Military Review

And again about the "four" and "thirty-four"

171

This material is a continuation of the cycle dedicated to the evolution of the famous Soviet tank T-34, links to which are given at the end of the article. But so that the dear reader does not have to study my work on this topic, I will briefly summarize the main conclusions I made earlier. Of course - without detailed evidence. Thus, those who do not want to waste time studying my old articles will not lose anything.


And those who have read this cycle may still be interested, because the "conclusions of early materials" are made in the form of a comparison of the evolutions of the famous Soviet and main German medium tanks. We are talking, of course, about the T-34 and T-IV of all modifications.

About revision of views


It is well known that in Soviet times, the T-34 was hailed as the best tank of all times and peoples of the Second World War era. But later, after the collapse of the USSR, a different point of view appeared. Many quite rightly noted a number of advantages of the T-IV, which the German tank had at the initial stage of the war in comparison with the "thirty-four". We are talking about a high-quality engine and transmission, general technical reliability, ergonomics, a crew of 5, which allowed the tank commander to focus on observing the battlefield and control, and, of course, good (for a tank) opportunities to conduct this very observation. When the not quite long-barreled 75-mm cannon KwK 40 L / 43 was added to these indisputable advantages of the "brainchild of the gloomy Aryan genius", the superiority of the T-IV became completely indisputable. The installation of the more powerful KwK 40 L / 48 increased the gap in the combat capabilities of the T-34 and T-IV even more. Finally, the appearance of the T-34-85 neutralized or at least to a certain extent reduced the lag of the thirty-four from the T-IV, but by this time the German tank formations were receiving the Tigers and Panthers ...

In other words, today you can often see the point of view that the German T-IV with a long-barreled 75-mm cannon was superior to any modifications of the thirty-four with 76-mm artillery systems, and only the T-34-85 became its analogue, and even then with some reservations. But is it?

Pre-war period


I must say that the T-IV is significantly older than our thirty-four. The first vehicles of this type were the T-IV Ausf. A (model "A"), were created in 1936-1937.


Ausf. AND

Battle tanks Ausf. And it is very difficult to name it, if only because the thickness of the armor did not exceed 15-20 mm. However, only 35 of these machines were built, so modern historiography quite logically considers them to be pre-production.

The next were the Ausf. Q. They had some design differences, a better engine, a more modern gearbox, and the thickness of the frontal armor was increased to 30 mm. But even such machines were produced only 42, or 45 units, they were created in 1937-1938.

Thus, the first more or less serial modification was the Ausf. S. These machines were produced as much as 140 units, although 6 of them were immediately converted into bridgelayers. The differences from the previous version were minimal, so in principle Ausf. B and C, perhaps, can be counted in one series of relatively decent sizes. But this is already pure taste.


Ausf. FROM

The armament of the tanks of the aforementioned modifications was completely the same type and included a short-barreled 75 mm KwK 37 L / 24 push gun with an initial speed of 385 m / s and one 7,62 mm MG-34 machine gun. The increased armor protection, of course, affected the mass, which increased from 17,3 tons for the Ausf. And up to 18,5 tons for the Ausf. FROM.

Between the beginning of World War II and the Great Patriotic War


The next modification of the "four" - Ausf. D, was produced after the German attack on Poland, that is, in the period from October 1939 to May 1941. The release information differs: according to M. Baryatinsky, 229 tanks were produced, and either from this number, or an additional 10 vehicles were converted into bridges. According to other sources, a total of 248 vehicles began to be built, of which 232 were commissioned as tanks, the remaining 16 as bridgelayers, but then 3 units of this sapper equipment were converted back into tanks. The main difference was the outer mask of the gun (before that it was internal), the strengthening of the protection of the course machine gun, bringing the thickness of the armor of the sides and rear of the hull and turrets to 20 mm and the appearance of a second 7,62 mm machine gun. Now the tank had a thickness of the frontal parts of the hull and turret of 30 mm, the sides and stern of 20 mm, and the gun mantlet reached 35 mm. But it would be wrong to think that thereby the frontal armor of the Ausf. D then reached 65 mm - in fact, the frontal sheet and the gun mask practically did not overlap.

Almost parallel to the Ausf. D, the next modification of the Ausf. E.


M. Baryatinsky points out that from September 1940 to April 1941, 223 such vehicles entered service, according to other sources - 202 tanks and 4 more bridgelayers based on them. Difference from Ausf. D consisted in some reinforcement of the reservation - the lower frontal plate received a thickness of 50 mm. In addition, the upper and side armor plates of the hull received additional protection - 30 mm (forehead) and 20 mm (sides) plates were hung on them. Thus, the thickness of the armor of the vertically located armor plates of the hull was either 50 or 30 + 30 mm (forehead) and 20 + 20 mm (sides), but the tower remained the same - 35 mm gun mask, 30 mm forehead and 20 mm - side and stern. The commander's tower "thickened" from 50 to 95 mm.

It is Ausf. E should be considered the first modification of the T-IV, in which combat experience was taken into account. And this very experience irrefutably testified that the "four" with its 20-30 mm armor was too weakly protected and quite successfully hit by anti-tank artillery shells, even from long distances. Accordingly, it became necessary to urgently strengthen protection, which led to the addition of additional armor to the Ausf. E. Late T-IVDs received similar additional protection, but how much is unknown to me.

Of course, such attachment armor is noticeably better than nothing. However, such "shielding" by German designers was quite rightly revered as a half measure, and therefore in the following models the Germans switched from shielding to monolithic slabs. The forehead and turret mask, as well as the front frontal part of the Ausf. F was protected by 50 mm armor, the thickness of the sides and stern of the hull and turrets was increased to 30 mm. In total, from April 1941 to March 1942, either 462 (according to M. Baryatinsky), or 468 of these tanks and 2 chassis for them were produced, and 3 more tanks were converted into vehicles of the next modification. Interestingly, after the appearance of the next modification - Ausf. F2, these tanks changed their names to Ausf. F1.

In total, by the beginning of World War II, the German armed forces had 439 T-IV tanks of various modifications.

As for the T-34, I mentioned its characteristics earlier and I see no reason to detail them again. I will only note that the "thirty-four" was initially heavier than the T-IV, a vehicle - 26,5 tons, carried more powerful armor - 45 mm with rational angles of inclination and had a much more powerful 76-mm gun. In 1940, the L-34 was installed on the T-11, and later - the F-34 with an initial armor-piercing projectile speed of up to 655 m / s. Alas, possessing such significant advantages, the T-34 did not have a gunner in its crew, its observation devices turned out to be significantly worse than that of its German "colleague", and the engine was completely damp, like many other structural elements. In addition, the T-34 was at that time completely inconvenient to operate.

In total, in 1940 and the first half of 1941, 1225 "thirty-fours" were produced, while the troops numbered 1066.

Some conclusions


Very, very many fans of military stories today the dampness of the pre-war T-34s is perceived as evidence of the well-known "curvature" of domestic designers. Another thing is German quality standards, which we could only envy. Formally, this is the case, but there is a nuance.

Indeed, at the beginning of World War II and, even more so, the Great Patriotic War, the T-IV was a technically quite reliable vehicle. But what provided this very reliability? The genius of German design thought, coupled with the skill of German workers, or is it the fact that this tank has been in operation since 1937, and all design flaws have simply been corrected on it?

After all, if you look impartially, it turns out that the products of the German tank industry immediately after launching into production did not at all amaze the imagination with their unsurpassed quality. The first modifications of the T-I and T-II entered the troops from 1934 and 1936. accordingly, and, it would seem, the German military had more than enough time to test this military equipment before the Anschluss of Austria. But in 1938, German tank forces literally collapsed during the campaign to Vienna. They collapsed on quite decent roads and without any enemy resistance: according to some reports, up to half of the German tanks that participated in that operation were out of action. I think everyone has heard a lot about the technical rawness of "Tigers" and "Panthers" of the first issues. Accordingly, there is no certainty that the first serial T-III and T-IV were distinguished by some kind of super-reliability. It is entirely possible to assume that the technical quality of the "triplets" and "fours" that hit the USSR in June 1941 is a consequence of their many years of operation in the troops, during which the vehicles were brought to the required level. But our T-34s, which were transferred to the troops in some significant quantities only from November 1940, these "file modifications" had yet to go through.


Photo: A.V. Karpenko http://bastion-karpenko.narod.ru

In other words, if we are to compare the level of design thought and technology, then we should compare the technical reliability of the T-34 mod. 1941 with that of the T-IV Ausf. B or C immediately after leaving the conveyor. And here, it seems to me, the result may not be as devastating for the T-34, which arises when comparing the "thirty-four" mod. 1941 and T-IV Ausf. F.

By the time of the attack on the USSR, the Wehrmacht formations located on the Soviet-German border did not have medium tanks at all comparable in armament to the T-34, and only a small part of them possessed ... no, not that good, but at least somewhat adequate booking.

The most massive at that time "four" modifications of the Ausf. C and Ausf. D with their frontal armor of 30 mm and sides - 20 mm by the standards of 1941 were frankly weakly protected. Of course, the Ausf. E, with its overhead armor plates on paper, looked much more solid, with its combined armor thickness of 50-60 mm (forehead) and 40 mm (side). But this is if we forget that two armor plates have less durability than monolithic armor of the same thickness.

When in 1942 British engineers got their hands on the T-IV Ausf. E, they, having properly “mocked” the “miracle of hostile technology”, came to rather unexpected conclusions. It turned out that a standard British two-pounder anti-tank gun, firing a 40 (42) mm AP round with an initial velocity of 792 m / s, penetrated the frontal armor of the Ausf. E, starting at 500 yards, or 457 m. The side armor did not withstand impact from almost a kilometer (1000 yards). The Soviet 45-mm anti-tank gun of the 1937 model sent an armor-piercing projectile into flight with an initial speed of 760 m / s, that is, if it was inferior to the British two-pounder, it was by no means an order of magnitude. Thus, only about 100 Ausf had more or less acceptable armor protection. F (T-IV release in April-June 1941), and, of course, not all of them were concentrated in the East by the beginning of the invasion.

As for the T-IV armament, all the modifications listed above carried the 75 mm KwK 37 L / 24 push. This artillery system with a barrel length of as much as 24 caliber significantly surpassed the 37-mm "beaters" installed on most other German tanks in terms of impact on targets unprotected by armor. Shooting a convoy of trucks, “throwing” shells at the positions of an anti-tank battery, suppressing infantry in trenches - the KwK 37 L / 24 coped well with all this. But it was almost useless for dealing with tanks with anti-cannon armor, such as the T-34 and KV. Today they talk a lot about German cumulative shells, and yes - they really gave some chances to hit Soviet armored vehicles. But still, these shells then did not become effective yet. weapons, which is why, despite their mass production, Germany still had to rely on a drastic increase in calibers and an increase in the characteristics of guns used as anti-tank guns.

Undoubtedly, in 1941 Germany was able to use its tanks, including the T-IV, much more efficiently than the Red Army - its own, including the T-34 and KV. Of course, a huge role here was played by the better training of the Wehrmacht tankers of all ranks, together with the great combat experience accumulated in Poland and France. All this was embodied in a tactical advantage that allowed the Germans to send their tanks into battle where and when and where they were really needed. In 1941, the Germans perfectly knew how to use tank formations, which consisted of diverse forces - infantry, field artillery, anti-tank equipment and, in fact, tanks. They skillfully "juggled" on their own, constantly winning in "rock-paper-scissors": they suppressed the infantry defense with artillery and tanks, substituted anti-tank weapons under our tank counterattacks, etc. Of course, the total advantage in communication means played a huge role here. possessed by the German troops. For example, this is how E. Manstein, who commanded the 56th Panzer Corps, describes communications:

Of course, I could constantly move and still continue to command the troops only because I constantly took a radio station with me in a car under the command of our excellent communications officer, later Major of the General Staff Kohler. With surprising speed, he skillfully established radio communication with the divisions, as well as with the command post, and supported it during the trips. Therefore, I was always aware of the situation in the entire corps sector, and those orders that I gave on the spot were immediately sent to the operational group of the headquarters, he himself received information in the same timely manner

In other words, Manstein did not even need to be at the headquarters in order to constantly have information about his troops. In the Red Army, things were, to put it mildly, much worse. Even much later, having launched an offensive, the commanders of large formations often had to personally go around the units in the evening to find out what they had achieved over the past day. And in 1941 it happened many times that the transmission of information to the headquarters of the corps or army and the delivery of orders to the units based on this information was so late that the orders themselves became completely irrelevant.

But if we take a purely technical aspect, then the German T-IV of all modifications, miserably losing to the T-34 in artillery and defense, nevertheless had an advantage in:

1) Technical reliability
2) Ergonomics
3) Situational awareness

And this, together with other advantages, alas, turned out to be enough to dominate the battlefields. Did all of the above mean that the T-IV was superior to the T-34? Still - hardly. Yes, the Soviet tanks, in comparison with the German ones, were literally "blind" at that time, but ... The rhino sees badly too. However, with its weight and skin thickness, these are not his problems.

What happened next? June 1941 - December 1942


In March 1942, production of the Ausf. F, and the next modification of the T-IV - Ausf. F2. This tank was almost identical to the Ausf. F except that it housed a 75mm KwK.40 L / 43 with a barrel length, as seen from the designation, 43 caliber. The exception was 8 machines, which were either welded or bolted onto the 50 mm frontal parts with an additional 30 mm armor plate. Formally, this modification did not last long, only 3 months from March to April 1942, and during this time only 175 T-IV Ausf. F2, and 25 more have been converted from Ausf. F (or Ausf. F1, if you like).

The next "type" of T-IV was Ausf. G., produced from May 1942 to June 1943 in the amount of 1687 units. In fact, it is hardly possible to call it a modification, because initially there was no modification. It's just that the Arms Directorate didn't like the designation Ausf. F2, and it replaced it with Ausf. G. The tank itself remained unchanged, so in fact the same Ausf. F2, but under a different abbreviation.


However, time passed, and Ausf. G. has received significant improvements. First, the armor was strengthened, as it became clear that even a 50 mm "forehead" against Soviet 76-mm artillery systems was such a protection. Accordingly, an additional 30 mm armor plate was welded onto the vertically located frontal part (or mounted with bolts). Of the total number of 1687 units. T-IV Ausf. G, about 700 tanks received such protection, in addition, the last 412 vehicles received the 48-mm KwK.75 L / 40 cannon extended to 48 calibers.

And what about the T-34?


Alas, our tank, from the point of view of purely combat characteristics, at the end of 1942 differed little from the pre-war vehicles. The size of the crew, armament and booking remained approximately the same, the observation devices remained practically unchanged, etc., etc.

Of course, in June 1941, the armor of the T-34 could be considered cannon-proof. This does not mean, of course, that the tank could not have been knocked out from the 37 mm Pak 35/36 anti-tank gun, the most common in the Wehrmacht, but it was very difficult to do this. And the Germans, faced with our tanks, during 1942 made tremendous efforts to saturate their battle formations with 50-75-mm anti-tank artillery, not shying away from putting Soviet and French captured guns into operation. And these are not isolated cases. The share of French guns in the total number of 75-mm anti-tank guns received by the German Armed Forces in 1942 was more than 52%.

Accordingly, the armor of the T-34 gradually lost its anti-cannon-protection status, and the superiority over German tanks in armament was nullified by the installation on the T-IV, starting with the Ausf. F2, 75 mm KwK.40 L / 43. This artillery system in its "armor-piercing" capabilities surpassed the domestic F-34, which was equipped with "thirty-four" both in initial speed (the difference was about 80-100 m / s for different types of armor-piercing shells), and in the quality of these same armor-piercing shells.

Thus, the advantages of the T-34 were gradually lost, but the disadvantages in the form of poor visibility, etc., remained evident. To this should be added the still less combat skill of our tank crews in comparison with the most experienced Panzerwaffe. Although we studied quickly, so at least this gap by the end of 1942 had already been largely closed. But the Germans still had the most important advantage of the German tank forces, namely: the ability to competently use heterogeneous forces - tanks, anti-tank guns, field artillery, infantry, etc. The German tank division was an excellent tool for mobile warfare. At the same time, the Red Army at the end of 1941 was compelled to return altogether to the tank brigades attached to the infantry units in one direction or another. This tactic turned out to be vicious: firstly, the combat coordination with the infantry and artillery turned out to be at an unacceptably low level, and secondly, the infantry commanders, being older in rank, often did not know the specifics of the tank forces and simply "plugged" the "For them, parts of the gap in the defense. Or thrown into attacks, regardless of losses.

Yes, starting in March 1942, the Red Army began to create tank corps, but the lack of material led to the fact that it was still not possible to form formations like the German TD. With a more or less comparable number of tanks, the German tank division had two regiments of motorized infantry, our MK - one brigade. At the disposal of the German tank commanders were much more numerous and powerful artillery: field, anti-tank, anti-aircraft. The German division was also in the lead in cars both in absolute terms and in terms of a thousand personnel. And in addition to combat formations, it had numerous support units, which the Soviet tank corps in 1942 were deprived of.

Of course, in 1941-1942, our tank forces were inferior to the German ones. And a natural question arises - why did our designers not try to modernize the "thirty-four" in order to somehow neutralize this German advantage? Moreover, the shortcomings of the T-34 were obvious, in general, even before the war. That is why at the beginning of 1941 the T-34 was viewed as a tank of a transitional period: it was planned that our enterprises would smoothly switch to the production of a much more advanced T-34M, which had a wide turret ring, and a crew of 5 people, and a torsion bar suspension, and a commander's turret. Interestingly, the first 500 T-34Ms were expected already in 1941.

However, the war made its own adjustments - the T-34M needed a different diesel engine, and all forces were sent to fine-tune the B-2, moreover, in its original form, the thirty-four remained a rather formidable battle tank. But it was not at all that reliable and relatively easy-to-manufacture combat vehicle, which we used to imagine. As a result, in 1941-1942. The T-34 has undergone major, though not very noticeable, changes. They concerned not the combat performance characteristics of the thirty-four, but improving the design, adapting it to mass production and increasing the reliability of the tank's mechanisms.

So, in January 1942, 770 tank parts were changed, and 1 names of parts were excluded from the design. Later, in 265, 1942 more names of parts were no longer used in the T-34. The introduction of automatic welding "dropped" the requirements for the qualifications of workers and labor costs for production. The refusal to machine the welded edges of the armored parts led to a decrease in labor intensity from 4 to 972 machine-hours per set. The rental of measuring strips reduced labor costs for parts by 280%, consumption of armor steel by 62%, etc.

In other words, yes, the performance characteristics of the T-34 in 1941-1942. did not grow. But thanks to the efforts of our designers and technologists, the T-34 from an expensive and complex machine in production has turned into a relatively cheap and suitable for mass production product. This, in turn, made it possible to quickly expand the production of thirty-fours at factories that had not previously created medium tanks. And here is the result: if in 1941 only 3 cars were produced, then in 016 - 1942!

The successes of the German tank industry were much more modest. The T-IV was produced in 1941, 480 vehicles, and in 1942 - 994. Of course, it should be borne in mind that in addition to the T-IV, the Germans also made other armored vehicles that performed the tasks of medium and heavy tanks, but still.

And again about the "four" and "thirty-four"

In general, it can be stated that in the period 1941-1942, producing the T-34 in the "initial" pre-war version and refining its manufacturing technology, parts and assemblies, the USSR industry provided itself an excellent reserve for the future. If before the war only 2 factories could produce T-34s, and one of them (STZ) fell into the hands of the enemy, then by the end of 1942 the thirty-four was assembled at 5 factories. At the same time, in June 1941, 256 tanks were produced, and in December 1942 - 1 tanks. Also, the technical reliability of the T-568 was significantly improved.

Alas, for this, in every respect, impressive result had to pay dearly. In 1942, our tank industry laid the foundation for a future victory, but it was generously watered with the blood of tank crews, who perished, among other things, for technical reasons: poor visibility, lack of a gunner, etc.

Did we have any other choice then? Most probably not. To switch to a new model of a medium tank, to train new factories in its production, to face a mass of "childhood diseases" ... Yes, of course, many people argue in the style of "better less, but better quality." But, firstly, the same T-34M would have had to be finished for a long time, and it would have become technically reliable later than it happened with the T-34. And secondly, I'm not at all sure that one T-34M could replace two or three T-34s of the 1941 model at the end of 1942. Of course, the losses of tank crews in this case would be much lower. And who will consider the additional losses among those who survived only because they were covered by tanks, albeit not ideal, but still? It is far from a fact that the transition to the same T-34M would reduce the losses of our troops as a whole. Tankers would have died less, but infantrymen, artillerymen and our other soldiers who had to fight without the support of "armor" - clearly more.

On the other hand, the question remains - could it really have been impossible to carry out at least some point improvements, like equipping the thirty-fours with the same commander's cupola?

The conclusion from the above will be this: in 1941, in the "dispute" between the T-34 and T-IV, it was very difficult to give the palm to one or another tank - both had distinct advantages, but also equally obvious disadvantages. If in 1942 the Germans significantly improved the fighting qualities of their "fours", then the T-34 in this respect remained what it was. Accordingly, taking into account the other factors listed above, 1942 can be safely considered the time when the superiority of the German Panzerwaffe over our tank forces in general and the superiority of the T-IV over the thirty-four in particular reached its climax. But then ...

To be continued!

Articles from this series:

Why did the T-34 lose to the PzKpfw III, but beat the "Tigers" and "Panthers"
Why did the T-34 lose to the PzKpfw III, but beat the Tigers and Panthers? Part 2
Why did the T-34 lose to the PzKpfw III, but beat the Tigers and Panthers? Part 3
Why did the T-34 lose to the PzKpfw III, but beat the Tigers and Panthers? Completion of the design
Pre-war structure of the armored troops of the Red Army
Why did the T-34 lose to the PzKpfw III, but beat the Tigers and Panthers? Return to the brigades
Why did the T-34 lose to the PzKpfw III, but beat the Tigers and Panthers? Revival of tank corps
Soviet and German tank losses in 1942 year. Be careful with the statistics!
1942 year. German response to T-34 and KV
Top of "thirty-four" with 76,2-mm cannon, or T-34 model 1943 against T-IVH
The loss of Soviet and German armored vehicles in 1943 year. Kursk arc
About the irretrievable loss of armored vehicles of the USSR and Germany in 1943
TV "Panther": "thirty-four" of the Wehrmacht
T-V "Panther". A little more about the "Panzerwaffe cat"
The evolution of medium tanks in 1942-1943 in the USSR. T-43
Author:
171 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Revolver
    Revolver 12 December 2020 04: 03
    +20
    7,62 mm MG-34 machine gun

    It always seemed to me that the standard German rifle and machine gun caliber was 7.92mm.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MG_34
    1. NDR-791
      NDR-791 12 December 2020 06: 07
      +9
      Just a mistake, nothing personal lol
      1. mat-vey
        mat-vey 12 December 2020 06: 48
        +8
        Quote: NDR-791
        Just a mistake, nothing personal lol

        Klaxic eyecloth.
    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      12 December 2020 10: 40
      +13
      Alas, Freud's mistake ... crying
  2. mat-vey
    mat-vey 12 December 2020 06: 48
    +14
    "If in 1942 the Germans significantly improved the fighting qualities of their fours, then the T-34 in this respect remained what it was." - in 1942, God forbid, in connection with the evacuation and restructuring of industry, what had already been done before was put into production again.
    1. Kote Pan Kokhanka
      Kote Pan Kokhanka 12 December 2020 17: 40
      +3
      If before the war only 2 factories could produce T-34s, and one of them (STZ) fell into the hands of the enemy, then by the end of 1942 the thirty-four was assembled at 5 factories.

      The T-34m was planned to be produced at the Kharkov plant in cooperation with the Mariupol plant. So probably three. Although this does not change anything. At the beginning of the war, both were occupied.
      Thank you for your work, I read it with pleasure!
  3. Bashkirkhan
    Bashkirkhan 12 December 2020 06: 55
    +5
    An interesting article, Andrey has quality content as always. drinks Serial production of the T-34 at several factories, increasing the reliability of units, simplicity of design and, accordingly, "1941 tanks were produced in June 256, and 1942 tanks in December 1." That is, they increased it 568 (!) Times.
  4. andrewkor
    andrewkor 12 December 2020 07: 18
    +26
    On the issue of the combat use of the Panzerwaffe, I would like to add the esteemed Author. He omitted to mention the interaction with the Luftwaffe. The practice of the advanced aircraft controllers had a stunning effect in suppressing any resistance to the advancing tank wedges.
  5. apro
    apro 12 December 2020 07: 31
    +3
    An interesting topic. The use of the chassis of the four for various systems. On the 34e it was not widely practiced. The PT sau appeared rather early, and the ZSU was not at all. Even the tow truck was mainly front-line alterations.
    1. Jager
      Jager 12 December 2020 12: 11
      +12
      In the 41st ACS were not considered at all. In 42, problems with technology and quality were solved. SU-122 went into operation in December 42nd.
      The author forgot to mention that the "ergonomics" of the Pz. III, Pz. IV was achieved by a large number of hatches and hatches, which seriously weakened the structure. The same doors to the half-tower do not stand up to criticism from the point of view of projectile resistance.
      I want to say that the variants of "triplets" and "fours" were VERY different from each other, which led to additional difficulties in supply and repair.
    2. Aviator_
      Aviator_ 12 December 2020 18: 44
      +2
      With anti-aircraft artillery, especially small caliber (25 - 37 mm), it was generally disgusting for us at the beginning of the war. There was not even enough in the towing version, where can we make prototypes of "Shilok". This is the result of the delusional ideas of the "innocently repressed" Tukhachevsky with his "universal tool". They were repressed late, it should have been earlier.
      1. Crane
        Crane 12 December 2020 19: 13
        +3
        They were repressed late, it should have been earlier.
        =======
        Or you can just fire it, and that's it. (C)
        1. Aviator_
          Aviator_ 12 December 2020 19: 39
          +1
          And you read Grabin's "Weapon of Victory".
        2. The comment was deleted.
        3. Siberian54
          Siberian54 16 February 2021 12: 35
          0
          There was no such option in Soviet law before the war, only for health reasons.
          1. lelik613
            lelik613 1 March 2021 04: 43
            0
            Well, foolishly ...
            1. Siberian54
              Siberian54 1 March 2021 20: 39
              0
              Foolishly, they went to the zone ..
  6. svp67
    svp67 12 December 2020 07: 45
    +12
    That the "four", that the "thirty-four" are both tank-soldiers, who carried the whole of World War II on their armor, and then fought even after. Each had its own advantages and disadvantages, but if the "four" grew only to the "Tiger", on which it ended its development, then the "thirty-four" was able to "grow" to the T-90, and this already says something.
    And so, of course, these tanks already had to be changed to more advanced designs in the 43rd year, but here the Germans certainly miscalculated by putting on the "Panther", but in the USSR they did not dare to change the "titmouse for a crane". And now we can condemn both the Germans and our side for such decisions for a long time, but for this we have a more or less peaceful sky, a lot of data and an easy chair, but people then somehow did not have all this.
    1. Bashkirkhan
      Bashkirkhan 12 December 2020 08: 16
      +9
      Quote: svp67
      "thirty-four" was able to "grow" to the T-90, and this already says something.

      hi Is this conclusion based on the presence of a V-2 diesel engine?
      1. svp67
        svp67 12 December 2020 08: 44
        +4
        Quote: Bashkirkhan
        Is this conclusion based on the presence of a V-2 diesel engine?

        From the phased development
        1. Bashkirkhan
          Bashkirkhan 12 December 2020 08: 52
          +12
          And what did Leopard 2A7 grow out of?
          1. svp67
            svp67 12 December 2020 08: 53
            +11
            Quote: Bashkirkhan
            And what did Leopard 2A7 grow out of?

            From MVT-70
            1. Filxnumx
              Filxnumx 12 December 2020 11: 17
              +3
              For MVT-70:
              In 1962, an agreement was reached between the United States and the Federal Republic of Germany on the joint development of a main battle tank to replace the M60 (simultaneously with the modernization program of the latter, which ultimately won for economic reasons). This agreement was aimed at creating a common model for the armies of both countries by 1970, and the agreement provided for the termination of independent developments in this area. Due to the exceeding of expenses by more than 5 times, the occurrence of conceptual and technical disagreements between the parties, the MVT-70 project was closed.
              Leo-2 "grew" not from the MVT-70 project, but thanks to the experience gained in the course of R&D data.
              1. svp67
                svp67 12 December 2020 11: 28
                +3
                Quote: Fil743
                Leo-2 "grew" not from the MVT-70 project, but thanks to the experience gained in the course of R&D data.

                Yes, what are you saying ... And many decisions, for the same chassis, hull shapes, especially in the MTO area, MTO designs, haven't they gone straight to Leo-2?
                This is understandable, since a lot of money had already been spent, but the tank was never received, but it was needed, and therefore they used these developments when creating new combat vehicles, both Leo-2 and M-1.
        2. Filxnumx
          Filxnumx 12 December 2020 10: 43
          +14
          the development of the T-34 was completed on the T-55. Do not confuse hard with cold.
          1. svp67
            svp67 12 December 2020 11: 38
            +7
            Quote: Fil743
            the development of the T-34 was completed on the T-55. Do not confuse hard with cold.

            You would have figured it out well, the fact that Czechoslovakia did not produce the T-62 does not mean that it was not and it is a direct development of the T-55, and already from the T-62 the "bridge" is thrown to the T-72, and there and further
            1. Catfish
              Catfish 12 December 2020 12: 10
              +7
              They forgot about the "sixty-four", then it was considered a breakthrough in tank building, in spite of all the shortcomings, the "first pancake" of new generation tanks.
              1. svp67
                svp67 12 December 2020 16: 15
                +3
                Quote: Sea Cat
                They forgot about the "sixty-four", then it was considered a breakthrough in tank building, in spite of all the shortcomings, the "first pancake" of new generation tanks.

                With this tank it is a little more difficult, it has more "generic features" of our heavy tanks than the T-34
          2. Simargl
            Simargl 12 December 2020 12: 39
            -1
            Quote: Fil743
            the development of the T-34 was completed on the T-55. Do not confuse hard with cold.
            The development of the T-34 was completed on the A-43 (T-34M). Don't confuse cold with green!
            1. svp67
              svp67 12 December 2020 16: 17
              +5
              Quote: Simargl
              Don't confuse cold with green!

              Do not confuse this all "green". The T-44 is a direct continuation of the T-34, it just collected a maximum of changes, which even then suggested themselves from the experience of operating both the T-34 itself and the experimental tanks created on its basis, but a lot passed from the T-34.
              On the first T-44s, they even made an inspection hatch ...


              As in the first, very first T-34 ... where the hatch for the exit mech-water was on top
              1. Simargl
                Simargl 12 December 2020 19: 01
                0
                Quote: svp67
                T-44 is a direct continuation of the T-34
                In what places? This tide was made for the convenience of the testers, not for the series. On serial it is nowhere to be found.
                The bottom photo is not the T-34, but the A34, which is not exactly the same (prototype).
                Exhibiting a photo of the team model is so-so.

                Quote: svp67
                he just collected a maximum of changes, which even then suggested themselves from the experience of operating both the T-34 itself and the experimental tanks created on its basis, but a lot passed from the T-34.
                From the T-34 he got the tower. So what? In some kind of reincarnation - the engine. Gusli. But all this was set up in order not to fence the garden. However, the tower was also from the IS-2.
                Most of the solutions on the T-34 were not applied. The same torsion bar suspension came on the A-43, at about the same time as on the T-44.
                1. svp67
                  svp67 12 December 2020 19: 21
                  +2
                  Quote: Simargl
                  The bottom photo is not the T-34, but the A34, which is not exactly the same (prototype).

                  No, these are the tanks that went on the famous "spring run to Moscow", even in the film "Tanks" ("See Stalin") they tried to portray such a "fur-water booth." And it was abandoned after the shelling at the range, carried out immediately after this run.
                  Quote: Simargl
                  From the T-34 he got the tower. So what?

                  Not only, but to the same extent he got rollers, caterpillars, a drive wheel with its ridge engagement, side clutches, a gearbox.
                  1. Simargl
                    Simargl 12 December 2020 19: 24
                    +1
                    Quote: svp67
                    No, these are the tanks that went to the famous "spring run to Moscow", even in the film "T-34" they tried to portray such a "booth, mech-water".
                    They were A-34s, if anything.

                    Quote: svp67
                    To the same extent, he got rollers, caterpillars, a drive wheel with its ridge engagement, side clutches, a gearbox.
                    Rollers - smaller, tracks - so as not to change the equipment, Drive wheel - one tooth more, it seems (but it is determined by the design of the tracks).
                    1. svp67
                      svp67 12 December 2020 19: 52
                      +3
                      Quote: Simargl
                      Rollers - smaller, tracks - so as not to change the equipment, Drive wheel - one tooth more, it seems (but it is determined by the design of the tracks).

                      Well, yes, the tower was different there, and not the same as on the T-35/85, and if you approach the design of the vehicles in this way, then the T-44 and the T-54 have little that connects, there is also all the structural elements tank changes were made, where small, and where a complete replacement was made
                      1. Simargl
                        Simargl 12 December 2020 20: 03
                        0
                        Quote: svp67
                        then the T-44 with the T-54 is not enough, which connects
                        Concept.
                        Let's walk from bow to stern and list what is very different there ...
                        T-34 / T-44 / T-54.
                        1 - NLD - the same for everyone (the differences are not fundamental), o / o / o,
                        2 - VLD - at the T-34 with a hatch,
                        3 - fenders niches - T-34 has,
                        4 - suspension - T-44/54 - one type,
                        5 - the location of the tower - the front one for the T-34, almost in the middle - for the T-44/54.
                        6 - weight distribution ...
                        Can continue
                      2. svp67
                        svp67 12 December 2020 20: 11
                        +1
                        Quote: Simargl
                        Concept.

                        You rush with such sonorous words that it takes you already in shock ...
                        Conception (from Lat. Conceptio "system of understanding"): a complex of views on something, related to each other and forming an interconnected system; a certain way of understanding, interpreting any phenomena; the main point of view, the guiding idea for their coverage ...

                        According to the concept, these are tanks of the same row - medium.
                        If you were to say something about the design, in conjunction with the word "concept", then I would have understood, but I said earlier that the changes in the T-34 tank and its transformation into the T-90 took place in stages, one might say "step by step ", where the steps were" small "and where they were" big ", but this is a phased development.
                        What can not be said about the same T-64, this tank, although it was created to replace the "T-34 family", but it was different in all the basic engineering solutions, completely different
                      3. Simargl
                        Simargl 12 December 2020 20: 29
                        +1
                        Quote: svp67
                        According to the concept, these are tanks of the same row - medium.
                        By mass. Okay, I was stupid with the word. However, in terms of layout and technology, they differ radically.
                        Quote: svp67
                        changes in the T-34 tank and its transformation into the T-90 took place in stages
                        Totally agree!
                        1 - threw out the suspension - stuck from the KV,
                        2 - the engine was pissed off - turned around,
                        3 - the transmission has been radically redesigned. They made practically a new one.
                        4 - the tower was dragged away so that the hatch in the VLD had to be done only until the normal triplexes arrived,
                        5 - got a taste and stuck a cannon from the IS-2. Then, of course, they became modest.
                        Quote: svp67
                        where the steps were "small" and where the "big"
                        Actually, the T-44 looks more like the IS-2.
                        Quote: svp67
                        What cannot be said about the same T-64, although this tank was created to replace the "T-34 family"
                        T-34?! What wild nonsense ?! By that time, the T-34 was not remembered in production, probably ...
                      4. svp67
                        svp67 12 December 2020 21: 41
                        +3
                        Quote: Simargl
                        By that time, the T-34 was not remembered in production, probably ...

                        But the generic features, in the form of large rollers, the absence of supporting rollers, the presence of an engine of the B-2 family, remained on those tanks
                    2. dgonni
                      dgonni 12 December 2020 23: 06
                      +2
                      The T-44 is a conceptually completely new vehicle compared to the T-34. T-54/55 is its further development with the reworking of the turret for a 100mm gun and a suspension for a small-link caterpillar. In fact, the ideal of a medium tank. That is to say, his apogee.
                      The T-64 is again a completely new conceptual vehicle that replaced the heavy and medium tanks. Giving the world a new designation for the main tank!
                      Armament and Armor Heavy Medium Mobility!
                      The T-72 series is a mobilization version of the T-64, sawn with tagil beyond recognition for its technological capabilities. Although initially the usual 64ka was supposed to be produced only with an engine a la modernized B-2.
                      Erzats mobilization so to speak.
                      The T-90 is an attempt to bring the poor T-72ku to the level of the T-80u / 80ud.
                      The T-14 is also a conceptually new vehicle, although it came out of Soviet developments such as the Hammer Boxer and the Rossmy Black Eagle and the T-95.
                    3. svp67
                      svp67 13 December 2020 08: 31
                      0
                      Quote: dgonni
                      The T-44 is a conceptually completely new vehicle compared to the T-34.

                      And in comparison with the T-34M arr. 40?
                      Quote: dgonni
                      The T-90 is an attempt to bring the poor T-72ku to the level of the T-80u / 80ud.

                      And how did it go?
                      Quote: dgonni
                      The T-14 is also a conceptually new vehicle, although it came out of Soviet developments such as the Hammer Boxer and the Rossmy Black Eagle and the T-95.

                      Hammer, Boxer, like the Rebel, as well as the Black Eagle, have a very indirect relationship to the T-14, but the missile Object 287 created in Leningrad by Kotin and of course the T-95, yes, this is its forerunner
        3. svp67
          svp67 12 December 2020 20: 00
          +1
          Quote: Simargl
          Exhibiting a photo of the team model is so-so.

          Please, here is an archive photo of the T-44 sample of 1944
          1. Simargl
            Simargl 12 December 2020 20: 31
            0
            Quote: svp67
            Please
            AND? Inspection hatch. Due to the lack of high-quality optics for triplexes, I had to embed. So what? On the T-34, the hatch did not climb from above at all.
            1. svp67
              svp67 12 December 2020 21: 42
              0
              Quote: Simargl
              On the T-34, the hatch did not climb from above at all.

              Climbed, on the first T-34s, those that still went under the index "A" the mechanic drive hatch was on top
  • WapentakeLokki
    WapentakeLokki 12 December 2020 22: 02
    0
    ..and maybe because in 1945 the USSR took Berlin .. otherwise it could be said that the Leopard grew out of the Panther !!!
  • Simargl
    Simargl 12 December 2020 10: 42
    +6
    Quote: svp67
    then the "thirty-four" was able to "grow" to the T-90, and this already says something.
    Unfortunately, this speaks of a sick fantasy (why not the T-14?):
    1 - the torsion bar suspension was implemented earlier and not at all in the T-34, where it is spring-loaded,
    2 - the engine is turned across, the transmission has been greatly redesigned.
    This is the minimum that can be said.
    1. svp67
      svp67 12 December 2020 11: 01
      +2
      Quote: Simargl
      1 - the torsion bar suspension was implemented earlier and not at all in the T-34, where it is spring-loaded,

      It was implemented on the T-44, although even EARLIER, its installation was planned on the T-34M
      Quote: Simargl
      2 - the engine is turned across, the transmission has been greatly redesigned.

      Again, this was produced on the T-44 and some elements from the T-34 were also used in its transmission.
      1. Jager
        Jager 12 December 2020 12: 14
        +5
        The KV with its torsion bar suspension smokes alone on the sidelines.
        1. svp67
          svp67 12 December 2020 16: 19
          +2
          Quote: Jager
          The KV with its torsion bar suspension smokes alone on the sidelines.

          As well as the German Pz-III, which our tankers demanded to copy as much as possible, after acquaintance, and the "progenitor" of the KV tank SMK, generally "quietly crying on the sidelines", is forgotten, abandoned
      2. Simargl
        Simargl 12 December 2020 12: 37
        +4
        Quote: svp67
        It was implemented on the T-44, although even EARLIER, its installation was planned on the T-34M
        T-34M appeared before the KV ?! What a bad luck! I missed something. T-70, apparently, also later ...
        Quote: svp67
        some elements from the T-34 are still used in its transmission.
        Trucks first?
        The T-44, like the Renault FT-17, is a milestone in the history of tank building! The second is generally the forerunner of the classic layout, the first is a role model for 70 !!! years ahead.
        1. svp67
          svp67 12 December 2020 16: 13
          -1
          Quote: Simargl
          T-34M appeared before the KV ?!

          And when did the MC-1 with its transverse engine mount appear?
          1. Simargl
            Simargl 12 December 2020 18: 40
            0
            Quote: svp67
            And when did the MC-1 with its transverse engine mount appear?
            Your alternative, adequate interpretation of the texts is not conducive to communication. Take the trouble to understand the text.
            1. svp67
              svp67 12 December 2020 18: 59
              0
              Quote: Simargl
              Take the trouble to understand the text.

              Take the trouble to explain what the "alternative" is?
              1. Simargl
                Simargl 12 December 2020 19: 08
                +2
                I showed that the Renault FT-17, and therefore its direct successor to the MC-1, was a milestone in history, and not a prototype for the T-44.
                A milestone is when before this tank they fenced off all kinds of game from Michelangelo, Porokhovshchikov, Lebedenko to quite bearable diamond-shaped ones. And then everyone agreed that the FT-17's layout was almost perfect (except for the "chariot", but it's not really a tank). And before the appearance of the T-14, everything remained the same as in the FT-17 with, in fact, small deviations.
                1. lucul
                  lucul 12 December 2020 19: 20
                  -6
                  I showed that the Renault FT-17, and therefore its direct successor to the MC-1, was a milestone in history, and not a prototype for the T-44.

                  And what breakthrough was the FT-17 able to accomplish in its concept? )))
                  1. Simargl
                    Simargl 12 December 2020 19: 21
                    +3
                    Quote: lucul
                    And what such a breakthrough was the FT-17 able to accomplish
                    In principle, nothing.
                    The fact that he was the first is so, worthless particulars.
                    1. lucul
                      lucul 12 December 2020 19: 24
                      -3
                      The fact that he was the first is so, worthless particulars.

                      The first is what? )))
                    2. Simargl
                      Simargl 12 December 2020 19: 25
                      +1
                      Quote: lucul
                      The first is what? )))
                      belay Read above.

                      Quote: Simargl
                      The T-44, like the Renault FT-17, is a milestone in the history of tank building! The second is generally the forerunner of the classic layout, the first is a role model for 70 !!! years ahead.
                    3. lucul
                      lucul 12 December 2020 19: 30
                      -6
                      Read above.

                      That is, they wrote it themselves, and you quote yourself, as an authority - it is strong, I already have fat flowed from the screen)))
                      Can you point to wars in which the FT-17 had a decisive influence on the war? )))
                    4. Simargl
                      Simargl 12 December 2020 19: 33
                      +3
                      Quote: lucul
                      That is, you wrote it yourself, and you quote yourself, as an authority - I already have fat dripping from the screen
                      I expressed my opinion. You are asking a question, the answer to which is the opinion I have already expressed.
                      And what should I do in this case? Repeat the same thing every time? Or show that you do not bother reading and climb into a branch? I am not against the fact that someone inserts their own word, but if only in the mind.
                      Why repeat it?
                      Quote: lucul
                      Can you point to wars in which the FT-17 had a decisive influence on the war?
                      Mark-1/2 had a decisive influence. And only they. Even the T-34 failed.
                    5. lucul
                      lucul 12 December 2020 19: 36
                      -6
                      I expressed my opinion. You are asking a question, the answer to which is the opinion I have already expressed.

                      Usually the answer contains the ANSWER, after which no questions are asked)))
                      A second question - so where did the FT-17 set a milestone in the world of tank building? )))
                    6. Simargl
                      Simargl 12 December 2020 19: 38
                      +3
                      Quote: lucul
                      Usually the answer contains the ANSWER
                      Absolutely agree! Especially if the reader understands the meaning of the text.

                      Quote: lucul
                      so where the FT-17 set a milestone in the world of tank building
                      I will try again...
                      Quote: Simargl
                      Quote: Simargl
                      The T-44, like the Renault FT-17, are milestones in the history of tank building! The second is generally a forerunner classic layoutThe first is a role model at 70 !!! years ahead.
                    7. lucul
                      lucul 12 December 2020 19: 43
                      -6
                      I will try again...

                      The circus . Do you know about armored cars?
                      Here is the English armored car Lanchester, appeared before the FT-17

                      The French just added a tracked chassis)))
                    8. Simargl
                      Simargl 12 December 2020 19: 55
                      +5
                      Quote: lucul
                      The circus . Do you know about armored cars?
                      I know.

                      Quote: lucul
                      Here is the English armored car Lanchester
                      Do you know that Lanchester is front-engine (in the photo the front armor shield is often open and the "crooked starter" sticks out almost everywhere)? Do you want to repeat about the classic layout (mechanical drive in front, turret in the middle, drygotel in the back, drive to the rear sprocket)?

                      Quote: lucul
                      The French just added a tracked chassis)))
                      I agree here: changed EVERYTHING and added a tracked chassis.
                    9. lucul
                      lucul 12 December 2020 20: 00
                      -5
                      Do you know that Lanchester is front-engine (in the photo the front armor shield is often open and the "crooked starter" sticks out almost everywhere)? Do you want to repeat about the classic layout (mechanical drive in front, turret in the middle, drygotel in the back, drive to the rear sprocket)?

                      In a new circle - so what wars did the FT-17 win because of its breakthrough layout? )))
                      Jews think the rear location of the engine compartment is erroneous, for example)))
                    10. Simargl
                      Simargl 12 December 2020 20: 11
                      +1
                      Quote: lucul
                      In a new circle - so what wars did the FT-17 win because of its breakthrough layout?
                      Did I say something about winning wars? Are you trying to win the "argument" in any way, somehow? We'll have to repeat:
                      Quote: Simargl
                      Quote: Simargl
                      Quote: Simargl
                      The T-44, like the Renault FT-17, are milestones in the history of tank building! The second is generally a forerunner classical layoutThe first is a role model at 70 !!! years ahead.
                      Please note the word "layout". And I will note that there is no word like "war". There is also an indication that after him almost all tanks had just such a layout.

                      Quote: lucul
                      Jews think the rear location of the engine compartment is erroneous, for example)))
                      They have a right. The Swedes also believed. The Germans distinguished themselves.
                      The Swedes with Strv103, before the first hit in the harp, when the tank got up with cancer and, not just to look around, did not budge. And the Germans with a front transmission (like the Jews, by the way), when any penetration is a disaster (and not even a penetration).
                    11. lucul
                      lucul 12 December 2020 20: 20
                      -4
                      Please note the word "layout". And I will note that there is no word like "war". There is also an indication that after him almost all tanks had just such a layout.

                      That is, this layout did not bring any dividends to the FT-17, as it was a trench tank, it remained.
                      And the T-34, like the Panzer 3, was able to fully replace the cavalry, the T-34 could solve lightning-fast tactical tasks at an operational depth of up to 300 km.
                      But you can of course convince yourself that the layout of the tank is the decisive parameter.
                    12. Simargl
                      Simargl 12 December 2020 21: 18
                      +2
                      Quote: lucul
                      But you can of course convince yourself that the layout of the tank is the decisive parameter.
                      As BE ... not decisive, but diamond-shaped, wagon, multi-turret were quickly forgotten. The latter, to some extent, are revived: additional calibers, DUM on the main tower, all sorts of mortars.
                      The cavalry ended immediately after any tanks entered the field en masse. More precisely - it ended in a "thorn", but lost any meaning with the appearance of tanks. And after the ubiquitous motorization - only as food.
  • svp67
    svp67 12 December 2020 19: 55
    +1
    Quote: Simargl
    I showed that the Renault FT-17, and therefore its direct successor to the MC-1, was a milestone in history, and not a prototype for the T-44.

    Forgive me, but in my comment it is clearly said WHAT your statement I gave the answer to. Did you read that carefully?
    1. Simargl
      Simargl 12 December 2020 21: 31
      -1
      Quote: svp67
      Forgive me, but in my comment it is clearly said WHAT your statement I gave the answer to.
      Oops! I apologize. But the T-34 has a very indirect relationship to the MS-1: the T-34 is the heir to Christie and BT. So that...
      It turns out that to say that the T-44 is a revision of the T-34 despite the fact that the engine was installed as in the MS-1, the suspension as in the IS / KV, VLD and weight distribution - as in the T-5 ... not very correct ?
      1. svp67
        svp67 12 December 2020 21: 37
        +1
        Quote: Simargl
        But the T-34 to the MS-1 has a strongly mediated relationship:

        But why? Back in 1939, Koshkin suggested turning the engine across, and only a great lack of time and tank design specialists did not allow them to work out such a solution.
        Quote: Simargl
        It turns out that to say that the T-44 is a revision of the T-34 despite the fact that the engine was installed as in the MS-1, the suspension as in the IS / KV, VLD and weight distribution - as in the T-5 ... not very correct ?

        But this was already on the way ... If the war had not begun in 1941, the T-34M with a torsion bar suspension and without inclined sides would have been born, and then further, further and further.
        All this has already been worked out and only the war prevented a smoother change in the design of this tank.
      2. Simargl
        Simargl 12 December 2020 21: 52
        -1
        Quote: svp67
        But we already went to this ...
        For what? Throw out Christie's ideas and burn down the T-44?
        You say you wanted to make the changes, but didn't do it because you would have ... a different tank?
        Just two solutions (engine across and torsion bars) change the design radically!!!
        Quote: svp67
        the war prevented a smoother change in the design of this tank.
        Have you seen the T-34 disassembled? Torsion bars take up much less space, "glasses" - eat up useful space. Okay with the suspension - there is more space for projectiles or fuel, but the layout has not radically changed.
        I'm tired. It is convenient to consider the T-44 as a continuation of the T-34 - count. Although I will remain with the opinion that the T-44 is far from him, and much more. According to the same booking, it is closer to the heavy ones.
      3. svp67
        svp67 12 December 2020 21: 56
        +1
        Quote: Simargl
        For what? Throw out Christie's ideas and burn down the T-44?

        Yes, after getting acquainted with the Pz-III, our military DEMANDED the installation of torsion bars on a medium tank and such a project was worked out, but since very little time was allocated, other design changes were deleted from the project, the same engine turn and was limited to installing a new suspension and a change in the shape of the hull, but the reversal of the engine was already discussed then, as well as an increase in the clearance of the turret ring
        On January 17, 1941, a draft resolution of the Defense Committee under the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR "On the transition to the production of T-34 tanks with torsion bar suspension" was prepared. According to him, by April 1, 1941, it was planned to produce two prototypes of the T-34 with a torsion bar suspension. The turret ring was expanded to 1600 mm, the calculation of the turret increased to 3 people, and a commander's cupola with an all-round view was installed. Instead of a candle suspension, a torsion bar suspension was installed, and instead of a V-2K - a V-5 engine with a capacity of 600 hp. (A boosted version of this engine to 700 hp was tested on an experimental T-150 tank). The top speed was expected to rise to 65-70 km / h.
  • Kote Pan Kokhanka
    Kote Pan Kokhanka 12 December 2020 17: 45
    +1
    Quote: Simargl
    2 - the engine is turned across, the transmission is very much redesigned


    In the T-34M, the engine was also turned across.
    1. Simargl
      Simargl 12 December 2020 18: 42
      +1
      Quote: Kote pane Kohanka
      In the T-34M, the engine was also turned across.
      Is it true?
      1. Kote Pan Kokhanka
        Kote Pan Kokhanka 13 December 2020 11: 55
        +1
        Yes, I was wrong! According to those assignments, he was supposed to, but a more powerful B-5 was installed.
        1. irontom
          irontom 13 December 2020 15: 35
          +1
          You will be surprised, but the drawing walking on the net and three de pictures on its basis, this is not at all a pre-production final version of the T-34M with the B-2, which was adopted before the war, it has many differences and the main thing is the unified CT-34 MTO and the five-step gearbox designed for he was registered later on the T-34 at 42
          Pasholok has an excellent article on this topic with drawings of the ultimate Emka
          1. Kote Pan Kokhanka
            Kote Pan Kokhanka 13 December 2020 16: 52
            +1
            Good evening, I was guided not by this scheme, but by a drawing from "tanks of the era of total wars", by Shpakovsky, artist Sheps.

            I will definitely use your advice. Best regards, Kote!
            1. irontom
              irontom 13 December 2020 19: 39
              0
              Yuri Pasholok. Pre-war perspective, or again about the T-34M
              As a result of various indications, the appearance of the future T-34M by May 1941 changed significantly. The hull, turret, engine, transmission, chassis were altered. Instead of a tank, which was supposed to be radically different from the serial T-34, it turned out to be a kind of hybrid,
              1. Kote Pan Kokhanka
                Kote Pan Kokhanka 13 December 2020 20: 26
                +1
                Weed out to the point that they changed the place of the driver from left to right!
                1. irontom
                  irontom 13 December 2020 21: 34
                  0
                  No, take a closer look at the drawing, it clearly shows the fur seat, pedals, levers and a hatch cut, and the water fur is indicated by a weak outline. In the description of the changes, there is not a word about changing places.
                2. irontom
                  irontom 13 December 2020 21: 49
                  0
                  damn, while everything was changing, time was up, in general, yes, they left it as it is with the T-34
  • Viktor Sergeev
    Viktor Sergeev 12 December 2020 11: 32
    +10
    Well then, the T90 grew out of Renault.
    1. svp67
      svp67 12 December 2020 16: 13
      +3
      Quote: Victor Sergeev
      Well then, the T90 grew out of Renault.

      Like all modern tanks
  • Alf
    Alf 12 December 2020 20: 52
    +1
    Quote: svp67
    "four" only grew to "Tiger"

    Powerfully said, inspires!
  • PilotS37
    PilotS37 12 December 2020 09: 13
    +2
    ABOUT! Andrey, finally!
    We are longing for you with your "serial" ...
  • alekc75
    alekc75 12 December 2020 09: 59
    +2
    guys, I don't remember the author, but this year there was an article where these tanks were compared there more objectively. there were observation points from the tank, how many their viewing angle, their height from the ground, and so on. and there it was clearer that the difference in the view from the tank was not so strong t-34. Yes photo of tanks with reinforced armor t34
  • peter1v
    peter1v 12 December 2020 10: 41
    +2
    Always wondering how to imagine the placement of the crew in a two-seat turret with a commander's cupola?
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      12 December 2020 10: 45
      +5
      Quote: peter1v
      Always wondering how to imagine the placement of the crew in a two-seat turret with a commander's cupola?

      As in reality, the T-34-76 was produced with a commander's cupola, but already in 1943
      1. svp67
        svp67 12 December 2020 11: 34
        +3
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        As in reality, the T-34-76 was produced with a commander's cupola, but already in 1943

        But in a heavily redesigned nut tower
        1. Alf
          Alf 12 December 2020 20: 58
          +1
          Quote: svp67
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          As in reality, the T-34-76 was produced with a commander's cupola, but already in 1943

          But in a heavily redesigned nut tower

          But there were two people in the tower.
          1. svp67
            svp67 12 December 2020 21: 50
            0
            Quote: Alf
            But there were two people in the tower.

            Yes, but in the old one, with its huge single hatch, it was more difficult to do
  • Rurikovich
    Rurikovich 12 December 2020 10: 54
    +5
    Chet, colleague, lately it struck you - articles on various topics are still coming out good Know self-isolation al other reasons? Greetings from Belarus drinks hi
    The material is good, I like to read your analytics - very interesting. I agree (again) that any problem should be considered from all angles, and not one-sidedly. Then any comparison becomes less objective. yes
    Back in the 90s, he wrote a work on the history of the Second World War, the topic "reasons for the defeat of the Red Army in the initial period", as one of the reasons was indicated by the high-quality interaction of the arms of the troops among the Germans due to high-quality communications, which allowed them to achieve success with smaller forces. In fact, we learned to fight "with a C" only in 43. Therefore, the phrase "it is not ships, but people who are fighting" can be used on land. Especially with regard to tanks.
    Damn, it's so inconvenient to write from the phone sad , so for now I will take my leave repeat Article bold plus hi
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      12 December 2020 11: 33
      +7
      Quote: Rurikovich
      Chet, colleague, lately it struck you - articles on various topics are still coming out

      very simple. I have been writing articles for a long time, but I did not post them, because otherwise the breaks would be very long :))))
  • Viktor Sergeev
    Viktor Sergeev 12 December 2020 11: 31
    +8
    T34 was the best in terms of price \ mass \ armor \ weapons. It was the greater number of tanks that decided the outcome of the war, not their perfection. Better to have ten T34s than one Tiger that breaks down while running after a thirty-four.
    1. Left shot
      Left shot 14 December 2020 05: 54
      -1
      So the Tiger cost as much as 10 T-34. Despite the fact that 2 T-34s were guaranteed to kill the Tiger in a simple way.
      1. Cherry Nine
        Cherry Nine 14 December 2020 13: 47
        0
        Quote: Shot from the left
        2 T-34s guaranteed Tiger killed

        For the F-34 of the 42nd year, the Tiger's armor is impenetrable in general... The 43rd sub-caliber could hit the side from a pistol distance. If you're lucky.
        1. Viktor Sergeev
          Viktor Sergeev 16 December 2020 20: 06
          0
          They punched into the side from 300 meters, there is also a caterpillar, rollers and attachments.
    2. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine 14 December 2020 12: 34
      +1
      1. Running after the 34th is not included in the function of the Tiger. It does not perform the function of the Tiger at all.
      2. The release of armored vehicles by the Reich and the USSR is approximately the same. The most massive German vehicles - BTR SdKfz 251, 15+ thousand units, were not produced in the USSR at all. The second most popular German was the 3rd shtug, 10,5 thousand units, in the USSR it corresponded to a very poor Su-76, produced not to say that much more. So it's not as simple as it is commonly believed.
      3. The idea of ​​the cheapness of the T-34 is wrong, although a direct comparison with the Germans is impossible. The solutions of the T-34 are far from being record-breaking in terms of manufacturability.
      1. Viktor Sergeev
        Viktor Sergeev 16 December 2020 20: 10
        0
        Name something more technologically advanced than T34, considering cast towers, automatic welding. Who worked in factories in Germany and who in ours? Su76 poor and consistent with Stug? Do you really believe in this nonsense? Shtug - anti-tank self-propelled guns, Su76 self-propelled guns for infantry support and anti-tank was not by definition, since it was just a mobile version of the ZIS3. Analogue STUG - Su85.
        1. Cherry Nine
          Cherry Nine 16 December 2020 20: 40
          0
          Quote: Victor Sergeev
          They punched into the side from 300 meters,

          A real fiasco turned into a test of shelling a German heavy tank from a 76-mm F-34 tank gun. Not a single hit ended in penetration, even when fired from a distance of 200 meters. This applied to both armor-piercing, and experienced sub-caliber, and experienced cumulative projectiles. In the case of the armor-piercing shell, the quality of its manufacture was low.

          https://warspot.ru/9797-tyazhyolyy-trofey
          Quote: Cherry Nine
          there is also a caterpillar, rollers and attachments.

          If you catch such chances, then why do you need a gun at all?
          Quote: Victor Sergeev
          Name something more technologically advanced than T34, considering cast towers, automatic welding.

          Sherman, naturally. High-volume commercial components (not specially developed), including motor and transmission, large castings instead of welding rolled plates. And Paton's cast towers and machine guns appeared far from the first day.
          Quote: Victor Sergeev
          Who worked in factories in Germany and who in ours?

          Sorry? Is there anything to be proud of?
          Quote: Victor Sergeev
          Su76 poor and consistent with Stug? Do you really believe in this nonsense? Shtug - anti-tank self-propelled guns, Su76 self-propelled guns for infantry support and anti-tank was not by definition, since it was just a mobile version of the ZIS3.

          Yes, but with armor and tracks, the infantry, as best he could, supported the SU-76, and before it, in general, the T-60 with the T-70. It was this work that the shtug did.
          Quote: Victor Sergeev
          Shtug - anti-tank self-propelled guns

          The Stug is the Gepanzerte Selbstfahrlafette für Sturmgeschütz III, an armored self-propelled assault gun. It was precisely to support the infantry that was made.
          Quote: Victor Sergeev
          Analogue STUG - Su85.

          Don't confuse shtug with jagdpanzer.
  • mz
    mz 12 December 2020 11: 31
    +1
    The T-IV's advantage over situational awareness is controversial. On the VO there was an article about the observation devices of Soviet and German tanks at the beginning of the war:
    https://topwar.ru/18866-pribory-upravleniya-ognem-sovetskih-i-nemeckih-tankov-vtoroy-mirovoy-voyny-mify-i-realnost.html
    In short: the observation devices of the main Soviet tanks were at least as good as those of the German ones, but mostly superior. As a result, German taxi drivers almost always fought with the head of the commander over the tower.
    The rest of the conclusions of the author of the article seem to me correct.
    1. mz
      mz 12 December 2020 11: 32
      +3
      German taxi drivers
      tankers)
    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      12 December 2020 11: 35
      +5
      Quote: mz
      The T-IV's advantage over situational awareness is controversial. On the VO there was an article about the observation devices of Soviet and German tanks at the beginning of the war:

      From which it follows that the T-34 until 1943 lost in visibility to the four
  • Avior
    Avior 12 December 2020 11: 42
    +7
    Good article, as always from the author.
    But in general, I think tanks need to be evaluated for the concept of their specific use.
    If "tanks with tanks do not fight", then the short barrel of the gun is not a drawback. The longer the barrel is, the less high-explosive capabilities and the more armor-piercing of the projectile. And vice versa.
    Another thing is that the situation turned in such a way that tanks with tanks were at war.
    And the second.
    On the one hand, the T4 by 1941 was a reliable tank with a large resource, which made it possible to actively transfer it to different parts of the front on its own and create the effect that there were more of them than in reality.
    On the other hand, if we want to compare T4 taking into account childhood illnesses, then in terms of combat capabilities, we need to compare it with its one-year-old BT5, for example, and not with the much later T-34.
    Or to admit that the tank of the early 30s turned out to be comparable in combat capabilities to the tank of the early 40s.
    1. CTABEP
      CTABEP 12 December 2020 12: 12
      +4
      But there was no difference in the content of I / O in high-explosive shells for the L / 24 and L / 43 guns :). The shells were the same. Just at the time of creation, the Germans believed that 50-mm guns on the T-3 would fight the enemy tanks, and the T-4 would bring down the infantry / ATM. Time has shown the fallacy of this concept.
      1. Thomas N.
        Thomas N. 12 December 2020 17: 21
        +1
        Quote: CTABEP
        ... at the time of creation, the Germans believed that 50-mm guns on the T-3 would fight the enemy tanks, and the T-4s would bring down the infantry / PTO. Time has shown the fallacy of this concept.

        At the time of the creation of the Pz.IV, there were no 50mm guns on the Pz.III, there were 37mm KwK 36.
      2. Avior
        Avior 13 December 2020 03: 49
        +2
        Yes, I sat down in a puddle with a general rule, which in this case was not fulfilled. smile
        The logic behind this decision is difficult to understand. Did you regret the metal on the barrel?
        1. Cherry Nine
          Cherry Nine 13 December 2020 06: 10
          0
          Quote: Avior
          The logic behind this decision is difficult to understand. Did you regret the metal on the barrel?

          The logic of this decision has already been told to you correctly: 3 "the gun on the tank of the 30s was intended to fight the entrenched infantry. Therefore, on the T-35, T-28, Soviet artillery tanks, British KSakh there were short cannons, or rather howitzers or even mortars They had to throw a shell behind the parapet.
          Quote: Avior
          Yes, I sat in a puddle with a general rule

          It is a general rule generally was not executed. It would seem that you are right - the initial speed is greater, the load on the projectile is greater, thicker walls are needed, the explosive fits less. In practice, the tankers did not like it and they demanded to return everything as it was. So the Germans and the British reduced the powder charge and fired a thin-walled projectile with a lower muzzle velocity relative to the BB. The Soviets simply took a larger caliber, so that when moving from 76 to 85 mm, the land mine became faster, but the amount of explosives in it remained practically at the level of the F-34. The effect of the discounted land mine was felt only by the Americans when they switched from Sherman 75 to Sherman 76. There, the explosives in the OFS were almost halved for the sake of a more penetrating BB.
    2. Alf
      Alf 12 December 2020 21: 05
      +1
      Quote: Avior
      Longer barrel length - less explosive capabilities

      Here are just the weight of the KWK-37 OFS in 24 caliber and KWK-40 is absolutely the same, 5,8 kg and the explosive in them is the same - 0,68 kg.
  • Cherry Nine
    Cherry Nine 12 December 2020 12: 59
    +9
    The problem with the author's current series is that it has been too long, the first part of the series is the beginning of 2019. Therefore, even the old-timers do not remember what he wrote there, and even more so holivars for 500 comments in those articles.

    The Germans had their own problems with tanks, both private, with specific vehicles, and conceptual. The Germans absolutely correctly grasped the theme of the massive use of large mobile tank units and created the most advanced technology for the 40th year, allowing this concept to be implemented. But as always, not without flaws.

    Three were chosen as the main German tank. A great car, but, as often happened, the Germans fell into engineering perfectionism. The three were at the limit of the capabilities of their best factories, its development in production was slower than planned, and there were a lot of childhood illnesses. This situation led to the fact that one of the manufacturers - Krupp - was allowed to make his own, relatively simpler project, four. Initially, the unification of vehicles was allowed, which had a similar mass and served in the same tank divisions. Is it good? No, definitely not. When the production of the troika ran high, they tried to refuse from the quartet, but somehow it was not on time. So before the Second World War, she lived, in general, by accident.

    As for the role of the four. This has been forgotten, but initially the three and four were the German BT-7 and the German BT-7A. Therefore, the short cannon with regimental ballistics was absolutely faithful the solution, the task of this tank was to support the infantry of the tank division and fight against enemy infantry. Tanks were to be fought with mechtyag-powered anti-tank guns and troikas.

    One more. Despite all its advantages, the three and four were perfected machines. pre-war like, their armor was not fully anti-cannon-proof, their guns were not universal. As already mentioned, the four had a half-gun, and the three had a 37mm PT beater. Only the campaign of 40 hammered into German heads the correctness of the French and British ideas on anti-cannon armor tanks. And, accordingly, the idea of ​​strengthening weapons. However, due to the underestimation of the Red Army, this work was not carried out by the summer of 41st.

    Many people like to slander the Soviet regime. I, for example. However, it should be noted that the tank expertise in the 30s was very well organized, and the Spanish experience was perceived in the most correct way. As a result, the T-34 really became a conceptually breakthrough vehicle, combining anti-cannon armor and a universal divisional weapon. In this respect, the T-34 for 40-41 years was indeed sharply superior to any German vehicle. On paper. And in fact, very poor build quality, dampness and fundamental design errors of both the machine as a whole and its most important components, erroneous organization of tank units, traditionally disgusting supply, including ammunition and fuel, traditionally disgusting work of technical and repair services, complete absence competent tank commanders - all this made its combat significance in the first months of the war close to zero.

    In addition, it should be borne in mind that the T-34 is a replacement for the BT-26, which has eaten up to 7 tons. Kharkov was categorically unprepared for the problems that such an increase in mass entailed, and, alas, they had to be solved already on production machines. Another radical disadvantage is the composition of the crew. However, for a 39 vehicle, the absence of a tank commander is a rule, not an exception. The French were even worse.

    And in the 41st and 42nd years, the main German tank was a troika. But the decision to switch to the Panther primarily affected the three manufacturers. At the same time, it turned out that the four, which is a compromise from a technical point of view, has large reserves for modernization - its tower shoulder strap is several centimeters larger, and these are just those centimeters that mean a lot (by the way, the T-34-76 shoulder strap is already three-point, and this is very badly) . So from the 43rd year, the four became the main tank, the Panther never exceeded its peak production volumes.

    What is the bottom line. Four of the beginning of 41 on paper is sharply weaker than the early T-34. But this is a four made in Germany against the conditional T-34, also made in Germany. In fact, the four goes where it needs to, to Kharkov, and the T-34 will not start, it stands again in Kharkov, waiting for the four. Also, in fact, a small German tank division is immeasurably stronger than a huge Soviet mechanized corps. It's like a hammer in the hands of a carpenter and a sledgehammer in the hands carpenter party worker. Maybe the sledgehammer is "stronger", but what to do with it?

    The late four with an 80mm muzzle and a 48klb gun are definitely stronger than the still problematic T-34 of the 42nd and even mostly the 43rd.

    T-34-85 finally overtook the four. In the 44th year, with greater weight and at the limit of its modernization capabilities. But overtook, it is worth admitting it.
    1. DesToeR
      DesToeR 12 December 2020 14: 07
      +3
      Quote: Cherry Nine
      Many people like to slander the Soviet regime. I, for example.

      What's the point of "smearing" the Soviet regime? If the Germans in 1941 had, as many argue, the best technology, advanced military doctrine, and, most importantly, excellent organization and management, then one simple question arises: what "skill" did the USSR survive by? The answer suggests itself to the submissive - the USSR had an incomparably better organization and management than the 3rd Reich. No permanent mobilization and Lend-Lease would have helped here - blitzkrieg would not have allowed.
      Quote: Cherry Nine
      And in fact, very poor build quality, dampness and fundamental design errors of both the machine as a whole and its most important components, erroneous organization of tank units, traditionally disgusting supply, including ammunition and fuel, traditionally disgusting work of technical and repair services, complete absence competent tank commanders - all this made its combat significance in the first months of the war close to zero.

      This is if we consider the armored troops in the conditions of the battles of 1941, when the USSR received a sudden blow and the entire Red Army "improvised" at a front of one and a half thousand kilometers. And if we consider these very corps in the conditions of the doctrine of a deep offensive operation, when the initiative is not on the side of the Germans, then it is far from the fact that the T-34 / will need excellent visibility and a 5 crew member. An offensive in dense formation "in the direction" where anti-tank defenses have been suppressed and thousands of SU-2 / LaGG-3s in the air are chasing every German cart does not imply any tactical flexibility.
      Quote: Cherry Nine
      T-34-85 finally overtook the four.

      The T-34-85 not only overtook the "four", with its appearance it greatly leveled all the titanic efforts of the Nazis to produce the very strange T-V "Panther" tank.
      1. Cherry Nine
        Cherry Nine 12 December 2020 14: 49
        +2
        Quote: DesToeR
        one simple question arises: at the expense of what "skill" did the USSR resist?

        This has long been known. The experience of WWI was understood differently. Both countries lost WWI due to internal problems, but if Hitler considered the cure for such a development of events to abandon the war of attrition and quick, three-month campaigns, small victorious wars, then Comrade. Stalin believed that in order to prevent internal problems, it was necessary to shoot in advance the Socialist-Revolutionaries, old Bolsheviks with unhealthy skills of underground work, Comrade. Trotsky, potential citizen Kerensky, potential Mr Pilsudski, potential Mr Mannerheim, front commanders, primarily potential Mr Brusilov, Soviet Grand Dukes, etc. etc., the list is very long. And the war will be protracted again. It turned out that in this last comrade. Stalin was right.
        Quote: DesToeR
        The USSR had an incomparably better organization and administration than the 3rd Reich.

        Of course not. In the Reich, there were enormous difficulties with the Ordung, but such a mess as in the USSR is impossible to imagine.
        Quote: DesToeR
        blitzkrieg would not allow

        The maximum blitzkrieg depth is 500 km. Next comes the supply. This applies to the Germans and the Red Army of the 44th-45th, and even the Americans with their best logistics in the world.
        Quote: DesToeR
        these same corps under the doctrine of a deep offensive operation

        In the same way, along the roadside ditches, they will remain. An offensive is always more difficult than a defense.
        Quote: DesToeR
        airborne thousands of SU-2 / LaGG-3 chasing every German cart does not imply any tactical flexibility.

        They joked funny. Never did Soviet aviation work like that and did not intend to work.
        Quote: DesToeR
        where anti-tank defenses are suppressed

        What?
        Quote: DesToeR
        strongly leveled all the titanic efforts of the Nazis to produce a very strange tank T-V "Panther".

        The T-34-85 did not arouse any interest in the Panther and never thought of it as an enemy of the Panther. In the frontal projection, the S-53 could hit the Panther only in the forehead of the tower, and then with great luck. At the same time, for the Panther, no Soviet technology was a problem until the appearance of a direct VLD on the IS-2 at the end of 44.
        1. tank64rus
          tank64rus 12 December 2020 18: 28
          +1
          and in the lateral projection where the armor thickness is 40 mm versus 45 mm for the T-34-85. By the way, the kinetic energy of the S-53 T-34 -85 armor-piercing projectile and the Panther cannon is the same question only in the quality of the projectiles, although 100mm per 1000m at an angle of 90 is very, very.
          1. Cherry Nine
            Cherry Nine 12 December 2020 21: 03
            +1
            Quote: tank64rus
            and in the lateral projection

            I punched in the side. A lot of things pierced the side of the Panther. The question is what?
            Quote: tank64rus
            By the way, the kinetic energy of the S-53 T-34 -85 armor-piercing projectile and the Panther cannon is the same

            Who cares? The S-53 is a Soviet tiger cannon, not a panther cannon. At the same time, relative to the German gun, it is worse in both shells and ballistics.
        2. DesToeR
          DesToeR 12 December 2020 19: 49
          0
          Quote: Cherry Nine
          The experience of WWI was understood differently.

          By whom? In the USSR they relied not on the experience of the "trench" war, but on their own experience of the highly neural Civil War in the vast (for the mind of a "true Aryan") expanses.

          Quote: Cherry Nine
          Stalin believed that in order to prevent internal problems, it was necessary to shoot in advance the Socialist-Revolutionaries, old Bolsheviks with unhealthy skills of underground work, Comrade. Trotsky, potential citizen Kerensky, potential Mr Pilsudski, potential Mr Mannerheim, front commanders, primarily potential Mr Brusilov, Soviet Grand Dukes, etc. etc., the list is very long.

          Did the "humanist" Hitler act in other ways?
          Quote: Cherry Nine
          Stalin was right.

          Yes, he was rarely wrong.
          Quote: Cherry Nine
          The maximum blitzkrieg depth is 500 km. Next comes the supply.

          And what prevents you from doing several consecutive "500 km"? A force majeure action called "General Frost"? Or is it the "ceiling" of planning in the German army - 500 km?
          Quote: Cherry Nine
          An offensive is always more difficult than a defense.

          And here very many military leaders of all times and peoples will disagree with you. For a successful defense, one "insignificant" condition is needed: knowledge of the exact place and time of the enemy's advance.
          Quote: Cherry Nine
          They joked funny. Never did Soviet aviation work like that and did not intend to work.

          And who "allowed" her to work like that?
          Quote: Cherry Nine
          In the frontal projection, the S-53 could hit the Panther only in the forehead of the tower, and then with great luck.

          Do you really think that the military was interested in this aspect more than the power reserve, reliability and overall autonomy, with an adequate ability to withstand infantry anti-tank defenses?
          Quote: Cherry Nine
          The T-34-85 did not arouse any interest in the Panther and never thought of it as an enemy of the Panther.

          Of course I did, because in the offensive, the T-34-85 tank division posed a much more serious threat than the same division on the panthers. And they are measured by "pipiski" after the "merged" war, the lot of losers. The T-34-85 was an ideal vehicle for developing a breakthrough and entering the operational space behind enemy lines. The panther is not. Only Sherman can argue for the palm with our thirty-four, but not a 46-ton colossus with the same three-inch on board with incomprehensible booking and a gluttonous engine (and this is not even remembering the "in vain" checkpoint).
      2. Cherry Nine
        Cherry Nine 12 December 2020 15: 07
        0
        Quote: DesToeR
        battles of 1941, when the USSR received a sudden blow and the entire Red Army "improvised"

        Oh yes. In September 39, the USSR, with considerable, I must say, enthusiasm established a common border with the Reich, and in the 3rd decade of August 41, two years have not passed, Kirponos's troops received a sudden blow from the 2nd tank group. Attacking Kiev from Moscow.

        Well, suddenly, so suddenly. It happens, cho. Otherwise they would have won all.
        1. DesToeR
          DesToeR 12 December 2020 19: 59
          +3
          Quote: Cherry Nine
          Oh yes. In September 39, the USSR with considerable, I must say, enthusiasm established a common border with the Reich

          And what were the "options" not to establish a common border with the Reich? Did the Poles need to offer help? Military? From the USSR? It's funny. Well, Stalin refused Warsaw this time, although Hitler strongly insisted. No, no - no more Poles - they have eaten for 200 years.
          Quote: Cherry Nine
          and in the 3rd decade of August 41, two years have not passed, the troops of Kirponos received a surprise blow from the 2nd tank group. Attacking Kiev from Moscow.

          And how was it necessary? You probably know better today? But some Nazis believed that fussing with the Kiev group cost the Reich a war.
          Quote: Cherry Nine
          Well, suddenly, so suddenly. It happens, cho. Otherwise they would have won all.

          Of course it happens - it is very difficult to predict the actions of a madman. Stalin was a rationalist.
          1. Cherry Nine
            Cherry Nine 12 December 2020 21: 49
            +1
            Quote: DesToeR
            Stalin was a rationalist.

            Yeah. In your own way.
            Quote: DesToeR
            some Nazis believed that fussing with the Kiev group cost the Reich a war.

            The theme "How Hitler interfered with the war" is the main one for the post-war German memoirs. In reality, in a similar situation, the Red Army also turned away from the capital and carried out the East Pomeranian operation to secure its flank. There, too, there was an itch, they say, Stalin stole an easy victory, they would have entered Berlin on the shoulders of the fleeing Germans.

            Of course, nonsense. Both decisions were absolutely correct.
            Quote: DesToeR
            And what were the "options" not to establish a common border with the Reich?

            And for what purpose did Ribbentrop come to Moscow? Did you agree on something, made some concessions? If there were no options anyway?
            Quote: DesToeR
            Of course it happens

            Well, that is, you have a sudden blow at the end of August? Well, what can you do.
            Quote: DesToeR
            the experience of a highly neural Civil War in the vast (for the mind of a "true Aryan") expanses.

            The experience of the civil war is not at all relevant here. In the 17th year, the country's martial law was quite decent, but the war was lost in the capital. Stalin understood this very well and took measures in advance, as best he could.
            Quote: DesToeR
            Did Hitler act differently?

            Yes of course. He switched to drastic measures only in the summer of 44, in connection with the well-known events.

            By the way, I love this moment when the fans of Comrade Stalin suddenly begins to compare him with Hitler.
            Quote: DesToeR
            he was rarely wrong

            Well, it’s rare, not rare, and the war was really protracted. It seemed that almost 39 years had passed since September 2, Hitler, too, could have already understood that something was not being danced with a quick victory, but he really didn’t want to believe it.
            Quote: DesToeR
            And what prevents you from doing several consecutive "500 km"?

            Nothing gets in the way. So they did, in the end, they reached Pyatigorsk. But the pre-war plans assumed that with the entrance to the Dnepr-Dvin line, the USSR would somehow crumble like the Nuf-Nuf house. I really wanted it, could not stand it, and began to lie to themselves.
            And comrade. Stalin suddenly turned out to be Naf-Naf. And he conducted extensive preparatory activities, some of which were mentioned above.
            Quote: DesToeR
            Or is it the "ceiling" of planning in the German army - 500 km?

            Yes of course. For any army. This is the maximum depth of supply by road transport without restoring the railway or access to the ports.

            Halder understood this well; over time, such constants reached the Headquarters. This distinguishes them favorably, for example, from Eisenhower, for whom the supply crisis in the fall of 44 was a complete surprise.
            Quote: DesToeR
            For a successful defense, one "insignificant" condition is needed: knowledge of the exact place and time of the enemy's advance.

            And, well, that is, nothing special is needed for the offensive. Well, as you say.
            Quote: DesToeR
            And who "allowed" her to work like that?

            How "so"? I worked as best I could, don't shoot the pianist.
            Quote: DesToeR
            Do you really think that the military was interested in this aspect more than the power reserve, reliability and overall autonomy, with an adequate ability to withstand infantry anti-tank defenses?

            Well, actually, yes, that's what they did. And who in your country could have resisted anti-tank weapons, T-34-85 in 44?
            Quote: DesToeR
            tank division T-34-85 posed a much more serious threat than the same division on panthers.

            How can I tell you. The USSR did not have tank divisions. At all. The closest to a German or American armored division was a mechanized corps (not to be confused with a tank corps) of 43. But he was also weaker.
            Quote: DesToeR
            access to the operational space behind enemy lines. The panther is not.

            Quite possible. But somehow it so happened that with the advent of the Panthers, all sorts of exits to the operational space became less relevant. And as a mobile reserve of anti-tank defense, the Panther worked perfectly.
            Quote: DesToeR
            this is not remembering the "in vain" checkpoint

            Really. Remembering the checkpoint near the T-34 is a kind of mockery.
            Quote: DesToeR
            Only Sherman can argue for the palm with our thirty-four

            Sherman just ate fuel as if not into himself. But it had its advantages. And its disadvantages - undoubtedly the best tank in the world in 42 and 43 years old, in the 44th it sharply surrendered. Unlike the USSR, the Americans failed to modernize their main tank. Alas.
            1. DesToeR
              DesToeR 13 December 2020 09: 04
              0
              Quote: Cherry Nine
              Both decisions were absolutely correct.

              And no one argues that they are both correct. Only planning, i.e. its quality in these both cases is different, as are the different results of the war.
              Quote: Cherry Nine
              And for what purpose did Ribbentrop come to Moscow?

              Well, probably from the same one with which I traveled to Warsaw before. Or Paris with London. He is the Minister of Foreign Affairs - his business is to negotiate ... Including the post-war organization of the borders of the Reich. What has changed in the last 1000 years?
              Quote: Cherry Nine
              Yes of course. For any army. This is the maximum depth of supply by road transport without restoring the railway or access to the ports.

              And you are not confusing the so-called. You "limit" the depth of supply with the depth of the offensive? Or do you think that it was only necessary to plan for 500 km? And were the Germans unfamiliar with the accumulation of material resources, rem.bata for the restoration of road, railway tracks, airfields and many other organ.-staff activities?
              Quote: Cherry Nine
              And, well, that is, nothing special is needed for the offensive.

              For the offensive, it is enough to know the "place". Time is appointed by the advancing person - this is his advantage.
              Quote: Cherry Nine
              How "so"? I worked as best I could, don't shoot the pianist.

              Quite right. Nobody provided the sleeping German airfields for the Red Army aviation.
              Quote: Cherry Nine
              How can I tell you. The USSR did not have tank divisions. At all.

              How would you answer - probably all the same there were if the state of 1940 does not lie to us. But if you want "deeper" ... then again they were, and on the T-34-85, though after the Second World War. Well, if you want to compare directly in the "forehead", it will be difficult, tk. will have to look at the Nazis for a division on the Panthers alone. It is surprising that you "caught" your tongue in my post for the division, "omitting" the point: the T-34-85 in the Red Army performed its role better than the Panther in the Panzerwaffe.
              Quote: Cherry Nine
              But somehow it so happened that with the advent of the Panthers, all sorts of exits to the operational space became less relevant.

              For whom is less? For the Red Army with their strikes in 1943 ... 1945?
              Quote: Cherry Nine
              And as a mobile reserve of anti-tank defense, the Panther worked perfectly.

              And that there was nothing cheaper for a mobile "PT defense" in Germany? Or, in the context of a highly non-negotiable war, did tanks become mainly a PT reserve? These Germans were rich! Even the United States did not pull this ...
              Quote: Cherry Nine
              Really. Remembering the checkpoint near the T-34 is a kind of mockery.

              And what about the 5-speed gearbox was "wrong" on the 1942 tank?

              Quote: Cherry Nine
              Sherman just ate fuel as if not into himself.

              Sherman's 490l per 100km versus the Panther's 590l look much better (20% less). But the reliability and maintainability of Sherman versus Panther and there is nothing to compare. Again, with the same three-inch cannon and similar armor (except for the hull's forehead) "on board" ...
              1. Cherry Nine
                Cherry Nine 13 December 2020 11: 52
                0
                Quote: DesToeR
                Only planning, i.e. its quality in these both cases is different, as are the different results of the war.

                The quality, of course, is different, Antonov is far from Halder, but why do you remember that - the dog knows him.
                Quote: DesToeR
                his business is to negotiate ...

                About what?
                Quote: DesToeR
                And you do not confuse the so-called. You "limit" the depth of supply with the depth of the offensive?

                Suddenly, the second cannot be larger than the first.
                Quote: DesToeR
                Or do you think that it was only necessary to plan for 500 km

                Do you want to teach Hitler to plan wars now or what? The fact that, in general, Hitler's stake on a quick victory over the USSR did not work, I seem to have already written.
                Quote: DesToeR
                this is its advantage

                You do not understand the difference between owning the initiative and fighting. The implementation of such ideas with useless means ends with Rzhev, Mius-front and Kharkov 42.
                Quote: DesToeR
                Nobody provided the sleeping German airfields for the Red Army aviation.

                Until the 45th year inclusive. What a shame. All your plan for the German Pearl Harbor with Rezun is down the drain.
                Quote: DesToeR
                Again, they were, and on the T-34-85, though after the Second World War.

                Uh-huh. After the Second World War, you can even import the T-90.
                Quote: DesToeR
                T-34-85 in the Red Army performed its role better than the Panther in the Panzerwaffe

                Since their roles are different, this is some kind of purely aesthetic argument.
                Quote: DesToeR
                access to the operational space has become less relevant.

                For whom is less?

                For the panzerwaffe.
                Quote: DesToeR
                Was there nothing cheaper for a mobile "PT defense" in Germany?

                There was a jagdpanzer. It has its pluses, the Panther has its own.
                Quote: DesToeR
                Even the United States did not pull this ...

                Well, this is purely dumb. And so there were no special problems.
                Quote: DesToeR
                what was "wrong" with the 5-speed gearbox on the 1942 tank?

                Not so there was that she was not. In real life, such cars went from the spring of the 43rd and not entirely.
                Quote: DesToeR
                490l for Sherman for 100km versus 590l for Panther look much better (20% less)

                There are different ways, depending on the engine.
                Quote: DesToeR
                reliability and maintainability in Sherman vs Panther and there is nothing to compare

                43rd year. On the 44th you can compare.
                Quote: DesToeR
                Again with the same XNUMX-inch cannon and similar armor

                Funny joke.

                In general, the Sherman, of course, was an amazingly successful car, the capabilities of which the Americans could not understand and realize. But that's a different story.
                1. DesToeR
                  DesToeR 13 December 2020 17: 12
                  0
                  Quote: Cherry Nine
                  You remembered that - the dog knows him.

                  This is not the subject of this article.
                  Quote: Cherry Nine
                  About what?

                  Does it matter? Well, for example, about the "new world order".
                  Quote: Cherry Nine
                  Do you want to teach Hitler to plan wars now or what?

                  God forbid.
                  Quote: Cherry Nine
                  Suddenly, the second cannot be larger than the first.

                  Strange and how did the "grandfathers" manage? After every "500 km" new "Bagration" to develop?
                  Quote: Cherry Nine
                  You do not understand the difference between owning the initiative and fighting.

                  Well, that is a given! It is very difficult to distinguish between end and means.
                  Quote: Cherry Nine
                  The implementation of such ideas by unsuitable means ends with Rzhev, Mius-front and Kharkov 42.

                  Include the "Citadel" in your list, it’s boring to her poor in the "side" then stand.
                  Quote: Cherry Nine
                  Since their roles are different, this is some kind of purely aesthetic argument.

                  Wow - a revelation! And what was the role of the Panther, which should be. go to equip the regiments of panzer divisions? True, only one of the three ... and the staffing level, even this one did not reach the word at all.
                  Do not tell me tales about the Panther - her PT and TT have been sucked many times, etc. etc. This is a "linear" tank of panzerdivisions, and the fact that it "could not" happens ... something like that the Nazis often succeeded in. Especially with tanks.
                  Quote: Cherry Nine
                  There was a jagdpanzer. It has its pluses, the Panther has its own.

                  But Mouse will cover them both like a bull to a sheep. If, like the Panther, he reaches the battlefield.
                  Quote: Cherry Nine
                  In real life, such cars went from the spring of the 43rd and not entirely.

                  Well, the Panther was "delivered" exactly by this time. The Stalin Prize was not given out for whatever reason.
                  Quote: Cherry Nine
                  43rd year. On the 44th you can compare.

                  Oh, I beg you. Do not believe Guderian's tales.
                  Quote: Cherry Nine
                  Funny joke.

                  Not at all. On the battlefield, in 9 out of 10 cases it was absolutely all the same the initial speed of your OFS is 900m / s or "only" 700m / s.
                  1. Cherry Nine
                    Cherry Nine 13 December 2020 23: 43
                    0
                    Quote: DesToeR
                    Well, for example, about the "new world order".

                    Quote: DesToeR
                    negotiate ... Including the post-war arrangement of the borders of the Reich

                    Quote: DesToeR
                    And what were the "options" not to establish a common border with the Reich?

                    Don't you see anything strange?
                    Quote: DesToeR
                    how did the "grandfathers" manage? After every "500 km" new "Bagration" to develop?

                    Yes exactly. From Pulawskiy bridgehead to Kyustrinskiy six months and exactly 500 km.
                    Quote: DesToeR
                    It is very difficult to distinguish between end and means.

                    Apparently yes.
                    Quote: DesToeR
                    Include "Citadel" in your list,

                    Why one Citalel? There were many unsuccessful operations, and the Germans too, of course. But the Germans did not consider the offensive in itself the solution to all problems, as far as I know. Unlike you.
                    Quote: DesToeR
                    then the "linear" tank of the panzerdivisions, and the fact that he "could not"

                    Stories about the fact that the 40 + ton Panther is inferior in mobility to the 20 ton three always look convincing. And in fact, both Panther, and 50 + tons of Tiger, and 60 + tons of Fedya, and 40+ tons of IS / ISU, and 40 tons of Churchillies completely reached where they needed.
                    Quote: DesToeR
                    But Mouse will cover them both like a bull to a sheep.

                    Well, that might not be a bad idea, but in some highly alternative Reich.

                    Do you only have questions for Mouse? Are they missing for the KV-3-KV-7?
                    Quote: DesToeR
                    Well, the Panther was "delivered" exactly by this time.

                    As I said, the Panther is somehow on the drum transmission on the T-34/76. No, the Nazis are uncomfortable that more T-34s began to reach the front line, but this is not a demand from the Panther.
                    Quote: DesToeR
                    Do not believe Guderian's tales.

                    I have no idea what claims you have against Guderian.
                    Quote: DesToeR
                    the initial speed of your OFS is 900m / s or "only" 700m / s.

                    I have no idea what you dragged the OFS to there. The panther cannon was conceived for the sake of the BB, and the speed of its OFS was moderate, just 700, in order to maintain an acceptable high-explosive action. On the other hand, in fact, the armor-piercing capability of the KvK40 / 48 was mostly sufficient, the BB speed there is almost 800.
                    1. DesToeR
                      DesToeR 14 December 2020 15: 27
                      0
                      Quote: Cherry Nine
                      Don't you see anything strange?

                      No, I don’t see.
                      Quote: Cherry Nine
                      But the Germans did not consider the offensive in itself the solution to all problems, as far as I know.

                      They counted. Moreover, they convincingly proved to the French that they will not be able to sit out. Neither the Maginot Line, nor the 5 million army mobilized from September 1939.
                      Quote: Cherry Nine
                      And in fact, both the Panther, and 50 + tons of Tiger, and 60 + tons of Fedya, and 40+ tons of IS / ISU, and 40 tons of Churchillies completely reached where they needed.

                      It is so interesting not only where they actually got there, but where they could not get there or they were not even sent there. Or do you think the military does not take this into account? Otherwise, yes, if you give the tiger battalion the "green light" and put a bunch of resources on it, then you can walk through the swamps of Polesie.
                      Quote: Cherry Nine
                      Do you only have questions for Mouse? Are they missing for the KV-3-KV-7?

                      And I have no questions for Mouse. As there are none for the KV-3 and KV-7. These are heavy tanks for specific tasks.
                      Quote: Cherry Nine
                      No, the Nazis are uncomfortable that more T-34s began to reach the front line, but this is not a demand from the Panther.

                      So and where does some kind of "demand" and even from the tank? There should be a demand from the designer for the Panther. And from the military, who approved a 46 ton colossus with such characteristics in 1943. To understand all the squalor of this tank, just look at the weight and characteristics of the T-44.
                      Quote: Cherry Nine
                      I have no idea what claims you have against Guderian.

                      He easily changed his faith to suit the circumstances.
                      Quote: Cherry Nine
                      I have no idea what you dragged the OFS to there.

                      Well, of course "no idea", because as soon as the conversation comes about the OFS, so all at once I tell tales about the Uber capabilities of German tanks in armor penetration. And the fact that the tank in 9 cases out of 10 BB didn’t use it because it was “forgotten”.
                      Quote: Cherry Nine
                      The panther cannon was conceived for the BB

                      So about that and speech that the gun was "conceived" without a real analysis of the battles. And the fact that the 75mm / L48 coped well with the T-34 and KV, and against the next step in booking Soviet vehicles, the 75mm / L70 immediately "blown away" - well, it happened like that among the Germans ...
                      1. Cherry Nine
                        Cherry Nine 14 December 2020 16: 02
                        0
                        Quote: DesToeR
                        No, I don’t see.

                        Apparently not destiny.
                        Quote: DesToeR
                        Moreover, they convincingly proved to the French that they will not be able to sit out.

                        Well, you are not going to attack with the Germans of 40, but with Kirponos of 41, as far as I remember.
                        Quote: DesToeR
                        but where they could not get there or they were not even sent there.

                        About nothing. Wherever they went, the fuel truck got stuck even earlier.
                        Quote: DesToeR
                        And I have no questions for Mouse.

                        Oh, no, no, no.
                        Quote: DesToeR
                        And from the military, who approved a 46 ton colossus with such characteristics in 1943. To understand all the squalor of this tank, just look at the weight and characteristics of the T-44.

                        It is rather strange to compare a stage vehicle, after which the USSR, the United States, and the British, and the T-40 tank, which was born a freak and spent all his service out of sight, in training units, went in the weight of 50-44 tons.
                        Quote: DesToeR
                        He easily changed his faith to suit the circumstances.

                        Strongly principled VFGN could have sent to Dachau.
                        Quote: DesToeR
                        that the tank in 9 cases out of 10 BB didn’t use it because it was "forgotten".

                        Including in this thread, it was discussed that the very first gun, the 7,5 cm KwK 37, was better suited to combat the infantry. But during the war, it turned out that the most massive target of the tank was still infantry, but the most important one was armored vehicles. I had to find a compromise.
                        Quote: DesToeR
                        And the fact that the 75mm / L48 coped quite well with the T-34 and KV, and against the next step in booking Soviet vehicles, the 75mm / L70 was immediately "blown away"

                        Well, no one is perfect. And at the expense of "real analysis" - this is for you somewhere in the 50th year.
                      2. DesToeR
                        DesToeR 14 December 2020 16: 42
                        0
                        Quote: Cherry Nine
                        Well, you are not going to attack with the Germans of 40, but with Kirponos of 41, as far as I remember.

                        Has the treshachok gone? Well, apparently the arguments are over.
                        Quote: Cherry Nine
                        About nothing. Wherever they went, the fuel truck got stuck even earlier.

                        This is how a truck with fuel drives along the tracks. Unlike a tank, he does not need to "master" arable land and forest.

                        Quote: Cherry Nine
                        It is rather strange to compare a milestone car, after which the USSR went to weigh 40-50 tons

                        The knowledge gap is evident. 50 tons in the USSR "mastered" long before the "miracle" of the Panzerwaffe. Well, and somehow the T-54/55 series does not fit into your stereotype. From the word at all.

                        Quote: Cherry Nine
                        and the T-44 tank, which was born a freak and spent all his service out of sight, in training units.

                        Well, here, as always - without comparison with the harsh reality in the camp of the enemy. It is much better to release the "Swan-Panther" into the troops, crap on the marches to the front line, find out that regular anti-tank weapons do a good job with the Uber-tank, and then in 1944 (a year and a half after it was put into service), report that the tank as a whole is ready for use in a panzerwaffe.
                        Quote: Cherry Nine
                        I had to find a compromise.

                        Voila - finally this wonderful "realization": a compromise. So what about the Soviet 122mm guns on the IS series? For a "compromise" will we count? Or will we only forgive the Nazis for the hopeless stupidity? Ah ... it's not stupidity! This is KOMPROMIS to put a three-inch model on a heavy-duty car in 1943.

                        Quote: Cherry Nine
                        And at the expense of "real analysis" - this is for you somewhere in the 50th year.

                        There is no need to "send" me anywhere. In the USSR, this analysis was started in 1941, moreover, in the conditions of a "shortage" of its own damaged vehicles.
                      3. Cherry Nine
                        Cherry Nine 14 December 2020 17: 02
                        0
                        Quote: DesToeR
                        the arguments are over.

                        Arguments? That the Red Army 41 and the Wehrmacht 40 are slightly different armies?
                        Quote: DesToeR
                        Unlike a tank, he does not need to "master" arable land and forest.

                        Did the Panthers have problems with arable land or with undergrowth?
                        Quote: DesToeR
                        50 tons in the USSR "mastered" long before the "miracle" of the Panzerwaffe.

                        Yeah. And by the 42nd it was already decided that the garbage turns out. But in 44 I had to return to this topic.
                        Quote: DesToeR
                        Well, and somehow the T-54/55 series does not fit into your stereotype.

                        Well, the USSR, as always, has a lot of wishes, there are much less opportunities. I had to cram the Wishlist into 35 tons. It turned out quite strange, to be honest.
                        Quote: DesToeR
                        crap on the marches to the front line, find out that the standard anti-tank weapons are doing a good job with the uber-tank, and then in 1944 (a year and a half after being adopted), report

                        Well, at the expense of regular anti-tank weapons, you naturally got excited, they couldn't even cope with the Panther among the Americans, and about the marches - yes, the increase in the mass of the tank twice was not so easy for anyone.
                        Quote: DesToeR
                        So what about the Soviet 122mm guns on the IS series? For a "compromise" will we count?

                        Of course a compromise, but not like the Germans. This is a compromise between Soviet poverty and the need to break through the Panther, suddenly. At least somehow punch. As a result, a body gun had to be pushed into the car. With separate loading, with a piston bolt, a carcass, a stuffed animal, but at least some chance.
                        Quote: DesToeR
                        In the USSR, this analysis was started in 1941, moreover, in the conditions of a "shortage" of their own wrecked cars.

                        You can't think of a lot of money (s). The Germans have thought of one thing, the Soviets have another, here everyone has their own cockroaches.
                      4. DesToeR
                        DesToeR 14 December 2020 17: 20
                        0
                        Quote: Cherry Nine
                        That the Red Army 41 and the Wehrmacht 40 are slightly different armies?

                        I even think that the SA arr. 1945 and the Wehrmacht of 1945 are two different planets.
                        Quote: Cherry Nine
                        Did the Panthers have problems with arable land or with undergrowth?

                        Do you think not? "Oh, well, no, no."
                        Quote: Cherry Nine
                        Yeah. And by the 42nd it was already decided that the garbage turns out

                        And what proves or refutes this? Probably the fact that in 1939 the "gloomy Teutonic genius" was greatly overestimated in the USSR.

                        Quote: Cherry Nine
                        But in 44 I had to return to this topic.

                        We are different with the Germans, whatever you say. In 1945 ... 1946 the Nazis decided that it was necessary to "return" to 15 ... 25 tons. Ehh fate is a villain.
                        Quote: Cherry Nine
                        I had to cram the Wishlist into 35 tons. It turned out quite strange, to be honest.

                        Well, here IMHO in its pure form, as always, without comparison and analysis.

                        Quote: Cherry Nine
                        Well, at the expense of regular PT funds, you naturally got excited

                        And what is "hot" here if even an LT with 45mm on board could two Panthers at a time ... Where is the rise of the anti-tank defense bar in the USSR from the appearance of the Panther? But the T-34 "scrapped" not only 37mm, but also the new 50mm / L60 Reinmetal. I had to "tinker" the PAK40 75mm. But there is already a weight of about one and a half tons ...

                        Quote: Cherry Nine
                        Of course a compromise, but not like the Germans.

                        Yeah - "that's different."
                        Quote: Cherry Nine
                        This is a compromise between Soviet poverty and the need to break through the Panther, suddenly.

                        Oh, I beg you to tell this to someone else. After the winter of 1943, the panther was of no interest to anyone, because there was a Tiger.
                        Quote: Cherry Nine
                        You can't think of a lot of money (s). The Germans have thought of one thing, the Soviets have another, here everyone has their own cockroaches.

                        Well, here, as they say, the strongest won.
                      5. Cherry Nine
                        Cherry Nine 15 December 2020 02: 51
                        0
                        Quote: DesToeR
                        I even think that the SA arr. 1945 and the Wehrmacht of 1945 are two different planets.

                        You seem to have forgotten how you started this conversation.
                        Quote: DesToeR
                        This is if we consider the armored troops in the conditions of the battles of 1941, when the USSR received a sudden blow and the entire Red Army "improvised" at a front of one and a half thousand kilometers. And if we consider these very corps in terms of the doctrine of a deep offensive operation, when the initiative is not on the side of the Germans,

                        You were going to attack the Wehrmacht with mechanized corps of the 41st year. Not 45th.
                        Quote: DesToeR
                        Do you think not?

                        Of course not. Attempts by panther haters to convince me that a tank with the weight, power and ground pressure of the T-72 had some incredible mobility problems are always amusing.
                        Quote: DesToeR
                        Probably the fact that in 1939 the "gloomy Teutonic genius" was greatly overestimated in the USSR.

                        When the KV was created, there were few thoughts specifically about the Teutonic genius. But you, of course, are right, a lot of strange things happened in the Soviet tank building of the pre-war years.
                        Quote: DesToeR
                        In 1945 ... 1946 the Nazis decided that it was necessary to "return" to 15 ... 25 tons.

                        Uh, no, we didn’t decide.
                        Quote: DesToeR
                        Well, here IMHO in its pure form, as always, without comparison and analysis.

                        That the USSR built 35-ton machines against 45-ton ones and presented it as a good idea? No, I will not analyze it, another time. Moreover, the Russian Federation is doing exactly the same thing.
                        Quote: DesToeR
                        even if an LT with 45mm on board could two Panthers at a time ...

                        I remember an anecdote "-And here is 80 and he says that he can twice a night - So you also say." Although in the 45mm PTO in the 44th year, to be honest, there is little funny.
                        Quote: DesToeR
                        Rheinmetal in 50mm / L60

                        This T-34 cannon penetrated with confidence.
                        Quote: DesToeR
                        I had to "tinker" the PAK40 75mm.

                        As it turned out, there was no particular need for it. However, the Germans liked to lay excessive requirements for weapons, sometimes it was by the way, sometimes not.
                        Quote: DesToeR
                        Yeah - "that's different."

                        Of course another. The Germans came to such compromises as the USSR only in 45. And in the 43rd the Germans received a gun on the IS per year to the ISA, and the USSR - a weapon to the Panther in a year after the Panther, there is some difference, you know.
                        Quote: DesToeR
                        After the winter of 1943, the panther was of no interest to anyone, because there was a Tiger.

                        And you are not at all aware of the circumstances of those years and the characteristics of the machines, right?
                        Quote: DesToeR
                        the strongest won.

                        Reich + Italy + fighting separately Japan against China + BI + USA + USSR? Yes, it's strange to argue with that.
                      6. DesToeR
                        DesToeR 15 December 2020 19: 01
                        0
                        Quote: Cherry Nine
                        You were going to attack the Wehrmacht with mechanized corps of the 41st year. Not 45th.

                        It was under this doctrine that Soviet tanks were created.
                        Quote: Cherry Nine
                        Attempts by panther haters to convince me that a tank with the weight, power and ground pressure of the T-72 had some incredible mobility problems are always amusing.

                        Always amused by idle reasoning according to the reference book ala Wikipedia. Only here is the devil in the "little things": the T-72 engine is diesel - another (higher) torque on the "bottom", which gives a significant advantage when driving over rough terrain. And the checkpoint was originally created not for 35 tons, but as expected. Well, if you are really so strict, then the specific power of the T-72 is 8 ... 21% higher than that of the Panther, depending on the modification. So yes, the problems were so big that the Panther even survived the "groove".
                        Quote: Cherry Nine
                        I recall a joke

                        Tell this anecdote to Junior Lieutenant Pegov. I wish he would laugh then!
                        Quote: Cherry Nine
                        Although in the 45mm PTO in the 44th year, to be honest, there is little funny.

                        And the Germans were so funny: a ten-year-old cannon pierces the forehead of the tower of their brand new Panther with a sub-caliber. And it's better not to substitute the sides - there the BB "passes".
                        Quote: Cherry Nine
                        This T-34 cannon penetrated with confidence.

                        I did, but far from confident.
                        Quote: Cherry Nine
                        And in 43, the Germans received a gun on the IS a year before the IS, and the USSR - a gun on the Panther a year after the Panther, there is some difference, you know.

                        So we got the 45mm cannon ten years before the Panther came along ?! Yes, the difference is on the face.
                        Quote: Cherry Nine
                        And you are not at all aware of the circumstances of those years and the characteristics of the machines, right?

                        And I see you in the "course", though from Nazi advertising brochures. The real combat use of the Panther is past you, right?
                      7. Cherry Nine
                        Cherry Nine 16 December 2020 01: 00
                        +1
                        Quote: DesToeR
                        It was under this doctrine that Soviet tanks were created.

                        Uh-uh. Despite all the good things that I wrote above about the T-34, no one really understood why it was created.
                        Quote: DesToeR
                        Always amused by idle reasoning according to the reference book ala Wikipedia. But the devil is in the "little things": the T-72 engine is diesel

                        Wow, what news. This is written to me by a person who knows about the Panthers mainly from the murzilki for the October 70s.
                        Quote: DesToeR
                        Tell this anecdote to Junior Lieutenant Pegov.

                        By the way about Pegova. Somehow I didn't pay attention to this character before.

                        And what kind of story is this with two Panthers and a T-70 in the spring of 44, which they love to tell on the Internet? Where did it come from? Is it from Svirin, in an hour?

                        Quote: DesToeR
                        And the Germans were so funny: a ten-year-old cannon pierces the forehead of the tower of their brand new Panther with a sub-caliber. And it's better not to substitute the sides - there the BB "passes".

                        Well, someone wins in Sportloto, someone breaks a 45mm Panther mask (not the forehead of the tower), everyone has their own ways to spend their luck.
                        Quote: Cherry Nine
                        By the way, I love this moment when the fans of Comrade Stalin suddenly begins to compare him with Hitler.

                        The second favorite moment is when the fans of Comrade. Stalin actually get to the grandfathers who fought. Panther - Dr., fans say, forty-five - well done, don't fret that the Allied divisional ATT since 43 is 57mm.
                        Quote: DesToeR
                        I did, but far from confident.

                        Not as confident as the 45th Panther, of course.
                        Quote: DesToeR
                        So we got the 45mm cannon ten years before the Panther came along ?! Yes, the difference is on the face.

                        19-K, or what? Well, you personally did not receive it, although, of course, it would be nice to send you personally from 19-K under the Panther. And the rest had problems with this gun even with the troika of 41, and Stug is generally almost impenetrable.
                        Quote: DesToeR
                        The real combat use of the Panther is past you, right?

                        More than successful combat use, as far as I am informed. When, of course, it was possible to form normal battle groups, which the Germans did from 42, the further, the worse. For each Panther, the USSR released an IS / ISU of the same weight, and, together with the United States, added a dozen medium tanks.
  • dgonni
    dgonni 12 December 2020 22: 34
    -1
    + totally agree!
    On my own behalf, I will add that in Germany there was an idea not to stop the production of a cheap and technologically debugged four and just replace the turret with a panther one with its own cannon and a slightly forced engine.
    This made it possible to maintain large volumes of production. But the idea didn't work. That some historians consider one of the reasons for the decline in the effectiveness of tank forces and the appearance of massive losses for technical reasons.
    1. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine 12 December 2020 23: 05
      0
      There were a lot of all sorts of ideas, not always smart. You can't just put a panther tower, the shoulder straps do not match, and there is no need. KvK40 was enough.

      In general, the Germans were really carried away by the new wunderwolf and did not fully use the capabilities of the 3/4 chassis. It is difficult to say whether they were right or not, both solutions have their pros and cons. In the logic of blitzkriegs, the Panther was the right decision, in the logic of total war, it was a mistake.
      1. Alexey G
        Alexey G 13 December 2020 13: 27
        +1
        And they got very entertaining vehicles, a kind of hybrid T-4 with a turret from a "panther" with a shortened 75-mm gun.


        https://824td.livejournal.com/26330.html
        Perhaps nonsense, just the topic interested ...
        1. Cherry Nine
          Cherry Nine 13 December 2020 22: 49
          -1
          Quote: Alexey G
          https://824td.livejournal.com/26330.html
          Perhaps nonsense, just the topic interested ...

          Well it's written right there. Altistory.
  • Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
    Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 12 December 2020 13: 47
    +1
    I agree with the author - it is foolish to think that serial tank masterpieces began to roll off the conveyor belts of Alquette or MAN. Recall at least the textbook difficult story of "treshka", which was "born" only by the fifth episode. And even then, already approved by the inspectorate, it began to urgently rearm from 3.7 to 5 cm. But the Germans had unconditional constants - a great technocratic culture, coupled with a high production culture.
  • StaFForD
    StaFForD 12 December 2020 14: 37
    0
    My favorite series of articles. Many thanks to the author.
  • maximghost
    maximghost 12 December 2020 17: 57
    0
    Strange article. Why the T-34 is regarded as an unchanged tank for 41-42 years. Even tanks of the same time, produced by different factories, could differ significantly.
    For example, UVZ tanks had soybeans, a characteristic tower, more thoughtful than the tanks produced before the KhTZ evacuation. All due to the fact that during the evacuation the documentation for the towers and the tower to 34 had to be redesigned in order to urgently establish the production of tanks. Then came the nut tower - more comfortable and more armored. Then a turret was welded onto the nut.

    In addition, I did not understand the thesis about "2 sheets of 30mm each less durable than 1 sheet of 60mm". This would be true under static loads, and even then with nuances, but with drums everything is much more interesting. The actual armor of modern tanks consists of a set of plates of different thicknesses (albeit with gaps), and not of a monolithic slab.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      14 December 2020 15: 13
      +1
      Quote: maximghost
      Why the T-34 is seen as an unchanged tank for 41-42 years.

      Not as unchanged, but as having no significant increase in purely combat performance characteristics
      Quote: maximghost
      Besides, I did not understand the thesis about "2 sheets of 30mm each less durable than 1 sheet of 60mm"

      This follows from the armor penetration formulas
      Quote: maximghost
      The actual armor of modern tanks consists of a set of plates of different thicknesses (albeit with gaps), and not of a monolithic slab.

      Not this way. There are certain layers, "sandwich", and all this is calculated. Two sheets on bolts will not give this
      1. maximghost
        maximghost 14 December 2020 17: 26
        0
        Not this way. There are certain layers, "sandwich", and all this is calculated. Two sheets on bolts will not give this

        On the T-72, these are air layers. But yes, I agree, 2 sheets on bolts will not give the same effect.

        This follows from the armor penetration formulas

        And you can read more.
        Not as unchanged, but as having no significant increase in purely combat performance characteristics

        Strengthening the turret armor and, in part, increasing visibility is a significant increase in combat characteristics. If we simply compare the tanks head-on, then a simple T-4 armor-piercing projectile from the butt had practically no chance of hitting the "nut" even at close range, while the "pie" had a good chance of piercing it.
        What does the conversation have to do with the forehead of the tower and the side.
  • Forever so
    Forever so 12 December 2020 18: 10
    0
    Yes, someone before the war tried very hard to keep the USSR without a medium tank, although there was already a well-proven T-28. Take away the bullet towers, put the 85 mm anti-aircraft gun in the turret and you wouldn't have to fence the raw T-34s in the "wear panties over pants on the run" mode. After all, personnel tankers were burned in them.
    1. Alf
      Alf 12 December 2020 21: 11
      +2
      Quote: Forever so
      Take away the bullet towers, put the 85 mm anti-aircraft gun in the turret and you wouldn't have to fence the raw T-34s in the "wear panties over pants on the run" mode.

      Reduce the body, i.e. rebuild, plug in the diesel, strengthen the booking, create a new tank. It's easier to mold a new tank from scratch.
      1. Forever so
        Forever so 23 December 2020 20: 50
        0
        By the 40th year, the T-28 had already lost all its childhood illnesses, by the way, the B-2 diesel was just made for it. The more I delve into history, the more questions. The T-28 was removed before the war and the troops were left with bare F, the best fighter PO-185 Yakovlev chopped alive and the pilots were burning in rag shit Yak-1. Grabinskaya 76mm was discontinued for a hell of a lot of power, and the development of the PTR was stopped. Thanks to this, the Germans repaired almost 90% of the tanks. The warehouses which the Germans used until the age of 43 were transferred to the close to the border, Taubin and his grenade launcher, Kurchevsky with a hand grenade launcher, were shot. And about the EASIER TANK FROM ZERO, you are probably a little out of topic, so do not disgrace yourself and do not make you laugh. There are interesting analytics, I recommend. - "T-28 against" Panther "or tank" Groundhog Day "
        Sukhinenko B.N.
        2018
        1. Alf
          Alf 23 December 2020 21: 00
          0
          Quote: Forever so
          diesel V-2 just for him and did.

          Diesel B-2 was made as a multipurpose aviation, in the first place.
          Quote: Forever so
          The best fighter PO-185 Yakovlev chopped alive

          What a bastard ... Was there a motor for the 185th? Name it.
          Quote: Forever so
          and the pilots were burning in rag shit Yak-1.

          And where to get the duralumin for the 185th? Especially in the 40th? Did you know that an all-metal fighter did not appear in the Red Army Air Force until the end of the war? And all for the same reason - no duralumin? And the bastard Yakovlev has nothing to do with it.
          Quote: Forever so
          Out of production Grabinskaya 76mm

          Which brand, model? Name it, just specifically.
          Quote: Forever so
          Kurchevsky with a hand grenade launcher, shot.

          Name at least one "creation" of the "great" Kurchevsky, which he brought to the series.
          Quote: Forever so
          There are interesting analytics, I recommend. - "T-28 against" Panther "or tank" Groundhog Day "

          Who called him an analyst?
          Don't you know that the T-28 transmission didn't pull heavier armor?
          The T-28 was an excellent tank, but only for its time. It was the ultimate design, if, of course, you know such a technical term.
          1. EvilLion
            EvilLion 26 February 2021 08: 49
            0
            The T-28 is sabotage.
    2. dgonni
      dgonni 12 December 2020 22: 37
      -1
      The T-28 was very low-tech and did not have a margin for retrofitting and an increase in weight in terms of the carrying capacity of the chassis!
    3. irontom
      irontom 13 December 2020 15: 48
      0
      It will turn out to be KV, and 85 - they beat it in Tanchiki, in real life they just rolled it on a tank, not a single shot was fired, the epaulette of the tower could not withstand the recoil.
    4. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 14 December 2020 13: 44
      0
      Quote: Forever so
      Yes, someone before the war tried very hard to keep the USSR without a medium tank, although there was already a well-proven T-28. Take away the bullet towers, put the 85 mm anti-aircraft gun in the turret and you wouldn't have to fence the raw T-34s in the "wear panties over pants on the run" mode.

      And the USSR is left without heavy tanks. Generally. Because LKZ could do either the T-28 or the KV. And there were no more tank factories capable of serially producing TTs in the USSR.
      Oh yes, I also recommend inquiring about the release of ammunition for the 85-mm anti-aircraft gun. In real life, in two years, the ammunition personnel barely issued 1 ammo per barrel for existing anti-aircraft guns. I emphasize - not for the regular number, but only for those who managed to put in the troops.
      Will the NKBP be able to provide new tanks with shells?
    5. strannik1985
      strannik1985 14 December 2020 18: 08
      0
      although there was already a well-proven T-28

      Without options, the T-28 destroyed the rubber tires of the rollers when overcoming obstacles 0,2 meters high at a speed of 20-25 km / h.
  • Alexey G
    Alexey G 13 December 2020 00: 26
    +1
    That's right, which is why Guderian was against the Tigers and Panthers! He offered to make more T4 and win, making it a massive tank, produce thousands! But the Fuehrer was against! And it was precisely the fours that Manstein proposed to strike at the Kursk salient in May 1943, without waiting for the Russians to set up an impenetrable defense!
    When the war is already underway, it is too late to build new weapons, you need to bring the old one or introduce ready-made developments, but changing the main tank is of course a mistake!
    The T4 had a decent chassis and was a tank capable of engaging in an encirclement battle, going miles inland! The panther couldn't do that! This is an ambush tank, not an offensive! Perhaps the most rational solution for the Germans was the mass production of T4 and the gradual introduction of the Tigers, but not in the Battle of Kursk, but after it! Tiger and T4 would be a good match! Tigers for ambushes and short strikes to break through the defense, and T4 for pursuit and encirclement! And besides, the Tigers appeared before the Panthers! And in fact they were much better, occupying the niche of heavy tanks!
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 14 December 2020 14: 08
      0
      Quote: Alexey G
      That's right, which is why Guderian was against the Tigers and Panthers! He offered to make more T4 and win, making it a massive tank, produce thousands! But the Fuehrer was against! And it was precisely the fours that Manstein proposed to strike at the Kursk salient in May 1943, without waiting for the Russians to set up an impenetrable defense!

      My generals don't understand anything about the war economy. © one Austrian artist and vegan

      Where to get these "fours" none of the generals said. But the situation in the tank industry of the Reich was very amusing: one group of factories produced "three-ruble notes", the other - "fours". When "three-ruble notes" began to become obsolete, then a "panther" was made to replace them, proceeding from the fastest possible production in series at the "three-ruble" group of plants.
      That is, in 1943 the Panzerwaffe could have either "fours" and a little "panthers", or the same number of "fours" and ... nothing. Because the production of a series of "alien" "four" at "three-ruble" factories would take much longer than the production of a series of "native" "panthers" on them.
      And experimenting in this way in front of the Citadel is not a good idea.
      1. Alexey G
        Alexey G 14 December 2020 15: 11
        0
        As it is very doubtful! Making a panther in factories where they made three-ruble notes is easier than creating T4 in the same place ??? Why would ?? Is treshka not Panther's mom and dad? These are completely different tanks!


        Where do you see the possibility of an easy transition? The chassis is different, the tower is different, the gun is different!

        These, of course, are also different, but they are simpler in technical terms and have long been mastered!
        And after all, no one suggested closing all the factories with triplets in front of the citadel, but it would be rational and gradually to switch to T4! After all, the USSR also stopped producing T26 or BT tanks and began to make T34!
        Why is the Panther more familiar than T4 for factories where T3 was made? I don't see any logic from the word at all!
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 14 December 2020 16: 32
          0
          Quote: Alexey G
          As it is very doubtful! Making a panther in factories where they made three-ruble notes is easier than creating T4 in the same place ??? Why would ?? Is treshka not Panther's mom and dad? These are completely different tanks!

          Did you make "Panther"? based on the possibility of relatively quick transition to it from "three-ruble note".
          It was originally supposed to replace the "four", but for this the Reich needed only a little - to defeat the USSR before 1942. smile
          Quote: Alexey G
          These, of course, are also different, but they are simpler in technical terms and have long been mastered!

          "Fours" are mastered by other factories. It's like Tagil and Kharkov: it turned out to be easier for Tagil to make his own T-72 and switch to it from the T-62, than to produce the simplified T-64 prescribed for the plant "from above". Which was also has long been mastered, and which had all the documentation.
          1. Alexey G
            Alexey G 14 December 2020 16: 40
            0
            I honestly didn't quite understand your reasoning! My thought was that the Germans needed one T4 Medium Tank and one T6 Heavy Tank! T4 fought for a long time and its modernization could fight against the T34 thanks to its good gun and reinforced frontal armor! The tiger was able to successfully fight KV. Both of these tanks in time appeared with the Germans before the Panther and they should have been produced for the war! And at what plants and what capacities is another question!
            The T3 tank was completely outdated by 1943 and could no longer help the Wehrmacht to win! Quite the opposite. When the USSR removed the BT and T26 from production, it essentially had no goals left, because in the fight against the T34 it was very difficult for him!
            And I think that the Germans could switch to the production of these two tanks with the rational management of the military-industrial complex
            Tigers have been used since August 1942! These two tanks could interact well on the battlefield and were even slightly similar in appearance, which misled our infantry!
            1. Alexey RA
              Alexey RA 14 December 2020 19: 24
              0
              Quote: Alexey G
              My thought was that the Germans needed one T4 medium tank and one T6 Heavy tank!

              The Germans had planned so: one medium tank T-V and one heavy tank T-VI. But an unplanned long war in the East interfered. smile
              Quote: Alexey G
              T4 fought for a long time and its modernization could fight against the T34 thanks to a good gun and reinforced frontal armor!

              The Quartet already in 1943 is a dead end. The Germans were just lucky that our armored vehicles were losing tanks at such a pace that the factories did not have time for a radical restructuring of production - and until the end of the war they had to produce a tank, which was supposed to be discontinued in 1942.But the Germans did not knew. Well, how would the Russians roll out something like the T-43?
              Quote: Alexey G
              The T3 tank was completely outdated by 1943 and could no longer help the Wehrmacht to win!

              Right. And the German military-industrial complex formed free factories, where it was possible to make either a new generation tank, or the "four" that could become obsolete at any moment (which was still a hemorrhoid to put into series at these factories).
              Quote: Alexey G
              And I think that the Germans could switch to the production of these two tanks with the rational management of the military-industrial complex

              Only two countries demonstrated rational management of the private military-industrial complex during the war - Britain (in terms of the aircraft industry) and citadel of democracy, which temporarily installed the administrative command system. smile
              1. Alexey G
                Alexey G 14 December 2020 20: 14
                0
                The Quartet already in 1943 is a dead end. Well, how would the Russians roll out something like the T-43?

                So I don't think that T4 would be so much scared of T43go, even if it appeared within the framework of an alternative history. The T4 cannon with 1 km penetrated 97 mm of armor, while the T43 had 75 mm forehead and 60 mm side!
                And the T34-85 has a 45mm hull forehead!
                Plus, the Germans put another L4 on the T48, as you can see from the article, and that means they even strengthened the gun!
                The Germans had planned so: one medium tank T-V and one heavy tank T-VI.

                Only now the average panther somehow did not work out! It is essentially a heavy tank, but with medium armor and a cannon!
                1. EvilLion
                  EvilLion 26 February 2021 08: 47
                  0
                  The T4 cannon with 1km penetrated 97 mm of armor, while the T43 had 75 mm forehead and 60 mm side!


                  Taking into account the unpredictable meeting angles and spread in penetration, 97 mm against such armor does not give a confident defeat. The T-34-85 has a turret of 80-90 mm. As for the hull, then, most likely, there was no point in strengthening, in-1, there is a hole in the hatch, in-2, additional 10-20 mm would not change anything, and to the parameters of the T-44 from 120 mm, or at least 90 mm, still do not increase. The shells mainly hit the turret, although the T-34 has a very high hull. I suspect that 1.8 hits on a disabled tank were formed precisely from the situation that the forehead of the tower, more or less, tanks 75 mm, the rest of the projections no longer tank anything larger than 50 mm.
              2. Cherry Nine
                Cherry Nine 15 December 2020 01: 53
                0
                Quote: Alexey RA
                The rational management of the private military-industrial complex during the war was demonstrated ... the citadel of democracy,

                It will tear me apart.
                Quote: Alexey RA
                The Germans were just lucky that our armored vehicles were losing tanks at such a rate that the factories did not have time for a radical restructuring of production.

                Ah, this is my favorite moment about a story that has given us too little time. So little that they managed to remain only without the T-26, but with the T-50 without an engine. And it was also necessary to make the T-34M, which will normally begin to be obtained in 3 years, and the KV-3, which will never normally begin to be produced. But without the KV-1 and T-34. Just bingo.
        2. yehat2
          yehat2 18 December 2020 12: 27
          +1
          still correct. the towers of the panther and the four are different, but have a lot in common. Both are welded, both have a similar gun layout, a similar mask design. So there was no problem to move from one production to another. Let me remind you that the German plant had powerful departments preparing documentation and standards for production, as well as, on average, much more qualified workers.
          As for the hull, the panther had a fairly technologically advanced design that did not cause any particular difficulties. Installing an engine is not just assembling it. Again, I don't see any special additional difficulties. From the entire hull, some difficulties were caused by the inset of the machine-gun point and the new turret. Installation of wheels from scratch and suspension was similar in labor intensity to T4.
  • kytx
    kytx 13 December 2020 07: 32
    0
    cat is a very strange tank
    dark genius in its purest form
    here I agree with the author
  • Valdaev
    Valdaev 13 December 2020 17: 30
    -6
    Read the text carefully. Look at the table. The conclusion, in my opinion, suggests itself: the USSR could not fight on the principle of "less, but better." Fighting according to the principle of "women give birth" is his generic irreparable feature. Similar features were evident not only in the military sphere. Because socialism is dead. Rest in peace, damn boring gray socialism! Putinism will die too
  • Alexey RA
    Alexey RA 14 December 2020 12: 38
    0
    The Soviet 45-mm anti-tank gun of the 1937 model sent an armor-piercing projectile into flight with an initial speed of 760 m / s, that is, if it was inferior to the British two-pounder, it was by no means an order of magnitude.

    If the Soviet 45-mm sent a British projectile in flight, then yes. smile
    But with a high-quality Soviet projectile produced before November 1941, the 45-mm anti-tank gun penetrated only 40 mm of German armor from 150 m. Tests in 1940 are an example of this.
    On the other hand, the question remains - could it really have been impossible to carry out at least some point improvements, like equipping the thirty-fours with the same commander's cupola?

    When to do it?
    Before the war? So KhPZ reports that there is no point in upgrading the T-34 - the tank will be discontinued and replaced with a new tank, the design of which will take into account all the shortcomings.
    During the war? So, in the first year, the kombashka was not only not installed - it was removed from the tank, in the design of which it was provided: the T-50 lost the kombucha, because there were no observation devices for it, without which it made no sense.
    The most massive at that time "four" modifications of the Ausf. C and Ausf. D with their frontal armor of 30 mm and sides - 20 mm by the standards of 1941 were frankly weakly protected.

    EMNIP, by 22.06.1941/XNUMX/XNUMX, all medium tanks of early production were modernized with armor-plated screens.
  • strannik1985
    strannik1985 14 December 2020 18: 42
    0
    Of course, the advantage in communications played a huge role here.

    This is not a lag, but an underestimation. In the mechanized corps at the corps level, communications were provided by a separate communications battalion and an air link in a mixed squadron, in a tank army - a communications regiment, an air regiment (squadron) of communications, a headquarters battery of the army's artillery chief, 3 cable-pole (3 Morse apparatus, 27 telephones, 36 km of cable by state) and 1 telephone company (12 telephones, 31 km of cable) (for example, 6 TA in January 1945).
    Similarly, with the engineering support - in the MK there is a separate engineering battalion, in the TA - a motorized brigade, the support - in the MK there are no means to ensure the level of the corps, in the TA there is an automobile regiment or several separate automobile battalions.
  • yehat2
    yehat2 18 December 2020 12: 16
    +1
    slightly incorrectly described the advantage of the Germans in the material part of TD and MD.
    It is not only a matter of skill and communication, they have elementary all the necessary means had sufficient mobility, because of which the appearance of artillery, infantry, engineers or other necessary units at the right point on request was calculated in hours. In addition, it is worth adding the fact that even in the conditions of the supply shoulder stretching up to 500-750 km, the German units remained able to supply themselves using regular transport.
    In addition, one should not forget about intelligence - both by military aviation and by storms.
    German commanders often controlled the maneuver of their troops from the air.
  • yehat2
    yehat2 18 December 2020 12: 49
    +1
    Quote: Alexey G
    the T43 had a forehead of 75 and a side of 60!
    And the T34-85 has a 45mm hull forehead!

    you forget about the given thickness of the armor. It was for the Germans that it was vertical and almost equal to the nominal thickness, but with us, an inclined and seemingly modest 45mm at an angle gave already given about 60-65mm, moreover prone to ricochets, especially with small-caliber armor-piercing shells, which was the main anti-tank defense system of the Wehrmacht by 80 percent at 41. And in general, the Germans themselves reached this level of booking only by the end of 42 years on the PzIV f2-g, the first tigers and somewhat earlier on the shtug3.
    In addition, some real saturation of the German anti-tank equipment with 50-75mm guns against the T34 occurred only by
    by the second quarter of 42 - this concerns the rearmament of 50-75mm cannons and captured French and Soviet ones, T3 with a 50mm long-barreled gun and T4 with a 75mm have already appeared in significant numbers.
    But all this rearmament of the Germans did not pass without a trace. The new guns could no longer be towed by a machine, it also became much more difficult to roll them manually, and the German anti-tank defense system lost much of its ability to quickly respond to operational changes. Our tankers did not know how to use it in 42, but they made fun of it in 44.
    1. Alexey G
      Alexey G 20 December 2020 00: 35
      0
      No, I took into account the slope of the armor, I just didn't write, because if the gun hits 95 mm from 1000 m, then the angle at 45 mm does not matter, because 60-65 mm does not save magic!
      The T34-85's hull was no longer capable of defense. The tower is yes, but the hull is old and for some reason it did not work out or the engine did not pull or something else ...
      1. yehat2
        yehat2 20 December 2020 04: 45
        +2
        it was not possible to strengthen the hull due to the weight distribution and reserves of the front part of the suspension - for the T34, the turret was shifted forward, so the thickening of the armor in front of the hull led to overload. Attempts to additionally screen at the Sormovo plant were, but it is difficult to call it a success.
        on t34m, this problem was partially solved, but they did not have time to fully test the car for operation.
        The Germans, due to the central location of the tower on the T4 and T3, did not have any special problems when hanging armor, except for a general decrease in the mobility and reliability of the suspension.
        But on the panther, oddly enough, they were - the Germans first put 60, then 80 plates, they tried more, but the design was at its limit even with an 80mm plate - the panther could not make long marches.
        For such a hefty car, the 80mm limit looks a little strange. Although what to say - even this armor was very serious.
        1. Alexey G
          Alexey G 20 December 2020 14: 57
          0
          Thank! Very interesting and informative!
  • Skif
    Skif 18 December 2020 19: 55
    0
    Both of these tanks started that war. Both finished it. Here are just T34 as the winner. Draw conclusions.
    1. Alexey G
      Alexey G 20 December 2020 00: 41
      0
      machine gun Degtyarev and MG34 also started this war, but is Degtyarev better? The victory has many reasons and the strength of the tanks is only one of them!
  • Pavel57
    Pavel57 21 December 2020 11: 54
    0
    Good article. Clear logic of the author.
  • xomaNN
    xomaNN 2 February 2021 17: 59
    0
    When it was necessary to stop the attacks of the Germans, any armored vehicles in the Red Army were good. And BT and even "armored tractors" NI-1 converted from tractors in Odessa. And in 43-44, it was necessary to replenish the tank brigades en masse with the T-34 with its shortcomings, and not master the T-44, stopping the conveyor.
  • EvilLion
    EvilLion 26 February 2021 08: 39
    0
    Yes, of course, many people argue in the style of "less is better, but better quality."


    In war, this does not work simply because equipment is very easily destroyed. And the increase in the price thereof by 2 times does not lead to a decrease in losses by 2 times.

    And so, when it came to the T-35-85, the Germans had no alternatives other than developing a new tank. The “groove” reserve has disappeared.