Military Review

And again to the question of the Soviet "thirty-four" mod. 1943 and German T-IVH

230

Article "And again about the" four "and" thirty-four " I very briefly examined the evolution of the most massive Soviet and German tanks during the Second World War in its early years. Of course, in 1941, in the "dispute" between T-34 and T-IV, it is difficult to determine an unambiguous leader - both tanks had their own pronounced advantages, but also serious disadvantages. Situational awareness and reliability became the hallmark of the German tank, but its defense and gun were downright weak. The "thirty-four" - exactly the opposite.


And we can see that 1941-1942 the direction of modernization of these two tanks was fundamentally different. The USSR took the path of simplifying the design, improving manufacturability, on the one hand, and increasing the resource of mechanisms to the passport values, on the other. In other words, the stake was made on improving reliability and meeting the requirements of mass production in factories that did not know how it was to produce medium tanks before. At the same time, German designers and technologists were solving completely different tasks: they worked to improve the combat qualities of the T-IV. The armor was strengthened constantly, literally in every modification of the "four", and from March 1942 the tank also received a powerful long-barreled 75-mm gun KwK.40 L / 43. Thus, the protection and firepower of the brainchild of the "gloomy Teutonic genius" number IV has grown dramatically.

Why did it happen?


The answer is obvious.

Both the German and the Soviet tank were very outstanding designs of their time, but they were at different stages of their life cycle. Very broadly, the main milestones in the existence of such a technique can be described as follows.

First, the design of the machine is carried out, the creation of prototypes and their testing. Then serial production and operation begins, during which various childhood diseases of technology are identified and eliminated. Absolutely everyone goes through this stage, it is enough to recall the frankly low operational characteristics of the first German tanks (apotheosis - the Anschluss of Austria) and the problems of technical reliability of the first serial "Tigers" and "Panthers".

Then comes the long-awaited period of prosperity, when at the disposal of manufacturers and the military there is a product that has been worked out in mass production and is reliable in operation. Moreover, if the design is good, then it has significant modernization potential. Of course, over time, the technique becomes obsolete. And it was then that the performance characteristics of the tank were brought to the current requirements. But sooner or later a moment comes when the design acquires a limiting character, and in the future it becomes impossible to improve any characteristic (without unacceptable deterioration of other qualities). Then we can already talk about the exhaustion of the modernization potential. And when the performance characteristics of equipment, brought to their maximum level, cease to meet the requirements of the time, the design becomes completely obsolete.

So in 1941 the Germans had a serious advantage - their "four" was developed earlier, produced in series since 1937, and its "childhood diseases" had long been eradicated. That is, the German designers had an excellent combat vehicle, reliable in operation, mastered by production and had great potential. Since in 1940-1941, the performance characteristics of the T-IV did not openly meet the challenges of the time, the Germans used this potential for its intended purpose, improving armor and weapons. Thus, in the T-IV ausf. F2 and G the Germans, having significantly increased the mass of the tank, dramatically improved its performance characteristics and received a wonderful combat vehicle. She had only one problem - the design acquired a limiting nature, so that in the future it was no longer possible to seriously improve this tank. The Quartet's modernization potential has been exhausted.

And again to the question of the Soviet "thirty-four" mod. 1943 and German T-IVH
Hitler and T-IVF2

But the T-34 in the same 1941 was at the stage of eradicating "childhood diseases". It still had to become that reliable machine, mastered in production and operation, which was already the T-IV. And, for obvious reasons, the development of the T-34 was considerably delayed: it had to be done in conditions of a military deficit, the evacuation of industry and the deployment of production of the "thirty-four" at new factories.

As a result, we got a truly reliable and technologically advanced tank only by March 1943, when new high-quality air purifiers, a five-speed gearbox, clutch improvements, etc. began to be installed on the T-34. But here I would like to note a couple of nuances.

Without a doubt, the reliability of the T-34 units in many cases could not be equal to that provided by the German tank builders for the Quartet. So, for example, the resource of the domestic B2 diesel engine in 1943 reached 250 hours, but German engines sometimes could show four times more. However, it is not the comparison of absolute figures that is important here, but the compliance of the resource with the tasks facing the tank. The fact is that already in 1942, "thirty-fours", with all their shortcomings, were quite suitable for conducting deep tank operations. This was proved during the Battle of Stalingrad, when our tank units could first move on their own to their original positions, overcoming more than a hundred kilometers, then fight in defensive battles, and then go on the offensive, overcoming 150-200 km.

Yes, the T-34 in 1942 still did not have a turret for three crew members. Yes, the observation devices left much to be desired. Yes, mechanic drivers still had to fight not only with the Nazis, but also with the control levers, which in certain circumstances required an effort of up to 32 kg. And yes, the resource of the same engine often did not reach the prescribed 1942 hours in 150. But all the same, the technical condition of the tank already allowed its use for its main purpose - mobile tank warfare, including operations to encircle large enemy military groupings.

Nevertheless, of course, the T-34 model 1942 - early 1943 does not look very good against the background of the German T-IV ausf. F2, equipped with a long-barreled 75-mm artillery system.

Came 1943


From April 1943, the Wehrmacht began to receive probably the most advanced modification of the T-IV, namely the Ausf. H. The first tanks of this series differed from the previous Ausf. G for the most part only with reinforced turret roof armor However, since the summer of that year, the vertically positioned frontal parts of the Ausf. H steel was produced from 80 mm solid-rolled armor. As mentioned earlier, in the previous modification, these parts had a thickness of 50 mm and additional 30 mm armor plates were welded or bolted on top of them. And, since monolithic armor is still more projectile resistant than two sheets of the same total thickness, the German tankers received better protection with the same mass of the part.

The last statement, however, can be argued. However, the calculation using the de Marra formula shows that the projectile requires less energy to break through a solid cemented slab of 80 mm than to break two cemented slabs of 50 and 30 mm, even taking into account the loss of the ballistic tip on the 1st slab. Of course, de Marr's formula is not intended to assess the durability of armor of such small thicknesses (it works more or less correctly at thicknesses over 75 mm), and this could give its own error. But another thing should be taken into account - a shell hit in the frontal part, with a welded (or bolted) 30 mm armor plate could, without even breaking through the armor, knock such a plate out of its place, and make the tank's forehead more vulnerable to subsequent shells.

So, the T-IV defense reached its peak - in the Ausf. The thickness of the armor plates was increased to their maximum values, and did not increase in the future. At the same time, in 1943, the quality of German armor had not yet dropped, so we can say that it was Ausf. N has become the most protected "four". And also Ausf. N became its most massive version - in total from April 1943 to May 1944, according to M. Baryatinsky, at least 3 tanks were produced, not counting self-propelled and assault guns on its chassis.


But, on the other hand, it is Ausf. H became a "turning point" in which the quality of the German T-IV medium tank, having reached its peak, began to decline.

The fact is that in the summer of 1943, along with the last strengthening of the armor, the tank also received anti-cumulative screens of 5 mm sheets. The value of such protection, frankly, was very, very ambiguous.

Yes, the Red Army's "armor-piercing" shells appeared in some noticeable quantity in 1942. But their quality, in general, left much to be desired. They were mainly equipped with guns with a relatively low initial velocity of the projectile - 76-mm "regiments" mod. 1927 and 1943, and since 1943 - and 122-mm howitzers of the 1938 model. In addition, our infantry received RPG-1943 cumulative grenades by mid-43, and RPG-6 in October of the same year.

The cumulative shells, of course, significantly increased the anti-tank capabilities of the regimental "three-inch" tanks, but still, by that time, the Soviet troops were saturated with 45-mm anti-tank equipment and 76-mm ZiS-3, which coped very well with the 30 mm T-IV side armor.

It is likely that the “shields” of the fours defended the 5 mm HEAT ammunition well, but at the cost of situational awareness of the tank crew. "Quartet" of the previous modification Ausf. G had 12 sighting slots for observing the battlefield. Five of them were located in the commander's cupola, providing the tank commander with all-round visibility. The loader had four more such slots. The gunner did not have any means of sight, except, in fact, the sight of the gun, but the driver had two sighting slits (forward and to the right), and the radio operator had one. Oddly enough, but German tanks neglected periscope observation devices - only the driver had such (however, rotary, KFF.2).

As you know, Ausf. The number of viewing slots was halved - from 12 to 6. Five slots in the commander's cupola and one in the mechanized drive remained. The rest of the sighting slots simply lost their meaning - the view from them was blocked by anti-cumulative screens.

Further it gets worse.

The front demanded new and new tanks - as many as possible. And the Germans were forced to go for a fair simplification of the design of the T-IV Ausf. N. As a result, the tank lost its only periscopic observation device - the driver-mechanic of the Quartet was left with only one sighting slot, while some of the tanks also lost the electric motor that rotates the turret. Now it had to be rotated manually ... The exact amount of Ausf. The author does not know about these "innovations", but we can safely assume that tanks with such a complete set rolled off the assembly line towards the end of the production of this modification.

But what about the Soviet tank forces in general and the T-34 in particular?


The gradual increase in the reliability of the T-34, as the factories master it, was already mentioned earlier. Since January 1943, our T-1943s received high-quality Cyclone air cleaners, thanks to which the tank's engine resource sometimes exceeded the passport value. Since June 34, all factories producing T-XNUMXs have mastered a new gearbox, after which tank control has ceased to be the lot of "miracle heroes".


The situation with observation devices has also improved significantly, which was described by me in the article “On the evolution of observation and fire control devices T-34". Unfortunately, the installation of the commander's cupola did little. Firstly, using it remained inconvenient for the tank commander in battle, if only because of the need to move in a cramped turret. Secondly, the viewing slots were poorly located, so that they could only be used with the hatch open. Thirdly, the commander's cupola itself was poorly protected and easily penetrated even with small-caliber shells.

But the appearance of very successful periscopic observation devices MK-4 and the provision of the loader with its own periscopic device, of course, significantly increased the situational awareness of the T-34. Yes, of course, the Germans had a tank commander who was not involved in maintaining the gun, who could constantly observe the battlefield, which was a great advantage. But at his disposal were only 5 observation slots of the commander's tower, into which, with all his desire, he could not look at the same time.

In the T-34, two people could observe the situation at once. But, of course, only when the tank was not firing. Thus, it turned out that while moving across the battlefield, the advantage in visibility could even remain behind the Soviet tank (usually the fire was fired from short stops).

Of course, not all "thirty-fours" received MK-4, many had to be content with domestic devices, which had a relatively narrow field of view (26 degrees). But let's not forget that the same PT-K, in fact, was a "tracing paper" from a tank sight and had an increase of up to 2,5x, which, obviously, was a great advantage over the usual viewing slot.

Accordingly, we can say that ...

In terms of technical reliability


T-34 mod. 1943 was inferior to the T-IVH, but its resource was quite enough for participation in offensive operations and deep coverage of enemy military groupings. In other words, the reliability of the T-34 made it possible to solve the tasks facing the tank.

Ergonomic


T-34 mod. 1943 was inferior to the T-IVH, but the gap was significantly reduced. While for the T-34 they made a more convenient turret and tank control, the Germans somewhat deteriorated ergonomics - the placement of a powerful 75-mm gun could not but affect the armor volume of the German tank's turret. In general, the ergonomics of the T-34 were quite capable of solving the tasks facing the tank.

In terms of situational awareness


As mentioned above, it deteriorated significantly in the German tank. And it has greatly improved in the Soviet. In my opinion, the T-34 arr. 1943 and T-IVH, if not equivalent, are very close, even taking into account the additional crew member of the Quartet.

In terms of mobility


The specific power of the T-IVH was 11,7 liters. with. per ton, and the T-34 mod. 1943 - 16,2 liters. s / t, that is, by this indicator, he was more than 38% superior to his German "opponent". Yes, our tank diesel engines did not always give passport values, but all the same, the advantage remained with the Soviet car. The specific ground pressure for the T-IVH was 0,89 kg / cm 34, for the T-0,79 - 34 kg / cm 1943. The power reserve of the T-300 mod. 210 is also ahead - XNUMX km versus XNUMX km.

We diagnose the tangible advantage of the Soviet tank. Moreover - both on the battlefield and on the march.

In terms of body armor


The T-IVH had two notable advantages over the T-34 mod. 1943 - its frontal projection and commander's cupola had better protection. As for the rest (sides, stern, roof, bottom), the German tank was less protected.

What did this lead to?

Против aviation - of course, both the T-IVH and the T-34 were hit by bombs in the same way, but the 34 mm armor of the T-15 hull protected from air cannons a little better than the 10 mm T-IVH.

Against the impact of large-caliber artillery and mortars - of course, a direct hit of a 122-152 mm projectile could not withstand either one or the other tank, but due to the weaker bottom, sides, and roof, the T-IVH was more vulnerable to fragments from close explosions and mortar mines. Thus, the vertical side armor of the T-34 hull was 45 mm, while the T-IVH had only 30 mm. At the same time, the T-34 was equipped with much larger rollers, which gave the sides additional protection.

Anti-tank mines - the advantage of the T-34. Its bottom, starting from the bow, is located at an inclination of approximately 45 degrees. to the ground of the unit, 45 mm were defended, then 16 and 13 mm. For T-IVH, the protection of the inclined part is 30 mm, then - 10 mm.

Anti-infantry anti-tank weapons. Considering as such grenades, Molotov cocktails and anti-tank guns, the T-34 has an advantage. The Wehrmacht received effective infantry armament against the T-34 only with the advent of "faustpatrons".

Against anti-tank artillery (PTA). It is quite difficult to give an assessment here. Formally, one could limit ourselves to stating the obvious - that the T-34 is better protected from the sides, and the T-IVH - in the frontal projection. But everything is actually much more complicated.

To begin with, I will note that the basics of tactics for using the PTA is the organization of its disguised positions. Moreover, these positions are selected with the calculation of the possibility of crossfire. In other words, in a properly organized defense, the PTA will shoot at the sides of tanks. PTA can also shoot in the forehead, but only at distances that ensure reliable destruction of armored vehicles, taking into account its protection and the caliber of the PTA.


So, from the point of view of confronting anti-tank vehicles with a caliber of 50 mm and below, the T-IVH definitely loses to the T-34. Yes, the frontal projection of the T-34 is less protected than the T-IVH. But it still gave a very good defense against such fire - it could have been pierced only at point-blank range. Well, the sides of the T-34 were pierced by such an anti-tank vehicle "every third time", despite the fact that the 30 mm of vertical armor of the T-IVH remained quite permeable for it.

As for a specialized anti-tank vehicle with a caliber of 57-75 mm, the armor of the T-34 and T-IVH protected very weakly from its shells. The same 75-mm German anti-tank vehicle pierced the forehead of the T-34 turret from 1200 m, and the forehead of the hull from 500 m.But the problem is that it would have pierced the T-IVH armor from similar distances.

Thus, an experimental shelling of a captured Tiger showed that its 82 mm side armor was pierced by one of two 57 mm shells fired at it from a distance of 1000 m. I do not know if this armor was cemented, but even if not, then throughout it turns out that from 500 m the frontal parts of the T-IVH could be hit. But from heavier guns used as anti-tank, such as the Soviet 85-mm anti-aircraft gun or the famous German 88-mm "akht-koma-aht", neither the side or frontal armor of the T-34 and T-IVH protected.

Thus, we sort of could diagnose the complete superiority of the T-34's defense from the point of view of countering anti-tank vehicles, but ...

Let's take a look at the real state of affairs with the PTA on the Soviet-German front in 1943.

The Germans, according to some sources, by November 1942, up to 30% of all anti-tank artillery were long-barreled 75-mm Pak 40 and 88-mm anti-aircraft guns. The main share of the other 70% were 75-mm French captured Pak 97/38 guns and 50-mm long-barreled Pak 38. In addition, by 1943, the Germans managed to organize large-scale deliveries of anti-tank self-propelled guns to the troops - in 1942, 1145 such armored units were sent to the troops ", Armed with either Pak 40 or captured F-22. And in 1943 their release continued.


At the same time, the USSR PTA at the beginning of 1943 was still based on the 45-mm gun mod. 1937 of the year (the more modern and powerful 45-mm artillery system M-42 went into production only in 1943) and the 76-mm ZiS-3, which was still a universal, not a specialized anti-tank gun. As for the Soviet self-propelled guns, they either installed the same 76-mm gun, or a 122-mm short-barreled howitzer with a 22,7 caliber barrel length. It was assumed that the SU-122 would become a fairly powerful anti-tank weapon, especially after equipping it with cumulative shells. But these hopes were not justified due to the very "mortar" ballistics, because of which the defeat of German tanks was extremely difficult. But the 57-mm ZiS-2, even to the Kursk Bulge, was ripe in extremely small quantities.

The result is this.

Strictly speaking, the armor of the T-34 provided him with better protection against anti-tank vehicles, in comparison with the T-IVH. But taking into account the fact that by the beginning of 1943 the Germans managed to saturate their battle formations with very powerful anti-tank artillery (the weakest 50-mm German gun, which was removed from production in 1943, was comparable to the best specialized 45-mm M-42 , which was just put into production in 1943), then the survivability on the battlefield of the T-34 could hardly surpass the T-IVH. The best protection of the T-34's sides still mattered, because the numerous 50-mm Pak 38s and captured "French" Pak 38s could not cope with it, but captured Soviet F-22s and more powerful 75-mm Pak 40s confidently overcame it.

At the same time, the sides of the T-IVH were vulnerable to everything, including even the 45-mm gun mod. 1937, so that even in 1943, in this parameter, the advantage should be given to the "thirty-four". But the powerful "forehead" of the German tank presented a known problem - here only the ZiS-3 could fight it, which could penetrate 80 mm armor-piercing projectiles at a distance of no more than 500 m.

The Germans believed that the T-34's frontal armor was successfully hit by a 75-mm Pak 40 caliber projectile at a distance of no more than 500 m.

On the basis of the above, the following conclusions can be drawn.

Protection against anti-tank guns of the T-34 was superior to that of the T-IVH, but the Germans managed to achieve approximately equivalent survivability of these vehicles on the battlefield due to the massive transition to powerful specialized 75-mm anti-tank guns and the widespread use of 88-mm anti-aircraft guns for anti-tank purposes.

But still, here the advantage of the Soviet tank should be recognized. The fact that the Germans had to hastily switch to new models of anti-tank guns, and the very serious problems they encountered in doing so, led, of course, to a certain reduction in the production of anti-tank vehicles in relation to what the Germans could get if they produced old-style guns. that is, calibers 37-50 mm.

In addition, for all the advantages that the very powerful 75-mm Pak 40 gun gave, it was still much less mobile (it required a specialized mechtyag, while the same ZiS-3 was transported even by the lightest cars), it was extremely difficult to move manually across the battlefield, when firing, the bipod was very much buried in the ground, so not only rolling, but even deploying the gun was often impossible, etc.

That is, yes, the Germans managed to solve the problem of booking the T-34, but the price for this was very, very high - in fact, they had to update their anti-tank vehicles with new-generation guns. But the USSR for the confrontation of the T-IVH would have been quite enough artillery systems at its disposal.

Thus, in comparison with the resistance to the effects of PTA, the palm should still be given to the Soviet tank.

In terms of gun power


Of course, the winner here is T-IVH. Its 75-mm long-barreled gun was significantly more powerful than the Soviet F-34 cannon. However, it should be borne in mind that this superiority was only important in the fight against tanks and self-propelled guns, but when all other types of targets (such as infantry, unarmored vehicles, artillery, etc.) were defeated, the German gun did not have an advantage over the Soviet one.

In terms of tank duels


Here the advantage also belongs to the German T-IVH. However, it is not as large as it might seem at first glance.

The long-barreled cannon of the "Quartet" hit the T-34 hull at 500 m, the turret up to 1200 m. At the same time, the F-34 of our T-1000 could penetrate the T-IVH turret at a distance of 80 m, but the hull in the 500 mm part - only sub-caliber and closer than 1941 m. Both tanks quite confidently punched each other into the sides. The quality of Soviet sights, which "sagged" in 1942 and 1943, by 34, to a certain extent, "pulled up", although, probably, it did not yet reach the level of Germany. And, of course, the need for the T-XNUMX commander to also perform the functions of a gunner did not contribute to success in a tank duel.

On the whole, perhaps, we can say that the T-IVH had an advantage at long-range combat, which significantly decreased as the tanks approached. Given the fact that German tanks armed with 75-mm guns hit the bulk of their targets (69,6% of the total) at a distance of up to 600 m, the difference in the anti-tank capabilities of the T-IVH and T-34 is not as great as this is considered to be. Nevertheless, in this matter, the advantage is still with the German Quartet.

conclusions


Of course, the T-34 was inferior to the T-IVH in reliability and ergonomics, but both of the T-1943s of the 34 model were quite enough to perform the tasks typical of a medium tank. The T-XNUMX had better mobility, maneuverability and mobility on the battlefield, and this advantage of our tank can hardly be overestimated.

The situational awareness of the T-34, if inferior to the T-IVH, is not so significant, although, of course, the presence of a fifth crew member gave the T-IVH considerable advantages. "Thirty-four" surpassed the "four" in terms of confronting anti-tank vehicles, mines, field artillery, aviation, infantry, but inferior to the T-IVH in anti-tank capabilities.

In the aggregate of the above, the T-34 and T-IVH should be considered approximately equivalent combat vehicles.

In addition to this, I can only repeat the thought I have already expressed earlier that both these tanks - and the T-34 mod. 1943, and T-IVH, perfectly matched the moment of their birth. In 1943, our army switched to large-scale offensives in the best traditions of mobile war, when tanks had to break through enemy defenses and go out into the operational space, destroying rear structures, troops on the march and other similar targets. With all this, the T-34 of the 1943 model was able to cope better than the T-IVH. At the same time, for the Germans on the agenda was the need to somehow resist the Soviet tank wedges, and here the T-IVH coped with this task better than the "thirty-four".

In other words, although the T-IVH and T-34 were very different and each of them had certain advantages over the "opponent", 1943 can be safely considered a kind of "equilibrium point" when the potentials of these combat vehicles were practically equalized.

However, in the future, the quality of German equipment began to decline, already in the T-IVH of later releases, the Germans were forced to save at the expense of combat effectiveness.

The Soviet troops received the famous T-34-85, in which the potential of the T-34 design was fully revealed.
Author:
230 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Vladimir_2U
    Vladimir_2U April 9 2021 05: 01
    .
    Maybe for moreman the article is fresh and interesting, but for someone who knows and is interested in BTT, there are no revelations, purely a reminder.
    1. Nikolaevich I
      Nikolaevich I April 9 2021 05: 50
      +35
      Quote: Vladimir_2U
      Maybe for moreman the article is fresh and interesting, but for someone who knows and is interested in BTT, there are no revelations, purely a reminder.

      I disagree! What other article can be recalled where a comparison of the performance characteristics of the T-34 and the "T-4" would be carried out in detail? Yes ... on the Internet you can find a lot of information about the performance characteristics of tanks: ... separately T-34, separately "T-4" ... a comparison of individual (!) Characteristics of both tanks can be given ... But this article is very a comparison of a significant (!) part of the characteristics of Soviet and German cars is clearly shown, although not 100%! But the Author did not set the task of 100% detailed description of the tanks! He meant a narrower specialization ... a comparison of the resistance and vulnerability of the T-34 and T-4 versus anti-tank weapons and anti-tank defense methods!
      1. Vladimir_2U
        Vladimir_2U April 9 2021 06: 02
        -5
        Quote: Nikolaevich I
        I disagree! What else can you recall an article where a comparison of the performance characteristics of the T-34 and "T-4" would be carried out in detail?
        Please do not agree so disagree. And as for the topic, it is enough to fill in the search engine "t-34 versus t-4" without any frills.

        https://zen.yandex.ru/media/notesabouttanks/t34-vs-pz-iv-sravnitelnyi-analiz-uchastnikov-kurskoi-bitvy-5f1203b1cdd0fb2cab950fba
        https://topwar.ru/153666-t-34-v-sravnenii-s-nemeckim-tankom-pzkpfwiv.html
        Etc., this is without books and forum hacks.
        I don’t praise, but I don’t scold the article either.
      2. Ros 56
        Ros 56 April 9 2021 06: 26
        .
        Let him tell this to the tankers who fought on the T-34, but it's a pity they are almost gone. They would have told him what and how, this tank theoretician Andryusha from Chelyabinsk.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          April 9 2021 06: 59
          +32
          Quote: Ros 56
          They would have told him what and how, this tank theoretician Andryusha from Chelyabinsk.

          And they told. True, not for me. Drabkin :)
          1. Doctor
            Doctor April 9 2021 12: 36
            +3
            And they told. True, not for me. Drabkin :)

            What about combat statistics? After all, the main criterion is battle.
            How many T-34s were produced and lost compared to the T-4?
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              April 9 2021 14: 42
              +12
              Quote: Arzt
              After all, the main criterion is battle.
              How many T-34s were produced and lost compared to the T-4?

              Sorry, but the fight is such a criterion, why, for example, I mentioned the PTO. T-34 fought against pak-40, T-IV - against "forty-five" and 75-mm station wagons. Is direct comparison of losses a criterion?
              1. Doctor
                Doctor April 9 2021 15: 55
                +5
                Sorry, but the fight is such a criterion, why, for example, I mentioned the PTO. T-34 fought against pak-40, T-IV - against "forty-five" and 75-mm station wagons. Is direct comparison of losses a criterion?

                In a large statistical sample, yes, a criterion.
                And not only the battle itself, but also near-combat exploitation, we compare all the characteristics, don't we?
                For example, they say that Comrade Stalin issued an order in the summer of 1942 with the following phrases:

                “Our tank forces often suffer more losses due to mechanical failures than in combat. For example, on the Stalingrad front in six days, twelve of our tank brigades lost 326 out of 400 tanks. Of these, about 260 were lost due to mechanical failures. Many tanks were thrown onto the battlefield. Similar cases can be seen on other fronts. Such a high level of mechanical damage is implausible and, the Supreme Headquarters sees in it hidden sabotage and sabotage by certain elements in the tank crews who try to use small mechanical problems to avoid the battle. From now on, every tank left on the battlefield due to alleged mechanical breakdowns, and if the crew is suspected of sabotage, its members must be "demoted to the infantry ...".

                Is this a criterion?
              2. Jura 27
                Jura 27 April 9 2021 16: 25
                0
                [/ quote] Is direct comparison of losses a criterion? [quote]

                The most important, if cho.
            2. Jura 27
              Jura 27 April 9 2021 16: 19
              +1
              [/ quote] And what about the statistics of military operations? After all, the main criterion is battle.
              How many T-34s were produced and lost compared to the T-4?
              [Quote]

              Let the Pz.IV produced 3700 pieces. (for all fronts and let's say all are lost), and the loss of the T-34, in 43 years alone, amounted to 14000 units. Well, tanks are just equal in quality, whatever one may say.
              In general, the whole article is a set of pearls for casting in cast iron. I will give just a few:
              - 10mm roof armor for the H-four,
              - French cannon Cancer 38,
              - nasal sheet T-34, inclined to about 45 degrees.,
              - "the famous T-34-85, in which the potential of the T-34 design was fully revealed." At 44 years old - this is a tank without armor - an awesome disclosure of potential, there is nowhere else to go.
              - if "the Germans have managed to solve the problem of booking the T-34", then how is the "palm given to the T-34"? Magic?
              - "there are only 5 observation slots in the commander's tower, into which, with all his might, he could not look at the same time." Multiple see slots are not intended to be viewed simultaneously.
              - "to break two cemented slabs of 80 and 30 mm, even taking into account the loss of the ballistic tip on the 1st slab." Which side is the ballistic tip? But the Soviet shells did not have an armor-piercing tip, and from the word at all.
              - "The specific power of the T-IVH was 11,7 liters. From. Per ton, and the T-34 model of 1943 - 16,2 liters. From. / T, that is, according to this indicator, it is more than 38% outnumbered his German opponent. " There is also such a thing as transmission in vtanke, so you need to compare the complex - motor + trance, and then draw conclusions.
              - "Since June 1943, all factories producing T-34s have mastered a new gearbox" even in 44, plant No. 183 was driving old gearboxes for T-34-85 due to the lack of gear-cutting machines.
              1. hohol95
                hohol95 April 10 2021 16: 56
                +1
                "the famous T-34-85, in which the potential of the T-34 design was fully revealed." At 44 years old - this is a tank without armor - an awesome disclosure of potential, there is nowhere else to go.

                The T-34 base pulled all the required improvements: a new 5-seat turret with increased armor; a new 85 mm gun with a longer barrel and larger shells; an increase in the armor of the frontal part of the hull to 75, the driver's hatch cover to 100, the armor of the course machine gun to 90 mm?
                I pulled, but the suspension elements were lightened to the limit. And the T-34-85M was created. But the shelling of the new corps, with German anti-tank guns and tank guns, showed that in 1944 there was no longer any point in strengthening the frontal plate of the corps. Even 75 mm did not give a guarantee against penetration.
                And all efforts were devoted to strengthening the armor of the turret and improving the operation of the gun.
              2. Torins
                Torins April 17 2021 21: 25
                0
                Let the Pz.IV produced 3700 pieces.
                What? belay
          2. Proxima
            Proxima April 9 2021 12: 46
            +3
            "Thus, in the T-IV ausf. F2 and G modifications, the Germans significantly building up the mass tank, sharply improved his performance characteristics and got a wonderful combat vehicle. " - very controversial statement of the author. How simple it is for YOU Andrey, we added more armor, the gun is more powerful and woo-a-la good , it turned out a tank with outstanding performance characteristics. This is the path taken by the designers of the "medium tank" Panther. At the same time, the mass of this "middle peasant" became, fellow like the IS-2. So much for a medium tank ... recourse
            1. Akuzenka
              Akuzenka April 9 2021 14: 38
              +2
              The statement is controversial, I agree. But the armor protection has increased, albeit the mobility has decreased. But the "quartet" has also exhausted the modernization potential. In general, a dry comparison of performance characteristics does not give a complete picture. About anti-PTA protection and mobility, the author wrote well. But people are fighting! Maybe, the respected author, will continue the topic and touch on the methods of training the crews of the USSR and Germany, their quality, etc. I will be grateful. Such research did not come across.
              1. Baron pardus
                Baron pardus April 9 2021 16: 53
                +1
                The modernization stock of PzIV has NOT been exhausted. There were plans for a new turret with a longer 60-caliber EMNIP cannon. There were plans for a hull with an inclined VLD and NLD, there were plans for a new transmission. There was a lot of it. We were DIKO lucky that Hitler did not obey Guderian, who insisted on these modifications, instead of any Tigers, Kote and other monsters.
                1. Akuzenka
                  Akuzenka April 11 2021 19: 34
                  +1
                  Then it would have been a different tank, and not the "good old four". The concept is different.
          3. Ros 56
            Ros 56 April 9 2021 17: 45
            0
            Well, I talked with my friend's father, he went through the whole war on the T-34, burned several times, and his mother received two funerals for him. I saw and read them with my own eyes. So do not slip Drabkin on me. By the way, I read Drabkin, but the book was titled "Time, People, Airplanes", if my memory serves me right. A very informative reading about how our planes were created just before the war.
      3. vladcub
        vladcub April 9 2021 13: 59
        +2
        Nikolaevich, good day I agree: the author did not try to compare both tanks 100%.
      4. Pilat2009
        Pilat2009 1 June 2021 20: 33
        0
        Quote: Nikolaevich I
        comparison of performance characteristics of T-34 and "T-4

        The author does not want to lay out the losses of the T-34 and T-4? And also the general losses in tanks?
        1. Pilat2009
          Pilat2009 3 June 2021 12: 18
          0
          Quote: Pilat2009
          The author does not want to lay out the losses of the T-34 and T-4? And also the general losses in tanks?

          Losses during the war amounted to almost 45.000 T-34 tanks! The total losses of the Soviet armored forces in 1941-1945 amounted to 96.600 units of armored vehicles. This is not a typo. Almost a hundred thousand.

          For comparison, Germany lost 1941 tanks in the East in 1944-15.673, and taking into account the remaining units of armored vehicles (StuG, etc.) - 23.802.
    2. Sentinel-vs
      Sentinel-vs April 9 2021 06: 08
      +1
      Again, another comparison of reference numbers. And not all of them ... Not taken into account angles of inclination of armor, maintainability, ammunition, equipment of units, features of the tactical use of units ... and much more.
      1. vladcub
        vladcub April 9 2021 14: 22
        +4
        In terms of maintainability and tilt angles, "34" won.
        In my opinion, the author should have paid attention to the tank engines: how "fastidious" they were in service. In wartime conditions this plays an important role.
        This tactical application is already from "another opera"
        1. Sentinel-vs
          Sentinel-vs April 9 2021 14: 38
          +2
          This tactical application is already from "another opera"

          Nevertheless, it is important and interesting enough. There is not much information about this, in contrast to the endless comparisons of reference data.
          In the early years of the war, the Germans called 34-ki Blind and Deaf, due to the difficulties of review and the lack of radio stations. In addition, the Germans even had a special command vehicle in the unit, without a cannon. But the need for such a machine was fully justified at that time.
          It is interesting to read the memoirs of tankers, but they rarely pay attention to precisely tactical moments, it is difficult to understand how the combat mission was formulated before the commanders, how the company performed the mission, how it interacted with other branches of the armed forces, etc.
          1. vladcub
            vladcub April 9 2021 15: 43
            +2
            In principle, I agree: the issues of interaction between the crews are little voiced. Especially in the 41st year.
            1. Sentinel-vs
              Sentinel-vs April 9 2021 18: 12
              +3
              That's it. The notorious Otto Karius in general in his memoirs often said that the commander of a tank unit constantly had to stick his head out of an open hatch with binoculars, otherwise it was impossible to adequately assess the situation and coordinate the attack of a tank platoon or company.
              1. sh3roman
                sh3roman April 12 2021 18: 59
                +1
                the Germans still used artillery periscopes, the commanders' hatches were always open, unlike our tankers
        2. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
          Paragraph Epitafievich Y. April 9 2021 15: 36
          +1
          Quote: vladcub
          In terms of maintainability ... '"34" won.

          Everything is relative. But, I think, if Krupp's "chess" went into series, this would not cause enthusiasm among tankers))
          1. Avior
            Avior April 9 2021 21: 21
            +1
            Why didn't it?
            The Germans did not find descriptions of the problems in this area. The dirt did not freeze tightly, for example, there is not a word about this from the Germans in their memoirs anywhere.
            1. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
              Paragraph Epitafievich Y. April 9 2021 21: 59
              -1
              Quote: Avior
              Why didn't it?

              The tracks are wider. It means it's harder. Roller 70cm ...)))
              Yes, I’m joking. By the way, for some reason, the traditional whining about the "suck" of the chess suspension always begins when it comes to the tiger. Half-gusli somehow never aroused criticism)
              1. hohol95
                hohol95 April 10 2021 17: 01
                0
                "Half-gusli" are, as it were, not tanks ...
                And if you win the point of view of "a fighter for speed, torsion bars and a chassis with a staggered arrangement of rollers" Herr Heinrich Ernst Kniepkamp, ​​you will not see a tank called Pz.IV for the Wehrmacht.
                He was his most vicious opponent! What would they be fighting with then?
                1. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
                  Paragraph Epitafievich Y. April 10 2021 19: 03
                  0
                  Quote: hohol95
                  Half-gusli "is, as it were, not tanks ...

                  What difference does this make to chess criticism? Or did the khanomages not ride through the mud?
                  1. hohol95
                    hohol95 2 May 2021 18: 55
                    0
                    The mass of the "Hanomag" cannot be compared with the mass of the "Cat family"!
        3. Pilat2009
          Pilat2009 3 June 2021 12: 27
          0
          Quote: vladcub
          In terms of maintainability and tilt angles, "34" won.

          How realistic are these claims? Was the T-34 the tank that really won the war? How does it compare to German and American tanks?

          Revolutionary design of the T-34

          The T-34 is considered by many to be the first tank to have sloped armor. This means that the tank's protection has been significantly improved compared to conventional armor, at right angles. However, French tanks of the time such as the S-35 and Renault R-35 also had sloped armor.

          Sloped armor also has disadvantages. For example, it seriously reduces the interior space. The limited space not only affects the work of the crew, but also turns the T-34 literally into a steel coffin. An American study of the Korean War (analyzing the T-34/85, which was more spacious than the T-34/76) concluded that, due to the limited internal space, the penetration of the tank's armor, as a rule, led to the destruction of the tank and the loss of the crew with 75% chance. For Sherman, this figure was only 18%.

          German tanks Pz.III and Pz.IV as a whole had the usual hull design, only partially using the slope in the middle part of the frontal armor. The new Panther tank was the first German tank with fully sloped armor in the front and sides, but the interior space was not as limited as in the T-34 when comparing the dimensions of these tanks and their weight.

          The T-34 turret also suffered from a lack of space. American experts who examined the T-34 at the Aberdeen training ground in 1942 noted:

          "Its main weakness is that it is very cramped. The Americans could not understand how our tankers could fit inside in winter, wearing sheepskin coats."

          Fuel tanks in the fighting compartment

          Due to the limited internal space, the fuel tanks were located in the engine compartment and along the sides. The presence of fuel tanks inside the tank made any penetration fatal.

          According to author Stephen Zaloga in T-34-85 vs M26 Pershing: Korea 1950, p. 23:

          "Sloped armor only paints part of the picture of a tank's defense. The internal positioning of the fuel tanks plays a significant role in the vulnerability of a tank. The T-34-85 is a clear example of a trade-off between the advantages and disadvantages of sloped armor. to a decrease in the internal volume of the hull. In the event of a penetration of the T-34, the projectile had a high probability of causing catastrophic damage to the tank by getting into the fuel tanks and ammunition stored in such a small space. "

          Spalling armor

          T-34 armor had a high Brinell rating. This means that it was effective in neutralizing anti-tank shells, but tended to exfoliate. In combination with manufacturing defects in the design of the tank, this meant that the T-34 crew was in danger even when shells hit the tank that did not penetrate the armor.

          The Review of Soviet ordnance metallurgy on pages 3-5 reports:

          "The armor of the T-34 tank, with some exceptions, underwent heat treatment, obtaining a very high hardness (430-500 Brinell), probably this was an attempt to provide maximum protection against armor-piercing shells, even at the expense of breaking the structural integrity of the armor. have surprisingly high strength, given the very high hardness, but many areas of the armor are very fragile. Very high hardness is found in most Soviet tanks and its creation is a consequence of the statement that the high hardness of the armor has a high resistance to penetration. "

          For projectiles whose caliber is equal to or less than the thickness of the armor, an increase in hardness leads to an increase in the speed required to penetrate or to a decrease in the distance. If the caliber of the projectile exceeds the thickness of the armor, then the greater its hardness, the less projectile speed or greater distance is required.
          1. Pilat2009
            Pilat2009 3 June 2021 12: 28
            0
            Quote: Pilat2009
            How realistic are these claims?

            Technical disadvantages

            Christie's pendant

            The Christie suspension used on the T-34 had the advantage that the tank could reach high speeds on the roads. Among the shortcomings, it is worth noting that it took up a lot of internal space, and had poor cross-country ability.

            German tests at Kummersdorf (1 km of hilly track) showed that the T-34 had poor results compared to the Pz. IV, "Tiger", "Sherman" and "Panther".

            According to the "Engineering analysis of the Russian T34 / 85 tank" study, the main problem was the lack of shock absorbers.

            Christie's suspension was a technological dead end, and the Aberdeen Proving Grounds report says, "Christie's suspension was tested many years ago and was rejected outright."

            Transmission

            The originally powerful V-2 engine (500 hp) could not be fully utilized due to the 4-speed gearbox. Shifting gears required excessive effort from the driver. On the T-34, it was possible to use 4th gear only on an asphalt road, thus, the maximum speed on the crossed, theoretically 25 km / h, in practice only reached 15 km / h, because to switch from 2nd to 3rd transmission required superhuman strength.

            On later modifications, there was a 5-speed gearbox, which made it possible to raise the speed over rough terrain to 30 km / h. However, even the tanks built at the end of the war did not guarantee that they would have a new 5-speed gearbox. The tanks transferred to the Polish People's Army in late 1944 and early 1945 and the tanks used by the North Korean army in 1950 had the old 4-speed gearbox.

            Powerful cannon

            The T-34 was armed with a large caliber gun. Initially, he was armed with a 76mm L-11 cannon. It was soon replaced by the F-34 76 mm in 42 caliber, and the T34 / 85 was armed with the 85 mm ZIS S-53 in 54,6 caliber.

            The numbers look impressive. After all, the main German tank of 1941-1943, the Pz.III had a 50mm cannon, and the Pz.IV only received a satisfactory 1943mm gun in 1945-75. However, Soviet tank guns suffered from low speed, which led to impaired penetration and accuracy at long distances.

            For example, the initial speed (in m / s) for Soviet guns was: L-11 - 612 m / s, F-34 - 655 m / s (and when using German Pzgr39 shells - 625 m / s), ZIS S-53 - 792 m / s. The muzzle velocity for German shells: Kvk 38 L / 42 - 685, KwK 39 L / 60 - 835 m / s, KwK 40 L / 43 - 740 m / s, KwK 40 L / 48 - 790 m / s, KwK 42 - 925 m / s.

            Thus, the 75mm KwK 40 used for the Pz.IV and StuG since mid-1942 had much better penetration and accuracy than the F-34, and the Panther KwK 42 gun also outperformed the ZIS S-53 in the same areas.

            Lack of radio
            Initially, only the unit commander had a radio in his tank. Radio was used more widely during the war, but even in 1944, many tanks lacked radios. The lack of communication meant that the Soviet tank units acted with insufficient coordination.
            Visibility issues
            The T-34 version of 1943 was equipped with a new turret of increased dimensions and a new commander's cupola, which had viewing slots around the perimeter and an MK-4 observation device in the flap of the rotating cover.
            However, the quality of Soviet optics, combined with limited visibility, still left much to be desired. A report compiled by a German unit using the 34 version of the T-1943 read:
            "The quality of sights in Russian tanks is significantly inferior to German designs. German crews had to get used to Russian sights for a long time. The ability to accurately hit through such a sight is very limited.
            In Russian tanks, it is difficult to command a tank, let alone a group of them, and at the same time play the role of a gunner, therefore it is hardly possible to effectively control the fire of a group of tanks, as a result of which the group's firepower is reduced. The commander's cupola on the T-34 simplifies tank command and firing; however, the view is limited to five very small and narrow slits.
            Reliability issues
            The T-34 was supposed to be a simple and reliable tank that rarely broke down. Many people like to compare it with the more complex German tanks, which allegedly often broke down. The concept of the T-34 as a reliable tank is another myth of the Second World War.

            Constant complaints from the front led the authorities to investigate problems with the production of the T-34. In September 1942, a meeting was held at the Ural Tank Plant. The meeting was chaired by Major General Kotin, People's Commissar of the USSR Tank Industry and Chief Designer of the Kliment Voroshilov heavy tank. In his speech, he said:

            "... Having considered the problems of an engineering and technological nature, I would like to discuss another issue that has a direct connection with manufacturing shortcomings. These include: negligence and inaccuracy in the production process of tanks in factories, poor quality control. during combat use, our tanks fail, sometimes not reaching the front line, or the crew is forced to leave tanks in enemy territory because of some trifle ... we must make sure that as a result of this meeting all the shortcomings will be identified and corrected as soon as possible timing ...

            The situation was still problematic even in 1943-1944. The T-34 had constant problems with the gearbox and air cleaners. Experts at the Aberdeen Proving Ground noted:

            "On the T-34, the transmission is also very poor. During its operation, the teeth on all gears completely crumbled. Chemical analysis of the teeth of the gears showed that their heat treatment is very poor and does not meet any American standards for such parts of mechanisms. Disadvantages of a diesel engine are criminal. bad air cleaner on the T-34 tank. The Americans believe that only a saboteur could create such a device. "

            The same problems were identified in the T-34/85, built in 1945. "Engineering analysis of the Russian T34 / 85 tank" notes:

            "As a result of completely unsatisfactory performance of engine air purifiers, it can be expected that this will result in early engine failure due to excess dust and abrasion. After a few hundred miles, there will likely be a decrease in engine performance as a result."
            The German unit that used the 34 T-76/1943 noted:
            “Regardless of the fact that our experience is limited, we can confidently say that Russian tanks are not suitable for long march on roads and driving at high speed. It turned out that the highest speed that can be achieved is between 10 and 12 km. / hour. It is also necessary on the march, every half hour at least, to make stops for 15 - 20 minutes, allowing the tank to cool down. Difficulties and breakdowns of the clutch of the slewing mechanism occurred with all captured tanks. In difficult terrain on the march, and during the attack, in which an attacking tank unit must often change direction of movement, within a short time, the side clutches overheat and become covered with oil ... "

            Soviet tests of newly built T-34s showed that in April 1943, only 10,1% of tanks could cover 330 km, in June 1943 this figure dropped to 7,7%. The percentage remained below 50% until October 1943, when it was able to reach 78%, after which it dropped to 57% the following month, and averaged 1943% between December 1944 and February 82.

            A preliminary inspection of tanks manufactured at the Ural Tank Plant No. 183 (a major manufacturer of the T-34) showed that in 1942 only 7% of the tanks had no defects, in 1943 14%, and in 1944 29.4%. In 1943, damaged teeth were the main problem.

            The engine also had serious reliability problems. Depending on the manufacturer, in 1941 the average engine run averaged 100 hours. This figure dropped in 1942, so some T-34s could not travel more than 30-35 km.

            The T-34, which was being tested at the Aberdeen Proving Ground, was built at the best Soviet factory, materials of the highest quality were used, but its engine stopped working after 72.5 hours. This did not happen due to American intervention - a Soviet mechanic (engineer Matveyev), who was responsible for operation, was seconded from Moscow with the tanks. The quality of these tanks was much better than that of conventional tanks as it covered a distance of 343 km. According to Fedorenko, head of the Red Army's armored vehicle department, the average mileage of the T-34 before major repairs during the war did not exceed 200 kilometers. This distance was considered sufficient, since the life time of the T-34 at the front was much shorter. For example, in 1942 it was only 66 km. In this sense, the T-34 was indeed "reliable" because it was destroyed before it had the chance to break.

            T-34s went out of action in the middle and even towards the end of the war. The Fifth Guards Tank Army in 1943 lost 31.5% of its tanks during the march to Prokhorovka. In August 1943, 1st Panzer Army lost 50% of its tanks due to mechanical failures. At the end of 1944, panzer units sought to replace engines with more than 30 hours of operation before an attack.
            Conclusion
            The T-34 fell victim to Soviet and German propaganda. The German side often extolled the T-34 in order to explain their defeats.
            1. vladcub
              vladcub 3 June 2021 18: 34
              +1
              With regard to the gearbox, this is so. The service life of the T-34 was not high, but for wartime the main thing was: the quantity and ease of assembly.
              On maintainability: "34" was easier to repair than panzers.
              The optics on our tanks were lousy
    3. Konnick
      Konnick April 9 2021 06: 29
      +6
      ... slabs of 80 mm a projectile requires less energy than breaking two cemented slabs of 80 and 30 mm, even taking into account the loss.

      Small misprints and errors - the screens on the fours were not anti-cumulative, but from anti-tank rifles. Guderian says-
      The screens were armored shields ... to protect against Russian anti-tank rifles and nullify their effectiveness. The relatively thin vertical walls of the T-3 and T-4 tanks could not withstand the fire of Russian anti-tank rifles. This innovation has paid off.


      The Germans suffered until the end of the war from our ATGM and ATGM.
    4. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      April 9 2021 07: 01
      +12
      Quote: Vladimir_2U
      but for the slightest knowledgeable and interested in BTT, no revelations

      And there is. This is a popularization for a wide range of readers who are not too familiar with BTT.
      1. 2 Level Advisor
        2 Level Advisor April 9 2021 07: 34
        +4
        The article is interesting, thank you, I did not know much, I was especially impressed that the Germans had pumped the PTA in that way by 1943 .. I wonder what percentage of tanks arr 43 made of the total number at the front in the same 43 year? there is a vague suspicion of what exactly to meet and often in battle, these vehicles began not earlier than the middle, or even the end of 44 ..
      2. Akuzenka
        Akuzenka April 9 2021 14: 38
        +2
        People are fighting! Maybe, the respected author, will continue the topic and touch upon the methods of training the crews of the USSR and Germany, their quality, etc. I will be grateful. Such research did not come across.
  2. Comrade
    Comrade April 9 2021 05: 08
    +6
    Thank you very much, dear Andrey, it is very interesting and convincingly written.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      April 9 2021 11: 11
      +3
      Greetings, dear colleague! I'm glad I liked it hi
  3. Cherry Nine
    Cherry Nine April 9 2021 06: 21
    +15
    Hmm, one can almost agree with the position of the author. The T-34 of the second half of 43 already seems to be a competitive vehicle compared to the German vehicle of 42. Another thing is that the author, as best he could, distracted the reader's attention, that the four punched through the T-34 in the entire frontal projection, and the Soviet car - only the tower. No tower - no problem, the German self-propelled guns said.

    The development of the T-34 went primarily towards correcting the most deadly operational failures. The main mistakes made during its design - layout, crew composition, suspension - were incorrigible. The second was fixed by a radical modernization at 34-85, others only at the T-44.

    At the same time, the author is right in the part that the 26-ton four of 43 was already the limit of the development of the 18-ton initially machine. But the T-34 was just beginning to gain weight.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      April 9 2021 07: 05
      +5
      Quote: Cherry Nine
      Another thing is that the author, as best he could, distracted the reader's attention, that the four punched the T-34 in the entire frontal projection, and the Soviet car - only the tower

      In the whole - only from less than 500 m
      The long-barreled cannon of the "Quartet" hit the T-34 hull at 500 m, the turret up to 1200 m. At the same time, the F-34 of our T-1000 could penetrate the T-IVH turret at a distance of 80 m, but the hull in the 500 mm part - only sub-caliber and closer than XNUMX m.

      At the same time, not all of the frontal projection of the hull was 80 mm :))) there, for example, there was a 20 or 25 mm section (at an angle), and a 10 mm hull roof, which sloped down to the upper armored aircraft at an angle, guaranteed a ricochet into the tower ...
      1. Cherry Nine
        Cherry Nine April 9 2021 07: 43
        +2
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Moreover, not all of the frontal projection of the body was 80 mm :))) there, for example, there was a 20 or 25 mm section (at an angle),

        Let's not talk about weakened zones. I am not writing about the relationship of the nasal beam with various means of destruction.

        Actually, a fact is a fact. Despite the overall (geometrically) superiority in armor of the Soviet side, the balance of tank protection / strength of anti-tank weapons remained in German favor. This, by the way, has to do with the fact, strange for some, that the Panther problem was relevant in France, but not in the BSSR at the same time.
        1. DesToeR
          DesToeR April 9 2021 10: 38
          +4
          Quote: Cherry Nine
          Let's not talk about weakened zones.

          Why not? What is the percentage of the frontal elevation of the T-4 covered with an 80mm sheet? A vertical sheet, by the way, with two weakened zones.
          Quote: Cherry Nine
          Despite the overall (geometrically) superiority in armor of the Soviet side, the balance of tank protection / strength of anti-tank weapons remained in the German favor.

          For this, the Nazis paid themselves quite a rather big price, which is expressed in the number of anti-tank weapons and tanks produced. And if you look at the problem from the point of view of tactics, then the small density of those very PAK40s quite well countered with the artillery preparation of the offensive.

          Quote: Cherry Nine
          This, by the way, has to do with the strange for some fact that the Panther problem was relevant in France, but not in the BSSR at the same time.

          It is not very clear what does France and the BSSR have to do with it? Today, in Belarus, if you can see something further 1000m, then you are very lucky. Forests, hills, ravines, bushes - all this is in "commercial" quantities.
          1. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA April 9 2021 11: 06
            +9
            Quote: DesToeR
            And why not?

            And because as soon as it comes to the weakened zones of the frontal projection, the hatch of the T-34 mechanized drive immediately pops up, which is affected even by 75-mm high-explosive shells. And the area around the installation of the course machine gun.
            Quote: DesToeR
            Today, in Belarus, if you can see something further 1000m, then you are very lucky. Forests, hills, ravines, bushes - all this is in "commercial" quantities.

            Judging by the data collected by domestic specialists who examined our wrecked tanks in 1944-1945, the effective range of the 75-mm and 88-mm anti-tank vehicles was 500-800 meters (most of them were knocked out in this range of distances). It was determined not by the armor penetration of the shells, but by the ability to guarantee hitting the target from the first or second shot.
            1. DesToeR
              DesToeR April 9 2021 11: 34
              0
              Quote: Alexey RA
              And because as soon as it comes to the weakened zones of the frontal projection, the hatch of the T-34 mechanized drive immediately pops up, which is affected even by 75-mm high-explosive shells. And the area around the installation of the course machine gun.

              So about that and speech. The author considers the armor protection of these two vehicles to be approximately equal. 80mm of armor in the forehead of the hull is not a panacea.
              Quote: Alexey RA
              ... the effective range of 75-mm and 88-mm anti-tank guns was 500-800 meters (most of them were hit precisely in this range of distances).

              Nobody canceled the range of a direct shot. I don’t know the numbers for 75mm / L48, but for 88mm / L56 it’s exactly the same 800m.
              1. Cherry Nine
                Cherry Nine April 9 2021 12: 20
                +4
                Quote: DesToeR
                The author considers the armor protection of these two vehicles to be approximately equal

                She was approximately equal. But mass anti-tank weapons were not roughly equal.
                Quote: DesToeR
                For this, the Nazis paid themselves quite a rather big price, which is expressed in the number of anti-tank weapons and tanks released.

                No money - don't fight, stay at home.
                Quote: DesToeR
                quite well countered with the artillery preparation of the offensive.

                As if the enemy had no artillery.
                Quote: DesToeR
                It is not very clear what does France and the BSSR have to do with it?

                Despite the fact that in France, the allies, with their much stronger artillery and a completely unthinkable amount of equipment, stumbled upon the Panther under every bush, and in Belarus in the same months no one particularly complained about them.
                1. maximghost
                  maximghost April 9 2021 22: 53
                  0
                  Maybe because then in Belarus there was only 1 TD at the beginning of Bagration and then another 1 came to the rescue?
                  1. Cherry Nine
                    Cherry Nine April 10 2021 01: 43
                    0
                    Quote: maximghost
                    Maybe because then in Belarus there was only 1 TD at the beginning of Bagration and then another 1 came to the rescue?

                    Yes, there is something in your idea.
  4. Catfish
    Catfish April 9 2021 06: 29
    +9
    Thanks to Andrey for the detailed and informative article, I read it with great interest. I have three years of service in the tank behind me and a constant interest in this branch of troops for the rest of my life, so I know a thing or two. So thanks again. good
    And as for the critics, this is the usual state of those individuals who themselves are not capable of anything, and they will never miss a chance to spoil the person who does the job.
  5. Lynx2000
    Lynx2000 April 9 2021 06: 31
    +9
    I liked the article! good Moreover, if we take into account the refinement of the design of the T-34 in the conditions of the evacuation of factories, machine tool park, spare parts and accessories, other equipment to the East (Ural and Further). In addition to optimizing production and improving the design, there were many problems to solve, in contrast to the Germans.
    There were materials on inspections by the People's Commissars (defense, internal affairs, tank industry) of production in connection with the unsatisfactory quality of equipment according to the reviews of the military. First of all, it was established based on the results of the audit that the bulk of the workers are women and adolescents, the poor quality of food and recreation affects the quality of parts manufacturing and assembly of units ...
    I think that in a similar situation, the Germans would have a collapse in production and supply.
    Some design decisions were made not from a good life, but from the availability of materials.
    For example, the problem area of ​​the T-34 tank is the main clutch (clutch). Due to the lack of friction materials, it was made according to the steel-on-steel scheme, and due to the low coefficient of friction of the steel friction discs, as many as 21 pieces were required. How many were there on the KV-1?
    V-2 engine, diesel, V12 with direct injection. Aluminum cylinder blocks, aluminum crankcase, steel wet cylinder liners, aluminum pistons with 5 rings, 4 compression and 2 oil scraper rings, 2,8 valves per cylinder, dry sump lubrication system with oil filters. Mitsubishi Pajero has XNUMX diesel engine XNUMX liters. The cast iron cylinder block, and the aluminum cylinder head, due to slight overheating, the head leads, or microcracks are formed, antifreeze enters the cylinders.
    Experts write about the problem of this engine in the forties - wear of the cylinder-piston group, burnout of pistons due to overheating, breakthrough of the gas joint between the cylinder head and liner, as well as disruption of fuel supply and operation of the lubrication system due to breakdowns of oil pumps. Any diesel engine, including prepared jeeps in a "mud truck" far from service and civilization, has such problems as usual.

    Somewhere I came across information that gasoline internal combustion engines were even installed on the "thirty-four" in the first year of the war.
    1. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine April 9 2021 07: 52
      -6
      Quote: Lynx2000
      Somewhere I came across information that gasoline internal combustion engines were even installed on the "thirty-four" in the first year of the war.

      Yes, M-17 engine from BT-7 / T-28 / T-35
      Quote: Lynx2000
      with direct injection.

      Bosch production
      Quote: Lynx2000
      Aluminum cylinder blocks, aluminum crankcase, steel wet cylinder liners, aluminum pistons with 5 rings,

      Country with wooden fighter gliders. Ah, what planning was there under Comrade Stalin!
      Quote: Lynx2000
      I think that in a similar situation, the Germans would have a collapse in production and supply.

      The Germans were not such gouges. Their military armor system worked fine until the last year. And on the whole, there was no talk of any "permanent mobilization" until a certain time.
      1. DesToeR
        DesToeR April 9 2021 10: 49
        +3
        Quote: Cherry Nine
        Country with wooden fighter gliders. Ah, what planning was there under Comrade Stalin!

        Sir Jeffrey de Havilland dropped his glass of scotch in amazement! Kurt tank choked on beer! So sir (or her?), But what about the MERCHANDISE from the military? Oh, what kind of planning ?!

        Quote: Cherry Nine
        The Germans were not such gouges. Their military armor system worked fine until the last year.

        Scratch the pink paint on your walls. You can find a shell under it.
        Quote: Cherry Nine
        And in general, there was no talk of any "permanent mobilization" until a certain time.

        In the fall of 1939, in the USSR, there was no talk of any "permanent mobilization" ... "until a certain time."
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA April 9 2021 11: 34
          +13
          Quote: DesToeR
          Sir Jeffrey de Havilland dropped his glass of scotch in amazement!

          Still, he would not drop it - you need to make a fighter, having in the original pine, birch veneer, plywood and delta wood. And no balsa. And the M-105 motor. And so that it is not inferior to the 109th. smile
          Oh yes, this miracle of technology will be done by the very factories at which a reduction in rejects of up to 50% is a reason for a report to the People's Commissariat of unprecedented successes.
          1. DesToeR
            DesToeR April 9 2021 11: 54
            +2
            Quote: Alexey RA
            Still, he would not drop it - you need to make a fighter, having in the original pine, birch veneer, plywood and delta wood. And no balsa. And the M-105 motor.

            Was it better to make the plane in conditions when we will remove the engines from the Zeppelin? Or wait for foreign supplies from "probable partners"?
            Quote: Alexey RA
            And so that it is not inferior to the 109th.

            To begin with, not 109, but 88.
            Quote: Alexey RA
            Oh yes, this miracle of technology will be done by the very factories at which a reduction in rejects of up to 50% is a reason for a report to the People's Commissariat of unprecedented successes.

            And what did the Germans write in the reports when they rejected the barrels of the wunderwaffe 88mm / L71? The same Germans who did not have a revolution and a civil war with mass emigration? Maybe this is a good reason to be proud of its workers and engineers, who were able to create, in 20 years from absolute zero, a sufficiently modern military equipment for a world war? No? Was it necessary as in WWI under the tsar?
            1. Alexey RA
              Alexey RA April 9 2021 12: 53
              +2
              Quote: DesToeR

              Was it better to make the plane in conditions when we will remove the engines from the Zeppelin? Or wait for foreign supplies from "probable partners"?

              Better to redistribute the aluminum so that it is where you can't do without it. And not to make planes from delta wood, and tank engines from aluminum.
              Quote: DesToeR
              And what did the Germans write in the reports when they rejected the barrels of the wunderwaffe 88mm / L71?

              Shall we compare a 71-caliber barrel (by the way, unthinkable high-tech by the standards of the USSR) with all military aircraft produced by the NKAP? wink
              1. DesToeR
                DesToeR April 9 2021 13: 02
                +7
                Quote: Alexey RA
                Better to redistribute aluminum so that it is where you can't do without it.

                Yeah, "the economy should be economical" - I've already heard that somewhere.
                Quote: Alexey RA
                And not to make planes from delta-wood, and tank engines from aluminum.

                You know better today from a cozy sofa.
                Quote: Alexey RA
                Shall we compare a 71-caliber barrel (by the way, unthinkable high-tech by the standards of the USSR) with all military aircraft produced by the NKAP?

                During the analysis, I was taught to compare based on the starting conditions. Basis so to speak. Starting point. Figures without comparison - agulny told me.
                An unthinkable "high-tech" is to evacuate all Western industry to the East, lose millions of soldiers and officers in six months and ... end the war on the ruins of the Reichstag. Against the background of these achievements, the Me-262 is a pass-through craft of a 5th grade schoolboy-modeller.
                1. Cherry Nine
                  Cherry Nine April 9 2021 14: 45
                  -8
                  Quote: DesToeR
                  somewhere I already heard it.

                  In the Soviet Union, maybe?
                  Quote: DesToeR
                  today you know better from a cozy sofa

                  Yes, we somehow do not care from a cozy sofa. But there people, frankly, were not always happy.
                  Quote: DesToeR
                  An unthinkable "high-tech" is to evacuate the entire Western industry to the East, lose millions of soldiers and officers in six months and ... end the war on the ruins of the Reichstag

                  )))
                  It had nothing to do with high-tech.
                  The first two circumstances you noted are a natural consequence of, among other things, the relationship between the party and the government with aluminum.

                  And the last one is an accident.
              2. dauria
                dauria April 9 2021 17: 46
                +7
                Better to redistribute the aluminum so that it is where you can't do without it. Not making airplanes out of delta wood


                So they distributed it competently. A fighter up to 3 tons is perfectly made of wood and steel, not inferior to the all-solid one. And duralumin - for bombers from 5 tons and more. There is already nothing for the tree to do, the law of squares-cubes.
                The tree was inferior only in one thing - the durability of the glider. How long did the plane live then?
                And the advanced Germans also distributed when pressed. Messer 109 of the K series flew with a wooden tail, the Jet Neinkel 162 with an all-wood wing, plywood spinner and landing gear flaps. Focke-Wulf 190 - with wooden propeller. And this is in 44-45 years.
                1. Cherry Nine
                  Cherry Nine April 10 2021 01: 49
                  0
                  Quote: dauria
                  How long did the plane live then?

                  Not for long, especially the Soviet one. And Japanese, starting from the 44th.
                  Quote: dauria
                  Jet Neinkel 162 - with solid wood fender, plywood spinner and landing gear doors. Focke-Wulf 190 - with wooden propeller.

                  The wooden screw was then the usual solution, the British also used them en masse. But to consider absolutely all Soviet fighters (and not only) as spiritual brothers of the Volksägger is a fresh and correct idea.
      2. Mooh
        Mooh April 9 2021 11: 15
        +3
        Quote: Lynx2000
        with direct injection.

        Bosch production

        In 1943? good
        1. Konnick
          Konnick April 9 2021 11: 26
          0
          The tanks were equipped with aircraft engines, which were injected ... the carburetor on the plane is impossible, no one canceled gravity. Licensed BOSCH, it was mastered before the war.
          1. Mooh
            Mooh April 9 2021 11: 46
            +2
            A carburetor on an aircraft is possible, the first injection aircraft are 42-43 years old. About licensed Bosch did not hear, maybe he was, but in the literature they write that the aircraft system was copied from captured German engines.
            And you are answering the comment about the V-2 tank diesel engine with direct injection. In it, of course, you can find aviation roots, but the engine and its fuel equipment were developed in the USSR and produced there. Equipment production Bosch did not stand on it and could not stand. At most, the domestic development was based on German technologies. So this can be said about any diesel engine of those years.
          2. Alf
            Alf April 9 2021 19: 47
            +3
            Quote: Konnick
            an aircraft carburetor is not possible,

            Spitfires and Hurricanes flew Merlins with carburetors until 42.
          3. Farewell
            Farewell April 18 2021 13: 28
            0
            .carburetor on the plane is impossible, gravity has not been canceled.

            It is good that Klimov did not know about this, otherwise Yakovlev's fighters would never take off from his M-105. And Mikulin did not know, otherwise Chkalov would never have reached America. Well, the La-5 before the modification of the FN would be the same ... that ...
        2. Cherry Nine
          Cherry Nine April 9 2021 11: 42
          +3
          Quote: MooH
          In 1943?

          Not anymore. But somehow not very well without Bosch.
          1. Mooh
            Mooh April 9 2021 11: 54
            +3
            Not anymore. But somehow not very well without Bosch.

            When Bosch ended, a new crew member, a Gulag prisoner, was introduced into each tank, who sat in the engine compartment and manually injected it. This is how the totalitarian USSR fought against technological backwardness. Due to the inhuman working conditions, the resource of the injector was enough for 4-5 hours of work, so 5-6 spare injectors were dragged behind each tank on ropes, brought together in penalty compartments.
            1. Cherry Nine
              Cherry Nine April 9 2021 12: 23
              +5
              Quote: MooH
              When Bosch ended in each tank, a new crew member was introduced, a prisoner of the GULAG, who sat in the engine compartment and manually injected

              Quite possibly, thank you for the fresh thought. But, as far as I am informed, they made the injection pump on their own, with rather moderate, at first, success.
              1. Mooh
                Mooh April 9 2021 22: 13
                +2
                And the injection pump was problematic and injectors, but how else? Any improvement in machining accuracy is a production problem. There were no CNC machines. We tested the technology for quite a long time and produced a lot of defects in the process. I read about drilling holes in sprayers, there was a whole epic there. It turned out that women can, but men screw it up, moreover, regardless of qualifications.
                1. Cherry Nine
                  Cherry Nine April 10 2021 01: 51
                  -1
                  Quote: MooH
                  It turned out that women can, but men screw it up,

                  Yes, this is a fairly well-known story. True, there is one nuance - in the Reich, women were not allowed to work at the machines, at least in the 30s. The Soviet authors are not saying something.
                  1. Mooh
                    Mooh April 10 2021 14: 00
                    +1
                    Spare the feelings of the Germans, I guess. It was not customary for Soviet authors to focus on sexual, national and racial discrimination that took place in the past. In friendly countries, of course.
            2. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
              Paragraph Epitafievich Y. April 9 2021 16: 06
              -1
              Quote: MooH
              in each tank a new crew member, a GULAG prisoner, was introduced, who sat in the engine compartment and manually injected. This is how the totalitarian USSR fought against technological backwardness. Due to inhuman working conditions

              nd, powerfully humored. True, somehow klystyrno ...
              1. Mooh
                Mooh April 9 2021 22: 16
                +2
                Initially, I did not have such associations. I imagined something like a button accordion - you pump with furs, use the buttons to set the moment and duration of the injection, but after your comment, the joke played with new colors :))
            3. sharp-lad
              sharp-lad April 9 2021 20: 09
              0
              When Bosch ended, a new crew member, a Gulag prisoner, was introduced into each tank, who sat in the engine compartment and manually injected it. This is how the totalitarian USSR fought against technological backwardness. Due to the inhuman working conditions, the resource of the injector was enough for 4-5 hours of work, so 5-6 spare injectors were dragged behind each tank on ropes, brought together in penalty compartments.
              good Humorist! I did not immediately understand the joke, + from me.
              1. Mooh
                Mooh April 9 2021 22: 19
                +3
                Just a set of stamps from the Memorial Society. The intensity of the disclosures is a little more than in the original and voila, a complete absurdity at the exit.
              2. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
                Paragraph Epitafievich Y. April 9 2021 22: 34
                -3
                Quote: sharp-lad
                I didn't immediately understand the joke

                Sorry. How many times have you read it?
                1. sharp-lad
                  sharp-lad April 26 2021 14: 55
                  0
                  It does not matter how many times it is re-read, but it is important whether what you read is understood! hi
      3. Illanatol
        Illanatol April 9 2021 13: 17
        +5
        Country with wooden fighter gliders. Ah, what planning was there under Comrade Stalin!


        The planning was excellent. And the wooden gliders were not so bad either.
        Inexpensive and maintainable.
        1. Cherry Nine
          Cherry Nine April 9 2021 13: 35
          -5
          Quote: Illanatol
          The planning was excellent. And the wooden gliders were not so bad either.

          Yeah.
          1. Illanatol
            Illanatol April 9 2021 13: 47
            +3
            Just yes. Without "too".
            There was a veneer in the Yak-3 glider. Was the fighter bad?
            Do not consider yourself smarter than everyone. Looks stupid.
            1. Cherry Nine
              Cherry Nine April 9 2021 14: 10
              -3
              Quote: Illanatol
              Was the fighter bad?

              Sure. No gate at all.
              Quote: Illanatol
              In the glider Yak-3

              And the main fighter of the second half of the war was the Yak-9.
      4. Pilat2009
        Pilat2009 1 June 2021 21: 09
        0
        Quote: Cherry Nine
        And in general, there was no talk of any "permanent mobilization" until a certain time.

        While they were advancing, yes. And we have, that Hitler Youth defended Moscow?
        Also keep in mind that they used prisoners and the exported population in factories.
    2. Free wind
      Free wind April 9 2021 08: 17
      +5
      The cylinder blocks were also cast iron, the upper half of the crankcase was cast iron. The lower half could be cast iron, valve covers could be cast iron, cylinder heads could be cast iron, duralumin was used in aircraft design. There are only three piston rings, two compression rings. one oil scraper. The timing drive is problematic, laborious, it is difficult to get into the slots when installing the block head. Overheating occurs due to a low level of coolant liquid. In case of cracks, antifreeze will spit out from the system. When the cylinders are muffled, if the water is in the cylinders, then there is not a crack, the mouse gnawed a hole there .. Some turbines also have a cooling system, sometimes from there antifreeze enters the oil or even vice versa. Gasoline engines were installed. Both the BT-7 and the T-34.
  6. Graz
    Graz April 9 2021 06: 33
    +1
    other things being equal, it is necessary to compare the price of a combat unit and the number of man-hours spent on its production. I would say, as if not the main factor, these two x-ki are
    1. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine April 9 2021 07: 02
      -1
      Quote: Graz
      compare the price of a combat unit and the number of man-hours spent on its production

      But why?
      1. Illanatol
        Illanatol April 9 2021 13: 21
        +3
        Then, what if it refers to such indicators as gouging, an enemy inferior to you in economic and technological power will simply crush you. Which is exactly what happened.
        Efficiency is the ratio "quality: cost".
        1. Cherry Nine
          Cherry Nine April 9 2021 13: 36
          -2
          Quote: Illanatol
          gouge, an enemy inferior to you in economic and technological power will simply crush you. Which is exactly what happened.

          Three opponents, let me remind you. Of which one was inferior, one was equal and one was greatly superior.

          Yes, the Germans made several strategic mistakes, it's hard to argue.
          1. Mooh
            Mooh April 9 2021 22: 34
            +1
            Yes, the Germans made several strategic mistakes, it's hard to argue.

            The main mistake of the Germans is underestimating the enemy. All other derivatives from it.
    2. 2 Level Advisor
      2 Level Advisor April 9 2021 07: 38
      0
      I think in battle - the price of a tank as a characteristic - in the last place affects its outcome ...
      1. sharp-lad
        sharp-lad April 9 2021 20: 12
        +1
        Does the number of tanks affect the outcome? smile
    3. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA April 9 2021 11: 36
      +2
      Quote: Graz
      other things being equal, it is necessary to compare the price of a combat unit

      Which price? The cost of the T-34 of the same year of production, but produced at different plants, could differ by two or three times.
      1. Illanatol
        Illanatol April 9 2021 13: 25
        +6
        What matters is not the price in banknotes, but the number of man-hours. Money can be printed (inflation can be dealt with later), but workers cannot be printed.
        Less human labor of less skill - more men can be sent to the front.
        And the most "expensive" T34 was several times cheaper than the German tanks of its weight category.
        1. Cherry Nine
          Cherry Nine April 9 2021 13: 37
          -4
          Quote: Illanatol
          the most "expensive" T34 was several times cheaper than the German tanks of its weight category.

          Why do you think so? What if the other way around?
        2. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
          Paragraph Epitafievich Y. April 9 2021 16: 17
          -5
          Quote: Illanatol
          And the most "expensive" T34 was several times cheaper than the German tanks of its weight category.

          let it be to you ... The most "expensive" Omsk 34-76 cost 310K rubles. Against 245K fours F2.
          1. old dilettante
            old dilettante 10 May 2021 15: 18
            0
            Quote: Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
            The most "expensive" Omsk 34-76 cost 310K rubles.

            It is more correct to compare the price of the "four" with the commercial (full) price of the T-34-76 "from factory 183" (N. Tagil), model 1943 - 136,6 thousand rubles. The difference is not "at times", but close. So the approximate terms, in terms of duration, of the production of "products" coincide and the complete set (T-34-76 with a radio and a commander's cupola).
  7. fiberboard
    fiberboard April 9 2021 07: 20
    0
    Once I read in a magazine that it was originally planned to install another gun on the T-34, converted from 76 mm anti-aircraft gun. But by the beginning of the production of the T-34, this gun was taken out of production, so they installed the one they had. And so the author of that article argued that with an anti-aircraft gun, the T-34 could withstand even the Tigers. That would be interesting to read.
    1. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine April 9 2021 08: 03
      +4
      Quote: fiberboard
      initially, it was planned to put another gun on the T-34, converted from an anti-aircraft 76 mm.

      Most likely, you read about KV. There really were a lot of songs with a tool, which is an amazing thing! - were not in vain. There is little space in the T-34.
      1. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA April 9 2021 11: 37
        +2
        Quote: Cherry Nine
        There is little room in the T-34.

        To be fair - the S-54 cannon (under the shot of the 76-mm anti-aircraft gun) did fit into the "nut".
        1. Cherry Nine
          Cherry Nine April 9 2021 12: 30
          +3
          It's about early options, as I understand it.
          Quote: fiberboard
          initially, it was planned to put another gun on the T-34, converted from an anti-aircraft 76 mm. But by the beginning of production of the T-34, this gun was discontinued.

          Judging by the description - ZiS-5
    2. Konnick
      Konnick April 9 2021 10: 35
      +4
      But by the beginning of the production of the T-34, this gun was removed from production, so they installed the one that they had.

      The Kharkov plant produced only 10 T-34 tanks with a 57-mm cannon (ZiS-2), they were included in the 21st tank brigade, which was being formed in Vladimir. The 21st TB was manned by the best crews with the experience of Khalkhin-Gol and Finnish. At the most critical moment of the defense, on October 17, Moscow, this brigade was sent on a raid to captured Kalinin. All T-34 tanks with 57-mm cannons were knocked out. Two Heroes of the Soviet Union, regiment commander Lukin M.A. and battalion commander Agibalov M.P. In terms of armor penetration, this cannon could fight tigers.


      See https://waralbum.ru/301767/ "The wrecked T-34-57 tank of the commander of the 21st tank regiment, Hero of the Soviet Union, Major M. A. Lukin." Now there is a monument in this place


      It was a heroic raid, in the center of Tver there is a monument to the Hero of the Soviet Union Gorobets S.Kh. and his crew, which passed through the whole of Kalinin and entered the position of the 11th separate motorcycle regiment, which held the defenses on the outskirts of the city. ...
    3. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA April 9 2021 11: 41
      +4
      Quote: fiberboard
      And so the author of that article argued that with an anti-aircraft gun, the T-34 could withstand even the Tigers.

      The problem is that the fight against enemy tanks was not the main task of the T-34. Moreover, by Order No. 325, the commanders of tank formations were directly and unequivocally prohibited from using tank subunits to fight enemy tanks, except in an advantageous tactical situation. The task of the tank is to fight the infantry. And the composition of the T-34 ammunition indicates this directly and unequivocally: most of the shells are OFS or OS.
      1. Cherry Nine
        Cherry Nine April 9 2021 12: 39
        0
        Quote: Alexey RA
        The problem is that the fight against enemy tanks was not the main task of the T-34. Moreover, by Order No. 325, the commanders of tank formations were directly and unequivocally prohibited from using tank subunits to fight enemy tanks.

        Tanks don't fight tanks? Well, I heard.

        In practice, who are smarter - earlier, who are dumber - later heavily preoccupied with the PT capabilities. And the replacement of the anti-personnel 7,5 cm cannon with a long-barreled one, and the anti-Matildov anti-aircraft gun of the Tiger, and the late Germans' fishing rods, and the English 6lb 17lb on tanks, and the transition to 76 and 90 mm by the Americans. And 85mm and 122mm grandfathers there too.

        In general, the tank's PT capabilities have become like a sekas for those who are younger. He obviously does not take most of the time in a relationship, he may not be the main one, but if he is not there - why is all this?
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA April 9 2021 13: 22
          +5
          Quote: Cherry Nine
          And the replacement of the anti-personnel 7,5 cm cannon with a long-barreled one, and the anti-Matildov anti-aircraft gun of the Tiger, and the late Germans' fishing rods, and the English 6lb 17lb on tanks, and the transition to 76 and 90 mm Americans. And 85mm and 122mm grandfathers there too.

          You remember my point of view regarding the transition to 85-mm: the need to increase the range of a direct shot with a fragmentation projectile in connection with the transition of the Germans to a 75-mm caliber in anti-tank equipment and an increase in the effective range of German anti-tank guns.
          If it was a matter of increasing the anti-tank capabilities, the T-34-76 / S-54 would have been washed down, since the S-54 fit into the standard "nut", without perversions with a new shoulder strap and a new turret.
          1. Cherry Nine
            Cherry Nine April 9 2021 13: 39
            -4
            Quote: Alexey RA
            The S-54 fit into the standard "nut", without distortions with a new shoulder strap and a new turret.

            Did the tank commander climb in? By the way, what about the S-54 land mines? How did the Americans or German at different speeds begin to do?
  8. paul3390
    paul3390 April 9 2021 07: 40
    +8
    IMHO - in a tank war, the main thing is not even performance characteristics, but for whom the battlefield will remain .. For the purpose of repairing equipment .. But here - as life shows, it is not only about performance characteristics. Nemchura in the 40th in France and in our 41st completely dispensed with armored vehicles, which you cannot look at without tears, such as the Czechs, T-I, T-II .. And nothing, it did not bother them at all .. In 44- m and 45 - Tigers with Panthers and all sorts of self-propelled guns were very formidable opponents, and what - a lot of it helped Aloizievich? Again, the same Sherman - he did not stand next to the Panther, but there were sooo many of them .. And besides tanks, the Naglo-Saxons had enough other means to ruin the life of the Reich ..

    For the retreating loses ALL of the destroyed tanks, and the advancing one - only a part of them, which were destroyed before being melted down. So - the tank issue can in no way be regarded as a knightly tournament, where two armored fools rush at each other. It all depends on a lot of factors .. I'm not talking about maintainability and the industry's production capabilities.

    It is not for nothing that there is an opinion that the Panthers and Tigers, with all their splendor, were the same mistake of the Fuhrer .. 12-15 thousand T-IV instead of 5 thousand Panthers - they would have spoiled us significantly more .. In the same way, Comrade Stalin went only for a limited edition of T- 44, just enough so as not to reduce the production of the T-34-85. Although it would seem - the newest significantly more advanced tank .. And the T-43 was not carried away, and on other projects. Because he understood the equations of war much better than Aloizievich, who was always stuck on the wunderwaffe ..
    1. Illanatol
      Illanatol April 9 2021 13: 35
      +1
      Because he understood the equations of war much better than Aloizievich, who was always stuck on the wunderwaffe ..


      Stalin in 1944 was in a different position than Hitler, more advantageous. So it was quite possible to increase the production of T44, even to the detriment of the production of T34. The losses of the latter would be lower if they were covered from "tigers" and "panthers" by massive, more powerful and sophisticated tanks. This means that such a large-scale production of T34 was not required to compensate for these losses.
      At the height of the war, they managed to replace the KV with IS - and with medium tanks they could have done it. Especially if they were puzzled early.
      1. Alf
        Alf April 9 2021 20: 02
        0
        Quote: Illanatol
        So it was quite possible to increase the production of T44, even to the detriment of the production of T34.

        Ask why the first series of T-44s ended up only in training units. I give a hint, very poor workmanship.
        Quote: Illanatol
        At the height of the war, they managed to replace KV with IS

        Because the KV and IS were not the main tanks of the Red Army, but the T-34 was.
      2. sharp-lad
        sharp-lad April 9 2021 20: 20
        0
        ISs were the answer to the Tigers and Panthers. And also for breaking into powerful lines of defense. hi
  9. Undecim
    Undecim April 9 2021 07: 42
    +9
    And also Ausf. N became its most massive version - in total from April 1943 to May 1944, according to M. Baryatinsky, at least 3 tanks were produced, not counting self-propelled and assault guns on its chassis.
    Baryatinsky was wrong. The Germans themselves counted 2324. And the most massive was Ausf. J - 3160 pieces.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      April 9 2021 10: 07
      +6
      Quote: Undecim
      Baryatinsky was wrong. The Germans themselves counted 2324.

      Thanks for clarifying! hi Please tell me, and the data you provided - where are they from? I ask that in the future I can refer to them.
      1. Undecim
        Undecim April 9 2021 10: 44
        +5
        Thomas L. Jentz, Hillary L. Doyle: Panzer Tracts 23 - Panzer Production from 1933 to 1945.
        (sent by e-mail).
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          April 9 2021 10: 46
          +3
          Quote: Undecim
          Thomas L. Jentz, Hillary L. Doyle: Panzer Tracts 23 - Panzer Production from 1933 to 1945.

          Thank you!
          1. Undecim
            Undecim April 9 2021 10: 48
            +3
            It's my pleasure! Look in the mail.
  10. Bashkirkhan
    Bashkirkhan April 9 2021 07: 53
    +4
    I liked the publication, unambiguous +. It is interesting why on the T-IV, during various upgrades, they did not make the 80 mm frontal part inclined, as on the T-34.
    1. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine April 9 2021 08: 01
      0
      Quote: Bashkirkhan
      did not make the 80 mm frontal part inclined, as on the T-34.

      What for?
      1. Bashkirkhan
        Bashkirkhan April 9 2021 08: 42
        +2
        Rational angles of inclination of armor plates give certain advantages.
        1. Cherry Nine
          Cherry Nine April 9 2021 09: 38
          +4
          Quote: Bashkirkhan
          Rational angles of inclination of armor plates give certain advantages.

          And what is easier, weld on an additional sheet or change the entire body structure? In the same place, the whole place of the mechanic drive should be redone, he looks at this step. As later with the IS-2.

          It is better to understand this nuance. Four of 43 is even "budgetary", but "let it be for now." The Panther was already considered the main tank. Nobody was going to invest in serious modernization. If from the T-4 they decided to sculpt a new Sherman - then another matter.
          1. Bashkirkhan
            Bashkirkhan April 9 2021 10: 50
            0
            Quote: Cherry Nine
            The Panther was already considered the main tank. Nobody was going to invest in serious modernization.

            This rationale looks compelling. Thank you.
    2. anzar
      anzar April 9 2021 14: 58
      +2
      I wonder why on the T-IV, during various upgrades, the 80 mm frontal part was not made inclined

      The reason is visible in your picture - the access doors / transmission change in a highly inclined but thin sheet. At Panthers, the replacement of the checkpoint is a terrible hemorrhoids, you need to raise the tower ... it's like a tonsil operation through the fifth point))
      And without a hatch, if you make an inclined sheet equal mass since those two, its thickness will be approx. 55mm, and the resistance to BBS is even lower.
    3. Alf
      Alf April 9 2021 20: 04
      0
      Quote: Bashkirkhan
      I wonder why on the T-IV during various upgrades they did not make the 80 mm frontal part inclined,

      Small enough, the design of the case needs to be changed. The four therefore became the workhorse of the Panzerwaffe, because the design remained almost unchanged.
  11. Free wind
    Free wind April 9 2021 07: 55
    -1
    Cancer -40 weight in transport position, 1500 kg, in combat 1400 kg. ZIS-3 in transport 1600 kg, in combat 1250. I don’t understand what is the problem of transportation. The cumulative shells went only from the middle of the year, there were problems with the fuses. Sub-caliber shells were counted, tungsten for cores is a rather rare metal that we have with the Hans. The switch to depleted uranium was not because of a good life. Additional armor holds projectiles better, but is more laborious to manufacture. The military demanded to strengthen the armor and armament of the T-34 tank, in fact, from the beginning of the war. but they took care of this only after the Kursk Bulge. About the congestion of the front end, these are fairy tales, a ton of additional armor was not a problem. There are quite a few photos where tanks without one skating rink, covered with a landing force, are quite cheerfully spar in the snow. Yes, and on VO there was a photo of T34-85 walking in a column of liberators without one skating rink, and there were about twenty people on it. To reduce ground pressure, they were used as tracks with widened tracks. So are additional tracks with elongated fingers. It was possible to sort out the goose at its own discretion; it is permissible to put the extenders on not every track, but after two or five.
    1. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine April 9 2021 08: 00
      +6
      Quote: Free Wind
      ... About the congestion of the front end, these are fairy tales, a ton of additional armor was not a problem.

      Tried many times actually. And it's not about a ton, but about one more ton.
      Perhaps they would have loaded it. The Su-100 was loaded, for example. But we are already full of technical problems in 4 years. So the decision is correct.
      https://warspot.ru/15249-tupikovoe-usilenie
    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      April 9 2021 10: 15
      +5
      Quote: Free Wind
      Cancer -40 weight in transport position, 1500 kg, in combat 1400 kg. ZIS-3 in transport 1600 kg, in combat 1250. I don’t understand what is the problem of transportation.

      As you no doubt know, the complexity of transporting anything depends not only (and in many cases - and not so much) on the mass. Why the ZiS-3 was more mobile, I cannot explain in detail, but there is a fact - the Germans believed that the pak-40 was transported only by the mechtyag (ZiS-3 - and horses) and that the pak-40 could not be manually moved across the battlefield (ZiS-3 - possibly). This does not contradict physics
      1. Bashkirkhan
        Bashkirkhan April 9 2021 10: 58
        +2
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        but there is a fact - the Germans believed that the pak-40 was transported only by a mechtyag (ZiS-3 - and by horses)

        hi Just look at the design of the wheels. The Zis 3 had pneumatic wheels from a lorry with a tread, and on the cancer-40 bald rubber on iron rims. Moreover, rubber and rim, no pneumatics. I don’t know how the Germans would drag the crayfish-40 through the soggy black soil without equipment.
      2. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA April 9 2021 11: 56
        +7
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Why the ZiS-3 was more mobile, I cannot explain in detail, but there is a fact - the Germans believed that the pak-40 was transported only by the mechtyag (ZiS-3 - and horses) and that the pak-40 could not be manually moved across the battlefield (ZiS-3 - possibly).

        Rolling by forces of calculation for the ZIS-3 was not only possible, but was widely used. In the second half of the Second World War, these guns were often attached to the infantry to be accompanied by "fire and wheels" (occupying the niche of regiments) - which is mentioned in the SBD and Collections of tactical examples.
      3. Free wind
        Free wind April 9 2021 12: 58
        0
        The calculations for the ZIS-3, 6-7 people, for the Hans 6-8 people, and the mechanic drive of the tractor, this is the number of the calculation. With the forces of the calculation of 6-8 people, neither one nor the other cannon can be moved far. And the ammunition must be transferred to the gun, regiment commander, battalion commander, attached to the gun to help people to change positions and to protect in case of something. When pulling with ZIS-3 horses, you also need a front end, 4-6 horses and 2-3 driver drivers in addition.
      4. Undecim
        Undecim April 9 2021 12: 58
        +4
        pak-40 cannot be manually moved around the battlefield

        It all depends on the situation.
        1. Alf
          Alf April 9 2021 20: 09
          0
          Quote: Undecim
          It all depends on the situation.

          But here not eight Hans harnessed ... But as many as 16. Yes, and they roll along more or less road, and not on a field with cold ... bins, and even soggy.
          1. Undecim
            Undecim April 9 2021 20: 56
            0
            But here not eight Hans harnessed ... but as many as 16.

            So they are rolling up the hill. And not 16, but 14.
            There are eight. And the cables used were included in the kit. So manual movement was foreseen.
            1. Alf
              Alf April 9 2021 21: 24
              -1
              Quote: Undecim
              And not 16, but 14.

              Exactly 16. He marked all of them.
              1. Undecim
                Undecim April 9 2021 21: 46
                0
                Well 16, well 16.
        2. sharp-lad
          sharp-lad April 9 2021 20: 33
          +3
          Yes, when life will force and not so rakoryachishsya. hi
    3. Alf
      Alf April 9 2021 20: 08
      -1
      Quote: Free Wind
      Cancer -40 weight in transport position, 1500 kg, in combat 1400 kg. ZIS-3 in transport 1600 kg, in combat 1250. I don’t understand what is the problem of transportation.

      The problem is not when a cannon is attached to the car, but when the crew rolls with its fart steam, the extra 250 kg oh, as if they put pressure on their hands.
      Quote: Free Wind
      About the congestion of the front end, these are fairy tales, a ton of additional armor was not a problem. There are quite a few photos where tanks without one skating rink, covered with a landing force, are quite cheerfully spar in the snow.

      And what kind of skating rink is not there? First?
  12. Lynx2000
    Lynx2000 April 9 2021 08: 04
    +2
    Quote: Cherry Nine

    The Germans were not such gouges. Their military armor system worked fine until the last year. And on the whole, there was no talk of any "permanent mobilization" until a certain time.

    You probably misunderstood me. I wrote about the "collapse" not in the usual production process, but during the period of evacuation of production facilities, workers, establishing a new supply chain, providing (energy, supply) in a new place "in the field" from scratch.
    Quote: Cherry Nine

    Country with wooden fighter gliders. Ah, what planning was there under Comrade Stalin!

    So Comrade. Stalin decided that tanks were more important. Was the fuselages of all aircraft in WWII made of delta wood?
    1. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine April 9 2021 08: 27
      +4
      Quote: Lynx2000
      Wrote about a "collapse" not in a normal production process,

      I think you underestimate the problems of the Reich associated with the activities of the 8BA.
      Quote: Lynx2000
      Was the fuselages of all aircraft in WWII made of delta wood?

      No, only fighters. And not delta wood, but plywood, mostly. There was enough aluminum for transport workers of the Soviet regime.
  13. kytx
    kytx April 9 2021 08: 24
    +1
    so of course no special revelations

    in such articles, IMHO should devote more volume not just to the numbers of armor thickness and the number of observation devices, but to production problems
    well, and give statistics (with a minimum of dry numbers but with reference to documents and real examples) what where where and how was amazed and under what conditions.
    then it will be possible to say: "aha. this t34 was burned because the commander could not see the battlefield. but these t4 because he has a specific pressure of 100 grams more. But here the t4 attack failed because they did not have enough power reserve and they got out of the fight "
    I certainly simplify everything. but this is a deep and complex question.
    I have some idea of ​​my own.
    but I would also like to listen to people who publish materials on the resource.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      April 9 2021 10: 16
      +4
      Quote: kytx
      what where where and how was amazed and under what conditions.
      then it will be possible to say: "aha. this t34 was burned because the commander could not see the battlefield, but these t4 because his unit pressure is 100 grams more."

      I'm sorry, but such statistics do not exist in principle, and cannot exist.
      1. kytx
        kytx April 9 2021 10: 44
        0
        I think it can. call it not statistics - I didn’t use the best term.
        but
        analyze combat episodes about which there are contemporary documents, compare with the terrain and time of year and other conditions
        analyze
        draw conclusions supporting them with argumentation

        I understand that this is an unbearable volume of work and of course I do not call for anything :)
  14. Lynx2000
    Lynx2000 April 9 2021 08: 54
    +2
    Quote: Free Wind
    Overheating occurs due to a low level of coolant liquid. In case of cracks, antifreeze will spit out from the system. When the cylinders are muffled, if the water is in the cylinders, then there is not a crack, the mouse gnawed a hole there .. Some turbines also have a cooling system, sometimes antifreeze gets into the oil from there, or even vice versa.

    In winter, on our diesel engine, after the overhaul of the piston group (six months ago), antifreeze went abruptly, did not spit out into the expansion tank, there was no white steam on the exhaust, a sweetish smell was felt in the cabin. The cylinder head was removed, the third piston was washed, visually the bridges between the grooves for the valve plates were intact, at the stand they found internal microcracks, the cylinder head in non-ferrous metal.
    1. Free wind
      Free wind April 9 2021 13: 38
      -2
      No banter. Such a smell, the stove was leaking. So where did the water go? ... If there was no smoke? What color was it? It’s strange. Mitsubishi Delica, much worse than great. People's banter. The head there, of course ... interesting.
      1. Lynx2000
        Lynx2000 April 9 2021 14: 24
        0
        No not like this. There is no worse great than Mitsubishi Delica. Earlier on Zhiguli the faucet on the stove did not smell so much.
        This is for Pajero, for heating the front stove, backward feed without drips. It pierces the head.
        Such problems are not only for Mitsubishi on a diesel engine, but also for Toyota's ... On MMC Kanter, on a diesel engine 2,8, the head seems to be cast-iron. And the antifreeze went through the valve when opened into the third cylinder, there was a crack inside the head. The engine oil dipstick was checked immediately, there was no foam.
        Therefore, with the repair of diesel engines, the quality and price of our solarium, it is not a fan of diesel internal combustion engines for a long time.
        1. Mooh
          Mooh April 9 2021 22: 50
          0
          I have been driving Japanese diesels for 10 years. The most terrible repair - replacement of nozzles on one was. When running over 300.
          As for the aluminum heads, I heard an interesting version: they crackle from local overheating when the glow plugs work in frost. I didn’t come up with it myself, for what I bought it, I sell it for that.
          In your case, it is alarming that the engine was disassembled and assembled by Russian hands six months before the incident. Has the assembly technology been violated?
          1. Lynx2000
            Lynx2000 April 9 2021 23: 23
            0
            Revision (repair) of the piston group, troubleshooting of the crankshaft, replacement of liners, it's time to do it, mileage is 400 thousand km. The nozzles were changed (the old ones were not pressurized), the plunger in the injection pump. The technology was respected. For such heads I heard that the time is coming, cracks are formed. But, the main reasons: not a high-quality gasket with a m / d block and cylinder head, overheating and deformation of the cylinder head, the formation of microcracks, hidden defects in the cylinder head.
            My brother installed a heating element for electric heating of the engine. It seems that the antifreeze is warmed up, the oil in the crankcase and the oil intake is cold, due to the temperature difference it can lead to defects.
            This Pyzhik is a workhorse (3 car) for trips to the forest, to the apiary.
            1. Mooh
              Mooh April 10 2021 14: 10
              0
              I had such a Delica household. Last summer I had to sell, almost nothing was left of the body. Everything has rotted away. And the motor is cheerful. There really was not 2.8, but 2.5 was with a belt. Without preparation, I drove from St. Petersburg to Murmansk from the buyer on my own.
              1. Lynx2000
                Lynx2000 April 10 2021 14: 21
                0
                I believed that Mitsubishi of the 90s. in terms of corrosion, the body and frame were more resistant. It was also with the Nissan Patrol / Safari. Everything is fine with Pajero, the frame and body, especially in the rear without saffron milk caps, are watching. You may be in trouble because of the sea air.
                Previously, I drove a Toyota FJ Cruiser with a manual transmission, the problem was with the deformation of the front part of the body, the TV, front spars and fender aprons were deformed to breaks. They say that there was a design miscalculation, since 2012 they have been corrected. It didn't rust at all.
                My wife drives a Hummer H3, a couple of chips on the leading edge of the hood for 2 years, even rust does not go ...
                The timing chain can also present a surprise as well as a belt.
                1. Mooh
                  Mooh April 10 2021 15: 13
                  0
                  Everything in St. Petersburg rots. Very wet and salt roads. Lada through 2 winters in bubbles. And in 10 years everything, including aluminum, decays. Recently we watched an old Land Rover with a friend - a sieve covered with putty in places. On Delik, there was also no place for living, it was blowing and dripping from everywhere. Even in the hood, the hole is rotten. But at the same time it drove almost like new.
                  1. Lynx2000
                    Lynx2000 April 11 2021 07: 33
                    0
                    I agree. The situation is similar in the Far East. In Western Siberia, more or less, provided that at least once every two weeks at the car wash, forcing to knock down dirt and salt below, suspension arms, rear axle, springs (springs) fenders ...
  15. pytar
    pytar April 9 2021 08: 55
    +5
    Informative, impartial analysis-comparison of these two tank samples! The author's reasoning logic is based on quite ordinary criteria! Thank you for the interesting article, Andrey! good I personally learned a lot! hi
  16. Mavrikiy
    Mavrikiy April 9 2021 09: 28
    -2
    USSR went the way simplification of design, improvement of manufacturability... At the same time, German designers and technologists were solving completely different problems: they were working on improving the fighting qualities of the T-IV.
    Well, if the fighting qualifications negative then a crowbar in their hands.
    The front demanded new and new tanks - as many as possible. And the Germans were forced to go for a fair simplification of the design of the T-IV Ausf. N.
    We understood earlier what military equipment is and what is most important in it. Not only quality but also mass character.
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA April 9 2021 13: 00
      +4
      Quote: Mavrikiy
      We understood earlier what military equipment is and what is most important in it. Not only quality but also mass character.

      It's not about what we understood earlier. The fact is that the mass character of military equipment is needed during a long war that grows into a total one. And from the ghost of such a war, the Third Reich ran like devil from incense - for the Second Reich died on it.
      Massive military equipment meant "the war of the middle peasants", in which the winner was the one who could put these middle peasants more. And in this war of economies and human resources, the Third Reich had no chance.
      1. Alf
        Alf April 9 2021 20: 13
        -1
        Quote: Alexey RA
        And from the ghost of such a war, the Third Reich was running like hell from incense

        But the ghost still caught up with him ...
    2. Sergey Aleksandrovich
      Sergey Aleksandrovich April 9 2021 13: 11
      +2
      The T-34 was not a technological tank, it had a complex body with niches for the springs of the candle suspension inside. But Academician Paton came up with welding machines and the production process went on an increasing scale with an improvement in quality at the same time.
      1. Cherry Nine
        Cherry Nine April 9 2021 13: 41
        +1
        Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich
        The T-34 was not a technological tank, it had a complex body with niches for the springs of the candle suspension inside

        Not just the body. The engine, transmission, chassis, everything was not easy there. And in an absolute sense, and in relation to Soviet conditions, even more so.
        1. Illanatol
          Illanatol April 10 2021 14: 19
          0
          But this did not prevent the mass production of tanks. At the same time, they mastered a lot of new things that were useful (cast towers, for example).
          Solution of technological problems changes these very "conditions" for the better. Otherwise, they still fought with carts.
          Some people here argued that the Germans planned to make the "panther" the basis of the Panzerwaffe.
          Got it?
          Or did the "abandoned" T-4 remain the most massive tank in the Reich?
          This is the question of planning, in the comparative category.
          Aryan "planners" turned out to be such shitty ones. Outright Stalin outplayed them.
          By the way, when did the Germans abandon the use of rivets for fastening armor plates there?
          Nothing to say, a very technological solution. And, undoubtedly, increasing the combat survivability of the tank. :)
          If not hard, I suggest calculating how many all-metal fighter gliders could have been produced from the saved aluminum if it had not been used in tank engines.
          As a percentage of the total number of produced YaKs and La.
          I believe - within the statistical error ...
          1. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA April 12 2021 10: 26
            0
            Quote: Illanatol
            By the way, when did the Germans abandon the use of rivets for fastening armor plates there?
            Nothing to say, a very technological solution. And, undoubtedly, increasing the combat survivability of the tank. :)

            Come on. Until 1942, our KV was assembled on tugs with subsequent welding. Well, LKZ could not weld 75-mm armor.
  17. Potter
    Potter April 9 2021 09: 40
    +5
    Thanks for the article, plus! The very nature of hostilities on the eastern front in 1943 changed. Previously, Wehrmacht tanks solved the problem of breaking through the defense, accessing rear communications, encircling the enemy. Since 1943, these tasks have receded into the background, German tanks have become primarily anti-tank weapons.
    Andrey correctly pointed out the peculiarity of 1943 - possessing models of anti-tank weapons capable of withstanding German tanks with armor reinforced up to 80mm, the Red Army did not have enough of these funds. The same ZIS-2 arr. 1941 cannons at the Kursk Bulge had to be assembled throughout the army, as well as the remaining 107-mm cannons of the 1940 model. The restoration of production of the ZIS-2 was a little late, there was not enough shells for them. SU-152 has just gone to the unit. The SU-122, created as an assault gun, turned out to be a poor anti-tank weapon - the low muzzle velocity of the howitzer projectile did not allow providing the required accuracy at a direct firing range.
    1. Viktor Sergeev
      Viktor Sergeev April 9 2021 12: 11
      +3
      Yes, there was no production of ZIS2, most of the barrels went to waste, this was the reason for the withdrawal from service, and not stupidity with excessive power.
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. Sergey Aleksandrovich
        Sergey Aleksandrovich April 9 2021 13: 17
        +1
        And somewhere at the very beginning of the summer of 1943, the Germans bombed the Gorky Automobile Plant and the components for the production of the ZIS-2 and ZIS-3 ceased to come from there. At the right time, they could not resume production of the ZIS-2 on time.
  18. mark1
    mark1 April 9 2021 09: 46
    +3
    There is a version that the screens on the T-4 were used not as anti-cumulative, but as anti-anti-tank guns.
    1. Victor Tsenin
      Victor Tsenin April 9 2021 10: 30
      +3
      These screens obviously served both of the functions you specified.
  19. Victor Tsenin
    Victor Tsenin April 9 2021 10: 29
    -1
    Very interesting and useful article, thank you. However, I will not turn my tongue to call the Panzer 4 a magnificent design, if only because of the vertical defective booking. Although, in fact, there were no problems to introduce a beveled VLD at least.
  20. bubasa
    bubasa April 9 2021 11: 07
    -6
    Here I came out of curiosity "what kind of discovery of the British scientists came to us this time", I usually go around this ... that's how many are already digging in the pope with my finger and looking at what they are picking out. Is it plasticine or chocolate? And they come to the conclusion after the taste test, "duck it havno!"

    Time passes and again they pick and again draw the same conclusion ... and until the next article. Cycle. Okay, you can understand the publications, they need what to publish ... You can understand the author, loot does not smell, even if it is made on a havna ... A question for those who like to discuss havno and pour from empty to empty ... "And what is your interest? " Is he there or a banal stupidity?
    1. vl903
      vl903 April 9 2021 14: 01
      +5
      it's nice to criticize the ancestors: they didn't know how to make airplanes from aluminum (there was no aluminum until the Americans helped). the 57mm cannon was not installed by stupid ancestors (on our machines, large elongation barrels of almost 99 percent were married until the Americans brought us the machine in 1943) a 76mm anti-aircraft cannon (nee it seems German akht-akht) was not put in the turret (the shot length is not allowed them to manipulate without blowing a fuse on the insides of the tower (the tower is t34-76 initially under 45mm, but you can't put it anymore, there is no machine for making a shoulder strap), the armor was not hung forward (and so low reliability and resource would turn into 0 and even so an inconvenient turn the tower was still akhove) statistics were not collected, they were collected as well as the whole war, and we saw all the problems back in 1940, but creating a piece of iron with our own hands wasn’t on the keyboard.And so the ancestors are stupid, but we are smart in retrospect)))
      1. Alf
        Alf April 9 2021 20: 17
        -1
        Quote: vl903
        76mm anti-aircraft gun (nee it seems a German aht-aht)

        Who loved whom ??? Can you tell me how to make 88 out of 76 mm?
        Quote: vl903
        76mm anti-aircraft cannon (nee it seems a German akht-aht) was not placed in the tower (the shot length did not allow them to be manipulated without blows with a fuse on the insides of the tower (tower t34-76 initially under 45mm, but you can't put it anymore, there is no machine for making a shoulder strap)

        The T-34 turret was originally designed specifically for 76 mm.
        The 76-mm 3K was not delivered due to the lack of shells, production was no longer.
        1. vl903
          vl903 April 9 2021 20: 41
          +1
          our 76mm 3k has the same roots as the German 88-German. T34 tower from 45mm cannon. back in 1940, they wanted a more powerful gun and a bigger tower, but the production worker lives in the world of reality. what they were able to create at that time and put it. to create a tank that works and is feasible exactly for your economy. equally applies to both t4 and t34. the Germans, too, were aware of the disadvantages of their car, but the German production worker, too, will not jump above his head.
          1. Alf
            Alf April 9 2021 21: 07
            -1
            Quote: vl903
            back in 1940 they wanted a more powerful cannon and a bigger turret,

            Even on the T-34M, with a larger turret, they counted only on 76 mm.
            Quote: vl903
            our 76mm 3k has the same roots as the German 88-German.

            3K was made by Rheinmetall "from scratch", 88-mm-firms Krupp and Bofors based on the anti-aircraft gun m / 29.
            1. vl903
              vl903 April 9 2021 22: 09
              0
              I agree on 3k - not a direct ancestor of flak18, but the school and the concept are the same, it would be interesting to read about the German artillery of those years. for a large cannon, I meant the transition from 45mm to 76mm. in 1940 it was new for a medium tank
              1. Alf
                Alf April 10 2021 14: 41
                -1
                Quote: vl903
                it would be interesting to read about the German artillery of those years.

                Shirokorad. God of War of the Third Reich.
                An excellent reference book, for today, perhaps the best publication about the artillery of Germany.
  21. demiurg
    demiurg April 9 2021 11: 09
    +2
    20mm sheet, area 5 squares. 780 kilograms. This in total with the native 45 mm will be 130mm reduced. Another 300 kilograms to strengthen the frontal projection of the tower. And it is already possible to look much more calmly not at the German VET to akht-akht.
    One ton of overload. Yes, mobility and reliability will decrease. But, roughly speaking, every third tank can be made like that. And form them into specialized breakthrough regiments.
  22. Kote Pan Kokhanka
    Kote Pan Kokhanka April 9 2021 11: 18
    +4
    However, calculation using the de Marra formula shows that it takes less energy for the projectile to penetrate a solid cemented slab of 80 mm than it does to break two cemented slabs. 80 and 30 mm, even taking into account the loss of the ballistic tip on the 1st plate.

    Probably still 50 + 30.
    As for the rest, I liked Andrey's work, read it with sincere pleasure!
  23. Viktor Sergeev
    Viktor Sergeev April 9 2021 11: 49
    +2
    There are no two main parameters: price and time to create one tank. When you have 2-3 T34s, albeit slightly worse, it is preferable to 1 T4. Fewer tanks on the defensive (Germans) gives more importance to mobility, the need to run after the T34, blocking their path on the offensive. While you run, some of the tanks break down, you need more fuel, etc.
    1. Konnick
      Konnick April 9 2021 13: 07
      +1
      Having approximately equal power density with the T-4, the T-34 tank had twice the cruising range and higher speed, and even with wider tracks. Without the B-2 engine, such characteristics would have been impossible to achieve.
      1. Cherry Nine
        Cherry Nine April 9 2021 13: 53
        -2
        Quote: Konnick
        Having approximately equal power density with the T-4

        Higher.
        Quote: Konnick
        speed is higher

        On paper.
        Quote: Konnick
        twice the power reserve

        Let's admit. What for? What is the normal range for a tank? The bigger, the better?
      2. Niko
        Niko April 9 2021 15: 36
        0
        Quote: Konnick
        Having approximately equal power density with the T-4, the T-34 tank had twice the cruising range and higher speed, and even with wider tracks. Without the B-2 engine, such characteristics would have been impossible to achieve.

        And four times less motor life
        1. vl903
          vl903 April 9 2021 21: 06
          0
          B2 ate fuel which we had the largest output from our oil-solarium. lower fuel consumption than gasoline, and this greatly simplifies logistics. the diesel fuel ignites worse (they forgot the truth about the explosion hazard of the diesel fuel and for some reason they did not apply the blowing of cooled exhaust gases into the tank and placed the tanks in the fighting compartment) does not require an ignition system - and this was a shortage throughout the war. they did not have time to bring to mind the war - 50 engine hours, the warranty resource in 1941, but by the middle the resource exceeded 500 hours (in peacetime and 500 hours is very small, but they wrote that there was already enough for the military)
          1. Alf
            Alf April 10 2021 14: 44
            -1
            Quote: vl903
            tanks in the fighting compartment were placed

            And where else to cram? They didn’t put it out of good life The tank is actually not rubber.
            Quote: vl903
            for some reason, they did not apply cooling exhaust gases to the tank

            And who knew about such a system in those years?
            1. Cherry Nine
              Cherry Nine April 10 2021 16: 22
              0
              Quote: Alf
              who knew about such a system in those years?

              I was on airplanes. I was not interested in tanks.
              1. Alf
                Alf April 10 2021 17: 50
                0
                Quote: Cherry Nine
                I was on airplanes.

                In planes, yes, but in tanks no one thought about that.
              2. vl903
                vl903 April 10 2021 18: 30
                0
                on the armored boats was already. they were on aviation gasoline and did not explode. though water is easier to cool and the exhaust from gasoline is different. but maybe it would work on tanks too?
            2. vl903
              vl903 April 10 2021 18: 32
              0
              some factories in the middle of the war carried the tanks outside to the stern
              1. Alf
                Alf April 11 2021 21: 21
                -1
                Quote: vl903
                some factories in the middle of the war carried the tanks outside to the stern

                Is it okay that these tanks were pierced by a HEATED shard with all the ensuing consequences? As if when a burning solarium pours from above onto the MTO ...
                1. vl903
                  vl903 April 11 2021 22: 20
                  0
                  the hinged tanks were armored and located on the rear stern plate; some photos show them, they are trapezoidal with flat walls, instead of barrels at the stern. if they caught fire, then the tank did not always burn out, since while the diesel fuel was driving, it dripped onto the ground, and in the MTO the tank seems to have a consumable tank. and even if the tank catches fire, you still have a trained and fired crew, which, judging by the memoirs, is worth ten unfired. and when the tanks explode inside the tank, even the most aces burns out. but for some reason it didn't take root
                  1. Alf
                    Alf April 11 2021 22: 26
                    -1
                    Quote: vl903
                    hinged tanks were armored

                    A 76-mm shard, I'm not talking about larger ones, penetrates 10-12 mm of armor. Was there main armor on the outer tanks?
                    Quote: vl903
                    but for some reason it didn't take root

                    This is why it did not take root, which is dangerous.
                    1. vl903
                      vl903 April 11 2021 22: 42
                      0
                      Well, judging by the fact that the fragments of FAB100 and larger pierced the wheel arch liners and the side of the goose, these tanks were probably pierced by fragments of 76mm. but this is no more dangerous than the barrels and modern tanks on the wings and the Swedes even have cans along the sides. vabsche very interesting why the tanks were not taken out of the MTO. it was much easier than increasing the turret, installing a more powerful weapon, increasing the engine and transmission life, etc.
                      1. Alf
                        Alf April 11 2021 22: 58
                        -1
                        Quote: vl903
                        vabsche very interesting why the tanks were not taken out of the MTO.

                        And where to take out? "On armor" is risky, "under armor" - the tank is not rubber.
          2. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA April 12 2021 10: 45
            0
            Quote: vl903
            B2 ate fuel which we had the largest output from our oil-solarium.

            And which NPO even planned in 1941 could receive only 46% of the need.
            For "suddenly" it turned out that the armada of the army ChTZ-65 also needs diesel fuel - about 8-9 times more than for new tanks. But, traditionally for a planned economy, the production of tractors was not tied to an increase in the production of diesel fuel.
            Do you know what fuel the NPO had no problems with? With KB-70 and B-70 - for LT engines. smile
            1. vl903
              vl903 April 12 2021 11: 50
              0
              Well, as if it only confirms the thesis, it’s certainly easier to do everything from the couch in retrospect (this’s not about you), that is, based on the information that the ancestors had in 193, they began to develop different engines. some went, some did not work, some industry did not pull, some of the designer. and here it was not only geology joking, but the oil refining industry let down. in 192x, air-cooled was considered the ideal tank engine, but for some reason they did not take root. although it seems to me that the d37 from the t40 tractors are the descendants of the first tank airmen?
              1. vl903
                vl903 April 12 2021 11: 56
                0
                Well, it seems to me that the initial hope for B2 was justified - you can get a lot of fuel from our oil, it ignites worse than gasoline (before the war, when starting benzo tanks, a fireman had to stand by) the solarium is much more energy-intensive, which means that logistics is simplified. the electric ignition system is not needed, and this is also a deficit, it has more traction, etc. expected that much faster will bring to mind of course. but easy only on the couch
      3. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA April 12 2021 10: 35
        0
        Quote: Konnick
        Having approximately equal power density with the T-4, the T-34 tank had twice the cruising range.

        The power reserve of serial T-34s produced in the spring of 1941 with internal tanks is 165-185 km.
        Quote: Konnick
        and the speed is higher

        On the highway. In real combat conditions, the speed of the T-34 with a four-speed gearbox was limited to 12 km / h - second gear. Shifting gears on the T-34 led to a stop of the tank and created the danger of shutting down the engine (from the reports of Kubinka).
  24. Dilettante grandfather
    Dilettante grandfather April 9 2021 14: 24
    +2
    Quote: Arzt
    And they told. True, not for me. Drabkin :)

    What about combat statistics? After all, the main criterion is battle.
    How many T-34s were produced and lost compared to the T-4?

    Will not work. Statistics, firstly, cannot be complete, especially for us - at the initial stage of the war, for the Germans - at the final. A lot of cars, on both sides were non-combat losses. There is no exact statistics on the destroyed or damaged vehicles from each type of weapon. Take, at least, the tales of Rudel's grandfather: He alone several times destroyed all the armored vehicles of the Red Army, if you believe him, of course.)
  25. vladcub
    vladcub April 9 2021 14: 54
    +2
    Comrades, I knew the T34-85 mechanic driver well. He knew "Sherman" well, and said what he liked about "Sherman": convenient control, good headlight, weapon, comfort: "there is yak baren sydysh", the engine. Two 2 significant disadvantages: the American is more noticeable and the engine was finicky and needed high-quality lubrication.
    And he also told me, that a significant part of our losses is due to poor training of drivers. I don’t remember how many hours were spent on driving.
    1. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine April 9 2021 17: 12
      +2
      Quote: vladcub
      Two 2 significant disadvantages: the American is more noticeable and the engine was finicky and needed high-quality lubrication.

      On the first, there is evidence in both directions. Sherman has a larger frontal projection, but it is significantly quieter, both on the go and due to the ability to pump up the APU battery without turning on the engine.
      On the second - the American "fastidious" engine, the factory resource worked under seals. Capitalized in the USSR, of course, how lucky.
    2. Avior
      Avior April 9 2021 21: 45
      +1
      Loza, comparing the Sherman and the T-34, wrote that the T-34 mechanics of the constant were then regulated, cleaned and maintained and lubricated. The Sherman was much easier to operate.
  26. Gennady Fomkin
    Gennady Fomkin April 9 2021 18: 15
    -1
    Quote: Konnick
    ... slabs of 80 mm a projectile requires less energy than breaking two cemented slabs of 80 and 30 mm, even taking into account the loss.

    Small misprints and errors - the screens on the fours were not anti-cumulative, but from anti-tank rifles. Guderian says-
    The screens were armored shields ... to protect against Russian anti-tank rifles and nullify their effectiveness. The relatively thin vertical walls of the T-3 and T-4 tanks could not withstand the fire of Russian anti-tank rifles. This innovation has paid off.


    The Germans suffered until the end of the war from our ATGM and ATGM.

    Ja, ja, sehr gut! Der Drückeberger !!! Das Bratkartoffelverhältnis !!! Der Blödser !!!
    Schnapp dir deinen Arsch und lass uns rühren! laughing "Yes, yes, very good! Pusher !!! Chips !!! In Blödser !!! Take your ass and let's wiggle."
  27. Gennady Fomkin
    Gennady Fomkin April 9 2021 18: 39
    +1
    SOVIET ASY-TANKISTS
    Dmitry LAVRINENKO - lieutenant, fought on a T-34 tank, destroyed 52 tanks and assault guns.
    Zinovy ​​KOLOBANOV - senior lieutenant, KV tank; 22 tanks.
    Semyon KONOVALOV - Lieutenant, KV tank; 16 tanks and 2 armored vehicles.
    Alexey SILACHEV - lieutenant, 11 tanks.
    Maxim DMITRIEV - lieutenant, 11 tanks.
    Pavel GUDZ - Lieutenant, KV tank; 10 tanks and 4 anti-tank guns.
    Vladimir Khazov - senior lieutenant, 10 tanks.
    Ivan DEPUTATOV - lieutenant, 9 tanks, 2 assault guns.
    Ivan LYUBUSHKIN - senior sergeant, T-34 tank; 9 tanks.
    Dmitry SHOLOKHOV - senior lieutenant, 8 tanks.
  28. Gennady Fomkin
    Gennady Fomkin April 9 2021 19: 16
    +1
    It's funny. 1943st Sherman: At the beginning of 4, the first American medium tanks M2A4 "Sherman" were delivered to the USSR under the Lend-Lease program, on tests of which it was found that as a result of shelling the sides of the M2A14,5 tank from the PTRD 41 mm cartridges with a BS-500 bullet (which had a tungsten core) the tank's armor can be pierced at distances of 100-4 meters (depending on the place of the bullet hit and the angle of encounter with the obstacle). The test results caused the suspension of the supply of M2A1943 tanks to the USSR in the spring and summer of 1943, and the following Sherman tanks, which were accepted by Soviet representatives at the end of November 34, already had enhanced armor protection. And this is the Germans about the T-34 tanks Guderian first collided with the T-2 on July 1941, 18. In his "Memoirs" the general wrote: "The 34th Panzer Division got a complete picture of the strength of the Russians, because for the first time they used their T-34 tanks, against which our guns were too weak at that time." However, then the T-34 and KV were used mostly scattered, without the support of infantry and aviation, so their individual successes were lost against the general background of the sad situation of the Soviet troops in the first months of the war. The T-1941 and KV began to be used en masse only at the beginning of October 6 in the battle for Moscow. On October 34, Katukov's armored brigade, equipped with T-4s and KVs, struck at the 2th German Panzer Division, which was part of Guderian's 34nd Panzer Army, forcing it to endure "several nasty hours" and inflicting "sensitive losses" on it. Without building on the initial success, Katukov retreated, prudently deciding that the preservation of the brigade was more important than its heroic death in the fight against an entire enemy tank army. Guderian described this event as follows: “For the first time, the superiority of the Russian T-34 tanks was manifested in a sharp form. The division suffered significant losses. The planned rapid attack on Tula had to be postponed. " The next mention of the T-34 Guderian makes two days later. His lines are full of pessimism: “The reports we received about the actions of Russian tanks, and most importantly, about their new tactics, were especially disappointing. Our anti-tank weapons of that time could successfully operate against T-75 tanks only under particularly favorable conditions. For example, our T-IV tank with its short-barreled 34-mm cannon was able to destroy the T-XNUMX tank from the rear by hitting its engine through the shutters. This required great skill. "

    Engineer and Lieutenant General Erich Schneider describes the advantage of the T-34 over German tanks even more expressively in his article "Technique and Development of Weapons in War": "The T-34 tank made a sensation. This 26-ton tank was armed with a 76,2-mm cannon, the shells of which pierced the armor of German tanks from 1,5-2 thousand meters, while German tanks could hit the Russians from a distance of no more than 500 m, and even then only in that case. if the shells hit the side and rear of the T-34 tank. The thickness of the frontal armor of German tanks was 40 mm, the side armor was 14 mm. The Russian T-34 tank carried 70 mm frontal armor and 45 mm side armor, and the effectiveness of direct hits into it was also reduced due to the strong inclination of its armor plates. "
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA April 12 2021 11: 36
      0
      Quote: Gennady Fomkin
      Guderian described this event as follows: “For the first time, the superiority of the Russian T-34 tanks was manifested in a sharp form. The division suffered significant losses. The planned rapid attack on Tula had to be postponed. "

      Well, yes, well, yes - we bring everything down to the T-34. You can't write that the loyal sons of the Reich decided to bash their foreheads in the Russian positions - and only after a couple of days they remembered about the maneuver and the detour. smile
      By the way, here is how Guderian officially evaluated the T-34 in October 1941:
      ... 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 ...
  29. Gennady Fomkin
    Gennady Fomkin April 9 2021 19: 21
    +2
    Everything depended on the crew. According to the performance characteristics of the T-34 76, all German tanks of 1941 were winged like a bull sheep. Unfortunately, at the beginning of the Second World War, there were big problems with the qualifications of the crews. This was one of the main reasons that almost all T-34 and KV tanks were lost in the first month of the war. Often, the crews abandoned the equipment, unable to eliminate even the simplest malfunctions. And with a competent crew: 1942, Nikolai Aleksandrovich Lebedev, on T-34 76: After breaking through the enemy defense, on the first day, the tankers advanced 30-40 kilometers into the depth of the enemy defense, developing an offensive on the city of Kalach-on-Don and acting in isolation from their rifle units by 15-20 kilometers. Tank Lebedev all the time walked in front of the battalion's head marching outpost. At the Manoilin farm (Kletsky district), he alone fought with 15 enemy tanks, destroyed 10 of them, and put the rest to flight. In the Lipov-Logovsky farm (Surovikinsky district of the Volgograd region) N. A. Lebedev fought 10 enemy tanks. Skillfully maneuvering, he emerged victorious here too. 7 enemy vehicles were burning on a snowy field.
    So then, and if the crew from the hands are dispersed to the edren, it's funny to watch the muffs who then drag the log. laughing
    1. vl903
      vl903 April 10 2021 20: 04
      -1
      if you disperse the crew of "rukozhopov" then the same guys will remain, only with rifles. they will not tremble, they will die, maybe under the caterpillars of T4, being tied with grains, but how many enemies they will kill. But at t34 they will kill more enemies. and if you're lucky, some of these "rukozhopov" will become hardened fired winners. in short, "handshakes" here would be more correct to replace with inexperienced and untrained and poorly trained.
    2. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA April 12 2021 12: 00
      -1
      Quote: Gennady Fomkin
      According to the performance characteristics of the T-34 76, all German tanks of 1941 were winged like a bull to a sheep.

      According to the tabular performance characteristics from the TK - yes. In practice, it turned out that serial T-34s produced in 1940 did not meet the requirements for ST at all. And the plant responded with "breakfasts" to all the demands of the GABTU to eliminate the shortcomings, promising to correct some of the comments from the 1001-1501 machine.
      What is the use of a 500-horsepower diesel engine, if only second gear can be used in battle, and the main clutch, due to a structural defect, cannot withstand even 200 km? What is the use of a 76-mm cannon if there are no armor-piercing shells for it, and the sights, observation and control elements are located in the turret so that the turret can only be rotated blindly, and the handwheels and the body of the sights interfere with each other? What's the use of 45-mm armor, if the mechanic drive hatch fails after the second hit of the 76-mm OFS?
      Quote: Gennady Fomkin
      That's how it is, and if the crew of the hands are dispersed to the edren give a damn.

      A. tell me where to find a normal crew on a T-34 or KV, if all border districts have 70 KV and 35 T-34 combat training parks? And that's all - the rest of the cars belong to the 1st category, which is allowed to be taken out of the park only for the final exercises.
      It will not work to increase the number of combat training vehicles - there will simply be nothing to repair them. Motor resource V-2 - 100 hours. Crew driving training - 50 hours. The number of spare engines is 1 for 10 T-34s.
  30. Gennady Fomkin
    Gennady Fomkin April 9 2021 19: 24
    +1
    Plus, orders for spare parts were not fulfilled, for example, as for spare parts for BT tanks. And for the T-26 tanks, the plan for spare parts was never fulfilled at all, during the time when these plans were set, not to mention the t-34.
  31. Earnest
    Earnest April 9 2021 19: 29
    +1
    There is no comparison for the most important parameter in a large-scale war. Price. And it would be more interesting to compare both in banknotes and man-hours
    1. vl903
      vl903 April 9 2021 20: 56
      +1
      the price is not only man-hours, but the hours of workers of precisely different qualifications, machine-tool hours of machines of different complexity, materials and assemblies. for example, 10 hours of a highly qualified worker on a complex machine and with expensive materials will be more expensive than 100 hours of women and children with a welding machine and a chisel
  32. Avior
    Avior April 9 2021 21: 53
    -3
    ... In other words, the reliability of the T-34 made it possible to solve the tasks facing the tank.

    It would be more correct to say that reliability determined the tasks that could be set for the tank.
    Loza wrote in his memoirs that until the very end of the war, a different number of tanks of different types were envisaged for the operation - for their goals and objectives.
    As for the comparison with the T4, its reliability was much higher than the T34, which made it possible to quickly transfer tank units along the front line by night marches and make surprise tank attacks.
    In fact, with a smaller number of tanks, the impression was made of a significantly larger number of them precisely due to the rapid transfer and concentration of tanks on the site.
    For the T34, such a task was practically impossible due to a small resource and large technical losses on the marches.
  33. voyaka uh
    voyaka uh April 9 2021 23: 25
    +1
    The T-34 was, after all, "completed" only in 1944. In 1943, the worst technical mistakes, like air filters, began to be corrected. The new gearboxes went into production from 1944.
  34. Reklastik
    Reklastik April 10 2021 13: 50
    +1
    And this is definitely Andrei wrote from Chelyabinsk? ...
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      April 10 2021 22: 45
      +1
      Quote: Reklastik
      And this is definitely Andrei wrote from Chelyabinsk? ...

      Yes :)
  35. Andycomm
    Andycomm April 10 2021 14: 54
    +2
    I will clarify that the tanker itself is not at all - not my mind and the Vusov business. But if it was necessary - FIRST of all, I always took into account the specific power and the specific pressure on the ground directly resulting from it.
    For example, it was necessary, uh, situationally and on hardware to figure out actions in the role of a user (like a gunner and a mechanic) and an Abrams, and a leopard-2. I have never concealed that I was a long-time admirer of the Merkava.
    But your will, in a collision I would prefer the good old "T-72 family". Even the ancestor, but, of course, an extreme version. Of course, there is no better way to survive, especially on a sandy-deserted TVD, than in a merkava, but to fight anywhere, pah-pah, at least with someone - from t-72bzm and higher.
    IMHO
    The material itself is very informative, elaborate and probably useful. And especially to the Stryutsk BTT historians and to the dancers.
  36. konstantin68
    konstantin68 April 10 2021 19: 13
    0
    Andrey, with all due respect, you are getting better at steamships.
    But I always read your articles with pleasure.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      April 10 2021 22: 46
      +1
      Quote: konstantin68
      Andrey, with all due respect, you are getting better at steamships.

      Thank you for your opinion hi
      1. Incvizitor
        Incvizitor April 12 2021 13: 53
        0
        I think the composition of the armor was still very influenced by the fact that there were problems with steel and this led to a deterioration in the characteristics of both armor and shells, I would like to find it in percentage by how much, but very difficult.
        I think that in the second half of the Second World War the characteristics of the armor make sense to underestimate the indicated ones.
  37. Incvizitor
    Incvizitor April 12 2021 04: 03
    0
    Another would be a comparison of t 34-85 and panthers ...
  38. swzero
    swzero April 12 2021 12: 43
    0
    The Zis-3 did not take very well on the forehead with armor-piercing. Sub-caliber yes, but how many were there in the 43rd in ammunition load? As far as I remember, very few and far from all.
  39. Gennady Fomkin
    Gennady Fomkin April 12 2021 13: 45
    0
    Quote: Alexey RA
    Quote: Gennady Fomkin
    According to the performance characteristics of the T-34 76, all German tanks of 1941 were winged like a bull to a sheep.

    According to the tabular performance characteristics from the TK - yes. In practice, it turned out that serial T-34s produced in 1940 did not meet the requirements for ST at all. And the plant responded with "breakfasts" to all the demands of the GABTU to eliminate the shortcomings, promising to correct some of the comments from the 1001-1501 machine.
    What is the use of a 500-horsepower diesel engine, if only second gear can be used in battle, and the main clutch, due to a structural defect, cannot withstand even 200 km? What is the use of a 76-mm cannon if there are no armor-piercing shells for it, and the sights, observation and control elements are located in the turret so that the turret can only be rotated blindly, and the handwheels and the body of the sights interfere with each other? What's the use of 45-mm armor, if the mechanic drive hatch fails after the second hit of the 76-mm OFS?
    Quote: Gennady Fomkin
    That's how it is, and if the crew of the hands are dispersed to the edren give a damn.

    A. tell me where to find a normal crew on a T-34 or KV, if all border districts have 70 KV and 35 T-34 combat training parks? And that's all - the rest of the cars belong to the 1st category, which is allowed to be taken out of the park only for the final exercises.
    It will not work to increase the number of combat training vehicles - there will simply be nothing to repair them. Motor resource V-2 - 100 hours. Crew driving training - 50 hours. The number of spare engines is 1 for 10 T-34s.

    Minus for illiteracy. Tank crews did not recruit from the street, but sent people who dealt with the equipment of tractor drivers, drivers. Mil cholovik is not a Panzerwaffe where Hans, Johann saw the tank only in the army, look at what the agricultural economy in Germany was plowed on ... ..boxes and horses laughing
    1933. Outskirts of Luneburg. The peasant plows the field with a plow

    1933. Outskirts of Luneburg. The peasant plows the field with a plow
    1. ecolog
      ecolog April 13 2021 00: 11
      0
      such good horses
  40. Gennady Fomkin
    Gennady Fomkin April 12 2021 14: 10
    0
    1940 The tractor works in the field. In 1940, it is only found in large farms. laughing
  41. Gennady Fomkin
    Gennady Fomkin April 12 2021 14: 19
    0
    And at this time in the USSR:
  42. Pavel57
    Pavel57 April 13 2021 00: 10
    0
    Quite an objective comparison.
  43. ecolog
    ecolog April 13 2021 00: 10
    +1
    how strange it is that the 45-mm forehead of the T-34 hull, and even with a hefty "hole" in the form of a mechanical drive hatch, is called "equivalent" to the 80 mm forehead of the T-4N, which was initially devoid of such vulnerability. And there was no way to build up the forehead of the T-34 hull. Just make a new tank (t-44). And all our efforts to increase the engine resource and improve the transmission for the Germans were decided long ago.
    The commissioning of the T-34-85 increased the firepower and finally gave the commander the opportunity to engage in his direct duties, but it was not possible to strengthen the corps's forehead, alas.
    Here we can only console ourselves (in a good way) with the fact that tanks are initially, first of all, a mobile means of breakthrough, coverage and encirclement (which the Germans demonstrated in the initial period of the Second World War, possessing very mediocre tanks in terms of armor and firepower) and not a mobile PTO. And our industry turned out to be more technological and ensured the production of tanks in large volumes than the Germans could afford (although their production culture and technology were much higher).
    And in the end, we crushed the Germans with iron - tanks, artillery, aviation, and not with the bodies of infantry, as we tried in the imperialist
    1. fone
      fone April 13 2021 14: 36
      -1
      Burst into tears laughing
      Of course, I understand that there are people who are far from understanding what sloped armor is and what are its advantages. But I've never met them before))
      As part of the reference, I inform you that the 45mm sloped armor of the T-34 hull has a geometric equivalent of 90mm.
      1. ecolog
        ecolog April 15 2021 23: 13
        0
        Believe it or not, I still know what the given armor is. But bad luck, the T-4 with the 7.5 cm KwK 40 L / 43 long-barreled cannon unfortunately pierced the forehead of the T-34 hull without any problems. And there was no way to increase the forehead of the T-34 hull. What I actually wrote about.
        1. fone
          fone April 17 2021 03: 13
          0
          There were opportunities to build up the hull's forehead; in 1942, some of the tanks were produced with 60mm frontal armor. You need to take a closer look at the history of the T-34.
          1. ecolog
            ecolog April 17 2021 21: 45
            +1
            and how much is it in pieces? I heard this bike, but the T-34 with a 60 mm solid sheet forehead did not exist in nature. They made shielding with armor plates from the T-60 tank 10-15 mm while these sheets were touched. They also installed as many as 8 (eight) towers with a 75-mm forehead.
            This is not a series, but experiments that have not been continued.
            As a result, even the T-34-85 went into production with the same 45-mm armor.
            And, by the way, sloped armor is certainly good and has its advantages, but a 90 mm sheet does not completely replace. So the Germans used 50-mm shells with an armor-piercing tip welded on top. When hitting the armor, there was a normalization effect and the armor broke through.
            1. The comment was deleted.
  44. fone
    fone April 13 2021 14: 46
    0
    Not a bad article, but the author got into the same puddle as Baryatinsky in his book about a German tank. The thickness of the Pz.IV turret's forehead remained 50mm, so the German had no advantages in duels.
  45. Filxnumx
    Filxnumx April 13 2021 20: 20
    0
    At the same time, for the Germans on the agenda was the need to somehow resist the Soviet tank wedges, and here the T-IVH coped with this task better than the "thirty-four".

    Tanks do not fight tanks, you (I hope) know that very well, author. For this there is a PTA. and specialized armored vehicles. Comparison of the anti-tank properties of the T-34 and T-IVH is not entirely appropriate here.
  46. Charlie
    Charlie April 14 2021 21: 34
    0
    And the German 88-mm anti-aircraft guns were equipped with armor-piercing shells?
  47. Charlie
    Charlie April 14 2021 21: 46
    0
    Quote: Fil743
    At the same time, for the Germans on the agenda was the need to somehow resist the Soviet tank wedges, and here the T-IVH coped with this task better than the "thirty-four".

    Tanks do not fight tanks, you (I hope) know that very well, author. For this there is a PTA. and specialized armored vehicles. Comparison of the anti-tank properties of the T-34 and T-IVH is not entirely appropriate here.

    So what, tanks and tanks never fought? Don't make me laugh. This widespread belief that tanks do not fight with tanks was refuted by the war itself.
  48. Vyacheslav01
    Vyacheslav01 April 23 2021 19: 53
    0
    And the paint for the T-34 could have been more realistic.
  49. The comment was deleted.
  50. Pavel57
    Pavel57 16 May 2021 10: 19
    0
    Good article. Multi-vector comparison. Why is the frontal armor compared without taking into account the slope, which for the T-34 is equivalent to an increase in thickness to 90mm?