Military Review

Project of the Soviet heavy tank A-44

55
During the completion tank T-34 in the spring of 1941 at the Kharkov plant number 183 in parallel with these works, designer Morozov A.A. He worked out the design documentation for the A-44 tank with different versions of the artillery unit and armor protection.
In additions to the order of the People's Commissar of average engineering from 10.05.41. No. 192 set out the construction and technical requirements for tank A-44, according to which it should have weight in combat equipment up to 29,5 tons, armor protection: frontal armor 75 mm at an angle 60 degrees, side part -60 mm, stern part 55 mm angle 35-45 degrees and other parameters.



Armament medium tank A-44

The main armament of the tank was to be the 76,2 mm gun ZIS-5 or 57 mm gun ZIS-4, which would be in the "split" with 2 DT machine guns, and the auxiliary type of weapon would be the 2 DT machine gun in the front of the tank body. As an option, it was possible to mount on the front of the flamethrower with a supply of shots in 10-15 units. The combat kit of the radio-equipped tank consisted of 100 artillery shots and 6000 cartridges for a DT machine gun. For a tank with flamethrowing weapons, it was supposed to install ammunition in 90 incendiary volleys and 4500 cartridges. For targeting and firing intended sights periscopic and optical type.

Project power plant

As a power plant on the tank, it was supposed to install an 600-strong diesel engine that would develop the maximum speed of 55-60 km / h. The capacity of the fuel tanks was 600 liters. The crawler drivetrain included a suspension on individual torsions, support and support rollers with internal cushioning, and a caterpillar track. For radio communication, a radio station KR-STB with TPU-3 was provided, as an internal communication in the tank, light signaling was provided between the driver and the tank commander.

Project of the Soviet heavy tank A-44


Development of the project of the medium tank A-44

The same order of the NKSM No. 183 ordered to make 1941 experimental samples A-2 by mid-October 44, and by November submit information to the report to the NPO of the USSR. Works on the creation of the tank supervised Marshal USSR Voroshilov K.E. In the course of the tests, the combat weight of the tank was exceeded, which then, according to the current tariffs, made it possible to assign the prototype A-44 to the class of heavy tanks. It was installed more powerful armor protection and weapons.

The layout of the tank was as follows: the fighting compartment was located in the stern of the combat vehicle, the engine and transmission compartment and the control compartment were located in the front. In front of the hull were placed tank mechanic and radio operator-shooter. Behind were gunner, tank commander and loader. To review the picture of the battle in the upper section of the turret, an additional commander observation point was mounted, where the Spark of DT machine guns was located to repel an attack from the air.



In the prototypes, the weapon set-up did not differ from the design version, with the exception of the added version of the modification of the tank with the 107 mm ZIS-6 gun. Ammunition was slightly changed in previous versions, which have already become three, depending on the gun used. The number of shells was as follows: 160 shells for 57 mm and 76mm guns and 60 shells for 107 mm guns. To remove the effects of the shot in the tower’s roof, a “hood” was installed.

This tank was designed conventional counter-armor protection, which was made of armored sheets, having, depending on the location on the body of the tank different thickness-79, 90, 120 mm. The combat weight of tank modifications was 36, 40 and 50 tons.

Changes also occurred in the power section; for heavier modifications, the 850-strong diesel engine В-6 was added. Both engines, both project and B-6, were aggregated with a mechanical 6 – speed reverse transmission, which consisted of a main friction clutch, two onboard multidisk clutches with a belt-type brake and two onboard single-stage gearboxes. The suspension, although it was strengthened, in contrast to the design, in general, remained unchanged, as did the means of communication. In the course of design improvements, the fuel reserve was reached in 300, 270 and 250 km, respectively.

In general, the tank received a preliminary positive assessment, but the war unleashed by the Nazis prevented the plans to release the tank from the assembly line of the enterprise. The project was closed and did not return to this issue.
55 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. CARTRIDGE
    CARTRIDGE 19 June 2011 13: 20
    +6
    impressive, especially with a 107mm cannon, and most importantly the proper location of the guns, modern tanks I think will look the same
  2. panzersoldat
    panzersoldat 5 September 2011 16: 22
    +3
    In my opinion, it’s a completely viable option. It is a pity that he was not accepted into service.
  3. T1GER_1
    T1GER_1 20 January 2012 22: 25
    +3
    Yes, the weapons are impressive, but ugly) The most beautiful tanks of the USSR are certainly the KV series and especially the IS-2 =) Further are also handsome, without exception, and this is Ugly Duckling ... although there is something in it =)
  4. understudy
    understudy 16 February 2012 11: 49
    +3
    Poor driver mechanic and radio gunner. They would have had "fun" when firing a cannon.
    Beautiful HF ??? belay But ...
    1. Kyrgyz
      Kyrgyz 18 February 2012 09: 32
      +3
      C'mon, KV 2, which side is handsome? This one will be more interesting, and if he went to the series he would have looked very revolutionary
      1. datur
        datur 18 February 2012 19: 44
        +1
        why are KV-1C and KV-13 very beautiful cars. such steel angels of death !!!!! fellow
  5. Brother Sarych
    Brother Sarych 18 February 2012 09: 24
    +3
    It is not entirely clear how they could fit into the weight requirements - in my opinion, this is basically impossible, especially with a 107 mm gun ...
  6. Kars
    Kars 18 February 2012 12: 12
    +4
    The T-34-76 had a lot of work, the modernization project was in the work of the T-34M and the design bureaus spray resources and, most importantly, people.
    And T-34M, if he began enlisting en masse in troops at least at the end of 1941, he would have saved us hundreds of thousands of lives
    1. Kibb
      Kibb 18 February 2012 13: 42
      +4
      But after all, the T34 was misunderstood precisely because of the T34M, and this project is so - engineering searches
      1. Kars
        Kars 18 February 2012 13: 54
        +3
        Absolutely true ---- here the question arises of what it was necessary to do to finish the T-34 or design the T-34M.
        in fact, the T-34M is another tank --- but it is more real than that.
        1. Kibb
          Kibb 18 February 2012 14: 30
          +3
          Of course. to bring to the production of the T34M, which would become a really best tank instead of a 34 defect, we did it, did it 34m, and 34 already paid no attention, it is hopeless.
          I understood your idea, there was no need to scatter forces, but there should be a creative search ... although the country is on the verge of a great war, and there is no time for searching, the 34m was almost almost ready
    2. Brother Sarych
      Brother Sarych 18 February 2012 14: 34
      +2
      There is no point in reasoning about this - especially when you consider that it was not the flaws of the tank that caused the most damage, but the simple inability to use it ...
      Now it’s easy to reason, but then we proceeded from the understanding of the situation then ...
      1. Kibb
        Kibb 18 February 2012 14: 48
        +2
        From the then understanding of the situation, it seems they made the right conclusion-
        it's not worth bringing T34, because there is a much better 34m, but then the war began and "for not having a mistress, they sleep with their wife"
  7. Kars
    Kars 18 February 2012 14: 40
    +4
    Quote: Brother Sarich
    and the simple inability to use it ...


    it is of course too

    but all the same, the crew from 4 is a man where the commander is also a gunner --- yes, the terrible surveillance devices and their location were very disturbing even to the experienced crew and sometimes cost their lives.

    And it’s easy to talk about ---- so we are history and discuss what we can do --- for which, by the way, thanks to those who fought for us on the T-34 no matter what.
    1. datur
      datur 18 February 2012 19: 47
      0
      Kars, while there is nothing perfect there - and then it was not !!
      1. Kars
        Kars 18 February 2012 20: 11
        0
        And who is talking about the ideal?
        But if you know the truth about the state of the strengths and weaknesses of our tanks .without hurray-potreatism, the heroism of the people who fought on them will be better visible and the level of their losses will be more understandable.

        And about the ideal - haven't T = 34-85 which is the best medium WWII tank crystallized from combat experience? on a war scale of course.
        Personally, I individually prefer Sherman Firefly
        1. Kibb
          Kibb 18 February 2012 23: 33
          +2
          "I personally prefer Sherman Firefly in the individual standings."
          Why is that? Firefly with a clear bias on PT, 34-85 is much more universal
          "But if you know the truth about the state of the advantages and disadvantages of our tanks. Without hurray-potreatism, the heroism of the people who fought on them will be better seen and the level of their losses is more understandable" - offset, only for this phrase +100
          1. Kars
            Kars 19 February 2012 00: 06
            0
            Quote: Kibb
            Why is that? Firefly with a clear bias on PT, 34-85 is much more universal

            Well, why the warp --- the standard Sherman also carried an 76 mm gun, and our 85 mm was also used for anti-tank warfare, of course the high-explosive action is more but still.

            And the best way to deal with heavy tanks, great trajectory flatness and accuracy, a large anti-aircraft machine gun, slightly better body armor, better suspension, patency is certainly worse, a radio station, a gyrocompass (in general bourgeois bells and whistles combined with quality finishes and convenience --- but this I didn’t set off a claim to T-34 -85; no one has evacuated the factories in Aeraian for thousands of kilometers and were not collected by children and women)
            1. Brother Sarych
              Brother Sarych 19 February 2012 10: 05
              0
              What and where does Sherman's best armor protection come from? Of concrete? Sandbags? Welded parts from broken tanks?
              1. Kars
                Kars 19 February 2012 10: 11
                0
                And give the numbers - for example, the frontal armor of the T-34 85 and Sherman can be without sandbags then we'll talk
                1. slan
                  slan 19 February 2012 11: 13
                  +1
                  Sherman’s steel was less resistant, plus tilt angles and frontal projection area, as well as individual sheets.
                  In general, the first time I meet a man - not an American, praising Sherman. He is even absurd from the side. Yes, there was a leather interior and ABS (a joke), it’s just elementary turned over and skidded out of the blue.
                  1. Kars
                    Kars 19 February 2012 11: 25
                    0
                    Quote: slan
                    Sherman's steel was less resistant

                    And can you find out where such information came from? It was viscous and yielded much less secondary fragments and internal splinters when not broken,
                    can you give the corners? is it not difficult to say the truth?
                    By the way, I did not say that it is perfect or without flaws
                    Quote: slan
                    Generally, the first time I meet a man - not an American, praising Sherman

                    then you were not interested in the theme of WWII armored vehicles
                    present another
                    Hero of the Soviet Union Dmitry Fyodorovich Loza as part of the 46-th Guards Tank Brigade of the 9-th Guards Tank Corps traveled thousands of kilometers along the roads of war. Starting to fight in the summer of 1943 of the year near Smolensk on the Matilda tanks, in the fall he moved to the Sherman tank and reached Vienna. Four tanks on which he fought burned down, and two were seriously damaged, but he survived and participated with his corps in the war against Japan, where he passed through the sands of the Gobi, Mount Khingan and the plains of Manchuria.

                    In this book, the reader will find talented descriptions of combat episodes, the life of “foreign-made” tankers, the advantages and disadvantages of American tanks, and much more.
                    1. slan
                      slan 19 February 2012 11: 41
                      +2
                      That's exactly what is more viscous. They themselves answered.
                      Quote: Kars
                      can you give the corners? is it not difficult to say the truth?

                      Enough to build a teacher out of yourself. Never look alike, sorry for being blunt. Since it’s not difficult, take it and bring it.
                      And do not think that if you have mastered the murzilka from one shelf with Dontsova, then you need to broadcast a mentor tone to everyone about this achievement.
                      1. Kars
                        Kars 19 February 2012 11: 48
                        0
                        Quote: slan
                        That's exactly what is more viscous


                        And you can hear your thoughts why is the more viscous Sherman’s armor worse than the T-34 85?
                        Quote: slan
                        And do not think that if you have mastered the murzilka from one shelf with Dontsova,

                        And it would also be nice to have you read other than the above?

                        And as I understand it, the words of Hero of the Soviet Union D. Loza are not satisfied?
                      2. slan
                        slan 19 February 2012 12: 02
                        +2
                        Quote: Kars
                        And you can hear your thoughts why is the more viscous Sherman’s armor worse than the T-34 85?

                        Why is it worse? Just with a greater thickness, it did not exceed the T-34 in terms of security.
                        Why are you interrogating everyone here?))
                        Did the corners lead? (just do not be limited to one upper frontal leaf)
                        Medium tank the size of a barn, helpless on the road))
                        Lohse was probably a wonderful and honest man, but I know a lot of wonderful people who eagerly praise their Peugeot or Kia.
                      3. Kars
                        Kars 19 February 2012 12: 31
                        0
                        Quote: slan
                        Why is it worse? Just with a greater thickness, it did not exceed the T-34 in terms of security.


                        It exceeded six millimeters on the 6 --- but it was still superior, and the T-34 armor and the Sherman armor were pretty easily pierced by the same 40 PAK, but there were fewer secondary fragments.
                        Quote: Kars
                        slightly better body armor protection

                        why is it so hysterical as if I wrote that Sherman was invulnerable?
                        Quote: slan
                        Did the corners lead?

                        The angles you need to bring, you mention them --- but apart from the vertical side booking, the angles that Sherman and T-34 are comparable
                        Quote: slan
                        Medium tank the size of a barn, helpless on the road))

                        Too lazy to look for a picture with the comparative dimensions of T-4, T-34-85 and Sherman
                        I'll give you a monograph yourself ---- your comparison with a barn is literary exaggeration, as well as cross
                        Quote: Kars
                        , patency is certainly worse
                        I mentioned about her, but she’s not as catastrophic as you paint here.
                        By the way, if as I watch you did not read me very carefully (I understand a lot of honor to read me carefully)

                        Quote: Kars
                        T = 34-85 which is the best medium tank of WWII

                        Quote: Kars
                        Personally, I individually prefer Sherman Firefly


                        Since you have not voiced on the basis of what literature do you draw your conclusions, let me recommend
                        Baryatinsky Medium Tank Sherman Together and against the T-34
                      4. slan
                        slan 19 February 2012 13: 22
                        +2
                        Well, you didn’t call Sherman the best tank, but only that you like it better. I agree that you have the right to this and there is nothing to argue about here.
                        The reaction is such because in an arrogant tone you undertook to prove first to Sarych and then to me the absolutely ridiculous statement about Sherman's better defense.
                        If it’s so important for you, I made up my opinion about the Sherman from a collection of short memoirs of simple WWII veterans, among whom there were many tankmen, many survived more than one tank and not one crewmate. A general summary - it was good to serve on Sherman, but it was better to go into battle on the T-34. In fact, about 34-ke simple tankers did not respond at all as a masterpiece of design thought, but rather as a terribly difficult machine to operate. But out of two evils, people chose the T-34.
                        Yes, do not be lazy and put 34 photos next to the covers of your books. For clarity, against the background of human figures. What comparison of areas and angles are you talking about?
                        At 6 mm exceeded at 30% worse strength ...
                      5. Kars
                        Kars 19 February 2012 13: 58
                        0
                        Quote: slan
                        At 6 mm exceeded at 30% worse strength ...

                        And from this place on in more detail ----- where? Where do these figures come from? Quality assessment of the US and USSR armor comparison technique?

                        Quote: slan
                        If it’s so important to you, then I made up my opinion about the Shermans on the collection of short memoirs of simple WWII veterans


                        If you are talking about collections edited by Drabkin, I fought on T-34 2 volumes and I fought on a tank, then I read them too
                        Quote: slan
                        Yes, do not be lazy and put 34 photos next to the covers of your books.

                        Why
                        Quote: slan
                        to me a completely ridiculous statement about Sherman’s better security.

                        You have not given any evidence at all.
                        Quote: slan
                        What comparison of areas and angles are you talking about?

                        Comparison of squares I did not say

                        Quote: slan
                        Sherman’s steel was less resistant, plus tilt angles and frontal projection area, as well as individual sheets

                        Prove at least something - except for the frontal area, the Sherman really has more - but I would very much like to know in percent how much more
                        Angles will come to yourself
                        T-34-85
                        Type of armor steel rolled homogeneous
                        Forehead of the body (top), mm / city. 45 / 60 °
                        The forehead of the body (bottom), mm / city. 45 / 60 °
                        Board of the case (top), mm / city. 45 / 40 °
                        Board of the case (bottom), mm / city. 45 / 0 °
                        Housing feed (top), mm / city. 45 / 48 °
                        Housing feed (bottom), mm / city. 45 / 45 °
                        Bottom, mm 20
                        Roof, mm 20
                        Front of the tower, mm / deg. Xnumx
                        The mask of the gun, mm / city. Xnumx
                        Board towers, mm / city. 75 / 20 °
                        The feed of the tower, mm / city. 52 / 10 °
                        Tower Roof, mm 15 — 20
                        Sherman
                        un armored steel homogeneous
                        Forehead of the body (top), mm / city. 51 / 56 °
                        The forehead of the body (bottom), mm / city. 108 / 0 — 56 °
                        Board of the case, mm / city. 38 / 0 °
                        Feed housing, mm / city. 38 / 0 ... 10 °
                        Bottom, mm 13 — 25
                        Case roof, mm 19 — 25 / 83 — 90 °
                        Tower forehead, mm / city. 76 / 30 °
                        The mask of the gun, mm / city. 89 / 0 °
                        Board towers, mm / city. 51 / 5 °
                        The feed of the tower, mm / city. 51 / 0 °
                        The roof of the tower, mm 25
                        Just do not make me draw you drawings and pay attention to
                        Quote: Kars
                        body armor protection
                        and usually only the frontal armor is taken into account

                        As for the reservation, the first "Shermans" were protected by 50 — 75-mm viscous armor, which was praised by Soviet tankmen (T-34-76: 45 — 52 mm); tanks manufactured in 1944 — 1945 had armor 75 — 100 mm (for T-34-85: 45 — 90 mm). The indicators, as we see, are quite comparable and the American tank is even higher.


                        ARMOR TO ARMOR
                        M. Baryatinsky
                        (Model designer # 5 for 1990 year)
                        http://armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/WWII/Sherman/sherman.php
                        Quote: slan
                        Yes, do not be lazy and put 34 photos next to the covers of your books

                        will not be lazy --- even though I was hoping you would read the monograph
                      6. slan
                        slan 19 February 2012 20: 41
                        +1
                        Quote: Kars
                        And from this place on in more detail ----- where? Where do these figures come from? Quality assessment of the US and USSR armor comparison technique?

                        Sorry, but this is trolling- require such an explanation. If you need to prove the opposite. Anyone can see this by typing in Google the appropriate request. Well, as it were, you’ll excuse me, but this, as I thought, is a well-known fact.
                        Quote: Kars
                        Angles will come to yourself

                        Well, have you done it yourself?)) T-34 has one zero (bottom of the board), Sherman has one solid zeros (5 positions from 9). And for this, no tables are needed. Just look at the tanks themselves.
                        Quote: Kars
                        As for the reservation, the first "Shermans" were protected by 50-75 mm viscous armor

                        Do you even think that fasting? That first Sherman made from more viscous steel means that the subsequent ones are made of less viscous but correspondingly more durable. If the first steel is better, why did the Americans abandon it? And in general, google already more thoroughly, the topic is hackneyed.
                        Quote: Kars

                        You really don't see the difference? Well then, sorry))
                        Here you are stubborn)) Undertook to prove with the help of numbers that black is not so black and absorbs only 80% of the light, and white again does not reflect all the rays, but already absorbs 20%, and they say “not such a difference, give me the methods. . "))) You are also offended.
                        The Sherman’s corps is archaic, the booking is irrational, the armor was significantly inferior to the Soviet, the T-34 case, in comparison with the Sherman’s, is the top of perfection and the point. This is an obvious well-known fact! Prove the opposite yourself if it hurts you.
                        Quote: Kars
                        If you are talking about collections edited by Drabkin, I fought on T-34 2 volumes and I fought on a tank, then I read them too

                        No, not about them, but what did Sherman’s defense be praised there?
                      7. Kars
                        Kars 19 February 2012 23: 06
                        0
                        Quote: slan
                        If you need to prove otherwise

                        Simply put, you cannot answer for your words. This is an indicator.
                        Quote: slan
                        Anyone can see this by typing in Google the appropriate request

                        Well, you're so lazy that you can’t give a reference.
                        I'll write ... American armor is better than Soviet by 40% ... what will you do?
                        Quote: slan
                        Well, as it were, you’ll excuse me, but this, as I thought, is a well-known fact.

                        Strange I read so many monographs, but I haven’t met this statement.
                        Quote: slan
                        Well, have you done it yourself?)) T-34 has one zero (bottom of the board), Sherman has one solid zeros (5 positions from 9). And for this, no tables are needed. Just look at the tanks themselves.

                        For the side I don’t see any special problems, only the internal volume was eaten for the PAK 40 that tilt was of little importance

                        The Soviet tankers generally liked the Sherman tank. Not inferior in terms of security and armament to the domestic “thirty-four”, this tank had much better ergonomics, a more spacious turret, and general thoughtfulness of the design, there were many pleasant “trifles” that sometimes greatly simplified the daily maintenance of the machine. And with the introduction of a new 76-mm gun to the latest Sherman models, coupled with high-quality ammunition also supplied from the USA, the tank surpassed even the new “thirty-four” with an 85-mm cannon in its “anti-tank” characteristics. Sherman's armor was thicker than that of the T-34, but less solid, and in general the protection of both tanks was about the same. But American armor was more viscous, which caused fewer secondary fragments when the shell hit. As the main shortcomings of the Soviet tankers noted too high center of mass of the tank, which led to frequent overturning of the machine.



                        http://www.battlefield.ru/m4-general-sherman.html(в отличии от вас я за свои слова отвечаю)
                        Quote: slan
                        Do you even think that fasting? The fact that the first Shermans were made of more viscous steel means that the subsequent ones are made of less viscous, but correspondingly more durable. If the first steel is better, why did the Americans abandon it? And in general, google already more thoroughly, the topic is hackneyed


                        That logic is fun for you, why did you get the idea that the next bool is less viscous? It's about increasing the thickness, and you already made up something.
                        Quote: slan
                        You really don't see the difference? Well then, sorry))

                        Actually, if you start reading what I write, it will become easier for you to discuss

                        Quote: Kars
                        in addition to the frontal area, the Sherman really has more - but I would very much like to know in percent how much more

                        Am I writing something wrong? And if you look closely at the drawing, you may notice that the difference in dimensions is not very large as you describe ---
                        Quote: slan
                        Medium tank the size of a barn,

                        can I really place a drawing of a barn? but the percentage would be interesting to know.
                        Quote: slan
                        Sherman’s corps is archaic

                        Nothing fundamentally different, the inclined sides I described above - a drawing of the T-34 is attached

                        Quote: slan
                        reservation is irrational

                        allegation
                        Quote: slan
                        the armor was significantly inferior to the Soviet

                        In what?
                        Quote: slan
                        T-34 case in comparison with Shermanovsky - the top of perfection and the point.
                        yes please only why did it change at T-44? I’ll attach the drawing with another comment
                        Quote: slan
                        If you are talking about collections edited by Drabkin, I fought on T-34 2 volumes and I fought on a tank, then I read them too
                        No, not about them


                        And what then? I also want to read --- otherwise I seem to have read all such literature starting from the canonical Ibragimov
                        Quote: slan
                        and what is there except praised the security of Sherman

                        read learn

                        Drawing T-44

                        Drawing T-34-85

                        Drawing T-44
                      8. slan
                        slan 19 February 2012 23: 15
                        0
                        Quote: Kars
                        And then what? I also want to read

                        To my shame, I do not remember ((The book is not about tanks, just a set of short memories.
                        The rest I do not want to comment on the fifth time. I am not trying to change your love for the Shermans, but you do not demand from me that I take the time to prove facts that are completely obvious to me.
                      9. Kars
                        Kars 19 February 2012 23: 26
                        0
                        Quote: slan
                        To my shame, I don’t remember ((The book is not about tanks, just a set of short memories


                        Then I'm sorry, it is not considered, especially considering that during the USSR they loved ..hayat ..land Liz equipment for political reasons.
                        Quote: slan
                        The rest I do not want to comment on the fifth time

                        Simply put, you can’t
                        Quote: slan
                        I'm not trying to change your love for the Sherman

                        I do not like him
                        Quote: slan
                        but you do not require me to spend time proving facts that are completely obvious to me

                        The fact that for you obviously does not mean that this is true.
                        Your evidence base in this thread is slightly more than zero.
                        And in recollection of the top of the perfection of the T-34 case, considering .. the candlestick ... suspension of the T-55 case, it is strange that the T-34 is not ideal.

                        I consider the T-34 -85 tank to be the best tank of the Second World War in general. But this does not in any way change the advantages and disadvantages of other tanks
                      10. Kars
                        Kars 19 February 2012 23: 28
                        0
                        Quote: slan
                        To my shame, I don’t remember ((The book is not about tanks, just a set of short memories

                        Then excuse me, it’s not considered, especially considering that during the USSR they loved ..hayat ..land Liz equipment for political reasons. Quote: slan
                        The rest I do not want to comment on the fifth time
                        Simply put, you can Quote: slan
                        I'm not trying to change your love for the Sherman
                        I do not love him Quote: slan
                        but you do not require me to spend time proving facts that are completely obvious to me
                        The fact that for you obviously does not mean that this is true.
                        Your evidence base in this thread is slightly more than zero.
                        And in recollection of the top of the perfection of the T-34 case, considering .. the candlestick ... suspension of the T-55 case, it is strange that the T-34 is not ideal.

                        I consider the T-34 -85 tank to be the best tank of the Second World War in general. But this does not in any way change the advantages and disadvantages of other tanks
                      11. slan
                        slan 19 February 2012 23: 59
                        0
                        Well, you are stubborn)) I must confess that I used to consider Sherman a curiosity, but now, thinking about your fanaticism, I realized that the decisions that were absurd at first glance were due not to the mediocrity of the designers, but simply to other criteria at the forefront.
                        Still, I will comment a little: corps T-34- the top of excellence regarding Sherman. What does the suspension and T-44?
                        Well and so on. You think, read, do not get excited ..
                      12. Kars
                        Kars 20 February 2012 00: 29
                        0
                        Quote: slan
                        thinking about your fanaticism

                        It is simply a desire to find out the real state of things.
                        Quote: slan
                        T-34 case - the top of excellence regarding Sherman What does the suspension and T-44 have to do with it?

                        if you look at the case of the T-44 and T-55 you will notice that the side sheets have received so unloved tilt angle of 0 degrees, like Sherman’s


                        and the T-34 suspension is just that anochronism inherited from the Christie tank, and eating up the useful space, which forced us to make a board of several sheets when it was abandoned and hidden.

                        and as for the quality of the reservation, all the same, I would like to hear the answer, but it did not hinder you to continue commenting.
                      13. slan
                        slan 20 February 2012 00: 38
                        0
                        Quote: Kars
                        if you look at the body of the T-44 and T-55, you will notice that the side sheets received so you do not like the angle of inclination 0

                        Your problem is inattention and unwillingness to analyze. Everything has long been said, you have the Internet.
                        With the same angle, half an hour ago, I wrote to you about this

                        Quote: slan
                        Do not forget only that the T-44 is a product of a completely different time (cumulative shells ;-)

                        Let me explain that with the advent of shaped-charge projectiles, the angles of inclination have become of little relevance and have been sacrificed for manufacturability. For the beginning of the forties and the end of the 30s, the decision was rational, but Sherman is a complete anachronism closer to the tanks of the First World War. Or do you know a tank that follows the "successful" layout decisions of the M-4?))
                        About steel, to the library, and not to the shelves with Dontsova. I won’t do this for you, sorry. Have you heard metal science at all? Your quotes say it all.
                      14. Kars
                        Kars 20 February 2012 02: 48
                        0
                        Quote: slan
                        Your problem is inattention and unwillingness to analyze. Everything has long been said, you have the Internet.
                        With the same angle, half an hour ago, I wrote to you about this



                        You are confusing something
                        Quote: slan
                        Well, have you done it yourself?)) T-34 has one zero (bottom of the board), Sherman has one solid zeros (5 positions from 9). And for this, no tables are needed. Just look at the tanks themselves.


                        there is no way to twist
                        Quote: slan
                        Let me explain, with the advent of cumulative shells, the tilt angles became of little relevance and were sacrificed for manufacturability
                        So why do you set Sherman angles of inclination in 0 degrees in pritenzia? Cumulative shells appeared in 1941
                        Honestly, then why didn’t modern tanks become like a tiger and continue to carry inclined armor surfaces? And their sides are vertical like that of a Sherman, and not inclined like that of a T-34

                        And as I understand it, such a thing as normalizing armor-piercing shells is unknown to you?
                        Further, with the quantitative growth of the fleet of medium and heavy tanks, the excess of the number of hits over the number of defeats became even greater. So, for example, to destroy one T-34 tank at actual battle ranges in the summer of 1942, five 50-mm armor-piercing-projectile shells were required to hit it.

                        It should be noted that most of the holes and dents from the shells were on the sides and stern of the hulls and towers of Soviet tanks. On the frontal armor, marks from the hits were practically absent, which indicated the unwillingness of the German artillerymen and tankers to fire at Soviet tanks from the frontal angles. It was especially noted that, despite the tilt of the side armor plates of the T-34 tank at 40 °, they penetrated the shells of the 47-mm Czech and 50-mm German anti-tank guns: “despite the large angle of inclination of the sliding tracks on the armor, relatively few were found. Most of the holes (14 of 22) are normalized to one degree or another. ”

                        Some clarification is needed here. The fact is that already in 1941, the Germans began to actively use armor-piercing shells with armor-piercing tips. 50-mm shells were additionally welded with a head made of high hardness steel, and 37-mm shells were unevenly hardened during manufacture. The use of an armor-piercing tip allowed the projectile, in contact with the armor, to tilt towards the tilt - to normalize, so that its path in the armor was reduced. The frontal armor of the T-50 also penetrated with such shells of the caliber 34 mm, while the hole in the hole was oblique, as if the fire was fired from an elevated tank. It would be useful to recall that the production of such shells was mastered in the USSR only after the war.

                        Strange really?
                        Quote: slan
                        For the beginning of the forties and the end of the 30, the solution was rational, but Sherman is a solid anachronism closer to World War I tanks

                        One can argue with this, especially in the field of arms stabilization
                        Quote: slan
                        Or do you know a tank that follows the "successful" layout decisions of the M-4?))

                        And what is meant by these layout solutions? If you are talking about the vertical side, then even the T-72 has a vertical side, if there are any other layout solutions, let's see.
                        Quote: slan
                        About steel, to the library, and not to the shelves with Dontsova.

                        Actually, you didn’t bring more than one name for books from where you derive wisdom - except for the masthead course.

                        Quote: slan
                        I won’t do this for you, sorry

                        Simply put, you are lying, and for this it’s not even necessary to look for books on metal science ---- such a fact would be in any monograph about Soviet tanks. just a smile.
                      15. slan
                        slan 20 February 2012 19: 53
                        +1
                        Kars,
                        Sorry, but you are a spilled troll, it’s clear that you’re involuntarily, but such a fat one. Log, I apologize for ... hesitating.
                        I think, well, I’ll answer a man, well, two ..))
                        If you are so offended and it will become easier, then about 30% of the flashlight I wrote, it turned in my head, which is a third. Maybe 24%. It doesn’t matter to me.
                      16. Kars
                        Kars 20 February 2012 19: 59
                        0
                        Quote: slan
                        but you are a spilled troll
                        thanks this is a workout
                        Quote: slan
                        If you are so offended and it will become easier, then I wrote about 30% from the flashlight
                        I won’t already know that.

                        Do you think the first one who argues with me on this topic? While no one can prove it
                        Quote: slan
                        Maybe on 24%. It doesn’t matter to me.

                        or maybe -24%
                        And viscosity itself is important to me, shells quite often fall from great distances, from very unfortunate angles, I’m just defective, it’s just not my destiny to break through ------ and when our armor was not penetrated, solid, secondary fragments from the inside
                      17. slan
                        slan 20 February 2012 20: 22
                        0
                        I'm still a little bit sand water I will explain to you. Viscosity and strength are not, as it were, mutually exclusive, but one can be significantly increased solely by reducing the second. Walk all the same to the library. So which is better: non-penetration of "hard" armor with the formation of secondary fragments or penetration of "viscous" ones? just do not have to answer with quotes from the memoirs of a hero of the Soviet Union with 4 classes of education in a parish school.
                      18. postman
                        postman 22 December 2012 13: 06
                        0
                        Quote: slan
                        What does the suspension and T-44?

                        The Sherman was not only quiet, but also had a smooth ride, which was especially appreciated by motorized infantry tanks. According to the recollections of many veterans, from the second half of 1944, M4A2 tanks were actively used to combat the “Faustniki”. It was done like this. Four to five submachine gunners sat on the tank, which were attached to the brackets on the tower with lap belts. When the vehicle was moving, infantry fired on any shelters within a radius of 100–150 m, behind which there could be “fa-ostniks”. This technique was called "broom". And for the “broom” only “Shermans” were suitable. On the T-34, due to its candle suspension and its characteristic longitudinal buildup, it was almost impossible for the infantrymen tied with a lap belt to stay.
                      19. postman
                        postman 22 December 2012 11: 59
                        0
                        Quote: Kars
                        I consider the T-34 -85 tank to be the best tank of the Second World War in general. But this does not in any way change the advantages and disadvantages of other tanks

                        Quote: slan
                        Well, you are stubborn)) I must confess, before I thought Sherman

                        I just want to shout "hey, you are up there ...." (AB, Pugacheva), well, in the chat, or something.
                        To evaluate now (to ride, they won’t shoot), you need to look from the side of enemies and users
                        An article describing allied tanks published in June 1943 (Germany), which was translated and published in Tactical and Technical Trends, no. 35, October 7, 1943 "German comments on enemy tanks"
                        A critical study of French, British, Russian and American tanks was published on June 27, 1943 in the German weekly "Das Reich."
                        - I’ll omit the French.

                        According to experts (German): English cruising class tanks come much better to the requirements of a proper tank for practical use in a real war. The name (classification of the tank) in itself shows that the main idea was transferred from the Navy. These tanks are equipped with a good engine and are capable of moving over a large area. The thickness of the armor was reduced in order to obtain a higher speed and longer range. Tactically, these tanks are more or less analogous to a torpedo destroyer operating on the endless expanses of the ocean. They are better adapted - and this is a pretty significant factor - for the hot and sparsely populated areas of the English colonial empire. The English tank is the tank of Africa. It has narrow caterpillar tracks. It was not designed specifically for operations on the European continent.

                        On the territory of the USSR, the experience of using the British tank was unsuccessful, and he shares this fate with the US tanks, which were not very highly appreciated by the Soviet ally. These are, for example, the General Stuart, the reconnaissance and rearguard tank, and the General Lee. Although the latter has commendable engine qualities, its contours are not well balanced and its silhouette is odd and too tall.

                        This criticism, however, does not apply to the latest North American development: "General Sherman". The latter represents one of the finest achievements in North American industry. With its tortoiseshell shape and turret, it should be regarded as a highly commendable product of the North American steel industry. The first thing that grabs attention: series production, with parameters corresponding to the almost arrogant demands of the US auto industry in terms of speed, ride smoothness, and body streamline. The tank is equipped with soft rubber pads on individual stages of the track mechanism. It seems to be largely intended for the civilized landscape, or, strategically speaking, Tunisian Africa and the invasion of Europe. It represents the culmination of the adversary's achievements in this area of ​​production.
                      20. postman
                        postman 22 December 2012 12: 12
                        0
                        Quote: Postman
                        No. 35, October 7, 1943 "German comments on enemy tanks"


                        A fast moving tank shouldn't weigh much. The caliber of the cannon affects the size and weight of the ammunition for it. With all of this in mind, we look at the General Sherman as the embodiment of a type of strategy that is thought of in terms of movement: it is a "Running" tank, especially since the Americans will most likely use it on easily passable terrain, that is, on European land. The caliber of her main weapon is slightly higher than the maximum that has been used in foreign countries so far. This is a spacious tank inside. Its aircraft (?) Engine is lightweight. It is a series of products with cast steel housing, the latter simulating an almost artistic appearance of the contour, in such a way that it offers surfaces that are invariably curved, i.e. projectile deflecting.

                        In Tunisia, German soldiers demonstrated their ability to handle this tank, but they know the danger these tanks pose when they appear in large numbers. The innovation is gun stabilization. This equipment is connected to a gyro system. This system was taken from naval artillery. This is the first attempt of its kind.

                        But we cannot get a completely correct perspective until we also consider the production of tanks of the Soviets.


                        The T-34 was used by the Russians at the opening of hostilities in 1941, at that time it was the best tank produced in the world - with a 76-mm long-barreled cannon, turtle-shaped turret shape, slanted armored corps, wide forged (?) Tracks, capable of carrying this 26- ton tank through swamps and steppe sands. In this matter, the Soviet Union acted as an exploiter of all the various branches of capitalist industry and inventions. Some parts of the object were so closely copied from German inventions that the German company Bosch was able to build its own production of unmodified spare parts for the Soviet tank.

                        The Soviet Union was the only country in the world that possessed, even before the outbreak of the present war, a fully improved and diverse series of tanks. The Soviets had such tanks, for example, in the fall of 1932. Basing their knowledge on the experience gained in maneuvers, the Russians then developed independent additional new concepts based to some extent on achievements abroad and on those that were fixed in the Christie fast tank (speed from 90 to 110 km.) From North America .

                        Like Germany and England, the Soviet Union in this regard created tanks for operations in separate operational units. Groups of these tanks operate in isolation in advanced combat zones, when separated from infantry. Only a small part of the tanks is used for tactical interaction with the infantry. That, at least, was the idea. And in fact, the T-34 is ideally suited for this kind of action - although in many cases only by covering the retreat. But even for this type of tank, positional warfare is not acceptable, which narrows the range of combat use.

                        To properly evaluate the most recent tanks, such as the General Sherman or the German Tiger, one must learn to see the tank as the embodiment of a combination of artillery power, speed and armor protection or, more specifically, as a combination of cannon, engine, and armor. ...
                      21. Kars
                        Kars 19 February 2012 23: 04
                        0
                        Drawing T-34 -85
                      22. Kars
                        Kars 19 February 2012 23: 07
                        0
                        Drawing T-34 85

                        don’t know how to put two photos in one post
                2. Brother Sarych
                  Brother Sarych 19 February 2012 11: 57
                  +1
                  Yes, lousy, in principle, the tank was, and even Loz did not convince to the end ...
                  In any case, the USSR and America had different tank building capabilities and there was no point in comparing these opportunities ...
                  1. Kars
                    Kars 19 February 2012 12: 33
                    0
                    And I do not compare the possibilities, but express my individual opinion on specific types of machines.
                    1. Brother Sarych
                      Brother Sarych 19 February 2012 12: 46
                      +1
                      I have no complaints to you personally - and I express my opinion ...
                  2. Kars
                    Kars 19 February 2012 23: 09
                    0
                    Drawing T-34 85 don’t know how to put two photos in one post
                    1. slan
                      slan 20 February 2012 00: 04
                      0
                      Do not forget only that the T-44 is a product of a completely different time (cumulative shells ;-)
                      1. Kars
                        Kars 20 February 2012 17: 31
                        0
                        Quote: slan
                        that T-44 is a product of a completely different time


                        What impressed you so much about 1943?
                      2. slan
                        slan 20 February 2012 20: 10
                        0
                        Have I written 1943 somewhere?
                        Do you even have at least the simplest logical chains in your head lined up? How hard it should be for you to be ..
                        And so the whole "discussion"
                        Quote: slan
                        Do not forget only that the T-44 is a product of a completely different time (cumulative shells ;-)

                        Quote: Kars
                        Cumulative shells appeared in 1941

                        And how quickly do you think shells and tanks appear?
                        Sorry, but with these corners you really got it. He just tried to clarify the opinion of another person about the Sherman’s better protection. And then the slope began — not the slope, the big one — not the big one, because it stands on a shelf ..
                      3. Kars
                        Kars 20 February 2012 20: 47
                        0
                        Quote: slan
                        Have I written 1943 somewhere?

                        It’s strange of course to say this before writing
                        Quote: slan
                        Do not forget only that the T-44 is a product of a completely different time (cumulative shells ;-)

                        As I understand it, you are not interested in the fact that the T-44 is designed and released in 1943-44, which then do you mean
                        Quote: slan
                        a completely different time
                        ?
                        Quote: slan
                        Sorry, but with these corners you really got

                        I?
                        Quote: slan
                        plus tilt angles

                        You don’t remember what you write yourself? Then I’ll remind you that you first brought the angle of inclination of the armor as an argument.
                        Quote: slan
                        He just tried to clarify the opinion of another person about the Sherman’s better protection.

                        To say honestly it didn’t work out for you.
                      4. slan
                        slan 20 February 2012 21: 00
                        0
                        Quote: Kars
                        It’s strange of course to say this before writing

                        Can you indicate where? And then I already used the search in the browser ..
                        However, who am I asking))
                        Are you definitely not from Israel? And you’re lying like breathing straight.
                      5. Kars
                        Kars 20 February 2012 21: 23
                        -1
                        Quote: slan
                        Can you indicate where? And then I already used the search in the browser ..



                        Are you giving up your phrase?

                        slan Today, 00: 04 0
                        Do not forget only that the T-44 is a product of a completely different time (cumulative shells ;-)

                        So what calendar time do you ascribe to T-44
                        Quote: slan
                        And how quickly do you think shells and tanks appear?


                        Well, there have been incidents in 45 days (it’s just not right now to start telling that the 152 SU is not suitable), and the gap between the 1 IS and the 2 IS is also not very large
                        Quote: slan
                        And you're lying like you breathe straight

                        Catch me, I already caught you on 30%
                      6. postman
                        postman 22 December 2012 12: 32
                        0
                        Quote: slan
                        Do not forget only that the T-44 is a product of a completely different time (cumulative shells ;-)


                        Cumulative shells were listed in the ammunition of the German 75-mm short-barreled guns since 1939, but their mass production began only after the summer campaign of 1941.

                        Japan - since 1942 ...

                        In 1938, Franz Rudolf Thomanek in Germany and Henry Hans Mohaupt in the USA independently discovered the effect of increasing penetration when applying a metal cladding to a cone.

                        Cumulative ammunition (sapper) was first used in combat conditions on May 10, 1940 during the assault on the fort Eben-Enamel (Belgium)

                        One of the unpleasant surprises of the summer of 1941 for the tankers of the Red Army was the use of cumulative shells and grenades by German troops.
                        German GG / P 40 HEAT Rifle Grenade: 25-100m
                    2. postman
                      postman 22 December 2012 03: 03
                      0
                      Quote: Kars
                      I don’t know how to post two photos in one post

                      (Use "yourself")



                  3. postman
                    postman 22 December 2012 12: 46
                    0
                    Quote: Brother Sarich
                    Yes, lousy, in principle, the tank was, and even Loz did not convince to the end ..


                    In addition to summarizing the experience of military operation, during 1943 the Shermans underwent intensive tests at specialized training grounds. Here are some excerpts from the "Report on tests of the medium American tank M4A2 in summer conditions. 1943 NIIIBT Test Site GBTU KA ":
                    “Purpose: to establish the reliability of the tank as a whole and its individual units and mechanisms.
                    Tank produced in 1942 by the Fisher Tank Arsenal.
                    Before the summer tests, the M4A2 tank passed 1285 km in winter and spring. Engines worked 89 hours.
                    During the summer tests, the tank covered 1765 km and 450 km along the highway. Engines worked in the summer for 87 hours.
                    Sea trials were carried out from July 29 to August 18, 1943 for 11 running days.
                    By the end of the test, the tank passed 3050 km, the engines worked 176 hours.
                    Conclusion.

                    1) The American M4A2 tank has good operational reliability and requires minimal maintenance time.
                    2) Compliance with the frequency and volume of technical maintenance of the tank, indicated in the Memo to the crew of the M4A2 tank compiled by the Scientific Research Institute BT Polygon, fully ensures the normal and reliable operation of the tank.
                    3) GMC engines installed on the M4A2 tank reliably operate on domestic diesel fuel of the DT brand and diesel oil. Changing the engine oil must be done after 50-60 hours of operation.
                    4) The tank’s transmission can normally work 4000-5000 km without changing the American SAE-50 oil refueling, with which the M4L2 tanks arrive in the USSR. Refueling of the transmission must be done by the domestic aircraft oil “MK” or “MS”.
                    5) The metal and rubber-metal tracks in their adhesion to the ground in summer conditions are equivalent. When the M4A2 tank is operated on a metal caterpillar, the reliability of the undercarriage decreases (the service life of the rubber tires of the track rollers is particularly reduced). ”


                    In the fall of 1944, at the Kubinka training ground, tests were carried out by shelling the captured Royal Tiger German heavy tank. The black and white test report says:
                    "American 76-mm armor-piercing shells pierce the side sheets of the Tiger-B tank from a distance of 1,5–2 times greater than the domestic 85-mm armor-piercing shells ".


                    As a result of operation in combat conditions, the fact of increased wear of the rubber tires of the road wheels during the intensive operation of tanks on a metal track was confirmed.

                    Tanks M4A2, especially with a powerful 76 mm cannon, fell in love with Soviet tank crews. They were assigned quite a few friendly nicknames and nicknames. "Emcha" (from "um four"), "Gorbach", "May bug", "Brontosaurus" in the hands of an experienced crew who knew his car well, its strengths and weaknesses, was terrible to the enemy.
            2. Kibb
              Kibb 20 February 2012 19: 05
              0
              A high initial speed of 17 pounds led to a lower explosiveness, with the best penetration, I'm talking about skew to PT
              The anti-aircraft machine gun is a plus, but its effectiveness is usually overestimated, although in proud battles an indispensable thing

              Security? I look here without me smoke pillar smile . If I may say a few words:
              1. I also read Baryatinsky, and I remember the phrase about bribe armor, but Svirin’s question is covered somewhat differently. He claims that the quality of the armor of the early M4, supplied by lend-lease, was poor, but after complaints from our side, it increased and it became compliant with Soviet standards
              2. About the normalization of the projectile - indeed, I agree with you, the value of rational tilt angles is somewhat overestimated, the Gromoz inclined fenders were considered archaism even then, but for some reason the military insisted on them when designing the T50
              3. The problem of Sherman IMHO is not in the angles and quality of the reservation, but in a really large area, for example of the same side, which we do not observe in the T44, T55 and 34M you cite.
              4. A big plus in Sherman's security is observation and communication devices - but such "little things" are usually forgotten, and even 34-43 was much worse with this until the middle of 34rd, 85-XNUMX is quite at the level
              In general, I am more for 34-85
              1. Kars
                Kars 20 February 2012 19: 24
                0
                Quote: Kibb
                He claims that the quality of the armor of the early M4, supplied by lendlis,

                I hope you do not attribute this to Firefly? And we will not recall the Sormovsky T-34-76?
                Quote: Kibb
                but in a really large area such as the same side

                Not Sherman, of course anymore ---- but not so conventionally --- they are standing on my shelf --- and they don’t catch my eye. I’ll find a side overlay of drawings.
                Quote: slan
                But out of two evils, people chose the T-34.

                Our tankmen were not given a choice, but I personally
                1. Kibb
                  Kibb 20 February 2012 19: 35
                  0
                  Quote: Kars
                  I hope you do not attribute this to Firefly? And we will not recall the Sormovsky T-34-76

                  Yes, you are already in the heat of the dispute and have forgotten what was said about Firefly and 34-85 smile , and not generally about Sherman and T34
                  In general, I would not tirelessly say that Sherman is bad, especially Firefly, but my choice is different
                2. Brother Sarych
                  Brother Sarych 20 February 2012 19: 43
                  0
                  Very funny picture - not a tank. and a mobile garbage can ...
                  By the way - somewhere it caught my eye that if the thickness of the armor is approximately equal to the caliber of the projectile, then the angle of inclination is no longer important ...
                  1. Kars
                    Kars 20 February 2012 19: 47
                    0
                    Quote: Brother Sarich
                    Very funny picture - not a tank. and a mobile garbage can

                    is this better?
                    1. Brother Sarych
                      Brother Sarych 20 February 2012 19: 56
                      0
                      Good too ...
                      Is it they, like, a spare tire on the trunk, if they suddenly run into carnations?
                      1. Kibb
                        Kibb 20 February 2012 20: 02
                        0
                        Yeah, you can see two punctures from "carnations" - the spare tire did not help))
                      2. Kars
                        Kars 20 February 2012 20: 20
                        0
                        Still transportation of stocks is really not to your tank
                    2. Kars
                      Kars 25 February 2012 15: 07
                      0
                      or such, someone probably thought that the king tiger from the board is not very protected, the Shermanists were not alone
                  2. Kibb
                    Kibb 20 February 2012 19: 56
                    0
                    Quote: Brother Sarich
                    By the way - somewhere it caught my eye that if the thickness of the armor is approximately equal to the caliber of the projectile, then the angle of inclination is no longer important ...

                    I have not heard this
                    That’s not the point, the Firefly was fundamentally different from the simple M4, a gun with very good ballistics, they could work at great distances,
                    Therefore, its security was higher than just a Sherman, not protection, namely security, or military stability if you want
                    1. Brother Sarych
                      Brother Sarych 20 February 2012 19: 59
                      +1
                      Yes, I never argued. that he was the best of the Sherman ...
              2. slan
                slan 20 February 2012 19: 56
                0
                Yes, he didn’t have big problems with it, it’s just that the T-34 had a lower probability of defeat achieved more “gracefully”.
                1. Kars
                  Kars 20 February 2012 20: 15
                  0
                  The words of one tanker on the T-34

                  Armor is garbage, but our tanks are fast
  8. wow
    wow 18 February 2012 20: 52
    0
    The tank looks quite modern. Very competent layout, good (at that time) TTD. It is a pity that they did not have time to put into production.
    1. slan
      slan 19 February 2012 09: 33
      0
      What is literate then? Especially for that time.
      Which modern tank looks the same?
      but the war unleashed by the Nazis prevented plans to release the tank from the assembly line of the enterprise. The project was closed and did not return to this issue.

      What kind of fantasies are these? The war prevented the production of new types of military equipment)) Well, well.
      It’s obvious that unconventional orientation the layout of the tank put an end to it. The communication of a "blind" commander dangling in the stern in the dust and exhausts of a "blind" commander with a "deaf" mechvod sitting on the engine, in fact, by means of a light signaling, is one thing))
  9. cesar65
    cesar65 20 February 2012 13: 33
    0
    Quote: slan
    What kind of fantasies are these? The war prevented the production of new types of military equipment)) Well, well.

    Read Svirin, it says why during the war they did not go into the T-34M, T-43 and other models.
    1. slan
      slan 20 February 2012 20: 02
      0
      Okay, but somehow after the war they didn’t remember him. IMHO obvious futility of development.
  10. Kibb
    Kibb 20 February 2012 19: 24
    0
    Quote: slan
    It is obvious that the unconventional orientation of the tank layout on it put an end to
    - do not distort, it was written only about A44
    1. slan
      slan 20 February 2012 19: 59
      0
      And I'm not talking about the A44?
      administration, here are more characters. And what else should I finish?
  11. Kibb
    Kibb 20 February 2012 20: 06
    0
    So I did not answer you, but cesar65, with you I agree
  12. slan
    slan 20 February 2012 21: 13
    0
    Kars,
    but you are not wooduple and who else was he there, or rather who just wasn’t? As I did not immediately guess then?)) Then I think who he reminds me of? ..))
    Then especially for you a quote from Wikipedia (article "strength"). It went of course, but this is the first thing that Google found for me.
    Quote: Wikipedia
    The fracture toughness is closely related to the strength of the material. The increase in strength is accompanied by a decrease in ductility and fracture toughness.

    You poured so much from empty to empty here, dodging and trolling, without even thinking how ridiculous you look, with foam at your mouth demanding evidence that you yourself have indirectly proved. And so not only with durability.
    Sorry, but you really feel sorry. Try to analyze the information received, rather than boasting and dodging. I assure you, her information is enough, but you are not in a state to stop in narcissism and add 2 and 2.
    1. Kars
      Kars 20 February 2012 21: 31
      -1
      Quote: slan
      Then especially for you a quote from Wikipedia (article "strength"). It went of course, but this is the first thing that Google found for me.

      Quote: Wikipedia
      The fracture toughness is closely related to the strength of the material. The increase in strength is accompanied by a decrease in ductility and fracture toughness.



      You make me laugh? Already do not know how to dodge?
      Quote: slan
      Sherman's steel was less resistant


      You prove it
      Quote: slan
      At 6 mm exceeded at 30% worse strength ...

      and it
      Quote: slan
      The fracture toughness is closely related to the strength of the material. The increase in strength is accompanied by a decrease in ductility and fracture toughness.


      And follow carefully read, it says that they are closely related, but it is not written that the viscosity of Sherman’s armor was like plasticine,
      There is such a thing as BALANCE,
      and how does it relate to Hardness and Fragility

      Go for it, maybe you can figure it out yourself.
      1. slan
        slan 20 February 2012 21: 47
        0
        Well, it’s for sure the cat-bot-warrior-woodupipl)) I’ll put you cons, otherwise without skulls and with a red flag people are misleading)) I really didn’t think that you would have to talk, ukrotroll.
        1. Kars
          Kars 20 February 2012 21: 53
          0
          Yes, there are no questions, the only thing you can do after you got into a puddle

          it can be said proof of my complete victory

          I won’t be likened to putting a negative to you. Look at your shoulder straps.
          1. slan
            slan 20 February 2012 22: 07
            0
            No, well, it’s really necessary to warn))
            1. Kars
              Kars 20 February 2012 22: 25
              0
              Nothing the next time, having information from Dontsova,
              learn the mat part as they say. I have indicated the literature.

              Yes, and you may stop lying, my advice is to write something, check yourself.
              1. slan
                slan 20 February 2012 22: 30
                0
                Terrible what a hero-catobot)))
                Of course I won’t climb.
                1. Kars
                  Kars 20 February 2012 22: 36
                  0
                  That's great, especially military history, deserve a normal attitude.
  13. Kars
    Kars 20 February 2012 23: 09
    0
    - Did the crew get shell shock when the shell hit the tank, even if it did not penetrate the armor?

    - You can't say that. It depends on where he hit. For example, if I was sitting on the left in the tower and it hits me next to my ear, then I will hear the blow, but I am not concussed. And if it hit somewhere in the body, then I may not hear at all. It happened several times: we are leaving the battle. We look - the armor is dented in several places, as if they held a hot knife through butter. But I did not hear the blows. Sometimes the mechanic from below shouts "They are beating from the left!", But did not hear the huge rumble. Of course it can, if such a monster as the ISU-152 crashes - you will hear! And the tower along with the heads will blow.

    I also want to say that Sherman’s armor was viscous. On our T-34 there were cases when the shell hit, did not break through the armor, but the crew was wounded, because pieces broke off from the inside of the armor and hit the crew: hands, eyes. On Sherman, this has never happened.



    http://iremember.ru/tankisti/loza-dmitriy-fedorovich/stranitsa-5.html
    1. slan
      slan 20 February 2012 23: 28
      +1
      Alone?))
      By the way, in addition to jokes, in the internet numbers are walking. Soviet rolled armor of period 2 of the world - 400 brinell hardness, American - 300. In fact, about 30%
      Let's talk about it?))
      1. Kars
        Kars 20 February 2012 23: 47
        +1
        Well, why shy, give the phrase in full
        The "viscous" rolled Sherman armor has projectile resistance 30% lower than hard. Therefore, the tankers called the Sherman a lightly armored vehicle. "Biting" by a shell of an inclined sheet of "viscous" armor occurs in 95% of cases, and solid only in 50%. The T-34, made of "wild Russian" armor with a hardness of 390-400 on the Brennel scale (hull) and 350-370 (cast turret), projectile resistance was the highest of all tanks of the second world. For American manufacturers, both cast and rolled armor was within 300. “Four hundred” they were able to get only in the 50's and first applied it to the M-60. Regarding the secondary fragments, which are supposedly absent from the “viscous” Sherman’s armor, we can say with confidence: secondary fragments arise in any armor, even in “viscous”. It all depends on the kinetic energy of the projectile.


        And try to prove that the best document will be from Kummersdorf where it will be written that the PAK 40 penetrates Sherman’s frontal armor from a distance 30% greater than the T-34
        1. slan
          slan 20 February 2012 23: 54
          0
          Is that what it is?)) I'm right at a loss, do you prove to me so convincingly that Sherman was more vulnerable? The right is not worth it, I do not demand such evidence.
          Let's chat better about why the M48 and M60 are not at all like the "native" Sherman, but suspiciously look like neighbor T-34 with its "legal" T-54 and T-62?
          1. Kars
            Kars 21 February 2012 00: 37
            0
            Quote: slan
            I am right at a loss, do you prove to me so convincingly that Sherman was more vulnerable?

            Are you raving?
            I quoted which there is no evidence, a thorough comparison of hardness (always by the way I claimed that the T-34 armor is harder), forgetting about the fragility, elasticity --- the armor has indicators not only of hardness,
            so you still need to prove projectile resistance higher by 30%.
            Quote: slan
            M48 and M60 are not at all like the "native" Sherman


            And why did you get the idea that they are relatives? They held a candle
            M48 and M60 are the development of the design of the M26 Pershing

            75 mm viscous frontal armor of “Sherman”, of course, exceeded 45 mm armor of T-34 with equal weight of tanks and was equal to armor KV with weight of “Sherman” one and a half times less


            I can give such a quote
            1. Kibb
              Kibb 21 February 2012 11: 14
              0
              Yes, you just say that Brinell hardness has no direct relation to projectile resistance, it will be more clear
              In practice, the PaK 40, let’s say, pierced both Sherman and 34-85 at real combat distances, while during the shelling of the T34-85M with a 60mm forehead, it turned out that almost nothing had changed - the setup was quite similar to all attempts to strengthen the T34 armor
              1. Kars
                Kars 21 February 2012 18: 13
                0
                it will be too easy
              2. slan
                slan 21 February 2012 20: 13
                +1
                Kibb,
                No, okay, cat-bot-woodupleep, but where are you getting into shame?))
                Let’s give you a quote from Wikipedia, too, I’ll give you the textbooks in your hands
                Hardness - the property of a material to resist the penetration of another, more solid body into it

                Doesn’t it?)) And then what has it, maybe a friction set?
                Of course, the stability of the armor is determined by other factors, but it’s like to blur out that the size of the vessel is not directly related to its displacement.
                1. Kibb
                  Kibb 22 February 2012 15: 00
                  0
                  What are the dimensions of the vessel? Length, width, height, what are you talking about?
                  Well, the shell did not penetrate the armor, broke off a piece of the armor plate, who is easier from this? German blunt-headed projectiles with a "soft tip" bite into "hard" armor, sharp-headed "English-type" shells hit "soft" well, our projectiles with localizers worked well in German heterogeneous. But also parts can be rolled, cast, stamped. However, you seem to have explained everything, or not?
                  1. slan
                    slan 26 February 2012 01: 08
                    0
                    Quote: slan
                    it’s like to blurt out that the dimensions of the vessel are not directly related to its displacement.

                    Quote: Kibb
                    What are the dimensions of the vessel? Length, width, height, what are you talking about?

                    Sorry for directness, are you really so slow-witted or joking?
                    Quote: Kibb
                    However, did everyone seem to explain to you, or not?

                    I’m afraid it will be difficult for me to explain how the strength of steel is not related to its resistance to shells, the volume of a body dipped in water is to the Archimedean force, and the power of an electric heater is to the amount of heat generated by it and the like.
            2. Kars
              Kars 21 February 2012 18: 12
              0
              The issue with the level of protection and the design of armor was not so clear. Most of the weight reserves originally laid down in the T-34 design had already been used by this time. By 1944, the mass of the T-34 had increased by almost 5 tons. In addition, due to the installation of a more powerful gun in the new heavier turret, the remaining mass reserve could not be fully used to increase the reservation. Consequently, the modernization of the T-34 body armor made it possible to achieve only a limited increase in the durability of the tower and the hull.

              The introduction of the new machine opened up much wider possibilities for increasing the protective thickness of armored obstacles (the reduced thickness of the frontal armor of the T-34 with horizontal shelling was 90 mm, while that of the T-43 was 150 mm). Also this way allowed abandon 34С high hardness armor used in the production of T-8 in favor of less hard armor. While maintaining the same hull geometry as the T-34, this made it possible to significantly increase the resistance of the frontal projection of the tank to the effects of German 88-mm BS by increasing the likelihood of their rebounding without significant penetration into the armor. In addition, the transition in perspective to medium-hard armor made it possible to increase the productivity of welding operations. Despite this, the transition to the production of a new machine was associated with a serious decline in production of medium tanks. The limited modernization of the T-34 avoided this.



              So for fun
              1. slan
                slan 21 February 2012 20: 16
                0
                This is where such nonsense?))
                Try to pick up a textbook.
                1. Kars
                  Kars 21 February 2012 20: 30
                  0
                  Let me ask you, and before you start trolling in the topic of armored vehicles, what literature did you read on this topic?
                  1. slan
                    slan 21 February 2012 20: 37
                    0
                    Before that I got an education and got used to judge life not by paper models on shelves, but by popular literature.
                    And you can not wooduple, can I slander in vain?
                    1. Kars
                      Kars 21 February 2012 21: 02
                      0
                      Quote: slan
                      And you can not wooduple, can I slander in vain?

                      For general development, of course, it would be interesting to know the decoding of the term you are quoted, but if your opinion about me is not clear, I’m not interested
                      Quote: slan
                      paper models

                      plastic scale
                      Quote: slan
                      Before that I got an education about life

                      Metallurgical? Tank? Did you publish monographs?
                      Quote: slan
                      It’s just more expensive and it’s good when you can refuse it.

                      Do you advise me to read a textbook on metallurgy? And I recommend you on elementary logic --------
                      Quote: Kars
                      Also, this way allowed to abandon the 34С high hardness armor used in the production of T-8 in favor of less hard armor.

                      Is it logical, we have thickened the part, so let's reduce its hardness ---- it’s logical to use the best option for projectile resistance ---- in your presentation it is high hardness armor, but for some reason specialists want to reduce its hardness.
                      Quote: slan
                      It's just more expensive and it's good when there is an opportunity to refuse it. Actually for this reason, the Americans used "viscous" armor
                      The Americans had dozens of opportunities to reduce the cost of the tank, but for some reason, do you think they have worsened the armor, but left the seat upholstery and rubber tracks?

                      And answering your own question
                      An article from the site from where my last publication for the Military Review was taken in the sources indicated

                      Sources:
                      M. Postnikov. Armor protection of medium tanks T-34 1941-1945gg. M. Exprint 2004g.
                      M. Baryatinsky. Soviet tanks in battle. M. Yauza 2006
                      M. Svirin. The history of the Soviet tank 1937-1943gg. M. Yauza 2006
                      M. Svirin. The history of the Soviet tank 1943-1955. M. Yauza 2006
                      1. slan
                        slan 21 February 2012 21: 25
                        0
                        Quote: Kars
                        For general development, of course, it would be interesting to know the interpretation of the term you cite

                        I apologize. It was just that there was one troll from Ukraine. Also in his spare time he was interested in armored vehicles. Recently, he disappeared at last. Well, it seemed to me that you are his reincarnation, but he just keeps himself in control and refrains from ukrasrach. Painfully you stubbornly twisted everything, it seemed to me.
                        I apologize again. You just said nothing, I decided that it was a sign of consent. I won’t troll anymore.
                        But still read about the properties of steels and alloys and how to change them.
                        For the sake of logic, state your version of what "prevented" you from abandoning bad "solid" steel earlier?
                      2. Kars
                        Kars 21 February 2012 21: 33
                        0
                        Metallurgy itself doesn’t really bother me, but I know something about alloying elements, low carbon, high carbon, cementing, harveization, surface hardening.
                        Quote: slan
                        For the sake of logic, state your version of what "prevented" you from abandoning bad "solid" steel earlier?

                        First, find where I claimed that solid steel is bad?
                        But the thickness of the armor plate interfered, and the very principle of attitude towards it, regarding secondary fragments, and elementary manufacturing technologies that had already been launched ---- because it didn’t pass and the T-34 remained with the 45 mm forehead until the end of the war . But this does not mean at all that he was on 30% of Sherman’s armor, if it had been proved, then every memory where ..houl..sherman would have started from this
                      3. slan
                        slan 21 February 2012 22: 04
                        0
                        Clear. Another would argue ..
                      4. Kars
                        Kars 21 February 2012 22: 11
                        0
                        Quote: slan
                        Another would argue ..


                        About what?
                      5. slan
                        slan 21 February 2012 22: 47
                        0
                        Yes, the fact of the matter is that there is nothing.
                        You like Sherman, I didn’t like it, but thanks to you I changed my mind.
                        But to argue that the strength of a material is a function (so to speak) of hardness and the inverse viscosity function with an alternatively educated person makes no sense.
                      6. slan
                        slan 21 February 2012 23: 14
                        0
                        I apologize again. Pluses corrected the minuses, in fairness.
                        I just mistook you for another.
                      7. Kars
                        Kars 21 February 2012 23: 22
                        0
                        it happens that the last such incident cost me 2500 points, and this one is only about 300

                        And so in pursuit of steel on the T-34, it was developed at 1939-40
                        and provides invulnerability from the standard 37 mm anti-tank for that period, to counter which exactly high hardness was needed, besides, there were no so-called cap anti-tank shells
                      8. slan
                        slan 21 February 2012 23: 28
                        0
                        No, I couldn’t do so much.
                        I hope, but they argued productively, well, if rudeness is discarded. Personally, I fundamentally changed my mind about American designers of Sherman.
                      9. Kars
                        Kars 21 February 2012 23: 32
                        0
                        I'm glad I was interested too
                      10. Kars
                        Kars 21 February 2012 23: 36
                        0
                        So in the form of a bonus
                      11. Brother Sarych
                        Brother Sarych 22 February 2012 00: 00
                        0
                        Sherman has a hole, or even two, or something, right in front? Do not understand right away ...
                      12. Kars
                        Kars 22 February 2012 00: 29
                        0
                        Sometimes it happens
                2. slan
                  slan 21 February 2012 20: 43
                  0
                  By the way, I apologize, I did not read it carefully. Your quote does not claim that solid steel is inferior. It's just more expensive and it's good when there is an opportunity to refuse it. Actually for this reason, the Americans used "viscous" armor, and not because you subtracted it in the murzilki.
                  Still, read the textbook on the technology of metals and alloys, it is not at all fat. This will turn your worldview around, perhaps. Although, I think that it is useless to you. It is impossible to master algebra by skipping arithmetic.
                  Specialist in armored vehicles))) Nugget, unrecognized genius. I guess how hard it is in life with such a load ..
            3. slan
              slan 21 February 2012 20: 19
              0
              Quote: Kars

              And why did you get the idea that they are relatives? They held a candle

              This is 5!))
  14. Rock13_90
    Rock13_90 April 6 2014 17: 37
    0
    Is there any literature on the experimental tanks of the Soviet Union and other countries. If there is, please tell me the name and author