Military Review

On the evolution of observation and fire control devices T-34-76

99
On the evolution of observation and fire control devices T-34-76

In the cycle dedicated to the T-34, I have already touched on this issue. But, to my deep regret, I did not fully disclose it. Moreover, I made a number of mistakes, which I will try to correct now. And I'll start, perhaps, with the very first serial version of the thirty-four.


T-34 model 1940-1942


The easiest way to describe the observation devices of the driver and the radio operator. The first had as many as three periscopic devices, which were very inconvenient to use. And the radio operator had only an optical machine-gun sight and was practically a "blind" crew member. There are no discrepancies in the sources here. But then ...

Let's start with something more or less clear. The T-34 cannon (both the L-11 and the F-34) was equipped with two sights at once.

One of them was telescopic. That is, in fact, it was a "spyglass", whose sighting axis at zero scale settings is parallel to the axis of the barrel. Of course, this sight could be used exclusively for aiming the gun.

But there was another sight - a periscope, with which the commander could not only direct the main weapon tankbut also "admire the surroundings". This sight could be rotated like a periscope 360 ​​degrees. At the same time, the position of the head of the tank commander remained unchanged. That is, only the "eye" of the sight rotated, which in the stowed position was closed with an armored cover, and in the combat position - the cover, respectively, was thrown back. This sight was located in a special armored capsule on the roof of the tower, just in front of the hatch.


According to Baryatinsky, the telescopic TOD-34 and the periscopic PT-11 were installed on the first T-6s with the L-6 cannon. For thirty-fours with an F-34 cannon - TOD-7 and PT-7, respectively. It is not entirely clear what product is meant by the PT-7 sight. Is it the abbreviated name PT-4-7, or an earlier version?

More or less reliably, it can be argued that the device had an increase of up to 2,5x and a field of view of 26 degrees. The very first sight PT-1 and PT-4-7 possessed such characteristics, so it should be expected that intermediate models did not differ from them.

Very often in publications one has to read that the commander of the T-34 had a command panorama of the PTK or PT-K. And that this panorama was just intended for a circular view, but due to an unfortunate location (behind and to the right of the commander), it was not possible to fully use its capabilities, and that it gave an overview of about 120 degrees forward and to the right of the tank. And therefore, the installation of the PT-K was subsequently abandoned.

Apparently, this is a misconception. It is precisely known that the early thirty-fours had a kind of all-round observation device located directly in the turret hatch.


But this device has nothing to do with PT-K. And the point is this. Unfortunately, there is little information about observation devices of those years, but in the article by A.I. Abramov's "Evolution of tank sights - from mechanical sights to fire control systems" states that:

"In terms of characteristics, structure and appearance, the PTK panorama practically did not differ from the PT-1 sight."

However, both in the photo and in the figures, we see clear differences between one device from another. Further I.G. Zheltov, A. Yu. Makarov in his work "Kharkov thirty-fours" indicate that at a meeting held on February 21, 1941 at the chief engineer of plant No. 183 S.N. Makhonin, the decision was made:

“1) As unsatisfactory to the ease of use, the device of all-round vision from the tank number 324 of the head. No. 183 to cancel. Instead, install in the roof of the tower on the right in front of the PTK from the tank no later than No. 1001. "

That is, not even all thirty-fours armed with an L-11 cannon received a survey device located on the hatch. But история brought to us photographs of tanks, which had both PT-7 (PT-4-7?) and PTK.


There are also pictures showing in detail what is what.


Thus, it should be said that the PT-K was not intended at all for the commander, but for the crew member who was in the tower on the right, that is, the loader.

I must say that equipping the tank with two periscopic devices located on the roof of the tower and allowing observation at 360 degrees (although, as mentioned above, the "field of view" of each device was limited to 26 degrees) was a very good solution for T 34.

The commander's cupola on the "original" turret of the thirty-four obviously did not "get up" in any way - if for the commander it was not even possible to provide access to the all-round view device on the hatch, then how could he climb into the turret? Of course, the loader's PT-K could not radically solve the problem of situational awareness. It was nothing more than a palliative, but a very, very useful palliative.

Alas, the bulk of thirty-fours were deprived of this useful innovation. In a huge number of photographs of the war years, we do not see the characteristic "armored column" for the PT-K.


Source: Wikimedia Commons

Why?

Perhaps the answer lies in the difficulties of mass production of tank sights, which is why our industry simply did not have time to make the required amount of PT-K. Moreover, in design they were similar to periscopic sights. Another thing is interesting - it is very likely that some of the tanks instead of PT-K received ... all the same "all-round observation device" once "driven out in shame" from the turret hatch.


But still this is an exception to the rule, and the bulk of 1941-1942 thirty-fours. the release was completed exclusively with the PT-4-7, which actually became the only somewhat effective observation device for the tank commander. And, of course, it wasn't enough. Yes, in addition to the PT-4-7, the T-34 tower was equipped with two more viewing devices on the sides of the tower, but they were extremely inconvenient in operation and did little in terms of visibility.

Thus, the initial design of the T-34 implied the following observation devices listed below.

For the tank commander: an all-round observation device located in the turret hatch, a PT-6 periscopic sight, a TOD-6 telescopic sight and two viewing devices located on the sides of the turret.

For the loader: two viewing devices on the sides of the tower, which he could use in conjunction with the commander.

For the driver: 3 periscopes.

For the radio operator: an optical machine gun sight.

At the same time, the machine-gun and gun telescopic sights were completely unsuitable for observing the battlefield. The mechanic drive's periscopic devices were inconvenient. Observation devices on the sides of the tower are also extremely inconvenient. And the all-round observation device was removed from the tank. As a result, the situational awareness of the T-34 was provided, in fact, only by the PT-6 periscope sight.

Alas, until 1943, this situation remained practically unchanged for most thirty-fours. And only a few of them received an additional periscope device - the PT-K command panorama for the loader.

On the one hand, this, of course, was a big step forward, since in a situation where it was not necessary to conduct artillery fire, two people could already survey the battlefield, and not one. But you need to understand that the PT-K as a command panorama was still "not very", as it had a very limited field of view - 26 degrees.

T-34 model 1943


In 1943, the situation changed significantly. Often in publications you can read that in addition to existing devices, the following appeared.

For the tank commander: a commander's cupola with 5 sighting slots, an MK-4 periscope observation device located in the hatch, a PTK-4-7 periscopic sight, a TMFD-7 telescopic sight, two sighting slots (in place of observation devices along the sides of the tower).

For the loader: MK-4 periscope observation device, two sighting slits (in place of observation devices on the sides of the tower).

For the driver: two periscopic observation devices.

For the radio operator: a dioptric machine gun sight.

As for the radio operator and the replacement of observation devices in the sides of the tower with sighting slots - this information is beyond doubt. It is not entirely clear when the new periscopic observation devices appeared at the mekhovda. Perhaps this happened not in 1943, but somewhat earlier? But the information about the presence of two MK-4, let's say, is somewhat exaggerated.

The problem lay in the same lack of optics, which is why some tanks were equipped with one MK-4 in the commander's cupola, and the loader never received anything. In other cases, apparently, the loader received an additional observation device, but it was not an MK-4, but the same PT-K command panorama.

And in some cases, the loader only had an imitation of an observation device. That is, there was a corresponding cutout in the roof of the tower (because this was the case according to the project), but the device itself was not - everything was installed instead of it, up to cutting the pipe.


Source: Wikimedia Commons

How did the innovations of 1943 affect the situational awareness of the T-34 crew?


Let's start, again, with the obvious. The observation capabilities of the gunner-radio operator have practically not changed. But the work of the mechanic was significantly simplified, since the new periscopic devices were much more convenient than the previous ones. This is already a serious plus.

What did the T-34 crew get from the "top-equipment" of the commander's cupola and two MK-4s?

The capabilities of the loader have fundamentally improved. Now at his disposal was the excellent MK-4 - one of the best tank observation devices of the Second World War, copied by our specialists from the British device of the same name for the same purpose.

Of course, at the time of his immediate duties, the loader could not use it. But as soon as the enemy target was suppressed or destroyed, he was able to survey the battlefield. In fact, his review was limited only to the commander's cupola and "armored column" PT-4-7.

But with the tank commander, everything turned out not so unambiguously. On the one hand, he finally got at his disposal both the commander's cupola and the wonderful MK-4. On the other hand, how could he use them? If earlier it was inconvenient (and even almost impossible) for him to work even with an all-round viewing device located in the tower hatch on the very first thirty-fours?

That is, in the past it was not really possible to use the device located "right-back". But how was it now to operate with the turret, for which it was necessary to additionally change the position of the body and rise so that the eyes were at the level of the sighting slits?

It can be argued almost for sure that if this commander's cupola appeared on the tanks of the 1941 model, then there would be just as much sense from it (together with the wonderful MK-4) as from the all-round viewing device located in the hatch of the tower of the very first T -34. In other words, absolutely none. Just because

"If the pistol is a millimeter farther than you can reach it, you don't have a pistol."

But on the tank of the 1943 model, the situation changed somewhat, thanks to the new design of the turret, the so-called "nut". Of course, when creating it, the designers were primarily guided by an increase in manufacturability, and not ergonomics. Nevertheless, the tower became wider, the angles of inclination of the armor plates were smaller. And, accordingly, the reserve volume is greater.

Therefore, the new tower has become a little more convenient for the crew, and, probably, using the commander's cupola in it has become, at the very least, possible. But, of course, I cannot give an unambiguous answer to this question - for this I would have to sit in the place of the commander of such a thirty-four.


In addition, it is known that in many cases both the commander's cupola and the MK-4 device installed on it were not used by the tank commander. Moreover, there are references to cases when the commander voluntarily parted with his MK-4, located on the upper hatch. And this device was rearranged by the crew to the loader. In cases where there was a corresponding hole in the roof of the T-34 turret, of course.

In general, the following can be assumed. In battle, the commander had no time for throwing from the commander's cupola to the sights, so he preferred to use the already familiar PT-4-7 sight, using the commander's cupola, only when there was no immediate threat to the tank. Or in cases where the enemy remained undetected through the periscope sight.

In other words, the capabilities of the commander's cupola and the MK-4 installed in it could not be fully used. But the loader's periscope device was much more useful in battle. That is why in some cases it was rearranged.

And the last.

In some publications, the opinion was expressed that on the T-34 of the 1943 model, the PT-4-7 periscope sight was installed motionless, that is, it did not have the ability to turn the eyepiece in the direction needed by the commander. This appears to be incorrect.

In the document "T-34 Guide", approved by the deputy. Chief of the GBTU of the Red Army, Lieutenant General of the Engineering and Tank Service I. Lebedev on June 7, 1944 (second revised edition), the description of the PT-4-7 directly states:

"When the sight head rotates, the armor cap rotates simultaneously with it, so that the cap window is always opposite the sight lens."


In general, it can be stated that on the T-34 of the 1943 model, thanks to the introduction of new observation devices, it was possible to significantly increase the situational awareness of the tank crew.

Yes, of course, the absence of a fifth crew member still had a negative impact.

But, it is obvious that in 1943 the thirty-four had already ceased to be "blind".
Author:
99 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Vladimir_2U
    Vladimir_2U 28 December 2020 05: 45
    0
    It can be argued almost for sure that if this commander's cupola appeared on tanks of the 1941 model, then there would be just as much sense from it (together with the wonderful MK-4) as from the all-round viewing device located in the hatch of the tower of the very first T -34.
    Very, very controversial, if only because it would be a different tower.


    Photo, I can't understand what year, what kind of tractor? And not RSO, it seems, and not "Stalinets". Can someone identify?
    1. Rurikovich
      Rurikovich 28 December 2020 06: 41
      +8
      Quote: Vladimir_2U
      what kind of tractor?

      STZ - 5
      1. Vladimir_2U
        Vladimir_2U 28 December 2020 06: 51
        +1
        Thank you. I didn’t see something when RSO was looking for it, but STZ-5 is mentioned.
    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      28 December 2020 09: 12
      +4
      Quote: Vladimir_2U
      Very, very controversial, if only because it would be a different tower.

      This is not the very first T-34, the first was in the hatch :)
      1. Vladimir_2U
        Vladimir_2U 28 December 2020 09: 13
        +1
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        This is not the very first T-34, the first was in the hatch :)

        A turret ?! Yes, okay, even the "nut" without a turret went at first. I rush to look!
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          28 December 2020 09: 19
          +4
          Quote: Vladimir_2U
          A turret ?! Yes, okay, even the "nut" without a turret went at first.

          What other turret?
          1. Vladimir_2U
            Vladimir_2U 28 December 2020 09: 26
            +1
            Andrei! Here you are:
            It can be argued almost for sure that if this commander's cupola appeared on the tanks of the 1941 model
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              28 December 2020 09: 31
              +5
              Quote: Vladimir_2U
              Andrei! Here you are:

              Vladimir, what are we talking about now? :))) You expressed disagreement with a fragment of the article
              It can be argued almost for sure that if this commander's cupola appeared on tanks of the 1941 model, then there would be just as much sense from it (together with the wonderful MK-4) as from the all-round viewing device located in the hatch of the tower of the very first T -34.

              By indicating
              Quote: Vladimir_2U
              Very, very controversial, if only because it would be a different tower.

              But the photo that you inserted into this message is a photo of 1942, of the tanks of the Stalingrad plant. To this, I objected to you that in the first T-34s the all-round vision device was not located where it is shown in the photo, but on the roof of the hatch. Naturally, it was about the turret hatch, not the commander's cupola, because the latter first appeared on production vehicles only in 1943.
              1. Vladimir_2U
                Vladimir_2U 28 December 2020 09: 40
                +1
                There is a misunderstanding of each other! I exhibited the photo in connection with the unclear date of creation of the photo itself (I could not determine the type of tractor)
                As for the turret, the phrase is constructed just like this,
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                that if this commander's cupola appeared on tanks of the 1941 model, then there would be just as much sense from it (along with the wonderful MK-4)
                which is different than the proposed placement of the commander's cupola on the tower 40-41. types and is not perceived.
              2. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
                Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 28 December 2020 10: 28
                +2
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                But the photo that you inserted into this message is a photo of 1942, of the tanks of the Stalingrad plant.

                interesting - July 1942 is in the yard, and the flap signal hatch is still there)
                1. Serg koma
                  Serg koma 28 December 2020 23: 21
                  0
                  Quote: Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
                  there is still a flag flap)

                  And where to go - if you want to chat)
                  This is due to the division of tanks into "radio" (with a radio) and "linear" (slave). The radio crew receives commands from their superiors and acts. In linear tanks, the place for the radio station was occupied by cartridges for course machine guns. Accordingly, the crew of such a tank followed the lead vehicle, drove after it and repeated its actions. Individual commands were given by flags, an electric flashlight (portable lamp), headlights and a taillight, or simply by hand.

                  In the USSR in June 1941, there were 34 linear T-671s, and 221 radios. In general, about 40% of the tank fleet was equipped with radios. The exception is the KV, T-28 and T-35 tanks - they all had their own radios.
                  1. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
                    Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 28 December 2020 23: 37
                    0
                    Quote: Serg Koma
                    And where to go - if you want to chat)

                    Quote: Serg Koma
                    In the USSR, in June 1941, there were 34 linear T-671s, and 221 radios.

                    so the summer of 42 is already ..)
                    1. Serg koma
                      Serg koma 29 December 2020 15: 04
                      0
                      "They don't go to another's monastery with their own Charter" - Russian people. proverb wink
                      Quote: Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
                      so the summer of 42 is already ..)

                      Don't like "summer 1942" - please 1944 fellow

                      BATTLE REGULATIONS FOR ARMORED AND MECHANIZED TROOPS OF THE RED ARMY. [ORDER
                      PEOPLE'S DEFENSE COMMISSIONER
                      February 13, 1944 No. 10, Moscow
                      ]
                      Applications.
                      1 application.
                      Rules for signaling flags and lanterns
                      1. To give signals, the following are used: during the day, flags of two colors: red (orange) and white (yellow); at night - electric lights or portable lamps with reflectors of two colors: red (orange) and green (blue).
                      3. The entire personnel of the armored units must know all the installed signals and be able to correctly submit and receive them.

                      The bulk of the radio industry had to be evacuated in a hurry. Evacuation + setting up production ... So with radios in 1942 it was worse than in 1941. Lend-Lease during this period helped with radio equipment, our industry was not able to saturate the troops with communication means ..
                      For example:
                      The prototype of the 10-R radio station was the 1939 KRSTB tank radio station. Before World War II, the radio engineering industry produced only 400 tank radio stations per month, and as a result of the evacuation of factories in August 1941. the production of tank radio stations was discontinued almost until mid-1942. And only at the end of 1942, the Leningrad plant named after. Kozitsky, evacuated from Leningrad to Siberia, (Omsk, plant No. 210 - at the end of the 50s - the enterprise p / ya A-1390, Omsk instrument-making plant named after Kozitsky) began to produce KRSTB radio stations under the 10-R brand, later 10-PK26 (K - Kozitsky) and 10-RT26. Tank radio station 10-RT was produced until 1956.
                      1. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
                        Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 29 December 2020 16: 52
                        +1
                        ... They don't go to a strange monastery with their own Charter "

                        This is you, in fact, why?
                    2. Serg koma
                      Serg koma 29 December 2020 16: 45
                      0
                      Exactly, 100%, which is not 1942)))
                      1. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
                        Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 29 December 2020 16: 53
                        0
                        Quote: Serg Koma
                        Exactly, 100%, which is not 1942)))

                        Yes, and there is a 100% hatch for FS in the roof of the UAZ.
                      2. Serg koma
                        Serg koma 29 December 2020 18: 22
                        +1
                        Quote: Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
                        Yes, and there is a 100% hatch for FS in the roof of the UAZ.

                        Cold. The hatches were foiled. The commanders warm up in the car, and the drivers transmit their teams - without drafts and ventilation)))
                      3. Bad_gr
                        Bad_gr 6 January 2021 01: 42
                        +1
                        By the way, about the flags. We usually had a small chicken flag at the end of the antenna. I don't even remember that we would have driven without them. Very helpful in driving. The tank has a wide track, which raised a lot of dust and for the next tank in front only a cloud of dust is seen from which an antenna with a flag sticks out. By the flag, you determine the location of the ahead tank. If you don't see the antenna, you are falling behind. Swing - there is a ditch in front, you drop speed. Well, when the tank in front goes around something, you can also immediately see it.
  • Jura 27
    Jura 27 30 December 2020 11: 57
    -1
    Correcting mistakes is good; I would also correct the mistake that the T-34M (preparing for the series) had an MTO different from the T-34-76.
    The PTK of the loader in 41-42 made sense, as did the command tower of the commander-gunner, then the T-34-76 still had armor against the most massive tank and anti-tank guns of the enemy. But the co-industry did not pull such a number of "extra" PTKs.
  • sergo1914
    sergo1914 28 December 2020 06: 14
    +6
    Article "On the evolution of observation and fire control devices T-34-76". On the screensaver there is a photo of T-34-85.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      28 December 2020 06: 22
      +23
      Sergey, I had a T-34-76 on my splash screen. But the moderators believe that they know better which tank to install, so they put a different photo. Thanks, at least not "Panther"
      Photo with the caption "Source: Wikimedia Commons" - also from them. And also out of topic.
      1. sergo1914
        sergo1914 28 December 2020 06: 31
        +8
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Sergey, I had a T-34-76 on my splash screen. But the moderators believe that they know better which tank to install, so they put a different photo. Thanks, at least not "Panther"
        Photo with the caption "Source: Wikimedia Commons" - also from them. And also out of topic.


        Yeah. The moderators are here ... well, it's good that the tank. They could have delivered the battleship. There are towers, there are cannons. Norm.
        1. Vladimir_2U
          Vladimir_2U 28 December 2020 06: 48
          +9
          Quote: sergo1914
          They could have delivered the battleship. There are towers, there are guns

          And what kind of observation devices on the battleship, mmm.
        2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          28 December 2020 08: 07
          +20
          I wonder who put the cons? Moderator? :))))
      2. infantryman2020
        infantryman2020 28 December 2020 08: 09
        +12
        1) hmm, I didn’t know that moderators can arbitrarily change photos for copyright articles. Nonsense;
        2) Andrey, useful article. But for your level, such complaints are unforgivable: you could have "sat" in the place of a tank commander in order to evaluate the 1943 commander for analysis.

        Sincerely.
        1. Aviator_
          Aviator_ 28 December 2020 08: 22
          +5
          Moderators and name change sometimes.
          1. The leader of the Redskins
            The leader of the Redskins 28 December 2020 09: 02
            +8
            They changed my article. So then such a "srach" in the comments began that instead of analyzing the technique, they slipped into petty-political gossip and arguments!
        2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          28 December 2020 09: 14
          +10
          Quote: infantryman2020
          But for your level, such complaints are unforgivable: you could have "sat" in the place of a tank commander to evaluate the 1943 combat commander, for analysis.

          Thank you for such faith in my modest strength :)))) But where can I get two T-34s with different turrets, and how will they squeeze in there when I have a 64th size on my shoulders? Moreover, I grew my belly when I quit smoking. Any tower of those times will be small for me repeat
          1. Ingvar 72
            Ingvar 72 28 December 2020 10: 13
            +2
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            Moreover, I grew my belly when I quit smoking

            No, I didn’t put on weight at all, I quit smoking. Hound breed! laughing
            And since 16 years I have not smoked. drinks
            PS The article is informative! hi
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              28 December 2020 11: 25
              +6
              Quote: Ingvar 72
              No, I didn’t put on weight at all, I quit smoking. Hound breed!

              I envy such a good, kind, black envy laughing drinks
              Quote: Ingvar 72
              And since 16 years I have not smoked.

              Well, I have to live another 6 years before your result :))) However, 10 years is nothing too :)
      3. Alien From
        Alien From 28 December 2020 15: 31
        +2
        Andrey, thanks for the article! It can be seen that you are trying !!!! hi
      4. Alf
        Alf 28 December 2020 20: 31
        +1

        Apparently, it was they who set the minus ... request
      5. kytx
        kytx 29 December 2020 05: 36
        0
        to be honest, I'm out
        from modders
    2. Kote Pan Kokhanka
      Kote Pan Kokhanka 28 December 2020 06: 29
      +4
      Quote: sergo1914
      Article "On the evolution of observation and fire control devices T-34-76". On the screensaver there is a photo of T-34-85.

      I was also surprised, but I hope this is a hint that the continuation should be followed!
  • Rurikovich
    Rurikovich 28 December 2020 06: 53
    +5
    As always a plus! hi
    Personally, I believe that the appearance of a fifth crew member has improved situational awareness. Versatility is always slightly worse than quality specialization. Therefore, only when they made an enlarged turret and introduced a fifth crew member, the commander began to take up his immediate duties. So even if there were adequate (relatively) observation devices on the early releases of the T-34, then in the heat of battle it is not up to them request After all, you need to shoot at the target, not turn your head ...
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      28 December 2020 07: 03
      +11
      Everything is correct. But here the thing is - the tank does not shoot constantly in battle. After finding a target, he suppresses / destroys it and starts searching for a new target. In other words, there is enough time in battle when both the gunner and the loader are not busy with their immediate duties. In these conditions, 2 periscopic devices are an unambiguous good.
      1. Rurikovich
        Rurikovich 28 December 2020 09: 13
        +5
        I do not argue. And if there are several goals and you need to assess the situation and decide on a priority? wink Therefore, if with the fifth member of the crew you work on assessing and analyzing the situation, then working also on maintaining the gun these seconds can be expensive. Single goals, yes, I do not argue. Shot, looked, shot, looked again. But in dynamics, for example, when attacking against multiple targets ... No. All the same, the quality of the work of tankers increased precisely from the 43rd, when tanks with enlarged turrets appeared and it became clear that the presence of a clean commander outweighs the increase in the size of the vehicle and crew. Still, it would be nice to actually sit in the T-34-76 tower and evaluate " delights of "working in cramped conditions smile
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          28 December 2020 09: 17
          +2
          Quote: Rurikovich
          And if there are several goals and you need to assess the situation and decide on a priority?

          And if you need to observe two sectors at the same time? :)))) For example, when crossing the line of trenches, it is advisable to look both left and right at the same time. The T-34 with two periscopes can do it, but the T-IVH with its one commander's cupola ... the commander will have to turn his head very quickly laughing
          Quote: Rurikovich
          All the same, the quality of the work of tankers has increased precisely from the 43rd,

          When did the T-34-76 with the nut go? :))))
          1. Rurikovich
            Rurikovich 28 December 2020 09: 46
            +4
            Yeah, it's better to turn your head around and see everything yourself without distraction during the battle for other functions. A modification with a more functional nut tower and additional observation devices is still a half measure, therefore, from the age of 43, the T-34-85 was designed. The introduction of the 5th crew member qualitatively changed the use of the tank on the battlefield.
            By myself I know when they hang on you (even if it is forced) additional duties and you already twist your direct work of the steering wheel so that they shout from behind "watch the road" wink smile Everything is relative. Therefore, on paper, you can talk as much as you like about the quality of the work of the commander of the T-34-76 tank with the prescribed observation devices, until you sit and see for yourself. All the same, after all, in the 43rd they came to the presence of a pure commander yes hi
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              28 December 2020 10: 13
              0
              Quote: Rurikovich
              Yeah, it's better to turn your head around and see everything yourself without distraction during the battle for other functions

              Of course, who can argue.
              Quote: Rurikovich
              By myself I know when they hang on you (even if it is forced) additional duties and you already twist your direct work of the steering wheel so that they shout from behind "watch the road"

              The driver's work is constant, the gunner's and the loader's work is periodic, here you don't need to interfere with them.
              Quote: Rurikovich
              Therefore, on paper, you can talk as much as you like about the quality of the work of the commander of the T-34-76 tank with the prescribed observation devices, until you sit and see for yourself.

              Everything is correct. But here the question is something else - on the T-34 in the 43rd, two people got the opportunity to survey the battlefield. Which, in a number of situations, is more useful than one
          2. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
            Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 28 December 2020 14: 19
            0
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            but the T-IVN with its one commander's cupola ... the commander will have to turn his head very quickly

            yes, probably, left-right "four-ha" with anti-cumulative screens was blind, like ... If on other "fours" the right sector could at least observe the loader in his side viewfinder, then in H there is only hope for a strong neck of the commander.
      2. Evil Booth
        Evil Booth 28 December 2020 20: 20
        -5
        and where I forgot that on all sorts of pz2 pz 3 and volvsemnchego ... there are all sorts of shermans and other from the partings, then nothing. the whole thing is not for nothing flooded with spolshnykh, unfortunately, but the blind has ceased to be)) the tank is still more than blind)) by the way, guess what the gunner is looking at on t80 / 90/72 ... and what and what aty and I'm glad to sleep, they say, a flaw ... lope there upanters of the review? wrote showed on the tank they say seen! the gunner is blind and inconvenient and the scope of the sight is so narrow that it is very difficult to catch a target in real distance instead of a distant one with a plain and sedentary target.
        reminded one clever guy who writes that masks are not required by law (they are required by the law), the mask does not protect from the virus (the Ministry of Health insists that it protects the health ministry of the USSR against the flu virus, 4 gauze protects (reduces the risk of harassment)), brings the gostnaya mask from dust (and GOST on the mask of the virus, after all, the coincidence did not google) .... so what is there with no longer a slpey t34? and skoka review on t90 on abrams?
  • tasha
    tasha 28 December 2020 07: 11
    +8
    the most excellent MK-4 - ... copied by our specialists from the British device of the same name for the same purpose.
    I didn't know, it turns out that MK-4 is a licensed version of Gundlach's Periscope. Polish engineer Rudolf Gundlach invented it in 1934. Our military got to know the design in 1939 while studying the Polish T7P.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      28 December 2020 07: 13
      +7
      Quote: tasha
      Rudolf Gundlach invented it in 1934. Our military got to know the design in 1939 while studying the Polish T7P.

      And - not copied, for some reason. The British copied, and then, after getting acquainted with the British version, we also copied
      1. tasha
        tasha 28 December 2020 07: 29
        +2
        Quote: hohol95
        Moreover, the performance characteristics of the machine and its separate unit?
        After all, SOMETHING they DID THIS

        the device of the circular review of the T-34 tank !!!
        But not for long!

        From the commentary to the article on strobe lights. It is possible that this design was "a kind of observation device". Somehow it looks like the "Gundlach periscope".
        See which photo came across:
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          28 December 2020 07: 39
          +8
          Quote: tasha
          From the commentary to the article about strobe lights

          Yes. But, apparently, not she, at least a number of sources indicate that our tankers, examining the British Lend-Lease equipment, demanded a British Mk-4, which later became MK-4
          1. tasha
            tasha 28 December 2020 08: 04
            +1
            I'm talking about the period before the lend-lease technology.
            I am pondering whether the device, the drawing of which is given above, was some kind of analogue of Gundlach's periscope. It seems to be yes, because there are balls and spring hooks.
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              28 December 2020 08: 06
              +3
              An analogue - perhaps, in fact, a periscope - it is a periscope, in principle, the schemes will have similarities. But there are a lot of nuances
              1. tasha
                tasha 28 December 2020 08: 10
                +3
                The main thing is whether there is a possibility of a circular view without rotating the head. Seems Yes. Those. the device was installed on early T-34s, but due to the inconvenience of use (plus the optics let us down) it was removed.
                1. The comment was deleted.
                  1. tasha
                    tasha 28 December 2020 10: 14
                    +1
                    Heh, now try to look around, sitting in a chair .. Head spinning? wink
                    This expression is like this. It is clear that when viewed through a conventional device, you will have to somehow turn around with it ...
        2. Evil Booth
          Evil Booth 28 December 2020 20: 21
          0
          oh this is a comment not boy ano husband
      2. Vovk
        Vovk 28 December 2020 12: 15
        +1
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        And - not copied, for some reason. The British copied, and then, after getting acquainted with the British version, we also copied

        I can enlighten a little, the embryonic optical industry of the USSR lagged behind world standards in terms of product quality. The examples are simple, with great difficulty it was mastered the production of medium-quality prisms for binoculars, therefore, captured German and Japanese binoculars have always been a desirable trophy for spacecraft commanders. There were similar problems in the production of few serial sights for sniper rifles.
        So I suffered with prisms for the optics of tanks until 1943.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          28 December 2020 12: 33
          +3
          Quote: Vovk
          I can enlighten a little, the embryonic optical industry of the USSR lagged behind world standards in terms of product quality.

          How is it? Before the war, at the very least, they did it at the level, the quality dropped dramatically already in wartime, and then rose by the 43rd. Strictly speaking, the same PT-K was done, PT-4-7 - they were doing, working versions. Accordingly, there should have been no fundamental reasons for refusing to copy the Mk-4. Yes, it would be seen worse than in a British product, but nevertheless
          1. Vovk
            Vovk 28 December 2020 13: 03
            +1
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

            How is it? Before the war, at the very least, they did it at the level, the quality dropped dramatically already in wartime, and then rose by the 43rd. Strictly speaking, the same PT-K was done, PT-4-7 - they were doing, working versions. Accordingly, there should have been no fundamental reasons for refusing to copy the Mk-4. Yes, it would be seen worse than in a British product, but nevertheless

            Because the PT-K was initially made with a mirror surface, but the military, based on the experience in Spain and the Finnish war, hacked this project down, because fragments from the mirror surface led to severe injuries to the organs of vision. According to their requirements, polished steel plates began to be used in all observation devices. the current production of prisms in normal quality at that time was not created. And MK-4 was based on the use of optical prisms.

            Periscope device:
            1 - lower prism; 2 - latch; 3 - clamping bracket; 4 - a ledge on the body; 5 - latch loop; 6 - flange; 7 - upper prism; 8 - upper prism holder; 9 - upper part of the body; 10 - base of the viewing device; 11 - tides of the upper prism holder; 12 - screw; 13 - the case of the movable prism; 14 - the lower part of the body; 15 - guides; 16 - tide; 17 - stopper.
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              28 December 2020 13: 11
              0
              Quote: Vovk
              Because PT-K was initially made with a mirror surface

              And how did he give 2,5x magnification? I am not spiteful, I really wonder
              1. Vovk
                Vovk 28 December 2020 13: 19
                +2
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

                And how did he give 2,5x magnification? I am not spiteful, I really wonder

                The trick was that the surface of the mirrors was not strictly flat and of varying thickness. The simplest example is a laugh room with mirrors.
  • Undecim
    Undecim 28 December 2020 08: 34
    +6
    And I'll start, perhaps, with the very first serial version of the thirty-four.
    Begin.

    The technical description corresponds to the T-34 tank manufactured at the plant No. 183 named after Comintern at the end of 1940, armed with an L-11 cannon.
    1. Undecim
      Undecim 28 December 2020 08: 37
      +6
      Description of the tower.
      1. Undecim
        Undecim 28 December 2020 08: 47
        +6
        Description of observation devices.

        Below on page 48 is a note that on the tanks of the latest releases, instead of all-round vision devices, a tank panorama of the PTK is installed.
        Let's summarize. At the beginning of 1941, the T-34 tank with the L-11 cannon was equipped with TOD-6 and PT-6 sights and a PTK panorama.
    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      28 December 2020 08: 43
      +4
      Quote: Undecim
      The technical description corresponds to the T-34 tank manufactured at the plant No. 183 named after Comintern at the end of 1940, armed with an L-11 cannon.

      So it seems that it has no discrepancies with my description ... request
      1. tasha
        tasha 28 December 2020 08: 47
        +5
        Really. And the drawing of the observation device is also from this book ... request
        However, you wrote "let's start" ... wink Please see if this observation device gave the possibility of a circular view without the need to turn the commander's head 360 degrees. Was it an analogue or a copied version of Gundlach's periscope?
        And then in some sources they write "a simple panoramic mirror" ...

        I look at the drawing and cannot fully understand the design. recourse
        1. tasha
          tasha 28 December 2020 09: 10
          +2
          I looked carefully and read the description in the book. Indeed, the usual panorama. It's just the bottom (movable cassette) moving up and down to close the mirror ...
      2. Undecim
        Undecim 28 December 2020 08: 52
        +6
        I'm not looking for discrepancies. I am in a short summary.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          28 December 2020 09: 10
          +6
          Thank you! The short summary is quite convincing :)
  • Alexey RA
    Alexey RA 28 December 2020 11: 14
    +4
    A little about the peculiarities of using existing observation devices and sights using the example of the first serial T-34:
    The lack of visual communication between the tanks when solving the fire problem due to the fact that the only device that allows circular viewing - PT-6 is used only for aiming.
    (...)
    With simultaneous operation of the rotary mechanism and observation in the PT-6 device, the flywheel and the control handle rest against the chest, making it difficult for the turret to rotate quickly.
    (...)
    Turning the tower in any direction is possible only if the head is deflected from the forehead of the PT-6 device, i.e. the rotation of the tower is actually done blindly ...
    Telescopic sight TOD-6.
    The window of the scale of angles of aiming of the telescopic sight is blocked by the lever of the angles of the terrain of the PT-6 device ... Installation of sighting data is possible at elevation angles of 4 - 5,5 degrees and 9 - 12 degrees, which actually makes it impossible to fire with the TOD-6 sight.
    (...)
    Periscope sight PT-6.
    At an elevation angle of 7 degrees and below, up to the maximum descent angle, access to the handle of the circular view mechanism is possible with only three fingers.
    (...)
    The viewing device of the "circular review".
    Access to the device is extremely difficult and observation is possible in a limited sector to the right up to 120 degrees ... A limited field of view, the complete impossibility of observation in the rest of the sector and ... the inconvenient position of the head during observation makes the viewing device unusable.
    (...)
    Tower Observation Devices (Side)
    The location of the viewing devices relative to the observer is inconvenient. The disadvantages are a significant dead space (15,5 m), a small viewing angle, the impossibility of cleaning protective glasses without leaving the tank and a low position relative to the seat.
    All PT-6, TOD-6 sighting devices installed on the tank and observation devices in the fighting compartment and control compartment are not protected from atmospheric precipitation, road dust and dirt.
    © Ulanov / Shein
  • tasha
    tasha 28 December 2020 11: 57
    +2
    I'm thinking ..
    By the beginning of serial production of the T-34, there was already a good experience of using tanks in Spain and on Khalkhin Gol, real German, Polish, and Japanese tanks were studied. Is there really no person who would say: "Guys, you can't see anything from this tank, we will burn, we will be like blind kittens ..". So there were probably such people, there was a turret in the projects .. Somehow?
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      28 December 2020 12: 36
      +3
      Quote: tasha
      Is there really no person who would say: "Guys, you can't see anything from this tank, we will burn, we will be like blind kittens ..".

      Found. Moreover, these were all cited as critical flaws. And they were going to eliminate them. But - the production of the T-34M, which had everything - a crew of 5 people, and a tower with a wide shoulder strap and a turret and all 33 pleasures. Moreover, the T-34M had to go into a large series already in 1941.
      But, for a number of reasons (the main one is the problem with the engine, which was not the one on the T-34), the T-34M did not go into series
      1. tasha
        tasha 28 December 2020 12: 47
        +1
        Andrey, I'm aware of the T-34M. Look, there are Mikhail Svirin's books on the shelf.
        Sit in the tower - twist your head, what do you see? I don't see anything .. How to fight something?

        Why, for example, did the Germans put a turret on the T-34 in almost field conditions, but we did not? During the war, self-propelled guns were created in a month, a fighter in six months. But a normal observation device in peacetime - they could not ...
        1. Vovk
          Vovk 28 December 2020 13: 12
          +5
          Quote: tasha
          Why, for example, did the Germans put a turret on the T-34 in almost field conditions, but we did not? During the war, self-propelled guns were created in a month, a fighter in six months. But a normal observation device in peacetime - they could not ...

          Because the Germans put the commander's tower on the T-34 with the T-3, and in it the number of prismatic instruments was very large. And the optical industry of the USSR could not produce prisms for tanks in normal quality in 1941-42.
          Photo of the T-3 fighting compartment where the commander's tower with prismatic devices is visible.
          1. tasha
            tasha 28 December 2020 13: 18
            +1
            Buddy, what are the prismatic instruments in the T-34-85 turret? Well, except for the Mk-4 in the hatch / hatch half? There are holes :)
            1. Vovk
              Vovk 28 December 2020 13: 49
              +2
              Quote: tasha
              Buddy, what are the prismatic instruments in the T-34-85 turret? Well, except for the Mk-4 in the hatch / hatch half? There are holes :)

              Exactly, if you look closely at the dimensions of the slots covered with bulletproof glass, it was clearly planned to put prisms there like on the German T3. But they cost only two Mk-4s: one for the commander, the other for the loader.
              1. tasha
                tasha 28 December 2020 13: 52
                0
                Possible.
                But why couldn’t, didn’t manage, didn’t think to put some kind of turret on the T-34-76 in 1940 - early 1941 ..
                1. Vovk
                  Vovk 28 December 2020 14: 05
                  +2
                  Quote: tasha
                  Possible.
                  But why couldn’t, didn’t manage, didn’t think to put some kind of turret on the T-34-76 in 1940 - early 1941 ..

                  I think there were several reasons.
                  First and foremost, the commander's cupola must be welded to the upper turret armor plate ... and who will do this at the tank plant and how? There was always a problem with manual welding and equipment at tank factories in 1941-42.
                  The second is where to get the armor for the commander's cupola if the overall quality of the tank armor has dropped due to problems with manganese.
                  Well, the third one, I hope everyone remembers how on the first production T-34s there was a hinged turret hatch, which was difficult for the commander and gunner, and if you add a commander's cupola to it ...
                  1. tasha
                    tasha 28 December 2020 14: 26
                    +1
                    So in 1940 - early 1941 there were no problems with manganese. And if some big tank commander climbed into a T-1941 during an exercise in the winter and spring of 34, tried to look, and then at a meeting in the Kremlin banged his fist on the table and said - something urgently needs to be done - they would have done 100% and came up with ..
                    1. Alexey RA
                      Alexey RA 28 December 2020 19: 16
                      +2
                      Quote: tasha
                      And if some big tank commander climbed into a T-1941 during an exercise in the winter and spring of 34, tried to look, and then at a meeting in the Kremlin banged his fist on the table and said - something urgently needs to be done - they would have done 100% and came up with ..

                      So they didn't just climb in and knock - they made a whole tugament: "A report on testing three T-34 tanks with a long run." In it a whole chapter was devoted to scopes and observation devices.
                      So what? But nothing - the plant first unsubscribed that everything seemed to the GABTU, but in fact everything works fine, then agreed to correct the main shortcomings from the 1001st vehicle, and then generally scored on the UKN, concentrating all efforts on the new tank (why bring the T-34 if it is planned to be removed from production in 1942).

                      In general, according to the test results of November-December 1940 T-34 in general was found not to meet the requirements for ST.
                      In the form presented for testing, the T-34 tank does not meet modern requirements for this class of tanks for the following reasons:
                      a) The firepower of the tank cannot be fully used due to the unsuitability of surveillance devices, defects in the installation of weapons and optics, the tightness of the fighting compartment and the inconvenience of using an ammunition depot.
                      b) With a sufficient margin of engine power and maximum speed, the dynamic characteristics of the tank are poorly selected, which reduces speed and permeability of the tank.
                      c) The tactical use of the tank in isolation from the repair bases is impossible, due to the unreliability of the main components - the main clutch and chassis.
                      d) The range and reliability of communication obtained during testing for a tank of this class is insufficient, due to both the characteristics of the walkie-talkie 71 TK-3 and the low quality of its installation in the T-34 tank
          2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            28 December 2020 14: 25
            0
            Quote: Vovk
            Photo of the T-3 fighting compartment where the commander's tower with prismatic devices is visible.

            I don't see one. Triplexes?
            1. Vovk
              Vovk 28 December 2020 15: 18
              0
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

              I don't see one. Triplexes?

              1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                28 December 2020 15: 22
                0
                So it's like a triplex, not a prism. In general, I have never seen any mention of the fact that the Germans put something prismatic on the sighting slits
                1. Vovk
                  Vovk 28 December 2020 15: 37
                  +1
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  So it's like a triplex, not a prism. In general, I have never seen any mention of the fact that the Germans put something prismatic on the sighting slits

                  I read German memoirs that after the first battles in WW2, German tankers had significant losses among tank commanders, tk. those stuck out of the turret hatch, as well as losses when a shell hit the commander's cupola ... and the German tank industry was strained to use more prismatic devices in the T-III and T-IV in the commander's tower. Specialists in German technology will tell you. I have seen pictures of the T-34 with prismatic devices on the commander's tower from the T-III somewhere on the internet. Maybe the turrets with prisms were from the commander's modification of the T-III.
                2. irontom
                  irontom 28 December 2020 23: 36
                  0
                  Varspot Pasholok In the fight for visibility
                  The history of the development of German tank optics.
                  Meanwhile, in September 1939, the Germans were introduced to the most progressive invention of the Polish tank industry. We are talking about Rudolf Gundlyach's periscope observation device.In October 1940, work began on installing a commander's cupola, equipped with eight periscopes, which repeated the MK-IV design, into the previously released PzII Ausf.cC.
      2. tasha
        tasha 28 December 2020 13: 06
        +1
        As a result, the situational awareness of the T-34 was provided, in fact, only by the PT-6 periscope sight.
        Andrey, if you want, I’ll give you a link to the scientific work of 2019, which says that “at the initial stage of World War II, Soviet KV tanks of all modifications and T-34-76 were many times superior to German Panzerkampfwagen III Ausf tanks in terms of the effectiveness of observation devices. ("Panzerwaffe" type-3) and Panzerkampfwagen IV Ausf F ("Panzerwaffe" type-4) ".. wink
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          28 December 2020 13: 10
          +5
          Quote: tasha
          Why, for example, did the Germans put a turret on the T-34 in almost field conditions, but we did not?

          Here's the question, they were a lot of sense from this tower ... If it was, so for the "nut" there was a double sense. And if it was not ... the Germans were also a lot of freaks - the same zimmerit take
          1. tasha
            tasha 28 December 2020 13: 22
            +2
            Your truth. But still, I'll throw you a link. Maybe it will come in handy ...
            http://journals.tsu.ru/uploads/import/1880/files/445-111.pdf
        2. Navel
          Navel 29 December 2020 16: 24
          0
          Duc and on the entom website about five years ago there was a detailed article-analysis of comparison of viewing devices on Russian and German tanks of the Second World War. Very meticulous. In relation to all the fighting equipment.
          There it was argued that the nemchura with surveillance devices had full seams.
          Therefore, the question "who is better?" Is at least debatable.
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            30 December 2020 08: 40
            0
            Quote: navel
            Duc and on the entom website about five years ago there was a detailed article-analysis of comparison of viewing devices on Russian and German tanks of the Second World War. Very meticulous.

            This is where the T-34 was written
            The commander (he is the gunner) to detect the target had:
            - PT-K commander's panorama (on some tanks it was replaced with a PT4-7 percussion, periscope sight),
            - 2 periscopic instrument along the sides of the tower.

            https://topwar.ru/18866-pribory-upravleniya-ognem-sovetskih-i-nemeckih-tankov-vtoroy-mirovoy-voyny-mify-i-realnost.html
            Alas, it contains significant errors at least in the T-34. And I once "fell for him", I confess ...
      3. irontom
        irontom 28 December 2020 23: 26
        +1
        About the engine is a delusion, in the final pre-production version of the T-34M it was largely unified in MTO with the T-34 article by Yuri Pashilok Pre-war perspective
        the appearance of the future T-34M by May 1941 had 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, in which the serial car was clearly visible - especially with regard to the engine compartment.

        Such significant metamorphoses turned out to be due to the fact that the deadlines for the production of experimental tanks were approaching, and the V-5 in conjunction with an 8-speed gearbox was still either on paper or in the form of prototypes of the engine that were tested with a lot of problems
  • Vovk
    Vovk 28 December 2020 12: 02
    +3
    Quote: Alexey RA
    Tower Observation Devices (Side)

    For some reason, no one mentioned that on the side devices in the T-34 of the initial period of the Second World War, not optical prisms were placed, but polished steel plates ... could you see a lot in them?
    1. The comment was deleted.
  • BAI
    BAI 28 December 2020 12: 24
    +2
    We look at the problem from the other side. German. Instructions for the infantryman to combat tanks. "Tankkorn". A dead zone where the crew cannot see anything (quite large) and vulnerabilities.



    This is the question of the quality of the review from the tank.
  • evgen1221
    evgen1221 28 December 2020 12: 58
    +1
    The recession of the concept is forward with a massive avalanche and bring down everything that moves. In real life, I had to turn my head out of the hatch 360.
  • Undecim
    Undecim 28 December 2020 13: 27
    +5
    Very often in publications one has to read that the commander of the T-34 had a command panorama of the PTK or PT-K.
    Interested in this issue. Apparently, they are one and the same.
    There was a PT-1 sight.

    And the PTK is a panorama, it is a PT-1 sight, but without the mechanisms of aiming angles, lateral corrections and sighting scales. Sometimes it is called the PT-K commander's sight.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      28 December 2020 15: 03
      +2
      Quote: Undecim
      PTK is a panorama, it is a PT-1 sight, but without mechanisms of aiming angles, side corrections and sighting scales

      This completely coincides with my opinion about the PT-K.
  • Undecim
    Undecim 28 December 2020 13: 57
    +4
    Quote: tasha
    As a result, the situational awareness of the T-34 was provided, in fact, only by the PT-6 periscope sight.
    Andrey, if you want, I’ll give you a link to the scientific work of 2019, which says that “at the initial stage of World War II, Soviet KV tanks of all modifications and T-34-76 were many times superior to German Panzerkampfwagen III Ausf tanks in terms of the effectiveness of observation devices. ("Panzerwaffe" type-3) and Panzerkampfwagen IV Ausf F ("Panzerwaffe" type-4) ".. wink

    And I am on the recall of the "direct consumer" in 1944.

    Read more.
    1. Undecim
      Undecim 28 December 2020 13: 58
      +3
      And the ending.
      1. tasha
        tasha 28 December 2020 17: 16
        +2
        An interesting document. Pay attention to item 10: "Replace mirrored glass periscopes with metal ones" ...
  • Undecim
    Undecim 28 December 2020 20: 42
    +1
    It is not entirely clear what product is meant by the PT-7 sight. Is this the abbreviated name PT-4-7, or an earlier version?
    Earlier version. That is, after the PT-6 sight, the PT-7 sight followed, then the PT-4-7.
    Outwardly, they all look like PT-1.
    Album of tank assemblies of factory # 183, April 1941.



    The photo in the album is signed "Sighting device PT-7".
    1. Undecim
      Undecim 28 December 2020 20: 45
      +1
      And this is a sight found by "black diggers".
  • DWG1905
    DWG1905 28 December 2020 21: 23
    +2
    The article is weak, the topic is not covered. Many moments have been missed. To describe everything, you need to write one more article. On the first T-34s, the sight was not closed with an armored cap, but was closed with a tin cap. And in general, to write about tanks, you need to delve into the details, learn the materiel !. If anyone is interested about the "nut" please visit
    https://drawingstanks.blogspot.com/2014/02/t-34.html




  • hohol95
    hohol95 1 January 2021 17: 47
    0
    Dear Andrey! Sorry for the belated comment, but the article does not cover the topic of the driver's observation devices! And the photographs of tanks and tractors manufactured at STZ do not indicate that the loader's observation device was taken from a T-60 tank or other development! He was nicknamed "birdhouse"!
    To which the red arrow points!

    From the book "Medium tank T-34-76. The first year of the war" Moshchansky I. B.
    And they were replaced by a not very best design with armored "cilia". At the same time, the driver's observation device was not upgraded. At some factories, after changing the hatch of the mechanic drive and its observation device, they left one small transfer for him. And they called it "the third eye" - similar ones were produced at STZ from September 1941 to April 1942.
  • xomaNN
    xomaNN 14 February 2021 16: 51
    0
    An example of "feedback" is valid! It is a pity that these "innovations" often appeared with the blood of tankers. But it’s better than that, and nothing would change.