In the United States compared the legendary tanks "Sherman" and T-34

In the victory over Nazi Germany, the middle Tanks allied states such as the American M4 Sherman and Soviet T-34, writes Sebastien Roblin in his article for National Interest.

According to the expert, one of the advantages of Western tanks over the early T-34 was in the crew size: 5 man vs 4-x Soviet tanks. At the same time, the T-34 had uncomfortable ergonomics and a cramped turret.

He notes that the booking of both cars was in many ways similar. At the same time, after 1942, when the Germans had a long-barreled 75-mm gun, not to mention the powerful guns on the Tigers and Panthers, their armor protection was no longer a problem for the enemy.

The author notes that the Sherman, after several hits from the new guns, gained a reputation as a tank that “flares up” due to the ignition of the ammunition. Engineers did not disregard this issue, and soon a tank appeared with special protection for the combat pack. In turn, the T-34 had another problem: due to the peculiarity of the armor, fragments could form inside it after entering the tank without breaking through.

The armament of the vehicles was also similar: the 75-mm guns were mounted on the Sherman, and the X-NUMX mm caliber on the T-34. These guns successfully destroyed tanks Pz. III, Pz. IV, but could not fight with frontal armor "Panther" and "Tigers", according to the material.

In this regard, in the 1944, in the armament of the Allies, new tanks appeared: T-34-85 (USSR) and M4A3E8 (USA). Machines received guns with increased armor penetration and more protected towers.

The tanks had similar mobility, while the T-34 perfectly manifested itself in difficult conditions of the Eastern Front thanks to the suspension and wide tracks. However, according to the author, the Soviet tank could often break, while the American one gained a reputation as a very reliable vehicle.

The expert emphasizes the simplicity and low cost of production of the T-34. The USSR managed to build 84 thousand thirty-four, while America - only 49 thousand МХNUMX.

The main feature of the allied tanks was that they had sufficient characteristics to perform the tasks and could be massively produced in both countries. This circumstance played a significant role in the victory over the Third Reich, concludes the publication.

Comments

[Proton]

And here already the mattresses for our Victory decided to cling on, show their role

[Machito]

Sherman vs. T-34 - nothing. Guano. Americans even now do not know how to make tanks.

[Mih1974]

Yes, even in the article, pay attention to the dirty twitching - "it doesn't matter for us that he doesn't hold anything, but the Russians chipped off pieces of armor and hit the crew without breaking through" !! That is, the fact that the armor 34 was not pierced is very much "not important" because someone MAY be injured by shrapnel (scale seems to be) while their tanks burned like matches, but "we are no worse than a Russian tank."

[Huumi]

Yes, the Toko crews beat like that. Read the ads from the front. 34 they wanted to withdraw from production by the middle of 41 years

[Shurik70]

Armor T-34 (armor MZ-2, Mariupol plant, it is also steel grade 8C) was initially provided as protection against armor-piercing shells of caliber 37 and 45 mm. And in this capacity, she did an excellent job with the defense.
High-tempered (instead of high hardness) chromomolybdenum and chromium-nickel-molybdenum steels of grades 42C, 43PS, 49C and 52C, which are highly resistant to projectiles of 88, 90 and 100 mm caliber, were used for the production of tank shells KB and IP.

In the USSR there were problems with a sufficient amount of chromium, molybdenum and nickel, from which there was such a compromise. They did what they could. And they did a lot!

[Shurik70]

For any T-34, the best tank of the 2 World.
One must believe those experts who summed up immediately after the war, and in the first decades. Then they were objective.
And even equalize between the T-34 and Sherman in those years did not occur to anyone.
And now, when Private Rhine hangs on the same gallows of Hitler and Napoleon, after which he goes to put the US flag on the moon - this is Hollywood, not experts.

[NEXUS]

Quote: Shurik70

For any T-34, the best tank of the 2 World.

The way it is. Price, quality, is the holy truth. While the Germans made one Tiger, the USSR managed to make from 3's to 5 T-34 during the same time. And there was the KV-1, which is undeservedly pushed to the back of the tank battles of the Second World War.

[TTi]

Quote: Shurik70

For any T-34, the best tank of the 2 World.

Yeah of course.

Quote: Shurik70

Believe those experts who summed up immediately after the war

We know these "experts".

[Ros 56]

Respect for this alignment of armor. Constructor or steelworker?

[Shurik70]

Worse. Programmer

[Huumi]

Everything is correct. I agree. Everything is in the lectures.

[Huumi]

At least until the middle of 42, it was a car at the level. We wanted to change it to 41 but it didn’t work. The tankers themselves said that by the year 43 armor was already foil. We had to have titanium forces so that we could upgrade to T4. I’m not talking about tigers. There were People ...

[svp67]

Quote: Shurik70

And in this capacity, she did an excellent job with the defense.

Sure? I recommend reading the book by A. Ulanov and D. Shein "The First T-34". A very interesting analysis of the authors specializing in the military topic, especially the period 30-40 years. So they cite there documents from the Central Archive of the Ministry of Defense on the results of tests by shelling the T-34 hull.

.... Following the autumn run, their fly in the ointment was supplemented with "field tests of two armored hulls of the T-34 tank with towers" (as they were called in the official correspondence), conducted in April 1941 at the Mariupol plant training ground named after Ilyich. Almost for the first time in the history of Russian tank building empty armored boxes and separate armor parts were sent to the firing range, but “almost real” tanks — drive and guide wheels with track tension mechanism, track rollers with suspension were mounted on the bodies, tracks were pulled, reservation of final drives was delivered, driver’s hatches and viewing devices were installed. On the hulls, “almost very real” towers with a mask and artillery system reservation, a rotary mechanism with a stopper, hatches, sight gauges, and plugs for the holes for firing a revolver were also installed on standard shoulder straps. The shooting was carried out from a 37-mm anti-tank gun of the 1930 model (Soviet licensed copy of the German “door knocker” RaK.36), the captured Polish 37-mm “Bofors”, “forty-five” and “three-inch”.
Three-week trials provided the Soviet tank designers with rich food for thought, which was far from always pleasant. The frontal armor plates with the honor passed the test of a 76,2-mm armor-piercing shell fired at point blank range, but the inclined 40-mm sides were even struck by a 37-mm pointed armor-piercing projectile from a distance of 175–250 m, and it turned out that the 40-mm side armor plate, which was repeatedly sung by the “rational angle of inclination”, resists projectile damage noticeably worse than the 45-mm vertical armor plate making up the bottom of the side. Another unpleasant discovery was the discovery of a noticeable danger to the crew and tank mechanisms - damage to armor plates that formally did not lead to penetration of the projectile beyond the armor:
“According to the notions that have been established so far, with a hole smaller than caliber, only one plug is knocked out inside the hull, which, by virtue of this, can damage only a part of the tank’s crew or produce only localized in a small amount of destruction inside the tank, which will not always lead to the tank’s complete loss of combat capability . Contrary to these ideas, observations in the course of these tests established that, in addition to a cylindrical cork made of armor, under conditions when the shell of the projectile does not pass beyond the armor, fragments of the head, which is destroyed upon impact on the armor, fall into the tank. In addition, the cork itself is often divided into several parts, and in addition to the cork, separate small fragments are separated from the armor.

[Mih1974]

Forgive me, but even with such wounds, this is definitely much less than what a shell will do with a Sherman by piercing it (sometimes through and through) !! And even here I can see the simplest solution in the form of internal plating or "surfacing inside soft metal, which of course was not done due to the speed of production (for the sake of war).

[Warrior2015]

Quote: Mih1974

Sorry, but even with such injuries, this is definitely far less than what a projectile would do with sherman punching it (sometimes through) !!

I'll just say that both T-34 \ 76 and Sherman are both bad; the first one is bad with devices and ergonomics, the second one is convenient for everyone, but just a "Zippo lighter". But both are extremely technological and cheap, reliable and maintainable, thanks to which they furnished all kinds of Tigers.

Here are just a figure in 86 0000 T34 seems overpriced Yankees, like about 55 000 produced.

[Ros 56]

Who wanted to remove the T-34 and how much he lived after such a Wishlist, when Stalin himself distributed them individually?

[Alf]

Quote: Ros 56

Who wanted to remove the T-34 and how much he lived after such a Wishlist, when Stalin himself distributed them individually?

And at whose request was the T-43 tank created?

[Ros 56]

Well, as far as I know, the T-34 was made at the initiative of Mikhail Koshkin, as well as the ZIS-3 by Vasily Grabin. We don’t know many things, in Soviet times it was impossible to write about it, and now people have left and just money on their minds.
But I didn’t hear about the T-43 tank, I know the T-44.

[Alf]

Quote: Ros 56

But I didn’t hear about the T-43 tank, I know the T-44.

T-43 was made in the 43rd, as a replacement for the T-34. The thickness of the forehead of the hull was increased to 60 mm, a new tower, but the gun was left the same. But at the top they decided that the armor was still not much better, there was no gun against the Panthers and Tigers, and the project was closed, although the body and turret of the T-43 were unified with the T-34 by 85%.

[svp67]

Quote: Ros 56

Who wanted to remove the T-34 and how much he lived after such a Wishlist, when Stalin himself distributed them individually?

Who wanted to? Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin, as he "had his finger on the pulse" and knew perfectly well the numerous claims of the military for the combat and operational qualities of the T-34, as well as for numerous marriage. And if the war did not start in 1941, it is quite possible that by 1942 the T-34M would have been put on the conveyor at the Kharkov and Stalingrad factories

[beeper]

Quote: Mih1974

Yes, even in the article, pay attention to the dirty twitching - "it doesn't matter for us that he doesn't hold anything, but the Russians chipped off pieces of armor and hit the crew without breaking through" !! That is, the fact that the armor 34 was not pierced is very much "not important" because someone MAY be injured by shrapnel (scale seems to be) while their tanks burned like matches, but "we are no worse than a Russian tank."

You are wrong, Mikhail. Not "twitching", just a different composition of the armor and its heat treatment is, so far, one of the most guarded "military secrets" of all "armor-producing" countries!
Sherman's "nickel" armor was more "viscous" and did not give the sheaf of armor pieces that our "thirty-four" armor gave - even in the photo to the Article, at the Kharkov (pre-war issue, still with a bent front sheet) T-34, a through crack is visible on the frontal armor on the right, at the welded joint with an inclined side sheet, over the years, the very same thermal stresses appeared in through and through (and not just superficially, like in the Shermans) hardened armor plates, which caused an increased armor-piercing fragmentation effect even not "perforated" inward armor-piercing "blanks".
And how the "T-34" burned and how they exploded, with the detachment of the armor plates, the internal onboard fuel tanks, is neither in a fairy tale, nor describe with a pen (now German front-line pictures of burnt and exploded T-XNUMXs are available on the Web - you can ask , Soviet soldiers were forbidden to have cameras - only at the headquarters, for photographs for documents, or at a sent photo correspondent, and all trophy items were subject to immediate surrender, so there are so few, absolutely not, Soviet photographs taken by ordinary soldiers!) - don't be introduced misleading cinematic (and replicated in the literature) "publicity stunt" with a bucket of gasoline and a bucket of diesel fuel! Diesel fuel vapors in tanks, in a closed volume, and not in a bucket, explode no worse than gasoline ones, and when the tank starts to burn, then in it, as in a blast furnace, it becomes and "T-34" was the same "Ivanozharka (burning fuel in our the tank immediately spread over the bottom and did not leave any opportunity to use the "heroes' hatch") ", like the Sherman - Tommijarka!
Without useless, hat-shouting, "Hurray-patriotism" and without unnecessary groaning of allied and enemy weapons, just pay tribute and admiration to our fathers and grandfathers, who fought courageously on such technically imperfect (looking with our eyes from the modern distance!) Combat vehicles. with the Nazi "common Europe" and Victory, giving us Life and Freedom, which are now being taken away by the Nazi Hitlers and their eternal lackeys!

[Mih1974]

I don’t mock and don’t throw hats, I read a lot and different opinions about just American tanks before the Patons, but yes, I understand that they didn’t start fighting on June 22, 41 and they almost didn’t get either the T-3 or the T-2. In the best case, only the T-4 for them was at least a little bit killed, and that is often a miracle. While even for the T-34-76, the German T-3 is not an enemy at all, and the T-4 became dangerous ONLY after replacing the gun, before that it could only waste ammunition. Yes, this is what I am writing about "head-on collisions" but from the rear and the sides is a completely different conversation.
Yes, I perfectly understand where the "armor impact" came from, but still, I repeat, the critical state at the front required Quantity, even to the detriment of the quality of the tanks. What actually (together with the heroism of the soldiers) led to the Victory.
Here the statistics of our enemies Germans are very indicative - no doubt a much more powerful and dangerous "tiger" and of course the limit (then) of tank building "tiger-2" was superior to ALL types of tanks of the allies. And even the Is-2 was inferior to it in terms of rate of fire (I don't remember about armor), BUT - the number was significantly inferior, albeit "worse" than the T-34, with large casualties, but I would not dare to ask the question "could it have been win "?

[TTi]

Quote: Mih1974

Whereas even for the t-34-76 the German T-3 is not an enemy at all

Who told you that? Pz.III could well lay T-34/76. True, meeting them on the battlefield was unlikely. But hypothetically, the chances of Pz.III were very high. The frontal armor of Pz.III was only slightly inferior to the frontal armor of the KV-1. And it was noticeably thicker (in given values) of the T-34 frontal armor.

Quote: Mih1974

and the T-4 became dangerous ONLY after replacing the gun

Actually, the "okkurk" Pz.IV had a different principle of armor-piercing. It was based on cumulative ammunition, just like the Soviet 76 mm OB-25 mod. 1943 g.
Therefore, such a Pz.IV coped with the T-34.
But it was expensive. And not always for sure, the N / s of the cumulative grenade was low. Therefore, the gun at Pz.IV was replaced in 1942.

[Darcs]

Why did you eat something strange saying that the PZ3 armor was thicker than the HF of the panzer 3 armor grew only with the Ausf.G modification and then it increased to 50mm the upper armor plate T-34 pierced only in a good way

[TTi]

Quote: Darcs

Why did you eat strange saying that the PZ3 had thicker armor than the KV

Russian is step-mother for you? Do you understand what is written in Russian?

Quote: Darcs

and then it grew up to 50mm top

You do not understand armor.
The armor of Pz.III was cemented (and heterogeneous). The armor of KV was Cementless (and mostly homogeneous).
This is a different armor. And 1 cm is not equal to 1 cm in durability.

[Mih1974]

And now I will smash your "arguments" into dust
This, of course, is not Kolobanov’s tank after the battle, but I guess that he was close to that

And now try to find a close example for Pytsy-3 and especially photos . Break off with your t-3 and KV comparisons

[Darcs]

what nafig cemented? armor of the third panzer steel chrome nickel rolled surface hardened, cemented armor was mainly used in the fleet

[Mih1974]

it was he with a fool who wrote about the Dreadnought armor chopped into tigers))

[Darcs]

And then they went to the towers, and if the memory doesn’t change, then they cut the armor from the unfinished ships to the Tigers-B and allowed the Tiger's tower

[Mih1974]

Yes, that is exactly what happened and the shafis did not have any "special super tank" armor, they simply chopped up the remnants of what was.

[Ros 56]

I already wrote before, I personally saw two funerals for the father of my friend who was a mechanic driver on the T-34 with whom we went to the wedding of this friend in Samara, i.e. Kuibyshev. It was a cool man, we hung out with him at a wedding famously, I was a witness. And when my friend came home, we always had fun with his parents, but one day his dad began to tell us how it really was in the war. This is scary, believe me.

[papas-57]

The Germans did not just respect the T-34 for nothing, and the Shermans called “Tommyzharka” (English Tommycooker) and “Ronson” (from the British, according to the brand of the lighter, which was advertised under the slogan “It lights up the first time, every time!”). Polish tankers called them "burning graves."

[mishaia_23]

At the same time, their tanks burned like matches

Do not forget that the Sherman tank had a carburetor engine and was therefore refueled with PETROL.
T-34 had a diesel engine.

[TTi]

Quote: mishaia_23

Do not forget that the Sherman tank had a carburetor engine and was therefore refueled with PETROL.
T-34 had a diesel engine.

1. Diesel fuel vapors explode in much the same way as gasoline vapors.
2. Diesel fuel from incandescent fragments ignites approximately the same as gasoline.
3. Gasoline burning fumes. Diesel burns in its mass. Therefore, the consequences of burning diesel fuel for the crew harder.
4. A diesel engine is much more difficult to manufacture and more expensive than gasoline. In addition, it is heavier (this is important for the suspension).
But in the USSR before the war there was not enough gasoline, but it was full of solariums. Therefore, the choice fell on the diesel.

[Andrey NM]

Quote from TTi

3. Gasoline burning fumes. Diesel burns in its mass. Therefore, the consequences of burning diesel fuel for the crew harder.

What is the total mass? Oil fumes are burning, oil products do not burn in the liquid phase. DT evaporability worse. The flash point of gasoline is around -35 degrees, for diesel fuel from + 35 and above. This is an ignition characteristic with a tray of fire in an open crucible. Therefore, diesel engines are heated plugs to diesel fuel began to evaporate, and then the fuel mixture begins to ignite. Hmmm, in the total mass ... I must say so.

[Rzzz]

I will correct the figure a little. Modern diesel fuels have a flash point of 60-70 ° C. What is called "diesel fuel", which was driven then, is about the same, but with great variations, depending on the composition.

[Andrey NM]

Quote: rzzz

I will correct a little numbers.

Correct a little more, if you don't mind. If we take GOST-305-82 (13), which is now applicable only for military equipment and government agencies, then the flash point for summer is from +62 degrees, for "arctic" - from +35 degrees. For the so-called "euro" brands according to the technical regulations, the flash point is higher there, but such parameters as the cloud point and a number of parameters have dropped out. The current "bourgeois" technique is very capricious to this characteristic.

[SASHA OLD]

TTi, are you tired of talking nonsense?

[Rzzz]

Small clarification. Gasoline, with an airplane radial engine - this is the "army" Sherman, of which the Americans were the majority. In the USSR, under Lend-Lease, a version "for the Marine Corps" was supplied, which had a pair of two-stroke automobile diesel engines. The famous GMC 6-71. Power, by the way, is only 375 horses, with a noticeably greater weight.

[Tarhan]

pieces of armor broke off and hit the crew without penetrating "!!

On the tanks of the First World War and some tanks of the Second World War, indeed, when a shell hit from the outside, small scale chipped off from the inside of the armor. This is determined by the fact that the armor of tanks was "tough", on modern tanks the armor was "viscous". Hard, if the projectile did not penetrate the armor, then it did not leave dents on the armor, the armor plate shook all over. Viscous armor, extinguishing the speed of the projectile, diverged to form dents on the outer surface, and no scale was formed on the inner surface of fragments.

The characteristic damage from dross is damage to the eyes and open areas of the body - the surviving tankers had all their skin in scars as with smallpox.

Protective mask from the dross of the English tankers of the first world.

[Vkd dvk]

If only the scale. The parts welded from the inside were torn off from the blow from the outside and shredded the crew. Ricochet from internal surfaces exacerbated. The advantage of American armor was that it was extremely viscous and did not split.

[Tarhan]

The parts welded from the inside were torn off from the blow from the outside and shredded the crew.

So the Soviet tankers, well, where I served, the fable was how to destroy the tank crew with one shot. This open the hatch, shoot inside the tank with a pistol and slam the hatch. The ricochet bullet will spin inside differently. And there is a large share of the probability that all crew members will get it.

[Huumi]

To help you, the memoirs of a tanker in a foreign car, there the tanker responded a little differently about this "rubbish". Where our tanks died Emchi went hundreds of kilometers along the sleepers

[volodimer]

I read it, but I did not see such a conclusion, the book is of the "must-read" category, the author fought on what was given, and, by the way, quite correctly mentions both the advantages and disadvantages of the Sherman.

[Proton]

And by the way, not only horses

[210ox]

They threw food to our army, meat, and clothing, short fur coats.

[Huumi]

And also high-precision machine tools that made it possible to make barrels for 57 mm guns and alloys. Porlha and a bunch of other things. And a lot. The driver who sat down from a lorry and went to the stbder cried with happiness. I remember the site. Even after the war, according to the veteran making a copy of the studer copy was as far away as the stars

[210ox]

It seems like they have already "moved" to Mongolia ... And you mean high-precision machines ..

[Huumi]

Choth did not understand about Mongolia

[TTi]

Quote: Huumi

And also high-precision machines that allowed to make barrels for 57 mm guns and alloys. Porlha and a bunch of other things. And a lot.

They wrote about the Mongols.

[Alf]

Quote: Huumi

making a copy of the studer copy was as far away as the stars

And who’s a copy of Studer?

[Huumi]

Look at it. The students were licked and ours was done. If not laziness. It's a veteran of the word.

[Alf]

Quote: Huumi

Look at it. The students were licked and ours was done. If not laziness. It's a veteran of the word.

I looked, I didn’t find anything like it. Tell me.
Some veterans also believe that AK is a copy of SG, and PE-2 is a copy of ME-110.

[Huumi]

Our graduates released their own. I forgot the brand right now. The same. Copy

[933454818]

ZIS (ZIL) -151
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%97%D0%98%D0%A1-151

[Alf]

ZIS-151. That's just from Studebaker in it was only a cabin, all the insides are completely different.

[Siberian54]

four-wheel drive ZIS-151, the main difference is the engine of domestic assembly for our A-66 gasoline, instead of the student one for almost aviation, high-octane

[Rzzz]

The 57-mm gun was adopted in 1940, before the start of the Lend-Lease. It was hardly possible without all the necessary equipment for production.

[TTi]

Quote: rzzz

The 57-mm gun was adopted in 1940, before the start of the Lend-Lease.

Actually, in 1941. But they brought it to mind and were able to do it in series only in 1943.

Quote: rzzz

It was hardly possible without all the necessary equipment for production.

He was not there. It was planned (oh, these Soviet projectors and projectors) that the Soviet industry would make such equipment for plant No. 352 in Novocherkassk. Where were the trunks for ZIS-2 (and 107 mm M-60) supposed to be produced.
But the equipment could not be done, as a result, ZIS-2 arr. 1941 and 107 mm M-60 were covered.

[Siberian54]

In the forties, about half a thousand of these guns were fired, and due to the fact that this anti-tank rifle from half a kilometer pierced through in the longitudinal direction, all existing tanks of the potential enemy were stopped production and the guns were placed in long-term storage warehouses. and the fighting squads of the "eastern shaft" in 44 because they lost the keys to the locks.

[your1970]

Quote: Siberian54

punched from half a kilometer through in the longitudinal direction all existing tanks of the likely enemy production stopped

-here never understood such an approach to this instrument ...
There is let's say NOW PUNCHING WEAPONS GUARANTEED any tank of a potential enemy THROUGH THROUGH (though the truth is 2 times more expensive!) - you want to say that they will not be mass-produced? There will be, and it’s also possible to cover a couple of programs !!
So then, penetration was good (but not guaranteed) for everyone - the price, problems with manufacturing, consumption of c / m per shot, and so on did not suit. Therefore, production was curtailed.

[bistrov.]

Quote: 210ox

tossed our army meat

Not free, but for gold and precious stones, that is, with very great benefit for themselves, while developing their industry and agriculture and giving work to their people.

[Korax71]

Vital like an adult uncle, his own head should work. Well done Mongols, honor and praise to them, but still the critical supplies came from sworn friends.

[TTi]

Quote: Broken

Let's go when we are already a bit ridiculous on the ridge of drina drunk near Stalingrad and most importantly on the Kursk Bulge ..!

They went after 01.10.1941/24.09.1941/2. After XNUMX/XNUMX/XNUMX, the USSR entered WWXNUMX on the Anglo-Saxon side.

Quote: Broken

And for this "second front" Stalin paid in gold

What nonsense!

Quote: Broken

Due to this massacre, the USA got out of the depression and boosted its economy.

They did this long before WW2.

[Alf]

Quote from TTi

24.09.1941 the USSR entered 2MB

And before that, the USSR did not fight Germany?
Admins, well, remove this abnormal one!

[TTi]

Quote: Alf

Admins, well, remove this abnormal one!

Crazy is you. Yes, and illiterate abnormal.
From 22.06.1941/24.09.1941/2 to XNUMX/XNUMX/XNUMX, the USSR fought with Germany in the framework of the local Soviet-German war. AND OUT OF FRAME XNUMXMB.
Ignored all sorts of ignoramuses. And write your comments, damn it.
Go learn the story, double.

[SOF]

Quote from TTi

AND OUT OF FRAME 2MB

.... figash yourself .... and if it’s not difficult to put a couple of theses ... about the Soviet-German war .... and then, something I’ve added a little to your historical delights ....
.... the main thing - in more detail about who, where and when announced the second world world.....
..... .....

[TTi]

Quote: SOF

throw a couple of theses ... about the Soviet-German war .... but the fact that I’ve added a bit of your historical delights ....

Open the history book. I don’t remember what class. Everything is written there.
You can open the wiki. It also says when the USSR entered WW2 on the side of the Anglo-Saxons. It was September 24.09.1941, XNUMX. Such important dates from the history of the country must be known.

Quote: SOF

the main thing - in more detail about who, where and when announced the second world world ...

And this is on almost every pillar. Specify yourself.

[svp67]

TTi You can open the wiki. It also says when the USSR entered WW2 on the side of the Anglo-Saxons. It was September 24.09.1941, XNUMX. Such important dates from the history of the country must be known.

They opened their eyes straight ... It looks like it, it turns out from June 22, 1941 to September 24, 1941 we played with the Germans in "Zarnitsa" ...

TTi It also says when the USSR entered WW2 on the side of the Anglo-Saxons. It was September 24.09.1941, XNUMX.

No, you distort the facts. On this day, our country only joined the Atlantic Charter, which in turn was developed by British Prime Minister W. Churchill and US President F. D. Roosevelt, at the Argentine naval base in Newfoundland, which was announced on August 14, 1941. Well, it turns out that the Second World War began on August 14, 1941?

[Vkd dvk]

End of the world. History began to be studied on Wikipedia.
It is necessary to have time to become so rosy genital! Unfortunately, real Russian words are not welcome here.

[gsev]

Quote from TTi

Ignored all sorts of ignoramuses. And write your comments, damn it.
Go learn the story, double.

And Churchill already knew on 22.06.1941 and declared that in the person of Great Britain the USSR had a reliable ally. On Soviet radio, his speech seemed to be read out on the same day. So who doesn’t know history?

[TTi]

Quote: gsev

And Churchill already knew on 22.06.1941 and declared that in the person of Great Britain the USSR had a reliable ally.

Talking with your tongue, not carrying bags. The Anglo-Saxons took the USSR into their company only on September 24.09.1941, 01.10.1941 and only after signing the corresponding pieces of paper. And they connected to the Lend-Lease program of the USSR from XNUMX/XNUMX/XNUMX already as an ally.
But the embargo on the supply of arms and strategic materials to the USSR, it was introduced against the USSR after its attack on Finland, they really lifted as early as 22.06.1941/01.10.1941/XNUMX. Only now it was necessary to pay for it before XNUMX with gold. Of which there were few in the USSR.

Quote: gsev

So who doesn’t know history?

You.

[gsev]

Quote from TTi

Talking with your tongue, not carrying bags.

Quote from TTi

The Anglo-Saxons took the USSR into their company only on September 24.09.1941, XNUMX.

After the complete defeat in 1940, it depended a little on Great Britain. Since then, the USSR may not have considered this country equal to itself.

[TTi]

Quote: gsev

After the complete defeat in 1940, it depended a little on Great Britain.

In fact, Britain won the "Battle of Britain" in the air. Then she went on the offensive.
Let me remind you that the negotiations between Hitler and Molotov in the fall of 1940 in Berlin took place in part in a bomb shelter. This is how the Germans "defeated" Britain.

Quote: gsev

Since then, the USSR may not have considered this country equal to itself.

Gee-gee-gee. Well, you generally. Compare member with a finger. Moreover, with the little finger.

[Huumi]

Well, in Spain, they indulged. So, 17 mine entered Poland. Having entered World War II. The fact of violating the borders of a neighboring non-state. And as I think rightly

[TTi]

Quote: Huumi

so then 17 mine in Poland entered. entering the 2nd world.

Then which side?
No, there was also a local Soviet-Polish war.

[YUG64]

.American companies and banks play a major role in the development of the German defense industry. Google who owned the shares of the largest German companies. In other words, the attack on the USSR was sponsored by the Anglo-Saxons. Do you still want to thank them for their help?

[TTi]

Quote: YUG64

American companies and banks play a major role in the development of the German defense industry.

The United States through the Germans fought with Britain for world domination.
What is so surprising about this?

Quote: YUG64

In other words, the attack of Hitler on the USSR was sponsored by the Anglo-Saxons.

But this is frank nonsense.

[ruigat]

But this is frank nonsense.

This is frank truth. Look at the growth dynamics of the 3rd Reich industry and the unimaginable political concessions that the owners of the Fed made to their Golem (3 Reich) in order to increase its power before the battle with the USSR.

[TTi]

Quote: ruigat

in order for him to increase his power before the battle with the USSR

The United States wanted to sneeze on the impoverished and weak USSR. And so until the beginning of the 60s, when nuclear weapons delivery vehicles appeared in the USSR.
And in the 30s they dug under Britain. And they got their way. The fact that the USSR fell under the hand did not interest them at all.

[ruigat]

The United States wanted to sneeze on the impoverished and weak USSR.

You're not right. After the Great Economic Depression and the success of the First Five-Year Plan in the USSR, the owners of the Fed began to burn under the fifth point. And for this, it was necessary to create a Golem. And you google German-English maritime treaties of 1-1935. This is pure suicide for Small Britain, which means that at that time it was under the control of the owners of the Fed.

[TTi]

Quote: ruigat

successes of the first five years in the USSR

If you wanted to make fun, then make fun.
The successes of the first five-year plan were only on pieces of paper of Sovagitprop.

Quote: ruigat

the owners of the Fed under the fifth point began to burn.

What is it? Tripper did not cure in due time?

Quote: ruigat

then she was at that time under the control of the owners of the Fed.

No, the championship in the world passed from Britain to the USA already during 2MB.
The United States in every way led Britain to this unfavorable event for her. And in the end they failed. Churchill (not a smart man) decided to conduct a "small and victorious war." This is always the case with empires before they collapse.
But the French, and Churchill made a bet on them, the Britons threw. And they did not fight the Germans.
As a result, Britain itself came under the German blow. And although the British won the "Battle of England" in 1940, the Yankees had to cede world domination. It is still there. Those. the Yankees got their way.

Quote: ruigat

And you google German-English maritime treaties of 1935-36. This is sheer suicide for Small Britain

Chamberlain maneuvered as he could. He perfectly understood (unlike Churchill) that the war with Germany was the end of British rule over the world. But he was succeeded by Churchill. As a result, everything turned out that way.

[ruigat]

The successes of the first five-year plan were only on pieces of paper of Sovagitprop.

Of course. Dneproges after all, the ancient Ukrainians built.

Chamberlain maneuvered as he could. He perfectly understood (unlike Churchill) that the war with Germany was the end of British rule over the world.

Is the war of the Empire with the most powerful fleet in the world, with a defeated country having a decorative army and a fleet of several fragile little ships (1934-1936), is this the end of dominion?

[TTi]

Quote: ruigat

Of course. Dneproges after all, the ancient Ukrainians built.

And what is so cool about this DneproGES that you refer to it?
By the way, they themselves blew up this very DneproGES.

Quote: ruigat

Is the war of the Empire with the most powerful fleet in the world, with a defeated country having a decorative army and a fleet of several fragile little ships (1934-1936), is this the end of dominion?

Germany could not take the fleet; it was not a maritime power. And with the ground army, the British could obviously get a hitch.
Poles wanted to fight. But they did not have the opportunity.
The French had the opportunity, but had no desire.
Dead end, however.
Or do you suppose a British landing in Germany in 1936? It’s even somehow not funny.

[Grigory_78]

The entire European history of 1933-1938 is a game of giveaway with Germany. They began with the voluntary withdrawal of the occupying French troops from the Ruhr, continued with the approval of the Anschluss of Austria and the transfer of industrialized Czechoslovakia, ending with a formal declaration of war for the seizure of Poland. And where did Germany’s debt for reparations for the WWII go, the payment of which was supposed to end in the 1980s, is modestly silent in Soros textbooks. But they quote such an authoritative source as a certain Adolf Aloizovich, who claimed that the NSDAP during its formation was funded exclusively by donations from housewives. This is in a country where inflation is estimated at thousands of percent, and governments are rarely held in power for more than six months. Sumptuously.
Goebbels would be pleased.

[TTi]

Quote: Gregory_78

The entire European history of 1933-1938 is a game of giveaway with Germany.

1MV in the USSR was hushed up. And it was a nightmare war. And nobody wanted a repetition.
That is why the French, seeing the mood of the Germans in 1940, decided that it was better to save the nation than to defeat the Germans at the cost of heavy losses, as was the case in WW1. And this in WW2 was quite within their power.

Quote: Gregory_78

ending with a formal declaration of war for the seizure of Poland

No, the declaration of war was not formal. It was a very serious act that led Germany to defeat 08.05.1945/XNUMX/XNUMX

[gsev]

Quote from TTi

Chamberlain maneuvered as he could. He perfectly understood (unlike Churchill) that the war with Germany was the end of British rule over the world. But he was succeeded by Churchill. As a result, everything turned out that way.

If Britain and France from the USSR did not allow the Germans, Hungarians and Poles to tear Czechoslovakia to pieces, then World War 2 would probably not have happened and the British Empire would have survived. Just before 1939, Russia was considered as an object of expansion. Also, the Poles overestimated their military capabilities. Instead of creating an alliance with the USSR and Czechoslovakia against Germany, they planned expansion to the east in alliance with Japan and Germany. In retaliation for Germany’s refusal to help Poland to tear Lithuania apart as Czechoslovakia was torn to pieces, the Poles put pressure on Germany in Danzig with the atrocities of Polish customs against German Frau Poles and received German aggression.

[TTi]

Quote: gsev

then World War 2 might not have happened

This is from the realm of speculation.

Quote: gsev

and the British Empire would survive

No, its half-life was a matter of time.

Quote: gsev

Just before 1939, Russia was considered as an object of expansion.

1. In 1939, Russia did not exist.
2. You never asked yourself, and what for until 01.09.1939/XNUMX/XNUMX someone needed this USSR? What was so valuable in it that someone needed it and for some reason was needed?
Think about it.
But after 01.09.1939/XNUMX/XNUMX the Britons really needed the USSR. They were interested in Soviet cannon fodder. A little later, the Yankees became interested in this "product".

Quote: gsev

Also, the Poles overestimated their military capabilities. Instead of creating an alliance with the USSR and Czechoslovakia against Germany

Are you out of your mind to write such things? Do you think the Poles are crazy?
And then, who said that Dzhugashvili wanted to block with someone against the Germans?

Quote: gsev

they planned eastward expansion in alliance with Japan and Germany.

You are definitely out of your mind. Poland was a key ally of the British and French in Central Europe.
Do you even know that the only Slavs whom the Germans did not consider Aryans are Poles?

Quote: gsev

In retaliation for Germany’s refusal to help Poland to tear Lithuania apart as Czechoslovakia was torn to pieces, the Poles put pressure on Germany in Danzig with the atrocities of Polish customs against German Frau Poles and received German aggression.

Insanity grew stronger.

[Albert1988]

Quote from TTi

meaningless bukaf.

ABOUT! Carbine, aka rfv18, aka TTi, reincarnated again!

[Mic1969]

Yes, TTi is a prolific bot (or Troll), 125 comments per day. He doesn’t eat, doesn’t sleep about Russia ....

[Mordvin 3]

Quote: Mic1969

He doesn’t eat, he doesn’t sleep about Russia ...

What bot is he? He writes from Langley, spy.

[Alf]

Quote: Mordvin 3

What bot is he? He writes from Langley, spy.

Judging by his delirium, he is not from Langley, but from parallel reality.

[Vladimir 5]

To the critics of TT, he quite correctly defines the strategic alignments of that period, and whoever does not understand and minus, it is already that he has his own problems with knowledge. To understand what is said by TT, you need to have more knowledge than a short course of the CPSU (b) on the Second World War and similar "products" of the USSR period. In many ways, I completely agree with TT ...

[Albert1988]

Quote: Vladimir 5

To critics of TTi, he correctly defines the strategic alignment of that period,

Yes, he DOES NOT understand anything correctly - his "great and mighty" Anglo-Saxons were very tired of getting into the mahach with the Germans, although they had already fought openly with them, and when the "poor and backward" USSR suddenly held back their blitzkrieg quite well, that's when The Anglo-Saxons thought that they could support the Reds, while 80% of their support falls on the end of the 43rd - 44th year, when everything was already decided. And to ascribe to some mythical "Anglo-Saxons" a decisive role in the victory over Nazism in Europe - at least you have to try with the inverted logic of a resident of one "nezalezhnoy" country))))

Quote: Vladimir 5

To understand what is said by TT, you need to have more knowledge than a short course of the CPSU (b) on the Second World War and similar "products" of the USSR period

Precisely, and those. anyone who has a little more knowledge may well find in his statements a cloud of internal contradictions and a distortion of logic)))))
And so "everything is correct", 150% simple)))))

[Vladimir 5]

You will also have to explain your statements. The Anglo-Saxons did not "screw up", but calculated in cold blood, only Hitler turned out to be an unpredictable "genius" and acted contrary to normal strategy and logic. (Including deceived and puzzled the "genius of all times and peoples" comrade IV Stalin) Here in 1940, then Hitler tightly squeezed and with the naval blockade of the British on the island, then W. Churchill immediately went to the allies of Hitler's new enemy, the USSR., - W. Churchill's keynote speech, after the German attack on the USSR .. Do not be the help of the allies, Hitler would have crushed the USSR, but the Anglo-Saxons, who once strove for this, now, on the contrary, it was dangerous, and they made every effort to support the USSR. (All aircraft of the USSR since 1942 flew on allied gasoline, most bearings, gunpowder, steam locomotives, etc., Imagine the Red Army without aviation, most tanks, railway transport - do not be too lazy to raise the range of supplies by time and name ...). The distorted logic of the majority in the VO, because it took place at the PPR of the USSR and later on hurray-patriotism, as a relic of the USSR .. The problem is that the citizens of the USSR, and later the Russian Federation, were weaned from the truth for almost a hundred years, everything was based on "useful patriotic" lies , and to this day the truth is not considered justified in comparison with the "useful" lie .... That is why such still almost objective statements, a stream of indignation, and the truthful ones are taken for the enemy's propaganda at all ... - a paradox from the consequences of the USSR ... ....

[gsev]

Quote: Vladimir 5

.Had not the help of the allies, Hitler would have crushed the USSR, but the Anglo-Saxons, who once sought this, were now quite the opposite, and they did their best to support the USSR.

So Churchill, unlike Chamberlain, was an outstanding politician. If the USSR had not survived in 1941 and in 1942, then the next year the Germans and Japanese would block China, and their tanks would be in the Middle East, Iran and India.

[Vladimir 5]

Several important details. W. Churchill was an implacable enemy of Hitler, that is why he was elected the "military" leader of England in the war against Nazi Germany. ("choosing - war or shame, we will get both war and shame"). That is why he was so irreconcilably disposed for the Nazis' acts against the Jews, and W. Churchill's mother was half Jewish, that is, W. Churchill's grandmother was Jewish, and a quarter Jewish, and according to his Jewish grandmother, even a distant relative of President V.D., Roosevelt, because in opposition to Hitler, both were motivated ... (clearly visible from their personal census). Hitler, before attacking the USSR, attempted an armistice with England, but realizing the failure of this, he bombed England and went to the USSR, intending to deal with it in half a year ... I did not take into account the strength of cohesion and influence of the leaders of the United States and England, the power of the Jewish diasporas all over the world ... All this played into the hands of the international USSR ...

[Albert1988]

Let's go in order:

Quote: Vladimir 5

The Anglo-Saxons did not "rot", but calculated in cold blood

As they say, they were considered - the problem is not Hitler’s unpredictability, but that. that even having an order of magnitude inferior fleet, he managed to create difficulties with Britain’s marine supply! Yes, and on the continent, the British, in addition to disturbing raids, could not do it, but the Germans coped with this very well.
That is, the Angles simply could not fight with Hitler! It turned out to be rather weak ...

Quote: Vladimir 5

If there was no help from the Allies, Hitler would crush the USSR

I would not have crushed - already in 41 it was clear that it would not, and after Stalingrad - the fate of Germany was already decided, and only then our "allies" began to help us in some more or less noticeable quantities, and it cost this help is not cheap ...
And already 80% of all their help went after Kursk, when only Hitler did not understand that Germany was a kapets ...

Quote: Vladimir 5

Since 1942, all aircraft of the USSR flew allied gasoline, most bearings, gunpowder, steam locomotives, etc., Imagine a red army without aviation, most tanks, railway transport

This is a HUGE exaggeration - until the 42nd year, allied assistance amounted to no more than 4% of the military production of the USSR! A large number of Western products came to us at the end of the 43rd - the beginning of the 44th year, when the German submarines calmed down a little. And with steam locomotives, the story is generally excellent - more than half of them came to us in the 45th, when there was no longer any need - one thing is the plans of the allies to help the USSR, another thing is the implementation of these plans ...
Well, about "allied gasoline" - it's finally a pearl, how do you imagine its delivery in such quantities?

Quote: Vladimir 5

The distorted logic of the majority in the VO, because it took place at the PPR of the USSR and later on hurray-patriotism, as a relic of the USSR .. The problem is that the citizens of the USSR, and later the Russian Federation, were weaned from the truth for almost a hundred years, everything was based on "useful patriotic" lies , and to this day the truth is not considered justified in comparison with a "useful" lie .... That is why such still almost objective statements, a stream of indignation, and truthful ones are taken for the enemy's propaganda, - a paradox from the consequences of the USSR ... ....

In this case, the counter-argument is that the Americans weaned their people from the truth and in the 90s actively tried to wean our people, spreading myths about the "critical significance" of the allies' assistance for the USSR, only the problem is that this assistance at the most critical moments came in such scanty quantities, which played almost no role, except psychological, and went massively already when Germany could be buried. Although, at the same time, the Americans and Angs themselves, until the 44th, were generally not able to compete with Germany on land ...
And no one denies its usefulness during this period either — wonderful trucks, especially three-axle ones, which you didn’t count in the USSR, armored personnel carriers, which the USSR didn’t even bother to design and put into production, etc.
So there was help, yes, no one denies, but to say that this help saved the USSR directly is fundamentally wrong, it’s true that the help went in good volumes when the USSR saved itself ...

[Vladimir 5]

There is no point in arguing with you. Got it from prepared sources, you cannot have a different opinion, because the information received in the majority on the purpose of propaganda (authorship and conditions of creation). Everybody lies, but the truth is revealed in comparisons, in the frequency and origin of information. Western "allies" lie to the masses no worse than Soviet political instructors, but the truth is present in high-quality documentary sources. Our political and managerial truth was classified, some part under the heading "s. Secret", half-truth, - "for official" use, that is, the same is closed ... So where did the created opinion and "facts" come from? the people, because the above calculations need to indicate sources, preferably several and not from the USSR. I repeat, in the USSR, "pravda" was an ode - everything for the efforts of the party authorities (sometimes the party dictator ...).

[Albert1988]

Quote: Vladimir 5

You cannot have a different opinion from the prepared sources, for the propaganda received in most of the information

And that is why I do not draw information from "Soviet" sources - by the way, there are almost none of them, because the USSR has long been absent from this little ball.

Quote: Vladimir 5

Everything lies, but the truth is revealed in comparisons, in the frequency and origin of information.

The truth is revealed in the analysis of facts, and facts can be gleaned from the relevant documents.

Quote: Vladimir 5

but the truth is present in high-quality documentary sources.

That is why I prefer to read those historians (both ours and Western) who work directly with documents in archives.

Quote: Vladimir 5

Our political and managerial truth was classified, some part labeled "s.secret", half-truth, - "for official" use, that is, the same is closed ...

Here you are a little cunning - the documents (which are secret, not "secret") are all written in black and white how much and from whom the USSR received and how much Gold he laid out for these obsolete fighters and a scanty number of tanks, and it is also written when, at last, the USSR was included in the Lend-Lease program and what were the nuances there))) And the most interesting is that all this has been declassified - come only to the archive and analyze))))

Quote: Vladimir 5

So where did the created opinion and "facts" come from, from the PPR for the people, because the above calculations need to indicate sources, preferably several and not from the USSR.

To check my calculations, read for a start Isaev, Dyukov, Mukhin, but you can go to Bivor and Lindell-Gardt))))

Quote: Vladimir 5

I repeat, in the USSR, "pravda" was an ode - everything for the efforts of the party authorities (sometimes the party dictator ...).

True, the lie - the Soviet official position does NOT interest me - I am interested in the opinion of a competent specialist who sat in the archive and looked at specific documents.
I repeat - we have already had a so-called "archival revolution" long ago - in 15 they discovered a cloud of archival documents, very interesting documents, but people are too lazy to go into the archives - it's easier to take an old Soviet myth like Prokhorovka or "intelligence has reported everything" and start to "refute" it using other myths ...

[commoners]

If there was no help from the Allies, Hitler would crush the USSR

Another victim of the exam drew! What ended the 41 year? The Germans were driven out of Rostov, defeated near Moscow, stopped near Leningrad. I explain that the Germans of 41 years advanced on the entire front from the Baltic to the Black Seas. The Germans of 42 years had enough strength in only one direction, the south. Yes, the blow was strong, Crimea and Sevastopol were lost, but not one of the strategic objectives was achieved. And before the supply of Lend-Lease is still very far away. At the end of 41 years, the Red Army smashed the Wehrmacht with a huge shortage of ammunition and shells. The evacuated factories were just mounting in new places or were even on the way. So, Hitler did not have a single chance to defeat the USSR.

[TTi]

Quote: plebs

The Germans of 42 years had enough strength in only one direction, the south.

Without food supplies under the Lend-Lease USSR in the winter of 1941-42, he would simply die out from starvation. And so, the losses from starvation in the territories that remained under the control of the Bolsheviks were enormous. And without American food, everything would have stopped altogether. And in 1942 there would be no one to fight against the Germans. And nothing.

Quote: plebs

And before the supply of Lend-Lease is still very far away.

The USSR was included in the Lend-Lease program from 01.10.1941/XNUMX/XNUMX.

[commoners]

Without food supplies under the Lend-Lease USSR in the winter of 1941-42, he would simply die out from starvation.

You are either off topic or a liar. Significant food supplies from the United States began in October 1942, when the enemy captured the rich agricultural North Caucasus region and stood at the walls of Stalingrad. For the Soviet Union, a significant portion of food came in the form of these products: concentrates, egg powder, condensed milk and powdered milk. Supplies of food in this form were valuable precisely for the USSR, when their transportation routes covered almost half the world.

The USSR was included in the Lend-Lease program from 01.10.1941/XNUMX/XNUMX.

And immediately ships sailed full of food! You are a sick old man! The organization of the convoy, laying the route of the shaking of all the little things, these are months of hard work. And 01.10.1941/XNUMX/XNUMX, this is almost the beginning of the battle for Moscow.

[Siberian54]

Quote: Vladimir 5

You will also have to explain your statements. The Anglo-Saxons did not "screw up", but calculated in cold blood, only Hitler turned out to be an unpredictable "genius" and acted contrary to normal strategy and logic. (Including deceived and puzzled the "genius of all times and peoples" comrade IV Stalin) Here in 1940, then Hitler tightly squeezed and with a naval blockade of the British on

Forget the Khrushchev-Trotskyist version of the outbreak of war .. the USSR did not have real opportunities to attack (Poland, Germany, Romania, underline necessary) in 1941, as it was tied hand and foot by the USSR-JAPAN treaty in which there was a clause (which at 45 allowed to enter the Pacific war). in case of aggression of the contracting party against a third party, the other party has the right to attack the side of the contract .. Do you think anyone in the government wanted a war on two fronts?

[gsev]

Quote: Vladimir 5

To understand what is being said, TTi, you need to have more knowledge than a short course of the CPSU (b)

TT lacks knowledge on geography and history of the level of the secondary school of the USSR or Rossssi and reading popular literature on these subjects to prepare for university. He may confuse the Threesome, but in his statements it is clear that he does not know much of modern historical literature written in Russia.

[Albert1988]

Quote: gsev

TT lacks knowledge on geography and history of the level of the secondary school of the USSR or Rossssi and reading popular literature on these subjects to prepare for university. He may confuse the Threesome, but in his statements it is clear that he does not know much of modern historical literature written in Russia.

But he doesn’t need this knowledge - he, apparently, replaces it with his fantasies - I asked him to repeatedly give a list of the literature that he studied and what do you think? Silence ... I asked him to give definitions to the terms with which he operates (and apparently he himself invents them) - again silence and childish excuses ...
So judge for yourself ...

[gsev]

Quote: Alf

Judging by his delirium, he is not from Langley, but from parallel reality.

The US is a democratic state and the best scholars do not aspire to Langley. So, to a certain extent, Russian affairs in Langley are managed by losers with a limited outlook.

[Huumi]

They would sneeze, they would get angry. And Churchill would have gotten angry at 45. The Americans were dead of his plan Unconscious. The most time to start was. The economy is in ruins. Question. Why didn’t you rock it? And there were nuclear weapons and strategists. We didn't even have fighters to get them .Not jerked. And by the 60s and moreover would not have snooped

[TTi]

Quote: Huumi

They would sneeze and pry.

Well no. There are simply countries in the world that are of no interest to anyone. Such a country in 1945 was the USSR.
Actually, until 1939, the USSR also did not interest anyone in the world.
But since 1939, the Britons began to cultivate this meadow in their own interests. And on September 24.09.1941, XNUMX, they achieved their goal, "the client is ripe."
And then the Americans became interested in the Red Army with the aim of landing on the Japanese islands. Then their need for it disappeared. But until the end of the war in Europe, they still did not know about it. Therefore, in Europe, the USSR received so much.
If Japan’s atomic bombing would have been six months earlier (with its subsequent surrender), I think the USSR, except for a kick in the ass, would not have received anything in Europe at all. Yes, and pre-war territorial acquisitions would have to be returned. With interest.
The world around is harsh and unfair.

[Albert1988]

Quote from TTi

Well no. There are simply countries in the world that are of no interest to anyone. Such a country in 1945 was the USSR.

Oga, and that is why the aforementioned "Anglo-Saxons" so persistently and consistently cultivated the Nazi meadow in Germany, and then, as flowers appeared, they began to turn a blind eye to the ripening of militaristic berries, which went in violation of the Jesuit restrictions invented by the Anglo-Saxons themselves, and Along the way, Aloizych and Co. were so unobtrusively pushed to the Soviet borders ... Even their Polish-hyena ally was fed with giblets, all for the sake of "absolutely not interesting USSR")))))

Quote from TTi

If the atomic bombings of Japan were six months earlier (with its subsequent surrender

Oga, of course, but nothing that the Yapis did not attach special significance to these bombings? Considering. that the Americans completely over the course of one raid completely leveled the entire Japanese wooden cities with the use of conventional bombs ...

But the thoughts on the surrender of the Yap appeared somehow suspiciously at the same time as the USSR entered the war against these same Yap ...

But we will ignore this, after all! Everything, as they say, according to secret documents)))))

[gsev]

Quote from TTi

If Japan’s atomic bombing would have been six months earlier (with its subsequent surrender), I think the USSR, except for a kick in the ass, would not have received anything in Europe at all.

Do not forget that England and France had their own ambitions. If the United States put forward exorbitant demands after World War II, an alliance of Germany, Japan, Great Britain, the USSR and France against them could have formed.

[TTi]

Quote: gsev

Do not forget that England and France had their own ambitions.

France can not be taken into account.

Quote: gsev

If the United States put forward exorbitant demands after World War II, an alliance of Germany, Japan, Great Britain, the USSR and France against them could have formed.

I could not. Already in 1945, the United States could easily tear all of these co-front-lineers into pieces. And they knew about it.
Yes, and now they can easily.
Surprising on your list of the USSR. By 1945, he had almost completely lost his main advantage, great mobility potential. And who would need him without him? What good would it be?

[gsev]

Quote from TTi

Already in 1945, the United States could easily tear all of these co-front-lineers into pieces.

And in 1951, all UN troops could not win the war in Korea. So your statement does not correlate with the subsequent story.

[TTi]

Quote: gsev

And in 1951, all UN troops could not win the war in Korea.

Check how many of these troops were in total.

[gsev]

Quote from TTi

And in 1951, all UN troops could not win the war in Korea.

Check how many of these troops were in total.

And no matter how many there were, the United States still did not have the resources to win. Truman simply did not consider it necessary to introduce additional troops in order to meet the 4 Soviet divisions of the USSR in Korea and did not use the nuclear weapons that he needed to counter the USSR in Europe.

[TTi]

Quote: gsev

And no matter how many there were, the United States still did not have the resources to win.

Really?

Quote: gsev

Rosto Truman did not consider it necessary to introduce additional troops to meet 4 tank divisions of the USSR in Korea

These divisions are only in your fantasies. The USSR was far from being the main protagonist in Korea.

Quote: gsev

and did not use the nuclear weapons that he needed to counter the USSR in Europe.

PPC. I have no words.
Why would he use nuclear weapons if, by and large, he achieved what he wanted?

[gsev]

Quote from TTi

These divisions are only in your fantasies.

They were prepared to enter the battle in the event of a difficult situation at the front. Fortunately, Ridgway admitted that his soldiers would not be able to capture the heights north of Kumhua without tactical nuclear weapons when his planned offensive failed after a small tactical success ..

[TTi]

Quote: gsev

They were prepared to enter the battle in the event of a difficult situation at the front.

Where did you get such nonsense?

Quote: gsev

It’s just that the US Army generals admitted that they won’t be able to capture the heights north of Kumhua without tactical nuclear weapons.

Also nuclear weapons. In Korea! PPC.

[gsev]

Quote from TTi

Where did you get such nonsense?

Books of Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of the USSR Kapitsa on the relationship between the USSR and the PRC.

Quote from TTi

Also nuclear weapons. In Korea! PPC.

Are you up to date on MacArthur’s dismissal from service? Truman rejected his insane offers.

[TTi]

Quote: gsev

Books of Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of the USSR Kapitsa on the relationship between the USSR and the PRC.

I thought you had some serious sources of information.

Quote: gsev

Are you up to date on MacArthur’s dismissal from service? Truman rejected his insane offers.

So he rejected it. And you write like you didn’t reject.

[gsev]

Quote from TTi

And you write like you didn’t reject.

I thought you knew that Rajway was more capable than MacArthur and no longer required the use of nuclear weapons in Korea, but simply stated that without tactical nuclear weapons his troops would not be hacked.

[TTi]

Quote: gsev

he simply stated that without tactical nuclear weapons, his troops would not break into defense.

Still would. This is not a "Marshal of Victory". He would put in as much as possible and hack. And even almost without weapons I could probably manage.

[Albert1988]

Quote from TTi

Still would. This is not a "Marshal of Victory". He would put in as much as possible and hack. And even almost without weapons I could probably manage.

And you. dear, familiar with simple statistics, how much and whom did the "Marshal of Victory" designated by you "put"? M? And I'll tell you - in terms of losses relative to the size of the army, Georgy Konstantinovich is among the commanders with the lowest number of these same losses
But only shhhhh! After all, this infa does not fit with your personal cult of the Anglo-Saxons)))))

[Albert1988]

Quote: Huumi

They would sneeze, they would get angry. And Churchill would have gotten angry at 45. The Americans were dead of his plan Unconscious. The most time to start was. The economy is in ruins. Question. Why didn’t you rock it? And there were nuclear weapons and strategists. We didn't even have fighters to get them .Not jerked. And by the 60s and moreover would not have snooped

Yes, because they understood perfectly well that in this situation the USSR would quickly throw them into the English Channel and all of Europe would already be under the red. These "heroes", fighting with significantly superior forces against the demoralized, willingly surrendering Germans, managed to lose 250000 of their soldiers against 150000 from the Germans, the USSR, at the same time fighting with the most combat-ready units of the Wehrmacht, lost about 3,5 million people, having laid them in the ground more than 5 million Fritzes and their allies, that is, the ratio of losses is the opposite ... So the allies just had to look at this and understand that they had nothing to catch ...

[Alf]

Quote: Korax71

well done Mongols, honor and praise to them, but all the same critical supplies came from sworn friends.

From the United States of the "second front" came 650 thousand tons of processed meat, and from Mongolia - 500 thousand tons of pure meat.

[Love is]

I dare say that for the preservation and processing of pure Mongolian meat, most likely significant technical and human resources were attracted. And the losses are still unknown. American meat was ready to eat at any time of the year and immediately. So the value of meat from the United States was higher. Since the industry of the USSR was not distracted by secondary tasks.

[Alf]

Quote: Love is

Since the industry of the USSR was not distracted by secondary tasks.

And what was the meat-processing industry of the USSR doing at that time?

[Love is]

Ask veterans. Google about the Silix training camp. Ask your relatives who survived the war. And also check for yourself how many industrial enterprises are left in the occupied territory. How the number of cattle and other domestic animals grew. And ask yourself

And what was the meat processing industry of the USSR doing at that time?

Not for me, to educate you. But! I ask you to! As soon as you find the answer, let me know, for one.

[Grigory_78]

But there was also Tuva ... I won’t tell you the numbers, alas.

[Observer2014]

NOT!!!! beaten [

I recently read the memoirs of a comfrey, in 45 he bluntly stated that we shouldn't have given a kick to the "allies" at the same time .. But we could have easily drowned bastards in the Atlantic.

That's for sure. With the upcoming holidays!

[TTi]

Quote: Broken

100 thousand hardy horses and donated a fur coat and more.!

Yeah. The Mongols had in mind something to give the USSR for free.

Quote: Broken

Recently I read the memoirs of a comfrey, in 45 he bluntly stated that we shouldn't have kicked the "allies" at the same time ..

Are you reading all the inscriptions in public toilets?
No?
In vain. There infa of approximately the same value is written.

[Mic1969]

Quote from TTi

Are you reading all the inscriptions in public toilets?

It seems that you leave these inscriptions.

[Krasnoyarsk]

Quote: Bearded

Sherman vs. T-34 - nothing. Guano. Americans even now do not know how to make tanks.

None of us will be able to compare, objectively evaluate these tanks. This is only for those who fought on them. Maybe someone came across the memories of veteran tankers?
It’s a pity that only senior military commanders wrote memoirs.

[solzh]

http://militera.lib.ru
Military literature site.
Very high quality site. VL collected a lot of books on military subjects. On the site you can find the memories of tankers, not only military commanders, but also ordinary soldiers.

[Huumi]

Thank you. I’ll look

[Krasnoyarsk]

Quote: solzh

http://militera.lib.ru
Military literature site.
Very high quality site. VL collected a lot of books on military subjects. On the site you can find the memories of tankers, not only military commanders, but also ordinary soldiers.

Thank. And, with the upcoming !!!

[solzh]

Quote: Krasnoyarsk

holiday greetings!!!

Thank you
Happy New Year!

[Avior]

I have quoted tanker Sherman’s memoirs below.
He appreciates the tank very positively.
I already put a couple of minuses for the link to his memoirs.
Who needs it, the truth is, but against the backdrop of universal hooting

[Huumi]

I read it. I can add about Valentine. On the site I remember the interview of the tank driver. According to him, for his tasks, he had a very good machine with anti-aircraft guns on the tower. Praised the tank

[Grigory_78]

Sherman, like the T-34, had its own strengths and weaknesses. The main thing is to learn how to use them wisely to your advantage.

[Avior]

when there were enough tanks, they did so, they separately indicated the need for specific types.

[Observer2014]

Krasnoyarsk

This is only for those who fought on them. Maybe someone came across the memories of veteran tankers?

And so I typed in Yandex. There are memories of soldiers who fought on these machines.

[Krasnoyarsk]

Quote: Observer2014

Krasnoyarsk

This is only for those who fought on them. Maybe someone came across the memories of veteran tankers?

And so I typed in Yandex. There are memories of soldiers who fought on these machines.

The important thing is not that they fought on these machines, but it’s important that someone happened to fight both on those and those. For objective comparison, this is very important.

[Ryazan87]

Over the past 15 years, dozens of memoirs of ordinary tankers have been collected and published (which no one thought to do in Soviet times). Want on paper, want on the net. Start with at least this:

[Mordvin 3]

You better read V. Pershavin. "Tankman, punitive, suicide bomber"

[Krasnoyarsk]

Quote: Ryazanets87

Over the past 15 years, dozens of memoirs of ordinary tankers have been collected and published (which no one thought to do in Soviet times). Want on paper, want on the net. Start with at least this:

You will be surprised, but now I am reading Drabkin. I have already read "I fought in the IL-2", now I started reading "I fought in the T-34". And next to it lies "I fought the Patserwaffe."

[stoqn477]

There is a small part in these books dedicated to the legend for a non-combustible diesel tank. Studies conducted by your services have shown that a tank with a diesel engine burns several percent more than a tank with gasoline. They also added that diesel is difficult to extinguish. Bad for tankers.
It was one more curious. It is important for the tank crew not to lose the tarp. It was interesting to me.

[Huumi]

Tanker on a foreign car memories to help. Exhaustive. Excellent tank was

[poquello]

Quote: Krasnoyarsk

None of us will be able to compare, objectively evaluate these tanks.

oh well, there is enough data, earlier lovers of German chanting climbed here, now the chasers of American frankly weak technique have hatched, t34 it was a serious argument

[Krasnoyarsk]

Quote: poquello

Quote: Krasnoyarsk

None of us will be able to compare, objectively evaluate these tanks.

oh well, there is enough data, earlier lovers of German chanting climbed here, now the chasers of American frankly weak technique have hatched, t34 it was a serious argument

Nobody belittles the merits of the T-34. But for the sake of objectivity, it will not hurt to know both the advantages and disadvantages of "foreign cars". My late father, an anti-tank officer, said that the Tiger rarely fired twice at the same target. It was this rare blunder near Korsun-Shevchenkovsk that saved his life. Knowing that the "Tiger" would not miss the second time, my father jumped into a nearby machine-gun ditch. He got off with a severe concussion. The cannon, ZIS-3, flew in different directions.
The T-34, unfortunately, did not have such optics.

[poquello]

Quote: Krasnoyarsk

But for the sake of objectivity, it will not hurt to know both the advantages and disadvantages of "foreign cars". My late father, an anti-tank officer, said that the Tiger rarely fired twice at the same target.

so every machine has advantages and disadvantages, this is the basis of the tactics of counteraction, the tiger "baptized" when it was aiming, the experienced ones scattered beforehand, but drove slowly, turned the tower slowly - which gave time

[Alex Justice]

Read. Our tankmen praised American tanks.

[Grigory_78]

Let’s guess. Probably those who served on the Sherman and survived. Shermans were more reliable and comfortable, the crew had better visibility, optics. At the same time, I did not meet the memoirs of Soviet tankers who escaped from seriously wrecked Sherman. But he met many memories of tankers who managed to jump out of the T-34 on time. Some veterans changed 5-6 tanks each, one changed as many as 11 on the way to Berlin. The outer pockets on the quilted jackets were paired so as not to catch when you have to jump out or have to pull you out of a burning tank. Regular training on the speed of leaving the tank. The tanker was mentioned, having obtained a smart coat and refused to tuck pockets from it, as a result of which he once turned out to be the only dead from the whole crew. He caught on and could not jump out in time.

[gsev]

Quote: Krasnoyarsk

It’s a pity that only senior military commanders wrote memoirs.

There was a book by an American officer called Deadly Traps. In my opinion, this book surpasses the recollections of all his superior military leaders in terms of information content. The US industry in 1944 prepared for the production of a tank equivalent to the Panther and T-34-85, but General Patton preferred to have a larger number of tanks with worse performance characteristics.

[Vol4ara]

Quote: Proton

And here already the mattresses for our Victory decided to cling on, show their role

And what to compare them - one shit, another legend. All comparison in 4 words fit

[Mordvin 3]

No, well, all the same, a bottle of whiskey was brought into Sherman’s gun.

[Huumi]

And ours were happy!

[poquello]

Quote: Huumi

And ours were happy!

in general, the war was, and were glad to any cancer instead of fish

[Huumi]

Whiskey is a whiskey, what kind of cancer is which fish?

[poquello]

Quote: Huumi

Whiskey is a whiskey, what kind of cancer is which fish?

and type distilleries didn’t work?

[Huumi]

Read the tanker on a foreign car, according to the tanker that he even managed to get a great tank in Japan, but don’t know what you don’t know

[Albert1988]

Quote: Huumi

Read the tanker on a foreign car, according to the tanker that he even managed to get a great tank in Japan, but don’t know what you don’t know

In fact, absolutely "identical" machines, just with their own national specifics: both cheap and easy to manufacture, very well balanced, and most importantly - very well performing the tasks assigned to them due to the combination of characteristics, a kind of "golden mean" turned out.
And about the shortcomings - as they all have - the 34 has a hatch in the windshield, and Sherman has a universal joint that is not clear how it is located. from which the silhouette on the 20-30 cm grew, on the 34-ki the armor was fragile - fragments flew, on Sherman the rubber coating on the inside caught fire at the moment (the M-4 was burning, nevertheless, it was much better than the T-34), the harp was on the 43-ki were wider, the M-4 was more convenient to use (ours had to save on everything we could), etc.

The main thing is that these very machines, inferior to the same panthers (which are of medium type) in armor and firepower, did what the military demanded of them, and did not turn out to be overweight, incredibly expensive tank destroyers with a rotating turret ...

[poquello]

Quote: Albert1988

The main thing is that it is these machines, inferior to the same panthers (which are of type medium)

if only "like average", and 34-85 can already be said and not inferior

[Albert1988]

Quote: poquello

if only "like average", and 34-85 can already be said and not inferior

In terms of anti-tank characteristics, the 85th 34s were inferior - well, not for fighting tanks, they were given, they had it as an option. and the Germans just got a PT-directional vehicle with the option of shooting high-explosive bombs ... And it happened with tigers (first and second) and panthers.

[poquello]

Quote: Albert1988

In terms of anti-tank characteristics and 85th 34s were inferior

but xs, mobility is also an advantage, if you managed to resist them when you just didn’t penetrate your forehead, then you’ve reached the 85th distance

[Albert1988]

Quote: poquello

but xs, mobility is also an advantage, if you managed to resist them when you just didn’t penetrate your forehead, then you’ve reached the 85th distance

I had in mind precisely the characteristics of the gun itself and its shells.
As for the rest, even mobility was not a weak point of the panther - the tank ran very fast and not only on the roads. but the panthers had the biggest problems with the sizes - they are banal huge, and the booking is not so powerful, so the panther turned out to be an excellent target ...

[poquello]

Quote: Albert1988

Quote: poquello

but xs, mobility is also an advantage, if you managed to resist them when you just didn’t penetrate your forehead, then you’ve reached the 85th distance

I had in mind precisely the characteristics of the gun itself and its shells.
As for the rest, even mobility was not a weak point of the panther - the tank ran very fast and not only on the roads. but the panthers had the biggest problems with the sizes - they are banal huge, and the booking is not so powerful, so the panther turned out to be an excellent target ...

Well, the panther had a normal forehead, which you can’t say about the sides, they drove forward - back

[Mordvin 3]

Quote: Albert1988

I had in mind precisely the characteristics of the gun itself and its shells.

Panther 75 mm. like it was?

[Alf]

Quote: mordvin xnumx

Quote: Albert1988

I had in mind precisely the characteristics of the gun itself and its shells.

Panther 75 mm. like it was?

So the barrel length of the KVK-42 was 70 calibers, n / s BB-930 m / s, PK-1130.

[Albert1988]

Quote: Mordvin 3

Panther 75 mm. like it was?

Namely, a very good 75 mm gun, especially as an anti-tank gun.

[Grigory_78]

This is quite understandable by the "massiveness" of German tanks in comparison with the T-34. As far as I remember, the most massive German tank T-IV was produced in an amount of less than 9 thousand. Fighting the T-34 in view of its massiveness might have been necessary quite unexpectedly. Although the tank attacks of the Soviet troops until 1944 differed according to the memoirs of the Germans in their predictability.

[Albert1988]

Quote: Gregory_78

This is quite understandable by the "massiveness" of German tanks in comparison with the T-34. As far as I remember, the most massive German tank T-IV was produced in an amount of less than 9 thousand. Fighting the T-34 in view of its massiveness might have been necessary quite unexpectedly.

You can look from this angle, but then two conclusions are obtained - the first German anti-tank artillery absolutely could not cope with its task, the second - the Germans lost the tank war under a net, as a result of which they even had to reorient their tanks to fight against enemy tanks.

[Avior]

did Sherman have a rubber coating inside?

[Albert1988]

Quote: Avior

did Sherman have a rubber coating inside?

Initially, yes, and it flashed very well in the event of a car breakdown, then they abandoned it

[Huumi]

Just read the memoirs. In the internet is easy to find.

[Huumi]

Yes, they formed our company from Panther. The gunner rejoiced. The others spat. They broke the tanks safely. They overheated the transmissions and drove the engines back to T34.

[Albert1988]

Quote: Huumi

Yes, they formed our company from Panther. The gunner rejoiced. The others spat. They broke the tanks safely. They overheated the transmissions and drove the engines back to T34.

In fairness, it should be said that the late panthers were very reliable cars, but they brought them when everything was already lost. And yes, the tank is very difficult to operate and moody. Plus huge sizes with clearly not appropriate reservations. \
In general, I somehow met an interesting opinion that a panther with a rear transmission, a body flattened to the height of such a T-34, and a tiger gun would be a really tough German tank.

[11 black]

Quote: Huumi

Read the tanker on a foreign car, according to the tanker that he even managed to get a great tank in Japan, but don’t know what you don’t know

Quote: Albert1988

In fact, absolutely "identical" machines, just with their own national specifics: both cheap and easy to manufacture, very well balanced, and most importantly - very well performing the tasks assigned to them due to the combination of characteristics, a kind of "golden mean" turned out.
And about the shortcomings - as they all have - the 34 has a hatch in the windshield, and Sherman has a universal joint that is not clear how it is located. from which the silhouette on the 20-30 cm grew, on the 34-ki the armor was fragile - fragments flew, on Sherman the rubber coating on the inside caught fire at the moment (the M-4 was burning, nevertheless, it was much better than the T-34), the harp was on the 43-ki were wider, the M-4 was more convenient to use (ours had to save on everything we could), etc.

The main thing is that these very machines, inferior to the same panthers (which are of medium type) in armor and firepower, did what the military demanded of them, and did not turn out to be overweight, incredibly expensive tank destroyers with a rotating turret ...

I agree with you, +, but from myself I’ll add this ...

In my humble opinion, the main thing that the T-34 has and what the Sherman does not have is that colossal contribution to the victory that the T-34 made to the defeat of fascism. Do not forget that the T-34 went into production even when the Americans still "did not smell" of Sherman, and it was produced in the most terrible conditions.

Its value is that at the very beginning of the war our army had a perfectly balanced medium tank, which was cured of childhood diseases by the 43 year, in the 44 they were upgraded to 34-85 (with which it was forbidden to engage in battle in Korea) and on the basis of which thousands of tank destroyers were serially produced throughout the war.

The T-34 is a tank that went through the entire war from start to finish, making it legendary.

And what is the "legendary" Sherman? In the fact that in greenhouse conditions the Americans, with an eye on the T-34 and under its influence, created an equally well-balanced medium tank, on which they entered the war at the last stage of it, "epically raking" from the Tigers and Panthers? Come on ...

[TTi]

Quote: 11 black

And what is the "legendary" Sherman? In the fact that in greenhouse conditions the Americans, with an eye on the T-34 and under its influence, created an equally well-balanced medium tank, on which they entered the war at the last stage of it, "epically raking" from the Tigers and Panthers?

Where do you get such info? Who told you that the T-34 had any effect on Sherman? When the Americans got the T-34 and KV-1, Sherman’s serial production was underway for a very long time.
Yes, and one more thing. T-34 is not a tank, it is another BTT. It looks like a tank. However. Sherman (76), too.

[gsev]

Quote from TTi

T-34 is not a tank, it is another BTT. It looks like a tank.

Has anyone in the USSR or Russia shared your point of view? In general, in which country is such a classification adopted?

[TTi]

Quote: gsev

Has anyone in the USSR or Russia shared your point of view?

Specialists, of course.
Fool, of course not.

Quote: gsev

In general, in which country is such a classification adopted?

Planet Earth, probably heard.
Everything in this world has long been standardized. Therefore, a BTT with a non-tank gun is NOT called a tank in the world. But the "Soviet tank", easily.
In the USSR, generally wonderful names, across the whole world, were in great honor.
Examples can be given forever. Well, for example, the "DP machine gun", which is actually not a machine gun at all. Or "German fascism", which is actually "Nazism". Etc.

[gsev]

I’m surprised if you can name at least one Russian at least an Israeli expert who believes the T-34 is not a tank, since 1941 the USSR did not make tank guns, the infantry Diaghterev was not a machine gun.

[TTi]

Quote: gsev

who believes the T-34 is not a tank, since 1941 the USSR has not made tank guns

I didn’t. The antediluvian platform T-34 required a TANK gun with OFS / OS with a lesion area of ​​about 40 square meters. m
76 mm F-34 wartime (OF-350A) provided a lesion area of ​​16-17 square meters. m
85 mm wartime OS provided a lesion area of ​​24-25 sq.m.

Quote: gsev

Dyagterev the infantry was not a machine gun

This is written in capital letters in his NSD. Black and white. On the first page.
"Effective rate of fire up to 80 rounds per minute."
Those. this is actually an automatic rifle. Druzhban American BAR.
Since the machine gun, even the LMG, has a combat rate of 100-150 rounds per minute.

Everything is written everywhere. It is only necessary to understand this, written. And for this we need to understand the issue.

[poquello]

Quote from TTi

"Effective rate of fire up to 80 rounds per minute."
Those. this is actually an automatic rifle. Druzhban American BAR.

well what? "smart" at all? chicken history of automatic weapons, child

[gsev]

Quote from TTi

Since the machine gun, even the LMG, has a combat rate of 100-150 rounds per minute

So AKM has a combat rate of fire in bursts of about 120 rounds per minute, but this is not a machine gun. Technical rate of fire at the level of other machine guns (600 rounds per min). PPSh has 1000 rounds per min of ultrasound from 600 to 1250 for various models, but this is also not a machine gun. Who told you that combat rate of fire is a sign of a machine gun?

Quote from TTi

I didn’t. The antediluvian platform T-34 required a TANK gun with OFS / OS with a lesion area of ​​about 40 square meters. m

40 sq. M is a characteristic of a projectile. In the USSR, weak liners were used. But with the same consumption of gunpowder, the Soviet shells in total could hit a large area and 76 mm cannons could fire shells that the tsar-father could not bring to the fronts of World War I. Most German, Japanese and American tanks had weaker guns, so the T-1 had a modern platform until 34. In the USSR there were shells made of cast iron and with explosives based on gunpowder, of course their fragmentation effect is bad. But there were steel shells with explosives such as TNT.

[TTi]

Quote: gsev

So AKM has a combat rate of fire in bursts of about 120 rounds per minute, but this is not a machine gun.

1. 80-100 rounds per minute.
2. This is SMG. Those. machine.

Quote: gsev

Technical rate of fire

This indicator is very important for aircraft machine guns. For others, it does not matter. Matters combat rate of fire.

Quote: gsev

Who told you that combat rate of fire is a sign of a machine gun?

And who told you that the sun rises in the east?
You ask amazing things. Combat rate of fire is a sign that determines the type of small arms.

Quote: gsev

40 sq. M is a characteristic of a projectile.

In fact, a cannon-shell is a single artillery complex. You cannot consider them separately. Only the end result of this art complex. But just for the sake of simplicity, they write "guns".

Quote: gsev

In the USSR, weak liners were used.

Why did you suddenly decide?

Quote: gsev

But with the same consumption of gunpowder, Soviet shells in total could hit a large area

And what is this nonsense?

Quote: gsev

and 76 mm cannons could fire shells that the tsar-father could not bring to the fronts of World War I.

In fact, these are just rumors, and unfounded.
But such shells were mainly buckshot. The one that was done mainly against the cavalry, advancing on horseback. For some reason, the Germans didn’t attack, therefore, such shells were disposed of after the war.
More popular types of shells dispersed in 1941.

Quote: gsev

so the T-34 has a modern platform until 1960.

PPC. There are no words.

Quote: gsev

But there were steel shells with explosives such as TNT.

Such shells in the USSR were made only in peacetime. In 1941, they quickly ended. Therefore, during the war they were not there.
The Soviet OF-350 peacetime contained 621 grams of deficient pure TNT. It was a very, very expensive ammunition made in USSR.
Tsarist F-354, which had approximately the same performance characteristics, contained approximately 448 g of TNT + surrogates. No, but what, but the Soviet products were legendary. Working pressure in the trunks 40 klb. three-inch such OFS could not stand and was not used for them.
The OF-350A wartime contained approximately 95 g of TNT + surrogates. What can you expect from such a dope?

[Albert1988]

Quote: gsev

I’m surprised if you can name at least one Russian at least an Israeli expert who believes the T-34 is not a tank, since 1941 the USSR did not make tank guns, the infantry Diaghterev was not a machine gun.

You know, I think I understood what was happening: this citizen read in the literature that the T-34 for lack of self-propelled assault guns in the Red Army (and generally for the lack of self-propelled guns as such) was often used precisely as a self-propelled assault gun. But the citizen did not understand that the use of 34 matches in this way (that is, a full ersatz) does not mean that it was created for this)))))

In general, if you follow the logic of the current version of the Carbine-TTi, then the ACS appeared before tanks, and the "real" tanks were out of hand once or twice, and only Carbine-tti is able to understand what is their difference))))

[poquello]

Quote: Albert1988

You know, I think I understand what’s the matter: this citizen read in literature,

Yes, he has some paragraph, I almost do not answer his nonsense already

[gsev]

Quote: Albert1988

In general, if you follow the logic of the current version of Carbine-TT,

In general, someone should analyze the specifics of such comments. In my opinion, the feature is as follows: at first blame everything Russian and Soviet, then referring to nonexistent data to blame the opponent for ignorance, then replacing concepts to confuse the essence of the issue. And most importantly, they do not provide new reliable information ..

[TTi]

Quote: gsev

first scolding everything Russian and Soviet

Do not confuse Russian with Soviet. This is FAR none of the same.

Quote: gsev

And most importantly, they do not provide new reliable information ..

Actually, I’m just bringing her to you. And you answer me with slogans that I have already forgotten in order for 27 years without the USSR.
But you do not want to see my numbers. Because then your template breaks - you’re used to the fact that the Soviet is the best. You have been so zombified since childhood. But in fact this is not so. And it’s easy to make sure. But you do not want. You don’t need it.
Your claims are akin to taking and scolding a mirror due to the fact that the mug is crooked.

[Albert1988]

Quote from TTi

Actually, I’m just bringing her to you.

From the head you can bring such that mother do not cry - the whole neighboring Ukraine "leads" so much that even Europe grabs a gollov ...
You bring sources, sources of information - otherwise it turns out strange))))

[Alf]

Quote: Albert1988

You bring sources, sources of information - otherwise it turns out strange))))

The sources are secret, only carbine has access to them, because he himself composed them.

[Albert1988]

Quote: Alf

The sources are secret, only carbine has access to them, because he himself composed them.

Why only carbine? There is also someone Vladimir Rezun - he lives in Bristol, writes everything according to "secret documents" and only according to them! If a document is suddenly declassified, then everything that he wrote on it crosses out)))))

[gsev]

Quote from TTi

Specialists, of course.
Fool, of course not.

Translated into Russian, the names of such specialists are unknown?

[TTi]

Quote: gsev

the names of such specialists are unknown?

All. If experts, that's all. Look for the names yourself.

[Albert1988]

Quote from TTi

All. If experts, that's all. Look for the names yourself.

Oh, and I don't want to give you at least a couple of names? Preferably together with work? And then those figures that you are actively posting here and can be gleaned from pedivics, but what kind of "experts" write all this - the question, here I am asking you for the 100500th time - dear people, well, at least a couple of names, at least a couple works!

[Alf]

Quote from TTi

Quote: gsev

the names of such specialists are unknown?

All. If experts, that's all. Look for the names yourself.

There are such specialists, they are all collected from the special design bureau, it is called the "Yellow House", and from there the carbine was sent as a delegate due to an oversight of the orderly ... the security service.

[Alf]

Quote from TTi

Therefore, BTT with a non-tank gun in the world is NOT called a tank.

Is the T-VI Tiger a tank or not?

[Albert1988]

Quote: Alf

Is the T-VI Tiger a tank or not?

And even more so "royal tiger"))))) - there the anti-aircraft gun is not even cut off !!!

[11 black]

Quote from TTi

Where do you get such info? Who told you that the T-34 had any influence on Sherman?

Well, the development of Sherman started against the backdrop of the shock of the Americans from the importance of the tank forces, which was identified in Europe. Americans needed same tank, because their guano like M2 and M3 could not fight with new tanks.
These new tanks - Soviet and German, nobody else in the 39 year built anything conceptually new.

Sherman undoubtedly developed with an eye on these tanks, including the T-34.

Also, for example, the TU-160 is designed with an eye on the B1 - we are not talking about copying technology, but the concept.

Quote from TTi

When the Americans got the T-34 and KV-1, Sherman’s serial production was underway for a very long time.

It's a lie.

Quote from TTi

Yes, and one more thing. T-34 is not a tank, it is another BTT. It looks like a tank. However. Sherman (76), too.

Thanks, laughed

[poquello]

Quote: Huumi

Read the tanker on a foreign car, according to the tanker that he even managed to get a great tank in Japan, but don’t know what you don’t know

Adventures of Baron Munchausen

[Albert1988]

Quote: poquello

Adventures of Baron Munchausen

You shouldn’t be so in vain, but I agree that it is impossible to trust 100% of narrative sources, because this is a reflection of subjective opinion.

[poquello]

Quote: Albert1988

Quote: poquello

Adventures of Baron Munchausen

You shouldn’t be so in vain, but I agree that it is impossible to trust 100% of narrative sources, because this is a reflection of subjective opinion.

so after the piece from the "memoirs" given here, it is clear that there are few memoirs, there was a war on the Sherman truncated, maybe modern Poles will shoot 30 episodes about his crew))))))

[Albert1988]

Quote: poquello

so after the piece from the "memoirs" given here, it is clear that there are few memoirs, there was a war on the Sherman truncated, maybe modern Poles will shoot 30 episodes about his crew))))))

here I am talking about the same thing - a narrative source is always a narrative source, a person forgot something. something was distorted by the subjectivity of his perception, somewhere it was not completely stated, in any case, the person did not see the whole picture ...

[poquello]

Quote: Albert1988

Quote: poquello

so after the piece from the "memoirs" given here, it is clear that there are few memoirs, there was a war on the Sherman truncated, maybe modern Poles will shoot 30 episodes about his crew))))))

here I am talking about the same thing - a narrative source is always a narrative source, a person forgot something. something was distorted by the subjectivity of his perception, somewhere it was not completely stated, in any case, the person did not see the whole picture ...

and then there are indirect signs, such as the absence of outstanding events, if HF still passes from time to time, then these and our small ones are not particularly visible - quite eloquently

[Albert1988]

Quote: poquello

and then there are indirect signs, such as the absence of outstanding events, if HF still passes from time to time, then these and our small ones are not particularly visible - quite eloquently

Namely))) But it’s worth noting that Sherman did not differ much in combat characteristics from the same T-34, most of its advantages can be attributed to a corny well-made assembly in compliance with all technological aspects, and it was not women and children who assembled it, but highly skilled workers. And the number of Shermans was not so much in the Soviet army, so that they were noticeable ...

[Huumi]

But the tank was good. Our praised it

[Ingvar 72]

Quote: Huumi

But the tank was good. Our praised it

In terms of comfort? Yes, it was more comfortable, but still TXT can be compared? Or will we give as an example the recollections of independent arbiters - German tankers? The Germans treated the T-34 with respect, the information is complete. But to the Shermans with contempt. Without aviation support, the pendoses with their Shermans would not have moved beyond Normandy. Until Firefly appeared, burned in hundreds. And then a little less. Moreover, the ratio of the number of wounded Shermans to one wounded tiger-panther was at times not in favor of the Shermans. The T-34 is the same, although losing in the same ratio, but not with such a difference. And these are FACTS.
By the way, telling how the T-34 burned, you again (for some reason) do not recall the stories of the German tank crews about how their T-34, T-2, and T-3 burned when they met with the T-4. And these are the most objective judges.

[Mordvin 3]

Quote: Ingvar 72

By the way, telling how the T-34 burned, you again (for some reason) do not recall the stories of the German tank crews about how their T-34, T-2, and T-3 burned when they met with the T-4. And these are the most objective judges.

I wrote an article about von Manstein here. And her Dude took it and deleted it ...

[Albert1988]

Quote: Mordvin 3

I wrote an article about von Manstein here. And her Dude took it and deleted it ...

Interesting things ...

[Mordvin 3]

Quote: Albert1988

Quote: Mordvin 3

I wrote an article about von Manstein here. And her Dude took it and deleted it ...

Interesting things ...

I wrote about Manstein. But Dude found a couple of mistakes with me, and called him a dvoechkom.

[Albert1988]

Quote: Mordvin 3

I wrote about Manstein. But Dude found a couple of mistakes with me, and called him a dvoechkom.

Hmm ... And were there any spelling errors?

[Mordvin 3]

Quote: Albert1988

Quote: Mordvin 3

I wrote about Manstein. But Dude found a couple of mistakes with me, and called him a dvoechkom.

Hmm ... And were there any spelling errors?

Yes! Oleg found two errors!

[TTi]

Quote: Proton

mattresses for our victory decided to cling

On what front did you yourself serve?

[Mic1969]

Well, apparently you are in a caches in Galicia spent the whole war.

[Flooding]

It is strange that such a freak became a good fighting machine. Or vice versa.
Unconsciously, you expect from armored vehicles if not brutality, then special aesthetics.

[Vadivak]

Quote: Flood

It is strange that such a freak became a good fighting machine.

Yes, the rules of the machine entered service only Guard divisions

[210ox]

The Amerzians drew attention to the tanks later than the Europeans. Even a good idea of ​​W. Christie was not noticed at first. By the way, the "Sherman" still looks good in comparison with the predecessor "Lee". Or "Stuart", although this tank is generally of a different class.

[Krasnoyarsk]

Quote: Flood

It is strange that such a freak became a good fighting machine. Or vice versa.
Unconsciously, you expect from armored vehicles if not brutality, then special aesthetics.

I always, comparing the appearance, noted the special beauty of Soviet weapons. Take at least tanks, at least planes, at least artillery systems.

[Avior]

Ships still looked menacing in the late USSR.

[Semurg]

Quote: Krasnoyarsk

Quote: Flood

It is strange that such a freak became a good fighting machine. Or vice versa.
Unconsciously, you expect from armored vehicles if not brutality, then special aesthetics.

I always, comparing the appearance, noted the special beauty of Soviet weapons. Take at least tanks, at least planes, at least artillery systems.

The taste and color as they say. German technology of those years seems more brutal to me

[Krasnoyarsk]

Quote: Semurg

The taste and color as they say. German technology of those years seems more brutal to me

I understand the glory - beautiful, ugly, and - so-so. The word brutal to the concept of beautiful-ugly does not apply.

[Flooding]

Quote: Krasnoyarsk

I understand the glory - beautiful, ugly, and - so-so. The word brutal to the concept of beautiful-ugly does not apply.

You shouldn’t be so. Brutal in translation from the Teutonic and means beautiful))

[Ingvar 72]

Quote: Flood

means beautiful))

Your translation is not correct!

[Vadivak]

Inspecting the "foreign car", the Slavs often said that good boots would come out of these "skins" of the seats. It would have cost the crew of the tank to leave the wrecked Sherman unattended for a short time, as the seats were cut off.

[Observer2014]

Let them compare even until they drop. It is enough to look at the photos of these tanks. To understand that they look like a pig to a horse. Yes, the Sherman was more stuffed with the best equipment. Walkie talkie, optics, etc. So tanks were created for different armies. Armies with different philosophy of battle, if you like. "Sherman" for the tactics of the USSR army was like a dead poultice. And this cube burned as it should. There was no thought about any recochets.

[GKS 2111]

T-34 ALL recognized the best tank Great Patriotic War!

[TTi]

Quote: GKS 2111

T-34 ALL recognized as the best tank of World War II!

Who are these "all"? Are these the ones who have a special membership book in their carmen?
Worse than BTT for solving the tasks that were set for it, there wasn’t. Even Sherman was better.

[Dart]

but it’s indicative that such nonsense is on the site a couple of de .... fishing you know everything)))

[Lamatinets]

In vain, as a keepsake, in 1965 in Belgium at a congress (or whatever it was) dedicated to the 20th anniversary of the end of WWII T 34 was recognized as the best AVERAGE tank.

[TTi]

Quote: Lamatinets

In vain, as a keepsake, in 1965 in Belgium at the congress (or whatever it was) dedicated to the 20th anniversary of the end of WWII, the T 34 was recognized as the best AVERAGE tank

Yes Yes. I heard such stories as a child.
Learn the materiel. When you begin to understand it, then you yourself will understand what and what was. And the conclusions of the congresses of beekeepers on the topic of T-34, it is not interesting.

[Lamatinets]

Dear, you bring facts besides emotions. I, this fact, heard this year in 1984, in the journal Science and Life, a serious publication. The ball is on your side.

[TTi]

Quote: Lamatinets

Dear, you bring facts besides emotions.

1. The engine.
2. The suspension.
3. A gun or even a gun. All.
4. Housing design.
5. CAT.
6. Tower T-34/76.
7. Governing bodies EVERYTHING.
Which of these T-34 elements are good?
The correct answer is all bad. That's just all the crap.
Then the question is, what about such components as a result of "the best WW2 tank"?
How can this be?
Okay, Sherman, God be with him. although it is much better than the T-34/85.
But where did the Comet go? Where did Pz.IV. go? These are classmates of the T-34/85.
And where did Panther, Tigers and Pershing go?
And about T-34/76, I am completely silent. It was a self-propelled nightmare.

[Lamatinets]

That is, I’m giving you a link to some opinion, the opinion may not be entirely correct, but the opinion published not in the Murzilka magazine on April 1, but you give me a set of crackling phrases from the rally? Read the opinion of the Germans about the T 34, or the opinion of the Amers from the Aberdeen Proving Ground.

[TTi]

Quote: Lamatinets

I’m giving you a link to some opinion, maybe the opinion is not entirely correct, but the opinion published not in the Murzilka magazine on April 1

Quote: Lamatinets

so in 1984, in the journal Science and Life, a serious publication.

This is the magazine Murzilka. Under another name, this is not a fundamental difference.

Quote: Lamatinets

Read the opinion of the Germans about the T 34, or the opinion of the Amers from the Aberdeen Proving Ground.

I know. And after how many kilometers. Amer’s mileage broke KV and T-34, I also know.
And about the T-34 gun (amers opinion), I also know.
And about everything else.

[Avior]

this is not serious
there below I gave a link.
in the West, all T-34s are not considered the best tank.
there is a wide variety

[Mic1969]

You have not yet left childhood. And instead of materiel, it would be nice for you to learn a school program.

[Grigory_78]

The key word is "even". You actually admit the inferiority of Sherman, but your main task is to moan the T-34. "My tongue is my enemy".

[TTi]

Quote: Gregory_78

The key word is "even".

Sheman was worse than Comet and Pz.IV. That's all.

Quote: Gregory_78

but the main task is to scream the T-34.

And what is there to cry? If you remove the pink glasses issued by Sovagitprop, then everything becomes clear without words.
What other products could be produced in a country where the chief designers of military plants (Grabin, for example, or Kotin) did not know any incriminating evidence? Those. they didn’t know what all senior students of specialized universities know today.

[gsev]

Quote from TTi

(Grabin, for example, or Kotin) did not know the sopromat?

Grabin has a good engineering background. At the graduation work, he even argued with his teacher. That is, he was able to carry out engineering calculations.

[TTi]

Quote: gsev

Grabin has a good engineering background.

So he made such guns?
Tagunov was shot for exactly the same "creativity" in those days. Grabin was lucky that his jambs were opened during the war. Then they didn't shoot for that.

Quote: gsev

That is, he was able to carry out engineering calculations.

Take an interest:
1. What is 7.62cm PaK39 (r). And where did she come from.
2. What is 7.62cm PaK36 (r). And where did it come from. The Germans from the trunk of the Grabin F-22 mod. 1936 removed 2 kJ of barrel energy (PaK081 (r)). Grabin also removed 36 kJ from it (F-1). This is the question of "the ability to carry out engineering calculations."
Also ask what the "simple design of the ZIS-3 cannon" really meant. It was a self-propelled artillery gun, not a cannon. And her performance characteristics were appropriate, self-made.
Also, ask why the 57 mm ZIS-2 "had no analogues in the world." Not at all because no one in the world could do this, they did much more complicated things. It never even occurred to anyone to do THIS.

[Awaz]

hmm. The Soviet military authorities imputed even 1,5 KJ to Grabina as excessive and did not want to put this gun into production due to the absence of tasks for it, since it pierced through any German or European tank. The Germans took this gun into production and into service probably because they themselves could not really create anything similar)))). For example, it’s just stupid, no matter how you all scolded Soviet weapons, but during the Second World War, the Soviet authorities never took any kind of German weapon into production. But the German military and Grabin’s cannon took and tried to produce PPSh and even tried T 34, but in the end they stopped at Panther, just for the reason of different technological approaches. They even PPSh could not really repeat.
The T 34, having many shortcomings, caused primarily by the rush when launching into production as well as by problems with evacuation and the lack of qualified labor, in general, was a new concept in tank building and all subsequent tanks began to be built on the foundations laid down in the T 34. And until now, this very T 34 is the prototype of the existing tanks, even among the Germans, Americans, and the British with the French. And even the Jews, by and large, built their "cart" on the same concept.

[Alf]

Quote: GKS 2111

T-34 ALL recognized the best tank Great Patriotic War!

Somehow on Discovery drove 10 of the best tanks in the world. Brad, of course, but there is an interesting point. In comparison, there were T-34-85 and Panther, and on this Panther, a German veteran tanker appeared on the program, and he fought on Panther. He approached the T-34, patted his armor and said, “The best tank of the second world.” And since I learned the language of the adversary, the translation was correct.

[TTi]

Quote: Alf

moreover, on this Panther, a German veteran tanker appeared on the program, and he fought on Panther. He approached the T-34, patted his armor and said, “The best tank of the second world.”

Apparently the grandfather was heavily shell-shocked at the time. Or maybe then life did not ask. If he even just decided to compare the Panther (heavy tank) with the T-34 (medium tank). And even conclude that the T-34 was better.

[poquello]

Quote from TTi

Quote: Alf

moreover, on this Panther, a German veteran tanker appeared on the program, and he fought on Panther. He approached the T-34, patted his armor and said, “The best tank of the second world.”

Apparently the grandfather was heavily shell-shocked at the time. Or maybe then life did not ask. If he even just decided to compare the Panther (heavy tank) with the T-34 (medium tank). And even conclude that the T-34 was better.

and not he alone, several times heard from the war veterans neglect of the panther

[TTi]

Quote: poquello

several times heard from veterans neglect of the panther

They are not experts in this field.

[poquello]

Quote from TTi

Quote: poquello

several times heard from veterans neglect of the panther

They are not experts in this field.

it doesn’t matter at all if the tigers were taken seriously - it can be assumed that it was difficult against them, and the panthers beat easily

[TTi]

Quote: poquello

and panthers beat easily

And Panthers didn’t beat easily.
And Pz.IV.
It was difficult for the Soviet anti-tankers with fighters of the ZIS-3 and M-42 type to fight with German tanks. With everyone. Very difficult.
And ZIS-2 was very small. In 1943, less than 2 thousand, a drop in the ocean. And in 1944, only 2,5 thousand

[Ingvar 72]

Quote from TTi

with bundles of ZIS-3 type

Is this ZIS-3 a little thing? If to compare with flasks, then yes, but how objective is this comparison? Flaks have no mobility, for all their merits. Did pendos have something similar and massive? And at the same time mobile? ZIS-3 is the best weapon of its type in WWII.

[TTi]

Quote: Ingvar 72

Is this ZIS-3 a little thing?

What else?

Quote: Ingvar 72

If compared with flasks

Why with flasks? It is not correct. I compare her with her classmates, packs.

Quote: Ingvar 72

Did the pendos have something similar and massive?

That's it with what, and in field artillery, and especially with ammunition, the Americans had everything OK.

Quote: Ingvar 72

ZIS-3 is the best weapon of its type in WWII.

What nonsense! This is a stone age. According to TTX, she was only slightly better than her prototype, German temporal guns PaK97 / 38 arr. 1941 But it is noticeably more expensive. And in terms of price-quality ratio, it only beats the USV, M-42 and F-22 (this was the height of insanity). And this is the case with all VET guns, British, Soviet, American and German.

[TTi]

Quote: Ingvar 72

Is this ZIS-3 a little thing?

By the way, and F-34 / ZIS-5 (this is all one company), too. Neither armor penetration nor fragmentation. Horror on crooked legs.

[Krasnoyarsk]

Quote from TTi

It was difficult for the Soviet anti-tankers with fighters of the ZIS-3 and M-42 type to fight with German tanks. With everyone. Very difficult.

Yes. Somewhere like that. Father-anti-tank, the kingdom of heaven to him, said that when in January 45 they received, as he said - a hundred, that's when they became "kings". For a kilometer the tower was removed from the "Tiger".

[TTi]

Quote: Krasnoyarsk

The anti-tank father, heaven be with him, said that when in January of the 45th they received, as he said, a hundred

Your father had to fight BS-3, which was the worst occurrence in the Red Army. In 1944, they made only 240 pieces.

[Vadim Grigoriev]

this is the number !!!
and who then, these experts, aren't you? hold me seven!

[Alf]

Quote from TTi

Apparently the grandfather was heavily shell-shocked at the time.

As for the concussion, you know better.

[Awaz]

The Panther was just a tank, created in the image and likeness of the T 34. They even look very, very similar in appearance. Panther had an appearance completely unusual for the German school of tank building. I wonder what it was connected with. Both of these tanks were about the same class, although it was already heavier than the T 34. In addition to the Panther, this one also had a decent number of drawbacks related to the chassis and, moreover, the engine, which tended to wedge, even without loss of oil, and ignite spontaneously. More or less Germans were able to fix all this already in the year 44, when already the new T 34 models again began to surpass them in almost all respects.

[Avior]

not an indicator, as you know, this is a personal opinion of a particular person
best tank of ww2
https://www.google.ru/search?q=best+tank+of+ww2&newwindow=1&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi5_tmFrsrfAhUMa1AKHVrCDo8Q_AUIDigB&biw=1065&bih=497
no uniformity is observed
here is a survey with answers about the best tank.
also no monotony. and t-34, and Sherman, and Panther t-4 and Comet and others come across
https://www.quora.com/What-Were-the-3-best-tanks-of-WW2
there is no uniformity in the West in this matter

[svp67]

Quote: GKS 2111

T-34 ALL recognized as the best tank of World War II!

And in this case, were there any other candidates?

[Avior]

Germans had normalizers - caps on shells stood, so it wasn’t thick with ricochets

[Krasnoyarsk]

Quote: Observer2014

Yes, the "Sherman" was more stuffed with the best equipment. Walkie-talkie, optics, etc. So tanks were created for different armies. Armies with different philosophy of battle, if you like.

So imagine how the T-34 would have fought if it had Zeiss optics. Or at least the same as on Sherman. And the sights are like the "Tiger". I'm not talking about radio communication.
How many lives of our soldiers, and not only tankers, would be saved. That's the whole "philosophy of battle".
And one more ... T-34-76 release of 41 years old and T-34-76 release of 43 years old, these are largely different tanks.
So, if you compare these tanks, then one year of release. So it will be more correct.

[Observer2014]

Krasnoyarsk

That's the whole "philosophy of battle".

You understood me absolutely correctly and supplemented my comment

[TTi]

Quote: Krasnoyarsk

So imagine how the T-34 would have fought if it had Zeiss optics.

No need to fantasize. It was the one that stood.

Quote: Krasnoyarsk

And one more ... T-34-76 release of 41 years old and T-34-76 release of 43 years old, these are largely different tanks.

The difference is small actually.

[poquello]

Quote: Krasnoyarsk

So imagine how the T-34 would have fought if it had Zeiss optics.

Yes, I would also have fought as I fought, the war is not a tank duel for the most part, the Germans did not have tanks at the beginning of the war that could withstand the T34, but the Germans stood near Moscow

[Krasnoyarsk]

Quote: poquello

Quote: Krasnoyarsk

So imagine how the T-34 would have fought if it had Zeiss optics.

Yes, I would also have fought as I fought, the war is not a tank duel for the most part, the Germans did not have tanks at the beginning of the war that could withstand the T34, but the Germans stood near Moscow

So, but not so. Would have fought more effectively.
And near Moscow because the T-34 was few and there were almost no tankers. Those that were, died, not only in tanks, but also as ordinary infantrymen. To understand what happened in the 41st, you need to find out a lot of joyless things. And the more you learn, the more you are proud and admire the feat and stamina of the Soviet soldier.

[poquello]

Quote: Krasnoyarsk

And near Moscow because the T-34 was few and there were almost no tankers.

no, the Germans, like any competent warriors, learned how to deal with them, the main knockout was anti-tank crews, armies do not fight with tanks, armies fight with armies

[Krasnoyarsk]

Quote: poquello

no, the Germans, like any competent warriors, learned how to deal with them, the main knockout was anti-tank calculations,

Here I will not argue with you. The Germans are really literate warriors.
All of their tanks at the beginning of the war were with a short-barreled gun. Those. they were not intended to fight tanks (had a low muzzle velocity of the projectile). They were intended to suppress the surviving enemy fire weapons unsuppressed by aviation and artillery.
But, having met our "bad" T-34s in your opinion, they had to change (!) Their concept of conducting offensive operations. They put a long-barreled cannon on their tanks. Than turned your tank into a PT tank.

[Mordvin 3]

Quote: Krasnoyarsk

nor were intended to suppress the surviving enemy firepower unsuppressed by aviation and artillery.

You are not right. Tanks in German doctrine were used as breakthrough vehicles, and marched ahead of the infantry. But self-propelled guns were used in the ranks of the infantry, and it was they who were tasked with confronting enemy firing points, and at the same time destroy enemy tanks. The Germans made the side armor lightweight, removed the roof, as a result of which they were able to put a longer gun, and increase visibility.

[poquello]

Quote: Mordvin 3

self-propelled guns were used in the ranks of the infantry, and it was they who were tasked with opposing enemy firing points, and at the same time destroy enemy tanks. The Germans made the side armor lightweight, removed the roof, as a result of which they were able to put a longer gun, and increase visibility.

generally the main damage was caused by conventional anti-tank guns

[Mordvin 3]

What kind? Beaters 37 mm? They did not inflict a fig. Guns were applied 75 mm. Near Moscow in 41st, the Germans first launched anti-aircraft guns 88 against tanks. Here they were. They were really feared. When ours managed to destroy the German battery of these cannons, Vatutin fiercely. He asked a German: "What, good guns" German: "Gut, gut!" "What, gut?" "You bastard me, you killed eight tanks!"

[Alf]

Quote: Mordvin 3

What kind? Beater 37 mm? They didn’t do a damn thing. We put guns 75 mm. Near Moscow in the 41st, the Germans first fired 88 anti-aircraft guns against tanks. Here they were.

[poquello]

Quote: mordvin xnumx

What kind? Beaters 37 mm? They did not inflict a fig. Guns were applied 75 mm. Near Moscow in 41st, the Germans first launched anti-aircraft guns 88 against tanks. Here they were. They were really feared. When ours managed to destroy the German battery of these cannons, Vatutin fiercely. He asked a German: "What, good guns" German: "Gut, gut!" "What, gut?" "You bastard me, you killed eight tanks!"

why invent, until September 42 — more than half of the defeats of Pak38l / 60, and with the other small ones more than 70%

[Mordvin 3]

Quote: poquello

why invent, until September 42 — more than half of the defeats of Pak38l / 60, and with the other small ones more than 70%

Yeah, inflicted on tanks like BT, and T-26, in which the bulletproof armor. T-34 mallet caliber 37 mm, did not take. And the Germans designed Panther in the image of the T-34. You listen to less Carbine, he still will not whistle this. This figure has already been sent to the bath dozens of times, so no, everything climbs with his delirium.

[poquello]

Quote: Mordvin 3

Yeah, they were applied to BT and T-26 tanks, which had bulletproof armor. T-34 mallet caliber 37 mm, did not take.

firstly - the conversation is vague, because there is still "distance to the target", and secondly - here's a 42year old repairman

[TTi]

Quote: Krasnoyarsk

But, having met our "bad" T-34s in your opinion, they had to change (!) Their concept of conducting offensive operations.

The replacement of the gun in the Pz.IV was planned for 1942 and did not depend in any way on the "meeting with the T-34".
The replacement of guns by Pz.III occurred earlier, in 1940-41.
Also, at the end of 1941, the replacement of artillery of the anti-tank system was made.
KwK40 and PaK40, these are the descendants of the IG75 arr. 40

Quote: Krasnoyarsk

They put a long-barreled cannon on their tanks. What turned your tank into a tank.

Not at all, KwK40 was an excellent tank (namely tank) gun. Unlike the F-34, which could only be considered a tank in peacetime. Because of her shells.

[Alf]

Quote: Krasnoyarsk

All of their tanks at the beginning of the war were with a short-barreled gun.

The T-3 was specifically with an anti-tank gun, but the T-4-yes, was considered a support tank for fighting infantry targets.

[poquello]

Quote: Krasnoyarsk

they were forced to change (!) their concept of conducting offensive operations. They put a long-barreled cannon on their tanks.

and up to this point, our Germans have spread the carpet to advance better?

[Grigory_78]

In fact, not only Germans. It's easier to list who did NOT fight against us. The British are understandable. The Greeks, even when occupied, did not differ at all in loyalty. It seems like the Swedes and Norwegians are the same. The Bulgarians limited themselves to various supplies to their German allies. And that's all. The rest of Europe actively sent volunteers, and Hungary, Romania, Italy, Finland - fully formed divisions to fight "Soviet Russia". According to the recollections of the front-line soldiers - whoever was not captured, whose only speech was not heard in the enemy's trenches. But they always compare the losses of the Wehrmacht (namely the Germans) with the losses of the USSR. This despite the fact that only one of the Hungarians who fought on the side of Germany in our land, up to a quarter of a million are left. "It is the German people who are forced to bear the main (!) Burden of the war with the Soviet Union." Alas, I don't remember the author of the phrase.

[Alf]

Quote: Gregory_78

It’s easier to list who did NOT fight against us.

Even the United States fought in the form of corporations, those who sent gas and trucks to Germany through Spain-Portugal.

[Awaz]

I had a prisoner of war camp in my father's homeland. My classmate, a journalist, somehow rummaged through the archives and even got to me something. So, in terms of the number of prisoners, the Germans were about half. All the rest are European rabble. There were even the French, there were a lot of Czechs, Norwegians and Finns, too, and like Swedes or Danes, or both ... I'm not talking about the Balts. Even in the times of Nikita Belykh, a delegation of the descendants of the Estonian fascists came here to honor the memory of those who did not survive the "delights" of the Vyatka winter ..

[svp67]

And wonder WHERE? It is no secret that the Sherman was created by the Americans after a detailed acquaintance with our T-34 and with an explicit glance at it ... and the path taken by their designers to the Sherman cannot be called very successful, one M3 "General Lee" cost ...

And finally, do not forget that this tank came to us under Lend-Lease and the changes made to its design, after the remarks of our tank crews, saved the lives of more than one American tanker

The expert emphasizes the simplicity and cheapness of the production of T-34. The USSR was able to build 84 thousand thirty-four, while America - only 49 thousand M4

I wonder where these numbers come from ???? According to our data, in the USSR T-34 tanks were built in total:
- 1940 year - 117 pcs
- 1941 year - 3014 pcs
- 1942 year - 12 527 pcs
- 1943 year - 15 833 pcs
- 1944 year - 3976 pcs
Total - 35 467 pcs
Tanks T-34 / 85:
- 1944 year - 10 647 pcs
- 1945 year - 12 551 pcs
- 1946 year - 2701 pcs
Total - 25 899 pcs
Overall result - 61 366 pcs..
Now let's compare with the data on "Shermans" they were released by modifications:
M4 - 8389 pieces,
M4A1 - 9677 pieces
M4A2 -11 283 pieces
M4A3 -11 424 pieces
M4A4 - 7499 pieces
M4A5 - 1948 pieces
M4A6 - 75 pieces
Total total - 50 295 pieces

[Avior]

added on the post-war issue, including under license, it seems that it was produced either before 1956, or until 1958
Well, Sherman was a little cut, for the nerf
and Sherman was produced only from 1942 to 1945.

[svp67]

Quote: Avior

added on post-war release, including under license

But this was no longer in the USSR.

[Avior]

there was some time in the USSR, but, in my opinion, not more than 5 thousand were released from the Poles and Czechs.
but what is tense, so contrast is needed.
no one is interested that during the war the release of the t-34 and Sherman went almost on the same level.
unpatriotic it

[sabakina]

Sherman ... Well, I don’t know, I’ve never been a tanker, but ... I think our tankers scolded them deeply ....

[svp67]

Quote: sabakina

I think our tankers scolded them deeply ..

Yes no PRAISED. They were lovingly called "EmCha".
By the way, here are the frames of the Soviet film "Our Heart" in 1946, and the main characters are talking against the background of frames from the M4 "Sherman"

[Avior]

below the memoirs of our tank veteran who fought on Sherman. I already got 2 minuses for them.

[Mordvin 3]

Quote: Avior

below the memoirs of our tank veteran who fought on Sherman. I already got 2 minuses for them.

And I remembered how Sherman met with the T-34. They shot each other.

[Avior]

yes, the author describes such cases, and with Matilda, our tankers did not know the silhouettes of "foreign cars"

[svp67]

Quote: Avior

yes, the author describes such cases, and with Matilda, our tankers did not know the silhouettes of "foreign cars"

That "foreign cars", and quite familiar T-34s flew in from their own ...

[svp67]

Quote: Avior

below the memoirs of our tank veteran who fought on Sherman. I already got 2 minuses for them

If for "Tankist on a" foreign car "" Then they are WRONG. Excellent and TRUE memoir of a combat officer

[Avior]

not in the stream of his memoirs were, in general, he has a good opinion about Sherman, and I puff off

[svp67]

Quote: Avior

not in the stream of his memoirs were, in general, he has a good opinion about Sherman, and I puff off

It's okay, if you believe what the truth is, then it's not a sin to suffer. In any case, I put my 2 "+" on you.

[Huumi]

Well, I plus poke. Todd minus for Vine with his Emchi

[sir_obs]

What is your T34 Americans learned in Korea. Prior to that, they had not met with our technology at. Oh and they really didn’t like it. Before comparing, the author would have asked those who have experienced for themselves how it looks in reality, and not in Hollywood.

[svp67]

Quote: sir_obs

What is your t34 Americans learned in Korea. Before that, they did not meet with our equipment.

Yes? But what about this? The 1942 year at the Aberdeen training ground in the USA T-34 and KV passed a full test cycle, and in the future they were involved for comparative tests

[Huumi]

Here is a photo! Thanks and plbschische!

[Alf]

Ah well done! Compare the T-34-76 of the 42nd year with the Pershing of the 45th ...

[Albert1988]

Quote: svp67

Yes? But what about this? The 1942 year at the Aberdeen training ground in the USA T-34 and KV passed a full test cycle, and in the future they were involved for comparative tests

Perhaps it means that the Americans found out what the T-34 is in battle, and against them, although it was already the T-35-85 ....

[bbss]

Father, God rest his soul, recalled how easily the Shermans burned ...

[Korax71]

Like the T34. In 60% of cases of penetration of the armor it ended in fire. The diesel engine itself does not burn very well, but its fumes are very good.

[Mordvin 3]

Quote: Korax71

60% of armor penetration cases ended in fire. Diesel itself does not burn very well, but its fumes are very good.

The armor was fragile. A land mine hit, and the fragments flew. My grandfather caught a splinter in the same way.

[svp67]

Quote: Mordvin 3

The armor was fragile. A land mine hit, and the fragments flew. My grandfather caught a splinter in the same way.

Not only, due to the acceleration of production, the processing of the armor inside the case was canceled, and there on it accumulated many particles of armor that, when hit, flew off and flew into the crew, my grandfather passed all his life with a punch, for a long time these pieces came out of his body, it’s good that eyes were not hurt

[TTi]

Quote: bbss

Father, God rest his soul, recalled how easily the Shermans burned ...

Was a political instructor?
The Shermans were just different from the Soviet BTT in that they burned poorly.

[bbss]

He was a soldier. In artillery intelligence.

[Steel falcon]

It would be interesting to compare them with "Comet" and "Panther".

[TTi]

Quote: Steel Falcon

It would be interesting to compare them with "Comet" and "Panther".

Panther, this is a BTT of another class, a class higher.
And the Comet furnished all its competitors (T-34/85, Pz.IVH, Sherman (76)) already running.
In 2nd place was Pz.IVH, if that.
Sherman (76) on the third.
T-34/85 on the usual.

[voyaka uh]

It makes sense to compare T34-85 with Sherman "Fairfly".
Here they were approximately equal.

[TTi]

Quote: voyaka uh

It makes sense to compare T34-85 with Sherman "Fairfly".

Sherman Fire is officially a turret tank destroyer. So it was used.
T-34/85, it is also actually a tower tank destroyer. But it was used like a tank.
And Sherman (76) is also a turret tank destroyer. And it was also used as a tank. Therefore, a comparison of the T-34/85 and Sherman (76) is quite legitimate.
But Sherman Fire can only be compared with the SU-100. Yes, there is no tower, but the destination was one and the same.

[Alf]

Quote from TTi

officially turret tank destroyer.

Quote from TTi

T-34/85, it is also actually a tower tank destroyer.

That familiar delirium blew. Carbine released?

[Roman Skomorokhov]

Quote from TTi

officially tower PT SAU

Gee ... Another "hero" "Ghouls" ... Tank destroyer ... It would not be a shame, dear, since the holidays.

[svp67]

Quote: Banshee

dear, vacation time.

[TTi]

Quote: Banshee

I wouldn’t have a disgrace, dear, once a vacation.

Teach materiel, Unprofitable.
Tanks should have (and stood) a tank gun. And BTTs with other (non-tank) guns in normal armies were called differently, not a tank.
It doesn’t matter if this BTT tower had it or not. The same Germans were in full swing and in large quantities firing tank tanks.
And only on "Soviet tanks" there were other (not tank) guns. But at the same time, oddly enough, this BTT was still called a "tank".
I will not explain what a "tank gun" is. Internet to help.

[voyaka uh]

He means that both had weak frontal armor with a powerful weapon. And both were actively used in tank-versus-tank battles. But I do not agree with the definition of them as "self-propelled tank destroyers". Since both the T34-85 and Sherman Firefly were effective with the support of the infantry (the destruction of firing points - machine guns, mortars, guns), the transport of troops, on breakthrough marches.

[svp67]

Quote: voyaka uh

Since both the T34-85 and Sherman Firefly were effective with the support of the infantry (destruction of firing points - machine guns, mortars, guns), transportation of landing, on breakthrough marches.

[TTi]

Quote: voyaka uh

Since both the T34-85 and Sherman Firefly were effective with the support of the infantry (destruction of firing points - machine guns, mortars, guns),

It is not.
The area of ​​destruction of 85 mm OS T-34 wartime was 24-25 square meters. m. At the same time, the T-34 platform for conducting aimed fire of the descent required a lesion area of ​​about 40 square meters. m. i.e. It could not be used as a T-34/85 tank (it was not a tank), TTX was not allowed. And he could not support the infantry, there was nothing (fragmentation of 24-25 square meters).
Shooting from a short stop was fraught with heavy losses. Which took place to be.
As for Sherman Fire, the area of ​​destruction of his OS was about 31 square meters. m. Sherman’s platform, I recall, to conduct aimed fire immediately required fragmentation of about 35 square meters. m. i.e. it could not be used as a Sherman Fire tank (it was not a tank), TTX was not allowed. And he especially could not support the infantry, there was nothing (fragmentation of about 31 square meters).
Therefore, for the Comet, the British made a special TANK (QF 17-pounder was an anti-tank gun) QF 77mm gun, where these indicators were brought back to normal. And just Comet could well be used as a tank. And actually it was a tank.

[svp67]

Quote from TTi

Shooting from a short stop was fraught with heavy losses.

And shooting on the move was fraught with almost 100% of the projectile leaving the "milk", and now choose what is better

[TTi]

Quote from TTi

The area of ​​destruction of 85 mm OS T-34 wartime was 24-25 square meters. m

I’ll clarify.
This I meant the battle of the BTT with the artillery of the VET. With her calculations. Since the main enemy of the tank was she, and not the enemy’s BTT.

[voyaka uh]

"". And he (T34-76) could not support the infantry, there was nothing (24-25 sq. M. Fragmentation). "////
-------
I can refer to the opinion of the officers of the Waffen SS Infantry Division Das Reich.
(Memoirs). They used dozens of T-34 tanks exactly like infantry support tanks in 1943. Before and during the Battle of Kursk. Moreover, they did not consciously get involved in tank-to-tank battles - they took care of their tanks. So they were very
pleased with the high-explosive shells of 76 mm T-34ki.
And right away in those days no one shot. Only from short stops.

[TTi]

Quote: voyaka uh

I can refer to the opinion of the officers of the Waffen SS Infantry Division Das Reich.
(Memoirs).

Quote: voyaka uh

So they were very
pleased with the high-explosive shells of 76 mm T-34ki.

This is not necessary. I give you specific numbers. And you to me, the talk of some senility.
However, perhaps not insanity.
The fact is that in 1941 the Germans captured a decent amount of Soviet ammunition depots. WITH POWERS (F-354 and OF-350). Now, if their guns fired these ammunition, then their area of ​​destruction was 40-41 square meters. m. And for the T-34, such a lesion area of ​​the OFS was enough.
But the Soviet tank crews such OFS ended by the fall of 1941. And then went shells much easier. Because the pre-war OF-350 (OFS 40 klb. Three-inch), was a very uneconomical product. Just ruinous. And the USSR could not afford it during the war. Used OF-350A.

Quote: voyaka uh

And right away in those days no one shot. Only from short stops.

Soviet average (up to 100 mm) BTT, yes. Due to the lack of powerful OFS.
German tanks, no. The Germans with the power of the OFS were all normal.

[voyaka uh]

"German tanks, no." ////
-----
Shooting right away without a gun stabilizer is pointless.
And about the losses during a short stop: the Tiger tank had the best sighting system for that time. So, to get from a stationary state into a stationary tank of the enemy, the Tiger needed at least 10 seconds to aim.
First, aiming horizontally, then pointing vertically - a cross: the famous "baptism of the Tiger".
During the "christening" of the Tiger, during a shootout, the Sherman and T34 tankers managed to jump out of all the hatches and escape.
Therefore, during a short stop for a shot with a fragmentation shell, it is unlikely that the tank that stopped for one shot had time to knock out.

[svp67]

Quote: Alf

That familiar delirium blew.

Apparently the wind from the West ...

[bbss]

Shkolota probably. Replayed in tanks.

[svp67]

Quote from TTi

T-34/85, it is also actually a tower tank destroyer.

That’s where it came from in the West ...

Quote from TTi

Sherman Fire is officially a turret tank destroyer.

Here is a turret tank destroyer - "Achilles", it did not even have a hard roof, for the convenience of observation and crew work, which is NOT PERMISSIBLE for a tank

[Incvizitor]

Well, you can probably still compare t 34-85 with a panther and get an interesting comparison.

But those, some who climb from the "comets" to compare, are just stupid people ... because he only really went into the series at 44, so it would be logical to compare him then with t 44 and I think the comparison would not be in favor of the "comets" ...

[TTi]

Quote: Incvizitor

you can probably still compare t 34-85 with a panther and get an interesting comparison.

These are BTT of different classes.

Quote: Incvizitor

because he only in 44 plainly went into the series

What T-34/85? Also in 1944, the production of the T-34/76 was carried out until the summer of 1944.

Quote: Incvizitor

its already logical then with t 44.

T-44 is BTT arr. 1945

Quote: Incvizitor

I think the comparison will not be in favor of "comets".

Comet tank. T-44, not a tank. You need to compare comparable things.
For example, Sherman (76) and T-34/85 (and T-44) are quite classmates.
And Pz.IV with Comet, also classmates.
And Pershing and Panther, also classmates.
Here are classmates and must be compared.

[Frogfoot]

The fact that inside the Sherman was more convenient than the T-34 is no secret to anyone. But it’s better to sit on the metal and stay alive than on soft skin, but go to another world. And the main drawback of Sherman is his high silhouette, unlike the T-34. An excellent goal was for the Fritz.

[Vadivak]

Quote: Frogfoot

And the main drawback of Sherman is his high silhouette, unlike the T-34.

The silhouette of the T-34-85 is 23 centimeters lower.

[Huumi]

Funny. I’m sitting. How to lower Emchu ...

[another RUSICH]

40cm, not 23,
But even 23cm is a lot. This is two or three shells

[Avior]

t-34-85- Height, mm 2700, ground clearance - 400
Sherman - Height, mm 2743, ground clearance 432
the main difference was due to the higher clearance of Sherman

[Alf]

As far as I know, the height of the T-34-85 was measured by the hatch on the command tower, and Sherman by the height of the roof of the tower.

[Avior]

Sherman’s purely visual tower is smaller than the t-34-85.
Many times I heard the argument about the greater height of the Sherman, but I have never seen evidence that this led to greater losses.
double-edged sword, sit higher, visibility is better.
less frontal projection in Sherman
you can’t compare this without real statistics

[another RUSICH]

The main shortcomings of Sherman are the inability to turn around. In an urban setting, this was a fatal flaw.
Plus, the tendency to tipping over due to the high center of gravity. Rubberized caterpillars were quiet, but glided over the ice and snow better than the children's sleigh, bolts and wire helped, but in the mud it is elm like a cow. It burned like a match for 3 seconds, which is why it got the nickname from the German artillerymen Tommyzhark, and the British got the name of the trouble-free lighter whose slogan was: it will light up the first time every time (not Zippo, I don’t remember the name)

[Avior]

each tank had its own flaws.
the T-34 used special brake bands for turning, which almost completely stopped the caterpillar, which greatly complicated turns at high speed

[another RUSICH]

Clutches are called.
Tonos were the same used by the Germans, and in any tracked tractor

[Avior]

No, the Germans used friction clutches only on the T-1, on the T-2, 3, 4 a much more advanced planetary rotation mechanism was used.
The Tigers and Panthers had an even more complex mechanism.
- there the tracks could rotate in different directions, and the tank really turned around on the spot.
https://www.dishmodels.ru/gshow.htm?p=8646
there were big problems with the T-34 gearbox - the gears shifted very tightly, jammed, and then the T-34 on the oxen could catch up with how in this passage from a very imported documentary

details about the T-34 transmission
https://thunder-games.livejournal.com/144578.html

[another RUSICH]

This was not a problem with the box, but with its placement. The Germans had the transmission in front.
I had to toss and turn long traction, as in LAZs.
What to do? Simplification costs

[Avior]

no, it’s painted by the link, the problems were due to the fact that the box was made as primitive as possible so that the industry could handle it

[Huumi]

The T 34 burned in the same way. The "waffle" caterpillars did not cause delight in the T34. 45 mm armor was already on the 43rd of the foil ... by 41, the T34 was recognized by the GRAU as not appropriate and was planned to be discontinued

[another RUSICH]

Not the same. Do not lie.
T34 burned in 9 seconds, which was enough time for the crew to get out
T34 caterpillars were just an advantage. Their width provided a match where the Shermans and Germans were stuck.
By 43rd t34 is simply outdated. Do not forget that in the 41st thirty-fours caused a shock among the Germans, it is also worth recalling the distribution of Hitler to its intelligence, which claimed that by the beginning of the war the USSR had only outdated tanks

[voyaka uh]

It is then necessary to recall the fatal flaw of the T34 - the frontal armor is only 4,5 cm.
Every hit in the middle of a war is a break.

[another RUSICH]

To the war’s night, yes, but let's not forget that a similar flaw was on the German four, namely hatches on the side of the tower. And then, it became a disadvantage by the middle of the war.
Another point is that on t34 it was not removable. It was not possible to increase the armor due to the congestion of the front rollers

[svp67]

Quote: voyaka uh

Every hit in the middle of a war is a break.

Not everyone, it’s not necessary to exaggerate, some of the shells still went to the rebound due to the high angle of inclination of the VLD

[Mordvin 3]

Quote: voyaka uh

Every hit in the middle of a war is a break.

No.

We fired fragmentation shells one after another, took out one “seventy-five”, but the second one rolled us into the side of the tower so that we were deafened by a powerful blow.

Huseynov, only with a fright, nevertheless got out of the trench and flew wherever his eyes looked. He rushed us right into the alley along which the Germans retreated. We managed to shoot them after the cannon, smash the wattle fence, someone fell, the rest fled. I examined the track from the shell. The disc plowed the side of the tower, leaving a centimeter deep in the furrow. It was as if someone had drawn a spoon with a spoon and left a rounded mark. What a blow it was, if it softened the armor! Sweat broke through me. Lucky again, but infinitely lucky.

https://e-libra.ru/read/253356-posledniy-boy-shtrafnika.html

[Avior]

and much better visibility from Sherman

[svp67]

Quote: Frogfoot

And the main drawback of Sherman is his high silhouette, unlike the T-34. An excellent goal was for the Fritz.

All are not without flaws, but the shells of the "Sherman" did not detonate in a fire, like in the T-34 ... Agree, excellent quality

[another RUSICH]

Yes. Only directly to Sherman had no relationship.
This is part of BB

[svp67]

Quote: another RUSICH

Yes. Only directly to Sherman had no relationship.
This is part of BB

Good, and having good radio

Since we are talking about radio communications and Sherman radio stations, I will give them a little attention. I must say that the quality of the radio stations on the Sherman tanks envied the tankers who fought on our tanks, and not only them, but also soldiers of other branches of the armed forces. We even allowed ourselves to give presents to radio stations that were perceived as “royal”, primarily to our gunners ... Loza D. F. Tankist on a “foreign car”

and gyro

The brigade units are ready for battle. "Sherman" is fully equipped with shelling crews in the west. However, a little experience of driving in azimuth with the help of a gyrocompass, which we acquired in the west, was not enough for reliable orientation in the boundless sea of ​​the Mongolian steppe, where the human eye has nothing to stop looking at. In this “vastness” salvation is one thing: to be able to move in azimuth day and night over long distances. Without His Majesty the Azimuth - not a step in these parts! It was required once acquired skills to consolidate and enrich in new unusual conditions. The training of crews was divided into two stages. At the first, the movement in azimuth was worked out "on foot in a tank", at the second - already on equipment. In parallel with this, classes were planned to study the gyrocompass device and the procedure for working with it.
Everything went well until the senior authority intervened. An order was received from the headquarters of the tank army to leave gyrocompasses on the tanks of the commanders of battalions, companies and platoons. The rest should be removed and transferred to units of the 5th Guards Tank Corps. Twelve excellent navigational instruments left the battalion for conscientious service on the "thirty-fours" .. Loza D.F. Tankist on a "foreign car"

what does this have to do with? The ability to quietly approach the enemy, how is it?
The presence of cutlery for the whole crew and the ability, with the help of a standard primus, to heat food. A trifle, but somehow pleasant

[another RUSICH]

No one says that reduced noise is bad. This is good, of course, but all the same cross-country ability and a U-turn, and the absence of fear of tipping over when hitting a pebble are more important qualities of the tank. And low noise, and a coffee maker - this is for the bus)

[svp67]

Quote: another RUSICH

And low noise is for

As it turned out, it’s not bad for the tank either

The brigade commander decided at dusk to secretly withdraw tanks (on one engine) and infantry to their original positions in the beam, located two hundred meters from the front edge of the enemy defense. From this milestone, according to a general signal, bring down all the strength [42] of the fire of the guns of tanks to a height, and then take possession of it with an assault of machine gunners supported by the companies of Yakushkin and Kuchma.

Unfortunately, this would not have been possible on the T-34, but here the enemy was defeated by small forces

[hrulevv]

More than a strange comparison. The time gap in the adoption of weapons, although not large, but the T-34 tank is pre-war, and if we compare, then with the M-3 ...

[kpd]

T-34 is still used in combat. Can this be said about the Shermans?

[K-50]

the Soviet tank could break down often, while the American tank gained a reputation as a very reliable machine

The first releases of the T-34 tanks, it was, but then the quality and reliability of Soviet vehicles increased, and the Americans themselves spoke about the reliability of the Americans. So this thesis has not yet been proven.
The only thing that was noted by the Soviet crews, the M-4 "Sherman" were more convenient in terms of operation and ergonomics.
But in those days, and in subsequent ones, unfortunately, little attention was paid to this in the production of Russian cars.

[another RUSICH]

It's not that.
Shermans were collected in greenhouse conditions by highly skilled workers. T34 - children and women in terrifying conditions next to burning barrels for heating.

[Avior]

exactly.
The T-34 had to constantly adjust and tighten something, Sherman worked like a clock without it

[voyaka uh]

"but then the quality and reliability of Soviet cars increased" ////
-----
At the end of 1943, the T-34 finally replaced the primitive tractor gearbox, which negated all the advantages of a powerful engine. (Amerkans, having checked the T-34 at their test site, wrote in the report: "the gearbox is an enemy sabotage.") And also at the end of 1943, filters appeared on the T-34. And with the installation of a spacious tower from the KV-1944 at the beginning of 85, the T-34 turned into a good tank: the T34-85.

[Alf]

Quote: voyaka uh

And with the installation in early 1944 of a spacious tower from the KV-85

Have you ever seen a tower from KV-85?
Nothing at all in common.

The commander’s turret is of a completely different shape, the presence of a stern machine gun, and the dimensions are completely different.

[voyaka uh]

The sizes, in my opinion, are exactly the same. Stern machine gun removed. KV-85 was not produced for long, and those achievements that were successful - a spacious tower - received the T34-85.
Photo of model KV-85:

[Alf]

That’s exactly what the new tower has in common. Everything else in these towers is different.
They look similar, but claim that

spacious tower from KV-85

not categorically.

Well, what is the same in these towers, except for similarity?
The gun’s mask is different, the commander’s turret is different, the location of the fans is different, even the angles of inclination of the side and aft sheets of the tower are different.

[Albert1988]

Quote: voyaka uh

The sizes, in my opinion, are exactly the same. Stern machine gun removed. KV-85 was not produced for long, and those achievements that were successful - a spacious tower - received the T34-85.
Photo of model KV-85:

I have both of these models, though not at hand, but I can tell you that the KV-85 tower is identical in size to that of the IS-2 and is significantly larger than the T-34-85 tower.

[voyaka uh]

Well, if at hand, it means you're right, but I'm wrong ...
Thanks for the discussion.

[Avior]

There are very interesting memoirs of a tanker Sherman
Loza Dmitry Fedorovich
Tanker on the "foreign car".
http://militera.lib.ru/memo/russian/loza_df/index.html
He responded very positively to the tank, highlighting reliability, ease of use and other positive qualities.
for example

Until the end of the war in the west and in the battle with the Japanese Kwantung army, there was not a single case that the burning Sherman exploded ammunition. Working at the Military Academy named after M.V. Frunze, through the appropriate experts, I found out that the American gunpowder was very highly purified and did not explode in a fire, as our shells did. This quality allowed the crews not to be afraid to take shells above the norm, loading them onto the floor of the fighting compartment so that it was possible to walk on them. In addition, they were laid on armor, wrapped in pieces of tarpaulin, tightly tied with twine to the blinds and fenders ...

[Puzoter]

It is not clear what the degree of purification of gunpowder has to do with it. The cleaner, the worse it burns, or what?

[Huumi]

We flew towers crushing the crew in case even if managed to get out. Site I remember to help

[Avior]

it's not for me
Dmitry Fyodorovich Loza (April 14, 1922 - May 22, 2001) - Soviet officer, tanker during the Great Patriotic War, Hero of the Soviet Union. Retired Colonel, Candidate of Military Sciences, Associate Professor.

[another RUSICH]

I don’t understand anything in VV, but In fact, the Sherman ammunition was not detonated. As it turned out, a cleaner WWII is less explosive. Shells in Sherman just burned and that’s it. Our ammunition detonated

[svp67]

Quote: puzoter

It is not clear what the degree of purification of gunpowder has to do with it. The cleaner, the worse it burns, or what?

Over time, the gunpowder begins to decompose with the release of pyroxylin and the "cleaner" they are, the later it happened and the less pyroxylin was released, and hence the less chance of detonation

[Albert1988]

Quote: svp67

Over time, the gunpowder begins to decompose with the release of pyroxylin and the "cleaner" they are, the later it happened and the less pyroxylin was released, and hence the less chance of detonation

Most likely, the established protection of the combat unit played a role - the Americans nevertheless learned pretty well from their mistakes.

[svp67]

Quote: Albert1988

Most likely, the established protection of the combat unit played a role - the Americans nevertheless learned pretty well from their mistakes.

And that too. But here is more than once the quoted fragment from "Tanker in a foreign car"

One and a half wheeled from Sherman to Sherman. Crews quickly transferred shells and boxes with cartridges from the car body to the blinds of the engine compartment. Then they will open artillery shots, open the “zinc” and load it into the tower to their regular places. We rush to the last tank of the younger [76] lieutenant Alexei Vasin. We will replenish it - and, without delay, on the return difficult flight. At this time, four Tigers crawled out quite unexpectedly due to a long hill. At first, no one noticed them, being busy unloading ammunition. And only the boring sound of the "blank" released by the enemy made everyone start up. At that moment, a strong blow to the Sherman’s stern followed. The fire instantly embraced the motor.
Tankers and artillery supplies with the M4A2 rained down on the ground. The second enemy shell turned the "lorry" into a bonfire. Her driver Junior Sergeant Yuri Udovchenko, who was trying to steal a car from under fire, was killed. The tank crew rushed to extinguish the fire. We rushed to help the “Shermanists”, and then a series of mine mine explosions fell not far from the tank. The driver was badly wounded by a fragment ... A second, more accurate mortar salvo can follow in an instant. After all, we are eight people, in full view. Around a clean field - next to neither a bush, nor a ravine, where you could hide. One shelter is under a burning tank. I give the command: “Under the car!” They hid in time under his nose. Gap after gap was raised by the black sultans of the earth one and a half meters from the Sherman. If we were with him, we would surely die.
So, a whole group of officers and sergeants was driven into a dead end: if we run, then mortars will kill us, if we stay, the fire will reach the tower and the explosion of the combat station will sweep the tank and us along with it. And in both cases the outcome is one - death. I was one hundred percent sure of this, having seen enough of the "thirty-four", in which the combat unit detonated from the fire.
In the summer battles of the forty-second year, the car of my [77] friend at the tank school of the company of Lieutenant Commander Peter Tunin was set on fire. Two crew members were killed, two were injured. Tunin, bleeding, tried to crawl away from the burning "thirty-four" ... They were separated by 15-20 meters when the shells exploded in the tower. Pieces of armor flew in different directions. One of them overtook Tunin ... Later, the officer’s cold body was picked up in a furrow on a buckwheat field. It turned out that a heavy metal fragment had broken his skull ... I already said that we had just mastered the recently received American tanks and therefore we measured new equipment for us with our arshin from the experience of serving on domestic cars.
We, clinging tightly to each other, lay under an increasingly hot tank bottom and waited for the explosion of the ammunition in the tower and shells in the engine compartment. A little time will pass, and another mass grave will appear on our land ...
Fire made itself felt. Those who were closer to the motor unit began to smoke overalls. We spun under the tank, rubbed on the ground, trying to cover the clothes with a layer of dirt as additional protection. One of the tankers, unable to stand the test of fire, jumped out "to the will." Two mine explosions - and he was flat on the arable land. There is no chance to escape. Ammunition on the car began to fire: a thud and a slap of a shell on the ground. I was surprised that this was not followed by an explosion. It was thought that this happened for the reason that the bounced projectile on its trajectory did not meet obstacles and its fuse, therefore, did not work. There will be no such favorable conditions in the tank. On the contrary, in the fighting compartment for a flying projectile around a barrier. [78]
The climax was approaching. Hissing, fire burst into the fighting compartment of the tank. The hatches of the tower were open, which increased traction. The temperature under the bottom of the M4A2 immediately rose several degrees ...
We listened, trying to determine how far the battle was from us, but it was at the same line, and therefore, our tank was still under the gun of German mortars. Unbearably hot and scary under the tank, but you can’t leave the shelter if you do not want to die from mortar fire.
A shot in the tower. A shell flying out of the shell rumbled through the armor, describing several circles, and fell to the floor. Silence ... While lucky - the armor-piercing unitar worked. It will be when the turn of "firing" with a fragmentation shell approaches! It will explode itself and will certainly cause the detonation of its own kind. Here we all have a kayuk!
A little more time passed. The cartridge chatter in the tower intensified. We no longer paid attention to her ... Waited for other sounds. And then, finally, a whole series of artillery shells thundered. Ringing, metal rattle, but no explosions. Silence! Then more and more volleys. Clank and silence again!
Such an expectation of a fatal moment lasted for about an hour. The fire continued to host inside the armored corps, artillery shots ceased, detonation never followed. The rumbling contact line of the sides rolled back farther and farther south.
A group of dirty, insane from the heat, poisoned by carbon monoxide and shocked by the constant expectation of death of the tankers crawled out [79] from under the smoked, breathing heat sooty Sherman. Legs did not hold. We sat down ... Sowing light rain. We gladly substituted grimy faces under his cooling spray and inhaled deeply moist, clean air.
Until the end of the war, in the west and in the battle with the Japanese Kwantung army, there was not a single case that the burning Sherman exploded ammunition. Working at the Military Academy named after M.V. Frunze, through the appropriate experts, I found out that the American gunpowder was of very high purity and did not explode in a fire, as our shells did. This quality allowed the crews not to be afraid to take shells above the norm, loading them onto the floor of the fighting compartment so that it was possible to walk on them.

[Albert1988]

Quote: svp67

And that too. But here is more than once the quoted fragment from "Tanker in a foreign car"

There are two important points: the first is a narrative source - it does not provide accurate statistics and analysis of documents or technical information, but personal emotions and feelings, moreover, all this was written at significant intervals after the events described, so that significant distortions can occur , and absolutely unconscious.
The second - again, there is no exact indication of what kind of Sherman it was - there are, if I am not mistaken, already 6 options, and there are still early and late modifications.
But if you accept everything written on faith, it turns out that the whole thing is not in tanks. and in high-quality American shells, which, in principle, is not surprising: the Americans had the most powerful and developed industry in the world and at the same time they did not have to drag it through the floor of the country in an emergency mode and hastily mount it in a new place.

[svp67]

Quote: Albert1988

Second - again, no exact indication is given as to what Sherman was.

Well, if you look at the officer’s biography, these are some of the first modifications, most likely M4A2

Quote: Albert1988

Americans industry had the most powerful and developed in the world

This is not even discussed, since, moreover, she also worked in VERY comfortable conditions, the absence of external influence, at least from enemy aircraft

[Albert1988]

Quote: svp67

Well, if you look at the officer’s biography, these are some of the first modifications, most likely M4A2

That is, in this case, it is the American shells that need to be thanked, and not the tank itself.

Quote: svp67

This is not even discussed, since, moreover, she also worked in VERY comfortable conditions, the absence of external influence, at least from enemy aircraft

Namely, and the most interesting thing is that many now do not understand this and are trying to compare the industrial potential of the USSR and the USA during the war, while they do not see the most important thing - under what conditions did the USSR draw out))

[svp67]

Quote: Albert1988

That is, in this case, it is the American shells that need to be thanked, and not the tank itself.

But they did not approach the other. Although the USSR received a large number of both ballistic gunpowders and explosives from the USA, we mixed them with domestic ones to achieve more or less tabular property values

Quote: Albert1988

at the same time they do not see the most important thing - in what conditions did the USSR draw out))

And not only that. The US industry had by this time well-trained personnel and its training system. Unlike the USSR, where industrialization has just occurred.
Then I sorted out the question of the census in the USSR in the 1937 year and the characteristic numbers are indicated there, relative to the census of the 1926 year ...

For example, the total population growth of the Dnipropetrovsk region by
6,8% is the result of a huge increase in the urban population (+ 177,0%) with a simultaneous decrease in the rural population by 26,3%. A similar situation has occurred in some other areas.

This is by the way of the "Holodomor", the same explains what happened to the population from the countryside.
Can you imagine how many people have just "come into the profession" and what their knowledge and skills were. This also applies to engineers

[Albert1988]

Quote: svp67

But they did not approach the other.

What did I mean by that - a tank can, for example, have such a placement of the ammunition and its protection that when it fires, no shells detonate - neither native Amerov’s, nor ours (if you just load them there)

Quote: svp67

Although the USSR received a large number of both ballistic gunpowders and explosives from the USA, we mixed them with domestic ones to achieve more or less tabular property values

As I think, they did more to increase their volume in a trite way — there were a lot of them, but from the needs of the USSR for such substances it was a tiny fraction.

Quote: svp67

And not only that. The US industry had by this time well-trained personnel and its training system. Unlike the USSR, where industrialization has just occurred.

What is most important!

Quote: svp67

This is by the way of the "Holodomor", the same explains what happened to the population from the countryside.
Can you imagine how many people have just "come into the profession" and what their knowledge and skills were. This also applies to engineers

I am also a little familiar with this issue, so I understand perfectly well that the USSR, in fact, in 10-15 years conducted the process that should have taken at least 50-70 years!

[Albert1988]

Quote: Avior

There are very interesting memoirs of a tanker Sherman
Loza Dmitry Fedorovich
Tanker on the "foreign car".
http://militera.lib.ru/memo/russian/loza_df/index.html
He responded very positively to the tank, highlighting reliability, ease of use and other positive qualities.
for example

You know, there’s such a nuance - in the later Shermans they began to put special protection for the combat unit, since it was torn almost guaranteed without it, but when the BC defended, then everything became very good.

[Altona]

Another of the articles similar to the thoughts of an envious person. Tank "Sherman" was certainly reliable and comfortable, but all the other "advantages" attributed to it did not play a role in those years. Well, the SuperSherman tank is still in demand.

[san4es]

The main feature of the Allied tanks was that they had sufficient characteristics to fulfill the tasks and could be mass-produced in both countries.

.... But on Sherman, it’s inconvenient to sit on the armor. They came up with a different way to move the landing :

[Puzoter]

In Finnish, we also used something like

[san4es]

... at 2.59 min .:

... Tank divisions advance through the snow in a wooded area on the Eastern Front during World War II. Heavy tanks and artillery fire from a wooded area. ..... Flamethrower tank in action. ...... A soldier creeps along the snowy ground and cuts the barbed wire. The German Pz.tank kpfw II drags three foot soldiers lying on a large steel pallet behind.
Location: East Front, European Theater. Date: 1941 .....

[voyaka uh]

. ". But on the Sherman, it is inconvenient to sit on the armor" /////
----
Exactly the opposite. The landing party always preferred the Shermans.
1) Sherman had a soft suspension and a smooth ride.
2) Sherman provided special handrails-loops for the landing and personal belongings of soldiers behind the tower.
And the landing was covered from enemy fire by a tower.
Picture-Illustration:

[Albert1988]

In any case, for the normal location of the landing on the armor of the tank, some refinement was necessary by means of a file and a certain mother ... At the same time, I can give the argument that the T-34-85 tower, due to its size, better closes the landing, and the landing can be placed more))))

[Strashila]

They just forgot to compare the conditions under which the tanks were made. In Stalingrad, Leningrad, under the raids of aircraft, in the Urals, machines stood in wastelands when the walls of workshops of evacuated factories were erected around them in frosts, women and teenagers sometimes worked for 16 hours a day. And the Americans, quietly, satisfying and calm in comfortable conditions. Therefore, the level of manufacturability of the T-34 was higher than that of the Americans and Germans, it was able to produce in wartime low-skilled personnel on simple equipment.

[beeper]

The T-34 was very maintainable, even in field repairs, by the crew. There were many cases when, instead of a broken bearing of the driving wheel, an impromptu wooden oak was placed, so that later, after a battle, if this tank does not burn, it should be replaced with a shot from a damaged brother ...

[Avior]

did he have wheels ?!
frankly, it seems like a strong exaggeration to say the least

[beeper]

I wrote something wrong, Mr. Avior ?!
The drive wheel of the lantern engagement (the T-34 has a lantern engagement, not the ridge one, like the Sherman and other modern tanks), driven (he was also called "sloth") and the road wheels, like, weren't you mistaken ?!
In black and white, he painted the drive wheel. For understandable (and you?) Reasons, he had the most heavily loaded bearing (especially made of surrogates by hungry and exhausted low-skilled women and teenagers - a Moscow relative told how he, in the war, such a kid, standing on a box, sharpened on a lathe, parts for aircraft - "everything for the front, everything for victory!" ...), which often "flew", and tanks were needed in battle, so the tankers-repairmen and improvised-put out of oak. It is also MTS, tractor operator, ingenuity worked!
An oak bearing was enough for one battle, and if the tank did not die, then the bearing was removed from other, "irreparable" armored vehicles and replaced by a wooden one. So it was - I found many of the surviving front-line soldiers (and my father's younger brother was a tanker in the victorious years of the war, although he began to fight as a marine), alive and quite young, they told something, and some of them left memories.
Even when, for the most part, bravura and smoothed "memoirs of military leaders" were printed, something real could be found in the "Military Book" and in libraries (especially, published immediately after the war, back in Stalin's times, after all, during the "thaw" Khrushchev the censorship just started!), and now on the Web-expanse-read, I don't want to, only there is no time to live ...

[Avior]

you are right, what I called the drive sprocket is also called the drive wheel.
but wrong in another

at t-34 ridge engagement, and IS-2 forend
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ведущее_колесо_(гусеничный_движитель)
I have little faith in the fact that the oak bearing was set, and even purely by the crew, and even this was a common occurrence.
To do this is to substitute a tank in battle.
and you won’t do it in a hurry - the oak tree must first be chopped off and dried and the bearing turned out of it, but they did not carry pre-prepared oak bearings with them instead of the standard spare one.
a freshly sawed oak briar cannot be cut with an ax on a knee in five minutes.
well, maybe just once somewhere by chance it was maybe
however, if you drop the link causing trust, I will not insist

[beeper]

Yes you are right , Avior, mixed up is the crest engagement, and that is the pin, always confused them! But you caught the main idea!
Oak bearings, from stocked oak billets, un-dried wood is not suitable for this (our post-war shed was made up of oak crowns, so was there any dried material available in the war?), The repairmen put (this is not possible for the combat crew) field repair is a fact described, it would not have crossed my mind, except that if I faced a similar task in the same extreme conditions.
Himself, then still a schoolboy, "snatched" from a near-war publication and was surprised (I have a memory "for a detail", so I remembered this even now, reading the comments), asked my father-engineer, began to find out in technical literature-wooden bearings made of solid breeds of wood were widespread in technology (not to mention land mechanisms, were there even propeller shaft shaft oil seals on ships?) and this technique was often used by tractor drivers at the dawn of mechanization, namely in agricultural machinery. The old technical reference books were about the design of wooden bearings, in the current, probably, there is no coefficient of friction for wood types ?!
Recently, in the old 70s, "Model-Constructor" I came across a description of a wooden bearing, impregnated with synthetic resins for greater durability. I have no ready-made links (I didn't think that the existence of wooden bearings needs to be proved) and, honestly, now I'm too lazy to look, but if you are interested for some reason, then I think you can easily find it yourself? But no, don't believe it, then, on occasion, if it's really "sunk into memory", be sure ... Read the memories of tankers and tank repairmen (I read it in the memoirs of a participant in the restoration of tanks on the battlefield, either in a newspaper or in a book), you will find out a lot of interesting things, and then tell us all about it.
All the best to you Good and Health!

[Avior]

I also remember something of this from the Modeller, there was a favorite magazine, but for the tank with its loads, and even in battle, and not on the march, say?
and why not just carry a spare staff?
Well, once there by accident, but often?

[beeper]

Quote: Avior

I also remember something of this from the Modeller, there was a favorite magazine, but for the tank with its loads, and even in battle, and not on the march, say?
and why not just carry a spare staff?
Well, once there by accident, but often?

Probably the spare full-time bearing was already used up, if it was in stock at the repairmen, had to improvise ?!
If, when releasing a new tank, the crew commander at the factory was even given a silk scarf (for filtering fuel during refueling) and tank watches (and these very scarce watches, in fact, tankers were obliged to take them off and take them away when leaving a wrecked car, but something did not meet such memories, so that instead of the fastest jump out of the hatch, risking his life climbed to save the watch?), what can we say about spare bearings, because two of them went to a new tank, and spare parts can was removed from the wrecked cars ?! According to the recollections of the repairmen, there was enough oak bearing for one battle, and for those tanks for which the resource of the wooden ersatz was not enough and they stopped under fire and burned down, no one, of course, remembered or wrote.
It’s like with dolphins — those people whom they saved and pushed ashore recall these animals with gratitude, and those whom the dolphins dragged into the open sea or rammed to death with their noses, it’s clear that we don’t leave angry memories and nothing about them no longer know ?!

[Avior]

I was interested in your message so that I wanted to understand in detail (after the new year, of course
)
H could not believe in a wooden bearing in such a loaded place.
Description T34 took here
http://wio.ru/tank/manual/t34manual6.htm
and it turned out the following
1. In the drive wheel of the tank there are no bearings from the word at all.
It is simply worn on the splines of the driven shaft of the final drive protruding from the housing (Fig. 126 and 127 in the manual). Therefore, no drive wheel bearing can be made in principle.
2. I thought, maybe it was a driven shaft of the final drive?
3. The driven shaft of the final drive is supported by 2 roller conic bearings (Fig. 121 in the manual)
http://wio.ru/tank/manual/t34manual5-3.htm
These bearings have a characteristic appearance, I did not find a photo of this specifically with the T34, but in general the roller conic bearing looks something like this

As you know, such a bearing is not just like an ax from a log, but you cannot even cut a plywood out of a jigsaw.
Based on the foregoing, I think that the stories about the wooden bearings of the drive wheel is a front bike, most likely.

[Mordvin 3]

Quote: Avior

As you know, such a bearing is not just like an ax from a log, but you cannot even cut a plywood out of a jigsaw.

And if you remove the clip, and oil seal?

Then no cone will be needed.

[Avior]

there are two of them and they are conical for a reason.
the front wheel hub on Moskvich never pulled?
It’s not easy to get to them, especially to the inside, but even the outward failure is difficult to remove; they are pressed onto the shaft, these are rolling bearings.

[Mordvin 3]

Quote: Avior

there are two of them and they are conical for a reason.
the front wheel hub on Moskvich never pulled?

I am a car mechanic, including a bridge. By truck. These bearings replaced more than one thousand. A dozen ZILs per day came to overhaul. I think that something, and would have come up with tankers instead. The tank then they could not be thrown under the threat of a tribunal, if the gun is operational, and shells are available. A motionless tank is a tasty booty.

[Avior]

got it
why quit? evacuate to the rear if you advance, and do not substitute the tank and tankers due to the relatively inexpensive parts in battle
and if the enemy is advancing, and you dismantled the tank?
it’s more logical to drag and ambush.

[Mordvin 3]

Quote: Avior

why quit? evacuate to the rear,

There is a great trilogy about tankers. V. Pershanin. "Tankman, penalty box, suicide bomber." Written from the memoirs of a friend of his father, who fought the entire war in tanks. On BT and T-34. And he was surrounded twice, and under the noses of the Germans were repaired. It's in my paper, so I can't give a link, call me. There seems to be nothing about the logs, but how they got out of different situations - a lot about that.

[Avior]

no, the fact is that in a difficult situation we have to get out with freelance methods - I don’t mind, this is understandable.
I just wanted to figure out this particular case.
first I searched the Internet for any mention in memoirs or somewhere about that. Have not found.
then he decided to get rid of whether it is possible to really do it — he came to the conclusion that this, in principle, cannot be done under the proposed conditions

[Avior]

take a closer look at the 15th outer bearing.
There it will be problematic to remove even the inner race from the bearing from the outside, but the outer race, and it is also pressed in, will be even harder to pull out.
it’s not the kind of repair that, in a quick one before a fight, they make it at one time with the highest probability that in battle the tank will lose its course - which tree will withstand the load? , a tank under thirty tons, it’s not to cut a sleeve on a moped.
well, on the march to get to the repair, without overloads slowly, and even then - without a second tapered bearing there is a high risk of ruining the entire final drive, the drive wheel will go to the sides.
but into battle? smacks of a tribunal for such a "repair"

[Mordvin 3]

Quote: Avior

but in battle?

No, on the contrary, to get to their repairmen in the rear. And we can fix it with a sledgehammer and such a mother, anything you can.

[Avior]

in the original message it was said that it was for the battle, and not for the evacuation to the rear, and that this was done repeatedly.
In addition, you won’t knock out the outer cage with a sledgehammer if you want to - it is in the gear housing and you need to be inside the crankcase, which means disassembling the entire gear from the inside, or even remove it from the tank completely.
there is still a problem- if the tapered roller bearing is replaced with a wooden cylindrical slide, then a large backlash will appear on the shaft from left to right, two oncoming cones just remove it.
Which can lead to either the caterpillar dropping or the transmission case breaking.
this is definitely not suitable for battle.
and evacuate to the rear, easier without it.

[Avior]

This is an image of the final drive with the spherical bearings of the driven shaft - there are two of them, 12 and 15.

Fig. 121. Final drive (in a cut):
1 — flange; 2 — a cover; 3 - a worm; 4 - spherical roller bearing: 5 - cage; 6 - a spacer ring; 7
- drive roller; 8 - a cage of a roller bearing; 9 - a floating ring; 10 - string; 11 — roller bearing; 12-
tapered roller bearing; 13 - a cover of a case of a final drive; 14 — cork; 15 - conical
roller bearing; 16 - a press ring of an epiploon; 17 - an epiploon cover; 18 - a ring of fastening of a driving wheel; nineteen
- string nut; 20 — string; 21 — driven shaft: 22 — crankcase cover bolt: 23— down hole for
cork; 21 - an armor cap; 25 - driven gear; 26 — cork; 27 - a case of final drive; 28 - gear with
roller; 29 - an epiploon cover; 30 - an adjusting bolt; 31, 32, 33 — bushings; 34 - speedometer cable

PS I was surprised to find that it became possible to embed drawings in different formats, even gifs. Interestingly, but 2 or 3 at a time succeed?

[beeper]

Bravo, Avior! You only have pluses from me — you did a good job on the topic and quoted Loza’s memoirs correctly, explained about the crest and sprocket gearing, now I’m not too lazy to find the final drive blueprint (honestly, I already felt sick of looking at these BKPs, finally began to forget) ....
In principle, even then I had no doubt about the veracity of the tank repairman’s story (and I, pretty hefty Soviet times, was engaged in the practical repair of tracked vehicles and all kinds of improvements). I don’t know why, having in front of you a drawing of a BP T-34, you suddenly came to the conclusion that this is a front-line bike ?!
The drawing clearly shows the standard tapered roller bearings (installed in the X-pattern) of the driven shaft, and how either of them, or both at once, can be emergency replaced with a wooden surrogate bearing (for this, remove the cracked, most likely, outer rings with a screw puller installed in a fixed gear housing more freely than the inner rings on the shaft, and cages with rollers, and for the time of repair, remove the inner bearing ring sitting on the shaft 15), especially since, very desirable for a tree, abundant constant lubrication, is structurally provided "work in an oil bath"!
It is easy to insure against axial displacements of the shaft - "throw under the collars" of the inner rings on a metal washer in order to reduce, to an acceptable level, the axial specific pressure at the ends of a wooden bearing under a working load and voila ...
You remember correctly that in the "initial message" I was talking about the speediest entry of a faulty tank into battle (when every "live" machine was on the account and could decide the outcome of the battle!), And by no means about evacuation to the rear, this is something it was much easier to do and was done by towing!
And yet, I see that, "in captivity of stereotypes", you are mistaken about wooden bearings, not only you, but also our other comrades. It is not necessary (and not even recommended) to sharpen them, bearings, from a solid piece of wood, especially if they are of large diameter!
Let it be a good example of such a bearing (if you don’t really understand about the well collar, or, remember, almost the same, the pedal water catamaran bearing made of a wooden block), but the outer one will be the hub of the cart’s wooden wheel drawn from segments.
Of course, I beg your pardon, for such an elementary "educational program" I wouldn’t have prompted anything else, I would have waved my hand, but I am impressed by your, Avior, uncommon corrosiveness, meticulous desire to get to the bottom of the essence (although superficial and hasty "unambiguous conclusions" are also you characterize-show in which direction you can still "work" on your self-improvement ?!) - this, in my opinion, is a good quality worthy of encouragement!
In principle, I confess, I noticed this commendable "enthusiasm" in you before, so I was lazy and, quite a bit, manipulated it - I was wondering if you could find and post a drawing of the power supply unit or not, I also wanted to take a detailed look at it, could I solve the same repair problem with the same improvised means ?! And you pleased me with your persistence and generous "resourcefulness" (including with pleasure I re-read the quoted lines from the book "Tanker in a Foreign Car"!)
And now I know for sure that, having a similar task in front of me, I could also have been able to repair and quickly return to service our legendary tank using this "ersatz method" described in my memoirs.
All the parts of the T-34 BP have a simple shape and are sufficiently technologically advanced even for repair in a rural workshop, not without reason that the Chief Designer of the T-34 Alexander Alexandrovich Morozov, improving the "thirty-four", demanded from his subordinate designers that the parts of the mechanisms have the simplest configuration and were adapted even for the most unskilled machining and repair!
He said so (I quote from memory): "Any constructor can make it difficult, but only a thinking and hardworking designer can do it simply!" and also his "winged expression" at that time of war: "Remove the tsatsuki, we are making tanks!" ...

[Cetron]

I did not see anything unusual in an oak bearing. He personally set the zil-157 (six) engine on a rattling engine temporarily instead of granite inserts made of leather from a soldier's belt. A couple of hundred kilometers to the workshop can be reached without raping the device.

[beeper]

Quote: Cetron

I did not see anything unusual in an oak bearing. He personally set the zil-157 (six) engine on a rattling engine temporarily instead of granite inserts made of leather from a soldier's belt. A couple of hundred kilometers to the workshop can be reached without raping the device.

So I am about the same. The most primitive wooden bearing, in our village, on the well gate, so as not to creak, I moisten it with water. The same was the case with the tank-oiled oak bearing for the T-34, according to the recollections of the repairmen, withstood one battle, and then the question of a spare "by itself" became irrelevant - either this tank burned out, or a regular bearing was removed from the damaged brother and put instead of wooden ...

[Avior]

Above, I wrote in detail why I think this is a front-line bike.
starting from the fact that there is no bearing in the drive wheel

[Mordvin 3]

Quote: Avior

the oak tree must first be chopped off and dried and the bearing turned out of it, but they did not carry pre-prepared oak bearings with them instead of the standard spare one.

And here you are wrong. It was two logs that tankers carried along the sides of the sides. For self-extraction.

[Avior]

above I examined in detail whether it was possible to put such a bearing. I think this is a bike

[svp67]

Quote: Avior

did he have wheels ?!

On tanks and wheels there are: leading and directing

[Avior]

I realized, I’m just used to call it a leading asterisk.
a little higher, I examined the issue in detail and came to the conclusion that such a bearing is a front bike

[Huumi]

And the mats there are also complicated. Read. Replace the batteries with t34

[TTi]

Quote: Strashila

Therefore, the level of manufacturability of the T-34 was higher than that of the Americans and Germans, it was able to produce in wartime low-skilled personnel on simple equipment.

Not higher, but noticeably lower.
Do you even know how a diesel engine differs from a carburetor engine?
And how the cast Sherman or "shoe box" T-4 differed from the complex body of the T-34.
If the T-34 made 84 thousand, then structures like the T-4 could make 184 thousand probably.

[Alf]

Quote from TTi

then structures like T-4 could make 184 thousand. Probably.

So what did not?

[Albert1988]

Quote from TTi

If the T-34 made 84 thousand, then structures like the T-4 could make 184 thousand probably.

And let's not "probably" let's "not fantasize", as you yourself wrote above)))
And yes - you have not yet given a definition of what a "full-fledged tank" is and what a "Soviet tank" is - I expect from you, dear. specific definitions ...

[Alf]

Quote: Albert1988

And yes - you have not yet given a definition of what a "full-fledged tank" is

This is the Tiger and Abrams, the rest of the SPGs ...

[Albert1988]

Quote: Alf

This is the Tiger and Abrams, the rest of the SPGs ...

Agas , it sounds especially good in the light of the fact that it is the tiger and the abrash and are used initially as Fri SAU))))

[Puzoter]

It was used differently, but was conceived mainly as a tank destroyer - to stop the hordes of the T-xx rushing to the English Channel. As tanks in their original sense (a breakthrough of fortified defense lines and deep coverage), it is difficult to use them in a European theater of operations because of their excessive mass and lack of mobility.

[Albert1988]

Quote: puzoter

and they were mainly conceived as a tank destroyer - to stop the hordes of the T-xx rushing to the English Channel.

Abrasha (like Leo) - yes, I thought more about fighting enemy tanks, and extremely numerous ones, so a "turret tank destroyer" came out under the guise of MBT, but the tiger was exactly what the Fritzes were thinking in the first place to break through the enemy's defense, but it turned out in the end, a tank destroyer, that's the weirdness ...

[Alf]

Quote: Albert1988

Quote: Alf

This is the Tiger and Abrams, the rest of the SPGs ...

Agas , it sounds especially good in the light of the fact that it is the tiger and the abrash and are used initially as Fri SAU))))

TT will run in now and will explain to everyone who is incomprehensible that the Tiger and Abrams are real tanks, and who does not believe is intoxicated by soviet propaganda.

[Mordvin 3]

Quote: Alf

TT will run in now

And he is already here ... Carbine Alf ...

[Alf]

Quote: Mordvin 3

Carbine Alf ...

I am not Carbine, do not disgrace my gray hairs, otherwise I will challenge you to a duel!

[Mordvin 3]

Quote: Alf

otherwise I'll challenge you to a duel!

Wow But I’m shooting well from a slingshot.

[Consultant]

Quote: Mordvin 3

I'm shooting well from a slingshot

Plus, definitely. Compete?

A bullet from the PM, a dove was removed from the roof of the five-story building ... only the head stuck out ...

True - there is no such rubber already, all the harnesses that are sold right now are full of guano ...

[Mordvin 3]

Quote: Consultant

Compete?

Easy! I've got the light bulbs on the lanterns, and so!

[Mordvin 3]

Wow, I forgot. And I knocked down pigeons. Only they are tasteless. Bony ....

[Consultant]

Quote: Mordvin 3

light bulbs

This is a separate topic ... breaking a flask is not a thing to do ... breaking an inner cone, which actually glows - yes, the real task ...

I was lucky in this regard, there was a shooting range in bike accessibility, and there people with PM trained there. A bullet from PM, but a good slingshot (they didn’t keep others) - this is a song ... oh, youth, youth ...

[Mordvin 3]

Quote: Consultant

A bullet from PM, but a good slingshot (they didn’t keep others) - this is a song ... oh, youth, youth ...

Yes, on our way more than one lamp did not burn. This one, Dynamite, bought up a whole tourniquet in a pharmacy, and then sold it to us at exorbitant prices. We kicked him until he pumped up.

[Consultant]

Quote: Mordvin 3

Dynamite, bought up a whole tourniquet in a pharmacy

Its definitely.

Here I somehow bothered to restore the skill, cut off the normal slingshot (lilac, love), skin ... NO HARNESS !!!

I climbed the entire Internet. I bought some kind of crap German, supposedly - for bodybuilding ... guano.

There is no normal "red" tourniquet. He was fast, and not particularly eager.

A prize to someone who says how to replace this crap. Monetary.

[Mordvin 3]

Quote: Consultant

lilac love

Exactly. Under my windows I grew, everyone climbed. But my friend, a police colonel, still has a slingshot in the table. Vova, says, this is my youth!

[Consultant]

Quote: Mordvin 3

Exactly.

Not ... just bought slingshots - not once. Wide, instead of zhtu - tube ... phe

A normal tool - done by hand, for yourself, your beloved ...

But there is no correct harness. About the prize, money, by the way - not a whistle even once. Here Stasik wanted to "argue" with me (I bet a bottle of tequila to the devil here) - so let him find the correct tourniquet ... engineer, damn it, who knows what

[Mordvin 3]

Quote: Consultant

Not ... just bought slingshots - not once.

Which purchased? They always did it themselves. Harness red was good, black - trash. And the skin from the boots was cut out.

[Mordvin 3]

And Dynamite, this one is this bastard ...

[Consultant]

Quote: Mordvin 3

this one ...

... from Tagil ...

pumped guy, steroids ... This usually ends badly.

But deffkam likes)))

[Mordvin 3]

Quote: Consultant

But deffks like

So in childhood we kicked him ... He was a speculator.

[Mordvin 3]

Quote: Consultant

A prize to someone who says how to replace this crap. Monetary.

My friend, the head of security in Europe Plus, seemed to have a skein. I ask.

[TOPchymBA]

He made it out of a camera for a volleyball. Yellow rubber approximately 2 mm thick. With a 20 meter bullet from the PM a champagne bottle made its way out.

[Dym71]

Quote: Consultant

I climbed the entire Internet. I bought some kind of crap German, supposedly - for bodybuilding ... guano.

You can dissolve a gas mask on the edge.

[Consultant]

Quote: Dym71

you can dissolve a gas mask

I tried it. Did not like

[Dym71]

Try dielectric gloves up to 1000V (latex)
description - http://electrikmaster.ru/dielektricheskie-perchatki/

[Consultant]

Quote: Dym71

dielectric gloves up to 1000V (latex)

Um ... are these?

Thank you, there will be time - I'll take care ...

PS: the joke reminded about

... Monsieur understands a lot about perversions.

No offense, just associative memory

[Dym71]

Quote: Consultant

... Monsieur understands a lot about perversions.

cut a strip from the bell to the tip of the middle finger of the glove

Quote: Consultant

No offense

Yes, sho already there, not the first day familiar, "revenge" on the occasion

[TTi]

Quote: Albert1988

Let's not fantasize without "probably"

And who is fantasizing? It was not about switching to the production of Pz.IV, but that rumors about the simplicity and cheapness of the T-34 were greatly exaggerated.

Quote: Albert1988

you have not yet given a definition of what a "full-fledged tank" is and what a "Soviet tank" is - I expect from you

Wait. I already wrote to you about my attitude to the boors.
Want to chat, change avatar. Then I may not immediately recognize you.

[Albert1988]

Quote from TTi

And who is fantasizing?

You fantasize, and you yourself scold others for their "fantasies"))))

Quote from TTi

Wait. I already wrote to you about my attitude to the boors.

First - rude, here, my friend, only you ...

Quote from TTi

Want to chat, change avatar. Then I may not immediately recognize you.

I don’t want to communicate - for some reason you all crave communication, given how many accounts you have already changed and continue to stubbornly climb onto a site where you are banned with enviable regularity)))) And I, in turn, am not going to change my nickname, no profile picture - I don’t need to hide, unlike some ...
So yes - the definition of "Soviet tank", "full-fledged tank", the exact figures of the "unmeasured" number of deaths in the war против Nazism Romanians and Hungarians. as well as a list of "special literature" you have not provided, from which a simple conclusion suggests itself - you do not have all this ...

[beeper]

I completely agree with the Author of the Article!
As a mechanical engineer and tanker by education, always interested in military history and tank building, I will say-Very iconic and very good T-34 and Sherman tanks (they are different in design, but each is good in its own way, I don't want to go into detail, and whatever the development of their designs and modifications in accordance with the urgent requirements of armed struggle and the improvement of the art of troop leadership), fully (by their idea-concept and its comprehensive implementation) corresponding to the production and technological capabilities of their countries and played a significant role in our joint victory over the Hitlerite "common Europe "!
Without these war machines, our warring fathers and grandfathers would have been tight! IMHO
I sincerely congratulate all the members of the forum on the upcoming New Year!
With all my heart, Peace, Health and Well-being !!!

[Lamatinets]

It is strange to compare the number of tanks released, the Americans did not need to build up their armored forces too much, there wasn’t much to be done for the war with japes, and for the European theater and allies the figure was normal.

[Huumi]

I completely agree

[seacap]

The main difference is the carburetor engine and diesel, sizes. T-34 at the front with 41, Sherman (not counting the Lend-Lease) from the 43rd, even the 76-mm T-34 cannon could penetrate the Tiger-1 from 500 m, Sherman didn’t pierce the forehead even at point blank range, and the side and the stern with 250 m had a chance, the T-34 was much simpler and operational and did not require very high qualifications of both the crew and workers, etc. etc., it is incorrect to compare completely different machines created in different and for different operating conditions, tactics.

[Huumi]

Fuflo. Sherman didn’t come to us with gas engines. By definition, the power of the Sherman’s shell was higher. And it’s simpler. Where did you read that? The diesel engine was never a simple motor and the T34 body required high precision assembly

[another RUSICH]

It's true. Sherman was originally built for a gas engine (with the goal of unifying fuel for aircraft, tanks, cars), hence its height. A diesel engine was installed in the Shermans of Lendliz, at our request, but the hulls were not redrawn

[Avior]

no, just the feed is the lowest part.
Sherman just has more clearance.

[another RUSICH]

Not true. Sherman clearance, t34 and t4 was approximately equal
I can’t upload photos from the bodies

[Avior]

a little more with Sherman, but not too much

[Albert1988]

Quote: another RUSICH

Sherman was originally built for a gas engine (with the goal of unifying fuel for aircraft, tanks, cars), hence its height.

There they also placed the driveshaft so "brilliantly" that it went to the transmission at an angle through the fighting compartment, from which it took up a lot of space and gave a not sickly - 20-30 centimeters increase to the vehicle height.

[another RUSICH]

Right. From the aircraft engine gimbal went high. Higher than on German tanks. With a diesel engine, they simply did not bother to redo

[Albert1988]

Quote: another RUSICH

Right. From the aircraft engine gimbal went high. Higher than on German tanks. With a diesel engine, they simply did not bother to redo

And when they got into trouble - they made a new tank - Pershing, and everything in it was already normal - the silhouette of the hull is low with a very massive tower, the transmission is in the back, not in the front, etc. Yes, and even added a little high-tech - the same gyroscopic gun stabilizer)))

[another RUSICH]

Pershing has nothing to do with Sherman, or will we compare Pershing and T54? Yeah, and after a few years, we got an automatic loader, and the ones on the Pershing, on the Abramych negro are still moving shells. And?
Oops ... well, we're not talking about that, right?)

[Albert1988]

Quote: another RUSICH

Pershing has nothing to do with Sherman

Namely, because it was made taking into account all the numerous jambs that were on Sherman and the like, well, we thoroughly reworked the 34-ku, getting rid of the outdated Christie chassis and all the moments connected with it, made the T-44 first, and then T-54)))) Since somehow))))

[another RUSICH]

Then what does Pershing have to do with it? We are here about Sherman, aren’t we?)

[Albert1988]

Quote: another RUSICH

Then what does Pershing have to do with it? We are here about Sherman, aren’t we?)

Pershing despite the fact that in order to fix the incredible number of jambs that the "faithful eight" inherited from his predecessors, they had to make a completely new car ...

[another RUSICH]

No Sherman schools were fixed in Pershing, because Pershing was a completely new development.
And if we talk about Sherman, then the jambs were not Shermanrv and from his predecessor m3 Lee, because Sherman was a continuation of this misunderstanding

[Albert1988]

Quote: another RUSICH

No Sherman schools were fixed in Pershing, because Pershing was a completely new development.

You carefully read what I’m writing - when the Americans carefully analyzed all the jambs that are in Sherman’s design, then, having thoroughly scratched their turnips, they sat down and began to make the very brand new car.

Quote: another RUSICH

And if we talk about Sherman, then the jambs were not Shermanrv and from his predecessor m3 Lee, because Sherman was a continuation of this misunderstanding

With this, in fact, no one argues))))

[Albert1988]

Quote: Huumi

A diesel engine has never been a simple engine.

The main thing here is that in the USSR it was precisely diesel engines that could be mass produced and fuel was more affordable for them than for gasoline ones.

Quote: Huumi

cases for t34 required high-precision assembly

Sherman's case is not much simpler than that of the T-34, in some ways even more complicated.

[Alf]

Quote: Albert1988

Sherman's case is not much simpler than that of the T-34, in some ways even more complicated.

Especially if you recall the Sherman with a molded case.

[Albert1988]

Quote: Alf

Especially if you recall the Sherman with a molded case.

Namely, the very configuration of the case there is still ...

[Avior]

Diesel Shermans went to the USSR, and in my opinion to the US Marine Corps too.
The vine in his memoirs describes the case when the Sherman fueled a mixture of gasoline and kerosene instead of a solarium - and nothing, we went without big problems

[Alf]

Quote: seacap

even a 76-mm T-34 gun could penetrate the Tiger-1 from 500 m

On the forehead, side or roof?

[Avior]

at the bottom under 90 degrees

[poquello]

Quote: Alf

Quote: seacap

even a 76-mm T-34 gun could penetrate the Tiger-1 from 500 m

On the forehead, side or roof?

to caliber

[Alf]

Quote: poquello

Quote: Alf

Quote: seacap

even a 76-mm T-34 gun could penetrate the Tiger-1 from 500 m

On the forehead, side or roof?

to caliber

Could when they were.

Pay attention to the asterisk at the very bottom.

[poquello]

Quote: Alf

Pay attention to the asterisk at the very bottom.

somehow I suppose that for such a piece of paper on the Kursk arch they would put it to the wall right away, given that our tanks had few trump cards at that time

[Alf]

Why? Do you think that tens of thousands of PC shells were manufactured in the USSR?

[poquello]

Quote: Alf

Why? Do you think that tens of thousands of PC shells were manufactured in the USSR?

Do you think that if air bombs were used in Kursk to destroy tanks, then they gave out sub-caliber 5 per tank? )))))))))))))))

[Alf]

Quote: poquello

Do you think that if air bombs were used in Kursk to destroy

And in these PTABs was tungsten? With all countries tungsten wild strains were. For instance.
For 8,8

For 7,5

[Krasnoyarsk]

Quote: Alf

And in these PTABs was tungsten? With all countries tungsten wild strains were. For instance.
For 8,8

PTAB - a cumulative bomb, why does it need tungsten?

[Alf]

Quote: Krasnoyarsk

PTAB - a cumulative bomb, why does it need tungsten?

I somehow know that in the PTAB of tungsten there was zero whole organ of tenths. But! How can one understand such a statement?

Do you think that if air bombs were used in Kursk to destroy tanks, then they gave out sub-caliber 5 per tank?

How to connect PC shells and PTABs I personally can not understand.

[poquello]

Quote: Alf

How to connect PC shells and PTABs I personally can not understand.

) it is very difficult to understand that we needed a victory in Kursk

[beeper]

Quote: poquello

Quote: Alf

Why? Do you think that tens of thousands of PC shells were manufactured in the USSR?

Do you think that if air bombs were used in Kursk to destroy tanks, then they gave out sub-caliber 5 per tank? )))))))))))))))

As far as I remember from the stories of front-line tankers and from the literature, 1-2 "cherished" sub-caliber shells, "for tigers and ferdinands", thrifty, economic tank crew commanders by hook or by crook tried to get and store like the apple of their eye, using only in the very the most extreme case and for sure.
Yes, and the commanders of the crews of the anti-tank gunners, those that "Farewell to Motherland", also did not indulge in sub-caliber shells - "only 2 per gun", they also remembered, they also took great care and shot them in the most extreme case!
The PTAB anti-tank bombs were cumulative made of roofing sheet, not tungsten — they were thrown from the attack aircraft by the cassette method, but the effect of the unexpected use of the first days of the Battle of Kursk passed quickly and the Nazis began to disperse their tanks and hide them under the trees whose branches caused the premature detonator firing and the cumulative effect were significantly reduced (after the war, these aerial bombs were subjected to additional studies and it was experimentally found that their armor penetration could be easily increased by a factor of XNUMX if, instead of a hemispherical, a conical shape of a cumulative warhead was used, but this was later).

[poquello]

Quote: pishchak

very cherished and shot them as a last resort!

I don’t believe it, there was only one tactic in Kursk - to get close and attack sideways from five hundred meters, tell me how tanks were beaten with shovels)))), from the appearance of panthers and tigers they were studied and shot by captured tanks, accordingly they built battle tactics.
So what did you win? but?

[Mordvin 3]

Quote: poquello

So what did you win? but?

In the guns. Aht-aht pierced through our tanks. My grandfather was a tankman, he said how the commander of the shell was torn in half, it became so scary. They somehow crawled out with the tower, and were immediately captured.

[poquello]

Quote: mordvin xnumx

Quote: poquello

So what did you win? but?

In the guns. Aht-aht pierced through our tanks. My grandfather was a tankman, he said how the commander of the shell was torn in half, it became so scary. They somehow crawled out with the tower, and were immediately captured.

ahem, generally won our Kursk. )))))))))))))))))

[Mordvin 3]

Well yes. Although Hitler wanted the opposite.

Soldiers!

Today you begin a great offensive battle, which can have a decisive influence on the outcome of the war as a whole.

With your victory, the conviction of the futility of any resistance to the German armed forces will be strengthened than before. In addition, the new brutal defeat of the Russians will further shake the belief in the possibility of the success of Bolshevism, which has already been shaken in many formations of the Soviet Armed Forces. Just like in the last big war, their faith in victory, in spite of everything, will disappear.

The Russians achieved this or that success primarily with the help of their tanks.

My soldiers! Now, finally, you have better tanks than the Russians.

Their seemingly inexhaustible masses of people were so thinned in the two-year struggle that they were forced to call on the youngest and oldest. Our infantry, as always, is as superior to the Russian as our artillery, our tank destroyers, our tank crews, our sappers and, of course, our aircraft.

[poquello]

Quote: Mordvin 3

Well yes. Although Hitler wanted the opposite.

so the question is, the Germans were beaten in an arc - the question is how, without sub-caliber shells as a target there are only epaulettes and tracks, but I didn’t hear that the Germans were overtaken there, but I heard about rapprochement

[Mordvin 3]

Quote: poquello

but I heard about rapprochement

That's it. Why the heck, you ask? We had four lines of defense, no, some idiot had to send tanks to the attack. Damn, no words. By the way, the Germans still believe that they won the battle at Prokhorovka. Unlike ours, who shouted into a megaphone: "We wish you a rest in sunny Italy!"

[kitt409]

These are questions to the one who sent them to the attack, the other TA commander stupidly and primitively dug up his tanks and repulsed everything that could not be done, I'm talking about Katukov, who was also ordered to attack, but he was not afraid to say that he did not agree with this categorically ...

[Mordvin 3]

Quote: kitt409

I'm talking about Katukov, who was also ordered to attack, but he was not afraid to say that he disagreed categorically ...

About Katukov, I agree. He is his fighters shore.

[poquello]

Quote: Mordvin 3

some idiot had to send tanks to attack.

and what to do if at that time the Germans could calmly shoot ours from 1500-2000m, well, the victory confirmed, near Prokhorovka "The Dawns Here Are Quiet" were on a large scale, they beat the Germans there at a great cost, but also put a fat point on the initiative of the Germans on the arc

[Mordvin 3]

Quote: poquello

but what if at that time the Germans could calmly shoot ours with 1500-2000

You just had to sit on the defensive. The Germans would have broken their teeth. We had enough troops there. The Germans had no threefold superiority for a successful offensive. IMHO, of course.

[poquello]

Quote: mordvin xnumx

Quote: poquello

but what if at that time the Germans could calmly shoot ours with 1500-2000

You just had to sit on the defensive. The Germans would have broken their teeth.

The Germans would have squandered the entire defense from a convenient distance and that’s all.

[kitt409]

Interestingly, what about the "neighbors", Katukov's defense was inconvenient?) No matter how the Germans burst, they could not break through ...

[poquello]

Quote: kitt409

Interestingly, what about the "neighbors", Katukov's defense was inconvenient?) No matter how the Germans burst, they could not break through ...

IMHO time is a sting and forced to storm, in view of the general situation, those Germans in time trouble climbed guns in this section, it is difficult to say how they would act if there were no meat grinder in other sections

[Mordvin 3]

Quote: poquello

The Germans would have squandered the entire defense from a convenient distance and that’s all.

I doubt it. In order to mow down the defense in several echelons, you need to have a lot of strength. And, for example, in the air, we did not concede anything to them. The Richthofens were already afraid of our Lavochkins, and preferred not to mess with them.

[bubalik]

And, for example, in the air, we did not yield anything to them. The Richthofen already feared our Lavochkins,

,,, air superiority reached, but at what cost!
,,, (1: 2,5) was the ratio of irretrievable losses in aircraft
in the south of the Kursk Bulge during the July Defense Period (from 5 to 18 July 1943)

[poquello]

Quote: mordvin xnumx

Quote: poquello

The Germans would have squandered the entire defense from a convenient distance and that’s all.

I doubt it. In order to mow down the defense in several echelons, you need to have a lot of strength. And, for example, in the air, we did not concede anything to them. The Richthofens were already afraid of our Lavochkins, and preferred not to mess with them.

It’s not the PMA, where it was so populated, (as you remember, we won the Kursk) on our Kursk we carried out several counterattacks to disrupt the enemy’s attacks, for example, on the main one to Kursk, this achieved the result of the integrity of the defense, but at the cost of canceling the counterattack Katukov was surrounded by Getman units, but it was enough to strike the Germans on the flank. And they mowed and opened, it was a battle with the high dynamics of groupings and regroupings.

[Albert1988]

Quote: poquello

The Germans would have squandered the entire defense from a convenient distance and that’s all.

It wouldn’t work out - our artillery fought a pretty good counter-battle, and in the air the Fritz didn’t feel so at ease and couldn’t act outrageous in the 41st.

[Albert1988]

Quote: Mordvin 3

By the way, the Germans still believe that they won the battle of Prokhorovka.

And why do you think that ours think differently? if Rotmistrov himself wrote that Prokhorovka is a blatant failure?

[Albert1988]

Quote: poquello

so the question is, the Germans were beaten in an arc - the question is how, without sub-caliber shells as a target there are only epaulettes and tracks, but I didn’t hear that the Germans were overtaken there, but I heard about rapprochement

Well, in the first tigers of those same panthers, there weren’t so many relative to the fours and pieces, which could be pierced quite well even without sub-caliber ones.
And secondly, the Germans, in addition to our anti-tank artillery and tanks, were also actively striving for mines - whatever you say, but ours set mines very well near Kursk, so the Germans often, even conducting active reconnaissance, had absolutely no idea where everything was mined.

[beeper]

Quote: poquello

Quote: mordvin xnumx

Quote: poquello

So what did you win? but?

In the guns. Aht-aht pierced through our tanks. My grandfather was a tankman, he said how the commander of the shell was torn in half, it became so scary. They somehow crawled out with the tower, and were immediately captured.

ahem, generally won our Kursk. )))))))))))))))))

We won to win, but at what cost! Especially the little T-70s and their crews got it! Yes, and the rest of our tankers had a hard time - many and many perished and burned! Prokhorovskoye field remained behind the enemy and all our destroyed tanks were blown up by him ... our advancing (on the move, on the enemy prepared for the offensive - "hello" to our intelligence!) Tank army was practically destroyed overnight and Comrade Stalin was furious about this. ..
Otto Carius, who wrote his memoirs "Tigers in the Mud", described everything quite realistically from the German side, if, of course, we make allowances for the usual Teutonic bragging and silence of the beaten "conquerors of Lebensraum".
Our tankers were rescued by the fact that the "Tiger" turret was unbalanced and even with a minimal roll of the tank it was difficult to turn, and made a full turn in one minute, that is, the slower speed of the horizontal guidance of the German tank's gun gave our tank a chance, desperately maneuvering from side to side, approach the range of real fire with an armor-piercing projectile (not a sub-caliber, which is one or two and that's all! By the way, there were complaints about armor-piercing shells, some of which split against the armor of German tanks, without causing harm, there was something like that, but it passed-to the end of the war, the quality of our shells steadily increased!) ~ 500 meters, which not everyone succeeded .... after all, even without the "Tigers", our advancing tanks had enough opponents - they were hunted by both the famous "akht, akht" and shielded "fours" (which many of our soldiers and commanders took for "Tigers", for a similar angularity of the silhouette and a long-barreled cannon with a "muzzle brake knob"), and various traveling tank destroyers, and German aviation, ... not counting the fighting Hitlerite infantry, which also regularly "knocked out enemy tanks and infantry"!

[Mordvin 3]

Quote: pishchak

which many of our soldiers and commanders took for "Tigers", for a similar angular silhouette and a long-barreled cannon with a "muzzle brake knob)", and various self-propelled tank destroyers, and German aviation ,.

Hehe. Just for the destruction of "Tiger" or "Ferdinand" the entire crew, or the crew were awarded. So they confused Ferdinands with Artsturms.

[beeper]

Quote: mordvin xnumx

Quote: pishchak

which many of our soldiers and commanders took for "Tigers", for a similar angular silhouette and a long-barreled cannon with a "muzzle brake knob)", and various self-propelled tank destroyers, and German aviation ,.

Hehe. Just for the destruction of "Tiger" or "Ferdinand" the entire crew, or the crew were awarded. So they confused Ferdinands with Artsturms.

And I don't blame them! He himself is not a supporter, but for his crew (for his SHORT-LIFE, on average, three attacks, a little human joy) he would also "beguiled" in the report, if only they had time to reward the guys, for this he would give his reward to the staff clerk. After all, how many real heroes remained unrewarded or did not manage to receive their reward ?!
And it was not for nothing that they were awarded for the "Tiger" - few of our tankers (and especially artillerymen-anti-tankers! They died with whole batteries, so these bastards, when they drove into their firing positions, vindictively methodically grind everything and everyone with caterpillars - the bloody earth remained with in some places sticking out human scraps and parts of cannons - in feature films this is not shown and will not be shown ...), remained alive in such a duel - "man-eating tiger", this tank was worse than others!

[poquello]

Quote: pishchak

when they entered their firing positions, they vindictively and methodically milled everything and everyone with caterpillars - the bloody earth remained with somewhere sticking out human fragments and parts of guns - this does not show and will not show in feature films ...),

)))) So do not watch modern films, there are sports guys who do not smoke, play football

[Albert1988]

Quote: pishchak

, so these bastards, when they entered their firing positions, vindictively and methodically grind everything and everyone with caterpillars

Which clearly indicates that they were afraid of our anti-tank artifacts, and in earnest - so the first attack of the panthers of the Great Germany division near the same Kursk drowned out, because they drove just between our two camouflaged anti-tank batteries and just a couple dozens of kittens were gone ... True, before that they climbed over a swampy ravine with difficulty. in order to run into mines on our side, then they cleared some of the mines and went on, and after that, our anti-tank crews provided them with a warm welcome ...

Well, then, on all these tigers and panthers, St. John's wort arrived in time with ISU-122, and all sorts of SU-100 were also given a good light for them))))

[Albert1988]

Quote: pishchak

they won, but at what cost!

Kursk was won, incidentally, already with less losses than the Germans - everything was very smooth there, except for the same Prokhorovka, when banal rush, lack of normal intelligence and, as a result, poor organization led to disaster.

[Albert1988]

Quote: seacap

even the 76-mm T-34 cannon could penetrate the Tiger-1 from 500 m, Sherman didn’t even pierce the forehead point-blank, and the side and the stern from 250 m had a chance

Here it must be remembered that in addition to the gun there is also a shell with which it fires, the amers initially did not have much armor-piercing shells - there was no need for special armor-piercing fights with Yapov cardboard coffins ...

[Huumi]

Bullshit is something. The article is about what? Sherman was a beautiful car with two diesels. The power of the Emch shell was higher. Plbs is a big thing on the turret. The sea of ​​fire. They walked longer and more comfortable. In normal conditions, there were enough Americans to build good cars

[another RUSICH]

I agree too. But as amended, for the steppe and desert. There, they didn’t even need a turn on the spot, and the caterpillars did not slip on snow-ice-mud.
As for going longer, if about a march roll, no
There is a known case when a whole building stood up in the Second World War in Hungary for three days due to exfoliated rubber from the rollers. Chot of such ashy shoals in parts with t34 was not heard)

[Avior]

Sherman glided only at first, the Americans quickly fidgeted, made tracks with hooks, Loza has it

[another RUSICH]

Hooks did not save through the mud.
Sherman’s patency was not up to par

[Albert1988]

Quote: Huumi

The power of the Emch shell was higher.

High-explosive - yes, but with armor-piercing there, at the beginning, it was completely byad ...

Quote: Huumi

Krupnyak on a tower. Sea of ​​fire.

The sea, while the one who creates this sea will not cross - no protection))))

Quote: Huumi

Went longer and more comfortable.

More comfortable - yes, but longer - no, especially in our conditions.

Quote: Huumi

. In the conditions of normal life and everything was enough the Americans built good cars

Yes, but in the conditions of terrible and complete abuse, we built cars that, if they were inferior, are quite a bit))))

[NordUral]

Compare me too. And this is with their technical and industrial capabilities. Mentioned only to say that we fought with Hitler! My comment does not apply to officers and soldiers of the tank, they fought where and when they were sent.

[Huumi]

I already wrote about this. A country not burdened with war could comfortably work for us. Each tank was a feat for us, and as I consider it, these are not big words

[Puzoter]

Firstly, for cases of the formation of fragments during non-penetration, complaints were sent to the plant, i.e. if it was, it was a marriage, but not a constructive clearance. And appropriate measures were taken. For example, the German Panther armor fragility due to lack of alloying additives was the norm. Regarding reliability: the Sherman’s rubber bandage on the rinks turned into rags and the tank needed to replace the rinks after several hundred kilometers of the march.

[Huumi]

Not skating rinks but trucks. The measures were taken urgently and the shortcoming was eliminated. Our cast towers are a tribute to cheapness. I don’t know. Scale killed the crew but the country saved on everything. The rolled was more expensive

[another RUSICH]

Kaneshn eliminated!)))
Only for three days (Karl, for three!) The offensive was delayed. And not thanks to German anti-tank guns, and not even to the heroism and staunchness of the Wehrmacht, but to the stupid mass breakdown of the "reliable" Shermans!
T34 are bad?)) Well, well ...))

[Mordvin 3]

Quote: Huumi

An operational pause was taken at Mannstein’s request to mine to Hitler. And were there a week?

Not. Guderian commanded the tank forces. Manstein is a hunter. SPGs invented for the Wehrmacht troops.

[Huumi]

Well, that’s not the point. Prlsba was satisfied. The Germans stood. I don’t remember how many days as a memory. But they say there is no muddle. I don’t understand that the technicians are in trouble. Was it? Yes and what? It was like the T34 were perfect

[Mordvin 3]

Quote: Huumi

Well, that's not the point. Prlsba was satisfied. The Germans stood.

I read Manstein’s memoirs. I don’t remember what he wrote. What kind of request?

[Huumi]

Upon arriving at the headquarters for Hitler, he loved the stories of comfrey that he sent, having waited a pause from the Fuhrer for permission to tactically pause due to weather conditions. Permission was given. And he waited a little while the weather settled in minus. Then the tank got up and in the morning how to go? goyaz like concrete. you’re frozen and pound with a crowbar in a day. So the Germans stood. They hollowed their mother dirt. Then they stood during the day and went at night because the roads became passable. They were frozen. These are all reports. I didn’t come up

[Mordvin 3]

Quote: Huumi

These are all reports. I didn’t come up with

Gee, I know these reports better than you. Once again: Guderian commanded the tank forces. Manstein was in the infantry. And there he came up with the doctrine of self-propelled guns. Guderian was very offended by him.

[Huumi]

I wrote about this above. Repeat why? There was a pause, the Germans stood and the weather interfered. According to the reports, it was Isaev’s books and lectures. Bair Irincheev, I advise you. On a pipe. Intelligence. About Finnish. This is so if interesting.

[Mordvin 3]

Quote: Huumi

About Finnish. This is so if interesting.

Just in the 40th year, the Wehrmacht appreciated the tactics of self-propelled guns. It was Manstein who was their organizer. Although Guderian didn’t spit on them, he didn’t appreciate the tactics of combat with self-propelled guns. And with us they appeared only in the 42 year. Why is there about Finnish? Our guns did not penetrate Mannerheim's bunkers.

[Huumi]

Why? They even did it. Finns admired our artillerymen. Wrote. You shoot at them. You’re throwing mines at them and ... they will take the large-caliber straight and hammer it until they smash it. The armored caps were tearing them apart. They carried everything to the point of feni. There were dozens of bunkers. And like ours they blew them up! Stars took for it! Hundreds kilograms scouts carried and undermined! Even a verse about heroes is written! There were steel people! I myself go to Karelia to those parts!)) I myself see places .... noble

[Mordvin 3]

Quote: Huumi

I see places myself .... noble

Well then, take a look at how the chipped holes left, not punched. I do not want to offend our soldiers, but the Finns were stunned by them. Of machine guns, they mowed ours in black.

[Huumi]

Well, it’s not about the soldiers, it’s about the command and that’s not all. Bair Irincheev gives a full talk about the Finnish story in all three directions where we went. Several transmissions. Our people didn’t

[Mordvin 3]

Quote: Huumi

it’s not a matter of soldiers but command

The doctrine of the rearmament of the Red Army was adopted in the 34 year. And so really did not accept anything. Self-propelled guns, for example, the Red Army ordered the German company Krupp in 37, if sclerosis does not fail me. They (the Germans) could not cope with the technical task. But Manstein easily picked up the baton, and the doctrine of self-propelled guns was introduced in the Wehrmacht. This doctrine showed its viability in the war with Poland, and ours only calved. But after the results of the Finnish company it was clear that it was necessary to put guns on engines.

[Albert1988]

Quote: Mordvin 3

Well then, take a look at how the chipped holes left, not punched.

the cracks remained there until 152 and 203 were dragged - then everything ended very quickly.
But the stories about the "non-aggressiveness" of Finnish pillboxes were then actively disbanded at the suggestion of our Voroshilov's tovarisch Klim - it was necessary to somehow cover up his complete incompetence and failure))))

[Albert1988]

Quote: Mordvin 3

Why is there about Finnish? Our guns did not penetrate Mannerheim's bunkers.

They punched excellently: the "Karelian sculptor" and "Stalin's sledgehammer" took literally from a couple of hits the main Finnish concrete pillboxes of the "Poppius" type, of which there were just one or two and too many ...
The problem was that there was no reconnaissance and the Pearl troops often had no idea where they were going and what awaited them there, so they got sad results ...

[Mordvin 3]

Quote: Albert1988

They punched excellently: the "Karelian sculptor" and "Stalin's sledgehammer" took literally from a couple of hits the main Finnish concrete pillboxes of the "Poppius" type, of which there were just one or two and too many ...

Well, then I’m wrong, in the 90 years, what kind of crap did not read about the Finnish. Then all the Soviet cry. Well, just like Carbine Zeus now.

[Albert1988]

Quote: Mordvin 3

Well, then I’m wrong, in the 90 years, what kind of crap did not read about the Finnish. Then all the Soviet cry. Well, just like Carbine Zeus now.

I completely agree - I remember, back in history textbooks I read about Finnish invulnerable pillboxes, and already in adulthood I got into literature - it turned out that 80% of Finnish fortifications were generally earthen, half of them were already shot by our art, and all the problems were due to the complete unpreparedness for war (there was no banal winter equipment!) and a complete gagging of command — how did Klim Voroshilov himself command! And his forehead was clearly stronger than that of the tank of the same name!

[another RUSICH]

Oh, my friend! ....)))
Not. Et you are in the wrong steppe.
Rasputitsa is one thing, the other is excellent weather, road surface — I don’t want to go, and suddenly, oops! Stop the car! Germans? Mines? 88¬e? Not! Stupidly, the tires burned out on the rinks! Oh chord! But there is no dirt? But snow? Twvayuzh ... urine galleries a little? It was necessary to piss more! Pralo. Themselves to blame!)))
But on t34 piss was not necessary)

[Huumi]

Yes, it’s deep for me .... on t34. Veterans talk about it. Well, if Dad is smarter and more experienced than veterans ... Praise you. But somehow I believe those who fought on t34. And once again, not on rinks, on tracks. T34 I didn’t keep such transitions at all.

[another RUSICH]

Read Vine, so as not to look stupid:
There I described a case that happened to us in August 1944 in Romania, during the Iasi-Chisinau operation. The heat was terrible, somewhere + 30 degrees. A day then we walked up to 100 kilometers along the highway. The rubber bandages on the rinks warmed up so much that the rubber, melting, flew off with meter-long scraps. And not far from Bucharest, our case stood up: the rubber flew around, the rollers began to jam, there was a terrible rattle, and in the end we stopped. This was urgently reported to Moscow: is it a joke? Such an emergency, the whole body got up! But new rinks were brought to us very quickly and we changed them for three days. I don’t know where they could find so many rinks in such a short time?

[Huumi]

I not only read it. And not only in Russian. There were enough problems and breakdowns in our tanks. If, due to a personal case, the tank was faulty ... then all the tanks get a hat. The main thing was to quickly fix the problem

[another RUSICH]

The personal is solitary, the whole building has risen.
And about promptly, t34 was repaired no less quickly

[Mordvin 3]

Quote: Huumi

T34 did not hold such transitions at all

And who held them? The famous German Tiger, in general, was even worse in terms of these indicators. And the best was BT-7 in my opinion. Take off the goose and speed up to 60 km.

[Alf]

Quote: Mordvin 3

Take off the goose and speed up to 60 km.

If memory serves me right, then during BT tests it turned out that at a speed higher than 45-50 km / h the tank became uncontrollable.

[Mordvin 3]

Quote: Alf

Quote: Mordvin 3

Take off the goose and speed up to 60 km.

If memory serves me right, then during BT tests it turned out that at a speed higher than 45-50 km / h the tank became uncontrollable.

On the primer. On the highway were very manageable. Another thing is that there were few good highways. My grandfather was just an instructor at BT-7, he talked a lot. Oh, sorry I didn’t remember much.

[Alf]

I agree. That's only in war, the highway very quickly acquires the appearance of an obstacle course. And the tanks are broken and explosions.

[svp67]

Quote: another RUSICH

Rasputitsa is one thing, the other is excellent weather, road surface — I don’t want to go, and suddenly, oops!

So what? The bandage flew off, the movement is not an obstacle. They pulled up the caterpillar, so that the formed sag would be chosen and forward. Of course, with a roar all over Ivanovo and not so soft, but you can move forward

[another RUSICH]

Kaneshn))) You can ride on flat tires. Not for long, really)

[svp67]

Quote: another RUSICH

you can ride on flat tires

Well, a tank rink is far from a pneumatic tire, not to be confused.
There are tank rollers with internal cushioning, they generally have no rubber band ...

[andrewkor]

Add, perhaps, your "five cents" to the discussion? And then all Sherman and Sherman! And there were several options, not counting modifications. The main difference between the Shermans from each other was the type of power plant.
M4 and M4A1-used Continental R-9 975-cylinder radial carburetor engine.
M4A2- spark of 6-cylinder diesel engines (!) GMC-6046.
M4A3 - 8-cylinder Ford GAA-8 carburetor engine.
M4A4-5 (!) Gasoline engines in a single block-Chrysler multibank-A-57.
M4A6 diesel Caterpillar RD-1820.
Let the experts add about weapons. There is also something to comment on.
According to my data, Sherman M4A2 was delivered to the USSR, i.e. diesel total 4063 tanks.
So about technological effectiveness in wartime conditions: The main Soviet tanks T-34, KV, IS had a single V-2 diesel engine and compare it with the engines of US tanks!

[Huumi]

Thank you. I didn’t know

[Avior]

V-2 diesel was very crude and with little engine life

[Avior]

The vine in his memoirs speaks well of Sherman and puts it no worse than the T-34, each tank simply had its own characteristics. For example, it was difficult for the T-34 rumbling caterpillars to go stealthily into position, and Sherman
In the second half of the war, when it became easier with tanks, they specifically indicated at the request how much the T-34 was needed, how many Shermanov.
He also writes that they constantly had a representative of the company who analyzed the features of the use of tanks and the company responded to comments.
For example, when it turned out that Sherman’s caterpillars were slipping on ice and tankers had to hand-wrap wire or stick bolts into tracks, the company began sending tracks with hooks.
He writes about the warm attitude of American workers to our tank crews — there were gifts from the workers for ours in the tanks, but they didn’t reach us, they disappeared when unloading from ships and delivery, the American representative who found out about this told his own, and bottles of whiskey and bags with Americans began to stuff candies into the trunks; they were filled up tightly with wax plugs and were already printed directly in the unit

[Huumi]

Yyyy. Read Lozu. Lovely memoirs

[Alf]

Quote: Avior

thundering caterpillars T-34

Which T-34? Stalingrad with "bald" rollers or T-34-85?

[Mihail177]

Moreover, after 1942, after the Germans appeared, a 75 mm long-barreled gun appeared

The translator is clearly not familiar with the word "tautology".

[Huumi]

By September 42 they had gone-75 mm

[seacap]

Quote: Huumi

The article is about what? Sherman was a great car with two diesels.

For couch experts raised by Hollywood, in short, you can google in more detail, and there is no particular desire in communicating with a person who does not know how and does not have a culture of communication.
The tank received a large hull height due to the vertical installation of the star-shaped Continental R975 C1 aircraft engine, developing 350 horsepower. In addition to him, Sherman received 4 more options for the power plant, as a result, 6 modifications appeared.
M4 and M4A1 received the engine described above, and the M4A2 variant, used in the USSR under Lend-Lease, had to install a pair of GM 6046 six-cylinder engines with a capacity of 375 liters. s., since Soviet troops are accustomed to using diesel fuel. M4A3 received a powerful V8Ford GAA, developing 500 liters. pp., and the M4A4 is an interesting 57 hp Chrysler A470 multibank powerplant, assembled from 5 L6 automobile gasoline engines and forcing developers to lengthen the hull. The last option was the M4A6 with a 1820 hp Caterpillar RD450 diesel engine, but an order for he was soon canceled, because the diesel engine was distinguished by low performance. To warm up the engine and charge the battery, an auxiliary single-cylinder power plant was installed on Sherman, which made it possible to avoid starting the main engine. The transmission located at the front further protected the crew, but if it penetrated, it could burn with hot oil and increase the risk of immobilization even without breaking through.
In November, he began to enter the USSR, where it turned out that he was very similar to the T-34, had weaker side protection, but significantly superior in comfort, but the T-34-85 began to surpass the American tank in security and firepower. Sherman used a little later, on December 6 of the same year in Tunisia, their inexperience led to heavy losses, but the tank itself showed itself on the good side.
The joy of the military ceased on February 14 of the next year, when the new PzKpfw VI Tiger showed that Sherman was not able to resist them. On June 6, 1944, when the famous landing in Normandy began, the Americans once again faced the Tigers and Panthers, having lost 10 battles in 1348 months Sherman and another 600 tanks for other reasons.
Something like this in general, in short. And to you for the future, I would like to advise you when discussing an article about technology, not to get personal, etc. Do not try to insult or humiliate people completely unfamiliar to you, you will look as though smarter, otherwise you will be of no interest to anyone, we will stop our communication at this point.

[Avior]

look at the photo above.
Have you noticed that the part of the tank where the engine is located is much lower?
height could be determined by anything, but not by an engine.
the highest part of the hull is under the tower, where there was no engine

[Turist1996]

Your passage about "Soviet troops HAVE GOTTEN TO use diesel fuel" writes off you immediately to Israel, to Ukraine, to the USA .. But it definitely unties you from the USSR and Russia.

[Turist1996]

You are definitely not Russian.

[TTi]

According to the expert, one of the advantages of Western tanks over the early T-34s was the number of crews: 5 people versus 4 for Soviet tanks.

It depends on what to proceed from.
Based on the fact that, in fact, the T-34/76 was made as a turret self-propelled gun support for the motorized infantry (the so-called support tank), then there was a cant in this, but not much. Rather, a jamb.
If we proceed from how it was used all the way, then yes, there was a jamb with no commander in the tower. And a serious jamb.

At the same time, the T-34 had uncomfortable ergonomics and a cramped tower.

So after all, he was redone from the A-20 success development tank (first in the A-32, and only then in the T-34). And the A-20 had a 45 mm gun in the tower.

These guns successfully destroyed Pz tanks. III, Pz. IV

The 75 mm M3 could still do this. 76 mm F-34 did this with great difficulty.

The expert emphasizes the simplicity and low cost of production of the T-34. The USSR managed to build 84 thousand thirty-four, while America - only 49 thousand МХNUMX.

1. T-34/76 was a very expensive machine in literally all its components, except for the gun. T-34/85 has become expensive in everything.
2. The scale of BTT production does not mean that this BTT was cheap.
3. The cheapest and most effective BTT in this class was their contemporary Pz.KpfW.IV Ausf.H.

and could be mass produced in both countries. This circumstance played a significant role in the victory over the Third Reich.

This is the main secret of their goodness.

[datur]

our tankers said a good tank but not for war !!!

[Avior]

no, they didn’t say that.
this is a roaming distortion.
In fact, it was a question of the fact that in peacetime the very limited T-34 engine life did not allow the tank to operate normally - they quickly developed a resource quickly, and the Shermans for these purposes were much better, since they had a much larger resource

[datur]

. In turn, the T-34 had another problem: due to the peculiarities of the armor, fragments could form inside it after falling into the tank without breaking through.-Alas, this was the case for all tanks of that era !!!

[TTi]

Quote: datur

alas, it was with all tanks of that era !!!

No.
The Germans used heterogeneous armor.
Americans rubberized inside homogeneous.

[datur]

tanks with aglitskoy cannons (fireflies) - those were very dangerous for the Germans !!! and the rest of the American panzer, yes comfortable, but not ready for war with the Germans !!!!

[konstantin68]

It is even incorrect to compare the T-34 with the Sherman. The American loses in all major indicators: frontal and side projections, track width, height, engine, gun, armor.

[ruigat]

But both the T 34-85 and the M4 "Sherman" met in battle in the flames of the Korean War of 1950-53. And she finally delivered the verdict that the T 34 was the best !!

[Avior]

What, the North Koreans won?

[ruigat]

What, the North Koreans won?

In the 1 on 1 war (DPRK against the South Caucasus), of course, a clear advantage. In the coalition war (Social bloc on the Cap. Bloc) draw.

[Avior]

what is the capblock? there were UN troops ...

[ruigat]

The usual cap block is a bunch of servants of the Fed owners. UN troops with a label, funny. Maybe there were troops of the NDP and SFRY?

[Avior]

ordinary UN troops created by decision of the UN Security Council in accordance with the Charter to repel aggression.

UN Security Council Resolution No. 82 of June 25, 1950, meeting No. 473 of the UN Security Council, 9 votes in favor, one abstained, against zero.
Yugoslavia, by the way, at that time was a member of the UN Security Council, did not vote against.

[ruigat]

Yugoslavia, by the way, at that time was a member of the UN Security Council, did not vote against.

The troops then sent the SFRY to Korea, since they did not vote against? The owners of the Fed drove their jackals and pasted the UN label, staining this organization with blood.

[Avior]

ordinary UN troops created by decision of the UN Security Council in accordance with the Charter to repel aggression.

Russian-speaking like everything should be clear even on January 2

[TTi]

Quote: Avior

What, the North Koreans won?

And the guys don’t know!

[Dart]

Even the kid, purely visually evaluating both tanks, will say that the thirty-four looks better, more complete, proportional, optimized than the Amer freak.

[svp67]

Quote: Dart

Even the kid, purely visually assessing both tanks, will say that the thirty-four looks better, more complete, proportional, optimized than the Amer freak.

Unfortunately, you do not reach the level of your knowledge in this matter.

[Dart]

but I never wrote anywhere that I have fundamental knowledge of this subject. And what I wrote above, it was my child who told me, not me, when he was shown a photo of the Victory tank and the "miscarriage".

[svp67]

Quote: Dart

and I haven’t written anywhere that I have fundamental knowledge of this subject.

This is where we have to start, but this is STUPID, thus evaluating the combat vehicle.
Technically, the M4 is more sophisticated than our T-34, it was due to the higher manufacturing culture of the design and production of the Americans and there is no getting around it. Another thing is that ours, namely OUR T-34, will remain for us the tank that carried the entire war on its armor.

[svp67]

Quote: Dart

not me

Judging by your actions, the only thing that you know how to "minus" is not a rich level of argumentation, I hope at least you don't cry in the corner that someone is offending you here?

[Dart]

I haven’t been crying for a long time, and maybe I’m just upset at my grandfather’s mustache, if such miracles like you are trying to hurt me like a child.)))

[svp67]

Quote: Dart

maybe sad in grandfather's mustache

But you behave like a child ... Since at this age it is already necessary not only to look at the appearance, but also to see something in this appearance.

[poquello]

Quote: svp67

Technically, the M4 is more advanced than our T-34,

do not carry nonsense, a terribly tank was technically perfect, this (the robot will remove it here) could only withstand the Germans in Africa in quantity, and its powerful gun, as some here call it :(), was hastily replaced at 44m, because no

[svp67]

Quote: poquello

do not carry nonsense

Do you want to argue? Let's. You can take any structural element and compare it with both of these tanks and we will see there. Choose which one we will disassemble

Quote: poquello

stunning tank was technically perfect

Are you talking about the T-34? An interesting name "in a hurry", although it accurately describes its essence of creation, they really tried to make it quickly out of a light tank, without even making the obvious changes in the design.

Quote: poquello

and his powerful gun, as some here call it :(), was hastily replaced in 44m, because no

Well, what can you do if, already in 1943, the 76,2-mm T-34 gun could not fully cope with its duties, and it did not have a replacement, by 1944, they only made 85-mm guns ...

[poquello]

Quote: svp67

You can take any structural element

trucks, turn, gun, height.
"in a hurry" is specifically about the Sherman, because it was made in a hurry for Britain, and they changed his shitty gun in 44m for no, sample 18 of a year.
The T34-85 was already in service on the 44th in January, and the 76th cannon of the 1940 model was quite self-sufficient, but it was rather weak against tigers with panthers.

[svp67]

Quote: poquello

trucks

Excellent .... Tracked track. Let's compare.
That's how we used to see the T-34

But it all started at the T-34 like this ....

And to improve the cross-country ability it was required to Tighten such "sandals" to the tracks

The first M4 had non-ice track links, but this was quickly eliminated.
And now about technology - the service life of the M4 trucks is 5000 km, and the T-34 has 3000 km, but the caterpillar withstood only 1,5 km.
And most importantly. The engagement of the T-34 was COMBINED, which was transferred from BT tanks,

but the M4 has a CHAIN, more reliable.

[poquello]

Quote: svp67

Excellent .... Tracked track. Let's compare.

let's, let's compare the width

[svp67]

Quote: poquello

let's, let's compare the width

The width of the track is not a sign of perfection or not perfect design, the main criterion is the ability of the machine to move around the area and at high speed.

[poquello]

Quote: svp67

Quote: poquello

let's, let's compare the width

The width of the track is not a sign of perfection or not perfect design, the main criterion is the ability of the machine to move around the area and at high speed.

is your physics bad? The width of the truck is the pressure on the ground, respectively, patency. Sherman’s cross-country speed is more than 20% lower than 34’s, if they’re talking about speed.

[svp67]

Quote: poquello

is your physics bad? The width of the truck is the pressure on the ground, respectively, patency.

Yes it is, the specific pressure on the ground, but the large width affects the speed negatively, since it requires great effort.
You hope you are familiar with the results of comparative tests of the T-34, BT-7M and T-3 for speed. If not, here they are:

“On a measured kilometer of gravel highway on the Kubinka-Repishe-Krutitsy stretch, a German tank showed a maximum speed of 69,7 km / h, the best value for the T-34 was 48,2 km / h, for the BT-7 - 68,1 km / hours
At the same time, the testers preferred the German tank because of the better ride, visibility, and convenient crew workplaces. ”

I think you should not compare the width of the tracks and engine power here, according to these indicators, the T-34 is ahead of everyone

Quote: poquello

Sherman’s cross-country speed is more than 20% lower than 34’s, if they’re talking about speed.

??????? This is what a magpie on the tail brought you. The average speed of movement over rough terrain is the same for all tanks, up to 40 km per hour, more difficult to hold. And so it is generally within the range of 20-25 km per hour. But in terms of driving comfort, on the same rough terrain, the Sherman is better, since the Christy T-34's suspension was very "soft" and did not have shock absorbers to damp vibrations, as a result, the tank swayed strongly, this also applies to the convenience of shooting on the move and transporting troops on armor, the Sherman was even more stable and better here.

[another RUSICH]

You got a lot of things mixed up here. It’s just the opposite. The t34 suspension was stiff. And had five points of support on the side. Sherman had three trolleys of 2 rinks each, totaling 6 points.
He was softer on the go.
And about shooting from the move, so this is generally nonsense. Not a single tank of that time had the possibility of an aimed battle on the move. A stop was always needed before an accurate shot.

[svp67]

Quote: another RUSICH

The t34 suspension was stiff. And had five points of support on the side. Sherman had three trolleys of 2 rinks each, totaling 6 points.

If the T-34 had a stiffer suspension, it wouldn’t swing like that on the move, when overcoming obstacles and firing on the move.

Quote: another RUSICH

And about shooting from the move, so this is generally nonsense. Not a single tank of that time had the possibility of an aimed battle on the move.

But this did not stop them from shooting on the move. There are all kinds of situations in the battle, but not a single tank had an account, you were already in vain at the Americans’s time, on the same Sherman they worked out the vertical convoy, the Germans did the same, and work was still underway on the T-26, when trying to stabilize the sight vertically

Quote: another RUSICH

He was softer on the go.

Not softer, but more stable, it did not swing

[another RUSICH]

Shooting straight into the white light like a pretty penny is not a tricky business. Vertical stabilizers at that time did not save the situation. Any targeted shooting was carried out from a place. And shooting on the move had a purely psychological impact, like the Howlers at the Junkers, but no practical use.

[TTi]

Quote: another RUSICH

Vertical stabilizers at that time did not save the situation.

We acted in a complex, correcting the situation.

Quote: another RUSICH

Any targeted shooting was carried out from a place. And shooting on the move had a purely psychological impact,

No.
Real tanks (that of the tower, that of the felling) should have been able to destroy their main enemy, anti-tank artillery calculations, firing descent.
This has ALWAYS been respected by the Germans.
This was observed in the USSR IN PEACE TIME.
At first (until 1944) this was observed by the Americans. But these were in a hopeless situation.
This was respected by the British, except for a short break.

[another RUSICH]

Nonsense. This has never happened before)
Tanks didn’t fire aiming immediately, it became possible ONLY after WWII

[TTi]

Quote: another RUSICH

Tanks didn’t fire aiming immediately, it became possible ONLY after WWII

The German (Pz.IV and higher) artillery from the VET always fired immediately. Because this is one of the hallmarks of tanks, only they (and another self-propelled guns, but they usually shoot from afar) can do this effectively. Because tanks are armed with tank guns.
Shermans (75) were also quite effective in this. Shermans (76) no, despite the stabilizers.
British tanks armed with an OQF 75 mm and an OQF 77 mm HV could. Tank guns.
Soviet during the war could not. The performance characteristics of their guns did not meet the requirements for performance characteristics of tank guns.

[another RUSICH]

Sir, you really don't understand what shooting from a tank is on the move and how many factors affect the result of a shot:
longitudinal vibrations, lateral vibrations, yaw, vertical displacement relative to itself, pitching during firing, etc., etc. This is a difficult technical task! And you pour me a crap here, that, they say, foreign tanks had the ability to aim fire from the move!
Give me evidence of such shooting

[TTi]

Quote: another RUSICH

And you pour me a crap here, that, they say, foreign tanks had the ability to aim fire from the move!

Well, that's who you have to talk to, eh?
OFS has a certain defeat area (everyone has a different area), it is not necessary to get into each soldier of artillery calculation.
At the same time, depending on the type of platform, the gun barrel performs certain vibrations. The use of stabilizers of those years smoothed out these fluctuations, but did not remove them at all.
The amplitude of the barrel’s vibrations during BTT movement determined how powerful the OFS must be for effective gathering fire (so that the fragments hit the artillery calculation).
The most powerful OFS required was the T-34, with its swing-type suspension. Peacetime projectiles (they ended in the summer of 1941) T-34s could effectively shoot outright. Wartime shells could not.
Much less power was required for the OFS BTT with a "stupid chess suspension" (this is a common and incorrect opinion of the Runet about the Panther and Tiger pendants). About 3/4 of the required T-34.
Therefore, the German BTT (including Pz.IV) immediately and effectively could hit the Soviet anti-tank missile (transported anti-tank guns). But the Soviet BTT German VET, no, could not. It needed a short (relatively short, of course) stop. And this is an additional loss of armored personnel carriers and crews.
Fershteyn?

[another RUSICH]

Ah ... well of course! OFS!
With a shotgun, you can’t get hit with balloons! So t34 could get somewhere!
No, my friend, aimed shooting does not imply a shot "somewhere there", perhaps on a ball, not with shrapnel, so it will sprinkle with earth!
German cannons on tigers were famous for the fact that from a mile and a half they got where they needed to, but that's just not the move, but from the spot. What am I talking about

[TTi]

Quote: another RUSICH

German cannons on tigers were famous for the fact that from a mile and a half they got where they needed to, but that's just not the move, but from the spot. What am I talking about

Ugh, they'll play enough dancing on the Internet, and then "interpret".
Read what I wrote to you as many times as needed to understand how the target will hit the fragments of the OFS.

[poquello]

Quote: svp67

And so it is generally within 20-25 km per hour.

here, the Sherman did not reach 20km / h, and the t34 - 25km / h, it’s funny about the landing on the Sherman

[svp67]

Quote: poquello

here, the Sherman did not reach 20km / h, and the t34 - 25km / h, it’s funny about the landing on the Sherman

It is strange that such pictures fall under the category of "funny"

Quote: poquello

here, the Sherman did not reach 20km / h, and the t34 - 25km / h

How do you like that?

“The dynamics of the tank.
In difficult road conditions, when switching from 2nd to 3rd gear, the tank loses inertia so much during the shift that it leads to a stop or prolonged slipping of the main clutch. This circumstance makes it difficult to use 3rd gear in road conditions that completely allow its use.
In the conditions of rainy autumn, spring and snowy winter, this lack of tank leads to a sharp decrease in speeds along country roads and off-road ...
The sharp difference in pure and technical speeds is the result of frequent breakdowns of the main clutch and track (kinks of tracks, exit of fingers, etc.).
Conclusions.
Due to the fact that the 3rd gear, which is most necessary in conditions of military operation, cannot be fully used, the dynamics of the tank as a whole should be considered unsatisfactory.
Technical speeds are low due to the unreliability of the main clutch and chassis.
Patency.
Output.
T-34 tank patency in autumn is unsatisfactory the following reasons;
The track surface, which is in mesh with the ground, is not sufficiently developed, which results in slipping of tracks on elevations even with a slight wet cover. The effectiveness of the included spurs is negligible.
Track locking in the support wheels is unreliable ...
A small number of support wheels adversely affects patency in wetlands, despite a small total specific pressure.
Forcing the T-34 tank with water barriers should be considered quite satisfactory ”[21].
The unreliability of the transmission and chassis entailed not only a low technical speed, but also a small amount of daily transition.
“The maximum daily passage on the highway obtained in the run = 255 km; on dirt roads 225 km.
These values ​​are limiting, because in most cases, failures of the hardware significantly reduced transitions.
Output.
The magnitude of the daily transition is limited by failures in the work of the materiel, g. tracks and main clutch.

This is from the report on military tests, even when the tank was massively in the army .... This applies to all those who are now advocating the immediate release of the T-14.
Yes, and the problems of shifting gears from 2 to 3 could not be eliminated .... Often our grandfathers went into battle, still at the initial cutting the 2nd and moved without shifting.
Look at the problems of the T-34 mech-water, at least from the fragments of this video, and this is the T-34 \ 85 post-war release and a mechanic from experienced, from the mechanical test drivers of the plant. With the M4 Sherman, there were no such problems

[poquello]

Quote: svp67

It is strange that such pictures fall under the category of "funny"

they still fall into the category "don't breathe on a masterpiece"

[svp67]

Quote: poquello

turn

Yes, Sherman had problems with this, well, there are spots on the Sun

Quote: poquello

a gun,

Sherman’s cannon and especially shells were quite normal, in any case, their placement was more successful than on our T-34 \ 76, where the tank commander was actually a jack of all trades and did not have enough time to fulfill his functions

Quote: poquello

height.

Yes, the height of the M4 was great,

[poquello]

Quote: Dart

but I never wrote anywhere that I have fundamental knowledge of this subject. And what I wrote above, it was my child who told me, not me, when he was shown a photo of the Victory tank and the "miscarriage".

correctly your child said the target height and the angle of the armor always play a role

[Comrade Kim]

Quote: Bearded

Sherman vs. T-34 - nothing. Guano. Americans even now do not know how to make tanks.

In the memoir came across a murderous description of Sherman: "comfortable guvno"

[svp67]

Quote: Comrade Kim

In the memoir came across a murderous description of Sherman: "comfortable guvno"

In the memoirs of WHO? Source can be in the studio

[Dart]

Quote: svp67

But behave like a child.

do not blame, as you like to say, arguments))) yes, hang on.
And yes, I do not like to behave in a gradual manner, not in my character and in the nature of my activity.

[shurik]

Quote: Mih1974

Yes, even in the article, pay attention to the dirty twitching - "it doesn't matter for us that he doesn't hold anything, but the Russians chipped off pieces of armor and hit the crew without breaking through" !! That is, the fact that the armor 34 was not pierced is very much "not important" because someone MAY be injured by shrapnel (scale seems to be) while their tanks burned like matches, but "we are no worse than a Russian tank."

And put commas weakly ???

[Tank jacket]

In fact, 4 out of 5 tanks during WWII were rebuilt. Therefore, mathematicians win the war. Hi Gref. Maintainability is an important indicator. Tagil T-34s have naturally alloyed, viscous armor, therefore they were valued higher.

[cockroaches]

Quote from TTi

Quote: Proton

mattresses for our victory decided to cling

On what front did you yourself serve?

At the first Kremlin boat !!!

[cockroaches]

Quote: Comrade Kim

Quote: Bearded

Sherman vs. T-34 - nothing. Guano. Americans even now do not know how to make tanks.

In the memoir came across a murderous description of Sherman: "comfortable guvno"

Like you

[Mih1974]

Quote from TTi

The frontal armor of Pz.III was only slightly inferior to the frontal armor of the KV-1. And it was noticeably thicker (in given values) of the T-34 frontal armor.

You decided to laugh very strongly now

This is PySy-3 in the war of 39 in Poland, well, where is the armor and especially the comparable gun? Well, confuse go with later modifications.

[Darcs]

The upper armor plate of the third panzer has increased current on G, and the average one essentially has not changed, and the lower armor plate seems to have increased

[Larum]

Ah, National Interest., The provocateurs of Pushkov, get on again.
Sherman - even in appearance - a legacy of the 30s, although the tank was relatively good, tankers recall.

[bone1]

Typical American dibil expert opinion - "The expert especially notes the simplicity and cheapness of the production of the T-34. The USSR managed to build 84 thousand thirty-four, while America - only 49 thousand M4" - as much as America needed tanks, so many were built (it did not hurt them and they needed unlike the USSR) - why is the simplicity and cheapness of the T-34? - the cheapness is not determined by the number of cars produced, otherwise the Panther would be clearly cheaper than the T-1 ; "The T-34 proved to be excellent in the difficult conditions of the Eastern Front thanks to its suspension and wide tracks" -the literate would say "thanks to the low specific pressure" -and that the Shermans showed themselves badly on the Eastern Front? -And what are the especially difficult conditions of the Eastern Front ?; "because of the peculiarity of the armor, fragments could form inside it after hitting the tank without breaking through" - and what about the features of the armor ?; "The Soviet tank could often break down, while the American one gained a reputation as a very reliable machine" - he decided on hearsay - or is there data?

[Alexander not great]

I don’t understand the drama and polemics, the T-34 is an excellent mass tank, with its pluses and minuses, the Sherman tankers were happy, it is a fact, it is enough to read the memoirs of the tankers themselves and not the propaganda. As for me, in terms of combat qualities, they are plus or minus equivalent, well, except that the culture of American production was certainly higher for understandable reasons.

[wax]

Immediately after the victory, no one questioned the conclusion that the T-34 is the best tank of the 2nd World War.

[alsfed]

Sherman tank of the 30s, and t - 34 is a new generation. But the quality of materials, the assembly of the Americans is up to standard. If only because their factories urgently, in a short time did not transport to the other end of the country in a clean field. And the enterprises employed qualified personnel, not children and the elderly.

[TTi]

Quote: alsfed

and t - 34 is a new generation.

The new generation is Soviet, it is most often something old western.
The same T-34, it’s not even old, but a slightly shamanized ancient Christie tank.

[Panting]

Between the Christie tractor and the T-34, there is a very, very big difference, not a little puddle,. Something like between the plane of the Wright brothers and Po-2 or I-153, something like that.

[TTi]

Quote: Fervor

Between the Christie tractor and the T-34, there is a very, very big difference, not a little puddle,.

No.
A slightly different gun.
A slightly different engine.
A slightly (very slightly) different form of hull, including a tower.
But the essence is the same, Christie's tractor.

[Alf]

Quote from TTi

Quote: Fervor

Between the Christie tractor and the T-34, there is a very, very big difference, not a little puddle,.

No.
A slightly different gun.
A slightly different engine.
A slightly (very slightly) different form of hull, including a tower.
But the essence is the same, Christie's tractor.

Then the 600th Merin is the same VAZ-2101.
A slightly different engine.
A slightly different suspension.
A slightly different interior.

[TTi]

Quote: Alf

Then the 600th Merin is the same VAZ-2101.

Platform (the basic element of BTT) Christie and T-34, it is almost the same.

[Alf]

Quote from TTi

Quote: Alf

Then the 600th Merin is the same VAZ-2101.

Platform (the basic element of BTT) Christie and T-34, it is almost the same.

The platform is the same — 4 wheels and rear-wheel drive both there and there.

[TTi]

Quote: Alf

The platform is the same — 4 wheels and rear-wheel drive both there and there.

The platform is not the number of wheels.

[Mordvin 3]

Quote: Alf

The platform is the same — 4 wheels and rear-wheel drive both there and there.

Wo, Carbine betrays! As our officials on the government procurement website called the Lexus a self-propelled stroller without a mare, with leather seats, four wheels, a stereo system, and cost from 1 to one and a half million. Excuse me, please, I was drunk at night.

[Panting]

I would like to note that the T-34 is somewhat older than the Sherman, since before "Sherman" there were still called "General Grant", "General Lee", "Stewart", etc.

[Panting]

I would like to note that the T-34 is somewhat older than the Sherman, since before "Sherman" there were still called "General Grant", "General Lee", "Stewart", etc.

[Alf]

Quote: alsfed

Sherman tank of the 30s, and t - 34 is a new generation.

You turned everything upside down. The T-34 went into production in 1940, when no one in the states had ever thought about Sherman.

[Panting]

Yes, the T-34 was an excellent tank, but, among those discussing, few were inside the T-34-76, arr. 1940, 1941, 1943, even fewer people drove this car, at least once, on a training ground in dry weather, without front wings, I would try to shift gears, close the driver’s hatch and drive 900-1000 meters, would look into the scope guns, in surveillance devices, would look into the power department and then ...

[Decimam]

I didn't have a chance to drive the T-34, but I tried the SU-100, and the T-44 too. "Sherman" did not drive, but in Saumur looked from the inside. The feat of Soviet tankers cannot be overestimated.

[Decimam]

It would be interesting to see the organism that put a minus under this comment. For the first time, the site administration should think about designating minuscule ones with at least some arguments. The country must see its wretched.

[Mytholog]

As usual in such articles, juggling facts is for the sake of an explosion of patriotism. Note, this is the case in any country - and here too.
They always forget one thing: a tank is a tool. T-34 - more widespread and more effective. Unsightly and less convenient? Oh, come on.

[tank64rus]

Wow, so many things have been said. The T-34 was superior to German tanks in 1941-42. Therefore, by 1943, the Germans adopted the “Panther” and “Tiger” into service; if it were not for the superiority of the T-34 and KV-1, this would not have happened. The American, where he cringes in the article, is when he talks about reliability and the fact that the T-34 often broke down, but this is true, only for 1941 this is the novelty of production and improper operation and 1942, the year of evacuation illness and the deployment of mass production in 1943, the T-34 was a reliable machine, by this time hundreds of improvements had been introduced into production technology, and the T-34 -85 posed a serious threat to both the Panther and the Tiger, by the way, the kinetic energy of the armor-piercing projectile of the T-34-85 and Panther guns are equal, and the maneuverability of the T-34 and speed were maintained.

[TTi]

Quote: tank64rus

The T-34 was superior to German tanks in 1941-42

Yeah. Approximately how the lorry was superior to the Opel Blitz.

Quote: tank64rus

Therefore, by 1943, the Germans adopted the “Panther” and “Tiger” into service; if it were not for the superiority of the T-34 and KV-1, this would not have happened.

They adopted this BTT because of the planned rearmament of their aircraft. They began to be developed even before the invasion of the USSR.

Quote: tank64rus

in 1943 the T-34 was a reliable machine

He was never reliable. Never at all.

Quote: tank64rus

and the T-34 -85 posed a serious threat to both the Panther and the Tiger

Yes? Why's that?

Quote: tank64rus

By the way, the kinetic energy of the armor-piercing projectile of the T-34-85 gun and the Panther are equal

The barrel energy of the Panther's BBS is approximately 34% greater than that of the T-7.
But it is not important. Because the armor penetration of the Panther's BBS is approximately 135-136% of the level of the T-34/85 BBS.

Quote: tank64rus

and the T-34’s maneuverability and speed were preserved.

The maneuverability and speed of the BT-7 is even better than that of the T-34. Do you suggest returning to BT-7?

In general, you are in vain comparing the T-34/85 with the Panther. These are BTTs of different classes, the Panther is a class higher. In the USSR, armored vehicles of this class were not produced. Failed.
Classmate T-34/85 is a Pz.IV. So compare them. This will be a fair comparison.

[Vadim Feoktistov]

There is a book “Tankman on a Foreign Car” by Loza D.F. Memoirs of a tankman who fought on a Sherman. If you are interested, read it and you will understand that comparing a Sherman and a T-34 is like comparing a Mercedes with a Volga. After this book, I would like to say a big thank you to the Americans for their help in pabeda. Eternal memory to the heroes!

[tinkle]

I haven’t read everything, but I think it’s stupid to compare performance characteristics, the main thing is who can realize the advantages of technology better, who has more experience, is the one who wins.

[migeos]

AK vs M16

[Viknt]

Chatting with trolls is a waste of time, yours and others'.
It is known that two diggers working together do twice as much as they do separately. Synergy's. Several years ago, one of the pilots said that two old planes could handle one new one. Panther and Sherman were created based on the characteristics of the T-34 and at the same time have a bunch of their own shortcomings. According to statistics, on average the T-34 was restored 4 times. That. the given quantity is 5 times the production volume. South Americans once bought machine tools from the USSR. The Americans asked why? It turned out that for their workers they are just that. There is such a thing as FSA. The T-34 is the best tank not because it has everything better than anyone else. It is the best in terms of all its characteristics. The USSR was able to create a tank that protected it from the fascist invasion and prevented the invasion of the liberal-shit democracy, in contrast to the best Satan in the world in terms of characteristics.

[Avior]

Have you been interested in the T-34 resource?
Why did it have to be restored 4 times during the period that Sherman nursed without restoration?

[Viknt]

Contact the person who downvoted you. Or ask why theoretically “eternal” LED lamps have a 1-3 year warranty; now cars have a longer warranty. For example, the problem with clutches was solved by order, for the burning execution. The fingers on the tracks were torn - both the fingers and the tracks were replaced. Etc. It doesn’t take much intelligence to be smart after 70 years while lying on the couch. You won’t believe Comrade Stalin’s planes were even made of plywood and even rags, a nightmare!

[Avior]

This is demagoguery, I don’t want to offend you.
Sherman's real resource was much higher, this is confirmed by many sources.
and the minuses here were given to me simply because I wrote about the memoirs of Loza, the GSS, who fought on the Sherman.

[Viknt]

And I had no intention of offending you. But! I didn’t even think about the resource of the T-34. You are talking about Thomas, and you are all about Yerema. Scroll through the site, find a fresh American comparison of the T 34 with the Sherman. True, I am sure that you will remain unconvinced. Re-read the comments on this page, maybe it will help. The Chinese put their copies of our engines on their copies of our aircraft, with a service life of only 100-300 hours. Why did it happen?
As for Loza’s opinion, there is nothing criminal in it, the military are like children, ours lick their lips at imported ones, and in the USA they are building factories for the production of Kalashnikovs and other things. There is no need to take everything to absolutes and bring it to the point of absurdity. There are ginger cats, but not all cats are ginger. Deng Xiao Ping believed that what matters is how a cat catches mice. Shermans are better in some ways, but few and expensive, and..., T-34....

[Avior]

Sherman is a cheap tank, and Loza is a WWII veteran.
His opinion is much more significant than “fresh comparisons”, I don’t know what you’re talking about.
Sherman's resource was much higher.

[tinkle]

fucking horror... but my grandfather, who fought in the Matilda, BT, T-34, was more taciturn than you, armchair amateurs. Happy New Year, shame on you!

[Catfish]

Only a non-Russian and not a horseman can siravinivat an ischak with a risak. Allah is Akbar, but Tiridsyatychitverka is also Vilyk!!!

[Avior]

New Year celebrations continued on the night of 31st to 2nd

[lucul]

Quote from TTi

Such shells in the USSR were made only in peacetime. In 1941, they quickly ended. Therefore, during the war they were not there.
The Soviet OF-350 peacetime contained 621 grams of deficient pure TNT. It was a very, very expensive ammunition made in USSR.
The OF-350A wartime contained approximately 95 g of TNT + surrogates. What can you expect from such a dope?

Yes, the T-34 had 621g in a land mine, the Sherman had 660g, the Pz4 had 680g in TNT equivalent - this is all data for 1941. Plus, the T34-76 had shells with shrapnel - Sh-354T.
Where did you get the idea that the OF-350A was used throughout the war?? )) The OF-350M was also enough.

[Catfish]

Quote: Avior

New Year celebrations continued on the night of 31st to 2nd

“A long shot,” but I don’t go back on my words. Happy New Year, Sergey!

[another RUSICH]

Quote: Albert1988

You carefully read what I’m writing - when the Americans carefully analyzed all the jambs that are in Sherman’s design, then, having thoroughly scratched their turnips, they sat down and began to make the very brand new car.

Just like ours, having thoroughly worked out the design of the t34, they created the t44, and then moved to t54-55, and after k64 and 72