Military Review

Soviet chemical tanks with a smoke device TDP-3

46
Soviet chemical tanks with a smoke device TDP-3
Chemical tank HT-18. On the beam of the "tail" installed device TDP-3


In the early thirties, work was carried out in the USSR on the so-called chemical armored vehicles capable of infecting and degassing the area or placing smoke screens. Soon, the so-called removable tank TDP-3 smoke device, with the help of which it was possible to create several types of chemical tanks with minimal effort. Some of them were able to reach exploitation in the army.

Product TDP-3


Early designs of chemical armored vehicles had a significant drawback. They proposed the construction of equipment from scratch or a significant alteration of finished samples, which did not allow to simplify production. In this regard, a new concept soon appeared, providing for the production of a universal chemical device suitable for installation on different platforms.

In 1932 (according to other sources, only in 1933) the Moscow Compressor plant created the first such set of equipment under the name “TDP-3 tank smoke device”. The complete assembly weighed 152 kg and had the smallest possible volumes. This made it possible to mount it on any existing tanks or vehicles. Different carriers could receive either one or two sets. In the latter case, minor pipeline processing was envisaged.

The main element of the TDP-3 device was a cylindrical metal cylinder with a capacity of 40 l, designed to store liquid "payload" of all permissible types. They used a cylinder for compressed gas, which creates pressure for the supply of chemicals, a spray device, a set of tubes, pressure gauges, etc.

The simplest version of the TDP-3 included the installation of all devices on the largest tank. It was also possible to rearrange the kit with the installation of parts together or at a distance from each other - depending on the characteristics of the carrier machine.


Chemical modification of the two-tower T-26, rear view

Using compressed gas from a cylinder or compressor of the machine, a working pressure of 8 to 15 kgf / sq.cm was created in the system. In this pressure range, 40 l of liquid was enough for 8-8,5 minutes of operation. When driving at a speed of 10-12 km / h, a chemical armored vehicle with 40 liters of mixture could process a section up to 1600-1700 m long.

Like other kits, TDP-3 could use different liquids. Using this device, it was possible to spray BWA or liquid for degassing. Also used to create a smoke screen. Regardless of the type of liquid, the principles of operation of the device were the same.

Chemical tank HT-18


The first carrier of the TDP-3 kit was the HT-18 chemical tank. This sample was created in 1932 by the Institute of Chemical Defense under the guidance of engineers of Prigorodsky and Kalinin. The HT-18 was built by equipping the serial tank with a new universal device.

The base was taken by the light infantry tank T-18 / MS-1 arr. 1930. At that time, it was one of the main armored vehicles of the Red Army, and it was proposed to use it for various purposes. The HT-18 project retained almost all the components and assemblies of the tank and added new ones. The TDP-3 smoke device was placed on the upper beam of the so-called tail. Chemical equipment was located behind the stern sheet, and from the attacks from the front corners it was covered by the tank body.

In the fighting compartment, at the commander’s workplace, a simple control panel was installed. The nebulizers were driven by a sector with a lever, which was responsible for the intensity of the aerosol emission.

The HT-18 chemical tank lost a 37-mm gun in the tower; machine gun weapons remained the same. Otherwise, it was as similar as possible to the base T-18. Due to this, the chemical and linear tanks did not differ from each other in mobility, security, etc.


Experienced HBT-5

In 1932, the Institute of Chemical Defense, with the assistance of the Compressor plant, built the first and only experimental HT-18 tank. He was sent to the Scientific and Research Chemical Testing Ground of the Chemistry Improvement Courses for Commanding Officers (NIHP KhKUKS).

The KhT-18 passed the tests and showed the main tactical and technical characteristics at the level of the base sample. Accurate data on the TDP-3 tests are not available. The smoke appliance could probably do its job, but its characteristics were limited. The KhT-18 carried only 40 liters of chemicals, while other experimental chemical armored vehicles of that time had a stock of 800-1000 liters.

According to the test results, the HT-18 chemical tank did not receive recommendations for adoption. At the same time, his target equipment was considered suitable for use in new projects, and soon these ideas were put into practice. It should be noted that during this period the smoke instrument had to face competition: in parallel, other sets of similar purpose were created and tested.

Experienced T-26 with TDP-3


In January 1933, two variants of chemical tanks with TDP-3 devices were immediately proposed by the Compressor Design Bureau. Two new models were built on a different base and had similar target equipment. The first of the new armored vehicles was to be built on the basis of the light tank T-26 in a two-turret version. This sample did not receive its own designation and remained in stories as the “T-26 chemical tank with the TDP-3 device."

In July 1933, the Experimental Plant Spetsmashtresta them. CM. Kirov assembled an experimental T-26 with TDP-3. The work was completed in the shortest possible time, since a serious alteration of the tank was not required. The standard weapons were removed from the towers of the experimental T-26, two sets of TDP-3 were mounted on the aft of the fenders, and control sectors were installed in the fighting compartment.

Chemical devices were used in their original configuration. A cylinder was attached to the shelf, on which the remaining parts were located, including sprayers. Using a pair of pipes, the TDP-3 was connected to the inhabited compartment of the tank; they housed cable management wiring. The presence of two cylinders with chemicals allowed to increase the duration or intensity of spraying.


The same car, rear view. Clear placement of smoke appliances

The performance characteristics of the tank after the alteration as a whole have not changed. The installation of two sets with a total mass of more than 300 kg was partially offset by the lack of weapons. By mobility, protection, etc. T-26 with TDP-3 devices was not inferior to similar machines in the basic configuration.

The military tests of the experimental T-26 with two TDP-3 continued until October 1933. Specialists of the Red Army did not recommend this model for adoption. Probably, the capacity of regular cylinders for mixtures was again considered insufficient. In addition, a significant problem was the open placement of cylinders, which, unlike the KhT-18, were not covered by the armor of the carrier tank.

Chemical tank HBT-5


In parallel with the T-26 restructuring project, the installation of chemical equipment on the latest BT-5 wheeled-tracked tank was being worked out. This modification of the machine was called HBT-5. As before, the project was not difficult.

The HBT-5 chemical tank received two TDP-3 smoke devices, newly placed in the stern on the fenders. The kits were open and without reservation. In addition, they were outside the frontal projection of the hull and tower. TDP-3 devices were connected to the fighting compartment of the tank using pipes with control cables. Since the BT-5 used the same chemical equipment as the T-26, the characteristics of contamination or degassing, as well as smoke, remained the same.

During the construction of the experimental HBT-5 tank, the standard cannon weapons were removed from the existing BT-5 machine. In the swinging installation of the tower there was only a DT machine gun. Removing the gun and installing smoke devices led to the preservation of driving performance.


Refueling a smoke device on the HBT-5 tank

In the same 1933, the HBT-5 tank was tested at the KhKUKS NIHP. Due to the platform in the form of BT-5, such a machine was superior to other models in mobility, however, TDP-3 again showed limited capabilities. With all this, HBT-5 was considered suitable for further development with a view to adoption.

In 1936, the original HBT-5 project was slightly revised, after which the serial restructuring of the linear tanks began. Ground forces received a number of TDP-3 products; they had to independently mount them on existing tanks. According to various sources, no more than a few dozen linear BT-5s received such equipment.

Serial HBT-5, rebuilt by military workshops, remained in service until the start of World War II. At the time of the German attack, the Red Army had about 12-13 of these machines. Like chemical armored vehicles of other types, they participated in battles as carriers of cannon-machine gun weapons and did not use chemical equipment.

New designs


In the same 1933, the TDP-3 device was experimentally mounted on a T-35 tank, and again the results were far from expected. The already known problems reappeared, limiting the prospects of a new model. At the same time, the carrier tank gave some advantages.

The TDP-3 product and equipment with its use were of limited interest to the Red Army. As a result of testing several chemical tanks, a demand arose to create a new kit with improved characteristics, and soon the industry introduced such a project. A new sample of a tank smoke device was tested on the T-35 and received more interesting results.
Author:
Photos used:
Solyankin A. G., Pavlov M. V., Pavlov I. V., Zheltov I. G. “Domestic armored vehicles. XX century”, Vol. 1; Kolomiets M.V. "Light tanks BT." Flying tank "1930"
46 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, daily additional materials that do not get on the site: https://t.me/topwar_ru

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Kote Pan Kokhanka
    Kote Pan Kokhanka 17 March 2020 18: 12
    +2
    The topic is narrow, but very interesting. I hope to attract advanced members of the forum who will share information in their comments.
  2. polpot
    polpot 17 March 2020 18: 29
    +1
    Thank you, I hope there will be a continuation.
  3. svp67
    svp67 17 March 2020 19: 14
    +6
    That is what surprises in our pre-war construction of tank forces, so this is some kind of unevenness and "drifts to the side". "Chemical tanks" - yes, please, more than a dozen models, "remotely controlled tanks" - yes, the first in the world, "command tanks" - please, "tank tractors" - like something later, "advanced armored points of art and aircraft controllers" - "but sho tse take? " All this shows gaps in the theory of the use of tank troops in the pre-war period.
    1. Svarog51
      Svarog51 17 March 2020 20: 27
      +11
      Namesake hi I crossed my fingers for you. I have no objections. But they’ll fly.
      1. svp67
        svp67 17 March 2020 20: 35
        +3
        hi
        Quote: Svarog51
        But they’ll fly.

        It's still early ... the weather is "non-flying"
      2. Kote Pan Kokhanka
        Kote Pan Kokhanka 17 March 2020 20: 50
        +3
        Hello to the venerable company!
        [
        . All this shows gaps in the theory of the use of tank troops in the pre-war period.

        Namesake hi I crossed my fingers for you. I have no objections. But they’ll fly.

        Let them fly!
        Sergey is right, the tank school of the pre-war USSR had vulnerabilities. And I think it makes no sense to blame purely our theorists and designers. At the crossroads were all members of the tank club. And if you take it in a circle, at the beginning of World War II everyone stepped on the rake of their ideas about the tank war. Some only before, like Germany, others only once like Poland.
        1. Svarog51
          Svarog51 18 March 2020 03: 23
          +9
          Vladislav hi The developments are clear. Only one question "gnaws" me - the tanks were not sealed then, there was no anti-radiation protection. And if the wind changes direction? How to protect the crew? And still they did not stop, they worked out.
          1. tank64rus
            tank64rus 18 March 2020 10: 04
            +2
            Therefore, in parallel with this, remote-controlled tanks were developed, on which it was planned to install the developed chemical devices.
            1. Svarog51
              Svarog51 18 March 2020 14: 09
              +8
              For the installation of a smoke curtain and for the degassing of any object - it is quite, but to carry out a chemical attack at that control range and the reliability of equipment - it is very dangerous for crews of control tanks.
          2. svp67
            svp67 18 March 2020 20: 00
            +1
            Quote: Svarog51
            How to protect the crew?

            Protective stockings, an apron, gloves and a cape are intended to protect the corresponding parts of the body from skin-blasting agents in a drip-liquid form. All of these tools and the anti-chemical package were in a special tank of the tanker’s tank crew, which was armed with the tank crew.




            http://pro-tank.ru/tanki-v-bou/posobie-for-tankist/119-glava-6-voenno-himitheskoe-delo/425-3-sredstva-protivohimicheskoj-zashtity
            1. Svarog51
              Svarog51 18 March 2020 20: 25
              +8
              OZK does not give 100%, and then? request It’s dumb. yes
              1. svp67
                svp67 18 March 2020 20: 35
                +1
                Quote: Svarog51
                OZK does not give 100%, and then?

                Well, sho mali ... And there was also a TDP ... for de-gasification
                1. Svarog51
                  Svarog51 18 March 2020 20: 50
                  +7
                  You may not have time to apply. HLF then it was not.
                  1. svp67
                    svp67 19 March 2020 04: 12
                    +1
                    Quote: Svarog51
                    You may not have time to apply. HLF then it was not.

                    Well, thank God for the practical use in combat situations of these machines with BOVs did not reach ...
                    1. Svarog51
                      Svarog51 19 March 2020 04: 33
                      +6
                      Actually, and for its intended purpose - nothing outstanding happened. Lost in border battles. In that confusion, this was to be expected. There was no time either for training control crews or equipment. Even put a smoke curtain - we must try.
                      1. svp67
                        svp67 19 March 2020 10: 18
                        +2
                        Quote: Svarog51
                        Actually, and for its intended purpose - nothing outstanding happened.

                        Well, why, from the "chemical" tanks appeared "flamethrower", they were the same in the chemical service ...
                      2. Svarog51
                        Svarog51 19 March 2020 12: 12
                        +4
                        Well, flamethrowers are not like teletanks, but on the basis of linemen with a crew? I studied electric drive at a university, and I can hardly grasp how it was possible without modern means to control a weapon, move, and most importantly - aim. More German "Goliaths" with control by wire and electric propulsion are understandable. And here is how ours implemented it, and even over the radio channel request
    2. Paranoid50
      Paranoid50 17 March 2020 20: 54
      +8
      Quote: svp67
      "Chemical tanks" - yes, please, more than a dozen models, "remotely controlled tanks" - yes, the first in the world, "command tanks" - please, "tank tractors" - like something later, "advanced armored points of art and aircraft controllers" - "but sho tse take? " All this shows gaps in the theory of the use of tank troops in the pre-war period.

      However, they went their own way, special. But they did. yes Yes, and what is it now to grieve - but what a scope for modelism ... fellow "Trumpetter" is no longer in time. laughing
      1. Svarog51
        Svarog51 18 March 2020 03: 05
        +10
        but what a scope for modelism.

        Alexander hi Well, at least insert one picture, please. Share your wealth visually. It is a pity that the "Hobby" branch was never opened. request
        1. Paranoid50
          Paranoid50 18 March 2020 07: 12
          +7
          Quote: Svarog51
          Share wealth visually.

          hi So the thing is, Sergey, that if you insert something, it’s exclusively on the topic. Unfortunately, I don’t have any chemicals yet. request But for now. yes
          1. Svarog51
            Svarog51 18 March 2020 08: 13
            +8
            I will wait for a suitable topic. yes
            P.S. It makes sense to release a small set to complement the previously released model. It seems that model firms practice this?
            1. svp67
              svp67 18 March 2020 20: 31
              +2
              Quote: Svarog51
              It seems that model firms practice this?

              My friend does it himself ... And already 3-D printing what prospects it has ...
              1. Svarog51
                Svarog51 18 March 2020 20: 46
                +7
                Alexander is just engaged in modeling, but I don’t know about the 3D printer at his disposal. It is very interesting to see if this happens, what he will create. I think something is very interesting.
                1. svp67
                  svp67 19 March 2020 04: 32
                  +2
                  Quote: Svarog51
                  It is very interesting to see if this happens, what he will create.

                  Well, my friend with 3-d while "fills his hand" and rolls around the technology, here I am at 23 such a "panzer" "waved without looking" laughing


                  1. Svarog51
                    Svarog51 19 March 2020 04: 50
                    +6
                    It is quite good Still to color it. Here are just a few movable joints, as I understand it, only the tower rotates? Prefabricated models in this case are more advanced. But the cylinder with the BOW for the T-18 on the printer is just that.
                    P.S. And what is the name of the owner of the soft paws in the bottom picture?
                    1. svp67
                      svp67 19 March 2020 10: 10
                      +2
                      Quote: Svarog51
                      P.S. And what is the name of the owner of the soft paws in the bottom picture?

                      This is "Duncan of the Kotlaud clan" fellow

                      Quote: Svarog51
                      . Here are just a few movable joints, as I understand it, only the tower rotates?

                      Well this is a test, and the scale is small, the "panzer" itself is a little more than a matchbox, but the detail is good, and the grandson will play itself
                      1. Svarog51
                        Svarog51 19 March 2020 12: 01
                        +5
                        How pretty good
                        This is a test, and the scale is small

                        I understood that when I compared it with Duncan's paw. For a child, that’s it.
                        Sergey, I used to print photos on ordinary inkjet printers. Highly expensive ink for them. Raw materials for 3D as in this matter?
                      2. svp67
                        svp67 19 March 2020 13: 12
                        +2
                        Quote: Svarog51
                        Raw materials for 3D as in this matter?

                        I honestly don’t know, but I’m interested. There it is in the form of a wire made of plastic, wound on a bobbin
                      3. Svarog51
                        Svarog51 19 March 2020 13: 18
                        +6
                        Yes, I asked about the price of this wire, because in print printers ink cost more than human blood. A cartridge was enough for a hundred shots of everything.
                      4. svp67
                        svp67 19 March 2020 13: 31
                        +2
                        Quote: Svarog51
                        otherwise, printers cost more than human blood inks. A cartridge was enough for a hundred shots of everything.

                        It was so. Comrade, instead of replaceable cartridges, from China ordered a "cartridge station" to reduce costs. Like this ... something like that
                      5. Svarog51
                        Svarog51 19 March 2020 13: 42
                        +6
                        I saw such people, and they are now using them for photo printing. It’s not advisable to buy such a thing for the house, it should pay for itself and work constantly, otherwise the print head will become clogged. So I wanted to know how 3D is with this?
                      6. svp67
                        svp67 19 March 2020 13: 46
                        +2
                        Quote: Svarog51
                        So I wanted to know how 3D is with this?

                        How do I get the info, I’ll immediately report, I won’t hide anything ...
                      7. Svarog51
                        Svarog51 19 March 2020 13: 51
                        +7
                        Got it, I won’t bother anymore. Waiting patiently.
          2. Svarog51
            Svarog51 19 March 2020 04: 08
            +6
            Alexander, and the topic is of interest to members of the forum and is of vital interest. good
            P.S. At least - reflected. With Fleet Admiral drinks
    3. Lopatov
      Lopatov 17 March 2020 22: 01
      +5
      Quote: svp67
      advanced armored items art

      It didn't make sense.
      Firstly, the system itself was built in such a way that tankers had to cope with artillery fire control themselves. And probable shoals in the depths will be cleaned up by "artillery escort aircraft (SST)" and "forward observers in tanks"
      Secondly, artillery at that time was much less mobile than tanks.
      1. svp67
        svp67 18 March 2020 00: 04
        +2
        Quote: Spade
        Secondly, artillery at that time was much less mobile than tanks.

        I disagree. Just at that time there were "tests of the pen" in the creation of an ACS and we did the same work and samples were created, both experimental and military series. But even if the artillery is discarded, but the aviation? After all, it was just then that the question of supporting tank and mechanized formations with assault aviation was being worked out, which in our country then began to develop "by leaps and bounds"
      2. Avior
        Avior 18 March 2020 01: 27
        +1
        And they were needed for tankers
        Armored posts for this purpose were used in the First World War.
        https://ru.m.wikisource.org/wiki/ВЭ/ВТ/Бронепост
        But the tankers needed mobile, with the protection of observers and spotters.
        The tank was of little use for this because of the very limited visibility, so they tried to make something like a moving armored post
  4. Kerensky
    Kerensky 18 March 2020 22: 33
    0
    The Baltic OVR was also a snowmobile for staging a smoke curtain, but regular checkers were used there.
    This is generally an unusual approach. Remove the cannon (and the ammunition) and fence the cylinders ON the armor ... Is there really not enough space under the skin?
    Well, take the same BT (about the T-35 modestly silent), after dismantling the cannon weapons there you can prettyly cram.
    1. Svarog51
      Svarog51 19 March 2020 04: 26
      +6
      They used T-26s for teletanks, and it was necessary to foresee a bunch of everything. The whole signal is analog. And how to load a gun and a machine gun? T-35 in total about 60 pieces released, 3 guns and 9 machine guns in 5 towers. Who will give it up for experiments? request
      1. Kerensky
        Kerensky 19 March 2020 06: 01
        0
        They used T-26s for teletanks, and it was necessary to foresee a bunch of everything. The whole signal is analog. And how to load a gun and a machine gun?

        Why charge if it was dismantled? We are talking about a chemical tank. If he is a teletank, then he doesn’t need trunks - how can he aim?
        Oh! Heirs of the Ostekhbyuro ....
        In the tank it is necessary to leave a place for a mechanical driver (and so that the remote control does not interfere with it especially), a place for radio control. The rest is overboard.
        And then stuff the cylinders "under the skin".
        Actually, they were used in the "TV version" to undermine the gouges in Talvisota.
        Who will give it up for experiments?


        In the same 1933, the TDP-3 device was experimentally mounted on a T-35 tank
        1. Svarog51
          Svarog51 19 March 2020 06: 24
          +5
          It is difficult, expensive and very unpredictable at that time. Only for the accumulation of experience. This is how an explosive transporter is used to undermine a bunker - the idea is sound and the smoke curtain will not be superfluous. Actually, the research continued along this path. The good news is that WWII did not use BOW. Well, the T-35 is too big for the platform. IMHO. The dimensions are large, and the armor is bulletproof. Half a ton of explosives to drive up to the bunker and the BT chassis is enough.
          1. Kerensky
            Kerensky 19 March 2020 06: 38
            0
            Well, the T-35 is too big for the platform. IMHO. The dimensions are large, and the armor is bulletproof.

            Well, he looks like a tank. This is a mobile bunker. His job is to crawl into the open caponier on the top of the hill and burrow along the tower.
            This is how an explosive transporter is used to undermine a bunker - the idea is sound and the smoke curtain will not be superfluous. Actually, the research continued along this path.

            And one another interfered. The smoke curtain reliably hid the tank, first of all, from the operator. Throw out half a ton of explosives on the ground near the floor wall of the bunker and ... to sip? It will look beautiful, a shirt will open, no more. But getting to that same floor wall is a problem. Funnels, gouges, mines ... Yes, all this under the snow ...
            1. Svarog51
              Svarog51 19 March 2020 06: 58
              +6
              Caponier for the T-35 - that is still work, there was no engineering equipment. And according to the concept of use, they were considered as vehicles for the qualitative strengthening of the advancing troops.
              Secretly getting to the bunker without smoke is a very difficult task. It is unlikely to be able to overcome gouges, mines and artillery fire having so many explosives and bulletproof armor on board.
              The main positive point in the creation of such a technique, I consider the idea itself and the developments on it. In the end, they led to modern robotic systems.
              1. Kerensky
                Kerensky 19 March 2020 07: 29
                0
                And according to the concept of use, they were considered as vehicles for the qualitative strengthening of the advancing troops.

                Nonsense of Tukhachevsky. Or disguise the destination. Which T-35 amplifier? Drag him to the source, that's another problem.
                But to give him a sapper platoon, and a company of ordinary infantry ... Yes, stick in the steppe on the mound (five days for equipment positions), then he would have no price .. For the offensive, the T-28 was suitable. And then, with the support of the cavalry. Sorry, the workmanship suffered.
                1. Svarog51
                  Svarog51 19 March 2020 07: 52
                  +5
                  Of course nonsense, but what to do?
                  The T-28 received a screening along Finnish, and the most striking episode was a raid in Minsk in the 41st. They fought under Leningrad and Karelsky until the 44th and showed themselves well. Fortunately, there was where to repair them.
                  1. Kerensky
                    Kerensky 19 March 2020 08: 06
                    0
                    and the most striking episode was

                    From my point of view: abandonment by the T-35 crew "in connection with the failure of the fan drive" ... (here 40 lines of mat) a few days (!) After the occupation of the city by the Germans ...
                    Well, that's me, naughty. The article is about chemical tanks. I didn’t just cite the OVR snowmobile as an example. The tank could drop regular smoke pots in the same sector and have cylinders with chemistry inside.
                    Who among us from the Yenerals has banned the use of fumes during the crossing?