Military Review

Tank "Mouse": formidable weapon "Panzerwaffe-46" or 200-ton "suitcase without a handle"

170

Heavyweight race



Having invaded the Soviet Union, the Germans excelled in tactics and operational art, but grand strategy remained hostage to the inability to collect the necessary amount of intelligence and bring it to the decision-makers in time. The Third Reich sincerely believed that the Soviet Union was a golem with feet of clay, capable of collapsing after the first serious blow.

This unrealized hope was not the only misconception. It turned out to be a surprise for the enemy and tank troops of the USSR. Namely - the presence in them of the latest T-34 and KV, seriously armed and armored against shells. It is not worth exaggerating the importance of these tanks. They were still largely damp, with serious problems in the organizational structure of tank units. And the Germans had effective means of dealing with the new tanks. The T-34 and KV were not a miraculous lifesaver, but they were quite pulling for a serious trump card in a difficult fight. And they made a serious contribution to the main result of 1941 - the fact that the country, in general, stayed on its feet.

Another effect was psychological, and it was already affecting the Germans. Suddenly faced with new Russian tanks, which turned out to be much more powerful than expected, now they were ready to believe in any fairy tales. And intelligence reports that began to arrive at the beginning of 1942 that the enemy was about to roll out something on the battlefield, in comparison with which the KV would seem like an affectionate hamster, were taken seriously.

In order not to find themselves with a bare belly against the fact that "akht-akhty" do not take, the Germans rushed to design their super-heavy tanks. The business started in March 1942 - the order for the chassis and turret of the future "Uberpantzer" was received, respectively, by the companies "Porsche" and "Krupp".


After the KV-2, the Germans were ready to believe in anything.

It was assumed that the weight of the "antidote" would reach no less than a hundred tons, and the reservations in places would reach an impressive figure of 220 millimeters - the Germans clearly claimed to create a machine invulnerable to artillery fire.

Armament projects were different - either 128-mm, or 150-mm, or 170-mm cannon as the main caliber. In addition to them, they were thinking of adding a 20-mm or 37-mm autocannon for firing at low-flying air targets and built-in flamethrowers. In a word, no one was going to be shy and limit themselves to some boring rationality.

Payment for weapon dreams were quite tangible - the design weight of the future product grew by leaps and bounds. Spring did not have time to really end, but she had already exceeded 120 tons. Not yet born, "Mouse" (Mouse) already ate for ten. By the fall, she had grown to 150 tons, and on the anniversary of her own development, quite rumbling, she patted herself on the stomach, eating up to 180. The built prototype gained another 8 tons, which, in principle, did not look so scary against the background of mouse bulimia that had played out earlier. In the end, the project looked so cool on paper that it was almost impossible to resist trying to implement it. But in the end it began to resemble a "suitcase without a handle."

Birth pangs


Only the "fast Heinz" Guderian, who at the time of making decisions (in the summer of 1943), was the inspector general of tank forces, could do this. He was a capable, although not always, certainly, a controlled tank commander and understood that a tank should be fast and able to move without problems on ordinary bridges. After all, it is needed not in order to hit everyone with its muscles, but for quick and deep breakthroughs and closing the cauldrons - or, if we are talking about defense, for an emergency response to enemy breakthroughs.

But Guderian was alone. And there were still plenty of other officials who made decisions. And in the end, the Germans succumbed to temptation and announced the order for as many as 140 "Maus". The figure was fantastic - very quickly it turned into a much more modest "5 units per month". But soon something happened that broke these plans too.

Tank "Mouse": formidable weapon "Panzerwaffe-46" or 200-ton "suitcase without a handle"
Guderian was the only dignitary who did not appreciate the new tank. And the influence to slam the mouse in the bud was not enough for him.

Corrections, as is often the case in wartime, were made by the actions of the enemy. One fine day, seven hundred British bombers flew into Essen factories, which smashed the entire production to pieces. The blow for the super-heavy tank project was so sensitive that the Germans reduced their expectations to just two prototypes. And the next year (1944) they completely abandoned the idea of ​​"Mouse". Which, however, did not mean that the two chassis and one turret, which they had managed to produce by that time, would be scrapped.

Out of all this joy, they assembled one and a half tanks - one full-fledged and another only with a model of the tower. And they began to diligently roll these heavy objects around the tank range. Whether all those involved were hoping for some results, or were they just fooling around so as not to go to the front with a faustpatron in their teeth (the latter was especially important for the final months of the war), it is difficult to say today.

Can ride and fight


Be that as it may, they had not so rotten excuses - "Mouse" did not resemble barely alive and breaking tanks of the First World War, it could easily move, maneuver, make rather filigree (for its size and weight) turns.

The tank was not even stopped by flooding in a swampy corner of the landfill. Yes, he was hopelessly stuck up to the very tower and refused to move, even when several 18-ton tractors were driven to him at once. But the problem was completely solvable: several dozen soldiers with shovels - and the prototype was released. There was no fundamental problem like “we are stuck here forever”, peculiar to “Tsar-tank”.


The main character of the article is in the hands of the Russians

But the war inevitably came to an end - the Eastern and Western fronts squeezed Germany from two sides, leading the Germans to an inevitable conclusion. Someone, like Hitler, believed that if the plans conceived at the beginning of the war did not work out, then at least one should leave with the dignity of the Nibelungs, desperately fighting until it was completely destroyed. Someone was thinking about something completely different - about the need to run before it's too late.

The Muses ended the war in accordance with the second path - they did not go to the last battle in an attempt to exchange for a dozen or two T-34s, but were blown up and got to the Russians in a mangled form. The latter were impressed by the hulks and restored one of the tanks - the entrails were no longer there, and, therefore, he was deprived of the ability to move. Today it can be seen in the tank museum in Kubinka outside Moscow. One gaming company, I remember, was aiming to make a running car out of the damaged "Mouse", but, realizing the true scale of the task at hand, quickly forgot about it. Therefore, in the museum you can look at an impressive, but completely slow-moving exhibit.

Panzerwaffe-46


When trying to mentally “play for the Germans” it is very difficult to imagine a realistic scenario where they could win the war - the industrial potentials of the opposing coalitions were too unequal. But it was quite possible to delay it - even in some 1944.

Take, for example, Operation Bagration, the success in which radically changed the situation on the Soviet-German front. Something happened that had never happened before - it was not the army that collapsed, as at Stalingrad, but the whole Army Group Center. A hefty hole had formed in the front, which had to be plugged with already quite hastily mobilized soldiers. The German infantry was no longer the same, and it became much easier to break through the defenses, organize new cauldrons, and move westward.

If something went wrong in "Bagration" - as it did in the winter of 1943-1944 near Vitebsk, in an attempt to hack the enemy's line of fortifications in the Belarusian forests, the advance of the Russians could have gone at a much slower pace. Giving the Germans a year or two for a hopeless but desperate resistance fueled by Nazi fanaticism. If there were a few more coincidences, the Germans could take and try to build the planned 140 "Maus". And to overpower at least fifty of them - of course, to the detriment of other machines.

The question is, who would benefit from this?

It is difficult to say unequivocally - perhaps the disadvantages would outweigh the advantages. But the Germans would definitely not have won an unambiguous victory.


"Mouse" in Kubinka

Yes, "Mouse" was not a polygon toy, it could ride and fight. Even the terrible mass that collapsed most of the bridges of that time did not bother him. The Germans vaguely guessed about such problems and far-sightedly equipped the tank with an underwater driving system so that it could cross rivers, at least along the bottom.

On the other hand, super-heavy tanks would hit terribly at their own quartermaster services, devouring 3500 liters of fuel per hundred kilometers. All this joy had to not only be obtained and processed (with which Germany had certain problems at the final stage of the war), but also delivered to the front. All this would cause a serious load on the already bombed logistics lines.

And - what would in any sense make all the efforts undertaken meaningless - "Mouse" was quite amazed at the tank guns of the Soviet Union. Not all, of course, and not everywhere - but the IS-2 and Su-100 completely flashed the mouse's sides. The situation here would be a little different from the times of Kursk, when T-34s with 76-mm cannons could well have destroyed the mighty "Tigers", which appeared in much greater (than ever "Mouses" could) number.

Of course, one should not oversimplify this issue and think that this fight with the "Tigers" was cheap - for such tactical tricks one had to pay a terrible price in human lives. But each "Mouse" would mean the absence of 4-5 "Tigers" or a dozen "fours" on the battlefield. At the same time, loading the logistics, possessing a much lower speed and infinitely weak, in comparison with the above-mentioned "menagerie", firepower.

Moreover, there is no doubt that a situation similar to Kursk would not last long - the industrially powerful countries of the Anti-Hitler coalition would simply “shift the focus” and saturate the front with weapons capable of killing the Mouse, possibly even head-on. So, the all-conquering, and, moreover, changing the strategic situation on the fronts of the "Maus" would not have been expected in any case.
Author:
Photos used:
pinterest.com.au, osta.ee, commons.wikimedia.org, reddit.com
170 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Lech from Android.
    Lech from Android. April 3 2021 04: 11
    +20
    Gigantomania is a disease.
    1. Sling cutter
      Sling cutter April 3 2021 04: 42
      +20
      When I saw Mouse in Kubinka, it was difficult to convey surprise, but it became clear that this was already the agony of Nazi Germany.
      1. Incvizitor
        Incvizitor April 3 2021 16: 07
        +4
        When I saw immediately climbed on it and drove me, I managed to take a good photo.
        Well, Karl did not go around.
        1. Sling cutter
          Sling cutter April 3 2021 19: 34
          +5
          Quote: Incvizitor
          When I saw immediately climbed on it and drove me, I managed to take a good photo.
          Well, Karl did not go around.

          We also climbed))) Local rangers say that the mouse is on the move.
          Well Karl!) He's a scumbag)))
          1. Hagen
            Hagen April 3 2021 21: 50
            +1
            Quote: Stroporez
            Local rangers say the mouse is on the move.

            They lie. His tower is not native either. True, they say that he was the only one left even in this state.
            1. Sergey Zilinsky
              Sergey Zilinsky April 8 2021 22: 06
              0
              The turret is from the 205/2 prototype and was mounted on the almost intact chassis of the 205/1 prototype (it seems to have had a mockup instead of a turret).
          2. Whiteidol
            Whiteidol April 4 2021 19: 31
            +2
            At one time, a consultant historian from one game reviewed it. He's probably on YouTube. The tank is empty inside.
            1. SASHA OLD
              SASHA OLD April 7 2021 11: 38
              +1
              Yeah, there is such a lanky Brit, he tells and shows well. What I liked about one video with him is that he explained: "There are tanks that are good for serving, there are tanks that are good for fighting, but there are very few tanks that combine these qualities." This is not his exact phrase. It seems that it was in the review of the "Centurion" (he just served on it, sort of like).
      2. Proxima
        Proxima April 3 2021 21: 19
        +2
        Thanks to the Author, the article is written very vividly, with an opinion, albeit (in my opinion controversial), very literary. good Here is an exact counterbalance to the Ryabovs and Yuferovs. But here is one of the many questions, a quote from the Author: "And the Germans had effective means of dealing with new tanks. T-34 and KV. "It is clear that behind the" effective "means, he hints about the anti-aircraft gun of the 88 caliber FlaK 18/36/37, which very successfully beat the KV. I would like to remind you that the most effective means against a tank is anti-tank gun, which could maneuver in battle due to its lightness. FlaK weighed 8,2 tons in the stowed position. fellow What kind of anti-tank combat can we talk about, with rare exceptions of course? request
        1. Hagen
          Hagen April 3 2021 21: 40
          +3
          Quote: Proxima
          Thanks to the Author, the article is very vividly written,

          Well, I don’t know ... When an article begins with a misspelled word, it’s immediately clear - it’s not a pro. And when the author said that
          the Germans rushed to design their super-heavy tanks. The case started in March 1942

          it became clear that he was at odds with the texture. In short, the article is "so-so". Nothing. Wasted time ...
          1. abrakadabre
            abrakadabre April 7 2021 08: 17
            +3
            If something went wrong in Bagration - as it did in the winter of 1943-1944 near Vitebsk, in an attempt to hack the enemy's line of fortifications in the Belarusian forests, the advancement of the Russians could have gone at a much slower pace.
            Most of all, the eyes were cut not from typos or technical inaccuracies, but from this passage. The author does not associate himself and his ancestors with these incomprehensible Russians who "got lost" like the Germans in the Belarusian forests. As if his ancestors were not involved in "these Russians". Somehow forgotten were Russian Kazakhs, Russian Uzbeks, Russian Ukrainians and several dozen Russians ...
            And the feeling from the used phrase that our grandfathers were not liberating their territory there. And they fought with the Germans on the territory of a third party.
            Even in my delirium, I cannot use such a turn of speech. It is quite normal to hear it from which American, Englishman, Japanese, etc. But not from someone who was born and matured on the territory of the USSR.
            1. Hagen
              Hagen April 7 2021 09: 00
              +1
              Quote: abrakadabre
              It is quite normal to hear it from any American, Englishman, Japanese, etc. But not from someone who was born and matured on the territory of the USSR.

              Unfortunately, here many authors suffer from a "specific" view of their country and contribute to the destruction of our inner unity.
            2. Cherry Nine
              Cherry Nine April 7 2021 11: 19
              0
              Quote: abrakadabre
              And the feeling from the used phrase that our grandfathers were not liberating their territory there. And they fought with the Germans on the territory of a third party.

              I did not quite understand you. Are you a Belarusian?
        2. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA April 5 2021 10: 09
          0
          Quote: Proxima
          But here is one of the many questions, a quote from the Author: "And the Germans had effective means of dealing with new tanks. T-34 and KV." It is clear that behind the "effective" means, he hints at an anti-aircraft gun of 88 caliber FlaK 18/36/37, which very successfully beat the KV.

          To combat the KV and T-34, it is not necessary to exactly 8,8 cm.
          On June 25, 1942, the Chairman of the GAU Art Committee, Major General Khokhlov, approved the test program for tank armor of domestic production with captured shells armed with German artillery and shells armed with spacecraft. In accordance with the specified program of work, the Gorokhovets training range from October 9 to November 4, 1942, shot with captured trophy 37 mm ordinary and sub-caliber shells, 50 mm ordinary and sub-caliber shells 75 mm homogeneous medium hard armor plates, 45 mm homogeneous armor plates high hardness and 30 mm homogeneous armor plates of medium hardness.

          Test result:
          50-mm anti-tank gun PaK.38, ordinary armor-piercing:
          The 75-mm sheet normal showed the back strength limit of 700 m, the through penetration limit of 400 m. That is, starting from a distance of 700 m and closer PaK.38 can penetrate unshielded HF armor, with 400 m it is guaranteed to break through.
          The 45-mm sheet along the normal showed the through penetration limit of 1500 m, at an angle of 30 degrees to the normal 1300 m.
          That is, PaK.38 confidently hits the T-34 in the side and the tower at any real combat distance.

          50-mm anti-tank gun PaK.38, sub-caliber:
          The 75-mm sheet normal showed the back strength of 870 m, the through penetration of 740 m, at an angle of 30 degrees to the normal of 530 and 470 m, respectively.
          The 45-mm sheet along the normal showed the through penetration limit of 1300 m, at an angle of 30 degrees to the normal 700 m.
          © Litl-bro AKA D. Shein
      3. SASHA OLD
        SASHA OLD April 7 2021 11: 33
        0
        He was also there, stood - measured with his palm, comparing with other machines ...
        In fact, all heavy and slow tanks are not suitable for a blitzkrieg, which means that, starting their development and production, Germany has already realized that "lightning war" does not work ...
      4. Jager
        Jager April 10 2021 12: 36
        0
        In the Wehrmacht, there was a problem with armored vehicles - dozens of modifications, self-propelled guns on the base, motley armament ... Germany did not have a STRATEGY for the development of tanks. The same "Tiger" did not fit into the "blitzkrieg" strategy at all, a kind of "thing in itself". A huge amount of experienced, specialized and small-scale equipment - all this diverted huge engineering and technical resources, logistics and repair services.
    2. user1212
      user1212 April 3 2021 04: 48
      +5
      Are you talking about modern aircraft carriers or battleships PMV-VMV? laughing
      1. Sling cutter
        Sling cutter April 3 2021 04: 57
        +9
        Quote: user1212
        Are you talking about modern aircraft carriers or battleships PMV-VMV?

        In general, I wonder how they got him to Kubinka ?! belay
        1. smart ass
          smart ass April 3 2021 05: 06
          +8
          He was dragged in pieces
          1. Sling cutter
            Sling cutter April 3 2021 06: 51
            +7
            Quote: Clever man
            He was dragged in pieces

            Well, yes, such a wunderwaffe can only be brought in such a way.
      2. Lech from Android.
        Lech from Android. April 3 2021 05: 10
        +26
        Mother infantry ends the war anyway.
        1. Kote Pan Kokhanka
          Kote Pan Kokhanka April 3 2021 07: 02
          +6
          Quote: Lech from Android.
          Mother infantry ends the war anyway.

          Hands would be cut off by someone who - put a minus for this comment. am
          1. Sling cutter
            Sling cutter April 3 2021 07: 07
            +9
            Quote: Kote pane Kohanka
            Hands would be cut off by someone who - put a minus for this comment.

            Kamrad! hi Well, you know that there is now a lot of outrageous things here. Mendel flew in for congratulations on March 8th.
            For the INFANTRY, I fixed it! good
            1. Kote Pan Kokhanka
              Kote Pan Kokhanka April 3 2021 07: 17
              +7
              Quote: Stroporez
              Quote: Kote pane Kohanka
              Hands would be cut off by someone who - put a minus for this comment.

              Kamrad! hi Well, you know that there is now a lot of outrageous things here. Mendel flew in for congratulations on March 8th.
              For the INFANTRY, I fixed it! good

              I know my friend, but I can't get used to it!
              There are certain tablets - which cannot be kicked !!!
              It is sad that not everyone understands this.
              1. Sling cutter
                Sling cutter April 3 2021 08: 11
                +7
                Quote: Kote pane Kohanka
                There are certain tablets - which cannot be kicked !!!
                It is sad that not everyone understands this.

                Friend, it also once infuriated me, but now I know for sure that I am above this and I will never do that. Therefore, of course, I am drawn to you in historical kindness, but, damn, character winked
          2. Lynx2000
            Lynx2000 April 3 2021 07: 41
            +16
            Quote: Kote Pan Kokhanka
            Hands would be cut off by someone who - put a minus for this comment. am

            VO - tea is not instagram, so that likes not to earn dislikes. Do not pay attention to the disadvantages, it is impossible to please everyone, otherwise, you can lose your own opinion. wink
            It is considered good form to comment openly on your disagreement with the author of the comment.
            1. Kote Pan Kokhanka
              Kote Pan Kokhanka April 3 2021 08: 02
              +13
              Quote: Lynx2000
              It is considered good form to comment openly on your disagreement with the author of the comment.

              There are no people who are sinless, I was wrong more than once or twice in the comments. The comrades ruled me, nothing terrible happened. Hearing is just as important as speaking!
              1. Alien From
                Alien From April 3 2021 09: 10
                +7
                Have a nice day! We ignore the plus / minus sect) petty dirty tricks.
                1. Sling cutter
                  Sling cutter April 3 2021 19: 36
                  +1
                  Quote: Alien From
                  Have a nice day! We ignore the plus / minus sect) petty dirty tricks.

                  And then there are two variks, either wet or ignore))))
                  Onizhedeti))))
            2. SASHA OLD
              SASHA OLD April 7 2021 11: 47
              +2
              By the way, it was the principle "put a minus - justified" (except for cases of frank delirium or trolling / provocation-rudeness) I considered one of the "local" tablets all the way. Long BEFORE my registration, this noted, which made me log in here sometime.
              But as I understood here, almost secret communities of "opinion leaders" (a couple of years ago, "Torquemada" was ... maybe now there is ... maybe minuses from it will fly - I don't know) stick out that can minus any adequate comments without any explanations ..
              Sorry
          3. Catfish
            Catfish April 3 2021 08: 34
            +13
            Vlad, why only the infantry? The tankers also took Berlin. And in general, everyone finished it together, in the absence of any kind of troops, the war would either be lost, or the victory would have been given with even greater blood. So I disagree with Lyokha, but I gave you all advantages ... for balance. wink drinks
            1. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
              Paragraph Epitafievich Y. April 3 2021 11: 32
              +7
              Quote: Sea Cat
              Vlad, why only the infantry?

              This is a reference to a famous movie:
              - And in general, there will be the first to sign the private infantry Vanya ...
              - Yes, and by right ..

              1. Catfish
                Catfish April 3 2021 17: 24
                +1
                I saw this movie. In my opinion, not quite a successful attempt to make a remake of the wonderful film "Chronicle of a Dive Bomber".
                1. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
                  Paragraph Epitafievich Y. April 3 2021 18: 41
                  0
                  Quote: Sea Cat
                  In my opinion, not quite a successful attempt to make a remake of the wonderful film "Chronicle of a Dive Bomber".

                  Strange, to put it mildly, conclusion.
                  1. Catfish
                    Catfish April 3 2021 18: 59
                    0
                    Compare the films, some of the details are strikingly similar.
                    1. Phil77
                      Phil77 April 3 2021 20: 17
                      +5


                      Yes, there is such a thing! Some details are simply striking. Both films are excellent, but I put * Chronicle * higher. And another fact. Leonid Bykov participated in the filming of * Chronicle *, though in * voice acting *. Remember that episode?
                      * Comrades officers! Our Pynsk took! * So Leonid Bykov voiced the hero of the episode. hi
                      1. Catfish
                        Catfish April 3 2021 21: 00
                        +3
                        That's what I was talking about, you are the only one who understood me correctly. drinks
                    2. Sling cutter
                      Sling cutter April 3 2021 20: 18
                      +8
                      Quote: Sea Cat
                      Compare the films, some of the details are strikingly similar.

                      Comrade, the business is that these are absolutely two different films, but about the same
                      I was just a little boy when I saw the film "Only old men go to battle" at the premiere screenings in the cinema in Chisinau (the whole family was resting near Odessa and there was an excursion to watch the film). When the film ended, the entire adult half of the audience was crying. I asked, "Bah, why are they crying, the film is with songs ...?" Granny replied: "God forbid you understand, son." And when I watched "Chronicle of the PB", then I was crying in the final ... However, "Old Men" became a symbol ...
                      1. Catfish
                        Catfish April 3 2021 21: 05
                        +5
                        My older brother, Vladimir, added a year to himself, graduated from flight school and from January 43 was the commander of the Pawn. He flew, bombed, burned, was hit at night over Libava, held out for his own. So he considered "Chronicle" the best film about the war, and next to him he could only put on the film "In War as in War", which has nothing to do with aviation.
                      2. Phil77
                        Phil77 April 3 2021 21: 08
                        +4
                        * Torpedo bombers * !!!
                        And this is one of the details that caused a little controversy. Two mechanics.


                        Again, both films are great.
                      3. Catfish
                        Catfish April 3 2021 21: 16
                        +3
                        Well yes. Above the Tolubeevs in the Chronicle, below Smirnov in the Old Men.
                        And "Torpedo Bombers" is a very strong picture. good
                      4. Sling cutter
                        Sling cutter April 3 2021 22: 53
                        +6
                        Quote: Sea Cat
                        Well yes. Above the Tolubeevs in the Chronicle, below Smirnov in the Old Men.
                        And "Torpedo Bombers" is a very strong picture.

                        I agree! But Smirnov went through the whole war, and he certainly knew how much a pound of dashing.
                      5. Catfish
                        Catfish April 3 2021 23: 46
                        +3
                        Smirnov - yes! And the Actor is beautiful and the Soldier is real.
                        Tolubeev won two modest medals for the war - "For the Defense of Leningrad" and "For Valorous Labor in the Great Patriotic War."
                2. Sling cutter
                  Sling cutter April 3 2021 22: 48
                  +6
                  Quote: Sea Cat
                  "Chronicle" the best film about the war, and next to it could only put the film "In war as in war",

                  Yes, these two films are about the simple combat life of the crews! And my Dad, the mechanic of the post-war 34-ok and the great-uncle Grandfather, the pilot-attack aircraft, loved these films ... but it was passed on to me ... But Pekhtur ... "They fought for the Motherland" is the symbol of the very word Feat !!!
                  PySy. Having been in the guards' beret "hammers" myself, only then do you understand what an infantry is, in no way humiliating the exploits and heroism of other combat arms. soldier
                3. Catfish
                  Catfish April 3 2021 23: 49
                  +4
                  I have a more modest urgent - the 54th Separate Tank Regiment in the Far East. smile soldier
                4. Sling cutter
                  Sling cutter April 4 2021 06: 11
                  +4
                  Quote: Sea Cat
                  I have a more modest urgent - the 54th Separate Tank Regiment in the Far East. smile soldier

                  Dad always told me, when the front-line soldiers were called up for retraining, the order was "walk" (or with a boot in the shoulder, there was no target shot!), Because then you served for three years.
                  And for me, the tank itself is claustrophobic, but the sky, the air, and better on the armor, you can only breathe with the wind! soldier drinks
                  With respect to Tankers and Self-propelled guns !!!
                  It is a pity that the Father is no more ...
                5. Catfish
                  Catfish April 4 2021 06: 49
                  +4
                  Yes, the "track" on the move for the machine gun, for the gun the command to the mechanic is "short".
                  And yes, it's a pity that many are no longer with us. drinks
                6. Sling cutter
                  Sling cutter April 4 2021 07: 09
                  +4
                  Quote: Sea Cat
                  Yes, the "track" on the move for the machine gun, for the gun the command to the mechanic is "short".

                  Excuse me, in the heat of memories ...., it rolls on .... it's a pity .... The era is leaving and I really cry, there will be no more landmarks. And we can't repeat anything, and even defend. ..
                7. Catfish
                  Catfish April 4 2021 07: 41
                  +4
                  Do not be sad, Buddy, life will not be one and the other. And landmarks can always be found, you only need desire. And you don't need to repeat anything either, and the formula is simple - "Do what you must, and come what may." smile drinks
                8. Sling cutter
                  Sling cutter April 4 2021 08: 27
                  +5
                  Quote: Sea Cat
                  "Do what you must, and come what may."
                  Reply

                  You know it's a shame what our children and grandchildren will reap
                9. Catfish
                  Catfish April 4 2021 18: 49
                  +2
                  There was such a song:
                  "There will be children later, everything will repeat itself from the beginning."
                  The story develops in a spiral and there is no escape. smile
                  And it is better to assume that "the glass is half full than half empty." drinks
          4. Sling cutter
            Sling cutter April 4 2021 07: 22
            +4
            Quote: Sea Cat
            And yes, it's a pity that many are no longer with us.

            But what happened ...
  2. SNA
    SNA April 3 2021 23: 00
    +3
    Plus, two of the most soulful films ...
  • Kote Pan Kokhanka
    Kote Pan Kokhanka April 3 2021 13: 39
    +2
    Kostya below the paragraph Epitafievich answered, my words will be superfluous.
  • val43
    val43 April 4 2021 15: 28
    +3
    Can you answer for Vlad? Nobody belittles the merits of tankers or pilots. But! Climb through the basements, and run around the floors, risking getting either a bullet in the forehead or a knife in the back - it's all the same he, Private Infantry Vanya ...
  • Jager
    Jager April 10 2021 12: 39
    0
    Even grandfather Guderian admitted that only the infantry can finally capture the line. Tanks can break through it, but they cannot capture it.
  • Cherry Nine
    Cherry Nine April 3 2021 13: 03
    +10
    Quote: Kote pane Kohanka
    Hands would cut off someone who - put a minus for this comment

    You see, there are people who are irritated by empty slogans. A war by mother infantry against a technically equipped enemy is devilishly expensive for this infantry, and does not lead to victory every time.
    1. Kote Pan Kokhanka
      Kote Pan Kokhanka April 3 2021 13: 48
      +5
      Someone who, but Alexei does not suffer from "sloganism". If the thesis is across the throat, then it makes sense to refute it in detail. For me personally, only one great-grandfather fought in the infantry, but I do not dare to reproach the war generation with a word or thought.
      I wanted to continue my thesis, but I am afraid that they will be regarded as slogans.
  • Cowbra
    Cowbra April 3 2021 04: 50
    +2
    Well, after all, it turned out more fun than with three unarmed Zyams almost the size of Peter the Great wink
  • Free wind
    Free wind April 3 2021 04: 46
    +12
    Mouse is actually an initiative development. The desire to snatch away from the river of gold that flowed into Germany, a small trickle, was in the mind of many Fritzes. It is unlikely that Hitler, did not understand what swamps and mud are, he was there himself. JV Stalin understood this in the same way. And they did not give money for crazy fantasies. And we had something similar. Only there was no opportunity for such inventors to dump their inventions. The fact that someone pinned hopes on the Mouse for victory is nonsense. They hoped to get money, and that's it!
    1. The leader of the Redskins
      The leader of the Redskins April 3 2021 06: 20
      +5
      I agree with you. According to earlier articles, "Furious Adi" lobbied for this car.
      But I have a question for the author:
      What Soviet tanks of the beginning of the Second World War did not make their way "akht-akht"? Well ... For development ...
      1. Kote Pan Kokhanka
        Kote Pan Kokhanka April 3 2021 07: 08
        +8
        I am afraid that domestic tanks of the last period of the Great Patriotic War could be amazed by the German "eight-eight"! Even the post-war IS-4 and IS-7 could be disabled under certain conditions!
        Similarly, Igor, how many of the German menagerie of the initial period of the war could survive from being hit by a KV-2 suitcase?
        1. The leader of the Redskins
          The leader of the Redskins April 3 2021 07: 18
          +5
          This is out of the question! For a long time I saw a photo of the Pz 1 hitting the Polish campaign. Spread out the poor fellow on the "patterns" of the armor! I am sure that the "three" or "four" looked the same after the arrival of 6 "!
          Remember Zhukov's "Memories and Reflections"? Are they reporting that there are no armor-piercing shells for Kv 2?
          - Shoot the concrete breakers!
          And the towers were demolished by the Panzers ...
        2. Cherry Nine
          Cherry Nine April 3 2021 12: 52
          +5
          Quote: Kote pane Kohanka
          could have survived being hit by a KV-2 suitcase?

          You first organize this direct hit from a howitzer with a direct fire on the armor target. It is not as easy as it might seem.
        3. The comment was deleted.
        4. boris epstein
          boris epstein April 3 2021 16: 59
          +4
          Why only suitcases from KV-2? For the German menagerie of the initial stage of the war, the 76-mm F-22USV and ZiS-3, tank 57 mm (a small batch of T-34s were armed with them, Lavrinenko fought on such a tank) and the F-34 with a caliber of 76 mm were enough. The modernized fours of 1942, the Tigers and Panthers fought well against the anti-tank ZiS-2 57 mm and the KV-85 with the 85 mm cannon. Well, since 1944, the anti-tank BS-3 with a caliber of 100 mm and the Su-100 quite successfully coped with the whole menagerie, not to mention the IS-2, ISU-122, ISU-152.
          "BS-3, projectile BR-412D, the angle of meeting of the projectile with the armor is 90 degrees, the distance is 1000 m, the armor penetration is 185 mm, the distance is 1500 m is 170 mm.
          Projectile BR142B, the angle of meeting of the projectile with the armor is 90 degrees, the distance is 1000 m, armor penetration is 160 mm. "
          If the angle of meeting of the projectile with the armor is 60 degrees, the armor penetration is reduced by 10%
          For the whole German menagerie is enough.
          Source- "Encyclopedia of National Artillery", author-AB Shirokorad, Minsk, Harvest, 2000.
          1. Cherry Nine
            Cherry Nine April 3 2021 18: 27
            +6
            Quote: Boris Epstein
            it was enough 76-mm F-22USV and ZiS-3, tank 57 mm (a small batch of T-34s were armed with them, Lavrinenko fought on such a tank) and F-34 with a caliber of 76 mm.

            Yes. If BB shells are delivered. By the way, cut the ZiS-3, it is not in the 41st. ZiS-2 a couple of hundred for the entire front, and then closer to winter. T-34-57 16 pieces are also closer to winter.
            But the standard 53-K is no longer particularly.
            Quote: Boris Epstein
            The modernized fours of 1942, the Tigers and Panthers fought well against the anti-tank ZiS-2 57 mm and the KV-85 with the 85 mm cannon.

            ZiS-2 from the 41st year is no more. KV-85 is already post-kursk, 148 units.
            Quote: Boris Epstein
            and since 1944, the anti-tank BS-3 with a caliber of 100 mm and the Su-100 quite successfully coped with the whole menagerie, not to mention the IS-2, ISU-122, ISU-152.

            IS / ISU - summer campaign 44th year. BS-3 autumn, Su-100 - winter 45th.
            Quote: Boris Epstein
            projectile BR-412D

            53rd year of the sample.
            Quote: Boris Epstein
            If the angle of meeting of the projectile with the armor is 60 degrees, the armor penetration is reduced by 10%
            For the whole German menagerie it is quite enough .. "

            That is, it does not penetrate all equipment with rational angles from Herzer and heavier in the forehead from a kilometer, with sufficiently high-quality armor. Breaks through, destroys welds, but does not pierce.
            1. boris epstein
              boris epstein April 4 2021 15: 12
              +3
              The points. Yes, officially there was no ZiS-3 in 1941. But unofficially they were shipped as F-22USV (muzzle brakes separately - VG Grabin). Or is Grabin not an authority for you either? It was officially put into service in January 1942. Yes, the F-22 USV was in production during 1940, then it was removed from the assembly line due to Kulik's fault, but several thousand of them were released, even the Germans had enough trophy USV for installation on their self-propelled guns "HeTzer" and "Marder".
              But I don't give a damn, as with Groves-Groves, what is official and what is unofficial. It is important to me ON THE FACT.
              Second point. Even the 76-mm cannon KV-1 L-10, and then the L-11, which was weaker than the F-34, which was on the T-34, coped well with German tanks in 1941 and early 1942. ZP Kolobanov, who destroyed 1 tanks on the KV-22, will not lie. And the F-34 thirty-fours in 1941 and early 1942 coped well with all types of German tanks (ask Guderian).
              KV-85. "By the spring of 1942 (one thousand nine hundred and forty-two, special for you), a new cast turret was created with an 85-mm D-5T cannon installed in it ... The D5T cannon with a 42-caliber barrel provided armor penetration to a projectile of 9,2 , 792 kg muzzle velocity 500 m / s, which allowed it to hit the armor of Tigers and Panthers from a distance of 1000-1 meters ... Due to the delay in the development of the chassis of the new IS-1 tank, it was decided to install a new turret on the chassis of the serially produced KV tank -XNUMXC ".
              And don't confuse the IS-1 (IS-85) with the KV-85.
              "Su-100-winter 45". And the Su-85 did not exist? Su-122 based on T-34 too? ACS-152 on the basis of the KV also did not exist? I did not say, and you did not admit that they were, since it is not profitable for you.
              "That is, all equipment with rational angles from Herzer and heavier in the forehead from a kilometer does not penetrate, with sufficiently high-quality armor." The frontal armor of HeTzer is 60 mm. Even on the four of 1943, the frontal armor reached 80 mm, but vertical. Yes-a-aleko not a Tiger or a Panther. And on Soviet tanks, the armor was installed with rational angles of inclination.
              But with the quality of armor from the middle of 1943, the Germans began to strain due to the lack of alloying additives.
              And I did not say that the T-1944-34 entered service in the Red Army in 85.
              And they dealt with the Tigers and Panthers. Ask the Hero of the Soviet Union Lieutenant Osin, who destroyed two Royal Tigers.
              And now literalism in your style. The HeRzer self-propelled guns were not in service with the Wehrmacht. There was HeTzer. based on the Czechoslovak 38T.
              PS minus is not mine. Until your minuses appear, I do not minus.
              1. Cherry Nine
                Cherry Nine April 4 2021 16: 58
                +1
                Quote: Boris Epstein
                Or is Grabin not an authority for you either?

                Grabin? The wrong pests were shot by Comrade. Beria, oh, not those.
                Quote: Boris Epstein
                there were enough trophy IVDS for installation on their self-propelled guns "HeTzer" and "Marder".

                Was the F-22 not a Hetzere? Very interesting.
                Quote: Boris Epstein
                But I really don't give a damn, like the Groves-Groves case

                )))
                I know you don't give a damn about the details.
                Quote: Boris Epstein
                coped well with German tanks in 1941 and early 1942

                Below you have written in detail about the situation with the BB. With standard shells, yes, it will.
                Quote: Boris Epstein
                ZP Kolobanov, who destroyed 1 tanks on the KV-22, will not lie.

                Who won't lie, Kolobanov? We've already found an example. The only question with Kolobanov is who invented his "feat": he himself, Baranov or political instructors.
                Quote: Boris Epstein
                And as for the F-34 thirty-four in 1941 and early 1942, it coped well with all types of German tanks (ask Guderian).

                While everything was going well for Guderian - he did not even notice the T-34. When the time came to make excuses for the proliferation of polymers, terrible Russian tanks appeared, 4 months after the start of the war, EMNIP.
                Quote: Boris Epstein
                a new cast turret was created with an 85 mm D-5T cannon installed

                Are you going to dig these towers into the ground, or do you still need tanks? The KV-85 appeared at the front in September 43.
                Quote: Boris Epstein
                The D5T cannon with a barrel length of 42 caliber provided armor penetration to a 9,2 kg projectile with an initial speed of 792 m / s, which allowed it to hit the armor of Tigers and Panthers from a distance of 500-1000 meters ...

                Tiger yes, no Panther.
                Quote: Boris Epstein
                And don't confuse the IS-1 (IS-85) with the KV-85.

                I do not confuse. IS-1 is the winter of 43-44.
                Quote: Boris Epstein
                And the Su-85 did not exist?

                And you did not name the Su-85. Yes, the Su-85 is the first of the machines created after the Kursk nix.
                Quote: Boris Epstein
                Su-122 based on T-34 too?

                Howitzer without PT capabilities.
                Quote: Boris Epstein
                ACS-152 based on KV also did not exist?

                Assault gun.
                Quote: Boris Epstein
                The frontal armor of HeTzer is 60 mm. Even on the four of 1943, the frontal armor reached 80 mm, but vertical. Yes-a-Aleko is not a Tiger or a Panther

                Not a Panther, of course, but not a Tiger either, effective armor thickness VLD 120 versus 100 mm, + rebound angle.
                Quote: Boris Epstein
                And on Soviet tanks, the armor was installed with rational angles of inclination.

                This did not help Soviet tanks from the appearance of the Pak40 to the appearance of a direct VLD on the IS-2.
                Quote: Boris Epstein
                But with the quality of armor from the middle of 1943, the Germans began to strain due to the lack of alloying additives.

                Yes, that was the only thing that saved me.
                Quote: Boris Epstein
                And they dealt with the Tigers and Panthers.

                Not always with tigers, not always with Panthers.
                Quote: Boris Epstein
                Lieutenant Aspen

                Oskin, Alexander Petrovich. Another great Soviet writer.
                Quote: Boris Epstein
                There was HeTzer. based on the Czechoslovak 38T.

                You are right, you blundered.
                Quote: Boris Epstein
                minus is not mine.

                It doesn't bother me.
                1. boris epstein
                  boris epstein April 4 2021 18: 08
                  0
                  I have long understood that no one in the world is an authority for you except yourself. Not a single serious objection was raised, so, in passing, they spoiled everything and everyone. And 60 mm of armor turns into 120. But for a thirty-four, 45 mm does not turn into 90. And for IS, 100 mm does not turn into 200. Why? This is already a masterpiece! In general, to argue with such, just waste your nerves. They will dodge like snakes. You are not the first and I think you will not be the last. And with a minus you are lying. Last time you gave me a minus with pleasure. There are verification methods. And they got it back.
                  1. Cherry Nine
                    Cherry Nine April 4 2021 19: 12
                    0
                    Quote: Boris Epstein
                    I have long understood that no one in the world is an authority for you except yourself.

                    From Soviet authors? No.
                    Quote: Boris Epstein
                    And 60 mm of armor turns into 120. But for a thirty-four, 45 mm does not turn into 90

                    Quite converted into 90. Only a little 90mm with Pak40 / Kvk40.
                    Quote: Boris Epstein
                    And with IS, 100 mm does not turn into 200

                    And the ISA VLD turns into 200-240, finally, in the fall of the 44th. To the Vistula-Oder front received a tank with decent frontal hull armor, well done.
                    Quote: Boris Epstein
                    Last time you gave me a minus with pleasure.

                    I don’t remember that I put a minus even for you. Although as you wish.
                    1. boris epstein
                      boris epstein April 5 2021 14: 47
                      +1
                      Here is your minus Someone swore, swore that it is not minus.
                      Catch otvetku. I do not throw words into the wind.
                      1. Liam
                        Liam April 5 2021 14: 50
                        0
                        Quote: Boris Epstein
                        Here is your minus

                        VD's colleague is not one of those who play these games
                      2. boris epstein
                        boris epstein April 5 2021 15: 26
                        0
                        Let me not believe you. This is not the first time I hack into him. And here's some information for you to think about VD. I argued with him about the White Terror. I quote from the book of an American general that for every repressed by the Reds, there were 8-10 repressed by Whites. Foaming at the mouth, he refutes, but immediately CAM prints the title of the book from which I took the quote. That is, he knows the book, but has not read it. But he argues until he turns blue and minuses he instructed me then 6-7 pieces - I don't remember.
                        He is outraged by his arrogance. For him, none of the domestic authors is an authority. Although the Baryatinsky, Shirokorad, Shunkov, Maev, Grabin cited by me are quite highly professional people. And he was outraged by his attitude to the Hero of the Soviet Union Oskin, who destroyed two Royal Tigers on the T-34-85, and to Zinovy ​​Petrovich Kolobanov, who destroyed 22 German tanks in one battle. He called them writers.
                        By and large, I live according to the first phrase of Omar Khayyam -: "They received blasphemy and praise indifferently." Therefore, the pros and cons do not bother me. But I am not going to forgive the UNDERORED cons. I warned him that there are methods to check whose cons.
                        But I categorically disagree with the second phrase: "And don't dispute a fool."
                        Such fools with words, without revolution and civil war, destroyed MY country-USSR. I learned in that country for free, after the divorce of my father and mother from 1969 to 1979, I climbed out of poverty - and got out. I grabbed all the introduction of new technology, rationalization proposals, work under a labor agreement. And all this, except for the main work.
                      3. Liam
                        Liam April 5 2021 16: 17
                        0
                        Quote: Boris Epstein
                        I will throw in information for reflection

                        Sincerely outraged the atrocities of a colleague ...
                        Quote: Boris Epstein
                        For him, none of the domestic authors is an authority

                        What an unheard of наглость...
                        Quote: Boris Epstein
                        He called them writers.

                        We have to admit that you are probably right about the VD .. changed .. in the old days he would have called them legendary poets
                        Quote: Boris Epstein
                        I live according to the first phrase of Omar Khayyam -: "They received blasphemy and praise indifferently." So the pros and cons don't bother me

                        Your consistency is commendable ... O.H. would be proud of you
                        Quote: Boris Epstein
                        after the divorce of his father and mother from 1969 to 1979 he climbed out of poverty and got out.

                        This explains a lot ... especially in terms of indifference to the pluses / minuses
                        Quote: Boris Epstein
                        there are methods to check whose cons.

                        You have no methods against the saprykin bone... have the mods leaked the info?
                      4. boris epstein
                        boris epstein April 5 2021 17: 01
                        +1
                        "... have the mods leaked the info?" Is it true? But what about yours: “A colleague of VD is not one of those who play these games?” Well, how do you differ from VD after your comments?
                        But in ancient Greece, the sage said: "Plato is my friend, but the truth is dearer."
                        So you do not care the truth, as well as VD? And the speaking methods are the same.
                        м
                      5. Liam
                        Liam April 5 2021 17: 05
                        0
                        Quote: Boris Epstein
                        Is it true?


                        - You don't know how to lie, Senya!
                        You have not a closed fracture there. What, what have you got there?
                        - Gold, diamonds!
                        - Stop these jokes! You have not a closed, but an open fracture there!
          2. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA April 5 2021 10: 47
            0
            Quote: Boris Epstein
            But for a thirty-four, 45 mm does not turn into 90.

            No. Because Jacob de Mar, by which they love to count armor penetration, works in a narrow range of ratios of armor thickness and projectile caliber. And in our country, a 75-mm projectile meets 45-mm armor.
            1. boris epstein
              boris epstein April 5 2021 14: 08
              +1
              The Cherry Nine does not confirm this - see the comment above. And he is the greatest expert in everything, refuting and not recognizing any authorities.
              So that's it. Jacob de Mar, I do not recognize. After all, we are talking about the armor of the HeTzer-German self-propelled gun. Frontal armor - 60 mm. Nine equated it to 120mm because it is tilted. But the T-34 also has sloped armor. Or are we all equal, but some are more equal than others?
              1. Alexey RA
                Alexey RA April 5 2021 14: 37
                0
                Quote: Boris Epstein
                So that's it. Jacob de Mar, I do not recognize. After all, we are talking about the armor of the HeTzer-German self-propelled gun. Frontal armor - 60 mm. Nine equated it to 120mm because it is tilted. But the T-34 also has sloped armor. Or are we all equal, but some are more equal than others?

                Once again: Jacob de Mar, by which they love to count armor penetration, works in a narrow range of ratios of armor thickness and projectile caliber.
                In the T-34, we have 45 mm armor versus 75 mm projectile as standard (at the level of the standard anti-tank equipment of the enemy division).
                Hetzer has a different ratio in the same situation - 60 mm of armor versus 76-85 mm of a projectile. For larger calibers are either corps-army level artillery, or army-level ttpp / tsap, or in general front-line iptabr.
                And if we had short barrel T-43 - everything could be different. smile
              2. boris epstein
                boris epstein April 5 2021 14: 59
                0
                Sloped 45-mm armor T-34, by analogy with the sloped armor of HeTzer, should be equated to 90-mm armor. Yes, the cannon of a four with a barrel length of 42 caliber was more dangerous than the short-barreled 1941 until mid-1942. But according to yours and Jacob de Mara theory - 75 mm gun versus 90 mm armor. And read below - on the T-34-85 already from the factory, an additional 45 mm sheet was welded onto the forehead. And on some monuments it is clearly visible.
              3. Alexey RA
                Alexey RA April 5 2021 18: 52
                +1
                Quote: Boris Epstein
                The sloped 45 mm armor of the T-34, by analogy with the sloped armor of the HeTzer, must be equated to the 90 mm armor.

                No. The ratio of the caliber of the projectile to the thickness of the armor must be taken into account before taking into account the angle of inclination. Otherwise, the BMP-2 in the forehead would be an impenetrable imba. smile
                With a thickness ratio of one and a half or more, the projectile begins to penetrate the armor, despite the seemingly impenetrable reduced thickness.
              4. Cherry Nine
                Cherry Nine April 5 2021 20: 23
                +2
                Quote: Alexey RA
                With a thickness ratio of one and a half or more, the projectile begins to penetrate the armor, despite the seemingly impenetrable reduced thickness.

                Since initially we with a successful Soviet citizen touched upon Hetzer's battle against BS-3, your argument confirms his position, not mine. Well, that throws Hetzer out of the imb. SPGs on a quadruple base and heavier vehicles remain.
  • Alexey RA
    Alexey RA April 5 2021 10: 42
    +3
    Quote: Boris Epstein
    Yes, officially there was no ZiS-3 in 1941. But unofficially they were shipped as F-22USV (muzzle brakes separately - VG Grabin). Or is Grabin not an authority for you either?

    Comrade Grabin's memoirs do not fight with documents signed by Comrade Grabin. One story with hundreds of 107-mm tank guns sent to melt down is worth a lot - despite the fact that only five of them were made.
    As for the ZiS-3 - how can a ZiS-3 be secretly produced under the guise of an IVD if they have different carriages? Or were they also secretly made in an experimental workshop? smile
    Quote: Boris Epstein
    Yes, the F-22 USV was in production during 1940, then it was removed from the assembly line due to Kulik's fault.

    What is not being blamed on Kulik. But in fact, 76-mm divisional guns were discontinued for a simple reason - as of 22.06.1941/133/1941, the supply of this type of guns was 6463% of the total need. And, based on the pre-war mobplan and calculations of losses, the GAU could not have imagined that in 76 the army would manage to lose 8513 22.06.1941-mm divisions out of 180 available on XNUMX/XNUMX/XNUMX And also - that it would be necessary to urgently provide artillery for XNUMX rifle divisions not provided for by any mob plans.
    ... already in July 1941, it was required to form 71 divisions (56 rifle divisions and 15 CD), in August - 110 divisions (85 divisions and 25 CD), in October - 74 rifle brigades.
    1. boris epstein
      boris epstein April 5 2021 14: 29
      0
      "... as of 22.06.1941, the provision with weapons of this type was 133% of the total need."
      And the cherry nine asserts, with which I argued with him that there was not enough SPM, and I proved to him that the Germans were enough to install them on their self-propelled guns. But there is a subtlety: it was not the F-22USV that was discontinued, but the F-22, and these are completely different weapons, developed according to Tukhachevsky's ideas as universal anti-tank, divisional and anti-aircraft guns in one case. The famous three-inch tanks of the First World War and the Civil War were moved from weapons to storage bases. All these tools were included in your 133%. The F-22 USV was produced to replace these guns. And ZiS-3 is already an improved USV. The barrel is the same, but the muzzle brake is installed, the charging chamber has been bored out, the carriage has been changed, the guidance wheels have been moved to one side.
      Or for you, too, Grabin, Baryatinsky, Shirokorad, Maev, Shunkov are not authorities, but Kolobanov and Oskin are writers?
      And it is enough for Kulik to disrupt the de-blockade of Leningrad when he was demoted from the rank of marshals to colonel-general. Not to mention his comments on submachine guns, T-34, ZiS-2. So there is no need to defend him.
      1. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA April 5 2021 17: 03
        +1
        Quote: Boris Epstein
        And the cherry nine asserts, with which I argued with him that there was not enough SPM, and I proved to him that the Germans were enough to install them on their self-propelled guns.

        That's right: those guns, which the Germans had enough, were not enough for us. For if something has arrived somewhere, then somewhere else something has disappeared. smile
        On 22.06.1941/1170/2868 in the Red Army there were 22 USV and 02 F-30. The rest - "three-inch" 30/2066 in 40 calibers (2409 pcs.) And in XNUMX calibers (XNUMX pcs.).
        Quote: Boris Epstein
        But there is a subtlety: it was not the F-22USV that was discontinued, but the F-22, and these are completely different weapons, developed according to Tukhachevsky's ideas as universal anti-tank, divisional and anti-aircraft guns in one case.

        The F-22 was withdrawn from production back in 1939, when Grabin developed a normal mechanism for extracting the sleeves (and not like the F-22, which worked only with peacetime release sleeves and ideal geometry) and brought to mind the semi-automatic USV.
        Quote: Boris Epstein
        Or for you, too, Grabin, Baryatinsky, Shirokorad, Maev, Shunkov are not authorities

        You also forgot to mention Taras. smile
        Grabin is a memoir. And memoirs have been written all my life for that. to whitewash the name of the writer and dump his shoals on subordinates and bosses. Clinical case - beaten Germans. smile A simple question - where in Grabin's memoirs can you find Kulik's decision on military trials of the ZIS-3? Or an explanation - why the first version of this weapon was rejected by the Marshal?
        Shirokorad - yes, his Talmud on artillery of the USSR has become a classic. But it is good exactly as long as the author describes the weapon, and does not bump into conspiracy theories about the same "mortar lobby" or "stupid people from GAU." For the same universal F-22 seems absurd exactly until you find out that it had to replace the main army "anti-aircraft gun" - "three-inch" on the machine of Ivanov.
        Shunkov and Baryatinsky are compilers.
        1. boris epstein
          boris epstein April 5 2021 17: 17
          -1
          The fact that Shunkov and Baryatinsky are compilers does not negate their correctness. And what about Colonel-General of Tank Forces Mayev, and what Guderian and Halder have said about the T-34? I have both "Lost Victories" and "War Diary".
          "A simple question - where in Grabin's memoirs can one find Kulik's decision on military trials of the ZIS-3?"
          And what, it should be ONLY in Grabin's memoirs? There are no other sources for you?
          "Clinical case - beaten Germans" So beaten Germans at the Kunersdorf training ground shot the ZiS-3, which the Cherry Nine together with its designer defiled, and recognized it as the best divisional weapon of the Second World War.
          1. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA April 5 2021 19: 10
            -1
            Quote: boris epstein
            The fact that Shunkov and Baryatinsky are compilers does not negate their correctness.

            What is right? About the thickened forehead of the T-34-85 hull? smile
            Quote: Boris Epstein
            And what about Guderian and Halder's statements about the T-34?

            Oh, you shouldn't have mentioned Heinz ...
            ... the Soviet T-34 tank is a typical example of backward Bolshevik technology. This tank cannot be compared with the best examples of our tanks, made by the faithful sons of the Reich and have repeatedly proved their superiority ...
            © Guderian, October 1941
            And Halder wrote down what was reported to him from the field. Do you really think that one of the German generals would have reported that he screwed up with planning and therefore suffered heavy losses / missed deadlines? It was much easier to write off their shoals on "Russian tanks", which appeared in their reports exactly where the plans of the Germans collapsed, and mysteriously disappeared where everything went according to plan.
            Quote: Boris Epstein
            And what, it should be ONLY in Grabin's memoirs?

            So you are calling to believe Grabin's memoirs.
            Quote: Boris Epstein
            So the beaten Germans at the Kunersdorf training ground shot the ZiS-3, which the Cherry Nine together with its designer defiled, and recognized it as the best divisional weapon of the Second World War.

            Can you give an exact quote from the report?
            Otherwise, it may suddenly turn out that the ZIS-3 was recognized as the best divisional gun in caliber 75-76 mm (which was only in the USSR, Japan and France, which suddenly surrendered) or the best divisional gun (which were also only theirs). laughing
          2. Cherry Nine
            Cherry Nine April 5 2021 21: 00
            +1
            Quote: Boris Epstein
            recognized it as the best divisional weapon of the Second World War.

            Oh my God. Hour by hour is not easier.

            I remember that earlier you relied on the opinion of some strange comrade whom I found only in Glavpurov's memoirs. And now there is a German consensus that the ZiS-3 is better, I don’t know, 10,5 cm leFH 18/40. I would like to know the details.
          3. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA April 6 2021 10: 54
            0
            Quote: Cherry Nine
            And now there is a German consensus that the ZiS-3 is better, I don’t know, 10,5 cm leFH 18/40. I would like to know the details.

            Well, if the Germans wrote that the ZIS-3 is the best divisional gun of the WWII, then one can agree with them. For the armies of a healthy person went over to divisional artillery with howitzers and howitzers-cannons, and the clean guns went to the anti-tank gunnery.
            So, against the background of the French and Japanese, the ZIS-3 is the best divisional gun. smile
          4. Cherry Nine
            Cherry Nine April 6 2021 20: 16
            0
            Last time I tried to understand why it is better, I don't know, 7.7 cm FK 16? Really quantity? Unfortunately, a colleague was at a loss for details.
    2. abc_alex
      abc_alex April 6 2021 22: 57
      0
      Quote: Alexey RA
      A simple question - where in Grabin's memoirs can you find Kulik's decision on military trials of the ZIS-3? Or an explanation - why the first version of this weapon was rejected by the Marshal?

      And Kulik did not give his consent to the military tests of the ZiS-3. Grabin directed the cannon into the troops at his own peril and risk. There the situation was such that the ZiS-3 was produced using a new technology that sharply reduced labor intensity while maintaining quality. And when, at the beginning of the war, the plant received the task of dramatically increasing the production of 76-mm guns, Grabin faced a dilemma: either to disrupt the task, or to send the ZiS-3 into the troops. There was no other way out. Grabin took a chance and won. He notified the GAU, and there he received a tacit consent, that is, he did not receive a direct ban. But there was a scandal. Grabin was saved only by the fact that the volume of production was really increased almost by a factor of several, the reviews from the troops on the ZiS-3 were purely positive, and by that time Kulik had already compromised himself.
      By the way, about the "why". Kulik insisted on stopping production not of the ZiS-3, but of all 76-mm guns in general. In 1940. Due to the "complete saturation of the troops with these weapons and the accumulation of a sufficient supply of them in case of mobilization."
      1. Cherry Nine
        Cherry Nine April 7 2021 08: 01
        0
        Quote: abc_alex
        There the situation was such that the ZiS-3 was produced using a new technology, which sharply reduced labor intensity while maintaining quality.

        There the situation was such that Comrade. Grabin screwed the barrel of an old 1903/1930 cannon onto the carriage, bolt action and anti-rollbacks of the ZiS-2 type, in addition, adapting this economy to the maximum extent possible. This, of course, greatly helped Comrade. Grabin to carry out the plan on the shaft, but on the other hand, the economy was designed for a lighter tool. As a result, Comrade. Grabin screwed on the muzzle brake, which was nonsense for a gun of this class and greatly impaired combat capabilities, especially when firing direct fire. When the industry began to deservedly cover with obscenities (reviews from the troops on the ZiS-3 were purely positive, yeah), comrade. Grabin replied "eat what you give." This, in fact, is a classic of the relationship between Soviet industry and the Soviet army.

        Comrade Grabin solved his problems with the shaft plan by adding problems to others. Nothing out of the ordinary either. On the other hand, Comrade Grabin also has his own truth. When the Soviet industry, under the wish of the military, did something that had no analogues, it turned out a complete trash, Br-2 or the same ZiS-2. So the ZiS-3, which was a lot and which fired more than once, like some other products, which was relatively well supplied with ammunition (relatively, I said, not bad), which could be pulled by a two-horse team - this is still more a plus than minus. Unlike some of the other legendary items that were a complete nightmare.
      2. abc_alex
        abc_alex April 8 2021 02: 28
        0
        Quote: Cherry Nine
        am the situation was such that Comrade. Grabin screwed the barrel of an old 1903/1930 cannon onto the carriage, bolt action and anti-rollbacks of the ZiS-2 type, in addition to adapting this farm to the production conditions as much as possible. This, of course, greatly helped Comrade. Grabin to carry out the plan on the shaft, but on the other hand, the economy was designed for a lighter tool.

        Well, mastering the technology of continuous mass production, unification, standardization and intensification of development, can be called what you are. But whatever you call it, it was these measures that made it possible to quickly saturate the army with 76-mm guns. And what you scold Grabin for - "adapting this economy to production conditions as much as possible" - became a widespread practice during the war.

        By 1941, we had a large number of typical schemes of guns for various purposes. This allowed the widespread use of unification, which, in turn, served as a guarantee of reliability, since only those units and parts that had been tested many times before were unified.


        In fact, the predecessor of the ZiS-3 was the F-22 USV. And before that - F-22. It entered service in 1936 and was developed entirely from scratch.
        And with the barrel it was not so simple there:
        Work on the trunk was entrusted to the designer Ivan Semenovich Griban. He and Meshchaninov were given initial data the same as for the barrel of the F-22 USV gun, and the design of the barrel was similar to the 57-mm barrel of the ZIS-2. The 76-mm tube was required to fit into the ZIS-2 casing, as well as provide it with a muzzle brake.


        Quote: Cherry Nine
        Grabin screwed on the muzzle brake, which was nonsense for a gun of this class and greatly impaired combat capabilities, especially when firing direct fire.

        Where did you get this from? About nonsense. Take a look at the long-barreled German 75mm cannons. And the barrel brake did not create any problem when firing direct fire. ZiS-3 was perfectly used for anti-tank purposes during the entire first period of the Second World War.

        Quote: Cherry Nine
        When the industry began to be deservedly covered with obscenities (reviews from the troops on the ZiS-3 were purely positive, yeah), comrade. Grabin replied "eat what you give."

        Is there any evidence? Can you provide documents confirming this remark above? As far as I know, it was the positive feedback from the army that actually saved Grabin in 1941, when his self-will with the guns got out.
        And let’s stay away from wasteland ... "eat ..." you do not make your position stronger.

        Quote: Cherry Nine
        Comrade Grabin solved his problems with the shaft plan by adding problems to others.

        He did not solve his problems. He solved the problems of the Red Army. And he did not correct his mistakes. And the ZiS-3 cannon went through the entire war and still served after the war.
      3. Cherry Nine
        Cherry Nine April 8 2021 08: 41
        +1
        What. Rarely do you meet someone who wants to return a discussion to a constructive track. I will support the initiative.

        We'll have to sharply reduce the tone.

        For which they do not like Comrade. Grabin? For the fact that with his and Glavpurov's rattle he instilled the idea that the black hole in the place of the Soviet artillery of the divisional link was not a hole, but, on the contrary, the brightest star of the entire world barrel artillery. This position is broadcast by one of the participants in the discussion. But do we have the right to make ethical and aesthetic claims to the figures of those years? Of course not. Our neighbors and colleagues were not shot.

        What are the gland claims to him?
        1. Comrade Grabin did not make Cancer 36 (r). This is true, it is annoying, but this is not a question for Comrade Grabin. The Germans and the British could invent a million calibers, while Comrade Grabin was limited by the capabilities of the tsarist ammunition load. The People's Commissariat of Ammunition from Nikolaev times has not advanced at all as far as the same headpur loves to tell. It made no sense to bore the F-22 under the 3-K anti-aircraft sleeve - there was no way to saturate the artillery with such shots.
        2. Comrade Grabin did not make the Soviet 10,5 cm leFH 18. This is true, it is annoying, but this is not a claim against Grabin. The rejection of a light howitzer is usually associated with the activities of the enemy of the people, Yegorov, who, for some devil, wanted a concrete-piercing shell for a divisional gun. As a result, the Red Army, which was not provided with a mechtyagy, in contrast to the same horse-drawn Wehrmacht, received a gun that is 500 kg heavier (in combat position) than the German one and successfully planted all these guns in the mud.
        The guilt of the enemy of the people Yegorov, yes, but such an approach - weapons that are superior to foreign analogues are ordered, which are then not exported either by industry or by the army itself - is found in those years quite often. "The whole system needs to be changed here."

        So what remains of Comrade Grabin?
        Comrade Grabin spoiled the gun 1902/30. Let's take a look.
        1902/30

        ZIS-3

        Cancer 97/38

        We are interested in the last weapon. What it is? The Germans put the barrel of a French gun from 1897 on the carriage of their 5cm PT. To compensate for the recoil of a heavier gun, they screwed on ... that's right, a salt shaker muzzle brake. Why is the German gun more successful? Because the main projectile was the cumulative, not the BB, but on the other hand, the German needed the cumulative, since the BB of the 1897 T-34 gun had not been tried. But the Soviet BB penetrated German tanks until 42 without any problems. Unless, of course, he was. And with the Soviet cumulative in any way, here again the question to the People's Commissariat of ammunition.

        So what about 1902/30? Why the hell did Comrade Grabin, having a gun weighing only 150 kg lighter than the Tsar's (1200 versus 1350), needed to reduce the recoil by as much as a third? For normal operation of the bolt and anti-rollbacks of a lighter anti-tank gun. Was it possible to do without a muzzle brake in this weight? It is possible, but then all this machinery should be redone from scratch. Two years. And there is no time.

        So was Comrade Grabin right? In my situation, yes. He became, so to speak, a victim of his own success. Its ersatz was used where there should have been weapons of other classes that were not. Therefore, anyone who wants to walk through the squalor of Soviet artillery kicks first of all comrade. Grabin and his products.

        The rest is trivia.
        Quote: abc_alex
        Look at the long-barreled German 75mm cannons

        I won't, these are guns of a different class. A complete analogue of the ZiS-3 is given above.
        Quote: abc_alex
        Can you provide documents confirming this remark above?

        In the sense of the entry in the diary "Today I sent Comrade Yakovlev to such and such a mother? In response, I received a bannik in the well ... ive"? There are no such entries. According to Grabin's criticism, the enemy of the people Kulik is mainly recalled, but that is why he is also an enemy of the people. So let's leave it as my artistic exaggeration, or my beloved, if you like.
      4. abc_alex
        abc_alex April 10 2021 21: 56
        0
        Quote: Cherry Nine
        What are the gland claims to him?

        Wait. You say you didn't. But he was not the owner of the plant. He was not even a plant director. He headed the artillery design bureau of the Novoe Sormovo plant No. 92. He could not choose what to design and manufacture.
        In the pre-war period, the VKKA leadership was very sick with duplexes and triplexes, demanding systems that could do everything at once. Grabin and made a 95 mm duplex. It's just that at some point it was decided that this caliber is small and needs 107. I really don't understand your claims to the "hardware". Grabin did not make a 107-mm cannon for the Red Army, it was made in the design bureau of plant number 172 under the leadership of FF Petrov.

        Quote: Cherry Nine
        Comrade Grabin spoiled the gun 1902/30. Let's take a look.
        1902/30

        Why messed up? What's worse?
        Machine? No, it got better. The sprung steel wheels made it possible to dramatically increase the speed of the cannon. Not 6-7 km / h, like the old one.
        Rate of fire? Has grown 2,5 times.
        Range? I did not fall, as I was 13 km, with a HE shell, and remained.
        Armor penetration also did not fall.
        Has the mass increased? No, it just decreased: in combat 1200 against the previous 1350.
        At the same time, the new machine provided an increase in horizontal guidance angles from 40 to 54 degrees.

        Are you confusing ZiS-3 and F-22?

        Here it is, yes, it is really heavier.

        Quote: Cherry Nine
        So what about 1902/30? Why the hell did Comrade Grabin, having a gun weighing only 150 kg lighter than the Tsar's (1200 versus 1350), needed to reduce the recoil by as much as a third?


        It's not a secret. In theory, the reactive moment of the shot can not be compensated at all. Only in this case the cannon after each shot will:
        1) move a lot from the line of sight
        2) burrowing openers into the ground
        3) break up the machine, which will not allow making it light and will reduce the survivability of the entire system as a whole, including optics.

        Grabin writes:
        Therefore, it was considered rational to superimpose the 76-mm barrel with the F-22 USV ballistics on the ZIS-2 carriage. At first, we took the elevation angle for the new divisional gun as 45 degrees (this angle provides the greatest range of the projectile). The large elevation angle creates increased loads on the gun carriage. To reduce them, they decided to equip the barrel of the new cannon with a muzzle brake, which absorbs about 30 percent of the recoil energy that occurs when fired.

        But at the test site it turned out that even with a brake, the rollback at 45 degrees is such that a pit is needed under the bed. As a result, the UVV was reduced to 37 degrees.
        At 45 degrees, the greatest firing range is actually achieved, but it is difficult to correct such firing, since the explosions of high-explosive fragmentation shells for 12-13 kilometers are almost indistinguishable. At the same time, the greater the elevation angle, the more complex the weapon design. The rational angle is not 45, but 37 degrees. The range is reduced by only 700 meters, and the cannon becomes noticeably simpler.


        Quote: Cherry Nine
        It is possible, but then all this machinery should be remade from scratch. Two years. And there is no time.

        Do you think the "machinery" was not altered? It was just the recoil compensation system that was rebuilt and altered.

        Quote: Cherry Nine
        I won't, these are guns of a different class. A complete analogue of the ZiS-3 is given above.

        Not a bit. :) At least because the UVN of the 7,5 cm PaK 97/38 is 25 degrees, and not 37, like the ZiS-3. And she's not a semi-automatic.

        Quote: Cherry Nine
        According to Grabin's criticism, the enemy of the people Kulik is mainly recalled, but that is why he is also an enemy of the people.

        Kulik had an extremely tense relationship with Grabin, I would not really believe him. Not because he is an enemy, but because there was an interpersonal conflict. And it was extremely necessary for Kulik to later justify his pre-war mistakes.
        For my part, I can say that Stalin was against the ZiS-3. Whether Kulik or someone else told him that Grabin was trying to solve the plant's problems by deteriorating the quality of the gun. And Grabin was on the edge. If there really were massive reclamations from the fronts, and Grabin imposed his gun through "I said," then he would have simply been removed.
        Here is a meeting on the artillery of the Red Army on January 4, 1941, where Grabin raised the issue of the ZiS-3.

        The atmosphere of this meeting can be fully characterized by only one episode. Once again, when I tried to object to Stalin and defend the correctness of our position, the usual restraint and composure changed him. He grabbed a chair by the back and slammed his legs on the floor. There was annoyance and anger in his voice.
        - You have a design itch, you want to change and change everything! - he sharply threw to me. - Work as you did before!
        I have never seen Stalin like this - neither before nor later.
        T-bills decided: our factory to make guns in the old way.
        In a difficult and completely hopeless mood, I left the Kremlin. I was not afraid of my own fate, which could turn out tragically. A return to the old drawings and old technology inevitably threatened not only with a sharp decrease in the production of guns, but also with a temporary cessation of their production in general. Now the country will really be left without guns!
        I spent the night awake in the bomb shelter of the People's Commissariat of Armaments.
        To carry out Stalin's order is a disaster. But how not to fulfill the order of Stalin himself ?!
        There was no exit.
        Early in the morning of January 5, it was still quite dark, an officer came up to me and offered to go upstairs to the telephone. I didn’t go: if they want to arrest them, let them arrest them here. A heavy apathy gripped me, I didn't care anymore. And I had almost no doubts about what awaited me: my dispute with Stalin bore - if you do not delve into its essence - the nature of a challenge, and this will not be qualified as sabotage or sabotage.
        After a while, the officer appeared again.
        “They ask you to phone,” he repeated and added: “Comrade Stalin will speak with you.”
        Indeed, Stalin called. He said:
        - You're right...
        It blew me hot.
        - What you have done cannot be immediately understood and appreciated. Moreover, will they understand you in the near future? After all, what you have done is a revolution in technology. The Central Committee, the State Defense Committee and I highly appreciate your achievements, ”Stalin continued. - Calmly finish what you started.


        Do you think this could have happened if there were massive complaints from the fronts?
        Note, I do not argue that the caliber nomenclature in the Red Army was chosen incorrectly. And yes, of course, the troops should have been given more powerful art systems, both 107 and 122. Probably. But the decision on the order was not made by Grabin.
      5. Cherry Nine
        Cherry Nine April 11 2021 01: 55
        +2
        Quote: abc_alex
        Wait. You say you didn't. But he was not the owner of the plant.

        Well, for whom did I write a long post?
        Quote: Cherry Nine
        This is true, it is annoying, but this claim is all the more not against Grabin.

        It seems like he wrote directly that the problems of the ZiS-3 are a bad anti-tank gun and never a howitzer in general - Grabin's fault is clearly not.
        Quote: abc_alex
        Why messed up? What's worse?

        Did you understand why they tried to force Grabin to make old guns, and not the ZiS-3?
        Quote: abc_alex
        Not a bit. :)

        For some reason, it seems that you perfectly understand that the ZiS-3 is 98/38, but the Pak40 is really not the least bit.
        Quote: abc_alex
        If only because the UVN in the 7,5 cm PaK 97/38 is 25 degrees, and not 37, as in the ZiS-3.

        Because the German has the usual low PTO, not a divisional.
        Quote: abc_alex
        It's not a secret. In theory, the reactive moment of the shot can not be compensated at all. Only in this case the cannon after each shot will:
        1) move a lot from the line of sight
        2) burrowing openers into the ground
        3) break up the machine, which will not allow making it light and will reduce the survivability of the entire system as a whole, including optics.

        Quote: Cherry Nine
        So what about 1902/30? Why the hell did Comrade Grabin, having a gun weighing only 150 kg lighter than the Tsar's (1200 versus 1350), needed to reduce the recoil by as much as a third?

        Quote: abc_alex
        As a result, the UVV was reduced to 37 degrees.

        That is, the same angle as in 1902-30. What an amazing coincidence.
      6. abc_alex
        abc_alex April 12 2021 16: 03
        0
        Quote: Cherry Nine
        Did you understand why they tried to force Grabin to make old guns, and not the ZiS-3?

        Yes of course. They did not believe that he would be able to launch a new cannon quickly into series. This happened all the time in the 30s. In the entire military industry.

        Quote: Cherry Nine
        That the ZiS-3 is 98/38 and is, but the Pak40 is really not the least bit.

        I do not understand. What's in the ZiS-3 from 98/38?
        Another machine, another shutter, it is a semiautomatic device. Other recoil devices. Trunk? So even it was manufactured using a different technology. Do you think a cannon is just a barrel?
        Quote: Cherry Nine

        Because the German has the usual low PTO, not a divisional.

        So the division was not supposed to act as the main anti-tank gun! For this they made the ZiS-2. And before that, we were freaking out with 107-mm cannons. By the way, Grabin also made a 107-mm tank gun for the KV-1.
        Let's do this: the F-98 replaced the old cannon of 22. She did not suit the military. Difficult, heavy, not comfortable. To replace it, Grabin makes F-22USV. And it will be replaced by the ZiS-3. Nobody gave him the task of making a 76 mm PT gun.
        I agree that the ZiS-3 did not take its place in the troops. Therefore, both as a howitzer and as an anti-tank gun were not good. But it was not done for that either.


        Quote: Cherry Nine
        That is, the same angle as in 1902-30. What an amazing coincidence.

        So it was not made a howitzer. By that time, neither triplexes nor duplexes were sick.

        But I seem to understand you. You convince me that the ZiS-3 was not used for its role. And instead of mass saturation of the troops with this gun, should they have given the required amount of ZiS-2 and a 122-mm howitzer? So I agree with you completely!
  • Alexey RA
    Alexey RA April 7 2021 15: 17
    0
    Quote: abc_alex
    And Kulik did not give his consent to the military tests of the ZiS-3.

    I gave it twice - for the first time the ZIS-3 battery sent to military trials disappeared near Vyazma, leaving no documents.
    Quote: abc_alex
    And when, at the beginning of the war, the plant received the task of dramatically increasing the production of 76-mm guns, Grabin faced a dilemma: either to disrupt the task, or to send the ZiS-3 into the troops. There was no other way out. Grabin took a chance and won.

    You are confusing the ZIS-3 and the mobilization version of the USV - the ZIS-22-USV cannon. The growth in the production of 76-mm battalions at the beginning of the war was ensured by the mobilization gun.
    Quote: abc_alex
    Grabin was saved only by the fact that the volume of production was really increased almost by a factor of several, the reviews from the troops on the ZiS-3 were purely positive, and by that time Kulik had already compromised himself.

    Grabin was saved by the fact that for the second time the ZIS-3 passed military tests.
    And Kulik was absolutely right about the first ZIS-3 model presented to him, because he did not suit GAU due to the small angle of the UVN, the over-lightness of the design and the presence of a muzzle brake. In addition, without successful military tests, the artillery system could not get into the series. And behind Comrade Grabin there was already a jamb with an unfit for combat F-22.
    Quote: abc_alex
    Kulik insisted on stopping production not of the ZiS-3, but of all 76-mm guns in general. In 1940. Due to the "complete saturation of the troops with these weapons and the accumulation of a sufficient supply of them in case of mobilization."

    For divisional guns of 76-mm caliber on 22.06.41, the Red Army had 133% of the total need. In addition, the 76-mm caliber before the war was no longer considered powerful enough for divisional artillery.
  • abc_alex
    abc_alex April 10 2021 23: 01
    +1
    Quote: Alexey RA
    I gave it twice - for the first time the ZIS-3 battery sent to military trials disappeared near Vyazma, leaving no documents.

    Yes? And when?
    You also need to understand that Kulik was not particularly respected by his contemporaries.

    This is what BL Vannikov, the People's Commissar for Armaments of the USSR, writes at that time.
    As I recall, at the beginning of 1941, the head of GAU G. I. Kulik told me that, according to intelligence, the German army is rapidly re-equipping its armored forces with tanks with increased thickness and quality armor, and all our artillery 45-76- millimeter caliber will be ineffective against them. In addition, they will allegedly have guns with a caliber of more than 100 millimeters. In this regard, the question was raised about the termination of the production of guns of caliber 45-76 millimeters of all variants. The vacated production facilities were proposed to be loaded with the production of 107 mm caliber guns, primarily in the tank version.
    GI Kulik was notable for his expansiveness and easily succumbed to all kinds of rumors, so we did not attach much importance to the new project.
    However, a few days later, GI Kulik, having enlisted support from above, suggested that I go with him to the artillery plant in order to discuss on the spot ... the possibility of quickly constructing a 107-mm tank cannon and organizing its production instead of the 76-mm cannon.
    I refused to participate in the trip to the plant ... but I received permission to provide GI Kulik with all the materials and explanations that he would be interested in.
    I gave such an order to the director of the plant A.S. Yelyan, but at the same time it was pointed out that he would not take any obligations without the knowledge of the People's Commissariat of Armaments.


    Therefore, not all actions were carried out with his consent or even with his knowledge. In the case of the ZiS-3, Kulik was an ardent opponent of its production. Apparently, he was afraid that his pre-war mistake with the termination of the production of guns would be aggravated by the diseases of the initial period of the production of a new gun.
    On July 22, a month after the start of the war, an art review was held in Moscow. systems, showed and ZiS-3.
    There were demonstration shooting, demonstration of possibilities.

    After the display of the ZIS-30, which ended as successfully as the display of the ZIS-3, ... the marshal offered to go to his office.
    In my office, I reported much more fully on the cannons, on production, and on rearmament. Having finished, I waited for speeches, criticism from those present. ... Kulik was silent for a while, preparing to express his decision, and said:
    “You want a plant of an easy life, while blood is shed on the front.” Your guns are not needed.
    He fell silent. It seemed to me that I mishear or he made a reservation. I only managed to pronounce:
    - How?
    - And so, not needed! Go to the factory and give more of those guns that are in production.
    ...


    The situation was not clear to us now, but it was extremely relevant to that time:

    The ZIS-3 was launched successfully. No one, except for a narrow circle of initiates, had any idea that a new gun had gone. The only detail that could arouse suspicion - the muzzle brake - was decided to be manufactured in an experimental workshop. There you could do whatever you wanted without fear of disclosure. In the assembly shop, they assembled anti-tank ZIS-2, only without barrel pipes. When the time came for the general assembly, the pipes and muzzle brakes for the ZIS-3 were already ready. Late in the evening, both were submitted to the assembly shop. During the night, several ZIS-3 guns were assembled and carefully checked, and in the morning they were presented to military acceptance ...
    As we expected, military inspectors in both workshops answered "no" and went to report to their chief, senior military representative Teleshov. He went to the shops and was convinced: indeed, new gross cannons not provided for by the contract were born. It amazed him, he came to me completely confused. I started the conversation:
    - Ivan Fedorovich, how do you assess the ZIS-3 cannon?
    - This is a wonderful cannon, Vasily Gavrilovich. ...
    - We evaluate it in the same way ... But you have no right to accept it. Right?
    - Yes, Vasily Gavrilovich.
    "... do you have any doubts at all about ... guns?"
    - None.
    - What do you think to do? ...
    - Today I will report to GAU, - said Teleshov.
    - Ivan Fedorovich, what if the GAU is asked your assessments and suggestions?
    “I’ll repeat what I have just told you and propose to accept.
    - Thank you, Ivan Fedorovich. I am very glad that our views coincide. Teleshov called the GAU. ...
    And while they were thinking and deciding, new guns were added. We collected more ZIS-3 than the F-22 USV. New cannons filled the assembly and especially the experimental workshops, while the mechanical ones continued to produce parts more, and more, and more ...
    Now the whole plant knew about "newborns". ...
    The day came when Ivan Fedorovich Teleshov began to take ZIS-3 ...
    ...
    So weeks and months passed. We sent more and more guns to the front, and the silence "above" continued.

    This is how issues were resolved in the USSR at that time. Personal responsibility.
    In December, Grabin was banned from producing the ZiS-3 already in the Kremlin.
    And then they were allowed to produce in series. By that time, there were already more than 1000 ZiS-3 cannons at the front.

    Quote: Alexey RA
    You are confusing the ZIS-3 and the mobilization version of the USV - the ZIS-22-USV cannon. The growth in the production of 76-mm battalions at the beginning of the war was ensured by the mobilization gun.

    Together. The ZiS-3 was put into production in July 1941. In addition, it initially was easier to manufacture. At first, the guns were produced together, but the plant's reserves in the production of the F-22 were not large. Therefore, the shaft was increased at the expense of the ZiS-3. Then the production of the F-22 was greatly simplified.

    Quote: Alexey RA
    Grabin was saved by the fact that for the second time the ZIS-3 passed military tests.


    When and where? The gun went to the troops without any military trials. GAU did not give official permission for its production. At the time of the decision, the troops already had hundreds of ZiS-3 cannons. I have already given the chronology from the words of Grabin.

    Quote: Alexey RA
    And behind Comrade Grabin there was already a jamb with an unfit F-22.

    Yes? But the Germans did not think so. 560 "incapable" F-22s were squandered under their own shells and used as anti-tank guns. And I will remind you that from the F-22 they demanded the versatility of a howitzer-anti-aircraft gun. Therefore, it turned out not so and not so. Disability turned out to be a CONCEPT of versatility.

    Quote: Alexey RA
    For divisional guns of 76-mm caliber on 22.06.41, the Red Army had 133% of the total need. In addition, the 76-mm caliber before the war was no longer considered powerful enough for divisional artillery.

    And who said that the total demand was calculated correctly?
    And who said that Kulik's opinion was generally accepted?
    Vannikov:
    The proposal to withdraw from production 45 and 76-mm guns in all versions - regimental and divisional, was unconvincing, since they served not only as anti-tank weapons, but were also intended to fight against many other targets (manpower, various obstacles, etc.). ) and were very maneuverable.

    Grabin:

    Germany and France by the end of the First World War each had more than 30 thousand guns. I figured out how much more they could release from 1918 to 1941. All this artillery now serves the Hitlerite Wehrmacht. In addition, captured weapons and the military industry of other occupied countries, in particular as powerful as the Czech one. Hitler's allies [525] also had something ... In essence, all of Western Europe was aimed against the USSR, and Japan was preparing for war in the East.

    I calculated approximately how many divisional, tank and anti-tank guns (and they play the main role in mobile warfare) we need on the western and far eastern borders. I compared the figure obtained with the number of guns fired by our factories before the war, made some allowance for losses and summed up the result, given that we must not only catch up with the enemy, but also achieve tangible superiority necessary for a successful offensive. It even went dark in my eyes: it turned out that what was needed was not a sevenfold increase in the production of divisional, tank and anti-tank guns, but at least an 18-20fold increase, and perhaps even more!


    And who said that Kulik guessed right with the caliber? He insisted on switching to 107 mm. But the war showed that he was wrong. Anti-tank calibers did not exceed 100, and howitzer calibers went down to 122.
  • Alexey RA
    Alexey RA April 5 2021 18: 42
    0
    Quote: boris epstein
    And it is enough for Kulik to disrupt the de-blockade of Leningrad when he was demoted from the rank of marshals to colonel-general.

    54 A was formed on September 5th. Since September 9, it has been advancing on the Moscow State University. September 13 - a new order to advance towards the Neva. 54 And I reached the Workers' Village No. 1 - and on the other side, no one. The Leningrad side of the breakthrough got stuck on the Nevsky patch. But Kulik is to blame for everything - because he did not leave his memoirs.
    Quote: boris epstein
    Not to mention his comments on submachine guns, T-34, ZiS-2

    Tell me, what did the head of GAU have to say about the openly raw weapon, which allows aimed fire only at 200 m, but at the same time costs like two light machine guns?
    Understand one thing: PPD-34 and PPD-40 are two different submachine guns. For punching and welding in the shooter in the USSR was mastered only in the late 30s - even Bolotin wrote about this.
    Quote: boris epstein
    T-34

    Here again we are dealing with an aberration of perception, when the characteristics of the T-34 after the last years of production are transferred to the machines of the beginning of production.
    As of January 34, Kulik was completely right about the T-1941. For what Kharkov produced in late 1940 - early 1941 did not correspond to any technical specification and was not a medium tank.
    In the form presented for testing, the T-34 tank does not meet modern requirements for this class of tanks for the following reasons:
    a) The firepower of the tank cannot be fully used due to the unsuitability of surveillance devices, defects in the installation of weapons and optics, the tightness of the fighting compartment and the inconvenience of using an ammunition depot.
    b) With a sufficient margin of engine power and maximum speed, the dynamic characteristics of the tank are poorly selected, which reduces speed and permeability of the tank.
    c) The tactical use of the tank in isolation from the repair bases is impossible, due to the unreliability of the main components - the main clutch and chassis.
    d) The range and reliability of communication obtained during testing for a tank of this class is insufficient, due to both the characteristics of the walkie-talkie 71 TK-3 and the low quality of its installation in the T-34 tank.
    © report on tests of serial T-34 in November-December 1940
    And only the threat of stoppage of acceptance forced the plant to finally stop writing formal replies in the style of "everything is fine with us, these are all the crooked-handed little-minded inept folks at the GABTU" and take up the UKN.
    Quote: Boris Epstein
    ZIS-2

    And what about the ZIS-2? Kulik gave birth to it, Kulik killed her - when it turned out that instead of one ZIS-2, 3-4 divisional guns could be made, without which freshly formed and reformed divisions could not be sent to the front. For the guns of the divisional artillery were catastrophically lacking - even the staff of the divisions had to be cut during the formation:
    ... rifle divisions with extended formation periods were issued weapons in two turns: at the beginning - the minimum necessary for practice (1500 rifles, 27 light machine guns, 9 heavy machine guns, 9 50-mm and 3 82-mm mortars, one 45-mm and one 76-mm cannon for each division), then the rest up to the prescribed norm.
  • Cherry Nine
    Cherry Nine April 5 2021 20: 50
    0
    Quote: Boris Epstein
    bored out charging chamber

    What for?
    Quote: Boris Epstein
    muzzle brake installed

    What is this for?
    Quote: Boris Epstein
    statements on submachine guns, T-34, ZiS-2

    What kind?
    Quote: Boris Epstein
    cherry nine asserts, with which I argued with him that SPM was not enough

    I did not write a word about the SPM deficit. I wrote about a well-known projectile problem.

    But if you want, I'll write.

    In a full-fledged state - military unit 04 / 400-416 dated 05.04.1941/16/3, the division had 3 (sixteen) 54 "guns, USV, ZiS-39 and similar. - did not penetrate at all.With the division's defense front, according to the charter of the 8th year, 12-100 kilometers, one anti-tank gun accounted for 200-75 meters of the front, this is not bad (although it will not help against a strong enemy), but XNUMXmm accounted for one or two And we left this divisional art with bare ... true, everyone was allowed into the PTO (and they did it).

    If you would like to inform that USV will penetrate Prague from a kilometer away, let me remind you that the fascist also has something to plant, and quite a lot.

    The endless German stories about anti-aircraft gunnery at tanks were mentioned in the thread. So SPM is a Soviet akht-akht. At least at the beginning of the war.
  • Alexey RA
    Alexey RA April 5 2021 10: 44
    0
    Quote: boris epstein
    KV-85. "By the spring of 1942 (one thousand nine hundred and forty-two, special for you), a new cast tower was created with an 85-mm D-5T cannon installed in it ...

    Well, for sure - the USSR had a time machine.
    By July 11, Plant No. 100 installed a running gear, fuel tanks, a motor and control drives at Object 239. The tower was still not ready. In addition to the delay in work by the Kirov plant, the problem was that the D-5T-85 system at that time existed in a single copy.
    © Y. Pasholok
    In the spring of 1942, the only 85-mm tank gun was the F-30 Grabin, which had not passed the test.
    Quote: boris epstein
    Su-122 based on T-34 too?

    The Su-122 is a 122 mm assault howitzer. The same howitzer that missed the tank with all shots during the tests of the cumulative projectile.
    Quote: boris epstein
    And on Soviet tanks, the armor was installed with rational angles of inclination.

    Already in 1943, the 45-mm T-34 armor with any angles of inclination penetrates the enemy's anti-tank vehicles with no problems. The limitation of the firing range on the T-34 is associated not with armor penetration, but with the need to confidently hit the tank with the first 1-2 shots.
    1. boris epstein
      boris epstein April 5 2021 14: 40
      0
      "In the spring of 1942, the only 85-mm tank gun was the F-30 Grabina, which had not passed the test."
      In fact, Grabin's 85mm cannon was called the ZiS-S-53. Initially, it was created for the Su-85, then they began to install it instead of the D-5T.
      "As early as 1943, 45-mm T-34 armor with any angles of inclination penetrates the enemy's anti-tank vehicles with no problems."
      Is it okay that at the beginning of 1942, in the Rembats, an additional 45-mm sheet was installed on the gougeons on the forehead of the T-34? Then it was legalized and the T-34-85 was already leaving the factory with increased armor.
      Feel the difference in weight. 34 T-1939 - 26,5 tons, T-34 - 85-32 tons.
      "The Su-122 is an assault 122-mm howitzer. The same howitzer that missed the tank with all shots during the tests of the cumulative round.
      A test slip is not fatal. We got in the battle.
      1. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA April 5 2021 15: 33
        +1
        Quote: Boris Epstein
        In fact, Grabin's 85mm cannon was called the ZiS-S-53. Initially, it was created for the Su-85, then they began to install it instead of the D-5T.

        ZIS-S-53 is the beginning of 1944. You wrote:
        Quote: Boris Epstein
        KV-85. "By the spring of 1942 (one thousand nine hundred and forty-two, special for you), a new cast tower was created with an 85-mm D-5T cannon installed in it ...

        So, in the spring of 1942, the USSR had only an unfinished pre-war F-85 of its 30-mm tank guns.
        Quote: Boris Epstein
        Is it okay that at the beginning of 1942, in the Rembats, an additional 45-mm sheet was installed on the gougeons on the forehead of the T-34? Then it was legalized and the T-34-85 was already leaving the factory with increased armor.

        The installation of additional armor on the T-34 was prescribed by the pre-war decree of the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR and the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks (Bolsheviks) No. 1216-502ss dated 07.05.1941/34/XNUMX, but the first option was rejected: bolt-on screens tore off when a shell hit, besides, the additional armor did not protect the most vulnerable places T-XNUMX - mechanical drive hatch and machine gun mount in the VLD.
        The second approach to the projectile was in 1942 - the production of shielded hulls and turrets was started on January 20.01.1942, 23.02.1942. But already on February 1333, 112, by GKO decree No. XNUMX, the shielding was canceled. It survived only on the tanks of the plant No. XNUMX (in the form of large "patches") - due to the mass defects in the production of VLD.
        The third approach was in the fall of 1942. Now they were shielding against HEAT shells. In the spring of 1943, 46 shielded T-34s were produced. As a result, the screens were found to be ineffective, since the enemy re-equipped with long-barreled guns and thrashed the tanks with conventional armor-piercing ones, from which the screens did not help much.
        Further, the shielding of tanks was carried out only at the level of prototypes. So the serial T-34-85 had the same 45-mm hull in the forehead as the T-34 mod. 1940.

        The data on the shielding of the T-34 are taken from the article uv. Yu.Pasholoka "Temporary gain" on warspot.
        1. boris epstein
          boris epstein April 5 2021 15: 49
          0
          But Colonel-General of Tank Forces Mayev, despised by you and the Cherry Nine, and the author of the huge "Encyclopedia of Tanks", thinks differently. And I trust him more than you and the cherry nine.
          And about the screens. There is a big difference between the welded additional armor and the screen. The Germans hung a lot of screens around the turret and on the chassis for four. And nothing, did not break. And on the frontal armor they put not an additional screen, but an armor plate. Is there a difference in the armor of the four-35 mm in 1941, 60 mm at the beginning of 1942 and up to 80 mm in the Battle of Kursk? And on the T-34, Soviet tankers in 1945 welded bed nets against the faust cartridges.
          You have not explained where the additional 6 tons of weight of the T-34-85 came from in comparison with the T-34 of 1939. Well, the tower is more than 2 tons. The cannon is of a larger caliber and the shells are heavier, for example, a ton. And 3 more tons?
          1. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA April 5 2021 19: 32
            +1
            Quote: Boris Epstein
            But Colonel-General of Tank Forces Mayev, despised by you and the Cherry Nine, and the author of the huge "Encyclopedia of Tanks", thinks differently. And I trust him more than you and the cherry nine.

            Faith issues are in a different department.
            Briefly, the history of domestic 85-mm tank guns up to the D-5 and S-53 is as follows:
            Marshal Kulik, Deputy People's Commissar of Defense, raised the issue of the insufficient power of the KV-1 heavy tank gun back in mid-June 1940. At a meeting on June 16, 1940, it was decided to develop an 85-mm tank gun with the ballistics of the 52-K anti-aircraft gun. The creation of the gun, which received the F-30 index, was the responsibility of the KB team headed by V.G. Grabin. The gun was installed in an experienced T-220 heavy tank, after which work was stopped due to the start of the development of the 107-mm ZIS-6 gun.
            A second attempt to create an 85mm tank gun for the KV-1 was made at the end of 1941. The U-12 gun, developed by the design bureau of the Ural Heavy Machine Building Plant (KB UZTM) under the leadership of FF Petrov, did not even reach the prototype stage.
            The third attempt was also made in Sverdlovsk in the spring of 1942. The result was the same: the ZIK-1 cannon, intended for the KV-1 and T-34, did not advance beyond the technical design.
            Finally, in the fall of 1942, the fourth (and last) attempt was made to install an 1 mm gun in the KV-85 turret. The project of the ZIS-25 gun was developed in the design bureau of plant # 92. The weapon itself was rejected, and above all for the reason that the working conditions of its calculation should have been far from ideal. It would have been especially difficult for the loader, since the 85 mm cartridge was longer than that of the 76-mm ZIS-5 cannon, which the KV-1 was armed with. In addition, in the fall of 1942, the KV-1 tank was no longer produced, its place on the assembly line was taken by the KV-1s.
            © Y. Pasholok
            Quote: Boris Epstein
            And on the T-34, Soviet tankers in 1945 welded bed nets against the faust cartridges.

            These are not bed nets, but regular mesh screens. Which, according to the test results, turned out to be useless against the "Panzerfaust-100". However, the native German screens of the "four" also did not work against them.
            Quote: Boris Epstein
            You have not explained where the additional 6 tons of weight of the T-34-85 came from in comparison with the T-34 of 1939.

            You would also compare with the A-32. smile The T-34-85 was made not from the T-34 of the 1940 model, but from the T-34 of the 1943 model. Which has grown fat up to 30 tons. There are many reasons - cast towers:
            Of course, there was also the other side of the coin in this. The fact is that the cast turret was heavier than the welded one, since 45 mm of rolled armor corresponded to 52 mm cast. Other simplifications also raised the mass of the tank. Therefore, in 1941, the mass of the T-34 was 27 kg, in 500 it first crossed the mark of 1942 tons, and by 29 it reached the mark of 1943 tons. As a result, problems began with the tires of the road wheels.
            © Yu Pasholok.
            Plus the standardization of the thickness of the armor plates: the 1943 sample received 45 mm armor in a circle and a thicker bottom.
      2. Cherry Nine
        Cherry Nine April 5 2021 21: 05
        +2
        Quote: Boris Epstein
        A test slip is not fatal. We got in the battle.

        Adore.
  • Alexey RA
    Alexey RA April 3 2021 20: 12
    +3
    Quote: Boris Epstein
    For the German menagerie of the initial stage of the war, the 76-mm F-22USV and ZiS-3 were enough,

    At the beginning of the war, BR-350A in the active army were available in scanty quantities. Moreover, in the reports of tankers in the column "armor-piercing shells" are often shrapnel - uv. D. Shein wrote that he encountered this when he was digging docks along the 4th battalion of Katukov. So for 1941, the average penetration of the F-22, USV and F-34 is 30-35 mm at 300 m - "shrapnel to strike".
    Moreover, even a year later, the situation with the BR-350A was sad:
    In view of the lack of the required number of kamor armor-piercing shells in artillery units, the shooting of German tanks from 76,2-mm divisional guns with projectiles of other types is common ...
    © "The defeat of the armor of German tanks." July 1942 NII-48.
    Quote: Boris Epstein
    Well, since 1944, anti-tank BS-3 with a caliber of 100 mm

    Field BS-3. Forcibly used as a PTO - like the same ZIS-3.
    Quote: Boris Epstein
    S-3, projectile BR-412D, the angle of meeting of the projectile with the armor is 90 degrees, the distance is 1000 m, the armor penetration is 185 mm, the distance is 1500 m is 170 mm

    And that the USSR had a time machine? belay
    Since 1953 Indus shots were added to the ammunition load. UBR-412D with armor-piercing tracer shells of improved armor penetration ind. BR-412D (with armor-piercing and ballistic tips) and fuses MD-8 or DBR-2.

    By the way, this is a typical mistake of the compilers of various encyclopedias and tables of armor penetration - to take data on post-war shells and, on their basis, judge the armor penetration in 1941-1945.
    1. boris epstein
      boris epstein April 6 2021 15: 50
      0
      Two trolls have gathered, add each other, misinterpret what I said, lie recklessly, despise everyone and everything except themselves. In general, about the KV-85. In the Finnish war, Soviet tanks participated, not yet officially adopted for service-T-100, SMK and KV-1. The T-100 and the SMK were not accepted into service. In the same way, in the winter of 1942-1943 near Mgoy, the Soviet SAU-152 knocked out one Tiger, smashed the second, and the third abandoned the crew with all the documentation, as it was stuck in the snow. the "brilliant" Manstein in the winter of 1942-1943, when he broke through to Paulus, had a company of Tigers. But at that time they were not officially adopted yet. Likewise, the KV-85, which had not yet been officially adopted for service, took part in the Battle of Kursk. And just as the ZiS-3, which had not yet been officially adopted for service, and the T-72, which had not yet been accepted for service, entered the army, beat Israeli tanks in Egypt. About authorities. The adoration of both of you before the West is despised. The "ingenious" Manstein was beaten in the SUMMER of 1941 near Soltsy by KE Voroshilov, who was disrespected by both of you. Then he stormed Sevastopol for 250 days, which at the time of Manstein's approach had no fortifications for defense from land. And in order to nip in the bud your future insinuations about the short-sightedness of the Soviet command, I will tell you a secret: in the same way, there were no fortifications of Sevastopol from land and in the Crimean War. Totleben created them during the fighting, and the Red Army liberated Sevastopol in 4 (four) days. Then your "genius" Manstein failed to break through to Paulus's group. And even later he lost the Battle of Kursk. About eight or eight. There weren't as many of them as you think, it was ZENIT. a cannon, and by 1943 the need for it, like an anti-aircraft gun, was growing rapidly. The Tiger and Panther were not so brilliant. The staggered arrangement of the skating rinks alone is a big headache for crews in early spring, late autumn and rembats during repairs. To repair the engine, the turret had to be removed. On Soviet tanks, it was enough to deploy it aboard. When transported by rail, the Tiger had to be changed into transport tracks, and after unloading, into combat ones. I brought up all our previous disputes with VD. Both of you shit on KV because not all bridges withstand it. And the Tiger and even more so, the Royal Tiger? Most of the German tanks, except for the Luchs reconnaissance tank, had a gasoline engine, which means they were several times more fire hazardous than the Soviet ones with diesel engines. Germany did not have a cannon-gun like the ML-20. An attack aircraft similar to the Il-2, too. The thing was good until mid-1943. IL-2 fought with dignity throughout the war. In the USSR there was ZAS equipment "Analog ZAS existed in the USSR even before the Great Patriotic War. The ZAS equipment could work both on physical circuits and on radio relay channels or HF communication channels.
      The first ZAS equipment was produced in 1931 by Kotelnikov and Tsygykalo-SAU 18, PZh-6, Sh-29. In 1939-SI-15 Tit, a suitcase version for representatives of the Headquarters on the fronts and commanders of the front-Snegir and long-range-Sobol-P. S-1, Sova and Neva worked on KV radio channels, on VCh-Volga-S channels. It provided encryption of communication at the Tehran, Yalta and Potsdam conferences. "Germany did not have ZAS equipment at all. And I warn you, do not confuse Enigma and ZAS - these are fundamentally different things.
      And one more lie. "Understand one thing: PPD-34 and PPD-40 are two different submachine guns. For punching and welding in the shooter in the USSR was mastered only in the late 30s - even Bolotin wrote about this."
      The first to use stamping in the production of submachine guns was Georgy Semenovich Shpagin, and not Vasily Alekseevich Degtyarev. By the way, your ingenious schmeisers did not manage to master stamping in the production of small arms. Who is Bolotin, what is he eaten with?
      It is despicable to humiliate Kolobanov and Oskin. Thanks to them, WE ALL live. Oh, you are the writers. It is you who are the writers, and they are the heroes.
      In general, both pass by me in parallel, comment, lie to each other and add to each other.
      1. Cherry Nine
        Cherry Nine April 6 2021 20: 18
        0
        Quote: Boris Epstein
        In general, pass me both in parallel

        For Alexei I will not say, but I will have to pass by. I am not able to shovel such a pile of, hmm, truths, I have an overflow of RAM.
      2. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA April 7 2021 15: 56
        0
        Quote: Boris Epstein
        Likewise, the KV-85, which had not yet been officially adopted for service, took part in the Battle of Kursk.

        Uh-huh, "participated" - without a tower and a gun, standing at the factory.
        By July 11, Plant No. 100 installed a running gear, fuel tanks, a motor and control drives at Object 239. The tower was still not ready. In addition to the delay in work by the Kirov plant, the problem was that the D-5T-85 system at that time existed in a single copy. It was supposed to be installed in the tower of the first sample of Object 237, which was fully completed on July 8. The turret for the new tank was not delivered to factory # 100 by July 20th either.
        © Y. Pasholok.
        Quote: Boris Epstein
        About authorities. The adoration of both of you before the West is despised.

        Is it possible that all Russian archival documents were drawn up in the West?
        Quote: Boris Epstein
        When transported by rail, the Tiger had to be changed into transport tracks, and after unloading, into combat ones.

        I'll tell you more. The creator of the Tiger, the Henschel company, was the German analogue of UVZ. Its main civilian product was railway equipment, including locomotives.
        As with all this, the designers of the "Tiger" managed not to fit into the railway gauge (which is why they had to introduce transport tracks) - there is a great secret.
        Quote: Boris Epstein
        Both of you shit on the KV because not all bridges can withstand it.

        No. The main list of claims to the KV is set out in the letter of the military representative to the LKZ Mehlis and the report of the Mehlis commission, which checked the LKZ in 1940. Weak running gear and transmission (gearbox, clutches, brakes), ineffective air cleaning and engine cooling systems, poor drive of an unbalanced turret, LKZ correction he does not deal with shortcomings and drives unfit tanks into the army. The plant did not correct any of the above before the start of the war - moreover, it worsened the situation by starting the production of shielded HFs.
        The main disadvantage of the KV is that the chassis and transmission are designed for a tank weight of 40 tons. This is directly stated in a letter from GABTU to the developers of self-propelled guns based on the KV (1942) - so that they limit the mass of the self-propelled guns.
      3. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA April 7 2021 16: 36
        0
        Quote: boris epstein
        Most of the German tanks, besides the Luchs reconnaissance tank, had a gasoline engine, which means they were many times more fire hazardous than Soviet ones with diesels.

        The Germans use on a new tank of a carburetor engine, and not a diesel engine can be explained:
        (...)
        c) a very significant in combat conditions, the percentage of fires of tanks with diesel engines and the lack of significant advantages over carburetor engines in this regard, especially with the competent design of the latter and the availability of reliable automatic fire extinguishers;
        © NIIBTP, 1942
        Moreover, statistics on domestic tanks in 1942 showed a lower percentage of fires in tanks with gasoline engines than with diesel ones.
        Quote: Boris Epstein
        Germany did not have a howitzer-gun similar to the ML-20.

        But their kampmfgruppi carried 21-cm mortars with them, which ours could only dream of. smile
        Quote: Boris Epstein
        Germany did not. An attack aircraft similar to the Il-2, too

        Right. Because for a blitzkrieg, it is not needed - it is a machine of total war, middle peasants, with a high level of losses.
        Quote: Boris Epstein
        IL-2 fought with dignity throughout the war.

        The Il-2 and Il-10 by 1945, for a successful strike on the target, required the allocation of 30% to 100% of the attack aircraft involved in the anti-air defense suppression group (100% is when the entire group cleans the air defense with the first approach). For the armor of their shells by the German MZA did not hold.
        Quote: Boris Epstein
        The first to use stamping in the production of submachine guns was Georgy Semenovich Shpagin, and not Vasily Alekseevich Degtyarev.

        Yes. You're right. On PPD in the latest models, stamping was used only partially. The triumph of stamped-welded construction is PPSh.
        Quote: Boris Epstein
        By the way, your ingenious schmeisers did not manage to master stamping in the production of small arms.

        But what about the MP40?
        Quote: Boris Epstein
        Who is Bolotin, what is he eaten with?

        Soviet weapons historian, laureate of the S.I. Mosina, professor, doctor of historical sciences.
        Quote: Boris Epstein
        It is despicable to humiliate Kolobanov and Oskin.

        Since when has any step away from the lacquered official version become a humiliation?
        We have already passed the greatest oncoming tank battle in history, which after the publication of Soviet documents by Zamulin turned out to be an attempt to disguise the unsuccessful attack of the 5th Guards. TA of the entrenched enemy, after which one combat-ready corps remained in the army.
      4. Cherry Nine
        Cherry Nine April 7 2021 19: 06
        0
        Okay, I'll add on the technical details.
        Quote: Boris Epstein
        there was a gasoline engine, which means they were many times more fire hazardous than Soviet ones with diesel engines

        Since the German, and in general almost any tanks, unlike the T-34, were reasonably designed, they did not have tanks in the fighting compartment. Accordingly, their danger to the crew was significantly less, and not more, regardless of the type of fuel. Moreover, the idea of ​​making a mechanized corps with 5, EMNIP, types of fuel for various equipment against a German or American division with 1 type of fuel for everything is not at all as ingenious as it is customary to imagine.
        Quote: Boris Epstein
        Howitzer-gun, similar to ML-20, Germany did not have

        Of course not. Instead of a corps / army 6-inch gun, the Germans had this caliber in their divisions, 15 cm sFH 18. The USSR also tried to do it, the M-10 howitzer, but could not.
        In place of the ML-20, the Germans had full-fledged RGK artillery, including 6 "cannons, an analogue of the BR-2. But the Germans had far from 39 of them.
        But the British had guns of this class also in the corps / army link, and not in the division, this is a 5,5-inch gazbits cannon. Almost as many of them were produced as ML-20, 5,5 thousand.

        Now attention, a question. ML-20 6,5 thousand, 5,5 thousand stays. And how much will this be calculated for one infantry (rifle) division, here and there?
        Quote: Boris Epstein
        An attack aircraft similar to the Il-2, too

        The German certainly did not have such a miracle as the Il-2, with all their jambs. The Germans hung 250 kg on the messer, but it's a shame to talk about the foker.
        Quote: Boris Epstein
        By the way, your ingenious schmeisers did not manage to master stamping in the production of small arms.

        The Germans, after all, tried not to afford such shit as a stamped weapon, they did it by milling. Although at the end of the war, EMNIP, and they slipped this, a Volkssturm weapon, I don't remember now.
        1. Illanatol
          Illanatol April 8 2021 09: 04
          +1
          What was bad about the IL-2?
          Did you take a little payload? But the damage inflicted on the enemy was considerable.
          When duralumin began to suffice and new engines appeared, then new "silts" appeared with quite decent ammunition.
          And to use fighters for attack - did the Germans become from a good life? Not a very good idea, frankly. But have they failed to create a replacement for the "piece"?
          Such "shit" as PPSh or PPS, the Germans very much even appreciated and willingly used such trophies, if possible.
          1. Cherry Nine
            Cherry Nine April 8 2021 09: 33
            0
            Quote: Illanatol
            What was bad about the IL-2?

            Doesn't the answer "everyone" work?
            Quote: Illanatol
            But the damage inflicted on the enemy was considerable.

            In the memoirs. Naturally, 36 thousand aircraft could cause some kind of damage. But they caused the greatest damage to the USSR by their existence.
            Quote: Illanatol
            When duralumin began to be missed and new engines appeared

            Is this about what?
            Quote: Illanatol
            Not a very good idea, let's face it

            Yes? What's wrong?
            Quote: Illanatol
            But have they failed to create a replacement for the "piece"?

            What does it mean to replace a piece? From an airplane of a very clear sky, he switched to IS, which is less demanding in this regard.
            Quote: Illanatol
            even appreciated and willingly used such trophies, if possible.

            The Germans are well-known rags. As for the PPS and PPSh, this is a fairly successful weapon of a special period for a country with not the most developed metalworking. No more, but no less.
            1. Illanatol
              Illanatol April 9 2021 08: 53
              0
              Yes? What's wrong?

              Combat equipment should still be used for its intended purpose. Such alterations are not from a good life.

              What does it mean to replace a piece? From an airplane of a very clear sky, he switched to IS, which is less demanding in this regard.


              The Germans tried to create a new attack aircraft as a replacement. Did not work out. Ju-187 did not go into production. I had to use fokkers.

              as for the PPS and PPSh - this is a fairly successful weapon of a special period for a country with not the most developed metalworking.


              In this case, metalworking is not important. There was PP Degtyarev, in the production of which milling, etc. was used ... so what? It only surpassed the PPSh in price.
              Cost, manufacturability of production - also matters. Our PCBs could be produced in large quantities at civilian enterprises. You don't need expensive equipment, highly skilled workforce ... and the result is good. According to the main indicators (lethality, accuracy, range) - superiority over German PP.
              So they completely crushed the "high-tech" Germans, which is why some of the "Xperts" have a specific popabol.
          2. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA April 8 2021 16: 44
            0
            Quote: Illanatol
            Did you take a little payload? But the damage inflicted on the enemy was considerable.

            Let's just say when, in 1944, during Bagration, a commission from the VA headquarters decided to check the pilots' applications on the ground, the results were, to put it mildly, not very good.
            Perov / Rastrenin has a chapter on the accuracy and lethality of the Il-2 onboard weapons.
        2. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA April 8 2021 16: 39
          0
          Quote: Cherry Nine
          Moreover, the idea of ​​making a mechanized corps with 5, EMNIP, types of fuel for various equipment against a German or American division with 1 type of fuel for everything is not at all as ingenious as it is customary to imagine.

          Judging by the tables, Melia has exactly five types: aviation gasoline B-70 / KB-70, diesel fuel, gasoline, naphtha, tractor kerosene.
          And now we put on this the lack of tanks, barrels and gasoline tankers - and we get an amazing puzzle "where, what and how much to fill, so as not to mix, not pollute and refuel the maximum number of cars." smile
          Quote: Cherry Nine
          The Germans, after all, tried not to afford such shit as a stamped weapon, they did it by milling.

          MP40.
        3. ecolog
          ecolog 10 May 2021 00: 18
          0
          MK-108 (30mm), MG-42, StG 44 ... not Volkssturm. And there was enough stamping. Because, as the understanding came that 10 stamped machine guns are better than 3-4 uber-milled
  • Vladimir1155
    Vladimir1155 April 3 2021 08: 27
    +1
    Quote: Free Wind
    proactive development. The desire to snatch yourself from the river of gold that flowed into

    a typical aircraft carrier or super battleship disguised as a destroyer for the Russian Federation
  • Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
    Paragraph Epitafievich Y. April 3 2021 11: 44
    +4
    Quote: Free Wind
    The fact that someone pinned hopes on the Mouse for victory is nonsense. They hoped to get money, and that's it!

    That's right, Alexander. It is strange that the phrase "sawing the dough" did not sound in the branch))
    1. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine April 3 2021 12: 49
      +4
      Quote: Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
      dough cut

      There are rather departmental games in the Soviet style. The Third Reich, which Soviet authors like to pass off as the fighting hamster of world capitalism, was very different in this.
  • Alexey RA
    Alexey RA April 3 2021 19: 33
    +2
    Quote: Free Wind
    JV Stalin understood this in the same way. And they did not give money for crazy fantasies. And we had something similar. Only there was no opportunity for such inventors to dump their inventions.

    And there were opportunities, and money was allocated. Remember what projects were sculpted by KB LKZ before the war and in the first months of the war. Work on the same hundred-ton KV-5 was stopped only because the Germans approached Leningrad.
    And this case was completely closed only at the end of 1941.
  • Jager
    Jager April 10 2021 12: 45
    0
    Adik was generally an unhealthy fan of various kinds of wunderwolf.
    The fate of "Mouse" is painfully similar to the fate of "Ferdinand". There, too, in a fit of passion, 90 tanks were riveted before the end of the tests. And after the failure, they hastily began to think about how to re-glue these tanks.
    The resources devoted to the development of armor-pornography in the form of these two vehicles cost Germany more than 200 unbuilt T-IV tanks.
    I wonder what would have happened to the director of the Chelyabinsk "Tankograd", had he conceived of his own free will not only to develop, but to build under a hundred vehicles of dubious combat value?
    Sometimes it seems to me that the German designers and some leaders of the Wehrmacht were in cahoots with the allies. laughing
  • Lynx2000
    Lynx2000 April 3 2021 05: 37
    +7
    "Mouse" is most likely a feverish attempt by the "Fuehrer" to come up with another wunderwaffe, and to the industrialists to get a "cut of reichmarks."
    Pz.5 Panther, Pz.6 Tiger, Pz.6B Royal Tiger, self-propelled guns Ferdinand, Jagdpanthers were the answer to our T-34, KV, IS.

    It is written that this miracle "Mouse" got stuck in the swamp right up to the deckhouse - the tower. They pulled and pulled 18 tractors, did not pull. A dozen soldiers came with shovels and dug it out. I wonder how it looked ...

    Often we go along the hollows, so if you sit on a bump (God forbid a stump in it) with a bridge, then only with the help of a "Hi-jack", a sandtak, a forest, a boot, a cable, a gini, a shovel and "such a mother" you climb out. recourse
    1. Kote Pan Kokhanka
      Kote Pan Kokhanka April 3 2021 07: 10
      +4
      Moreover, of all the listed funds - "such and such a mother" is the most effective! lol
    2. Konnick
      Konnick April 3 2021 07: 43
      +12
      What did it look like ,? usually

      Photo from https://waralbum.ru/319673/
      "Soldiers of the 7th Reserve Tank Battalion of the Wehrmacht dig up an experimental super-heavy tank" Maus "Porsche Type 205/1 (Pz.Kpfw.VIII Maus) stuck in the mud. March 16, 1944, during the tests of" Maus "in Böblingen, while trying to overcome a sticky area of ​​ground, the machine weighing 188 tons was hopelessly stuck. "
      1. Lynx2000
        Lynx2000 April 3 2021 07: 45
        +2
        It doesn't look like drainage, water drainage. laughing Association with beavers: a hut is being repaired at the dam.
      2. sergo1914
        sergo1914 April 3 2021 10: 08
        +2
        Quote: Konnick
        What did it look like ,? usually

        Photo from https://waralbum.ru/319673/
        "Soldiers of the 7th Reserve Tank Battalion of the Wehrmacht dig up an experimental super-heavy tank" Maus "Porsche Type 205/1 (Pz.Kpfw.VIII Maus) stuck in the mud. March 16, 1944, during the tests of" Maus "in Böblingen, while trying to overcome a sticky area of ​​ground, the machine weighing 188 tons was hopelessly stuck. "


        It looks like "whatever I did, just for ..." I'm tired. From the native SA.
        1. Konnick
          Konnick April 3 2021 10: 12
          +2
          The tankers themselves planted, and dig it yourself laughing
          1. sergo1914
            sergo1914 April 3 2021 11: 23
            +2
            Quote: Konnick
            The tankers themselves planted, and dig it yourself laughing


            A joke about tankers and a fairy?
            1. Konnick
              Konnick April 3 2021 11: 25
              +1
              A joke about tankers and a fairy?


              For real? laughing
      3. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA April 3 2021 20: 18
        +2
        Quote: Konnick
        What did it look like ,? usually

        This is not a tank, this is some kind of mobile "Mausturm" with the possibility of self-entrenching.
        With a slight movement of the mechanic's hand, the tank turns ... turns into an elegant armored firing point. smile
    3. Free wind
      Free wind April 3 2021 11: 23
      +2
      Hitler is certainly not down, but he could not come up with something himself, there were advisers. Drive a tank into a swamp, I can't even imagine such a situation. Knowing the cross-country ability of my car, I will check ten times and think about whether to go there.
      1. sergo1914
        sergo1914 April 3 2021 11: 31
        0
        Quote: Free Wind
        Hitler is certainly not down, but he could not come up with something himself, there were advisers. Drive a tank into a swamp, I can't even imagine such a situation. Knowing the cross-country ability of my car, I will check ten times and think about whether to go there.


        I do not believe.
      2. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA April 3 2021 20: 20
        +2
        Quote: Free Wind
        I can't even imagine such a situation.

        Easy. All you need is a mechanic driver who is not familiar with the specifics of the landfill.
        As usual, the car went on a test run along the range of the 7th reserve tank battalion, where it was supposed to pass the next off-road passability test. The tank driver, not knowing all the nuances of the landfill, climbed into a swampy lowland. This place was easily passed by the battalion's lighter training tanks, but for the 180-ton colossus, the lowland turned out to be a trap. The Typ 205 / I sank into swampy soil by more than one and a half meters.
        © Yuri Pasholok. A stillborn mouse. Warspot.
    4. Incvizitor
      Incvizitor April 3 2021 16: 26
      0
      Another series of e there ...



      In general, I wonder what would have been a victory in the tender tiger n, instead of a tiger, the Reich would probably have bent faster.
    5. Illanatol
      Illanatol April 8 2021 09: 05
      0
      In addition to the "mouse", there was also a "rat" (rat). "Gloomy Teutonic Genius" in all its glory.
  • mr.ZinGer
    mr.ZinGer April 3 2021 07: 19
    +8
    The author did not slip to a retelling of Wikipedia, but the information content of the article is very low. Articles about equipment samples should be accompanied by at least a brief performance characteristics, for the convenience of readers.
  • Konnick
    Konnick April 3 2021 07: 37
    +6
    Quote: Leader of the Redskins
    This is out of the question! For a long time I saw a photo of the Pz 1 hitting the Polish campaign. Spread out the poor fellow on the "patterns" of the armor! I am sure that the "three" or "four" looked the same after the arrival of 6 "!
    Remember Zhukov's "Memories and Reflections"? Are they reporting that there are no armor-piercing shells for Kv 2?
    - Shoot the concrete breakers!
    And the towers were demolished by the Panzers ...

    Remember ...
    When Hitler asked Guderian about Dora if it was possible to shoot at tanks from Dora (which is a 31,5-inch gun), Guderian replied, yes, you can ... but you can't hit. This is because the KV-2
    "demolished the towers
    "A KV-2 with a high-explosive projectile could destroy a standing tank, type 3 or 4, with a hit even nearby, unlike a concrete-piercing one, and it is much more difficult to get into a moving tank. And Potapov knew about the capabilities of the" big "KVs even without Zhukov, so in the book. Potapov had in mind that there were no shells at all, and Zhukov "got smarter."
    1. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
      Paragraph Epitafievich Y. April 3 2021 18: 25
      +2
      Quote: Konnick
      Guderian replied, yes, you can ... but you can't hit

      It is not necessary to hit. The land mine weighed 5 tons.
      1. Konnick
        Konnick April 3 2021 19: 54
        +1
        It is not necessary to hit. The land mine weighed 5 tons.


        You tell Guderian that ... Ie. The corporal turned out to be smarter than the general
        1. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
          Paragraph Epitafievich Y. April 3 2021 20: 02
          +2
          Quote: Konnick
          You tell Guderian that ... Ie. The corporal turned out to be smarter than the general

          The corporal conveyed Muller's words to the general)
          And this was on the tests of Gustav, not Dora. There is no difference though.
      2. Illanatol
        Illanatol April 8 2021 09: 08
        0
        How long did it take to fire a shot? What rate of fire?
        In short, "nonsense of seve mares."
  • Konnick
    Konnick April 3 2021 08: 08
    +4
    The chase in the fight between the shell and the armor led the designers of Germany to a standstill, and Porsche would have been better off cheating on the corporal and taking care of cars.
    An increase in the caliber of a gun significantly reduces the rate of fire, an increase in armor reduces maneuverability. To take a tank out of battle, it is not necessary to pierce the armor, the main thing is to hit, from a good shock, the crew is concussed, the sights go off, the glass of the instruments burst, and the caterpillars break this sacred cause. During the time when Mouse fired one projectile, the Panther would fire a 75-mm unitary cartridge 10 times. But the Panther also suffered from bloated dimensions. Soviet IS-3s differed from the creations of the Germans with the same weight, comparatively smaller dimensions with a greater thickness of armor. But again, the IS-3 was not an anti-tank like the Tiger or Panther, it could destroy a 122 mm cannon much more effectively than defense engineering structures. But the T-34-57 was an anti-tank.
    1. cat Rusich
      cat Rusich April 4 2021 22: 52
      +1
      Quote: Konnick
      Soviet IS-3s differed from the creations of the Germans with the same weight, comparatively smaller dimensions with a greater thickness of armor. But again, the IS-3 was not an anti-tank like the Tiger or Panther, it could destroy a 122 mm cannon much more efficiently than defense engineering structures. But the T-34-57 was an anti-tank.
      IS-3 began to be produced in April 1945, and 1945 machines were delivered in May 125 ...
      7 tanks participated in the parade on September 1945, 52 in Berlin.
      The IS-3s were in battle only in 1956 during the suppression of the Hungarian uprising.
      The IS-2 took part in the Second World War; it also had a 122mm gun caliber. The loading was separate, and in a direct collision with a Panther or Tiger, the rate of fire for the Germans was higher due to the use of unitary shots by the Germans.
      IS-2
      IS-2 in Berlin.
      IS-3
      IS-3 in Budapest.
      soldier
    2. Illanatol
      Illanatol April 8 2021 09: 11
      0
      Unfortunately, neither the T-43 nor the T-44 played the role in the war that they could have played.
      And the T-34, whatever one may say, had significant flaws and outdated structural units.
  • tank64rus
    tank64rus April 3 2021 09: 35
    +2
    Aviation superiority would have quickly resolved the problem by then. Well, heavy artillery systems too.
  • sergo1914
    sergo1914 April 3 2021 10: 05
    +6
    Yes, this is not a tank. Mobile firing point for the fortified area. And so it was written in the TK. Nobody was going to send him to the attack.
  • Viktor Sergeev
    Viktor Sergeev April 3 2021 13: 41
    +1
    This miracle would even have not reached the front, or it would have stopped there.
    1. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine April 3 2021 14: 15
      +4
      The front drove by itself.
      1. Viktor Sergeev
        Viktor Sergeev April 3 2021 15: 49
        +1
        The front then reached, but who said that our strike would have inflicted where this miracle would have stuck?
  • CastroRuiz
    CastroRuiz April 3 2021 14: 54
    -2
    Na WoT Maus valit vsekh. :)
    1. Alf
      Alf April 3 2021 18: 06
      +2
      Quote: CastroRuiz
      Na WoT Maus valit vsekh. :)

      How ... loved by the players in HERE ...
  • Flashpoint
    Flashpoint April 3 2021 16: 23
    +2
    So what about the convenience, where? Toilet, sewerage, shower ... Nothing was written in the article ... I do not believe that such a fool would have no conveniences. There should also be a director of housing and communal services in the crew, or at least a chief engineer for housing and communal services.
  • Proctologist
    Proctologist April 3 2021 22: 56
    +5
    Quote: Stroporez
    When the film ended, the entire adult half of the audience sobbed.


    I remember well those times (when the film came out). Veterans with empty jackets ... Grandfathers who never laughed and told funny stories about the War - well, how they caught lice or played a trick on someone, for example. If someone wrote "we can repeat!", I think they would have snapped it in the face right away.
    1. t. Sugrobov
      t. Sugrobov April 4 2021 08: 12
      -3
      So "We can repeat" was written on the walls of the Reichstag, apparently in your face they were cut off right away?
      1. Proctologist
        Proctologist April 5 2021 13: 51
        0
        An example of a phrase taken out of context. In the original (photo here) there was more sorrow and memory. But now only the ending is glued to the cars, which looks inappropriately dashing in relation to the -20M lives of only ours.

        PS. By the way, I didn't minus.
    2. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA April 5 2021 10: 06
      0
      Quote: Proctologist
      If someone wrote "we can repeat!", I think they would have snapped it in the face right away.

  • Proctologist
    Proctologist April 3 2021 22: 58
    +2
    Quote: Konnick
    It is not necessary to break through the armor to take the tank out of the battle,

    The best way to take a tank out of combat is to prevent it from getting there at all. As happened with the mouses and thousands of other tanks in trains derailed by partisans or never made at all at the factories bombed by aircraft.
    1. Flashpoint
      Flashpoint April 4 2021 01: 24
      +1
      Quote: Proctologist
      Quote: Konnick
      It is not necessary to break through the armor to take the tank out of the battle,

      The best way to take a tank out of combat is to prevent it from getting there at all. As happened with the mouses and thousands of other tanks in trains derailed by partisans or never made at all at the factories bombed by aircraft.

      Gold words! My regards. hi
      I personally knew real partisans from Belarus. My family was friends with the family of Sergei Vasilyevich Markevich, I was still a little kid in those years. These people were laconic about the war ... They had to go through a lot. And survived. And their contribution to the common cause is enormous.
  • SNA
    SNA April 3 2021 23: 03
    0
    Quote: Stroporez
    And my Daddy, mechvod

    My uncle is a mechanic at the Il-2 ... In winter, the AM-35 will be serviced ...
  • Zaurbek
    Zaurbek April 4 2021 08: 28
    +1
    And, if you look, Tigry was destroyed, mainly ... by aviation and artillery. The Lot of the Mouse - trips along the line of fortifications (along the prepared roads) and strengthening the necessary directions.
  • BAI
    BAI April 4 2021 16: 50
    +2
    armoring in places will reach an impressive figure of 220 millimeters - the Germans clearly claimed to create a machine invulnerable to artillery fire.

    Ferdinand's frontal armor was not penetrated by artillery. He was already invulnerable.
    1. Illanatol
      Illanatol April 8 2021 09: 15
      0
      And in the lateral projection, what was more than the entire surface area of ​​a medium tank?
      Where are these "invulnerable Ferdinands" - are they still holding the defense somewhere in Pomerania?
  • Dmt
    Dmt April 5 2021 15: 41
    +1
    The author forgot to mention the load on the design bureaus, which put no less effort into the victory than production forces. And they were working on an essentially unpromising project to the very Nazi ears.
  • Aleksandr97
    Aleksandr97 April 5 2021 17: 04
    +1
    The main achievement of Mouse is that 10-15 tigers did not go to the front!
    A hypothetical antidote: even in 1943 - PTAB-2,5-1,5 (Air Force UV index - 7-T-118) ensured breaking through the roof of the hull and turret.
  • ecolog
    ecolog 10 May 2021 00: 05
    0
    except with a saw, the development of Mouse is hard to explain. If for the Tiger, before the attack, it was recommended to scout the terrain for passability, then what to say about Mouse? How to transport it by rail? And over the bridges? And what about evacuation from the battlefield in case of breakdown or damage? The main armament is clearly redundant. The T-34 does not care whether it hits an 8,8 or a mousegun.
    It is clear that head-on with such a monster is fatal, but such a panzer would be terribly tactically not flexible. Not suitable for rapid breakthroughs and reach. For plugging holes in the defense, like a fire brigade is the same. And here and there you need to be in time, but try, bring such a fool (and even more than one). Even if they had riveted at least a little, the majority would have been abandoned due to the inability to drag them to the rear in the event of a breakdown, damage to the chassis, or lack of fuel.
    In general, I do not quite understand this mania for thick armor with a total lack of alloying additives, leading to high fragility of armor.
    More light-medium tanks and self-propelled guns, more barrels, not one-of-a-kind Über vehicles.
  • Wisley
    Wisley 7 June 2021 22: 11
    -2
    Hmm, the Germans did useless shit
  • place
    place 9 June 2021 14: 57
    0
    Guderian was the smartest man! In his memoirs, he wrote that the war with the USSR took place in two phases; the first is the infliction of a powerful blow due to the accumulated power of the countries of continental Europe. But after December 1941, the second phase began - the war, in which cheap natural resources became the main advantage.
    And the ability to produce a mass of cheap military equipment, at least one, but a reliable and simple model.


    This is what Germany could not do! Because during the war in the bourgeois countries, equipment is incredibly expensive. One "Tiger" was worth a million Reichsmarks ($ 250) The bourgeoisie rob their country no worse than foreign countries. Wars for this and begin!

    But Germany did not foresee in advance that it would take years to import raw materials from South America by sea .... it was no coincidence that the calculation was for a lightning war. Hitler saw only one way out of this impasse; CREATING SUPER WEAPONS. nuclear, missile, tank, jet, etc., etc. ...
    As a result, the Tigers produced 1400 units in 1942-1945, and the USSR KV tanks and IS tanks - more than 6000.
  • Fatal error: Uncaught Error: Call to a member function delete () on null in /var/www/topwar/html/topwar.ru/vendor/ressio/pharse/pharse_node_html.php:1135 Stack trace: # 0 / var / www /topwar/html/topwar.ru/vendor/ressio/pharse/pharse_node_html.php(529): HTML_Node-> deleteChild (false) # 1 /var/www/topwar/html/topwar.ru/vendor/ressio/pharse/ pharse_node_html.php (269): HTML_Node-> delete () # 2 /var/www/topwar/html/topwar.ru/vendor/ressio/pharse/pharse_node_html.php(559): HTML_Node -> __ destruct () # 3 / var / www / topwar / html / topwar.ru / vendor / ressio / pharse / pharse_node_html.php (531): HTML_Node-> clear () # 4 /var/www/topwar/html/topwar.ru/vendor/ressio/ pharse / pharse_node_html.php (269): HTML_Node-> delete () # 5 [internal function]: HTML_Node -> __ destruct () # 6 {main} thrown in /var/www/topwar/html/topwar.ru/vendor/ ressio / pharse / pharse_node_html.php on line 1135