"Klim Voroshilov" - the triumph of the iron warrior

71
"Klim Voroshilov" - the triumph of the iron warrior

I read the publication with great interest. S. Petrov "Iron Witness Breakthrough" and I also wanted to share information with readers stories this wonderful car - tank “KV-1C”, tell about the talented specialists of the design bureau involved in its creation, which will soon turn 80 years old.


It is known that heavy tanks were produced during the Great Patriotic War in the city of Chelyabinsk, where the Leningrad Kirov Plant was evacuated, which became a powerful tank plant there - Tankograd, where more than 30 thousand people worked.

The creators of the powerful weapons became a team of design bureaus, and the chief designer of J.I. Kotin.

The author of these lines knew many personally, working hand in hand, sharing the difficulties and joys of creative work together. 47 years ago, fate brought him to the design bureau of the Kirov Plant (now Spetsmash OJSC) and still does not let go of the enterprise that has already become a relative of the whole country.

It all started like this

The Special Design Bureau of Transport Engineering (Spetsmash OJSC) —the tank design bureau of the Kirov Plant — was established in 1932 in Leningrad at the Krasny Putilovets plant in pursuance of the Government Decision “On the Urgent Development of Production of Domestic Tanks in the Country”.

The tank bureau originates from the development and organization of production (together with the KE Voroshilov plant) of the T-26 tank, the latest in those years.
17 February 1932. created a special department "Bureau T-26". It is headed by Ivan Komarchev, who is entrusted with the development and organization of the most powerful in those times serial T-28 tank. This is a three-turbo machine, which used many technical innovations. The serial tank production was developed, the young design bureau was expanded and strengthened with personnel. Soon the engineer O.M. Ivanov.
But the trouble came: the flywheel of repression increased its ominous turnovers - “Yezhovshchina” has reached the Kirov factory. Ivan Komarchev, Olympian Ivanov were arrested and sentenced to death.

In May, 1937, the military engineer of the 2 rank J.I. Kotin. He was well aware that a well-coordinated team of highly qualified specialists and a well-equipped material and technical base were needed for the development of new advanced tank designs. Work is beginning on the creation of a new vehicle - the T-29 wheeled / tracked tank. The speed of the tank on wheels reached 72 km / h. Among his developers were later known stars of armored vehicles, among them M.I. Koshkin, the future chief designer of the famous T-34 tank.
In August, 1938, in accordance with the decree of the USSR Defense Committee "On the Tank Armament System", the tank bureau of the Kirov factory was appointed the main developer of heavy tanks.


Tank QMS


The tense, truly heroic, work began on a three-turreted QMS tank, named after Sergei Mironovich Kirov. The design team, headed by A.S. Yermolaev, included G.F. Burkhanov, D.D. Kekelidze, L.E. Sychev, M.I. Kreslavsky, N.V. Zeitz and others.

On the value that was given to the development of this tank, says such a fact. Already in December 1938, the plant director I.M. Zaltsman and chief designer Z.Ya. Kotin reported at a meeting of the Defense Committee on the progress of work on the new machine. After the report of I.V. Stalin went to a small wooden layout of the QMS, removed one tower from it and asked:

- Comrade Kotin, so why on the tank three towers?
“Powerful weapons: one 76 mm gun and two 45 guns,” answered Joseph Yakovlevich.
- There is nothing to do from the tank “Mure and Meriliz” (the big department store was called in Moscow - later TSUM) ... Pay them for reinforcement of armor protection, you need to focus on armor thickening and strengthening crew protection ... it’s better that one tower remain.


Tank KV


This idea turned out to be so vital and extremely timely that it determined the general line of development of the national, and indeed world tank building, for many years. The group of designers of a one-mounted KV tank (Klim Voroshilov) included N.L. Spirits, young engineers, designers, EP Dedov, V.A. Kozlovsky, P.S. Tarapatin, V.I. Torotko. In general, KV turned out to be shorter than the QMS on 2 m and weighed 47 tons. It is equally important that the B-2 diesel engine was installed, the HP 500 power. It was unmatched in terms of firepower, defense and mobility, a heavy tank that had no equal.

The first sample of the KV tank was made on September 1 1939. Comprehensive testing began. The best factory drivers K.I. Kovsh, V.N. Lyashko drove cars on 12 hours per day. But the war began with the White Finns, and prototypes of the QMS and KV tanks were sent to the North-Western Front to take part in the fighting to break through the “Mannheim Line”.
Tanks entered the battle 17 December 1939, and already 19 December heavy tank "Klim Voroshilov" was adopted by the Red Army. LKZ started mass production.

War of wits

Even before the perfidious attack of fascist Germany, it was decided to organize the mass production of heavy tanks at the Chelyabinsk Tractor Plant. The Ural was chosen with its energy resources and remoteness from the western borders. A year before the Great Patriotic War, the order issued by the USSR People's Commissar for Mechanical Engineering "On organizing the production of KV tanks at the ChTZ named after Stalin"

"The director of the plant t. Solomonov:
a) to organize in 1940, at ChTZ, the production of a tank according to LKZ drawings;
b) in 1940, to release an experimental batch - 5 pcs. "

By the end of 1941, more than 15 of thousands of workers of the Leningrad Kirovsky Plant and their family members were transported from the blocked city. Having teamed up with teams from other factories, they became a single team. And the tanks went to the front. From the first days such a pace of work was set that sometimes it seemed that for them nothing impossible exists. Only in the fourth quarter of 1941. Tankograd gave the front of the 441 a KV tank.

The Great Patriotic War has entered a new stage - now only the one who has the engineering idea or rather, the design calculation more precisely could win. And those who had better weapons, safer, he had a better chance of winning. An intensive search began for ways to improve and modernize KV tanks, the war of our design minds with the design ideas of heavy tank designers in Germany, led by Evi Anderson and Ferdinand Porsche.

At the same time, two models of tanks were developed that received the name KV-13 and KV-1С. Terms of creation were set unprecedented. People did not know the weekend, they worked around the clock, giving all their strength to the holy cause - the victory over the fascist invaders.


Tank KV-2


The KV-13 undercarriage with five rollers was adapted for use of both KV and T-34 tracks - this unification was introduced for different classes of tanks for the first time. When tested, the KV-13 showed a speed of more than 50 km / h, but shortcomings in the design, lack of reliability allowed, in general, a good car, to remain only a prototype.

Another car has become a modernized version of Klima Voroshilov - KV-1С. Weight in 42,5 tons and partially reduced in height of the body, with lightweight (narrowed to 608 mm) caterpillar. The speed increased from 34 to 42 km / h, for which it became with the letter “C” - “high-speed”.

While working on the KV-1C model, we faced a most difficult technical problem - the supply of aluminum sheet for the manufacture of cooling system radiators stopped. The designers immediately proposed to produce radiators from thin iron, and since it is susceptible to corrosion, the chemists recommended filling the tank cooling system with water with a brompe inhibitor. Of course, this had to be checked, and tests should be carried out at negative temperatures close to minus 40C.

It was a hot summer. Here is what NM writes in his memoirs. Sinev was the then deputy chief designer of the Chelyabinsk Plant Experimental Plant.
“There was an idea - to test the KV-1С tank, equipped with an iron radiator in the Chelyabinsk city refrigerator, which had a large-sized refrigerating chamber. It took about a week to conduct several test cycles. We are going to the leadership of the city with Joseph Yakovlevich Kotin. The conversation was difficult. ” However, mutual understanding was achieved. Tests conducted by engineer G. Butyrsky, were successful.


Tank KV-1С


The upgraded KV-1С was put into service in August 1942, the serial production began. The production of heavy tanks was steadily increasing, and despite the fact that KV tanks were made in parallel with the T-34 tanks, the output in Tankograd not only did not decrease, but almost doubled. If in 1941g. It was handed over to the troops of 1358 KV tanks, then in 1942 already 2553.

Then the KV tanks were the only heavy tanks in the world tank building. After all, the German "tigers" have not yet appeared. It is not surprising that the British and the Americans were interested in these machines. Soon an order was received from Moscow to send two KV-1С tanks to the Aberdeen range in the USA. After examining the car, American experts noted that the Soviet tank has powerful armor, its gun is simple and reliable. However, they also noted weaknesses.


Tank KV-8С


I must say that there were no complaints about them on the front. KV-1S showed themselves brilliantly in the counteroffensive at Stalingrad. The car was reliable, had good maneuverability. There is information that during the Kursk battle (in July, 1943), when the 5 tank army was stationed under its own power (more than 400 km), the tanks turned out to be very reliable. At the same time, the production of self-propelled artillery mounts on the chassis of the KV-1С tanks (SU-152 "Zveroboyi" and the KV-8С tank with a flamethrower machine developed by designer IA Aristov) began.


Tank KV-85


The production of the KV-1 was stopped in August of 1943 in connection with the transition of the plant to the production of the last Klim Voroshilov family tank, the KV-85. Several attempts were made to improve its technical characteristics, including the 122 mm cannon, but the serial production of the heavy Joseph Stalin (IS) heavy tank family prevented it. For the successful development of the KV-1С heavy tank, the State Prize was awarded to N.L. Dukhov, A.S. Ermalaev, N.M. Sinev, as well as engineers EP Dedov, A.F. Lesokhin, G.A. Mikhailov, A.N. Sterkin, N.F. Shashmurin and lieutenant colonel A.I. Blagonravov.

Results for the anniversary

... years have passed. It is safe to say that the Special Design Bureau of Transport Engineering (Spetsmash OJSC) celebrates its seventy-five years anniversary as the flagship of the domestic engineering industry.

It developed 148 samples of various combat and transport engineering equipment, including more than 100 military samples, and 38 adopted by the army.

KB developed almost 600 thousands of drawings. Is this not an example of unique performance? The question arises, what prompted the KB staff to such titanic feats? The reason for the highest efficiency can only be creative inspiration, the solidarity of the collective known to the whole country and pride in their work and the prestige of the country.

Having a great scientific, technical and production potential, over the past decades, the company has created and put into production more than ten types of unique machines. Among them, the place of honor is taken by the first serial in the domestic and world tank building T-80 tank, with a gas-turbine power plant. Only the United States was able to create a similar machine - "General Abrams", and on 5 years after the start of mass production of our tank.

At international exhibitions of military equipment, the tank invariably aroused delight and respect for its perfection and high maneuverability. Only a great power could create a main battle tank with such unsurpassed characteristics and with such inexhaustible potential. And there is nothing accidental that the tank T-80 was created at the Kirov factory. It can rightly be considered one of the symbols of the city on the Neva, the technical embodiment of the national idea.

It is not by chance that at the international shows professional military, experts in their field, applaud when they admire his “flying” course, when they note his excellent fighting qualities.

Tank T-80 holds a special place among our products. We can say that, due to its importance, the T-80 tank is also our glorious past, present and future.

The developer of the tank can rightfully be called, first of all, the General Designer of the tank N.S. Popov. He, along with the chief designer of the gas turbine engine S.P. Izotov, was the main ideologue, and carried all the responsibility for its creation.

Today, the coordinated and efficient work of the Board of Directors and the administration of the Joint Stock Company Spetsmash, headed by Academician SPb IA, Director General V.I. Kozishkurt, laureate of the Prize of the Government of the Russian Federation 2005 g. - the key to effective use of its creative and intellectual potential of the famous team of KB. Ahead of the solution of major scientific and industrial problems and developments. The team of designers today has a lot of ideas and ideas. Stops in the work can not be.
Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

71 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +5
    25 August 2012 09: 37
    Well, what can I say ... there were people in our time ... and they didn’t give Moscow away ... the tank is just wonderful ... plus ...
  2. +3
    25 August 2012 09: 40
    Few people wrote about this, comparing the KV and T-34 in the period 42-43 and talking about the "uselessness" of the KV, about the "lack of advantages." With the advent of the KV-1S, its lack of reliability was leveled, and the advantages were the SEPARATION of tankers' functions in the turret, i.e. the presence of a gunner (turret), which increased the efficiency of the commander. Yes, and under fire, the kaveshka was clearly stronger, in spite of even the stepped "forehead" - there was not a large mechanical drive hatch.
    In general, "kvass" before the appearance of the "tiger" was quite heavy.
    And further. As an infantry escort tank, he was also better than 34-ki-able to move at its speed along the battlefield, for 34-ki due to the transmission this turned out worse, it more often detached from the infantry and went forward - with resp. negative consequences.
  3. +1
    25 August 2012 09: 44
    Initially, weak weapons spoiled the car, but in the 1941-42 he had no competitors.
    1. +6
      25 August 2012 10: 24
      initially weak for what?
      which of the probable opponents in 39-41 was not guaranteed to break through for example from Ф32 or ЗиС5?
      1. 0
        25 August 2012 10: 29
        Quote: Stas57
        initially weak for what?

        For someone. A heavy tank.
        Quote: Stas57
        did not break through for example from F32?

        And the distance?
        1. 0
          25 August 2012 10: 34
          For someone. A heavy tank.

          why more? naughty on battleships ??

          And the distance?

          500 meters normal?
          1. 0
            25 August 2012 10: 37
            Quote: Stas57
            why more?

            strange, the T-34 had a more powerful gun from the very beginning, and despite the fact that everything suits you, the gun changed
            Quote: Stas57
            500 meters normal?

            Discussion is not enough. It is best to start shelling enemy tanks with at least 1.5 km.
            Quote: Stas57
            naughty on battleships ??

            Have you really not seen the battleship?
            1. 0
              25 August 2012 11: 18
              strange, the T-34 had a more powerful gun from the very beginning,

              Which one? crisp and clear example.


              and in spite of the fact that everything suits you, the gun changed on HF

              are you talking to yourself?


              Discussion is not enough. It is best to start shelling enemy tanks with at least 1.5 km.
              smile
              which tank in 41 penetrated the HF from 1.5 km?


              Have you really not seen the battleship?

              humor, sarcasm, irony - are these words familiar?
              1. +7
                25 August 2012 11: 26
                Quote: Stas57
                crisp and clear example.

                http://www.battlefield.ru/t34.html
                read. I will give quotes that you precisely understood.
                The production of 76-mm L-11 cannons was discontinued in 1939, about 400 units were fired with this gun in total. "Thirty-fours" of subsequent releases were armed with either the F-34 gun or its modernized version of the F-34M. This weapon, more powerful than the L-11 and F-32, has existed since 1939. Created by the Grabin Design Bureau, it was originally intended to arm the T-28 and T-35 tanks. Its first tests in the T-28 tank were carried out at the Gorokhovets training ground on October 19, 1939. From 20 to 23 November 1940, field trials (1000 rounds) of a gun in a T-34 tank took place there. Based on their results, the commission recommended the F-34 for adoption.

                Quote: Stas57
                are you talking to yourself?

                With the audience.
                Quote: Stas57
                which tank in 41 penetrated the HF from 1.5 km?

                why do we need to penetrate HF? We need foreign tanks to penetrate from 1,5 km so that the enemy tanks are under effective fire for as long as possible, and they have the least chance of causing damage to us and our infantry.
                Quote: Stas57
                humor, sarcasm, irony

                when it is appropriate, and does not cover up incompetence.
  4. NUT
    NUT
    +5
    25 August 2012 09: 56
    Just at that time everyone knew and understood that:

    "Our concern is simple,
    Our concern is that -
    If my native country lived
    And there are no other worries ... "


    Song - Alexandra Pakhmutova
    1. +1
      25 August 2012 11: 02
      Quote: NUT
      If my native country lived
      And no other worries
  5. +1
    25 August 2012 10: 01
    Mikhado
    With the advent of the KV-1, its lack of reliability was leveled,

    Too clear. In Chelyabinsk, production adjustment took a long and difficult time.
    Accordingly, the quality of the machines was managed with great difficulty and not immediately.

    those. the presence of a gunner (turret), which increased the efficiency of the commander.
    it is very important, I agree.
    and emergency exit hatches were only 2 per 5 people

    As an infantry escort tank, it was also better than the 34-ki was able to move at its speed along the battlefield, the 34-ki due to the transmission got worse, it more often detached from the infantry and moved forward

    but this I did not understand
    on the battlefield, the tank needs to be maneuvered, hiding behind the terrain and houses, etc., Speed ​​is an advantage, and at the same time, it’s nice to get as close to the PTO’s positions as possible, or get around and crush with caterpillars is a very worthy thing,
    nobody wants to crawl at gunpoint over a bare field at the speed of an infantryman in a sheepskin coat and felt boots (and even in boots and a tunic).
    It's not a box,
    or do you propose to make the maximum speed not faster than 5 km / h so that the infantryman does not lag behind? And if the infantry lay under fire, then stand and wait,
    Or did I misunderstand something?
    1. 0
      25 August 2012 10: 22
      Quote: Stas57
      as close as possible to the positions of the VET,

      In the right case, howitzer artillery should knock him out.
      Quote: Stas57
      no one wants to crawl at gunpoint over a bare field at the speed of an infantryman in a sheepskin coat and felt boots

      But it is necessary, if the infantry lies down and falls behind, then the tanks will be burned when they begin to overcome the trenches.
      Therefore, in some armies there were infantry tanks,
      1. +1
        25 August 2012 10: 23
        Oh yes, I completely forgot))))))
        1. -3
          25 August 2012 10: 31
          Yes hi)))))))))))
          1. +1
            25 August 2012 10: 33
            But what is it? Or rather what is it eaten with? I have never been interested in uniforms, although I already said that.
            1. 0
              25 August 2012 10: 36
              and this is the 41st? are you sure that the photo refers to the phrase with "the beginning of the war"
              1. 0
                25 August 2012 10: 41
                Quote: Stas57
                is this 41st?

                belay
                Quote: Stas57
                generally 43 year

                tongue

                Yes, I am amazed at you, especially the logic. According to Gederian, you passed the distance of 50-100 meters. But it is not there, and this is in 1943 when the Fritz had already beaten out the winning blow of a jerk to the east of 1941 of the year.
                And if they are so weird in the middle of the war. What did they do when they did 20-30 km a day.)))))
                1. -1
                  25 August 2012 10: 50
                  Yes, I am amazed at you, especially the logic. According to Gederian, you passed the distance of 50-100 meters. But it is not there, and this is in 1943 when the Fritz had already beaten out the winning blow of a jerk to the east of 1941 of the year.
                  And I to you.
                  Guderian spoke about 41, when the columns on the march, during the active phase of the offensive, were not supported, for various reasons, by the fire of standard anti-aircraft means and amplification means, otherwise Kolobanov would receive an 2 88 shell and it all ended very quickly.
                  Further, I gave you a specific quote for a specific period and a specific action.
                  I repeat
                  You bring a photo. It’s not known where the photos were taken. Is this the rear? Front line? offensive? retreat? relocation? replenishment? going to the factory?, waiting for loading?
                  what does all this have to do with the case of Heinz?
                  1. 0
                    25 August 2012 10: 57
                    Quote: Stas57
                    Guderian spoke of 41, when the columns on the march, during the active phase of the offensive, were not supported, for various reasons, by the fire of standard anti-aircraft weapons

                    Oh, what a complement, but the quotation in full is simply interesting, especially about the standard 88 mm guns.
                    Quote: Stas57
                    Next, I gave you a specific quote on a specific period and a specific action

                    No, you gave instructions on the march - and that’s all)))
                    Quote: Stas57
                    You bring a photo. It’s not known where the photos were taken. Is this the rear? Front line? offensive? retreat? relocation? replenishment? going to the factory?, waiting for loading?

                    What’s the difference? And they go to the factory, but --- enemy aircraft at which the distance of 100 meters is not entirely excluded.
                    Quote: Stas57
                    what does all this have to do with the case of Heinz?

                    Khantsa gouged the Kolobans near Leningrad ??
                    Quote: Stas57
                    You bring photos it is not known where the photos are taken

                    The usual, not convincing excuse.
                    1. 0
                      25 August 2012 11: 13
                      The usual, not convincing excuse.

                      well, well, let’s part on it, the fifth time in a circle, it’s already boring.
                      1. +2
                        25 August 2012 19: 34
                        with Kars how many do not repeat, he does not perceive. Taldychit his, though not right.
            2. 0
              25 August 2012 10: 43
              I was never interested in uniform, even though I already said that.

              Tell me what else you were "not interested in" tongue
              such things are generally better to know, useful, not necessarily in the smallest detail, but the main thing you need to know, I advise, a lot can be said about the photo
              1. 0
                25 August 2012 10: 58
                Quote: Stas57
                such things are generally better to know, useful

                I am not interested.
                1. 0
                  25 August 2012 11: 13
                  ............it can be seen,
                  that little knowledge)
                  1. 0
                    25 August 2012 11: 18
                    Quote: Stas57
                    that little knowledge)

                    About berets?)))))
                    but unlike you, I do not sacredly believe that the Fritz always carry out INSTRUCTIONS.
                    1. 0
                      25 August 2012 11: 22
                      Prove that I firmly believe? Again I messed up everything, then I was with 22rus, now with Gazprom.
                      But you could not refute it, and you also did not prove or disproved that they could not walk there with a distance of 50 meters.
                      but with a cry, as always, he rushed to prove himself, not knowing what.

                      and now you’ll prove to me that the 34 gun was more powerful,)))))))))))
                      1. 0
                        25 August 2012 11: 31
                        Quote: Stas57
                        Prove that I firmly believe

                        In the last topic, you yourself confirmed this.
                        Quote: Stas57
                        then me with 22rus, now with Gazprom

                        What does Gazprom have to do with it? It’s not here - and multi-caunism is not uncommon here.
                        Quote: Stas57
                        but you couldn’t refute it, and you also couldn’t prove or disproved that they couldn’t go there with a distance of 50 meters

                        Something not digestible wrote.

                        I proved with PHOTO that the distance in the columns of German armored vehicles can be minimal, up to 5-10 meters.
                        Quote: Stas57
                        to me that 34 had a more powerful gun,)))

                        I also proved above)))))))
                      2. 0
                        25 August 2012 11: 39
                        I proved with PHOTO that the distance in the columns of German armored vehicles can be minimal, up to 5-10 meters.

                        22.ru proved using the photo back
                        and you could not prove that in the story with K this was not
                      3. 0
                        25 August 2012 12: 13
                        Quote: Stas57
                        and you could not prove that in the story with K this was not

                        And you could not what it was)))))))
                        And therefore, everything is real.
                        By the way, I counted how many times you mentioned the name of St. Heinz / Heinz))))))))
            3. 0
              27 August 2012 20: 39
              Quote: Kars
              But what is it? Or rather what is it eaten with? I have never been interested in uniforms, although I already said that.


              It is dumb. tank beret, used up to 41

              http://dasreich.ru/troops/pantservaffe/uniforma_pantservaffe.php
        2. 0
          25 August 2012 10: 36
          generally 43 year
    2. 0
      28 August 2012 13: 28
      HF created on the backlog of T-28, an almost twofold increase in the mass of the tank and a new type of engine affected the reliability of the tank. Reducing the weight of KV-1C immediately allowed to increase the reliability of the machine. In addition, in wartime conditions, ersatz solutions were used that reduced reliability (for example, roller bearings from torsion blanks).
      The T-34 had four big minuses in front of the KV:
      1. worst visibility.
      2. outdated suspension (lower speed of the "track", strong and prolonged swinging when stopping).
      3. ugly 4-speed gearbox.
      4. Lack of radio communications on most machines.
      All this allowed the HF to interact more flexibly with the infantry, and even on rough terrain even have the advantage of mobility in combat conditions.
  6. Brother Sarych
    +3
    25 August 2012 11: 18
    You would think that no one had read anything about the history of the creation of KV tanks!
    Unfortunately, almost everything was or was a little wrong. or not at all ...
    Objectively speaking, normal tanks became only in the IS series, before that - everything was not as good as we would like!
    That KV-1s can be attributed almost to the most unsuccessful vehicles in the KV family, because the tank began to leave the category of heavy, but obviously inferior to the average!
    1. Brother Sarych
      0
      25 August 2012 12: 07
      Well, who put the minus? And what exactly is the claim?
      KV tanks were initially useless walkers due to the large weight for the existing suspension, KV-1s began to be created as a lightweight option - due to which they reduced weight? Reduced reservation, therefore the tank became worse protected! The walker didn’t become much better, but in defense he almost came close to medium tanks, the gun wasn’t a fountain anyway - that’s why Stalin promised the designers to stop producing KVs and switch to medium tanks ...
      1. +1
        25 August 2012 13: 14
        well, he brought problems to both sides
        us with service, breakdowns, etc.

        Germans .....


        everyone remembered the machine for a long time
        especially if two tees against xnumx threes, fours tongue
        straight to Heinz in memoirs)))
      2. -5
        26 August 2012 17: 01
        In terms of armor protection, the KV-1C remained an unsurpassed heavy tank, and the speed and maneuverability sharply increased due to a completely new transmission. The tank has become much better. Learn the materiel - they will not be minus.
        1. Brother Sarych
          +1
          26 August 2012 20: 35
          Specify how much the reservation has changed and what Joseph Vissarionovich Zhores Kotin said ...
          In the meantime, all I can ...
  7. 0
    25 August 2012 11: 49
    Kars
    strange at T-34 more powerful gun was from the very beginning,


    The production of 76-mm L-11 cannons was discontinued in 1939; about 400 units were fired with this gun in total. "Thirty-fours" of subsequent releases were armed with either the F-34 gun or its modernized version, the F-34M. ] This weapon, more powerful than the L-11 and F-32, has existed since 1939. Created by the Grabin Design Bureau, it was originally intended to arm the T-28 and T-35 tanks. Its first tests in the T-28 tank were carried out at the Gorokhovets training ground on October 19, 1939. From 20 to 23 November 1940, field trials (volume of 1000 shots) of a gun in a T-34 tank took place there. Based on their results, the commission recommended the F-34 for adoption.

    So, first 34 ki were issued with L-11, as well as KV (http://kv1ehkranami.narod.ru/kv1_L11.html)
    Where is the 34’s more powerful weapon?
    admit that you are stupid and forget.



    why do we need to penetrate HF? We need foreign tanks to penetrate from 1,5 km so that the enemy tanks are under effective fire for as long as possible, and they have the least chance of causing damage to us and our infantry.

    near Katukov, under Mtsensk, the Germans made their way from 1.5 km, and anti-aircraft guns also killed from 1.5 km
    1. Brother Sarych
      0
      25 August 2012 12: 02
      HFs were produced with F-32, T-34 - with F-34, the second gun is more powerful - so everything is correct ...
      L-11 was an intermediate option, as far as I remember ...
      At 1,5 km with those sights it was still not possible to get ...
      1. 0
        25 August 2012 12: 10
        Sarych
        both tanks originally released with L11
        therefore, the T-34 had a gun from the very beginning was not more powerful
        they were are the same.

        Then they began to change to Ф32 and Ф34 at 34
        and fxnumx and zisxnumx at HF
        1. 0
          25 August 2012 12: 16
          Quote: Stas57
          The T-34 gun wasn’t more powerful from the very beginning,
          they were the same.

          Are you really a brake? Don't you understand the words?
          1. 0
            25 August 2012 12: 25
            Are you really a brake? Don't you understand the words?



            I answered you
            but. do not bury yourself.
            b. Ф34 is set since the fall of 40
            before that, on both KV and T34 models l11 is placed
            SIMULTANEOUS all the first half of 40year

            Decree of the Defense Committee No. 428 "to install the L-451 cannon before tank No. 183 at factories No. 11 and STZ; <...>

            21-23 on November 1940 of the year the T-34 tank with the installed gun F34 underwent intensive tests at the Gorokhovetsky MBO training ground
            So you leaked
    2. 0
      25 August 2012 12: 11
      Quote: Stas57
      Where is the 34’s more powerful weapon?
      admit that you are stupid and forget

      Are you a brake? Read carefully.
      Quote: Kars
      The production of 76-mm L-11 cannons was discontinued in 1939; about 400 units were fired with this gun in total. "Thirty-fours" of subsequent releases were armed with either the F-34 gun,

      DISCONTINUED since 1939)))))))))))))), and the HF started doing business in series from 1940 - that is, from the very beginning I used a weaker gun than the T-34)))) but it’s probably hard for you
      Quote: Stas57
      which tank in 41 penetrated the HF from 1.5 km?

      And this, by the way, is an indicator of your amateurism, congratulations.
      Quote: Stas57
      22.ru proved using the photo back

      NO. I didn’t prove it. He brought a photo of the column with a distance of 20-25 meters. And this is not evidence that they could not have a shorter distance. One does not exclude the other.
      1. 0
        25 August 2012 12: 22
        [quote] Are you a brake? Read carefully. [/ Quote]
        don't bury yourself, you haven’t proved anything yet


        [quote] DISCONTINUED with 1939)))))))))))))), and KV started doing serial with 1940 - that is, from the very beginning I used a weaker gun than the T-34)))) but it’s probably hard for you [/ quote]

        ] http://kv1ehkranami.narod.ru/kv1_L11.html

        The L-11 gun in 1939 - 1941 was installed on the 141 KV-1 tank

        I greeted you greedily.


        I understand that you have a native Ukrainian, however, quote]Issue 76-mm guns L-11 was discontinued in 1939 year, [/ quote]
        not tanks with guns, but guns.

        During the fall 1940 year a number of larger changes were made to the T-34 design, such as the installation of a more powerful F-34 gun, also at the Mariupol Metallurgical Plant named after Ilyich cast and stamped towers were developed.
        that is, fxnumx was put only in the fall of xnumx, and before that lxnumx at the xnumx factory
        1. 0
          25 August 2012 12: 29
          Quote: Stas57
          you have not proven anything yet

          I proved everything. The KV as a heavy tank received a less powerful gun than the average T-34. Although they had the same art systems at some time, but this does not change the fact that the KV was weakly armed as a heavy tank.
          а
          Quote: Stas57
          The L-11 gun in 1939 - 1941 was installed on the 141 KV-1 tank

          it also proves that he was armed with a weaker gun than the T-34 medium tank, that is, from the very beginning, and the fact that after he armed himself with the ZIS-5 again proves your WRONG that the KV was quite armed.

          And that's it. F-32 is weaker than F-34 what doesn't suit you?
          But if you are so dull, then ask, I will enlighten
          1. +1
            25 August 2012 12: 33
            you can spin as much as you like, but the phrase on t-34 at first they put a push more you leaked.
            that's all.
            both tanks originally came from the L11 point.

            But if you are so dull, then ask, I will enlighten
            1. -1
              25 August 2012 12: 50
              Quote: Stas57
              that on the t-34 at first they put a shit worse than you leaked

              Do you want the words of the pre-racer? Yes please. This will not change the fact that the T-34 was equipped with a more powerful gun than the KV
              Quote: Stas57
              But if you are so dull, then ask, I will enlighten

              You are not too fixated on kepariks and iberetics, and you cannot tell anything interesting.
              1. +1
                25 August 2012 13: 03
                Do you want the words of the pre-racer? Yes please. This will not change the fact that the T-34 was equipped with a more powerful gun than the KV

                This is not nitpicking, this is a statement of fact,
                thinking of yourself as a tank expert, uv Kars, you don’t know the simple basics, HF went into production a few months earlier than 34
                and that you were rude (could have apologized) and now your tail is tight
                1. +1
                  25 August 2012 13: 21
                  Quote: Stas57
                  and that you were rude (could have apologized) and now your tail is tight

                  Everything is described below, I hope it is intelligible for your low level.
        2. Brother Sarych
          0
          25 August 2012 12: 33
          What is fuss about? The L-11 guns were simply attached, where it was possible, while the production of the Hrabin guns was established ...
          It would be better if they attached it later (unless, of course, Grabin did not lie in his memoirs) ...
          1. +1
            25 August 2012 12: 36
            Cheese is that Kars is wrong, but loves to teach, instead of admitting a mistake.
            all
            1. -1
              25 August 2012 12: 53
              Quote: Stas57
              39-41 years not guaranteed to break through for example from F32

              Quote: Kars
              strange, the T-34 had a more powerful gun from the very beginning, and despite the fact that everything suits you, the gun changed



              There is no mistake, you didn’t remember about L-11 on KV until you started to dig up my words, but you learned nothing about L-11 on KV. It’s not a bad day))))
              1. 0
                25 August 2012 13: 04
                if you want, you and Russian are bad, I’ll single out for you

                39-41 gg guaranteed not breaking through for example from fxnumx


                T-34 had a more powerful gun from the very beginning,

                and once again for the dull, from the very beginning the tools are the same,
                1. -1
                  25 August 2012 13: 19
                  Quote: Stas57
                  you and Russian are bad, I’ll highlight for you

                  I will not isolate anything, you need to read in detail and try to think.

                  If you start from the beginning, you made a mistake without mentioning the L-11 on the HF.
                  confirmation quote.
                  Quote: Stas57
                  which of the probable opponents in 39-41 was not guaranteed to break through for example from Ф32 or ЗиС5?

                  As you can see, there is no mention of L-11, so I have every right to limit the time period to installing F-32 guns, at that time the T-34 was armed with the F-34 gun in the factories, which was from the very beginning more powerful than the F-32, which is not clear? Bring you in the quote L-11, I would build a phrase that excites you so differently.
                  Quote: Stas57
                  and once again for the dull, from the very beginning the tools are the same,

                  Even in this you’re wrong, so if you start pretending to words like you, we can recall the prototype T-34 which was armed with a 45 mm gun from the very beginning,
                  1. +1
                    25 August 2012 14: 12
                    the rototype T-34 which was from the very beginning armed with the 45 mm gun,

                    it is certainly more powerful than the prototype sq, which also had it)
                    If you start from the beginning, you made a mistake without mentioning L-11 on HF

                    discovery for you that their penetration is almost the same?
                    As you can see, there is no mention of the L-11, so I have every right to limit the time period to installing the F-32 guns, at that time the T-34 was armed with the F-34 gun in the factories, which was from the very beginning more powerful than the F-32, which is not clear? Bring you in the quote L-11, I would build a phrase that excites you so differently

                    in this phrase
                    T-34 had a more powerful gun from the very beginning,
                    there is no other meaning than what you wrote.
                    Well, what are you saying?

                    I lost all interest in this conversation, with the guns you messed up, googling the first thing you found - the release of guns, and on this I began to be rude
                    I see no reason here to conduct a conversation with you further.
                    1. -3
                      25 August 2012 14: 31
                      Quote: Stas57
                      it is certainly more powerful than the prototype sq, which also had it)

                      No, I didn’t say that. I just stated your mistake
                      Quote: Stas57
                      from the very beginning the guns are the same

                      Quote: Stas57
                      T-34 had a more powerful gun from the very beginning,

                      Quote: Stas57
                      there is no other meaning than what you wrote

                      There is a sense. It will come again - I would have made a mistake if you mentioned L-11.a so sorry you will have to re-read and think better.
                      Quote: Kars
                      I will not isolate anything, you need to read in detail and try to think.

                      If you start from the beginning, you made a mistake without mentioning the L-11 on the HF.
                      confirmation quote.
                      Quote: Stas57
                      which of the probable opponents in 39-41 was not guaranteed to break through for example from Ф32 or ЗиС5?
                      As you can see, there is no mention of L-11, so I have every right to limit the time period to installing F-32 guns, at that time the T-34 was armed with the F-34 gun in the factories, which was from the very beginning more powerful than the F-32, which is not clear? Bring you in the quote L-11, I would build a phrase that excites you so differently.

                      Or did you mention L-11? No? Then I'm sorry.

                      Quote: Stas57
                      I lost all interest in this conversation

                      I didn’t have it from the very beginning, you climbed while you could not refute my postulate--
                      Quote: Kars
                      Initially, weak weapons spoiled the car, but in the 1941-42 he had no competitors.

                      Quote: Stas57
                      with guns you messed up

                      Only if you prove that the F-32 is more powerful than the F-34. And I brought the battlefield to confirm this
                      Quote: Kars
                      This gun, more powerful than the L-11 and F-32, has existed since 1939.

                      Quote: Stas57
                      I don’t see any reason here to conduct a conversation with you further

                      Do not lead, I do not force you.
        3. +1
          26 August 2012 17: 04
          In fact, both the t-34 and the KV were adopted at the same time. They really had the same guns. Read the history of creation in more detail - and there will be kars happiness.
  8. 0
    25 August 2012 11: 54
    add a link to a good tank building book
    http://lib.rus.ec/b/144710/read
  9. bask
    0
    25 August 2012 14: 40
    The first armored vehicles in the USSR about which Tank can be said. .In the Finnish War of 1939-1940 without KV, more people were laid down. A breakthrough tank for the 30s.
  10. Rjn
    +1
    25 August 2012 14: 42
    Comrades. And what kind of prototype T-34 with a 45-mm gun? If the wheel-tracked A-20 is meant, then it pulls a little on the prototype, and the purely tracked A-32 was initially armed with a 76 mm
    1. +1
      25 August 2012 15: 13
      Quote: RJN
      If it means wheel-tracked A-20

      He is,
    2. 0
      28 August 2012 09: 12
      The tower was originally one.
      Take a closer look at where the exhaust fan stands on the T-34-76.
      Just above the breech of virtual 45-ki :)
  11. +1
    26 August 2012 02: 38
    who cares about the link about 124 tank brigade, which was armed with the KV-1 (also experienced flamethrower) and which in battles with the support of the failed Strelinsky landing in early October 1941 completely lost the entire materiel in 2-3 days ....
    http://mavr13.narod.ru/KV-1-pet/02-history.html
  12. Zmitcer
    -5
    26 August 2012 12: 16
    In my opinion, the most controversial Soviet tank. Despite all its shortcomings, especially the outdated and unreliable undercarriage, in 1941, he could just stupidly stand and grab everything that moves. Manage to deliver only shells. I am sure that if it were not for these idiots that were destroying the peoples of the USSR, their own citizens, including Stalin, who had been hiding under the table for a week before giving a voice, with timely measures taken, the war in the USSR would have lasted a couple of months. And then - Come on, Fascist goodbye! Hello Berlin.
    1. 0
      26 August 2012 17: 07
      You yourself understand what you write? Three times managed to refute himself. Read the materiel - do not write nonsense.
    2. 0
      28 August 2012 10: 04
      Eternal call - who is to blame and what to do. It was only in 1941 that Germany was in privileged conditions - the army was mobilized and knocked together, it had a combat, provided, has the necessary transport infrastructure to advance concentration in the required area.
      And about Stalin, what - sitting next to him under the table? Then do not tell tales.
  13. Zmitcer
    -1
    26 August 2012 15: 01
    laughing it was the Stalinists who set the disadvantages for me, because I, quite restrained, described what Stalin was doing when the Nazis attacked the USSR, or fascist supporters? for me these are the same faces- murderers and executioners .. you guys better draw a minus on your forehead and walk so that it is clear that a shaved head, minus a brain, Stalin and Hitler is your god. wassat
    1. Voin sveta82
      +1
      26 August 2012 17: 00
      I would have this ... u. In a mustache ... German, who is guilty of the death of 27 million ... people ..... I would put it on the asphalt ... and slowly ... by sm ... at an o'clock ... rode along it ... at the rink ...))))) executioner ... inhuman ... etc.)))
      1. Charon
        0
        26 August 2012 17: 33
        This is about whom? Who is responsible for the deaths of 27 million people?
    2. +1
      26 August 2012 17: 09
      Yes, you are my friend, Tolerast! Another kind of squalid minorities (usually all at once). Do not write here, otherwise severe men will pour words into concrete and say that it was so.
    3. Charon
      +2
      26 August 2012 17: 20
      Yes, my friend, the modern education system has cruelly abused you. And Goebbels-liberal propaganda also added.
      Well this is necessary, so turn the brains inside out. I'm so sorry.
  14. Voin sveta82
    0
    26 August 2012 16: 55
    but there was a time. !!!.))) they fought in complete surroundings ... and won ...)))) people ... our great-grandfathers tried .. worked in the surrounded St. Petersburg ....)))) and we must remember and honor their memory ... always ....)))) this applies to all of us ... Russian .....
    1. Zmitcer
      +2
      26 August 2012 17: 31
      Quote: Voin sveta82
      this applies to all of us ... Russians ...
      Are you talking about Vlasov’s army? well then everything is correct, there were Russians. But Ukrainians, Tatars, Belarusians, and Georgians fought with the Nazis ... millions of people of different nationalities living in the USSR. This is a common victory!
  15. 0
    27 August 2012 00: 34
    test drive TANK KV-2

    The rise of the KV-1 tank on the Nevsky Piglet
    1. Prohor
      +2
      27 August 2012 15: 01
      More precisely, "Test drive IS-2 with a fake KV-2 turret" ....
  16. +1
    27 August 2012 10: 52
    The article is a compilation of the anniversary book about the tank design bureau of the Kirov plant, it seems, "Without secrets and secrets" was called. A fairly varnished story.

    As for weapons, initially the T-34 and KV received the L-11 gun, which was put on the first vehicles of both types. The F-32 was installed longer in the HF than on the T-34 due to the inability to install the F-34 in the HF tower with the location of the recoil device inside the tower. The specially redesigned F-34 received the ZiS-5 index and was installed on the KV-1 and KV-1C. Experienced F-30/39/42 either did not fit in the KV tower, or could not provide adequate protection for the recoil device. A new tower was designed for KV-3/220.
  17. Isaev
    +1
    27 August 2012 11: 09
    Kars, how old are you?



    KV was at the same time a breakthrough in tank building (protivosnaryadny booking), and a crude machine - gearbox gears could not withstand. I don’t remember where I read it, but initially there were spur (!) Gears. Adopted without state tests. And KV-1C, although weakened, but the car became reliable. And the commander’s cupola was added, EMNIP. IMHO, that tanker who relies only on armor is bad.

    In the history of KV, it touches me that it was not Kotin who proposed a solution to Stalin, but vice versa. Which for me personally, negatively characterizes Kotin, and opposite Stalin.
    1. -1
      27 August 2012 11: 21
      Quote: Isaev
      Kars, how old are you?

      And why are you sorry?
      At least what’s the difference - 30, but I'm interested in armored vehicles from grade 9, what's next?
      Quote: Isaev
      A KV-1C, though weakened

      I’m wildly sorry, but it was just out of despair, and the appearance of the Tiger immediately explained it lucratively. KV-1C is an incomprehensible retrograde solution, instead of continuing the evolution of a heavy tank, its characteristics are closer to average.
      1. Isaev
        +1
        27 August 2012 15: 28
        You show off Kars, as a self-assertive teenager. When a man is wrong, he does not hesitate to admit a mistake.
    2. Prohor
      0
      27 August 2012 14: 55
      It seems that Kotin was Voroshilov's son-in-law, which explains the adoption of the "raw" tank into service. And thank God that at least this one was accepted - with all the shortcomings he played an important role in 1941-1942. played.
      1. 0
        28 August 2012 09: 18
        The trouble is different, the adoption of the KV put an end to the T-28. Moreover, full! The director of the Kirov factory struck in the spring of 1940 the decision to completely stop the production of spare parts for this tank! In fact, this decision amounted to removing the tank from service (at the beginning of the war about half of the available T-28s were considered operational). And the T-28 was the best domestic model of the generation tank of the first half of the 30s. In terms of its TFE, it was at the level of the German Pz-IVF.
        KV-1 is a dead end, if the reservation was still adequate, then the armament was weak for such a machine. In addition, these machines began to saturate the mechanized corps, for which this type was a burden.
  18. Vitmir
    +1
    27 August 2012 13: 15
    Not an article, but sheer boast. If not for Joseph Vissarionovich, Cotinas would have been riveted by multi-tower miracles-yudas.
    And the KV-1 itself (before becoming the KV-1s) is a heavyweight, expensive compared to average, with weak weapons for a heavyweight and an unreliable monster chassis.
    Its role can be recognized as positive only as the accumulation of experience for the creation of the IS-2 - a really worthwhile line of "weights".
    The entire first half of the war could be fought on three models - the T-34M / 76 with modernization potential up to T-34M / 85, the cheaper and more massive SU-76M, and the armored personnel carrier. Then b and the opportunity for the T-50 freed up, instead of the fusible shit T-37-T-70.
    The second half of the war (if necessary, in the case of the appearance of the modernized T-IV and Panthers) - with the addition of these three above-mentioned three models: cheaper and more massive than tanks, anti-tank SU-85 with modernization potential up to SU-100, heavy type IS-2, which would be devoid of diseases of the KV line, and on its basis heavy anti-tank self-propelled guns of the ISU-122 type with modernization potential up to ISU-152.
    The rest of the scrap metal had nothing to produce at all.
    1. Isaev
      0
      27 August 2012 15: 33
      "Everyone imagines himself a strategist, seeing the battle from the side" (C). And even after so many years. Moreover, without knowing the situation from the inside with production, personnel, stocks of materials, etc. etc.
      1. Vitmir
        0
        12 September 2012 11: 31
        I repeat: "If it were not for Joseph Vissarionovich, Kotins would have riveted the multi-turret miracles."
        Stalin looked from the side and showed himself to be a strategist.
        And aftertaste is good because the situation with production, etc. , including tactics and strategies for mine action, is more accessible. It is worth learning from mistakes, including your own.
    2. 0
      28 August 2012 09: 32
      KV-1 was created based on the requirements of the military, it was they who were unable to formulate the terms of reference in time.
      As for the T-50, they simply could not master it - for the sake of it, the production of the T-26 was stopped, and then in July-August 1941 several tens of T-26s were completed from the backlog.
      SU-76 appeared on the basis of the T-70 chassis, so without the T-40/30/60/70 line-up this self-propelled guns simply would not have existed.
      SU-152 and ISU-152/122 were created to break through long-term defensive lines, they were thrown against tanks from hopelessness.
      1. Vitmir
        0
        12 September 2012 13: 50
        The KV-1 was created in response to the demands of the military and with the blessing of the ITT — with anti-ballistic armor, but it was poorly designed — it did not meet its objectives in terms of armament, reliability or mobility.
      2. Vitmir
        0
        12 September 2012 14: 17
        KV-1 is still a dead end.
        The Su-76 could and should have been created on any existing / suitable chassis - upgraded from the T-26, or T-50, Komsomolets, or specially created - and not necessarily on the T-70. No religion forbade it, not even Marxism, right?
        It would not be worth riveting the KV-1 with a weak gun and no reliability, would not have to experience hopelessness in the 43rd.
  19. Yemelya
    0
    27 August 2012 13: 56
    Dear experts, attention, question:

    in the village Porfino, Novgorod Region a somewhat unusual KV - a tower, rollers and tracks - from KV-1C, a building from KV-1, ext. armor on the front sheets of the hull, towing hooks, as in the KV-1C, in the mechanical drive 2 surveillance devices, as in the KV-1C. It could be assumed that it was assembled from parts KV-1 and KV-1C, but whence then 2 surveillance devices at the driver’s drive, if an early version of KV-1C with a housing from KV-1, then where did add. armor, if from the spring of 1942 the KV-1 was produced without it.
    My version is, nevertheless, an early version of the KV-1C using the backlog of old buildings, but dropped out in the field or during repairs in Leningrad.

    More versions.
    1. 0
      28 August 2012 09: 57
      There are many options - starting from the form in which it was stored, ending with how it was collected and when. The simplest is the transitional version or the surviving prototype (on which innovations were tested). The second option - the tank was assembled from several wrecked ones - the KV-1C turret was put on the bare KV-1 hull, and the missing elements were taken from it ...
      1. Yemelya
        0
        28 August 2012 10: 39
        If the case is from KV-1, then where are the 2 viewing devices from the driver?

        There is another version - the KV-1C case, but made according to the same technology as part of the KV-1 cases - with a welded MTO cover instead of stamped - due to the loading of the press equipment - maybe the KV-1C case, where the stamped part was used , had a beveled back, because there were drawings for their manufacture, but for the welded aft part, such drawings were not made, and therefore they were produced without beveling.
  20. -1
    28 August 2012 08: 59
    Vitmir,

    Afterglow is a great thing :))
    KV-1 and T-34 were created, in accordance with the then theory of operation. The first tank is the first echelon (NPP), the 2nd tank is the second echelon and, accordingly, the DDP.
    The Red Army did not hold the Germans for fools and obviously believed that something would be more serious than the Pak-35/36 and Pak-38 in the PTO.
    That is why they went in the 42nd to facilitate the reservation in the KV-1C variant.
    In general, everything turned out to be not as imagined. For example, IMHO, underestimated the role of operational mobility. It seems that Katukov met about the fact that KV-shki strongly braked the entire connection on the march.

    By T-50.
    The main brake on launching it into production was the lack of a "half" V-2 of 250 lyshades. However, this also hindered the promotion of the project of the domestic armored personnel carrier.
    1. +1
      28 August 2012 09: 51
      There were no problems with the V-4, after the evacuation, several dozen of these engines were allowed to complete the V-2K (the "half" of which the V-4 was, its maximum power was 300 hp, the experienced V-3 had 250 hp). The Obukhov plant (albeit a dedicated tank plant) had outdated equipment and could not master the mass production of the T-50, and for a small series, the capacity of the Kirov plant, which produced V-2K and V-4, was enough (before the modernization of the tank engine workshop at the Obukhov plant.
      1. 0
        28 August 2012 13: 15
        Hmm .. but where does infa come from that there were no problems with B-4?: /
        And where does the Kirov plant? After all, the 75th Kharkov plant was focused on "halves".
        Well, for example, the popular Baryatinsky:
        "... However, the main limiting factor in the production of the T-50 was the engines. The priority in the planning tasks was given to the V-2 diesel engine ..."
        http://armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/WWII/T50/T50_1.php
        1. +1
          28 August 2012 14: 40
          The 75th plant specialized in B-2 and B-2B. B-2K was assembled at the Kirov plant. V-4 was created on the basis of precisely V-2K. Prior to the re-equipment of the engine shop of the Obukhov plant, V-4 (as unified) produced the engine section of the Kirov plant. It was the presence of unclaimed B-4 in the evacuated property that allowed to equip part of the KV-1 at the end of 1941. It’s better to read Svirin on this issue, in my opinion he is a more meticulous and understanding author.
    2. Vitmir
      +1
      12 September 2012 14: 25
      And aftertaste should be actively used, but even then there were enough smart people - the same Stalin, for example :))) Not in vain, oh not in vain did he poher the multi-towers.

      The sedentary and extremely unreliable KV-1 as a RPE with the same gun as the DPP is nonsense, obvious even then (to smart people, such as the same Katukov and others).

      Facilitation of booking in the KV-1S was a forced step - to reduce the weight, which was not pulled by the weak suspension, but at the same time it was stupid. brought the heavy tank closer not to the IS-2, but to the T-34. But the steps to improve the reliability of the KV-1S undercarriage can only be welcomed, as developments for future "heavy loads", only for the KV they are very late.

      T-50: I hear about the lack of "halves" for the first time, in 1941 there were surpluses.
  21. 0
    28 August 2012 14: 15
    mkpda,
    Here's another, raised the three-volume uncle Misha Svirin's Armored Shield of Stalin.
    On the situation with the T-50 for 1942:

    "... However, no matter how simplified the design of the T-50 was, the bottleneck for its manufacture was the engine. Although it was a" half "of the V-2 and was cheaper, there was simply nowhere to produce it. An attempt to equip the T- 50 parallel pair of GAZ-202 carburetor engines ended unsuccessfully. "
    1. +1
      29 August 2012 13: 30
      You are talking about 1942, and I'm talking about 1941 - two big differences. Before the evacuation, there were no problems with the B-4, more precisely, it was the only bright moment in the fate of the T-50 at that time. But in Omsk there was a different situation and a motor was already needed - they were not enough for all types of tanks.
  22. valiant
    +1
    28 August 2012 23: 24
    The KV-1 is praised for its excellent armor and powerful cannon. But this is not the merit of tank builders. and the metallurgists, who at that time knew how to cook the best armor steel in the world, this is the merit of the artillery designers who created the best tank guns in the world before the war. The task of those who design tanks always consists in one thing: to be able to select ready-made components, to calculate the most optimal layout of the vehicle, to design a reliable suspension and everything related to the engine-transmission compartment (MTO) of the tank. And this task is sometimes much more difficult than designing just a cannon or just an engine. It very often happens that individually excellent components, connected together, lose their performance, but it also happens the other way around ... Yes, KV fulfilled his role as a hero, but not for his fighting qualities, but due to the courage of the tankers. The Germans managed to bring their "Tiger" to mind, in contrast to our KV, which was put into service without sea trials (the chassis and gearbox were never finalized). Hence the big losses, again due to breakdowns.
    1. Vitmir
      0
      12 September 2012 14: 30
      For the allegedly "powerful" (compared to the T-34) KV-1 cannon, they are scolded, not praised.
      It would be better for the Germans to bring the T-IV, increasing power, and to rivet them in double quantity, instead of the Tigers-Panthers, but they did not - and thank God.
  23. valiant
    0
    28 August 2012 23: 45
    By the way, the Germans often used their trophies, and KV and T-34
    1. Vitmir
      0
      12 September 2012 14: 29
      Mainly on secondary sectors of the front, against the rebels in Warsaw and the partisans.
  24. Vitmir
    0
    12 September 2012 14: 46
    Katukov about KV-1 to Stalin (if someone has not read):
    “But heavy tanks KB and combat vehicles T-60 and T-70 are not liked by the troops.
    Stalin paused for a moment, arching an eyebrow questioningly:
    - For what reason?
    - KB, Comrade Stalin, is very heavy, slow, and therefore not maneuverable. Obstacles they overcome with difficulty. But the thirty-four do not care. In addition, KB break bridges and generally bring a lot of unnecessary trouble {meaning a very brittle chassis}. And in service with KB the same seventy-six millimeter gun, as in the thirty-four. So, one wonders, what combat advantages does a heavy tank give us? Now, if KB had a stronger gun, bigger caliber, then another thing. Perhaps we could put up with its severity, and with other design flaws.
    I criticized the light tank T-60. He is armed with an automatic, but only a 20 mm gun. This machine cannot lead a serious struggle with the armored forces of the enemy. In addition, his clearance is small, and to make marches on it, to go on the attack in the snow and mud is a dead matter. In the battles near Moscow, we had to drag these tanks in tow.
    The light tank T-70 has more solid armor protection, is armed with a 45-mm cannon, it has two automobile engines. But he had just begun to enter service and so far had not shown himself to be anything special.
    - One gimmick with them, Comrade Stalin, - I concluded.
  25. Vitmir
    0
    12 September 2012 15: 18
    End quote:
    "The Supreme Commander listened attentively, did not interrupt. But when I outlined my point of view about all the tanks in our armament, after a long pause, he unexpectedly began to prove to me that I needlessly attacked KB, T-60 and T -70, that they are not bad cars and, perhaps, we, tankers, simply underestimate them.
    Listening to Stalin, I, of course, was worried, but still decided not to give up. He cited a number of military examples confirming that KB, T-60 and T-70 do not justify themselves on the battlefield. And once again he asked:
    - Let them arm the tanks, at least the same heavy ones, with a more powerful cannon, then they will be useful to us.

"Right Sector" (banned in Russia), "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) (banned in Russia), ISIS (banned in Russia), "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" formerly "Jabhat al-Nusra" (banned in Russia) , Taliban (banned in Russia), Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Anti-Corruption Foundation (banned in Russia), Navalny Headquarters (banned in Russia), Facebook (banned in Russia), Instagram (banned in Russia), Meta (banned in Russia), Misanthropic Division (banned in Russia), Azov (banned in Russia), Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), Aum Shinrikyo (banned in Russia), AUE (banned in Russia), UNA-UNSO (banned in Russia), Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People (banned in Russia), Legion “Freedom of Russia” (armed formation, recognized as terrorist in the Russian Federation and banned)

“Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"