80 years: T-34


Tanks T-34 platoon guards of Lieutenant Pavel Stepanovich Vtorin go to the frontiers of the "attack" during the exercises, photo: waralbum.ru


Exactly 80 years ago, on March 31, 1940, the USSR Defense Committee signed a protocol on the acceptance of serial production of the T-34 medium tank. This decision was of great importance for the country, since the production of a tank began at Soviet factories, which will become one of the symbols of victory in the Great Patriotic War. The T-34 medium tank turned out to be a very successful machine, which Soviet industry could produce even in difficult conditions with the evacuation of factories and the attraction of low-skilled labor (women and children) to the production. Many experts rightly call the "thirty-four" the best tank of the Second World War.

T-34 chief designer Mikhail Ilyich Koshkin gave his life for his tank


The chief designer of the T-34 medium tank literally gave his life for his brainchild. Mikhail Ilyich Koshkin took part in the legendary Kharkiv-Moscow race, in which two T-34 tanks participated. The tanks that arrived in the capital were presented in the Kremlin to the country's top leadership, headed by Stalin. A convoy of two tanks and two Voroshilovets tractors, one of which was equipped for housing, and the second one clogged with various spare parts and tools, advanced from Kharkov on the night of March 5-6.

80 years: T-34

Mikhail Ilyich Koshkin

The tanks entered Moscow without armament and were camouflaged beyond recognition, while the transition for the purpose of conspiracy was carried out far from settlements and even taking into account the movement of trains by rail. Tanks had to overcome 750 kilometers between Kharkov and Moscow outside public roads, while it was forbidden to even use bridges if the tanks could cross water bodies on ice or ford. If this was not possible, bridges could only be used at night. The transition was carried out in very difficult conditions, on the road Mikhail Koshkin got very cold and undermined his health. After completing the run, he contracted pneumonia. The designer was removed one lung and sent for rehabilitation at the factory sanatorium near Kharkov, where he died on September 26, 1940, Mikhail Koshkin at that time was only 41 years old. The chief designer of the T-34 did not see the triumph of his car on the battlefields.

For the whole of 1940, only 115 tanks were manufactured


Although the decision to launch a new medium tank in serial production was made on March 31, 1940, the process of deploying mass production of T-34 at the factory number 183 in Kharkov and at the factory STZ in Stalingrad was difficult. The first tanks were assembled only in June - 4 vehicles, in July only one tank was assembled, and in August - two. And only in September, factory No. 183 managed to produce a marketable number of vehicles - 37 tanks. In total, for the whole of 1940, 115 thirty-four left the factory workshops. Another tank was manufactured at STZ as part of the development of serial production launch. At the same time, the GABTU did not accept this tank.


Experimental tank T-34 No. 2 at factory tests: overcoming a forest area, photo: waralbum.ru

Practically throughout the whole of 1940, Soviet industry only adapted to the release of a new tank, which seriously surpassed the BT-7M and T-26 vehicles in terms of complexity, the production of which was well mastered by tank factories. At that time, the T-34 was really complex and low-tech. At the same time, related industries were slowly mastering the production of new parts, assemblies and assemblies for the T-34 tank. KhPZ itself later handed over the technical documentation for the tank to Stalingrad only in May 1940, and the delivery from Kharkov of tracked tracks for the T-34 to the STZ did not begin until the end of the year.

Two different guns were installed on the T-34-76 tanks


According to the initial design, the T-34 tank was armed with a 76,2 mm gun. A cannon of this caliber remained the main one until the beginning of 1944, when serial production of an updated version of the T-34-85 tank with a new turret for three people and a new 85-mm gun began in the USSR. At the same time, 76,2 mm guns on T-34 tanks of the early release of 1940 and 1941 were different. On the first models of serial tanks mounted gun L-11. This gun was developed taking into account real combat experience in Spain on the basis of the L-10 gun, the barrel length of which was extended to 30,5 caliber. The armor-piercing projectile of this BR-350A gun at a distance of 100 meters had a maximum armor penetration of 66 mm.


Pre-war tanks produced by the plant number 183. From left to right: A-8 (BT-7M), A-20, T-34 mod. 1940 with a gun L-11, T-34 arr. 1941 with the F-34 gun

In total, 11 tanks were produced with the L-458 gun, the last of them in March 1941. At the same time, in March in Kharkov they began to assemble cars with the new F-34 tank gun, in Stalingrad they began to assemble such cars a month later. Externally, the L-11 and F-34 guns differed in barrel length and the form of armoring of the recoil devices. The 76,2-mm F-34 gun with a barrel length of 41 caliber was significantly superior in its characteristics to the L-11 gun. The standard blunt-headed projectile BR-350A provided this weapon with 82-89 mm armor penetration at a distance of 100 meters at an angle of encounter with armor of 90 degrees. A more perfect armor-piercing projectile BR-345P at the same distance under the same conditions ensured penetration of up to 102 mm of armor.

The T-34 tank had flaws


The T-34 tank had flaws, like any other military equipment. Do not assume that the car was perfect. Customer feedback on the tank followed throughout 1940. Among the main problems of the new combat vehicle, the military especially distinguished the "tightness" inside the tower and the "blindness" of the tank on the battlefield, the view from the tower was poor. This is without taking into account complaints about technical malfunctions of the equipment, which at that time was still very “raw”.

In the same 1940, the T-34 tank and two PzKpfw III medium tanks purchased in Germany were tested in Kubinka. The military noted that the Soviet tank was superior to the competitor in armor protection and weapons, yielding in a number of other parameters. The test report stated that two tankers could hardly accommodate in the tower of the T-34 medium tank, one of which at the same time served not only as a gunner, but also as a tank commander, and in some cases as a unit commander. This is a fairly important parameter, because it’s not the equipment that fights, but the people, and if the crew is inconvenient when doing combat work, and the car’s commander is torn between several tasks, this reduces the effectiveness of the entire tank. It was also noted that the PzKpfw III surpasses the T-34 in smoothness and is a less noisy tank. At maximum speed, a German tank could be heard for 200 meters, while the “thirty-four” could be heard for 450 meters. Noted in the report and a more successful suspension PzKpfw III.

Piece production - T-34-57 tank


Back in the spring of 1940, the Red Army raised the question of increasing the effectiveness of the armament of the T-34 and KV-1 tanks, primarily in the fight against enemy tanks. In the same year, the powerful 57 mm anti-tank gun ZIS-2 was officially adopted in service, the tank version of such a gun was designated ZIS-4. The production of T-34 tanks with this gun was planned to begin in the summer of 1941, but for obvious reasons it was not possible to launch mass production. As a result, in September 1941, Kharkov Plant No. 183 manufactured only 10 T-34 tanks armed with a 57-mm ZIS-4 gun (by the way, such vehicles were never officially named T-34-57, like tanks with 76-mm guns never officially called the T-34-76).


T-34 tank with a 57 mm gun

In total, during the war years, the USSR manufactured 14 T-34 tanks armed with a 57-mm gun. 10 tanks manufactured in September 1941 were transferred to the 21st tank brigade from Vladimir. They arrived at the front on October 14 and took part in the battles in the Kalinin area. The last such tank was lost in battles near Moscow on October 30, 1941. At the same time, the 57-mm long-barrel gun with a barrel length of 74 caliber was a very effective anti-tank weapon. In 1941, the ammunition used already ensured armor penetration of up to 82 mm at maximum combat distances and up to 98 mm in close combat. However, in wartime conditions, it was not possible to establish the release of a new and rather complicated tank gun; they did not begin to divert resources to this.

The T-34 tank really influenced German tank building


The T-34 medium tank really influenced German tank building, although they loved to exaggerate this influence in the USSR. For example, one of the myths is related to the fact that, having got acquainted with the Soviet V-2 diesel engine, the Germans wanted to create their own analogue, but they couldn’t drive gasoline engines throughout the war. In fact, projects and models of diesel engines that exceeded the capabilities of the Soviet V-2 were in Germany before the start of World War II, such work was carried out since the mid-1930s, but German tank building was developing in its own way.

In fact, the T-34 had the greatest influence on various German design firms with the geometry of its hull and turret. Also, after inspecting Soviet cars, German designers finally switched to creating 30-ton and heavier tanks. In this case, the Germans, of course, did not do any copying. Outwardly similar to the T-34 VK 30.01 (D) was technically a completely different machine with its own unique features. And the Germans knew about inclined armor long before meeting with Soviet armored vehicles. They actively used this technique on their armored vehicles, but in the tank industry they went a different way, creating tanks in the form of “box on box”, this approach also had its advantages.


T-34 with a 76-mm gun F-34 model 1941 in the museum in Kubinka

Nevertheless, the influence of the T-34 was considerable. For example, the designers of the company "Krupp" with a new force hit the design of tanks with inclined armor and bent armor plates. Also, the early T-34s had a significant impact on the design of towers for German tanks. Until the end of World War II, German designers created a large number of towers on the model of a medium Soviet tank for their military vehicles of various classes: from the VK 16.02 light tank to the heaviest tank in the world stories Mouse.

The most massive tank in history


From 1940 to 1950, Soviet industry in six different plants produced more than 61 thousand T-34 tanks, including the T-34-85 modification and OT-34 flamethrower tanks. Given the licensed production in Czechoslovakia and Poland in the 1950s, the serial production of all modifications of the T-34 medium tank amounted to 65,9 thousand copies. This is an absolute world record. Never in the world has a single tank been built in such a huge series. In the Soviet Union, the production of the T-34-85 model was discontinued only after the start of mass production of the T-54 tank.


Production of T-34 tanks at the plant in Nizhny Tagil

During the Great Patriotic War, the production of T-34 tanks was constantly growing, along with this, the share of medium tanks in the total volume of military vehicles produced in the USSR was also growing. If in 1941 only 1886 T-34 tanks were produced, which accounted for 40 percent of the total production of tanks in the Soviet Union, then already in 1943 five plants produced a total of 15 T-696 tanks, which amounted to 34 percent of the total tank production in the USSR, according to the results of 79, this share has grown to 1944 percent. At the same time, the last T-86 tank with a 34-mm F-76 gun was released by Soviet industry in September 34. In parallel with this, in January 1944, the first production tanks T-1944-112 were assembled at the factory number 34 in Gorky.
Author:
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

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

I have an account? Sign in

  1. The comment was deleted.
    1. The comment was deleted.
  2. The comment was deleted.
    1. The comment was deleted.
  3. infantryman2020 31 March 2020 07: 34 New
    • 3
    • 2
    +1
    Isn't Sherman the most massive?
    1. Romka47 31 March 2020 07: 57 New
      • 11
      • 2
      +9
      There is neither near nor Sherman, nor T-34, T-34 the most massive WWII tank, the most massive tank in the history of mankind with all modifications of the T-54/55 _ (it is also type 59, etc.) the most massive MBT T -72. T-54 is also the most warring and killing tank. Worthy Son 34ki
      1. svp67 31 March 2020 08: 31 New
        • 11
        • 1
        +10
        Quote: Romka47
        No and not close Sherman, and not the T-34,

        M4 "Sherman" - 49, 234 units
        T-34 - 61 362 units, and this is only at the factories of the USSR. Plus, they were released in Czechoslovakia - 2 (736 Czech ČKD Sokolovo and 951 in Slovak Martin) and 1785 in Poland. Total 2 760 units
        Quote: Romka47
        the most massive tank in the history of mankind with all modifications of the T-54/55 _ (it is also type 59, etc.)

        Yes ... taking into account the countries that launched their release, the exact numbers will not be known soon ... But they are very impressive. More than them only Kalashnikov assault rifles were released ...
        1. neri73-r 31 March 2020 08: 54 New
          • 4
          • 0
          +4
          Quote: svp67
          More than them only Kalashnikov assault rifles were released ...

          Well, and probably RPG-7 in all its modifications. Over 9 million units have been released, according to the wiki.
    2. Ponchik78 31 March 2020 08: 17 New
      • 4
      • 0
      +4
      No. About 50000 Shermans of all modifications were released. And the T-34 (also of all modifications), about 65000. This is without taking into account the various self-propelled guns based on them.
  4. Ros 56 31 March 2020 08: 23 New
    • 7
    • 0
    +7
    Honor and glory to M.I.Koshkin, creator of the T-34. This tank gloriously worked in the Second World War, so that the spiteful critics would not talk about it.
    1. svp67 31 March 2020 09: 29 New
      • 9
      • 0
      +9
      Quote: Ros 56
      Honor and glory to M.I.Koshkin, creator of the T-34.

      But do not forget its other creators ... Dick, Fetisov, Tsyganov, Morozov and many others.
  5. The comment was deleted.
  6. Aleksandr72 31 March 2020 09: 45 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    I met information that when in 1943 the Soviet tank troops were faced with the massive use of the German Tigers and Panthers on the front, it turned out that the F-34 tank can’t practically fight them (only with a caliber projectile, which were very few in view of the shortage of tungsten carbide for the manufacture of cores and a large percentage of defects at the same time), tank builders began to look for ways to strengthen the armament of the main Soviet T-34 tank. And attention was again drawn to the 57-mm tank gun ZiS-4. At factory No. 92, it was somewhat modernized - a new modification was called ZiS-4M, according to various sources of such guns, about 1943-170 units were produced in 172. It is not known for certain how many of them were actually installed on the T-34 with a tower-nut (in any case, I did not meet such numbers, they wrote about 10-19 guns sent to the plant, but how many of them were actually installed on the T-34 (in t. h. and during the repair) - God knows). On the use of the T-34 fighter tank with a new / old 57-mm cannon in battle, I met only the following information:
    The new T-34 fighter tanks arrived at the front in August 1943 as part of the “special tank company 100”. The company had three "fighter tanks" that were part of the first platoon. The company’s tanks passed front-line tests from August 15 to September 5, 1943. However, the “fighter tanks” were not lucky. For three weeks, while the company was in the army, German tanks were met only once, and the "fighter tanks" at that moment were in reserve and could not demonstrate their effectiveness against German armor. Nevertheless, the commander of the tank company, captain Volosatov and the representative of the State Academic Technical University, Colonel-Engineer Zaitsev, praised the tanks for the results of firing at wrecked and abandoned enemy vehicles, as well as the embrasure of the DZOT.
    The only drawback of the ZIS-57M 4-mm tank gun, which was noted by all who participated in the tests, was the extremely poor quality of the fragmentation shells (inferior ruptures or their complete absence were repeatedly noted).

    All available photographs (very few and of poor quality) were taken at test sites. Here is one of them:
    1. bars042 31 March 2020 17: 50 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      I didn’t bother to save the information on this photo:
      1. Aleksandr72 31 March 2020 18: 04 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        This is a T-34 tank with a 57 mm ZiS-4 cannon of the commander of the 21st Tank Brigade, Major Lukin. He was shot down on October 17, 1941 during a dashing, but poorly prepared and uncoordinated attack by the brigade on Kalinin (now the city of Tver) captured by the Germans. During this attack, the brigade lost almost all of its tanks, including including all 10 T-34 fighter tanks. Here is another photo of the same machine:
        As you know, all the photographs were taken by the Germans and went to us in the form of trophies.
  7. novel66 31 March 2020 10: 15 New
    • 7
    • 2
    +5
    tank - the image! unpretentious, but always ready for battle! unpretentious and reliable!
    1. Zufei 31 March 2020 20: 04 New
      • 1
      • 3
      -2
      Unpretentious and maintainable. Reliability is not about the T-34.
      1. novel66 31 March 2020 20: 17 New
        • 6
        • 0
        +6
        and a multi-kilometer march is how?
        1. Zufei 31 March 2020 21: 14 New
          • 1
          • 6
          -5
          Miles of miles - a poetic criterion for reliability? How much is this? 2 km or 200? The main thing is that PARM changes the engine on the tank in an hour and forward to Berlin. That any breakdown is decided in the field. What is not solved, rides on a remelting train. The comparison of the t-34 and the Panther reminds me of a comparison of the cartridges 7.62x39 and .338 Lapua. The second is superior in everything. But the mass and price of the first exceeds all the shortcomings. With comparable volumes of tank production, the final result of the Prokhorov battles will change.
          1. novel66 31 March 2020 22: 08 New
            • 5
            • 0
            +5
            get acquainted, at least ... https://www.kp.ru/putevoditel/tankovyj-rejd-generala-badanova/
            and there were such raids ...
            1. Zufei April 1 2020 05: 15 New
              • 0
              • 2
              -2
              At the beginning of the raid, 96 t-34 and 61 t-70. On 30.12.42/28/34, 15 t-70 and XNUMX t. Quantity decides.
              1. novel66 April 1 2020 10: 45 New
                • 5
                • 1
                +4
                But nothing that went with the battles and part of the tanks just had to be left, due to lack of fuel?
                1. Mordvin 3 April 1 2020 10: 50 New
                  • 1
                  • 0
                  +1
                  Quote: novel xnumx
                  part of the tanks just had to leave, due to lack of fuel?

                  As it looked "Star". So, there one veteran told how instead of solarium they poured gas into tanks. To the whole battalion.
                2. Zufei April 1 2020 11: 11 New
                  • 1
                  • 1
                  0
                  This is a sentence to the head of Badanov. The Germans previously somehow provided a tank group. And the pace was. And here they sent for slaughter. And Badanov took and turned out, turned around. Well done. There is such a saying - the heroism of a soldier begins after the commander’s mistakes.
                  1. novel66 April 1 2020 11: 39 New
                    • 5
                    • 1
                    +4
                    the heroism of a soldier begins after the commander’s mistakes.

                    it is yes! otherwise war is just work
    2. PilotS37 April 2 2020 12: 37 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: novel xnumx
      tank - the image! unpretentious, but always ready for battle! unpretentious and reliable!

      And then who is the "kazist"? - Sherman or what? With its "tractor" suspension and barrel-shaped tower? !!
      1. novel66 April 2 2020 15: 39 New
        • 5
        • 0
        +5
        IS-3 at least!
        1. PilotS37 April 2 2020 18: 06 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Well, we can agree that the IS-3 is more thought out in terms of external forms, but the same AFTER the T-34 ...
          1. novel66 April 2 2020 21: 22 New
            • 5
            • 0
            +5
            he looks beautiful ...
            1. Svarog51 17 May 2020 21: 12 New
              • 0
              • 1
              -1
              Roma hi Give you the opportunity, you’ll adapt for the defense of strategists 122 mm, along with the IS-3 tower. Only she weighs like half the BC strategist. request
  8. Alexey RA 31 March 2020 11: 09 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    The 76,2-mm F-34 gun with a barrel length of 41 caliber was significantly superior to the L-11 gun in its characteristics. The standard blunt-headed projectile BR-350A provided this weapon with 82-89 mm armor penetration at a distance of 100 meters at an angle of encounter with armor of 90 degrees.

    82-89 mm - this is most likely domestic armor. With German everything was much sadder:
    The shelling of 82 mm of the side armor of the T-VI tank from the 76 mm F-34 tank gun from a distance of 200 meters showed that the armor-piercing shells of this gun are weak and, when they meet the tank’s armor, are destroyed without penetrating the armor.

    Well, do not forget that the BR-350A, due to its poor technological effectiveness, was an extremely scarce shell even in the middle of 1942.
    That is, we take a solid cast, grind out a mushroom-shaped head and subject the case to uneven hardening so that the head is solid and breaks through the armor (collapsing at the same time), and the less hard, but less fragile chamber part ensures the passage of a burst charge beyond the armor. Here is such a difficult happiness of the technologist, which in the event of war will require millions of copies.
    © D. Shein
    That is, while the Germans massively had tanks that the BR-350A could penetrate - we did not have a massive BR-350A. And when the massive 76,2 mm BBS appeared, the Germans were already rearmament in the "thick-skinned" tanks.
    1. poquello 31 March 2020 16: 19 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      thoughtful conclusion, just what for complain about the absence of these "br" when

      "Pz.Kpfw. IV Ausf. F2 does not have the best armor protection among similar tanks in its combat rating (BR). All frontal armor of a tank is 50 mm thick, except for the armor section under the driver’s slot, which has a thickness of 20 mm, but it is located at an angle of inclination of 73 degrees, which gives the reduced thickness of the armor all the same 50 mm. In addition, having studied the modification “Laid on armor”, the frontal armor is reinforced by additional tracks with a thickness of 15 mm. amazed even by heavy machine guns s. "
      https://wiki.warthunder.ru/Pz.IV_F2
      1. Alexey RA 31 March 2020 17: 25 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Quote: poquello
        Pz.Kpfw. IV Ausf. F2 does not have the best armor protection among similar tanks in its combat rating

        So Ausf.F2 is the spring-summer of 1942. When the BR-350A is still small. And to protect against 45-mm BBS, 50-mm armor was enough. According to the "Report on the test of German tanks by shelling with armor-piercing and fragmentation shells from tank guns" from September 1942:
        45 mm. Russian armor-piercing projectile of 1938, when firing from a distance of 50 and 100 m, makes a dent in 50 mm. armor plate 20 mm deep. The projectile is fully fired (destroyed).

        The maximum penetration distance of German 50 mm armor for 45 mm BBS in tests is 50 m.
        And by November 1942, half of the Ausf.G fours produced had an 80 mm forehead. From the beginning of 1943, all the “fours” had 80 mm in their foreheads.
        1. poquello 31 March 2020 17: 51 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: Alexey RA
          And by November 1942, half of the Ausf.G fours produced had an 80 mm forehead. From the beginning of 1943, all the “fours” had 80 mm in their foreheads.

          so it just says that for 42 years they had problems
          1. Alexey RA April 1 2020 11: 58 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Quote: poquello
            so it just says that for 42 years they had problems

            Or they just worked for the future - given the possible refinement of the 76,2 mm BBS in the USSR.
            1. poquello April 1 2020 21: 58 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Quote: Alexey RA
              Quote: poquello
              so it just says that for 42 years they had problems

              Or they just worked for the future - given the possible refinement of the 76,2 mm BBS in the USSR.

              no, that was the Nazis’s problem, I think you’ll find it yourself, even Guderian stumbled there
        2. novel66 31 March 2020 22: 10 New
          • 4
          • 0
          +4
          and a gun, more powerful than ours, alas!
      2. Alf
        Alf 31 March 2020 20: 52 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Quote: poquello
        .warthunder.

        Convincing evidence.
        Quote: poquello
        30 mm and is easily hit even by heavy machine guns. "

        Not funny. What heavy machine gun could penetrate 30 mm armor? Do not bring Wartander as evidence, do not disgrace.
        1. novel66 31 March 2020 22: 11 New
          • 4
          • 0
          +4
          if a lot of armor-piercing bullets hit one point - there is no armor that they would not have pierced
          1. Alf
            Alf 31 March 2020 22: 14 New
            • 2
            • 0
            +2
            Quote: novel xnumx
            if a lot of armor-piercing bullets hit one point - there is no armor that they would not have pierced

            It remains to find such an alternative gifted who will stand in one place.
        2. poquello 31 March 2020 23: 05 New
          • 0
          • 1
          -1
          Quote: Alf
          Quote: poquello
          .warthunder.

          Convincing evidence.
          Quote: poquello
          30 mm and is easily hit even by heavy machine guns. "

          Not funny. What heavy machine gun could penetrate 30 mm armor? Do not bring Wartander as evidence, do not disgrace.

          ? the thickness of the reservation is indicated in the Wartander, t4, and with a machine gun a question of terms - mg ff

          marking mg - the Germans have a machine gun, and so ptr s18
          1. Alf
            Alf 31 March 2020 23: 19 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            20 mm is a cannon, and a heavy machine gun is 12,7, 13,2, 15.
            And if the
            question of terms
            , then write a 20-millimeter machine gun.
            1. poquello 31 March 2020 23: 31 New
              • 0
              • 1
              -1
              Quote: Alf
              20 mm is a cannon, and a heavy machine gun is 12,7, 13,2, 15.

              here
              Quote: poquello
              marking mg - the Germans have a machine gun, and so ptr s18

              discrepancies
              ptr type 97 look, the same airlikon, but the gun is called
  9. fk7777777 31 March 2020 11: 28 New
    • 1
    • 5
    -4
    It’s a pity that all the same, the t 34 with 107 mm fluff did not come out, and they didn’t put it on the square, although the t34, and the square with 107 mm fluff was in the form of a draft, but the bastards of waders and a company with their multi-turret all before the war. Even Stalin asked to remove the extra towers ...
    1. Alf
      Alf 31 March 2020 15: 51 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Quote: fk7777777
      34 with 107 mm down

      And why not with a 152-mm “fluff”? Or not with 203?
      Quote: fk7777777
      square with 107 mm fluff in the form of a project was

      To carry on what, with a mass of 62 to 100 tons?
      1. Alexey RA 31 March 2020 17: 50 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        Quote: fk7777777
        but the bastards of waders and a company with their multi-towers zadolbali everyone before the war

        Kulikov or Kulik?
        If Kulik, then he had nothing to do with TK for designing tanks. For multi-tower it is necessary to "thank" GABTU. And Kulik is GAU + issues of serial production of equipment.
        By the way, it was Kulik’s attempt to stop the acceptance of the T-34 (due to the discrepancy between the production tanks of the TK and the plant’s unwillingness to correct the identified shortcomings) that led the plant to finally begin to do at least something in terms of fine-tuning the T-34.
        Quote: fk7777777
        sq with 107 mm down in the form of a project was

        Fortunately LKZ. smile
        It remains only to regret that the KV-3 was never assembled and tested. And not because these almost 70-ton tanks, which by all basic characteristics surpassed their foreign counterparts, could change something during the war. Although the KV-3 would have turned out to be a really tough nut for the Germans due to a much more powerful reservation, the thing is completely different. The construction and testing of even one such tank could sober up the Soviet military, having once and for all discouraged the construction of something like that.
        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.
        © Y. Pasholok
      2. novel66 31 March 2020 22: 12 New
        • 4
        • 2
        +2
        Grabin proactively set 107 mm to BTshka (if I’m not mistaken) at 34ku, which means that she would also fit
        1. Alexey RA April 1 2020 10: 20 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: novel xnumx
          Grabin proactively installed 107 mm on a BTshka (if I'm not mistaken)

          Write right away - on the T-27. smile
          107 mm were tested in KV-2. And in the BT-7A tower Grabin squeezed in a modified 76,2 mm F-32.
          Quote: novel xnumx
          at 34ku, which means it would also fit in

          On the T-34 climbed 122 mm in a tower installation. But only the howitzer.
          1. novel66 April 1 2020 10: 43 New
            • 4
            • 1
            +3
            sorry, I forgot already, I need to re-read
    2. ecolog April 1 2020 12: 54 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Sandpiper. in the T-34 and with a 76,2 mm gun, even two could not turn around. In order for the 85 mm cannon to put the tank seriously altered and could afford to do it far right away. 107 mm is more difficult to manufacture, more expensive and 41 years clearly redundant.
      The Germans in the initial period of the war did not defeat the invulnerability of their tanks, but massaged motorized forces in the direction of the main strikes, artillery mobility, established communications and interaction between the armed forces. Plus, the extension of the defense of the spacecraft made it possible to confidently penetrate the defense of divisions stretched 20-40 km along the front
  10. Kostadinov 31 March 2020 12: 01 New
    • 5
    • 2
    +3
    1. Missed that Koshkin - Komisar Kotoriy studied and created the best machine in terms of efficiency. Not the commissar interfered with the "repressed engineers", but vice versa.
    2. 57 mm gun was unnecessary in 1941-42, 76 mm coped and armor-piercing and HE shells are better. In 1943-44, the 57 mm gun also hit worse than 85 mm. And most importantly - the tank is not an anti-tank gun. The main thing for a tank is its ammunition base.
    3. T-34 could produce without any lendliza.
    1. Felix99 31 March 2020 13: 11 New
      • 3
      • 1
      +2
      Without Lend-Lisa they could not. Aluminum for the engine is about a ton, gunpowder, detonators, explosives, radio stations, drill bits for nozzles. Reverse Lend-Lease also existed.
      1. poquello 31 March 2020 16: 30 New
        • 4
        • 0
        +4
        Quote: Felix99
        Without Lend-Lisa they could not. Aluminum for the engine is about a ton, gunpowder, detonators, explosives, radio stations, drill bits for nozzles. Reverse Lend-Lease also existed.

        if luminium was transported, this does not mean that it was not produced in the USSR
        1. mat-vey 31 March 2020 17: 06 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          And with gunpowder it’s interesting in general. Lend-Lease gunpowder went where stable combustion characteristics were not needed.
    2. Alexey RA 31 March 2020 18: 34 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Kostadinov
      3. T-34 could produce without any lendliza.

      Only with a 76 mm gun. The transition to the 85 mm required not only new machines, but the main thing - the mass production of 85 mm rounds. Which without lendlizovskoy copper and plants was impossible.
      Let me remind you that the pre-war plans for the transition in the divisional artillery to the 85 mm caliber were crossed out by the fact that the USSR simply did not have enough copper for mass production of cartridges for the 85 mm round:
      Sleeve 76mm guns arr. 1902/1930 (as well as subsequent divisions of this caliber) weighed 830-850 grams.
      But the anti-aircraft gun sleeve of the 1931 3-K model weighed 2 kg 760 grams already.
      Those. 3,1 times more copper.
      The 85mm anti-aircraft gun barrel weighed 2,85-2,92kg and was slightly thicker, but in geometric terms it was almost identical to the 1931 3-K gun barrel.

      The capacities of the factories were such that in a year and a half the NKBP was able to release only 1 ammunition per barrel for the 85-mm anti-aircraft guns. And not on a regular barrel, but only on the available one.
      Quote: Kostadinov
      And most importantly - the tank is not an anti-tank gun. The main thing for a tank is its ammunition base.

      T-34-57 is not a linear tank. According to the pre-war classification, this is a "fighter tank." That is, the turret tank destroyer for mechanical and technical support.
      1. sibiryouk 31 March 2020 18: 59 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        And we also needed Lend-Lease rotary machines for processing over-sized shoulder straps under a tower with an 85mm cannon.
      2. poquello 31 March 2020 23: 19 New
        • 0
        • 1
        -1
        Quote: Alexey RA
        Only with a 76 mm gun. The transition to the 85 mm required not only new machines, but the main thing - the mass production of 85 mm rounds. Which without lendlizovskoy copper and plants was impossible.

        so this question is again not in the ability to produce, but in the ability to produce in such quantities,
        and carousels were (like), but Germany fought on its resources)))
        1. Alexey RA April 1 2020 10: 43 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: poquello
          so this question is again not in the ability to produce, but in the ability to produce in such quantities

          So the war question quantities just the main one. If not quantitiesthen even in 1945 it would have been necessary to fight on the T-34-76. A T-34-85 would be a limited-edition model.
          Quote: poquello
          and carousels were (sort of)

          Yeah ... but no one knows where they were in 1941-1945. smile
          Specifically, the People’s Commissariat of the tank industry after all the evacuations two diggers and two-thirds: whole complete machines that worked only for the production of heavy tanks only, and a set of parts of two machines at factory No. 112, of which they assembled one suitable machine, which allowed the Sormovites to be the first to begin production of the T-34-85.
          1. poquello April 1 2020 22: 05 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Quote: Alexey RA
            would have to

            it’s all “would”, what if luminos swims to it will tear to build up its own, but in a dead end question it would be possible (“would”)))) another solution
  11. Dmitry V. 31 March 2020 13: 08 New
    • 3
    • 1
    +2
    Why these mediocre articles?
    An article for the sake of an article.
    1. Alf
      Alf 31 March 2020 15: 52 New
      • 6
      • 0
      +6
      Quote: Dmitry Vladimirovich
      Why these mediocre articles?
      An article for the sake of an article.

      To say the least. The only valuable thing in the article is a photo of the pre-production T-34 in the forest.
  12. Kostadinov 31 March 2020 13: 54 New
    • 6
    • 4
    +2
    Quote: Felix99
    Without Lend-Lisa they could not. Aluminum for the engine is about a ton, gunpowder, detonators, explosives, radio stations, drill bits for nozzles. Reverse Lend-Lease also existed.

    1. Could, if necessary, replace aluminum. The tank is not a plane, the engine will be somewhat heavier and that’s it. Radio stations will only be for company commanders, which is not bad and quite enough.
    2. I do not understand how the nozzles were drilled in the USSR, when the landlize was not yet beaten? Drills purchased from the Germans or the Japanese?
    3. There will be less gunpowder and explosive, without land-lease, but this is an optimization issue. One 500 kg. a high-explosive bomb is smaller - there will be an explosive charge for more than a hundred HE of 85 mm shells and several times more armor-piercing shells. In addition, there are TNT substitutes, for example, amatol, from which very good HE shells can be made.
    4. Most importantly, the USSR, thanks to successful diplomacy, could not remain in isolation. If Lendliz did not beat, it means that the United States is not an ally, but then Germany will be an ally and the USSR will have not only drills for injectors, but also licensed jet engines for aircraft back in late 1944.
    1. Alexey RA 31 March 2020 18: 40 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: Kostadinov
      3. There will be less gunpowder and explosive, without land-lease, but this is an optimization issue.

      40% of gunpowder 1944 - Lend-Lease. Exactly in the "year of offensives."
      Quote: Kostadinov
      In addition, there are TNT substitutes, for example, amatol, from which very good HE shells can be made.

      Oh yes ... only amatole was not enough for steel cast iron. At this pace, the OFS will slide in power to a 45-mm OS.

      And most importantly - try to advance without trucks and aircraft (more precisely, without aviation gasoline). Look at the composition of the advanced detachments of the combined arms armies, which precisely ensured the high rates of advance and the timely capture of important transport junctions - there the “dodge” on the “student” sits and drives the “jeep”. smile
      Let me remind you that the domestic three-axle truck with a carrying capacity of 3 tons was discontinued in 1941, which at one moment deprived the army of a chassis for Katyushas and most special vehicles.
      1. Mordvin 3 April 1 2020 11: 00 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: Alexey RA
        Let me remind you that the domestic three-axle truck with a carrying capacity of 3 tons was discontinued in 1941, which at one moment deprived the army of a chassis for Katyushas and most special vehicles.

        Eeee ... Come on you.
        1. Alexey RA April 1 2020 13: 49 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: mordvin xnumx
          Eeee ... Come on you.

          Heh heh heh ... yes, for the use instead of trucks of the chassis of the scarce artillery tractors (even such worthless as STZ-5) GAU was ready to kill. Because STZ regularly frustrated plans for their release. It even came to an attempt by the plant to combine tractors and tanks in the reports in a common column and the subsequent reprimand from the ITT with a ban on glossing over the failure of the plan for tractors by adding to them the T-34, the plan for which was regularly exceeded.
  13. PCCP 31 March 2020 15: 42 New
    • 5
    • 0
    +5
    Happy birthday glorious tank!
  14. BUSEYN 31 March 2020 16: 26 New
    • 5
    • 3
    +2
    Too few flaws. Since childhood I have been fond of tanks (now 62). While studying at the institute, he talked with several tankers. I spoke with the driver for about 20 hours (we rode on the train). I recorded almost everything. The plans to publish. About the shortage briefly. It is cold in winter, hot in summer. Diesel did not start in winter. Before the attack, a fire was made under the bottom. If the tank burns down from this, the execution. If it does not start before the attack - a penalty. Therefore, a bonfire was kept watch all night. The sleepless crew, in the absence of visibility, went on the attack in the morning. My interlocutor lost four tanks. At all it is impossible to switch speeds on the go. Started with the second. And the whole battle is on it. Sometimes 20 to 30 minutes. The engine overheated in the summer terribly. Wedged during the battle - again showdown. And if there are more than 5 such cases in the battalion, someone will be tried. In summer, they drove into any body of water, despite the enemy’s fire, climbed out and bathed. And further. Only on the latest modifications it got better. In general, this topic is still poorly understood. The best WWII tank our tankers did not like.
    1. meandr51 31 March 2020 17: 47 New
      • 3
      • 2
      +1
      There were different tankers. Some (Lavrynenkov, for example) preferred not to swim during the battle, but to fill tens of boxes with fascist boxes. They did not raise the question of love or comfort at all. They fought.
      Drabkin’s “I Fought on the T-34” has more positive than negative reviews. My opinion: if the T-34 was equal in comfort to Sherman or Panther, then there would be half as many. With all the consequences ...
    2. Alf
      Alf 31 March 2020 18: 20 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: BUSEYN
      The best WWII tank our tankers did not like.

      52 tanks on a bad tank you can’t fill.
      1. sibiryouk 31 March 2020 19: 03 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        The T-34 was especially good for both our industry and the Red Army, under other conditions and in another country, it had a lot of flaws. It was a pure RUSSIAN tank!
        1. poquello 31 March 2020 23: 36 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: sibiryouk
          The T-34 was especially good for both our industry and the Red Army, under other conditions and in another country, it had a lot of flaws. It was a pure RUSSIAN tank!

          gee gee, then their trophy Germans used
      2. WapentakeLokki 31 March 2020 19: 26 New
        • 1
        • 2
        -1
        .. remember the battle of Kolobanov on KV-1.. rezult - 22 panzer were knocked out .. feat - undoubtedly .. but .. a little such but .. all the opponents of KV were LIGHT Pz.II tanks and Czech 38s ... it's not detracts from the feat of Kolobanov as well as the heroism of Lavrinenkov on the T-34 .. (the same for the 41-42th is clearly not easy, but rather a super-medium or semi-heavy tank ..) but the Deutsch launched their Pz.V Pz in a series .VI and ... all ... no 22 frags to you in one battle .. (except maybe Michael Wittmann on his Tiger shot the Lymez crowd at 44..but this is not about BT Red Army at all ..) ... I’m why .. the size matters .. and the best violinist, well en Stradivari .. (but not MADE in Uryupinsk ..) but the backlog of the T-34 and the HF was exhausted by the 42nd and .. actually ... until the end of the Great Patriotic War, our BT RRKA at best were not inferior to PanzerWaffe .. (. .there it can be argued but ... even the IS-2 with its 122 mm ... and 28 shots with a reload time of 30-40 seconds ... didn’t wing the Tigers and Panthers ... with their Zeiss optics and 88 mm units ... ) my opinion is purely mine .. and all those who disagree - what is your evidence ... well, except ... We won ... it is definitely a FACT but ... at what price ... if the mattresses paid for 1 (ONE CARL) Tiger 5- Th (FIVE CARL) Shremanov .. how much the T-34-76 and T-34-85 pay and we ???
        1. mat-vey 31 March 2020 19: 56 New
          • 3
          • 0
          +3
          Quote: WapentakeLokki
          but ... even the IS-2 with its 122 mm ... and 28 shots with a reload time of 30-40 seconds ... didn’t wing the Tigers and Panthers ... with their Zeiss optics and 88 mm unitaries ...) my opinion .

          At the VO already about the "optics" of the article were about the real rate of fire, and about the accuracy of the guns and the effect of shells ..
          The main conclusion is essentially equal opponents of the IS and the Tiger, and it all depends on the crews.
          1. poquello 31 March 2020 23: 45 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Quote: mat-vey
            Quote: WapentakeLokki
            but ... even the IS-2 with its 122 mm ... and 28 shots with a reload time of 30-40 seconds ... didn’t wing the Tigers and Panthers ... with their Zeiss optics and 88 mm unitaries ...) my opinion .

            At the VO already about the "optics" of the article were about the real rate of fire, and about the accuracy of the guns and the effect of shells ..
            The main conclusion is essentially equal opponents of the IS and the Tiger, and it all depends on the crews.

            What are you? people! The IS was not made for tank battles, t34 fought with tigers, .. and as it were, then t55 went and not IS.
            1. mat-vey April 1 2020 05: 21 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Quote: poquello
              What are you? people! IP is not made for tank battles

              And now what? Isa’s crew saw the Tiger and ticking? And the armor-piercing ones in the BC for the collection .. Although the Tiger was not for tank fights either ... From the very beginning, Fast Heinz broadcasted that tanks with tanks didn’t are fighting.
              Quote: poquello
              and as it were then T55 went and not IP


              And what is this about?
              1. poquello April 1 2020 22: 49 New
                • 0
                • 1
                -1
                Quote: mat-vey
                And now what? The IS crew saw the Tiger and tick?

                "ticking" then with the thought richer? t34-85 is equal to a tiger, and then 34ki came across tigers, and 34-76 also, dodged but beat themselves and burned, but the ISs burned tigers under Ternopil stupidly unexpected, but this is already 44 years, the German tanks are already somehow not up to there was a confrontation with the ISs, and the ISs were actually opening the fortifications
                Quote: mat-vey
                Fast Heinz generally broadcast that tanks did not fight tanks.

                it was broadcasting correctly, except for tanks there are a bunch of tanks and self-propelled guns
                Quote: mat-vey

                Quote: poquello
                and as it were then T55 went and not IP
                And what is this about?

                and this is about the main medium tank, that is, the Soviet Union, the IS, as it were, fell out in the process, it’s heavy
                1. mat-vey April 2 2020 05: 38 New
                  • 1
                  • 0
                  +1
                  Quote: poquello
                  rich in thought?

                  Yes, again, where are we - all the tanks are not for tank battles, but for breaking through the defense and developing haste. For this, they came to light. And how it turns out depends on the war.
                  Quote: poquello
                  t34-85 equal to the tiger

                  Medium is equal to heavy? And cho, very rich?

                  Quote: poquello
                  and this is about the main medium tank, that is, the Soviet Union, the IS, as it were, fell out in the process, it’s heavy

                  Is there any place here at all? Did the conversation go for evolution? There was no question to your answer.
                2. svp67 April 2 2020 05: 45 New
                  • 2
                  • 0
                  +2
                  Quote: poquello
                  t34-85 equal to the tiger,

                  This is not a true idea, if only because these tanks were created to solve various problems.
                  Yes, these tanks were found on the battlefield and the results were different. Toward the end of the war, our tank commanders generally learned to defeat the Tigers on the T-34 “non-contact” - with the help of a timely maneuver
                  1. poquello April 2 2020 12: 48 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    Quote: svp67
                    Quote: poquello
                    t34-85 equal to the tiger,

                    This is not a true idea, if only because these tanks were created to solve various problems.
                    Yes, these tanks met on the battlefield and the results were different. Toward the end of the war, our tank commanders generally learned to defeat the Tigers on the T-34 “non-contact” - with the help of a timely maneuver

                    I just meant the clashes
        2. Potter 31 March 2020 20: 10 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Losses of German armored vehicles on the eastern front from 22.02.41 to 09.05.45 of 28700 vehicles. The loss of Soviet tanks during the same time was 83500 vehicles, while the losses for 1941 - 20500 vehicles - were largely due to non-combat reasons. Indicative losses in 1943 were 9000 Germans and 22400 Red Army vehicles. so 1: 2,5, 2 times better than mattresses.
          And as for the colossal combat accounts of the Wittmanns and Co. - so how many tanks of them were actually lost by the Red Army irrevocably? Since 1943, the battlefield has mainly remained with us, tank repair battalions and factories have already worked well. Irretrievable losses were approximately 30-35% of the total, the rest returned to duty, often many times. So the Whitman accounts must be divided in three.
          1. Potter 31 March 2020 20: 23 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            It was described, of course, from 22.06.41 to 09.05.45, that is, losses during the Second World War.
            And, supplementing - according to statistics from the GABTU, the share of losses of our tanks from enemy tanks is 20%, 60% - from anti-tank artillery.
          2. Alf
            Alf 31 March 2020 20: 46 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Quote: Potter
            So the Whitman accounts must be divided in three.

            Not counting postscript.
        3. poquello 31 March 2020 23: 40 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: WapentakeLokki
          here you can argue but ... even the IS-2 with its 122 mm ... and 28 rounds with a 30-40 second cooldown ... didn’t wing the Tigers and Panthers ... with their Zeiss optics and 88 mm unitaries ...) my opinion is purely mine ... and all those who disagree - what is your evidence ... well, except ... We won ... it is definitely a FACT but ... at what price ... if the mattresses paid for 1 (ONE CARL) Tiger 5 (FIVE CARL) Shremanov ... how much did the T-34-76 and T-34-85 pay ???

          on every cunning ass ...., t34 was high-speed, the main thing is to get close
          1. WapentakeLokki April 1 2020 18: 32 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            ..read the above already said .. with a 4-speed T-34 gearbox crawled in 2nd gear .. yes and with 5-speed .. you can’t envy the T-34 mech-water .. (.. read what is the effort leverage ..) it’s not for you the Tiger where the gearbox is switched almost with your fingers ... so the speed was rather Panther .. (.. the network has a video what Panther is in full swing ..) and the speed in battle is not a panacea .. (.. remember the history of the French AMX with 90 mm HA and thin armor in the Sinai, the Israelis suffered with them, preferring them to the slow-moving Centurions but with the ARMOR ..) ..
            Py.Sy. ..and you imagine what it IS CLOSING UP .. under fire to a guaranteed 500m on board .. yes our ancestors had IRON .... that's just the designers of the Armor .. it would be worth putting for T-34 levers and sending against the Tiger. get closer ..
            1. poquello April 1 2020 21: 54 New
              • 2
              • 0
              +2
              Quote: WapentakeLokki
              ..read the above already said .. with a 4-speed gearbox T-34 crawled in 2nd gear .. d

              that's enough to drive! suffered but switched, and reading what was said, it’s not clear how they fought in Kursk at all))))))))
              1. WapentakeLokki April 1 2020 21: 59 New
                • 0
                • 2
                -2
                ..and they fought like that .. and for which T Stalin removed Rotmistrov .. (.. and so he didn’t forgive him until the end of the Great Patriotic War .. if they were hunting ..) and what was the “greatest tank battle near Prokhorovka” in the memoirs not ours .. (.. no, of course here you can argue with foreign historians ..- after all, the history of the Second World War from Military Publishing House is TRUE in the last resort .. ??? no ..)
                1. poquello April 1 2020 23: 07 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  Quote: WapentakeLokki
                  ..and they fought like that .. and for which T Stalin removed Rotmistrov .. (.. and so he didn’t forgive him until the end of the Great Patriotic War .. if they were hunting ..) and what was the “greatest tank battle near Prokhorovka” in the memoirs not ours .. (.. no, of course here you can argue with foreign historians ..- after all, the history of the Second World War from Military Publishing House is TRUE in the last resort .. ??? no ..)

                  ) this is “the greatest” in their memoirs, an unexpected maneuver of the Fritz was revealed near Prokhorovka, so they were sausage than they could and as they could with the Borodino result, that is, our Kursk
            2. Alf
              Alf April 1 2020 22: 29 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              Quote: WapentakeLokki
              so that the speed was rather Panther .. (.. .. on the network there is a video what Panther is in full swing ..)

              Take an interest in what the REAL speed of movement in battle was.
              1. WapentakeLokki April 2 2020 17: 28 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                ..so it's comrade poquello .. put forward the idea ... the main thing .. get closer .. and redirect it to him .. and I, by the way, put forward the topic .. that our passion for speed and jumping ... (that BT to WWII what T -72 today ..) in a battle on .. is not needed ... but, in my opinion, a triad; firepower, security, mobility ... very much .. so in the Second World War, starting from the 43rd, we lost our advantage, especially in armor protection and especially in firepower .. or not ??
                1. Alf
                  Alf April 2 2020 18: 07 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  Quote: WapentakeLokki
                  we have lost the advantage, especially in armor protection

                  Not at all. The main enemy of our tanks was the Four, and it had no better armor than the T-34. A forehead of 80 mm without a tilt is not much better than 45 with a tilt, and then on the tower then.

                  Panthers and Tigers were not common, especially Tigers. But the Tigers of their 8-8 did not penetrate the armor of the IS-2 with a straightened frontal part even at point blank range. And to compare the T-34-85 and the Tiger can only followers of Carbine.

                  I don’t even want to talk about the “quality” of German armor without manganese of the 44th year.
                  1. WapentakeLokki April 2 2020 21: 02 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    ..about the quality of the Deutsche armor..this is DAA..but about the quality of the armor of our tanks .. too fragile ..T.E. GIVING even in case of non-penetration, an internal chip caving crews ... about our cast turret having, with equal thickness, much less resistance in comparison with rolled armor-plating ... about `` trapped '' towers (..familiar concept..no ??) .. well, and yours .. um .. revelations .. about the non-penetration of IS-s .. (.. even point blank ..) well, I don’t know ... it would be nice if it would be like that. . Unfortunately, the Panther penetrated even the Panther with its 75 mm ... well, the very initial speed of the long-barreled German guns was .. high .. and the optics allowed us to kill our tanks from 1.5-2 km .. but you have your own opinion .. yeah ... armor Mitzna and our tanks shvidki..a women escho narozhayut..i we pay the price ... no ??
                    1. Alf
                      Alf April 3 2020 17: 25 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      Quote: WapentakeLokki
                      unfortunately, even Panther penetrated IS-s with its 75 mm ..

                      On board, on the forehead? Isa early, late?
                      Quote: WapentakeLokki
                      and optics allowed us to kill our tanks from 1.5-2 km ..

                      When I was little, I also believed in fairy tales, then I started to tell them ... To see a little, you also have to get there, especially when both tanks are moving.
                      Quote: WapentakeLokki
                      about the '' lures '' of the towers (..familiar concept..no ??).

                      The Panther drivers were "very" happy about this.
  15. Potter 31 March 2020 19: 58 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    With all due respect to Koshkin, to the fact that he gave his life for this car, one should not forget the leading designer of the A-20 and A-32 machines (future T-34) Morozov. Koshkin was primarily the head of the design bureau, the commissioner in fact. The technical part of the work was carried out with the direct participation of Morozov. And then he already had to put the T-34 on the conveyor as the chief designer, to modernize and simplify the design already during the evacuation to UVZ. He owns the authorship of the T-34M project, which was created in 1941 to replace the T-34, T-43, the deep modernization of the T-34, which was adopted for service, but did not go into production, the T-34-85. And, finally, the ingenious T-44, which for decades determined the design principles of domestic main tanks. And then there were the experimental Su-100 tank with the rear location of the fighting compartment, and the T-64.
    1. Alf
      Alf 31 March 2020 20: 47 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Potter
      experimental tank Su-100 with a rear location of the fighting compartment,

      What kind of beast is this?
      1. Potter 31 March 2020 21: 37 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        The experimental vehicle, facility 416, which, due to the availability of funding for self-propelled guns and the lack of tanks, received the SU index. Work and testing went on in 1949-1953. Front-engine tank with the location of the entire crew in the tower, low profile, weighing only 24 tons with the protection and armament of the T-54. With unique qualities, it was too expensive and unreliable - remote control of the machine with a mechanical drive often failed. In addition, the experimental diesel engine DG with a horizontal arrangement of cylinders was also fooled.
        And as a self-propelled gun, it was surpassed by the SU-100P developed by UZTM, Gorlitsky. However, she did not go into the series, but her chassis became the basis for a large number of tracked military equipment.
        Morozov, after an unsuccessful experiment with our merkava, began work on a machine that became the T-64.
        1. Alf
          Alf 31 March 2020 21: 56 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          And how did they manage to push the armor and dimensions of the T-24 into 54 tons? Something is doubtful.
          In the description about 416 it is indicated that the forehead was 110 mm, the T-54 has a forearm of 200 mm, and these are completely different dances.
          1. Potter 31 March 2020 23: 30 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            I talked about the similarity of protection, not the reservation about 416 and T-54. The frontal sheet of the hull of the 416th was only 45mm, the engine provided protection for the fighting compartment in this part of the projection. The dimensions of the 416th were smaller than that of the T-54. Horizontal diesel engine reduced the height of the hull by 200mm, the car was already 350mm. The body length (and height at the same time) decreased due to the lack of a control compartment. Well, Morozov “licked” the tank, removing excess tons and kilograms from wherever possible.
            s.s In Transmash’s order to develop the machine, object 416 was referred to as an “enhanced defense tank”.