Military Review

Stories about weapons. M18 Hellcat

121
History world tank building, and indeed military equipment, is replete with many amazing events. Events that, logically, should not have happened, but for some reason the story made it so that these events occurred and even became somewhat crucial.


The machine, which is originally made as an auxiliary and does not invest any revolutionary decisions in it, suddenly becomes the favorite car of soldiers. Conversely, truly outstanding constructions, which at the time of creation were a real breakthrough, disappeared as unnecessary at a specific time, and then turned into a base for completely new objects.

There are several cars in our store that were not supplied to us under Lend-Lease, but were loved in those countries where they were used during the Second World War. To miss the opportunity to touch, pull, climb under the bottom, we could not. Well, and, moreover, could not tell about these machines.



In short, the cycle about self-propelled guns is a logical continuation of our series about foreign vehicles from the Second World War, which our tankmen and gunners did not get to know for various reasons. And the first machine will be the M18 "Hell Cat", which successfully hunted the enemy Tanks and other armored vehicles. So, the 76-mm Gun Motor Carriage M18, Hellcat.

"Hellcat", according to most experts, was one of the best tank destroyers of the Second World War. A low silhouette, high power density, high mobility, a rational form of booking, high reliability and a well-made suspension made it possible to gain victories over the enemy with relatively small losses of his own.



Simply put, the car was so balanced that, probably, there was no crew who did not cherish their “cat” as well as a pet, after whom the car was named. Almost every ACS had its own name and even its own “coat of arms”. The machine responded to love with love. In a figurative sense of the word.


This, for example, the emblem on "our" copy. "Double problems" that should not scare the real fighters. And even more so, the crew of the Hell Cat will not be frightened by some hot girls and cold whiskey.

But back to the self-propelled gun.

The history of the creation of the machine is so interesting that it is impossible not to tell. To begin with, the American paratroopers and marines are to blame for the appearance of this ACS! Yes, even though it sounds amazing.

We often argue that the USSR and Stalin personally in every way delayed the war with Germany. We are trying to explain the Stalinist mistakes, unpreparedness for war, the loss of the first months. I bet hoarse. We tear vest on the chest.

But let's see across the ocean. The Americans did not want to fight against fascism in Europe so much that they didn’t even declare war on Hitler! But that would have to fight, in Washington understood. There was only one question: on whose side. To have time to divide trophies. The answer was given by Hitler himself. It was he who declared the US war.

The US military demanded to re-equip the army to wage war away from their country. The ocean has been and is still quite a good defense of the continental States. That is why the task was set in the first place to rearm the mobile units. Marines and airborne units.

In conditions when landing should not be made on islands where the use of land armored vehicles is limited, but on the continent, the question arose about the possibility of countering marines and paratroopers to armored vehicles, primarily enemy tanks. And even better, if the mobile parts get a good own tank!

In 1941, a competition was announced for the creation of a tank for paratroopers. A tank that would combine the possibilities of transferring not only ships, but also airplanes. And at the same time he was able to fight with enemy tanks. The projects of the tank were presented by three companies - GMC, Marmon-Herrington and Kristi.

Oddly enough it sounds, but the contest was won by an unknown, having released only two models of the tank (CTLS and CTLB), by the way, both failures, Marmon-Herrington. By the end of September, the T9 tank project was ready, and the start of serial production was expected.

And then something happened that turned the whole project in a completely unpredictable direction. The engineers and designers of Marmon-Herrington, who were developing the new tank, suggested creating an ACS at the same base. To support tanks. Only here it was proposed to equip the ACS with the same chassis, approximately the same tower and the same instrument! Looks crazy, but it's a fact.

However, this nonsense still had its continuation. Lungs SAU in the United States was not. The army was simply forced to consider this project as promising. The only thing that the military department succeeded in was to remove the requirement for ACS as an airborne assault. This meant that it was possible to increase the weight of the car and even change the suspension.

The new machine received an index T42.



The ACS was put on the Christie suspension, but they armed themselves with the same 37-mm gun. The project was ready by January 1942. Prototyping was supposed to be done not in Marmon-Herrington, where they could not start production of Т9, but in GMC. And again, a higher power intervened.

This time the role of higher powers was played by the British. Based on the experience of the war, the British questioned the effectiveness of the 37-mm cannon even for a light tank. As for the ACS with such a tool, then the British officers simply laughed in the face of American designers.

We must pay tribute to the reaction of the US military. Already 1 April designers received new requirements for the tank. The gun should be a caliber no longer 37-mm, and 57-mm. Machine speed must be at least 80 km / h. Reservations tower, forehead and side of approximately 22 mm. Crew 5 man.

The project is again a new car was ready ... for 19 April! They called the tank T49. Prototype production began almost immediately. The first cars were ready in July 1942. Strangely enough, with such a rush, when literally everything had to be “crammed and squeezed,” tests showed that, in general, the car was good. The only downside is speed. Instead of 80 km / h, the machine was able to squeeze only 61. Needed a new engine. Although in general, the result was not bad, and everyone seemed to be satisfied.

But the project was also monitored by anti-tankists! Tank fighter administration of the US Army as well as tank crews did not satisfy the speed of the machine. In addition, for SAU demanded another increase in the caliber of the gun. Now to 75-mm! That is, to put the one that was installed on the "Sherman", inherited from the "Lee".

Well, purely artillery whim - to remove the roof of the tower, so that the crew simply did not suffocate. Decently saving on exhaust fans. But I still had to splurge on a machine gun for melee combat, which was relevant specifically for the self-propelled guns of tank destroyers. The front has a front. The infantry is always near, including the enemy infantry.

And again providence intervened. And again, the American designers did not bother too much about the problem. Just put a tower on T49 ... from T35 (future ACS M10), which was already ready at that time. A frontal machine gun M2 transferred to the tower. This made it possible to increase the frontal armor to 25 mm.

The finished prototype of the new ACS under the symbol Т67 in October 1942 was sent for testing. And, lo and behold ... The car was driven to the required 80 km / h! Everything! Result achieved! And no ...

"Sherman" began to equip another gun! Now the tank was 76,2-mm gun M1A1. And tank destroyers demanded the same for their own vehicles. Moreover, the gun turned out well, a miracle, how good!

In addition, the gunners ceased to organize the suspension of Christie. By this time, it was outdated to such an extent that some designers said that such an ACS would, by its appearance on the battlefield, kill the enemy tank crews ... But not with the power of the guns, but with the appearance.

Appeared claims to the tower. The first was from the gunners. Fast car involves a fairly long autonomous battle. And for this you need ammunition. The tower simply did not have a place to accommodate the necessary number of shells. And the second, technological. The tower is too complicated to manufacture.

In short, again, the car went not to the assembly shop, but to the tables and the kulmanam of designers. And again, the designers showed the wonders of professionalism. The new machine under the index SAU T70 was ready in April 1943 of the year!

And again providence! The order for the production of 1000 ACS T70 transferred to the "Buick" even before the adoption of the machine for service! And this is in the USA. At the end of 1943, SAUs were already tested in Italy. And (rightly) the car received excellent reviews. Only after this, the T70 ACS in March 1944 of the year (released around 200 machines) was adopted under the designation М18.

And now let's feel the car with our hands. She is worth it. No wonder we so often mentioned the intervention of the providence in its creation.

So, the 76-mm self-propelled gun M18 Hellcat (76 mm Gun Motor Carriage M18, Hellcat) is made as follows. Office of management, transmission and drive wheels - in front of the case. Fighting compartment - in the middle. Power compartment at the back.



The tower is installed in the middle of the hull. The rotation is circular. Armament 76,2-mm gun M1A1 and 12,7-mm anti-aircraft gun. The elevation angle for the implement is + 20, and the declination angle is 9 degrees. Gun without muzzle brake. The initial speed of the armor-piercing projectile 686 m / s. For sifting projectile speed 1035 m / s. The rate of fire 4 shot per minute.









The tower, seriously, is not cramped just for the calculation of the four dwarfs. The real brave boars there do not feel very. But we must not just sit and do business.





The driver has a separate place.







In general, on every square inch there is something to cling to or about to crack your head.




Here was stored ammunition to the machine gun. You want to live - pull out.





Surprisingly for the American car, but to call the "Hell Cat" comfortable for the crew, the language does not turn. Very crowded, very little space for everything. And the crew usually placed their own belongings on the armor, so that the self-propelled gun was still in sight.



An interesting solution was found to repair the machine. In front and behind the car you can see special hatches. It is clear that these hatches are designed to facilitate access to the power plant or to the transmission. But not with Hellcat!

The fact is that both the engine and the transmission were not mounted directly on the body, but on special runners. For repair, it was enough to open the door on the stern and roll out the Wright Continental R-975 engine to the caring hands of mechanics and mechanics. For the repair of elements of powertrain units, a frontal hatch was opened and all elements were put forward in the same way!

Stories about weapons. M18 Hellcat


Many are skeptical about booking this ACS and an open tower. Yes, the armor was light. But the location of armor plates at an angle significantly increases the protection. Shells often enough just ricocheting off armor without causing significant damage.

The open tower, in the absence of protection from shrapnel and bullets from above, gave the commander of the vehicle, the gunner (gunner), the radio operator, and the recharger with a fine view of the battlefield. So here the question is difficult. Plus a 4 shot per minute is a lot. It can absolutely so calmly suffocate in the powder gases.

As you will see the car today personally, at the end of the material a little bit about the tactics of the use of "Hell Cats." Americans call this tactic hit and run. In our translation, this is a bounce, rebound or withdrawal. Machines, with all the virtues, could not be at the forefront for a long time. In short, PT-ACS should be used only for its intended purpose and only for a limited period of time.

So, "Cats" during the tank attack jumped forward and began shelling bulky tanks. Speed ​​and swiveled turret ensured their efficiency. When the enemy came to his senses from such arrogance and was ready to fight back, "Koty" was already calmly dumped under the cover of tanks, good, the speed completely allowed it.

Today it looks fantastic, but such attacks were quite effective. For example, here’s a report from the German tank division, which had to face the hit and run tactics of the Kotov. The division was equipped, among other things, with "Tigers" and "Panthers", which the 76-mm gun simply did not take.

“The 76-mm M18 caliber gun does not fully reveal its capabilities. Only in August 1944, the 630 th American battalion of tank destroyers, destroyed the 53 heavy tank, the 15 jet guns, losing 17 units of equipment.

Despite the relatively short period of participation in hostilities, the machines tried to modify. Three modifications did not become new "Hellish" pets, but still worth mentioning them.

Txnumx. 88-mm self-propelled howitzer. On the chassis M105 PBX decided to put 18-mm howitzer Т105. In essence, given the experience of the designers, the machine would have been completely accomplished. But in August 12, the war ended and the need for such SPGs disappeared. The project stopped.

Т41 (М39). Armored tractor (T41), or BRDM or BTR (T41Е1). The machines are completely identical to the “Cats”, but without a tower. Armament (12,7-mm machine gun) was installed in front of the hull. The tractor was designed to transport 76-mm guns PTM M6. Adopted at the beginning of 1945 of the year, but was released in a limited edition.

T86, T86EX1. Floating 76-mm ACS. Т86 sailed due to the work of the tracks. On the second version set propellers. Armament type M18.

Txnumx. 87-mm floating howitzer (as Т105). It floated like a T88, but had a shortened hull and special modified tracks of caterpillars. Showed good nautical qualities, but due to the cessation of hostilities, the project froze.

Well, the traditional tactical and technical characteristics of ACS M18 "Hell Cat":



Combat weight: 17 t
Dimensions:
- length: 5300 mm
- width: 2800 mm
- height: mm 2100

Crew: 5 people
Armament:
- 76,2-mm gun M1А1, b / c 43 projectile;
- 12,7-mm machine gun, 1000 ammo

Booking:
- body front: 51 mm
- tower forehead: 51 mm

Engine type carburetor "Continental", type R 975
Maximum power: HP 400
Maximum speed: 72 km / h
Power reserve: 360 km

And at the end there is a small, but interesting story from the UMMC Museum employee Nikita Krutakov, a great real connoisseur of military equipment.

Author:
121 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Krasnodar
    Krasnodar 8 March 2019 06: 00
    +20
    But they had to understand that they would have to fight. The question was only one thing: on whose side. To have time to share the trophies. Hitler himself gave the answer. It was he who declared war on the United States

    About self-propelled guns is very interesting and well written. About States - nonsense. Even before Pearl Harbor, they knew that war would soon be with Japan, and Germany was an ally of Hirohito, while the WB that was at war with Hitler was an Ally of the States, and the Germans managed to sink the Amer ship before Roosevelt declared war.
    1. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine 8 March 2019 12: 58
      +7
      Quote: Krasnodar
      Hitler himself gave the answer. It was he who declared war on the United States

      In fact, in December 41, Roosevelt long ago declared the United States to be an "arsenal of democracy" and chased weapons for budget money not only from Britain, but also from the USSR (as part of supporting British democracy, apparently). So Hitler just moved the war into an open phase.
      1. Krasnodar
        Krasnodar 8 March 2019 13: 02
        +4
        He simply hoped that Japan would appreciate such a broad gesture and declare war on the Union. )))
        1. Cherry Nine
          Cherry Nine 8 March 2019 13: 05
          +3
          Quote: Krasnodar
          He simply hoped that Japan would appreciate such a broad gesture and declare war on the Union.

          Hitler of '41 was not a fool at all. Crazy. Competing the hypocrisy of democracy with a dictator is rather tedious.
          1. Krasnodar
            Krasnodar 8 March 2019 13: 25
            +2
            Here he did not freak out. The calculation was simple - December 7 - Pearl Harbor. December 8 - Adolf’s order to go on the defensive near Moscow due to a successful Soviet counterattack. The calculation is to prevent the Russians from developing success. Germany declares war on the United States, Japan on the Union, the Red Army reserves are transferred to the Far East and the Germans can breathe freely. And hypocrisy, not hypocrisy - all politics is about r and t and t at and I. Though you are a democrat, even a tyrant cannibal, like Go Amin.
            1. Cherry Nine
              Cherry Nine 8 March 2019 14: 02
              +3
              Quote: Krasnodar
              The calculation was simple - December 7 - Pearl Harbor. December 8 - Adolf’s order to go on the defensive near Moscow due to a successful Soviet counterattack. The calculation is to prevent the Russians from developing success. Germany declares war on the United States, Japan - the Union

              Japan, to the heap of China, the United States, Holland and Britain, declares war on the USSR. Immediately it is deprived of oil supplies from Sakhalin (it is difficult to guarantee that the Bolsheviks do not have time to qualitatively blow up the entire economy), and in the near future receives the supply of Chinese to the Allies through Iran and the USSR.

              Oh yes. Liberators in the Far East.

              No. Hitler of 41 was not so inadequate. April 45th is not soon.
              1. Krasnodar
                Krasnodar 8 March 2019 14: 18
                +1
                Then why did he do this? )))
                Crazy - not a varic - you yourself wrote that you were still adequate.
                Although he would be adequate - he would sit in Belarus, would not force the Dnieper, etc.
                1. Cherry Nine
                  Cherry Nine 8 March 2019 14: 20
                  0
                  Quote: Krasnodar
                  You yourself wrote that it was still adequate.

                  Just errors have always been. Including in September 39th.
                  1. Krasnodar
                    Krasnodar 8 March 2019 14: 22
                    +3
                    Guderian wrote about this. Poland was needed for populism and raising the standard of living of the Germans. Like Austria, like Czechoslovakia. He just did not think that the Britons with the Gauls would declare war on him.
                    1. Cherry Nine
                      Cherry Nine 8 March 2019 14: 30
                      0
                      Quote: Krasnodar
                      He just did not think that the Britons with the Gauls would declare war on him.

                      Well, you see. Everyone is mistaken from time to time.
                      1. Krasnodar
                        Krasnodar 8 March 2019 16: 14
                        +5
                        Hitler’s father was mistaken. When mum grandmother clamped on abortion.
                      2. Cherry Nine
                        Cherry Nine 8 March 2019 16: 18
                        +5
                        Quote: Krasnodar
                        When mum grandmother clamped on abortion.

                        No need to personify the story. If Hitler hadn’t - there would have been some Telman, and the slaughter happened about the same, or even worse.
                      3. Krasnodar
                        Krasnodar 8 March 2019 16: 26
                        +1
                        Why so? )) Definitely there is a role of personality in history. But, in principle, you are right - history does not know the subjunctive mood. Perhaps, under Telman there would have been a terrible cabin, with a bunch of scenarios of its beginning.
            2. novobranets
              novobranets 9 March 2019 06: 23
              +3
              Quote: Krasnodar
              Although he would be adequate - he would sit in Belarus, would not force the Dnieper, etc.

              Hitler’s main calculation in the war against the USSR was based on Blitzkrieg-lightning strike. Hitler could not stop, this would be the end of the eastern company, which subsequently happened. The main thing was to rapidly crush the advanced parts of the spacecraft and develop the offensive without giving the enemy time to organize defense and reform. At first, everything went on until the Wehrmacht got stuck near Moscow, moving on to defense. This gave time to start all the evacuated factories, to begin the mobilization and preparation of reserves, etc. hi
              1. Krasnodar
                Krasnodar 9 March 2019 06: 35
                +2
                This is all known and understandable. Just being outside the Dnieper and in Belarus would give the Germans the opportunity to build a normal defense there, not stretch the logistics, free up forces and means for the construction of aviation, including distant and powerful (a la flying fortresses), as well as a large number of submarines to finish off England, etc. Instead, they put in a lot of people to capture and hold territory that they could not control a priori. They would not succeed in breaking the Union, even having captured Moscow. That is to exhaust the Red Army in defensive battles and to negotiate with Stalin - perhaps they would have a chance to end the war poorly and poorly on acceptable terms, then forcing England to sign a peace agreement with them, I emphasize again - maybe. Neither Stalin nor Churchill were eager to make concessions to the Nazis.
                1. novobranets
                  novobranets 9 March 2019 06: 51
                  +2
                  Quote: Krasnodar
                  That is to exhaust the Red Army in defensive battles and go to negotiations with Stalin - perhaps they would have a chance to end the war at the worst, under acceptable conditions

                  This is logical. But, with all due respect, I disagree. Hitler had a fad - to destroy the Soviet Union, and he could not retreat from this. After all, he squealed from the stands to the whole of Germany that the invincible German army would smash the "colossus with feet of clay," and the Germans would receive the best lands and slaves in the black earth regions of the conquered territories. By backing down on his promises, he would have lost the trust (at that time very strong) of his people. In addition, the Red Army could not lay down its soldiers, storming the German defense, but go on to a defensive confrontation, and begin preparations for a serious war, mobilization and formation of personnel units, well, in general, what I have already said. And this, taking into account the human and material resources of the USSR, would have led to the collapse of the Third Reich. The Fuhrer had no choice but to go to the end.
                  1. Krasnodar
                    Krasnodar 9 March 2019 06: 59
                    +1
                    Do you mean to transfer hostilities to a "positional" war a la PMV? Eeee, there is something in this, but even in this situation, the German losses would be less than with the real development of events. In terms of colonization and victory over the clay colossus - with the conquest of Kiev, Hitler, in principle, achieved declared goals. He was believed, in principle, thanks to the practice of relatively bloodless and quick victories of the Wehrmacht. The transfer of the war into a positional channel, coupled with the colonization of the part of Ukraine that he had conquered, would not have brought him a loss of German confidence, because the main breakthrough of Aloizych was achieved - over France.
                  2. novobranets
                    novobranets 9 March 2019 07: 13
                    +1
                    Quote: Krasnodar
                    Do you mean to transfer hostilities to a "positional" war a la PMV?

                    Yes, that is exactly what I wanted to say. But the point is not even military losses, but political ones. Seeing Hitler's indecision and inability to keep promises, the allies he had at that time would turn away from him. But much depended on their supply. Germany itself, except for brown coal, is not very rich in resources. Even the famous Krupp factories worked with imported ores and concentrates necessary for the production of armored steel.
                  3. Krasnodar
                    Krasnodar 9 March 2019 07: 20
                    +1
                    Romanians would definitely not turn away from him, because They would get Moldova and Odessa, the Hungarians, grabbing a piece of Zapadenshchina - also, about resources - would have to take Adik to Sweden)) Would do this in a couple of months with the resources freed up from the Eastern Front. But, history does not know the subjunctive mood - it is possible, it is possible)).
                    Hitler had two schools - an attack on Soviet Russia and an irrational national policy. Therefore, he died like a dog and his country was divided for decades and under occupation.
                  4. novobranets
                    novobranets 9 March 2019 07: 37
                    +2
                    Quote: Krasnodar
                    Hitler had two schools - an attack on Soviet Russia and an irrational national policy.

                    That's for sure. In the first days of the war, the Nazis were greeted with bread and salt in some places, but having discerned the "new order" more closely, the people rushed to create partisan detachments, which spoiled a lot of Aryan blood. As for the Romanians, they were the first, in 44, to surrender, as soon as they saw that the Wehrmacht began to regularly rake, and the Red Army approached Romania, and they are still fighters. Very "reliable" laughing was an ally. Behind them, in 45, the Finns hurried out of the war, seeing the hopelessness of Hitler's support, and in April 45, they generally declared war (they realized it later, hoped to overcome Karelia) to their former ally.
                  5. Krasnodar
                    Krasnodar 9 March 2019 08: 17
                    +2
                    I think that both of them declared war on the Reich for two reasons - to avoid large-scale combat operations on their territory, firstly, it is better to fight on the side of the strong - secondly - and both would have to fight for any.
                    And most importantly, with what head could the Slavs be declared Wintermenchs and behave appropriately with them when you are in their own territory without having yet defeated the enemy army? And the most interesting thing is that the German Jews created the atomic bomb in the States, who fled from it in time. For what he fought, he ran into something.
                  6. novobranets
                    novobranets 9 March 2019 08: 31
                    +1
                    Quote: Krasnodar
                    For what he fought, he ran into something.

                    Well, rightly so. yes
  • Astra wild
    Astra wild 8 March 2019 21: 48
    +3
    Krasnodar, you are a little rude, but in general that is right. I have the most negative emotions for Hitler, but we will be frank: he is far from being a psycho, a psycho would not have achieved such results. In general, he correctly counted, but he did not grow together
    1. Alf
      Alf 9 March 2019 17: 50
      +1
      Quote: Astra wild
      In general, he correctly counted, but he did not grow together

      The operation was successful, but the patient died.
  • Proxima
    Proxima 8 March 2019 15: 46
    +1
    Quote: Cherry Nine

    Hitler of '41 was not a fool at all. Crazy. Competing the hypocrisy of democracy with a dictator is rather tedious.

    Dear, answer one question: why did Hitler declare war on December 11, 1941, USA? Meaning? Payment?
    1. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine 8 March 2019 16: 08
      +2
      Quote: Proxima
      why did Hitler declare war on December 11, 1941, the USA? Meaning? Payment?

      Hitler, as he believed, was already at war with the United States (as it was). He considered that the war was untying his hands, including for the second series of the Battle of the Atlantic. Hold, by the way, the convoys in the USSR.
      Since the United States entered the state of war in Asia officially, it became clear that the mobilization of the American Army would be carried out regardless of Hitler’s actions, and they could not threaten him right tomorrow tomorrow anyway. I exchanged tactical benefits for strategic ones, as it happened to him many times.

      Hitler underestimated the fact that his actions untied his hands and Roosevelt too. Hitler had no problem declaring war on anyone; it was difficult for him to understand Roosevelt’s problems with Congress and the press.
  • domokl
    domokl 10 March 2019 09: 47
    0
    Quote: Cherry Nine
    So Hitler just turned the war into an open phase.

    So the same of them declared war, then? USA Germany or Germany USA? And the phases and stuff are verbiage ... Hitler actually did the same with the States as with the USSR.
    By the way, during the war the ships of many countries that did not fight were sunk ... The law of war-not only military, but also civilians suffer. Moreover, civilians are usually more ...
    1. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine 10 March 2019 11: 08
      0
      Quote: domokl
      So did the same of them declare war?

      Germany - USA.
      Quote: domokl
      Hitler actually did the same with the States as he did with the USSR.

      You are too carried away. Blitzkrieg in the USA is not possible.

      Getting into the discussion of altistorics, it should be noted that having in December of the 41st three wars that cannot be won quickly - with Britain, the USSR and the USA - Hitler in fact found himself in a situation of total war of attrition. Fortunately for the Allies, he realized this much later.
      1. qw3
        qw3 10 March 2019 12: 15
        0
        Quote: Cherry Nine
        it should be noted that having on December 41st three wars that cannot be won quickly - with Britain, with the USSR and with the USA

        As for the USSR, I would argue.
        Following the plan of Barbarossa, the Germans most likely could in 1941 drive the USSR back over the Astrakhan-Arkhangelsk line along the Volga and the North. Dvina. Thus depriving the USSR of mobilization resources and the production base. And turning it into a state uninteresting for the Reich.
        Things from the very beginning went well for the Germans, better than what was planned by the Barbarossa plan. Therefore, they began to celebrate victory early. They explicitly ordered Barbaross’s plan (there was no directive from Berlin in this regard) canceled already on July 11, he allegedly fettered them. Further, until September 11th, it was like a big gang of Old Man Makhno, which in 2 months, the company of 1941, and with it the whole war, erred ....
        In addition, the Germans squabbled among themselves, figuring out which of the "genius commanders" is still more brilliant. The Wehrmacht's controllability was restored only on 11 September.
        As a result, they reached Moscow, but already at the end. Although they planned to take it back in August. And most likely they would have taken it if Barbarossa had not been canceled in July.
        And then everything is predictable. Failing to complete the installation of the Barbaross plan in 1941, the Germans then had no chance of victory on the Eastern Front. Since their mobilization resources were smaller than Soviet ones (even without taking into account the potential of the Anglo-Saxons). And the industrial potential of almost the whole world (except for the Axis countries) was much more powerful than the potential of the Axis countries.
        1. Cherry Nine
          Cherry Nine 10 March 2019 12: 36
          0
          I wrote about the situation on December 11, the 41st.
          1. qw3
            qw3 10 March 2019 14: 48
            0
            Quote: Cherry Nine
            I wrote about the situation on December 11, the 41st.

            Then, I agree.
  • The comment was deleted.
    1. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine 8 March 2019 17: 06
      +2
      Hello again.
      During WWII, there were three concepts of tank destroyers that allowed rebalancing the tank, abandoning some of its advantages in favor of others:
      1. Mechanized gun (Marder, Noshorn, Acher, Su-76) - exchange towers (fire mobility) and armor for a gun.
      2. Assault gun / assault PT - armored Germans, from Stug through Hetzer to Jagdtigr, USSR. Exchange of a tank tower for armor and a gun from a heavier tank.
      3. The Americans. Change armor for mobility.

      Practice has shown that the concept of the Germans was the most successful, the concept of the Americans was the least. The decision of the USSR to make StUK in heavy weight was also successful.

      Returning to Hellket - another monument to the incompetence of the US military. The good that was in this car - a progressive chassis, quite suitable for a family of light self-propelled guns - they did not notice. As a result, such a family of self-propelled vehicles on the Chaffee chassis appeared much later. Too late, like Chaffee himself.
      Quote: ert6
      Not having the opportunity (there were no guns, other components and, most importantly, experience)

      American industry had everything. The American generals had no brains, unfortunately. American Army 30s - social security for losers.
      In order to understand what the American army was like, it’s enough to know that in February 41, Army General Zhukov was appointed head of the General Staff, having a division, corps, army, district and front behind him. At the same time, he led the army (Khalkin-Gol), the front - he commanded in a situation close to the military (Bessarabia).
      Meanwhile, Lieutenant Colonel D.D. Eisenhower (6 years older than Zhukov) commanded the 1st battalion of the 15th Infantry Regiment of the 3rd Division. He was still a lieutenant colonel, leading the Allied forces in the Mediterranean and making, say, a decision to invade Italy (this was his decision, not Roosevelt's). Promotion by length of service (immediately to lieutenant general) he received 30.08.43/XNUMX/XNUMX.
      So everything is complicated.
      Quote: ert6
      The latter was even called a "tank", although in fact it was an "American tank". Those. on performance characteristics no tank at all.

      Didn't expect Sherman to rubbish you. The Sherman 76 was quite a tank, but it was equipped with an unsuccessful cannon. Almost like English 6lb without OFC. By the way, this decision drew a lot of criticism, but, unfortunately, this criticism was misunderstood. Not in the sense of "let's make a good OFS like the Germans", but in the sense of "let's leave the old Shermans too."
      With this gun, you’re right, Sherman went much further towards the tank destroyer than the Panther, which is usually blamed for this. We can say that Panther was a tank destroyer of a healthy person, and Sherman was a tank gunner's smoker, a hole punch gun without a general physical fitness, but it still doesn’t penetrate, and no armor, but still heavy. From this point of view, Hellket, in which at least the senseless armor was removed, was more successful.
      Quote: ert6
      in the USSR they built "Soviet tanks"

      The USSR, unlike the Americans, could not build anything. He used his industrial capabilities rationally, conceptually his machines were quite successful.
      The teachers were good. German
      1. The comment was deleted.
        1. Cherry Nine
          Cherry Nine 8 March 2019 20: 08
          +4
          Quote: ert6
          What is the SU-76, I do not know

          Mechanized division.
          Quote: ert6
          On you, wretched, what is at hand at the moment

          Yeah. And more.
          Quote: ert6
          The main ammunition of such self-propelled guns, fragmentation.

          However, the pieces were reassigned to 7,5 / 48. Complaints about a too flat trajectory for entrenched infantry were sent. They made an option with a 105mm howitzer, also went well.
          The Yagdpanzer was the development of the thing.
          Quote: ert6
          The main ammunition of PT SAU, armor-piercing. And the main goals are armored.

          The main ammunition of any gun is OFS if, of course, there is one. Including 100% PT, like 6 lbs.
          Quote: ert6
          Because German artillery was a head (or maybe several goals) better than any other 2MV artillery in terms of performance characteristics.

          Where WWI veterans explained to the Americans what artillery is the best, certainly, was with them. Not by TTX, but by the force that art gave. As for direct fire, the Americans clicked, but the British missed the KvK40 / Pak40 and immediately did the KvK42 in the same 42nd, and they did better than the Germans - the same power in the 55klb barrel.
          Quote: ert6
          The Americans had a serious problem, they did not have tank guns.

          The Americans had a much more serious problem - they had no brains. That's why when the complaints went that the 75mm BB is not enough for the Tiger - they found a gun that pierces the Tiger. The fact that this gun OFS to hell - they did not think. By the way, in the USSR they understood, unlike the Americans, that armor penetration could not be increased due to the OFS. With T-34/57, they played and left.
          And the Americans’s ideal tank gun at that time was 77mm HV. But they did not know about it.
          Quote: ert6
          I don’t know what you mean ... There was also the Soviet analogue of StuH, SU-122

          Here is about her.
          Quote: ert6
          Therefore, their release was discontinued.

          Their release was discontinued because, like the Germans, the Soviet Union considered it right to upset the Possibilities. That is, to direct resources to the Su-85 and ISU.
          Quote: ert6
          not quite understand your sadness according to Chaffee

          I'm not talking about a tank, but about a platform for various useful pieces, from Quadromount to 155mm. And about the tank - if you already have light tanks in reconnaissance, then Chuffy is clearly better than Stuart.
          By the way, Hellcat could have become successful during Chaffee, if different departments in Washington - tankers and anti-tankers - did not make a goat to each other. The same company developed and produced these machines.
          Quote: ert6
          Pz.IV the second half of the war much more like it.

          The groove is never a light tank, but an honest medium tank of the second line, an analog of 75mm Sherman. The Germans actually had no 44th RT.
          Quote: ert6
          Americans generally didn’t have tanks during the war.

          But a lot.
          Quote: ert6
          Once again, there were no tank guns.

          It was the Chaffee gun that was more balanced in PT / OFS.
          Quote: ert6
          Even the British made the OQF 77 mm HV.
          The Germans generally had cool tank guns like dirt.

          Britain is a leading design power. The Germans had three cool tank guns.
          Quote: ert6
          90 mm M3, this is the same UG as the Soviet 85 mm "tank guns"

          Their number of explosives in terms of TNT is twice as high as that of S-53. BB is also much higher. 90mm American - this is KvK36 with improved due to the cost of BB OFS. With the advent of the caliber, the BB became sharply better than the Tiger.
          Quote: ert6
          By the mid-40s, the "losers" had conquered the whole world, having lost 405 people.

          The lucky ones who went into business, and did not sit in the Philippines, cursed with their superiors and waited for the colonel to retire, pulled out a war even with such an army as the Americans had. Aiki and Monti lacked stars from the sky, went from failure to failure - but they went forward and not a single disaster.
          Quote: ert6
          Otherwise, better than KwK42. And much more.

          17lbs is noticeably shorter, has slightly worse OFS and BB. With the advent of APDS, she pulled ahead on BB, it was more effective than Pzgr. 40/42.
          Quote: ert6
          Who was the Zhukov you mentioned? Unter

          Unther with experience in commanding the army and the front, and not just the battalion (from the Eisenhower battalion was taken to the headquarters of the corps, then the army, he left the commander in chief from the chief of the operational department of the General Staff). And who was not charged with the duty of politics.
          By the way, the chief of the General Staff for Americans was Poskrebyshev. He led the General Staff in his spare time from his main job.
          Quote: ert6
          The result of all this was that there were almost no educated people in the USSR

          Yes, the USSR had many problems. On the other hand, those who remained were aware that it was necessary not to show off, but to do as the Germans did. As a result, the Soviet BTT range of 44-45 years was stronger than the American one, despite the huge fine on technology, the level of industry and the training of operators.
          1. The comment was deleted.
            1. Cherry Nine
              Cherry Nine 9 March 2019 00: 27
              +4
              Quote: ert6
              To solve any problems, it was bad.

              What is rich - so happy. According to Marder’s experience, self-propelled guns are needed anyway, no matter how strange they look.
              Quote: ert6
              Assault guns are BTTs of the same class.
              Tank destroyers, another.

              I know. However, armored tank destroyers - went from the thing, and not from Nashhorn. Yagdpanzer - this is the new shtug and there is, it was made as a replacement for the thing based on three rubles.
              Quote: ert6
              Of course not.

              Yes, of course.
              The main projectile of the PT cannon was the one that penetrates better. But the main expense - OFS.
              Quote: ert6
              Pz.IV in the Wehrmacht performed roughly the same role as Chaffee among the Amers.

              Nonsense. The four have never been in reconnaissance at the Panthers.
              Quote: ert6
              Although in the USSR and the USA such a tank was considered heavy.

              It doesn’t matter who considered what. It matters what tank divisions were formed from. If the Americans from the M6 ​​division began to form, there would be an average tank of 57 tons in weight.
              Quote: ert6
              But the Panther, with its "stupid suspension", had enough fragmentation

              I will no longer discuss this theory. Americans completely sacrificed OFS for BB, and the British with a more powerful BB worsened OFS much less. So 17 pounds more than a tank gun than 76mm. Like the 85mm Soviet, by the way - the USSR also increased armor penetration, leaving the OFS capabilities at the old level.
              Quote: ert6
              We won’t find anything in favor of TTX OQF 17-pounder

              When the Germans wanted to stick something more powerful into the jagdpanzer, they would have been better suited for 77mm than a fishing rod. Less limited mobility with sufficient effect.
              Quote: ert6
              at what cost did the Americans get the whole world.

              Thanks to Comrade Stalin, as usual. On the other hand, characters who were sure that the tastiest ice cream would not get to them - de Gaulle, for example - threw knees for many years.
              Quote: ert6
              Did they attach a stabilizer to it for beauty?

              They attached a stabilizer so that Westinghouse would receive a little money.
              Quote: ert6
              These are expenses, TNT cost money and was in short supply during the war. But they did it

              1. Just in terms of money and deficit, the Americans were doing well. It was not the Army that dealt with these issues.
              2. They are not just TNT, they switched to RDX. I think I said already.
              Quote: ert6
              Pz.IV in the Wehrmacht performed roughly the same role as Chaffee in the Amer

              No, the four were not LT. No four could well fight with enemy tanks.
              Quote: ert6
              So it was a variation of 75 mm M3. And then there wasn’t. Already in the second half of 1942, the M3 (for the Sherman) should have been changed.

              Chaffee is not Sherman. In relation to him, the principle "tanks do not fight against tanks" is relevant.
              Quote: ert6
              And there was nothing.

              If the problem is formulated correctly - the maximum BB in the OFS is not lower than Sherman and the unitary unit is not heavier than 25 kg - then either 17 pounds or 90 mm will be obtained. Both that and that for the 43rd year is available almost without restrictions.
              Quote: ert6
              after 1942 there was not a single one, and among the British, already one, that’s a lot.

              Yes, the Germans did a good job with guns.
              Quote: ert6
              I wrote about the principle.

              I don’t understand your principle of "identical shit guns", if there is 0,6 kg of TNT, and there is 1,3 kg. It's good to be rich.
              Quote: ert6
              Significantly worse than 88 mm Sprgr. 41/43.

              This is suddenly what?
              Quote: ert6
              And again, load her OS with Soviet "explosive"

              1.And why do this? 2. It would have received 1,5 times more explosives than the T-34-85 and 2,5 more than the Sherman 76.
              Quote: ert6
              KwK43 also had HVAP shells.

              In theory. And so the whole tungsten in the world was bought by the Americans. This is not a metaphor.
              Quote: ert6
              If you compare Pershing and his cannon with the Tiger arr. 1942, then this is not a correct comparison.

              What is wrong if it was almost its complete analogue? If you tend that in the 45th you could already make a better gun, then you want too much from the Americans. The Americans and Kvk36 did not. In the 1950th year.
              Quote: ert6
              He gained this experience during the war.

              He got it to war. Despite the activities of Comrade Stalin, in the 41st there were still more people with the experience of command who he did not manage to shoot, than the Americans. Although significantly less than the Germans.
              Quote: ert6
              19 million soldiers of the Red Army died

              You exaggerate the purely military losses of the Red Army every two times. It is strange not how much died, but the fact that someone lived to Berlin. As you rightly noted, the USSR had quite a few problems with respect to normal countries. On the other hand, normal countries had their own problems, from a military point of view no less serious.
              Quote: ert6
              Tactical ligaments T-34/85 + IS-2 arr. 1944 and T-44 + IS-3 mod. 1945 stronger than Sherman (76) and Pershing?

              The tactical ligament IS-3 + T-44 has never been, do not invent. The tactical link of the 44th winter: the T-34-85 tank corps (24 corps, each 207 T-34-85, and on the regiment (21 cars) SU-152, Su-85, Su-76), 3-4 GvTTP (21 IS-2 in each) and an additional OTSAP - yes, definitely stronger than the American tank division, of which there were 16, 168 Shermans and 77 Stuarts in each (except for the 2nd and 3rd, they are larger). The advantage of the American division was artillery, M7 and M12, no comparison with the Su-76.
              For the 45th year, everything is the same, only the IS-2 in the GVTPP became better, the SU-152 in the OTSAP was replaced by the ISU-152/122, and the Su-85 was replaced by the Su-100, with the amount of a three-regiment brigade. Meanwhile, the Americans had 2 companies of Pershings each with 10 cars (in the 3rd and 9th divisions) 1 (one) super-pershing in the 3rd division (here’s a cannon from the tiger B / Yagdpantery / Fedi / Nashorn, one thing, everything that the great American industry was able to eat), and Chaffee instead of the Stuarts. Of the good, one can single out the Jackson battalion per division (36 vehicles) and one more Jackson battalion per division in the reserve of the Civil Code.
              Yes, the USSR is still better and more, and much more.
              Quote: ert6
              Pershing they were

              Pershing for the 45th year were not tanks. There is nothing to form divisions from, they cannot conduct combat operations in the operational depths. Panther weight, T-34 power, 3 (three) transmissions to the gearbox + torque converter, consuming almost a third of the horses. Patton’s objections to the M26 are completely justified, he needed a cruising tank, in which capacity Pershing was not good. The Americans did not knowthat you need to put a tank engine on the tank, and not what it already is.
              Quote: ert6
              The tactics of the Red Army was completely different.

              This was the tactics of the Red Army. Deep operations, tank wedges. Adjusted for poverty. In particular, the Americans could transport gasoline by air to a division that broke deep into the rear, while the Red Army did not.
              1. qw3
                qw3 9 March 2019 12: 27
                -2
                To be honest, I was tired of the manner of local scoops to erase my comments. These scoops are worn out by their "struggle for socialism". They cannot calm down, everyone is "at war".
                Quote: Cherry Nine
                According to Marder’s experience, self-propelled guns are needed anyway, no matter how strange they look.

                Compare SU-76 with Marder?
                You just make me laugh.
                This is how to compare a pin with an awl. If anyone didn’t understand, awl, this is Marder.
                Search the internet for my article on the history of the three-inch model. And especially about its "modernization" in 1930 and beyond. You will learn a lot of interesting things. I wanted to call it "A Story of Incompetent ... Utacks." But then he got embarrassed and named it differently. But in fact, this is such a story.
                Unfortunately, the backward USSR had all the "armaments" approximately of the "needle level". From this and the loss (in part). And partly, from the "needle level of generals".
                "UCHNY USSR" is an invention of Sovagitprop. As well as the "cool Soviet weapon".
                The same "three-inch picture" drawn by Sovagitprop has nothing to do with a real three-inch one. And the "T-34 tank" with the F-34 in the tower, as you know, too.
                Quote: Cherry Nine
                Yagdpanzer - this is the new shtug and there is, it was made as a replacement for the thing based on three rubles.

                BTT's common platform does not mean that one thing was done in exchange for another. Just BTT of two different classes on the same platform. And that’s it.
                Quote: Cherry Nine
                But the main expense - OFS.

                The PT has guns, no. PT gun, this is a specialized product. She and OFS are usually no (see OQF 17-pounder). And every shot, this is barrel wear. As a result, there is little sense from such OFS, and barrel wear is normal. It makes no sense to shoot.
                At the same time, buckshot and shrapnel were considered a very important ammunition of the PT guns. Much more important than OFS.
                Quote: Cherry Nine
                The four have never been in reconnaissance at the Panthers.

                Maybe it was. Maybe not. But reconnaissance functions in the Panzervaff after the cessation of the release of Pz.II in 1943 were performed by Pz.IV. There was simply nothing more.
                Quote: Cherry Nine
                I will no longer discuss this theory.

                This is not a theory. The ability to defeat VET calculations with the help of the OS during firing is included (and always included) in the mandatory tank test program (except for specialized armored vehicles). Without this, a tank is not a tank. Does not meet the requirements for tanks on the performance characteristics.
                Shooting on such calculations "with a short stop" was never carried out by the tank test program. Tanks (real ones) do not fire according to ATT calculations "with a short stop." Only "Soviet tanks".
                Quote: Cherry Nine
                Americans completely donated OFS for BB

                I would not say so, "they almost pulled the M1 to meet the requirements of the tank gun for the Sherman platform." The type of explosive and the stabilization of the gun itself. But still, it was ALMOST.
                Quote: Cherry Nine
                So 17 pounds more than a tank gun than 76mm.

                Excluding stabilization, the M1 is slightly worse. With the stabilizer M1 a little better.
                Quote: Cherry Nine
                Like the 85mm Soviet, by the way - the USSR also increased armor penetration, leaving the OFS capabilities at the old level.

                The fragmentation of 85 mm OS is approximately 137% to the fragmentation of 76 mm O-350A. With the same explosive (Ammatol A90 with TNT).
                Quote: Cherry Nine
                They are not just trotyl, they switched to RDX.

                High Explosive shell contained a 0.86 lb explosive filler of TNT or a 0.85 lb mixture of 0.08 lb of cast TNT and 0.77 lb 50/50 Amatol.
                OS with TNT was made for the Shermans. OS with "mixture" (amatol A50 with TNT plug) was made for PT artillery.
                Maybe some more with RDX were released. I wrote about the model M42A1 HE.
                Quote: Cherry Nine
                No, the four were not LT. No four could well fight with enemy tanks.

                She could.
                From the end of 1943 it was a "German light tank" (for the Germans). For the classification of the USSR and the USA, it was average. Since 1949, the Americans switched to the German BTT classification system.
                Quote: Cherry Nine
                This is suddenly what?

                For example, the percentage of explosives in Sprgr. 41/43 more than Amer. 90 mm. 10,6 vs 9,2. This means that it is possible to get a more powerful OS (not OFS). Or, if this is not required, use a less expensive and scarce explosive (during the war this is important).
                The ancient 88 mm Sprgr. 36 10,0%, but it is slightly lighter than Sprgr. 41/43.
                The Soviet 85 mm O-365K, this percentage is 7,8%. However, it is even slightly heavier than 88 mm Sprgr. 41/43 (heavier shells have an advantage).
                And so, in everything. I already wrote, "an awl and a needle" (see above).
                Quote: Cherry Nine
                What is wrong if it was almost its complete analogue?

                I had in mind the time of the appearance in the tower of Pershing.
                Quote: Cherry Nine
                You exaggerate the purely military losses of the Red Army every two times.

                Why so? I operate with official data.
                https://polkrf.ru/news/1275/parlamentskie_slushaniya_patrioticheskoe_vospitanie_bessmertnyiy_polk
                "More than 19 million servicemen were killed" is the official wording.
                I can also add:
                Injured - 46,25 million people
                Of them:
                Discharged from the army by disability - 15,2 million people.
                Of them:
                Disabled from the army by disabled people of the 1st group - 2,6 million people.
                This is what concerns the Armed Forces of the USSR during the war.
                Quote: Cherry Nine
                The tactical ligament IS-3 + T-44 has never been, do not invent.

                Did not have. But the war in Europe lasted longer than May 1945, it would have been. Since preparing.
                Quote: Cherry Nine
                Yes, the USSR is still better and more, and much more.

                And the colossal losses (see above) from a cold?
                Quote: Cherry Nine
                Deep operations, tank wedges.

                No no. This was the end when the German defense had already begun to crumble. There were no tank wedges throughout the war.
                There was the Soviet "tactics of using tanks" - in front of the "live bait" (usually the T-34, but the planned T-44), and behind it in the second line of the "hunter" (in different years, in different ways, SU-85, IS-2 and planned IS-3). The losses of "live fish" were enormous.
                1. Cherry Nine
                  Cherry Nine 9 March 2019 13: 51
                  +1
                  Quote: qw3
                  this is an invention of Sovagitprop

                  Who are you going to re-advocate? Me? That is unnecessary.
                  Quote: qw3
                  Compare SU-76 with Marder?

                  I am not going to compare something. SU-76 is the second Marder on the Soviet element base. The fact that the T-70 is not the second groove, but the ZiS-3 is not the Pak36r, I know.
                  Quote: qw3
                  Just BTT of two different classes on the same platform. And that’s it.

                  Yagdpanzer - this is Shtug 4 from Vomag, which, with the submission of Hitler, began to develop in PT.
                  Quote: qw3
                  And every shot, it's barrel wear

                  Report to the battalion commander that he cannot use the PT Division for anything other than tanks, because the barrel is worn.
                  You don’t know, has Javelin ever been used against tanks at least once?
                  Quote: qw3
                  There was simply nothing more.

                  Yeah. The Americans had a different concept. A third of the division’s tanks were LT. Not from a big mind, again.
                  Quote: qw3
                  This is not a theory.

                  Gun stabilizer not applied in combat conditions. When Patton demanded to fire on the move, grandfather was politely sent. Known cases of using the stabilizer when shooting on the move relate to urban battles.
                  Quote: qw3
                  Excluding stabilization, the M1 is slightly worse.

                  One and a half times.
                  Quote: qw3
                  With the stabilizer M1 a little better.

                  That is always worse.
                  Quote: qw3
                  Maybe some more with RDX were released.

                  For 90 mm
                  Quote: qw3
                  For example, the percentage of explosives in Sprgr. 41/43 more than Amer. 90 mm. 10,6 vs 9,2.

                  The Americans achieved this on a single-speed mine. Removal of the glands through the anus, but nonetheless.
                  Quote: qw3
                  I had in mind the time of the appearance in the tower of Pershing.

                  And do not care. 2 years before that, with a cannon of 1897, they traveled and did not bathe.
                  Of these, irretrievable losses as a result of the action of factors of war - more than 19 million troops

                  This is not an "official formulation" but a sketch. Calculations by indirect methods lead directly to the notorious billion people killed by Stalin. The official figure for combatants is around 10 million.
                  To lie without rest in the name of a holy cause - this is the Soviet and anti-Soviet propaganda are united.
                  Quote: qw3
                  But the war in Europe lasted longer than May 1945, it would have been. Since preparing.

                  Given the situation that Roosevelt created in the United States - no, you cannot turn this fork in it. For almost a year Truman understood what he got into. It is easy to see that in the years 46-48, the Americans turned 180 degrees. Churchill writes with despair about the incredible nonsense that the Americans were doing at that time.

                  Comrade Stalin, in turn, when they put a gun to his head, he began to think much better. He understood that the liberation Elbo-Rhine operation of the Red Army would be victorious, but the last for the Red Army, and, possibly, for the USSR.
                  Although it was worth removing the gun, Marshal Bulgarin, the hero of war, the hero of labor, immediately drew his face.

                  Quote: qw3
                  And the colossal losses (see above) from a cold?

                  Yes.
                  Quote: qw3
                  This was the end when the German defense had already begun to crumble. There were no tank wedges throughout the war.

                  The relatively successful deep operations of the Red Army went to the 44th. For the Allies, only the Ruhr in April 45th became the first full-fledged boiler.
                  Quote: qw3
                  The losses of "live fish" were enormous.

                  I already asked you to refrain from science fiction. OGvTTP never were part of td / tk.
                  1. qw3
                    qw3 9 March 2019 16: 46
                    -1
                    Quote: Cherry Nine
                    The gun stabilizer was not used in combat conditions. When Patton demanded to fire on the move, grandfather was politely sent. Known cases of using the stabilizer when shooting on the move relate to urban battles.

                    Special cases are not particularly interesting. I described to you what the Americans did to make it possible to shoot the OS immediately from the M1 on the Sherman platform. And whether they shot or not, it doesn’t matter.
                    Quote: Cherry Nine
                    One and a half times.

                    It looks like you are talking about an OS for the transportable OQF 17-pounder, and not for the OQF 17-pounder on Firefly Sherman. They have a different composition of explosives. I wrote about the OS for fireflies.
                    Quote: Cherry Nine
                    For 90 mm

                    http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/ref/TM/pdfs/TM9-374.pdf
                    Стр. 90
                    2,04 lb. pure TNT. In reality, the 90mm OS was crazy power (and price). The Germans and the USSR used "potions" (amatol) for 85 and 88 mm OS.
                    Quote: Cherry Nine
                    The Americans achieved this on a single-speed mine.

                    Yes, that is what I had in mind. Soviet 85 mm OS is also equally fast.
                    I wrote you wrong above about 9,2% for a 90 mm OS. I didn’t look there. In fact, 8,8%. The difference is not so big, but it is.
                    Quote: Cherry Nine
                    This is not an "official wording" but a sketch

                    An official report of a state organization in the State Duma of the Russian Federation with links to declassified data of the USSR State Planning Commission in the presence of deputies, representatives of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation, veteran organizations, etc., a sketch?
                    No I do not think so. In fact, this is the new official data on the losses of the USSR during the war.
                    42 million people have direct losses (one fourth of the country's pre-war population) and another 11 million people are indirect.
                    I gave you a link. Everything is written there.
                    Quote: Cherry Nine
                    OGvTTP never were part of td / tk.

                    And the heavy battles of the Tigers were not included in the tank divisions of the Wehrmacht.
                    And escort fighters were not part of the bomber and assault regiments.
                    But all this was ATTACHED as necessary.
                    So the self-propelled guns of support of tanks (in fact, BTT) were attached to "tank" units and subunits.
                    I already once referred you to the film "In War, As In War". There it is shown in sufficient detail.
                    1. Cherry Nine
                      Cherry Nine 9 March 2019 17: 01
                      +1
                      Quote: qw3
                      I described to you what the Americans did to

                      In your reality, the Americans were doing something for something. That is, they understood what they were doing. In mine - no.
                      Quote: qw3
                      I wrote about the OS for fireflies.

                      The weight of explosives also differs by one and a half times.
                      Quote: qw3
                      etc, sketch?

                      But what, you did not expect this from state historians?
                      Quote: qw3
                      Everything is written there.

                      It says about decline, not about loss. No one was going to count losses and, it seems, was not going to.
                      Quote: qw3
                      were attached to "tank" units and subunits.

                      The action of the division (207 medium tanks) and the attached OGvTPP (21 vehicles) excludes the formation of mixed combat teams, except by accident.
                      Quote: qw3
                      I already sent you to the film once

                      You should not send me movies.
                    2. qw3
                      qw3 9 March 2019 19: 46
                      -1
                      Quote: Cherry Nine
                      And so the whole tungsten in the world was bought by the Americans. This is not a metaphor.

                      One of the largest tungsten deposits in the world is located in South. Korea (Sandon). And this is then in Japan.
                      In Austria, a fairly large field (Mittersill).
                      In Portugal (Panacheira).
                      Maybe not so much, but the Germans had tungsten for cores.
                      Quote: Cherry Nine
                      But what, you did not expect this from state historians?

                      No I do not think so. I think the truth is being written.
                      Why should they lie on this subject? I see no motive.
                      Quote: Cherry Nine
                      It says about decline, not about loss.

                      According to declassified data from the USSR State Planning Commission, the losses of the Soviet Union in World War II amount to 41 million 979 thousand, and not 27 million, as previously thought.
                      The total population decline of the USSR 1941-45. - More than 52 million 812 thousand people. Of these, irretrievable losses due to the action of war factors are more than 19 million military personnel and about 23 million civilians. The total natural mortality of military personnel and the civilian population over this period could have amounted to more than 10 million 833 thousand people (including 5 million 760 thousand - dead children under the age of four). The irreparable loss of the population of the USSR as a result of the action of war factors amounted to almost 42 million people
                    3. Cherry Nine
                      Cherry Nine 9 March 2019 20: 30
                      0
                      Quote: qw3
                      South Korea (Sandon). And this is then in Japan.

                      Yeah. You can get in the Reich. The submarine. If you're lucky.
                      Quote: qw3
                      In Portugal

                      The British bought it. The Pyrenees sat on an American oil leash, do not forget this.
                      Quote: qw3
                      The total natural mortality of servicemen and civilians during this period could be more than 10 million 833 thousand people

                      I say indirect methods. They did not count the dead.
                    4. qw3
                      qw3 9 March 2019 21: 11
                      0
                      Quote: Cherry Nine
                      I say indirect methods. They did not count the dead.

                      They considered those killed and dead from wounds and other factors of war.
                      This is more than 19 million military personnel and about 23 million civilians. Only 41 million 979 thousand people. These are direct losses.
                      There were also indirect losses. They do not lend themselves to direct counting. Therefore, they come with the wording "could have made." And they could have made up another 10 million 833 thousand people.
                      If we add 41 million 979 thousand people (direct and specific losses) and 10 million 833 thousand people (indirect and approximate losses), then the final amount will also turn out with the wording "could be" - 52 million 812 thousand people.
                      It seems to me that you do not want to see what is written there. And everything is written there unambiguously and unambiguously.
                    5. Cherry Nine
                      Cherry Nine 9 March 2019 21: 12
                      0
                      Quote: qw3
                      And everything is written there unambiguously and unambiguously.

                      There they took census data before and after the war and began to chemistry.
        2. Nekarmadlen
          Nekarmadlen 10 March 2019 03: 06
          +1
          Scoops always tended to fight dissent .. (((
        3. Windsurfer
          Windsurfer 23 May 2019 09: 34
          0
          From the end of 1943 it was a "German light tank" (for the Germans). For the classification of the USSR and the USA, it was average. Since 1949, the Americans switched to the German BTT classification system.

          You are confused. Four according to the German classification was a heavy tank, then, during the war, was retrained to medium
      2. Alf
        Alf 9 March 2019 17: 53
        0
        Quote: Cherry Nine
        Quote: ert6
        KwK43 also had HVAP shells.

        In theory. And so the whole tungsten in the world was bought by the Americans. This is not a metaphor.

        Hooray ! At least one sane found.
  • DimerVladimer
    DimerVladimer 11 March 2019 13: 32
    0
    Quote: Cherry Nine
    what the American army was all about, it’s enough to know that in February 41st Army General Zhukov was appointed chief of the General Staff, having behind him a division, corps, army, district and front.


    Well, yes - from the divisor to the NHS in 5 years - to a position trumpeting academic knowledge ...
    It’s probably difficult to name the worst NGS than Zhukov (this, incidentally, is the opinion of teachers of the GSh Academy).
    Zhukov did not last long in the post - incompetence in this post quickly manifests itself, including partially the collapse of 1941, due to the unsuccessful deployment of troops of the border districts - the prerogative of the General Staff and its chief.
    1. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine 11 March 2019 14: 28
      -1
      Quote: DimerVladimer
      Perhaps the worst NGS than Zhukov

      You are partly right.
      The NSS is not for him, but he managed to command large military units, and not to say that it was bad. In the bloody Soviet manner, of course.
      At the expense of the divisor for 5 years. In the 37th, Zhukov was moved from divisional commanders to comcor. Monty at that time commanded a brigade, from 38 to Dunkirk - a division. Eisenhower serves as adjutant of MacArthur in the Philippines; he received a battalion in the 40th. Marshall commands the division until the 38th, Keitel spins in the War Department, but Manstein in the 38th is also transferred from the General Staff to the division as part of the fight against homosexuals. However, it was the Germans who stood out sharply for the better in terms of command.
  • Alf
    Alf 8 March 2019 17: 27
    +1
    Carbine! Are you released again?
  • KVU-NSVD
    KVU-NSVD 8 March 2019 18: 00
    +2
    I am embarrassed to ask, but what is the truly correct Real Tank of the Second World War - which one? And what are your criteria for the Correct classification of armored vehicles of those times? Waiting for the light of truth I will go bahnu to facilitate the rotation of the tower ...
    1. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine 8 March 2019 18: 11
      0
      Quote: KVU-NSVD
      A real World War II Tank - which one?

      T-54 arr 49 and M48. But this author drowns for Panther, it seems.
  • Xazarin
    Xazarin 8 March 2019 06: 23
    +7
    Wonderful article. I read it with pleasure and in one breath. I respect Helk very much (I had fun a couple of years on it in WoT). Controversial geopolitical conclusions are of course present, well, God be with them. Thanks to the author.
  • Amurets
    Amurets 8 March 2019 06: 24
    +5
    The fact is that both the engine and the transmission were not mounted directly on the body, but on special runners. For repair, it was enough to open the door on the stern and roll out the Wright Continental R-975 engine to the caring hands of mechanics and mechanics. For the repair of elements of powertrain units, a frontal hatch was opened and all elements were put forward in the same way!
    As Alena Apina sings, "I blinded him out of what was," but the main thing is not what happened, but what happened? And it turned out to be a very interesting car, with unconventional solutions.
    ... To repair the elements of the power transmission units, the frontal hatch was opened and all the elements were put forward in the same way! "I saw a similar solution on our equipment only on the PAZ-672 buses and its modifications. The power unit rolled forward on them. Authors, thank you, it is interesting and probably not one set of clothes was torn while you were examining and photographing this SPG from the inside.
    1. Ingvar 72
      Ingvar 72 8 March 2019 07: 44
      0
      Quote: Amurets
      The authors, thank you, are interesting and probably not one set of clothes was torn while you studied and photographed this self-propelled guns from the inside.

      I understand that in the video Sasha Staver? I thought he was older ....
      1. Good cat
        Good cat 8 March 2019 17: 41
        +1
        Nikita Andreevich Krutakov, an employee of the museum, is also written there.
        1. Ingvar 72
          Ingvar 72 8 March 2019 17: 46
          0
          I already realized that I was mistaken. hi
  • svp67
    svp67 8 March 2019 06: 46
    +4
    Self-propelled guns (T-42) put on Christie’s suspension,
    Alas, it is the T-42, the one in the photo, that is not on the Christie.
  • fluffy
    fluffy 8 March 2019 07: 03
    +9
    Hellcat is a persistent expression in English meaning "witch", which in this case most reflects the spirit of the ACS presented in the article. In general, the article is interesting, plus
    1. CTABEP
      CTABEP 8 March 2019 09: 11
      +2
      I wanted to write, but got ahead :). And the machine is good - nothing more, and cardboard armor - well, the T-35 was even thinner. And most importantly, she appeared on time, managed to fight.
    2. Fing
      Fing 8 March 2019 20: 55
      0
      What if I tell you that you are wrong? I did a whole investigation. And as a result, it is the same "hell cat". Interesting?
  • The leader of the Redskins
    The leader of the Redskins 8 March 2019 07: 59
    +2
    Thank. Informative article. Good, detailed photos opened for me the crampedness of the fighting compartment ...
  • Decimam
    Decimam 8 March 2019 09: 38
    +6
    "... foreign vehicles from the Second World War, which for various reasons our tankmen and artillerymen did not get to know."
    Our tankers and gunners, like the British, got acquainted with the machine. M18 “Hellcat” Tank Destroyer 76mm Gun Motor Carriage (T70) under Lend-Lease were delivered - 2 to Britain, 5 - to the USSR. Neither there nor there was a delight machine and was no longer supplied.

    Position 12 in the supply protocol.
    1. Decimam
      Decimam 8 March 2019 09: 58
      +6
      But about "Double trouble" - an interesting moment.

      As you can see - exactly the same plot. Only the photo was taken in Belgium, in Mons, in 2008. There, every year in September, they celebrate the day of the liberation of the city and carry out something like the reconstruction "Tanks in the city". A parade of equipment is required.
      Probably the plot was popular with the crews of “Hellcat”.
      1. Decimam
        Decimam 8 March 2019 14: 21
        +4
        By the way, the authors missed one interesting feature of the M18 “Hellcat” - the duplication of controls, so the assistant driver could control the machine.
  • Irbenwolf
    Irbenwolf 8 March 2019 10: 34
    +1
    In fact, Hellcat translates as a vixen or a witch ...
  • DesToeR
    DesToeR 8 March 2019 10: 43
    +3
    I could be wrong, but in real use, Helcat’s mobility was lower than that of the Sherman’s tank. Perhaps because of this enthusiasm the car did not cause in the USSR, because with the same armament, Sherman was much better armored.
    1. domokl
      domokl 10 March 2019 10: 00
      0
      Perhaps you are right in the second paragraph. And on the first mobility is higher. But we did not use American tactics.
      Thus, the cars followed the tanks and were an excellent target. They lost speed advantage and were poorly armored. The Soviet in this respect looked better. Of course for our fighting style
  • Mrrr meow
    Mrrr meow 8 March 2019 10: 50
    +2
    While reading Drabkin and Pershavin on the pages of their books, I repeatedly noticed the sad statements of Soviet tankers and anti-tankers about the absence or presence of only a few sub-caliber shells in the ammunition, which did not allow to effectively fight well-armored German armored vehicles forcing the niche soldiers to fight at close range and incur unjustified losses . But the presence of sub-caliber and cumulative shells in sufficient quantities could greatly help the Red Army on the Kursk Bulge and in subsequent battles. As the tankers themselves recall, the presence of even a worse than German, sub-caliber projectile made it possible to engage in battle with German tanks from a 76,2 mm cannon at distances of 1000-1200 meters. Even anti-tankers with their 45 mm cannons could not without success fight German tanks at distances up to 800 meters. But alas, sub-caliber shells, if any, were issued individually, in cumulative shells they are not mentioned at all in the memoirs of veterans, they only note that they had Germans, but they only heard about ours.
    1. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine 8 March 2019 13: 07
      +2
      Quote: Moore Meow
      a caliber projectile made it possible to fight with German tanks from a 76,2 mm cannon at distances of 1000-1200 meters

      Neither the reel subcaliber, nor the 43rd year’s godfather could be used at such a distance. 500 meters. Weapons of last chance.
    2. Alf
      Alf 8 March 2019 17: 31
      +1
      Quote: Moore Meow
      While reading Drabkin and Pershavin on the pages of their books, I repeatedly noticed the sad statements of Soviet tankers and anti-tankers about the absence or presence of only a few sub-caliber shells in the ammunition set,

      You might think that the Germans produced tens of thousands of subcalibers. For KWK-48 40700 shells. For 88 7700 pieces. And the Americans weren’t too thick either, according to the recollections of Amer tankers it was a blessing to have 5 such shots in the BC.
  • garri-lin
    garri-lin 8 March 2019 11: 08
    0
    I misunderstood the rate of fire. 4 rounds per minute? Not a little? Caliber is not a big shell is not hard.
    1. Alf
      Alf 8 March 2019 17: 35
      0
      Quote: garri-lin
      I misunderstood the rate of fire. 4 rounds per minute? Not a little? Caliber is not a big shell is not hard.

      Have you seen the Witches layout? Try spinning there with a unitary, the length of such a projectile is 75 mm under 90 centimeters.
      1. garri-lin
        garri-lin 8 March 2019 20: 23
        0
        It was extremely ill-conceived if so.
        1. Alf
          Alf 8 March 2019 21: 46
          +2
          Quote: garri-lin
          It was extremely ill-conceived if so.

          Nothing is given in technology for free.
  • demiurg
    demiurg 8 March 2019 11: 45
    +3
    BC in the birdhouse pierced by any gun at any distance. No roof, hi attack aircraft and mortar attacks. You can also remember about the fuel consumption (aviation gasoline), which is higher than that of the Royal Tiger.

    If, at that time, hatters and SU-85/100 were already being launched with might and main. Which actually fought and served until the end of the millennium.

    And on the pavement, the car is fast, yes. Only the tower spins manually.
    1. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine 8 March 2019 13: 49
      +4
      Quote: demiurg
      If, at that time, hatters and SU-85/100 were already being launched with might and main. Which actually fought and served until the end of the millennium.

      Well, for the end of the millennium, there is nothing special to be proud of, but:
      Tank destroyers for the summer of the 44th year:
      Americans - Hellket and Wolverin (Sherman with the same 76mm gun and open tower).
      The English are Archer.
      The Germans - JagdPz IV (from the beginning of the year the panther armor of the forehead, from the spring of the panther cannon). Yagdpanthera, Yagdtiger (first cars).
      USSR - Su-85, ISU-122 (since April). Su-100 in the 44th is not used.

      Of these, Americans are the lightest and most mobile. However, they can not be used in a tank battle, unlike everyone else except Achera. Practice has shown that Americans are wrong.

      At the same time, it must be remembered that the battalions of the PT SAU RGK were supposed to be used together with the infantry divisions, as a means of emergency anti-tank reinforcement, and then they were completely given to the foot soldiers. Naturally, the infantry wanted to use any artillery, including as assault. In this capacity, Hellket is clearly worse than the Shtugov from 75/48, and even more so the Soviet heavy and medium self-propelled guns with a big drag.
      That is, we can say that despite the technical beauty, the American self-propelled guns of all possible: German, Soviet, English - were the worst.

      By the way.
      Moreover, the gun turned out well, a miracle, how good!

      The worst gun of the 44th year. Armor by the standards of Africa is not bad, but by the standards of France it is completely insufficient, and OFS Americans did not really do at all. 85 mm 53-O-365 contained 741 g of explosives, Sprgr. 42 Panthers - 650 g, Sprgr. Patr. 34 fours and pieces - 660 g, 17-pdr (late) - 580 g, M48 High Explosive of early Sherman - 680 g.
      The M42A1 High Explosive shell 76mm had only 390 g. Moreover, the Americans used 50/50 amatole for this projectile. For comparison, 122 kg were thrust into the ISU-122 at 3 mm. amatola.
      The Americans themselves, having become stupid from this stupid gun, began to insert hexogen (mixture B) in the amount of almost a kilogram in 90mm Jackson / Pershing. That's almost four times more TNT than a 76mm shell.
  • DesToeR
    DesToeR 8 March 2019 12: 21
    +2
    Quote: Moore Meow
    But the presence of sub-caliber and cumulative shells in sufficient quantities could greatly help the Red Army on the Kursk Bulge and in subsequent battles.

    The number of shells of one type or another is calculated based on the probability of its use. If the probability of firing at an armored target is 10%, and the probability that this target is highly armored is 20%, then the number of shells will be 0,1 * 0,2 * 100% = 2% of the total ammunition. We take the ammunition of the T-34-76 tank (about 80 shells, I don’t remember exactly), then the number of sub-caliber shells will be: 80x0,02 = 1,6 pcs. If I’m not mistaken, then 3 shells were fired at the tank, i.e. there was a reserve of one shell for a miss or non-penetration. Everything is logical.
    Quote: Moore Meow
    As the tankers themselves recall, the presence of even a worse than German, sub-caliber projectile made it possible to engage in battle with German tanks from a 76,2 mm cannon at distances of 1000-1200 meters.

    Subcaliber shells of the time that the Germans, that we allowed to conduct effective firing at a distance of no more than 500m, because with increasing distance, the initial velocity and accuracy sharply decreased.
    Quote: Moore Meow
    But alas, sub-caliber shells, if any, were issued individually, in cumulative shells they are not mentioned at all in the memoirs of veterans, they only note that they had Germans, but they only heard about ours.

    But in war, as in war ... Cartridges, vodka, shag are in price.
    1. Mrrr meow
      Mrrr meow 8 March 2019 15: 06
      0
      Yeah, I read that it was not recommended to use a sub-caliber further than 500 m, and the cumulative one went to the troops only at the end of 44 years and in small batches. Here, along the way, I came across a plate of armor penetration, anyone can be interested. http://www.battlefield.ru/specification-penetration-soviet-tank-guns.html
      1. Alf
        Alf 8 March 2019 17: 37
        +1
        Quote: Moore Meow
        Yeah, I read that it was not recommended to use a sub-caliber further than 500 m, and the cumulative one went to the troops only at the end of 44 years and in small batches. Here, along the way, I came across a plate of armor penetration, anyone can be interested. http://www.battlefield.ru/specification-penetration-soviet-tank-guns.html



  • Earnest
    Earnest 8 March 2019 14: 40
    +2
    The pre-production M18 self-propelled guns were tested in the USSR under the name Gun Motor Carriage T70. Here is part of the description of these tests.

    ... after studying the design of the machine, it was the turn of sea trials. According to the standard program, the car had to go 1000 kilometers. In practice, the mileage was even slightly larger and amounted to 1022 kilometers, of which 172 on the cobblestone and 214 on the asphalt highway, 530 on the country road and 132 on the virgin snow.
    Up to the estimated 55 miles per hour (88 km / h) on tests, the car was not able to accelerate. In the course of four attempts, we managed to accelerate it only to 75,6 km / h. From the spot to 70 km / h, the car accelerated in 64 seconds, overcoming the distance in 700 meters. When braking from a speed of 50 km / h and a higher self-propelled setting skidded. Under smooth braking, skids stopped, but at the same time, the distance covered by the ACS to a full stop reached 70 – 80 meters.
    The average speed of pure traffic on a cobblestone highway was 38,4 km / h, and on an asphalt 47,6 highway km / h. Speed ​​on the highway was limited by the lack of stability of the machine. This was especially felt when driving on an icy road. At speeds of 60 – 70 km / h the car began to enter.
    With all this, the car consumed a lot of fuel - 203 liters per 100 kilometers. The use of a double differential increased the turning radius to 12,3 meters. On the other hand, the suspension behaved very well. Thanks to the additional elastic elements (hydraulic shock absorbers and vertical springs) it was possible to achieve very high smoothness when driving on good roads.
    A much more unpleasant picture began to emerge while driving along a country road. Sorvin was right when he said that the concept of a light tank fighter would be justified only on level ground. On the country road, the average speed of the ACS has decreased to 23,8 km / h. For comparison, the light tank М3Л on the country road developed the average speed of 29 km / h, and the German Pz.Kpfw.III Ausf.H - 25 km / h. We had to go on the 2-th transmission, because the torque converter reduced the transmitted torque on the country road. Also, the work of the torque converter was the reason that the car could not move along a country road with deep potholes. Insufficient torque did not allow to overcome roadside ditches 0,75 meters deep.

    At the same time on the country road American SAU consumed completely indecent amounts of fuel. On 100 kilometers she needed 357 liters of gasoline and 11,3 liters of oil. It also emerged that the tracked vehicles had insufficient grip.
    The greatest problems arose in the "highway" tank destroyer when driving on snow-covered virgin snow. Above the first gear, the torque converter did not allow it to rise, and the torque was lost even more. Average speed was 19,4 km / h. The snow cover with a height of more than half a meter turned out to be insurmountable for the car, the cause of which was the same torque converter. The fuel consumption at the same time became monstrous. 100 (!) Liters of gasoline and 708 liters of oil were required for 20,2 kilometers. So much did not consume even other heavy tanks.
    Not the best way to deal with overcoming natural obstacles. During the tests on the rise of the course managed to overcome the top of the slope 16 degrees. A steeper climb proved to be insurmountable due to the lack of traction between the tracks and the ground. With the acceleration on the 2-th transmission, we managed to overcome the rise of the steepness of 18 degrees. Further, the same torque converter again became the limiting factor.
    On the descent, the maximum angle at which the tracks did not slip was an angle of 24 degrees. During tests on a slope when driving through the snow, the maximum angle at which the car was traveling without slipping was an angle of 18 degrees. With active work with levers for leveling the machine, movement was possible at a heel angle in 18 – 22 degrees.

    The last running test was overcoming the ford. In its course, it turned out that the maximum depth that a self-propelled unit can overcome is 1,55 meters. Then the water through the blinds fell into the engine compartment. This figure was very good. For example, for the German Pz.Kpfw.III the ford with a depth of 1,4 meter was insurmountable.

    In general, as a tank destroyer, the GMC T70 turned out to be quite a good vehicle in terms of armament. The Soviet testers rejected the chassis:

    “The American T-70 self-propelled artillery mount cannot be recommended for import for the following reasons:

    Weak armor that provides protection only against machine-gun fire and small fragments of shells.
    High fuel consumption, which is several times higher than fuel consumption for self-propelled units of this class in the same conditions.
    The use of high-grade gasoline as a fuel, making self-propelled fire hazardous.
    Poor maneuverability. ”


    Source: https://warspot.ru/8567-avtostradnyy-istrebitel
  • SASHA OLD
    SASHA OLD 8 March 2019 16: 21
    0
    good article, pictures of "patient examination" - just super, thank you very much!
    but Hellcat is not "Hell Cat" (although it sounds cool, of course), Hellcat is "Witch" (or "Vixen") as I understand it ...
  • serge siberian
    serge siberian 8 March 2019 16: 48
    0
    With all the pros and cons about the car, it's nice to read about such a technique. I liked the article itself and the comments are good. good
  • NF68
    NF68 8 March 2019 16: 57
    0
    The tower is installed in the middle of the hull. The rotation is circular. Armament 76,2-mm gun M1A1 and 12,7-mm anti-aircraft gun. The elevation angle for the implement is + 20, and the declination angle is 9 degrees. Gun without muzzle brake. The initial speed of the armor-piercing projectile 686 m / s. For sifting projectile speed 1035 m / s. The rate of fire 4 shot per minute.


    Cannon caliber 76,2 mm., Unitary shot and rate of fire of all 4 rds / min?
    1. Alf
      Alf 8 March 2019 17: 38
      +1
      Quote: NF68
      Cannon caliber 76,2 mm., Unitary shot and rate of fire of all 4 rds / min?

      The dimensions of the projectile and the tightness in the tower ...
  • migeos
    migeos 8 March 2019 18: 30
    0
    Kind of like a "witch", not a "hell cat"
  • Astra wild
    Astra wild 8 March 2019 21: 58
    0
    I was somewhat distressed by the malnutrition with which the museum rangers relate to the exhibits: pieces of some kind of film, puddles.
    Roma, forgive my naivety, but if these same "hellish cats" were not supplied under lend-lease to the Soviet Soz, then where is this car in the museum from? Or is it a "remake"
    1. Alf
      Alf 9 March 2019 17: 41
      +1
      Quote: Astra wild
      But if these same "hellish cats" were not supplied under lend-lease to Sovetsky Soz, then where is this car in the museum from?

      It was placed in the Union for review. According to the Witch there is a report on the trials at the research institute.
  • Saxahorse
    Saxahorse 8 March 2019 22: 15
    0
    I like Hellcat myself too. But the author forgets to say that during WWII the very concept of tank destroyers failed. The separation of defense and attack is not justified tactically. There is no Hellket in the attack, and again, where he took up the defense, you can wait until the blue of the attack of the enemy tanks which will never be there. Universality is absent as a class.
    1. Alf
      Alf 9 March 2019 17: 45
      +1
      Quote: Saxahorse
      But the author forgets to say that during WWII the very concept of tank destroyers failed.

      Why do you think so ?
      Quote: Saxahorse
      and again, where he took up defense, you can wait until the blue of the attack of enemy tanks which will never be there.

      Well, the military still should not be considered gifted. M-18 got up on the defensive exactly where the attack of enemy tanks was expected.
      Quote: Saxahorse
      The separation of defense and attack is not justified tactically.

      For some reason, the Nashorns did not attack.
      1. Saxahorse
        Saxahorse 9 March 2019 19: 20
        0
        Quote: Alf
        Well, the military still should not be considered gifted. M-18 got up on the defensive exactly where the attack of enemy tanks was expected.

        Exactly where it was expected .. And the same military men remind that a good attack should be unexpected for the enemy. Where they do not wait.

        Compensate for such unexpected people in the military is accepted by quick counterattacks on the flanks of the attacker. But just that Hellcat is not capable of.

        The same Nashhorn is just an inexpensive self-propelled gun, but Hellcat is an almost full-fledged tank; however, it is unsuitable for tank tasks.
        1. Alf
          Alf 9 March 2019 19: 43
          +1
          Quote: Saxahorse
          Compensate for such unexpected people in the military is accepted by quick counterattacks on the flanks of the attacker. But just that Hellcat is not capable of.

          Of course. Hellket is generally an ambush machine, the offensive is not its element.
          Quote: Saxahorse
          Hellcat is an almost complete tank, but it is unsuitable for tank tasks.

          Translate. Self-propelled gun is not originally a replacement for the tank.
          1. Saxahorse
            Saxahorse 9 March 2019 19: 55
            0
            In general, I am inclined to believe that the best tank destroyer is the tank itself. And any self-propelled gun is an ersatz without which it is better to do. The Americans, on the other hand, deliberately tried to play with both hands, releasing different machines for attack and defense. It reminded me of the old concept of maneuverable and high-speed fighters. Remember, there was such a fantasy in the 1930s. Type a biplane fights on turns and a monoplane on verticals. In practice, none of this worked, as did the Americans with the concept of separation of roles in defense and offensive.
            1. Alf
              Alf 9 March 2019 20: 04
              +1
              Quote: Saxahorse
              In general, I am inclined to believe that the best tank destroyer is the tank itself.

              But who is arguing?
              Quote: Saxahorse
              And any self-propelled gun is an ersatz without which it is better to do.

              Will not work. The ideological difference between self-propelled guns and a tank was that by refusing a rotating turret it would be possible to crank a larger caliber gun. Although there were exceptions regarding the towers, in particular the M-18.
              Quote: Saxahorse
              The Americans, on the other hand, deliberately tried to play with both hands, releasing different machines for attack and defense.

              Again, I do not agree.
              The SU-85 and SU-100 showed excellent performance both in defense and in attack, following tanks in the second line.
              Just a tank destroyer, like a more armored vehicle, more stable on the battlefield.
              Quote: Saxahorse
              Remember, there was such a fantasy in the 1930s. Type a biplane fights on turns and a monoplane on verticals. N

              Still would. I remember even such mutants as IS-1 Shevchenko.
              1. Saxahorse
                Saxahorse 9 March 2019 20: 23
                0
                Quote: Alf
                The SU-85 and SU-100 showed excellent performance both in defense and in attack, following tanks in the second line.

                You contradict yourself. In the second line, they followed precisely because of the enormous losses in attempts to use them in the first line. What required separate strict orders for the proper use of such machines. As you can see, tank destroyers themselves are of little use as an attack weapon. Only as a means of support.
                1. Alf
                  Alf 9 March 2019 20: 28
                  +1
                  Quote: Saxahorse
                  You contradict yourself.

                  Not at all.
                  I mean the attack as following tanks at a distance of 200-300 meters behind, as in a war as in a war.
                  And INSTEAD of tanks, yes, it’s a nailing microscope.
                2. Cherry Nine
                  Cherry Nine 9 March 2019 20: 52
                  +2
                  Quote: Saxahorse
                  In the second line, they followed precisely because of the enormous losses in attempts to use them in the first line.

                  To suppress the infantry, the Germans used an assault gun, known as the "Jagdpanther", - it was equipped with a gun with a casemate (that is, not mounted in a rotating turret) installation for 150-mm (given by V.D.) frontal armor. With the support of the Panthers, defended from the flanks by paratroopers and infantry, the Yagdpanthers turned into a terrible force. The frontal armor of the advancing almost continuous line of assault guns was almost invulnerable to the shells of our "Sherman".

                  Although it should be noted that even the Su-100 was far from the Yagdpenter.
                  Quote: Saxahorse
                  In general, I am inclined to believe that the best tank destroyer is the tank itself.

                  To this and came.
                  Quote: Saxahorse
                  And any self-propelled gun is an ersatz without which it is better to do

                  Self-propelled guns are another balance of armor - tactical convenience - weapons. If done wisely, it will be extremely useful. Jagdpanzer 70 - VLD and Panther’s gun on the chassis and production base of the four. The pieces also proved to be very good - serious armor and a gun on the chassis of the troika, armor more serious than on the early four.
                  ML-20 You will not put it in the tower either, but completely in the wheelhouse.
                  Quote: Saxahorse
                  The Americans, on the other hand, deliberately tried to play with both hands, releasing different machines for attack and defense.

                  The Americans had a different train of thought. They have tanks separately, and the tank destroyer is a tank cannon mounted on tracks to drive faster. As fast as possible. I didn’t think about the anti-tank capabilities of tanks.
                  Quote: Saxahorse
                  quick counterattacks on the flanks of the attacker. But just that Hellcat is not capable of.

                  It was believed that just Hellket would quickly rush where necessary and quickly hit. This is not an ambush machine, it was not intended to dig in and wait. The fact that the Germans are worth something on the flanks of the wedge, and that something will break through Hellket from the bushes much faster than he can understand what it is, reached the Americans much later.
                  Quote: Saxahorse
                  it is an almost full-fledged tank, but unsuitable for tank tasks.

                  Yeah. And the fact that Hellket did not become a light tank (later Chaffee did it separately, the same thing, but worse) is rather difficult to explain.
                  Quote: Saxahorse
                  during WWII the very concept of tank destroyers failed

                  The American concept of racing tank destroyers has failed. The bush and armored tank destroyers proved to be excellent.
                  1. Saxahorse
                    Saxahorse 10 March 2019 17: 43
                    0
                    Quote: Cherry Nine
                    The American concept of racing tank destroyers has failed. The bush and armored tank destroyers proved to be excellent.

                    I totally disagree! The very concept of separating tanks for attack and tanks for defense failed. Do you remember our Russian classics? It will be "as always" one broke, the other was lost. The narrow specialization of military equipment is beneficial to the military-industrial complex, but extremely harmful to the user. In practice, all tasks will have to be solved with what was at hand alive and more or less whole.

                    PS I will add that the tank destroyer as an ersatz of wartime, is fully justified. (I blinded him, from what it was ..) But this is exactly ersatz. It would be better if more correct tanks were made.
                    1. Cherry Nine
                      Cherry Nine 10 March 2019 18: 41
                      0
                      Quote: Saxahorse
                      In practice, all tasks will have to be solved by what turned out to be alive and more or less whole at hand.

                      You transfer the realities of the 40s to the 70s. Nobody did MBT in the 40s. Especially in the mobilization army. The idea of ​​using the same chassis for a tank — with a turret — and for an assault gun — without a turret, but with a large gun and possibly good armor — brilliantly paid off.
                      Quote: Saxahorse
                      It would be better if more correct tanks were made.

                      Who do you give this advice to? Germans, USSR, Americans?
                      1. Saxahorse
                        Saxahorse 10 March 2019 19: 19
                        0
                        Quote: Cherry Nine
                        The idea of ​​using the same chassis for a tank — with a turret — and for an assault gun — without a turret, but with a large gun and possibly good armor — brilliantly paid off.

                        And there was the KV-2, which itself combined a very large gun with a tower. Your example is unsuccessful. Quite the contrary, there were many tanks that turned out to be too tank destroyers (like Panthers). Here the size of the gun is secondary, the main thing is not to lose the attacking capabilities of the tank in the pursuit of anti-tank capabilities.
                      2. Cherry Nine
                        Cherry Nine 10 March 2019 20: 00
                        0
                        Quote: Saxahorse
                        And there was a KV-2 that combined a very large cannon with a tower

                        Just KV-2 was idiocy. The KV-1 needed to be lightened, not heavier. Much more decent cars of this plan, in addition to Stuck and Stuck, are the English KStanks, Sherman 105.
                        But the most interesting is Shtug. On the chassis of the three, it was possible to actually get B1 in terms of weapons and protection. Beyond the minus the almost useless 47 mm turret.
                        Quote: Saxahorse
                        which turned out to be too tank destroyers (like Panther)

                        The Panther was not "too tank destroyer". In terms of anti-personnel capabilities, it was no worse than the four (Sherman 75 and especially 76, T-34-85, Kometa). The question of whether it could have been made better is appropriate, but in fact, no one succeeded until the end of the 40s.
                      3. Saxahorse
                        Saxahorse 11 March 2019 00: 35
                        0
                        Quote: Cherry Nine
                        The Panther was not "too tank destroyer". In terms of anti-personnel capabilities, it was no worse than the four (Sherman 75 and especially 76, T-34-85, Kometa)

                        It was worse, and much. You stubborn as usual. Panther’s weight alone indicates that the machine is skewed in the tank destroyer.

                        And again, you are not expressing yourself correctly. It's not about "anti-personnel" capabilities, but about the possibility of supporting the infantry in the attack. The Panther, of course, was not too large.
                      4. qw3
                        qw3 11 March 2019 00: 50
                        -2
                        Quote: Saxahorse
                        It's not about "anti-personnel" capabilities, but about the possibility of supporting the infantry in the attack. The Panther, of course, was not too large.

                        Panther tank. Present. Real tanks do not support infantry.
                        The infantry was supported by pre-war tanks of the concept of "motorized infantry support tanks" (in the USSR T-26, then T-34/76). In the course of the war, such tanks were replaced by self-propelled guns (assault self-propelled guns).
                        The Panther gun was needed for:
                        1. Struggles with VET calculations. With this she came across quite successfully. Because It was very well designed.
                        2. Fighting the enemy’s BTT. And for this she was quite fit.
                        The reasons why you attribute the Panther to a tank destroyer are not clear. Good armor penetration? But since when did this become the flaw of the tank?
                      5. Cherry Nine
                        Cherry Nine 11 March 2019 01: 00
                        0
                        Quote: Saxahorse
                        Panther’s weight alone indicates that the machine is skewed in the tank destroyer.

                        Soviet propagandists drove into your head that weight means something in itself. When Sherman appeared, the main German tank was a troika, and the fact that Sherman is 1,5 times heavier does not make him worse.
                        Just like Panther 1,5 times heavier than Sherman.
                        Weight matters only in terms of reliability and tactical mobility. In mobility, the Panther went where it should be, in reliability - the average for the hospital.
                        But the Germans got the main tank armored from the forehead according to the realities of the 44th year, and even in most cases of the 45th year - 122 mm as a PT did not meet under every bush, but the same 17lb with Panther had problems. Neither T-34 nor Sherman in the world with Pak40 had armor, that is, starting from the 43rd.
                        Quote: Saxahorse
                        Support capabilities for infantry in attack. The Panther, of course, it was not too big.

                        Why would this "be understood"? OFS is the same as in the four, rate of fire, overview, communication - at the level.
                        Another question is that it is not Panther’s business to support the infantry in the tank battalions of the infantry divisions. The infantry has ShtUK, it is specially made for the infantry. Panther's task is deep operations as part of tank divisions. She was better suited for this than Pershing and Centurion, not to mention Sherman, T-34-85 or even Comet. The cars that went around her appeared 5 years later than her.
                      6. Saxahorse
                        Saxahorse 11 March 2019 01: 07
                        0
                        Quote: Cherry Nine
                        Weight matters only in terms of reliability and tactical mobility.

                        Weight is also a price. Sherman and T-34-85 solved the banal task of supporting infantry (including imminent losses) three to five times cheaper. The Panther is certainly a good car, but in the attack it looked pale. The losses are exactly the same as those of the T-IV of the same time.
                      7. Cherry Nine
                        Cherry Nine 11 March 2019 01: 25
                        -2
                        Quote: Saxahorse
                        Weight is also a price. Shermans and T-34-85 ... three to five times cheaper.

                        1. It’s as if you are aware of how much the cars you listed cost.
                        https://cont.ws/@sicomoro/637423
                        2. Neither Panther, nor Sherman, nor T-34 must not support infantry in infantry divisions. Sherman and T-34 did this from poverty and poverty, respectively, and the Germans had assault guns for this purpose. In tank divisions / corps infantry was supposed to support tanks, not infantry tanks.
                    2. goose
                      goose 11 March 2019 10: 38
                      0
                      Quote: Cherry Nine
                      Neither T-34 nor Sherman in the world with Pak40 armor had

                      In all fairness, the Sherman Jumbo (of which hundreds had finished), the T-43 and T34M had enough armor for the PAK40 at reasonable ranges. Another thing is that there were not enough "elephants", and the T43 and T34M did not go into the series. As a result, only the IS, and possibly the Churchillies, had sufficient armor.
                      Every little thing like T-70 was more dangerous for PAK-40, because due to the low altitude, it was very difficult to target at long distances with a competent crew because of the terrain in the field. It was really possible to get close to 300-400m, and there you can already spot the cannon from the tank yourself.
                    3. Cherry Nine
                      Cherry Nine 11 March 2019 11: 35
                      0
                      Quote: goose
                      Sherman Jumbo (hundreds of which dopped), T-43 and T34M had enough armor for the PAK40 at reasonable distances.

                      Of the machines you listed, in reality there was only Jumbo.
                      Quote: goose
                      there weren't enough "elephants"

                      There were 254 elephants. For Soviet money, 12 regiments. However, the very idea of ​​a heavy tank was disgusting to the Americans - not only were they not given a normal gun to Jumbo, but they were also platooned into tank battalions of both tank and infantry divisions. So it’s 100% GSh wine and two more times 100% Eisenhower, its headquarters and its commanders (100% for unlearned Italian lessons, 100% for wrong tactics).
                      Tractors dragged on SPAM one of the new M4AZE2 tanks - the E2 index meant that the machine was experimental. We got a few of these machines - hasty attempts to overcome the M4 lag in armor protection. They also had an additional 25 mm armor plate welded onto their frontal armor and another 6 mm slabs on sponsons. This gave the car a total of 89 mm of armor in the front and 76 mm each from the sides.
                      Although such layered armor was inferior in strength to solid plates, it was much better than nothing. In addition, the new tanks were equipped with a cast steel tower, weighted with additional armor: 127 mm frontal, 76 each from the sides and 50 aft. To top it off, the thickness of the gun mask was 76-102 mm. We were informed that the new tank models were intended to break through enemy positions, but they were equipped with old, short-barreled 75 mm model M2 guns. It was incomprehensible that the army leadership was concerned about strengthening the armor, but left the armament unchanged! Additional armor gave the tank an extra three to four tons of weight, and its tracks remained as narrow as the original M4AZ model. This further limited their use in rugged, swampy terrain.
                      Despite the extra armor, the tank was hit twice from a German anti-tank gun, which had a high initial velocity of the projectile. The first hole was located in the "upper right corner of the silhouette", that is, in the junction between the reinforced frontal armor, the sponson and the roof of the tower. The projectile passed over the head of the assistant driver and ricocheted directly into the fighting compartment. The second hole was in the tower to the right of the gun, next to the periscope shooter. The shell pierced the 102-mm gun mask, another 127 mm of armor near its axle and penetrated into the tower. It was hard to imagine how any of the crew could survive.

                      Cooper.
                      Quote: goose
                      As a result, only IPs and possibly Churchill had sufficient reservations.

                      Ага.
                      Quote: goose
                      It was really possible to get close to 300-400m, and there you can already spot the cannon from the tank yourself.

                      If the anti-tank is from the Volksturm and with ear diseases. And so the difference between the T-70 and the T-34 is 40 cm.
                3. goose
                  goose 11 March 2019 10: 53
                  0
                  Quote: Saxahorse
                  It's not about "anti-personnel" capabilities, but about the possibility of supporting the infantry in the attack. The Panther, of course, was not too large.

                  It was proved that the OFS Panther's insufficiency at the test site due to the burial of the OFS projectile in the ground. Say nothing about the technical details. All popular artillery systems for fragmentation were compared at the training ground.
                  Specifically, according to Panther, the ellipse was too narrowly directed forward, a small number of fragments. Even the 45-mm 53-K lost the fragmentation effect, but was ahead of the 45-mm M-42. Conclusion - the anti-tank gun could be hit only by a direct hit, which determined the large losses from the anti-tank fire in the offensive. Weakness in equipping with optics and a relatively weak side added negativity - the vast majority of Panthers hit the side, and from a long distance. The Pzkpfw VIE had a certain balance in terms of its striking capabilities and the search for targets, it managed to find and destroy an anti-aircraft gun of the ZIS-3 type at an acceptable distance. The thick board allowed relatively easy maneuvering across the battlefield. Pzkpfw IVF-J was saved only by modest dimensions, he had no chance to destroy the VET gun during. Saved only the pre-emptive equipment of the ZIS-3 not with PTO sights, but with artillery, which made it difficult to aim at distances of the order of 1000-1500 m.
                4. Cherry Nine
                  Cherry Nine 11 March 2019 11: 45
                  0
                  Quote: goose
                  stepped on fragmentation even 45-mm 53-K
                  Quote: goose
                  Pzkpfw IVF-J was saved only by modest dimensions, he had no chance to destroy the VET gun during

                  What kind of addiction is this?
  • Cherry Nine
    Cherry Nine 9 March 2019 21: 01
    +1
    Quote: Alf
    due to the abandonment of the rotating turret, it will be possible to twist a larger caliber gun.

    You are talking about Stug, a self-propelled gun based on a three with a four gun (and reinforced armor), the idea of ​​which was adopted in the USSR and devoured to ISU-152.
    Quote: Alf
    Although there were exceptions regarding the towers, in particular the M-18.

    They balanced the car in the opposite way to Stuck, based on their interethnic tactics.
    Quote: Alf
    Hellket is generally an ambush machine, the offensive is not its element.

    Hellket - a machine of maneuverable defense, reserve GK. To wait, and especially to dig in and wait, is not her concept.
    1. goose
      goose 11 March 2019 10: 32
      0
      Quote: Cherry Nine
      Hellket - a machine of maneuverable defense, reserve GK. To wait, and especially to dig in and wait, is not her concept.

      Yeah, the design is very vulnerable to artillery raids and aircraft.
  • qw3
    qw3 10 March 2019 11: 13
    -3
    Quote: Saxahorse
    In general, I am inclined to believe that the best tank destroyer is the tank itself.

    Well, as it were, this is not so. The cabin on the same platform can accommodate more than the tower. Yes, and make logging easier. For the USSR, with its low-power industrial base, this mattered.
    Then the situation changed. But during the war it was like that.
    Quote: Saxahorse
    And any self-propelled gun is an ersatz without which it is better to do.

    On the one hand, not so. Self-propelled artillery is one of the varieties of weapons. Not ersatz tanks.
    On the other hand, what if tanks you can’t do?
    This is how the USSR, which during WW2 could not make tanks (real). Only "Soviet tanks", which only outwardly look like real ones. And somehow it was necessary to fight.
    So he got out as he could. Already in 1942, tactical BTT ligaments were invented. Those. the role of real tanks in the USSR was played by two BTT units, one on the first, the second on the second line of attack. And the role of self-propelled guns in these ligaments was huge, they ALWAYS were present in them (on the second line).
    A bunch of 1942: T-34 + SU-122.
    Failed due to weak armor penetration of the three-inch.
    A bunch of 1943: T-34 + SU-85.
    It failed due to the weak fragmentation of the three-inch OS and the weak armor penetration of the 85 mm gun from the second line.
    Bundle 1944: T-34/85 + IS-2.
    It was bad due to the weak fragmentation of the 85 mm OS and the poor rate of fire of the 122 mm gun. But there were simply no other guns in the USSR.
    Bundle 1945: T-44 + IS-3.
    Since there were no other guns, further emphasis was placed on increasing the security of the BTT. Fortunately, this tactical team did not fight, the war ended. The T-44 for the actions on the first line was terrible (the platform was not a tank, but self-propelled guns). The losses would be colossal, more than the T-34/85.
    Quote: Saxahorse
    The Americans, on the other hand, deliberately tried to play with both hands, releasing different machines for attack and defense.

    ACS they are, in principle, not for attack. They cannot attack, they can only support attackers (tanks). What did the attacks by the turret tank destroyers lead to (in fact, the T-34s in 1942 and further T-34/85 were exactly them, although in the USSR they were called tanks)? To their huge losses.
    And for defense, they would be quite suitable. Only the infantry (defensive type of aircraft) did not rely on self-propelled guns.
    Therefore, during the war, self-propelled guns were used to support tanks (on the offensive) and to repel enemy counter-attacks (again, during the offensive).
    There were also assault SPGs of motorized infantry. But this is a slightly different BTT (separate view). And it was used specifically. But also, to attack and repel counterattacks. Not for defense (motorized infantry did not deal with long-term defense).
    1. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine 10 March 2019 11: 50
      +1
      Quote: qw3
      For the USSR, with its low-power industrial base, this mattered.

      Do you know who else made self-propelled guns?
      HITLER !!!!
      1. qw3
        qw3 10 March 2019 12: 23
        -1
        Quote: Cherry Nine
        Do you know who else made self-propelled guns?
        HITLER !!!!

        The Germans practically did not build self-propelled guns. They built crazy (when felling, and when not) tanks (did not use self-propelled artillery platforms). The only BTT that was built as a self-propelled artillery self-propelled gun is Ferdinand. But then they were EVERYTHING (remaining in service) converted into felling tanks.
        German self-propelled guns are Marders, Nashors, etc. Those. just self-propelled guns protected.
      2. goose
        goose 11 March 2019 10: 30
        0
        Quote: Cherry Nine
        Do you know who else made self-propelled guns?
        HITLER !!!!

        And also the Americans and the British, and not only self-propelled guns. Assault tanks almost all had a cutting structure.
        1. Cherry Nine
          Cherry Nine 11 March 2019 11: 09
          0
          Quote: goose
          And also the Americans and the British, and not only self-propelled guns. Assault tanks almost all had a cutting structure.

          You see, I have no particular desire to deal with the nuances of classification. Especially German.
          In the sense in which QW broadcasts, the Allies did not do self-propelled guns, but in vain.
  • ecolog
    ecolog 10 March 2019 22: 33
    0
    4 rounds per minute - is that a lot?
  • goose
    goose 11 March 2019 10: 28
    0
    Purely out of harm: Hellcat is not a hell of a cat, but a witch.
    1. Fing
      Fing 12 March 2019 22: 52
      0
      Purely out of harm
      1. goose
        goose 13 March 2019 10: 25
        0
        How can I talk to you? https://www.multitran.ru/c/m.exe?CL=1&s=hellcat&l1=1
        You can write in Google, although this is not an indicator.
        English language homonyms are also in English. You can, of course, rest.
        But the fact remains that the PT-self-propelled gun that the fighter was called "witches".
  • DimerVladimer
    DimerVladimer 11 March 2019 13: 14
    0
    The question was only one thing: on whose side.

    Seriously? Were there any options?

    In our translation, this is a rebound or a rebound

    Can you run?
  • Windsurfer
    Windsurfer 23 May 2019 09: 29
    0
    But let's see across the ocean. The Americans did not want to fight against fascism in Europe so much that they didn’t even declare war on Hitler! But that would have to fight, in Washington understood. There was only one question: on whose side. To have time to divide trophies. The answer was given by Hitler himself. It was he who declared the US war.

    Only a complete amateur in history could give out such a thing. Reasoning at the 5th grade level of the school, author, do not write more.
    Yes, the armor was light. But placing the armor plates at an angle significantly increases protection. Shells quite often simply ricochet from the armor without causing significant damage.

    In theory, this is true, but in the case of 1944 and specifically the battles in Normandy, 25 mm of frontal armor at any tilt is even theoretically unable to protect against the most common then 75 mm and 88 mm calibers, some theoretical chances were against 50 mm guns of the later versions of Panzer 3, but very small, because this gun hit even the T-34 in the forehead, and there 45 mm after all. I think these 25 mm could only protect against small-caliber cannons of captured French tanks from the fire, but they were used very limitedly for their intended purpose.