Western expert: The T-34 tank became a symbol not only of Soviet military power, but of the entire Second World War

Western military expert Henry Kelsall discusses which weapons of World War II had the greatest impact on its course. According to Kelsall, in order to judge this, it is worth paying attention to which of the weapons of the Second World War is still in use.

Western expert:

We must pay tribute to the Soviet tank T-34. He went through the whole war. Exported all over the world. And, surprisingly, in some countries, T-34s are still in service, used in battles.

According to Kelsall, it can be assumed that Supermarine Spitfire fighters played a key role in the war for Britain, and T-34 tanks for Russia (in this version, the material refers to the Soviet Union).

Kelsall:

Certainly one of the most famous and vital creations of the war came from Russia, and this is, of course, the legendary T-34 tank. This is Russian (Soviet) weapon can be considered an iconic tank of the Second World War.

According to a Western observer, initially the superiority in tanks was on the side of the Nazis, but the mass production of T-34 tanks, as well as their improvement based on experience in battles, "made it possible for the Russians to gain an advantage over the Germans."

Kelsall:

As a result, it was an innovation that almost completely changed the entire design of tanks, and the T-34 became a symbol not only of Russian (Soviet) military power, but of the entire war.

The Western author notes that the T-34 tank might not have existed, if not for the Soviet experience in the hostilities at Khalkhin Gol.

Henry Kelsall:

Thanks to the designers, the Russians had the kind of tank they could count on in the face of the ever-growing threat from the German forces. Considering that these troops have already swept away France and other European countries on their way.

A Western military expert notes that the design of the T-34 tank made revolutionary in its time what is today largely trivial. This is, for example, sloped armor, which proved to be effective against ammunition of various calibers.

According to Kelsall, "the meeting with the Soviet T-34 and KV tanks in many ways stunned the Germans, who believed that the way for the capture of Russia was open."

Comments

[Ros 56]

For us, the T-34 is primarily a symbol of the Great Victory over fascism.

[Peak]

Quote: Ros 56

For us, the T-34 is primarily a symbol of the Great Victory over fascism.

We have many great symbols. Both material and spiritual.

[boris epstein]

Thank you. Agree. Its author Yevgeny Khaldei originally named the first photo "Political instructor", because in the photo there is a junior political instructor Aleksey Eremenko. He raised a company to counterattack when the enemy broke through on the flank of the battalion. In a counterattack, he died, but the breakthrough was eliminated. During perestroika, anti-Stalinism and anti-communism, the photo was bashfully renamed "Combat".
I was in Stalingrad at the Mamayev Kurgan, looked at the lists of defenders in the memorial. In Stalingrad, all the defense lines on which the Germans were stopped, there are towers from T-34-76 on small pedestals manufactured by STZ. Was in the Brest Fortress. In Germany, in the city of Schwerin (formerly the GDR) on the T-34-85 monument, the Ossi Germans wrote in German: "Russians, free us again."

[knn54]

Today the Steel Fist is in service with eight countries: Vietnam, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Yemen, Cuba, Republic of Congo, North Korea and Namibia.

[faiver]

The T-34 tank became a symbol not only of Soviet military power, but of the entire Second World War.

- It's right

According to a Western observer, initially the superiority in tanks was on the side of the Nazis.

- that's bullshit

According to Kelsall, “the meeting with the Soviet T-34 and KV tanks stunned the Germans in many ways.

- a very controversial statement
The sloped armor mentioned in the article was also not an innovation ...

[bya965]

Plus, but ...

According to a Western observer, initially the superiority in tanks was on the side of the Nazis.

- that's bullshit

This is not nonsense. Our tanks had more of a fact, but most of the old ones are also a fact.
The new ones suffered from a bunch of childhood illnesses (and we retreated and lost them practically just like that) and their crews were not prepared.
The T-3 was better than the T-34 for the first year and a half of the war. In general, he should have a strong impact on the T-34 if the war began later.
https://warspot.ru/10340-svoevremennaya-pokupka

[Peak]

Quote: bya965

The T-3 was better than the T-34 for the first year and a half of the war.

You are just like in that KVN:

- Armenians are better than Georgians ...
- What is better ???
- Than Georgians

If it is better, then perhaps only as observation devices for the crew and optics of the sight. That's all ...

[Roma 1977]

And also a radio station and the overall reliability and resource of all units. Plus incomparable crew comfort. That is, in 1941, the T-34 is a crude concept with low quality workmanship, in fact, unfit for full-fledged combat operations, and the PzIII is a debugged, fully combat-ready sample. Trophy troikas were unofficially used as commanders until the end of the war. This speaks volumes.

[faiver]

overall reliability and service life of all units

- there is such a concept "culture of production", with this that then in the USSR there were problems, and still in the Russian Federation

[Roma 1977]

I disagree. In the 30s - yes, when yesterday's peasants hammered nails with a slide rule. But modern high-tech samples on the knee are no longer blind.

[faiver]

So no one says that now we are at the level of the 30s, but the level of the same Germany, as it was unattainable almost a hundred years ago, is unattainable now ...

[bashkir]

I was always touched by such expressions): "but the level of the same Germany, as it was unattainable almost a hundred years ago, is still unattainable ...". What level? What are we talking about? Maybe you think that they had ingenious solutions in tank building? But alas ... The very course of the war showed that their design school of tank building was in many ways ... impotent. Do you want to compare current trends? So this is it. We have a new generation tank - Armata (just don’t mean that the troops do not have it), and they (Germany) are modernizing the samples of the last century. So who is catching up with whom?

[faiver]

What does tank building and Armata have to do with it? This is not an indicator, if only because it has not yet been massively tested in the troops and the main tanks of the Russian Federation are still Soviet tanks.
The minimum wage in the Russian Federation is 12792r, the minimum wage in Germany is ten times higher than ours, the level of medicine. Any German product is better than ours in quality - cars, clothing, household appliances and so on and so on ...
I don’t ride the Armata ...

[Roma 1977]

That is why the Germans gladly used the Soviet PPSh and SVT, and did they copy the PPS and 120-mm mortar?

[faiver]

and ours did not use captured weapons?

[bashkir]

"And also the radio station and the overall reliability and resource of all units" - You correctly noted that, but the fact is that the platform is assessed as such. Let's imagine that already at 41 our 34s are equipped with radio stations and the units are debugged, and even there is an 85 caliber cannon. In addition, our rear services have learned to work as in '44. You feel what kind of monster the Germans would have faced. Now let's remember the story. Did the German T-III reach the end of the war? Were they able to modernize it and bring it to acceptable characteristics at the end of the war, so that it could fight on equal terms with our tanks? The answer is obvious. So whose tank was the best? Even in the first half of the war?

[Reserve buildbat]

And you "checkered or go"? Comfort or combat effectiveness? Yes, and trophy troikas were used as command tanks because, you are right, a radio station is better, but also because initially the T-60 and T-70 were used as commanders.

[Alexey Koshkarov]

Even the fascist T-3 was praised for better communication, smoother ride, freer space inside the car and habitability. But our T-34 became the tank of victory and the best tank.

[faiver]

I disagree, the T-26, T-35, T-28, BT-2/5 fit the concept of old tanks, I can immediately say that the T-28, in spite of everything else, matched this time, now let's move on to the "old" German tanks, here Pz-3 and Pz-4 can be attributed, at the beginning of the war there were three rubles in the Wehrmacht, and fours about six hundred. Everything else is the same level as our T-26. The question was not in the advantage, but in the ability to use tanks in practice, in the interaction of all types of troops, which we did not have, we learned everything on the fly

[Roma 1977]

More Czech "Prague" were in the amount of more than a thousand pieces. And this level is much higher than the T-26. And the PZII was much better than the T-26. As a result, we get that 90% of the German armored fleet on June 22, 1941 were better than 90% of the Soviet one.

[faiver]

More Czech "Prague" were in the amount of more than a thousand pieces

- wait a minute, but riveted tanks in '41 are no longer ice, the crews did not like them

[boris epstein]

But 1411 tanks for 1941 are also quite a few, even riveted ones, especially since Czechs and Slovaks sat in them as mechanics-drivers.

[bya965]

T-28 in spite of everything else matched this time

I support, for its time, but for 41-42 years "correct" tank.
It is very balanced, it’s even amazing how our people were able to do it in 10 years during the wars. But the turns are not his.

Correctly applying the mosinka, you can now stop the BPM.
But who will give.

[krjugerfred]

I agree with the first and second theses, but the third is a very controversial statement

[The leader of the Redskins]

A strange expert ... At the beginning of the war, the Nazis had no advantage in tanks. And they began to think about the creation of the T 34 after the war in Spain, and not Halkin Gola.

[Chifka]

Without in the least challenging the role of the T-34 in the Second World War, I still want to note that the content and information content of the article is minimal. It looks like a duty agitation for preschoolers. I'm talking about the presentation, not the essence. Haven't seen the original, but it is possible that Henry Kelsall wrote more than the information provided to us. Is it becoming a BO trend?

[Tomich_1987]

Plyusanu, if the author gives quotations taken out of context, he would have bothered to give a link to the original source. Well, some translators are so-so.

[Tomich_1987]

Something this Kelsall does not google in either Russian or English. The author should have given a link to the original article, or at least to the source.

[Flooding]

Quote: Tomic_1987

Something this Kelsall does not google in either Russian or English. The author should have given a link to the original article, or at least to the source.

although I am not the author, but catch
https://www.hotcars.com/this-is-what-made-the-t34-tank-so-great/

[Avior]

In the original article, the author placed the emphasis somewhat differently than on the VO, equating the T-34 with the American Sherman.

The T-34 has become every bit an icon of the war as the Spitfire and the American M4 Sherman have become.

"The T-34 has become the same symbol of war as Spitfire and the American Sherman"

[Tomich_1987]

Judging by the rest of his articles on the site, this is the same "military expert" as Academician, for example.

[Cat Alexandrovich]

Oh thank you, IN! What fresh news in the "News" section! How much we have learned from this news!

[LiSiCyn]

People just like "Tank"

Everyone who has ever driven a car along the old Kaliningrad-Svetlogorsk road probably knows the main attraction of this route - the T-34 tank monument standing on a pedestal.

Here on April 22, 1945, on the 19th kilometer of the road, according to the decision of the Soviet command, 59 tankers of the 28th Guards Separate Tank Brigade, who died in the battles for the Zemland Peninsula and during the assault on Koenigsberg, were buried.

Later, in different years, the remains of soldiers from other military graves were transferred here. And so a memorial was formed, where more than 570 soldiers are now buried.

The tank was installed in 1969. There is a memorial plaque on the armor, where it is written: “During the assault on Königsberg, they died the death of the brave on April 7, 1945. Tank crew: Sergeant Major Borisov E.A., Art. sergeant Vaslyaev PF, foreman Korobov VN, sergeant Yakovenko IA ".

[Aurel]

The Nazis destroyed about 100 thousand Soviet tanks.

[Flooding]

Quote: Aurel

The Nazis destroyed about 100 thousand Soviet tanks.

Aurel, you are an interesting character.
But if your task is perfectly clear, you can remain objective, both in numbers and in terms.
I won't even check the numbers, because you are not writing here to establish the truth.
But the word "destruction" means the irrecoverable loss of equipment.
Most often, the tank was knocked out in battle, after which it was subject to repair.

[Aleksey Aleksandrovich]

Combat losses of 83500 units of armored vehicles.

[Eragon]

Quote: Alexey Alexandrovich

Combat losses of 83500 units of armored vehicles.

And what are these numbers, please specify? Are they knocked out, destroyed, or all together, plus those who were out of action for non-combat reasons? Taking into account the fact that the T-34 + T-34-85 were produced with a little over 60 thousand in production until 1958.
It would be nice to have similar figures for T-3 or T-4.

[Alf]

Quote: Aurel

The Nazis destroyed about 100 thousand Soviet tanks.

Two hundred, two hundred thousand, Goebbels himself spoke about this ...

[BABAY22]

Quote: Aurel

The Nazis destroyed about 100 thousand Soviet tanks.

This is taking into account World of Tanks, I understand.

[Professor]

A Western military expert notes that the design of the T-34 tank made revolutionary in its time what is today largely trivial. This is, for example, sloped armor, which proved to be effective against ammunition of various calibers.

Where do they get these experts?

A quick shot, a 1 French Char B1921 heavy tank. Inclined harrow. The revolution?

French tank Hotchkiss H35 1935. Inclined harrow. Revolution again?

The T-34 has earned its place of honor in the history of World War II, but there is no need to make an icon out of it and canonize it.

[lucul]

Inclined harrow. The revolution?

Sloped armor on one side is not a revolution. But the sloped armor on all sides (precisely a meaningful concept) is already yes.
In the first months of the war, German shells confidently ricocheted almost from any angle of hitting the T-34, either from the side or from the back. We can say that in 1941 the words T-34 and ricochet are synonymous words.
On the French tanks you indicated, getting a ricochet, say in a side view, is unrealistic luck.)))

[Professor]

Quote: lucul

Sloped armor on one side is not a revolution. But the sloped armor on all sides (precisely a meaningful concept) is already yes.

Not at all touching the merits of the T-34 ... sloped armor on all sides in armored vehicles was applied before it.

Quote: lucul

In the first months of the war, German shells confidently ricocheted almost from any angle of hitting the T-34, either from the side or from the back. We can say that in 1941 the words T-34 and ricochet are synonymous words.

What happened in the following months?
Shells also ricocheted from the German Tigers. It all depends at what angle the projectile will hit.

Quote: lucul

On the French tanks you indicated, getting a ricochet, say in a side view, is unrealistic luck.)))

As with any tank, including the T-34.

[lucul]

sloped armor on all sides in armored vehicles was applied before him.

Proof? ))))

What happened in the following months?

The T-34 armor was designed against 37-50mm guns, and it resisted them perfectly, in order to confidently hit the T-34 (without ricochets), the Germans had to dramatically increase the caliber of their guns from 37-50mm to 75-88mm. Such a sharp increase in caliber against the tanks of France and England was not required at all. They confidently hit both the side and rear spheres with 37-50mm guns.
In the case of the T-34, the caliber of these guns was insufficient.

Shells also ricocheted from the German Tigers. It all depends at what angle the projectile will hit.

Pfff ...)))
Show me the ricochet on the Tiger when the projectile arrives at it at right angles along the normal. And on the T-34 there could be a ricochet when the projectile flew towards it at a right angle along the normal. The thing is that for the T-34, the angle of impact was calculated in two planes (in the horizontal and vertical), while for the Tiger only in one - the horizontal one.)))

As with any tank, including the T-34.

No )))

[Professor]

Quote: lucul

sloped armor on all sides in armored vehicles was applied before him.

Proof? ))))

Quote: lucul

The T-34 armor was designed against 37-50mm guns, and it resisted them perfectly, in order to confidently hit the T-34 (without ricochets), the Germans had to dramatically increase the caliber of their guns from 37-50mm to 75-88mm. Such a sharp increase in caliber against the tanks of France and England was not required at all. They confidently hit both the side and rear spheres with 37-50mm guns.
In the case of the T-34, the caliber of these guns was insufficient.

Yes. In a couple of months, the Germans re-equipped with tanks. Seriously? Since 1940, they did not know the performance characteristics of the T-34?

Quote: lucul

Pfff ...)))
Show me the ricochet on the Tiger when the projectile arrives at it at right angles along the normal. And on the T-34 there could be a ricochet when the projectile flew towards it at a right angle along the normal. The thing is that for the T-34, the angle of impact was calculated in two planes (in the horizontal and vertical), while for the Tiger only in one - the horizontal one.)))

Show me the ricochet on the T-34 when the projectile flew to it along the normal.

[lucul]

The above example is the Russian Russo-Balt))) You give me foreign examples, the Russians were seriously puzzled by the slope of the armor after 1905, so it's not surprising.
In addition, the slope of the slope is different. The T-34 was tilted at 45 ° and 60 ° not accidentally, but as a result of calculations.

Yes. In a couple of months, the Germans re-equipped with tanks.

For a couple of years - from 1941 to 1943)))

Show me the ricochet on the T-34 when the projectile flew to it along the normal.

The T-34 has 2 planes along which ricochet is possible - vertical and horizontal))) Is it so hard to imagine? )))

[Professor]

Quote: lucul

The above example is the Russian Russo-Balt))) You give me foreign examples, the Russians were seriously puzzled by the slope of the armor after 1905, so it's not surprising.
In addition, the slope of the slope is different. The T-34 was tilted at 45 ° and 60 ° not accidentally, but as a result of calculations.

I understand that the calculations. The French accidentally set the armor at an angle, and on the T-34 the designers knew what a sine was. So? It turns out that Terminal Ballistics was not available to the French ...

Do you want sloped armor BEFORE the T-34? So the Americans

And the Germans had it. What is the revolution?

Quote: lucul

For a couple of years - from 1941 to 1943)))

For a couple of years, the T-34 was also reinforced with a more powerful weapon. So not "In the first months of the war ..."

Quote: lucul

The T-34 has 2 planes along which ricochet is possible - vertical and horizontal))) Is it so hard to imagine? )))

And the Tiger may have a ricochet in azimuth.
Listen to you so 45 degrees, and even more so 60 is a guaranteed ricochet. Not so fast.
Here's the bullet:
https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5678&context=jclc
With a projectile, everything is more complicated.

[lucul]

I understand that the calculations. The French accidentally set the armor at an angle, and on the T-34, the designers knew what a sine was. So?

Hmm ... no words ...
On the T-34 in the performance characteristics, the optimal angle of inclination of the armor, obtained as a result of calculations and physical tests by shelling, was indicated everywhere for the first time.
Now tell me, what was the angle of inclination of the armor on the French B-1 tanks and the like? A ? No information ? And why ?
Yes, because the French did the slope of the armor for the sake of reducing weight, and not to increase armor resistance)))

[Professor]

Quote: lucul

On the T-34 in the performance characteristics, the optimal angle of inclination of the armor, obtained as a result of calculations and physical tests by shelling, was indicated everywhere for the first time.

Tree sticks. The sinus does not reach its apogee at either 60 or 45 degrees. Install the armor plate at a shallower angle and reinforce the armor with the same plate thickness. An excellent example of the BMP-1. Frontal projection is simply chic.

Quote: lucul

Now tell me, what was the angle of inclination of the armor on the French B-1 tanks and the like? A ? No information ? And why ?

There is information. There is less of it since these tanks were not so massive.
https://tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2/france/hotchkiss_h35_39.php

Quote: lucul

Yes, because the French did the slope of the armor for the sake of reducing weight, and not to increase armor resistance)))

Dok-va in the studio. Why did you decide that the French did not divide the thickness of their 34 mm armor by the sine of the angle of its inclination, and the Soviet designers did not share their thickness?
Why did you decide that the French did not conduct ballistic tests and fired 1200 tanks from the bay? The French can be blamed in many ways, but not that they do not understand tank building.

[lucul]

There is information

Where ????
Here is for comparison

Where is it for the French tanks? A ?
Yes, the French simply did not attach much importance to the angle of the slope, he walked only for the sake of weight loss. Here is a clear picture

If you remove the slope of the armor, and imagine B-1 in the shape of a rectangle, then you just get unnecessary extra volume and weight.

[Professor]

Quote: lucul

Where ????
Here is for comparison

What is the comparison? The thickness of the armor of the French is known, the booking scheme is laid out above. The fact that I or someone else did not indicate the booking angles on the diagram does not mean that the French engineers did not calculate them and did not conduct ballistic tests. If I specify them, will it change something? I have a book about French armored vehicles, I translated a couple of articles from it for the VO. I'll see if the author indicated the angles there, but I don't understand what it changes.

[lucul]

I'll see if the author indicated the angles there, but I don't understand what it changes.

Why, then, are the angles of inclination of armor necessarily indicated for all modern tanks? If it is not so important in your opinion? )))

the booking scheme is laid out above

This is not a booking scheme, but just a blueprint.

[Professor]

Quote: lucul

Why, then, are the angles of inclination of armor necessarily indicated for all modern tanks? If it is not so important in your opinion? )))

Merkava, Type-10? I'm waiting for the angles of inclination.

The angle of inclination is important. Terminal ballistics 19th century. However, in the performance characteristics, armored vehicles do not indicate the angle of inclination and / or the thickness and / or composition of the armor. Indicate the level of protection according to GOST and STANAG. For example, level 4. And this is the only thing that matters to the client, not the angle of inclination. It is important for him that in azimuth of plus or minus 30 degrees, armored vehicles are capable of withstanding so many and so many hits from such a caliber at such a speed. The client buys a performance, not corners, armor or abstract performance characteristics.

Quote: lucul

This is not a booking scheme, but just a blueprint.

Well, I'll make a diagram out of it. And what will change? I will write an article about this tank and indicate the diagram. And two? T-34 will cease to be revolutionary?

[Alf]

Quote: professor

Since 1940, they did not know the performance characteristics of the T-34?

Vyazma is not like the 40th year.

[Eragon]

Quote: professor

A Western military expert notes that the design of the T-34 tank made revolutionary in its time what is today largely trivial. This is, for example, sloped armor, which proved to be effective against ammunition of various calibers.

Where do they get these experts?

Well, how can I tell you ... Sloped armor and the placement of armor at rational angles are not the same thing at all. And for the prototypes of the T-34, the angle of inclination of the armor was specially calculated. For the first time in the world of tank building.
The T-34 is not an icon, but after World War II, tilt angles were calculated for all tanks in the world. Because the T-34 showed this world HOW to build tanks.

[Professor]

Quote: Eragon

And for the prototypes of the T-34, the angle of inclination of the armor was specially calculated. For the first time in the world of tank building.

What nonsense? The sine of the angle of inclination of the armor by the thickness of the armor could be multiplied and divided long before the creation of the T-34. The angle of inclination of the armor has always been specially calculated, and not obtained by chance. Terminal ballistics developed widely in the 19th century.

Quote: Eragon

The T-34 is not an icon, but after World War II, tilt angles were calculated for all tanks in the world. Because the T-34 showed this world HOW to build tanks.

I'm sorry to disappoint you, but when designing tanks, slope angles were calculated everywhere and always. Terminal ballistics appeared long before the appearance of the tank.
Another thing is that the use of sloped armor is not always constructively effective. In 1920-1930 tanks with sloped armor appeared.

[lucul]

What nonsense? The sine of the angle of inclination of the armor by the thickness of the armor could be multiplied and divided long before the creation of the T-34.

Well, yes, only for the first time this was done on the T-34)))

I'm sorry to disappoint you, but when designing tanks, slope angles were calculated everywhere and always.

Well, just look at all the tanks BEFORE the T-34 and after))))

Another thing is that the use of sloped armor is not always constructively effective.

Yeah, only after the T-34 tanks without sloped armor were no longer made)))

[Professor]

Quote: lucul

Well, yes, only for the first time this was done on the T-34)))

But what about Terminal Ballistics?

Quote: lucul

Well, just look at all the tanks BEFORE the T-34 and after))))

Take a look. I posted the photo above.

Quote: lucul

Yeah, only after the T-34 tanks without sloped armor were no longer made)))

Yah? Let's take a look at the aft and side views of the hull. At the angles of the tower.

[lucul]

Yah? Let's take a look at the aft and side views of the hull. At the angles of the tower.

Don't be funny - these are the first stupid versions)))
Here already on the mind

Take a look. I posted the photo above.

I duplicate my answer below:
You are simply confusing the calculation of the slope of the armor to increase armor resistance, with the slope of the armor to REDUCE the WEIGHT of the tank.
The slope of the armor, as on the French Char B-1, was done precisely to reduce the size of the tank and, consequently, to reduce its weight)))

[Professor]

Quote: lucul

Yah? Let's take a look at the aft and side views of the hull. At the angles of the tower.

Don't be funny - these are the first stupid versions)))
Here already on the mind

First, we see a tank without sloped armor on the sides and stern, and on the turret. And all this after the "revolutionary" T-34.
Secondly, there are no tower tilt angles. What you see is DZ.
There is no armor here at all. A tower with almost vertical walls. Well, the sides and stern.

[lucul]

First, we see a tank without sloped armor on the sides and stern, and on the turret. And all this after the "revolutionary" T-34.

Well Yo-mine)))
The T-34 had a RESERVE in terms of engine power, so they placed everything at an angle, already for the KV, the engine power was no longer enough, as well as the dimensions for tilting such a thick armor around the perimeter of the tank that the KV had))))

There is no armor here at all. A tower with almost vertical walls.

Yes? And why then the DZ was placed at an angle, eh? For beauty ? You DZ try to place on the armor with a large angle of inclination)))

we see a tank without sloping armor on the sides and in the stern

And the VLD is also always straight like on the Tiger? )))

[Professor]

Quote: lucul

Well Yo-mine)))
The T-34 had a RESERVE in terms of engine power, so they placed everything at an angle, already for the KV, the engine power was no longer enough, as well as the dimensions for tilting such a thick armor around the perimeter of the tank that the KV had)))

Quite the opposite. Tilted armor reduces weight (Pythagorean theorem) + the aforementioned sine.

In fact:
1. Tilted armor has been used since the appearance of armor and on tanks in particular. The French tanks above are an example of this. There are examples from the First World War, which refutes your words "they did it for the first time on the T-34".
2. The German Leopard without sloping armor on the turret, sides and stern refutes your statement that "after the T-34 tanks without sloped armor were no longer made." They did, do and will do.

Quote: lucul

Yes? And why then the DZ was placed at an angle, eh? For beauty ? You DZ try to place on the armor with a large angle of inclination)))

Duc DZ only works when breaking through an inclination. When penetrated along the normal, its effect is equal to the thickness of the plates in the DZ without explosives.

Quote: lucul

And the VLD is also always straight like on the Tiger? )))

Is it just a VLD tank? What about the tower, sides and stern? It turns out that after the appearance of the T-34, these projections continued to be made without a tilt, and the VLD itself was tilted up to the T-34. What is the revolution?

[lucul]

In fact:
1. Tilted armor has been used since the appearance of armor and on tanks in particular. The French tanks above are an example of this.

The moment of appearance of armor as such is the ancient Greek hoplites. Give me examples of the slope of armor (constructive) specifically to increase the equivalent of the thickness of the armor.
In French tanks, the inclination of the VLD is caused solely to reduce weight, and not to increase armor resistance))))

The German Leopard without sloping armor on the turret, sides and stern refutes your statement that "after the T-34 tanks without sloped armor were no longer made." They did, do and will do.

German tanks before the appearance of the T-34 were - "square, practice, gut".
And then everyone goes with sloped armor. Confirmation REPEATED

As you can see, in the frontal projection, the slope of the armor is used in full.

Is it just a VLD tank?

Show me a tank without an inclined VLD, huh? ))))
After all, the slope is not important in your opinion))))

[Professor]

Quote: lucul

The moment of appearance of armor as such is the ancient Greek hoplites. Give me examples of the slope of armor (constructive) specifically to increase the equivalent of the thickness of the armor.

I gave examples of armored vehicles above. Reservation of ships of the 19th century can also be cited.

Quote: lucul

In French tanks, the inclination of the VLD is caused solely to reduce weight, and not to increase armor resistance))))

Prove it.

Quote: lucul

German tanks before the appearance of the T-34 were - "square, practice, gut".
And then everyone goes with sloped armor. Confirmation REPEATED

And I will repeat myself. Where is the slope on the turret, sides and stern?

sloping armor from the French.

Quote: lucul

As you can see, in the frontal projection, the slope of the armor is used in full.

Like the French DO T-34. What is the revolution?

Quote: lucul

Show me a tank without an inclined VLD, huh? ))))
After all, the slope is not important in your opinion))))

The slope is important. Terminal ballistics of the 19th century proved it. Sinus and so on. But ... you can do it without bending.

I still do not understand what revolutionary T-34?
Inclined all-aspect armor was used in the First World War.
Inclined VLD was used up to the T-34, for example by the French.
After the T-34, tanks were produced as well as before the T-34. For example, a German Leopard with an inclined VLD and without inclination of the walls of the tower, sides and stern. Well, just like a French tank of the 1920s. No influence of the T-34.

[lucul]

Prove

The lack of inclination angles on the booking schemes, which indicates a spontaneous angle of inclination of the armor, and not specially calculated as on the T-34.

And I will repeat myself. Where is the slope on the turret, sides and stern?

Here )))
I can also cite the example of Leopard 1, when its armor was completely insufficient to withstand Soviet tanks, but it was produced, which only indicates that the Germans were not going to fight.

The slope is important. Terminal ballistics of the 19th century proved it.

Slope is important as long as the thickness of the armor is greater than or equal to the caliber of the gun that will fire at it, if the caliber of the gun is 2 times or more the thickness of the armor, then the slope of the armor does not play a special role.

I still do not understand what is the revolutionary nature of the T-34?
Inclined all-aspect armor was used in the First World War.

Tilt angles. Mathematically calculated tilt angles. A tilt of 10 ° and a tilt of 60 ° are far from the same armor effectiveness.

Inclined VLD was used up to the T-34, for example by the French.

There, the slope was used exclusively to reduce the mass of the tank, the proof is the lack of data on the slope angles of the armor on these tanks. Indeed, now for every modern tank, the angle of inclination of the armor in the performance characteristics is indicated, which was not the case before the T-34.

[Professor]

Quote: lucul

The lack of inclination angles on the booking schemes, which indicates a spontaneous angle of inclination of the armor, and not specially calculated as on the T-34.

There are no spontaneous tilt angles of armor. They are all calculated by ballistics and engineers. In your opinion, the tilt angle of 8 degrees on the BMP-1 is a spontaneous angle? A rhetorical question.

Quote: lucul

Here )))

Again, no. This is the DZ body kit. The tower itself has no tilt angles as well as the sides with the stern.

Quote: lucul

Slope is important as long as the thickness of the armor is greater than or equal to the caliber of the gun that will fire at it, if the caliber of the gun is 2 times or more the thickness of the armor, then the slope of the armor does not play a special role.

What nonsense? I am right not clever for you. From memory: armor-piercing 7.62 Dragunov penetrates 19-20 rolled homogeneous armor along the normal. Almost 3 gauge... But ... a half-inch (12.7 mm) sheet set at a 30-degree angle (60 NATO) will withstand this shot. Position the sheet at a 10-degree angle so you can reduce the thickness. Terminal ballistics.

Quote: lucul

Tilt angles. Mathematically calculated tilt angles. A tilt of 10 ° and a tilt of 60 ° are far from the same armor effectiveness.

Understood. No innovation. The slope angles of the armor have been calculated since the 19th century.

Quote: lucul

There, the slope was used exclusively to reduce the mass of the tank, the proof is the lack of data on the slope angles of the armor on these tanks. Indeed, now for every modern tank, the angle of inclination of the armor in the performance characteristics is indicated, which was not the case before the T-34.

This is not proof, just your theory. What will change the diagram with angles of inclination that I post on the VO?

Quote: lucul

Because now for every modern tank Set the angle of inclination of armor in performance characteristics, which was not before the T-34.

Yah? Is it specified? What are the tilt angles on the Merkava? Didn't Talik count them? And what about the Japanese Type-10 tank? Didn't the Japanese count it?

Let's not pull the owl over the globe.

[lucul]

There are no spontaneous tilt angles of armor. They are all calculated by ballistics and engineers.

Well, tell me about the German ballistics and engineers who created the square Pz.3 and Pz.4 and Tiger tanks with vertical armor. What do you say they counted there? )))

Again, no. This is the DZ body kit.

Why is the body kit at an angle and not vertically? After all, the angle of the slope is not so important in your opinion? )))

What nonsense? I am right not clever for you. From memory: armor-piercing 7.62 Dragunov penetrates 19-20 rolled homogeneous armor along the normal. Almost 3 gauge.

I'm really really embarrassed for you))) After all, it's written in black and white

if the caliber of the gun is 2 times or more exceeds the thickness of the armor , then the slope of the armor does not play a special role.

For some reason you understood the opposite. Indeed, for the caliber, 7.62 mm, so that the angle of inclination of the armor does not play a role, armor of 3.5 mm or less is required, and not 20 mm)))

Understood. No innovation. The slope angles of the armor have been calculated since the 19th century.

Calculated .... somewhere, but not for German tanks Pz.3-Pz.5)))

This is not proof, just your theory. What will change the diagram with angles of inclination that I post on the VO?

The booking scheme, with the angles of inclination of the armor exactly from the designers (as for the T-34), and not finished in Photoshop? But there is no such scheme, because the French did not calculate the equivalents of the given armor.)))

[Professor]

Quote: lucul

Well, tell me about the German ballistics and engineers who created the square Pz.3 and Pz.4 and Tiger tanks with vertical armor. What do you say they counted there? )))

I'm telling you. German engineers calculated the Leopard's armor in accordance with the threats existing at that time. They carried out ballistic tests and adopted a tank with vertical angles of inclination of the turret, sides and stern armor.
By the way, we observe the vertical angles of inclination of the sides and stern on the Russian tanks in service. Say hello to the revolutionary T-34.

Quote: lucul

Why is the body kit at an angle and not vertically? After all, the angle of the slope is not so important in your opinion? )))

You are not careful.
1. The angle of inclination is IMPORTANT. Terminal ballistics.
2. I wrote about DZ above. It doesn't work normally. This is the materiel.

Quote: lucul

if the caliber of the gun is 2 times or more the thickness of the armor, then the slope of the armor does not play a special role

This is just nonsense. The angle of inclination of the armor always plays a role. Terminal ballistics and elementary geometry. At an angle of inclination of 30 degrees, the thickness of the sheet can be halved and the armor penetration will not change. caliber is not present in the formula at all.
Teach materiel.

There is a wonderful course by Dr. Rosenberg at the Technion. Well, as a last resort, a book. There are books in Russian, but they are not so popular there.

Quote: lucul

Calculated .... somewhere, but not for German tanks Pz.3-Pz.5)))

Yes, the durability and thickness of the armor were calculated and allowed them to install the armor VERTICALLY, like on the Leopard, as well as on the RF on the Armata on the sides and stern. Have the creators of Armata forgotten about the "revolutionary" T-34?

Quote: lucul

The booking scheme, with the angles of inclination of the armor exactly from the designers (as for the T-34), and not finished in Photoshop? But there is no such scheme, because the French did not calculate the equivalents of the given armor.)))

I understood. The French designer did not make drawings with the thickness of the armor and the angles of inclination, and the workers at the factory made the angles of inclination at their discretion.

Quote: lucul

Quote: lucul
Indeed, now for every modern tank, the angle of inclination of the armor in the performance characteristics is indicated, which was not the case before the T-34.

Yah? Is it specified? What are the tilt angles on the Merkava? Didn't Talik count them? And what about the Japanese Type-10 tank? Didn't the Japanese count it?

I'm waiting for the angles of the Merkava and Type-10 armor. Until show the conversation continues.

I will make the task easier. Show the diagram of the angles of inclination of the armor of the BTR-80 from the designers as on the T-34. After all, it will be easy for you to find it, is it "in every performance characteristics" or as you formulated it there?
That is, if "there is no such scheme, because the Soviets did not calculate the equivalents of the given armor .))) "

[lucul]

I'm waiting for the angles of the Merkava and Type-10 armor. Until show the conversation continues.

Yeah, when I asked for the angles of the armor of French tanks, you answered me

I'm waiting for the angles of the Merkava and Type-10 armor. Until show the conversation continues.

))))
The question to the question - why am I not surprised)))

[Professor]

Quote: lucul

Indeed, now for every modern tank, the angle of inclination of the armor in the performance characteristics is indicated, which was not the case before the T-34.

I'm waiting for the angles of the Merkava and Type-10 armor. Until show the conversation continues.


I will make the task easier. Show a diagram of the angles of inclination of the armor BTR-80 from the designers as on the T-34. After all, it will be easy for you to find it, is it "in every performance characteristics" or as you formulated it there?
That is, if "there is no such scheme, because the Soviets did not calculate the equivalents of the given armor .))) "

Even with BTR-80 are you in a puddle? And such a theory was developed here ...
Conversation is over. I rest my case.

[lucul]

Even with the BTR-80, you got into a puddle? And such a theory was developed here ...
Conversation is over. I rest my case.

Aha-ahah)))) you never answered))))
First, provide for French tanks, and then, I will give it to both the Merkava (VLD 75 °) and the BTR-80)))

[Professor]

Quote: lucul

Even with the BTR-80, you got into a puddle? And such a theory was developed here ...
Conversation is over. I rest my case.

Aha-ahah)))) you never answered))))
First, provide for French tanks, and then, I will give it to both the Merkava (VLD 75 °) and the BTR-80)))

The drain is counted. It turns out not only the pre-war French, but also the Soviet designers from the bulldozer installed armor plates on the BTR-80. So let's write it down.

[lucul]

The drain is counted.

Aha-ahah - we ourselves could not provide the data, which means I merged)))

[Professor]

Quote: lucul

The drain is counted.

Aha-ahah - we ourselves could not provide the data, which means I merged)))

Of course they merged. So proudly declared: "After all, now on each modern tank indicated the angle of inclination of the armor in the performance characteristics, which was not before the T-34", but could not indicate these angles, not that in the Merkava (Merkava 1 has been removed from service) and Type-10, before even in the super secret BTR-80.
So it was you who merged, dear. Could just show these data for the Merkava, Type-10 and BTR-80, proving their case.

PS
I am writing an article about a Frenchman and add a booking scheme to the English Vic. Your theory will evaporate altogether.

[lucul]

Sloped armor and positioning armor at rational angles are not the same thing at all.

He simply confuses the calculation of the slope of the armor to increase the armor resistance with the slope of the armor to REDUCE the WEIGHT of the tank.
The slope of the armor, as on the French Char B-1, was made precisely to reduce the size of the tank and, consequently, to reduce weight)))

[bya965]

Where do they get these experts?

The revolution is that the Jews were not marked in the invention.
Are you experts in general, have invented at least something, or like your
Einstein's inventions can only be registered.

[boris epstein]

In fact, the sloped armor was used by the staff captain Mgebrov on his armored car in 1914.
But on the T-34, in addition to the fact that the armor was inclined, it was still anti-cannon (in 1941, 37 mm anti-tank guns did not penetrate it), a powerful gun (but not the Liningrad L-11 gun, but the Grabin F-34), a diesel engine, wide tracks (low specific pressure on the ground, high cross-country ability), sufficiently high speed for a medium tank - 55 km / h, large cruising range - more than that of German tanks. Each of these innovations was separately applied in other countries, but in the T-34 they were collected in a reasonable compromise of weight, firepower, mobility and protection.

[Sands Careers General]

T-34 is a legend. The T-34 with tail number 237 participated in the war in Donbass.
Ride it))
The machine is on the move.

[Denis812]

initially, the advantage in tanks was on the side of the Nazis

probably still not in tanks, but in the structures of units, tactics and training of troops.
And also in many times better logistics and supply of troops with tractors, radio and everything else.

And if it is stupid to count the tanks from all fronts, then Hitler had fewer tanks. :)

Strange these iksperds.
Like the current ones, they take, for example, the ships of all the fleets of the Russian Federation, add up the number with each other and say - well, they say, the Russian fleet is super-powerful. Because there are more boats than some others.
Ugh, no words :)

[isv000]

Quote: Denis812

probably still not in tanks, but in the structures of units, tactics and training of troops.

The training of the troops was achieved, including through the training of officers of the Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe in the USSR ...

[Denis812]

Yes, also because of this. But, of course, there is no decisive contribution to the USSR in the role of training the Germans.

[isv000]

Western expert: The T-34 tank became a symbol not only of Soviet military power, but of the entire Second World War

You filmed the T-34, let's put on the T-14!

[Borisych]

Fair assessment. In terms of a set of characteristics, the car is the best. It is still used in some countries.

[Citizen simple (almost)]

According to Kelsall, "the meeting with the Soviet T-34 and KV tanks in many ways stunned the Germans, who believed that the way for the capture of Russia was open."

The T-34 is, of course, a great series.

But, on a note to this Kelsall - first of all, the Germans were "stunned" not by the T-34 or KV, but by the resilience of our people as a whole. They clearly did not take into account such a powerful resistance in their plans. On that and burned, and not only on the tanks ...