Military Review

English Christie (part of 1)

64
For the first time about tank I recognized W. Christie in my distant childhood from the 1929 magazine “Science and Technology”, in which it was written about a tank-walker that appeared in the USA and developed at 119 km / h on wheels and 86 km / h on tracks. Then he read that W. Christie handed over his tank to the USSR from "class considerations, sympathizing with him as the first country of socialism." Then, in the book “Strike and Defense” and “Knights of Armor” that he “just sold”, but did not bother with any special ideas. Then, already in 1989, as a member of the British Association of Modellers BTT M.A. FVA. I started to get books from there and read one - just a wonderful study of the whole life path and all the tanks of W. Christie. I wrote about something in Tankomaster and wanted to write in Science and Technology, but other people read good books, and a series of articles about this tank by another author were already published there. In any case, W. Christie deserved to be written about. For there is no other equally effective designer in the world whose ideas would have created so many tanks. Yes, tanks of national designers! But based either entirely on his ideas, or resulting from their direct development.



Cruiser Mk III in a tank museum in Bovington, Dorset.

For example, it was he who wrote in his book "Mobile Defense" that the armor of tanks should have a slope that provides a ricochet of bullets and shells falling into it. That tanks should have such a speed as to "dodge" aircraft attacks from the air. Tanks BT-2,5,7, T-34, "English cruisers" and a number of other less significant vehicles became the direct successors of his design and the embodiment of his ideas. Moreover, although some of his ideas like the “flying tank” were initially rejected, there are no “contraindications” to the fact that they will not be returned to them again at a new round of development. For example, the "flying robot tank" delivered drone into enemy territory can be created today. But this is now, and then, in the same 30s, the level of technology, economics and ... politics forced the military and engineers to very carefully look for new ways in the field of military equipment.

However, it was in the 30's that the British military came to a truly revolutionary decision to divide the tanks into only three classes. Prior to this, the tanks were divided according to the ship principle. Tankettes (analogs of torpedo boats), light tanks (analogs of destroyers), medium tanks (analogs of cruisers), three-turbo tanks (analogs of heavy cruisers) and five-turbo tanks are analogs of battleships. From tankettes refused completely. Although at one time and set them up the most. They were too weak. Light tanks were maintained for reconnaissance. But on the other hand, a completely new class appeared: the “infantry tank”, with thick armor to accompany the infantry. But numerous medium tanks with a different number of towers should be unified into one type - cavalry or cruiser tank. The main task of which would be to move quickly around the battlefield and raids along the enemy’s rear. In accordance with the views of W. Christie, it was they who, due to their high speed and maneuverability, quickly went to the flank of the enemy tanks and occupied the most advantageous position for firing. That is, they also had to fight with enemy tanks. However, you can write anything on paper. However, for the developed English industry this was not a particular problem. As a result, the first tank of a new class of cruising tanks was the A9, or Cruiser Tank Mk.I, created by Vickers. Outwardly, it was a formidable car. Three towers! Three water-cooled Vickers machine guns are more than enough for any, even heavier tank. Her chassis was well developed and subsequently the Valentine tank was built on it. Two problems made him a worthless cruiser: armor and speed. The latter was only 40 km / h. But the armor ... Its maximum thickness was only 15-14 mm and it stood without tilting. The design of all this abundance of towers was such that it was enough to just get into the tank, and that was enough to defeat it. Anywhere - just to get there, and already there the projectile “will find a hole for itself”. It turned out like this, and nothing could be done about it. That is, the design could be changed and subsequently the English on the Valentine did, but the army tank was required as always immediately.


Cruiser Tank Mk 1 A9 at the landfill.


Cruiser Tank Mk 1 A9 in the tank museum in Bovington.


Cruiser, Mark ICS - version of "direct support" (English Close Support), armed with 94-mm howitzer. The German is surprised: "This is a caliber!"

And here it was possible to play a role in equipping the British army with new tanks to the assistant head of the mechanization department of the Military Ministry, Lieutenant Colonel Gifford Le Kvesne Martel. The one that in the 20s created one of the first tankettes and promoted it in every way. In 1936, as a military observer, he visited the USSR on the maneuvers of the Kiev Military District and ... hundreds of BT-5 tanks moving at full speed shocked him to the depths of his soul. Returning to England, he reported on what he saw and, with his characteristic energy, began to promote cruising tanks now. Just after his visit to the USSR, the A7 tank was adopted as a cruising tank, but everyone understood that it was seriously inferior to Soviet vehicles. And that "not inferior" ... Not inferior "source" - tank designer John Walter Christie. And the British, who did not boast of their glorious armored past, immediately went overseas and already 3 of October 1936 of the year signed an agreement between its own Wheel Track Layer Corporation and the British Morris Motor Company on the purchase of a single tank from the above-mentioned American company. Under the contract number 89, for it was paid 8000 pounds. Moreover, Christie personally went to England to bring his tank, and at the same time he also took with him his main tester.

English Christie (part of 1)

Christie M1937 during a record-breaking race at Farnborough.

For some reason, many believe that the British bought his scandalous airborne tank M1932. But in fact, they got the same Christie M1931 tank as sold in the USSR. In the United States, this particular tank was the forerunner of the T3 Medium Tank (medium tank) machine for infantry with an 37-mm cannon and T1 Combat Car (battle machine-for a cavalry with an 12,7-mm machine gun). In June 1932, Christie tried to sell it to the US Department of Arms for $ 20 000. But the deal did not take place, because the US military had its own vision of a new tank, and U. Christie had his own.

For four years the tank stood in the courtyard of the US Department of Armaments. But being sold, M1931 repaired and quickly sent by sea to England. The car received the index A13E1, registration number T.2086, and according to the documents it was called a tractor. Everything, as in the case of the same tank, sold in the USSR. The A13E1 tank was extensively tested at the test site near the city of Aldershot, in the county of Hampshire for over a year, passed 1085 kilometers, of which off-road 523, and was eventually adopted.


Prototype tank A13E2. Note that the tracks are still from the Christie tank.

Meanwhile, with English money, Christie created the new Christie M1937 tank with the 430 engine horsepower, and in a purely tracked version. In the "candle suspension" added parallel installed shock absorbers. This immediately increased the smoothness of the course and made it possible, even on tracks, to develop the speed of 102,5 km / h.

But the British failed to sell it. The amount of $ 320 seemed too large to them. In addition, they already had the Cruiser Tank A000E13, in which the engineers of the multidisciplinary concern Nuffield Mechanization & Aero (which became the Morris Motor Company) took the chassis, engine, transmission and cooling system from the Christie tank. That is, almost all of its mechanics, and they themselves designed a turret with weapons and ... that's all. But it should be noted that the British, even before they got acquainted with the 2 Christie model of the year, abandoned the mixed wheeled-caterpillar drive and settled on a purely tracked type of propulsion device.


The tank even superficially turned out beautiful, functional and somehow impetuous.

One of the reasons was the high reliability of the new tracks. The fact is that by the end of 30-s, the resource of the tracked tracks could finally cross the boundary in 1000 kilometers, which deprived the wheel-tracked propulsion unit of one of its main competitive advantages. The maximum speed of the new tank exceeded 50 km / h, which, according to the British military, was quite enough for a tank cruiser.

Therefore, the power plant was not replaced, leaving a 12-cylinder V-shaped on the tank aviation Liberty L-12 engine. The licensed motor was given the double name Nuffield-Liberty.


Engine Nuffield-Liberty. The use of this powerful but whimsical engine was a necessary measure, since the British did not have special tank engines at that time.

First, the tracks on the tank tracks were used by the Americans, i.e. completely flat. They stood on the tank A13E2 without any changes and led to a fairly rapid wear rubber tires on the rollers. Therefore, according to the test results, the tracks A13E3 have already installed new trucks, and the caterpillar itself has become small-scale.

To be continued ...
Author:
64 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Vova Kabaev
    Vova Kabaev 5 July 2018 15: 53
    0
    Well, they sang to us under the sovdepii about the genius Tsyganov, Koshkin and Morozov ...
    1. hohol95
      hohol95 5 July 2018 16: 20
      +6
      And what did you sing?
      1. Vova Kabaev
        Vova Kabaev 5 July 2018 16: 30
        +4
        That Tsyganov came up with inclined armor, Koshkin had a concept of a tank with bulletproof armor (and not the storage men on the V-1 and the British on the Matilda), and Morozov was the best designer in the Solar System.
        1. hohol95
          hohol95 5 July 2018 17: 11
          +11
          "There is nothing like leather"! But it is not necessary to belittle the merits of domestic tank builders!
          British cruising tanks throughout the war were far from perfect!
          One installation of engines written off from aviation saved a lot of money on subsequent equipment repairs!
          Another example is Covenanter.
          As for the design of the Covenanter, it was characterized by a very dense layout, sometimes beyond common sense. So, in the engine-transmission compartment there was not enough space for air filters, and they were placed on the roof of the MTO, covering with light armored (and possibly not armored) covers. The radiators of the cooling system, which were installed in the bow of the case to the left of the driver, did not fit in the MTO, and the coolant flowed to the engine and back through pipelines laid along the bottom of the machine. In this case, the fan, which blew both radiators, was driven into rotation from the tower rotation motor. The hull and tower did not differ in the perfection of forms and sometimes had an inexplicable configuration. For example, the sides of the tower were beveled at an acute angle, and the frontal sheet was located almost vertically. The design feature of the tank was a two-layer reservation of the frontal and stern sheets of the hull, as well as the frontal, stern and side sheets of the tower. Strictly speaking, only the outer sheets were armored, while the inner ones were made of simple high-quality steel and were not always thinner than the outer ones. Say, the outer frontal sheet of the tower had a thickness of 20 mm, and the inner one - 19 mm, for the sides this ratio was 10 and 9,5 mm, for the stern - 12 and 12,5 mm. These thicknesses for the upper frontal sheet of the hull were the same - 14 mm each. The tower did not have a commander's cupola. For landing the crew served as a wide hatch in the aft of the tower, closed with a folding lid.
          During serial production, 1771 tanks of four modifications came out of the factory shops of manufacturers.
          Despite the partial solution of technical problems and further improvement of the design, MK V did not become an active tank of the first line and was used mainly for training purposes.

          Resources were spent on 1771 TRAINING TANK!
          1. kalibr
            5 July 2018 17: 54
            +5
            Yes, the Covenanter is a completely "unique tank." At one time, he made his model and for a long time looking at her was surprised - "Why so?"
            1. avt
              avt 5 July 2018 18: 50
              +9
              Quote: kalibr
              At one time, he made his model and for a long time looking at her was surprised - "Why so?"

              Flight shaved engineering rationality is not amenable to. bully And they did the design of the campaign in spite of this very engineering idea ... and perhaps, in general, sometimes in spite of this very idea. Their designs, even in the dark, cannot be confused with anything. bullyBut outwardly these freaks even like that ...... attractive or something. As well as a more rational Teutonic, gloomy genius. Our background looks .... sort of ... rollicking. Directly, like, without any fancy and immediately with a big scope in the ear. bully From that and more practical.
              1. MPN
                MPN 5 July 2018 19: 12
                +5
                Well, it's British scientists ... sad However, they searched ... and found ...
          2. faiver
            faiver 5 July 2018 19: 04
            +2
            here even the gloomy German genius is resting laughing
        2. Vladimir 5
          Vladimir 5 5 July 2018 18: 27
          +6
          U. Christie proposed a good idea, bought it, as many see, and then went hungry by themselves. Koshkin and others "shoveled" the idea of ​​the basics and got good results of the T-34, T-60. etc. Do not understand the principles of technology development, -. it means to be ignorant in understanding the development of technology, which some say.
          1. hohol95
            hohol95 5 July 2018 18: 32
            +4
            T-60 you in vain included in your comment ...
            1. The comment was deleted.
            2. Vladimir 5
              Vladimir 5 5 July 2018 18: 58
              +1
              In its niche, the T-60 was the best product, but if used for other purposes, (wiping like a shovel with a scoop, it will break right away ... ... In the Red Army, it was a constant problem (with the Su-76, etc.), even the T-34 \ 85 they killed dozens of IS-2 and SU-100 without dozens of waiting, - the main report, the losses are not important ... Fools in the commanders of the Red Army are countless, because they were selected according to the principle of devotion to the CPSU, and not according to the mind ...
              1. Vova Kabaev
                Vova Kabaev 5 July 2018 19: 01
                +4
                Did this TV tell you?
                1. The comment was deleted.
                  1. The comment was deleted.
              2. faiver
                faiver 5 July 2018 19: 09
                +5
                KPSS did not exist during the war hi
                1. Vladimir 5
                  Vladimir 5 5 July 2018 20: 18
                  +1
                  The All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks) was reorganized in 1952 into the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, but I will not distribute it in detail, the essence is the same, the party is the same. Moreover, the different Vova Kabaevs were not even born when I took the oath of the USSR and I know a lot from personal experience ........
                  1. Vova Kabaev
                    Vova Kabaev 5 July 2018 20: 27
                    0
                    Like, swam, we know?))
              3. Mikado
                Mikado 5 July 2018 19: 55
                +12
                Fools in the commanders of the Red Army are countless, because they were selected according to the principle of devotion to the CPSU, and not according to the mind ...

                they said stupidity. Outspoken.
                1. Vladimir 5
                  Vladimir 5 5 July 2018 20: 39
                  +1
                  The period 1938-1941 is taken into account. The war made tough demands for command, for the result of appointees of allegiance in the first year of the war was more than 2 million captured Red Army soldiers in the first half of the war. Remember the commissioner of the 1st rank Mehlis, the envoy of Stalin, and his "merits", including the surrender of the Crimea ... Therefore, the Rokossovsky and other commanders were called from the camps. Another selection went on, but the party line was the main one ... There were few people who understood the essence of those times, all scum and lies did not give a true picture of those days. Only historians will tell the truth by documents, but they will not let them speak. at different times and for various reasons ....
                  1. Royalist
                    Royalist 5 July 2018 21: 53
                    +2
                    Vladimir, regarding the prisoners, is not unambiguous here: a) the consequences of the “purges” of 1937, and then the right and the guilty went to the “skating rink”, b) the increase in the number of units required more commanders, and good commanders in the “store” are not for sale .; c) CHANGE in the very leadership of the army, read Martirosyan and the Kremlin, and all together it’s 2 m. prisoners
                    1. unknown
                      unknown 6 July 2018 05: 32
                      +1
                      About 4 million prisoners
                2. Alf
                  Alf 5 July 2018 22: 55
                  +6
                  Quote: Mikado
                  Fools in the commanders of the Red Army are countless, because they were selected according to the principle of devotion to the CPSU, and not according to the mind ...

                  they said stupidity. Outspoken.

                  Do not swear at him. A man judged by himself.
                  1. Mikado
                    Mikado 5 July 2018 23: 27
                    +2
                    I will not judge him with addiction, and bicker too. Just gave an opinion.
              4. Royalist
                Royalist 5 July 2018 21: 39
                0
                For that matter, the T70 will be a little smarter: "the gun and armor are a little better.
                The Germans for the mass and desperate courage of the crew, nicknamed them: "locusts
                “Actually, the tank is a suicide bomber: on average, it“ lived ”ONE attack and very rarely the crew escaped.
              5. hohol95
                hohol95 5 July 2018 21: 44
                +4
                Accordingly, in the Bulgarian Army under the Kings, everything was different ...
          2. Royalist
            Royalist 5 July 2018 21: 28
            0
            Vladimir, you are generally right. Koshkin and his friends saw that BT was a dead end and began secretly designing a new tank. The then leaders of NCOs were fools of BT and the government also had BT supporters
            1. Vova Kabaev
              Vova Kabaev 5 July 2018 22: 01
              +1
              Complete run about secret design !!
              Koshkina sent Moscow to push a tank different from the BT. Do not duplicate nonsense here.
            2. Potter
              Potter 5 July 2018 22: 02
              +5
              M. Svirin writes about this story completely different. That the initiators of the creation of a purely caterpillar tank with bulletproof armor were the head of ABTU Pavlov, who passed Spain, and the people's commissar of defense Voroshilov. And confirms this with documents.
              (see M. Svirin "The Stalin Armor Shield", 2007, p. 77-92). And then went myth making. I do not want to take anything from the merits of Koshkin and Design Bureau of Plant 183, but the story is somewhat different.
              1. Vova Kabaev
                Vova Kabaev 5 July 2018 22: 07
                +2
                Moreover, the concept of the new tank was developed by the adjunct GBTU Dick (ethnic German), who was subsequently shot.
            3. hohol95
              hohol95 5 July 2018 22: 16
              +4
              On May 4, 1938, an expanded meeting of the USSR Defense Committee was held in Moscow. The meeting was led by V.I. Molotov, attended by I.V. Stalin, K.E. Voroshilov, other government and military leaders, representatives of the defense industry, as well as tank commanders who recently returned from Spain. The participants were presented with a draft design of the BT-20 light wheeled-tracked tank developed at Plant No. 183. During the discussion of the project, a discussion about the feasibility of using a wheeled-tracked mover in tanks was again started. The participants in the battles in Spain, in particular, A. A. Vetrov and the head of ABTU D. G. Pavlov, who spoke in the debate, expressed diametrically opposite points of view on the issue under discussion. No concrete decision was made in favor of this or that type of mover at this meeting, however, five days later, at a meeting of the NPO on the Red Army's weapon system, the protocol was written in the minutes: “The proposal of comrade. Pavlov on the creation by the factory number 183 of the caterpillar tank recognize expedient with the strengthening of the reservation in the frontal part to 30 mm To adapt the turret of the tank for the installation of a 76-mm gun. The crew - 4 people ... Adopted unanimously. " But due to the fact that decisions at the highest level have not yet been made, on May 13, 1938, the ABTU leadership approved the updated tactical and technical characteristics of the BT-20 wheeled-tracked tank. To provide protection from 12,7 mm armor-piercing bullets, the thickness of the armor plates of the hull and turret was increased, and the sheets themselves were located at larger angles of inclination than before. The mass was determined at 16,5 tons, and the car actually went into the category of medium tanks. The crew was increased to 4 people. The composition of the weapons remained the same, only the installation of the flamethrower was seized.
              In August 1938, the USSR Defense Committee adopted a decree "On a system of tank weapons." This document contained the requirement: in less than a year, by July 1939, to develop new models of tanks in which weapons, armor and mobility would fully meet the conditions of a future war.
              At the beginning of September 1938, the design and layout of the BT-20 tank were considered by the ABTU RKKA commission chaired by the 1st rank military engineer Y. L. Skvirsky. The Commission approved the project, but at the same time obliged the Design Bureau and Plant No. 183 to develop and manufacture one wheeled-tracked tank with a 45 mm gun and two tracked tanks with 76-mm guns.
              Thus, it can be asserted with confidence that there was no initiative of the plant No. 183 to create a caterpillar tank, but there was an official order of the Red Army Armored Directorate! The facts here are fundamentally at odds with the legend, cultivated for almost half a century, about the "engineering and strategic foresight of M. I. Koshkin," who created the new tank "semi-legally, in the intervals between the main work."
        3. Potter
          Potter 5 July 2018 19: 11
          0
          And what remains of the T-44, T-54 or T-64 from the Christie tank? Nothing!
          All serious publications tell about the whole history of BT and T-34 tanks, which is still a descendant of Christie's tank. And nothing is silent about Christie. But the T-44 is already a completely different tank.
          Without a wheeled-tracked track, without Christie's candle suspension (torsion bars) and with a transverse engine. But Morozov’s experimental tank that didn’t go into production under the designation SU-100 (not self-propelled guns of WWII time!) Is actually what the Israelis ripped off Merkava from.
          1. Mikado
            Mikado 5 July 2018 19: 56
            +3
            And what remains of the T-44, T-54 or T-64 from the Christie tank? Nothing!

            left. Continuity. I will not tell the story development algorithm.
            1. Potter
              Potter 5 July 2018 21: 45
              +1
              We can then speak of continuity from the Reto FT, as from the first tank of the classic layout.
              Constructive continuity in the T-44 from the Christie tank is no longer traced. Neither in the chassis, nor in the layout of the MTO, nor in the technology of manufacturing the machine, nor in weapons.
              The line of Christie's tank in the USSR ended on the T-34, quite a bit from Christie was in the T-43.
              1. hohol95
                hohol95 5 July 2018 22: 20
                +4
                In the T-34 tank from the original Christie's tank was a Christie-type spring suspension! That's all! More from the tank purchased from Christie in the design of the T-34, nothing "migrated". Especially in the design of the T-43 ...
          2. Zaurbek
            Zaurbek 6 July 2018 07: 00
            +2
            Read or watch the film "Wings of Russia" about medium tanks, there is clearly shown (with pictures) the transition from T-34 through T-44, to T-54 and further to T-62.
            1. Mikado
              Mikado 6 July 2018 10: 42
              +1
              very good series. What about tanks, what about planes. Often look through. good
        4. abc_alex
          abc_alex 6 July 2018 23: 13
          +1
          Quote: Vova Kabaev
          That Tsyganov came up with inclined armor, Koshkin had a concept of a tank with bulletproof armor (and not the storage men on the V-1 and the British on the Matilda), and Morozov was the best designer in the Solar System.



          You should read carefully, for which our designers are extolled.
          No one said that Tsyganov invented inclined armor. They say that he was the first in the USSR to design a tank in which all the armor plates were inclined. The same is said about Koshkin. He is not credited with the invention of inclined booking.
          And it’s absolutely stupid that you wrote about the “concept of a tank with anti-ballistic armor”. Koshkin did not invent this concept, he received a TTZ for the development of a tank with anti-ballistic armor. And the idea of ​​such armor appeared after the war in Spain.
          Morozov and Koshkin (you apparently did not understand this) were able to get ahead of time by at least 10-15 years, anticipating the idea of ​​MBT in the T-34. It was the T-34 that for the first time combined in one machine the speed and range of a cruising tank with the armor and armament of an infantry, Yes, for the breakthrough tank, it lacked firepower, so HF and IS were produced in parallel with it. But it was the T-34 that became the ideological foundation of the main battle tanks of the Soviet army.
          1. Vova Kabaev
            Vova Kabaev 7 July 2018 00: 01
            0
            You're so smart! Already takes the horror. Especially about inclined armor and tank with inclined reservation))
    2. avt
      avt 5 July 2018 17: 51
      +7
      Quote: Vova Kabaev
      Well, they sang to us under the sovdepii about the genius Tsyganov, Koshkin and Morozov ...

      In the USSR, they only sang outside, but also taught, and technical specialties quite well, so that
      Thank God we distinguish forget-me-not from crap!
      But not everyone, here are some
      Reproach me for prison For any time you want - All of this science will not work for me, fool, for the future!
      Well, looking at pictures and living according to the principle - ,, To teach Fools, only to spoil "And that would be instead of delirium about
      Quote: Vova Kabaev
      What Tsyganov came up with inclined armor

      I wouldn’t have a disgrace by reading Ginzburg’s note to the government about the “tortoise.” But what is Az really sinful about? ?? Yes, I see that he forgot the biblical
      Do not give the shrine to the dogs and do not throw your pearls before the pigs, so that they do not trample it ...
      1. Vova Kabaev
        Vova Kabaev 5 July 2018 18: 01
        0
        go to the garden
        1. The comment was deleted.
          1. Vova Kabaev
            Vova Kabaev 5 July 2018 20: 10
            0
            Right! Banyat smart people in black.
            1. The comment was deleted.
              1. Vova Kabaev
                Vova Kabaev 5 July 2018 21: 11
                0
                Gold words. About tempor, about the sea!
                1. Mikado
                  Mikado 5 July 2018 21: 21
                  +1
                  We will communicate culturally! wink
                  1. Vova Kabaev
                    Vova Kabaev 5 July 2018 22: 01
                    0
                    Like in a hostel of noble maidens!
      2. Mikado
        Mikado 5 July 2018 20: 00
        +2
        In the USSR, they only sang outside, but also taught, and technical specialties quite well, so that

        Alexei, how do you like the genius of Morozov? After the death of Koshkin, he was appointed the chief designer, without a higher education, a unique case! And Stalin personally approved!
        I will supplement you - I also saw talented ones. soldier maybe not always, but often. And in that situation they simply couldn’t put another chief designer - they acted wisely! drinks
        I wouldn’t be dishonored by reading Ginzburg’s note to the government about the “tortoise”.

        anyway - it was EXPERIENCE, priceless! request let cones, let mistakes, but there is always a valuable grain in everything new! what
        1. Vova Kabaev
          Vova Kabaev 5 July 2018 20: 11
          +1
          At that time, Morozov introduced his gearbox.
        2. avt
          avt 5 July 2018 21: 04
          +6
          Quote: Mikado
          Alexei, how do you like the genius of Morozov?

          request What he proved with his whole life. Up to the very topical and now T-64.
          Quote: Mikado
          After the death of Koshkin, he was appointed the chief designer, without a higher education, a unique case! And Stalin personally approved!

          And he has .... well, an animal instinct, whether it was on frames. Even when the nominees really squinted, not reaching the level they got, well, like the same Leverage. He did not extinguish from the raid, gave a chance, BUT on repeated .... extinguished mercilessly! I suppose he had this with Civil. Then the Bolsheviks had a rule - at the first “fly-in” - a warning, at the second - a re-tribunal / troika, and there, well, in that meat grinder, it was almost 90% execution.
          Quote: Mikado
          without higher education, a unique case!

          what Offhand - Lyapidevsky in aviation. By the way! After all, if possible, he led and guided young people through a system of training and retraining of personnel of various levels, which was almost being built on the go. He completely corrected mistakes by returning people - Korolev. And even managed to apologize - Axel Ivanovich Berg, without which our radar could not have taken place. After rehabilitation, Axel Berg was able to explain to him the importance of creating an intersectoral structure DURING WAR! To which some of the scarce funds of various people's commissariats were transferred on Stalin’s personal order and under his direct control of execution! But Khrushchev the need for such a structure after the war, to create a connection, alas .... I could not .... And then, after all, the Internet with an iPhone would already be somewhere in the late 60's Berg could easily do this. These were the times and people and questions that they solved with almost two evaluation systems of results - either the chest in the crosses, or the head in the bushes .. Well, about
          Quote: Mikado
          EXPERIENCE, invaluable!

          No. Misha Svirin, with whom I had a chance to talk personally in the 90s a couple of times (his favorite tank ... bully he actually began to print from it, well, even from the directory of the naval Russian-Japanese), very accurately painted in his tank trilogy. Money down the drain. Nothing new, before the village of an unprecedented Gypsy, he didn’t give out a turtle. Yes, and the result could be simulated much cheaper than sculpting a running model made of non-armored iron. request
          1. Mikado
            Mikado 5 July 2018 21: 15
            +2
            And he has well .... bestial flair, or something was on frames.

            and in that situation it was easier to “raise” a genius familiar with production and design bureaus than to seek a replacement for him. Everyone understood this perfectly. However, respect for them! good
            Misha Svirin, with whom I had a chance to talk a few times in person in the 90s

            very interesting to write. What kind of person was that? The leading tank historian of Russia, and only two people from us-forum users communicated with him, including you! hi
            1. avt
              avt 5 July 2018 21: 29
              +5
              Quote: Mikado
              What kind of person was that?

              Yes normal man good with such a beard, the type is always not shaved. bully But oh, very passionate about tanks and not pictures. They outweighed his fleet back then in the 90s. bully I really met him only a couple of times, as I said, he somehow learned his thoughts not to give out at all, but confirming with documents. It was he who started exactly with Treshki, which he licked right on the bracket on each modification. bully
              Quote: Mikado
              and in that situation it was easier to “raise” a genius familiar with production and design bureaus than to seek a replacement for him.

              Maybe this is exactly what outweighed the decision on the appointment. Here, definitely a point could probably be put on the documents of the archive of the Administrative Department of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks. BUT! request I believe it will open .... never. There are so many things like that ... for such people ....
              You know, I looked at your file yesterday ...

              - I would have given you dearly for looking at him with just one eye ...

              - It's not as interesting as it seems ... When you say, laugh, complain about pain in the liver - it is impressive, considering that before that you had a puzzling operation ... And in your dossier - it’s boring: reports, reports. Everything was mixed up: your denunciations, denunciations against you ... No, this is not interesting ...
              bully
              1. hohol95
                hohol95 5 July 2018 22: 39
                +1
                You know, it's amazing to watch how
                man goes to death. Sometimes I even want to say: “Wait, you idiot! Where?”
                “Well, that’s not worth it,” said Stirlitz, “that would be unreasonable.”
                - You do not have canned fish? I'm going crazy without fish. Phosphorus, you know
                whether; require nerve cells ...
                - What do you want?
                - I love in oil ...
                - I understand that ... What kind of production? Our or ...
                “Or,” Klaus laughed. - Let it not be patriotic, but I love and
                food and drink made in America or France ...

                - I will prepare for you a box of real French sardines. They're in
                olive oil, very spicy. Mass of phosphorus ...
              2. Mikado
                Mikado 5 July 2018 23: 35
                +1
                But oh, very passionate about tanks and not pictures. They outweighed his fleet back then in the 90s. bully I really met him only a couple of times, as I said, he somehow learned his thoughts not to give out at all, but confirming with documents. It was he who started exactly with Treshki, which he licked right on the bracket on each modification.

                the world is driven by dreamers and fans .... what Once again confirmation! Yes Thank you! drinks
    3. Felix99
      Felix99 6 July 2018 20: 36
      0
      Vova, under the Soviets you watched cartoons about Cheburashka, and the people you mentioned reached from plow to general designers.
      And which tank did you create, our ingenious?
      1. Vova Kabaev
        Vova Kabaev 7 July 2018 09: 39
        0
        My dear, haven't your ancestors dug up the Black Sea?
        1. Felix99
          Felix99 9 July 2018 08: 56
          +2
          My ancestors have done a lot. For example, my grandmother worked in a mine in Donetsk after the war, with three children in her arms, her husband went missing in July 1941. Another grandfather partisan in the forests of Belarus. Our conversation is very entertaining. You belittle the merits of people who created industry out of nothing.
    4. Protos
      Protos 13 July 2018 12: 55
      +1
      Quote: Vova Kabaev
      Well, they sang to us under the sovdepii about the genius Tsyganov, Koshkin and Morozov ...


      And they sang correctly, because it was in the T-34 that they brilliantly embodied all three components of an ideal tank of modern maneuver warfare still relevant!
      Fire, Armor, Maneuver!
      No wonder in the future (as a recognition of the effectiveness of the T-34), our enemies appeared:
      Pz.Kpfw. III / IV
      VK 30.01 (D)
      Skoda T 24
      Skoda T 25
      Pz.Kpfw. panther
      laughing
    5. Region-25.rus
      Region-25.rus 9 September 2018 14: 06
      0
      Taking the suspension idea and just the idea, and developing a completely new tank is far from the same thing! We turn on the brain and read, read and read .... and by the way, your idols from the west did not learn how to weld sheets according to the method of Academician Paton during the whole war. Bolted if necessary.
  2. Royalist
    Royalist 5 July 2018 21: 18
    0
    Quote: kalibr
    Yes, the Covenanter is a completely "unique tank." At one time, he made his model and for a long time looking at her was surprised - "Why so?"

    Apparently, the British, too, could not for long understand that they "riveted" nearly 2000 freaks, and then it dawned on them: "We spent so much on hell? We will do it differently"
    1. Vova Kabaev
      Vova Kabaev 5 July 2018 22: 02
      0
      Corruption is immortal!
  3. Curious
    Curious 5 July 2018 22: 14
    +4

    Barney Oldfield driving a 4 Christie V ‑ 1907 racing car
    Before taking up tanks, Christy designed racing cars and raced them. He belongs to the idea of ​​transverse engine mounting above the front axle.
    1. Mikado
      Mikado 5 July 2018 23: 31
      +4
      the idea of ​​front-wheel drive, EMNIP, belongs to him. Although he did not win a single race in his front-wheel drive cars, also EMNIP. hi I won’t check, in the 90s I was leafing through a magazine, teenage memories, Dear Man. Correct if necessary. Yes
      1. Curious
        Curious 6 July 2018 07: 45
        +3
        Yes, as a race car driver Christie did not achieve anything special.
  4. abc_alex
    abc_alex 6 July 2018 22: 57
    +2
    Well, for starters, I think it’s worth saying that there was no “Christie tank” in nature. Since the US Armed Forces were not interested in its development, they did not give him weapons, and accordingly there was no tower. You can talk about the "suspension of Christie" or the "chassis of Christie." But not about the "tank Christie."
    It was in this form, in the form of a chassis, that Christie's product arrived in the USSR and, by the way, did not cause any delight or confusion here. An absurd hack - employees of the Kharkov factory of Christie’s chassis reacted approximately like this when they first met. Then they brought him to the state of the tank for several years, and the result was BT.

    Further, the author clearly demonstrated that membership in any "club" greatly limits one's horizons. This phrase is a clear confirmation of this:
    It was in the 30s that the British military came to a truly revolutionary decision to divide the tanks into only three classes.

    Perhaps the British after 1MV were struck by the CNS inhibitory virus and such a “revolutionary division” came to them only in the 30s, but the division of tanks into “infantry” and “cruising” classes, which was also called “cavalry”, developed a little earlier. And it came not from the British, but from the French, who, trying to create a massive cheap tank, launched the Renault FT-17. Unlike the caterpillar sheds of the British army, this tank had all the signs of a "cruising" or "cavalry" tank. And just as "cruising" was applied. After the war, the FT-17 was the basis of the French armored vehicles, was repeatedly modernized. In the future, the development of this class in France went much more sane ways. And ended with the Somua S35 weighing 19,5 tons. Therefore, such a classification based on the method of using the tank is considered freeBritish.
    And by the way, the “infantry” tank was not any revolutionary class. In general, it should be said that there is nothing revolutionary in this "revolutionary" classification. She simply recorded in the name the method of using tanks of different masses that developed during the course of the 1MB. Infantry tanks were used as part of the infantry units, therefore they are slow-moving (the infantryman cannot run faster than 7 km / h), they are heavily armored (as long as they crawl to the enemy’s positions at the infantry’s speed, the enemy artillery has time to shoot) and are heavily armed (task had a fire effect on the well-trained infantry of the enemy.
    Cavalry or cruising tanks were used in conjunction with cavalry, they served as a means of fire support, therefore they had greater speed and range (a horse was faster and faster than a man), they were more easily armored (the cavalry of the enemy didn’t attack the front, they were used for flanking, introducing a breakthrough, operations behind enemy lines) and weaker armed (after all, they were not supposed to break through the deeply echeloned defense).

    By the way, in itself, this doctrine of the development of armored vehicles could not stand meeting with reality. Light anti-tank guns of caliber 20-45 mm, as it turned out, are easily accessible to the infantry and negate the actions of the "cruising" tanks on the battlefield, and even cost less. And the development of medium-caliber artillery multiplies by zero the capabilities of the "infantry" tanks.

    And of course, there is no doubt that for the entire interwar period, Britain was unable to produce anything that was outstanding, or even simply worthy in the field of armored vehicles.

    For example, it was he who wrote in his book Mobile Defense that the armor of tanks should have a slope that provides a ricochet of bullets and shells falling into it. That the tanks must have such a speed to "dodge" the attacks of aircraft from the air.


    I don’t know what year Christie published this “discovery”, but if you look at the images of the French and German 1MV tanks, you can easily see that they even had “revelations” from the American engineer with inclined frontal armor, some in two planes. Here is an example, a German A7V.


    Well, the idea of ​​"dodging aircraft attacks" is generally from the category of delirium of crazy staff members, like the doctrine of separate nutrition.
    1. Vova Kabaev
      Vova Kabaev 7 July 2018 00: 02
      0
      And you, my friend, a graphomaniac!
      1. abc_alex
        abc_alex 7 July 2018 01: 09
        0
        I repent. Sinful
        1. Vova Kabaev
          Vova Kabaev 7 July 2018 10: 09
          +1
          This is for you to expand your horizons http://engine.aviaport.ru/issues/114/pics/pg38.pd
          f
  5. smart ass
    smart ass 8 September 2018 06: 57
    0
    Thanks to the author for a good article