Military Review

Stalin's high-tech

220

In principle, in the 30s, we were at the level of advanced Western countries in breakthrough developments, lagging behind in the introduction of new products. There was complete order with the experimental samples, but when it came to the series, the production culture often let down. Perhaps the most famous high-tech machine of that time was the Katyusha, aka BM-13.


Back in 1921, experiments with rocket fuel began in Tikhomirov's laboratory, in 1937 - tests of the RS-82 projectile (adopted for service) and RS-132 (adopted for service in 1938). We entered the war with about 160 thousand aviation unguided rockets, they were actively used at Khalkhin Gol and in the Finnish war.

In June 1938, the development of a projectile for a ground installation, called the M-13, began. The range was increased to 8,5 km, a launcher was created, and in June 1941 the first eight units were manufactured. They did not have time to go to war just a little, but in 1942 alone, the Red Army received 2392 installations. "Katyusha" became one of the symbols of that war, and this symbol was created by the minds of Soviet designers and the hands of Soviet workers. We did not lose the race for the MLRS; by the end of the war, the "Katyusha" was supplemented by the "Andryusha" with a caliber of 300 mm.

Radar


The first experience of detecting an aircraft using reflected radio waves in the USSR was carried out in 1934 in Leningrad. After long tests, the RUS-1 was adopted by the Red Army, before the start of the war, 45 of them were manufactured. Of course, this is not the end - in 1941, the RUS-2 impulse radar was put into service, during the war years 607 units produced them. In principle, we were not champions, as we were with MLRS, we did not overtake the world, but in 1939 we went quite on a level with this very world, with England, the USA and Germany. Experiments were carried out and shipborne, on the Black Sea the cruiser "Molotov" received the first Soviet shipborne radar. During the war years in the USSR, artillery radars and aircraft radars were also produced.

Of course, by 1945 we had lagged behind the United States on the radars, but there it was not necessary to evacuate institutions and production, to work in conditions of a lack of resources and workers of the required qualifications ... Nevertheless, in general, the USSR coped with it, both before the war and during, providing air defense with their radars. And after the war, he made a new leap, but this is already another история.

Hydroacoustics


“For the thirties of the twentieth century, the creation in 1932 in Leningrad of the Vodtranspribor plant - the first serial plant in the field of hydroacoustic instrumentation, was a milestone for the development of domestic hydroacoustics.”

Work has been actively carried out since 1932, and by the beginning of the Great Patriotic War, the results appeared. In 1940, the Tamir-1 GAS was put into service. Weak and without noise immunity, it operated at an SKA speed of up to 3 knots and at a range of up to 5 cable, but its own. In addition, underwater communication equipment was also developed. The war, during which it turned out to be easier to use Lend-Lease samples than to refine your own, prevented the first-born from being brought to mind, but the development did not stop, and by the end of the war, Tamir-M appeared, quite comparable to Western models.

Whatever it was, but in the hydroacoustics race, of course, we were not in the lead, but we walked quite confidently. They did not lead, among other things, because this issue was not vitally important for us. The USSR generally depended little on sea trade, and our experience of the First World War required weapons somewhat different.

Diesel


“His life began at the Kharkov Locomotive Plant named after Comintern, whose design department in 1931 received a state order for a high-speed diesel engine for tanks... And it was immediately renamed to the diesel department. The assignment stipulated a power of 300 liters. With. at 1600 rpm, while the crankshaft rotational speed of typical diesels of that time did not exceed 250 rpm. "

It started from scratch: before the revolution, we were actively engaged in powerful diesel engines for ships, of course, but compact ones for land equipment were not. Yes, and that school was lost, everything was revived from the rubble. Nevertheless, in 1935, the engine began to be tested, and in 1939 it was accepted into service. As a result, the power will be brought to 850 liters. With. Enemies and friends alike will admit that the engine was ahead of its time. It was given to the country hard, but it was given, the best diesel engine in the world at that time, and the heart of the legendary T-34.

computer


The “official date of birth” of Soviet computer technology should be considered, apparently, the end of 1948. It was then that in a secret laboratory in the town of Feofaniya near Kiev, under the leadership of Sergei Aleksandrovich Lebedev (at that time - director of the Institute of Electrical Engineering of the Academy of Sciences of Ukraine and also head of the laboratory of the Institute of Precise Mechanics and Computing Technology of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR), work began on the creation of a Small Electronic Counting Machine (MESM) . "

And in parallel there is also M-1 for the Kurchatov Institute, Strela, BESM ... Everything is at the level of the best world analogues. Everything in the post-war period. But the first-born MESM began to be developed in Kiev, in 1944, when the battles were still on the territory of Soviet Ukraine. As a result, in the 50s we were quite at the world level, the lag will begin later. And this is a feat of scientists and a powerful material base, without which serial computers were, in principle, impossible.

You can continue about missiles, about nuclear weapons, about naval artillery, we have created and built 406 mm caliber, about medicines and synthetic materials, about SVT, and finally, one of the best self-loading rifles ...

Was Russia the homeland of elephants? Undoubtedly not, and everything was not invented here, and we were not ahead of the whole world, and problems with the culture of production ruined even the best projects. But this was overcome, the main success of that time was not discoveries and scientific breakthroughs, but the creation of a network of research institutes, scientific schools, a qualified working class, grown practically from scratch.

And in science we were quite at the level of the best world models, somewhere lagging behind, somewhere overtaking, but not being backward savages, capable of running into an attack with one rifle for three. And I am glad that the history of technology and science of that era finally finds its researchers, since there is something to explore, from stratospheric flights in the 30s to the creation of Russian autarchy, with its own production of everything the country needs.
Author:
220 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, daily additional materials that do not get on the site: https://t.me/topwar_ru

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Far B
    Far B 5 January 2022 05: 47
    +26
    And I am glad that the history of technology and science of that era finally finds its researchers
    And it deeply saddens that the continuation of the technical and scientific progress, which was laid with such difficulty in those years, cannot be seen in the daytime with fire in today's Russia. Investigating past achievements is, of course, good, but living on yesterday alone, pride in the achievements of ancestors alone, is useless.
    1. alekseykabanets
      alekseykabanets 5 January 2022 06: 16
      +22
      Quote: Dalny V
      And it deeply saddens that the continuation of the technical and scientific progress, which was laid with such difficulty in those years, cannot be seen in the daytime with fire in today's Russia.

      And we will not see it, at least until the state corrects the situation with education. The current FSES program is unimaginably worse than the Stalin program.
      1. Far B
        Far B 5 January 2022 06: 31
        +26
        the state will not fix the situation with education
        In its current form, the state will not fix nifiga. First, because it cannot (effective managers get in the way, like coconuts to a bad dancer); secondly, because he does not want to (as you know, it’s easier to saw money than to invest in money); thirdly, because firstly and secondly. As they say, they sailed.
        1. alekseykabanets
          alekseykabanets 5 January 2022 06: 52
          +28
          Quote: Dalny V
          As they say, they sailed.

          "The strength of the government rests on the ignorance of the people, and they know it
          and therefore will always fight against enlightenment. It's time for us to understand this. "
          L.N. Tolstoy
          1. Doccor18
            Doccor18 5 January 2022 07: 37
            +20
            Quote: aleksejkabanets
            The strength of the government rests on the ignorance of the people ...

            This dictum is always true only for capitalism, for robbing is more convenient than the ignorant.
            The idea of ​​socialism is in the continuous development of a person, each person, and not a narrow circle of "masters".
            So, while wild capitalism reigns, it is naive to wait for a breakthrough in the development of science and education ...
            1. ANB
              ANB 5 January 2022 11: 44
              +12
              ... The idea of ​​socialism in the continuous development of a person, each person,

              And the goal of the economy is "the continuous improvement of the well-being of the working people." The goal of capitalism is only profit. Development under capitalism is a side effect, not necessarily a necessary one.
              1. Alf
                Alf 5 January 2022 20: 15
                +10
                Quote: ANB
                And the goal of the economy is "the continuous improvement of the well-being of the working people." The goal of capitalism is only profit.

            2. EvilLion
              EvilLion 10 January 2022 09: 16
              0
              It is under capitalism that universal schooling appears, since there is a need for technical specialists in huge numbers.
          2. Amateur
            Amateur 5 January 2022 19: 14
            .
            Count Lev Nikolaevich was at one time something like the current Lelik Navalny. He was dissatisfied with everything and taught everyone. Although he himself did not know how to do anything real. Only turn the other cheek if you hit the first
            1. alekseykabanets
              alekseykabanets 5 January 2022 20: 13
              +4
              Quote: Amateur
              Although he himself did not know how to do anything real.

              Do you know how to read? Did you go to school? Have you read any of LN Tolstoy's works?
              1. Amateur
                Amateur 5 January 2022 21: 28
                .
                Well, you obviously didn’t read anything at Lev Nikolaevich’s besides the school curriculum. And he was excommunicated from the church for
                And roman his Sunday
                It is impossible to read without tears ...
              2. EvilLion
                EvilLion 10 January 2022 09: 17
                -1
                Regarding the "works" of Tolstoy, Loginov wrote everything very accurately in the article "On Counts and Graphomaniac".
            2. ivan2022
              ivan2022 6 January 2022 23: 45
              0
              Quote: Amateur
              Although he himself could not do anything real, only turn the other cheek if they hit the first

              Probably the old man Confucius was the same ..... not of the world .... But the Chinese have a different opinion. It's only in our blessed society that the word "authority" - means completely different characters ... these can do everything! And only a madman can hit them on the cheek.
          3. Mikhalych
            Mikhalych 6 January 2022 09: 38
            -2
            The strength of the government rests on the ignorance of the people

            This stick has two ends, on the one hand are local khans, on the other are foreign "well-wishers" who skillfully take advantage of illiteracy and pour all sorts of crap into their ears. The last example is Kazakhstan. In Lithuania, the start was a 5-fold increase in prices for grub during the day. The people rebelled, prices were lowered, but the process went on.
            hi
            1. alekseykabanets
              alekseykabanets 6 January 2022 10: 37
              0
              Quote: Mikhalych
              The last example is Kazakhstan.

              An example of what?
        2. Lech from Android.
          Lech from Android. 5 January 2022 07: 36
          +20
          As they say, they sailed.

          A striking example of Rusnano. smile
          A lot of money was invested ... and the return is zero.
          To be honest, the civilian industry of Russia is, to put it mildly, floundering in a swamp of uncertainty ... that it doesn’t do business ... apparently on Monday my mother gave birth.
          1. your1970
            your1970 6 January 2022 10: 33
            -2
            Quote: Lech from Android.
            A striking example of Rusnano.
            A lot of money was invested ... and the return is zero.

            Can you give a bunch of examples in the USSR - with a bunch of invested dough and zero return?
            Dead Road, Sakhalin Tunnel, H-1, river turn, and so on ...
        3. bandabas
          bandabas 5 January 2022 12: 48
          +25
          The point is that the same “defective managers”, or their brothers, matchmakers, sisters, and so on, are at the helm. You can dig up any relatives. Starting from the first. Every new year I hear an old tale. How do we heal next. We will defeat the Pechenegs and Polovtsians. And dogs knights for the sauce in the appendage. The "taxi driver" does not remember the Mongols. Because they weren't there.
      2. Third district
        Third district 5 January 2022 06: 33
        +24
        First of all, with the education of specialists of the middle and lower level (vocational school, technical school). For the implementation of ideas, turners, welders, electricians, electrical and radio mechanics, etc. will always be needed.
        1. alekseykabanets
          alekseykabanets 5 January 2022 06: 59
          +16
          Quote: Third District
          First of all, with the education of specialists of the middle and lower level (vocational school, technical school).

          Primary school first! From the ABC book! They are now learning sounds before they start writing, hence the general illiteracy. Yozhyk, as we hear, we write.))) Earlier, sounds were taught in the 5th grade.
          Quote: Third District
          To implement ideas, turners, welders, electricians, electrical and radio mechanics, etc. will always be needed.

          What ideas? There are the main specialties, "nail service masters", "eyebrow architects", driver, security guard, salesman - cashier.))))
          1. Third district
            Third district 5 January 2022 07: 12
            +16
            I agree, as long as the idea that everything can be bought prevails, nothing will change. So far, everyone is ruled by lawyers and economists. Even in health care and agriculture they are.
          2. 210ox
            210ox 5 January 2022 10: 45
            +7
            There is a Transmashholding website. Serious organization and produces good equipment. But. There Skolkovo climbs with its worthlessness. With design, for example. Yes, diesel locomotives look good on the outside. But that's all. How much was spent on the outer wrapper?
            1. Reader 2013
              Reader 2013 5 January 2022 11: 37
              +7
              Well, yes, Liksutovskaya feeder, deputy reindeer breeder
          3. d_averk
            d_averk 11 January 2022 00: 00
            -2
            Primary school first! From the ABC book! They are now learning sounds before they start writing, hence the general illiteracy

            What nonsense is this?
      3. mat-vey
        mat-vey 5 January 2022 07: 30
        +20
        Quote: aleksejkabanets
        And we will not see it, at least until the state corrects the situation with education.

        Situations are not created to correct them, but to serve the interests of the ruling class ...
        1. alekseykabanets
          alekseykabanets 5 January 2022 07: 38
          +4
          Quote: mat-vey
          Situations are not created to correct them, but to serve the interests of the ruling class ...

          There is nothing to object! hi
      4. paul3390
        paul3390 5 January 2022 09: 21
        +13
        And we will not see, at least until the state corrects the situation with education

        And what the hell is it to him ??? That they were in vain for 30 years destroying the world's best Soviet education system ??
      5. antivirus
        antivirus 5 January 2022 10: 02
        +4
        the state will not fix the situation with education

        - you need to start with kindergarten teachers ..
        And the stupidest thing: I looked about the local peculiarities of the "Katz language-adverb" in Myshkin.
        there was no single Russian, Russian people.
        ONLY GENERAL LITERACY AND ACCELERATED IMPLEMENTATION OF UNIFORM STANDARDS IN EDUCATION (BASED ON PUSHKIN-TOLSTOY, MENDELEEV AND DR "OUR") AND SOCIAL LIFE (IN PM DANCES TO SINGLE SONGS). -CREATED THE UNITED USSR-NOW RF. and this is only in the 50s of the 20th century.
        52 or 59yy - determine for yourself.
        we are a very young nation. even the Amts based on Anglo-Saxon culture are more rooted in the centuries

        I'm talking about mass consciousness. about 2/3 of the population
    2. datura23
      datura23 5 January 2022 06: 25
      -2
      where will progress lead us, why is it in the minds of our people an unconditional blessing?
      I look at more "progressive" countries and I don't want to be SUCH "progressive".
      1. ivan2022
        ivan2022 6 January 2022 23: 57
        0
        Quote: datura23
        where will progress lead us, why is it in the minds of our people an unconditional blessing?
        I look at more "progressive" countries and I don't want to be SUCH "progressive".

        Because this is the blessing. But the relationship of people who are hindered not only by progress, but, as they say, even their own ... is not a blessing. It's a trifling matter; to work for the common good and not cause trouble to others ... then no progress is terrible.
        This is probably why the center of world civilization and progress is now clearly moving to the East. If in Japan a minister caught in bribes shoots himself in the forehead, in China he is put up against the wall, and in Russia he feels like a hero, it is clear where Civilization and progress should move.
        Heh ... heh ... progress interferes, but your own thieves and bandits do not interfere ...
        1. datura23
          datura23 7 January 2022 05: 51
          0
          Do you see the root of the troubles in corruption, but I see that it is an inalienable human property, like breathing or the desire to reproduce, that corruption has been defeated in China? You cannot forbid breathing under pain of death. Progress was conceived and had and still has comfort by setting goals. And the desire for comfort and corruption and all other vices alienate a person from true happiness, overshadowing ETERNITY.
    3. datura23
      datura23 5 January 2022 06: 29
      +5
      this is progress
      1. d_averk
        d_averk 11 January 2022 00: 02
        -1
        And before it was different ??? Here's the hilarity.
    4. Olgovich
      Olgovich 5 January 2022 08: 32
      .
      Quote: Dalny V
      technical and scientific progress, which with such difficulty was laid in those years

      The 28th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union clearly summed up the result of progress; in the USSR material resources per unit products spent 2,5 times, than in developed countries, but a huge amountabout enterprises is unprofitable. And that's all with colossal losses of grain, cement, metal, oil, mineral fertilizers, timber and many other resources .
      the "effective" ones were great menajars., yes ...
      1. Far B
        Far B 5 January 2022 08: 43
        +8
        And what else could the congress that took place in 1990, when the country's leadership had already taken a course towards the elimination of the USSR "as a geopolitical reality" for several years now? And how, in general, does the summary of the congress cited by you cancels the existence of scientific and technological progress in the USSR, especially since the article is about the Stalinist period?
        1. Olgovich
          Olgovich 5 January 2022 11: 22
          .
          Quote: Dalny V
          What else could the congress summarize?

          RESULTS of "progress" he forced was to state, because it was already impossible to exist like that: 28 Congress:
          With such a system of management, the state cannot be rich, and the people cannot be prosperous.

          Unsatisfied the population's demand for food is growing, it reaches one third of the foodstuffs produced in the country.
          1. Essex62
            Essex62 6 January 2022 01: 07
            +2
            28th exit? A congress of aide-careerists led by a recruited agent of the bourgeoisie? Great argument.
            They would have said what kind of "people" will become prosperous, based on the results of their activities.
            Themselves, the same sabotage perpetrated and complain about the dissatisfaction of the People. Lycimers.
            1. Olgovich
              Olgovich 6 January 2022 09: 35
              0
              Quote: Essex62
              28th exit? Congress of associate careerists

              these are the best people in your party, by the way. Among them are a huge number of WWII veterans
              Quote: Essex62
              with a recruited agent of the bourgeoisie?

              other leaders your power was not able to educate, only rot: EBNov, marked and shevardnadzov.
              Quote: Essex62
              They would have said what kind of "people" will become prosperous, based on the results of their activities.

              they stated how "prosperous" he became as a result of activities before them
              Quote: Essex62
              Themselves, the same sabotage perpetrated and complain about the dissatisfaction of the People. Of personsиmeasures.

              Of personsЕMeasures are all your idols and rulers who have lied without interruption and rest for all 70 years.
              1. Essex62
                Essex62 6 January 2022 11: 30
                0
                You do not touch the veterans of the Second World War. They saved you, the underdog and your ancestors from destruction.
                These are, for the most part, traitors who became "new Russians" after the coup.
                The real communists fought with your, yes, your ebns, Shevardnads and Yakovlevs. A socialist, planned economy that is not geared towards profit does not know crises, by definition. It can only be destroyed artificially, which they did by sabotage, wanting to become bourgeois and with the connivance of the inert working class. This is the only reason.
                And it is your idols who constantly lie, or, to be honest, they perched on the neck of a working man
                1. Olgovich
                  Olgovich 6 January 2022 14: 08
                  -2
                  Quote: Essex62
                  you WWII veterans Do not touch.
                  It traitors

                  what are you talking about saints people ?! fool Already?
                  WHO was betrayed by battalion commander Bondarev, commander Gerasimov, GSS scout Karpov and hundreds of other veterans of the Great Patriotic War - participants of the congress? fool
                  Quote: Essex62
                  True communists fought with yours, yes, yes, exactly your ebny, shevardnadz and yakovlev
                  tell about these "battles" lol .

                  Quote: Essex62
                  Socialist, planned economy knows no crises,by definition.

                  lol terrible commodity and other deficit of everything and everyone, (acre of the newspaper "Pravda" lol ), recognized by all, is not ... a crisis?
                  Quote: Essex62
                  It can only be destroyed artificially, which these did sabotage, wanting to become bourgeois

                  That is, the only thing that yours were able to do with high quality is ... destroy-a good confession from you lol
                  Quote: Essex62
                  And it’s your idols who lie all the time

                  from your first day to your last, your lies are always and about everything: every word is a lie
                  1. Essex62
                    Essex62 7 January 2022 16: 27
                    -1
                    It was the holy people who were "trampled" by your reincarnated careerists. The outlined change in formation was very unpleasant for them, but who in the Gorbachev swamp listened to them. Yours was already there as dirt. Almost all were pushed aside, or even physically destroyed.
                    Tell you about the battles, counter? Well, look at the chronicle how the enemy of the people ebn from tank guns with impunity shot the legitimate Soviet power, and we answered them only from Kalash. Have you ever flown 125 mm into an enclosed space?
                    1. Olgovich
                      Olgovich 8 January 2022 14: 38
                      -3
                      Quote: Essex62
                      It was the holy people who were "trampled" by your reincarnated careerists. The outlined change in formation was very unpleasant for them, but who in the Gorbachev swamp listened to them. Yours was already there as dirt. Almost all were pushed aside, or even physically destroyed.

                      Precisely, the saints whom you called traitors.

                      And the delegates are elected -FOR THE FIRST TIME in a secret alternative vote.

                      according to Gorbachev: your power could NOT bring up other, normal, leaders, but could only rot- marked, ebn and shevardnadzov
                      Quote: Essex62
                      Tell you about the battles, counter? Well, look at the chronicle of how the enemy of the people ebn from tank guns with impunity shot the legitimate

                      в 1991 your idols have disappeared, with TOTAL indifference of yours and the rest of the millions of party members and of the entire people.
                      1. Essex62
                        Essex62 8 January 2022 18: 03
                        -1
                        I was not indifferent. He always fought as best he could with bourgeois belching, even when it came to direct bloodshed. And you're lying that everyone was indifferent. The Soviet people voted to preserve the USSR, i.e. for socialism. And to cut down the forest by an adherent of the monarchy that lit up on the wave of perestroika foam. But you see, it didn't work out. There was nothing to shoot at the tank, and the communists - army men pissed off their corrupt generals and did not follow the direct order of the Supreme Commander-in-Chief.
                        That slush that the people were the instigators of. Rotten throaty intelligentsia, guild workers, hucksters, thieves of all stripes. Well, the citizens, stunned by the lawlessness of the traitors to the saboteurs, unaware of what they are doing. Standard Amerzovsky flower.
                      2. Olgovich
                        Olgovich 9 January 2022 15: 18
                        -2
                        Quote: Essex62
                        I was not indifferent. He always fought as best he could with the bourgeois belch

                        don't be ridiculous, no barricades in 1991 and there was no trace. NOBODY stood up for the regime.

                        in 1993 was unconstitutional coup and I am entirely on the side of the defenders of the White House

                        Quote: Essex62
                        That slush that the people were the instigators of. Rotten throaty intelligentsia, guild workers, hucksters, thieves of all stripes. Well, the citizens, stunned by the lawlessness of the traitors to the saboteurs, who do not know what they are doing

                        why some kind of slush turned out to be ... stronger than 18 million hot, most advanced members of society.

                        And who is the slush ...
                      3. Essex62
                        Essex62 10 January 2022 01: 30
                        -1
                        Do not confuse warm with soft. Soviet power in 91 did not go anywhere and everything concerned only the "leading role" of the CPSU and coupons for consumer goods, it was on the latter occasion that the bulk of the people gathered. And the degenerates provoked the deficit. Not really yours, of course, bourgeois. You are blue-blooded with us, go? Do you dream of having serfs?
                        About the privatization and construction of capitalism, in the highest legislative body of power until 93, there could be no talk.
                        Strange, you were by my side
                        And it seemed to me you were looming in my sight "Kalasha". No, not you, probably, but you are so similar
                        am
                      4. Olgovich
                        Olgovich 10 January 2022 09: 44
                        -2
                        Quote: Essex62
                        Soviet authority at 91 it has not gone anywhere
                        belay lol
                        those. in 1991, it turns out, nothing happened ?!
                        Quote: Essex62
                        And the degenerates provoked the deficit.

                        so I say, your rulers turned out to be masters only to DESTROY. It's good that it came at last.
                        Quote: Essex62
                        You are blue-blooded with us, go? Do you dream of having serfs?

                        serfs appeared in 1917 and ended only in the 1970s
                        Quote: Essex62
                        About the privatization and construction of capitalism, in the highest legislative body of power until 93, there could be no talk.

                        it was ALREADY under construction
                        Quote: Essex62
                        And me it seemed You were looming in my sight of the "Kalash". No, not you, probably, but you are so counterproductive similar

                        with this, not to me, but to the profile one.

                        And I was not on your side, but on the side of the LAW.
                        October 3-4, 93, I consider the EBN's disgusting crime against Russia and the Russian people.
                      5. Essex62
                        Essex62 10 January 2022 11: 37
                        -1
                        Judging by the last point of the answer, a monarchist has a problem with logic. It's time to stop treading on the spot and walk in a circle. You have no arguments. Capitalism, with no legislatively formalized, private property and privatization was curtailed at times. If Rutskoi had prepared a little better and the counter did not receive technical superiority, at the decisive moment, to cut down, like you, forest and dig canals
                    2. d_averk
                      d_averk 11 January 2022 00: 06
                      -2
                      legitimate

                      Where did you come from this ???
              2. The comment was deleted.
            2. d_averk
              d_averk 11 January 2022 00: 03
              -1
              Licimers.

              And what kind of education is this?
      2. Doccor18
        Doccor18 5 January 2022 08: 58
        +16
        Quote: Olgovich
        and a huge number of enterprises are unprofitable.

        "Unprofitability" is so-so thing ... There are a lot of industries where there can be no great profitability. Fundamental science and space projects are completely unprofitable. Under capitalism, "profitability" is elevated to a cult, therefore, everything that was built by such a trade house after the Civil War and the Great Patriotic War is slowly dying ...
      3. paul3390
        paul3390 5 January 2022 09: 19
        +12
        a huge number of enterprises are unprofitable

        Even Comrade Stalin specifically for people like you explained - under socialism, profitability should be considered not on the scale of the enterprise, but on the scale of the industry, or even the whole country.

        Example: let's say a ball bearing factory. The cost price is 4 rubles, and it is given a ruble. Obviously - it is unprofitable by itself. But - how much will the rest of the enterprises receive from this, which receive cheap products? How many products will they be able to produce thanks to this? How many people and other businesses can buy it? That's the same ..

        And for you, liberals, everything would be just to inflate the price tag under the ceiling on everything. And don't give a damn about everything else. Just fill your own pocket. And this is - you try to call it a type of normal economy .. Ugh.
        1. Olgovich
          Olgovich 5 January 2022 10: 56
          -9
          Quote: paul3390
          Even Comrade Stalin specifically for people like you explained that under socialism, profitability should be considered not on the scale of the enterprise, but on the scale of the industry, or even the whole country.

          at least quote correctly, otherwise you distort the meaning completely. And he said this:
          “If we take profitability not from the point of view of individual enterprises or industries and not in terms of one year, but from the point of view of the entire national economy and in cut, say, 10-15 years, what would be the only correct approach to the question

          Here, in the context of 40 years from the point of view of the entire national economy in general, your "economy" has shown itself to be unprofitable, the result is coupons for elementary things, a wild commodity deficit, backwardness in the PT, scientific and technological revolution, ruin in the agricultural sector.
          Quote: paul3390
          Example: let's say a ball bearing factory. The cost price is 4 rubles, and it is given a ruble. Obviously - it is unprofitable by itself. But - how much will the rest of the enterprises receive from this, which receive cheap products? How many products will they be able to produce thanks to this? How many people and other businesses can buy it? That's the same ..

          The comrade did not say, but who PAYS, in the end, this an attraction of unprecedented generosity?

          I hope, inevitability payment by someone missing 3 rubles, no doubt? So yours could not pay for them.
        2. d_averk
          d_averk 11 January 2022 00: 13
          -1
          Obviously - it is unprofitable by itself. But - how much will the rest of the enterprises receive from this, which receive cheap products? How many products will they be able to produce thanks to this?

          You even have problems with the socialist economy.

          How many people and other businesses can buy it?

          Bearings should not be sold at a loss (and apparently subsidized from the budget), but dough so that people and enterprises have more money.
          And after - who needs - they will buy bearings for 4 rubles, and who does not need something else.

          Only education, medicine and, within certain limits, military men can be subsidized and unprofitable.
      4. Free wind
        Free wind 5 January 2022 12: 53
        +2
        In principle, it can be. There were a large number of projects in which billions were thrown in. let's say a dam across the Kara Bogaz Gol Strait. Which was built and immediately blew up.
    5. paul3390
      paul3390 5 January 2022 09: 13
      +17
      In-in .. But once it was - and so ..

      1. Kote Pan Kokhanka
        Kote Pan Kokhanka 5 January 2022 12: 39
        -5
        Quote: paul3390
        In-in .. But once it was - and so ..


        A 1959 Chinese poster depicts the American strategic bomber Valkyrie!
        Hmm, after that the PRC does not dare to call the country a "copier" !!! laughing
        1. paul3390
          paul3390 5 January 2022 12: 42
          +9
          And - what? We now, too, on the posters for the Victory Day, sometimes they will paint "Tiger", then the SS man in general .. Artists - they are like that ..

          Besides - you are not the fact that you are right. Here is the Valkyrie. The tail is different! Rather, it looks like our hundred square meters ..

          1. mat-vey
            mat-vey 5 January 2022 13: 26
            +1
            Beat ahead laughing .. I have a cat suffering from idleness, the same tries to go to the Internet lol
        2. mat-vey
          mat-vey 5 January 2022 13: 24
          +10
          Quote: Kote pane Kohanka
          A 1959 Chinese poster depicts the American Valkyrie strategic bomber

          It depicts some kind of abstract spacecraft that has nothing in common with the Valkyrie - at least the fact that the Valkyrie has two keels, well, and completely different proportions ..
          1. FIR FIR
            FIR FIR 5 January 2022 18: 52
            +3
            Quote: mat-vey
            Depicted is some kind of abstract spacecraft that has nothing in common with the "Valkyrie"

            Exactly!
        3. Old electrician
          Old electrician 5 January 2022 13: 44
          +6
          Kote pane Kohanka:
          A 1959 Chinese poster depicts the American strategic bomber Valkyrie!
          - gee-gee-gee!
          I won't go into details, but in the Chinese poster, the pre-aircraft has a T-shaped tail unit. This is typical for subsonic aircraft. Such an airplane as on the poster could not exist at all. It conflicts with the fundamentals of aerodynamics and flight dynamics.
          Valkyrie looks like this:

        4. Moore
          Moore 6 January 2022 07: 10
          +2
          Well, there is also the atomic icebreaker "Lenin" depicted ...
  2. yuriy55
    yuriy55 5 January 2022 06: 23
    +14
    ... the world was not overtaken, but in 1939 they went quite on a level with this very world, with England, the USA and Germany.

    Which allowed the USSR to prove its right to exist. Heavy, sometimes tragic, but not raising doubts about justice.
    They created it because it was necessary for the country. And the premiums were given to the defense industry and the accumulated funds.
    1. fa2998
      fa2998 5 January 2022 19: 35
      +2
      Actually, this phrase was in the head of Radar. But in the Battle of Britain, the British saw the Germans still over France and Belgium (200-300 km.), And sent their fighters. "- doubtful, attracted, but just a lie.
  3. Avior
    Avior 5 January 2022 06: 51
    +12
    The article, of course, looks patriotic, but the author in many cases, to be honest, pulled the facts.
    Yes, according to RS it was a priority, but after the defeat of the Jet Institute before the war, the work actually slowed down, and Katyusha, with all its hype in the media, turned out to be a weapon not so much effective as effective, due to the lack of tubular launchers and the rotation of shells in flight, as it was among the Germans and the allies, the accuracy was many times inferior, as was the consumption of shells to hit the target - the dispersal of Katyusha shells was hundreds of meters, especially in range, where the accuracy was almost up to a kilometer of deviation.
    As a result, after the war, when creating the MLRS, it was necessary to copy German and Western samples with tubular guides.
    The situation is similar with Tamir -1. The GAS existed, but a small number of ships were equipped with it, and its characteristics did not allow it to actually be used in a combat situation.
    Tamir-1 was used primarily on MO boats, but
    "Tamir-1" effectively operated at a boat speed of up to 3 knots, while the power plant of a small hunter could not provide a speed of less than 8 knots.

    Therefore, attempts to attack German submarines were made according to visual data.
    As a result, the main means of detecting submarines continued to be the human eye. So, in 1941-1942. in the Northern Fleet, only 5 out of 49 submarine attacks were carried out by anti-submarine ships according to hydroacoustics data.

    The situation began to change only with the growth of supplies of English Asdiks and Dragons via Land Liza, acquaintance with them also made it possible to debate the creation of domestic really combat-ready GAS. And so for all the positions given by the author - both for the radar, which were supplied in large quantities by Land Lisa, and the V-2 diesel engine, which had such a small resource that the transfer of tank units on their own along the front line led to the failure of materiel for a long time. before the fight and in other positions.
    1. Mountain shooter
      Mountain shooter 5 January 2022 07: 50
      +8
      Quote: Avior
      diesel V-2, which had such a small resource that the transfer of tank units on their own along the front line led to the failure of materiel long before the battle and in other positions.

      And as soon as our tanks reached Berlin? Probably on trailers and by train?
      There was a problem with the resource, but it was rather a problem of production, when the qualifications of the labor force fell "below the plinth," and the shortage of materials led to the need to use all sorts of replacements ... The author writes about the level of DEVELOPMENT.
      1. faiver
        faiver 5 January 2022 08: 37
        +14
        And as soon as our tanks reached Berlin?
        - having managed to increase the service life of diesels at the entrance of the Second World War, this is how we arrived. Avior is right, T-34s from 40s and 45s are somewhat different tanks, plus they learned how to fight, though they paid a considerable price for it ... hi
        1. Illanatol
          Illanatol 5 January 2022 09: 12
          +10
          Quote: faiver
          T-34 40th year and 45th are slightly different tanks.


          Was it different for our allies? And what about the enemy?
          The average German T-3 and the Panther are really different tanks. soldier
        2. Podvodnik
          Podvodnik 5 January 2022 16: 55
          -1
          plus learned to fight

          It seems that we knew how to fight. The problem, as my little life experience tells me, is different:
          In peacetime, careers are made by devotees who know how to clearly, and most importantly, report on time. Those who are able to do something and understands remain majors.
          And as thunder breaks out, some have a quieter voice and a crooked back. Yes, only time wasted. Until the "majors" moved forward, there was no sense.

          I recommend remembering the history of the Brest Fortress. Who was in charge of the defense there? Chief of the UR? General? colonel? lieutenant colonel? NO!
          just "major". And why? Where were all the Generals and the rest?
          Their commanding voice disappeared, their backs bent. And it became invisible somehow.

          The major took command, completed the task, and fought while the forces were there. And as they dried up, he was captured, and after his release from which his "thanks for not being shot at least"
          1. faiver
            faiver 5 January 2022 17: 13
            -1
            It seems that we knew how to fight
            - they did not know how, no one, in the 41st they drove through the entire cadre army. Neither Zhukov knew how, nor Timoshenko, nor Rokossovsky, nor the others. Who will listen to your smart and experienced major when decisions are made above? He will most likely at least be demoted, and after the introduction of a double command with the commissioners, they will be shot ...
            The Brest Fortress is an example when, due to the stupidity of the authorities who deployed so many troops hundreds of meters from the border, a feat of heroic defense turned out. Nobody denies the heroism and bravery of our people, but with the skill it was bad ... hi
            1. d_averk
              d_averk 11 January 2022 00: 16
              -1
              in the 41st they drove through the entire cadre army.

              Are right.
              Neither Zhukov knew how, nor Timoshenko, nor Rokossovsky, nor the others.

              Wrong.
        3. Essex62
          Essex62 6 January 2022 01: 26
          0
          They taught us how to fight. They taught for three years, mowing down army after army. And we knocked them out as best we could. And as a result, from the barbarosa that came to us, polished in battles, there were only miserable pieces left. What the Red Army had to deal with since 44 was in no way comparable to a flock of demonic invasion. Yesterday I watched the film "The Great War". It just hurts the ear, they didn’t have time there, they couldn’t, they didn’t reconnoitre the boilers, boilers. Why did they always have time and shoot more accurately?
      2. Constanty
        Constanty 5 January 2022 09: 25
        +10
        There was a problem with the resource, but it was rather a problem of production, when the qualifications of the labor force fell "below the plinth," and the shortage of materials led to the need to use all sorts of replacements ... The author writes about the level of DEVELOPMENT.


        It is worth taking a closer look at the history of the B-2 development.

        It was exactly the opposite of what you are writing. These were the first copies of the B-2, which were produced in peaceful conditions - in well-equipped (often with foreign machines) factories, with highly qualified personnel (taking into account, for example, the middle of the war). , had a tragically low service life. Only in the middle of the war did the engines reach the guaranteed service life, which was gradually increasing.

        The engine itself did not differ in exceptional parameters - average power from the engine size and the use of scarce aluminum (after the loss of factories in the west of the country, which were mainly supplied by LL).

        Only the post-war factories, which increased its power to 780-840 hp, showed the true development potential that it possessed - at present, experimental supercharged versions can even reach 1130 hp.

        Thus, it was an engine with a potential for development, which then could not be used to the full - not only because of the production conditions of wartime.
      3. Avior
        Avior 5 January 2022 11: 07
        +5
        We got it, of course. But at the same time, the T-34 became the most massive tank of the Second World War. It was not a good life to drive the number - problems with mobility, when it was difficult for the enemy to quickly and suddenly transfer to a certain sector of the front, as the same Germans practiced, and problems with motor resources forced to increase the number of tanks. The B-2 resource grew during the war, but in reality problems with a relatively small resource remained until the very end of the war. Not to mention the fact that the B-2 was originally created as an aircraft diesel, and only then became a tank engine, which led to the fact that its production required aluminum, which is necessary for aviation, and for a tank engine it was clearly an expensive overkill.
        It is also not entirely clear why the author calls the creation of a diesel engine high-tech.
        When Rudolph Diesel in the 19th century created the engine that received his name, based on the scientific theory developed by Sati Karno-cycle Karno, it was undoubtedly high-tech.
        And that is why the author considers the creation of a diesel engine in the 30-40s to be a high-tech one - it is not entirely clear from the article, diesel engines at that time were actively used in the world, including compact ones.
        1. Illanatol
          Illanatol 6 January 2022 08: 31
          +1
          Quote: Avior
          It was not a good life to drive the number - problems with mobility, when it was difficult for the enemy to quickly and suddenly transfer to a certain sector of the front, as the same Germans practiced, and problems with motor resources forced to increase the number of tanks.


          The German approach worked well in the first half of the Second World War. But after the Battle of Kursk, the Germans already had a problem plugging the gaps. In general, the stake on the mass character of armored vehicles turned out to be more correct.

          Quote: Avior
          Not to mention the fact that the B-2 was originally created as an aircraft diesel, and only then became a tank engine, which led to the fact that its production required aluminum, which is necessary for aviation, and for a tank engine it was clearly an expensive overkill.


          Aircraft engines were also installed on German tanks. As for aluminum - can you calculate for yourself how much less such tank engines needed to be produced in order to scrape together 1 (one) combat aircraft on the airframe?
          In short, it was not very critical.
          1. Avior
            Avior 6 January 2022 09: 31
            0
            Not critical, but in fact, aluminum in a tank engine is an expensive element. Saving weight from using it in a tank is pointless.
            Nobody says that a lot of tanks is bad, but in this case we are talking about high-tech, and not about the forced mass character.
            1. mat-vey
              mat-vey 7 January 2022 06: 04
              0
              Quote: Avior
              Saving weight from using it in a tank is pointless

              Have you counted the improvement in heat transfer? In a tank, this is not the last factor in the operation of the chassis ...
              1. Avior
                Avior 7 January 2022 10: 03
                +3
                Can you give examples where aluminum was used in a water-cooled engine block with a radiator to improve cooling rather than to reduce weight?
                1. mat-vey
                  mat-vey 7 January 2022 10: 05
                  -1
                  B-2 for example ...
                  1. Avior
                    Avior 7 January 2022 13: 33
                    +1
                    B-2 is basically an aircraft diesel, aluminum is used there to reduce weight. In a tank weighing 30 tons, this is not relevant.
                    hi
                    1. mat-vey
                      mat-vey 7 January 2022 13: 55
                      0
                      Nevertheless, in those assignments of 1931 KhPZ named after Komintern, the specific light weight was stipulated in those assignments ...
                      1. Avior
                        Avior 7 January 2022 15: 22
                        +1
                        Can you provide a link where to view the assignment?
                        Have the dimensions been agreed? So as a result, it did not fit across, I had to put it along.
                        Not to mention the fact that the tank version was made on the basis of an airplane, so the issue of using aluminum was resolved even before it came to tank use.
                      2. mat-vey
                        mat-vey 7 January 2022 15: 42
                        0
                        It seems that NN Melnikov "Diesel-Motor V-2. The Difficult Way of Creation (or Birth?) Of a Tank Engine"
                      3. Avior
                        Avior 7 January 2022 19: 52
                        +1
                        I did not find this requirement there.
                        In the article itself, the engine is rated very low - see page 78 above. It also indicates its aviation origin.
                        https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/dizel-motor-v-2-trudnyy-put-sozdaniya-sovetskogo-tankovogo-dvigatelya/viewer
                        The actual mileage of the reference tank during a real test at the test site, as indicated in the article, turned out to be 317 km, after which the engine failed.
                      4. mat-vey
                        mat-vey 8 January 2022 07: 15
                        0
                        Well then - E.A. Zubov. - Tank engines .... the diesel engine was originally developed as a universal for all types of equipment since 1931 (including tractors and light tanks) .... and only in 1935 was an aviation option proposed - as a "competitor" to the AN-1 Charomskoy ...
                      5. Avior
                        Avior 9 January 2022 12: 55
                        0
                        Yes. Zubov's work is about post-war engines.
                        So you send me the whole library to sort out.
                        The diesel engine was originally developed as a universal one for all types of equipment since 1931 (including tractors and light tanks) .... and only in 1935 an aviation option was proposed - as a "competitor" to the AN-1 of Charomsky ...

                        V-2 was developed on the basis of AD-1, created at the Ukrainian Aviation Diesel Institute (UNIADI) in Kharkov under the leadership of Professor Mayer, who previously worked at KhPZ.
                        It was from the AD-1 that the aluminum block of cylinders turned out to be in it.
                        To get acquainted with the work of UNIADI, a group of designers of the diesel department of KhPZ, including Vikhman, was sent. One set of documentation for the AD-1 diesel engine was transferred by the institute to the plant, and in 1937 the institute itself became part of the KhPZ to work on the diesel engine.
                        hi
                      6. mat-vey
                        mat-vey 9 January 2022 15: 15
                        0
                        Quote: Avior
                        It was from the AD-1 that the aluminum block of cylinders turned out to be in it.

                        There were only three prototypes and work on it was stopped when it became clear that CIAM had solved the problem of an aircraft diesel engine.
                        Quote: Avior
                        One set of documentation for the AD-1 diesel engine was transferred by the institute to the plant, and in 1937 the institute itself became part of the KhPZ to work on the diesel engine.

                        And at the KhPZ there was already a BD-14 ... "In the future, the work of the KhPZ on diesel topics was divided into two directions. The first was associated with the creation of a four-cylinder tractor diesel engine TD-16 with a capacity of 130 hp, the design of which was based on the previous models of gasoline and kerosene The second direction was aimed at developing a tank version of the BD-2 (the second version of a high-speed diesel engine), the project of which was based mainly on "aviation" solutions ... "The calculated parameters of the BD-2 exceeded the required ones: rated power 400 ... 420 hp at 1700 rpm, specific gravity about 1,5 kg / hp, specific fuel consumption 180 ... 194 g / hp · h. " the most advanced western ones had less indicative weight just because of the cast iron ...
                        "In 1934, a new replenishment of specialists arrived at the design bureau for high-speed diesels. Three design bureaus were organized in the diesel department of the plant, developing up to a dozen modifications of the BD-2 diesel engine (tank, ship, tractor, aviation):
                        BD-14 - compartment, 2-cylinder, 4-stroke;

                        BD-2 - 12-cylinder, 4-stroke, 2-valve;

                        BD-2-1 - 12-cylinder, 4-stroke, 4-valve;

                        18BD-3 - 18-cylinder, V-shaped, 4-stroke;

                        BD-32 - 1-cylinder, 2-stroke;

                        BD-35 - 12-cylinder, 2-stroke;

                        BD-2A - 12-cylinder supercharged aircraft;

                        6BD-3 - 6-cylinder, 4-stroke;

                        BDF-3 - 12-cylinder, 4-stroke, increased power;

                        TD-16 - 4-cylinder, 4-stroke, tractor. "So it was immediately planned to unify production for all types of diesel engines ..
                        And for the BD-2A aviation, the diesel engine began to be made later in 1935.
                      7. Avior
                        Avior 9 January 2022 16: 02
                        0

                        Work on AD-1 began in 1931, and all the developments with UNIADI were transferred to KhPZ.
                        Did you read your post yourself?
                        The second direction was aimed at developing a tank version of the BD-2 (the second version of a high-speed diesel engine), the project of which was based mainly on "aviation" solutions ...

                        About which I immediately wrote to you, and you all go on talking about nothing. They will not bother you.
                        hi
                      8. mat-vey
                        mat-vey 9 January 2022 16: 21
                        0
                        Quote: Avior
                        Did you read your post yourself?

                        Imagine - yes ...
                        Quote: Avior
                        And for the BD-2A aviation, the diesel engine began to be made later in 1935.

                        And I even read this ...
                        Quote: mat-vey
                        In 1934, a new replenishment of specialists arrived at the design bureau for high-speed diesels. In the diesel department of the plant, three design bureaus were organized, developing up to a dozen modifications of the BD-2 diesel engine (tank, ship, tractor, aviation):

                        And he even compared the dates ...
                        Although if, in your view, "aviation solutions" are an aluminum block and a crankcase ....
                      9. Avior
                        Avior 9 January 2022 16: 52
                        0
                        Including the aluminum block, as it was on the AD-1.
                        But not only. There were other aviation solutions - this, by the way, was one of the reasons for the problems of developing a diesel engine at enterprises that are not profiled for aviation - the approaches are different.
                        But don't get distracted. You argued that aluminum in the B-2 was used allegedly because of the improvement in cooling, and not because of the aviation origin of the diesel engine. I would like to see from you confirmation of this statement.
                        Threat
                        Quote: Avior
                        And for the BD-2A aviation, the diesel engine began to be made later in 1935.

                        And then your quote is fake, I did not write this, as you claim
                        hi
                      10. mat-vey
                        mat-vey 9 January 2022 16: 56
                        0
                        Quote: Avior
                        You stated that aluminum in B-2 was used allegedly due to improved cooling

                        AND FOR improved cooling and FOR
                        Quote: mat-vey
                        specific light weight

                        Quote: Avior
                        And then your quote is fake, I did not write this, as you claim

                        I wrote this, you can reread it, since the problem was divided into two
                        Quote: mat-vey
                        "Later on, the work of KhPZ on diesel topics was divided into two directions. The first was associated with the creation of a four-cylinder tractor diesel engine TD-16 with a capacity of 130 hp, the design of which was based on the previous models of gasoline and kerosene engines. The second direction was aimed at developing a tank version. BD-2 (the second version of a high-speed diesel engine),

                        This I repeated "my verbosity"
                      11. Avior
                        Avior 10 January 2022 14: 05
                        0
                        AND TO improve cooling

                        no need to talk in vain, provide confirmation of this statement.
                      12. mat-vey
                        mat-vey 11 January 2022 06: 12
                        0
                        thermal conductivity of aluminum at room temperature is about 236 W / (m deg)
                        thermal conductivity of cast iron at room temperature is about 42 W / (m · deg)
                      13. Avior
                        Avior 11 January 2022 08: 38
                        +1
                        The water-cooled engine is cooled by a radiator and thermostatically controlled. Maximum cooling is not required from the cylinder block, since the operating temperature of the B-2 engine is close to one hundred degrees Celsius, therefore, for normal operation, the engine needs to warm up - this is especially important in winter. The block shape does not imply cooling tasks, since the heat transfer area is relatively small.

                        So, do you have a quote that says that aluminum was used to improve cooling?
                      14. mat-vey
                        mat-vey 11 January 2022 13: 00
                        0
                        the thermal conductivity of aluminum is 4 times higher than that of cast iron. As a result, the engine with the aluminum block warms up faster and the volume of the cooling system can be reduced due to more efficient cooling and faster equalization of the block wall temperature.
                        Quote: Avior
                        So, do you have a quote that says that aluminum was used to improve cooling?

                        One more time "and to improve cooling" .. How many times will it be necessary to repeat that this is one of the areas that influenced the decision on the choice of material?
                        Well, and also the tank for which this diesel was originally developed weighed not "30 tons" as you stated, but only 11,5 tons and it was BT, the No. 0-ton T-34 appeared much later ... And it had to be written in characteristics of the aircraft engine previously installed on it ... Although you probably already read this from Zubov ...
                      15. Avior
                        Avior 11 January 2022 15: 08
                        0
                        Once again, who told you that the unit was optimized for better cooling?
                        Who told you that this is one of his tasks?
                        ... the material used for the manufacture of a cylinder block must have high mechanical strength, and the very structure of the walls must have sufficient rigidity ... malleable) cast iron. If weight reduction is required (transport engines), then the use of light aluminum or (less often) magnesium alloys can be justified (for vehicles with braking energy recovery, such as hybrid cars, weight reduction has less effect on fuel consumption). The most important thing is the maximum lightening of the cylinder block (and other parts) for piston aircraft engines, here the most high-alloy steels, light metals, and composites are economically justified.

                        How many times will it be necessary to repeat that this is one of the areas that influenced the decision on the choice of material?

                        you do not need to repeat it at all, you need to confirm with a link to such a solution.
                      16. mat-vey
                        mat-vey 12 January 2022 06: 10
                        0
                        Quote: Avior
                        Once again, who told you that the unit was optimized for better cooling?

                        Where was it about "optimized"?
                        Quote: Avior
                        you do not need to repeat it at all, you need to confirm with a link to such a solution.

                        ... "One of the requirements for the design of the BT-7 tank was the obligatory possibility of convenient placement in its MTO of three motors: M-5, M-17 and BD-2. The same requirements were imposed on the V-2 (BD-2) designs, but already with regard to the MTO of the T-28 and T-35 tanks. This aspect of the problem of tank engines is very important, because the dimensions of the engine largely determine not only the size of the tanks, but also its layout. "
                        If you are not aware of M-5 and M-17 aircraft engines and diesel should have replaced them in existing solutions - i.e. match as much as possible in all parameters ...
            2. Illanatol
              Illanatol 7 January 2022 09: 38
              -1
              Quote: Avior
              Saving weight from using it in a tank is pointless.


              Where did you get the idea that it was used for weight loss?
              If the scarce aluminum could be replaced with a cheaper and more affordable analogue, it would have been done, do not hesitate. The engineers of that time should not be considered idiots.
              1. Avior
                Avior 7 January 2022 10: 08
                0
                Took it from the fact that the V-2 was developed on the basis of a diesel engine, which was planned to be used for aviation, and then every kilogram counts.
                Initially, the engine was developed for use in aviation - on heavy bombers. This circumstance determined some design features of a diesel engine, uncharacteristic for engines of land vehicles.
      4. AUL
        AUL 5 January 2022 20: 03
        -4
        By the way, about B-2.
        The author is somewhat mistaken:
        Started from scratch: Yes, and that school was lost, everything was revived from the rubble. Nevertheless, in 1935, the engine began to be tested, and in 1939 it was accepted into service. Power will eventually be brought to 850 liters. With. Enemies and friends alike will admit that the engine was ahead of its time. It was given to the country hard, but it was given, the best diesel engine in the world at that time, and the heart of the legendary T-34.
        The V-2 is based on the Charomsky aviation diesel engine, which for a number of reasons did not go into aviation. Adapting it for installation on tanks (and in general on ground vehicles) was a very difficult task, but this task was solved! Therefore, talking about "starting from scratch" is not entirely correct!
    2. paul3390
      paul3390 5 January 2022 09: 24
      +2
      diesel V-2, which had such a small resource

      Of course - the engine was completely new, raw, not completely worked out .. Are many products like this, right off the bat, give out the required reliability?
    3. Old electrician
      Old electrician 5 January 2022 17: 13
      +4
      Avior (Sergey):
      The article, of course, looks patriotic, but the author in many cases, to be honest, pulled the facts.
      Yes, according to RS it was a priority, but after the defeat of the Jet Institute before the war, the work actually slowed down, and Katyusha, with all its hype in the media, turned out to be a weapon not so much effective as effective, due to the lack of tubular launchers and the rotation of shells in flight, as it was among the Germans and the allies, the accuracy was many times inferior, as was the consumption of shells to hit the target - the spread of Katyusha shells was hundreds of meters, especially in range, there the accuracy was almost up to a kilometer of deviation.
      - if not for the Stalinist repressions !!! Our motto forever and ever: Stalin, Beria, the GULAG and our unforgettable idol Alexander Itskhakovich Solzhenitsin!
      Multiple launch rocket systems only make sense if they are used on a massive scale. Therefore, the very first requirements for the use of new weapons - massiveness and surprise - were reflected in the Supreme Command Headquarters Directive No. 002490 on October 1, 1941.
      Massive use, in turn, requires the mass production of ammunition, i.e. not in wagons, but in dozens of trains. Thanks to the Stalinist high-tech, the USSR was able to build such a production, but the Germans and the "allies" did not. Quote:
      The jet engine of the M-13 projectile has a combustion chamber in which a powder propellant charge is placed in the form of seven cylindrical sticks with one axial channel. The outer diameter of the checkers is 40 mm, the channel diameter is 3 mm. Charge length - 550 mm.

      Those. In order for the Katyushas to be a mass weapon, it was necessary to make 7 powder bombs with a diameter of 40 mm and a length of 550 mm for each projectile. For one salvo of one installation of such checkers, 112 were already needed, etc. England was the trendsetter for the production of such checkers in the West. The checkers were hot formed on hydraulic presses. The height of such an installation (the only one in the whole of England) is a four-story building. She worked cyclically: filling the powder mass into the mold, heating up, squeezing out, filling the powder mass into the mold, heating up, squeezing out, etc. Calling such a production mass will not turn the tongue. According to the same principle, the Germans made powder bills. Accordingly, German intelligence was looking for similar installations on the territory of the USSR until 1942. She didn't find it, spat and resigned herself to her inability to unravel the secret of the Katyusha.
      The secret of the "Katyusha" was not at all in the composition of the gunpowder. Although I must say that the first German "Nebelwerfer 41" had jet engines on black powder - just a masterpiece of the gloomy German genius !!! The secret of the "Katyusha" was that Soviet powder bills for the M-13 were pressed with a screw press converted from a press for the production of pasta. If the British had a single installation for the production of checkers, then the number of Soviet installations for their production is incalculable - it could have been any pasta factory. The molding process on the screw press was continuous: the endless "pasta" crawling out of the press was cut into pieces of the desired length and voila! I don’t get into details - that was exactly what Stalin's high-tech was about.
      Avior (Sergey):
      Katyusha, for all its hype in the media, turned out to be a weapon not so much effective as effective - due to the lack of tubular launchers and the rotation of shells in flight, as was the case with the Germans and allies, the accuracy was many times inferior, as was the consumption of shells to defeat the target - expansion Katyusha's shells were hundreds of meters away
      - and how did we even get to Berlin ?! It just breaks down to tears!
      The 158,5-mm projectile "Nebelwerfer 41" was untwisted with powder gases. This increased firing accuracy and allowed the use of short tubular guides and a compact launcher. This is where the advantages end.
      Due to the impossibility of mass production of shells, this system, accordingly, could not be mass. Therefore, "Nebelwerfer 41" tried to repeat the capabilities of cannon artillery - rarely, but accurately shoot. Hence the not entirely successful attempt to improve the firing accuracy (the dispersion of the Nebelwerfer 41 shells still did not match the accuracy of the barrel artillery) and the artillery carriage. The disadvantage of this solution is that the spinning of the projectile reduced the engine thrust and, consequently, reduced the firing range and the mass of the explosive of the warhead. The first volley unmasked the installation. Due to the short firing range and the impossibility of a quick maneuver, the second volley, often, there was no one else to do.
      The classic Katyusha fired a volley of sixteen 132-mm M-13 rockets. The explosive mass of the projectile is 4,9 kg. Those. 78,4 kg in a salvo. The firing range is up to 8,4 km. After the volley, the Katyusha could instantly escape the response shelling on its car chassis.
      The Nebelwerfer 41 had 6 barrels. The mass of the warhead of a 158,5 mm projectile is 2,5 kg. The mass of the salvo is 15 kg, i.e. 5 times less than that of the "Katyusha" (thanks to the rotating projectile and tubular installation). The Germans pride themselves on being able to reload the Nebelwerfer 41 in 1,5 minutes at a maximum firing range of 6,9 km (less than most barreled mortars). Here is just a question: did they always have the opportunity for the second and subsequent volleys at such a firing range from a stationary installation?
      On increasing the effectiveness of shooting when spinning up shells. Quote:
      In 1943, a modernized version of the rocket was developed, which received the designation M-13-UK (improved accuracy). To increase the firing accuracy of the M-13-UK projectile, 12 tangentially located holes are made in the front centering thickening of the rocket part, through which, during the operation of the rocket engine, a part of the powder gases emerges, which drives the projectile into rotation. Although the range of the projectile decreased somewhat (from 8,4 to 7,9 km), improved accuracy led to a decrease in the dispersion area and to an increase in the density of fire by a factor of 3 in comparison with the M-13 projectiles.
      - but according to you, the Germans and the Allies were still better! This is not a dense scoop!
      1. Avior
        Avior 5 January 2022 19: 57
        -5
        Multiple launch rocket systems only make sense if they are used on a massive scale.

        With regard to Katyusha, this is exactly the case, due to the extremely low accuracy.
        What was forced to pull along with mass production.
        The same Americans used their T-34 MLRS in a completely different way - a protected tubular launcher based on a tank made it possible to deliver a quick massive strike at a fortified point from the closest possible distance, therefore, with much higher accuracy and much lower ammunition consumption, this did not require massive use.
        Katyusha was forced to be used from a fairly large distance, the shells had a low accuracy - therefore, a massive use with a large consumption of ammunition was required.
        During the war, it became clear that the consumption of expensive ammunition was unjustifiably high, they tried to make complex launchers that ensure rotation, which did not receive real use, and only in 1944, by complicating and increasing the cost of shells, they received the M-13-UK and ensured the rotation of the shells, which allowed to increase the accuracy from disgusting to just not very good, but the spread was still hundreds of meters.
        The post-war MLRS BM-14, RPU-14, and the BM-21 Grad, had nothing in common with Katyusha, we abandoned its schematic diagram and they were created according to German and Allied models.
        The Nebelwerfer 41 had 6 barrels.

        Panzerwerfer 42 had 10 barrels and was placed on a protected armored launcher. The T-34 Kaliopa had up to 90 barrels and was located on the base of the Sherman tank.
        hi
        1. Old electrician
          Old electrician 6 January 2022 03: 50
          +4
          Avior (Sergey):
          With regard to Katyusha, this is exactly the case, due to the extremely low accuracy.
          What was forced to pull along with mass production.
          The same Americans used their T-34 MLRS in a completely different way - a protected tubular launcher based on a tank made it possible to deliver a quick massive strike at a fortified point from the closest possible distance, therefore, with much higher accuracy and much lower ammunition consumption, this did not require massive use ...
          Katyusha was forced to be used from a fairly large distance, the shells had a low accuracy - therefore, a massive use with a large consumption of ammunition was required.
          - here it is the homespun truth of the war !!!
          An analogy to what you said could be such a pearl of a couch strategist: "Due to the extremely low accuracy of shooting, any machine gun is not suitable for Lobaev's sniper rifles, which forces them to fire in bursts and senseless mass production of cartridges."
          You will be surprised, but in military science there are such concepts as point and area targets.
          A point target is uniquely identified in space by three coordinates. This is, for example, a pillbox (fixed point target) or a tank (moving point target). Barrel artillery is an ideal tool for dealing with pinpoint targets.
          It is possible to define an area target with three coordinates only conditionally. An ideal area target, for example, is an infantry or cavalry column on the march. Shooting, for example, with cannonballs at such a target is extremely ineffective. Therefore, in barrel artillery, for work on areal targets, buckshot was first used, and then its more advanced version of shrapnel.
          The First World War showed that even the most primitive field fortifications rendered shrapnel useless. This became a barrel artillery crisis. A way out of it was found by the use of cluster munitions in aviation and MLRS.
          MLRS is the ideal tool for shooting at area targets. And vice versa. The use of MLRS for point targets can only be in two cases:
          1. Clinical nonsense of the command.
          2. The hopelessness of the situation. Type of shooting at planes with a pistol.
          The same Americans used their T-34 MLRS in a completely different way - a protected tubular launcher based on a tank made it possible to deliver a quick massive blow to a fortified point from the closest possible distance
          - I, like you, are also crazy about god-like Americans !!!
          However, the example you gave is a classic example of beating flies with a smartphone, not a newspaper. Production of the American T-34 began in February 1944. Their use was extremely sporadic. From the real results of using this system, there are only a few photographs of the T-34 salvoes in France and that's it. But these are god-like Americans who need to be sucked kissing in their coat !!!
          What I don’t understand is why you are so enthusiastic about using the 33 American T-1944 as an example? Back in 1941, the USSR produced as many as 123 BM-8-24 pieces based on the T-40 and T-60 light tanks. Compared to the BM-13, the only advantage of the BM-8-24 on the tank was its high maneuverability. Like the T-34 in 1944, the BM-8-24 in 1941-1942 were intended to work on pinpoint targets at short range. The idea did not justify itself and was abandoned. Nevertheless, this did not prevent the Americans from repeating it with the same "success" in 1944.
          The German analogue of the BM-8-24 was the German Panzerwerfer 42 (launched in 1943). However, despite the fact that "Panzerwerfer 42" was an obvious copy of the Soviet SRZO, you write about it with such enthusiasm as an object for everyone to follow. Alas! Throughout the war, the Germans produced as many as 300 (three hundred) such systems. Their use at the front can hardly be called even episodic. The reason is the inability of the Germans to organize the mass production of powder bombs and the senselessness of the very concept of firing SRZO at point targets. Due to the lack of any significant application results, in our memoirs "Panzerwerfer 42" is not mentioned by anyone, but these are the Germans you adore so much, and not a lousy scoop !!!
          In addition to the Panzerwerfer 42, the tracing of the Soviet BM-8-24 was a German 8 cm R. Sprgr with a caliber of 78 mm. In it, 48 rail guides for 78-mm missiles were installed on various chassis. And again, alas for the Germans! A scanty total of shells were fired for these installations. As I said, the mass production of rockets of any type was an unattainable dream for the Reich. Therefore, at the front, R.Sprgr was an African exotic. War elephant type. Nevertheless, fans of the Wehrmacht call as a bonus the fact that due to the turbo-spinning of the shells, their accuracy was higher than that of the BM-8-24. The scoop should be jealous of this black envy !!!
          Quote Avior (Sergey):
          The post-war MLRS BM-14, RPU-14, and the BM-21 Grad, had nothing in common with Katyusha, we abandoned its schematic diagram, and they were created according to German and Allied models.
          - Wow! By your categorical nature, you initially just rubbed me into powder! However, then I gathered from this powder into one pile and thought:
          1. The "Nebelwerfer 41" projectile had a rear-mounted warhead. In no Soviet SRZO and nowhere else in the world was such an arrangement used.
          2. The spinning of the Nebelwerfer 41 projectile was carried out by multiple oblique nozzles. The only one close to this German constructive solution is the Soviet M-13-UK 1943. However, only additional nozzles are oblique in it, which, due to the low consumption of the working fluid, reduced the maximum firing range by only 0,5 km. This scheme was never repeated in the USSR.
          The spinning of the Grad shells is carried out due to the screw groove in the tubular guide and engagement in this groove. Apparently, in order to ensure secrecy, a rumor was spread in the scoop that in the "Grad" the projectile was allegedly spun by oblique nozzles. Subsequently, it turned out that this is a myth. The Germans did not even have a hint of screw groove systems. Could you tell me what exactly and from what samples was borrowed from the Germans in the post-war Soviet SRZO?
          Quote:
          For a long time, no attention was paid to the development of multi-barreled rocket artillery in the United States; after the Second World War, work on the creation of such systems was practically not carried out. Therefore, already in the 1970s, the Americans faced a serious problem, the NATO armies had nothing to oppose to the Soviet Grad MLRS and Uragan MLRS, the latter was adopted by the Soviet Army in 1975 ...

          The question is: what exactly and from what NATO models was the Soviet post-war SRZO borrowed from the Americans, who did not design these systems until the 80s?
          1. Avior
            Avior 6 January 2022 09: 59
            -2
            You don't seem to notice the fundamental difference between tubular and rail guides, just like what the Soviet launchers became immediately after the war. Caliber 140 mm with tubular guides, including towed installations, which you criticized above from the Germans.
            However, your other arguments are also strained.
            It is possible to define an area target with three coordinates only conditionally. An ideal area target, for example, is an infantry or cavalry column on the march.

            And then you change the subject
            primitive field fortifications render shrapnel useless. This became a barrel artillery crisis. A way out of it was found by the use of cluster munitions in aviation and MLRS.

            Or do you not see the difference between the column on the march and the troops in the fortifications?
            And what will give you a volley at a column 15 meters wide, moving along the front line, if your shells have a scatter of several hundred meters in range? Only that most of the projectiles will not hit the target, so a large expense is needed to hit the target.
            The fact that MLRS is used for areal targets is obvious. Only who told you that this target will be strictly the area over which you have the dispersal of shells? Not to mention the fact that the density of the lesion in different areas will be completely different. Although from the side it looks very impressive - clouds of earth and dust in the air.
            So it is understandable why in 1944, more expensive, but rotating shells appeared at the front, in which you yourself draw a parallel with the German ones.
            The spinning of the Nebelwerfer 41 projectile was carried out by multiple oblique nozzles. The only one close to this German constructive solution is the Soviet M-13-UK 1943.

            MLRS is a weapon with its own niche of application.
      2. d_averk
        d_averk 11 January 2022 00: 23
        -1
        Massive use, in turn, requires the mass production of ammunition, i.e. not by carriages, but by dozens of trains. Thanks to the Stalinist hi-tech of the USSR

        Call a spade a spade with Lend-Lease Explosives.
  4. Constanty
    Constanty 5 January 2022 08: 28
    +17
    The funny thing is that the article is illustrated with a photograph of the cruiser project 26 bis, created on the basis of an Italian project purchased by the USSR. Likewise, the M-100, M-25 and other aircraft engines may even be tempted by the thesis that the legendary W-2 was also based on foreign designs (and I am not writing about Bosch instruments for this engine).
    The famous 45mm flour swatter is also a Rheinmetall licensed development.
    As for the radars, in fact they appeared in operation only as a result of supplies under Lend-Lease.

    Submarines of type "S" (formerly type "N" from German) ...

    Then there was the famous Tu-4 ...


    The USSR had tremendous achievements, but it must also be recognized that many types of weapons, if not for licenses and copying of foreign designs, would not have been created.
    1. viktortarianik
      viktortarianik 5 January 2022 09: 00
      +8
      It is the same with them. For this, intelligence worked, including industrial. Until recently, China simply copied, and now it supplies the whole world.
    2. mat-vey
      mat-vey 5 January 2022 13: 19
      -2
      Quote: Constanty
      if not for licenses and copying of foreign designs, they would not have been created.

      Are you sure? What gives you this confidence? Now, if you start to get acquainted with any sample of these "many types", then it turns out that there is no "copying" as such, there is a mixture of one's own scientific and technical developments with the deliberate use of elements of world achievements from various samples of advanced world technology ...
      That's just the TU-4, an exception confirming the rule ... The USSR had its own developments on long-range bombers, which were interrupted by the war. high-altitude bomber, based on pre-war work. production launch ...
      1. Constanty
        Constanty 5 January 2022 14: 14
        +1
        What gives me confidence?

        1) Italian cruisers of the "Confectionery" class - Soviet project 26 ("Kirov", melee with a full power plant from the cruiser "Eugenio do Savoia" - Soviet project 26bis. Similarly, Soviet destroyers of Project 7 are the creation of Italian designers.

        2.) Engines:
        - German BMW VI- Soviet M-17,
        - French Hispano-Suiza 12Ybrs - Soviet M-100 - M-103 - M-105,
        - American Wright R-1820-F3 - Soviet M-25 - M-62 - M-63 - M-82,
        - French Gnome-Rhône 9K Gnome-Rhône 14K - Soviet M-87 - M-88
        - English Bristol Jupiter - Soviet M-22
        If not for these foreign models, what Soviet aircraft engines would have been Yak-i, MiG-i or La?


        3.) Type C submarines were developed by order of the Soviet side by the German-Dutch design bureau IvS.

        4.) The Soviet 45-mm anti-tank gun was developed as a development of the 37-mm B-3 (5K) cannon arr. 1930 - a licensed version of the 3,7-cm PaK 35/36.

        76,2 mm anti-aircraft gun 3-K arr. 1931
        On August 28, 1930, an agreement was signed with the BYUTAST society (the front office of the Rheinmetall company) for the supply of prototypes and technology for the manufacture of guns to the USSR, including four 76,2-mm anti-aircraft guns of the Rheinmetall company.

        On August 28, 1930, the Rheinmetall's 7,5-cm cannon was in the testing phase. One sample was tested by Reyshver, the second - at the plant's testing range, and the latter had a barrel of 60 calibers, and not 55 calibers, like the first. Samples of guns delivered to the USSR had a caliber of 76,2 mm.

        85-mm anti-aircraft gun 52-K mod. 1939 was created by the method of imposing an 85-mm barrel on the carriage of a 76-mm 3K cannon

        Despite ideological differences, the USSR and the United States have long cooperated mutually beneficially. In 1928, the American industrial architect Albert Kahn and his colleagues were invited to the unrecognized Soviet Union (recognition will take place in 1933) to help industrialize the country.

        Kahn's specialists designed and adjusted the work of most of the giants of the Soviet industry, among which were tractor plants in Kharkov, Stalingrad, Chelyabinsk (they also produced tanks), foundries in Magnitogorsk and Sormovo. An automobile plant AZLK appeared in Moscow, and GAZ appeared in Gorky. The equipment was manufactured in the United States and delivered by ships to the destination, where, under the control of the Canovites, the plant assembled and began to produce products.

        In total, with the help of foreign companies, mainly American, which employed more than 200 thousand engineers and technicians, 30 factories and plants were built in the USSR in the XNUMXs.
        1. mat-vey
          mat-vey 5 January 2022 14: 25
          -1
          It's clear - you do not understand the meaning of the words "buy time" ....
          Quote: Constanty
          In total, with the help of foreign companies, mainly American, which employed more than 200 thousand engineers and technicians, 30 factories and plants were built in the USSR in the XNUMXs.

          Not with "help", but hired for good pay ...
          1. Constanty
            Constanty 5 January 2022 14: 41
            -1
            It is clear - you do not understand the meaning of the words "buy time".


            Without these foreign licenses and models, the USSR would have lost, because it would not have been able to independently build aviation before the start of the war. By purchasing a license and developing it, the USSR actually gained time - but talking about "Stalin's high technologies", forgetting who was their creator, is an exaggeration.

            Not with "help", but hired for good pay


            How does this change the fact that almost all Soviet aircraft engines were created according to foreign models? Yes, the USSR paid well for this - a fact - but it's hard to say that it was "Stalin's high-tech".
            1. mat-vey
              mat-vey 5 January 2022 14: 56
              -3
              Quote: Constanty
              How does this change the fact that almost all Soviet aircraft engines were created according to foreign models?

              It's very simple - you don't need to spend time developing and debugging technologies, just to understand this you need to know what technologies will be used and how to adapt them to the level of development of your country. And for this you need to know how it works and how to improve ... there was something to teach ... But just the engines were probably the weakest point - in the Republic of Ingushetia there was no school or production, despite the most advanced scientific theories (the same Boris Stechkin), with diesel engines at least that was from production from here and in -2.
              Quote: Constanty
              could not independently build aviation before the start of the war.

              everything was fine in aviation with high-tech, and there was a school and science, and there were no workers to implement this high-tech ... In the USSR, with high-tech, everything was fine - only personnel to do it in metal was sorely lacking ...
              Lyuka had her first RD before the war - the most hi-tech ... and what? And in the war, at the beginning, I had to bury it, evacuate and repair tanks ...
              1. Constanty
                Constanty 5 January 2022 15: 07
                +1
                It's very simple - you don't need to spend time developing and debugging technologies, just to understand this you need to know what technologies will be used and how to adapt them to the level of development of your country


                Full agreement - you just need to honestly mention the "ancestors" - the Italian company Ansaldo, the German-Dutch IvS, the German Rheinmetall, BMW, the French Gnome Rhome, Hispano Suiza, the American Wright, and not write in a style as if everything was the result of an entirely product of Soviet construction thought and Stalinist high technologies.
                1. mat-vey
                  mat-vey 5 January 2022 15: 14
                  -3
                  Quote: Constanty
                  you just need to honestly mention the "ancestors" - the Italian company Ansaldo, the German-Dutch IvS, the German Rheinmetall, BMW, the French Gnome Rhome, Hispano Suiza, the American Wright, and not write in a style that was entirely a product of Soviet construction thought and Stalin's high technologies.

                  But just this was not high-tech ... High-tech were night vision devices, missiles, jet engines, telecontrolled tanks and much more, but there was no personnel yet to launch all this into mass production ... But The developments and scientific and design personnel had already been raised (not enough, but the backbone and the school had already been created), therefore, there was this explosive post-war scientific and technical breakthrough that brought the USSR to an unprecedented level ..
                  1. Constanty
                    Constanty 5 January 2022 15: 21
                    -1
                    Rather, I will point out the captured German technology.
                    Zielgerät 1229 Vampir, Rockets A-4 (V-2)
                    staff also
                    Shopping again - Rolls-Royce RB.41 Nene and later "reverse technology" and Klimov VK-1
                    1. mat-vey
                      mat-vey 5 January 2022 15: 34
                      +2
                      Quote: Constanty
                      Zielgerat 1229 Vampir

                      Well, yes, and the Dudka complex of 1935 was abandoned by a time machine ...
                      Quote: Constanty
                      Rockets A-4

                      Well, yes Korolev and Chelomey and so on and so forth about missiles only from the Germans and learned, but immediately understood how it works and how to steer it ...
                      Quote: Constanty
                      Rolls-Royce RB.41

                      Well, yes, and now everyone is flying on the constructive scheme of the Cradle ... And he began to saw it back in the 30s ... but you know the war ...
                      1. Constanty
                        Constanty 5 January 2022 15: 41
                        -2
                        Well, yes Korolev and Chelomey and so on and so forth about missiles only from the Germans and learned, but immediately understood how it works and how to steer it


                        But the real effect of "their work" was the R-1 rocket (NATO code: SS-1A Scunner) - and surprisingly, it is an exact copy of the V-2.

                        ... However, on October 22, 1946, the NKVD arrested them along with their families and specialists in other fields of military equipment, and this group of five thousand people was deported deep into the USSR, where they were to continue their work under strict supervision. ... As a result, the German V-2 designers made significant contributions to both American and Soviet ballistic programs.
                      2. mat-vey
                        mat-vey 5 January 2022 15: 47
                        +1
                        Quote: Constanty
                        But the real effect of "their work" was the R-1 rocket (NATO code: SS-1A Scunner) - and surprisingly, it is an exact copy of the V-2.

                        Are you saying that without the Germans they would not have done anything?
                      3. Constanty
                        Constanty 5 January 2022 15: 50
                        +2
                        History does not know conventions - What they would have done is not known - it is known what they actually did and what they created was a former copy of a German rocket developed in the USSR with the participation of German engineers.
                      4. mat-vey
                        mat-vey 5 January 2022 15: 57
                        -2
                        Quote: Constanty
                        History knows no conventions - and what they created was a former copy of a German rocket, developed in the USSR with the participation of German engineers.

                        And what have the "conventions" to do with it .... Did they know how to make rockets, engines? Or is it all "German" engineers? more move on ...
                      5. mat-vey
                        mat-vey 5 January 2022 20: 49
                        -1
                        Quote: Constanty
                        -What they would do is not known - it is known

                        By the way, it is quite known - in parallel with the "copy" (P-1), the P-3 was developed, it was she through the P-5 and "grew" to the P-7 ...
                      6. Constanty
                        Constanty 5 January 2022 22: 01
                        -2
                        It is not true - it is unknown - because no one knows what the consequences of Korolev and Chelomey would look like if it were not for the German achievements and R-1 - this is the difference between history and cause-and-effect sequence from alternative inventions.
                      7. mat-vey
                        mat-vey 6 January 2022 06: 22
                        -2
                        Quote: Constanty
                        It is not true - it is unknown - because no one knows what the consequences of Korolev and Chelomey would look like

                        What is not true? That with you no one is discussing "how the consequences of Korolev and Chelomey would look"?
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        Let me explain to you in very simple words, since you cannot understand this.

                        It doesn't matter how they looked - it is important that they would still be, even if the Americans cleaned up all German missile tracks and the USSR did not get even these pitiful crumbs from Germany's missile program - because the USSR created its own advanced scientific and technical base.
                      8. Illanatol
                        Illanatol 6 January 2022 08: 54
                        +3
                        German specialists were taken to the USSR and independently conducted parallel development of rocket technology. Stalin decided to play it safe. But the domestic options turned out to be more promising and the Germans were given the opportunity to return to their homeland.
                        And what about the Yankees? The Germans were not on the sidelines for them, their space program was ruled by Wernher von Braun, clearly not a native of Pennsylvania.
                        Even the shuttle project is, in fact, the implementation of his ideas; he dreamed of creating a space shuttle back in Germany.
                      9. ivan2022
                        ivan2022 6 January 2022 18: 52
                        +2
                        Class! In the modern world, even theft of competitors' technologies is a big plus for governments that care about development ... And if the technologies are trophy, it's just super!

                        It is a pity that we are so fond of plundering the wealth of their country, but they don’t even look at other people's technologies ... Perverted psyche .... They steal what they don’t need and don’t steal what they need.
                      10. mat-vey
                        mat-vey 6 January 2022 19: 24
                        -1
                        Quote: ivan2022
                        Class! In the modern world, even stealing the technologies of competitors is a big plus for governments that care about development ...

                        There, in principle, there could not be "technology theft" - the USSR outside could create an "exact copy" due to the lack of an exact copy of metallurgy, chemistry and other industries in Germany.
                      11. ivan2022
                        ivan2022 6 January 2022 23: 34
                        0
                        Quote: mat-vey
                        There, in principle, there could not be "technology theft" - the USSR outside could create an "exact copy" due to the lack of an exact copy of metallurgy, chemistry and other industries in Germany.

                        Metallurgy cannot be Soviet or anti-Soviet. As well as physics and chemistry and mathematics. A blast furnace or open-hearth furnace is also never Soviet or anti-Soviet.
                      12. mat-vey
                        mat-vey 7 January 2022 05: 42
                        0
                        Quote: ivan2022
                        Metallurgy cannot be Soviet or anti-Soviet.

                        This is how holidays work? Where was it about Soviet and Nazi metallurgy? Then, in simple phrases, different countries have different levels of development of metallurgy, chemistry, machine tool construction, etc., etc. In Germany at that time it was much higher than in The USSR - despite the same physics and chemistry for all mankind, but a different history for each country ...
                      13. Fedot
                        Fedot 10 January 2022 01: 56
                        0
                        Kostikov stole Katyusha and received a prize.
            2. Podvodnik
              Podvodnik 5 January 2022 17: 14
              +4
              but to talk about "Stalin's high technologies", forgetting who was their creator, is an exaggeration.

              You are both right and wrong at the same time.
              "Either we do it, or they will crush us" (c)
              In that situation, there was no choice.
              Technologies are not ours? It depends on how you look at it. Have you bought a license? So ours. But you can buy only pieces of paper, samples, machines. In your opinion, this is "technology"?
              The most important thing is people. They are the most expensive and difficult to prepare. You will not claim that you have bought people for factories, will you?

              You can donate NPP technology to the natives of the Amazon. So what? Will they be able to trade electricity soon?
              1. Constanty
                Constanty 5 January 2022 19: 09
                -2
                The most important thing is people. They are the most expensive and difficult to prepare. You will not claim that you have bought people for factories, will you?


                In the USSR, when buying machine tools and machine tools, a rather large group of instructors was hired - even here, on the BO, there was an article where in the comments there were photos of a black instructor from the United States working at Soviet factories.
                1. Illanatol
                  Illanatol 6 January 2022 08: 49
                  0
                  Athletes also have instructors and coaches. But records and medals are the merit of athletes.
                  And foreign specialists received a good salary, in their homeland they, often, could then only count on free soup from the Salvation Army.
                  1. Constanty
                    Constanty 6 January 2022 13: 25
                    -2
                    The situation is different with instructors in factories than with athletes. The factories used the purchased equipment, training Soviet workers, which allowed the USSR to create its own qualified personnel.

                    Of course, foreign instructors and consultants were paid well, and the same machines and machines were bought for a lot of money. Purchased, not produced in the USSR.
                    1. mat-vey
                      mat-vey 7 January 2022 05: 50
                      0
                      Quote: Constanty
                      The situation is different with instructors in factories than with athletes.

                      Really different, an athlete needs to develop and demonstrate skills given at birth, and to work on machines and machines, engaging in science and designing, design should be given to someone with a secondary education, and for someone already with a higher education. And this requires sheer nonsense - to build a system of secondary and higher education, and for one vocational education system.
                      1. d_averk
                        d_averk 11 January 2022 00: 31
                        0
                        , and for work on machine tools

                        need to give someone an average

                        Tell us in detail how at work on machines knowledge of history or, say, the solution of quadratic equations affected.
                        Here vocational education. was needed.
              2. d_averk
                d_averk 11 January 2022 00: 29
                -1
                But you can buy only pieces of paper, samples, machines. In your opinion, this is "technology"?

                So.
                The most important thing is people.

                Who will develop their technologies. And not on the "gradual development of the purchased".
        2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 5 January 2022 15: 26
          +5
          Quote: Constanty
          Italian cruisers of the "Confectionery" class - Soviet project 26 ("Kirov"

          Only other dimensions, a different theoretical drawing, a completely different reservation system, different artillery, other fire control devices ... But that's a copy, yes :)))

          Quote: Constanty
          The Soviet 45-mm anti-tank gun was developed as a development of the 37-mm B-3 (5K) cannon arr. 1930 - a licensed version of the 3,7-cm PaK 35/36.

          That is, the fact that the B-3 is 1930, and the 3,7-cm PaK 35/36 - as the name implies in 1935 - does not bother you at all?
          1. Constanty
            Constanty 5 January 2022 15: 31
            0
            That is, the fact that the B-3 is 1930, and the 3,7-cm PaK 35/36 - as the name implies in 1935 - does not bother you at all?


            3,7 cm PaK 36 (Panzerabwehrkanone 36) - German anti-tank gun, caliber 37 mm. Developed since 1925 at the Rheinmetall plant, it entered series production in 1928 as one of the most advanced anti-tank rifles in the world. Production was accelerated in 1933 and in 1936 it received the designation PaK 35/36.

            The Treaty of Versailles forbade Germany to have many types of weapons, so many markings were fictitious to suggest that they were still weapons from the First World War (eg Acht coma Acht ") or that they were created after 1935

            Ansaldo sold plans for modern cruisers of the Raimondo Montecuccoli class to the USSR. full power plant of the cruiser Eugenio di Savoia - In fact, Kirov is a completely Soviet project. lol
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk 5 January 2022 16: 04
              +5
              Quote: Constanty
              Developed since 1925 at the Rheinmetall plant, it entered series production in 1928

              And it went in this serial production as PaK 29. And PaK 35 / 36.- this is a slightly different story, for which the PaK 29 is just a prototype.
              Let me tell you a military secret - in those years, the USSR bought a lot of German equipment. Such ... nonsense sometimes turned out :)))) Because German samples were often inoperable and defective. And not all the samples purchased by us, the Germans themselves managed to bring to a sane state.
              So, in fact, the B-3 was really created on the basis of the German gun, but - on the basis of the PaK 29. It turned out to be something like that - and we and the Germans finished the design, as a result, the Germans came to the PaK 35/36, we - to the 53- TO. And these were already very significantly different artillery systems.


              Quote: Constanty
              Ansaldo sold plans for modern cruisers of the Raimondo Montecuccoli class to the USSR. full power plant of the cruiser Eugenio di Savoia - In fact, Kirov is a completely Soviet project.

              No, completely Italian :)))) Judging by your logic, Atlas-3 and Alas-5 are Russian-developed missiles, because we supply RD-180 rocket engines to them.
              Urgently inform the Americans about this - they are naive, they think that Atlas-3/5 is ULA, Lockheed Martin created laughing
              1. Constanty
                Constanty 5 January 2022 16: 20
                -2
                No - not entirely Italian - based on an Italian project
                What was completely Soviet at the time - the main artillery turned out to be unsuccessful - the extremely short service life of the barrels and low accuracy due to the too small distance between the barrels, the common box, etc.

                And what a little, we read when describing "Kirov".
                ...on the base



                Linear forces of the Soviet fleet
                Andrey Platonov

                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  Andrei from Chelyabinsk 5 January 2022 16: 40
                  +8
                  Quote: Constanty
                  No - not entirely Italian - based on an Italian project

                  Which left in "Kirov" ... What? :))))
                  Quote: Constanty
                  What was completely Soviet at the time - the main artillery was unsuccessful.

                  It was successful :)))) It became "unsuccessful" with the light hand of a number of Russian historians who could not analyze the tool.
                  Quote: Constanty
                  extremely short barrel life

                  There was no "very short deadline". The term was normal there. There was just a small nuance.
                  The overwhelming majority of naval artillery of those years had 3 types of charges - weakened, combat, and intensive-combat. The main one was, of course, combat. And with intensive combat, of course, the initial velocity of the projectile increased, but on the other hand, the barrel resource fell sharply.
                  So in the USSR they loved everything that had no analogues in the world. Therefore, in Soviet publications, the initial speed of a 180-mm projectile and its flight range were given specifically for an enhanced combat charge. Comparing them with the indicators of foreign guns, which were everywhere written for a conventional combat (not reinforced) charge, it turned out that our gun is much cooler. laughing
                  Well, then one of the historians got to the bottom of the barrel resource when firing with intensive combat (and even confusing, at first, the 180-mm guns of the Kirov with those that were put on the Krasny Kavkaz, that is, the previous model). And let's compare the resource of the barrel when firing intensively with combat with the resource of foreign guns firing with conventional combat ... wassat
                  And the essence is this. We did not have a supercannon with a caliber of 180 mm, we had a normal gun with the corresponding caliber of the TTX. And the wear of the barrel when firing with conventional combat was quite at the level of the same German artillery systems.
                  Quote: Constanty
                  and low accuracy due to too small distance between barrels, common stock

                  As a matter of fact, you have lost sight of the fact that stacking trunks in one cradle is an Italian and American practice that was NOT WELCOME to the RKKF. But at some point, ours discovered that it is possible to put 6 guns on a cruiser in normal towers, or 9 in single-arm towers. And we decided that an increase in the number of barrels would compensate for the shortcomings of a single cradle. ”By the way, the Americans had three-gun turrets on all dreadnoughts on all battleships. the same trouble, as with the resource - it was usually taken by “intense combat.” If you look at a normal charge, there is normal dispersion, even good.
                  Quote: Constanty
                  etc.

                  And Yi Te De there is such - that as soon as the need disappeared in accordance with the pre-war treaties that required the construction of light cruisers with 152-mm artillery, our sailors (immediately after the war) urgently demanded to replace 152-mm with 180-mm on all cruisers under construction and design. ... They even listened to them, but the question was that such a replacement would interfere with the strengthening of air defense. The air defense sailors considered it more important and, gritting their teeth, agreed to 152-mm
                  1. Constanty
                    Constanty 5 January 2022 16: 58
                    -2
                    Which left in "Kirov" ... What? :))))


                    I recommend the first words to your attention.

                    Not only complete plans and a complete engine room, but also "consultations" on how to make changes to the project.
                    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 5 January 2022 17: 12
                      +6
                      Quote: Constanty
                      Not only complete plans and a complete engine room, but also "consultations" on how to make changes to the project.

                      Agas. And I also bring to your attention that the turbines and boilers represented the Achilles heel of the Italian fleet, they SYSTEMATICALLY did not reach the passport indicators.
                      But the Soviet ones - they achieved :)))))
                      1. Constanty
                        Constanty 5 January 2022 18: 25
                        0
                        I would rather agree that the Soviet 180mm cannons were a better choice than the Italian 152 and 203mm cannons, because the Italians could count on their fingers throughout the war. laughing
                  2. Constanty
                    Constanty 6 January 2022 13: 51
                    -2
                    The overwhelming majority of naval artillery of those years had 3 types of charges - weakened, combat, and intensive-combat. The main one was, of course, combat. And with intensive combat, of course, the initial velocity of the projectile increased, but on the other hand, the barrel resource fell sharply.
                    So in the USSR they loved everything that had no analogues in the world. Therefore, in Soviet publications, the initial speed of a 180-mm projectile and its flight range were given specifically for an enhanced combat charge. Comparing them with the indicators of foreign guns, which were everywhere written for a conventional combat (not enhanced) charge, it turned out that our gun is much cooler laughing
                    Well, then one of the historians got to the bottom of the barrel resource when firing with intensive combat (and even confusing, at first, the 180-mm Kirov guns with those that were put on the Krasny Kavkaz, ie the previous model). And let's compare the resource of the barrel when firing intense combat with the resource of foreign guns firing conventional combat ... wassat


                    But in the description of the service life, the type of projectile is indicated. For example, Platonov
                    Although the developers planned to provide 200 rounds of barrel survivability, in reality it was 55 rounds of warhead and just 30 rounds of intensive combat... In fact, this meant that the ballistics of the guns changed significantly even in the course of one firing. Taking into account the fastened structure of the barrels, this forced to carry out regular, technically complex and expensive barrels replacement.


                    Of course, the guns themselves were modernized, the barrel design was changed - only that the Italian trace is again visible here.
                    Initially, all B-1 barrels were made fastened, but in June 1932, in order to receive technical assistance in the production of liners, an agreement was concluded with the Italian company Ansaldo. According to the agreement, Ansaldo manufactured and installed at Bolshevik an autofrettage unit for the manufacture of liners with a caliber of 76-203 mm.
                2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  Andrei from Chelyabinsk 5 January 2022 16: 42
                  +4
                  Quote: Constanty
                  ...on the base

                  You at least read your link :))))) "on the basis" :)))) There, according to your link, it is very well described what the Italian "central" was and what our DACs were. When you find something in common - write, we will discuss :))))
                  1. Constanty
                    Constanty 5 January 2022 17: 00
                    -3
                    Yes, they were different, but the starting point was the Italian buildings, which cannot be denied - of course, objective, and not "hurapatriots".
                    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 5 January 2022 17: 25
                      +6
                      Quote: Constanty
                      Yes, they were different, but the starting point was Italian buildings, which cannot be denied

                      Let me explain to you in very simple words, since you cannot understand this.
                      In the USSR, due to the loss of WWI, revolution and civil war, there was a large time gap in the design of warships, as well as their individual components and assemblies. When they undertook to restore all this, there was a fear that the world had already gone far ahead, and in many ways it was really so.
                      So, sometimes ours really copied, as in the case of the EHM of the Italian cruisers. But they did not copy it thoughtlessly - our "copies" turned out, in the end, much more reliable than the original. And sometimes they just took it "for information" in the sense that "we would have done it like this, but let's see how the Italians solved this problem." And purchased experience was not always used. That is why Kirov and the Italian cruisers on the basis of which it was created were VERY different, and Kirov should be considered predominantly Soviet development.
                      1. Constanty
                        Constanty 5 January 2022 19: 22
                        -4
                        Kirov and the Italian cruisers on the basis of which it was created were VERY different, and Kirov should be considered predominantly Soviet development.


                        Lada 2107 should be considered a predominantly Soviet development, after all, it is VERY different from the Italian car Fiat 124-Lada 2101 Zhiguli, on the basis of which it was created. laughing

                        Likewise, the PT-91 tank is a product of Polish design thought. Wait a minute, this is actually a modernized Soviet T-72M1, produced under license in Poland ...

                        And such examples could be given for so long
                      2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 5 January 2022 20: 00
                        +5
                        Quote: Constanty
                        Lada 2107 should be considered a predominantly Soviet development

                        (shrugging his shoulders) I substantiated the differences of the cruiser "Kirov". Can you substantiate the differences between the "XNUMX" and the Fiat? Or is the argument already over, but not steam yet?
                        Quote: Constanty
                        Likewise, the PT-91 tank is a product of Polish design thought. Wait, this is actually a modernized Soviet T-72M1,

                        Apparently - it is the last
                      3. Constanty
                        Constanty 5 January 2022 20: 11
                        0
                        Can you substantiate the differences between the "XNUMX" and the Fiat?


                        Engines, gearboxes, dimensions, weight:
                        - Fiat 124 - length 4042 mm, width 1626 mm, height 1416 mm, wheelbase 2420 mm, empty weight 755-1070 kg;
                        - Lada 2107 - 4145 mm, width 1620 mm, height 1446 mm, wheelbase 2424 mm, curb weight 1060 kg) Headlights, bumpers ...
                      4. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 5 January 2022 20: 15
                        0
                        Well, maybe it is. He is not a specialist in cars, so I don’t know how critical these changes are.
                      5. mat-vey
                        mat-vey 5 January 2022 20: 39
                        +3
                        Fiat already differed from a penny and dviglom, and brakes, and suspension, and body structure (with external similarity) ... development is spent .... and Fiat at that time had financial difficulties (like the United States in the 30s laughing ) so the Italians themselves grabbed this offer and the USSR also bargained for a "discount" ... Only now the USSR could have created its own similar car, albeit more expensive and longer, but Polsha most likely would not have pulled the whole cycle of creating a tank .. ...
                      6. Constanty
                        Constanty 6 January 2022 19: 10
                        0
                        Then Poland followed the same path - in 1967 it bought the Fiat 125/1300/1500 license. laughing

                        As for the tank, this was determined not only by the capabilities of the industry, but also by the need for the consent of the USSR authorities to such a move.
                      7. mat-vey
                        mat-vey 6 January 2022 19: 20
                        0
                        Quote: Constanty
                        Then Poland followed the same path - in 1967 it bought the Fiat 125/1300/1500 license.

                        And how did this affect the hi-tech of Tsirankevich?
                        Quote: Constanty
                        As for the tank, this was determined not only by the capabilities of the industry.

                        Well, where without the hand of Moscow ...
                      8. d_averk
                        d_averk 11 January 2022 00: 38
                        0
                        , but due to the fact that it turned out much cheaper than it is spent on development.

                        And then, in fact, they have not been spent for decades. Let's change the headlights, the dashboard (let's exaggerate a little) - hop, a new model.
              2. d_averk
                d_averk 11 January 2022 00: 34
                -1
                So, in fact, the B-3 was really created on the basis of the German gun

                Isn't that what it is?
                Let's consider as innovative not the finishing of foreign samples, but something completely new or developed "without a sample".
      2. Aviator_
        Aviator_ 5 January 2022 19: 35
        +4
        But by all estimates, copying the B-29 lagging behind him in terms of characteristics allowed him to win about two years, which outweighed the decision in his favor.
        Quite right. An atomic bomb carrier was urgently needed. It was not perfect, and dragging out time to create your own aircraft (it seems, Tu-85) was like death.
        1. mat-vey
          mat-vey 5 January 2022 19: 40
          -1
          Quote: Aviator_
          taking time to create your own aircraft (it seems, Tu-85) was like death.

          DVB-202 Myasishcheva.
          1. Aviator_
            Aviator_ 5 January 2022 20: 07
            +1
            DVB-202 Myasishcheva.

            It may well be that the 85th car was already made after the Tu-4.
            1. Alf
              Alf 5 January 2022 20: 46
              +1
              Quote: Aviator_
              DVB-202 Myasishcheva.

              It may well be that the 85th car was already made after the Tu-4.

              There was also the Tupolev 64 project, which he created before the Tu-4.
              1. mat-vey
                mat-vey 5 January 2022 20: 53
                0
                Myasishchev was puzzled by this "problem" back in 1939 ... there was also an experimental machine ...
                1. Aviator_
                  Aviator_ 5 January 2022 21: 22
                  +1
                  Myasishchev was puzzled by this "problem" back in 1939 ...

                  After the repair, both volumes of Shavrov lie far away, I cannot give a more reasoned answer. There were undoubtedly projects for long-range strategists - the Pe-8 needed to be replaced, but as always, the problems were in the dviguns, and the close war required, first of all, the aircraft of the battlefield.
                  1. mat-vey
                    mat-vey 5 January 2022 21: 25
                    +1
                    Quote: Aviator_
                    and the close war demanded, first of all, the aircraft of the battlefield.

                    And this not only concerned aviation ..
  5. Illanatol
    Illanatol 5 January 2022 09: 10
    +3
    Quote: Olgovich

    The 28th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union clearly summed up the result of progress; in the USSR material resources per unit products spent 2,5 times, than in developed countries, but a huge amountabout enterprises is unprofitable. And that's all with colossal losses of grain, cement, metal, oil, mineral fertilizers, timber and many other resources .
    the "effective" ones were great menajars., yes ...


    Nonsense. It's just that the CPSU was headed by "perestroika superintendents" who desperately needed to justify the implementation of "market reforms."
    Well, the expert economists who carried out such fake calculations clearly showed their "professionalism" when they were given the opportunity to steer in practice. Abalkin, Shatalin, Sobchak and other gop-company. They led us to real prosperity, yeah.
  6. Illanatol
    Illanatol 5 January 2022 09: 17
    +3
    Quote: aleksejkabanets
    And we will not see it, at least until the state corrects the situation with education.


    If a miracle happens and the state corrects the situation with education, then in a few years we will have another state and, accordingly, another "elite".
    Does the current elite need it?
  7. ban
    ban 5 January 2022 09: 43
    +1
    Yes, the author burns, as always.

    Nevertheless, in general, the USSR coped with it, both before the war and during, providing air defense with its radars

    Ask how many radars were produced, and how many were delivered under Lend-Lease - an order of magnitude more, if not two

    In 1940, the Tamir-1 GAS was put into service. Weak and without noise immunity, it operated at SKA speed up to 3 knots and at a distance of up to 5 cable

    And where was it installed?
    Until the ASDICs began to receive in commercial quantities, the main GA weapon of the submarine and the NK is the ShPS "Mars"

    They did not lead, among other things, because this issue was not vitally important for us. The USSR generally depended little on sea trade

    I didn't depend on northern convoys with Lend-Lease at all, yeah ...

    Well, there is a good series of articles about computers.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 5 January 2022 11: 36
      +9
      Quote: ban
      I didn't depend on northern convoys with Lend-Lease at all, yeah ...

      Well, strictly speaking, before the war, it was not so easy to imagine a situation that the British, risking their lives, would deliver American goods to us in the north ... it was not so easy :)))
      And so yes - a certain stretching of the owl takes place, but nevertheless the author rightly recalls that we had something too
      1. ban
        ban 5 January 2022 12: 37
        +1
        Well, strictly speaking, before the war, it was not so easy to imagine a situation that the British, risking their lives, would deliver American goods to us in the north ...

        In light of that ideology, that's for sure.
        However, in WWI it was about the same, but ... history teaches that it does not teach anything ...

        the author rightly recalls that we also had something

        But a little bit not about that ...

        I will add - okay communications, but having the largest submarine fleet in the world, not to lead in underwater weapons ?! And the result - the mountain gave birth to a mouse

        If I were the author, I would write, for example, about the IL-2, artillery, well, offhand
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 5 January 2022 13: 57
          +2
          Quote: ban
          In light of that ideology, that's for sure.

          Yes, there is no question of ideology, the USSR made tremendous efforts to revive the Entente, but was regularly sent both by France and England far and clearly ... Churchill on this topic strongly swore at the then British government. In these conditions, it was extremely difficult to count on the fact that the British and I would become allies.

          Quote: ban
          I will add - okay communications, but having the largest submarine fleet in the world, not to lead in underwater weapons ?!

          So the largest underwater - it was not built from a good life. In battleships and cruisers they could not, but they needed to protect the coast with something. So they built something on which at least somehow it was possible to fight. We have the entire submarine fleet of those years - coastal operations, not raider. Of the modern submarines that could conduct cruising operations - 6 type K, yes pieces 15 or 19 "C". The rest is either old stuff like Pravda, or Pike, which, apart from the role of a mobile mine bank, could not perform anything, or M, well, everything is clear and so. Only two dozen "Leninists" were parked separately, the boats were large, but special, for active mine laying.
          1. ban
            ban 5 January 2022 14: 21
            -3
            You shouldn't be talking about pike - you will be surprised that the most effective submarines in the Baltic turned out to be.

            The battleships and cruisers could not

            But why?
            Something could be ...
            The absence of a normal theory, the workers 'and peasants' supporters of the mosquito fleet, the Kronstadt mutiny, a lot of things came together.

            And type M boats ...
            It all depends on the commander, the crew, the tactics of use, the correct setting of the tasks, let's remember the successes of the German canoes

            Yes, and what prevented you from calculating the options that Chechill would come to power?
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk 5 January 2022 15: 04
              +6
              Quote: ban
              You shouldn't be talking about pike - you will be surprised that the most effective submarines in the Baltic turned out to be.

              Yuri, for one ship / ship sunk by a submarine, we paid for pikes - on average, with one boat of this type, but the same C - just over half. That is, the same "S" were significantly more successful.
              Quote: ban
              But why?
              Something could be ...

              Nothing was allowed. The pre-war USSR did not bathe in money at all. About 90 million rubles were spent on fifty M-type boats in the M VI and VI bis series - the price of one light cruiser. So this is only the ship itself, and for the construction of the same battleships it was necessary to invest hundreds of millions in shipbuilding.
              It was necessary to recreate literally everything - both new brands of armored steel, and master the production of modern turbines and boilers, and artillery, and another 1000 and 1 "trifle". Rebuild the slipways, for the construction of larger ships, carry out bottom dredging so that they can be lowered ...
              Quote: ban
              Lack of normal theory, workers 'and peasants' supporters of the mosquito fleet,

              No :)))) In these cases, the theory clearly followed the desires of those in power. When in the late 20s the sailors began to dream of line squadrons, for which there was no money or production at that time (the patrolmen built 500 tons for 5 years) they were "pushed" by the theory of the mosquito fleet. And Stalin was a supporter of the large fleet, he may not quite understand what he was for in wartime, but at least his political influence was correct. So, as soon as the economy began to allow, and Stalin said that it was time to take on large ships, battleships and heavy cruisers immediately "fit" into the "mosquito" theory of a concentrated strike :))))))
              Quote: ban
              And type M boats ...
              It all depends on the commander, crew, tactics of use

              It also depends on the materiel. And, alas, in this case there was nothing.
              Quote: ban
              Yes, and what prevented you from calculating the options that Chechill would come to power?

              It was possible to calculate the options, but to build your naval strategy on such calculations would be a little strange
              1. ban
                ban 5 January 2022 15: 57
                -1
                Andrey, are you familiar with the works of Morozov?

                Pikes claim about 40% in terms of quantity and 35% in terms of tonnage - more than other types of submarines ...
                It is no coincidence that the first victories at each of the Western theaters were achieved by the submarine type Sh ...
                The losses are quite impressive 31 out of 44 (70%). At all theaters, Ch. mines -23 became the cause, 5 more sank NK, 2 submarines and 1 aircraft ...
                ... we tend to rate them as one of the best types of owls. Submarines who took part in the war


                And so yes, according to the ratio of losses per sunk unit of the enemy, you are, of course, right))
                Just do not forget that most of the successes with both in the Baltic and in the North were achieved at the end of the war, when many of them got stuck
                Too big boats, that C, especially K for the shallow Baltic turned out to be. Well, something like this.

                And do not compare the VI series M with the XII, these are different ships, they were replicated after the war.

                The rest goes beyond the comments, your picture is too simple)))
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  Andrei from Chelyabinsk 5 January 2022 16: 22
                  +3
                  Quote: ban
                  Pikes claim about 40% in terms of quantity and 35% in terms of tonnage - more than other types of submarines ...

                  Yuri, I am not ready now to go into the nuances of calculating the effectiveness of the PL, but the data you provided can hardly be used as evidence.
                  44 pikes participated in the war, they claim 35-40% of all victories, "Esok" - almost one and a half times less, 30, but they claim 33-35% of all victories. To this you can argue that the Pikes were pulling on the initial period of the war, and I will answer that by the beginning of the war, almost all the pikes were on the move, and “the Eski entered service later ... And so on, and so on.
                  But the fact is that the "Sh" design was infinitely far from the optimal cruising submarine for operations on enemy communications.
                  Quote: ban
                  And do not compare the VI series M with the XII, these are different ships, they were replicated after the war.

                  Which, later, was recognized as sheer stupidity
                  1. ban
                    ban 5 January 2022 16: 28
                    -1
                    design "Sh" was infinitely far from the optimal cruising submarine for operations on enemy communications.

                    Andrey, depending on which theater.
                    When compared with the Atlantic and German sevens and nines)))
                    The Britons, by the way, had similar ships - S-class
                    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 5 January 2022 17: 09
                      +4
                      Quote: ban
                      Andrey, depending on which theater.

                      Yes, at least on some. The speed is significantly lower than the design speed, less than 12 knots. That is, catching up with transport is an impossible task. The noise of the mechanisms is a "gift to acoustics" category. Slowly submerged, slowly surfaced. The electric motors did not give out the required power, as they were more powerful than the batteries. The water autonomy for the batteries is 8 days, because they had to refill constantly, but there were no desalination plants. The horizontal rudders could sometimes jam up to 40 m depth. In terms of surface range, it is twice inferior to the "seven".
                      Quote: ban
                      The Britons, by the way, had similar ships - S-class

                      Which had a range twice that of Pike, and a speed of more than 14 knots.
                      1. ban
                        ban 5 January 2022 20: 30
                        -1
                        This is already catching fleas, no?
                        We have Pikes for which theater?
                        And our boats always made noise, even now))
                      2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 5 January 2022 21: 29
                        +4
                        The fact of the matter is that no. The same surface speed is the most important indicator for a submarine for cutting on communications. They sank most of the transports not with torpedoes, but with artillery. In free flight, they watched the transport, then caught up with it on the surface and genocidal. And the Pike could drown the transport only if he blindly jumped out at it, and then there was a chance to escape. And scanty autonomy is very bad
                      3. ban
                        ban 5 January 2022 22: 54
                        0
                        They sank most of the transports not with torpedoes, but with artillery.

                        In PMV, yeah)))
                        And in WWII? Andrey, I don't want to go into statistics now, 100% you are wrong, if you do not take the beginning of the war, remote theaters and all sorts of schooners)))
                        And so most of the TR in convoys went aha))
                        And if the autonomy is 2 times less than that of the Fritzes or Britons, isn't it enough for the Baltic?
                        Hopefully, the number has forgotten about the history of the K type boat, excuse me, you are familiar with the cruise for the winter 41/42 in the central Baltic!

                        And who could a 45-mm pike sink? Take an interest in the exploits of Ivantsov in the Soviet-Finnish))
                      4. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 6 January 2022 09: 42
                        +3
                        Quote: ban
                        In PMV, yeah)))
                        And in WWII?

                        Idem.
                        Quote: ban
                        Andrey, I don't want to go into statistics now, 100% you are wrong, if you do not take the beginning of the war, remote theaters and all sorts of schooners)))
                        And so most of the TR in convoys went aha))

                        Yuri, about 17% of transports during WWII crossed the Atlantic outside the convoy and outside the anti-submarine escort. In addition, the convoy was created at a certain point and disbanded at a certain point, often located at a considerable distance from the coast, so that the submarines often attacked the ships of the disbanded (or not formed) convoys.
                        Basically, there were 2 main attack patterns
                        1) Attack of convoys - here a flock (or single) of submarines detected a convoy, followed it, then, due to its superior speed, took a good position for an attack. None of this is available to "U" - it cannot because of its low speed.
                        2) Attack of a single transport. Here "U" had 3 problems. The first - all the same speed, she could not catch up with the transport. The second is a stupid main caliber, you can't fight a lot out of forty-fives (German sevens had 88-mm). The third is a very long dive time.
                        Here the fact is that a number of transports were equipped with artillery and could painfully "respond". The problem is that the submarine is a bad platform. So for the Germans, whose seven dived in 20 seconds, the rule was very simple. They approach a single transport on the surface, drown it with art (or under the threat of its use), and if the transport suddenly starts to snap - quickly under water and torpedo into the side.
                        So "U" here turned out to be completely helpless - neither to catch up with the transport, nor to inflict damage on it with our "fart", nor to dive quickly if it turned out to be armed.
                        About autonomy. I quote Doenitz's words about the "seven":
                        For its size, it had the highest possible combat power. With a displacement of only 500 tons (Washington calculation), four bow and one aft torpedo tubes, the boat could carry 12-14 torpedoes. The dive time was only 20 seconds, the boat behaved perfectly under water, and on the surface it had a fairly high speed - 16 knots. Her weakness was that she could only take 67 tons of fuel and had a short cruising range of 6200 miles.
                      5. ban
                        ban 6 January 2022 14: 20
                        0
                        They approach a single transport on the surface, drown it with art (or under the threat of its use), and if the transport suddenly starts to snap - quickly under water and torpedo into the side.

                        Andrey, well, read something about submarine warfare in WWII.
                        Offhand - in the summer of 42 after the dissolution of the PQ-17, did the Germans really drown single TRs with art?
                        Even those thrown by torpedoes finished off)))
                        In November 42, it was decided to dismantle the 88-mm from sevens, in part, especially training and operating in secondary theaters, remained until the end of the war. With nines, 105-mm was removed from the end of the 43rd.
                        Already in 42, the use of art became suicidal, well, something like that ... Because of aviation, of course))

                        Our specificity of application in closed theaters was completely different - the positions were cut for the boats, the convoy passes through the position - the boat attacks it from under the water. This is, if very simplified, there were exceptions, such as the attack of the century ...
                        And single transports - we usually came across neutrals, which were also drowned with pleasure.

                        Attack of convoys - here a flock (or single) submarines detected a convoy, followed it, then, due to their superior speed, took a good position for an attack

                        Not a flock, of course. The boats were deployed in a line, when one of them found the convoy, the rest pulled up.
                        But the tactics of attacking a convoy in a flock at the beginning and in the middle of the war were radically different (at the beginning of the war - at night on the surface, later - only from under the water).
                        And with the overlap of the gap over the Atlantic by ultra-long-range patrol aircraft, the appearance of a sufficient number of AVEs, overtaking the convoy on the surface turned into suicide, even at night.

                        Single Transport Attack

                        Again, from the middle of 42, it is very rare, if you do not take some of the South Atlantic or the Indian Ocean.
                        But the outcome of the Battle of the Atlantic was not decided there.

                        so that submarines often attacked ships of disbanded (or not formed) convoys.

                        Yes, it was, at the beginning of the war, and then even under the battle of the timpani at the end of 41 - beginning of 42 off the coast of the North. America.

                        Dead night, ink tone
                        Hatteras's tanker is sinking
                        Sad Roosevelt groans pitifully,
                        And I have a hundred thousand tons
                      6. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 6 January 2022 14: 31
                        +2
                        Quote: ban
                        Andrey, well, read something about submarine warfare in WWII.

                        Yuri, something tells me that I read about her a lot more than yours :))))
                        Quote: ban
                        In November 42, it was decided to dismantle the 88-mm from sevens, in part, especially training and operating in secondary theaters, remained until the end of the war. With nines, 105-mm was removed from the end of the 43rd.

                        Naturally. Because in this period, submarine warfare suffered a fiasco and submarines could no longer count on the effective use of artillery.
                        Yuri, please do not measure the issue under discussion in terms of the war of 43 and beyond. By that time, the allies' PLO had reached such values ​​that any effective independent actions of submarines on communications became simply impossible. If you focus on this level of confrontation, then the construction of the types "Sh", "S" and "K" is completely meaningless - the performance characteristics of the submarines had no effect on anything.
                      7. ban
                        ban 6 January 2022 14: 37
                        0
                        Yuri, something tells me that I read about her a lot more than yours

                        It is unlikely)))

                        The rest is correct.
                        Although after 43 the Germans sometimes achieved no success
                      8. d_averk
                        d_averk 11 January 2022 00: 57
                        -1
                        and Knight's Cross)
                      9. ban
                        ban 11 January 2022 03: 21
                        0
                        And Or GSS)))
          2. d_averk
            d_averk 11 January 2022 00: 54
            -1
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            it was regularly sent by both France and England far and distinctly.

            First of all, it was sent by Poland. The collapse of Czechoslovakia is 90% position of Poland and Romania.
  8. Knell wardenheart
    Knell wardenheart 5 January 2022 12: 38
    +1
    The development in the USSR was greatly ruined by the increased dependence of the success of developments on the correspondence to the PRESENTATIONS of the current government, so to speak, of its aggregate intellectual level.
    When the Kharkov atomic bomb project (albeit far from perfect) was brought to Stalin and Co. in 1940, they did not even grasp the prospects of this direction, they sent the authors into the forest, and more than once. Our pioneers of rocketry, who had to be carried on their hands and blown off the dust, were in general imprisoned by all, paralyzing an essentially completely advanced direction, instead of allocating money for it. To pierce a more or less breakthrough idea through the walls of low-intellectual politot, hitchhiking, denunciations and general paranoia was really outrageous work - and there were simply no commercial institutions that had the skill to more flexibly assess the potential for the profitability of certain developments in the USSR. This also limited the potential of its own proactive design work. The same K. Zuse in Germany in 1938 developed the first analog-electronic computer (Z1), developed and assembled it with his own money, on his own premises. Where would the conditional Zuse work like that in the USSR? Would I steal parts from the factory because they couldn't be bought? Would you assemble this 500-kilogram car in the kitchen in a communal apartment? He would have been raked in at the very beginning of work with all his ideas and would have been put into a fool or some kind of business would have been sewn up, and the story would have ended there.
    1. Region-25.rus
      Region-25.rus 5 January 2022 13: 23
      -1
      When the Kharkov atomic bomb project (albeit far from perfect) was brought to Stalin and Co. in 1940, they did not even grasp the prospects of this direction, they sent the authors into the forest, and more than once.
      and did the right thing! Or .. despite the fact that the project was
      (albeit far from perfect)
      in the USSR was debugged production for the extraction and enrichment of Uranium 235 in 238? The Nazis got carried away too, spent a lot of money and ......? The Americans over there in their Los Alamos pored over their Trinity for years. And then by the 45th they made only two charges, which are known as they were used. And they did not have it on the territory of the war and was not expected. Or uncles from
      low-intellectual politota
      hacked down the project purely for fun? Looked, did not understand anything (the scoops are all stupid) neighing and sent by the forest? So apparently you see? Well, fortunately, then people of the state mentality were in power and saw a little further than you from the couch. And they did the right thing. tanks, planes, guns and mortars were needed! And not "Something there may be in the distant future ...." The country was preparing for war!
      Our pioneers of rocketry, who had to be carried on their hands and blow off the dust from them, were in general imprisoned by all, paralyzing, in fact, a completely advanced direction, instead of allocating money for it.
      for the same reason. We gave development to projects that could be implemented "here and now. As efficiently as possible, massively and cheaper!" What was done in general! And fortunately, the management was smart enough not to get carried away with expensive "toys" with vague prospects. Unlike the Austrian underartist.
      denunciation and widespread paranoia was really outrageous work
      bloggers listened to? laughing "Kolyma - Homeland of Fear"? or Lyadov about Solovki?
      commercial institutions
      well tell me more "effective managers" wassat
      having skill
      estimate! There were no barbershops or rental scooters either! From chew!
      Our pioneers of rocketry, who had to be carried on their hands and blow off the dust from them, were in general imprisoned by all, paralyzing, in fact, a completely advanced direction, instead of allocating money for it.
      because it was necessary to do what the money was allocated for, and those tasks that were of strategic importance in the near future! And not with their Wishlist, on which the people's money was spent. Would give free rein to the engineers would be engaged in creativity for the soul, so to speak, and not create what the country needs.
      And by the way, these "sharazhki" were not prisons, but closed design bureaus. With strict access control and secrecy. Or was it necessary that the leading scientists and engineers one at a time poke out how the United States and Israel are now killing Iranian scientists involved in the nuclear program?
      He would have been raked in at the very beginning of work with all his ideas and would have been put into a fool or some kind of business would have been sewn up, and the story would have ended there.
      Oh yes! The USSR was a Mordor! Where any initiative was suppressed in the bud.
      Mm-hmm ... from cheesh nagazheno in the head of some. wassat Watch better comics or Transformers! Your level!
      1. Knell wardenheart
        Knell wardenheart 5 January 2022 13: 30
        +2
        Well, yes, the sharashki were closed by the design bureau, and Korolyov's jaw broke himself, because there they fed well and a lot ..
        Okay, I recognize the style of a person who spit in the eyes - all the dew of God. Why argue with someone for whom the facts and arguments of any plan will always be on the opposite side of its principle?
        1. Region-25.rus
          Region-25.rus 5 January 2022 13: 36
          0
          Okay, I recognize the style of a person who spit in the eyes - all the dew of God.
          are you talking about yourself? Well, do not care something like you know how in the comments on the internet)))
          Why argue with someone for whom the facts and arguments of any plan will always be on the opposite side of its principle?
          I have not seen a single fact or argument. Only the broadcast nonsense of the newly minted anti-Soviet from the Internet! Who do not understand anything at all! And their (their-whether?) Dummies and Wishlist are trying to pass off as the truth.
          his principle?
          these are not principles! This logic and critical thinking is called .. if that wink You have neither one nor the other. Why did I come to this conclusion? Well, chances are you are pretty young. And life (and especially the logic of people's behavior), in principle, do not know, judging by the rhetoric! So watch better comics from marvel! hi For your "arguments and facts" is excuse the level of maxim kats
          and Korolyov's jaw broke himself
          ok hot not "The Queen was broken jaws"But what? Did they break his jaw in a" little scam "? No, as far as I know. Or did he thunder on the Kolyma for nothing? Do you at least dig into the question, and do not read the" HYIP headlines. "Well, they caused some damage and ... .. Will you elevate particulars to the absolute? Ie, according to your logic, "all scientists and engineers were systematically and uncontrollably beaten, starved, and at the same time forced to work for free in prisons"? wassat laughing Well, as I already wrote, it doesn't smell like logic. I was also beaten, and I did it in response more than once in my life and ....? So what? Only getting stronger
        2. mat-vey
          mat-vey 5 January 2022 13: 53
          -3
          Quote: Knell Wardenheart
          , and Korolyov's jaw broke himself, because there they fed well and a lot ..

          Well, they just broke his jaw, others were simply shot at his "signals" ...
        3. DesToeR
          DesToeR 5 January 2022 17: 05
          +3
          Quote: Knell Wardenheart
          Well, yes, the sharashki were closed by the design bureau, and Korolyov's jaw broke himself, because there they fed well and a lot ..

          Oh tovarisch ... you should ask who, and most importantly, what methods "did" the Manhatton project. There, in particular, a town was being built, for the sake of which all the local "inhabitants" were simply raised and taken out. Without demand and all kinds of fashionable democratic debates. And yes, they wrote to you correctly about uranium. Ask how the Americans are fabulously lucky to get the necessary uranium in the required amount. There is no such uranium anywhere in the world today.
    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 5 January 2022 14: 07
      +3
      Quote: Knell Wardenheart
      The development in the USSR was greatly ruined by the increased dependence of the success of developments on the correspondence to the PRESENTATIONS of the current government, so to speak, of its aggregate intellectual level.

      Well, excuse me, it was only with them that they brought the general school school.
      Quote: Knell Wardenheart
      When the Kharkov atomic bomb project (albeit far from perfect) was brought to Stalin and Co. in 1940, they did not even grasp the prospects of this direction, they sent the authors into the forest, and more than once.

      Look at what happened then when Vissarionich tried to invest money in inventors and rationalizers, motivating them with market methods. In the same place, there were no frank crooks, and many normal teams began to work not for the country, but for their own pocket. A normal scientific school was just being created then ... Sharashki, they did not grow from scratch.
      1. Aviator_
        Aviator_ 5 January 2022 20: 03
        0
        Sharashki, they did not grow from scratch.

        The first sharashka was the creation of a 400-horsepower Liberty engine in the USA during WWI.
  9. Undecim
    Undecim 5 January 2022 15: 34
    +4

    In principle, in the 30s we went on breakthrough developments at the level of the advanced countries of the West.

    The author, giving out an article every day, no longer demonstrates superficiality, already ignorance.
    The presence of developments in the country on some topic does not mean that the country is "at the level" in this matter.
    The author is no longer an article, but leaflets sculpted in pursuit of quantity.
  10. Olgovich
    Olgovich 5 January 2022 16: 11
    -1
    Stalinist high-tech:
    Memorandum I.A. Akulova L.M. Kaganovich on the activities of design bureaus at the OGPU USSR with an appendix



    № 40689




    OGPU Collegium Secretariat


    Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks KAGANOVICH




    Design bureaus at the OGPU have been created and are working in Moscow, Leningrad, Zap. Siberia and Rostov-on-Don.

    Sending you a certificate about the work being done in these Bureau for review, I consider it necessary to emphasize that the Design Bureau includes

    Spies - 74 people.


    Terrorists - 9 "


    Leads. organiz. -98 "


    Saboteurs - 44
    "


    Active k / revolutionary. - 184 "


    It is quite natural that the release of the heads of the contracted organizations, spies, saboteurs and terrorists is not possible.

    Equally, 160 people cannot be released until the end of the investigation, in which cases have not yet been completed.

    Also, the overwhelming majority of the work will be completed in the first half of 1932, why the release of specialists at the moment is not particularly advisable, even more so when you consider that the overwhelming percentage of work is of a defense nature.

    .
    REFERENCE


    about the work of imprisoned specialists working in the Technical Department of the EKU OGPU.

    Special Design and Technical Bureaux (OKB, OTB) are concentrated in Moscow, Leningrad and Western Siberia.

    The work performed by the experts' conclusions is divided into design, production and literary.


    AVIATION

    The following works were carried out under the guidance of the imprisoned specialists:

    I. Built and put into service with the army "Fighter" I-5.

    The fighter is on a par with the best foreign models.

    II. An armored attack aircraft was built and put into service to destroy ground targets.

    The attack aircraft is armed with 12 mm machine guns and has the ability to replace 8 machine guns with 400 kg bombs.

    III. A heavy bomb carrier (TB-5) has been built and is being tested. The bomb carrier can lift up to 4000 kg of bombs.

    Under construction.

    Long-range sea reconnaissance. The aircraft shares wings with the TB-5 aircraft. The term of readiness is in the middle of October 1931.

    IV. Aircraft were designed and partially put into production according to the program taught by the UVVS.

    There are 26 engineers, including:


    Heads of organizations - 9 people *


    Spies - 8 people.


    Active members of organizations - 9 people

    In addition to airplanes, spies and saboteurs created: tanks, communications, diesel engines, artillery, submarines, energy, chemical industry, etc., etc.-see. AP RF F. 3. Op. 58. D. 142. L. 2–19. Typescript. Script.
    1. d_averk
      d_averk 11 January 2022 01: 00
      0
      useful what)
  11. Victor Shershnev
    Victor Shershnev 5 January 2022 17: 08
    +1
    I am sure that we, Russia, are not at all deprived of talents !!
    And we can well make inventions and discoveries, in a word, breakthroughs, at the most advanced level! That was proved more than once or twice.
    The trouble is that some kind of moral and ethical renegades, bandit rednecks and simply ignorant fools always come to power in our country - the worst thing among the people. "Those who take the bottom pot", as I say - they simply do not have enough intelligence for more.
    Which are worthy people, a healthy and responsible part of the people scrubbed with their shoulders.
    And our people are not able to resist this pack of wolves. For various reasons ... But the most important thing is culture!
    Correct article! Thanks!
  12. smaug78
    smaug78 5 January 2022 17: 11
    +1
    What kind of nonsense in all the paragraphs. I made it up myself, I proved it myself laughing
  13. Igor Tikhomirov
    Igor Tikhomirov 5 January 2022 18: 29
    +2
    There wasn’t enough hi-tech.
    At the level, with reservations, there was artillery.
    Small arms were at a high level. There were problems with machine guns, but by the end of the 1930s they were gradually being corrected.
    A real breakthrough was with a new line of tanks - light T-50, medium T-34, and heavy KV.
    Now about the sad things.
    There was a qualitative failure with all types of aviation technology. It happened due to the lack of modern aircraft engines and partly due to the return to wooden aircraft construction. Those engines that were produced before the war were the descendants of licensed Hispanic-suis (M-100, M-103, M105), Mistaley-majors (M-85, M-87, M-88), and Wright cyclones (M-25 , M-62, M-63) developed in the early 1930s.
    The radio communication facilities did not correspond to the times. Radar, when compared, for example, with England, was in its infancy.
    The hydroacoustics were also far from being up to par.
    In general, where there was high-tech, there was not everything as we would like. Although where did he come from so quickly (in 10 years). What has been done commands respect.
  14. exo
    exo 5 January 2022 19: 44
    +1
    The author should read at least the two-volume book "How the Soviet Union's Naval Power Was Created." Maybe there will be fewer illusions. And he will find out about ship radars. And about the domestic hydroacoustics and its effectiveness.
  15. Azis
    Azis 5 January 2022 20: 45
    0
    The author forgot to mention the notorious "galoshes". The USSR, by the way, exported them, especially the sharp-nosed ones, the so-called. "Asian" that were worn not over other shoes, but directly on the foot. They were also popular with Soviet climbers as rock shoes. They are still releasing!
  16. Illanatol
    Illanatol 6 January 2022 08: 39
    0
    Quote: Avior
    The post-war MLRS BM-14, RPU-14, and the BM-21 Grad, had nothing in common with Katyusha, we abandoned its schematic diagram and they were created according to German and Allied models.


    They had something in common with the Katyushas. The two approaches to stabilizing the MS: by feathering ("Katyusha") and by rotation (the Germans and the Allies) have their advantages and disadvantages.
    Katyusha has lower accuracy, but longer range.
    Foreign counterparts have greater accuracy, but a shorter range of destruction (which increases the vulnerability of the system). Part of the kinetic energy is spent on the rotation of the PC.
    In post-war domestic MLRS, both approaches are used. The PC is stabilized both by rotation (with a low rpm) and by the tail (the flaps are released after leaving the guides).
  17. Illanatol
    Illanatol 6 January 2022 08: 44
    +1
    Quote: ban
    I didn't depend on northern convoys with Lend-Lease at all, yeah ...


    And did anyone depend on the successful actions of the Red Army?
    Each contributed to the common Victory: some with metal, and some with their blood. Then the West was well aware of this, well aware of the possible consequences of the victory of the Reich over the USSR.
    So they did not do charity work, but saved, including their own skins.
  18. Lewww
    Lewww 6 January 2022 13: 22
    +1
    Nevertheless, in 1935 the engine began to be tested, and in 1939 it was put into service.
    This engine was developed by the designer NATI Charomsky, and in Kharkov it was only slightly modernized, "adjusting it to the tank."
    And the engines are not accepted for service.
    The article is chaotic like "from everywhere we go"
  19. nonsense
    nonsense 6 January 2022 15: 44
    -2
    fool Does the author really consider the B-2 series engines "the best diesel engine in the world at that time"? - not even funny! About all sorts of poor "Katyusha", SVT, etc. which the author also wrote down in high-tech I don’t even remember ... The School of Engineering - yes, in reality it was created practically from scratch. But it began to bear fruit mainly after Stalin ... At the same time, we do not forget that any product in the Soviet (and current Russian) military-industrial complex came out in gold. Those. this Soviet science categorically refused to count money from the very beginning.
  20. Lewww
    Lewww 6 January 2022 22: 34
    +1
    Quote: nespich
    the author really considers the engines of the B-2 series "the best diesel engine in the world at that time"
    well, he was really, if not the best, then one of the best at that moment and technically perfect in design
    1. nonsense
      nonsense 7 January 2022 14: 21
      0
      и what is is this his technical perfection expressed? - in the wild consumption of fuel and oil? in a scanty motor resource? using scarce aluminum for its production? - I do not agree with you ...
  21. Illanatol
    Illanatol 7 January 2022 09: 34
    +1
    Quote: Constanty
    The situation is different with instructors in factories than with athletes. The factories used the purchased equipment, training Soviet workers, which allowed the USSR to create its own qualified personnel.

    Of course, foreign instructors and consultants were paid well, and the same machines and machines were bought for a lot of money. Purchased, not produced in the USSR.


    No, not different.
    Only those who are capable of learning can be trained. You cannot create qualified personnel out of "mitrofanushek". And this is the merit of the Soviet system, which provided the proper basic level of education and the necessary motivation.
    Cadres decide everything.

    So what? Do you have something against foreign trade?
    In our time, there is not a single country that would produce the entire range of industrial products.

    For your information, the Yankees, too, at first learned from others and bought a lot. Like the Germans, French, Japanese. Trying to reinvent the wheel on your own when it has long been invented is a waste of time, effort and resources.
    Or are you a hidden Juche supporter? laughing
  22. Illanatol
    Illanatol 7 January 2022 09: 51
    +1
    Quote: Avior

    And what will give you a volley at a column 15 meters wide, moving along the front line, if your shells have a scatter of several hundred meters in range? Only that most of the projectiles will not hit the target, so a large expense is needed to hit the target.


    Will give a guaranteed defeat. As for the high consumption of ammunition - and the barrel artillery was also high.
    The factors of a nuclear explosion also do not act in the most rational way. Near the epicenter, they are clearly redundant, but weaken at a distance. But no one is in a hurry to give up nuclear weapons.
    Massive use of MLRS - allows you to solve problems similar to tactical nuclear weapons.

    The fact that MLRS is used for areal targets is obvious. Only who told you that this target will be strictly the area over which you have the dispersal of shells? Not to mention the fact that the density of the lesion in different areas will be completely different.


    It is not a separate installation that beats, but the battery. If the target is large-scale, it will fire as many volleys as needed.
    The density of the lesion will not vary much, according to the law of large numbers. The main damaging factor is the shock wave will cover the entire affected area.


    MLRS is a weapon with its own niche of application.


    Of course. They don't shoot at sparrows from a cannon. This niche exists and such a weapon is really in demand.
    1. mat-vey
      mat-vey 7 January 2022 10: 34
      0
      Quote: Illanatol
      MLRS is a weapon with its own niche of application.


      Of course. They don't shoot at sparrows from a cannon. This niche exists and such a weapon is really in demand.

      In artillery, there are no universal systems in principle laughing
      Quote: Illanatol
      And what will give you a volley at a column 15 meters wide, moving along the front line, if your shells have a scatter of several hundred meters in range? Only that most of the projectiles will not hit the target, so a large expense is needed to hit the target.


      Will give a guaranteed defeat. As for the high consumption of ammunition - and the barrel artillery was also high.

      In barrel artillery, the dispersion ellipse is not the same parameter, and the longer the range, the larger it is - so, yes, the consumption does not grow weakly ...
      And for the "Katyusha" they found a wonderful solution - the unit fired with a concentrated fan ...
  23. Illanatol
    Illanatol 7 January 2022 14: 03
    0
    Quote: Avior
    Took it from the fact that the V-2 was developed on the basis of a diesel engine, which was planned to be used for aviation, and then every kilogram counts.
    Initially, the engine was developed for use in aviation - on heavy bombers. This circumstance determined some design features of a diesel engine, uncharacteristic for engines of land vehicles.


    I repeat: if aluminum were not needed in the version of the engine for tanks, it would certainly be replaced with a more accessible and cheaper material.
    But, probably, in this particular case, aluminum had other advantages (which another opponent has already pointed out to you), so they left it.
  24. Illanatol
    Illanatol 7 January 2022 14: 05
    0
    Quote: mat-vey
    In artillery, there are no universal systems in principle


    They tried to create it, but, of course, it didn't work out (Tukhachevsky was running around with a similar idea).
    Yes, dedicated systems should be preferred. "Katyusha" is just an example of such a system, very successful.
    1. mat-vey
      mat-vey 7 January 2022 14: 21
      0
      Quote: Illanatol
      but of course it didn't work

      Well, that's right, how can it work out, then what can't be laughing
  25. Lewww
    Lewww 7 January 2022 14: 36
    +2
    Quote: nespich
    and how is this technical perfection expressed?
    it is expressed in its technical excellence.
    This was diesel engine
    a) V-shaped;
    b) high-speed (by the standards of the 30s);
    c) overhead valve;
    d) had 4 valves per cylinder;
    e) was completely light-alloy, i.e. had a high specific power (hp / kg);
    f) had a relatively low specific fuel consumption (g / 1 e.l.h.).

    If you know some similar diesel of approximately equal power with such design features, which was on military equipment of the 30s and early 40s, inform me, because I have not heard of such
  26. Aleksandr Ivanov
    Aleksandr Ivanov 7 January 2022 23: 15
    +1
    Yes, the ancestors did a lot: "He took the country with a plow, left it with a nuclear bomb." But many people miss it - a new generation of people was brought up for whom help to others and the spirit of collectivism are not just words, but their lives. And this was achieved by EDUCATION. Which did not drive in dogma, but, on the contrary, encouraged the search for something new.
  27. Whatman
    Whatman 11 January 2022 07: 18
    0
    Why do you think the B-2 was some kind of particularly progressive engine? Aviation diesel, yes, but in a tank, tractor or on a ship, all these breakthrough technologies rather interfered. His reliability and resource were rather unremarkable.
  28. Whatman
    Whatman 11 January 2022 07: 21
    0
    If you are interested in the technological breakthroughs of WWII, then they can be called:
    1. Nuclear Bomb
    2. Radar
    3. Remote fuse

    The third point, I think, will cause misunderstanding among many ...
  29. tolancop
    tolancop 11 January 2022 13: 46
    0
    Quote: Olgovich
    The 28th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union clearly summed up the result of progress; in the USSR material resources per unit of output were spent 2,5 times than in developed countries, and a huge number of enterprises are unprofitable. And all this - with colossal losses of grain, cement, metal, oil, mineral fertilizers, timber and many other resources.
    the "effective" ones were great menajars., yes ...

    And what did this congress state? Resource cost per unit of output? Maybe 2.5 times more in the USSR, only these figures are crafty ... Everything has already been described a long time ago: by definition, our costs will be higher ... the climate is cold, you can't do with light hangars for equipment, and capital construction is capital ... And these buildings need to be heated. And they got used to designing different things in the USSR with a margin, and this is not always good and not always bad. And there is also such a thing as a mobreserve. This is when it would be possible to get by with less equipment, but ... as a last resort, there is a stock of it ... And also some gizmos had to be created without considering any costs. ... And many of these "more" can be counted. Including I am not surprised by the figure 2.5 times and it has a rationale. But, in fairness, I can't help but notice that mismanagement took place.