Our tank panopticon: T-34, which were and which could be
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.
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).
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.
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.
But among all this undoubted wealth there is a place for our collection.
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!
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.
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
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!
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.
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 ...
Information