Military Review

Terrible tandem

151
Place of Birth

It was the third year of the terrible war, and both sides were preparing for one of the key battles of the Second World War - the Battle of Kursk. Opponents prepared and searched for means capable of securing victory and crushing the enemy.

For the operation, the Germans concentrated a grouping of up to 50 divisions (of which 18 tank and motorized), 2 tank brigades, 3 separate tank battalions and 8 battalions of assault guns, totaling, according to Soviet sources, about 900 thousand people.

German troops received a certain amount of new equipment:
134 tank Pz.Kpfw.VI "Tiger" (14 more - commander tanks)
190 Pz.Kpfw.V "Panther" (11 also - evacuation and command)
90 assault guns Sd.Kfz. 184 Ferdinand. (There is an opinion that the indicated figures are underestimated).

The German command pinned high hopes on this new armored equipment and, without reason, tanks “Tiger” and “Panther”, self-propelled guns “Ferdinand”, despite the abundance of childhood diseases, were outstanding vehicles. Don't forget about 102 Pz.II, 809 Pz.III and 913 Pz.IV, 455 StuG III and 68 StuH (42-44% of all assault guns on the Eastern Front) plus ACS Marder III, Hummel, Nashorn, Wespe, Grille. Tanks Pz.III and Pz.IV were seriously upgraded.

For the sake of new arrivals of armored vehicles, the beginning of the “Citadel” was repeatedly postponed - the qualitative superiority of German tanks and self-propelled guns was the cornerstone on which the fateful plans for Germany were built. And for this there were all reasons - the German designers and industry have done everything possible.

The Soviet side was preparing for the battle. Intelligence played a major role in the upcoming battle, and 12 of April on the table of I. V. Stalin laid down the exact text translated from the German directive No. 6 “On the plan of Operation Citadel of the German High Command, endorsed by all Wehrmacht services, but not yet signed by A. Hitler who signed it only three days later. This allowed us to accurately predict the strength and direction of German strikes on the Kursk Bulge.

It was decided to conduct a defensive battle, exhaust the enemy's troops and defeat them, conducting counterattacks at the critical moment against the attackers. To this end, defense in depth was created on both faces of the Kursk salient. In total, 8 defensive lines were created. The average mining density in the direction of the expected enemy strikes was 1500 anti-tank and 1700 anti-personnel mines for each kilometer of the front. But there was one more weapon, who made a huge contribution to the victory of the Soviet troops and turned the IL-2 into a real legend of that war.

Terrible tandem


Asymmetric response

By the 3rd year of the war, German and Soviet tankers are accustomed to the relatively low efficiency of bombing attacks aviation.

Destroying German tanks with the help of Ilov at the beginning of the war was quite problematic. First, the effectiveness of 20-mm ShVAK guns against tank armor was low (23-millimeter, and then 37-millimeter aircraft cannons appeared on Ilah only in the second half of the Great Patriotic War).

Secondly, in order to destroy a tank by a bomb, it was necessary to have truly devilish luck. The crew was not a navigator, providing aiming, and the pilot's bomber sight was ineffective. IL-2 could attack either from low altitudes, or from a very flat dive, and the long nose of the plane elementally blocked the target from the pilot.

And thirdly, rockets - an analogue of those that the Katyushas fired, were not at all as good as Soviet military leaders used to tell. Even with a direct hit, the tank did not always break down, but for a missile to hit a separate target, again, that same devilish luck was required.

But in the middle of 1942, well-known developer of fuses, Larionov I.A., proposed the design of a light anti-tank aerial bomb of cumulative action. The command of the Air Force and personally I.V. Stalin showed interest in the implementation of the proposal. TsKB-22 quickly carried out design work, and tests of the new bomb began at the end of 1942.



The action of the anti-tank bomb was as follows: when hitting the tank's armor, a fuse triggered, which, through the tetrile detonator bomb, detonated the main charge of the explosive. The main charge had a funnel-shaped notch - a cumulative notch - on the bottom side vertically. Due to the presence of a funnel, a cumulative jet with a diameter of 1-3 mm and a speed of 12-15 km / s was formed at the moment of detonation. At the site of the impact of the jet with the armor, there was pressure up to 105 MPa (1000 atm). To enhance the impact, a metal thin cone was inserted into the cumulative funnel.

Melting at the time of the explosion, the metal served as a ram, increasing the impact on armor. The cumulative jet burned through armor (therefore, the first cumulative projectiles were called armored), hitting the crew, causing an explosion of ammunition, igniting the fuel. The manpower of the air bomb struck manpower and vulnerable equipment. The maximum armor piercing effect is achieved under the condition that at the time of the explosion the charge of the bomb is at a certain distance from the armor, which is called focal. The explosion of the cumulative charge at the focal length was ensured by the appropriate dimensions of the nose of the bomb.



Tests of cumulative air bombs were conducted from December 1942 to 21 on April 1943. Field tests showed that the penetration of armor up to 60 mm in thickness was reliably ensured at the meeting angle 30 °. The minimum height that provided the bomb alignment before meeting the tank's armor and the reliability of its operation was equal to 70 m. The final version was PTAB-2,5-1,5, i.e. anti-tank aerial bomb of cumulative action of mass 1,5 kg in dimensions 2,5-kg of aerial bomb. The State short-term bonds quickly decided to adopt PTAB-2,5-1,5 and organize its mass production. The People's Commissar for Ammunition Vannikov B.L. It was entrusted to manufacture 15 1943 X thousand. PTAB-800-2,5 aerial bombs with a ground fuse ADA for 1,5 in May. The order was carried out by more than 150 enterprises of various people's commissariats and departments.

That tandem PTAB-2,5-1,5 plus IL-2 was to become a real thunderstorm of armored vehicles.

It should be noted that only thanks to I.V. Stalin, the PTAB was adopted for service. Stalin in this case, proved himself as an outstanding military-technical specialist, and not only as a "satrap".

Application on the Kursk Bulge

And in the morning of July 5, the 1943 of the year began the German offensive.



Supreme Commander Stalin I.V. to achieve the effect of tactical surprise, it categorically forbade the use of the PTAB bombs until special permission was obtained. Their existence was kept in strict confidence. But as soon as the tank battles on the Kursk Bulge began, the bombs were used in massive quantities.



The first PTAB pilots used the 2 th guards and the 299 th assault aviation divisions of the 16 th BA 5 in July 1943, in the area of ​​Art. Malokharhangelsk-Yasnaya Polyana tanks and motorized infantry of the enemy conducted 10 attacks throughout the day, being subjected to bomb strikes using PTAB.

According to other data, for the first time new cumulative bombs PTAB-2,5-1,5 were used by pilots of the 61-th cap of the 291-th shade in the early morning of July 5. In the area of ​​Butovo "ilam" Art. Lieutenant Dobkevich was suddenly able to hit an enemy convoy for the enemy. Decreasing after leaving the attack, the crews clearly saw a lot of burning tanks and cars. On departure from the goal, the group also strayed from the stalking "Messerschmitts", one of whom was shot down in the area of ​​Sukho-Solotino, and the pilot was captured. The command of the compound decided to develop the emerging success: after the attack aircraft of the 61-th cap, a group of 241-th and 617-th regiments attacked, which did not allow the enemy to turn into battle formation. According to the reports of the pilots, they managed to destroy enemy tanks before 15.

The massive use of PTAB had the effect of tactical surprise and had a strong moral impact on the crews of enemy armored vehicles (besides the technology itself). In the first days of the battle, the Germans did not use dispersed marching and pre-battle formations, that is, on movement routes in columns, in concentration areas and in initial positions, for which they were punished - the PTAB expansion zone blocked the 2-3 tank remote from each other At a distance of 70-75 m and the efficiency was amazing (up to 6-8 tanks with 1-go). As a result, the losses reached significant sizes even in the absence of massive use of IL-2.

PTAB was used not only with the IL-2, but also with the Yak-9B fighter-bomber.


291 pilots Shad Colonel Vitruk A.N. 2-WA, using PTAB, destroyed and disabled during July 5 to German tanks 30. The 3 th and 9 th attack aircraft of the 17 VA air corps reported a defeat to the 90 units of the enemy’s armored vehicles on the battlefield and in the area of ​​crossings across the r. North Donets.

On the Oboyan direction 7 July, the Il-2 1 th-th 2-VA attack aircraft, supporting the 3-th Mechanical Corps of the 1-TA, in the period from 4.40 to 6.40 in the morning by two groups of 46 and 33 aircraft, supported by 66 fighters, and clusters of tanks in the area of ​​Syrtsevo-Yakovlevo, concentrated to attack in the direction of Red Dubrava (300-500 tanks) and Big Beacons (100 tanks). The strikes were crowned with success, the enemy was unable to break through the 2 th defense line of the 1 TA. The decryption of photographs of the battlefield on 13.15 showed the presence of more than 200 padded tanks and SPGs.

Probably the largest target that came under attack by the Soviet attack aircraft from 291 Shad was a column of tanks and vehicles (at least 400 units of equipment), which July 7 was moving along the Tomarovka - Cherkassky road. First eight IL-2 art. Lieutenant Baranov from a height of 200 - 300 and with two hits she dropped about 1600 anti-tank bombs, and then the attack was repeated by the other eight Il-2, slave ml. Lieutenant Golubev. On departure, our crews observed up to 20 burning tanks.

Recalling the events of July 7, S.I. Chernyshev, in those days, the commander of the 183 division, which was part of the second echelon of the Voronezh Front, noted: “A column of tanks, headed by Tigers, slowly moved in our direction, firing cannons. Projectiles with a howl swept through the air. My heart became anxious: there were already a lot of tanks. Involuntarily there was a question: do we hold the line? But our planes appeared in the air. Everyone breathed a sigh of relief. On a low-level flight, attack aircraft quickly rushed to the attack. Immediately caught fire five head tanks. Aircraft continued to go again and again on the target. The entire field in front of us was covered with black smoke. For the first time at such a close distance I had to observe the remarkable skill of our pilots. ”

The command of the Voronezh Front gave a positive assessment of the use of the PTAB. In his evening report to Stalin, General Vatutin noted: “Eight sludge bombed enemy tank clusters using new bombs. The bombing efficiency is good: the enemy’s 12 tanks immediately caught fire. ”

The same positive assessment of cumulative bombs is noted in the documents of the 2 Air Army, which show: “The flight personnel of attack aircraft, accustomed to operating on tanks with previously known bombs, enthusiastically respond to PTABs, each departure of attackers with PTABs is highly effective, and the enemy lost several destroyed and burned tanks.

According to the 2 VA military readings, during 7 July, the 291 shad alone was dropped on the enemy vehicles by 10 272 PTAB, and a day later 9727 of such bombs. They began to use anti-tank bombs and aviators 1-th shack, which, unlike their colleagues, inflicted strikes with large groups numbering 40 and more attack aircraft. According to the ground troops report, July 7 80 “silt” of V.G. Ryazanov to the Yakovlevo-Syrtsevo area helped repel the attack of four enemy enemy tank divisions, who were trying to develop an offensive against Red Dubrovka, the Big Mayachki.

It is necessary, however, to note that after a few days the German tankers switched exclusively to dispersed marching and combat formations. Naturally, this greatly complicated the management of tank units and subunits, increased the time they were deployed, concentrated and redeployed, and complicated the combat interaction. The effectiveness of IL-2 strikes using PTAB decreased by about 4-4,5 times, remaining on average 2-3 times higher than when using high-explosive and high-explosive fragmentation bombs.

In total, more than 500 thousand anti-tank bombs were spent in the operations of the Russian aviation on the Kursk Bulge ...

PTAB effectiveness

Enemy tanks continued to remain the main objective of the IL-2 throughout the defensive operation. Not surprisingly, on July 8, the headquarters of the 2 Air Army decided to test the effectiveness of the new cumulative bombs. The inspection was carried out by army staff officers who monitored the actions of the Il-2 unit from the 617 cap, led by the regimental commander, Major Lomovtsev. As a result of the first attack, the six attack aircraft from a height of 800 -600 m dropped PTABs to a cluster of German tanks, during the second an RSV volley was made, followed by a descent to 200 - 150m and shelling of the target with machine-gun and cannon fire. In total, our officers noted four powerful explosions and, prior to 15, burned enemy tanks.

The bomb-charging of the Il-2 attack aircraft consisted of up to 192 PTAB in 4-x cassettes for small bombs or up to 220 in bulk in 4-bomb compartments. When PTAB was dropped from an altitude of 200 m at a flight speed of 340-360 km / h, one bomb hit an average area of ​​15 sq. . This was enough to ensure the defeat (mostly irrevocably) of any Wehrmacht tank that had the misfortune of being in a strip of ruptures, since the area occupied by one tank is 15-190 sq.m.

With a kilogram weight of 2,5, the PTAB cumulative bomb punched in 70 mm armor. For comparison: the thickness of the roof "Tiger" - 28 mm, "Panther" - 16 mm.
A large number of bombs dropped from each attack aircraft almost simultaneously made it possible to most effectively hit armored targets at fuel filling sites, at the initial lines of attack, at ferries, while moving in columns, in general in places of concentration.

According to German data, having been subjected to several massive assault strikes in one day, the 3-I SS Panzer Division “Dead Head” in the area of ​​Big Beacons lost a total of 270 tanks, self-propelled guns and armored personnel carriers. The density of PTAB was such that more than 2000 direct hits of PTAB-2,5-1,5 were recorded.



A German tanker lieutenant captured showed during interrogation: “On July 6 at 5 hours of the morning in the Belgorod area, our group of tanks — there were at least a hundred — were attacked by Russian attack aircraft. The effect of their actions was unprecedented. During the very first attack, one group of attack aircraft shot down and burned 20 tanks. At the same time, another group attacked the motorized rifle battalion, which was resting on vehicles. Small-caliber bombs and shells rained down on our heads. 90 vehicles were burned and 120 people killed. For all the time of the war on the Eastern Front, I have not seen such a result of the actions of Russian aviation. There are not enough words to express all the power of this raid. ”

According to German statistics, in the Battle of Kursk about 80 percent of the T-VI “Tiger” tanks were hit by cumulative shells, such as artillery or bombs. The same goes for the Panther T-V tank. The bulk of the "Panther" failed due to fires, and not from artillery fire. On the very first day of the battles, according to various sources, burned from 128 to 160 "Panthers" from 240 (according to other data, about 440 units were concentrated). Five days later, the Germans left only the 41 Panther in the ranks.



German tank Pz.V "Panther", destroyed by attack aircraft in 10 km from Butovo. The entry of PTAB caused the detonation of ammunition. Belgorod Direction, July 1943

A study of the effectiveness of PTAB in tanks and self-propelled guns destroyed by our attack aircraft and abandoned by the enemy during its retreat shows that as a result of a direct hit to the tank (self-propelled gun), the latter is destroyed or incapacitated. Hitting a bomb in a tower or hull causes the tank to ignite or an explosion of its ammunition, leading, as a rule, to the complete destruction of the tank. At the same time PTAB-2,5-1,5 with the same success destroys light and heavy tanks.

Destroyed by attack aircraft anti-tank SU "Marder III"


SU "Marder III", PTAB got into the compartment, the upper part was blown up, the crew was destroyed


True, it is necessary to note one significant nuance: the main problem of defeat by cumulative ammunition was the fire in the tank that occurred after penetration of armor. But if this fire arose right on the battlefield, then the surviving crew members had no choice but to jump out of the tank and get away, otherwise our infantry would kill them. But if this fire arose after the air raid on the march or in its rear, then the surviving tankers were obliged to extinguish the fire, in case of fire the mechanic had to close the blinds of the power compartment, and the entire crew jumped out, shut the hatches and fill with foam of the fire extinguishers of the gap, that could get air into the tank. The fire went out. And in the “Panthers” in the power section there was an automatic fire extinguishing system, which, when the temperature rose above 120 °, filled the carburetors and fuel pumps with foam — places from which gasoline could flow out.

But the tank after such a fire needed repair of the engine and electrical wiring, but its chassis was intact and the tank could be easily towed to the collection sites of damaged equipment, the good thing is that in the Battle of Kursk the Germans created special engineering units for this purpose, moving behind the tank units collected and repaired padded equipment. Therefore, strictly speaking, the tanks lined with PTABs, our troops as trophies should have been taken in exceptional cases, such as the case in the First Drones.

For example, a special commission that examined military equipment in the region north of the 1 Ponyri and the height of 238,1 found that “out of 44 tanks killed and destroyed [by Soviet aviation] only five were victims of bombers (the result of a direct hit by FAB-100 or FAB-250) the rest are attack aircraft. On examination of the enemy’s tanks and assault guns, it was possible to determine that PTAB inflicted damage to the tank, after which it could not be restored. As a result of the fire, all the equipment is destroyed, the armor gets fired and loses its protective properties, and the explosion of ammunition completes the destruction of the tank ... "

There, on the battlefield in the Ponyri area, the German Ferdinand self-propelled gun destroyed by the PTAB was discovered. The bomb hit the left gas tank armor cover, burned 20-mm armor, destroyed the gas tank with a blast wave and ignited the gasoline. The fire destroyed all the equipment and exploded the ammunition.

The high effectiveness of the action of PTAB on armored vehicles received a completely unexpected confirmation. In the offensive zone of the 380 th brigade of the Bryansk Front in the area of ​​the village of Podmaslovo, our tank company accidentally came under the blow of its attack aircraft Il-2. As a result, one T-34 tank from a direct hit by PTAB was completely destroyed: it turned out to be broken "into several parts." The special commission that worked on the spot recorded "around the tank ... seven funnels, as well as ... counter plugs from PTAB-2,5-1,5.

All that remains of the tank T-34, destroyed as a result of the explosion of ammunition after it hit the PTAB. District D. Podmaslovo, Bryansky front, 1943 g


In general, the combat experience of the use of the PTAB showed that, on average, tank losses of up to 15% of the total number that were hit were achieved in cases where for every 10 — 20 tanks there was a detachment of forces around 3 — 5 of Il-2 groups (six machines in each group), which acted one after the other or two at a time.

Well, if we talk about efficiency, it is necessary to note the low cost and ease of production of PTAB itself, compared to the complexity and cost of its armored vehicles. The price of one tank Pz.Kpfw V "Panther" without weapons was 117 thousand Reichsmarks, PzIII cost 96 163, and "Tiger" -250 800 brands. I couldn’t find the exact cost of PTAB-2,5-1,5, but it cost ten times cheaper than the shells of the same weight. And we need to remember that, Guderian taught that a tactical novelty should be applied en masse, and this was done with the PTAB.

Unfortunately, the PTAB itself and in the use of the PTAB had disadvantages that reduce its effectiveness.

Thus, the PTAB fuse turned out to be very sensitive and worked when it hit the peaks and branches of trees and other light obstacles. At the same time, the armored vehicles standing beneath them were not surprised by what the German tankers actually began to use later, placing their tanks in dense forest or under sheds. As early as August, the use of the enemy to protect his tanks with the usual metal mesh stretched over the tank began to be noted in documents of parts and connections. When it entered the grid, PTAB was undermined, and a cumulative jet was formed at a great distance from the armor, without causing any damage to it.

The flaws in the small bombs of the Il-2 aircraft were flawed: there were cases of hanging the PTAB in the compartments and then dropping them off during landing and an explosion under the fuselage, which led to serious consequences. In addition, when loading bombs into each 78 cassette, according to the instruction manual, “the ends of the wings facing the tail of the aircraft sag from uneven positioning of cargo on them ... with a bad airfield ... separate bombs can fall out.”

Adopted laying bombs horizontally, forward stabilizer led to the fact that up to 20% bombs did not explode. Cases of airborne bombs, premature explosions due to stabilizer deformations, non-coagulation of windmills and other design defects have been reported. There were also tactical shortcomings, also "reducing the effectiveness of aircraft when operating on tanks."

The detachment of the forces of the airplanes with the PTAB for the strike against the concentration of tanks established by the reconnaissance was not always sufficient to reliably hit the target. This led to the need for repeated blows. But by this time the tanks had time to disperse - “hence a large expenditure of funds with minimal efficiency.”

Conclusion
That was the debut of the formidable tandem, it was not by chance that after the first days of the fighting, the German command ordered the Luftwaffe to concentrate all their efforts on the destruction of our attack aircraft, not paying attention to other targets. If we assume that the German tank forces were the main striking force of the Wehrmacht, it turns out that the contribution of attack aircraft to the victory on the Kursk Bulge is hard to overestimate.

And around this period of the war, the IL-2 got its nickname - "Schwarzer Tod (Black Death)".

But the real "high point" for Soviet aviation, including the IL-2, came during the operation "Bagration", when the aircraft worked with almost impunity.






In general, recalling the famous dialogue “Unfortunately, we seem to teach you how to fight! “And we will disaccustom you!”, It can be stated that our grandfathers turned out to be good students and first learned how to fight, and then wean the Germans to fight, I would like to hope that forever.

In the photo - the Ministry of Defense of Germany. On the first floor carpet on the floor. On the carpet aerial footage of Berlin in May 1945 of the year


http://www.veche.tver.ru
http://krieg.wallst.ru
http://ptab1943.narod.ru/
http://www.duel.ru/200642/?42_5_1
http://810-shap.org/
http://mil-history.livejournal.com/468573.html
http://dr-guillotin.livejournal.com/82649.html
http://vadimvswar.narod.ru/ALL_OUT/TiVOut0809/FlAPz/FlAPz045.htm
http://vn-parabellum.narod.ru/article/kursk_art_critics.htm
Author:
151 comment
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. grizzlir
    grizzlir 13 October 2012 08: 34
    +8
    PTAB A simple and effective weapon that was used until the end of the war. Later, anti-tank NURSs of cumulative action began to enter the armament of the attack aircraft. IL-2 or IL-10 armed with a 37mm cannon, PTABs and NURSs were a good anti-tank weapon that could destroy or permanently disable any tank fascists.
    1. crazyrom
      crazyrom 13 October 2012 18: 58
      +3
      Well done, they invented and applied in time, do not have the ethics of bombs, the outcome of the Kursk Bulge could be completely different. It’s interesting, and when did you come up with the same cumulative effect to use in the shells of the same T-34?
      1. avdkrd
        avdkrd 14 October 2012 03: 23
        +4
        with cumulative shells for rifled guns is a completely different story. There, the effect was not obvious for a long time, since the rotation of the projectile and the resulting centrifugal force did not allow the formation of the jet in the optimal focus. As far as I know, cumulative (armor-burning) shells began to arrive in Soviet troops in 44g, at least in large numbers.
  2. Lech e-mine
    Lech e-mine 13 October 2012 08: 38
    +6
    The dominance of AVIATION in the sky is a guaranteed success in the battle, which we recently observed both in IRAQ and LIVIA.
    1. crazyrom
      crazyrom 13 October 2012 19: 03
      -9
      I often watch this live: I play Battlefield 3: Armored Kill there almost everyone gets equipment, tanks, planes, helicopters. So, when I have time to grab our Tunguska, I start to wet all the aircraft of the enemy team, my team is rapidly moving forward and grabbing flags. And when some dumb noob grabs Tunguska, sits on the base and waits for something (does not participate in the game), our team is scared to get squeezed, because they get full freedom of 2 aircraft, Mi-28 and other turntables, they’re easy to wet equipment and soldiers also.
  3. Sakhalininsk
    Sakhalininsk 13 October 2012 10: 17
    +12
    As they say for every cunning foreign .ope, the inhabitants of our country have always exhibited no less cunning screw-shaped genitalia.
    And in fact, the one in whose hands dominates in the sky wins.
    1. Astrey
      Astrey 14 October 2012 16: 16
      +1
      The winner is the one in whose head the understanding of the situation, the prospects for its development and strategy are better. Do not find?
  4. Taratut
    Taratut 13 October 2012 11: 27
    -14
    What happened on the Kursk Bulge can be called a victory only in the sense that the Germans were not able to break through our defenses.
    Here is the truth about Kursk
    http://wordweb.ru/2009/10/20/prokhorovskoe-srazhenie.html
    Moreover, the authors are not "liberal" historians.
    V.N. Zamulin - the main specialist in the arc, L.N. Lopukhovsky - the main special in parts of the SS.
    1. Karlsonn
      Karlsonn 13 October 2012 12: 27
      +19
      Taratut
      and there is definitely the real truth? otherwise they’ve completely tortured crying , constantly reveals that the last time we were all deceived and the most secret and true TRUTH was hidden for ourselves ...
      1. Click-Klyak
        Click-Klyak 13 October 2012 16: 04
        +1
        And you read. If you find obvious inconsistencies, I will be glad to listen.

        Quote: Normal
        I read the book "Prokhorovka" by L. Lopukhovsky. I agree with his opinion. Nevertheless, we achieved our goals, but the Germans did not.

        This is exactly what I wrote. Only you pluses, and me cons.
        1. Karlsonn
          Karlsonn 13 October 2012 17: 00
          +15
          articulate your thoughts more clearly
          Quote: Taratut
          What happened on the Kursk Bulge can be called a victory only in the sense that the Germans were not able to break through our defenses.

          - What goals and objectives were set by the Germans when planning Operation Citadel, what was achieved?
          - What goals and objectives did the Headquarters set for itself and what was achieved?
          You say that the battle on the Kursk Bulge can be called a victory only ...., I say that the battle won can be called the goals and objectives that were achieved during its implementation; the tasks that the Headquarters and the General Staff set for the army were completed, respectively, the Red Army battle on the Kursk Bulge - won, without any, but, and so on, point.
          the fact that the course of the battle did not correspond to the original plan is a given; it does not happen otherwise.
          1. denis_redis
            denis_redis 14 October 2012 09: 21
            +2
            Absolutely agree!!!
    2. viruskvartirus
      13 October 2012 13: 34
      +13
      ))) But what is victory ... it was a DEFENSIVE operation, the task was to prevent the Germans from achieving their goals and destroying their main striking force ... and coped with the task. According to the amers who studied all the data very well ... the losses of the Germans in the Citadel in armored vehicles amounted to 190%, which indicates the effectiveness of the destruction of equipment on our side and the repair and evacuation units of the Germans on the other.
    3. Normal
      Normal 13 October 2012 13: 38
      +12
      Quote: Taratut
      What happened on the Kursk Bulge can be called a victory only in the sense that the Germans were not able to break through our defenses.

      The Germans were not able to achieve their goals (encirclement and defeat of the Soviet troops, capture of strategic initiative).
      We managed to achieve our goals (to prevent a breakthrough of the front, maintaining and developing a strategic initiative)
      So who is the winner? And the fact that in reality the situation was not the same as shown in the film "Kursk Bulge" of the cycle "Liberation" is a flaw in the film, and not the result of a battle.
      I read the book "Prokhorovka" by L. Lopukhovsky. I agree with his opinion. Nevertheless, we achieved our goals, but the Germans did not.
      1. Taratut
        Taratut 13 October 2012 21: 18
        -4
        The mistake of the German command was in the very fact of an attempt to break through the prepared layered defense where the strike was expected. The Germans did not use their trump cards - maneuver warfare. But the bike about the oncoming tank battle and a certain victory of the Soviet tankmen near Prokhorovka is nonsense.
        1. rumpeljschtizhen
          rumpeljschtizhen 13 October 2012 21: 50
          0
          prokhorovka is a legend which our fact was not defeated (on the Kursk) and more interestingly, the Germans didn’t have such large tank formations because they didn’t need to defend themselves) .but not tanks for tanks but normal..all army
          it's only children can reason whose tank is cooler .. the interaction of all the robots of the troops wins
          1. evgen762
            evgen762 14 October 2012 18: 42
            0
            July 14

            On a 12-km-wide site (from Rakovo-Berezovka-Novyankoye), the 332th and 3rd TDs pushed the 184th and 219th SDs, the 5th Guards and 10th TCs to 3km.

            On a 10 km wide site, the 31st military unit, the 309th SD and the 13th Guards SD squeezed the 11th TD by 0,5-1 km.

            MD SS "Reich" and the 7th TD attacked in opposite directions against the 183rd SD, the 81st Guards Rifle Division and the 2nd Guards Tank Corps in order to cut off the sack in the Shakhovo area and encircle four SD. MD SS "Reich" advanced in a section 6-7 km wide to a depth of 6-7 km, taking Belenikhino and Leski, the 7th TD advanced in a section 4 km wide to a depth of 2-3 km. The sack was not cut off - before the meeting in Shakhovo, the Germans still had about 5 km to go.

            On the site about 19 km wide, the 6th and 10th TDs advanced 3-4 km, displacing the 375th SD, 92nd Guards SD, 96th TBR, 11th and 12th MBR.
            July 13

            On the Oboyansk direction, the Germans fought to improve their positions. To the north of Kochetovka, in a 5-6 km wide area, the Totenkopf SS infantry divisions pushed the 66th and 97th Guards Rifle Division by 1-1,5 km. Several tanks "Totenkopf" broke into the state farm. Voroshilov (6 km north-west of Prokhorovka).

            In the Belgorod direction, the 168th SD displaced the 89th Guards SD from the Lipovy Donets – Sev. Ledge. Donets to Vistula - Sabynino, advancing 8 km. (according to the regiment. Glanza, this happened on July 12.) The 19th TD knocked out the 81st SD from Shchelokovo.

            Those. Hauser drew back only on July 18th.
        2. shasherin_pavel
          shasherin_pavel 13 October 2012 23: 34
          +2
          Quote: Taratut
          a certain victory of Soviet tankmen near Prokhorovka - nonsense.

          The oncoming tank battle was at the Prokhorovka station, and the shooting of our tanks, which modern historians love to savor at the Prokhorovka station. And this is a big difference. A stanitsa is a stanitsa, and a station is a railway station, and you shouldn't confuse bringing with a flea market. Yes, under the station Prokhorovka poor 85 or 87 S.P. got first from our atrillery, and then tanks attacked him almost from platforms. It was these tanks that were shot by the "Tigers" from an ambush, when, having dealt with the regiment, they went on the attack on the Germans.
          But the oncoming battle under the village of Prokhorovka with dirty hands cannot be grabbed!
          1. evgen762
            evgen762 14 October 2012 18: 42
            +1
            If at the battle of Ponyry there is a large photo album, then about the battle of Prokhorovka there is only a hysterical letter from Rotmistrov that everything was gone. And again, do not forget that a member of the bet at Vatutin was sitting grub that rewrites history at a time. And lastly:

            July 17

            At 3.30 Vatutin gave the order to com. 5th Guards TA, 5th Guards A and 69th A "to improve the defense." It was ordered that "tank units and subunits occupying defenses in front of rifle units should immediately be replaced by reinforced outposts and withdrawn behind the infantry."

            At 13.00, the 2nd SS TC received an order to withdraw its divisions to assembly points in the Belgorod area for subsequent dispatch to Italy (later only SS MD Leibstandart was sent to Italy, and Reich and Totenkopf were sent to the Mius Front).

            Thus ended the German operation "Citadel". Until July 23, the Germans withdrew their units to the line occupied on July 4, except for the area they retained north and east of Belgorod, about 40 km wide and up to 10 km deep. There, the front stabilized until August 3 - the beginning of the Soviet counteroffensive.

            July 16

            The Germans stopped the attacks and began to withdraw their troops. Intelligence of the Soviet troops did not find this.

            At 10.00 Vatutin gives the order to the com. 38th, 40th, 69th A and 5th, 6th, 7th Guards A to conduct a defensive operation. This order says that "the enemy has not yet renounced offensive actions", "the armies of the Voronezh Front must go over to a stubborn defense."

            July 15

            1st TA moved to the second echelon of the Voronezh Front.

            The 1st TA received an order to go on the defensive and prepare for the transfer of its sector to the 6th and 5th Guards A.

            Active hostilities were fought only in the 69th A and 5th Guards TA, in the area of ​​the Storozhevoe - Gostishchevo - Shipy salient. There MD SS "Reich", 7th and 19th TD, 167th and 168th Infantry Divisions continued to attempt to encircle four SDs.

            At 8.55 Vatutin issued order number 00105 com. 5th Guards TA and 69th A: "The enemy, due to the admitted carelessness of the commanders of the 5th Guards Tank and 69th Armies, by the morning of 15.7 took possession of Leski, Shakhovo, threatened the encirclement of 375, 93 and 89 RD 69th Army. " (There are incomprehensible moments here - if the Germans took Shakhovo, then four SDs were not under threat, but surrounded. And it is not clear why Vatutin did not list the 81st SD among the divisions in the bag.)

            In the same order, Vatutin ordered to seize and hold Shakhovo "with all the forces" of the 5th Guards TA and three SDs of the 69th A from the depths of the sack (again forgetting about the existence of the 81st SD there).

            However, at 24.00, Vatutin, in combat report No. 00228 to the Supreme Commander-in-Chief, reports that the 5th Guards TA defended at the former frontiers, and the troops of the 69th A reached a new defensive line.

            As a result, the bag was eliminated by the Germans, according to Soviet sources, four SDs left the encirclement (there is no information on how successful the strength of the squad was). The Germans entered the rear defense line from Storozhevoy to Shipov for about 18-20 km, advancing up to 24 km. This was the last advance of the Germans during the Battle of Kursk.
            1. alexdol
              alexdol 14 October 2012 21: 15
              +1
              evgen762 EN
              I don’t understand in any way, why all these arguments and calculations? It was a war and everyone could be wrong! And the winner is the one who made fewer mistakes! Now, sitting at the computer, it is easy to argue "if only if only"! We won the Battle of the Kursk Bulge and that's a FACT! And after a fight, as you know, they don't wave their fists ...
        3. Karlsonn
          Karlsonn 14 October 2012 06: 26
          +1
          Quote: Taratut
          German Command Error


          Yes, you are a strategist!
    4. wulf66
      wulf66 13 October 2012 17: 36
      +3
      Well, of course, the REAL truth is there, apparently the Russian troops did not win at all on the battlefields, but somehow they reached Berlin ...
      1. wasjasibirjac
        wasjasibirjac 14 October 2012 19: 40
        +2
        one must think that the valiant German troops were actively advancing, pursuing the Red Army troops retreating to the West
        1. Black Colonel
          Black Colonel 17 October 2012 15: 22
          +1
          Yeah, as in the reports of "Radio Liberty" from Afghanistan of the 80s - the mujahideen boldly advance in the direction of the mountains and greenery, and the Soviet troops are cowardly trailing behind them!
    5. rumpeljschtizhen
      rumpeljschtizhen 13 October 2012 18: 47
      +1
      and what are you minus. man ...
      normal link .. interesting info
    6. avdkrd
      avdkrd 14 October 2012 03: 40
      +2
      On the Kursk, the respected one, there was a turning point in the war. The fact that our troops suffered serious losses does not detract from the fact that a competent multi-level defense grind the elite of the German army. Our tank losses in numbers look terrible, but the potential of our tank troops was not affected, and the Germans could not recover until the end of the war. It is worth noting that the German latest tanks in 43 showed excellent anti-tank qualities, but in view of the monstrous laboriousness (low technology) of production, their losses were almost irreparable. The large losses in tanks on our part are mainly due to application errors. It was pretty stupid to throw T70 and T34 in a frontal attack against tigers and Ferdinand, on the contrary, when ambush tactics were used, even T70 were successful against much more modern Germans.
    7. rexby63
      rexby63 14 October 2012 13: 59
      +1
      So this is a victory - ours survived, but the Fritz did not pass.
    8. s1н7т
      s1н7т 14 October 2012 21: 11
      +1
      Um. We were deceived with the Kursk Bulge, and with the Battle of Stalingrad. Already about Zeelovskie heights I do not stutter ... So, maybe, with the results of World War II and World War II - too? laughing
      Shopipets, "historians"!
    9. borisst64
      borisst64 15 October 2012 17: 11
      +1
      History for Taratut:

      A girl I knew, a doctor, accompanied the patient to Germany for treatment and lived there for a couple of weeks. An old German in a wheelchair was eating with her at the dinner table. On the third day, he asked where she was from in Russia. She speaks good German, she said from the Belgorod region, he did not understand where it was. Then she explains - "Kursk Bulge" in Russian. Grandfather jerked in his wheelchair like a madman and she never saw him again. Apparently this German had an opinion about our victory in this battle back in 1943.
  5. Brother Sarych
    Brother Sarych 13 October 2012 11: 31
    -10
    Sometimes the question arises - if everything was so wonderful, then what did the Germans manage to almost break through? But they didn’t have enough strength to break through the defense from the southern front ...
    1. Karlsonn
      Karlsonn 13 October 2012 12: 32
      +4
      Lack of resident data, fallacy in assuming the German offensive sites, and most importantly, the number and composition of German troops.
    2. datur
      datur 13 October 2012 12: 36
      +10
      Brother Sarych, But after all, they had little strength to break through the defense from the southern front ---- but it was not enough !!!! laughing and ours had the courage and heroism to stop them and drive them to the west !!!!!! yes
      1. Karlsonn
        Karlsonn 13 October 2012 12: 53
        +2
        datur hi
        let me subscribe.
    3. viruskvartirus
      13 October 2012 13: 36
      +1
      And the answer is not simple ... the Germans were seriously preparing, very seriously.
    4. Normal
      Normal 13 October 2012 13: 57
      0
      Quote: Brother Sarich

      Sometimes the question arises - if everything was so wonderful, then what did the Germans almost break through

      Book "Prokhorovka" by L Lopukhovsky. There is an answer to your question, and not only that.
      And in the article, of course, there are many exaggerations. And it’s not possible to defeat the enemy with just one type of weapon.
      1. Brother Sarych
        Brother Sarych 13 October 2012 17: 35
        +1
        Your task is to advertise this book? Do you think that I have read little books about the Kursk Bulge?
        The question was rhetorical, the answer I already know ...
        Here I am talking about exaggeration in the article - and here super-duper-patriots put minuses to me ...
        1. Karlsonn
          Karlsonn 13 October 2012 17: 56
          +1
          You want a plus feel ?
        2. Normal
          Normal 13 October 2012 17: 58
          +2
          Quote: Brother Sarich

          Your task is to advertise this book? Do you think that I have read little books about the Kursk Bulge?

          Excuse me. but I don’t know what you know and what not. You asked a question, I naively cited a source where there is an answer.
          Quote: Brother Sarich
          The question was rhetorical, the answer I already know ...

          I apologize again, I didn’t understand.
          Quote: Brother Sarich
          Here I am talking about exaggeration in the article - and here super-duper-patriots put minuses to me ...

          Quote: Normal
          And the fact that in reality the situation was not the same as shown in the film "Kursk Bulge" of the cycle "Liberation" is a flaw in the film, and not the result of a battle.

          It always seemed to me that it's hard to call me a super-duper patriot. More often than not they call me liberoid and bog orange. laughing
      2. viruskvartirus
        18 October 2012 17: 47
        0
        Well, I didn’t say that only with the help of PTAB, but I talked about a significant contribution.
    5. shasherin_pavel
      shasherin_pavel 13 October 2012 23: 23
      0
      Quote: Brother Sarich
      But they didn’t have enough strength to break through the defense from the southern front ...

      The defensive lines went up to Kursk. The length of the trenches in the Battle of Kursk was equal to ten distances from the Earth to the Moon. Which ones almost broke through there? Artillery units took part in the Battle of Kursk, where the crews that had lost their guns during tank attacks earlier were transferred to other fronts, and the units were replenished with crews that had victories over German tanks. PTRovtsy learned to shoot from the side at the Tigers' guns. The Germans themselves complained in their memoirs that even Russian tanks could not be seen due to camouflage, as long as they did not open fire at 50-70 meters. And at this distance, even the 76 mm F-34 cannon pierced the Tiger's forehead, not to mention the sides. And all this stood in echelons to Kursk.
      1. Brother Sarych
        Brother Sarych 13 October 2012 23: 44
        +3
        For your information, the 5th Guards was dying almost in the open field! Almost all lines were broken ...
        1. max73
          max73 14 October 2012 15: 00
          +1
          Yes! The 5th Guards Tank Army was dying in the open! but! she was dying - on the offensive! read the story (memoirs, memories, etc.)
          1. max73
            max73 14 October 2012 15: 07
            0
            and not all borders were broken! The 1st Guards TA could have set at least half of the squad by then! plus front groups! there is a persistent feeling - that you are not in the subject !? in your case there is a saying - I heard a ring, but I don’t know where it is ...
            1. Brother Sarych
              Brother Sarych 14 October 2012 15: 41
              0
              That you are not in the subject, and it demonstrated ...
              For your information, I’m for ours, I’m not trying to find flaws in the relatively recent past, but I’m still for objectivity ...
          2. Brother Sarych
            Brother Sarych 14 October 2012 15: 39
            0
            Offensive in the former own rear? She counterattacked the erupted enemy ...
    6. lelikas
      lelikas 13 October 2012 23: 40
      +11
      Quote: Brother Sarich
      But they didn’t have enough strength to break through the defense from the southern front ...
      - The Germans didn’t have enough to win before the cold, they almost reached Moscow, they almost starved Peter, they almost broke through the Stalingrad cauldron, in short they all did a bit and lost.
      1. Brother Sarych
        Brother Sarych 13 October 2012 23: 45
        +2
        And the war consists of such a little bit ...
        1. s1н7т
          s1н7т 14 October 2012 21: 24
          0
          A lost war consists just a little of these. Because I won a little - it never happens " laughing
      2. wasjasibirjac
        wasjasibirjac 14 October 2012 19: 45
        0
        they made 100%, but theirs, German 100%, and they were not enough.
    7. max73
      max73 14 October 2012 15: 16
      -1
      people, that's what a shame! versions, blah, threw, the patch is the Germans did not break through ..... Kick! I answer: because the enemy was met - the Russian people! it's not about nationality ... just Russians .... and we, "Russians" - waited, prepared, that's why we won ... but not you, who are ready to question everything ...
    8. wasjasibirjac
      wasjasibirjac 14 October 2012 19: 41
      0
      it’s almost not considered, in the war or broke through the defense and went out into the open or bogged down
    9. s1н7т
      s1н7т 14 October 2012 21: 19
      0
      "A little bit" has nothing to do with history). Either they broke through or not. No? Let them graze. Ours won!
    10. Antistaks
      Antistaks 16 October 2012 00: 12
      0
      Because defense (if they are defending a field and not a narrow passage in the mountains) always loses the offensive.
  6. igordok
    igordok 13 October 2012 11: 36
    -1
    I doubt that the "riddled Tiger" in the photo is the result of PTAB action. From 200 meters away, PTAB will be able to work on the vertical armor of the tower. For "marders" use PTABs, as it is not serious, open deckhouse. And our T-34 looks like, apart from the ammunition, the fuel tank also exploded.

    PTAB has some kind of cumulative funnel small. But I'm not a specialist winked
    And already what time is it enough to read (hear) about molten metal in the action of cumulative ammunition. I agree that metal under the influence of tremendous pressure becomes very ductile, but never melts.
    1. wulf66
      wulf66 13 October 2012 17: 39
      +2
      "By" marders "to use PTABs, as it is not serious"
      Read the article carefully, PTABs used a "carpet", they did not aim at specific vehicles.
      1. igordok
        igordok 13 October 2012 22: 10
        0
        Quote: wulf66

        "By" marders "to use PTABs, as it is not serious"
        Read the article carefully, PTABs used a "carpet", they did not aim at specific vehicles.

        I myself understand. Just the photos are somehow not well presented. Nowhere are the traces of the PTAB clearly visible.
      2. Black Colonel
        Black Colonel 17 October 2012 15: 46
        0
        ...those. Carpet bombing was carried out in areas.
    2. VAF
      VAF 13 October 2012 23: 03
      +4
      Quote: igordok
      I doubt that the "riddled Tiger" in the photo is the result of PTAB action. From 200 meters away, PTAB will be able to work on the vertical armor of the tower. For "marders" use PTABs, as it is not serious, open deckhouse. And our T-34 looks like, apart from the ammunition, the fuel tank also exploded.


      In vain you doubt it. There is such a wonderful munition called RBC-500-SHOAB 0,5. This is a cassette in which there are 565 + - half-kilogram-caliber ball bombs with influxes, when the cartridge is opened at a height of 300-500 meters, the bombs spill out and due to the inflows they gain the necessary speed in a short time and the fuse blows and all this mass of steel balls flashes at a tremendous speed through the T-80, but about the rest like an armored personnel carrier, I don’t even want to talk, I hope everyone saw drushlak!


      The affected area is an ellipse of 500 meters for 1,5-2 km. It’s especially beautiful to watch at night ... dropped and turned over, so the blue flame flies on the ground.
      Well, if a couple or 4 pieces, then you can imagine!
      And notice .. no cumulative action .. one kinetic energy!



      And if you take the RBC-500 SPBE-D, then any of the most modern tanks to date will be completely destroyed!
      Armor breaks from 200 to 250 mm !!!!



      The Air Force still has a lot of "useful things" for tanks, the question is how to get them there? wink

      After all, the IBA ... was "reformed"!
      1. alex86
        alex86 13 October 2012 23: 17
        +2
        I don't quite understand - "0,5 kg bombs" are kinetic ammunition? Those. with a diameter of about 100 mm, a non-streamlined shape and a clearly subsonic speed of the main ammunition (cassette), does the roof of the tower and MTO break through? Or something I didn't understand? And another question - the photo shows that part of the ammunition is a thin structure (shell?). If possible, a little more detail, because it's very interesting ...
        1. VAF
          VAF 13 October 2012 23: 55
          +2
          Quote: alex86
          the streamlined form and clearly subsonic speed of the main ammunition (cartridge) breaks through the roof of the tower and MTO?


          Explain for a long time, so here is a photo of the bomb and, by the way. why not a streamline form? After all, it seems to be a ball ... round?

          But the fact that the yellow inside the bomb is explosive, so it’s not difficult to calculate what speed the damaging elements themselves will have (this is me on the topic of supersonic)! wink

          1. igor67
            igor67 13 October 2012 23: 59
            +2
            VAF,
            Greetings Sergey! But I have a question, I remember in my childhood an excavator dug up a 500kg German bomb, but then another question next to it a lot of small bombs were dug up, but from concrete, to save something?
            1. alex86
              alex86 14 October 2012 00: 19
              0
              I won’t say anything about small ones, but large-caliber bombs were made of concrete from us (though not very much). The fact is that with a large mass of explosives, the strength of the case ceases to matter, and I wanted to save metal.
              1. igor67
                igor67 14 October 2012 00: 25
                +1
                alex86,
                Thank you, although it seemed to me that they were completely concrete, German, it was more than 30 years ago. So I don’t remember exactly
            2. Kars
              Kars 14 October 2012 00: 23
              +1
              Quote: igor67
              but from concrete, to save something?

              to save money and not only steel --- but also to speed up production. Ours also experimented - but they did not show very results.
              1. igor67
                igor67 14 October 2012 00: 28
                +2
                Kars,
                So I think, at the expense of efficiency and quality, there were too many of them,
                1. Kars
                  Kars 14 October 2012 22: 00
                  0
                  Quote: igor67
                  there were too many of them,

                  Well, this is a claim to fuses and not concrete buildings.
            3. VAF
              VAF 14 October 2012 00: 32
              +3
              Quote: igor67
              but the question is something else nearby, then a lot of small bombs were dug up, but from concrete, to save something?


              The Germans were very economical on metal, but for fragmentation it was quite suitable for concrete! +!
          2. alex86
            alex86 14 October 2012 00: 16
            +2
            Now it’s clear that it’s not a kinetic ammunition, but it’s interesting - as if it should break up (open) into two halves, but at the same time the cumulative funnel and stabilization means are not visible, from which I conclude that the elements are not intended to destroy armored targets. Or am I wrong somewhere?
            1. Kars
              Kars 14 October 2012 00: 22
              +4
              Quote: alex86
              elements are not intended to defeat armored targets

              Quote: vaf
              RBC-500-ShOAB

              this is also evident from the name.
              As for breaking through the roof of the tank, I’m not sure - but it’ll definitely crush light equipment.
            2. VAF
              VAF 14 October 2012 00: 37
              +1
              Quote: alex86
              as if it should break into two halves (open), but at the same time the cumulative funnel and stabilization means are not visible, from which I conclude that the elements are not intended to defeat armored targets. Or am I wrong somewhere?


              It’s just too late to look for a good photo .... there the principle of operation is this, when the cassette is opened, the bombs rotate due to the influxes, when a certain value is reached, the fuse is blown up and .. the internal explosive material is blown up and the entire filling with wild speed sweeps everything in its path. The filling can be completely different, depending on the type of RBC! those. from fragmentation to volume-distant!
            3. Antistaks
              Antistaks 14 October 2012 17: 20
              +1
              No, I’m not mistaken - this is another type of anti-personnel cartridge.
        2. Antistaks
          Antistaks 14 October 2012 21: 37
          0
          You do not understand the main thing - vaf storyteller. This is an anti-personnel cassette.
        3. Deformator
          Deformator 21 August 2014 03: 11
          0
          You hang noodles. These ballistic fragmentation bombs are designed to destroy manpower and unarmored vehicles.
      2. igordok
        igordok 13 October 2012 23: 36
        +1
        What relation does the PTAB (the article deals with ammunition from WWII) have to modern RBC.
        1. Kars
          Kars 14 October 2012 00: 31
          +1
          Quote: igordok
          RBC

          RBC is only a container and the filling is almost the same with the PTAB from the Second World War.
          only more technologically ---
          1. igordok
            igordok 14 October 2012 01: 13
            0
            It’s clear that it’s more technologically advanced and more beautiful. soldier , but the article is about PTAB and containers during the war. IL-2 seemed to use a non-resettable KMB cassette, while Pe-2, Tu-2 and IL-4 used ABK-P-500 type resettable cassettes (this is not mentioned in the article).
        2. viruskvartirus
          14 October 2012 00: 42
          +4
          RBC-250 PTAB-2,5m - a one-time bomb cluster with anti-tank aerial bombs, as I understand it, a descendant
      3. Antistaks
        Antistaks 14 October 2012 17: 17
        +1
        It is interesting to see how the anti-personnel cartridge cassette sews on departure.
      4. Antistaks
        Antistaks 14 October 2012 21: 54
        0
        It is interesting to see how the anti-personnel cartridge cassette sews? Do you have a video case?
    3. Black Colonel
      Black Colonel 17 October 2012 15: 45
      0
      That's right, there is the concept of "metal fluidity". Under the influence of an external load, at a certain moment the value of the load does not increase, i.e. is constant, but the metal continues to deform, "flow".
  7. Kars
    Kars 13 October 2012 12: 23
    +4
    From the visible - most of this is artillery. The smaller ones are more likely PTRS or PTRD to identify the traces of the IL-2 gun is quite difficult, especially for armor of 80 mm. Regarding the standing plate - I can not answer.
    1. grizzlir
      grizzlir 13 October 2012 13: 18
      0
      Quote: Kars
      From the visible - most of this is artillery. The smaller ones are more likely PTRS or PTRD
      Kars, you can't make tigers out of a shotgun on board. If my memory serves me correctly, the PTR punched a centimeter 4 from 100 meters. It looks more like the tank fell under the PTAB, which were dropped too close to the ground and did not have time to fully enter a vertical drop. Look on small penetrations, around the holes there are bright cones that occur during a cumulative defeat. But the artillery later riddled with what purpose it is unknown. It is quite possible this tank from some sort of range. Although the mechanic’s open hatch and the square loader thrown back on the tower indicate that the tank was abandoned crew. The commander’s hatch is closed, penetration from the PTAB just at the location of the commander and gunner. There was no one to open the hatch.
      1. bazilio
        bazilio 13 October 2012 14: 09
        +1
        I agree with the grizzly. If the bomb was thrown from a low height, then you can get into the side of the tank, you just need to try. In addition, the holes lay heaped, which means that just in bulk bombs and such accuracy indicates a low dump height. One more thing - hits in the MTO are visible, which would most likely stop the tank. and if the MTO got out of the gun and the tank would stop, why then shoot him like that? Again, there are holes in the side, and tanks do not go sideways in an attack on guns. if this tank was ambushed, got the first hole, got up, why didn't it turn around or turn the tower and try to shoot back? If the tank received all these holes at the same time, then everything falls into place. I don’t think that several trunks will be slammed into 1 tiger at once, unless this tiger was the only target.
        1. Kars
          Kars 13 October 2012 14: 20
          +2
          Quote: bazilio
          If the bomb was thrown from a small height, then you can get into the side of the tank

          Most likely this photo in the article itself will answer the question, and the matter will not even be in height.
          1. grizzlir
            grizzlir 13 October 2012 14: 52
            +1
            Kars, when dropped, any bomb behaves this way, and the lighter it is, the greater its vibrations, as stabilizers fall, the stabilizers level the bomb head-down, so that if the height is sufficient all these hotels will fall at an obtuse angle to the ground
            1. Kars
              Kars 13 October 2012 14: 58
              +3
              Quote: grizzlir
              sufficient height

              They must fall on the roof of the target at an angle close to 90 degrees.
              With the aforementioned bombing from a small height, they will fall into the side projection of the target at different, and mostly not optimal angles relative to the axis of the cumulative funnel. Some of them are generally sideways.
              1. grizzlir
                grizzlir 13 October 2012 15: 23
                0
                Quote: Kars
                They must fall on the roof of the target at an angle close to 90 degrees.
                Of course not obliged, but Tests of cumulative bombs were carried out from December 1942 to April 21, 1943. Field tests showed that the penetration of armor up to 60 mm thick at a meeting angle of 30 ° was reliably ensured. The minimum height that ensured the alignment of the bomb before meeting with the armor of the tank and the safety of its action was 70 m.
                and since basically attack aircraft attacked tanks from 200 meters in order to ensure an optimal field of destruction, when approaching the target the bomb managed to take an angle close to 90 degrees from the ground. There were probably exceptions, this was a war. And the same was dropped below.
                1. Kibb
                  Kibb 13 October 2012 20: 51
                  0
                  I don’t understand what you are arguing about - it’s clear that the Tiger was shot on the training ground, and the ARTILERY, where the PTAB is not clear, does not at all plead the reality of the PTAB, but the photo is out of place
                  1. Kars
                    Kars 13 October 2012 21: 00
                    +1
                    Quote: Kibb
                    I don’t understand what you are arguing about - clearly visible

                    It’s clear to you, it’s clear to me — but it’s not clear to some, we argue. Although people along the way even do not want to read what they themselves post.
                    1. viruskvartirus
                      14 October 2012 00: 53
                      +1
                      And I had questions, but in the upper part there are still traces of the penetration of the PTAB, and the rest could have appeared at the firing range, or everything appeared at the firing range, for example, a tank was bombarded with different types ...
                  2. dom.lazar
                    dom.lazar 14 October 2012 02: 45
                    +2
                    100% firing range
                  3. Kibb
                    Kibb 14 October 2012 19: 13
                    0
                    Is the minus just out of principle?
                    1. Kibb
                      Kibb 14 October 2012 21: 56
                      0
                      Well, you can still have a minus, only it would be worth confirming that in this photo there is at least one KBPS hit
                  4. Antistaks
                    Antistaks 15 October 2012 23: 56
                    0
                    Even with a theoretical hit on board, a bomb couldn’t penetrate it by definition - a board of 80 mm. But we consider the truth NOT PATRIOTIC, so sit with a red minus.
                    As I understand it, now we are not a systemic opposition !!!!!!
                2. Kars
                  Kars 13 October 2012 20: 58
                  0
                  Quote: Kars
                  sufficient height
                  They must fall onto the roof of the target at an angle close to 90 degrees

                  Quote: grizzlir
                  Of course not required

                  Quote: grizzlir
                  tanks from 200 meters, in order to ensure an optimal field of destruction, the bomb, when approaching the target, managed to take an angle close to 90 degrees relative to the ground

                  A country like that you do not have to.
                  Quote: grizzlir
                  up to 60 mm at a meeting angle of 30 °

                  The side armor of the tiger is not broken.
                  1. Kibb
                    Kibb 13 October 2012 21: 26
                    +1
                    Osbodi, well, look at the photo, let's admit the Panthers with the turret torn off in the same article, but there are no heaps of holes in the side. Naturally, a successful hit with the ptab should have been under 90 ", this was the calculation - bombs are small, cheap, there are a lot of them, I didn't really need to take care of it - I poured and left, something will fall, the weapon is quite effective, but not a panacea - the Germans began to use dispersed orders, etc.
                    1. Kars
                      Kars 13 October 2012 21: 42
                      +2
                      Quote: Kibb
                      well look at the photo let's say Panthers with

                      I think you know that I have a lot of pictures --- so the most interesting photo with the PTAB defeat about which you can say with 90% accuracy - I do not have PTAB)))))))
                      1. Kibb
                        Kibb 13 October 2012 21: 50
                        +1
                        Duc, I have no doubt that the hits are only from above. But look at the size of the stabilizer and understand that under about 30-45 "he will hardly send this bomb very hard))
                      2. Kars
                        Kars 13 October 2012 22: 05
                        +1
                        Quote: Kibb
                        hitting it only from above

                        The fact that the above is understandable - but the vet all the same statistically should have been a fellow, as well as there is no photo from the trophy teams - with a bypass hole.
                        So everyone who reads --- maybe someone has.
                        The top of the hull-tower in the photo is often seen well.
                      3. Kibb
                        Kibb 13 October 2012 22: 34
                        +1
                        Broken down by a commutation, a small hole, if you really simplify it. Those "holes" that in the photo with the Tiger do not necessarily have to be penetrated (however, to whom am I telling this). I have spoken about the effectiveness of IL2 for a long time, but I consider PTAB to be quite effective. It’s incomprehensible only one - we had RBS already in 43; why didn’t they use it?
                3. VAF
                  VAF 13 October 2012 23: 28
                  +3
                  Quote: grizzlir
                  then the bomb, when approaching the target, managed to take an angle close to 90 degrees relative to the ground. There were probably exceptions, this is war. And lower they dropped and higher the same.


                  Never a bomb dropped from a height of less than 3000 meters will not reach a contact angle with the earth's surface of 90g !!!

                  And if the discharge speed is more than 500km / h, then 6000 meters!

                  For this, TUs are used !!!

            2. VAF
              VAF 13 October 2012 23: 22
              +5
              Quote: grizzlir
              if the height is sufficient, all these hotels will fall at an obtuse angle to the ground


              Even from a minimum height, all bombs will fall from the required angle, but probably not blunt but straight? wink

              For this, such submunitions are equipped with both TU and SS.

              Here's a good example: 2 Su-25's links strike from a height of 100 meters



              And here ... the result .... there are no more tanks ... no lol

              1. Kibb
                Kibb 13 October 2012 23: 35
                +1
                Now explain to us what TU and SS are, and for one where they are at PTAB 2,5
                1. VAF
                  VAF 14 October 2012 00: 23
                  +2
                  Quote: Kibb
                  now explain


                  Why NOW ???? recourse

                  Kars has already explained everything in detail to TU, this is a braking device, i.e. a parachute that provides just the best angle for the use of ammunition with cumulative parts, well, for other purposes as well ....



                  And SS is a self-expanding stabilizer (or feather, as it is also called)

              2. Kars
                Kars 13 October 2012 23: 37
                +2
                Quote: vaf
                TU

                I understand this is a brake device?

                In the photo there is a specific bomb, the stabilizer along the closed type, dumping from the cartridge. At what angle it will fall into the tank from 70 meters.

                When dropping the PTAB from a height of 200 m from horizontal flight at a flight speed of 340-360 km / h, one bomb fell into an area equal to an average of 15 square meters, while, depending on the bomb load, the total breakdown area occupied a 15x band (190 -210) sq.m, which ensured a practically guaranteed defeat of any Wehrmacht located in this lane. The fact is that the area occupied by one tank was about 20-22 square meters, and the hit of at least one bomb in the tank was quite sufficient to incapacitate it, in most cases irretrievably
                1. Kibb
                  Kibb 14 October 2012 00: 07
                  +1
                  Andrei, yes, I know what it is, I want to understand how this relates to PTAB
                  1. VAF
                    VAF 14 October 2012 00: 56
                    +1
                    Kibb,

                    Quote: Kibb
                    I want to understand how this relates to PTAB



                    Kibb, dear, how else to explain, what would you .. understand? : request



                    1. Kibb
                      Kibb 14 October 2012 10: 45
                      0
                      Sergey, I know what TU is. Where is it at the PTAB?
              3. s1н7т
                s1н7т 14 October 2012 21: 37
                0
                With such a correct use of the Su-25s, it is necessary to take into account the correct use of air defense "battlefield") Who will give them something?
        2. VAF
          VAF 13 October 2012 23: 08
          +2
          Quote: bazilio
          If the bomb was thrown from a small height, then you can get to the side of the tank, only you need to try


          In general, for any target having an areal characteristic, they go at an angle of 50-70g, and at an elongated ... at an angle of 15-30g, well, the front one is generally at an angle of 90g, so getting on board is very normal, but on the forehead. ..that you just have to try wink
        3. wasjasibirjac
          wasjasibirjac 14 October 2012 19: 52
          0
          if possible - they will, he is the most dangerous target, the concentration of fire is called
        4. Antistaks
          Antistaks 16 October 2012 00: 01
          0
          BREATHES ARE LITTLE LESS. Have you read the article carefully? The bomb penetrates 70 mm, and the side and tower of the Tiger are 80 mm.
    2. Normal
      Normal 13 October 2012 13: 45
      +2
      Quote: Kars

      From the visible - most of this is artillery.

      Greetings to the "Chief of Tanks"
      Do not you think that most of the marks are the result of shooting after the battle?
      Most likely this is the result of tests of the effectiveness of various ammunition ammunition. Hence the plate leaning against the tiger.
      1. Kars
        Kars 13 October 2012 14: 16
        +3
        Quote: Normal
        Do not you think that most of the marks are the result of shooting after the battle?

        It may very well be.
        Quote: grizzlir
        Kars, you can't do tigers from a shotgun on board such tigers

        What are these? There are many types, 76-85 mm, 45 mm both solid and sub-caliber. I am sure that there are several traces of 14.5-12.7 armor-piercing bullets. I did not write about the penetration from the PTR.
        Cumulative if I honestly do not see, even though I can be mistaken.
        1. Kibb
          Kibb 13 October 2012 21: 03
          +1
          You know, I agree, not a single obvious penetration of cumulative is visible, and again, this is a training ground
      2. Brother Sarych
        Brother Sarych 13 October 2012 17: 55
        +1
        It also seemed to me that after the battle they were full of holes ...
    3. lelikas
      lelikas 13 October 2012 23: 51
      +2
      Yes, the tankmen valnuli him -

      Although the two upper breaks are very similar to the trail from the cumulative jet.
      1. Kars
        Kars 14 October 2012 00: 25
        +1
        The upper one to the left is precisely the sub-caliber-reel one. The right one is most likely the same only sharper angle.
      2. shasherin_pavel
        shasherin_pavel 14 October 2012 08: 08
        0
        Quote: lelikas
        two upper breaks

        The two upper ones are the sub-caliber core with a maximum of 25 mm. and dents around breaking from a soft alloy body.
  8. Karlsonn
    Karlsonn 13 October 2012 12: 59
    +5
    So to speak a reason for positive winked .

    Well, since such a dance has gone, here's another after hi , about attack aircraft:
  9. bazilio
    bazilio 13 October 2012 14: 15
    +4
    In general, despite all the pros and cons of equipment and ammunition, WWII and WWII were a war of resources. Even if we take the consumption for 1 tank 1 full set of PTAB 220 pieces in bulk, then the cost of the PTAB kit is ten times cheaper. As far as I remember, the "payback" of one IL-2 was 1-2 tanks. All this leads us to the fact that PTAB + IL-2 were effective, including in the economic aspect, a weapon
    1. Karlsonn
      Karlsonn 13 October 2012 14: 27
      +3
      bazilio hi ,
      Quote: bazilio
      As far as I remember, the "payback" of one IL-2 was 1-2 tanks.

      On photo:
      Il-2 attack aircraft return from the mission. On the fuselage of the nearest aircraft - the inscription "Avenger".

      Aircraft IL-2 with tail number 25 "Avenger" was built at the expense of the chairman of the collective farm. Stalin, the village of Avdalar of the Kotayk district of the Armenian SSR, Grigor Ayrapetovich Tevosyan, whose two brothers died in the war. He contributed 100 000 rubles for the purchase of a combat aircraft.

      On this Il-2 the Hero of the Soviet Union flew, also Armenian Nelson Georgievich Stepanyan (1913 — 1944). N.S. Stepanyan during the war made 239 successful sorties, destroyed personally and in the 53 group of the enemy’s ship. He died in battle on December 14 of the 1944 of the year near the city of Liepaja of the Latvian SSR. Posthumously 6 March 1945 year re-awarded the title Hero of the Soviet Union.
      This is the issue of payback.
      1. bazilio
        bazilio 13 October 2012 16: 37
        +7
        Dear Carlson
        Regarding the issue of "payback", I did not want to touch upon the issues of the pilots' skill and even less their lives. Maybe my words sounded cynical, but I just wanted to compare the cost of the IL-2 and the cost of the tank. Having knocked out 1-2 tanks, the IL-2 paid off exclusively in economic terms.
        And the pilots, especially the attack aircraft, are heroes. Attack pilots had the highest risks, as evidenced by huge losses, for this honor and praise to those who were not afraid to be a touristic pilot.
        1. Karlsonn
          Karlsonn 13 October 2012 17: 09
          +2
          You didn’t understand me correctly, I could just say that IL-2 cost about 100 000 rubles, but I decided to expand the answer and add a picture, I found one where the pilot attack aircraft did not die after the fifth flight, but was involved in the destruction of 53 ships.
          like this it looked like, in the photo:
          The Baltic Fleet Air Force Il-2 attack plane attacks a German ship off the coast of East Prussia, firing cannons from it.
          1. Gamdlislyam
            Gamdlislyam 13 October 2012 21: 07
            +1
            The cost of IL-2 at different plants and different series ranged from 400 to 600 thousand rubles.
            Buying an airplane at the expense of individual citizens or groups is a patriotic, but still a propaganda event. Hence the discrepancy between the funds contributed and the real value of the machine.
            But, most German tanks cost more than the IL-2.
            1. shasherin_pavel
              shasherin_pavel 13 October 2012 23: 09
              +3
              Quote: Gamdlislyam
              it’s a patriotic, but still a propaganda event

              Propaganda is a thing in the war, it is small, and even after the war. We were told that the Polish officers were shot by the NKVN, although when these documents appeared in Khrushchev's time, someone noticed that the NKVD forms in the 41-year case were printed in the Khrushchev administration. Some of the documents were deleted for this very reason. And we still succumb to this "propaganda". But you just need to look when information about the execution of Polish officers appeared. It was at that moment when the Polish army of Anderson, formed in the USSR, was preparing to go to Stalingrad. And instead, three hundred thousand people (along with their families) leave for Iran, and then transferred to North Africa and Italy, where she was successfully sentenced to destruction, ordered to take an impregnable pass. Propaganda is a weapon during a war, the most terrible of all weapons, the main thing is to know where and when to use. After all, this message did not appear in 41, but when Anderson's Army was preparing to enter the war.
              Any German understood that now the war is truly Patriotic, which civilian German is not capable of in the deep rear.
            2. Ratibor12
              Ratibor12 14 October 2012 15: 59
              +2
              Quote: Gamdlislyam
              Buying an airplane at the expense of individual citizens or groups is a patriotic, but still a propaganda event.


              That is, in your opinion, it is useless from an economic point of view? I absolutely disagree !!!! I was amazed when I found out that "... The savings of the population of the USSR covered 15% of the costs of the Second World War. 80% of the population gave their savings ..." Where's the Lend-Lease!
              1. s1н7т
                s1н7т 14 October 2012 21: 49
                +1
                Is it just a savings? Shopian!
                But still, people constantly bought bonds of government loans - and this is still millions and millions!
          2. Kibb
            Kibb 13 October 2012 22: 01
            0
            Firstly, it’s clear that by, and secondly, this minesweeper must have been recorded as a destroyer (why take them then ...)
  10. The centurion
    The centurion 13 October 2012 15: 03
    +2
    We noticed that the lieutenants commanded the eight attack aircraft. Their losses were very large. One surviving attack aircraft told me that the average life expectancy of an attack aircraft pilot did not exceed 5 sorties. Here are the real heroes.
    1. Karlsonn
      Karlsonn 13 October 2012 15: 41
      +8
      such a thing, no one seemed to anyone.
      on the picture:
      IL-2 attacks the German air transport aerodrome.
      The crew of the German transport aircraft Ju 52 / 3m from 3 / KGr.zbV9 is trying to hide from an attack aircraft under the tail of its aircraft.
      After this attack, the Soviet plane went into a circle and attacked again.
      The commander of the German aircraft (lieutenant) and the flight engineer (sergeant) barely managed to escape in the last minutes from a burning car, they received multiple burns.
      1. Karlsonn
        Karlsonn 13 October 2012 15: 44
        +4
        Quote: Karlsonn
        The commander of the German aircraft (lieutenant) and the flight engineer (sergeant) barely managed to escape in the last minutes from a burning car, they received multiple burns.

        these two "handsome", in the photo:
        During the attack of the Soviet Il-2 attack aircraft of the German transport aviation aerodrome, the crew of the German transport aircraft Ju 52 / 3m from 3 / KGr.zbV9 tried to hide from the attack aircraft under the tail of their aircraft.
        The commander of the German aircraft (lieutenant) and the flight engineer (sergeant) barely managed to escape in the last minutes from a burning car, they received multiple burns.
      2. grizzlir
        grizzlir 13 October 2012 15: 47
        +1
        And someone had enough exposure at such a moment to take pictures.
        1. Karlsonn
          Karlsonn 13 October 2012 16: 00
          +2
          grizzlir hi ,
          it’s enough to go to YouTube to find tens of thousands of such brave men who take off from the tsunami that goes on them to dying people after an accident.
          1. grizzlir
            grizzlir 13 October 2012 16: 15
            +5
            Karlsonn, a man takes pictures in a war and knows that they can kill him at any time. Our cameramen who went into battle and died for the sake of a good shot. The author of this picture also deserves at least respect, when bombing rarely anyone gets into the gap. people take off their lives and even sometimes do not suspect that they are close to death, they simply do not realize the danger.
            By the way, our modern cameramen don’t really like to get into hell. I offered to shoot blanks from the tank, and a platoon with a command nearby should depict an attack. I didn’t know what to do, the battalion commander asked the TV crew to help. As a result, he contacted the battalion commander and he sent them to hell . I remember the group was from the 1st channel.
            1. Karlsonn
              Karlsonn 13 October 2012 17: 23
              +2
              grizzlir, agree; among contemporaries, there are still enough of those who, for the sake of the frame, at least where.
            2. Alex
              Alex 28 December 2013 23: 14
              +2
              Quote: Karlsonn, grizzlir
              in war, a person takes pictures and knows that they can be killed at any moment.
              Sorry, but allow myself a small addition.
              In 2010, when I worked at the Podolsk House of Children's Art (Kiev), we were lucky enough to organize a photo exhibition "War through the eyes of a soldier." It collected photographs taken by non-professional war correspondents, ordinary soldiers who had cameras. This exposition includes photographs of not only ours, but also of German soldiers. Moreover, many have recently found detachments of historians-search engines (thanks a lot to them, they say little about them, and their work is truly worthy of admiration hi . And incidentally: however, the quality of the film, which has not lost quality over 50 years). There is no way to describe all the exhibits, but many of them are simply shocking - it seems that you yourself are in the thick of things, even the frost is breaking through. But many shots were taken minutes before death: some cameras were taken from the bones of the dead. Thanks to those who died, but left us documentary evidence of the courage of ordinary Soviet people.
              ETERNAL GLORY TO HEROES!
    2. Gamdlislyam
      Gamdlislyam 13 October 2012 21: 13
      0
      The centurion
      We noticed that the lieutenants commanded the eight attack aircraft

      During the Battle of Kursk, most ordinary pilots had sergeant ranks. The officers were unit commanders (and even then not everywhere), squadrons.
      1. Alex
        Alex 28 December 2013 23: 21
        +2
        Quote: Gamdlislyam
        During the Battle of Kursk, most ordinary pilots had sergeant ranks.
        Ivan Kozhedub also began his military career as a sergeant, and it was in 1943. Indeed, "the mortal battle is bloody, the mortal battle is not for the sake of glory - for the sake of life on earth."

        It’s sometimes upsetting to tears when someone starts picking with a fork in a wound: it’s not so, and it’s not like that. They would be there, under German tanks ... And then we’ll sit, talk, compare the performance characteristics, we’ll talk about high matters ...
    3. shasherin_pavel
      shasherin_pavel 13 October 2012 22: 20
      +1
      The centurion,
      Quote: Centurion
      We noticed that the lieutenants commanded the eight attack aircraft

      Some pilots, having served until the age of 43, remained senior sergeants after graduating from the beginning of 42. There were pilots who made up to 200 b / v during their service, but for their obstinate disposition in front of their elders, they did not become the GSS. But there were GSS at 90 b / sorties. I also read a lot about the large losses of the IL-2, but I was surprised when I found out the statistics: 11 people died during the Second World War, 000 people were killed in attack pilots, while 7 were fired from attack aircraft, although this number includes post-war aircraft and IL-000 and IL-36. The main losses of attack aircraft were from Z.A. which the Germans outnumbered the rest. In the description of the Battle of Kursk, reproaches are often heard against our aviation that they took little part in covering the troops during the defensive period, but there were 000 anti-aircraft guns there. Leningrad was defended by 2 z. guns and the Germans called the sky over Leningrad "Black hole". Advancement in ranks in aviation was very slow, because the commanders very rarely flew, with an exception: General Savitsky, at the end of the war, Pokryshkin. And the losses of squadron commanders could be replenished with senior sergeants, as was the case with the pilot Golubev - a fighter of the aces - 10 victories over the aces who had more than 19-000 victories, and who in 3 became the squadron commander, where the lentenants commanded the sound. "Wings grow stronger in battle"
    4. s1н7т
      s1н7т 14 October 2012 21: 54
      0
      According to the veteran, the main losses of the Il-2 fell on those machines where there was no gunner. When they returned to the "basic version", the losses were reduced. Either a lack of understanding of the specifics of the SHA of that time, or a desire to save money - hz
  11. Yazov
    Yazov 13 October 2012 17: 24
    -3
    PTAB bomb is excellent, but moreover:: only thanks to I.V. Stalin, PTAB was adoption. Stalin, in this case, proved to be an outstanding military-technical specialist, and not just as a “satrap.”
    So is the bomb good? Or Stalin?
    As a child, he read fairy tales, the circulation of the early 50s and could not get it at all, why did they praise Stalin in a 1,5-page book !? Then I got it. So the author, you are either about the bomb, or about Stalin!
    Yes, and ,, Tiger ,, punched in the side with a sushka, 100 percent!
    I hate idle talk !!!!!
    1. Karlsonn
      Karlsonn 13 October 2012 18: 00
      -2
      Quote: Yazov
      So is the bomb good? Or Stalin?

      here I always say: the people won against Stalin and the Bolsheviks!
      however, when they ask me now: why people can’t live well in spite of Putin or Yanukovych, I’m lost ....
      1. anchonsha
        anchonsha 13 October 2012 20: 07
        -3
        And this is because you have an orange, SS-Bandera cerebellum, dear ... If it weren’t for Putin, I don’t know what would happen to Russia. Probably would have become a cossack in the USA.
        1. s1н7т
          s1н7т 14 October 2012 22: 01
          -3
          If it weren’t for Putin and so on, the Russian Federation’s dogs would never have become a parody of the state! And keep the US clerk in your arms, useful when yours are finally kicked out of power!
      2. s1н7т
        s1н7т 14 October 2012 21: 57
        0
        Hello! Plus!
    2. shasherin_pavel
      shasherin_pavel 13 October 2012 22: 41
      +3
      Yazov,
      Quote: Yazov
      only thanks to I.V. To Stalin

      It is necessary to pay attention to the history of the T-34, only by Stalin's decision this tank did not pass the test until the end was adopted and the industry began to prepare for its production without test results. Marshal Kulik interrupted the production of the T-34 several times precisely because of the incomplete tests. But Stalin again forced to return to the production of T-34. This is me about "satrap". It must be remembered that it was Kulik that Stalin could not force to advance towards Zhukov, when he was advancing from Leningrad, and Kulik had to attack from near Tikhvin. I am not a fan of Koshkin, as a certain genius, since the main parameters of the tank were laid down in the performance characteristics of the tank of the acceptance commission, and the 45-degree slope of the armor was originally specified in the draft order. Morozov even points out that "the T-44 tank has finally managed to abandon the slope of the side armor." But the fact that Stalin in 42 scolded Ilyushin for a single Il-2 is described by Ilyushin himself. "If I was wrong when I insisted on the one-seater option, then you should have complained about Comrade Stalin to the Central Committee of the CPSU (b)." Many weapon designers wrote that when examining weapons during tests, Stalin asked questions as an engineer, which astonished them. Even tougher, he gave the assignment for the construction of battle cruisers in 38 year: "He must run away from the Bismarck, but catch up with the Scharnhost and sink it."
      1. wax
        wax 14 October 2012 19: 54
        +6
        Stalin was also the creator of long-range bomber aviation, which was personally subordinate to him for almost the entire war. Those politicians and "effective" managers who are no match for him are blaming Stalin. There was no chatter: today is the decision, in two days there is already demand, what has been done. The appearance of a 300-page document on behalf of the Government or the Politburo is nonsense. Such a vision that today's leaders revel in their ability to write. And when will they work? Stalin would not have had such chinugi for 2 days.
  12. Voin sveta82
    Voin sveta82 13 October 2012 18: 50
    +3
    Well done ... soldiers ..)))
  13. Egoza
    Egoza 13 October 2012 21: 02
    +7
    Not quite in the subject of discussion of military equipment, but by date ...
    On the night of October 13-14, 1943, the liberation assault of Zaporozhye (Ukraine) began. Let us recall this date and those who liberated our homeland!
  14. wolverine7778
    wolverine7778 13 October 2012 21: 05
    +8
    Why are the Russians invincible ..
    When analyzing the Second World War, American military historians discovered a very interesting fact. Namely, in a sudden clash with the Japanese forces, the Americans, as a rule, made decisions much faster and, as a result, won even the superior enemy forces. Having investigated this pattern, scientists came to the conclusion that the average word length for Americans is 5,2 characters, while for the Japanese it is 10,8, therefore, it takes 56% less time to issue orders, which plays an important role in a short battle. For the sake of "interest", they analyzed Russian speech and it turned out that the length of a word in Russian is 7,2 characters per word (on average), however, in critical situations, the Russian-speaking command staff switches to profanity, and the word length is reduced to (!) 3,2 , 32 characters per word. This is due to the fact that some word combinations and even phrases are replaced with one word. For example, the phrase is given: "32nd order to immediately destroy the enemy tank, which is firing at our positions." - "XNUMXnd e @ not for this x @ yu")
    1. s1н7т
      s1н7т 14 October 2012 22: 09
      +2
      I already read it somewhere, but anyway +! laughing
  15. alex86
    alex86 13 October 2012 21: 48
    +2
    Quote: Kars
    They must fall on the roof of the target at an angle close to 90 degrees.
    Sorry to interfere in the amateurish way, but if you recall the school physics course, then (with a known error) when dropped from a height of 70m (somewhere mentioned), the horizontal speed will be three times higher than the vertical one - getting more likely to board, when dumping from 200 m the horizontal and vertical speeds will be approximately equal - i.e. the bomb falls at an angle of 45 degrees (it is clear that all this was approximately considered in the mind). On this basis, bombing from heights of less than 500 meters does not guarantee angles of horizontal projection close to 90 degrees (vertically). Something like this...
    1. Kars
      Kars 13 October 2012 22: 00
      +3
      Quote: alex86
      dumping from a height of 70m (somewhere mentioned)

      Not mentioned by me.
      Quote: alex86
      Based on this, bombing from heights of less than 500 meters

      And stabilizers and air resistance when exiting the cassette is not parallel to the motion vector of the carrier aircraft is taken into account ?.

      And so it’s necessary to ask the pilots
      And you can make out once again this photo, bombs for some reason do not fly in parallel with the plane.
      1. alex86
        alex86 13 October 2012 22: 17
        0
        I counted everything in my mind, for a freely falling body, it is clear that there is air resistance, but it exists for both vectors, horizontal and vertical, so the calculation is close to reality. And the "non-parallel" flight is understandable - they have not yet stabilized, which will affect the angle of encounter with the ground, but not much - the horizontal component will slightly fall.
        1. Kars
          Kars 13 October 2012 22: 23
          +1
          Quote: alex86
          I counted everything in my mind

          Recount.
          Distrust me

          Tests of cumulative bombs were carried out from December 1942 to April 21, 1943. Field tests showed that the penetration of armor up to 60 mm thick at a meeting angle of 30 ° was reliably ensured. The minimum height that ensured the alignment of the bomb before meeting with the armor of the tank and the safety of its action was 70 m.
          no reason
          1. alex86
            alex86 13 October 2012 22: 36
            +2
            I see no contradictions - 70 m are needed for stabilization, i.e. the axis of the charge begins to coincide with the motion vector. At the same time, the meeting angle with the horizontal surface is close to 30 degrees, while armor penetration of 60 mm is provided. Not a single contradiction, everything is interconnected.
            1. Kars
              Kars 13 October 2012 22: 45
              0
              Quote: alex86
              those. the axis of the charge begins to coincide with the motion vector

              With the axis of the motion vector? Carrier?
              From this angle, even the PzKpfw IV side armor cannot be pierced by this bomb.
              1. alex86
                alex86 13 October 2012 23: 02
                0
                With the axis of the motion vector of the bomb itself. Those. when dropped from a height of more than 70 m, there is enough time to stabilize the bomb. And before that, she makes some oscillatory movements with gradually decreasing amplitude. Once again - there’s nothing to argue about, my speculative estimates with the links given completely coincide.
                1. Kars
                  Kars 13 October 2012 23: 10
                  +1
                  Quote: alex86
                  With the axis of the motion vector of the bomb itself

                  And what is it? And what sets it?
                  Quote: shasherin.pavel
                  The bomb stabilizer is designed to slow the speed of the bomb when dropped

                  Something tells me that a simple calculation is unacceptable here.
                  Quote: alex86
                  70 m enough time to stabilize the bomb

                  What is bomb stabilization? I often saw how (documentaries)
                  that the bombs unfold nasal ---- usually Weighted compared to the tail to the ground literally 20-30 meters. The IL-2 on the shaver does not have such great speed. That would be like using modern air brakes for modern assault bombs.
                  1. Kibb
                    Kibb 13 October 2012 23: 45
                    0
                    Quote: Kars
                    IL-2 on a shaver is not such a huge speed. It would be like using modern air brakes for modern assault bombs.

                    That’s what the respected Vaf writes about it, but at the same time confuses Su 25 with Il 2 and modern assault bombs with PTAB
                    1. Kars
                      Kars 13 October 2012 23: 53
                      +2
                      Quote: Kibb
                      su xnumx

                      I think he is closer to him.
                      I asked Vaf about the bombs he answered with his usual zeal.
      2. shasherin_pavel
        shasherin_pavel 13 October 2012 22: 50
        0
        Kars,
        Quote: Kars
        bombs for some reason do not fly parallel to the plane

        The bomb stabilizer is designed in such a way that it slows down the speed of the bomb when dropped, and thus translates it into level flight faster. That is why the bombs laid with their tails forward did not have time to unfold into vertical flight. On some fronts, the numbers of aircraft and squadrons of bomb carriers were knocked out on the stabilizers of the bombs. After the explosion, the bomb stabilizer always fell into its funnel, so if someone bombed ours, then, as they say, "The fact is on the face."
      3. VAF
        VAF 13 October 2012 23: 36
        +5
        Quote: Kars
        And you can make out once again this photo, bombs for some reason do not fly in parallel with the plane.


        Very low bomb weight, low airplane speed. plus piled up in the cargo bay, so the hatch opened and sprinkled like peas, and the high-speed pressure blows back immediately!

        Well, "good" bombs (weighing 120 kg) are already flying as they should! wink +! drinks

        1. Kars
          Kars 13 October 2012 23: 42
          0
          I like assault bombs with flying air brakes.
          Especially when the B-1B is shown by discovery on the forehead.
          1. alex86
            alex86 14 October 2012 00: 24
            +1
            And I like it, but it’s always a question - how on earth do they relate to such a barn right above your head? Like, let yourself fly? This is all only in the complete absence of air defense, at least in the form of an anti-aircraft 12mm machine gun ...
            1. Kars
              Kars 14 October 2012 00: 38
              +2
              Quote: alex86
              at least in the form of an anti-aircraft 12mm machine gun is possible ...

              at a speed close to suhvzvuku. at a low altitude --- no one will have time to take aim. And there’s nothing to think about preemptiveness. Even Pzrk shouldn’t be applied if you don’t know in advance that something is flying. Well, what about air supremacy-- it is natural. no one will send suicide.
              1. alex86
                alex86 14 October 2012 08: 25
                +1
                I agree, but the feeling is that it's easy enough for everyone to shoot together - and an airplane of size B-1B or Tu-160 will get something, but it costs more than the target that is hit in this way. So I'm in doubt about the applicability of such a regime of bombing in real hostilities ...
      4. viruskvartirus
        14 October 2012 13: 18
        0
        Consider IL-2 and YAK-9 DIFFERENT planes; here is the approach to the dump PTAB IL-2
      5. Black Colonel
        Black Colonel 24 November 2012 17: 31
        0
        Because the bombs were loaded in bulk and had not yet stabilized when dropped
  16. alex86
    alex86 13 October 2012 22: 01
    +2
    Well, as always, a not entirely correct description of the physical essence of the process that occurs when a cumulative ammunition is triggered, the action of a charge with a recess with a cumulative one is mixed - these are fundamentally different mechanisms of action, the term "armor burning" is again used, which has nothing to do with the process of breaking through armor cumulative jet.
    1. viruskvartirus
      14 October 2012 00: 36
      +1
      I know, I know ... I will consider)
  17. alex86
    alex86 13 October 2012 22: 27
    0
    And again, apologizing: during the attack at low altitudes, the IL-2 had heavy losses and, as a result, they were allowed to storm from altitudes of the order of 3000 m. (Here, however, there are two questions: 1- get the hell out of this height and 2- hardly at attack in the conditions of (conditionally) Prokhorovka could be a significant impact from the ground by aircraft)
  18. Kibb
    Kibb 13 October 2012 22: 59
    0
    Quote: alex86
    from heights of the order of 3000

    What did you mean? What sort of attack can be from such a height (I don’t have a high opinion of the competence of commanding the Air Force in the Second World War, but not to the same extent)? Maybe it’s still about diving?
    1. alex86
      alex86 13 October 2012 23: 28
      0
      No, it was precisely about the fact that, at the initial tactics of use, it insisted on attack from a low-level flight, but the losses were very high and permission was given to attack (I was also surprised) from a height of 3000 m, due to which the losses decreased. It was in the memoirs of a pilot with IL-2. There are two versions of mine: either they start lowering by 3000 m to the target — while they have chosen a specific target, while they have leveled the plane — it is already significantly lower; or it was about attacking stationary (and, therefore, having ground-based air defense) objects. In general, for what I bought, for that I am selling, but the shots of Ilov, flying so that the shadows are visible under them, always caused delight, but also the perplexity of flying so spectacularly, but how to storm from such a height?
      1. Kibb
        Kibb 14 October 2012 00: 28
        0
        Well, why didn’t I see this, can I get a source? With such tactics, what for are attack aircraft generally needed?
        1. alex86
          alex86 14 October 2012 08: 54
          0
          Alas, I will not give the source, just from memory. It was strange for me myself - the textbook picture of the IL-2's work - meters from 600 with a decrease in degrees under 20, and here from 3000 meters "to reduce losses" - ie. planes saved, and what did not hit the target - and God bless her? But once again, alas - only from memory ...
  19. alex86
    alex86 14 October 2012 00: 00
    +2
    Quote: Kars
    What is bomb stabilization?

    With all my deep respect, we have a conversation between the blind and the deaf. My idea of ​​the process (matching your links): at a height of 70 m, bombs are dropped. The speed of the carrier at this moment is about 100 m / s. During the fall, each bomb gains about 30 m / s of vertical speed, which gives an angle of meeting with a horizontal plane of about 30 degrees. When discharging from 200 m, the vertical component will be about 70 m / s, which will give a viewing angle of about 45 degrees, given the longer braking time of the horizontal component of speed. All this coincides very well with the test results. The stabilization of a bomb as it moves toward the target represents the cessation of yaw along the course and azimuth, while the vector of the axis of the cumulative charge (respectively, and the axis of the bomb itself) begins to coincide with the velocity vector of the bomb, which provides, on the one hand, more reliable fuse operation, with on the other hand, more stable formation of a cumulative jet, especially for ammunition of that time. There is no dispute, everything converges very smoothly.
    1. Kars
      Kars 14 October 2012 00: 11
      +1
      Quote: alex86
      we have a conversation between a blind man and a deaf

      And not the first time.
      Quote: alex86
      My understanding of the process

      Quote: vaf
      Very low bomb weight, low airplane speed. plus piled up in the cargo bay, so the hatch opened and sprinkled like peas, and the high-speed pressure blows back immediately!

      So, as you can see in the photo, it is very unlikely that any vector of coincidence with the original carrier vector.
      Quote: alex86
      vertical component

      She doesn’t interest me much at all.
      Quote: alex86
      while the vector of the axis of the cumulative charge (respectively, and the axis of the bomb itself) begins to coincide with the velocity vector of the bomb,
      is the vector curved?
      Quote: alex86
      more stable cumulative jet formation,

      What is the difference? The lig would not rotate around the axis of the cumulative funnel.
      1. Karlsonn
        Karlsonn 14 October 2012 06: 32
        0
        here - everything is really dull crying here is my gift to you, as to Medved: -
      2. alex86
        alex86 14 October 2012 09: 13
        +1
        [
        Quote: Kars
        So, as you can see in the photo, it is very unlikely that any vector of coincidence with the original carrier vector.
        After the reset, the direction and magnitude of the carrier velocity vector is only the initial value for the subsequent behavior of the bomb.
        Quote: Kars
        She doesn’t interest me much at all.
        The vertical component (together with the horizontal) determines the angle of the meeting (according to the Pythagorean theorem wink )
        Quote: Kars
        is the vector curved?
        The vector is straightforward by definition, in our case it is decomposed into two components - vertical and horizontal.
        Quote: Kars
        What is the difference? The lig would not rotate around the axis of the cumulative funnel.
        I do not quite agree, if the charge (or target) is shifted across the axis of the cumulative jet, then its efficiency decreases (this is the same as in dynamic protection). For modern ammunition and the speed of lateral displacement of the jet in the area (excuse me, again in the mind winked ) tens of m / s this does not matter, but for that time and 70 mm armor penetration it was, I think, significant.
    2. VAF
      VAF 14 October 2012 01: 14
      +2
      Quote: alex86
      With all my deep respect,


      You just do not carefully read what is being answered! Your calculations (mathematical) do not have a place to be here. you do not take into account the main criterion .. this is the weight of the bomb.
      The more weight. the greater the height should be. in order to somehow provide the necessary angle of meeting with the earth's surface.
      For example, I’ll tell you ... in the distant end of the 70s we were intensely attracted to eliminate congestion on the Dvina, and so with the Su-24, 8HFAB-250 M54, the discharge height is 1200-1500 meters, it is impossible below, the people accumulated .. sea.
      We went in, threw it, the speed was 650 km / h, so the bombs were re-shot so that they exploded at ranges of 1,5-2,5 km with a flight from the ECP !!!!!
      The phenomenon is called RICOCHET, and because of what?
      Due to the fact that the angle of encounter with the surface was only 15-20g.
      Therefore, we urgently switched to Betab-500TU and that’s all ... oil painting! wink
      1. alex86
        alex86 14 October 2012 08: 49
        +1
        All of the above does not contradict what I said, especially in terms of calculations (mathematical). In the case of bombing on ice jams from a height of 1200 m, the vertical decrease speed without taking into account the air resistance is about 140 m / s, taking into account (very approximately) about 110 m / s, the discharge speed is 160 m / s, the meeting angle is about 30 degrees - I think flew lower. Sorry, by no means do I want to encroach on anything from your experience, but my life experience shows that elementary mathematics is valid regardless of the scope. Sincerely.
        1. viruskvartirus
          14 October 2012 13: 14
          0
          In general, I found data on dumping from 25 meters, such as not too high explosiveness allowed.
          1. alex86
            alex86 14 October 2012 16: 57
            0
            So this does not contradict anything, if only the fuse cocked and stabilization occurred in the main part of the ammunition. The fall time will be about 2 seconds, fly by about 200 meters, fall into the side (or front) projection.
        2. Kars
          Kars 14 October 2012 13: 36
          0
          Quote: alex86
          After the reset, the direction and magnitude of the carrier velocity vector is only the initial value for the subsequent behavior of the bomb

          Wow, how interesting.
          Quote: alex86
          The vertical component (together with the horizontal) determines the angle of the meeting (according to the Pythagorean theorem

          Can not be.
          Quote: alex86
          A straightforward vector by definition

          And the ballistic trajectory is curved, what should I do?

          Quote: alex86
          our case is decomposed into two components - vertical and horizontal.

          WHAT FOR.

          I explain the last (although vryatly) time --- PTAB 2.5 when leaving the container due to the heavily heavily bowed nose CORRECTING THE RESTRICTING AIR FLOW WITH A SPEED NOT LESS THAN THE CARRIER REVERSES THE WEIGHTENED NOSE IN THE DOWN, FASTER THAN EVERYTHING HAPPENS.

          Quote: alex86
          if the charge (or target) is shifted across the axis of the cumulative jet, then its effectiveness decreases

          HOW IS IT POSSIBLE? The moment of formation of a cumulative millisecond jet.
          Quote: alex86
          For modern ammunition

          How does a modern cumulative funnel differ in physical principles from non-modern funnels? Innovations are cladding materials and a complex form of excavation.

          Quote: alex86
          the velocity of the transverse displacement of the jet in the area

          All the same, I don’t understand what kind of lateral displacement.
          Quote: alex86
          it's like in dynamic defense

          And where does the throwable steel plate destroy the cumulative jet physically?
          1. alex86
            alex86 14 October 2012 16: 50
            +2
            Sorry, but outwardly it looks like you are fooling. The first two phrases are humor. Further: the ballistic trajectory is curvilinear and is described by just two vectors of speed - horizontal (initially equal to the speed of the carrier) and vertical (constantly increasing under the influence of gravity) - excuse me, I'm even somehow embarrassed to write all this (or you are fooling around - then it's not good). Further: PTAB-2.5 does not have a heavily weighted nose - look at the cut, it just has problems with the center of aerodynamic drag, so the stabilizer takes up so much space. But this has nothing to do with it, the orientation of the body in space will be determined not simply by the weight of the nose, but by the degree of its, let's say, aerodynamic balance, i.e. a large (or long) stabilizer orients the bomb along the resultant (sorry) horizontal and vertical velocity vectors at each moment of time. Further: how is this possible: then stabilization would not be needed, let him beat himself wherever he has to, and here we turn to the steel plate - the process is the same, the obstacle moves across the jet (in the case of a mismatch between the axis of the cumulative funnel and the velocity vector of the bomb at the moment of detonation - the jet moves partially across the obstacle) and violates its integrity. Modern ammunition differs rather in the speed of detonation of the explosive and its height above the cladding. And the complex shape of the notch is more likely for the formation of an impact nucleus, when the striking element is not a jet, but a pestle. In general, I'm ready to admit that "people walk on their hands and people walk on their sides" - to put it mildly, I'm tired, you are absolutely right in everything, I will not be anymore - what other words are there? Well, you don't understand - and God be with you ...
            1. Kars
              Kars 14 October 2012 16: 58
              0
              Quote: alex86
              Sorry, but outwardly it looks like you are fooling around.

              I’m not forgiving, you just got nonsense to write, with a bias towards exact science. You say you think - well, make a diagram, formulas and we look, if not me, then other mathematicians will find it.
              Quote: alex86
              Next: PTAB-2.5 does not have a heavily weighted nose - look at the incision

              Himself and look, only more attentively. Take a picture and mark the center, and I'll see.

              Quote: alex86
              But this has nothing to do with it, the orientation of the body in space will be determined not just by the weight of the nose,

              Stop spoiling nonsense, but look at the photo and that's it.

              and further - you want to prove something ---- links, tables, graphs for transverse vectors and everything else demogogy --- quotes.
              You can also find a trace from PTAB in the photo of the tiger.
              1. with
                with 14 October 2012 17: 10
                -1
                Quote: Kars
                I will not forgive, you just got nonsense to write, with a bias to exact science.

                Vo Dude, with a capital letter !!! hi
                Are you all fighting ??? drinks
                You see, sometimes there’s nothing to be done !!!)))

                1. Kars
                  Kars 14 October 2012 17: 38
                  0
                  Quote: met
                  Are you all fighting ???

                  So what to do? drinks

                  Well, maybe he will really prove it.
                  even though the comments show that the opponent did not think about the oncoming air flow at a speed of 100 m / s.
                  1. with
                    with 14 October 2012 17: 49
                    +1
                    Quote: Kars
                    So what to do?
                    Yes, nothing about him !!! (((
                    Just .... in my opinion, the admins relate to US ....

        3. alex86
          alex86 14 October 2012 19: 10
          0
          Quote: alex86
          think flew lower
          I will comment on myself - and perhaps the FAB-250 aerodynamics is such that the vertical speed of descent is much lower, and the discharge occurred farther than 2400 m from the target (and at what distance, interestingly, did the discharge happen? - you won’t tell?), Then will be less
          1. alex86
            alex86 14 October 2012 19: 59
            0
            Sorry, it was about ice bombing and ricocheting off waf
  20. Captain45
    Captain45 14 October 2012 13: 16
    +3
    I read the comments carefully and, excuse me, but, reading some, I can't understand how it turns out that our tanks are not so hot, and coffin planes, and bombs, shit are not flying according to the laws of physics, and that's all we have not so. There are a dime a dozen tacticians and strategists, but everyone forgets about the main result of the Great Patriotic War - it was not Hans and Dusseldorf who signed the Mausoleum, but private infantry Vanya from Ryazan at the Reichstag and that, in my opinion, says it all. I often see this live: I play Battlefield 3: Armored Kill "
    1. schapchits
      schapchits 14 October 2012 16: 18
      +1
      There really were a lot of people who had played enough in toys and did not know the story. And they take to judge the war on computer games! You +
    2. Antistaks
      Antistaks 14 October 2012 17: 51
      -2
      Well, firstly, they helped us a little. Well, as usual, they threw their hats over - I lost both grandfathers.
  21. schapchits
    schapchits 14 October 2012 16: 13
    +1
    Quote: Taratut
    The mistake of the German command was in the very fact of an attempt to break through the prepared layered defense where the strike was expected. The Germans did not use their trump cards - maneuver warfare. But the bike about the oncoming tank battle and a certain victory of the Soviet tankmen near Prokhorovka is nonsense.

    Learn the story!
    1. erased
      erased 14 October 2012 16: 47
      0
      Not certainly in that way. The battle was not an oncoming tank, but a combined-arms battle, where the basis of the strike forces were tanks 28 and 19 of the 5th Guards Corps. tank army - this is if we take specifically the battle itself on a certain section of the front.
      For those who are interested, I recommend basic research by Zamulin and Lopukhovsky, as well as Isaev’s book.
      Very detailed painted in plain language. Figures, links to sources and documents, balanced conclusions and detailed analysis.
    2. Antistaks
      Antistaks 14 October 2012 17: 45
      -2
      I agree. The Germans began to blunt not childishly. How they once went around Kiev and other boilers of the 41st year. And then they ran into the ruins of Stalingrad (instead of going around) and hollowed with our foreheads (my grandfather died there). Under Kursk the same thing - masochists however.
      1. wax
        wax 14 October 2012 20: 08
        +1
        It is a pity that it was not you who led the Germans, otherwise the war would have ended a year or two earlier due to huge boilers during attacks on the flanks.
        1. Antistaks
          Antistaks 14 October 2012 21: 48
          +1
          Tell me a specific operation where the Germans were stopped by a blow to the flank? On the same Kursk Bulge all the counter blows are only in the forehead. And still relish - oncoming battle.
          1. Kibb
            Kibb 14 October 2012 22: 43
            0
            Quote: Antistaks
            blow to the flank?
            They hardly stopped, they really beat me in the forehead. But let's say "Bagration" - who said that you don't need to learn from the enemy? Another question is that we learn every time anew - the enemies would learn better
  22. erased
    erased 14 October 2012 16: 42
    +2
    Good review article, thanks to the author.
    The debut of the new bombs was successful, it is a fact.
    By the way, by the way about tanks, their quantity and quality. On the Kursk Bulge, the Red Army, knowing the technical superiority of the new German tanks, managed to transfer the main burden of fighting them from tanks and anti-tank guns to mines and aerial bombs, as well as using tactical solutions (PTORs, PTOPs). By the end of 1943, the industry began mass production of powerful anti-tank weapons - SU-152, SU-85, ZIS-2 guns, and the IS-2 tank appeared. But mines and bombs continued to be an important means of defeating enemy armored vehicles.
    Glory to the soldiers, workers, engineers, and designers and the whole people who defeated Nazi Germany and saved the world!
  23. Antistaks
    Antistaks 14 October 2012 17: 37
    -2
    The article cheers is patriotic, that is, emotional and UNLIMITED. The 21st century is in the courtyard, and your jet is still BURNING armor. The bomb was made illiterate. The focal length should be 4 - 6 calibers and it really isn’t (you can clearly see in the photo). Explosives are twice as large as needed for cum effects. The bomb was made of canned tin, so she did not give shards by definition (except for the shank). How much aviation (of that time) was effective against tanks can be seen from statistics - almost ALL tanks were destroyed by artillery. About air guns it is better not to remember. And then on the ground 76 mm was barely enough at point blank range and tanks sewed from the air 23 and 37 from a kilometer. As for the photo of the tank, then an obvious training ground.
    1. alex86
      alex86 14 October 2012 20: 07
      +1
      For objectivity - 76 mm in the forehead, and 23 and 37 mm in the roof. "I so I think ... "The tank is either a training ground, or we trained on the already damaged one (which is the same thing). But about aviation against tanks - this is, in your opinion, all notions and propaganda, or what? That is, unarmored equipment and living strength is yes, but tanks are not? I somehow do not add up ...
      1. Antistaks
        Antistaks 14 October 2012 21: 15
        -1
        Propaganda in a strong overestimation of the result. Type in the search - Oleg Rastenin "The main task is to knock out the enemy's tanks." A very sensible article.
        1. viruskvartirus
          15 October 2012 01: 00
          0
          By the way, I learned a lot from it ... and I'm waiting for your article.
    2. viruskvartirus
      15 October 2012 00: 57
      +1
      Well, write your ... LITE. I am aware of the jet. Tanks were destroyed in every way, even by FOGs and 45s, for example from 20 to 28 on July, six 45,5-ton Panthers with holes from 45mm shells remained on the battlefield. It is difficult to say who distinguished himself more - gunners with the M-42 or tankers with the T-70. However, the fact is the place to be.

      Panther No.142 - gun barrel - 1 hole
      Panther No.434 - tower feed - 3 holes
      Panther No.535 - side of the tower - 2 holes
      Panther No.634 - side of the tower - 3 holes; 100mm gun mask - 1 hole
      Panther No.714 - top of the hull - 2 holes
      Panther No.824 mask damaged - 1 hit; broken gun sight - 1 hit. And the attack aircraft also DESTROYED tanks, and this is a fact ... but urapatriotizm, what? The fact that I am proud that our grandfathers defeated a very powerful enemy?
      1. Antistaks
        Antistaks 15 October 2012 23: 49
        +1
        So the fact of the matter is that the grandfathers won and not the bomb. And you're on everything along the old rails - Russia is the birthplace of elephants. All that we had was brilliant Germans immediately stolen or adopted. For example, a 120 mm mortar or SVT. and the BOM did not begin to be copied, even though they were a lot of shells they were in front of the entire planet. And in the wake of your article, wonderful guys appear who have the anti-personnel cassette tapes sewing on the fly.
        1. viruskvartirus
          16 October 2012 09: 47
          0
          Well, the person who wrote this is not an Internet specialist and knows something ... by the way, for this remark I put you a plus.
        2. viruskvartirus
          16 October 2012 11: 18
          0
          By the way, the PTAB bomb is the most massive aerial bomb ... if you do not like my article read this http://vadimvswar.narod.ru/ALL_OUT/TiVOut0809/FlAPz/FlAPz055.htm
    3. Antistaks
      Antistaks 15 October 2012 23: 51
      0
      Well, you instructed me in the minuses, but specifically can you refute at least one point on the design of the bomb?
  24. Antistaks
    Antistaks 14 October 2012 18: 03
    +1
    She also (the bomb) had the wrong facing of the groove - too thin. And the speed of the kum jet of 12 - 15 km sec will be left to the author's conscience. Well, then there were no explosives with the required detonation speed and sufficient pressure in the shock front to reach such speeds. Moreover, "experts", in order to enhance the BURNING of armor, too much aluminum was added to RDX.
  25. Nuar
    Nuar 14 October 2012 19: 33
    0
    a little off-top, but all this is nonsense. Here are Georgians planes from ATVs knock down:
    That's where the power is! Immediately obvious, the Georgian military has a plan
  26. viruskvartirus
    15 October 2012 01: 41
    0
    Another photo on the work of PTAB
    1. Kars
      Kars 15 October 2012 11: 50
      +3
      100 kg aerial bomb with PE-2
      1. viruskvartirus
        15 October 2012 12: 16
        0
        Kars, it’s not entirely clear whether PTAB or FAB. You would share photos if there is something similar, you see the topic itself is dark and controversial it’s scary to yourself; it’s interesting to find 100% pictures confirming by PTAB.
        1. Kars
          Kars 15 October 2012 12: 35
          0
          Quote: viruskvartirus
          it’s interesting to find pictures 100% confirming by PTAB

          I already wrote that I personally did not come across such.
  27. viruskvartirus
    15 October 2012 01: 58
    0
    And another interesting video
    1. alex86
      alex86 15 October 2012 07: 28
      0
      According to one of the episodes, three shells (as I understand it, 37mm) were enough to defeat the tank, and the effect of each was noticeable. In another episode: the camera jerks up for every hit - it’s strange, because it’s a photographic recorder, it shouldn’t be from an explosion of such a small caliber, or it was still shot and jerked reflexively with fear. These are frames for skeptics that it’s possible to knock out a tank from an airplane wink
      1. Antistaks
        Antistaks 15 October 2012 10: 45
        -2
        alex86, I did not see a TANK DAMAGE. There was a hit and burst of a HEAM projectile on the armor. The camera shuddered at the recoil of the gun. Judging by the profile of the aircraft and the appearance of the shooting tracer, it’s German, but they had a 50 mm gun.
        1. alex86
          alex86 15 October 2012 17: 34
          +1
          Yes, no damage is visible, a trace (gap) is visible on the tower, under the caterpillar, an explosion of the mounted fuel tank (or MTO?) - in the most characteristic episode, but the same cannot be said about the absence of damage. Well, Stuka’s guns (link above) seemed to have no more than 37 mm.
  28. DEDA
    DEDA 15 October 2012 03: 16
    0
    Sorry, there was no bomb, but look at IL-2 ...


    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sAuQDynn3wY
  29. Ramses_IV
    Ramses_IV 15 October 2012 06: 38
    +1
    To the author plus.
    I'm wondering why, after such results of the use of PTAB, no one thought of creating the first RPG for the infantry on their basis? After all, all that was needed for him was, in fact, the same PTAB with a folding stabilizer, a solid-propellant powder accelerator (like the PC82 for example) and a shooting guide. The infantry would have a real "anti-tank dagger" - cheap, simple and effective.
    1. Antistaks
      Antistaks 15 October 2012 23: 37
      0
      Gunpowder for missiles was sorely lacking, or Katyusha or grenade launchers. And with the technology of that time, they wouldn’t get anywhere from the grenade launcher. Look carefully at the volleys of Katyushas - there many missiles fly in a very arbitrary direction.
      1. Ramses_IV
        Ramses_IV 18 October 2012 05: 04
        0
        I saw an unexploded Katyusha projectile (132 mm, if I am not mistaken) - it was made somehow very handicraft and sloppy, especially the stabilizer. Probably from there and such a scatter. Plus, the range of a rocket launcher and an RPG seems to be different, as well as a tactical purpose. For the times of the Second World War, the range of aimed fire for an RPG would have been enough, maybe 100-200 m. The projection of the target (tank) would be sufficient, and it was possible to hit, most likely, even with an imperfect stabilizer. IMHO
        1. Antistaks
          Antistaks 21 October 2012 10: 15
          +2
          That was then the level of production. And cumulative squalor without RPG was enough. It’s just that when the tanks advance GRAMMETLY - after art preparation, concentrated and accompanied by infantry, grenade launchers are powerless. Confirmation of this is a huge number of unused fausts in the German trenches.
  30. afire
    afire 15 October 2012 11: 05
    +1
    Shel third year of the terrible war
    We have the letter ё ё in our dictionary, use it to immediately clarify the text
    1. viruskvartirus
      15 October 2012 11: 18
      +1
      ) I will consider thanks.
  31. batareika
    batareika 17 October 2012 22: 58
    0
    OO thanks to the administrator what I was looking for