Military Review

Artillery tank in finnish

50
Even during the so-called "Winter Warrior" 1939-40. among other trophies of the Finnish army, a certain number of Soviet fleet tanks - BT. However, despite the fact that their brothers, the T-26, came in what was called “to the court,” this tank was clearly unlucky in his career in the Finnish army. Tanks did not take root in any way. Not much has changed with the arrival of new trophies captured already in the summer of 1941. BT tanks were again set aside, since, according to the Finnish leadership, they did not meet the requirements of modern warfare. But soon their time came. In the spring of 1942, the Finnish VTT began design work to improve the captured BT-7. After some discussion, it was decided to convert the tank into an assault support weapon, or, in domestic terms of the pre-war era, into an artillery tank! To do this, it was proposed to install a 4,5-inch British Mk 11 howitzer (Finnish designation 11-1 H 18) in the tank’s fighting compartment. These 24 howitzers were delivered during the Finnish campaign of 1939-40. British government, and after its completion about 30 more of these guns were purchased from the government of Spain.


Captured by BT-42, Vyborg direction, summer 1944 g. The photo shows a perforated muzzle brake, the original turret screen and a pistol port


The howitzer had a fairly large size of the breech and could not be placed in the existing tower. But the military refused to install it motionless in the hull. Thus, the decision is ripe - to make a new enlarged turret for the tank, and add a new muzzle brake to reduce the length of the rollback to reduce the howitzer length. The first manufactured version of the BT-42 entered testing in September 1942 g. He received an enlarged tower made of the old, but with an increased up and back combat compartment (it received a new feed niche, welded from flat armor plates).

Since the howitzer had a separate loading, it was possible to fire from it only from a place. There was no radio station. Tests were conducted in a tank brigade and ended unsuccessfully. The tank was sent to VTT for revision at the end of September, but soon it was taken as the R-702 number for the Standard in the construction of the series. The corpses of captured BT-7, intended for alteration in the BT-42, were thoroughly repaired in the tank center and Lokomo Ltd. There was a complete reassembly, repair and adjustment of engines, transmissions and seal holes in the armored hull. Then, after conducting short trials on the go, the chassis arrived for armament. Alterations of the towers and artillery systems (mainly the installation of a perforated muzzle brake and an increase in pressure in the recoil brake) were carried out at VTT in Yvaskila, after which the final assembly of the BT-42 was carried out in the tank center in Varkaus. The first serial tank, the BT-42, entered the disposal of the assault tank battalion 26 in February of the 1943. In total, the 18 vehicles were supplied to the Finnish army. Despite the fact that the manufacturing process of the BT-42 assault tanks took less than a year, it took a lot of unproductive time and effort to implement it, but the opinion of the Finnish military, mainly because the repairs of the captured B'G-7, did not allow the use of factory housing for other works.




In addition, military use showed that the tanks were unsuccessful in battle. Not to mention the unreliability of the undercarriage and the engine, separate loading, which fell on the shoulders of ONE person, coupled with the unfortunate placement of the ammunition and the tightness of the crew compartment, did not allow any significant number of shots to be fired. The work of the gunner on the guidance mechanisms quickly tired him. In addition, the range of a direct howitzer shot was insignificant, and the penetrating ability of the armor-piercing shot made one want something better. Thus, in the fall of 1943, the BT-42 artillery tanks of the assault battalion began to be replaced with StuG-40 coming from Germany. 7 December 1943. All the BT-42 were consolidated into a new separate tank company, where they quietly grew old. Nothing special in the battles of 1943-44. This company did not show itself.

Before 1950, in the Finnish army there were 10 tanks of this type, which were transferred after the war to the composition of training machines. Then for another six years in the army there was one BT-42, now living its time in the tank museum in Parola. One vehicle of this type, captured by the Soviet army in the summer of 1944, was delivered to the territory of the Leningrad Artillery range, where, by order of Fedorenko, she was put to the test on the move, and "came to an unsuitable condition." Its further fate is unknown.



Artillery tank in finnish
Destroyed BT-42 on Vyborg Street. 1944



And this BT-42 was left in Vyborg completely serviceable. Perhaps it was this machine that was tested in the USSR. Summer 1944
Author:
50 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Kars
    Kars April 26 2013 09: 28 New
    +2
    An interesting car, but the BT is too weakly armored for the Second World War, especially for assault use. Maybe it would be nice to show itself in Spain on 1936
    1. avt
      avt April 26 2013 11: 16 New
      +3
      Quote: Kars
      An interesting car, but the BT is too weakly armored for the Second World War, especially for assault use. Maybe it would be nice to show itself in Spain on 1936

      It is for the reason that you have stated that you would not have shown yourself in Spain. Just a wartime craft. By the way, we had a similar option with a 76-mm gun under a unitary cartridge. request It didn’t go - a weak chassis, the Finnish campaign showed everything very clearly and the right conclusions were drawn leading to the creation of a new generation of cars.
      1. Kars
        Kars April 26 2013 12: 40 New
        0
        Quote: avt
        would not have shown himself in Spain

        It’s interesting how the Red Army managed to use tanks in Spain in general, or the same BTs in the breakdown of the Japanese Manchurian army.
        1. svp67
          svp67 April 26 2013 12: 45 New
          +4
          Quote: Kars
          I wonder how the Red Army managed to use tanks in Spain in general.

          And not how, since officially they were used there by the armed forces of "republican" Spain
          Or the same BTs in the breakdown of the Japanese Manchurian army.
          - it all depends on the ability of the commander to use the maximum strengths of equipment and weapons. In those operations, our command used the main strong "trump card" BT - high operational maneuverability ...
          1. Kars
            Kars April 26 2013 13: 29 New
            -1
            Quote: svp67
            And not how, since officially they were used there by the armed forces of "republican" Spain

            well)))) okay
            Quote: svp67
            - it all depends on the ability of the commander to use the maximum strengths of equipment and weapons

            Wow, this can’t relate to

            Quote: avt
            It is for the reason that you have stated that you would not have shown yourself in Spain.

            ?
        2. avt
          avt April 26 2013 12: 55 New
          +3
          Quote: Kars
          It’s interesting how the Red Army managed to use tanks in Spain in general, or the same BTs in the breakdown of the Japanese Manchurian army.

          How could they have used it. request It was in Spain that a weak reservation of the main tanks and the uselessness of the wheel drive were revealed, and the weakness of the suspension showed itself in the Red Army. By the way, it was after Spain that the same Pavlov stood for a caterpillar move. Well, in the war with the Japanese request that was, on that and fought, especially since it was the first line to fill.
          1. Kars
            Kars April 26 2013 13: 31 New
            -1
            Quote: avt
            It was in Spain that a weak reservation of the main tanks and the uselessness of the wheel drive revealed itself, but the weakness of the suspension showed itself in the Red Army


            And so the Red Army withdrew BT from armament and didn’t use it in WWII?
            And what does this have to do with the application
            Quote: Kars
            .Maybe it would be nice to show himself in Spain in 1936

            Would it prove to be worse than other tanks in this conflict? Or could they not be used there?
            1. avt
              avt April 26 2013 14: 46 New
              +3
              Quote: Kars
              And so the Red Army withdrew BT from armament and didn’t use it in WWII?

              Well, what does this have to do with it? request Do you think like this, by pike command, you can change thousands of tanks for 34 matches in one sweep ??
          2. opkozak
            opkozak April 26 2013 21: 59 New
            +1
            In the Union there was a phrase: "If this is true, then I am a Spanish pilot !." It is clear for what reason this phrase arose.

            The phrase "Spanish tanker" I have not met. Probably the Spaniards fought in BT in Spain. The fiery and energetic people squeezed all the possibilities out of the tank, which is why it surpassed Franco wedges.
        3. Billy Bones
          Billy Bones April 26 2013 16: 44 New
          +4
          In Spain, BT had no opponents except Italian wedges. The Republican tankers suffered the main losses from air raids, and at the last stage, from the Swedish anti-tank guns Bofors. During the operation on Khalkhin-Gol in the conditions of the steppe, the Red Army could use such trump cards as high speed and great maneuverability. In addition, Japan's tanks were inferior in quality to BT, and anti-tank artillery was practically absent.
    2. svp67
      svp67 April 26 2013 11: 22 New
      +1
      Quote: Kars
      An interesting car, but the BT is too weakly armored for the Second World War, especially for assault use. Maybe it would be nice to show itself in Spain on 1936

      The Finns did not come up with anything special - because, knowing the existence of the BT-7A, we simply did the same because of their understanding and capabilities ...
      1. Kars
        Kars April 26 2013 12: 42 New
        -1
        Quote: svp67
        BT-7A

        It’s interesting, and if you write the caliber of the BT-7A gun and the Finnish unit here, will they turn out to be what?
        1. svp67
          svp67 April 26 2013 12: 44 New
          +2
          Quote: Kars
          It’s interesting, and if you write the caliber of the BT-7A gun and the Finnish unit here, will they turn out to be what?

          Of course they are different, but the similarities in technical solutions are still not visible ...
          1. Kars
            Kars April 26 2013 13: 27 New
            -1
            Quote: svp67
            but similarities in technical solutions are still not visible ...

            Do you want Finns to attach wings to her?)))
            1. svp67
              svp67 April 26 2013 13: 29 New
              +3
              Quote: Kars
              Do you want Finns to attach wings to her?)))

              Personally, I would like that these tanks would not fall into their hands and serve them, helping to kill our soldiers ...
            2. svp67
              svp67 April 26 2013 13: 37 New
              0
              Quote: Kars
              Do you want Finns to attach wings to her?)))

              But seriously, it would be more promising to use the BT chassis "back to front" or as a "marder" ...
              1. Kars
                Kars April 26 2013 13: 46 New
                -1
                Quote: svp67
                seriously, it would be more promising to use the BT chassis “back to front” or “marder” type

                No, what’s the point of losing a wide angle of fire, especially since it’s not a tank destroyer, especially since it’s not a large-scale machine, and such serious modifications to the hull)))
                1. svp67
                  svp67 April 26 2013 13: 48 New
                  +1
                  Quote: Kars
                  , especially since this is not a large-scale machine, and such serious alterations of the case)))

                  The "marder" alterations are not large, only the tower is open, but for that it allowed the use of weapons to the full ...
                  1. Kars
                    Kars April 26 2013 13: 52 New
                    -1
                    Quote: svp67
                    The "marder" alterations are not large,

                    Why did you decide this? And how can you draw a complete analogy with the BT case
                    Quote: svp67
                    use weapons to the fullest ...

                    What tower installation did not allow to use?
                    1. svp67
                      svp67 April 26 2013 14: 00 New
                      +1
                      Quote: Kars
                      Why did you decide this? And how can you draw a complete analogy with the BT case

                      Well, the Czechs were able to install such a tower on their Pz Kpfw 38 (t), so I think that the Finns would have succeeded.

                      What tower installation did not allow to use?

                      Due to its crampedness, the tower installation nullified all the advantages of increasing the caliber of the gun, and the open and stationary one was more spacious ...
                      1. Kars
                        Kars April 26 2013 14: 15 New
                        -1
                        Quote: svp67
                        Well, the Czechs were able to install such a tower on their Pz Kpfw 38 (t)

                        it’s possible after all, and 38T and BT shouldn’t be compared like that, especially considering that the Finns have a trophy and the Czechs are producers. So there’s almost no chance.
                        Quote: svp67
                        Due to its crampedness, the tower installation nullified all the advantages of increasing the caliber of the gun,

                        an open cabin would not give anything special, it would only increase the risk of splinters. And the only advantage is a heavier high-explosive projectile, which, in a compartment with low ballistics, makes it necessary to drive closer. So sorry, think the way you want but the marder from Bt wouldn’t get it, and even more so Vespe, which is a pity.
                      2. Yemelya
                        Yemelya April 26 2013 22: 15 New
                        +1
                        Quote: Kars
                        especially considering that the Finns have a trophy and the Czechs are producers. So there’s almost no chance.

                        When remaking French, British and Soviet tanks, the Germans did not mind this circumstance.
                        Quote: Kars
                        open cutting would not give anything special, it would only increase the danger from fragments

                        About the lack of a roof on self-propelled guns with bulletproof armor, they began to think only in the era of nuclear weapons.
                      3. Kars
                        Kars April 26 2013 22: 25 New
                        0
                        Quote: Emelya
                        When remaking French, British and Soviet tanks, the Germans did not mind this circumstance.

                        The Germans know the development of the German industry did not bother. But they didn’t do anything from BT.
                        Quote: Emelya
                        About the lack of a roof on self-propelled guns with bulletproof armor, they began to think only in the era of nuclear weapons.

                        And naturally you have confirmation of this dogma?
                        It’s interesting, why did the Germans attach a crash to Ferdinand? Were they waiting for a nuclear strike?
                      4. Yemelya
                        Yemelya April 26 2013 22: 34 New
                        0
                        Quote: Kars
                        Quote: Emelya
                        Regarding the lack of a roof on self-propelled guns with bulletproof armor began to be conceived only in the era of nuclear weapons.
                        And naturally you have confirmation of this dogma?
                        It’s interesting, why did the Germans attach a crash to Ferdinand? Were they waiting for a nuclear strike?
                        request

                        Quote: Kars
                        But they didn’t do something from BT


                        They had more reliable chassis available.
                      5. Kars
                        Kars April 26 2013 22: 43 New
                        0
                        Quote: Emelya
                        They had more reliable chassis available.

                        then it turns out that it was embarrassing if they used the Lorien chassis and station wagon, etc. And then, by the way, it is not clear why your comment was written mentioning the Germans. By the way, I hope you have no doubt that the Germans had more developed tank building than the Finns?

                        Quote: Emelya
                        request

                        this was to be expected
                      6. Yemelya
                        Yemelya April 26 2013 23: 18 New
                        0
                        Quote: Kars
                        Quote:
                        request

                        this was to be expected


                        It's me, in fact, about the fact that the “Ferdinand” is not bulletproof armor.

                        Quote: Kars
                        And then by the way, it is not clear why your comment was written with the Germans mentioned. By the way, I hope you have no doubt that the Germans had more developed tank building than the Finns?


                        this is in response to
                        Quote: Kars
                        especially considering that the Finns have a trophy and the Czechs are producers. So there’s almost no chance.


                        remade and Romanians

                        In my opinion, it’s easier to attach the cabin than to push it into the tower.
                      7. Kars
                        Kars April 26 2013 23: 34 New
                        0
                        Quote: Emelya
                        It's me, in fact, about the fact that the “Ferdinand” is not bulletproof armor.

                        Is that news?
                        Quote: Emelya
                        remade and Romanians

                        show. yes and Finns redid a vet?
                        Quote: Emelya
                        I think it’s easier to attach a cabin than to push it into a tower

                        Finns were of the opposite opinion.
                      8. Yemelya
                        Yemelya April 26 2013 23: 47 New
                        +1
                        Quote: Kars
                        It's me, in fact, about the fact that the “Ferdinand” is not bulletproof armor.
                        Is that news?

                        and what was the mention of "Ferdinand" as an example when discussing self-propelled guns with bulletproof armor?

                        Quote: Kars
                        Quote: Emelya
                        remade and Romanians
                        Show.
                      9. Kars
                        Kars April 26 2013 23: 56 New
                        0
                        Quote: Emelya
                        and what was the mention of "Ferdinand" as an example when discussing self-propelled guns with bulletproof armor?

                        And what's the difference? It’s less secure? Also, self-propelled guns and remove the roof from it, if before the advent of nuclear weapons it didn’t matter to her, it would only get easier. The Americans and the British did this, but didn’t cut down.


                        Quote: Emelya
                        Show.

                        And what should I see here? I also have such
                        And this is definitely not BT and 76 mm caliber
                      10. Yemelya
                        Yemelya April 27 2013 00: 10 New
                        0
                        Quote: Kars
                        And what should I see here?

                        And why is this
                        Quote: Kars
                        Show
                        It was?
                        Quote: Kars
                        And what's the difference? It’s less secure? Also, self-propelled guns and remove the roof from it, if before the advent of nuclear weapons it didn’t matter to her, it would only get easier. The Americans and the British did this, but didn’t cut down.

                        Just say that I read my phrase inattentively.
                      11. Kars
                        Kars April 27 2013 00: 20 New
                        0
                        Quote: Emelya
                        It was?

                        was, but it was about BT
                        Quote: Kars
                        The Germans know the development of the German industry did not bother. But they didn’t do anything from BT.

                        Quote: Kars
                        and do not compare 38T and BT in such a way, especially considering that the Finns have a trophy, and the Czechs are manufacturers.

                        Quote: Emelya
                        remade and Romanians

                        as it’s not quite that. I brought that the Germans redid the light chassis except for BT, you still added the rumen - but what’s the point?
                        Quote: Emelya
                        Just say that I read my phrase inattentively.

                        at least attentively, even inattentively - bulletproof, protivosnar
                      12. Yemelya
                        Yemelya April 27 2013 00: 31 New
                        +1
                        Quote: Kars
                        as it’s not quite that. I brought that the Germans redid the light chassis except for BT, you still added the rumen - but what’s the point?

                        The point is that at low cost, the Finns could create self-propelled guns with a howitzer in the wheelhouse, avoiding the problems of crowding in the tower, and countries that were not too industrially developed were capable of installing guns in the wheelhouse on a trophy chassis.

                        As for the features of the BT, in particular the narrow fighting compartment, the cabin is more spacious than in the tower, and if they had shoved it into the tower, then it would not have been a problem to put it into the cabin.
                      13. Kars
                        Kars April 27 2013 00: 35 New
                        0
                        Quote: Emelya
                        The point is that at a low cost the Finns

                        Where does such confidence come from? Maybe it is technically impossible because of, for example, the suspension and wheel mechanisms?
                        Quote: Emelya
                        and for the installation of guns in the wheelhouse on a trophy chassis were capable and not too industrially developed countries.

                        but for some reason it’s not on BT, which even technically developed tank-building countries didn’t cut down.
                        Quote: Emelya
                        if they shoved it into the tower, then it would not have been a problem to put in the wheelhouse.

                        but the tower is on .. a kind of epaulette .. at the same time they kept the pin horizontal.
                        Quote: Emelya
                        it wouldn’t be a problem to put in the wheelhouse.

                        stop the tower and remove the roof and the back sheets of the tower as the British and Bishop did))))))
                      14. Yemelya
                        Yemelya April 27 2013 00: 56 New
                        0
                        Quote: Kars
                        Where does such confidence come from? Maybe it is technically impossible because of, for example, the suspension and wheel mechanisms?


                        The suspension, as I already wrote, somewhat complicated the alteration, but did not exclude - what could it interfere with (the T-34 was the same)?

                        The mechanisms of the wheel drive consisted of a “guitar” in the stern (it didn’t interfere in any way), and swivel wheels in the nose (the knife, it seems, had no effect.
                      15. Kars
                        Kars April 27 2013 09: 38 New
                        0
                        Quote: Emelya
                        she didn’t exclude - what could she interfere with (the T-34 was the same)?

                        The T-34 has no wheel drive and is wider.
                        Quote: Emelya
                        The mechanisms of the wheel drive consisted of a “guitar” in the stern (it didn’t interfere in any way), and swivel wheels in the nose (the knife, it seems, had no effect

                        Why then take them off? Let everyone have both a caterpillar and a wheel drive.

                        The picture clearly lacks an artillery gun larger than three inches.
                      16. Yemelya
                        Yemelya April 27 2013 13: 04 New
                        0
                        Quote: Kars
                        The T-34 has no wheel drive and is wider.

                        before that, it seemed, it was about the impossibility to establish a felling in principle -
                        Quote: Kars
                        maybe this is technically impossible because of, for example, the suspension and wheel mechanisms?



                        Quote: Kars
                        Why then take them off? Let everyone have both a caterpillar and a wheel drive.
                        - read the history of the T-34 - a lot of literature.


                        Quote: Kars
                        The picture clearly lacks an artillery gun larger than three inches.


                        That is, you think that climbed into the tower, but would not fit into the wheelhouse? Moreover, the cabin of self-propelled guns can be made even more than the command vehicle.
  2. svp67
    svp67 April 26 2013 23: 48 New
    0
    Quote: Emelya
    About the lack of a roof on self-propelled guns with bulletproof armor, they began to think only in the era of nuclear weapons.

    Yes, they thought about it back in the First World War, and in the second, especially in urban battles, it became a bearing necessity, since the crews began to suffer heavy losses from enemy snipers and grenades ...
  3. Yemelya
    Yemelya April 27 2013 00: 14 New
    0
    After the Second World War in the USSR, despite the rich experience of urban battles, self-propelled guns with bulletproof armor were made without a roof until the end of the 50s.
  4. Kars
    Kars April 27 2013 00: 28 New
    0
    Quote: Emelya
    , Self-propelled guns with bulletproof armor were made without a roof until the end of the 50s.

    it’s not from a good life, but more due to technical reasons
  5. Yemelya
    Yemelya April 27 2013 00: 41 New
    0
    Quote: Kars
    it’s not from a good life, but more due to technical reasons

    I do not think so. ASU-85 was first done without a roof, then with a roof, the same with armored personnel carriers. They began to use in the calculation of nuclear weapons and other OM, so they put the roof with air blowers. Often this is associated with the experience of fighting in Budapest, but here the grandmother said in two.
  6. Kars
    Kars April 27 2013 00: 55 New
    0
    Quote: Emelya
    but then the grandmother said in two.

    Vryatli she said something, and therefore confirmation
    Quote: Emelya
    About the lack of a roof on self-propelled guns with bulletproof armor, they began to think only in the era of nuclear weapons

    No, I gave an example of installing protection on self-propelled guns with an open roof, and bulletproof, anti-projectile is already the tenth case
    Quote: Kars
    open cutting would not give anything special, it would only increase the danger from fragments.

    and the danger of fragments is not even necessary to confirm. Or are cars with an open roof also fragments non-hazardous?
  7. Yemelya
    Yemelya April 27 2013 01: 02 New
    0
    Quote: Kars
    Vryatli she said something, and therefore confirmation

    confirmation of what?
    Quote: Kars
    and the danger of fragments is not even necessary to confirm. Or are cars with an open roof also fragments non-hazardous?

    Do the fragments fall from above?
    Quote: Kars
    No, I gave an example of installing protection on self-propelled guns with an open roof, and bulletproof, anti-projectile is already the tenth case

    What protection on which SPG with an open roof?
  8. Kars
    Kars April 27 2013 09: 36 New
    0
    Quote: Emelya
    confirmation of what?

    Quote: Emelya
    About the lack of a roof on self-propelled guns with bulletproof armor, they began to think only in the era of nuclear weapons

    Quote: Emelya
    Do the fragments fall from above?

    Just do not fall, but arrive at a decent speed.
    Quote: Emelya
    What protection on which SPG with an open roof?

    Protection of the open roof of the towers SAU Woolverin and Achilles
  9. Yemelya
    Yemelya April 27 2013 13: 13 New
    0
    Quote: Kars
    Just do not fall, but arrive at a decent speed.


    As for the protection from above, no one drove for self-propelled guns with bulletproof armor - helmets were given to the crews of German self-propelled guns - apparently, it was considered sufficient. I did not see any mention of the mass problem of hitting open SPGs with fragments from above - you will find it - lay it out.

    Regarding the direct dependence of the installation on the ACS of the roof on the appearance of nuclear weapons - this is my assumption. The basis is the well-known damaging factors of nuclear weapons, from which the roof partially rescues.
  • Bigriver
    Bigriver April 26 2013 14: 49 New
    +1
    Quote: svp67

    The "marder" alterations are not large, but now the tower is open ...

    You confuse tactical niches. Marder is PT.
    The Finns tried to make an analogue of the ZIG-33.
    There’s a clue for you - an artillery tank.
    1. Bigriver
      Bigriver April 26 2013 14: 59 New
      +1
      Quote: BigRiver
      ///.
      1. svp67
        svp67 April 26 2013 15: 03 New
        +1
        Two solutions - one problem ...
      2. Bigriver
        Bigriver April 26 2013 15: 13 New
        +1
        Quote: svp67
        Two solutions - one problem ...

        Different positioning, price and decision speed.
        KV-2 is assault танк, direct fire.
        Zig-33 requires adjustment and related support. This is an approximate analogue. assault gunsI am Su-122.
  • Kars
    Kars April 26 2013 16: 02 New
    0
    Quote: BigRiver
    The Finns tried to make an analogue of the ZIG-33.

    It cannot be ruled out that Brummbar / Shtug could want
    1. Bigriver
      Bigriver April 26 2013 16: 05 New
      +2
      Quote: Kars

      It cannot be ruled out that Brummbar / Shtug could want

      It is difficult to clearly classify what they wanted.
      They did not have a complete application concept.
      She could not appear in the tactical link.
      And they did not have an operational link.
  • Vadivak
    Vadivak April 26 2013 13: 23 New
    +3
    Quote: Kars
    Interesting car


    Very interesting, I’d even say on the bezrybe and a bra belt


  • teceitap
    teceitap April 26 2013 09: 40 New
    0
    An interesting article. But if the Germans modorized our vehicles captured in 41 (replacing the engine, optics in their own way) and sent them to Rommel in Africa instead of 2, then do not know how the English fought with them (especially with the T-34 and KV).
    1. Yemelya
      Yemelya April 26 2013 22: 24 New
      0
      Quote: teceitap
      replacing the engine, optics in their own way

      In my opinion, no one massively engaged in the replacement of engines during 2VM, apparently it was considered unprofitable.
      It would be possible to replace air filters with the captured T-34 and KV, otherwise they would not have lasted long in the desert.
      But even in this case, the British would not be very afraid - 17-pound guns, if I am not mistaken, appeared in the North. Africa at the end of 1941
      In general, the topic of alternative remaking by the Germans of Soviet tanks is very interesting. I was always interested in whether it was possible to arm the T-34 KwK-40.
      1. Kars
        Kars April 26 2013 22: 30 New
        0
        Quote: Emelya
        17-pound guns, if I am not mistaken, appeared in the North. Africa at the end of 1941

        It seems as usual you are mistaken
        They were first used in combat in February 1943.
        Quote: Emelya
        I was always interested in whether it was possible to arm the T-34 KwK-40.

        Most likely vryatli, but who knows.
        1. Kars
          Kars April 26 2013 22: 37 New
          0
          Here is a picture with one of the panther prototypes --- I think there will be huge difficulties with leveling the tower, the load on the front rollers, centrifugal moments when turning and aiming, there are also problems with maneuvering and possible sticking into the ground.
          1. Yemelya
            Yemelya April 26 2013 23: 09 New
            +1
            We pushed into a tower with a shoulder strap diameter of 1420 mm and an 85 mm C-53, and a 76 mm C-54 with a barrel length of 54 cal. and a shot from an anti-aircraft 3K, according to a number of authors, got up without any problems at all. And the Daimler’s “Panther” had a tower shoulder strap, go 1600 mm.

            Quote: Kars
            difficulties with leveling the tower, the load on the front rollers, centrifugal moments when turning and aiming

            You have to pay for all the good.
            1. Kars
              Kars April 26 2013 23: 26 New
              0
              Quote: Emelya
              You have to pay for all the good.

              Well, apparently the Germans held on to my point of view and didn’t arm the t-34 with their gun.
              Quote: Emelya
              76 mm S-54 with a long barrel of 54 cal. and a shot from an anti-aircraft 3K, according to a number of authors, got up without any problems at all

              again, in a series of such tanks, no means something is wrong.
              1. Yemelya
                Yemelya April 26 2013 23: 33 New
                0
                Quote: Kars
                Well, apparently the Germans held on to my point of view and didn’t arm the t-34 with their gun.

                There were problems with balancing the turret on the serial Panther, and the gun was even longer with the T-34/85 about sticking the barrel into the ground and loads on the rollers.
                Quote: Kars
                again, in a series of such tanks, no means something is wrong.

                Usually due to weakness of the HE shell and high cost of the barrel
                1. Kars
                  Kars April 26 2013 23: 41 New
                  0
                  Quote: Emelya
                  There were problems with balancing the turret on the serial Panther, and the gun was even longer with the T-34/85 about sticking the barrel into the ground and loads on the rollers.

                  Then I do not understand your interest
                  Quote: Emelya
                  I was always interested in whether it was possible to arm the T-34 KwK-40.

                  if you know everything
                  Quote: Emelya
                  Usually due to weakness of the HE shell and high cost of the barrel

                  Well, an ordinary T-34-76 doesn’t have a stronger HE shell. And probably not because of its cost, but because of its complexity, it was always ridiculous to talk about cost in the USSR during the Second World War. Complexity, machine tool hours, a lot of marriage, etc.
                  1. Yemelya
                    Yemelya April 27 2013 00: 00 New
                    0
                    Quote: Kars
                    Then I do not understand your interest

                    Yes, I just wanted to hear opinions about a possible German modernization of the T-34.
                    Quote: Kars
                    Well, an ordinary T-34-76 does have a stronger HE shell.

                    M. Svirin claims to be stronger.
                    1. Kars
                      Kars April 27 2013 00: 12 New
                      0
                      Quote: Emelya
                      Yes, I just wanted to hear opinions about a possible German modernization of the T-34.

                      Then I voiced it.
                      Quote: Emelya
                      M. Svirin claims to be stronger.

                      Well, for a good price comes. By the way, again, the bias in the direction of the assault / anti-personnel qualities, from anti-tank.
        2. Yemelya
          Yemelya April 26 2013 22: 48 New
          0
          Quote: Kars
          It seems as usual you are mistaken
          They were first used in combat in February 1943.

          I don’t remember exactly, but I read in a book by a Western author that they were flown to Africa on planes without carriages in 1941, I’ll find and clarify.
          1. Kars
            Kars April 26 2013 22: 50 New
            0
            Quote: Emelya
            I don’t remember exactly, but I read in a book by a Western author that they were flown to Africa on planes without carriages in 1941, I’ll find and clarify.

            You will not find.
            Even before the adoption of the 6-pound (57-mm) anti-tank gun, British experts predicted its impending inability to deal with the ever-increasing armor of German tanks. At the end of 1940, design work began on the creation of a 6-pound replacement, which was basically completed by the end of 1941. The first prototype of the production line for the production of new guns was ready for the spring of 1942. After the appearance of the new Tiger heavy German tanks at the North African theater of operations, the first batch of 100 17-pound guns was quickly sent there in September 1942 to counter this new threat. The rush was so great that these guns were sent to Africa even before the development of the proper carriages for them. Therefore, they had to be mounted on carriages from a 25-pound howitzer. This early version is known as the 17/25-pounder, code-named Pheasant. They were first used in combat in February 1943
        3. Yemelya
          Yemelya April 26 2013 23: 01 New
          0
          Quote: Kars
          They were first used in combat in February 1943.

          at the expense of 1941 was mistaken, K. Bishop writes in the Encyclopedia of Arms of the Second World War that these guns appeared in Africa in 1942 a week before the appearance of the Tigers there
          1. Kars
            Kars April 26 2013 23: 12 New
            0
            Quote: Emelya
            at the expense of 1941 was mistaken

            I said so.
            Quote: Emelya
            1942 a week before the appearance of the Tigers there

            I don’t know this already. But as we see, they went into battle in 1943, and I don’t think that they would have shot at any of the German tanks. Therefore, the appearance of not the appearance of the Tigers does not matter.
            1. Yemelya
              Yemelya April 26 2013 23: 28 New
              0
              N-nda, then, HF, perhaps, could have influenced the situation. Although, the British and with thick-armored “Matilda” from the Germans were rattling, and in KV the Germans would probably die from the heat.
  • avt
    avt April 26 2013 09: 44 New
    0
    Cool modernization of BT. What they can’t come up with in an acute shortage of armored vehicles. Article plus.
    1. Simon
      Simon April 26 2013 21: 50 New
      0
      Yes, which monsters of the BT-7 Finns did, but could not fight on them. laughing fool
  • anip
    anip April 26 2013 10: 44 New
    +1
    Article +.
    It is not clear why the Finns had to install a howitzer (and even with separate loading) in a rotating tower, was it really impossible to make a motionless cabin, having made a kind of Finnish stug. Or it’s really easy to restore the BT as it is, with the installation of, perhaps, its weapons, optics, and communications equipment.
    1. Bigriver
      Bigriver April 26 2013 11: 28 New
      +2
      Quote: anip

      Unclear, why The Finns had to install a howitzer (and even with separate loading) in a rotating tower, was it really impossible to make a motionless cabin, making a kind of stug in Finnish ...

      Obviously, the complete lack of operational experience using mobile connections.
      One panzer division for the whole country plus a scattering ... Plus a theater of operations did not contribute to the development of experience.
    2. svp67
      svp67 April 26 2013 11: 37 New
      +1
      Quote: anip
      It is not clear why the Finns had to install a howitzer (and even with separate loading) in a rotating tower, was it really impossible to make a motionless cabin, having made a kind of Finnish stug.

      In many respects, Christie’s ideas embedded in the BT design are “to blame” - the “useful” volume of the fighting compartment was very small and did not allow the use of “unitars” of this caliber. In addition, even such a (tower) installation very overwhelmed the tank, violating its "weight distribution", and if it were done in the likeness of a "thing", then the suspension of the front rollers would break the springs to "cheer" on the very first pit, but reworking the suspension required so much work that the Finns might not have time to end the war ...
    3. Drosselmeyer
      Drosselmeyer April 26 2013 19: 08 New
      +1
      It was necessary that more or less high-explosive caliber moved on its own. As regards separate loading, the Finns had no choice. Which guns were available, those were shaman.
      It would be better of course to put the cabin instead of the tower.
  • _KM_
    _KM_ April 26 2013 11: 24 New
    0
    Apparently they wanted to get a full-fledged self-propelled gun.
  • Bigriver
    Bigriver April 26 2013 15: 26 New
    0
    Quote: BigRiver
    Quote: svp67
    Two solutions - one problem ...

    Different positioning, different problems, goals, price and speed of solution.
    KV-2 is assault танк, direct fire.
    Zig-33 requires adjustment and related support. This is an approximate analogue. assault gunsI am Su-122.
  • ALPETSEM
    ALPETSEM April 26 2013 19: 50 New
    0
    The Finns interpreted the concept of a light tank as strange, BT is a tool tailored for other tasks.
    1. svp67
      svp67 April 26 2013 22: 18 New
      0
      Quote: ALPETSEM
      The Finns interpreted the concept of a light tank as strange, BT is a tool tailored for other tasks.
      Yes, that’s the trouble, the Finnish army didn’t have such tasks, which means they also didn’t really need BT tanks ...
  • bublic82009
    bublic82009 April 27 2013 21: 18 New
    0
    but not only we and the Germans redid the trophies
  • Evrepid
    Evrepid 5 May 2013 14: 16 New
    0
    very interesting article.
    A little surprised that having a sample in hand and realizing the concept of inclined armor plates, Finnish engineers did not begin to redesign / design their version of the tank with inclined armor.
  • Alex
    Alex 22 September 2013 13: 02 New
    +2
    Quite an interesting concept: a heavy (in caliber and mass) gun on the chassis of a light tank. Yes, and in a rotating tower. Apparently, "blinded from what was." That's just not working out with love.

    I often get the impression that the Finns were not seriously planning to fight at all. Squeezed back to the selected, and then "my hut from the edge."