Military Review

Losing as a guarantee of victory. The largest tank battle of the early days of the war

125
Losing as a guarantee of victory. The largest tank battle of the early days of the war

It's no secret that science история - sometimes it turns into a kind of political instrument. And therefore, sometimes, through strange social manipulations, the significance of important historical episodes is significantly underestimated and even leveled out. And, on the contrary, of the insignificant events, experienced social engineers are able to inflate a grandiose bubble of significance, extolling a rather small historical fact to the skies for the sake of one or another political interest.


For example, many of Russians - Soviet and even post-Soviet education, are quite sincerely convinced that the largest tank the battle in history took place near Prokhorovka as an episode of the battle on the Kursk Bulge between armored units of the German and Soviet armies.

However, for the sake of objectivity, it should be recalled that the most ambitious tank mega-battle took place during the Great Patriotic War two years earlier and much to the west of the Kursk Bulge: on the Dubno-Lutsk-Brody section, where a total of almost 4,5 thousand armored vehicles fought in an armored deadly battle for a week ...

Tank counterattack on June 23, 1941


In fact, the start of the battle on the Dubno - Lutsk - Brody line, which historians also call the Battle of Dubno, was the second day of the Great Patriotic War - 23.06.1941/XNUMX/XNUMX.

It was on that day that the mechanized corps of the Red Army of the Kiev Military District carried out their famous grandiose counterattack against the advancing German troops, which not only broke the enemy's plans, but also significantly influenced the entire course of that war.

The idea of ​​the counteroffensive belongs to the representative of the Headquarters of the Supreme High Command Georgy Zhukov. He insisted on this.

The first to attack the flanks of Army Group South were the first echelon mechanized corps - the 4th, 15th and 22nd. Then the second echelon from the 8th, 9th and 19th mechanized corps entered the battle.

The Soviet command strategically correctly planned to strike at the extremities of the German 1st Panzer Group, which was part of the Army Group South aimed at Kiev, as well as its encirclement and destruction.

A prerequisite for the belief in the success of this plan was the reports of the first day of the war that some Soviet divisions had stopped the enemy's larger detachments (for example, the 87th division of Major General Philip Fedorovich Alyabushev, which by the end of the day on June 22 threw back the fascist troops by 6 –10 km west of Vladimir-Volynsky).

Plus, the Red Army troops just in this sector of the front had an impressive advantage in armored vehicles.

Indeed, at that time, among the Soviet military districts, it was Kievsky that was the most powerful. Therefore, in the case of the treacherous attack of the enemy, in fact, in the first place, they counted on him as the organizer of the main and decisive retaliatory strike of the Red Army.

Therefore, as a matter of priority, equipment was sent there in significant volumes, and there the training and education of troops was organized at a high level.

According to reports, the troops of this district (at that time of the Southwestern Front) had a total of 3695 tanks. At that time, the enemy had about 800 self-propelled guns and tanks involved in the offensive, which is almost five (4,6) times less.

However, in practice, such a poorly prepared and hasty order for a counteroffensive turned into the largest tank battle, which the Red Army troops lost.

Tanks versus tanks?


So, the tank formations of the 8th, 9th and 19th mechanized corps on June 23, 1941 went to the front line and began a meeting battle right from the march. This is how the first grandiose tank battle in the Great Patriotic War began.

This battle was also unique and here's why.

Military historians emphasize that the concept of war in the mid-twentieth century itself did not provide for such battles. At that time, it was generally accepted that tanks are a tool for breaking through enemy defenses, and also contribute to creating a situation of chaos in enemy communications.

The postulate generally recognized by military experts, which was an axiom for the armies of that period, was formulated quite straightforwardly:

"Tanks don't fight tanks."

Then it was believed that anti-tank artillery, as well as thoroughly entrenched infantry, should fight against tanks. So, the battle of Dubno once and for all broke and smashed to smithereens all these theoretical calculations. Here the tank companies and battalions of the Red Army met with the German armored vehicles precisely head-on.

And they lost. According to military analysts, for two reasons at once.

The first was the significantly different level of communication, coordination and management. The Germans were much more advanced in this regard: they more effectively used the possibilities of both communication and coordination between the branches of the armed forces, experts say.

In the battle of Brody, the lag in this parameter led to the fact that the tanks of the Red Army fought, in fact, in the absence of support, haphazardly and ahead.

Infantry units simply did not have time to provide support to tanks against artillery, since it was elementary for the foot shooters not to catch up with the armored vehicles.
It is reported that tank formations (above the battalion) fought practically in the absence of any systemic coordination, that is, separately and in isolation from each other.

It even happened that in the same place a mechanized corps broke through into the depths of the German formations, that is, to the west, and the one located nearby (instead of supporting the attack of the first) unexpectedly moved to leave the occupied position and began to retreat to the east.


Battle of Dubno. The T-34 is on. Source: bild.bundesarchiv.de

Harmful concept


The second reason for the defeat in the battle of Dubno is the above concept. Let us repeat, our troops were not ready for a battle with tanks due to the paradigm prevalent at that time that "tanks do not fight with tanks."

Most of the tanks that took part in that battle from the Soviet side were created either in the early or in the mid-thirties. These were mainly light tanks for direct support of the infantry.

To be more precise, experts indicate that by June 22, 1941, 5 armored vehicles were involved in 8 mechanized corps (9th, 15th, 19th, 22th, 2803nd). This is 171 (6,1%) medium tank (T-34). 217 (7,7%) - heavy tanks (KV-2 - 33, KV-1 - 136 and T-35 - 48). That is, the total of medium and heavy tanks at that time in these formations was 13,8%. The rest (or 86,2%), that is, the overwhelming majority, were light tanks. It was light tanks that were considered the most modern and in demand at that time. There were 2415 of them (these are T-26, T-27, T-37, T-38, BT-5, BT-7).

It is also reported that the 900th mechanized corps participating in the battle a little to the west of Brody then had almost 892 tanks (53 units), but at the same time there were slightly more than half of them modern (1%). There were 89 KV-10s. or 34%, but the T-327 - 37 pcs. (XNUMX%).

Our light tanks, in view of the tasks assigned to them, had anti-bullet and anti-fragmentation armor. Undoubtedly, such armored vehicles were perfectly adapted for a variety of actions behind enemy lines and on enemy communications. However, they were much worse suited for breaking through enemy defenses.

The German armored vehicles were weaker than ours in terms of armament and quality, but the Wehrmacht took into account both the weak and the strong sides of their tanks and preferred to use them in defense. This tactic brought to zero all the technical advantages and superiority of the Red Army tanks.

In addition, Hitler's field artillery played an important role in the battle of Dubno. It is known that for the most part it is not dangerous for KV and T-34, but for light tanks it was very sensitive.

What can we say about the then direct fire 88-mm anti-aircraft guns of the Nazis. Only our heavy vehicles, the T-35 and KV, could resist them. But light Soviet tanks - no. This not only stopped them. Reports indicate that they

"As a result of being hit by anti-aircraft shells, they were partially destroyed."

And if we consider that the Germans in this sector of the anti-tank defense used not only anti-aircraft guns against us ...

Losing as a prologue to victory


No matter how analysts think, the Red Army tankers fought on their own, albeit not ideal armored vehicles, in those first days desperately and even won battles.

Of course, since there was no protection from the sky, the enemy aircraft destroyed up to half of the convoy right on the march. Alas, their low-power armor could be pierced by a large-caliber machine gun. And in the absence of radio communications, our soldiers went into battle, as they say, at their own peril and risk. In such conditions, ours then fought and even achieved their goals.

When the counter-offensive began, the first two days the advantage kept shifting to one side, then to the other. And by the fourth day, the Red Army tankers, even taking into account all the difficulties they had, were able to achieve significant success. In a number of battles, they managed to drive off the Nazis by 25 or 35 kilometers.

Moreover, by the evening of June 26, 1941, our tankers even managed to knock the Germans out of the city of Dubno, and the Fritzes had to flee and retreat. Now - to the east.


Destroyed German tank PzKpfw II. Source: waralbum.ru

Nevertheless, the superiority of the Germans in infantry formations, and at that time, tankers could do without them practically only in raids on the rear, affected. On the fifth day of the battle, by the end of the day, the Soviet advance detachments of the mechanized corps were simply completely eliminated. Some of the formations were surrounded and went on the defensive in all directions. And the tank detachments began to experience a shortage of fuel, ammunition, spare parts and combat-ready armored vehicles. Sometimes, retreating, our tankers were forced to leave the enemy, as they say, whole tanks due to haste.

Now sometimes voices are heard that, they say, if at that time the front command had not ordered the transition to the defensive (although the order of Georgy Zhukov was about the offensive), then supposedly in this case, ours would have fought back and drove the Germans from Dubno to the west.

Alas, the opinion of competent experts would not have been driven.

That summer, the Hitlerite army had an advantage - German tank formations had extensive experience in real interaction with different military groups and fought more actively.

However, the most important significance of the battle at Dubno was the disruption of Hitler's plan "Barbarossa".

Indeed, in fact, it was our tank counterattack that forced the leadership of the German army to withdraw and use in battles the very reserves from Army Group Center, which the Nazis planned to use just when attacking Moscow.

And just this very direction - to Kiev from that very battle and turned into paramount for the Wehrmacht.

All of the above was not at all part of Hitler's ideas. All this ruined the slender and well-thought-out Barbarossa scheme. And all the dreams of the Fritzes about the blitzkrieg were thwarted so much that the pace of the German offensive itself slowed down to the extreme, so that it was just right to call them now catastrophic.

Despite the fact that the Red Army was facing a very difficult autumn and winter of 1941 at that time, the largest tank battle of the Great Patriotic War had already played its gigantic role.

Experts are sure that in the battles of both Kursk and Orel, it was this battle at Dubno that echoed with a powerful echo. Yes, and in the Salute on Victory Day, the echoes of this most significant tank battle of the very first days of the Great Patriotic War thundered with a resounding echo.
Author:
125 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Slasherrus
    Slasherrus 19 July 2021 04: 14
    +32
    And how the T-35 can withstand akht akht, that is another question, it is certainly difficult, but it is far from the armor of the square, a chaotic article.
    1. Kote Pan Kokhanka
      Kote Pan Kokhanka 19 July 2021 04: 48
      +25
      Quote: SlasherRUS
      chaotic article.

      I agree.
    2. Lech from Android.
      Lech from Android. 19 July 2021 05: 23
      +8
      It was quite possible to use the T-35 in an ambush ... the Soviet command did not immediately understand how to use a tank fist correctly.
      1. The leader of the Redskins
        The leader of the Redskins 19 July 2021 06: 09
        +30
        How would you have to mask the T 35? For a two-story mansion?)))
        I screwed up Frolov. Until I got to the technical data, I did not understand who the author was. After flipping through already, to figure it out.
        But, we must admit, there are fewer patriotic slogans in the text.
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 19 July 2021 10: 50
          +14
          Quote: Leader of the Redskins
          How would you have to mask the T 35? For a two-story mansion?)))

          At exactly... © Just to illustrate the dimensions of the T-35:
        2. DenVB
          DenVB 19 July 2021 15: 22
          +4
          Quote: Leader of the Redskins
          How would you have to mask the T 35?

          Elementary. Dig a trench about a meter and a half deep, drive a tank into it, stick small felled trees around, throw branches on top.
          1. CTABEP
            CTABEP 19 July 2021 19: 04
            +6
            The trench only needs 2 meters (see photo). And to the point, fixed firing points, even much more protected, did not live in that war for a long time.
          2. Krasnodar
            Krasnodar 19 July 2021 20: 59
            +7
            Quote: DenVB
            Quote: Leader of the Redskins
            How would you have to mask the T 35?

            Elementary. Dig a trench about a meter and a half deep, drive a tank into it, stick small felled trees around, throw branches on top.

            And build a farm above it
          3. Graz
            Graz 20 July 2021 05: 22
            +5
            Elementary. Dig a trench about a meter and a half deep, drive a tank into it, stick small felled trees around, throw branches on top.

            the only benefit of this tank is if it is put on a convoy of vehicles. infantry moving along the road. then he would have combed her hair and this is the best thing that he could do as a tank.
            As an option, they could be used to convert them into an SPG with a powerful 152 mm cannon or some kind of marine 130mm caliber they had then or not. But as I heard the T-35 had a very capricious suspension
            1. meandr51
              meandr51 20 July 2021 14: 47
              -3
              There was a case when this tank passed through the entire occupied Kiev, crushing and shooting quite a lot of equipment and manpower along the way. Any technique can be used with benefit.
              1. Graz
                Graz 20 July 2021 16: 49
                +9
                Quote: meandr51
                meandr51 (Andrey) Today, 14:47
                0

                There was a case when this tank passed through the entire occupied Kiev, crushing and shooting quite a lot of equipment and manpower along the way. Any technique can be used with benefit.

                you are confusing. there was a T-28, but for 41 years this tank was still quite competitive with the T-3 and the first versions of the T-4, and yes there was Minsk
                1. CommanderDIVA
                  CommanderDIVA 21 July 2021 09: 15
                  0
                  The mechvod was foreman Kolyada, and he wrote his memoirs
        3. Jager
          Jager 20 July 2021 20: 42
          +1
          Just like disguising "Panther" or "King Tiger".
      2. ramzay21
        ramzay21 21 July 2021 08: 29
        +1
        The T-35 was an erroneous branch of development, it is good that it was not followed. Whatever one may say, but this is a good target, both for aircraft, for tanks, and for artillery.
        1. Essex62
          Essex62 22 July 2021 17: 10
          0
          A legacy of British tanks. The French had similar monsters. Also useless. But B1 and on our front was noted in 41, as part of the Wehrmacht.
          According to the article. Communication, interaction, management and experience agree. But the predominance of light tanks, with bulletproof armor, is not at all an indicator of failure. The Germans, too, on pennies, girls and Prague, basically, very successfully felled the Red Army.
          Weak article.
          And you can't add these fights to a plus. The defeat was complete, they were left without armor. And no matter how much they delayed the enemy's advance, he still reached Moscow.
          1. ramzay21
            ramzay21 22 July 2021 17: 58
            +1
            The article is complete nonsense, as usual for this author. As for "did not delay the advance of the enemy" I do not agree.
            The battle at Dubno drew significant reserves, and significantly delayed the German advance on Kiev. In fact, it was a difficult, but correct decision. If the mechanized corps began to retreat without a fight, they would have lost their equipment all the same, only without fighting, and without causing any damage to the Germans, and from breakdowns and aviation strikes, and there would be no one to hold back the German offensive.
            In general, the battle for Kiev was a tactical victory for the Germans, but strategically they lost. If it had not been for the battle for Kiev, if our troops had immediately retreated, the Germans would have approached Moscow in August, not worn out in battles, and the outcome of the battle for Moscow would have been completely different, however, perhaps, like the outcome of the entire war.
            1. Essex62
              Essex62 22 July 2021 18: 16
              0
              The Red Army, on its territory, having an advantage in armored vehicles and aviation, was obliged to knock out the enemy beyond the borders of the USSR and, using a treacherous attack as an excuse, to iron out bourgeois Europe, establishing Soviet power there.
              There are enough objective reasons that this did not happen. But also not on the face. There are too many mistakes at the initial stage of the war. Vissarionych missed control over the preparation of the army, too many other tasks had to be solved. I hoped for professionals, they were not ready. With a "mighty blow" "With little blood, in someone else's territory" who was deceived?
          2. Pilat2009
            Pilat2009 23 July 2021 10: 07
            0
            Quote: Essex62
            A legacy of British tanks. The French had similar monsters. Also useless. But B1 and on our front was noted in 41, as part of the Wehrmacht.
            According to the article. Communication, interaction, management and experience agree. But the predominance of light tanks, with bulletproof armor, is not at all an indicator of failure. The Germans, too, on pennies, girls and Prague, basically, very successfully felled the Red Army.
            Weak article.
            And you can't add these fights to a plus. The defeat was complete, they were left without armor. And no matter how much they delayed the enemy's advance, he still reached Moscow.

            Just in time for the winter and reached.
            1. Essex62
              Essex62 23 July 2021 10: 23
              -1
              The Germans won the first stage clean. They saved huge territories (evacuation of factories) and a large peasant population of the USSR, the most suitable for war.
              It would be strange that the Wehrmacht, having scored on a huge group of troops in its rear, rushed straight to Moscow. They did everything according to plan, grinding personnel units of the Red Army in boilers and knocking out equipment. But in the middle of summer, waking up and somehow sorting out, ours rested, gnawing into every position, continuing to fight even in the encirclement. And the delay became fatal for the demoniac and his gang.
              Senseless throwing of mechanized corps near Brody and others like him did not have any positive effect on the braking of Barbarossa, IMHO.
    3. Finches
      Finches 19 July 2021 06: 12
      +10
      The topic of tanks has not been disclosed!
    4. svp67
      svp67 19 July 2021 06: 41
      +6
      Quote: SlasherRUS
      And how the T-35 can withstand akht akht, that's another question,

      Diverting attention to yourself ... while the lighter machines make the maneuver.
      1. CTABEP
        CTABEP 21 July 2021 17: 40
        0
        Only not for long - before the first shot of akht-akhta. Because it was difficult for the Wehrmacht gunners of the 1941 model not to get into such a shed, and not to disable it with a single hit is even more difficult.
    5. Revolver
      Revolver 19 July 2021 06: 56
      +27
      What can we say about the then direct fire 88-mm anti-aircraft guns of the Nazis. Only our heavy vehicles could resist them: T-35 and KV

      I got to this point and stopped reading. The T-35 could penetrate even the 37mm PAK 36 and KWK 36 PzKw III cannons, and in some angles even the 20mm PzKw II. And the 8,8 pierced the KV from almost any angle.
      Quote: SlasherRUS
      chaotic article

      That is to say the least.
    6. vladcub
      vladcub 19 July 2021 10: 55
      +13
      What else to expect from Madame Frolova? She is still the author
    7. DenVB
      DenVB 19 July 2021 14: 01
      -1
      Quote: SlasherRUS
      And how the T-35 can withstand akht akht

      For example, shoot at "akht-akht" from two guns and three machine guns at the same time.
    8. Gvardeetz77
      Gvardeetz77 19 July 2021 19: 50
      +5
      Look at the author and everything will fall into place
    9. Detnix
      Detnix 26 July 2021 14: 55
      0
      Why this example? There were only a few of them! Most of our tanks were comparable to the German ones or significantly surpassed them in performance characteristics, in terms of quantity on the South-Western Front the advantage was 8 (!!) times.
      1. Detnix
        Detnix 26 July 2021 15: 33
        0
        I was a little mistaken from memory, the superiority was almost 7 times in tanks and self-propelled guns.
  2. 2я19
    2я19 19 July 2021 04: 30
    +29
    Aunt, Ira, do not write more, do what you do well. What are you doing well?
    1. Niko
      Niko 19 July 2021 07: 52
      +17
      Why do people write “this”, can’t they make money in another way? With such abilities, they won’t earn anyway. To be honest, with such a description of events, and even more with conclusions (sampling a piece from the Internet garbage, when there is really RESEARCH) you really think about the insult ... and not only veterans, but rather common sense, conscience, and desecration of the concept of history
    2. bandabas
      bandabas 19 July 2021 19: 16
      +2
      Let him write. Only on other topics. And on another site.
    3. WapentakeLokki
      WapentakeLokki 19 July 2021 19: 55
      +2
      can, like Mrs. President (shea) of virtual Belarus Tikhanovskaya - fry cutlets ???
    4. mr.ZinGer
      mr.ZinGer 19 July 2021 22: 19
      +4
      Irishka is not to be missed, she is funny.
  3. Vladimir_2U
    Vladimir_2U 19 July 2021 04: 38
    +20
    I would like to advise the author to continue writing about the exploits of the warriors, and not to touch on more global topics, so all the same there will be much less blunders.
  4. Xlor
    Xlor 19 July 2021 04: 58
    +9
    The postulate generally recognized by military experts, which was an axiom for the armies of that period, was formulated quite straightforwardly: "Tanks do not fight tanks."

    I read somewhere that there was even a special order not to engage in battle with a tank. They could have been punished for this ... However, as further experience of the war showed, the best weapon against tanks is the tank itself! Well, or SPG ...
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 19 July 2021 10: 39
      +12
      Quote: Xlor
      I read somewhere that there was even a special order not to engage in battle with a tank. They could have been punished for this ...

      Order of the NKO of the USSR No. 325 of October 16, 1942 "On the combat use of tank and mechanized units and formations."
      4. Tanks do not fulfill their main task of destroying enemy infantry, but are distracted by the battle with enemy tanks and artillery. The established practice of opposing our enemy’s tank attacks and getting involved in tank battles is wrong and harmful.

      5. When enemy tanks appear on the battlefield, the main battle with them is artillery. Tanks engage in battle with enemy tanks only in the event of a clear superiority of forces and advantageous position.

      In an offensive operation, the tank corps fulfills the task of delivering a massive strike in order to disunite and encircle the main group of enemy troops and defeat it by joint actions with aviation and ground front troops.
      The corps should not get involved in tank battles with enemy tanks, unless there is a clear superiority over the enemy. In the event of encountering large enemy tank units, the corps detaches anti-tank artillery and part of the tanks against the enemy tanks, the infantry, in turn, puts forward its anti-tank artillery, and the corps, obscured by all these means, bypasses the enemy tanks with its main forces and hits the enemy infantry with the aim of tear it from enemy tanks and paralyze the actions of enemy tanks. The main task of the tank corps is the destruction of enemy infantry.

      The main meaning of this order is not to climb with a checker for machine guns in a frontal attack on enemy tanks. This is possible only with a clear superiority of forces and an advantageous position. In other cases, you need to force the enemy tanks to get bogged down in the infantry anti-tank defense and bypass them with your tanks.
      Quote: Xlor
      However, as further experience of the war showed, the best weapon against tanks is the tank itself! Well, or SPG ...

      Our tank became "anti-tank" only after the war. During the war, it was "antipersonnel" - just look at the composition of the T-34 and T-34-85 ammunition ships: most of the shells are OS and OFS.
      1. ccsr
        ccsr 19 July 2021 12: 47
        +12
        Quote: Alexey RA
        Our tank became "anti-tank" only after the war. During the war, it was "antipersonnel" - just look at the composition of the T-34 and T-34-85 ammunition ships: most of the shells are OS and OFS.

        This is true, if only because it is much easier to destroy tanks with anti-tank guns with good camouflage than to destroy tanks by leading the battle from the commander's tower with poor visibility, unstable communications and a lack of armor-piercing shells.
      2. EMMM
        EMMM 31 July 2021 22: 54
        0
        Look at the date of the order, and at the time of the events discussed
  5. SERGE ANT
    SERGE ANT 19 July 2021 05: 28
    +21
    Irina is back. Now hold on. Or maybe it's for the best.
    A smile will make everyone warmer -
    And an elephant and even a small snail!
    So let it be everywhere on earth
    As if light bulbs turn on smiles!
    1. Krasnodar
      Krasnodar 19 July 2021 08: 33
      +9
      Quote: SERGE ANT
      Irina is back. Now hold on. Or maybe it's for the best.
      A smile will make everyone warmer -
      And an elephant and even a small snail!
      So let it be everywhere on earth
      As if light bulbs turn on smiles!

      While viciously criticizing the namesake of the Communist doctor who accused him, this is precisely what many do not understand. good
      1. Okolotochny
        Okolotochny 19 July 2021 12: 43
        +7
        accuser physician the communists

        Doctor !!! Albert, you made the day! It turns out they need a doctor)))
        1. Krasnodar
          Krasnodar 19 July 2021 15: 43
          +8
          Communist doctors, cowardly hiding behind the Hippocratic oath ...
      2. Catfish
        Catfish 19 July 2021 15: 35
        +9
        Hi Albert hi
        "The hour of fun and the pain of parting ..." (c)
        Yes, both Irinas make the whole team feel good, you need to appreciate it. smile
        1. Krasnodar
          Krasnodar 19 July 2021 15: 48
          +14
          I would order themes from Irina, for example - the use of RZSO on the Halkin Gol, cryptocurrencies and aircraft carriers of the Luftwaffe, the Polish Campaign of Budyonny and Hirohito.
          Greetings, Constantine! hi
          1. Catfish
            Catfish 19 July 2021 15: 53
            +10
            And her colleague and namesake has something about the cooperation of the "enemies of the communists" with the reptilians and about the machinations of the Jewish-Masonic aliens by cloning the Gorbachevs and Yeltsins with their subsequent introduction into the appropriate structures. wassat .
            1. Krasnodar
              Krasnodar 19 July 2021 16: 19
              +6
              Cowardly hiding behind cowards, the communist reptilian doctors, who were exposed by Comrade Stalin as agents of the Iron Dome, Carrot and Abrams, better known to the general public as Baruch Yeltsind and Rais Maksimovich, the poisoners meanly destroyed the Pivo-Voda store. Contrary to the slander of the alien enemies of the KPSS, OBKHSS, Boney M and Angela Davis, the facts about diluting beer with water and soda for foam have not been confirmed. The communist trade workers simply did not refill alcoholic beverages, thus opposing the Zhidomassonian soldering of the Tartar hyper-ethnicity. Well, for yourself a penny ... repeat
              1. Catfish
                Catfish 19 July 2021 16: 40
                +10
                The enemies of the communists do not know the simple truth that the God-bearing people have known since ancient times, that there is truth - In vino veritas.
                1. Krasnodar
                  Krasnodar 19 July 2021 16: 51
                  +6
                  This is what Hyperborea keeps drinks
                2. Korsar4
                  Korsar4 19 July 2021 23: 00
                  +3
                  Anglo-French conflict?
                  1. Catfish
                    Catfish 19 July 2021 23: 38
                    +3
                    But the truth is - it seems. smile
  6. Comrade
    Comrade 19 July 2021 05: 32
    +17
    The topic is interesting, but the article is superficial.
  7. Siberian 66
    Siberian 66 19 July 2021 05: 34
    +17
    An article by a Yandex Zen specialist.
  8. Darkness
    Darkness 19 July 2021 05: 56
    +11
    Daa Frolova is with us !! I'm even happy somewhere - I need to rest my head, I want to have some fun again ...
  9. svp67
    svp67 19 July 2021 06: 15
    +17
    Lord, why is THIS written? After a detailed analysis of the same battle of Isaev ... Did the author even get acquainted with the works of this HISTORIAN? Judging by what is written so NO.
    Well, listen to his simplified version of the lecture.

    And just this very direction - to Kiev from that very battle and turned into paramount for the Wehrmacht.
    And this is in June 1941 ??????????
    1. Krasnodar
      Krasnodar 19 July 2021 08: 35
      +3
      Well, yes, before Magadan it was a priority area, then Vladivostok
      1. novel66
        novel66 19 July 2021 19: 13
        +2
        The idea of ​​the counteroffensive belongs to the representative of the Headquarters of the Supreme High Command Georgy Zhukov. He insisted on this.
        , and prepared for it. that's why the western direction was so shitty covered
  10. parusnik
    parusnik 19 July 2021 06: 19
    +9
    Well, well, the author was stoned smile A person, trying to figure it out, makes the right conclusions in some places. For example:
    All this ruined the slender and well-thought-out Barbarossa scheme.
    .What's wrong? smile Irina, advice from the heart, work more carefully with the material. And there will be no blunders. Otherwise, write quickly.
    1. svp67
      svp67 19 July 2021 06: 39
      +12
      Quote: parusnik
      .What's wrong?

      At least the fact that in JUNE 1941 the direction to Kiev was NOT a priority for the Wehrmacht, its main strike group went to Minsk
      1. parusnik
        parusnik 19 July 2021 06: 45
        +1
        Did the resistance of the Soviet troops spoil the Barborossa scheme, did it violate the plans? or not.? In the North, in some areas, in general, the border could not be crossed, this is not a violation of the general plan?
        1. svp67
          svp67 19 July 2021 15: 24
          +4
          Quote: parusnik
          The resistance of the Soviet troops spoiled the Barborossa scheme, did it break the plans?

          But this does not mean that the delirium described by the author took place
        2. novel66
          novel66 19 July 2021 19: 14
          +4
          to remind, on what day of the war was Minsk taken? and after all. exactly according to plan!
  11. Rurikovich
    Rurikovich 19 July 2021 06: 45
    +4
    By the way, I do not agree with the opinion of many commentators. Yes, the article is at the level "for the victims of the exam". Yes, chaotic.
    But the main message of this article is that, strategically, it was the actions of the Southwestern Front that thwarted the blitzkrieg of the Germans! The main blow through Belarus was so successful that Moscow was just a stone's throw away. But the Russians were strategically successful to the south, in Ukraine, including the described counterattacks, that the Germans simply stopped the offensive on Moscow in order to deal with the threat to the flanks of Army Group Center. That's all request
    1. Slasherrus
      Slasherrus 19 July 2021 07: 33
      +19
      The feat of people, yes, I agree completely, but to break the whole plan of barbaros, it’s vryatli. Under this most likely falls the battle of Smolensk, lost by the Soviet troops, but which made it possible to break just the blitzkrieg of the Wehrmacht. And the blow to the fur corps in Ukraine is mediocre. Yes, and vryatli is possible in those conditions somehow to organize all this differently. Correctly noted in the article, there is no communication, there is no slightest interaction between the branches of the armed forces. Throwing from side to side, shows the lack of normal reconnaissance and command and control. Not for nothing later came an understanding and was followed by the rejection of the structure of the mech hulls, as not controllable and which normally cannot be supplied. Of course, the loss of the first year also affected the abandonment of them. As a result, the Katukov Brigade, when defending against the Gudarean tank group, achieved more than these corps' mechs. But again, it's good to be smart in hindsight.
  12. SERGE ANT
    SERGE ANT 19 July 2021 07: 16
    +19
    The largest tank battle of the early days of the war
    In terms of the number of tanks participating on both sides in the battles near Dubno - Lutsk - Brody, it surpasses all other operations of that war, but it is hardly reasonable to call it a tank battle, tanks practically did not fight against tanks, the German command achieved success in other ways. a small number of tanks and their poor characteristics, and their inept use and inability to competently organize hostilities. The reasons were mainly organizational. The Soviet command, organizing a counterattack, knew very well that only one 15mk was concentrated in the place of its application, and the rest of the mechanized corps needed time to complete the march, in which there would be inevitable losses of equipment, which sometimes actually amounted to 72% of the total available personnel. The history of the 8th mechanized corps is indicative. Before he reached the site of the counterstrike in the Berestechko area, by June 26 he had reeled over 400 kilometers. As a result, the 12th Panzer Division of 300 tanks led to the battlefield only 75 tanks. The 131st mechanized division of the 9th mechanized corps to the place of concentration in Bronniki, after 120 kilometers of the march led 35 tanks out of 83 released on the march and 123 available. The losses of tanks were not from oncoming battles with German tanks, but mainly from anti-tank artillery, fire from defending tanks, aviation and technical malfunctions on the march and during the battle.
  13. Vata Morgana
    Vata Morgana 19 July 2021 07: 17
    +10
    The article is sheer confusion and inaccuracies, but a woman can be forgiven.
    1. Weaponmaster
      Weaponmaster 27 July 2021 10: 05
      0
      First punish, then forgive.
  14. Toucan
    Toucan 19 July 2021 07: 28
    +13
    Lately, too many authors have appeared on VO writing about what they do not understand. negative This article is a prime example!
  15. Daniil Konovalenko
    Daniil Konovalenko 19 July 2021 07: 55
    +6
    Don't shoot the pianist, he plays as best he can.
    1. novel66
      novel66 19 July 2021 19: 15
      +5
      You can not. "Murka" at least - don't play
  16. BAI
    BAI 19 July 2021 08: 45
    +11
    1.
    The postulate generally recognized by military experts, which was an axiom for the armies of that period, was formulated quite straightforwardly:

    "Tanks don't fight tanks."

    Where did this myth come from?
    We read "BATTLE CHARTER OF MECHANIZED RKKA FORCES. PART 1. STRUCTURE AND BATTLE ORDERS OF TANKS" 1932.
    "In all cases of battle, enemy tanks should be the main object of attack."
    https://bookree.org/reader?file=720464&pg=47
    It's even highlighted in bold.

    That is, at least since 1932, the tanks of the Red Army were ordered to fight with enemy tanks.

    2. Photo "Battle of Dubno. T-34 is on fire." The fire was painted by a German photographer.

    3.
    What can we say about the then direct fire 88-mm anti-aircraft guns of the Nazis. Only our heavy vehicles, the T-35 and KV, could resist them.

    The T-35 never could. As the German anti-tank crews said: "Any Soviet tank with 2 or more turrets is easily destroyed."
    It was with 88 mm guns that the Germans tried to destroy the famous Rasseniai KV. By and large, these guns freely destroyed any Soviet tanks throughout the war.
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 19 July 2021 10: 46
      +4
      Quote: BAI
      That is, at least since 1932, the tanks of the Red Army were ordered to fight with enemy tanks.

      And since 1942, it was ordered not to fight with tanks, but to destroy the infantry. smile
      4. Tanks do not fulfill their main task of destroying enemy infantry, but are diverted to fight enemy tanks and artillery. The established practice of opposing our enemy tanks with tank attacks and getting involved in tank battles is wrong and harmful.

      In addition, the composition of its BC speaks well about the main goals of the same T-34: almost 70% is OFS.
      1. BAI
        BAI 19 July 2021 13: 01
        +4
        And since 1942, it was ordered not to fight with tanks, but to destroy the infantry.

        And on the Kursk Bulge in 1943 they did not know this!

        The tank battle was later confirmed by the 1937 Mechanized Troops Charter and provided for by the 1944 Armored Troops Combat Charter. Item 300.
        http://militera.lib.ru/regulations/0/g/1944_bu_meh1.pdf

        Well, why then were there armor-piercing shells in the BC? As much as 30%?
        the composition of his BC: almost 70% is OFS.


        By the way, no one ever said that the main goal of tanks is war with tanks. Even the statutes I indicated.
        If you look closely, this is simply a tank versus tank war. Not every tank attack is met by a tank counterattack. Encounter battles, in general, are rather an exception to the rule. But if the tanks have met, the primary target of the tank is the enemy's tank.
        By the way, about the T-34 ammunition. BK T-34- 57 - armor-piercing shells (mostly).
        And then, tank battles can be different: an oncoming battle, and an ambush, etc.
        But the main thing is that tank battles were foreseen and never canceled.
        1. Doliva63
          Doliva63 19 July 2021 16: 39
          +2
          Quote: BAI
          And since 1942, it was ordered not to fight with tanks, but to destroy the infantry.

          And on the Kursk Bulge in 1943 they did not know this!

          The tank battle was later confirmed by the 1937 Mechanized Troops Charter and provided for by the 1944 Armored Troops Combat Charter. Item 300.
          http://militera.lib.ru/regulations/0/g/1944_bu_meh1.pdf

          Well, why then were there armor-piercing shells in the BC? As much as 30%?
          the composition of his BC: almost 70% is OFS.


          By the way, no one ever said that the main goal of tanks is war with tanks. Even the statutes I indicated.
          If you look closely, this is simply a tank versus tank war. Not every tank attack is met by a tank counterattack. Encounter battles, in general, are rather an exception to the rule. But if the tanks have met, the primary target of the tank is the enemy's tank.
          By the way, about the T-34 ammunition. BK T-34- 57 - armor-piercing shells (mostly).
          And then, tank battles can be different: an oncoming battle, and an ambush, etc.
          But the main thing is that tank battles were foreseen and never canceled.

          Tank battles with what were foreseen, I wonder? So then, there is no such thing in BUSV. Another thing is that a tank is able to fight any enemy fire weapons available to it, therefore, probably, there is no such thing as a tank battle, because an enemy tank is one of them, nothing more. And even tanks will collide head-on, aviation will be on top, infantry and artillery will be behind. Typical combined arms combat, adjusted for the specific situation in a specific case. Not like that, right?
    2. vladcub
      vladcub 19 July 2021 11: 11
      +5
      The successful use of 88-mm by the Wehrmacht as anti-tank guns gave the idea: to install 34 mm on the T-85
      1. novel66
        novel66 19 July 2021 19: 17
        +2
        which in terms of armor penetration was inferior even to the American 76 mm, Baryatinsky had
  17. Undecim
    Undecim 19 July 2021 08: 46
    +13
    What can we say about the then direct fire 88-mm anti-aircraft guns of the Nazis. Only our heavy vehicles, the T-35 and KV, could resist them.

    Could not.

    After reading the article, the only desire is to join the numerous requests of readers to the author to leave the story alone.
    1. Catfish
      Catfish 19 July 2021 15: 39
      +4
      Good afternoon, Vic! hi
      The ISs seemed to get it too.

  18. tankoved34
    tankoved34 19 July 2021 08: 54
    +9
    Blah blah blah. No details of the battle, no information about the losses of the parties
    1. Aviator_
      Aviator_ 19 July 2021 09: 04
      +9
      Quite right, in the note there is not a single number - the initial number, the final number, etc. But it is necessary, otherwise - "many letters and not a single number." So the author - "Study, study and study, as the great Lenin bequeathed to us, how teaches (taught) us the communist party "
  19. Andrey VOV
    Andrey VOV 19 July 2021 09: 01
    +8
    Do not forget about the excellent interaction of the Wehrmacht ground forces with the Luftwaffe ... there were very large losses on the march, there were also large losses due to equipment breakdowns ...
  20. Seba
    Seba 19 July 2021 09: 21
    +6
    "The idea of ​​the counteroffensive belongs to the representative of the Headquarters of the Supreme High Command Georgy Zhukov."

    I did not read further. Not knowing the position held by the legendary commander during this period. Write something as bad manners for me.
    1. vladcub
      vladcub 19 July 2021 11: 01
      +4
      Zhukov at that time was the chief of the General Staff and the representative of the Headquarters
      1. Seba
        Seba 19 July 2021 11: 23
        +4
        "On July 10, 1941, by a decree of the State Defense Committee, in connection with the formation of the Main Commands of the Troops of the Sections (North-West, West and South-West), it was transformed into the Headquarters of the High Command, I. V. Stalin became the chairman, and B. M Shaposhnikov.
        On July 10, 1941, it was renamed into the Headquarters of the Supreme High Command (SVGK) "

        To allow such liberties in historical material, as for me, is unacceptable.
        1. vladcub
          vladcub 19 July 2021 11: 56
          +4
          In June 1941 Zhukov was chief of the General Staff and a member of
          The rates of the High Command. From 10.07.41 Headquarters of the Supreme
          The main command
  21. Constanty
    Constanty 19 July 2021 10: 23
    +4
    Experts are sure that in the battles of both Kursk and Orel, it was this battle at Dubno that echoed with a powerful echo.


    I haven't read any more nonsense here for a long time. The nature of these battles was radically different, the Soviet troops were prepared, organized and commanded in different ways, which allowed them to break through the Citadel.

    There is one similarity, which, however, is fundamentally completely different. wink

    In 1941, with chaotic marches back and forth, Soviet armored units practically destroyed themselves even before the outbreak of hostilities.

    Rotmistrov's 5th Guards Tank Army near Kursk entered the battle after a very long march, during which it suffered practically no losses in equipment.
  22. vladcub
    vladcub 19 July 2021 10: 58
    +5
    Quote: 2я19
    Aunt, Ira, do not write more, do what you do well. What are you doing well?

    Perhaps cooking soup and retelling horror stories from REN TV?
  23. Xlor
    Xlor 19 July 2021 11: 00
    +2
    Quote: Alexey RA
    Our tank became "anti-tank" only after the war. During the war, it was "antipersonnel" - just look at the composition of the T-34 and T-34-85 ammunition ships: most of the shells are OS and OFS.

    I disagree with you! "Anti-personnel", in the views of military theorists, he was just before the war. Break through the wire barriers and break through them, make way for the infantry to fight. Generals in the 20s and 30s still thought of the future war as a positional one, which was the First World War ...
  24. demiurg
    demiurg 19 July 2021 11: 08
    +11
    Personally, I wonder why the "modern historians" and the Shepilovs who joined them are tirelessly poking around in the Soviet-Finnish war, and in the first two years of the Second World War, but very reluctantly, they study the beating of the Finns in the Vyborg operation, they are even more reluctant to study the liberation of Belarus and Ukraine, Balaton is generally taboo topic? Even the Battle of Stalingrad is taboo.
    I'll tell you why. There it is necessary to justify why the Red Army, weakened by the executions of the best commanders on the personal order of a bloody tyrant, staffed with bast peasants and driven by machine guns of the NKVD detachments, advanced faster than the Wehrmacht in 1941. This does not fit into the paradigm of corpse-throwing and talent of European generals.
    Sorry, I'm bombed. Why wouldn't another historian accurately calculate the exact losses of the Wehrmacht during Operation Bagration, and how many German generals surrendered exactly, and how many they shot themselves in the forehead out of despair.
    But about Balaton, they only remember that there were Shermans (and a few repaired T-34s). And the fact that BS-3, ZiS-2 and Su-100 have been decided, none of them likes to remember.

    And then the cavalry left,
    Murder sword swords,
    And the whole steppe covered with fallen
    Like a swarm of black locusts.
    Feasting Peter. And proud and clear
    And his glory is full of glory.
    And his royal feast is beautiful.
    When you click your troops,
    In his tent he treats
    Their leaders, the leaders of strangers,
    And he caresses the glorious captives,
    And for their teachers
    The cup heats up.
    1. Mordvin 3
      Mordvin 3 19 July 2021 11: 19
      +10
      Quote: demiurg
      staffed by bastard peasants

      Here is my grandfather, a bast peasant .... And he did not see any detachments when he was in the penal battalion.
      1. ccsr
        ccsr 19 July 2021 12: 58
        +3
        Quote: Mordvin 3
        And he did not see any detachments when he was in the penal battalion.

        Just for fun - judging by the picture, he was a senior sergeant, not an officer, to get into the penal battalion. He probably got an officer rank during the war? Or did he end up in a separate penal company?
        1. Mordvin 3
          Mordvin 3 19 July 2021 14: 36
          +9
          This is a pre-war shot. 39th year like. And he ended up in the penal battalion after captivity, when they just started to organize. As he said, only the political instructor was running behind him with a revolver. I specifically asked when in the late 80s they began to write about the detachments. No, he says, I have not seen any detachments with machine guns. Only the political instructor ran from behind with a revolver. Where are you going back? They hurt me, can't you see? Well, waddle slowly ...
          And where he ended up, in a battalion, or in a company, I don't even remember, he told me all this in the 80s. And now you won't even ask, he died 20 years ago.
  25. Altmann
    Altmann 19 July 2021 11: 40
    +1
    The article is written beautifully, it is clear, we have to choose from the text ourselves. Brave tankers definitely deserve the glory of this battle. The discussion doesn't have to be so bad.
  26. vladcub
    vladcub 19 July 2021 11: 43
    +7
    [quote = Rurikovich] By the way, I do not agree with the opinion of many commentators. Yes, the article is at the level "for the victims of the exam". Yes, chaotic.
    But the main message of this article is that, strategically, it was the actions of the Southwestern Front that thwarted the blitzkrieg of the Germans! The main blow through Belarus was so successful that Moscow was just a stone's throw away. But the Russians were strategically successful to the south, in Ukraine, including the described counterattacks, that the Germans simply stopped the offensive on Moscow in order to deal with the threat to the flanks of Army Group Center. That's all request[/ Quote]
    Considering Madame Frolova's claims that Kirponos is a traitor. Remember: "Betrayal of 1941: the border is not guarded", "Betrayal of 1941: a corridor from Vlasov or who destroyed the mechanized corps"? Then Madame Frolova claimed that the mechanized corps had lost most of the vehicles because of villainous traitors, but now it turned out that German tanks [quote = Rurikovich] By the way, I disagree with the opinion of many commentators. Yes, the article is at the level "for the victims of the exam". Yes, chaotic.
    But the main message of this article is that, strategically, it was the actions of the Southwestern Front that thwarted the blitzkrieg of the Germans! The main blow through Belarus was so successful that Moscow was just a stone's throw away. But the Russians were strategically successful to the south, in Ukraine, including the described counterattacks, that the Germans simply stopped the offensive on Moscow in order to deal with the threat to the flanks of Army Group Center. That's all: requesma
    Madame Frolova claimed that the command of the South-Western Front were traitors: "Betrayal of 1941: Order not to defend the state border", "Betrayal of 1941: a corridor from Vlasov or who destroyed the mechanized corps." There she argued that the mechanized corps had lost most of the machines due to betrayal ... The traitors were driving the corps back and forth, and now it turned out: German tanks and 88mm cannons.
    Madam, do you even think you are writing?
    1. Catfish
      Catfish 19 July 2021 15: 19
      +4
      Hi glory hi
      Madam, do you even think you are writing?

      Thinking is generally difficult, and even more so in this heat. You don't have to demand too much from your aunt, she knows how to cook porridge, and okay. Although I doubt this too. request
      1. vladcub
        vladcub 20 July 2021 07: 07
        +2
        Greetings, it is quite possible that Frolov will not be able to cook porridge
        On the other hand, if she doesn't know how to cook porridge, how does she write? With hunger, figs will write: he will always write - "porridge".
  27. smaug78
    smaug78 19 July 2021 15: 11
    +4
    Infantry units simply did not have time to provide support to tanks against artillery, since it was elementary for the foot shooters not to catch up with the armored vehicles.
    and why couldn't they catch up? Ira heard ringing, but as usual ...
    "It is known that for the most part it is not dangerous for KV and T-34, but for light tanks it was very sensitive."
    But the Soviet commanders disagree with Irina ...
  28. sibiryouk
    sibiryouk 19 July 2021 15: 23
    +5
    T-27, T-37, T-38 are not tanks, but machine-gun tankettes (the Degtyarev hand-held machine gun in a tank modification, effective fire is directed at 500-600m only at open infantry.
  29. Glory to Berkut
    Glory to Berkut 19 July 2021 16: 11
    +3
    Is this written for the school's patriotic essay competition? Doesn't feel like doing historical work smile
  30. Ulrih
    Ulrih 19 July 2021 16: 21
    +2
    Strange article ....
    The 2 main reasons for the defeat are indicated, the second of which is "outdated" tanks. Moreover, it is also written there that in 6 participating buildings This is 171 (6,1%) medium tank (T-34). 217 (7,7%) - heavy tanks (KV-2 - 33, KV-1 - 136 and T-35 - 48) и There were 1 KV-89s. or 10%, but the T-34 - 327 pcs. (37%)., that is, there were only 34 T-544s, when the Germans had only 800 self-propelled guns and tanks (including all kinds of T-I, T-II, Czech, etc.) ...

    And by the way, about treachery - if memory serves, the German ambassador handed a note about the declaration of war just before the start of the German attack ...
  31. tank64rus
    tank64rus 19 July 2021 16: 35
    +3
    No comment here. Everything is clear and the T-35 versus the 88mm cannon, etc.
  32. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 19 July 2021 17: 45
    +5
    Alas, mistakes from the very first lines ...
    many of the Russians ... ... are sure that the largest tank battle in history took place at Prokhorovka as an episode of the battle on the Kursk Bulge between the armored units of the German and Soviet armies.

    However, for the sake of objectivity, it should be recalled that the most ambitious tank mega-battle took place during the Great Patriotic War two years earlier and much to the west of the Kursk Bulge: on the Dubno-Lutsk-Brody section, where a total of almost 4,5 thousand armored vehicles fought in an armored deadly battle for a week ...

    Substitution of concepts. It was a battle near Prokhorovka, when huge masses of tanks came together in battle, when our guards TA piled on the German tank corps. There were no such tank battles in the Dubno-Lutsk-Brody triangle. There, our tanks fought over a large area, where - in the offensive, where - in defense, and not always - against enemy tanks. If we count the Dubno-Lutsk-Brody triangle as an operation, then it should be compared not with the Battle of Prokhorovka, but with the entire operation Citadel.
    1. smaug78
      smaug78 19 July 2021 19: 57
      +2
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      It was a battle near Prokhorovka, when huge masses of tanks came together in battle.
      Well, not as huge as was commonly believed in Soviet historiography. Yes, and "piled up" somehow also did not work out, And 2 divisions are not a tank corps hi
  33. Charlie
    Charlie 19 July 2021 20: 51
    +2
    Quote: Ulrih
    Strange article ....
    The 2 main reasons for the defeat are indicated, the second of which is "outdated" tanks. Moreover, it is also written there that in 6 participating buildings This is 171 (6,1%) medium tank (T-34). 217 (7,7%) - heavy tanks (KV-2 - 33, KV-1 - 136 and T-35 - 48) и There were 1 KV-89s. or 10%, but the T-34 - 327 pcs. (37%)., that is, there were only 34 T-544s, when the Germans had only 800 self-propelled guns and tanks (including all kinds of T-I, T-II, Czech, etc.) ...

    And by the way, about treachery - if memory serves, the German ambassador handed a note about the declaration of war just before the start of the German attack ...

    Yes, it seems they handed the notes to the Soviet representatives both in Berlin and in Moscow after their bombs and shells rained down on our territory
  34. onibo
    onibo 20 July 2021 01: 25
    +4
    I have already written before. The problem is not in the authors. The problem is in the "sorting". There are sections on the site quite clearly. If in the section "weapons" - they write their OPINION about their fantasies about UFOs or other nonsense, in the section "Analytics" - they write their OPINION about their phobias and fantasies, in the section "History" they write similar opuses at the level of a third-grader Petit. And only in the section Opinions - all this is missing, then the problem with the adequacy of Those who "lead" this resource. Just sort appropriately. This article has been written. About nothing. This information does not represent any historical content. Is this someone's child exercising? So post it to the "Opinions" section. And no one will have any complaints. Over the past 3 years, this "Military Review" has finally turned into "Lenta ru".
  35. The comment was deleted.
  36. Petrik66
    Petrik66 20 July 2021 12: 30
    +1
    Well, according to the logic of the author of the article, the Germans should have lost immediately. After all, they didn’t take a lot of people until December 41! so, minor failures, which means that they did not draw any conclusions. a boxer who gets knocked out in the first round of the first fight has a great perspective. Having picked up snot and teeth, he will think, analyze and .... how he will give next time. Only the next time may not be. Hit Fredy first.
  37. Siegfried
    Siegfried 20 July 2021 15: 30
    +1
    what about losses? The fact that 2800 tanks were merged and a little frayed on the OKW's nerves is understandable, but as for the real damage to the Germans, it is better not even to write these numbers. They scared a couple of supply columns, burned a very small number of tanks, and basically all the destroyed German tanks returned to service very quickly. It is possible to say that Dubno somehow influenced Barbarossa only in the context that the Red Army lost almost all of its tanks in the first days of the war and that is why all subsequent boilers were so easy for the Germans - it also influenced. But there is no point in blaming the bet. The headquarters made decisions at the level of the then management and intelligence, understanding of mobile warfare, and it must be admitted, it quickly learned from mistakes.
  38. Kostadinov
    Kostadinov 20 July 2021 15: 53
    0
    Here the tank companies and battalions of the Red Army met with the German armored vehicles precisely head-on.

    Quite the opposite is true. Red Army tanks converged with German artillery and infantry. It was the postulate in the German army that tanks and tanks do not howl, but in the Soviet army they learned this later.
    The battle of Dubno-Brody is a classic confirmation of the concept that tanks without infantry and artillery are always defeated.
  39. Kostadinov
    Kostadinov 20 July 2021 16: 10
    -2
    Of course, since there was no protection from the sky, the enemy aircraft destroyed up to half of the convoy right on the march.

    No columns of tanks on the march were destroyed by German aircraft. On the march, they lost tanks due to breakdowns and lack of fuel, and during the retreat they were lost irretrievably.
    1. ramzay21
      ramzay21 21 July 2021 08: 57
      0
      No columns of tanks on the march were destroyed by German aircraft.

      Even as they destroyed it, the aviation destroyed most of the tanks, so the commanders of the tank formations tried to impose close tank combat on the Germans so that the German aviation would be afraid to attack our tanks without hitting theirs.
      Although many vehicles were lost from breakdowns on the march, including new ones that were not mastered by the troops and then raw T-34
  40. Alexey Gorshkov
    Alexey Gorshkov 20 July 2021 18: 25
    +2
    Actually, I wrote my thesis on the border battles of the beginning of the war at the history department of the university - so I more or less know the topic. In my opinion, there was NO battle, engulfed by a single intent, specially planned - near Dubno-Lutsk-Brody! There were scattered, spontaneous counterattacks by our tank and mechanized formations, fortunately - we had a lot of tanks since pre-war times, and they lost them there! The same counterattacks in pursuance of Directive No. 3 of the General Staff of the Red Army were also inflicted by the neighbors of the Southwestern Front, but none of them led to the solution of the assigned task - displacing the enemy from Soviet territory, although, according to the historian A. Isaev, "shavings were removed" from Germans - inflicted sensitive losses on them! But we also lost almost all of the tanks during these counterattacks - we lost not only a multiple quantitative advantage over the enemy, but ALSO almost completely lost all equipment!
    I recommend those interested in this topic to read the series of articles "Where did the tanks go?", Published in the "Military-historical journal" in 1988-1990! Why is it valuable - based on the reports of tank commanders about the events of the summer of 1941 to the Armored Directorate of the Red Army. What amazed me - DATES OF WRITING THE REPORTS - LATE AUTUMN - BEGINNING WINTER 1941! The Germans near Moscow - the tank commanders have something to do - and they also generalize the experience of the beginning of the war!
  41. voyaka uh
    voyaka uh 20 July 2021 20: 00
    -1
    Zhukov, like a gambling teenager, drove the tank corps of the Red Army into a grand trap, helpfully arranged by the Germans.
    Where the German anti-tank artillery destroyed thousands of Soviet tanks from the flanks.
  42. Ratmir_Ryazan
    Ratmir_Ryazan 20 July 2021 23: 06
    0
    Yes, this victory was dear to us.
  43. Glagol1
    Glagol1 21 July 2021 01: 10
    0
    The author is not in the subject. Neither the T-35 nor the KV-1 against the 88 mm anti-aircraft guns could hold even at long distances. This is the first thing. And secondly, in 1941, the Germans had a cat cried out for them, and they were not yet used in anti-tank roles. This all happened later, in 1943 and beyond, when they had to go over to the defensive and the number of troops increased.
    The strong antiaircraft gun of the Germans came out ...
    The more valuable is the Victory!
    1. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 22 July 2021 01: 23
      +1
      "secondly, in 1941 the Germans had a cat cried out for them, and they were not used in anti-tank roles at that time" ///
      ---
      They were used as anti-tank weapons back in France in 1940.
      The French had heavy tanks, the armor of which took nothing but
      these antiaircraft guns.
  44. Kostadinov
    Kostadinov 21 July 2021 12: 00
    0
    Quote: ramzay21
    Even as they destroyed it, the aviation destroyed most of the tanks, so the commanders of the tank formations tried to impose close tank combat on the Germans so that the German aviation would be afraid to attack our tanks without hitting theirs.

    The omnipotent Luftwaffe, which consumes tanks like flies, is one of the myths about the beginning of the war.
    With the present absolute air supremacy to the West in 1944-45 and in Korea in 1950-53, aviation was very ineffective against tanks. And in 1941 in the East it is impossible and speaks of the domination of German aviation and special aircrafts they have not yet hit.
    More than 90% of Soviet tanks and in 1941 and then lost from German artillery, infantry and for technical reasons.
    1. Eug
      Eug 24 July 2021 07: 44
      0
      We can talk about the lack of air reconnaissance in the Red Army as a result of the air supremacy of German aviation. In other words, a cyclops with a broken eye ...
  45. Kostadinov
    Kostadinov 21 July 2021 12: 16
    +1
    Quote: voyaka uh
    Zhukov, like a gambling teenager, drove the tank corps of the Red Army into a grand trap, helpfully arranged by the Germans.
    Where the German anti-tank artillery destroyed thousands of Soviet tanks from the flanks.

    I don't think the Germans deliberately set traps for Soviet tanks. They always had such tactics against tank attacks. Infantry and artillery were always fought against tanks. This was done not only by the infantry, but also by the tank and mechanization of the division, which included a lot of motorized infantry and artillery. The main thing was to cut off the infantry from the attacking tanks, and in Soviet tank attacks in the beginning, often no accompanying infantry was beaten. Artillery preparation also did not hit, since general Pavlov claimed that to destroy a cannon in a position, 50-60 howitzer shotguns were needed, and the tank would do it with 1-2 shotguns or even crush the cannon with caterpillars.
    1. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 22 July 2021 00: 09
      +1
      When the Germans discovered that they were being attacked by thousands of tanks, they undertook a "panicky retreat" (quite in the style of the Tatar-Mongols). They allowed the corps to move forward, while they themselves pulled up anti-tank artillery from the flanks, removing their tanks behind it.
      And they began to shoot the tightly attacking spacecraft tanks.
      The classic trap.
      1. Konnick
        Konnick 22 July 2021 00: 47
        +1
        The classic trap.

        There were no major clashes with a large number of tanks. The total number of tanks and armored vehicles was large, but they were dispersed in different directions and there were small skirmishes. Gradually using up the motor resource, fuel and ammunition, since practically the mechanized corps were cut off from the main forces of the front and armored vehicles were lost. This is described in sufficient detail in the memoirs of Popel, the commissar of the 8th mechanized corps. And it is not entirely accurate to call these battles the largest tank battle.
  46. Fitter65
    Fitter65 21 July 2021 16: 59
    0
    What can we say about the then direct fire 88-mm anti-aircraft guns of the Nazis. Only our heavy vehicles, the T-35 and KV, could resist them.
    I began to read this nonsense, and so the thought crept in, but really, it turns out, yes, it is. A new tank star, which can distinguish a damaged tank from a destroyed one, I will fondly say, it cannot.
  47. sayeret Matkal
    sayeret Matkal 22 July 2021 22: 47
    0
    How did 20 thousand tanks lose the start to three thousand tankettes? Read corned beef
  48. Kostadinov
    Kostadinov 23 July 2021 16: 55
    0
    Quote: sayeret Matkal
    How did 20 thousand tanks lose the start to three thousand tankettes? Read corned beef

    The army of two million lost to four million. Tanks themselves do not fight on the battlefield. Weaker artillery and infantry lost to the stronger (both quantitatively and qualitatively) and the superiority in the number of tanks could not compensate for this.
    The Germans successfully attacked and where they did not hit any tanks (Southern Front) and they could play the battle in the summer of 1941 without any tanks.
  49. Warhead-xnumx
    Warhead-xnumx 23 July 2021 22: 03
    0
    I always asked myself the question: - How did you manage to evacuate hundreds of enterprises to the east in the summer and autumn of 41? After all, you can't just bring the machines on a steam locomotive to an open field a thousand km away. from the front line, unload them there and say - Voila, the plant is ready, you can work! There should have been pre-prepared industrial sites, with roads, energy, water, sewerage, housing for workers and engineers, and stocks of raw materials. This means that the country's leadership had a plan for the worst scenario of the outbreak of the war, which means they were preparing for this in advance.
    1. Eug
      Eug 24 July 2021 07: 39
      0
      There were sites for the construction of new factories, many evacuated enterprises were placed on them.
  50. Eug
    Eug 24 July 2021 07: 38
    0
    When 8MK Ryabyshev is deployed by orders in 2 hours, like a platoon on a parade ground, and even corps "change" between divisions - how to call such "control"? Only a consequence of the rehearsed "ballet", that is, the teachings with all their inherent window dressing ...