Battles near Mtsensk: Katukov’s brigade and new tactics of tank battle

Battles near Mtsensk: Katukov’s brigade and new tactics of tank battle

Tank battles between Soviet and German tankers in October 1941 near Mtsensk with the use of T-34 tanks, according to the recognition of German General Müller-Hillebrand, radically changed the tactics of the German tank forces. What so influenced the opinion of the “invincible” German generals?


Failures of Soviet tankmen at the beginning of the war


T-34 tanks fought from the first days of the war, 1227 tanks were produced before the war, and they primarily equipped mechanized corps deployed near the western border, and they immediately had to engage in battle with the Germans and suffer heavy losses. The Germans were familiar with this machine, but then praised reviews about it were not heard. On the contrary, General Guderian wrote:

“The Soviet T-34 tank is a typical example of backward Bolshevik technology. This tank can not be compared with the best examples of our tanks, made by us and repeatedly proved their advantage. "


German generals very soon had to admit they were wrong, and Colonel Katukov, commander of the 4th Tank Brigade, helped them in this. Building tactics on the indisputable advantages of the T-34, he clearly demonstrated that, in addition to owning good equipment, you must be able to use it correctly.

In the border battles of the first weeks of the war, almost all Soviet mechanized corps and tank divisions were defeated, and equipment was destroyed by the enemy or abandoned by the retreating troops. This was mainly due to the inept and illiterate use of large mechanized formations, misses by the Soviet command and the German use of the blitzkrieg strategy, in which large tank units of the Wehrmacht, after breaking through the front, went deep into the rear of the Soviet troops, took them to the "ticks" and destroyed in boilers.

Tank brigade Katukova


By the fall of 1941, tank troops were created almost anew and began with tank brigades. In late August, Katukov, the commander of the 20th Panzer Division, who lost all tanks in the battles near Dubno, was summoned to Moscow and appointed commander of the 4th Panzer Brigade, which was being formed in Stalingrad.

The personnel of the brigade was mainly composed of tankers of the 15th Panzer Division, who participated in border battles and appreciated the equipment and tactics of the Germans. Under the leadership of Katukov, the tankmen exchanged opinions, analyzed the enemy’s actions and worked out the tactics of future battles.

Against German tactics involving reconnaissance of motorized infantry by fighting, detecting firing points, delivering an artillery or air strike and breaking through a ruined defense with a tank strike, Katukov’s tankers developed tactics of a false front edge, organizing tank ambushes and launching unexpected flank attacks on advancing enemy tanks.

In addition, the crew of the brigade participated in the assembly of T-34 tanks in the shops of the Stalingrad Tractor Plant, perfectly knew their design and objectively assessed the strengths and weaknesses of these vehicles.

Katukov’s brigade arrived at the front with a well-coordinated tank unit, manned with combat experience, armed with advanced tanks, well-mastered by crews and worked out tactics of fighting the enemy. So the lesson was taught to the Germans by well-trained commanders and tankers who longed for revenge for the lost battles at the beginning of the war. The brigade included 61 tanks, including 7 KV-1,22 T-34, 32 BT-7, that is, half of the tanks were light BT-7.

The brigade arrived in Mtsensk on October 3 with the task of moving to the defense of the Eagle. By this time, the 2nd Panzer Group of Colonel-General Guderian broke through the Soviet front on September 30, and on October 3 the 4th Tank Division of the Wehrmacht, under the command of General Langerman, captured the Eagle, which there was no one to defend. Guderian then planned to go to Serpukhov and Moscow, not expecting strong resistance from the Soviet troops. As of September 10, the 4th Panzer Division had 162 tanks, including 8 Pz-I, 34 Pz-II, 83 Pz-III, 16 Pz-IV and 21 commander tanks. More than half were medium tanks Pz-III and Pz-IV, which were supposed to compete with the T-34.

Which tanks opposed each other


The Soviet T-34 tank at that time was the most advanced tank, had good protection with an armor thickness of 45 mm, located at rational angles of inclination, a long-barrel 76,2 mm gun and a powerful diesel engine (500 hp). At the same time, the T-34 had a significant drawback, the tank had very poor visibility due to imperfect observation and aiming devices, an unsuccessful layout of the commander’s place and the absence of a commander’s turret.

German tanks in all respects were inferior to the T-34. All were equipped with gasoline engines. Light tanks Pz-I and Pz-II had weak armor, only 13,0-14,5 mm, on the Pz-I the armament consisted of two machine guns, and on the Pz-II from a small-caliber 20-mm gun. Medium tanks Pz-III and Pz-IV were also weakly armored. The thickness of the armor was only 15 mm, on the Pz-III the armament consisted of a 37 mm gun, and on the Pz-IV there was a 75 mm short-barreled gun with low muzzle energy. All German tanks were not designed to fight enemy tanks, the T-34 was a cut above German tanks and, when used correctly, easily hit them from great distances. The tankers of Katukov took advantage of these advantages.

Tank battles near Mtsensk


On the afternoon of October 3, the brigade commander sent six T-34 tanks and two KV-1s for reconnaissance in Oryol, which disappeared there. After the Germans captured Orel, Katukov received an order to prevent the Germans from breaking through to Mtsensk before the arrival of General Lelyushenko’s corps. Without engaging in military contact with the enemy, he lost eight tanks in Oryol and ordered the brigade to defend along the Optukha River five kilometers northeast of Orel, equipping a false front line of defense.

On the night of October 3, the brigade defeated German columns moving to Moscow on the highway near the village of Ivanovo, destroying 14 Germans light and medium tanks.

In connection with the autumn mud and mud on the roads, the 4th Langerman tank division, deprived of the possibility of maneuver, was moving on October 5 along the highway to Mtsensk in anticipation of a collision with the prepared defense of the Soviet troops.

Having discovered a false leading edge, the Germans brought down all the power of artillery and aviation and after that they launched tanks. At the command of Katukov, our tankers launched a flank attack on the advancing tanks, working in groups and concentrating their fire on one target. German tankers were not prepared for tank dueling, their tanks were destroyed one after the other with targeted fire of the “thirty-fours”. The light German tanks Pz-I and P -II were especially defenseless before the T-34. Having lost 18 tanks, the Germans retreated from the battlefield.

On the evening of October 5, the brigade changed the positions discovered by the Germans and retreated to the village of First Warrior. The village had a good position for tanks, a number of heights provided good visibility from the German offensive, and rugged terrain with ravines, groves and shrubs provided good camouflage of the tanks.

On the morning of October 6, German tanks began to advance to one of the heights and practically took it, but suddenly four T-34s of senior lieutenant Lavrinenko emerged from the grove and hit the flank of the advancing German tanks. Then they hid in a ravine and went behind the Germans and dealt a concentrated blow to the tanks. Having lost 15 tanks in a few minutes, the Germans retreated.

The Lavrinenko group showed the Germans a new type of battle of tanks against tanks, when tanks strike from an ambush and quickly hide in the folds of the terrain. This was a complete surprise for the Germans, for them tanks were a means of deep breakthroughs and actions in the rear of the enemy. Their armaments and defenses were not designed to deal with enemy tanks, and for such battles the German tankers were technically and tactically not ready and suffered significant losses.

On the morning of October 9, German stormtroopers ironed the empty trenches of Katukov’s false front edge, and then attacked Sheino, trying to get around the brigade’s defense from the flank. Near Shein, the T-34 group under the command of Lavrinenko and the company of BT-7 tanks under the command of Lieutenant Samokhin were in ambush.

To help them, Katukov sent an additional group of tanks, they quietly bypassed the Germans from the flank and hit German tanks. Caught in crossfire, the Germans lost 11 tanks and retreated again.

Without taking Sheino, the Germans bypassed the tankers on the right and broke into the Bolkhovskoye Highway, creating a threat to the environment of the defending troops. In the evening, Katukov gave the order to take a new line of defense already on the southern outskirts of Mtsensk.

On the morning of October 10, the Germans struck a distracting blow on the southern outskirts of the city, and the main blow on the left flank, and by the middle of the day broke into the city. Katukov’s tankers had to leave Mtsensk, but all bridges except the railway were captured. With the help of sappers, Katukov arranged the laying of sleepers on rails, and by morning all the tanks of the brigade had successfully left the city.

The skillful actions of the Katukov brigade thwarted the rapid advance of the 4th Panzer Division of Langerman to Moscow. In order to go 60 kilometers from Orel to Mtsensk, the division took nine days, and during this time it lost in battle, according to Soviet data, 133 tanks and up to the infantry regiment. According to German data - much less, but it should be borne in mind that the Katukov brigade all the time retreated and went to new lines of defense. The Germans remained on the battlefield, they restored the wrecked equipment and returned it to service.

Own losses of the brigade amounted to 28 tanks and 555 people killed, wounded and missing. As of October 16, there were 33 tanks in the brigade, 3 KV-1, 7 T-34, 23 BT-7.

The opinion of German generals about the October battles


Based on the results of the battles near Mtsensk, Guderian will write a report on the Soviet tank to Berlin, in which he will demand to change the entire German tank building.

“In understandable terms, I described the clear advantage of the T-34 over our T-IV and gave the appropriate conclusions that should affect our future tank construction. I concluded with an appeal to immediately send a commission to my front sector, which would consist of representatives of the artillery and technical administration, the ministry of armaments, tank designers and manufacturers of tanks ... They would be able to inspect the wrecked tanks on the battlefield ... and listen to advice ... that should be taken into account in the design of new tanks. "


In November, Guderian convened a meeting of German designers near Oryol, which was attended by Ferdinand Porsche. Guderian brought him to the battlefield at the First Warrior and offered to talk about the Soviet tanks with the tankers of the 4th division. They clearly said: make us a "thirty-four."

In his memoirs of Guderian on the events of October 6, he wrote:

“The 4th Panzer Division was stopped by Russian tanks. And she had to endure a difficult moment. For the first time, significant superiority of Russian T-34 tanks was manifested. The division suffered significant losses. The planned rapid attack on Tula had to be postponed. ”


After the war, German General Schneider wrote:

“... German tanks fully justified themselves in the first years of the war, until in early October 1941, east of Orel, Russian T-4 tanks appeared in front of the German 34th Panzer Division and showed their superiority in weaponry to our accustomed to victories , armor and maneuverability. The Russian tank was armed with a 76,2 mm cannon, the shells of which pierced the armor of German tanks from 1500-2000 m, while German tanks could hit the Russians from a distance of no more than 500 m, and even then only if the shells hit the side and the stern of the T-34. "


German General Muller-Gillebrand emphasized:

“The advent of the T-34 tanks radically changed the tactics of tank forces. If until now the tank and its armaments were required to suppress infantry and infantry-supporting means, now the main task was to demand to destroy enemy tanks as far as possible ”.


General Langerman on the October battles left a rather detailed report, which emphasized the absolute superiority of the T-34 and KV-1 over the medium tanks Pz-III and Pz-IV, noted the effective tactics of warfare by Soviet tankers and the monstrous breakdown power of the T-34 gun. He also rightly noted that on German tanks the visibility from the tank is better than on the T-34, thanks to the commander’s turret.

It’s not tanks that win, but people


Tank battles near Mtsensk forced the Germans to reconsider the tactics of using tanks and develop more advanced tanks. Already in 1942, a long-barreled 75-mm cannon was installed on the Pz-IV, the Pz-V Panther tank was developed with a powerful 75-mm cannon, which contained many ideas from the T-34, and the heavy Pz-VI Tiger tank "With an 88-mm cannon, surpassing all tanks of that period in terms of firepower and security.

So the skillful actions of the tankers of the Katukov brigade in the battles near Mtsensk made it possible to show the advantages of the T-34 tank to the maximum and once again proved that far from everything is decided by the technique, it manifests itself in the hands of real soldiers who know and know how to use it worthily.
Author:
Photos used:
maximonline.ru
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

105 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Vladimir_2U 8 January 2020 06: 06 New
    • 5
    • 7
    -2
    More than half were medium tanks Pz-III and Pz-IV, which should have been compete T-34 Here's how you can write about fights like this? Did these tanks compete with each other or fight to the death? They don’t even write about boxing fights.
    For the middle classes just right article.
    1. Kote Pan Kokhanka 8 January 2020 07: 45 New
      • 13
      • 5
      +8
      The most interesting thing, being always a consistent opponent of Vladimir, I agree with his conclusion.
      The question is different, are “average articles” of the foregoing on the VO branch necessary?
      To the advanced forum users VO - I think not, but do all visitors to the site have a basic minimum in the form of works by well-known Russian tank authors (Isaev, Patients, Katorina, etc.)? After all, having such a collection of books is trite expensive!
      Who will be able to supplement Yuri with a number of other shortcomings of the Russian armored vehicles? For example, the lack of communication, or the overloaded functionality of the crews of our tanks !!!? To argue about the advantages of the suspension, the presence of hatches for evacuation and much, much more! Was Katukov the first? Or is Kolobanov still in the organization of maneuvering ambush battles? Or who was the T-28 commander who stopped German tanks for a day in the swamps of the Baltic states in July 41? Or am I biased !!!?
      My opinion of the article should be informative and comprehensive, for the "user of various levels", and most importantly interesting !!!
      Regards, Kote!
      1. Svarog51 8 January 2020 12: 37 New
        • 10
        • 4
        +6
        Vladislav hi I agree completely with your conclusions. The main contingent for military personnel is sufficiently informed in the military, many can express an expert opinion on the basis of their own experience. For example, for Picabu, the article would be gorgeous, but there are mainly youth and youth. I saw at one time reprinted articles from VO, there they were perceived with a bang. For VO - the article is rather weak, interest was only a description of the hostilities. Everything else is said more than once.
        But this is exclusively IMHO, I admit that someone from the members of the forum is new to the information.
        1. uu1
          uu1 8 January 2020 19: 10 New
          • 5
          • 6
          -1
          Quote: Svarog51
          The main contingent for military personnel is sufficiently informed in military affairs,

          Yes? And on what grounds did you notice this?
      2. vladcub 8 January 2020 17: 36 New
        • 3
        • 3
        0
        Namesake, I agree on all points. We may be the best, but I want the site to have high-quality work, but here for middle school age work
      3. Crane 9 January 2020 11: 33 New
        • 4
        • 0
        +4
        The crew of T-28 to the Nazis in Minsk showed what it means to the Russian "once we live!". And in Lithuania, one tank kept the German division offensive for a day. Well, only then they have it KV-1, then KV-2 ... They justify their failure, if they could, then they would be lying about the commissars with Jedi swords.
  2. kytx 8 January 2020 09: 30 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    Panther IMHO 43 third year
    well, no way 42
    1. vladcub 8 January 2020 18: 25 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      In fact, Vika says: "the car was developed by MAN, in 1941-1942." Our “panther” and “Tiger” were considered heavy tanks, and the Germans considered the “panther” a medium tank
      1. uu1
        uu1 8 January 2020 19: 11 New
        • 0
        • 4
        -4
        Quote: vladcub
        and the Germans considered the Panther a medium tank

        Medium Breakthrough Tank.
      2. kytx 9 January 2020 06: 53 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Panther is the medium tank
        only in dimensions and weight
        Such is the paradox of German tank building
      3. kytx 9 January 2020 06: 57 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        The first combat application Kursk ledge is 43 years old
  3. Free wind 8 January 2020 09: 40 New
    • 7
    • 10
    -3
    Germans were very afraid of our tanks and therefore reached Moscow! .....
    1. zenion 8 January 2020 20: 53 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      You reminded the driver who was driving at high speed. He was stopped and asked - where is he flying so? He replied - I was hurrying home, quickly, until gasoline ran out.
  4. Operator 8 January 2020 10: 15 New
    • 15
    • 0
    +15
    Katukov's defensive tactics are described correctly (false frontal position, flanking attacks from ambushes), but not completely: its third component is not mentioned - retreat after the end of the clash in order to withdraw tanks from counter-attack by enemy aircraft and artillery. The depth of defense of the USSR made it possible to competently exchange space for time.

    The prohibition of tactical retreat (plus the inability to organize flank attacks) was the main tactical mistake of the 1941 Red Army. The problem stemmed from the lack of professionalism of the Soviet military and the inappropriate gigantism of tank formations.

    The problem was solved in 1943 by increasing the level of professionalism and creating complex mechanized compounds - the so-called tank armies, which used not only the Katukov defensive, but also the Badanov offensive tactics.
    1. vladcub 8 January 2020 18: 34 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Operator, tank armies did not appear from scratch. Remember, the tank and mechanized corps of 1941. It’s just that by the end of 1941 we lost 2/3 of all tanks and didn’t go from brigade to brigades
      1. Operator 8 January 2020 20: 00 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        "Lost" is not easy, but because of the low level of professionalism.

        There were tank brigades between tank corps and tank armies (comparable in numbers) - i.e. construction went from bottom to top.
        1. Jager 15 January 2020 19: 43 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          You are mistaken. Brigade-Corps-Army.
          1. Operator 15 January 2020 19: 51 New
            • 3
            • 0
            +3
            I meant that at the beginning of 1941 the main unit in the tank and mechanized forces was the corps, at the end of 1941 the brigade, and then the army (in fact the corps consisting of several brigades).
            1. Jager 15 January 2020 20: 36 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              It is now clear. I agree.
  5. Potter 8 January 2020 11: 56 New
    • 7
    • 1
    +6
    Armor 15 mm was only on 1 series of tanks Pz-III release 1937, released 10 pieces! All other Pz-III and Pz-IV had frontal armor 30mm, and Pz-IV Ausf.E, since 1940 or one sheet of 50mm, or 30 + 30mm, i.e. 60mm.
    That is, the KV and T-34 did not have any overwhelming advantages in booking. On the Pz-III Ausf.G (production since 1940) there was already a 50-mm cannon with a 42-caliber barrel, that is, a tank modification of an anti-tank gun.
    1. Alf
      Alf 8 January 2020 18: 04 New
      • 7
      • 0
      +7
      Quote: Potter
      That is, the KV and T-34 did not have any overwhelming advantages in booking.

      In fact, the 45 mm is slightly larger than 30, and you should not forget about the angle of inclination. The thicknesses given vary even more.
      Well, to say that the 75 mm KV armor does not have an overwhelming advantage over 30, this is something ..
      1. uu1
        uu1 8 January 2020 19: 17 New
        • 2
        • 8
        -6
        Quote: Alf
        Actually, the 45 mm is slightly larger than 30,

        30 cemented more than 45 mm rolled.
        Quote: Alf
        And you should not forget about the angle of inclination.

        Worth it. The frontal armor of the T-34 was effective only against a maximum of forty. The Germans even gun arr. 1938 was a caliber of 50 mm.
        If the caliber is more than the thickness of the armor, its inclination does not matter much. As the breaking effect of the projectile begins to act.
        1. Alf
          Alf 8 January 2020 19: 23 New
          • 7
          • 0
          +7
          Quote: uu1
          The frontal armor of the T-34 was effective only against a maximum of forty. The Germans even gun arr. 1938 was a caliber of 50 mm.

          1. uu1
            uu1 8 January 2020 19: 38 New
            • 2
            • 8
            -6
            You remind me of this remake, calculated on a piece of paper by the formulas and without taking into account the breaking ability of the projectile, do not even slip it.
            In addition, the armor penetration of 5,0 cm PzGr. 39 of the KwK38 was 55/47/37 mm at a range of 100/500/1000 m. And also without taking into account the breaking effect of the projectile.
            A penetration of 5,0 cm PzGr. 40 of the KwK38 was 94/55 mm at a range of 100/500 m.
            And besides this, by the beginning of the Second World War, KwK38 had already been replaced in production by KwK39.
            And besides this, it does not really matter, since tanks do not fight tanks. And the production of 50 mm anti-tank PaK38 (had TTX KwK39) commercially began in 1940.
            1. Alf
              Alf 8 January 2020 19: 40 New
              • 6
              • 0
              +6
              Quote: uu1
              In addition, the armor penetration of 5,0 cm PzGr. 39 was 55/47/37 mm at a range of 100/500/1000 m.

              Where did this remake come from?
              1. uu1
                uu1 8 January 2020 19: 44 New
                • 0
                • 5
                -5
                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5_cm_KwK_38
                1. Alf
                  Alf 8 January 2020 20: 28 New
                  • 5
                  • 0
                  +5
                  Quote: uu1
                  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5_cm_KwK_38

                  Firstly, it is not known what modification the brigade encountered.
                  Secondly, in October of the 41st, the majority of the Troika had a 42-caliber gun.
                  1. uu1
                    uu1 8 January 2020 20: 40 New
                    • 1
                    • 4
                    -3
                    Quote: Alf
                    Secondly, in October of the 41st, the majority of the Troika had a 42-caliber gun.

                    Everyone was with KwK38.
                    1. Alf
                      Alf 8 January 2020 20: 42 New
                      • 4
                      • 0
                      +4
                      And I did not say that not all. The difference in barrel length.

                      So in October of the 41st brigade had meetings with the T-3 only with 42-caliber guns, and they with the T-34 could only cope with 100 meters.
                      1. uu1
                        uu1 8 January 2020 20: 46 New
                        • 0
                        • 5
                        -5
                        Quote: Alf
                        The difference in barrel length.

                        This is known.
                      2. Alf
                        Alf 8 January 2020 20: 49 New
                        • 8
                        • 0
                        +8
                        I’m glad that you know this, therefore I’m saying that the German T-34s with the 3-mm L / 50 gun, which collided with the T-42 Katukov, didn’t have much chance, which is what the proof gave in the table. It was you who began to tell tales about a 60-gauge gun, which by that time was not standing on the T-3.
                      3. uu1
                        uu1 8 January 2020 20: 59 New
                        • 0
                        • 5
                        -5
                        Quote: Alf
                        It was you who began to tell tales about a 60-gauge weapon

                        Quote: uu1
                        In addition, the armor penetration of 5,0 cm PzGr. 39 of the KwK38 was 55/47/37 mm at a range of 100/500/1000 m. And also without taking into account the breaking effect of the projectile.
                        A penetration of 5,0 cm PzGr. 40 of the KwK38 was 94/55 mm at a range of 100/500 m.
                        And besides this, it does not really matter, since tanks do not fight tanks. And the production of 50 mm anti-tank PaK38 (had TTX KwK39) commercially began in 1940.
                      4. uu1
                        uu1 8 January 2020 21: 11 New
                        • 3
                        • 8
                        -5
                        Quote: Alf
                        that the German T-34s, which collided with the T-3 Katukov, with the 50 mm L / 42 gun, didn’t have a special chance

                        For those who do not immediately understand, the Germans (tankers) evaded from a collision with the Soviet BTT. Since such collisions were NOT among their tasks (the doctrine was different).
                        Against the Soviet BTT, they set up their infantry units and subunits. More precisely, VET of these units and subunits.
                        And only when they did not have the opportunity to Dodge, did they take the fight.
                        Therefore, not Pz.III fought with Katukov (although they might have come across in places), but the Wehrmacht infantry and motorized infantry units. With PaK38, Pak 181 (f), Pak 36 (t), Pak M37 (t) and other nyashami (up to 107 mm).
                        In my opinion, chewing is not possible in more detail.
                      5. Operator 8 January 2020 22: 19 New
                        • 8
                        • 2
                        +6
                        For those who are stupid: how can tank-to-tank combat be avoided when the defenders fire from an ambush, and those attacking after breaking through the false front are curtailed into a marching column in exact accordance with Guderian’s teachings on covering enemy tanks with wedges?

                        And yes: when can we expect the infantry approach to the battlefield during the short-term shooting of the tank column - to the hat analysis?

                        One can imagine Heinz’s hysteria when the Katukovites (remaining invulnerable) clicked German tanks over and over again like seeds precisely because of “unsurpassed German military thought” bully
                      6. uu1
                        uu1 8 January 2020 22: 26 New
                        • 2
                        • 13
                        -11
                        Quote: Operator
                        For those who are stupid

                        Write for yourself? What for?
                        Quote: Operator
                        You can imagine the Heinz hysteria when the Katukovites (remaining invulnerable) began to click German tanks over and over again

                        Before you write about the "seeds" and all kinds of "invulnerable", ask how many BTT in 1941 lost the Red Army, and how much, the Wehrmacht. Very surprised.
                    2. Jager 15 January 2020 19: 52 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      Do you even bother to read the basic principles of Blitzkrieg theory. In fact, a stable front did not exist (which the infantry units were supposed to break through), just the tanks were the most suitable means.
                      The Kursk Bulge represents a special rzhach when the Germans moved tank formations to Soviet fortified positions.
    2. Jager 15 January 2020 19: 57 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Comrade, at least take the trouble to explain this nonsense.
      Breaking properties of a shell, guns, which simply did not exist in the fall of the 41st, etc.
  • Proxima 8 January 2020 22: 51 New
    • 6
    • 1
    +5
    Quote: uu1
    If the caliber is more than the thickness of the armor, its inclination does not matter much. As the breaking effect of the projectile begins to act.

    Dear, everything, from the first to the last letter, is nonsense, to put it mildly, a stupid person. fool Please bother to explain where did you get this nonsense or have you come up with?
    1. uu1
      uu1 8 January 2020 22: 57 New
      • 2
      • 10
      -8
      Quote: Proxima
      Dear, everything, from the first to the last letter, is nonsense, to put it mildly, a stupid person.

      You are mistaken. I do not have your habits.
      Quote: Proxima
      Please, bother to explain where you took this nonsense or invented it yourself.

      God will give. Or someone else. But definitely not me.
      1. Proxima 8 January 2020 23: 04 New
        • 4
        • 1
        +3
        Quote: uu1
        God will give. Or someone else. But definitely not me.

        Are you normal I didn’t ask you to serve anything. Or maybe "just you" still comment or give a link to the nonsense that was posted above?
        1. uu1
          uu1 8 January 2020 23: 53 New
          • 2
          • 8
          -6
          Quote: Proxima
          Or maybe "just you" still comment or give a link to the nonsense that was posted above?

          I do not serve hamam.
  • English tarantas 10 January 2020 16: 47 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    breaking effect of the projectile.

    In order to break through it, the corresponding projectile speed is needed, and not just the mass. And a very important role is played by the strength of the projectile. In the event of a collision with inclined armor, a shell that does not have the required speed will collapse and doesn’t penetrate anything, and a shell that has the proper mass, but does not have sufficient speed will begin to slide and collapse along the armor, and ultimately will also not pierce anything.
    If the caliber is more than the thickness of the armor, its inclination does not matter much.

    The caliber of the brick thrown into the armor of the T-34 is also more than 45mm, but alas.
  • uu1
    uu1 8 January 2020 19: 14 New
    • 1
    • 8
    -7
    Quote: Potter
    All other Pz-III and Pz-IV had frontal armor 30mm, and Pz-IV Ausf.E, since 1940 or one sheet of 50mm, or 30 + 30mm, that is 60mm.

    This entire armor was CEMENT. On the Soviet BTT all the armor was Cementless.
    They have different strengths.
    Quote: Potter
    That is, the KV and T-34 did not have any overwhelming advantages in booking.

    Nifiga myself, a statement. Is 75 mm rolled armor equivalent to 40/45 mm of the same armor?
    1. Jager 15 January 2020 20: 02 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      There is such a thing as "reduced armor thickness."
      You are a troll, but even Wikipedia has not been mastered. Deuce.
  • Jager 15 January 2020 19: 47 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    How effective was this gun in a collision with the KV-1? And the caliber is too small for the destruction of bunkers and bunkers. The most appropriate version is Pz. III Ausf. N.
  • smaug78 8 January 2020 12: 00 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    I could be wrong, but there was nothing new ... Katukov acted in accordance with the charters. Yes, and the Germans screwed up, did not put up military guard, etc. ... So, after receiving the soup, they began to invent excuses ...
  • Aviator_ 8 January 2020 13: 54 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    Basically, everything is already known, but about the tactics of Katukov with a false leading edge I read for the first time. Set article +
  • voyaka uh 8 January 2020 14: 51 New
    • 3
    • 4
    -1
    T-34s didn’t start fighting in October 41st,
    but from the very beginning of the war. And there were several hundred of them. Almost all of them are in the south.
    But Zhukov, who commanded in this direction, failed to apply them correctly. They were all lost without success.
    Katukov applied the right tactics: an ambush attack is a departure. Instead of frontal strikes by the steep forces of tanks, which the Germans stopped with anti-tank artillery, immediately proceeding to defense.
    1. Kote Pan Kokhanka 8 January 2020 18: 34 New
      • 3
      • 1
      +2
      Zhukov personally controlled the T-34? Do not tell my claws !!! The article describes the tactical use of tanks at the brigade level. Not a division, not an army, not a front — a brigade, or rather parts of it !!! Zhukov's successes were mainly strategic, rarely operational. In fact, if he took command of the regiment, he was more than sure the regiment under his leadership would have won, but the army into which this regiment would have entered might have suffered irreparable losses. Each cricket must mean its own hearth!
      If Katukov did not have a T-34, he would have achieved a similar result and BT-7!
      By the way, Yuri mentioned the loss of almost a third of his main combat vehicles KV-1 and T-34, when he divided his brigade. If the military Katukov made a banal mistake by dividing his forces.
      Well, somewhere like that!
    2. vladcub 8 January 2020 18: 47 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      Warrior, a small clarification: most of the new tanks were concentrated in Ukraine. To a certain extent, G.K. Zhukov was also involved in this. When he was chief of the General Staff, he believed that the Germans would deliver the main blow in Ukraine. And Belarus is purely geographically not suitable for deploying a mass of troops. True Martirosyan believes that there is a malicious intent, but is it so or not?
    3. uu1
      uu1 8 January 2020 19: 25 New
      • 2
      • 4
      -2
      Quote: voyaka uh
      And there were several hundred of them.

      Almost a thousand.
      Quote: voyaka uh
      Almost all of them are in the south.

      8 LVO
      50 POBO
      228 call
      496 KOVO
      50 odvo
      True, such an interest in the T-34 is not entirely clear. Who cares how many there were? The Germans in the summer of 1941 defeated the Strelkov (main) units of the Red Army.
      Quote: voyaka uh
      Katukov applied the right tactics: an ambush attack is a departure.

      This is the function of anti-tank missile units, not tank units.
      Tanks, this is not an armored vehicle. They have other tasks in the war.
      But in the Red Army boots sometimes whetted a cake. And the shoemaker baked pies. As a result, the loss is 1 to 5,3 (in soldiers).
      1. voyaka uh 8 January 2020 19: 33 New
        • 1
        • 1
        0
        "The Germans in the summer of 1941 defeated the Strelkov (main) units of the Red Army." ////
        -----
        Battle of Dubno (Battle of Brody)
        The end of June, 41, is considered the largest tank battle in the world.
        About 3500 tanks of the Red Army took part in it.
        and more than 800 Soviet tanks were lost. The remaining tanks were then abandoned due to lack of fuel during the retreat.
        1. uu1
          uu1 8 January 2020 19: 43 New
          • 3
          • 3
          0
          Quote: voyaka uh
          Battle of Dubno (Battle of Brody)
          It is considered the largest tank battle in the world.
          It was attended by about 3500 tanks of the Red Army,
          and more than 800 tanks were lost.

          I am aware of this battle.
          You can still recall the tank battle of 1941 in the Baltic states.
          But there were such battles in the 4 years of the war, on the fingers of one hand to count.
          Tanks do not fight tanks, this is a fact.
          More precisely, they are fighting. But only in computer shooters.
          And the anti-tank equipment of the Red Army all the way were disgusting. In contrast to the Wehrmacht, which had excellent means of vocational training. Hence the enormous losses of the Red Army BTT.
          1. Nehist 8 January 2020 20: 19 New
            • 3
            • 1
            +2
            Gg postulate tanks do not fight tanks with tanks was to refute WWII and no one has yet proven the opposite. All modern tanks are designed to deal with their own kind, as it suddenly became clear that the best anti-tank gun is a tank
            1. uu1
              uu1 8 January 2020 20: 37 New
              • 1
              • 6
              -5
              Quote: Nehist
              the postulate tanks did not fight tanks did not refute WWII and no one has yet proven the opposite.

              Fragmented collisions of tanks with tanks became somewhat more frequent only since 1944. Prior to this, tanks with tanks were practically very rare.
              - Brody, Raseiniai and Senno in 1941, where the pre-war tank troops of the Red Army were actually destroyed.
              - Kursk massacre, where almost all the "Soviet tanks" (this is a special type of BTT) that were in the Red Army at that time were burned down.
              There were no more tank battles.
              Tanks with tanks no longer fought.
              Quote: Nehist
              All modern tanks

              We are not talking about modern tanks.
              Quote: Nehist
              how suddenly it turned out that the best VET is a tank

              For the Red Army, absolutely true. This is because in the Red Army there was virtually no anti-tank artillery. More precisely, she even seemed to be. But only these guns were actually crackers.
              That is why in the USSR the production of various self-propelled guns was so widely practiced. And in colossal amounts. After all, all the "Soviet tanks" are nothing more than tower self-propelled guns for various purposes.
              There are no tanks without tank gun.
              Tank gun L-10 arr. 1938 was hopelessly outdated by the beginning of the war.
              And the next Soviet tank gun was created only in 1964 or 1962. Now I don’t remember exactly.
            2. Doliva63 9 January 2020 20: 34 New
              • 2
              • 0
              +2
              Quote: Nehist
              Gg postulate tanks do not fight tanks with tanks was to refute WWII and no one has yet proven the opposite. All modern tanks are designed to deal with their own kind, as it suddenly became clear that the best anti-tank gun is a tank

              Full, excuse me, nonsense. The best VET is precisely the VET, and not the tank, which has a wider range of tasks and therefore is not "sharpened" on the VET. If what you said is someone else's words, spit in the face of the person who said it. I’m telling you as a former prof. For your education (for free, by the way): there are 3 target lines on the tank director, only the last - tanks. Though so accessible, no? If not, read BUSV, everything is written there. "Daughters of officers" used to get, now - "experts in military sciences" laughing
          2. voyaka uh 8 January 2020 20: 25 New
            • 3
            • 3
            0
            "Tanks do not fight tanks, this is a fact." ////
            ----
            This is not a fact, but your point of view.
            The classic (and very large) battle of the tank-against-tank occurred
            on the Golan Heights in October 1973 during the Doomsday War.
            It involved ONLY tanks. There was no infantry, no artillery,
            neither ATGM nor aviation. Hundreds of tanks shot at each other.
            A major night battle of tank-against-tank was in 1991 in the Iraqi desert.
            But Bradley and Toe participated in it. And aviation just finished off in the morning
            Iraqi tanks, punched by the Abrams.
            There are more examples: in the Six Day War in Sinai, and others.
            1. uu1
              uu1 8 January 2020 20: 45 New
              • 0
              • 4
              -4
              Quote: voyaka uh
              This is not a fact, but your point of view.

              For all the time of the Second World War and 2MB with the participation of the USSR, I counted 4 tank battles. Three in 1941 (Brody, Raseiniai and Senno), one in 1943 (Kursk). Can you name some more?
              Quote: voyaka uh
              in October 1973

              This is another war.
              Quote: voyaka uh
              in 1991 in

              And this is a different war.
              Quote: voyaka uh
              The Six Day War in Sinai

              And this is a different war.
              Over time, the nature of wars changes. But we were talking about the period 1941-45. with the participation of the Red Army.
              1. BAI
                BAI 8 January 2020 22: 02 New
                • 2
                • 0
                +2
                Read the memoirs of Rybalko, Poppel, Rotmistrov and others. Two-thirds of the volume is devoted to fighting tanks against tanks. If the enemy tank forces broke through the defenses, the defending side threw moving reserves towards them. What kind? That's right - tank. Separate tank divisions of the Germans they were called the "fire brigade" and rushed from one breakthrough to another. By the way, the commander of 4 TA Goth planned the destruction of Soviet tank reserves precisely under Prokhorovka back in May 1943.
                1. uu1
                  uu1 8 January 2020 22: 30 New
                  • 0
                  • 4
                  -4
                  Quote: BAI
                  Read the memoirs of Rybalko, Poppel, Rotmistrov and others. Two-thirds of the volume is devoted to fighting tanks against tanks. If the enemy tank forces broke through the defenses, the defending side threw moving reserves towards them. What kind? That's right - tank.

                  Well, well, I repeat.
                  Quote: uu1
                  For the Red Army, absolutely true. This is because in the Red Army there was virtually no anti-tank artillery. More precisely, she even seemed to be. But only these guns were actually crackers.
                  That is why in the USSR the production of various self-propelled guns was so widely practiced. And in colossal amounts. After all, all the "Soviet tanks" are nothing more than tower self-propelled guns for various purposes.

                  Quote: BAI
                  Separate tank divisions of the Germans they were called the "fire brigade" and rushed from one breakthrough to another. By the way, the commander of 4 TA Goth planned the destruction of Soviet tank reserves precisely under Prokhorovka back in May 1943.

                  and here I repeat.
                  Quote: uu1
                  Fragmented collisions of tanks with tanks became somewhat more frequent only since 1944. Prior to this, tanks with tanks were practically very rare.
                2. uu1
                  uu1 8 January 2020 22: 38 New
                  • 3
                  • 6
                  -3
                  Quote: BAI
                  Separate tank divisions of the Germans they were called the "fire brigade" and rushed from one breakthrough to another.

                  Unfortunately, copying is not enough.
                  As for the German "fire brigades", nonsense.
                  The Germans had excellent anti-tank artillery, so they had no need for such "fire brigades".
                  But the Red Army, yes, had such a need. Since the artillery of the VET in the Red Army was only nominally, in the reports. But in fact, it was practically nonexistent.
                  1. BAI
                    BAI 8 January 2020 22: 56 New
                    • 1
                    • 0
                    +1
                    Well, where you need to look at the nonsense:
                    Memoirs of the military personnel of the 11th tank division:
                    The last and at the same time the greatest chance of the Soviets is lost. The fiasco of Napoleon of 1812 did not find its parallels, which Stalin so desired and sought, ruthlessly throwing all his strength into it. Division - "fire brigade" its participation in the battles in many central sections of the Eastern Front helped to frustrate these plans of the red king. The sun rises, and again our time comes. But first you need to transfer lice and ventilate your clothes so that the spirit of poverty and sour pumpkin soup finally disappears, you need to replace the linings on the clutch discs and polish the cylinders again, replenish the personnel and military equipment, because you, Comrade Stalin, have lost your best and the last ally - winter! And the summer belongs to us. It has long been our ally, and when its sun dries out the last pools of meltwater, it will shine for us, awakening a new, better world that will be born of death and destruction.
                    Materials for writing this report were provided by:
                    Chief Lieutenant Dr. Hanai,
                    Major Radowski,
                    Captain Zarre
                    Non-commissioned officer Richter,
                    Non-Commissioned Officer Mader
                    1. uu1
                      uu1 8 January 2020 22: 59 New
                      • 2
                      • 4
                      -2
                      Quote: BAI
                      Memoirs of the military personnel of the 11th tank division:

                      Memoirs, this is one of the branches of unscientific fiction.
                      Frivolous literature.
                  2. Nehist 9 January 2020 00: 09 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    It’s precisely the heavy tank battalions of the Wehrmacht and the SS that have been used as mobile anti-tank reserves since 43 years. Well, about Panther, and there’s nothing to say, according to your classification, it’s exactly the tower
                    1. uu1
                      uu1 9 January 2020 00: 45 New
                      • 1
                      • 5
                      -4
                      Quote: Nehist
                      It’s precisely the heavy tank battalions of the Wehrmacht and the SS that have been used as mobile anti-tank reserves since 43 years.

                      Not the “mobile reserves of the VET”, but in the role of the “mobile reserves”.
                      In the anti-tank regiment, the German infantry units and subunits had no shortage.
                      Quote: Nehist
                      Well, about Panther, and there’s nothing to say, according to your classification, it’s exactly the tower

                      Nothing like this. The Panther’s gun, KwK42, was made by Stradivarius from artillery. It was a brilliant product, very finely calculated precisely for the Panther’s suspension. With a sufficient fragmentation of its OFS (it was done at a minimum), everything else was given to the armor penetration of its BBS. Which was simply phenomenal for a TANK gun of this caliber.
                      The British did something similar (QF 77 mm, Comet tank), but later, in 1944.
                      The USSR and the Americans did nothing of the sort, since they did not know how to make guns.
                      But KwK42 (with a tower) could not be put on Pz.IV, for example. The Pz.IV suspension for the KwK42 did not fit at all.
                      In principle, it was possible to solve the problem with the composition of explosives in the general physical structure. But the shells from this would be noticeably more expensive. Yes, and KwK40 on Pz.IV were quite in place.
                  3. voyaka uh 9 January 2020 01: 46 New
                    • 3
                    • 1
                    +2
                    "About the German" fire brigades, "nonsense." ////
                    ----
                    Not at all. The term is accurate.
                    It is for "plugging holes" - stopping breakthroughs of the Soviet
                    tanks - were created in 1944 "separate heavy tank battalions."
                    Consisting of 1/3 of the Tiger tanks and 2/3 of the T-III tanks.
                    Tigers fired at the T-34 from great distances, and the T-III covered them from the sides and behind,
                    not letting surround.
                    These several battalions were continuously deployed along the railway line.
                    along the entire front. Real fire brigades.
                3. vladcub 9 January 2020 21: 19 New
                  • 3
                  • 0
                  +3
                  BAI, it is interesting to compare the memories of German tank generals and ours. It is always interesting to compare two points of view.
                  I only had to read Carius when I read and periodically thought: why did you lose?
              2. English tarantas 10 January 2020 17: 33 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                Can you name some more?

                Battles are one thing, but face-to-face meetings, or small battles? You are unlikely to read about them on the wiki, only memoirs and military reports. I advise you to read what they thought about tank battles in the West, it is still too early for Soviet military materials, although probably only German will be of interest to you.
                So in the West, the British formulated the concept of the main tank by the year 43, and according to this concept, the tank’s tasks included the fight against enemy tanks, and the development of the Centurion tank began. And on the other side of the ocean, the Americans were extremely concerned about the appearance of tigers and panthers in Africa, despite the fact that Centurion did not have time by the end of the war, and in Europe the Allies did not meet a huge number of German tanks, for some reason from the 43rd year they were actively increasing fire the power of the guns of their machines, they put long-barreled guns under high pressure in the barrel, and produced sub-caliber shells. Probably to bunkers in France to shoot.
            2. Doliva63 9 January 2020 20: 41 New
              • 0
              • 1
              -1
              Quote: voyaka uh
              "Tanks do not fight tanks, this is a fact." ////
              ----
              This is not a fact, but your point of view.
              The classic (and very large) battle of the tank-against-tank occurred
              on the Golan Heights in October 1973 during the Doomsday War.
              It involved ONLY tanks. There was no infantry, no artillery,
              neither ATGM nor aviation. Hundreds of tanks shot at each other.
              A major night battle of tank-against-tank was in 1991 in the Iraqi desert.
              But Bradley and Toe participated in it. And aviation just finished off in the morning
              Iraqi tanks, punched by the Abrams.
              There are more examples: in the Six Day War in Sinai, and others.

              Tanks should not fight tanks. Iraq, Sinai - these are special cases that do not say anything. Have you ever studied the tactics of combined arms combat? Probably not, because in "street battles" (and you have all the battles on the street) there is a bit of its own specificity, although it was taken into account in the BUS of the USSR Armed Forces. So - "teach your spiders." But certainly not us. Teachers found laughing
              1. voyaka uh 9 January 2020 23: 26 New
                • 2
                • 2
                0
                "Tanks should not fight tanks. Iraq, Sinai are special cases" ////
                ----
                I consider what happened.
                And not that "should or should not be" smile
                With all due respect to Soviet charters and battle theories. hi
                These "special cases" are the largest tank battles after the 2nd World War,
                with battles it’s "tank against tank". With the participation of hundreds of tanks on both sides.
          3. Jager 15 January 2020 20: 09 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            8,8 cm on the "Tiger" and long-barreled on the "Panther" (not counting any IV, Stug, etc.) also decided "not to fight with the tanks"?
            VET in the first place is not the tools themselves, but their competent use. All these tales about the widespread use of 8,8 behind each bush - stop reading books like "lost victories."
            In the Red Army was created only ONE purely anti-tank gun - ZIS-2. ZIS-3 and "forty-five", like all sorts of F-22, SPM, and so on - these are tools of the anti-aircraft defense already in the second turn. The same Pak40 had much more weight compared to the ZIS-3.
        2. Yuri Kabaev 10 January 2020 20: 45 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          "more than 800 Soviet tanks were lost. The remaining tanks were then abandoned due to lack of fuel during the retreat"
          ===
          And how does this differ from "lost"?
          And left:
          July 8, 1941

          4 corps - 126 tanks (r / writing tab.) According to the report - 126
          8 Bldg - 43 tanks According to the report - 43
          9 corps - 25 tanks (+11 failure) According to the Report - 164
          15 buildings - 24 tanks (+26 failure) According to the report - 66
          19 Bldg - 72 According to the report - 66
          Serviceable 290 tanks (+37 failure) (465 according to the report)


          22 bldg. 22 (+7 failure) According to the report - 340
          24 building - 100 (BT, T-26) According to the report - 100

          Total in seven buildings KV - 4, T-34 - 44, T-26, BT-2-7 - 496, failure - 44
          (according to the report - 905)

          TOTAL 544, including 44 faulty
          (6. Report of the Commander of the South-Western Front to the Chief of the General Staff of the Red Army of July 17, 1941 on the situation of mechanized corps of the front. TsAMO RF. F. 229, op. 3780ss, d. 1, f. 34. Typewritten copy. See . "Documents".
    4. Saxahorse 8 January 2020 23: 21 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: voyaka uh
      But Zhukov, who commanded in this direction, failed to apply them correctly.

      Zhukov? So he lost Kiev and the entire Southern Army Group? And at what university did you tell this?
      1. Jager 15 January 2020 20: 16 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Which university? This is written in manuals, shhh ...
  • Proctologist 8 January 2020 15: 04 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    Thank you, it was interesting to read. I do not agree with the opponents about the "evidence" of the above. For me, important and interesting was the precedent (1941!) Of the use of the Red Army of new and effective tactics. He believed that before 1943 they were not there, and even later Germans considered the tactics of the Soviet troops patterned and predictable. It was interesting to learn a counterexample.
    1. Alf
      Alf 8 January 2020 18: 09 New
      • 5
      • 0
      +5
      Quote: Proctologist
      and even subsequently, the Germans considered the tactics of the Soviet troops stereotyped and predictable.

      They counted until the keitel entered the Karlshorst Hall.
      1. Proctologist 8 January 2020 22: 15 New
        • 0
        • 1
        -1
        Quote: Alf
        They counted until the keitel entered the Karlshorst Hall.


        Sort of obvious sarcasm? But the losses are many times higher ...
        1. Alf
          Alf 8 January 2020 22: 20 New
          • 7
          • 0
          +7
          Quote: Proctologist
          Quote: Alf
          They counted until the keitel entered the Karlshorst Hall.


          Sort of obvious sarcasm? But the losses are many times higher ...

          According to sarcasm, I agree that in terms of losses you can chew the same thing, the losses of the Red Army and the Wehrmacht in the killed, wounded, and those who died from wounds are about the same.
          1. IL-18 8 January 2020 23: 24 New
            • 4
            • 0
            +4
            Quote: Alf
            the losses of the Red Army and the Wehrmacht in the killed, wounded, dead from wounds are about the same

            Add all sorts of Romanians, Hungarians, Finns, Italians, Slovaks. To the heap, the Waffen SS with units from ALL occupied countries and, by the way, a whole fucking "blue" division with a fighter squadron from Spain. And just a trash: Galicia divisions, Estonian and Latvian, to the heap Vlasov, Cossack, Kalmyk and other parts of the traitors.
        2. Doliva63 9 January 2020 20: 42 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: Proctologist
          Quote: Alf
          They counted until the keitel entered the Karlshorst Hall.


          Sort of obvious sarcasm? But the losses are many times higher ...

          No need to repeat other people's nonsense.
        3. Jager 15 January 2020 20: 17 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Above, not above, but where did the Führer end up on May 45th? Quietly burned himself in a cesspool near the bunker.
  • uu1
    uu1 8 January 2020 18: 17 New
    • 2
    • 9
    -7
    new tank battle tactics

    After the outbreak of the war, the Red Army abandoned the pre-war tactics of using the BTT. Although the Germans, and the Germans and the Red Army had the same tactics before the war, adhered to it until the very end of the war.
    It's simple, the USSR did not have a BTT suitable for this. A tank (real) in the USSR could only be made in the 60s. And before that, they used the "Soviet tanks".
    Based on the sad reality, the Red Army switched to another tactic of using BTT, the tactics of tank ligaments. This was due to the fact that in the USSR they could not (and could not until the 60s) make a normal tank gun. Therefore, we used TWO hulls, TWO guns and TWO crews to solve the problem that ONE normal tank could solve. Which, I repeat again, in the USSR could only be done in the 60s.
    1. Bronesvyazka 1942, the first "test of the pen."
    - first line, 76 mm anti-tank gun (T-34).
    - second line, 122 mm anti-personnel support gun (howitzer) (SU-122).
    In fact, an armor-plating system was not bad by design, but the 76 mm F-34 (T-34) gun possessed simply insignificant anti-tank qualities (as well as anti-personnel ones, by the way).
    The SU-122 on the second line was good.
    2. Bronesvyazka 1943, "correction of errors."
    - first line, 76 mm anti-personnel gun (T-34).
    - second line, 85 mm anti-tank gun (SU-85).
    A complete failure. The 76 mm F-34 (T-34) gun had simply insignificant anti-personnel qualities (at the level of 57 mm Anglo-Saxon cannons).
    A low-power 85 mm D-5 from the second line was of little use.
    3. Bronesvyazka 1944, another "error correction".
    - first line, 85 mm anti-tank gun (T-34/85).
    - second line, 122 mm anti-personnel gun (IS-2).
    Moving the 85 mm gun to the first line bore fruit, the T-34/85 could already penetrate something at close range. And knock out.
    IS-2 on the second line is incomprehensible. Probably separate divisions of such a BTT were needed by the Red Army. But during the war, on the second line in 1944, the very same SU-122 arr. 1942
    In addition, since it was decided to have a 122 mm gun on the second line, it was much more appropriate to increase the output of the ISU-122. But "show off is more expensive than money."
    4. Bronesvyazka 1945 g, "the same eggs, only in profile." This armor plate did not take part in hostilities.
    - first line, 85 mm anti-tank gun (T-44).
    - second line, 122 mm anti-personnel gun (IS-3).
    No fundamental differences in the armored vehicles mod. 1945 before the bronzvyazkoy arr. 1944 was not.
    1. Kote Pan Kokhanka 8 January 2020 19: 00 New
      • 6
      • 0
      +6
      All the Rezun Suvorov templates were used!
      It’s interesting, my dear, where did they come from, fairy tales about “armor link” laughing
      I’m wondering what example of armor plating you will give for 39 years for Britain or the USA !!! Machine gun Matilda and A13 with a two-pound gun without a high-explosive shell !!!?
      And now the “nail in the coffin of your theory” in the USSR, the tank was not developed as an anti-tank weapon! At 41mm 76,2mm F-32 and F-34 of the T-34 was enough to bend any Pz up to four!
      If the Soviet design school followed the German and British, then 34 were set ZIS-2 caliber 57mm.
      Well, the last thing you explain is the installation of 122mm guns on the ISU-122! And why didn’t you include the ISU-152 in your “armored vehicle”, however, like the KV-2 with 6 inch howitzers?
      P.S. Read about the English tank school, I think you will find a lot of New and interesting! Especially if you master the work of Guderian, de Gaulle, Grabin and Petrov, then I guarantee you insight and understanding of the situation, without pulling the cat on the globe !!!
      Regards, Kote!
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. English tarantas 10 January 2020 17: 48 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        And why didn’t you include the ISU-152 in your “armored vehicle”, however, like the KV-2 with 6 inch howitzers?

        This comrade wrote there above that if the caliber is greater than the thickness of the armor ..... however, it doesn’t matter what kind of nonsense it is, the main thing is that 152mm does not fit into his attitude, the German tank howitzers were pierced exactly and generally stupid scoops clawed his bast shoes, and KV-2 with the SU / ISU-152 either as artillery stood in the rear, or they were driven into the cities so that the Germans Faustpatrons them, picked up fun games (I think he has such garbage in his head)
        Especially if you master the work of Guderian, de Gaulle, Grabin and Petrov, then I guarantee you insight and understanding of the situation, without pulling the cat on the globe !!!

        I'm afraid I will not master crying
        Sincerely.
    2. Alf
      Alf 8 January 2020 19: 15 New
      • 8
      • 0
      +8
      Quote: uu1
      It's simple, the USSR did not have a BTT suitable for this. A tank (real) in the USSR could only be made in the 60s. And before that, they used the "Soviet tanks".

      Lord, again carbaine Zeus was released from the fools ... Now, again, it will rush about the Soviet-German war, about the heavy rifle on the bipod and chiralized, the best PP of the war ...
      1. uu1
        uu1 8 January 2020 19: 18 New
        • 1
        • 15
        -14
        Another crazy one.
        How many more will there be?
    3. Jager 15 January 2020 20: 21 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      You tie it with low-quality alcohol. Or what you use there. Anti-personnel gun IS-3, "armored vehicles" - thanks, I haven’t laughed like that for a long time. Truth.
  • BAI
    BAI 8 January 2020 21: 50 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    On the afternoon of October 3, the brigade commander sent six T-34 tanks and two KV-1s for reconnaissance in Oryol, which disappeared there.

    What do you mean are gone? The reconnaissance group was commanded by Alexander Burda and these tanks very successfully entered the battle near the First Warrior.
  • Proctologist 8 January 2020 22: 19 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    Quote: BAI
    The intelligence group was commanded by Alexander Burda

    Mentioned two intelligence groups. One of which was commanded by A. Burda. Right, recently it was:
    https://topwar.ru/165160-sovetskie-tankovye-asy-aleksandr-burda.html
    1. BAI
      BAI 8 January 2020 23: 06 New
      • 4
      • 0
      +4
      Of course, there were 2 groups:
      On the morning of October 4, I gave an oral combat order. By this order, the battalion commander-1 captain V. Gusev and the commander of a medium tank company, senior lieutenant A. Burde, were tasked to establish the enemy forces in Orel in two groups with a motorized infantry landing. In the morning a battalion of the Tula military school arrived in Mtsensk, and a group of captain Gusev was assigned a company from this battalion, and a group of a motorized rifle battalion of our brigade went with a group of senior lieutenant Burda.

      M.E. Katukov "At the cutting edge of the main blow."
      Ibid:
      1.
      Nevertheless, I was dissatisfied with the actions of Captain Gusev. In fact, he was unable to obtain much-needed information about the enemy. I ordered the battalion commander to return to the village of Ivanovskoye, where the main forces intended to occupy the line of defense.

      2.
      After spending a day in the forest, the group marched on country roads at night and joined us in the area of ​​the village of Pervyi Voin. From a conversation with Alexander Burda and his commissioner Alexander Stepanovich Zagudaev, it turned out that their silence, which caused us so much excitement, was explained very simply. From the very beginning of the raid, their radio went out of order.

      The results of Burda’s intelligence raised the spirits of the entire brigade. The combat score of the group was impressive: 10 medium and light tanks, 2 tractors with anti-tank guns, 5 vehicles with infantry, 2 light machine guns and up to 90 Nazis.

      And in the article only the group of Burda is mentioned, and at the same time it is said that she was missing.
      On the afternoon of October 3, the brigade commander sent six T-34 tanks and two KV-1s for reconnaissance in Oryol, which disappeared there.

      And on October 3, and not on the 4th.
  • vladcub 9 January 2020 15: 46 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Quote: uu1
    Quote: voyaka uh
    Battle of Dubno (Battle of Brody)
    It is considered the largest tank battle in the world.
    It was attended by about 3500 tanks of the Red Army,
    and more than 800 tanks were lost.

    I am aware of this battle.
    You can still recall the tank battle of 1941 in the Baltic states.
    But there were such battles in the 4 years of the war, on the fingers of one hand to count.
    Tanks do not fight tanks, this is a fact.
    More precisely, they are fighting. But only in computer shooters.
    And the anti-tank equipment of the Red Army all the way were disgusting. In contrast to the Wehrmacht, which had excellent means of vocational training. Hence the enormous losses of the Red Army BTT.

    Did you personally see that our VET were bad? I talked with a front-line soldier, an artillery captain, he recognized the 45th model of 1942 and spoke positively about the ZIS57
    1. Doliva63 9 January 2020 20: 50 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: vladcub
      Quote: uu1
      Quote: voyaka uh
      Battle of Dubno (Battle of Brody)
      It is considered the largest tank battle in the world.
      It was attended by about 3500 tanks of the Red Army,
      and more than 800 tanks were lost.

      I am aware of this battle.
      You can still recall the tank battle of 1941 in the Baltic states.
      But there were such battles in the 4 years of the war, on the fingers of one hand to count.
      Tanks do not fight tanks, this is a fact.
      More precisely, they are fighting. But only in computer shooters.
      And the anti-tank equipment of the Red Army all the way were disgusting. Unlike the Wehrmacht, which possessed excellent VET tools. Hence the enormous losses of the Red Army BTT.

      Did you personally see that our VET were bad? I talked with a front-line soldier, an artillery captain, he recognized the 45th model of 1942 and spoke positively about the ZIS57

      Rather, the VET funds were not bad, but the VET organization itself. My father fought on the 45 mm until the 45th, that is, the means remained the same, but the organization and tactics of application changed, didn't they? By the way, the father praised the gun. Why would it?
    2. Alf
      Alf 10 January 2020 18: 54 New
      • 4
      • 0
      +4
      Quote: vladcub
      Did you personally see that our VET were bad?

      Do not stop the carbine from arriving in your reality, who are you to argue with the pure radiance of a clear mind? laughing
      1. vladcub 11 January 2020 11: 38 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        In that case: "high him Greece" "" as my grandfather said
  • Yuri Kabaev 10 January 2020 20: 39 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    "The medium tanks Pz-III and Pz-IV were also weakly armored. The thickness of the armor was only 15 mm,"
    ====
    Author!
    Where did you get these numbers?
    Reservations.
    Czech tanks had armor forehead - 45 mm, side - 40 mm. ALL!
    French Somois - 45 mm.
    Almost all German T-3 and T-4 tanks were armored up to 22-1941 mm of frontal armor by June 50, 60. Board - usually 30 mm, cemented.
    T-3 had 30 + 30 forehead, T-4 20 + 30, tanks of early modifications, later immediately had 60 and 50 mm.
    T-2s also had 20-25 mm armor, moreover, cemented, unlike T-26 and BT (16 mm homogeneous).
    As a result, German shells T-3 and T-4 didn’t take our shells from any distance: 45 mm - only on board from 200 m, 76 mm shrapnel-on-strike - board no further than 300-400 m. BB shells appeared only in the fall, whether Katukov’s tankers received them was a question.
    Amazing frivolity. But didn’t they wonder about the "tank fear" of our infantry and artillery? Where did she come from?
    1. Alf
      Alf 10 January 2020 21: 49 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      Quote: Yuri Kabaev
      As a result, our shells did not take German T-3 and T-4 tanks from any distance:

      And in the forehead of the tower? The T-3 had a 30 mm forehead, and remained until L, and this is already the autumn of 42, and 653 of them were released.
    2. Jager 15 January 2020 20: 26 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Read the start of Tigers in the Mud. There to the author on Pz. 38 slammed into the forehead "forty-five." The result - penetration of armor, injured crew. The French tanks did not have the main thing - maneuverability and normal weapons.
      1. Advancer 22 June 2020 22: 06 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        There to the author on Pz. 38 slammed into the forehead "forty-five." The result - penetration of armor, injured crew.
        Yes, everyone writes that the Czech-made armor of the WWII period had increased fragility ...
        So even 50 mm of the frontal armor of the hull at 38 (t) could not save the crew, apparently ...

        The French tanks did not have the main thing - maneuverability and normal weapons.
        I agree. With one caveat - was the Somua S-35’s gun bad against armored targets? .. IMHO, quite at the level of medium German tanks (I’m silent about Pz.I and Pz.II ...)
        But against unarmored ones - yes ... But against such targets only with Pz.IV the gun was much better ... well, and maybe with Pz.III a little ...

        Still, however, they wrote about the not very high reliability of French tanks ... But in the context of the battles near Mtsensk this is probably not very important :)
  • Yuri Kabaev 10 January 2020 20: 48 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: voyaka uh
    "The Germans in the summer of 1941 defeated the Strelkov (main) units of the Red Army." ////
    -----
    Battle of Dubno (Battle of Brody)
    The end of June, 41, is considered the largest tank battle in the world.
    About 3500 tanks of the Red Army took part in it.
    and more than 800 Soviet tanks were lost. The remaining tanks were then abandoned due to lack of fuel during the retreat.


    Remaining
    July 8, 1941

    4 corps - 126 tanks (r / writing tab.) According to the report - 126
    8 Bldg - 43 tanks According to the report - 43
    9 corps - 25 tanks (+11 failure) According to the Report - 164
    15 buildings - 24 tanks (+26 failure) According to the report - 66
    19 Bldg - 72 According to the report - 66
    Serviceable 290 tanks (+37 failure) (465 according to the report)


    22 bldg. 22 (+7 failure) According to the report - 340
    24 building - 100 (BT, T-26) According to the report - 100

    Total in seven buildings KV - 4, T-34 - 44, T-26, BT-2-7 - 496, failure - 44
    (according to the report - 905)

    TOTAL 544, including 44 faulty
    (6. Report of the Commander of the South-Western Front to the Chief of the General Staff of the Red Army of July 17, 1941 on the situation of mechanized corps of the front. TsAMO RF. F. 229, op. 3780ss, d. 1, f. 34. Typewritten copy. See . "Documents".
  • Valery V.A. 12 January 2020 12: 53 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    "Tactics of conducting a tank battle ...." This must be managed, in one phrase, demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of what a "tactic" is and what a "battle" is! If the author knew what "tactics" were, then he would understand the absurdity of the term "battle tactics." There is a tactic of units, units, formations, military branches. Popularly speaking, “tactics” are combat operations of subunits, units, and formations carried out in the form of combat. But the author, moreover, does not understand what a "battle" is. He can have it, by analogy with the "tank", and pistol, and saber and machine gun, i.e. with reference to the means of destruction. Or even better, with reference to the military branches - “tank”, “infantry”, “artillery,“ cavalry ”....“ Battle tactics ”are as stupid as the“ operational art of an operation ”or“ war strategy ”. And yet, they don’t lead tactics, operational art or strategy, so here’s the Tactics of Tank Battle
  • Anton Kulikov 12 January 2020 14: 03 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    We did not know how to make guns? But what about ZIS-2 and ZIS-3. And PTAB 1 Moskalenko who almost alone, almost without support, restrained the Germans in Ukraine. And we didn’t have any guns? 45 analogue of the German 37 mallet, 45 then the barrel was extended. Zis-2 in the first year of the war, in general there were no equal. They began to put it on the t-34, but then refused, as it pierced through and through. Resumed the production of ZIS-2 at the end of 1942. There was a need for penetration of armor.
    1. Jager 15 January 2020 20: 29 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      ZiS-2 put on the T-34 at the end of the 41st. And not from a good life - stupidly lacked full-time guns. Read about the ZIS-30, from where I went.
      And the 45-ka is not quite an analogue of the 37 mm. The basis is yes. But the parameters of the guns are VERY different.
  • Stas57 14 January 2020 01: 40 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    On the night of October 3, the brigade defeated German columns moving to Moscow on the highway near the village of Ivanovo, destroying 14 Germans light and medium tanks
    .

    not otherwise straight from train platforms shot
    Well, then everything written nonsense, see the video
  • Yuri Kabaev 15 January 2020 19: 17 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: Alf
    Quote: Yuri Kabaev
    As a result, our shells did not take German T-3 and T-4 tanks from any distance:

    And in the forehead of the tower? The T-3 had a 30 mm forehead, and remained until L, and this is already the autumn of 42, and 653 of them were released.

    1. 30mm - not 16. And try to get into it.
    2. In the spring of 1940, the body of the PzIII tank was shelled from a 45-mm gun at a firing range in a kubinka.
    Conclusion: "" ... As you should know, the tests of shelling a new German tank conducted in the fall of 1940 showed that the 45-mm anti-tank gun model 1937 was unsuitable for fighting it, since it could not penetrate its armor at a distance further 150-300 m ... ""
    1. Jager 15 January 2020 20: 34 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Again hackneyed tales about massively substandard shells ... Yes, the factory directors would be shot without any proceedings. The decline in quality - yes, it was. And that is very conditional.