Light tanks of the USSR in the prewar period

61
В previous article the first light and floating soviet were considered Tanksdeveloped during the interwar period. Developed on the basis of the French tank FT17 of the First World War, the Soviet light tanks Russian Renault and T-18 (MS-1) in the second half of the 20s began to seriously lag behind foreign models. An attempt to continue and improve this line of tanks led to the development in 1929 of the T-19 light tank with slightly better technical characteristics.





By that time, the Soviet government purchased documentation and samples of the British Vickers six-ton ​​light-turbo tank in 1930, and the development of the T-26 light tank began on this basis. According to its characteristics, the T-19 was the same or inferior to the T-26 tank, and the cost was much higher. In this regard, in the 1931, work on the T-19 tank was discontinued, and T-26 was launched into mass production at the Bolshevik plant in Leningrad.

Light tank T-26


The T-26 tank was a copy of the Vickers Six-ton ​​English Light Tank and became the most massive tank of the Red Army before the Great Patriotic War; in total, 11218 of these tanks was released.

Depending on the modification, the T-26 tank was weighing 8,2 — 10,2 tons and had an arrangement with the placement of the transmission compartment in the frontal part of the hull, the combined control compartment with the combat compartment in the middle part of the tank and the engine compartment. The 1931-1932 samples had a two-turret layout, and a single-turret from the 1933 of the year. The crew consisted of three people. On double-turbo tanks - the driver, the left turret and the tank commander, who also served as the right turret, and the single turret - the driver, gunner, and the commander, who also served as a loader.

Light tanks of the USSR in the prewar period

Lightweight single turret T-26 tank


The hull and turret design was riveted from armor rolled sheets, the booking of the tank protected against small weapons. The thickness of the tower armor, forehead and sides of the hull 15 mm, roof 10 mm, bottom 6 mm.

The armament of two-machine-gun machine-tanks consisted of two 7,62-mm machine guns DT-29, placed in spherical installations in the frontal part of the turrets. On double-turbo tanks with cannon-machine-gun armament, in the right turret, instead of a machine gun, a 37mm threaded gun or a B-3 gun was mounted. Pointing weapons in the vertical plane was carried out using the shoulder rest, in the horizontal plane by turning the tower.


T-26 lightweight double turbo tank


The armament of single-turreted tanks consisted of an 45-mm rifled semi-automatic 20-K L / 46 cannon and a paired 7,62-mm DT-29 machine gun. For the guidance of weapons used panoramic periscope sight PT-1 and telescopic sight TOP, which had 2,5-fold increase.

As the power plant used engine "GAZ T-26", which was a copy of the English "Armstrong-Sidley Puma", power 91 l. s., providing speed on the highway 30 km / h and power reserve 120 km. In 1938, a forced version of an 95 l engine was installed on the tank. with.


Light twin-turreted T-26 tank with gun and machine gun weapons


The undercarriage of the T-26 on each side consisted of eight dual rubber-supported road wheels, four dual rubber-supporting wheels, a sloth, and a front-wheel drive. The suspension of the road wheels was balanced on the springs, interlocked in carts of four rollers.

Until the end of the 30-ies, the T-26 tanks formed the basis of the tank fleet of the Red Army and by the beginning of the Great Patriotic War there were about ten thousand in the army. Due to poor booking and insufficient mobility, they began to become obsolete and yield to foreign models in terms of their main characteristics. The military leadership decided to develop new, more mobile and protected types of tanks and the modernization of completely outdated T-26 tanks was practically not carried out.

Light tank T-46


An experienced light-wheeled-tracked tank T-46 was developed in 1935 year at the Leningrad plant No. 174, four tank models were made, which were tested in 1937. The tank was developed to replace the T-26 light infantry escort tank, including to increase its mobility by transferring the tank to a wheel-track. It was also assumed the installation of a diesel engine and the strengthening of weapons and security. In the design of the T-46 tank, the T-26 units were widely used.

According to the layout of the tank, the transmission was located in the front of the hull, there was also a control compartment with the driver’s location in the protruding armored wheelhouse on the left side of the hull. The fighting compartment with the tower was in the middle of the hull and the engine in the stern. The weight of the tank was 17,5 tons.


Light tank T-46


The crew consisted of three men, the driver was in the hull, and the commander and gunner were located in the combat compartment in the turret. The landing crew was made through the double hatch of the driver and two hatches in the roof of the tower.

The design of the hull and turret was riveted and assembled from armor plates, the turret was enlarged and intended to mount a cannon and two machine guns. Reservations were differentiated, the thickness of the armor of the tower 16 mm, the forehead of the case 15-22 mm, the sides of the case 15 mm, the roof and the bottom 8 mm.


Light tank T-46


The armament of the tank consisted of 45-mm 20K L / 46 guns and two 7,6-2mm DT-29 machine guns, one paired with a cannon, the second in the stern niche in the ball mount. Planned to install 76,2-mm gun PS-3, but it was not mastered by industry.

As a power plant, an 330 hp engine was used, providing speed along the highway on 58 km / h tracks and on 80 km / h wheels. The diesel engine was not installed because it did not have time to master the production.

The chassis had the strongest differences, the “Christie chassis” was used in the tank. Instead of trolleys, four dual large-diameter roller wheels with rubber tires and a blocked spring suspension, two support rollers and a front-wheel drive wheel were installed on each side. When driving on wheels, there were only two rear pairs of wheels leading, and the turn was carried out with the help of a conventional differential with transmission to the front pair of wheels.

The tests of the T-46 were quite successful, the tank had a much higher speed and mobility than the T-26, and the tank’s handling was also simplified by using a new transmission.

The tank as a whole received a positive assessment, while there was a lack of reliability of the power plant and the unacceptably high cost of the vehicle. This led to the fact that in 1937, it was decided to cease further work on the T-46 and the main work on wheeled-tracked tanks focused on improving the wheeled-tracked tanks of the BT series.

In 1938, an attempt was made to create a T-46-46 medium tank based on T-5 with a counter-armor reservation, which did not lead to a positive result.

Cruising tank BT-2


At the end of the 20-s, the military doctrine of using cruising high-speed tanks to make deep breaks in the enemy’s defense and operating in the operational rear at a great distance found widespread use. Under this doctrine, cruising tanks began to be developed in the West, in the USSR there was no such experience, and in the USA in 1930 a license was acquired for the production of the cruiser wheeled / tracked tank Christie M1931.

The wheeled-tracked high-speed tank BT-2 was a copy of the American M1931 tank. With the license, the design documentation was transferred to the tank and two tanks without towers were supplied. Development of documentation for the BT-2 and its production was entrusted to the Kharkov Locomotive Plant, where a tank design bureau and production facilities for the production of tanks were created. In 1932, the KhPZ began mass production of BT-2 tanks. So in the Soviet Union there were two tank design schools, in Kharkov and formed earlier in Leningrad, which for many decades determined the direction of development of Soviet tank construction.


Wheel-tracked tank BT-2 with machine-gun armament


The BT-2 tank was a light-wheeled-tracked tank with a classic layout, a front control compartment, a fighting compartment with a turret in the middle, and a power transmission in the stern.

The design of the hull and the cylindrical tower were riveted of rolled armor, the angles of inclination were only at the front of the hull, which had the appearance of a truncated pyramid to ensure the rotation of the front drive wheels. The number of crew of the tank was two people, weight 11,05 tons. In the upper front plate there was a hatch for landing the driver, and in the roof of the tower there was a hatch for the commander.


Wheel-tracked tank BT-2 with cannon armament


The tank armament included the X-NUMX-mm B-37 (3K) L / 5 cannon and the 45-mm DT machine gun in the ball mount to the right of the gun. In part of the tanks, due to the lack of guns, a twin machine-gun installation with two 7,62-mm DT machine guns was installed instead of a gun.

Body armor was only from small arms and shell fragments. The thickness of the tower armor, forehead and sides of the hull 13 mm, roof 10 mm, bottom 6 mm.

As a power plant was used aviation engine "Liberty" M-5-400 with a capacity of 400 liters. sec., providing a speed of 51,6 km / h on the tracks, 72 km / h on wheels and a power reserve of 160 km. It should be noted that the average technical speed of the tank was significantly lower than the maximum.

The tank had an individual spring “candle” suspension, commonly known as “Christie suspension”. Three vertical springs with respect to each side of the hull were located between the outer armor plate and the inner wall of the hull side, and one was placed horizontally inside the hull in the fighting compartment. The vertical springs were connected through the balancers to the rear and middle support rollers, and the horizontal springs were connected to the front controlled rollers.

The tank had a combined wheeled-tracked propulsion unit consisting of a rear sprocket wheel, a front guide wheel and large diameter 4 road wheels with rubber tires. During the transition to the wheel track, the track chains were removed, disassembled into 4 parts and placed on the nadgusenichesky regiments. The drive in this case was carried out on the rear pair of road wheels, the tank was driven by turning the front rollers.

The BT-2 tank was a landmark for the Soviet tank industry, serial production of complex tank assemblies was organized, technical and technological production support was organized, a powerful engine was launched and a tank suspension was used, which was successfully applied later on the T-34.

In 1932 — 1933, 620's BT-2 tanks were manufactured at KhPZ, of which 350 had no guns due to their lack. On 1 June 1941, the troops had 580 BT-2 tanks.

Cruising tank BT-5


The wheeled-tracked tank BT-5 was a modification of the BT-2 tank and outwardly did not differ from its prototype. The difference was in the new elliptical turret, 45K L / 20 gun 46 and a number of design improvements aimed at improving the reliability and simplifying the serial production of the tank.


Wheel-tracked tank BT-5


The weight of the tank increased to 11,6 tons, and the crew of up to three people, the commander and the gunner were placed in the tower.

The tank was not difficult to master, it was distinguished by unpretentious maintenance and high mobility, thanks to which it was popular with tankers. BT-5 was one of the main tanks of the pre-war period, it was produced in 1933-1934, the 1884 tank was produced in total.

Cruising tank BT-7


The wheeled-tracked tank BT-7 was a continuation of the line of tanks BT-2 and BT-5. It was distinguished by a welded modified case of increased armor protection and a new engine, the tank’s armament was similar to the BT-5.

The tower had the shape of a truncated elliptical cone. Reservations for the hull and turret have been enhanced. The thickness of the armor tower 15 mm, the forehead of the case 15-20 mm, the sides of the case 15 mm, the roof 10 mm, the bottom 6 mm. The weight of the tank increased to 13,7 tons.


Wheel-tracked tank BT-7 on tracks


A new M-17T aircraft engine with an 400 hp power was installed, providing speed up to 50 km / h on tracks and up to 72 km / h on wheels and a cruising range of 375 km.


Wheel-tracked tank BT-7 on wheels


The main problems on the tank caused the engine. It is often ignited due to its unreliability and the use of high-octane aviation fuel.

The tank was produced in 1935-1940's, in total 5328 tanks BT-7 were produced.

Cruising tank BT-7M


The BT-7М tank was a modification of the BT-7 tank, the main difference was the installation on the tank instead of the M-17T aircraft engine of the B-2 diesel engine with 500l power. The rigidity of the tank body increased due to the installation of braces, structural changes were made in connection with the installation of the diesel engine, the weight of the tank increased to 14,56 tons. The speed of the tank increased to 62 km / h on tracks and to 86 km / h on wheels and cruising range to 600 km.


Wheel-tracked tank BT-7М


Installing a diesel engine has reduced the recoverable amount of fuel and to abandon the additional tanks on the fenders. However, the main fundamental advantage of a diesel engine over a gasoline engine was low flammability, and tanks with this engine were much safer than their gasoline counterparts.

The BT-7M tank was developed in the 1938 year, was mass-produced in 1939-1940, the 788 tanks of the BT-7M were produced in total.

Light tank T-50


The reason for the development of the T-50 tank was the lag in the second half of the Soviet light tank 30 in firepower, security and mobility from foreign samples. The main Soviet light tank T-26 is hopelessly outdated and it needed replacement.

According to the results of the Soviet-Finnish war 1939-1940, the need for a significant increase in the reservation of Soviet tanks was revealed, and in 1939, the development of a light tank in armor protection up to 40mm, a B-3 diesel engine and a torsion suspension began. The tank was supposed to be weighing up to 14 tons.


Light tank T-50


The development of the T-50 tank was also influenced by the results of tests of a sample of the medium tank PzKpfw III Ausf F purchased in Germany. According to its characteristics, it was recognized in the USSR as the best foreign tank in its class. The new Soviet tank should be massive and replace the T-26 infantry support tank and the BT high-speed tanks. The T-34 tank for this role of a mass tank was not yet suitable because of the high cost of its production at that stage.

Light tank T-50 was developed in 1939 year in Leningrad at the plant number 174. At the beginning of the 1941 of the year, prototypes of the tank were manufactured and successfully tested; it was put into service, but before the start of the Great Patriotic War, they did not have time to deploy serial production.


Light tank T-50

The layout of the T-50 was classic, the control compartment in front, the fighting compartment with a turret in the middle of the tank, the engine compartment in the stern. The hull and turret of the tank had significant angles of inclination, so its appearance T-50 was similar to the average tank T-34.

The crew consisted of four people. In the control department, with a shift from the center to the left side, the driver was housed, the rest of the crew (gunner, loader and commander) were in the triple tower. The gunner's workplace was located to the left of the gun loading the right, the commander in the rear of the tower to the right.

A fixed commander's turret with eight triplex viewing devices and a hinged flap for flag signaling were installed in the roof of the tower. Landing commander, gunner and loader was made through two hatches on the roof of the tower in front of the commander's turret. The rear stern of the turret also housed a hatch for loading ammunition and discharge of spent cartridges through which the commander could leave the tank in an emergency. Manhole for landing the driver was located on the frontal armor plate. Because of the stringent requirements for weight, the layout of the tank was very tight, which led to problems with the convenience of the crew.

The tower was a complex geometric shape, the sides of the tower were located at an angle of inclination 20 degrees. The frontal part of the turret was defended by a cylindrical armor with a thickness of 37 mm, in which there were embrasures for mounting a cannon, machine guns and a sight.

The hull and turret of the tank were welded from rolled armored plates. Frontal, upper side and stern armored plates had rational 40 — 50 ° angles, the lower part of the board was vertical. The tank weight reached 13.8 tons. The armor protection was counter-equipped and differentiated. The thickness of the armor of the upper frontal sheet 37mm, lower 45mm, tower 37mm, roof 15mm, bottom (12-15) mm, which significantly exceeded the protection of other light tanks.

The armament of the tank consisted of a 45mm semi-automatic 20-K L / 46 cannon and two 7,62mm DT machine guns, which were mounted on axles in the frontal part of the turret, paired with it.

The diesel engine B-3 with the power 300 hp, providing speed on the 60 km / h and power reserve 344 km, was used as the power plant.

The undercarriage of the tank was new for Soviet light tanks. The suspension of the car was an individual torsion bar, on each side there were 6 gable support rollers of small diameter. Opposite each track roller to the hull, the travel limiters of the suspension balancers were welded. The upper branch of the track was supported by three small supporting rollers.

Light tank T-50 was the best tank in the world at that time in its class and was fundamentally different from its “brothers” in class. The car was maneuverable and dynamic, with a reliable suspension and good armor, which protected anti-tank and tank guns from fire.

The main weakness of the tank was its weaponry, the 45mm gun 20-K no longer provided sufficient firepower. As a result, the medium tank T-34, which was with much more powerful weapons, turned out to be more promising in the Soviet tank building.

After the evacuation of the plant from Leningrad to Omsk, due to the lack of engines and organizational problems, the tank could not be put into mass production; in total, according to various sources, X-NUMX-65 T-75 tanks were launched.

Its mass production was not developed at the evacuated factories, since the production of the B-3 diesel engine was not organized and the factories were reoriented to the production of T-34 tanks.

In the 1942 year, tried to establish mass production of T-50, but this was prevented by objective factors. After a heavy defeat in the summer of 1942, it was urgently necessary to replenish the losses in the tanks, all forces were thrown at expanding the production of T-34 and its engines, and a number of enterprises also launched a wide production of a simple and cheap T-70 light tank, which characteristics seriously inferior to the T-50. Serial production of the tank was never organized, and later even T-34-76 was not suitable for its weapons, and tanks with much more powerful weapons were required.

The development of light tanks in the USSR, which had neither experience nor a production base for the creation of tanks, began with copying foreign samples. The Russian Renault, MS-1 and T-19 tanks were a replica of the French FT17 light tank, the T-27 wedge and T-37, T-38 and T-40 amphibious tanks and a copy of the light floating English Carket-Loyd Mk.I and T-26 tanks the Vickers-Carden-Loyd floating tank, the T-46 and T-1931 tanks were a replica of the Vickers Six-ton ​​English Light Tank, the BT series of tanks of the American Series M30 Christie. None of these copied light tanks became a breakthrough in world tank building. Having studied the advantages and disadvantages of foreign prototypes and having gained experience in the development of tanks, Soviet tank builders were able to create in 50-ies such masterpieces of world tank building as the light tank T-34 and the medium tank T-34. If T-50 became famous all over the world, then T-XNUMX was awaited by a difficult fate and undeserved oblivion.

In the interwar period, 21658 light and amphibious tanks were launched in the USSR, but all of them were outdated designs and did not shine with their characteristics. Only the light tank T-50 seriously stood out from this series, but it was never possible to launch it into mass production.
Our news channels

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

61 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +12
    8 July 2019 18: 33
    The thickness of the armor of the upper frontal sheet is 37 mm, the lower 45 mm, the tower 37 mm, the roof 15 mm, the bottom (12-15) mm, which significantly exceeded the protection of other light tanks.

    Well, it depends on whom to compare ... ancestors of tanks, pomnitsa, pulled themselves up - and gave out LT with 60-mm armor (and in a circle). smile
    1. +1
      8 July 2019 18: 59
      Yes, "Vali-Tani" was very good.
    2. +1
      9 July 2019 16: 26
      but this miracle crawled slower than a tiger.
      1. +5
        9 July 2019 17: 37
        Quote: yehat
        but this miracle crawled slower than a tiger.

        At the same time, "Valya" even served in the intelligence battalions of the cavalry division. smile
        So tabular maximum speed is not an indicator yet. According to the table of performance characteristics, the same HF was supposed to give out more than 30 km / h of maximum speed. And in fact, he already had 24 km / h on the highway, the temperature of the liquid in the engine cooling system exceeded one hundred.

        Following the results of the war, Marshal BTV Fedorenko wrote that:
        Of the currently available armaments of the Red Army, tank equipment should be the American medium tank Sherman M4A2 with artillery. armament in the form of a 76,2 mm cannon of high power and the Canadian light tank "Valentine" MK-9 with a 57-mm tank gun limited rollback ...

        The indicated tank models compare favorably with the domestic ones in terms of ease of operation, significantly increased overhaul life, ease of maintenance and current repair, and at the same time their armament, armor and mobility make it possible to solve the whole range of tasks put forward by armored forces ...
      2. 0
        9 July 2019 20: 40
        Normally crawling-read tank reviews about Valentine. Already better than our orders of magnitude
  2. +6
    8 July 2019 18: 36
    The only surviving T-46, without a chassis on Poklonnaya Hill

    1. +1
      8 July 2019 19: 16
      What is he doing on Poklonnaya Hill? He has no relation to the Second World War, the most valuable instance ...
      1. +10
        8 July 2019 19: 22
        Quote: mark1
        What is he doing on Poklonnaya Hill? He has no relation to the Second World War, the most valuable instance ...

        Yes, no. A tank battalion was formed near Moscow, formed from the personnel of the training range of the Research Institute of BTV Red Army and manned by the range’s equipment, including an experienced one
        1. +1
          8 July 2019 19: 43
          Did this instance take part? As I understand it, if the chassis had been lost in the battles on the hull, there would have been signs of damage, most likely the chassis was dismantled before the war.
          1. +3
            8 July 2019 20: 03
            Quote: mark1
            Did this instance take part?

            Like a long-term firing point
            1. 0
              8 July 2019 20: 12
              Well then, another thing ...
        2. +3
          9 July 2019 09: 48
          EMNIP, not a single running T-46 was, touched the armored corps used for firing points.
  3. +7
    8 July 2019 18: 46
    The main weakness of the tank was its weaponry, the 45mm gun 20-K no longer provided sufficient firepower. As a result, the medium tank T-34, which was with much more powerful weapons, turned out to be more promising in the Soviet tank building.

    It was not a matter of prospects (the T-50 was planning a 57-mm barrel), but the fact that the T-34 was in series since 1940 - there was a complete set of technological documentation (including various devices and tools), there was an established production, there was experience in organizing serial production at a "foreign" plant (STZ), the main shortcomings and "bottlenecks" of production were identified. And the T-50 had nothing, and how it would have gotten into a large series was unknown.
    You can, of course, remember about the T-60 who entered the series - but this machine was made on the basis of the serial T-40 and from units mastered in the production. But the T-50 didn’t have such an ancestor - not to consider it the T-26? smile
    1. +3
      8 July 2019 19: 12
      Quote: Alexey RA
      on the T-50 planned 57-mm barrel

      May I have the details? I somehow missed this moment in the history of the T-50, but looking at the dimensions of the tower and the epaulettes I was tormented by vague doubts.
      1. +4
        8 July 2019 19: 34
        And here. found myself
        OKB-92, under the guidance of Grabin, carried out a preliminary study of the project of the 57-mm gun based on a shot from a mountain cannon of the 1938 model, but with a dule compressed to the desired caliber. Preliminary calculations showed that at an initial speed of about 780 m / s an armor-piercing projectile weighing 3,6 kg will be able to penetrate armor 70 mm thick from a distance of 500 meters. Such indicators fully met the requirements, which allowed ABTU to initiate the creation of a new modification of the T-50 tank, armed with a 57-mm cannon. This work was again entrusted to the design bureau of plant No. 174, obliging them to design a new turret for the tank with an 80 mm wide shoulder strap adapted for the installation of a new high-powered gun.

        As far as I understand, the improvements are very significant, and the instrument was not related to the ZiS-4 at all.
      2. +6
        8 July 2019 19: 35
        Quote: mark1
        May I have the details? I somehow missed this moment in the history of the T-50, but looking at the dimensions of the tower and the epaulettes I was tormented by vague doubts.

        This is May-early June 1941. First, as part of the transition to the 57-mm caliber, Grabin issued:
        ... a project of a 57-mm gun based on a shot from a mountain cannon of the 1938 model, but with a dule compressed to the desired caliber. Preliminary calculations showed that at an initial speed of about 780 m / s an armor-piercing projectile weighing 3,6 kg will be able to penetrate armor 70 mm thick from a distance of 500 meters.

        For this case, the tank, which had not yet gone into the series, wanted to upgrade, having expanded the shoulder strap by 80 mm. But the war crossed out this project.
        1. 0
          8 July 2019 19: 37
          Thanks, I also found smile
  4. 0
    8 July 2019 18: 50
    Thank you for the article.
  5. +1
    8 July 2019 19: 02
    native BT and t26-
    -My grandfather served as a tank driver in Rybnitsy 4 g. (Father was born in Balta) I wanted to stay on extra urgent.
    "Grandfather in December 36 was demobilized from the Red Army, went to work for the Markov peat enterprise
    , and in January 37, according to the party recruitment, they were called to the prosecutor’s office ”
  6. Alf
    +3
    8 July 2019 21: 22
    45 mm guns 20K L / 46

    37-mm gun B-3 (5K) L / 45

    No words, one mate ..
  7. +15
    8 July 2019 22: 14
    I read an article with tears in my eyes. I read it, it’s not funny.
    - The engine of the T-26 is not GAZ! This is the original engine that was produced by the 174 plant itself.
    - Illustration of the T-46 tank - a fantastic picture from a computer game.
    - The T-46-5 tank, about which the author writes that an attempt to create it did not lead to success - one of the iconic tanks in the history of Russian tank building. More precisely, the T-111 tank. A real medium tank, search design, which largely determined the appearance of the domestic tank building. The predecessor of the KV tanks.
    - Tanks of the BT series were not cruising tanks. There is nothing to introduce the English classification in relation to Russian tanks.
    - Tank BT-2. Christie was not acquired a tank, but a reckless tracked chassis. Exported by Amtorg as a tractor. A tank was made of it in Soviet Russia.
    1. +1
      9 July 2019 02: 16
      Fiercely plus!
    2. Alf
      +2
      9 July 2019 19: 57
      Quote: Potter
      I read an article with tears in my eyes. I read it, it’s not funny.

      The author of the article is a tank builder. It’s time to get used to it, the impression is that this is the next reincarnation of the unforgettable Carbine, only in a mild form.
    3. +2
      11 July 2019 07: 57
      How tenacious was the Suvorov story about the secret transport of Christie's tanks like a tractor! The purchase of two Christie M tanks (exactly as tanks) was carried out on the basis of an agreement signed on April 28, 1930 between the US Wheel Track Layer Corporation and the Amtorg Trading Corporation (a company that represented the interests of the USSR in the United States). In the contract it was written in black and white that the sale of "two military tanks with a total value of 60 US dollars. Delivery of the tanks must be made no later than four months from the date of signing the contract," which, in addition, stipulated "delivery of spare parts to the purchased tanks worth $ 000, as well as the rights to manufacture, sell and use tanks within the borders of the USSR for a period of ten years. (Pavlov I., Zheltov I. Tanks BT. Part 4000. M .: EksPrint NV, 1. p. 1998 with reference to RGVA. F. 4 31. D. 811. L. 374, 5.)
  8. +6
    9 July 2019 00: 37
    The design of the hull and the cylindrical tower were riveted from rolled armor, the tilt angles were only at the front of the hull, which had the form of a truncated pyramid to ensure the rotation of the front drive wheels.
    Author, how to understand this? For BT-2 tanks, the front wheels or rollers were steering, but not leading, the rear wheels or rollers were driving.
    1. +2
      9 July 2019 15: 51
      I will add:
      and the rotation was carried out using a conventional differential with transmission to the front pair of wheels

      Turn of what?
  9. +1
    9 July 2019 06: 36
    Gentlemen! Removed a decent chunk of comments with the participation of a certain geer (sort of named correctly). Of course, he behaved somewhat defiantly, but in some ways (far from all) he was still right. The T-50 is really not a "conceptual successor" of the T-126, in short. it was created not as an infantry tank, but as a cheap, technological replacement for the T-34 when completing newly created mechs. buildings (Svirin had to shovel). How "cheap and technologically advanced" it turned out is another topic.
    1. 0
      9 July 2019 17: 56
      still it is doubtful to position the t-50 as a replacement for the t-34; in 1940 it was also not clear on t-34 what happened
      1. +1
        9 July 2019 18: 11
        For 29 mechanized corps, about 31000 tanks were required, of which more than 16000 new types of T-34 and KV and all by the 42nd year Really? No!
        Although, as time showed in the case of the T-50, the problem would not be solved either.
        1. 0
          9 July 2019 18: 40
          Yes, it was just not quite adequate Wishlist, but as an alternative to the T-34 - it is quite reasonable
          1. +1
            9 July 2019 18: 58
            Any equipment in the course of its operation involves modernization. What modernization potential do you see in the T-50 to meet the level of T-34-76 release 43g (I just keep quiet about the T-34-85) A small, cramped tank, with a small turret that doesn’t fit into anything except the 45th. Moreover, it is no less technologically sophisticated as it turned out (one length of welds is not less than that of 34). An alternative to the T-34 was the T-34M.
            1. 0
              9 July 2019 19: 28
              I, nevertheless, am inclined to believe that in a constructive sense, on the eve of the war, we were in no way inferior to the Germans, or to anyone else.
              About the modernization potential - I doubt that they think of it in general as a first approximation: it is clear that this would be a cheaper and less functional replacement for the t-34, but clearly better than the next in the form of t-60 and t-70
              1. +1
                9 July 2019 19: 43
                Quote: prodi
                but clearly better than the next in the form of t-60 and t-70

                But in this case the comparison is not correct at all. The T-60 and T-70 were produced at the facilities of the automotive industry, and for the production of the T-50, a full-fledged tank plant was required, which could just as well have produced the T-34, a diesel plant which, instead of half, would perfectly produce the full version of the V-2. What looked tempting before the war in terms of "saving" resources (mainly metal) during the war would greatly hinder the production of the main tank. "Valentines" quite fit themselves instead of the T-50.
              2. +1
                9 July 2019 19: 47
                Quote: prodi
                I, nevertheless, am inclined to believe that in a constructive sense, on the eve of the war, we were in no way inferior to the Germans, or to anyone else.

                Totally agree with you. We and the Germans were only the leading tank-building powers. All the rest did, at that time, cartoons.
                1. 0
                  9 July 2019 20: 07
                  I never think that the auto industry would not have mastered the t-50, albeit with some simplifications; in the end, we riveted more than 7000 BT, i.e. the potential in the form of M-17 was
    2. 0
      10 July 2019 09: 18
      Quote: mark1
      It was created not as an infantry tank but as a cheap, technologically advanced replacement for the T-34 when picking up newly created mechs. buildings (I had to shovel Svirin).


      What are you talking about? Tanks of the pre-war generation were created in the framework of one decree “On the system of tank weapons”, August 1938. And just like a tank of direct infantry support, it was created by the Design Bureau.
      The T-34 began to be developed earlier, but then the requirements for booking were changed to it. By the summer of 1940, the future T-50 was ready, tested and transferred to the plant for comparison and development. And in February 1941 it was adopted as the T-50 and launched into the series.
      The T-34 was launched into production in March 1940, and began to be made only in June. That is, in time your theory does not add up. Of course, they could figure out the price of a T-34 serial tank until February 1941, but it was absolutely impossible to design a T-50 during this time.
      And most importantly, in the classification of the Red Army tanks of the late 30s, the T-50 and T-34 occupy different niches. They are NOT interchangeable in principle. In the logic of the pre-war development of tank units, the T-50 could not replace the T-34. In the resolution described above, the tank to replace the T-26 is a separate item.
  10. +5
    9 July 2019 10: 23
    As the power plant used engine "GAZ T-26", which was a copy of the English "Armstrong-Sidley Puma", power 91 l. s., providing speed on the highway 30 km / h and power reserve 120 km. In 1938, a forced version of an 95 l engine was installed on the tank. with.
    With what fright GAZ. Teeth. Tank engines: "


  11. +2
    9 July 2019 13: 23
    Quote: mark1
    The T-50 is really not a "conceptual successor" of the T-126, in short. it was created not as an infantry tank, but as a cheap, technological replacement for the T-34 when completing newly created mechs. buildings (Svirin had to shovel).


    Shoveling badly.
    I quote Svirin "To equip mechanized formations, as well as tank battapions of infantry divisions, have one type of tank - T-126, or another similar, well protected from 37-mm cannon fire at all distances, in mobility not inferior to the BT tank on a track "and" Work on an improved version of the T-126 (SP) tank at OKB-2 on October 1, 1940 was headed by L. Troyanov under the general leadership of S. Ginzburg ... it was at this time that the index of the new tank - T-50 was first announced " ...
    So the T-50 is precisely the conceptual follower of the T-126 (SP), (which was created specifically for escorting infantry, but in terms of its performance characteristics it was almost ideally suited for equipping mechanized units), since its technical characteristics allowed it to be used not only for escorting infantry, but and to complete the newly created fur. cases, as a cheap, technological, but weaker, replacement of the T-34.
    Actually, according to Svirin, the failure to adopt the T-126 (SP) "as is" was explained both by excessive armor, therefore, by weight and, consequently, by price, and by the requirement to take into account the experience of testing the "troika".
    1. +1
      9 July 2019 14: 05
      The T-126SP concept is an infantry escort tank, the T-50 concept is a light (emergency measure) SINGLE RKKA tank. Accordingly, the T-34 is a medium SINGLE tank. There are no separate types of infantry escort, pursuit, or other separate functions, there is a single tank - this is the concept. (tank gain and breakthrough survived after the Finnish).
  12. +1
    9 July 2019 14: 15
    Quote: giir
    Basically, "smart wipers" are now divorced in Runet. These are those who have nothing at all for their souls and they "give correct interpretations of wide-assed authors."
    Do not be like them. They are everywhere, including and enough on the topwar. And do not get information from Runet. There is basically a fake.


    Lord, I am directly touched by the derogatory self-criticism of the "clever janitor" giir, or rather trollus vulgaris ukrainus giir, who, with his delusional fantasies, as enchanting as their "cosplay" history and culture, amused from the heart.
    Especially his black envy for runet delivers, where his stupidities are not taken seriously and banned (geer) in passing, like a cockroach slipper.
    Gentlemen admins, do not ban this fool, he will still give us many fun minutes ...
  13. +1
    9 July 2019 14: 24
    Quote: mark1
    The T-126SP concept is an infantry escort tank, the T-50 concept is a light (emergency measure) UNITED RKKA tank

    IMHO, the Concept T-126SP and T-50 is an infantry escort tank, which, with its high speed and large power reserve, can successfully fulfill the functions of an easy (as a necessary measure) UNITED RKKA tank.
    1. +2
      9 July 2019 14: 40
      Quote: snerg7520
      Concept T-126SP and T-50 - infantry escort tank

      This is your own interpretation, you have the right.
      1. 0
        10 July 2019 19: 22
        This is not his interpretation, this is a direct quote from the classification of tanks in the Red Army! Tank direct infantry support. This is the T-26. Why are you arguing with historical facts?
        What makes you think that the T-34 was considered expensive and someone thought to replace it? Can you imagine how many resources were thrown to Kharkov before the war to modernize plant 138? The T-34 production program involved 26 people's commissariats, including Narcomles and the NKVD. It got to the point that the People's Commissariat of Railways was instructed to accept shipments weighing up to 138 ton as LUGGAGE at the address 1 of the plant! No one planned any replacements, the country hastily reconstructed the Kharkov plant for mass production of a medium tank. True, the T-34 was full of flaws and was ordered to upgrade it to the level of T-44 (yes, this index appeared before the war).
        And the T-50 then just appeared and it is not even mentioned in the plans for the production of armored vehicles.
        Where did you get this oddity about a cheap replacement?

        And although I myself also think that the T-34 was the world's first universal tank and the prototype of the "main tank" phenomenon itself, no one used such a concept until the end of the Second World War. In the USSR, light tanks were abandoned, but heavy breakthrough tanks were made and designed in quite marketable quantities.
        1. 0
          10 July 2019 21: 13
          Yes, you're right, the T-26 is an infantry escort tank (if an infantry tank is easier). But what does it have to do with it? Yes, the deeply modernized T-34M tank was developed and prepared for release (the A-43 factory index, by no means the T-44) and what changes? Well, re-read our entire discussion more carefully, though the moderators for some reason deleted some (mate and insults there did not have).
          In short - I didn’t want to answer you, but since I started, I’ll just give you advice - before you get involved in the discussions you need to have knowledge of the essence (at least minimal) to read good profile literature to start with (for example, here we mentioned Svirin, it’s written well for what a T-50 was created on the basis of the T-126PS), memoirs (critically), and you will have many questions either by themselves, or you will pose them more justifiably.
          1. -1
            11 July 2019 09: 22
            I prefer not to read transcriptions in someone's interpretation, but documentary sources. Including in order to be able to reasonably argue with such "historians" as you, who prefer to eat what has already been chewed. I am reading archival documents. There are a lot of them on the net. Try it too, maybe you will understand why the subject "Source Studies" is always studied at all history faculties.

            Check out this document: Report of the People's Commissar of State Control of the USSR L. 3. Mehlis to the Secretary of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks I. V. Stalin and Chairman of the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR V. Molotov “On the results of the audit of the tank industry and related sectors of the economy”
            Here, briefly and clearly about the state of production of the T-50 at the beginning of 1941.
            I also advise you to read in full the Decree of the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR and the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks No. 1216-502ss "On the production of T-34 tanks in 1941" from May 5, 1941 To understand what you are generally talking about in terms of "replacement". By the way, it refers to the T-34M as the T-44, but it's not a fact that this is not a digitization error.

            Do you understand that you wrote complete nonsense from the point of view of a historian? Utter nonsense and nonsense. Perhaps you repeated it for someone, perhaps even for someone authoritative, but that doesn’t make it true. Perhaps someone once wrote in some memoirs that the T-50 could be a cheap replacement for the T-34. But at the decision-making level, the situation was exactly the opposite. The T-34 was preparing for mass production, they did not look for a replacement. Dot. If you have documents refuting this, I will be glad to read it.

            By the way, since you decided to teach with a mentor tone, you could at least not squint from the first lines. T-26 is not an infantry tank. It's a tank direct infantry support. That, what would you know, the basis of your mistake. You do not understand the logic of the development of tank equipment of the Red Army in the 30s, so operate on concepts from the 50s. Or definitions of Soviet technology are not peculiar.
            An infantry tank is a machine designed to suppress firing points at the leading edge or in front of orders of advancing infantry units. But the T-26 was not intended for this. He advanced in infantry. And the suppression of firing points was assigned to a tank of long-range infantry support. He acted in isolation about a kilometer and suppressed artillery and machine gun positions. And in the event of an attack on particularly fortified positions, tanks of qualitative reinforcement were used. Such a strange concept today.

            I just read your discussion and absolutely can not understand how you came up with the idea of ​​unification? Rather, the idea is understandable, why did you get the idea that the military of the USSR had this idea in the late 30s? Have you read this from someone?
            Yes, during the war it turned out that light tanks were not suitable for direct infantry support and were abandoned, combining the functions of long-range and direct infantry support in one T-34 medium. But the replacement of the T-34 T-50 could not be within the framework of that concept. This is tantamount to replacing bombers with attack aircraft. Absurd. Where did you read this, can you tell? Since, if this is so, then in the USSR in the late 30s there were geniuses who foresaw the future ahead for 20 years.
  14. 0
    9 July 2019 16: 30
    Quote: Alexey RA
    It was not a prospect (a 50 mm barrel was planned on the T-57), but the fact that the T-34 was in the series since 1940 - there was a complete set of technological documentation (including various devices and tools)

    not all productions were ready for the manufacture of the t34 - its armor was still not 20mm.
    part could well produce in large quantities T50 instead of T70.
    Interestingly, if somehow the rate knew about the big losses of T70 and T34-76 near Kursk, would it try to change the production plan in 42?
    1. +2
      9 July 2019 17: 46
      Quote: yehat
      not all productions were ready for the manufacture of the t34 - its armor was still not 20mm.
      part could well produce in large quantities T50 instead of T70.

      And how does the 40-45 mm T-34 armor differ from the 37-45 mm T-50 armor? wink

      The fact of the matter is that the thickness of the armor of the T-34 and T-50 differed little. As a result, even the T-40 manufacturing plant was unable to produce the T-50 and was forced to invent the T-30 - T-60 - T-70 line.
      Moreover, the T-70 in the fall of 1941, he also could not do.
  15. 0
    9 July 2019 17: 29
    Quote: mark1
    This is your own interpretation, you have the right.

    Well, it’s hardly arbitrary - according to Svirin, high speed and a large power reserve were part of the technical task for which another T-126 (SP) was created.
    That is, they first created the T-126 (SP) infantry escort tank, and then it turned out that it fits perfectly into the ABTU requirements for a "single improved armor tank" that appeared after its creation due to the high cost of the T-34 tank.
    The T-50 differed from the T-126 (SP) only in the reduced armor thickness and the engine brought to the series - it is structurally one to one T-126 (SP).
    In fact, those. the task for a "single tank with improved armor" was written off from the finished infantry tank T-126 (SP), when the roast rooster pecked and the T-34 turned out to be difficult and expensive - I previously quoted from Svirin. We were lucky, however, we did not take advantage of this luck, that the T-126 (SP) infantry escort tank had those. characteristics that allowed it to be used instead of the T-34 in fur. buildings.
    And the "single tank with improved armor" T-50, actually a modification of the T-126 (SP), was adopted for service.
    And after the above, the T-50 is not your conceptual follower of the T-126 (SP)? laughing
    1. 0
      9 July 2019 20: 10
      You in my opinion simply do not understand the meaning of the term "conceptual". I don’t argue about the origin of the T-50, but when we decided to use the T-126SP as a "single light tank of the Red Army" it was modernized according to this concept, but it was not taken in its original form (well, at least the speed was increased in accordance with the new concept of use ), and you all hollow that his base is the same. The base is the same and the concept of application is different, it's so simple. laughing
      1. 0
        10 July 2019 11: 25
        Quote: mark1
        You in my opinion simply do not understand the meaning of the term "conceptual". I don’t argue about the origin of the T-50, but when we decided to use the T-126SP as a "single light tank of the Red Army" it was modernized according to this concept, but it was not taken in its original form (well, at least the speed was increased in accordance with the new concept of use )

        If you took a heavy hunting knife, sharpened it to a razor sharpness, because you were going to chop a tree with it, then it does not follow that it was "conceptually" created as an ax or a universal tool of the "knife-ax" type, and in nature with an ax after sharpening also did not ... So, most likely, with understanding the meaning of the term "conceptual" I have no problems.
        Quote: mark1
        and you all hollow that his base is the same. The base is the same but the application concept is different

        Oh my God, but I thought we were arguing about the concept of creating a tank, and not about the concept of its use, which also arose after its creation))) laughing What a nightmare! wassat

        All the best!
  16. 0
    9 July 2019 17: 46
    Quote: Alexey RA
    And at the end of the war, Marshal BTV Fedorenko

    what Fedorenko said is highly controversial. he was in parts when there was a mass of technical problems
    and went to the headquarters just before they began to be massively corrected, and began to oversee the parts formed from the lend-lease, so the links to the fact that Valentine had much more mileage before the repair seemed unfair to me. As well as a link to solving problems - even tests on the T34 showed that to solve the whole range of tasks, the 57mm caliber is stupidly unsuitable.
    also the question of the reservation about the Sherman’s high-power weapon - what did he find there?
    1. +3
      9 July 2019 19: 23
      Quote: yehat
      therefore, references to the fact that Valentine had much more mileage before repairs seem unfair to me.

      Nevertheless, all the technology of the "wartime" development had to be passed through the UKN.
      In addition, it is unlikely that the head of the Red Army Armored Directorate, the commander of the armored and mechanized troops of the Red Army and the commander of the armored and mechanized troops of the Ground Forces judged "foreign cars" solely on the basis of their own experience.
      Quote: yehat
      As well as a link to solving problems - even tests on the T34 showed that to solve the whole range of tasks, the 57mm caliber is stupidly unsuitable.

      And what does the T-34 have to do with it? "Valentine" is mentioned by Fedorenko as a light tank - so you need to look at the tasks of the LT and compare them with those of the SC of our own design.
      Quote: yehat
      also the question of the reservation about the Sherman’s high-power weapon - what did he find there?

      So the 76,2 mm Sherman cannon is really a weapon of increased power - compared to the original 75 mm. Also
      American 76-mm armor-piercing shells penetrate the side plates of the Tiger-B tank from distances 1,5-2 times greater than domestic 85-mm armor-piercing shells.

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

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