Military Review

Stories about weapons. Small amphibious tank T-40

39
The third, but by no means the last story of the floating tanks USSR starts with a very interesting car. The T-40 was a very remarkable tank, and although not many of these machines were produced, about stories Tank is worth special talk.


To begin, I think, it is worthwhile to admit the fact that the small amphibious tank T-40 was the pinnacle of the development of its class cars in the Soviet Union. Actually, on it the class of small floating light tanks and ended.



And at the same time, it is impossible not to admit that of the entire range (T-37A, T-38 and T-40) he was the most constructively brought to mind, that is, to full release and participation in hostilities.

As part of the existing tactics of the use of T-40 was very good. He fully met all the requirements for the application. Intelligence, communications, combat convoy columns on the march - no problem, the machine coped, unlike its predecessors.

Stories about weapons. Small amphibious tank T-40


Moreover, besides myself with the crew, the T-40 could easily move several (up to four) infantrymen with full equipment on land and a couple on the water, which on T-38, for example, was unrealistic.



The armament also changed, and a pair of machine guns of various calibers allowed them to maintain their infantry in battle and even fight the enemy’s lightly armored vehicles. DShK caliber 12,7 mm was able to break into both an armored personnel carrier and a light tank.



Plus very good throughput and buoyancy.



The tank really was a success, despite the rather creepy appearance history.

The most significant disadvantage of the T-40 was the congestion of the tank commander inherited from the T-37A. He was probably the most miserable man in the tank forces of the Red Army, since the commander of the T-40 would have been nice to be born as an octopus. And octoglaze.

The tank commander served as a gunner, loader, radio operator (if the tank was radioed), coordinated with other tanks and supervised the driver-mechanic ...

In general, that is still the position.

But no matter how small crew, no matter how overloaded the commander, not the main problems of the tank. It is clear that at the beginning of the Great Patriotic War, in view of the huge losses of tanks (both combat and non-combat), the T-40 began to be used as a tank of direct support for infantry.



"That was the time." Yes, the time was exactly that, but the use of a floating reconnaissance tank as a light tank to support infantry ... Would have been forgiven if it had not been so insulting.

What is the main requirement for a linear tank? Availability of weapons and booking. Point.

Well, which of the T-40 linear tank? It is clear that even the T-26, which was not the crown of tank building, looked better in this role.

But here is another. In the design of the T-40 a substantial reserve was laid, which made it possible to quickly develop, on the basis of a light tank, a more secure and more powerfully armed, in comparison with the initial version, a light tank T-60. But this is a completely different (in secret I will say the following) story.

And during the war, they began to massively produce "land" versions of T-40С and Т-30, which were deprived of the opportunity to swim, but with enhanced armor and cannon armament.



And to say that these light tanks were useless is to say the silliest nonsense.

Yes, "from the border we turned the Earth back, it was a matter from the beginning." But then everything went in the opposite direction, as is well known. And, forcing on the teeth of the Dnieper, Dniester, Danube, Vistula, the Soviet commanders more than once remembered abandoned and burned amphibious tanks in their memoirs.



Even the sporadic survivors of the T-37A and T-38 benefited from their machine guns, let alone more serious machines like the T-40. But mostly our soldiers forced the rivers on improvised boats without any support, suffering heavy losses from enemy fire.

Meanwhile, a maneuverable, fast and floating T-40 could seriously help in capturing and holding bridgeheads on the other side of the water barrier.

Moreover, today we all calmly perceive lightly armored amphibious vehicles, often armed with machine guns. Only instead of tracks - wheels, and the topic is still the same. It is clear, about whom I, about BRDM and its analogues in many countries of the world.

We talk a lot about the backwardness of Soviet industry, as we lacked everything in those years: designers, motors, machine tools, technologies. And this is true, it was.

But here's what I still cannot understand, although I am already writing the third article on amphibious tanks, this is how we managed to do it at all. After all, if you look at tank encyclopedias and catalogs, then the terrible picture turns out: among the foreign technology of the time, the T-40 has practically no analogues.

It can be long and tedious to compare T-40 with German T-I, Italian L6 / 40, Japanese “Ha-Go” or “Ka-Mi”. Someone T-40 exceeded in firepower, someone in speed, and someone took the ability to swim. More precisely, of all the listed classmates, Ka-Mi could swim, but how!



It was necessary to unwind the floats and install them on the sides of the tank. And after going to land, respectively, reset them. And T-40 was ready to force any water obstacles 24 hourly per day 365 days a year without any preparation at all.



We add here high reliability and fairly high manufacturability of the design. I would say that T-40 was not just an outstanding creation by N. A. Astrov and his staff, it would be a very formidable machine in direct hands.

Tank was not lucky, like many others, to take the first blow. But this is not an isolated, unfortunately, example in our history. And the fact that the tank had such a fate, it became clear at the beginning of his difficult path.

Generally, initially, in 1937, the Main Armored Directorate (GABTU) of the Red Army ordered a completely different car. It was a project of a wheeled-tracked tank weighing 5-6 tons with a diesel engine rated at 150 — 180 l. with. The project of the machine received an index T-39.

Astrov spent a lot of time to prove the groundlessness of the project, and proved. First of all, we did not produce such a diesel engine. Further, Astrov simply offered his project of a new and completely different from the English base "Cardin-Loyd" tank.

According to the T-40 project, even two options were developed - one of the Astrov, the second of Shitikov. After preliminary design, both options were discussed. Accepted version of the machine Astrov.



There was also a project with a chassis from the Komsomolets tractor, but he did not go into the series.



The design of the tank ended at the end of 1938, and the drawings were immediately transferred to production. By the spring of 1939, the first samples of the car were collected and went to the test.



The new tank was significantly different from its predecessors T-37A and T-38. The car received an enlarged body, welded from 6-13-mm armor plates. To increase the stability afloat, the hull had a trapezoidal (in cross section) shape with an expanded upper part.

The crew of the car consisted of two people - the driver, located on the axis of the tank, and the commander, who was in the tower, installed behind the driver with the offset to the left side.

Armament of the tank compared to its predecessors was strengthened. In the tower, which had the shape of a truncated cone, mounted twin installation 12,7-mm machine gun DShK and 7,62-mm DT.



Most of the ammunition for DShK (9 coupled tapes = 450 cartridges) was placed in a special ring box under the tower, another tape (50 cartridges) was in stock. Such an ammunition ensuring the continuity of the machine gun power significantly increased the rate of fire, and most importantly, the only shooter was distracted by reloading only one DT machine gun.

Was, as it is now said, competitive T-40 on the battlefields of the Great Patriotic War?

The answer is the same: if used wisely, it was.



In this respect, the battle of the 1 Tank Brigade of the Red Army of the South-Western Front 22 of September 1941 is more than indicative. The brigade consisted of 7 KV, 33 T-34 and 32 of the T-40 tank (including several vehicles without navigational equipment) and acted against parts of the Wehrmacht X-division of the Wehrmacht and SS division "Das Reich".

Here is how this battle was described in the 1 Tank Brigade's combat logbook, which by September 21 of 1941 was in the area of ​​Rezniki and Lipovka with the task of preventing the enemy’s bypass from the south of the 5 Cavalry Division:

“In 10: 30 22.9.41, part of the SS Reich division launched an offensive from the direction of Long Luka to Lipovka. The offensive was supported by strong mortar fire, two 105-mm artillery batteries and a company of tanks.

Having let the enemy on 700 – 800 meters, he was met with fire from heavy and medium tanks, as a result of which, having suffered heavy losses, the infantry lay down, and the tanks began to retreat.
Taking advantage of the enemy's confusion, 1 TB 1 TP (T-40 tanks, according to the documents of the brigade headquarters, all the 32 battalions in the battalion took part in the counterattack, as a result of which reached the forest north of Dolgaya Luka, destroying with fire and tracks of infantry and weapons of the enemy, the tanks returned to the assembly point.



Despite the losses suffered, the enemy strengthened its advanced units, summing up reserves, launched a new attack.

The attack was not successful. To completely clear the area from the enemy, a motorized rifle company was allocated and by that time the battalion of the 1 Guards approached. rifle division. The battle lasted all day ... Part of the brigade during the day conducted 7 attacks, as a result, the enemy was defeated and scattered. Opponent lost:

Anti-tank guns - 13 pcs;
Tools 105-mm - 4 pcs;
Mortars - 7 pcs;
Motorcycles - 16 pcs;
Machines with fuel - 2 pcs;
Tanks - 6 pcs;
Aircraft - 1 pcs.

Up to two mouth infantry.

In this battle, the team lost:

Tanks T-40 - 4 pcs;
Killed - 32 pax;
Wounded - 56 people;
Missing - 11 people. ”
.

The most interesting thing here is that in their reports the Germans confirm their losses. In particular, the 4 Panzer Division reported the loss of 9 guns "crushed by tanks." In addition, she also pointed out 89 people killed and wounded, lost only by the 1 Battalion of her 12 Motorized Rifle Regiment during the September 22 battle.

Proper application. What the Red Army lacked in those days. Heavy medium tanks acting from cover, destroy enemy tanks, light tanks complete the rout.

TTX T-40



Combat weight, t: 5,5
Crew, prs: 2
Number released, pcs: 960

Dimensions:
Body length, mm: 4110
Width, mm: 2330
Height, mm: 1905
Ground clearance mm: 300

Booking:
Type of armor: cemented rolled high hardness
Forehead housing (top), mm / deg: 15-20 / 10 °
The forehead of the body (bottom), mm / deg: 13-15 / -30 °
Chassis side, mm / deg: 13 — 15 / 25 °
Body feed, mm / deg: 13 / 35 °
Bottom, mm: 5
Housing roof, mm: 5
Tool mask, mm / degree: 10-20
Board turret, mm / deg: 15-20 / 25 °
Roof of the tower, mm: 5



Armament:
Machine guns: 1 × 12,7-mm DShK (500 cartridges), 1 × 7,62-mm DT (2016 cartridges)

Mobility:
Engine type: inline 4-stroke 6-cylinder carburetor
Engine power, l. S .: 85
Highway speed, km / h: 44
Speed ​​over rough terrain, km / h: 20-25
Speed ​​afloat, km / h: 5-6

Cruising on the highway, km: 300
Cruising over rough terrain, km: 120 — 150

Already during the war, the T-40 cannon versions were developed and used (albeit in scanty quantities). The tanks were equipped with 20-mm ShVAK-T cannon (TNSh) with 750 rounds of ammunition, and the DT ammunition in this case was reduced to 1512 cartridges (24 disc).



But in principle, this was one of the steps to the appearance on the battlefield of the T-60 tank, and we will consider the use of the TNS in relation to this machine.

Water propeller consisted of a propeller in a hydrodynamic niche and rudders. To ensure the movement afloat on the tank, a wave deflector plate, a heat exchanger and a pumping out (bilge) pump were installed.



The cork rescue belts for the crew were included in the tank package!

And one more thing to keep silent about is harm. For orientation when moving afloat or in fog, as well as in reconnaissance, at a distance from the coast (!), A magnetic compass made by the Aviapribor plant in Moscow was installed on the T-40.

The tank's seaworthiness was quite high - he could confidently carry out his tasks during the agitation up to 3 points, and in calm water to carry a load of considerable mass.

But the main thing was later. When, based on the experience gained in working on amphibious tanks, a true masterpiece appeared - PT-76. But about him (outside and inside) in one of the following articles.

Sources:
Kolomiets M.V. Miracleweapon Stalin. The floating tanks of the Great Patriotic T-37, T-38, T-40.
Shunkov V.N. Weapons of the Red Army.
Historically accurate models of T-40 and T-40С tanks are presented in the exposition of the UMMC Military Equipment Museum in the city of Verkhnyaya Pyshma.
Author:
39 comments
Ad

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

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Cat
    Cat 13 October 2018 06: 20
    +6
    The article is clearly a bold plus, but ...
    Proper use. What the Red Army so lacked in those days. Heavy and medium tanks, acting from cover, destroy enemy tanks, light tanks complete the rout.

    Question? Is it not more rational to repel an attack of armored vehicles with anti-tank weapons, but to complete the rout with heavy and medium tanks and self-propelled guns?
    Niche of light tanks, all the same intelligence, patrol and escort. 16mm of armor is not even 30mm of the BT-7!
    The most significant disadvantage of the T-40 was the congestion of the tank commander inherited from the T-37A. He was probably the most miserable man in the tank forces of the Red Army, since the commander of the T-40 would have been nice to be born as an octopus. And octoglaze.

    Let's take an objective look. Was it possible at the end of the 30s to install a two-man or three-man tower on a floating tank? In principle, yes, but he will be a "hatchet" to swim. In addition, it is naive to believe that the designers did not know this. They knew and solved this "trouble"! Two crew members sat in the turret of light tanks from the T-70, and three from the T-80, they no longer floated.
    About the commander of the "reaper, dude, etc." (further profanity) - see French tanks!
    Sincerely, Kitty!
    1. serg.shishkov2015
      serg.shishkov2015 13 October 2018 10: 57
      +3
      the crew of the T-70 2 people - fur, water and the commander-tower, the T-70 with a double turret remained experienced, as well as the T-70 with the tank version of the M-42
    2. vladcub
      vladcub 13 October 2018 15: 04
      +3
      And to complete the defeat with heavy and medium tanks and self-propelled guns "namesake, in 1941 the RKKA did not have an ACS.
      1. Cat
        Cat 13 October 2018 20: 37
        0
        Good evening, namesake!
        My thoughts are hypothetical and no more. History has no syllable, and it is not possible to replay it.
        But again, but playing in a strategic plan from defense is very, very difficult. Almost the only example of the last century is the Kursk Bulge. The first one to strike has the opportunity to choose the point of application of force. The defender must predict it, but oh how difficult it is. On the southern front of the Kursk Bulge, the Germans fatally pushed our defenses and we had to give up forces that were useful in the offensive. At what price Prokhorovka was given to me, I think it makes no sense to say.
        The only way to avoid defeat is if the initiative is not behind you. Scythian war, but I do not think that in modern realities it is possible.
        So defensive play can only be at a tactical level. Roughly "Titus, I caught a bear! Bring him here! He won't let him!" In continuation "what if his (bear) with a cleaver on the back of the head?
        Now about the SPG! The main organization of the army, not the number of tanks and aircraft. That, in principle, the Union proved by the end of the war, smashing the fascists and their satellites in the "tail and mane"!
        Yours!
  2. Strashila
    Strashila 13 October 2018 07: 13
    +3
    "The most significant drawback of the T-40 was the overloading of the tank commander inherited from the T-37A. He was probably the most unfortunate person in the Red Army tank forces, since it would be nice for the T-40 commander to be born an octopus. And an octopus." ... operator of modern robotic systems. Purely hypothetically, a ready-made circuit for modern robots, without unnecessary bells and whistles.
  3. SerB60
    SerB60 13 October 2018 07: 21
    +3
    The third photo from above, where the sapper with mines - T-60 with a landing in the winter.
  4. dokusib
    dokusib 13 October 2018 07: 28
    +10
    "Ka-Mi" is a tank focused on amphibious assault or independent crossing of the straits between the islands of numerous archipelagos scattered in the Sea of ​​Japan. Hence the developed floats and the air intakes brought up (clearly visible in the photo)
  5. cavl
    cavl 13 October 2018 08: 14
    +4
    The article, as usual, is interesting. Thanks to the author
  6. bandabas
    bandabas 13 October 2018 08: 26
    +3
    Experiments are good stuff. Therefore, we have floating infantry fighting vehicles, armored personnel carriers, etc. And, there were people who defended their point of view on the development of technology. And now ... I won't go far. Creation of a civilian airliner on the basis of TU-160 ... The guarantor blurted out his hand under the visor of the sycophants - "Boo done!" And how much money will go to cut zilch. Do not count, as dons pedro in conjunction with wild, wild monkeys.
  7. serg.shishkov2015
    serg.shishkov2015 13 October 2018 10: 32
    0
    Thanks to the author! In your article, I found confirmation of my thoughts on the merits of the T-40, these thoughts have been spinning in my head for about 30 years, but all the old information about this machine claimed the opposite. I painted this tank at a lecture on plant physiology, it turned out very similar with my modest talents, this * masterpiece * is still stored somewhere
  8. Walking
    Walking 13 October 2018 12: 21
    -1
    Yes, these so-called amphibious tanks could not have helped with the crossings of the Dnieper, Danube, Vistula, they could not have overcome these rivers at all, this is not for you the PT-76 and the BMP. You look at the photo on the water there is no buoyancy margin, not a big wave or close gap to the bottom. And the T-40 was produced in a floating version, mainly before the outbreak of war, and then quickly switched to a land version. You should not make a wunderwafle from the T-40, it was an ordinary machine gun wedge. But the tankers who fought on them, our grandfathers deserve the greatest respect.
    1. Paranoid50
      Paranoid50 13 October 2018 13: 49
      +7
      Quote: Hiking
      Yes, these so-called amphibious tanks could not help at the crossings of the Dnieper, Danube, Vistula, they could not overcome these rivers at all,

      Hmm, apparently, the Soviet command did not know about this, collecting the surviving "floats" on all fronts in the fall of 1943.
    2. Maki Avellevich
      Maki Avellevich 16 November 2018 09: 47
      0
      Quote: Hiking
      Yes, these so-called amphibious tanks could not have helped at the crossings of the Dnieper, Danube, Vistula, they could not have overcome these rivers at all, this is not for you the PT-76 and BMP. You look at the photo on the water there is no buoyancy margin, not a big wave or close gap to the bottom.

      it’s still much better than forcing a spring on a Vistula log. without support.
      whoever swam to the coast climbed effortlessly along the slippery coast. and there are German machine guns.
      I would really like to see near me, well, at least one anti-aircraft gun with a machine gun.
  9. Cannonball
    Cannonball 13 October 2018 12: 37
    +1
    The concepts of T-40C and T-30 are most likely later designations that have not received distribution.

    There is no need to talk about the built-in reserve in the design of the T-40 tank either. He has practically chosen all reserves as floating. The use of the tank in the land version was a necessary measure, as was the creation of the later T-60. The reason for the appearance of which - in the shortage of "thirty-four" and practically in the failure of the release of "fifty".

    There was also a great need for amphibious tanks in the Great Patriotic War. Even in the years 43-45, their release was not renewed, although with the armament just created by the CPV, a quite worthy floating tank could be obtained.
    1. Compasure
      Compasure 13 October 2018 14: 56
      +4
      There was also a great need for amphibious tanks in the Great Patriotic War.

      What are you saying! The author wrote to you
      ... And, forcing the Dnieper, Dniester, Danube, Vistula, “on the teeth”, Soviet commanders more than once later recalled abandoned and burned amphibious tanks in their memoirs ....

      It seems that you are from another world and do not know anything about the theater of war!
      1. Cannonball
        Cannonball 13 October 2018 18: 04
        0
        And tell me please, about the great connoisseur of the history of the Great Patriotic War, why did not the Red Army demand from the industry "so necessary" amphibious tanks neither in 43, nor in 44, or in 45?
        But because the Red Army was completely dispensed with without them.
        Yes, and the allies were hooked with their amphibians DUKW and Ford Gpa "Seep", for crossing rivers more suitable.
        It was they who were used in forcing the East European rivers and in the Japanese company.
        1. Compasure
          Compasure 14 October 2018 10: 46
          +1
          Yes, because ordinary tanks were not enough, educated, you are ours!

          Yes, and the allies were hooked by their amphibians DUKW and Ford Gpa "Seep" to force rivers


          And when were these supplies? And most importantly, how much?

          It was they who were used in forcing the East European rivers and in the Japanese company.

          Do you read what you write yourself? Or "... the Chukchi are not a reader ..."?
          1. Cannonball
            Cannonball 14 October 2018 11: 14
            0
            In the years 43-45, there were practically no problems with the production of tanks for the Red Army, even the troichniks knew this.
            The refusal to produce floating equipment at this time was due to the availability of ample supplies of amphibians for Lend-Lease, which to a large extent met the needs of the Red Army in ferry facilities (more than 550 units compared to less than 350 floating T-40s).
            A separate question is the possibility of arming tanks with DShK machine guns, which were primarily supplied for the Navy and Air Defense, but for tanks they were clearly not enough.
            So before you "shine with your mind", try to find it first. And read more smart books, "know-it-all" you are ours.
            And what do you dislike about the practice of using American amphibians when crossing Eastern European rivers and the Japanese company? What did the Red Army not liberate Eastern Europe and the Kuriles and Sakhalin the Japanese just "gave"?
            1. Alexey RA
              Alexey RA 15 October 2018 11: 35
              +2
              Quote: Cannonball
              In the years 43-45, there were practically no problems with the production of tanks for the Red Army, even the troichniks knew this.

              Yeah ... there were no problems, but the army put into service with the T-43 never received. And the constantly required light tank (for reconnaissance and fighting in cities) - too. sad
              Quote: Cannonball
              And tell me please, about the great connoisseur of the history of the Great Patriotic War, why did not the Red Army demand from the industry "so necessary" amphibious tanks neither in 43, nor in 44, or in 45?

              Hmm ...
              On November 11, 1944, the head of the OGK NKTP Ber wrote the following: "A meeting with Y. Fedorenko.
              Project. 10-ton floating tank. Part moves, moving. and transmission - mastered. industrial T-70. Bronirov. - 12mm, armed. - 76 mm regiment, arr 43 and a machine gun. Deadline - Feb. "
              © M.Svirin
              1. hohol95
                hohol95 15 October 2018 15: 10
                0
                Floating tanks were going to be designed.
                And the means of crossing infantry and artillery units?
                Or decided that enough Lend-Lease technology?
                What helped Tsakhal turn the tide of fighting on the Sinai Peninsula in October 1973?
                Captured PT-76 and BTR-50!
                If the Israelis didn’t have these amphibious armored personnel carriers at their disposal, they alone would not have achieved anything PT-76! And the Egyptians, with their inaction, also helped!
                ... Ariel Sharon, commander of the 143rd reserve tank division, made a turning point in the course of hostilities. At his suggestion, on the night of October 16, an Israeli squad of seven amphibious tanks PT-76 and eight armored personnel carriers BTR-50P from the 88th amphibious reconnaissance tank battalion with paratroopers (probably from the 247th paratrooper brigade Dani Mata) moved to northern part of the Big Gorky Lake to its western shore and seized a bridgehead near the station of Abu Sultan. The successful actions of this detachment are explained by the fact that the Egyptian command did not allow the possibility of crossing the lake by Israeli troops and did not allocate forces and funds for the defense of the west coast. Even after receiving information about the landing of the Israeli detachment, the Egyptian command did not attach any importance to this and did not take vigorous measures to destroy it.
                1. Alexey RA
                  Alexey RA 15 October 2018 19: 26
                  +1
                  Quote: hohol95
                  Floating tanks were going to be designed.
                  And the means of crossing infantry and artillery units?

                  A pontoon fleet needs traction or a base. Tractor trucks or four-wheel drive trucks of relatively heavy lifting capacity.
                  And one of the main problems of the USSR was that tanks were simpler for domestic industry than tractors and heavy-duty / four-wheel drive vehicles. In 1942, the directors of the STZ even warned from Moscow that he would not dare to give the factory any more overall numbers, thus masking the failure of the plan for tractors due to overfulfillment of the plan for tanks.
                  So for the USSR it was easier to make a floating tank than a pontoon park, not bogged down in the mud on the first kilometers of the march. sad
                  1. hohol95
                    hohol95 15 October 2018 19: 59
                    0
                    With pontoon parks, everything is clear!
                    But why didn’t they design BTR-like BTR-50! Possibly lower payload! My opinion is that no one could produce such floating conveyors!
                    In order to produce them, it was necessary to abandon something (certain types of products), and it is possible to rebuild production at the factory designated for this!
                    1. Cannonball
                      Cannonball 15 October 2018 20: 56
                      0
                      Such APCs simply had nowhere to build. Refusing to release any military products or rebuilding production was tantamount to sabotage. Therefore, after the difficult 41-42 years, the emphasis in Lend-Lease deliveries was made mainly on those products that were not produced in the USSR or were produced in small quantities.
                    2. Alexey RA
                      Alexey RA 16 October 2018 10: 13
                      0
                      Quote: hohol95
                      With pontoon parks, everything is clear!
                      But why didn’t they design BTR-like BTR-50!

                      Probably because something was missing. The question is about backfill - what happened in the BTR-50, which didn’t exist in the USSR during WWII? wink More precisely, it was at the beginning of the war, but the production was curtailed (and at the same time they curtailed the production of a new tank, to which this unit went).
                      1. hohol95
                        hohol95 16 October 2018 11: 16
                        0
                        Was the V-4 diesel going to be used on anything else besides the T-50?
                  2. Cannonball
                    Cannonball 15 October 2018 20: 51
                    0
                    A floating tank only sends itself through a water barrier. Pontoon Park - almost the entire range of equipment and weapons in any quantity. The assembly of the pontoon bridge, depending on the length and carrying capacity - 1-3 hours.
                    1. Alexey RA
                      Alexey RA 16 October 2018 10: 15
                      0
                      Quote: Cannonball
                      A floating tank only sends itself through a water barrier. Pontoon Park - almost the entire range of equipment and weapons in any quantity.

                      On the other hand, a floating tank moves at the speed of a mechanized column. The pontoon park using the technology of the real USSR of the Second World War lags behind mechanical connections on the first day of the march. Even infantry overtook these parks.
                2. Maki Avellevich
                  Maki Avellevich 16 November 2018 10: 04
                  0
                  Quote: hohol95
                  What helped Tsakhal turn the tide of fighting on the Sinai Peninsula in October 1973?
                  Captured PT-76 and BTR-50!
                  If the Israelis didn’t have these amphibious armored personnel carriers at their disposal, they alone would not have achieved anything PT-76! And the Egyptians, with their inaction, also helped!


                  I think you're wrong

                  the canal was first thrown on boats through the canal (from the parachute brigade)
                  the boats were chosen as they wanted to cross the channel as quietly as possible.
                  then 11 tanks were thrown on rafts
                  and then built a bridge on the basis of these French relics, proudly named Le Bac amphibie ou Gillois




                  captured trophies did not participate
                  1. hohol95
                    hohol95 16 November 2018 10: 25
                    0
                    Which channel? Big Gorky LAKE! And Ariel Sharon himself suggested using the PT-76 and BTR-50! 7 PT-76 and 8 BTR-50 were used!
                    1. Maki Avellevich
                      Maki Avellevich 16 November 2018 11: 30
                      0
                      Quote: hohol95
                      Which channel? Big Gorky LAKE! And Ariel Sharon himself suggested using the PT-76 and BTR-50! 7 PT-76 and 8 BTR-50 were used!

                      Where did you get this information?
                      nobody crossed the bitter lake. at its junction the paratroopers forced a boat written earlier by me.

                      you describe operation Raviv, 1969. there is no connection with the 73 year war.
                      1. hohol95
                        hohol95 17 November 2018 17: 07
                        0
                        Then ask this question to M. B. Baryatinsky!
                        In the operation you brought in, the T-55 and BTR-50 tanks were used. But they were transported through the Suez Canal by landing craft!
              2. Cannonball
                Cannonball 15 October 2018 20: 44
                0
                And the constantly required light tank (for reconnaissance and fighting in cities) - too.
                By this time, in addition to the T-60 and T-70 still in service, the Red Army was armed with light tanks supplied under Lend-Lease - British and Canadian Valentines (a total of 3332 tanks of seven modifications were delivered), American MZ General Stewart ( 1232 tanks of two modifications). About twenty "Tetrarchs" I will modestly keep silent.
                This number of light tanks, coupled with BA-64 armored vehicles and American M3 Scout armored personnel carriers (3034 vehicles), not to mention the numerous Willys, Dodges, and others, was quite enough for reconnaissance purposes.
                A tank armed with a 76 mm regimental cannon was hardly useful in urban battles, if only because of the inability to fire on the upper floors of buildings, moreover, numerous SU-76s were already actively involved in urban battles.

                On November 11, 1944, the head of the OGK NKTP Ber wrote the following: "A meeting with Y. Fedorenko.
                Project. 10-ton floating tank. Part moves, moving. and transmission - mastered. industrial T-70. Bronirov. - 12mm, armed. - 76 mm regiment, arr 43 and a machine gun. Deadline - Feb. "
                Look at the date - before Victory less than six months. Even if the creation of such a tank were appropriate at that time, they would still not participate in the war. In the same way as the serial T-44 and IS-3 did not already participate.
                Another thing is that in the post-war period, it became possible to build amphibious tanks PT-76, armed with a 76-mm cannon. However, in the future, as history shows, the production of amphibious tanks was abandoned altogether, replacing them with other amphibious light-armored combat vehicles.
  10. vladcub
    vladcub 13 October 2018 15: 17
    0
    Quote: Cannonball
    The concepts of T-40C and T-30 are most likely later designations that have not received distribution.

    There is no need to talk about the built-in reserve in the design of the T-40 tank either. He has practically chosen all reserves as floating. The use of the tank in the land version was a necessary measure, as was the creation of the later T-60. The reason for the appearance of which - in the shortage of "thirty-four" and practically in the failure of the release of "fifty".

    There was also a great need for amphibious tanks in the Great Patriotic War. Even in the years 43-45, their release was not renewed, although with the armament just created by the CPV, a quite worthy floating tank could be obtained.

    Indeed, amphibious tanks in the Second World War did not show themselves. By and large, the then "floats" were outdated by the beginning of the war.
    1. Alf
      Alf 13 October 2018 17: 09
      +5
      Quote: vladcub
      Truly amphibious tanks in WWII did not show themselves.

      Because they failed to swim. At first they retreated, and then not to the crossings, and when the floating began to advance, there were no more.
      1. Paranoid50
        Paranoid50 13 October 2018 22: 23
        +1
        Quote: Alf
        they failed to swim.

        Yes, really ... Or rather, they didn’t. It went something like this:
        The company approached
        amphibious tanks of 239 separate reconnaissance battalions of the division. The combat course of the tank company and the attack direction of the second battalion ran through rye. The Germans immediately set fire to our five T-38s with anti-tank guns and heavy machine guns. Nine-millimeter armor, a gasoline engine, and a T-38 tank machine gun could not withstand the enemy’s fire weapons. The attack began to decline. The telephone buzzed: “How are you doing, Boris Grigoryevich ?,” asked the military commissar of the division — regimental commissar Alferov.
        I reported a hitch to Batalov. He reported that the Germans settled in the rye, and she is thick and tall. Set fire to tanks. Already 7 out of 10 are on fire. The Germans are not visible ...
        Nikolai Ivanovich advised to set fire to rye ... I objected to him. Sorry ...
        From the essay of Major General B.G. Weintraub "On the combat path of the 154th SD". The episode of July 1941 is given (battles in the Gomel region, for Zhlobin and Rogachev).
  11. vladcub
    vladcub 13 October 2018 16: 18
    +1
    Thanks to Roman for his series on floating tanks. Somehow there are few materials about them, and even more so examples of their intended use.
    My opinion: of the entire line of "floats", only the T-40 could relatively show itself. Purely theoretically, in the formation of the same Dnieper with the first strike group, the T-40 would have been well helped: immediately dig into the ground to use it as a mobile bunker. DShK at close range is a lethal thing, and in case of counterattacks, again, powerful support, and reinforcements will come up there. But 37 e there is little that they could: the weapons are weak. In fact, 37ki could show themselves when the Sivash or any other river was formed into a civil
  12. Anuar Zhanakaev
    Anuar Zhanakaev 14 October 2018 18: 17
    0
    "Moreover, in addition to itself with the crew, the T-40 could easily move several (up to four) infantrymen with full equipment on land and a couple on the water, which on the T-38, for example, was unrealistic." Astrov in the magazine "at the wheel" wrote that the T-40 could not carry anyone
  13. hohol95
    hohol95 14 October 2018 18: 22
    0
    Means of crossing over water barriers were needed! Pontoon parks, industrial boats, not confiscated from the public. Floating and prefabricated bridges!
    Some tanks floating or forcing along the bottom are powerless!
    The Red Army did not have enough of these very means of forcing for the FIRST THROW through water barriers !!!
    Pontoon parks lagged behind! The boats were confiscated from the population and carried with them! Rafts have always made up a new ...
    There were practically NO ready-made means for overcoming water obstacles with infantry and artillery until 1944!
    American floating cars began to be massively used only in 1944!
    There weren’t any such cars! All pre-war floating BAs (which could become the basis for such vehicles) did not go into the series! Yes, and they were all not all-wheel drive and were unlikely to be able to go to the unprepared shore!
  14. Saxahorse
    Saxahorse 15 October 2018 23: 35
    0
    The tank's seaworthiness was quite high - he could confidently carry out his tasks during the agitation up to 3 points, and in calm water to carry a load of considerable mass.

    Some kind of overly optimistic figure for such a box. Excitement 3 points are waves with a height of 0.5-1.25 meters. And judging by the photo, the T-40 engine compartment is afloat well if it sticks out of the water for half a meter. And with a wave more than a meter, it will overwhelm him right on top of the tower.

    And so for swamps, streams, a useful machine. In the north and northwest we had many such areas. Thank you for the article!