Stories about weapons. Tank T-44 outside and inside

89


What events of World War II showed in relation to tank T-34? At the initial stage - a wonderful machine, far ahead of contemporaries. On the final, for example, T-34-85, it became clear that there was nowhere to upgrade the car.



World tank building paced ten-kilometer steps, and the T-34 clearly did not keep up with "classmates." Yes, some change in the turret and the installation of a more powerful 85-mm cannon did their job, but then it turned out to be a dead end.

And at the end of 1943, the Soviet designers came to the conclusion that something had to be done.

Stories about weapons. Tank T-44 outside and inside


Initially, the layout of the T-34 was designed so that the B-2-34 engine occupied almost half of the entire internal space of the tank.

The tower had to be moved as far as possible, and the crew was shoved over the remaining space. As a result, as we have already noted, inside T-34 was very closely, but this is not the worst. It was unpleasant that the further build-up of frontal armor and the installation of a more powerful gun became impossible. This was caused by a serious overload of the chassis in the front of the tank.

Therefore, already in 1943, a worthy shift was prepared for the T-34 developed by the design office (department No. 520, chief designer A. A. Morozov) of the Ural tank factory No. 183 named after Stalin, which received the working index T-44, or the object 136.



The main task for the designers was the complete reconfiguration of the engine compartment of the tank. Succeeded. The T-44 engine was not installed along, but across the hull and connected to the gearbox with a boost gearbox. We also managed to reduce the height of the engine by moving the air cleaner to the board, moving the radiator across the hull behind the gearbox and moving the fan to the stern of the tank.

The layout was not just more successful: compared to the T-34 on the T-44, the cooling of the transmission units improved significantly.

The fighting compartment is not just increased. If you transfer from T-34 to T-44, you feel that you have fallen into a modern apartment after the Stalin line, the internal free volume increases. The tower could be moved to the center of the hull, closer to the center of gravity of the tank. This increased balancing and had a positive effect on the accuracy of the fire on the go. The modernization potential has increased, there is now enough space even to install an 122-mm gun from the EC-2.

The load on the front rollers has decreased, so it has become possible to increase the frontal armor of the hull to 90 mm, and the frontal armor of the tower to 120 mm.

The angle of inclination of the frontal sheet was increased to 60 °, and it became monolithic. If in T-34 the driver's hatch, located in the front armor plate, was the weak point, then on the T-44, the driver's hatch was generally removed on the hull.



The crew of the tank was reduced to the gunner-radio operator, as the tank commander coped with the maintenance of the radio station. In addition, the receipt of orders by the tank commander directly from the superiors, and not through a crew member, increased efficiency.

Course machine gun left, but now he was firmly fixed in the frontal armor, firing from him led the driver. In the free space of the arrow-radio operator placed the fuel tank.



























Well, the crew has become much more comfortable.

TTX T-44:



Combat weight, t 31,0
Crew, people. 4

Years of production 1944 — 1947
Years of operation 1945 - end of 1970's
Number issued, pcs. Xnumx

dimensions
Body length, mm 6070
Length with a gun forward, mm 7650
Case width mm 3180
Height, mm 2410
Base, mm 3800
Track, mm 2630
Clearance, mm 425

Reservation
The forehead of the body (top), mm / deg. 90 / 60 ° [1]
The forehead of the body (bottom), mm / deg. 90 / 45 ° [1]
Board of the case, mm / hail. 75 / 0 ° [1]
Bottom, mm 15 [1]
Enclosure roof, mm 15 — 20 [1]
Front of the tower, mm / deg. Xnumx
Board turret, mm / deg. 90 / 20 ° [1]

weaponry
Caliber and brand of gun 85-mm ZIS-S-53 rev.1944 of the year
Ammunition 58 guns
HV angles, deg. −5 ... + 25 °
2 × 7,62 mm DTM machine guns

Mobility
Engine power, l. with. Xnumx
Highway speed, km / h 60
Speed ​​over rough terrain, km / h 25..30
Cruising on the highway, km 200..250
Cruising over rough terrain, km 180..200
Overcoming rise, hail. Xnumx
Breaking wall, m 0,73
Overcoming ditch, m 2,5
Overcoming ford, m 1,3



Having a significant external similarity with the T-34-85, the T-44 was fundamentally different from it in size, layout, and device.

Replacing the old, heavy and bulky spring suspension of Christie on the torsion bar suspended a lot of space. This is what made it possible to completely revise the layout of the tank.



The nadgusenichnye niches disappeared, and the vacated space allowed the new B-44 engine to be positioned not along but across the hull of the tank. Due to the engine turn, the combat compartment was increased and the working conditions of the crew were improved.



After making a number of minor constructive improvements 23 November 1944, the T-44A was adopted.

The first five production machines left the HTZ workshops in November 1944 of the year. In total, over the production period from 1944 to 1947, the X-NUMX of the T-1823 tank was produced.

True, they did not go to the front and did not participate in the hostilities of the Second World War.

Moreover, almost immediately after the launch into production at the end of 1944, it became clear that the T-44 could not be considered as the main combat vehicle. 85-mm gun almost exhausted its capabilities and to fight with modern tanks was not suitable.

It was decided to start work on the following modification of the tank - T-44B, equipped with a 100-mm cannon D-10. Work began in October 1944, the design was completed in December 1944, and the prototype was made by February 1945.

The tank was successfully tested and was recommended for adoption. From the "basic" model T-44, it was already different in many things: the new gun, the tower of a different configuration, the engine, a different booking scheme.

In fact, it was already a completely different tank, so instead of the letter “B” the car received an independent name, under which it was soon put into production - T-54.

But it is already completely different. story.

In 1961, all T-44 tanks that were released were upgraded to unify the undercarriage with the main Soviet T-54 tank. In addition, the machines that received the designation T-44M received night-observation devices and increased ammunition, and on the commander's T-44MK, by reducing the ammunition load, they installed a second radio station.

In 1965, part of the T-44 was converted into armored tractors BTS-4, and in 1966, the remaining tanks were equipped with a two-plane weapon stabilizer, which improves the accuracy of firing on the move. These machines received the designation T-44C. At the end of the 1970-ies, the T-44 was decommissioned from the Soviet Army.

The only armed conflict in which T-44 was involved was Operation Whirlwind. In addition, at the end of their service, the vehicles still had the opportunity to "participate" in the Great Patriotic War: as the German tanks Pz VI "Tiger" in the films "Liberation" and "They Fought for the Motherland".


Shot from the movie "Hot Snow"



Frame from the movie series "Liberation"


After the corresponding alteration, the tanks became indistinguishable from the German cars (except for the undercarriage).

In 2004, this tank depicted the Pz VI "Tiger" already in the film "Bunker". Also, this tank can be seen in the films “Father of a Soldier”, “Officers”, “On the Road to Berlin”, “On the Roads of War”, “Native Blood”, where he “plays” the role of T-34-85.
Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

89 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +27
    1 July 2018 05: 59
    Thank you for an excellent article.
    I hope that specialists from Kubinka will find the means and time to put the sample in order and from the inside.
    I’ll kill a little bit:
    If you transfer from T-34 to T-44, you feel that you’ve got into a modern apartment after the "Stalin"

    Well, it depends on which modern apartment to get into ... If there is a mass building with ceilings of 2540, then Stalin with its 3000 in comparison is a department store ...
    1. 0
      16 February 2019 17: 44
      Quote: Moore
      If mass building with ceilings is 2540, then "stalinka" with its 3000 in comparison is a department store ...
      Do you want 3450 mm? in our house built in 1936 there were just such ceilings. Entrance hall and kitchen of 14 square meters ... laughing
  2. +12
    1 July 2018 06: 40
    The author probably meant "Khrushchev" ...
    So why didn’t the T-44 take part in the battles? Prepared a "surprise" to the allies? How is the IS-3?
    Or was the car "damp"? But in any case, better than 34 matches ... Nevertheless, "hardware games" were conducted in those days laughing
    1. +4
      1 July 2018 11: 59
      Oh, how they were conducted ... You can recall the role of Yakovlev in the rejection of the I-185 fighter.
      Yakovlev was generally interesting, um ... a person ...
      (I apologize for being off topic.)
      1. +6
        1 July 2018 21: 03
        Yakovlev, of course, this is Yakovlev, but letting a good I-185 aircraft with the M-71 non-serial engine into a large series in the 1943 year is adventurism.
      2. Alf
        +5
        1 July 2018 22: 43
        Quote: Carpenter 2329
        You can recall the role of Yakovlev in the rejection of the I-185 fighter.

        How much can you procrastinate one and the same. "The bastard Yakovlev hacked a beautiful fighter" - this fact is known to all.
        Colleague Vasya, pay attention to the "little-known" fact that the I-185 was ALL-METAL, and duralumin was not enough.
        M-71 was unfinished, and with the M-82 the 185th was not much better than the LA-7, to completely change production.
    2. +4
      1 July 2018 13: 15
      Quote: Mountain Shooter
      So why didn’t the T-44 take part in the battles? Prepared a "surprise" to the allies? How is the IS-3?
      Or was the car "damp"?

      tanks were protected in case of a possible scuffle with allies (yeah, the Anglo-Americans). The new cars tried not to shine, in the event of a likely conflict, they, together with the IS-3, should have been an unpleasant surprise for yesterday's allies.
      By the way, such things happened not only with tanks. Better aircraft also saved. The resulting Kingcobras, as well as the Mustangs and Spitfires of the latest modifications, almost did not attend the battle.
      1. +8
        1 July 2018 14: 30
        Where did these mother's militarists come from?
        Quote: Mountain Shooter
        How is the IS-3?

        IS-3 was shown to allies. But the Allies began to rearm only in the 50s.
        Quote: Mountain Shooter
        Or was the car "damp"?

        Malyshev, and he was not alone, did not agree on the transfer to T-44 of any of the plants conducting T-34. So the production began to be established at the "new", not occupied T-34 183rd plant in the liberated Kharkov. Freed, naturally, in the form of ruins. On which it was necessary to establish the production of machines with the highest degree of novelty.
        Quote: Mountain Shooter
        But in any case, better than 34 matches ...

        Much worse. T-34 only by the 44th year and began to do decently. The younger brother T-44 - T-54, was brought to mind only in the 49th, for 4 peaceful year.
        Quote: Gregory_45
        they, along with IS-3, should have been an unpleasant surprise for yesterday’s allies.

        Nonsense. In the 45th, the allies had already been burned in the Panthers and were actively saturating their forces with machines with 17 pounds and 90 mm guns. In the spring of the 45th, Detroit began to spin again, 10 Pershing per day. No surprises could be expected after Yagdtigr.
        Quote: Gregory_45
        Better aircraft also saved. The resulting Kingcobras, as well as the Mustangs and Spitfires, almost did not attend the battle.

        The Spits and Mustangs of the “last modifications” of the 45th year were not in the USSR. As for the P-63, a good aircraft requires a trained pilot. Guards are not retraining for this aircraft.
        1. +2
          1 July 2018 17: 10
          Quote: Cherry Nine
          Quote: Gregory_45
          they, along with IS-3, should have been an unpleasant surprise for yesterday’s allies.
          Nonsense. In the 45th, the allies had already been burned in the Panthers and were actively saturating their forces with machines with 17 pounds and 90 mm guns. In the spring of the 45th, Detroit began to spin again, 10 Pershing per day. No surprises could be expected after Yagdtigr.

          Yes Yes wassat then the allies were impressed by the IS-3 at the parade and began to plan their monster-like heavy tanks. By the way, you have a contradiction in your comments. It’s nice sometimes to reread at least what you yourself are snagging.
          Quote: Cherry Nine
          Better aircraft also saved. The resulting Kingcobras, as well as the Mustangs and Spitfires, almost did not attend the battle.
          The Spits and Mustangs of the “last modifications” of the 45th year were not in the USSR.

          and I said about
          Quote: Cherry Nine
          modifications "of the 45th year
          ? Ah bad how they thought up, argue with themselves. The Spitfires MK.IX and the Mustangs, just like the Kingcobras, were high-altitude fighters, of which there weren’t in the USSR. It would be nice to know the materiel and at least sometimes think
          Quote: Cherry Nine
          As for the P-63, a good aircraft requires a trained pilot. Guards are not retraining for this aircraft.

          Kingcobra is a high-rise and slightly improved version of the Aero Cobra. Well, yes, then, a completely new plane wassat )) But do you know that they were used to a limited extent in the Far East? Al flyers without demand yuzali cars?
          1. +1
            1 July 2018 19: 48
            Quote: Gregory_45
            began to plan their monster-like heavy tanks

            Heavy American tanks of the 45th year are the T-29 family. The Americans were so impressed with the IS-3 that they closed their program of heavy tanks and did not remember them until the 50s.
            Quote: Gregory_45
            you in your comments is a contradiction. It’s nice sometimes to reread at least what you yourself are snagging.

            Koryabat, it seems, you, because you are discussing a topic that you do not understand. When the Americans pecked at the fried rooster, they made 8,5 thousand second Patton in 1,5 years. The Pershing production never reached such a pace and was stopped immediately after the war.
            In the 40s, the Americans did not rearm the ground forces, although they had every opportunity to do so. This came back to them in Korea.
            Quote: Gregory_45
            A slightly improved version of "Aerial Cobra"

            Well, OK.
            Quote: Gregory_45
            It would be nice to know the materiel and at least sometimes think

            What is stopping you?
            1. 0
              1 July 2018 20: 37
              Quote: Cherry Nine
              Quote: Gregory_45
              It would be nice to know the materiel and at least sometimes think
              What is stopping you?

              I don’t know what’s bothering you, you need to ask this. I don’t want to think about absolutely bad things, maybe you are still not completely lost to society) I understand that thinking is a difficult task, but you still take the risk - you might like it.
              Quote: Cherry Nine
              The Americans were so impressed with the IS-3 that they closed their heavy tank program
              because in comparison with the Soviet tank they looked very pale (including the “Pershing” you adored), and began to create other machines that went to landfills in the 50s. Al you so sharp think a tank can be made in three months?
              Well, the British, including their own self-propelled guns FV4004 Convay, sculpted from idleness. Everything was just the way you broadcast. Not at all to confront the Soviet heavy tanks. wassat
              Quote: Cherry Nine
              In the 40s, the Americans did not rearm the ground forces, although they had every opportunity to do so.

              to have opportunities is not enough. At first, the Americans didn’t do an assault rifle at all, not at all inspired by the idea of ​​an “assault rifle,” deciding that their “baby carbine” was much cooler
              1. +1
                1 July 2018 21: 49
                Quote: Gregory_45
                because in comparison with the Soviet tank they looked very pale (including the “Pershing” you adored),

                Firstly, I am not enthusiastic about Pershing. Assault, a car of a special period. When the Americans grabbed and began to finish it, it turned out that it was already easier to make a new tank, the third Patton.
                Secondly, the IS-3 of the 45th year did not hit Centurion from the head with 500+ meters. The point here, of course, is not in the awesome armor of Centurion, but in the chamber BB-D-25T. The centurion also did not penetrate it, but already in the 48th the British solved this problem.
                Quote: Gregory_45
                and began to create other machines that went to landfills in the 50s

                M103 was made in the amount of 300 pieces, that is, it corresponded more to the IS-4 than the IS-3 and T-10 in terms of output. Tried, realized that pampering, and made L7.
                Quote: Gregory_45
                AU FV4004 Convay so sculpted from idleness

                Exactly. Played and quit. The mainstream was the improvement of ammunition (as now). Tungsten crowbars, hashes, cumuli.
                Quote: Gregory_45
                not inspired by the idea of ​​a "storm storm", deciding that their "baby-carbine" is much cooler

                The Americans made another mistake, not at all related to M1 carbine.
                1. 0
                  2 July 2018 08: 40
                  Quote: Cherry Nine
                  Second, the The IS-3 of the 45th year did not pierce Centurion in the forehead from 500+ meters. The point here, of course, is not in the awesome armor of Centurion, but in the chamber BB-D-25T. Centurion didn’t break it either, but already in the 48th the British solved this problem.


                  I wonder which way the fact of not breaking through was established? Shelling, theoretical calculations?
                  But is it really critical to pierce a 122mm shell of a centa armor? Maybe it was enough to get there? How was the armored effect of such a hit estimated?
                  1. 0
                    2 July 2018 10: 25
                    Quote: Nitochkin
                    I wonder which way the fact of not breaking through was established?

                    Reservation of the Cent (VLD 125 mm pridenki, tower forehead 150, mask 200) was designed for short (56 klb, Tiger 1) 88mm and a panther gun. These are more penetrating guns than the D-25T with wartime shells.
                    Quote: Nitochkin
                    Shelling, theoretical calculations?

                    I don’t know anything about the shelling of the IS-3 17ft. The experiments in this direction were carried out by the Jews with the help of the Egyptians, but with more serious weapons. So Jacob de Marr is the best friend of altistorics.
                    Nevertheless, and I mentioned this, using the Panther VLD as an example, the Allies were convinced that the penetration by early crowbars of highly inclined armor is unstable.
                    Quote: Nitochkin
                    But is it really critical to pierce a 122mm shell of a centa armor? Maybe it was enough to get there?

                    As far as I know, the Jews did not complain about the kinetic damage of the Centurions without breaking.
                    Quote: Nitochkin
                    How was the armored effect of such a hit estimated?

                    Who will appreciate it for you? Yes, the crew could be shell-shocked. But it is not exactly.
            2. 0
              1 July 2018 20: 47
              by the way, about the fact that the Americans allegedly
              Quote: Cherry Nine
              closed their program of heavy tanks and did not remember them until the 50s.
              you obviously got excited. Nobody closed it, there were projects. worked. Apparently you just don't know. But it’s never too late to fill knowledge gaps. I wish you success)
              1. +1
                1 July 2018 21: 51
                Quote: Gregory_45
                Nobody closed it, there were projects. worked.

                Like the AU FV4004 Convay. I talked about cars in the army.
                1. +1
                  1 July 2018 22: 21
                  Quote: Cherry Nine
                  I talked about cars in the troops

                  and this was just to “had the opportunity”, but something bothered them all the time)) By the way, the USSR also did not stop at the IS-3, in the 50s the T-10 appeared. And in 1945-46, a new hot war began, there was essentially nothing to oppose the IS-3 to the Anglo-Americans. Therefore, it is somehow incorrect to say that our incredible friends did not notice the new Soviet tanks and did not make reciprocal movements
                  1. 0
                    2 July 2018 00: 08
                    Quote: Gregory_45
                    but something bothered them all the time))

                    There is one. For a very long time, the Americans perceived the ground forces as something secondary.
                    Quote: Gregory_45
                    in the 50s appeared T-10

                    Yes, I am aware, in general.
                    Quote: Gregory_45
                    And in 1945-46, a new hot war began, there was essentially nothing to oppose the IS-3 to the Anglo-Americans.

                    The IS-3 was well protected at the front. They like to paint that he was invulnerable to Pak43, but they forget that Pak43 is no longer the most penetrating gun in its 45th year. 17 pounds of the early Centurion pierced him from the forehead from 500 meters and only into the tower. The IS-3 itself at this distance could also penetrate the Centurion in both the VLD and the tower. At the same time, experiments with 17ft and VLD Panthers showed that breaking through with crowbars is extremely unstable, so the chances of the IS-3 with its chamber BB are much higher.
                    From the sides, he was vulnerable to any Allied weapons, except the Bazooka and the low-speed 75mm Chaffee guns and old Sherman. The main Allied anti-aircraft defense - 6 pounds - pierced 44 mm per 108 km with a scrap of the 2th year.
                    So the IS-3 in the realities of Europe at the end of the 45th year is the Panther 43rd in the East and 44th in the West. Dangerous, but this has already been seen.
                    Quote: Gregory_45
                    Therefore, it is somehow incorrect to say that our incredible friends did not notice the new Soviet tanks and did not make reciprocal movements

                    They didn’t, it’s a fact. The same Chaffee, Sherman, Comet and Pershing fought in Korea.
      2. Alf
        0
        1 July 2018 22: 44
        Quote: Gregory_45
        as well as Mustangs

        These are which Mustangs were received by us?
        1. 0
          2 July 2018 00: 11
          Quote: Alf
          These are which Mustangs were received by us?

          Several English at the start of the war. About 10 for familiarization on lendlization, various modifications. Several cars remained at Soviet airfields at the end of the war, when shuttle bombers were flying.
          1. Alf
            0
            2 July 2018 00: 17
            Oh yeah ! 10 Mustangs are power.
            1. 0
              2 July 2018 00: 23
              Quote: Alf
              Oh yeah ! 10 Mustangs are power.

              What is rich - so happy.
          2. 0
            16 February 2019 18: 24
            Quote: Cherry Nine
            Several English at the start of the war. About 10 for familiarization on lendlization, various modifications.
            In the 41st year? Yes, you are a direct connoisseur. The first Mustangs in England itself appeared only in April 1942, and then for testing.
            That one expert in technology, that another ...
            Quote: Cherry Nine
            Quote: Alf
            Oh yeah ! 10 Mustangs are power.

            What is rich - so happy.

            Mustangs of the first modification were complete.
            in Dieppe, P-51 pilots shot down two German aircraft, with 11 Mustangs lost
            .
    3. +3
      1 July 2018 17: 40
      Quote: Mountain Shooter
      So why didn’t the T-44 take part in the battles?

      There are many reasons. And the main one, that for the production of this tank, only one plant and that "disabled person" could be allocated. Since he actually had NOTHING, not even walls and glass. I mean the Kharkov Steam Engine, all of whose equipment with the best specialists and all design bureaus worked in Nizhny Tagil with sweat. For those conditions, apparently the solution is CORRECT. Since at the last stage of the war, reliability, maintainability and knowledge of the personnel began to play a very important role. All these qualities fully corresponded to the T-34/85, but the T-44 had to go through the stage of "treatment of childhood diseases."
      Yes, and the tank, presented in the museum, judging by the chassis - T-44M
    4. 0
      1 July 2018 19: 18
      The car was still raw, unfinished, quality complaints were made from parts.
    5. 0
      9 July 2018 20: 50
      So why didn’t the T-44 take part in the battles? Prepared a "surprise" to the allies? How is the IS-3?
      Or was the car "damp"? But in any case, better than 34 matches ... Nevertheless, "hardware games" were conducted in those days


      Hardware games have nothing to do with it. It was a matter of serial production. During the war, as you undoubtedly know yourself, when launching new equipment it was necessary to strictly minimize the decline in gross production. Therefore, the T-44 decided to launch in a series based on Ukrainian enterprises. They just became ours again. In order not to distract the tank industry from the T-34 family and IS. But it turned out that during the war, Ukrainian factories were losing technology. Mariupol hardly gave the right steel, problems were with torsion bars and even rollers. Soviet industry was busy with serial production and improvement of existing families, it simply did not have enough hands for a new one.
      By the way, in the article, for some reason, it is not written that the T-44A is nothing more than the T-34M, the task for which was given to Morozov before the war as a result of the inspection of the German three-wheeler.
    6. 0
      16 February 2019 18: 08
      Quote: Mountain Shooter
      So why didn’t the T-44 take part in the battles? Prepared a "surprise" to the allies? How is the IS-3?

      This is the author so wanted. The tank passed full military tests at the front line for at least 3 months.
      The fact that the tank did not enter the troops is another merit of the Kharkov plant. When the plant was returned to Kharkiv, the production of the T-2 was launched on 34 lines, and on the third they were ordered to start production of the T-44. which was not fulfilled. Prior to that, the Kharkovites for 2 years refused to increase the shoulder strap of the serial T-34 turret, but in the spring of 41 the drawings were made in Leningrad. For "The designer knows better what kind of tank the army needs". In 40, they generally tried to put 45-ku on the tank, made more than 50 towers. It's good that the state acceptance discovered this even before the installation of the guns, but still they had to remove the tower and send it to melt down.
  3. +1
    1 July 2018 06: 44
    Without the experience of creating and using the T-34, it would be impossible to create a T-44. But nevertheless, it is not clear to me why the outdated Christie suspension was installed on the T-34, because the tank was put into service on December 19, 1939, when the advantages of the torsion suspension were already clear. Moreover, the KV and T-40 created at the same time had a torsion bar suspension.
    1. +1
      1 July 2018 07: 45
      Cat Kuzya, the question of the suspension had to be addressed to the designers. As for the suspension, we can now guess with a greater or lesser degree of probability. I came across this version: they say in Kharkov, where the tank was being developed, they were badly “friends” with the torsion bar: the torsion bar suspension was considered a novelty and the designers decided not to risk it, but put Christy already tested by time.
      There is also a version that the T34 was created "semi-underground" and therefore the experience of Christie-BT-5, BT-7 was used to the maximum.
      Unfortunately, reporters now do not bother themselves with checking and collecting facts, but the result is: "a mixture of a motorcycle with a hippopotamus
      1. +1
        3 July 2018 03: 44
        Quote: Kot_Kuzya
        But nevertheless, it is not clear to me why the outdated Christie suspension was installed on the T-34, because the tank was put into service on December 19, 1939, when the advantages of the torsion suspension were already clear.

        Quote: Royalist
        Cat Kuzya, the question of the suspension had to be addressed to the designers.

        And for this you just need to understand the history of the creation of this tank. Namely, the fact that it was produced from the wheeled-tracked A-20, in fact, simply by abandoning the wheel drive ...
    2. +8
      1 July 2018 07: 46
      Maybe because he is a direct descendant of the wheeled-tracked A-20 (BT-20) and did not bother with a complete redraw of the entire machine?
      1. 0
        1 July 2018 09: 20
        Well, anyway, the generals from the Armored Command could indicate in TTT to the new medium tank what type of suspension should be on the new tank. By the way, in the new T-34M tank, the Council of People's Commissars demanded that the People's Commissariat for Transport change the suspension to a torsion bar:
        1. To approve for 1941 the Narkomsredmash production plan:
        a) T-34 tanks in the amount of 2800 units, including 183 units in the factory number 1800-1000 and in the STZ.
        2. To oblige Narcomsredmash, Comrade Malyshev and Director of Plant No. 183, Comrade Maksarev, to make the following improvements to T-34 tanks:
        a) increase the thickness of the armor of the tower and the front windshield of the hull up to 60 mm;
        b) install a torsion bar suspension;
        c) expand the tower shoulder strap to a size of at least 1600 mm and establish a commander’s turret with a circular view;
        d) install the side sheets of the tank hull vertically, with armor thickness equal to 40 mm of armor at an angle of inclination of 45 ".
        3. Set the full combat weight of the improved T-34 tank - 27,5 tons.
        4. To oblige Narcomsredmash of Comrade Malyshev and Director of Plant No. 183 of Comrade Maksarev to ensure in 1941 the release of 500 pieces of improved T-34 tanks as part of the program established by this resolution.
        But unfortunately, the war prevented the release of the T-34M. With the beginning of the war, it was necessary to increase the production of the already mastered T-34 as much as possible, and not to establish the production of a new tank.
        1. MPN
          +2
          1 July 2018 11: 42
          Quote: Kot_Kuzya
          Well, anyway, the generals from the Armored Directorate could indicate in TTT to the new medium tank what type of suspension should be on the new tank. By the way, in the new T-34M tank, the Council of People's Commissars demanded that the People's Commissariat of Transport change the suspension to a torsion bar

          And you answer your own question
          Quote: Kot_Kuzya
          But unfortunately, the war prevented the release of the T-34M. With the beginning of the war, it was necessary to increase the production of the already mastered T-34 as much as possible, and not to establish the production of a new tank.

          request hi
    3. +1
      1 July 2018 13: 18
      Quote: Kot_Kuzya
      why did they put the Christie's outdated suspension on the T-34, because the tank was put into service on December 19, 1939, when the advantages of the torsion bar suspension were already clear. Moreover, the KV and T-40 created at the same time had a torsion bar suspension

      they tried to put torsion bars on the T-34 (T-34M, it also offered to cure many childhood diseases of the “thirty-four”), but they did not manage to bring the car to the start of the war. And then somehow it wasn’t up to improvements for a couple of years
    4. 0
      1 July 2018 14: 02
      Quote: Kot_Kuzya
      . Moreover, the KV and T-40 created at the same time had a torsion bar suspension.

      Which was new.
      Quote: Kot_Kuzya
      when the benefits of torsion bar suspension were already clear

      There was no operating experience of such a suspension.

      But another thing is more important. A-32 Kharkovites developed in parallel with the wheel-tracked A-20. Torsion bars are not suitable for wheel-track suspension. There was no certainty that Kharkiv citizens would be able to arrange their production at an acceptable time.
    5. +1
      1 July 2018 20: 08
      Everything is very simple .. because Christie’s suspension was already made on ZTM for 9 years ... and they installed it ... and they took the chassis very similar to BT ... but taking into account the operation, then they realized that a new one was needed .. and it was already designed on the T-34M .. but the war prevented.
      And I want to remind .. that the T-34 was designed by 25 people ... and only three ... "3" were with higher education ... even A.A. Morozov did not have the highest ... except for the crust that he, as it were, received after the war .. but really he had the education of the College.
    6. 0
      9 July 2018 21: 02
      The reason is in the competition. Initially, the military ordered a wheeled and tracked tank. But following the results of the meetings with the developers, they decided that they should be behind, allowing them to make a caterpillar version. The tests revealed the predicted - wheeled vehicle weighing more than 20 tons on soft soils and in the snow lost mobility. Left the tracked version. But there was simply no other way to design two tanks, how to get ready-made units from BT at Koshkin. And then the epic with the gun began ...

      Yes, and do not forget, the torsion bar suspension was then only mastered in Leningrad for the KV tank. They could not quickly master it in Kharkov, and order it in Leningrad too. So Koshkin simply had nothing else.
    7. 0
      16 February 2019 19: 34
      Quote: Kot_Kuzya
      Without the experience of creating and using the T-34, it would be impossible to create a T-44. But nevertheless, it is not clear to me why the outdated Christie suspension was installed on the T-34, because the tank was put into service on December 19, 1939, when the advantages of the torsion suspension were already clear. Moreover, the KV and T-40 created at the same time had a torsion bar suspension.

      It's simple, the tank was created in the spring of 1938. as experimental, to find out which drive for a tank is better, only a caterpillar or wheel-caterpillar. It was built 2 tanks, which differed only in the number of rollers that were leading. Defeated A-32. After that, Moscow demanded to strengthen the reservation and put a 76mm gun on the tank, which caused an increase in the width of the tank. The new version of the tank under the designation T-34 and was adopted. So the T-34 is essentially a BT-7 with a new body and a simplified chassis.
      Quote: Royalist
      I came across this version: they say, in Kharkov, where the tank was developed, they were poorly "friends" with the torsion bar: the torsion bar suspension was considered a novelty and the designer decided not to risk it, but to install the time-tested Christie.
      There is also a version that the T34 was created "semi-underground" and therefore the experience of Christie-BT-5, BT-7 was used to the maximum.

      1. In Kharkov, they were always friends with everyone.
      2. Torsion bars were new to all tank factories, but have been used in the automotive industry since at least the late twenties. The torsion bars were on the German T-3.
      3. There are documents on the terms of reference for the creation of the first A-32, and then on its basis T-34. What kind of underground are we talking about?
  4. +8
    1 July 2018 08: 03
    hi ... The layout was not just more successful: in comparison with the T-34 on the T-44, the cooling of the transmission units was significantly improved. soldier
  5. +2
    1 July 2018 09: 20
    "the tank commander dealt with the maintenance of the radio station" I, like many of you (or rather all), watched the film many times: "four tank crews and a dog," who first watched in childhood no questions about the film. Later, I had this thought: apparently, then the walkie-talkies were still a curiosity and there were few people who could work on it. Otherwise, how to explain that they did not think of combining the duties of a radio operator and a tank commander.?
    1. +5
      1 July 2018 13: 51
      Quote: Royalist
      Later, I had the following thought: apparently, then the walkie-talkies were a curiosity and there were few people who could work on it. Otherwise, how to explain that they did not think of combining the duties of a radio operator and a tank commander.?

      Sorry, but what prevents you from just finding out how it was?
      1. The radios of those years were frankly lousy. They demanded constant attention, frequency adjustment.
      2. Voice communication worked only at relatively short distances. To talk a dozen kilometers, a morse code was usually required.
      3. The commander of the T-34/76 is the same gunner, sitting in a blind and cramped tower. Only the walkie-talkie with the Morse code was not enough for him there.
  6. +2
    1 July 2018 09: 45
    in fairness, between the T44 and T34, the T43 tank was developed
    it was on it that there was a torsion bar suspension - minus 10 cm in height, the best reservation + 20..40 mm, a new tower - it was further used for the T34-85
    he didn’t go into production because of problems at the front that required the T34 non-stop production and further adoption of the 85 mm gun
    1. +3
      1 July 2018 21: 05
      Quote: Dimka75
      in fairness
      T34 - American tank. And the rest have designations in the American manner. T-34 - Soviet. What a trifle, just a hyphen
  7. +1
    1 July 2018 10: 28
    A tank next to the mechanical drive leaves him little chance of survival.
    1. +1
      1 July 2018 10: 35
      A tank next to the mechanical drive leaves him little chance of survival.
      - not only the mechvod but also the entire crew
      1. +2
        1 July 2018 13: 25
        Especially considering that the photo for the article clearly shows that there is no tank there :)
      2. +1
        1 July 2018 13: 55
        Quote: faiver
        not only the driver but the whole crew

        In those years, they still did not know that the very topic of cramming gunpowder into a tank, in a liner made of nitrocellulose, is called a shelving tank.
  8. 0
    1 July 2018 13: 24
    Roman, thanks!
    I think that at the end of your cycle, it’s worth collecting, editing and publishing everything in a colorful encyclopedia.
  9. +4
    1 July 2018 15: 44
    you feel that you’ve got into a modern apartment after the “stalinka”, so the internal free volume increases.

    still an unsuccessful comparison, just in stalin compared with modern volumes and more
  10. +2
    1 July 2018 16: 29
    "If you transfer from T-34 to T-44, you feel that you’ve got into a modern apartment after the" Stalin "
    The author had in mind "Khrushchev"!
  11. +4
    1 July 2018 16: 33
    Article 3 + ...
    Firstly .. the tank in the photo is the T-44M ... that is, it went through modernization in the late 50s. A new chassis has already been installed on it, that is, rollers and a track with a drive wheel have been replaced. Installed new tanks on the track racks and a new engine.
    Secondly .. the tank was manufactured not at KhTZ, but at ZTM ... these are two different plants in Kharkov ... but many "experts" still do not know this.
    But in general, it’s not bad ... only this tank was created as a tank of increased security with a frontal 90mm versus 60 for the T-34-85 and the placement of the tower closer to the CM.
    It was a transitional model and ancestor of the T-54 tank family.
    My advice .. buy a model of the T-44 and T-44M tank produced by Mini-art and you will see all the beauty of the model.
    1. +1
      1 July 2018 18: 30
      only this tank was created as a high security tank with a frontal 90mm against 60 for the T-34-85 and placing the tower closer to the CM.

      Where is the T-34-85 60 mm in the frontal armor?
      1. 0
        1 July 2018 19: 57
        yes a little ... I'm aging 45mm at 60 degrees ... thanks for noticing
      2. 0
        2 July 2018 05: 56
        It depends on which forehead to count. At the tower - 90 mm
    2. 0
      1 July 2018 19: 00
      Quote: tank-master
      Secondly .. the tank was manufactured not at KhTZ, but at ZTM ... these are two different plants in Kharkov ... but many "experts" still do not know this.

      Everything is complicated, different plants or one. But you are right, I mentioned the 183rd in vain.
      1. 0
        1 July 2018 20: 00
        the development was 183 plants in N. Tagil .. and the production of tanks was in Kharkov at the ZTM ... and the plants are really different .. KhTZ and ZTM ... by the way KhTZ was supposed to make tanks for mobilization .. but never did .. and after the war he produced MTLB series tractors and vehicles based on it.
  12. 0
    1 July 2018 20: 02
    "and in 1966, the remaining tanks were equipped with a two-plane weapon stabilizer, increasing the accuracy of firing on the move. These vehicles were designated T-44S"
    2 prototypes were made and .... everything was not of any series, it was not profitable to do ... since they had already gone into the MBT T-64 troops with a 125mm gun ..
  13. 0
    1 July 2018 20: 16
    The nadgusenichnye niches disappeared, and the vacated space allowed the new B-44 engine to be positioned not along but across the hull of the tank. Due to the engine turn, the combat compartment was increased and the working conditions of the crew were improved.

    And, just get the reference sound of the engine exhaust. good

    It was decided to start work on the following modification of the tank - T-44B, equipped with a 100-mm cannon D-10. Work began in October 1944, the design was completed in December 1944, and the prototype was made by February 1945.


    Why didn’t they initially begin to develop the T-44 tank for the 100-mm D-10 gun ?! After all, there was a positive experience in using this weapon on the SU-100. smile
    https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A4%D0%B0%D0%B9%
    D0%BB:(%D0%A2_44_100).jpg
  14. Alf
    +1
    1 July 2018 22: 50
    It was decided to start work on the following modification of the tank - T-44B, equipped with a 100-mm cannon D-10. Work began in October 1944, the design was completed in December 1944, and the prototype was made by February 1945.
    The tank was successfully tested and was recommended for adoption. From the "basic" model T-44, it was already different in many things: the new gun, the tower of a different configuration, the engine, a different booking scheme.
    In fact, it was already a completely different tank, so instead of the letter “B” the car received an independent name, under which it was soon put into production - T-54.

    Colleague Roman! In addition to the T-44 with an 85 mm gun, its version was also built with a 100 mm LB-1 gun, which was no different from the T-44 except for the gun.
    1. 0
      1 July 2018 23: 07
      Yes, only the T-54 was distinguished by a longer body length and a larger epaulet diameter ... since the T-44 epaulet did not hold a 100 mm recoil of the gun.
      1. Alf
        0
        1 July 2018 23: 29
        Quote: tank-master
        Yes, only the T-54 was distinguished by a greater body length

        Already 130 mm.
        Quote: tank-master
        since the shoulder strap of the T-44 did not keep the recoil of the gun 100mm.

        I held it, I kept it, just with the installation of LB-1 and with the thickening of the armor of the tower up to 180 mm in the tower, it became very crowded.
    2. 0
      2 July 2018 14: 40
      Beautiful. And the side armor panels for what and what thickness?
      1. Alf
        0
        2 July 2018 21: 18
        Quote: Hastatus
        Beautiful. And the side armor panels for what and what thickness?

        Do you mean side screens? They work perfectly against cumulative shells, forcing the jet to defocus until it meets the main armor. Yes, and the rods of the subcaliber also began to spin.
        1. 0
          4 July 2018 08: 38
          That's it. And what is their thickness? By the way, on Soviet tanks, on-board screens were installed in the 30s, then there were no Faustniks, what is the motive there?
          1. Alf
            0
            4 July 2018 21: 52
            Quote: Hastatus
            And what is their thickness?

            I won’t say for sure, but somewhere in the figure of 3-5 mm.
            Quote: Hastatus
            By the way, on Soviet tanks, on-board screens were installed in the 30s,
            On what ? If possible, picture.
            1. 0
              5 July 2018 10: 19
              Screen on the T-28 and T-35

              1. Alf
                0
                5 July 2018 21: 49
                Quote: Hastatus
                Screen on the T-28 and T-35

                And where is the screen? If you are talking about the chassis, then this is not a screen that protects from the CS and PKS, this is a screen that covers the chassis, they could not cram the suspension inside.
                In those glorious times, the COP and the PKS did not yet exist.
                1. Alf
                  0
                  5 July 2018 23: 03
                  Moreover, this is not a screen, this is a bulwark, but these are two big differences.
  15. 0
    2 July 2018 05: 35
    Quote: Carpenter 2329
    Oh, how they were conducted ... You can recall the role of Yakovlev in the rejection of the I-185 fighter.
    Yakovlev was generally interesting, um ... a person ...
    (I apologize for being off topic.)

    Quote: Aviator_
    Yakovlev, of course, this is Yakovlev, but letting a good I-185 aircraft with the M-71 non-serial engine into a large series in the 1943 year is adventurism.


    You in vain attacked Yakovlev. The pokryshkin cars were replaced by the dexterous Lavochkin. The M-82 was also perfectly placed on the I-185, it was better than on the crude semi-Lagg - semi-La-5, which until the age of 45 turned into a normal plane.

    Yakovlev cars were not competitors pokryshkinsky
    1. +2
      2 July 2018 16: 51
      Quote: Left Shot
      Quote: Carpenter 2329
      Oh, how they were conducted ... You can recall the role of Yakovlev in the rejection of the I-185 fighter.
      Yakovlev was generally interesting, um ... a person ...
      (I apologize for being off topic.)

      Quote: Aviator_
      Yakovlev, of course, this is Yakovlev, but letting a good I-185 aircraft with the M-71 non-serial engine into a large series in the 1943 year is adventurism.


      You in vain attacked Yakovlev. The pokryshkin cars were replaced by the dexterous Lavochkin. The M-82 was also perfectly placed on the I-185, it was better than on the crude semi-Lagg - semi-La-5, which until the age of 45 turned into a normal plane.

      Yakovlev cars were not competitors pokryshkinsky

      And what kind of cars did Pokryshkin do ??????????
    2. Alf
      0
      2 July 2018 21: 09
      Quote: Shot from the left
      The pokryshkin cars were replaced by the dexterous Lavochkin.

      Are you okay ?
  16. +1
    2 July 2018 05: 46
    Quote: Gregory_45

    By the way, such things happened not only with tanks. Better aircraft also saved. The resulting Kingcobras, as well as the Mustangs and Spitfires of the latest modifications, almost did not attend the battle.

    I have not seen more delirium. For free, the USSR did not need the non-maneuverable "flying logs" from the Anglo-Americans, especially such as the Mustang. Yes, with some machine guns.

    In the USSR, there were the best fighters at that time to gain air superiority La-7 and Yak-9U, Yak-3 can not be considered. They beat the mustangs in one motion. Only the Germans could have been better than the Soviet ones, and that was "to taste."
    1. Alf
      0
      2 July 2018 21: 08
      Quote: Shot from the left
      In the USSR, there were the best fighters at that time to gain air superiority La-7 and Yak-9U, Yak-3 can not be considered. They beat the mustangs in one motion.

      That's for sure. Up to 3-4 thousand. Above Mustangs were kings.
      1. 0
        22 July 2018 04: 40
        Above they were the same logs
    2. Alf
      0
      2 July 2018 21: 11
      Quote: Shot from the left
      Yes, with some machine guns.

      Interestingly, what were 6 Colt Browning Mustangs worse than one ShVAK and 2 ShKAS at Yakov?
  17. 0
    2 July 2018 05: 48
    "Shot from the movie" Hot Snow "" - There were no tigers in that operation. This in a wonderful film was heavily lied. Otherwise, the ZIS-3 would have problems
    1. 0
      16 July 2018 15: 19
      And in the next photo (Shot from the movie series "Liberation") the outlines of the tower are more reminiscent of the T-IV than the Tiger.
  18. 0
    2 July 2018 05: 52
    Quote: Mountain Shooter

    So why didn’t the T-44 take part in the battles?

    For the same reasons, why much better dive bombers did not fly than the Pe-2 / Tu-2. Much better fighters based on the MiG-3 (with 2 ShVAK, AM-38 or ASh-82) than the underexposed La-5 and Yak-1B, and many examples.
    Decision on the inappropriateness of rebuilding plants.
    1. Alf
      0
      2 July 2018 21: 13
      Quote: Shot from the left
      why didn’t much better dive bombers fly than Pe-2 / Tu-2.

      Which ones ?
      Quote: Shot from the left
      Much better fighters based on MiG-3 (with 2 ShVAK, AM-38 or ASh-82),

      Is it with a wing height profile?
      Carbine, are you back? Already released? Or the orderlies did not inspect?
  19. 0
    2 July 2018 05: 58
    Quote: Cherry Nine
    Americans took a very long time


    Not for long, but always. From the 20th century to the present
    1. +1
      2 July 2018 09: 35
      Quote: Shot from the left
      For free, the USSR did not need the non-maneuverable "flying logs" from the Anglo-Americans, especially such as Mustang

      You're right. The USSR did not need high-altitude escort fighters. The USSR had nothing to accompany.
      Quote: Shot from the left
      In the USSR there were the best fighters at that time to gain air superiority La-7 and Yak-9U,

      Which could not reach the heights of strategists.
      Quote: Shot from the left
      Yak-3 can not be considered.

      Soviet Zero, but without range.
      Quote: Shot from the left
      They beat the mustangs in one motion.

      They had a chance against Mustang, if for some reason he came down to them.
      Quote: Shot from the left
      Only the Germans could be better than the Soviet ones,

      The best serial fighters of the summer of the 45th year:
      Long-range escort high-rise - P-51H Mustang. When taking off from Denmark, he could accompany strategists to Moscow. Actually, this could be the main fighter of the end of the war P-51D. Gorky lacked a little.
      Low Heights - F8F Bearcat. By the way, its combat radius was enough from Denmark to Italy.
      Air Defense Fighter - P-80A Shooting Star. It reaches Prague both from Denmark and Italy along the combat radius. Retraining started in the continental United States in the winter of the 45th year.
      Quote: Shot from the left
      is always. From the 20th century to the present

      Having lost Vietnam, the Americans seriously took up the army and in the 80s achieved serious results. It’s now that couch experts love to write that they beat the little one, and in the 91st everyone got caught, nobody expected this.
      1. 0
        2 July 2018 14: 47
        Yes, in 91 in Iraq, the U.S. Army looked like star infantry, and now there is noticeable stagnation, the army apparently remained in 91.
        1. 0
          17 July 2018 14: 09
          Against the background of bought traitors and Papuans with hoes, they certainly looked like a star landing. They will not show anything super-cool if the defending side has more or less modern air defense systems.
  20. 0
    2 July 2018 23: 41
    Quote: kapitan281271
    Quote: Left Shot
    Quote: Carpenter 2329
    Oh, how they were conducted ... You can recall the role of Yakovlev in the rejection of the I-185 fighter.
    Yakovlev was generally interesting, um ... a person ...
    (I apologize for being off topic.)

    Quote: Aviator_
    Yakovlev, of course, this is Yakovlev, but letting a good I-185 aircraft with the M-71 non-serial engine into a large series in the 1943 year is adventurism.


    You in vain attacked Yakovlev. The pokryshkin cars were replaced by the dexterous Lavochkin. The M-82 was also perfectly placed on the I-185, it was better than on the crude semi-Lagg - semi-La-5, which until the age of 45 turned into a normal plane.

    Yakovlev cars were not competitors pokryshkinsky

    And what kind of cars did Pokryshkin do ??????????


    Polikarpov. Typo
    1. Alf
      0
      3 July 2018 20: 27
      Quote: Shot from the left
      M-82 was perfectly placed on the I-185,

      Where is the iron?
      1. 0
        22 July 2018 04: 36
        Remaking the tail section and internal structures into wood was easier than porridge from Lavochkin’s ax, which only became an acceptable airplane by 44-45.
  21. -1
    8 July 2018 15: 13
    "then on the T-44 the driver’s hatch was generally removed to the hull." In the sense? And before that, where was he, not in the case? It is felt that some amateur wrote an article. And the "Stalin" large apartments. The author apparently was not in them?
    1. +1
      8 July 2018 15: 37
      Quote: Usher
      And before that, where was he, not in the case?

      I mean, they removed from the VLD up.
  22. The comment was deleted.
  23. The comment was deleted.
  24. 0
    11 January 2020 01: 23
    Well hello Wikipedia

"Right Sector" (banned in Russia), "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) (banned in Russia), ISIS (banned in Russia), "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" formerly "Jabhat al-Nusra" (banned in Russia) , Taliban (banned in Russia), Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Anti-Corruption Foundation (banned in Russia), Navalny Headquarters (banned in Russia), Facebook (banned in Russia), Instagram (banned in Russia), Meta (banned in Russia), Misanthropic Division (banned in Russia), Azov (banned in Russia), Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), Aum Shinrikyo (banned in Russia), AUE (banned in Russia), UNA-UNSO (banned in Russia), Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People (banned in Russia), Legion “Freedom of Russia” (armed formation, recognized as terrorist in the Russian Federation and banned)

“Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"