Military Review

Wartime alloys: museum armor under the microscope of Ural researchers

42

SAU-76I from the captured Pz. III. Exposition of the Museum in Verkhnyaya Pyshma. Source: livejournal.com


For the sake of historical objectivity


В the first part The material on the study of armor was about the alloys of the SU-100, SU-122 and SU-85 self-propelled artillery mounts from the Museum of Military Equipment in Verkhnyaya Pyshma. Researchers from the Institute of Metal Physics of the Ural Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences have found that wartime metallurgists were able to generally adhere to the 8C armor recipe. The uniqueness of the project, in which employees of three Yekaterinburg research institutes took part, in the data obtained, which previously could only be obtained from archival sources 75 years ago. Even modern articles and publications of the former "Armored Research Institute", now NRC Kurchatov Institute - TsNII KM Prometheus, are filled not with experimental data of our day, but only with the results of wartime research.


T-34 manufactured by the Stalingrad Tractor Plant. Exposition of the Museum in Verkhnyaya Pyshma. Source: kargoteka.info

To describe the seriousness of the arsenal that the researchers managed to attract to the project, it is worth mentioning several instruments used: a portable X-ray fluorescence and optical emission spectrometer, a ballistic hardness tester, an ultrasonic flaw detector, as well as scanning electron and optical microscopes. Modern equipment has made it possible to take a fresh look at the composition of the armor tanks and ACS - spectrometers determined the content of 15-18 elements.

The results were unexpected even for the researchers themselves. Modern equipment revealed an increased copper content in the armor of self-propelled guns assembled at Uralmash in 1942-1943. As you know, copper does not belong to the alloying elements of armor. It's all about the special composition of the Ural ores, from which 8C armor was smelted at the Novotagil Metallurgical Combine, Magnitogorsk and Novokuznetsk plants. Of course, copper was fixed in the T-34 armor from Kharkov and Stalingrad, but there was much more of it in the Ural alloys. What does this mean? Now you can, with a certain degree of confidence, determine whether the armor belongs to a particular manufacturer. Often, museum workers collected exhibition copies of armored vehicles from several vehicles, destroying the authenticity forever. Of course, such attribution requires a larger-scale research of available armored exhibits throughout Russia.

It is interesting to compare the composition of the armor of Soviet self-propelled guns and captured German equipment. Samples of Teutonic steel were taken from a unique exhibit of the Museum in Verkhnyaya Pyshma - SAU-76I, converted by the Red Army from a Pz. III. Samples were taken from the left and right sides, hatches and the commander's cupola. It turned out that the chemical composition of all samples is different! As an explanation, the authors suggest that armor plates from different suppliers came to the German assembly plant. Did the Germans have the honor to weld a tank out of assorted leftovers in the warehouse? It is quite possible that already at the repair base, Soviet engineers assembled a specific SAU-76I from substandard captured armored vehicles. For this reason, differences in the composition of the armor are recorded throughout the hull. Comparing German and Russian armor during the war, the authors of the study noted differences in the proportion of carbon and part of alloying additives - manganese, chromium, nickel and silicon, which should have made enemy armor more fragile. But at the same time, it is more solid - studies have found a surface cemented layer of armor with a hardness of 580-590 HB (according to Brinell).

Armor of Stalingrad and Kharkov


As mentioned above, the objects of research of metallurgical scientists were self-propelled guns SU-85, SU-122, SU-100 and two T-34-76 tanks from Kharkov Plant No. 183 and Stalingrad Tractor Plant. The features of the armor of self-propelled guns were discussed in the previous part. stories, now it's the turn of tank alloys. Quite naturally, the composition of the armor of the Kharkov tank is most consistent with the technological standards for steel 8C. The T-34 was produced in 1940, and the 8C armor for it came to Kharkov from the Mariupol plant named after I. Ilyich. This made it possible to use the armor of the tracked vehicle as a reference model, manufactured in accordance with all standards. The composition of the armor was determined based on the results of a study of samples from the feed sheet of the Kharkov T-34, obviously, so as not to spoil the appearance of the historical relic.


Pre-war T-34-76 from Kharkov. Exposition of the Museum in Verkhnyaya Pyshma. Source: kargoteka.info

At that time, the Mariupol plant was the only enterprise capable of smelting and hardening such complex alloys. Moreover, 8C was generally developed specifically for the specifics of the Mariupol production. This clearly illustrates the difficulties that domestic metallurgists had to face (in particular, from TsNII-48) when Mariupol was under occupation. It is not surprising that in the composition of the armor of a tank from Stalingrad, as found in the course of modern research, an increased amount of phosphorus and carbon. And this, in turn, leads to increased fragility of the armor. On a specimen from the Museum, scientists found a small break in the armor from an enemy shell - it is likely a consequence of the substandard quality of the steel. But the supplier of armor (the Stalingrad plant "Barricades") cannot be blamed for this directly. First, at the beginning of the war, in order to preserve the volume of supplies, the requirements of military acceptance for the quality of armor were reduced. And secondly, the removal of phosphorus from steel is a very time-consuming process for which wartime factories often simply did not have the resources. For reference: the share of carbon, an important element of armor, in a Kharkov tank is the standard 0,22%, but in the Stalingrad car it is already more than twice as much - 0,47%.

One of the authors of the study Nikita Melnikov from the Institute of History and Archeology of the Ural Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences paid special attention in one of his articles to the quality of welded seams of domestic tanks. They looked especially rude in comparison with the German and Lend-lease technology. There is nothing surprising and even more so criminal in this - Soviet workers assembled tanks far from the same hothouse conditions as in Germany and even more so in the United States. The front first of all needed the number of armored vehicles, and the quality often went to the background or even to the third place. However, an overly critical attitude to the quality of Soviet armored vehicles during the war distinguishes most of the materials of the candidate of historical sciences Nikita Melnikov.

An important part of the research was the Brinell hardness testing of armor. It is noteworthy that the armor of self-propelled guns produced at the same plant differs a lot from each other. The "softest" armor turned out to be the SU-85 - 380-340 HB, followed by the SU-122 with 380-405 HB, and, finally, the SU-100, the side plate of which had a hardness of 410-435 HB. At the same time, the frontal armor of the last self-propelled gun was only 270 HB.

The result of this interesting and important study of the Ural metallurgists and historians is the thesis voiced in the previous part - Soviet technologists and engineers in 1941-1945 managed to preserve the brand composition of the legendary 8C. Despite the evacuation, despite the shortage of alloying additives, despite the absence of a production base. The authors of the study can only wish continued work in this direction and expand the objects of study. Fortunately, in the vastness of our Motherland, there are still many samples of museum armored vehicles, fanned with immortal glory.

Sources:
1. Article "Fractographic study of armored steel of self-propelled artillery installations of the Red Army" in the journal Diagnostics, Resource and Mechanics of materials and structures Issue 2, 2020. Authors: B. A. Gizhevsky, M. V. Degtyarev, T. I. Chashchukhina, L. M. Voronova, E. I. Patrakov, N. N. Melnikov, you. V. Zapariy, S. V. Ruzaev and Vl. V. Zapariy. 2020 year.
2. The article "Armor steel of medium tanks and self-propelled artillery installations of the Red Army during the Great Patriotic War" in the magazine "Ural Industrial. Bakunin readings ". Authors: B. A. Gizhevsky, M. V. Degtyarev, N. N. Melnikov. 2020 year.
3. The article "Historical memory and armored vehicles: military museums as a source of new data on the period of the Great Patriotic War" in the collection "The Great Patriotic War in the historical memory of the people: study, interpretation, lessons of the past." Author N. N. Melnikov. 2020 year.
Author:
42 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. zyablik.olga
    zyablik.olga 14 March 2021 04: 29
    +7

    SAU-76I from the captured Pz. III. Exposition of the Museum in Verkhnyaya Pyshma

    Isn't this a remake?
    1. Toucan
      Toucan 14 March 2021 04: 52
      +7
      Remake yes
      The only surviving original SU-76I is installed as a monument in the Ukrainian city of Sarny.
      1. Kote Pan Kokhanka
        Kote Pan Kokhanka 14 March 2021 06: 02
        +3
        Quote: zyablik.olga

        SAU-76I from the captured Pz. III. Exposition of the Museum in Verkhnyaya Pyshma

        Isn't this a remake?

        The armored hull PzIII is original, cool and selective in the places of collection of armor samples.
        1. Toucan
          Toucan 14 March 2021 10: 20
          +1
          Quote: Kote Pan Kokhanka
          Quote: zyablik.olga

          SAU-76I from the captured Pz. III. Exposition of the Museum in Verkhnyaya Pyshma

          Isn't this a remake?

          The armored hull PzIII is original, cool and selective in the places of collection of armor samples.

          In any case, this is not an original car, just like the SG-122A available there.
      2. Kote Pan Kokhanka
        Kote Pan Kokhanka 14 March 2021 06: 05
        +4
        Quote: Tucan
        Remake yes
        The only surviving original SU-76I is installed as a monument in the Ukrainian city of Sarny.

        There is at least one more copy on Poklonnaya Hill in Moscow, but I don’t know the layout or the original.
        1. hohol95
          hohol95 14 March 2021 23: 20
          -1
          I read that in Moscow the SU-76 has an original cabin! They only fitted the chassis from the "troika" or "shtug" to it.
          1. Kote Pan Kokhanka
            Kote Pan Kokhanka 15 March 2021 03: 35
            +2
            Quote: hohol95
            I read that in Moscow the SU-76 has an original cabin! They only fitted the chassis from the "troika" or "shtug" to it.

            Good night!
            Yes, it's more likely. In the information plates on Poklonnaya Hill, it was always indicated if the exhibit was a layout. For example, a part of the Japanese exposition.
            Moreover, so as not to be unfounded on the SU-76I.

            Sorry for the quality of the photo.
            1. Kote Pan Kokhanka
              Kote Pan Kokhanka 15 March 2021 03: 42
              +3
              For comparison, the information plate of the layout on Poklonnaya Hill.

            2. hohol95
              hohol95 19 March 2021 20: 02
              +1
              Svirin Mikhail Nikolaevich "Stalin's self-propelled guns. History of the Soviet ACS 1919 - 1945"
              The only surviving specimen this interesting combat vehicle is located on a pedestal in Sarny. It was recovered from the bottom of the Sluch River, where it lay for nearly 30 years. Parts of the original SU-76 (I) cabin served as the basis for the reconstruction of the car on Poklonnaya Hill in Moscow.
              1. Kote Pan Kokhanka
                Kote Pan Kokhanka 20 March 2021 05: 57
                +4
                Good morning Alexey!
                That's right, but when Svirin wrote his reference book, the exhibit was not in the museums of Verkhnyaya Pyshma.
                According to the restorers of the Military Glory of the Urals museum, their exhibit is a model recreated on the basis of several machines. Including with modern details - not made of armored steel. In fact, a designer, but some of the elements of armor and equipment are original. Therefore, the selectivity in the study.
                For example, the T-35 in their exposition was created around two surviving gun turrets from the original tank and one from the T-26. Machine-gun - mock-ups, like almost the entire hull, and tracks "fuss" from kopanka to remake. The equipment is also a prefabricated hodgepodge, but there are nodes from museums or from excavated T-28s.
                However, no one in the museum is hiding that this is a model, but ...
                Damn to think, what kind of golden hands, soul and head it was necessary to take and "blind".

                Honor and praise to everyone who made their efforts before.
                By the way, the reasons for the selection of the SU-76I undercarriage armor, nee Pz-III, are apparently connected with the fact that there are no more German tanks on the territory of the museum. I was not interested in the basis of the second "SG-122" sauna.
                1. hohol95
                  hohol95 20 March 2021 22: 59
                  +1
                  I do not argue! A lot of "Troikas" were taken, and it is possible that at different polygons (warehouses, storerooms) they were able to "pick up the remains" for such a restoration or model making!
                  And I am only glad that there are still handy people in the Russian Federation. Not that I ...
      3. Vladimir_2U
        Vladimir_2U 14 March 2021 06: 19
        +2
        Quote: Tucan
        The only surviving original SU-76I

        Namely, with all due respect to the author of the SU-76I, not the SPG.
    2. Jura 27
      Jura 27 14 March 2021 06: 15
      +3
      [/ quote] armor supplier (Stalingrad plant "Barrikada") [quote]

      Since when has the Barrikady art plant melted and rolled armor?
      1. Aviator_
        Aviator_ 14 March 2021 11: 26
        +3
        Stalingrad plant "Barrikada"

        I was also surprised not only by the incorrect name of the Stalingrad plant, but also by the mistake in its specialization.
        1. Orkraider
          Orkraider 14 March 2021 16: 19
          +3
          Greetings!

          I don't know much about Barricades, I decided to look and read, and came across an interesting story related to the plant:
          Former worker of the "Barricades" plant, Alexander Chislov, taught the famous pilot Alexei Maresyev, the hero of the book "The Story of a Real Man", to fly anew. After amputation of both legs, Maresyev, as an exception, was allowed to serve in the 63rd Guards Fighter Aviation Regiment. However, the command did not want to release a disabled person into the sky. Squadron commander Alexander Chislov regretted Maresyev. He took Maresyev with him on several combat missions, giving the hero the opportunity to believe in his strength. The fact is that they are fellow countrymen, Maresyev is from Kamyshin, and Chislov is from the current Bykovsky district. Both combat pilots, Chislov and Maresyev, will soon be awarded the title of Hero of the Soviet Union. By the way, after demobilization from the army, Colonel Chislov will return to Stalingrad, will live and work in the Traktorozavodsky district of the city. Taken Notepad-Volgograd
        2. old dilettante
          old dilettante 19 March 2021 15: 36
          +1
          This is not the author of this material, but the authors of the article "ARMOR STEEL OF MEDIUM TANKS AND SELF-PROPELLED ARTILLERY INSTALLATIONS OF THE RED ARMY IN THE YEARS OF THE GREAT PATRIOTIC WAR" wrote this way, and the author simply
          copied-pasted. With a high degree of probability, the supplier of the armor steel was the Krasny Oktyabr metal plant (now the Krasny Oktyabr VMK).
  2. The leader of the Redskins
    The leader of the Redskins 14 March 2021 05: 11
    +4
    An interesting continuation of the article. Thanks to the author.
  3. CTABEP
    CTABEP 14 March 2021 09: 23
    +7
    The conclusions are strange - the excess of the carbon content is 2 times, the excess in phosphorus - and as a result we managed to preserve the brand composition :). So it was not always possible, therefore, the breaks of substandard armor.
    1. Kote Pan Kokhanka
      Kote Pan Kokhanka 14 March 2021 10: 37
      +7
      Conclusions were made by metallurgists. Apparently there are tolerances that do not reduce the characteristics of the armor steel. At least references in scientific papers go to wartime tolerances during the years of production of a particular model. They seem to be much wider than is customary today. By the way, most of the manufacturers of "armor" of the studied machines are within walking distance to both the museum and the branch of the academy. Yekaterinburg (Sverdlovsk), Nizhny Tagil, Chelyabinsk.
      However, the "machine" of combinations itself is a constructor set up in Verkhnyaya Pyshma. Samples were taken from both German and Soviet authentically original details of those years. The remanufactured elements of this machine are known. It is assumed that the car in its modern form was assembled from at least six to seven samples. The latter, according to the guide.
      1. Saxahorse
        Saxahorse 14 March 2021 19: 04
        0
        Quote: Kote pane Kohanka
        Conclusions were made by metallurgists. Apparently there are tolerances that do not reduce the characteristics of the armor steel. At least references in scientific papers go to wartime tolerances in the years of production of a particular model. They seem to be much wider than is accepted today.

        Complete nonsense. Steel 20 and Steel 45 are completely different grades, significantly different from each other. Other numbers are also incomprehensible. Either they did this analysis and the result was accidental, or the tanks were sculpted and what turned up at hand. Moreover, judging by the results, the Germans also cooked tanks from just about anything.

        There is a suspicion that these home-grown researchers have messed up something here, the results are too wild for both Soviet and German armored vehicles.
        1. Kote Pan Kokhanka
          Kote Pan Kokhanka 15 March 2021 03: 54
          +2
          Quote: Saxahorse
          There is a suspicion that these home-grown researchers have messed up something here, the results are too wild for both Soviet and German armored vehicles.

          The research was carried out by the Institute of Metal Physics of the Ural Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences in cooperation with the leading metallurgical enterprises of the Urals (UVZ, Uralmashzavod, Uraltyazhmash, Chelyabinsk Tractor, Magnitogorsk Metallurgical). Moreover, the recipe for the 8S armor was mainly studied, from which the armor of medium and light tanks and self-propelled guns was made. But not everything worked out, hence the spread in the indicator of wartime armor.
          Why did you mention steel 25 and 45 I don’t understand at all? In the study to which the Author refers to one word.
          1. Saxahorse
            Saxahorse 15 March 2021 23: 05
            -1
            Quote: Kote pane Kohanka
            Why did you mention steel 25 and 45 I don’t understand at all? In the study to which the Author refers to one word.

            Well, after all, not a word ..
            ... For reference: the share of carbon, an important element of armor, in a Kharkov tank is the standard 0,22%, but in the Stalingrad car it is already more than twice as much - 0,47%.

            The proportion of carbon is the grade of steel as the basis for alloying. With such cardinal differences, it remains only to throw up his hands .. I can not imagine that the OTK could miss this. Or even ask a question about the quality of the study. On the contrary, a long list of those who "took part" rather speaks of the irresponsibility of each of them.
            1. Bobik012
              Bobik012 April 13 2021 05: 40
              0
              By the way. Steel 20 as a basis for armor is highly questionable. It hurts too soft. I have not watched the composition of 8C, but I am plagued by vague doubts. 45 is somehow more reliable
              1. Saxahorse
                Saxahorse April 13 2021 23: 33
                0
                And you look:
                The tests were carried out at the site of the Mariupol plant in the period from 9 to 24 January 1940. In total, 49 experimental plates (cards) with dimensions of 1200 × 1200 mm of various thicknesses were presented for testing. For the manufacture of armor plates, the plant produced six experimental heats, the chemical composition of which is shown in Table 4.




                The gross production of homogeneous high-hardness armor made of steel grade "MZ-2", included in the NKSP armored steel range under the name "I-8S", at the Mariupol plant began in April 1940. At the end of the month, the Mariupol residents manufactured and shipped ten sets of armor parts made of steel grade "I-183S" for the manufacture of a pilot batch of T-8 tanks.
  4. Alien From
    Alien From 14 March 2021 09: 54
    +3
    Thank you Eugene! We are waiting for the continuation hi
  5. Alexander Kopychev
    Alexander Kopychev 14 March 2021 10: 41
    +6
    To describe the seriousness of the arsenal that the researchers managed to attract to the project, it is worth mentioning several instruments used: a portable X-ray fluorescence and optical emission spectrometer, a ballistic hardness tester, an ultrasonic flaw detector, as well as scanning electron and optical microscopes.

    With such a set of flaw detectors, you can not talk about quality ... I remember how in 2007 they tried to establish quality control with ultrasound at our rolling mill - the results were depressing. Almost 100% of rolled products with various defects, so that the shop was quickly closed, and the mill continues to produce "high-quality" products. Therefore, a low bow to the grandfathers for their heroic work in the difficult war of war. And who dares to condemn them?
  6. Niko
    Niko 14 March 2021 12: 08
    +3
    An interesting fact, even on the pre-war model, there were serious discrepancies with the required characteristics (from which all the authors praising domestic tanks would later build on). They already wrote about the armor of the war years. That is one of the reasons why the REAL penetration of our vehicles did not correspond to the calculated-declared.
    1. Vovk
      Vovk 14 March 2021 14: 55
      +5
      The result of this interesting and important study of the Ural metallurgists and historians is the thesis voiced in the previous part - Soviet technologists and engineers in 1941-1945 managed to preserve the brand composition of the legendary 8C.

      A very strange conclusion. On the contrary, from the articles I understood the following - the composition of the 8C tank armor in 1941 was the standard, which was changed in 1942 due to problems with manganese and production technology. As a result, tank armor was produced that did not correspond to the military realities of that time, which led to mass death and maiming of tank crews.
      What kind of preservation of the 1941c brand composition in 45-8 can we talk about if it changed at the whim of the armor manufacturers?
      1. old dilettante
        old dilettante 19 March 2021 17: 56
        0
        In fact, the composition / grade of armored steels was developed by the "Armored Institute" (TsNII-48), and the practical part (melting, rolling and heat treatment technology, tests for resistance to shells) by the "armored bureau", from the institute employees at the Magnitogorsk Met. combine. Moreover, since the arrival of the armored bureau specialists in Magnitogorsk (September 1941), there has been a constant search for "recipes" of the so-called. economically alloyed brands of armored steel. Among others, technologies were developed and tested for hardening of armored parts with high tempering, replacement of the hardening medium (oil replaced with water). I met information that over the four war years at MMK, about 100 new special brands were developed. steels.
        The main problems / defects in 1941 for the T-34 were "..: destruction of gearbox housings (mainly for tanks produced by plant No. 183), leakage of radiators, swelling of oil tanks, failure of M-17 engines due to water leakage in inter-cylinder seals, pouring gasoline into carburetors of M-17 engines .. "(Order on NKTP No. 192-mss dated February 12, 1942, RGAE Fund 8752 Inventory 4 Case 83 sheet 135 - 138)
    2. Kote Pan Kokhanka
      Kote Pan Kokhanka 14 March 2021 15: 16
      +5
      Quote: Niko
      An interesting fact, even on the pre-war model, there were serious discrepancies with the required characteristics (from which all the authors praising domestic tanks would later build on). They already wrote about the armor of the war years. That is one of the reasons why the REAL penetration of our vehicles did not correspond to the calculated-declared.

      I will surprise you, but it happens. However, if you happened to read the previous works of the Author, or other works about BTT during the war years, you should have noted that despite the difficulties, the armor of Soviet tanks improved from year to year. Unlike German, by the way.
      In addition, we did not have serious engineering miscalculations, unlike allies and opponents.
      For example, in autumn and spring we didn't have to put tree trunks and timber under our tanks, so that the undercarriage would not freeze, like in the Panthers. Or change pneumatic drives to traction because of frosts, like the Pz-38t. We did not tear off the armor due to the fastening of bolts to the frame like the Samoa S-35. They did not make any misunderstandings with machine gun armament, like the first Matilda, or a cannon in sponson, like Lee or Grant.
      And lastly. Recently, an American report on the quality of the T-34 armor studied at the Aden test site has been widely circulated.
      In the mid-0s, the American scientist D. Rizar brought him to a round table in Yekaterinburg. In the end, he humorously remarked (I quote from memory) - "despite all the shortcomings, Russian tanks were in Berlin, and not vice versa!"
      Although he, however partly rightly, did not forget to list the machine-tool equipment supplied to the Urals from the United States.
  7. Undecim
    Undecim 14 March 2021 15: 00
    +12
    To be honest, I don’t understand the author’s attempts to eat the fish and not get into the boat. Anyone with an idea of ​​metallurgy understands that with the difference in carbon content more than twice and an increased content of sulfur and phosphorus, the phrase "Soviet technologists and engineers in 1941-1945 managed to preserve the brand composition of the legendary 8C "looks like a propaganda oxymoron. Why is it impossible to simply, without pulling a propaganda owl onto the globe, talk about what difficulties domestic metallurgists faced during the Great Patriotic War, that despite heroic, without exaggeration, efforts, not all of these difficulties were overcome and the quality of wartime steel it was not at all what was peaceful. Or will the truth somehow underestimate the greatness of the feat of the Soviet people in the Great Patriotic War?
    1. Engineer
      Engineer 14 March 2021 16: 29
      +5
      I'm honestly at a loss.
      Apparently I have already forgotten everything I knew about armored steel, but ...
      8C is a high hardness armor - hardened and low tempered. This is if you look at a guess
      We have according to the text
      The "softest" armor turned out to be the SU-85 - 380-340 HB, followed by the SU-122 with 380-405 HB, and, finally, the SU-100, the side plate of which had a hardness of 410-435 HB. At the same time, the frontal armor of the last self-propelled gun was only 270 HB.

      Of course, it is necessary to give the standard values ​​of hardness for 8C after heat treatment, but there are none. Have to use analogies
      None from the above steels does not have a hardness characteristic of martensitic structures - hardening and low tempering, taking into account the specified excess in carbon.
      Hardness of common steel after quenching and low tempering
      For 0,25 carbon 40-42 HRC That is, roughly 400-420 Brinell
      But we have de facto twice as much carbon.
      For steel 45 (0,45%) 54-56 HRC - about 550 Brinell
      It turns out that none of the sheets in the example above was hardened to high hardness. Hardness is more like improvement - hardening and high tempering.

      At the same time, this is
      In this case, lobovaI armor of the last self-propelled gun was only 270 HB

      Looks like some kind of incredible marriage.

      Is this all a bug or a feature?
      1. kytx
        kytx April 11 2021 09: 08
        0
        probably still a feature :)
  8. Niko
    Niko 14 March 2021 19: 08
    +2
    Quote: Kote Pan Kokhanka
    Quote: Niko
    An interesting fact, even on the pre-war model, there were serious discrepancies with the required characteristics (from which all the authors praising domestic tanks would later build on). They already wrote about the armor of the war years. That is one of the reasons why the REAL penetration of our vehicles did not correspond to the calculated-declared.

    I will surprise you, but it happens. However, if you happened to read the previous works of the Author, or other works about BTT during the war years, you should have noted that despite the difficulties, the armor of Soviet tanks improved from year to year. Unlike German, by the way.
    In addition, we did not have serious engineering miscalculations, unlike allies and opponents.
    For example, in autumn and spring we didn't have to put tree trunks and timber under our tanks, so that the undercarriage would not freeze, like in the Panthers. Or change pneumatic drives to traction because of frosts, like the Pz-38t. We did not tear off the armor due to the fastening of bolts to the frame like the Samoa S-35. They did not make any misunderstandings with machine gun armament, like the first Matilda, or a cannon in sponson, like Lee or Grant.
    And lastly. Recently, an American report on the quality of the T-34 armor studied at the Aden test site has been widely circulated.
    In the mid-0s, the American scientist D. Rizar brought him to a round table in Yekaterinburg. In the end, he humorously remarked (I quote from memory) - "despite all the shortcomings, Russian tanks were in Berlin, and not vice versa!"
    Although he, however partly rightly, did not forget to list the machine-tool equipment supplied to the Urals from the United States.

    All this is more or less clear, the topic is not the width of the caterpillars, etc. but about the armor. And in previous articles it was written that the real armor penetration was very, very high (if I remember the tower correctly, more than 70% penetration hits (including 20mm shells) and the emphasis of Soviet engineers on production technology and not on the number of additives also does not look like a super-find but a forced measure , which, especially during the war, was further aggravated by the inability to adhere to these most complex technological processes.
    1. Undecim
      Undecim 14 March 2021 19: 13
      +4
      real armor penetration
      Armor penetration is for shells. Armor has projectile resistance.
  9. Niko
    Niko 14 March 2021 19: 14
    +3
    The roughness of welding, which is often spoken of, is also not a decorative nuance. Violation of the characteristics of armor during welding is one of the most serious problems not only in the USSR. And the roughness of welding as one of the indicators of low qualifications, and, accordingly, low quality of work, does not say anything good
    1. old dilettante
      old dilettante 19 March 2021 15: 13
      +1
      You're right. The lack of the required (technologically) number of qualified manual arc welders, when joining thick (25-45 mm and more) armor steel sheets, has become one of the reasons for the development of technology and equipment for automatic submerged-arc welding of body parts.
      1. ISH
        ISH April 14 2021 10: 47
        0
        Sergei, an interesting document, is there any continuation on it, my cousin was a specialist in automatic submerged arc welding and was evacuated from Leningrad to the Urals.
        1. ISH
          ISH April 14 2021 16: 06
          0
          Sorry grandfather
  10. Niko
    Niko 14 March 2021 19: 15
    +2
    Quote: Undecim
    real armor penetration
    Armor penetration is for shells. Armor has projectile resistance.

    Sorry, Thank you
  11. hohol95
    hohol95 14 March 2021 23: 28
    +1
    Dear Author!
    After such studies, will a comparison be made with the conclusions of the German metallurgists? Or do you have no data on German research on the armor of Soviet tanks?
    Otherwise, some books contain information that the Germans consider the T-34 armor made in 1942 to be "BUTTERBROD": 2 steel sheets filled with iron filler between them!
    And how does this fit in with "compliance with production standards" for 8C armor?
  12. DWG1905
    DWG1905 15 March 2021 12: 28
    0
    If you study the reference car of the pre-war production, this is the T-34, which is probably now being dragged into the Patriot Park. This T-34 was assembled from a hull and a welded turret, which were brought to Kubinka in the 90s, according to rumors they were on an armored train. Those. we can say that they are complete. After the restoration, it stood at the entrance to the Museum. So on the turret of this car on the right there was a crack through the entire side plate, so that the turret led. The crack is not combat damage, obviously the armor was overheated. The second vehicle for study is OT-34, which is now in Nizhny Tagil, it was taken from a lake near Moscow. So, if her memory serves, she has cracks on the upper frontal sheet. That is, this is a fairly common defect that manifests itself in 10-20 years. Anyone interested in a photo of the hull and turret before restoration is. As for the SU-100, the author needs to know that her forehead is 75 mm, this is KVeshnaya armor hardened to medium hardness. In general, whoever writes about technology, study the materiel, the idea is good, but some general words turned out.


    "Otherwise, some books provide information that the Germans consider the T-34 armor made in 1942 -" BUTTERBROD ": 2 steel sheets with an iron filling between them!"
    This technology was used before the war, when armor was rolled from several sheets of steel of different grades on a rolling mill. There is fish for fishlessness and cancer.