Military Review

Anvils for the Red Army. Tests of German captured tanks

100

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

I have an account? Sign in

  1. svp67
    svp67 April 6 2020 05: 27 New
    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. The leader of the Redskins
      The leader of the Redskins April 6 2020 07: 01 New
      +9
      Also immediately caught my eye.
      1. your1970
        your1970 April 9 2020 20: 01 New
        +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
          -1
          Well, or local Vlasovites. All the same, far Saratov from Germany
          1. your1970
            your1970 25 May 2020 21: 39 New
            +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
              -1
              Yes. The time was sad. But there were heroes. Happy
  2. Catfish
    Catfish April 6 2020 05: 33 New
    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
      Fitter65 April 6 2020 05: 49 New
      +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
        Reptiloid April 6 2020 09: 20 New
        +6
        I look forward to continuing. I liked the article.
  3. Aleksandr72
    Aleksandr72 April 6 2020 05: 42 New
    +9
    Вот так "приручали" гитлеровский "зверинец"! Основная проблема была не сколько в низких характеристиках наших танковых и противотанковых пушек - причем всех от 53-к и до ЗИС С-53, а в качестве бронебойных снарядов к ним. Неудивительно, что имея в качестве основного орудия 76-мм Ф-34 и ЗиС-3 соответственно наши танкисты и противотанкисты несли большие потери в боях с новыми немецкими "кошками". Удивительно другое - что наши воины, не смотря ни на что, уступая противнику качественно, сумели переломить хребет панцерваффе в 1943-44 гг.
    1. The leader of the Redskins
      The leader of the Redskins April 6 2020 07: 07 New
      11
      У Барятинского описывался момент, когда в начале войны выяснилось, что 45 мм противотанковые снаряды часто рикошетировали от немецкой брони. Решение подсказал пожилой профессор (фамилию не вспомню) из Ленинграда. Он предложил делать на токарном станке на снарядах проточку. Военные удивились и не поверили, но эксперимент сделали. Каково же было их удивление, когда рикошеты почти прекратились! Оказывается твердый "носик" "закусывал" броню, а тяжёлое тело, продолжая энергию, погибалось по проточке, но все равно "запихивал" "носик" в броню!. Так видоизменились снаряды сорокопяток))(
      1. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA April 6 2020 11: 51 New
        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.

        "Пожилого профессора" звали Анатолий Андреевич Гартц. Выпускник Михайловской артиллерийской академии, начальник отдела Специального снарядного бюро, выдающийся конструктор боеприпасов и главный специалист по бронебойным снарядам.
        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
      Serg koma April 6 2020 08: 04 New
      +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
    mark1 April 6 2020 05: 49 New
    +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.
    На сколько я помню - это история про "Пантеру"
    1. The leader of the Redskins
      The leader of the Redskins April 6 2020 07: 08 New
      +5
      Именно с "пантерой" описывалось в журнале "техника молодёжи".
  5. Razvedka_Boem
    Razvedka_Boem April 6 2020 06: 06 New
    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
      Crane April 7 2020 14: 09 New
      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
        Andrew Matseevsky April 9 2020 05: 30 New
        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
          Crane April 9 2020 18: 47 New
          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
            Crane April 9 2020 19: 00 New
            +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
          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
    fk7777777 April 6 2020 06: 45 New
    +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. The leader of the Redskins
      The leader of the Redskins April 6 2020 07: 12 New
      0
      В истории городка Фастов на Украине есть страничка... В 1941, на окраине, около моста стояла церковь с колокольней. Бойцы втащили на колокольню 45ку и дождавшись колонны начали обстрел. Немцы развернули орудия и снесли строение "под корень"! Подтверждением тому был обнаруженный фундамент и рассказ местного жителя.
    2. Kot_Kuzya
      Kot_Kuzya April 6 2020 09: 09 New
      +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
        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
      Alexey RA April 6 2020 12: 10 New
      +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.
      В войну же мощную 76-мм сделали - танковое орудие С-54 под выстрел зенитной 76-мм пушки. С-54 даже влезла в штатную башню Т-34-76. Но 76-мм пушка проиграла 85-мм - не в последнюю очередь потому, что от нового танкового орудия требовалась не только повышенная бронепробиваемость, но и увеличенная дальность прямого выстрела ОФС с сохранением его могущества (для поражения потяжелевшей немецкой ПТА на больших дистанциях). А вот с ОФС у "длинной" 76-мм было плохо: чем выше начальная скорость, тем толще должны быть стенки снаряда и тем ниже его могущество (особенно с учётом перехода на сталистый чугун). А если снизить начальную скорость - падает дальность прямого выстрела. Так что решением было только повышение калибра.
      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
      "О боевом применении танковых и механизированных частей и соединений".
      1. Saxahorse
        Saxahorse April 6 2020 21: 12 New
        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
        hohol95 April 6 2020 21: 38 New
        +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!
        "Кошачье семейство" конечно было опасно, но и Pz-IV получили 80 мм во лбу, 75 мм длинностволку в башне и были более многочисленней "стальных кошек". С ними так-же было трудно справляться!
        Waiting for orders to develop new guns?
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA April 7 2020 12: 06 New
          +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?

          Без изменения выстрела - смысла нет. Ради большей на 5 мм бронепробиваемости городить замену танковых пушек? Тем более, что реализовать это повышение до 1943 г. всё равно не удастся - даже в середине 1942 г. основным ББС РККА в калибре 76,2 мм является "шрапнель на удар".
          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
            hohol95 April 7 2020 14: 13 New
            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!
            Или встрепенулись только после захвата и исследования первых двух "Тигров"?
            By the spring of 1943.
            1. Alexey RA
              Alexey RA April 7 2020 15: 02 New
              +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!

              Так Ausf.G - это, ЕМНИП, конец 1942 г., он вместе с "Тиграми" появился.
              Quote: hohol95
              Back in 1942!
              Или встрепенулись только после захвата и исследования первых двух "Тигров"?
              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
                hohol95 April 7 2020 16: 46 New
                +1
                Так Ausf.G - это, ЕМНИП, конец 1942 г., он вместе с "Тиграми" появился.

                And they write that this modification began to be made in May 1942.
                Но при этом забылась модификация F2. Уже с "длинной рукой", но пока ещё 50 мм ВЛД!
                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
                  Alexey RA April 7 2020 17: 24 New
                  +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.

                  Ещё раз: их нет смысла модернизировать. Выстрел "дивизионки" вычерпан до дна - из него больше ничего не вытянешь. А пушка с баллистикой зенитки не устраивает ГАБТУ по причине слишком маломощного ОФС (выше скорость - толще стенки, да ещё и сталистый чугуний) и отсутствия производства 76,2-мм зенитных снарядов.
      3. fk7777777
        fk7777777 April 7 2020 06: 33 New
        +2
        Спасибо, но немцы в начале операции "блау" умудрились провести перевооружение т. е. появились пусть допотопные, но БТР, которые, позволяли пройти заградительный артогонь пехоте, т.е. пехота стала моторизированной. И одномоментно и массово на ограниченном участке фронта использовали кумулятивные снаряды 75 мм, (диаметр пробития 57 мм), что стало шоком для обороняющиихся, т. е. арта не помогала, танки горели и результат бросок немчуры к Сталинграду.
    4. Alf
      Alf April 6 2020 13: 23 New
      +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?

      Ну а почему сразу нельзя было Т-44 запилить, и ЛА-7 в серию поставить, да и ПЕ-8 пара тысяч не помешали бы ? На чем стволы "более мощной пухи" точить ? И где новый 76-мм снаряд взять в нужных количествах. Да и зимой 41-42 надо было не новые "пухи" изобретать, а хотя бы 45-ками армию насытить, особенно когда заводы еще на вагонах стоят.
      Do you have a car? And a 4-room apartment?
      1. fk7777777
        fk7777777 April 7 2020 06: 41 New
        0
        45-ми армия была насыщена, м-37,их и прозвали "прощай Родина", потому как только до 100 метров эффект поражения танка, а бронещиток был всего 4мм,т.е. даже снайпера отстреливали расчёт. Их модернизировали до М-42,дело немного получше стало. Но немецкая тактика перевернутого танкового клина, когда на один выстрел по расчёту одномоментно с близкого расстояния били 3-4 танка плюс пулемёты, давало о себе знать.
        1. Alf
          Alf April 7 2020 13: 31 New
          +1
          Quote: Alf
          На чем стволы "более мощной пухи" точить ? И где новый 76-мм снаряд взять в нужных количествах.

          You ignored this question, apparently there is nothing to say.
        2. meandr51
          meandr51 April 11 2020 16: 01 New
          0
          And where did these wedges end up in the result?
  7. bubalik
    bubalik April 6 2020 07: 50 New
    +8
    "Пантера" на испытаниях
  8. Krasnoyarsk
    Krasnoyarsk April 6 2020 08: 48 New
    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_
      Aviator_ April 6 2020 13: 40 New
      +3
      I agree. And the photos of the mentioned artillery systems would be very appropriate.
    2. vladcub
      vladcub April 6 2020 13: 57 New
      +1
      I agree with you: far from all readers understand this.
    3. Looking for
      Looking for April 6 2020 16: 14 New
      -10
      This site is not for cooks and gardeners and not for training.
      1. Krasnoyarsk
        Krasnoyarsk April 6 2020 18: 47 New
        +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
        Kote Pan Kokhanka April 6 2020 19: 14 New
        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
          Okolotochny April 6 2020 22: 45 New
          +4
          So everyone painted deliciously, drooling, and forgotten for Moonshine))) experts in this matter also come here. Yeah, Stool !!!
  9. Pavel57
    Pavel57 April 6 2020 09: 32 New
    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
      Alexey RA April 6 2020 12: 36 New
      +8
      Quote: Pavel57
      For that time, 100mm would be sufficient, for example, the Su-100.

      И зачем танкистам пушка без бронебойных снарядов? ЕМНИП, серийные 100-мм бронебойные появились только в ноябре 1944 г. - при том, что танковой "соткой" занимались с 1943 г. Из-за этого, кстати, пришлось задержать выпуск СУ-100, выпуская вместо неё "мутанта" СУ-85М (корпус СУ-100 с 85-мм пушкой).
      Ну не нужны были исходному пользователю 100-мм орудия - флоту - бронебойные для него: на больших кораблях "сотка" была зениткой, а на малых... цель, для поражения которой нужны 100-мм бронебойные, расправится с ТЩ ил СКР на раз.
      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.
      И, кстати, 100-мм орудие значительно превосходило 122-мм по скорострельности только на стенде. А вот после установки в башню реального танка преимущество "сотки" оказалось минимальным: заряжание длинного унитара в тесном боевом отделении было ещё тем тетрисом. smile
      1. Looking for
        Looking for April 6 2020 16: 17 New
        -1
        Из-за этого, кстати, пришлось задержать выпуск СУ-100, выпуская вместо неё "мутанта" СУ-85М (корпус СУ-100 с 85-мм пушкой).ну скорее это СУ-100 БЫЛА "МУТАНТОМ"СУ-85.
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA April 6 2020 17: 30 New
          +4
          Quote: Seeker
          ну скорее это СУ-100 БЫЛА "МУТАНТОМ"СУ-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
            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
              hohol95 April 6 2020 23: 31 New
              +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
                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
                  hohol95 April 7 2020 13: 57 New
                  0
                  Sometimes creating a new more profitable alteration of an existing one!
                  При этом новое визуально похоже на "хорошо забытое старое".
                  We can say that the ancestor of such buildings was the SU-122.
                  А последней машиной с "подобным" корпусом - СУ-122-44.
                  1. Alf
                    Alf April 7 2020 14: 37 New
                    +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
                      hohol95 April 7 2020 16: 33 New
                      0
                      Put the SU-122 still nearby!
                      1. Alf
                        Alf April 7 2020 17: 16 New
                        0
                        Quote: hohol95
                        Put the SU-122 still nearby!

                        So what are the differences? Specifically?
                    2. Alexey RA
                      Alexey RA April 7 2020 18: 23 New
                      +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
                        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
            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
          Pavel57 April 6 2020 23: 36 New
          0
          Su-85M was produced due to the lack of a 100mm gun.
          1. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA April 7 2020 12: 07 New
            +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
              Pavel57 April 10 2020 10: 43 New
              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
                Alexey RA April 10 2020 11: 01 New
                +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?

                Вы имеете в виду сентябрь-октябрь 1944 г.? В это период СУ-85М выпускали для восполнения потерь уже существующих полков ПТ-САУ. А выпуск СУ-100 шёл "на перспективу", в которой просматривалось формирование трёх бригад САУ по 65 машин в каждой. Ибо для выпуска такого количества САУ заводу требовалось более двух месяцев. А там и снаряды подоспеют.
                1. Pavel57
                  Pavel57 April 10 2020 11: 45 New
                  0
                  Alexey RA (Alexey), most likely it was, although a high-explosive projectile 100mm when it gets into the tank incapacitates it.
        3. fk7777777
          fk7777777 April 7 2020 09: 15 New
          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
            Alexey RA April 7 2020 12: 13 New
            +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
            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
              Alexey RA April 7 2020 15: 05 New
              0
              Quote: Alf
              Name at least one project.

              Скорее всего, это "бумажный" А-44 и так и не завершённый КВ-3.
              1. Alf
                Alf April 7 2020 17: 21 New
                +1
                Quote: Alexey RA
                Quote: Alf
                Name at least one project.

                Скорее всего, это "бумажный" А-44 и так и не завершённый КВ-3.



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

                    Алексей ! Вы достойный оппонент и знающий "заклепочник", но ТАК переобуваться не надо. Я, например, могу публично признать свою неправоту и свое незнание вопроса.
                    1. Alexey RA
                      Alexey RA April 8 2020 19: 42 New
                      +1
                      Quote: Alf
                      Алексей ! Вы достойный оппонент и знающий "заклепочник", но ТАК переобуваться не надо. Я, например, могу публично признать свою неправоту и свое незнание вопроса.

                      No problem.
                      I admit the incorrect wording of my post. It should have been:
                      Rather, meant "бумажный" А-44 и так и не завершённый КВ-3.

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

                      Так что с моей стороны это неверная формулировка. "Соток" на танках до войны не было и не планировалось, но автор исходного поста мог спутать 107-мм и 100-мм.
                      1. Alf
                        Alf April 9 2020 18: 59 New
                        +1
                        Quote: Alexey RA
                        So for my part this is the wrong wording.

                        Thank you I respected you even more.
      2. mat-vey
        mat-vey April 7 2020 15: 35 New
        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?

        Мне всегда интересно про "скорострельность" - это какая техническая,полигонная,боевая?
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA April 7 2020 15: 52 New
          +1
          Quote: mat-vey
          Мне всегда интересно про "скорострельность" - это какая техническая,полигонная,боевая?

          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
            mat-vey April 7 2020 16: 00 New
            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.

            Вот и я про то же...А если про ИС и Тигр,то ИС и фугасным может из строя вывести ,без "пробития" брони
            1. Alexey RA
              Alexey RA April 7 2020 16: 14 New
              0
              Quote: mat-vey
              А если про ИС и Тигр,то ИС и фугасным может из строя вывести ,без "пробития" брони

              122 mm land mine in NLD - goodbye, gearbox and turning mechanism. The armor is not broken, but the tank is standing.
              1. mat-vey
                mat-vey April 7 2020 16: 26 New
                0
                And with the crew, everything is ambiguous .. Although you can guess ..
    2. Alf
      Alf April 6 2020 13: 29 New
      +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,

      Кроме скорострельности в дуэли играет еще один фактор-время исправления наводки. А дульный тормоз Тигра давал "хорошее" облако.
      1. mat-vey
        mat-vey April 7 2020 15: 39 New
        0
        Quote: Alf
        А дульный тормоз Тигра давал "хорошее" облако.

        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
        Alexey RA April 7 2020 18: 29 New
        0
        Quote: Alf

        Кроме скорострельности в дуэли играет еще один фактор-время исправления наводки. А дульный тормоз Тигра давал "хорошее" облако.

        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
          Quote: Alexey RA
          The muzzle brake and the IS-2 was not a gift.

          Не имею возражений. Но тогда получается, что реальная скорострельность обоих орудий была примерно одинакова. Я имею ввиду сторону Тигра, когда надо было не только палить на кого бог пошлет, но и исправлять наводку. Да еще и стоит упоминать такой факт, как сколько снарядов было у Тигра "под рукой", а сколько распихано по корпусу.
      3. tank64rus
        tank64rus 22 June 2020 11: 24 New
        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
      meandr51 April 11 2020 16: 05 New
      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
    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
      Similar studies were conducted in Sverdlovsk.
      1. BAI
        BAI April 6 2020 12: 03 New
        +4
        By the way, the recommendation to hit the gun’s barrel was not an empty phrase.

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



  11. Sfurei
    Sfurei April 6 2020 11: 05 New
    +3
    Thanks for the interesting article !!!
  12. bbss
    bbss April 6 2020 13: 56 New
    +3
    The tiger in Snigiri is interesting than they beat.
  13. vladcub
    vladcub April 6 2020 14: 19 New
    +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?
    На память приходит эпизод из киноэпопеи:"Освобождение", когда в присутствии Гитлера, из Т-34 стреляют по Тигру. А как в действительности было?
    1. Aleksandr72
      Aleksandr72 April 6 2020 16: 12 New
      +3
      Я тоже вспомнил об этом фильме, тот эпизод когда Гитлер, которого играл ГДР-вский актер Фриц Диц, сказал: "Mit einigem schuss!" - "С одного выстрела!" в эпизоде когда Т-34 стреляла по "Тигру" и пробила лобовую броню единственным выстрелом. Я - ребенок тогда этому верил безоговорочно, и только повзрослев узнал о том, что все было с точностью до наоборот - это "Тигры" жгли наши Т-34 с недосягаемой для наших танковых пушек дистанции и нашим танкистам приходилось вступать в ближний бой, чуть ли не рукопашную по-танковому только чтобы иметь возможность пусть и мизерную, но подбить противника, чтобы враг не расстреливал наши танки безнаказанно как на полигоне. А в Германии нацисты испытывали на своих полигонах, в т.ч. и на Куммерсдорфском многие наши танки, в т.ч. и обстрелом с различных дистанций. Вот что писал об этом в своих мемуарах генерал-лейтенант танковых войск Н. Г. Попеля, который весной 1945 года занимал должность члена военного совета 1-й гвардейской танковой армии:
      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.
      .
      Кстати отсюда берет начало известная легенда о дерзком побеге советских танкистов - бывших военнопленных с немецкого танкового полигона на трофейном Т-34, которая после войны легла в основу сценария фильма "Жаворонок".
      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.
      P.S. А Фриц Диц сыграл Гитлера не только во всех трех частях киноэпопеи Юрия Озерова "Освобождение", но и в других фильмах, в т.ч. в известном и любимом советскими (и не только) зрителями сериале Татьяны Лиозновой "Семнадцать мгновений весны".
      1. vladcub
        vladcub April 6 2020 17: 52 New
        +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.
        По поводу побега советских танкистов с полигона, видимо, использовали и в"четырех танкистах". Когда в детстве смотрел этот фильм, кто-то из взрослых говорил,что там по другому было.
        1. Pavel57
          Pavel57 April 6 2020 23: 42 New
          +1
          German anti-tank and anti-aircraft guns accurately influenced the development of Soviet artillery.
      2. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA April 8 2020 15: 37 New
        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:
        The 45-mm sheet normal showed a rear strength limit of 700 meters - that is, starting from 700 meters the “mallet” can dig through the side and the T-34 turret.

        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
      In this episode appears T-34-85, which at that time was not.
  14. vladcub
    vladcub April 6 2020 14: 43 New
    +1
    "отбор наиболее ценных и рание не известных образцов " в этой связи вспомнил момент из книги Федорова, знаменитый оружейник,, что он с нетерпением ждал возможность посмотреть,что новенького у немцев?
  15. Termit1309
    Termit1309 April 8 2020 09: 18 New
    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
      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
    tank64rus 22 June 2020 11: 11 New
    0
    Кстати из статьи британского "историка", который "изучал Прохоровское сражение, где этот "историк" утверждает, что там немцы потеряли аж 5 танков. а наши войска 300 или больше. Всё не мог понять откуда цифра 5. А тут читаю книгу "Стальной кулак Сталина" М.Свиридова,а там упоминание, что после Курской дуги специальная комиссия обнаружила и отобрала 5 ПЯТЬ ТИГРОВ, которых можно использовать для испытаний вооружений и проч.Вот тогда из этого эти псевдоисторики и быстренько и сварганили соотношение 1 к 60 но могут и больше. И ещё ведь у немцев во 2 танковом корпусе СС была и танковая рота трофейных Т-34. По разным данным численность этой роты составляла до 30 танков. а где они проходили по учёту потерь таких данных не встречал.
  17. Dedok
    Dedok 29 June 2020 08: 59 New
    0
    когда смотришь на эти отчеты, возникает вопрос: с какого выстрела с расстояния 1000 метров смогли попасть просто "в корпус"? а с какого по счету - попали "по месту"? об этом ни слова...
    And in battle, this figure fell even ...
    Therefore, I bow my head to the courage of our tankers.