Military Review

Disappointing Findings: German Artillery Superiority

142

Source: waralbum.ru


Brittleness and hardness


In previous parts stories about the research and testing of captured ammunition, it was about the penetration of the domestic tank become. Of particular interest in the Sverdlovsk TsNII-48 report is a detailed study of the nature of the holes from German shells. So, from subcaliber ammunition on the plate, shallow dents from the coil were clearly visible, in the middle of which there were deep dents or even holes from the core. Here again the differences between medium hardness and high hardness armor showed themselves. The hard armor of the 8C made the core ricochet, it changed its direction somewhat, hit the armor sideways and collapsed. The T-34's high-hardness armor was a definite advantage in countering the new German subcaliber shells.


50 mm PAK-38. Source: wikipedia.org

Classic armor-piercing projectiles behaved in a completely different way, which can also explode while passing through or behind armor. If the barrier was thin enough, then the ammunition calmly passed through it, leaving a neat hole in the armor, equal to its own caliber, and exploded inside the armored vehicle. It is important that the projectile returned to normal, that is, it turned when it touched the armor plate. There were explosions of a shell inside the thickness of the armor. In this case, torn holes were formed or (in case of failure to penetrate) spalls on the back side of the protection.

One of the paradoxical conclusions of the TsNII-48 test commission was not the highest rating for German subcaliber shells. So, the report mentions that for high-hardness armor, 50 mm armor-piercing shells are most effective, while the same sub-caliber shells are noticeably inferior to them. A similar situation with a caliber of 37 mm. The downside of sub-caliber captured shells was the absence of explosives "on board", which, according to domestic engineers, reduced the damaging effect of penetration.

Domestic artillery showed itself in comparative tests not in the best way: 45-mm armor-piercing shells were much weaker than 50-mm German shells and, surprisingly, 37-mm "door knockers". The disadvantages of the Soviet guns were the insufficient initial velocity of the projectiles (only in comparison with the 50-mm German projectile), as well as mainly design features. Domestic 45-mm shells of a blunt-headed form in comparison with sharp-headed German 37-mm caliber had less penetrating ability. The secret of the German artillery consisted primarily in the greater hardness of the welded armor-piercing bow. At the same time, the 45-mm projectile had a high muzzle velocity of 820 m / s versus 740 m / s for the German 37-mm, but this did not particularly help. Domestic artillery badly needed carbide armor-piercing tips.




German anti-tank crews. Source: waralbum.ru

Definitely in favor of the German anti-tank crews, a wide variety of shells played: conventional armor-piercing with and without tips, sub-caliber and cumulative (or, as it was accepted at that time, komulative). As the specialists of the TsNII-48 admitted, all this made it difficult to choose a universal armor suitable for protection against all types of German armor-piercing ammunition. Unfortunately, the Germans on the battlefield could choose how to hit Soviet tanks. For example, if there was a KV in the sight, then a sub-caliber projectile was prepared for it, and an armor-piercing pointed-headed projectile with a carbide nose for the T-34. At the same time, the largest percentage of damage on the battlefield by the end of 1942 falls on classic armor-piercing shells, while the proportion of defeats with sub-caliber shells is only a few percent. Specialists of TsNII-48 left one curious footnote regarding the pre-war period during the layout of the report. It turns out that back in the late 30s they repeatedly pointed out the need to equip the Red Army with sharp-headed shells with armor-piercing tips. At the same time, the advantage of such schemes was especially emphasized in the defeat of homogeneous armor of high and medium hardness - the main types of armor in the mass production of tanks. At the end of the report, the chief engineer of TsNII-48 brought out the following characteristic phrase:

“In connection with the significantly superior penetrating ability of German artillery armor-piercing projectiles in comparison with ours (the domestic projectile industry), we should urgently review our technical installations as outdated and use the data on the design and properties of German armor-piercing projectiles for the rapid development of new models of our anti-tank armor-piercing projectiles. artillery ".


The armor resists


In discussions about the defeatability of domestic tanks, there are important facts regarding the KV armor. According to TsNII-48 estimates, the tactical characteristics of the armored hull of a heavy tank with 75 mm armor show its satisfactory resistance to shelling by a 37-mm German cannon. Not good, but satisfactory! At the same time, a sub-caliber 50-mm captured projectile pierces the KV's forehead, however, without taking into account the shielding plates. For comparison: a similar projectile did not penetrate the forehead of the T-35. At the end of the KV, it was also struck by the usual sharp-headed 50-mm armor-piercing shells. All this information from the Sverdlovsk report does not quite agree with the well-established stereotypes about the invincibility of KV machines in the initial period of the war. It is worth mentioning that this is data from field tests, when both the projectile flies at the right angle and the surroundings are greenhouse. The analysis of the combat lethality of the KV presented a slightly different picture. Despite the small sample, only 226% of the 38,5 shell hits were on the turret and 61,5% on the hull. A mine explosion hit about 3,5% of KV tanks, and a fire - 4,5%. Of the total number of damage to the armor of KV tanks by German shells of caliber less than 50 mm, there were no holes; from 50-mm armor-piercing shells - 9,5% of holes, from 50-mm APCR shells - 37%, from 88-mm armor-piercing shells - 41% and 105-mm armor-piercing shells - 67% holes. Attention is drawn to almost the same proportion of defeats of a domestic heavy tank by 50-mm and 88-mm shells.


T-70. Source: wikipedia.org

The tactical characteristics of the armor of the light T-70 also became the subject of discussion by the specialists of the Armored Institute. The German "door knocker" was not capable of piercing the forehead of the tank, but quite coped with its sides. As expected, 50-mm shells pierced the frontal plates of the T-70, while the classic armor-piercing was preferable in this case. On the one hand, they were cheaper than sub-caliber ones, and on the other hand, they carried a supply of explosives, which was fatal for the crew. The defeat statistics of the T-70 revealed almost 100% of the penetration of the sides by shells from German artillery. TsNII-48 did not fail to once again accuse the crews of light tanks of ignorance of technology and battle tactics, leading to too dangerous and frequent defeats of the sides. Too effective and widespread artillery of 37 mm and 50 mm calibers forced the Armor Institute to think about developing measures to improve the armor protection of tanks. However, one could not even count on any significant restructuring of production.


Source: waralbum.ru

In response, they proposed thickening the armor in the most vulnerable places, changing the slope of the armor at the greatest possible angle with the vertical, developing new types of heterogeneous armor and shielding tanks. Practically all exits required a radical restructuring of tank production, which would invariably lead to a decrease in the rate of deliveries to the front. The choice fell on the shielding of tanks. In order to minimize the weight of the screens, the principle of platoon armor, which is used in ship armor, was involved in the development. The principle of additional armor by hinging screens, usually used in tank building, was rejected as not providing the necessary weight savings.

To be continued ...
Author:
Articles from this series:
German shells against Soviet armor: tested in the Urals
German armor-piercing: Sverdlovsk studies of 1942
142 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. The leader of the Redskins
    The leader of the Redskins 20 September 2020 06: 37
    44
    A wonderful series of articles!
    Really, you learn a lot of new things, and not "pouring from empty to empty".
    Thank you author!
  2. kepmor
    kepmor 20 September 2020 07: 13
    30
    Respect to the author for the depth and specifics of the material !!!
    Your material, Evgeny, is a good help in understanding the technical aspects of the essence of the causes of the tragedy of the 18th and 29th TC of the Rotmistrov army near Prokhorovka.
    Thank! I look forward to continuing ...
    1. strannik1985
      strannik1985 20 September 2020 12: 38
      +6
      Your material, Eugene

      This is one level - directly technical measures to protect armored vehicles, but besides them there are also tactical, organizational measures, one of the reasons for the large losses at Prokhorovka is the weakness of the TK / TA artillery, the lack of the artillery chief of his own artillery control means.
      1. kepmor
        kepmor 20 September 2020 14: 59
        10
        you're right ... it's just that Goth's tanks had already on August 10-11 entrenched themselves on the bridgehead from which Rotmistrov planned to deploy his corps ... and offered to strike further south into the coverage of the "dead head" division, where the terrain made it possible to arrange corps in order of battle for attack, Vasilevsky with Vatunin, his decision was not approved ...
        as a result, all 4 corps were brought into battle in crowded, in fact, battalion columns, head-on into well-prepared positions, over very rough terrain at low speed ... the result was deplorable, huge losses ... the battlefield was left to the Nazis ...
        1. strannik1985
          strannik1985 20 September 2020 18: 40
          +3
          the battlefield was left for the fascists

          It was not about tanks, the Germans pulled literally everything that could shoot, including anti-aircraft guns, to about 42 guns per km of the front. Artillery played the main role in the destruction of Soviet tanks. Moreover, the actions of 5 TA were supported by a group of ADD (66 guns - 12 B-4, 18 ML-20, 36 A-19), but the front of the army had no connection with them and could not promptly control their fire.
    2. Viktor Sergeev
      Viktor Sergeev 23 September 2020 12: 30
      0
      Did you not know before that that the 75mm long-barreled gun on the T4 and even more so the 88mm Tiger could easily penetrate the T34 and KV from distances of 1-1,5 km? The reason for our losses during the Prokhorovka period is that they poured their old tanks head-on into a well-oiled anti-tank defense, that is, the mediocre use of tanks. It's amazing that no one was shot.
      1. kepmor
        kepmor 23 September 2020 13: 49
        +3
        no one was shot just because there was no one and for nothing ...
        on the night of the 12th, Stalin personally took the decision on the counterstrike ... 2 armies (almost 100 hp and 000 tanks) were already at their starting positions, at the last 600rd line of Vatutin's front ... there is a direct road beyond Prokhorovka and Usman to Kursk ... there was no way out ... just to attack ..
        The 5th Panzer Rotmistrova and the 5th Combined Arms Zhadova near Prokhorovka, at the very least, at the cost of huge losses, completed their tasks ...
        Manstein and Goth could no longer attack physically ... the striking power of 3 tank divisions, exhausted by weekly battles in the offensive, was considerably weakened ... tangible losses in armored vehicles, the ammunition load of artillery and tanks was practically used up, fuel for 1-2 refueling, and still stomp and stomp to Kursk ..
        it was thanks to the heroic battle of our troops near Prokhorovka that Operation Citadel was completely choked up ...
        and you say shoot ...
        1. Viktor Sergeev
          Viktor Sergeev 25 September 2020 08: 01
          0
          Maybe Stalin made the decision, but Katukov did not lead his own people to death when Vatutin decided to send his army to the slaughter.
          To Stalin's question: "What do you propose?" Katukov replied: “It is advisable to use tanks for firing from the spot, burying them in the ground or setting them in ambushes. Then we could admit the enemy vehicles at a distance of three hundred meters and destroy them with targeted fire. "
          Stalin canceled the counterattack, which, if carried out, would undoubtedly have led the 1st Panzer Army to defeat.
          And Rotmistrov flooded, not finding the strength to contradict Vatutin. Vatutin is to blame, who invented this massacre, Vasilevsky supported, while Stalin proceeded from the opinion of Vasilevsky and Vatutin.
          Do you think that it is the only way out to stop the enemy tanks with the anti-tank vehicles for the fortified tanks of the Germans, despite the fact that you know about the shortcomings of your tanks?
          The citadel was drowned even earlier, in battles with infantry, breaking through the defense lines, and near Prokhorovka it finally drowned in the blood of Rotmistrov's tankmen. The three-day massacre near Prokhorovka did not solve much, the Germans had already died for it, they went like this, by inertia.
          I understand that history does not like subjunctive moods, but on the flank of Rokosovsky they acted much more competently, tanks were used from ambushes and in the flank, the losses were minimal and the Germans were stopped without their Prokhorovka and because of this the Citadel collapsed. It was Rokosovsky and Katukov (who organized a mobile, competent defense) who won that battle. Vatutin attacked well, but showed himself very badly in defense. Actually, it was Vatutin who should have been shot, but "the winners are not judged," and women still give birth.
          1. kepmor
            kepmor 26 September 2020 06: 41
            +2
            I have a different look at the Battle of Kursk ...
            1. Initially, our reconnaissance could not detect the concentration of the Wehrmacht's tank divisions, tk. they approached the Eastern Front only in mid-June ... and Hitler gave them to Manstein, considering his offensive plan more effective than Model's plan ...
            Naturally, the Stavka was unable to correctly determine the direction of the main attack ... assuming that Model would hit with a tank wedge from the north, since from its positions to Kursk only 40 km ...
            this was the reason for the incorrect formation of troops and the distribution of forces and means between the fronts ...
            Rokossovsky's central front was given most of the anti-tank artillery for 47 km of the front, plus mechanized artillery regiments in reserve ... it was with these regiments that he created artillery ambushes in the places of the Germans' breakthrough ...
            Vatutin's Voronezh front had significantly less artillery and actually did not have reserves for 140 km of the front, so he was given the 1st Guards. TA Katukova ...
            2.it is quite logical that Rokossovsky, almost twice as strong as Model, stopped his advance on his 5nd line of defense after 2 days (there were already 4 lines in total) ...
            3.so that the main, most intense and bloody battles took place not in the north, but in the south, where the 4th Panzer Corps of Gotha (3 divisions - Reich, Leibstandart and the head of death) attacked, which had about 40 tigers, 60 panthers, almost two hundred T-3, T-4 and fifty assault guns ... by the way, the Model did not have a single T-5 and T-6 ...
            and Vatutin, having a wider front line and smaller forces and means, managed to cut Goth's tank fist into two diverging parts in a tough defense, which did not close ... significant losses ...
            4. By July 9, Manstein's troops reached the third, last, line of defense of the Voronezh Front near Prokhorovka and Usman ... if they failed it, then they would have only 3 km to Kursk with a victorious march, tk. our troops were not there ... and our armies in the central part of the Kursk salient would have ended up in a cauldron, and the tanks of the 80th and 4th corps of the Wehrmacht would go to the rear of the front of Rokossovsky (for convincingness, we look at the map) ...
            precisely because of this critical situation on the southern flank, and pulled out the 5th Guards. That Rotmistrova and the 5th OA Zhadov from the reserve Stepnov front, which was planned as the main strike force in the offensive operation "Rumyantsev" ... and with the counterattack of these 2 armies, they actually plugged a gap in the front's defenses ...
            Yes, it was Stalin who gave the go-ahead, on the night of July 11-12, to bring Rotmistrov's army into battle, but where and how to introduce the army was decided personally by Chief of the General Staff Vasilevsky ...
            By his decision, Vasilevsky actually saved Rotmistrov from the tribunal, when almost in full force all 4 tank corps remained to burn out near Prokhorovka ...
            so there was nothing to shoot Vatutin for ...
            just after the war, all the laurels of victory at Kursk went to Zhukov with Rokossovsky ... apparently, because Vatutin simply died before the victory ...
            1. Viktor Sergeev
              Viktor Sergeev 26 September 2020 06: 59
              0
              So it may be so, but why, in order to stop 400 tanks, clearly superior in fire to ours, throw their tanks in the forehead? Was it enough to bury our own, organize attacks from the flanks, cut off communications, as Katukov did? Do you really think Vasilevsky made the decision to enter tanks into a frontal battle not at the suggestion of Vatutin? Well, Vatutin did not know how to defend, maybe there was a mistake in his appointment.
              By the way, the forces of the Germans on both faces of the Kursk Bulge were approximately equal, although Manstein had more Tigers, but Vatutin had more T34 and KV than Rokosovsky, and the latter had a longer front.
              Vatutin was not made a hero, probably precisely because of terrible losses, he was not shot, he was already awarded, by the way, they could have made him a switchman, deflecting the blow from Vasilevsky.
  3. Mountain shooter
    Mountain shooter 20 September 2020 07: 30
    10
    This is how you learn that scientists did not sit idly by, but worked, investigated enemy artillery and wrote hard-hitting reports ... and this is 42 years. And for such reports it was easy to get charges of alarmism, and God knows what else ... They say, the armor on our tanks is weak ...
    They were honest researchers, and brave, they were not afraid to write the truth, and they did not embellish anything ...
    1. Aviator_
      Aviator_ 20 September 2020 10: 58
      10
      And for such reports it was easy to get charges of alarmism, and God knows what else ... They say, the armor on our tanks is weak ...

      Well, if the results of the battlefield confirmed this, then what is the accusation? On the contrary, the search for weak points and finding recommendations for their elimination.
      1. Mountain shooter
        Mountain shooter 20 September 2020 11: 20
        -4
        Quote: Aviator_

        Well, if the results of the battlefield confirmed this, then what is the accusation? On the contrary, searching for weaknesses and finding recommendations for eliminating them

        It is necessary to understand the POLITICAL moment! (Favorite expression of political workers!). Our tankers must BELIEVE in the invincibility of the armor of our tanks! And so on. You never know such formulations were drawn by the ears ... with organizational conclusions.
        1. Aviator_
          Aviator_ 20 September 2020 11: 34
          12
          Our tankers must BELIEVE in the invincibility of the armor of our tanks!

          Well, such political workers quickly ended, because at the front the soldiers applied measures to them that were not provided for by any regulations. And the normal political workers remained. At his father's 889 NBAP, everyone flew on combat missions, as did the political officer. And in disputable cases (whether that point was bombed by the crew - the night is still) the regiment commander flew out for verification.
          1. Mountain shooter
            Mountain shooter 20 September 2020 11: 40
            +2
            Quote: Aviator_
            for at the front, measures were taken against them that were not provided for by any regulations.

            I’m not arguing with you. But these "appraisers" (who read such reports) sat in the rear. And they were very afraid "not to be vigilant", because then it was possible to get to the front ... The ingenious tank designer Gunzburg (developer of the T-50), so he ended up at the front, in the repair unit, where he died. A vigilant someone made organizational conclusions ...
            1. Victor Red
              Victor Red 20 September 2020 13: 15
              +7
              The ingenious tank designer Gunzburg (developer of the T-50) ended up at the front, in the repair unit, where he died.

              To be fair, it should be noted that Ginzburg got to the front for other reasons:
              GKO decree # 3530 "On self-propelled guns SU-76":

              “Self-propelled units SU-76, proposed by the People's Commissariat for Tank Industry (Comrade Zaltsman) and the head of the GAU SC (Comrade Yakovlev) and accepted for production by the State Defense Committee Decree of December 2.12.1942, XNUMX, had massive breakdowns of gearboxes and other defects in operation.

              These shortcomings occurred as a result of the irresponsible attitude of the People's Commissar of the Tank Industry, Comrade Zaltsman, Head of GAU, Comrade Yakovlev, Director of Plant No. 38 NKTP, Comrade Yakovlev, and designer Comrade Ginzburg, to the development of the SPG design and its testing.

              The designer of the SU-76 self-propelled artillery unit t. Ginzburg should be removed from work in the People's Commissariat for Tank Industry, his admission to further design work should be prohibited and he should be sent to the NKO for use in the Army in the Field.
              1. Mountain shooter
                Mountain shooter 20 September 2020 13: 23
                +4
                Quote: Victor Red
                The designer of the SU-76 self-propelled artillery unit t. Ginzburg should be removed from work in the People's Commissariat for Tank Industry, his admission to further design work should be prohibited and he should be sent to the NKO for use in the Army in the Field.

                So he was least to blame for this story. That's exactly what I wanted to say. These self-propelled guns, so bad, more than 13 thousand pieces were released. The engine and the gearbox were not made by him. I remember there was a problem with a pair of gas engines, but it was quickly "cured", and the designer was killed ...
                I wrote that the "organizational conclusions" were made for any reason, right and left. And as for the weak armor protection of the main tanks - but the researchers did not clog up, and just wrote in the report - weak armor!
                1. prodi
                  prodi 20 September 2020 13: 36
                  +2
                  and it is true why it was not possible to increase the thickness of the forehead to 45 mm, with a decrease in mobility; After all, she had to adapt to the infantry, and not to the tanks?
                  1. Alf
                    Alf 20 September 2020 21: 38
                    +6
                    Quote: prodi
                    and it is true why it was not possible to increase the thickness of the forehead to 45 mm, with a decrease in mobility; After all, she had to adapt to the infantry, and not to the tanks?

                    Increasing the load on the chassis and transmission, which were not particularly reliable anyway. Why exactly at the beginning of 42, the KV-1S appeared, in which the thickness of the armor was REDUCED, and this at a time when the Wehrmacht massively had the PK-40.
                2. Saxahorse
                  Saxahorse 20 September 2020 18: 02
                  10
                  Quote: Mountain Shooter
                  So he was least of all to blame for this story. That's exactly what I wanted to say. These self-propelled guns, so bad, more than 13 thousand pieces were released.

                  No need to lie like this right off the bat .. There were 76 Su-14292s produced, but in the normal version. There were 583 of those Ginzburgs made, this version was called Su-12. And the problem was precisely in a gross layout error, for which the chief designer is responsible. As you put it, it was impossible to "cure" it, radically changed the scheme by making a serial pair instead of a parallel one on which Ginzburg insisted. Moreover, problems with parallel connection were discovered at the testing stage, while serial connection has already justified itself on the T-60 tank. It was Ginzburg who insisted on a crooked scheme for which he was punished.

                  Again, his death, a pure accident, generally speaking, he was sent to the troops to repair these ugly Su-12 massively out of order. Quite adequate punishment for a designer who rudely burst with his design.
                  1. prodi
                    prodi 20 September 2020 18: 15
                    -4
                    but in my opinion, Ginzburg just a little lacked creativity to make not one synchronized gear lever for two boxes, but two (each for its own), with rotary throttle actuator levers; and with dual clutch and brake pedals. Coupled with the general layout, when there are boxes on the sides of the mechanic drive, behind them are the engines, and between them (behind the mechanic drive) a fuel tank and a radiator, and all this is fenced off from the fighting compartment by a partition, it would have turned out better than the T-34
                    1. Saxahorse
                      Saxahorse 20 September 2020 19: 49
                      +4
                      Quote: prodi
                      but in my opinion, Ginzburg just lacked creativity,

                      Creativity! ?? The problem of synchronizing the two motors could only be solved through the connection with a fluid coupling. Nothing of the kind was produced in the USSR at that time. And not only in the USSR ..
                      1. prodi
                        prodi 20 September 2020 19: 53
                        +1
                        you do not understand: each engine with its own box works on its side (board); "synchronization", or rather a straight or smooth change in the trajectory of movement, is regulated by the throttle valves (motorcycle type, on the gear shift levers)
                      2. Saxahorse
                        Saxahorse 20 September 2020 20: 07
                        +4
                        You offer each gusle its own, separate engine and drive. They also tried this before the war, but immediately ran into problems. It was almost impossible to make such a car go straight ahead. just a tricky sine wave ..
                      3. prodi
                        prodi 20 September 2020 20: 10
                        0
                        such a car could even be made to turn in place without the ingenious German transmission, turning on the levers on one side of the first, and on the other - the rear
                      4. Saxahorse
                        Saxahorse 20 September 2020 20: 23
                        +7
                        Quote: prodi
                        such a machine could even be made to spin in place

                        Turn around in place with ease! It turned out to be impossible to go straight where it was necessary. wassat
                      5. prodi
                        prodi 20 September 2020 20: 27
                        -1
                        why is it impossible? For example, second gears are included, the engines develop different power (this is normal), compensation is made by throttle valves (which are on each side, on the gear shift levers)
                      6. Saxahorse
                        Saxahorse 20 September 2020 20: 40
                        +7
                        Quote: prodi
                        compensation is done by throttle valves

                        That is why a continuous sinusoid with a random amplitude is obtained .. The resistance to movement for each psaltery is different, plus the power fluctuates randomly from each portion of fuel and air. As a result, each harp lives its own life.
                      7. prodi
                        prodi 20 September 2020 20: 41
                        -1
                        How do you know all this? After all, it seems that there were no such attempts at all ...
                      8. Saxahorse
                        Saxahorse 20 September 2020 20: 50
                        10
                        Quote: prodi
                        doesn't seem to have happened at all ...

                        That's just the point that "was". laughing

                        I apologize, of course, as an engineer, problems with asynchrony immediately catch my eye. I don’t know how to explain this to you. Experiments of this kind in the period between the world wars were, and not only with tanks, the results, as I said, are deplorable.

                        Pay attention, even a couple of horses are harnessed to the cart through the shafts. Rigid ligament.
                      9. slowpokemonkey
                        slowpokemonkey 21 September 2020 09: 37
                        +2
                        I can not help but add about the "sideways driving" Zil-135)))
                      10. bk316
                        bk316 21 September 2020 17: 03
                        0
                        How to clearly explain this to you, I do not know

                        You are absolutely right. I'll try.

                        1. The engine based on the internal combustion engine has inertia in control.
                        2. The engine based on the internal combustion engine has a power feedback.

                        therefore in ideal conditions (equal resistance across tracks) throttle control system leads to fading sinusoid.
                        And in real life, the trajectory can be described as a bull by .. l.

                        Therefore, you need a device that constantly extinguishes the difference in moments, the classic is a hydraulic coupling. In modern design, injection can be controlled.
      2. Jura 27
        Jura 27 22 September 2020 16: 21
        +1
        [/ quote] Creativity! ?? The problem of synchronizing the two motors could be solved only through the connection with a hydraulic clutch. Nothing of the kind was produced in the USSR at that time. And not only in the USSR .. [quote]

        Produced in large quantities in the USA and England, without any fluid couplings. Ginzburg has just an engineering mistake that cost him his life.
      3. Saxahorse
        Saxahorse 22 September 2020 23: 43
        0
        Quote: Jura 27
        Ginzburg has just an engineering mistake that cost him his life.

        What exactly do you think was the mistake?
      4. Jura 27
        Jura 27 24 September 2020 05: 07
        0
        [/ quote] What exactly do you think was the mistake? [quote]

        Incorrect pairing scheme of internal combustion engines, and Angles and Amers, is correct.
      5. Saxahorse
        Saxahorse 24 September 2020 22: 09
        0
        The answer is trivial. Once the error is clear, the stump is wrong. The question is how is it right?
      6. Jura 27
        Jura 27 25 September 2020 15: 59
        0
        Quote: Saxahorse
        The answer is trivial. Once the error is clear, the stump is wrong. The question is how is it right?

        Correctly for the Angles and amers on Matilda 2 and M3 and M4 medium with diesel engines.
      7. Saxahorse
        Saxahorse 25 September 2020 22: 12
        0
        Quote: Jura 27
        Correctly for the Angles and amers on Matilda 2 and M3 and M4 medium with diesel engines.

        And ... ?? How did the parallel connection on Matilda differ from the solution of the Su-12? the fact that the Su-12 poured like peas from the table is a fact. Matilda, by the way, is not perfect either. However, they lived much more. What helped to avoid the Su-12 glitch? Something tells me that there was some kind of decoupling on the torque. Which one?
      8. Jura 27
        Jura 27 26 September 2020 16: 35
        0
        [/ quote] Something tells me that there was some kind of torque decoupling. And which one? [Quote]

        The torsional vibration damper (torque difference) was in the right place for the Amers / Angles (after the motors, in front of the gearbox), and for Ginzburg it was in the wrong place.
      9. Saxahorse
        Saxahorse 26 September 2020 21: 45
        0
        Quote: Jura 27
        The torsional vibration damper (torque difference) was in the right place for the Amers / Angles (after the motors, in front of the gearbox), and for Ginzburg it was in the wrong place.

        Again you answered in general terms :(

        I'm not digging .. I'm wondering how it was solved. In addition to amers, there are also BTR-60s, for example, also with two engines. I wonder how we solved this problem.

        More precisely, I do not understand what exactly you called "Torsional vibration damper"
      10. Jura 27
        Jura 27 27 September 2020 16: 24
        +1
        [/ quote] More precisely, I do not understand what exactly you called "Torsional vibration damper" [quote]

        This role was played by a banal clutch, it also damped torsional vibrations, i.e. with the correct scheme, - the internal combustion engine, the clutch and then the pairing gearbox (with the wrong one, - all other options, including the Ginzburg).
        On the BRT-60, there was a differential, which played the role of a damper - this is also the correct option, but with the addition of an extra unit.
  • Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
    Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 21 September 2020 11: 57
    +1
    Quote: Saxahorse
    radically changed the circuit by making a serial pair instead of a parallel one on which Ginzburg insisted. Moreover, problems with parallel connection were discovered even at the testing stage, while serial connection has already justified itself on the T-60 tank

    parallel connection - is this a scheme that the British implemented in "Matilda MK2"? There, two "Leilands" through a transverse transmission worked at a common checkpoint.
    1. Saxahorse
      Saxahorse 24 September 2020 22: 10
      0
      How does this connection differ from the obviously unsuccessful one in the Su-12?
      1. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
        Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 24 September 2020 22: 15
        0
        You answer a question with a question.
      2. Saxahorse
        Saxahorse 24 September 2020 22: 41
        0
        Why not? Matilda also did not shine with special reliability, so what proves the fact that the British have the same joint?

        In fact, they somehow softened this jamb due to the transmission, but I do not remember the details. Do you know them?
      3. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
        Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 25 September 2020 11: 23
        +1
        Quote: Saxahorse
        Matilda also did not shine with special reliability

        But why? Quite at the level.
        Quote: Saxahorse
        In fact, they somehow softened this joint

        probably. If in August 40, the Matilda power plant inspired GM to create its 6046, which, if I am not mistaken, was a pair of two diesels. I do not know how it is with reliability, but the "Rossom" M10 with these "Siamese twins" was released almost 7 thousand. It seems that they were installed on "Shermans" too, I do not presume to say.
  • Aviator_
    Aviator_ 20 September 2020 19: 07
    +3
    So he was least to blame for this story.

    Quite right. But it was not the cunning Zaltsman who was sent to the front, so the switchman was found.
  • Elturisto
    Elturisto 21 September 2020 19: 24
    -1
    Stop lying already. Yes, the stupid opportunists Zaltsman and Ginzburg turned out to be incompetent, and besides, they were scoundrels and bastards. Sing hosanna to them in Israel, you don't need it here ...
  • Boris ⁣ Shaver
    Boris ⁣ Shaver 22 September 2020 02: 02
    +2
    Quote: Mountain Shooter
    Our tankers must BELIEVE

    So they did not announce these data to the tankers from the parapet, but sent the papers wherever needed, whoever needed it.
    If any of them, for example, in a tavern publicly began to lament about such things, and even accuse someone publicly that, they say, back in the late 30s did not react to the recommendations provided - then, perhaps, it would be another conversation.
  • Vladimir Demyanov
    Vladimir Demyanov 20 September 2020 13: 38
    21
    As it is now, I do not know, but in the 70s of the last century in the Museum of the Armed Forces in the hall of the Battle of Stalingrad there was a T-34 tower on a pedestal with holes from everything that got into it. And it became scary when I imagined what happened to those who were in it. If I could, I would put up a monument to the tankmen. I would take a tank with combat defeats (there are a lot of them now), put a black cast-iron tanker in the open turret hatch, grabbing the lid with his hands, and another tanker would reach for him in an attempt to help him get out through the flames of the eternal flame burning in the tank. And so that the words of Isakovsky were carved on the road leading to the monument: "For you and for me, he did everything he could: he did not regret himself in battle, but he saved his homeland."
    1. Aviator_
      Aviator_ 20 September 2020 19: 10
      +1
      Even Konstantin Simonov wrote after Khalkhin Gol that our tank, which was repeatedly damaged by shells, should be installed as a monument to the tankers.
      1. cat Rusich
        cat Rusich 20 September 2020 21: 40
        +1
        I read in the magazine "Young Guard" about this idea of ​​setting up monuments. But it was about the Afghan war and about the tanks burnt out "across the river". Today such monuments "burned out tanks" can be placed about the First Chechen War (company).
        1. Aviator_
          Aviator_ 20 September 2020 22: 09
          +1
          As you can see, the idea has been living since 1939, but it is not being implemented.
      2. Nastia makarova
        Nastia makarova 21 September 2020 18: 06
        -3
        a monument to the Maikop brigade, there is a vehicle for evacuating tanks with a break
  • Jager
    Jager 20 September 2020 11: 29
    +1
    This was their task - research
  • Saxahorse
    Saxahorse 20 September 2020 17: 52
    +6
    Quote: Mountain Shooter
    . and it is 42 years old. And for such reports one could easily get a charge of alarmism and God knows what else ...

    It is not necessary to confuse warm with soft .. Such reports were not published in the Pravda newspaper, but had the signature stamp of owls. secretly and were available only to those who made decisions. You should not consider your ancestors stupid, of course the real situation was investigated in the most thorough way.
  • Alexey RA
    Alexey RA 21 September 2020 14: 55
    +5
    Quote: Mountain Shooter
    And for such reports it was easy to get charges of alarmism, and God knows what else ... They say, the armor on our tanks is weak ...

    These are technical reports. They were not imprisoned for them even before the war - when Kulik wrote in plain text that the "forty-five" does not penetrate the armor of German medium tanks from a distance of more than 150-200 m. Or when GAU wrote that:
    ... 45 mm tank and anti-tank guns and 76 mm guns mod. 02/30 g. L-1, F-32 and F-34 cannot successfully fight medium and heavy tanks with more than 50 mm armor.

    And you have not seen this internal correspondence "at the top".
    (November 10, 1942)
    TO THE CHIEF CONSTRUCTOR OF TANK ENGINEERING TO GENERAL MAJOR TECHNICAL TROOPS Comrade KOTIN
    Your article "TANKS", in the newspaper "Pravda" for 5.XI.42, №309 (9080) did not cause me a feeling of satisfaction and enthusiasm.
    The reader, the Soviet reader, believes in the central organ of our Great Party, LENIN-STALIN, for he knows that the word of truth is printed in it.
    And you, the reader, deceived him, since he does not know the subtleties of the design of the tank.
    (...)
    1. "... OUR TANKS SHOWED THEMSELVES IN BATTLES, LIKE MACHINES, I WOULD SAY, OF A SPECIAL, NEW TYPE."
    What was the impact of this "special, new type of tank"? The fact is that from the very first days of the war, brigades of workers from factories, with wagons of spare parts, were sent to almost every unit. Why? Because tanks on the march became due to technical malfunctions.
    Could it be better now? No.
    During the march, 100-150 km. in three mechanized corps, due to technical malfunctions, 270 tanks were repaired.
    In one of the Armies, up to 100 tanks were damaged by diesels; after the marches on the Stalingrad and Voronezh front, malfunctions in buildings of 25-30 tanks failed.
    2. "IT WAS NECESSARY TO DARE, TO MAKE A BIG JUMP FORWARD. THIS LEADED TO THE CREATION OF MACHINES TYPE" KV "," T-34 "AND A NUMBER OF OTHERS. THIS IS A NEW TYPE MACHINE"
    "..... THE DESIGNERS BROUGHT WITH THE TANKS OF THE OLD, OLD TYPES, WITH THE IMITATION OF THE ABROAD. AND BOLDLY WALKED ON A NEW ROAD."
    How was "daring" expressed? The fact that the KV tank is made with a torsion bar suspension and both tanks (KV and T-34) received more powerful armor and weapons.
    Have you resolved the issues of using these advantages in battle? No. The dynamics of the tanks did not increase, but the speed decreased - if only because the speeds had to be switched together. Visibility from the tank remained limited, the crew’s tightness was the same (T-34) and even worse than the old ones. After a minor march, the crew instead of resting for battle sticks upside down from the tank and makes the inevitable adjustment of the mechanisms.
    So what was your daring?
    It is obvious that when in 1939 and 1940 you were offered to use the developments of Comrades BLAGONRAVOV and IVANOV - planetary transmissions for the "KV" tank - you considered it necessary to treat them with disdain and ditch these proposals.
    And when the German T-2 tank was at the plant for 3-3 months, one could be convinced that your "daring", "break with imitation abroad" and disregard for domestic proposals, led you to the oldest, ancient road.
    3. I readily believe you that after meeting with comrade STALIN, you "... left him ARMED WITH NEW THOUGHTS, IDEAS, ENRICHED WITH HIS WISDOMINATIONS AND ADVICE".
    Your whole misfortune lies in the fact that you do not translate all this into a real tangible, material one. And from new thoughts and ideas alone, the quality, combat quality of the tank will never increase. In my opinion, you understand this very well.
    © HEAD OF BTU GABTU RED ARMY ENGINEER-COLONEL AFONIN
    Etc. - there are eight points in the letter, in which BTU rinses Kotin in the best style of the current forums. smile
    https://kris-reid.livejournal.com/435238.html
    1. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
      Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 21 September 2020 16: 43
      +1
      Wow ... Comrade Afonin abruptly bridled ...
      1. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 21 September 2020 16: 47
        +4
        Quote: Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
        Wow ... Comrade Afonin abruptly bridled ...

        It's just that Comrade Kotin got the GABTU back in pre-war times, at the LKZ. smile
        You can stay at the front, but not draw practical conclusions and [not] put them into practice.
        As for sensitivity, it's just a tickle of the nervous system - that's what we are.
        This is confirmed by the "appearance, some time ago" of the commander's turrets.
        About the commander's cupola, you have known our demand since 1940, but then you did not have sensitivity.
        And what has appeared satisfies only you, but by no means the tankers.
        You take advantage of the incredible patience of our tankers who are ready to put up with any inconvenience just to beat and destroy the despicable fascists.
        1. kytx
          kytx 22 September 2020 09: 32
          +1
          Generally ATAS! Afonin handsome
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Asad
    Asad 20 September 2020 07: 36
    +5
    Another plus for the author! Competently and most importantly intelligibly, I look forward to continuing!
  • mvg
    mvg 20 September 2020 08: 05
    +7
    does not quite agree with the well-established stereotypes about the invincibility of KV machines in the initial period of the war

    What kind of stereotypes are there? More than half of the VO believes that the KV cannot be penetrated, and the T-34, only if they are not lucky. And how did the Germans get to Moscow? Probably each KV rolled up on an antiaircraft gun?
    1. DesToeR
      DesToeR 20 September 2020 08: 41
      11
      Quote: mvg
      More than half of the VO believes that the KV cannot be penetrated, and the T-34, only if they are not lucky.

      But the second half of the VO believes that each Tiger died exclusively from a direct hit from a 122 mm A-19 hull cannon. And even then, if the "quarter" flew into the tower, and so 8 inches, and without options. And how did the grandfathers take Berlin? Probably, for each TTB Nazi an artillery regiment of the RGK was allocated?
      1. 2 Level Advisor
        2 Level Advisor 20 September 2020 09: 11
        +8
        the defeat of the tank - this was never the caliber in the first place, but the skill of the artillerymen .. well, if we are not talking about those guns that strike at any distance and projection .. by the way, as far as I remember, it was from 88 mm - for the whole war and 10 percent of our armored vehicles were not knocked out ... as well as out of 122mm Germans ... and in the summer 41 - the T-34 at the front was a curiosity, and many fighters did not see the tiger at all during the war, and it really was almost impossible to penetrate, only on tracks or point-blank is in fact the truth, the tiger was a very formidable apparatus .. a good article showing that the war was a little different from that in the films .. and so just the cooler feat of the Grandfathers who won. And especially I have always admired the tank destroyers - the iron people, few people could compare with them in testing the "spirit" ..
    2. figwam
      figwam 20 September 2020 10: 42
      +3
      Quote: mvg
      What kind of stereotypes are there? More than half of the VO believes that KV cannot be pierced

      The article does not say from what distance and at what angle 50 mm shells pierced the KV armor, it is enough to look at the photographs where it can be seen that it was difficult to do this in combat conditions, and the additional mounted armor made it impossible.

    3. boris epstein
      boris epstein 20 September 2020 16: 37
      0
      And the following stereotype, inspired by the memoirs of Western historians: all Soviet tanks were either KV, or T-34, or IS-2. But in 1941 there was a mass of BT, T-26, T-37, T-38, T-40, T-28. Yes, and under Lend-Lease, the Tetrarchs, M-3 Stewart, which were even inferior to the BT and T-26, entered. Yes, there were Valentines, Churchillies, then (from mid-1943) Lee-Grants, then Shermans, Cromwells, Comets, but the common weakness of all the named Lend-Lease machines were cannons (except for Sherman Firefly, it had a long-barreled English 75-mm cannon ) and passability.
      1. Hog
        Hog 21 September 2020 10: 06
        +1
        Quote: boris epstein
        But the common weakness of all the named Lend-Lease vehicles were guns (except for the Sherman Firefly, it had a long-barreled English 75-mm cannon) and cross-country ability.

        1) Firefly had an English 76mm QF-17 cannon and was not supplied under Lend-Lease.
        We were supplied by Shermans with long-barreled 76mm M1 guns and even then by the end of the war.
        2) Just a feature of British tanks was the high penetration of their 40/57 mm guns (compared to our 45/76 mm guns), but at the same time the absence of high-explosive shells (they even tried to re-equip them with domestic guns).
        The American 75mm M3 cannon was +/- like our F-34.
    4. Saxahorse
      Saxahorse 20 September 2020 18: 10
      +6
      Quote: mvg
      And how did the Germans get to Moscow? Probably each KV rolled up on an antiaircraft gun?

      As far as I remember the reports of the first months of the war, a maximum of 10-15 out of 500 KVs perished in battle. The rest either broke down or got stuck in a swamp or were blown up by the crew due to lack of fuel.

      By the way, this is not only a problem of the Red Army. If you read the reports of 1944 on the Western Front, then suddenly we learn that most of the Panthers and Royal Tigers died in the same way.
  • lucul
    lucul 20 September 2020 08: 14
    +3
    As always, thoroughly.
  • Bormanxnumx
    Bormanxnumx 20 September 2020 08: 53
    +4
    Domestic artillery showed itself in comparative tests not in the best way: 45-mm armor-piercing shells were much weaker than 50-mm German shells and, surprisingly, 37-mm "door knockers".

    Regarding the comparison of the effectiveness of 37-mm shells and "forty-five", certain conclusions were obtained back in 1940, during experimental shelling of armor plates of various thicknesses made of steel M3-2 (I8-S)
    In addition, the commission found that the effect of a 45-mm sharp-headed armor-piercing projectile (drawing No. 2-01991) on armor made of steel grade "MZ-2", both during normal shelling and at an angle of 30 °, is stronger than that of a blunt-headed shell of the same caliber (reference 0130), which was typical for any homogeneous armor.
    The commission also noted that the effect of a 37-mm sharp-headed armor-piercing projectile (drawing No. 3882) when fired along the normal to plates with a thickness of up to 35 mm is weaker than the effect of 45-mm blunt-headed armor-piercing shells. When firing plates with a thickness of 35 to 40 mm, the effect of both shells was approximately equal, and when firing plates with a thickness of 45 and 50 mm, sharp-headed armor-piercing shells of 37 mm caliber exceeded 45-mm blunt-headed shells in terms of impact on armor. When shelling armor plates with a thickness of 25 to 50 mm, located at an angle of 30 ° to the vertical, the speed of the anti-tank gun, determined by the shelling of 37-mm sharp-headed armor-piercing shells, were lower than the speed of the anti-tank vehicle, determined by the shelling of 45-mm blunt-headed armor-piercing shells. The through-penetration limit when firing 37-mm shells of armor plates up to 40 mm thick had higher absolute velocity values ​​than the PSP when shelling 45-mm blunt-headed armor-piercing shells. When firing armor plates with a thickness of more than 40 mm, the effect of 37-mm sharp-headed shells was stronger than 45-mm blunt-headed shells. So, for example, at an impact speed of 760 m / s, a blunt-headed 45 mm armor-piercing projectile (standard 0130) could confidently penetrate only a 45 mm thick plate, while a 37-mm sharp-headed armor-piercing projectile (drawing No. 3882) pierced 50 mm at this speed armored plate made of steel grade "MZ-2".
  • Aaron Zawi
    Aaron Zawi 20 September 2020 08: 56
    +2
    The author publishes extremely interesting information. Thank.
  • bubasa
    bubasa 20 September 2020 09: 04
    -8
    Thanks to the author, I wonder ... but how do we win in wars, then, everywhere we are surpassed and here the T-34 and our artillery turns out to be ... "corpses filled up" the conclusion had to be made, but again the military losses of Germany do not work and The USSR is equal, and if we take into account the presence of Germany's allies, it will turn out in favor of the USSR ... and how many laudatory articles are better for German weapons and artillery and Kalash stole ... joyful squeals of Russophobes, but what is the conclusion? no matter how much west does not feed, all the same pr @ bet ... not feed into a horse or hands grow out of their ass. Like omerigans with covid, but spring showed who where wp @ l. And medicine and science and education 0. So here, too, you can study, tell ... but you can be more careful with the titles. Apparently the military then made better conclusions and more competently, since the Soviet flag was on the Reichstag.
    1. kepmor
      kepmor 20 September 2020 09: 46
      +1
      to understand "how ??? ', I advise you to familiarize yourself with the works of our historians Valery Zamulin and Alexei Isaev ....
      in their toads, they very truthfully and reasonably describe what and how it was at the front ...
    2. Alvis07
      Alvis07 20 September 2020 10: 27
      -20 qualifying.
      More or less the picture will be clear after 2050, when, perhaps, but not a fact, the archives will be declassified. Russia is the only country in the world whose archives have been classified for more than a hundred years. Because these archives do not contain the history of the country - they contain a list of endless crimes.
      1. kepmor
        kepmor 20 September 2020 10: 44
        +5
        almost all data on the Second World War in TsAMO was opened by presidential decree from May 07, 2007 ...
        and even in the internet there is already a channel "Archival Revolution" ... very interesting programs are released ...
      2. Aviator_
        Aviator_ 20 September 2020 11: 02
        16
        Russia is the only country in the world whose archives have been classified for more than a hundred years.

        Try to find out in the UK archives what was Hess's mission when he flew there in May 1940.
        1. Siberian54
          Siberian54 20 September 2020 15: 01
          0
          The pre-war archives, according to the treaty of the countries of the anti-Hitler kaolitsy, were closed for 125 years in 44 or 45 ... Just from the Jewish liberoids they revealed the secret part of the German-Soviet treaty ...
      3. My doctor
        My doctor 20 September 2020 12: 57
        +7
        Quote: Alvis07
        Russia is the only country in the world whose archives have been classified for more than a hundred years.

        Probably no one is interested in the look at the Second World War from the side of the USSR. The world community is trying to ignore the Russian archives.
      4. cat Rusich
        cat Rusich 20 September 2020 21: 51
        +3
        Alvis, when will Britain "declassify" the Hess archives? - remember the flight of Hess on May 10, 1941.
      5. Svidetel 45
        Svidetel 45 27 September 2020 20: 26
        0
        Well, no need to lie, in England the documents concerning diplomatic relations between Germany and England in the pre-war period and the initial period of 2 MB, as well as concerning the incident with Hess, were still classified in England, should have been declassified by 2010, but extended for another 25 years (apparently hope that Russia will not be there by then).
    3. The comment was deleted.
  • Alex013
    Alex013 20 September 2020 12: 55
    0
    Thanks to the author for continuing this interesting series of articles.
    "... For comparison: a similar projectile did not penetrate the forehead of the T-35 ..." - a typo probably
  • Passing
    Passing 20 September 2020 13: 50
    0
    Domestic 45-mm shells of a blunt-headed form in comparison with sharp-headed German 37-mm caliber had a lower penetrating ability.

    It is unclear why the article emphasizes "sharp-headedness" or "stupidity"?
    [media = https: //topwar.ru/uploads/posts/2020-09/thumbs/1600190041_22.jpg]
    We take a drawing from the author's previous article and see that there is no difference in the angle of the ogival point of our and German cores.
    Moreover, the reason for the better armor penetration of German BBs is directly indicated below.
    The secret of the German artillery consisted primarily in the greater hardness of the welded armor-piercing bow ... Domestic artillery was in dire need of carbide armor-piercing tips.

    Plus, as you can see from previous articles, the protective tip is also important.
    So this "sharpness", it only confuses the reader, in the context of the described shells, an absolutely unnecessary essence here.
    1. Jura 27
      Jura 27 20 September 2020 15: 56
      +1
      [/ quote] It is unclear why the article emphasizes "sharp-headedness" or "stupidity"? [quote]

      You are confusing 5cm and 3,7cm BBS. It is the latter (sharp-headed) that is compared with the Soviet blunt-headed 45mm BBS.
      1. Passing
        Passing 21 September 2020 17: 49
        0
        Ok, I'm improving. Our supposedly blunt-headed 45 mm projectile br-240sp, and the German supposedly sharp-headed 3,7 cm Pzgr.


        I didn't measure it with a compass, but at a glance the angle is about the same.
        But the br-240 without an index, and really stupid, apparently this was the first, pre-war version, and the connection with which it is not clear in what year the br-240sp appeared, but obviously during the war.
        1. Jura 27
          Jura 27 22 September 2020 16: 16
          +1
          [/ quote] But the br-240 without an index, and indeed stupid [quote]

          YES, HIM AND COMPARED WITH THE SHARP HEADED 3,7 cm Pzgr.
  • Radikal
    Radikal 20 September 2020 13: 54
    +7
    Quote: strannik1985
    Your material, Eugene

    This is one level - directly technical measures to protect armored vehicles, but besides them there are also tactical, organizational measures, one of the reasons for the large losses at Prokhorovka is the weakness of the TK / TA artillery, the lack of the artillery chief of his own artillery control means.

    By the way, with regard to organizational measures, for some reason the author did not note the fact that the German industry and their designers worked at the beginning of the war in comfortable, one might say, greenhouse conditions. They did not have to deal with the evacuation of enterprises, design bureaus and the restoration of their work in the deep rear, as we do. And this factor really affected both the quality of our R&D and R&D, and the output of defense products in the initial period of the Second World War. sad
    1. Vovk
      Vovk 20 September 2020 15: 15
      +4
      Good article.
      But another question immediately arises: what was the quality of the T-34 tank armor in 1941, 1942, 1943?
      Just reading the memoirs of tankers, it seems that the tanks produced in 1941 were much better than those released in 1942 in terms of the quality of armor, and only in 1943 did the armor become the level of 1941. And there are vague doubts that this is connected with Len-Lease, something along this line was received by the tank industry, which made it possible to improve the quality of the T-34 armor.
      1. Evgeny Fedorov
        20 September 2020 15: 41
        12
        As soon as the Mariupol Metallurgical Plant passed to the Germans, it was not possible to produce armor for the T-34 in the rest of the USSR in compliance with all technical requirements. The forced evacuation of enterprises has become an additional burden. Therefore, the tanks produced before the war were of better quality than those assembled during the "tank crisis of 1942-1943". It's difficult for me to connect Lend-Lease with the quality of armor, but aluminum from the United States was very useful - the cylinder blocks of the V-2 diesel engine were, as you know, made of winged metal.
    2. kamakama
      kamakama 24 November 2020 14: 11
      0
      Quote: Radikal
      Quote: strannik1985
      Your material, Eugene

      This is one level - directly technical measures to protect armored vehicles, but besides them there are also tactical, organizational measures, one of the reasons for the large losses at Prokhorovka is the weakness of the TK / TA artillery, the lack of the artillery chief of his own artillery control means.

      By the way, with regard to organizational measures, for some reason the author did not note the fact that the German industry and their designers worked at the beginning of the war in comfortable, one might say, greenhouse conditions. They did not have to deal with the evacuation of enterprises, design bureaus and the restoration of their work in the deep rear, as we do. And this factor really affected both the quality of our R&D and R&D, and the output of defense products in the initial period of the Second World War. sad

      But they worked in very non-greenhouse conditions before the war, at least before the Anschluss. Official developments are prohibited, tests are also under the terms of Versailles. Only leftist in the form of branches of design bureaus and training centers in Switzerland, Sweden and the USSR
  • voyaka uh
    voyaka uh 20 September 2020 15: 21
    +2
    Study do not study German armor-piercing, nothing could be done.
    The main tank was the T-34.
    Frontal hull armor 45 mm in 1941.
    It remained that way in 1945. Although it increased to 100 for other tanks. It was impossible to increase it - the front rollers could not withstand.
    I had to fight the T-34. Tactics, quantity. Its offensive capabilities had increased since 1944 with the introduction of the T-34-85, and its defense remained the same throughout the war.
    1. Saxahorse
      Saxahorse 20 September 2020 18: 20
      +3
      Quote: voyaka uh
      It remained that way in 1945. Although it increased to 100 for other tanks. It was impossible to increase it - the front rollers could not withstand.

      However, for the Su-100 it was increased to 80 mm. And yes, the resource of the rollers has dropped dramatically. However, the Su-100 remained in service for many years, and not only in our country.
      1. voyaka uh
        voyaka uh 20 September 2020 18: 51
        +2
        I don't know why the T-34 decided not to reinforce the hull's forehead. recourse
        After all, their opponents since 1943 did not even have to look for weak spots:
        The tiger shot in the forehead at the T-34 from a kilometer and punched it guaranteed if
        got. And the T-34 had to make difficult maneuvers to approach
        to the side of the Tiger for 500 km and break through the board.
        1. strannik1985
          strannik1985 20 September 2020 19: 36
          +4
          I don't know why they decided not to strengthen the T-34

          Because there were big problems with rolling plates with a thickness of more than 45 mm.
        2. Saxahorse
          Saxahorse 20 September 2020 19: 53
          +4
          Quote: voyaka uh
          I don't know why the T-34 decided not to reinforce the hull's forehead.

          Because the fight against enemy tanks was not the main task of the T-34. After the painful splash of 1941, the Germans were fixated on the anti-tank qualities of their vehicles. In general, the T-34 type tank is designed to combat enemy infantry and field defense. And the armor of the T-34-85 anti-tank guns of the enemy more or less held. Where it was very tough, other tanks were used. IS-2 for example.
          1. Pavel57
            Pavel57 20 September 2020 20: 04
            +3
            Reinforcement of armor was relevant, but led to the creation of a new T-43 tank. That caused concern in reducing the number of tanks produced. As a result, we came to a compromise - T-34 with a turret from T-43 and work on the creation of T-44.
        3. Alf
          Alf 20 September 2020 21: 47
          +2
          Quote: voyaka uh
          I don't know why the T-34 decided not to reinforce the hull's forehead.

          Frontal hull armor 45 mm in 1941.
          It remained that way in 1945. Although it increased to 100 for other tanks. It was impossible to increase it - the front rollers could not withstand.

          Do you at least read what you yourself wrote three hours ago.
          Or are there two working under your nickname?
        4. hohol95
          hohol95 21 September 2020 00: 46
          +2
          Time had passed and the German already had a lot of 75 and 88 mm long-barreled anti-tank and tank guns.
          In April 1944, plant number 183 produced two samples of the T-34-85M tank. The thickness of the frontal hull sheet was 75 mm, the thickness of the driver's hatch cover was increased to 100 mm, and the armor of the course machine gun was 90 mm. At the same time, it was necessary to reduce the reservation where it was possible. The thickness of the MTO roof sheets, the bottom of the wheel arch liners, the lower stern sheet, and the rear of the bottom have decreased to 15 mm. Lightweight balancers and road wheels were used in the chassis. During the tests, it turned out that these measures did not give much result. In addition, shelling tests revealed that the 75-mm frontal armor was penetrated by a shell from the 88-mm German KwK 43 L / 71 tank gun from a distance of 2000 m! Thus, there was no point in strengthening the frontal armor of the hull in 1944.
        5. Selevc
          Selevc 27 September 2020 22: 05
          0
          The tiger shot in the forehead at the T-34 from a kilometer and punched it guaranteed if
          hit
          Who told you such nonsense ??? And there are also ricochets - with an inclined armor of 47-53%. ricochets happened quite often, even if the 88-mm Tiger gun was firing. From a distance of a kilometer it is difficult to get anywhere in the entire projection of the tank !!!

          These are all the stories of the German miracle tankers !!! And these are all movie legends and lies of filmmakers - what to say about shooting the Tiger if in films about Tigers they talk about the Tiger and show how a lightweight like T-3 rushes !!! That is, the filmmakers blatantly lie right on the way of the film !!! It's just nonsense and nonsense that has nothing to do with military history !!!
          1. voyaka uh
            voyaka uh 28 September 2020 00: 32
            +3
            "And there are also ricochets - with an inclined armor of 47-53%. There were ricochets quite often even if the 88-mm Tiger gun was firing" ////
            ----
            First, read the article carefully.
            No ricochets. The Germans solved the problem of inclined sheets back in 1942.
            The armor-piercing shell first stuck to the armor, then
            turned to perpendicular to the surface of the armor and pierced it.
            ----
            The tiger hit the T-34 and from a distance of 2 km. Read about the Tiger scope.
            ("Guderian's Triangle")
            But it was rarely possible to pierce the forehead from two kilometers.
            The Tiger had its flaws. But he shot accurately and far.
          2. 3danimal
            3danimal 29 September 2020 05: 06
            0
            From what years cannon? Early 20th century? smile
      2. garri-lin
        garri-lin 20 September 2020 20: 12
        +2
        Minus tower plus armor thickness. And then the rollers were loaded up.
        Weight t 34 and sous 100 are approximately equal. Su is a ton heavier.
        1. Saxahorse
          Saxahorse 20 September 2020 20: 17
          +2
          Quote: garri-lin
          Weight t 34 and sous 100 are approximately equal. Su is a ton heavier.

          Not a ton heavier, the long and heavy cannon plus the armor carried that weight far ahead. Therefore, the Su-100 immediately had problems with the front rollers. As far as I remember, the T-34 had a roller resource of about 6000 km; the Su-100 had the front rollers changed after 3500 km. However, this was considered a bearable price to pay for armor and firepower. Moreover, not every tank lived so long in the war to roll 3500 km ..
          1. garri-lin
            garri-lin 20 September 2020 22: 38
            +2
            Su and t 34 were used in different ways. They considered that overloaded rollers were a bigger problem for the tank than for the su.
        2. Alf
          Alf 20 September 2020 21: 51
          +6
          Quote: garri-lin
          Weight t 34 and sous 100 are approximately equal. Su is a ton heavier.

          SU-100 31,6 tons.
          T-34-85 32 tons.
          31,6 more than 32 ???
          1. garri-lin
            garri-lin 20 September 2020 22: 33
            +2
            Weight 34 tons was originally just 27 tons. The heavier modifications exceeded 30 tons. And they were already overwhelmed. I did not consider the option t 34 85. He spoke about a more massive sample.
            1. Alf
              Alf 20 September 2020 22: 53
              +4
              Quote: garri-lin
              I did not consider the option t 34 85. He spoke about a more massive sample.

              And when the SU-100 appeared, which version of the T-34 was the most popular?
              1. garri-lin
                garri-lin 20 September 2020 23: 54
                0
                In production or in the troops?
                1. Alf
                  Alf 21 September 2020 18: 46
                  +2
                  Quote: garri-lin
                  In production or in the troops?

                  In the troops.
                  1. garri-lin
                    garri-lin 21 September 2020 18: 55
                    +1
                    In 44, the mass in the troops was 34 76. With a mass of up to 30,5 tons. And already he is with overloaded front rollers. Although it was not yet critical.
          2. Saxahorse
            Saxahorse 21 September 2020 00: 44
            +2
            By the way, a correct observation about weight. But the problem with the rollers manifested itself precisely in the Su-100 due to the forward movement of the center of mass.
    2. maximghost
      maximghost 20 September 2020 22: 57
      +1
      45mm at an angle of 30 degrees, which gives a 90mm reduction. Plus there were shielded 34, with increased frontal armor.
      1. voyaka uh
        voyaka uh 20 September 2020 23: 41
        +2
        This helped at the beginning of the war against the simplest shells.
        From the article:
        "It is important that the projectile returned to normal, that is, it turned when
        contact with the armor plate "
        Borne-piercing shells began to be made so that when in contact with an inclined plate, it
        turned and punched it perpendicular to the plane. That is, to break through
        I needed 45 mm.
        1. maximghost
          maximghost 21 September 2020 02: 48
          +4
          A projectile that normalizes on sloped armor loses energy during the normalization process.
          When working on sloped armor, it will work better than a completely similar projectile and will be less prone to ricochets, but the thickness of the reduced armor for it will still not be equal to the nominal thickness of the armor plate it hits.
    3. hohol95
      hohol95 21 September 2020 00: 49
      0
      While other tanks have increased to 100.

      Which others? Give an example of tanks that were in service throughout the war and fought. Not the German "Paziki". American or British tanks.
      For which the armor reached 100 mm.
      1. voyaka uh
        voyaka uh 21 September 2020 02: 02
        +2
        Why not German ones? belay After all, it was the enemy of the T-34.
        The American and British ones started at 2 inches (50 mm) and reached
        by the end of the war up to 3 inches (75 mm). Shermans, Cromwell ...
        1. maximghost
          maximghost 21 September 2020 02: 53
          0
          Why not German ones?

          The grooves are 80mm. But this case is a tower of about 50mm
          up to 3 inches (75 mm). Shermans, Cromwell ...

          The Sherman also has sloped armor, in the picture it is about the same 90mm (where the upper frontal part has a different thickness and angle of inclination, but the reduction is about the same) as in 34. There were of course jumbo. Or they welded on armor from a panther (side of course), but the first is an ersatz heavy tank, and the second is a makeshift modernization. But as for the cromwell - he has armor at a right angle, like a tiger or 4 panzer.
        2. hohol95
          hohol95 21 September 2020 11: 05
          0
          So everyone and everything has long been known about the Germans. And how long did that "Cromwell" fight?
          And they also did not make it up to 100 mm!
          And I asked to name the cars that fought ALL the war.
          The "Queen of the Fields Matilda" generally had a 78/75 mm hull forehead already in 1939.
          And with this armor, the tank fought until the end of the war, but only in the Far East. The Japanese did not have the means to combat it. And the Germans had plenty of such funds. They trained back in 1940 in France.
  • Pavel57
    Pavel57 20 September 2020 17: 25
    +3
    The article once again convinces that the victory was given hard.
    1. zombirusrev
      zombirusrev 20 September 2020 19: 48
      -5
      The article says that the author has a poor command of the material, but nevertheless the victory was given extremely hard.
  • Saxahorse
    Saxahorse 20 September 2020 18: 25
    +4
    I would also like to thank the author for a good continuation of an interesting topic, and at the same time criticize for obvious blunders.

    At the end of the KV, it was also struck by the usual sharp-headed 50-mm armor-piercing shells. All this information from the Sverdlovsk report is not entirely consistent with the well-established stereotypes about the invincibility of KV machines in the initial period of the war.

    Immediately I want to remind you that the Germans, this very 50 mm gun, at the beginning of the war, generally speaking, did not exist .. And when it appeared in noticeable quantities, it no longer became KV, and it makes sense to compare the 50 mm anti-tank gun with the IS and IS tanks. 2.

    Well, again, the Germans called their 37 mm PTO "door knockers", it is clearly not worth mixing them with 50 mm. For example, our 57 mm ZiS-2 and after WWII remained relevant for a long time.
    1. strannik1985
      strannik1985 20 September 2020 19: 43
      +1
      Just want to remind you that the Germans

      1047 Pak 38 in the army by June 1, 1941, in addition, the Czech 4,7cm Pak (t) and the French 47mm Puteaux arr. 1937 were used.
      1. Saxahorse
        Saxahorse 20 September 2020 20: 04
        +1
        Used, but in what quantities? Minor and according to Murphy's laws, anti-tank guns are always there where the enemy has no tanks at all. :)
        1. strannik1985
          strannik1985 20 September 2020 21: 42
          +3
          From June 22 to December 31, 1941, the Germans on the Eastern Front used 207 sub-caliber shells from the Pak 569 cannon, 36 17 352-mm Kwk.37 tank guns, 36 45 756-mm Pak.50 sub-caliber guns, 38 41 414-mm Kwk tank guns. 50, 38 sub-caliber 8353-mm tank guns of the Czech 37 (t) and 35 (t). A total of 38 320 only sub-caliber shells for 444 KV and 931 T-1834s lost in 34, an average of 1941 shells for each irretrievably lost tank. I draw your attention to the fact that the normal rear strength limit for a 115-mm plate when firing with a 45-mm sub-caliber projectile from the Pak.37 cannon is 36 meters, through penetration is 440 meters.
          1. Saxahorse
            Saxahorse 21 September 2020 00: 39
            0
            Quote: strannik1985
            to December 31, 1941

            I would like to draw your attention to the final date. German tank fear was born in the battles of the summer of 1941, and by winter they had just begun to urgently solve the problem. But you, without hesitation, again mixed the 37 and 50 mm guns, although their performance against Russian tanks was radically different.
            1. strannik1985
              strannik1985 21 September 2020 11: 16
              +1
              German tank fear was born in the battles of the summer of 1941

              Until October 1941, "tank fear" did not manifest itself in any way, on October 21 Guderian spoke of the T-34 as a typical example of backward Bolshevik technologies. With new tanks (with which they have been fighting since the summer, yeah), the German generals tried to justify their own mistakes. Does it bother you at all that the same T-34-76 fought successfully in 1943-1944, although 50-75-88 mm cannons were the basis of the German anti-tank equipment? The whole difference from 1941 was that from 37-mm cannons, 105 and 150-mm howitzers could shoot point-blank, at the side and stern.
            2. Alexey RA
              Alexey RA 21 September 2020 15: 12
              +1
              Quote: Saxahorse
              German tank fear was born in the battles of the summer of 1941

              Uh-huh ... such a fear of tanks that the T-34 appears in the memoirs only in the fall of 1941.
              And 1303 T-34, lost by 01.08.1941, apparently the cow licked its tongue.

              © Ulanov / Shein
              1. Saxahorse
                Saxahorse 21 September 2020 23: 12
                +1
                Quote: Alexey RA
                And 1303 T-34, lost by 01.08.1941, apparently the cow licked its tongue.

                And lost for what reasons? Precisely in battle or on marches from breakdowns and without fuel? The Germans, in exactly the same way, lost all their tanks behind the western front on marches under bombs and simply abandoned without fuel.

                And the Germans themselves complained about the fact that they had very few 50-mm guns in 1941. And the scandal with the "short" 50th T-3 cannon is also from that time. So the Germans had some kind of cannon and used up the shells, but they were not swearing about the "door knocker" in 37 mm.
                1. Alexey RA
                  Alexey RA 22 September 2020 09: 56
                  0
                  Quote: Saxahorse
                  And lost for what reasons? Precisely in battle or on marches from breakdowns and without fuel?

                  Well, here's the result of the battle of the 7th Panzerdivision with our 5th TD of the 3rd MK 22.06.1941/XNUMX/XNUMX
                  The outcome of the first battle was not very encouraging for the 5th Panzer Division. In the battle for Alytus, 73 tanks were lost. Of the 44 "thirty-fours" that took part in the battle, 27 were lost.

                  12th TD of the 8th MK:
                  The very first combat mission assigned to the 12th Panzer Division on June 26, 1941 - to force the Slonówka River in the Leshnyuv, Korsuv area, develop an offensive on Berestechko - was not fulfilled, its own losses amounted to 5 KV, 18 T-34 and 10 BT -7.
                  (...)
                  As a result of the battle at Sitno the division had losses: KV - 6 units, BT-7 - 7 units, T-26 - 11 units, T-34 - 15 units ... in disrepair by crews.

                  Senno-Lepel, our 14th TD, battle 07.07.1941/XNUMX/XNUMX:
                  KV-M - 1 car - an aerial bomb tore off the machine's roller and was evacuated to SPAM # 2.
                  T-34 - 2 vehicles burned down.
                  T-34 - 2 vehicles were destroyed by a shell.
                  T-34 - 7 vehicles were hit and flooded at the crossing over the Chernogostnitsa river.
                  T-34 - 6 vehicles were missing with vehicle crews.

                  Remaining after the battle of serviceable vehicles:
                  KV tanks - 5 vehicles.
                  T-34 tanks - 6 vehicles ...
                  Going to the area of ​​Cape Ostrovno. Withdrawn from the Chernogost region:
                  KV tanks - 5 vehicles.
                  Tanks T-34 - 6 vehicles, of which one wrecked was sent to the GEP and two to the station. Rudnya to be sent to the plant.
                  © Ulanov / Shein. The first T34. Combat use.
                  1. Saxahorse
                    Saxahorse 22 September 2020 23: 41
                    0
                    Yes, and in battle, too, but here, too, the numbers are given in a jumble, but yours will quote:
                    at Sitno, the division had losses: KV - 6 pcs., BT-7 - 7 pcs., T-26 - 11 pcs., T-34 - 15 pcs ... This materiel was destroyed by anti-tank fire or aviation, burned out or rendered unusable by the crews ...

                    Well, according to the description, too, 2 were broken by shells and 7 were flooded during the crossing. True, at least they were knocked out, than they were shot at.
        2. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 21 September 2020 15: 01
          +1
          Quote: Saxahorse
          Used, but in what quantities?

          On average, one (motorized) division per division. Judging by the statistics of holes in the knocked out T-34s, the 50-mm anti-tank guns were used quite widely.
  • Alien From
    Alien From 20 September 2020 19: 00
    +1
    Many thanks to the author. Interesting to read. ))
  • zombirusrev
    zombirusrev 20 September 2020 19: 46
    -7
    The author of the article apparently does not know the concept of "Makarov cap" (c) and "Hard alloy" (c) ... Let him study these concepts, and then he tries to write articles "On the competition of shell and armor." (C) The article is chaotic and not about than. From this article, we can conclude that our 45 is shit, and the German 37-mm wunderwaffe. According to the results of the Nomohan incident, the Japanese, for example, do not think so. We take and read the armor penetration tables, and not this sentimental nonsense http://krieg.wallst.ru/frames-p/panzerrung.html
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 21 September 2020 15: 29
      +2
      Quote: zombirusrev
      We take and read the armor penetration tables, not this sentimental nonsense

      Mwa-ha-ha ... the armor penetration table is 100% theory, Jacob-de-Mar, the perfect projectile against perfect armor.
      And when, in 1940, the GAU carried out shooting of real domestic shells against real armor, it turned out that:
      - 40 mm of real "German type" armor with K = 2600, the conditioned 45-mm BBS at an angle of meeting of 30 degrees from the normal penetrates only from 150 m.
      - 60 mm armor with K = 2450 76-mm BBS with the same meeting angle penetrates only from 400 m.
      https://litl-bro.livejournal.com/22260.html
      Quote: zombirusrev
      The Japanese, for example, do not think so based on the results of the Nomohan incident.

      Oh yes, the Japanese with their cardboard armor are undoubtedly an indicator of high armor penetration. smile
  • slowpokemonkey
    slowpokemonkey 21 September 2020 09: 41
    +1
    please tell me "the principle of platoon armor applied in ship armor."
    what's this ?
    gulg does not find the answer, but I'm interested.
    something like a hotbed booking? Brezhnev's eyebrows?
  • Kostadinov
    Kostadinov 21 September 2020 12: 03
    +3
    Quote: Mountain Shooter
    It is necessary to understand the POLITICAL moment! (Favorite expression of political workers!). Our tankers must BELIEVE in the invincibility of the armor of our tanks!

    1. These reports were written not for tankers, but for tank designers. There is only one political moment - to write the truth.
    2. The armor of Soviet tanks did not hit indestructible, but good enough and made the Germans look for a way out. Then the Germans made a strategic mistake - they followed the path of large caliber anti-tank guns and heavy "anti-tank" tanks and self-propelled guns. They stopped the production of mass and cheap 37 mm and 50 mm pt guns and never replaced them with other similar ones to the end. But the Soviet 45 mm cannon was produced and successfully used until the end of the war.
    3. German quality superiority, all these weld-on armor-piercing tips, subcaliber ammunition, tapered anti-tank guns, very good on paper, but very expensive and difficult to manufacture.
  • Kostadinov
    Kostadinov 21 September 2020 16: 07
    +3
    Quote: voyaka uh
    The tiger shot in the forehead at the T-34 from a kilometer and punched it guaranteed if
    got. And the T-34 had to make difficult maneuvers to approach
    to the side of the Tiger for 500 km and break through the board.

    No maneuvers to come closer and from the side should not hit the T-34. If you noticed the Tiger at a great distance and the conditions allowed, you can beat the artillery fire and get around it.
    If he noticed late, it is much more difficult - but you can eat, he will blind him with HE shells, hide behind a hill or dim, and also go around or retreat.
    In all cases, the tank must avoid dueling with enemy tanks and even more so with heavy tanks. Destruction of enemy tanks is the task of artillery.
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 21 September 2020 16: 29
      +1
      Quote: Kostadinov
      In all cases, the tank must avoid dueling with enemy tanks and even more so with heavy tanks. Destruction of enemy tanks is the task of artillery.

      Are you quoting the Order of the NKO of the USSR No. 325 of October 16, 1942 "On the combat use of tank and mechanized units and formations"? wink
  • mmaxx
    mmaxx 23 September 2020 04: 51
    0
    What will you do? The technological backwardness of the Russian Empire and the USSR in certain areas affected. It was impossible to have everything at once. Once I read a specialist in some weapons magazine that, having everything, up to technical processes - in the sense of a trophy - reached the German level of the war only in the mid-50s. Not everything is so simple in technology and industry, even, it would seem, with everything ready on a silver platter.
    Moreover, German technology for the production of ammunition was considered one of the most valuable acquisitions among the trophies.
  • imobile2008
    imobile2008 23 September 2020 13: 17
    -1
    In response, it was proposed to thicken the armor in the most vulnerable places, change the slope of the armor at the greatest possible angle with the vertical, develop new types of heterogeneous armor and shield tanks.
    This is the right research and the right reaction. Now, because of the "urapatriots" Our tanks and aircraft are fast and invulnerable, this work has stopped... No criticism, no improvement. Conclusion - "Urapatriots" must be shot!
  • RAM
    RAM 23 September 2020 19: 03
    0
    If I didn't know how the Battle of Kursk and the Great Patriotic War ended, then from the comets and from the article I would have understood that everything is lost, because the Fritzes are doing so well, and the engineers are wonderful, and the guns, and tanks, the generals are just geniuses, and the Russian Vanka everywhere bad and worthless. Yes, only your Hans washed themselves, and in Berlin on the Reichstag there was our VICTORY banner and German flags were thrown at their feet at the Kremlin wall. So keep writing writers further.
    1. Selevc
      Selevc 27 September 2020 22: 14
      0
      Quote: RAM
      because the Fritzes are doing so well, and the engineers are wonderful, and the tools,

      The Fritz engineers sucked !!! The USSR overtook Germany in the production of high-quality armored vehicles back in the mid-30s !!! And by the beginning of the 40s, Soviet engineers had created the main tank of the Red Army - a unique medium tank T-34 !!! An absolutely versatile vehicle, fast, well-armored, easy to manufacture and maintain, a tank that is not afraid of frost or heat !!!
      The Germans were clearly chatting from side to side throughout the war - the T-3 and T-4 are unarmored tanks, the Panther and Tiger are, on the contrary, over-armored. This speaks of the throwing of their design bureaus and attempts to quickly catch up with the USSR - but it turned out !!! The path that Soviet military science traveled in the 30s could not be repeated in two or three years.
  • Grunbau
    Grunbau 19 November 2020 23: 37
    0
    Explosive weight 37mm, armor-piercing 9 grams, 75mm 30 grams of heating element. This is very insignificant .. think about it.