"Slavishly adopting individual parts and assemblies." Soviet and German engineers about enemy tanks


Self-propelled guns "Ferdinand", blown up by a mine and sent for study. Source: M. Kolomiyets "Elephant". Ferdinand Porsche's heavy assault gun


“If now the former superiority of the enemy in quantity tanks", airplanes, mortars, machine guns were eliminated, if our army does not currently experience a serious shortage of weapons, ammunition, equipment, then this must first of all be seen as the merit of our working class."

I. Stalin. From a report at a solemn meeting of the Moscow Council of Deputies with party and public organizations in Moscow on November 6, 1943

Exhibits from Germany


The words that accurately characterize the situation at the turning point of 1943-1944 were chosen as an epigraph to this material: in particular, the domestic tank industry was able to provide the front with the necessary amount of armored vehicles. At the same time, the Nazi tank industry was, of course, the main driver for the development of Soviet tanks. The most valuable material for domestic engineers were the trophies of the spring-summer of 1943. The result of a six-month study was numerous publications in the Bulletin of the Tank Industry in 1944. This period is of particular interest because of the special situation of the Soviet Union: victory in the war was already obvious, only a matter of time remained. Strange as it may seem, the authors of a specialized technical publication (and also a secret one) did not deny themselves an emotional assessment of the situation. So, engineer-lieutenant colonel Alexander Maksimovich Sych in the material “German heavy tanks” (No. 1, 1944) directly writes:

“The masterpieces of German tank building, the“ most powerful tank in the world ”, as they (the Nazis) called their armored Tiger, as well as the Panther and Ferdinand, turned out to be vulnerable machines and broken by Soviet military equipment, heroism and the training of the Red Army, the art of its military leaders. ”

According to the author, by the way, he is the deputy head of the Kubinka test site for research and development, the new German heavy equipment had a large number of serious defects, weaknesses, vulnerabilities and even frank design flaws. At the same time, notes A. M. Sych, the Hitlerite “menagerie” is a serious and powerful adversary.

"Slavishly adopting individual parts and assemblies." Soviet and German engineers about enemy tanks

Source: Bulletin of the tank industry

Among the general conclusions regarding the assessment of the heavy tanks of the Third Reich, engineers at the Kubinka Test Site highlight the ever-increasing armor protection. So, from 1941 to 1943 the frontal armor became 2 times thicker, and when compared with the pre-war years, 3-6 times. The main problem, according to military engineers, was the insufficient specific power of the tanks, which was steadily decreasing from the T-II model and reached a minimum for the Ferdinand self-propelled gun - only about 9,5 hp / t. The article suggests that in the future the Germans will continue to force tank engines, although many power plants have already exhausted this potential. In addition, the Germans, according to the author, tanks from TI to T-IV in a hurry will be converted into self-propelled gun mounts, withdrawing them from the first lines due to poor booking and armament. Despite the fact that German designers are trying to maintain the generic features of Hitler’s tanks (the location of the transmission, in particular), they do not shy from borrowing ideas from their opponents. Moreover, all in a row, according to A. M. Sych and his colleagues. So, the shape of the hull and turret of the Panther is copied from the Soviet T-34 and T-70; the control system of the Tigers and Panther was taken from the French Somois; viewing prisms borrowed from American cars; near the KV tank, the Germans (more precisely, F. Porsche) peeped at the internal depreciation of the road wheels of the self-propelled guns Ferdinand, and the Germans stole the Panthers two-torsion suspension from the Swedish Landsverka.


Source: Bulletin of the tank industry

These are the hodgepodge did in Germany during the Second World War. Analyzing the tactical and strategic situation at the fronts, engineers from Kubinka predict the appearance of new, even more thick-armored tanks, or a significant modernization of existing ones. As shown история, wait a few months.

Among all the machines that went through the hands of domestic engineers, the greatest impression was made by Hitler's Panther. Describing the positive aspects of this tank, the engineers mention the reduction of machine gun weapons, which makes a conclusion about the predominantly anti-tank use of this machine. Unitary cannon cartridges, electric trigger and the best in the world, according to the author of the material, binocular breaking telescopic sight also earned praise. Regarding the frontal part of the tank, A. M. Sych does not get tired of reminding that rational tilt angles have been decommissioned from the T-34, and gives the results of a test bombardment. The 75-mm gun does not penetrate the Panther’s inclined upper frontal part at any distance, but the vertical standing 200-mm armor plate of the SAU Ferdinand pierces from 200 meters.

Now to the cons of this tank. An unbalanced tower seriously complicates the turn - obviously, this was the result of moving the gun forward in a mask with a reserve for the installation of a more powerful gun in the future. Due to the imbalance of the tower, it was necessary to build a bulky hydromechanical turning system. Also among the minuses, engineers distinguish weak armor of the sides and stern, which is inappropriate for the type of tank. Here, by the way, the author’s error regarding the Panther classification is visible - in the Soviet Union he was considered a heavy tank, and in Germany it was just an average. As a result, after a careful study of the Panther, engineers from Kubinka recommend taking this enemy seriously and carefully preparing the opposition. But the “Tiger" A. M. Sych considers in all senses weaker than his younger brother.

Report by Colonel Esser


The enemy also had his opinion on Soviet tank construction. It seems to be interesting to meet him. So, the speech of Colonel Esser on December 3, 1942 at a meeting of the military-technical section of the Union of German Engineers, published in the MTZ specialized journal almost a year later.

The material deals not only with Soviet tanks, but also with French, American and English - Germany had enough opponents. We are interested in evaluating exclusively domestic tanks. Among the light tanks, the author especially stands out the T-70 and its 45-mm gun, but the Germans did not see anything else outstanding in this category. But on medium and heavy tanks more information. The T-34 is praised for serious weapons (in the German manner, the caliber of the guns is written 7,62 cm) and even cite our designers in this regard as an example to the British and French. The division of labor of the crew in the T-34 was not brought to the level of armored vehicles from the UK, and the fighting compartment in the Soviet tank seemed very close to the Germans. Esser could not resist the humiliation of the T-34. The colonel claims that the T-34 takes its roots from the BT, which, in turn, was copied by the Russians from the American tank Christie. But he immediately notes a high power output of 18 hp / t, which allows the car to develop a record speed of 54 km / h, while consuming relatively little fuel. Regarding the KV-1, the Germans are restrained - they only note good mobility for the class of the car, but the KV-2 with a 15-cm howitzer is described in more detail. Firstly, according to the Germans, this is not a tank, but a self-propelled artillery mount. Secondly, it is obvious that 40-kg separate-loading shells seriously reduce the rate of fire of the gun. Thirdly, the tank compares favorably with its English and French counterparts in high specific power - about 10 liters. s / t

The Germans paid special attention to Soviet tank engines. Let's start with the diesel B-2. The use of one engine for medium and light tanks seemed to the Germans an absolute plus. Esser thought that the Russians in the development of engines prefer weight loss, but the French and the British think more about the resource. On the old tanks that fell into the hands of the Germans, were aviation petrol M-17, which were copies of the aircraft BMW-IV. About B-2, the name of which they did not know at that time, Esser writes:

“This diesel engine is a development of the Russian design, using various types abroad. This motor represents, in terms of design and processing quality for Russian conditions, an undoubtedly high level of development. The fuel consumption is very small and provides the machine with a large radius of action. "

The Germans experimentally calculated the oil consumption of the Soviet tank diesel and were horrified - 15 kg per 100 km of track! Most likely, an error crept into the colonel’s calculations, or a defective diesel got to the Germans for testing.

With the gearboxes of the Russian tanks, according to the Germans, everything is bad. The reasons are the primitiveness of the system of movable gears, in which the gears mesh with each other, as well as in the aft arrangement of the gearbox. Such an arrangement forces the installation of long levers with a large backlash and the presence of intermediate links. In general, Esser considers the gearbox and the mechanism of its shifting the most important minus of the T-34 and KV - almost all the trophies that fell into his hands were with a collapsed clutch.




The legendary B-2, so surprised the Germans. Cuban. Author photo

In conclusion - the conclusions regarding Soviet tanks, which Esser voiced at the end of his material:

“The USSR began the construction of tanks more than 10 years ago, copying in large quantities foreign cars, namely the American tank Christie and the English tank Vickers-Armstrong. In large maneuvers, these machines were tried on a large scale and lessons were learned from this experience. In further consistent development, in some cases slavishly adopting individual parts and assemblies of foreign-made tanks, the Russians created tanks that, in the constructive and production sense, taking into account the Soviet conditions, certainly deserve attention and in some respects surpass the fighting vehicles of our other opponents. ”


Based on materials from the Bulletin of the Tank Industry.
Author:
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

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

I have an account? Sign in

  1. svp67 April 17 2020 06: 01 New
    • 35
    • 0
    +35
    The colonel claims that the T-34 takes its roots from the BT, which, in turn, was copied by the Russians from the American tank Christie. .... KV-2 with a 15-cm howitzer is described in more detail. Firstly, according to the Germans, this is not a tank, but a self-propelled artillery mount. Secondly, obviously, 40-kg separate-loading shells seriously reduce the rate of fire of the gun. Thirdly, the tank compares favorably with its English and French counterparts in high specific power - about 10 liters. s / t .....
    ... the motor is both in terms of design and processing quality for Russian conditions, of course a high level of development ....
    ... With gearboxes in Russian tanks .... everything is bad.
    .... certainly deserve attention and in some respects surpass the combat vehicles of our other opponents. "
    I subscribe to every word of this German expert ...
    ... in some cases, slavishly adopting individual parts and assemblies of tanks of foreign manufacture ...
    This passage of his was surprising, and did the Germans adopt some foreign decisions in tank construction purely “like free descendants of the Aryans”?
    1. Evgeny Fedorov April 17 2020 07: 31 New
      • 36
      • 2
      +34
      Do not be surprised at the Nazi passages, albeit highly educated. They wanted to hear from him that the Russians behave like slaves, and he betrayed this. It was 42 years old. The Germans have not really thought about the collapse.
      1. Pavel57 April 17 2020 10: 33 New
        • 5
        • 0
        +5
        There was a report of the Americans on the T-34, some points coincide with the German, although of course in a different tone.
        1. whitebeard April 18 2020 18: 10 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          It was difficult not to coincide, because in general, our tankers themselves wrote the same thing in complaints from the front, because The flaws were clear and obvious.
      2. Reklastik April 17 2020 15: 03 New
        • 1
        • 1
        0
        But even if they had thought about the collapse at that moment, this would not have changed the key of the passages. However, this is not important))
      3. whitebeard April 18 2020 18: 09 New
        • 1
        • 2
        -1
        And, accordingly, one should not be surprised at the emotional passages of our specialists who speak about the alleged unsuitability of non-manual technology. For agitprop should remain agitprop, otherwise they will not pay salaries, or they will even shoot them on a bad day;)
    2. unaha April 17 2020 07: 37 New
      • 28
      • 0
      +28
      Whoever adopted what is generally pointless to discuss - everyone adopts the most successful technical solutions and this practice is not vicious in itself.
      1. Serg koma April 18 2020 17: 52 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: unaha
        - everyone adopts the most successful technical solutions and this practice is not vicious in itself.

        At the Aberdeen Proving Ground, in 1942, the T-34 and KV were tested.
        The design of the sight was recognized as beautiful, even the best in the world of famous American designersbut the quality of the glass left much to be desired.

        The T-34 and KB tanks were, from the American point of view, slow-moving, though due to good adhesion with the ground they overcame the slopes better than any of the American tanks. The welding of armor plates is extremely rough and careless. The radio stations during laboratory tests turned out to be quite good, however, due to poor screening and poor protective devices, after installing them in tanks, it was not possible to have a normal connection at a distance greater than 10 miles. The compactness of radio stations and their location in the machines are very successful. Mechanical processing of parts of equipment and parts with rare exceptions is very bad.
        etc.
        Interestingly, and by this time, which German tanks were tested at the US training ground?
        The USSR tested tanks in the United States in order to share its best practices with the Allies, and not as potential opponents, to identify places of armor penetration and fight against these tanks.
        Ie - an exchange of experience, and they did not see anything shameful in this.
    3. Olgovich April 17 2020 09: 01 New
      • 13
      • 6
      +7
      Quote: svp67
      ... in some cases, slavishly adopting individual parts and assemblies of tanks of foreign manufacture ...
      This passage of his was surprising, and did the Germans adopt some foreign decisions in tank construction purely “like free descendants of the Aryans”?

      Without these words, the expert would simply ... not have printed .... yes
      1. whitebeard April 18 2020 18: 14 New
        • 2
        • 5
        -3
        In the same way as our specialist would not have been printed without this mention that the new Hitler technique is "weak and worthless, we will defeat it all right now." Only this "weak and worthless" even then almost 2 years inflicted a giant damage to the Red Army.
    4. Trilobite Master April 17 2020 19: 42 New
      • 17
      • 0
      +17
      Quote: svp67
      This passage of his was surprising

      Yeah... laughing
      The Russians slavishly adopt, servilely develop and assimilate other people's experience, after which they slavishly put their own equipment on the battlefield, the creation of which uses solutions that are courageously, valiantly with full awareness of their own superiority, the Germans adopt. laughing
      The normal rhetoric of a normal German Nazi who has not heard anything about Stalingrad, Kursk and the defeat of the "Belarusian balcony". smile
    5. whitebeard April 18 2020 18: 07 New
      • 0
      • 4
      -4
      The Germans, before direct copying, “slipped” only towards the very end of the war, when there was no time to process, ours did not hesitate to take completely borrowed decisions like the MkIV periscopes or the same box from the T-34 and KV, spioneren from some Amer tractor of the 20th .g. The same dvigl M-17 is a direct non-licensed copy of the BMW motor, as mentioned in the article. And there are so many. But for the USSR this was justified, because there was a lag in technology. and pride didn’t allow to borrow directly, and there was no reason to, because they had comparable technologies and production capacities. In addition, they were forced to squeeze the maximum out of technical solutions to save people, and this does not contribute to direct copying
      1. Alf
        Alf April 18 2020 18: 17 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        Quote: whitebeard
        The same dvigl M-17 is a direct unlicensed copy of the BMW motor,

        In 1925-1927 in the USSR there were no serial aircraft engines with the exception of the M-5, so licenses for the production of the best foreign engines were purchased. One of them was the German BMW-VI engine, which received the designation M-17 in the USSR. This motor until 1935 was the basis of the motor park of our country.

        But then proposed engines were not powerful enough. In January 1925, test data from the new 12-cylinder BMW VI V-engine was sent from Munich to Moscow. At that time, it was the most powerful aircraft engine in Germany. The documents sent aroused great interest among Soviet specialists. In the same year, two such engines were ordered from a German company and subsequently conducted their bench tests at NAMI.

        There was an idea to establish the production of such motors in the USSR. The UVVS Scientific Committee, having examined six types of foreign water-cooled engines, on August 26, 1926 put BMW VI in the first place in the desirability of releasing it in the Soviet Union. He was supported by the Air Traffic Board, writing the following: "The BMW-VI engine meets the requirements of the Air Force for both power and performance. This engine will present less difficulties in production than any other."

        Initially, it was about transferring to the concession the canned Russky Renault plant (later State Automobile Plant No. 3) in Rybinsk. But a little later, they came to the idea of ​​acquiring a license and agree on the help of the Germans in the development of production.

        In February 1927, a delegation led by I.K. Mikhailov. She inspected the engine factory in Munich. Negotiations were conducted in Germany for more than six months. On the Soviet side, a number of prominent specialists participated in them, including the subsequently known designer V.Ya. Klimov. The contract with BMW was signed in October 1927. It was signed on the Soviet side by the chairman of the board of the Aviastrest M.G. Uryvaev, and from German - the director F.-I. Popp and R. Voigt. Under the agreement, Aviatrest received the rights to the engines of the BMW VIaE6,0 and BMW VIaE7,3 modifications. The company undertook to report all changes to serial production during the contract period (five years).

        The airspace paid $ 50000, and after accepting the first 50 engines it was supposed to deduct 7,5% of the price of each engine released, but not less than $ 50000 a year. The agreement entered into force on October 10, 1927.

        The factory workshop in Rybinsk before the installation of equipment, August 1928. Drawings, technical descriptions, specifications, calculations, various technological instructions, drawings of fixtures and special tools were sent from Russia to Germany. With the help of the company ordered additional equipment. The agreement provided for the training of Soviet specialists in Germany and the assistance of German engineers in the development of production in the USSR. Additionally, the Soviet side also hired German workers, mainly from among those sympathizing with communist ideology. In total, about 100 engineers and workers arrived from Germany.

        To deploy production, BMW ordered kits of all the most complex parts, and purchased components from subcontractors, including all electrical equipment. A certain problem was the fact that the Munich company did not manufacture some parts for itself, but bought them on the side. For example, forgings of crankshafts were supplied by Krupp. But with the mediation of BMW, these companies also agreed to obtain documentation and to supply finished products for the first time.
  2. Amateur April 17 2020 06: 31 New
    • 9
    • 11
    -2
    At the same time, the Hitler tank industry was, of course, the main driver of the development of Soviet tanks.

    Strange phrase. What does the driver mean? He was an enemy that must be fought and destroyed. A driver is more of a model for copying.
    And generally a strange article.
    1. Evgeny Fedorov April 17 2020 07: 16 New
      • 25
      • 1
      +24
      It was the development of German tanks that forced the Soviet leadership to take measures to improve domestic armored vehicles. The Nazis would not have had the Tigers, no one would have put an 34mm gun on the T85. And, on the contrary, the Germans closely watched the evolution of our tanks. In the USSR, a more effective response was taken, which is why we won. Therefore, it was the German tank industry that stimulated the development of the Soviet one. And to be a driver does not mean to be an object for copying.
      1. Krasnoyarsk April 17 2020 09: 20 New
        • 12
        • 2
        +10
        Quote: Yevgeny Fedorov
        It was the development of German tanks that made the Soviet leadership ...

        And in my opinion there was an oncoming movement. Our tanks also forced the Germans ... It was the success of the Soviet T-34 in the fight against German tanks that made the Germans reconsider the concept of their use. Initially, the German T-3 was equipped with a short-barreled cannon designed to combat enemy firing points in offensive combat - assisting the advancing infantry. This gun did not make it possible to successfully confront the T-34, not to mention the KV. Therefore, the Germans were forced to increase the length of the barrel of the gun, which increased the cost of production, etc.
        But in general - thanks for the article.
        1. Alexey RA April 17 2020 10: 31 New
          • 7
          • 0
          +7
          Quote: Krasnoyarsk
          Initially, the German T-3 had a short-barreled gun, designed to combat enemy firing points in offensive combat - to assist the advancing infantry.

          “Cigarette butt” was on the “four”. “Three” initially carried a 37 mm, and then a 50 mm Kurtz and Lang.
          1. Krasnoyarsk April 17 2020 10: 40 New
            • 4
            • 0
            +4
            Quote: Alexey RA

            “Cigarette butt” was on the “four”. “Three” initially carried a 37 mm, and then a 50 mm Kurtz and Lang.

            Thanks for the amendment.
          2. ABM
            ABM April 18 2020 17: 12 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            on Pz.III Ausf.N also installed this "stub" since 1944
            1. Alexey RA April 20 2020 10: 38 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              Quote: ABM
              on Pz.III Ausf.N also installed this "stub" since 1944

              Oops ... but surely - I forgot about this "swan song" of "treshka". sad
        2. Jager April 18 2020 12: 34 New
          • 4
          • 0
          +4
          The Germans realized the need to strengthen the armament of the panzer during the battles in France, but by the summer of the 41st their tanks were mostly weak. In relation to the T-34.
          I remember well the photo of June 41st, where the German self-propelled guns SIG 33 based on the gutta-perceptive Pz. I with cheerful smiling tankers drives past an abandoned KV-2.
          The Germans would have to jump from their "stub" and run as fast as they could when comparing with the Soviet chthonic horror back across the border realizing where they were climbing. But no, they fled further. More than sure that those guys were unlikely to survive until the spring of the 42nd and 99,99% that none of the crew lasted until May 45th.
          I remembered the joke:
          - Why is the chernozem of Belarus so fertile?
          - It contains up to 20% of Germans!
      2. Alexey RA April 17 2020 10: 04 New
        • 12
        • 1
        +11
        Quote: Yevgeny Fedorov
        The Nazis would not have had the Tigers, no one would have put an 34mm gun on the T85.

        Would put. Because one of the main reasons for installing the 85 mm was the need to increase the range of a direct shot for the OFS while maintaining its power - the Germans “grew up” with anti-tank fire, and they had to be crushed at great distances. And here there is no alternative to increasing the caliber: with a simple increase in the initial speed while maintaining the caliber, the OFS walls thicken and the power of the projectile falls.
        1. Octopus April 17 2020 12: 27 New
          • 5
          • 4
          +1
          Quote: Alexey RA
          Would put. Because one of the main reasons for installing the 85 mm was the need to increase the range of a direct shot for the OFS while maintaining its power - the Germans “grew up” with anti-tank fire, and they had to be crushed at great distances.

          The increase in caliber and the transition from a division to an anti-aircraft gun to combat the Pak40? Somehow too tricky ...
          1. Alexey RA April 17 2020 14: 27 New
            • 6
            • 0
            +6
            Quote: Octopus
            The increase in caliber and the transition from a division to an anti-aircraft gun to combat the Pak40? Somehow too tricky ...

            And what to do. If it was only a matter of armor penetration, then they would put the S-54 with the ballistics of 76-mm anti-aircraft guns, and they would not know grief. Moreover, this gun got into a regular "nut" and did not require shamanistic dances around the new tower and the new shoulder strap.
            SW M. Svirin wrote that the task of increasing the firing range of the general military division without reducing power was generally the main one. For the tank had to bring silence to the suddenly declared PTP itself, there was little hope for infantry. And the main goal of our tank during WWII was infantry and various soft targets on the battlefield, so the OFS was extremely important for him (you remember the composition of the BC).
            1. Octopus April 17 2020 14: 46 New
              • 2
              • 4
              -2
              Quote: Alexey RA
              with the ballistics of 76 mm anti-aircraft guns, and grief would not know.

              You are some kind of controversial. Didn’t you say that a 76mm anti-aircraft gun has not been produced for how many years? And given that the USSR did not follow the path of a multi-speed landmine, would it all be like a 76mm American with a Soviet technology fine?

              That is, it was not the growth of a landmine, but the preservation of a landmine at the level of a division.
              Quote: Alexey RA
              And the main goal of our tank during WWII was infantry and various soft targets

              Recently SW. Rostislav laid out the text of Patton. Patton, according to the results of the battles, writes that the main weapon of the tank is a machine gun. And the gun just helps him get to the place where this machine gun needs to be used.
              1. Alexey RA April 17 2020 15: 31 New
                • 2
                • 0
                +2
                Quote: Octopus
                You are some kind of controversial. Didn’t you say that a 76mm anti-aircraft gun has not been produced for how many years? And given that the USSR did not follow the path of a multi-speed landmine, would it all be like a 76mm American with a Soviet technology fine?

                So I write - if it was only in armor penetration. smile
                The 76-mm variant was only carried out if the new tank gun required exceptionally increased armor penetration and nothing more. At the same time, the need to resume the production of 76-mm rounds against anti-aircraft guns was compensated by the lack of the need to re-equip all tank plants with a new turret with an increased shoulder strap.
                The power of the OFS on the S-54 could be maintained at the cost of keeping its initial speed at the division level (multi-speed landmine). At the same time, however, the direct-fire range of the OFS remained at the F-34 level.

                But the USSR did not follow this simple path. And he got into a new turret and a new gun caliber. The only advantage of which over the S-54 was the possibility of direct fire throwing the OS with a power approximately equal to the long-range division. It turns out that it was still the need for a greater range for the OS.
                Quote: Octopus
                Recently SW. Rostislav laid out the text of Patton. Patton, according to the results of the battles, writes that the main weapon of the tank is a machine gun. And the gun just helps him get to the place where this machine gun needs to be used.

                1. Octopus April 17 2020 16: 16 New
                  • 1
                  • 2
                  -1
                  Quote: Alexey RA
                  The power of the OFS on the S-54 could be maintained at the cost of keeping its initial speed at the division level (multi-speed landmine).

                  The USSR did not do that. He has everything single-speed. Although the sights seem to be painted for different shells.

                  In any case, the idea of ​​the inadmissibility of exchanging the power of the OFS on a high-speed BB, as the Americans did, is understandable. What is primary, what is secondary is a theological issue.
            2. Revolver April 17 2020 17: 32 New
              • 0
              • 1
              -1
              Quote: Alexey RA
              the task of increasing the range of the shot of the general federal division without reducing power was generally the main one. For the tank had to bring silence to the suddenly declared PTP itself, there was little hope for infantry.

              The anti-aircraft guns have the main projectile like shrapnel, because direct hit on the plane was extremely rare and usually by accident, but mostly the planes were hit by shrapnel and an explosion shock wave. To combat field artillery, where the entire reservation is thin, at best, holding a rifle caliber bullet in front, and the calculation is open to everyone and everything, that's it. Well, or put it on the DShK tower, which was done after the war, destroys lightly armored targets no worse than a tank gun. So either there were other reasons for wanting to strengthen the OFS, or the reasons were of a technological plan, for example, the complexity of processing 76mm trunks of this length. Or maybe economic. The S-53 85mm gun was cheaper to manufacture than the F-34 76mm, and the 76mm and S-54 anti-aircraft guns at its base were probably even more expensive. Again, 85mm shells were mass-produced, and under the S-54 it was necessary to start production anew, or to resume, which is almost as expensive.
        2. Jager April 18 2020 12: 40 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Why then did the Germans stay on their 75 mm? And their situation was mirror.
          In addition to the "Tigers", which were very few, there were massive Pz. IV and Stug. with enhanced booking.
          1. Octopus April 18 2020 12: 50 New
            • 3
            • 1
            +2
            Quote: Jager
            Why then did the Germans stay on their 75 mm? And their situation was mirror.

            Because ZiS-3 is not PaK40, but KvK40, respectively, is not F-34.
            Quote: Jager
            drives past an abandoned KV-2.
            The Germans would jump from their "stub" and run as fast as they could when compared with Soviet chthonic horror

            In France, they saw not so.
            Quote: Jager
            - It contains up to 20% of Germans!

            Russian, my friend. Mostly Russians went there, all the time. The multinational Soviet people, more precisely. So to joke on this subject should be careful, not everyone will understand.
            1. Jager April 18 2020 13: 05 New
              • 3
              • 0
              +3
              My friend, can you read? There is nothing said about Belarusians. And yet, a monument to the defender of the Brest Fortress, the captain stands in a neighboring village in the suburbs, by the way. Few people know about him, about the monument.
              Compare Pak-40 and ZiS, which is much easier and more technologically advanced, plus has another purpose (essentially a universal weapon, anti-tank division). And against ANY German tanks until the spring of the 43rd ZiS-3 was more than enough.
              And what did the Germans meet in France that had a 75 mm armor and a 152 mm gun? Somua S35? Or a B1 with "excellent" crew location and armament?
              1. Octopus April 18 2020 15: 12 New
                • 5
                • 2
                +3
                Quote: Jager
                There is nothing said about Belarusians.

                Jokes about fertilizers for Russian / Soviet land have always been and will be somewhat awkward.
                Quote: Jager
                And what did the Germans meet in France that had a 75 mm armor and a 152 mm gun?

                The French did not make such crocodiles. But huge and useless monsters were there, Char 2C. Having met the KV-2, the Germans could come and came to the conclusion that the Soviet had no idea what a tank was and what its tasks were.
                Quote: Jager
                Pak-40 and ZiS, which is much easier and more technologically advanced, plus has ANOTHER purpose (essentially a universal weapon, a division against anti-tank defense)

                Firstly, you have already been explained. The thesis of Aleksey RA - Svirin is that the F-34 did not provide for the defeat of the Pak40 OFS at typical ranges for the latter due to the insufficient persistence of the OFS shot. To me, I repeat, this hypothesis seems too clever and invented retroactively, even if contemporaries have expressed something about this. But if you stay within its framework, the range of defeat of the Soviet anti-tank missile, including ZiS-3, is significantly less, and the capabilities of the OFS KvK40 and KvK42 were quite suitable for the Germans.

                Second, the essentially universal instrument, anti-pt division.
                Against the background of the divisional guns of that time - M-30, 105 mm Howitzer M101, 10,5 cm leFH 18/40, QF 25 pounder - the ZiS-3 was exactly what it was: the ancient divisional cannon of the PMV times, which was used in connection with lack of normal divisional artillery.
                Against the background of the medium-caliber anti-tank missile system of that time - the QF 6 pounder, ZiS-2, Pak 38 - the ZiS-3 was exactly what it was: the ancient divisional cannon of the PMV times, which is used due to the lack of normal anti-tank artillery.
                Against the background of 3 "VET of that time - Pak 40, 3 inch Gun M5, QF 17 pounder - ZiS-3 was an illustration of the joke" came with a knife to shoot out. "
              2. Alexey RA April 20 2020 11: 22 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                Quote: Jager
                And what did the Germans meet in France that had a 75 mm armor and a 152 mm gun?

                As for booking - this is someone as lucky. One of the German generals had to personally rush about the artillery pieces and build the PAK front from field artillery after its regular anti-tank missiles were crushed by the Matilda. Another witnessed an unsuccessful duel with the B1bis for the “beater”, which was able to knock out only by pulling up an 8,8-cm anti-aircraft gun.
                Well, it would be useful to recall the pogroms perpetrated by the "encores" of the German tank columns.
                In general, reading about the actions of the French and British BTVs in 1940, the thought does not leave that somewhere this will still happen again. Feverish transfers for plugging a hole in the front, “stratification” of divisions on the march, throwing of an unmobilized division without transport into the battle, blows of backlash on supply columns — and tanks left without fuel and artillery support, pulling out mechanically connected units in parts, personal heroism of the crews against the technically inferior, but well-organized structure ... painfully because a familiar picture.
        3. NF68 April 18 2020 17: 41 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: Alexey RA
          Quote: Yevgeny Fedorov
          The Nazis would not have had the Tigers, no one would have put an 34mm gun on the T85.

          Would put. Because one of the main reasons for installing the 85 mm was the need to increase the range of a direct shot for the OFS while maintaining its power - the Germans “grew up” with anti-tank fire, and they had to be crushed at great distances. And here there is no alternative to increasing the caliber: with a simple increase in the initial speed while maintaining the caliber, the OFS walls thicken and the power of the projectile falls.


          On May 27, 1941, a final decision was made to arm the tank, which was to replace the 4-ke 8,8 cm Kwk-36. Prior to this, there were proposals to arm the new 105 mm tank. guns with a barrel length of 47 or 52 caliber, but these proposals were refused. Perhaps due to the relatively low rate of fire of 105 mm. guns. Apparently these guns were with separate loading.
      3. Octopus April 17 2020 12: 25 New
        • 3
        • 4
        -1
        Quote: Yevgeny Fedorov
        The Nazis would not have had the Tigers, no one would have put an 34mm gun on the T85.

        Actually, the desire to put something as large as possible in HF was long before meeting the Tiger. Healthy desire, I must say. As for 85mm, there was still not a problem with the tigers, but with the armored four and the Shtugs. 34-76 somehow didn’t really break them.
        1. Alexey RA April 17 2020 15: 20 New
          • 4
          • 0
          +4
          Quote: Octopus
          Actually, the desire to put something as large as possible in HF was long before meeting the Tiger. Healthy desire, I must say.

          Yeah, very healthy - caliber 107 and 152 mm. smile
          If KB LKZ hadn’t done epic failure with the suspension and transmission of the first HF, then he could get something larger than a three-inch.
          1. Octopus April 17 2020 16: 27 New
            • 1
            • 2
            -1
            Quote: Alexey RA
            Yeah, very healthy - caliber 107 and 152 mm

            Certainly.

            If the Americans on their M6 60 tons in weight didn’t put a cannon from Chaffee, but a cannon from Cleveland or at least from Fletcher (or not, naval calibers zashkvar, only 155mm, only M12 King Kong), there would be a completely different calico.
            1. Alexey RA April 17 2020 20: 35 New
              • 2
              • 0
              +2
              Quote: Octopus
              If the Americans on their M6 60 tons in weight didn’t put a cannon from Chaffee, but a cannon from Cleveland or at least from Fletcher (or not, naval calibers zashkvar, only 155mm, only M12 King Kong), there would be a completely different calico.

              C'mon, the founders of the tanks stuck a two-pound in their heavy load. And Gunther, the pomnitsa, mentioned that they also designed a 36-ton machine-gun armored tracked vehicle. Well, TOG II, of course, where without it - 80 tons of mass, armed (initially) with six pounds.
              So cousins were quite in the "imperial mainstream." smile
              1. Octopus April 17 2020 20: 48 New
                • 1
                • 2
                -1
                Quote: Alexey RA
                36-ton machine gun armored tracked vehicle.

                Well, Churchill with two pounds was not to say that he was better armed.
                Quote: Alexey RA
                So the cousins ​​were quite in the "imperial mainstream."

                Cousins ​​were radically on their wave. If the shaves went through the cruising tank — the cromwell, the comet — to one, having a relatively decent but slow infantry Churchill, then the cousins ​​took the Sherman heavy infantry tank, put the aircraft engine, renamed it medium cruiser, the real medium cruiser - M7, threw it out, and the infantry they were going to make the M6 ​​a tank, but then changed their minds and sent Hellket and Wolverin to land-saving missions and city battles without landmine and armor. It turned out, frankly, strange. Hi, Odi Murphy.
          2. Jager April 18 2020 12: 43 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            The suspension, by the way, was much more perfect than the T-34. The trouble with the torsion bars - but they were decided. But the manual transmission, which barely pulled the T-34 on the HF, barely lived.
            The checkpoint was the Achilles heel of the KV and T-34.
        2. blackice April 18 2020 06: 42 New
          • 1
          • 1
          0
          Actually, the desire to put something as large as possible in HF was long before meeting the Tiger. Healthy desire, I must say. As for 85mm, there was still not a problem with the tigers, but with the armored four and the Shtugs. 34-76 somehow didn’t really break them.


          In fact, as far as I remember, putting something with a naval caliber on the HF was due to the struggle with concrete defensive structures. As if the Belofin company showed such a need.
          But then again, as far as I remember, this is one of the components of that decision.
          1. Octopus April 18 2020 12: 18 New
            • 1
            • 5
            -4
            Quote: blackice
            As if the Belofin company showed such a need.

            You are mixing two trends.
            1. The need for anti-bunk weapons. Actually, heavy art and sappers were involved in this work. But the USSR decided to invent self-propelled guns on a heavy base. Why - nobody really understands that the 6 "howitzers and even guns the rest of the countries put on medium (Hummel, M12), and then on light (M41) chassis. Perhaps the low level of interaction with other forces affected, as a result of which they made a half-tank that could operate relatively independently, but most likely simply the customer and the performer poorly understood the place of the self-propelled guns in the troops.
            2. Panic stories of Soviet intelligence about the prodigies in Germany being prepared. A 107mm cannon (not a howitzer) is part of this story, and not about pillboxes at all. There were no concrete shells in this caliber.
            1. DesToeR April 18 2020 19: 38 New
              • 6
              • 0
              +6
              Quote: Octopus
              But the USSR decided to invent self-propelled guns on a heavy base. Why - no one really understands, the 6 "howitzers and even guns the rest of the countries put on medium (Hummel, M12), and then on light (M41) chassis.

              That's when you read such a stream of consciousness you always want to ask the history of the Red Army wars to a minimum extent?

              Quote: Octopus
              Perhaps the low level of interaction with other forces affected, as a result of which they made a semi-self-propelled artillery tank, which could operate relatively independently, but most likely both the customer and the contractor poorly understood the place of the self-propelled guns in the troops.

              Perhaps a low level of knowledge does not allow you to "remember" what hollowed pillboxes on the Mannerheim line? To remove the earth / stone pillow from the bunker, they needed 203mm or a FAB 250, and preferably a FAB 500. But DIRECT LINE could work with those very 6 inches. But direct fire with 15mm armor didn’t work out well ... from the word at all. Therefore, the "low level of interaction" gave a 152mm self-propelled gun to the mountain with anti-shell armor and the mobility of a heavy tank.
              Quote: Octopus
              Panic stories of Soviet intelligence about the prodigies being prepared in Germany.

              There was nothing “panicky” in the reports, and a SUFFICIENTLY accurate description of German tanks in development, according to characteristics very close to the Tiger arr. 1942.
              1. Octopus April 18 2020 20: 26 New
                • 2
                • 4
                -2
                Quote: DesToeR
                Enough accurate description of German tanks in development, according to characteristics very close to the Tiger arr. 1942.

                "About the KV-3 tank.
                1. During the change of the Resolution of the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR and the Central Committee of the CPSU (b) No. 548-232ss from 15.03.1941, I order:
                a) install the armor of the KV-3 tank: millimeter 115 turret, 115 – 120 millimeter forehead;
                b) equip tank KV-3 with 107-millimeter cannon ZIS-6, the initial velocity of the projectile - 800 meters per second.

                Details of what the intelligence reported were unknown. In any case, in March of the 41st terms of reference for the Tiger was not yet.
                Quote: DesToeR
                But direct fire with 15mm armor didn’t work out well ... from the word at all.


                It is unfortunate that it did not work out.
                Quote: DesToeR
                you know the history of the Red Army wars to a minimum extent?

                Unfortunately, the long-suffering history of the Red Army after the activities of Glavpur, Rezun, liberals and alternative patriots is a rather miserable sight.

                However, a fact is a fact. A 50-ton chassis and a huge circular turret for a self-propelled howitzer mean that the Red Army tankers did not have normal interaction with heavy artillery, and they demanded to have their own, anyway. Everything, nothing more.

                A heavy assault self-propelled guns of a healthy person on the KV chassis is the SU-152, of course. And the use of the ML-20 is not a fact that is justified.
                1. DesToeR April 18 2020 20: 55 New
                  • 3
                  • 0
                  +3
                  Quote: Octopus
                  Details of what the intelligence reported were unknown.

                  And you don’t need to take the technical task from the table of the 6th Directorate. Just look at the characteristics of the reservation and armament of the heaviest captured tank with the Germans - the rest can be thought out.
                  Quote: Octopus
                  In any case, in March of the 41st terms of reference for the Tiger was not yet.

                  Any intelligence of all time and people rarely works with final documents. But with rumors and preliminary approvals, 99% of the information is taken. Before the technical assignment for the future Tiger was approved for at least six months, behind-the-scenes conversations with those bureaus, design bureaus, and production workers were a huge field for reconnaissance.
                  Quote: Octopus
                  It is unfortunate that it did not work out.

                  And I am sorry for those guys who were so killed by their guns, and many were killed.
                  Quote: Octopus
                  Unfortunately, the long-suffering history of the Red Army after the activities of Glavpur, Rezun, liberals and alternative patriots is a rather miserable sight.

                  This may be for you the Red Army and a miserable sight, but for me, as a person not by hearsay familiar with science, studying the "quantitative side of mass phenomena inextricably linked with the qualitative side," the Red Army is an indestructible force in Eurasia. Or maybe far away where ...
                  1. Octopus April 18 2020 21: 15 New
                    • 2
                    • 4
                    -2
                    Quote: DesToeR
                    Just look at the characteristics of the reservation and armament of the heaviest captured tank with the Germans - the rest can be thought out.

                    KV-3 was the Soviet response to Matilda and B-1 in the alleged processing of the Germans? Somehow too altistorically.
                    Quote: DesToeR
                    the technical assignment for the future Tiger for at least half a year of backstage conversations with those bureaus, design bureaus, and production workers was a huge field for reconnaissance.

                    First, do not exaggerate the capabilities of Soviet intelligence. This is the same intelligence in which there was a treacherous attack on peaceful airfields.
                    Secondly, the preliminary designs of the heavy tank are 30 tons and are not particularly similar to the final Tiger.
                    Quote: DesToeR
                    And I am sorry for those guys who were so killed by their guns

                    It is not so difficult to guess that at the time of the Berlin operation the Red Army had better self-propelled guns better than the KV-2. But they learned to fight, including in the sense of using heavy artifacts.
                    Quote: DesToeR
                    This may be for you the Red Army and a miserable sight,

                    Read carefully. I wrote about history Red Army. As for the Red Army itself, it was, let's say, diverse.
                    1. DesToeR April 18 2020 21: 33 New
                      • 4
                      • 0
                      +4
                      Quote: Octopus
                      KV-3 was the Soviet response to Matilda and B-1 in the alleged processing of the Germans?

                      In order to understand what the KV-3 is, you need, first, to get away from the moronic terminology of ala "tower self-propelled guns", and, secondly, to understand the role and place of TT in the Red Army. Then the reservation "in a circle" of 100 ... 120mm will become clear, and the choice of artillery systems over 100mm is obvious.
                      Quote: Octopus
                      First, do not exaggerate the capabilities of Soviet intelligence. This is the same intelligence in which there was a treacherous attack on peaceful airfields.

                      And in your world, intelligence puts on the table the exact date and the exact number of enemy connections in 100 cases out of 100? Then where was the US intelligence in 1941? Or where did Nazi intelligence look in the summer of 1944? We write both of these intelligence in the same category?
                      Quote: Octopus
                      I wrote about the history of the Red Army.

                      I’m reading the history of Great Britain and reached the head of Dunkirk ... I'm tired of it - I decided to read the history of France - you won’t believe ... I got to the head of Dunkirk. I rushed to study about the USA - I reached the head of Pearl Harbor. The chapters about the "great" armies of Poland, Holland, and Norway are very short. Germany, or rather, the Third Reich is more interesting, but here are the chapters about Stalingrad, Kursk, the operation "Bagration", Köningsberg, Lake Balaton and a bunch of others, well, as a "true German," I leaf through without reading ...
                2. Alexey RA April 20 2020 13: 32 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  Quote: Octopus
                  Details of what the intelligence reported were unknown. In any case, in March of the 41st terms of reference for the Tiger was not yet.

                  Something unknown? Everything is known - see. "Report of the Chief of the GABTU KA on the Organization, Arms and Means of Combat of the BT and MV KA and Foreign Armies" dated May 21, 1941
                  There are, for example, heavy tank divisions armed with heavy tanks, mass-produced at the factories of Czechoslovakia and France. And the heavy tanks themselves are of three types, weighing up to 90 tons, with armor up to 90 mm and weapons with a caliber up to 105 mm. smile
                  It seems to be nonsense ... that's just the "heavy tank TV" arr. 1941 (not to be confused with the “panther”) from this document by its performance characteristics is very similar to the experimental TTs of the VK3001 series. And in the "heavy tank T-VI" visible VK3601. So the Germans had TTs in hardware. True, only experienced.
                  However, we were not the first to fall for such a trick - just remember the opupei with Panzerkampfwagen neubaufahrzeug.
                  1. Octopus April 20 2020 13: 36 New
                    • 1
                    • 0
                    +1
                    Quote: Alexey RA
                    Report of the Chief of the GABTU KA on the organization, armament and means of combat of the BT and MV KA and foreign armies "dated May 21, 1941

                    KV-3 was a little earlier. Although it may have written.
            2. blackice April 19 2020 02: 21 New
              • 1
              • 1
              0
              It was HF that should have crawled out onto the field with their armor and shoot pillboxes. These were the breakthrough tanks of the fortified enemy defense lines.
              1. Alexey RA April 20 2020 14: 12 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Quote: blackice
                It was HF that should have crawled out onto the field with their armor and shoot pillboxes. These were the breakthrough tanks of the fortified enemy defense lines.

                Not really. These were artillery tanks - a hybrid of SturmSAU and SPG fire support. Their task is to support the line tanks in the offensive by escorting them and suppressing the live firing points (first of all, anti-tank missiles). Plus - the replacement of towed artillery that is always behind during the offensive when working on the accumulations of enemy infantry and its artillery positions.
                1. blackice April 21 2020 06: 39 New
                  • 0
                  • 1
                  -1
                  Well, what am I talking about?
                  They called the tank, in fact, self-propelled guns.
            3. Alexey RA April 20 2020 12: 22 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Quote: Octopus
              engaged in heavy art and sappers. But the USSR decided to invent self-propelled guns on a heavy base. Why - no one really understands, the 6 "howitzers and even guns the rest of the countries put on medium (Hummel, M12), and then on light (M41) chassis.

              Everything is correct. The USSR proceeded from domestic conditions:
              1. For firing with a PDO you need: self-propelled guns, advanced spotter vehicles with optics and radio communications, reliable and legible communications, and most importantly - hundreds of shells. For consumption rates for the suppression of typical targets you remember. And even more importantly - frames.
              2. In addition to the self-propelled guns themselves, the USSR cannot provide anything more than the late 30s. And why did he need then self-propelled guns, which take three hours to deploy a battery (for the same wiring from corps posts - because, according to M. Svirin, it was established during tests that tank radio stations are not suitable for fire adjustment)?
              3. The only way to reduce the consumption of shells and get rid of what the USSR cannot provide is to fire directly. Well, or at least for the observed target, adjusted by the crew themselves for breaks. And this means that the gun must be covered with armor. For it will work at distances of 400-800 m.
              And we get arttank or assault SAU. Cheap and cheerful. smile

              Other countries, by the way, drove even bigger monsters to meet with DOT. It is enough to recall the most inconspicuous stormtruck SAU / tank of all time - T28 / T95. When Johnny comes marching home again, hurrah, hurrah ... smile
              Why the most inconspicuous? Yes, because the only surviving specimen of this monster was lost in the late 40s - and was found only in the early 70s at an active training ground, where he stood in the middle of a field surrounded by several rare bushes that barely barely reached his roof. smile
              1. Octopus April 20 2020 13: 11 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                Quote: Alexey RA
                where he stood in the middle of a field surrounded by several rare bushes,
                Prokhorovka or Robin? soldier
                Quote: Alexey RA
                And we get arttank or assault

                We get to know that, ISU-152. And not this, frankly, a strange device.

                You are partly right. Leningraders apparently did BT-7A, only KV.
                Quote: Octopus
                the customer and the contractor poorly understood the place of self-propelled guns in the troops.

                And what you describe is another part of the thesis.
                Quote: Octopus
                Perhaps the low level of interaction with other forces affected, as a result of which they made a semi-self-propelled artillery tank, which could operate relatively independently

                This does not contradict the laws of nature, but again it seems to me too smart for the USSR of the 40th year. And for such a result.
                1. Alexey RA April 20 2020 19: 13 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  Quote: Octopus
                  Prokhorovka or Robin?

                  Practically:

                  90 tons. 11 meters long. 27 years stood in one place - and hit the light only in 1975. Then the Army Reserve magazine quizguess by the photo"published a photo of T28 - and in one of the received correct answers was a postscript"he stands with us in Ft Belvoir, at the training ground where they test NVD"The magazine contacted the Armor Museum, where they replied that both prototypes of the T28 went into remelting. But just in case, representatives of the magazine came to Ft Belvoir - and found there a tank that was considered lost 27 years ago. According to rumors, an officer from Armor Museum at as a living T28, he arranged around it something like an Indian dance.
                  Quote: Octopus
                  We get to know that, ISU-152. And not this, frankly, a strange device.

                  To get ISU-152, you need to have a KV-7 case. For SU-152 is the finale of work that began under the slogan "do not disappear good"Or"what should we do with the backlog of 20 KV-7 buildings - and let's put larger drins in them".
                  For 1939, the LKZ has only a HF building with a small tower. And a customer requiring a logger just yesterday. There is no time to roll the case.
                  In addition, both HFs at LKZ were considered “temporary solutions” - at that time, until they left the KV-3 and self-propelled guns workshops “with the task of destroying bunkers”, known to us under the index “212”.
                  1. Octopus April 20 2020 22: 34 New
                    • 1
                    • 0
                    +1
                    Quote: Alexey RA
                    Practically:

                    Yes, I recognize these bushes.
                    Quote: Alexey RA
                    And a customer requiring a log thrower yesterday. There is no time to roll the case.

                    Yeah. The customer requires yesterday this.

                    Thanks for the additional information, as usual, but I think we are not particularly contradictory. The customer wanted something and got something, something like that. The piece of iron is, of course, weighty, but running away from this back to Germany is unlikely.
              2. strannik1985 April 20 2020 16: 39 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                For firing with PDO

                The USSR did not get away from this, just instead of towed or self-propelled howitzers, mortars fired from PDOs (for example, in 2 TAs on November 15, 1944, 140 120 mm mortars and 26 613 120 mm mortars) and 76 mm guns (199 there ( laid 194) ZIS-3 and 69 rounds of 330 mm YES).
                1. Alexey RA April 20 2020 19: 26 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  The problem is that in order to tighten the speed of the march of artillery regiments and min regiments to the requirements of the State Academic Technical University, this artillery had to be lightly eased. Against the background of the pre-war 152-mm M-10, even 120-mm mortars cannot be seen in mechanical connections.
                  Tankers in 1942 requested at least 122 mm howitzers. But right away, two problems arose: who will tow the howitzers with the speed and patency of the tank column and who will carry the BK howitzers, which is required to suppress at least two or three typical targets of the battlefield.
                  The result is known - the tankers received regiments of the assault SAU, which to some extent inherited artillery tanks. Near Berlin, the ISU-152 was even involved in artillery preparation - apparently, the artillery neighbors on the ML-20 prepared the data for the shooting.
                  1. strannik1985 April 21 2020 00: 07 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    Tankers in 1942 requested at least 122 mm howitzers.

                    Hypothetically, such an opportunity was to sprint 122-mm howitzers model 1910/30 and put the GK wheels (sponge rubber), the M-30 on the GK wheels could be transported at a speed of up to 60 km / h, the wheels started to burn at a higher speed. The weight of 10/30 in the combat position is 1466 kg, i.e. even at + 100-200 kg the howitzer remains in the weight of the division, you can carry the Zis-5 / Zis-6.
                    The transportable stock of TK mines / shells in 1944 is 4250/10566, respectively, roughly in boxes (it’s clear that not all are transported in boxes, to simplify the calculation) 102 tons of mines and 118,8 tons of shells, i.e. 220,8 tons 122- mm shots in boxes of 65 kg, a total of 6, of 793 per conventional gun barrel in 188 guns. It’s clear that even if there are 36-mm howitzers (possibly) and 76 mm mortars (probably), they won’t refuse, direct fire is not a substitute for direct fire, 120 2531 mm shots to the self-propelled guns go separately.
                    Car traffic is rather arbitrary, simply because there were 010 trucks without which tanks wouldn’t leave anywhere, in the summer of 500 it was dry and hot, and on the “other side” in the TD supply service all the trucks were civilian-mobilized of a million different brands .
      4. The comment was deleted.
        1. Alexey RA April 17 2020 20: 40 New
          • 6
          • 3
          +3
          Quote: Sergey Medvedev
          The mass of KV (heavy tank) 43-47 tons, Panthers - 45 tons, tanks of the same class

          If the Panther was heavy, then it would not go to the line units, but to the shwerapantserabtaylungi.
          And in general, what is the heavy load from the tank, whose board is thinner than the T-34? A heavy tank should have circular protection at least from the battalion anti-tank battalion - and the “five” pierced the same magpie.
          So for tactical purpose and design features, the Panther is a medium tank. Just very beefy. smile
          And by and large, she is a tank destroyer.
          1. Sergey Medvedev April 17 2020 20: 46 New
            • 5
            • 2
            +3
            Quote: Alexey RA
            So for tactical purpose and design features, the Panther is a medium tank. Just very beefy.

            Do not get into the jungle of tank concepts. The mass is the same, the weapons are the same. Conclusion of a car of one class.
            Point.
            The end of all quotes.
            1. Alexey RA April 17 2020 21: 13 New
              • 4
              • 2
              +2
              Quote: Sergey Medvedev
              The mass is the same

              40-45 tons for a medium tank in the second half of the war was no longer out of the ordinary. The same Pershing was designed as a medium tank.
              Quote: Sergey Medvedev
              the same weapons

              By caliber.
              And the USSR did not have much choice - there were no serial tank guns larger than 76 mm in 1939-1940. HF was generally unique - a new heavy tank until the end of 1941 was armed worse than the new medium tank.
              Plus, the design bureau tried, laying in the design of the 46-48-ton tank suspension and transmission, designed for 40 tons.
              1. Alf
                Alf April 17 2020 21: 55 New
                • 3
                • 0
                +3
                Quote: Alexey RA
                40-45 tons for a medium tank in the second half of the war was no longer out of the ordinary.

                And which 2MV 40-45 tons tanks can still be recorded in medium tanks?
          2. Octopus April 17 2020 21: 23 New
            • 3
            • 3
            0
            Quote: Alexey RA
            And by and large, she is a tank destroyer.

            Oh my goodness
            All vehicles of the second stage of the war are rebalanced towards the tank destroyer. Starting with long triples and fours.

            And the tank destroyer is a Sherman 76 with a half landmine and English 40mm and 56mm cars. The Panther with its decent OFS is a much more balanced machine. PT, it resembles only progressive at that time differentiated armor.
          3. Jager April 18 2020 12: 50 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            IS-2 46 tons. Compare weapons and armor protection?
            And Guderian was right when they wanted to discontinue Pz. IV and instead of him leave the “Panther” and not removed. Once having seen the “Panther” in person, I discarded all disputes over the “medium” tank. This is a heavy vehicle with weak armor protection, huge size and with mediocre weapons for the heavy.
            1. Octopus April 18 2020 14: 20 New
              • 2
              • 1
              +1
              Quote: Jager
              IS-2 46 tons. Compare weapons and armor protection?

              If you had suddenly done this, you would have known that Grandfather is significantly superior to Panther in the capabilities of a landmine and for the reservation of airborne forces (in armor-piercing - it is insignificant and only against the background of a deficit of Pzgr 40/42, thanks to the Americans)

              He was also significantly inferior in mobility, ammunition, rate of fire and, by the way, in the volume of production.

              But essentially you have already been told. IP and Panther - machines of different tactical niches. The Panther's analogue in its niche was the T-34-85, which looked pale, except for the double production volume from Panther, and the T-44, which did not exist at all. The Tigers were an analogue of IS, moreover, the first rather than the second.
              1. Jager April 19 2020 18: 54 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                So in this is the salt - “Panther”, with the best frontal booking and comparable guns it was much heavier, larger in size, more expensive in materials, more expensive and much more difficult to manufacture. The result is the number of cars produced.
                In fact, CARDINAL superiority over the same T-IV Ausf.N "Panther" did not have. What is it about if even the T-70 was sewn on board.
                Especially funny is the comparison of 122 mm OFS and 88 mm.
                1. Octopus April 19 2020 19: 37 New
                  • 1
                  • 0
                  +1
                  Quote: Jager
                  The result is the number of cars produced.

                  As of June 1, the 44th year, 2911 Panthers were released. 570 IS-2. T-34-85 - 2421 pieces. 2421 + 570 = 2991.
                  Quote: Jager
                  CARDINAL superiority over the same T-IV Ausf.N "Panther" did not have.

                  A few posts below a long quote. The four made their way through the main allied tank and main allied tank guns. The Panther did not make its way into the VLD with anything, including 17 pounds on sub-calibers (with high-quality armor). Only A-19 and similar systems.
                  Quote: Jager
                  on board she was sewn even T-70.

                  T-70 is sewn on board and Abrams, the idea of ​​a circular anti-ballistic reservation against a 6 lb. is not working.
                  Quote: Jager
                  Especially funny is the comparison of 122 mm OFS and 88 mm.

                  Nothing funny. For field reinforcements, 122 mm is not required; it is not the business of tanks to storm concrete. If you simplify and fill the entire BC OFS, then in the case of IS-2 it will be 84 kg of amatol, and the Tiger 83 kg of it. So nothing so interesting.
                  1. Jager April 19 2020 23: 23 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    For field fortifications, as required, a large caliber. The task of the tank is, first and foremost, the fight against infantry and artillery of the enemy, and only after that with tanks. And the fact that the Germans put 8,8 in the Tiger's tower was for the very reason that there was nothing to install "now and here" without alterations to the tank. Regarding "it is not the business of tanks to destroy concrete" - 122 mm is not much weaker than 152 mm and it was just the concrete of the fortifications of the same Zeelov heights that had to be demolished. And against them, 8,8 was as ineffective as the S-53. The IS-2 could successfully deliver a 100-mm gun. But they put 122 mm. Why?
                    Regarding the "main allied weapon" - what kind of beast is this?
                    1. Octopus April 20 2020 00: 43 New
                      • 2
                      • 0
                      +2
                      Quote: Jager
                      Regarding the "main allied weapon" - what kind of beast is this?

                      I will not once again copy two pages from Svirin. Read below. Tank Sherman 75mm and tank / PT 6 lbs.
                      Quote: Jager
                      The IS-2 could successfully deliver a 100-mm gun.

                      Because the D-10T in the 43rd year was not a surprise. On the IS-3, yes, they could, but this gun was already fitted to the medium tank, so it was considered inappropriate. It’s quite reasonable.
                      Quote: Jager
                      And against them, 8,8 was as ineffective as the S-53.

                      21 cm Mrs. 18 is normal. B-4 from the USSR, 203mm Howitzer M115 from the Allies. But actually, against siege bunkers that wouldn't run away, stationary siege weapons like the 240 mm Howitzer M1 were used. The unsuccessful Soviet weapon of this class was the Br-18.

                      What are there 122 mm.
                      Quote: Jager
                      And the fact that the Germans put 8,8 in the Tiger Tower

                      If you were interested in the issue, you would be aware that until the 41st year a conical hole punch without a landmine was generally installed in the Tiger. Hello English 6 pounds again without a land mine. So the Germans were just prone to reasonable universality.
                      Quote: Jager
                      there was nothing else to install "now and here" without alterations to the tank.

                      For the very reason that a unitary shot should have a weight of not more than 25 kg (53BR - bust) and reasonable dimensions (shot Kw.K. 43 L / 71 - bust). Of all the warring parties, only the USSR, which could not create a sufficiently powerful weapon, went to the growth of caliber and to separate loading.
                      Quote: Jager
                      The task of the tank is, first and foremost, the fight against infantry and artillery of the enemy, and only after that with tanks.

                      And not with long-term fortifications. To accomplish their tasks, a tank of 90 shells of 900 grams of explosives is much more useful than 30 shells of 3 kg each.

                      There is no need to argue in the HER categories when the battle will end earlier than the ammunition. Sometimes 200 shells were pushed into the Shermans, right with a slide.
        2. The comment was deleted.
      5. whitebeard April 18 2020 18: 18 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        It’s only the Tiger itself was the answer to our HF, and 34-85 was made in order to remove the 34ok gap not only from the Tigers, but from the modernized T-4 and Panthers, which version 76 to the Kursk Bulge was already hopelessly inferior
        1. Alexey RA April 20 2020 14: 35 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: whitebeard
          That's just the Tiger itself was the answer to our HF

          No. The final TOR for Tiger was signed a month before the start of the Second World War.
          The answer to our tanks was the Panther.
  3. The leader of the Redskins April 17 2020 06: 58 New
    • 13
    • 2
    +11
    Thanks to the author for entertaining material. I am always glad to read true historical documents, and not the conclusions of modern "sofa" experts.
  4. Alex 1970 April 17 2020 06: 59 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    I just started to read, and the article ended ... request
  5. Viktor Sergeev April 17 2020 08: 13 New
    • 6
    • 1
    +5
    The quantity beats the quality, especially if the “quality” has a lot of flaws, because of which the quantity still falls due to breakdowns and the impossibility of quick repair. Having 5 T34 you can afford to break two, having one Panther or Tiger you will not survive their breakdown.
    1. neri73-r April 17 2020 09: 17 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      Quote: Victor Sergeev
      especially if the "quality" has a lot of flaws

      Then this is not quality, but marriage or design flaws.
  6. AllBiBek April 17 2020 08: 14 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    The idea, of course, is good, but - to compare what the Germans said about our tanks in the 41st, and what we talked about the German - in 43, this is curious, of course, but I would like to have a simultaneous opinion.
  7. EvilLion April 17 2020 08: 40 New
    • 7
    • 0
    +7
    Gearbox on the early T-34 and the new 5-speed on the T-34 model 1943 are two big differences. But the German wrote the report before the appearance of such machines at the front. But he could already know about the KV-1C.
  8. bandabas April 17 2020 08: 54 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    I read the article. What a hodgepodge. About everything, and not about that.
    1. vladcub April 17 2020 14: 06 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      Arguments in the studio. What exactly is the author wrong about?
  9. Alexey RA April 17 2020 10: 00 New
    • 5
    • 1
    +4
    The Germans experimentally calculated the oil consumption of the Soviet tank diesel and were horrified - 15 kg per 100 km of track! Most likely, an error crept into the colonel’s calculations, or a defective diesel got to the Germans for testing.

    Nah, just in the hands of the Germans fell serial diesel. smile SW M. Svirin wrote that the problem of oil consumption on V-2 was so serious that it was necessary to introduce the column "power reserve by oil".
    1. Alekseev April 17 2020 10: 27 New
      • 5
      • 2
      +3
      Quote: Alexey RA
      the problem of oil consumption on V-2 was so serious that I had to introduce the column "power reserve for oil".

      Yes, they didn’t know how to make high-quality details of the cylinder-piston group, and this got oil into the combustion chambers. request
      And the working volume is more than 39 liters ... a lot of oil can burn out. Yes, and on modern tanks there is a spare tank for oil, adding a bucket of M-16ihp3 or MT-16p after a march of 200-300 kilometers (daily) is not considered a problem.
      As for the differences in the armament of our and German tanks, there was by no means a copy. There is an anti-tank orientation in the Fritz.
      For example, the 88 mm KWK-36 (Tiger) is a heavier gun (200 kg) than the ZiS-s-53 T-34 gun. And according to various sources, according to various sources, KWK had a 20-30% advantage in muzzle energy.
      But here the power of the f / f shells and their initial speed differed slightly.
      And with a 122-mm D-25 tiger cannon on o / f can not even be compared, the shell is 2 times heavier. True, armor penetration is possible. BPS to the 122-mm gun appeared far after the war. But in the case of the D-25, the absence of the BPS only made it difficult to hit, it, you know, has a very flat trajectory, and it differs from the caliber armor-piercing shell. Often, a 122-mm pig, although o / f, recorded German tanks in irreparable losses and even without breaking through armor: the crew and equipment were struck by armor fragments, the units were torn off the mounts.
      1. Octopus April 17 2020 12: 32 New
        • 3
        • 4
        -1
        Quote: Alekseev
        There is an anti-tank orientation in the Fritz.

        The notorious Yu.Posholok quite convincingly claims that both 85 mm and 122 mm are caused by insufficient anti-aircraft capabilities of Soviet armored vehicles on the example of Kursk. And the fact that the USSR went to the growth of caliber, and not to the growth of ballistics, as the Germans did, industry could not afford long barrels and complex shells.
        1. Elturisto April 17 2020 20: 56 New
          • 0
          • 1
          -1
          And zis-2? is it a short trunk?
          1. Octopus April 17 2020 21: 00 New
            • 2
            • 1
            +1
            And when was Soviet industry able to afford ZiS-2? What was the main anti-tank gun for the 44th year inclusive?
        2. Alf
          Alf April 17 2020 21: 59 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          Quote: Octopus
          And the fact that the USSR went to the growth of caliber, and not to the growth of ballistics, like the Germans, industry could not afford long trunks

          But could the Germans? In the production of RAK-43, 4 out of 5 castings were rejected and the Germans considered this normal.
          1. Octopus April 17 2020 22: 10 New
            • 1
            • 2
            -1
            Quote: Alf
            In the production of RAC-43, 4 out of 5 castings were rejected

            Well, allowed, and KvK42, and PaK43
        3. blackice April 18 2020 07: 27 New
          • 1
          • 1
          0
          ZiS - 2 is just the opposite of your words.
          But, then this weapon ceases to be universal, but exclusively armor-piercing. Well, as we know from the history of weapons, at all times they tried to create a child prodigy for all occasions.
          But again, as you know, no one has succeeded. Wunderwaffles always win in one, lose in the other.
          The eternal problem, firepower, reservation and weight. Something has to be sacrificed.
          1. Octopus April 18 2020 12: 38 New
            • 3
            • 3
            0
            Quote: blackice
            ZiS - 2 is just the opposite of your words.

            ZiS-2 is just the confirmation of my words. The USSR could not afford such a tank, which, as it were, is illustrated by the history of its production. Stories about "excess power" - this is in December 41st, when the triple J massively went with a 50 mm forehead - for October.
            Quote: blackice
            But, then this weapon ceases to be universal, but exclusively armor-piercing.

            You have some kind of paradoxical view of the world.
            The PT gun should be effective as the PT gun. The remaining possibilities of its use are pleasant, but optional.
            A divisional gun should be effective as a divisional gun. Its capabilities, whatever they are, are not significant in its design.

            Unless, of course, you can afford to produce different guns.

            But on the other hand, one must understand the circumstances of the USSR of the 41st year. With artillery, he has a full Ales caput. Ability to produce one the cannon - ZiS-3 - which allowed to give at least something to the divisional artillery in half, and at the same time it pierced almost everything as a PT in the 42nd year, and at the same time had a developed production base, both in terms of tools and on shells - was the only acceptable solution for the USSR. Moreover, on the same shot - a tank gun.

            Yet again. You should not listen to the lies of the political instructor. ZiS-3 is a very bad weapon for WWII, all the warring countries refused such wealth even after WWII. But a large poor country needed cheap mass solutions, so the ZiS-3 was the right choice, and the ZiS-2 + M-30 (which were the best option on paper in the world) was ordinary Soviet projection and fraud.
            1. Elturisto April 18 2020 21: 04 New
              • 1
              • 1
              0
              Look do not choke on sausages:) ... with a sin in half :) such fascist trolls must be banned immediately ...
            2. blackice April 19 2020 02: 17 New
              • 1
              • 1
              0
              But a large poor country needed cheap mass solutions, so the ZiS-3 was the right choice, and the ZiS-2 + M-30 (which were the best option on paper in the world) was ordinary Soviet projection and fraud.

              For starters, the big and the poor.
              Not so poor that massively industrialized in an agrarian country from the age of 22.
              Well, with what a fright ZiS-2 was the best only on paper? According to the result of shelling the Tiger at the Kubinka firing range, only ZiS-2 showed the best results. It was also the only weapon guaranteed to penetrate the Tiger armor at all distances of the real battle of that time.
              As far as I remember, from the history of ZiS-2, the released barrels were stored in a warehouse. And since 1943, ZiS-2 was again put into production.
              With regard to cheapness and mass, so history has shown that this is the best way of wartime, since the German version of the expensive and not very massive prodigy did not justify itself.
              1. Octopus April 19 2020 04: 08 New
                • 3
                • 1
                +2
                Quote: blackice
                Not so poor that massively industrialized in an agrarian country from the age of 22.

                This, of course, is very moving. But in the 41st year we arrived with what we came from.
                And in terms of industrialization, you are mistaken.
                Quote: blackice
                Well, with what a fright ZiS-2 was the best only on paper?

                It says that the combination of the M-30 as a division and ZiS-2 as a PT was the best option on paper. In practice, it turned out that the USSR could not afford either one or the other. This is easy to see in wartime states. ZiS-2 no, M-30 moved to the place of M-10.

                Not only that, in real life, the best option was, of course, English, 25 pounds division, MUCH, + 6 pounds PT.
                Quote: blackice
                According to the result of shelling the Tiger at the Kubinka firing range, only ZiS-2 showed the best results.

                Unfortunately, in recent years Vika's rape by patriots has become more frequent. You can see traces of such events in the article on ZiS-2.

                Yes, ZiS-2 pierced the Tiger armor from a kilometer. Onboard, the patriots somehow forgot to rewrite it from Svirin. Only 85mm anti-aircraft gun pierced the frontal, which cannot but rejoice with reference to the T-34-85 and SU-85.

                In addition to the ZiS-2, the Tiger's side pierced 6pdr from the same distance (with the barrel, I draw your attention, of normal length, not 70klb) and the Sherman gun 75 from 600 meters. The T-34 cannon does not pierce the side of the Tiger from any distance. By the way, she is ZiS-3. The Tiger's cannon pierces the T-34 and KV at any place from 1,5 km.

                By the way. The 4th of the 43rd year had the same 80mm in the forehead (but not in the tower) as the side of the Tiger. At the Stucks, these 80 mm were also with an angle.

                The Panther is stronger than the Tiger in the forehead.
                Quote: blackice
                And since 1943, the ZiS-2 was again launched into the series.

                There was already a little bit not quite Soviet industry. In any case, by the summer campaign of the 44th year, this gun has not yet become the main TD. In the 45th, yes, played a role.
                Quote: blackice
                With regard to cheapness and mass, so history has shown that this is the best way of wartime, since the German version of the expensive and not very massive prodigy did not justify itself.

                You have a somewhat misconception about history. Dear prodigies, which industry is not able to produce at all, is just the Soviet pre-war path, and ZiS-2 is one of the examples. As for the German art, until the 44th year it had unconditional superiority over the Soviet one, and it kept to the end.

                Anyway. The understanding of divisional art of the 40th year and Soviet too - This is a howitzer with a shell of 11 (English) - 20 (Soviet) kilograms. ZiS-3 with its all-round relatively M-30 smaller number of explosives (and what!) And a flat (rather than howitzer) trajectory - is not at all in the subject.

                And yes, for the future. The capabilities and successes of Soviet artillery are greatly exaggerated. It was noticeable only at the final stage of the war and only when massaging at the front, or at least the army level. At the level of divisions, it both disappeared in the 41st, and did not really appear. ZiS-3, 120mm mortars - this is poverty, no need to deceive yourself.
                1. The comment was deleted.
                  1. Octopus April 19 2020 14: 11 New
                    • 2
                    • 0
                    +2
                    Quote: blackice
                    history has already put all the points over i

                    Of course. But you are not interested.
                    Quote: Octopus
                    And in terms of industrialization, you are mistaken.

                    The first Stalin five-year plan - 28-32. The consequence of the "military alarm" of the 27th year, when the USSR and personally Comrade Stalin unexpectedly discovered that the secondary states of Europe - the White Guard Finland and the Baltic states, Pan Poland and Magyar Romania - are dangerous enough for the USSR alone, and they will most likely break it in the coalition. With the participation of Japan - they will tear for sure.
                    Not Germany.
                    Not France.
                    Not Britain.
                    Quote: blackice
                    As I understand it, you were personally present in the battles of that time

                    Clear. It's time to turn on the fecal fan.

                    I see the text in the wiki, I see the source to which it refers in this place, and I see that the source is the meaning of the text in the wiki opposite to the source. Accidentally? I don’t think so.
                    Wikipedia:
                    The results of this shelling showed that the most common 45-mm and 76-mm guns in the Red Army are not effective enough, unlike the ZiS-2, which demonstrated the ability to fight this type of tank at most real battle distances [9]

                    We are looking for the source at link 9. This is Svirin, Stalin's Steel Fist. The history of the Soviet tank 1943-1955:
                    Many designers of domestic weapons recall that an emergency meeting was held in Stavka at the end of February 1943, the reason for which was the use by the Germans of the Tiger heavy tank on the Tikhvin front (the exact date of the meeting is unknown, but references to its transcripts are given in the correspondence of the NKTP from February February 27 g.).

                    The meeting was attended by People’s Commissar of Arms D. Ustinov with deputies, People’s Commissar of Tank Industry V. Malyshev with deputies, People’s Commissar of Ammunition B. Vannikov, the leadership of GAU and GBTU, a number of military experts and leading workers in the defense industry. The message was made by the chief of artillery N. Voronov. The appearance of the Tiger tanks on the Tikhvin front, he called sudden. The new German tanks made an amazing impression on him, he said. "We have no cannons capable of fighting these tanks", Were his closing words. Nobody could object to him.

                    In fact, the first tests of the Flashenhals [* - Flashenhals, or "bottleneck" captured by the Germans called the bottleneck of the blockade ring around Leningrad] the "Tigers" fired from the main types of Red Army guns were disappointing. So, in a telephone message to D. Ustinov dated February 19, 1943 it was said: “The armored corps of the German Tiger heavy tank (frontal armor - 101 mm, side, feed - 82 mm) from a distance of 400-600 m, despite repeated attempts, was not pierced by armor-piercing shells of anti-tank guns that are in service with the Red Army... The experience of shelling the KV arr. 1941 (forehead. Armor 105 mm, side - 75-90 mm) suggests that the side, the armor of the Tiger tank will be pierced by shells of 57-mm anti-tank vehicles. 41 g., 85 mm ZP arr. 39 g., 107 mm PP arr. 1940, as well as 57 mm English. PTP arr. 1941 from a distance of 400-600 m, forehead. the armor of the tank should be penetrated by armor-piercing shells of 85 mm and 107 mm caliber from a distance of 300-500 m.

                    I ask you to test the shelling of the Tiger tank with guns of the specified type, and hurry to organize tests of the shell of the tank with new types of anti-tank shells for 45-mm, 76-mm and 122-mm guns ... Fedorenko. "

                    The second approach to the process of comprehensive testing of the Tiger skin on the "tooth" of domestic anti-tank vehicles took place in April 1943. Actually, it did not bring any special surprises ... It was again stated that none of the domestic tank and anti-tank guns can penetrate armor 100 mm thick:

                    "May 4, 1943 Top Secret

                    PEOPLE'S COMMISSAR OF DEFENSE MARSHAL OF THE SOVIET UNION

                    Comrade Stalin
                    Reporting: on the results of the shelling tests of the German heavy tank T-VI
                    In the period from April 24 to April 30 s / g. At the GBTU KA scientific-testing armored firing range, tests were carried out by shelling a German T-VI tank from artillery systems that are in service with the Red Army, and 88-mm guns of a T-VI tank were fired at the armored corps of T-34 and KB-1 tanks .
                    T-VI tank shelling results

                    Side., Feed., And 82mm thick tank turret breaks through (when a shell meets armor at right angles):
                    - Submunitions of a 45 mm anti-tank gun of the 1942 sample from a distance of 350 meters.
                    - Submunition shells of a 45 mm tank gun of a sample of 1937 from a distance of 200 meters.
                    - An armor-piercing solid projectile of 57 mm anti-tank gun ZIS-2 from a distance of 1000 meters.
                    - An armor-piercing shell of an 85 mm anti-aircraft gun from a distance of 1500 mtr.
                    - Armor-piercing (solid) shell of an English 57 mm tank gun from a distance of 600 meters.
                    - Armor-piercing (solid) shell of an English anti-tank 57mm gun from a distance of 1000 meters.
                    - An armor-piercing (solid) shell of a 75mm American tank gun from a distance of 600 meters.
                    The frontal armor of the T-VI tank 100 mm thick is pierced by an armor-piercing shell of 85 mm zen. guns from a distance of 1000 meters.

                    The shelling of 82 mm side armor of the T-VI tank from a 76 mm F-34 tank gun from a distance of 200 meters showed that the armor-piercing shells of this gun are weak and, when they meet the tank armor, are destroyed without penetrating the armor.
                    Caliber 76 mm shells also do not penetrate 100 mm of the frontal armor of the T-VI tank from a distance of 500 m.
                    The anti-tank rifles in service with the Red Army do not penetrate the armor of the T-VI tank.
                    An experienced anti-tank rifle of the Blum system pierces 82 mm armor of the T-VI tank from a distance of 100 m at an initial bullet speed of 1500 m / s.
                    The 88 mm tank gun mounted on the T-VI tank pierces the armor of our tanks from a distance with an armor-piercing shell:

                    The most durable part of the T-34 tank’s hull is the bow beam (cast, 140 mm thick), as well as the frontal and tower armor from 1500 meters.
                    The strongest frontal part of the hull of the KB-1 tank is 105 mm thick (75 mm main armor + 30 mm screen) with 1500 meters ... "

                    Quote: blackice
                    but where the victory parade is now held.

                    The fact that China was one of the four main WWII winners in no way makes Chinese artillery, aviation, tanks, navy, anything of that time the best in the world, or at least acceptable.
                    1. blackice April 20 2020 05: 01 New
                      • 0
                      • 1
                      -1
                      The first Stalin five-year plan - 28-32. The consequence of the "military alarm" of the 27th year, when the USSR and personally Comrade Stalin unexpectedly discovered that the secondary states of Europe - the White Guard Finland and the Baltic states, Pan Poland and Magyar Romania - are dangerous enough for the USSR alone, and they will most likely break it in the coalition. With the participation of Japan - they will tear for sure.

                      Here it’s right for sure !!!
                      Remind me when the civil war ended?
                      If it were not for the political will of the then leadership of the USSR, then in the WWII the USSR would have fought in choppers.
                      The fact that China was one of the four main WWII winners in no way makes Chinese artillery, aircraft, tanks, navy, anything of that time the best in the world

                      China was a winner only because it was liberated by the USSR. Is not it so? So the example is not appropriate, at least not appropriate.
                      Of course. But you are not interested.

                      It seems you are not interested. Let me remind you once again that Germany did not win WWII.
                      The Germans also said that in the WWII the USSR was defeated, as for the allies, they just hastened to bite off more Europe, so as not to increase the number of countries of the social camp.
                      As for bringing your material, it just proves what the original debate started from. ZiS-2 had a place to be and had its role in that war, and not on a piece of paper, as you deigned to respond.
                      By the way, in my text there is an important note - the most common anti-tank gun in the army.
                      1. The comment was deleted.
                      2. The comment was deleted.
                      3. Octopus April 20 2020 13: 45 New
                        • 2
                        • 0
                        +2
                        Quote: blackice
                        anti-adviser with an alternative view of history.

                        And Russophobe, this is also important. But there is no alternative view, the USSR in real history was nothing to be done.
                        Quote: blackice
                        So far, ALL countries of the world

                        One feels a great specialist in all countries of the world.
                        What other country in the world has been comparing its “achievements” with the year 50 for 1913 years?
                        Quote: blackice
                        What racism, baby? China has fought for 8 years and what successes has it achieved?

                        Yes Yes.
                        Quote: blackice
                        It is victory over the enemy that proves everything.

                        No.
                        Victory proves that the enemy made several critical mistakes.
                        Quote: blackice
                        from among the fans of the Fuhrer, naturally not with filthy brains.

                        I relate fairly even to Hitler and to Stalin.

                        I hate primarily Roosevelt.
                        Quote: blackice
                        that they insisted on the USSR entering the war with Japan.

                        In particular, for this.
                        Quote: blackice
                        the door to an alternative story, where the USSR lost the WWII, you will not open.

                        USSR, first of all personally comrade Stalin, won WWII. The Allies lost. When and if this point of view becomes mainstream, the "successor of the USSR" will have to pay for this victory.

                        So far, the Allies manage to lie that they, too, have won. While there was no Eastern Europe in the world, this worked out easily. The last time started hassles. Maybe something will change.
                      4. blackice April 21 2020 06: 44 New
                        • 0
                        • 1
                        -1
                        One feels a great specialist in all countries of the world.
                        What other country in the world has been comparing its “achievements” with the year 50 for 1913 years?

                        Have you heard anything about the dynamics of development?
                        Ahhh yeah !!!!
                        Where am I with my knowledge !!! Here is an exceptional figure - 1913 !!!
                        No.
                        Victory proves that the enemy made several critical mistakes.

                        The essence does not change. There is a winner, there is a vanquished. And this is a critical factor.
                      5. Octopus April 21 2020 09: 32 New
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        +1
                        Quote: blackice
                        this is a critical factor

                        Critical for the state of affairs in divisional artillery.
                        OK.
                      6. blackice April 22 2020 04: 50 New
                        • 0
                        • 1
                        -1
                        Verbiage?
                        Well, OK.
                        I look forward to the Victory Day parade of German weapons from WWII.
  • Oyo Sarkazmi April 17 2020 13: 35 New
    • 3
    • 2
    +1
    Quote: Alekseev
    Often, a 122-mm pig, although o / f, recorded German tanks in irreparable loss and even without breaking through the armor:

    The nuance of German statistics - if a tank collapsed into parts could be evacuated, this was not considered a loss, in general. Only those left on enemy territory fell into losses.
    Therefore, in the 41st Germans did not have losses in tanks. According to statistics. From the word at all.
    1. Alekseev April 18 2020 09: 11 New
      • 0
      • 2
      -2
      What do you mean loss was not considered? For whom, for propaganda? Where did everything go?
      After all, if the Germans did not suffer losses, their armed forces would become stronger and stronger, and the front would not roll west to Berlin, but east.
      1. Oyo Sarkazmi April 18 2020 09: 36 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: Alekseev
        What do you mean loss was not considered?

        And so - Panther with exploding ammunition was sent for factory repairs. And even at the factory - straight to martin, in the military unit she continued to be listed as faulty.
        Near Prokhorovka, the sides lost almost all the tanks. But if our losses amounted to more than 50%, the Germans evacuated everything, and they had only 6 or 7 losses. According to the reports.
        1. Alekseev April 18 2020 18: 41 New
          • 1
          • 2
          -1
          Quote: Oyo Sarkazmi
          even at the factory - straight to martin, in the military unit she continued to be listed as faulty.

          Well, this is accounting for propaganda. À la guerre comme à la guerre, according to reports by German and ours, by the way, too, several enemy armies were killed and destroyed.
          But before the operation, the commanders of the troops demanded troops, tanks and aircraft based on the actual number in the troops, and not according to paper records.
          And the true losses, of course, were known to the leaders.
          Otherwise, probably, Stalin would not have sent a commission to deal with the same counterattack of 5 Guards. TA near Prokhorovka. The results of her work, by the way, are still closed, although in general, they are known to all interested.
          Therefore, it is puzzling for some husbands from history to prove, sometimes using documents of such "fake" accounting, that the Germans, for example, suffered ridiculous losses in grandiose battles on the ground and in the air, but, at the same time, were defeated and retreated under the onslaught of "completely bloodless "parts of the Red Army.
  • vladcub April 17 2020 14: 32 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    “even without breaking through the armor” I have heard on TV for a long time: in July 1941 152 mm howitzers were used against tanks. Even a shell explosion behind or on the side of the tank and the tank roll over. But an inverted tank is not a bicycle, so that it is picked up and ridden.
    On the site, Oleinin once described an episode from WWI when Austrian infantry surrounded a Russian armored car and let's rock it to turn it over. The then armored vehicles could be turned over by hands, and already German T2 or T-3 was problematic to turn over by hands
  • Sergey Leibedev April 19 2020 23: 19 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    There is also a poor quality lubricating oil for our diesel engines should be noted!
    The first lubricant additives appeared in the United States since 1933.

    Before that they could do without it.

    First, additives appeared specifically for diesel engine oils, for powerful Caterpiller diesel engines.

    For high-speed powerful diesel engines and especially for supercharged diesel engines, when using purely petroleum lubricants, piston rings were often burned and coked, in order to prevent this, they began to add aluminum naphthenates as additives first, then the best additives were found.

    GMC 71 engines were lubricated only with diesel engine oil with additives.

    Like the Giberson diesel engines.

    The Germans most likely used oil with additives on aviation diesels of YuMO and it is quite possible that on automobile diesels after 1935.

    When we started producing YaAZ-204-206 engines, it turned out that even on our best petroleum engine oil without additives, the engine crashes after 100-150 hours of operation due to the piston rings being burned and coked, in addition there were and corrosion of the liners of the crankshaft bearings (from sulfur in fuel and organic acids in oils) and not rarely burnout of the piston bottom from poor heat sink, as a result of soot from it from engine oil from the "cold" side.

    I had to hastily master the production of diesel engine oil with additives.

    And this is especially and all the more surprising because there was already great experience in operating artillery tractors Y-12 with GMC 71 engines, which showed that these engines do not work for a long time on our engine oil!

    Well, our boobies started the production of these diesel engines without mastering the production of additives for diesel engine oils!

    Well, our running diesel fuel, in which there was up to 1-2% sulfur and even more, was certainly suitable for the M-17 diesel engines of the Stalinets-65 tractors, various stationary and sea-river diesel engines, for diesel locomotives, for submarines, with great difficulty for diesel engines of the V-2 and ACh series (with their small resource, especially under wartime conditions), but for the GMC 71 -YAZ-204-206 engines, taking into account the resource required under peacetime conditions, it was necessary already in 5000-7000 hours before overhaul to have not only oil with additives, but also diesel is highly desirable with less eat 0,3% sulfur.

    Then it turned out that when the sulfur content in diesel fuel is about 1,3%, the wear of a diesel engine accelerates 3-4 times and the life falls by the same 3-4 times, compared with a diesel engine running on fuel with sulfur less than 0,05 , XNUMX%.


    The fact is that the bulk of the sulfur compounds contained in oil, when receiving fuel by simple distillation, is distilled mainly with hydrocarbons or organosulfur compounds that evaporate at temperatures above 200 degrees.
    Therefore, the total amount of sulfur in gasoline rarely exceeds 0,05%. , even with direct distillation of Romashkinskaya oil.

    The Romashkinskoye oil field produces worse oil than Baku or Grozny, there is 1,5-2% sulfur, but there is a lot of it!

    Diesel fuel, its main fractions, are distilled off from oil during direct distillation at a temperature just close to 200 degrees and above and usually 300-400 degrees (fraction 240-350 degrees) or therefore inevitably contains a lot of sulfur.

    The situation is aggravated by non-compliance with the technological regimes of direct distillation of oil, i.e. in order to increase the yield of fractions forming diesel fuel, the temperature during distillation is kept well above 300-400 degrees and the amount of sulfur in diesel fuel increases very much!

    Poor self-lubrication of diesel fuel equipment with jamming and jamming of the high pressure fuel pump plunger and often the nozzle needle starts if the sulfur content in diesel fuel is less than 0,035%.

    Therefore, less than the same 0,035% of sulfur should not be in diesel fuel. or if sulfur is less necessary to use anti-friction fuel additives.
    On diesel engines of that time, there was no forced lubrication of the plungers of the fuel pumps.
    Therefore, when working on pure kerosene, diesel engines stuck with Boshev type fuel plungers.
    That this would not happen when the diesel engine runs on kerosene. kerosene was always added up to 5% lubricating oil.
    When running a diesel engine on gasoline, this was also required, but also because on a clean gasoline a regular diesel engine begins to knock and the crankshaft starts to fall apart.
    Of course there were diesel engines with fuel pumps that did not require lubrication and on pure kerosene.
    Endrashek diesels (Hungarian Ganz-Endraszek) had a pulse fuel pump with a spring-loaded plunger drive and a valve nozzle.
    The gap between the bronze bushing and the plunger was about 10-15 microns and it did not wedge.


    Our first special additive for diesel engine oils was the AzNII-4 additive, which had detergent and anticorrosion properties, the production of which was quickly started in 1949.
    Then she immediately went for tank, and various other diesels, significantly increasing their resource and reliability!

    As it appeared here, the same possibility of using fuels with a high sulfur content of less than 71% for GMC 204 -YAZ-206-0 engines.
    Later, an even better additive for diesel oils, Tsiatim-339, was also widely used to this day.
    Since 1962, this additive has been absolutely obligatory for diesel engine oils, in the operation of any diesel engine using fuel with sulfur exceeding 0,2%.
    With the advent of an ever new generation of diesel engines with an increasingly intense thermal process, it was necessary to produce more and more additives for diesel engine oils.

    We had the same hemorrhoids with the development of oil additives for 5TDF engines!
    Our existing additives for diesel engine oils were not suitable for diesel engines with such an intensity of the thermal process.
    And I'm not at all sure that we solved this problem on our own, without distortion from the West and purchases there.

    So for those who want to master our GMC 71 engines, they should immediately think about the issue of which oil should be lubricated and where to get additives for the oil!

    Without the production of detergents and anticorrosion additives for lubricating oils, the development of high-speed diesel engines with high liter power close to GMC 71 -YAZ-204-206 does not make any sense, the engines will have a very small resource, suitable only for wartime conditions.

    Or, it is necessary to somehow pervert especially strongly with the design and materials for the engine itself, which is expensive and difficult.

    And then it’s cheap then that a diesel engine that can run on engine oil without additives and having a large resource should have a low liter power and a lot of weight!

    As the engine M-17 tractor Stalinets-65.


    Oil lubricating oils begin to oxidize at a temperature of 120-150 degrees.
    Then they begin to lose lubricating properties!
    Antioxidant additives - engine oil oxidation inhibitors began to be used from the beginning of the 40s, first on aircraft engines.
    Then on automobile engines and diesel engines as well.
    Well, antioxidant additives - engine oil oxidation inhibitors are also needed for diesel engines with an intense thermal process.
  • Octopus April 17 2020 12: 29 New
    • 2
    • 5
    -3
    Quote: Alexey RA
    "cruising range".

    And this supply was lower than for fuel, EMNIP.
  • Undecim April 17 2020 10: 27 New
    • 4
    • 1
    +3
    The Germans experimentally calculated the oil consumption of the Soviet tank diesel and were horrified - 15 kg per 100 km of track! Most likely, an error crept into the colonel’s calculations, or a defective diesel got to the Germans for testing.
    Not very Germans were mistaken.
    According to this guide

    hourly oil consumption when driving on the ground at a speed of 25 km / h is 2,0 liters.
    This is for a new engine. Taking into account that the average track speed of the tank column will be much less, then we’ll come to just 15 liters. And with engine wear, consumption will only increase.
  • Alexey RA April 17 2020 11: 01 New
    • 10
    • 0
    +10
    You can still recall the opinion of Guderian, inadvertently expressed by him before the battles at Mtsensk. smile
    ... the Soviet T-34 tank is a typical example of backward Bolshevik technology. This tank can not be compared with the best examples of our tanks, made by the faithful sons of the Reich and have repeatedly proved their advantage ...

    Why careless? Yes, because only a few days later he had to explain all the problems of the Eberbach campaign group by the presence of the enemy's invulnerable and overwhelming T-34.
  • Operator April 17 2020 11: 12 New
    • 7
    • 2
    +5
    “Slavishly adopting parts, they created machines superior to foreign ones,” such as non-slave foreigners were so stupid that they couldn’t make their products decent from their “parts”? bully

    The thrust-weight ratio of German tanks is less than 10 hp. per ton in combination with small-caliber (relative to the Soviet 122- and 152-mm guns) turned them into niche anti-tank self-propelled guns, i.e. the Germans capitulated in the arms sphere earlier than in the military-political sphere.
    1. Octopus April 17 2020 12: 41 New
      • 3
      • 8
      -5
      Quote: Operator
      The thrust-weight ratio of German tanks is less than 10 hp. per ton

      Chive-chive? Is it tiger-2, or what?
      Quote: Operator
      small-caliber (relative to the Soviet 122- and 152-mm guns)

      ))
      They are 38 cm and not weak.
      1. Operator April 17 2020 14: 41 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        “The Tiger-2 was equipped with a V-shaped 12-cylinder four-stroke liquid-cooled carburetor engine, manufactured by Maybach, model HL 230 P30. The engine had a displacement of 23 cm³ and developed a rated maximum power of 095 hp at 700 rpm / min, however, in practice, the engine speed usually did not exceed 3000 per minute, which caused a decrease in power.In the instruction manual, the power was indicated as 2500 hp at 600 rpm
        The weight of Tiger-2 was equal to 69 tons. Determine power density yourself or help?
        1. Octopus April 17 2020 14: 58 New
          • 3
          • 6
          -3
          And what is the problem, that the super-specific power density is the same or higher than that of the light tanks Chaffee, Valentine, T-60? IS-2, for that matter, what is the specific power?
          1. Operator April 17 2020 15: 50 New
            • 3
            • 3
            0
            But shaw, KV-2 was transferred from artillery tanks to tanks? laughing
            1. Octopus April 17 2020 17: 01 New
              • 2
              • 3
              -1
              Quote: Operator
              KV-2 still transferred from artillery tanks to tanks?

              Who cares? Does it have more power / weight?
              1. Operator April 17 2020 17: 44 New
                • 1
                • 5
                -4
                Read carefully my first post, which said the same thing - low specific power automatically turns the tank into self-propelled guns.
                1. Octopus April 17 2020 17: 52 New
                  • 5
                  • 3
                  +2
                  Quote: Operator
                  automatically turns the tank into self-propelled guns.

                  You know, the site already had one legendary visitor, known as Karbayn, a great specialist in the classification of tanks and self-propelled guns.

                  1. In addition to the KV-2, I listed a number of vehicles with a specific power in the region of 10. Are they all self-propelled guns?
                  2.
                  Quote: Operator
                  The thrust-weight ratio of German tanks is less than 10 hp. per tonne .... Germans in the arms sphere capitulated earlier

                  Is it your Tiger-2, a typical German tank, to draw such conclusions?
                  1. Operator April 17 2020 18: 40 New
                    • 2
                    • 2
                    0
                    I didn’t call the KV-2 a tank and I mentioned the Tiger-2 (nothing more awkward) - it’s not for me to answer laughing
                  2. Alexey RA April 17 2020 19: 45 New
                    • 4
                    • 0
                    +4
                    Quote: Octopus
                    Is it your Tiger-2, a typical German tank, to draw such conclusions?

                    There is another question - how to measure power. When “treshka” fell into the grasping hands of domestic specialists, it suddenly turned out that when measuring according to the domestic method, the treshka engine power was not 300 hp, but 323 hp But the serial V-2 according to the same method produced from 465 to 485 hp.
  • KVU-NSVD April 17 2020 11: 33 New
    • 3
    • 1
    +2
    Thanks to the author - I read it in one go .. Can continue a series of similar comparative opinions of experts of those years about the enemy’s technique in aviation, artillery, communications, etc. I hope it will be just as interesting hi
  • wolf20032 April 17 2020 12: 22 New
    • 4
    • 1
    +3
    Just the Soviet tank industry became a driver for the Germans. Only due to the fact that they met T 34 and KV on the battlefield, they began to itch. Result - Tiger and Panther.
    1. Alexey RA April 17 2020 12: 55 New
      • 5
      • 1
      +4
      Quote: wolf20032
      Only due to the fact that they met T 34 and KV on the battlefield, they began to itch. Result - Tiger and Panther.

      Panther - yes, the result of the Panzerwaffe experience gained in Russia. More precisely, that "panther" that we know. For work on the new single tank to replace the "three rubles" and "four" the Germans went on for some years from 1938 - first on Daimler. But only after meeting with the T-34, the Germans realized that no one needed a 20-ton ST and in December 1941 the project was transferred to a 30-ton class. Well, traditionally during the journey the dog was able to grow upso that in the end they got a CT with a mass of TT. smile
      But TK on the Tiger in the form that we know was signed almost a month before the start of the Barbarossa - on May 26, 1941. So, there is no influence of our tanks here.
      ... May 26, 1941, when considering with Hitler the state of affairs with the latest tanks and anti-tank guns, it was decided:
      - accelerate development, ensure the supply of at least 6 tanks by the summer of 1942;
      - arm the tank with an 88 mm gun;
      - Strengthen frontal armor up to 100 mm, on-board - up to 60 mm.
      When considering the consequences of implementing these requirements, Henschel reported an increase in tank weight to 40 tons, Wa Pruef 6 took note of this.
      In July 1941, Henschel received a contract for the assembly of three VK4501 (H) prototypes and 100 production tanks. On January 3, 1942, Krupp submitted the first armored corps to Kassel, and on April 11 the first tower. April 20, the first prototype was sent to demonstrate the Fuhrer.
      Based on the results of the review on May 26, 1941, Porsche based on the Typ 100 prepared a new draft Typ 101, aka VK4501 (P). In July 1941, Porsche received an order for the manufacture of 100 serial tanks VK4501 (P).
      © D. Shein
      1. bk0010 April 17 2020 18: 48 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        Quote: Alexey RA
        But TK on the Tiger, in the form that we know, was signed almost a month before the start of Barbarossa - on May 26, 1941.
        This is very strange: the Tiger is of little use for the blitzkrieg.
        1. Alexey RA April 17 2020 20: 45 New
          • 6
          • 0
          +6
          Quote: bk0010
          This is very strange: the Tiger is of little use for the blitzkrieg.

          And they didn’t do it for us. The “Tiger” and the “Panther” were made out of the calculation of future battles with the Allies around 1943. Moreover, the USSR in this alternative reality should already have been defeated for a long time - the old “three” and “fours”. And the Panther is to become a single panzerwaffe medium tank, replacing two types at once.
          But something went wrong ... smile
          1. Octopus April 17 2020 21: 06 New
            • 3
            • 2
            +1
            As for the Tiger, the idea of ​​putting on the tank the very gun that the Germans fought with the Matilda with a 75mm forehead seems quite logical. Moreover, in June of the 41st already went to the Churchill series with a forehead of 100 mm.
            1. DesToeR April 18 2020 20: 30 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              Quote: Octopus
              As for the Tiger, the idea of ​​putting on the tank the very gun that the Germans fought with the Matilda with a 75mm forehead seems quite logical.

              Yeah, logical! In 1941, they put a K18 L / 52 cannon (105 mm) in a "self-propelled gun" on the chassis of a medium tank, then made a self-propelled gun with a 128-mm PaK 40 gun with a barrel length of 61 caliber and ... launched a heavy tank with an 88 mm gun. Well, in order to "understand and forgive" the Fritz, you need to know what "full Ales Kaput" was going on with the Germans' artillery in 1941 ... There was nothing to choose from for the poor Nazis - that’s why they launched onto the road (50+ tons!) And an extremely low-tech machine, a weapon of the "division" level: "all the warring countries refused such wealth even as a result of the WWII."
              Quote: Octopus
              Moreover, in June of the 41st already went to the Churchill series with a forehead of 100 mm.

              Moreover, in JUNE 1941, the Germans could see with their own eyes the Soviet KV tanks with frontal armor at 75 ... 110mm. Which Churchill? Voroshilov!
              1. Octopus April 18 2020 20: 44 New
                • 2
                • 2
                0
                Quote: DesToeR
                and ... launch a heavy tank with an 88mm gun

                Yes, that's right.

                Apparently, the difference between the serial tank and the experimental self-propelled guns Max and Emil, which impressed you so much, eluded your attention.

                Starting with the fact that the Tiger is not self-propelled.
                Quote: DesToeR
                a weapon of the "division" level: "all the warring countries refused such wealth even following the results of the WWII"

                You will be very surprised, but the KwK 36 with the division and the F-34 had nothing in common. The Soviet weapon of this class was the D-10, not to be confused with the S-53.
                Quote: DesToeR
                Moreover, in JUNE 1941, the Germans could see with their own eyes the Soviet KV tanks with frontal armor in 75 ... 110mm

                As far as I know, the Germans did not have information about heavy Soviet tanks, say, from Finnish sources. And by the fall of the tiger was already sawing at full speed.
                1. DesToeR April 18 2020 21: 00 New
                  • 2
                  • 0
                  +2
                  Quote: Octopus
                  Apparently, the difference between the serial tank and the experimental self-propelled guns Max and Emil, which impressed you so much, eluded your attention.

                  Apparently, the presence of the serial nature of the guns used on these two self-propelled guns (very modest in comparison with the Tiger’s weight) also eluded your attention ...
                  Quote: Octopus
                  You will be very surprised, but the KwK 36 with the division and the F-34 had nothing in common.

                  Gemini by the standards of artillerymen of all time! Up to 100mm - it's all nothing on the battlefield.
                  Quote: Octopus
                  As far as I know, the Germans did not have information about heavy Soviet tanks, say, from Finnish sources.

                  So no Finns. You go to the Baltic States in the hot JUNE summer of 1941 with a tape measure, a notebook and a pencil - and voila!
                  1. Octopus April 18 2020 21: 06 New
                    • 1
                    • 1
                    0
                    Quote: DesToeR
                    Apparently, the presence of serialization of the used tools on these two self-propelled guns (very modest in comparison with the Tiger weight)

                    The meaning of this phrase is that K18 was a serial gun? Congratulations on this discovery.
                    Quote: DesToeR
                    Gemini by the standards of artillerymen of all time!

                    Your ideas about history and artillery are understandable.
                    Quote: DesToeR
                    Going to the Baltic States on a hot JUNE summer 1941

                    You will not believe it, but the Porsche commission did this only not in June, of course, but in November, EMNIP. Only the Tiger had nothing to do with it.
                    1. DesToeR April 18 2020 21: 15 New
                      • 1
                      • 0
                      +1
                      Quote: Octopus
                      The meaning of this phrase is that K18 was a serial gun? Congratulations on this discovery.

                      Yes, it’s hard ... Maybe you know a gun like SK 18 and its modification ... K 18/40. No? For you, probably, the cannon on the Tiger tank is a creation of the gloomy Teutonic genius arr. 1942? Was the same ammunition unique? "Your ideas about history and artillery are clear."
                      Quote: Octopus
                      You will not believe it, but the Porsche commission did this only not in June, of course, but in November, EMNIP. Only the Tiger had nothing to do with it.

                      I already answered one “handsome man” on the site for the “Porsche commission”: it’s not the business of the “general” to roam the fields and with a tape measure and a camera. The customer, in the person of the military, issues the technical task of design bureaus. A measure of understanding for any constructor is NOT SUFFICIENT for the formation of technical specifications, because he does not understand nichrome in tactics, logistics, and the prospects for the development of the armed forces. The military formalize him, i.e. issue in a language understandable to the designer, the technical task. Although the Germans had a lot going through w ... pu - maybe one of those episodes?
                      1. Octopus April 18 2020 21: 24 New
                        • 1
                        • 1
                        0
                        Quote: DesToeR
                        Maybe you know a gun like SK 18 and its modification ... K 18/40. No? For you, probably, the cannon on the Tiger tank is a creation of the gloomy Teutonic genius arr. 1942?

                        It is probably very interesting to talk to yourself.

                        If you suddenly want to return to the previous line of conversation, then you ended up with the fact that KwK 36 was an analogue of the F-34.
                        Quote: DesToeR
                        responsible for the "Porsche commission"

                        Are you not satisfied with the work of the Porsche commission? You are absolutely right. Practice has shown that it was much more important for the Germans to follow what was happening in Detroit, and not to measure centimeters of HF.
                      2. DesToeR April 18 2020 21: 42 New
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        +1
                        Quote: Octopus
                        If you suddenly want to return to the previous line of conversation, then you ended up with the fact that KwK 36 was an analogue of the F-34.

                        The whole answer? Not a lot of arguments. What kind of old conversation will go for "internal" and "external" ballistics?
                        Quote: Octopus
                        Practice has shown that it was much more important for the Germans to follow what was happening in Detroit, and not to measure centimeters of HF.

                        Why follow him? It is enough to give the Iron Cross of the German eagle "to his idol" overseas and 17,5 million dollars. they’ll flow into your economy ... along with advanced Detroit technologies.
                      3. Octopus April 18 2020 21: 48 New
                        • 1
                        • 1
                        0
                        Quote: DesToeR
                        KV-3 must first, get away from the moronic terminology ala "tower self-propelled guns"

                        Who are you talking to again? I did not speak out about the classification of KV-3.
                        Quote: DesToeR
                        Then the reservation "in a circle" of 100 ... 120mm will become clear, and the choice of artillery systems over 100mm is obvious.

                        Yes, this has its own logic, although absurd.
                        Quote: DesToeR
                        Then where was the US intelligence in 1941?

                        She was not at all. Intelligence in the United States appeared only in the 60s. Everything before this, including the activities of the Dulles brothers, is a shameful booth and embezzlement.
                        Quote: DesToeR
                        Nazi intelligence in the summer of 1944?

                        And what are the claims to the 44th? Did you miss the Belarusian operation?
                        Quote: DesToeR
                        I’m reading the history of Great Britain and reached the head of Dunkirk ... I'm tired of it - I decided to read the history of France - you won’t believe ... I got to the head of Dunkirk. I rushed to study about the USA - I reached the head of Pearl Harbor. The chapters about the "great" armies of Poland, Holland, and Norway are very short. Germany, or rather, the Third Reich is more interesting, but here are the chapters about Stalingrad, Kursk, the operation "Bagration", Köningsberg, Lake Balaton and a bunch of others, well, as a "true German," I leaf through without reading ...

                        Apparently, you are not able to perceive long texts. This is a fairly common problem. It is not surprising that your ideas about military equipment are somehow strange. This is due to selective reading.
                        Quote: DesToeR
                        What kind of old conversation will go for "internal" and "external" ballistics?

                        Not strong at that. Enough armor penetration and weight / type BB OFS. About ballistics, try to find out from Carbine if it appears again.
                        Quote: DesToeR
                        It is enough to give the Iron Cross of the German eagle "to his idol" overseas and 17,5 million dollars. they’ll flow into your economy ... along with advanced Detroit technologies.

                        As it turned out, not enough. Otherwise, the daily issue of Sherman in December 42nd would not have caught up with the monthly release of the T-4. And the characteristics of the four, it turned out, were normal until the very end.
                      4. DesToeR April 18 2020 22: 00 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Quote: Octopus
                        Yes, this has its own logic, although absurd.

                        Well, you know better from your sofa.
                        Quote: Octopus
                        She was not at all. Intelligence in the United States appeared only in the 60s. Everything before this, including the activities of the Dulles brothers, is a shameful booth and embezzlement.

                        An interesting proposition. And how without US intelligence in the 21st century managed to fight? And it's probably all British intelligence for these Yankees! Guessed?

                        Quote: Octopus
                        Apparently, you are not able to perceive long texts. This is a fairly common problem.

                        You are short and then hardly catch up. Even if I write them under your quotes ...

                        Quote: Octopus
                        Not strong at that. Enough armor penetration and weight / type BB OFS.

                        For your horizons - completely. If you want to continue - start with the basics: PU, for example, read before bedtime. The texts are long, but I think you can master it.

                        Quote: Octopus
                        As it turned out, not enough. Otherwise, the daily issue of Sherman in December 42nd would not have caught up with the monthly release of the T-4.

                        And why did Hitler need this useless infa until the fall of 1943?
                        Quote: Octopus
                        And the characteristics of the four, it turned out, were normal until the very end.

                        The characteristics of the “four” were not “to the very end” norms, but still a good ten years, to Korea at least.
                      5. Octopus April 18 2020 22: 47 New
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        +1
                        Quote: DesToeR
                        Well, you know better from your sofa.

                        In 80 years and with the Internet? Yes, of course.
                        Quote: DesToeR
                        And how without US intelligence in the 21st century managed to fight?

                        In the 21st? So-so, no intelligence guarantees that politicians will listen to it. In the 20th? If at the tactical level everything was fine (and intelligence, by the way, was at that level), then at the operational, and even more so strategic, it was bad, catastrophically bad.
                        Fortunately for the Americans, they worked much better than they fought.
                        Quote: DesToeR
                        And it's probably all British intelligence for these Yankees!

                        You are partly right, British intelligence was not an example better. Not without its problems, of course.
                        Quote: DesToeR
                        Even if I write them under your quotes ...

                        Try giving up drugs.
                        Quote: DesToeR
                        If you want to continue - start with the basics: PU, for example, read before bedtime. The texts are long, but I think you can master it.

                        In order to find out the differences between KwK 36 and F-34? Which ones did you decide to talk about under my quote about divisional howitzers? Perhaps not worth it.
                        Quote: DesToeR
                        And why did Hitler need this useless infa until the fall of 1943?

                        What 30-ton machine is a series of 2 thousand per month? Well, you never know, could come in handy.
                        Quote: DesToeR
                        The characteristics of the “four” were not “to the very end” norms, but still a good ten years, to Korea at least.

                        Before Korea, the Germans are no longer very interested.
                      6. DesToeR April 18 2020 23: 02 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Quote: Octopus
                        In 80 years and with the Internet? Yes, of course.

                        Weird! Have you tried to give up drugs? In 1940, the GABTU did not have Internet ... But there was an understanding of the role and place of TT in the Red Army. By the way, the 115mm armor at an angle fully supported the 88mm L71 (if the IS-3 doesn’t lie to us).
                        Quote: Octopus
                        Fortunately for the Americans, they worked much better than they fought.

                        Again strange. My opinion fought the Americans perfectly. Especially at the strategic level. Without intelligence? I don’t think so!
                        Quote: Octopus
                        Perhaps not worth it.

                        Perhaps yes. Armor penetration is enough for you, with interest.
                        Quote: Octopus
                        What 30-ton machine is a series of 2 thousand per month? Well, you never know, could come in handy.

                        But this is a thought! And if we assume that Hitler is not quite, and that he will say on the second day after the declaration of war, the United States looked at the globe and became thoughtful. Then he picked up the phone and asked the Minister of Economics one simple question: what share in the world economy does the 3 Reich have in comparison with the share of the US economy. Probably after the answer that he received, it was not difficult to imagine when the release of BTT in the USA will surpass German, right? Conclusion: Hitler was not interested (until a certain time) in this aspect, but why is it a secret.
                      7. Octopus April 18 2020 23: 47 New
                        • 1
                        • 1
                        0
                        Quote: DesToeR
                        In 1940 GABTU did not have internet ...

                        But I have it. Therefore, I understand the situation much better than GABTU.

                        I see that problems are not only with long tests.
                        Quote: DesToeR
                        By the way, the armor in 115mm at an angle fully supported 88mm L71

                        The sane people believe that the main hypothetical benefit of the KV-3 - the USSR would have understood even then that a 70-ton tank was impossible for him, and would not have engaged in nonsense with the IS-4 and IS-7. I consider this point of view too flattering for the USSR.
                        Quote: DesToeR
                        My opinion fought the Americans perfectly.

                        If the Americans fought well, the war with Germany would end in the 44th, and Comrade. Stalin would try to bargain at the borders of the 39th year in exchange for the extradition of Comrade. Molotov.
                        Quote: DesToeR
                        Especially at the strategic level.

                        When Eisenhower first became commander in chief (in Europe) in 42nd, the USSR was near Pyatigorsk. When he ceased to be commander in chief in the 60th, the USSR was 10 minutes flying time from his home.
                        Quote: DesToeR
                        Without intelligence?

                        Even without an army and without sane foreign policy, even in his own backyard. Yes, this is a logical result.
                        Quote: DesToeR
                        Armor penetration is enough for you, with interest.

                        To distinguish between a tiger gun and an F-34? And both of them from the divisional howitzer? Of course that's enough.
                        Quote: DesToeR
                        what share in the global economy does 3 Reich have

                        You want too much from alozych. But the fact that it was time to switch from blitzkrieg to total war could well reach his attention. In reality, it came two years later.
                      8. DesToeR April 19 2020 00: 03 New
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        +1
                        Quote: Octopus
                        Therefore, I understand the situation much better than GABTU.

                        The worst thing is that no. GABTU without the Internet 80 years ago understood the situation better than you.
                        Quote: Octopus
                        Sane people consider

                        Who are they? Sect?
                        Quote: Octopus
                        I consider this point of view too flattering for the USSR.

                        Well, IMHO, no one canceled, like the notorious sofa. But do not you think that aftertaste categorically draws to altistory?
                        Quote: Octopus
                        If the Americans fought well, the war with Germany would end in the 44th, and Comrade. Stalin would try to bargain at the borders of the 39th year in exchange for the extradition of Comrade. Molotov.

                        The Americans fought well and were not interested in some kind of border within the framework of old Europe - they took the whole Empire over which the sun never set off with giblets plus the entire Pacific "pool". Why do they need some kind of impoverished Poland, Hungary or Germany?

                        Quote: Octopus
                        To distinguish between a tiger gun and an F-34? And both of them from the divisional howitzer? Of course that's enough.

                        Well, thank God. The main thing is not to ask yourself the question at night: why half of the shells in the Tiger are OFS. No, the template will break.
                        Quote: Octopus
                        You want too much from alozych.

                        Aloizych was by no means such a simpleton as he expose loser generals. He knew his work (the head of the Reich) kindly. Subordinates let us down - well, so the staff decide everything said one wise man.
                        Quote: Octopus
                        But the fact that it was time to switch from blitzkrieg to total war could well reach his attention.

                        And what's the point of playing a total war after one call to the Minister of Economics? Well, of course you could hang up, go back to the globe, grunt under your mustache and ... again "tinkle" to the minister with the same question, but in a somewhat "expanded" line-up of players - 3 Reich + Japan vs USSR + USA + Great Britain .
                      9. Octopus April 19 2020 00: 39 New
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        +1
                        Quote: DesToeR
                        GABTU without the Internet 80 years ago understood the situation better than you.

                        Oh well.
                        Quote: DesToeR
                        Sane people consider

                        This is who are you?

                        Forget it doesn’t come in handy for you.
                        Quote: DesToeR
                        But do not you think that aftertaste categorically draws to altistory?

                        Some kind of strange phrase. The altistory was KV-3.
                        Quote: DesToeR
                        The Americans fought well and were not interested in some sort of border within the framework of old Europe

                        Theoretically, they should have been interested in the security of their own country.
                        Quote: DesToeR
                        whole pacific "pool"

                        I strongly doubt Comrade Mao was a great friend of the United States. China, like the field of Europe, was commissioned in Yalta. By the way, one of the winners of WWII and the main US ally in the Pacific Theater.
                        Quote: DesToeR
                        took the whole empire over which the sun never set

                        The fate of the Philippines and Cuba leaves no doubt how great the Americans were able to do in colonial politics.
                        Quote: DesToeR
                        Why do they need some kind of impoverished Poland, Hungary or Germany?

                        Then, so that in all these places there is no USSR.
                        Quote: DesToeR
                        don't ask yourself the question at night: why half of the shells in the Tiger are OFS. No, the template will break.

                        You want to tell me that the Tiger is not a tank destroyer? Today you directly shine with erudition.
                        Quote: DesToeR
                        He knew his work (the head of the Reich) kindly. Subordinates let us down

                        The argument, whether Hitler interfered with his generals, or whether the generals interfered with Hitler, never interested me.
                        Quote: DesToeR
                        And what's the point of total war

                        Well, do not pretend that the blitzkrieg might work in such a situation. Suddenly, old aloizovich was even further from reality than even the Soviet side.
  • Alexey RA April 20 2020 14: 45 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: DesToeR
    In 1941, they put a K18 L / 52 cannon (105 mm) in a "self-propelled gun" on the chassis of a medium tank, then made a self-propelled gun with a 128-mm PaK 40 gun with a barrel length of 61 caliber and ... launched a heavy tank with an 88 mm gun.

    I now know one country that put 152-mm guns in the self-propelled guns based on TT. And at the same time, it equipped its new TT with an 85 mm gun. smile
    Moreover, initially the domestic 152-mm self-propelled guns should have become the same as Max and Emil were - a way to at least somehow use the installation batch of KV-7 hulls, which after being removed from production turned out to be useless to anyone.
    1. DesToeR April 20 2020 18: 01 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Alexey RA
      I now know one country that put 152-mm guns in the self-propelled guns based on TT. And at the same time, it equipped its new TT with an 85 mm gun.

      And in this "one country", the weight of the TT and self-propelled guns on its basis differed by 1,5 ... 2,5 times?
  • irontom April 18 2020 05: 12 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Outstripped - read the article by D. Shein at Varspot, although in general that the Tiger itself had previously known from other sources, ours influenced the fact that it had grown significantly in mass and armored.
    1. Alexey RA April 20 2020 19: 36 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: irontom
      ours influenced the fact that it has grown significantly in mass and armor protection.

      Except for the side armor. For 100-mm armor in the forehead and 8,8 cm as weapons were approved on 26.05.1941/45/XNUMX - after which the tank crawled into the XNUMX-ton class.
      Meanwhile, on May 26, 1941, while considering with Hitler the state of affairs with the latest tanks and anti-tank guns, it was decided:
      - accelerate development, ensure the supply of at least 6 tanks by the summer of 1942;
      - arm the tank with an 88 mm gun;
      - Strengthen frontal armor up to 100 mm, on-board - up to 60 mm.
      When considering the consequences of implementing these requirements, Henschel reported an increase in tank weight to 40 tons, Wa Pruef 6 took note of this.
  • vladcub April 17 2020 14: 39 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    "" According to the Germans, this is not a tan, but a self-propelled artillery mount, "the German is almost right: the KV-2 had a gap between the tank and the self-propelled guns. At least, Voronov roughly estimated the KV-2.
    All the same, 40 kg is not 400 g and is not quick to charge, but the self-propelled guns should not attack in the first rank
    1. Alexey RA April 17 2020 15: 41 New
      • 4
      • 1
      +3
      Quote: vladcub
      "" According to the Germans, this is not a tan, but a self-propelled artillery mount, "the German is almost right: the KV-2 had a gap between the tank and the self-propelled guns.

      So ... according to our classification, the KV-2 was an artillery tank - a hybrid of assault self-propelled guns and self-propelled guns fire support.
      For the standard tasks of the artillery tank were two:
      1. Direct support of line tanks in the offensive by chalking PTA positions and surviving fortifications that were too tough for 45-76-mm guns.
      2. Work in the role of divisional and corps artillery in accumulations of infantry and artillery positions - as a replacement for the towed artillery traditionally lagging behind on the march.
      By the way, uv. D. Shein wrote that in the mechanized corps of the BC 152-mm towed howitzers were equipped with shots to the M-10T, rather than conventional ammunition. So, despite the absence of “artillery strapping” in heavy guns, the KV-2 could theoretically receive data for firing from regular artillery units of the MK if necessary. If, of course, these units would be close to the military commander, and would not be stuck far behind with their artillery regiment.
    2. Alexey RA April 17 2020 20: 53 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      Quote: vladcub
      All the same, 40 kg is not 400 g and is not quick to charge, but the self-propelled guns should not attack in the first rank

      At KV “with a large tower” with a combat rate of fire, everything was generally very sad.
      in 1941, a track was built in Kubinka to evaluate the combat rate of fire of tank artillery systems. In tests, the KV-2 tank set an absolute record, demonstrating a combat rate of 1 shot in 3.5 (three and a half) minutes.
      © uv. D. Shein
  • Alecsandr April 17 2020 20: 07 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    The war greatly spurred Soviet tank building. IS-3 impressed allies at a joint parade in Berlin
    1. Octopus April 17 2020 21: 02 New
      • 3
      • 4
      -1
      Quote: Alecsandr
      IS-3 impressed allies at a joint parade in Berlin

      To such an extent, he was impressed that they simply spat on all of their programs on heavy tanks (T26E4, T26E5, T29 T30 T32 T34) and left Sherman with Comet to Korea.
      1. Operator April 17 2020 21: 21 New
        • 2
        • 3
        -1
        For 35 years, arm-assed American tank builders have not been able to bring any of their serial tanks to the level of IS-3 / T-10.
        1. Octopus April 17 2020 21: 27 New
          • 3
          • 3
          0
          Quote: Operator
          American tank builders

          Yes Yes. American together with English, together with German. Not able to.

          For some reason, some Jews could. On the Shermans including. Shaitans.
          1. Operator April 18 2020 00: 43 New
            • 1
            • 2
            -1
            It is not good for a Jew to cling to the Germans laughing
      2. Alecsandr April 17 2020 21: 39 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        They probably decided to rely on the development of aviation and helicopters with anti-tank weapons against all types of tanks
        1. Octopus April 17 2020 22: 05 New
          • 2
          • 3
          -1
          Quote: Alecsandr
          They probably decided

          And under communism everything will be fine
          It will come soon - you just have to wait
          Everything will be free there, everything will be high
          There probably won’t have to die

          The State Department and the Roosevelt administration sang this song, including their military. Arnold, Spaats, LeMay and others sang along, stroking atomic bombs.

          They were no longer going to fight, especially in Europe.

          Only Stalin knew that the war was not over. And Churchill, but his British immediately retired, fed up with their tears, then blood, as much as possible.

          Therefore, from the 45th to the 50th year, all the qualitative superiority that the Conventional Weapons Allies had was profucan. Moreover, their own completely unthinkable efforts.
      3. DesToeR April 18 2020 20: 44 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: Octopus
        To such an extent, he was impressed that they simply spat on all of their programs on heavy tanks (T26E4, T26E5, T29 T30 T32 T34) and left Sherman with Comet to Korea.

        And why only to Korea? There T-34-85 fought! It was necessary immediately, paternally, to Vietnam!
        1. Octopus April 18 2020 20: 58 New
          • 1
          • 1
          0
          Quote: DesToeR
          And why only to Korea?

          In Korea, both sides made unpleasant discoveries. The Americans learned that no one is afraid of the atomic bomb. More precisely, the risk that the dictatorship could take was radically underestimated by them.
          Comrade Stalin learned that the Americans would not always choose shame instead of war, as they did in the 40s.
  • tank64rus April 18 2020 08: 05 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    So how did these Russians get the best tank of all time?
    1. Octopus April 18 2020 12: 07 New
      • 1
      • 2
      -1
      Quote: tank64rus
      the best tank of all time.

      Is that which? T-64A?
  • DWG1905 April 18 2020 12: 01 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    I think about slave this is a crooked translation, rather you need to read blind copying. What naturally needs to be copied first, and only then improved. In general, a German text in the studio is desirable. And the Germans wrote everything correctly, we are 30 years behind them, as it was, it remains. Except for those technologies that the Americans do not allow them to develop. Therefore, we need to apply military and technical cunning and treachery, without this adversary we cannot overcome.
    If simple. At the beginning of the war, the Germans used the technology of tanks fighting with infantry, with artillery tanks. Likely the year in 1942 this thought also visited ours. But the gloomy German genius departed from this concept by starting the rearmament of his tanks with new guns. The results of the change of concept began to affect 42 g, and with the advent of the Tiger, in 43, we also began to switch to this concept. More precisely, from May 5, 1943, the Decree of GKO No. 3289ss “On Strengthening the Artillery Armament of Tanks and Self-Propelled Guns” is about to commemorate. We still live in this concept. All of this has been written for a long time on IP http://zhurnalko.net/= weapon / tankomaster / tankomaster-Special-tanki-is if you are too lazy to read then from page 14.
    By T-34 http://prussia.online/books/neizvestniy-t-34
    And since the article is not about anything, everything has already been described in the history of the creation of the BTT of the WWII period, all the remaining materials have been found. There are nuances, here the combat use and the specific appearance of the cars in accordance with the CD is an uncowed field.
  • gvozdan April 19 2020 01: 52 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Exclusivity and arrogance more than once played a cruel joke with those who attacked Russia
  • misti1973 April 20 2020 04: 27 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Nevermind was wrong with butter! Maslogon they were, God forbid!