Military Review

Levers and cannon. "Royal Tiger" on trials in Kubinka

246
Levers and cannon. "Royal Tiger" on trials in Kubinka

Source: commons.wikipedia.org


Domestic and trophy levers


In the previous part The material dealt with the sea trials of the "Royal Tiger" (or "Tiger B", as the engineers called it), which were short-lived due to technical problems. The material was based on the report of the Scientific Testing Armored Range of the GBTU of the Red Army in the winter of 1945.

To complete the picture regarding the driving performance of the German car, it is worth paying attention to another report, which dates back to the fall of 1945. It is called “The results of measuring efforts on the control levers of foreign and domestic tanks"And represents a great historical interest. An attentive reader will surely notice that by the fall of 1945 there was no serviceable "Royal Tiger" in Kubinka: one had already been shot, and the second was idle in a slow state. Therefore, there was not much to experience. But at the disposal of the deputy head of the test site, engineer-colonel Alexander Maksimovich Sych, there was a much more interesting specimen - the captured Yagdtigr tank destroyer, whose suspension did not differ from the original heavy tank. The results of testing the efforts on the control levers, more precisely, on the steering wheel of this 70-ton monster, can be fully credited to the "King Tiger". "Jagdtiger B" (this is how it was called in 1945) was tested in a very representative company: "Panther", "Tiger", American T-26E3, M-24, M4A2, British "Comet 1" and Soviet IS-3, T -44 and T-34-85. Looking ahead, it should be said that the domestic equipment looked, with the exception of the T-44, in such a comparison not in the best way.


"Royal Tiger" at the Patton Museum in the United States. Source: en.wikipedia.org

A little about the test conditions. The tanks were deployed 360 degrees on soft wet ground with a dynamometer attached to the control lever. Once again, it is worth noting the scrupulousness of Kubinka's engineers in developing research methods. So, before the test turn, the tracked vehicles had to turn in place several times in order to remove the extra layer of dirt from the ground. Everything so that unnecessary factors do not affect the purity of the experiment. The test subjects had to unfold in several disciplines at once. First, in place in neutral. But only Panther, Jagdtiger and British Comet, equipped with planetary swing mechanisms with additional power input directly from the engine, were capable of such a trick. It is not known why the "Tiger" with a similar transmission did not turn around in these conditions. Most likely due to an engine malfunction as reported in the report. By the way, a German heavy tank passed an impressive 900 km before testing, which could have caused a breakdown. Be that as it may, "Panther" with "Jagdtigr" easily turned in neutral, while requiring only 5 kg of effort on the steering wheel. "Kometa" not only made the turn only on the third attempt, but also with a 20-kilogram effort on the levers. Due to understandable design features, the remaining tanks could not turn around in neutral.

Secondly, in Kubinka, efforts were made on the governing bodies when turning in 1st gear, and everyone managed to participate in this discipline. "Jagdtiger" here showed truly limousine habits: only 4,5 kg on the steering wheel when turning in both directions. For comparison: on the levers of the T-34-85, the force varied from 32 to 34 kg. And in the IS-3, which was the latest by that time, it took about 40 kg of effort to turn! To be fair, it is worth noting American tanks: the T-26E3 has about 35 kg of leverage, while the M4A2 has 30 kg. Domestic T-44 with modified kinematics of the drive transmission levers and installed servo springs required 12-13 kg per turn, which was quite comparable with the parameters of the "Tiger". "Panther" also came out with excellent marks, showing 6 kg of effort at the steering wheel. Further tests during turns in 1st and 2nd gear with radii of 10 and 15 meters did not particularly change the indicated disposition. The leaders were invariably "Yagdtiger" and "Panther", and among the outsiders IS-3, T-34, T-26E3 and M4A2. At the same time, the German self-propelled gun also had reserve control levers, the efforts on which also did not exceed 12-14 kg.


"Royal Tiger" in modern Belgium. Source: en.wikipedia.org



"Jagdtiger" in Kubinka. Obviously the most driver-friendly SPG. Source: ru.wikipedia.org

The report's disappointing conclusion was the dry thesis:

"The efforts spent on turning the domestic T-34-85, IS-3 and American T-26E3 and M4A2 tanks are great and tire drivers when making long marches."

It is interesting that the test results did not appear on the pages of the specialized edition "Bulletin of armored vehicles".

And the "King Tiger" in the guise of "Jagdtiger" emerged from this comparative test as the unconditional winner. It did not break down, as the preliminary mileage was about 260 km, and demonstrated the most comfortable conditions for a driver. It is likely that, given the smaller mass of the tank relative to the self-propelled gun, the efforts on the steering wheel of the "Royal Tiger" would have been even less.

Weapon tests


Fast forward almost a year ago, to October-November 1944, when a serviceable tank was being prepared for artillery fire in Kubinka. Initially, test engineers carried out a complete revision of the observation devices. There were thirteen of them at once: a monocular articulated telescopic sight with variable magnification, a spotter periscope temporarily installed in the commander's cupola, a machine-gun optical sight with a characteristic six-meter dead space and ten observation periscopes. The latter include seven periscopes for the commander and one each for the driver, the radio operator and the loader. Based on the results of testing the viewing devices, the corresponding diagrams of vertical and horizontal visibility were made. Only the loader's visibility was recognized as insufficient, and the tank commander had to raise the fifth point above the seat for observation through observation devices. To find targets and adjust fire at ranges up to 3 km, the commander used a spotter periscope. In the report, the engineers especially highlighted the successful monocular sight, which first appeared on the King's Tiger. It provided the gunner with a variable field of view and magnification, which seriously increased the convenience of firing at any distance.


Vertical visibility scheme from the tank. Source: test report

But with the assessment of the mechanism for turning the tower, Soviet engineers were not so unambiguous. They noted that the mechanics of the turret turning unit have hydraulic drives assembled from units used in machine tool construction. Perhaps this was a consequence of unification, and, possibly, a chronic lack of resources and time to develop their own compact unit. As a result, the drive turned out to be cumbersome and complex. To turn the turret, it was required to start the engine; otherwise, the gun was guided along the horizon by two hand-operated flywheels at the loader and gunner. At the same time, the hydraulic drive was two-stage and in second gear it could turn the turret 360 degrees in just 20 seconds. To do this, it was required to maintain the engine speed around 2000 per minute. And to manually deploy the tower, it took 673 turns of the flywheel with a force of about 2-3 kg.


Horizontal view from the tank. Source: test report

The tests of the 88 mm KWK-43 are modestly summed up by Kubinka's engineers as good. A total of 152 shots were fired: 60 armor-piercing tracer (initial speed - 1018 m / s) and 92 high-explosive fragmentation (initial speed - 759 m / s). The rate of fire for one target averaged 5,6 rounds per minute and, interestingly, little depended on the type of turret traverse drive used, manual or hydraulic. The report writes in this regard:

"The average aiming rate of fire when firing from a standstill at one, two and three targets located in the 35 ° sector, when using a manual turret drive is 5 rounds per minute, and when using a hydraulic drive 5,4 rounds per minute."

The tests of the tank's firing accuracy on the move were unexpected. In an era when tank stabilizers were only in the minds of engineers, this looks strange. Nevertheless, the "Royal Tiger" armor-piercing tracer was hitting at a speed of 10-12 km / h on a 4x6 meter shield from a distance of about 1 km. Even more unexpected was the high accuracy of shooting in such conditions: out of 12 shots, 8 hit the target! The reason for this accuracy was the hydraulic turret rotation drive, which allows you to accurately align the crosshair with the target, and the semi-self-braking lifting mechanism of the gun provided height guidance. It is quite possible that the firing on the move was the reason for the premature failure of the gun's lifting mechanism.

A separate test program was the assessment of the gas content of the fighting compartment during firing. In the experiment, they fired in groups of 5 shots, followed by taking air samples to analyze the level of carbon monoxide. Nothing new was found here: with the engine running, fan and barrel blowing, up to 95,9% of the dangerous gas was removed from the fighting compartment. The most powerful ventilation was considered to be an electrically ventilated fan located above the breech of the gun.

To be continued ...
Author:
Articles from this series:
Motivated cruelty. The sorrowful adventures of the "Royal Tiger" in Kubinka
246 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Vasya Fix
    Vasya Fix 5 August 2020 18: 21
    27
    Interesting article
    1. Thunderbolt
      Thunderbolt 5 August 2020 19: 19
      12
      All would be like that.
    2. Pirate
      Pirate 7 August 2020 08: 17
      +6
      Manual launch of the Germans
  2. sanya
    sanya 5 August 2020 18: 22
    -4
    We can say that the best armored vehicles of the Second World War were made by the Germans ...
    1. Ilshat
      Ilshat 5 August 2020 18: 33
      +4
      They had problems with armor, the metal was partly from scrap, i.e. contaminated with copper, etc.
      Ours used only ore, but the Germans did not have that much.
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. Bormanxnumx
        Bormanxnumx 5 August 2020 19: 09
        22
        Quote: Ilshat
        They had problems with armor, the metal was partly from scrap, i.e. contaminated with copper, etc.

        The problems were related to the lack of alloying additives. At 42 g, it was strained with molybdenum - they began to chemistry with nickel, and by 44 g, nickel was in short supply. Therefore, the Germans only had to "dabble" with the content of carbon and chromium.
        1. The comment was deleted.
        2. Operator
          Operator 6 August 2020 01: 07
          +4
          The Germans had problems with their heads - not having a sufficient amount of alloying additives, they stubbornly made heavy tanks for direct clashes with enemy tanks, and the enemy forced them to use them as anti-tank weapons (from ambushes). Then what for an accordion priest - especially since the Germans had an engine, transmission and running gear corresponding to the weight of the "Royal Tiger" until the end of the war (see the first part of the article).

          The IS-2 drove the Royal Tigers head-on into defensive defenses, and the T-34, by evading Teutonic misunderstandings and then acting from ambushes on the KT's escape routes, put a fat point on the German abortion victims.
          1. Zum
            Zum 6 August 2020 14: 34
            +4
            Hmm ... thirty-fours ... like ants ... a lot died ... but even more came ...
            1. Albert1988
              Albert1988 6 August 2020 18: 51
              +3
              Quote: Zum
              Hmm ... thirty-fours ... like ants ... a lot died ... but even more came ...

              Only now, unlike the same tiger, the T-34 performed 100% of the tasks assigned to it, and large losses were associated with the fact that 34 was used extremely widely.
              1. Zum
                Zum 6 August 2020 20: 21
                0
                Large losses were associated with the fact that the T-34 did not have anti-cannon armor ... that's the whole point of the question ...
                1. Albert1988
                  Albert1988 6 August 2020 22: 07
                  +2
                  Quote: Zum
                  that the T-34 did not have anti-cannon armor

                  Laughed, dear ... Will you burn more?
                  Otherwise, it turns out that the tiger also did not have anti-cannon armor - after all, the shells of the SU / ISU-152, ISU-122 and IS-2 did not hold its armor ... at all ...
                  1. Octopus
                    Octopus 6 August 2020 22: 45
                    +4
                    Dear wrote absolutely correctly. The T-34 did not have armor against the main anti-tank gun of the enemy, in reality it was 43 years old and then it was Pak40. But German equipment against the main anti-tank of the enemy in the East, the ZiS-3 with shells from the beginning of the war, performed more than acceptable, starting with the four of 42 and above.

                    By the way, Sherman had exactly the same problem, and in this connection, in fact, in the realities of 44-45, the more mobile and lower Chaffee was better protected than Sherman.
                    1. Albert1988
                      Albert1988 6 August 2020 22: 54
                      0
                      Quote: Octopus
                      Dear wrote absolutely correctly. The T-34 did not have armor against the main anti-tank gun of the enemy, in reality it was 43 years old and then it was Pak40.

                      Firstly, the Pak-40 has been going on since the 42nd year, exactly like the 75-mm cannon on 4-kahs and shtugs, and in the second, the ZiS-3 is NOT an anti-tank gun, but a regimental one, it had to play the role of an anti-tank gun due to its small numbers. PT guns.
                      Quote: Octopus
                      By the way, Sherman had exactly the same problem, and in this connection, in fact, in the realities of 44-45, the more mobile and lower Chaffee was better protected than Sherman.

                      Almost no tank had protection against the artillery that appeared during the indicated period. Especially if good shells were used.
                      1. Black Colonel
                        Black Colonel 9 August 2020 22: 25
                        +1
                        "... ZiS-3 is NOT an anti-tank gun, but a regimental" ZiS-3, in fact, a divisional gun. But, as you correctly wrote, not anti-tank - it was used as an anti-tank weapon out of desperation.
                      2. Albert1988
                        Albert1988 9 August 2020 22: 26
                        -1
                        Quote: Black Colonel
                        ZiS-3 is, in fact, a divisional gun.

                        I know I was wrong, I have already been corrected)
                        Quote: Black Colonel
                        But, as you correctly wrote, not anti-tank - it was used as an anti-tank weapon out of desperation.

                        Yes, alas ...
                2. Zum
                  Zum 7 August 2020 12: 33
                  +1
                  I am not "burning", but stating a fact ..... and the "respected" machines you cited were generally intended for other purposes ...
                  1. Albert1988
                    Albert1988 7 August 2020 19: 35
                    -2
                    Quote: Zum
                    I am not "burning", but stating a fact .....

                    Alas, you just burn ... just anneal ...

                    Quote: Zum
                    . and the "respected" machines you mentioned were generally intended for other purposes ...

                    And for which ones? To plow the fields?
                    1. Zum
                      Zum 7 August 2020 21: 54
                      0
                      Learn the math part ... there is nothing more to comment on ...
                    2. Albert1988
                      Albert1988 7 August 2020 22: 00
                      +2
                      Quote: Zum
                      Learn the math part ... there is nothing more to comment on ...

                      That's the point, dear, that I know the materiel, of course not at the level of a doctor of technical sciences who wrote a dissertation on this topic, but still very tolerant. And what I know very well somehow does not fight much with what you are broadcasting, dear ...
                      There was such an odmn here - they call him Carbine, reincarnated under many nicknames - so he seriously argued that the T-34 is not a tank, and the USSR did not build tanks at all, to the question of what the T34, Kv, IS, etc. were then ., indulged in extensive spreading of thought along the tree, but could not give an intelligible answer.
                      So I'm wondering - what kind of "materiel" you ask me to teach, stating that the T-34 "does not have anti-cannon armor", and the "ISU-122" is not a machine for creating oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh for German cats?
            2. Jager
              Jager 8 August 2020 01: 15
              +2
              The tank, which was created with anti-cannon armor. The T-34's armor held 37-50 mm and short-barreled 75 mm shells. The T-34 was fired at any real battle distance of 8-8, like any other similar tank, with the exception of the IS-3, which did not have time for the war.
              1. Albert1988
                Albert1988 8 August 2020 01: 32
                +3
                Quote: Jager
                The tank, which was created with anti-cannon armor.

                Don't worry - a citizen has his own special "materiel" ...
                Quote: Jager
                The T-34 was fired at any real battle distance of 8-8, like any other similar tank, with the exception of the IS-3, which did not have time for the war.

                Well, they say that the IS-2 was not very good at her forehead either ...
          2. Dr. Frankenstucker
            Dr. Frankenstucker 7 August 2020 08: 43
            -1
            Quote: Albert1988
            Only now, unlike the same tiger, the T-34 performed 100% of the tasks assigned to it.

            and how much is the tiger?
            According to German sources, the ratio of deadweight losses to victories over the tiger is 1: 6 - how much as a percentage according to your classification?
            Quote: Albert1988
            and large losses were associated with the fact that 34 was used very widely.

            L-logic)
            1. Albert1988
              Albert1988 7 August 2020 19: 37
              +2
              Quote: Dr. Frankenshtuzer
              and how much is the tiger?

              Developed as a breakthrough tank ... Learned as a tank destroyer, in the presence of already good tank destroyers - still have questions?
              Quote: Dr. Frankenshtuzer
              According to German sources, the ratio of deadweight losses to victories over the tiger is 1: 6 - how much as a percentage according to your classification?

              And not in German? And then, you know, they considered victories very dashing ...
              And then - how many victories he has on the opponent's heavy weights?
              1. Dr. Frankenstucker
                Dr. Frankenstucker 7 August 2020 19: 46
                -1
                ... And not in German?

                And 'not in German', for example, they burned as many tigers as the industry of the Reich did not even release, recording them as 'fours' J. So, everyone considered it 'dashing'.
                1. Albert1988
                  Albert1988 7 August 2020 19: 49
                  0
                  Quote: Dr. Frankenshtuzer
                  And 'not in German', for example, they burned as many tigers as the industry of the Reich did not even release, recording them as 'fours' J. So, everyone considered it 'dashing'.

                  It's not about how many tigers they burned, but how many tigers burned other tanks according to the estimates of those who fought with these same tigers ...
                  And the fact that there were much more "tigers" beaten, like "Ferdinands", than real cars, is an indisputable fact ...
                  1. Dr. Frankenstucker
                    Dr. Frankenstucker 7 August 2020 20: 04
                    0
                    I doubt that there are Soviet statistics of losses and victories for Schw.Abt. panzerwaffe, which would not be based precisely on German data. How do you imagine that? Meticulous analysis of holes in armor?
                  2. Albert1988
                    Albert1988 7 August 2020 20: 19
                    -1
                    Quote: Dr. Frankenshtuzer
                    I doubt that there are Soviet statistics of losses and victories for Schw.Abt. panzerwaffe, which would not be based on German data.

                    Considering that the Soviet side was the first to question all these German data, then it is worth doubting that it was based on them.
                    Quote: Dr. Frankenshtuzer
                    How do you imagine that? Meticulous analysis of holes in the armor?

                    Even so ...
                    And if not, then it is impossible to calculate even approximately the efficiency by the ratio of victories / losses.
                    Although it is argued that the allies on the Western Front had such statistics. We counted how many tanks were destroyed by battalions of enemy heavy tanks.
                  3. Dr. Frankenstucker
                    Dr. Frankenstucker 7 August 2020 20: 33
                    0
                    ... And if not, then it is impossible to calculate even approximately the efficiency in terms of the win / loss ratio.

                    Then, excuse me, what and whose data do you propose to refer to? You do not believe in the German TTB accounting documentation, you cannot offer an alternative to it.
                  4. Albert1988
                    Albert1988 7 August 2020 20: 39
                    +1
                    Quote: Dr. Frankenshtuzer
                    Then, excuse me, what and whose data do you propose to refer to? You do not believe in the German TTB accounting documentation, you cannot offer an alternative to it.

                    Why, for example, such an uncle as Stephen Zaloga notes that German intelligence on the eastern front cut the claims of German tankers' victories by 30-50% ...
                    Interesting data?
                  5. Dr. Frankenstucker
                    Dr. Frankenstucker 7 August 2020 20: 42
                    -1
                    What do you mean 'cut'? And what does intelligence have to do with the declared victories or losses of heavy tanks?
                  6. Albert1988
                    Albert1988 7 August 2020 20: 51
                    +1
                    Quote: Dr. Frankenshtuzer
                    What do you mean 'cut'? And what does intelligence have to do with the declared victories or losses of heavy tanks?

                    Everything is very simple - the tankers said that they had filled so many tanks, and the frontline reconnaissance later gave a report that in reality they had filled a third or even half less ...
                    In this regard, I have a question - from what was the ratio calculated - from the statements of the Wehrmacht tankers themselves, or already based on the data corrected by intelligence?
                  7. Dr. Frankenstucker
                    Dr. Frankenstucker 7 August 2020 21: 06
                    0
                    I suppose those who were kept in the ZhBD TD and then went to the headquarters of the Civil Aviation and above, to the OKH. Of course, they were corrected - this was the sin of all military bureaucrats of all armies of the world. Or will you argue that military statistics is an exact science akin to mathematics? I'm not taking it)
                  8. Albert1988
                    Albert1988 7 August 2020 21: 34
                    0
                    Quote: Dr. Frankenshtuzer
                    I suppose those who were kept in the ZhBD TD and then went to the headquarters of the Civil Aviation and above, to the OKH.

                    Possible.
                    Quote: Dr. Frankenshtuzer
                    Or will you argue that military statistics is an exact science akin to mathematics? I'm not taking it)

                    On the contrary! I very much support you in this point of view - military statistics are not even statistics, but a very rough estimate. So talking about the effectiveness of the same tiger based on such data is a very controversial issue.
                    True, it is worth noting - this is only one aspect of it, and there were others.
                    Otherwise, it may turn out that the tool works like a great hammer, but only this is an adjustable gas wrench. like a hammer - it works perfectly, but like a gas wrench - not very much.
                    Or, as in another case with German and Soviet products - Volkswagen Tuareg is better than Lada Niva, well, just in all respects, and nevertheless, Tuaregs and Pradiks, who have sat down on their belly, pull out the fields from the depths of Russian provincial mud, if there is no tractor nearby ...
                  9. Albert1988
                    Albert1988 9 August 2020 23: 02
                    0
                    By the way! A bit of digits ...
                    I do not know where you got the figure in 1: 6, there is a figure in 1: 5,4, which is quoted by K. Wilbeck in the book "Hammerheads" (2004).
                    And this is the ratio of tanks knocked out by tigers according to the combat logs of the battalions themselves. Data are presented together for "tigers" and "tigers B".
                    5,4 to 1 - the ratio to the total number of tiger losses, if we take the ratio only to the tigers lost according to the combat logs in battle, the ratio will turn out to be absolutely fantastic - 12 to 1 !!!
                    But here's what immediately alarms:
                    according to the same data fighting loss of tigers (irrecoverable) - 713 units,
                    а not fighting - 868 !! That is more than 50% and noticeably.
                    If this is true, then what does it mean? Most likely, that logistic problems, problems with mobility of cars were critical ...
                    What is more important - the same Stephen Zaloga cites interesting reports from German frontline intelligence, which in 43-44 slightly corrects the reports of German tankers on destroyed tanks, and cuts from 30 to 50%, however.
                    So it is quite possible to adjust the score of the vehicles hit by the tigers by 40% - it turns out 5160 tanks. Already more or less acceptable figure.

                    A few more interesting figures - according to Forti, 150000 man-hours were spent on a tiger, on 34, according to Ustyantsev and Kolmakov, about 7500 man-hours ...
                    And if you also take into account the need to transport tigers exclusively on special 6-axle railway platforms and change them into transport tracks at the same time, then the conclusions for tigers are not comforting ...
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Svarog
    Svarog 5 August 2020 19: 19
    +9
    Quote: Ilshat
    They had problems with armor, the metal was partly from scrap, i.e. contaminated with copper, etc.
    Ours used only ore, but the Germans did not have that much.

    Not only with armor, with cross-country ability, with engines .. German tanks had enough problems.
    We can say that the best armored vehicles of the Second World War were made by the Germans ...

    The winner's technique was the best .. T-34, IS-2, KV were the best.
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 5 August 2020 19: 41
      20
      Quote: Svarog
      The winner has the best technique.

      Not necessary. You can make the best technique in terms of performance characteristics - and love everything and everyone, because a wunderwaffe cannot be massive. And while one wunderwaffe is dealing with five middle peasants of the enemy, in other sectors (in which the wunderwaffe did not have enough) ten more of the same middle peasants mix the defense with mud.
      Victory in WWII and WWII was ensured not by the best performance characteristics, but by the mass production of equipment and the training of crews. And all the Allies.
      Quote: Svarog
      T-34, IS-2, KV were the best.

      Oh, better not about KV. Everything you need to know about the KV was set out in the letter of the military representative and the report of the Mehlis commission - a tank, the design flaws of which are aggravated by the quality of manufacture, and the plant and the design bureau do nothing to correct these shortcomings. 47-50 tons of mass, mounted on the suspension and chassis, designed for 40 tons. And a 7-12-ton tower driven by a 3-ton T-28 tower. sad
      1. Svarog
        Svarog 5 August 2020 19: 52
        11
        Quote: Alexey RA
        Oh, better not about KV.

        However:
        On July 13, 1942, in the N-MITYAKINSKOE 2nd district, the KV tank by l-nta KONOVALOV was out of order after the battle. The crew restored the tank on their own. At this time, 2 German armored vehicles appeared. Comrade Konovalov immediately opened fire and one car was set on fire, the second hastily disappeared. Following the armored vehicles, a moving column of tanks appeared, first 1 vehicles, and then 35 more. The pr-k was advancing towards the village. L-nt Konovalov, using the advantageous position of his camouflaged tank, decided to take the battle. Having admitted the first column of tanks to a distance of 40-500 meters, the KV crew opened fire. 600 tanks were destroyed by direct fire. The convoy did not accept the battle and came back. But after a while, 4 tanks of the pr-ka attacked the village in deployed formation. L-nt KONOVALOV decided to continue the fight against the armored vehicles of the German fascist invaders, despite such an overwhelming superiority. The heroic crew set fire to 55 more tanks of the pr-ka and forced him to roll back a second time. The enemy makes a third attack. Hero-tankers, led by their Komsomol commander Comrade Konovalov, fire at tanks and vehicles up to the last round. They destroy 6 more enemy tanks, 6 armored vehicle and 1 vehicles with enemy soldiers and officers. The Soviet fortress falls silent. The Nazis open fire from a 8mm gun, which is pulled up to the tank at a distance of 105 meters. The crew of the tank with the Hero-Commander Lieutenant Konovalov, together with the tank, died in this unequal battle.
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 6 August 2020 09: 17
          +2
          During the tests of the KV tacs with small and large towers in the summer of 1940, it was established:
          ... the type of air cleaner used, built on the principle of the T-28 filter, did not meet the requirements of long-term operation. When driving on a dusty country road, the filter had to be cleaned after 1–1,5 hours. It quickly clogged up, the resistance to air intake increased, dust got into the motor.

          There were especially many shortcomings in the design of the transmission, in particular, in the gearbox, the reliability of which left much to be desired. During the tests, there was a breakdown of the gear teeth and their increased wear, there were difficulties in shifting gears while driving. In addition, it turned out that with a prolonged movement of the tank in fourth gear, she and the second gear associated with it were out of order. To eliminate this drawback, starting from the 31st machine (KB No. 3611), a special lock was introduced into the design of the gearbox.

          During the summer tests of the tanks, it turned out that during prolonged driving in higher gears at an ambient temperature of +20 degrees, the temperature of the oil and water rises significantly and goes beyond the permissible limit. This forced during the movement to shift to lower gears and reduce the speed of the machine. So, when driving on the highway, the U-7 tank reached a maximum speed of 24,3 km / h, and “the ability to get higher speeds and fully use the engine power was limited by the temperatures of water and oil in the cooling system, which reached 107 and 112 degrees, respectively. ".

          In addition, the unreliability of the turret swivel mechanism was noted, the design of which was largely borrowed from the swivel mechanism of the large turret of the T-28 tank weighing about 3 tons. And since the mass of the KV-1 tower was 7 tons, the KV-2 - 12 tons (! ), and in addition, the towers became more unbalanced, problems arose associated with large efforts on the handles of the manual aiming mechanisms, the power of the electric motors for turning the towers, as well as issues of speed and smoothness of aiming guns. So, when the KV tanks were moving along the slopes, turning the KV-1 tower to the side was a big problem, not to mention the KV-2 tower.

          Over the next year, before the start of the war, LKZ did not eliminate any of the identified shortcomings on the serial machines it produced, explaining its position by the fact that a new heavy tank was being designed at the plant, the design of which would take into account all the comments.
          1. Albert1988
            Albert1988 6 August 2020 22: 18
            0
            Quote: Alexey RA
            Over the next year, before the start of the war, LKZ did not eliminate any of the identified shortcomings on the serial machines it produced, explaining its position by the fact that a new heavy tank was being designed at the plant, the design of which would take into account all the comments.

            And nevertheless, the KV-1 became an absolute nightmare for the Germans in the 41st, and when they met entire tank brigades equipped with these vehicles near Moscow, situations approximately equivalent to Reisseiniai became commonplace.
            1. oldbuddy
              oldbuddy 7 August 2020 03: 57
              -2
              And you are really just a chatterbox:

              Quote: Albert1988
              And nevertheless, the KV-1 became an absolute nightmare for the Germans in the 41st, and when they met entire tank brigades equipped with these vehicles near Moscow, situations approximately equivalent to Reisseiniai became commonplace.


              1. The KV-1 was not a "nightmare" for the Germans in 1941.
              For a start:
              The 297th Infantry Division of the Wehrmacht quite easily repels the counterstrike of the 10th Panzer Division (63 KV, 37 T-34, 44 T-28, 147 BT-7, 27 T-26) on June 25-27, 1941 near Radzekhov

              June 25 - an unsuccessful attack cost 10 etc. 4 KV and 7 BT
              June 26 - an unsuccessful attack cost 10 etc. 9 KV and 5 BT

              The basis of the defense of the 297th Infantry Division was the standard six light (105 mm) and three heavy (150 mm) artillery batteries.

              2. "KV-1 .... and even when near Moscow they met whole tank brigades, equipped with these machines"

              There have never been "whole tank brigades" manned by the KV-1.

              Separate tank brigade
              States Nos. 010/75 - 010/83 (dated 23 August 1941)
              KV tanks - 7 pieces
              Medium tanks T-34 or T-50 - 22 pieces
              Small tanks T-40 or T-60 - 32 pcs

              Separate tank brigade
              states No. 010/303 - 010/310 (December 9, 1941)

              Tank battalion (state number 010/306) - 150 people.
              company of heavy tanks - 5 KV-1
              company of medium tanks - 7 T-34
              company of light tanks - 10 T-60

              Tank battalion (state number 010/306) - 150 people.
              company of heavy tanks - 5 KV-1
              company of medium tanks - 7 T-34
              company of light tanks - 10 T-60


              "you are weighed on a scale and found very light"
              1. Alexey RA
                Alexey RA 7 August 2020 08: 49
                +3
                Quote: oldbuddy
                There have never been "whole tank brigades" manned by the KV-1.

                There were - near Leningrad.
                The 124th Panzer Brigade began to form on September 17, 1941 from the 24th Panzer Division and the 146th Panzer Regiment. The formation took place at the Artillery School on Kalyaeva Street in Leningrad and was basically completed by September 25, 1941. The brigade was formed as part of a tank regiment (two battalions of KV tanks), a motorized rifle battalion, a battery of 76 mm guns, an air defense battery, a mortar company and a reconnaissance company. The brigade received all orders and instructions from the headquarters of the 42nd Army and the headquarters of the Leningrad Front, with which it maintained continuous communication. The brigade received tanks from the Kirov plant. By September 25, the brigade had 46 combat-ready KV tanks.

                For a similar state, 123 brigade was formed, which worked on the Nevsky patch.
                1. oldbuddy
                  oldbuddy 7 August 2020 15: 04
                  -3
                  Yes, the specifics of the besieged Leningrad ..
                  But formally I'm right, there were not only KV-1s

                  124th Tank Brigade
                  By September 25, two tank battalions of the brigade had 46 combat-ready KVs, including 4 flamethrower KV-8s,

                  123rd tank brigade.
                  Numerical composition:
                  01.10.1941
                  43 KV-1, 2 T-34,
                  1. Alexey RA
                    Alexey RA 7 August 2020 16: 00
                    +1
                    Quote: oldbuddy
                    Yes, the specifics of the besieged Leningrad ..

                    She is the very one - the remnants of the LKZ drive tanks from what was left on what was left. And since there are no other sources of new tanks so far, we have to equip the tank with heavy tanks.
                    Moreover, in addition to serial machines in 123 and 124 tbr, even experimental and pre-production machines went. So 123 TBR received an experienced T-150, as well as U-9 and U-5 (pilot batch vehicles). 124 TBR acquired a pair of T-220.
                    In general, the experienced man at the front had an interesting fate.
                    The T-150 fought until May 1943, when, according to the documents, it went into non-return, but, despite this, it was restored by the plant number 371 and fought until August 1943, when it was again hit, again sent to the plant number 371 and no longer was being restored.
                    One of the T-220 (M-220-2) was irrevocable (burned down) in November ... and also revived like a phoenix from the ashes, appearing in the documents of the 12th outp for February 1943. In this regiment he served until 1944 g.
                    Source - articles uv. Yu Pasholoka at Warspot.
            2. Alexey RA
              Alexey RA 7 August 2020 08: 45
              +1
              Quote: Albert1988
              And nevertheless, the KV-1 became an absolute nightmare for the Germans in the 41st, and when they met entire tank brigades equipped with these vehicles near Moscow, situations approximately equivalent to Reisseiniai became commonplace.

              If only ... There was such a 124th brigade on KV - fully equipped, with its own infantry. At Strelna, it was supposed to break through the German defenses and reach the Oranienbaum bridgehead - no more than 20 km.
              Result: the brigade covered 6 km and got bogged down in the German defense. Three days after the loss of half of the tanks, the brigade was withdrawn from the battle.
              As a result of the battles for October 8–9–10, the brigade suffered losses (taken into account):
              Killed - 83 people
              Wounded - 144 people
              Missing - 328 people
              Lost material part:
              KV tanks burned down - 20 pcs.
              Missing - 3 pcs.
              Two armored vehicles burned down
              Broken down: one radio station, one kitchen, 2 wheeled vehicles.
              © ZhBD 124th brigade
      2. Svarog
        Svarog 5 August 2020 19: 57
        -5
        Quote: Alexey RA
        Not necessary. You can make the best technique in terms of performance characteristics - and love everything and everyone, because a wunderwaffe cannot be massive

        By this you mean to say that the USSR had an overwhelming advantage in tanks?
      3. Sergey_G_M
        Sergey_G_M 5 August 2020 21: 07
        0
        There is technology and there are technologies that can severely restrict this technique (for example, technologies greatly limited the mileage of tanks during the Second World War).
        For example, the problems with the fingers on the tracks of the tracks on our cars were almost greater than those of the Germans, like a simple detail, but here the focus is in technology - materials, hardening, grinding, everything matters.
        For example, in the production of a penny, we bought technologies and a production line, but our technologists decided to improve and save money - the cam shaft pushing the engine valves should not first be hardened and then grinded, but vice versa (saving on processing, grinding a hardened part is more difficult than a raw one) it turned out shit and quickly from such the optimization was abandoned.
        1. Zufei
          Zufei 7 August 2020 13: 41
          -1
          Grinding on raw metal will “grease” the abrasive wheel. They don't do that.
      4. Sergey_G_M
        Sergey_G_M 5 August 2020 21: 17
        -4
        Who is Mehlis? Part worker, manager.
        the letter of the military representative and the report of the Mehlis commission - a tank, the design flaws of which are aggravated by the quality of manufacture, and the plant and the design bureau do nothing to correct these shortcomings

        And given this report, the manager was not very good, since he should have understood that these problems lie, in particular, not at the plant and design bureau, but in the general condition in the country with materials, metrology and technologies. But it is very easy not to solve such global problems, but simply to blame someone, showing himself to be handsome, which is what Mehlis did.
        1. sergo1914
          sergo1914 5 August 2020 23: 06
          +5
          Quote: Sergey_G_M
          And given this report, the manager was not very good, as he should have understood that these problems lie, in particular, not at the plant and design bureau, but in the general condition in the country with materials, metrology and technologies.


          Eh. It is a pity that Joseph Vissarionovich did not have an advisor and manager at the level of Sergey_G_M during the war. And (comma,), taking into account this report (one more comma) ... With such knowledge of the Russian language, to make yourself an expert-manager? Evaluate Mehlis's work? It is worth waiting for the graduation in kindergarten and go to school.
          1. Sergey_G_M
            Sergey_G_M 5 August 2020 23: 32
            -2
            Hmm. I'll try to answer.
            In the "general" case, the tank plant and its design bureau are assembling and designing a tank from units supplied by the industry: armor, cannon, engine, gearbox. The list of co-executors and suppliers here exceeds a hundred. When designing complex products, it often turns out that co-contractors do not withstand the parameters of the TOR issued by the customer. Is the tank plant to blame for what, according to its TK, the foundry or engine builders did and delivered the wrong thing? Partly yes, but declaring the delivered products a marriage and sending back is unrealistic, most likely a military acceptance with sour fizinomy will accept such products, but say that it is not necessary anymore, otherwise it is fraught.
            I will not even answer about commas and kindergarten, well, it’s like that, and on your part, it doesn’t pull at serious argumentation of your position.
            1. Alexey RA
              Alexey RA 6 August 2020 09: 11
              +3
              Quote: Sergey_G_M
              In the "general" case, the tank plant and its design bureau are assembling and designing a tank from units supplied by the industry: armor, cannon, engine, gearbox.

              In the case of LKZ, the gun, engine and gearbox were made by the LKZ itself (moreover, he also designed the gearbox and the gun). Only the armor was Izhora.
              Quote: Sergey_G_M
              Is the tank plant to blame for what, according to its TK, the foundry or engine builders did and delivered the wrong thing?

              These explanations would work for the KhPZ - there, yes, there was a sea of ​​subcontractors. But LKZ was a "thing in itself" - the plant itself produced V-2K for its KV.
              We designed the tank ourselves, we released most of the components for it ourselves, we assembled it ourselves - but it's our fault general condition in the country.
        2. tihonmarine
          tihonmarine 6 August 2020 00: 20
          -5
          Quote: Sergey_G_M
          Who is Mehlis? Part worker, manager.

          A man with enormous powers, whom Stalin was wary of.
          1. Octopus
            Octopus 6 August 2020 12: 29
            +2
            Quote: tihonmarine
            whom Stalin was wary of

            )))
            But Comrade Stalin was the first to succeed.
          2. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 6 August 2020 15: 35
            +4
            Quote: tihonmarine
            A man with enormous powers, whom Stalin was wary of.

            Some were afraid of Pew, others of Flint. And Flint himself was afraid of me. He was afraid of me and proud of me ...
            © radar
        3. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 6 August 2020 09: 02
          +4
          Quote: Sergey_G_M
          Who is Mehlis? Part worker, manager.

          In fact, the Mehlis commission arrived after receiving a letter from the military representative to the LKZ "at the top", which clearly listed the design flaws of the KV, which the plant knew very well and which the plant was not going to eliminate.
          According to the materials of tests carried out over 10 months on 5 cars with a total mileage of 5270 km, it can be seen that the characteristic defects that are repeated on each tested machine are:
          1. Bad air filter of the motor, the filter must be done different.
          2. The efficiency of the engine cooling system is low.
          3. Weak gearbox, you need to do a new one.
          4. Unreliable in-flight clutches.
          5. Inadequate brakes (often burn out, difficult to adjust).
          6. It is necessary to modify the chassis in the direction of its strengthening (rollers, tracks, torsion shaft).
          In addition, the machine has a number of major defects that do not affect its mobility, but reduce the combat qualities of the machine.
          1. The L-11 system, installed on a production vehicle, is rejected and approved for arming tanks temporarily.
          2. Ammunition should be redesigned to simplify and facilitate the ability to use them, as well as to increase ammunition.
          3. Weak shoulder straps under a normal tower, and even more so under a large tower. It must be strengthened.
          4. A large tower with the M-10 system, designed urgently during the Finnish conflict, requires large alterations and improvements.
          5. Defective swivel mechanism and tower stopper. The tower rotates heavily, sticks, the motor does not pull, the stoppers do not hold.
          In addition to the above, the machine has a lot of minor defects, flaws, deviations from the drawings, which are not worth talking about ...
          I believe that at the moment it is impossible to call the car combat-ready due to the above defects. It can only be sent to the army as a training one, and not as a combat one.

          And here is how the plant "eliminated" them:
          According to the materials of tests carried out over 10 months with a total mileage of 5270 km, it is clear that characteristic defects, which were mentioned in the list of design changes dated February 4, 1940 and which were confirmed by tests, have not been eliminated and are systematically repeated on each tested machine... This is explained by the fact that instead of a sober assessment of the defect and its actual elimination, the plant is engaged in "covering up" these defects.
          The plant does not carry out the required radical measures to eliminate defects, but rather easily feasible half-measures, or does nothing at all. For example, instead of intensive work on improving the nodes in the gearbox (it has weak gears, some bearings are unreliable, the pump does not work well), the plant improved the heat treatment of several gears. The test results showed the absurdity of this event. Even during the defense of the project, as well as in the list of design changes from February 4, the question was raised about the need for a lock in the gearbox, but the plant did not want to do anything until two gearboxes crashed. Until now, the issue with the facilitation of gear shifting is also incomplete.
          (...)
          Today, the 39th car is being assembled. It would seem that 35 units (not counting 4 vehicles of the front period) are quite enough in order to modify the vehicle and improve its quality. And in essence, the difference in quality between the first and the last machines lies in various small adjustments, in linking drawings and in refining the production technology. As regards the elimination of the main structural defects of the machine, nothing significant has been done.
          © military engineer of the 3rd rank Kalivoda. August 12, 1940.
        4. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 6 August 2020 09: 05
          +2
          Quote: Sergey_G_M
          And given this report, the manager was not very good, as he should have understood that these problems lie, in particular, not at the plant and design bureau, but in the general condition in the country with materials, metrology and technologies.

          Please tell me what global problems prevented the factory design bureau from initially calculating the suspension and chassis of a new tank for 46-48 tons? Or understand that the drive of a three-ton tower will not pull a seven-ton tower? Or counterbalance the KV tower - because with the existing design, the slightest roll added loads to the drive?
          And most importantly, what global problems prevented the plant from dealing with MCI in general? Indeed, the letter of the military representative directly says:
          This attitude to the refinement of the machine is explained by the fact that the plant threw all its forces, means and tricks into the formal execution of the program, completely ignoring the quality of the machine and the need to eliminate serious tank defects during production. For example, failure to implement the July program led to the fact that the director of the plant comrade On August 1, Zaltsman gave a false message to the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks that 15 cars were handed over, while 13 cars were not accepted by military acceptance with a number of defects to be eliminated. Several cars were not even in the control military mission. In addition, the towers did not rotate on the machines during the roll. All these vehicles are currently not ready (by August 12), have not been accepted by military acceptance and are unlikely to be received in the next 10-15 days. This fact indicates that the plant is not at all worried about the quality of the machine, it wants to execute the program formally, and the director is engaged in fraud.

          In fact, all the KVs surrendered before the war were either non-combatant or partially combat-ready. For the UKN began only after it became clear that there would be no new heavy tank.
          1. Kerensky
            Kerensky 6 August 2020 20: 24
            -1
            Please tell me what global problems prevented the factory design bureau from initially calculating the suspension and chassis of a new tank for 46-48 tons? Or understand that the drive of a three-ton tower will not pull a seven-ton tower?

            ".... proposes to use a chevron gear instead of a conventional gear, which is direct evidence of sabotage..."
            Sound familiar? Who wrote "up"?
      5. Operator
        Operator 6 August 2020 01: 11
        -8
        Not only the massiveness of armored vehicles among the allies and the lack of access to alloying additives among the Germans, but also the stupidity of the tankers and the curvature of the engineers of the Third Reich, who did not "shmog" to decide on the appearance of their main tank or, at least, to make the "Royal Tiger" operational ( see the first part of the article).
      6. Octopus
        Octopus 6 August 2020 12: 26
        +3
        Quote: Alexey RA
        love everything and everyone, because the wunderwaffe cannot be massive

        In principle, the shtug was correct, a good wunderwaffe at the beginning of the war - a lot of armor, a lot of guns and a lot of things themselves, it is relatively simple to use, to prop up the infantry ..
      7. Mister X
        Mister X 6 August 2020 13: 33
        +1
        Thanks to the author for the interesting material in a language understandable to everyone!
        hi
        Quote: Svarog
        The winner has the best technique

        Quote: Alexey RA
        Not necessary. You can do the best technique in terms of performance characteristics

        Quote: Alexey RA
        ten middle peasants mix defense with mud.

        It's not just about technology. People are even more important.
        - A sword in the hands of a coward is useless (Eastern proverb)
        For example, Nikolai Sirotinin, covering the retreat of his regiment, destroyed a column of German armored vehicles from 1 cannon.
        What was decisive: the 45mm cannon, or the gunner?
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 6 August 2020 15: 53
          +6
          Quote: Mister X
          For example, Nikolai Sirotinin, covering the retreat of his regiment, destroyed a column of German armored vehicles from 1 cannon.
          What was decisive: the 45mm cannon, or the gunner?

          The decisive one was Mikhail Melnikov, who invented this battle and invented the witness - the chief lieutenant of the 4th Panzer Division Henfeld. And he didn't even bother to check who held the defense on July 17, 1941 near the village of Sokolnichi.
          Because in real life, Eberbach's Kampfgroup stumbled upon the defense of the 2nd battalion of the 409th rifle regiment of the 137th rifle division (commander - Captain Kim). A full-blooded battalion - six hundred men, four 45-mm anti-tank guns, twelve machine guns and one stray 122-mm howitzer. After 4 hours of battle, the battalion was forced to withdraw. However, it was difficult to expect otherwise - Eberbach's group had a powerful artillery fist (in fact, an artillery regiment, which included a 15-cm cannon and a 21-cm mortar), which mixed the battalion's positions with the ground with impunity.
          Three hours later the Germans were in Krichev, and by the evening they advanced another 20 km further and shut the boiler.
          Unfortunately, in this story there was no place for the legendary Russian lone artilleryman Nikolai Sirotinin, who allegedly single-handedly stopped a German tank column, inflicting monstrous losses in manpower and equipment. The German documents do not even contain any hints on this occasion. Lists of losses in the 2nd Panzer Group for July 17 confirm only one killed officer in the units that were part of Colonel Eberbach's Kampfgruppe. No lost tanks were recorded either. Yes, this is understandable if you carefully study the very nature of the battle. Tanks in that battle on Varshavskoe highway simply did not participate. Everything was decided by artillery and the coordinated interaction of all units of the Kampfgroup.
          © hranitel-slov
          1. Octopus
            Octopus 6 August 2020 16: 16
            0
            Quote: Alexey RA
            And he didn't even bother to check who held the defense on July 17, 1941 near the village of Sokolnichi.

            There is an opinion that the most disgusting thing about all these countless Panfilov men is that in public they completely cover real exploits, like sailors embrasure.
            1. Alexey RA
              Alexey RA 6 August 2020 16: 44
              +2
              Quote: Octopus
              There is an opinion that the most disgusting thing about all these countless Panfilov men is that in public they completely cover real exploits,

              Worse, they do not just close, but nullify real feats in the minds of people. For after such "paper heroes" true heroism is questioned and disbelieved.

              The same cadets, anti-aircraft gunners and opabovites from the Ilyinsky line were incredibly lucky that the enemy not only described the result of their work in their diaries, but also filmed a ripped column of “Czechs” with “fours” from different angles.
          2. Mister X
            Mister X 7 August 2020 09: 33
            +1
            Quote: Alexey RA
            The decisive one was Mikhail Melnikov, who invented this fight

            Quote: Alexey RA
            there was no place for the legendary Russian lone gunner Nikolai Sirotinin

            I did not study the German archives, but here is what I managed to find:






            Source: Generalized data bank "Memorial".
            Created on the initiative of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation in 2007.
            1. Alexey RA
              Alexey RA 7 August 2020 09: 47
              0
              Quote: Mister X
              I did not study the German archives, but here is what I managed to find:

              The problem is that the 6th Infantry Division never had a 55th Infantry Regiment.
              The 55th Infantry Regiment was part of the 17th Infantry Division.
              If the clock struck thirteen times, one should doubt the correctness of not only the last, thirteenth strike, but also all twelve previous ones.
              ©
              1. Mister X
                Mister X 7 August 2020 10: 11
                +3
                Quote: Alexey RA
                The problem is that the 6th Infantry Division never had a 55th Infantry Regiment.

                I love to get to the bottom of the truth.
                You may have read my publications on VO.

                In my spare time, I will try to study all the available materials.
                I do not promise that it will be soon.
                I spent a whole year on a series of articles about Romanian ships.

                Have a nice day!
                1. Alexey RA
                  Alexey RA 7 August 2020 11: 56
                  +1
                  Quote: Mister X
                  In my spare time, I will try to study all the available materials.
                  I do not promise that it will be soon.

                  It won't be easy. As for Sirotinin, I met outstanding shit ... uh, constructive discussions on the net in which both sides threw scans of docks at each other. Moreover, "Captain Kim's side" rested on the fact that almost all the documents on Sirotinin were post-war, dating after the first article about him was published. And according to the book of Memory in the Oryol region, N.V. Sirotinin died in general in 1944 in the Bryansk region.
                  1. Mister X
                    Mister X 7 August 2020 12: 14
                    +2
                    Quote: Alexey RA
                    It won't be easy.

                    I don’t tackle light topics.

                    Quote: Alexey RA
                    constructive discussions, in which both sides threw dock scans at each other.

                    I am not limited to visiting forums.

                    However, this is a groundwork for the future.
                    I propose to return to the beginning of our discussion.
                    Quote: Mister X
                    It's not just about technology. People are even more important.
                    - A sword in the hands of a coward is useless (Eastern proverb)

                    What was decisive on the battlefield: equipment or soldiers?
                  2. Alexey RA
                    Alexey RA 7 August 2020 12: 54
                    0
                    Quote: Mister X
                    What was decisive on the battlefield: equipment or soldiers?

                    I would say that a soldier ... were it not for the results of the war on the TO, where the samurai with their highest fighting spirit with a crushing score lost to the "pampered and lazy" Yankees.
                    No amount of fighting spirit will help if the enemy can "throw iron".
                  3. Mister X
                    Mister X 7 August 2020 14: 08
                    +1
                    Quote: Alexey RA
                    I would say that the soldier ...

                    I believe that both factors are important, and not only.

                    In the army, everything should be at the proper level:
                    - the fighting spirit of the soldiers
                    - technical equipment
                    - professional skills
                    - competent command staff
                    - logistics support
                    - defense industry
                    - other
                    Take one of these things out, and everything starts to crumble.

                    Do you agree?
                  4. Alexey RA
                    Alexey RA 7 August 2020 16: 09
                    +2
                    Quote: Mister X
                    Do you agree?

                    Of course yes.
                    And what, with the need to have a properly armed, trained and motivated army, backed by a powerful military industry, someone can disagree? smile
                  5. Octopus
                    Octopus 7 August 2020 16: 47
                    +2
                    Quote: Mister X
                    Take one of these things out, and everything starts to crumble.

                    Do you agree?

                    )))
                    Especially the "stuff".

                    Not a single WWII army had everything that you listed at the same time. In terms of the sum of bronze medals, perhaps, the Germans win, but there are no absolute champions in gold.
                  6. Mister X
                    Mister X 7 August 2020 17: 19
                    +1
                    Quote: Octopus
                    Especially the "stuff".

                    hi
                    Medical service, and so on, and so on;)
                    The list can be continued.
                    Quote: Octopus
                    Not a single WWII army had everything that you listed.

                    I agree, but we must strive for this.
                    Right?
                  7. Octopus
                    Octopus 7 August 2020 17: 29
                    +2
                    Quote: Mister X
                    Right?

                    Of course it is.

                    But I had to fight with what to eat. Someone lacked money, some iron, some brains, some all at once.
                  8. Mister X
                    Mister X 7 August 2020 21: 12
                    0
                    Quote: Octopus
                    Someone lacked money, some iron, some brains, some all at once.

                    I agree.
                    As in the human body: who lacks iron, who has some other problem.
          3. Octopus
            Octopus 7 August 2020 16: 45
            +1
            Quote: Alexey RA
            No amount of fighting spirit will help if the enemy can "throw iron".

            I didn't expect you to have questions for American morale too.
          4. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 7 August 2020 17: 25
            +1
            Quote: Octopus
            I didn't expect you to have questions for American morale too.

            After Midway and the cut at Guadalcanal - none.
            It's just that against the background of the pretentious overcoming samurai and chthonic meat grinders of the Soviet-German front, the Americans with their "war on schedule" (especially in aviation with its "tours") outwardly seem to be insufficiently high-spirited. And they lost little people, and in general they won unfairly - due to the qualitative and quantitative advantage (which, apparently, they were driven from Mars). smile
          5. Octopus
            Octopus 7 August 2020 17: 32
            +1
            Quote: Alexey RA
            outwardly do not seem to be high-spirited enough. And they lost little people, and generally won unfairly - due to the qualitative and quantitative advantage

            )))
            And then I get out all in brown and talk about backward technology, mediocre commanders, and betrayal in Washington. It's a shame, probably, with such and such results.

            I mean, it's not just Americans who feel hurt.
          6. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 7 August 2020 17: 38
            +1
            Quote: Octopus
            And then I get out all in brown and talk about backward technology, mediocre commanders, and betrayal in Washington. It's a shame, probably, with such and such results.

            That neither. We were repeatedly explained here that the war was the result of a global conspiracy of the Anglo-Saxons (and their cousins). In such a situation, they simply could not lose.
            And all the shortcomings you listed are just a smokescreen and distracting maneuvers that hide this awful conspiracy.
  • Albert1988
    Albert1988 6 August 2020 18: 52
    -2
    Quote: Alexey RA
    And while one wunderwaffe is dealing with five middle peasants of the enemy, in other areas (in which the wunderwaffe did not have enough) ten more of the same middle peasants mix the defense with mud.
    Victory in WWII and WWII was ensured not by the best performance characteristics, but by the mass production of equipment and the training of crews. And all the Allies.

    Here's a great wording! The Germans did not have the much-needed mass tank with decent characteristics like the T-34 and Sherman.
    1. oldbuddy
      oldbuddy 6 August 2020 19: 17
      -1
      "In all its key indicators (firepower, armor and mobility), the Sherman was clearly inferior to the more advanced German tanks that it encountered on the battlefield. This gross discrepancy not only caused severe suffering and death of many soldiers and losses of armored vehicles, but also delayed the successful completion of the war in Europe.

      From my point of view, one of the greatest tragedies of the Second World War was the fact that our tankers had to fight the Germans in vehicles shamefully inferior to the heavy enemy "Panzer". Before landing in Normandy, the command was able to convince us that the main tank M4 "Sherman" is a good vehicle, quite capable of competing on equal terms with German armored vehicles. We soon realized that this was not the case at all. When the 3rd Armored Division entered the battle, it numbered 232 Sherman tanks. During the European campaign, the division lost 648 Shermans in battle and another seven hundred were knocked out, but returned to service after repairs. The losses were thus 580%. "

      Cooper, Belton Youngblood
      Deadly traps. Survival of the American Armored Division in World War II "
      1. Octopus
        Octopus 6 August 2020 19: 41
        +1
        Quote: oldbuddy
        Cooper, Belton Youngblood

        )))
        Belton Cooper served in a tank division's repair company. Washing the Shermans from the inside from burnt meat had a heavy impact on his judgment.

        First, Cooper was dealing with the consequences of the work of those Panthers that the German was still able to produce, bring to a combat readiness and deliver to the battlefield. Disadvantages of the Panther in terms of production, maintainability, etc. Cooper didn't know and didn't want to know.

        Secondly, Cooper was not aware that in the YUS Army, as in all others, the main anti-tank weapon was artillery, and not tanks. Therefore, his nagging is too much focused on technology and too little on the training of commanders, which was the main problem. And to kill tanks on Panthers - you don't need a lot of mind, Rotmistrov at one time and without Panthers coped.

        Cooper is right in a large part, though. The complete inadequacy of the American General Staff led to the fact that the Sherman, who was the best tank of the war in 42-43, for the 44th time lost its adequacy to its tasks. What is no less funny, not only the Germans, but also the British, over whom it is customary to make fun of in the tank sense, and even the beggar USSR, had a significant number of suitable equipment in the summer of 44.
        1. Albert1988
          Albert1988 6 August 2020 22: 14
          -2
          Quote: Octopus
          ... And to kill tanks against Panthers - you don't need much mind

          And most importantly, while on a tiny sector of the front, a number of Shermans were killed by panthers, on the rest of the huge front, crowds of Shermans nightmarized the German infantry, reducing the local successes of the panthers to zero ...
          Quote: Octopus
          Rotmistrov at one time and without Panthers coped.

          After killing tanks against the German PT arty ...
          And yes - on the same Kursk Bulge, the Germans killed a battalion of panthers in 5 days, about mines, Soviet artillery, landscape elements so efficiently that this unit could not inflict any noticeable damage to the enemy at all)))
          1. Octopus
            Octopus 6 August 2020 22: 59
            0
            Quote: Albert1988
            while on a tiny sector of the front, a number of Shermans were killed by panthers, on the rest of the huge front, crowds of Shermans terrified the German infantry,

            There was no front as such. Having punched a hole in the German defense at Saint-Lo, the Americans entered the operational space, where the Panthers simply could not do anything to them. American aviation, both tactical and strategic (with the help of the fuel program), immobilized the Panzerwaffe.
            Quote: Albert1988
            battalion of panthers in 5 days, about mines, Soviet artillery, landscape elements so effectively

            Yes, drowning tanks in a swamp is also not difficult.
            Quote: Albert1988
            with panthers and tigers, due to their "incredible numbers", he had scanty chances to meet at all ...

            The Panther is about half of the Wehrmacht tanks in France. By the way, these very panthers were not in Belarus at that very time, few people know about this.
            Quote: Albert1988
            This citizen compares the medium vehicle, the main line tank, to the enemy's heavy weights.

            The Panther was just the main line tank. She differs in weight from Sherman no more than Sherman himself in the 42nd year differed from the three. It is heavy only in the strange Soviet tank reality.
            Quote: Albert1988
            There is only one reason for this situation - the poor performance of amerovskoy PT artillery!

            American PT artillery worked more than well. But Cooper was a tanker and saw only the consequences of tank-to-tank battles. The fact that such battles are not an indicator is not important for Cooper, in his life tanks and tanks fought very often.
            Quote: Albert1988
            And yet, the KV-1 became the 41st absolute nightmare of the Germans.

            The Germans do not care if they are experienced, they wanted to go to KV. They already saw it in the 40th year, the KV armor is similar to the Matilda2 armor (which, by the way, is twice as light). And in 42, when the German 3 "guns began to penetrate both the T-34 and the KV in the same way, urgent requests were sent not to send this miracle Yudo any more.
            1. Albert1988
              Albert1988 6 August 2020 23: 05
              -2
              Quote: Octopus
              There was no front as such. Having punched a hole in the German defense at Saint-Lo, the Americans entered the operational space, where the Panthers simply could not do anything to them. American aviation, both tactical and strategic (with the help of the fuel program), immobilized the Panzerwaffe.

              It doesn't really matter - in an all-out war, the perimeter is on the side of the one whose weapons can be produced in huge quantities and for a small price ...
              Quote: Octopus
              The Panther was just the main line tank. She differs in weight from Sherman no more than Sherman himself in 42 year differed from the three.

              Oha, but it could not be produced in large quantities - they produced only 5 thousand, against 23 Usherman and 40 for the T-34. Difficult to manufacture and maintain.
              Quote: Octopus
              But Cooper was a tanker and saw only the consequences of tank-to-tank battles.

              Not a tanker, but a technician repairing those same tanks ...
              Quote: Octopus
              The Germans do not care if they are experienced, they wanted to go to KV.

              Oga, that's why they were terribly manipulated when they were equipped with "50-ton tanks", and that is why the same 9th Tank Brigade arranged for the Germans in the Podolsk direction of the Raiseinaya branches)))
              Quote: Octopus
              And in 42, when the German 3 "guns began to penetrate both the T-34 and the KV in the same way, urgent requests were sent not to send this miracle Yudo any more.

              This is in 42, and in 41, slightly different songs were sung by Hans and the Fritzes)))
            2. Albert1988
              Albert1988 7 August 2020 00: 11
              -2
              Quote: Octopus
              Yes, drowning tanks in a swamp is also not difficult.

              I agree, but it’s especially not difficult, it’s still not difficult to cross the swamp with tanks in order to climb into a Soviet minefield, where to lose a quarter of the tanks, then stay in the same position so that Soviet intelligence would telepathy you and start hitting you with 120-mm artillery, from which your panther towers go into an elegant flight, and lose about a third of the tanks ... And further along the knurled - the result - 5 days and the battalion of the panther as it happened, and the effect of his presence - zero point, zero tenths ...
              1. Octopus
                Octopus 7 August 2020 00: 18
                +1
                Quote: Albert1988
                This is in 42, and in 41, slightly different Hans songs

                In 41 and 42, Russian miracle tanks usually appear when someone screwed up, and it is not at all possible to deduce that this someone is Hitler.
                Quote: Albert1988
                The 9th tank brigade arranged for the Germans in the Podolsk direction Raiseinaya branches

                Seriously? Podolsk is the terminal station of MCD2, I think? Is it a little over an hour to get to Borovitskaya, this is the Kremlin? Yes, KV could.
                Quote: Albert1988
                and only a technician repairing these same tanks

                Yes, a repairman in a tank division. As for the AT defense, he did not really delve into it.
                Quote: Albert1988
                produced only 5 thousand, against 23 Ushermans and 40 for the T-34

                What's the problem? These are 1-2 Soviet tank corps or 10-15 OGvTTP per month.
                Quote: Albert1988
                only it could not be produced in large quantities

                The release of armored vehicles in Germany and the USSR is approximately the same. Yes, the Allies produced each as much as the USSR and Germany together (yes, England also produced armored vehicles as the USSR and Germany together, live with that now), but Germany did not have a chance to compete in the amount of equipment with rich armies. As for the USSR, in the production of equipment, in addition to heavy weights, the Wehrmacht and the Red Army had quantitatively close(The USSR overtook one and a half times by the end of the war) with high-quality superiority of the Germans..
                Quote: Albert1988
                It doesn't really matter - in an all-out war, the perimeter is on the side of the one whose weapons can be produced in huge quantities and for a small price ...

                The problem is that the Americans no longer needed a huge amount. By the summer of 44, Sherman production was less than half of its 43rd peak.

                They would have gotten better at quality, the possibilities are huge, but alas. Actually, Cooper quite rightly criticizes this.
                Quote: Albert1988
                Firstly, the Pak-40 has been in production since 42, exactly like the 75-mm cannons on 4-ka and shtugs

                In 42 it was still bearable, long 7,5 was not the main PT. Although 5 cm, and even more so 7,6 (p) are quite convincing.
                Quote: Albert1988
                ZiS-3 - NOT an anti-tank gun, but a regimental

                Divisional. About the catastrophe of the Soviet artillery is not at all aware, right?
                Quote: Albert1988
                she had to play the role of anti-tank because of the small number of anti-tank guns.

                Due to the uselessness of regular PT guns. An adequate anti-tank gun, the ZiS-2, appeared in large quantities only in the Vistula-Oder.
                Quote: Albert1988
                Almost no tank had protection against the artillery that appeared during the indicated period.

                And no one needs to have a tank that has protection against artillery, which appeared... Cannons weighing 4 tons are not so scary.
                You need to have protection against the most massive PT. Tanks with sufficient protection were mass-produced by the British (Churchill) and non-serial - by the Americans (Jumbo). Unfortunately, the only person in the American army who distinguished a cruiser tank from an infantry one, Edna Chaffee, died in 41. Without it, the Americans abandoned any tanks except cruising ones, and were very surprised when they learned that a cruising tank was not suitable for oncoming engagements and assault actions.
                Quote: Albert1988
                I agree, but especially not difficult, after all

                You are absolutely right, the Panthers near Kursk were used extremely ineptly. Yes, the Germans had this too.
              2. Albert1988
                Albert1988 7 August 2020 00: 41
                -1
                Quote: Octopus
                In 41 and 42, Russian miracle tanks usually appear when someone screwed up, and it is not at all possible to deduce that this someone is Hitler.

                Well, let's start with the fact that Hitler generally screwed up the main thing - he attacked the USSR)))
                But when the Soviet "wunder panzers" for some reason ceased to be rare loners and began to operate as part of tank brigades (near Moscow, for example), the Germans drank a little grief ...
                Quote: Octopus
                with the qualitative superiority of the Germans ..

                Yes, with a qualitative superiority in 41st they had problems even with single Soviet 34s and KVs, and in 44th - 45th their qualitative superiority went with such a quantitative lag, which could not do anything, especially when you consider that tank formations had to be pulled into tiny pieces in order to give tanks to the German infantry, which had lost its quality and could not advance without tanks, as a result, these tanks were quickly cut out without much harm to the enemy.
                Quote: Octopus
                The problem is that the Americans no longer needed a huge amount. By the summer of 44, Sherman production was less than half of its 43rd peak.

                It doesn't matter - they already produced a bunch of them, it was possible to distribute the vehicles evenly and nightmare the German infantry everywhere, but the relatively rare, but very powerful German tank formations did not make much of the weather ...
                Quote: Octopus
                In 42 it was still bearable, long 7,5 was not the main PT. Although 5 cm, and even more so 7,6 (p) are quite convincing.

                This, by the way, was the period of the greatest German advantage - 4s and guns with 75 mm guns were most effective against the T-34 and KV, while there were many of them, they did not suffer from excess mass and were not overcomplicated. The Germans would have made a real analogue of the T-34 (in terms of weight and dimensions) with a 75 mm cannon - they would have hit our tanks in the tail and mane and produced in very serious quantities!
                Quote: Octopus
                Divisional. About the catastrophe of the Soviet artillery is not at all aware, right?

                Yes, divisional, wrong. I repent! And the disaster with our art does not at all contradict what I am saying - in fact, this is precisely why we, as a PT, did not have a specialized weapon, the Germans had normal PTs from beginning to end.
                Quote: Octopus
                You need to have protection against the most massive PT.

                It is necessary, but if your tank is too small, then much more serious barrels become dangerous for it, especially if your tank has impressive dimensions and is a good target even for a blind enemy (in view of its not the best optics)
                Quote: Octopus
                that a cruising tank is not suitable for oncoming combat and assault actions.

                An oncoming tank battle is nonsense in itself, no one in their right mind and good memory aspired to it, the same tigers preferred to work from ambushes, or going out to the flanks of an unsuspecting enemy (old Karius is an example of this)
                Quote: Octopus
                You are absolutely right, the Panthers near Kursk were used extremely ineptly. Yes, the Germans had this too.

                And then it also started - the German infantry is no longer the same, it cannot operate without the support of tanks, this is where a good mass tank like the Sherman or T-34 is needed, so that there is a lot of it and it is everywhere, but it is not! So they derban the same panthers a little bit and smear it, otherwise they are not effective and quickly die.
              3. Octopus
                Octopus 7 August 2020 01: 29
                0
                Quote: Albert1988
                And then the situation with the panther will become very depressing against the background of Sherman and T-34.

                It won't. You can talk about production as much as you like, but if you come to the battlefield with your T-60, which is so easy to produce, and they beat you there like in a shooting range, this still does not attract the best tank. And the Shermans with the T-34 from the point of view of the Panther did not differ much from the T-60.
                Quote: Albert1988
                rare loners and began to operate as part of tank brigades (near Moscow, for example)

                You see, it's hard for me to understand the talk about how great Soviet tanks performed an hour from their own capital.
                Quote: Albert1988
                they had problems even with single Soviet

                Problems with solitary it is impossible to exclude, but problems with massive There were no T-34s and KVs. Perhaps only to pull abandoned cars off the road when they interfered with the passage.
                Quote: Albert1988
                in the 44th - 45th their qualitative superiority went with such a quantitative lag,

                In 45 they had some problems, by the way, not all of them are connected with the USSR.
                Quote: Albert1988
                they already produced a bunch of them, it was possible to distribute the machines evenly and nightmare the German infantry everywhere,

                Yes. But the Americans did not need to crush the infantry everywhere, they also fought in blitzkriegs. And for a blitzkrieg, Sherman, 44, was too weak.
                Quote: Albert1988
                The Germans would have made a real analogue of the T-34 (in terms of weight and dimensions) with a 75 mm cannon - they would have hit our tanks in the tail and mane and produced in very serious quantities!

                You describe the late four, Stug and Jagdpanzer. The three of them produced not so little.
                Quote: Albert1988
                in fact, that is why we, as a PT, did not have a specialized weapon, the Germans had normal PTs from beginning to end.

                Pak40 is no longer a very normal PT, but in principle it is true.
                Quote: Albert1988
                then much more serious trunks become dangerous for him

                The Americans were not very worried about the more serious barrels, they just have much more serious barrels than the Germans. But Pak40 in the bushes, or even French 4,7 cm is a problem.
                Quote: Albert1988
                An oncoming tank battle is nonsense in itself, no one in their right mind and good memory aspired to,

                In theory. In practice, a) a tank is the main means of AT reinforcement b) tanks, having passed the enemy trench line into a breakthrough, they meet exactly with the tanks of the mobile reserve of the Germans, c) if the tank supports its infantry, then it will definitely meet Pak40, it's still good if not Nashorn with Jagdpanther.
                Quote: Albert1988
                the German infantry is no longer the same, it cannot operate without the support of tanks, and this is where a good mass tank like Sherman or T-34 is needed

                The Germans have Stug specifically for this. It is for these purposes.
                Quote: Albert1988
                So they derban the same panthers a little bit and smear

                This is a common mistake in case of illiterate management of tank units. In the Red Army 41-42, we see this all the time.
              4. Albert1988
                Albert1988 7 August 2020 15: 51
                -2
                Quote: Octopus
                And the Shermans with the T-34 from the point of view of the Panther did not differ much from the T-60.

                The T-34-85 was still different and decent ... Shermans with M1A2 were also slightly different ...
                Quote: Octopus
                You can talk about production as much as you like, but if you come to the battlefield with your T-60, which is so easy to produce, and they beat you there like in a shooting range, this still does not attract the best tank.

                The point is in the aggregate - performance characteristics, production, maintainability - the panetra has problems in everything except performance characteristics ...
                Quote: Octopus
                but there were no problems with the mass T-34 and KV.

                Ugums, you tell them that near Moscow, when our tank brigades had nightmares ... Especially armed KV ...
                But in 42, yes, there were already fewer problems.
                Quote: Octopus
                You describe the late four, Stug and Jagdpanzer. The three of them produced not so little.

                Not so little, yes, but it was precisely this topic that had to be developed - not heavy, fast-running machines with powerful guns, easy to manufacture, cheap, and most importantly - numerous and therefore ubiquitous, and the panther could become a good basis for a normal heavy tank, their all the same, much was not necessary.
                Quote: Octopus
                Pak40 is no longer a very normal PT, but in principle it is true.

                But he, nevertheless, was quite enough at that time.
                Quote: Octopus
                The Americans were not very worried about the more serious barrels, they just have much more serious barrels than the Germans. But Pak40 in the bushes, or even French 4,7 cm is a problem.

                From the bushes and forty-five concerts he can do, which was shown by the battle near Alytus, where 3 men who broke through the bridge beat them with mallets from an ambush in the intervals between the rinks.
                Quote: Octopus
                In practice, a) the tank is the main means of AT reinforcement

                Not a tank, but a tank destroyer, if tanks have to fulfill this role, then there are problems with self-propelled guns.
                Quote: Octopus
                b) tanks, passing the line of enemy trenches into the breakthrough, just meet the tanks of the German mobile reserve

                They should be met by the same tank destroyers or artillery that has moved into position at all.
                Quote: Octopus
                if the tank supports its infantry, then Pak40 he will surely meet, it's still good if not Nashorn with Jagdpanther.

                And these animals are already the concern of their artillery.
                It is clear that in war there is no such thing as "according to the rules" and it would be good for a tank to be able to fight enemy tanks, but again I will repeat - a balance is needed - if you screw on an unreal mastodon, which will be right, well finally, it will turn out like the Germans - all problem areas will not enough and the weather will not do.
                Quote: Octopus
                The Germans have Stug specifically for this. It is for these purposes.

                Only now there were not enough pieces, because the Germans had failed with the mass training of a large number of recruits to an acceptable level, therefore, without constant support of armor, the infantry almost lost the ability to advance, there were not enough pieces, they had to throw tanks, and tanks ...
                Quote: Octopus
                This is a common mistake in case of illiterate management of tank units. In the Red Army 41-42, we see this all the time.

                The Red Army has a mistake, but the Germans have a dire need ...
              5. Octopus
                Octopus 7 August 2020 16: 43
                -2
                Quote: Albert1988
                and the Germans have a dire necessity ...

                Illiterate management? Not.
                Quote: Albert1988
                attack, there were not enough pieces, we had to throw tanks, and tanks ...

                Stugs have made more than any tank model.
                Quote: Albert1988
                if you screw on an unreal mastodon, which will be straight, well finally

                Actually, we are talking about an unreal mastodon, but about the American T-34-85. The Sherman 76 was not such a machine, it looks more like the T-34-57.
                Quote: Albert1988
                They should be met by the same tank destroyers or artillery that has moved into position at all.

                What the Germans have, he meets. Hetzer is also a problem for Sherman.
                Quote: Albert1988
                Tank destroyers, if tanks have to fulfill this role, it means problems with self-propelled guns.

                Who cares? German self-propelled guns are even tougher than tanks on the same base. As for the problems, the Americans have two types of tank forces in parallel, tank divisions of the tank department and self-propelled battalions of the artillery department (these battalions are 3 Soviet regiments each). And the Germans were pushing everything that they have to break through, their tanks were great in PT.
                Quote: Albert1988
                Tell Moscow when our tank brigades were having a nightmare ...

                You seem to have already explained that the nightmare there was mainly for the militia and the peaceful.
                Quote: Albert1988
                Panetra has problems in everything except performance characteristics ...

                Therefore, the rest of the cars are good with everything except for performance characteristics, as you are told.
                Quote: Albert1988
                The T-34-85 was still different and decent ... Shermans with M1A2 were also slightly different

                Not really. The panther struck them from any distance, but they did not strike her in a frontal projection.
              6. Albert1988
                Albert1988 7 August 2020 17: 14
                -2
                Quote: Octopus
                Illiterate management? Not.


                Yes and no)) I repeat - the infantry will no longer cover the attack without the support of tanks, there are not enough pieces, the tanks end up giving small groups to support the infantry to commanders who finally do not know how to command them, and everything is sad ...
                Quote: Octopus
                Stugs have made more than any tank model.

                Well, how many infantry?
                Quote: Octopus
                Actually, we are talking about an unreal mastodon, but about the American T-34-85. The Sherman 76 was not such a machine, it looks more like the T-34-57.

                And it worked well.
                Quote: Octopus
                What the Germans have, he meets. Hetzer is also a problem for Sherman.

                With a competent crew and command - not so great, the amers were more let down by the lack of experience, which ours had already developed quite well by that time. But Americans, to their credit, learned quickly.
                Quote: Octopus
                Who cares? German self-propelled guns are even tougher than tanks on the same base.

                Why even tougher, if the tank is unrealistically tough? Although yes - cats were sick against ISs ...
                Quote: Octopus
                As for the problems, the Americans have two types of tank forces in parallel, tank divisions of the tank department and self-propelled battalions of the artillery department (these battalions are 3 Soviet regiments each).

                Such an administrative division may not play any role, if all this is correctly applied, and if not, then tanks with excellent PT properties will burn like matches ...
                Quote: Octopus
                And the Germans were pushing everything that was to break through, their tanks were well pumped into the PT.

                At the beginning of the war, the Germans acted the same way, but their tanks were not focused on fighting tanks - tank destroyers were successfully coping, and the operations were mega successful! At the end of the war with "PT tanks", they had only local successes, which did not affect the general situation in any way ...
                Conclusions suggest themselves ...
                Quote: Octopus
                You seem to have already explained that the nightmare there was mainly for the militia and the peaceful.

                They did not explain anything, both actions of the Soviet very mobile tank brigades near Moscow, with the condition of having such a monstrous transport hub nearby as Moscow, created sooooo serious problems for the Germans, and the meeting with "50 ton tanks" caused real panic in the German units .. ...
                Quote: Octopus
                Consequently, the rest of the cars are good with everything except performance characteristics, which is what you are told.

                No - the rest of the machines with performance characteristics are very tolerant ...
                Quote: Octopus
                Not really. The panther struck them from any distance, but they did not strike her in a frontal projection.

                Well, yes, well, yes - the T-34-85 pierced the panther tower bob from 1000 m, although it is believed that this shell slipped off the unsuccessful mask and pierced the roof of the hull under the tower. On board - quietly since 2000. And what is important - very rarely, when even panthers and tigers went into a counter battle with 34 (not only ISs) - everyone tried to enter the side (flank) of an enemy tank (tank unit).
                Of course, the (total) advantages in optics from the Germans have not been canceled, but this is characteristic of all their equipment and artillery, not only for the notorious cats ...
  • Alexey RA
    Alexey RA 7 August 2020 09: 12
    +1
    Quote: Albert1988
    And yes - on the same Kursk Bulge, the Germans killed a battalion of panthers in 5 days, about mines, Soviet artillery, landscape elements so efficiently that this unit could not inflict any noticeable damage to the enemy at all)))

    Not a battalion - 39th Tank Regiment.
    The Germans did everything possible to ensure that the regiment was killed on our defenses, and guided by the best intentions. Since there is no infantry and artillery in the 39th TP, let's give it to those who have them. No sooner said than done, and the 39th TP is transferred to reinforce the GD division. But they do it so cunningly (by forming the headquarters of the 10th brigade in the division, to which the native and attached tank regiments are subordinated) that it could not end well. Moreover, all organizational events are carried out at the last moment.
    The decision to form a brigade was made literally in the last days before the Citadel. The officers appointed to the headquarters of the 10th Tank Brigade did not even have time to arrive at the front before the offensive, there was also no necessary equipment, which was vital for the normal functioning of the headquarters. Several vehicles were "borrowed" from the "panther" battalions and one of the Great Germany was shared by one mittlerer Kommandopanzerwagen (a mobile command post based on the Sd. Kfz.251 armored personnel carrier).
    © Tomzov / Ulanov
    In general, on the second day of the fighting, the brigade headquarters lost control of its units. And the 39th TP, without receiving any data, in one person, without infantry and artillery, went to ram our positions. First, the Panthers flew into a minefield. Then the PTP of the 27th Iptabr began to hit them on the side. The commander of the 52nd Battalion, Major Gerhard Tebbe, panicked and withdrew from control, and the Panther, who took command of Oberleutenant Erdmann Gabriel, quickly received a shell directly at the BC.
    As a result of this hellish circus with dancing on mines under the fire of the PTA, by the evening of July 6, 39 Panthers remained in the 40th TP.
    1. Albert1988
      Albert1988 7 August 2020 15: 52
      -2
      Here! Especially! A whole regiment was so profiled ...
  • Albert1988
    Albert1988 6 August 2020 22: 11
    -2
    Quote: oldbuddy
    "In all its key indicators (firepower, armor and mobility), the Sherman was clearly inferior to the more advanced German tanks that it encountered on the battlefield. This gross discrepancy not only caused severe suffering and death of many soldiers and losses of armored vehicles, but also delayed the successful completion of the war in Europe.

    Oha, Sherman drove a four in tail and mane, and with panthers and tigers, due to their "incredible numbers", he had scanty chances to meet at all ...
    Quote: oldbuddy
    From my point of view, one of the greatest tragedies of the Second World War was the fact that our tankers had to fight the Germans in vehicles that were infamously inferior to the heavy enemy "Panzer".

    Oha! This citizen compares the average vehicle, the main line tank, to the enemy's heavy weights! Shine! There is only one reason for this situation - the poor performance of amerovskoy PT artillery! That's all...
    1. oldbuddy
      oldbuddy 6 August 2020 23: 22
      -3
      "and with panthers and tigers, due to their" incredible number ", he had scanty chances to meet at all ..."?

      :)
      You just do not know.
      For example, Thomas L. Jentz, the world's leading specialist in German armored vehicles, thought differently:

      STRENGTH OF PANZER UNITS IN THE WEST
      ON 10 JUNE 1944

      Pz.Kpfw.IV 758
      Pz.Kpfw. V 655
      Pz.Kpfw. VI 102

      A source:
      Panzertruppen: The Complete Guide to the Creation & Combat Employment of Germanys Tank Force 1943-1945 / Formations Organizations Tactics Combat Reports Unit Strengths Statistics by Thomas L. Jentz (Contributor), 1996 177
      1. Albert1988
        Albert1988 7 August 2020 00: 08
        -2
        Quote: oldbuddy
        Pz.Kpfw.IV 758
        Pz.Kpfw. V 655
        Pz.Kpfw. VI 102

        How many Shermans and other Allied tanks were there?
        How did the Germans use tanks, and how did their allies use them?
        1. oldbuddy
          oldbuddy 7 August 2020 00: 28
          -3
          banned from Google, right?
          1. Albert1988
            Albert1988 7 August 2020 00: 43
            -2
            Quote: oldbuddy
            banned from Google, right?

            Well, you gave data on the Germans, but forgot allies, for some reason, I can see, only your argument looks somehow incomplete ... It's like giving the number of Germans in Kursk without giving the number of ours)))
          2. oldbuddy
            oldbuddy 7 August 2020 01: 08
            -1
            I gave data that in Normandy the number of Pz.Kpfw.IV was approximately equal or even slightly less than the number of Pz.Kpfw. V + Pz.Kpfw. VI

            After all, you stated here:
            "Oha, Sherman drove the four in the tail and mane, and with panthers and tigers, due to their" incredible numbers ", he had scanty chances to meet at all ..."

            I, relying on an authoritative source, showed that you are just a chatterbox.
          3. Albert1988
            Albert1988 7 August 2020 17: 16
            -2
            Quote: oldbuddy
            I, relying on an authoritative source, showed that you are just a chatterbox.

            Unfortunately, you didn’t show anything, because the specifics of using these very tanks differed a little ...
          4. oldbuddy
            oldbuddy 7 August 2020 21: 27
            -1
            So I say: You are just a chatterbox. And nothing else
  • sanya
    sanya 5 August 2020 20: 48
    -3
    T-34 before modernization, it is not at all clear what ... Only in 1944 did the T-34 appear capable of waging a modern war at that time and with a normal resource
    However, they were no longer the best tanks at that time.
    1. tihonmarine
      tihonmarine 6 August 2020 00: 22
      +2
      Quote: sanya
      Only in 1944 did the T-34s appear

      T-34-85, but in 1941 the T-34-76 was the best tank.
      1. Dr. Frankenstucker
        Dr. Frankenstucker 6 August 2020 09: 15
        -3
        Quote: tihonmarine
        in 1941 the T-34-76 was the best tank.

        was not. And in general, "the best tank" is a kindergarten for tank-sufferers gamers.
        1. tihonmarine
          tihonmarine 6 August 2020 09: 34
          0
          Quote: Dr. Frankenshtuzer
          was not. And in general, "the best tank" is a kindergarten for tank-sufferers gamers.

          And what was your best tank in 1941?
          1. Dr. Frankenstucker
            Dr. Frankenstucker 6 August 2020 09: 47
            0
            Quote: tihonmarine
            And what was your best tank in 1941?


            I expressed my opinion - the nomination "Best Tank" is a uniform cretinism.
            You see, there is a win-win polemic when it comes to German tank building in terms of all sorts of technical things - "and who entered Berlin? T-34? That's it!". If you follow this twisted logic "by the result", then in 1941 the "best tank" was the PzKpfW III / IV, which reached Moscow.
            1. tihonmarine
              tihonmarine 6 August 2020 09: 58
              0
              Quote: Dr. Frankenshtuzer
              then in 1941 the "best tank" was the PzKpfW III / IV, which reached Moscow.

              I do not argue that running is good, but from Moscow I already had to skedaddle.
              1. Dr. Frankenstucker
                Dr. Frankenstucker 6 August 2020 10: 16
                +1
                clearly, about nothing.
            2. Octopus
              Octopus 6 August 2020 14: 46
              0
              Quote: Dr. Frankenshtuzer
              If we follow this twisted logic "by the result", then in 1941 the "best tank" was the PzKpfW III / IV, which reached Moscow.

              And what, there may be some doubts about it?
              Quote: Dr. Frankenshtuzer
              "The best tank" is a uniform cretinism.

              There is a strange situation. All sides in terms of tanks had their own problems and disadvantages, which did not allow anyone to create a tank that is both strong and massive after 43 odes. That is, the Panther is not the best, because it is very strangely made, and all the other three are not the best, because they are weaker than the Panther.

              Top tanks past war - T-54, Centurion and probably already M48, not M46. Of these, only Cent had at least formally made it to September.
              1. Alexey RA
                Alexey RA 6 August 2020 16: 57
                +1
                Quote: Octopus
                Of these, only Cent had at least formally made it to September.

                T-54 can also be pulled onto a globe WWII tank - the first state "half-four" was held in April 1945
                1. Octopus
                  Octopus 6 August 2020 17: 18
                  0
                  Well, this is absolutely Soviet specificity. He was a blank for a tank in 46.
              2. Albert1988
                Albert1988 7 August 2020 00: 47
                -1
                Quote: Octopus
                That is, the Panther is not the best, because it is very strangely made, and all the other three are not the best, because they are weaker than the Panther.

                How to say - we must also compare the ease of production, cost, maintainability and the performance of tasks on the battlefield assigned to a particular machine. And then the situation with the panther will become very depressing against the background of Sherman and T-34.
        2. Albert1988
          Albert1988 7 August 2020 00: 45
          -1
          Quote: Dr. Frankenshtuzer
          "the best tank" is a kindergarten for tank-sufferers gamers.

          Well, yes, well, yes ... Only now they began to discuss this long before the appearance of both gamers and tank sufferers)))
          And the best is not only performance characteristics, it is manufacturability, maintainability, and most importantly - how well this machine copes with the tasks assigned to it. And on these points, the T-34 and Sherman were doing much better, I eat from the cats ...
          1. Dr. Frankenstucker
            Dr. Frankenstucker 7 August 2020 07: 03
            0
            . copes with the tasks assigned to it. And on these points, the T-34 and Sherman were doing much better, I eat from the cats ...

            And with what assigned tasks did the panther not cope?
            1. Albert1988
              Albert1988 7 August 2020 15: 56
              -1
              Quote: Dr. Frankenshtuzer
              And with what assigned tasks did the panther not cope?

              Mass line tank, which was 4-ki and 3-ki.
              The panther performed the role of the tank destroyer perfectly well, but then the question was - why did the Germans do the tank destroyer at all?
              1. Dr. Frankenstucker
                Dr. Frankenstucker 7 August 2020 16: 00
                -1
                Quote: Albert1988
                Mass line tank

                so the question is in the panther edition? Or the potential of this tank?
                1. Albert1988
                  Albert1988 7 August 2020 19: 48
                  -1
                  Quote: Dr. Frankenshtuzer
                  so the question is in the panther edition? Or the potential of this tank?

                  The potential cannot be considered without the context of the specifics of combat operations at that time. A machine with colossal potential could be slightly less than completely useless without the possibility of its mass production, and hence the number. A rare line tank is a bad line tank. Plus a huge load on the native industry, which is not in the best condition ...
      2. sanya
        sanya 6 August 2020 09: 26
        -2
        Well, yes, yes, when in 1944 they were modernized in the United States at the request of the USSR, this tank withstood 200 km of run and then failed without any possibility of its restoration ...
        I'm not even talking about the optics of the sights of the radio station, the working conditions of the crew and commander, etc.
        In 1941, these tanks were of little use.
        Most were not even able to join the battle, and those who entered mostly suffered empty, largely due to the lack of communication due to poor sights and observation devices, etc.
      3. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 6 August 2020 09: 31
        +4
        Quote: tihonmarine
        T-34-85, but in 1941 the T-34-76 was the best tank.

        According to the tabular performance characteristics - yes. According to the results of domestic tests, the T-34 mod. 1940-1941 was a blind, deaf, slow tank with disgusting working conditions for the crew, and even extremely gluttonous (the cruising range of the serial T-34 produced in spring 1941 was about 185 km).
        November 1940:
        As presented for testing, the T-34 tank does not meet modern requirements for this class of tanks.

        The ratio of the time of pure movement and restoration work (38% and 62%) indicates a low quality of the technical performance of the tank.

        Tactical use of the tank in isolation from the repair bases is impossible, due to the unreliability of the main components - the main clutch and chassis.

        In difficult road conditions, when switching from 2nd to 3rd gear, the tank loses inertia so much during the shift that it leads to a stop or prolonged slipping of the main clutch. This circumstance makes it difficult to use 3rd gear in road conditions that completely allow its use.

        The operation of the main clutch and fan assembly is generally unsatisfactory.

        The gearbox and its drive require fundamental changes.

        The lack of visual communication between the tanks when solving the fire problem due to the fact that the only device that allows circular viewing - PT-6 is used only for aiming.

        Determining the rate of fire of the 76-mm gun ...
        The obtained average practical rate of fire is two rounds per minute. The rate of fire is insufficient ...

        Turning the tower in any direction is possible only if the head is deflected from the forehead of the PT-6 device, i.e. the rotation of the tower is actually done blindly ...

        In this case, the effort on the handle of the turret turning mechanism, required to turn the turret, reaches 30-32 kg.
        Telescopic sight TOD-6.
        The window of the scale of angles of aiming of the telescopic sight is blocked by the lever of the angles of the terrain of the PT-6 device ... Installation of sighting data is possible at elevation angles of 4 - 5,5 degrees and 9 - 12 degrees, which actually makes it impossible to fire with the TOD-6 sight.

        The viewing device of the "circular review".
        Access to the device is extremely difficult and observation is possible in a limited sector to the right up to 120 degrees ... A limited field of view, the complete impossibility of observation in the rest of the sector and ... the inconvenient position of the head during observation makes the viewing device unusable.

        Driver's sighting devices ...
        In practical work on driving a tank with a closed hatch, significant shortcomings of viewing devices were revealed. When driving on a contaminated dirt road and virgin soil for 5-10 minutes, viewing devices clog up with dirt until complete loss of visibility.

        The contamination of the ammunition after a run of 200-300 km in the autumn period reaches a significant value. The use of a full ammunition load is possible only after preliminary cleaning of all cartridges.
        1. sanya
          sanya 6 August 2020 09: 41
          -3
          Yes it was not a tank
      4. Octopus
        Octopus 6 August 2020 12: 37
        +2
        Quote: tihonmarine
        The T-34-76 was the best tank.

        On paper.
  • Zum
    Zum 6 August 2020 14: 35
    +1
    It's not about quality, but about numbers ...
  • Mikhail Matyugin
    Mikhail Matyugin 7 August 2020 17: 02
    +1
    Quote: Svarog
    The winner's technique was the best .. T-34, IS-2, KV were the best.

    An extremely controversial thesis. For example, in terms of air defense, aircraft construction, rocketry, Nazi Germany has an absolute priority. The Germans were simply overwhelmed with cheap and quick-assembly equipment of mass production of the American conveyor type.
  • sanya
    sanya 5 August 2020 20: 52
    +6
    Well it's not their fault
    Technologically and structurally, they were ahead of everyone
    Lack of resources should not be blamed on designers
    1. Out
      Out 5 August 2020 23: 40
      +1
      Technologically and structurally, they were ahead of everyone
      For a number of things, technologically and constructively, they were inferior to the Americans, for example. And by the way, technological things should be well optimized for mass production, which cannot be said about Tigers and Panthers.
      1. sanya
        sanya 6 August 2020 07: 49
        -2
        Maybe the Americans were ahead of them, but the Germans had better tanks
        Hit 8 shells out of 12 on a target while moving, that is, right off the bat
        This is even today a very good result for a captured tank with a resource running out and not a native team.
        I think some trophy Ukrainian T-64 is not capable of this
        1. Dr. Frankenstucker
          Dr. Frankenstucker 6 August 2020 09: 33
          -1
          Quote: sanya
          Maybe in some ways the Americans were ahead


          Well, during the shelling of the CT in Kubinka, the "Hellcat", and not our ZiS-3s, made it through with a medium-caliber penetration. And even the Su-85.
          1. Out
            Out 6 August 2020 09: 43
            +2
            Well, during the shelling of the KT in Kubinka, the "Hellcat", and not our ZiS-3, made it through with medium caliber penetration.
            so the Zis-3 is not an anti-tank gun, unlike the Hellket cannon.
            1. Dr. Frankenstucker
              Dr. Frankenstucker 6 August 2020 10: 25
              -2
              Quote: Out
              so the zis-3 is not an anti-tank gun

              fired at the same BB.
              1. Out
                Out 6 August 2020 13: 40
                0
                Armor-piercing shells can also be created for a cannon shelf, it will not become a PTO from this.
            2. Alexey RA
              Alexey RA 6 August 2020 17: 04
              +2
              Quote: Out
              so the Zis-3 is not an anti-tank gun, unlike the Hellket cannon.

              Well, you can take the same report and see the results of our 85-mm cannon - nee anti-aircraft guns.
              7. The side armor plates of the tank differ in sharp unequal strength compared with the front plates and are the most vulnerable part of the armor hull and turret of the tank.
              8. The hull side plates and turret of the tank are punched by armor-piercing shells of the 85-mm domestic and 76-mm American cannon from the 800-2000 distance m.
              9. The side sheets of the hull and turret of the tank do not penetrate the 76-mm domestic cannon with armor-piercing shells (ZIS-3 and F-34).
              10. American 76-mm armor-piercing shells penetrate the side plates of the Tiger-B tank from a distance 1,5-2 times greater than domestic 85-mm armor-piercing shells.

              The reason for this is well known - the rich Yankees could afford to produce BBS from such alloy steel that they pierced the armor of an ordinary "Tiger" practically without deforming (from the domestic report on the shooting of the first "Tiger", they shot with a continuous BBS and a chamber BBS).
              1. Out
                Out 6 August 2020 21: 57
                -1
                The reason for this is well known - the wealthy Yankees could afford to produce BBS from such alloy steel that they pierced the armor of an ordinary "Tiger" practically without deforming
                There were problems of a technological nature even before the war in the USSR (the war and evacuation only made everything worse), nevertheless, after 1917, the industry had to be rebuilt, and the personnel had to be raised anew, although the Russian Empire was also not an industrially developed country, but an agricultural and raw material one, in contrast to USA, Germany and UK.
    2. Sergey_G_M
      Sergey_G_M 6 August 2020 00: 39
      +3
      Well it's not their fault
      Technologically and structurally, they were ahead of everyone
      Lack of resources should not be blamed on designers

      Designers who design their products based on the physical characteristics of materials inaccessible to industry are, to put it mildly, bad designers.
      1. sanya
        sanya 6 August 2020 07: 45
        -1
        The situation was changing too quickly
        And this is not the fault of the designers or the industry.
    3. Sergey_G_M
      Sergey_G_M 6 August 2020 01: 02
      -3


      You say that the Germans were constructively ahead of everyone? Pay attention to the tracks. Yes there you can sleep on them! To quickly fix it, a company of soldiers is needed, it's fucking heavy! And in terms of the projection area of ​​the caterpillar, it is large - it is easier to damage them.
      Compare CT and IS-3, and you will understand that:
      Technologically and structurally, they were ahead of everyone

      This birth of a gloomy Teutonic genius does not pull
      1. militarist63
        militarist63 6 August 2020 10: 35
        +1
        Pay attention to the tracks. Yes there you can sleep on them! To quickly fix it, a company of soldiers is needed, it's fucking heavy!
        It's not such a problem yet! But when it was required to remove the inner roller ("plate") of the 4th balancer .... then a real "hemorrhoid" was drawn! To do this, it was necessary to remove a bunch of neighboring rollers - literally 14 (in fact, having dismantled almost the entire chassis of the side ...) !!! wassat And add a variation here, when this tanchik traveled around "rusish gryazyuka" and these rollers (in checkerboard order) were collecting dirt, and then suddenly came "Russian Marshal Moroz" .... So what? Try now to clean that chassis, so very smooth .... In these cases, praised by some .... this masterpiece of design thought from Deutschland stupidly could not budge!
    4. tihonmarine
      tihonmarine 6 August 2020 10: 07
      0
      Quote: sanya
      Technologically and structurally, they were ahead of everyone
      Lack of resources should not be blamed on designers

      Technologically, the entire industry of the USSR was 10% of the American one. And even now no one gives Russia new technologies. China has adapted to this, steals, clones, and sends everyone to Yakim Romanovich.
    5. Albert1988
      Albert1988 6 August 2020 18: 54
      0
      Quote: sanya
      Lack of resources should not be blamed on designers

      It is possible and necessary, since the designers (and those who give them TK) must take into account the available resources, otherwise it is possible in general to reach the wunderwafe in a single copy ...
  • wow
    wow 5 August 2020 18: 38
    +7
    The best armor is the one that rolled Berlin into dust ..!
    1. Thunderbolt
      Thunderbolt 5 August 2020 19: 35
      +5
      Quote: yo-mine
      The best armor is the one that rolled Berlin into dust ..!

      I agree of course, because I'm Russian.
      But reading the combat reports of the unit magazines, you are constantly grimly amazed at how many boxes the "fire brigades" burned before their inevitable death.
      1. tihonmarine
        tihonmarine 6 August 2020 00: 26
        0
        Quote: Thunderbolt
        I agree of course, because I'm Russian.
        But reading the combat reports of the unit magazines, you are constantly amazed at how many boxes were burned by the "fire brigades"

        I am also Russian, but the tactics of using tanks, Soviet versus German, turned out to be more effective. The result is a flag over the Reichstag.
      2. SARANCHA1976
        SARANCHA1976 6 August 2020 08: 29
        +1
        Most of the losses are associated with the anti-tank artillery Pak 38,40,43. + Flaki
        1. Albert1988
          Albert1988 9 August 2020 13: 48
          0
          Quote: SARANCHA1976
          Most of the losses are associated with the anti-tank artillery Pak 38,40,43. + Flaki

          Not even with PT art, but with mines ...
    2. Constanty
      Constanty 5 August 2020 21: 36
      +6
      This is not true. Yes, the USSR won the war with Germany, but this does not mean that all types of Soviet weapons were better. Some were, some were not. Especially since respect - to defeat an opponent who often has better equipment is just something!

      And I do not mean that they won in total - it mattered, but the people who were fighting for a good cause won the most.
      1. tihonmarine
        tihonmarine 6 August 2020 00: 28
        -1
        Quote: Constanty
        This is not true. Yes, the USSR won the war with Germany, but this does not mean that all types of Soviet weapons were better.

        The best weapon, the one that won the war, whatever it was. And the USSR won. The point has been set!
        1. SARANCHA1976
          SARANCHA1976 6 August 2020 08: 07
          +1
          Well, this is not correct. You can't tell when 500 Zusuls will defeat 20 Englishmen that a magazine rifle is worse than a wooden spear. Everywhere has its own nuances
  • 5-9
    5-9 6 August 2020 10: 33
    +1
    Not one of the best tanks can be in 2 places at the same time ... and there were a lot of jambs, especially in Tigers
  • Zum
    Zum 6 August 2020 14: 31
    +1
    I would say this ... the Germans created, we riveted ...
    1. Albert1988
      Albert1988 9 August 2020 13: 51
      0
      Quote: Zum
      I would say this ... the Germans created, we riveted ...

      The problem is that the war required riveting! You can create in peacetime.
      It's no joke - according to Ustyantsev and Kolmakov, about 34 man-hours were spent on the T-7500, and according to Forti, 150000 man-hours were spent on the panther, and about 300000 man-hours on Tiger I ...
      1. Albert1988
        Albert1988 9 August 2020 23: 25
        0
        So I printed it and did not notice - 17500 man-hours were spent on the T-34, of course, this was in the 43rd year, but by the 45th the T-34-85 took about 3500 man-hours ...
  • ecolog
    ecolog 5 September 2020 02: 18
    0
    depending on what technique. The T-4 had a stock of modernization. The tiger was not bad, but they did not make much of it and did not seriously modernize it. Panther? - another heavy in fact. CT - excess weight, excess weapon. and then what? Jagd Tiger, Mouse?
    The gloomy Teutonic genius turned somewhere wrong at the end of the war.
  • mark1
    mark1 5 August 2020 18: 28
    +5
    Shaftless gearbox (a rather rare scheme), two-flow PMP - and the result is expected. But the complexity is prohibitive (especially for our aircraft and industry) and the reliability is not high.
  • Dr. Frankenstucker
    Dr. Frankenstucker 5 August 2020 18: 37
    0
    Interesting interesting.
    The comfort of the crew is, of course, excellent.
    It seems that a huge disadvantage of CT was disgusting visibility
    1. Sanichsan
      Sanichsan 5 August 2020 22: 08
      0
      Quote: Dr. Frankenshtuzer
      It seems that a huge disadvantage of CT was disgusting visibility

      not. in the article it is written. rather, their main problem is the dropped quality of armor and crews. both by 1944 were no longer a solvable problem.
      1. Dr. Frankenstucker
        Dr. Frankenstucker 6 August 2020 12: 03
        -1
        Quote: SanichSan
        not. in the article it is written. rather their main problem

        I talked about one of the disadvantages of this machine, not going to highlight the "main problem". And, I suppose, the notorious quality of the armor worsened, but by no means "fell" fatally.
        1. Sanichsan
          Sanichsan 6 August 2020 17: 00
          -1
          Quote: Dr. Frankenshtuzer
          And, I suppose, the notorious quality of the armor worsened, but by no means "fell" fatally.

          judging by the tests it is fatal. out of 5 panthers fired by the Americans, only 2 were able to withstand a hit from a 76 mm gun in the forehead. Considering that 2 panthers could not penetrate, he is from the first batch, the other three were produced in 1944.
          maybe you will have other versions of the fact that 2 panthers did not break through.
        2. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 6 August 2020 17: 20
          +1
          Quote: Dr. Frankenshtuzer
          And, I suppose, the notorious quality of the armor worsened, but by no means "fell" fatally.

          In general, the picture was as follows:
          First of all, the Germans faced a shortage of molybdenum, which by the end of 1942 was practically excluded from the armor of small and medium thickness, and by June 1944 it was removed from armor of all thickness ranges. Nickel has appeared in significant quantities in armor since 1943. Despite the fact that it was absent in the requirements for the chemical composition, the use of this additive in the armor of "Tigers" and "Panthers" became widespread.
          However, by mid-1944, nickel was excluded from all armor thickness ranges except 125–160 mm and 165–200 mm, where it remained until the end of the war. By the fall of 1944, the use of vanadium had also practically ceased. The main alloying element in German rolled armor, which was used throughout the war, was chrome.

          The problem was that, despite the presence of strict standards for the content of additives and impurities in armored steel and the technology of its production, by the middle of 1944 they had ceased to withstand. Here are the results of the domestic post-war analysis of the armor of German tanks produced in the last year of the war (2 "Panthers" and 2 "Tigers"):
          The researched German armor from four captured tanks has a wide variety in chemical composition and steel grades.
          Armor of the same thickness for tanks of the same name has a different chemical composition. The carbon content in German armor steel is in the range from 0,32 to 0,57%, with less carbon corresponding mainly to parts with a thickness of 100 mm. The increased carbon content from 0,40 to 0,57% applies to all medium thicknesses (40–82 mm) of medium hard armor.
          (...)
          The chromium content is in the range of 1,67-2,30%, with an increased chromium content (more than 2,0%) observed in armor with a thickness of 60-100 mm. Nickel and molybdenum are not present in all investigated parts. There is no nickel and molybdenum in the armor parts 40 mm thick; in all other parts with a thickness of 60 to 100 mm, there are cases of using either nickel in the range of 0,77-1,73%, or molybdenum in the range of 0,20-0,30%, or both elements at the same time, and, finally, their complete absence, and it should be noted that molybdenum is absent in all 80 mm thick parts.
          (...)
          the presence of a crystalline fracture in German armor of medium and low hardness 100 mm thick should be attributed to incomplete hardenability due to the absence or insufficient amount of nickel and molybdenum in steel. Vanadium and tungsten were not found in the investigated parts of German tanks.
          (...)
          Armor thickness of 40 and 60 mm in all cases is of medium hardness, and armor of 80 and 100 mm has both medium and low hardness. Out of six samples 80 mm thick, in three cases the hardness was medium and in three cases it was low. In two samples 100 mm thick, in one case the hardness was medium and in one case it was low. Such a variety of hardness for parts with a thickness of 80 and 100 mm takes place not only on tanks of the same name, but also on parts that are completely identical in purpose and name.
          (...)
          The lack of constancy in the nature of the fracture (for parts of the same name in thickness and steel grades) is observed in a number of studies of German armor steel. This allows us to express a certain conviction that during the production of armor, the Germans do not have control over the heat treatment of plates by fracture.
          The lack of such control, it would seem, should be due to a well-mastered and strictly observed heat treatment regime. However, such a wide variety of kinks indicates that, if the technology is established, then its discipline is low. This is also confirmed by the wide range of hardness fluctuations, which by itself cannot provide uniform fracture results.
          © Warspot. Alexander Volgin. Thick skin of a German menagerie.
        3. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 6 August 2020 17: 36
          +1
          Shooting of German armor gave an interesting result - armor of small thickness was better than domestic, but with an increase in thickness, armor resistance fell below domestic samples.
          1. The armor resistance of armor 40 mm thick is higher than the armor resistance of domestic armor of the same thickness established by the technical specifications.

          2. The armor resistance of armor with a thickness of 60 mm is approximately equal to the armor resistance of domestic armor of the same thickness established by the TU, but slightly lower than the armor resistance of the armor of the Ilyich plant. The armor of low hardness with a thickness of 83–84 mm has relatively good armor resistance.

          3. German armor with a thickness of 40, 83 and 100 mm is prone to brittle damage, especially armor of 83 mm.

          4. German armor with a thickness of 40 and 60 mm of medium hardness, as well as armor with a thickness of 83–84 mm of low hardness has good survivability. The armor is 82 mm thick with medium hardness and 100 mm thick with medium and low hardness has low survivability.

          5. The general pattern established in the domestic armored production - the dependence of brittle destruction on the type of fracture - is confirmed.

          The biggest problem was the increase in the percentage of fragile defeats with an increase in the thickness of the armor (especially considering that the calibers of 100-122 mm in the Soviet anti-tank equipment at the end of the war were no longer considered something out of the ordinary).
          Tests of slabs with a thickness of 100 mm did not give any results. the first slab shattered after the second hit, and the second slab gave many cracks after the first.
          © ibid.
    2. Sergey_G_M
      Sergey_G_M 5 August 2020 22: 33
      +5
      The main disadvantage of the CT was not visibility and not the quality of the armor, the main disadvantage was that it turned from a tank into a slowly and close crawling anti-tank bunker.
      Read the strategists of that time, Guderian simply persuaded, begged, begged to be given more T-IV or an analogue of T-34. Well, what are the breakthroughs, reach, and environments that can be done with CT? But the "blitz krieg" as a weapon of victory was based precisely on this.
      1. Dr. Frankenstucker
        Dr. Frankenstucker 6 August 2020 08: 36
        +1
        Guderian simply persuaded, begged, begged to be given more T-IV or an analogue of T-34.

        What an operetta emotion) .... During the appearance of the CT troops (spring 1944), Guderian opposed those "strategists" who proposed replacing the "fours" with assault guns. And he did not "beg" to increase the production of "fours", but, at least, offered not to reduce it - for example, in April 44th Fomag AG completely stopped the production of "four", having switched to YagdPTs-4.
        Guderian was not an opponent of the "panthers", who in the middle of 44 had already recovered from many childhood diseases. He only suggested not to stop the production of the "four" until the production of "panthers" increased so much that it would be possible to form two battalions of "panthers" as part of a tank regiment. They succeeded only halfway - for example, in the 6th SS TA by the time of the counterattack in Hungary against the states of the 44th, there was one battalion of "fours" and one "panthers" in the regiments. And in the end (hell knows, however, how Quick Heinz determined the time limits of this "final result") the production of "panthers" should reach 900 cars per month.
        Read the strategists of that time


        Well, read about the Panzerwaffe tactics in 1944. The Panzerwaffe, west and east, were mostly alarm teams, plugging the holes. By the way, the CT debut on the Western Front was the elimination of the British breakthrough near Columbel, where the 503rd TTB burned 12 Shermans

        Quote: Sergey_G_M
        But the "blitz krieg" as a weapon of victory was based precisely on this.

        KT began mass production in March 44th - what, nafig, "blitzkrieg" in 1944?
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 6 August 2020 09: 39
          +2
          Quote: Dr. Frankenshtuzer
          During the appearance of the CT troops (spring 1944), Guderian opposed those "strategists" who proposed replacing the "fours" with assault guns. And he did not "beg" to increase the production of "fours", but, at least, offered not to reduce it - for example, in April 44th Fomag AG completely stopped the production of "four", having switched to YagdPTs-4.

          EMNIP, the reason for the recoil of the chassis of the "fours" under the ACS lay not in the military, but in the industrial sphere. In November 1943, the Allies very successfully covered the main plant producing "stugs" - and they had to urgently look for a replacement for them.
          1. Dr. Frankenstucker
            Dr. Frankenstucker 6 August 2020 10: 13
            0
            Quote: Alexey RA
            In November 1943, the Allies very successfully covered the main plant producing "stugs" - and they had to urgently look for a replacement for them.

            Yes, Alquette got a lot then, I had to give part of the production to Krupp in Magdeburg. But they also swung at Fomag and Nibelungenwerke. Guderian's very curious reasons in his June 26 memo. For example, that the shtug, having a low silhouette, cannot act because of the bush in the conditions of Normandy)
      2. Selevc
        Selevc 6 August 2020 12: 40
        0
        Quote: Sergey_G_M
        the main disadvantage was that it turned from a tank into a slowly and close crawling anti-tank bunker. Read the strategists of that time
        Yes, there are photographs from the streets of German cities where KTs are littered with spent cartridges - that is, in fact, they were used only as a stationary or almost stationary bunker in urban combat conditions ...
        1. Dr. Frankenstucker
          Dr. Frankenstucker 6 August 2020 13: 27
          -1
          Quote: Selevc
          Yes, there are photographs from the streets of German cities where CTs are littered with spent cartridges


          can you have a photo of "filled up with sleeves"?
    3. tihonmarine
      tihonmarine 6 August 2020 00: 32
      0
      Quote: Dr. Frankenshtuzer
      Interesting interesting.
      The comfort of the crew is, of course, excellent.
      It seems that a huge disadvantage of CT was disgusting visibility

      Well, I'm more interested in that everything that was in the minuses and the USSR defeated everything that was in the pluses. And what do you call it? Interesting, interesting, interesting !!!
      1. Dr. Frankenstucker
        Dr. Frankenstucker 6 August 2020 09: 02
        0
        crushed everything that was in the pros.


        "Defeated" is a separate topic. This is not what the article is about.
    4. tihonmarine
      tihonmarine 6 August 2020 09: 16
      +1
      Quote: Dr. Frankenshtuzer
      It seems that a huge disadvantage of CT was disgusting visibility

      And over the bridges, how did the Tigers ferry?
      1. Dr. Frankenstucker
        Dr. Frankenstucker 6 August 2020 09: 26
        0
        Quote: tihonmarine
        And over the bridges, how did the Tigers ferry?

        and, well, ask sergeant major Seidel from the 503rd TTB. It was he who dropped his CT scan from the bridge under Mesidon)
        1. tihonmarine
          tihonmarine 6 August 2020 09: 32
          0
          Quote: Dr. Frankenshtuzer
          and, well, ask sergeant major Seidel from the 503rd TTB. It was he who dropped his CT scan from the bridge under Mesidon)

          For the loss of military equipment in the Wehrmacht, the shooting of the crew.
          1. Dr. Frankenstucker
            Dr. Frankenstucker 6 August 2020 14: 19
            0
            Quote: tihonmarine
            For the loss of military equipment in the Wehrmacht, the shooting of the crew.

            Yes?
            What is this WDStO article?
            1. tihonmarine
              tihonmarine 6 August 2020 14: 45
              0
              Quote: Dr. Frankenshtuzer
              Yes?
              What is this WDStO article?

              No, this is not an article. About 10 years ago, our club pulled out a T-34 tank from a peat bog near Sinimäe, captured by the Germans from corps 8 (by the way, this tank is now running). The German crew took in too much, and flew off the gate into the swamp. The crew was shot. We learned this from our colleagues from the German club. So the Germans had a more rigid Ordung than in the Red Army.
              1. Dr. Frankenstucker
                Dr. Frankenstucker 6 August 2020 15: 56
                0
                Quote: tihonmarine
                The German crew took in too much, and flew off the gate into the swamp. The crew was shot.

                It's hard to believe. According to military-criminal law, only deserters and instigators of desertion were subject to execution. For a drunkenly drowned tank, they would hardly have put it up against the wall.
                1. Grading
                  Grading 7 August 2020 20: 20
                  +2
                  The German crew took in too much, and flew off the gate into the swamp. The crew was shot. This is a skrepbearer living in Germany and in general, a migrant with low social responsibility who quietly scoffs at it.
  • The leader of the Redskins
    The leader of the Redskins 5 August 2020 18: 45
    +7
    Thanks to the author! Very interesting article. To me, as a mechanic, especially. 5 kg of effort is nothing! I look forward to continuing!
  • The comment was deleted.
  • JD1979
    JD1979 5 August 2020 18: 53
    +1
    Well, at the most interesting place ...
  • Avior
    Avior 5 August 2020 18: 53
    +5
    ... high shooting accuracy in such conditions: out of 12 shots, 8 hit the target

    So much for the chess pendant we criticize.
    In fact, if necessary, the tank could quite effectively shoot on the move.
    Interestingly, the chassis and the self-propelled engine were then also tested before the breakdown?
    Were the shortcomings of the CT resource a consequence of the quality of manufacture at the end of the war or design errors?
    1. Dr. Frankenstucker
      Dr. Frankenstucker 5 August 2020 19: 31
      +2
      Quote: Avior
      Interestingly, the chassis and the self-propelled engine were then also tested before the breakdown?


      Dashed off only 113 km, burned a ton of gasoline, broke the crown and torsion bar. Then they dismantled everything and sent it to the fire tests.
    2. sanya
      sanya 5 August 2020 22: 06
      -1
      If we take a trophy Ukrainian T-64 with a resource running out, I think that in motion it will not hit the target 8 out of 12 shells
    3. Sanichsan
      Sanichsan 5 August 2020 22: 10
      +1
      Quote: Avior
      In fact, if necessary, the tank could quite effectively shoot on the move.

      re-read the article .. that's exactly how the tower drives were ruined.
    4. Sergey_G_M
      Sergey_G_M 5 August 2020 22: 57
      +1
      With you already in the comments, I crossed paths, you have a balanced, well-founded position - I respect.
      I think that the chess suspension is a bad decision, but this is my decision and my opinion is not based on the materials of the article and cannot be based, I will explain:
      For all their professionalism, the testers of the test site did not know all the nuances of operation and, moreover, did not undergo training in driving these machines, i.e. some of the mechanisms they could simply ditch out of ignorance of the requirements of operation. Therefore, these tests should be treated as not 100%, but how to "take into account" or "take into account"
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Thrifty
    Thrifty 5 August 2020 19: 08
    +2
    Are you kidding me, a teaspoon per hour? ?? negative I've been waiting for so long! !! crying And, in general, thanks to the author, interesting! hi
  • Free wind
    Free wind 5 August 2020 19: 16
    +3
    The Tiger and the Royal Tiger have almost the same turning mechanisms and gearboxes, hodovka. With working hydraulics, it doesn't matter how many tons you have in your hands. And you can't turn at least 40 or 70 tons with your hands. Therefore, both the Tiger and the Cat have the same efforts at the steering wheel. Take any car with power steering, turn the steering wheel on or off, put 5 people in the salon, on the wound, i.e. with a working gidrach you will not feel the difference, but on a muffled car you will feel the difference. By the way, it is not advisable to turn the wheel on the spot, at least drive slowly if possible. Loads on the steering tips, on the gidrach increase many times over. As for accuracy on the move, then the suspension is probably the first role. For all its complexity, cats have a smooth ride, QWERTY SMITH, (not swearing, but the upper and lower row of the keyboard) Did not rock their c-cats. Yes, but with hydraulics tryndets, it is still problematic for us, and what is it surprising that the engine must be started in order for the hydraulics to work? Monocular, breaking, with variable magnification sights, and began to put on the Tigers.
    1. Kot_Kuzya
      Kot_Kuzya 5 August 2020 20: 26
      -6
      What kind of dinosaur do you have? For 10 years now, cars have been using electric power steering, and power steering is a thing of the past long ago, it remained only on heavy equipment.
    2. Sergey_G_M
      Sergey_G_M 5 August 2020 20: 49
      +7
      As for accuracy on the move, then the suspension is probably the first role.

      A lot of things have an impact, suspension, tank weight, base length. Time has shown that the checkerboard suspension has more disadvantages than advantages, which is clearly seen on all modern tanks.
      1. Avior
        Avior 5 August 2020 21: 15
        0
        Modern tanks have gun position stabilization, so this problem simply disappeared.
        1. Sergey_G_M
          Sergey_G_M 5 August 2020 21: 25
          +3
          Yes it is, of course, but this is not the only criterion that buried the chess pendant.
          1. Avior
            Avior 5 August 2020 21: 28
            0
            Not the only one, but the main one.
            We learned to achieve smoothness in other ways and the need for it decreased
            1. Sergey_G_M
              Sergey_G_M 5 August 2020 21: 45
              +2
              It is difficult to say something definite here.
              Difficulty of operation, suspension weight. But this mass can be transferred to the armor and it is not a fact that shooting on the move will give a greater advantage than an increase in armor. In order to say something definite, it is necessary to carry out a whole research work.
              And the facts and history of armored vehicles indicate that such a suspension was very rare.
              The parameter "firing accuracy on the move" sounds very loud, but the effectiveness of such firing is strongly influenced by other parameters - visibility, reaction time and experience of the gunner and commander, aiming and aiming speeds, loading time, etc. Hence the importance of an overcomplicated and heavy suspension for "firing accuracy on the move" without stabilizers seems to me to be greatly exaggerated.
    3. Avior
      Avior 5 August 2020 21: 21
      +1
      There is also a nuance associated with the fact that the Germans, due to the layout, the gun and the gunner were closer to the center of the tank's mass, and, accordingly, were in the best conditions for firing while moving.
      1. Sanichsan
        Sanichsan 5 August 2020 22: 17
        -4
        Quote: Avior
        There is also a nuance associated with the fact that the Germans, due to the layout, the gun and the gunner were closer to the center of the tank's mass, and, accordingly, were in the best conditions for firing while moving.

        and? if it is an experienced crew, they will not fire on the move for two reasons. first, shooting on the move ruins the drives. read the article. the second, an experienced crew, attacks from an ambush.
        that is, this "amazing" feature could be used only by the Hitler Youth in its first and last battle request
        1. Avior
          Avior 5 August 2020 22: 33
          +2
          I read.
          Of course, it only made sense to do this under special circumstances. But, as can be seen from the article, this is fundamentally possible without special preparation.
          Observing from a tank on the move is also important, and a smooth ride is useful for this.
        2. Avior
          Avior 6 August 2020 04: 30
          -1
          That shooting on the move leads to breakage of drives is the author's assumption.
          1. Sanichsan
            Sanichsan 6 August 2020 17: 02
            -1
            Quote: Avior
            this is the author's assumption.

            this is the commission's report. soldier
            or do you mean the author of the report? well, you know better from the couch request
            1. Avior
              Avior 6 August 2020 17: 52
              +1
              ... It is quite possible that the firing on the move was the reason for the premature failure of the gun's lifting mechanism.

              Does it say on your couch that this is a quote from a report?
              This is not in the article
  • Constanty
    Constanty 5 August 2020 21: 29
    +4
    In an era when tank stabilizers were only in the minds of engineers, this looks strange.


    The M4 Sherman (at least those with a 105mm howitzer) already had a vertical gun stabilizer in those years. Westinghouse Gun Stabilizer
    1. Avior
      Avior 5 August 2020 21: 46
      0
      Was. But not all
      1. Constanty
        Constanty 5 August 2020 21: 51
        +1
        Right, but saying it
        were only in the minds of engineers
        not true.
        1. Avior
          Avior 5 August 2020 21: 56
          +3
          Yes, I also noticed this error in the article.
          But, in my opinion, it is rather formal, there were very few such tanks.
    2. hohol95
      hohol95 5 August 2020 21: 50
      0
      The TOS-1 telescopic tank sight (stabilized in the vertical plane) has been installed on the T-26 and BT-7 since 1938!
      1. Constanty
        Constanty 5 August 2020 21: 54
        0
        no weapon sight
        1. hohol95
          hohol95 5 August 2020 21: 56
          0
          Strange answer. And if in more detail?
          1. Constanty
            Constanty 5 August 2020 22: 01
            +2
            Sorry - Russian is a foreign language for me.

            The author wrote about the weapon stabilizer, but in those years it was already present in some American M4s.
            The BT-7 you mentioned in 1938 does not concern the stabilizer of the 45 mm gun, but the sight itself. The gun itself did not stabilize, if I understood correctly
            1. hohol95
              hohol95 5 August 2020 22: 11
              +1
              The first tank in the USA with an armament stabilizer was not the M4, but the M3 "Stuart" with its 37 mm cannon.
              Yes, it was the sight that was stabilized.
              But this was one of the attempts to find the possibility of shooting from a tank on the move!
              After all, the Germans went to the version with a chassis with a staggered arrangement of rollers.
              For a smoother ride when shooting on the move.
              The Germans did not create a stabilizer for a gun or sight!
              1. Constanty
                Constanty 5 August 2020 22: 14
                0
                I did not say that the Germans did it then. Simply put, the author's opinion that such stabilizers were then only in the minds of engineers, in my opinion, is incorrect.
                1. hohol95
                  hohol95 5 August 2020 22: 15
                  0
                  Simply put, the author's opinion that such stabilizers were then only in the minds of engineers, in my opinion, is incorrect.

                  You're right. They are absolutely right.
              2. Operator
                Operator 6 August 2020 01: 23
                +1
                The staggered arrangement of the rollers was used for a more prosaic purpose - to increase the uniformity of the transfer of the load from the "fat" tank hull to the ground with a limited support area of ​​the tracks.

                Aimed firing by tanks on the move straight along the course in WWII was carried out even in the absence of a gun stabilizer - if there were areas on the battlefield with a flat surface, the so-called. track.
          2. Avior
            Avior 5 August 2020 22: 35
            +1
            It was the aiming line that was stabilized with the help of the gyroscope, the gun was not stabilized.
            The barrel of the gun had to be adjusted actually manually according to the light mark in the sight
            The task was not easy
    3. Sanichsan
      Sanichsan 5 August 2020 22: 18
      0
      Quote: Constanty
      The M4 Sherman (at least those with a 105mm howitzer) already had a vertical gun stabilizer in those years. Westinghouse Gun Stabilizer

      quite right. and it was not used because it was difficult to operate. soldier
  • Narak-zempo
    Narak-zempo 5 August 2020 22: 50
    -5
    But if it were not for the cockroaches of the Fuhrer, who considered the Naglichan as the Aryans, and the Slavs as subhumans, a completely different coalition could have formed. And then the two Aryan peoples would put an end to the Anglo-Saxon-Jewish hegemony in the world. With such and such technologies in Germany and the industrial base of the Urals.
    1. Avior
      Avior 6 August 2020 04: 43
      +3
      Hitler's cockroaches were so complex that they fully admitted an alliance with the USSR against England.
      http://www.obraforum.ru/lib/book1/chapter14_17.htm
      And the fact that among Hitler's allies were Slavic countries like Bulgaria
    2. Hagen
      Hagen 6 August 2020 08: 08
      -1
      Quote: Narak-zempo
      But if it were not for the cockroaches of the Fuhrer, who considered the Naglichan as the Aryans, and the Slavs as subhumans, a completely different coalition could have formed.

      If the Fuhrer's cockroaches were different, then under this Fuhrer they would not have given so much money to raise the military-industrial complex and strengthen his army. Because exactly how that Fuhrer who really was, answered political
      aspirations of "world capital".
      1. Grading
        Grading 7 August 2020 20: 10
        -1
        It is ingenious that is why we drove raw materials up to 22/06.1941 XNUMX Germany tongue
        1. Hagen
          Hagen 7 August 2020 20: 13
          -1
          Quote: Grading
          so we drove the raw materials until 22 Germany

          No, that's not why. Because we badly needed German technology and equipment. Everything we received from Germany was very useful to us during the war for the production of weapons.
    3. sanya
      sanya 6 August 2020 09: 36
      -1
      Cleaning up German agents before the war and replacing them with English
      as well as conducting joint secret operations with an Englishwoman, for example, on a change of power in Yugoslavia, suggests that the USSR changed its orientation not long before the war and did not leave Germany any choice
  • iouris
    iouris 5 August 2020 23: 31
    +5
    The USSR lagged behind in all technologies, but had a sufficiently large strategic depth and the best social organization. The system won. Today, the Russian Federation still lags behind in technology, but does not have the advantages of the USSR.
    1. Mavrikiy
      Mavrikiy 6 August 2020 06: 23
      +2
      Quote: iouris
      The USSR lagged behind in all technologies,

      It's not just technology. Roughly speaking, the point is in the ideology of weapons development. An airplane, a tank, a car ... I am sure that even the requirements for ergonomics were not formulated in the West.
      For example, Our wonderful tank, either Egypt or some other Southerner, refused to take due to the lack of a normal condenser. Well, we put it later, of course, but that later. And the gas content of the fighting compartment, after the shot, and the roar of the diesel engine, and so on in everything. And from these "little things" there were losses. recourse request
      1. Hagen
        Hagen 6 August 2020 08: 12
        -1
        Quote: Mavrikiy
        I am sure that even the requirements for ergonomics were not formulated in the West

        Any more or less technically complex product is the embodiment of the mental idea of ​​the people who created it about the most important characteristics of the product and the available technological level.
    2. Selevc
      Selevc 6 August 2020 12: 47
      -5
      The USSR lagged behind in all technologies, but had a sufficiently large strategic depth and the best social organization.
      What nonsense are you talking about ??? !!! Before the 2nd World War, the USSR created images of the best military equipment in the world !!! Only for the T-34 our designers need to erect a monument of gold !!! And there were many other things that were not so painted in literature but nevertheless advanced for their time !!!

      The T-34 is a tank that fought from the early 40s to the early 80s from the snows of Finland to the jungles of Vietnam and this tank is a visiting card of the USSR defense industry in the 30s of the 20th century !!!
      1. Octopus
        Octopus 6 August 2020 14: 36
        +2
        Quote: Selevc
        defense industry of the USSR in the 30s of the 20th century !!!

        Did you make a lot of them in the 30s?
        Quote: Selevc
        The USSR before the 2nd World War created images of the best military equipment in the world

        On the paper. In the gland, everything is more complicated.
        1. Selevc
          Selevc 10 August 2020 11: 17
          0
          [quote = Octopus] Quote: Selevc
          defense industry of the USSR in the 30s of the 20th century !!!

          Did you make a lot of them in the 30s?
          Ц
          Excuse me dear, but how could they have produced a lot of them by the beginning of the war if the T-34 and KV-1 appeared a few years before the war ??? In the USSR, tanks were designed quickly and created in metal quickly - faster than even Germany !!! [Yes, they produced a lot - probably a little on the huge scale of the USSR, but by European standards, 300 tanks is already a lot !!!
          [quote] On paper. In the gland, everything is more complicated.
          [/ quote] Complete nonsense !!! In addition to tanks, the USSR in the 30s and early 40s produced excellent howitzers, mobile artillery, mortars, excellent small arms ... Everything that is needed to equip powerful ground armies. And it's all in metal !!! Everything is on stream !!! I'm talking about at least average batch production and more !!!
          1. Octopus
            Octopus 10 August 2020 16: 59
            +1
            Quote: Selevc
            Sorry dear, but how could they have produced a lot by the beginning of the war

            So they are cars from the 40s, not 30s.
            Quote: Selevc
            Complete nonsense !!! In addition to the tanks of the USSR in the 30s - early 40s, he produced excellent howitzers, mobile artillery, mortars, excellent small arms

            I let it out, but nothing was great. Mortars, more or less.
  • Mavrikiy
    Mavrikiy 6 August 2020 06: 12
    0
    in second gear could turn the tower 360 degrees in total in 20 seconds.
    Das in fantastish! hi
  • Dedok
    Dedok 6 August 2020 08: 15
    0
    Quote: Sergey_G_M

    For example, in the production of a penny, we bought technologies and a production line, but our technologists decided to improve and save money - the cam shaft pushing the engine valves should not first be hardened and then grinded, but vice versa (saving on processing, grinding a hardened part is more difficult than a raw one) it turned out shit and quickly from such the optimization was abandoned.

    FIAT-124 had a lower camshaft, not an upper camshaft like a penny
  • Dedok
    Dedok 6 August 2020 08: 24
    +1
    Yes, a terrible car ...
    how to go against her at least 34 at least on the IS-2?
    Low bow from us to those who did not live to see victory
    1. Mavrikiy
      Mavrikiy 6 August 2020 08: 29
      +1
      Quote: Dedok
      Yes, a terrible car ...
      how to go against her at least 34 at least on the IS-2?
      Low bow from us to those who did not live to see victory

      And those who survived. repeat
      it is very, very difficult to travel on T-34 against her, and also to stay alive ....... recourse
    2. 5-9
      5-9 6 August 2020 10: 45
      -1
      Better nothing .... the first meeting of the T-34 with the CT ended with the fact that 34 from haystacks burned these CTs on board. But taking into account the fact that KTs made only 485 pieces, they didn't really have to go head-on ... in fact, in 44 and 45 years this is an attempt by the Germans to make our tanks go head-on (they used tanks as a mobile PT reserve) ... if this happened, then the Germans, in principle, have completed their task.
      In battle, the IS-2 sun. Our CT scans seemed to crumble them more than those of us ..
      1. Grading
        Grading 7 August 2020 20: 04
        +1
        Quote: 5-9
        Better nothing .... the first meeting of the T-34 with the CT ended with the fact that 34 from haystacks burned these CTs on board. But taking into account the fact that KTs made only 485 pieces, they didn't really have to go head-on ... in fact, in 44 and 45 years this is an attempt by the Germans to make our tanks go head-on (they used tanks as a mobile PT reserve) ... if this happened, then the Germans, in principle, have completed their task.
        In battle, the IS-2 sun. Our CT scans seemed to crumble them more than those of us ..

        How is it all born in your sore brain?
  • Cypa
    Cypa 6 August 2020 08: 52
    0
    Quote: tihonmarine
    Quote: Sergey_G_M
    Who is Mehlis? Part worker, manager.

    A man with enormous powers, whom Stalin was wary of.

    And then how ... reckless, collapsed from an oak tree.
    1. Selevc
      Selevc 6 August 2020 11: 10
      -2
      And is a tank so good that it can not pass over every bridge even in Europe ??? The king tiger as a machine for solving specific problems is perhaps good. But for the versatility of the application I give this monster a solid two !!!
      If we compare the CT even with the T-34-85 - with the visible advantages of the 1st, the thirty-four has many hidden but very important advantages !!! The T-34 fought everywhere - in the snows of Finland, and in the sands of Mongolia, and in the swamps of Belarus and on the streets of Berlin ... But the same cannot be said about KT ...

      Thirty-four were easily thrown over long distances and often on their own !!! The T-34 tank is easy to operate and maintain, and most importantly, the repair of the T-34 could often be done by the crew themselves in some extreme conditions for tigers and panthers !!! But the Germans carried with them rembrigades who often simply did not have time to arrive and prepare the tanks for battle ... For its versatility and cross-country ability, the T-34 is a well-deserved five !!!
      1. Free wind
        Free wind 6 August 2020 20: 36
        +1
        The ability of the crew to replace a broken track with a T-34, of course, is repair. Everything else cannot be repaired on your own. It is the same with tigers. The Germans also had Rembrigades. Only the German re-brigades were equipped, unlike ours, much better. The fur of the water was bitterly joking, the German would remove every detail with a puller, and we were with some kind of mother and a sledgehammer. And suddenly it became a sign of maintainability.
      2. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 7 August 2020 16: 17
        0
        Quote: Selevc
        The T-34 tank is easy to operate and maintain, and the most important thing is that the repair of the T-34 could often be done by the crew itself in some extreme conditions for tigers and panthers !!!

        About ease of management and maintenance - The T-34 was not the leader in this matter. Our ABTU demanded that our factories and design bureaus bring the repair and operational characteristics of domestic tanks to the best foreign models. Which was considered "Valentine" and "Sherman".
        Of the currently available armaments of the Red Army, tank equipment should be the American medium tank Sherman M4A2 with artillery. armament in the form of a 76,2 mm cannon of high power and the Canadian light tank "Valentine" MK-9 with a 57-mm tank gun limited rollback ...
        Specified Tank Samples compares favorably with domestic ease of management, significantly increased service life of the overhaul mileage, ease of maintenance and repair, and at the same time their armament, armor and mobility make it possible to solve the whole set of tasks put forward by armored forces ...
        According to numerous reviews from tank units, these types of tanks can be considered the best for serving in peacetime, mastering military equipment ...
        I ask you to consider a set of measures to improve the design of domestic tanks as soon as possible, so that in terms of the guaranteed mileage, ease of operation, repair and maintenance, they can be equal to the best foreign models ...
        © Head of ABTU Marshal BTV Fedorenko
  • Dmitry V.
    Dmitry V. 6 August 2020 12: 53
    +1
    Once again, it is worth noting the scrupulousness of Kubinka's engineers in developing research methods. So, before the test turn, the tracked vehicles had to turn in place several times in order to remove the extra layer of dirt from the ground.


    "Kolkhoz" is, not scrupulousness - it is impossible to control the soil moisture and the depth of the saturated layer - ie. it is impossible to repeat the same measurement conditions: accuracy + - tram "stop".
  • seacap
    seacap 6 August 2020 15: 05
    -2
    Quote: sanya
    We can say that the best armored vehicles of the Second World War were made by the Germans ...

    The best technique is the one that eventually won; in protracted wars, the issue is decided by the potential of production and material resources. German equipment, although it had excellent characteristics, was technologically complex in production, required a highly qualified workforce, an appropriate production base, etc., in contrast to the Allied countries (the Americans generally took up tanks just before the war and had a weight limit of 35 tons from - for their port cranes, being on the "island") which possessed both a resource base and technologies that allowed to increase production in large quantities, less technological and simpler, using low and medium, in large quantities, skilled labor. Something like that in general terms. Why AK is better than M16, not in terms of characteristics, but because it is simpler and any locksmith in any garage can make it in large quantities.
    1. Octopus
      Octopus 6 August 2020 16: 12
      0
      Quote: seacap
      had a weight limit of 35 t

      And how many M6s did they order there in 42?
      Quote: seacap
      Why AK is better than M16, not in terms of characteristics, but because it is simpler and any locksmith in any garage can make it in large quantities.

      Why do you need a weapon that any locksmith in any garage can make? Will you insert a tooth for yourself - will such an implant suit you, from any locksmith in any garage?
      1. seacap
        seacap 6 August 2020 17: 26
        -2
        Sorry, do you perceive everything specifically? If you are sent to one well-known place, are you going there specifically? I always believed that only the Anglo-Saxons have a specific informative language, and Russian is richer and more imaginative. You read the words, but did not understand the meaning of the sentence composed of them, I apologize if Russian is not your native language. If you noticed, I never said that an automatic machine or any other mechanism, a car can be made from scratch from ore using only a file and a hammer on the knee. The commentary is intended for adults, not for children and young men, and was intended as an explanation of some aspects to a specific person. In the further discussion of my commentary and my personality, instead of the article's material, I see no point, so good luck, all the best.
    2. Free wind
      Free wind 6 August 2020 16: 57
      +1
      In AK garages, no one did it from scratch, this is a myth, wooden parts were made, yes, everything else is either trophies or parts from China, and the assembly in the alleyway in the shadow of aksakal, saxaul, I don't remember exactly. How to make a barrel, a bolt ... I don’t know, it’s impossible without machine tools.
  • Alien From
    Alien From 6 August 2020 16: 38
    +2
    Thanks to the author, we are waiting for the continuation)
  • dgonni
    dgonni 6 August 2020 18: 09
    +1
    The suspension also contributed to the accuracy. It is, of course, problematic in terms of off-road, but at the same time, soft, which ensured a high smoothness of the course.
  • sso-xnumx
    sso-xnumx 6 August 2020 19: 48
    +2
    "Panther" also came out with excellent marks, showing 6 kg of effort at the steering wheel.

    On the "Panther" control levers !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  • tolancop
    tolancop 6 August 2020 21: 21
    -3
    Quote: sanya
    We can say that the best armored vehicles of the Second World War were made by the Germans ...

    You can't. The reliability of the chassis, engine ... has already been described - low. Maintainability is low. Off-road passability is questionable. Using bridges for crossings - not every bridge will work. The cost is high due to the complexity. In addition, manufacturing requires facilities with appropriate equipment and skilled labor. Not a bad idea, but the result is so-so. First, because of childhood illnesses. Secondly ... one super tank will not replace a dozen tanks with more modest characteristics.
  • Grading
    Grading 7 August 2020 19: 59
    +1
    Quote: Operator
    The Germans had problems with their heads - not having a sufficient amount of alloying additives, they stubbornly made heavy tanks for direct clashes with enemy tanks, and the enemy forced them to use them as anti-tank weapons (from ambushes). Then what for an accordion priest - especially since the Germans had an engine, transmission and running gear corresponding to the weight of the "Royal Tiger" until the end of the war (see the first part of the article).

    The IS-2 drove the Royal Tigers head-on into defensive defenses, and the T-34, by evading Teutonic misunderstandings and then acting from ambushes on the KT's escape routes, put a fat point on the German abortion victims.

  • Grading
    Grading 7 August 2020 20: 14
    +1
    Quote: Hagen
    Quote: Grading
    so we drove the raw materials until 22 Germany

    No, that's not why. Because we badly needed German technology and equipment. Everything we received from Germany was very useful to us during the war for the production of weapons.

    for example?
  • Alecsandr
    Alecsandr 8 August 2020 09: 08
    -1
    Whatever anyone said, the Germans were good tank builders and produced very serious and dangerous armored vehicles. Our grandfathers had to fight such a "menagerie" on the battlefields, which once again shows the greatness and valor of the spirit of our tankers and infantrymen. At a high price we got the Victory. And now all sorts of fascists and nationalists have raised their heads again. That is sad.