Military Review

Stories about weapons. Tank BT-7А: three times unsuccessful attempt

50
In fact, the idea of ​​creating a BT-XNUMHA was twice as good. But not without nuances.




In general, already in the mid 30-ies of the last century, the military leaders and engineers of the Red Army came to the conclusion that with artillery weapons tanks need to do something. The immediate initiator of the re-equipment was the notorious “strategist” Tukhachevsky, who proposed the idea of ​​arming light tanks T-26 and BT-7 with 76 mm caliber guns or Kurchevsky's dynamo-cannons.

As is known, Kurchevsky’s guns “did not enter”, but the idea of ​​installing a more powerful gun and turning a light tank into an artillery support tank took root.

Stories about weapons. Tank BT-7А: three times unsuccessful attempt


And here it is worth making a small digression retreat into history and strategy.

Let me remind you that in those years the Red Army planned to beat the enemy with small blood on its territory. In fact, everything turned out somewhat differently, but the artillery tanks were planned precisely as tanks supporting the offensive. And it will become clear a little lower when we begin to disassemble the very idea of ​​rearmament.

And the idea was this: install a new turret with a 7-mm short-barreled gun on the BT-76. Why precisely short-barreled? Everything is simple: for the foreseeable future there were no long-barreled “take and put” readiness to such a degree.



Of the guns available at that time that were suitable for installation on a tank, only KT-28 and PS-3 existed in serial production.

But PS-3 did not go into the series, because it really was a “leap over the head”. You can read about this interesting development with pleasure. here, and we are repelled by the fact that the only suitable option was the CT-28.



Why was it suddenly necessary to use the caliber 76-mm, if any tank of that time calmly “took” the 45-mm cannon of Soviet tanks?

With a barrel length of only 16,5 calibers, the initial speed of the 7-kg high-explosive fragmentation projectile of the KT-28 gun was 262 m / s, the shrapnel 6,5-kg projectile flew at the speed of 381 m / s.

This is definitely not for tanks. Well, maybe the lightest projectile with such characteristics was dangerous. But infantry, bunkers, pillboxes, artillery batteries, mortar batteries - these are the clear targets for this weapon.

Heavier projectile, which clearly gave more fragments than the 45-mm fellow, was actually more expedient to use against the above list.

I will especially emphasize - precisely in the offensive.

So, in fact, KT-28 received a residence permit, albeit as a temporary measure, before the appearance of more powerful artillery systems in mass production. True, more powerful guns did not appear in 30s, and the KT-28 was installed on all heavy T-35 tanks and most of the medium T-28.

We return to BT-7А.



The first prototype of the BT-7A was handed over, as was the case at the time, to 1 May. The second is November 7 1934.

An original elliptical-shaped tower with a sloping roof was installed on these tanks. In the niche of the turret there was a drum kit on 18 shells and (!) A radio station.

The tower turned out to be very similar to the main T-28 / T-35 tower, but no, this is a completely different design.

To the right of the gun was a DT machine gun in a ball mount. Another DT was installed in the front hull sheet as a course one.



Machines were sent to the tests, which showed a completely unsatisfactory characteristics of the tanks. The fighting compartment turned out to be too close even for a crew of three, ammunition in 18 shells was clearly insufficient, the tank mass increased significantly, respectively, the speed dropped.

Works were suspended until the fall of 1934. What happened? And they passed the tests of the artillery tank T-26-4, which ended in even greater fiasco. But on the basis of all the tests, it was decided to install the second version of the turret for T-7 (КТ-26) with a KT-26 gun on BT-28А.





And suddenly it happened.

Before installation on the BT-7, several changes were made to the design of the tower, strengthening the roof, refining the turret chase and providing for the installation of a stern machine gun.



Ammunition was significantly increased and amounted to 50 shots and 3339 ammunition for machine guns DT. Aiming the target was carried out using either a TF telescopic sight or a PT-1 periscope sight.



The tank received the designation BT-7A and in the middle of October 1935 went to the test.

In general, everything turned out: the driving characteristics remained almost at the level of the serial BT-7, and the firepower increased.

But by that time, T-28 and T-35 had already entered the series, and BT-7А was in the role of a catch-up. Only in the middle of 1937, a series of military trials was released. However, the BT-7 tank already had by that time an established reputation of a good car, and the BT-7А was received positively by the troops.

At the Kharkov Locomotive Plant from August 1937 to January 1938, 155 machines were assembled. Military acceptance took 122 tank, as the rest were waiting for the guns CT-28, the release of which was stopped. For the entire 1938 year, only 10 guns were obtained, which brought the number of accepted machines to 132.

The fate of the rest of the unarmed BT-XNUMHA is not entirely clear. Most likely, they were converted into conventional BT-7, since the tower was designed to replace the 7-mm cannon with 76-mm.

Then they began to think again, “what to do?”. CT-28 out of production, PS-3 in the series did not go. There was an option with a semi-automatic tank gun L-10. The gun was released in a small series and she even re-armed with a number of T-28 tanks.

There was even a question about equipping this T-35 with a weapon, but due to the lack of significant advantages over the CT-28, this idea was quickly abandoned. The Red Army Armored Directorate at the beginning of 1938 issued a new task to develop a tank gun.

So it turned out at the exit "new" gun L-11, which was all the same L-10 with an increased barrel length and a reinforced breech. Accordingly, with all the same flaws L-10.

The gun did not go into the series, all the more so that on the tests such defects appeared that did not allow the gun to be safely operated.

BT-7A was left without a gun.

The last attempt to give the army a tank of artillery support was the consideration of the possibility of installing the Grabinsk F-32.

By the way, it could get quite a good option.

Grabin used in his project a swinging part of the F-22 divisional gun of the 1936 model with a shortened barrel. When comparing the L-11 and F-32, it turned out that the F-32 has a lower cost, with high reliability, rate of fire, and good ballistic performance.

Non-deficient materials were used in its production, and the compatibility of many assemblies with the F-22 gun made it possible to quickly start mass production of the F-32.



The tests carried out on the BT-7A, fully confirmed the high performance of the Grabin cannon. But…

Alas, the installation of the F-32 still required a larger tower. Despite the difficulties with the installation and operation of the calculation, the BT-7А with the F-32 gun in September 1939 successfully passed the full test cycle. The work of the gun was found to be completely satisfactory and the F-32 gun was recommended for installation on Soviet tanks. Including on BT-7.

And in January 1940, the F-32 was put into service.

And BT-XNUMHA again left without weapons!

The re-equipment of old tanks with F-32 guns was abandoned in favor of the implementation of new KV and T-34 tanks.

And here lurked a small, but “ambush”.

Maybe not the best, but already tested, including fighting, BT-7, T-26, T-28 just took, and sent in retirement. Having made a bet on new models, which really have not yet begun to produce. And when they began to produce serially KV and T-34, then these new tanks naturally had a full set of "childhood diseases".
And it is as if normal.

It was not normal that the elimination of numerous shortcomings and full-scale development in production took time, moreover, precious time in the conditions of the outbreak of war.

It can be said that the modernization potential of the BT, T-30 and T-26 mastered in production and tested in battles as early as the 28s was not used. And that makes sense. It was in vain to reject even if not quite new equipment.

By the way, the Wehrmacht perfectly demonstrated how to use captured tanks.

The idea of ​​both an artillery support tank (implemented by the Americans) and an ACS based on the BT-7 would be quite realizable and useful.



All in all, it would have been good to change the candle suspension and Christie’s “guitars” to a more advanced one, equip the tank with a more spacious tower, really under the 76-mm cannon, and then strengthen the booking to 40-50 mm. And the turret for the commander with surveillance devices.

Coupled with an X-NUMX-mm F-76 or F-32 cannon, a real fire support machine could be very useful. It does not matter in principle that it would be, an artillery tank, self-propelled guns, anti-tank installation, the fact of the possibility of mass production and subsequent availability in parts is important.

It is clear that nothing was done for a number of reasons; by the beginning of the war, they did not learn to make verified decisions and to re-equip the army without losing combat capability. Illustrative examples of the shaft, the story of the adoption of the KV and T-34 before the memoirs of Pokryshkin, as in the Air Force came MiGs.

The idea of ​​a phased modernization only was in the air, but in reality only the war taught it.

It is difficult to talk about the combat use of BT-7А, since a fairly small number of these tanks were scattered throughout all military districts.

The BT-7А did very well in the Winter War, that is, in the conditions for which these tanks were designed. Support the advancing infantry.

In the period from November 30 1939 to March 13, 1940 six artillery tanks from the 1 th lbbr were actively used for fire support of advancing tanks and infantry, as well as for firing at the DOTs of the Finns and the counter-battery struggle.

Interestingly, all 6 vehicles were damaged during the fighting (4 damaged by artillery and 2 was blown up by land mines), but all of them were repaired and returned to the army.

At the time of the start of the Great Patriotic War in the Red Army, there were 117 tanks BT-7. It is clear that not all were in combat readiness, but nevertheless, the tanks were listed. The exact number of BT-7А tanks that were in border districts on the eve of the war with Germany is hardly likely to be established now.

It is no less difficult to find any evidence of the participation of tanks in battles, and even more so, of effective participation. Not to statistics was, alas.



Judging by the German chronicle, virtually all BT-7А were lost in the first days of the war.

Performance characteristics



Combat weight: 13,5 tons
Crew: 3 people

Length: 5,6 m
Width: 2,2 m
Height: 2,4 m



Reservation
forehead case: 20 mm
Front Tower: 15 mm
hull bead: 10 mm
Body feed: 10 mm
Roof: 10 mm
Bottom: 6 mm



Armament:
76-mm cannon with b / c 50 shells, 2 x 7,62 mm DT machine gun with b / c 3339 cartridges



Engine: M-17T, carburetor, hp power 400

Cruising range on the highway:
on tracks 250 km
on wheels 500 km

Maximum speed on the highway:
on caterpillars 62 km / h
on wheels 86 km / h

Today, the BT-7A tank shown in the photo can be seen in the UMMC Military Equipment Museum in Verkhnyaya Pyshma.

Source:
Pavlov, M.V., Zheltov, I.G., Pavlov, I.V. Tanks BT.
Author:
50 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. polpot
    polpot 3 December 2018 06: 04
    +4
    Thanks, very interesting
  2. svp67
    svp67 3 December 2018 07: 25
    +5
    The immediate initiator of the re-equipment was the notorious “strategist” Tukhachevsky
    Well, then he was right. Line tanks on the battlefield needed the support of their more armed counterparts, and this solution is BETTER than the solution proposed by the Germans. Which produced "linear" T-3 and "artillery" T-4, which were very different in design.
    And the history of the "artillery" BT began earlier, when in 1931 the design and testing bureau of the UMM RKKA under the leadership of N.I. Dyrenkova proposed the project of the D-38 tank, the lead engineer for the project was N. Gulenko. In this case, the BT-2 hull was used, and some components of the original Christie tank. A wooden model of the tower was mounted on the hull, in which a 76-mm Garfoda anti-assault gun mod. 1910 (the "short cannon" of the 1913 model is sometimes mentioned). There was also a second version of the D-38 with a 76,2 mm cannon in the hull and a 37 mm cannon in the turret.
    Despite the numerous flaws in the design, the layout of the tower of the first version of the D-38 made a good impression, and such a tower was ordered from the Izhora plant in two versions (welded from flat armor plates and a partially stamped "streamlined" or "mushroom" shape) for further tests on T-26 and BT-2 tanks.
    in January 1932, the first prototype tank was built in the stamped turret version, after which the tank was submitted for testing in March.

    Alas, the installation of the F-32 still required a larger tower.
    Strange, it fit into the "pie" of the tower of the first T-34s, but this tower does not. Miracles, and nothing more.
    And the thing is that the tank with this gun TESTS PASSED.
    .... the units of the F-32 system showed quite satisfactory performance, the system allows for convenient maintenance in both BT-7 and T-28 tanks, the system is simple for both manufacturing and operation. On this basis, it is necessary to conclude that the F-32 system passed the test range. Henceforth, in the manufacture of the series, it is only necessary to pay attention to the cleanliness of the processing of the barrel channel (enter the channel polishing) ....


    Military tests of the F-32 gun were held on the basis of the order for AU-ABTU of the Red Army No. 037/0109 of September 9, 1939. at the Senezhsky range of VAMM in the period from September 20 to September 23, 1939 Two systems participated in the tests: F-32 No. 1 (the first sample tested at the ANIOP) installed in the T-28 tank, and F-32 No. 2 (modified according to the results of the tests at the ANIOP) mounted in the BT-7 tank.
    In the test report, the commission noted the following conclusions:
    1) 76 mm F-32 tank gun in accuracy, rate of fire, ballistic properties, simplicity and reliability of the design, ease of maintenance during firing, operational characteristics and conditions of formulation and placement in T-28 and BT-7 tanks is quite modern 76 mm tank gun.
    2) Based on the tests, the commission concludes that the F-32 system passed the military tests.
    3) It is necessary to introduce minor corrections into the F-32 system (sample No. 2), according to this report. The implementation of these corrections does not require repeated testing of the system. The corrections introduced by the plant into sample No. 2 paid off.
    4) It is necessary to radically redesign the existing ammunition stack for both vehicles and the seat in the T-28 turret.
  3. mark1
    mark1 3 December 2018 07: 29
    +6
    “All it would be necessary to do in a good way would be to change the candle suspension and Christie's 'guitars' to a more perfect one, equip the tank with a more spacious turret for a 76-mm cannon, and then increase the armor to 40-50 mm. observation. "
    That's all ... The suspension even on the T-34 could not be changed, the space in the tower also depends on the diameter of the shoulder strap (1360 mm for the BT 1480 for the T-34-76) which cannot be increased (including) due to for "Christie" type suspensions, an increase in booking leads to an increase in mass - there is already a transmission ... Oooh!
    Another thing is the development of the BT in the form of the T-34 where everything said (except for the suspension) was completed.
    1. Graz
      Graz 3 December 2018 08: 05
      +4
      “All it would be necessary to do in a good way would be to change the candle suspension and Christie's 'guitars' to a more perfect one, equip the tank with a more spacious turret for a 76-mm cannon, and then increase the armor to 40-50 mm. observation. "


      All these alterations would stand if not in the cost of a new tank, then somewhere close
      so the best thing that could be done was that there was a shortage of troops
      namely, artillery tractors, ammunition carriers, cshm, medical tow truck, armored personnel carrier, infantry fighting vehicle, self-propelled guns, engineering tank, anti-aircraft tank, mortar tank, etc.

      Yes, now we are all backwardly strong, it is clear that the t-26, bt platforms for these types are not at all ideal, but it was certainly possible to remake a significant part of these tanks 3-4 years before the war to the desired one.
      Beria showed that he can work when the task is supreme.
      1. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 3 December 2018 13: 48
        0
        Quote: Graz
        Beria showed that he can work when the task is supreme.

        Mwa ha ha ... read the production history of the first batch of CPV.
        By the decision of Comrade Beria L.P. dated April 14, 1944 to the People’s Commissar of Armaments comrade Ustinov D.F. entrusted to manufacture and deliver GAU KA:
        1. 14,5 mm machine guns Vladimirov "KPV-44" 20 pcs. without installations, to ensure the experimental development of integrated anti-aircraft, tank, armored trains, etc. installations - by June 15, 1944
        2. 14,5 mm machine guns Vladimirov "KPV-44" 30 pcs. on single anti-aircraft installations, for military tests - by July 1, 1944
        However, to date, the plant number 2 has not passed the GAU KA, even the first batch of machine guns (without installations), as a result of which the actual experimental work is disrupted.
        I will forgive your assistance and the relevant NKV decrees on taking measures to ensure the implementation of the decision of Comrade Beria on the delivery of GAU KA 14,5 mm machine guns Vladimirov "KPV-44" in the shortest possible time.
        © Marshal of Artillery Yakovlev
        Result? And no - both LPS and GAU were forced to get into position factory and shift the timing to the right:
        On the issue: the delivery of a series of 14,5 mm machine guns KPV-44 on anti-aircraft installations.
        I am forced to agree with the deadline for the commissioning of KPV-44 at anti-aircraft installations, as defined by you on January 1, 1945.
        However, there are fears that this period by Plant No. 2 will not be fulfilled as well as the previously appointed dates.
        Inspection at the factory number 2 found that not all the installation details have been launched into production and the assembly of plants is extremely sluggish.
        © Marshal of Artillery Yakovlev
    2. svp67
      svp67 3 December 2018 08: 40
      +2
      Quote: mark1
      the space in the tower also depends on the shoulder strap diameter (1360 mm for the BT 1480 for the T-34-76) which cannot be increased (including) due to the Christie-type suspension

      You guessed it yourself? And it's okay that the T-34/85 has this clearance already 1600 mm. In 1940, there were not any special difficulties in order to establish the production of a tank with just such a clearance. But then the tank would lose its "licked" appearance.
      1. mark1
        mark1 3 December 2018 09: 16
        +2
        Do you well imagine the design of BT? Look closely at the drawings and find three reasons why you can not easily increase the shoulder strap. You’re a literate person, so I won’t poke you with my nose.
        The F-32 cannon, of course, climbed into the BT tower, but that’s all. the crew would have to consist of ethereal spirits. If you have developed spatial thinking you will easily understand this.
        The epaulette T-34-76 was calculated from the conditions of placement of a 45-mm gun and 2 crew members in the tower, when placing the L-11 (F-34) in the tower it became a little crowded, to say the least. Attempts to correct the situation by changing the angle of inclination of the side walls of the tower did not give any results; therefore, a tower with a shoulder strap of 34 mm from the second half of 1600 (according to pre-war plans) was to be used in the T-1941M.
        In the T-34-85, an increase in shoulder strap up to 1600 mm was achieved by changing the slope of the suspension shafts, which worsened its characteristics. In the case of BT, in view of the 4-roller construction of the undercarriage and the increase in mass, the deterioration would be more significant
        1. svp67
          svp67 3 December 2018 09: 28
          +1
          Quote: mark1
          In the case of BT, in view of the 4-roller construction of the undercarriage and the increase in mass, the deterioration would be more significant

          Everything is correct, except for a few "BUT".
          - these tanks were used to equip the artillery units of the tank units, and with these deteriorations one could put up with until more advanced designs appeared,
          - the appearance of the Finns BT-42, with a 4, 5 inch gun
          - you can install the gun in a fixed wheelhouse. But this is already from the height of today's understanding.
          1. mark1
            mark1 3 December 2018 09: 37
            +3
            BT-7A is a peacetime development, when people think about "ersatz" last.
            Until the middle of the Second World War, the USSR did not have a clear understanding of the role of artillery tanks (self-propelled guns) in the ground forces.
            1. svp67
              svp67 3 December 2018 09: 52
              +3
              Quote: mark1
              BT-7A is a peacetime development, when people think about "ersatz" last.

              I do not agree. We thought there were no opportunities to put them on the stream.
              Quote: mark1
              Until the middle of the Second World War, the USSR did not have a clear understanding of the role of artillery tanks (self-propelled guns) in the ground forces.

              Again, I disagree. And there was understanding, since the Germans very quickly "opened their eyes". Opportunities suffered, although attempts were made. Well, for example:
              Self-propelled artillery unit based on the T-26 tank. The so-called "Leningrad surrogate".
              Made in Leningrad, at the Kirov plant. A total of 14 pieces were manufactured. Of these, two self-propelled guns with 37mm guns and 12 self-propelled guns with 76,2cm regimental guns.





              1. mark1
                mark1 3 December 2018 09: 59
                +1
                You confuse God's gift with the scrambled eggs. The use of several dozen self-propelled guns only says that people used all available methods to fight the enemy. The use of self-propelled guns was not reflected in the charters and instructions of the spacecraft
                1. svp67
                  svp67 3 December 2018 10: 07
                  0
                  Quote: mark1
                  You confuse God's gift with the scrambled eggs. The use of several dozen self-propelled guns only says that people used all available methods to fight the enemy. The use of self-propelled guns was not reflected in the charters and instructions of the spacecraft

                  You know, the same can be said about many of our weapons. For example about IL-2. And the plane was and was produced in ever-increasing quantities, but they did not really know how to use it. There were no instructions, they did not succeed in conducting the test ... since the order of the USSR People's Commissar of Defense on conducting tests for the combat use of the IL-2 in daytime and at night conditions was signed only on May 31, 1941, and the corresponding order for the Air Force Research Institute was generally only June 20. The same can be said about the Katyushas.
                  Yes, that there is a weapon. We did not know how to use the created fur hulls. Experimental exercises only in September 1941 were to pass.
              2. Alexey RA
                Alexey RA 3 December 2018 12: 59
                +2
                Quote: svp67
                And there was understanding, since the Germans very quickly "opened their eyes". Opportunities suffered, although attempts were made. Well, for example:
                Self-propelled artillery unit based on the T-26 tank. The so-called "Leningrad surrogate".

                This is not "understanding". Leningrad "regiments" on the T-26 chassis are a typical example of wartime ersatz: there are unused T-26 chassis (including those previously rejected), but there are no fragmentation shells for the standard 45-mm tanks. But there are 76-mm "regiments" with a full-fledged OFS. The solution is not to restore the T-26 as tanks, take the hull and put on it a platform with a "regiment" behind the shield. They even managed to pile up 61-K on a couple of buildings.
          2. hohol95
            hohol95 3 December 2018 23: 06
            0
            A variant like "HO-NI / HO-RO" would not be better suited for the BT tank hull? It would be possible to convert part of the BT-2 with machine-gun armament into such SPGs!
      2. hohol95
        hohol95 3 December 2018 22: 56
        0
        The width of the BT-7 was 2290mm. If we subtract 1480 for the turret ring, then there is only 405mm left from each bar to accommodate the tank's suspension! "It's hard to do - very easy. To do is simple - very difficult."
        In addition, in the USSR there were only TWO machines for processing rings for a turret ring of such a diameter! One in Kharkov, the second in Nizhny Novgorod! And due to the lack of similar machines at other enterprises that produced the T-34, the production of the T-34-85 was only started at Krasnoye Sormovo! Their machines could not make rings with a diameter of 1600mm! I had to order the machines in the USA and the plant in Omsk was the last to receive such a machine!
    3. prodi
      prodi 3 December 2018 14: 48
      0
      Quote: mark1

      “All it would be necessary to do in a good way would be to change the candle suspension and Christie's 'guitars' to a more perfect one, equip the tank with a more spacious turret for a 76-mm cannon, and then increase the armor to 40-50 mm. observation. "

      at least they just slammed the 6th skating rink, pushed the tower back and instead of one mechanical drive hatch on the VLD would have made two on the roof of the hull
      1. hohol95
        hohol95 3 December 2018 23: 00
        0
        Wouldn’t it be necessary to deploy the engine across the body?
        Or do you like the narrow and long BT-7?
        1. prodi
          prodi 4 December 2018 07: 59
          0
          as for BT, then by 1940 their release was discontinued, and the bulk was lost; and, frankly, it’s hard to come up with anything worthwhile on their basis.
          But as for the T-34, this is a quite adequate machine, and if then the launch in the T-44 troops was considered unjustified, then at least to make a 70cm insert in the hull with an additional roller, remodel the hull roof and strengthen the forehead at the cost of some decrease in mobility was quite really
          1. hohol95
            hohol95 4 December 2018 20: 41
            0
            and the bulk has been lost; and, frankly, it’s hard to come up with anything worthwhile on their basis.

            And, where did they manage to lose the bulk of BT tanks before the start of World War II?
            Variants like the Japanese "HO-NI / HO-RO" could well have been created, but our military wanted to have machines with rotating turrets. Then they did not want a technique with a fixed wheelhouse!

            The dimensions of the BT-7 and the Japanese Chi-Ha tank are comparable!
            It was quite capable to create a similar self-propelled guns based on the BT-7 tank!
  4. The leader of the Redskins
    The leader of the Redskins 3 December 2018 08: 11
    0
    Informative. But the modernization indicated by the author would not be effective. Designer M.Koshkin realized this and refused to prefer the T-32/34. Replacing the suspension and transmission is a half-measure and too complicated thing, it is easier to make a tank from scratch.
    1. svp67
      svp67 3 December 2018 08: 58
      +4
      Quote: Leader of the Redskins
      Designer M. Koshkin was aware of this and refused, preferring the t-32/34.

      Alas, others decided it for him.
      Quote: Leader of the Redskins
      Replacing the suspension and transmission is half-measure and too complicated thing, it is easier to make a tank from scratch.

      And this is not about the T-34 and BT tanks. MUCH GREATLY, the T-34 inherited all the major design decisions, with the exception of the wheel drive and steered front rollers, from the BT tank.
      1. The leader of the Redskins
        The leader of the Redskins 3 December 2018 10: 07
        +1
        Granted, the torsion bars were not yet common, but they were already thinking about another upgrade m 34 m sample 1943 of the year, like the engine across. But imagine BT, upgraded by the author - overwhelmed nonsense.
  5. Potter
    Potter 3 December 2018 09: 50
    +3
    All in all, it would have been good to change the candle suspension and Christie’s “guitars” to a more advanced one, equip the tank with a more spacious tower, really under the 76-mm cannon, and then strengthen the booking to 40-50 mm. And the turret for the commander with surveillance devices.

    Just? This is a new tank with a mass of T-34! And even on the T-34, the suspension of Christie and the guitar remained, it turned out to refuse the candle suspension only on the T-44. There are sofa strategists, and there are sofa chief designers. This is the case.
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 3 December 2018 11: 39
      +2
      Quote: Potter
      And even on the T-34, the suspension of Christie and the guitar remained, it turned out to refuse the candle suspension only on the T-44.

      She won’t stay if the future T-34 were made successive approximation method just from BT-7A. And one of the main tasks of the design bureau was to make a tank that could be produced at the KhPZ - with its machines and workers. As a result, the same gearbox was not made from the calculation of the maximum efficiency of using engine power, but from the calculation of the possibility of production on a machine purchased for BT. And the five-step program was developed for so long precisely because it was also squeezed into the Procrustean bed of the machine park.
      1. svp67
        svp67 3 December 2018 13: 21
        0
        Quote: Alexey RA
        And one of the main tasks of the design bureau was to make a tank that could be produced at the KhPZ - with its machines and workers

        Not so simple. The plant was not opposed to switching to torsion bars. But only subject to an increase in the timing of the start of mass production. And ha it's not who did not go
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 3 December 2018 13: 51
          0
          Quote: svp67
          The plant was not opposed to switching to torsion bars. But only subject to an increase in the timing of the start of mass production.

          Extend the start of mass production
          - this is precisely the impossibility of producing such a tank at the KhPZ as a factory in 1939-1940.
  6. snerg7520
    snerg7520 3 December 2018 10: 07
    +2
    So it turned out at the exit "new" gun L-11, which was all the same L-10 with an increased barrel length and a reinforced breech. Accordingly, with all the same flaws L-10.

    The gun did not go into the series, all the more so that on the tests such defects appeared that did not allow the gun to be safely operated.

    Why didn’t the L-11 go into production?
    As far as I recall, the L-11 was put into service and was mass-produced, and the first series of T-34 tanks were armed precisely with the L-11 gun.
    1. svp67
      svp67 3 December 2018 13: 25
      +1
      Quote: snerg7520
      Why didn’t the L-11 go into production?

      The author wants so much. This is his vision of the problem.
      Quote: snerg7520
      moreover, the first series of T-34 tanks were armed precisely with the L-11 cannon.

      And not only them, but also KV-1
  7. irazum
    irazum 3 December 2018 10: 13
    0
    Very interesting, did not know much, Thank you! But, in general, the topic is very interesting. Against the background of the T-34, they simply forgot about other tanks, and there is something to talk about, listen to, tell ...
  8. wooja
    wooja 3 December 2018 10: 32
    +1
    an interesting article, it seems, about the tank, but actually about a mess in the tank industry ..., Shakespearean passions ....
  9. The comment was deleted.
  10. Alexey RA
    Alexey RA 3 December 2018 10: 54
    +1
    All in all, it would have been good to change the candle suspension and Christie’s “guitars” to a more advanced one, equip the tank with a more spacious tower, really under the 76-mm cannon, and then strengthen the booking to 40-50 mm. And the turret for the commander with surveillance devices.

    That is, nothing at all - to make of BT-7A T-34M. smile
    Who will do this? What tank factory (it’s the factory, because replacing the suspension, gearbox and adding it is not even a rembase).?
  11. snerg7520
    snerg7520 3 December 2018 10: 56
    +1
    The reasons for the non-use of the L-11 for the BT-7A weapons were most likely due to the prohibitive complexity and high cost of the L-11 production, which was not enough even for the T-34 weapons of the first series, on the one hand and the commissioning of an incomparably cheaper and more technologically advanced weapon F-32, which signed the verdict for the production of L-11, on the other hand.
    Under these conditions, it did not make sense to equip the BT-7A with the L-11 gun, albeit recently launched into production, but already out of production.
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 3 December 2018 13: 39
      +1
      Quote: snerg7520
      and launching the incomparably cheaper and more technologically advanced F-32 gun, which signed the verdict on L-11 production, on the other hand.

      Not everything is so simple. Cheap and technological F-32 was for the native plant. But for LKZ F-32 turned out to be a real hemorrhoid. The mastering of the "alien" gun at the plant went on with great difficulty - the production of the F-32 was barely enough for the KV. Actually, one of the reasons for the rearmament of the KV on the ZIS-5 in 1941 was precisely the problem with the production of the F-32.
  12. IGU
    IGU 3 December 2018 11: 01
    +1
    Thank you for the article!
    Do not quite understand:
    Another DT was installed in the frontal sheet of the hull as a course.
    .
    In the pictures I did not see the DT was installed in the frontal sheet of the case. Maybe this is the first option?
    1. hohol95
      hohol95 3 December 2018 23: 21
      +1

      Mentioned here is a model from KB Dyrenkova.
  13. mark1
    mark1 3 December 2018 13: 41
    0
    speed of 62/86 km per hour is BT-7M with a BT-7A diesel engine will be slower.
  14. Decimam
    Decimam 3 December 2018 14: 08
    +1
    BT-7, actually, was originally designed with a 76,2 mm gun.
    February 21, 1932 at a meeting of the Defense Commission (KO) in the third paragraph of Protocol No. 7, it was recognized as necessary "to equip 50% of BT tanks with a 3-inch cannon." A month later, on March 19, considering the implementation of the tank program (protocol No. 9, clause 2), the KO re-decided: “To the NKVMoru [People’s Commissariat for Military and Naval Affairs] and NKtyazhprom to resolve the issue of arming the [tanks] BT and T within one month -26, highlighting the installation of 76,2-mm guns on these tanks without changing their design "
    And the fact that the BT-7 went into series with a 45 mm gun, it was only due to the unpreparedness of the industry to produce a corresponding 76,2 mm gun. The tank was already there, but the gun was gone. Therefore, they set what was, and continued to refine the initial project.
    This epic is best illuminated in "Pavlov, M. V .; Zheltov, I. G., Pavlov, I. V.
    BT tanks "
  15. BAI
    BAI 3 December 2018 14: 19
    0
    In Mr. Pushkino (or the village of Mamontovka) Moscow. reg. Sergey Chibineev restored various tanks (T-34-76, KV-1, T-60, etc.) including BT-7A.
    1. Avior
      Avior 4 December 2018 01: 43
      -1
      plywood?
      it’s hard to imagine that wooden pallets hold the tank.
      1. svp67
        svp67 4 December 2018 03: 35
        0
        Quote: Avior
        it’s hard to imagine that wooden pallets hold the tank.

        Why? Take a closer look, so it stands on the central beam
        1. Avior
          Avior 4 December 2018 09: 56
          -1
          I did not see any timber. Where to look?.
          of plywood, of course, is slightly similar in appearance to the tower, rather sheet metal, but even in this case the pallets should not be held.
          and why they, if there is a beam, how do you write?
      2. BAI
        BAI 4 December 2018 10: 19
        0
        The most that neither is metal. I saw the welding with my own eyes. And the spare parts (according to his interview) are all genuine, from battlefields and storage depots.

        And it stands on pallets - so the weight is only 14 tons.
        1. BAI
          BAI 4 December 2018 10: 22
          0
          Here you can clearly see that everything is metal.

          (There is a primer, before painting, if there is a claim to color).
          1. BAI
            BAI 4 December 2018 10: 47
            0
            In general, it turns out the tank, which is discussed in the article and a number of other tanks from this museum, were restored by this person:
            In mid-May, the handsome KV-1 will go to the Battle Glory of the Urals Museum (Verkhnyaya Pyshma, Sverdlovsk Region). There are already 11 combat vehicles, most of them T-34, recreated by Chibineev and his assistants.


            It turns out who supplies the tanks there!
            And in the article about this man - not a word!
  16. bubalik
    bubalik 3 December 2018 14: 21
    +1
    Captain Kulchitsky jump on a BT-7, 1936, 42 m free flight,

  17. dobryKot petersciy
    dobryKot petersciy 3 December 2018 18: 35
    +2
    Of course, the author's statements about "just something was necessary ..." surprise and spoil the impression of the article. Any design change leads to a lot of modifications to other units. The triangle "speed, weapons, armor" cannot be thrown back. IMHO, of course.
  18. abc_alex
    abc_alex 4 December 2018 00: 10
    0
    In fact, everything turned out a little differently, but the artillery tanks were planned exactly as tanks to support the offensive. And this will become clear a little lower when we begin to analyze the very idea of ​​rearmament.

    And the idea was this: install a new turret with a 7-mm short-barreled gun on the BT-76. Why precisely short-barreled? Everything is simple: for the foreseeable future there were no long-barreled “take and put” readiness to such a degree.


    ??? Yes, all the support tanks in the world at that time were equipped with short-barreled guns. Such a gun has more optimal ballistics, and the low velocity of the projectile provides the best high-explosive action of the projectile.
  19. Avior
    Avior 4 December 2018 01: 42
    -1
    ACS instead of this tank was just asking.
    However, the Germans with their T-4 cigarette butt made the same mistake - they tried to make a specialized tank out of a universal definition of a tank weapon.
  20. sh3roman
    sh3roman 21 January 2019 18: 02
    0
    "All it would have to do is change the candle suspension and Christie's" guitars "for a more perfect one, equip the tank with a more spacious turret for a 76-mm cannon, and then increase the booking to 40-50 mm" - how simple it turns out, but nothing that in fact a new tank would have turned out, if fantasized, almost a T-44.
  21. Andrey Shmelev
    Andrey Shmelev 30 January 2019 17: 11
    0
    I am writing from a telephone from a taxi to distant foreign countries, so do not demand proofs now. In an amazing way, the author’s thoughts coincided with Pavlov’s proposals. IMHO the logic is clear, but it is incorrect