Military Review

Our tank panopticon: T-34, which were and which could be

131

Tank T-34-76 arr. 1940 year. Here with such tanks it all started ... A short cannon (so as not to interfere with breaking the walls!), a double tower with one hatch for two. His very first and almost early design, apart from experienced images


About tanks with love. Today we again go to our tank panopticon, but the goal of our "trip" will be only one tank. But what a! Our T-34 is a tank about which probably everyone has heard, and without mention of which it is not enough for one book about the Second World War, neither here, nor in the West. “Their T-34 was the best in the world!” This was not said by anyone, but by a German general. And this is probably the most serious praise of the tank.


And so he looked from all sides. Fig. M. Shmitova

Our tank panopticon: T-34, which were and which could be

Despite the war, very interesting books were published in the USSR. In particular, the book of Drozhin "Land Cruisers." How is she good? After all, it seems that they didn’t write about much then ... It’s good that it was written, like many Soviet books for young people, in a beautiful, understandable and accessible language. So these books were clear to the student and interesting to the academician! Therefore, I will give advice to those who decide to write about tanks today: start by reading the books of your predecessors, and this is a must!


But this is Beskurnikov’s book. There is one funny blunder there, but we’ll somehow tell about it in another article


The book “Knights of Armor” is interesting in that it tells about the profession of tank test

I found out about this tank for a long time. In Soviet times, his images and sections were in the magazine "Young Technician", and "Model Designer," and "Science and Life", and even ... in the magazine "Murzilka". It was told about him both in the book of O. Drozhzhin “Land cruisers” (1942), and in the book of A. Beskurnikov “Strike and defense” (1974), and in the book of N. Ermolovich “Knights of armor” (1976 ), and by I. Shmelev “Tanks in battle” (1984), and, of course, in his “Stories tanka (1916-1996) ”(1996). And these are only the most popular publications, so to speak. And after all, there were special monographs (beautifully published) by a number of other, very competent authors, such as M. Kolomiets, the author of the book “T-34. The First Complete Encyclopedia ”(2013).


Very modern and beautifully designed book by M. Kolomiyets


This book is also framed with photographs and drawings, many of which are taken from our “tank panopticon”. 2017 Edition


Well, this is an example of how books should not be reprinted. The same publishing house, but the year 2019 ... Look carefully at the name of the author. Moreover, inside the book, in the annotation, everything is correct. And now we are still wondering why Hitler soldiers flaunted on our posters dedicated to the 75th anniversary of the Victory! Over time, many show a disregard ... Hence, the photos are not the same, and the names too


Books about him were published abroad. For example, the renowned American BTT specialist Stephen Zaloga published a book in the New Vanguard series in 1994, T-34/76 Medium Tank 1941–45 (New Vanguatd 9), in the Osprey Publishing House. followed by: “T-34-85 Medium Tank” (New Vanguatd 20)

In a word, there are so many books about the T-34, including even his participation in the war in Korea and in the conflict in Croatia, that it’s just right to write a full-fledged historiographic review about them, but it is unlikely that anyone will need it today.


Model of Revell firm 1:76

For modelers, the T-34 models are produced by the most famous model firms, including Tamiya, Revell and our Star, of course. And on a variety of scales. From 1: 100 to 1:10 and 1: 6! That is, information on this tank is very much, and the most diverse.


The model of the company "Tamiya" 1:35


In 1942, many tanks received not only additional tower reservations, which, as it turned out, were most often hit by German shells, but also wheels without a rubber coating, since the rubber in the USSR was sorely lacking. The rumble produced by these tanks was heard from afar ... However, they fought! Fig. Shmitova

But among all this undoubted wealth there is a place for our collection.


Note that during the war years, technology improved very quickly. Compare the T-34 mod. 40 years old and this one - 1942. The hull remained virtually unchanged, but a new hexagonal tower appeared on the tank, nicknamed the “nut” (it was a cast and welded version, but recently there was an excellent series of articles about welding tank armor on the VO!). For two round sunroofs, the Germans nicknamed him “Mickey Mouse”


The 43-year-old model received the commander’s turret, although there were still two people in the tower. But at least on the march, the machine commander could now have a circular view


At the very beginning of the war it became clear that the T-34's armor was still thin and it would be nice to increase its thickness. A flood of letters with suggestions on how best to do this poured into the relevant authorities. Work on additional reservations began at the factories. It has been observed that armor that is located at some distance from the main armor protects better. Here is one of these projects of a tank with spaced armor



The Germans, who captured many T-34 tanks, also used them and also strengthened their armor by shielding


On some tanks, they installed commander's turrets from the T-III and T-IV tanks. Fig. M. Shmitova


Options for cutting armor plates of additional armoring of T-34 tanks in 1941-1942.

However, in the end, the simpler scheme of additional reservation of the tank won by welding on the frontal reservation of the body of additional plates of armor. It is known that the thickness of the armor on the frontal projection was 45 mm. Thus, having welded a sheet with a thickness of only 10 mm, we get a total thickness of 55 mm, and if 15, then in the end there will be all 60 (booking an experimental T-46-5 tank). Well, a 20-mm plate altogether gave 75 mm, that is, the T-34 reservation on this indicator correlated with the reservation of the KV tank. Not always, however, the factories had armor plates of the required thickness, and then the sandwich armor was invented: 10 + 5 + 5 + 45 - that’s 75 mm. Even armor sheets 35 mm thick were put, that is, such a tank received 80 mm frontal armor! True, such a reservation increased weight, pressure on the front rollers and suspension springs, but, nevertheless, put up with it. And the life span of our tanks on the battlefield was so small that the suspension did not have time to wear out!


T-34 with hatches on the sides

But in this figure we see four projections of the T-34 of an not quite ordinary form. It seems to be a tank of 1941, but some of them are not like that. And this, so to speak, is a tank of the IF brand (“If ...”), which represents the author’s imagination on improving the original model. Many tankers complained that the hatch on the front armored plate was a bad decision. Often the tank was hit by shells precisely through the hatch, especially of large caliber. One possible solution to this problem could be to use a solid armor plate without a cut for the hatch, but only with two narrow slots (a tradition of those years!) For observation and with three periscopes on the roof of the hull. But hatches could well be placed on the sides of the hull, as the British did on many of their tanks, in particular, on the Valentine tank.


T-34 1941 model with sunroofs

But the T-34IF tank with a modified slope of the frontal armor and an increased body width with a reverse inclination of the side sheets of the body armor, covered with another layer of thinner armor with hatches for inventory in the area of ​​the fenders. Such a scheme would allow moving the tower a little back and placing hatches, a driver and a radio operator-gunner on the roof of the building left and right. Which, in principle, was then done on the T-44 tank, although the side armor sheets did not have a slope


T-34 1942 model with sunroofs

In this figure, the width of the tank hull is left unchanged, but the slope of the front hull armor plate is changed. Accordingly, this would make it possible to mark both hatches on the roof of the hull, that is, each crew member to provide their own hatch. Since the inclination of the armor would be reduced, to compensate for this drawback could be an increase in the thickness of the armor plate to 52 mm This is exactly the slope of the frontal armor that was on the American Sherman tanks (51/56 °). That is, the Americans considered such armor for their medium tank to be quite sufficient. It would be no worse than protecting our tank, but the convenience of the driver and the arrow on it would increase in a very noticeable way.

It should be borne in mind that the analysis of damage to the frontal armor showed that its inclination leads to ricochet of shells only if the caliber of the shell is not more than the thickness of the armor, that is, for German guns this is a maximum of 37 and 50 mm. But with an increase in caliber, the probability of a projectile ricochet from an inclined sheet decreases very quickly. For shells of 88 mm caliber, the inclined armor of the T-34 hull already had almost no effect on its armor resistance. On the other hand, a sheet of armor located vertically at an angle of 60 ° is almost equal to a sheet of armor of double thickness: 1 / cos (60 °) = 2, which makes it possible to rationally cover the internal volume with armor and reduce the total weight of the armor on the tank. That is, the less the armor is tilted, the better, in principle, but a 52 ° tilt with a thickness of 52 mm can be considered almost optimal. And besides, hatches from above!


T-34-85 with a gun D5T

It is known that during the war two versions of the T-34/85 tank were produced: with an 85-mm D-5T gun (early version) and the same-sized ZIS-S-53 gun, which was considered more convenient to use and technologically advanced in production . But since the D-5T was ready earlier, they started to put it on the tanks first.


T-34-85 with spaced reservation

The use of cumulative ammunition by the Germans at the end of the war again led to the need to equip tanks with spaced armor. Here is one of the projects of such an additional reservation. But, as always, the projects were in one place, and the tanks in another, so our tankers had to “book” their tanks with bed nets and garden bars. There are photos in which such tanks can be seen, but in our panopticon their drawings, unfortunately, are absent.

PS The site administration and the author express sincere gratitude to A. Sheps, the author of the Panopticon illustrations, and also to M. Shmitov for the BTT drawings.

To be continued ...
Author:
Articles from this series:
Monsters in armor
"Goblin Reserve." Tanks in layouts and pictures
Tank panopticon
131 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. irontom
    irontom 7 June 2020 05: 11 New
    17
    With all due respect to the author, at first glance, confusion and repetition of outdated information on screening, I quickly ran through the article (there is no time to run to work). On Varaspot there is an excellent article by Pashilok on T-34 shielding, experimental work, as well as on "Bed nets", as I remember the same Pashilok writes that with a bed net this is the only tank whose photo walks on the network, the rest were equipped with factory-made screens ...
    1. Pessimist22
      Pessimist22 7 June 2020 05: 53 New
      +2
      The article is written about books on Soviet armored vehicles, including foreign authors, about models that are produced on different scales and drawings that are the authors' own interpretation.
      1. irontom
        irontom 7 June 2020 13: 28 New
        +4
        I myself am a wall model-maker and an alternative engineer, even though over time, and tied up, T-34 35 to the scale of Tamiya production with shielding in the version of the Krasnoye Sormovo plant, and the conversion into a German trophy with crosses and screens has been gathering dust on the shelves since the late 90s. T-34-85 with screens in the form of bed nets was never completed.
    2. Operator
      Operator 7 June 2020 17: 15 New
      -2
      The article on VO is the very place in the "History" section - there is now the greatest concentration of illiterate and Russophobic materials like a soap series about the great and terrible Galicia-Volyn principality, which outstripped Kiev, Novgorod, Vladimir and Suzdal in its development (as well as Rome, Sumer is everywhere). Okrainian-preoccupied folk historians really insert their own nonsense up to the presence of mayors (foremen) of cities and guilds of artisans (city community) in pre-Mongol Galich and Volynia laughing

      It is sad that folk history is already overflowing into the "Armament" section.
  2. Egoza
    Egoza 7 June 2020 05: 40 New
    16
    Not quite sure why "freak show"?
    The word panopticon literally stands for Greek as "a space in which everything is visible." Now it is most often used in a figurative meaning - they say so when they describe a bunch of freaks or as a synonym for Kunstkamera.
    1. Kote Pan Kokhanka
      Kote Pan Kokhanka 8 June 2020 06: 30 New
      +1
      In his first article, the author described the goals and objectives of the series. If in your own words, based on the drawings, create a platform (space) for discussing armored vehicles.
    2. Pavel57
      Pavel57 8 June 2020 15: 06 New
      +2
      PANOPTIKUM - Museum of wax figures and various rarities.
  3. Andrey VOV
    Andrey VOV 7 June 2020 05: 53 New
    24
    If you honestly did not fully understand what the article was about? There were many gorgeous publications in which, to the smallest detail, literally "bone by bone" understood the T-34 from the drawings and every detail, all the pros and cons, and so on, but here ... it seems that for show, no more.
    1. Mordvin 3
      Mordvin 3 7 June 2020 08: 37 New
      15
      Quote: Andrey VOV
      To be honest, I did not fully understand what the article was about?

      About the book of the author, Shpakovsky V.O. laughing
    2. Krasnoyarsk
      Krasnoyarsk 7 June 2020 09: 32 New
      12
      Quote: Andrey VOV
      To be honest, I did not fully understand what the article was about?

      What is incomprehensible here? Article about Shpakovsky.
      And about the models of tanks a la T-34.
  4. Kuroneko
    Kuroneko 7 June 2020 06: 53 New
    17
    It is known that the thickness of the armor on the frontal projection was 45 mm. Thus, having welded a sheet with a thickness of only 10 mm, we get a total thickness of 55 mm, and if 15, then in the end there will be all 60 (booking an experimental T-46-5 tank). Well, a 20-mm plate altogether gave 75 mm, that is, the T-34 reservation on this indicator correlated with the reservation of the KV tank.

    Actually, 45 + 20 in total gives 65. = _ =
    But the author immediately continues his "alternative mathematics":
    Not always, however, the factories had armor plates of the required thickness and then the sandwich armor was invented: 10 + 5 + 5 + 45 - that's 75 mm.

    Mdja ...
    1. opus
      opus 7 June 2020 17: 09 New
      0
      Quote: Kuroneko
      Mdja ...

      you did not consider air spaces .....
      wink
      Quote: Author
      Well, a 20-mm plate altogether gave 75 mm, that is, the T-34 reservation on this indicator correlated with the reservation of the KV tank.

      he meant 45mm + 10mm + 20mm = 75mm
      Quote: author
      10 + 5 + 5 + 45 - that's 75 mm.

      10 + 10 = 10 + 45 =95 75
      1. Tima62
        Tima62 7 June 2020 22: 15 New
        +1
        Quote: opus
        he meant 45mm + 10mm + 20mm = 75mm

        Or maybe we’ll not think over the author? When he added a 15 mm sheet, he did not put a dozen under it, for some reason there were no interlayers there.
        1. opus
          opus 7 June 2020 22: 28 New
          +1
          Quote: Tima62
          Or maybe we’ll not think over the author?

          or maybe we’ll relax the brain a little (if any) and take everything as a joke?
  5. mark1
    mark1 7 June 2020 07: 04 New
    +3
    I agree with the side hatches, I also gradually came to such a decision, this would be the most optimal. Changing the angle of inclination of the VLD under the conditions of the series would probably not be desirable since it is necessary to change the dimensions and geometry of almost all joined sheets (again, the load on the front rollers). To move the tower back by 30-35 centimeters could be possible with the drive gear of the final drive behind the driven gear (180 ° turn).
    1. Kuroneko
      Kuroneko 7 June 2020 07: 23 New
      +8
      Quote: mark1
      I agree with the side hatches, I also gradually came to such a decision, this would be the most optimal

      Side hatches with "candle" suspension? I would like to see what kind of snake one had to squeeze into ...
      1. mark1
        mark1 7 June 2020 07: 39 New
        +2
        There is enough space between the second and third skating rinks (about 1 m). If you put a "candle" at the second roller
        tax first, then it is possible to leave the tank directly from the driver’s seat.
    2. Tima62
      Tima62 7 June 2020 22: 24 New
      +1
      About the candle pendant already said. And about the gearbox - There was such a topic on an alternative story. Only the engine rests on the checkpoint, and the checkpoint rests on the stern sheet, where to move them? Turn the gearbox, leave the overhanging stern behind (so as not to overhang, make the stern upright, save a dozen centimeters), move the rollers forward relative to the hull, lengthen the hull ... in general, design a new tank - welcome to alternative tank building.
      1. mark1
        mark1 8 June 2020 05: 51 New
        +2
        Quote: Tima62
        welcome to alternative tank building.

        In this case, it is alternative to any.
        The candle suspension, as I said, will not hinder the passage into the side hatch.
        The reversal of the gearboxes, of course, leads to a significant alteration of the stern (naturally vertical with the reverse tilt of the rear top sheet). It was abandoned for this reason during the pre-war modernization of the T-34. It can be considered as some kind of alternative (not indisputable) to the transverse arrangement of the engine. Such a refinement could be used in the design of the T-34-100 (first of all, the problem of overloading the front rollers is solved. (The BT-7 had a staggering feed, they lived like that, and the T-54 also
        1. mark1
          mark1 8 June 2020 06: 03 New
          +1
          About T-54, search, T-72
        2. Tima62
          Tima62 8 June 2020 20: 25 New
          0
          Quote: mark1
          The reversal of the reducers, of course, leads to a significant alteration of the stern (naturally vertical with the reverse tilt of the rear top sheet).

          Not only feed - the entire hull. Driving wheels almost abut against the rear rollers, therefore - when turning the gearboxes they must be moved forward, that's all.
          Of course, a plus - tanks from the fighting compartment can be carried to the stern.
          But there is nowhere to move the box with the motor back - you need to lengthen the body in front, giving a place for the rollers ahead.
          And this is a new longer and heavier body - that is, a new tank.

          And about BT 7 the hull in the stern does not hang - only the stern tank
  6. Icelord
    Icelord 7 June 2020 08: 14 New
    -10
    Well, of course, t 34 76 was fear and horror flying on the wings of the night, but 34 85 is nothing, not the Sherman, of course, but not the grave
    1. evgeniy.plotnikov.2019mail.ru
      evgeniy.plotnikov.2019mail.ru 10 June 2020 09: 00 New
      0
      Do not be offended, dear lcelord, but you do not own the information. Repeat the anti-Soviet ravings of fools and scoundrels.
      ... By 1941, the T-34 was nicknamed "Ballerina". There are no worthy opponents from the word ,, quite ,,. How eggshell could crush the corps of German ,, units ,, and ,, deuces ,,. What could primitive klepanovy Czechs tell him?
      If the tank was bad, it wouldn’t have been admired — in its military diaries, which later became memoirs — it would not have been used in its elite formations. It was the T-34-76 that showed itself well in N and x and in 1943. And the Soviet T-34-76 stormed Berlin. It is necessary to KNOW and be proud of the exploits of the designers, workers and soldiers of Soviet Russia. Unless, of course, among them were your ancestors. However, you can love the TRUTH if you have the ancestors of ANY nationality, religion, and color
      1. Icelord
        Icelord 10 June 2020 10: 53 New
        0
        The Germans began to admire when otmazatsya in front of Hitler for the failure of the blitzkrieg was necessary, but the Shermans were still in the guard
        1. Icelord
          Icelord 10 June 2020 10: 54 New
          +1
          And my religion is ordinary, Catholic
  7. Sakmagon
    Sakmagon 7 June 2020 08: 31 New
    10
    Short gun (so as not to interfere with the wall breaking!

    In one phrase, the entire level of certainty ...
    The 43-year-old model received the commander’s turret, although there were still two people in the tower. But at least on the march the commander of the machine could now have a circular view

    ?????
    1. Mordvin 3
      Mordvin 3 7 June 2020 08: 53 New
      +2
      Quote: Sacmagon
      at least on the march

      And in the battle, probably, the commander with the tower's hatch protruded and the all-round visibility stopped its work. crying
    2. Krasnoyarsk
      Krasnoyarsk 7 June 2020 09: 37 New
      +6
      Quote: Sacmagon

      Short gun (so as not to interfere with the wall breaking!
      In one phrase, the entire level of certainty ...

      Well, what are you, really ....
      The author is sure that the long-barreled gun will bend when breaking the walls, but the short one will not.
      Logics!!!
      1. Octopus
        Octopus 7 June 2020 12: 47 New
        +1
        Quote: Krasnoyarsk
        and the short one is not.
        Logics!!!

        Initially, the gun is so short that it does not go beyond the envelope. The tank hits the obstacle with the bow beam (more precisely, with the VLD / NLD angle, there were no beams on the first vehicles).
        1. Krasnoyarsk
          Krasnoyarsk 7 June 2020 15: 58 New
          -1
          Quote: Octopus

          Initially, the gun is so short that it does not go beyond the envelope.

          Yeah. And this is clearly visible in the photo of the T-34 model of 1940. wassat
          In fact, the short-barreled cannon proceeded from the concept of using a tank in battle.
          Like the Germans, the tank is a means of strengthening the advancing infantry, striking near targets; machine-gun nests, art. HE shells shells. For this purpose, he does not need a powerful, long-barreled gun. Subsequently, the concept has changed. With us earlier, with the Germans, based on our experience in fighting the T-34, later.
          1. Octopus
            Octopus 7 June 2020 16: 05 New
            +3
            Quote: Krasnoyarsk
            Yeah. And this is clearly visible in the photo of the T-34 model of 1940.

            The photo above clearly shows that the cut of the gun does not go beyond the envelope. OK, not VLD, but a guide sprocket.
            Quote: Krasnoyarsk
            In fact, the short-barreled cannon proceeded from the concept of using a tank in battle.

            Yes.
            Quote: Krasnoyarsk
            With us earlier, with the Germans, based on our experience in fighting the T-34, later.

            On the contrary. The Germans came up with the idea of ​​a long-barreled gun with increased anti-aircraft capabilities following the results of France, somewhat delayed with rearmament.
            As for the USSR, the replacement of the Kirov gun with the Hrabian gun is due to production, not tactical considerations.
            1. Krasnoyarsk
              Krasnoyarsk 7 June 2020 16: 24 New
              0
              Quote: Octopus

              On the contrary. The Germans came to the idea of ​​a long-barreled gun with increased anti-aircraft capabilities following the results of France,

              Did they tell you this? Was there a tank battle in France? But border tank battles in the USSR in 41 were. And the German T-3 and T-4 lost to our T-34 and KV.
              Quote: Octopus

              As for the USSR, the replacement of the Kirov gun with the Hrabian gun is due to production, not tactical considerations.

              Do you want to say that Grabin, having received the task of developing a tank gun, stupidly, not understanding the concept of using a tank in battle, adapted his F-22?
              Or did he take into account the concept of using a tank?
              1. Octopus
                Octopus 7 June 2020 16: 32 New
                +4
                Quote: Krasnoyarsk
                Did they tell you this?

                Yes.
                Quote: Krasnoyarsk
                Was there a tank battle in France?

                Yes. You should be interested in the story.
                Quote: Krasnoyarsk
                German T-3 and T-4 lost to our T-34 and KV.

                I mean, take an interest in a real story, not an alternative one.
                Quote: Krasnoyarsk
                Or did he take into account the concept of using a tank?

                Grabin has no idea how to use tanks there. Which is much worse, and the GABTU understood this quite roughly. Let me remind you that the result of the activity, including the GABTU, was the famous mechanized corps of the 41st year with at least 6 types of tanks and 4 types of fuel.
                Quote: Krasnoyarsk
                adapted your F-22?

                What do you mean "your"? Grabin at that time was primarily a technologist, he adapted the tsarist division of 1902 for different needs. Sometimes successful, more often not. And he had only one gun, so the question of what to put on the T-34 did not arise.
                1. Krasnoyarsk
                  Krasnoyarsk 7 June 2020 16: 44 New
                  0
                  Quote: Octopus

                  Grabin has no idea how to use tanks there. Which is much worse, and the GABTU understood this quite roughly.

                  Maybe. But! He could not begin work on a tank gun without receiving TTT (tactical and technical requirements) from the customer.
                  And they just indicated everything, and the power of the gun and its ballistics. And this is, to a large extent, the length of the trunk.
                  Quote: Octopus
                  Quote: Krasnoyarsk
                  Was there a tank battle in France?

                  Yes. You should be interested in the story.

                  I don’t argue here.
                  Quote: Octopus
                  German T-3 and T-4 lost to our T-34 and KV.

                  I mean, take an interest in a real story, not an alternative one.

                  Do you dispute this?
                  1. Octopus
                    Octopus 7 June 2020 17: 09 New
                    +2
                    Quote: Krasnoyarsk
                    He could not begin work on a tank gun without receiving TTT (tactical and technical requirements) from the customer.

                    Again. He already had a trunk, he is alone. The task is to put him in a tank. Everything, nothing more.
                    By the way, this is quite a reasonable idea. Here you are not England, do a new caliber every 5 years.
                    Quote: Krasnoyarsk
                    Do you dispute this?

                    What is it"?
                    What the Germans lost border fights?
                    1. Krasnoyarsk
                      Krasnoyarsk 7 June 2020 21: 41 New
                      -2
                      Quote: Octopus

                      Again. He already had a trunk, he is alone. The task is to put him in a tank. Everything, nothing more.

                      Do not simplify. The barrel is not a gun. Once again, even if there was a trunk, then it had to comply with the TTT. The barrel is customized for TTT, and not vice versa.
                      Quote: Octopus
                      What did the Germans lose frontier fights?

                      Do not jerk. You perfectly understood what I mean. The Germans lost the battle of tanks against tanks. But they, of course, do not mean tank battles, they decided the outcome of the battles of 41 g.
                      1. Octopus
                        Octopus 7 June 2020 22: 18 New
                        +1
                        Quote: Krasnoyarsk
                        The barrel is customized for TTT, and not vice versa.

                        Well, Grabin was just a big supporter of the principle "eat what you give" and often behaved brutally with the customer.

                        Quote: Krasnoyarsk
                        Once again, even if there was a barrel, then it had to comply with the TTT

                        On the contrary.
                        They passed the tests, but were not accepted, since the Kirov plant could not deliver either the F-32 guns or the L-11. There was a real war of the plant for its design - the L-11 gun. Despite the decision of ABTU in favor of the F-32, the plant continued to improve the design of the L-11. In late May 1940, joint tests of the L-11 and F-32 in BT-7A tanks took place, showing small advantages of the F-32. Therefore, in June 1940, a decision was made to roll out serial production of F-32 not only at LKZ, but also at factories No. 92 and No. 13 with a production program in 1941, respectively 2500, 2000 and 700 units.
                        But by this time OKB-92, led by V. Grabin, proposed to GAU the design of a new, 76,2 mm F-34 tank gun, which had more power than the F-32 (the barrel length was 41 caliber versus 30 caliber of the F-32), was simpler and therefore had to have less cost and complexity in manufacturing... The art department accepted the project, issuing an order to conduct field tests of the gun in September 1940. However, the People's Commissariat of Defense, in a letter dated June 13, already recommended equipping the "improved T-34 tank" with this particular model of a tank gun, which was the most powerful in the world at that time. but which still had to be created and tested.

                        Quote: Krasnoyarsk
                        The Germans lost the battle of tanks against tanks.

                        Of course not.

                        In your head sits conditional Kolobanov. The Germans have already seen such kolobanov, and such tanks.
                        Boyot is known for his outstanding achievements on May 16, 1940 during the battle for the French village of Ston. Boyot served in the 1st company of the 41st Tank Battalion, armed with Char B1 heavy tanks. Captain Bijot, commander of the Char B1 Bis tank, nicknamed the Eure, was sent to capture the village of Ston, guarded by part of the German 8th Tank Regiment. The village was already the scene of fierce battles, passed from hand to hand several times and was in a strategically significant place along the road to Sedan. On May 16, under heavy fire from German tanks, Biyot and his B1 Bis were able to break through the German defenses and destroyed two German tanks PzKpfw IV, eleven PzKpfw III and two guns. Char B1-bis Biyota received 140 hits from German tanks and guns, but not one could penetrate his heavy armor.


                        Did not impress.
                      2. Krasnoyarsk
                        Krasnoyarsk 8 June 2020 08: 40 New
                        -1
                        Quote: Octopus

                        Well, Grabin was just a big supporter of the principle "eat what you give" and often behaved brutally with the customer.

                        And how did this "brutality" help the Kirov plant with their L-11?
                        Quote: Octopus

                        In your head sits conditional Kolobanov. The Germans have already seen such kolobanov, and such tanks.

                        Not only and not so much Kolobanov, how many reviews of German generals and the results of tank battles in 41
                        Evidence could, rummaging through, found on the internet and present to you, but why? You still can’t convince you, and I don’t have such a goal.
                      3. Octopus
                        Octopus 8 June 2020 08: 55 New
                        +2
                        Quote: Krasnoyarsk
                        And how did this "brutality" help the Kirov plant with their L-11?

                        No way. What is the question?
                        Quote: Krasnoyarsk
                        reviews of German generals and the results of tank battles of 41

                        The results of tank battles are rather sad. As for the reviews of German generals, in the summer they don’t even know about Soviet tanks. The terrible T-34s appear in the fall when the blitzkrieg is stuck, in the literal and figurative sense.
  • Dr. Frankenstucker
    Dr. Frankenstucker 7 June 2020 16: 23 New
    +1
    yeah that's it
    received the commander’s cupola, although there were still two people in the tower.


    pearl!
    laughing
  • 123456789
    123456789 7 June 2020 08: 51 New
    +5
    Hey editor! Maybe it's better about the reactor, about the favorite moon tractor
  • Free wind
    Free wind 7 June 2020 09: 01 New
    +4
    The greatest noise is the creak of the tracks themselves, and not the impact of the rollers on the tracks. Deafens more than all other sounds. Often in the summer, when driving, seeing a puddle, you try to "roll in the mud", dip the goose in the mud, so that it squeaks less. Naturally, if you know that you will not drown. Complaints about the weak armor protection poured in like peas. But there was no progress. The excuse "then we will overweight the chassis. 10-15 people rode on the landing tank, 1 ton of additional mass. And some photos show that the tanks go without a roller, and somehow they did not complain about being overweight. 500 kg of additional protection could not have saved few lives.
    1. Octopus
      Octopus 7 June 2020 12: 54 New
      +2
      )))
      You are not right.

      One of the problems of the T-34 was the "revolutionary" "rational" rear-wheel drive layout, which forced the turret to move sharply forward. Therefore, you could put an additional elephant on the MTO, but not on the VLD, and so it breathes on incense.

      Churchill, also with a rear sprocket, allowed 150mm of armor to be hung on the muzzle. But he was not "rational" and "revolutionary", as you know, but on the contrary, archaic and a shame of island tank building.
      1. irontom
        irontom 7 June 2020 13: 17 New
        +1
        A strange habit of juggling, and pulling an owl on a globe, why don’t you compare it with the T-34 of the same age as Cruzider, from which the British long tortured Comet who was late for the war.
        Or the fact that already in the 42nd Americans began to test the layout analog of the T-34 while still on the Knox suspension of the Medium Tank T20 in which using the outboard engine layout with the same units and the same mass

        received a car utterly superior to Sherman, which eventually turned into Pershing. Why not compare with a peer such as the T-44/54.
        1. Octopus
          Octopus 7 June 2020 14: 03 New
          +3
          Why do I need to compare the T-34 with Crusider? Why not compare with the earlier second Matilda of the same mass? Or a lighter Valentine? The British infantry tanks turned out to be much better than the cruising ones, and Valentine in general is an exact analogue of the T-34, the English approach to the tank of a tight layout, the most massive tank of his country.
          Quote: irontom
          layout analog of T-34

          Why is the layout analogue of the T-34, not Valentine and FT17, is it Ford M1917?
          Quote: irontom
          got a car utterly superior to Sherman

          They not got this car, as I recall. The strongest industry in the world did not allow making a movable anti-ballistic reservation tank of such an arrangement. I'll tell you more, the M18 Hellcat, which was originally rear-wheel drive, had to be redone for the front sprocket - a heavy and long gun overloaded the front roller. Suddenly.
          Quote: irontom
          with a peer such as T-44/54.

          What is the same age? The same age as the T-44 was Centurion, the same age as the T-54 was the M48.
          1. irontom
            irontom 7 June 2020 16: 09 New
            0
            Krusider and T-34 as peers and peers, like the descendants of Christie., Krusider was tortured for a long time and he could reach the level of the early T-34 only in the Cromwell version.
            The infantry tanks Matilda and Valentine are our counterpart to the T-50, which did not have time for war.
            That is why Valentine, due to the fact that the niche of infantry easy-medium we had and was not covered by the ersatz T-60/70, took root with us.
            The comet fell into the British army in scanty amounts less than one and a half thousand.
            With the T20, the same story as with our T-43, it became the basis for the modernization of Sherman; from it, he got a tower with a 76 mm gun and a Harry Knox suspension with horizontal springs, why a new tank when you can upgrade an old one, we also considered moving the tower T-43 (not putting it into production) on the T-34 with a 85 mm gun.
            A T20E3 with a torsion bar suspension developed in Pershing. Ready for production in the 44th, the fact that it was not put on the conveyor at the time is a completely different story.
            1. Octopus
              Octopus 7 June 2020 17: 29 New
              +2
              Quote: irontom
              Krusider and T-34 as peers and peers

              On paper. In practice, the Kharkovites could not provide the mobility of the cruising tank. This is already 43 years. Five steps, cyclone.
              Quote: irontom
              Our counterpart to the T-50, which did not have time for war.

              Yes.
              True, compared with Motey, especially Churchill and Grant, a poor analogue.
              Quote: irontom
              the niche of the infantry easy-medium ones in our country was so uncovered by the ersatz T-60/70 took root with us.

              Su-76. But also ersatz, of course.
              Quote: irontom
              The comet fell into the British army in scanty amounts less than one and a half thousand.

              Less, they are released to VE about a thousand. But formally the best medium tank of the Allied war is precisely it, the remote comrade of rights. The T-34/85 did not have such shells.
              Quote: irontom
              why a new tank when the old can be upgraded

              Unfortunately, the American Guderian, Edna Chaffee, died in the 41st year. I don’t know if he could help, but without him, the Americans overwhelmed the whole thing.
              Sherman was initially foolish and come on, and his modernization by the Americans was completely failed.
              Quote: irontom
              Ready for production in the 44th, the fact that it was not put on the conveyor at the time is a completely different story.

              This story was put into circulation by the notorious Cooper with his memoirs.

              T-series tanks for a long time could not be brought into line with operational requirements. In Russia, few people understand that if the Americans fell on the Aberdeen IS-3 training ground, not to mention the IS-2, they would refuse to put it into service.

              Well, plus they were not needed by anyone. Again, in Russia little is known about the contempt of the American army at that time for strategic intelligence. It is rarely possible to praise the GABTU, but in the years 43-44 they performed just like they did, it's hard to imagine something better.
              1. hohol95
                hohol95 7 June 2020 22: 25 New
                0
                On paper. In practice, the Kharkovites could not provide the mobility of the cruising tank. This is already 43 years. Five steps, cyclone.

                Does this mean that the British "cruisers", in addition to speed, had other advantages over the T-34?
                If there were - announce the list!
                1. Octopus
                  Octopus 7 June 2020 23: 20 New
                  +3
                  Quote: hohol95
                  Does this mean that the British "cruisers", in addition to speed, had other advantages over the T-34?

                  Конечно.
                  Quote: hohol95
                  If there were - announce the list!

                  1. Since the 42nd year, Sherman has been the main British cruiser (tank of tank divisions). Naturally, it had a number of advantages over the T-34, namely it was a) free b) reliable and high-resource c) high-quality made d) having significantly better ammunition.

                  This we leave out of the brackets 17 pounds.

                  When discussing the English cruisers, it should be borne in mind, after all, that the British did not really need them.

                  2. The second British cruiser, the tank of the outbreak of war, was the Crusader. With him, everything is not so brilliant, but you need to understand the following. The Krusader is more or less the A-20G, which was discussed in the terms of reference of the GABTU. But the Kharkovites, having assumed increased obligations, drove the car for 26 tons, with a technical assignment for 16 tons, a tank of the BT-7 type. Naturally, the healthy initiative of the plant ruined, in fact, the task of the party and the government - the T-34 had unsatisfactory reliability not at the level of execution, but at the level of construction.

                  So, Crusader. a) it was a lot, given the scale of the hostilities (in contrast to the scarce 41-42 T-34) b) if it did not break, then its mobility was very good (unlike the T-34). c) The 6lb gun had significantly higher armor penetration than the F-34 in general, and with 41-year AP shells in particular (more precisely, their almost complete absence). Another question is that the British, unlike the Americans, for a very long time perceived the tank cannon as a PT equipment, not paying attention to universality.

                  And most importantly. Thanks to Krusider and a huge number of other equipment, the British could afford and allowed tank divisions at the beginning of the war. The USSR was able to afford normal tank divisions under the guise of mechanized corps (not to be confused with tank corps) of the 43rd year, plugging numerous LL holes with equipment.

                  Again, little is known. Britain, which, on the contrary, did not wage land war, produced BTT more than the USSR.

                  More than one and a half times.
                  1. hohol95
                    hohol95 8 June 2020 08: 24 New
                    +1
                    1. Since the 42nd year, Sherman has been the main British cruiser (tank of tank divisions). Naturally, it had a number of advantages over the T-34, namely it was a) free b) reliable and high-resource c) high-quality made d) having significantly better ammunition.

                    Do not attribute the American M4 to the "British cruisers"! Perhaps for them it was "cruising". For us, it is a simple tank of average weight! And his first gun differed little from the Soviet F-34!
                    The British 2 and 6 pounders did not have shells at all in the CFS set! Because of this, they had to release "support" tanks with a 76 mm howitzer completely incapable of fighting enemy tanks.
                    So, Crusader. a) it was a lot, given the scale of the hostilities (in contrast to the scarce 41-42 T-34) b) if it did not break, then its mobility was very good (unlike the T-34)

                    The passability of the "crusader" was good, where?
                    In the sands of North Africa or on chernozem soaked from rains near Voronezh?
                    Crusader in thin armor
                    Pyotr Samsonov 25 October '19
                    warspot.ru
                    In addition to poor ventilation, the turret was so crowded that the machine gunner could not work normally. In early 1941, the turret design was changed: the rotation flywheel was moved to a more convenient place, the design of the machine gun handle and the shelf for the box with the machine gun belt changed. It was necessary to modernize the tanks already produced, but this was not done on all vehicles. The main drawback of the design was the small dimensions of the turret, and nothing could be done about it.

                    The British offered their cruiser tanks to the USSR. However, the "stubborn Red Army" chose "infantry Valentine", and not the "beautiful" Crusader!
                    1. Octopus
                      Octopus 8 June 2020 08: 53 New
                      +2
                      Quote: hohol95
                      Do not attribute the American M4 to the "British cruisers"!

                      )))
                      I seem to have painted in detail. If you have a good free tank, then why vomit?
                      Quote: hohol95
                      For us, he is a simple tank of medium weight!

                      The idea of ​​classifying tanks by mass as applied to WWII does not suit everyone. Cromwell and Matilda2 are the same in mass but are not classmates. Like the IS-2 / Panther / Churchill.
                      Quote: hohol95
                      And his first gun was not much different from the Soviet F-34!

                      Yes, this is an alteration of the same gun of 1897, with the same shot. As in the USSR, it was the main army weapon in the USA, unlike the USSR until the 41st year, when the army switched to a more modern artillery.
                      Quote: hohol95
                      The British 2 and 6 pounds did not have any shells in the OFS kit at all!

                      Yes, this is a mistake. First of all, the mistake was made by the customer; the British did not have any problems with the issue of OFS.
                      Quote: hohol95
                      Because of this, they had to release "support" tanks with a 76 mm howitzer completely incapable of fighting enemy tanks.

                      You will be very surprised, but the support tank with a 76mm howitzer was, for example, a four with KwK.37, that is, until the middle of the 42nd year. This is the standard of the time. The idea of ​​a relatively powerful universal cannon was first made by the GABTU and the Americans, having realized it almost simultaneously on the T-34 and M3, respectively.
                      Quote: hohol95
                      The passability of the "crusader" was good, where?

                      He fought on hard ground. But for a tank lighter than 20 tons is generally not bad. Incidentally, I spoke about mobility, and not about cross-country ability.
                      Quote: hohol95
                      Chosen Infantry Valentine, not Lovely Crusader!

                      And why is the Red Army of the 41st year cruising tanks? All the stubborn people from the Red Army did the right thing, in the 41st year they needed NPP tanks.
                      1. hohol95
                        hohol95 8 June 2020 12: 48 New
                        +1
                        You will be very surprised, but the support tank with a 76mm howitzer was, for example, a four with KwK.37, that is, until the middle of the 42nd year.

                        Forgot Three Model N! And the German gun is not a howitzer!
                        The latest modification of Pz.Kpfw.III was Ausf.N. 1942 tanks ordered in February 450 were equipped with KwK 37 L / 24 short-barreled guns, the same ones that were placed on the Pz.Kpfw.IV, that is, the last Pz.Kpfw.III finally moved away from the role for which ZW was created and became support tanks.
                        K.Gr.rot.Pz. (armor-piercing with a protective tip)
                        Gr. 38 Hl / A (cumulative)
                        Gr. 38 Hl / B (cumulative)
                        Gr. 38 Hl / C (cumulative)
                        7,5 cm Sprgr. 34 (high-explosive fragmentation)
                        In the kit of the British tank 76 mm howitzers were smoke and OFS shells. And how on such a machine to deal with the appeared armored vehicles?
                        The guns of Soviet, German and American tanks were more versatile than the guns of most British tanks!
                      2. Octopus
                        Octopus 8 June 2020 13: 08 New
                        +2
                        Quote: hohol95
                        Forgot Three Model N! And the German gun is not a howitzer!

                        I have not forgotten, just four is the logic of development, and the triple N is more likely some ersatz.
                        Quote: hohol95
                        And the German gun is not a howitzer!

                        24 caliber barrel is the gun with you?
                        Quote: hohol95
                        versatile compared to the guns of most British tanks!

                        You are right, I already wrote it. But, you see, the composition of the ammunition is not a question for industry. 3-Inchevka had a normal barrel (25 calibers), but a very low charge and, accordingly, the initial speed.
                        Customer error, draw more.

                        I will tell you more. The main mystery of the English tank building - the abandonment of 25lbs as a tank gun. It was a very sensible product.
                      3. hohol95
                        hohol95 8 June 2020 15: 50 New
                        0
                        The KT-28 with its 16,5 caliber barrel is also a howitzer for you?
                      4. hohol95
                        hohol95 8 June 2020 16: 03 New
                        0
                        On what grounds do you consider the German KwK 37 not a gun, but a howitzer?
          2. irontom
            irontom 8 June 2020 10: 25 New
            +1
            Cruzider’s main problem in the MTO is Liberty, albeit a British modern spill, plus a checkpoint, so the T-34 with an early B-2 and a 4-speed stupa checkpoint disappeared completely against the background of Cruzider. Only with the advent of tank Merlin (more precisely, when the British prom was able to master it in commercial quantities with a new gearbox and received a more or less reliable Cromwell, and having registered a long Comet comet hole, but then Victory suddenly came.
            1. Octopus
              Octopus 8 June 2020 10: 38 New
              +1
              Quote: irontom
              on completely missing amid Cruzider

              You are right, Krusider was an unsuccessful tank, it’s inconvenient to drown for it.
              Quote: irontom
              in commodity quantities to them a new checkpoint and received a more or less reliable Cromwell, and having registered a long hole punch Comet

              Yes, here you are right.
              Quote: irontom
              then Victory suddenly came.

              And victory, and Centurion. The comet went to units in December 44th, and in January the first A41s were already assembled.
              1. hohol95
                hohol95 8 June 2020 12: 34 New
                0
                You are right, Krusider was an unsuccessful tank, it’s inconvenient to drown for it.

                Then try to "sink" for -
                Cruising tank Mk.V "Covenanter" (eng. Tank Cruiser Mk.V "Covenanter"), A13 Mk.III - British medium cruising tank during the Second World War. It was developed in 1939 as a further development of a series of cruising tanks and the replacement of the unreliable Mk III and Mk IV. Since 1939, 1771 copies were produced. Despite a significant improvement compared to its predecessors, the tank was considered unsuccessful and practically did not take part in the hostilities.

                Or for the Cruiser Tank Mark VIII (A27L) Centaur!
                The British had many "land cruisers" ...
                1. Octopus
                  Octopus 8 June 2020 13: 00 New
                  +1
                  ))
                  You forgot to write that the MK5 was a training machine and did not enter the troops.

                  Yes, the line of British cruising tanks began with Krsider, ended with a Comet, that is, roughly the English T-34-85. The line of infantry British tanks began with Matilda 2 and ended with the late Churchill. The Red Army at this place had T-60 / T-70 / Su-76.
                  Therefore, I write that the infantry they did better, relative to the rest of the participants. Actually, the infantry tanks were only with them and the Germans in the form of assault guns.
                  1. hohol95
                    hohol95 8 June 2020 15: 47 New
                    +1
                    You forgot to write that the MK5 was a training machine and did not enter the troops.

                    So it turns out that the "gallant" British tank designers designed ITS as a training one?
                    Or did they design a combat vehicle, but they turned out to be "training", to put it mildly! For fear of the British command to send this "tank" into battle!
                    For you, the Su-76 is a tank without a tower?
                    For me, lightweight self-propelled artillery.
                    No tank at all.
                  2. Octopus
                    Octopus 8 June 2020 16: 28 New
                    +1
                    Quote: hohol95
                    originally "brave" British tank designers designed as a training one?

                    No, the brave designers designed it with an unsuccessful engine for heat removal.
                    Quote: hohol95
                    For fear of the British command to send this "tank" into battle!

                    It’s nice to have different tanks, some to send, some not to send. The quirks of wealthy people.
                    Quote: hohol95
                    Is the Su-76 a tank without a tower?

                    Su-76 is an infantry support vehicle / light tank destroyer. And with a tower or without a tower, I’m on a drum.
                    Quote: hohol95
                    KT-28 with its barrel in 16,5 calibers

                    Quote: hohol95
                    On what grounds do you consider the German KwK 37 not a gun, but a howitzer?

                    In this context, I call howitzers guns with barrels shorter than 30 clb. You can tell that "you really can't define it that way" if you like. For me, the long and short cannon of the four is primarily a transition from a steep to a flat trajectory, respectively, with a change in the "main" target for the vehicle. Previously, the target was buried, and then it began to rise above the ground. Armor penetration is already a consequence.
                  3. hohol95
                    hohol95 8 June 2020 16: 44 New
                    0
                    It’s nice to have different tanks, some to send, some not to send. The quirks of wealthy people.

                    Or maybe it was not the quirks of the rich, namely fear. From the poor quality of the created machine. Able to survive only at the training ground.
                    And why did you decide that the Su-76 is a tank destroyer?
                    Does she look like a Jagdpanther?
                    You will be amazed that the Germans had similar machines of the Marder family. But who forced the Germans to create on the basis of "two" and "thirty-eighth" machines "for the destruction of tanks"?
                    Poverty?
                    Or "hordes of indestructible locusts" in the form of Soviet tanks?
                    But the Germans did not send their "Marders" into the ranks of the advancing infantry. And used from ambushes. in a direct collision with a T-34 or KV-1, these machines were killed even by fragmentation shells.
                    These machines are different in purpose. And you are wrong to classify the Su-76 as a "fighter ..."
                  4. Octopus
                    Octopus 8 June 2020 17: 15 New
                    +1
                    Quote: hohol95
                    Or maybe it was not the quirks of the rich, namely fear

                    The production of British tanks was consistently higher than the ability to use them.
                    Quote: hohol95
                    Does she look like a Jagdpanther?

                    Oddly enough, the IS-2 is similar to the Yagdpanther (it looks more like the ISU-122 and especially the SU-100, the lack of armor). And the SU-76 is Nashorn, who suffered a lot from childhood. And if no jokes, then the Soviet Marder II with Pak 36 (p) in its purest form.
                    Quote: hohol95
                    who forced the Germans to create on the basis of "two" and "thirty-eighth" machines "for the destruction of tanks"?
                    Poverty?

                    Do not understand. Do you want Panther for every bush?
                    Quote: hohol95
                    Or "hordes of indestructible locusts" in the form of Soviet tanks?

                    The idea of ​​mechanizing heavy guns is self-evident, especially for the Reich with its 3 million horses as of the 43rd year. If there is an old chassis in production, then why not adapt?
                    Quote: hohol95
                    the Germans did not send their "Marders" into the ranks of the advancing infantry. And used from ambushes

                    Reasonable people. As if the SU-76 was suitable for oncoming tank battle.
                    Quote: hohol95
                    you are wrong regarding the Su-76 as a "fighter ..."

                    This is not a question of my opinion. The ZiS-3 in 42-43 and even 44 years old was mainly an anti-tank equipment, and only then a division. Purely organizational.
                  5. hohol95
                    hohol95 8 June 2020 20: 16 New
                    +1
                    The production of British tanks was consistently higher than the ability to use them.

                    Why, then, did the British army need American tanks "Stuart", "Lee / Grand", "Sherman"?
                    For beauty?
                    The British had their tanks "above the roof" ...
                    And if no jokes, then the Soviet Marder II with Pak 36 (p) in its purest form.

                    Well, that is not the Romanian SPAC TACAM!
                    Do not understand. Do you want Panther for every bush?

                    But weakly, it was a beautiful economy under German leadership?
                    Reasonable people. As if the SU-76 was suitable for oncoming tank battle.

                    So in your opinion it is - a reckless tank!
                  6. Octopus
                    Octopus 9 June 2020 08: 20 New
                    +2
                    Quote: hohol95
                    The British had their tanks "above the roof" ...

                    They were not free. And yes, Sherman is better, the Americans did not feed the 5-ton tank for 15 years, but immediately took the 30-ton tank, largely by accident.
                    Quote: hohol95
                    Romanian SPAC TACAM!

                    Not interested in Romanian technology. But you're right, great example, thanks.
                    Quote: hohol95
                    But weakly, it was a beautiful economy under German leadership?

                    Of course, weak, and so in the weight of KV / IS riveted more tanks than the USSR. And the leadership in the Reich was so-so, frankly. Before Speer with higher education there was only one person. Dr. Goebbels.
                    Quote: hohol95
                    she is - a reckless tank!

                    Again. I don't give a damn if she is a tank or not. They would call it a tank — it would be a tank, but they gave it to self-propelled artillery regiments, so it’s self-propelled guns, not to say a self-propelled gun.
                  7. hohol95
                    hohol95 9 June 2020 08: 49 New
                    0
                    Sorry - you yourself began to contradict.
                    Then you have M4 -
                    I seem to have painted in detail. If you have a good free tank, then why vomit?

                    FREE...
                    Then, for him and his American "armored brothers" it was already "paid with gold" -
                    They were not free. And yes, Sherman is better, the Americans did not feed the 5-ton tank for 15 years, but immediately took the 30-ton tank, largely by accident.

                    good
                  8. Octopus
                    Octopus 9 June 2020 08: 51 New
                    0
                    More carefully, please.
                    Quote: Octopus
                    The British had their tanks "above the roof" ...

                    They were not free.
                  9. hohol95
                    hohol95 9 June 2020 08: 54 New
                    0
                    Do yours mean not free, but American mean nothing?
                    You will decide in your own comments! hi
                  10. Octopus
                    Octopus 9 June 2020 08: 57 New
                    +2
                    Yes, that’s exactly what it means. Land Liz for Britain began in the spring of the 41st. Find out at your leisure.
  • Alexey RA
    Alexey RA 8 June 2020 16: 43 New
    0
    Quote: hohol95
    For you, the Su-76 is a tank without a tower?
    For me, lightweight self-propelled artillery.
    No tank at all.

    The SU-76 is a light assault SPG. More precisely, this is a solution to the problem of escorting infantry with divisional guns "fire and wheels" - "three-inch" on tracks with minimal armor. It is not necessary to roll over the field by the forces of the crew, the cross-country ability is higher than that of the ZIS-3 or USV towed by the crew, the protection of the calculation is at the very least.
    The tasks performed by the SU-76 practically do not differ from the tasks of the NPP tanks. So this is an armored object in the niche of an infantry tank. smile

    In general, we often have a creative approach to the use of armored vehicles. The same "Valentines" were given to cavalry reconnaissance - ICHH, they showed themselves well there.
  • hohol95
    hohol95 8 June 2020 16: 54 New
    0
    Despite the fact that the SU-76 and SU-76M were developed as self-propelled divisional support weapons, they were used, especially at first, mainly as tanks without a tower. Most tank commanders, having received SAPs to support them, had no idea about the tactics of using self-propelled guns and often sent these units to slaughter. SU-76 conducted frontal attacks of German fortifications, covering the attacking infantry with armor, were used for anti-tank defense in completely unsuitable areas, counterattacked German tanks (!), Etc.

    So is the Su-76 rather a tank or is it a self-propelled gun?
  • Octopus
    Octopus 8 June 2020 16: 59 New
    +1
    Quote: Alexey RA
    SU-76 is a light assault self-propelled gun.

    That's what she was not, so this is an assault self-propelled gun. This is just the Soviet Marder I, a mechanized gun.
    Quote: Alexey RA
    So this is an armored object in the niche of an infantry tank.

    Alas, yes.
    Quote: Alexey RA
    The same "Valentines" were given to cavalry reconnaissance

    Although Stuart was more suitable for reconnaissance vehicles.
  • hohol95
    hohol95 8 June 2020 20: 21 New
    +1
    Although Stuart was more suitable for reconnaissance vehicles.

    Why is Stewart better than Valentine in intelligence?
    Valentine is preferred.
    With a more powerful weapon in later versions of Valentine.
    And the British tankers liked the British diesel engines much more.
  • Octopus
    Octopus 9 June 2020 08: 11 New
    +1
    Quote: hohol95
    Why is Stewart better than Valentine in intelligence?
    Valentine is preferred.

    The fact that Valentine with decent armor and low speed is better in the NPP, where the USSR had SU-76.
  • xomaNN
    xomaNN 7 June 2020 10: 57 New
    +2
    It was interesting to see our T-34 in different "garnishes" and rare modifications. laughing Thanks for the research.
  • Dr. Frankenstucker
    Dr. Frankenstucker 7 June 2020 11: 20 New
    +5
    empty. When I really want to talk about the T-34, but you can’t say a damn new thing.
  • Andy
    Andy 7 June 2020 11: 23 New
    +1
    a sheet of armor located vertically at an angle of 60 ° is almost equal to a sheet of armor of double thickness: 1 / cos (60 °) = 2, which makes it possible to rationally close the internal volume with armor and reduce the total weight of the armor on the tank. That is, the less the armor is tilted, the better, in principle, but a 52 ° tilt with a thickness of 52 mm can be considered almost optimal.
    ------------
    once again in Russian. then you have a doubling of the thickness, then the smaller the better (about the slope), then this is still optimal ...
    1. seagull
      seagull 7 June 2020 15: 04 New
      0
      Sloped armor works when the ratio of the caliber of the gun and the thickness of the armor is equal. For the Germans, after 42, the main caliber in anti-tank artillery was 75mm. The T-34 corps was no longer playing. The tower at the end of the 43rd was brought to mind.
  • silberwolf88
    silberwolf88 7 June 2020 12: 26 New
    +1
    It is always nice when the author treats the material with love ... any writer has flaws)
  • senima56
    senima56 7 June 2020 13: 51 New
    +2
    "10 + 5 + 5 + 45 - that's got 75 mm" How so ????! The author is clearly not on friendly terms with mathematics!
  • Operator
    Operator 7 June 2020 14: 17 New
    -1
    45 mm - this thickness was serially rolled by Soviet steel mills, so there was no other rolled armor for a mass tank in the USSR. As a rational solution, they came up with a massive anti-tank SU-100 with 75-mm frontal armor (the number produced from 1944 to 1945 was practically equal to the number of Panthers and Tigers produced in the same period with a weaker 88-mm cannon). Acting in the second echelon of the attack, Sushki made holes in the German zoo as they wanted.

    Bulletproof armor and other technical refinements such as the transverse engine arrangement and the best track gearing scheme for the drive wheel (which reduces the noise by an order of magnitude of the tank movement) were already implemented on the T-44.

    A bunch of T-34 / T-100 was almost perfect for the end of the war, so only humanitarian students unfamiliar with the school course in arithmetic could name unrealized T-34 projects by a panoctum laughing
    1. seagull
      seagull 7 June 2020 15: 14 New
      0
      In connection with the discontinuation of KVshek, 75 mm rolling was released. Could at least VLD on 34x make of it. It would have been better. Why did not - the story is silent. (It seems like when using the shielded T-34s in combat, they came under fire from the PAK 40 at close range and the increase in armor thickness did not play).
  • smaug78
    smaug78 7 June 2020 14: 36 New
    +2
    I expected more from the author, but thanks anyway.
    1. kalibr
      7 June 2020 20: 26 New
      +2
      Well, you know, Boris, all this was written for the sake of pictures. And give people some revelations ...
  • seagull
    seagull 7 June 2020 14: 49 New
    +4
    "Compare the T-34 arr. 40 and this one from 1942. The hull has remained practically unchanged, but a new hexagonal turret has appeared on the tank, nicknamed the 'nut'" ... (author's text)
    The figure shows a tank produced at Krasnoe Sormovo ... (characteristic tides on the side cheekbones of the tower). Had numerous complaints about manufacturing defects. Received the nickname "Sormovsky freak".
    1. Jager
      Jager 7 June 2020 18: 06 New
      -1
      In the design of the T-34 only in the 41st year, more than 1500 changes were made ...
      T-34M, this is the Victory car. But - did not have time. I had to put on the T-34 stream, which I barely mastered ...
  • Astra wild
    Astra wild 7 June 2020 16: 14 New
    +4
    My son speaks highly of M. Kolomiyets. In his opinion, Kolomiyets is a highly erudite author
    1. kalibr
      7 June 2020 20: 24 New
      +2
      Here! And someone else will be interested in Drozhzhin and see how they wrote books in the USSR in 1942. Which ... is useful in every way. By the way, as well as acquaintance with the book of Kolomiyets and ... the author. There is little information.
  • BAI
    BAI 7 June 2020 16: 15 New
    +2
    We ask a simple question in the search engine: "How many modifications of the T-34 were" and we immediately see "All types of T-34. Part 1: from 1935 to 1944." with 25 photographs of various modifications. https://pikabu.ru/story/vse_vidyi_t34_chast_1_s_1935_do_1944_4813032
    True, the inclusion of the BT-20 and BT-SV is very controversial.
    1. Jager
      Jager 7 June 2020 18: 04 New
      0
      links from picabu? Are you seriously?
      1. BAI
        BAI 7 June 2020 20: 47 New
        +2
        25 models and Picabu 25 models. Moreover, for each - a photograph.
  • Jager
    Jager 7 June 2020 18: 03 New
    +2
    Finally, take away from the author this magical mushroom broth, which he uses before writing articles.
    I read the comments and for the second minute there has been blood from my eyes ... This is some kind of darkness ...
    1. kalibr
      7 June 2020 20: 21 New
      +2
      Let it go further ... Such a highly erudite specialist is contraindicated in such reading. It’s only a pity that we don’t see your articles at VO ... In 2013, I registered ... and only reads everything. How boring ...
      1. Looking for
        Looking for 8 June 2020 14: 40 New
        0
        in general, the expression "silence is gold" is relevant at all times. Not everyone can be Solzhenitsyn.
      2. Jager
        Jager 8 June 2020 18: 12 New
        0
        I understand entertainment and so on, but why write such a game? It would be better to publish
        http://armor.kiev.ua/humor/txt/tiger_1.php
        Of course, I understand that many will notably burn from the Ukrainian apostrophe of the site ...
  • Alceers
    Alceers 7 June 2020 18: 58 New
    +5
    Well here again. Again the caliber spread like a thought. Rather, her absence. What did you want to say? It is still strange that not a single twinkle with praise was noted here ...
    Whatever caliber starts to write about, after a couple of lines Para.Facts from the discharge begins - a no brainer. A couple of long ago debunked myths. The complete absence of any analytics. And the whole article - oh what a wonderful, insightful, etc. I am. and why don't they extol me on every corner
    1. kalibr
      7 June 2020 19: 26 New
      +4
      Nevertheless, 16000 people were noted for reading, and someone even spoke out and showed his erudition. Someone leaked bile ... which is also good. He showed that he has it. And someone just looked at the beautiful pictures. And thank God! Why not? Whoever likes it, the devil said, took off his underpants and sat in the nettle!
      1. Jager
        Jager 8 June 2020 18: 17 New
        0
        And then it spreads over the network and into immature minds, after which people begin to write something like "T-34s left the factory with bed nets and spaced armor, I read on the Internet"
  • Tima62
    Tima62 7 June 2020 22: 54 New
    +2
    Quote: Alceers
    Again the caliber spread like a thought. Rather, her absence. What did you want to say?

    Quote: kalibr
    Nevertheless, 16000 people have read

    Quote: kalibr
    all this was written for the sake of

    money and fame. Otherwise we’ll forget wink
    1. kalibr
      8 June 2020 06: 57 New
      -1
      Envy silently!
  • English tarantas
    English tarantas 8 June 2020 00: 11 New
    +1
    Well, for starters, Comrade Shpakovsky, a compelling request, write about your authorship at the beginning of the article.
    And the second:
    It should be borne in mind that the analysis of damage to the frontal armor showed that its inclination leads to ricochet of shells only if the caliber of the shell is not more than the thickness of the armor, that is, for German guns these are 37 and 50 mm maximum

    Already heard such a statement, dubious. Maybe all the same, just German guns of certain calibres with n / a pierced the T-34-76 VLD and, by some chance, they were 37mm caliber (50 by the way more than 34ki armor, the caliber of the shells themselves is hardly 5mm less than the barrel, if only a sub-caliber )
    So is this information specifically about the T-34 and German weapons, or I wonder if it is possible to provide a source of more specific information that if a shell is smaller in caliber than armor, then it will not penetrate it? What are the ratios of angles, thicknesses and calibers?
    Just a phrase that is misleading, not understanding people
    leads to ricochet of shells only if the caliber of the shell is not more than the thickness of the armor
    - this pattern should not be voiced, since it is most likely a logical mistake, which is presented as technical specifications. It seems to me that the modern 20mm BPS 34ku will be sewn without any hint of rebound.
    1. kalibr
      8 June 2020 06: 56 New
      +2
      Alexander! About authorship in the beginning. This is not for me, but for the administration. There are certain rules that are followed. Do you want to change them? But many do not want to. Why is your opinion more valuable than the opinion of other people? Second: if you have already heard such a statement, but consider it doubtful, then you should PROVE it with sources on your hands, with references to them, that it is doubtful. Further, VO is not a collection of scientific articles; the information here is popular.
      1. English tarantas
        English tarantas 8 June 2020 11: 26 New
        0
        There are certain rules that are followed.

        Well, what if the administration of VO changes something? She must take care that the reader likes the site.
        Why is your opinion more valuable than the opinion of other people?

        Yes, I think there are still people who agree with me.
        You should PROVE with sources on hand,

        That's what I mean, if I myself need to look for all the information, then why should I even start reading your article. By these words, by the way, you yourself admitted that as an author you are not very much, you yourself do not seem to be interested in the quality of publications: "ay, I’m faking something, let them decipher it” - is that how you write? Yes, VO is not a collection of scientific articles, but many authors here write detailed articles, informative with links to sources, do not know why they do this?
        1. kalibr
          8 June 2020 13: 13 New
          0
          Quote: English tarantass
          many authors here write detailed articles, informative with links to sources, do not know why they do this?

          Are you talking about me? I usually write articles with links. But people do not pay attention to them. There was already a conversation about it in VO. You must have missed. So why try? You look at the profile, look at some articles and how much and about what, and how much with links and what. And for what? The concept is very, very not very subjective. And yes there are people ... but why should they be listened to? After all, there will be others with a different opinion.
        2. kalibr
          8 June 2020 13: 28 New
          0
          Quote: English tarantass
          Well, what if the administration of VO changes something? She must take care that the reader likes the site.

          It will be "suddenly" then we will speak. But you, apparently, did not quite understand the loop format. There are no innovations and discoveries here - pictures come first, beautiful bright ... the text is of a secondary nature. There are links in the text to books with serious content, so ... Your claims are not substantiated. But if you want activity - write to the administration. Like, I want ALL ARTICLES WITH REFERENCES to literature and what would be the links in the text and sources, either an archive, or a monograph, or an article in the journal "Voprosy istorii", or a dissertation. Otherwise I do not agree! I will see how you manage to push through this "opinion".
        3. kalibr
          8 June 2020 13: 29 New
          0
          Quote: English tarantass
          then why should I even start reading your article

          You don’t need - you need others!
      2. Jager
        Jager 8 June 2020 18: 19 New
        0
        And he begins to give away a yellow press.
  • hagrid
    hagrid 8 June 2020 05: 07 New
    +1
    Good day! and miki weren’t they called BTs?
    1. Jager
      Jager 8 June 2020 18: 20 New
      0
      Nobody called them at all, neither among us nor among the Germans, and not every American saw Mickey Mouse then.
  • Alexey RA
    Alexey RA 8 June 2020 09: 23 New
    +4
    Note that during the war years, technology improved very quickly. Compare the T-34 mod. 40 years old and this one - 1942. The hull remained virtually unchanged, but a new hexagonal tower appeared on the tank, nicknamed the “nut” (it was a cast and welded version, but recently there was an excellent series of articles about welding tank armor on the VO!).

    Hehe hehe ... but what about the third version of the tower? The one that is just shown in the illustration, under which this signature is given? wink
    There is also an obvious "mold" - stamped a turret of 45 mm armor (at first they wanted a 60 mm turret, but there wasn’t enough such armor).
  • irontom
    irontom 8 June 2020 10: 15 New
    +3
    Dug out photos of my collection



    1. Ramzes iv
      Ramzes iv 8 June 2020 10: 20 New
      -1
      Always respected men whose hands are growing from the right place .. !!!! Cool models
  • Nikolaevich I
    Nikolaevich I 8 June 2020 12: 37 New
    +1
    Bed nets were given to you! I had to read for a long time that they did not put bed nets on tanks "massively"! Already at that time they knew that the practical effectiveness of such "protection" is practically zero! Perhaps someone "from a hangover" or for some other reason "placed" once a bed net on the armor ... and "according to the law of meanness" it caught the eye of a photojournalist! So I went for a walk "around the world" fake, as they say now!
  • pmkemcity
    pmkemcity 8 June 2020 12: 45 New
    0
    Quote: Free Wind
    Often in the summer, when driving, seeing a puddle, you try to "roll in the mud", dip the goose in the mud, so that it squeaks less. Naturally, if you know that you will not drown.

    Tanks are not only not afraid of dirt. they love her !!!
  • Looking for
    Looking for 8 June 2020 14: 32 New
    0
    “And the lifespan of our tanks on the battlefield was so short that the suspension did not have time to wear out!” Here are American and British tanks, wow !!! Yes, Shpakovsky ??
    1. kalibr
      8 June 2020 16: 15 New
      +2
      All cars, Alexander, had their faults. The American ones had a high maintainability, higher than ours, but they were high and narrow, and turned over more often, the British had high speed, but vertically arranged armor plates. So +++ and - - - were all cars. And against their background, according to average indicators, it is the T-34 that looks ... a champion. By the average! And this is what surprises most of all ... Poor gearbox, but excellent projections, etc. However, they wrote about all this more than once. And we should be proud that we were so “lucky” with this tank, despite all its shortcomings. In fact, it was the world's first total war machine. She was perfect for her! But then not everyone understood it. However, I just wrote about this in the book "Tanks of Total Wars". You should read her. Make sure I'm not just a fan of American and British tanks.
  • Alexey RA
    Alexey RA 8 June 2020 16: 27 New
    +1
    The use of cumulative ammunition by the Germans at the end of the war again led to the need to equip tanks with spaced armor. Here is one of the projects of such an additional reservation. But, as always, the projects were in one place, and the tanks in another, so our tankers had to “book” their tanks with bed nets and garden bars.

    Most often, one of the variants of mesh screens is given out for "bed nets". As uv wrote. M. Svirin, at the beginning of the Berlin operation, each tank had two sets of screens.
    The problem was that they did not protect against the new "panzerfaust". Even the German "Schurzens" didn't work against them.
    It was in the 2nd Guards. tank army, where tests were held mesh screens, recruited from a steel bar with a diameter of 4 mm with a pitch of 40 mm. The resulting grid was mounted on the bracket strictly vertically (in the photo they are littered) at a distance of 600 mm from the side of the tank. The test results were as follows:
    “A shot from Faust“ 2 ”(a modernized Faust cartridge for heavy tanks) was fired at the tank from a distance of 12 meters [the typical distance for using this weapon in street combat is dr_guillotin]. As a result of the shot, the mesh surface was torn in an area of ​​4200 sq.cm. and had a deflection towards the armor. The hole in the inclined sheet of the side of the tank was through, elliptical in shape, with a minor axis equal to 30 mm. The hole on the inside of the armor was not deviating in size. ”
    The “upgraded Faust cartridge” is “Panzerfaust 60M” or “Panzerfaust 100M”.
    The second version of the screen, tested by the management of the armored supply and repair of the 2nd Guards. tank army, was a steel sheet 1,5 mm thick, reinforced as well as a mesh. He also did not live up to expectations: “With a shot from Faust“ 2 ”the sheet was torn from the same distance, the hole in the lower part of the tower was through, circular section, with a diameter of 30 mm.”

    The latest experiment was replicated at the NII BT Polygon in Kubinka by shelling a Pz.Kpfw.IV trophy tank equipped with standard screens - “Shurtsens”. A Faustpatron (judging by the Panzerfaust 60M or Panzerfaust 100M attached to the report attached to the report) led to its destruction and defeat of the tank turret. The cumulative jet pierced the Pz.Kpfw.IV turret from side to side.
    © Isaev
    The only reliable defense of the tank was tank landing. The placement and quick dismounting of which screens were just in the way.
  • Yurahip
    Yurahip 8 June 2020 23: 03 New
    -1
    Yeah, and here for such an article Kolibrrr will take one thousand rubles from VO, and we will all help him in this with our comments.
    1. kalibr
      9 June 2020 15: 55 New
      -1
      Well, VO received 45 comments from you on all of its authors, so you didn't go broke, and all these 45 comments were received in two years since 2018! But "even a tuft of wool from a black sheep" (folk saying)
  • Petrol cutter
    Petrol cutter 9 June 2020 20: 33 New
    +1
    Thanks, but weld on the sheets is a good thing. But the undercarriage "drawdown" is quite likely, plus how the engine and transmission will pull it all. As a rule, this leads to a deterioration in performance characteristics and an increase in fuel consumption at times. The resource still forgot to add ...
    1. Icelord
      Icelord 10 June 2020 11: 42 New
      +1
      Resource until 1943 and so the t34 had no
      1. Icelord
        Icelord 10 June 2020 11: 43 New
        +1
        Christie’s pendant is not good for a medium tank, and the British also realized this
      2. Dormidontych
        Dormidontych 13 June 2020 11: 30 New
        0
        The resource of a tank diesel was brought to mind only in the late 50s ...
  • Dormidontych
    Dormidontych 13 June 2020 11: 29 New
    0
    Wasn't BT nicknamed "Mickey Mouse"?