Military Review

Many, many tanks?

88
Many, many tanks?

This is not a Pz-II, which is completely funny, but also does not inspire awe.


Oleg Egorov had an article not so long ago "On the massive use of tanks"... I have one big question for her: "Is it really massive?" The question may seem strange, because everyone is used to discussing how tank divisions of the Wehrmacht were superior to the huge tank corps of the Red Army in organization. I have no questions about the Wehrmacht, but as for the armored forces of the Red Army, the level of organization there was the same as it should be in the then historical realities. It was formulated extremely concretely by Elena Prudnikova: "With the provision of spare parts at the level of 2%, it can be stated that we have no tank troops." Prudnikova cannot be accused of anti-Sovietism; she simply states the facts reflected in the documents. How did this disgusting situation come about? And why should it have developed somehow differently? The Tsar-Father did not leave us with general education, it had to be created from scratch. And for the equipment to function in the troops, you need:

1. Produce it. If not, then we do not proceed to the next points. This requires specialists.

2. Organize the production of spare parts and logistics. This also requires specialists.

3. Repair. And this also requires specialists. Moreover, the same Prudnikova correctly notes that the tractor driver on collective farms did not know how to repair equipment, this was done by the MTS. And this is correct for the agricultural sector, as Khrushchev destroyed the MTS, and machine building in the USSR reached unprecedented heights in terms of tractor units with not too impressive grain production volumes. Because you can endlessly supply the collective farmers with equipment. Tellingly, the situation with spare parts in the USSR continued to remain disgusting even years after the Second World War. The quality was such that even if the part was in stock, it would not necessarily fit. And only large repair shops with a powerful machine park could modify it on their own, or even more so make the part on their own. Which, by the way, again demonstrates how important the MTS were and that their elimination in terms of the level of idiocy is comparable only to the Chinese "big leap". For the army, this means that even tractor drivers who already have the skills to work with tracked vehicles also need to be trained in repair.

It is possible to organize production, while the plant is a place of concentration of specialists. For the rest, there are not enough specialists (so be it, we will buy machines in the USA, which, due to the Great Depression, were ready to sell anything to anyone). And the production itself is not enough. The plan for the production of the T-34 in 1940 was completely overwhelmed, instead of 1000 vehicles, only 150 were manufactured.That is, the tanks are disposable. Inevitably, it is necessary to produce a lot of them, since in the field their serviceability will be maintained with great difficulty. And the creation of huge mechanized corps in such conditions is quite justified, since it allows organizing large repair bases, which, again, are places for training specialists. At the same time, do not forget about the weak development of individual units, in this regard, the possibilities and approaches to design in the 1930s and 1970s are fundamentally different. In the post-war years, the tank was designed from used components with the expectation that it would not have to be disassembled before overhaul, and the level of l / s training was higher. In the 1930s, the tank was designed to be easy to repair. That is, in the specific Soviet conditions of the 1930s, mass production had no alternative. Specialists at the plant with difficulty, but we will concentrate, they will not be enough for battalions, I can only imagine repairs in such conditions in such a way that instead of a failed tank, a spare is taken, and the broken one will have to be dragged for repairs, since the mechanic drive itself is often not able to fix even simple breakdowns. Of course, when we had to fight, many tanks were abandoned due to minor malfunctions.

What is surprising here is the level of thinking of the army command, which managed to demand such units as the T-35 and T-28, apparently having a poor idea of ​​the problems associated with their operation. Of course, by the standards of World War II, the T-28 still does not go beyond a reasonable weight, but theoretically the Red Army could instead get a normal medium tank with a 76-mm gun and weighing about 20 tons. And it would not only be cheaper than the T-28, but also more reliable. Weight is not only tons in the performance characteristics table and steel consumption, it is a headache for designers: how to make sure that nothing breaks, and how to squeeze additional horsepower from the motor to move this weight. Of course, such multi-turret nonsense suffered not only in our country, but in the 21st century with our afterthought we are "very smart" and we know for sure that multi-turret is bad, but the global passion for multi-turret only shows that in the 1930s the world as a whole was, for the most part, a village, what can we say about the USSR, which at the time of the emergence of 85-90% of the rural population. Educated Germans built the "Mouse", although the discussion about its development should have ended after the question of how exactly this monster should be delivered to the front line.

But even if we assume that the repairs have been established, how effective would the armored troops be? When it comes to tanks, the imagination immediately draws something like the T-72 or T-34-85 in Berlin, but Yegorov correctly points out that the Germans in the French campaign had mostly tankettes. A total of 280 Pz-IVDs with a 75 mm cannon. I want to look at this situation not from the side that the French had better tanks, but how big a role German tanks could play at all. For 280 tanks with 75-mm stumps, the Germans had thousands of guns of the same and larger caliber. That is, the ability of the Germans' tanks to inflict damage to the enemy is negligible against the background of the ability to inflict damage with artillery alone. Moreover, the Germans in 1918 perfectly took any rows of trenches without any tanks, artillery and assault groups did their job perfectly. It is unlikely that the presence or absence of armored vehicles with 37-mm guns by the Germans could have any serious effect on the course of the operation.


But this product, capable of destroying a house with one shot, inspires fear! The picture shows a real blitzkrieg instrument, a 15 cm sFH 18 howitzer. About its Soviet counterpart ML-20 historian. A. V. Isaev said: "Where is ML-20, there is victory"

But anti-tank weapons did not stand still. Maybe a light tank with a small-caliber cannon is not the king of the battlefield, but if rifle bullets do not penetrate it, then it is very unpleasant for the infantry. In World War I, artillery was mainly dispersed in the rear, in the 30s anti-tank rifles and small-caliber anti-tank guns began to appear en masse. The first bell rang back in Spain. And then there were battles on Khalkhin Gol. On August 20, 1939, the Soviet troops opposing the Japanese on Khalkhin-Gol had 498 tanks, and there was a well-thought-out system for evacuating and restoring damaged vehicles. The ground phase of the battle ended on September 8, that is, it lasted less than 3 weeks, but practically everything was over by the end of August, that is, the active phase lasted 10 days. Victory in a small war cost the Red Army 253 tanks. Half of the tanks in 10 days against the enemy, who had almost no own tanks either in terms of quantity or in terms of quality. 3/4 losses - from 37 mm anti-tank guns. In the two-week Berlin operation, with the breakthrough of serious fortifications, city battles and other delights like German heavy tanks and 88-mm anti-aircraft guns, only T-40 and SU-34 lost up to 76%; heavy tanks and self-propelled guns located in the second echelons of combat formations suffered much less.

Estimates of the size of the Japanese army at Khalkhin Gol vary from 20-30 thousand to 75 thousand.If we accept the upper estimate, it turns out that we needed 500 tanks with bulletproof armor to defeat a technically relatively poorly equipped group of 75 thousand people, having suffered loss of 50% materiel. If we increase the scale 10 times, we get 5000 tanks for 750 thousand. And to fight against a 1,5-million force, we need 10000 tanks! The German invasion army numbered 4 million against 2,8 million of the Red Army in the western districts. The claim that the Red Army had a huge number of tanks is beginning to look dubious. Simply because if we are going to fight on the scale of millions of armies, then we will need tens of thousands of tanks. And 10 thousand tanks for an army of 1 million is 1 tank per 100 people. In general, even in 1945, 80% of the armies consisted of infantry divisions. You can look from the other side, for example, we exchange 1 tank like T-26 or BT for 20 Wehrmacht soldiers, which seems to be very optimistic. Then the advantage of 20 thousand tanks will allow us to knock out 400 thousand people. The numerical superiority of the Germans over the western districts does not even come close.

After that, there should be no question how our design idea jumped so briskly from 10-15 tons of late T-26 and BT-7 to 26 tons of the first T-34. Soviet light tanks of the 30s became obsolete not relatively light tanks of the Wehrmacht, they were outdated relative to anti-tank infantry weapons. And their use even against a technically weak enemy led to unreasonably high losses. And here you can at least competently plan and conduct counter-attacks, when any infantry battalion has a large number of effective anti-tank weapons, losses in tanks will inevitably be very high. Tank like weapon in the 30s it faced a survivability crisis. The appearance of the T-34 and its analogues made battalion anti-tank weapons practically useless (and later light tanks, like the T-70 with 35-50 mm frontal armor, cannot be taken from the ATR). And if there were 41 thousand T-10s in the 34st, with the design at least to the level of 1943, then very many combat episodes would end for the Red Army tankers much more favorably, and the Germans would advance more slowly, who knows, maybe they stopped if not along the Dnieper, then they would be 200 kilometers further from Moscow than it happened in reality. More powerful anti-tank weapons like the PAK-40 are not only fewer in number (T-34s cannot be customized in numbers of T-26s either), but are also much less mobile. At the BT bypassed from the flank, the Germans will simply shout the German analogue: "They're piling up, guys!" and deployed a 37 mm mallet on tanks. This will be more difficult with a 50mm gun. The PAK-34 battery bypassed by the T-40 is doomed, it is impossible to deploy the one and a half-ton gun by the crew, and if it has already fired, the beds will bury itself in the ground so that it will not move without a tractor. And nothing like modern anti-tank guns with a circular fire and often with self-propelled mechanisms, and even more so ATGM, then did not exist. (When they appear, the tanks will experience a new survivability crisis, the way out of which will be composite armor.) The tanks themselves were not armed with a battalion (37-45-mm cannon), but quite a regimental level. A 6 kg 76 mm projectile is a much more serious argument than a 45 mm grenade weighing less than one and a half kilograms.

The conclusion can be drawn as follows: the tank fleet of the Red Army in 1941 is not so huge in terms of the needs of a big war. It could not be maintained in good condition due to the objective lack of qualified personnel. At the same time, tanks developed before 1939, except for the relatively few T-28s with 76-mm guns, had a very low combat value both in terms of firepower (battalion-level cannon) and in terms of survival on the battlefield. saturated with small-caliber artillery. And it should not be surprising that after the start of the war with the enemy, who had a large numerical and qualitative superiority, all these tanks did not show themselves in any way. Nevertheless, whatever the exchange of light tanks for the German infantry, it meant the exchange of iron on our side for the lives of soldiers on the side of the Germans.
Author:
Photos used:
wio.ru, ru.wikipedia.org
88 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Woodman
    Woodman 10 August 2020 15: 11 New
    -7
    The Tsar-Father did not leave us with general education, it had to be created from scratch.
    Did the Kaiser leave it for the Germans?
    1. Zeev
      Zeev zeev 10 August 2020 15: 38 New
      21
      Actually, the Kaiser left. Back in the 1870s, literacy in Germany (which for a moment only in the 1870s became uniform) was well over 50%. At the end of the century, the literacy rate among conscripts was 97%. For comparison, in Russia the literacy rate of conscripts was 21%.
      1. Woodman
        Woodman 10 August 2020 15: 49 New
        +1
        Quote: ZeevZeev
        At the end of the century, the literacy rate among conscripts was 97%. For comparison - in Russia the literacy rate of conscripts was 21%.

        According to the TSB, there were 1913% of illiterate recruits in Russia in 27.
        1. EvilLion
          10 August 2020 16: 04 New
          17
          Anyone who could sign was recorded as literate.
          1. Woodman
            Woodman 10 August 2020 16: 09 New
            -2
            Quote: EvilLion
            anyone who could sign.

            Do you think it was different in Germany?
            1. EvilLion
              10 August 2020 16: 42 New
              +5
              Actually, yes, that's why in WWI Russian soldiers were thrown with metal, and they only show a fig in response.
              1. Alexey Sommer
                Alexey Sommer 11 August 2020 15: 49 New
                +3
                Quote: EvilLion
                Actually, yes, that's why in WWI Russian soldiers were thrown with metal, and they only show a fig in response.

                What is the connection between what you wrote and the education of soldiers?
                1. EvilLion
                  12 August 2020 08: 47 New
                  +4
                  The education of soldiers is directly dependent on education in society as a whole. And the soldier in society is far from being the stupidest one, in different Pakistani it is the army with its need to absorb advanced ideas that is a counterbalance to various religious obscurantism.

                  Well, when you need not only to shoot from a three-line, but to drive a tank, or to maintain complex weapons systems, then 2 classes of education are not enough. In WWI this began to manifest itself in WWII it became critical. Even the operation of the SVT rifle by an illiterate Vanya from the plow is problematic.
                2. A1845
                  A1845 13 August 2020 15: 48 New
                  0
                  read on this topic here
                  https://topwar.ru/37776-voyna-kotoruyu-vyigral-prusskiy-uchitel.html
          2. pmkemcity
            pmkemcity 11 August 2020 05: 44 New
            +5
            In 1992, being on a business trip at the naval PTK (21 squadrons), I personally talked with a conscript from the Amur Region, who had 2 classes of education - and I love horses. The "conscripts" from the southern regions were completely illiterate.
        2. Zeev
          Zeev zeev 10 August 2020 16: 27 New
          -3
          And in Germany about 2%
      2. strannik1985
        strannik1985 10 August 2020 18: 51 New
        +3
        Actually a little strange thesis, it turns out the Poles in 1939, the French and the British in 1940 were not literate in relation to the Germans? In this case, the term "literacy" has a slightly different meaning.
    2. parusnik
      parusnik 10 August 2020 15: 40 New
      14
      After the Battle of Königgretz in 1866, a geography professor from Leipzig wrote that “when the Prussians beat the Austrians, it was a victory for a Prussian school teacher over an Austrian school teacher,” referring to the benefit of military education. It turns out left.
    3. Undecim
      Undecim 10 August 2020 15: 56 New
      19
      And you inquire about the history of public schools in Germany. Learn a lot of new things.
      The Kaiser left behind universal literacy. In 1918 there were practically no illiterates in Germany.
      1. pmkemcity
        pmkemcity 11 August 2020 05: 44 New
        0
        Quote: Undecim
        And you inquire about the history of public schools in Germany. Learn a lot of new things.
        The Kaiser left behind universal literacy. In 1918 there were practically no illiterates in Germany.

        I learned it on my own!
    4. antivirus
      antivirus 10 August 2020 16: 08 New
      +2
      read the stat data - by 40 g they have eliminated complete ILLITERATION - READ AND CURRENT WITHOUT SCHOOL KNOWLEDGE. NUMBER OF CITIZENS 40G WITH KNOWLEDGE OF VENUS AND ELECTRON, H2O AND OIL (RUBEROID AND RUBBER) LEARN

      everything is bad in the heads in the 21st century. ready for 5000 minuses, just not to stand next to.
      1. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 10 August 2020 18: 57 New
        +7
        Quote: antivirus
        read the stat data - by 40 g they have eliminated complete ILLITERACY - READ AND CURRENT, WITHOUT SCHOOL KNOWLEDGE.

        I immediately remember the "cry of Major General Petrov":
        Recruitment by rank and file is mainly due to the March draft of recruits (70-90%). Parts are 100% complete with recruits.
        The quality of replenishment by education is up to 50% with education not higher than 4 classes.
        The presence of a large number of nationalities that are poorly fluent and completely non-fluent in Russian will make preparation difficult.

        This is the 17th mechanized corps, 1941. Armored and mechanized troops, the elite of the army.
        1. antivirus
          antivirus 10 August 2020 19: 17 New
          +6
          everything was much worse: the grandfather was sent to the 37th grade as an investigator of the prosecutor's office - 7 classes, whom did he control in the NKVD? --4 classes opera and precinct?
  2. Uncle lee
    Uncle lee 10 August 2020 15: 16 New
    +3
    From T-26 to IS-2 ... Everything flows, everything changes.
  3. smaug78
    smaug78 10 August 2020 15: 28 New
    +7
    What is surprising here is the level of thinking of the army command, which managed to demand such units as the T-35 and T-28, apparently having a poor idea of ​​the problems associated with their operation. Of course, by the standards of World War II, the T-28 still does not go beyond a reasonable weight, but theoretically the Red Army could instead get a normal medium tank with a 76-mm gun and weighing about 20 tons. And it would not only be cheaper than the T-28, but also more reliable.
    kindergarten preparatory group level ...
    And if there were 41 thousand T-10s in the 34st, when the design was brought to at least the level of 1943,
    The author of Samsonov surpassed ...
  4. Same lech
    Same lech 10 August 2020 15: 30 New
    +2
    I agree with the author ... a lot of abandoned tanks were on the way of the Red Army's retreat ... then gasoline ran out, then endless breakdowns ... the photo of the Fritzes clearly shows this.
  5. Razvedka_Boem
    Razvedka_Boem 10 August 2020 15: 36 New
    +4
    And be in the 41st 10 thousand T-34s with the design brought at least to the level of 1943

    I wonder how the USSR could have produced such a quantity, and at the level of 43 g.
    "Generals are always preparing for past wars."
    Even Guderian, rammed through his blitzkrieg strategy.
    By the time the attack on the USSR began, Germany had a lot of experience in modern warfare, and the USSR had to learn everything on the go in the literal sense of the word.
    The Germans had communications in each individual tank and aircraft, while the USSR had radio communications only on command vehicles, which were easily identified by a circular antenna and which the Germans knocked out first.
    Without communication, lack of interaction, it was impossible to organize anything.
    One can also recall the Brandenburg-800 battalion.
    At the same time, almost all industry in Europe worked for Germany.
    The USSR had to evacuate practically all production and in the most severe conditions of lack of everything - time, people, materials, to rebuild the industry.
    And how smart the author must be, having so much information on hand ..
    It's a pity he was not there before the war without all this information ..
    1. EvilLion
      10 August 2020 16: 06 New
      +1
      No way. That is why the War went on the way it went. It is better to read historians about communications, not perestroika "Ogonyok". With her it was more or less adequate.
  6. Zeev
    Zeev zeev 10 August 2020 15: 40 New
    +4

    And be in the 41st 10 thousand T-34s with the design brought at least to the level of 1943

    That would practically not change the situation due to the lack of competent personnel to use these tanks. Both the rank and file and the command.
    1. Selevc
      Selevc 10 August 2020 16: 22 New
      +5
      And be in the 41st 10 thousand T-34s with the design brought at least to the level of 1943
      Of course, I don’t understand that lying on the couch, scratching his heel and coming up with articles about tanks is cool ... But apparently the author of this opus forgot that in the period from 1941 to 1943, the European part of the USSR was destroyed, the Red Army was drained of blood, factories were in a hurry were evacuated to Siberia. And the front needed ANY TANKS - that is, everything that drives and shoots ... And even captured T-3 and T-4 did not hesitate to use it !!!!
      1. Razvedka_Boem
        Razvedka_Boem 10 August 2020 18: 13 New
        +1
        But apparently the author of this opus forgot that in the period from 1941 to 1943, the European part of the USSR was destroyed, the Red Army was drained of blood, the factories were hastily evacuated to Siberia.

        The author is not interested in this, he bends his own.
      2. EvilLion
        10 August 2020 22: 00 New
        +1
        I understand that you are not trained to read, so I will explain briefly, the issue of the production of tanks in wartime is not touched upon in the article at all. She only claims that all the tanks developed until 1939 had negligible combat value in the 41st. And even the T-70 is a much more efficient tank than the T-26 or BT, simply because it will live on the battlefield much longer due to the much thicker frontal armor. Similarly, foreign tanks. Everyone began to rapidly build up millimeters of armor.
        1. Razvedka_Boem
          Razvedka_Boem 11 August 2020 04: 31 New
          +1
          I understand that you are not trained to read, so I will explain briefly

          No need to poke boy. You will be rude at home.
          I will also explain briefly - having information that was not there then, it is easy to feel smart.
          1. EvilLion
            11 August 2020 12: 59 New
            +2
            Once again, show me where something was said about the production of tanks after the beginning of the Second World War, otherwise I see no reason to believe that you at least graduated from school.
  7. parusnik
    parusnik 10 August 2020 15: 45 New
    +2
    I remembered the 1935 film "Hot Days", a military comedy, the crew prepares for maneuvers and repairs the tank all the time, BT-2, it seems ... and the film "A guy from our city", the episode when the tank got stuck on the bridge, the mechanic seems , the jet did not clean ...
    1. Selevc
      Selevc 10 August 2020 16: 14 New
      +4
      military comedy, the crew is preparing for maneuvers and all the time repairing the tank, BT-2,
      The fact is that in many types of Soviet tanks of the pre-war era of construction, the same principle is laid down - "Maximum repair of the vehicle by means of the crew itself" .. And given the vast expanses of the USSR, it was a very wise decision !!!
      1. parusnik
        parusnik 10 August 2020 16: 41 New
        +1
        It’s wise, I don’t argue ... but in the film, it often breaks down ... But the degree of training of Soviet military mechanics is well shown in one of the episodes of the film Tractor Drivers 1938 ..
      2. EvilLion
        10 August 2020 16: 59 New
        +1
        So it should be, on the march to wait for those. there will be no time for help, if you can fix it, you have to fix it. But this is exactly what the young tractor driver Vanya s from a collective farm with 7 classes of education could not do.
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 10 August 2020 19: 08 New
          +4
          Quote: EvilLion
          But this is exactly what the young tractor driver Vanya s from a collective farm with 7 classes of education could not do.

          Who is this who put the seventh grader by the levers? What kind of pest squandering valuable personnel? Yes, Vanya has a direct road to the artillery - to the courses, and then the gun commander! smile
          1. EvilLion
            10 August 2020 22: 02 New
            +2
            I am afraid that the young tractor driver Vanya from the collective farm at least has an idea of ​​tracked vehicles, and the city tenth grader does not have it at all. But to do artillery calculations, a 10th grader will learn quickly, he already knows all these sinuses.
            1. Alexey RA
              Alexey RA 11 August 2020 09: 01 New
              +2
              Quote: EvilLion
              I am afraid that the young tractor driver Vanya from the collective farm at least has an idea of ​​tracked vehicles, and the city tenth grader does not have it at all.

              А urban tenth graders at the end of the 30s - this is generally a rare species. They fit into the Red Book.
              31st TD of 13th MK:
              Illiterate - 30
              1st grade - 143
              2 classes - 425
              3 classes - 529
              4 classes - 1528
              5 classes - 682
              6 classes - 464
              7 classes - 777
              8 classes - 167
              9 classes - 116
              Average - 320
              Higher - 20
              1. EvilLion
                11 August 2020 13: 00 New
                +3
                That is why they were taken to officer schools.
        2. Reserve buildbat
          Reserve buildbat 10 August 2020 21: 13 New
          +1
          Indeed, a tragedy! Tractor driver Vanya with 7 classes of education did not know how to fix a tank!
          But in the Wehrmacht, the level of education of tankers, as a rule, is not higher. And what the "tractor driver Vanya" repaired on his knee, the Germans sent to the Rembats, to the rear, and even to Vaterland. Because they themselves did not know how to repair, nor did they have the right to repair. Send to dealer laughing
          1. EvilLion
            10 August 2020 22: 06 New
            0
            The level of education in the Wehrmacht was actually much higher than in the Red Army, and in the German infantry, for example, 60% of the soldiers knew how to drive a truck, in the Red Army only 10%. And it was much easier for the Germans to train a competent technician, since the recruit was already better educated from school.

            As in the 41st "repaired on the knee" we have already seen.
            1. pmkemcity
              pmkemcity 11 August 2020 06: 04 New
              +5
              Quote: EvilLion
              The level of education in the Wehrmacht was actually much higher than in the Red Army, and in the German infantry, for example, 60% of the soldiers knew how to drive a truck, in the Red Army only 10%. And it was much easier for the Germans to train a competent technician, since the recruit was already better educated from school.

              They knew how to drive a truck, but forgot how to "drive" a horse. The amount of knowledge of an individual soldier is not infinite. The peasant boy had his own "knowledge", which may not always be used in the war, but he was able to learn.
              Modern realities only confirm my statement - the current hucksters are far from with Harvard in their heads. Senator Arashukov, for example, has 6 classes of education, but I am sure that he drives his "Gelentvagen" no worse than Schumacher.
              1. EvilLion
                11 August 2020 13: 01 New
                +1
                Folk ingenuity and engineering are slightly different things.
                1. pmkemcity
                  pmkemcity 11 August 2020 13: 51 New
                  +2
                  Quote: EvilLion
                  Folk ingenuity and engineering are slightly different things.

                  The engineer cannot be separated from the people. Our engineer, as they say, is "flesh of flesh" ... For a people can be without an engineer, and an engineer is impossible without a people.
            2. saigon
              saigon 12 August 2020 07: 36 New
              0
              In the German army, soldiers who did not have a driving license were trained in courses in their free time.
              The topic is certainly interesting, spare parts, repairs and other beautiful things, only the tanks do not fight alone. And to see the number of infantry in our MK and divisions of the Wehrmacht, and to compare the number of trucks and their carrying capacity, to compare the number of anti-tank equipment we have and theirs.
              The author placed the tanks in a vacuum, and we are discussing the problems separately, but we must look at the combination of reasons.
              1. EvilLion
                12 August 2020 09: 13 New
                +1
                Compare the capabilities of tanks and artillery is tanks in a vacuum yeah. There is no need for trucks, I was informed about them long ago. In fact, the meaning of the article is that on the scale of the army, a tank, especially as poor as pre-war light tanks, is simply nothing, and there is no name for it. It's just that if you write about everything, then you get not an article for 3 minutes of reading, but a dissertation. Sorry, but I will leave this to professional historians.
                1. saigon
                  saigon 12 August 2020 13: 09 New
                  0
                  I apologize that my comment was superimposed on yours, I just noted the training system in the Wehrmacht, but the rest is based on the results of reading and discussion.
                  But it is difficult to agree with the wretchedness of pre-war tanks, the tank is a product of technology, production capabilities and, most importantly, the order of the military.
                  What the generals wanted and received from the designers, as they saw the use of tanks and ordered.
                  Another interesting point, the carrying capacity of the car park of the Wehrmacht tank division provided for three days of fighting in the absence of supplies, so many trucks were lifted from the Hans, I did not see such a figure about our corps.
  8. Pavel57
    Pavel57 10 August 2020 15: 50 New
    0
    Some paragraphs are just not serious. And so everything is grown-up.
  9. Undecim
    Undecim 10 August 2020 16: 02 New
    12
    When you read the article, you get the impression that two people wrote in turn, each about his own, like Matroskin and Sharik in the TV series about Prostokvashino.
    The result is some sort of mixture of "facts and fiction."
  10. Selevc
    Selevc 10 August 2020 16: 09 New
    +5
    [quote] [quote] On August 20, 1939, the Soviet troops opposing the Japanese on Khalkhin Gol had 498 tanks, and there was a well-thought-out system of evacuation and restoration of damaged vehicles. [/ quote] [/ quote]

    Where is the well-thought-out system of evacuation and recovery - on Khalkhin Gol: ??? Author are you delusional ??? Khalkhin-gol is located in a particularly sparsely populated region, even by Mongolian standards ... The nearest village is hundreds of kilometers away and thousands of kilometers to large cities - what kind of evacuation, what kind of restoration ??? Evacuation where ??? To the neighboring desert ???

    [quote] (and later light tanks, like the T-70 with 35-50 mm frontal armor, you can't take from the PTR) ./ quote]

    The author and you do not understand such an elementary thing as a simple change in the tactics of using anti-tank weapons against tanks ??? - in other words, the enemy simply will not stupidly beat them in the forehead, but will beat them on the sides ... That's all - and the chest just opens and you don't need to reinvent the wheel !!!

    [quote] He could not be kept in good condition due to the objective lack of qualified personnel. [/ quote]

    Nonsense again !!! The author apparently has a very poor idea of ​​the scale of the Soviet youth's enthusiasm for all kinds of wheeled and tracked vehicles in the 30s !!! ??? ... Millions were addicted to this !!! And from such people it is easier than shelling pears to prepare rem. brigades ... It takes weeks - a maximum of a month with all the delays and delays ...
    1. EvilLion
      10 August 2020 17: 06 New
      -4
      Where is the well-thought-out system of evacuation and recovery - on Khalkhin Gol: ??? Author are you delusional ??? Khalkhin-gol is located in a particularly sparsely populated region, even by Mongolian standards ... The nearest village is hundreds of kilometers away and thousands of kilometers to large cities - what kind of evacuation, what kind of restoration?


      The tank is hooked up to a tugboat, dragged away, the damaged unit is changed during repairs, if possible. Tanks in combat conditions are taken to the plant only if they are completely broken.

      The author and you do not understand such an elementary thing as a simple change in the tactics of using anti-tank weapons against tanks ??? - in other words, the enemy will simply not stupidly beat them in the forehead, but will beat them on the sides ..


      In 1942, the Soviet rifle division had 300 PTR crews in the state, this did not have any effect on its ability to fight tanks. Because the anti-tank missiles are helpless even against 30 mm of armor, and even when they penetrate, they inflict minor damage in the armor-plated space, unless, for example, the "panzer" gets into the gas tank. Do not consider the enemy so stupid that he will allow himself to be shot on the side. Although the Germans remember the packest of 6-7 76 mm cannons, suddenly starting to hit the sides, but 6-7 full-fledged guns are more useful than all 300 ATR combined.
  11. svp67
    svp67 10 August 2020 17: 28 New
    +9
    how much the tank divisions of the Wehrmacht were superior to the huge tank corps of the Red Army in organization.

    They surpassed them QUALITATIVELY. Lacking an advantage in the number of tanks, the German tank divisions were much more "balanced", as well as more manageable organizations, and most importantly more mobile. Since the infantry, artillery, rear services were completely mechanized and did not lag behind the tanks.
    I have no questions about the Wehrmacht, but as for the armored forces of the Red Army, the level of organization there was the same as it should be in the then historical realities.
    no, absolutely not. The organization was not viable. It was impossible in the same units to have different classes and types of tanks.
    It was formulated by Elena Prudnikova in the most concrete way: "With the provision of spare parts at the level of 2%, it can be stated that we have no tank troops."
    Sorry, I'm not familiar with this woman, the main problem of our tank troops was not in 2% percent. And in low training, due to the fact that their number has increased dramatically in a couple of years.
    I am forming at a hasty pace the same mech. Corps in the 40th and 41st, experimental exercises, in order to understand what we get, it was decided to hold only in September 41 in the Moscow VO ...
    that the Germans in the French campaign had mostly tankettes. A total of 280 Pz-IVDs with a 75 mm cannon.
    Doesn't the author consider the Pz-III a tank? And at that moment the Germans had 349 of them on this sector of the front. And the Pz-38 at that time was an excellent machine and there were 207 of them in the Wehrmacht.
    But that's not all. There were also "command tanks" and tanks of artillery and air gunners, but they were not in more than one army in the world, there were 154 of them.
    Half of the tanks in 10 days against the enemy, who almost did not have their own tanks in terms of quantity,
    Forgive me, but on Khalkin Gol, there were heavy losses because Zhukov was forced to change his decision to conduct the operation and throw tank brigades on the Japanese bridgehead formed due to the panic retreat of the Mongolian cavalry division, which threatened the entire group. Not only the Mongol horsemen let us down, but also our infantry, which got lost in the steppe and did not come out at the right time to the line of transition to the attack. So the tanks attacked themselves, without the support of the infantry. This resulted in heavy losses, but the tankers completed the task, the bridgehead was destroyed.
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 10 August 2020 19: 28 New
      0
      Quote: svp67
      no, absolutely not. The organization was not viable. It was impossible in the same units to have different classes and types of tanks.

      Ummm ... what about the Panzerwaffe 40/41? belay
      1. svp67
        svp67 10 August 2020 19: 41 New
        +1
        Quote: Alexey RA
        Ummm ... what about the Panzerwaffe-40/41

        I didn't understand the question. I talked about the fact that our organization of mechanized corps was "unviable", overloaded with tanks, little maneuverable and disgustingly controlled
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 11 August 2020 09: 07 New
          0
          Quote: svp67
          I didn't understand the question.

          I mean that the Panzerwaffe tank battalion for 1941 is one medium and two light tank companies. Three types and two classes of tanks are already at the battalion level.
    2. EvilLion
      10 August 2020 22: 23 New
      +2
      Sorry, I'm not familiar with this woman


      Well, you can read her "Victory Strategy. There was no defeat in 1941". There is a lot about the state of the Red Army in general. Tell her about low training. so she laughs, she generally has a good sense of humor.

      Doesn't the author consider the Pz-III a tank? And at that moment the Germans had 349 of them on this sector of the front. And the Pz-38 at that time was an excellent machine and there were 207 of them in the Wehrmacht.


      Again. In addition to light tanks with 37 mm cannons, the Germans had thousands of larger caliber artillery pieces. In particular, this is why the French did not work out with tanks, although they were better than the German ones. The artillery ground them. Artillery during the WWII EMNIP generally accounted for 85% of all losses. She continued to be the god of war, and light tanks are just cockroaches swarming at her feet.

      Sorry, but at Khalkin Gol, there were big losses due to the fact that Zhukov was forced to change his decision to conduct the operation


      Do you think this is something abnormal? Not like in a real war, in a computer strategy it is so common that the enemy forces you to change plans. But the T-34 in such conditions could somehow imbue due to its low vulnerability to small-caliber cannons and force the Germans to drag "akht-akhty", gaining more time and causing more damage.
      1. svp67
        svp67 11 August 2020 04: 37 New
        +4
        Quote: EvilLion
        Tell her about low training. so she laughs, she generally has a good sense of humor.

        Thank you laughed at the opuses of this ... no, she is not a historian, you correctly noted she is a humorist.
        She tries to shine with intelligence and humor, choosing Viktor Rezun, Mark Solonin as her "comrades" ...
        And how they don't bother their brains with studying archival documents, but it should be ...
        Here is from the report of the commander of the 1st mechanized corps, Major General Mostovenko:
        “Combat training has been deployed in all units. The quality of the classes is still low.
        The parts do not have the necessary training base, manuals and instructions at all.
        Due to the large shortage of command personnel, materiel, weapons, as well as a large percentage of untrained Red Army soldiers, the divisions are not yet combat-ready. The available tanks are provided with crews and will be able to act in case of need "
        This is the commander of the 13th mechanized corps, Major General Akhlyustin:
        “For the successful fulfillment of the order of NCO No. 30 on combat training, it is extremely necessary to have at least a minimum number of teaching aids, such as: split units, engines for adjustment, simulators, split rifles and machine guns, as well as manuals on small arms, tank and firepower. "
        From the 16th mechanized corps write:
        "The disadvantages that lower the quality of combat training include the lack of: teaching aids, regulations, instruments, training materiel, fuel, classes, shooting ranges, shooting ranges"
        The 15th mechanized corps reports:
        “Due to the lack of a sufficient barracks fund, parts of the building have absolutely no premises for classrooms. For the better, the 10th Panzer Division is noted, which is provided with training classes by 30%. Educational and visual aids are also poorly provided, especially tank regiments receiving new materiel, which lack not only manuals, but also training units and parts.
        Even if educational programs are sent by the district, such instructions as ABTKOP-38 [144] and 39 are completely absent in a number of parts.
        17th mechanized corps of Major General Petrov:
        “The recruitment by rank and file is mainly due to the March draft of recruits (70 – 90%). Parts are recruited by 100%.
        The quality of replenishment by education is up to 50% with education not higher than 4 classes.
        The presence of a large number of nationalities who do not speak Russian well and do not speak at all will make it difficult to prepare "and so on and so on.
        Quote: EvilLion
        light tanks are just cockroaches swarming at her feet.
        These "cockroaches" brought victory to the Wehrmacht on their metal "legs". You absolutely do not understand what you are writing about, then why are you doing it?
        Quote: EvilLion
        Artillery during the WWII EMNIP generally accounted for 85% of all losses.

        I would not be so categorical. Where did you get this data. What losses? General, economy, personnel, tanks?
        Quote: EvilLion
        In particular, that is why the French did not work out with tanks, although they were better than the German ones. The artillery ground them.

        Due to the fact that the French tanks were better, this is a very controversial issue, the thickness of the armor, the caliber of the gun is not all that a tank should be judged by. And answer the question, was everything normal with the functionality of the crew in the French tanks, how many people did they have in the tower, how was it with the commander's controllability during the shooting?
        Quote: EvilLion
        But the T-34 in such conditions could somehow imbue due to its low vulnerability to small-caliber cannons and force the Germans to drag "akht-akhty", gaining more time and causing more damage.

        And the T-72 in general could win this battle against the Japanese without loss ... What are you talking about? You understand that nothing comes out of nowhere.
        BTs were great cars for their time. And if our infantry had not got lost in the steppe, and had it gone into battle for tanks, then the losses of tanks would have been much less. In that battle, BTs were destroyed not only by 37-mm anti-tank guns, but also by grenades of the Japanese infantry ... The Japanese managed to carry out engineering work of the first stage and their infantry was already in the trenches, which made it very difficult to fight it
        Quote: EvilLion
        But the T-34 in such conditions could somehow imbue due to its low vulnerability to small-caliber cannons and force the Germans to drag "akht-akhty", gaining more time and causing more damage.

        Imby is redrawn, or unbalanced, or in other words "strong".
        Another imba is from the word "imba", that is, some very strong element that can imbalance a computer game.
        What computer game are you talking about at that time?
        1. EvilLion
          11 August 2020 13: 44 New
          +2
          She's actually a physicist by training. And yes, half of her books are quotes from archival documents. So gasified, you are a puddle, young man. She has such evidence as the spring of mud. And the main question is how they won the war with such an army.

          These "cockroaches" brought victory to the Wehrmacht on their metal "legs". You absolutely do not understand what you are writing about, then why are you doing it?


          Damn, what am I writing about? On 280 Pz-IV with 75 mm stumps, the Germans had several thousand art. guns of the same and larger caliber. The tanks could not win any war there, they could only tactically support the infantry in the attack, or, instead of cavalry, pursue the retreating ones. You just have these tanks hammered into your head, everything else does not fit, although there were 1 of these tanks per 1 people, and an ordinary 150 mm howitzer with a pair of tractors carrying the crew and shells is much more important than a few light tanks. And the USSR, for example, simply did not have anything like this in significant quantities, the artillery had to be dragged by tractors at a speed of 5 km / h.

          The German "tank" division is 200 tanks for 20 thousand people.

          Due to the fact that the French tanks were better, this is a very controversial issue, the thickness of the armor, the caliber of the gun is not all that a tank should be judged by.


          Uh-huh, explain this to the Germans, who at 38 (t) had the misfortune to stumble upon a T-34 mod of 1940 with all its shortcomings, they did not scratch it 10 times, it is in them once, and the guts are wound around the tank ... If we consider any H35 in comparison with the early Pz-III, then one can speculate on the topic of convenience and other things. And by the way, the H35 is quite strong, unlike the T-26, which apparently played a role in that tanks in France were knocked out more slowly than on Khalkhin Gol. The Char B1 is also not so bad in terms of the ability to not die right away. The design is absurd, of course, but still.

          But in general, a Pz-III with a 50 mm cannon will overlap the T-26 and BT-7 in everything, millimeters, radiations, and crew convenience. At the same time, he has good chances against the T-34.

          BTs were great cars for their time. And if our infantry had not got lost in the steppe, and had it gone into battle for tanks, then the losses of tanks would have been much less.


          How do you imagine this process? How can the infantry, following the tanks, protect them from artillery fire? On the contrary, tanks must protect the infantry by suppressing what is dangerous for them. Now, if the infantry has already burst into enemy positions, then here it can really easily destroy the calculations of the ATR and potential heroes with grenades.

          And yes, Zhukov notes the extreme fire hazard of BT. The tank flares up in literally half a minute, the crew always pops out in burning clothes. Conversely, in the case of the T-26, which has a smaller engine, the fuel is also in the stern, demonstrated, in general, much greater resistance to penetration. At the same time, on the march, the speed of the BT does not differ from the speed of the T-26. That is, the notorious mobility of BT is greatly exaggerated.

          which can imbalance


          Well, this will be an imbalance when our tanks calmly destroy the German anti-tank guns, almost without suffering losses. It is clear that the tank can be shot in the stern, jammed the turret, knocked down the caterpillar (on the T-34 they complained that the harp there is imba from below, any projectile takes it), etc., etc. but you still need to be able to do this, If you can't, "Russish Schwein" will wind you on a caterpillar, or shoot you with a machine gun, and save, IRL is not provided.
          1. svp67
            svp67 11 August 2020 14: 49 New
            +1
            Quote: EvilLion
            And yes, half of her books are quotes from archival documents.

            Thank you for the "young man", yes, in my sixties I don't feel like an old man.
            But you obviously have a "pristine brain" ... How many links in her books to documents from archives? Yes, almost no, she reprints someone's reprints ... that is, she has never been in the archives at all.
            And this is not the approach of a historian. It was not for nothing that she took Solonin and Rezun as her comrades, "historians" like her, would find some fact and "suck" it, not realizing that if you carefully look through all the documents in the archive on this topic, and this is a huge labor, then the picture is completely different ...
            For the sake of interest, open the book by A. Ulanov and D. Shein "Order in the tank forces", here is where the abundance of archival documents. It can be seen that people in the archive have spent more than one day and month. And saml reading of documents gives more to understanding what was going on with us at that time.
            Quote: EvilLion
            The tanks could not win any war there, they could only tactically support the infantry in the attack, or, instead of cavalry, pursue retreating

            Are you seriously? Who told you that? They made fun of it, they made it laugh. The entire blitzkrieg theory is based on the concept of DEEP TANK breakthroughs. The German tank units retreated and closed the encirclement so deep to our rear that they could not even theoretically imagine this in our country, and therefore could not resist them. The same thing happened in France, the Wehrmacht tank units, passing through the "impassable" Arden Forest, breaking through the Maginot Line, began to quickly go deep into the territory, not meeting organized resistance and cutting off a large group of Allied troops, which was then pushed to Dunkirk.
            Quote: EvilLion
            Uh-huh, explain this to the Germans, who at 38 (t) had the misfortune to stumble upon the T-34 arr 1940 with all its shortcomings,

            And who won? You have an unclouded mind of a child. You just don't understand what well-organized interaction in battle is.
            Let's start with the fact that 37-mm tank guns could hit our T-34s, which they proved more than once, using his "blindness" and entering him from the stern. But the fact of the matter is that immediately behind the tanks was artillery, including anti-tank artillery, which was intended to cover the flanks of tank units and units from tank attacks. The Germans quite calmly let the T-34s pass through the battle formations of tanks, giving them up to be torn apart by artillery.
            Quote: EvilLion
            How can the infantry, following the tanks, protect them from artillery fire?

            You read the text strangely, but about the tanks knocked out by the GRANATES in my commentary?
            The infantry could save from this, and the infantry could also help with anti-tank guns, making it difficult to work with machine gun fire and concentrated infantry fire.
            Quote: EvilLion
            At the same time, on the march, the speed of the BT does not differ from the speed of the T-26. That is, the notorious mobility of BT is greatly exaggerated.

            Is this your personal observation? Have you spied on the "World of Tanks"?
            This is from the reports on the results of the battles at Halkin Gol:
            "The 1st battalion of the brigade (44 BT-5) at a speed of 45-50 km / h ran into the leading edge of the Japanese, destroyed the enemy with fire and tracks. The attack was not supported by infantry and artillery, and the tankers withdrew, leaving 20 wounded on the battlefield tanks, which were then burned by bottles of gasoline. "
            40-50 km per hour is even now an impressive speed on a tank, this is given that the T-26 could accelerate to 30 km per hour and then on the highway, with a great probability of dropping the caterpillar at the next turn. Therefore, they used so many BTs there that they were part of separate tank brigades, in contrast to the T-26, which were used to equip individual tank battalions of rifle divisions, which means they were directly subordinate to the commander of a special corps, who used their high speed qualities in order to quickly inflict a counterstrike on the enemy
            1. EvilLion
              12 August 2020 09: 50 New
              +1
              that is, she never visited the archives.


              All sorts of super-duper telescopes for billions of dollars fly in orbits. A huge amount of data comes from them. Objectively it comes and lies somewhere. The problem is that the very fact of collecting this data is of no use, they must be somehow and someone processed and some conclusions drawn. And discoveries often happen when someone starts digging through the data and discovers something. Sometimes years after the data was written to the file.

              It's the same with historical documents, if someone went to the archive and dug there, then he introduces the found documents into scientific circulation. Someone has to study them and draw some conclusions, so that Prudnikova, as a rule, does not need to go to any archives, documents, as a rule, have already been found, the question is to study them.

              The entire blitzkrieg theory is based on the concept of DEEP TANK breakthroughs


              I, of course, apologize, but a tank in this regard since antiquity has such an analogue as cavalry. She has the quality of mobility. And kav. formations, even in the years of WWII, replaced motorized riflemen. The blitzkrieg concept is based on a quick solution to the problem of breaking through and reaching the operational space. In this case, tanks will be used, or not, absolutely for the second time. It's easier with them, but you can do without them. It is much more important that when the army is motorized, it is possible, together with the troops leaving for the breakthrough, to pull the cannons at a good speed, carry the infantry and other nishtyaks.

              Let's start with the fact that 37-mm tank guns could hit our T-34s, which they proved more than once, using his "blindness" and entering him from the stern.


              T-34 can be hit by shooting observation devices with a sniper. One problem, it still needs to be able to. And when a 37-ton steel monster is rushing at your 26 mm cannon, pouring lead from two machine guns and spewing 6 kg shells with about a pound of explosives, then your theoretical reasoning about what to shoot him above the stern does not matter ... Maybe later another calculation will be able to do it, but now you just have to run.

              Is this your personal observation? Have you spied on the "World of Tanks"?
              This is from the reports on the results of the battles at Halkin Gol:
              "The 1st battalion of the brigade (44 BT-5) at a speed of 45-50 km / h ran into the leading edge of the Japanese, destroyed the enemy with fire and tracks. The attack was not supported by infantry and artillery, and the tankers withdrew, leaving 20 wounded on the battlefield tanks, which were then burned by bottles of gasoline. "


              And the word "on the march" was weak for you to read? A tank column from the Second World War moved 20-25 km / h. Including BT. In general, the episode is typical, small-caliber guns inflicted monstrous damage just on the easy. What am I telling you that tanks, like BT against 37 mm anti-tank guns, are simply helpless. But there would be artillery ... But what did I write about in the article at all? Not that howitzers are much more important than tanks. At the same time, I have huge doubts that the crews at a speed of 45-50 km / h saw anything at all. That is, the very concept of a fast tank in those realities is absurd. This car travels around the city easily at this speed, but it has glass, not a narrow slit, or an observation device with a narrow field of view, and the devil knows what kind of light loss.

              On the other hand, during the Second World War, there were, for example, episodes with heavy tanks, when the immobilized vehicles could entertain the enemy for several days, since you cannot finish them off with 50 mm, but the Germans did not have anything more serious.
              1. svp67
                svp67 12 August 2020 11: 32 New
                0
                Quote: EvilLion
                It's the same with historical documents, if someone went to the archive and dug there, then he introduces the found documents into scientific circulation.

                Well, this is a parasitic approach and, moreover, does not give a complete picture, since the author of any book selects documents at his own discretion.
                Quote: EvilLion
                I, of course, apologize, but a tank in this regard since antiquity has such an analogue as cavalry.

                No, the cavalry is the forerunner of mechanized and tank forces, and it is far from them in terms of combat capabilities.
                Quote: EvilLion
                It is much more important that when the army is motorized, it is possible, together with the troops leaving for the breakthrough, to pull the cannons at a good speed, carry the infantry and other nishtyaks.

                So the cavalry never acted without guns, the cavalry artillerymen were the most desperate and skillful in the troops.
                The tank allows you not to be afraid of return fire from small arms, it has a cannon for destruction, as well as tracks for quick maneuvering.
                In the history of that war, there are many examples when tank formations and entire formations quickly moved from one place to another and struck where they were not expected.
                Quote: EvilLion
                And when a 37-ton steel monster is rushing at your 26 mm cannon, pouring lead from two machine guns and spewing 6 kg shells with about a pound of explosives, then your theoretical reasoning about what to shoot him above the stern does not matter ... Maybe later another calculation will be able to do it, but now you just have to run.

                A terrible picture. And yes, sometimes anti-tank units were caught during the march, and then there were "cakes" from 37-mm anti-tank guns on the road, but the trouble is that these cases were rare, and so, the Germans knew how to quickly organize an anti-tank defense center and while the tank was dealing with one weapon, others fired at him.
                And the fact that the T-34 penetrated and was struck by 37-mm armor-piercing shells for our military had not been a secret since 1940, from the moment the T-34 hull was tested by shelling at the Mariupol training ground, where they learned that
                "... when firing on the side projection, also having a slope and with the same thickness as the frontal parts, penetration was recorded with a 37-mm armor-piercing projectile fired from a distance of about 200 m. The most unpleasant thing was that even with no penetration or partial penetration, chips formed on the inside of the armor, which scattered throughout the armor-free space, hitting components and assemblies, and therefore the potential crew.An additional problem was the cutouts in the lower side plates of the hull, which served to move the travel of the suspension balancer. Road roller, suspension spring, etc. The casing covering it from the inside was easily penetrated even by small-caliber shells, which greatly worsened the armor protection of the hull and the tank as a whole.Walking, I must say that the vertical lower part of the side turned out to be more projectile-resistant than the upper one, which has a tilt stealing. shelves, which were sometimes hit by shells after ricocheting from suspension elements. "


                Quote: EvilLion
                And the word "on the march" was weak for you to read?

                And here you need to know the history of those battles WELL. The fact of the matter is that the first BT battalion was marching when it collided with the Japanese.
                Quote: EvilLion
                A tank column from the Second World War moved 20-25 km / h. Including BT.

                I have served in tank units enough to know that in order to maintain this speed of the march, sometimes you have to go at a speed of 50 km per hour.
                Quote: EvilLion
                On the other hand, during the Second World War, there were, for example, episodes with heavy tanks, when the immobilized vehicles could entertain the enemy for several days, since you cannot finish them off with 50 mm, but the Germans did not have anything more serious.

                Yes, there were cases, with the same KV 6th TD near Raseiniai, only the Germans at that time were moving along the wrong road, and the heroic KV was still destroyed along with the crew.
      2. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 11 August 2020 09: 15 New
        0
        Quote: EvilLion
        Tell her about low training. so she laughs, she generally has a good sense of humor.

        I will add about the training - this is the situation in the "old" mechanized corps of the formation of the fall of 1940, which are usually considered combat-ready.
        4-th MK:
        The personnel studied the material part well. New models of T-34 tanks have not been sufficiently studied.
        For independent action units prepared mediocre ...
        For making marches tank units prepared mediocre ...
        Control and communication in battle worked mediocre ...
        The tactical training of troops is mediocre ...
        (...)
        KV and T-34 tanks, armed with large-caliber artillery, are not provided with a training ground. It is necessary to use the anti-tank directrix for shooting at the Lviv artillery range ...
        In the units there are no tables of firing 122-mm howitzers arr. 1938, tank guns L-10, L-11, manual on the materiel of 122-mm howitzers mod. 1938, 152 mm howitzers mod. 1938, manual for the materiel of the tank gun L-10, L-11, training tower models, training tank pantographs.

        6-th MK:
        B / part 8995 and 9325 - Not provided with classes due to lack of space. Teaching aids are not enough: there are no manuals on the KV and T-34 tanks, instructions on the new material part of the weapon, BUP part II, UTV part II, instructions on the field service of the headquarters. There is no new charter for the rear. There are no visual aids on new weapons ...
        In / part 9325 - the existing firing range (Green) is not equipped with a sufficient number of dugouts and devices for firing at moving targets.
        Military unit 8995 - the units do not have training grounds, shooting ranges and training fields, since all the land adjacent to the location of the units belongs to peasants and is occupied by crops ... Plots of land for shooting ranges and training fields have not yet been assigned to the units. Materials on the issue of securing areas are presented

        Military units numbered 8995 and 9325 are the 4th and 7th tank divisions of the 6th mechanized corps of Major General Khatskilevich.
        © Ulanov / Shein

        However, these are still flowers. Berries are here:
        Over the past 4 months, the District has carried out the following activities to train the highest command personnel and staffs:
        (...)
        As a result of all these measures, the operational training of senior command personnel has grown significantly and is assessed mediocre.
        © REPORT TO THE COMMISSAR OF DEFENSE OF THE USSR MARSHAL OF THE SOVIET UNION Comrade. TIMOSHENKO S.K. ABOUT THE RESULTS OF BATTLE TRAINING THE TROOPS OF THE WESTERN SPECIAL MILITARY DISTRICT FOR THE WINTER PERIOD 40/41 ACADEMIC YEAR

        Well, at what level was the training of the district high command staff of the ZOVO in 1940, what is "mediocre" for her - this is a significant increase? belay
  12. smaug78
    smaug78 10 August 2020 19: 30 New
    +1
    Quote: EvilLion
    the problem was that if you hammer with artillery for a long time, then the enemy will bring up reserves, since no one will spend echelons of shells just like that.

    What are you saying? The allies didn't know laughing The problem was the low speed of movement of the advancing troops across the "lunar landscape". And smartly - the impossibility of developing a tactical breakthrough into an operational one.
    1. EvilLion
      10 August 2020 22: 26 New
      0
      So it did not turn into an operational one because the enemy was already pulling off everything that could and could throw off the attackers. The lunar landscape itself is surmountable. Although even in WWII, the Americans noted that after carpet bombing, tanks could encounter too many craters and get stuck in them.
  13. imobile2008
    imobile2008 10 August 2020 20: 45 New
    0
    Quote: antivirus
    read the stat data - by 40 g they have eliminated complete ILLITERATION - READ AND CURRENT WITHOUT SCHOOL KNOWLEDGE. NUMBER OF CITIZENS 40G WITH KNOWLEDGE OF VENUS AND ELECTRON, H2O AND OIL (RUBEROID AND RUBBER) LEARN

    everything is bad in the heads in the 21st century. ready for 5000 minuses, just not to stand next to.

    It is necessary to bookmark comments. Still, it was believed that under Stalin, illiteracy was defeated. But it turned out that illiteracy won the war, otherwise it was impossible to survive
  14. raif
    raif 10 August 2020 23: 41 New
    0
    "... only T-40 and SU-34 lost up to 76%; heavy tanks and self-propelled guns located in the second echelons of battle formations suffered much less." - is the author serious?
  15. Cer59
    Cer59 11 August 2020 09: 02 New
    +1
    and so is a very original view of the tank problem. and most importantly, the approach is correct. the tank itself is not a panacea. pto developed. but without taking Germany, other countries the author pointed to the really dire situation with spare parts. but he did not address the logistics issue. in the Finnish war, the T-28 was recognized as an excellent tank and maintainable. reason, the proximity of the Kirov plant. that is, the delivery leverage is minimal. re-brigades at the front.
    does anyone else have such an example. yes there is This is the Kursk Bulge. and the Tiger tank. studying fights, I could not make ends meet in their number. the reason is simple they released 160-150 and went into battle. and near Kursk, they were allegedly destroyed as many as 2000 pieces. confused with T-4? I don't think it's like a mouse and a rat. dimensions ...
    and then I read the report of the panzerfave repair services .... every Tiger on average !!!! repaired 8-9 times, this is on average !! I did not find it more specifically. and then you begin to understand the significance of the supply of spare parts to the Rembaza and the Germans delivered them by AIRPLANES !!
    however, further details on the supply of spare parts could not be found. but that's good that I found. but the attitude towards repair units in the Red Army did not always change quickly. it is covered in most detail in N. Popel's trilogy.
    these are the repair capabilities of the Katukov army. in front of the Kursk Bulge, so many tanks were evacuated from the front line that a whole tank battalion was formed !!!
    and after the losses incurred during the fighting, the composition of the army was increased to 580 vehicles, and this is from the number of 50-100 vehicles on July 12, and at the beginning there were 680.
    but again the question arises to what extent the data can be trusted. studying various documents you find different numbers.
    and at the end of the memoirs of a 1941 infantryman. about the resourcefulness of our troops. more precisely individual commanders.
    We are leaving Belarus, we are walking all the attention to the sky. and then an interesting column catches up with us. in front of the tractor Voroshilovets. there are several T-26 in tow. and so several bundles passed, the last were t-28 and apt. also dragged the T-26.
    we have already seen that they can burn like matches. the armor is weak.
    but it turned out that the tankers knew what they were doing. in a previously prepared place, they placed the T-26 in open caponiers, which only protruded from the towers, around the trenches for the covering infantry.
    for 4 hours these boxes held back the Germans, and then, having blown up their crews, left to the east. here I saw for the first time a competent tank officer. how he chose the places for the tanks of the boxes. during the day of fighting, several raids, no bombs hit a single tank. but I saw the division of labor in them, some of the tanks XNUMX fired at armored vehicles, the rest at the infantry and guns.
    since then I have never seen such a thing. padded tanks were used as pillboxes.
    1. EvilLion
      11 August 2020 13: 50 New
      0
      but he did not touch on the logistics problem


      I don't know anything about her at all, but, most likely, as bad as everywhere else.

      and the Germans delivered them by AIRPLANES!


      For a "tiger" this m / b is even justified. The question is in the reasons for the repair, since tanks could break without our help. That is, it is a masterpiece of organization against stupid engineering.

      A tank as a bunker can be used, but not from a good life, otherwise why is it a tank at all, and not a bunker. "Voroshilovets" is a thing, but not much of that kind was built. In the 41st for the Red Army, a banal MT-LB could simply be a miracle.
  16. Kostadinov
    Kostadinov 11 August 2020 10: 40 New
    0
    Quote: Lesovik
    Quote: EvilLion
    anyone who could sign.

    Do you think it was different in Germany?

    In Germany, universal primary education was beating back at the end of the 19th century. In the USSR it was introduced in 1931. The percentage of the urban population and the industrial proletariat in Germany in 1913 hit several times higher than in Russia.
  17. Kostadinov
    Kostadinov 11 August 2020 10: 54 New
    0
    Let's say we exchange 1 tank like T-26 or BT for 20 Wehrmacht soldiers, which seems to be very optimistic.

    1. Unfortunately, the ratio in 1941 beat on average no more than 1 tank per 10 Wehrmacht soldiers. Including T-34 and KV. In addition, 2-3 tankers were lost on average, along with one tank.
    2. The German infantry beat very well prepared for fighting tanks and did it very effectively at the beginning when the tanks were operating without infantry. Maybe the Wehrmacht missed the chance in 1943-44 to re-equip with new means of PTO like 8 cm surfactant 600 and carried 75 and 88 mm guns or used a weapon for suicide bombers - Panzerfaust.
    1. EvilLion
      11 August 2020 14: 12 New
      +1
      There was no alternative to a cannon with a caliber of about 3 '' then. Or larger caliber systems with greater weight.
  18. Kostadinov
    Kostadinov 11 August 2020 14: 27 New
    0
    Quote: EvilLion
    There was no alternative to a cannon with a caliber of about 3 '' then. Or larger caliber systems with greater weight.

    If we are talking about the Wehrmacht, the alternative beat 81 mm PAV 600 which replaced the 75 mm pt cannon and 75 mm infantry gun. Weight 600 kg.
    1. EvilLion
      12 August 2020 09: 51 New
      +1
      None of the alternatives to classic cannon artillery fired during WWII.
  19. Alexey Sommer
    Alexey Sommer 11 August 2020 15: 46 New
    +1
    The article is simply not about anything. hi
  20. Kostadinov
    Kostadinov 12 August 2020 09: 56 New
    0
    Quote: EvilLion
    None of the alternatives to classic cannon artillery fired during WWII.

    PAW 600 was produced and fired in 1945.