Military Review

BTR-40. The first Soviet serial armored personnel carrier

82
"Combat buses." The first Soviet armored personnel carrier, which was launched into serial production, appeared in the country after the end of World War II. The design of the car was started by the designers of the GAZ automobile plant, which already in the 1948 year were able to present the BTR-40 light armored personnel carrier to the military. The new combat vehicle was created using components and assemblies of the GAZ-63 all-wheel drive truck.



Paratroopers leave BTR-40


On the way to the first armored personnel carrier


Before the start of World War II, the Soviet Union did not have its own armored personnel carrier, but there were a huge number of armored vehicles with both cannon and machine gun weapons. The combat experience quickly enough demonstrated that the troops are in dire need of a specialized vehicle that could be used as part of mechanized and tank units for transporting infantry. During the war years, they tried to somehow solve this problem by using Komsomolets armored artillery tractors for unusual purposes, the number of which in the troops was melting like ice on a sunny spring day, trophy equipment, as well as Lend-Lease supplies. In particular, the Soviet Union received more than three thousand American light armored personnel carriers M3A1 Scout under Lend-Lease, but this amount was clearly not enough.

At the same time, attempts were made in the country to create their own armored personnel carrier. For example, based on the all-wheel drive armored car BA-64. Option armored personnel carrier BA-64E was released in a small series. The tower was dismantled from the cars, the roof was also missing, and a door was located in the rear of the case. Such an armored car could carry up to 6 people, of which only 4 paratroopers. But to create a full-fledged armored personnel carrier based on the chassis of a passenger SUV was simply impossible, so the car was rated very low and it wasn’t mass built. In addition, in the 1944 year in the USSR, they tried to create their own analogue of the German half-track armored personnel carrier Ganomag и American M3. Experienced B-3 half-track armored personnel carrier based on parts tank The T-70 and the ZIS-5 truck was developed by the designers of the ZIS plant in 1944, but the tests of this machine did not impress the military, who noted insufficient thrust-weight ratio and the associated low speed and reliability of the new machine.


M3A1 Scout


The big problem that prevented creating your own armored personnel carrier during the war was the Soviet industry being overloaded with the production of tanks and various types of self-propelled artillery, there was simply no free capacity for deploying production of armored personnel carriers in difficult conditions. In the end, until the end of the war, it was possible to observe the picture when the Soviet motorized infantry moved on the armor of tanks. Placing soldiers on the armor was a necessary measure and was only suitable for transporting troops without active opposition from the enemy. Soldiers who were stationed on tanks without any protection were easily vulnerable to small arms fire. weapons and fragments of shells and mines bursting nearby.

The birth of the BTR-40


The task of creating their own armored personnel carrier became a priority for the industry after the war. Work on a new machine at the factory in Gorky began in the 1947 year. At the same time, Soviet designers were repelled by the American light multipurpose armored personnel carrier M3A1 Scout, which was taken as a sample. This armored personnel carrier also arranged for the military, who were well acquainted with him. The tactical and technical requirements for the new machine directly indicated that the armored personnel carrier should be designed "on the model of the American M3A1." At the same time, according to a number of technical requirements, the car was supposed to exceed the performance of the American armored personnel carrier. The reservation should have been seriously strengthened, the military demanded that the armored car be securely protected from the front of the 12,7-mm bullets, and on the sides and stern - from the 7,62-mm bullets, M3A1 did not provide such protection.

It is worth paying tribute to the designers of the Gorky Automobile Plant, who did not blindly copy the M3A1. Having retained the general concept and layout model, the outwardly Soviet armored personnel carrier was seriously different from the American Scout. To enhance the armor protection, the front and upper armored plates of the combat vehicle body were placed by designers at a large angle. Gorky also abandoned the buffer roller in front of the machine, replacing it with a winch. The fundamental difference from the American light armored personnel carrier frame design was the use of a bearing armored corps.


All-wheel drive truck GAZ-63


The designers of the GAZ plant decided to build the first specialized armored personnel carrier on the basis of the chassis of a GAZ-63 all-wheel drive truck. When creating a combat vehicle, the designers tried to make the armored personnel carrier as unified as possible with conventional cars that were mass-produced at the enterprise. In addition to the elements of the chassis and other units, the new armored personnel carrier received from the truck and the in-line Six. At the same time, despite the high level of unification with the truck, the designers refused to use frames in the BTR-40 design.

Active work on the creation of a light armored personnel carrier was carried out from 1947 to 1949 year. At the same time, the field tests were already completed on September 9 of the 1948 of the year, after which the commission recommended the adoption of a new model of armored vehicles. However, the serial production of the new armored personnel carrier was delayed for more than a year. All this time, the process of fine-tuning experimental vehicles was carried out, as well as the satisfaction of new requirements from the GBTU, changing the composition of weapons and armored personnel carrier reservation. As a result, the light armored personnel carrier went into the series already in the 1950 year. And ordinary citizens could get acquainted with the new product only in 1951 during the traditional November parade on Red Square.

It is worth noting that in parallel with the ZIS plant in Moscow, work was underway to refine the BTR-152 armored personnel carrier, which was created on the basis of the chassis of the ZIS-151 truck. Both armored personnel carriers entered service in the 1950 year and complemented each other. The BTR-40 created in Gorky was a light armored personnel carrier capable of transporting paratroopers up to 8, and the BTR-152 designed by Moscow designers was a heavier vehicle capable of transporting infantry in the landing squad up to 17. At the same time, the military already relied on wheeled armored personnel carriers, this state of affairs remains in the Russian army today. The choice in favor of wheeled armored personnel carriers was made because of their lower cost in production and operation, as well as the possibility of mass production at existing automobile plants.


BTR-40 with awning


Design Features BTR-40


The new Soviet armored personnel carrier was a two-axle combat vehicle with the wheel formula 4x4. The light armored personnel carrier had a bonnet layout and a design traditional for the technology of its age. In the front of the hull there was a motor-transmission compartment, followed by a control compartment for two people: a driver mechanic and an armored personnel carrier commander, who had a walkie-talkie at his disposal. Behind the control compartment in the stern was a landing compartment, designed to transport 8 infantry.

The armored personnel carrier received a box-shaped carrying armored hull open from above. The hull was welded and made of armored plates with a thickness of 8 mm (side) and 6 mm (feed). The most powerful reservation was in the frontal part of the car - from 11 to 15 mm. For landing and disembarking the crew, the landing party used a double-wing door in the rear wall of the hull, and the paratroopers could always leave the armored personnel carrier simply by crossing the sides. Small hinged doors were made in the hull for landing and disembarking the crew on the sides of the control compartment. To protect from the weather, a tarpaulin awning could be pulled over the top of the hull.

The new armored personnel carrier inherited bridges from the GAZ-63 truck, which were suspended on semi-elliptic leaf springs and additionally equipped with double-acting shock absorbers. Also, the armored personnel carrier received the same transfer case, combined with a gear with direct and lower gears. The driver had the opportunity to disable the front axle. At the same time, the frame design, as already noted above, the designers refused. This allowed to reduce the length of the machine body to 5000 mm, and the wheelbase of the BTR-40 was reduced to 2700 mm. For the GAZ-63 all-wheel drive truck, these figures were 5525 and 3300 mm, respectively.


BTR-40 in Budapest, 1956 year


The heart of the armored personnel carrier was the inline six-cylinder GAZ-40 engine, which was a variant of the boosted GAZ-11 engine mounted on a GAZ-63 truck. The motor received a new carburetor, and its power increased to 78 hp. This power was enough to disperse an APC with a combat mass of 5,3 tons to 78 km / h when driving on a highway, over rough terrain the car could move at a speed of up to 35 km / h. Despite the fact that the thrust-weight ratio of the car was quite low (approximately 14,7 hp per tonne compared to the 20 of the M3A1 equipped with a more powerful engine), the APC could also carry a two-ton trailer, which made the light armored vehicle very versatile. Also, the BTR-40 could easily climb steep slopes of up to 30 degrees, ditches up to 0,75 meters wide and fords up to 0,9 meters deep.

The standard armament of the light armored personnel carrier BTR-40 was the 7,62-mm machine gun Goryunov SG-43 with ammunition from 1250 cartridges. In addition, paratroopers could use their own small arms for shooting: AK assault rifles and SKS carbines. It was possible to fire at the enemy through 4 embrasures in the sides of the hull, as well as over the side of the combat vehicle.

Serial production of the new armored personnel carrier lasted from 1950 to 1960 a year, during which time in the USSR about 8,5 thousand armored personnel carriers-40 were assembled in various versions. On the basis of the armored personnel carrier, tractors for transporting anti-tank guns, anti-aircraft self-propelled guns armed with 14,5-mm CPV machine guns, staff and command vehicles were created. In 1956, a version of an armored personnel carrier with protection against the damaging factors of nuclear weapons was created, the new model received a closed airtight body, while the number of paratroopers was reduced to six people. In addition, this option also took into account the combat experience of using armored personnel carriers in Hungary in the 1956 year, when the landing party suffered from enemy fire from the upper floors of buildings.
Author:
Articles from this series:
The main armored personnel carrier of the Wehrmacht. Sd.Kfz. 251 Ganomage
The most massive armored personnel carrier of World War II
82 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Talgarets
    Talgarets 3 November 2019 06: 08 New
    +12
    And BTR-40 and BTR-152 in Soviet films often play the role of German armored vehicles.
    1. Kote Pan Kokhanka
      Kote Pan Kokhanka 3 November 2019 07: 42 New
      +16
      Quote: Talgarets
      And BTR-40 and BTR-152 in Soviet films often play the role of German armored vehicles.

      However, like the T-34, T-44, T-54 and IS-2 played in our films, both for their own and for others, differing from the originals with bulwarks and angular "square" towers! Only running betrayed.
      Although it must be admitted that the “enemy BTTs” in extras were made by conscripts on our knees in our military units!
      Especially vividly (I forgot the name of the film in a jerk) I remembered one episode about the beginning of the war! The film shows hordes of German tanks (T-44 and T-54) and three of our T-34s as T-34s, T-34s as BT-7s and IS-2s as KV-1s.
      BT-7 looked especially futuristic. The latter, with all the proportions maintained, turned out to be more than the “thirty-four”.
      On the other hand, this does not affect the plot of the film!
      1. vladimirZ
        vladimirZ 3 November 2019 08: 15 New
        +7
        Yes, during the Second World War, our Army did not have enough armored personnel carriers for motorized infantry accompanying tanks, which was a miscalculation of the military thought of the General Staff.
        They hit a large number of tanks in mechanized corps (over 1000 pieces), forgetting or not knowing that a tank without infantry, as well as without self-propelled artillery (SPG), reconnaissance and communications with the same speed of movement and without aviation support, can do little. The number of tanks to the detriment of their quality use in conjunction with other branches and types of troops.
        German generals not only theoretically substantiated this interaction of tanks, but also applied them in practice in their tank groups. But to our beetles, when intelligence presented them with analytical material on the actions of German tank groups in Poland and France, they were not needed, with the famous Zhukov’s wording “I don’t need it” on these materials.
        1. Wilderness
          Wilderness 3 November 2019 09: 07 New
          0
          Probably not a miscalculation, but simply ignorance. It is unfair to require a conditional vocational school for the first year of knowledge on a master's scale. No need to idealize anyone (demonization is also not worth it). All the plans of the generals were built on experience (civil and first imperialist), and the result was a "mechanized" version of the First Cavalry Army. Those. Thousands of tanks were riveted, the troops were called mechanized and tank, even they created an appropriate academy ... But in reality, thinking remained - a horse, a rifle, a convoy, an attack-hurray ...
          Then through defeat and victory came experience.
          1. Kote Pan Kokhanka
            Kote Pan Kokhanka 3 November 2019 10: 31 New
            +15
            Quote: Wilderness
            Probably not a miscalculation, but simply ignorance.

            With all due respect, the conclusion is ambitious and extremely ...., as it were to put it mildly - stupid. Something inspires from the "kitchen intelligentsia" of the 80s!
            It is unfair to require a conditional vocational school for the first year of knowledge on a master's scale. No need to idealize anyone (demonization is also not worth it). All the plans of the generals were built on experience (civil and first imperialist), and the result was a "mechanized" version of the First Cavalry Army. Those. Thousands of tanks were riveted, the troops were called mechanized and tank, even they created an appropriate academy ... But in reality, thinking remained - a horse, a rifle, a convoy, an attack-hurray ...
            Then through defeat and victory came experience.

            The input mind, in principle, is uniquely simple - there isn’t enough couch, refrigerator, a couple of intelligent interlocutors!
            I will have only one thesis - which of the states in the thirties of the last century was preparing for a war other than World War I and who created balanced ground troops for 1938 without trial and error? The answer is no one! Even the vaunted Germany was running in its tank troops and Blitzkrieg techniques! It came upon such pitfalls that it radically changed the structure of its divisions from company to company! So, by 41, divisions came out to our borders that were fundamentally different from those that smashed the Poles, Norwegians, French and British!
            We did not have such an opportunity. Unless of course the Soviet-Finnish company! But her theater was the cause of other conclusions, in fact, it could not be otherwise! Specificity !!! However, like Hassan, Haken-Gol and Spain. Even the Polish campaign within the walls of our academy was disassembled and studied. Conclusions and corrections are made. Moreover, the correct conclusions and real solutions, which greatly enhanced the technical reliability of our technology.
            Now to the thousands of tanks and "drafts bare!" In 1940, Germany rolled into a pancake the French, who had excellent medium tanks with bulletproof armor, heavy tanks and much, much more! Moreover, a couple with the British Expeditionary Force!
            You can scold our generals for a long time, but the Red Army had no chance to stand on the border at 41! The Germans found our tank and mechanized corps in the process of formation! They had combat experience, mobilized, had already shed blood and knew the taste of victory! But we began to take lessons only from June 22, 1941. But even with all the mistakes and miscalculations of the Red Army, the Germans sipped grief! So the Soviet divisions at the front were dying, but time was also gaining! Weakly trained, but equipped, making mistakes and miscalculations, they played time for seconds, minutes, days and hours. So maybe these thousands of tanks and planes that were in the hands of yesterday's peasants and exchanged 10 non-combat to one combat and were the factor that then played at the gates of our opponents!
            By the way, about education !!! See Tank Grand and T-34 tank! For neophytes, it is advisable to compare the years of development !!! And only then throw the theses with the "checker"!
            The structure of the optimal tank army we felt by 1943, for three years of the war! However, as the Germans - 1938 - 1941!
            1. tesser
              tesser 3 November 2019 12: 08 New
              0
              Quote: Kote Pan Kokhanka
              Grand tank and T-34 tank

              By the way, just the M3 medium, if you remove the extra weapon, with its huge armored volume was a ready heavy armored personnel carrier. The allies worked in this direction, but not very actively.
            2. Good_Anonymous
              Good_Anonymous 3 November 2019 12: 31 New
              +4
              Quote: Kote Pan Kokhanka
              who created balanced ground forces in 1938 without trial and error?


              The question must be posed in a different way - "who created the troops that were better than the others?" And in such a formulation, the answer is obvious - Germany. And trial and error were able to do everything, but the result was different.
            3. Wilderness
              Wilderness 3 November 2019 13: 15 New
              +2
              Yes, tanks (to the best of their understanding) were then made by many. But the Germans came closest to creating tank armies. They built an army, counted from scratch, imprisoned for a specific goal - a quick war. Well, and experience, you are right, run in the tool, "imprisoned" it in battles with archaically organized armies of France and Poland.
              And then I didn’t understand the kitchens, sofas, ntillegents. The discussion is on the topic - why there were no armored personnel carriers in 1941. My opinion is that it was necessary to grow up to armored personnel carriers, tracked self-propelled guns, anti-aircraft weapons, mobile troops with strikes thousands of kilometers deep. Both technically and psychologically. When experience gained - done.
          2. Blackgrifon
            Blackgrifon 3 November 2019 18: 10 New
            +1
            Quote: Wilderness
            It is unfair to require a conditional vocational school for the first year of knowledge on a master's scale.

            Military specialists (former tsarist officers) in the service of the Red Army and \ was more than enough. And many of them, strangely enough, escaped the camps and executions, and a number rose to high duties or conducted scientific and teaching activities. So apparently the reluctance to build armored personnel carriers was caused not by illiteracy, but by a sum of reasons: from a banal misunderstanding to problems with the industry.
            1. Saxahorse
              Saxahorse 3 November 2019 20: 03 New
              +4
              Quote: Blackgrifon
              Military specialists (former tsarist officers) in the service of the Red Army and \ was more than enough.

              Who told you that all these “military experts” could offer at least something sensible and worthy of attention? Just look at the RI fleet. Complete and obvious squalor is precisely in terms of commanding staff. The army of that time definitely needed to be updated.

              No illusions needed. The empire collapsed precisely because of the complete loss of adequacy in governance. Both in civilian life and in military affairs.
              1. Blackgrifon
                Blackgrifon 3 November 2019 20: 42 New
                -1
                Quote: Saxahorse
                Who told you that all these “military experts” could offer at least something sensible and worthy of attention?

                At least the fact that it was during the years of WWII that the imperial army received several dozen armored vehicles (BA "Jeffrey-Poplavko"), which, according to the initial concept, were very close to modern wheeled infantry fighting vehicles / armored personnel carriers.
                The essence of my comment was that the Red Army had not only field commanders without a military education who had left the mass of soldiers, but also a large number of well-trained tsarist officers.

                Quote: Saxahorse
                The empire collapsed precisely because of the complete loss of adequacy in management

                The reasons for the fall of the Empire were a cart and a small cart, and much of it should be said thanks to the passivity and gentleness of Nicholas II. If in his place someone with a steel ridge, everything would have ended differently. But this does not apply to the topic.
                1. Saxahorse
                  Saxahorse 4 November 2019 19: 54 New
                  0
                  Quote: Blackgrifon
                  moreover, much should be said thanks to the passivity and gentleness of Nicholas II. If in his place someone with a steel ridge, everything would have ended differently. But this does not apply to the topic.

                  Still as concerns. The empire failed in three days. Suffice it to recall that the last uniquely won RI war was the war of 1812! And then, rather by inertia. Alexander I, like all the other Romanovs, successfully merged all the opportunities that appeared with a victory.

                  The hereditary monarchy is the worst of all known forms of government. It almost completely eliminates the appearance of a truly bright and worthy ruler.
                  1. dmmyak40
                    dmmyak40 4 November 2019 21: 20 New
                    0
                    Quote: Saxahorse
                    Suffice it to recall that the last uniquely won RI war was the war of 1812!

                    But do you not take into account the Russian-Turkish war of 1878? Why? The Berlin Congress can be put aside.
                    1. Saxahorse
                      Saxahorse 4 November 2019 22: 26 New
                      +2
                      Quote: dmmyak40
                      But do you not take into account the Russian-Turkish war of 1878? Why? The Berlin Congress can be put aside.

                      But there is no need to put the Berlin Congress out of the question!

                      The reason for it was the attempt of the kidalov allies from the side of the next, mediocre Russian Tsar. (I remind you that they are all like that ..). Initially, Bismarck acted as a guarantor of agreements with Austria and was simply shocked when they tried to roughly throw him at the end of the war. Frederick’s phrase about "unpredictable Russian stupidity" can be attributed to this episode .. So screw up having all the cards on hand!

                      And so yes, the army dragged, though with great blood, they could have taken the straits and half of Turkey, but the hopeless stupidity of the Russian autocrats once again failed.
                      1. dmmyak40
                        dmmyak40 4 November 2019 22: 36 New
                        0
                        One gets the impression that the Russian autocrats made politics in a vacuum, and only their mistakes led to failure. And the rest of Europe has nothing to do with it ... Strange logic.
                      2. Saxahorse
                        Saxahorse 4 November 2019 22: 48 New
                        +3
                        Quote: dmmyak40
                        One gets the impression that the Russian autocrats made politics in a vacuum, and only their mistakes led to failure. And the rest of Europe has nothing to do with it ... Strange logic.

                        You don’t know that by that time there were almost no autocrats left in Europe? laughing

                        In England, a certain Cromwell, clearly reminded the British monarchs that the thickness of their neck does not exceed the average, human. And despite the formal restoration of the monarchy, the parliament has ruled since then.

                        Well, in France, if you didn’t remember from the previous post, there was complete mess! "Freedom equality Brotherhood!" What could limited Russian tsars offer against this?

                        In those days, the star of Bismarck shone in the Kingdom of Prussia, but Austria and Turkey were known to offend everyone.

                        It was the inherited monarchy that caused the many troubles of the Russian Empire.
                      3. dmmyak40
                        dmmyak40 5 November 2019 01: 46 New
                        -1
                        I did not talk about other monarchies, read carefully. Any decision and action of the Russian monarch has always received a response from Europe, regardless of what form of government in it.
              2. Blackgrifon
                Blackgrifon 4 November 2019 22: 24 New
                0
                Your statements do not relate to the topic of the appearance of armored personnel carriers and contradict historical facts.
                First of all.
                Quote: Saxahorse
                The war of 1812 was definitely won by the RI!

                But only after 12 there were two more Russian-Turkish (successfully won), annexation of a huge territory in the Far East to the guise of Crimean, conquest in Asia. Before the Crimean War in Europe, in principle, there was only one hegemon - RI.
                Second.
                Quote: Saxahorse
                The hereditary monarchy is the worst of all known forms of government.

                Debatable. S t.z. Stat.data in most modern monarchies, the standard of living of the population is higher than in "democratic" America or France.
                A “bright and worthy" ruler is generally a subjective assessment. For example, the appearance and election of a "bright" ruler in the USSR led to its collapse. On the other hand, the “dull and unworthy” rulers of Russia made it a small principality a great power that controlled 1/5 of the populated territory, and was one of the 8 great powers that decided the fate of mankind until the end of the 19th century.
                At the same time, there is an example of two neighbors with a "democratic" form of government:
                - Novgorod Republic. Its elite constantly rushed from side to side, just fearing the appearance of “bright and worthy” and fell at the feet of the “unworthy and dim” Ivan III the Great).
                - The Republic of Poland (aka the Commonwealth). Its elite (and the% of the gentry of the total population was an order of magnitude larger than the nobles in any monarchy) did everything to ensure that there were no "bright and worthy" rulers. As a result, the country was divided in several visits and not particularly strained by neighbors.
                1. Saxahorse
                  Saxahorse 4 November 2019 23: 02 New
                  +2
                  Quote: Blackgrifon
                  Your statements do not relate to the topic of the appearance of armored personnel carriers and contradict historical facts.

                  My statements relate specifically to your comment on the benefits of "military experts." I just recalled that the level of the command structure of the empire, shamefully merging two wars in a row, (RPE and PMV), was extremely low. In addition to general theoretical discussions about the tactics of the times of the ancient Greeks, the military experts had nothing to offer the Red Army.

                  И
                  Quote: Blackgrifon
                  Controversial.

                  It is absolutely indisputable that a management system based on inheritance law, by definition, cannot guarantee any decent mental level of the heir. Note that in the history of Russia, really bright rulers like Peter I or Catherine II came to power as a result of a coup. Those. at least managed to demonstrate an extraordinary will to fight and leadership talent.

                  All the rulers of Russia who inherited power turned out to be utter misery. Which is not surprising. What is the chance of an average newborn baby suddenly being several times better and stronger than his environment? Yes, no! The grayness and squalor of the heir quickly crushed the environment under him, and it is good if Richelieu or Bismarck were nearby. Unfortunately much more often some Bezobrazov or Rasputin ..
                  1. Blackgrifon
                    Blackgrifon 5 November 2019 17: 38 New
                    0
                    Let's immediately decide, I am not a monarchist, but I do not consider a democratic form of government in the form of what is in France a necessity for our Motherland.

                    Plus the inherited or conditionally inherited power of the form of government is constancy and independence from momentary whims and temporary workers, in contrast to such democracies as, for example, France and Italy. This property is inherent both in the monarchy and in the forms of government in the USSR and China (although the system in the Union failed because of the nomenclature’s sense of permissiveness).

                    It is clear that a weak monarch becomes a pawn in the hands of the environment, but I can give examples of similar behavior in countries with an electoral system.
                    Partially, the risk of the appearance of a weak-willed monarch or ruler can be stopped by a system of checks and balances and features of the organization of organs. For example, in England and for a long time in the Republic of Ingushetia, in fact, the ministries were not led by official ministers, but by their first deputies, who were personnel and not political appointees.

                    Quote: Saxahorse
                    All the rulers of Russia who inherited power turned out to be utter misery.

                    Ivan III, Peter I, Alexander I and III as the simplest examples of the fallacy of your statement.
                    Now about Peter I. Of course, he overthrew Sophia, but 1. he was the rightful heir to a strong king and 2. Sophia cannot be called mediocrity.

                    And Catherine II, although she showed a desire for power, was not just a worthy ruler and statesman - in the case of her, Russia was lucky for her lovers (and her entourage) - but she was a wonderful PR-schik.,

                    Quote: Saxahorse
                    the level of the command staff of the empire, shamefully merging two wars in a row, (RPE and PMV), was extremely low.

                    Rather, it was at the level of other countries. Those same English "great" naval commanders stubbornly refused the convoy system, which led to millions of dead gross tons, and having numerical superiority, they nearly leaked the war to the sea. Or the British generals, who stubbornly continued until 17g. drive infantry on machine guns and despise tanks. And there is also a “gloomy” German and French military geniuses. And so forth and so forth
                    Plus, military experts and officers are an understanding of the principles of building an army, training, discipline, logistics, etc. Without them, there would be much more mistakes.
                  2. Saxahorse
                    Saxahorse 6 November 2019 00: 09 New
                    +1
                    Quote: Blackgrifon
                    Plus inherited or conditionally inherited power of the form of government is constancy and independence from momentary whim and temporary workers,

                    Just the opposite. The heir is always weaker than his surroundings and is always surrounded by schemers and temporary workers of all stripes. This does not mean that other forms of government are guaranteed against weak rulers, but the hereditary monarchy always gives rise to such.

                    Quote: Blackgrifon
                    Rather, it was at the level of other countries. The same English "great" naval commanders stubbornly refused the convoy system, which led to millions of dead gross tons,

                    An objective, albeit severe, criterion for the level of commanding personnel is the results of state wars with approximately equal rivals. Alas, RI has nothing to brag about here. Turkish 1829, Crimean 1854 , Turkish 1878, RYAV, PMV. In the end, not a single victory was entirely up to the crash in 1917. Well, how can we talk about some kind of command staff level there?
                  3. Blackgrifon
                    Blackgrifon 6 November 2019 16: 19 New
                    0
                    Quote: Saxahorse
                    Turkish 1829, Crimean 1854 , Turkish 1878, RYAV, PMV.

                    Both Turkish ended in an indisputable military victory.
                    The military results of the participation of the Russian army in the WWII before the decree on the democratization of the army in the study of Western or domestic historians are not called defeat language language.
                    Even a superficial analysis is contrary to your position.
                    Large VO on the Eastern Front of WWI in chronological order and the result:
                    1914 year
                    - East Prussian operation (tactical and strategic defeat)
                    - Battle of Galicia (Tactical and strategic victory. The crushing defeat of the Austrian troops)
                    - August operation (victory)
                    - Warsaw-Ivangorod operation (victory)
                    - одód операция operation (draw)
                    - Częstochowa-Kraków operation (draw)
                    1915 year
                    - Carpathian operation (victory)
                    - Masurian (defeat of the Republic of Ingushetia) and Prasnyshskoe (victory of the Ingushetia) battles
                    - Gorlitsky breakthrough (defeat)
                    - Great retreat (strategic defeat)
                    - Vilna operation (victory)
                    1916 year
                    - Naroch operation (draw)
                    - Brusilovsky breakthrough (Tactical and strategic victory. The crushing defeat of the Austrian troops)
                    - Romanian campaign (defeat)
                    1917 year
                    The democratization of the army and the beginning of fraternities, etc.
                    Those. Until 17, the army of the Republic of Ingushetia fought on equal terms with the armies of the GI and AVI.

                    Complete military defeat only according to the results of the REV.
                    Crimean - defeat in Crimea was stopped by successes in D. Vostok, which we still use.
                  4. Saxahorse
                    Saxahorse 6 November 2019 21: 48 New
                    +1
                    Quote: Blackgrifon
                    Complete military defeat only according to the results of the REV.

                    Sorry, no. For some reason, it is difficult to find the results of these “victories” on the maps of the empire, although they even reached the Aegean Sea. But the recollections of the huge losses, even then caused unpleasant questions. Yes, and the disappearance from the maps of the Republic of Ingushetia of Romania and Moldova, you also clearly called the victory ardently.

                    Unless the history of the conquest of the Caucasus and Central Asia can be found in the pluses on the map. With guns against bows and arrows, the command staff still somehow dragged it. This is his level. (and even managed to allow a couple of mistakes). Everything else is weak, stupid, uncertain and ended in complete zilch for RI in all other cases of “victories”. With Petrovsky grenadiers or miraculous heroes of Suvorov is not even close to compare.
  • carstorm 11
    carstorm 11 3 November 2019 09: 48 New
    +1
    they were lacking much later. and then, in fact, there was no option at least one normal for mass production, and even more important were the tasks.
  • chenia
    chenia 3 November 2019 11: 06 New
    -2
    Quote: vladimirZ
    what was a miscalculation of the military thought of the General Staff.


    No, there was simply not enough capacity to implement this idea. I stated that it would be nice to make an armored personnel carrier from the T-26 (like the M-113, throw out the turret and build up the sides, and the longitudinal engine-transmission-cordon scheme, covered by a casing and folding seats, was ideal).
    So, comrade ALEXEI RA popularly explained (and convincingly) that there were no capacities for that either. And (when we already seemed to you to have realized the need for an armored personnel carrier) in the 50s, motorized rifles were mainly driven by cars.

    Quote: vladimirZ
    that the tank without infantry, as well as without self-propelled artillery, reconnaissance and communications


    Intelligence connection was everything (would have learned to use, another question). Self-propelled guns? tanks of the second line could replace them. Yes, and artillery divisions appeared in the TP only in the 80s).

    Quote: vladimirZ
    Hit a large number of tanks in mechanized corps (over 1000 pieces)


    Here it was necessary to ask both Meretskov and then Zhukov (Meretskov was correctly pressed). why for a year (since June 1940) such a machine as MK was not tested and recommended for replication (30 MK).

    Quote: vladimirZ
    German generals not only theoretically substantiated such interaction of tanks, but also applied them in practice in their tank groups


    We copied the TG to the Shock Army with MK. It was the Germans (in view of the ease of victories in the West) who weakened the TDs, essentially turning them into MDs, though doubling their number (this was enough for them for the initial period of the war with us).
    Our MKs are just perfectly balanced (with the exception of OShS TP).

    Quote: vladimirZ
    on these materials "I don’t need it."


    ???? Zhukov beginning General Staff in December 1940
    1. tesser
      tesser 3 November 2019 12: 34 New
      0
      Quote: chenia
      So, comrade ALEXEI RA popularly explained (and convincingly) that there were no capacities for that either

      Comrade Aleksey RA is a well-versed person, but of a peculiar plan. He correctly says that Hero of Socialist Labor Isaac Moiseevich Zaltsman completely abandoned all work on the T-26 and T-28, doing only KV. Another question is that the activities of Isaac Moiseevich and his partners from the Moscow Region, both in this aspect and in many others at that time, were pulling for execution. The span of all tanks of the old types objectively cost the Red Army much more than a hundred or two KV. For the war with Prague and the deuces, the main German tanks of the summer of 41, the T-26s were better suited than the T-34s, at least they were familiar to the crews and relatively (relative to the T-34s) reliable.
      Quote: chenia
      Self-propelled guns? tanks of the second line could replace them.

      Could not, artillery tanks had problems with mounted fire. Until the end of the war, the functions of self-propelled howitzers in tank corps were performed by the SU-76, which was not a gate.
      Quote: chenia
      Our MKs are just perfectly balanced

      Are you talking about the staff of the 40th year? You are very mistaken. As for the small German divisions for 150 vehicles, I recall that in the Red Army 42 100 vehicles are corps with a major general, or even a lieutenant general. When drug addiction in OKV became the norm, they began to collect regiments of 200 Panthers under the command of, respectively, Colonel (Kursk), and this did not lead to anything good.
      1. chenia
        chenia 3 November 2019 15: 07 New
        +1
        Quote: tesser
        Could not, artillery tanks had problems with mounted fire.

        I overlooked, there is no talk about self-propelled guns at all for that time (they appeared with us in the troops in the 70s). And SU solved the problems of direct fire from the second line.

        And shooting with a PDO is not a task of escort artillery, but a supporting one. And for this (at that time towed was quite enough (there would be corresponding tractors).

        Quote: tesser
        Are you talking about the staff of the 40th year? You are very mistaken.


        We must be careful
        Quote: chenia
        (except for OShS TP).


        Make the regiment three-battalion and platoons three-tank, so immediately there will be only 94 tanks in the regiment (as it will later become), and in MK (5 TP) - 470 + combat support tanks (i.e., about 600). And then immediately a lot of problems go away. But for this it was necessary already in the autumn of 1940 to roll out the first MK for the exercises and drive out in full and immediately flaws and technical and OShs would come out.
        And we stupidly began to replicate them (up to 30 MK) disrupting combat training completely and arranging leapfrog with personnel.

        Quote: tesser
        they began to collect regiments of 200 Panthers under the command of, respectively, Colonel (Kursk), and this did not lead to anything good.


        In, correctly think.
        1. tesser
          tesser 3 November 2019 16: 31 New
          0
          Quote: chenia
          there is no talk about self-propelled guns for that time

          A tank division needs mounted fire. The Germans initially pulled speed tractors, in 2/2 of the war switched to self-propelled guns. The Americans originally made self-propelled and 105 and 155 mm. In the Soviet shopping mall, mounted fire was mainly represented by towed mortars, including 120 mm. Of the self-propelled guns at the end was the Su-85, it’s not about that, the Su-152, it has a bad vertical angle, and the Su-76, it’s just weak (and the angle is also + 25g). Mounted fire - its (mk) main minus.
          A Su-152 - the main plus)))
          Quote: chenia
          collateral (i.e., about 600). And then immediately a lot of problems go away

          Does not pass.
          The war showed everyone the same thing. There should be 150-250 vehicles in a tank unit. Better less than more. For the Germans and the Allies it was a division, for the Red Army - a corps because of some local organizational problems.
          Quote: chenia
          it was necessary in the autumn of 1940 to roll out the first MK for the exercises and drive out in full

          In the realities of the Red Army, nothing new can be done. To take what is, brigades, and to reduce them into bodies of a reasonable size, increasing the level of support services. What was done in the end.
          1. chenia
            chenia 3 November 2019 17: 25 New
            +1
            Quote: tesser
            A tank division needs mounted fire.


            Mounted fire (depending on the nature of the target, everyone needs it. But oddly enough. The tank division last.
            TD is not a breakthrough division (here the Germans often used it that was wrong and worked while there was an unstable defense), and the division is usually thrown into a breakthrough, where there is no longer a dense defense, part of the lines are not yet occupied by the enemy (just this is where TD speed is needed to prevent the retreating enemy from occupying intermediate lines). it is possible to bypass enemy defense nodes (unless of course the task is to capture the area). and if you hit the defense node, then there, as a rule, defense is busy hastily (this is the term that characterizes the resistance of the defense).
            This is where the appropriate formations are mobile and easily controllable. combining fire, speed and autonomy to the depth of the task.

            Therefore, the saturation of such associations (corps) with predominantly tank formations (divisions) is at least 2 to 1 infantry correct (the Germans initially had TDs with two brigades — a tank brigade and a rifle brigade (well, just like ours), each with two regiments. Then they (after France, where there was unstable defense, halved the brigade and left one tank regiment in the TD (150 tanks). Initially, the Germans did well with us, but then it stalled, which introduced them with still greater organizational insanity.



            Quote: tesser
            There should be 150-250 vehicles in a tank unit. Better less than more.


            TD (compound) according to mine (but after that the professional military’s afterlife) and there should have been up to 200 tanks (in the 80’s CA TD-320 tanks). In the MK (association, here one aspect of the MK was part of the Shock Army, and was considered a unit) - 600 tanks, 2 TP (in TD) and 1 TP (in MSD). You yourself confirm, or somewhere you don’t understand.
            And do not compare the formations by the name of rank, in our country until the end of the war they basically did not correspond to the rank.
            Quote: tesser
            .

            Take what is, brigades,


            That's just the brigade (and we are talking about the pre-war state) has become an erroneous form of TP tank division. And already in the course of the TBB war (double-battalion of 20-30 tanks, or even less), a completely different formation with a similar name. And what does it look like? .
            1. tesser
              tesser 3 November 2019 23: 28 New
              -2
              Quote: chenia
              That's just the brigade (and we are talking about the pre-war state) has become an erroneous form of TP tank division

              Pre-war brigades of 200 cars each - like the 44th building. A lot of tanks, not much else. The 41-year brigade was 2 times smaller, and then, almost without an increase in the number of vehicles, it was renamed into the tank corps, which eventually grew to the same 200 vehicles with which it all began. This is apparently the optimal number of cars. Another thing is that Soviet tank units, like everyone else in the beginning, were too tank, too deserted.
              Quote: chenia
              a completely different formation with a similar name.

              Yes, the brigade was what used to be a battalion. The "level" of the tankers in the Red Army hierarchy needed to be reformatted.
              Quote: chenia
              You yourself confirm, or somewhere you don’t understand.

              Red Army later Soviet standards of the corps will not pull. You are inventing a tank army in '42, with a lieutenant general. These affairs in the Red Army were quite reasonably arranged by the 45th.

              That is, you can call 600 tanks and a hull, but the Red Army at the time of sanity did not. And the 1000 tank MK of the 41st year is wrecking, Trotskyism and Polish intelligence agents.
              Quote: chenia
              don’t compare the formations with the name of rank yet, until the end of the war, they basically did not correspond to the rank.

              I know. The German, for his part, had a strange manner of making a regiment, in which there were 10 OGvTPP vehicles.
              Quote: chenia
              This is where the appropriate formations are mobile and easily controllable. combining fire, speed and autonomy to the depth of the task

              You completely repeat Patton’s thought when he objected to Normandy against the rearmament from the Sherman to Pershing. You are absolutely right with him, as long as you can act as armored cavalry, nightmare communications, and bypass nodes of resistance. But the moment comes when you are trying to close the boiler with your mechanized parts. Here you have a problem. (Specifically, Patton had other problems. He immediately drove into the defense, which is impossible to get around, but there is nothing to storm. But this is not only demand from him).
              Quote: chenia
              Mounted fire (depending on the nature of the target, everyone needs it. But oddly enough. The tank division last.

              The Germans and the Allies at last disagree. It is fundamentally important that the artillery is in size and has the same mobility with the tanks. I would still believe them.
              1. chenia
                chenia 4 November 2019 12: 31 New
                +1
                Quote: tesser
                Another thing is that Soviet tank units, like everyone else in the beginning, were too tank, too deserted.


                So that was the idea. When in the 80s ADN was introduced into TP. Well, a bunch of desserts, arguments, etc. (before that, from artillery in the TP there was a 120 M minbattery in SMEs). the arguments of the opponents were the following: shooting with a PDO could also be organized from tanks (somewhat inconvenient. somewhat inefficient and stressful, but two companies were replaced by a division and artillerymen to organize this event). But the regiment is two hundred people and 40 units less equipment. And this strains the rear and the organization of movements less. So. that it’s not so simple.

                Quote: tesser
                You are inventing a tank army in '42, with a lieutenant general.

                I do not invent. but I think (knowing how in my time (70-80 years introduced changes in the states. approvals, theoretical justification, experiments, etc.). And here first 9 MK, then replicate up to 30 completely "muddy" and unverified structures. And After all, there was time ... and many commanders and chiefs complained that MK (this state does not fit on the map). They decided to conduct the first run in the fall of 1941.

                It's really
                Quote: tesser
                And the 1000 tank MK of the 41st year is wrecking, Trotskyism and Polish intelligence agents.


                And if the teaching were conducted already in the autumn of 1940 (3 months after its creation), by 1941 the MK would definitely have “dried up” to the sizes I have indicated (this is a projective reality, we will come to this later by paying with blood.

                .
                Quote: tesser
                It is fundamentally important that the artillery is in size and has the same mobility with the tanks.


                Yes, I do not mind, But opportunities. Only in the 70s we allowed ourselves to have self-propelled guns - 2C1, 2C3, (do not confuse with self-propelled guns). And before that, TD had a towed art regiment.
  • Blacksmith 55
    Blacksmith 55 3 November 2019 12: 17 New
    +5
    The weekend began with a good article.
    Thank you, I like to read about the old technology, the history of its creation. Nowadays, it (equipment) sometimes looks very primitive, but how much labor was put into by its designers and workers in its creation.
    I look forward to continuing, especially with impatience I would like to read about the creation of the BTR 60, I rolled on it many hundreds of kilometers.
    1. prapor55
      prapor55 3 November 2019 13: 13 New
      +5
      For 2 years in Germany he was the driver of this unit. soldier
  • Sibiriya
    Sibiriya 3 November 2019 18: 01 New
    +2
    But to our beetles, when intelligence presented them with analytical material on the actions of German tank groups in Poland and France, they were not needed, with the famous Zhukov’s wording on these materials, “I don’t need it.”

    The "roaming" story of G.K. Zhukov's "stupid" resolution at the GRU report The legend exists only in the retelling of the former head of the Information Department of the GRU Vasily Andreevich Recruit. The general meaning of which is to give weight to materials being prepared at the GRU. Only when documents of German formations were captured during the fighting in the summer of 1941 did the picture become more or less clear. After reading a report with another retelling of open sources (with which he was already familiar through Military Thought and Military Foreigner), Zhukov Wrote a sarcastic resolution. wassat Showing negative to the authors of the report, how does he evaluate the compilation of articles in the press.
  • mamonthful
    mamonthful 9 January 2020 03: 04 New
    -2
    The army conference of the Red Army, held in August 1940, following the results of the events of the French company, with its final conclusion had approximately the following summary: "the defeat that occurred was due to the bourgeois character of the French army."

    So - the classless wrong army, and therefore lost! And you're talking about analytical material ...
  • Tochilka
    Tochilka 3 November 2019 13: 06 New
    +2
    https://andrewbek-1974.livejournal.com/462651.html подборка техники из разных фильмов. сдается мне, тут вы и найдете искомое.
  • Aviator_
    Aviator_ 3 November 2019 20: 49 New
    0
    On the one hand, I want to see the technology that corresponds to the era on the screen, and on the other, it’s still the scenery. Here in the theater there are much more conventions, but when the plot captures, then you do not pay attention to the scenery.
  • Romka47
    Romka47 20 November 2019 15: 56 New
    0
    And Hollywood with all their bells and whistles there too, was very pleasantly surprised when in the “save Private Rain” the Americans at the end were hit by the T-34 (played the role of tigers), although we must pay tribute to the stucco molding was of high quality, but Christie’s pendant betrays.
  • 75 Sergey
    75 Sergey 31 December 2019 12: 43 New
    0
    But perception spoils
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Strashila
    Strashila 3 November 2019 06: 35 New
    +3
    Continues to serve, in the same Indonesia, there probably only remained Soviet armored corps, but they serve.
    1. Kote Pan Kokhanka
      Kote Pan Kokhanka 3 November 2019 07: 45 New
      +4
      Having described the history of Russian armored personnel carriers in his introduction, the author forgot to mention the BTR-50.
      1. Amurets
        Amurets 3 November 2019 08: 58 New
        +10
        Quote: Kote Pan Kokhanka
        Having described the history of Russian armored personnel carriers in his introduction, the author forgot to mention the BTR-50.

        BTR-50-tracked vehicle, created on the basis of the tank PT-76, armored personnel carriers BTR-40 and BTR-152 created on the basis of automobile units, like the American Scout,
        : “The tactical and technical task developed by GBTU provided for the development of two combat vehicles - a light amphibious tank and an armored personnel carrier created on its basis with maximum unification. The Leningrad VNII-750 in parallel with the PT-100 (“ object 76 "), but with a slight lag. The lag was due to the fact that a large number of design solutions, such as water-jet propulsors, had to be tested on the PT-740. Successful tank tests became the basis the fact that the designers were confident that the armored personnel carrier would be no less successful. "
    2. Alekseev
      Alekseev 3 November 2019 08: 19 New
      +3
      Quote: Strashila
      Continues to serve, in the same Indonesia,

      Yes sir!
      A simple and reliable machine that can be easily and inexpensively modernized (as an option: MMZ diesel engine, RK and bridges from shishigi) and continue to be used not as a competitor to modern armored personnel carriers, but as an armored car, a kind of inexpensive Tiger, for military police, commandant's offices, various auxiliary units, and mainly for sale to Asia and Africa.
      1. Saxahorse
        Saxahorse 3 November 2019 20: 09 New
        0
        Quote: Alekseev
        Yes sir!
        A simple and reliable machine that can be easily and inexpensively upgraded (

        At the same time, it is extremely unsuccessful in terms of layout and energy economy, the only plus is that it eats. As the infantry has long known:

        "It’s better to go bad than to go very long and horrrosho." (with) laughing

        Everything else is the cons. This is me about the BTR-50 if that :)
  • bistrov.
    bistrov. 3 November 2019 07: 12 New
    +6
    I first saw the BTR-40 as a child, in the year about 1961, at the age of 8, when some exercises were being conducted near our village and a part of the Soviet Army was located in the forest, numbering about a regiment, which had a reconnaissance unit, whose representatives arrived in the village, it was on BTR-40, as I understand it now, to look for a source of drinking water, which was found in the rural vocational school located in the village, which had a water tower and a water supply system. Even at that time, scouts were dressed in camouflage overalls.
    We children instantly stuck around an armored personnel carrier, climbed onto the wheels, examined the insides, which were an ordinary iron box, completely open from above. By the way, there was no machine gun. The driver was armed with an AK submachine gun, which was mounted inside with special clips.
  • AlexVas44
    AlexVas44 3 November 2019 07: 30 New
    +5
    Paratroopers leave BTR-40

    Well, why, as an illustration, not the best pictures, and even the paratroopers are not from the Soviet Army. In general, in the period from the 1950s to the mid-1960s, the BTR-40 in its class was a very successful machine.
    1. Alf
      Alf 3 November 2019 07: 42 New
      +9
      Quote: AlexVas44
      and even paratroopers not from the Soviet Army.

      But the most reliable and efficient our allies. Not to consider the Czechs with the Poles and, especially, all sorts of Romanians with Hungarians and Bulgarians, faithful and combat-ready.
      1. Alf
        Alf 3 November 2019 22: 13 New
        +1
        Quote: Alf
        Quote: AlexVas44
        and even paratroopers not from the Soviet Army.

        But the most reliable and efficient our allies. Not to consider the Czechs with the Poles and, especially, all sorts of Romanians with Hungarians and Bulgarians, faithful and combat-ready.

        I met a mention that our military was considered the most reliable Germans, and all the rest, at best, cannon fodder, and in the worst-fifth column.
  • Amurets
    Amurets 3 November 2019 07: 41 New
    +11
    The big problem that prevented the creation of their own armored personnel carriers during the war was the Soviet industry being overloaded with the production of tanks and various types of self-propelled artillery, there was simply no free capacity for deploying production of armored personnel carriers in difficult conditions.
    And another big problem was the inertia of the Red Army's top leadership who considered the APCs not necessary. https://topwar.ru/86580-razvitie-bronetransporterov-v-rossii-ot-pervyh-do-nashih-dney-chast-vtoraya.html
    I must say thanks to the GAZ engineers and workers who, by "criminal methods", kept the production of the GAZ-11 engine and its clones GAZ-202 and GAZ-203 for tanks.
    "In 1939, for the production of 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.
    A group of enthusiasts led by a boss
    Motor Shop No. 1 G.A. Vedenyapin to
    dial the necessary number of machines for
    preservation of the technological chain according to
    engine start, went to extreme measures. 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)
    Another problem was the motor industry: in fact, it wasn’t. ”The Ufa motor plants under construction, one combine, the second automobile diesel engines were transferred to the NKAP About GAZ, I wrote above. ZIL produced engines for itself, for YaAZ, and after the evacuation of v1941 engine production in Miass, ZiS-5 and ZiS-16 motors were in short supply, especially the forced ZiS-16, which required scarce aluminum for its production.
    1. tesser
      tesser 3 November 2019 13: 02 New
      -1
      You are right and not.

      Yes, on the one hand, engine building was a huge problem. In fact, the most powerful engine in a large series is Hercules from ZiS-5, 76 hp. This is less than even the Carriel Universal, a mobile doghouse.

      On the other hand, when the capitalists matched, options with engines appeared. You could ask for additional Hercules from Studebaker, GM six from Sherman / Valentine, you could even connect Ford and ask to make a multi-bank on GAZ-A components. For Americans, the task is not difficult. But the APC was not needed by the Stavka like air like bread, so the question was postponed until better times, doing Lend-Lease.
      1. Alf
        Alf 3 November 2019 22: 15 New
        +2
        Quote: tesser
        Could ask

        Ask how? Supply motors and be addicted? Or build a factory? It is unlikely that our allies would go for it.
        1. tesser
          tesser 3 November 2019 22: 34 New
          -3
          Quote: Alf
          Supply motors and be addicted? Or build a factory?

          For the period of the Second World War - of course. And after the Second World War, they just built a plant, just under one of the mentioned engines. GM 6-71 from Sherman, aka YaAZ-206 from KrAZ 214/219.
          1. Alf
            Alf 3 November 2019 22: 50 New
            +1
            Quote: tesser
            Quote: Alf
            Supply motors and be addicted? Or build a factory?

            For the period of the Second World War - of course. And after the Second World War, they just built a plant, just under one of the mentioned engines. GM 6-71 from Sherman, aka YaAZ-206 from KrAZ 214/219.

            And who built the plant? Americans or us?
            1. tesser
              tesser 3 November 2019 23: 45 New
              -4
              Quote: Alf
              who built the plant? Americans or us?

              Everything is complicated (s)
              http://xn----7sbb5ahj4aiadq2m.xn--p1ai/guide/army/tr/yaaz204.shtml
        2. Amurets
          Amurets 4 November 2019 01: 11 New
          +3
          Quote: Alf
          Ask how? Supply motors and be addicted? Or build a factory? It is unlikely that our allies would go for it.
          And so it happened. While we received equipment for GMC 4 / 6-71 engines, we imposed a ban on the supply of other equipment in the USA, and the Cold War began.
          Quote: tesser
          GM 6-71 from Sherman, aka YaAZ-206 from KrAZ 214/219.
          In the line xxx-6-71 there were three and four-cylinder options. However, in the same June, the GAZ engine production was disabled after a German air raid, and the Y-11 was left without engines. The situation was saved by a large batch of American power units ordered back in 1941, which consisted of a 4-cylinder, 2-stroke (with a supercharger) GMC-4-71 diesel engine, a single-disk clutch with a Long-32 central spring, and 5-speed synchronized gearbox "Spicer-5553" with a power range of 7,92. At YaAZ, the GMC capabilities were well known - before the war, they planned to release its metrized copy under the brand YaAZ-NATI for the new 5-ton truck Ya-14. And everything sailed. Due to interruptions in the supply of diesel engines in 1944, separate batches of simplified tractors with domestic gasoline power units were produced - 95 Y-13 with 76-horsepower ZIS-5M. At the very least, we managed to organize our own production of 4/6-cylinder engines under the brand name YAZ-204/206 only in 1947. The 3-cylinder version went into oblivion, and with it the promising UlZiS-253.
          https://zen.yandex.ru/media/oldtimer/zabytyi-proekt-sovetskogo-dizelnogo-gruzovika-ulzisnati-253-5be2e5d5c916ad00aa806edf

          https://zen.yandex.ru/media/tractor/bystrohodnyi-artilleriiskii-traktor-ia12-5ba71c374e9adf00abea0959
          1. Potter
            Potter 5 November 2019 21: 22 New
            +2
            Equipment for the production of diesel engines at YaAZ was purchased and delivered, but in 1942 it burned down along with most of the plant during the German bombing. The plant was almost all wooden at that time. The second attempt at production yielded small-scale volumes already in the spring of 1945, diesel engines went mainly to artillery tractors M-12 (then M-2), and in 1947 mass production of MA-200 family vehicles with diesel engines had already begun.
  • The leader of the Redskins
    The leader of the Redskins 3 November 2019 08: 29 New
    +3
    It is a pity that, with all the efforts of the designers, the BTR -40 did not preserve the cross-country ability of the GAZ 63, which was considered in the Soviet army almost the standard for all-terrain ...
    1. Amurets
      Amurets 3 November 2019 09: 17 New
      +7
      Quote: Leader of the Redskins
      It is a pity that, with all the efforts of the designers, the BTR -40 did not preserve the cross-country ability of the GAZ 63, which was considered in the Soviet army almost the standard for all-terrain ...

      There was no suitable engine. And when a suitable 8 appeared, the car became outdated. In place of the GAZ-63, the GAZ-66 came, and as an example of a successful replacement of the power unit, BRDMki can be cited.
      BRDM-1 with a new power unit, turned into a BRDM-2 and shone with new faces.
      The BRDM-2 is equipped with an eight-cylinder V-shaped four-stroke gas engine GAZ-41, similar to the engines installed on Chaika cars GAZ-13 and GAZ-14. Engine power is 140 liters. with.
      1. The leader of the Redskins
        The leader of the Redskins 3 November 2019 09: 25 New
        +1
        Yes, I know ... The tankman himself.
    2. bistrov.
      bistrov. 3 November 2019 14: 15 New
      0
      Quote: Leader of the Redskins
      BTR-40 did not maintain the patency of the GAZ 63

      I still found them in the army, they turned over well, a little roll was enough, for example, a push on the curb, that’s how my brother turned over in urgent service, he served as such a driver, but the cross was really good, especially since the car was equipped with a winch. In the photo, for some reason, without a winch, apparently there were some.
      1. av58
        av58 11 November 2019 17: 18 New
        0
        There were no winch. My first BTR-40 didn’t even have an electric starter, it started only with a curve.
    3. Saxahorse
      Saxahorse 3 November 2019 20: 15 New
      +1
      Quote: Leader of the Redskins
      It is a pity that, with all the efforts of the designers, the BTR -40 did not preserve the cross-country ability of the GAZ 63, which was considered in the Soviet army almost the standard for all-terrain ...

      Frankly, the GAZ-63 is just not all-terrain vehicle impressive .. Don’t believe me, look at the videos. The GAZ-157 makes the same old 63th on cross-country ability easy and simple, even despite the much greater weight.
      1. Alf
        Alf 3 November 2019 22: 17 New
        +1
        Quote: Saxahorse
        The same old 157th makes the GAZ-63 cross-country

        In fact, these are classmates.
        1. Saxahorse
          Saxahorse 4 November 2019 20: 10 New
          +1
          Quote: Alf
          In fact, these are classmates.

          About that and speech. It's a little surprising that the twice as heavy ZIL-157 was noticeably passable GAZ-63. By the way, the later Shishiga (GAZ-66), too.
          1. Alf
            Alf 4 November 2019 20: 46 New
            +1
            Quote: Saxahorse
            It's a little surprising that the twice as heavy ZIL-157 was noticeably passable GAZ-63.

            In fact, 6x6 is better than 4x4. The result is known in advance. As they say, the first paves the road, the second condenses, the third rolls on asphalt.
            Would you watch a video where our truck tractors with active trailers with the formula 10x10 were tested ... This is awesome!
  • igordok
    igordok 3 November 2019 09: 24 New
    +1
    Tell me what do the 40 and 152 indices mean in the name of the BTR? Continued indexing of civilian vehicles or an index issued by MO
    1. Amurets
      Amurets 3 November 2019 12: 11 New
      +6
      Quote: igordok
      Tell me what do the 40 and 152 indices mean in the name of the BTR? Continued indexing of civilian vehicles or an index issued by MO

      Factory marking, valid from 1945 to 1966: Plant 1 - 99 GAZ;
      100 - 199 ZIS, subsequently ZIL; 200 - 249 YAZ, subsequently KrAZ; 350 - 399 UralZIS, subsequently UralAZ; 450 - 484 UAZ; 485 - 499 Dnepropetrovsk Automobile Plant - DAZ existed until 1951 (later Yuzhmash); 500 - 549 MAZ, BelAZ , MoAZ. Well, basically, the old indexation on car factories. Yes, MMA, then AZLK, and in general, Moskvich 400-449. The exception is BAS 485 (a large water-borne car 485) - the general name for amphibious cars produced in the USSR at: "Dnepropetrovsk Automobile Plant" from 1949 to 1951 under the designation DAZ-485 (prototypes); "1st State Automobile Plant named after I.V. Stalin" from 1952 to 1956 under the designation ZIS-485 (first mass production);
  • Nycomed
    Nycomed 3 November 2019 11: 53 New
    +2
    GAZ-63 saw a few years ago, on the go!
    1. Amurets
      Amurets 3 November 2019 13: 17 New
      +1
      Quote: Nycomed
      GAZ-63 saw a few years ago, on the go!

      I saw a couple of months ago, I couldn’t talk to the driver, he walked a lot. He showed only how to get to the right driver's place. Outwardly, the car looked like new, and not KUNG, but a loading platform.
  • Catfish
    Catfish 3 November 2019 12: 05 New
    +4
    A good machine, I still found them, in our regiment it was used as a staff communications machine in control platoons. We rode on it, but in the winter there, like in an ice crypt, we came to the place during the exercises and immediately set fire to the stove, this model had a roof, or rather two large, rectangular hatchways swinging to the sides. The pipe from the stove to the loophole, you sit, your face and hands are burning, and your back is freezing, but everything is better than in the open. )))
    1. av58
      av58 11 November 2019 17: 15 New
      +1
      But there was no joy in driving these armored personnel carriers. Mine started from an electric starter, but just in case, always under the seat lay a crooked starter. No power steering, honest mechanics, arms pumped up at once smile
  • Old26
    Old26 3 November 2019 19: 55 New
    0
    Quote: bistrov.
    I first saw the BTR-40 as a child, in the year about 1961, at the age of 8, when some exercises were held near our village and a part of the Soviet Army was located in the forest ....

    We children instantly stuck around an armored personnel carrier, got out on wheels, examined the insides, which were an ordinary iron box, completely open from above.

    Yes, I also saw the BTR-40 for the first time in the year 1964, after the second class, when I came to live in Ukraine. And we are children, as you are right, at the first successful case we tried to stick around the BTR-40 (and BTR-152 as well). For us guys, in the 60s these were the most common armored personnel carriers, which we saw, if not every day, then very often (we lived about 100-150 meters from the military unit). And only in the late 60's. Did the BTR-60 and BRDM-1 begin to appear in the division
  • Saxahorse
    Saxahorse 3 November 2019 20: 22 New
    +2
    Pleasant article, thanks to the author! BTR-40 is one of the good old cars uniquely useful for any army. All today's armored cars from the Tiger to the Typhoon are his descendants!
  • saygon66
    saygon66 3 November 2019 20: 57 New
    0
    - And in our courtyard it’s worth it - it belongs to the club of reenactors! They start it from time to time ... warm it up. Smoke - do not breathe! laughing
    1. Alf
      Alf 3 November 2019 22: 20 New
      +1
      Quote: saygon66
      - And in our courtyard it’s worth it - it belongs to the club of reenactors!

      And what's in it from the 40th? I saw a similar 417th in Samara, so there is only a building from the 417th, and all the offal, including GAZ-69 devices.
      1. saygon66
        saygon66 6 November 2019 11: 33 New
        0
        - Wow ... They said that they dragged him from the shooting range - they used him as a target ... Re - re! But, punched sheets were replaced, optics from 131go ZIL, 66-e bridges ..
        - And you probably can’t find the relatives’s units ... The last time I saw the 63 Lawn in the middle of the 80 ... And then - on the basis of storage ...
  • bessonov932
    bessonov932 8 November 2019 22: 17 New
    0
    A couple of times we drove him to the school training ground. Usually the trips were to BMP 1 or BTR60 PB. The equipment was in perfect condition, the mechanical water gods! We always admired when they organized speed races. And then this is an old man - he barely puffed)
  • panzerfaust
    panzerfaust 11 November 2019 14: 30 New
    0
    Armored car "Shot" - the reincarnation of an armored personnel carrier - 40. A very similar silhouette.
  • av58
    av58 11 November 2019 17: 12 New
    0
    In general - right. I drove one in 1980, the remains of these armored personnel carriers were still in the troops. Small remarks: on top of the sides there were 4 attachment points for the machine gun, but BTR-60 did not want to run more than 40 km / h even in 3rd gear down the hill.
  • Dr. Hub
    Dr. Hub 12 November 2019 05: 22 New
    0
    Photo "Paratroopers leave BTR-40" - soldiers of the German people's army
  • militarist63
    militarist63 14 November 2019 23: 53 New
    0
    In the first photo, where "The paratroopers leave the BTR-40," German guys from the Nationale Volksarmee squeak across the board ....
  • Subtext
    Subtext 11 January 2020 11: 56 New
    0
    Dad and his comrades entered Hungary from the south (in Szeged) by the second wave, and these armored troop-carriers were already dragging back. The Magyars in Budapest from the upper floors threw a grenade, and all: about (