Wunderwaffe: Bluff or Third Reich Superweapon?

50
“We had flying guided projectiles, a rocket glider, which had an even greater speed than a jet plane, an anti-aircraft missile homing from thermal radiation, a sea torpedo capable of pursuing a ship, guided by the noise of propellers. Aircraft designer Lippish prepared the drawings of a jet plane, far ahead of the current level of aircraft construction - the flying wing. We can say we experienced difficulties from the abundance of projects and developments ... ”- wrote in his memoirs the Minister of Industry of the Third Reich Albert Speer.

Herr Speer, we know that you had superheavy Tanks, highly autonomous submarines, infrared sights, ballistic missiles, Dr. Zenger's suborbital bomber, secret “disks” and bases in Antarctica ... the fascist bastards even sent an expedition to Tibet and came into contact with the extraterrestrial civilization of Alpha Centauri.

And we also know that among the ruins of the Third Reich, not a single operating nuclear reactor was discovered. The head of the German atomic project Werner Heisenberg (winner of the 1933 Nobel Prize) acknowledged that German scientists have no idea about the technology for obtaining weapons-grade plutonium. Wasserfal anti-aircraft missiles did not shoot down a single aircraft, while German super-heavy tanks remained forever in the world stories, as a result of the victory of technology over common sense. "Vundervafli", in a word.

Layout of nuclear reactor B VIII in the city of Haigerloch. The only more or less realistic design of the German reactor. Alas, when it was collected, it turned out that the amount of uranium needed to be increased by 750 kg, the Germans miscalculated.

After the victory, the allies of the anti-Hitler coalition got rich trophies. Including - fantastic technical innovations, items from the future. In many designs, the laws of nature were completely ignored, the units of the “vundervaffe” managed to take part in the hostilities, proving their total inconsistency in front of the less revolutionary, but well-established and mass-produced technology of the allies. However, the very fact of the existence of such projects struck and suggested that the Third Reich was close to a revolutionary breakthrough in technology. The myth of the great achievements of the fascists was eagerly picked up by the press, who knew how to make money on unhealthy sensations.

In fact, there is no reason to talk about the technical superiority of the Third Reich; on the contrary, it is fair to admit that at the end of the war, German science seriously lagged behind its opponents. Most of the fantastic German projects “super-weapons»Reflected intentions, not opportunities. At the same time, at the allies appeared at least advanced models of equipment, which, unlike the German "vundervaffe", were put into mass production and proved their high efficiency in battle. This is easily seen in a few examples.

Luftwaffe

25 February 1945 of the year. In the vicinity of the Hilberstadt airbase, the jet Me.262 fell with a howl and a crash - the American Mustangs lurched a group on take-off and shot six people who had not managed to pick up speed, the helpless Messerschmitts, were shot at close range ...

For the first time, the Allies met with a German fighter jet in 25 on July 1944: on that day, Me.262 unsuccessfully attacked the reconnaissance Mosquito of the Royal Air Force. It is noteworthy that two days later - on July 27 1944, the Gloucester - Meteor jet flew its first combat sortie, intercepting the cruise missile V-1 over the Channel Tunnel. The British aircraft turned out to be much more perfect than its German counterpart, the Meteors took part in the Korean War and were operated around the world until the end of the 70s. But the public loves loud sensations - all the fame went to Messerschmitt.
Wunderwaffe: Bluff or Third Reich Superweapon?

German machine again? No, this is the British fighter "Gloucester Meteor"

In addition to the 262, the German aircraft industry has prepared a number of jet aircraft projects:
- Arado-234 blitz bomber
- "people's fighter" Henschel-162 "Salamander"
- bomber with a backward-swept wing "Junkers-287"
- "Flying Wing" Horten brothers Ho.229

Jumo 004 TTRD in US testing

The only problem was the lack of reliable and high-powered jet engines. In the presence of the Germans were only two types of power plants: BMW 003 and Jumo 004 - they kept all the projects of "super-aircraft". Both were extremely fire hazardous and did not provide the required flight characteristics. And without normal engines, all plans became meaningless - and indeed, most of the German "super-aircraft" did not go beyond the experimental models.

Silver bird

9 May 1946, Berlin-Gatov airbase. Along the slender rows of the Me.262, the Maybach limousine train is moving - Hermann Goering himself will be present at the launch of the America-Bomber. A huge overpass is visible in the spotlight - the interlacing of steel trusses originates in the eastern part of the landfill, and rapidly goes up, rests on the overcast sky in the West. There, where over the horizon spread out the hated America. On the overpass installed orbital ship with a booster block. After a moment, the fire-breathing harness from the 5 engines, the total 600 tons of tons, would tear the spacecraft off, like a hurricane tearing down billboards, and taking it to the velvet blackness of space.

For 8 minutes, “America-Bomber” rose to an altitude of 260 kilometers and headed for New York at a speed of 22 thousand km / h. After 3500 kilometers from the starting point, the suborbital bomber makes the first descent, and, pushing off from the dense layers of the atmosphere at an altitude of 40 km, again rises to a low near-earth orbit. An hour later, radio operators heard the intermittent voice of the pilot: “My Führer, by your name! .. US territory! .. diving! .. goodbye, dying with honor! ..”. The fiery meteorite drew the horizon and crashed into the skyscrapers of Manhattan ...

From the first day of the war, the Reich leadership gnashed its teeth in impotent rage, trying to find a means to strike in New York, Washington, other major US cities, military-industrial complexes of the Urals and Siberia - unattainable goals for the German aviation. “The operational-tactical complex Fau-2, possessing a range of about 300 km, was useless for solving this problem. Werner von Braun worked on the creation of an intercontinental ballistic missile under the A-9 / A-10 project throughout the war, alas, the technological level of German industry in those years did not allow the creation of anything larger than the V-2, and regular bombing of research centers and Peenemuende missile range further slowed down the work. The Ta.400 four-engine long-range bomber did not live up to expectations either - by all accounts, he had no chance of reaching the coast of America.
The last hope of the fascist leadership was a doctor Zenger suborbital bomber. Enchanting project even now is amazing.

“100 tons of solid fire! The plane is thrown by its hellish engine to a terrible height and falls supersonic down, but does not cut into the atmosphere, and ricochets about it, like a flat stone from the surface of the water. Hit, jumps and flies on! And so two or three times! A strong idea! ”- Designer Alexey Isaev, the creator of the first Russian BI-1 rocket plane, was telling about the German project Silbervogel. Fortunately, the complete unrealizability of this project was clear even to the most stubborn schizophrenics from the then leadership of the Reich.

From the point of view of innovation, Dr. Zenger's bomber could be a good plot for a science fiction novel. Just a beautiful idea-dream. Zenger’s apparatus is no more realistic than a spaceship from the novel “Andromeda Nebula” - with seeming practicality, no detailed calculations have been made.

Kriegsmarine

30 on April 1945 of the year, the submarine U-2511 under the command of ace A. Shney (on his career sank the 21 ship) went on a military campaign. In the region of the Faroe Islands, the boat met with a group of British cruisers and destroyers, but for some reason refused to attack and returned to base several days after the announcement of the end of the war.

"Vundervaflya" Kriegsmarine

Thus ended the first and last combat march of submarines of the type XXI, better known as the "Electric Boat". Despite its advanced radio-electronic equipment and rechargeable batteries of a new type, which allowed them to move for many hours in a submerged position at the speed of 15 nodes, the Electric Boat in a real battle was frightened by destroyers and submarine-hunters. Sometimes there is an excuse that the U-2511 Electroboat refused a torpedo attack due to good intentions - on May 4 of 1945, Admiral Doenitz ordered the cessation of hostilities. Maybe so ... although this story has a tragicomic continuation: ten "Electroboats" trying to break into Norway in early May 1945 were discovered and sunk by Allied aircraft. The Germans didn’t help their latest developments ... Only a nuclear reactor aboard a boat could solve the problem, but before it was created the Germans needed a few more years.

German submariners achieved tremendous success during the Second World War - they accounted for 50% of naval victories. In total, submarine killers sank 2759 vessels with a total tonnage of 14 million gross register tons and 123 warships (of which 60 were oil vessels, minesweepers and trawlers formally assigned to the military the fleet).
Here an interesting situation arises: in the early years of the war, German submariners, who had only 50-60 boats in service, managed to sink enemy ships with a total displacement of 2 million tons. In the 1944 year, having 500 combat-ready boats, Kriegsmarine managed with great difficulty to sink the ships with a total displacement of "only" 700 thousand tons! At the same time, in 1940, the Germans lost the submarine 21, in 1944 they lost 243 submarines in a year! It seems that fifty escort aircraft carriers, constant air patrols and British Asdic sonar have become more formidable "super-weapons" than all the advanced developments of German shipbuilders.

Note. In total during the war years, the Kriegsmarine lost 768 submarines. 28 000 German submariners forever sunk into the ocean.

Fritz and daughter Rhine

The Germans have really achieved great success in all that relates to rocket technology (perhaps this is the only area where they succeeded) In addition to the well-known V-1 and V-2, in Fascist Germany, the development of anti-ship missiles and guided air bombs "Fritz X ”and“ Henschel-293 ”, X-4 air-to-air guided missile, as well as Wasserfal-type 3 missile systems (German waterfall), Schmetterling (German butterfly) and Reintochter (German daughter of the Rhine).

Guided bombs achieved the greatest success - their use caused the death of dozens of ships and only the total superiority of the allies in the air made it possible to avoid a big pogrom on the days of the landing in Normandy.
The air-to-air guided missile was launched into mass production and, theoretically, could be used in the last weeks of the war, although there are no reliable references to this weapon. 1000 missiles of this type found in an underground vault.

The Schmetterling project is very interesting - it is not an anti-aircraft missile, but a whole unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) with 35 kilometers range. However, the Germans did not manage to create the main thing - an accurate and reliable control system. Attempts to guide missiles on the acoustic noise of propellers and thermal radiation have completely failed. As a result, the Germans stopped on the radar guidance method using two ground-based radars, but there was not enough time to refine the system. By the way, during the tests conducted in 1944, 59 33 “butterfly” start-ups turned out to be emergency. The logical result is that not a single aircraft was hit by a German anti-aircraft missile.

Iron Capote

"If you are talking about the" Royal Tiger ", then I don’t see any real improvements - heavier, less reliable, less maneuverable." - from the book "Tigers in the Dirt," by Otto Carius (one of the best tank aces, to his credit more 150 armored vehicles destroyed).

Super heavy tank Maus weighing 188 tons. Apotheosis of insanity.

Indeed, German tank building suffered a similar problem as the aviation industry. Germans could create any project:
- super heavy tank “Lion” with 105 mm gun, weight 76 tons
- anti-aircraft tank E-100 "Alligator" with two paired (!) 88 mm guns
- heavy tank destroyer “Jagdtigr” with 128 mm gun
The only problem was in the absence of a suitable transmission and suspension, the situation was aggravated by the excessive growth of the mass of combat vehicles - German tank builders did not learn how to create compact designs and save forces and resources until the end of the war.

Of all the above, “vundervaffe” in small-scale production was launched only heavy self-propelled gun “Jagdtigr” on the chassis of the same name tank (released from 70 to 79 machines), which became the heaviest type of German armored vehicles. 75 tons - such a mass could hardly withstand even the powerful Tiger chassis, the car was clearly overloaded and even enormous firepower (Yagdtigr punched the Sherman tank in the forehead from the 2500 distance m) could not save the situation. The Jagdtigr was falling apart right in front of his eyes. After a short march the weapon was unbalanced, the suspension broke, and the gearbox could not withstand enormous loads. It's funny, but in each car 2 charge of explosives was originally provided for the destruction of a defective ACS. The Germans correctly guessed that the Jagdtigr would not sustain any bridge, so they immediately equipped all vehicles with a snorkel for movement along the bottom of the rivers. This "vundervaflya".

Heavy tank IS-3. What a super-weapon should look like


Investigation results

Having robbed dozens of countries and peoples, the Aryans who have been hardened have not created a single revolutionary sample of technology, nothing fundamentally new and unusual. All projects of "super-weapons", at best, had dubious combat value, and at worst, were a collection of unrealistic fantasies.
War is the engine of progress. And German industry, in essence, did what it was supposed to do. Another issue is that the pace of development of the military-industrial complexes of the countries of the Anti-Hitler Coalition exceeded the pace of development of the military-industrial complex of fascist Germany. The Germans have learned how to make complex, but useless rockets. They were able to produce high-quality optics, gyroscopes and radio electronics. Engine-building was well developed (jet engines were not counted), the aviation industry, electrical engineering, chemical industry were at a high level; built a huge number of submarines. The Germans had an amazing organization and efficiency, all German products were distinguished by high quality and attention to detail. But! There is nothing fantastic here - the industry of a highly developed industrial country was supposed to work.

In fact, at the beginning of the war, the Germans managed to create a number of successful types of weapons, an order of magnitude superior in effectiveness to the weapons of all their opponents. Junkers-87 “Stuka” dive bomber, heavy “Tiger” tank - despite its complexity and high cost it was a powerful, well-protected and maneuverable vehicle. Good self-propelled artillery mounts based on medium tanks - Stug III, Stug IV, Hetzer (based on a Czech tank), Jagdpanther ... The outstanding achievements of German designers were the creation of a single MG34 machine gun and an intermediate cartridge 7,92х33 for the first assault rifle. Absolutely simple and ingenious weapons "Panzerfaust" cost the lives of thousands of tanks. As you can see, there is no “vundervaffe” in this list - the most common types of weapons that, with quality performance and proper use, have become masterpieces.
50 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +6
    19 October 2012 09: 54
    Well done Oleg Kaptsov.
    Good article, good selection.
    The "gloomy Teutonic genius" lacked quite a bit.
    If only ... for a thousand years (they promised the Reich for millennia) and all the samples would have inspired fear - on the inhabitants of Alpha Centauri.
    Or on the natives of Tibet.
    A plus.
    1. +6
      19 October 2012 09: 58
      Still ... a thousand years (Reich something promised for millennia)

      There was nothing to climb to the east, they would have fought in their own west, and maybe the Reich would have become millennial ...
  2. go_by
    +8
    19 October 2012 10: 32
    Now German technology is beyond praise. There is nothing to argue about.
    But the attack on Russia was a strategic superbug. So large that the Germans as a result are still under the protectorate of the Anglo-Saxons and cannot blather.
  3. Sergl
    +5
    19 October 2012 10: 44
    In fact, at the beginning of the war, the Germans managed to create a number of successful weapons that were an order of magnitude superior in effectiveness to the weapons of all their opponents. Diving bunker Junkers-87 "Piece" ...


    Let me disagree with the author. The diving bomber Ju-87 (of all modifications) reigned on the battlefield only in conditions of superiority of its aircraft over the battlefield and in conditions of weak anti-aircraft resistance. By the end of the war, after strengthening the air power of the Red Army, they generally stopped releasing them for day tasks and were used only at night.
    1. +3
      19 October 2012 11: 25
      Quote: SerGL
      The diving bomber Ju-87 (of all modifications) reigned on the battlefield only in conditions of superiority of its aircraft over the battlefield and in conditions of weak anti-aircraft resistance.


      And you take the line below:

      the most common types of weapons, which with high-quality performance and competent use turned into masterpieces.
    2. +1
      19 October 2012 12: 54
      Absolutely agree. This plane has terribly poor performance ...
      1. borisst64
        +2
        19 October 2012 13: 16
        Quote: cucun
        This aircraft has terribly poor performance ..

        But this plane conquered half of Europe. And for the protection of the conquered territories it did not fit.
      2. +2
        19 October 2012 18: 20
        Quote: cucun
        This plane has terribly poor performance ...

        This aircraft had probable accuracy of bombing, unattainable on other bombers of that time.
        1. Sergl
          0
          19 October 2012 21: 05
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          probable accuracy of bombing, unattainable on other bombers of that time


          It is difficult to miss a trained pilot who knows all the strengths and weaknesses of his machine, which has long been in serial production, in the absence of anti-aircraft and fighter countermeasures.

          When diving at a target at an angle of 80 degrees, an experienced pilot misses - you need to try.

          The strength of "Stukas" is not in the Uber qualities of the aircraft, but in the massing and training of pilots + well-established interaction with the Wehrmacht.
          1. +1
            19 October 2012 22: 15
            Quote: SerGL
            The strength of "Stukas" is not in the Uber qualities of the aircraft, but in the massing and training of pilots + well-established interaction with the Wehrmacht.


            Including
      3. Konrad
        +1
        19 October 2012 20: 45
        Quote: cucun
        This aircraft has terribly poor performance ..

        This is what you tell the veterans of the Great Patriotic War who faced his work!
        1. Sergl
          +1
          19 October 2012 21: 10
          If I had been under the attack of any combat aircraft of that time, I would have changed diapers more than once. You must admit that it is difficult not to be afraid of a roaring and flying colossus if the aircraft itself was only seen in the pictures.
          The strength of the fighters and commanders was that after 1941 they managed to cope, and then they beat the "pieces" out of their dive from everything that fired.
  4. +3
    19 October 2012 10: 44
    The article is interesting.
    Yes, if you hadn’t fought, but hid for a while ... It would have been very, very hard to fight them ...
  5. eSid
    0
    19 October 2012 11: 04
    Heavy tank IS-3. What a super-weapon should look like

    Cleverly give out a post-war tank as a military superweapon. Like a gritz, respect.
    There were no FAA analogues, no matter how puffed. The exponent is von Braun, who designed American space developments.
    April 30 1945 years U-2511 submarine under the command of ace A. Schnee went on a military campaign (21 ships were sunk during his career).

    Frightened by anti-submarine ships, well! Consider, when the Reich had already fallen, they had to heroically self-destruct?
    And if you think about it, then from the middle of the war the Atlantic was blocked by convoys / patrols a little less than completely - Gd doesn’t?
    If the author wanted to fast, then the banter was mediocre.
    1. +3
      26 December 2013 21: 47
      Quote: eSid
      There were no FAA analogues, no matter how puffed.
      And about them, just at that time, no one particularly "puffed", To create such bullshit with an accuracy of a stem of 20 km (this is a FAU-2) or with a propeller as a tachometer (this is a FAU-1) is, sorry, not even shit ... oh, it's just shit ... but, as one friend of mine said. So before you puff on someone, read the literature, dear. And preferably not yellow.
  6. +2
    19 October 2012 11: 37
    The Germans could create any project:
    - super heavy tank “Lion” with 105 mm gun, weight 76 tons
    - anti-aircraft tank E-100 "Alligator" with two paired (!) 88 mm guns
    - heavy tank destroyer “Jagdtigr” with 128 mm gun


    Well, it’s not necessary to tie the E series to the Yagtigrams. There are more likely misunderstandings with the standardization of Panther2 and Tiger2.
    And so the E series is very thought out, and would bring a bunch of headaches and mainly to our tank crews. Considering that on the way
    Heavy tank IS-3. What a super-weapon should look like
    which by the way is not as super as the IS-4.
    With the Yagtigr for unknown reasons, the Germans were too clever with the armor, it is really redundant.

    And the Sherman (T-34) RAC 44 could even penetrate from 5 km, but just get vryatli)))
    1. +4
      19 October 2012 11: 45
      anti-aircraft tank E-100 "Alligator" with two twin (!) 88 mm guns

      the exclamation mark is not clear.
      1. +2
        19 October 2012 18: 06
        And the E-100 advanced quite a bit in iron.
        In Panzershrek 6 or 7, a whole series of photos of the buildings, but it's a pity they do not cut out.
        1. +3
          19 October 2012 18: 08
          But photojacks are cool.
          1. +2
            20 October 2012 11: 27
            I will add from myself one "fotozhab" ... R.1000, aka "Rat", if I'm not mistaken ...
            1. Volkhov
              +2
              22 October 2012 20: 11
              Both "fotozhabs" from the north of Sweden - pay attention to the asphalt caterpillar of the APC to ride through the tunnels. Cool stuff, I wonder what is instead of them?
              And Stalin was preparing against this "Stalingrad" with 305 mm / 120 km / 10 kT - he is a narrow-minded Caucasian, did not know that it was enough to laugh.
    2. eSid
      +3
      19 October 2012 12: 24
      And the author does not share - paper projects (Lev, E-series, as an attempt to standardize the tank fleet) and frankly fantastic, like the Alligator. I'm surprised that he didn't remember about "Ratte";)
    3. +1
      20 October 2012 11: 20
      Quote: Kars
      the E series is very thought out and would bring a bunch of headaches and mainly to our tankers

      E-50 and E-75 are an interesting project. 2 tiger seems redundant, Panther 2 is what you need
      1. +2
        20 October 2012 13: 33
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Tiger 2 seems redundant, Panther 2 is what you need

        If you are talking about the real Tiger 2, it is really surplus, but the Panther with an 88 mm gun is the same thing, since the panther is, by a strange coincidence, unarmed. Put an 88 mm gun on it at once, and Tiger 1 would not be needed.

        Here is another line, the most balanced. Not talking about the implementation of one platform.
        1. 0
          20 October 2012 13: 50
          Quote: Kars
          If you're talking about the real Tiger 2

          And about the real, and about the E-75.

          Quote: Kars
          Here is another line

          Last, as I understand it, an armored personnel carrier?
          1. 0
            20 October 2012 16: 32
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            And about the real, and about the E-75.

            E-75? And what were you going to fight with IS-3 in the place of the Germans? 128 is much heavier, and the ballistics is even worse (too lazy to watch, but it seems worse)
            1. +1
              20 October 2012 21: 59
              Quote: Kars
              And what were you going to fight with the IS-3 in the place of the Germans?

              Faustpatrons, ATGMs, mines, Jagpenterami
              But seriously, wasn’t 88 mm enough to defeat IS?
              1. +1
                21 October 2012 00: 23
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                Faustpatrons, ATGMs, mines, Jagpenterami

                Well, if you exclude Jagdpanther, from your list then the question generally becomes: why tanks, and why after 1945 they continued to be used and produced after passing the Tsinturion-T-55 stages, and reaching Abrams-T-90.

                And by the way, cumulative weapons, especially the 40s, are not as scary as they are painted, especially Little Red Riding Hood --- a sandbag, a steel screen, concrete.
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                Isa not enough 88 mm?

                Do you want to let the IP reach 600-800 meters?

                The IS-3 had a very powerful and highly differentiated armor protection for its time in 1945, designed primarily to protect against fire the most powerful modern tank and anti-tank guns in the frontal plane and from the fire of most tank and anti-tank guns - primarily from German 88 mm rifled tank guns 8.8 cm KwK 43 and 7,5 cm KwK 42, while providing virtually complete protection from the most common towed 75 mm anti-tank guns 7.5 cm Pak 4

                this is not talking about what you yourself called IS-3 a superweapon.
        2. +1
          21 October 2012 00: 17
          Quote: Kars
          Here is another line

          Just noticed that one and the same picture posted)))))
  7. +4
    19 October 2012 12: 12
    So, I finally returned to the forum, and here the topic is about wunderwaffles.)
    Let's distinguish between myth and reality. "Miracle weapons" are usually considered prototypes or some fantastic projects, which we both had enough for the British and the Americans. The fact that the prototypes and the first military models that were hastily introduced into the series had defects and often failed does not prove anything. Remember, for example, how often the T-34s of the very first series failed ... Then the Germans brought many promising projects to mind - for example, Sturmgever.
  8. +5
    19 October 2012 14: 12
    "Wunderwaffle" .... Too often lately, they literally "revel in" this statement and savor its pronunciation. Let's take a look at the facts without snot bubbles. A losing country (amateur opinion) simply cannot have a better weapon. Therefore, they quickly determined everything: everything is ours - ingenious constructions, everything is German - g ... oh! (wunderwafli, as it is now fashionable) Excuse me, where did the whole layer of new types of weapons that appeared "suddenly" after the war come from? And what, we had a nuclear reactor ready during the war? So why talk with disgust, with a sense of superiority and disdain about the inventions of German engineers? Such an opponent must be respected. And many German developments are engineering masterpieces of that time.
    1. Volkhov
      +3
      19 October 2012 17: 58
      The article writes about the loss of 768 submarines, and on the cutting of the newest boat in the photo in the same article No. 3008. The numbering was not continuous, but close to this, sometimes numbers were issued repeatedly (if it was necessary to hide the losses), but even according to official estimates of the allies more than 100 boats sailed away unknown.
      During the Khrushchev-Cuban adventure of 4 boats, pr. 613 (a simplified analogue of the German ones) 1 broke all 3 diesels and was towed by a dry cargo ship, others were brought to discharge the batteries and forced to float, and the Germans regularly sailed to the southern hemisphere 20 years before, had supply submarines and in critical situations had a move of not 2 knots, but 30 due to the peroxide turbine.
      Comrade For some reason, Stalin did not consider the war finished and built cruisers like Stalingrad, landing submarines and 100 divisions IL - 28 (12 aircraft) - that is, means to capture their bases, but now everything is simpler - they paused and won the article. It is unpleasant, of course, that they are unattainable and do what they want, but parity is needed, not self-hypnosis.
      1. +2
        26 December 2013 22: 07
        Quote: Volkhov
        they had supply submarines and in critical situations they had the move not of the 2 node, but 30 due to the peroxide turbine.
        Submarines with a Walter turbine, EMNIP, did not take part in military campaigns and did not have 30 submarine nodes. Actually - no more than 24 nodes and then only for a short time: such an engine was to the hell uneconomical and almost unregulated.
    2. +1
      19 October 2012 18: 26
      Quote: IRBIS
      Excuse me, where did the whole layer of new types of weapons that appeared "suddenly" after the war come from then?

      For example?
      Quote: IRBIS
      And what, did we have a nuclear reactor ready during the war?

      We do not, but dozens worked in the USA. By the summer of 1945, the Americans had already received 6 kg of weapons-grade plutonium and assembled a finished bomb from it
      Quote: IRBIS
      So why, with disgust, with a sense of superiority and neglect, talk about the inventions of German engineers?

      The Russian public loves to squeamishly and with disdain talk about American planes and tanks. So what is the difference?
      1. +1
        20 October 2012 13: 43
        Dear Snow Leopard,
        it seems you did not understand the main topic ..
        German engineers did not bother.
        They gave out a lot of interesting PROJECTS.
        Only now, during the war - not projects are needed - but real weapons, which are a bit more complicated than forks, say. And most importantly - technological.
        PPSh was not at all produced in large quantities - that it was a beast-machine.
        And because it could be mass produced. Punching workers.
        And PPP - was issued piece by piece. Turner workers.
        ...
        But the Russian public loves to squeamishly not talk about planes and tanks .. But about the fact that these very planes and tanks are beast-cars.
        And all the rest are like puppies of an obsolete dog.
        1. +1
          10 November 2013 17: 11
          PPP was not issued individually
    3. +2
      26 December 2013 22: 01
      Quote: IRBIS
      And what, did we have a nuclear reactor ready during the war?
      Not. And the Germans, too. And our first-born, too, did not become the result of German developments.

      So why, with disgust, with a sense of superiority and neglect, talk about the inventions of German engineers?
      It is difficult to adequately relate to people who are seriously designing "Mouse", "Rat", R-1500 and "high pressure pump". If the latter is really the brainchild of future times (albeit useless, as time has shown), then the previous ones are stupidity bordering on delirium. But I agree, the enemy was strong, serious and
      Such an adversary must be respected.


      And many German developments are masterpieces of engineering at that time.
      At the idea level - I agree to all 200. And as a technical development - nothing more than naive crafts.
  9. +8
    19 October 2012 15: 13
    Having robbed dozens of countries and peoples, the Aryans who have been hardened have not created a single revolutionary sample of technology, nothing fundamentally new and unusual. All projects of "super-weapons", at best, had dubious combat value, and at worst, were a collection of unrealistic fantasies.,
    I fundamentally disagree with the author, a lot of German developments, components and assemblies, after the war, were used in our and American equipment.
    1. +3
      19 October 2012 18: 28
      Quote: Priboi
      a lot of German developments, components and assemblies, after the war, were used in our and American equipment.

      American and English developments were used even more. For example, the British jet engine "Nin" - the heart of the MiG-15
  10. itr
    +6
    19 October 2012 16: 41
    Not men need to recognize the Germans as talented engineers
    It’s just that the truth was not on their side, that’s all
    1. +1
      20 October 2012 13: 51
      The truth is always on the side of engineering.
      ..
      Another thing is where the work of engineers is directed.
      ...
      Ugly design - works poorly. Or doesn’t work at all. So this is not true.
      But, a beautiful thing is already good because it is beautiful. And it is true.
  11. Kir
    +1
    19 October 2012 18: 00
    The article pleased me, with humor, but only there are questions, though not to the author but to the "winners". What, you dear ones, are so fucked up that the documentaries of the countries of the "fascist union", hell where you can find it, and if you find it in your "intertrapation" (from the word chatter), and I don't need to hide behind all sorts of things like Nazi propaganda, etc. n nonsense, you "soyuznichki" are afraid of the truth!
    Yes, and in the light of recent events and something else is beginning to seem, and most likely it actually was, but we most likely will not find out the truth, the war was more beneficial to the countries of the "British Union" and the world banking community, so we found a "friend" Schickelgruber, someone can say what about the bombing and landing plans, and what prevented the Germans from doing this at a favorable moment!
    As for the technology, if I may say so, who invented this miracle of technology, a former forester, then someone else "mystics" and the like, and what the engineers did was very even !!!
  12. +1
    19 October 2012 19: 13
    An interesting situation arises here: in the first years of the war, German submariners, who had only 50-60 boats in service, were able to sink enemy ships with a total displacement of 2 million tons.


    it’s not only surprising if, according to 2, a million tons are in the best years, how did 14 millions accumulate during the 6 years of the war?

    DIGITAL DATA RELATING TO THE GERMAN UNDERWATER Navy FOR THE PERIOD OF WAR 1939 1945

    1. On September 1, 1939, the German submarine fleet had 57 submarines.

    2. From September 1, 1939 to May 8, 1945, another 1113 submarines entered the German Navy, including 1099 newly built at German shipyards, 4 new boats built at foreign shipyards, and 10 trophy boats of foreign construction .

    3. Of the total number of 1170 submarines in service, 863 participated in hostilities, each of which made one or more exits to the sea.

    Table 1. The results of the actions of German submarines

    Classes korableyPotoplenyPovrezhdenyAvianostsy3-Escort avianostsy32Lineynye korabli23Legkie kreysera55Minnye zagraditeli11Eskadrennye minonostsy3411Eskortnye minonostsy1814Fregaty24Korvety262Shlyupy133Eskadrennye tralschiki10-Underwater lodki9-ship torpedo-PLO3 katera3 assault korabli13-Floating masterskie2Posylnye suda1Vsego14845 4. In military campaigns killed 630 German submarines, of which 603 - as a result of enemy action, 20 - on unexplained reasons and 7 - from accidents.

    5. In domestic waters and ports, 81 submarines were killed by enemy actions (air raids, mines). In addition, 42 boats were killed in accidents.

    6. 215 submarines were blown up or flooded by their own teams (part of these boats were subsequently raised by the Allies). 38 submarines during the war were excluded from the fleet because of the inability to eliminate the damage and due to deterioration. 11 boats were handed over to the fleets of other states and interned in damaged condition at ports of other countries. 153 submarines after the war were taken to English ports or to ports of other states.



    And about why more submarines were drowned by the end of the war --- well, this can be connected with anything. The Germans had a lot of submarines, so the number of sunken ones increased.
    In 1939, 57 submarines were sunk 9
    And further more submarines in the ranks. More sunken.
    You can also correlate with the increased number of destroyers-frigates-
    Just as experienced crews died, by the end of the war a large percentage of newcomers.

    And so you can even associate with the Kursk Bulge)))) a surge in the flooding of submarines.

    Well, pay attention to non-combat losses and self-flooding.
    1. +1
      19 October 2012 19: 23
      Quote: Kars
      it’s not only surprising if, according to 2, a million tons are in the best years, how did 14 millions accumulate during the 6 years of the war?

      The thought was different. At the beginning of the war, with the 50 small boats, the Kriegsmarine achieved tremendous success. In 1944, the number of boats increased by 10 times, the damage from them was reduced by 3 times. Those. efficiency decreased ... 30 times!
      Although, on the contrary, in the 1944 year new boats began to appear, super-duper acoustic torpedoes, anti-radars, etc. wafers ...

      Details by numbers:
      http://militera.lib.ru/h/vershinin_eremeev_shergin/09.html
      Quote: Kars
      Well, pay attention to non-combat losses and self-flooding.

      And you did not pay attention to the number 50%?)))
      1. +1
        19 October 2012 22: 00
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        With 50 small boats, the Kriegsmarine achieved tremendous success.

        But what is surprising? There are no convoy systems, the British are catastrophically short of destroyers, do you remember why the Anglo-Saxons gave the Yankees bases? Surface raiders, auxiliary cruisers were not caught at sea, the United States didn’t enter the war - is it really small? And at the same time they lost 6 submarines.
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        In 1944, the number of boats increased 10 times

        And how many times increased the number of escort ships? Greenland was acupunctured, some other islands, attacks on ports, French ports were lost.
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        1944 new boats began to appear, super-duper acoustic torpedoes, radar detectors, etc. waffles

        Super-duper is not completely brought to mind, in small quantities, and at the same time, the total number of losses has not increased compared to 1943, although there are even more Yankees and some of the facts mentioned above.
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        http://militera.lib.ru/h/vershinin_eremeev_shergin/09.html

        good numbers, but you still can’t attach them to what you want.
        In 1944 fewer submarines perished from aviation than in 1943
        If we compare the losses of the first (1940) year with the losses of boats in 1943–1944, it will be seen that they increased by more than 11 times {102}.

        This is primarily due to the fact that the British and American command concentrated their maximum production, strategic and operational reserves in the fight against German submarines, [245] which by this time had already suffered an irreparable defeat on the Eastern Front.

        Therefore, statistics related to the loss of submarines should be considered taking into account at what stage of the war (especially at what stage of Soviet-German combat) these losses took place.

        And further in the text with the mention of coastal and aircraft carrier aviation, it turns out that almost the main reason is the appearance of a small-sized radar.
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        And you did not pay attention to the number 50%?)))

        No, I’m paying attention to what I know.
        1. 0
          19 October 2012 22: 01
          General estimates for the entire war period show the following:

          1. 365 submarines, or 47,2%, perished in the oceans. In this case, 170 boats were sunk by surface ships, 160 by aircraft, 20 jointly by aircraft and surface ships, 4 submarines and 11 boats were killed for other reasons.

          2. 126 submarines died in the open sea, which is 16,4%. In this case, 50 submarines were sunk by surface ships, 35 by aviation, 12 submarines, exploded on 10 mines, 9 were sunk together by surface ships and aviation and 7 boats were killed for other reasons.

          3. 218 submarines perished in coastal areas, which is only 28,8%. At that, 62 boats were sunk by surface ships, 114 by aviation, together with aircraft and 10 surface ships, by 8 submarines, it exploded on 16 mines and 6 boats were killed for other reasons.

          4. 59 submarines perished in the bases, which is 7,6%.

          1. +1
            19 October 2012 23: 21
            ------------------------------------------
        2. +1
          20 October 2012 11: 13
          Quote: Kars
          And what's so surprising? There is no convoy system, the British are sorely lacking destroyers

          It was in such conditions that "high efficiency" was achieved, it seems that the boats are poorly adapted for a war with warships, in contrast to aviation, which was never afraid of anything - there, 20 avosek smashed Taranto
          Quote: Kars
          Super-duper not quite brought to mind, in small quantities

          Yeah, of course, they’ve already made a series. It turns out that there wasn’t any child prodigy
          Quote: Kars
          nor did the total loss compared to 1943 increase

          but the damage caused by boats has been reduced several times!
          Quote: Kars
          French ports are lost.

          Nevertheless, military campaigns continued - about 250 boats were lost (let 50 of them be in the base)
          Quote: Kars
          almost the main reason is the appearance of a small-sized radar.

          And sonar
          and fifty escort aircraft carriers, each of which crashed into several super-duper boats with acoustic torpedoes.
          1. +1
            20 October 2012 13: 44
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            20 avoseks smashed Taranto

            There is only one factor ------ MACARONNIKI)))))))))))
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            It was in such conditions that "high efficiency" was achieved,

            It’s strange that you yourself give the numbers but don’t want to analyze them - the PIK fell on 1942,39-40 nothing special, but as there were more submarines, so immediately a jerk to the top, this also correlates with the intensification of sea traffic.
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            poorly adapted for war with warships

            American submariners will not agree with you. Those who have less destroyers, escort ships and fuel suffer big losses in combat vessels from submarines. And the price of a submarine and a sunken warship is simply not in the ratio.
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            they are already sewing a series

            The Panther on the Kursk Bulge was serial, did it greatly affect its quality?
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            there was no wunderwaffe

            In relation to acoustic torpedoes, I would not use this term at all, then you can call a radar on an airplane a van der wafer.

            In general, I would limit the application to the FAA only, well, maybe to some stratlets there.

            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            but at the same time the damage caused by boats decreased

            But they didn’t lose the submarines at times, just the convoys found opposition and gained experience in fighting ..wolf packs ..
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            And sonar

            Did he appear in 1943?
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            and fifty escort aircraft carriers

            But didn’t they know how to build escort aircraft carriers in 1941-42? Or the Catalines didn’t pour0
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            several super-duper boats with acoustic torpedoes

            Are you sure? Maybe you know how many acoustic torpedoes were fired?
  13. +3
    20 October 2012 11: 32
    Apupeosis of the Third Reich ... Neither give nor take, neither sit nor stand - but the real "Stern Krieg" in person ... laughing YYY
    1. Kir
      +2
      20 October 2012 13: 41
      Thank you for the image, as I looked and decided to rummage and saw this, in short, what can we say if we even have the emblem for the VKS elite troops, and the one based on the staff!
  14. +1
    20 October 2012 14: 13
    People, why cling to terminology? "Wunderwaffe" was Hitler's fix idea and his last hope, which crumpled with him. But German engineers really managed to develop many worthy weapons, many of which were then issued both in the USSR and in the USA and further everywhere as purely national achievements.
    For example, Werner von Braun and his latest development, the Fau Axnumx ballistic missile, which had to reach New York, fell into the hands of the United States. And the USSR got the crumbs in the form of FAU4 and 1 missiles and some German rocket engineers not of the highest level. Therefore, the USSR lagged behind the United States for a long time in terms of creating long-range ballistic missiles. A similar picture was with the atomic bomb. If the German submarine on which a cargo of uranium and infrared fast-detonating detonators to the atomic bomb were transported to Japan did not fall into the hands of the amers, then the Americans were unlikely to be able to detonate their bombs in 2 because they didn’t get fuses, and there was uranium not enough.
    The Germans not only managed to do the same jet messers. but also used quite effectively at the front. The fact that these Messers were not completely reliable, because the first jet MIGs and Yaks built using trophy jet engines from the same Messers were not very familiar with reliability. It is possible to list all the technical achievements of the Germans during the war long and tedious, but why? Everything has long been described and painted. The main thing is to be able to separate flies from cutlets, and truth from myths.
    1. +2
      20 October 2012 16: 32
      Quote: gregor6549
      then it was issued both in the USSR, and in the USA and further everywhere as purely national achievements.

      The meaning of the article: the countries of the anti-Hitler coalition created dozens of times more developments and technologies ... but for some reason, it is customary in the media to praise the Germans
      Quote: gregor6549
      Werner von Braun and his latest development of the Fau ballistic missile

      The tale of Brown was rather disgusting. The Fau-2 missile is the only over-achievement of German science. Everything! Nowhere else did the Germans excel! Research institutes in America and the United Kingdom at the end of the war created much more technology: anti-loading suits for pilots, super aircraft carriers and battleships, sonars, an atomic bomb, a computer - none of this happened in Germany.
      1. 0
        20 October 2012 18: 59
        Well what can I tell you? Rummage in the internet, and not only in Russian, and you will find a lot of information refuting your statements.
        1. Kir
          0
          20 October 2012 19: 03
          Who does not want, he will not see "blessed are the poor in spirit for they do not know what they are doing" -the superfluous "orthodox!
        2. +1
          20 October 2012 19: 55
          Quote: gregor6549
          the tax picture was with the atomic bomb. If the German submarine on which a cargo of uranium and infrared fast-detonating detonators to the atomic bomb were transported to Japan did not fall into the hands of the amers, then the Americans were unlikely to be able to detonate their bombs in 1945 because they didn’t get fuses, and there was uranium not enough.

          Well what can I say ... solid yellowness
          Quote: gregor6549
          Americans hardly managed to detonate their bombs in 1945 year because they didn’t succeed in fuses and uranium was not enough.

          Americans by that time were no longer receiving uranium, but weapons-grade plutonium
          1. 0
            21 October 2012 04: 41
            Oleg, your arguments are certainly not killed, especially about the "yellowness". But do not despair and still rummage on the Internet, including in English. There are many interesting things about who and what did first. Here at least on this page http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/Secweap.htm
            "Tiger" has also long been presented as an example of the stupidity of German engineers. And then it turned out that this Tiger was a very capable predator. Of course, over time, he also found control over him, but while it was found, he managed to send hundreds of crews of the best tanks of the 2nd world T34 and other allied tanks to the next world.
            And about plutonium. Of course, the Americans were able to organize the production of weapons-grade plutonium from enriched uranium by the end of the war. But they just did not have enough of this uranium, just as they lacked high-speed fuses, which ensure a precision "collapse" or "implosion" of parts of a nuclear charge, without which an explosive chain reaction could not begin.
            About aircraft carriers. Aircraft carriers for Nazi Germany were among the latter, since the success of their hopeless venture was decided in the land theater of operations. But they also began building their first aircraft carrier, the Zeppelin, during the war. But the USSR, which got this unfinished aircraft carrier for reparations, did not come up with anything better how to use it as targets for naval bombers, and then simply blow it up. Well, of course, it was unworthy to learn from the "stupid Germans". But I had to learn. And the German "snorkels" to put on their post-war boats of the 911 project, and jet engines on their jet MIGs and YAKs, and to create corrected bombs (i.e. copy), and to create many years after their development by the Germans, and much more, about than already written above in the comments of unbiased participants in the discussion. It is not in vain that both Chertok and Korol; ev and many other famous designers of owls. weapons at the end of the war and after its end were in Germany, taking away everything that could still be selected among the ruins in the occupation zone from the technical legacy of the "stupid" Germans. And the Americans did their best. Rowed cleanly not only samples of weapons and German engineers and scientists, but also descriptions of hundreds of German patents. I will add that many German scientists managed to emigrate to the United States even before the war and played an important role in creating the same vigorous bomb.
            1. +1
              21 October 2012 16: 02
              Dear Gregory, you again did not understand anything. I am not lazy to repeat my thought the third time: Reich's achievements fade against the achievements of the countries of the Anti-Hitler Coalition, especially Great Britain and the USA

              Everything that was created in the Reich and is now presented in the media as the great achievements of German scientists - all these were also the years of the war in America and Great Britain, but at a higher level. Did the Germans create Fau-Xnumx and Werner von Braun? The Americans created a reactor, an atomic bomb, computers - devices that changed the world.

              About the USSR, there is no question at all - he had the hardest time. The Soviet Union was busy restoring the national economy of a huge country. Perhaps the USSR is the only one who massively borrowed German technology, the rest of the countries did not need this.

              Quote: gregor6549
              Rowing cleaned up not only samples of weapons and German engineers and scientists

              They are doing this now. That is America's point of accepting the best from all over the world.
              Quote: gregor6549
              and reactive engines to their jet MIGs and Yak

              The MiG-15 appeared after the purchase of the "Nin" turbojet engine in Great Britain; the German developments, alas, were too imperfect.
              Quote: gregor6549
              But this uranium was just not enough

              Are there any numbers? What is the percentage of German uranium in the US nuclear program?
              Quote: gregor6549
              just as there was a shortage of high-speed fuses, providing a precise "collapse" or "implosion" of parts of a nuclear charge, without which an explosive chain reaction could not begin.

              The Germans gave the US a nuclear bomb - a cheap sensation for the yellow press
    2. +2
      26 December 2013 23: 57
      Quote: gregor6549
      It is possible to list all the technical achievements of the Germans during the war long and tedious, but why?
      Indeed, why list all these nonsense? After all, all that nonsense that is tricked here, even to refute laziness. And it makes no sense: to convince a donkey that he is a donkey is a waste of time: he himself knows this, but is proud of it. Well, what
      to separate flies from cutlets, and truth from myths.
      he does not know how, then this is no longer his concern.
  15. Ramldor
    -2
    21 October 2012 01: 20
    odnajdi reyx vernyotsa ....
  16. Maple
    +2
    22 October 2012 12: 10
    Tankosrach is a discussion of tracked armored vehicles, which a little more often than always turns into a verbal skirmish of everyone against everyone on the principle of "our-all-and * eats-your-suck-on-the-ass * n !! x 1".

    Evolution

    As archaeological excavations have established, the tank srach existed long before the advent of the Internet and was called the chariot srach, gradually evolving into an elephant sac, a conesrach (which has nothing to do with the defecation of oats or bananas of horse and horse elephants) and, finally, acquired a modern look.

    Features

    Tanksrach is a self-sufficient phenomenon, it can convert any other srach to its faith (and if it comes to war ...). Also, elements of a tank cover are present in gogisrach, przekosrač (the Poles remember trying to chop tanks with a saber), Soviet shirts and many other srach. The main antagonists of the tank crew are Ympertsy and Foshysty. Tankosrach is divided into historical, modern and technical.

    T-34 Vs Panther

    Origin of srach

    On the Internet, disputes about which tank deserves the title of Best (according to the results of the Second World War) do not cease. These disputes started back in Fido (SU.WEAPONS, if I’m not mistaken), continue at forums of different levels and will not subside for a long time (apparently, until the next world war, because now, for example, few people discuss the performance characteristics of WWI aircraft, although the theme is also delivering and perhaps even more interesting in view of the greater originality of each model). Naturally, not only the Panther and T-34 claim the title of the Best Tank, but it is they who, most often, lead in such polls.

    There is also another controversial type of Special Olympics - srach on the topic "The best medium tank of the Second World War", it is original, first of all, in that, in addition to the main participants (medium tanks, such as T-34, Pz-III / IV and Sherman), amateurs kid gloves are pushed through the Panther tank, which in terms of its mass belonged to heavy tanks (and the Germans classified tanks by gun caliber and purpose, referring the 45-ton Panther to medium

    Runners

    They all argue:

    - shkolota and ordinary people (the so-called office plankton) - fans of "zerling rush" by dancing on forums of real-time strategies, such as the game "Confrontation", "Victory Day" and others. In this case, the whole discussion is often reduced to voting, i.e. a person presses a "pimp" with the name of "the best tank" in his understanding, if he wants, leaves a comment. The level of comments is different depending on the FGM and the CSP of the authors ("imperials" and "foshists"). For shkolota, the main criterion for assessing is the behavior of the tank in his favorite toy, if he likes the unit, then he votes for him.
    - simple townsfolk, recited by odious authors such as Rezun-Nesuvorov, as well as all sorts of imperials, fascists and other sick people with FGM. Here you can already observe long cuts, based on a comparison of millimeters, tons, kilograms and other technical characteristics. Sometimes, arguments are cited as memoirs, most often of German tank crews, in which they colorfully describe how they fought bravely, drank millions of Russians, but for some reason they blew it all the same.
    - Visitors to VIF2 - scans of the original articles from the archives, memoirs of designers and ministers of the belligerent countries (and not just ordinary tankers), and so on, are already used as arguments. Despite this, there are also some militant adepts worthy of the hottest "Panther / T-34 - shit, I guarantee it" srachs.
    1. Maple
      0
      22 October 2012 12: 13
      Runners

      They all argue:

      - shkolota and ordinary people (the so-called office plankton) - fans of "zerling rush" by dancing on forums of real-time strategies, such as the game "Confrontation", "Victory Day" and others. In this case, the whole discussion is often reduced to voting, i.e. a person presses a "pimp" with the name of "the best tank" in his understanding, if he wants, leaves a comment. The level of comments is different depending on the FGM and the CSP of the authors ("imperials" and "foshists"). For shkolota, the main criterion for assessing is the behavior of the tank in his favorite toy, if he likes the unit, then he votes for him.
      - simple townsfolk, recited by odious authors such as Rezun-Nesuvorov, as well as all sorts of imperials, fascists and other sick people with FGM. Here you can already observe long cuts, based on a comparison of millimeters, tons, kilograms and other technical characteristics. Sometimes, arguments are cited as memoirs, most often of German tank crews, in which they colorfully describe how they fought bravely, drank millions of Russians, but for some reason they blew it all the same.
      - Visitors to VIF2 - scans of the original articles from the archives, memoirs of designers and ministers of the belligerent countries (and not just ordinary tankers), and so on, are already used as arguments. Despite this, there are also some militant adepts worthy of the hottest "Panther / T-34 - shit, I guarantee it" srachs.
      1. Maple
        +2
        22 October 2012 12: 14
        binding

        The essence of the dispute is as follows: patriotic citizens are strenuously instilling their position that the T-34 is the best medium tank of World War II (in fact, it is, at least, no worse than all other medium tanks), along the way, pouring abundant shit on other representatives middle weight category. Forgetting, for example, about working conditions and sights on German "troikas and fours", on non-exploding ammunition on "Sherman", etc.

        Seeing this, fans to glue tanks that fall on the gloomy Teutonic genius, just fascists, fans of the Special Olympics section called "phalometry" make a fighting stance and, with a run, jump with their bare asses right into a puddle of spilled on other tanks (different from the T-34 ) g * wna. Spraying T-34 fans with their own feces, they immediately declare that "Your T-34 - the Panther's armor is thicker, the gun is more powerful and in general ...".

        As a result, you can observe a long, but uninteresting exchange of views. Srach goes through approximately the same scenario. Each group of opponents considers itself a source of many knowledge, and their opponents in the dark - cavemen. Therefore, the conversation takes place at first in an instructive and mentor tone, gradually turning to personalities and spraying with saliva.

        After reading hundreds of pages of different encyclopedias, opponents (those of them who still have enough breaths) begin to look for confirmation first in the memoirs of the Germans, then in the memoirs of our first tankers, then anti-tank gunners, then it comes to the infantrymen (at this stage, only the toughest runners). In the future, they switch to production statistics, such as the number of related organizations involved in the production of the Panther tank, in contrast to our Tankograd, where, on the one hand, they loaded coal and ore, and on the other, they drove out, spinning towers, ready-made tanks, to discuss advanced methods production (in-line, also known as "conveyor" we have "portion-unit" among the Germans), comparison of the education levels of recruits in tank forces and the qualifications of personnel during the war, etc. nerdiness.

        The reward for the participant who has run the entire distance to the end is the awareness of the phrase "the best tank is the one that is at hand at the moment" and complete immunity from further involvement in tankosrachi. Only occasionally - and then for the purpose of trolling (although there is a second / third / fourth time not everyone likes the same thing).
        1. Maple
          0
          22 October 2012 12: 15
          Tiger Vs Is-2

          The story is almost equivalent to the history of the T-34 vs Panther. On the one hand, scoophages are pissing with boiling water from a harsh IS, on the other hand, the Foschists are tapping on the Gothic Tiger. In fact, it makes no sense to compare cars because of different views on the use of a heavy tank here, and among the Germans. The heavy tank was considered by the Germans as a machine for cutting enemy tanks, hence its 88 mm rapid-fire gun, the daughter of the legendary anti-aircraft gun Flak 18/36. Severe Russians also believed that a heavy tank should crush the authority of the defense line. For this, the monstrous 122 mm gun fit perfectly, although it recharged on average 20 seconds (Tiger gun - 8 seconds).

          The description of the remaining rivets and bolts of the tank design also goes into battle, here is a short list of them:

          Is-2:

          1. Successful housing with a more rational booking.
          2. Less mass than the Tiger (46 tons versus 57 for the Tiger)
          3. Great technical reliability.

          Tiger:

          1. Extreme ease of management. (gear shifted with two fingers)
          2. Excellent sighting mechanisms.
          3. Ride like a Mercedes.

          This phallometry is especially funny against the background of the fact that in life Tiger and Is-2 met a little less than no x * i. About 5 meetings are officially documented, and this is counting the Royal Tiger.

          Also, the famous historian Baryatinsky believes that “the best heavy tank of the Second World War” is an IS armed with a Tiger cannon.
          1. Maple
            +1
            22 October 2012 12: 16
            T-34 VS Sherman

            It is a logical development of the lendlisosrach. As soon as Sherman is mentioned in the shit, they start poking everyone in the nose with Sherman's height, a tendency to overturn, and also start measuring in calibers, noting that the T-34 has more millimeters. Opponents recall that the Sherman's armor was more viscous, gave less fragments upon penetration, the shells were better, and indeed "not a single millimeter." Well, what is only Brownig worth, you can drive away the flying prodigies! And in general, everything is sovets - feces, and the tankers just wanted to escape to the Shermans, because Loza wrote this in "Tankman in a Foreign Car" (Pi * dits how he breathes: Sherman was nicknamed "the best tank for service in peacetime").

            Worthy of Grant, Sherman and other Sko-British Matilda called tanks

            Matilda was praised by Rommel himself. However, in his place, anyone would praise if there are only 20 barrels for the entire Afrika Korps, capable of piercing their armor. In general, an iron that is not able to overcome the rise of 15 degrees on its own has no right to be called a tank. From this, the British really wanted to get hold of a good shushpanzer and they even fell for the miscarriage of the American tank building - M3 Grant, which was even called "The Last Egyptian Hope." However, the daring scoops also called him poetically - "a mass grave for six". Of the other Scho-British panzers, only the Sherman are worthy of mention (again, because of their rather sickly number).
            1. Maple
              +1
              22 October 2012 12: 16
              Ovetsky tankosrach

              The angry and terrible Teh USSR riveted the tanks not only in the thousands, but in the tens of thousands. But how else could the infection of communism be spread across Europe from the Neva to the English Channel? When in the nineties the last tanker, who knew how the friction clutch differs from the torsion bar, went into demobilization, the emperors and liberalists began to become active on the forums, knowing nothing of either tanks or tactics of their use. So the first sotkotankosrachi appeared:

              T-64 - Morozov epicail or true concept MBT?

              We wanted the best, it turned out as always. Nevertheless, the T-64 was the first MBT in the world (Main Battle Tank - medium tank mobility, armor and heavy weapons). Based on the T-64, the T-72 and T-80 were created.

              T-72 - horror and thunderstorm of Europe or urn for cremation for three?

              It does not interfere. Designed for specific requirements, a specific type of war and specific conditions of operation, production, etc. It satisfies these requirements. There would be other requirements - there would be another tank (a vivid example - “Merkava” - just different requirements).

              T-80 - a self-propelled whistle with fakes or a tru-freeway tank to conquer Europe?

              T-80 is a branch of the T-72 development that is different from the T-64, more technically advanced than the T-72, but it is also more expensive. In 1976, the T-80 became the first tank in the world with a gas turbine engine, and even with a system for vibration cleaning of turbine blades, which even the M1A2 Abrams does not have. And also the operation of the T-80 engine is audible only within a radius of 30 meters from the tank (at Abrams - within a radius of 50 m, win). Together with the automatic loading system that was already usual for Soviet tanks, he had - for the first time in the alliance - an FCS, and indeed he was very advanced. And although the first modifications were plagiarized by the Leningrad Design Bureau, the later T-80U really became a powerful tank that can give good pi * dule to the enemy. Soviet strategists even calculated that in five days they could bring the light of communism to them right up to the English Channel.

              One misfortune is that they have not learned to use it, or have learned, but badly. History knows 3 episodes of the use of T-80:

              - coup 93rd year - T-80 fired at the white house. There are no losses among the tanks, there are hits in the White House. Vin.
              - The first Chechen. Whether the tank is bad, whether tactics are bad, or maybe they just forgot to attach dynamic protection to good tanks, lay their shells in the tank and pour fuel into the tanks - we don’t know for sure. But over a hundred T-80s were lost, they were no longer used in the second Chechen one.
              - In 1998, an officer on a tank drove up to the boss’s house, popularly explaining how the non-payment of salaries to his subordinates and to himself could end. We started to pay.

              Total - 2: 1 in favor of the fact that the tank is good. Let us rejoice.

              "Bastions" and "Yatagans"

              Oplot and Yatagan are the limits of the racial T-80UD, only for NATO and with blackjack and whores.

              T-95 - fat trolling UVZ or the hope of this country?
              1. Maple
                +2
                22 October 2012 12: 17
                Modern tank srach

                The main (and, along the way, the only theme) of a modern tankosrach, "T-90 \ Leopard2 \ Abrams \ Merkava-4: ugogoyaytsakruche". During the discussion, it always turns out that Abrams, due to his roots and mentality, is not a tank.

                In fact, "tank duel" is too synthetic a concept. It all depends on the strategy of using tanks and accompanying forces - in fact, not bad, T-72 and T-80 tanks were cut out by dozens in Chechnya precisely because of the squalid leadership and lousy supply and maintenance. It is unlikely that the "Abrams" and "Merkavas" would have performed better in a fortified city full of ambushes and mines, in which 15000 experienced and furious fighters with grenade launchers settled. On the other hand, during Desert Storm, the Americans did not risk the lives of their tankers, and sent jeeps and helicopters with ATGMs against outdated and initially not very strong export T-72s, thereby negating the loss of their forces. Which, however, is natural - the best anti-tank weapon is not a tank at all.