The ballad of the wedge: the Cardin-Loyd wedge and its numerous offspring

139

The PPG tankette is the last tankette of the USSR (PPG means "mobile machine gun nest", also known as "Object 217") - an initiative development created at the Kirov Tank Plant in Leningrad under the leadership of Zh.Ya. Kotina during the Soviet-Finnish war. It was not accepted into service. The crew of two was located lying down. Two machine guns had limited aiming angles, the speed was low - only 18 km / h

And I looked, and, behold, a pale horse, and on him a rider, whose name was "death"; and hell followed him;
Revelations of John the Evangelist, 6: 8

History armored vehicles. The Cardin-Loyd wedge stems from an idea born in the mind of the British military engineer Major Giffard Martel. He built a single-seat tank in his garage “out of everything at hand” and demonstrated it to the War Office in the mid-1920s. The military generally liked the car, after which other companies presented their developments to the military, and competition began between them. One of them was Cardin-Loyd Tractors Ltd, founded by Sir John Cardin and Vivian Loyd, and then bought by Vickers-Armstrong. The specialists of this company looked at Martel's car and decided to create something better.

They made the first model single, like Martel's. But it immediately became clear that it was impossible to control such a machine and shoot at the enemy at the same time. And they were not the only ones who made such a mistake. The single one was the tankette of the Soviet designer Nalbandov, only 70 cm high, and the French tankette "Saba".




Experimental model of the single-seat wedge "Cardin-Loyd"

The ballad of the wedge: the Cardin-Loyd wedge and its numerous offspring
And this is how her driver was located in it and he was a shooter!


Wedge Nalbandov


Wedge "Saba"

The British thought, and already in 1926 they created a two-seater version of their car ... It was the military who took it, so the production of the new car began in 1927 and then continued until 1935. Moreover, from 1933 to 1935, the production of these tankettes began to be carried out at the Royal Artillery Plants. Well, about 450 units were manufactured in England in total of "Cardin-Loyd" tankettes of various modifications. The British Army itself used at least 325 Mark VI tankettes. But there were other, earlier examples of this machine.


Wedge heel "Cardin-Loyd" Mk. IV of 1926 had a rectangular body, open on top, and was armed with one machine gun


Wedge heel "Cardin-Loyd" Mk. IV

Actually, having a good chassis, the British military used it to the maximum. They tried to turn this tankette into a light artillery tractor, self-propelled mortar and self-propelled gun with a 47-mm gun.


Wedge heel "Cardin-Loyd" Mk. IV. Side view


Various modifications of the Carden-Loyd tankette from the Heigl reference book: on the left with machine-gun armament and armored caps over the crew's seats; on the right - options with different weapons: at the top - installation with a Stokes mortar, at the bottom - in the ACS version with a 47-mm infantry gun


Carden-Loyd wedge as a tractor for a 3,7-inch howitzer


The British tried to turn the Carden-Loyd wedge into a wheeled caterpillar ... Page from the Heigl reference book


"Cardin-Loyd" Mk. V. Wheeled-tracked version

In 1929, Poland decided to purchase the Mark VI tankette and use it to develop its own TK tankette. First, the TK TKS model appeared.


Polish soldiers with the first Polish tankette armed with a Hotchkiss machine gun


The first Polish wedge. Side view

Czechoslovakia also acquired three Mark VI tankettes in 1930 and a license to manufacture them, but began producing its own improved vz. 33 tankettes at the ČKD factory. As for the British design, Czech engineers assessed it as unsuitable for participation in modern warfare. Very few of them were produced, only 74 units.

The Soviet Union bought the most Mark VI tankettes, 20 units, as well as a license for their production, and also seriously altered the original version in the most serious way. The production of a new vehicle, indexed T-27, was launched at the Bolshevik plant in Leningrad. Well, in total, from 1931 to 1933, we built 3228 of these tankettes!


Italian wedge L3 / 35

Italy also bought the English wedge. Several copies of it were made there under the designation CV-29, but then the Italians finalized this design and began to produce their own tankettes of the improved L3 / 35 model, and in two versions: a machine gun with two 6,5 mm machine guns, and a flamethrower with a machine gun and a flamethrower, the supply of fuel to which was transported in an armored trailer tank, which the wedge was supposed to tow. Tankettes of this type were actively used in battles. First, in Abyssinia (Ethiopia), where flamethrower machines, which caused panic horror among ordinary Abyssinians, showed themselves especially well, and in Spain, during the civil war, where Mussolini sent them to help Franco's nationalists. There they met with Soviet cannon tanks and demonstrated their complete inadequacy. However, in battles in mountainous terrain, their chassis proved to be very good. But they simply could not fight on the plain with cannon BT-5 and T-26, just like then in Africa to fight the British cannon tanks "Crusader" and "Matilda".

The Imperial Japanese Army also acquired six Mark VIb tankettes, field tested them, and found they were too small to be used. Therefore, the Japanese tried to develop their own version of the wedge and did so by creating the Type 94 Te Ke machine.

The Canadian Army bought 12 tankettes in batches of six in 1930-1931. They were used as training at the Canadian School of Armored Fighting Vehicles and for a long time were the only armored vehicles in the Canadian army, with the exception of a few old armored cars. They were never used in combat by the Canadian army.

It should be noted that the fashion for wedges has acquired an almost worldwide character. They were bought, albeit in small quantities, by France, Latvia (18 Mk. IV was purchased in 1935), the Netherlands, Bolivia and even the Kingdom of Siam. The French made the Renault UE armored ammunition carrier based on this tankette. Greece and Thailand bought the Carden-Loyd tankettes (there were about 60 of them), and they were also bought by Chile, China, the state of Manchukuo (20 Mk. VI), Finland and Portugal. Well, the Germans got acquainted with this tankette here in the USSR, and its design to a certain extent influenced the design of the first light German serial tank Pz. I. All in all, it was supplied to 16 countries of the world and became a kind of catalyst for progress in the field of creating light tanks.

After all, every military specialist who saw her, and even more so "went around", immediately began to understand all her shortcomings, which were more than obvious and, accordingly, caused a strong desire to correct them. The lack of a rotating turret, open top, weak armor - all this made me think about how to fix it all. But thicker armor, a turret and a stronger engine - all this added weight to the wedge, which means that the old chassis was no longer suitable for it, and a new one had to be developed. But, as they say - “there would be something to push off from, and then it will go further”, this is exactly what happened in the case of English tankettes.

It is interesting, however, that the projects of tankettes appeared not in England, but in the USSR back in 1919, when two projects of an "all-terrain armored machine gun" for the needs of the Red Army were proposed by a certain engineer Maksimov. According to the first project, it was a single-seat wedge with a mass of 2,6 tons, with a 40 hp engine. and armor with a thickness of 8 to 10 mm. The estimated maximum speed was assumed to be 17 km / h. The second project, called "Shchitonoska", differed from the first in that the driver (and also the shooter) had to be in it reclining, which made it possible to reduce its dimensions and weight. However, both of these projects were not implemented at that time.

Then in 1926-1929. in the USSR, five T-17 Lilliput tankettes were built - in fact, it was the Soviet tankette of the interwar period. But it didn't go into production.


Wedge T-17 "Lilliput"

In Europe, British innovation was generally viewed rather skeptically. It was not so in the USSR, where tankettes were actively promoted by M.N. Tukhachevsky, who in 1931 became the chief of armaments of the Workers 'and Peasants' Red Army. Before that, in 1930, on his initiative, an educational film "Wedge" was created, the script for which he wrote himself. According to the three-year program of tank building, from June 1926 to 1930 in the USSR it was planned to create a battalion of 69 tankettes ("escort machine guns" - as tankettes were called in our country at that time) and test them in practice.

As a result of these tests in 1929-1930. the project of the T-21 tankette appeared - also with a crew of two, 13 mm armor and the nodes of the T-18 and T-17 tanks. The project was rejected due to insufficient mobility of the vehicle. Projects were proposed for large tankettes T-22 and T-23, called "large escort tankettes." However, nothing came of it with these national projects at that time.


Wedge t-xnumx

But on the other hand, in 1930, a commission headed by Khalepsky (head of the UMM) and Ginzburg (head of the engineering and design bureau for tanks) visited the UK, and it was she who acquired there 20 Cardin-Loyd tankettes and a license for their production in the USSR ... The production of the T-27 tankette was launched along this line. Moreover, in our country, as in England, a variety of weapons installation systems were tested on its basis: 37-mm and 76-mm guns, a flamethrower, Kurchevsky recoilless cannon was installed on a wedge, tankettes were parachuted off from a TB-3 bomber - in a word, tests the most varied were carried out.


PPG wedge. Side view

T-27 tankettes took part in hostilities: they fought in Central Asia with the Basmachi, fought on the Karelian Isthmus and even at the beginning of the Great Patriotic War. Their only advantage was the ability to cross ... weak village bridges, that is, to act where no other tanks could pass. But even in this case, their armor no longer protected against the fire of anti-tank weapons and, in particular, the fire of any anti-tank rifles.

So on the T-27, the history of the tankette in the USSR both began and ended. But Japan became one of the most zealous supporters of the tankette, however, already with a rotating turret, and it was these machines that the Japanese actively used during the war in the rainforest zone.


American tankette T-1

As for such a developed industrial power as the United States, in 1928 the Cunningham company developed its own single-seat tankette, which was distinguished not only by its extremely small size, but also by an original chassis. Instead of the usual multi-roller chassis used by the recognized leaders - the Martel and Carden-Loyd firms, American engineers came up with a chassis with four large-diameter road wheels, which made the wedge look like a small four-wheeled armored car. The front wheel was the driving wheel, the rear wheel was the guide wheel. The vehicle received the designation T-1, although most sources refer to it as the "Tank Development Chassis T-1". It was driven by a four-cylinder gasoline engine "Ford" A, with a capacity of 42 hp. The maximum thickness of the armor plates was small: 3,17 mm, which allowed it to withstand only small-caliber bullets. Armament T-1: 7,62-mm machine gun mounted in the frontal part of the hull. On trials in 1928, the Cunningham tankette proved to be a rather mediocre machine, although it was able to reach a speed of 31 km / h. However, in terms of other parameters, it was very much inferior to light tanks and was by no means very cheap! Later, the T-1 began to be used to test a new type of tracks (mostly rubber), since in this capacity it showed itself from the best side. However, in the end, the T-1 tankette remained in a single copy.

PS Color illustrations by A.S. Sheps.

To be continued ...
139 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. -2
    23 October 2021 05: 11
    Well, these Englishmen let out rubbish. Chickens laughing.
    1. +5
      23 October 2021 06: 03
      Fashionable, but ... Useless, even for that time thing.
      Thank you, Vyacheslav Olegovich. Refreshed in the memory of this dead-end branch of tank building.
      1. +6
        23 October 2021 06: 20
        We, too, were fond of the same dead-end branch, thanks to the "genius" Tukhachevsky, as many as 3155 T-27s were riveted. Better instead of this, tractors and trucks would be riveted, it would be more useful.
        1. +6
          23 October 2021 07: 06
          Quote: Chekmarev
          Better instead of this, tractors and trucks would be riveted, it would be more useful.

          Only a few can rise above the level of thinking of their time! Then everyone thought that tanks were ... the fleet. Land fleet. Therefore, we need battleships, cruisers, destroyers and ... torpedo boats - "mosquito fleet". To think otherwise was simply dangerous.
          1. +4
            23 October 2021 15: 35
            Quote: kalibr
            Only a few can rise above the level of thinking of their time! Then everyone thought that tanks were ... the fleet. Land fleet. Therefore, we need battleships, cruisers, destroyers and ... torpedo boats - "mosquito fleet". To think otherwise was simply dangerous.


            The main thing is that it is fashionable. Ninka has it, Masha has it ... But I don’t ?! Disorder!

            Dear Vyacheslav, thanks for the interesting article, but you are not mistaken much. The theory of "tankettes" was substantiated by the British military historian and theorist B. H. Liddell Hart.

            "..The Carden-Loyd tankette suggests that in its current form it is more suitable as a reconnaissance vehicle than a combat vehicle. However, all the obstacles seem insignificant compared to the undeniable fact that the machines are so cheap to manufacture that they make it possible to reduce vulnerability due to their low silhouette and numbers. They enable the infantry to overcome the danger zone much faster and with much greater protection. If such a machine is not the final model, it is the prototype of the mobile cuirass of future warriors and, thus, with the addition of an element of protection, it can be a means of reviving the ideal of "mounted infantry". There is another aspect of the mass-produced wedge that deserves a mention. The superiority of such machines on the battlefield implies the political superiority of the great industrial nations, whose industries are capable of producing vast numbers of such machines in a short time. Countries with a weak industry will have nothing to oppose these machines on the battlefield"1929.

            Therefore, one can understand the mass enthusiasm for "wedge heels".
        2. 0
          25 October 2021 18: 29
          Well yours to the left. Who would make it easier?
      2. +6
        23 October 2021 06: 42
        Quote: Leader of the Redskins
        Fashionable

        The main thing is that it is fashionable. Ninka has it, Masha has it ... But I don’t ?! Disorder!
        1. +8
          23 October 2021 06: 45
          Well, here's another, Vyacheslav Olegovich, and one of the concepts shouldn't be forgotten - the massive use. A kind of avalanche of "armored infantrymen". The concept has evolved - the infantry moved to armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles. But the means of combat / delivery turned out to be erroneous ...
        2. +5
          23 October 2021 09: 46
          Quote: kalibr
          The main thing is that it is fashionable. Ninka has it, Masha has it ... But I don’t ?! Disorder!

          So after all, it was not only fashionable, but still a necessity after the war (low carrying capacity of aircraft). And then they designed and produced a very similar technique. for limited tasks !!! and used up to the 70s. The same ASU-57, it is closer to the wedge, after all.

          Floating ASU-57P


          And as experienced everyone (even smaller), for example K-73.
      3. +3
        23 October 2021 07: 22
        Well, as if the wedges are still there. And they gave offspring in the form of self-propelled artillery guns (not an SPG, but a cannon with a motor).
        In the FRG army, for example, there is a tankette in service. "Wiesel".
        1. +3
          23 October 2021 08: 28
          Quote: Dmitry Ivanov_8
          Well, as if the wedges are still there.

          I remember how, in my younger years, I "read" the magazines "Military Foreigner" (my friend's father was a military man ...) ... It was then that I "met" a French tankette-transporter (tractor) of a 120-mm mortar ... Outwardly, it looked like the "picture" at the top of this article ...
          1. +2
            23 October 2021 20: 51
            I read in MK "(1995 plus years" an article by Baryatinsky in the Armored Collection. It was there that Wiesel was called a wedge heel).
            1. +3
              23 October 2021 21: 13
              Quote: Dmitry Ivanov_8
              I read in MK "(1995 plus years" an article by Baryatinsky in the Armored Collection. It was there that Wiesel was called a wedge heel).

              I don’t remember how it was with the Wiesel-2; but when the Wiesel-1 appeared, very often this car was called a wedge! Yes
        2. +3
          23 October 2021 08: 45
          Quote: Dmitry Ivanov_8
          cannon with motor

          the gun on its own track has nothing to do with wedges
          you are absolutely right about Wiesel
          1. 0
            23 October 2021 09: 29
            you are absolutely right about Wiesel


            What is he right, explain, if not difficult.
            1. 0
              23 October 2021 09: 35
              Quote: Sea Cat
              What is he right, explain if not difficult

              in the fact that, in fact, Wiesel is a wedge in its modern incarnation
              to be convinced of this, it is enough to return to the terminology
              1. +1
                23 October 2021 09: 54
                The normal approach. laughing Judging by your reasoning, our Satan ICBM "in its modern incarnation" is a Chinese joker of the beginning of the XNUMXth century.
                1. +2
                  23 October 2021 10: 01
                  Quote: Sea Cat
                  Judging by your reasoning, our Satan ICBM "in its modern incarnation" is a Chinese joker of the beginning of the XNUMXth century.

                  if both are missiles, what can you do about this fact?
                  this is terminology.
                  that's why I suggested that you start above with the terminology and meanings
                  Quote: Sea Cat
                  Normal approach

                  Tankentka is a light single- or double-seat armored vehicle on a tracked chassis, used to support infantry with fire on the battlefield, to supply ammunition during battle, for reconnaissance, outpost and communications.
                  You are not confused by the word "tank".
                  Although modern tanks are strikingly different from their ancestors.
                  What's wrong with the word "wedge"?
                  1. +1
                    23 October 2021 10: 12
                    What's wrong with the word "wedge"?

                    Nothing bad. But for the classification of vehicles of the type "Wiesel" there is already a generally accepted designation - BMD, although, of course, "Wiesel" does not transport troops, it is too small. smile
                    1. +4
                      23 October 2021 10: 21
                      Quote: Sea Cat
                      BMD, although, of course, "Wiesel" troops are not transported

                      you already decide
                      Wiesel undeniably airborne vehicle
                      but not a landing vehicle for sure
                      since under this term assumes the location of the landing inside
                      but even this is not enough to be considered a BMD!
                      the same "Typhoon-VDV" airborne, for example
                      and has a troop compartment
                      but not BMD
                      1. 0
                        23 October 2021 10: 48
                        Yes, I have already made up my mind. smile
                        Tanketka - a light combat one- or two-seater armored vehicle of the 20-30s of the XX century on a caterpillar track, weighing up to 4 tons, intended for subunits motorized infantry , to increase the tactical mobility of the infantry
                        About the Airborne Forces somehow not a word.
                        "Wiesel" - "Wiesel" - German tracked light airborne combat vehicle for airborne units.

                        Now try to substitute the definition of wedge heel for "Wiesel", will it work?
                      2. +3
                        23 October 2021 12: 54
                        Quote: Sea Cat

                        Now try to substitute the definition of wedge heel for "Wiesel", will it work?

                        and you are stubborn))
                        the tankette is a "tracked light combat vehicle", which, due to its parameters, is easy to make airborne
                        while the BMD is an airborne version of the BMP
                      3. +2
                        23 October 2021 13: 01
                        And you too. smile
                        Okay, I offer us the world one: for even it will be a wedge heel, for odd it will be BMD. On weekends we will not name it in any way, we will rest. smile drinks
                      4. +2
                        23 October 2021 13: 27
                        Quote: Sea Cat
                        I offer us a world

                        always FOR good
        3. +5
          23 October 2021 09: 28
          The Wiesel is not a wedge heel. No need to expose the Germans, go and see, once it cost us very dearly.
          "Wiesel" - "Wiesel" - German tracked light airborne combat vehicle for airborne units.

          1. +3
            23 October 2021 19: 26
            And where is the option with a 20mm gun ??? wink
            But still this BMD looks like a "wedge" ... laughing
            1. +3
              23 October 2021 19: 56
              Please, here is the "pushechka". smile Thank you for reminding me.
      4. -3
        23 October 2021 23: 33
        Quote: Leader of the Redskins
        A useless thing, even for that time.
        For the preparation of tank troops, the most important thing: it is much cheaper to train mechanics and mechanics on a wedge than immediately on a real tank.
        1. Fat
          0
          24 October 2021 18: 15
          To train commanders of tank forces and mechanized forces, it will be much cheaper to run around the range with a mock-up of a tank on a hump made of scrap materials ... and wearing a gas mask ... Everyone will get an unforgettable experience laughing drinks
          1. -1
            24 October 2021 20: 40
            It's kind of dumb to fight with a mechanic who studied so much. Driving a tracked vehicle is not easy.
            1. Fat
              0
              24 October 2021 23: 59
              Come on, the Nazis were not shy, they ran in tactical classes. Driving a car is also not an easy task, however ... We see what we have.
              Being a professional - not everyone's fate has determined the driver. And we see fools, drunks and murderers on the road every day ... sad
              And you are "dumb" to fight. It's dumb for me to cross the street with such "general education" ...
    2. +15
      23 October 2021 07: 29
      Quote: Chekmarev
      Well, these Englishmen let out rubbish. Chickens laughing.

      Living a century after the events described, you can consider yourself a "great tank expert."
      The twenties of the last century is the era of "blind kittens" in the formation of tank schools, through which the armed forces of most of the armies of the "tank club" passed.
      For most of the "heroes of the article" became the first combat tracked vehicles on the basis of which the design thought, industry, and the army got their hands on it.
      Seriously though, the designers did not create conceptually the aspirations of the generals of the 20s about an "individual mobile firing point with armor". Even today, not modern MBTs are closer to the ideas of Tukhachevsky and others like him, but exoskeletons and remote platforms with machine guns.
      Ultimately, those of the tankettes appeared the famous foreign "generalists" and our "Komsomol members". So if the chickens are called into the artillery, they would very much dream of an armored tracked tractor with machine-gun armament!
      Thanks to Vyacheslav Olegovich - a credit job !!!
      Regards, Vlad!
      1. +5
        23 October 2021 07: 31
        I'm glad you liked it. We tried our best...
        1. +5
          23 October 2021 09: 17
          Quote: kalibr
          I'm glad you liked it. We tried our best...

          Not that word. An excellent glimpse into the past of BT without political color.
      2. +1
        23 October 2021 08: 43
        Living a century after the events described, you can consider yourself a "great tank expert."


        Everything could be predicted even then. Since the functions of the combat arms change little over time, only their technical performance changes.
        Putting on wedges is the same as trying to create an army from one light cavalry in feudal times. Such an army will be able to fight little.
        It should have been obvious to sensible people already then that tanks of all types were needed: heavy, medium and light.
        Heavy - an analogue of heavy infantry, the basis of the army. They ensure the survival of the infantry as such, protect it from enemy tanks, allow their powerful guns to break through the lines of permanent fortifications, destroying protected firing points.
        Medium tanks are an analogue of heavy (knightly) cavalry, strike weapons for breaking through field fortifications, and destroying manpower.
        Light tanks and wedges are analogous to light cavalry. Reconnaissance, pursuit of the retreating enemy, raids in the rear and communications. And to use them in the first echelon to attack the enemy is to destroy personnel and equipment in vain.
        1. -1
          24 October 2021 00: 04
          Have you forgotten how the Horse Guards of Kliment Efremovich went to the German tanks near Moscow? ..
      3. Fat
        +1
        24 October 2021 18: 23
        Well, I have to ... I want to give a plus, my fingers ache ... But here's the superstition ... I don't want to be thirteenth ... laughing And ... was ... was not! Joining fellow
    3. +6
      23 October 2021 07: 40
      Quote: Chekmarev
      Well, these Englishmen let out rubbish. Chickens laughing.

      I would not be in a hurry with such conclusions: the Nagli people actively used them in Africa against the local population, armed with the most "modern" weapons. Against the Basmachi, they also showed themselves not badly. The wedge, most likely, should be considered as a "MOBILE ARMORED SUBMITTED POINT" (in the USSR one of the projects was called PPG - in the article a snapshot), and armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles will come later, although already at that time they appeared.
    4. +2
      23 October 2021 19: 30
      A bunch of countries released. And then they did not consider it rubbish.
    5. +3
      23 October 2021 20: 20
      Quote: Chekmarev
      Well, these Englishmen let out rubbish. Chickens laughing.

      But it eventually became the most massive armored unit in history, and fought the entire WWII in the light armored vehicle version.
    6. +2
      23 October 2021 23: 32
      Quote: Chekmarev
      Well, these Englishmen let out rubbish. Chickens laughing.
      This is not rubbish, this is armor of the 20th century. After the massacre of the First World War, it was decided that the soldier on the battlefield for the required time (until the enemy's trench) could not run - they would kill. Moreover, the question is not solved by the number of fleeing people - they will kill everyone. We decided that it would not be infantrymen who would run around the field, but wedges will ride, but it turned out too expensive, no one pulled.
  2. +4
    23 October 2021 07: 04
    If you use it not as an "armored locust" but as a battlefield transporter (with some modifications, of course). then maybe it would have turned out very well.
  3. +5
    23 October 2021 08: 23
    Every time I read about the number of tanks built by the USSR before the war, I think:

    -Why weren't the old tanks being converted into tractors, armored personnel carriers, self-propelled guns, ZSU, TZM, BREM? Moreover, this is not an afterthought, the Germans practiced it from the very beginning of their expansion. It was possible to have a mechanized corps completely on mechtyag. Why was radio communication underestimated?

    At times it seems to me that they shot little kurchevs and others who, for the sake of fame and power, ate a huge amount of resources. The same Tupolev and Korolev, until they cooled their heads, were engaged in all sorts of heresy.
    1. +1
      23 October 2021 08: 39
      Quote: demiurg
      The same Tupolev and Korolev, until they cooled their heads, were engaged in all sorts of heresy.

      Or maybe they were ordered to do it? Look what tasks the same Tupolev received and how often they changed ... What normal constructor can change like that?
      1. -1
        23 October 2021 08: 47
        Tupolev could open the door to Stalin's office with his foot (a joke of humor, but almost like that). If he believed that he was engaged in heresy, he could have said this directly to Stalin. The same Grabin was able to create the ZiS-2/3 in addition to the official tasks. T-34, KV-1 were also born on the initiative from below. Lavochkin was able to break through the modernization of LaGG-3 to La-5. And someone designed the wunderwales from aluminum which was not there. For engines that were only in the project, and which could not be created. Astrov was able to give the Red Army tanks from what is, and not what he was ordered to do.
        It's easier to have a feeder, medals and honor by creating what was lowered from above. One of three or five ideas will "shoot" and you are a respected person. It will not shoot, the tit still remains in the hands.
        1. +3
          23 October 2021 09: 02
          Quote: demiurg
          Tupolev could open the door to Stalin's office with his foot (a joke of humor, but almost like that). If he believed that he was engaged in heresy, he could have said this directly to Stalin. The same Grabin was able to create the ZiS-2 / in addition to the official tasks. T-34, KV-1 were also born on the initiative from below. Lavochkin was able to break through the modernization of LaGG-3 to La-5.

          How are you, my dear, mistaken ...
          1. -1
            23 October 2021 09: 06
            Nice statement. Justify.
            1. +2
              23 October 2021 09: 15
              1.
              Quote: demiurg
              Tupolev could open the door to Stalin's office with his foot (a joke of humor, but almost like that). If he believed that he was engaged in heresy, he could have said this directly to Stalin.

              could not - as an example, a 4-engine dive bomber
              2
              Quote: mark1
              The same Grabin was able to create the ZiS-2 / in addition to the official tasks. T-34, KV-1 were also born on the initiative from below.

              All this was born according to those tasks and requirements.
              3.
              Quote: mark1
              Lavochkin was able to break through the modernization of LaGG-3 to La-5.

              The transition of LaGG-3 to the air vent was started by Gudkov-Gu-82 (but it was driven out for some unknown reason)
              Lavochkin began to "attach" the M-82 to the LaGG, the very last of the aircraft designers after the corresponding decree on the alteration of the Yakovs, MiGs and LaGGs for the M-82 air vent
              1. -2
                23 October 2021 09: 26
                1. Go straight to Stalin. Risk the position and justify the need to abolish the TK.
                2. ZiS-3 initially did not want to accept military acceptance at all, the plant had another weapon in its plans. And only the demonstration and economic justification for Stalin saved Grabin from being shot. ZiS-2 is again Grabin's idea.
                3. To the point. Lavochkin risked his life, tying the radiator, arranging flights at the muddy airfield. But he risked it. Gudkov walked around with ideas in his head, asking the plant and other goodies at once. Mikoyan and Yakovlev, in principle, could not implement a two-row star on their cars, therefore, they also did not strongly rest on this topic. With regard to Yakovlev, I agree, he was able to bring both the Yak-9 and Yak-3 to perfection. And Mikoyan, this is a typical son about a smart dad.
                1. 0
                  23 October 2021 09: 38
                  1.No where no one went, just waited until everything resolved by itself
                  2.ZiS-2 was born thanks to the "analytical" activities of Comrade. Kulika and Co.
                  3.About the history of the Gu-82, take an interest, and indeed with the introduction of the M-82, there were no fundamental problems, it was just that Yakovlev was satisfied with the completed M-105, and Mikoyan's plane began to fly well a bit later (as much as 670 km / gave an hour in 43)
                  1. 0
                    23 October 2021 16: 35
                    .In the history of the Gu-82, take an interest, and indeed with the introduction of the M-82, there were no fundamental problems, it was just that Yakovlev was satisfied with the finished M-105

                    The GKO decree on the use of the M-82 provided for the development of its installation for the Mikoyan and Gurevich Design Bureau and Yakovlev Design Bureau, Polikarpov Design Bureau (Instead of M-73). For KB Lavochkin, such a task was not posed at all, he was expecting the M-106. The installation of the M-82 on the LaGG-3 is pure improvisation that led to success. And Yakovlev did not like the M-105 either, look how he waited for the M-106 and how he installed the frankly crude M-107. The installation of the M-82 on the Yaki was not advisable due to the fact that, due to the low chassis, respectively, the low position of the propeller, it was not possible to install the propeller of the required diameter in order to remove all the power from the M-82.
                    1. 0
                      23 October 2021 16: 56
                      Quote: motorized infantryman
                      For KB Lavochkin, such a task was not posed at all, he expected the M-106

                      Yakovlev was also waiting for the M-106, and this (than fussing with the width / number of blades or the length of the chassis legs and not a reliable engine) suited him more
                      Quote: motorized infantryman
                      The installation of the M-82 on the LaGG-3 is pure improvisation that led to success.

                      Improvisation is not improvisation, but the hastily created La-5 went into production, and not almost exactly the same Gu-82 created much earlier but for some reason (by no means technical) is rotten in every possible way.
                  2. 0
                    23 October 2021 22: 33
                    Quote: mark1
                    2.ZiS-2 was born thanks to the "analytical" activities of Comrade. Kulika and Co.

                    The ZIS-2 was born thanks to the results of the first practical shooting of 45-mm BBS on armor plates different from the Soviet test ones. From which it followed that the armor penetration of the gun against the armor of the "German type" does not correspond to the table values. However, the same situation was observed when shooting shells of other calibers.
                    The results of these shootings at different times were summarized in the well-known report of October 1940 "on firing at armor with armor-piercing and concrete-piercing shells." It directly stated that the 45-mm anti-tank gun and anti-tank gun, as well as all 76-mm guns fired by a divisional gun, were unsuitable for dealing with medium and heavy tanks with more than 50 mm armor.
                    Quote: mark1
                    and indeed with the introduction of the M-82, there were no fundamental problems

                    Yeah ... that's just all the reports on the tests of alterations of various types of aircraft under the M-82 engine from the end of 1941 - the beginning of 1942 are full of comments about the unreliability and constant engine failures.
                    Maybe by the time Lavochkin began work with the M-82, the engine was already more advanced than during the time of Gu-82 Gudkov?
                2. +2
                  23 October 2021 20: 06
                  And Mikoyan, this is a typical son about a smart dad

                  MIG-15 and MIG-21 will confirm this to you
              2. -1
                23 October 2021 22: 21
                Quote: mark1
                could not - as an example, a 4-engine dive bomber

                It is simply very difficult to call something that is already being developed by a potential adversary as heresy. Remember what was in the technical specification for this bird? It's also a "heavy four-engine" ...
        2. 0
          23 October 2021 09: 06
          Quote: demiurg
          It's easier to have a feeder, medals and honor by creating what was lowered from above. One of three or five ideas will "shoot" and you are a respected person. It will not shoot, the tit still remains in the hands.

          That is exactly what happened.
          1. -1
            23 October 2021 09: 16
            That is why I am making excuses for Stalin. He couldn't be an expert in everything. But with his power he could give resources for the implementation of any idea. But the demand was very fierce.

            The same Polikarpov was a real genius, he saw the future of fighter aircraft in speed and vertical battles. The same Golubev and Kaberov quite believed themselves (and for some reason I am inclined to believe them) that the I-16 type above 27 fully met the requirements until 1942. 4 GIAP, which quite normally knocked down the aces from JG-54 flying on Friedrichs and Fockes, and with a stat in its favor, confirmation of this. But like any genius, he strove for perfection. And thanks to this, the I-180 kept getting better and better, it became the I-185, but it never went into production.
            And Lavochkin was able to make La-5 out of what was. Which became as a result of the winged perfection of La-5FN and La-7,9,11.
        3. +2
          23 October 2021 10: 01
          In some ways, you are right, but, in any case, the question here is ambiguous, and you should not chop off the shoulder and cut everyone under one size fits all, the situations were different.
        4. -1
          23 October 2021 22: 16
          Quote: demiurg
          The same Grabin was able to create the ZiS-2/3 in addition to the official tasks.

          Is this ZIS-2 unofficial?
          The official assignment for the design of the 57-mm anti-tank gun was issued to Plant No. 92 in June 1940, the tactical and technical requirements for the gun were approved on September 10, 1940.

          The fact that the TTT was already approved during the design is normal. The characteristics of the long-barreled PTO of the new caliber were "refined during the design process."
          Quote: demiurg
          T-34, KV-1 were also born on the initiative from below.

          But both are within the framework of official programs. It is just that the output did not come at all what the customer dreamed of at the beginning. The same A-34 was made after several changes to the specification for a light wheeled-tracked tank. smile
    2. +2
      23 October 2021 09: 50
      Let's substantively what heresy Tupolev and Korolev, who joined him, were engaged in. TK is given by the customer.
    3. +1
      23 October 2021 19: 34
      And you did not ask questions about the construction of roads and the construction of factories at that time east of the Ural Mountains?
      Where can I get money for everything - from paying for working time during rework to paying for projects of these very rework?
      Where to get more powerful engines for reworking the T-26 - the native engine did not pull any interference in the structure!
      BTs are narrow in hull - the Finns of course "shoved" several British howitzers into captured BTs, but this is because of "poverty". There were no other chassis in stock!
      What was to be set for us - do you have any suggestions on the types of rearmament?
      1. +1
        23 October 2021 22: 37
        Quote: hohol95
        Where to get more powerful engines for reworking the T-26 - the native engine did not pull any interference in the structure!

        I'll tell you more - this engine still has to fit into the existing dimensions of the engine compartment. Ours, not because of a good life, forced the original engine - nothing else went there. smile
        1. +2
          24 October 2021 06: 55
          The Poles were able to install a more powerful engine, but they had to redo the rear of the tank.
          But the Poles had a suitable diesel engine, while the USSR did not have it.
          1. 0
            24 October 2021 19: 34
            Quote: hohol95
            The Poles were able to install a more powerful engine, but they had to redo the rear of the tank.
            But the Poles had a suitable diesel engine, while the USSR did not have it.

            Koju? wink
            1. +1
              24 October 2021 20: 25
              On their 7TRs, the Poles put a 110 strong diesel engine. Swiss "Saurer".
              1. 0
                24 October 2021 20: 30
                Quote: hohol95
                On their 7TRs, the Poles put a 110 strong diesel engine. Swiss "Saurer".

                So we have "KoJu", which has been tortured since the beginning of the 30s, was supposed to produce 110-120 hp.
                Moreover, for the USSR, the engine is 110 hp. immediately made a universal light chassis, suitable for armored personnel carriers, into reality.
                Well, the second option is 4-71. True, this is for a tractor.
                1. +1
                  24 October 2021 21: 03
                  So the Soviet mechanics "tortured" badly ...
                  They did it until 1938, and decided to put it into production in 1939. But the aviators took over the Ufa Engine-Building Plant and there was nowhere to do "KD" ...
                  And there is no "Koji" as a motor
                  And the Poles simply produced a licensed Swiss engine!
                  Aviators also took away a new engine shop from GAZ and the Soviet auto industry lost a new 6-cylinder GAZ-11 engine ...
                  They made tanks with this engine, but no cars!
                  1. 0
                    25 October 2021 11: 31
                    Quote: hohol95
                    And the Poles simply produced a licensed Swiss engine!

                    We also tried to produce licensed German automatic cannons. Remember the result? wink
                    For 6 years, from the assembly of the prototype engine to the start of the series launch, KoJu has been remade for the capabilities of our industry. If they had time to establish a series at least in 1938 - there would have been an engine, the plant would not have given GABTU. And so ... the Ufa plant fell under the skating rink of the pre-war reinforcement of the aviation industry ("80 aircraft per day")
                2. +1
                  24 October 2021 21: 16
                  I propose to those "figures" from the NKAP who did this to issue posthumously "Iron +++" ...
          2. 0
            24 October 2021 19: 36
            But the Poles had a suitable diesel

            Evil tongues say that some of the parts for the licensed diesel engine, in particular the camshafts, were received by the Poles from abroad.
            1. +1
              24 October 2021 20: 22
              Everything is possible. But they installed the engine, redesigned the tank for it!
              And the British armor turned out to be worse than the Polish! They first bought a batch of "6-ton" ones ... and they had "no ice" armor!
              The British hushed up this case ...
      2. -1
        23 October 2021 22: 48
        If you remove the turret from the T-26, you get either a tractor or an armored personnel carrier. As an option, the ZSU with an open turret.

        From BT it was possible to do something similar. The colonel would fit in anyway. And the ZiS-3 is most likely the same. If we abandon the rotating tower, it was possible to book a rich forehead.
        1. 0
          24 October 2021 07: 39
          Regarding the "regiment" - on Zen, Yuri Pasholok published an article about the Leningrad self-propelled gun based on the T-26. With photographs and analysis of design features.
          They created, they fought. But these were the "ersatz" of the time when "either checkers or go" !!! The easier and faster, the better. In peacetime, such a machine would never have passed tests and the military would not have accepted it!
          The ZiS-3 did not "exist" yet.
          F-22USV is heavier and consists of 2 gunners!
          That means to alter the gun aiming drives !!!
          The "Polkovushka" also climbed into the BT-7A turret!
          The military wanted a tower and only a tower with circular fire.
          To rework the BT-2, they first needed to be overhauled - spare parts, repair areas, maintenance personnel. Then all sorts of new "devices" in the form of additional sheets of armor, weapons (will the factories give guns and machine guns in excess of the already approved plans, or will these plans "overwhelm"), kits for altering the fighting compartment (seats, stowage of shells and machine gun magazines, etc. " pribludy "! Who will produce them?
          1. 0
            24 October 2021 19: 52
            Quote: hohol95
            The ZiS-3 did not "exist" yet.
            F-22USV is heavier and consists of 2 gunners!
            That means to alter the gun aiming drives !!!

            In fact, there is a way out - F-34. For all its shortcomings, this gun had the main advantage - manufacturability. There were no problems with its release at all, unlike the same F-32.
            Quote: hohol95
            To rework the BT-2, they first needed to be overhauled - spare parts, repair areas, maintenance personnel.

            - Why didn’t the cannons fire at my approach to the castle?
            - Sire, there are five reasons for this, firstly, we have no gunpowder ...
            - Enough!
            © smile
            So all plans for the modernization and alteration of the BT will end at the first point - spare parts.
            Plant number 183:

            Surrender completely unsatisfactorily: gearboxes, gearbox gearboxes, tracks, axles, complete wheels and motor equipment.

            Plants "Glavtotraktorodetal":

            The People's Commissariat and Glavavtotraktorodetal completely abandon the manufacture of complex scarce units and parts (wheels, axle shafts, balancers, cranks, final drive cover, guitars, etc.).
            The contracts concluded by "Glavtotraktorodetal" as of 1.6.41 were fulfilled only by 0,3% ...

            © Ulanov / Shein
        2. 0
          24 October 2021 19: 39
          BT could be made

          It was enough to put screens, the "Kharkov" version weighed 2,9 tons of additional weight, the Far East - 1,5 tons
          1. +2
            24 October 2021 20: 39
            When did the "Far Eastern option" appear?
            And most importantly, thanks to what "spare parts" were the Far Eastern BT-7s shielded?
            It was more difficult with the BT-5. Features of the front of the case.
            1. 0
              24 October 2021 21: 30
              When did the "Far Eastern option" appear?

              In 1943, in fact, the "Kharkov" was also late - July 1941. There is nothing difficult in the shielding of BT, for installation it is enough to have a crane, a welding machine, that is, not a factory, but a repair base. If you set the priorities correctly (the T-34 cannot be put into production in 1940, you need an experienced military operation, at least six months).
              1. 0
                24 October 2021 21: 48
                You are missing the main "ingredient" of the Far Eastern shielding - you need to have decommissioned BT-7s suitable for cutting into screens !!!
                By 1943, it was in the Far East that there were T-26s and BT-5s and 7s. The vehicles written off for technical reasons went to the screens for "healthier" comrades!
                And on the T-34 - we put it on the stream, then we improve it! Time is running out fast ...
                We may not be in time!
                1. 0
                  24 October 2021 21: 57
                  By 1943, it was in the Far East

                  Because rental was in short supply, in 1939-1940 it was not so relevant, especially against the background of the fact that the T-34 must first be "improved" (after factory tests, the pre-production batch of T-34 should go to it will be very difficult and expensive to improve).
                  1. 0
                    24 October 2021 22: 38
                    And what to produce instead of the T-34?
                    BT-7 with 30mm frontal armor?
                    For German VET not relevant.
                    And the use of frontal parts from decommissioned BT-7s made shielding easier!
                    They didn’t need to fit the forehead of the shielded tank!
                    And from separate sheets they would have received again, like the Kharkovites - a tank without a mechanic drive hatch!
                    And we got a 40mm hull forehead and a 30mm turret forehead.
                    With a workable mechanical drive hatch.
        3. +2
          24 October 2021 19: 41
          Quote: demiurg
          If you remove the turret from the T-26, you get either a tractor or an armored personnel carrier.

          The tractor will not work directly - you need to change the checkpoint. And it would also be nice to remember why the Voroshilovets was equipped with the B-2 version with a capacity of only 375 hp.
          Quote: demiurg
          From BT it was possible to do something similar. The colonel would fit in anyway.

          BT-7A. smile
          The regiment will not fit into the original case - even a mechanic drive can barely fit there.
    4. +1
      23 October 2021 21: 53
      Quote: demiurg
      -Why weren't the old tanks converted into tractors, armored personnel carriers, self-propelled guns, ZSU, TZM, BREM?

      Because they didn't have time. Old tanks were recognized as old only at the end of the 30s, when there was no time left for a massive rework. And during the war there was no time to do this, and this niche was partially closed with Lend-Lease.

      The second reason is the transition of tank factories to the production of new equipment. The production of old tanks and spare parts for them at their own factories was completely curtailed, and at the Glavtraktordetal factories, where the production of spare parts was transferred, has not yet been deployed. As a result, there were no parts and assemblies for the alteration of often worn-out tanks (they were not even available for the repair of linear tanks of mechanized corps). Because of this, the Far East was able to convert only fifty T-26 into tractors, EMNIP.
      Quote: demiurg
      Why was radio communication underestimated?

      Because
      a) There were no personnel. The shortage of educated personnel in the n / x and the army was such that "guides" were sent to the mechanized corps for the posts of radio operators, and workers of a number of radio industry plants in 1941 were exempted from fees.
      b) There was no normal materiel. Tests BT and "three" showed that the real communication range of the Soviet tank radio station on the march is halved in comparison with the tabular.
      c) Even the hardware that was there was not enough.
      And most importantly, educated cadres are needed for mass normal radio communications. And in our country, in January 1941, a third of junior commanders and two-thirds of privates in BTV KOVO have only primary education.
      How not to remember the classics.
      ... when the Prussians beat the Austrians, it was the victory of the Prussian teacher over the Austrian school teacher.
      © Oscar Peschel
      1. -1
        23 October 2021 22: 25
        15000 tanks. How many? The Wehrmacht needed four thousand. Feel free to remove two thirds. There will remain five thousand, for which there will be enough spare parts and qualified crews. The rest will be converted into self-propelled guns, armored personnel carriers, and so on.
        1. +2
          23 October 2021 22: 59
          Quote: demiurg
          15000 tanks. How many?

          The USSR has two loosely coupled theaters. Plus the evacuation and mobilization of industry in the event of a major war. So it was calculated taking into account the stock for the year of the war.
          Plus, intelligence tried, feeding the leadership with the figures of the enemy's possible release of tanks, proceeding precisely from the capabilities of the industry during mobilization (after all, it was believed that the war with the USSR would be waged "like an adult", with the mobilization of all forces and means).

          One more thing. The "tankization" of the Red Army in the 30s was partly caused by an attempt to increase its combat power without a sharp increase in the number of personnel. The army desperately lacked personnel units, but all attempts to increase the number of ground forces ended in the Procrustean bed of the budget. Tukhachevsky, out of grief, even proposed a super-motorized and super-armed division of 7000 people - just to somehow compensate for the numerical weakness. And under the condition of limiting the number of l / s, tank brigades seemed a way out: a lot of cannons and machine guns on a self-propelled armored chassis with a minimum l / s.
          Quote: demiurg
          There will remain five thousand, for which there will be enough spare parts and qualified crews.

          Nine women won't have a baby in a month. ©
          To get technically competent people in the late 30s, you need to start training them in the early 30s. And at the end of the 30s, the Educational Program is still working in our country. And the factories, until the completion of training (1940-1942), will drive out an outright defect both with a large batch and with a small batch.
          We made the same oil refuellers in small batches, not because they underestimated their importance, but because there were just one or two personnel for the manufacture of the same pumps (working, and not like Polesov's), and it was too much.
      2. 0
        23 October 2021 22: 52
        Quote: Alexey RA
        And most importantly, educated cadres are needed for mass normal radio communications. And in our country, in January 1941, a third of junior commanders and two-thirds of privates in BTV KOVO have only primary education.

        Would you like to say that the level of education of the cadres of the victorious 44-45 years differed sharply from the bitter ones 41-42?
        1. +2
          24 October 2021 19: 31
          Quote: Liam
          Would you like to say that the level of education of the cadres of the victorious 44-45 years differed sharply from the bitter ones 41-42?

          Yes. Because in war, natural selection operates: you either study, even through "I can't," or you die - and the next candidate comes to your place. As a result, the level of training of survivors is growing all the time - at the cost of a lot of blood.
          1. 0
            24 October 2021 21: 34
            Because in war, natural selection is at work.

            This is a little different "education", not education in the classical sense (although it is also very important), but knowledge of ready-made developments, action patterns, and most importantly - the structure that allows these patterns to be applied.
      3. +1
        24 October 2021 08: 00
        And I remember the movie "Hearts of Four". And episodes with military personnel training with a civilian professor and his daughter.
    5. 0
      23 October 2021 23: 47
      Quote: demiurg
      Why the old tanks were not converted into tractors, armored personnel carriers, self-propelled guns, ZSU, TZM, BREM
      In tractors - the resource is small and the chassis can be altered from speed to moment. The need for an armored personnel carrier before the year 41 was not obvious: only when the regiments began to be destroyed on the march, and the infantry did not have time to go anywhere, it began to realize that the transportation of the infantry and its protection from shrapnel in the process was not lordship, but a necessity. I don't know why the ACS based on the T-26 was not made, probably some technological reasons. Maybe that's why the tractor is. ZSU - we had very few anti-aircraft guns. Even large-caliber machine guns are few (the DShK cost as much as a forty-five), and the same 61-K on the T-26 is problematic: it weighs one 2 tons, and the whole tank - 8. TZM - for whom? BREM, I think, was not done because of the same reason why spare parts for tanks were not produced - there were no repairmen. Everyone who could fix the tank worked at the corresponding factories, the conscripts apparently could not do this.
      But these are all my fantasies that arose when I asked the same question.
  4. +2
    23 October 2021 08: 51
    Thanks to the Author for "dipping into childhood"! Even in my school years I read with "delight" about "midgets", "shchitonoski" and other wedges! But time passed and I have completely forgotten about them! If later in magazines, books, and there were references to T-27, "Cardin-Lloyd", then almost as abstract concepts! And now ... "memories came"!
  5. +5
    23 October 2021 09: 05
    The French made the Renault UE armored ammunition transporter based on this tankette.


    Formally, the French have created their own design. When, in 1930, Commission de Vincennes invited Renault, Citroën and Brandt to create a Type N light armored vehicle-tractor based on the Carden-Loyd Mark VI, Renault refused to pay for the license and demanded compensation from the state. The state did not want to spend money and invited firms to develop a "similar" design.
    1. +2
      23 October 2021 09: 40
      Yes ... I saw just such a wedge in the old "Military foreigner"! But there it was "positioned" as a technique used in the post-war period! (and in the black-and-white photo, the tankette was with a 120mm mortar ...)
    2. 0
      23 October 2021 10: 17
      Only Poles, Czechs, Italians and the "enemies of capital" of the USSR paid for the license.
      Democrats and nationalists from other countries were simply "tying" the British people.
    3. +1
      23 October 2021 11: 33
      Quote: Undecim
      The French made the Renault UE armored ammunition transporter based on this tankette.

      In the USSR, they also "wanted" mini-tractors (they are also mini-conveyors, mini-tractors ...) At first, based on English motives (the Vickers Cardin Lloyd tractor), they made a mini-tractor (aka a light artillery mini-tractor) "Pioneer "

      But then they realized that it would be nice to "slobber" the armor! This is how mini-armored tractors (semi-armored light tractors) "Pioneer B1" and "Pioneer B2" appeared ...


      In the thirties, they tried to improve the T-37 amphibious tank ... the T-37B variant was proposed, but the stone flower did not come out! Then Shitikov on the basis of the T-37B proposed an armored transporter-tractor ...
  6. +4
    23 October 2021 09: 16
    As for such a developed industrial power as the United States ...

    And "this cup" did not pass her. True, the Americans themselves developed their tankettes.

    Wedge Marmon-Herrington CTLS
    1. +1
      23 October 2021 10: 12
      So the American military was cut the budget and they, like everyone else, wanted an acceptable and cheap one.
      Those were crisis times.
      Everyone has.
  7. +2
    23 October 2021 09: 47
    Variants of the Italian wedge L3 / 35.



    French conveyor "Renault" UE ..
    1. +1
      23 October 2021 10: 11
      Some consider Italian tankettes to be the best of the "children" of the British "machine gun carrier". They would still have a turret turning ...
      1. 0
        23 October 2021 20: 11
        Quote: hohol95
        Some consider Italian tankettes to be the best of the "children" of the British "machine gun carrier". They would still have a turret turning ...

        And ... it will turn out ... a light TANK
        1. +1
          23 October 2021 20: 45
          Small tank!
          The classification of military equipment is so confusing and complex that sometimes a tank is listed as heavy in one country and medium in another.
          But the Soviet T-37/38 were in the category of small tanks.
          And they differed from tankettes only by the presence of a turret!
          1. 0
            23 October 2021 21: 56
            The classification of military equipment is so confusing and complex that sometimes a tank is listed as heavy in one country and medium in another.

            Yes that's for sure.
            I think it is possible to adhere to the classification for armored vehicles of the 20s - on tracks and a rotating tower - a tank. no tower - tankette. The self-propelled guns had not yet been invented at that time
            1. +1
              24 October 2021 06: 48
              So the first two French tanks "Schneider" and "Saint-Chemon" are more "tankettes" than self-propelled guns?
              1. 0
                24 October 2021 10: 24
                Rather, an SPG, although Saint-Chemon had no towers.
                But at that time these were the first experiments in the creation of armored vehicles, a kind of land ships.
                1. 0
                  24 October 2021 15: 19
                  The Saint-Chamond had observation towers. And no towers with weapons were invented for them.
  8. +1
    23 October 2021 10: 08
    The British created a simple conveyor for transporting a heavy machine gun.
    And already in other countries from this "machine gun carrier" they began to make an "ersatz small tank" without a tower and with one machine gun.
    Also, on their design, the capabilities of the industry to produce their own armored vehicles were worked out.
    1. +1
      23 October 2021 10: 17
      "ersatz small tank" without a turret and with one machine gun.

      Yes, there were attempts to do with the tower. The same British.
      1. +1
        23 October 2021 11: 27
        Attempt is not torture ...
        The British Ministry of Defense itself did not like such machines.
        And for export it will do.
        There was simply no other exporter of BTT in the 20s and 30s
        1. 0
          23 October 2021 12: 35
          Didn't the Italians and the French trade in theirs?
          1. +1
            23 October 2021 13: 02
            The French had nothing to trade except FT17. The Italians sold their wedges to the Hungarians and the Chinese.
      2. +1
        23 October 2021 20: 15
        Why not. If there is no anti-tank artillery, and then, I will not venture to say, there were no large-caliber machine guns at all, then this armored vehicle for chasing blacks and Basmachi was quite at the wunderwaffe level.
        1. 0
          23 October 2021 20: 47
          Or the Spanish Republicans ...
        2. +1
          23 October 2021 21: 06
          , and then, I will not venture to say, there were no large-caliber machine guns at all,


          Why wasn't there? Browning M1921



          And from artillery, for this cardboard box "any infantry cannon of the smallest caliber is enough.
          1. +1
            23 October 2021 21: 39
            The then small-caliber artillery was very little adapted to drive such a quickly moving muck.
            1. +1
              23 October 2021 21: 54
              Why, Browning .050 not only coped with this, but also shot down planes. smile
              1. +1
                23 October 2021 21: 59
                only they were also sparse, especially in different popuas.
                1. +1
                  23 October 2021 22: 05
                  And in the Papuans and tanks were not, so, ancient armored cars.
                  1. 0
                    24 October 2021 22: 01
                    Itallo-Ethiopian War! War with the use of mustard gas and phosgene, with FIAT300 tanks and CV3 / 33 tankettes, combat aviation! And this is only from the Italian side!
                    From October 3, 1935 to May 9, 1936.
                    1. +2
                      24 October 2021 22: 35
                      It was necessary to roll in new weapons somewhere. But all the same it was not lucky.
                      1. 0
                        24 October 2021 22: 47
                        There is no need to have "horns above your forehead", as the Japanese imperialists once said after the victory over the Chinese in 1895!
                        Until they climbed into the British colonies, they did not interfere, but the British did not want to share theirs. And he proved it by performing Operation Compass.
                2. +1
                  24 October 2021 21: 57
                  Ethiopians were frightened only by flamethrower tankettes. They tried to fight with machine-gun, as well as with FIAT3000 tanks!
                  Japanese and Finnish soldiers were also "strained by Soviet flamethrower tanks on the T-26!"
          2. +1
            24 October 2021 22: 06
            You love this machine gun, Konstantin!
            But there was also a "Hotchkiss" 13,2 M1929.
            Different imperialists - Belgium, Greece, Mexico, Poland, Japan, Chile and France itself - did not strengthen their defense capabilities by "Browning" alone. The Italians made him their Brada mod.31.
            1. +1
              24 October 2021 22: 32
              You love this machine gun, Konstantin!

              Not only I love him ... smile Modernized a couple of times and still serves.


              And Hotchkiss, with all due respect, has long been a museum piece. request
              1. 0
                24 October 2021 22: 43
                Whoever wins the world wars is the one who spreads his weapons all over the world !!!
                And the French lost a lot. As many weapons as the Russians, the Americans and the British did not have. And they themselves were "sucked" by the Americans!
                That's the whole sad truth of life. For Hotchkiss!
                1. +2
                  24 October 2021 23: 02
                  If this machine gun were not really good, then no victories would help spread it around the world. I suppose so.
  9. +3
    23 October 2021 10: 56
    "Abidly you panic" that, while discussing the Carden-Lloyd tankette, they forgot that the very famous British armored personnel carrier of WW2 "Universal Carrier" was created on the basis of the tankette! It was massively used during WW2 and was supplied under Lend-Lease in the USSR!

    1. +2
      23 October 2021 12: 34
      Hello Volodya! soldier
      You definitely noticed that! good


      Lend-Lease with PTR Boys (Boys).

      It just flies beautifully. smile
      1. +2
        23 October 2021 19: 12
        It's a pity the British put only 3 rinks in the chassis. And the tractor did not come out ...
        The Americans installed 4 rinks and received a T16 machine. With good tractor properties.
        Today Pasholok in Zen published an article about how the Italians copied this machine. It turned out well. But it's too late ...
      2. +1
        23 October 2021 21: 07
        Duc, as soon as "Cardin-Lloyd" was not "mocked"! What kind of "perversions" did they embody!



        1. +2
          23 October 2021 21: 09
          Damn, and on the top photo is the most natural Ferdinand Elefantovich. wassat laughing
          1. +2
            23 October 2021 21: 27
            As it was said in one film: "I don't recognize you in makeup" ...? And so?
            1. 0
              23 October 2021 21: 36
              And this is "Holo jo piy Ferdinand" or "Death to the enemy - zazdets calculation."
              In short, like this one:
              1. +1
                23 October 2021 23: 45
                "Ferdinand Elefantovich" - Tr52 (Swedish version of the Carden-Lloyd tankette) with an experimental 57-mm recoilless gun Pvkan fm / 44 ... wink
      3. +1
        23 October 2021 21: 15
        famous English armored personnel carrier of WW2 "Universal Carrier"
        The place of the mechvoda.
        At the Army Museum, Chelsea, London.
  10. +2
    23 October 2021 11: 25
    "Cardin-Loyd" Mk. V. Wheeled-caterpillar variant "- THIS must be repainted red by all means.
  11. -1
    23 October 2021 16: 19
    I don't know how to insert fragments from films, otherwise I would insert an episode from the film "Star" (old), where the actor Kryuchkov performs a ditty:
    Tank, wedge he fell in love
    And took her for a walk
    Yes, from such a roman
    The whole grove is broken.
    1. 0
      23 October 2021 17: 48
      Well, "In war as in war" this version of the ditty sounded: "The tank loved a self-propelled gun, took her for a walk in the forest ... from such a roman the whole grove was broken ..." hi
    2. 0
      23 October 2021 19: 15
      There could be many options for the military. First there were wedges, then self-propelled guns appeared - "to support, to support what? Pants?"
      And in the very work "In war as in war" the crew sings a song, the text of which in modern performance has differences.
  12. 0
    23 October 2021 22: 41
    The production of a new vehicle, indexed T-27, was launched at the Bolshevik plant in Leningrad. Well, in total, from 1931 to 1933, we built 3228 of these tankettes!

    Of which, by 1941, 780 pieces disappeared in an unknown direction. smile
    ... comparing the availability of combat vehicles with the number of those produced by industrial factories, the following discrepancies were revealed:
    Missing:
    "BT-7" - 96 vehicles
    "BT-2" - 34 vehicles
    "BT-5" - 46 vehicles
    "T-26" - 103 vehicles
    "T-38" - 193 vehicles
    "T-37" - 211 vehicles
    "T-27" - 780 vehicles
    "BA-10" - 94 vehicles
    "BA-6" - 54 vehicles
    FAI - 234 cars ...
    The raised archival material from 1929 on the registration, special dispatch and write-off of combat vehicles did not give a significant change in reducing the shortage, since the write-off of combat vehicles was not carried out until 1936.
    The number of decommissioned machines, for example, "T-27" - 26 pieces, is clearly not true, since the production of these machines began in 1931 and in 10 years this figure should undoubtedly be much higher ...
    © Information of the GABTU about the presence of combat vehicles in the districts on 1.1.1941; acts of acceptance by military representatives of tanks from factories. Source - Ulanov / Shein. Order in the tank forces.
  13. 0
    24 October 2021 00: 13
    Thanks to the author for the selection.
    Each time has its own conditions and, accordingly, types of weapons. I can't say that this type of weapon was a dead end, but in any case, it gave some experience in understanding the role of military equipment on the battlefield (sorry for the tautology).