Military Review

Tanks of the Soviet Union during the Great Patriotic War

46



History Soviet tank building in the prewar and war years had both serious achievements and impressive failures. At the first stage of the war with the advent of the T-34, the Germans had to catch up with us and create models tanks and anti-tank artillery, capable of withstanding the threats posed by the T-34. They quickly solved this problem and by the end of 1942 the Wehrmacht had more advanced tanks and means to combat the Soviet tank threat. At the second stage of the war, Soviet tank builders had to catch up with the Germans, but failed to achieve full parity with them in terms of the main tactical and technical characteristics of the tanks.

The stages of the formation of Soviet light tanks in the pre-war period, including the BT family and the T-50 light tank, are described in material, and the formation of medium ones is T-28, T-34 and heavy T-35, KV-1, KV-2 material. This article discusses Soviet tanks that were developed and produced during the Great Patriotic War.

Light tanks T-60, T-70, T-80


The history of the creation of Soviet light tanks of the first stage of the Great Patriotic War is very instructive and tragic. According to the results of the Soviet - Finnish war and tests of a sample of the PzKpfw III Ausf F medium tank purchased in Germany in 1939-1940, the development of the light infantry support tank T-174 began at the Leningrad plant No.50. At the beginning of the 1941 of the year, prototypes of the tank were successfully tested, it was put into service, but before the start of World War II, serial production did not have time to deploy.

A few days later, the ambassador of the outbreak of the war, Moscow plant No. 37 received an order to discontinue the floating T-40 tank and re-equip the plant to produce the light T-50 tank.


Light tank T-50


To organize the production of this rather complex tank, a complete reconstruction of the plant was required, adapted only for the production of the simple T-40, in this regard, the plant management was not very keen to prepare the production for the release of the new tank. Under the leadership of the chief designer of the line of Soviet amphibious tanks, Astrov already in July developed and manufactured a sample of a light tank based on the well-mastered floating T-40 and it was proposed to organize the production of this tank. Stalin approved this proposal and so instead of the successful light T-50 tank, the T-60 went into production, which in its characteristics was much worse. This decision was based on the need in the extreme conditions of wartime and the enormous losses of tanks in the first months of the war to quickly master the mass production of a structurally and technologically simple tank based on truck units. The T-60 tank was mass-produced from September 1941 to February 1943, and a total of 5839 tanks were produced.


Light tank T-40


Of course, the T-60 could not replace the T-50, which at that time was one of the best light tanks in the world weighing 13,8 tons, a crew of four, armed with an 45-mm semi-automatic cannon, which had anti-ballistic armor, and with a powerful power plant based on B-3 diesel engine with 300 horsepower Outwardly, it was like a small copy of the T-34 and had excellent tactical and technical characteristics for its class of machines.


Light tank T-60


The T-60 tank, as they say, and "did not stand next to it," its characteristics did not come close to the T-50. T-60 was a "land" version of the floating T-40 tank with all its shortcomings. T-60 adopted the concept and layout of the T-40 with maximum use of the nodes and assemblies of the latter. So instead of a decent light tank, a simple and surrogate T-60 was launched into the series, which many Soviet tankers spoke of with an unkind word.

The tank’s transmission compartment was located in front, followed by a control compartment with an armored driver’s wheelhouse, a fighting compartment in the center of the hull with an engine shifted to the left and to the right, and fuel tanks and engine radiators in the rear of the tank. The crew of the tank was two people - the commander and the driver.

The design of the hull and turret was welded from rolled armor plates. With the weight of the tank 6.4 tons, it had bulletproof armor, the thickness of the forehead of the hull: top - 35mm, bottom - 30mm, wheelhouse - 15mm, sides - 15mm; the forehead and sides of the tower - 25mm, the roof - 13mm, the bottoms - 10mm. The armor of the forehead of the case had rational angles of inclination. The tower was octagonal with an inclined arrangement of armor plates and shifted to the left of the longitudinal axis of the tank, since the engine was located on the right.

The armament of the tank consisted of an 20mm automatic gun TNSh-1 L / 82,4 and a coaxial 7,62mm machine gun DT.

As a power plant, a GAZ-202 engine with 70 horsepower was used, which is a modification of the deformed GAZ-11 engine from a floating T-40 tank with 85 horsepower. in order to increase its reliability. The engine was started using a mechanical handle. Use of the starter was permitted only with the engine warm. To warm the engine, a boiler was used, which was heated using a blowtorch. The tank developed speeds along the 42 km / h highway and provided a range of 450 km.

The chassis was inherited from the T-40 tank and each side contained four small-gum rubber rollers of small diameter and three supporting rollers. The suspension was individual torsion bar without shock absorbers.

According to its characteristics, the T-60 was seriously inferior to the light tank T-50. The armor was higher - the thickness of the armor of the upper frontal sheet was 37mm, the lower one was 45mm, the sides were 37mm, the towers were 37mm, the roofs were 15mm, the bottoms were 12-15mm, and the much more powerful 45-mm semi-automatic gun was used as armament To L / 20, and as a power plant, a diesel engine with 46 horsepower was used.

That is, the T-50 tank in terms of firepower, security and mobility significantly exceeded the T-60 tank, but the T-60 suicide bomber went into the series, since it was easy to organize its mass production.

Further development of the T-60 was the T-70 tank, developed in November 1941 of the year and adopted for service in January 1942 of the year. From February 1942 of the year to the fall of 1943 of the year, 8226 tanks were produced. The development of the T-70 was aimed at increasing firepower by installing a semi-automatic 45-mm gun 20-K L / 46, increasing mobility by installing a power unit GAZ-203 containing a pair of GAZ-202 engines with 70 horsepower. and strengthening the reservation of the forehead of the bottom case to 45mm and the forehead and sides of the tower to 35mm.


Light tank T-70


The installation of the twin engine required lengthening the hull of the tank and the introduction of another track roller in the chassis. The weight of the tank increased to 9,8 tons, the crew survived two people.

An increase in the weight of the tank led to a sharp decrease in the reliability of the chassis; in this regard, the chassis was upgraded and launched into a series of modifications to the T-70M tank.

The main drawback of the T-60 and T-70 tanks was the presence of a crew of two people. The commander was overloaded with the functions assigned to him by the commander, gunner and loader and could not cope with them. Even now, with a completely different level of technological development, a tank with a crew of two people is not yet possible due to the fundamental incompatibility of the functions of commander and gunner.

To eliminate the main drawback of the T-70 tank, the following modification was developed - the T-80 with a double turret and a crew of three people.

Tanks of the Soviet Union during the Great Patriotic War

Light tank T-80


For a double turret, the diameter of the shoulder strap was increased from 966mm to 1112mm, due to the increase in the internal volume of the turret, its dimensions and weight increased, while the tank weight reached 11,6 tons and a more powerful power plant was required. It was decided to force the GAZ-203 power plant to 170 horsepower, which led to a sharp decrease in its reliability during operation of the tank.

The T-80 tank did not exist for long, in April 1943 it began mass production and in August it was discontinued, all in all 70 T-80 tanks were produced. There were several reasons for this.

The tank in its low performance in the 1943 year did not meet the increased requirements for the tank, and according to the results of the fighting on the Kursk Bulge, it became clear to everyone that not only the T-70 (T-80), but also the T-34-76 could not resist the new German tanks, and requires the development of a new more powerful tank. By this time, the mass production of T-34 was debugged and optimized, its cost was reduced and satisfactory quality ensured, and the army needed a large number of self-propelled SU-76M units based on the T-70 tank and factory facilities were reoriented to the production of SU-76M self-propelled guns .

The T-60, T-70 and T-80 tanks had low combat effectiveness both against enemy armored vehicles and with the support of infantry. They could not fight with the most common German tanks of the time Pz.Kpfw.III and Pz.Kpfw.IV and the StuG III assault guns, and as a tank for direct infantry support they had insufficient armor protection. The German 75-mm Pak 40 anti-tank guns hit him with the first shot from any distance and angle.

Compared to the already obsolete light German Pz.Kpfw.II, the T-70 had slightly better armor protection, but due to the presence of a crew of two people, it was significantly inferior to it in handling on the battlefield.

The armor of the tank was low and it was easily hit by almost all the tanks and anti-tank weapons that were in service at the time in the German army. The armament of the tank was not enough to defeat enemy tanks, for the 1943 year in the German army there were already well-protected tanks Pz.Kpfw.III, Pz.Kpfw.IV and Pz.Kpfw.V, 45-mm gun T-70 could not hit them . The power of the 45-mm cannon was clearly insufficient both to combat enemy anti-tank guns and German armored vehicles, the frontal armor of even medium modernized PzKpfw III and PzKpfw IV could be penetrated only from extremely short distances.

This was also due to the fact that with the advent of large quantities of T-34 on the battlefield, the Wehrmacht qualitatively strengthened tank and anti-tank artillery. During the 1942 year, tanks, self-propelled guns and anti-tank guns began to arrive in the Wehrmacht, armed with long-barreled 75-mm guns, hitting the T-70 at any angle and combat distance. The sides of the tank were especially vulnerable, even for smaller artillery, up to the outdated 37-mm Pak 35 / 36 gun. In such a confrontation, the T-70 had no chance, with well-trained anti-tank defense, the T-70 units were doomed to high losses. Due to its low efficiency and high losses, the T-70 enjoyed an unflattering reputation in the army and was mostly negatively associated with it.

The climax of the combat use of the T-70 was the battle of Kursk. In the Prokhorov battle, in two corps of the first echelon of 368 tanks there were 38,8% of T-70 tanks. As a result of the battle, our tankers suffered terrible losses, the 29-th Panzer Corps lost 77% of the tanks participating in the attack, and the 18-th Panzer Corps 56% of the tanks. This was largely explained by the presence of a number of attacking tanks almost unprotected from powerful German anti-tank weapons of light T-70 tanks. After the Battle of Kursk, the T-70 was discontinued.

Medium Tank T-34-85


The T-34-76 medium tank at the first stage of the war was quite competitive with the medium and German tanks PzKpfw III and PzKpfw IV. With the installation of the KwK 75 L / 40 long-barreled 48-mm gun on the PzKpfw IV tank, and especially with the advent of the Pz.Kpfw.V Panther with the powerful long-barreled 75-mm KwK 42 L / 70 gun and the Pz.Kpfw.VI Xiger with the Pz.Kpfw.VI Tiger -mm cannon KwK 88 L / 36, the T-56-34 tank was hit by these tanks from a distance of 76-1000 m, and he could hit them from a distance of no more than 1500 m. In this regard, the question arose of installing a more powerful tank on the tank guns.


Medium Tank T-34-85


Two options for installing an 85-mm gun, already used on the KV-85 and IS-1 heavy tanks D-5T guns and 85-mm C-53 guns, were considered. To install a new gun, an increase in tower overhead from 1420mm to 1600mm and the development of a larger tower were required.

The base was taken from the tower of the T-43 experimental medium tank. The tower was designed for two versions of guns. The D-5T gun was more bulky and made it difficult for the turret loading in a limited volume; as a result, the tank was put into service with the C-53 gun, but the first batches of tanks were also produced with the D-5T gun.

Simultaneously with the development of the new triple tower, another significant drawback of the T-34-76 was eliminated, which was related to the overload of the commander in connection with the functions of the gunner assigned to him. In a more spacious tower housed the fifth crew member - the gunner. The visibility of the commander in the tank was improved by installing a commander’s turret with a rotating hatch and more advanced observation devices. Also strengthened the reservation of the tower. the thickness of the armor of the forehead of the tower was increased to 90mm and the walls of the tower to 75mm.

The increase in firepower and security of the tank did not help to put it on a par with the German Pz.Kpfw.V "Panther" and Pz.Kpfw.VI Tiger. The frontal armor of Pz.Kpfw.VI Tiger was 100mm thick, and that of Pz.Kpfw.V Panther 60-80mm and their guns could hit the T-34-85 from 1000-1500m, and the latter pierced their armor only at 800 — 1000 meters and only at a distance of about 500 meters are the thickest places on the forehead of the tower.

The lack of firepower and security of the T-34-85 had to be compensated for by their massive and competent use, improved control of tank troops and the establishment of interaction with other combat arms. The leading role in the fight against enemy tanks largely passed to the heavy tanks of the IS and SPG family.

KV-85 and IS-1 heavy tanks


With the advent of the German heavy tanks Pz.Kpfw.V Panther and Pz.Kpfw.VI Tiger in the 1942 year, the Soviet KV-1 heavy tank with insufficient frontal protection and armed with the 76,2-mm ZIS-5 L / 41,6 cannon could no longer equal resist them. Pz.Kpfw.VI Tiger hit the KV-1 at almost all distances of a real battle, and the 76,2-mm gun KV-1 could penetrate only the side and stern armor of this tank from distances not exceeding 200 m.

The question arose of developing a new heavy tank armed with an 85-mm cannon, and in February of the 1942 of the year it was decided to develop a new IS-1 heavy tank, the 85-mm D-5T gun was developed for it and, for its installation in the tank, a new turret with enlarged to 1800mm diameter of the shoulder strap of the tower.

The KV-85 tank was a transition model between the KV-1 and the IS-1, the chassis and many elements of the hull reservation were borrowed from the first, and the enlarged tower from the second.

After a shortened test cycle, the KV-85 tank was put into service in August 1943. The tank was produced from August to November 1943 and was discontinued due to the launch of the more advanced IS-1 tank in a series. A total of 148 tanks were produced.


Heavy tank KV-85


The KV-85 tank was a classic layout with a crew of 4 people. The radio operator arrow had to be excluded from the crew, since the installation of a larger tower did not allow placing it in the hull. The windshield turned out to be broken, since a turret box had to be installed for the new tower. The tower was welded, armor plates were located with rational angles of inclination. On the roof of the tower was a commander's cupola. In connection with the exclusion from the crew of the radio operator gunner, the machine gun was mounted motionless in the tank body and was controlled by a driver.

With the weight of the tank 46 tons, the tank’s hull had the same protection as the KV-1: the thickness of the armor of the forehead of the hull was 75mm, the sides of the hull were 60mm, the forehead and sides of the tower were 100mm, the roof and bottom were 30mm, the turret reservation thickness was only increased to 100mm . The tank's defense was insufficient to withstand the new German Pz.Kpfw.V Panther and Pz.Kpfw.VI Tiger.

The armament of the tank consisted of a long-barreled 85-mm gun D-5Т L / 52 and three 7,62mm machine guns DT.

As a power plant, a V-2K diesel engine with 600 horsepower was used, providing a speed along the 42 highway km / h and a cruising range of 330 km.

The undercarriage was borrowed from the KV-1 tank with all its drawbacks and contained on one side six twin road wheels of small diameter with a torsion bar suspension and three support rollers. The use of the KV-1 chassis led to its overload and frequent breakdowns.

The KV-85 tank was inferior in terms of firepower and defense to the German Pz.Kpfw.V “Panther” and Pz.Kpfw.VI Tiger and was mainly used to break through the enemy’s prepared defense, and suffered heavy losses.

The tank's defense could only withstand the fire of German guns with a caliber of less than 75 mm, the most common German anti-tank 75-mm Pak 40 gun at that time successfully hit him. Any German 88-mm gun easily penetrated the armor of the KV-85 body from any distance. The KV-85 tank gun could only fight the new German heavy tanks at distances up to 1000m. Nevertheless, as a temporary solution that arose in the 1943 year, the KV-85 was a successful design as a transitional model for more powerful heavy tanks of the IS family.

With the KV-85 testing of a new turret with an 85-mm cannon, development and testing of the IS-1 tank continued. A KV-85 tank tower was installed on this tank and a new hull with enhanced armor was developed. The IS-1 tank was put into service in September 1943, its mass production lasted from October 1943 to January 1944, all in all 107 tanks were produced.


Heavy tank IS-1


The layout of the tank was similar to the KV-85 with a crew of 4 people. Due to the denser layout of the tank, its weight was reduced to 44,2 tons, which facilitated the running performance and increased its reliability

The tank had more powerful hull armor, the thickness of the forehead of the forehead was 120mm, the bottom was 100mm, the turret front plate was 60mm, the hull sides were 60-90 mm, the bottom and roof were 30mm. The reservation of the tank was equal and even superior to the reservation of the German Pz.Kpfw.VI Tiger and here they performed on equal terms.

As a power plant, a V-2IS engine with 520 horsepower was used. It provided speed on the 37 km / h highway and 150 km cruising range. The chassis was used from the KV-85 tank.

The IS-1 tank became a transitional model to the IS-2 with more powerful weapons

Heavy tanks IS-2 and IS-3


The IS-2 tank was essentially a modernization of the IS-1, aimed at further increasing its firepower. In terms of layout, it did not fundamentally differ from the IS-1 and KV-85. Due to the denser layout, it was necessary to abandon the driver’s hatch, which often led to his death in the defeat of the tank.

With a tank weight of 46 tons, its armor protection was very high, the thickness of the armor of the forehead of the hull was 120mm, the bottom of the arm was 100mm, the sides of the arm were 90mm, the forehead and sides of the turret were 100mm, the roof was 30mm, and the bottoms were 20mm. The armor resistance of the forehead of the hull was also increased due to the exclusion of a broken upper frontal sheet.


Heavy tank IS-2


For the IS-2 tank, the X-NUMX-mm gun D-122T was specially developed, the IS-25 turret had a reserve for modernization and allowed to put a more powerful gun without major alterations.

As a power plant, a V-2-IS diesel engine with 520 horsepower was used. providing speed on the highway 37 km / h and range 240 km.

The IS-2 tank was much more protected than the Pz.Kpfw.V Panther and Pz.Kpfw.VI Tiger and was only slightly behind the Pz.Kpfw.VI Tiger II. Nevertheless, the 88-mm KwK 36 L / 56 gun pierced the lower frontal sheet from a distance of 450 m, and the anti-tank 88-mm Pak 43 L / 71 gun pierced the turret at medium and long distances from a distance of the order of 1000 m. In this case, 122- mm IS-2 gun pierced the upper frontal part of the Pz.Kpfw.VI Tiger II only from a distance of up to 600 m.

Since the main purpose of the Soviet heavy tanks was the breakthrough of heavily fortified enemy defensive strips saturated with long-term and field fortifications, serious attention was paid to the high-explosive fragmentation of the shells of the 85-mm gun.

The IS-2 tank was the most powerful Soviet tank that took part in the war, and one of the strongest vehicles in the heavy tank class. He was the only Soviet heavy tank, which, in terms of its characteristics, could withstand German tanks of the second half of the war and provided for offensive operations with overcoming a powerful and deeply echeloned defense.

The IS-3 tank was the last model in this series of heavy tanks. It was developed already at the end of the war and did not take part in hostilities, it only took place at a parade in Berlin in September 1945 in honor of the victory of the Allied forces in World War II.


Heavy tank IS-3


In layout and armament, it was an IS-2 tank. The main objective was to significantly increase its armor protection. When developing the tank, the conclusions and recommendations on the results of the use of tanks during the war were taken into account, special attention was paid to the massive defeat of the frontal parts of the defense of the hull and turret. Based on the IS-2, a new streamlined body and tower were developed.

A new frontal assembly of the tank’s hull was developed, giving it a tri-sloping “pike nose” shape, and the driver’s hatch, which was not available on the IS-2, was returned. The tower was cast, it was given a drop-shaped streamlined shape. The tank had good armor protection, the thickness of the armor of the forehead of the hull was 110mm, the sides were 90mm, the roof and bottom were 20mm. The thickness of the armor of the forehead of the tower reached 255mm, and the wall thickness at the bottom was 225mm and at the top 110mm.

The power plant, weapons and chassis were borrowed from the IS-2 tank. Due to the many design flaws of the tank, which could not be eliminated, the IS-3 in 1946 was removed from service.
Author:
Photos used:
warspot.ru imgprx.livejournal.net cdn.fishki.net tanki-tut.ru alternathistory.com armedman.ru topwar.ru
46 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Amateur
    Amateur 21 August 2019 18: 31
    +6
    This is a short retelling.
    Svirin Mikhail, recourse Stalin's steel fist
  2. Potter
    Potter 21 August 2019 18: 31
    +7
    Remarks after a quick reading of 2 (two):
    1 - at factory No. 37, an unconditionally good T-50 tank could not be produced in any way, due to the technical equipment of the factory (well, only if the author makes a trip into the past and gives him the necessary equipment and machines). That's why the T-60 was born.
    2 - Instead of a photo of the IS-1 tank, insert a photo of its plastic model? Isn’t it funny?
    In general, the analysis is good and sufficient, does not contradict the generally accepted point of view.
    1. Simargl
      Simargl 22 August 2019 06: 36
      +3
      Quote: Potter
      Isn’t it funny?
      No. Learning a story by building a good model is good practice.
    2. goose
      goose 12 September 2019 17: 38
      0
      Quote: Potter
      at the factory number 37, certainly a good T-50 tank could not be produced in any way, due to the technical equipment of the plant

      There was no production of B-4, the tank could not go without it
  3. Alex013
    Alex013 21 August 2019 18: 35
    +7
    "... T-50, which at that time was one of the best light tanks in the world" With all the advantages of the machine, its production is not at all massive.
    "Valentine", which has been produced since 40, is of course inferior in terms of power density, but in terms of security and armament, it is definitely not worse. And the diesel is more reliable.
  4. Undecim
    Undecim 21 August 2019 18: 35
    +5
    Further development of the T-60 was the T-70 tank
    There was also an "intermediate" attempt - the T-45 tank.

    Unlike the T-60, the tank had a somewhat enhanced armor and a 45 mm cannon, as well as a ZIS-5 digger. The only instance after the tests was sent to the front, where its traces are lost.
  5. Undecim
    Undecim 21 August 2019 18: 41
    +5
    Heavy tank IS-1
    It is unlikely that a photo of a plastic model is appropriate in such an article.
    Moreover, there are no problems with the IS-1 photo.
    1. IL-18
      IL-18 21 August 2019 21: 55
      +4
      Quote: Undecim
      There are no problems with the IS-1 photo.

      Yes? And what about the gun of the tank in the above photo, the mask of the gun from the F-34? Why is this barrel too short? And there are only five skating rinks, not six. Oh! So this is KV-1c! Although ... It served as the basis for the KV-85, and many decisions from the KV passed to the IS. Up to a heap they are outwardly similar, and if you click "pictures" in the search engine under the request, then the request and the result do not always correspond to each other. hi
      1. Undecim
        Undecim 21 August 2019 22: 11
        +4
        "Oops" is strong. And where did you see the F-34 mask?

        Mask F-34 on the left, D-5T on the right. Find the differences.
      2. goose
        goose 12 September 2019 17: 41
        0
        Quote: IL-18
        They look similar to the heap.

        Before the heap, the IS-1 is similar to the KV-13, which is not at all KV-1C
    2. nedgen
      nedgen 21 August 2019 23: 12
      +6
      This snapshot is square 13 and not Is 1
      1. Undecim
        Undecim 21 August 2019 23: 15
        +1
        That is correct.
    3. hohol95
      hohol95 22 August 2019 08: 47
      +1
      This is by chance not a photo of the KV-13?

      Here is the IS-1!
      1. Undecim
        Undecim 22 August 2019 08: 48
        +1
        Yes, I already wrote above that the KV-13.
  6. Undecim
    Undecim 21 August 2019 19: 00
    +12
    IS-3 in 1946 was withdrawn from service.
    In 1946, the IS-3 was discontinued. And he was removed from armament by the mid-seventies.
    In 1974, during the creation of the 80th reserve tank division of ZabVO, there were 270 IS-XNUMXM tanks,
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 21 August 2019 19: 33
      +10
      Quote: Undecim
      In 1946, the IS-3 was discontinued. And he was removed from armament by the mid-seventies.

      EMNIP, the IS-3 was formally removed from service already in 1993 - along with the IS-2M and T-10. And before that, the "oldies" were in service with the reserve divisions.
    2. Catfish
      Catfish 21 August 2019 23: 54
      +4
      In the second half of the sixties, IS-3s were driven by echelons from west to east. I saw it myself when we went from the unit to get new cars. There were rumors that they were being buried along the Amur as bunkers, but they were not on our site Nizhne-Leninskoye-Ungun. Maybe later.
      1. Amurets
        Amurets 23 August 2019 01: 13
        +2
        Quote: Sea Cat
        In the second half of the sixties, IS-3s were driven by echelons from west to east.

        I don’t know about you, they were in the Annunciation Ur, with the transmission removed. In place of the MTO lay boxes with shells. IS-3 was seen only when they were transferred to the territory of the UR, and under its own power. Basically it was the IS-2. IS-3 was not enough.
        This is what these TOD looked like
        And yet, on the territory of the former BVTKKU. there is a memorial with the IS-3 tank. Tank on the go.

        1. Romka47
          Romka47 23 August 2019 11: 15
          +1
          In the city of Rossosh there is a monument to the tankmen who heroically liberated the city, on the pedestal is also IS-3, though not a running one.
        2. ssergey1978
          ssergey1978 25 August 2019 08: 50
          +1
          In Ulyanovsk there is an IS-3 as a monument. Handsome.
  7. andr327
    andr327 21 August 2019 19: 00
    +9
    For several years in a row on August 21, on the eve of State Flag Day, a significant number of people in our country have been celebrating Russian Officer’s Day.
    Happy holiday comrades officers! I have the honor!
  8. Ingvar 72
    Ingvar 72 21 August 2019 19: 01
    +4
    IS-3 in 1946 was withdrawn from service.
    What are you, Yuri! belay But what did he do to suppress the putsch in Hungary in 1956? wink
  9. Alexey RA
    Alexey RA 21 August 2019 19: 40
    +1
    With the verification of a new turret with an 85-mm cannon on the KV-85, development and testing of the IS-1 tank continued. A KV-85 tank tower was installed on this tank and a new hull with enhanced armor was developed.

    Quite the opposite: it was on the KV-85 (Object 239) they put a tower from the IS-1, because there was no other tower, and the tank had to be surrendered urgently. And since for this tower a diameter of 1800 mm was used, the HF turret box had to be expanded, replacing the flat sides in the area of ​​the turret with cylindrical ones.
  10. The comment was deleted.
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 22 August 2019 10: 37
      +2
      Quote: Alf
      Ingenious! Author, you have opened a new page in tank building! It turns out that the MEDIUM tank cannot be equaled HEAVY in terms of armament and armor!

      Well ... for the sake of fairness, the new generation medium tank can still be equated in armament and armoring with the heavy tank of the previous generation. wink
      1. Alf
        Alf 22 August 2019 20: 24
        +1
        Quote: Alexey RA
        Well ... for the sake of fairness, the new generation medium tank can still be equated in armament and armoring with the heavy tank of the previous generation.

        I agree. But! The T-34 was created before the war, and Panther and the Tiger were already in the course of it, which gives certain chances to rank the chances for the next generation.
    2. Looking for
      Looking for 22 August 2019 17: 03
      +3
      Yuriy M. Apukhtin was born in 1948 in the Kursk region. He has two higher educations. He worked for twenty four years as a lead designer in the Kharkov engineering design bureau for them. A. Morozova. Candidate of Technical Sciences. He is the author of many publications and books, he has several inventions in the field of tank control systems. From 1995, he was a deputy of the Kharkiv Regional Council. A convinced supporter of the unity of Russia, Ukraine and Belarus.
      Hochmach

      Registration: 5.06.14
      Posts: 632
      he is really a constructor

      Apukhtin Yuri Mikhailovich. Born in 1948 in Oboyan, Kursk region, Russian.
      Education:
      In 1972 he graduated from the Kharkov Polytechnic Institute with a degree in Automation and Complex Mechanization, in 1976 from the Kharkov Institute of Radio Electronics with a specialization in Automatic Control Systems, in 1983 he completed postgraduate studies at the Moscow Institute of Electronic Technology, and in 1986 he defended his dissertation on the Principles of Building a Tank Information Control systems. "
      Job:
      1972 - 1995 - Kharkov Design Bureau of Mechanical Engineering. A.A. Morozova designer, head of department, head of the department of control systems of a promising tank. Since 1995, a deputy of the Kharkiv Regional Council and working in business to manage commercial structures.
      1973-1974 - the leader in the installation of the smoke curtain "Cloud", subsequently the complex of optical-electronic countermeasures "Curtain".
      1975 - 1977 - the leader in the sighting system of the gunner "Ob" with guided weapons "Cobra" on the T-64B.
      1975 - participation in the installation of a small-caliber gun R-64 on a T-23B tank.
      1976-1978 - work on the fire control system of the T-80UD tank, development of a duplicated fire control system for the commander, work on the panoramic and simplified sight of the commander.
      1976 -1979 - head of work on the creation of the tank information management system (TIUS) "Iris-K" and "Alternative" for the T-64B.
      1980–1993 - Head of the management complex based on the TIUS of the promising Boxer tank.
      Main publications:
      In 1975 - 1980, a series of publications in closed bulletins on weapons of the ground forces on tank fire control systems and the prospects of creating a tank information-control system. Author and co-author of 8 inventions on tank control systems.
      The author of the book “The Last Breakthrough of Soviet Tank Builders” (the diary of a Boxer tank development participant), Kharkov, 2009. SO SITTING AND SOPE IN TWO HOLES !!!! AND MOST IMPORTANT !!! THIS MAN.NOT LANGUAGE..A PROFESSION PROVEN ITS LIABILITY IDEALS OF RUSSIA.
  11. Saxahorse
    Saxahorse 21 August 2019 22: 17
    +8
    The author made many hasty conclusions and accents based on his own, very superficial review. The article is written in a terrible hurry. The comments already briefly reminded that:

    The T-60 was launched not because it is better than the T-50 but because it was the production of components and assemblies and for the T-50 nothing shone.

    The Su-76 was not made on the basis of the T-70 but was constructed at the same time as the T-60 on the basis of the same units.

    T-34 is no worse and no better than PzV or PzVI, these are machines for different purposes.

    Well and so on .. I don’t know where the author was in a hurry, but a sad result is evident. Only the lazy does not get such an article. And after all, a bunch of articles about tanks have been here recently on the topwar! All this was disassembled many times. Is the author only reading himself?
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. lucul
      lucul 22 August 2019 00: 16
      +1
      The author made many hasty conclusions and accents based on his own, very superficial review.

      He went to the people ... and they know everything about everything, at least do not write an article)))
      People who already know the topic, look through the article fluently, and not knowing, and so it will be interesting.
      Recently, unhealthy criticism has gone to the authors.
      I want to answer with words - do you criticize? Suggest!
  12. Amurets
    Amurets 22 August 2019 01: 08
    +6
    As the power plant, the GAZ-202 engine with a capacity of 70 hp was used, which is a modification of the deformed GAZ-11 engine from a floating T-40 tank with a capacity of 85 hp. in order to increase its reliability. The engine was started using a mechanical handle. Use of the starter was permitted only with the engine warm. To warm the engine, a boiler was used, which was heated using a blowtorch.
    Thanks to the people of Gorky for being able to save this engine and its twin unit GAZ-203 in production. In 1939, six-cylinder
    motor at the Gorky Automobile Plant was
    organized workshop number 1, equipped with new-
    shimmy machines brought from the USA. In con-
    tse 1940, after the release of a small batch
    products, engine shop No. 1 was transferred
    People's Commissariat of the aviation industry. AT
    the building housed factory number 466 for manufacturing
    Niyu aviation engines M-105. Almost all
    equipment and all personnel of the motor
    Workshop No. 1, with the exception of management,
    were transferred to this plant. Unique stan-
    ki that could not be adapted for
    production of aircraft engines, sent to
    spare parts warehouse for conservation. Essentially
    the huge work done by car makers on
    creating a promising six-
    cylinder engine turned out to be minimized. Motor-
    booths - probably with the tacit support of
    rector and chief designer - exported
    part of the machines from the workshop given to factory No. 466.
    Aviation personnel, in turn, raised the issue
    theft of property, and authorities intervened
    NKVD. The situation was extremely dangerous.
    Support for automobile manufacturers was provided by the military. To-
    GABTU mandate of the Red Army in the category
    formally stated the need for conservation
    six-cylinder engine production
    televisions on the auto giant. These motors were supplied
    plant number 37 (Moscow), which produced
    tanks. After the appeal of military motorists
    transferred to the premises of the spare parts workshop. Only
    before the war, the engine shop, releasing
    shih six-cylinder engines, earned on
    full power. A feat accomplished by a group
    enthusiasts on the eve of the conservation war
    production of motors allowed auto manufacturers to adjust
    to push the release of military equipment [2, p. 85–86]. FEATURES OF FORMATION OF THE AIRCRAFT BUILDING COMPLEX
    GORKOVSK REGION IN THE FIRST PERIOD OF THE GREAT DOMESTIC
    WARS (June 1941 - November 1942)
     2015 E.I. Podrepny, I.A. Kalmykov
    Nizhny Novgorod State University N.I. Lobachevsky, N. Novgorod
  13. MoJloT
    MoJloT 22 August 2019 11: 39
    +3
    At least two Pak-35 / 36s, shooting at point blank range, try to stop the T-34/76 in real combat (judging by the tower it was released no earlier than 41-42). Unfortunately, I don’t know either the time or the place, but it’s quite clear how fights of 41-42 of our T34 and German anti-tank artillery took place.
  14. yehat
    yehat 22 August 2019 12: 47
    +1
    Quote: Potter
    In general, the analysis is good and sufficient, does not contradict the generally accepted point of view.

    I do not quite agree with your conclusions.
    light tanks were often used to support infantry on a par with the German ganomags and other armored personnel carriers. The author says that they were useless, but they were used quite normally for reconnaissance, fire support, patrolling, guarding points (headquarters, important road junctions). In addition, the future crews of more serious vehicles were trained in light tanks.
    about the KV-85 is rather strange told. Not a word was said that it was the most sighted tank of the Red Army.
    about the power of German tanks is overkill.
    everything revolves around panthers and tigers, and the fact that we saw T4 and Stug3 much more often was somehow "forgotten".
    Meanwhile, this tank was quite vulnerable to all the main types of our tanks.
    Even the Germans began the battle under the Prokhorovka precisely on t4, and not by tigers or other machines.
    it is not said that the is-1 formally having even slightly better armor than the tiger, lost much to it in the review, effective aiming range, reaction, turret turning and pointing speed, rate of fire. All this on Is-2 was leveled only by tactics, and before that the losses were high.
    1. goose
      goose 12 September 2019 17: 47
      0
      Quote: yehat
      He lost a lot in the review

      This is not a fact. KV-85 and IS-1 had good equipment for review.
      KV-85 can generally be called the best tank in the world of its time in terms of visibility.
  15. hohol95
    hohol95 22 August 2019 14: 37
    0

    In the spring of 1944, the 1452th self-propelled artillery regiment, consisting of 11 KV-85, 5 KV-1s, 6 SU-152 and 3 SU-76, took part in the liberation of Crimea. It was rather a tank-self-propelled regiment. The regiment operated near Armenian, liberated the cities of Yevpatoriya, Saki, Bakhchisaray, and on May 9 the two remaining in service of the KV-85 broke into Sevastopol.
  16. volodimer
    volodimer 23 August 2019 09: 29
    +1
    "The KV-85 tank was a transitional model between the KV-1 and IS-1, from the first was borrowed the chassis and many elements of the armor of the hull, and from the second enlarged tower."
    "... the development and testing of the IS-1 tank continued. This tank had installed turret tank KV-85 and a new, reinforced hull has been developed. "
    It should already be decided whose tower.
    Paragraph: "Since the main purpose of Soviet heavy tanks was to break through heavily fortified enemy defenses saturated with long-term and field fortifications, serious attention was paid to the high-explosive fragmentation effect of 85-mm cannon shells." present in the description of the IS-2, suggests that the author was clearly in a hurry.
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 23 August 2019 11: 07
      +1
      Quote: volodimer
      It should already be decided whose tower.

      KV-85 tower was borrowed from IS.
      According to the decree of GKO No. 3289, it was necessary to manufacture two samples of KV-1C with 85 mm guns and two samples of IS-1 with 85 mm guns. In reality, instead of two samples of the KV-1C with an 85 mm gun, two different tanks were obtained.
      The first of them - Object 238 developed by SKB-2 - fully corresponded to the statement of work: it was KV-1C, in the standard tower of which an 85-mm S-31 Grabina was installed.
      The second - Object 239 developed by Experimental Plant No. 100 - was a modernized KV-1C hull with an IS-3 tank turret (Object 237) and an 85-mm D-5T gun. No, this is not a typo - at the stage of R&D, the ancestor of the future IS-1 had the index IS-3.
      Moreover, judging by the article by uv. Yu.Pasholoka at Warspot, the first complete tower with the D-85T received just Object 239, and both samples of Object 237 at first received S-31 guns.
      1. volodimer
        volodimer 23 August 2019 12: 49
        +1
        Thanks for your comment, this is exactly what the author should have written. My question was more rhetorical, so that the next material by Yuri was more prepared. hi
  17. Romka47
    Romka47 23 August 2019 11: 20
    +1
    At the second stage of the war, Soviet tank builders had to catch up with the Germans, but achieve full parity with them according to the main tactical and technical characteristics of tanks until the end of the war failed.
    Here I disagree, the IS-2 was superior to the Tiger and fought on equal terms with the Tiger 2, if Tiger 2 is considered "finished," in fact, many Germans refused it because it was "raw" and preferred a tiger brought to perfection.
    Again, if we take TIGER2, then let's take IS-3 as a full participant, then again, ours is ahead!
    Here is one more thing:
    At the same time, the IS-122 2-mm gun pierced the upper frontal part of the Pz.Kpfw.VI Tiger II only from a distance of up to 600 m.
    even if it didn’t pierce, from the arrival of the 122nd blank, few could continue the fight, and if you didn’t have to hit with a high explosive, then you didn’t need to pierce, they were hardened from the inside wall of the armor and everything that was not tightly welded into the tank’s body turned into shrapnel
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 23 August 2019 14: 33
      +3
      Quote: Romka47
      even if it didn’t pierce, from the arrival of the 122nd blank, few could continue the fight, and if you didn’t have to hit with a high explosive, then you didn’t need to pierce, they were hardened from the inside wall of the armor and everything that was not tightly welded into the tank’s body turned into shrapnel

      Secondary fragments are not the worst thing yet. As uv wrote. M. Svirin, if a 122-mm land mine hit the frontal projection of the "German's" hull, even in the absence of a penetration, the tank would get up - the front gearbox and the turning mechanism were out of order.
      1. Romka47
        Romka47 23 August 2019 15: 02
        +1
        Secondary fragments are not the worst thing yet. As uv wrote. M. Svirin, if a 122-mm land mine hit the frontal projection of the "German's" hull, even in the absence of a penetration, the tank would get up - the front gearbox and the turning mechanism were out of order.
        Especially hi
      2. goose
        goose 12 September 2019 17: 48
        0
        Quote: Alexey RA
        front-mounted gearbox and steering gear

        + Long contusion of the whole crew
  18. totoro21
    totoro21 25 August 2019 16: 36
    0
    Did I understand correctly that the chassis from the KV-1 eventually migrated to the IS-3 without significant changes? It is hard to believe, but the article says so.
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 26 August 2019 10: 56
      +2
      Quote: totoro21
      Did I understand correctly that the chassis from the KV-1 eventually migrated to the IS-3 without significant changes? It is hard to believe, but the article says so.

      Wow ... how is it that I missed such a thing? But really, the article says:
      The IS-1 tank was adopted in September 1943, its mass production lasted from October 1943 to January 1944, a total of 107 tanks were produced.
      (...)
      The chassis was used from the KV-85 tank.

      While in real life, the IS borrowed only support rollers from the KV-85. Otherwise, the suspension design of the IP was similar, but not borrowed.
      On the IS tank, a suspension of the same design was used as on the HF - six nodes of torsion suspension on board with rubber limiters for the roller’s travel without shock absorbers. Unlike the KV-1, the track rollers of which had internal cushioning, the track rollers of the IC were made all-metal.
      © Chobitok
      In general, it is strange how the IS could use the KV-85 chassis if the KV-13 medium heavy reservation tank became the basis for the IS.
  19. Ivan Rudy
    Ivan Rudy 6 September 2019 08: 01
    0
    better than a real dozen T-60 or T-70 than a hundred missing excellent T-50. With regard to the removal of the IS-3 from service in 1946, I myself live in the Far East and the 70s and 80s saw this tank in the Amur Region and not in the museum.
  20. yehat
    yehat 13 September 2019 10: 29
    0
    Quote: goose
    and IS-1 had good review equipment

    and what is good? there were no angular viewing devices with periscopes as on kv-1
    the commander’s birdhouse was similar to Panther’s or T4.
    viewing devices were still worse than on a tiger.
    the number of people epipage who could watch is also not impressive.
    you can probably only say that the driver there felt confident, behind the armor no worse than on the Churchill, but with a much better view, and the tank was mobile.
  21. Kostadinov
    Kostadinov 18 September 2019 14: 37
    0
    The increase in firepower and security of the tank did not help to put it on a par with the German Pz.Kpfw.V "Panther" and Pz.Kpfw.VI Tiger. The frontal armor of Pz.Kpfw.VI Tiger was 100mm thick, and that of Pz.Kpfw.V Panther 60-80mm and their guns could hit the T-34-85 from 1000-1500m, and the latter pierced their armor only at 800 — 1000 meters and only at a distance of about 500 meters are the thickest places on the forehead of the tower.

    Again, the very same comparisons, who breaks whom and from where. The old song repeats the untenable German concept of using a tank as an anti-tank gun, which led German tank troops to defeat.
    1. The firepower of a tank is in the first place of its HE projectile against infantry and enemy weapons. He is also the main means of protecting the tank, not armor.
    2. In second place is the price of the tank. It must beat cheaply and is produced in large quantities.
    3. Passability through bridges, roads and terrain, range with one charge, etc. Otherwise, make a concrete bin better.
    4. Armor is only within reasonable limits - to protect against close hit HE shells of large caliber and air bombs and from armor-piercing shells of automatic guns. If you take first place to see the tank crew, then it’s better not to start a war.
    In terms of efficiency on the battlefield, the T-34 was utterly superior to the Panther and Tiger.
    1. HE Shell T-34/85 is more powerful than that of the Panther and is equal to the Tiger.
    2. The price of the T-34 is several times less.
    3. Patency is incomparably better.
    1. Maksimov
      Maksimov 21 November 2019 23: 33
      0
      Absolutely right. And you will not blame you for cheers-patriotism)
      The Soviet concept of the use of tanks proved to be right, firstly, in the 2nd World War, and, secondly, in numerous post-war conflicts, in which Soviet tanks participated many times more than Western vehicles.