Military Review

The armor is strong. Technical features of armor protection T-34

133

Booking scheme tank T-34 of the first production version. Graphics Wikimedia Commons


In the early days of World War II, Soviet T-34 medium tanks came as an unpleasant surprise for the enemy. The main tank and anti-tank guns of the German army could not effectively hit such equipment from real ranges, and this state of affairs persisted for a fairly long time. It was possible to provide such a high level of protection for the T-34 tank due to the competent and successful combination of well-known and new ideas, materials and technologies.

At an angle to the vertical


In a number of projects of the thirties, Soviet tank builders worked out the idea of ​​the so-called. rational booking angles. The installation of hull parts at angles and the use of curved turret elements made it possible to increase the level of protection with a limited increase in the thickness and weight of the armor. All variants of a promising tank, developed by the Kharkov KB-24 before the future T-34, received just such a reservation.

Project T-34 mod. 1940, according to which serial production was being established, provided for the use of sufficiently thick armor installed at significant angles. The hull forehead was made of two rolled sheets 45 mm thick; the upper one was installed at an inclination of 60 ° to the vertical, the lower one - 53 °. The upper part of the sides was a 40 mm thick piece, inclined by 40 °. The lower part of the bead was vertical and had a thickness of 45 mm. The roof of the hull was 16 mm thick; bottom - 13 and 16 mm in different areas.


Assembly of hulls at a plant in Nizhny Tagil, 1942. Photo by Waralbum.ru

It is easy to calculate that the horizontal-reduced thickness of the upper frontal part reached 90 mm, and the lower - 75 mm. A similar parameter of the inclined side of the side exceeded 52 mm.

The first version of the turret for the T-34 was welded and consisted of several rolled parts. He received a complex-shaped frontal unit 45 mm thick. The sides and sterns had the same thickness, installed with an inclination of up to 30 °. Provided for a 40-mm gun mantlet. Later, a cast tower was created. Due to the differences between rolled and cast armor, the wall thickness increased to 52 mm. From above, all the options for the caps were covered with a 15-mm roof.

Thus, at the time of its appearance, the T-34 had a fairly thick armor and in this respect was second only to heavy tanks of domestic design. At the same time, it was possible to obtain the minimum mass of the structure. So, the hull of the experienced A-34 weighed approx. 10,4 tons, of which 7,92 tons were armor. The tower protection had a mass of less than 1,7 tons with a total mass of the tower of over 3,15 tons.


Production line in Nizhny Tagil, 1943. Photo by Waralbum.ru

New alloy


In 1939, the Mariupol plant named after V.I. Ilyich, who was to make armor parts. At that time, the enterprise produced bulletproof armor, while anti-cannon alloys were absent in the range. For the joint development of a new material, a group of specialists from the Leningrad Research Armored Institute No. 34 arrived at the plant.

Two sets of armor for the construction of experimental tanks were ready in November 1939, but work on a new type for production vehicles continued. In January of the following year, preliminary work on the armor was completed, which received the designation MZ-2 ("Mariupol plant, second"). Then they carried out six experimental heats, during which they prepared 49 armored parts of different compositions for subsequent tests. These products had a thickness of 25 to 50 mm in increments of 5 mm.

In Mariupol, tests were carried out with shelling from 37- and 45-mm guns. Armor of all thicknesses showed acceptable characteristics of resistance to various projectiles. Then some of the armor plates were sent to the Izhora plant for testing by firing a 76-mm cannon. All six samples split when hit by a projectile, and there was also a spalling of fragments from the back.


Museum T-34, built in 1941. The tower of the machine is welded from rolled parts. Photo Wikimedia Commons

Based on the test results, the developers received a recommendation to increase the viscosity of the armor. In addition, the customer revised the requirements, and an improved version of the MZ-2 was recommended for production. They began to melt the gross armor already in April 1940, and by the end of the month the first batch of 10 sets of armor parts for the T-34 was sent to Kharkov. At that time, the armor bore the new name I-8S. Later, the "experimental" letter "I" was removed.

Initially, 8C armor was produced only in Mariupol. Later, in parallel with the development of the production of T-34 at new sites, melting began at other enterprises, in Magnitogorsk, Kuznetsk and other cities. In 1941, after the loss of Mariupol and Kharkov, this made it possible to maintain the production of tanks and further increase it.

Protection development


As production continued, the design of the T-34 tank and individual units changed several times. Some of these innovations were aimed at improving the tactical and technical characteristics, while others were introduced to simplify, accelerate and reduce the cost of mass production. In addition, the specificity of serial production at different enterprises affected. In particular, this led to minor deviations in the thickness of the armor of different batches.


Tank with a cast turret, 1942 Photo Wikimedia Commons

The strength of the hull protection as a whole has not changed or been revised. Only in 1943 were measures taken to strengthen the front of the bottom (from 16 to 20 mm) and a new upper aft part appeared - 45 mm instead of 40 mm. The rest of the body parts have not undergone significant modifications. At the same time, tanks from different factories could differ in the way they were connected. For example, most of the bodies were butt-welded, but products with a tenon connection are known.

Until the end of 1941, tank turrets were assembled only from rolled parts. Then NII-48 developed a casting technology for towers of an updated design with the required protection characteristics. The forehead, sides and stern were made in the form of a single piece, into which the roof was then welded. The first batches of tanks with such units were sent to the Red Army at the beginning of 1942.

In 1942, the technology of stamping a tower from a 45-mm armor plate appeared. It was mastered only by the Ural Heavy Engineering Plant, and it was not a priority. In total, they released approx. 2 thousand stamped towers.

The armor is strong. Technical features of armor protection T-34
Padded T-34 on Stalingrad Street, 1942. Holes in the mask and at the junction of the frontal parts are visible. Probably, the enemy used a gun with a caliber of at least 50 mm. Photo of the Bundesarchive of the Federal Republic of Germany

In the course of creating a new modification of the T-34-85 tank, a new turret of increased size was created, capable of accommodating a larger caliber gun and three tankers. It was made of several cast parts, joined by welding. Frontal thickness increased to 90 mm; sides - up to 75 mm, stern - 52 mm. A 40mm mask was also used.

Real results


At the time of its appearance, the T-34 was one of the most protected tanks in the world and in this respect surpassed all existing medium tanks. Combined with other features and characteristics, armor up to 40-45 mm thick with significant tilt angles made the T-34 one of the best combat vehicles of its time. High combat qualities were confirmed already in the summer of 1941, when Soviet tanks first encountered a real enemy.

During the fighting, it was found that the main anti-tank weapons in Germany could not cope with the T-34 armor. PaK 35/36 cannons of 37 mm caliber could penetrate only the thinnest parts, and from a range of no more than a few hundred meters. Short-barreled tank guns showed similar results. A certain threat to our tanks was posed by 50-mm systems in towed and tank versions, and the most dangerous enemy was 88-mm anti-aircraft guns.


T-34-85 with a welded turret in Berlin, May 1945. Photo by Waralbum.ru

It can be argued that the booking of the Soviet T-34 was one of the main factors that influenced the development of German artillery and armored weapons after 1941. Noticeable results of this appeared in 1943, when a new generation of guns, tanks and self-propelled guns appeared on German positions. Unlike their predecessors, they could hit the T-34 from real distances.

However, after that, Soviet tanks did not lose their potential. The competent use of technology ensured the realization of all its advantages and the reduction of disadvantages. Then a major modernization was carried out, as a result of which the fighting qualities of the equipment increased significantly. This made it possible to keep the T-34 in service and in production until the end of the war and get the desired results.

Thus, at the turn of the thirties and forties, tank builders and metallurgists managed to create a successful design of armor protection for a promising medium tank. She showed the required characteristics and surpassed the current threats, and in addition, it was suitable for mass production at several factories and for operation in tank units. Over time, the potential of such armor diminished, and it no longer protected against all expected threats. But even after that, the T-34 tanks, having undergone a new modernization, retained their high combat capability and made a significant contribution to future victory.
Author:
133 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. mark1
    mark1 9 May 2021 06: 04
    +14
    From October 1, 1940, the cast tower of the Mariupol plant was accepted for delivery, the angle of inclination of the NLD was subsequently increased to 60 °, the thickness of the lower sheets of the sides was brought to 45 mm, and finally the refusal in 1944 from the frontal beam. You can recall the options for shielding and its cancellation since 1943, as well as a revision of views on the importance of increasing the thickness of the T-34 armor at the final stage of the Second World War.
    Congratulations to all on Victory Day!
    1. Finches
      Finches 9 May 2021 06: 23
      +5
      I read it with pleasure, but for some reason I thought - Ukraine ditched tank building in a couple of decades, on the one hand it calms down. On the other hand, it causes resentment and pain for how in the "square" once again the works and achievements of many generations were blown away!
      1. lucul
        lucul 9 May 2021 08: 09
        +15
        but for some reason I thought - Ukraine ditched tank building in a couple of decades, on the one hand it calms. On the other hand, it causes resentment and pain for how in the "square" once again the works and achievements of many generations were blown away!

        This once again suggests that it is worth building high-tech production only in the metropolis, and not on the outskirts)))
        1. Kot_Kuzya
          Kot_Kuzya 9 May 2021 08: 21
          +3
          Quote: lucul

          This once again suggests that it is worth building high-tech production only in the metropolis, and not on the outskirts)))

          But if the Tashkent Aviation, Kharkov Tank Building, Nikolaev Shipbuilding, Yuzhny Machine Building, plant them. Antonov, Minsk Automobile, Belarusian Automobile, Belarusian Tractor would be built in the RSFSR, then all these enterprises would be alive and work for the benefit of the Russians.
          1. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
            Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 9 May 2021 10: 26
            +1
            Quote: Kot_Kuzya
            were built in the RSFSR, then all these enterprises would be alive and work for the good of the Russians.

            And why hell, sorry, then need the outskirts of the union state? Just as a buffer and a wild field between him and the damned capitalist encirclement?
            1. Kot_Kuzya
              Kot_Kuzya 9 May 2021 11: 35
              +15
              Quote: Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
              And why hell, sorry, then the outskirts of the union state need?

              To download resources. How the Anglo-Saxons do it.
              1. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
                Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 9 May 2021 11: 49
                -1
                Quote: Kot_Kuzya
                To download resources. How the Anglo-Saxons do it.

                And what resources did the RSFSR lack?
                1. Kot_Kuzya
                  Kot_Kuzya 9 May 2021 12: 48
                  +6
                  Quote: Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
                  And what resources did the RSFSR lack?

                  Many things. The biggest problem of the RSFSR that modern Russia has got is access to ice-free ports. After the collapse of the USSR, the non-freezing ports that remained on the territory of the Russian Federation are Murmansk, Nakhodka and Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky. Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky, as you yourself understand, is absolutely not suitable for trade with other countries, Nakhodka is too far from the center of the country, and Murmansk is located in the Arctic and also far from the center of the country and from the main European ports like Bremen, Hamburg and Rotterdam. Taman, Novorossiysk and Tuapse can be ignored, since they are extremely inconvenient ports.To get to Rotterdam, the largest and most important port in Europe, you need to make a detour through Gibraltar. As you know, the largest trading partners in Europe for Russia are Holland and Germany, the share of Spain, Italy and Turkey, trade with which goes through the Black Sea ports, is insignificant in comparison with them, and these are mainly non-technological goods such as agricultural products and Turkish consumer goods.
                  It is not without reason that only the Baltic republics were taken from the republics of the former USSR to the EU and NATO, since the Anglo-Saxons since the 18th century have pursued a policy of isolating Russia from entering the Baltic, and the accession of the Baltic countries to the EU and NATO is the most reliable way to block Russia's access to the Baltic ports.
                  1. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
                    Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 9 May 2021 16: 14
                    -2
                    Quote: Kot_Kuzya
                    The biggest problem of the RSFSR that modern Russia has got is access to ice-free ports ... they pursued a policy of isolating Russia from access to the Baltic

                    What's wrong with Peter? Freezing?
                    1. Kot_Kuzya
                      Kot_Kuzya 10 May 2021 00: 05
                      +4
                      Have you never been to Petersburg in winter? Naturally, the Gulf of Finland freezes over, which greatly increases the cost of operating ports in the Gulf of Finland, as it forces the use of icebreakers.
                    2. Alexey RA
                      Alexey RA 11 May 2021 10: 39
                      +3
                      Quote: Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
                      What's wrong with Peter? Freezing?

                      Doesn't just freeze.

                      This is the 2011 Gulf of Finland. At that time, ALED "Vaygach" had to be transferred to the Baltic to pilot the ships. And in 2012 - the big ALED "50 Years of Victory".
                      Plus, Peter's entire communication with the open sea goes through the narrow intestine of the Sea Canal.
            2. boriz
              boriz 9 May 2021 23: 44
              0
              Agricultural outskirts.
          2. Shiden
            Shiden 9 May 2021 13: 01
            +12
            I'm not sure that they would have survived. Saratov Aviation Plant, ZiL, Leningrad Tank Plant, Tractor plants in Lipetsk, Volgograd have sunk into oblivion. Or I am mistaken, I say so, do not judge strictly, because we see weeds in someone else's garden, but we do not notice in ours.
            1. Victor Tsenin
              Victor Tsenin 9 May 2021 14: 28
              +7
              Why don't we notice, there was statistics that since the 90s about 40 thousand large and small industries / organizations have been buried, from a conditional collective farm to a factory. But a lot has remained and is developing, in contrast to.
            2. Kot_Kuzya
              Kot_Kuzya 9 May 2021 14: 31
              +2
              The Kirovsky plant in St. Petersburg is still operating and produces products that are successfully sold.
              ZIL was torn apart for the sake of a tasty piece of Moscow land in the "saints" of the 90s. As for the Volgograd and Lipetsk tractors, this is due to the subsidizing of the Belarusian tractor to the detriment of Russian factories for the sake of the "brothers" of Belarusians.
          3. alekSASHKA-36
            alekSASHKA-36 9 May 2021 17: 40
            +5
            Voronezh "Electropribor" "Mechanical" "Excavator" are in the metropolis, suffocated.
          4. Aag
            Aag 9 May 2021 19: 10
            +3
            Quote: Kot_Kuzya
            Quote: lucul

            This once again suggests that it is worth building high-tech production only in the metropolis, and not on the outskirts)))

            But if the Tashkent Aviation, Kharkov Tank Building, Nikolaev Shipbuilding, Yuzhny Machine Building, plant them. Antonov, Minsk Automobile, Belarusian Automobile, Belarusian Tractor would be built in the RSFSR, then all these enterprises would be alive and work for the benefit of the Russians.

            If without the Current Policy, in those years, such a decision, perhaps, was justified.
            In general, I sit, roar, - ashamed in front of the previous generations, - fathers, grandfathers, great-grandfathers. Without pathos, - in essence: they flew into space 12 years after the Second World War, and prices were reduced, and everyone was sure that it would be better in the future, (and it was so, for a long time). Someone wants to say about the sanctions ??! Wash! ... Yes, take a look in the mirror! 20 minutes ago, cars are rolling up to the house, young people with fireworks, with flags, children. ..And the music "thumps" is not at all the same ... And the slang ... Let's say, not suitable for the cubs taken from the back seats ... (((
            Kick! Better yet, try to justify first ...
            All with the Great Victory Day!
            Bow, honors to all veterans of the Great Patriotic War, military, labor! ...
          5. zenion
            zenion 12 May 2021 14: 00
            -1
            When they saw in Russia what they were doing with factories in the former republics, they took an example from them and ruined a lot of experimental factories, and did not bother to build them again. But the factories turned out to be excellent hotels and massage factories. Previously, before the serial launch at such plants, they worked out the processing technique, the necessary additional equipment and the necessary machines, cutters, cutters.
        2. Revolver
          Revolver 9 May 2021 08: 40
          +6
          Quote: lucul
          This once again suggests that it is worth building high-tech production only in the metropolis, and not on the outskirts.

          Amendment: on the national outskirts.
          Although who in Russia, even in 1991, even after the failed putsch, could imagine that in a couple of months Ukraine would become abroad?
          Happy Victory Day everyone! And especially those who are crushed and crushed by this congratulation, like Svidomites.
          1. mat-vey
            mat-vey 9 May 2021 08: 44
            +2
            Quote: Nagan
            Although who is in Russia,

            You might think the choice was ... Tashkent was evacuated during the war, No. 183 on the site of the pre-revolutionary steam locomotive, etc. etc.
        3. Sergey V.
          Sergey V. 23 May 2021 14: 49
          0
          Speak the truth!
        4. Jager
          Jager 30 June 2021 12: 03
          0
          In fairness, the Stalingrad tractor was ditched not so long ago with the beloved GDP.
      2. V means B
        V means B 24 July 2021 10: 26
        0
        And maybe in order not to be offended and not to get sick today it was necessary to save the USSR "yesterday"?
        1. Finches
          Finches 24 July 2021 13: 07
          -1
          History does not know the terms ... However, you can ask Kuchma, he is alive, but Yeltsin is already dead!
    2. svp67
      svp67 9 May 2021 08: 49
      +6
      Quote: mark1
      From October 1, 1940, the cast tower of the Mariupol plant was accepted for delivery,

      The T-34 tower was constantly being improved, and the cast tower went to the conveyor of the KhPZ in parallel with the welded ...
      Quote: mark1
      finally the refusal in 1944 from the frontal beam.

      Which was practically carried out in the spring of 1945 ...
      Quote: mark1
      You can remember the shielding options

  2. Mountain shooter
    Mountain shooter 9 May 2021 06: 14
    +8
    Successful tank. The cannon was lethal for those times. All types of German tanks from all real distances. It is a pity that we did not immediately learn to apply them correctly. The secrecy was divorced. There were already tanks in the units. And the documentation is in the classified section. Learning new technology was slow. We lost a lot in the endless marches of the beginning of the war. The generals did not understand that tanks are not cavalry, and marches need to be made wisely ... nothing, they learned.
    1. Ross xnumx
      Ross xnumx 9 May 2021 07: 30
      +8
      Quote: Mountain Shooter
      We lost a lot in the endless marches of the beginning of the war. The generals did not understand that tanks are not cavalry, and marches need to be made wisely ... nothing, learned.

      yes
      On the other hand, one should not condemn the leadership of the Red Army for the lack of experience, as well as again discuss the myth of the "decapitation of the army" (by Stalin).
      https://topwar.ru/4026-mif-o-obezglavlivanii-armii-stalinym.html
      But, you must admit, in the capacity in which tanks began to appear in the Red Army (T-34 from 1940, KV - from 1939 they managed to test it in the Soviet-Finnish war), they were not even fully studied. How many people tell us about the T-72b3m, T-80bvm, T-14 ... And how many have sat at the levers or have been in an armored capsule. A striking example of the criminal use of tanks (armored vehicles) is the operation in Grozny in 1994-1995, about which it was said:
      “The rout was complete,” says General Rokhlin. - The command was in shock. His main concern was, obviously, the search for excuses for what had happened. Otherwise, it is difficult to explain the fact that no one contacted me. Since then, I have not received a single order. The chiefs seemed to have taken water into their mouths. The Minister of Defense (General Pavel Grachev), as I was later told, did not leave his carriage in Mozdok and drank hopelessly ...

      I look at the frontal profile of the T-34. Nothing extra. There is nothing to cling to. And the confidence of the crew in the advantage of their car is worth a lot. Also, as you said, experience came with time.
      1. svp67
        svp67 9 May 2021 08: 50
        +13
        Quote: ROSS 42
        I look at the frontal profile of the T-34. Nothing extra. There is nothing to cling to.

        Look bad ... mech-water hatch, machine-gun "apple" ... they are EXTRAORDINARY
        1. Alf
          Alf 9 May 2021 09: 59
          +7
          Quote: svp67
          hatch fur-water,

          And where to install it, do not tell me?
          1. svp67
            svp67 9 May 2021 11: 32
            +1
            Quote: Alf
            And where to install it, do not tell me?

            From above, to the roof of the case
            1. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
              Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 9 May 2021 12: 02
              +4
              Quote: svp67
              From above, to the roof of the case

              wisely. Show where exactly.
              1. svp67
                svp67 9 May 2021 12: 58
                +7
                Quote: Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
                wisely. Show where exactly.

                You are welcome. A-34 (second copy)


                1. Victor Tsenin
                  Victor Tsenin 9 May 2021 14: 31
                  +1
                  I didn't know about this option, why, I wonder, was not adopted, given this revision?
                  1. svp67
                    svp67 9 May 2021 18: 14
                    +2
                    Quote: Victor Tsenin
                    I didn't know about this option, why, I wonder, was not adopted, given this revision?

                    Because of the position of the military. Didn't like the "small" hatch and "bad" visibility
                    1. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
                      Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 9 May 2021 19: 22
                      +1
                      Quote: svp67
                      Because of the position of the military. Didn't like the "small" hatch and "bad" visibility

                      plus the vulnerability of the welds of this design. The stupidity is obvious. What is the military wrong?
                      1. Victor Tsenin
                        Victor Tsenin 9 May 2021 19: 48
                        +1
                        Then who is right in the end? On the one hand, a vulnerable, breakable mechanical drive hatch, on the other hand, the vulnerability of welded seams.
                      2. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
                        Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 9 May 2021 19: 59
                        +2
                        Quote: Victor Tsenin
                        Then who is right in the end?

                        Dear colleague is right svp67:
                        Quote: svp67
                        Quote: Alf
                        And where to install it, do not tell me?

                        From above, to the roof of the case

                        But! - it is impossible to solve this problem without changing the inclination of the forehead (example M4 Sherman). The Americans abandoned this stucco molding with "turrets", which is logical. First, the viewing slits were removed, and then the frontal sheet was removed altogether, changing the slope and leaving only the machine-gun embrasure.
                      3. Victor Tsenin
                        Victor Tsenin 9 May 2021 20: 42
                        +1
                        Now we figured it out, thank you both for the info)
                      4. Alexey RA
                        Alexey RA 11 May 2021 10: 46
                        +1
                        Quote: Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
                        But! - it is impossible to solve this problem without changing the inclination of the forehead (example M4 Sherman).

                        Can. But you will have to turn the engine 90 degrees and completely recycle the MTO, reducing its length. Then it will be possible to move the turret back and carve out a place for the mechanical drive hatch on the roof of the hull. And to delay the production of the tank for a year.
                      5. Private SA
                        Private SA 11 May 2021 11: 20
                        +1
                        T-44. Top hatch. But the machine gunner for the MG-42 does not care how the turn
                        skew. And about the difference between the towers "Pie" and "Washer" from different
                        factories on the T-34-76 in the war did not seem to be mentioned. Or overlooked?
                      6. Jager
                        Jager 30 June 2021 12: 07
                        0
                        The T-44 has a completely different MTO and dimension.
                        The T-34 should be replaced by the T-34M, but they didn't have time ...
              2. svp67
                svp67 9 May 2021 20: 25
                +2
                Quote: Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
                plus the vulnerability of the welds of this design.

                And in this case it is not a fact. The situation with the welding of armor in the USSR and in other belligerent countries differed greatly. In any case, the welding of the commander's cupola was much higher in quality than that of the same Germans, who had to change the technology of this process several times.
              3. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
                Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 9 May 2021 20: 44
                0
                Quote: svp67
                And in this case it is not a fact.

                in this particular case it is a fact.
                Quote: svp67
                welding of the commander's cupola was much higher in quality

                Yes, I somehow doubt that the Wehrmacht anti-tank crews aimed primarily at the commander's cupola. And there is no need to talk about quality in case of an emergency. As is known, the factories did not suffer from high technological discipline.
              4. svp67
                svp67 10 May 2021 03: 30
                0
                Quote: Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
                in this particular case it is a fact.

                No, namely, that in relation to Soviet armored vehicles - no
                Quote: Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
                Yes, I somehow doubt that the Wehrmacht anti-tank crews aimed primarily at the commander's cupola. And there is no need to talk about quality in case of an emergency. As is known, the factories did not suffer from high technological discipline.

                No, here you are wrong ... the brand of the used armored steel, flux and electrodes means a lot, and the process itself at our factories has been automated.
                Take a look at the Su-100, what is the commander's cupola on it and somehow there were no complaints about it
            2. Sergey Aleksandrovich
              Sergey Aleksandrovich 9 May 2021 22: 56
              +2
              Alas, the welding was adjusted somewhere after 42, and before that it was no better than the Germans. Automatic welding is the merit of academician Paton, it was then that his devices were introduced into production.
            3. svp67
              svp67 10 May 2021 13: 42
              0
              Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich
              Alas, the welding was adjusted somewhere after 42, and before that it was no better than the Germans.

              It depends on where. In 1940, a team from Nikolaev, from shipyards, was specially dispatched to Kharkov, they trained local welders on the rules of welding thick sheets of armor on new equipment and managed to dramatically improve its quality, and it was these Kharkovites who later trained both Stalingrad and Tagil residents.
            4. old dilettante
              old dilettante 11 May 2021 17: 47
              +4
              Sergey, IN REALITY, the Kharkovites mastered the technology of welding parts of an experimental tank with the help of specialists from the Armored Institute (Research Institute No. 48). Actually "armored cars" were sent to Kharkov to reduce the level of defects (cracks during welding of hulls). Scientists developed technical processes for welding with austenitic electrodes, greatly helped the plant workers with the creation of their own production of electrodes, trained 52 welders in welding and took a qualifying exam from them, made suggestions on the design and methods of joining body parts. Below is the beginning of the text of the brigade's report on the results of the trip.
              "REPORT OF THE TEAM ON PROVIDING TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TO PLANT No. 183 named after COMINTERN (Kharkov) ON WELDING OF A-34 STRUCTURES.

              The work was carried out by the NII-48 brigade consisting of Ing. P. V. PILNIK and YASHINA AND.The. under the leadership of the Beginning. 3rd Dept. NII-48 A.P. GORYACHEVA in the period from November 1 to December 16, 1940 ... "(TsAMO, Fund 38. Inventory 11355. Case 47. Sheets 131 - 137).
          2. mat-vey
            mat-vey 10 May 2021 15: 59
            +2
            By the end of 1942, 6 automatic welding installations were operating at the Ural Tank Plant, in 1943 - 15, in 1944 - 30 installations.
          3. svp67
            svp67 11 May 2021 18: 22
            +1
            Quote: mat-vey
            By the end of 1942, 6 automatic welding installations were operating at the Ural Tank Plant, in 1943 - 15, in 1944 - 30 installations.

            Which of the "Ural" ones? At UVZ, at Uralmash, in Tankograd?
          4. mat-vey
            mat-vey 14 May 2021 17: 22
            0
            Quote: svp67
            Which of the "Ural" ones?

            On which the Patons worked (These are the father and son who developed this very welding). At No. 183, first in Kharkov in 1940, and then at No. 183 - UVZ since January 1942 .. And also at Uralmash - under the leadership Dyatlova (also from Kharkov)
          5. svp67
            svp67 14 May 2021 17: 36
            0
            Quote: mat-vey
            The one on which the Patons worked (These are the father and son who developed this very welding)

            So they worked in Kiev and primarily for shipbuilding. The tank industry was a "trailer". It was after the start of the war that tank building became the main one, their institute was even evacuated to Nizhny Tagil.
          6. mat-vey
            mat-vey 14 May 2021 17: 42
            0
            Quote: svp67
            So they worked in Kiev and primarily for shipbuilding.

            But on 183, already in 1940, automatic welding was introduced - just under 34 ... did they start making tanks right away?
          7. svp67
            svp67 14 May 2021 17: 48
            0
            Quote: mat-vey
            But on 183, already in 1940, automatic welding was introduced - just under 34 ...

            No, in 1940 the welding process itself was practiced there, even without automatic machines. Plant 183 simply did not have experience in welding armor of such thickness on a large scale and already based on experience, by the way, not always successful, a proposal was put forward to start automating this process, in 1941 three machines for automatic welding were delivered
          8. mat-vey
            mat-vey 15 May 2021 06: 24
            0
            It seems that they began to work out the "process" back in 194-35 ...
          9. svp67
            svp67 15 May 2021 09: 15
            0
            Quote: mat-vey
            began to do the installation

            "Welding tractor", such a name was given to these devices at the Paton Institute and initially they were made for shipbuilders, it was only later, when it turned out that there was a blockage with welding in the production of new tanks, they decided to establish them in tank production ...
  • Alf
    Alf 9 May 2021 17: 12
    +1
    Then the "bite" of the projectile will be even better.
    1. svp67
      svp67 9 May 2021 18: 21
      +2
      Quote: Alf
      Then the "bite" of the projectile will be even better.

      Not a fact, especially since this part or as it was then called the "driver's turret" can be made thicker, and if you look at Sherman, you can see the option of a local increase in armor, if necessary

      1. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
        Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 9 May 2021 19: 19
        +2
        Quote: svp67
        and if you look at the Sherman, you can see the option of a local increase in armor, if necessary

        yeah, and that protrusion on early M4s was even covered with shields to protect the weld. This was A1's weak point. In addition, these "turrets" did not have direct observation devices, unlike a similar project for the A-34

        And then they wisely sacrificed the angle of the forehead from 47 to 56 degrees.
  • Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
    Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 9 May 2021 19: 33
    0
    Quote: svp67
    Please.

    stucco ...
  • Akuzenka
    Akuzenka 9 May 2021 20: 39
    +3
    It's good to be smart like my wife afterwards.
  • lucul
    lucul 9 May 2021 08: 20
    -2
    Successful tank

    Revolutionary tank - Zamvolt for its time, only unlike Zamvolt, all new technologies justified themselves in the T-34)))
    All types of German tanks from all real distances.

    Yes - he annihilated all German tanks at that time.
    True, he got rid of all childhood diseases only by 1943.
    1. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
      Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 9 May 2021 11: 51
      +4
      Quote: lucul
      Revolutionary tank

      Yes, Christie's suspension is a revolution in tank building ...
      Quote: lucul
      Zamwolt for its time

      a weird analogy. Pretty pretentious.
      1. lucul
        lucul 9 May 2021 12: 35
        +8
        Yes, Christie's suspension is a revolution in tank building ...

        Take a deeper look at the world.
        There are three main components of the tank concept:
        1- firepower
        2- armor
        3- speed
        There were tanks in that war with outstanding firepower, there were tanks with outstanding armor, there were tanks with outstanding speed. That is, they all had an emphasis on only one of the basic concepts of the tank, maximum two.
        But only the T-34 could get into the golden balance of the three concepts, between firepower, armor and speed, as the war proved.
        Actually, this concept was based on when introducing the concept of a main battle tank.
        1. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
          Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 9 May 2021 12: 56
          -4
          Quote: lucul
          Take a deeper look at the world.

          That's it. There was no revolutionary T-34. A tank is like a tank, with its own strengths and weaknesses.
          1. Akuzenka
            Akuzenka 9 May 2021 20: 43
            +1
            You are so smart! Probably, right now, you will draw us a revolutionary tank that will surpass all the tanks that exist now! And they will win all !!!!!
            1. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
              Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 9 May 2021 20: 50
              0
              Quote: AKuzenka
              You are so smart! Probably right now, draw us a revolutionary tank

              What a childish twitch. No "revolutionary" tanks exist except, perhaps, the conceptual masterpiece FT-17. There was a progressive development of engineering thought. And the T-34 is just a link in this evolution. What exactly is revolutionary in it, don’t you say?
              1. Akuzenka
                Akuzenka 9 May 2021 20: 53
                +2
                What a childish twitch. No "revolutionary" tanks exist except, perhaps, the conceptual masterpiece FT-17.
                Then what is your speech for ?! If this is how you write, why did not the "enlightened" Teutons create a tank before WWII that could withstand the T-34 ?! Did you do it during the Great Patriotic War? After all, evolution was supposed to lead them along the same path.
                1. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
                  Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 9 May 2021 21: 10
                  0
                  Quote: AKuzenka
                  before WWII, a tank capable of withstanding the T-34 ?! Did you do it during the Great Patriotic War? After all, evolution was supposed to lead them along the same path.

                  The Pzkpfw 4 evolved to F2 by the 42nd and beyond. The 34 was not a Panzerwaffe nightmare. Yes, and the PTA is at war with tanks, so this question is more likely to the 4th department of the UVSS, and not to the 6th.
                  But you did not answer the question - what exactly is revolutionary in 34?
                  1. Akuzenka
                    Akuzenka 11 May 2021 10: 30
                    0
                    The 34 was not a Panzerwaffe nightmare.
                    Strange, I never wrote that the T-34 was revolutionary, and therefore did not answer the question. He himself was not revolutionary, but his concept - yes! It is used to this day and continues to be modernized. It was I who suggested you to offer us something revolutionary in the field of tank building.
                    1. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
                      Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 11 May 2021 10: 34
                      0
                      Quote: AKuzenka
                      Strange, I never wrote that the T-34 was revolutionary

                      Sorry, but you got stuck in a dialogue, where my line was exactly for comment
                      Quote: lucul
                      Revolutionary tank

                      Quote: AKuzenka
                      He himself was not revolutionary, but his concept - yes!

                      and what is revolutionary about the "concept" of the T-34? And what do you mean by conceptuality in relation to a tank?
                    2. Akuzenka
                      Akuzenka 11 May 2021 10: 39
                      -1
                      and what is revolutionary about the "concept" of the T-34? And what do you mean by conceptuality in relation to a tank?
                      The concept, in my understanding, is a set of line-up solutions that allows you to use the strengths of technology to the fullest and eliminate the weaknesses.
                      "Revolutionary":
                      1. Sloped armor.
                      2. Diesel.
                      3. A powerful weapon (although it was forced to cut to a stub, it lost its power).
                      4. Permeability.
                      Here's an offhand. The topic is very deep, and you can argue for a long time. But I think so.
                    3. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
                      Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 11 May 2021 16: 52
                      0
                      Quote: AKuzenka
                      "Revolutionary":
                      1. Sloped armor.

                      Rational armoring of armored vehicles was known even before the appearance of the a-20, a-32, bt-sv. The French experimented with inclined armor back in WWI - for example, Saint Chamont had inclined plates. It is quite a serial soma developed in 1935. had a sloping forehead. And about the costs of inclined armor (in the Soviet version), only the lazy did not write
                      Quote: AKuzenka
                      2. Diesel

                      The Japanese installed a diesel engine on Otsu in 1933.
                      Quote: AKuzenka
                      3. A powerful weapon (although it was forced to cut to a stub, it lost its power).

                      The L-11 was originally a stub of 30K. Ncc 612 m / sec.
                      Quote: AKuzenka
                      4. Permeability.

                      Wide tracks? Christie's suspension felt bad on rough terrain. And indeed it was a rudiment by 1939.
                      The T-34 should not be overestimated - its "revolutionary" character has a lot of costs. Yes, the T-34-85 was the pinnacle of its modernization, but what does any revolution have to do with it?
                    4. Jager
                      Jager 30 June 2021 12: 20
                      0
                      Regarding Otsu and other "diesel" tanks - to use an air-cooled diesel engine for armored vehicles, well, such a decision, in the style of anime engineers.
                      And somehow to compare the Japanese "tank building" with the world, well, nonsense.
    2. lucul
      lucul 11 May 2021 14: 08
      0
      There was no revolutionary T-34.

      Well, yes - the first tank for innovations in almost all nominations, it cannot be revolutionary, yeah)))).
      1-sloped armor, not just tilted the VLD in order to improve the view of the mech water, but made the sloped armor and hull and turret from all angles of fire. The world's first tank with such a concept. In addition, sloped armor increases the tank's defense.
      2- circular anti-cannon armor .45mm anti-projectile inclined armor from all angles for a medium tank weighing 30 tons. Again, the first in the world to apply this innovation. All other tanks had anti-cannon armor only in the frontal projection, rarely from the side, and the rear armor was generally bulletproof.
      3 - cross-country ability. The first tank in the world, which essentially does not need roads. A powerful diesel engine with wide tracks made it possible to move calmly off-road. All other tanks had much worse maneuverability.
      4 - a cruising range of 380 km on the highway. All other tanks of those years had a twice or even three times worse indicator. A tank with such a power reserve could make deep raids behind enemy lines without refueling.
  • My doctor
    My doctor 9 May 2021 18: 26
    +4
    Quote: lucul
    Take a deeper look at the world.

    The T-34 was perhaps the best that the Soviet Union at that time could master and put into production.
  • Alexey RA
    Alexey RA 11 May 2021 11: 00
    +1
    Quote: lucul
    But only the T-34 could get into the golden balance of the three concepts, between firepower, armor and speed, as the war proved.

    Ummm ... the speed balance is 12 km / h combat speed? For the tank went into battle in the only 2nd gear, since gear shifting leads to a slowdown of the tank up to a stop and is associated with the danger of turning off the engine (from Kubinka's 1942 report on the T-34 transmission).
    Reservation of the T-34 already at the beginning of the war could be considered anti-cannon-proof only conditionally - due to the rearmament of the Wehrmacht anti-tank vehicle on the PaK-38. However, they wrote about this back in 1940.
    ... A-34 tank with an armor thickness of 45 mm at close range cannot successfully fight with 37-47 mm anti-tank artillery, therefore it does not correspond to its intended purpose, caused by an insufficiently clear idea of ​​the state of modern anti-tank artillery and an insufficiently substantiated approach to resolve this issue.
    © Engineer of Plant No. 185 Koloev. Report "The state of tank armament and the need to create new classes of tanks."
    The firepower of the tank was successfully reduced to zero by observation devices and sights. The fact that the commander could not simultaneously rotate the turret and observe in observation devices (that is, the turret was rotated blindly) is worth a lot.
    Turning the tower in any direction is possible only if the head is deflected from the forehead of the PT-6 device, i.e. the rotation of the tower is actually done blindly ...
    1. lucul
      lucul 11 May 2021 13: 50
      -4
      Ummm ... the speed balance is 12 km / h combat speed? For the tank went into battle in the only 2nd gear,

      Evon, how do you have an idea about the T-34 only about the 1940 model, but the whole path that he went through until 1944 (T-34-85) does not count? Clearly understood.
      1. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 11 May 2021 15: 24
        +1
        Quote: lucul
        Evon, how do you have an idea about the T-34 only about the 1940 model, but the whole path that he went through until 1944 (T-34-85) does not count?

        Kubinka wrote a transmission report in 1942.
        And 12 km / h combat speed is for all T-34s with a four-speed gearbox.
        The gearboxes of domestic tanks, especially the T-34 and KB, do not fully meet the requirements for modern combat vehicles, yielding to the gearboxes of both allied tanks and enemy tanks, and are at least several years behind the development of tank building technology.
        © NIIBTP, 1942
        The problem was solved only by the introduction of a five-speed gearbox, which went massively only from March 1943.
        1. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
          Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 11 May 2021 18: 01
          0
          Quote: Alexey RA
          the introduction of a five-speed gearbox, which went massively only from March 1943.

          Somewhere it came across that the North Korean 34-85 were with a 4-speed gearbox.
  • svp67
    svp67 9 May 2021 08: 53
    +4
    Quote: Mountain Shooter
    Successful tank.

    A controversial statement, rather luck is that at the right time the USSR had a project of a tank, which they could, overcoming many difficulties, put on gross production and were able to standardize it in the slightest degree for production at various factories
  • Maxim Davydov
    Maxim Davydov 9 May 2021 11: 53
    +2
    tanks are not cavalry, and you need to make marches wisely

    And what about the cavalry? On a normal march, not much faster than infantry. Maximum - two days of forced march of 50 km with a subsequent temporary loss of combat capability. And the mind for the organization and implementation of the march requires no less, especially if there is no pasture. Was it in vain that all the armies were transferred from horses to motors?
  • Kot_Kuzya
    Kot_Kuzya 9 May 2021 07: 01
    +9
    Why, before the war, was there such a passion in almost all countries in the form of an individual crew member as a radio operator gunner? Moreover, the French in the crew was just a radio operator, without machine-gun armament. This is despite the fact that there was one person in the French tanks in the tower - he is the tank commander, he is the gunner, he is the loader. And if he is a platoon or company commander, then in general, ATAS!
    Did pre-war tube radios require a separate crew member? After all, fighters somehow fought without a radio operator in the crew. If you remove the radio operator, then the T-34 gets rid of the machine-gun apple on the forehead, which even made its way from the 20-mm T-2 cannon. Even the mechanic drive hatch, which is constantly criticized and scolded, and even then kept hitting 20-mm shells. By the way, the mechanics did not complain about the hatch, on the contrary, they even praised it, because if something happens, you can get out of the tank very quickly.
    1. mark1
      mark1 9 May 2021 07: 10
      +7
      The frontal machine gun, in those days, was considered an important option for fighting the infantry and finally abandoned it only on the T-55 (on the T-54 it was in the form of a course one). During urban battles in Germany, the role of the frontal machine gun increased as a means of combating the fausts. But of course, the location of the machine gun and the hatch seriously weakened the VLD, it is not clear why the option with a side hatch in the side was not considered (the suspension did not particularly interfere - it was refined).
      1. Genry
        Genry 9 May 2021 10: 22
        +8
        Quote: mark1
        The frontal machine gun, in those days, was considered an important option for combating infantry and finally abandoned it only on the T-55 (on the T-54 it was in the form of a course one).

        Machine gun not an option (additional / optional / optional). Its installation was approved at the TK stage.
        In fact, the course machine gun was removed back in the T-44 and the radio operator, at the same time. This dramatically improved the security of the front projection of the tank.
        In the T-54 there was an attempt to install directional machine guns, but they turned out to be rigidly fixed, external appendages, with inconvenient control from a busy driver - therefore they were quickly removed.
        Quote: mark1
        During urban battles in Germany, the role of the frontal machine gun increased as a means of combating the fausts.

        Infantry was used to fight the fausts. From the tank, with its poor visibility, it was difficult to find the infantryman.
        Those tanks also had a regular radio operator and the machine gun had sufficient aiming freedom.
        Quote: mark1
        But of course, the location of the machine gun and the hatch seriously weakened the VLD, it is not clear why the option with a side hatch in the side was not considered (the suspension did not particularly interfere - it was refined).

        Side hatch? Between the skating rinks? belay
        1. mark1
          mark1 9 May 2021 12: 09
          0
          Quote: Genry
          Actually, the course machine gun was removed back in the T-44.

          belay
          Quote: Genry
          In the T-54 there was an attempt to install course machine guns, ... ... so they were quickly removed.

          belay
          Quote: Genry
          Side hatch? Between the skating rinks?

          Can you crawl between the skating rinks? belay
          Quote: Genry
          Infantry was used to fight the fausts.

          To fight the faustics, everything that was possible and everyone who was possible was used, and the presence of a machine gun with a shooter was very, very much by the way.
          1. Genry
            Genry 9 May 2021 14: 21
            +5
            Quote: mark1
            To fight the fausticists, everything that was possible and everyone who could be used was used ...

            The typical answer is "by the hands of the driver" or "by the hands of ... the breeder."
            Quote: mark1
            and the presence of a machine gun with a shooter was very, very much by the way.

            Sector of review and shelling - you can estimate from the photo.

            Can you see a lot through this hole?
            Here, only on a tip from the commander or driver, you can aim.
            1. mark1
              mark1 9 May 2021 14: 39
              -3
              You are a big fan of chatting, obviously. When I say something, I always rely on external sources, but I didn’t look into the "hole" - look yourself.
              1. Genry
                Genry 9 May 2021 14: 46
                +5
                Quote: mark1
                When I say something, I always rely on external sources, and I did not look into the "hole".

                Each word has its own meaning - use it deliberately and for its intended purpose, not out of inertia.
                Even now, about external sources - how to understand?
                1. mark1
                  mark1 9 May 2021 14: 47
                  +1
                  At least Svirin.
        2. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 11 May 2021 11: 07
          +1
          Quote: Genry
          In fact, the course machine gun was removed back in the T-44 and the radio operator, at the same time.

          The "apple" of the ball system was removed. And the course machine gun remained.
          1. Genry
            Genry 11 May 2021 11: 42
            0
            Quote: Alexey RA
            The "apple" of the ball system was removed. And the course machine gun remained.

            Is it hard to link to the source?
            1. Alexey RA
              Alexey RA 11 May 2021 15: 44
              0
              Quote: Genry
              Is it hard to link to the source?

              You can see the description of the T-44M from the Baron:
              The armament of the tank consisted of an 85-mm ZIS-S-53 tank gun mod. 1944 g. and two 7,62-mm DTM machine guns, one of which was paired with a cannon, and the other (course) was installed in the control compartment to the right of the driver's mechanic.

              Firing from a coaxial machine gun was conducted by the gunner, and from a course machine gun by a driver. The aiming of the course machine gun at the target was carried out by turning the tank. The electric trigger button of the course machine gun was located in the upper part of the right control lever for turning the tank.

              http://btvt.info/1inservice/t44m.htm
      2. Alex_You
        Alex_You 9 May 2021 16: 19
        0
        Quote: mark1
        why the option with a side hatch in the side was not considered (the suspension did not really interfere - it was refined).

        So suspension elements, springs went along the sides and plus fuel tanks.
        1. mark1
          mark1 9 May 2021 16: 25
          0
          If you knew (probably know) in what unexpected places it was proposed to install fuel tanks and what other unexpected improvements were considered, then it would immediately become obvious to you that, in comparison with all this, changing the inclination of the suspension shafts and moving the tanks slightly is nothing.
          But I’m not saying that "stupid" people didn’t make these changes, but that this version of improvements didn’t even occur to anyone (at least not documented). Although, for example, the captured T-3 was very much appreciated by Soviet tankers for this design feature.
    2. lucul
      lucul 9 May 2021 08: 14
      +4
      Why, before the war, was there such a passion in almost all countries in the form of an individual crew member as a radio operator gunner?

      Because the tank is helpless in front of an ordinary infantryman with a grenade if the tank does not have a machine gun. )))
      Did pre-war tube radios require a separate crew member?

      Unattended radio stations were insanely expensive (for the USSR), so they installed radio stations cheaper, but with a radio operator.
      In general, until the end of 34, the T-1941 had just disgusting radio stations.
      Radios then - the same know-how as now the thermal imagers on the tank.
      1. Kot_Kuzya
        Kot_Kuzya 9 May 2021 08: 33
        -2
        Quote: lucul
        Because the tank is helpless in front of an ordinary infantryman with a grenade if the tank does not have a machine gun. )))

        Well, first of all, the tank has a coaxial machine gun in a circular turret, which has a much larger sector of fire than a course machine gun. Secondly, a tank does not fight alone, it must always be accompanied by infantry.
        Quote: lucul
        Unattended radios were insanely expensive, so they installed radios cheaper, but with a radio operator

        I do not think that a wooden fighter was more expensive than the T-34, especially considering that the T-34 was much more expensive than the BT-7, which had an aircraft engine. Therefore, the paints have a strange logic, which put radio stations on much cheaper fighters.
        1. lucul
          lucul 9 May 2021 09: 30
          +2
          Well, first of all, the tank has a coaxial machine gun in a circular turret, which has a much larger sector of fire than a course machine gun.

          Take an interest to begin with the angular speed of rotation of the tower, and especially the speed of vertical guidance.
          The tiger, for example, made a complete revolution of the tower in 60 seconds.
          1. Kot_Kuzya
            Kot_Kuzya 9 May 2021 09: 45
            +5
            What does the speed of rotation of the Tiger tower have to do with the speed of rotation of the T-34 tower? The course machine gun is useless, it is not for nothing that after the war all the armies of the world abandoned the course machine guns.
            1. The comment was deleted.
        2. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 11 May 2021 11: 22
          +1
          Quote: Kot_Kuzya
          I do not think that a wooden fighter was more expensive than the T-34, especially considering that the T-34 was much more expensive than the BT-7, which had an aircraft engine. Therefore, the paints have a strange logic, which put radio stations on much cheaper fighters.

          So this is the Air Force. Departure time - a fighter for a couple of hours, then - inter-flight service, at the end of the day - by a more or less qualified specialist. In such conditions, the tank radio station will also work. smile
          For the Air Force, the same ShVAK worked without problems. And their land relatives TNSh with the onset of summer massively refused.
      2. Genry
        Genry 9 May 2021 14: 39
        +2
        Quote: lucul

        Unattended radio stations were insanely expensive (for the USSR), so they installed radio stations cheaper, but with a radio operator.

        Even then, there was a kind of electronic warfare and the radio operator had to often change frequencies and reconfigure the transmitter-antenna.
    3. Akuzenka
      Akuzenka 9 May 2021 20: 45
      +6
      Quote: Kot_Kuzya
      Did pre-war tube radios require a separate crew member?
      Imagine, yes, they demanded. Frequency constantly "floated away". She had to be held. Well, there were no quartz. This was then invented by the umformers!
    4. hohol95
      hohol95 9 May 2021 21: 32
      0
      The commanders were either the gunner or the loaders! And they obviously had no time to work with the radio!
      For the Czechs, the loader was at the same time a shooter from a course machine gun. Was supposed to "dive" to the machine gun installed in the tank hull.
      1. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
        Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 9 May 2021 22: 14
        +1
        Quote: hohol95
        For the Czechs, the loader was at the same time a shooter from a course machine gun. Was supposed to "dive" to the machine gun installed in the tank hull.

        What is this nonsense? He did not 'dive' anywhere, he had his own machine gun in the tower. The machine gun 'in the body' was served by a radio operator and, by the way, if necessary, by a mechanic drive (in this case, the machine gun was fixed). Are you aware that the LT-35 crew consisted of four people? And the Germans tried to squeeze in the fifth.
        1. hohol95
          hohol95 17 May 2021 09: 09
          0
          Not delusional at all. The Czechs had 3 people in their carriage. The commander was also the gunner. It was the Germans who added 4 crew members. There was no room for the fifth. The Finns did a similar thing when they remade Soviet flamethrower tanks based on the T-26. The tank with the fire mixture was removed from the hull and a shooter was added to the crew, and a machine gun in the frontal plate of the turret platform was added to the armament of the tank.
          1. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
            Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 17 May 2021 09: 33
            0
            Quote: hohol95
            The Czechs had 3 people in the carriage.

            The Czechs had 4 people in the carriage!
            Quote: hohol95
            The Finns did a similar thing when they remade Soviet flamethrower tanks based on the T-26.

            Lord, what does it have to do with it?
            1. hohol95
              hohol95 17 May 2021 09: 54
              0
              This ... Indicates the presence of space even in the Soviet T-26. And there were three Czechs in the tank. Even Pasholok writes about it. Not only Baryatinsky.
    5. Avior
      Avior 9 May 2021 22: 02
      +3
      Our pre-war radio stations did not have a high quality of communication
      When lend-lease applications began to arrive, this became especially noticeable - clean communication without interference, the need for adjustment and noise
      Fighters, too, far from all pre-war ones had a radio station, moreover, sometimes it was removed already in frontline conditions, since it was really difficult to use it anyway.
    6. Sergey Aleksandrovich
      Sergey Aleksandrovich 10 May 2021 01: 04
      +6
      There is a survivor's paradox about the fact that the mechanic drivers did not complain about the hatch. Those who wanted to complain did not survive for the most part.
      1. Kot_Kuzya
        Kot_Kuzya 10 May 2021 05: 22
        +2
        And yet, I read that most of all the mechanics survived when a tank was hit by a shell. Enemy tankers and artillerymen mainly aimed at the tower, and even when the shell pierced the forehead of the hull, the crew in the tower was torn off their legs by the shell, and getting out of the tower with a torn off leg is very problematic. Whereas the mechanic drive, when the tower was hit, had a very good chance of remaining alive, and not even particularly wounded.
  • Ros 56
    Ros 56 9 May 2021 07: 09
    +2
    It was not for nothing that Hitler ordered his aviation to plow the cemetery with bombs where the creator of the legendary thirty-four, Mikhail Koshkin, was buried. He was afraid of him and the dead, because Koshkin took away his dream of a thousand-year Reich.
    Happy Victory Day !!!
    1. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
      Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 10 May 2021 10: 03
      +3
      Quote: Ros 56
      It was not for nothing that Hitler ordered his aviation to plow the cemetery with bombs, where the creator of the legendary thirty-four, Mikhail Koshkin, was buried.

      laughing
      It seems like an adult, but you believe in some ridiculous semi-childish fairy tales.
      What, Koshkin is also Hitler's personal lie, like Marinesco?
      1. Ros 56
        Ros 56 10 May 2021 11: 23
        -3
        This idiot had many personal enemies, and you assert as if you were his friend. Oh well. Write, just don't dabble with ink.
        1. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
          Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 10 May 2021 11: 37
          0
          Quote: Ros 56
          and you assert as if you were his friend. Oh well.

          ??
          What is this absurdity?
          Just curious - where did you get this nonsense that Hitler ordered the Luftwaffe to bomb the cemetery? I understand everything, but you need to somehow limit your pathetic impulses, no?
          1. Ros 56
            Ros 56 10 May 2021 11: 42
            -2
            It is an expensive pleasure, to lift planes into the air just like that and just like that, for the sake of entertainment, to plow a cemetery. And the Germans have the ordnung in the first place.
            1. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
              Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 10 May 2021 11: 50
              +1
              Quote: Ros 56
              It is an expensive pleasure, to lift planes into the air just like that and just like that, for the sake of entertainment, to plow a cemetery.

              Did they lift and plow? Cemetery? laughing
              Okay, this is not even a topic for discussion, this is a matter of faith. But you never answered - where did you get this nonsense?
  • svp67
    svp67 9 May 2021 08: 33
    +3
    Thus, at the time of its appearance, the T-34 had a fairly thick armor and in this respect was second only to heavy tanks of domestic design.
    It would be surprising if, in this respect, it gave way to light tanks of domestic development.
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 11 May 2021 11: 24
      -1
      Quote: svp67
      It would be surprising if, in this respect, it gave way to light tanks of domestic development.

      * looks thoughtfully towards the T-111. smile
      1. svp67
        svp67 11 May 2021 16: 22
        +1
        Quote: Alexey RA
        * looks thoughtfully towards the T-111

        1938 ... Then the A-20 still did not shine with "thick" armor, like the A-32 ... But all these are EXPERIMENTAL vehicles that did not go into series
  • Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
    Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 9 May 2021 10: 44
    +1
    In December 1941, emnip, the State Defense Committee decided to release 34ku from February 42nd with 60mm frontal armor. And since the metallurgists could not give 60mm armor plate, it was decided to shield the forehead with 15mm plates used for the production of the T-60. In February 42 this idea was abandoned. Another month 34ki at STZ were screened until the stock ran out. Baryatinsky seems to have this.
    1. Revolver
      Revolver 9 May 2021 11: 03
      0
      Quote: Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
      And since metallurgists could not give 60mm armor plate

      If you could roll 45mm and 75mm, what was the problem with 60mm?
      1. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 11 May 2021 11: 26
        +1
        Quote: Nagan
        If you could roll 45mm and 75mm, what was the problem with 60mm?

        Before the war, they could. In the war with sheets thicker than 45 mm, the problem was so acute that the issue of saving armored vehicles was solved at the GKO level. Molded parts on the IC did not come from a good life.
        1. old dilettante
          old dilettante 11 May 2021 19: 51
          +2
          Before the war, enterprises with sheet rolling mills:
          1. Izhora plant.
          2. Mariupol plant them. Ilyich.
          3. Kulebaksky metallurgical plant.
          4. Plant No. 264 (formerly Krasnoarmeiskaya shipyard).
          were included in the People's Commissariat of the shipbuilding industry, with the corresponding nomenclature. And since September 1941. The Council of People's Commissars of the USSR transferred these enterprises and the NII-48 to the People's Commissariat of the Tank Industry of the USSR (Resolution of the Council of People's Commissars No. 2059 of September 11, 1941).
          "Tankers", at first, and 45 mm sheet was enough. Increasing the thickness of the sheets up to 60 mm means recalculating the entire structure of the machine, retooling the instrumental "economy", dies, testing, etc., etc. The directors of factories and Chief Engineers had problems with the existing design - like fleas on Barboska. And the GKO asked for lagging behind the release schedule on a daily basis. Reducing the release is a sure way for the management to lose their position. Lucky if without imprisonment.
    2. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 9 May 2021 11: 17
      +5
      ". In February 42nd this idea was abandoned." ///
      ----
      Increase in weight with a shift in the center of gravity forward.
      The front rollers did not hold up.
    3. old dilettante
      old dilettante 11 May 2021 19: 12
      +2
      T-34-76 with screens, 1942, STZ Photo from the military Museum of the UMMC (V. Pyshma, Sverdlovsk region)


  • DWG1905
    DWG1905 9 May 2021 11: 47
    +5
    Dear Ryabov Kirill, if you borrow someone else's intellectual work, i.e. the T-34 armor scheme, then you need to indicate the author - Mikhail Pavlov. This time, the second most funny thing is that Mikhail once rounded the angles of inclination of the armor plates. Why did he do it, he did not answer me, I think for people like Comrade. Ryabov. For example, the angle of inclination of the stern leaf for the T-34 is 47 degrees 32 minutes. Everything else in the article is a complete blizzard. The T-34-85 turret was not welded from several cast parts, this is nonsense! This turret had many modifications with different armor thicknesses. The tilt of the side plate was abandoned already on the T-34M, i.e. before the war because there was no sense from such a small slope. It makes no sense to list all the nonsense and inaccuracies in the article. There were 4 pre-war welded towers in the series, CD was released on a tower 60 mm thick, they did not have time to do it. There were 5 cast towers in the series before the war. Well, etc. The inclination of the frontal sheet comrade. Christie was made not to increase armor resistance, but for the mechanic's visibility. As a side effect, increased armor resistance. Well, etc., etc.
    We read and watch. http://t34inform.ru/ https://drawingstanks.blogspot.com/2014/02/t-34.html
  • hohol95
    hohol95 9 May 2021 12: 54
    +3
    T-34-85 with a welded turret in Berlin, May 1945. Photo by Waralbum.ru

    Did the T-34-85 have welded towers?
    Or still cast with a welded roof made of rolled armor plate.
  • Usher
    Usher 9 May 2021 14: 10
    +2
    How tired of these accordions. Probably the thousandth article.
  • smaug78
    smaug78 9 May 2021 14: 48
    +1
    [quoteDuring the fighting, it was found that Germany's main anti-tank weapons could not cope with the T-34 armor. PaK 35/36 cannons of 37 mm caliber could penetrate only the thinnest parts, and from a range of no more than a few hundred meters. Short-barreled tank guns showed similar results. A certain threat to our tanks was posed by 50-mm systems in towed and tank versions, and the most dangerous enemy was 88-mm anti-aircraft guns.] [/ Quote] But the tankers do not agree on the results of hostilities. another half-wrap (((
  • smaug78
    smaug78 9 May 2021 21: 21
    +2
    Quote: AKuzenka
    If this is how you write, why did not the "enlightened" Teutons create a tank before WWII that could withstand the T-34 ?!
    Did the Teutons know about your thoughts? Until October 41, they did not see problems with the T-34 ... How many T-34s with KV-1 and 2 did Pavlov have, can you remind me?
  • Avior
    Avior 9 May 2021 22: 19
    +4
    The value of the slope of armor plates is somewhat exaggerated.
    The tips on armor-piercing shells for the Germans performed the function of a normalizer, which unfolds the shell when it hits perpendicular to the armor, and reduces the effect of the inclined position of the sheets.
  • Alexey RA
    Alexey RA 11 May 2021 10: 33
    +1
    The main tank and anti-tank guns of the German army could not effectively hit such equipment from real ranges, and this state of affairs persisted for a fairly long time.

    ... The Gorokhovets training ground from October 9 to November 4, 1942 shot captured 37-mm ordinary and sub-caliber, 50-mm ordinary and sub-caliber shells 75-mm homogeneous armor plates of medium hardness, 45-mm homogeneous armor plates of high hardness and 30 mm homogeneous armor plates of medium hardness.
    Test result:
    50-mm anti-tank gun PaK.38, ordinary armor-piercing:
    The 75-mm sheet normal showed the back strength limit of 700 m, the through penetration limit of 400 m. That is, starting from a distance of 700 m and closer PaK.38 can penetrate unshielded HF armor, with 400 m it is guaranteed to break through.
    The 45-mm sheet along the normal showed the through penetration limit of 1500 m, at an angle of 30 degrees to the normal 1300 m.
    That is, PaK.38 confidently hits the T-34 in the side and the tower at any real combat distance.
    © D. Shein
    In 1942, the technology of stamping a tower from a 45-mm armor plate appeared. It was mastered only by the Ural Heavy Engineering Plant, and it was not a priority. In total, they released approx. 2 thousand stamped towers.

    To be precise, the technology was originally developed for stamping a tower from a 60 mm armor plate. But due to the acute shortage of armored vehicles with a thickness of more than 45 mm, it was necessary to switch to 45 mm armor plates.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Petrograd
    Petrograd 15 May 2021 10: 57
    0
    [quote = Cat_Kuzya] [quote = lucul]
    This once again suggests that it is worth building high-tech production only in the metropolis, and not on the outskirts))) [/ quote]
    But if the Tashkent Aviation, Kharkov Tank Building, Nikolaev Shipbuilding, Yuzhny Machine Building, plant them. Antonova, Minsk Automobile, Belarusian Automobile, Belarusian Tractor Plant would be built in the RSFSR, then all these enterprises would be alive and work for the good of the Russians.
  • Normal
    Normal 16 May 2021 14: 25
    0
    Amazing.
    So many years have passed since the beginning of the massive use of the Internet, and "tankosrach" is still going on.
    Even an expert on the tank topic Kars, recognized at the VO, is apparently already tired of this action, but the new fighters, led by not many remaining veterans, have picked up the fallen banner of the "tankosrach" and are still fighting on this topic.
    Thank God that at least the passions have subsided and the commentators are not getting personal, as has often happened before.
    Well. Maybe that's right. Grains of truth sometimes shine in a heap of delusions and myths.