The hard part of the driver: tests of forces on the levers of tanks in 1945

63
The hard part of the driver: tests of forces on the levers of tanks in 1945
IS-3 driver's seat


GBTU is testing


During the Great Patriotic War, few people thought about the ergonomics of the Soviet tank driver’s workplace. To put it mildly, this was a completely non-primary task for the designers. In the notorious triad “firepower – mobility – security” there is not a word about the working conditions of the crew.



The Americans were among the first to document their claims to the ergonomics of Soviet technology. In 1943, engineers and military personnel tested at the Aberdeen Proving Ground Tanks T-34 and KV. We will not dwell on ambiguous conclusions regarding security and firepower; we will talk about our impressions of the interior of the tanks.

What surprised the Americans about the tower was how crowded it was. In a secret report, the head of the GRU of the Red Army, Lieutenant General Ivan Ilyichev, writes:

“The Americans cannot understand how our tank crews can fit in it in the winter when they wear sheepskin coats.”

The designers of the KV tank's transmission deserve special compliments. At that time, the allies of the Soviet Union noted:

“The designer who put it in the tank showed inhuman cruelty to the drivers.” On the T-34, the transmission was clearly no better. To continue the test, local engineers even had to correct the “ugly design and extremely poor performance of the transmission link.”

At the same time, the Americans sang the real anthem to the Soviet tanker:

“The Russian driver is required to be virtuoso when changing gears on the move, special experience in using on-board clutches, and extensive experience as a mechanic in the ability to maintain a tank in running condition (adjustment and repair of continuously failing parts), which greatly complicates the training of tank drivers.”

Truly, your name is unknown, your feat is immortal, Russian soldier.


T-34-85






T-34 control department.

It cannot be said that the Soviet Union did not think about the working conditions of tank crews and, above all, the driver. According to legend, the appearance of a gunner-radio operator in the crew was due to the need to help the driver with shifting the terribly tight gearbox lever. If the comrade on the right somehow helped with the gearshift lever, then the tanker was left alone with the onboard clutch levers.

The difficulties of operating a tank were discussed at the highest level only after the war.


IS-3 mechanical drive location

In 1945, a secret report “Results of force measurements on control levers of T-34-85 and IS-3 tanks” was published. In the summer, military engineers from the Research Armored Test Site of the Main Armored Directorate of the Red Army tested four domestic tanks. Three T-34-85 and one IS-3. The main goal is to evaluate the level of effort on the tank control levers.

The T-34 trio was chosen for a reason. The military decided to find out how much the tank assembly conditions affect the ergonomics of the driver's seat. The first tank was produced in Krasnoye Sormovo near the city of Gorky (plant No. 112), the second - in Leningrad (plant No. 174), the third - in Nizhny Tagil at plant No. 183. The first two tanks covered a little more than 1 km, the last one is almost new with range of 000 km.

All tanks, including the IS-3, were produced in June-July 1945. Testers took the heavy Soviet tank from the Kirov plant with a range of 500 km.

A short excerpt from the test report:

“The forces were measured with a dynamometer under the following conditions:
a) with the tank in a static position, the effort required to disengage the side clutches until the drums began braking was determined;
b) when the tank was moving, the effort expended on complete braking of the drums, at which the tank rotated, was determined.
Before the start of the tests, the control drives of tanks from factories No. 112 and No. 174 were adjusted in accordance with the technical specifications. The tank from factory No. 183 was new and had factory adjustments that met the technical conditions.
The amount of lever travel was divided into six equal parts. In each of the six positions of the lever, the effort expended on its movement was determined.
Up to the fifth position of the control levers (inclusive), the efforts expended to disengage the clutches were measured. In the sixth position of the levers, the forces required to tighten the brake bands before braking are recorded.
The tests were carried out on a horizontal area with dry, soft soil, without turf.”

GBTU sums up disappointing results


The first thing that catches your eye in the report is the gigantic efforts on the clutch control levers. The driver was forced to pull the levers with a force of 21 kg to 46 kg! The engineers recorded the maximum force on the right lever when the tank was moving in second and third gears. This example of the tank was produced in Leningrad at factory No. 174. The other T-34s were a little better (just a couple of kilograms).

It’s interesting that the smallest force on the lever was determined on that very “Sormovo monster” - that’s how tanks from factory No. 112 were called for poor build quality. It was on it that the force on the levers in all modes did not exceed 40 kg. Relatively speaking, it was the easiest of the medium tanks to control. There was also a difference in the applied forces between the right and left levers - in some modes it reached five kilograms. This was the fault of the tank from Krasnoye Sormovo. For other vehicles, the difference did not exceed 1,5–2 kg, which probably indicated better build quality of the tanks.

The heavy IS-3 had a more advanced transmission compared to the T-34. The planetary turning mechanisms were supposed to make the tanks somewhat easier to control. But everything was compensated by the increased weight of the car, although the forces on the levers actually decreased somewhat. The main difficulty was to pull the lever off the ground when the tank was in a static position. This required at least 30–32 kg. This is a lot - in similar conditions, the T-34 driver was supposed to pull with a force of 20–26 kg. The hardest stunt on the IS-3 was turning on the spot in third and fourth gears - the levers required at least 30–40 kg.

At the end of the report, GBTU military experts came to a logical conclusion:

“The forces obtained on the control levers of the T-34-85 and IS-3 tanks are great, which causes significant fatigue for the driver when making long marches.”

A dry formulation that hides the unparalleled heroism of the Red Army tank crews even outside the battlefield.

The test results look especially impressive against the background of similar experiments included in history with the report “Results of force measurements on the control levers of foreign and domestic tanks.” The location and time are the same - the training ground in Kubinka, summer 1945. Only there are more main characters - Hitler’s Jagdtiger B self-propelled guns, TV Pantera, T-VI Tiger tanks, the American heavy tank T-26E3 (M26 Pershing), light M-24 and medium M4A2 Sherman with a 76-mm cannon. Also present in the company were the British cruiser tank A34 Comet and the golden Soviet troika - IS-3, T-44 and T-34-85.




Pershing in 1945 in Kubinka. In terms of ease of control, it turned out to be little better than the Soviet T-34-85 and IS-3.

An attentive reader will ask how the American Pershing got to the Soviet Union?

It was never supplied under Lend-Lease. The United States provided one production tank for study in April 1945. The vehicle arrived in Murmansk with convoy JW-66 and was already thoroughly studied by the military in Kubinka in the summer. The rest of the Allied tanks arrived in the Soviet Union in a similar manner.

The testing method for the controls was simple - measuring the forces on the control levers during a full turn in place.

Interestingly, the loss of domestic tanks in this test was not total. Yes, in first gear, considerable effort had to be applied to turn - 39–41 kg in the IS-3 and 32–34 kg in the T-34. But the American heavyweight Pershing was little better: 34–35 kg at the lever. The average M4A2 Sherman is also not easy to drive - up to 30 kg on the levers.

As they wrote in the report, “the lower forces on the M4A2-76 tanks compared to the T-26E3 tank with a similar design of the turning mechanism are explained by the lighter weight of the tank and the longer length of the control levers.”

Of course, the Germans defeated everyone with their transmission servos - forces from 4,5 to 14 kg. The easiest to drive was the 72-ton Jagdtiger B with a steering wheel instead of levers.

The T-44 turned out to be relatively comfortable for the driver: no more than 10–11 kg of effort on the levers for turning in all modes.

Separately, it is worth noting that the features of the planetary gearboxes of all Germans and the British A34 Comet allowed the cars to turn on the spot in neutral gear. But this didn’t make things any easier for the driver-mechanic of the A34 Comet. Firstly, during the tests it turned in this mode the third time, and secondly, the forces on the levers amounted to an impressive 20 kg.
Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

63 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +16
    1 October 2023 05: 04
    Reading, hearing, this is great, but seeing is better... look at the difficulties of shifting gears in the T-34 tank with your own eyes...
    1. +9
      1 October 2023 08: 28
      Well, that’s where pure mechanics go, in our tanks. Naturally, the loads are high when changing gears. This is where hydraulics appeared on tanks when it became very easy to control a tank. During training I drove a T72 in control and while driving there were no problems at all.
      1. +7
        1 October 2023 12: 56
        Quote: Thrifty
        Well, that’s where pure mechanics go, in our tanks. Naturally, the loads are high when changing gears.....
        On our T54-55-62 it’s the same, no hydraulics, purely mechanics. The gearbox has 5 speeds and reverse. Of these, the first and rear ones are without synchronizers, the rest are with synchronizers. Move off from 1nd, since you can’t switch from first to 2nd without stopping. Turn on the spot only at first speed. Changing gears requires skill, but once mastered, it is not difficult. During the training, driver mechanics were tested on a 2 km drive around a training ground, sitting in a combat position (viewed through a triplex).
        In the tank troops at the sports camp, they worked mainly on the muscles of the core and arms, and running, of course. According to the norm, the ascent had to be done 9 times. A year later, with a then weight of 58 kg, I lifted a 32-kilogram weight from the floor to my ear, with either hand, 12 times (I did not press it above my head)
        1. +9
          1 October 2023 14: 48
          Tank T-90M.
          Driver's steering wheel,


          gear shift lever.

          What does it cost on exhibition tanks, what does it cost on those used by troops - the question is?
          1. +9
            1 October 2023 18: 51
            Oh, they added minuses. These are screenshots from a video about the release of the T-90M Tank.
            And what is it about them that warrants a minus?
    2. +18
      1 October 2023 08: 50
      At one time, my grandfather surprised me with the information that sometimes it was necessary to use a “sledgehammer” to change gears on a HF.
      I take my hat off to our grandfathers and great-grandfathers! hi
    3. +6
      1 October 2023 14: 52
      I watched the video, it was hard for the driver to switch the levers, you can’t say anything. Off topic, but still the T-34 is a beautiful tank good
  2. +22
    1 October 2023 05: 05
    The result is natural. A great simplification of the design, the use of labor, to put it mildly, not very highly qualified, the same students of the FZU, this is the result... Yes, a combat mechanic-waterman, during a daily march, could lose from 3 to 5 kg of weight...
    And it’s great that they were concerned about this immediately after the war, when there was no longer a need to drive a “wave” of tanks to the front.
    From personal observations:
    - veterans said that in battle they went into second gear, trying not to shift it under fire, as this could lead to a long-term stop of the tank.
    - somehow, during an internship, we worked for a week at an armored vehicle storage base, where we helped remove and distill ISU-122 and ISU-152, all of them produced during the war, but modernized after the war, and then, in many self-propelled guns, there was a sledgehammer hanging near the gearshift mechanism . To the question, why? We were simply told that to turn the gear on or off, when the efforts of the muscular strength of the fur-water begin to be insufficient... That’s something like this.
    1. +8
      1 October 2023 07: 10
      and even due to the not very good view from the driver’s seat, the commander of the T-34 gave him commands from left to right with his feet placed on his shoulders; in the heat of battle, the pokes were quite sensitive, and then his shoulders hurt.
      1. +13
        1 October 2023 08: 26
        Which tank has excellent driver visibility? This is simply the fastest way to transmit an order to the driver; there is no need to be distracted by switching the TPU.
      2. +3
        1 October 2023 16: 10
        Quote from Silver99
        and even due to the not very good view from the driver’s seat, the commander of the T-34 gave him commands from left to right with his feet placed on his shoulders; in the heat of battle, the pokes were quite sensitive, and then his shoulders hurt.

        As far as I remember, this is not because of a bad review, but because of a bad TPU.
    2. +12
      1 October 2023 07: 25
      Quote: svp67
      Greatest simplification of design


      In the T-34, the final drive gears were made using a simplified, common 30th contour with a profile angle of 15º, without correction and with tooth cutting. Otherwise there was no way to achieve mass popularity. But such a transmission breaks more often and has a lot of friction. And the checkpoint was also simplified as best they could.
      1. +2
        1 October 2023 21: 56
        The checkpoint was not simplified, on the contrary, it was complicated. Including in order to be able to switch when the mechanics are out of adjustment (still, 7 links and 2 shafts are too much for a mechanical transmission, we can’t even talk about any accuracy).
        1. 0
          9 October 2023 09: 04
          Hello from the LAZ bus, where the driver was searching and changing gears :)
  3. 0
    1 October 2023 05: 29
    I wonder what the situation is with today's tank models? Do they have automatic transmission?
    1. +6
      1 October 2023 22: 03
      Ours have mechanics. Close to sequential (you can shift without a clutch), but still with the ability to engage any gear.
      Well, to turn on our modern tanks, we use “pulling” of the transmission at the gearbox of the inner track (separate boxes on each side made it possible to reduce the torque on each, making them more compact and more reliable)
      1. -1
        9 October 2023 14: 15
        It seems that the T-90M has been equipped with an automatic rifle.
  4. +9
    1 October 2023 07: 42
    Dad, being a university student, already learned to drive a T-34 after the war. He didn’t talk about any sledgehammers, it was all nonsense.
    In those years, the gearbox of any of our vehicles did not have synchronizers, and changing gears of any vehicle required serious skills.
    Plus, there were no friction materials in the tank’s clutch. There was metal-to-metal contact, so it was impossible to completely disengage the clutch.
    Well, don’t forget that diesel does not require frequent gear changes. Low gears are only needed for starting.
    1. +12
      1 October 2023 10: 13
      I don’t know who puts the downvotes, but I also talked to my dad. He says that he had no problems with controlling the Su-100. I just sat down and drove off. Before that, he learned to drive a truck for three years at school, he had a license. There were no sledgehammers))
      The only thing is there is very little space.
      1. +8
        1 October 2023 13: 19
        Quote: ism_ek
        I don’t know who puts the downvotes, but I also talked to my dad. He says that he had no problems with controlling the Su-100. I just sat down and drove off. Before that, he learned to drive a truck for three years at school, he had a license. There were no sledgehammers))
        The only thing is there is very little space.

        Sledgehammers were used when changing gear speeds on HF.
        T-34-85 and SU-100 had already modified gearboxes. I personally sat at the controls of the museum T-34 (model ’42) and the post-war T-34-85, the difference was clearly felt.
        R.s. I don’t indulge in negatives, I corrected your karma a little! hi
      2. +4
        1 October 2023 22: 11
        Post-war vehicles (most likely, Su-1945s also modernized in 1948-100) have gear selection mechanisms similar to the T-44. They have much simpler control kinematics, so the drive from the shift lever to the gearbox has been greatly simplified (almost to the level of modern passenger cars with their 2 drawstrings). Accordingly, backlashes and distortions have decreased significantly, due to which they switch relatively easily.
        1. The comment was deleted.
    2. +8
      1 October 2023 17: 28
      I remember at school I learned how to drive a car on a Gaz-52 truck during a course from the Criminal Procedure Code. Even though it was from the early 80s, it had a gearbox without synchronizers and no power steering. For the rest of my life I remembered the downshift with double clutch release and re-throwing. For us guys, after the figure eight exercise, our arms still hurt. And the girls generally hung themselves like that))
      Although, later, when you get used to it, you even begin to get a kind of thrill from the fact that you, a 16-year-old boy, are in charge of a huge heavy machine...
      1. +2
        1 October 2023 22: 14
        Well, the GAZ-52 in terms of units is essentially a GAZ-51 originally from the 40s (only the frame and cab are from the 53rd).
        1. 0
          2 October 2023 01: 28
          Quote: ailcat
          Well, the GAZ-52 in terms of units is essentially a GAZ-51 originally from the 40s (only the frame and cab are from the 53rd).

          Actually, it’s just the cabin! Frame from 51st.
    3. 0
      9 October 2023 09: 06
      Yeah, a multi-plate “steel on steel” clutch, where the discs warped due to heat and complete disconnection of the transmission did not work. Gear shifting is significantly improved by switching to a five-speed constant-mesh gearbox instead of the sliding gears of a four-speed unit.
  5. +15
    1 October 2023 08: 17
    Let's remember with a kind word the female mechanical drivers... I can imagine what it was like for them to drive thirty-fours
    1. +14
      1 October 2023 08: 54
      Quote: Military Specialist
      Let's remember with a kind word the female mechanical drivers... I can imagine what it was like for them to drive thirty-fours

      I was trying to explain to my daughter the principle of double depressing the clutch pedal on a UAZ. I’d rather leave out comments addressed to me. laughing
      1. +7
        1 October 2023 09: 02
        Similarly, many years ago, as a cadet at a military school, I mastered this procedure on a ZIL-130...
        1. +7
          1 October 2023 13: 50
          Until the mid-eighties, Soviet technology, which had no pedigree from abroad, flew into space without double squeezing. lol

          "Kamaz" was real progress in terms of ergonomics and technology.
          1. +2
            1 October 2023 18: 32
            Quote: Simple
            Until the mid-eighties, Soviet technology, which had no pedigree from abroad, flew into space without double squeezing. lol

            "Kamaz" was real progress in terms of ergonomics and technology.

            The logging department gave us Colchis! For six months, the practitioners played a “guessing game.” And not only the cadets, but also the teachers. After GAZ-53 and ZIL-13o they were happiness!!!
            It seems that in the mid-90s they used it as spare parts for the latter.
            1. 0
              1 October 2023 18: 47
              Quote: Kote pane Kohanka
              The logging department gave us Colchis! For six months, the practitioners played a “guessing game.” And not only the cadets, but also the teachers. After GAZ-53 and ZIL-13o they were happiness!!!
              All the filling of the Colchis was from the ZIL-130, it was only assembled in Georgia and had its own cabin.
              1. 0
                1 October 2023 22: 17
                Since the 1970s, Zils have had synchronized gearboxes. Apparently Colchis was simply newer...
            2. 0
              9 October 2023 09: 10
              KAZ is essentially a cabover ZIL. I remember LAZ buses, where the driver drove the “poker” around the entire cabin and it seemed that all the gears were stuck in the same place forward or backward. Because of the ever-loose backstage, where gear selection is done by turning the shaft, and engagement is done by longitudinal movement. The same applies to the loaf (two traction) and Korean Asia buses (shaft or cable).
        2. +2
          1 October 2023 22: 16
          Did you get a 130 with a completely unsynchronized gearbox? What years were these?
  6. +10
    1 October 2023 09: 18
    In the navy, there was a grandfather - a carpenter, a tanker, who fought from 1942 to 1945. Red Star and Banner, fur - water, on T - 34. He said that the connection inside the tank was disgusting. Therefore, the tank commander put his feet on his shoulders and that’s how the control went. Pressed on the right shoulder - turn to the right, to the left - accordingly. Pressed on both stand. Sometimes, in the heat of battle, he pressed very hard, to the point of bruising.
  7. +5
    1 October 2023 10: 43

    “The Russian driver is required to have virtuosity when changing gears on the move, special experience in using onboard clutches... which greatly complicates the training of tank drivers.”

    During the war, tank resources were not particularly spent on training mechanical drivers. “Takeoff and landing”, using aviator terminology.
    Which, coupled with problems with tank control, led to the fact that in practice second gear was used for most cases, both in battle and on the march. Both because of the difficulty of changing gears and the difficulty of using onboard clutches at higher speeds, and because of insufficient training of mechanical drives. Therefore, the “paper” speed characteristics do not correspond much to the actual speeds of the tank at that time. Among other things, non-optimal use of the gearbox led to a decrease in the service life of both the gearbox itself and the engine, which were not very long anyway.
    The mechanic has extensive experience in maintaining the tank in running condition (adjusting and repairing continuously failing parts), which greatly complicates the training of tank drivers.”

    Loza, in his “Tank Driver on a Foreign Car,” noted, comparing with the Sherman, that the T-34 requires constant attention from the driver to maintain the tank - constant adjustments and so on.
    1. 0
      1 October 2023 22: 21
      The third more often.
      Because of this, many heads fell in the tank industry. Precisely because they expected to use the second one in battle, and left the 3rd-4th for marches, and because of this there were many failures with the destruction of the 3rd gear gears. So much so that we had to develop a new box....
      1. 0
        2 October 2023 10: 19
        Marches in time and distance are much longer than the battle time.
        I read that the second one was used everywhere, since at higher speeds it was difficult to use the onboard clutches to control the tank; they immediately tightly braked the caterpillar. In combat, they generally tried not to change gears, as this would risk stopping in plain sight and becoming a target.
  8. +3
    1 October 2023 11: 12
    Yes, even after the war we didn’t pay much attention to the comfort of the crew! The bare minimum is to simply manage everything. This was noted by everyone always and everywhere. You can be any kind of patriot and not see this, but the reality is that Soviet people should not have gotten used to comfortable excesses so as not to relax. Recently the situation has just begun to change, condos, comfortable chairs, all sorts of pens, monitors and so on appear.
    1. 0
      1 October 2023 17: 32
      There is a famous writer Nikolai Cherkashin, a military sailor. In one of his books, he compared the features of life on our nuclear submarines and US nuclear submarines. In the end, he noted that the Americans, of course, are more convenient and comfortable, but they wouldn’t be able to serve on our submarine after their comforts...
    2. -3
      2 October 2023 10: 25
      The small armor volume, on the one hand, reduces the mass of the armor and, accordingly, the mass of the tank, on the other hand, it worsens the conditions of the crew. The T-34 was made on the basis of the BT, so this happened, especially when they stuck the loader. But subsequent tanks were also made on the principle of reducing the armor volume. The condition of the crew after the march was not taken into account; formal “paper” characteristics were important - tank weight, speed, armor thickness, gun caliber, etc. And the fact that in practice it was difficult or even impossible to use this was ignored.
  9. +7
    1 October 2023 11: 41
    This problem was fully recognized and attempts were made to solve it. Initially, the T-34 had a pneumatic reinforcement system, as I understand it, borrowed from the Czechs. But since the industry did not pull it, it was removed. And it turned out that it worked. The compressor was supposedly called K-36, then it collided with it on the NK-12 engine of the Tu-95MS, but it was also converted to a balloon one. And the T-34 and all our subsequent tanks had high-pressure cylinders left from this attempt. Accordingly, the gearbox of the experimental vehicle and the production one. If they were inserted into the message.

    [Center]
    1. 0
      1 October 2023 22: 33
      Quote: DWG1905
      Initially, the T-34 had a pneumatic reinforcement system, as I understand it, borrowed from the Czechs. But since the industry did not pull it, it was removed.

      An alternative to a compressor in control could be the use of simple vacuum amplifiers - there was a source of vacuum in the form of an intake tract, and these mechanisms themselves have been used in motorsports since the 1920s.
      1. +1
        2 October 2023 08: 43
        Quote: ycuce234-san
        Quote: DWG1905
        Initially, the T-34 had a pneumatic reinforcement system, as I understand it, borrowed from the Czechs. But since the industry did not pull it, it was removed.

        An alternative to a compressor in control could be the use of simple vacuum amplifiers - there was a source of vacuum in the form of an intake tract, and these mechanisms themselves have been used in motorsports since the 1920s.

        What is the vacuum on a diesel engine? There's no throttle.
    2. 0
      9 October 2023 09: 13
      Was there planned pneumatic reinforcement or purely “air” control, such as on mechanical excavators?
  10. +4
    1 October 2023 13: 12
    Quote: Military Specialist
    Similarly, many years ago, as a cadet at a military school, I mastered this procedure on a ZIL-130...

    ZiL 130,131 had a gearbox with synchronizers. As well as on UAZs, GAZons and KamAZs. Unsynchronized gearboxes seemed to be on the GAZ-51,52 and ZIL-157.
    1. +3
      1 October 2023 17: 34
      I confirm that the Gaz-52 had a box without synchronizers. I felt it with my hand and right leg (which was doing gas changes) 25 years ago)))
      1. 0
        1 October 2023 18: 35
        Quote: KSVK
        Quote: Military Specialist
        Similarly, many years ago, as a cadet at a military school, I mastered this procedure on a ZIL-130...

        ZiL 130,131 had a gearbox with synchronizers. As well as on UAZs, GAZons and KamAZs. Unsynchronized gearboxes seemed to be on the GAZ-51,52 and ZIL-157.

        Nothing like that, UAZ cars only got synchronizers for all gears in the mid-80s. The higher ones of the Zils had synchronizers, the lower ones - without.
    2. 0
      1 October 2023 22: 24
      Almost until the mid-130s, the ZIL-70 was equipped with a non-synchronized gearbox.
      Synchronized ones were developed for the ZIL-131 and, as they were mastered, they went on to all ZILs.
    3. 0
      9 October 2023 09: 17
      On the UAZ, only III and IV gears were initially synchronized, with sliding gears on I and II. This semi-synchronizer box is considered the most reliable, I don’t have a single synchronizer on the later full-synchronizer after the previous oil starvation, I still can’t get around to restoring it, especially since it doesn’t cause any problems.
  11. -6
    1 October 2023 13: 24
    summarizing the above - another bast in the line of our tanks during the Second World War... the fact that the Deutsch’s guns were more powerful (so their 75 mm was on par with or even better in penetration than our 85 mm, someone is surprised by the fact that the American-Anglo 75 mm long-barreled one was more powerful (due to gunpowder, by the way) the same) well, but 88 mm (Akht_Akht, especially lengthened on the Tiger 2 in terms of armor penetration and real (not rated) rate of fire, gave our 122 mm the same thing, don’t argue..well but the fact that their sights (yeah from Zeiss) and our muddy ones are two big differences and the Deutsche Real could (with precision) hit at 1_1.5 km, but you can shoot from our 122 mm but you can hit it .. well, from 700_800 m ..and here’s another sad thing..the mobility of our tanks..well, everything has already been described above...in general, all that remains is to admire the real HEROISM of our ancestors on theirs (yeah, ''the best tanks of the Second World War'' and this is still being replicated as an indisputable fact) the tanks unwound the Panzer_Waffe... eternal Glory to the Heroes of the BT Red Army!!!
    1. +3
      1 October 2023 22: 00
      To summarize, read the memoirs of German generals, maybe instead of “independent research of thoughts” you will find something new!
      Each line contains three classic mistakes from the nineties. Rezun (Suvorov) is resting on the sidelines. I especially liked about the American/English gun... That’s why the British replaced the standard 4mm guns on the M75 with their own 76mm!!!
      For you personally, I will give only one thesis - tanks do not fight tanks!
      hi Although no, I will finish you off with another axiom - five tanks are better than one!!!
      1. 0
        2 October 2023 22: 01
        man, after all, I wrote down everything from you like hell... and if something goes wrong, it’s immediately “an enemy of the people” and we start learning again on our own blood... and five tanks are definitely better, but now you agree to become a member of them crew when meeting with one Tiger, provided that that Tiger burns four of them, and the last T-34 is the same (which is far from a fact)... but what’s the point of not breaking such hurray-patriots.. but what are the pasans in the Northern Military District doing now? barbecues' instead of protection standards, it's a pity... but THIS is all from the 40s of the last century... well, oh well
        1. -1
          9 October 2023 14: 07
          In reality, 6 tigers out of 10 will be hit by anti-tank missiles, 2 will be blown up by mines, and one each will fall on enemy aircraft and tanks.
        2. 0
          9 October 2023 17: 54
          Firstly, the Tiger and Panther are heavy tanks; in fact, the Panther’s weight is comparable to the IS-2. Secondly, these are new generation tanks, designed to counter the medium and outdated T-34.
  12. 0
    1 October 2023 19: 36
    Quote from Fenix844
    I remember at school I learned how to drive a car on a Gaz-52 truck during a course from the Criminal Procedure Code. Even though it was from the early 80s, it had a gearbox without synchronizers and no power steering. For the rest of my life I remembered the downshift with double clutch release and re-throwing.

    I learned on a GAZ-51, a gearbox without synchronizers. There were no big problems with either double squeezing or over-throttle. It's a matter of skill. In my car I still shift down gears, usually with a shift in the throttle. Already on automatic.
  13. +6
    1 October 2023 21: 21
    Quote: ism_ek
    After the war, I already learned to drive the T-34. He didn’t talk about any sledgehammers, it was all nonsense.

    A bunch of horses mixed with people.
    It was necessary to use a sledgehammer when shifting the T-34 with a FOUR-SPEED gearbox, because there were moving gears and it was necessary to show extraordinary skill in order to push the right one into the right place. In '43, if I'm not confusing anything, they switched to a five-speed gearbox with constant mesh gears. It was much easier to switch with such a box.
    It’s strange that adults like people don’t know such nonsense!
    1. +1
      1 October 2023 22: 28
      There were also two four-speed ones.
      And the five-speed ones have two different gear selection mechanisms (the 1942 model and the T-44 type, if memory serves correctly).
      And only the last box switched quite easily.
  14. -1
    2 October 2023 13: 55
    But then the mechanical drivers had power, they bent horseshoes with their hands.
    Then the saying began that a Russian tank is not as terrible as its drunken crew.
  15. +1
    8 October 2023 12: 38
    My grandfather Bublikov ALEXANDER from the Kursk farm of Kurochkino, on the Psel River, fought as a driver mechanic on a T-1941 from 45 to 34.
    He was wounded several times, got out of a burning tank four times, but reached Berlin and signed on the Reichstag, Eternal memory to the WINNING HEROES!!!
  16. 0
    9 October 2023 09: 30
    A similar story happened in those years with civilian equipment, a striking example being mechanical excavators, where during the work cycle the driver had to deal with three pairs of friction clutches - lifting, traction and pressure winches with their drive and brakes. Plus the rotation of the tower. Even more complex transmission and kinematic schemes. In the 40s, in front of the driver of both the American Northwest and our OM-201 there was a forest of levers and pedals. The efforts, despite the use of mechanical servo control in both examples, were not bad, plus the driver needed to have a keen sense of the machine. This was later nicknamed "bodybuilding style management." But already in the late 40s, the introduction of hydraulic and pneumatic control began, for example, Voronezh heavy excavators and smaller Kostroma ones. The Germans used pneumatic control back in the 30s.
    On tanks, especially during the war, every effort was made to achieve maximum survivability and maintainability. Plus, adaptability to mass production with minimal use of precision mechanics, which was the pneumatic reinforcement system in the original T-34.
  17. 0
    11 October 2023 14: 50
    We have problems with ergonomics and convenience in general almost everywhere. Not only in military equipment. It seems that this is a completely non-primary and even minor task for designers. For example, you can compare our Zhiguli and a European, American, Japanese, Korean or even Chinese car. This is a very significant example.
  18. 0
    19 November 2023 01: 37
    .... We need to be more careful ..... Sormovo became a district of Nizhny Novgorod in 1928

"Right Sector" (banned in Russia), "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) (banned in Russia), ISIS (banned in Russia), "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" formerly "Jabhat al-Nusra" (banned in Russia) , Taliban (banned in Russia), Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Anti-Corruption Foundation (banned in Russia), Navalny Headquarters (banned in Russia), Facebook (banned in Russia), Instagram (banned in Russia), Meta (banned in Russia), Misanthropic Division (banned in Russia), Azov (banned in Russia), Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), Aum Shinrikyo (banned in Russia), AUE (banned in Russia), UNA-UNSO (banned in Russia), Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People (banned in Russia), Legion “Freedom of Russia” (armed formation, recognized as terrorist in the Russian Federation and banned)

“Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"