Anvils for the Red Army. Tests of German captured tanks


A crew of repair tankers studying the trophy StuG III (from the 192nd assault guns division) at REMBAZ 82. April 1942. Source: Kolomiyets M.V. Trophy Tanks Red Army


Feline at gunpoint


It is noteworthy that by the beginning of the Great Patriotic War in the Soviet army there was no independent trophy service. Only in August 1941 did a single trophy body appear, led by the evacuation department of the headquarters of the rear of the Red Army, which, in turn, was formed on the basis of the economic department of the General Staff. At the fronts, evacuation departments worked in the rear departments and commissioners for the collection of trophies. And so on in the army organizational structure up to the regiment, where there were separate commissioners for captured property, whose duties also included the collection and recording of scrap metal. For the first time, the enemy left the Red Army rich trophies during the retreat near Moscow, when from November 16 to December 10, 1941, 1434 tanks and many other less valuable equipment were abandoned on the battlefields.

Anvils for the Red Army. Tests of German captured tanks

Trophy equipment brought for repair in the courtyard of the Lift plant, where Rembaza No. 82 was located. Source: MV Kolomiets Trophy tanks of the Red Army

An important part of the work of the captured teams was the selection of the most valuable and previously unknown samples of Hitler’s weapons, which were then necessarily studied in the rear units. In an application to armored vehicles, the Research and Testing Armored Testing Ground No. 108 (NIABT) in Kubinka, Moscow Region, was engaged in the study and testing. With the outbreak of hostilities near the capital, the training ground was relocated to Kazan - the decision of the State Defense Committee on this subject dates from 14.10.1941/325/228. In addition to the evacuation, the NIABT staff was seriously reduced - from 1942 to 25 people, while the independent armor and weapons department was liquidated. This was caused, among other things, by the weak material base of the farm of the Kazan Agricultural Institute, where the Polygon was now located. There was no artillery range, which actually put an end to tests of armor and weapons, including trophy ones. Chronically lacked residential and laboratory facilities. Therefore, as soon as possible, it was necessary to either radically improve the conditions at the new NIABT-based location, or return them back to Kubinka. We stopped at the last and at the end of January XNUMX, XNUMX people were sent from Kazan to restore the material base. Now the unit in Kubinka is officially called the NIABT branch.


"Tiger" in April 1943 at the Kubinka training ground. Source: warspot.ru








The results of shelling the "Tiger" from various domestic and foreign artillery systems. Source: warspot.ru

Among the entire range of the Landfill’s works, one can single out theoretical and practical studies of German tanks LT vz. 38, T-III, Sturmgeschütz III and T-IV, as a result of which a rank 3 military engineer I. Radichuk issued memos to the gunner indicating where and how to shoot. Subsequently, the Polygon employees issued at least ten reference books and memos on the destruction of various German armored vehicles. It must be said that all this work went in parallel with testing domestic equipment and developing new methods of fighting German tanks. So, at the very beginning of the war in July 1941, the NIABT proposed the construction of a mortar for throwing RPG-40 grenades. The mortar, adapted for use with a 1891 model rifle, allowed throwing grenades at 60-70 meters. This novelty was developed by artillery engineer B. Ivanov, who, after a couple of months, conducted a series of tests of several more anti-tank weapons, namely, bundles of five RGD-33; devices for undermining the tank bottom with a bag pack, worn by a dog; new hand anti-tank grenades. Based on the test results, accessible illustrated albums and memos were released.

The first among the truly interesting trophy exhibits in the Kubinka was the Tiger tank. Tank historian Yuri Pasholok in his Heavy Trophy article claims that these were vehicles with tower numbers 100 and 121 from the 502nd heavy tank battalion that were captured in January 1943 near Leningrad. NIABT testers received tanks only by April. It was decided to shoot one tank in the period from April 25 to April 30 for research purposes from various calibers, and the second - to use to study the power of the gun. Describe history we won’t be with the second machine, as this is beyond the scope of this material. A target from the “heavy feline” family began to be shot from a T-70 light, and immediately with sub-caliber shells. They managed to break through the 45-K 20-mm cannon only in the 80-mm side from a distance of 200 meters. The 45-mm anti-tank gun of the 1942 model was able to penetrate the top sheet of the side with only 350 meters, and only with a sub-caliber. The board did not break through the usual blank up to 100 meters. Naturally, the testers in the order of calibres for shelling the tank walked upward, and the next steel 57-mm ZIS-2 paired with the British 6-pound anti-tank gun QF 6-pounder 7 cwt. The guns pierced the side from 800-1000 meters, and the domestic gun did not hit the forehead even from 500 meters. The testers did not come closer, obviously, reasonably believing that at such a distance from the tank, the calculation of the guns had very little chance of survival. Yuri Pasholok suggests that at a distance of 300 meters ZIS-2 still had to break through the Tiger’s forehead (of course, given a successful set of circumstances). In favor of this version speak the results of similar British tests, when a 6-pound gun hit the tank in just such circumstances. Further on the rank is the Shtatov 75 mm M3 gun of the M4A2 tank, which, depending on the projectile, hit the Tiger aboard at a range of 400 to 650 meters. They didn’t shoot the tank in the forehead; apparently, they decided not to waste shells in vain.




122 mm proved to be the most effective against the Tiger. Source: warspot.ru

But with the 76-mm cannon F-34 there was a failure - from no angle did not manage to penetrate the armor of the German tank from closer than 200 meters. The 3-mm 76-K anti-aircraft gun was expectedly more effective, but did not surpass the previously tested American gun in armor penetration. We can say that the test of the 85-mm 52-K gun was a landmark - the shell hit the side of the tank from 1000 meters. It is this gun, as you know, that will later be installed on medium and heavy domestic tanks. As the caliber of the fired guns increased, the experimental Tiger, of course, was getting worse. And this despite the fact that out of 107-mm M-60 guns, 122-mm M-30 howitzers and 152-mm ML-20 howitzers, testers could not hit the target at all! But the 122-mm A-19 gun hit, and the first shell went through the frontal sheet, tearing a piece of armor from the stern. The second struck the forehead of the tower and tore it off the shoulder strap. After that, the A-19 received registration as a tank and self-propelled guns.

The hard fate of the Nazi tank


The next challenge for NIABT specialists was the new German tank Panther. In the summer of 1943, they organized a business trip of the Polygon personnel to the Kursk region to study the crippled “cats” during defensive battles on the Voronezh Front. For eight days, at the end of July 1943, 31 tanks were examined, which fell on the front-line breakthrough by the Nazis along the Belgorod-Oboyan highway 30 wide and 35 km deep. The uniqueness of the prepared report on the results of the work is that for the first time statistics were obtained that allow us to speak fairly confidently about the striking nature and nature of the Panther defense. So, out of 31 tanks, 22 were hit by artillery, only 3 tanks flew into land mines, an air bomb successfully hit one tank, one Panther got bogged down in the trench, 4 tanks simply broke. Failure for technical reasons amounted to a rather large 13% - this is worth remembering when the conversation about the unsatisfactory quality of domestic T-34s is once again started. The Germans at the time of launching the Panther production did not conduct military operations on their own territory, they did not have a catastrophe with the evacuation of tank factories, and still, 13% of the tanks were killed on a specific section of the front due to technical and constructive marriage. But back to those 22 tanks that the Germans lost due to the fire of Soviet artillery. The most unpleasant thing that NIABT experts saw was 10 hits in the frontal sheet, of which not one was through - only rebounds. The Germans flew 16 shells into the tower, and everyone was struck through the armor. Of particular note are 32 fatal hits on the sides, stern and tank gun for the Panthers - obviously, Soviet fighters with tanks successfully adapted to the new Hitler machine and hit the “cat” with flanking fire.

Naturally, the NIABT engineers could not help but test the captured tank for resistance to shells in an improvised training ground. The victim was the Panther with flight number 441 - obviously the most “alive” among those remaining. He worked on the T-34-76 tank from a distance of 100 meters. The upper frontal part (20 shells) and the lower (10 shots) were fired. All shells from the top sheet of frontal armor ricocheted, and in the bottom there was only one hole. Therefore, the 76-mm cannon (as well as the 45-mm sub-caliber projectile) was now recommended to shoot exclusively on the Panther.

The test report has some interesting points. First of all, the Panther is rated as a more powerful tank than the T-34, as well as the KV. The Germans had an advantage in frontal armor and artillery weapons. Testers noted that the driver’s and the radio operator’s inspection openings on the Hitler’s tank were closed flush with the front sheet, so the shells ricocheted from them. All this seriously contrasted with the weakened hatch of the driver’s hatch and the mask of the machine gun of the T-34 windshield. Further in the report were materials on the specifics of using Panther tanks. The Germans are trying to use their tanks in battle, if possible, near paved roads, as well as in conjunction with an escort from T-III and T-IV. Fire at tanks and other targets is carried out from long distances, trying to prevent close contact with Soviet armored vehicles. They attack in a straightforward manner, realizing the strength of the frontal armor and the weakness of the sides, try not to maneuver once again. In defense, they act from ambushes, and when moving away they back out, protecting weak spots from enemy fire. Each tank has a special charge with a detonator, which is ignited through the Bikford cord and is intended to undermine the emergency Panther.


"Panther" in trials in Kubinka. Source: yuripasholok.livejournal.com

In early August 1943, a functioning Panther hit the Cuban already for full-fledged tests, including running ones. The study of armor and its shelling only confirmed the correctness of the conclusions on the Kursk Bulge - the Germans seriously differentiated the reservation, weakening the sides. Still, in the German ranking table, it was a medium tank, and its invulnerability should have been slightly lower than that of the older Tiger. As in the case of the heavy Tiger, the T-70 was the first to shoot the Panther. Here, his 45-mm gun was able to hit the vertical armor of the side near the rinks from 500 meters, and the inclined one kept a blow even from 70-80 meters. F-34 76 mm caliber hit the side from 1 kilometer, and its forehead was not fired at - there was enough experience of field shooting on the Voronezh Front. The first who decided to try the Panther’s forehead on a tooth was the 85-mm D-85 gun, and nothing good came of this venture. The inclined armor plates, making the shells ricochet, played a role. Now we are thinking about replacing the 85 mm gun on heavy tanks and self-propelled guns. Further tests were more like beating a Hitler machine. The 122-mm shell confidently pierced the Panther in the forehead, and a shot through the side pierced the tank through. When they hit a 152-mm shell from an ML-20 howitzer cannon, a bounce on the front sheet occurred, leaving an impressive gap that did not give the crew any chance of survival.

Naturally, the Hitlerite “menagerie” did not end there. In the history of NIABT from Kubinka there were still resonant tests of self-propelled guns and several heavy tanks.

To be continued ...
Author:
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

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

I have an account? Sign in

  1. svp67 April 6 2020 05: 27 New
    • 22
    • 0
    +22
    A crew of repair crews studying the trophy StuG III (from the 192nd assault guns division) at the Rembaza No. 82
    The signature is not correct, judging by the presence of the tower, not the logging, the team inspects the Pz-III
    1. Also immediately caught my eye.
      1. your1970 April 9 2020 20: 01 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        The storage of trophy weapons was the entire war in Ozinki, Saratov Region. There was an attempt to diversion, but Lieutenant Alexandrov, at the cost of his life (he discovered a mined box and started to take it out of the territory but did not have time), prevented the destruction of both the base and the village. there were more than 1600 wagons of ammunition without any embankment or other protective measures.
        According to the memoirs, about 20 more similar surprises with different explosion periods were subsequently found
        The Germans apparently tried to fight like that
        1. DDT
          DDT 25 May 2020 21: 09 New
          • 0
          • 1
          -1
          Well, or local Vlasovites. All the same, far Saratov from Germany
          1. your1970 25 May 2020 21: 39 New
            • 2
            • 0
            +2
            What nafig Vlasov !! Only women worked in the warehouses, Aleksandrov was the only man. In general, at that time in the village there were no more than 200-300 men (railway workers, authorities, mine, old people). Everyone else is at war ...
            Grandfather hunted after he was commissary, said that 6 hunters had 8 arms and 9 legs
            In the police department, two district police officers were also charged without a hand-- and the remaining 12 employees were women.
            At the mine, there are men and women in the mine.

            ] - and Ozinki 280 km from Saratov repeat
            1. DDT
              DDT 25 May 2020 21: 41 New
              • 0
              • 1
              -1
              Yes. The time was sad. But there were heroes. Happy
  2. Catfish April 6 2020 05: 33 New
    • 21
    • 0
    +21
    Good morning everyone. hi
    Thanks to the author for the most interesting material.
    The caption under the first photo is a mistake (more likely a typo), this is not a StuG III assault gun on which there was no turret, but a medium tank PzKpfw III, which in the literature is usually referred to as T-III.

    Assault gun, no tower.
    I can’t help it: I leaf through the article and suddenly in the sixth photo from above I see a familiar word of three letters, I could not believe my eyes. Then he took a closer look and realized that these were Roman numbers. smile
    1. Fitter65 April 6 2020 05: 49 New
      • 9
      • 0
      +9
      To the right of the brigade visiting the PzKpfw III tank is the StuG III assault gun. And the article is interesting, although not the first but still ... hi good
      1. Reptiloid April 6 2020 09: 20 New
        • 7
        • 1
        +6
        I look forward to continuing. I liked the article.
  3. Aleksandr72 April 6 2020 05: 42 New
    • 9
    • 0
    +9
    This is how the Hitlerite menagerie was “tamed”! The main problem was not so much the low performance of our tank and anti-tank guns - all from 53-to and to the S-53 ZIS, but as armor-piercing shells to them. It is not surprising that, having the 76-mm F-34 and ZiS-3 as the main weapon, our tankers and anti-tankers, respectively, suffered heavy losses in battles with the new German "cats". Another thing is surprising - that our soldiers, no matter what, yielding qualitatively to the enemy, managed to break the Panzervaffe ridge in 1943-44.
    1. The leader of the Redskins April 6 2020 07: 07 New
      • 12
      • 1
      +11
      Baryatinsky described the moment when, at the beginning of the war, it became clear that 45 mm anti-tank shells often ricocheted from German armor. The solution was suggested by an elderly professor (I don’t remember my last name) from Leningrad. He suggested making a groove on a lathe with shells. The military was surprised and did not believe it, but they did the experiment. What was their surprise when the ricochets almost stopped! It turns out that a solid “nose” “bit through” the armor, and the heavy body, continuing energy, perished along the groove, but still “stuffed” the “nose” into the armor !. So changed the shells of the Magpies)) (
      1. Alexey RA April 6 2020 11: 51 New
        • 19
        • 0
        +19
        Quote: Leader of the Redskins
        Baryatinsky described the moment when at the beginning of the war it turned out that 45 mm anti-tank shells often ricocheted from German armor

        Not ricochet, but collapsed. Hull strength generally proved insufficient to work on cemented armor.
        Quote: Leader of the Redskins
        The solution was suggested by an elderly professor (I don’t remember my last name) from Leningrad. He suggested making a groove on a lathe with shells.

        The "old professor" was called Anatoly Andreyevich Garts. A graduate of the Mikhailovsky Artillery Academy, head of the Special Shell Bureau, an outstanding ammunition designer and chief specialist in armor-piercing shells.
        Quote: Leader of the Redskins
        The military was surprised and did not believe it, but they did the experiment.

        The grooves-localizers of stresses provided controlled destruction of the outer part of the shell body during passage of the armor. At the same time, its inner part and the chamber with the explosives did not collapse and passed behind the armor.
    2. Serg koma April 6 2020 08: 04 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: Aleksandr72
      managed to break the Panzervaffe ridge in 1943-44.

      the battle of the light tank T-70 junior lieutenant Grigory Pegov against the German Panthers, which ended in the victory of Soviet soldiers.
      https://topwar.ru/78632-neravnye-tankovye-dueli-chast-1-t-70-protiv-pantery.html
  4. mark1 April 6 2020 05: 49 New
    • 6
    • 0
    +6
    But the 122-mm A-19 gun hit, and the first shell went through the frontal sheet, tearing a piece of armor from the stern. The second struck the forehead of the tower and tore it off the shoulder strap. After that, the A-19 received registration as a tank and self-propelled guns.
    As far as I remember, this is a story about Panther
    1. It was with the “panther” that was described in the journal “Youth Technique”.
  5. Razvedka_Boem April 6 2020 06: 06 New
    • 11
    • 0
    +11
    The Germans had an advantage in frontal armor and artillery weapons.

    And excellent Zeiss optics, which allowed firing at farther distances.
    All the more respect for our grandfathers and a low bow. A few more years and there will be no frontline soldiers ..
    1. Crane April 7 2020 14: 09 New
      • 2
      • 2
      0
      Nonsense is about optics. Soviet sniper sights were better than the Germans. But the fact that our tanks were one crew member less, namely a commander who monitors the battlefield and fully controls the crew, plus an insufficient number of viewing devices in the tower at first and the inconvenience of observing the tank commander on the port side is a fact .
      1. Andrew Matseevsky April 9 2020 05: 30 New
        • 1
        • 1
        0
        And what about sniper sights? The old tankman arrived from Isaril on the anniversary of the Battle of Kursk. Sanka was traveling with him in the same compartment to Belgorod. So, he said that the tankers were afraid to take off the German eight-time sight and put it on their tank instead of the Soviet four-time. Specialists chased them for it. Apparently they contributed so much to the victory.
        1. Crane April 9 2020 18: 47 New
          • 1
          • 1
          0
          All were shot by the Specialists and fined. They sent the people shot. Grandfather was delirious, and Sanka wrapped noodles on his ears.
          1. Crane April 9 2020 19: 00 New
            • 2
            • 0
            +2
            The Tiger, T3 and T4, like the T34-76, have telescopes x2,4, Panther up to x5, and the T-34-85 x4. Where are the fascists x8?
        2. Alf
          Alf April 9 2020 19: 08 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Quote: Andrew Matseevsky
          tankers were afraid to remove the German eight-time sight and put it on their tank instead of the Soviet four-time.

          But nothing that the designs of the sights are different and such a trifle as mounting points did not fit? It’s the same as if the speedometer from the gelding is stuck in the place of the speedometer of the 24th Volga.
  6. fk7777777 April 6 2020 06: 45 New
    • 5
    • 0
    +5
    Thank you, an interesting article, I have a question, why couldn’t it be possible to upgrade the 76 mm gun or to make a new, more powerful 76 mm fluff? This is logical, especially when retreating to Stalingrad, because 45, ku immediately upgrade to M 42, and she calmly reached Berlin. Scribe, when you look at the chronicle, how the boys dragged it into buildings on the upper floors (this is about whether the army needed grenade launchers at that time) After all, the German 75 mm was a very strong opponent until the end of the war ?, and, in principle, drenched any allied equipment.
    1. There is a page in the history of the town of Fastov in Ukraine ... In 1941, on the outskirts, near the bridge, there was a church with a bell tower. The soldiers dragged 45ku to the bell tower and, having waited for the column, began firing. The Germans deployed guns and demolished the building "under the root"! This was confirmed by the founding and the story of a local resident.
    2. Kot_Kuzya April 6 2020 09: 09 New
      • 7
      • 0
      +7
      They wanted to upgrade, but then decided to immediately switch to a caliber of 85 mm, since the sleeve from a powerful 76 mm shot would be in size and at a price almost the same as that of an 85 mm shot. And the release of 85 mm barrels and shots has already been adjusted.
      1. Alf
        Alf April 6 2020 13: 25 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        Quote: Kot_Kuzya
        They wanted to upgrade, but then decided to immediately switch to a caliber of 85 mm, since the sleeve from a powerful 76 mm shot would be in size and at a price almost the same as that of an 85 mm shot. And the release of 85 mm barrels and shots has already been adjusted.

        Apart from a more powerful HE shell. And how they looked into the water, because even 3K did not dance against the Tigers and Panthers.
    3. Alexey RA April 6 2020 12: 10 New
      • 9
      • 0
      +9
      Quote: fk7777777
      Thank you, an interesting article, I have a question, why couldn’t it be possible to upgrade the 76 mm gun or to make a new, more powerful 76 mm fluff?

      Before the war it didn’t work, because there was a fifth point with copper in the country.
      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.

      And the new gun is the new ammunition stockpile. Therefore, by the way, before the war, all the GAU’s Wishlist for division artillery (85 mm division, 95 mm division) were nailed down.
      In the war, a powerful 76 mm was made - a S-54 tank gun under the shot of an anti-aircraft 76 mm gun. S-54 even climbed into the standard tower T-34-76. But the 76-mm gun lost 85-mm - not least because the new tank gun required not only increased armor penetration, but also an increased range of direct shot of the General Purpose Force while maintaining its power (to defeat the heavy German PTA at long distances). But with the OFS, the “long” 76 mm was bad: the higher the initial speed, the thicker the walls of the projectile should be and the lower its power (especially taking into account the transition to steel cast iron). And if you reduce the initial speed - the direct range falls. So the solution was only to increase the caliber.
      Why so much attention to the OFS? Yes, because this is the main projectile of the tank, and the infantry is its main goal.
      Tanks do not fulfill their main task of destroying enemy infantry, but are distracted by the battle with enemy tanks and artillery. The established practice of opposing our enemy’s tank attacks and getting involved in tank battles is wrong and harmful.
      (...)
      When enemy tanks appear on the battlefield, the main battle with them is artillery. Tanks engage in battle with enemy tanks only in the event of a clear superiority of forces and advantageous position.
      (...)
      The corps should not get involved in tank battles with enemy tanks, unless there is a clear superiority over the enemy. In the event of encountering large enemy tank units, the corps detaches anti-tank artillery and part of the tanks against the enemy tanks, the infantry, in turn, puts forward its anti-tank artillery, and the corps, obscured by all these means, bypasses the enemy tanks with its main forces and hits the enemy infantry with the aim of tear it from enemy tanks and paralyze the actions of enemy tanks. The main task of the tank corps is the destruction of enemy infantry.
      © Order of the NPO USSR No. 325 of October 16, 1942
      "On the combat use of tank and mechanized units and formations."
      1. Saxahorse April 6 2020 21: 12 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: Alexey RA
        Before the war it didn’t work, because there was a fifth point with copper in the country.

        The question is, what prevented the switch to a steel sleeve? Ammunition for small arms after all transferred the sleeve from brass to steel ..
      2. hohol95 April 6 2020 21: 38 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Before the S-54 tests in October 1943, what prevented the performance of the F-34 from reaching the F-22 in 1942?
        The factories manufacturing the T-34 and KV-1 fought for quantity and, if possible, for quality, and the TsAKB did not fuss all 1942 and the first half of 1943 about improving the performance of tank guns!
        The “cat family” was certainly dangerous, but the Pz-IV got 80 mm in the forehead, 75 mm long-barreled in the tower and were more numerous than “steel cats”. It was also difficult to cope with them!
        Waiting for orders to develop new guns?
        1. Alexey RA April 7 2020 12: 06 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          Quote: hohol95
          Before the S-54 tests in October 1943, what prevented the performance of the F-34 from reaching the F-22 in 1942?

          Without changing the shot - it makes no sense. For the sake of 5 mm more armor penetration, do they have to replace tank guns? Moreover, it will still not be possible to realize this increase until 1943 - even in the middle of 1942, "shrapnel to strike" is the main BBS of the Red Army in 76,2 mm caliber.
          If we change the shot, it is better to immediately switch to 85 mm. And yes, until 1943, it would not be possible to replace the shot either.
          1. hohol95 April 7 2020 14: 13 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            5 mm can sometimes solve a lot!
            It is clear that there were a lot of problems with the production of shells. But with the advent of trophies in the form of a Pz-IV with an 80 mm forehead, it really should not have given an impetus to work on the modernization of 76 mm or the creation of more powerful 85 mm guns. Back in 1942!
            Or only got excited after capturing and exploring the first two Tigers?
            By the spring of 1943.
            1. Alexey RA April 7 2020 15: 02 New
              • 2
              • 0
              +2
              Quote: hohol95
              It is clear that there were a lot of problems with the production of shells. But with the advent of trophies in the form of a Pz-IV with an 80 mm forehead, it really should not have given an impetus to work on the modernization of 76 mm or the creation of more powerful 85 mm guns. Back in 1942!

              So Ausf.G is, EMNIP, the end of 1942, he appeared along with the "Tigers".
              Quote: hohol95
              Back in 1942!
              Or only got excited after capturing and exploring the first two Tigers?
              By the spring of 1943.

              The work went on throughout 1942 - at first Uralmash proposed the U-12, then the TsAK, OKB No. 8 named after them presented their projects. Kalinina and design bureau of plant No. 92. But they were refused: for 1942, the 85-mm gun is too expensive and has too expensive a shot to equip it with a mass medium tank.
              But their business was not in vain. © If there were no work on the U-12, then the D-5 would have been much longer.
              1. hohol95 April 7 2020 16: 46 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                So Ausf.G is, EMNIP, the end of 1942, he appeared along with the "Tigers".

                And they write that this modification began to be made in May 1942.
                But at the same time, the F2 modification was forgotten. Already with a "long arm", but still 50 mm VLD!
                Her appearance increased the distance at which German tankers began to threaten the life of Soviet tankers!
                But they were refused: in 1942, the 85-mm gun was too expensive and had too expensive a shot to equip it with a mass medium tank.

                So EVERYTHING (except TsAKB) rushed to develop NEW guns. And nobody wanted to engage in the modernization of 76 mm.
                Clear! Thanks for the answer! hi
                1. Alexey RA April 7 2020 17: 24 New
                  • 1
                  • 0
                  +1
                  Quote: hohol95
                  And they write that this modification began to be made in May 1942.

                  Since May - this is the base Ausf.G, without additional armor in the forehead. Cases with an additional 30 mm in the frontal projection went later - they were received by less than 50% issued by Ausf.G ..
                  Quote: hohol95
                  So EVERYTHING (except TsAKB) rushed to develop NEW guns. And nobody wanted to engage in the modernization of 76 mm.

                  Once again: it makes no sense to upgrade them. The shot of the “division” has been scooped to the bottom - nothing can be pulled out of it. And a gun with anti-aircraft ballistic does not suit the Bolshoi State Technical University because of too low OFS (higher speed - thicker walls, and even cast iron) and the lack of production of 76,2 mm anti-aircraft shells.
      3. fk7777777 April 7 2020 06: 33 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Thank you, but the Germans at the beginning of the “blau” operation managed to carry out rearmament, that is, they appeared albeit antediluvian, but armored personnel carriers, which made it possible to pass the barrage artillery fire infantry infantry became motorized. And simultaneously and massively on a limited section of the front, they used cumulative shells of 75 mm (penetration diameter 57 mm), which was a shock for the defenders, that is, the artillery did not help, the tanks burned and the result was a throw of nemchury to Stalingrad.
    4. Alf
      Alf April 6 2020 13: 23 New
      • 5
      • 1
      +4
      Quote: fk7777777
      I have a question, why couldn’t it be possible to upgrade the 76 mm gun or to make a new, more powerful down 76 mm gun?

      Well, why immediately it was impossible to gash the T-44, and put the LA-7 in a series, and the PE-8 would not hurt a couple of thousand? What to sharpen the trunks of "more powerful fluff"? And where is the new 76-mm shell to take in the right quantities. And in the winter of 41-42 it was necessary not to invent new “fluffs”, but to saturate the army with at least 45 kami, especially when the plants were still on the wagons.
      Do you have a car? And a 4-room apartment?
      1. fk7777777 April 7 2020 06: 41 New
        • 1
        • 1
        0
        The army was full of 45s, m-37, and they were nicknamed "goodbye Rodina", because only up to 100 meters the effect of defeating the tank, and the armor plate was only 4mm, i.e. even a sniper shot the calculation. They were upgraded to M-42, things got a little better. But the German tactics of an inverted tank wedge, when, according to the calculation, 3-4 tanks plus machine guns were simultaneously hit from a single distance at once, made itself felt.
        1. Alf
          Alf April 7 2020 13: 31 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Quote: Alf
          What to sharpen the trunks of "more powerful fluff"? And where is the new 76-mm shell to take in the right quantities.

          You ignored this question, apparently there is nothing to say.
        2. meandr51 April 11 2020 16: 01 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          And where did these wedges end up in the result?
  7. bubalik April 6 2020 07: 50 New
    • 8
    • 0
    +8
    Panther in trials
  8. Krasnoyarsk April 6 2020 08: 48 New
    • 10
    • 0
    +10
    The article is definitely a plus. But, small, most likely not a remark, but a request. Not all readers are familiar with art systems. Therefore, it would be nice if the author, at their mention, indicated what kind of weapon it was. For example - 52-K - Soviet anti-aircraft gun model 1939.
    That's all, this information is enough.
    After all, which article is good? One for a complete understanding of which there is no need for reference literature. Those. there is no need to be distracted from reading an article looking for additional information.
    1. Aviator_ April 6 2020 13: 40 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      I agree. And the photos of the mentioned artillery systems would be very appropriate.
    2. vladcub April 6 2020 13: 57 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      I agree with you: far from all readers understand this.
    3. Looking for April 6 2020 16: 14 New
      • 0
      • 10
      -10
      This site is not for cooks and gardeners and not for training.
      1. Krasnoyarsk April 6 2020 18: 47 New
        • 9
        • 0
        +9
        Quote: Seeker
        This site is not for cooks and gardeners and not for training.

        And who are you to determine who to visit the site and who not?
        And, if you have already learned everything, then what are you doing here?
      2. Kote Pan Kokhanka April 6 2020 19: 14 New
        • 16
        • 0
        +16
        Quote: Seeker
        This site is not for cooks and gardeners and not for training.

        A bold statement, on the verge of insulting all lovers, it is delicious to cook and plant something on their 6 hundredths !!! Let it be this rudeness to the forum users will remain on your conscience, but .... at least I know a couple of professional weapons designers who, when retired, are inveterate gardeners, gardeners, and one who is angry at your post, an expert at cooking kebab of their wild boar, Yes, such that the Georgians cry on the sidelines. However, he worked on retired from his daughter in a restaurant, while health allowed. And the most interesting thing in VO is they drop in, and here you are with your radicalism !!! Not ashamed? If you know absolutely everything, then go look, maybe find it.
        Now about the educational nature of VO. For the first time I was brought to this harbor back in 2013, in search of material on moral and psychological training for personnel! Where is MPP and where is VO?
        So it’s an extremely flawed idea to equalize everything, everyone and everything! At the same time, ignoring the beautiful half of our site, which also often looks at the branch! And there every second, a florist by vocation, a culinary by necessity. It’s a sin, ten months ago, I was interested in the forum where in the capital you can see garden, flower and park delights !!!
        Sincerely, I think you should apologize to the forum users.
        1. Okolotochny April 6 2020 22: 45 New
          • 4
          • 0
          +4
          So everyone painted deliciously, drooling, and forgotten for Moonshine))) experts in this matter also come here. Yeah, Stool !!!
  9. Pavel57 April 6 2020 09: 32 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    For that time, 100mm would be sufficient, for example, the Su-100. The 122mm still had a low rate of fire, which in a duel gave the Tiger an advantage,
    1. Alexey RA April 6 2020 12: 36 New
      • 8
      • 0
      +8
      Quote: Pavel57
      For that time, 100mm would be sufficient, for example, the Su-100.

      And why do tank guns without armor-piercing shells? EMNIP, the serial 100-mm armor-piercing ones appeared only in November 1944 - despite the fact that they had been engaged in tank “weaving” since 1943. Because of this, by the way, I had to delay the release of the SU-100, releasing the “mutant” SU- instead 85M (SU-100 body with 85 mm gun).
      Well, the original user didn’t need 100-mm guns — the fleet — armor-piercing ones for him: on large ships, the “weaving” was anti-aircraft guns, and on small ones ... the target, for the destruction of which 100-mm armor-piercing ones were needed, would deal with TSC or SKR at a time .
      Quote: Pavel57
      The 122mm still had a low rate of fire, which in a duel gave the Tiger an advantage,

      And how many duels were there?
      For TT, the main thing is a powerful OFS, with which it will clean up targets that have survived during artillery preparation and for which it is not enough full-time infantry guns.
      And, by the way, the 100-mm gun significantly exceeded the 122-mm rate of fire only at the stand. But after installing a real tank in the tower, the advantage of the “hundred” was minimal: loading a long unit in a tight fighting compartment was still that Tetris. smile
      1. Looking for April 6 2020 16: 17 New
        • 1
        • 2
        -1
        Because of this, by the way, I had to delay the release of the SU-100, releasing the “mutant” SU-85M instead (the SU-100 body with an 85-mm gun). Well, it was rather the SU-100 “MUTANT” SU-85.
        1. Alexey RA April 6 2020 17: 30 New
          • 5
          • 1
          +4
          Quote: Seeker
          Well, rather, this SU-100 was a "MUTANT" SU-85.

          Uh, no. The SU-100 body was designed by a specialist for a 100 mm gun. And suddenly it turned out that there was a hull, but no guns. smile
          1. Alf
            Alf April 6 2020 20: 54 New
            • 1
            • 1
            0
            Quote: Alexey RA
            The SU-100 body was designed by a specialist for a 100 mm gun.

            What is your evidence?
            The fact that the body of the SU-100 was different from the body of the SU-85, I know, but to file a new case?
            1. hohol95 April 6 2020 23: 31 New
              • 2
              • 0
              +2
              Would you suggest that the designers try to squeeze a 100 mm gun into the SU-85 body without any alterations?
              On the basis of the SU-100 case, the SU-122P was designed and passed all the tests. But the series did not go because of the dissenting opinion of the deputy commissar of the tank industry J.Ya. Kotina, who (despite the data from state tests) doubted the strength of the T-34 undercarriage when firing from a 122-mm gun.
              1. Alf
                Alf April 7 2020 13: 28 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Quote: hohol95
                Would you suggest that the designers try to squeeze a 100 mm gun into the SU-85 body without any alterations?

                Remaking the old and creating the new are completely different things.
                1. hohol95 April 7 2020 13: 57 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  Sometimes creating a new more profitable alteration of an existing one!
                  At the same time, the new is visually similar to the “well-forgotten old”.
                  We can say that the ancestor of such buildings was the SU-122.
                  And the last machine with a "similar" body - SU-122-44.
                  1. Alf
                    Alf April 7 2020 14: 37 New
                    • 2
                    • 0
                    +2
                    Quote: hohol95
                    Sometimes creating a new more profitable alteration of an existing one!

                    What are the cardinal differences? Where is the new building here? The harvesters are different, yes.
                    1. hohol95 April 7 2020 16: 33 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      Put the SU-122 still nearby!
                      1. Alf
                        Alf April 7 2020 17: 16 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Quote: hohol95
                        Put the SU-122 still nearby!

                        So what are the differences? Specifically?
                    2. Alexey RA April 7 2020 18: 23 New
                      • 1
                      • 0
                      +1
                      Quote: Alf
                      What are the cardinal differences? Where is the new building here?

                      * looks thoughtfully at the thickness of the VLD SU-100.
                      1. Alf
                        Alf April 7 2020 18: 32 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Yes, the forehead thickness is increased, but where is the NEW building here? A new cooker is welded, but is the housing design changed? Above in the photo I gave the number of new parts. You still say that the changed commander’s turret is the NEW building.
          2. Alf
            Alf April 7 2020 17: 33 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Quote: Alexey RA
            The SU-100 body was designed by a specialist for a 100 mm gun.

            Uh no!


            On the contrary, it was a hundredths that were pushed into the SU-85 body. And without much change.
            And even more so, without creating a new building.
        2. Pavel57 April 6 2020 23: 36 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Su-85M was produced due to the lack of a 100mm gun.
          1. Alexey RA April 7 2020 12: 07 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Quote: Pavel57
            Su-85M was produced due to the lack of a 100mm gun.

            There were guns. There were no shells until November 1944. Do not let out anti-tank self-propelled guns without armor-piercing shells? smile
            1. Pavel57 April 10 2020 10: 43 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Well, the Su-100 and Su-85M were produced in parallel. Then why were the Su-100 manufactured if there were no shells?
              1. Alexey RA April 10 2020 11: 01 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                Quote: Pavel57
                Well, the Su-100 and Su-85M were produced in parallel. Then why were the Su-100 manufactured if there were no shells?

                Do you mean September-October 1944? During this period, the SU-85M was released to make up for the losses of existing regiments of the PT-SAU. And the release of the SU-100 went "in the future", in which the formation of three self-propelled brigades of 65 vehicles in each was viewed. For the plant needed more than two months to produce such an amount of self-propelled guns. And there, the shells will arrive in time.
                1. Pavel57 April 10 2020 11: 45 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  Alexey RA (Alexey), most likely it was, although a high-explosive projectile 100mm when it gets into the tank incapacitates it.
        3. fk7777777 April 7 2020 09: 15 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          But, the project of installing 100 mm guns was before the war and they were going to install both on t34 and on square 1. That is why a 100 mm gun was developed.
          1. Alexey RA April 7 2020 12: 13 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Quote: fk7777777
            But, the project of installing 100 mm guns was before the war and they were going to install both on t34 and on square 1.

            Before the war, the 100 mm caliber was purely naval. CSKA and GABTU were perverted with 107-mm guns (armor penetration at a distance of 1000 m - 160 mm at an angle of 30 degrees from the normal ... these are the technical specifications written by GAU belay ).
            And in the war I had to take the caliber for which there was a serial production of at least some shots. At first, in 1943 they wanted to return to the 107 mm - but it turned out that the remains of the guns of this caliber were eating up stocks from warehouses, and the release of shots for them was stopped. And it was necessary to introduce a naval caliber of 100 mm into the army.
          2. Alf
            Alf April 7 2020 13: 33 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Quote: fk7777777
            But, the project of installing 100 mm guns was before the war and they were going to install both on t34 and on square 1.

            Name at least one project.
            1. Alexey RA April 7 2020 15: 05 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Quote: Alf
              Name at least one project.

              Most likely, this is a “paper” A-44 and has never been completed by the KV-3.
              1. Alf
                Alf April 7 2020 17: 21 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                Quote: Alexey RA
                Quote: Alf
                Name at least one project.

                Most likely, this is a “paper” A-44 and has never been completed by the KV-3.



                Everywhere 107-mm gun F-42. In the Red Army, a 100-mm gun appeared only in the 44th year.
                1. Alexey RA April 7 2020 18: 56 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  Quote: Alf
                  Everywhere 107-mm gun F-42. In the Red Army, a 100-mm gun appeared only in the 44th year.

                  Yes, I am aware that until 1943, 100-mm anti-aircraft guns were only in the fleet + air defense was eyeing them. And the army team, so as not to produce essence, worked with the good old caliber 42 lines.
                  It's just that these are the only more or less well-known pre-war tanks with guns approximately 100 mm. smile
                  1. Alf
                    Alf April 8 2020 19: 25 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    Quote: Alexey RA
                    It's just that these are the only more or less well-known pre-war tanks with a gun of about 100 mm.

                    Alexei ! You are a worthy opponent and knowledgeable "riveter", but SO do not need to change shoes. For example, I can publicly admit my wrongness and my ignorance of the issue.
                    1. Alexey RA April 8 2020 19: 42 New
                      • 1
                      • 0
                      +1
                      Quote: Alf
                      Alexei ! You are a worthy opponent and knowledgeable "riveter", but SO do not need to change shoes. For example, I can publicly admit my wrongness and my ignorance of the issue.

                      No problem.
                      I admit the incorrect wording of my post. It should have been:
                      Rather, meant "paper" A-44 and never completed KV-3.

                      Yes, I cut with a 107-mm dryin even on the HF - before it was divided in two. laughing

                      So for my part this is the wrong wording. Before the war, there were no plans for a “hundred” on the tanks, but the author of the original post could confuse 107-mm and 100-mm.
                      1. Alf
                        Alf April 9 2020 18: 59 New
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        +1
                        Quote: Alexey RA
                        So for my part this is the wrong wording.

                        Thank you I respected you even more.
      2. mat-vey April 7 2020 15: 35 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: Alexey RA
        The 122mm still had a low rate of fire, which in a duel gave the Tiger an advantage,

        And how many duels were there?

        I’m always curious about the "rate of fire" - is it technical, range, combat?
        1. Alexey RA April 7 2020 15: 52 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Quote: mat-vey
          I’m always curious about the "rate of fire" - is it technical, range, combat?

          When comparing 100-mm and 122-mm most often they take the polygon rate of fire of the gun when working from the machine.
          The combat is tactfully omitted - because with it a significant superiority of 100 mm in rate of fire does not work. smile
          1. mat-vey April 7 2020 16: 00 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Quote: Alexey RA
            The combat is tactfully omitted - because with it a significant superiority of 100 mm in rate of fire does not work.

            Here I am talking about the same thing ... And if about IP and the Tiger, then IP and a high explosive can damage it without breaking through the armor
            1. Alexey RA April 7 2020 16: 14 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Quote: mat-vey
              And if about IP and Tiger, then IP and high explosive can disable, without "breaking through" the armor

              122 mm land mine in NLD - goodbye, gearbox and turning mechanism. The armor is not broken, but the tank is standing.
              1. mat-vey April 7 2020 16: 26 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                And with the crew, everything is ambiguous .. Although you can guess ..
    2. Alf
      Alf April 6 2020 13: 29 New
      • 4
      • 0
      +4
      Quote: Pavel57
      For that time, 100mm would be sufficient, for example, the Su-100. The 122mm still had a low rate of fire, which in a duel gave the Tiger an advantage,

      In addition to the rate of fire in the duel, another factor-time correction of the tip plays. A Tiger muzzle brake gave a "good" cloud.
      1. mat-vey April 7 2020 15: 39 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: Alf
        A Tiger muzzle brake gave a "good" cloud.

        And even too intense shooting caused overheating and leakage of recoil devices ... Well, a roll of more than 5% made it difficult to turn the tower ..
      2. Alexey RA April 7 2020 18: 29 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: Alf

        In addition to the rate of fire in the duel, another factor-time correction of the tip plays. A Tiger muzzle brake gave a "good" cloud.

        The muzzle brake and the IS-2 was not a gift. SW M. Svirin wrote that the experienced tank landing on the IS-2 was always hidden behind the rear plate of the tower, and when infantry and the tank interacted, the infantrymen with one eye were always forced to monitor where the barrel was turned - so as not to be on the side and behind, on the side of it when a shot.
        1. Alf
          Alf April 9 2020 19: 05 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: Alexey RA
          The muzzle brake and the IS-2 was not a gift.

          I have no objection. But then it turns out that the real rate of fire of both guns was approximately the same. I mean the side of the Tiger, when it was necessary not only to shoot at whom God would send, but also to correct the tip. Moreover, it is worth mentioning the fact that how many shells the Tiger had "at hand", and how many were shoved over the hull.
      3. tank64rus 22 June 2020 11: 24 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        After adopting the IS-122 (IS-2) as a result of the duel situations, the leadership of the Wehrmacht tank forces issued an instruction where it was forbidden to engage in open battle with the IS-2. It says, in particular, that the days when it was possible to engage in open battle with Soviet tanks on the Tigers with impunity irrevocably passed. It was recommended to hit IS-2 due to ambushes. This is an official document.
    3. meandr51 April 11 2020 16: 05 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      The combat rate of fire was almost the same. There are still a lot of factors, including the tower’s rotation speed, stopping time, etc. In reality, the IS-2 demolished the Tiger Tower from 2 km with impunity and openly. Zeiss optics did not help much. And there were more ISs than Tigers ...
  10. BAI
    BAI April 6 2020 09: 33 New
    • 9
    • 0
    +9
    Subsequently, the Polygon employees issued at least ten reference books and memos on the destruction of various German armored vehicles.


    1. BAI
      BAI April 6 2020 09: 48 New
      • 6
      • 0
      +6
      Similar studies were conducted in Sverdlovsk.
      1. BAI
        BAI April 6 2020 12: 03 New
        • 4
        • 0
        +4
        By the way, the recommendation to hit the gun’s barrel was not an empty phrase.

        War album.
    2. bubalik April 6 2020 10: 59 New
      • 8
      • 0
      +8
      BAI Today, 10: 33
      hi



  11. Sfurei April 6 2020 11: 05 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    Thanks for the interesting article !!!
  12. bbss April 6 2020 13: 56 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    The tiger in Snigiri is interesting than they beat.
  13. vladcub April 6 2020 14: 19 New
    • 5
    • 0
    +5
    Comrades, the article turned out to be good, but now I thought: Germans, of course, also fired at captured tanks at the firing range. I wonder what conclusions the Germans made at the end of the study?
    The episode from the movie epic comes to mind: "Liberation", when in the presence of Hitler, a Tiger is shot from the T-34. But how was it really?
    1. Aleksandr72 April 6 2020 16: 12 New
      • 4
      • 1
      +3
      I also remembered this film, the episode when Hitler, played by the German Democratic actor Fritz Dietz, said: "Mit einigem schuss!" - "With one shot!" in the episode when the T-34 shot at the Tiger and shot through the frontal armor with a single shot. I - the child then believed this unconditionally, and only growing up found out that everything was exactly the opposite - the Tigers burned our T-34s with a distance unattainable for our tank guns and our tankers had to engage in close combat not hand-to-hand in a tank only to be able to albeit scanty, but to knock down the enemy so that the enemy does not shoot our tanks with impunity as at a training ground. And in Germany, the Nazis tested at their training grounds, including and on Kummersdorf many of our tanks, including and shelling from various distances. Here is what Lieutenant General of the Tank Forces N. G. Popel wrote about this in his memoirs, who in the spring of 1945 served as a member of the military council of the 1st Guards Tank Army:
      On the eve of April 20, 1945, the firing range was occupied by units of the 1st Guards Tank Brigade, Colonel A.M. Temnik. At the firing range, Soviet soldiers found shot tanks and self-propelled guns, among which were the Soviet IS-1 and SU-152, as well as the Royal Tiger »The latest modification. In the wrecked cars were the remains of people - apparently, the captured Soviet tankers.
      .
      By the way, the famous legend about the bold escape of Soviet tankers - former prisoners of war from a German tank range on the captured T-34, which after the war formed the basis of the script for the film “The Lark”, originates from here.
      I have not yet encountered reports on test bombardments of Soviet armored vehicles at German firing ranges, but it is well known that even the frontal armor of the most widespread Soviet T-34 tank was penetrated by armor-piercing shells of almost all German tank and anti-tank guns, with the exception of 37 mm and 50 mm with a barrel length of 42 calibers. Already a 60-caliber 50-mm gun under certain conditions pierced the forehead of the hull and turret T-34. Not to mention the long-barreled 75-mm and 88-mm guns. Something like this.
      PS And Fritz Dietz played Hitler not only in all three parts of Yuri Ozerov’s epic "Liberation", but also in other films, including in the famous and beloved by Soviet (and not only) viewers of the series by Tatyana Lioznova "Seventeen Moments of Spring".
      1. vladcub April 6 2020 17: 52 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Alexander, I remember this actor and then somehow compared Dietz and for / shots, it turned out well.
        Regarding the 88 mm, it was an excellent anti-tank gun until the end of the war. I don’t remember where I read that our 85 mm imitation of German.
        Concerning the escape of Soviet tankmen from the firing range, apparently, they were also used in the “four tankers”. When I watched this film as a child, one of the adults said that it was different there.
        1. Pavel57 April 6 2020 23: 42 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          German anti-tank and anti-aircraft guns accurately influenced the development of Soviet artillery.
      2. Alexey RA April 8 2020 15: 37 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: Aleksandr72
        I haven’t seen reports of test bombardments of Soviet armored vehicles at German training ranges,

        And why are they, if there is a domestic report of shelling of domestic armor with captured BBS from captured weapons (lies in LiveJournal of D. Shein AKA litl-bro).
        On June 25, 1942, the Chairman of the GAU Art Committee, Major General Khokhlov, approved the test program for tank armor of domestic production with captured shells armed with German artillery and shells armed with spacecraft. In accordance with the specified program of work, the Gorokhovets training range from October 9 to November 4, 1942, shot with captured trophy 37 mm ordinary and sub-caliber shells, 50 mm ordinary and sub-caliber shells 75 mm homogeneous medium hard armor plates, 45 mm homogeneous armor plates high hardness and 30 mm homogeneous armor plates of medium hardness.

        Test result:
        50-mm anti-tank gun PaK.38, ordinary armor-piercing:
        The 75-mm sheet normal showed the back strength limit of 700 m, the through penetration limit of 400 m. That is, starting from a distance of 700 m and closer PaK.38 can penetrate unshielded HF armor, with 400 m it is guaranteed to break through.
        The 45-mm sheet along the normal showed the through penetration limit of 1500 m, at an angle of 30 degrees to the normal 1300 m.
        That is, PaK.38 confidently hits the T-34 in the side and the tower at any real combat distance.

        37-mm anti-tank gun PaK.36, ordinary armor-piercing:
        45-mm sheet along the normal showed the limit of the durability of 700 meters - that is, starting with 700 meters, a “beater” can dig through the side and the T-34 tower.

        In addition, the German anti-tank missile was built based on the calculation of the defeat of tanks on board. They tried not to shoot into the frontal projection, because there usually the best protection and the greatest attention of the crew. However, the T-34's forehead turned out to be vulnerable even to 7,5 cm landmines - the Achilles' heel turned out to be a fairly dimensional mechwater hatch.
        In our place, Pavlov proposed to build a TVET on the basis of flank fire - according to the experience of Spain. But in fact, this was only dealt with in 1943, when fire bags appeared in orders and instructions on technical and technical measures, flirting guns and fire on board.
    2. BAI
      BAI April 6 2020 18: 58 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      In this episode appears T-34-85, which at that time was not.
  14. vladcub April 6 2020 14: 43 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    “The selection of the most valuable and the earliest unknown specimens” in this regard, remembered a moment from Fedorov’s book, the famous gunsmith, that he was looking forward to seeing what was new to the Germans?
  15. Termit1309 April 8 2020 09: 18 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: Aleksandr72
    Not to mention the long-barreled 75-mm and 88-mm guns. Something like this.

    And how many such guns did the enemy have in 41-42 years?
    1. Alf
      Alf April 8 2020 19: 40 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: Termit1309
      Quote: Aleksandr72
      Not to mention the long-barreled 75-mm and 88-mm guns. Something like this.

      And how many such guns did the enemy have in 41-42 years?


  16. tank64rus 22 June 2020 11: 11 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    By the way, from an article by the British "historian" who "studied the Prokhorov battle, where this" historian "claims that the Germans lost as many as 5 tanks there and our troops 300 or more. I couldn’t understand where the number was from 5. And then I read the book" Steel Stalin’s fist "by M. Sviridov, and there’s a mention that after the Kursk Bulge, a special commission discovered and selected 5 FIVE TIGERS that can be used to test weapons and so on. These pseudo-histories quickly and quickly made a 1 to 60 ratio, but they can And besides, the Germans in the 2 tank corps of the SS also had a tank company of captured T-34s. According to various sources, the size of this company was up to 30 tanks.
  17. Dedok 29 June 2020 08: 59 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    when you look at these reports, the question arises: from what shot from a distance of 1000 meters could they just get into the hull? and with what account - got "in place"? not a word about it ...
    And in battle, this figure fell even ...
    Therefore, I bow my head to the courage of our tankers.