Military Review

Defeatability of T-34. Armored Institute report

68
Defeatability of T-34. Armored Institute report

Source: waralbum.ru


Will always beats the machine


History combat damage tanks The T-34 should start with the German anti-tank memo, which the intelligence department of the Red Army General Staff published in translated form on September 15, 1941. It was according to this training manual that the Wehrmacht organized resistance to Soviet armored vehicles. As follows from this document, the Germans considered tanks to be the most dangerous objects on the battlefield: it was ordered not even to pay attention to air raids and to concentrate all fire on armored vehicles. An interesting remark in this connection in the manual:

"All kinds weapons fire on tanks. Even if there is no penetration of armor, the impact of shells and bullets on the armor has a moral effect on the tank crew.



Source: t34inform.ru

What did the Germans intend to use on Soviet tanks? The scribe even advised to have at least 10 armor-piercing cartridges at all times for a rifle, and 100 pieces for a machine gun. The Nazis, with small arms, sought to force the tankers to close the hatches in order to limit the view on the battlefield. In the most successful version, the bullets hit the machine's observation devices. At the same time, the manual indicated that machine guns with conventional bullets should fire at tanks from a distance of no more than 150 meters, and with heavy pointed bullets from 1500 meters. The most common anti-tank weapons in the Wehrmacht at the beginning of the war were: 28-mm heavy anti-tank rifle Panzerbüchse 41, 37-mm light Pak 35/36 cannon, 50-mm medium Pak 38 cannon, 105-mm light field howitzer mod. 18 and 105-mm heavy field cannon model 18. The manual does not clearly divide Soviet tanks by type and method of fighting, but some advice is still given. It is recommended to aim at the undercarriage of tanks and the junction of the turret with the hull, as well as at the sides and stern. On the frontal projection, the artillerymen are generally not advised to fire, that is, in September 1941, the Germans had few guaranteed means of hitting a Soviet tank head-on. It is noteworthy that the Germans suggested using a heavy 150-mm sFH 18 field howitzer to suppress tanks, mentioning that the weapon would be especially effective against the chassis.




Source: steamcommunity.com

In the event of a breakthrough of tanks at close distances, each soldier of the Third Reich had to enter into a "hand-to-hand" duel with him. Quote from the manual:

“In the case of close combat, you need to blind the crew by throwing smoke grenades. Bring the tank up to a distance of 9 meters, throw a grenade, a bunch of grenades or a bottle of gasoline and then hide in the nearest cover. If the tank has stopped, then you need to climb onto it and blind the viewing slots. Hit the tankers jumping out of the tank. "

The soldier must have had the guts to fight the tanks of the Red Army. At the end of the memo is a motivational tirade:

“The brave soldier is able to destroy any tank enemy [translation feature] with his weapons and in interaction with other types of weapons. He must aim deliberately and have a strong will to pierce armor. Once inspired, a firm and constantly growing desire to defeat tanks is a guarantee that the units will not have any fear of tanks. Honor will always resist tanks. Will always beats the machine. "


TsNII-48 report


The Wehrmacht was a dangerous enemy and, guided by the above techniques, often effectively acted against Soviet tanks. At least at the beginning of the war. Unfortunately, technical problems also contributed greatly to the loss of tanks. One of the first detailed analysis of the failure of T-34 tanks was reflected in the top secret report of TsNII-48 September-October 1942. The so-called Moscow group of the institute analyzed 178 tanks, most of which were knocked out. The vehicles were examined at the Moscow repair shops # 1, # 6 and # 112. It is not completely clear whether this is the first analytical report at the beginning of the war, but it is obvious that the retreating Red Army at the beginning of hostilities left all the destroyed equipment on the battlefield. A more or less representative sample of failed T-34s appeared only by the middle of the second year of the war.


Source: t34inform.ru

How many tanks were out of order through no fault of the Wehrmacht? The counting situation was not easy. At bases No. 1 and No. 6, the researchers checked all 69 T-34 vehicles without exception, of which 24, or 35%, broke down without affecting the armor protection. The reason was the failure of the diesel engine, chassis or transmission. The rest of the tanks (45 vehicles or 65%) were hit by enemy artillery. But then circumstances forced the engineers of TsNII-48 to change the conditions of the study. The fact is that the 109 remaining tanks were specially selected by the specialists of the GABTU of the Red Army on the basis of the destruction of armor by shells, that is, vehicles that had lost their speed for technical reasons did not get there. These tanks were located at the factory repair base # 112. Why the specialists of the Armored Institute were not allowed to select tanks is unknown. All this speaks of the conventionality of the conclusions about the proportion of the T-34 out of order for technical reasons. On the one hand, out of 69 vehicles, 24 were out of service due to malfunctions (though 2 of them were burned down by Molotov cocktails). This, of course, is a lot, but any researcher will point to a very small sample, which does not allow making unambiguous conclusions. Therefore, it is worth talking about this with a great deal of convention.

The most difficult and demanding unit in a tank for quality maintenance is the engine. And he, of course, in combat conditions was the first to fail. It is worth mentioning that the tanks were repaired in the rear between 20 August and 10 September 1942. 11 cars at repair bases # 1 and # 6 were with non-working V-2 diesels and 7 more had a faulty chassis. Researchers write about this:

"It was not possible to establish whether the failure of the tank was the result of a breakdown of the engine or the result of working off the set motor hours during the collection of materials."

It must be said about the shortcomings of the tank diesel engine: at the beginning of the war, the V-2 was a rather crude design with a limited service life. The evacuated plants were just starting to set up the production of complex diesel engines, it was impossible to demand high quality from them. Among the remaining faulty tanks, four were with a destroyed chassis, and the two armored vehicles mentioned above burned down, most likely due to Molotov cocktails.




Source: waralbum.ru

The T-34s that were out of order for technical reasons were sorted out, now it was the turn of combat defeats. 154 tanks were presented for study. Most of them were hit in the corps - 81%. The calibers of the projectiles were determined by the engineers approximately, based on the diameters of the holes and dents. It turned out that Soviet T-34s were fired upon from everything that the Germans had at hand. Range of calibers: 20 mm, 37 mm, 42 mm, 50 mm, 75 mm, 88 mm and 105 mm. The percentage of damage by one or another projectile varies greatly and depends primarily on the availability of weapons in the Wehrmacht artillery. Most often, researchers from TsNII-48 met marks from 50-mm guns, of which the German anti-tank crews had the most. In second place were the 75mm and 37mm guns, with the 20mm and 88mm markings being the rarest. Obviously, it was useless to fire at the T-20 from 34-mm cannons, although the training manual described above called for this, and there were simply not so many anti-aircraft Acht-acht in the tank-dangerous directions of the front. The 88-mm were expected to be the deadliest for the T-34: 95% of hits led, if not to the destruction of the vehicle with a crew, then to severe damage. For 75-mm shells, this figure was 69%, for 50-mm shells - 43%. It should be noted that this percentage included hits with a violation of the rear strength, when the projectile penetrated the armor (in whole or in part) and caused the destruction of mechanisms and the destruction of the crew. For the entire sample of hits in the T-34, such defeats were slightly less than half - 45%.

An interesting story is the identification of traces from sub-caliber shells on the armor of Soviet tanks. It was obvious to the TsNII-48 engineers that such ammunition leaves damage no more than 37 mm in diameter, but it is difficult to distinguish them from conventional armor-piercing 20-mm and 37-mm projectiles. Since the proportion of such lesions was small (14,7%), the researchers concluded:

"The spread of subcaliber shells in the German army during the period from May to July can be considered very insignificant."

There is in the report TsNII-48 and reasoning about the nature of the defeat of the T-34. Based on the fact that 50,5% of all defeats fell on the sides, it was concluded that the tactical training of the Red Army tankers was weak. Let us recall the instructions for the Wehrmacht at the beginning of the article, where it was quite unambiguously said about the futility of shooting Soviet tanks in the forehead. An alternative explanation was the assumption of a possible poor view from the tank, embedded in the design itself, because of which the crew simply does not see threats on the sides. As you know, the T-34 received the commander's cupola only in 1943 and, quite possibly, on the basis of this report.

To be continued ...
Author:
68 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Mavrikiy
    Mavrikiy 22 August 2020 05: 02
    +9
    "We will be pulled out from under the rubble." Everlasting memory!
    From the PT means of the Wehrmacht, the "viper" is not indicated,
    7,62 cm Pak. 36 (German 7,62 cm Panzerjägerkanone 36) - 76-mm German anti-tank gun during the Second World War. They were made by alteration (deep modernization) of captured Soviet F-22 cannons, captured in large numbers during the initial period of the invasion of the USSR.
    recourse
    It turned out that Soviet T-34s were fired upon from everything that the Germans had at hand.
    request According to the instruction.
    The 88mm was expected to be the deadliest for the T-34:
    this is so, but they could only get in the way of the tank by accident, and organizing a quick transfer to a dangerous direction is also not always possible (roads ....). request
    1. The leader of the Redskins
      The leader of the Redskins 22 August 2020 06: 48
      +8
      The viper appeared later than this period. Here are the captured 47 mm not lit. But there were probably not so many of them on the first line and their holes could go for 50mm.
      Thanks to the author for the material.
    2. oldbuddy
      oldbuddy 22 August 2020 17: 07
      +2
      When it was necessary, they organized the transfer of the 88-mm FlaK quite quickly.
      The same NII-48 report provides data on the examination of damaged KVs: of the total amount of damage to KV armor by German shells, 41% falls on 88-mm armor-piercing shells.
    3. boris epstein
      boris epstein 23 August 2020 16: 40
      +4
      "... this is so, but they could only get in the way of the tank by accident, and it is not always possible to organize a quick transfer to a dangerous direction (roads ....)."
      And not only roads. 88-mm anti-aircraft guns were two modifications: Flak18 / 36/37 and Flak 41. The weight of the first -8200 kg in the stowed position and 5000 kg in the firing position. The weight of the second is 11240 kg in the stowed position and 7840 kg in combat position. Well, too much for an anti-tank gun. They were transported by a tractor using two uniaxial bogies. Carriage from 4 sliding beds. That is, if she is on the bed, then she is a suicide bomber. Yes, they could fire from carts, but the accuracy is very low - after each shot and recoil, it rolled back on wheels. The first was not so few, about 10000, but here and ship cannons. 279 of the second were fired.
      1. oldbuddy
        oldbuddy 25 August 2020 18: 37
        0
        “The 88mm cannon sent its 21-pounder projectile over 2 miles with exceptional accuracy. For example, in the battle of Sidi Omar in November 1941, the British Panzer Regiment lost 48 of 52 tanks. All of them were destroyed by 88mm cannons. Neither one of the British tanks did not even manage to get close enough to fire at the German guns.

        The historian of the 9th Royal Lancers' Regiment writes: “A direct hit (88-mm cannon) resembled a huge sledgehammer hitting a tank. The round pierced a neat round hole about 4 inches in diameter, and a whirlwind of red-hot shards burst into the tower. Such a hit usually meant death ... Until the very end of the war, 88-mm cannons remained our most dangerous enemy. "...

        ... General Nering reacted immediately. He shouted to Colonel Alvin Welz, commander of the 135th Motorized Anti-Aircraft Regiment: "Forward anti-aircraft guns!" Sixteen deadly 16mm anti-aircraft guns were quickly pushed forward, and the regiment deployed in a line for about 88 miles, organizing a crossfire system. The British tankers, having finished with the grenadiers, attacked the last line of defense just as Woltz completed its preparation. It quickly became clear that the Grants could not withstand being hit by 1,5-mm shells fired from a distance of 88 yards. Soon 1200 Grants were already on fire, and the survivors hurried to retreat .. "

        Source: Samuel W. Mitchum Rommel's Greatest Victory

        "By that time, almost two-thirds of German anti-tank guns were still old 37-mm guns. Developed five years before the start of the war, they were significantly inferior to the British 40-mm tank and anti-tank guns, were ineffective against British cruiser tanks and were helpless against tanks. Even the new 50-mm anti-tank guns, of which Rommel now numbered about 50, could penetrate the thick armor of the Matilda tank only from a very close range, and only a shell from an 88-mm wheeled cannon could penetrate 77-mm armor of the Matilda tank from a distance of 2 thousand yards ...

        ..... It was already dawn when the battalion leading the attack, the Matilda tanks, began to overcome the last section separating it from the enemy. The first message from the commander of a tank battalion by radiotelephone: "They are blowing my tanks to pieces," was the last report. In a tank trap that Rommel created by placing four 88-mm cannons at the pass, rightly called by the British soldiers "the pass of hellfire," of the 13 Matilda tanks, only one survived. "

        Source: Liddell Garth "World War II"
  2. Free wind
    Free wind 22 August 2020 05: 50
    +4
    The Germans also had cumulative shells, at first they could not determine what the tanks were hit with. The tank had problems over the roof, but they held out and won.
    1. antivirus
      antivirus 26 August 2020 22: 16
      +1
      in 06g the native plant went bankrupt. a guy from Nakhodka arrived (in the Central Federal District): I buy machines no earlier than 64 g of production (- ?????????).
      A week later, an acquaintance said that the Chinese began to modernize their tank troops, they were buying old machine tools, which were cast from previously melted slabs, those from all the trash of the captured and their own.
      by 2015, everything was ready for the parade in Beijing ---- the armor steel of Krupp and NTagil with the molten brains of the Hans and Vanks (in wrecked tanks) defended the Celestial Empire
  3. mark1
    mark1 22 August 2020 06: 23
    +7
    As you know, the T-34 received the commander's cupola only in 1943 and, quite possibly, on the basis of this report.

    The need to install the commander's cupola was known (and the military demanded) almost simultaneously with the very creation of the T-34.
    Why such a far from the most complex structural element appeared in the series only in 43 (the KV did it earlier) has not yet been explained clearly. The Germans on captured tanks had no problems with this.
    1. Ryaruav
      Ryaruav 22 August 2020 22: 05
      -1
      well, the truth is, then it turned out that this turret was being demolished along with the commander's head
    2. EvilLion
      EvilLion 24 August 2020 08: 44
      0
      Considering that viewing instruments had to be made with mirrors of polished metal, most likely due to a lack of optical instruments.
    3. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 24 August 2020 10: 09
      0
      Quote: mark1
      Why such a far from the most complex structural element appeared in the series only in 43 (the KV did it earlier) has not yet been explained sensibly.

      Uv. M. Svirin wrote that the problem was the lack of normal observation devices. Without which kombashinka does not make much sense.
      By the way, the kombashka appeared on domestic tanks in 1941, but the tank with it was never put into production.
  4. Alex 1970
    Alex 1970 22 August 2020 07: 28
    +3

    What is it that flew in? Probably 150mm caliber. it is scary to imagine the fate of the crew with such damage.
    1. Free wind
      Free wind 22 August 2020 09: 23
      +9
      There are many questions for this photo. who actually sent the tanks into such a swamp, it seems that you can't walk there. Well, to the armor questions, Very fragile, otherwise when breaking out, there would be bends, and here, like glass, a piece tore out.
      1. Avior
        Avior 22 August 2020 09: 50
        +6
        A weak spot between the mechanical drive hatch and the machine gun? Consider two large holes in the armor cut, weakened the upper front plate
      2. Lopatov
        Lopatov 22 August 2020 12: 37
        +7
        Quote: Free Wind
        who actually sent the tanks into such a swamp

        It is possible that at the time of the defeat of the tank there was no swamp. Later it melted.
        1. carstorm 11
          carstorm 11 22 August 2020 16: 52
          -2
          It could be even easier. Depends on the situation on the pitch. Quite often, decisions were made to crawl into the swamp during a possible encirclement in order to shoot ammunition and flood the vehicles. Or just close your back from a possible detour. Very often I came across such decisions in the memoirs of various people.
      3. Proctologist
        Proctologist 22 August 2020 23: 57
        +3
        At school, a physics teacher, a former WWII tanker, said that domestic tanks had fragile armor, which made the crew wounded by shrapnel of armor from the inside when a shell hit the tank, and on Lendleigh tanks the armor was viscous, so the crew did not suffer without armor penetration.
        1. Oleg Bykov
          Oleg Bykov 23 August 2020 09: 56
          +4
          Even on Lendleigh tanks, for example, on the Shermans, an internal coating of the hull and turret with spongy rubber was used, which also protected from secondary fragments of armor. On Soviet tanks, armor of high hardness was used, i.e., to a certain degree of impact, it provided higher penetration resistance at the same thickness as viscous.
        2. Ognjen26
          Ognjen26 23 August 2020 14: 31
          +1
          The Germans told the same story about Czech tanks ...
        3. EvilLion
          EvilLion 24 August 2020 08: 46
          0
          In the late period of the Second World War, on the contrary, there is a mention that fragility and damage by secondary fragments are a reason for a complaint, and the T-34-85 in this regard was already safer than the "Panther".
        4. begemot20091
          begemot20091 26 August 2020 17: 38
          0
          the phenomenon of artificial spalling. depends on the speed of the projectile. the incident wave in the armor is reflected from the rear side. a tear-off force occurs. a copper crusher with a diameter of 8 mm and a length of 8 mm destroys the crew behind 25 cm armor like 2 fingers on ... asphalt. you can calculate the speed. if memory serves, at least 5000 m / s at the muzzle. and a little expensive. yes, and mogo helium goes off for a shot, and ... the barrel is longer than the ship's
      4. Train
        Train 23 August 2020 13: 26
        0
        It’s like the Rzhev area, where our tanks were allowed to run, with a definite result ...
        1. Parabelum
          Parabelum 26 August 2020 17: 16
          +1
          I wonder how you defined the area? By the specific density of the earth? Or trees growing exclusively near Rzhev?
          1. Train
            Train 27 August 2020 14: 48
            +1
            In the lecture of the historian, this photo was shown (in my opinion). Leave a sense of humor with you. There, over the summer 42, more than 300 tanks were burned out like straw
    2. Tritebemalo
      Tritebemalo 22 August 2020 16: 21
      0
      It could fly in and penetrate with the usual caliber, and the tanks with fuel in the combat compartment. Fire, detonation - the leaf is destroyed and torn from the inside.
      1. Captain Pushkin
        Captain Pushkin 22 August 2020 18: 07
        +2
        Quote: Tritebemalo
        It could fly in and penetrate with the usual caliber, and the tanks with fuel in the combat compartment. Fire, detonation - the leaf is destroyed and torn from the inside.

        With an internal explosion, the tower would fly away.
        1. EvilLion
          EvilLion 24 August 2020 08: 48
          0
          Not necessarily, but the detonation in the half-empty front tank of the same Drabkin is mentioned in the book as a typical threat, especially since the mechanics used the fuel from the front pack in the first place, and there were a lot of vapors in it. And just, like, tore out a sheet.
    3. Tritebemalo
      Tritebemalo 22 August 2020 22: 28
      +2
      More than once there were memoirs describing the situation - tanks, knocked out, abandoned (their own or Soviet), if it was impossible to evacuate, the Germans were blown up. Moreover, it was ubiquitous and punctual. So it's quite a result.
      1. Oleg Bykov
        Oleg Bykov 23 August 2020 10: 19
        +2
        I also read that the Germans in the defense necessarily undermined, shot and burned, that is, made all the tanks on the battlefield completely unusable for repair, which could get to the advancing
      2. boris epstein
        boris epstein 23 August 2020 16: 56
        +1
        Not everything is perfect. The Germans are also living people. By 1942, the Red Army had many perfectly serviceable triplets and fours. Troikas were used by company and battalion commanders as command vehicles due to the presence of radio stations, and were also remounted in the SU-76I by installing a 76,2 mm F-34 tank gun in the fixed wheelhouse. Since 1944, the Red Army included three battalions armed with Panthers. In December 1942, near Leningrad (Mga station), Soviet fighters captured two of the first three Tigers intact. One of them had a full technical description. and the Germans captured Soviet tanks and put them into service.
        1. EvilLion
          EvilLion 24 August 2020 08: 51
          0
          But in general, the abundance of Pz-III in the Red Army is still a phenomenon, the more massive Pz-IVs in such quantities were either not captured, or not used, although just 1944, the Red Army is approaching and should take many trophies, there are almost no triples , and 4 has not disappeared anywhere.
    4. Ognjen26
      Ognjen26 23 August 2020 14: 30
      0
      It is possible that the 210-mm projectile came from the barrage.
    5. Navel
      Navel 31 August 2020 11: 48
      0
      81 percent hull hits. Hmm .. And where is the "meter terrain screen"? More than half of the damage - to the side of the hull ... Interesting
  5. igordok
    igordok 22 August 2020 07: 52
    +9
    If you wish, read the German instruction of 1942.
    https://yadi.sk/i/8JE_-1q768aV5Q
    1. IS-80_RVGK2
      IS-80_RVGK2 23 August 2020 15: 31
      +6
      Judging by the pictures, it is designed for those who really want to die.
      1. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 24 August 2020 10: 13
        +5
        Quote: IS-80_RVGK2
        Judging by the pictures, it is designed for those who really want to die.

        Nope. It is designed for a blind tank going into battle unaccompanied by infantry, along with the same blind tanks. That is, for a typical situation in 1941-1942. - an attack by a rifle unit with the support of NPP tanks. At the same time, its own infantry does not follow the tanks (it often lies down immediately upon exiting the trenches and waits for the tankers to do everything themselves), and the tanks that have reached the enemy trenches are fighting the enemy infantry alone. sad
  6. Avior
    Avior 22 August 2020 07: 54
    +3
    ... There is no clear division of Soviet tanks according to the type and method of struggle in the manual.

    Interesting remark.
    And in light of this
    ... It is recommended to aim at the chassis of tanks and the junction of the turret with the hull, as well as at the sides and stern. On a frontal projection, artillerymen are generally not advised to fire

    Usually in our literature it is referred to the T-34, and not to all tanks, as in the instructions.
    It does not seem at all in the light that the Germans did not have a means of destruction in the frontal projection of any Soviet tank and from any distance, which is hard to believe - there are clearly such weapons in the list, and there is a visual photo in the article.
    Either these are some general recommendations, or the Germans overestimated the thickness of the armor of all Soviet tanks.
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 24 August 2020 10: 27
      +1
      Quote: Avior
      Either these are some general recommendations, or the Germans overestimated the thickness of the armor of all Soviet tanks.

      Or the Germans, from the experience of previous campaigns, already by 1941 came to the idea, which appeared in Soviet instructions only in 1943: firing anti-tank vehicles into the frontal projection of a tank is the best way to quickly lose this anti-tank vehicle. For the entire crew usually looks into the forward sector and all the tank's weapons are directed. If you miss the first shot, there is a very good chance that you will be mixed with the ground. But when shooting at the side projection, there is a chance to go unnoticed even if you miss.
      The Germans even had the "all-striking" 7,5-cm and 8,8-cm anti-tank vehicles hitting the T-34 in the side.
  7. Mountain shooter
    Mountain shooter 22 August 2020 08: 36
    +5
    Military science was given to our tankers with a lot of blood. As well as pilots, artillerymen, infantrymen ... War does not give time to study ... you have to pay for everything in blood. The commander's cupola was not very useful, the commander was "chained" to the cannon. And there were problems with communication at the beginning of the war. I had to carry an extra crew member, almost useless in battle - a radio operator ... who saw little in battle, and could get into little ...
    1. EvilLion
      EvilLion 24 August 2020 08: 52
      +1
      Yes Yes. It is very meaningful to speak in slogans.

      Tell the Germans about the useless radio operator, they will definitely be surprised.
  8. carstorm 11
    carstorm 11 22 August 2020 09: 33
    10
    As it has recently become a lot of good in armaments in the VO. It makes me happy. And then, in reality, the whole resvrs was filled up with politics. I'm sick and tired
    1. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine 22 August 2020 18: 50
      +3
      Quote: carstorm 11
      As it has recently become a lot of good things in weapons

      )))

      Roll the weapons section to the right, at 11-13 years old.
      1. carstorm 11
        carstorm 11 22 August 2020 19: 06
        +2
        I do this regularly. the rest of the dregs here are very difficult to read. and there you are right a lot of good things. I am constantly looking for something that I have not read yet.
  9. silberwolf88
    silberwolf88 22 August 2020 10: 19
    +2
    even in the most difficult periods of the war, a very necessary analytical work was continuously carried out (and not only on tanks), which saved many lives and helped to comprehend the tactics and weapons of the enemy ... to timely and promptly amend the manuals on the use of weapons and the conduct of hostilities .. . thanks to the author ... informative
  10. Pavel57
    Pavel57 22 August 2020 13: 33
    0
    Did the Germans have magnetic mines?
    1. Serg koma
      Serg koma 22 August 2020 14: 11
      +3
      Quote: Pavel57
      Did the Germans have magnetic mines?

      Hafthohlladung - hand held anti-tank cumulative magnetic mine
  11. Tritebemalo
    Tritebemalo 22 August 2020 16: 29
    +3
    The fourth photo from above is an abandoned T-34 stuck in a peat bog near Nemirov. At one time I read the book The First Battle of Vlasov's Corps Nemirov 1941 (From memory, I can be a little mistaken) - there is a whole series of photos with tanks mediocrely driven and swamped, and abandoned. The Germans arranged a whole photo session. After what is described in the book, I no longer have any questions about where the 12 thousand tanks of the Western districts went.
    1. Tritebemalo
      Tritebemalo 22 August 2020 16: 37
      0
      Edit: "..to the swamp with tanks ...". By the way, the events near Nemirov-June 24, the third day of the war
      1. Serg koma
        Serg koma 23 August 2020 09: 37
        0
        Quote: Tritebemalo
        third day of war

        https://m.tvzvezda.ru/news/forces/content/201801261850-gg69.htm?utm_source=m.tvzvezda&utm_medium=authorspagelinks&utm_campaign=newslink&utm_term=v1
    2. Tochilka
      Tochilka 22 August 2020 21: 13
      0
      Tank units also made marches. Often under raids. Many tanks were lost for this reason. And they just broke down on the march. Could get bogged down so that you can't get out. The reasons for the losses, in addition to the inept command, were enough.
      1. Tritebemalo
        Tritebemalo 22 August 2020 22: 21
        +4
        I agree. A lot of equipment, tanks are left along the roads - any breakdown, lack of fuel, in those conditions, loss of equipment. But this particular photo is in the wrong category. You should read: http://militaryarticle.ru/literatura/voennaya-istoriya/22711-nemirov-pervyj-boj-korpusa-generala-vlasova
        In short: a tank regiment goes to Nemiroff. Without reconnaissance, infantry and artillery. Hurray! -To attack! We are deploying and hurray! .... And the road is one, on the sides is a peat bog. As a result, the tanks on the sides of the road got stuck and abandoned, which broke through the dorga in Nemiroff, destroyed by the deployed (One!) 50mm battery. The saddest thing is the tank regiment, after the cavalry swoop, the loss of equipment, left (withdrew). On the same day, in exactly the same way, and with the same result, another tank regiment of the corps attacked the same 50mm battery. BT-shka, slipped through Nemiroff, stuck at the bridge, abandoned by the crew, rumbled until the evening, running out of all fuel .. And the tanks, driven into a swamp on both sides of the road, in good working order, but immobilized and left by the crews, became the object of the photo session. Moreover, their number in comparison with the combat losses in Nemyriv is much higher.
    3. EvilLion
      EvilLion 24 August 2020 08: 55
      -1
      They were exchanged for the infantry of the Germans, due to no performance characteristics and small numbers they could not have a decisive effect. And so, you jump higher, I love you who like to expose the Red Army as idiots.
  12. Private SA
    Private SA 23 August 2020 07: 49
    +2
    The last photo does not show the driver's front hatch. It flew into his forehead,
    killing, after hitting even a 37 mm shell. Comrade Koshkin's flaw,
    noted in the memoirs of tankers. Mount the tower. Transmission (clutches).
    Really bad review. Tower hatches that didn't pinch
    and fastened with a belt, because "you will not jump out." Internal communication when
    the tank commander kicked the driver's mechanic with his boot, commanding where to turn.
    But both "Sherman" and "Wallentine" also had their own construction glitches.
    1. Train
      Train 23 August 2020 13: 30
      +3
      I read about Valentine - the driver wrote about him - it was an excellent machine, especially with Browning 12 mm on the turret. The engine compartment in the web is dry, the reliability of the car was surprising. It was also quiet. However, Sherman was also praised by the tankers
      1. Alf
        Alf 23 August 2020 22: 10
        +2
        Quote: Zug
        about Valentine, the driver wrote about him, it was an excellent machine, especially with 12 mm Browning on the tower.

        Never had a 12,7mm Browning anti-aircraft machine gun on any British tank. They bet only 7,71 Bren.
        1. Train
          Train 27 August 2020 14: 49
          0
          The veteran knows better. Sherman didn't go to us either
          1. Alf
            Alf 27 August 2020 20: 14
            +1
            Quote: Zug
            The veteran knows better.

            And veterans are not people, they cannot be wrong? How many burned Ferdinands are already in the memoirs? But then you will prove to me with numbers and photos that in general there was at least one Valentine with a 12,7 machine gun in nature.
            1. Train
              Train 28 August 2020 19: 04
              0
              I'm not going to prove anything to you, I'm not a priest and we're not in church.
    2. kytx
      kytx 27 August 2020 02: 58
      +1
      Mechvod kicks it faster than voice command. The Japanese also practiced this, although they had TPU.
  13. vindigo
    vindigo 23 August 2020 10: 55
    +1
    The arsenal of the German infantry is striking. There were even smoke grenades.
  14. Private SA
    Private SA 24 August 2020 00: 31
    0
    Quote: Zug
    12 mm on the turret. The engine compartment is cobweb-dry, the reliability of the vehicle was surprising. It was also quiet. However, Sherman was also praised by the tankers.

    The reliability was surprising, until it drowns in the mud behind the T34-76. And upholstery with dermantine seats.
    But against the "Tiger", standing on the defensive, it is better not to sit down anywhere.
  15. Kostadinov
    Kostadinov 24 August 2020 09: 51
    0
    The 88-mm were expected to be the deadliest for the T-34: 95% of hits led, if not to the destruction of the vehicle with a crew, then to severe damage. For 75-mm shells, this figure was 69%, for 50-mm shells - 43%.

    1. Is the percentage of penetrating hits in the terminology of the report?
    2. The most interesting thing is that more than 30% of 37 mm shells hit the T-34 by penetrating shells. That contradicts the myth of the invulnerability of the T-34 from a 37 mm anti-tank gun. In this case, we are talking about caliber 37 mm projectiles, since the subcaliber in the group of 20 mm hits.
    3. The infantry remained the best pt weapon until the end of the war. When she cut off enemy infantry and then blinded and immobilized the tank. The German infantry very often succeeded in this at the beginning of the war. Then the tank crew was hit only by two exits - they would die or be captured.
    The same was done very successfully by the Chinese and Korean infantry in the 1950s with American and British tanks. The most interesting thing here is that the infantry, without any tanks, successfully attacked the enemy, which had complete superiority in tanks.
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 24 August 2020 10: 34
      +1
      Quote: Kostadinov
      The most interesting thing is that more than 30% of 37 mm shells hit the T-34 by penetrating shells. That contradicts the myth of the invulnerability of the T-34 from a 37 mm anti-tank gun.

      Actually, this myth was finally refuted in 1942 after the shooting of Russian armor from captured anti-tank guns.
      On June 25, 1942, the head of the GAU Artkom, Major General of the Ukrainians, approved a program for testing domestic-made tank armor with captured shells in service with German artillery and shells in service with spacecraft. In accordance with the specified program of work, the Gorokhovets training ground from October 9 to November 4, 1942 shot captured 37-mm ordinary and sub-caliber, 50-mm ordinary and sub-caliber shells 75-mm homogeneous armor plates of medium hardness, 45-mm homogeneous armor plates high hardness and 30 mm homogeneous medium hard armor plates.

      Test result:
      50-mm anti-tank gun PaK.38, ordinary armor-piercing:
      The 75-mm sheet normal showed the back strength limit of 700 m, the through penetration limit of 400 m. That is, starting from a distance of 700 m and closer PaK.38 can penetrate unshielded HF armor, with 400 m it is guaranteed to break through.
      The 45-mm sheet along the normal showed the through penetration limit of 1500 m, at an angle of 30 degrees to the normal 1300 m.
      That is, PaK.38 confidently hits the T-34 in the side and the tower at any real combat distance.

      50-mm anti-tank gun PaK.38, sub-caliber:
      The 75-mm sheet normal showed the back strength of 870 m, the through penetration of 740 m, at an angle of 30 degrees to the normal of 530 and 470 m, respectively.
      The 45-mm sheet along the normal showed the through penetration limit of 1300 m, at an angle of 30 degrees to the normal 700 m.

      37-mm anti-tank gun PaK.36, ordinary armor-piercing:
      The 45-mm sheet normal showed a rear strength limit of 700 meters - that is, starting from 700 meters the “mallet” can dig through the side and the T-34 turret.

      37-mm anti-tank gun PaK.36, sub-caliber:
      75-mm sheet along the normal showed the durability limit of 180 m, the limit of penetration through the 120 m.
      A 45-mm sheet along the normal showed a rear strength limit of 440 meters, a through-penetration limit of 350 meters, at an angle of 30 degrees from the normal 200 and 150 meters, respectively
      .
      © D. Shein
      1. The comment was deleted.
  16. Alexey RA
    Alexey RA 24 August 2020 10: 03
    +2
    It is recommended to aim at the chassis of tanks and the junction of the turret with the hull, as well as at the sides and stern. On the frontal projection, artillerymen are generally not advised to fire, that is, in September 1941, the Germans had few guaranteed means of hitting a Soviet tank head-on.

    The most interesting thing is that even when the German anti-tank vehicle received the means of guaranteed killing of the T-34 head-on, it still continued to shoot at the side projection (according to statistics from 1944, most of the knocked-out T-34s were hit precisely on the side). It's not about penetration, it's about the survival of the anti-tank gun - when firing into the frontal projection of the tank, the gun ends up in the sector that the crew observes best of all and into which the turret is deployed. That is, the PTP very quickly unmasks itself and receives in response.
  17. oldbuddy
    oldbuddy 25 August 2020 18: 52
    0
    Quote: Boris Epstein
    The first was not so few, about 10000, but the ship's guns were also taken into account. The second was fired 279.


    No.

    Production history:
    8.8 cm Flak 18/36/37

    pre-war 2,459
    1939 183
    1940 1,130
    1941 1,998
    1942 3,052
    1943 4,712
    1944 6,482
    1945 738
    Total 20,754

    8.8 cm Flak 41
    Total 556