Isaac Salzman. The ambiguous fate of the "tank king" of the Soviet Union

Isaac Salzman. The ambiguous fate of the "tank king" of the Soviet Union
Isaac Moiseevich Salzman


Myths about the king


In previous articles of the cycle about Chelyabinsk "Tankograd" there were already references to Isaac Moiseevich Salzman, but the magnitude of this extraordinary personality requires a separate consideration.

To begin with, there is still no unambiguous assessment of the role of the “tank king” in the emergency development of the production of armored vehicles at the evacuated Ural plant. In the previously mentioned book by Nikita Melnikov “Tank USSR industry during the years of World War II ”Zaltsman looks like a cruel and not always competent manager who almost harmed the organization of tank production. So, on October 13, 1941, Isaac Zaltsman, as deputy commissar of the tank industry, arrived in Uralmash in order to identify the reasons for the failure to fulfill plans for September. While examining the enterprise’s workshop (in particular, workshop No. 29), the deputy commissar saw the Texler imported front-grinding sander in the corner. This expensive equipment was used to process the towers of the KV heavy tanks at the Izhora plant. However, in the Urals, they worked with towers the old fashioned way on longitudinally milling and boring machines - for some reason, the use of Texler turned out to be low-tech. The head of workshop No. 29 responded with a refusal to Zaltsman’s demand to immediately include Texler - this would violate the existing production chain and slow down the assembly of tanks even more. However, the head of workshop No. 29, I. S. Mitsengendler, for his intransigence, at the insistence of Zaltsman, was fired and arrested on the same day. Surprisingly, the understanding that they had nearly buried such an important specialist came relatively quickly - in January 1942, Mitsengendler was returned to the department of the chief technologist of the workshop, and later he again took the place of the head of workshop No. 29.


In general, in those terrible times, the position of director of a defense plant could sometimes be deadly. On October 24, 1941, Isaac Zaltsman continued his inspection already at the Ural Turbine Plant, which was not able to collect at least 5 V-2 tank diesels for the whole of September. It was not possible to assemble motors even from billets arrived from Kharkov. As a result, Isaac Zaltsman decided in an order to dismiss Director Lisin, put him on trial and evict from a departmental apartment. Lisin was lucky then - he lost his post, but remained at large, and in 1943 he became director of a new defense plant in Sverdlovsk. The strangest thing is that the removal of the director and the appointment of the former head of the Kharkov plant, D. E. Kochetkov, did not particularly improve the situation with V-2 engines at Uralturbozavod. This was often not the fault of the plant itself - Uralmash did not supply up to 90% of the necessary raw materials, and, in turn, the Zlaustovsky Metallurgical Plant did not send alloy steel in the required volumes. But Zaltsman’s decision in this regard was one - the director was to blame as the person responsible for everything, including other plants.


I.M. Zaltsman, People’s Commissar of Tank Industry of the Chelyabinsk Region and L.S. Baranov, 2nd Secretary of the Chelyabinsk Regional Committee of the CPSU (B.) 1943

The opposite point of view on the character of Isaac Zaltsman can be found in Lennar Samuelson's book “Tankograd: Secrets of the Russian Rear 1917-1953”. Here he is described as a talented manager who managed to reorganize the evacuation and operation of the Kirov plant in Leningrad in such a way that the company successfully produced tanks literally under German bombing.

In other sources, in particular, in the works of Alexei Fedorov, assistant professor of Chelyabinsk State University, Zaltsman again appears not in the best light. The official point of view is refuted, according to which the post-war disgrace of the Hero of Socialist Labor is associated with his unwillingness to slander the leadership of Leningrad (the famous "Leningrad affair"). Who was the famous “tank king” of the Urals?

“Progressive, bold and energetic”


Briefly about the biography of Isaac Mikhailovich. He was born in Ukraine in 1905 in the family of a Jewish tailor who managed to suffer from pogroms and died early. For some time, Zaltsman worked at a sugar factory, in 1928 joined the CPSU (b), five years later he graduated from the Odessa Industrial Institute. In 1938 he became director of the Kirov plant. Zaltsman's predecessor in this post was repressed. Incidentally, this fact was later adopted by ill-wishers, who accused the director of the plant of having risen in the wake of Stalin's purges. Well-wishers, on the other hand, said that in the People’s Commissariat of secondary engineering he was known as a “progressive, courageous and energetic man” and was in good standing with the leadership. Be that as it may, Zaltsman held out as the director of the plant until 1949 - he organized both his evacuation to Chelyabinsk and the creation of the legendary Tankograd. Zaltsman also launched the production of the T-34 at the Nizhny Tagil plant named after the Comintern, in the summer of 1942 he managed to master the production of the Victory tank in Chelyabinsk, and at the end of the war he oversaw the heavy IS program. In the official propaganda of wartime, the director of the Kirov factory turned out to be “the most prominent representative of the glorious galaxy of business engineers brought up by the Bolshevik party of Lenin and Stalin,” a talented tank builder, a brave innovator, order bearer, a friend of youth and a caring person. From the printed materials it followed that Zaltsman always strove for higher education, achieved the post of director with his own labor, and, together with other factory workers, was awarded for the production of new types of tanks, guns and tractors. Also, Chelyabinsk residents learned about Salzman that in the besieged Leningrad he “did not leave the factory day or night ...”; as a people's commissar, "did not break personal, operational communications with the Kirov factory"; for the development of the tank, the IS "returned to the factory", although it was rumored that this was due to its conflict with either L.P. Beria or V.A. Malyshev. The legendary director of Tankograd, the major general of the engineering and tank service and the Hero of Socialist Labor won the victory with three orders of Lenin, two of the Red Banner of Labor, orders of Suvorov and Kutuzov, and the Order of the Red Star. Perhaps the closest in influence to Zaltsman during the war was Nikolai Semenovich Patolichev, first secretary of the Chelyabinsk regional committee and the Chelyabinsk city committee. Patolichev and Zaltsman have developed constructive business relationships over the years of collaboration. Actually, they formed a fairly effective tandem, endowed with considerable power from the center of Patolichev was also authorized by the State Defense Committee. Both understood that Moscow's supportive attitude rests on the uninterrupted supply of tanks to the front. In any other case, no personal authority and experience would save them.

I.M. Zaltsman among prominent designers and engineers of the Great Patriotic War

Let's get back to the critics of the director. It is alleged that the quality of the armored vehicles manufactured at the Tankograd factories was sometimes appalling: the number of products increased due to the low level of assembly. And the relatively successful evacuation of the Kirov plant is due to a number of other directors and managers, but not to Zaltsman personally. The post-war dismissal of the director from all posts was not a mythical consequence of the Leningrad affair, but simple incompetence. Say, the legendary “tank king” could not organize the production of tractors, tanks and, what is very important, equipment for the nuclear industry that was emerging in the Urals in peacetime.

Among the workers of the Kirov plant, Salzman was known for his ambiguous character. In particular, there were stories about his "Odessa things", which we talked about at the beginning of this material. Zaltsman could with all demonstratively remove a person (director, shop manager) from his post, and then, after some time, tête-à-tête “forgave” the culprit and reinstated. The director of Tankograd easily decided on unexpected solutions to problems. Personally, he went in search of a party of tank radios that got stuck somewhere near Omsk in a private plane. And for the construction of pedestrian walkways to the entrance of the plant, he pointedly landed the managers responsible for this in a puddle and invited them to "slander" to the door. He also earned popular love by the case of a young factory worker who was standing barefoot at the machine tool - Zaltsman called the shop manager and forced him to give his boots to the boy. Dissatisfied with the director of "Tankograd" were outraged by meager food, lack of housing, difficulties with re-evacuation, but in wartime this, for obvious reasons, did not go outside. But in the early postwar years there were even open speeches against Zaltsman and his entourage. Letters were sent to Moscow stating that Zaltsman was "a capitalist, a skinner, an arrogant man who cares only about his well-being."

Since 1949, Zaltsman’s name has long been erased from official history, and in 1957 G. E. Nikolaeva’s novel “The Battle on the Road” was released, in which the negative hero, the director of the Valgan tractor factory, was much like the disgraced Hero of Socialist Labor. We learn about why this happened in the continuation of the story.

To be continued ...
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

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

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Same lech 18 January 2020 05: 32 New
    • 7
    • 2
    +5
    Hmm what it was a difficult time ... I wouldn’t reduce everything to his nationality ... in any environment there were enough scoundrels and the righteous, sometimes both halves were combined in a person.
    Well, for his deeds, the reward was appropriate ... of course, the organizer was punchy.
    1. antivirus 18 January 2020 08: 25 New
      • 4
      • 2
      +2
      time for specific actions - or you will bend into a ram’s horn or you (including in Auschwitz)
    2. Bar2 18 January 2020 08: 25 New
      • 17
      • 14
      +3
      article, some kind of anti-Semitic, and the Jews? What can I say here? Most likely this Salzman was a conjuncturist and an opportunist.
      For an example of an effective manager, you can take Stalin. He never went anywhere and always led from the center and it was a very effective management. Stalin’s order rarely anyone could disobey, it was necessary to have very good reasons.
      Strong and skilled manager was D.F.Ustinov, who showed himself well during the war.
      Therefore, the epithets "tank king" is some kind of PR and most likely the last capitalist years, during the USSR, nothing good was said about this "king".
      1. Stas1973 18 January 2020 11: 21 New
        • 6
        • 4
        +2
        Put a plus for the general context. Outside the brackets - the article is not anti-Semitic and Ustinov was not a brilliant manager. Gorshkov and Ogarkov, yes, were brilliant and, unfortunately, the last military managers to fight for their homeland.
        1. Bar2 19 January 2020 08: 51 New
          • 1
          • 4
          -3
          Quote: Stas1973
          Gorshkov and Ogarkov, yes, were brilliant and, to


          I don’t know anything about them. In general, little is known about the Stalinist People’s Commissars-producers.
          1. Doliva63 20 January 2020 18: 46 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Quote: Bar2
            Quote: Stas1973
            Gorshkov and Ogarkov, yes, were brilliant and, to


            I don’t know anything about them. In general, little is known about the Stalinist People’s Commissars-producers.

            Neither Gorshkov nor Ogarkov were ever People's Commissars of Production. Prof. military. Ogarkov, by the way, regardless of age, promoted radical know-how in the USSR Armed Forces, which are also relevant in the RF Armed Forces (and not only) now. According to rumors, he was categorically against the entry of troops into the DRA. In general, there was a really talented commander.
      2. cherkas.oe 18 January 2020 22: 18 New
        • 11
        • 2
        +9
        Quote: Bar2
        you can take Stalin. He never went anywhere and always led from the center and it was a very effective management. Stalin’s order rarely anyone could disobey, it was necessary to have very good reasons

        No, well, you compared the possibilities and authority of Stalin and Zaltsman. The man was spinning as best he could, good, bad, fair, unfair, opportunistic, populist, but the tanks were moving. You look at his awards, did they just hand them out, and did the supply manager sign orders on awarding the orders of Lenin?
        1. Bar2 19 January 2020 08: 48 New
          • 1
          • 5
          -4
          Quote: cherkas.oe
          The man was spinning as best he could, good, bad, fair, unfair, opportunistic, populist, but the tanks were moving.


          you used a word that is generally not suitable for big business, like tank production. What Salzman was doing is not trading at a flea market and "spinning" will not work. What he was doing is a big business that NEVER in our country and therefore, a very unusual person and, most importantly, a knowledgeable person should have been involved in this. The article in this article says that Zaltsman spent his time doing things that didn’t fit the caliber of such a person.
      3. maidan.izrailovich 19 January 2020 04: 14 New
        • 3
        • 1
        +2
        He never went anywhere and always led from the center and it was a very effective management.

        So Stalin did not go anywhere because he had people like Salzman.
        And if no one went anywhere, then nothing would be done.
        1. Bar2 19 January 2020 08: 40 New
          • 2
          • 6
          -4
          Quote: maidan.izrailovich
          And if no one went anywhere, then nothing would be done.


          no, not so, when the division commander himself leads the division into the attack, or when the deputy. the People’s Commissar himself is looking for the missing radio stations, these are examples of how not to manage.
          The top manager should only arrange the productive forces i.e. people in places and control the course of affairs and do their best to influence the course of affairs, but never climb on your own and try to convince yourself of a personal example. A personal example is for the lower level of management, this is done by engineers and technologists.
          Those. when the deputy people's commissar behaves like his own on a board, then this is a performance and staging, not production relations.
    3. Krasnoyarsk 18 January 2020 10: 52 New
      • 13
      • 11
      +2
      Quote: The same Lech
      Well, according to his deeds, the reward was corresponding ..

      I don’t understand what does the Order of Suvorov and Kutuzov have to do with it.
      Tankograd, the major general of the engineering and tank service and the Hero of Socialist Labor met with three orders of Lenin, two of the Red Banner of Labor, the orders of Suvorov and Kutuzov, and the Order of the Red Star. =
      = The Order of the Suvorov was awarded to the commanders of the Red Army for outstanding successes in command and control. =
      The Order of Kutuzov ... = To whom it is awarded: to the commanders of military units =
      Yes, and the "Star" also somehow not very.
      Puffed merit, puffed rewards.
      1. Looking for 19 January 2020 14: 36 New
        • 0
        • 2
        -2
        In 1981, the Order of Suvorov I degree was awarded the Marshal of the Soviet Union N.V. Ogarkov, and in 1982, the Order of Suvorov I degree was awarded the Marshal of the Soviet Union S. L. Sokolov, although any military merit corresponding to the statute of this order these two commanders were not.
        Among the gentlemen of the Order of Suvorov were the organizers of military production who were not directly related to the conduct of hostilities. For example, Bykhovsky, Abram Isaevich - director of the plant number 172 (Motovilikhinsky factories) in Perm. Here and think. Who has the awards "exaggerated". And who does not. for the battle. medal for labor ...!
        1. Krasnoyarsk 19 January 2020 22: 19 New
          • 2
          • 1
          +1
          Quote: Seeker

          In 1981, the Order of Suvorov I degree was awarded the Marshal of the Soviet Union N.V. Ogarkov, and in 1982, the Order of Suvorov I degree was awarded the Marshal of the Soviet Union S. L. Sokolov, although any military merit corresponding to the statute of this order these two commanders were not.

          Have you carefully read the statute of the order?
          So it’s clearly written - "... for outstanding successes in the command and control of troops"
          Marshals Ogarkov and Sokolov what controlled? Pig farm? Or a weaving factory? Or maybe a factory? They controlled the troops!

          Quote: Seeker
          "... from one metal they pour a medal for a battle. a medal for labor ...!

          So therefore, I did not mind the star of the "Hero of Socialist Labor" and the orders of Lenin. Although the military was awarded this order.
    4. maidan.izrailovich 19 January 2020 04: 28 New
      • 2
      • 1
      +1
      The article is one-sided.
      Remember the story.
      Winter 41-42 The enemy was thrown back from Moscow. The hardest time at the front. Catastrophically not enough tanks. Remember the frames of the films, as evacuated factories were deployed in the open air. To give arms to the front as quickly as possible. So Zaltsman is one of those who are involved in this.
      In February 1942, he was appointed director of the tank plant No. 183 named after the Comintern in Nizhny Tagil (Sverdlovsk Region). He organized the production of T-34 tanks and in 33 days rebuilt the plant to produce a new model of tanks. In peacetime, such a task was accomplished in no less than a year.
      https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Зальцман,_Исаак_Моисеевич
      As for the accusations against him, then there is probably a reason for this. But do not forget what a difficult time this generation has got.
  2. Baloo 18 January 2020 06: 32 New
    • 13
    • 3
    +10
    It was a tough time. I know for sure from my work that the result is important, not the effort. No one will remember and ask how difficult or simple it was there. They will be judged by the result. As my boss said: he became ill, a deserter, a traitor died.
  3. Olgovich 18 January 2020 07: 44 New
    • 12
    • 7
    +5
    Salzman worked at a sugar factory, in 1928 joined the CPSU (b), five years later graduated from Odessa Industrial Institute. In 1938 became the director Kirov factory.


    A career is absolutely unimaginable: just through 5 years after the institute, a simple shift foreman from the workshop, who had just recently started working, became director of the country's largest enterprise. Having passed at once several necessary growth stages, the passage of which, as a rule, takes more than a dozen years ... recourse

    Yes, and the relatively successful evacuation of the Kirov plant is merit a number of other directors and managers, but not personally, and only Salzmann.

    I think that this is a completely appropriate comment on all the activities of Zaltsman.
    1. The leader of the Redskins 18 January 2020 09: 33 New
      • 6
      • 2
      +4
      I first heard the name Zaltsman in 1991, when I read the book "Confrontation". In that book, the Soviet edition, the boss is exposed in a positive light.
    2. IS-80_RVGK2 19 January 2020 12: 53 New
      • 2
      • 2
      0
      Yes, and the Jew again ... Such a fact across the throat to the Russian patriot. laughing
    3. Looking for 19 January 2020 14: 40 New
      • 1
      • 2
      -1
      you look at the career of your "kings". And in the 20-30s very quickly determined a standing person or a "dummy"
  4. Uncle Izya 18 January 2020 08: 49 New
    • 11
    • 4
    +7
    He led the plant in Chelyabinsk until July 1949. In September 1949 he was expelled from the CPSU (b). According to him, the reason was his refusal to testify in the Leningrad case
    I didn’t hit it, but it costs a lot
  5. Reptiloid 18 January 2020 11: 28 New
    • 5
    • 2
    +3
    A very necessary and truly interesting cycle is written by Evgeny Fedorov. Thank.
    1. Uncle Izya 18 January 2020 11: 31 New
      • 8
      • 1
      +7
      People were not afraid to take responsibility before, I know in cases of a miss that awaits them, I think if Zaltsman were replaced instead of Ragozin, it would not be worse
      1. Reptiloid 18 January 2020 11: 55 New
        • 7
        • 1
        +6
        Quote: Uncle Izya
        People were not afraid to take responsibility before, I know in cases of a miss that awaits them, I think if Zaltsman were replaced instead of Ragozin, it would not be worse

        They ("" people used to be "") took this same responsibility instantly good ever since V.I. Lenin said ---there is such a party
        And thus, it turns out that absolutely all modern government officials are so fearful. negative Nobody wants to take responsibility and the words appear:
        the state should not ....
        pasta at 3500 .... you can live ....
        pensioners with a small pension alcoholics and parasites ....
        dressed inappropriately (about lost housing in the flood) ....
        1. Uncle Izya 18 January 2020 13: 33 New
          • 2
          • 1
          +1
          Well then, the times were different, now it would not work, a different approach is needed not a liberal Gaidar
      2. maidan.izrailovich 19 January 2020 04: 37 New
        • 2
        • 2
        0
        Zaltsman instead of Ragozin would not be worse.

        Gold words. good
        But alas, we live in our time. And in our time, Rogozin is not the worst option. The expense of escaping over a hill with billions of functionaries is growing year by year. And Rogozin is still here.
        1. Alexey Z 19 January 2020 17: 26 New
          • 0
          • 1
          -1
          While here, have not pressed yet, yours on the board.
        2. Uncle Izya 19 January 2020 19: 58 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          But Rogozin is not an oligarch like to feed in Russia, and under sanctions for sure
  6. RoTTor 18 January 2020 12: 14 New
    • 7
    • 0
    +7
    "STALIN NARCOM" and "STALIN DIRECTOR", especially during the Second World War - the highest rating
  7. bubalik 18 January 2020 12: 49 New
    • 7
    • 0
    +7
    Major General of the Tank Engineering Service and Hero of Socialist Labor

    1. bubalik 18 January 2020 14: 24 New
      • 9
      • 0
      +9
      ,,, Order of the Suvorov 1st degree (16.09.1945)

      ,,, Order of Lenin (5.06.1942/XNUMX/XNUMX)
  8. Aviator_ 18 January 2020 13: 51 New
    • 5
    • 1
    +4
    Really ambiguous personality. I recalled the biography of Mehlis, also a man who was absolutely devoted to the idea, but thanks to the literary works, in particular, of K. Simonov, presented in a negative form. Nevertheless, Mehlis among the rank and file had great authority, in particular, was merciless to suppliers, which is very reminiscent of the situation with Salzman with a path to the entrance and boots.
  9. Andrzej k 18 January 2020 15: 19 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    In the photo in front of Zaltsman - N. N. Polikarpov? or just someone similar?
    1. Evgeny Fedorov 18 January 2020 18: 16 New
      • 6
      • 1
      +5
      Yes, Polikarpov. And also in the photo Ilyushin and Grabin. This is who at first glance you can recognize.
      1. Reptiloid 19 January 2020 06: 28 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: Yevgeny Fedorov
        Yes, Polikarpov. And also in the photo Ilyushin and Grabin. This is who at first glance you can recognize.

        Well, just great photos.
  10. iouris 18 January 2020 16: 21 New
    • 1
    • 2
    -1
    Our king rules wisely, and also sews a little bit ...
  11. Prisoner 18 January 2020 20: 37 New
    • 4
    • 2
    +2
    Just the "king" ?! Someone saw anti-Semitism in the article. Well, really! On the contrary, an attempt was made to appoint new "heroes" by May 9. what
  12. Mihail55 19 January 2020 06: 13 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Thanks to the author for the article! It is time to already know our relatively recent history thoroughly. VICTORY was also forged in the rear. From managers also meant a lot .....
  13. Jarserge 19 January 2020 15: 21 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    The article is interesting. Only here the author somehow circumvents the topic of what happened to the director and why. Here, extracts from the materials of the investigation and the verdict would be appropriate. And it turns out how the case was destroyed at the Khrushchev thaw, a certificate of rehabilitation (saint) was put in, and now you can blame everything on "Stalinist arbitrariness." Even with the great designer Tupolev getting into the "sharashka", not everything is so simple. And we continue to see everything in two colors, and even evaluate the events of TOGO time from the standpoint of the current tolerance and forgiveness .... In those days, the commissar and the worker could "sit down". Say the error of the investigation, perhaps everything is as it is now.
    1. Sergej1972 20 January 2020 09: 31 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      What is the consequence and the verdict? Zaltsman was never tried or arrested. Stalin instructed him not to touch. He was removed from his post in 1949 and expelled from the party for not fulfilling the plan for the production of tractors at ChTZ, delaying the technical re-equipment of the plant and the "nobility". There were no political charges. The party was restored in 1955. But state awards did not deprive him.
      1. Jarserge 20 January 2020 10: 51 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Lucky. Merits exceeded misconduct. Thanks did not know.
  14. sevtrash 19 January 2020 19: 20 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Surely there were organizational abilities, otherwise I would not have lasted so long and there would have been no awards. He also probably knew how to "communicate" with his superiors and found enemies of the people, without which he would not have survived at that time either.
  15. nnz226 19 January 2020 21: 54 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    I will not say 100%, but there is information that it was Zaltsman who did not allow the KV-1 tank to be developed in order to put a more powerful gun on it (107 mm). And it turned out to be a heavy tank with a "stub" of 76 mm. For 1941, it may be enough, but at the very first collision with the Tigers near Leningrad in the winter of 1942-43, the KV-1 with its butts suffered a terrible defeat.
    1. Alexey RA 20 January 2020 18: 59 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: nnz226
      I will not say 100%, but there is information that it was Zaltsman who did not allow the KV-1 tank to be developed in order to put a more powerful gun on it (107 mm).

      On the contrary - Zaltsman threw all the forces of the LKZ into the KV with a 107-mm gun (KV-3), at the cost of stopping all work to eliminate the shortcomings of the KV. He argued that it was easier and faster to make a new car without the drawbacks that are on HF - than to bring to mind the serial HF.
      As a result, the army before the war did not receive fully operational combat-ready HFs with "small" and "large" towers - with the same bunch of flaws as on the first series of vehicles.

      However, not only Zaltsman suffered from this - the Kharkiv also put everything on the T-34M, in every possible way delaying the UKN on the serial T-34.
  16. Sergej1972 20 January 2020 09: 35 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    About the "gentry". Apparently, the youngest Stalin commissar D.F. Ustinov, too, was inclined to him. And he himself loved to live in comfort, and helped relatives with the improvement of living conditions. And this was in Stalin's times, and not in Khrushchev's or Brezhnev's. Which does not detract from his merits as the organizer of the defense industry.
  17. Mikhail3 20 January 2020 13: 56 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    I did not see anything at all that did not have to be done. All the "ambiguous" actions that this person took were justified, although not the only methods for solving problems. Since under socialism there was a distinct lack of means of stimulating labor activity, and there was no time to study such means at all, then we had to act in the war.
    Moreover, putting people into the puddle who were losing working time for sick workers with colds was a very, very mild decision. It was enough to take statistics on the sick, to connect it with the shortcomings of sanitary-hygienic measures and the organization of labor (the absence of those same paths went perfectly) and one could choose to remove the reservation to the front, or simply to the wall.
    A non-launched high-level machine - here I am generally in amazement. The director fully deserved at least the camp. What does it mean - did not enter the technological chain ?! Rave. The machine had to be mastered without any excuses. While they were not able to replace the obsolete ones, they had to prepare for it - train the operator (at least one), carry out training tasks, prepare ways of supply and inclusion in the conveyor ...
    Most likely, after the war, Zaltsman, like many similar military leaders, lost his job because the style of maximum efficiency by the Soviet nomenclature was sabotaged. The war no longer breathed in the back, and everyone wanted to rest. Relax. Do not strain anymore ... Well, that relaxed in the end.
  18. Alexey RA 20 January 2020 17: 52 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Heh heh heh ... why in the biography of Comrade Zaltsman omitted his pre-war activities as director of the LKZ? Especially his role in the supply of the Red Army obviously know-how KV tanks?
    According to the materials of tests carried out over 10 months on 5 cars with a total mileage of 5270 km, it can be seen that the characteristic defects that are repeated on each tested machine are:
    1. Bad air filter of the motor, the filter must be done different.
    2. The efficiency of the engine cooling system is low.
    3. Weak gearbox, you need to do a new one.
    4. Unreliable in-flight clutches.
    5. Inadequate brakes (often burn out, difficult to adjust).
    6. It is necessary to modify the chassis in the direction of its strengthening (rollers, tracks, torsion shaft).
    (...)
    In addition to the above, the machine has a lot of minor defects, flaws, deviations from the drawings, which are not worth talking about ...
    (...)
    I believe that at the moment it is impossible to call the car combat-ready due to the above defects. It can only be sent to the army as a training one, and not as a combat one.
    (...)
    The plant does not take the required radical measures to eliminate defects, but easily feasible half measures, or does nothing at all. For example, instead of hard work on improving the components in the gearbox (it has weak gears, some bearings are unreliable, the pump does not work well), the plant improved the heat treatment of several gears. Test results showed the absurdity of this event.
    (...)
    This attitude to the refinement of the machine is explained by the fact that the plant threw all its forces, means and tricks into the formal execution of the program, completely ignoring the quality of the machine and the need to eliminate serious tank defects during production. For example, failure to implement the July program led to the fact that the director of the plant comrade On August 1, Zaltsman gave a false message to the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks that 15 cars were handed over, while 13 cars were not accepted by military acceptance with a number of defects to be eliminated. Several cars were not even in the control military mission. In addition, the towers did not rotate on the machines during the roll. All these vehicles are currently not ready (by August 12), have not been accepted by military acceptance and are unlikely to be received in the next 10-15 days. This fact indicates that the plant is not at all worried about the quality of the machine, it wants to execute the program formally, and the director is engaged in fraud.
    (...)
    The machine without sufficient testing and elimination of identified defects was launched into mass production.

    © Letter of the representative of military acceptance at the Kirov plant of a military engineer of the 3rd rank Kalivoda to Mehlis. August 12, 1940.

    ICH, the Mehlis commission arrived at the plant confirmed everything that was written in the letter. Moreover, facts of impudent and unprofessional were revealed at LKZ smile Reporting fraud:
    Acts of delivery of cars of the July issue were signed by the Head of the Quality Control Department of the shop, the head of the 1st department and the head of the assembly shop on the days of delivery of cars under the seal to the military representative of ABTU, i.e. dated 23.08; the military representative of ABTU, Comrade Shpitanov, did not sign these acts with the date “23.08”, but instructed the secretary of the production department to clean these dates and print a new “31.07”, which was printed in the secret department of the plant. At the same time, the previously signed acts of Comrade Landsberg and Comrade Abramov were not informed of the correction of the date of registration of the products.
    The clean-up on the acts is clearly visible and, in addition, on these acts there is a date from the preparation by the typist of the Secret Department - “06.08”.

    So what? But nothing - Zaltsman remained the director, and then became the people's commissar.
    1. Mikhail3 21 January 2020 12: 08 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Alexey RA
      In addition to the above, the machine has a lot of minor defects, flaws, deviations from the drawings, which are not worth talking about ...

      In addition to this strange line, ALL of these defects relate to the design of the tank, and not to its manufacture, that is, not to the plant but to the design bureau. And here it is:
      Quote: Alexey RA
      The plant does not take the required radical measures to eliminate defects, but easily feasible half measures, or does nothing at all. For example, instead of hard work on improving the components in the gearbox (it has weak gears, some bearings are unreliable, the pump does not work well), the plant improved the heat treatment of several gears. Test results showed the absurdity of this event.

      generally extravaganza. The box is designed weak. In response, the plant did everything in its power - it improved (!!) the heat treatment of steel gears. And what? The factory is "to blame" for the poor construction of the box, and the improvement in heat treatment ... to pubs ... is absurd. Apparently the inspector knew well that Stalin did not have a technical education, and he would not catch these nuances. Fortunately, Stalin had enough intelligence not to believe one inspector ...
      Here is a fake act - this is extremely serious. It’s even interesting - why didn’t the directors be punished? After all, the "bloody NKVD" directly shot everyone around right and left? There were, you see, some circumstances ... I suspect that in general it was necessary to shoot half the design bureau, but this leadership did not go, and if so, what should the director be as an extreme?
      1. Alexey RA 21 January 2020 12: 26 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: Mikhail3
        In addition to this strange line, ALL of these defects relate to the design of the tank, and not to its manufacture, that is, not to the plant but to the design bureau.

        More precisely, to SKB-2 of the Leningrad Kirov Plant. KV developed the factory design bureau LKZ. So all claims for design flaws also apply to LKZ.
        Quote: Mikhail3
        The box is designed weak. In response, the plant did everything in its power - it improved (!!) the heat treatment of steel gears. And what? The factory is "to blame" for the poor construction of the box, and the improvement in heat treatment ... to pubs ... is absurd.

        The plant just did not do everything in its power. LKZ reacted to the elimination of the drawback formally: instead of eliminating a constructive defect by the factory design bureau (which was the author of the checkpoint) and further transferring new drawings to production, the plant simply threw everything at the production workers. The term “absurdity” also refers to this: what is the use of changing heat treatment if it is not a matter of quality of parts, but of design.
        Developed tank LKZ. And the plant also bears responsibility for the design flaws of the tank.
        Due to the fact that SKB-2 is now engaged in the development of other new models and due to the fact that there are generally few workers for this amount of work, essentially no serious work is being done on finalizing the KV machine.
        The machine without sufficient testing and elimination of identified defects was launched into mass production. Thus, the elimination of such major defects that the machine has is associated with great difficulties in the sense of breaking the process and executing the program.
        The lack of checked and approved drawings and technical conditions makes it impossible to modify the machine and make confusion in the work of production, quality control and military acceptance.
        It is worth mentioning another curious fact, which received at the time of the arrival at the Kirov plant commissar ABTU KA military engineer 2 ranks comrade Makarova. He asked me how many items were left in the list of design changes. I replied: "60", to which he said that this could not be. But when all those present assured him of this, he said that he would not approve the list until 6-8 points remained in it. So, purely mechanically reduced the number of items in the list, as if from this the content of the work decreased. Such a mechanical operation with a decrease in the number of items on the list, obviously, he needed for the report.
  19. alexey alexeyev_2 21 January 2020 12: 29 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    And I would have put it immediately against the wall. All the forces rested against installing a more powerful gun on the KV tanks .. Although by that time the Red Army was armed with such guns ..
    1. Alexey RA 21 January 2020 14: 50 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: alexey alexeyev_2
      And I would have put it immediately against the wall. All the forces rested against installing a more powerful gun on the KV tanks .. Although by that time the Red Army was armed with such guns ..

      And what more powerful tank guns were in service with the Red Army by that time? wink
      Grabinskaya pre-war 85-mm shooting test failed (crack in the breech, unbalanced design). Because of this, by the way, the KV-220, when transferred to the troops, had to be rearmament to the regular KV tower.
      The Grabinskaya 107 mm brought to the series appeared only after the outbreak of war, when there were no new tanks - it was necessary to increase the output of what was already in the series and for which there was a CD and TD.

      And Salzman rested for a reason - look at how hard the T-150, T-220 and KV-3 tests were. When all the conditions of the technical and technical requirements were fulfilled, the mass of the tank with a 107-mm cannon stubbornly sought 70 tons, which the suspension and transmission of mod. 1941.
      No matter how the tests end, you can easily see the torment experienced by the designers and testers of the lighter T-220. Where it would have come to an understanding that there is nothing to pull out such a monster and it is problematic to transport it by rail. In the end, not every bridge could withstand such a colossus. Fill our tank industry and military bumps in 1941, tormented by the KV-3, would not even think about any IS-7 or IS-4. The understanding that a heavy tank should not be “fed” to a mass of more than 50 tons could have appeared in the early 40s, and not in 1949, after 4 years of torment with the IS-4 and IS-7. Unfortunately, history does not operate with subjunctive moods.
      © Y. Pasholok
      1. alexey alexeyev_2 21 January 2020 16: 41 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Why, the Germans didn’t hesitate to change their shoes and take off some equipment when transporting them by rail. Yes, installing a more powerful weapon on it would be a good breakthrough tank. Well, at least ... 122mm A-19 cannon .. The cannon is simpler than the turnip .. Technological in production is unpretentious in operation. Well, it would have become harder .. Yes, and the Germans could not do anything with the weight of their tiger ...
        1. Alexey RA 22 January 2020 14: 13 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: alexey alexeyev_2
          But the Germans didn’t hesitate to change their tiger and take off some equipment when transported by train.

          The Tiger weighed 57 tons. And KV-3 - as much as 68 tons.
          To transport this monster by train, you need to remove "some equipment", but at least a tower. And then look for a crane at the place of unloading for its reverse installation. smile Or you have to do multi-axis special platforms for KV-3.
          And this I have not yet touched on the topic of evacuation and the fleet of tractors of the Red Army Remba. In one of the mechanized corps, the damaged HFs were dragged to the station by nine tractors, spending about a dozen kilometers for almost a day. belay
          Quote: alexey alexeyev_2
          Yes, install a more powerful weapon on it would be a good breakthrough tank. Well, at least ... 122mm A-19 cannon .. The cannon is simpler than a steamed turnip.

          For KV-3 there was a gun - 107 mm ZIS-6. Grabin at least, but made 6 guns at the time of termination of its release.
          Will the A-19 get onto the ZIS-6 seats? Will the rollback fit into the dimensions of the tower? Or it will be necessary to put the muzzle brake again, for which the infantry did not like the IS-2 (U. M. Svirin wrote that, according to the recollections of tank paratroopers, they always had to follow in battle - where the tank’s gun was sent ... and God forbid to be on the side-back of the DT).
          Quote: alexey alexeyev_2
          Well, he would have become harder.

          KV-3 with 107-mm ZIS-6 and so weighed 68 tons. How much harder?
          Do we have bridges with a g / n of more than 70 tons? Or ferries of a regular pontoon fleet?