am I hiring? Everything is already written without me, and the fact that the Fritz used it also means something.
But the Italians, I really sympathize.

[Num lock U.A.]

Quote: Kars

Am I hired?

oh well this was a joke
And what about the Italians?

[Kars]

Quote: Num Lock UA

And what about the Italians?

And they got even worse cars.

[Kars]

T-60, when used properly, is a normal machine of its class.

[Rodver]

No matter what, the T-60 is a pretty and fighting vehicle.

[Brother Sarych]

Somewhere I read that the Germans called this tank mad locusts - hardly a sign of contempt!
In general, I have long noticed that this author is rotten by his materials, but this is so. by the way...
It is this little tank that flickers on almost all the newsreels that have reached us about the battle of Moscow - and this is what says that the decision to release it was quite wise and timely!
About an armored personnel carrier - this may be a good idea, but on the defensive it is not the most necessary type of armored vehicles, and in front of the infantry armored personnel carriers come only in the movies with bad consultants ...
We had to defend for two more years, plus the armored personnel carrier eats gasoline, and with it there was a big strain - your armored personnel carriers would have stood on the roadsides, just as tanks had stood up a bit earlier ...

[vezunchik]

I agree! The Germans had Tirgy, T-34 burned them, though from the Sadi, but they burned!

[Alex]

Quote: Brother Sarych

An armored personnel carrier eats gasoline,

And do you think the T-60 was eating the holy spirit? For your information, he also turned two of his engines on gasoline.

[Kibb]

Erzats, he is ersatz, what is there to discuss? Comparison with PC II is somewhat not correct as it seems to me.
Armored personnel carriers are certainly a necessary thing, but in those conditions they would most likely be put in a row with the infantry, as was the case with the "Komsomolets" often
Tankers of course Eternal Memory, but how many more mass graves of infantry without T60 would be?

[Strashila]

A good machine for its time. A mobile firing point on the defensive, infantry support during an attack. There are no shortages, but knowing they need to be exploited with them in mind. At the beginning of the war, the PE-2 was bombed the same way from the horizontal flight, as it were, technology, and in people who use it.

[datur]

T-60 - a suicide tank-- the article is quite informative, but the headline? In general, if you judge everything in a war, they are suicide bombers !! equipment can be knocked out and destroyed, a soldier killed! but in that situation it was better to have a cloud of t60 than nothing! and he thought I drank a lot of blood to the Hansiks !! and he contributed to VICTORY !!! so it was necessary to name the article -T60 TANK SOLDIER !!!!

[Georg Shep]

True, it is a soldier! ..

[vezunchik]

I agree, and the heavy tank is designed for one battle.

[warrior]

I always considered Baryatinsky one of the experts in tanostroeniya of the USSR, and this statue was an artist. A little disappointed.
T-60 is a typical light tank and it is in demand both then and now.
By design, the author somehow missed that the T-60 is more technological and adequate to the conditions of use than the adversary of the T-II. The gasoline engine was considered the norm in the world of engineering at that time. The story of the recoil of ShVAK, which took the tower aside, was the first time I met and did not particularly trust it. If the aircraft cannon on the tank trunnions "played naughty", then when mounted in the airplane's crown it should tear off the wing at all. In my opinion, this is not particularly reliable. T-II has two advantages - the third crew member and the radio. These advantages are offset by the low mobility of the T-II off-road, and not just Russian. In Greece, where the tern was mostly solid T-II, they were also not particularly mobile. The conclusion on the basis of the TTD and the layout about the advantage of the T-II over the T-60 as a linear and as a reconnaissance tank in the conditions of the Eastern Front is unreasonable.
Application. The fact that the T-60 was used to support the infantry, a spontaneous tank battle or a breakthrough, is not from a good life, it was just a tactical situation and it wasn’t at the location of heavy vehicles. Moreover, from the data of the article itself it is clear that when the conditions allowed, the T-60s were used in units together with medium and heavy tanks, i.e. they were used as light tanks in accordance with the concept and TTD.
The absence of armored personnel carriers in the Red Army in the 30s and early 40s is another conversation. The idea on a small T-60 chassis to build an armored personnel carrier similar to the British and Italian is not particularly good. These "armored personnel carriers" are not particularly well recommended for themselves. Equipping alleged armored personnel carriers with a machine gun and PTR - this is already the author's fantasies.
Light tanks will always be in demand in large-scale tank battle. And they will always bear greater losses, these losses caused by the specifics of the awards - reconnaissance, power reconnaissance by fire, escorting, pursuit with the identification of ambushes, patrols and cover retreats. These first ones enter into contact with the enemy and the latter leave the zone of fire, and therefore die, and not from poor use. In other armies, the same thing, here the Red Army is not an exception.

[loft79]

In my opinion, when the author writes about "BM-2", he means that they were often used as linear tanks. It's like with the Su-76. Therefore, large losses, and therefore "BM-2". About the PZ-II. I read the memoirs of a German (I don't remember his last name). He fought on Sd.Kfz. 231. So he describes that when his armor got stuck in a plowed field, it was pulled by the Pz-II. I have doubts about the poor maneuverability of the Pz-II. (Don't judge the pianist, he plays as best he can)))).

[warrior]

To begin with, according to the ideas of T-I and T-II, there were training machines for running tactics, etc. Only evil fate drove them into battle and they fought not badly. For its mass, the tone below 9 for the T-II engine is not powerful enough. Mobility T-ІІ always caused complaints. No wonder the first three series had one suspension, then they replaced it on the 4th and 5th series, then they returned it again and finally tried to install a chess suspension.
The T-60 is lighter by 4 tones of the T-ІІ and, accordingly, the engine is not so powerful. But the tank is well balanced. With comparable weapons, the T-60 was lighter, more maneuverable and did not cause complaints about the chassis. In good maneuverability on hard surfaces - the roads of France in the summer, the rocky soil of Greece, the desert rocky in Libya - I fully believe. But that rainy weather arable land or on the ford of the river, etc. - somehow I can not imagine. Though .....

[loft79]

Characteristics of the T-60 arr. 1942 | Pz Kpfw II Ausf F
Combat weight, t 6.4 | 9.5
Engine |
- type GAZ-202 | Maybach HL62TR
- max power, l with. 70 | 140


Not so powerful engine)

[AlexMH]

The article is curious, but the conclusions are simply stupid. It is always better to have some kind of tank than none. The tank was made on the basis of automobile units, the production capacities of other tanks did not take away. To accompany the infantry was quite suitable. Low silhouette, frontal armor under certain conditions of the pier to withstand hits of 37 mm guns ... Good cross, light weight, the ability to cross rivers on ice and ease of transportation. Yes, ersatz, but quite successful and quite justified. Read about him here:
http://pobeda.oper.ru/news/read.php?t=1051606236

[a_lex]

Not when I will not forget this terrible feeling of hopelessness. when I first saw the T-60. There was only one question in my head: HOW can this be fought? A low bow to the Heroes who did this.

[Tirpitz]

My grandfather fought on the T-60 in 42g. He said that a lot of comrades died on these tanks. When transferred to the t-34, they felt protected. 2 times burned in the tank.

[8 company]

Such a system is normal: the designer wrote to Stalin (apparently there was no one else?), He sent the deputy commissar ... Nobody remembered about the tankers - why? - their business to take under a peak. Around the same time, Beria set the task for Tupolev to create a 4-engine diving (!!!) bomber. Nobody was also interested in the opinion of the pilots, they decided among themselves.

[Alf]

At that time, every hour and every minute was expensive to spend them going through the courts, and as for Stalin’s personal mailbox, this is normal — every ruler should have a system of collecting information bypassing official channels in order to know the real situation .

[disagreeing]

Article so-so. T-60 is a direct descendant of T-40. Who doesn’t know, T-40 is floating. But you won’t make a battleship from a kayak. On the defensive, they (T-40, T-60) are really useless. But these are magnificent tanks. Try to swim along the Dnieper in German panzers .... And what about the plot jumps? in May of the 41st they agreed to install ShVAK, but here bang! already July 17th! And why did they abandon the T-40 in favor of the T-60? Up to 41, floaters were needed, and the German flooded nowhere to swim?

[sergey261180]

By the way, Viktor Suvorov wrote about this well. Comrade Stalin wanted to make the Blitzkrieg, so he made BT tanks - very fast tanks for a sudden seizure of territory and T-40 amphibious tanks for crossing water barriers and seizing bridgeheads. But comrade Hitler attacked earlier and had to make a T-40 with stronger armor on the finished T-60 base.

[Bear52]

Dear sergey261180! If the tales of Rezun-Brekhun are still a serious argument for you, then I sympathize, I have rarely met such "arguments" here.
Sorry, but after reading more (not Rezun), you would have thought and said differently .... IMHO

[sergey261180]

Who do you recommend reading?

[4thParasinok]

Quote: sergey261180

Who do you recommend reading?

for a change you can Drabkin, he is not a historian, publishes selections of memoirs. Namely memoirs and not fairy tales.

[disagreeing]

but you must admit, Rezuna the nonsense has still not been refuted. Let us leave gorlopanism and stupid patriotism. There is logic. Or am I wrong?

[sergey261180]

Wait for us Bear52 will recommend, maybe we are really victims of Western propaganda.

[murriou]

Quote: disagree

Rezuna the nonsense has still not been refuted

Yeah ?!
Is everything secret for you except Rezun and your mega-authoritative opinion about his unkilled rightness "in the main"?

Soon after the release of Rezunov's “works,” only the most lazy did not refute him. And there were more than enough reasons for this.

[4thParasinok]

Quote: disagree

but you must admit, Rezuna the nonsense has still not been refuted.

I don’t agree, as it has been done dozens of times, and not only in our country, but also in England and Poland ... But it’s just that you cannot earn money from these refutations, because they are not widely known

[ILDM1986]

So already there seems to be not only criticism of Rezun, but also criticism of Rezun’s criticism, and criticism of criticism of Rezun’s criticism People produce waste paper volumes, and sergey261180 is not in the know. But Rezun, well done, to lay such an ideological bomb, at one time, his follower Bunich seriously shocked me, for two or three years, my brain rolled into a mess .

[vylvyn]

In fact, one step was not enough to create a normal BMP. And of course, the biggest drawback of all our equipment at the beginning of the Second World War is the lack of full-fledged radio communication between vehicles. It is correctly indicated in the article that the tank (as well as all the other vehicles) was "deaf and dumb".

[Cadet787]

Article set -. At the time this tank was created, the industry could not yet mass produce T-34 tanks, and it was this tank that contributed its share to the Great Victory. So that this tank is not a suicide bomber, this tank is a winner. The author didn’t have to bother him, but give a detailed analysis of the situation in which this machine appeared.

[Pessimist]

Quote: Cadet787

The author didn’t have to bother him, but give a detailed analysis of the situation in which this machine appeared.

I support you! Quite good works on tanks by M. Svirin - a series "History of the creation of a Soviet tank". There is also an analysis of the situation and detailed information on all stages of production and all discrepancies. And light tanks were absolutely essential in that war! Firstly, because of the cost of production, and secondly, to perform secondary tasks, such as combat security, reconnaissance, etc., where using medium tanks is simply wasteful. And, by the way, in one of Baryatinsky's works I met a VERY strange statement that the forehead of the IS-2 corps was pierced by shells from the ZIS-3 division !!!!! RAVE? And a light tank is not an armored personnel carrier! An armored personnel carrier cannot replace a light tank for the very reason that a tank, even a light one, has much more powerful armor!

[8 company]

As for the BTR, the author is 200% right. Everyone saw a lot of photos where the infantry, in order to move along with the tanks, sticks them on top and rides, holding on to something incomprehensible and for each other. Naturally, not protected by anything. It is well known that 3 times more tanks were riveted before the war than the Fritz had. Nobody thought about the APC.

[Insurgent]

In general, the Fritz used armored personnel carriers in counterguerrilla operations, etc. You can watch documentary chronicles. We had armored personnel carriers and were quite powerful with 76 guns; all of them were lost at the initial stage of the war.

[Kars]

Quote: Company 8

holding on to incomprehensibly for what and for each other. Naturally unprotected

[murriou]

Quote: Company 8

It is well known that 3 times more tanks were riveted before the war than the Fritz had.

Those who really know well also know WHEN these tanks were produced.
I advise you to get acquainted, it helps a lot. Suddenly, and will help you

[apro]

The T-60 tank is not a suicide bomber, but an extreme necessity when the Supreme distributes the tanks.

[Yemelya]

Everyone somehow forgot that the T-40, T-30, T-60 in 1941 were the only tanks of the Red Army that met the requirements for technical reliability. All the rest, and especially the T-34 and HF release of the 2nd floor. 41st very often broke. Has anyone heard of a mass failure for those. the reasons for the T-40 and its descendants?

[carbofo]

Yemelya,
He has a car engine, and fairly simple units, and 6 tons are not 60, completely different power.
Otherwise, this is a fairly successful tank, which has existed for several decades in various incarnations with virtually no serious changes, and many technical solutions have become basic for equipment of a similar class.

[Alex]

Quote: Emelya

Has anyone heard of a mass failure for those. the reasons for the T-40 and its descendants?

And how many of them survived to fail "for those. Reasons"? Especially in bulk.

[alstr]

It is worth adding some details:
1. At the time of receiving the assignment for the development of the T-50 (May 41), the plant could not physically master its production. More precisely, he could, but it was a long time. Accordingly, with the outbreak of war, tanks became necessary as air. hence the decision.
2. In June 41, the release of the T-34 and KV-1 was small. The MTBF was scanty.
3. The T-60 was created as a MOBILIZATION tank (there was such a thing). This implied the release of armored vehicles based on auto aggregates at automobile enterprises of the countries. Reduced TTTs were immediately presented to such tanks. Including there was no walkie-talkie, because they were not enough for normal tanks
4. Moreover, to create a normal tank, where there would be 3 crew members, a larger shoulder strap of the tower is needed - for this, appropriate machines are needed. So there were no such extra machines.
5. The simplicity of manufacturing allowed GAZ to manufacture more than 1300 T-60 tanks in November and December, while the T-34 produced half as much (less than 600) during the same period. at the same time, the armament made it possible to fight most of the German tanks.

And now let’s recall the armored tractors - this is also a mass grave. But people fought.

Therefore, at that moment, the decision was correct, although in many respects forced. And note that the release ended already in the year 42, when the release of armored vehicles became better.
Well, respectively, they fought before the failure. So we can recall that T-34 -76 fought in 45 g. And on the Balaton the Royal tigers were shot down, including T-34-76.
The question here is the ability to use technology.

[Cheese]

The article is a good, but very strong influence of the post-war perception of war.
Tanks were rarely used against other tanks. Tanks were rarely used to counter infantry and break through defenses. All orders and instructions from the times of the war require tanks to be introduced only into a clean breakthrough, when only oncoming battles with a deploying enemy are possible. When such an enemy was found, it was urgently required to bypass him. And what were the tanks for in the first place? To defeat the rear and undeployed enemy reserves. For this purpose, even "units" of the Wehrmacht were suitable. Otherwise, no tanks would have been enough, no wonder the "queen of the fields" infantry.

[Rjn]

In the old "Behind the Wheel" there was an article about how during the attack one T-60 broke into the village, when the others retreated, and made a rustle there, holding out until the thirty-fours arrived. It reminds of the movie "In War, As In War", but it is a reality. So, everyone fought and everyone contributed, regardless of the thickness of the armor and the power of the gun.

[core]

and where does Stalin? too lazy to find the correct use of the tank in combat conditions. we put a tow bar on sevens and fours, and the car turns into a small conveyor. the radio was not full-time, but no one would forbid the tank to take the usual infantry on board. Of course it’s easier to throw a dozen tanks on the battery of guns, there are no tanks, there is no headache how to change them, and then again shout at the headquarters and demand new tanks.

[Victor Red]

Yes, that you, after all, carry. Were our ancestors dumber than us? There were towbars there, carefully consider the drawings, but using tanks as tractors is stupid. T-60, this carbonate measure, and as soon as the need disappeared, they were removed from production. Therefore, there was no connection, seized radios at that time and the tankers, and infantry, and aviation, all. Why produce entities. Of course, you can get rid of the "headache" and as you suggest, but it’s easier to put a bullet in the forehead, saving ammunition will come out.

[prispek]

I don’t know if it’s a bad tank or a good one - it didn’t fight. But it would be good, would be released until the end of the war. And then I was once at the Museum of Technology, in Arkhangelsk, and looked into the hatch of the mechanic driver of the T-70 tank. Fathers are holy! The engine from the right of the driver's seat, 20 centimeters, is not fenced off from the crew by anything. Of course, there will be experts and experts on the forum who will argue that this is a big plus, they say that those are simplified. service and warm again. I advise such people to equip their car with air intake from under the hood. And on the tank, such an arrangement leads to burns and death of the crew, not to mention the poisoning by exhaust gases

[Alf]

And the author did not try to look into the T-3, -4, -5? There, the mechanic also sat practically on the gearbox, and this was considered normal. In addition, the smaller the dimensions of the tank, the lower the probability of its destruction.

[prispek]

Well, here's the "specialist." True, he does not understand the difference between the engine and the gearbox. Well, for not having a maid ... By the way, the German T-2 and our T-38 had the smallest dimensions. Truly, the machines were not vulnerable

[Alf]

Well, where do we go to "experts".

[murriou]

Quote: prispek

not to mention exhaust gas poisoning

Oh, I see a great connoisseur, for whom the existence of an exhaust pipe and a silencer is secret just for the removal of gases

[Civil]

Near Moscow, these tanks strengthened the division’s cav, the grandfather told and he has a photograph, they were on horses against the background of these tankettes, and so they ate horses in a breakthrough near Moscow, they were already getting out of the encirclement just on t-60,

[Vitmir]

Unfortunately, this wedge heel is really a complete threshing-and-deaf-mute unit without a walkie-talkie and surveillance devices (i.e., unsuitable for reconnaissance), oblique (firing bursts removed the sight from the second shot from the target), low-power (the engine barely pulled), defenseless (weakly armored), etc.
And M. Baryatinsky is right - it would be better if the APCs were riveted.
"Already in October 1941, it became clear that the new light tank T-60, the serial production of which began a month earlier, was almost useless on the battlefield. Its armor was freely penetrated by all anti-tank weapons of the Wehrmacht, and its own armament was too weak to fight tanks. It was impossible to strengthen both without a radical change in the design. The engine and gearbox were already working in an overstressed mode. The increase in the mass of a combat vehicle, inevitable with increased armor and weapons, would simply lead to the failure of these units . "
Of the whole family (from T-37 to T-70M), the T-80 became the most normal machine, but it appeared too late for mass production, the time of lungs on the Second World War has passed.

[carbofo]

the progenitor of the series was the t-38 with 12.7 and 7.62 machine guns.
By 1939, the T010 tank was developed, which later received the T40 index and it knew how to swim well, the T40s was a version without a motor group but with a body of the T40 model.
T30 is the same T40 only without a cutout for a screw group.
T60 continuation of the land modification of T40.
Due to the small number of amphibious tanks and their occasional use, factories actually switched only to land vehicles, the hull and many technological solutions remained the only legacy.
As practice shows, tanks of this type must be skillfully used, then you can get good returns from them, but this applies to all weapons.
The attempt to use the T40 for counterattacks and in supporting the infantry was not very successful, but with a total lack of armored vehicles they had hopes.
Many commanders did not have the experience and initiative at the initial stage of the war, which led to a significant reduction in the number of light tanks, for various reasons, including problems with material and technical support.
I once read about the use of pt-76 during the war in the DRV (Vietnam), it was even noted that despite the insignificant armor, the onboard pontoons turned out to be quite resistant to RPG damage, and they made noise in that operation.
In the end, it is either a reconnaissance tank or escort or guard, but not a battlefield where there are more serious tanks.

[Vitmir]

Katukov, one of the best Soviet tank guides, will answer you, as he answered Stalin:
“But ... the troops do not like the T-60 and T-70 combat vehicles.
I criticized the light tank T-60. He is armed with an automatic, but only a 20 mm gun. This machine cannot lead a serious struggle with the armored forces of the enemy. In addition, his clearance is small, and to make marches on it, to go on the attack in the snow and mud is a dead matter. In the battles near Moscow, we had to drag these tanks in tow.
The light tank T-70 has more solid armor protection, is armed with a 45-mm cannon, it has two automobile engines. But he had just begun to enter service and so far had not shown himself to be anything special.
“One gimp with them, Comrade Stalin,” I concluded.
The Supreme ... after a long pause, he suddenly began to prove to me that I had so vainly attacked the ... T-60 and T-70 that they were not bad cars and, perhaps, we tankers simply underestimated them.
Listening to Stalin, I, of course, was worried, but still decided not to give up. He gave a number of combat examples, confirming that ... T-60 and T-70 do not justify themselves on the battlefield. "

[mkpda]

Once again I come across sharp and unweighted assessments of the author of the article. The author's message - the Red Army needs an armored personnel carrier is not in doubt. The trouble was that this topic could not be raised in the peaceful years, and the release of the T-26 (on the basis of which such machines were even released) continued even in 1941, although this type was not needed by the army.
As for the T-60, they were produced by the weakest enterprises and the choice was simple - either produce the T-60, or not produce anything at all (or produce even the weaker T-30/40). The author does not understand that industry does not know how to give birth, it can only master the production of designed and tested equipment.

[philosopher]

The stupidest name!
Let it be known to the authors of the note and others, that a tank is a tool created for a specific purpose. A heavy tank is created to break through the lines of fortified defense, a medium tank exists to develop success, to dash deep behind enemy lines, etc.
T-60 is a normal light tank. By the way, when compared with his opponents in his class, he is the best. It exists for guarding rear facilities, for escorting convoys, for reconnaissance and communications, etc. If he was thrown into the attack not against a similar opponent, but against the Tigers, then he, of course, has no chance.
But how should one be a fool to cut armored trains on horses with sabers, for example? Or throw this baby into an attack on anti-tank guns?
By the way, there is a known case when a light Soviet tank T-70 entered into close combat with two German Panthers! In fact, with two heavy German tanks !! The T-70 "made" them, both !!!
Stalin had no bad tanks!
Stalin had no bad tankers!
And the title of the article is bad ...

[kov]

Pro version of the CT t-60

[vladstro]

Let Hitler consider http://yandex.ru/clck/jsredir?from=yandex.ru%3Byandsearch%3Bweb%3B%3B&text=%D0%B
D%D0%B5%D0%B8%D1%81%D1%82%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B1%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%B0%D1%8F%20%D1%81%D0%
B0%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%87%D0%B0&uuid=&state=AiuY0DBWFJ4ePaEse6rgeAjgs2pI3DW9hm8
HEztPxP5Ej2lTdRCLywyfCZsO-Hdaywbskb_glKZ6P5En4ADDUEN18Mrsvb2S_yKJ-j8dAU2YEHT3OjE
OqHiNRP-S_65wD_31m-WhrI0e1XKv9bqmt8L2GsMTVEKykLxIRqmhbZcjAbOhyWok2veCXMyEPgW63rU
vh3Pdi1D7gNf36ILU4aax5Y6K3x8qqX0TQBW0zVs&data=UlNrNmk5WktYejR0eWJFYk1LdmtxbkRHeE
ZCTlZGR1YzNHpsdGZwVTRNY2Q3WUo2aWVhcmtLX0hwTm9vRnlOQ2FHbUpkV0NlSnFrdE1oYlNKR1gzLU
xvVjgwZy1mRHZ6bGpWaXBvQU80OTZzcUxFb0ItZGdqdWdVSE5XSzB0OUJEVlo0emVwMnhUSkV0MERSbm
paOEtn&b64e=2&sign=7fb3da260d43369dd8361c4ab81792fd&keyno=0&l10n=ru

[Djusha]

When the choice is - a bottle with a Molotov cocktail or T-60, I think - for the T-60

[Lionov]

My grandfather fought on such a thing, called him death to the enemy, for example ... It’s not even about weak armor and weapons, if it was possible to fight on it, it was only in dry weather. Passage was very low, even in not very deep snow, but also in the mud, the tank burrowed and lost movement, the Germans snapped them like seeds with the crews, since the crew did not have the right to throw a serviceable car, otherwise the tribunal and 100% shot, everyone sat and prayed- no luck.

[murriou]

The author is grinding nonsense, guided by a desire to somehow quietly kick the USSR victory in the Second World War.

What is characteristic, the same author claimed exactly the opposite in his articles and books of the Soviet era, including in the "historical TM series", thanks to which I got an interest in the topic of armored vehicles and basic knowledge on it

[megavolt823]

such articles appear and it seems that all sane read and comment. although not without persistent. wooden waist-high it does not exterminate. 1500 LT became mass graves in the first months of the war. I recall a recent article about Swedish LT. gave a bunch of examples. only a week ago he explained how the modernization of the 40 summer tanks would end. Well, maybe even this article pushes clips and balls at least in the minds of visitors to this site.

[yehat]

2 questions left
1. why is a suicide tank? the machine could be used at least as a support and reconnaissance firing point
2. Why not a word about t45?

[Say]

The Wehrmacht was also represented not only by tigers and panthers ...
... there were also light tanks.
With your goals and objectives.
Anyone can be killed in a war, but this does not make him a "suicide bomber".

[mikael]

if you would write something nonsense about the action of shvak and read a book of the same katukov, he just says that against the enemy infantry this gun on t-60 acted very effectively

[xomaNN]

In the Ukrainian city of Nizhyn there is a similar light tank. T-60? T-70? - survived the war

[Akkon]

T-60 was created as a "cheap tank of automobile units." A tank - a suicide bomber - probably to one degree or another concerned for any light tank of that time. It seems that one could effectively use such tanks for fighting enemy machine gun nests, infantry fire support, so that infantrymen did not need to rush to the line of fire of the bunkers and bunkers of the German army. It seems that the chances of falling into the water when moving on ice were less than on any medium or heavy tank of that time

[intuzazist]

Quote: AK-74-1

In his opinion, it turns out that a man who sat behind the levers of the T-60 would defend a suicide bomber.

Yes, dear! Not a single warrior going into battle is ready to die! Everyone thinks that he will carry! And here, without options .....

[Maksimov]

Right? They talked about the grandfather who fought on such tanks, and died a couple of years ago. So it’s a lie that no options.

[Maksimov]

An interesting author - a tank with 25mm armor - "a mass grave for two" - the army is not needed, but an armored personnel carrier with 5mm armor - a mass grave for ten - is it needed?

[Forever so]

Most likely impressed by the successes of T2, peacetime generals were thrilled by the same, completely losing sight of the fact that T2 were good at attacking a disorganized crowd of the beginning of the war, and for positional battles, this is a stupid translation of resources, both human and material.