Military Review

Fashion for machine guns on the sides. British Mediums

53

16-ton Vickers in the yard of the plant. The exceptional machine-gun power is noteworthy: five water-cooled Vickers machine guns, which, in this position of the towers, can fire forward


Tank panopticon. There are tanks and ... "Tanks". In general, they all left in stories its mark, but some, in the words of J. Orwell, were "more equal than others." British tanks of the Vickers company are also among such landmark tanks for the history of armored vehicles. Moreover, many of them never fought and were not accepted into service by the English army. But they had a chance to play their role in history, so today we will tell you about them.

Their story began in the very mid-20s, when the British army finally began to receive such new tanks as the Medium Tank Mk.I and Medium Tank Mk.II. Note that vehicles of this class first went into production and entered service, although medium tanks were in service with the British Army before that. It’s just that these machines had such an innovation as a rotating tower, which they did not have before.

Fashion for machine guns on the sides. British Mediums
Medium tank MK. C Hornet with a cabin instead of a tower

The design turned out to be very successful, therefore, these machines served for quite some time. But the rule is this: he adopted one good tank, immediately develop the next one. So the British military and engineers already in 1926 began to look for what to replace them in the future. Here the Vickers company, the largest British manufacturer weapons, and offered the army its Medium Tank Mk.III, which can be translated as “medium brand III tank”. But fate is often a villain. Abroad, this tank gained the greatest popularity, and in England its fate was quite difficult.


Among the advantages of the tank MK. I should include the convenience of entry and exit. The hatch on the tower, hatches on the sides, and even this door

What claims did the military have on Medium Tank Mk.I and Medium Tank Mk.II vehicles? First of all, to the front of the engine. The driver had to be planted in a tall booth, which made it difficult to fire from the turret while lowering the gun barrel. At that time, their speed of 24 km / h seemed to be sufficient, but the military wanted more. After all, a tank is never too fast. Well, and thin armor. These tanks were sent to India for service at all with only machine gun weapons. It seemed to be enough, since the armor of the "mediums" held all the bullets of the then rifles. But not shells!


Vickers Medium Mk IIA at the Museum of the Aberdeen Proving Ground (USA)


And he is at the BTT Royal Museum in Bovington (UK)

But the technical specification for the new car was based on the 1922 specification ... for a heavy tank. It required the engine to be installed at the rear. Provide the tank with the ability to overcome trenches at least 2,8 meters wide. Armament - 3-pound (47-mm) gun in the bow and 2 more machine guns in sponsons. That is a complete archaic. But the Vickers company quickly redesigned the project, so now the gun was installed in the tower. Machine guns were also installed in the towers, and a car came out known as the A1E1 Independent. This tank, as you know, was built, tested, but because of the high cost "did not go." Although he was in military service. During World War II, he was dug into the ground in the area of ​​the alleged German landing and turned into a pillbox.


They even tried to turn the Mk.I tank into a wheeled-tracked vehicle!

By the way, the fashion for machine guns on the sides had its roots. It was believed that the tank would call into the trench, and pour fire on them from these machine guns. This was speculatively not bad, although even then it was already known that nobody was digging trenches in a straight line. All instructions indicated that they should be laid in a zigzag pattern!


Medium Tank Mk.C with a turret machine gun facing back. And if you need to shoot forward with a machine gun, then you need to deploy the entire tower ...


And he is on the go during trials


So he had such a funny "nose"

And so, on the basis of all this, the new Medium Tank Mk.C tank appeared, somewhat, let's say, of an unusual design. The front door is on the front right and left - the machine gun in the ball mount. 5 crew members who served 1 gun in the tower and 4 machine guns: two on the sides, one forward and another in the tower ... barrel back. Why it was not possible to pair it with a gun is completely incomprehensible. By the way, the legs of the driver, who was sitting in the center of the case, with this layout rested on the armor plate, and then in the center of the case they made a special multi-faceted ledge. Rejoiced at this tank, and almost immediately ... the Japanese! They bought it together with a production license in 1927 and released it under the name Type 89A Chiro, which subsequently changed the Type 89B Otsu sample.


Tank Mk.C: side view

The funny thing is that Japanese engineers with such reverence reacted to the British design, as if it were a sacred cow: they kept the door on the front armored plate of the case, and the installation of machine guns in the case and in the tower. In a word, they didn’t step back a single step from him.


Type 89B Otsu. He is with the Japanese and is now on the go!

The next model, the Medium Tank Mk.D, was bought by Ireland in 1929 and was used until 1940. But the gun removed from it was completely preserved to our time and is located in the training center of the Defense Forces of Ireland in Currach in the county of Kildare.


Here is the gun!

All these attempts, however, gave the military and engineers a certain experience, which the Royal Tank Corps in 1926 laid the foundation for new requirements for the development of a new medium tank. They finally abandoned the airborne machine guns, but the very idea of ​​firing on board was recognized as correct. At the same time, the tank was to develop strong fire in the direction of movement. But this required at least three towers: two on the sides and one above them, so that if both towers were deployed to the sides, the central tower could shoot through the central sector, and, in general, fire at 360 degrees.

In this case, the combat weight had to be kept within 15,5 tons, since British military ferries did not raise more than 16 tons. The enemy tanks had to be hit at a distance of 900 meters (1000 yards). A radio station is a must, and fuel tanks should have been outside the hull. There was one more requirement: the tank should not have made too much noise.


16-ton Vickers in the factory yard, 1927

Having experience with both the Medium Tank Mk.C and the A1E1 Independent, Vickers engineers had already prepared all design documentation for another tank by September 1926. Another "medium", that is, a medium tank, received the designation A6. With a planned weight of 14 tons, his reservation should have been 14 mm in the frontal and 9 mm in the side projections. Like the A1E1 Independent tank, the driver was seated in the center of the hull, in the wheelhouse, and machine-gun towers were placed on both sides of it. The main tower was armed with a 3-pound gun and coaxial machine gun. They quickly abandoned the anti-aircraft tower at the back, which provided a significant reserve of mass for strengthening the reservation.

The motor was installed in the rear of the hull. Moreover, two engines were offered: in 120 hp. (speed up to 22,4 km / h) and 180 hp with which he, having a specific power of more than 10 hp, could have a maximum speed of 32 km / h, which, of course, pleased the military.


You can clearly see how the Medium Tank Mk.II and A6E2 differ from each other.

In the spring of 1927 a mock tank was made of wood. They looked at him and decided to build two tanks: A6E1 and A6E2. Both of them were equipped with a machine-gun train in machine-gun turrets, which greatly complicated the work of the shooters, although the firepower of the tank certainly increased greatly! And since the combat weight reached 16 tons, these machines began to be called the “16-tonner” (16-ton), and this unofficial name was fixed to it.


One of the A6 on the go during testing

The construction of the first tank, A6E1, which had a registration number T.404, was completed in early 1928. The tank externally copied a wooden mockup. The tank was very comfortable for the work of seven crew members. 416 liters of fuel, as the military wanted, was in the tanks outside the fighting compartment, where, however, they nevertheless put the tank at 37,5 liters in order to improve alignment. There were even two commander towers! But alas, there was no place for the radio station, since there was no feed niche on the tank.

Tank A6E2 with the number T.405 had a different transmission, but outwardly it did not differ from the first car. Therefore, they were often called 16-tonner No. 1 and 16-tonner No. 2.


The tank goes through a brick wall!

In June 1928, both cars were sent to the Farnborough training ground. Where it turned out a curious fact. Even with a 120-horsepower engine, the tanks easily reached a speed of 41,5 km / h, although the suspension borrowed from the previous averages was clearly weak. It turned out at the shooting range that it was very difficult for the towers to control the machine gun pair, so they were left with one machine gun each.


Tank A6E3. Well visible plate-bullets on the frontal armor of the hull

According to the tests, an improved version of the A6E3 tank with machine-gun turrets taken from the A1E1 Independent tank was designed. Their number was reduced to one, and also shifted to the right, so that inside they became more spacious. The commander’s turret was reduced to one.

The suspension was also improved by grouping the rollers into four groups, but this did not significantly improve it, but the mass of the tank increased and began to reach 16,25 tons. Whatever it was, but in 1928 an improved version of the A6 under the designation Medium Tank Mk.III came into service with the British army.

Keep in mind that Medium Tank Mk.III and A6 are often confused. Meanwhile, the Medium Tank Mk.III was not assigned an A6 index. Although these tanks were very similar and the weight of 16 tons was the same for them. The power plant was also the same. The length of the tank also has not changed, but its width has become slightly larger. With the A6E3 we got on a new machine and machine-gun turrets.


Medium Tank Mk.III in the factory workshop, 1929

The manufacture of the Medium Mk.III E1 and Medium Mk.III E2 was entrusted to the Royal Arsenal at Woolwich in 1929. They were assigned the numbers T.870 and T871. Since the radio station did not fit in the A6 conical tower, the main tower was now equipped with a well-developed aft niche, where the No. 9 radio station could be installed without problems. The commander’s turret was taken from the Medium Tank Mk.IIA.


Medium Tank Mk.III. View from above. Hemispherical hatches of machine-gun towers and the new tower are clearly visible. The commander’s turret is one, such as the “bishop’s miter”

The tanks, as they say, “went”, began to take part in maneuvers - and here the economic crisis hit England. And since the fleet has always been a priority for the government of the country, the appetites of the tankers greatly curtailed.

Therefore, in 1931, the Vickers company built the last third Medium Tank Mk.III tank, and ... that’s all. This machine was no longer manufactured. And by 1934, it was already clear and more, namely, that the tank is becoming obsolete right before our eyes.

However, the tanks were actively operated until 1938. They took part in maneuvers, they were very fond of photographing by journalists from different countries of the world, which is why these tanks were multiplied tenfold. The tankers themselves highly appreciated their fighting qualities, and according to the level of ease of maintenance, according to them, these vehicles clearly exceeded their predecessors.


British "mediums" Mk.III on maneuvers

The Vickers 16 Ton did not go unnoticed in England itself and beyond. The British military liked the idea with two machine-gun turrets in front, and as a result, it soon migrated to the Vickers Mk.E Type A light tanks, and then the Cruiser Tank Mk.I and even the German heavy tank Nb.Fz.

But the biggest impact Medium Tank Mk.III had on Soviet tank building. In 1930, the Soviet purchasing commission headed by the head of the UMM, I. A. Khalepsky, arrived in Great Britain with the aim of purchasing promising tanks for production. The Vickers company presented to the Soviet delegation its entire typical set of export combat vehicles: a Carden-Loyd Mk.VI wedge, a Vickers Mk.E light tank and a medium Medium Tank Mk.II. And all of them were bought and adopted by us. Carden-Loyd Mk.VI became the T-27 wedge, and Mk.E "turned" into the T-26.

But the British did not show us the Medium Tank Mk.III. But engineer S. Ginzburg saw him and naturally began to ask about him. But this time we never got this tank. But on his second trip to England, Ginzburg managed to "talk" with everyone he could, and as a result he learned a lot about this tank. Then the British demanded 20 thousand pounds for familiarization with its technical documentation and another 16 thousand for each tank. But smart people often do not need to look at the drawings, as this letter speaks of:

“TO THE CHAIR OF NTK UMM (Scientific and Technical Committee of the Office of Motorization and Mechanization. - Approx. Aut.).
As a result of my conversations with English instructors, the following information about the 16-ton Vickers tank was reported to me last.
The tank has already been tested and recognized as the best example of British tanks.
The overall dimensions of the tank are approximately equal to the dimensions of the 12-ton Vickers Mark II tank.
The maximum speed of 35 km (So in the text. - Approx. Aut.) Per hour.
Reservation: tower and vertical sheets of the fighting compartment 17-18 mm.
Armament: in the central tower - one "large" in the front side turrets - 1 machine gun. Total one gun and 2 machine guns.
Team: 2 officers (or one), 2 artillerymen, 2 machine gunners, 1 driver.
The 180 HP air-cooled motor has a start from an inertial starter and from an electric starter (the latter is a spare one). Start is made from inside the tank. Accessibility to the motor is good.
The pendant on each side has 7 candles with springs. Each candle rests on one of its own skating rink. Rollers are approximately six-ton ​​devices. (I mean “Vickers 6-ton.” - Approx. Aut.) The suspension informs the stability of the tank as good as the six-ton ​​tank.
Driving wheels back.
Small caterpillar with removable screwed spurs. Tracking and direction is like a six-ton ​​tank.
The central tower has an optical sight and optical surveillance.
The driver's seat in the front in the middle provides good visibility for control.
Transmission - gearbox and side clutches. Gearbox of two types: original (patented) and normal type.
The radius of action is the same as that of a six-ton ​​tank.
NOTE. Information was received only after the translator stated that we had already bought this tank and are awaiting its receipt.
Information was given: engineer mechanic-mechanic, senior master and the driver who conducted the tests of this machine. Information about the car is still classified.
APPENDIX: outline of the plan and side view of the tank.
CONCLUSION. Joining the conclusion of the instructors mentioned above that this vehicle is the best example of Andean tanks, I believe that this vehicle is of maximum interest to the Red Army as the best modern type of maneuverable medium tank.
As a result, the purchase of this machine is of invaluable interest. This machine will be released into the army units now or in the near future and, therefore, secrecy will be removed from it (as in the text. - Approx. Aut.).

The beginning of the Test. groups: / GINZBURG / ".

So those who say are very right: the talker is a godsend for the spy. But another proverb is true: the forbidden fruit is sweet! "Vickers 16-ton" in the arms of the British army in the end did not get, but the Red Army on the basis of its concept received a massive medium tank T-28!

Although it is incorrect to say that the T-28 was “from” and “to” copied from the Medium Tank Mk.III. Ginsburg, who was engaged in its development, took from the British machine only the very concept of a medium tank with a motor-transmission compartment in the stern and three towers in the bow, and a combat weight of about 16-17 tons. From a technical point of view, it was a completely different tank.


Experienced OI-I tank


OI Tank Chassis


Side view


View from above


Front and back view

The idea of ​​a two-tiered arrangement of tank weapons in the towers, besides us, was also taken up by the Japanese, who created a fleet of experimental three-tower vehicles similar to the Mk.III and T-28. The most powerful among them was to become the 100-ton OI super tank, which had three turrets with guns and one (aft) with a machine gun. Guns - 105 and 47 mm. Armor: 200 mm at the front, 150 at the rear and 75 at the sides. But due to a lack of production capacity, they were able to build only one prototype from non-armored steel and without towers, and that in 1944 was dismantled for metal.


OI tank tracks are now on display at Japan's Tagihara Self Defense Forces camp

On this the story of the English "mediums" is completely over!
Author:
Articles from this series:
Tank panopticon
53 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Mavrikiy
    Mavrikiy 24 May 2020 05: 33 New
    -3
    It was believed that the tank would call into the trench, and pour fire on them from these machine guns. This was speculatively not bad, although even then it was already known that nobody was digging trenches in a straight line. All instructions indicated that they should be laid in a zigzag pattern!
    If you can’t, but really want to, then you can. (as we have in the Duma) repeat
    1. Kote Pan Kokhanka
      Kote Pan Kokhanka 24 May 2020 06: 15 New
      10
      Vyacheslav Olegovich thanks for the essay !!!
      Time for creative throwing and searching for tank concepts !!!
      A decade later, Guderian during the invasion of France will prove the opposite.
      Blitzkrieg is not only a strike in convergent directions by tanks, but the operational interaction of all types of troops. The sappers are building bridges. Aviation strikes in the interests of regiments and battalions no later than 20 minutes after requests. Artillery and Infantry are catching up with their tanks and holding back Scattered counterattacks of the Enemy. Did the Wehrmacht understand this? I think not all! Since Guderian on the third day comes against the orders of the General Staff !!!
  2. mark1
    mark1 24 May 2020 06: 05 New
    +3
    Such a three-tower arrangement proved to be justified when accompanied by infantry and in urban battles, it would probably also show itself on the positive side.
    1. Kote Pan Kokhanka
      Kote Pan Kokhanka 24 May 2020 11: 17 New
      +1
      The two-tower Viskarss 6-ton and T-26 also suggested the possibility of longitudinal firing of trenches. In the end, they came to the conclusion that one tower is better!
      One tower is more convenient to protect with armor. Although there are conditions when an additional module with the possibility of shelling the upper floors of buildings and mountainsides did not interfere! But here you need to look for a middle ground, and it consists that it is more efficient to have a module with a mortar or automatic grenade launcher behind the tower. Which works in automatic mode for a couple with KAZ! KAZ monitors where the tank was fired from and throws a Serb mine or grenade at the target. Even better is a self-contained drone that strikes at KAZ's target designation from above! Well, somewhere like that.
  3. svp67
    svp67 24 May 2020 06: 40 New
    +7
    From the mid-20s to the mid-30s of the 20th century, England was the "trendsetter of tank fashion", so it is not surprising that all countries imitated its tanks, just someone pushed off these ideas went their own way, and someone continued something to "squeeze" out of already obsolete technical solutions and ideas.
    1. kalibr
      24 May 2020 07: 10 New
      10
      Quote: svp67
      and someone continued to "squeeze" something out of already obsolete technical solutions and ideas.

      For the most part, people are very traditional and predictable creatures ... Sharp turns scare them. And money for experiments is usually a pity. If you don’t, of course!
      1. svp67
        svp67 24 May 2020 07: 14 New
        +6
        Quote: kalibr
        For the most part, people are very traditional and predictable creatures ... Sharp turns scare them.

        This is especially true for the "Asian engineering school", which is also superimposed on folk traditions. Why are they good at bringing other people's decisions "to shine and perfection" and are very afraid to take the risk of something new, so as not to fall into the category of "losers" with whom no one wants to deal and "brought a curse on the family"
        1. kalibr
          24 May 2020 07: 15 New
          +9
          Quote: svp67
          "Asian School of Engineering",

          I have examples of this. I will have to write. Very funny...
          1. svp67
            svp67 24 May 2020 07: 28 New
            +3
            Quote: kalibr
            I have examples of this. I will have to write. Very funny...

            It would be curious ... hi
      2. Dr. Frankenstucker
        Dr. Frankenstucker 24 May 2020 16: 19 New
        +2
        Quote: kalibr
        And money for experiments is usually a pity.


        by the way, about money - no matter how surprising, but the T-28 in production was cheaper than the T-34 - 248tr (T-28 in 1939) versus 269tr (T-34 in 1940)
        1. Vladimir_2U
          Vladimir_2U 25 May 2020 09: 46 New
          0
          Quote: Dr. Frankenshtuzer
          but the T-28 in production was cheaper than the T-34 - 248tr (T-28 in 1939) versus 269tr (T-34 in 1940)
          Even if you messed up with the price of T-34, the T-28 should have been cheaper at least because of the smaller thickness of the armor worked out in the production of the carburetor engine and standardized, with the T-35 and not only towers.
          1. Dr. Frankenstucker
            Dr. Frankenstucker 25 May 2020 09: 50 New
            0
            But what have I messed up with the price?
            1. Vladimir_2U
              Vladimir_2U 25 May 2020 09: 53 New
              -1
              T-34 - 400.000 (the first models, after testing the series for 42 g., Depending on the factory, the selling price is from 166.300 (UVZ) - 209.700 (building 112) - 312.700 (building 174) rubles, experience. T- 34 - 596.373 rubles.)
              . In the 40th year, the T-34 did not cost TR 269, in the 41st yes, but not in the 40th.
    2. chenia
      chenia 24 May 2020 10: 08 New
      +2
      Quote: svp67
      and someone continued to "squeeze" something out of already obsolete technical solutions and ideas.


      For tanks of breakthrough of layered defense and infantry escort, such a concept is still relevant today (several fire channels). And BMPT most likely should have a similar layout. Yes, and for the BMP, it is also desirable to have several fire channels (turrets with a machine gun and an AG with a limited fire sector), and this is taking into account the reduction in the landing (but the increase in vehicles in the platoon (without increasing the number) to 4-5).
  4. The leader of the Redskins
    The leader of the Redskins 24 May 2020 07: 50 New
    +4
    Thank you, Vyacheslav Olegovich! A wonderful detailed article. The main materials are known to the reader, but, as they say, at a gallop across Europe, takeoff and landing. You provided rare photos and drawings.
    1. kalibr
      24 May 2020 08: 17 New
      +8
      Glad you like it. Well, if you have been "engaged in tanks" since 1980, you will inevitably begin to understand them. And the drawings ... A. Sheps made them for the book "The most famous tanks in the world." And something went in, but something did not. And part of the photo was sent to me a long time ago. I was a member of M.A.F.V.A. - British BTT Modeling Association. Whoever he met - from S. Zalogi to D. Fletcher, well, he asked to send them ... And for the book "Libyan Swing" a photo from the Imperial War Archive was paid for by the Youth Technician. It is a pity that the book never came out.
  5. Graz
    Graz 24 May 2020 08: 42 New
    +1
    but I like these tanks. it is clear that the concept of multi-tower is very outdated by the 2nd world
    But these tanks catch their eye, they would fit well into the steampunk and steampunk fantasy literature and generally the sub-culture of this genre as airships, by the way, I still worry about the latter, because they could find them in our open spaces
    1. abc_alex
      abc_alex 25 May 2020 02: 41 New
      0
      Quote: Graz
      But these tanks catch a glimpse, gee they would fit well in the steam park and steampunk

      The point is that they can fit into modern armies. After all, what is the main advantage of multi-tower tanks? The fact that they have several independent firing points. T-28 can simultaneously fire in three directions. And now we recall what the military originally wanted from the BMPT. Just a few independent firing points. Not the gun shop we did now. A full-fledged replacement for a motorized rifle platoon, capable of controlling a wide front from different directions at the same time. So, if the idea of ​​removing the infantry from the tank still develops, then the "T-28 on microcircuits" may well happen without any steampunk ...
  6. d ^ Amir
    d ^ Amir 24 May 2020 08: 47 New
    0
    many thanks to the author, very interesting !!!
  7. mmaxx
    mmaxx 24 May 2020 12: 36 New
    +2
    What a beauty!
    Iron caput!
  8. Catfish
    Catfish 24 May 2020 13: 55 New
    +1
    Great article, great selection of photo material! Thank you, Vyacheslav, keep it up! good drinks
  9. Vladimir_2U
    Vladimir_2U 25 May 2020 05: 04 New
    0
    The idea of ​​a two-tiered arrangement of tank weapons in the towers, besides us, was also picked up by the Japanese
    Having completely forgotten at the same time much more promising developments on the T-12 and T-24. There is no prophet ... But in fairness, the T-28 is probably the best pre-war tank of the USSR and definitely the best multi-turret in the world.
    1. Dr. Frankenstucker
      Dr. Frankenstucker 25 May 2020 10: 04 New
      0
      Quote: Vladimir_2U
      T-28 is probably the best pre-war tank of the USSR and definitely the best multi-tower in the world.

      Yes, the world didn’t fight with particularly multi-turret tanks. Of course, the best, because the only one who fought)
      1. Vladimir_2U
        Vladimir_2U 25 May 2020 10: 11 New
        -1
        Quote: Dr. Frankenshtuzer
        Of course, the best, because the only one who fought)

        And no! The T-35 was even more turret and he fought. ))) But I wrote about the T-28 as the best Soviet tank in general, without touching multi-tower.
        1. Dr. Frankenstucker
          Dr. Frankenstucker 25 May 2020 10: 20 New
          0
          Quote: Vladimir_2U
          T-35 was even more turret and he fought


          where did you fight ?? He needed only creep in front of the stands in parades, he could not stand a single march.
          1. Vladimir_2U
            Vladimir_2U 25 May 2020 10: 58 New
            -1
            Type "T-35 in battle" and you will find out that he is very bad, and not enough, but he fought.
          2. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 25 May 2020 11: 22 New
            +1
            Quote: Dr. Frankenshtuzer
            where did you fight ??

            In the 34th TD. The division lost most of the T-35 for technical reasons, but 6 tanks fell into combat losses.
            Tank T-35 No. 339-48 was shot down at a departure of 30.6. in the Belo Kamenka area and burned out.
            Tank T-35 No. 148-39 - was hit by an enemy in the Verby area where 30.6 burned down.
            Tank T-35 No. 220-25 was shot down during the attack in the area of ​​Ptichi 30.6 and burned down.
            Tank T-35 No. 988-16 was shot down and burned in battle in the village of Ptich 30.6.
            Tank T-35 No. 339-68 (erroneous number, probably No. 339-78. - Approx. Author) - an accident on-board friction clutches and leaking cylinder shirts. It was hit by a shell and burned down under Brody 30.6.
            Tank T-35 No. 0200-0 burned down in battle during an attack from the village of Ptichye 30.6 ...
            © Kolomiets
        2. Dr. Frankenstucker
          Dr. Frankenstucker 25 May 2020 10: 41 New
          0
          But I wrote about the T-28 as the best Soviet tank in general, without touching multi-turret.


          so he was the only middle peasant before the appearance of the t-34. What to compare it with?
          1. Vladimir_2U
            Vladimir_2U 25 May 2020 11: 03 New
            -1
            Quote: Dr. Frankenshtuzer
            so he was the only middle peasant before the t-34

            T-26 and BT-5-7 had comparable weapons and armor, wasn’t that so? The normal 76,2 mm gun appeared only at the end of the production of the T-28, and the CT was by no means better than the 45-ok. But in the Finnish War, the T-28 showed itself best.
            1. Dr. Frankenstucker
              Dr. Frankenstucker 25 May 2020 12: 00 New
              +1
              Quote: Vladimir_2U
              T-26 and BT-5-7 had comparable weapons and armor, wasn’t that so?


              so the T-26 and BT-7 are light tanks.
              Figase - "comparable" weapons - L-10 and 20-K belay
              and compare booking T-26 and T-28 is, you know ....

              But in the Finnish War, the T-28 showed itself best. (c)

              why not show? Given the weakness of the Finnish TVET - seven dozen 37mm bofors. And the famous T-28 shooting near Khotinen, emnip, happened mainly with Molotov cocktails.
              1. Vladimir_2U
                Vladimir_2U 26 May 2020 03: 58 New
                -2
                Quote: Dr. Frankenshtuzer
                Figase - "comparable" weapons - L-10 and 20-K

                I don’t need such passes; I wrote about CT
                Quote: Vladimir_2U
                and CT wasn’t better than 45

                Plus, the bumps from the 45-ok shot down, but about CT there is no such data.
                Quote: Dr. Frankenshtuzer
                and compare booking T-26 and T-28 is, you know ....

                Why not? The forehead of the hull 15 and 30, of course there is a difference, but not for the VET guns, but here the forehead of the tower is already 15 and 20 mm, for example, PTR Soloturn is unprincipled, although for Boyce it is certainly noticeable and generally with a whistle for PTA.
                Quote: Dr. Frankenshtuzer
                why not show? Given the weakness of the Finnish VET - seven dozen 37mm bofors
                However, for some reason, screening was carried out for both the T-28 and the T-26, and here there is approximately equal armor))) 40 mm for the tower. But what was acceptable for the T-28 chassis turned out to be completely excessive for the T-26. Well, only Bofors only at the beginning of the Winter War, the Finns had more than a hundred.
            2. Alexey RA
              Alexey RA 25 May 2020 16: 00 New
              0
              Quote: Vladimir_2U
              T-26 and BT-5-7 had comparable weapons and armor, wasn’t that so?

              Armament - only BT-7A.
              In armor protection, the T-28 had no analogues among the other serial tanks of the USSR of the 30s.
              Quote: Vladimir_2U
              But in the Finnish War, the T-28 showed itself best.

              In December 20, 1939 ttbr dropped to zero in three days of fighting.
              However, it was not the performance characteristics of tanks on the SPV. If the infantry did not follow the tanks, then even the T-72 would not have saved the situation. If you take the same 20 ttbr, then in the last battle of December 1939 she broke through the UR. But there was no infantry to consolidate the breakthrough and help the tanks - and the tankers, losing equipment, were forced to retreat to the original.
              1. hohol95
                hohol95 25 May 2020 16: 21 New
                0
                The chief of staff of the 138th Infantry Division reported to the headquarters of the corps that “There is no fortification ahead, the enemy is running”. Without checking this information, the command canceled the previously assigned five-hour artillery training and launched an attack on the infantry of the 123rd Infantry Division with the support of the 91st Tank Battalion.

                Are you talking about these events?
                1. Alexey RA
                  Alexey RA 25 May 2020 17: 07 New
                  0
                  Quote: hohol95
                  Are you talking about these events?

                  About them. Two divisions stormed two SD sector Summa, each of which had a pair of machine-gun "millionaires". The result was that the tanks were knocked out, the infantry rolled back, and a second assault had to be prepared for a month and a half.
                  1. hohol95
                    hohol95 26 May 2020 10: 11 New
                    0
                    By the beginning of the war (November 30, 1939), the 20th Tank Brigade had 105 T-28s. During the fighting, 67 new tanks of 1939–1940 production arrived from the Kirov Plant to replenish, thus, the total number of T-28s participating in the Soviet-Finnish war is 172 vehicles
                    The losses of the brigade in personnel for all the time of the battles amounted to 564 people - 169 killed, 338 wounded and 57 missing.
                    Of the 482 tanks lost during the battles, 386 were recovered, which will account for 80% of the losses. In addition, it is easy to notice that each T-28 participating in the war was restored at least twice (according to the documents, some cars were repaired during the battles up to 5 times!) And went into battle again. Of the total number of losses, irretrievable (that is, not recoverable) totaled only 32 T-28 tanks - 30 burned down and 2 vehicles captured by the Finns - that is, only about 7%.

                    Kolomiets Maxim Viktorovich "Medium tank T-28. Stalin's three-headed monster"
                    Nevertheless, the bulk of the T-28 was repaired and continued fighting until the very end of the Winter War.
                    1. Alexey RA
                      Alexey RA 26 May 2020 15: 27 New
                      0
                      Quote: hohol95
                      Nevertheless, the bulk of the T-28 was repaired and continued fighting until the very end of the Winter War.

                      I do not argue with that. But repair took time. And in December 1939, the 20th armored combat vehicle on combat-ready tanks went to zero - there was practically nothing to fight.
                      17.12.1939/91/XNUMX, after one attack, he moved to the unstable XNUMXst TB.
                      After the battle on December 17, the 91st tank battalion was not combat-ready. 7 people were killed, 22 wounded, including the commander of the battalion Major Drozdov, 16 were missing, including the commissar of the battalion Dubovsky. Of the 21 T-28 tanks sent to attack, 5 vehicles arrived at the assembly point, 2 were delivered to SPAM. The rest of the materiel needs repair, which is done. 4 cars burned down on the battlefield, 1 turned upside down with tracks in the anti-tank ditch, 1 - no one knows where. During an attack, VET up to 5 pcs., Bunkers up to 3 pcs. Due to the fact that the infantry did not go and remained behind the bulges, which are north of the height of 65,5 to 500 m, this area is not occupied by our troops.

                      December 18 and 19.12.1939, 90 the same thing happened with the 91th TB. Plus, the remnants of the 19.12.1939st TB were finally finished. Only on 20/29/28 the XNUMXth Ttbr lost XNUMX T-XNUMXs.
                      1. hohol95
                        hohol95 26 May 2020 17: 17 New
                        0
                        There is no artillery, no infantry. There are no means of evacuation. Here are the losses. But the good maintainability of the tank helped restore a large number of wrecked vehicles. And without the armor-piercing and OFS shells of the T-28 guns, it would have been even more difficult. 45 mm shells would clearly not be able to cope with the suppression of Finnish bunkers and bunkers!
                      2. Alexey RA
                        Alexey RA 26 May 2020 18: 29 New
                        0
                        Quote: hohol95
                        There is no artillery, no infantry.

                        So the tank brigade of the NPP is the same! smile
                        All support in theory should be provided by the infantry, which was assigned to the armor. But Theory, my friend, is dry, But the tree of life is green - and with us this tree was most often oak. In the sense that the infantry commanders considered tanks a universal means of solving all problems, capable of operating without support. So let the tankers do everything themselves, and then the infantry will occupy the territory captured by the tankers.
                        Quote: hohol95
                        And without the armor-piercing and OFS shells of the T-28 guns, it would have been even more difficult. 45 mm shells would clearly not be able to cope with the suppression of Finnish bunkers and bunkers!

                        I’ll say an seditious thought now ... it was possible not to suppress the pillbox and bunker at all with the fire of tank guns. Instead, it was possible to simply block the shelling sectors of the tank corps, since there were once or two cannon bunkers on the LM in 1939 and miscalculated, and they stood on Vuoksa. In the Summa sector as of December 1939 there were no cannon dos.
                        Even if the tank blocking the embrasure were knocked out, the shelling sector didn’t release it anyway.
                        A similar tactic was used in 1945 in the Manchu operation:
                        A typical assault group could include about 12 sappers, 8 machine gunners, and one or two mighty self-propelled guns ISU-152. Such a group had about half a ton of explosives. As a rule, the sapper squad of the assault detachment carried, in addition to personal weapons, four small charges (3 kg each) of explosives, two or three large 10-kilogram charges, ten incendiary tubes, a pair of sticks 4 m long, a pair of blades and flashlights. Each sapper carried with him an empty bag.
                        The assault group was divided into subgroups. The subgroups of the barrage (4 sappers and a submachine gunner’s squad), covered by artillery and mortar fire, searched for mines and made passages in barbed wire. Behind them on the self-propelled guns advanced subgroups of attack (2 sappers, including the commander) and support (6 sappers). Submachine gunners from the blocking subgroup cleared the message passages, bypassed a specific bunker and monitored exits from it, firing at them if necessary. Self-propelled guns approached the bunker, hit the embrasures, or closed them with the body. The sappers from the attack subgroup threw grenades into the loopholes, covered them with a combat damper using a pole or hammered with bags of earth, and then put explosives inside.
            3. Vladimir_2U
              Vladimir_2U 26 May 2020 04: 03 New
              -1
              Quote: Alexey RA
              Armament - only BT-7A

              Well, I don’t know, of course the L-10 is not comparable with the 45 mm 20-K, but I was talking about CT.
              Quote: Alexey RA
              In armor protection, the T-28 had no analogues among the other serial tanks of the USSR of the 30s.
              Only the forehead of the hull is 30 mm, the forehead of the tower is only 20 mm against 15 mm in the T-26.
              Quote: Alexey RA
              If the infantry did not follow the tanks, then even the T-72 would not have saved the situation.
              100 percent agree.
            4. hohol95
              hohol95 26 May 2020 09: 55 New
              0
              By the beginning of hostilities, the brigade included: brigade control (2 T-28 and 3 BT), 90th, 91st and 95th tank battalions (31 T-28 and 3 BT in each), 301st separate motor battalion, 256th separate repair and restoration battalion, 302nd chemical company, 215th separate reconnaissance company, 57th separate communications company, 45th separate anti-aircraft machine-gun company, 65th separate tank reserve company, 38th separate sapper company, total - 2926 people, 145 tanks (T-28 - 105, BHM-3 - 11, BT-5 - 8, BT-7 - 21), 20 armored vehicles (BA-6 - 5, BA-20 - 15), 34 cars and 278 trucks, 27 auto-kitchens, 4 Komintern tractors, 16 motorcycles, 12 Maxima four anti-aircraft machine guns on cars. The brigade was commanded by brigade commander S. Borzilov, the commissar was regimental commissar Kulik.

              Not only T-28s were part of the brigade.
    2. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 25 May 2020 10: 56 New
      +1
      Quote: Dr. Frankenshtuzer
      Yes, the world didn’t fight with particularly multi-turret tanks. Of course, the best, because the only one who fought)

      But what about the Tank Cruiser Mk.I aka A9?
      1. Dr. Frankenstucker
        Dr. Frankenstucker 25 May 2020 11: 11 New
        0
        agree, not right about the "only")
      2. hohol95
        hohol95 25 May 2020 15: 05 New
        0
        They forgot about the Cruiser Tank Mk.VI which in September 1941 became the “Cruzader” Mk.I (Crusader - “Crusader”), and the version with enhanced reservation was now designated as the “Cruzader” Mk.II.
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 25 May 2020 18: 14 New
          +1
          Quote: hohol95
          They forgot about the Cruiser Tank Mk.VI which in September 1941 became the "Cruiser" Mk.I

          I remember about him. Just two-tower tanks fought a lot - from the first T-26 to M3.

          The main caliber - in the casemate, the middle and mine - in the towers, the towers are stacked on top of each other - the naval would kill for a ship with a similar arrangement of artillery. smile Although ... this is the gunboat on the tracks!
          1. hohol95
            hohol95 25 May 2020 21: 45 New
            0
            An article on the British "quest for the perfect medium tank". So I reminded you of the "Crusader".
            The Americans had the smallest tank building experience of all of their tank producing countries until World War II. Then they gained experience and, in terms of newcomers, they were replaced by Australians and Canadians.
            Among Canadians, their offspring Ram II was also equipped with a separate machine-gun turret on the port side.
            1. AllBiBek
              AllBiBek 26 May 2020 15: 39 New
              0
              Why are Americans when the Poles?
              They began to produce 7TR in the early 30s.
              In the amers during the interwar period, design thought boiled in all directions.
              1. hohol95
                hohol95 26 May 2020 17: 08 New
                0
                In the amers during the interwar period, design thought boiled in all directions.

                And to what extent did she "seethe" to the beginning of WWII?
                The Polish 7TPs were much better than those vehicles with which the US Army entered the war.
                M2A1 (1935).
                .50 BMG machine gun in a single tower. 1935 units were produced in 10 (T2E1 - No. 1, M2A1 No. 2-10, USA registration numbers W 30101-30109).
                M2A2 (1935), named "May West".
                Double tower. 238 units were produced: 1935–9 (Nos. 11–19, USA W 30110–30119), 1936–125 (Nos. 20–144) 1937–104 (Nos. 145–248); registration numbers of tanks 1936-37 years of release were in the range of USA W 30120-30368.
                M2A3 (1938).
                Double tower. Thicker armor, improved chassis. 1938 units were produced in 73 (Nos. 249–321, USA W 30369–30441).
                M2A4 (1940).
                Single turret with a 37 mm cannon. Reinforced armor. 375 units produced.
                The only ones who fought were the M2A4 tanks!
          2. Vladimir_2U
            Vladimir_2U 26 May 2020 04: 07 New
            -1
            Quote: Alexey RA
            The main caliber is in the casemate

            More often mention sponson. Yes, and multi-rage))) the location is not entirely multi-tower, otherwise I would definitely mention it.
            1. Alexey RA
              Alexey RA 26 May 2020 15: 32 New
              +1
              Quote: Vladimir_2U
              More often mention sponson.

              This I consider the M3 from the point of view of the naval. smile
              It's just that every time you look at the M3, you immediately remember Kirsaj with Virginia.
        2. Vladimir_2U
          Vladimir_2U 26 May 2020 04: 04 New
          -1
          I didn’t mention him, patam just two towers. )))
    3. volodimer
      volodimer 25 May 2020 12: 19 New
      +1
      Yes, the world didn’t fight with particularly multi-turret tanks. Of course, the best, because the only one who fought)
      Well, they fought, and the creators of the multi-tower concept themselves. Success was at the T-35 level, but far from the T-28.

  • Dr. Frankenstucker
    Dr. Frankenstucker 25 May 2020 09: 05 New
    0
    The idea of ​​a two-tiered arrangement of tank weapons in the towers, besides us, was also picked up by the Japanese


    Type 95 only 4 copies were collected. It can be said to the same extent about the Germans that they "picked up the idea." They also built five Nb.Fts))
  • Chirico qb
    Chirico qb 5 June 2020 16: 40 New
    0
    It is a mistake to say that the Japanese type 89 is a licensed product.
    This is a reference to the design of the medium tank C, but it is not a licensed production or a dead copy.