Military Review

"Goblin Reserve." Tanks in layouts and pictures

147

By the way, the first project tank A7V did not provide for cannon weapons at all. Only a machine gun!


About tanks with love. The first material of a new cycle about tanks VO readers liked, and they expressed many wishes that it would be continued, and soon. Here, however, not only everything depends on me, but also on the wonderful artist A. Sheps, but fortunately both he and I have enough materials for our "panopticon". It is only necessary to choose ... But here the problem arises: from what principle should one proceed? Take beautifully painted serial tanks? Armored wonders? “Terrifying monsters” or, on the contrary, go through countries and continents, as it was, for example, in the Mauser company’s cycle about rifles (“On Mausers with Love”)? Let's do it this way: consider today the heaviest tanks that have ever been created, both in metal and in drawings. Again, we won’t be able to review them all - there’s simply not enough volume, and not all of them have been drawn. But there is something, and today we are going to consider them. And believe me, this will really be the real “goblin reserve”.

Well, we start with the German tanks, which appeared during the First World War in spite of the British cars. And everyone knows that the tactical and technical task for any new type of weaponry is given out to the engineers by the military. What they need, then they order. Only occasionally do engineers manage to take the initiative in this matter. And even less often, this initiative is approved by the authorities in uniform. And here, in relation to the development of tanks in Germany, the question immediately arises: why did the Germans need them at all?

With the British, everything is simple. Their military needed a “machine gun fighter” and a barbed wire breaker. Hence the high caterpillar rim, weapons in sponsons, low speed. But why did the Germans need a tank? Crush the wire? Its design did not allow this! Destroy British tanks? But then why put the gun in the nose? Indeed, with such a placement, any, even the smallest turn of the tank hull led to the fact that the shooter from the cannon lost its target. And again ... the Nordenfeld 57-mm cannon with a truncated barrel is not serious. Well, a lot of machine guns - to mow the British. So, because of its insignificant cross-country ability, the A7V also could not do this successfully. But the goal was good for the enemy artillerymen.


Project A7V with 77mm infantry gun

There was a project to install on this tank instead of the 57-mm gun a very good German 77-mm infantry gun. The trunk was shortened, but he did not need a long trunk. But it could shoot all kinds of army grenades and shrapnel, so this tank would have no problems with ammunition. Moreover, any English tank could be destroyed by the first hit of the shell of this gun. And it could be a high-explosive shell, or even shrapnel put “on strike”. But the army categorically refused to give these guns to the needs of the tankers, and so the 57 mm serf (caponier) guns that nobody needed were brought to German tanks.


Hypothetical A7V with a pill box tower (“pill box”). But even this gun could be used with greater efficiency if it was located in the center of the tank in the tower. And even before the war the Germans had such armored towers with “pill boxing” cannons, but only no one, neither the military nor the engineers, had the idea to put this ready-made tank towers on the tracks! And in the end, Germany was defeated by "General Tank"!

Let's move now to the beginning of the 30s. IN USSR. And let's look at this top secret (at one time) development of the T-39 tank. It is made in the form of a reduced wooden layout. That's where the designers ’fantasy came true: the first option (1) - four turrets, four cannons, two 107 mm and two 45 mm, and four more caterpillar tracks; the second option (2) - four towers, three 45-mm guns, one 152-mm howitzer and one flamethrower; The third option (3) is similar to the second, but in the main tower there is a 152-mm gun mod. 1910/1930 There was also such an option in which two 107-mm guns were installed at once in the rear large tower! The tank came out even according to the first estimates so expensive (three million rubles) that they decided to abandon it in favor of more cheaper tanks. For example, with this money you could buy nine BT-5! The weight of the monster reached 90 tons, the armor was supposed to have a thickness of 50-75 mm.


Here it is, T-39. Scale 1:10

And now in our “reserve” we have reached genuine “goblins” - German experimental tanks of the end of the war. In general, they were strange, these Germans. Like a bag from around the corner grabbed. There is no other way to explain this: a total war is going on, the Russians and the Allies are throwing real armored armada against the Wehrmacht, and they, instead of opposing their armadas with their armadas, that is, riveting them day and night with the forces of all you can strain, created a mass prototypes, they spent working time, raw materials, money on them, forced the draftsmen to draw, and the woodworkers to make their wooden models ... But it was necessary to improve only what was required, and use it as quickly as possible, and throw all your energy into it! And they? So they lost, and back in 1939, when they produced 200 tanks a month, and the USSR - 2000. And they themselves came out in 2000 only by 1944, so it is not surprising that they were gouged like a tortoise god.

Although no one argues: by the end of the war they thought up very good tanks. This is especially true for the “E” series - a series of tanks and self-propelled guns developed by several co-operating little-known enterprises. Their weight was supposed to be from 10 to 70 tons with the most advanced weapons.


For example, the E-75 tank was supposed to weigh 75 tons, and armed with a completely deadly 88-mm gun with a barrel length of 100 calibers! It is clear that it was not possible to build it. Managed to make only a few chassis


The experimental Gerat 809 self-propelled gun was similar to the Ferdinand, but had a 170-mm gun. And the question is: who or what were they going to shoot from this self-propelled gun?


The Gerat 810 had an even more powerful 210 mm caliber gun. This is a machine for the Strugatsky brothers. Her place on the planet Saraksh. to follow the instructions: “Tanks in coastal defense against white submarines”


Another “end model”: the Krupp company shortened the base model of the chassis of the Pzkfwg IV tank and placed a turret open on top under a 105-mm howitzer. Well, it was necessary to “rivet” them! But neither the strength nor the materials for this was gone !!!


FV 214 "Conqueror" (from the English. "Conqueror") - the last British heavy tank, developed in 1949-1952 to confront the new Soviet heavy tanks. From 1955 to 1959, a total of 185 Konkarorov and 28 ARVs were produced on their chassis. Weight 65 tons, gun - 120 mm. By the way, here in Russia in Kubinka you can watch it live. But we didn’t steal it from them and this is not a trophy, but received it from the British on inter-museum exchange


Not so long ago, there was an article on VO about the American M6 heavy tank. It was developed throughout the war, many experimental modifications were released, but they were not accepted into service. And why? Well, just look at him, I think. But on the other hand, its base was used to develop towers for other tanks and tank guns were also tested on it. There was also such a modification of the M6A2E1, designed to fight the “Royal Tiger” with the help of a 105-mm gun. But she didn’t go anywhere else.

Interesting developments, including in metal, were created by our Soviet designers. For example, they have long possessed the strange dream of unifying our heavy and medium tanks, that is, making them a kind of hybrid. And they even created it - KV-13, but only he was unsuccessful. There was an attempt to put the IS-1 tank on a five-wheeled chassis from the T-34. In the book of the Kirov factory "Without secrets and secrets" about all these developments is told very interestingly. However, in the end, they did not lead to anything. Heavy tanks remained heavy, and medium tanks remained medium!


IS-1E (1944)

Well, at the end - the IF tank (If tank), the shortened and "crazy" Kirov QMS. Everyone knows, everyone remembers and, on occasion, cites how J. Y. Kotin presented Stalin a model of the SMK tank, on which there were three towers, which corresponded to the assignment, but they were made removable. And so Stalin removed the back tower, asked how much he removed, and suggested using this weight to strengthen armor. And Kotin did just that, and so he “spent” Stalin. But why then did Stalin remove only one tower? Why not two? Could not decide to take too radical a step? But Kotin still managed to make it. He took off the second tower, and so the KV tank turned out! That is the legend. But how was it really? And most importantly, what could have happened if Stalin had nevertheless removed not one, but two towers, and at the same time would have ordered the QMS to be shortened, which is quite logical. As a result, such a tank could have turned out, and quite good!


This is how a heavy tank based on the QMS might look like ...

Today, our visit to our "tank panopticon" is completed. But there will be new ones ahead!

To be continued ...
Author:
Articles from this series:
Tank panopticon
147 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Moore
    Moore 5 May 2020 05: 58 New
    +8
    Their military needed a “machine gun fighter” and a barbed wire breaker. Hence the high caterpillar rim, weapons in sponsons, low speed.

    There was an option with a tower on top, it didn’t work out. A low speed - yes, specifically, not from the available capabilities .. If there were other tasks, BT would do it right away.
    But why did the Germans need a tank? Crush the wire? Its design did not allow this!

    Is it possible to "crush the wire" only with a diamond-shaped cinder?
    But then why did they put the gun in the nose itself? Indeed, with such a placement, any, even the smallest turn of the tank hull led to the fact that the shooter from the cannon lost its target.

    Didn't the World War II self-propelled guns have guns in the wheelhouse with a limited horizontal turn?
    The concept of a combat vehicle of the battlefield in WWII was just being developed. Experience has shown the viability of neither Markov, nor their German opponents. The French were the closest to guess. And then not immediately.
    1. Insurgent
      Insurgent 5 May 2020 07: 18 New
      +6
      The experimental Gerat 809 self-propelled gun was similar to the Ferdinand, but had a 170-mm gun. And the question is: who or what were they going to shoot from this self-propelled gun?

      I got acquainted with the earlier publication of this peculiar author on VO on similar topics:
      https://topwar.ru/10841-tanki.-unikalnye-i-paradoksalnye-v-vysshey-stepeni-poleznaya-slepota.html
      Using the undercarriage of the Tiger and Royal Tiger tanks, the Germans planned to create on their basis a number of SAUs, moreover, designed so that the same chassis could be used for different gun mounts. The work began in June of 1942, but by the end of the war only one of them was able to be built and tested. Its main feature was the rear interchangeable gun platform on which the following types of gun systems could be installed: 170-mm (Gerat 809); 210-mm (Gerat 810) and 305-mm (Gerat 817) guns. In addition, in January 1945, the military ordered the designers also a smooth-bore mortar caliber 305 mm. The Krupp and Skoda firms set about implementing this project, and already in April, Czech engineers were able to produce a prototype of it. The work also had its 420-mm counterpart, but these companies did not have time to finish the work on these machines.
      A characteristic feature of all these installations, which can be easily attributed to the IF tanks, was that the barrels of their guns were automatically lifted for loading at an angle of 40 ° - a technique that was only much later repeated on Soviet post-war machines equipped with an automatic loader. The operating angles for all types of right-to-left installations were 5 °, and vertically for 170-mm tools - 0 and + 50 °, for 210-mm —0 and + 50 °, 305-mm - + 40 ° and + 75 ° . The weight of the installations was 58 T, the crew was 7 people. At the same time, remembering the sad experience of the ACS Ferdinand, the designers provided them with machine gun armament consisting of MO-34 and MC-42 machine guns, including in the front hull plate. The maximum thickness of the armor, taking into account the range of all these guns, did not exceed 50 mm.


      As you can see, the question: " in whom or what were they going to shoot from this self-propelled gun? ", it is not asked (apparently in the evidence thatagainst whom was the war), but draws other conclusions about the causes of failure and the failure to complete a number of armored German projects.

      However, the obvious short-sightedness of German designers was complemented by a very important manufacturing aspect. The Germans completely ignored the modern production technology of that time, adopted in the USSR, England and the USA, which is why they produced much fewer tanks than the allied enterprises. In a word, German military experts underestimated the qualitatively important quantitative indicator of military equipment and, accordingly, paid for it. That is why neither cheap hybrids on the chassis 38 (t.), Nor the “super-tiger” installation with guns to match the other battleship could save the dying Third Reich - Germany lost primarily because of the misunderstood role of industrial production in modern warfare and its organization , and this, in turn, was a consequence of the results of the Versailles system and the general mentality of the German nation.
      1. kalibr
        5 May 2020 07: 49 New
        +2
        Quote: Insurgent
        it is not set (apparently in the evidence of the one against whom the war was)

        Then I did not ask, but here I did. "The genesis of the problem is whether God is differentiated as irrational!"
        1. Insurgent
          Insurgent 5 May 2020 07: 51 New
          +2
          Quote: kalibr

          Then I did not ask, but here I did. "The genesis of the problem is whether God is differentiated as irrational!"

          I would say: "The older the not wiser " yes
          1. kalibr
            5 May 2020 08: 08 New
            -1
            Quote: Insurgent
            I would say: "The older, the wiser"

            Yes, say what you want. The only thing you need is clicks. Clicked once - well done, two - well done twice!
            1. Insurgent
              Insurgent 5 May 2020 08: 14 New
              +2
              Quote: kalibr
              Yes, say what you want. The only thing you need is clicks. Clicked once - well done, two - well done twice!

              Ahhh ... Like Clicker ... We earn a pretty penny?
              1. kalibr
                5 May 2020 08: 17 New
                -1
                Namely, a little bird pecks, but it happens to be full. It’s time to know.
  2. Catfish
    Catfish 5 May 2020 05: 59 New
    13
    Good morning, forum users! hi
    Thanks to Vyacheslav Olegich for beautiful pictures. smile
    After all, the German A7V is just a shed on "wheels", even the French "Saint-Chamond" did not look so awkward.

    And, thank God, someone we had the mind not to throw money away on a completely militarily useless T-39, it doesn’t even turn its tongue into a tank, either an armored train, or an armored boat on tracks.
    A sad story with the construction of Lebedenko taught something all the same.

    Good day to everyone and good mood.
    1. tanki-tanki
      tanki-tanki 5 May 2020 10: 52 New
      +2
      After all, the German A7V is just a shed on "wheels"

      Nobody will take him under the barn wassat

      Is it a tank at all? wassat
      1. Catfish
        Catfish 5 May 2020 11: 08 New
        +2
        A colleague ... what is it? Mumbo-jumbo cannibals fighting machine? laughing
        1. Alf
          Alf 5 May 2020 15: 53 New
          +3
          Quote: Sea Cat
          A colleague ... what is it? Mumbo-jumbo cannibals fighting machine? laughing

          If I remember correctly, this is a tank from the movie Makar the Pathfinder. "The latest invention of our British allies."
    2. BAI
      BAI 5 May 2020 11: 54 New
      +4
      But what about the Mendeleev’s tank? In total, a modest 173 (one hundred seventy three) tons.
      1. Catfish
        Catfish 5 May 2020 11: 58 New
        +5
        But at least they didn’t build it ... request
    3. BAI
      BAI 5 May 2020 12: 32 New
      +3
      sad story with the construction of Lebedenko.

      For some reason, the comment is gone, I repeat.
      There are newsreels where the model of this tank famously drives books on the table at Nicholas 2. After that, it was decided to build it. But between the cross-country and mobility of the model and the real sample was a huge difference.
      1. Catfish
        Catfish 5 May 2020 21: 42 New
        0
        I remember this film, this is not a chronicle, the film is artistic, unfortunately I forgot its name.
    4. hohol95
      hohol95 5 May 2020 13: 00 New
      0
      One can only regret that there were no engineers and factories in Russia for reinstalling Russo-Balt armored vehicles on a tracked chassis! Equipping it with a turret would make a nice light tank. Even before Renault FT-17!
  3. Vladimir_2U
    Vladimir_2U 5 May 2020 05: 59 New
    +2
    Here it is, T-39. Scale 1:10
    This is not the scale of the picture, as you might think, but the scale of a wooden sketch layout.

    Her place on the planet Saraksh. to follow the instructions: “Tanks in coastal defense against white submarines”
    The tanks were there, but not the artillery system.

    And most importantly, what could have happened if Stalin had nevertheless removed not one but two towers, and at the same time would have ordered to shorten the QMS, which is quite logical
    Well, HF turned out
    1. Vladimir_2U
      Vladimir_2U 5 May 2020 06: 03 New
      +7
      The wooden model of the T-39 tank in a scale of 1/10 full-size
  4. Kote Pan Kokhanka
    Kote Pan Kokhanka 5 May 2020 06: 00 New
    18
    Vyacheslav Olegovich seized upon his tanks laughingespecially to paper and air models good let's see where it will bring this time !!! soldier
    Well, however, we are happy !!! The author’s two articles early in the morning are not “hry-mukhras,” but a good platform for commenting and developing topics !!!
    Thanks again to Vyacheslav and the moderators for the gift !!!
    Sincerely, Vlad !!!
    1. kalibr
      5 May 2020 08: 32 New
      +5
      Quote: Kote pane Kohanka
      Vyacheslav Olegovich got to his tanks, especially to paper and air models

      Not yet, but will be ...
  5. strannik1985
    strannik1985 5 May 2020 06: 06 New
    +4
    The main purpose of the self-propelled guns GW Tiger II - shooting from a closed firing position, rather than direct fire.
  6. Kot_Kuzya
    Kot_Kuzya 5 May 2020 06: 12 New
    10
    The Germans are generally strange. They think tactically well, but they have zero strategies. Up to the Stalingrad catastrophe, the German economy generally worked like in peacetime, weapons and equipment produced a palt compared with the production of the USSR, Britain and the USA.

    Altogether, over 11 years, a little more than 50 tanks and self-propelled guns were manufactured in Germany, while in the USSR alone during the Second World War - 000 tanks and self-propelled guns, in the USA - 109, in the UK - 100.
    https://secrethistory.su/1878-proizvodstvo-bronetankovoy-tehniki-v-germanii.html
    In the First World War they began to fight with the whole world, And during the Second World War they also started a war with the whole world. Well, with tank building they generally had enchanting nonsense. It seems that TTZ was given to tanks by a pest and an English spy. Well, why produce T-3 and T-4 at the same time? It was possible to produce one T-4, but with different weapons - a 37-mm gun and a 75-mm cigarette butt. Why even produce two technically different tanks that perform the same combat mission? The same thing with Panther, why do they need a Panther worth 2 T-4s? In terms of combat effectiveness, one Panther does not think it was effective as two T-4s. And with the Royal Tiger, too, is nonsense. Why replace the excellent Tiger A already established in production with a completely different tank with a bunch of children's sores? In terms of its armor protection and armament, Tiger A was an excellent tank, even by the standards of 1945. Tiger B with its scanty circulation can only cause laughter. It would be logical for the Germans to act as the USSR, which riveted the whole war as a T-34 medium tank, and as a heavy KV / IS, that is, riveted only the T-4, and the Tiger as a heavy tank, which qualitatively improves the striking power of the German attack.
    1. blackice
      blackice 5 May 2020 06: 31 New
      +1
      As they say in the army, "First we create difficulties, then we heroically overcome them." laughing
      In general, it seems to me that the rate of the Reich moved away from reality and began to fantasize about "Now we will make one wunderwaffe, from which the whole world will get sick." That is, they moved into the field of fantasy, instead of solving problems with the means that are.
      By the way, was it not then that they began to measure pissy in fantasies and cartoons? laughing
      1. Free wind
        Free wind 5 May 2020 07: 56 New
        +3
        Yes, not only fantasized but also done. FAU-1, FAU-2. if cruise missiles were somehow shot down, then there was no protection from the FAU-2, the British understood that if the Germans increased the accuracy of the warheads, it would have to be very sour. The Germans designed the atomic bomb, according to some scientists, by August September 1945, it could be ready.
        1. Kot_Kuzya
          Kot_Kuzya 5 May 2020 09: 08 New
          0
          With their FAU-2, the Germans also messed around. The cost of building one rocket was higher than the cost of the bomber Yu-88, while the bomber could bomb London several times, while the rocket could be used only once.
          1. Alf
            Alf 5 May 2020 15: 57 New
            +7
            Quote: Kot_Kuzya
            while a bomber could bomb London several times,

            Only now, the Yu-88 of British air defense was intercepted by one or two, but the V-2 Britons were not found antidotes. Yes, and on the bomber flew 4-5 chances, and on a rocket no one.
            1. Kot_Kuzya
              Kot_Kuzya 5 May 2020 20: 33 New
              0
              Bombers are not fighters. It is not necessary to bomb from a gentle position and as directed by the leading group of a large skill.
              1. Alf
                Alf 5 May 2020 20: 46 New
                +6
                Quote: Kot_Kuzya
                Bombers are not fighters. It is not necessary to bomb from a gentle position and as directed by the leading group of a large skill.

                But do not you need to learn a pilot and navigator? This arrow can be trained in a couple of weeks, but how much to teach a pilot? And the navigator? And how much does this cost?
        2. blackice
          blackice 5 May 2020 09: 09 New
          0
          Well, this is about tanks.
          There is such an example, our Nikita Sergeich. In connection with the atomic bomb, he also wanted to abolish much. I’ve cut a lot at the concept stage. But he was not allowed to clear up to the end.
          But in the Reich, they decided not to put all the eggs in one basket. But it was not worth spraying too much. It was possible to rivet a real child prodigy in the form of an FAU-2 and produce T-4 with tigers in large quantities.
          1. Kot_Kuzya
            Kot_Kuzya 5 May 2020 09: 28 New
            0
            With the T-3 and Panther, the Germans specifically got along. These tanks were redundant, in vain spraying of funds and resources.
        3. Pavel57
          Pavel57 5 May 2020 17: 31 New
          0
          There is a hypothesis that of the 2 bombs dropped on Japan, one was German.
          1. bk0010
            bk0010 5 May 2020 21: 37 New
            +2
            I heard an even greater hypothesis that the United States did not have its own nuclear bomb until 1947 (the Manhattan project ended in failure): the Germans made five nuclear bombs, one was tested in the swamps of Belarus, one was drained there, three were given to the Americans, one of which was blown up at the training ground and two dropped on Japan. Everything was very beautifully painted, with meaningful links, etc., but the problem was that the Germans had insufficient uranium to produce half the critical mass for one bomb.
            1. Alf
              Alf 6 May 2020 18: 35 New
              +2
              Quote: bk0010
              the available uranium among the Germans was not enough to produce and half the critical mass for one bomb.

              I also read this author, but how do you know about the lack of uranium?
              1. bk0010
                bk0010 6 May 2020 18: 41 New
                +2
                I don’t remember: here it seems: https://topwar.ru/166605-uranprojekt-tretego-rejha-jenergeticheskij-reaktor-i-termojadernoe-ustrojstvo.html. In short, to obtain 60 kg of highly enriched uranium for an atomic bomb, 10,6 to 13,1 tons of natural uranium was required, and the Germans had 5600 kg of uranium in 42 years.
                1. Alf
                  Alf 6 May 2020 18: 57 New
                  +2
                  Quote: bk0010
                  I don’t remember: here it seems: https://topwar.ru/166605-uranprojekt-tretego-rejha-jenergeticheskij-reaktor-i-termojadernoe-ustrojstvo.html. In short, to obtain 60 kg of highly enriched uranium for an atomic bomb, 10,6 to 13,1 tons of natural uranium was required, and the Germans had 5600 kg of uranium in 42 years.

                  And after the 42nd, how much uranium did they have?
                  1. bk0010
                    bk0010 6 May 2020 19: 48 New
                    +1
                    And where could the new uranium come from? The Grand Fleet taxied in the ocean, so that from Africa it could only be dragged by submarines. But I didn’t hear anyone bothering with this. I heard about heavy water. What accumulated before the war, that was.
                    1. Alf
                      Alf 6 May 2020 19: 50 New
                      +1
                      Quote: bk0010
                      But I did not hear that bother.

                      I also have never heard about the process of breeding jellyfish, but they somehow reproduce ... laughing
                      1. bk0010
                        bk0010 6 May 2020 19: 59 New
                        +1
                        I inform you: usually jellyfish are formed as a result of budding of polyps and reproduce sexually, giving rise to freely floating larvae - planulae, some jellyfish are capable of asexual reproduction.
                        Why are you doing this? Do you want to say that the Germans had uranium for 5 bombs?
                      2. Alf
                        Alf 6 May 2020 20: 23 New
                        +2
                        Quote: bk0010
                        What are you talking about?

                        To the fact that the wording "it was not because I do not know about it" is incorrect in principle.
                        Quote: bk0010
                        Do you want to say that the Germans had uranium for 5 bombs?

                        And if you make such an assumption?
                        Then the fact of the destruction by the Germans in 1945 of the convoy LW-143 becomes almost a reality.
                  2. Fat
                    Fat 7 May 2020 11: 10 New
                    +2
                    Quote: bk0010
                    And where could the new uranium come from? The Grand Fleet taxied in the ocean, so that from Africa it could only be dragged by submarines. But I didn’t hear anyone bothering with this. I heard about heavy water. What accumulated before the war, that was.

                    Uranium deposits in the territory of the 3rd Reich were in Saxony and Czechoslovakia.
                    It was the Americans who knocked out Congolese uranium from the Belgian "Union Miniere" from the French nuclear program, as many as 2 transports of hand-enriched uranium ore ... And our donkeys carried ore in the Fergana Valley until the end of 1944 ...
                    1. bk0010
                      bk0010 7 May 2020 20: 38 New
                      -1
                      Quote: Thick
                      Uranium deposits in the territory of the 3rd Reich were in Saxony and Czechoslovakia.
                      They were opened by ours, after the war. Before that, they were not developed.
                    2. Fat
                      Fat 8 May 2020 01: 26 New
                      +1
                      The Nazis have been mining uranium in the Sudetenland near Joachimstal since the late 30s. In Thuringia and Saxony, the deposits were known to the Nazis, but only the Bismuth State Autonomous Okrug began to develop them ...
  • strannik1985
    strannik1985 5 May 2020 06: 33 New
    +4
    They think tactically well, but they have zero strategies.

    Experience of the First World War, and a view from the trenches. They feared hunger and a coup, therefore, they tried to maintain a relatively high standard of living. Most likely, the formation of full-fledged SS troops, the order "On special jurisdiction in the Barbarossa area" and, in general, the relation to the population of the USSR has the same reasons - so that thoughts like "Bayonet into the ground!" Did not appear.
    1. Kot_Kuzya
      Kot_Kuzya 5 May 2020 06: 42 New
      +5
      Hitler sincerely despised the Slavs, he even enlisted in the First World War to serve in the German army, and not the Austro-Hungarian, because he did not want to serve in the same unit with the Slavs. Therefore, I do not think that the order "On special jurisdiction in the Barbarossa area" had the meaning of protection from fraternization. Hitler sincerely considered the Slavs to be non-humans, and saw no reason to punish the Germans for violence against the Soviet civilian population.
      1. strannik1985
        strannik1985 5 May 2020 07: 06 New
        +2
        Hitler sincerely despised the Slavs

        The top military and political leadership of the Third Reich was not limited to Hitler, however, the attitude towards the Slavs was unanimous, even when it became clear that the blitzkrieg in Russia had failed, the war was dragging out and the chances of getting out of the water dry less and less.
      2. Alf
        Alf 5 May 2020 15: 59 New
        +3
        Quote: Kot_Kuzya
        enlisted to serve

        Are you sure that you were recruited, but not called up? This is a very big, quite the same, cardinal difference.
        1. Kot_Kuzya
          Kot_Kuzya 5 May 2020 20: 35 New
          +1
          Hitler was a citizen of Austria-Hungary, so he could not be drafted into the German army, even theoretically.
      3. poquello
        poquello 6 May 2020 15: 57 New
        +1
        Quote: Kot_Kuzya
        Hitler sincerely despised the Slavs, even in World War I he enlisted to serve in the German army, not the Austro-Hungarian one, because he did not want to serve in the same unit with the Slavs.

        ) they didn’t take him to Austrian, for the dystrophic is almost
  • kalibr
    5 May 2020 06: 43 New
    +4
    Quote: Kot_Kuzya
    It seems that TTZ was given to tanks by a pest and an English spy.

    Exactly the same impression ... And on aviation, too.
  • kalibr
    5 May 2020 06: 45 New
    +5
    Quote: Kot_Kuzya
    that is, rivet only T-4,

    And already in the 41st there was a project with an inclined body armor, like the T-34. But the layout didn’t go any further!
  • PilotS37
    PilotS37 5 May 2020 08: 13 New
    +4
    Quote: Kot_Kuzya
    It would be logical for the Germans to act as the USSR, which riveted the whole war as a T-34 medium tank, and as a heavy KV / IS, that is, riveted only the T-4, and the Tiger as a heavy tank, which qualitatively improves the striking power of the German attack.

    The Germans are fans of engineering, so the "Gloomy Teutonic Genius" could not afford to make "consumer goods" for all occasions. I just COULD NOT! wassat wassat wassat
    1. blackice
      blackice 5 May 2020 09: 19 New
      0
      The Germans are fans of engineering, so the "Gloomy Teutonic Genius" could not afford to make "consumer goods"

      However, it turned out that way. Heavy consumer goods. In terms of the wide needs of spare parts. laughing
    2. Free wind
      Free wind 5 May 2020 18: 21 New
      +1
      By the way, from the middle of 44, night vision devices were installed on some Tigers and Panthers. Headlight and instruments.
      1. Kot_Kuzya
        Kot_Kuzya 5 May 2020 20: 38 New
        0
        And what is the point of installing NVD on tanks, if the infantry still does not attack at night? In modern armies, such a thing has already been abandoned, since there is no point in it.
        1. bk0010
          bk0010 5 May 2020 21: 38 New
          +1
          Tankers will be surprised ...
        2. Alf
          Alf 6 May 2020 18: 36 New
          +1
          Quote: Kot_Kuzya
          And what is the point of installing NVD on tanks, if the infantry still does not attack at night? In modern armies, such a thing has already been abandoned, since there is no point in it.

          But should tanks move at night in the light of torches?
  • Free wind
    Free wind 5 May 2020 08: 13 New
    +3
    One of the priorities was the safety of the crews, and a well-trained crew, this is piece goods. And the tanker who passed 10 battles, for example, was already very valuable, not for nothing the same Vitman or Carius, they fought only with their gunners. But the royal tiger was not taken in the forehead, Panther is not a gift either, with competent crews, they did a lot of work. We also produced quite a few types of armored vehicles.
    1. Kot_Kuzya
      Kot_Kuzya 5 May 2020 09: 12 New
      +4
      There were only three chassis for armored vehicles - T-70, on the chassis of which they made SU-76, T-34, on the chassis of which they made SU-122, SU-85 and SU-100, and KV / IS, on the chassis of which they made SU- 152, ISU-152 and ISU-122. And the Germans had a whole zoo of tanks and especially self-propelled guns.
      1. Free wind
        Free wind 5 May 2020 09: 30 New
        +4
        Tiger, king tiger, jagdtiger, stormtiger, chassis hodovka are the same. Panther. jagdpanther. Ferdinants also had to be attached somewhere, otherwise 90 armored corps were riveted without asking anyone. Well, the T-4 and a couple of self-propelled guns at its base. T-3 yet. The Czechoslovak people did not take into account, they could not switch to the production of German tanks. Damn snow got that something does not stop.
        1. Kot_Kuzya
          Kot_Kuzya 5 May 2020 09: 52 New
          0
          Do you live in Norilsk if you still have snow?
        2. Catfish
          Catfish 5 May 2020 11: 28 New
          +3
          Damn snow got that something does not stop.

          Sasha, where this is so, the sun is frying in our country, I'm rummaging through the garden in a T-shirt. hi
    2. blackice
      blackice 5 May 2020 09: 24 New
      -1
      So that's right.
      As they say - for one broken .....
      But the price of thick armor is weight, and from here low maneuverability and cross-country ability. Well, combat conditions do not imply a battle of tanks in a concrete area.
      Do you know what time of the year tank exercises are being held in Germany in the form of testing activities outside the range and why?
      1. Free wind
        Free wind 5 May 2020 09: 47 New
        +4
        Kamatsuhi 375 weighing 106 tons, roam the tundra of the Yamal and Yakutia, and do not even suspect that they have low cross and maneuverability. Do Jews know when they conduct exercises? When they want then they spend it. So you need to conduct exercises at any time of the year.
        1. blackice
          blackice 5 May 2020 10: 14 New
          -1
          Well, ka, in more detail, which kamatsuhs roam the tundra weighing 106 tons ???
          This is the first. Second, what time of year? And the third, in my opinion only the most stubborn lover of German technology did not hear about the weak maneuverability of the Tiger, that of the Panther and their atypical cross.
          Visiting the tundra in Chukotka, in the west of Kamchatka I have never seen kamatsuh rushing along the tundra.
          But the tanks stuck in the tundra at Cape Schmidt saw.
          And the GTSM, sticking out with one tailboard in the "passable for Kamatsuh" tundra, I saw.
          Even Komatsu D-65 EX-16 "swamp" on Sakhalin saw drowned, again in the tundra
  • Alexey RA
    Alexey RA 5 May 2020 11: 10 New
    +2
    Quote: Kot_Kuzya
    Why even produce two technically different tanks that perform the same combat mission?

    Still, the tasks of the "three" and "four" were different. "Treshka" - line tank, the basis of the Panzerwaffe. "Four" - fire support tank and commander, two dozen per division.
    Quote: Kot_Kuzya
    The same thing with Panther, why do they need a Panther worth 2 T-4s?

    Because it was supposed to become the very single tank of the Panzerwaffe tank regiments. But for this, only a little was needed - a victory over the USSR until the middle of 1942. Because the rearmament of the Panzerwaffe was calculated on the basis of the absence of large-scale military operations on land. In general, "Panther" and "Tiger" were prepared not for us, but for the Allies in 1943. But something went wrong ... smile
    The "panthers" of the first series cost twice as much (this is the case everywhere - just remember the price of the first T-34s). And after the series was established, the price difference between the "four" and the "panther" began to decrease predictably.
    Quote: Kot_Kuzya
    It would be logical for the Germans to act as the USSR, which riveted the whole war as a T-34 medium tank, and as a heavy KV / IS, that is, riveted only the T-4, and the Tiger as a heavy tank, which qualitatively improves the striking power of the German attack.

    Is logical. But impossible. Because for this it was necessary to immediately make a single Panzerwaffe tank, back in the mid-30s.
    "Panther" was the heiress of the "three-ruble note". And, as uv wrote. M. Svirin, designed the "panther" based on the fastest possible transition to it at "three-ruble" factories. Were it not for the war in the East, the Germans would have had time to replace the "panther" and the "four" too. But after Stalingrad and before the Kursk Bulge, no one would have let the production of the "four" that crawled into the main tanks for six months drop to zero for six months, especially given the low initial rates of production of "panthers". The front could do without "three rubles" - they had already lost their combat significance. But without "fours" - no.
    The variant with the production of the series of "fours" at the "three-ruble" factories also disappeared - it would have taken more time than the production of the technically more advanced "Panthers" at the same factories.
    So we decided: "four" remains in production, and "panther" replaces "three".
    And then everything was only worse - the losses grew, the front demanded more and more tanks, there was no time for the restructuring of production, and everything was rolling away.

    In short, the Germans had the same situation as in the USSR: Kharkov and Tagil — two tank design bureaus, two tank plants, each ground for their own tanks and can only switch to the production of a competitor’s tanks with great difficulty and time. Or rather, it cannot and does not want (the story of the launch of the T-72 instead of the simplified T-64 is an example of this). smile
    1. Alf
      Alf 5 May 2020 16: 09 New
      +3
      Quote: Alexey RA
      And after the series was established, the price difference between the "four" and the "panther" began to decrease predictably.

      Panther-130 thousand, Four-103 thousand. 30% of the difference, no sheep sneezed.
      1. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 5 May 2020 17: 01 New
        0
        Quote: Alf
        Panther-130 thousand, Four-103 thousand. 30% of the difference, no sheep sneezed.

        The question is - what models are the prices and in what configuration (with weapons and radio or without)?
        Because Pz.IV Ausf. F2 with weapons and radio cost 115.
        1. Alf
          Alf 5 May 2020 17: 10 New
          +2
          Quote: Alexey RA
          Quote: Alf
          Panther-130 thousand, Four-103 thousand. 30% of the difference, no sheep sneezed.

          The question is - what models are the prices and in what configuration (with weapons and radio or without)?
          Because Pz.IV Ausf. F2 with weapons and radio cost 115.

          Yes, it is without weapons and radio equipment.
          1. Alf
            Alf 5 May 2020 17: 11 New
            +2
            Quote: Alf
            Yes, it is without weapons and radio equipment.




            The only doubt is the full cost of Tiger B, he could not stand cheaper than the first Tiger.
          2. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 5 May 2020 17: 22 New
            +1
            Quote: Alf
            Yes, it is without weapons and radio equipment.

            In general, the difference was as follows: for 4 Panthers the Germans could build only 5 Pz IV... © Panther: Germany's quest for combat dominance (General Military).
            But this is not the main thing: instead of a "three-ruble note" the Germans could receive either a "panther" within an acceptable time frame, or a "four" with a long delay. When the Citadel is on the nose, the price of a tank is no longer so important - you need the tanks themselves. smile
            Although, as the practice of the combat use of "Panthers" on CD has shown, there was no need to rush. The personnel of the 39th TP in just a couple of days famously multiplied to zero all the labor successes of the German proletarians. smile
            1. Alf
              Alf 5 May 2020 17: 35 New
              +3
              Quote: Alexey RA
              The personnel of the 39th TP in just a couple of days famously multiplied by zero all the labor successes of the German proletarians.

              And without the Stakhanov efforts of our PT Panthers themselves did not reach the front. Haste in the manufacture affected, apparently, at the end of the month they did. Interestingly, the receivers were then first identified in Gehaim or immediately sent to the Eastern Front?
    2. Kot_Kuzya
      Kot_Kuzya 6 May 2020 08: 57 New
      +1
      I doubt that the Panther weighing 45 tons, with an engine of 700 hp. and a gun with a barrel of 70 calibers was only 30% more expensive than a T-4 weighing 25 tons, an engine of 350 horses and a gun with a barrel of 48 calibers. Do not forget that the operation of the Panther cost much more than the operation of the T-4 due to the higher consumption of gasoline and oil, and a larger shot for the gun.
      1. Alf
        Alf 6 May 2020 18: 37 New
        +2
        Quote: Kot_Kuzya
        I doubt

        And you do not hesitate, but climb into the network and look.
        1. Kot_Kuzya
          Kot_Kuzya 7 May 2020 06: 03 New
          0
          They can write anything on the net. But common sense must be applied. For example, a 2015 Toyota Witz weighing 1 ton and with an engine of 70 horses costs 500 thousand rubles, a Toyota Landcruiser Prado 2015 weighing 2 tons and an engine of 160 horses costs 2,5 million rubles.
          1. Alf
            Alf 7 May 2020 18: 34 New
            +1
            Quote: Kot_Kuzya
            They can write anything on the net. But common sense must be applied. For example, a 2015 Toyota Witz weighing 1 ton and with an engine of 70 horses costs 500 thousand rubles, a Toyota Landcruiser Prado 2015 weighing 2 tons and an engine of 160 horses costs 2,5 million rubles.

            Extra charge for the name. And the greed of the seller.
  • Catfish
    Catfish 5 May 2020 11: 24 New
    +3
    Yes, brother Kuzmich ... what a blessing that you did not plan the production of arms of the Third Reich. I'm serious. But I was even more killed by the production of the useless T-II wedge, before the 42nd, it seems, they let out? hi drinks
    1. Undecim
      Undecim 5 May 2020 12: 29 New
      +4
      But I was even more killed by the production of the useless T-II wedge, before the 42nd, it seems, they let out?
      They released it until January 1944.
      By the way, the no less useless platform sole T-60 was produced until February 1943.
      Only the Germans PzKpfw II by the end of 1942 removed them from the Eastern Front, using them as training and as a chassis for self-propelled guns. And the T-60 was considered a "tank" and fought until the Victory.
  • Antropos
    Antropos 5 May 2020 11: 41 New
    0
    Our nomenclature of tanks during the war - be healthy! No less German for sure.
  • voyaka uh
    voyaka uh 5 May 2020 20: 40 New
    0
    "Well, why release T-3 and T-4 at the same time?" ////
    -----
    Because the T-3 was a very effective, useful tank. Perfect
    to support the infantry. Ideal for reconnaissance (low noise).
    Ideal for a commander's tank (a convenient tower with walkie-talkies).
    Ideal to support / cover the sides and back of the Tigers in
    heavy tank battalions. In them was: for one Tiger - three T-3s
    In the Red Army, the T-3 was the most popular and valuable trophy tank.
    They even created a special factory for their repair and maintenance.
    Functions: reconnaissance and command vehicle.
    ------
    And the T-4 was intended for tank-against-tank battles.
    1. hohol95
      hohol95 5 May 2020 21: 45 New
      +3
      And the T-4 was intended for tank-against-tank battles.

      Pz.IV was immediately intended for battles with enemy tanks (medium and heavy)?
      Or became capable of such only since 1942. When I got a 43-caliber long gun!
      And the 50 mm "troika" clearly could not cope with either the KV-1S, or the T-34, or the Crusader variants!
      1. voyaka uh
        voyaka uh 5 May 2020 22: 34 New
        +1
        Heavy tanks appeared in the Wehrmacht only in the middle of 43 years.
        From the Battle of Kursk.
        Before that, there were only medium and light ones. Most of the medium T-3.
        A smaller part of the T-4.
        But to the Volga and the Caucasus, however, the Nazis reached without heavy tanks.
        And without numerical superiority in tanks. So somehow managed?
        It was a matter of tactics, and not the caliber of the gun.
        1. hohol95
          hohol95 6 May 2020 00: 13 New
          0
          Well, they didn’t reach the Volga with their bare tanks ...
          Drop artillery saturation and interaction with aviation!
          If there were problems with the enemy’s tanks, the German would take his own, and in his place he would put forward infantry with anti-tank forces and cover these places with heavy artillery and aircraft!
          My bare tanks could not break through these positions ...
          It was in the USSR and in North Africa (British "Matilda" without artillery preparation and infantry support could not do anything with the German 88 mm anti-aircraft guns)!
          At the same time, in North Africa, the Germans and Italians had big problems with technology! Compared to the Eastern Front. And the British "fiddled" with them from June 10, 1940 to May 13, 1943!
          Even Churchill called his 8th Army "Brave but BATTLE"!
      2. Alf
        Alf 6 May 2020 18: 39 New
        +1
        Quote: hohol95
        And the 50 mm "troika" clearly could not cope with either the KV-1S, or the T-34, or the Crusader variants!

        That is, the Troika’s 50-mm gun could not cope with 34-mm armor? what
        1. hohol95
          hohol95 6 May 2020 19: 06 New
          +2
          The Crusaders Mk.III. - 50 mm frontal armor + 6 pound gun.
          It is clear that this did not help the "Crusaders" to serve until the end of the war!
          By 1944, about a third of the vehicles were sent to training units, and two-thirds were converted into AA Kruseyder anti-aircraft tanks and Kruseyder Gun Tower artillery tractors.

          The British "tank genius" was even more "gloomy" than the "Teutonic" ...
          1. Alf
            Alf 6 May 2020 19: 10 New
            +3
            Thank you, I didn’t. I thought that no more than 30. hi
            1. hohol95
              hohol95 6 May 2020 19: 22 New
              +1
              Honestly, 50 mm British saved badly.
              The British did not like or did not know how to weld armor plates (they write that the military (probably the military with large ranks) did not trust the qualities of welds and preferred rivets).
              "Crusader in thin armor"
              "Crusader" takes a long sword "
              warspot.ru
              The armor turned out to be quite fragile, with cracks and spalls when breaking through. When a German 50-mm shell hits the armor, the crew almost always died, but even without breaking through the bolt heads flew off from the back and could injure or kill tankers. The report on the analysis of combat damage indicated that henceforth it is desirable to have tanks with welded hulls and towers.
              1. Alf
                Alf 6 May 2020 19: 26 New
                +2
                Quote: hohol95
                (they write that the military (probably the military with large ranks) did not trust the qualities of welds and preferred rivets).

                Conservatism in military matters in Britain bloomed and groin. Army pistol, self-loading rifle, submachine gun, no, no, not heard ...
                1. hohol95
                  hohol95 6 May 2020 19: 35 New
                  +1
                  Light machine gun, tank machine gun under German cartridges - clones from Czechoslovakia.
                  1. Alf
                    Alf 6 May 2020 19: 39 New
                    +1
                    Quote: hohol95
                    Light machine gun, tank machine gun under German cartridges - clones from Czechoslovakia.

                    ONE TANK TWO machine guns of the same caliber for different cartridges !!!
                    Wasn’t it time to get interested in this moment to the Lavra department ..., damn it, there was no NKVD in the good old England, unfortunately ...
                    1. hohol95
                      hohol95 6 May 2020 20: 10 New
                      +1
                      BESA - cartridge 7,92 × 57 mm (German)
                      BREN - cartridge 7,7 × 56 mm R (British .303 British).
                2. voyaka uh
                  voyaka uh 6 May 2020 20: 19 New
                  +1
                  "Conservatism in military matters in Britain flourished and groin" ///
                  -----
                  Add: mass deployment of radars on ships and aircraft,
                  the world's first coastal radar defense,
                  Gloucester Meteor’s first production jet interceptor on
                  combat duty.
                  1. Alf
                    Alf 6 May 2020 20: 28 New
                    +1
                    Quote: voyaka uh
                    Add

                    So yes, no arguing against the facts.
                  2. hohol95
                    hohol95 6 May 2020 20: 31 New
                    +1
                    The British were generally well done!
                    They, like the Japanese, paid attention to the navy and aviation. The land army and especially the armored units were in complete "oblivion" before the war. And with whom were they to fight with tank armada? Not with African tribes in the colonies?
                    They had good radio equipment. It’s bad here.
                    We all had small arms of domestic development. They dont have.
                    Each country had its own production difficulties and quirks of the military and politicians!
                    1. Alf
                      Alf 6 May 2020 21: 52 New
                      +3
                      Quote: hohol95
                      Each country had its own production difficulties and quirks of the military and politicians!

                      Well, yes.
                      "The main thing is that the barrel of the gun does not protrude beyond the dimensions of the tank." THE USSR.
                      "Tanks do not fight tanks." USA.
                      "The Reich will conquer Russia in six months." III Reich.
                      "The wingspan of the bomber must not exceed the size of the hangars." Britannia.
          2. Alf
            Alf 6 May 2020 20: 25 New
            +3
            Quote: hohol95
            The British "tank genius" was even more "gloomy" than the "Teutonic" ...

            He was not "gloomy", he was "dense".
      3. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 6 May 2020 20: 19 New
        +2
        Quote: hohol95
        And the 50 mm "troika" clearly could not cope with either the KV-1S, or the T-34, or the Crusader variants!

        EMNIP, in the summer of 1942 at Stalingrad, more than half of the destroyed T-34s were knocked out precisely from 50-mm guns. Taking into account the fact that at that time there was a "treshka-lang" in production with a gun similar to the Pak 38, with the penetration of the T-34 armor the "treshka" was doing well.
        In general, these are the results of domestic shooting of captured weapons by captured shells on domestic armor: 75 mm homogeneous medium hard armor plates, 45 mm high hard homogeneous armor plates
        50-mm anti-tank gun PaK.38, ordinary armor-piercing:
        The 75-mm sheet normal showed the back strength limit of 700 m, the through penetration limit of 400 m. That is, starting from a distance of 700 m and closer PaK.38 can penetrate unshielded HF armor, with 400 m it is guaranteed to break through.
        The 45-mm sheet along the normal showed the through penetration limit of 1500 m, at an angle of 30 degrees to the normal 1300 m.
        That is, PaK.38 confidently hits the T-34 in the side and the tower at any real combat distance.

        50-mm anti-tank gun PaK.38, sub-caliber:
        The 75-mm sheet normal showed the back strength of 870 m, the through penetration of 740 m, at an angle of 30 degrees to the normal of 530 and 470 m, respectively.
        The 45-mm sheet along the normal showed the through penetration limit of 1300 m, at an angle of 30 degrees to the normal 700 m.

        That is, the "treshki-lang" has no problems with the T-34 at all combat distances, and for a guaranteed defeat of the KV, it needs to approach 400 m.
        1. hohol95
          hohol95 6 May 2020 20: 50 New
          0
          There were many Treshk Langs on the Eastern Front. But in North Africa, on the contrary, it is not enough!
    2. Kot_Kuzya
      Kot_Kuzya 6 May 2020 09: 02 New
      +1
      Do not write nonsense. The Germans conceived the T-3 as a fighter tank of other tanks, so the first was the swinging part of the anti-tank 37 mm gun. And the T-4 with a 75-mm cigarette butt was conceived as a support tank for the T-3 and infantry.
      1. voyaka uh
        voyaka uh 6 May 2020 09: 53 New
        +1
        This concept collapsed during the capture of France.
        The French had tanks with powerful armor, which
        can be attributed to heavy. No tank shells took them
        German tanks. Already in France, the Nazis began to use 88 mm anti-aircraft guns
        against tanks. And they realized that the T-3 was not suitable for the role of a "tank destroyer".
        And only the T-4 really redo (chassis allowed) into an anti-tank weapon.
        1. Kot_Kuzya
          Kot_Kuzya 6 May 2020 10: 03 New
          0
          After the French campaign, the Germans began to re-equip the T-3 with 50-mm guns, and with very weak ballistics, the muzzle velocity of the projectile was only 685 m / s. I doubt that such a slow projectile had armor penetration significantly higher than the projectile from the T-4 "butt". Even then, the Germans had to abandon the production of the T-3 in favor of the production of the T-4.
          1. voyaka uh
            voyaka uh 6 May 2020 10: 12 New
            +2
            T-3 coped with its task of a universal support tank
            offensives until the middle of 43 years.
            They were never thrown into attacks on enemy tanks.
            Then they turned into a satellite tank of the Tigers and a reconnaissance tank.
            But the T-4 quickly reached its limit: its chassis and engine did not pull
            heavy turret and strong armor. Therefore, I had to switch to the Panthers.
            1. Kot_Kuzya
              Kot_Kuzya 6 May 2020 10: 22 New
              +1
              Production of the T-3 was stopped in February 1943, that is, the Germans needed a whole year to finally understand that it makes no sense to produce the T-3 in the presence of the T-4 with a long-barrel 75 mm gun. After the French campaign, the Germans needed to equip the T-4 with a long-barreled gun and stop the production of the T-3.
              1. voyaka uh
                voyaka uh 6 May 2020 13: 34 New
                0
                Installing a 75 mm gun "7.5 cm KwK 40" did not solve the problem.
                And the gun was weak, and the armor of the tank was weak.
                A powerful 7.5 cm KwK 42 did not fit in the T-4 tower. And the armor was not to add.
                Dead end. They switched to Panther for a reason.
                1. hohol95
                  hohol95 6 May 2020 13: 40 New
                  0
                  Installing a 75 mm gun "7.5 cm KwK 40" did not solve the problem.

                  Is it the Germans themselves recognized?
                2. Kot_Kuzya
                  Kot_Kuzya 6 May 2020 14: 09 New
                  +1
                  The cannon on the T-4 hit all the medium tanks of the Allies, that T-34, that Sherman.
                3. Alf
                  Alf 6 May 2020 18: 53 New
                  +2
                  Quote: voyaka uh
                  A powerful 7.5 cm KwK 42 did not fit in the T-4 tower. And the armor was not to add.

                  But didn’t the Germans MAKE such an option?
          2. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 6 May 2020 20: 41 New
            +1
            Quote: Kot_Kuzya
            After the French campaign, the Germans began to rearm the T-3 with 50-mm guns, and with very weak ballistics, the initial velocity of the projectile was only 685 m / s.

            Because this weapon was the only one that was already ready and which could be quickly installed in the three-ruble tower. And what about the performance characteristics ... what do you want from a system that was started by development back in March 1938.
            In June 1940, an order was given to begin the installation of a 50-mm 5 cm KwK 38 L / 42 tank gun in the Pz.Kpfw.III. The first 5 tanks with such guns were expected to be received before the end of the month. The development of 5 cm KwK 38 L / 42 began in March 1938. According to the requirements, an armor-piercing projectile had to penetrate armor 40 mm thick, installed at an angle of 30 degrees, at a distance of 700 meters. At the same time, the gun barrel should not have protruded beyond the dimensions of the hull.
            © Y. Pasholok
            Moreover, even after the French campaign, it was believed that such armor penetration was enough to defeat almost everything that can be found on the battlefield (except for heavy tanks, well, these are rare animals).
            The fact that the 42-caliber version of the 50-mm tank gun is not good enough, the German military thought about before the start of the campaign in France. One such proposal was made in early June 1940. But at that moment it seemed that the power of the guns was still quite enough, although the meeting with Char B1 bis should have made me think. At a meeting on February 18, 1941 with the participation of Hitler, Porsche, Todt and other high-ranking officials of German industry, almost all those present spoke out against lengthening the barrel 5 cm KwK 38 to 60 calibers.
            The only person who advocated this idea was Paul Panten, director of Alkett. He volunteered to build a prototype gun. This time Hitler did not obey his advisers: on February 19, he ordered the immediate development of this tool and its installation in Pz.Kpfw.III, as well as in one Pz.Kpfw.IV. On March 19, a month after the order was issued, a prototype gun for the Pz.Kpfw.III was ready.
            The gun was demonstrated to Hitler on March 31

            The first doubts were brought by "Matilda". The final point was set by the T-34 and KV. As a result, after June 1941, it took less than six months to put the new gun into series. The first Pz.Kpfw.III Ausf.Js with a 60-caliber cannon were fired in December 1941. Nevertheless, the production of "three-ruble kurts" continued until the stocks of 42-caliber guns were exhausted.
        2. Alf
          Alf 6 May 2020 18: 43 New
          +2
          Quote: voyaka uh
          And they realized that the T-3 was not suitable for the role of a "tank destroyer".
          And only the T-4 really redo (chassis allowed) into an anti-tank weapon.

          Yeah, in France they understood, but they only began to remodel the Four into an anti-tank tank in the summer of the 42nd ??? The Germans, of course, are pedants, but nevertheless they are not braked by the Balts to think for two years.
  • abc_alex
    abc_alex 5 May 2020 23: 35 New
    +1
    Quote: Kot_Kuzya
    The Germans are generally strange. They think tactically well, but they have zero strategies. Up to the Stalingrad catastrophe, the German economy generally worked like in peacetime, weapons and equipment produced a palt compared with the production of the USSR, Britain and the USA.


    You think like a military man. In the logic of the military, as a rule, a country is a system for ensuring military operations. But Hitler was not a military man, although he had the rank of sergeant major, he thought like a politician.
    For a politician, on the other hand, war is only one of the ways to achieve a goal. And the army is just one of the political instruments. Therefore, you just need to "switch" the logic. Look: until 1943, the Germans, one way or another, practically without effort, occupied all of Europe. They secured the "vaterland" with conquered territories for hundreds of kilometers around. The ideology of Nazism provided them with an almost triumphal march across all surrounding countries. What danger threatened Germany from defeat somewhere near Stalingrad?
    And you understand, the war was not the GOAL. She was means the establishment of the Nazi regime in Europe. One of the means. This regime did not imply an endless tension of the forces of the German people, but a "just redistribution of Europe", in accordance with the highest status that the Germanic race deserved by the very fact of its Germanism. Therefore, the war had to be "somewhere out there", and waged so that the ordinary German did not notice it. Just as he does not notice, for example, the activities of diplomats.
    And do not forget, the very idea of ​​an ethnic redistribution of Europe was not invented by Hitler; it was the central idea of ​​the entire internal European policy of the 20s and 30s. It's just that the Nazis somewhat "expanded and deepened" the idea.

    I don’t come up with this for you; I’m retelling the Germans of that time to you. :)
    Hitler had no intention of putting Germany on the altar of war. In this regard, his thinking was more medieval than modern. He perceived the war as "the argument of kings", and not as a phenomenon of the polar fox at home. He promised the Germans prosperity, and he gave it. And he demanded that the army and industry do not take more than was allotted by the doctrine of the constant growth of the welfare of the Germans.



    Quote: Kot_Kuzya
    In World War I, they began to fight with the whole world.


    Yes, they were not going to fight with the whole world! WW1 war began as another Franco-Prussian war, which is a wagon with a cart in the history of Europe. These wars were then perceived as a typhoon by the inhabitants of coastal areas. Yes, it is dangerous, but it would not be better, but it is a natural phenomenon, it will come, pass, go away. All. Nobody was going to fight for 4 years and drag the whole world into the conflict. Just recently (1870-1871) another such war took place. It began in the summer and ended by the new year. Everything is as it should be with educated people. And I will note that in 1914 those who saw that war with their own eyes were still alive. Top officers on both sides are so sure. Who knew that military engineering, automatic weapons and artillery would turn the "noble cause of the European war" into SUCH! Again, don't forget. There was no "whole world" then. There was Europe and "other partially populated areas." The United States proclaimed a doctrine of self-isolation and turned to the Americas. And in Europe, the Germans were not in a bad situation at all. On their side were Austria-Hungary and Turkey with Bulgaria. And France? Russia that just merged with Japan. And Britain, which is so in its mind that it was just literally looking for an alliance with the Kaiser.

    Quote: Kot_Kuzya
    And during World War II, they also started a war with the whole world.


    The same story. What is "the whole world"? The United States is still in self-isolation, Britain is still pursuing a policy of a corrupt girl, and the Russians really could not do anything before, and after the mass exodus of the elite, they are nothing. There is not even a trace of a united "whole world". Whole countries of Europe were quietly transferred to the Germans, which "whole world"?
    Moreover, after the disintegration of the Republic of Ingushetia in Europe, there were limitrophe countries, which, by their and their policy, brought to naught all efforts to recreate the Entente. Germany consistently ate up this very "whole world" step by step. If she hadn't broken her teeth about the Russians, everything would have worked out.

    Quote: Kot_Kuzya
    Well, with tank building they generally had enchanting nonsense. It seems that TTZ was given to tanks by a pest and an English spy.


    No. The Germans simply absolutized the principle "less is better, but better." They did not want to convert civilian enterprises to military products. They relied on the technical superiority of a single model, believing that if 1 tank can hit 10 enemy tanks in battle, then the army will need 10 times less tanks.

    Quote: Kot_Kuzya
    Well, why produce T-3 and T-4 at the same time? It was possible to produce one T-4, but with different weapons - a 37-mm gun and a 75-mm cigarette butt.


    :) This is a relapse of the interwar tank doctrine of "infantry" and "cavalry" or "cruiser" tanks. It was possible to arm it in different ways, but these tanks had different speed and range requirements. This was only later, during the war, unification took place. And looking at the T-34 station wagon, the first in history, the Germans got the idea of ​​unifying the park.

    Quote: Kot_Kuzya
    The same thing with Panther, why do they need a Panther worth 2 T-4s?


    Tanks on the battlefield perform different roles. The T-4 was designed as an "assault infantry support tank". Its targets are enemy infantry. And the Panther is a tank destroyer. Its targets are enemy tanks. It was supposed to replace the T-3, which was planned to be just such a tank in terms of its role, but which the 7,5 cm KwK 42 would not fit.

    Quote: Kot_Kuzya
    Why replace the excellent Tiger A already established in production with a completely different tank with a bunch of children's sores?


    And the same doctrine "1 is 10". The Russians got IS tanks and self-propelled guns with 100-mm guns, and the T-34 got 85-mm drins. It was not possible to pick them up 10 in a row. So they made a new Tiger. And by the way, he had no more childhood illnesses than the Tiger at the beginning of production.

    Quote: Kot_Kuzya
    It would be logical for the Germans to act as the USSR, which riveted the whole war as a T-34 medium tank, and as a heavy KV / IS, that is, riveted only the T-4, and the Tiger as a heavy tank, which qualitatively improves the striking power of the German attack.


    A different approach to the construction of the military-industrial complex. The USSR needed a mass extremely technological tank, which could be produced on the lines of civilian factories. Car building, for example. And the Germans had specialized factories. But by the end of the war, the Germans had enlightened and they planned to unify the park. The basis was to be a modernized Panther.
    1. Kot_Kuzya
      Kot_Kuzya 6 May 2020 09: 11 New
      0
      Austria-Hungary, the Ottoman Empire and the Bulgarians were so-so allies, Austrians and Turks, even the Russian army constantly beat, which in turn, regularly received cuffs from the German army throughout the war. France and Britain were world hegemons at that time, Britain could crush Germany alone, owning half of the planet, its human and material resources were practically inexhaustible.
      1. hohol95
        hohol95 6 May 2020 09: 40 New
        0
        Britain in general could alone crush Germany, owning half the planet, its human and material resources were practically inexhaustible.

        Controversial statement. If only the German Empire was one it is possible. Do not forget how much power the British took the battles with the Ottomans!
        On April 19, the commander of the 6th Army, von der Goltz, died, but this did not affect the situation at El Kut. The new commander of the 6th Army was Khalil Pasha. Among the besieged, famine and epidemics of disease began. On April 29, General Townsend's troops surrendered. Over 10 British troops, including General Townsend, were captured by the Ottoman Empire. According to Barker, British troops lost 000 people prisoners.
        The defeat at El Kut inflicted a big blow on the prestige of the British army. Commander General Nixon was replaced by General Lake.
      2. abc_alex
        abc_alex 7 May 2020 20: 55 New
        0
        Quote: Kot_Kuzya
        Austria-Hungary, the Ottoman Empire and the Bulgarians are so-so allies

        So in the sense of "piling on paddling pools" the Germans themselves had a mustache. The allies provided Germany with access to the warm seas. That was enough for a war with the French.

        Quote: Kot_Kuzya
        Austrians and Turks, even the Russian army constantly beat

        So when was this? In 1905, the Russian army was disgraced in the war with Japan, at once having crossed out its entire great history. There were not just military failures. There for the first time Russians fled from the battlefield ...

        Quote: Kot_Kuzya
        France and Britain were world hegemons at the time

        There was no "peace" then. There was Europe. And the challenge prize of the colonies to those who dominate Europe. Prussia defeated France just recently. What prevented a much stronger united Germany from doing this again? What difference does it make to how much hegemonic France was in the world? For two or three months of war, no help from the colonies will have time to come.
        There were no less contradictions between England and France than between France and Germany. England was looking for an alliance with the Kaiser literally until 1914 and did not agree only in price. You do not forget that the Entente was a very ephemeral phenomenon and the chances of England entering the war were no more than the chances of England completely ignoring the war.
        1. Kot_Kuzya
          Kot_Kuzya 8 May 2020 02: 35 New
          +1
          There were no less contradictions between England and France than between France and Germany.
          Since 1848, when Napoleon III became president and then emperor of France, France has always been in the wake of British politics. What do you think, with what fright did France have to fight with Russia in the Eastern War? This Napoleon III worked out his debts to London. England was the leader in this pair, and France led, a junior partner.
          England was looking for an alliance with the Kaiser literally until 1914 and did not agree only in price

          Do not write nonsense. Germany was a strategic enemy of England, being the strongest power in Europe. Prior to this, France was a strategic enemy on the continent, but England defeated it in 1815 and became a world hegemon. For centuries, France and England fought among themselves for the role of world hegemon. It was possible to deprive Germany of the role of the European hegemon only by military means, which was done during the WWII.
          You do not forget that the Entente was a very ephemeral phenomenon and the chances of England entering the war were no more than the chances of England completely ignoring the war.
          The fact of the matter is that the Entente was an alliance of France and Russia, and England did not participate in it. Germany, in alliance with AB, had every chance to completely break up the alliance of France and Russia, which is why Germany began the WWII. It is well known that the British Foreign Minister, Sir Edward Gray, promised the German ambassador that England would not intervene in the war, and he promised the British and French ambassadors military assistance to England. As a result, both sides, confident that England would stand in their favor, began mobilization, which led to the WWII.
  • Free wind
    Free wind 5 May 2020 07: 45 New
    +3
    The KV-13 was not an attempt to cross the strands and medium tanks, but the creation of a new medium tank, the T-34 did not suit in many ways, the armored body with the Christie suspension was difficult to manufacture, and the suspension was rather brittle. KV-13 was on torsion bars, 2 copies were made, showed good results, but to begin their production means at first a decrease in the output of other tanks. It’s a perversion to put the well-protected ISovskaya tower on the T-34 body, which has already made its way easily. The Nazis had a lot of things planned, and what else should the designers do, hell alone can’t fight, sit and draw. Self-propelled guns are interesting and long-range. Hitler's dream was to shell England with cannons, but there wasn’t enough range. One of the options for using these self-propelled guns was to drive them onto barges, and at night approach through the Lamansh and fire from a closer distance, and then roll off. to drive the self-propelled guns to disguise them, but the barge is the barge. Thanks, it was interesting.
  • Alexey RA
    Alexey RA 5 May 2020 11: 19 New
    +3
    In general, they were strange, these Germans. Like a bag from around the corner grabbed. There is no other way to explain this: there is a total war, the Russians and the Allies are throwing real armored armada against the Wehrmacht, and they, instead of opposing their armada with their armadas, that is, riveting them day and night with the forces of all you can strain, created a mass prototypes, they spent working time, raw materials, money on them, forced the draftsmen to draw, and the woodworkers to make their wooden models ... But it was necessary to improve only what was required, and use it as quickly as possible, and throw all your energy into it!

    Nothing strange. It’s just that the Germans tried this way the last time. And he ended in Compiegne.
    As a result of WWI, it became clear that the Reich could not win a total war - the enemy still had more iron and meat. Plus, a total war, even with a seemingly normal situation at the front, can end with a "stab in the back" in the rear.
    So - no total war and no total losses, the gloomy Teutonic genius will crush the enemy not with mass, but with technical superiority. So rushing about in search of a child prodigy rushed - how to do it so that with small forces (with small losses) they beat large enemy forces. For the Reich has no opportunity to crush the enemy with mass and ramparts.
    And even when the all-out war still had to start, the search for the prodigy continued. For with the absolute superiority of the enemy in forces and industrial capacities (especially after the expansion of the US military-industrial complex), own technical superiority is the only way to wage war.
    1. hohol95
      hohol95 5 May 2020 12: 54 New
      0
      The Reich fleet was also "sharpened" for this.
      First, the idea of ​​a "raider war".
      The British were very frightened, but they quickly recovered and overwhelmed all the "raiders" Then "unlimited submarine war" and massive construction of submarines.
      Again a strong shock among the allies, but then a mass of retaliatory measures and the ranks of submariners began to melt like "snow in the April sun"!
    2. CTABEP
      CTABEP 5 May 2020 14: 24 New
      0
      In principle, after the US entered the war, there was no longer a chance. Perhaps the gloomy Teutonic genius was counting on victory over the USSR in 1942 (although for this the German Panzer Grenadiers had to celebrate the New Year in the Kremlin), while the Yankees were busy there in the Pacific Ocean, but it somehow reminds me of the last time - Paris was prevented from taking ” Miracle on the Marne ", the blitzkrieg broke down, all around the enemies to fight at the expense of the true Prussian spirit and training is possible (you can even kill enemies with a good balance of 1d2 in numbers), but to win the total war of the 20th century - no longer.
      1. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 5 May 2020 17: 38 New
        +1
        Quote: CTABEP
        In principle, after the US entered the war, there was no chance.

        Before. There were no chances at the beginning of 1941. Then the FDR so famously started pumping up Britain that they even howled up: they need to deploy an army of three divisions of fifty, and the president, moreover, raking out arsenals, will also reorient equipment and weapons, ordered by US forces to Britain.
        And in the spring of 1941, an American commission was already working in Britain, examining the Islands in order to select the locations of the American contingent.
        Quote: CTABEP
        Maybe the gloomy Teutonic genius was counting on victory over the USSR in 1942 (although for this the German panzergrenadiers should have celebrated the New Year in the Kremlin)

        Exactly. The plans for a long war with the Allies proceeded from the fact that the USSR was quickly defeated, the Wehrmacht was partially demobilized due to the absence of land opponents, and working hands returned to industry and agriculture. The Führer generally assumed that with the disappearance of England’s last hope on the continent, the British could enter into peace negotiations.
        1. chenia
          chenia 5 May 2020 21: 03 New
          -1
          Quote: Alexey RA
          Before. There were no chances already in early 1941.


          Well, this is probably subject to the fact that the USSR is anyway. will enter the war with Germany.
          But after June 22. there really was no chance.

          And so, there would have been no understanding of the lost war among the Germans, they would have defeated the allies in 1944 after landing in Normandy.
          But in 1944 the Germans (generals) had an idea to surrender to someone (we drove this idea), and the guys suddenly "dumbfounded" at once. allowing the allies to turn around and gain a foothold. And only after the purge (having lost six months, and terrible losses on the eastern front) did they try and quite tangibly (but then it was definitely absolutely hopeless) to press the allies.
    3. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 6 May 2020 23: 28 New
      0
      I agree. I will add that after each new blitzkrieg Hitler
      he emotionally addressed the people: "You see, we won, but there is no world war!"
      And even after the invasion of the USSR, and then - in December 41 - the declaration of war by the United States Hitler
      assured the people that there was no total war against all. And there are local wars and
      diplomatic tricks.
      Formally, he was right. Anti-Hitler coalition formed in Casablanca
      in January 1943 and entrenched in Tehran in December 1943.
      But in fact, England, the USA and the USSR began to cooperate in July 1941.
      Germany fought with the three strongest military powers in the world.
  • Hog
    Hog 5 May 2020 12: 42 New
    +1
    But nothing that the Gerat 809 and 810 is artillery, and not assault sau or fighter jets?
  • tech3030
    tech3030 5 May 2020 12: 45 New
    +5
    The Tank Museum in the "Technology of Youth" read out to the holes, as well as the entire magazine.
    1. Kote Pan Kokhanka
      Kote Pan Kokhanka 5 May 2020 14: 21 New
      +6
      Yes there was such a thing!
      Every year, TM launched a series of illustrated articles on the head: about the history of tanks, rifles, motorcycles !!! There was also a magazine Foreign Military Review! Also a highlight worth reading!
  • The comment was deleted.
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 5 May 2020 17: 45 New
      +2
      Quote: max64
      1. Can anyone remind me at least one month when, as this gentleman of the USSR says, he released 2000 tanks? I agree even if they point out the issue 1800.

      Based on the fact that in 1944 the USSR produced 28984 tanks and self-propelled guns, there should be at least one month in which production would exceed 2000 units. smile
      1. The comment was deleted.
        1. Alf
          Alf 5 May 2020 20: 14 New
          +3
          Quote: max64
          2. In 1944, more than 7000 Su-76s were produced, which is not a tank at all (if the Su-85/100 can be pulled somehow ... then this could not work as a tank), so it does not count.

          Can Hetzer be considered a tank?
          1. The comment was deleted.
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. Alf
      Alf 5 May 2020 19: 00 New
      +3
      Quote: max64
      1. Can anyone remind me at least one month when, as this gentleman of the USSR says, he released 2000 tanks? I agree even if they point out the issue 1800.


      Already more than a thousand a month, and in fact other tanks were produced.
      1. The comment was deleted.
  • xomaNN
    xomaNN 5 May 2020 20: 38 New
    0
    Workshop drawings of armored vehicles. It is a complex combination of an artist, draftsman and historian in one "body" ...
    1. Alf
      Alf 5 May 2020 20: 52 New
      +2
      Quote: xomaNN
      It is a complex combination of an artist, draftsman and historian in one "body" ...

      Counterquestion. Do you really think that it was Mr. Shpakovsky who painted all these pictures?
      These pictures were printed during the reign of King Pea, and since then they have been surfing the Internet. In general, Valery Petelin drew a picture with Saint-Chamon.
      1. hohol95
        hohol95 6 May 2020 00: 39 New
        0
        Valery Petelin is generally a prolific illustrator.
        From books of the horror genre to books about military equipment. And also illustrates boxes for manufacturers of models of equipment and figures of people (from women to soldiers of special forces)!
        He lays out all his main work in his LJ! There are many interesting things!
        1. Alf
          Alf 6 May 2020 18: 32 New
          +1
          Quote: hohol95
          He lays out all his main work in his LJ! There are many interesting things!

          Can I have a link?
          1. hohol95
            hohol95 6 May 2020 18: 47 New
            +1
            ravael.livejournal.com
            Or just Petelin Valery LJ
            1. Alf
              Alf 6 May 2020 18: 55 New
              +1
              Quote: hohol95
              ravael.livejournal.com
              Or just Petelin Valery LJ

              Thank you!
              1. hohol95
                hohol95 6 May 2020 19: 09 New
                0
                Trivia hi ! There are a lot of his works. And so he spreads the work of other artists there.
                1. Alf
                  Alf 6 May 2020 19: 14 New
                  +3
                  Quote: hohol95
                  Trivia hi ! There are a lot of his works. And so he spreads the work of other artists there.

                  There is another site where they post pictures on a military theme in high resolution.
                  I especially like Vincent Wye's paintings.
      2. kalibr
        6 May 2020 19: 12 New
        +2
        Vasily, I don't draw tanks at all. All these drawings were made by A. Sheps. He also has wonderful drawings in the magazines "Science and Technology" (Ukraine) and "World of Technology (for children), Moscow.
        1. Alf
          Alf 6 May 2020 19: 20 New
          +1
          Quote: kalibr
          Vasily, I don't draw tanks at all. All these drawings were made by A. Sheps. He also has wonderful drawings in the magazines "Science and Technology" (Ukraine) and "World of Technology (for children), Moscow.

          And I did not answer you, but to my colleague xomaNN.
          1. kalibr
            6 May 2020 22: 29 New
            +1
            I don’t understand, sorry.
            1. Alf
              Alf 7 May 2020 18: 38 New
              +1
              Quote: kalibr
              I don’t understand, sorry.

              It happens.
  • hohol95
    hohol95 6 May 2020 00: 35 New
    0
    Vyacheslav Olegych! Your friend the artist A. Sheps did not try to draw a tank based on the Russo-Balt armored car? Let's say with a machine gun turret. You just have to think about the chassis.
    1. kalibr
      6 May 2020 19: 10 New
      +1
      Alexey! The theme of tanks and armored cars "IF" is finished and he will not draw anything new on it. And the Russo-Balt was an armored car, only with machine guns in the wheelhouse!
      1. hohol95
        hohol95 6 May 2020 19: 16 New
        0
        I remember what Russo-Balt was like. But couldn't a tower be placed on it? Can. The trouble was 8 pieces. And the complete lack of sense in modernization.
        1. kalibr
          6 May 2020 22: 28 New
          +1
          I thought so. I understood what you meant. But A. Sheps will not draw it anymore ...
  • Jager
    Jager 6 May 2020 14: 38 New
    0
    Oh god, what have I just read? It seems the first of April is long over. Someone outplayed in this? About the IS tower on the basis of the T-34 it is generally some kind of game.
    1. kalibr
      6 May 2020 19: 08 New
      +2
      Never say never! Where there is no IF (If) in the figures, this means that the car was depicted on it. Or in drawings, or in a model or in metal. You can read about the tank you are interested in in the book of the Kirov plant "Without secrets and secrets". So be glad that you have been enlightened a little.
  • Cypa
    Cypa 7 May 2020 09: 22 New
    0
    which there were no freaks!
    Quote: Sea Cat
    Good morning, forum users! hi
    Thanks to Vyacheslav Olegich for beautiful pictures. smile
    After all, the German A7V is just a shed on "wheels", even the French "Saint-Chamond" did not look so awkward.

    And, thank God, someone we had the mind not to throw money away on a completely militarily useless T-39, it doesn’t even turn its tongue into a tank, either an armored train, or an armored boat on tracks.
    A sad story with the construction of Lebedenko taught something all the same.

    Good day to everyone and good mood.
    1. kalibr
      7 May 2020 12: 28 New
      +1
      And all the best to you!
  • Engineer
    Engineer 8 May 2020 14: 06 New
    0
    He took off the second tower, and so the KV tank turned out

    absolutely wrong