Soviet armored car BA-10 with a 45-mm "tank" gun

In 1936, when the Soviet medium wheeled armored car BA-6 just went into production, experts began to think about its modernization. We needed a more protected (in terms of the crew) machine that could help in the performance of combat missions in difficult sectors of the front. A year or two later, the designers of the Izhora plant developed another wheeled armored car - BA-10.

The BA-10 was created on the basis of the GAZ-AAA truck, initially like the BA-6, but with a reinforced front axle beam and a shortened frame.

The production of "dozens" was carried out for a very short period - from 1938 to 1941. However, their operation (and the BA-10 was produced more than 3 thousand units) continued until the end of the Great Patriotic War.

The BA-10 armored vehicle was equipped with a 45-mm cannon with a factory index of 20K, created at the Kalinin plant in Moscow. It was originally developed as a purely tank, but then the designers decided to equip wheeled armored vehicles with it.

One of the main drawbacks of the BA-10, which passed to the armored vehicle "inherited" from the previous versions of wheeled armored vehicles, was that it was disabled if it hit the front part - where the engine was located. Therefore, in frontal attacks, the use of BA-10 was fraught with the loss of a large number of such armored vehicles. The crew was often left without a car as such, turning into infantry in the middle of the battlefield.

The features of the BA-10 are described in the video on the Starina channel:

Comments

[hohol95]

At that time, there were BAs capable of "head-on attacks"?
Intelligence, security and delivery of reports. Here are the tasks for the BA of that time! Both light and medium. These included the BA-10.

[Trapperxnumx]

Well, in fact, by 41, not only BA, but also light tanks were no longer capable of "head-on attacks." The development of small-caliber rapid-fire anti-tank artillery practically reduced all weakly protected equipment to the category of scrap metal.
And so I agree - only auxiliary tasks.

[hohol95]

The first "mechanisms" that became a threat to lightly armored vehicles were large-caliber machine guns. First, they were entrusted with the fight against tanks and BA. During the battles on the river. Khalkhin-Gol the Japanese tried to shoot at the side of the tower a Soviet BT-7 standing with a stalled engine. They fired from a 13,2mm machine gun. They probably had nowhere to roll a 37 or 75 mm gun!
Soviet BA-6s in frontal projection were struck by the Japanese from 13,2mm machine guns. BA-10 held the bullets of these machine guns!
The most important disadvantage of the Soviet medium BA was the placement of a beast-sided over the head of the driver and vehicle commander. When they broke through, burning gasoline literally poured out on their heads!
Because of this, the tanks were taken out to the rear wheel fenders and covered with armor. Received BA-10M.

[hohol95]

And what kind of "auxiliary" technique can go into attacks in our time?
It was the Germans who were lucky that in the first years of the war, their opponents could not quickly organize a deep anti-tank defense with good anti-aircraft cover !!!

[ccsr]

Quote: hohol95

Intelligence, security and delivery of reports.

Why then the cannon was installed, if it was possible to get by with a machine gun, which would be much cheaper?
It is obvious that in this case, the creation of this car with a gun was a typical mistake of military customers, who apparently wanted to get a too cheap product with great firepower, but the war showed how wrong they were. And the wheel arrangement for that level of development of cars excluded their operational use in snowy conditions and in autumn-spring thaw, if only because of their cross-country ability. Unfortunately, we must admit that this armored car was a wrong decision for our armored forces on the eve of the war.

[hohol95]

What machine gun would you like to install?
And are you familiar with the problems of the production of large-caliber machine guns in the USSR in the pre-war period?
The machines of the BA-3/6/10 family were the best with the base and production capabilities that were in the USSR.
And the 45 mm gun said its weight when Soviet medium BAs collided with Italian, German and Japanese tankettes and tanks!

[ccsr]

Quote: hohol95

What machine gun would you like to install?

Yes, at least "maxim", or another at the request of the customer.

Quote: hohol95

And are you familiar with the problems of the production of large-caliber machine guns in the USSR in the pre-war period?

Cannons were definitely not cheaper for us at that time.

Quote: hohol95

The machines of the BA-3/6/10 family were the best with the base and production capabilities that were in the USSR.

This is not proof of their operational advantages on the battlefield, and even in difficult climatic conditions. But the ill-considered spending of funds and resources is obvious. It would be better if instead of such an armored car, a tanker for the tank forces was purchased - it would be cheaper and they would be more useful during the war. And we didn't have enough barrels and canisters for fuel - these are the mistakes of pre-war planning, when we were carried away by such projects as the BA-10 with a 45 mm cannon.

Quote: hohol95

And the 45 mm gun said its weight when Soviet medium BAs collided with Italian, German and Japanese tankettes and tanks!

No one argues with this, but they were more needed in anti-tank artillery, and not on the basis of a car, which in itself was an unreliable means of transportation during battles.

[hohol95]

So, in your opinion, there were only problems with armored vehicles?
Not with the production and quality of tanks, or with the production of special automobile chassis, and so on?
In Spain, Soviet BAs performed better than tanks. Yes, thanks to the good Spanish roads. And in Mongolia, medium BA "performed" on an equal footing in tanks. I repeat - the main task for them was reconnaissance, escort, protection.
Against an enemy with minimal armor, a machine gun would not have helped (an example of a battle between a German "one" and a Soviet T-40)!
And the 45 mm gun is a weighty argument in the fight against enemy light vehicles and infantry.
For your information, the military had a desire to re-equip medium BA and BT tanks with a large-caliber DC. But fortunately for the tankers (and I grieve for the air defense units), the industry could not make this machine gun in the required quantities!
Against the background of the global "problems" of 1941-1942, would there be much sense from purely machine-gun tanks and medium-sized ammunition tanks?
The Germans first armed their medium BA with 20 mm barrels, but during the war they reached 50 mm guns for the "Puma" and 75 mm guns for Kfz.233 fire support vehicles!

[ccsr]

Quote: hohol95

So, in your opinion, there were only problems with armored vehicles?

No, there were many problems, but this car did not show itself during the war, and this design was abandoned later.

Quote: hohol95

In Spain, Soviet BAs performed better than tanks. Yes, thanks to the good Spanish roads. And in Mongolia, medium BA "performed" on an equal footing in tanks.

This is not an indicator for the Great Patriotic War.

Quote: hohol95

And the 45 mm gun is a weighty argument in the fight against enemy light vehicles and infantry.

But you yourself claimed that their purpose:

Quote: hohol95

Intelligence, security and delivery of reports.

What other battles, and even on rough terrain?

Quote: hohol95

Against the background of the global "problems" of 1941-1942, would there be much sense from purely machine-gun tanks and medium-sized ammunition tanks?

These were also erroneous decisions of the pre-war period, which cost us a lot of blood. I hope you won't deny that most of the blame lies with the military?

[strannik1985]

Cannons are definitely not cheaper

It depends on what, tank arr. 1934 7 635 rubles, DShK arr. 1938 13 650 (mastiff), anti-tank arr. 1937 16 400 (negotiable), prices of 1938.

This is not proof

In the mid-30s, the tanks had a small running gear resource.

It would be better instead of an armored car

By the mid-30s, there were only 4 tank (mechanized) brigade corps in the Red Army, obviously enough for such a number of auxiliary equipment.

[ccsr]

Quote: strannik1985

It depends on what, tank arr. 1934 7 635 rubles, DShK arr. 1938 13 650 (mastiff), anti-tank arr. 1937 16 400 (negotiable), prices of 1938.

You do not indicate the number of released in the series, and this greatly affects the price. And the guns differed greatly in cost over the years, especially taking into account the appearance of new shells, gunpowders and lengths in calibers.

Quote: strannik1985

In the mid-30s, the tanks had a small running gear resource.

That is why there was no need to spend money on the creation of a BA, but it is better to spend it on the creation of a more reliable tank.

Quote: strannik1985

By the mid-30s, there were only 4 tank (mechanized) brigade corps in the Red Army, obviously enough for such a number of auxiliary equipment.

But what about the theory of motorized warfare, cultivated then, where it was directly indicated that a future war would require large units of armored forces? It was not just written like that, in the form of abstractions, but was a military forecasting for the creation of new technology.

[hohol95]

On January 1, 1941, 21564 20K guns were manufactured!
Regarding - to throw funds to create a more reliable tank - difficulties with the chassis and the resource of tracked tracks were experienced by ALL countries, tank manufacturers until the end of the 30s of the 20th century!
Even the Germans and the British!
How do you propose to protect the transport convoys if they are moving on the territory recaptured from the enemy - by tanks or is it a BA?
Columns in the Winter War were guarded by BA!
Surviving after the "problem" years 1941-1942, medium BA was used until the victory over Japan. They were used to guard headquarters, escort military columns, and on the Leningrad front they took part in lifting the blockade!
Soviet medium BAs lost to their all-wheel drive "relatives" in cross-country ability, but they contributed their share to the victory.

[ccsr]

Quote: hohol95

How do you propose to protect the transport convoys if they are moving on the territory recaptured from the enemy - by tanks or is it a BA?

In fact, such columns have their own outposts, and it is not at all necessary to attach a BA if the entire column is often on carts. Yes, and there were no German partisans on our territory - so do not exaggerate the role of the BA in escorting the columns.

Quote: hohol95

Columns in the Winter War were guarded by BA!

The throughput of a BA in winter is very limited, and it should not be compared with the scale of the Great Patriotic War, in order to judge by it how much a particular type of equipment or weapons turned out to be in demand by the army during large-scale battles during a long period of war. The Great Patriotic War itself was the criterion of what was done correctly in preparation for the war, and what was a dummy - for example, the same T-34 is an example of successful military forecasting.

Quote: hohol95

Surviving after the "problem" years 1941-1942, medium BA was used until the victory over Japan.

And what does this prove? They were simply used because there was no other, and it would be foolish to write off military equipment, since there was not enough other.

Quote: hohol95

Soviet medium BAs lost to their all-wheel drive "relatives" in cross-country ability, but they contributed their share to the victory.

So we used checkers from the times of the Russian Empire, and they also brought benefits, but the question is not in them, but in the fact that the BA in the form in which they were developed before the war did not receive further development. But the German Hanomag became an example for the creation of Soviet post-war wheeled armored personnel carriers - this is the criterion for technology.

[hohol95]

Which "Hanomag" became the prototype?
Please clarify. Please!

[ccsr]

Quote: hohol95

Which "Hanomag" became the prototype?
Please clarify. Please!

By layout, this one:

[hohol95]

Why did you discard the American half-geese?

[ccsr]

Quote: hohol95

Why did you discard the American half-geese?

Because the Germans at that time surpassed all the design developments of other countries - even by the modifications of the Ganomagov, one can judge how successful they have developed. So it is quite natural that we took them as the basis for the creation of our armored personnel carriers.

[hohol95]

Not very natural.
BTR-152 on a wheeled chassis. The half-track armored personnel carrier did not work.
The German car was inferior to the American one in cross-country ability and was more difficult to manufacture.

[ccsr]

Quote: hohol95

BTR-152 on a wheeled chassis. The half-track armored personnel carrier did not work.

So it turned out as a result of the war, so they came to the conclusion that it would be cheaper and easier on a wheelbase.

Quote: hohol95

The German car was inferior to the American one in cross-country ability and was more difficult to manufacture.

This has not been proven by anything, especially since the Americans did not conduct active hostilities against the Wehrmacht until the summer of 1944. But our troops knew very well what an intense mortar fire from the aft part of the Ganomagov was - a war veteran told me this, who himself was the commander of the mortar crew, and then the commander of the gun.

[hohol95]

Proven. American "half-buses" have been produced since 1941!
Supplied under Lend-Lease.
And they were all-wheel drive.
And the German NO!

[Konnick]

And the German NO!

The Ganomagov had two control modes, on the highway it was controlled only by the front wheels, so it was easy to drive on the highway and could smoothly take turns on a par with wheeled vehicles. Off-road, the driver switched to control of the track clutches as on a tank or tractor.

[hohol95]

Management is not four-wheel drive.
American cars had four-wheel drive and turned thanks to the front wheels. And they had a drum on the front bumper to overcome bumps!
Our BA also turned on the roads with the help of the front wheels, like the German "ganomagi". And the Overroll chains were for the rear! They helped a lot to navigate the Mongolian sands and salt marshes.

[timokhin-aa]

There are no statistics, because these tanks did not participate in battles at least at the level of regiments - you managed to lie here too.

But at the battalion level they participated - with known results. Does the GRU bunny know where and when? And on whose side, and against whom?

[faiver]

All your arguments are based on the last word, very convenient. But in the realities of the 30s, all this was not so obvious ...

[ccsr]

Quote: faiver

All your arguments are based on the last word, very convenient. But in the realities of the 30s, all this was not so obvious ...

Do you want to prove to me that Tukhachevsky's desire to create 100 thousand tanks or at worst 50 thousand is an example of a reasonable assessment of the country's capabilities and the necessary needs of the Red Army?
And here is the afterthought, if this adventurer broke so much firewood in the weapons systems that we cleared it out with the help of a lot of blood in 1941. And the creation of a BA with a cannon is just an example of an inadequate assessment of the future needs of troops, which could have been foreseen at least for our winter conditions.

[faiver]

And the creation of a BA with a cannon is just an example of an inadequate assessment of the future needs of troops.

- tell this to the Germans, French, British, Italians ... Yes, our Bashki were not masterpieces, but at the level of the 30s they coped with their tasks, and made them out of what they could, and as best they could, in a semi-literate country. And where does the inadequate marshal, who has now been turned into an unfortunate victim?

[ccsr]

Quote: faiver

Yes, our Bashki were not masterpieces, but at the level of the 30s they coped with their tasks, and made them from what they could, and as best they could, in a semi-literate country.

Why did we have to create them at that time. what if we had more than 4 thousand T-37A and T-38 tanks in service on the eve of the war? Even in cross-country ability, they were better than armored vehicles, and this is obvious. It would be better if they tried to place some 20 mm cannon on them - it would be more useful.

[Siberian54]

And you look at the wear rate and the cost of repair and replacement of tracked and wheeled chassis and you will understand why BAs appeared on the sixth part of the world ..

[ccsr]

Quote: Siberian54

And you look at the wear rate and the cost of repair and replacement of tracked and wheeled chassis and you will understand why BAs appeared on the sixth part of the world ..

Have you ever ridden tires on virgin soil in winter, or on ice without chains, for example?
So it is clear that since after the war this direction was not developed, it means that BA of such a design did not justify themselves. But you did not answer - why do we need with so many light tanks, and there were about 10 thousand of them, in addition to the tankettes I mentioned earlier, we also began to bother with armored vehicles? Maybe it was better to spend money on fixing defects in tracked vehicles?

Quote: faiver

- what, any? There was nothing in the Union.

Why wasn't it?

ShVAK is the first Soviet automatic aviation cannon of 20 mm caliber. It was put into service in 1936 and was produced until 1946.

So it would be better not to spend money on armored vehicles, but to use it more rationally, unifying weapons.

Quote: faiver

plus the economy - the cost of producing a wheeled BA based on a serial truck is much cheaper than the production of the most simple tank or wedge.

Yes, we had more than 20 thousand TRACKED vehicles in the army before the war - where else were you going to shove armored vehicles if you couldn't really figure this stuff out, having lost many units not even in battles, but due to lack of fuel or breakdowns.

[Siberian54]

Never rode on snow and virgin soil where I live with constant snow cover 7,5 months a year For reference, from Krasnoyarsk to Moscow, the wheel-driver of that time will arrive, and the caterpillar will change both fingers and tracks three times and there is no chance that it will arrive in peacetime ..

[ccsr]

Quote: Siberian54

For reference, from Krasnoyarsk to Moscow, the wheel-driver of that time will arrive, and the caterpillar will change both fingers and tracks three times and there is no chance that it will arrive in peacetime ..

In general, combat tracked vehicles do not travel such distances on their own - there is a railway for this. The use of tracks is precisely a consequence of the fact that wheeled vehicles, the same modern passenger SUVs, very easily get stuck in the snow. Yes, and there may not be roads on the battlefield - you will not go from Krasnoyarsk to Moscow on virgin soil. So the use of tracks is not a design perversion, but the harsh reality of hostilities at different times of the year.

[Siberian54]

In general, a tank, an armored vehicle at the front moves chaotically and somehow unexpectedly far away or across the railway. wheeled

[faiver]

It would be better if they tried to place some 20 mm cannon on them - it would be more useful.

- what, any? There was nothing in the Union. You have already written about the wear and tear of tracked vehicles below, plus the economy - the cost of producing a wheeled BA based on a serial truck is much cheaper than the production of the most simple tank or wedge.

[Siberian54]

Generals of all armies need weapons, as in the joke about the pills for greed, "More! More!" The most typical example - "Airacobra" - an excellent plane! No, the generals needed a "supercobra" in the middle of the list of good aircraft, this gray type held out only for the power of the weapons .. So it is with armored vehicles .. to honor the aircraft cannon for the IL on the armor is much more effective than forty-five, but the muzzle is thicker

[strannik1985]

You do not indicate the number of released in the series, and this greatly affects the price.

Of course, the general plan for the release of all machine guns model 1938 for 1940 is 1700 pcs. The industry was unable to mass produce the KKP.

That is why there was no need to spend money on the creation of a BA, but it is better to spend it on the creation of a more reliable tank.

And here and now to fight? Work was carried out to increase the service life of the tracks, the melting of Hadfield steel was mastered only by 1936-1937.

But what about the theory of motorized warfare, cultivated then, where it was directly indicated that a future war would require large units of armored forces?

Triandafilov and Kalinovsky died at the wrong time.

[militarist63]

Quote: strannik1985

By the mid-30s, there were only 4 tank (mechanized) brigade corps in the Red Army, obviously enough for such a quantity of auxiliary equipment

Obviously, can you list examples of this "auxiliary technique"?
I'm sure you won't list them! Unfortunately, by the beginning of the war we did not have mobile means of technical support for BTT (neither evacuation means, nor mobile repair shops - "flyers")! All repairs, as a rule, were tied to stationary workshops and repair plants (and even here not everything was great) 3-4 tractors available in tank units (the only evacuation equipment in tank units at that time), which were supposed to be tank tractors, not only really the tank (if anything) was not able to pull out from the battlefield, due to their low power ... they were also very slow-moving ...
In my opinion, they "stopped" Tukhachevsky quite in time, not allowing him to put the country's economy in a knee-elbow position in the implementation of his crazy ideas of creating countless tank armadas ... rifle units and artillery!

[strannik1985]

You can obviously list the samples

Of course - "A" and "B" remailers, oil refueling tanks, AC, CCD, trucks, only 1 per body.

Unfortunately, we have

By the beginning of the war, there were 90 (ninety) mobile connections BTiMV. It was 4became 90.

[militarist63]

Of course - remailers "A" and "B"

ТРМ type "B" of the 1929 model, ТРМ type "A" of 1932, .. The modernization carried out in 1934 did not bring significant changes to them. By 1941, these TPMs were already weakly responding to the presence of a new BTT fleet in the troops! But at least they were! And even these funds were catastrophically small in the troops, and even before

90 (ninety) mobile connections BTiMV

and when only "4" was!

[militarist63]

so, in practice, in a tank battalion they could only dream of these meetings!

[militarist63]

That's right!
Moreover, in addition to

It would be better if instead of such an armored car, a tanker for the tank forces was purchased - it would be cheaper and they would be more useful during the war. And we didn't have enough barrels and cans for fuel

we didn’t have any infantry delivery vehicles either. There weren't really any trucks to carry the infantry, and armored personnel carriers (unfortunately, unlike the Germans) were generally absent as a class. That is why in the first period of the war, tanks not covered by infantry fought! And the artillery did not keep up with the tanks, for the same reasons.

[Cb master]

The machines of the BA-3/6/10 family were the best with the base and production capabilities that were in the USSR.

With that base and production capabilities, the T-34 was already perfectly produced. Such machines were suitable, as now, only for colonial wars.

[hohol95]

Year of release of the T-34?

[Cb master]

Years of development 1937 — 1940
Years of production 1939 — 1948
Years of operation with 1940

If it had not been for the scattering of resources on this site .. then perhaps the best tank of the Second World War would have appeared earlier.

[faiver]

The T-34 grew out of a series of BT tanks, so there was no way BT-2 - BT-5 - BT-7 - T-34 before.

[ccsr]

Quote: CB Master

If it had not been for the scattering of resources on this site .. then perhaps the best tank of the Second World War would have appeared earlier.

I completely agree with this conclusion. I don't want to throw a stone at those who defeated fascism, but it also makes no sense to deny the bungling of some commanders responsible for arming the Red Army - the first years of the war were too bloody, and also because of mistakes in the pre-war technical policy.

[hohol95]

Respected...
When they began to produce the T-18 (MS-1), they decided to create a modern armored car - BA-27! Fewer of them were released, but it was they who fought against the Basmachs in the sands of Central Asia! There were clearly few tanks for the ENTIRE USSR. And armored vehicles were more reliable, cheaper, and could be used for the role for which the tank was "too large"! And do not forget - the BAs drove on plain gasoline (gasoline of that time), and tanks, even at that time, demanded gasoline with a higher octane rating and better purification !!! As well as combat aviation !!!

[ccsr]

Quote: hohol95

When they began to produce the T-18 (MS-1), they decided to create a modern armored car - BA-27!

Since then, a lot of water has flowed under the bridge ... And this is not an argument in order to correctly navigate what is more suitable for wars in our conditions - light tanks or armored vehicles.

Quote: hohol95

Fewer of them were released, but it was they who fought against the Basmachs in the sands of Central Asia!

A strong example - that means we had to rivet cavalry instead of mechanized corps on the eve of the war, based on your logic.

Quote: hohol95

And do not forget - the BAs drove on plain gasoline (gasoline of that time),

And so we began to use diesel in tanks - a strong argument in favor of BA.

[hohol95]

Your reasoning is incomparable ...
Stay with your opinion.
I will stay where I belong!

[ccsr]

Quote: hohol95

Your reasoning is incomparable ...

But yours is completely unconvincing, especially pearls about Basmachi - you have to wrap it up so cool, you don't even understand whether you decided to show off with humor, or you really don't understand military equipment ...

Quote: hohol95

Stay with your opinion.
I will stay where I belong!

I didn't even try to convince you - let it be better for other people to decide whose arguments are more weighty.

[hohol95]

Where am I to your knowledge and life experience ...
Are you by any chance an adherent of "Sect - instead of BA it was necessary to make tanks - instead of tanks it was necessary to make armored personnel carriers"?

[ccsr]

Quote: hohol95

Are you by any chance an adherent of "Sect - instead of BA it was necessary to make tanks - instead of tanks it was necessary to make armored personnel carriers"?

I am an adherent of another sect - any armament of units and formations should not be skewed towards combat types to the detriment of support equipment, because during the war, our losses often occur from the fact that in one place the fuel was not delivered, in another place to be repaired there was nothing, in the third, the ammunition was not delivered on time, in the fourth, the variety of caliber prevented the unification of the release of shells.
As for the BA-10 with a 45 mm cannon, it would be better if these guns were supplied to the fortified areas under construction, rather than using the decommissioned 37 mm guns from the T-18 on the eve of the war.

[hohol95]

German convoy surrounded by Cherkassy. 1944 year.
Maybe instead of tanks and other vehicles, all funds should have been spent on the production of special carts for the army?
Not so many chassis were used for the production of the BA. And they would not have solved the problem of the lack of transport in the Red Army in a coordinated way.
Moreover, all cars in the Red Army were on the chassis of ordinary trucks.
And there were 2 factories throughout the country - GAZ and ZiS.
Before the war, a new workshop was taken away from GAZ for the production of motors and the Red Army were left without a modern LB-62 BA!
And in the engine shop they tried to establish the production of the M-105 aircraft engine. Naturally, nothing came of it ...
The aviators did not receive their own motors, and it was not far off to produce a new automobile motor !!!

[ccsr]

Quote: hohol95

German convoy surrounded by Cherkassy. 1944 year.

The Germans used animal-drawn transport no less than we did - is this a discovery for you? For me - no, I knew it from the history of the Second World War.

Quote: hohol95

Maybe instead of tanks and other vehicles, all funds should have been spent on the production of special carts for the army?

It will be a great discovery for you, but back in 1942 even radio stations on horse-drawn carriages existed in our country, but this does not mean that they had to be improved. You should not bring your argument to the point of absurdity - they will laugh at you.

Quote: hohol95

Not so many chassis were used for the production of the BA. And they would not have solved the problem of the lack of transport in the Red Army in a coordinated way.

All this required money and resources, and taking into account the imbalance in the production of weapons, such unreasonable projects carried even more harm to our army, and this is obvious, if only because such technology did not receive further development.

Quote: hohol95

And there were 2 factories throughout the country - GAZ and ZiS.

All the more, there was no need to load them with the creation of a landing gear for the BA. Did you buy cannons for a penny, as well as shells for them? Do you take this into account?

Quote: hohol95

The aviators did not receive their own motors, and it was not far off to produce a new automobile motor !!!

Well, since you understand all this, then why does it still not reach you that the multi-position production of weapons and equipment is simply disastrous for the country's economy and does not make it possible to reduce the cost of production of serial samples? On the one hand, you cite the shortcomings of the production of a number of equipment, and on the other hand, you don’t want to understand that ill-considered orders were precisely one of the reasons that the weapon seemed to be dofig, and there was not much sense from this in 1941.

Quote: hohol95

Where am I to your knowledge and life experience ...

I agree with this - you hardly have the experience of a Soviet general customer to convince me of what was useful on the eve of the war and what was not. But do not lose hope - maybe less sophisticated people will believe you ...

[hohol95]

When skewed ...
And what should have been produced: T-24 or BT-2?
Or was it worth spending money on Kurchevsky's gas-dynamic guns?
Was it necessary to shoot Taubin and his comrades?
Or did they squander less money than they "ate" the BA produced at the Izhora plant?

[ccsr]

Quote: hohol95

And what should have been produced: T-24 or BT-2?

It was necessary to spend more on the design of the T-34 ...

Quote: hohol95

Or was it worth spending money on Kurchevsky's gas-dynamic guns?

It was generally a sabotage of Tukhachevsky.

Quote: hohol95

Was it necessary to shoot Taubin and his comrades?

Of course not - it was necessary to drive them into the sharaghi and make them work for the country.

Quote: hohol95

Or did they squander less money than they "ate" the BA produced at the Izhora plant?

The point is not who excelled in squandering funds, but the fact that then many military men simply did not understand what they would have to face, and wanted to have as many different weapons as possible. This was a big mistake.

[hohol95]

But what about the T-29 adopted for service?
Isn't it a squandering of folk remedies?
Between the T-26, BT-7, T-28 and T-34, KV-1 there was a lot of work that led to zero results.
And the cars, which were created in a hurry, called the T-34 and KV-1, were immediately put into production. Without looking at their "childhood diseases"! There was no time. Time has passed.

[ccsr]

Quote: hohol95

There was no time. Time has passed.

Not only was there not enough time, but also the production capacity to have time to produce as much quality weapons as possible on the eve of the war and train people. This was a consequence of the large range of products that the industry had to produce. All this in the military-industrial complex is interconnected, and some of our commanders simply did not understand this, so they rushed to extremes.

[hohol95]

When did you start producing BA-3/6/10?
And in what quantities ???

[faiver]

already perfectly produced T-34

- Well, about fine, you frankly lied. Further, what is the service life of engines, transmissions, and goslings on the T-34? Fuel, oil consumption?

[Cb master]

I lied for only a year. The point is to consider the motor resource if the vehicle is destroyed in the very first battle, and most likely by infantry from the ATR.

[faiver]

First, you need to get to this infantry. There is such a concept - production culture, so in the USSR of those years it was very low (and even now there are problems with this), and as a result, the resource of the pre-war T-34 did not exceed 50 engine hours, so the T-34 did not immediately become the best tank of the second world ...

[fiberboard]

And then what about the armored vehicles of the German army, because they also had enough of this stuff? Maybe it's not about armored vehicles, but about the ability to use them? After all, there is a description of the battles where these machines, with proper use, showed themselves excellently. If you look at the shots of broken Soviet equipment, then at the beginning of the war, all our equipment showed itself poorly. Starting from a bicycle and ending with KV.

[militarist63]

Maybe it's not about armored vehicles, but about the ability to use them?

Yes, often, this was a fundamental criterion, how regrettable it is!

[Cb master]

In the German army, these were armored personnel carriers, not wunderwales armed with a tank cannon.

[militarist63]

In the German army, these were armored personnel carriers, not wunderwafls armed with a tank cannon.

Come on! Learn the materiel better! In the Wehrmacht and the Waffen SS, in addition to armored personnel carriers, there were quite a few armored vehicles that were armed not only with machine guns, but also with 2 cm, 5 cm and 7,5 cm guns!

[Cb master]

Let's links, let's see what kind of animals they are and how many were released.

[militarist63]

For example Sd.Kfz. 222 with 2 cm KwK 30 cannon and MG34 machine gun. From 1937 to 1944, 989 of them were produced.

[militarist63]

And also Sd.Kfz. 231 (6-Rad) with the same 2 cm cannon and MG34 machine gun. Issued 123 items

[militarist63]

And then Sd.Kfz. 231 (8-Rad) also with a 2 cm cannon and MG34 machine gun. Produced in various modifications (Sd.Kfz. 231/232, Sd.Kfz. 263, Sd.Kfz. 233) 793 units.

[militarist63]

Further Sd.Kfz. 234 in four versions. In various modifications, he was armed with guns: 1 - 2 cm KwK 30; 2 - 5 cm KwK 39; 3 - short barreled 7,5 cm KwK 37; 4 - anti-tank 7,5 cm Pak. 40. + for all one MG34 (42). All modifications were released 478.
Here in the photo you can immediately see two modifications - in the foreground Sd.Kfz. 234/2, followed by Sd.Kfz. 234/3

[Cb master]

From everything presented by you, only Sd.Kfz fit the description of the wunderwale with a tank gun. 234/2 234/3 234/4 which were issued acc. 101/88/89. Which no one even remembers except you and Wikipedia Compare now with BA-10 - 3386
The rest of the BRDM class, I have no special complaints about their expediency.

[ccsr]

Quote: CB Master

Compare now with BA-10 - 3386

You noticed everything correctly, because first of all you need to look at the number of those entered into service, and then you can decide what role they played in the battles of the war. As for the small-scale German technology, this was due both to the experiments of German gunsmiths and to the needs of different types of technology in connection with the variety of theaters in which the Germans fought since 1939, from Scandinavia to North Africa. Well, do not forget that the Germans and captured equipment were altered to suit their needs, which led to a large nomenclature. As for our BA-10, it was clearly not the best model, and in general it is not clear why, given such a shortage of artillery and shells, to equip a low-pass vehicle with a cannon.

[militarist63]

As for our BA-10, it was clearly not the best model, and in general it is not clear why, with such a shortage of artillery and shells, to equip a low-pass vehicle with a cannon

But with all this, the Germans captured the BA-10, practically without alterations (in any case, the weapons remained unchanged), were used very widely. Photographic confirmations of this are found in abundance. Even some German armored cars come across less often in the photo ...

[ccsr]

Quote: militarist63

But with all this, the Germans captured the BA-10, practically without alterations (in any case, the weapons remained unchanged), were used very widely.

I have not seen such numbers, so maybe give a link how to understand the number "broadly". But taking into account the fact that we had several thousand of them produced, and the highways in Germany and in Europe were better than our fields, I admit that the Germans widely used them on their territory. Did they also launch shells for them?

[vwp-1976]

The cost price of the DShK was the same as that of the magpie. That is why the DShK was not originally installed on the IL-2. They considered that it was more profitable to make a forty-five rubles for the same money and send it to the troops.
And an armored vehicle with a forty-five is, nevertheless, more dangerous than with a DShK. At equal cost.

[89268170588]

Armored vehicles were created when tank tracks did not have a large resource. BA went into frontal attacks before the appearance of anti-tank guns. By the age of 40, BAs could no longer perform the tasks for which they were created. But for the infantry, they were very dangerous.

[Dedok]

a little off topic, but freshly raised: https://53news.ru/novosti/v-novgorodskoj-oblasti-iz-volhova-vytashhili-tyagach-vermahta.html

[Baron pardus]

Actually, the front-mounted engine turns the engine into additional protection for the crew. Better to let the 37mm projectile get stuck in the engine than fly into the BO. By the way, in "Frontal" attacks, only the last saboteur will send any armored vehicles to fortified positions, be it a BA-10 or a Puma. But a 45m HE shell can be quite harmless if the BA is used to support the attack.