Another Lend-Lease. High-speed middle tractor M5

112
Most of the readers interested in equipment and weapons, which were supplied to the USSR under Lend-Lease, have already made up their own opinion about the quality of these samples and their need for an active army.

Suffice it to recall that many types of technology were not produced at all by Soviet industry, while others clearly did not meet the demands of the army in terms of power or quantity. Very often, the Lend-Lease technique was the only possible option to quickly “plug technical holes”.



The hero of our story today is not a hero either. Not a tank, not an armored personnel carrier, not a plane, and not even a truck or an amphibian. He is a tractor! Although in the Soviet Red Army books it is proudly referred to as an average high-speed artillery tractor.

So, the American high-speed artillery tractor tractor M5. Like most "Americans" of that time, the car, causing interest already by its original look.



The funny thing is that this machine, which is completely unsuitable for action in the conditions of the USSR, felt quite comfortable in Europe and on other continents. Paradox.

First of all, you must answer the question that has already arisen to some readers. Why a tractor? Why not artillery tractor, as was the custom in the Red Army?

The answer lies in the mentality of the Americans, which we have already written before. Unlike our soldiers, the Americans always called their designs simply for their intended purpose. This applies to literally all weapons and military equipment.

Artillery tractors were designed to move artillery systems on the front lines. That is why heavy artillery tractors were called tractors. No reservations. No weapons. So - just a tractor, not an armored vehicle or an armored personnel carrier.

These tractors were designed to work with guns and howitzers of various calibers and, accordingly, heavier guns moved far enough away from the line of direct contact. It means that these cars are intended for transportation of guns and their calculations in conditions when booking, as it were, was not the first necessity.

The development of a tracked artillery tractor or, if the American classification is followed, a “high-speed tractor” (HST - high speed tractor) began in the US in the 1941 year.

Another Lend-Lease. High-speed middle tractor M5


Of the two prototypes presented by International Harvester, Т20 and Т21, the second one was chosen. True, another prototype should be mentioned - Т13. But the option was completely experimental and was not even offered for testing. In 1942, it was standardized under the designation M5.

Immediately the question arises about the prototypes. T20 and T21, what is the difference? Both versions of the tractor were similar in appearance. Technically, the prototypes differed in suspension and tracks. The T20 had tracks with a rubber treadmill. It provided higher tractor speed.

However, the Americans' desire for the unification of technology led to the adoption of the second version of the tractor - T21. This prototype had a suspension and tracks already used in the lung tank M3.

On the one hand, the choice of suspension, already produced for light tanks, has a certain risk. Industry is not omnipotent. Even in the USA. On the other hand, a proven technology, mass production, ready specialists in repair and operation of the chassis.

Speaking of American cars, we often forget one truth. All of them were created and intended primarily for the American army! Not for the allies, not for export, but for the needs of the American army. The US Army needed tractors for three-inch anti-tank guns, 105 and 155-mm howitzers.

And the fact that some quite worthy samples were used more by other armies (remember the International trucks, which the US Army refused only because of higher prices than others) speaks only about industry and engineering that was really advanced for that time.

The tractor was produced by Americans in large quantities. That is what allowed him to quickly become the main auxiliary machine of the American artillery units. Yes, and tractor options were enough.

Tractors МХNUMX were produced with the case open at the top. The driver's seat was located in the center. The top covered canvas awning. Used chassis tank M5 Stuart.









Then came the tractor on the chassis of the tank M5 Stuart. Models МХNUMXА5 (closed top, driver on the left) and М1А5 (open top, driver in the center). And the tractor on the chassis of the tank M2А5 Stuart. Models МХNUMXА1 (closed case, driver on the left) and М5А3 (open case, driver in the center).

It's time to look at the tractor more closely.

The machine, as we wrote above, was based on the units of the light tank МХNUMX Stewart (later as the mass production - light tanks М3 and М5А5) and had the same layout of the engine and transmission compartments.





The driver was located in the front of the open (with the exception of the engine compartment) box-shaped housing in the center. In front of it was mounted a protective glass with a wiper. Behind the driver there was a compartment in which artillery ammunition was transported.









The members of the gun crew were placed on benches along the sides of the machine, face inward. There were no doors in the sides of the hull. Landing was carried out through two narrow doors in the front wall of the case.





In the stern of the tractor mounted six-cylinder in-line gasoline engine "Continental" R6572 power 235 l. with. at 2900 rpm Two fuel tanks with a total capacity of 100 gallons (454,61 l) were placed on either side of the engine.

In front of the tractor, a Garwood winch was installed with a tractive force of 6800 kg and a cable length of 90 m.







The American classification of this car rather quickly showed its complete inconsistency. “Classical war”, according to the concept of which the tractor was named, in fact does not exist. There are no places in the war where they do not shoot.

The tractor had to arm. But it was done more than original. 12,7-mm machine gun Browning M2HV installed on the turret ... in the rear of the tractor. For this, we had to install a steel roof and a special rack there. Factory finishing machine appeared only in February 1944 year. What we see on earlier machines is nothing more than the initiative of front-line craftsmen.

Now about why this tractor appeared in our army and why this sample did not enjoy popularity among our soldiers. What is really strange against the background of success, for example, truck tractors.

Strangely enough, but American tractors appeared thanks to the successes of our gunsmiths-artillerymen and tankmen. The fact is that by the middle of the war the Red Army began to feel an acute shortage of high-speed artillery tractors.

The industry focused on the production of combat vehicles, simply stopped the release of pre-war tractors as such. The production of "Voroshilovtsev", "Comintern", STZ-5, NATI, C-2 was curtailed. Machines of these brands, which still remained in the army, were extremely worn out.

New tractors, the production of which was developed in the USSR, I-12 and I-13, were low-powered. And their release was so small that it could not meet the needs of the Red Army.

It is for these reasons that the agreement of the USSR on the supply of artillery lend-lease artillery starting from 1943 is explained. Among other things, we put and tractor M5.

The “Americans” were put in three artillery brigades (39, 45 and 46-I cannon brigades, in the 2 RVGK divisions (5 and 9 artillery divisions). It was necessary to explore the possibilities of using the tractors by the Red Army.



It turned out that this tractor is picky enough and not adapted to our climate. Yes, and Russian roads for him turned out to be deadly. In addition, the design features of the Soviet artillery, in particular, the permissible speed of towing guns, completely leveled the capabilities of a high-speed tractor.

The maximum speed of the tractor reached 55,3 km / h. However, in practice, this speed could not be used, since when towing an 122-mm gun, the arr. 1931 / 37 of the year and 152-mm howitzer cannon arr. 1937 of the year allowed the speed: on the highway - up to 20 km / h and on dirt roads - 17 km / h (tractor C-65, respectively, - 10-12 km / h and 6-9 km / h).

The engine worked on expensive fuel - gasoline of the first grade KB-70 and consumed 28 kg per hour, which at an average speed of 15 km / h with a trailer of 8 t weighing about 2 kg per 1 km of track. Or 273 l / 100 km, in a more familiar to us measurement system.

It is clear that such towing, and under such conditions, the army was absolutely not needed. Then it was the idea to use the M5 tractor to tow more powerful and heavy systems. However, the tractor showed itself as a true foreigner. Powerful engine, tracked drive and ... poor traction.

It was the lack of adhesion with the ground that became the subject of dislike for this tractor. Even in the summer, even on hard ground or on a highway, overcoming ascents and descents was a rather risky venture. If the tractor coped with light and medium guns, the heavy ones were simply an anchor.

But the most "fun" was in the winter. Not only ice, but also snow made the tractor completely "dead." The lack of adhesion made it impossible to move. But even in the case when the tractor started off, its controllability was minimal.

If today we read the reports of the commanders of brigades and divisions on the operation of the М5 tractors, a stable opinion is created that these tractors were used simply because there was nothing else. And the conclusion of the commission on their use is indicative. "Use for towing guns weighing up to 8 tons."







By the way, the poor permeability of this tractor was also noted by the commission. But the most interesting, there is also indicated on the large dimensions of the tractor, which make it difficult to disguise this machine on the position. The work of the tractor was often disturbed due to the instability of certain mechanisms and components, breakage and rapid wear of parts.

However, around the 200 of high-speed middle tractor-tractors МХNUMX in the USSR was delivered. And they were used to the fullest.

Well, the traditional technical characteristics of the hero.



Combat weight, t: 13,791
Crew, prs: 1
Assault Force (Cannon Calculation): 8-10

Dimensions (LW), mm: 5030 x 2540 x 2690

Engine: Continental R 6572, petrol
Highway speed, km / h: 55,3
Cruising on the highway, km: 290
Specific power, hp / t: 15

Obstacle obstacles:
wall, m: 0,7
ditch, m: 1,7
ford, m: 1,3
Minimum ground pressure: about 0,85 kg / cm2.
Our news channels

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

112 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +2
    30 December 2018 06: 18
    For the idiotic idea is to make a V-shaped lug on the links directed along the way caterpillar movements (i.e., a link with such a V only slips back more strongly in the ground, only in vain did they knead the dirt and tear off the turf under any serious load).
    1. +20
      30 December 2018 06: 46
      Quote: Kuroneko
      For the idiotic idea is to make a V-shaped lug on the links

      You swear in vain. This was done so that the dirt squeezed out while moving to the sides, and the caterpillar did not lose its already outstanding passability. Such a lug is still used, and not only on tractors.
      1. +2
        30 December 2018 06: 48
        It’s one thing to carry, another thing lug for themselves.
        And so yes. But show me at least one modern tracked combat vehicle with a similar lug form.
        And then, on your photo example - already a suitable development of the idea. Not a solid V, but alternating overlapping stripes.
        1. 0
          30 December 2018 06: 50
          Quote: Kuroneko
          But show me at least one modern combat

          Here is the answer. lol
          1. +1
            30 December 2018 06: 52
            And then!
            Which does not cancel the thesis that most of the American truck profiles at that time were still addictive.
            1. +2
              30 December 2018 20: 45
              So this was completely absent in the USSR?
              So you should not exaggerate the invulnerability of the T-34, especially referring to the estimates of the enemy, sometimes too emotional. Is it not better to listen to the estimates of Soviet tankmen. The report of the commander of the 10th Panzer Division, Major General S. Ya. Ogurtsov, in particular, noted:
              "On the T-34 tank
              a) The armor of vehicles and the hull from a distance of 300 - 400 m is penetrated by a 37 mm armor-piercing projectile. The plumb sheets of the sides are pierced by a 20 mm armor-piercing projectile. When overcoming ditches due to low installation, the cars burrow with their noses, insufficient traction due to the relative smoothness of the tracks.
              1. +1
                31 December 2018 08: 44
                By the way, on the shooting of cards for t34, our dull-headed projectile didn’t penetrate them up to 600 meters to mine. This was the norm. Closer armor penetrated. 37 mm the armor confidently held. Namely for calibers no more than 45 mm and armor protection was made. By 41 years T34 did not correspond and by decision of the grau, it should be replaced by September 41, but they managed to release it at the school and unit until it was completely worn out. That's because the T34M armored corps sets in Mariupol were ready, like the cast turrets. The war prevented
          2. +5
            30 December 2018 06: 59
            Not a military, but a tractor.
            1. -3
              30 December 2018 07: 20
              I'll even show it better. Not a tractor, but a military one (though the State Department and the army didn’t accept him from Christie).

              Sorry, that’s not a direct link in the photo, I’m looking for it now, I just decided to tear it out of my old article about Christie.
              By the way, if you want to read, here is the link: https://en.calameo.com/books/0035708796cf11f4fedec
              And here comes the moral: everything is new - it is very good at the time, the forgotten old!
    2. +12
      30 December 2018 09: 44
      The fact is that the M5 High Speed ​​Tractor could be equipped with four types of tracks: T16E1, T16E2, T36E6, T55E1.

      Here, for example, a caterpillar type T36E6.
      For what reasons, those 200 tractors that were delivered to the USSR in 1944 were equipped with tracks for paved roads, it's hard to say.
      And starting with the M5A2 model, the tractors already had a different running and new track with a width of 530 mm compared to 295 for the old one.
      1. -3
        30 December 2018 09: 47
        Quote: Decimam
        For what reasons, those 200 tractors that were delivered to the USSR in 1944 were equipped with tracks for paved roads, it's hard to say.

        But it seems to me - very easy. For the harp was unified with the same Stuart, and the harp was a LOT (in warehouses). For soyuznichka - his guano is not a pity! The aerocobra was delivered for about the same reasons, because considered rubbish, it’s just SUDDENLY on our front came to us.
        1. +8
          30 December 2018 10: 03
          Nonsense from all points of view. Let's start with the fact that the USSR and such, as you say, did not have "guana".
          Secondly, of the 5300 tractors manufactured in two years, 5100 were used in the US Army, and 200 in the Red Army. They were not delivered to anyone else.
          And in the American army, they tried to use tractors on those tracks that met the conditions of use, including those that fell in the USSR.
          1. 0
            30 December 2018 10: 06
            There is a triangle. Like most of all M5.
            Take a look below comments - I myself say there that obviously everything did not come with triangles.
            But it would be interesting to evaluate how much the M5 thrust differed on different tracks ...
            Dreams Dreams.
        2. 0
          1 January 2019 08: 59
          The cobra was suitable, but the features of the weight distribution made it very difficult to control, which can not be said about the American fighters of the classic layout, widespread in the U.S. Army aviation.
      2. 0
        30 December 2018 09: 58
        By the way, I note, purely visually, carefully reading (and peering at) the article, we have this photo:

        I’m not observing a triangle here.
        Apparently, at least a small part was delivered with normal, not Stuart tracks.
        And so everything is clear why there were triangles. Harp warehouses from Stu, Airacobra, Valentines, and everything else that the Allies considered rubbish. But here Cobras and Valiki came to us SUDDENLY, yes (although Churchillies too ... they were "shod" - again the Omsk trucks of the allies for a clean, gentleman's fight in Europe, hih).
        1. +3
          30 December 2018 10: 25
          What, in what quantities and in what configuration to supply, was determined by the relevant protocols and controlled by the State Procurement Commission.
          1. -1
            30 December 2018 10: 38
            Firstly, do you have iron data? Desirable screenshots of documents. I really want to see them myself (I love this thing very much - armored vehicles).
            Secondly, I’ll hint again - during the tests we obviously got the M5 with a goose from Stuart. And numerous further complaints from military units confirm this suspicion: well, he does not pull. Enough power, in theory. However, it does not pull. The force vector is not the same - with respect to pulling and to Stuart tracks (weight from above and back weight, which also needs to be dragged - well, I hope physics understand, in the second case it is the adhesion to the surface that plays the main role, because if you just load the load up - here any harp, even with flat tracks, will pull if the pressure on the ground is not too big and the engine is not too weak - for cargo from above By the way, it is the most important ... well, and the soil is not too porridge =).
            However, it would be very interesting to evaluate its capabilities on normal rectangular lugs (and relatively few were obviously made).
            1. +1
              30 December 2018 11: 05
              "However, it would be very interesting to evaluate its capabilities on normal rectangular lugs."
              You won’t find such data right away, you need to look at American sites, but indirectly it can be assumed that the possibilities were normal, since after the war the M5 was used in Canada and British Columbia for mobile drilling rigs, and a skidder was also made on its basis.
              1. -3
                30 December 2018 11: 11
                Sorry, but there are completely different requirements and modes of operation. Already civil, with relevant regulations.
                All their 120% (and the genius of designers) any (even civilian) equipment shows only in combat conditions. So it was and it will be so, alas. = _ =
                For example, the same Po (Y) -2. Although it was from the very beginning that it was purely civilian.
                1. +1
                  30 December 2018 14: 15
                  civilians have a different type of dirt, a common thing hi
                  1. -1
                    30 December 2018 14: 23
                    Quote: Avior
                    civilians have a different type of dirt, a common thing

                    Not certainly in that way. Military equipment of nichrome is uneconomical by definition, and should work for wear and really for all 120% - many depend on this life (plus, once, even 5 hours of a motor resource was considered a VERY good indicator - for a military man). So outside the war, these M5s were obviously used in a very sparing mode (and simply because they already exist, but the war did not).
                    1. +3
                      30 December 2018 14: 35
                      it's about caterpillars.
                      besides, I don’t think that the tractor had the same small resource as the tank.
                      Moreover, its tracks, by definition, did not allow it to be overloaded - they slipped.
                      but on the whole I agree, with the caterpillars they could have worked more.
                      on the other hand, they were not made for the conditions of the USSR, maybe somewhere they showed themselves better.
                      all the same, different mud happens- clay or chernozem, for example.
                      1. -2
                        30 December 2018 14: 40
                        Quote: Avior
                        besides, I don’t think that the tractor had the same small resource as the tank.

                        You did not quite read this article? I'm just polite, well, or try.
                        This M5 is actually the M3 Stuart light tank (well, then the M5 Stuart went there, but the difference is small), if it is not clear. Just without armor and weapons. The chassis is from it, and any tractor is 95% of its chassis.
                        And it is military. Tank.
                      2. +2
                        30 December 2018 14: 58
                        at the base does not mean a tank.
                        I assume that the average tractor or tractor, by definition, must have a resource greater than the average tank, otherwise no one needs such a tractor.
                        and the problem is not only in the chassis.
                        for example, changing the settings of the carburetor accelerator pump can, within fairly significant limits, change the load on the engine and, accordingly, its resource.
                        but I will not insist, I have no evidence to confirm
                        hi
                      3. -2
                        30 December 2018 15: 05
                        Quote: Avior
                        I assume that the average tractor or tractor, by definition, must have a resource greater than the average tank, otherwise no one needs such a tractor.

                        I repeat once again, if the transparent hint did not quite reach - those M5 that were produced, but did not end up in the war, well, or even got in and survived - were exploited VERY briefly. Even in gentle mode. Just if only because it is military equipment, and when there is no war, it is simply unprofitable and breaks down quickly.
                        Don't be fooled by the word "tractor". Below I have already spoken a few words about the classification system in the United States at that time.
                      4. +1
                        30 December 2018 15: 07
                        I understand, but the argument is so-so. who knows how it was.
                        maybe, on the contrary, they bought at a cheap price on sale and put on the most difficult areas
                      5. The comment was deleted.
                      6. +2
                        30 December 2018 15: 28
                        yes, louts quickly merge on the net hi
                      7. -2
                        30 December 2018 15: 32
                        Unfortunately, only in your pink dreams.
                        For I am not a boor, but rather a very polite nyasha.
                        But by the way, why did you suddenly consider me a boor? Can I try on? Waiting, kiss!
                      8. +2
                        30 December 2018 15: 34
                        Did I write that you are a boor?
                        check the cap, suddenly a fire
                      9. The comment was deleted.
                      10. +3
                        30 December 2018 15: 05
                        and their engines are not different?
                        anglovikov broadcasts.
                        at the tractor
                        Engine Continental R6572 six-cylinder petrol engine
                        235 hp (175 kW) at 2,900 rpm
                        at the tank
                        Engine Twin Cadillac Series 42
                        220 hp (160 kW) at 3,400 rpm
                      11. 0
                        30 December 2018 15: 16
                        M5 were both based on the M3 Stu, and on the basis of the M5 Stu. And there, too, the hodgepodge was in the process of fine-tuning.
                2. +1
                  30 December 2018 14: 56
                  "Sorry, but there are completely different requirements and operating modes"
                  Yes, a skidder, it’s pulling the trolley from the supermarket on the asphalt, what kind of load it is.
                  1. -2
                    30 December 2018 15: 01
                    Right!
                    Supermarkets have their own "trailers" - specially trained people, "telezhechniki". Here they are and the tractorяt. From the parking lot back to the entrance. And so that the homeless do not drag the cart (the metal is solid!). In short, not people, but perpetual motion machines!
  2. +6
    30 December 2018 06: 33
    In general, studying the American pre-war and military (WWII) tracked vehicles, you can compose a whole textbook on the topic "Designing the most unsuccessful tracks for dummies. Express course."
    1. 0
      30 December 2018 06: 35
      There and the pressure on the ground like a light tank ... 0,85 if I'm not mistaken
      1. +1
        30 December 2018 06: 37
        I, taschemta, knowingly said about
        under any serious load

        It is not surprising that nichrome did not draw heaviness. What is there to cling to? A triangle in the direction of travel?
        If you are about a picture with Sherman, then I added it already after your comment, and Sherman cannot have 0,45. Ground pressure, kg / cm², 0,96.
      2. -2
        30 December 2018 13: 25
        Quote: domokl
        0,85 if not mistaken

        Meow, yes you replayed your answer, and even four to five hours + later, if I'm not mistaken.
        Do not take it as an insult, but I must, in order to avoid scolding my honor, notice that you have flaunted 0,45 all these previous hours (and yes, I repeat, I posted after your reply, so she can’t contact Sherman Well, just do nothing).
        1. +1
          30 December 2018 14: 20
          Naturally he outplayed ... Looked at the sources and outplayed ... Plato is my friend, but the truth ... such a fig with me)))
          1. The comment was deleted.
            1. +1
              30 December 2018 15: 33
              laughing And what's stopping you from admitting your mistakes? Self importance or pride? It is human to err. Only those who are afraid to take responsibility are not mistaken bully
              1. -1
                30 December 2018 15: 39
                Sometimes the 5-minute limit bothers me, to be honest. = _ =
                And then somehow I don’t want to bother anyone once again. Yes, and I'm sitting irregularly.
                But it’s so cool to change shoes after a day or two, and in the future not a single mosquito of the nose will undermine! = 3
                Joke, essno.
    2. +2
      30 December 2018 07: 08
      textbook on the topic "Designing the most unsuccessful tracks
      Here you are right, here you are +. lol Once I read the memoirs of a soldier of a field rembat. How they had to weld lugs onto the tracks of "imported" tanks. The tanks got stuck in the mud, and they were shot like stationary targets. It turned out that this is not an easy task, to weld hooks on a constructive caterpillar so that it would not break and it would not cling to the body.
      1. +1
        30 December 2018 09: 38
        And just in my photo, look at the gaps between the caterpillar and the influx of armored sides at the T-34 (-85, but it doesn’t matter, there is only one move) and at Sherman. The influxes are part of the internal reserved volume (I’m here as Captain, I obviously earn extra money, because of course, everyone knows this). Well, where is Sherman to weld the ridges? He has everything back to back.
        And as for the caterpillars - it is possible to actually write an entire article. We and Amers had a diametrically opposite approach to these.
        1. +1
          30 December 2018 15: 38
          Quote: Kuroneko
          Influxes

          Fenders
          1. +1
            30 December 2018 16: 30
            I would rather say the fenders ShelvesAnd not niches (more true in relation to the T-34, because Christie's suspension).
            Let's just say, I just wanted to more or less "unify" this moment. For those who are not in the subject. At Sherman's about shelves, not everything is so clear and clear. Really more likely flows.
            1. 0
              30 December 2018 16: 36
              Quote: Kuroneko
              fenders (more true for the T-34)

              No, in this case there are niches, since this is part of the armored corps, into which there was access from the fighting compartment and part of the equipment and ammunition was stored in them. Fenders, these are elements externally attached to the armored hull that the tank can do without, that is, lose during movement or battle, and there is no access to them from the fighting compartment
              1. 0
                30 December 2018 16: 41
                I supplemented my post while you answered, if that, but if previously it was somewhere around 50/50 in the shelves / niches, now they are still mostly called shelves.
                Rather, Sherman has niches. In the T-34, these were really shelves, because eaten up a lot of space because of the candle pendant. There really was a shelf, given the slope of the side armor that went beyond the volume of shock absorbers-springs.
                1. -1
                  30 December 2018 16: 53
                  Quote: Kuroneko
                  In the T-34, these were really shelves, because eaten up a lot of space because of the candle pendant.

                  You confuse everything again

                  Here is a diagram of the armored hull, but the layout of Christie's suspension elements in the T-34 armored hull, perfectly demonstrated on the model, does not even fit into these niches.
                  1. 0
                    30 December 2018 17: 21
                    That's exactly what I’m not confusing anything. A shelf is a shelf. Sorry, I don’t really want to look for a detailed scheme of the Sherman’s armored hull (by the way, it’s not so easy to find it), but! Follow the logic.
                    The sides are straight, right? The T-34 - at an angle, which means Yes shelf (under the shelf - springs, for them its volume is reserved).
                    Sherman has NO, and he has straight sides. His hodovuha - external. The armor walls of the sides of the Sherman are actually vertical (which is behind the caterpillar, which is higher). He could not have engineering-based shelves.

                    The fact that he has a niche of niches (from the inside, and not all modifications) is precisely the desire of engineers to get at least a bit of space almost free.
                    It was a severe necessity for us, because Christie's suspension, devouring volume, amers - they already had enough volume. No wonder our tankers spoke of the Sherman as "the best tank on which it is wonderful to serve in peacetime."
                    1. 0
                      30 December 2018 17: 32
                      Quote: Kuroneko
                      For us, it was an urgent need, because pendant Christie.

                      Ok, here's an example of the fenders, see the difference
                      1. 0
                        30 December 2018 17: 47
                        Okay.
                        Once again I repeat that about the terms a niche / shelf on the Internet there is now a noble holivor ..
                        Although the essence of this does not change. = _ =
                        Shall we be next?
                        I will express myself so that, say ... um ... T-34 was realistically developed side wings. Compared to Sherman. So pull? = 3
                      2. 0
                        30 December 2018 17: 50
                        Quote: Kuroneko
                        The T-34 had rially developed lateral wings. Compared to Sherman. So pull?


                        drinks
                      3. +2
                        30 December 2018 17: 53
                        Frets, then, agreed. And about the tail ...
              2. 0
                30 December 2018 16: 46
                Quote: svp67
                Fenders, these are elements externally attached to the armored hull that the tank can do without

                But this is something new! Can I have a source? Or are you confusing OUT of the track shelves OUTSIDE an armored enclosure with INTERNAL shelves?
                1. 0
                  30 December 2018 17: 05
                  Quote: Kuroneko
                  with INTERNAL shelves?

                  Take and check in the Russian explanatory dictionary that there is something ...
                  "niche" is a recess, in particular for the storage of ammunition
                  "shelf" - a horizontally fixed straight surface for placing and attaching boxes and tanks to it
    3. +3
      30 December 2018 17: 54
      Quote: Kuroneko
      "Designing the most unsuccessful tracks for dummies. Express course".

      Alas, this can be said about our tank building. especially when you see the T-34 tracks of the first releases
  3. 0
    30 December 2018 06: 38
    Funny thing. The driver even has soft armrests, that's just sitting him harshly. With such power
    Specific power, hp / t: 15
    if he put normal caterpillars, he would get a decent tractor. Even at first glance, narrow tracks are striking, I think this was done for the sake of speed. In Europe, with their extensive network of roads, he probably justified himself. But in Russia, with its thaw and frost, this self-running box is only an extra blast. Probably in the spring and autumn, the soldiers had to not only drag a gun on themselves, but also a tractor. The author is deeply grateful for the review. Friends, all a Happy New Year!drinks
    1. +4
      30 December 2018 10: 19

      "The driver even has soft armrests, but it's hard for him to sit ..."
      It’s normal for him to sit, as you see. It's just that there is no seating in the museum.
    2. +1
      6 January 2019 22: 05
      Quote: novobranets
      self-running box

      )) must be remembered and applied to the place))
      1. +1
        7 January 2019 07: 38
        I give it. laughing Merry Christmas. drinks
        1. +1
          7 January 2019 15: 35
          Thank you and Merry Christmas!
  4. +3
    30 December 2018 10: 52
    hi ...Thank. Check M5 add:
    ... a six-cylinder in-line gasoline engine "Continental" R6572 with a capacity of 235 hp was installed. from. at 2900 rpm.


    1. +1
      6 January 2019 22: 09
      "peppy old men"
  5. +2
    30 December 2018 11: 04
    ... US Task Force at Colville-sur-Mer after the invasion of Normandy during World War II. A bridgehead on Omaha Beach. M5 high-speed tractors tow LST howitzers. American soldiers on the beach. Location: Colleville-sur-Mer Normandy France. Date: June 8, 1944 ... soldier
    1. +2
      30 December 2018 22: 28
      Thanks to Sanchez as always! :)
      1. +1
        31 December 2018 10: 29
        hi ...Holiday greetings!
  6. +4
    30 December 2018 11: 28
    And then the authors surprised me. I take off my hat and nod my head. Today I learned about a model of technology that I had never heard of before. Bravo!
    1. +2
      30 December 2018 11: 43
      There is much in nature, Horatio, that our wise men have never dreamed ... Shakespeare soldier
    2. +4
      30 December 2018 12: 17
      Well, why not? We also have these surprises on 2019 ...
    3. +5
      30 December 2018 13: 01
      And I definitely won’t surprise you (I take purely armored vehicles)?

      Probably not. But for some reason few know that even Pershing was delivered to us. Like the T-16 Universal Carrier, coupled with the LVT. Plus such a pretty thing as the M31 ARV - as many as 115 pieces! Although I guess what was done to them ....

      And also here in the list there are very interesting и numerous for deliveries, options for the M3 half-truck, which I personally didn’t notice about in the article of this series about Lend-Lease (it was signed there purely for armored personnel carriers and scouts, but this thing, like the legendary Ganomag SdKfz.251, had SEA modifications) . Although not as much as the SdKfz 251, it was generally universal nags mare of the Third Reich ..
      1. Alf
        0
        30 December 2018 23: 49
        Quote: Kuroneko
        Plus such a pretty thing as the M31 ARV - as many as 115 pieces! Although I guess what was done to them ....

        Not tired of striking out your own thoughts? What is the purpose of this action? Hands overtake the mind?
        1. 0
          31 December 2018 11: 13
          And also self-propelled flamethrowers * Churchill-Crocodile * and * UOSP *
      2. +1
        31 December 2018 11: 11
        wonderful table! About LVT did not know! but you haven’t mentioned the M2 medium tank yet, although the Americans most likely stack it with * Lee *
  7. 0
    30 December 2018 12: 37
    Inaccuracy that catches your eye:
    Two fuel tanks with a total capacity of 100 gallons (454,61 L) were located on either side of the engine.

    The American gallon has a volume of 3,8 liters. This English gallon had a volume of 4,5 liters.
    Strange Americans, because this tractor was never used as a tractor, unlike, for example, the Soviet S-60, which was really a tractor, and was widely used in agriculture. And to call the M5 tractor this is just a perversion, have they really adopted from the Germans, who called their T-1 and T-2 agricultural tractors?
    1. 0
      30 December 2018 13: 47
      Amers generally had a complete game before the war with classification. = _ =
      Take the same Tanks and Combat Cars. In fact, there was no clear border (except for the "paper" purely political - with lobbyism, essno).
      For different departments, different kinds of troops, everyone pulls a blanket over themselves.
      Modern ILC, by the way, is an echo of those wars. Highlander, SURVIVAL (there should be only one, hih).

      Well, in the war ... What is their attempt to pass off Pershing for a heavy tank (purely to raise the spirits of their soldiers and the population). As it became clear that the fascist reptile was crushed - immediately "transferred" back to the middle.
    2. +4
      30 December 2018 22: 01
      Do not be like graduates of the exam, the tractor in English is a tractor, they also call tractor trucks - tractor (autotractor).
  8. +1
    30 December 2018 13: 45
    This thing was called a tractor, for the amazing reason that it ... a tractor! But not a tractor! Awesome ... The tractor is designed to move a certain class of equipment, wheeled, tracked or on skids for example. What about the tractor?
    And the tractor is a platform for the engine, with which you can perform a wide class of operations. Including carrying something, but this is not the only, and not even the main purpose of the tractor. It was not for nothing that it appeared as a mechanism designed for the needs of agriculture, and it activated most of the then agricultural machinery, from the header to the thresher (while standing still, of course).
    And this magnificent machine was to be used precisely as a tractor - for a mass of auxiliary operations. To carry something heavy over short distances, that is, to help unload goods at railway nodes, for example, for which it was necessary to bring the loader's paw from the engine. Serve as a self-propelled or transported drive for other mechanisms, well, for example, for mechanized digging of trenches. And many other operations with its help could be mechanized ... if someone had done this!
    On what subject on a multi-purpose platform machine gun ?! She should just be left for battle, she was absolutely not suitable for him. This TRACTOR was full of opportunities that no one wanted to use. To use it was necessary free and strong engineering thinking, which no one wanted to show, that's all. However, in the army this approach is very unpopular, I understand ...
    1. +1
      30 December 2018 14: 04
      I would have such grass ... I'm serious.
      1. 0
        8 January 2019 11: 13
        It is unlikely. In order for you to have my "herb", you have to think completely differently. Powerful engine on a moving platform, with virtually no limiting body rework! Hands itch ...
  9. -1
    30 December 2018 15: 35
    Yes, but in the USSR they could have created something similar using solutions from a retired, but well-developed T-26.
    1. +1
      30 December 2018 15: 44
      Could. Only we have not enough production capacity for the production of combat vehicles. we own pre-war tractors because of this stopped doing
      1. 0
        30 December 2018 15: 49
        Quote: domokl
        Only we didn’t have enough production capacities for the production of military vehicles. But we stopped making our own pre-war tractors because of this

        What does peace and war mean. During the war, they were able to create power in return for the lost.
        And here of all, it was necessary not to throw away everything destroyed, in connection with the removal of the T-26, but to transfer to a newly created enterprise, somewhere in the Urals, Kazakhstan, Siberia or in the Far East, the benefit of a "special contingent" to create a base there, in that the moment was enough.
        1. 0
          30 December 2018 18: 00
          Quote: svp67
          And then all that was necessary was not to throw away everything destroyed, in connection with the removal of the T-26

          It was only necessary to bring the T-24 to mind. = 3

          By the way, again, Omsk foreign trucks. They simply don't work for us. > _
        2. +3
          31 December 2018 00: 21
          In September - December 1933 and in January-February 1934, a tractor with a tarpaulin top was tested at the NIBT training ground near Moscow. The T-26T covered 510 km with 4, 5 and 7-ton trailers, while the maximum speed was 18,8, 15 and 11 km / h, respectively. In the conclusion of the test report of the tractor, the following was said:
          “In the autumn, the TR-26 can move off-road with a load on the hook of up to 5 tons in 1, 2 and slow gear. A cargo of 7 tons (a trailer on wheels) TR-26 cannot be pulled along a dirt road blurred by rain. Traction on clutch is not enough.
          TR-26 can be used as a tractor without any changes, with the exception of the hitch device, but the load on the hook significantly worsens the operating mode of the motor. ”
          In 1936, the Voroshilov plant manufactured 4 more such tractors with a modified design of the towing device and an increased power engine. However, it did not bring significant performance improvements. All manufactured T-26 tractors were handed over to equip tank units. Their operational experience has shown that they are of low power for use in transporting goods or transporting guns.

          Data on the number of tractors based on the T-26 range from less than 150 to 211 units!
          ... in the 150th tank brigade as of May 15, 1942 there was one armored T-26 tractor, which was used as a staff vehicle.
          1. +1
            31 December 2018 07: 05
            Quote: hohol95
            The data on the number of tractors based on the T-26 range from less than 150 to 211 units

            Yes, I know about them, just the T-26T is still not quite right, well, take a look at it yourself, it is unsuccessful, or rather it was designed for action at the forefront.


            Yes, such an option would be useful for altering tanks withdrawn from the battle line, the tower was removed, the turret box was cut off, all this could be used to create tower bunkers, and instead of them, an armored box was installed again.
            I offered a more cardinal solution, I needed an open, simple body made of non-armored steel, with the exception of the front and side projections, with a large volume, like the M5

            Using the already well-developed engine and transmission elements and chassis of the T-26
            1. +1
              31 December 2018 12: 04
              Using the already well-developed engine and transmission elements and chassis of the T-26

              Weak was the native T-26 engine! Weak
              No wonder the Poles abandoned the British 90-horsepower Armstrong-Siddeley engine air cooled.
              And they replaced it with a 110 horsepower Saurer Swiss water-cooled diesel engine, which was already produced in Poland under license !!!
              110 horses!
              And the tractor from the Poles came out for this reason is quite good - C7P!
    2. Alf
      +3
      30 December 2018 23: 51
      Quote: svp67
      Yes, but in the USSR they could have created something similar using solutions from a retired, but well-developed T-26.

      Perhaps yes, but the X-NUMX mare of the T-91 for the tractor was clearly dead.
      1. +2
        31 December 2018 07: 15
        Quote: Alf
        Perhaps yes, but the X-NUMX mare of the T-91 for the tractor was clearly dead.

        He dragged a tank, and even off-road. In general, "acute model motor deficiency" is the disease from which we will not soon, if at all, be cured. But that's better than nothing at all.
    3. -1
      31 December 2018 01: 02
      Quote: svp67
      Yes, but in the USSR they could have created something similar using solutions from a retired, but well-developed T-26.

      Yeah, a unit with a 90-horsepower gasoline engine, barely pulling 10 tons of its own weight, could become an "excellent" tractor. In fact, the main disadvantage of the T-26 was not its bulletproof armor, but rather a weak engine. The T-60, for example, had the same engine with a weight of 5 tons, and its descendant T-70, weighing 10 tons, that is, weighing as much as the T-26, had a pair of such engines.
      For example, in small class cars, typical economy cars such as Lada and Logan, engines have similar power, despite the fact that they weigh only a ton. And then the engines are considered dead, and people want to see on them more powerful 1,8-liter engines with a capacity of 120 horses.
      1. 0
        31 December 2018 07: 19
        Quote: Kot_Kuzya
        could become an "excellent" tractor

        Dear, do not ascribe your words to me, I never spoke about the "EXCELLENT" tractor, if you did not understand, then I will explain that I was talking about the use of those already worked out in production and brought to some perfection, and most importantly mastered in maintenance and repair in the troops, some of the elements of the T-26 tank are the engine, transmission and chassis. And this would be better than what really happened in history, when even row-crop tractors had to be used as artillery tractors, plus adding one more to it, for transporting bk and accessories, on a trailer
        1. +1
          2 January 2019 19: 30
          Everything rested in the absence of a suitable engine. The Poles at 7TP delivered a 110-liter diesel engine. with., the Czechs on their LT-35 put the engine in 120 liters. with. From these cars pretty decent tractors turned out. The Polish C7P could also transport 6 people with weapons, and the Czech simply lost the tower and could carry a load of up to 12 tons.
          There is a German photo in which a tractor made from R-35 pulls a cart with a large-caliber barrel!
          And it’s written on the Internet -
          about 200 R-35s with the towers removed were involved in the attack on the USSR in 1941, 110 of them were used as artillery tractors, the rest - in the role of ARVs or ammunition carriers!
  10. 0
    30 December 2018 15: 56
    The amendment, from those indicated to the high-speed ones (i.e., able to keep up with the tanks on the march), could be attributed to "Voroshilovets" and then the speed in the regiment is 13 km / h, the rest are even less. They went the other way - from January 1943, mortar regiments were added to the TK / MK, and later a light artillery brigade was included in the TA.
  11. +3
    30 December 2018 22: 33
    Unlike our soldiers, the Americans always called their samples simply for their intended purpose.

    There is a suspicion that the Americans acted even easier. Sometimes it seems to me that all of their cars, weapons and other necessary things the Americans called simply - M1. So as not to get confused :) Sometimes it came to M2. But by the time the M3 was supposed to appear, they already had another new concept and all the available useful things were renamed again. Of course in M1! laughing
  12. +2
    30 December 2018 22: 55
    An interesting topic is Lend-Lease articulated vehicles. Very little is known about them; technology historians do not write about them at all. But the terrible hunger of artillery in artillery trucks from the middle of the war is well known.
    We look forward to an article about Allis-Chalmers.
    s.s By the way, after all, the Y-12 at half the power successfully worked with 8-ton guns.
    1. +2
      31 December 2018 00: 01
      An interesting topic is Lend-Lease articulated vehicles. Very little is known about them; technology historians do not write about them at all. But the terrible hunger of artillery in artillery trucks from the middle of the war is well known.
      We look forward to an article about Allis-Chalmers.

      And besides 200 pieces of M5 in the USSR, special artillery was not delivered!
      The resulting Allis-Chalmers, Caterpillar, and International machines were 100% tractors adapted for use as artillery tractors.
      The modernization consisted of increasing engine power, increasing speed, installing a winch and additional towing devices, partially booking the radiator and lower engine crankcase, and increasing the capacity of the fuel tanks. Thus, changes were made to the design of tractors that improved the use of these tractors in the army. Nevertheless, the absence of a covered cabin for the driver, as well as a platform for transporting gun crew and ammunition, greatly reduced the value of these artillery machines.
      However, American tractors appeared on the front only in the second half of the war, and their total number in artillery was small. So, since 1943, about 1250 imported tractors of all six brands were delivered to the artillery units.
  13. +1
    30 December 2018 23: 54
    No weapons. So - just a tractor, not an armored car or armored personnel carrier.

    Rather, the specificity of the English language takes place -
    high speed tractor - high speed tractor!
    But the previous model created on the same basis bore the same name.
    M4 High-Speed ​​Tractor, and he was armed with the M2 Browning machine gun!
    For them they were tractors, and for us Tractors!
    Tractor - a self-propelled trackless ground transport vehicle designed to tow trailers and semi-trailers, non-self-propelled vehicles (construction, agricultural), cargo on sleighs and drags, as well as for towing art and missile systems, faulty self-propelled cars (cars, tanks, etc.) and aircraft at airfields.
    A tractor, a car, a tractor or a special self-propelled vehicle on a wheeled, tracked or combined chassis can act as a tractor.

    From the pun, the very essence of the machine does not change!
  14. +1
    31 December 2018 00: 09
    Dear authors!
    STZ-5; "Stalinets" S-2, what is the correct name - TRACTOR or TRANSPORT TRACTOR?
    After all, they were created on units and nodes of ordinary civilian tractors!
    1. 0
      31 December 2018 00: 48
      Quote: hohol95
      STZ-5; "Stalinets" S-2, what is the correct name - TRACTOR or TRANSPORT TRACTOR?

      We have a Katyusha in Novomoskovsk based on the Stalinist
    2. 0
      31 December 2018 04: 53
      The official name of this machine is tractor tractor. This is exactly the question of the word games of the Americans. The most massive artillery tractor tractor Red Army. By the way, this car was produced after the war.
  15. 0
    31 December 2018 06: 11
    special thanks !! I knew only the fact of delivery!
  16. +1
    1 January 2019 14: 17
    Happy New Year!
    A good help for Lend-Lease tractors, if they stopped releasing most of them before the war.

    In addition to the M5, Caterpillar D6 and D7, Allis-Chalmers HD7 and HD10 and International TD14 and TD18 were also decided about 8 thousand. Plus Lend-Lease GMC-4-71 engines for Y-12 tractors.

    for reference, data on tractors of the USSR.

    Tractor Kommunar
    produced - 1924-1931
    released - about 2 thousand

    tractor "Komintern"
    produced - 1934-1940
    issued - 1 798 pcs.

    tractor "Voroshilovets"
    produced - 1939-1941.
    released - 1123 cars


    Stalinets-2
    produced - 1938-1942
    released - 1 pieces.
  17. +1
    1 January 2019 18: 26
    New tractors, the production of which was unfolding in the USSR, Y-12 and Y-13, were low-power. And their release was so small that it could not meet the needs of the Red Army.

    I-12 - from August 1943 they made 218 tractors (including experienced ones), in 1944 - 965, on May 9, 1945 - 1046!
    I-13 - 96 cars!
    By the end of the war, 1270 Yaroslavl tractors of all modifications were in the units of the Red Army. They met in parts of the Polish Army, and in the Czechoslovak Corps. I-12 took part in the Victory Parade.
    In August 1944, by decree of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, Ivan Ivanovich Drong received the Order of the Red Star for the development and development of a high-speed tractor. Other participants in works on I-11 and I-12 were awarded.

    Of course, 200 M-5s were not superfluous, but the Soviet Yashki were not idle either!
    1. +1
      1 January 2019 19: 44
      so here I am about the same 8000 tractors + 200 M5 and plus 2229 I-12 with American engines - GMC-4-71That is a good contribution to the victory. Plus the 96 I-13 of your own production mentioned by you.
      1. 0
        2 January 2019 13: 49
        In artillery only there were only about 1250 tractors from the USA!
        1. 0
          2 January 2019 16: 52
          The rest where?
          1. +2
            2 January 2019 19: 09
            In different ways, some part of the evacuation and repair of tank formations -
            Let's look at the 4th Panzer Army of D. D. Lelyushenko in the victorious 1945. In the report of the department of armored supply and repair of the army for March 1945 we read: “The evacuation means of the army are two evacuations No. 1 and No. 154, which include 24 tractors TD-18. But in view of the fact that the existing tractors were already operating from the Oryol operation without a single average repair, they worked for 1400-1500 m [ot] / h [aces], the chassis was very worn out, most of them were unsuitable for further operation and required capital repairs at industrial plants. By the start of the operation, there were only 12 tractors with a limited power reserve. Parts and compounds of evacuation did not have ”[62]. TD-18 is an international tractor obtained by Lend-Lease. According to their characteristics, they are not far from domestic ex-agricultural "Stalinists" (they are ChTZ-65, they are also S-65). The advantage of the TD-18 compared to the "Stalinists" was a regular winch. But neither the Stalinists nor the TD-18 could stand any comparison with the powerful Voroshilovites. ChTZ-65 ("Stalinists") moved at the speed of a pedestrian, their maximum speed was only 7 km / h. Voroshilovites could reach speeds of up to 36 km / h. The hook force of the Voroshilovites was 10 tons, and that of the Stalinist was 4,6 tons. Voroshilovites had a loading platform for a load of up to 2 tons (which neither ChTZ-65 nor TD-18 had) and a winch with an effort of up to 10 tons.

            "The Great Patriotic Alternative. 1941 in the subjunctive mood"
            Isaev
            In general, where all 8 thousand of these tractors were used, only archival papers are known ...
            1. 0
              2 January 2019 20: 45
              The report compares with equipment that was no longer produced (speed more, effort to hook and load on the platform took) that they had something. From what I-12 and I-13 brought, they could not evacuate damaged tanks.
              1. +2
                2 January 2019 22: 32
                In the report, they just do not compare! This Isaev compares! The following is a description of the fact that in order to replace American and domestic tractors that failed due to technical reasons, tractor units based on tanks that could not be fully restored in the field were created in the repair parts! And the network has many photos of such repair and recovery tractors based on the T-34 and KV-1C!
                Separately, it is worth mentioning the tractors, which were built on the basis of KV-1s. The first alterations of these tanks to evacuation vehicles are dated February 1944. At an armored repair plant (BTRZ) No. 1, 6 tanks were redone in this way. In parallel with this, they began to convert KV-1s into tractors at BTRZ No. 6, in February 4 tanks underwent a similar conversion there. This was due to the fact that tow trucks in the Red Army were a rarity, and the production of Voroshilovites ended in the autumn of 1941. As a base for tractors, not only KV-1s, but also KV-1 were used. The volume of production of such machines was small. Single machines were produced by repair plants No. 1 and No. 7. The most mass tractors on the basis of KV-1 and KV-1s built a repair plant number 6. For example, in July 1944, 14 tractors were delivered here.

                "Delayed half measure" warspot.ru

                A tractor on the basis of KV is dragging a trophy "Tiger" to the Artillery Museum. Background - House of Political Prisoners in Leningrad. 1944-45
            2. 0
              3 January 2019 11: 12
              Tractors from the "Oryol operation" were used from the middle of 1943 until 1945 without medium repair - not bad.
              1. +2
                3 January 2019 12: 09
                Of course not bad! But they could fail at any crucial moment!
                Well, if there was something to replace a failed equipment -
                There are known cases when the Studebaker car towed guns and a larger mass. So, for example, during the fighting on the outskirts of Budapest in the 5th artillery breakthrough division due to the lack of spare parts for the chassis, a large number of tractors failed. Meanwhile, the current situation required an urgent transfer of divisions to another sector of the front. In this regard, it was decided to tow 152-mm howitzer guns mod. 1937 (ML-20) apply 6 x 6 Studebaker vehicles. As a result, after 400 kilometers with a gun on a trailer, none of the 18 vehicles involved for this purpose failed.

                Thanks to the Studebakers ... hi
              2. 0
                3 January 2019 22: 55
                Out of the reach of Lend-Lease from the fall of 1941 to October 1944, Lenfront repair enterprises set up production of the following units of special products:
                4. To ensure the delivery of fuels and lubricants and ammunition to the active units, the 4th repair plant created an armored personnel carrier on the chassis of the T-26 tank. In total, 20 such armored personnel carriers were manufactured, which during the period of fighting to break the siege of Leningrad in 1944 and the liberation of Estonia lived up to their mission, delivering ammunition and fuel and lubricants to tank units far removed from the infantry.
                5. In 1941, the KV-T heavy tank tractor was created, which also fully justified its purpose. By the middle of 1944, 24 of these tractors were built (every tenth track on the track of such a tractor had a spike in 1944).
                6. In 1942, an armored gas tank with a capacity of 5 tons was mounted on the chassis of the BT-2,8 tank.
                19. Two cranes were manufactured on the T-2 and T-34 chassis (with a loading capacity of 50–8 tons), for mounting towers and artillery systems in the field and dismantling machines that cannot be restored.

                Moschanskiy Ilya Borisovich. "Tanks, forward! Curiosities of a tank war in the battle for Leningrad"
                1. 0
                  4 January 2019 08: 07
                  Leningraders is a separate interesting topic. There, interesting equipment was produced more precisely; they were remodeled and modernized. Mortar on the t-26 chassis; engineering bridge on the t-34 chassis. All this awaits a separate investigation and description.
                  1. 0
                    4 January 2019 21: 36
                    And what about the 400 km run of "Studers" with ML-20 near Budopest?
                    Thanks to the American quality or thanks to the former driver behind the wheel and the repairmen in charge of those cars!

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

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