Military Review

Blitzkrieg era tanks (part of 2)

131
“Doubts arise constantly. Contrary to all doubts of success, only those who are able to act in any conditions will achieve. Descendants are more likely to forgive erroneous actions than total inaction. ”
(G. Guderian. "Tanksforward! ” Translation from German. M., Military Publishing, 1957)



It turns out that on the eve of the beginning of the Second World War, the Germans had a complete qualitative superiority in arming their tanks over tanks of potential enemies and first of all the USSR, if we ignore the T-34 and KV tanks, which, however, had not yet been “brought to mind” and had many different flaws. Another important circumstance was the 30 mm armor, which was absent from the overwhelming majority of Soviet cars, and the relatively low quality of the shells and weapons of the production T-26 and BT. True, the Red Army command in 1938 tried to improve them and issued an order for a new 45-mm tank gun with improved ballistic characteristics for the new T-26 and BT-7 tanks. An armor-piercing projectile weighing in 1,42 kg should have a speed of 860 m / s and at a distance of 1000 m punch 40 mm armor at an angle of meeting 30 degrees. However, the work on it did not succeed.

Blitzkrieg era tanks (part of 2)

"Matilda". The tank proved itself well near Moscow, but ... it had a poor cross-country ability in Russian ice! (Museum in Latrun)

In England, the development of effective tank guns began in the 1935 year, and in 1938, the two-pound high-speed gun OQF Mk 9 caliber 40-mm '(or rather 42-mm) was adopted. His armor-piercing projectile weighing 0,921 kg had an initial speed of 848 m / s and pierced an armor plate with a thickness of 450 mm when tilted at 57 m in 30 degrees, which was an excellent indicator at that time. But ... in the 1936 year in England, the entire 42 tank was produced, in the 1937 year - the 32, and the 1938 year - the 419, the majority with machine-gun armament. In the US, the 37-mm tank gun, capable of penetrating armor 457 mm thick at a distance of 48, was created in 1938. It exceeded the corresponding Czech and German guns by armor penetration, but was inferior to the British 40 tank gun. However, the first tanks on which it could be put appeared overseas only in 1939 year!


The first Soviet tank with anti-shell armor thickness 60 mm - T-46-5.


But the tact monsters with 152,107 and 45-mm cannons, as well as flamethrowers, fortunately, we only existed in the form of wooden layouts. Tank T-39 and its variants.

All this, however, was a weak consolation for Heinz Guderian, who was aware of the economic power of the opponents of Germany and knew that even if there were not enough tanks at the moment in the USA and England, this does not mean that they will always be missed , and that there may be a lot of them afterwards. At the same time, knowing well the economic possibilities of Germany itself, he understood that there would never be many tanks at his disposal, and he tried as much as possible to train the crews of the vehicles he had in stock. He personally developed the statute of armored forces, according to which tankers had to flawlessly control a tank, both day and night, shoot straight, be able to care for their car and maintain its mechanisms in working order with their own forces. First of all, tank drivers were selected and trained. If, after the first practical classes, instructors did not notice much progress among the cadets, they were immediately transferred to radio operators or loaders. Drivers were trained in the movement of the columns, for which multi-kilometer campaigns were organized during the 2-3 days along special routes.


Everything is like in war. Work on the model T-34 were in a cold barn!

The accuracy of the course they were following was monitored by specially assigned navigators from the kriegsmarine, and the instructors from the Luftwaffe, not sparing ammunition, taught the gunners to the art of shooting straight. The loaders were required to be able to meet a strict standard for charging a tank gun, which provides high rate of fire from a tank, and the gunners were also required to quickly and accurately open fire on the target that the commander pointed out to them. The cadets devoted their free time to caring for a tank, and also intensively engaged in physical training, which was considered very important for them, because by the nature of their service, tank crew had to deal with weight lifting all the time. The best cadets were encouraged, the worst were also regularly screened out.


"Running test"

The Soviet tankers later recalled: "If a German tank misses you with the first shot, then the second one never misses the second." Two factors: excellent optics and good proficiency gave German tankers real advantages in firing.


Bundesarhiv: a photograph of a padded T-34. Summer 1942 of the year. The lack of rubber led to the appearance of such wheels. The roar of such tanks could be heard for several kilometers!


Another photo from the Bundesarchive. Wrecked T-34 on the streets of Stalingrad. Places of hit of shells are well visible. And there are several hits. Why is this? Is it really impossible to stop the tank with one hit? Obviously, if there are five of them!

But as was the case at the Red Army, we are looking at the order of NCO No. 0349 from 10 in December 1940, which, in order to save the material part of heavy and medium tanks (T-35, KV, T-28, T-34) and maintaining them in constant combat readiness with the maximum amount of motor resources ”for training personnel in driving and shooting, making tank units and formations, allowed to spend 30 hours per each combat training vehicle per year, 15 hours combat training *. All tactical exercises were prescribed to be carried out on T-27 tanks (two-seater wedges!); T-27 were excluded from the state of infantry military units and formations and transferred to the recruitment of tank divisions from the calculation of 10 tanks for each battalion. In essence, this is the same thing as learning to drive a bus or a heavy-load transporter behind the wheel of a small car like the modern Oka or Mathis.


T-34-76 manufactured by STZ. Remains of a train broken by a German aviation near Voronezh. 1942 year. (Bundesarchive)

To this should be added the numerous technical problems of Soviet armored vehicles. So, the T-34-76 tanks, produced in 1940-1942, with all their merits also had a huge number of very different defects, which they managed to cope with only by 1943-1944. The reliability of the "heart of the tank" - its engine was very low. Resource in 100 hours for diesel-2 on the stand was achieved only in 1943 year, whereas German-made Maybach gasoline engines easily worked out in a tank using 300-400 hours.


BA-6 V. Verevochkina even shoots!

Testing T-34 in the fall of 1940, the officers of the NIBTP (Research Armored Test Site) revealed to him a number of design flaws. In its report, the NIBTP Commission directly stated: “The T-34 tank does not meet modern requirements for this class of tanks for the following reasons: the tank’s firepower could not be fully utilized due to the unsuitability of observation devices, defects in the installation of weapons and optics, the cramped combat compartment and inconvenience of use ammunition; with a sufficient reserve of diesel power, maximum speeds, dynamic characteristics of the tank are chosen poorly, which reduces speed performance and tank permeability; tactical use of the tank in isolation from the repair bases is impossible due to the unreliability of the main components - the main clutch and running gear. The plant was asked to expand the dimensions of the tower and the fighting compartment, which would make it possible to eliminate the defects in the installation of weapons and optics; develop re-laying ammunition; replace existing surveillance devices with newer, more modern ones; rework the main clutch, fan, gearbox and running gear. To increase the warranty period of the B-2 diesel engine to at least 250 hours. ”But by the beginning of the war, all these shortcomings remained almost in full.


Just like the real looks and BT-7. Is that tracks caterpillars are not at all and the tracks of the tracks is different.

In addition, it should be noted that the four-speed gearbox T-34 was unsuccessful in design and easily broke down with speed change errors by an inexperienced driver-mechanic. To avoid breakdowns, skills were required that were developed to automatism, which was unattainable given the volume of hours that were given to driving by the order of NGOs. The design of friction clutches, which for this reason often failed, was also unsuccessful. Unreliable were fuel pumps. In general, the T-34 tank was very difficult to manage, demanded high training and physical endurance from the driver. During the long march, the driver lost weight kg 2-3 - so it was hard work. Often, the radio operator helped the driver to switch speeds. Such difficulties with the management of the German tanks were absent, and when the mechanic failed, almost any of the crew members could easily replace him.


Some 30 cars looked fantastic. For example, here is this Czechoslovak PA-III BA (1929)


The project armor motocycle R. Gorokhovsnogo.


"A hovercraft tank." Another pearl R. Gorokhovsky.

The T-34 observation devices consisted of mirror periscopes at the driver and in the tank turret. Such a periscope was a primitive box with angled mirrors at the top and bottom, but these mirrors were not made of glass, but ... of polished steel. Not surprisingly, the quality of the image they had was disgusting, especially in comparison with the German optics of the company "Carl-Zais-Jena". The same primitive mirrors were in periscopes and on the sides of the tower, which were one of the main means of observation of the tank commander. It turned out that it was extremely difficult to monitor the battlefield and carry out target designation.

Breathing in the fighting compartment after the shot is very difficult because of the smoke; the crew literally got hurt when firing because the fan in the tank was very weak. Hatches in the battle according to the regulations required to close. Many tankers did not close them, otherwise it was impossible to keep track of the dramatically changing situation. With the same purpose, it was necessary from time to time to stick your head out of the hatch. The driver also often left the hatch ajar on the palm.


Heinrich Himmler examines the T-34 SS divisions "Das Reich" near Kharkov (April 1943). (Bundesarhiv)

Approximately the same, that is, not in the best way, was the case with the KV tanks, which were also staffed with low-quality clutches and gearboxes. From hitting the projectile in the HF often jammed the tower, and the T-34 are often amazed through the driver's hatch, it is unclear why the armor case housed in the frontal plate. It is also not clear why on the KV tanks the designers put a broken front armor sheet, not a straight line, as on the T-34. He demanded more metal, and did not add any security to the machine.

Not only was the training of Soviet tankers at the lowest level, but there was also a catastrophic lack of command and technical personnel. Data for some compounds as of June 1941 of the city: in the 35 th TD of the 9 mechanic corps KOVO instead of 8 the tank battalion commanders had 3 (37% staffing), company commanders 13 instead of 24 (54,2%), platoon commanders XNXX. (6%). In the 74 MD 8, the MK KOVO lacked 215 battalion commanders, 22 company commanders, staffed with junior command personnel - 5%, technical staff - 13%.


Soviet T-34 in service in the German Wehrmacht. A commander's turret from German tanks is noticeable on the tanks. It seems to be a good idea, but ... the tower, as before, remained double. The tank commander - he is the gunner, was very overloaded with the maintenance of the gun. And why does he have a tower too? Similar towers were placed on the Soviet T-34 rev.1943, with the tower "nut". This tower was more spacious, but all the same - the tank commander could not use it. Could it be that the Germans did not understand that it was in vain work, to put such turrets on the narrow thirty-four tower. After all, the third tanker in the tower model 1941, was "not stuck" in any way!


The tank crews of the 2 20th SS Panzer Division Das Reich near their tank Pz.III near Kursk. A lot of hatches are good. It is convenient to leave a burning tank! (Bundesarhiv)

The personal impressions of the tanker Rem Ulanov, with whom I personally had the opportunity to meet and communicate when I was the editor of the Tankmaster magazine, are interesting: “During my military service I had a chance to deal with many tanks and self-propelled guns. I was a driver-mechanic, a car commander, a battery backup engineer, a company, a battalion, a tester in Kubinka and on the proving ground in Bobochino (Leningrad Region). Each tank has its own “temper” to control, to overcome obstacles, the specifics of cornering. In terms of ease of operation, I would put the German T-III and T-IV tanks in the first place ... I note that driving the Pz.IV was not exhausting due to the ease of operation of the levers; the seat with the backrest also turned out to be comfortable - in our tanks, the seats of the drivers did not have any backs. Only the howling of the gears of the gearbox and the warmth coming from it, which burned my right side, irritated. 300-strong engine “Maybach” was started easily and worked flawlessly. The Pz.IV was shaking, its suspension was tougher than that of the Pz.III, but softer than that of the T-34. In the German tank it was much more spacious than in our thirty-four. The successful location of the hatches, including on the sides of the turret, allowed the crew, if necessary, to quickly leave the tank ... "

* Today, those who learn to drive a car in category “B”, according to the program approved by the Ministry, should skate on a training car with an 56 instructor for hours on a machine with a manual transmission or 54 hours with an automatic transmission. For those who study truck driver (category “C”), the program provides 72 hours for mechanical and 70 for automatic transmissions. And this is for modern people living in the world of technology. For recruits of that time, and even planted in a tank, even 100 watches would be clearly not enough!

The material used color drawings A. Sheps.
Author:
Articles from this series:
Blitzkrieg era tanks (part of 1)
131 comment
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. Vladimir Ter-Odiyants
    Vladimir Ter-Odiyants 10 July 2018 15: 04
    +1
    I read somewhere that the Fritz made more than 21 thousand tanks for the entire war. By the end of the war, the industry. Reich brought production up to 500-600 tanks per month.
    1. vladimirZ
      vladimirZ 10 July 2018 18: 36
      +6
      It turns out that on the eve of the outbreak of World War II, the Germans had complete qualitative superiority in arming their tanks over the tanks of potential opponents, and above all the USSR, if ... - from the article

      The Germans excelled their opponents in WWII, including the USSR, in the first half of the war, not so much in the quality armament of their tanks as in the organization of tank troops.
      They formed tank divisions not only from tanks, but also self-propelled artillery, motorized infantry, supported by attack aircraft of the battlefield — reconnaissance aircraft — artillery fire spotters, and diving bombers Yu-87, led by aircraft guides, accompanying tank divisions that instantly contacted crews if necessary planes on the radio.
      German tanks were initially not intended to suppress and destroy enemy tanks at all. They had another task - the destruction of the enemy infantry, machine guns and mortar guns, preventing the infantry from overcoming the frontiers of defense. The enemy’s tanks were destroyed by the Germans with anti-tank weapons - artillery and aviation.
      The Germans used tanks in battle in this way: "heavy howitzer artillery fires and suppresses the defending enemy and bombs dive bombers, destroying the defenses and artillery. When the enemy artillery is suppressed, tanks are sent to their trenches, which shoot individual surviving machine-guns that are mined, infantry, and after the tanks, infantry rushes to the enemy’s position, and there’s practically no one to shoot at. If the enemy has separate cannons, the Germans put their well-armored assault guns and tanks to them and shoot the survivors. That is, the battle was seen in stages: means that can hit tanks are destroyed by artillery and aviation; funds that can hit infantry destroy tanks; infantry kills the enemy’s remains and occupies the borders "-" Military Thought in the USSR and Germany "by Yu. Mukhin.
      Therefore, the Germans, having a smaller number of tanks, with not so much greater armament, but having radio communications in the tanks, good optics, skillfully using tanks, and using the organization and interaction of different branches of the army, smashed the opposing enemy troops of larger numbers and weapons.
    2. yehat
      yehat 13 July 2018 17: 33
      0
      let's calculate - 7.5 thousand tons, about 4 thousand. Panther, I still don’t remember exactly, about 5.5 thousand. t3
      this is already a total of 16 thousand plus tigers, t1, t2 and other cars, plus at least 15 thousand tank destroyers.
      it turns out much more than 21 thousand
      when calculating German tanks, they constantly make the same mistake - they only consider tanks of tank battalions assigned to tank divisions or combined groups, but besides them there were still quite a few other armored vehicles.
  2. gregor6549
    gregor6549 10 July 2018 15: 27
    +11
    When they already stop singing a song about "not brought to mind" on the eve of the war, Soviet tanks. It has long been proven that Soviet tanks in all major performance characteristics were a cut above the German tanks, and the Germans did not have tanks comparable to the T34 and KV. This song was first sung by the "great commander" G. Zhukov and since then it has not ceased. He needed to somehow justify himself for his stupid decisions with which he substituted the owls. tanks and not only tanks under the terrifying defeat at the beginning of the war.
    1. -Pollux
      -Pollux 10 July 2018 16: 17
      +27
      Quote: gregor6549
      When they already stop singing a song about "not brought to mind" on the eve of the war, Soviet tanks.

      Most of the T-34 and KV pre-war tanks were not lost in battle, which speaks in favor of the version of their incompleteness.
      Statistics say you are wrong.
      1. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 10 July 2018 17: 22
        +17
        The combat operation of the T-34 tanks once again confirms the low quality of the gearboxes. The service life of the boxes is very short. Of the tanks that failed due to the fault of the boxes, not a single one passed 1000 km.
        According to the complaint act of 102 tank division of August 2 s / g for ten days of hostilities out of 15 tanks 7 tanks failed due to breakdowns of gearboxes.
        © Deputy. Chief of BTU GABTU KA 1st rank military engineer Alymov
      2. MPN
        MPN 10 July 2018 18: 11
        +3
        Quote: Pollux
        Most T-34 and KV pre-war tanks were not lost in battle

        There is no point in arguing, but they were lost even not due to lack of order, but because of logistics, such as the absence of fuel and lubricants and ammunition. but to say that this is not the only problem, there were a lot of things and everyone finds confirmation of their theory.
      3. figwam
        figwam 10 July 2018 20: 34
        +3
        Quote: Pollux
        Most T-34 and KV pre-war tanks were not lost in battle

        But there were cases of sabotage. I was told by a man who lived in Brest when the war started, he saw how on June 22 in the morning a column of our tanks began to leave the military unit, what tanks they could not tell, but after 500 meters they all began to stall, the column completely ran around tank crews. During the day it became known that all tanks had a broken fuel system, in general, this part did not reach the front. One can only guess what the commander of the unit wrote in the report on the causes of the losses.
    2. Royalist
      Royalist 10 July 2018 16: 42
      +5
      Gregory, I advise you to read Drabkin: "I fought on the T34." I happened to communicate with the driver T34-85. He praised the tank for not demanding in those services, less noticeability compared to the American Sherman, but the driver’s conditions were lousy. The intercom on 34, especially on the first models, was disgusting. And “Matilda” * was greatly praised by Katukov: the armor is excellent, the spacious tank, the engine is weak and the tank is good only to drive on roads.
    3. Curious
      Curious 10 July 2018 16: 43
      +13
      You can do without Zhukov. Anyone who has experience in operating Soviet automotive and agricultural machinery and the same German and American vehicles will understand.
      1. 3x3zsave
        3x3zsave 10 July 2018 18: 42
        +6
        I agree 100% !!! All of my acquaintances, tractor drivers, at the first opportunity, with pleasure, bordering on an orgasm, perched from domestic equipment to imported.
    4. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 10 July 2018 17: 10
      +16
      Quote: gregor6549
      When they already stop singing a song about "not brought to mind" on the eve of the war, Soviet tanks.

      When they close the archives again. For at the heart of a real look at the T-34 and KV are genuine documents of those times.
      Quote: gregor6549
      It has long been proven that Soviet tanks in all major performance characteristics were head and shoulders above similar German tanks, and the Germans did not have tanks comparable to T34 and KV at all.

      So not the numbers in the tables are fighting, but the real tanks. What is the use of the T-34 commander from the tabular range, if in real life a serial tank with full refueling travels 165-185 km? What is the use of him at maximum speed, if you can use only second gear with 14 km / h in battle - because shifting gears slows the tank down to a stop + danger of turning off the engine? What is the use of the gun’s characteristics if it’s impossible to rotate the turret and observe at the same time, and you can use the sight only in half the range of the gun’s UVN? About 30-35 kg of effort on the control levers and the flywheel of the manual drive of the tower and say reluctance.
      What is the use of the KV commander from the tabular data of the tank, if the engine cooling system begins to boil even when moving at a speed of over 20 km / h, the tower should not be rotated during roll (the 7-ton KV tower was taken from the 3-ton T-28 tower), and and the suspension works at the limit (because they were calculated on the basis of a tank mass of 40 tons)? What is the use of the commander of the HF unit with the tabular speed of the tank, if every 2 hours you need to stop to clean the air filters?
      1. Old tanker
        Old tanker 10 July 2018 17: 35
        +2
        But you still fought as a commander in the T-34 and KV?
        And yes, archives should not be closed, so that myths do not give birth, neither cheers nor patrons of our achievements.
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 10 July 2018 18: 09
          +11
          Quote: Old Tankman
          But you still fought as a commander in the T-34 and KV?

          So those who fought or tested tanks wrote about it. Specifically for the T-34, these are the reports "Descriptions and Comparative Evaluation of Transmissions of Modern Tanks." GABTU KA. 1942, compiled by specialists of the Research Institute of BTVT in the middle of 1942 and reports on the T-34 tests in 1940-1941
          As well as other documents, such as reports of military representatives:
          In early April, s / g, when checking, according to the technical conditions, the magnitude of the effort on the handle of the rotary mechanism on machines with mounted guns F-34, received in March, it was found that the force on the handle required to rotate the tower reaches 30-32 kg ... Due to the fact that the increase in the load on the handle is obviously due to the heavier gun F-34 compared to the L-11, I made a decision regarding lengthening the shoulder of the handle ... Let out machines with a force on the handle of the turret of the turret equal to 32 kg, I consider it unacceptable, since even with two hands, due to inconvenience, it is not possible for a person to turn the tower with an average effort of even 3-4 divisions.
          © Art. Military Representative of the Civil Aviation Technical University at the STZ Military Engineer II Rank Levin
        2. S-kerrigan
          S-kerrigan 12 July 2018 10: 45
          0
          nor the seekers of our achievements.

          Win the war after enduring the first couple of years, fighting on this - this is a real achievement.
          You have to face the truth and understand that the technical level and quality of model 41st and model 44th are two different "worlds".
          Praising makes sense later technology. But for the early days it’s just a shame in places.
    5. Graz
      Graz 10 July 2018 18: 41
      +2
      in something they won in something they lost, there are no absolutely perfect cars
    6. spektr9
      spektr9 10 July 2018 20: 28
      +3
      There were raw cars, and after the factories were evacuated, and most of the qualified personnel went to the front, the quality fell by an order of magnitude (and it’s good if by one) ... So paper TTX and real differed like heaven and earth
    7. Fitter65
      Fitter65 11 July 2018 14: 24
      +1
      Quote: gregor6549
      When they already stop singing a song about "not brought to mind" on the eve of the war, Soviet tanks. It has long been proven that Soviet tanks in all major performance characteristics were a cut above the German tanks, and the Germans did not have tanks comparable to the T34 and KV

      It was not, but only how many trained crews were there on these tanks? I honestly am weak in tanks, but I can compare it with aviation of the same period, the history of which I am fond of. Let's start with the lack of knowledge of the latest aircraft. Take any type of aircraft, and not only do we see clearly raw aircraft went into series, they have not yet been mastered by personnel, remember in the memoirs of V. Emelianenko the first combat mission of captain K. Kholobaev is described, when already before take-off, almost at the start, to him, a factory specialist, standing on the wing of an airplane, explained which trigger for what type of weapon is needed, but about how to use RSs, he aims and others he already found out in flight. Indeed, according to the statistics of casualties, the new Yak-1, LaGG-3 and MiG-3 did not outnumber the accident rates and combat losses of the I-16 and I-153 mastered by personnel. After all, even at one time, some aviation commanders sent reports about the resumption of the release of I-16 .... But when the personnel mastered the new aircraft, when their reliability improved, when the command gained experience, then it went.

      Quote: gregor6549
      This song was first sung by the "great commander" G. Zhukov and since then it has not ceased. He needed to somehow justify himself for his stupid decisions with which he substituted the owls. tanks and not only tanks under the terrifying defeat at the beginning of the war.

      But tell me, I don’t know what idiotic decisions G.K.Zhukova framed the USSR Armed Forces at the beginning of the war.
      1. gregor6549
        gregor6549 11 July 2018 15: 17
        +3
        I answer. First of all, the unthinkable concentration of troops and everything necessary for their activities near the border itself, including in the infamous "ledges" on the eve of the war. Those. Zhukov repeated what he did at Khalkhin Gol only on an immeasurably large scale. At the same time, it was understood that Hitler and his generals were complete and did not notice all this. And if so, then no plans (such as Plan B) in case everything goes wrong in accordance with Zhukov’s intentions simply did not exist. But Hitler noticed all this, correctly assessed the threat to Germany from the USSR and hit first. (The fact that Hitler noticed this was confirmed in a note by the German government to the government of the USSR, which formally announced the beginning of the war against the USSR)
        Naturally, the German strike was completely unexpected for the Soviets and created a situation where the numerical and qualitative superiority of the Red Army in technology, including tanks, was simply impossible to implement.
        Further. When the war didn’t go according to Zhukov’s scenario, he first forbade “to succumb to provocations” with his first directives. to respond to fire with fire, and then threw the units that survived from the first blows into a counter-offensive, not appreciating the real situation and not giving the troops time to prepare. What was further known. The culprits, however, were quickly appointed and put to the wall.
        By the way, I once had the opportunity to take part in the West 81 exercises as a representative of industry. The troops were preparing for the exercises for several months, and when the exercises began, the entire command and control system of the Air Defense Forces simply "lay down". When then one of the leaders of the exercises, Army General Varennikov was later asked what would happen if a real war starts, the answer was something like this: "But we won’t wait when they hit us and hit us first." Those. the concept of a preemptive strike remained alive after the war.
        1. Fitter65
          Fitter65 11 July 2018 15: 54
          +3
          Quote: gregor6549
          First of all, the unthinkable concentration of troops and everything necessary for their activities near the border itself, including in the infamous "ledges" on the eve of the war

          That is, you want to say that for half a year, "on January 14, 1941, by a resolution of the Politburo of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks," On the Chief of the General Staff and Commanders of the Military Districts, "Army General Zhukov was appointed to the position of Kirill Meretskov, to the post of chief of the General Staff of the Red Army, which occupied until July 1941. "Being the chief of the General Staff, G.K. Zhukov was able to organize all this, to concentrate the troops. As I understand it, in the open field or all the same in the garrisons built in advance, at prepared airfields and bases. Which probably. you can’t prepare for six months. and these decisions were made long before Zhukov became at the helm of the General Staff.
          Quote: gregor6549
          When the war didn’t really go according to Zhukov’s scenario, he first forbade “giving in to provocations,” that is, with his first directives. to respond to fire with fire, and then threw the units that survived from the first blows into a counter-offensive, not appreciating the real situation and not giving the troops time to prepare.

          So you decide whether the directives will not succumb to provocations, were there before the start of the war, or after the war went wrong, that is, after the start? By the way, the chief of the General Staff develops only recommendations, but the decisions are made by the SUPREME CHIEF COMMANDER and STO. Well, or in other cases, the People’s Commissar of Defense. So this shovel of manure is in the wrong direction,
          Quote: gregor6549
          By the way, I once had a chance to take part in West 81 exercises as a representative of industry. The troops were preparing for the exercises for several months, and when the exercises began, the entire command and control system of the Air Defense Forces simply "lay down".

          Well, as a serviceman, I took part in the exercises "WEST-84", FRIENDSHIP-85 "and others as part of the Special Forces. However, I have never heard about how the air defense command and control system went down during WEST-81, although thank God practically all my service was carried out by the Air Force control system, though in a divisional link, my task at different times was to ensure the management of the division with a higher headquarters, to provide the division with communications on the ZKP, PKP, or with subordinate units. As they say- Without communication there is no control- without control there is no victory. Therefore, hint at least how the whole control system "laid down", it is simply interesting for self-education.
          Quote: gregor6549
          But Hitler noticed all this, correctly assessed the threat to Germany from the USSR and hit first.

          Well, here you come to your main thesis, the USSR wanted to attack Germany, but the wise Adolf warned him. With you everything is clear another obosrevatel our history.
          1. gregor6549
            gregor6549 11 July 2018 17: 00
            0
            Who is the judge? Aren't you the cutest? You’ll be too small for a judge.
            And further. To do something with history, you should first write it. Moreover, to write a true story (that is, reflecting what was in reality) and not fictitious to please the next rulers. Indeed, no matter how the new ruler, the story is once again being rewritten, and the ruler issues formidable decrees to protect it from counterfeiters. At the same time, who is a forger and who is not, you can’t make out. But all in business.
            Another time I will tell how the air defense control system at the West 81 exercises "laid down".
    8. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine 11 July 2018 17: 11
      +1
      Quote: gregor6549
      It has long been proven that Soviet tanks were all the main performance characteristics a cut above the similar German

      Case Comrade Episheva lives and wins.
  3. Mik13
    Mik13 10 July 2018 15: 56
    +14
    ... T-34 were often struck through the driver's hatch, it is not clear why it was located in the frontal sheet of the armored hull.

    In this case, not why, but why. Because
    1. The Christie pendant significantly reduced the available width of the armored hull.
    2. Because of this, the engine had to be positioned along.
    4. Because of this, the fighting compartment also had to be moved forward as far as the alignment allowed.
    5. Accordingly, there is no space left for placing the MV hatch in the upper armor plate.

    So either the MV will climb through the tower (as on the IS), or the hatch will be where it was.

    Finally, the layout problem of T-34 was solved only in a new product - T-44. And just business - change Christie's suspension to a torsion bar ...
    1. brn521
      brn521 11 July 2018 11: 16
      +1
      Quote: Mik13
      And just business - change Christie's suspension to a torsion bar ...

      Torsion bar is demanding on the quality of materials and workmanship. Despite the fact that everyone knew about it, even in technically developed countries, it did not begin to be used immediately. As for the USSR, there was once an article about Soviet tank armor. Despite the fact that the requirements for armor steel after the outbreak of war significantly decreased, metallurgical plants could not fulfill them even in such a truncated version. As a result, it came to the point that the armor plates were covered with cracks already at the assembly stage during the welding process. And this state of affairs lasted in places up to 44 years. Now imagine what kind of torsion we would have. The tank would land on its belly after the first bump. The T-34 turned out to be successful in that it was able to be processed and simplified in wartime enough to continue to be produced even with a catastrophic shortage of machine tools and materials.
      1. Mik13
        Mik13 11 July 2018 16: 09
        +4
        Quote: brn521
        Now imagine what kind of torsion we would have.

        Why imagine? KV originally had a torsion bar suspension. IP too. Moreover, with a huge number of shortcomings of HF, there were no complaints about the suspension.
        The T-34 received the Christie pendant because it was created as an evolutionary development of the BT-5 and BT-7 tanks.
        1. Cherry Nine
          Cherry Nine 11 July 2018 16: 58
          0
          Quote: Mik13
          The T-34 received the Christie pendant because it was created as an evolutionary development of the BT-5 and BT-7 tanks.

          Already wrote. T-34 was created in Kharkov and in parallel with the wheel-tracked vehicle. Torsion bars are not suitable for a wheel-tracked tank. Mentioned cars - Leningrad and on wheeled-tracked subjects were never tied.
          There is nothing strange that the Kharkov plant made a tank for its production base and used the solutions that it has relatively mastered.
        2. brn521
          brn521 11 July 2018 17: 46
          0
          Quote: Mik13
          KV originally had a torsion bar suspension. IP too.

          Then I don’t know. Initially, the problem was that those torsion bars that we could manufacture could not withstand the sharp shock load that occurs when driving at high speeds. But that was back in the 30s. Again, for some reason, Sherman never got a torsion bar suspension.
          1. Cherry Nine
            Cherry Nine 11 July 2018 19: 45
            +1
            Quote: brn521
            Initially, the problem was that the torsion bars that we could make could not withstand the sharp shock that occurs when driving at high speeds

            Weathered, but on relatively light machines such as Hellcat. If the car is heavy, then 2 options.
            1. Put a lot of torsion bars. To do this, you need a lot of skating rinks. See Panther.
            2. Put the torsion bars harder. Then mobility was lost. In particular, there were claims to Pershing not only for a weak engine and slow gearbox, but also for the suspension.
            Quote: brn521
            For some reason, Sherman never got a torsion bar suspension.

            Even in the 60s in Israel. Why would he? Carts worked out, easier to repair, do not take up space in the case. 50 miles per hour are not allowed to drive? Enough and 20, but let Hellcat chase.
            Centurion had the same considerations.
        3. yehat
          yehat 13 July 2018 17: 37
          0
          it should be clarified that the t34 had ancestors not only in Christie's prototypes, but also in the French FTsM-36 and soma
      2. PROXOR
        PROXOR 11 July 2018 17: 18
        0
        Those. KV tanks are not an indicator for you?
  4. hohol95
    hohol95 10 July 2018 16: 28
    +5
    Bundesarhiv: a photograph of a padded T-34. Summer 1942 of the year. The lack of rubber led to the appearance of such wheels. The roar of such tanks could be heard for several kilometers!

    Well, you respected and bent ... Skating rinks with internal shock absorption to call the wheels ... Forgot more to say about the absence of the SILENCER and the crest engagement of the track tracks! All this created a rumble audible for 3 km!
    And why is there no information on French tanks? Their armor, guns?
    You still did not answer me about regrinding 47-mm grenades in the previous chapter of the article !!!
    1. 3x3zsave
      3x3zsave 10 July 2018 18: 48
      +2
      Will not reply the next 10 days. Posted on vacation in Europe. Write in a personal. In the indicated period, Shpakovsky is unlikely to communicate on-line.
      1. Alceers
        Alceers 13 July 2018 08: 34
        0
        Caliber slide over. In their twins, praisers are already confused. What vacation? You just dumped another plagiarism of translations on the site today.
  5. Old tanker
    Old tanker 10 July 2018 16: 41
    +3
    Well, what kind of fairy tales expert?
    Especially about our "miserable" tanks and the "defective" T-34.
    How can such anti-scientific “creativity” be published at all ?!
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 10 July 2018 18: 00
      +8
      Quote: Old Tankman
      Well, what kind of fairy tales expert?
      Especially about our "miserable" tanks and the "defective" T-34.

      Well, here's what contemporaries of this tank wrote about T-34:
      The ratio of the time of pure movement and restoration work (38% and 62%) indicates a low quality of the technical performance of the tank.
      In the form presented for testing, the T-34 tank does not meet modern requirements for this class of tanks for the following reasons:
      a) The firepower of the tank cannot be fully used due to the unsuitability of surveillance devices, defects in the installation of weapons and optics, the tightness of the fighting compartment and the inconvenience of using an ammunition depot.
      b) With a sufficient margin of engine power and maximum speed, the dynamic characteristics of the tank are poorly selected, which reduces speed and permeability of the tank.
      c) The tactical use of the tank in isolation from the repair bases is impossible, due to the unreliability of the main components - the main clutch and chassis.
      d) The range and reliability of communication obtained during testing for a tank of this class is insufficient, due to both the characteristics of the walkie-talkie 71 TK-3 and the low quality of its installation in the T-34 tank
      © report on tested serial T-34s in November-December 1940.
      And further before the outbreak of war, there was a butting between the plant and the army: the army demanded an urgent elimination of at least the main identified shortcomings, and the plant pulled the rubber, saying that all the comments would be taken into account in the new tank, and the T-34 would soon be removed from production, and no sense to do it. As a result, the list of requirements for finalizing the T-34 in the spring of 1941 almost repeated its predecessor.
      The situation was similar with HF - LKZ threw all its forces into the HF-3, and abandoned the HF for revision, limiting itself to palliative decisions like a gearshift lever stopper.
    2. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine 11 July 2018 09: 00
      +4
      Quote: Old Tankman
      anti-scientific "creativity" can be published ?!

      The article is not without flaws, however, it tries to describe the reality. Unlike so many handicrafts on the theme of the Second World War, which replace reality with lubok.
  6. senima56
    senima56 10 July 2018 16: 46
    0
    Quote: gregor6549
    When they already stop singing a song about "not brought to mind" on the eve of the war, Soviet tanks. It has long been proven that Soviet tanks in all major performance characteristics were a cut above the German tanks, and the Germans did not have tanks comparable to the T34 and KV. This song was first sung by the "great commander" G. Zhukov and since then it has not ceased. He needed to somehow justify himself for his stupid decisions with which he substituted the owls. tanks and not only tanks under the terrifying defeat at the beginning of the war.

    I agree completely! Good, modern technology is excellent .... but the main thing is the "desire to fight"! And this "desire" in most of the Red Army in 1941-1942. did not have! There were separate ones, units that fought fanatically, until the last soldier, but for the most part - "The army did NOT fight!"
    1. gregor6549
      gregor6549 10 July 2018 17: 30
      +5
      And this is where it came from, about the "unwilling to fight" the Red Army? Firstly, no one asked the soldiers and commanders about their desires then. Or fight and die in battle or a shameful death from their own detachments. At the same time, everyone understood that if they die in battle, then there will be some help from the state, and if they shoot before the formation, then the family remains on the beans. And then there was not much fanaticism. There was a desire to survive, there was anger and much more. And if some were fanatic, it quickly eroded. In general, the time has come to stop writing fairy tales about the war and stop calling names for Soviet fighters, commanders, engineers and designers. And then the technology was quite on the level. Yes, in American, British and some German tanks there was a bit more comfort for the crew (not in all and not always), but they could also fight mainly in comfortable conditions. And against the few T34 and KV that survived the first strikes and which had something to refuel and arm, mainly German artillery and infantry fought. German tanks T34 and KV were too tough. Of course, if German tanks piled up on a single T34 or KV, then sooner or later some shell would find a weak spot in the T34 or KV and put an end to it. But before that, T34 and KV were stealing more than one spot on German tanks.
      1. senima56
        senima56 10 July 2018 19: 49
        +2
        I repeat: "The army did NOT fight!" The army was draping!
        1. spektr9
          spektr9 10 July 2018 20: 31
          +2
          Sofa troops, the desire to fight is present only for you, and then be limited to an Internet
        2. -Pollux
          -Pollux 10 July 2018 20: 50
          +8
          Quote: senima56
          I repeat: "The army did NOT fight!" The army was draping!

          So "draped" that by the winter of the forty-first in parts of the Wehrmacht more than 80% of the personnel were knocked out. The Red Army was so "draping" that by winter the Wehrmacht completely lost its ability to conduct offensive operations.
      2. Fitter65
        Fitter65 11 July 2018 14: 51
        +2
        Quote: gregor6549
        Or fight and die in battle or a shameful death from their own detachments.

        And when did the detachments in the Red Army appear? What was their number from whom were they staffed? If to speak about your expression culturally - he crowed and there at least do not dawn.
        Barrage detachments appeared in the Red Army from the first days of the war. Such formations were created by military counterintelligence, first represented by the 3rd Directorate of the NPO of the USSR, and from July 17, 1941, the Directorate of Special Departments of the NKVD of the USSR and subordinate bodies in the troops.

        As the main tasks of the special departments for the period of the war, the decision of the State Defense Committee defined the "decisive struggle against espionage and treason in the units of the Red Army and the elimination of desertion in the immediate front line". They received the right to arrest deserters and, if necessary, to shoot them on the spot.

        To ensure operational measures at special departments in accordance with the order of the People's Commissar of Internal Affairs L.P. Beria by July 25, 1941 were formed: in divisions and corps - separate rifle platoons, in the armies - separate rifle companies, in the fronts - separate rifle battalions. Using them, special departments organized a fence service, setting ambushes, posts and patrols on roads, refugee routes and other communications. Each detained commander, Red Army, Red Navy was checked. If he was recognized as escaping from the battlefield, he was immediately arrested, and an operational (no more than 12-hour) investigation began to bring him to trial with a military tribunal as a deserter.

        Quote: gregor6549
        shameful death from their own detachments.

        Well, where is it about shameful death?
        Quote: gregor6549
        In general, the time has come to stop writing fairy tales about the war and stop calling names for Soviet fighters, commanders, engineers and designers

        But at the very beginning of your comment, you as you could have cheated on these people.
        Quote: gregor6549
        everyone understood that if they die in battle, at least there will be some help from the state from the state, and if they are shot before the formation, then the family remains on the beans

        Is this your main factor in our victory? The main thing is that the family does not stay on the beans?
  7. hohol95
    hohol95 10 July 2018 16: 52
    +1

    France 1940! This TROIKE the French also had to pretty hole, as then the Germans themselves had to hole the Soviet T-34 and KV!
    1. VictorZhivilov
      VictorZhivilov 10 July 2018 17: 02
      +2
      Thank you for the informative photo material. smile

      France 1940! This triple the French also had to pretty hole up, how then the Germans themselves had to make holes in the Soviet T-34 and KV!


      ... and very lucky if successful, but they could have been undressed along with the gun. smile
      http://military-photo.com/unsorted/7680-photo.htm
      l
      1. hohol95
        hohol95 10 July 2018 17: 13
        +1
        In October 1941, part of the engineering and technical workers and workers of the Izhora plant was seconded to the city of Saratov to organize armored production on the basis of the Saratov steam locomotive repair plant, which was completely unsuitable for this. The new enterprise received No. 180 and became part of the NKTP. Along with the organization of production at a new location, a lot of work had to be done to reconstruct the workshops.
        First, the production of hulls and towers of the T-180 tank began at factory No. 50. True, only a few pieces were manufactured, after which they switched to the production of hulls and towers for the T-60, and later for the T-70 and SU-76. GKO Decree No. 2866 of February 10, 1943 (initiative
        the adoption of this document came from V. Molotov) Plant No. 180 switched to overhaul of the hulls and towers of T-34 tanks damaged in battles. According to a study of 450 T-34 tanks received from the Stalingrad, Don and Western fronts from March to July 1943,
        Design Bureau No. 180 made the following conclusions:
        1. The main reason for the failure of tanks is shell damage to the hull and turret, mainly shells of caliber 42-50 mm. A significant percentage of lesions
        (up to 36%) falls on the tower. Fires and explosions in tanks, caused mainly by shell damage, are a massive occurrence - up to 60% of all affected tanks.
        There is a high percentage of cars with a ripped driver cover (16%).
        When repairing the hulls, screens with a thickness of 16 and 10 mm were used to strengthen the strength of damaged parts (10 mm for sides in places where a large screen thickness may interfere with the installation of the tank chassis).

        In 1943, renovated:
        Buildings - 528
        Towers - 470
        Marked decrease in output from
        The repair of buildings and towers in the second half of 1943 is explained by the fact that a significant number of buildings entering the factory did not meet the technical conditions for their acceptance for repair by NKTP plants from NPOs.
        In the 1944 year:
        Buildings - 526
        Towers - 405
        In 1945, there were 280 buildings.
        In total 1334 were repaired
        hulls and 875 towers, which, according to the report of the factory No. 180 was "equivalent
        release of 950 new tanks. ”

        Kolomiets Maxim Viktorovich T-34 First full ENCYCLOPEDIA.
        Tanks were not only produced, but repaired, and sometimes literally restored from parts of broken tanks!
      2. hohol95
        hohol95 10 July 2018 17: 20
        +3
        Trifle!

        Gunners of the Soviet 6th Tank Brigade inspect the wrecked German tanks Pz.Kpfw. IV (foreground) and Pz.Kpfw. III. Southwestern Front.
        Probably admire the "work of their own hands" ...
  8. Alexey RA
    Alexey RA 10 July 2018 16: 56
    +5
    And here is how things were at that time in the Red Army, we look at the order of NPO No. 0349 of December 10, 1940, which, in order to save the material part of heavy and medium tanks (T-35, KV, T-28, T-34) and " keeping them in constant combat readiness with the maximum number of motor resources ”for training personnel in driving and shooting, knocking together tank units and formations, allowed them to spend 30 hours a year on each vehicle of a combat training fleet, 15 hours on a combat vehicle *. All Tactical doctrines it was prescribed to be carried out on T-27 tanks (double wedges!); T-27s were excluded from the states of rifle military units and formations and transferred to the acquisition of tank divisions at the rate of 10 tanks for each battalion. In fact, this is the same as learning to drive a bus or a heavy transporter driving a subcompact like the modern Oka or Matis.

    The main thing is highlighted in bold. Tactical exercises are conducted to coordinate units and practice the conduct of the main types of military operations, and not for driving training. This is just a motorized analogue of the foot-tank exercises. Training in driving and other operation of equipment is carried out separately - on the tanks of the training and combat park.
    At first, the Panzervaffe conducted tactical exercises on plywood-lined cars. And they had no problems with tactics.
  9. figwam
    figwam 10 July 2018 16: 56
    +2
    Really the Germans didn’t understand that it’s in vain to put such towers on the narrow tower of the “thirty-four”
    Here are the stupid Germans), the turret with the sighting slots was set by the Germans in order to safely observe the battlefield, our re-scopes did not suit them.
    Many tankers did not close them, otherwise there was no keeping track of the dramatically changing situation.

    We went into battle with open hatches in order to get out after the defeat of the tank, because the hatch jammed and the crew burned down.
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. Old tanker
      Old tanker 10 July 2018 17: 55
      +7
      Luke, I will say as a practitioner, was opened in battle for two reasons.
      The first (and then and now) for injuries of the upper limbs, and even more so for their traumatic amputation, burning of the hands, and they do not happen in mittens in the winter, the hatch lock cannot be moved. It remains only to open the head.
      The second (when cumulative ammunition appears) when knocking through the armor of the manhole cover knocks up and pressure is not created inside the tower. Although you won’t be saved from the effects of the flame.
      Manholes should be closed in battle in order to prevent leakage of a shock wave from a fragmentation or cumulative projectile inside when the armor is not broken. Not to mention splinters and bullets.
      And most importantly, no tanker will choke on powder gases, but do not open the hatch! Believe me.
      But the author of the article does not need to explain anything. His goal is just to write at least something. He is of little interest to the essence of the issue and he knows little about it. Although he was the editor of the tankmaster magazine of modelers. Good by the way magazine. Himself on it glued modelki.
      1. Bormanxnumx
        Bormanxnumx 10 July 2018 21: 25
        +3
        Quote: Old Tankman
        The second (when cumulative ammunition appears) when knocking through the armor of the manhole cover knocks up and pressure is not created inside the tower. Although you won’t be saved from the effects of the flame.
        Manholes should be closed in battle in order to prevent leakage of a shock wave from a fragmentation or cumulative projectile inside when the armor is not broken. Not to mention splinters and bullets.

        It turns out funny: a closed hatch - increased pressure from a cumulative jet, an open hatch - increased pressure from flowing of a shock wave from an explosion on an armor)))
        After WWII, studies were carried out regarding the increase in pressure inside the armored volume when penetrating cumulative ammunition; it was found that there were no significant pressure surges. An increase in pressure was observed with the defeat of lightly armored vehicles, when during the explosion of a cumulative charge an extensive gap was formed in the armor and the shock wave “flowed” through it. In Afghanistan, there was a case of an American tank being struck aboard, a cumulative stream passing between the back of a tankman wearing a splinterproof bulletproof vest and the back of the seat, while the "patient" remained completely unharmed - obviously, there were no signs of "hellish" high pressure.
        1. Mik13
          Mik13 10 July 2018 21: 53
          +1
          I am with your opinion about modern cumulative ammunition strongly agree.
          Nevertheless, it should be borne in mind that during WWII, EMNIP, neither we nor the Germans had the mathematical means to calculate the parameters of cumulative charges.
          Accordingly, (as far as I remember), the same fauspatron did not have a metal lining of the cumulative funnel, and, as a result, the cumulative jet consisted mainly of gas. Of course, the armor penetration of such ammunition was several times lower than modern ones, but the armor of the tanks of that time was not very thick and homogeneous.
          I believe that such a cumulative stream after breaking through is quite capable of creating pressure surges in the fighting compartment. However, it should be noted that this jump will have the character of a shock wave and open hatches will not help much. Unless leaving the tank will be easier.
          Unfortunately, I do not know anything about any practical tests of the cumulative charges of WWII times and I cannot somehow confirm my assumptions.
          1. Bormanxnumx
            Bormanxnumx 10 July 2018 23: 03
            +1
            Quote: Mik13
            Accordingly, (as far as I remember), the same fauspatron did not have a metal lining of the cumulative funnel, and, as a result, the cumulative jet consisted mainly of gas

            The Germans used the lining of the cumulative funnel from pre-war engineering charges to the cumulative grenades to the "assault rocket launcher") I came across a photograph of the Pantsershrek grenade section, the lining was made of tin.
            1. Mik13
              Mik13 11 July 2018 07: 19
              0
              Quote: BORMAN82
              Quote: Mik13
              Accordingly, (as far as I remember), the same fauspatron did not have a metal lining of the cumulative funnel, and, as a result, the cumulative jet consisted mainly of gas

              The Germans used the lining of the cumulative funnel from pre-war engineering charges to the cumulative grenades to the "assault rocket launcher") I came across a photograph of the Pantsershrek grenade section, the lining was made of tin.

              That is the point. In this embodiment, it is more likely a case of a cumulative charge, such a tin part does not carry other functions. At the same time, as in modern KZ, it is the parameters of the cumulative funnel that provide the maximum possible armor penetration.
              1. brn521
                brn521 11 July 2018 13: 28
                0
                Quote: Mik13
                In this embodiment, it is more likely a case of a cumulative charge, such a tin part does not carry other functions.

                The Germans were all right with the technical part. https://topwar.ru/14496-faustpatron-faustpatrone.
                html
                Even if it was an ordinary tin can, it would still contribute to a serious increase in the penetration depth.
                In addition, the bike says something like this: "hatches are closed from the inside, in the hull there is a small, almost invisible hole, inside there is a dead crew." If you use purely gas dynamics, then in the armor you get not a neat hole, but something like a funnel with blurry and uneven edges.
                Therefore, I think that the source of the bike was the ignition of the propellant charge of one of the shells in the warhead touched by a cumulative jet. Enough to kill the crew, but not enough to seriously damage the tank. Towards the end of the war, normal shells began to be launched in our country, and the detonation of the entire combat unit with the collapse of the tower became less common.
      2. brn521
        brn521 11 July 2018 12: 25
        +1
        Quote: Old Tankman
        Luke, I will say as a practitioner, was opened in battle for two reasons.

        Opened and not locked - different things.
        Quote: Old Tankman
        It remains only to open the head.

        Well, yes, that's exactly what they did. The sunroof was not locked, but so that the spring-loaded sunroof did not open spontaneously, something was tricky with the same soldier's belts so that it could be quickly and easily thrown off.
        Quote: Old Tankman
        And most importantly, no tanker will choke on powder gases, but do not open the hatch! Believe me

        In the early years of the war, it happened that they were suffocating, but the tower hatch did not open. Despite the fact that the fans did not put fans on the tanks due to the lack of electric motors for them. Charger lost consciousness and this was the end of intense shooting. In general, everything depended on the situation. For example, if there is a large number of enemy infantry nearby, then open hatches are one way of suicide. But sometimes, on the contrary, it was necessary not only to open the tower hatch, but also to protrude from it, despite the shelling of the tank from the guns. Just because there was no other way to find these guns, and to pass by and get armor-piercing in the sides is almost a guaranteed death. There were simpler situations, like acquired claustrophobia. Which is not surprising if one day it was hit or burned in a tank, and maybe also got a shell shock. And then there’s the order of the High Command: the crews of the wrecked tanks should not be disbanded, but replenished and put on new tanks. And as a result, there are two ways for such a "traveled" tanker: either try to somehow fight, or to a disbat, to redeem his unconvincing attempt to deflect his homeland with blood.
  10. Army soldier2
    Army soldier2 10 July 2018 16: 57
    +7
    Two questions to the author:
    1. If the hatch of the driver on the T-34 is poorly located
    and the T-34 was often struck through the driver's hatch, it is not clear why it was located in the frontal sheet of the armored hull.
    It really reduces the strength of the structure. Why are hatches in a German tank tower good?
    Many hatches are good. It’s convenient to leave the burning tank!

    2. What do photographs of models of tanks, tank models, armored vehicles, Himler, etc. illustrate in the article?
    1. VictorZhivilov
      VictorZhivilov 10 July 2018 17: 24
      0
      Why are hatches in a German tank tower good?

      Because they give a chance to survive the crew. smile
      http://military-photo.com/germany/afv2/tank2/medi
      um2 / pz3 / 7040-photo.html
      1. Army soldier2
        Army soldier2 10 July 2018 17: 55
        +4
        Quote: VictorZhivilov

        Because they give a chance to survive the crew. smile

        So tell me stupid: why, if it is a T-34, then it’s bad, but if a German tank, then it’s good?
        Both there and there, the hatch reduces the strength of the structure; Both there and there, the hatch allows you to leave the tank faster. Maybe the reason (according to the author) is that one tank was made by silver-footed peasants, and the other by civilized Europeans?
        1. Lopatov
          Lopatov 10 July 2018 18: 06
          +4
          Quote: Army 2
          Both there and there, the hatch reduces the strength of the structure

          But at the same time, getting into the hatch on the tower is several orders of magnitude more difficult than getting into the hatch on the inclined armor plate
          1. hohol95
            hohol95 10 July 2018 18: 36
            0
            Hit and punch ... The Germans did not try to "hit" T-50 in the forehead before mass deliveries of 75 and 34 mm anti-tank guns! On board and stern - easy ...
        2. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 10 July 2018 18: 44
          +4
          Quote: Army 2
          So tell me stupid: why, if it is a T-34, then it’s bad, but if a German tank, then it’s good?

          Because the Germans have these hatches on the sides of the tower. And our T-34 has a gate to the VLD, which falls into the tank even from the OFS. According to the results of field tests of two armored hulls of the T-34 tank with turrets, in April 1941 they decided to abandon the mechanized water hatch in the VLD in new tanks.
          However, this seemed a trifle in comparison with the clearly demonstrated weakness of the design of the driver’s hatch - the first hit of the projectile hinges were damaged, and after the second shell hit the driver’s hatch fell inside the tank (accordingly, the report on the test results stated that “in general the hatch in the bow sheet greatly weakens the frontal protection of the machine, and therefore, when designing new models, it is necessary to achieve the design of the bow sheet without the driver’s hatch ”).
          © Ulaov / Shein
          1. brn521
            brn521 11 July 2018 13: 48
            0
            Quote: Alexey RA
            because when designing new models it is necessary to achieve the design of the nasal sheet without the driver's hatch

            Here is the key word - new models. When production is established and there is no shortage of materials. And so this hatch fulfilled its task perfectly - it provided a good overview to the driver in conditions when there were no other options. Actually, the driver himself often noticed the danger first and began to maneuver without waiting for the order. Even if the maneuver was to have time to turn slightly to the left and substitute the shooter-radio operator for a shot, it still contributed to increasing the survivability of the tank and preserving the key crew members. Therefore, if anything should be removed, then this is a machine gun mask. The machine gun was still able to conduct targeted shooting only over long distances due to extremely limited visibility and in fact served only as a puffer and a reserve weapon. At the same time, the mount of the machine gun mask was weaker than that of the hatch, and was knocked out by a direct hit at a time.
      2. Old tanker
        Old tanker 10 July 2018 18: 02
        +4
        Relaxing the tower side structure? That is why the Germans themselves on all subsequent tanks refused this. And in the following years in world tank building, they did not return to this defective design.
        1. Lopatov
          Lopatov 10 July 2018 19: 46
          +1
          Quote: Old Tankman
          And in the following years in world tank building, they did not return to this defective design.

          But self-propelled guns very much appreciated 8)))
      3. hohol95
        hohol95 10 July 2018 18: 15
        +3
        However, on the Tiger and Panther, the hatches located on the sides of the towers were abandoned and the towers had hatches only on the roof! In addition, you forget about the lack of TREEs and FOURS of hatches in the roof of the towers! And with subsequent installations of anti-cumulative screens, it became very difficult for German tankers to use the side tower hatches!
    2. figwam
      figwam 10 July 2018 17: 25
      +1
      Army soldier2

      You still need to get into the T-34 hatch, but if you beat the Panther or Tiger, then at least the hatch, even the frontal armor, will still break through.
      1. Cherry Nine
        Cherry Nine 11 July 2018 08: 56
        0
        Quote: figvam
        You still need to get into the T-34 hatch, but if you beat the Panther or Tiger, then at least the hatch, even the frontal armor, will still break through.

        In the 39th year, these guns were not meant, but field artillery and pre-war anti-tank missiles.
  11. Royalist
    Royalist 10 July 2018 17: 01
    +1
    Thanks to the enthusiast Verevkin for his desire to restore the appearance of those tanks. It’s good to use its tanks on the set of films, and now they are using computer graphics with might and main, or, at best, they take T34 and “make-up” under T-3 or T4, and also take people who want to go on an excursion. I would willingly go to look at these cars. Not everyone has the opportunity to see naturals: T-26, BT-5 and other rarities in Kubinka or in the museum of Vadim Zadorozhny. Of course, they can be watched on TV or through photo stories of Roman, but it’s more interesting to see live
    1. figwam
      figwam 10 July 2018 17: 51
      0
      Royalist

      Now in films they are trying to use the restored technique, copies are immediately visible and the level of the film is reduced.
  12. hohol95
    hohol95 10 July 2018 17: 31
    +2
    The Germans studied in France on the British Matilds and the French B1 and Samua to stop tanks with bulletproof armor! And unfortunately, this experience was useful to them when meeting with the KV-1 and T-34!

    Destroyed British Matilda II in the Tobruk area. December 1941
    This "Matilda" inherited the order from the German gunners!
    1. brn521
      brn521 11 July 2018 14: 05
      +1
      Quote: hohol95
      This "Matilda" inherited the order from the German gunners!

      Still, such photographs should not be trusted completely. Quite often, damaged enemy tanks were used for training firing. This contributed to the improvement of training and fighting spirit, as well as the rapid collection of information. For example, a shooter of a German 2-cm turret gun on an armored car could personally see that he was capable of hitting a T-34. Even if only aboard, with a special projectile and from a distance of 100-200 meters.
      1. hohol95
        hohol95 11 July 2018 15: 17
        +2
        So you think that all this is
        Quite often, damaged enemy tanks were used for training firing. This contributed to the improvement of training and fighting spirit, as well as the rapid collection of information.

        Germans did not spend after collecting trophies in France in 1940?
        And in 1941, when they encountered the Matilda tanks in North Africa, they were horrified at how polygon tests were required to develop instructions on how to deal with these "thick-skinned Dams"!
        Leafing through literature and wu a la -
        On June 15, 1941 at 5 a.m., the Matild crews, ready to attack, holding their breath, awaited the first salvos of 40-pound howitzers. But ... artillery preparation for some reason did not start at the appointed time. However, at 25 o’clock, Major Miles, the commander of the C squadron of the 6th Royal Tank Regiment, ordered his subordinates to launch an attack. After a few minutes of movement, the tankers discovered the lack of infantry support, but this was quite familiar and not as discouraging as the silence of artillery. Alone, the tanks moved to the aisle and then came under the dagger fire of an 88-mm anti-aircraft gun.
        Squadron "C" was destroyed in a matter of minutes, one of the first killed its commander Major Miles. Of the 12 vehicles that went on the attack, only one survived, but her tower jammed and the transmission failed.
        The Indian infantry arrived in time, with the support of six “Matild” squadron “A”, attacked the German positions. Having quickly turned four tanks into soft bonfires, the Germans took up infantry, who considered it best to leave quickly. Halfway control remained with the Wehrmacht.

        The Germans knew who they had to deal with and knew that the only weapon against the Matilda tank was an 88-mm anti-aircraft gun!
        On May 20, 1940, Lord Gort, the commander of the British Expeditionary Force, ordered the counterattack in the Arras region of the advancing German troops. On the morning of the next day, Franklin's British task force, consisting of the 5th and 50th infantry divisions, supported by 74 tanks of the 1st Army Tank Brigade and parts of the 3rd French Mechanized Division, launched a counterattack that hit the rear of the 7th German Panzer Division Rommel. These forces were too small to achieve a decisive result, but, nevertheless, the Germans suffered heavy losses. German 37-mm anti-tank guns could not stop the "Matilda", and only introducing all the artillery into the battle, and especially the 88-mm anti-aircraft guns, Rommel managed to detain the British.
        1. brn521
          brn521 11 July 2018 18: 14
          +1
          Quote: hohol95
          And in 1941, when they encountered the Matilda tanks in North Africa, they were horrified at how polygon tests were required to develop instructions on how to deal with these "thick-skinned Dams"!

          Not field tests, but practical exercises. And not for instruction, but for building and reinforcing skills. If it is possible to shoot not at targets, but at tanks, they shot at tanks. After some such HF, it might look as if it alone had held the road for at least a week and changed more than one crew to replace the dead, although it only had the transmission dead and was abandoned.
          1. hohol95
            hohol95 11 July 2018 18: 20
            0
            But to me your comment seems dubious - to study at the forefront to translate shells from the BK designated for battle ... It is doubtful! That's when the unit is taken to rest and it is possible to allocate shells for training firing!
            Before the battle on Kursk, our fighters from IPTAP and IPTABr acted like this - they were given additional armor-piercing shells for training to work out the fight against heavy German tanks!
            In addition to practical, up to 16 combat armor-piercing shells were allocated for additional training of IPTAP gunners.
            1. brn521
              brn521 12 July 2018 10: 12
              0
              Quote: hohol95
              But to me your comment seems dubious - to study at the forefront to translate shells from the BK designated for battle ... It is doubtful!

              For our doubtful. And the Germans, judging by their memoirs, had plenty left over after the fighting, which sometimes they couldn’t even take out on anything - they lacked transport chronically and it was not practical to drive transport for the sake of these remnants. What they could take out at the front end - they took it out. At least bury the rest in the ground.
              Quote: hohol95
              That's when the unit is taken to rest and it is possible to allocate shells for training firing!

              And here, if it was possible to shoot at full-fledged targets in the form of abandoned tanks, they shot at them. And then they also photographed, applying to the report on the work done.
              1. hohol95
                hohol95 12 July 2018 10: 19
                +1
                And the Germans, judging by their memoirs, had plenty left over after the fighting, which sometimes they couldn’t even take out on anything - they lacked transport chronically and it was not practical to drive transport for the sake of these remnants. What they could take out at the front end - they took it out. At least bury the rest in the ground.

                In his memoirs, ASA Goering, Guderian and others even MECHANIZE between the eyes with a bomb or shell hit ...
                I heard stories from the last years of the USSR about how, after putting residential buildings into operation, extra sockets and switches (switches on the western side) were buried with BOXES in the ground!
                But during the war ... yes Germans ... yes EXTRA LOADS ...
                Doubtful! In memoirs and not that can be written especially to justify their own defeats!
                Indicate the authors - look, read ...
                1. brn521
                  brn521 12 July 2018 10: 41
                  0
                  Quote: hohol95
                  Indicate the authors - look, read ...

                  Tomorrow morning. There you need to make a list, I have them somewhere in a separate folder on the file trash. As for the test shooting between the case of a 2cm armored car cannon - this is most likely at Kubek in the "advance squad of death" - I remembered, because I didn’t read, but listened in the form of an audiobook.
                2. brn521
                  brn521 13 July 2018 10: 40
                  0
                  Quote: hohol95
                  In his memoirs, ASA Goering, Guderian and others even MECHANIZE between the eyes with a bomb or shell hit ...

                  By the way, “I fought on the T-34” - there is also the original there, which sniper at kilometer distances and hit the target on the go from the gun. Despite the fact that other tankers claim that it is impossible to fire on the go because it is not enough to get there, it is impossible to make out the target. Solid swing sky-earth-sky.
                  As for the list, it's rather complicated here. For example, the collection of books Yauza-Press Life and Death on the Eastern Front There are at least 8 books on the subject of artillery. However, I read for a long time and didn’t read everything. And for some reason I didn’t find the books of the artilleryman involved in the offensive operations 41 He still complains about the insufficient number of draft horses, talks about how tractors were made from KV and T-34, dropping towers from them. Apparently, he didn’t find any accumulated junk among terabytes right away.
                  1. The comment was deleted.
  13. hohol95
    hohol95 10 July 2018 17: 41
    +1
    If the Germans could not destroy the Soviet tank in the forehead, then they had to "dodge" and try to hit the tank or to whom -

    Here is the OT-34 in the frontal projection ...
  14. hohol95
    hohol95 10 July 2018 17: 42
    +1
    And this is a rear view of the same OT-34 ...

    "Colander - just discard pasta" ...
  15. Iskander
    Iskander 10 July 2018 18: 23
    +6
    Well, of course, the author wanted yesterday's farm laborers to start making tanks immediately, in batches larger than in the rest of the world, with anti-ballistic armor, and so that comfort as in Mercier was no less ... and give him the optics all the time ...
    - and where to get ?????????????????????

    but to say that he is surprised and grateful to the descendants if they even made any tanks at all ... but they did the best! for all the flaws ...
    he is sad ...
    neither Panther nor tigers escaped detskie diseases
    and there is a line between quantity and quality.
    and there is time for the development of technological culture
    and there are conditions for the ripening and natural development of all this!
    at the unbeatable pace of industrialization, not to see and not to note the whole feat of the creation of T 34, it must be either too incompetent or consciously lie.
  16. 3x3zsave
    3x3zsave 10 July 2018 19: 24
    +3
    "Everything is like at war. Work on the T-34 model was carried out in a cold shed!"
    What kind of war? 1?!?! Paul of Russia! And now! They repair their cars in much worse conditions !!! That's what the author does not know about it!
  17. Old tanker
    Old tanker 10 July 2018 19: 44
    +1
    Who cares, but I recommend it to the author, to read the work of Alexander Smirnov "T-34: is it still a legend or not?" In my opinion, it is short and objective.
    Published in the journal "Technology and armament" NN 10,2016; 11,2016; 12,2016; 3,2017; 5,2017; 6,2017; 7,2017; 9,2017; 11,2017; 1,2018; 2,2018; 3,2018.
    Without speculation and rumors, only facts.

    Now in this journal is published Smirnov’s work “The Tragedy of 1941: Tanks Are to Blame for Everything”? Almost an analogue of the article, but well-reasoned, based on facts, and not on the rumors and fantasies of the author.
    1. The comment was deleted.
  18. Curious
    Curious 10 July 2018 19: 48
    +12
    To be honest, I don’t understand the dispute between the “thirty-fours” and the “anti-thirty-fours.”
    A tank, like any product, is not only a design plan, but also the industrial capabilities of this plan to translate into metal.
    As applied to the tank, it is metallurgy (steelmaking, rolling production), mechanical engineering, machine-tool industry .engine building, chemical, electrical and radio engineering industries, production of optical instruments. And these are qualified personnel in all these sectors.
    Let us recall without uriapatriotism in which of the above industries the Russian Empire was ahead of the German Empire. Not in one. And some branches of the Russian Empire of the USSR did not leave a legacy at all.
    Hence all the problems, for the designer, no matter how brilliant he was, cannot but take into account the realities of production. You can design at least a seven-seater tower, but if you do not have a machine that can handle the shoulder straps of the desired diameter, your plan is useless. And if you do not have a rolling mill that rolls an armored plate of the required width, then you will do what you have. And the optics on the tank is not made by the general designer. And hardening the armor too. And the engine. In a word, the level of T 34 as an industrial product corresponded to the capabilities of this self-made industry.
    1. Old tanker
      Old tanker 10 July 2018 19: 56
      +4
      No wonder the Kalinkin song is sung:
      These are thoughts of sparkling heights.
      Victory in any war
      And metal clad meaning
      That in the world we are all stronger
      This is the rule where lies
      Brilliant simplicity
      And the chief designer of life
      Passed into this tank!

      This is the cold of echoing shops
      And under the sky open machine tools.
      Children with women at the machines -
      Men have long been at war ...
      And the paper of the last rubles,
      Stocked up for a rainy day
      And engagement rings shine,
      Filmed by thousands of people.
      ...
      This is our shield, and this is the sword,
      This is our direct speech,
      Means to survive my peoples
      In this frantic world!
      It is the speed and power of fire
      These are people stronger than armor.
      This is the glory of my country
      T-34!
    2. Alf
      Alf 10 July 2018 21: 18
      +11
      Quote: Curious
      A tank, like any product, is not only a design plan, but also the industrial capabilities of this plan to translate into metal.

      Golden words, winner! hi It’s not enough to draw a tank, it is necessary to make the plant able to master it.
      Then we drove through, that it was only necessary to put torsions on the T-34 instead of springs.
      Guys! At which factory was the T-34 built? At the steam locomotive! Where does torsion production technology come from at this plant? But no such, you have to put the springs.
      Low resource diesel? And on which tank in the 40th year was the diesel engine? Not those 90-mare automotive diesel engines, but a powerful tank diesel of 500 horses? And no one had this. Maybach worked 300 hours? And how many years has Maybach produced gasoline engines? Since the beginning of the 20th century. Therefore, the hand was full. And what engines were generally produced in tsarist Russia? But none. And the fact that for 10 years in the USSR they were able to create a diesel engine, which then served for the 2000s, this is an indicator. Is the optics bad? And by the mid-30s, to create YOUR optical industry from scratch is how? This is a feat. And the fact that in the bakery Russia did not produce metalworking machines at all, but they appeared in the USSR, is that what is called? This is a feat. And then it turned out that the T-34 was being repaired by a sledgehammer and some kind of mother, and the Panther super tank had to be dragged to a factory for repairs, where out of 2560 Panthers that were killed, only 110 (one hundred and ten) tanks could be assembled, is this not an indication that the T- 34 was the best example of a tank for our industry, ours, to say nothing of the then not the best education and war on OUR conditions? And so the Kremlin’s photo of the T-34 against the background of the Reichstag and not the Tiger is an indication that it was OUR tank, the Victorious Tank.
      1. hohol95
        hohol95 11 July 2018 08: 14
        0
        And on which tank in the 40th year was the diesel engine?

        7TP -
        As noted above, together with the British-assembled Vickers party, the Poles also acquired a license for their production. The license did not apply to the engine; however, the air-cooled engine was clearly unsuccessful for the tank. To replace the Poles, they chose a 110-hp Swiss water-cooled Saurer diesel engine, which was already produced in Poland under license. As a result of this, a rather random choice (Saurer simply turned out to be the only engine suitable in size and power from those produced in Poland at that time) 7TP became the first diesel tank in Europe and one of the first in the world (after Japanese cars).
        1. Cherry Nine
          Cherry Nine 11 July 2018 08: 43
          0
          Quote: hohol95
          one of the first - in the world (after Japanese cars).

          By the 40th and the British, EMNIP, already noted.
        2. Alf
          Alf 11 July 2018 21: 32
          0
          Quote: hohol95
          And on which tank in the 40th year was the diesel engine?
          7TP -

          I mean tank power, and 110 mares is so-so.
          1. hohol95
            hohol95 11 July 2018 22: 04
            0
            And the masses of cars mean nothing to you? In addition, "Matilda" - an infantry support tank and high speed in battle was superfluous!
            But the T-34, with the support of the infantry, was constantly detached from this infantry - they could not withstand the required speed -
            [quote] However, the KV infantry support tank was unparalleled - thick armor and a large silhouette allowed infantrymen to reliably hide behind the tank during the attack. In addition, when driving in first gear, the HF speed was the same as that of the soldiers who went on the attack. According to tankers, the T-34 was quite difficult to drive at a speed of 5-6 km / h, as a result of which they often detached from their infantry during the attack.
            1. Alf
              Alf 11 July 2018 22: 14
              0
              Quote: hohol95
              And the masses of cars mean nothing to you?

              Is the "power density" parameter familiar to you? The one that affects the dynamics of acceleration, what is not the last indicator for a tank?
              "Russian tanks are so fast, before you have time to turn the tower, and he has already slipped through a swamp or flew up the hill."
              1. hohol95
                hohol95 11 July 2018 22: 22
                +1
                Flew up the hill - it's fine, but not for the covered infantry!
                500 horses is also good with high-quality gearbox and main clutch!
                They became good only in the second half of 1943! And before that, this “herd” did not reveal itself completely!
                The main friction clutch also created its share of problems. Due to rapid wear, as well as due to an unsuccessful design, he almost never turned off completely, he was “driven”, and it was difficult to shift gear under such conditions. With the main clutch not turned off, only very experienced mechanics-drivers were able to “stick in” the necessary gear. The rest acted easier: before the attack, 2nd gear (starting for the T-34) was switched on, and the speed limiter was removed from the engine. In motion, the diesel engine spun up to 2300 rpm, while the tank, accordingly, accelerated to 20–25 km / h. The change in speed was carried out by changing the number of revolutions, and simply by dumping the "gas". There is no need to explain that such a soldier's trick reduced the already small engine life. However, a rare tank survived to the development of even half of this resource by its “heart”.
                1. Alf
                  Alf 11 July 2018 22: 25
                  0
                  Quote: hohol95
                  Flew up the hill - it's fine, but not for the covered infantry!

                  Tanks, in fact, also fight with tanks.
                  I gave a quote from the memoirs of a GERMAN tankman who felt this “poor-quality” transmission on himself.
                  1. The comment was deleted.
                    1. Alf
                      Alf 11 July 2018 22: 40
                      0
                      Charter by charter, and practice by practice. At Prokhorovka, did our tanks also have to retreat and cover themselves with PTO guns?
                      1. The comment was deleted.
                  2. hohol95
                    hohol95 11 July 2018 22: 40
                    0
                    Only the yearbook to which this quote applies! Obviously not 1941.
                    1. Alf
                      Alf 12 July 2018 19: 06
                      0
                      Quote: hohol95
                      Only the yearbook to which this quote applies! Obviously not 1941.

                      Why do you think so ? Just in time for the 41st.
                  3. Cherry Nine
                    Cherry Nine 11 July 2018 23: 50
                    0
                    Quote: Alf
                    I gave a quote from the memoirs of a GERMAN tankman who felt this “poor-quality” transmission on himself.

                    You see, after the war surprisingly a lot of nonsense appeared behind the authorship of the "German tankers" and not only the tankers.
                    The average tank speed during operation on dirty virgin soil:
                    a) Net traffic - 25.5 km / h
                    b) Technical - 23.0 km / h
                    c) Operational - 20.8 km / h

                    (c) REPORT of workshop 540 No. 086 dated 18 / XII-39.
                    According to factory tests of the tank A-32 loaded to a weight of 24 tons.

                    With real T-34s, and not hand-assembled A-32s, everything was much worse.
    3. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine 11 July 2018 08: 52
      +1
      Quote: Curious
      A tank, like any product, is not only a design plan, but also the industrial capabilities of this plan to translate into metal.

      The claims of the anti-thirty-fours are that Kharkov put a bolt on the UKN and began to do Now there will be a very good tank. This tank they made by the 49th year. But the military and the Council of People's Commissars allowed them to do this.
      Quote: Curious
      Russian Empire was ahead of Germany

      From the Russian Empire to the 41st year longer than from here to the dashing 90s.
      Quote: Curious
      In a word, the level of T 34 as an industrial product corresponded to the capabilities of this self-made industry.

      No. In the 43rd industry, it became much thinner, and the tank not everyone it turned out much better.
      1. Curious
        Curious 11 July 2018 09: 28
        +1
        "From the Russian Empire to the 41st year longer than from here to the dashing 90s."
        Measured by steps? Do you understand what you wrote?
    4. hohol95
      hohol95 11 July 2018 15: 37
      +1
      They did on that and from what they produced themselves! It's right! And those tanks were made by those who were in factories! A greater number of skilled workers and engineers from Kharkov, for example, were not evacuated (or did not want this) to the rear! Naturally, they were replaced by workers of those factories in the squares of which they placed what they managed to remove from under the nose of the advancing Germans!
      In addition, it should be noted that the T-34 tank, which was initially quite complex in design, was maximally adapted to the production conditions that existed during the war years, which were characterized by the involvement of non-specialized enterprises in the production of military vehicles and the widespread use of low-skilled workers frames. In this regard, planned work was carried out to reduce the nomenclature of parts and reduce labor intensity. So, on January 1, 1941, the entire complexity of the T-34 with hull parts and a tower was 9 standard hours, and on January 465, 1 - 1945.

      But many questions (we don’t understand their decision or solution, but not so, as it is considered now) will still cause heated debate ...
      And the main question is which saboteur designed the gearbox and the engine cooling system of the tank ...
      1. Curious
        Curious 11 July 2018 17: 32
        +2
        "... which saboteur designed the gearbox ..."
        The leaders in the transmission were Y. I. Baran, A. I. Shpeichler. It is unlikely that they were saboteurs.
        1. hohol95
          hohol95 11 July 2018 17: 52
          +1
          However ... their products are especially "serial air purifier plant number 183" ...
          Even for BT-7, Kharkiv citizens could not properly establish the production of 5-speed gearboxes and “convinced” the military into 3-speed gearboxes ...
          Perhaps they themselves never sat down at the levers of the serial T-34 ...
          And in different literature, these filters are called differently ...
          And all the disputes arise from a simple one - on July 22, 1941, the T-34 and KV-1 were made of parts that at that time were distinguished by very low reliability and performance! especially against the background of German tanks! If the tank reached the forefront, then due to the low quality of surveillance devices, gearbox, engine, lack of a radio station, they could not show all their "PAPER" potential ...
          1. Curious
            Curious 11 July 2018 19: 47
            0
            It’s hard to say now, but the issue of production possibilities played an important role. As in the design of the main clutch, because of which the driver had problems.
            1. hohol95
              hohol95 11 July 2018 22: 55
              0
              You know from these disputes about + and - T-34, a comparison of it with the T-64 appeared.
              Which some called the revolutionary machine! Others a waste of fabulous money from the treasury of the USSR!
              And both cars were born in Kharkov with the participation of A. Morozov.
              1. Cherry Nine
                Cherry Nine 11 July 2018 23: 52
                0
                Quote: hohol95
                comparing it with the T-64.
                Which some called the revolutionary machine! Others a waste of fabulous money from the treasury of the USSR!
                And both cars were born in Kharkov with the participation of A. Morozov.

                You are absolutely right. Moreover, in the same row and from the same pope, the T-34M - T-43 line, which ended in a miscarriage in the form of T-44.
                1. hohol95
                  hohol95 12 July 2018 08: 05
                  +2
                  I would not call the T-44 a “miscarriage” - the tank was developed from the experience of real combat experience!
                  1. Cherry Nine
                    Cherry Nine 12 July 2018 08: 44
                    0
                    Quote: hohol95
                    the tank was developed on the experience of real combat experience!

                    The tank was developed by people who considered the T-34 for a draft, which they now rewrite completely. It turned out, suddenly, the new T-34: on paper, the miracle is how good, but in real life, 5 years learned to do.
                    With the T-64 the same story. The trend, however.
  19. philosopher
    philosopher 10 July 2018 20: 08
    0
    Someone, explain why you did not guess to maximize the angle of inclination of the armor to the vertical immediately, but did it in places just vertically? Why stop the projectile when it is better to take it into a rebound, so that it takes with it most of its kinetic energy and flies further.
    Apparently, this did not occur to the Germans at all when the Tiger was designed as a stylistic copy of Pz.III.
    1. -Pollux
      -Pollux 10 July 2018 20: 54
      +1
      Quote: philosopher
      something, explain why you did not guess to maximize the angle of inclination of the armor to the vertical immediately, but did it in places just vertically?

      Inclined armor eats up the armored volume. Direct armor will simply be thicker than sloping.
      1. philosopher
        philosopher 11 July 2018 20: 15
        +1
        So, they put up with this, and then suddenly put it down and decided to sacrifice space, but still increase the resistance of the armor not due to the thickness, but due to its tilt?
        As an example, the IS-2, in which the upper frontal part was straightened, increasing both the resistance and the rigidity of the structure, and even the internal volume increased.
    2. Alf
      Alf 10 July 2018 21: 25
      +5
      Quote: philosopher
      Someone, explain why you did not guess to maximize the angle of inclination of the armor to the vertical immediately, but did it in places just vertically?

      What about your geometry? Calculate the surface length of the vertical sheet and the length of the surface of the sheet inclined. The inclined sheet will have a large length, and this is overweight, and vertical sheets are easier to weld. In addition, the internal volume of the inclined sheet really does not take anything, and this is air transportation. So, not everything is so simple. No wonder they say, each solution has its pros and cons.
      1. philosopher
        philosopher 11 July 2018 20: 29
        0
        Everyone is so smart and no one has noticed the keyword "at once". Because already with the release of IS-3 and beyond - there is concern about the maximum possible increase in the slope of the armor to the attack vector.
        And if you look to the right, you will see that on Abrams the angle of inclination of the upper frontal part was brought to a level at which the projectile, when fired by direct fire, is guaranteed to go into a rebound, because its thickness is not large.
        Apparently, it was not worth asking such a direct question here, because I didn’t receive an interesting answer, but I managed to google it myself with the necessary information, but it gave me an excuse to note the wit of local experts.
        1. hohol95
          hohol95 11 July 2018 20: 54
          0
          And if you look to the right, you will see that on Abrams the angle of inclination of the upper frontal part was brought to a level at which the projectile, when fired by direct fire, is guaranteed to go into a rebound, because its thickness is not large.

          They achieved this by literally laying the driver mechanically in a practically horizontal position -

          During the Second World War, the controls of tanks and other armored vehicles were completely OTHER ...
          But the Germans themselves did not immediately switch from their box-shaped tanks (successively increasing the armor of the frontal parts of Troika and Fours and Stugs to 80 mm) to vehicles with a whole inclined frontal sheet - Panther, Tiger B, Yagdpanther, Hetzer and others...
          1. The comment was deleted.
            1. The comment was deleted.
        2. Alf
          Alf 11 July 2018 21: 21
          0
          Quote: philosopher
          Apparently, it was not worth asking such a direct question here, because I didn’t receive an interesting answer, but I managed to google it myself with the necessary information, but it gave me an excuse to note the wit of local experts.

          Here. Maybe the task of the question is to think for yourself? You look, and everything will become clear.
          1. philosopher
            philosopher 12 July 2018 05: 44
            0
            This is not what I mean. Just the level of awareness of individual experts is sometimes scary.
            1. Alf
              Alf 12 July 2018 19: 07
              0
              Quote: philosopher
              This is not what I mean. Just the level of awareness of individual experts is sometimes scary.

              Sorry.
  20. ecolog
    ecolog 11 July 2018 02: 06
    +4
    triples and fours began to be produced much later than the t-26, so it’s strange to hear about the poor armor penetration of the tank magpie.
    what the “novices” from the kriegsmarine and the instructors from the luftwaffe of the mechvods and towers could be afraid to even imagine, honestly))). and given the rapid development of the Luftwaffe, instructors had something to do on their profile, IMHO.
    broken armor of KV forehead? Yes, it was 80 mm in thickness - super-excessive for 41 years. not for nothing that he was then trimmed to KV-1s. Before the Panther, the Germans ALL had box-shaped tanks, with a bunch of hatches without any inclined foreheads.
    Regarding reliability - when Austria was annexed - all roadsides were lined with broken shells. The Germans managed to work out the reliability earlier and had already managed to create what they wanted - a tank division with a successful combination of tanks, motorized infantry, anti-tank artillery, etc. And while we were experimenting with mechanized corpses for 1000 tanks. They succeeded, but we did not.
    But why it was bother with the more expensive and more difficult to manufacture diesels on the T-34, I do not know.
    Regarding observation devices, the commanders of German tanks, despite all the turrets, watched the battlefield with binoculars, leaning out of the hatch and even less periscopes were given to them in their heads. Although our mechanical drivers, yes, preferred to open the hatch.
    1. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine 11 July 2018 08: 31
      +3
      Quote: ecolog
      But why it was bother with the more expensive and more difficult to manufacture diesels on the T-34, I do not know.

      It’s impossible to put an aircraft engine, there is no aviation gasoline.
      It’s impossible to make a multibank from Sherman, this is far beyond the capabilities of the Soviet automobile industry.
      Convert the engine to low-octane gasoline - one on one and succeed. We chose a diesel, because in theory, it has a number of advantages. In practice, it did not work out very well.
      1. Iskander
        Iskander 11 July 2018 09: 36
        +1
        ATP, very intelligibly explained.
      2. brn521
        brn521 11 July 2018 14: 52
        +3
        Quote: Cherry Nine
        In practice, it did not work out very well

        Given the practical application, it turned out to be successful. Just imagine that this is gasoline, and would not be carried to a solarium in buckets, poured along the road, soaked in clothes from lice. Half of the tanks would be burned at a gas station, the remaining half when in the winter on the same gasoline instead of a solarium they would make a fire under them to warm the engines and start to start. Again, there is no ignition system and fuss with the electrician (at one time we had nothing to do with at least the same insulation for wires, not to mention batteries and generators). And an emergency launch in the form of a cylinder with compressed air was present on the diesel tank in the worst of times. And the Germans praised this feature very much, because themselves fussed with their stalled Maybachs for much longer. And imagine that in the front tank there is gasoline, not a solarium. And you can’t get anywhere from the front tank, it’s a fee for inclined armor, because of which the reserved space has decreased. Later, when the engine became more reliable, there were also additional tanks on the external suspension. Imagine disgusting ventilation and gasoline spilled somewhere inside. You have to sit in gas masks until it dries. Whereas spilled tanning saloon is the same as spilled engine oil.
        There are controversial points. For example, at one time, tankers were forbidden to leave the tank if it had not burned down or could be repaired. As a result, the crews of the tanks that lost their course were forced to stay close by, no matter what, for several days without food and water with the threat of destruction or capture. And all because it was not possible to light the tank with improvised means.
        1. Cherry Nine
          Cherry Nine 11 July 2018 16: 15
          +1
          Quote: brn521
          Given the practical application, it turned out to be successful.

          I know these arguments.
          You see, they touch some tanks in a vacuum. In real life in tank battalions. not to mention the divisions, there was enough gasoline technology. Including T-60, T-70 tanks, etc. So what about gasoline in buckets, and about problems with wiring, and about fumes - all this was not something unknown by the tanker. Only the complete dieselization of the Red Army could radically solve the problem, but this was not out of the question in those years.
          No one disputes that on paper diesel has its advantages - profitability, traction on the bottoms, some operational advantages. The real B-2 of the 39th year was very bad. But it is also real that there were no other engines at the end of the 30s. M-17 as tank engines were also, let's say, a blank.
      3. July Caesar
        July Caesar 23 August 2018 12: 22
        +1
        If you cannot supply an aircraft engine, tell the plant number 112 "Krasnoe Sormovo", which until the middle of 1942 produced T-34 exclusively from the M-17.
  21. Iskander
    Iskander 11 July 2018 15: 03
    +1
    Quote: Cherry Nine
    Quote: ecolog
    But why it was bother with the more expensive and more difficult to manufacture diesels on the T-34, I do not know.

    It’s impossible to put an aircraft engine, there is no aviation gasoline.
    It’s impossible to make a multibank from Sherman, this is far beyond the capabilities of the Soviet automobile industry.
    Convert the engine to low-octane gasoline - one on one and succeed. We chose a diesel, because in theory, it has a number of advantages. In practice, it did not work out very well.

    Here, experts from Valor clarified:
    quote:
    "" "
    Iskander108-77 wrote:

    question :
    I always thought that a diesel engine was because it was less prone to ignition, but in reality, why a diesel engine?


    - less fuel consumption (greater power reserve)
    - fire safety (in operation)
    - the best temperature regime (relative to the M-17), which made it possible for the tank to move for longer periods in combat position with the blinds closed
    - ease of maintenance (no carburetor)
    - less interference to the radio station
    - lower fuel cost

    Today 10:39:43

    Posted by: Makarov

    Plus the fuel balance of the USSR.
    Oil cracking was not yet widespread; the first industrial-type plants appeared only in 34.
    Accordingly, during rectification, the yield of heavy hydrocarbons with long molecules was large, and there was little gasoline.
    Diesel fuel had to be used somewhere.

    Today 11:09:03


    Quote: "tanker"
    maik wrote:

    and cons

    Now everything is on diesels (Abrams and T-80 do not count), that's all the cons.

    "" "
    1. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine 11 July 2018 16: 47
      +2
      Quote: Iskander
      more experts from Valor clarified

      These arguments also apply to diesel in a vacuum. Well, or, for example, comparisons of diesel Sherman with gasoline.
      Quote: Iskander
      less fuel consumption (greater power reserve)

      In the case of the early T-34s, oil ran out before fuel.
      Quote: Iskander
      fire safety (in operation)

      I do not know of any real research, which would compare the spontaneous combustion of cars with different engines on the example of the same Sherman with different engines. The captain evidence suggests that the problems with the laying of fuel pipelines in the USSR here meant much more.
      Quote: Iskander
      which made it possible for the tank to move in a combat position with blinds for a longer time

      It looks like a paper plus. Never have any operator comments come up on this topic.
      Quote: Iskander
      ease of maintenance (no carburetor)

      Diesel in itself is more complicated.
      Quote: Iskander
      less interference to the radio station

      This did not help the Soviet radio stations, but it did not interfere with the American radio stations.
      Quote: Iskander
      - lower fuel cost

      Who cares?

      You see, these “experts with courage” invented these advantages retroactively. When making decisions, they were not taken into account.
      Quote: Iskander
      Diesel fuel had to be used somewhere.

      This is important.
      Quote: Iskander
      Now everything is on diesels (Abrams and T-80 do not count), that's all the cons.

      Nonsense. The current diesel engines are not the old ones.

      You see, it is important to understand what the real situation was in the Soviet motor industry by the end of the 30s. The choice of Soviet tank builders was simple - M-17T or something else. M-17T, a remake of a German aircraft engine of the 20s, was eating B-70 gasoline, which at that time was aviation. Motor gasoline had an octane rating of about 50, EMNIP. That is, so and so do the new engine. We decided to bet on diesel, as theoretically more promising.
      At the same time, its cons relative to gasoline:
      1. Technological novelty. This in itself increases cost and decreases reliability. Hence the disgusting, worthless resource. The British aircraft engines Saber with 2 hp, 000 cylinders worked better and were considered worthless because of reliability.
      2. Precession details (TNVD). With such matters, the USSR was sad.
      3. Aluminum cylinder block. This is not mentioned so often, but the need for tank construction in aluminum has become a real disaster. And this is in the USSR, with its wooden fighters. The supply of aluminum throughout the war, from the very first days was the first question for the Allies. How would this Soviet tank be produced without American aluminum? Who could guarantee US supplies in the 30s?

      Is it possible to say that the M-17T would be better? Who knows. The BT-7 operators spoke of him without enthusiasm. By the 39th year, to bring the M-17T to the level of the Maybachs, especially since there was no time to make the Soviet Meteor from other engines anyway. So the choice of B-2 was reasonable. But the enthusiasm for this decision is inappropriate.
      1. Curious
        Curious 11 July 2018 21: 18
        0
        "Precession details" - probably precision?
        1. Cherry Nine
          Cherry Nine 11 July 2018 22: 06
          +1
          Quote: Curious
          "Precession details" - probably precision?

          We are both wrong, but I’m wrong than you. PRECISION. recourse
  22. Iskander
    Iskander 12 July 2018 00: 33
    0
    Quote: Cherry Nine
    Quote: Iskander
    Diesel fuel had to be used somewhere.

    This is important.

    ok, thank you
  23. Narak-zempo
    Narak-zempo 16 July 2018 01: 24
    0
    Philosophical question. What in Russia (in the broad sense) is such that makes you “save motor resources” or property in warehouses to the detriment of the business for which this property is intended? Despite the fact that bitter experience teaches that tanks, which so carefully guarded the army supply, are lost in the early days of the war precisely because they were kept away from their own in peacetime. I did not serve in the army, but worked in science, and there it is the same - from school to academic institutions. And I myself notice a desire to save on cheap consumables, jeopardizing an expensive experiment due to a violation of cleanliness.
  24. Tima62
    Tima62 16 July 2018 23: 14
    0
    Another pearl R. Gorokhovsky.
    the author, could the last name of Pavel Ignatievich Grokhovsky be written correctly?
  25. sgapich
    sgapich 2 September 2018 06: 20
    0
    Quote: vladimirZ
    The Germans excelled their opponents in WWII, including the USSR, in the first half of the war, not so much in the quality armament of their tanks as in the organization of tank troops.

    Quote: gregor6549
    When they already stop singing a song about "not brought to mind" on the eve of the war, Soviet tanks. It has long been proven that Soviet tanks in all major performance characteristics were a cut above the German tanks, and the Germans did not have tanks comparable to the T34 and KV. This song was first sung by the "great commander" G. Zhukov and since then it has not ceased. He needed to somehow justify himself for his stupid decisions with which he substituted the owls. tanks and not only tanks under the terrifying defeat at the beginning of the war.

    Yes, the Soviet Union had more tanks in numerical proportions at the time of the invasion of Hitler Germany, but, unfortunately, there was no experience in the interaction of tank units with all other military branches. Over time, of course, operational control on the battlefield improved.
    This is my opinion, if wrong - correct.
    PS To avoid unnecessary insinuations. My personal experience in managing the team is the withdrawal of our tourist group from the gorge during the flood.
  26. NF68
    NF68 21 September 2018 15: 47
    0
    The Germans used the new technology as a new technology with all the ensuing consequences. At first, the Germans with the Tigers and the Panthers also tormented themselves properly before they brought them to mind.