Military Review

D-25: there were no alternatives!

104
In recent years, more and more often you hear the dispute of the so-called "advanced amateur theorists" who consider themselves professionals, who love to evaluate the correctness of certain decisions made by our ancestors. Very often angry statements are heard from their lips that “if such and such a decision were made differently, but something like that, then everything would be just perfect! And what a fool is that person who made exactly that decision, because even to a complete idiot it is clear that it would be much better ... ”There are many such judgments. And very often gets in this matter the artillery weapons of our tanks, which supposedly lagged behind the foreign one, losing to him in rate of fire and armor penetration.


Tanks EC-2 (Object 234) and EC-1 (Object 233), armed with 121,9-mm howitzer Y-11 and 76,2-mm ZIS-1 gun, respectively. Spring 1943 g


I will express my opinion that almost all decisions in stories they were justified by some reasons unknown to us, and therefore I consider any of the decisions taken at that time to be correct, and therefore not subject to our discussions, especially among the “home-grown professionals”, that they lie on the couch, picking up my nose in the nose, talking about the fate of the world . Let me try to clarify this idea with the example of the allegedly unreasonable armament of the IC tanks of the “outdated” 122-mm D-25 cannon, and not the 100-mm of the “new” C-34.

So, on September 4, 1943 issued a decree of the GFCS No. 4043CC, which prescribed the adoption of heavy IP tanks for the Red Army and mass production. But it soon became clear that their weapons from the D-85T 5-mm cannon, which was considered the height of perfection in the spring, suddenly became not powerful enough. And there were good reasons. The fact is that the main purpose of the heavy tanks of the Soviet army was not only to destroy their own kind, but also to help break through the especially fortified enemy defenses. And in the 85 gun kit in the 1943, there were only shots, mostly borrowed from anti-aircraft artillery, that is, with fragmentation, fragmentation-remote (high-explosive) grenade, shrapnel and armor-piercing projectile.

The 85-mm armor-piercing tracer until the summer of 1943 could successfully fight all German tanks, but when the Tiger and Panther entered the battlefield, the armor of which the gun pierced (normal penetration of the 100 mm was provided) distances 600-800 m and closer, but at these distances armor tank IS did not provide him with reliable protection against armor-piercing shells of the new 75-mm and 88-mm German tank and anti-tank guns.

The absence of 85-mm cannon shots in the ammunition with an effective high-explosive grenade significantly reduced the combat value of a heavy tank for breaking through the enemy’s prepared defense lines, since even a tree-and-earth dugout with two rolls could withstand a fragmentation 85-mm grenade.

Thus, immediately after the birth of a new heavy tank demanded more powerful weapons.

Consider which tank artillery systems of high power were in the USSR at that time (1943 at the end of October) so that they could be quickly adapted in the turret of a new heavy tank.

1. 106,7-mm gun ZIS-6 sample 1941, its production was prepared in 1941, the plant number 92. The gun was high-tech, had mastered the industry in 1939, high-explosive and armor-piercing shells. Among the drawbacks of the gun are the large size of the breech, which did not allow it to be installed in the turret of the IS tank (or KV-lc) without reworking, separate loading, slowing down the rate of fire, and most importantly, the 1943 didn’t massively produce ammunition for it.

The reference model of the tank EC-85, armed with X-NUMX-mm gun D-85T. Summer 5


Tests 106,7-mm gun ZIS-6, installed in the turret of the KB-2.


2. 121,9-mm howitzer U-11 of model 1941. Howitzer was developed by designers of Uralmashzavod (UZTM) V. Sidorenko and N. Usenko in October-November of 1941 and was tested in 1942-43. in the tower of tanks KV-9, EC-2 (Object 234) and chopping SU-122М. However, by the fall of 1943g. the howitzer was never brought. Constantly revealed any structural defects. Separate loading of the U-11 also led to a low rate of fire, and if necessary, enemy tanks could only be fought with cumulative (in terms of those years, “armored” projectile) still unreliable in 1943. The howitzer had a very small direct shot range (less than 300 m), which made it difficult to fire from a moving and point target (tank, supervisee).

3. 121,9-mm howitzer D-6 design bureau of plant No. 9 of model 1943. Further development of the howitzer U-11 using the installation places 85-mm gun D-5. D-6 could be installed without modifications in the EC-85 tower. But as a tank gun, it had the same drawbacks as the Y-11, besides it broke down in state tests.

4. The 121,9 / 152,4-mm C-41 tank howitzer of the 1943 model. The Howitzer was developed by TsAKKB in two versions to arm the KB-1C, turning it into a kind of artillery tank KV-2. However, this howitzer also had the same drawbacks as previously discussed. In addition, an additional brake for adopting a C-41 howitzer in the 152,4-mm version was the obligatory presence of a muzzle brake, which the military categorically disagreed with.

That's all tank artillery systems of high power, which were available at least in the prototype and were allowed to test at that time. As we see, none of them without significant rework (often comparable with the design of the parts of the gun again) was impossible or impractical to install in the IC.

However, an experienced "122-mm gun D-2 (L-19 lite)", which has satisfactorily passed the first stage of factory tests, was ready. The gun differed from the A-19 in that it had the M-30 howitzer gun carriage and, therefore, reduced combat weight, as well as a small length and force of recoil. The gun was recommended for use, but was rejected by the NKV commission because it had a muzzle brake, which, with a powerful charge, had a “large unmasking effect exceeding that of all known artillery systems” (including the X-NUMX-mm howitzer D-152).

And when Z.Kotin turned to OKB-9 with a request to consider the possibility of installing an 122-mm cannon into the turret of an IS tank, they called it “hit the address”. Of course, the D-2 gun had separate loading, as was the ZIS-6 and all the considered howitzers, but at the same time its shot was mastered by industry and was mass-produced. The high-explosive effect of the gun was not in doubt, the range of the direct shot was comparable to that of the “Tiger” (if not more). The fact that it was recommended for commissioning was also played in favor of this weapon and almost all the ground tests with the X-NUMX-mm howitzer D-152 (no modifications were required) passed without breakdowns.

To install the D-2 into the tower of the IS tank, it had to be redesigned somewhat, but the preliminary design was completed on the entire 10 days (as indicated in F. Petrov’s note). Despite the fact that the military continued to protest strongly against adopting a tank gun with a muzzle brake, V. Malyshev supported the decision and, with the support of D. Ustinov, reported to I. Stalin about the advantages of quickly adopting an 122-mm tank gun. the guns. The leader considered his arguments reasonable, and the NKV received a go-ahead for the manufacture of a prototype 122-mm tank gun D-2-5 (A-19 tank) to 11 in November 1943.

The short meeting of the State Defense Committee, which followed soon, finally decided the fate of the armament of the IS tank. The voices of those present were divided. Some defended the NNU 100-mm gun with the ballistics of the B-34 naval guns and unitary ammunition (C-3), which had just been proposed by the plenum of the NKV, and the others with the powerful 122-mm cannon, which can not only use tanks with one blow but also pillboxes. And the decision of Stalin, speaking at a meeting on the side of the 122-mm gun, many call today stupid and short-sighted.

No, dear critics, this decision was very far-sighted at that moment. Let's put ourselves in Stalin's place. He knew well what it means to develop a fundamentally new weapon, perfectly represented (and not theoretically) what forces and means it requires. So decide for yourself what's best: the 100-mm gun, even with a unitar and theoretically a little more powerful for fighting tanks, but only after several months, when an armor-piercing projectile will be mastered for it (and in fact more than six months have passed), or 122-mm, even with the muzzle brake and separate loading, but is ALREADY READY AND SUCCESSFULLY LAST THE FIRST TEST STAGE? And most importantly, the 122-mm tank gun had a lot of common nodes with the serial 85-mm D-5 and differed from it mainly in the barrel and breech - the recoil mechanisms were worked out, and it was their name that always had major problems in the guns of this caliber.

Yes, and Stalin did not reject the 100-mm gun. Moreover, 27 in December 1943 of the GFCS adopted Resolution No. 4851 on the development of a heavy IS tank for armaments and medium-sized anti-aircraft 100-mm guns.

“It’s more detailed from this place,” will exclaim a tank theoretician. “Why didn’t they?”

Let's deal with this.

Implementing the GFCS resolution. for the 20 February 1944 in the USSR should have been prepared for testing an IS tank and an average SPG with an 100-mm gun. Since the project of such a gun was made by TsAKKB, they were guided precisely by its products - the C-34 cannon. In it, the designers of the TsAKB, for ease of loading, provided for a new placement of the loader - to the left of the gun “under the right hand”. It was this adjustment (I’ll add from myself — quite reasonable to my unenlightened view) that was the first stumbling block about which the CACB’s normal relations with the tank crews were broken. After all, the tankers had to redesign the entire combat compartment of the tank, develop a fundamentally new tower for it, change the casting molds, the assembly technology ... But most importantly, nobody warned them about this beforehand! And it was not easy to do all this, because it meant to hastily rebuild almost all reservations! Arguing parties began to accuse each other of not fulfilling the decision on time. But even this was not the main factor in the refusal of the EC-100 and SU-100 into service, but the fact that in February 1944, the GUSH C-34 DIDN'T SUPPORT TESTS! The recoil devices failed, and it was too early to talk about the beginning of its mass production at that time.

By the end of February, 1944, the OKB No. 9, offered its own version of the X-NUMX-mm tank gun, the D-100. It was designed based on the design of the D-10 and D-5. but unlike the prototypes, the gun had new recoil mechanisms that needed fine-tuning. Naturally, manufacturers of tanks and ACS. ChKZ and UZTM were more inclined to use this tool, since it did not require fundamentally redoing the fighting compartment.

3 March 1944 began the tests of the D-10 in the artillery missile. But the test program was not sustained, and the gun returned to the Design Bureau for finalizing the design. The D-10 tests began and interrupted several more times, but only on July 2 the test program ended satisfactorily, and on July 3, the GFCS by decision No. 1944 adopted the D-6131С gun for armament of the SU-10.


The reference model of the tank IC-122, armed with X-NUMX-mm cannon D-121,9-2 (A-5 tank)


Experiments with the tank 100-mm gun continued until the end of July, until they were successful. Plant No. 9 could have mastered the X-NUMX-mm D-100 cannon in the series by September 10, all the standard equipment adopted by the customer gradually arrived at Uralmash for installation in the SU-1944, but self-propelled guns appeared at the front only at the end of the year. There was one feature that strongly slowed down the appearance of 100-mm tank guns. In their ammunition was not armor-piercing projectile! Its release was mastered only in November 100, when the formation of the first parts with the 1944-mm artillery systems began.

Now let's see what gave such a rearmament tank? Let's go back to the theorists. Their arguments are:
1. A unitary shot, which means a high rate of fire.
2. Smaller caliber, which means more ammunition.
3. Great armor penetration.

Theoretically, that's right, but in practice ...

It is difficult to object something to the first argument, because indeed when firing from the spot the 100-mm gun gives some advantages over the 122-mm. But we should not forget that fire from tanks was carried out in combat most often from short stops, that is, the loading was carried out in motion, and in this situation, firstly, fast reloading with heavy and long ammunition (shot) is almost impossible, and secondly, a separate shot (like two relatively short and less heavy cylinders), according to testers, was even more comfortable when choosing the type of projectile in a close fighting compartment. So in most cases, the practical rate of fire of the EC-122 (1,5 - 2,5 rds / min) was not very different from the practical rate of fire of the EC-4 (245 Object), which was 3-3,5 rds / min. But I repeat, a unitary shot is a pretty strong argument.

The second argument - about more portable ammunition also crumbles when tested by practice. After all, the advantages of separate loading in the close combat compartment of a tank consist in the fact that projectiles can be stored separately from shells with charges and thus, in a combat compartment of a complex form of an IS tank, they could be placed more rationally.

Actually, this is exactly what happened, since the BC of the EC-122 tank consisted of 28 shots, and the EC-4 (245 Object) with the 100-mm D-10 cannon — 29 shots. The CACB, however, managed to bring the EC-5 tank (248 Object) to the 36 shots through a long canter, but according to testers' testimonies, it was not possible to use six shots located in front of the hull. So here the gain was very conditional.

Well, about heat resistance. Again, speaking in favor of the 100-mm gun, the theorists say that the D-100 X-guns have more armor penetration. But they say this as an axiom, based on the data given in the 10-mm 100-s gun manual. But in the war, these figures were slightly different.

Compare, here are the calculated values ​​of the permeability according to the NKV data from 4 in May 1944 g:

100-mm

gun D-10

122-mm

gun D-25

Projectile weight

15.6 kg

25 kg

Early speed

890 m / s

800 m / s

Meeting angle

0

30

55

0

30

55

300 m

164

136

76

160

130

72

500 m

159

132

73

155

127

70

1000 m

149

122

68

144

117

65

1500м

138

: 12

52

133

'07

60

2000 m

127

103

57

122

98

55



It is easy to see that even the theoretical gain of the 100-mm gun in the resistance to performance was about 5 mm, all other conditions being equal. And I emphasize the word "theoretical." It is precisely because in 1944 it turned out that these theoretical calculations very poorly fit into practice.

After all, armor penetration calculations were carried out for viscous Russian armor mainly of medium hardness and mostly normal, and since the summer of 1944, the Germans used mainly armor of high hardness, which has become somewhere more fragile, and somewhere more solid, and for its penetration The first place was no longer a high initial velocity, but a large mass of projectile. This led, for example, to the fact that the frontal armor of the Panther tank (inclined to the 55 angle to the horizon) was poorly beaten by high-speed 85-mm D-5-85BM munitions, but it was easily penetrated by 122-mm projectile from fantastic distances ( with 2000-2500 m), and if the projectile and ricocheted - cracks and breaks remained in the armor.

And in conclusion, in order not to be unfounded, I will give a selection of several documents of the RSAE about 122-mm and 100-mm tank guns:

Tank EC-100 / EC-5 (Object 248), armed with a 100-mm cannon C-34


Ow. Secret *
Ex. № ______


Malyshev (convocation)
Ustinov
Fedorenko
Yakovlev
Kirpichnikova
Borisov
Petrosyantsu
Vannikov
______________
Make a joint proposal for comrade report. Stalin.
Term three days


L. Beria 3.VIII.44


* * *

Ow. Secretly


Comrade BERIA L.P.
By installation on tanks 100 mm IP gun
D-1OT, factory design № 9 NKV


From 1 to July 6 On the Gorokhovetsky ground of GAU KA, repeated tests of an IC tank armed with an X-NUMX mm D-100T gun from factory No. 10 NKV (designed by t. Petrov) were carried out.

The 100 mm gun D-10T of plant No. 9 NKV, installed in the IS tank, passed the ground tests, and according to the conclusion of the commission that conducted the tests of the tank, it can be recommended for adoption by the Red Army.

The installation of the 100 mm cannon of factory No. 9 in the IS tank provides the following advantages compared to the 122mm D-25 gun now installed in the IS tank:

1) The target rate of fire of the 100 mm gun from the IC tank reaches from 5 to 8 rounds per minute against the 2-3 rounds of 122 mm D-25 gun.

2) Ammunition in the tank ammunition shells for 100-mm gun 29 pcs. shots against xnumx pcs. for 28 mm cannon D-122

3) The absence of a muzzle brake on the 100 mm gun improves shooting conditions and the work of the gunner-gunner, compared to the 122 mm D-25 gun.

4) The weight of an IC tank with a 100 mm gun on the 500-600 kg is less than with a 122 mm gun. This economy in weight can be used to increase the thickness of the armor of vital parts of the tank (nose, turret, tanks).

5) Due to the smaller size of the breech of the 100 mm gun, the working conditions for the crew of the IC tank will be improved when the 100 mm gun is installed.

At the same time, the armor penetration of the 100 mm D-10T cannon at a distance of a tank battle (to 2000 met.) Is not only not inferior, but even gives some advantages over the 122 mm D-25 cannon.

Considering all the above, and especially the good rate of fire of the 100 mm gun and an increase in ammunition, which will significantly improve the combat power of the IS tank, I consider it necessary to start in September-October of this year. Install X-NUMX mm D-100T guns instead of 10 mm D-122 guns.

Neither the Narkomtankprom nor the NKV, this measure will not meet any serious difficulties.

I enclose a 2 photo of an IC tank with a 100 mm D-10T gun

Waiting for your instructions.

pp V.Malyshev

8.VIII. 44 r true (signature)


* * *

S.SECRETNO
Taken by "HF"


People's Commissar of Armament
USSR
Comrade USTINOVA D.F.


On your instructions, we report on the question of replacing the D-25 cannon with the D-10T cannon in the IS tank:

1. Given the high rate of fire of the D-10 compared to the D-25, mainly due to the unitary cartridge, replacement is advisable, but only if there is a spent armor-piercing projectile equivalent to the armor penetration rate of the D-25 projectile.

We currently do not have data on the availability of such a projectile in production.

2. We consider it necessary to keep the D-25 cannon in the heavy tank "EC-2". The latest tests at the ANIOP gave firing rates per minute in 4-6 - the results are good.

3. The plant in August - September finishes the entire pre-production of the D-10C.

4. In October - November, the production can be transferred entirely to the D-10T system instead of the D-25 system.

In October, you can determine the release of D-10T - 150 pcs., In November - 2 50 pcs.

6. To ensure this program, the plant requires, in addition to the full implementation of the GFCS solution for D-10С - 4, 600x6000 shearing-turning machines two support and two vertical-milling machines №6.

7. From October, the production of D-25 should be transferred from plant number 9 to plant number 75 or number 221.

Signed:
Mirzakhanov
Honor
Fratkin
Ryzhkov
Petrov

8. VIII-44
True: (Signature)


***


Summer tests of the EC-4 tank (244 Object) with the X-NUMX-mm D-100 gun. July 10


copy
S.SECRETNO


Comrade BERIA L.P.


In accordance with your instructions regarding the installation of D-UT guns on the 100 mm IS tanks, the plant design No. 9 NKV has the following to you:

1. At present, IC tanks armed with an 122-mm cannon successfully reflect counterattacks of enemy tanks of all types at all distances of a tank battle (i.e. before the 1500 mtr).

2. The armament of a part of the IS 100mm cannon DR-UT will inevitably create difficulties with the supply of breakthrough tank regiments.

3. Replacing X-NUMX mm tanks with D-122 cannons and 25 mm cannons will have a negative impact on the firepower of a heavy tank when fighting enemy manpower and long-term fortifications, since the fragmentation and high-explosive effect of the 100 mm gun is significantly reduced compared to 100 mm cannon D-122.

4. Ammunition 122 mm tank gun D-25 is 28 shots, and 100 mm gun D-10 - 29 cartridges. Thus, a significant increase in ammunition does not occur.

5. Charging in combat conditions it is difficult to ensure fast loading of elongated cartridges of caliber 100mm. In addition, when conducting intensive fire from a semi-automatic large-caliber gun, there will be a rapid pollution of the tank compartment, which will require firing for a while. So in this matter, the real rate of fire of the D10 cannon will be significantly reduced compared with the landfill data.

Based on the above, I consider it inappropriate to replace the D-25 tank guns with the 100 mm guns of the D-10 tank guns of the plant No. 9 at the present time.

pp Fedorenko

right (signature)
6.VIII.1944


* * *

Top secret
Ex. No ...


CHAIRMAN of the NKV USSR Technical Council
tov SATEL E.A.

REPORT NOTE


As shown by the experimental shooting at the German Panther tanks, carried out at the Cuban training ground of the GBTU, the tested cannons, in order of the effectiveness of the projectiles on the frontal part of the Panther tank, are arranged in the following order:

1. 122mm tank gun "D-25" (plant number 9) having the same ballistics with guns: 122mm A-19, 122mm D-2 plant No. 9 C-4 TsAKKB, namely: the initial velocity v = 780-790 m 25 projectile kg. This gun punches the forehead of the Panther confidently at a distance of 2500 mtr., And this is not the maximum distance.

2. 100mm tank gun D-10, having the same ballistics with the gun 100 mm BS-3, namely: initial speed v = 890-900 m / s. with 15,6 projectile kg

This gun punches the forehead of the Panther at a distance of 1500 mtr., And this is already the limit.

3. 88-mm German cannon, with an initial speed of 1000 m / s with an 10 kg projectile, punches the “Panther” forehead to a distance of only 650 meters.

Frontal armor "Panther" has a thickness of 85mm and a slope to the horizon 35grad. Consequently, when shooting at the Panther tank, at the specified distances, at the meeting point for the purpose, the projectile's trajectory is inclined to the horizon at an angle slightly different from zero, and the angle between the projectile axis and the normal to the armor (the encounter angle) is close to 55 deg.

These results are preliminary, because during the experiments guns of different wear were used: 100 mm D-10 which made 400 shots, and 122mm D-25 new. But the resulting difference is so significant that it is difficult to expect large corrections in the results.

The method of assessing armor penetration that has been adopted up to now at meeting angles from 0 hail to 50 hail is insufficient to apply to anti-tank guns.

Therefore, in our opinion, it is necessary to reconsider the question of the most advantageous, for the fight against tanks, the caliber of guns.

If we bear in mind the fight against Panther tanks, then, as Cuban experiments show, 122mm gun D-25 (v = 780-790 m / s), g = 25 kg.) Turns out to be more profitable than 100-mm gun D-10 (v = 890-900 m / s d = 15,6 kg.).

Similarly, it should be considered as a more profitable 122-mm cannon on a wheeled carriage (А-19, Д-2 of plant number 9, С-4 ЦАКБ). The 100 mm BS-3 gun is less profitable.

As you know, currently there are two well-tested 122mm field guns, which are lighter compared to A-19 weights, and with the same ballistics, namely:

1. The 122 mm gun of the C-4 design / CACB is supposed to go on the ground tests.

The C-4 cannon has a lot of nodes in common with the 100 mm BC-3 cannon and its production could be set up on the same base as the BS-3 cannons.

Consequently, for the same gun, the question is only in the favorable outcome of the field and, possibly, subsequent military tests.

2. 122mm gun D-2, factory design number 9, repeatedly withstand ground test. The 4 series of pieces D-2 is preparing soon for military trials. I believe that it is necessary to urgently consider the issue of a possible production base for the D-2, in case C-4 does not pass the relying tests.

The second fundamental question arising from the Cuban experiments is the question of high initial velocities, in particular, 85-mm guns with an initial speed of 1000-1100 m / s.

The experience shows a relatively small effectiveness of the 88mm projectile of the German cannon, in the German Panther tank.

At the same time, it is known that such an 85-mm gun is obtained, in terms of weight and dimensions, approximately equivalent to an 100-mm gun with an initial speed of 900 m / s.

Testing 85mm guns with v = 1000-1100 m / s. It is conducted both at TsAKKB and at plant No. 9, and yet its comparative effectiveness on a real German tank becomes doubtful, especially since we cannot put such a gun in dimensions of a tank tower smaller than the D-100 (for or C-10).

On this issue, it seems that, if it is appropriate, after the end of the Cuban experiments, and if the final results confirm the existing ones, to convene a special meeting and to plan on it further ways of working on guns with high initial speeds.

The only undoubted today is the need to increase the initial speeds for anti-aircraft guns, in which increasing the initial speed dramatically increases the ceiling and reduces the flight time.

We ask your relevant instructions.

REPAIR CHIEF OF TECHNOLOGY NKV

Major General Ing. Art. Services:
/ COLORS /


START SECTOR OF EXPERIMENTAL STRUCTURES:
/ VOLOSATOV /


* Style and spelling of documents saved

Tank EC-122 with 122-mm gun D-25 with a muzzle brake of the German type at the front. 1944
Author:
104 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Kars
    Kars 7 June 2013 08: 48 New
    +8
    The absence of 85-mm cannon shots in the ammunition with an effective high-explosive grenade significantly reduced the combat value of a heavy tank for breaking through the enemy’s prepared defense lines, since even a tree-and-earth dugout with two rolls could withstand a fragmentation 85-mm grenade.


    The IS-2 is a breakthrough tank, not a tank destroyer, into which German heavy and medium-heavy tanks turned towards the end of the war.

    Although the issue of the lag in anti-aircraft guns, and especially anti-tank shells, does not remove this. An analogue of the German 88 mm appeared in the USSR after the war (we do not consider experienced and low-series)
    1. Argon
      Argon 7 June 2013 12: 56 New
      +1
      If you "quoted" about an 85mm projectile, obviously we should talk about the IS-1 tank. From here, I have a question for the respected Kars, and what is the enemy trying to prevent / eliminate the breakthrough of his own line? There is only one effective means. that the Germans with their "cat-lover" went to the extreme, but our charter for the use of BT troops from 44g (about your "breakthrough" tank) is only an attempt by tactics to reduce the quality gap, which was clearly recognized by the leadership and indirectly confirmed by the "forcing" work that led to the appearance Su-100, Is-3, T-44.
      1. Kars
        Kars 7 June 2013 13: 23 New
        +3
        Quote: Argon
        If you "quoted" about an 85mm round, obviously we should talk about the IS-1 tank

        In general, it’s more about 85 mm guns in the above privacy,

        Quote: Argon
        trying to prevent / eliminate a breakthrough of its own line? An effective tool is only one

        There are many effective means, why one.
        Quote: Argon
        about our charter for the use of BT troops from 44g (about your "breakthrough" tank) is only an attempt by tactics to reduce the quality gap, which was clearly understood

        To be honest, I did not quite understand what the question was and how to apply it to tanks.
        1. Argon
          Argon 7 June 2013 22: 38 New
          +1
          Let's assume that I was too clever with the wording of the question, although everything seems to be obvious. My thought was as follows: Effectively eliminating the breakthrough of the line can only be done with a tank counterattack (or a breakthrough can be prevented, if we are talking about layered defense). Thus, the meeting "(IS- 2 is a breakthrough tank) "with German tanks was predetermined, despite the regulations and reasoning. And the armament and especially the armor of the ISs did not provide the ability to counteract the German vehicles for the entire 44g.
          1. Yemelya
            Yemelya 7 June 2013 22: 55 New
            +1
            Quote: Argon
            Thus, the meeting "(IS-2 is a breakthrough tank)" with German tanks was predetermined, despite the regulations and reasoning.

            I add that the tanks and self-propelled guns of the enemy could be elements of defense.
          2. Kars
            Kars 7 June 2013 23: 01 New
            +1
            Quote: Argon
            : Effectively eliminating a breakthrough of a milestone is possible only with a tank counterattack (or preventing a breakthrough when it comes to layered defense)

            Not a fact, especially in the USSR by the end of the war when the density of artillery, uncountable hull and mortars reached several tens of barrels per km. Guard mortars and IL-2 with Pe-2
            Quote: Argon
            Thus, the meeting "(IS-2 is a breakthrough tank)" with German tanks was predetermined, despite the regulations and reasoning.
            But not with tigers and king tigers, there were so few of them that the combat-ready tanks on the thousand-kilometer front were just miser.
            1. Argon
              Argon 8 June 2013 02: 09 New
              0
              Exactly, the fact is absolute, the density of artillery after the capture of Budapest was significant, however, this did not save from the "41year remix" near Balaton. The maneuver "getting out of the fire" was already standard then. I mean that fire on the squares was always considered ineffective against tanks because of the low degree of fire maneuver. We do not consider the batteries of towed PT guns due to their low mobility / survivability. We will leave the aviation component altogether, you have a gap in this matter (no offense), and this is a topic for another conversation. Just take my word for it. that the possibility of eliminating a breakthrough by aviation became possible only in the early 70s. Regarding the second remark, you know as well as I do that in fact the situation in 44g did not allow the Germans to use TTBs in full force, they were immediately derailed by the so-called "commands" 9-12 vehicles to reinforce other units. And of course in the tactical reserve of the fortified area such a (reinforced) unit was ALWAYS. I know only one exception: Seelow Heights, but then tanks (battle capable) they simply didn’t have. And the Pz.V was no less dangerous enemy for the IS, given the German's mobility.
              1. Kars
                Kars 8 June 2013 09: 27 New
                +1
                Quote: Argon
                from "41year remix" near Balaton it did not save.

                Yes, the artillery also made the main effort there.
                Quote: Argon
                Well, of course, in the tactical reserve of the fortified area, such a (reinforced) unit was ALWAYS

                Why do you think so?
                Quote: Argon
                on the so-called "commands" of 9-12 vehicles to reinforce other units

                Well, the battalion was divided into two parts, the rest were, as usual, under repair.
                Quote: Argon
                we’ll leave the component at all, in this matter you have a gap (no offense), and even that

                Well, no offense so without uproar, but vryatli I have a big gap.

                But again we begin to discuss it is not clear what is from you, what do you specifically want?
                Quote: Argon
                but what is the enemy trying to prevent \ eliminate the breakthrough of their own line with? There is only one effective means

                It will come to repeat - there are many effective means, and you can better read Balaton. Literature is available.
  2. creak
    creak 7 June 2013 08: 48 New
    +3
    Thanks to the author for the article, very interesting and evidence-based. And the average self-propelled guns SU-100 turned out to be very good, and as a result, their release continued after the war.
  3. svskor80
    svskor80 7 June 2013 09: 06 New
    +2
    Thanks to the author for the article. Previously, the photo of the IS-2 did not come across in which the German-type muzzle brake. In general, I think this tank was already being prepared for heavy street battles and the gun, respectively, was selected more powerful and destructive, and the SU-100 was still made more anti-tank and 100 mm guns were then quite enough.
    1. Avenger711
      Avenger711 7 June 2013 09: 30 New
      0
      Moreover, there are street battles when the bunkers are already full, but there is little power in a landmine.
      And the SU-100, most likely, simply could not stand the return of the D-25T.
      1. PLO
        PLO 7 June 2013 14: 49 New
        +2
        And the SU-100, most likely, simply could not stand the return of the D-25T.

        Not certainly in that way)
        here is the Su-122P
    2. Drosselmeyer
      Drosselmeyer 7 June 2013 12: 14 New
      +1
      So in an experienced IS, the first T-shaped muzzle brake tore at the test. After which it was replaced by the German type, and then finalized to a view known to all. By the way, when the muzzle brake broke, Voroshilov nearly died.
  4. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 7 June 2013 09: 36 New
    +6
    I read the article, learned a lot of new things, but also had fun
    I will express my opinion that almost all decisions in history were justified by some sometimes unknown reasons, and therefore I consider any of the decisions made at that time to be true, and therefore not subject to our discussion, especially among “homegrown professionals” that lie on the couch picking goggles in his nose, discussing the fate of the world.

    Smart introduction :)))) Those. the author immediately divided his entire audience into 2 groups - readers who agree with him and those who disagree with him, pickers :)))) All who disagree - pickers :))))
    Here the truth arises one question and even, I'm not afraid of this word, catachrez - if the author considers it impossible to discuss the decisions of our ancestors, then why is he writing an article discussing their decisions? Does the author consider himself to be in the category of "professionals" picking his nose? :)))
    And I also want to ask a question - what about the lessons of history? How do you order to retrieve them without DISCUSSING the decisions and actions of our ancestors? According to Krivosheyev’s data, the losses of the Red Army amounted to approximately 4 fighters in 3 German (along with satellites), i.e. the loss ratio was approximately 1,3 / 1 not in our favor. And what, since we are not discussing the decisions of our grandfathers and great-grandfathers, but taking history lessons as an axiom, as the author recommends, should we now always be guided by the losses of 1,3 / 1? And think and discuss about how to make them at least 1 / 1 or even 1 / 1,3 i.e. IN OUR favor - no way ?! Interesting position ...
    But I will not adhere to it, and yet I will discuss some decisions of our ancestors. Strictly within the article.
    And so, on 4 of September 1943, a decree of GKOO No. 4043ss was issued, which ordered the adoption of the heavy stuttering IPs for the Red Army and for serial production. But it soon became clear that their weapons from the 85-mm D-5T gun, which was considered the peak of perfection in the spring, suddenly became not powerful enough.

    I’m not God knows what a connoisseur in tanks, and therefore immediately apologize for the involuntary mistakes. As far as I know, the creation of IS tanks received a strong impetus after meeting the Tigers in the winter of 1942-1943. Therefore, by the order of GKO No. 2943ss of February 24 of February 1943, the Kirov factory in Chelyabinsk and factory No. 100 of the NKTP (renamed Experimental Tank Plant) were instructed to manufacture and submit for state tests two prototypes of the Joseph Stalin tanks. This included the installation of exactly 85-mm guns which , as the author writes, it looked exactly the same ideal.
    Just ask the respected author - if he writes further that
    The absence in the ammunition of the 85-mm cannon shots with an effective high-explosive grenade significantly reduced the combat value of the heavy tank for breaking through the prepared enemy defense lines

    What kind of "perfection" was the 85mm cannon? Those. it turns out that they have been developing and developing at least since February a new tank, in September they signed an order to launch it into mass production, and suddenly BOOM! dawned, so to his gun high-explosive grenades netuti ?! How are we going to storm the fortified zones, eh? Well, and to think about the absence of high-explosive grenades in February 1943, what - did religion interfere? Or what? There is already one of two things - either in parallel with the tank it was necessary to develop ammunition for it, or it was necessary to initially put another artillery system on the tank. And if in September, as the author very convincingly writes, there were no alternatives to the 122-mm gun, then was it really impossible to start design work on the cannon for the IS back in February ?!
    Maybe in the setting of September 1943 of the year, the 122-mm were for the IS an uncontested artillery system, but should we assume that this was the result of the TRUE decisions of our ancestors?
    1. majorlnb
      majorlnb 7 June 2013 11: 34 New
      +3
      In a war, planning is a very difficult thing. The development of the IS-2 was carried out almost in an emergency as a response to the emergence of new heavy tanks from the Germans. There was no time to test the entire tank in the complex. Therefore, work was carried out in directions. The "gunners" did not manage to create the barrel in time. Therefore, they installed the 85th cannon, which had proven itself at that time. This was not a mistake. At that time, such a gun was still in demand at the front. The 122mm gun came in handy and, again, it was not redundant. The tankers gained confidence in their actions. Still, the ability to beat the Panther at distances beyond its limits of 2500 m is a strong argument. And the "reserve" according to the characteristics of the gun gave production also a reserve for modernization. And the gun turned out to be very good.
      The 85mm anti-aircraft gun, again, was in demand among anti-aircraft gunners. Its relevance and strengthened by giving an order for the development of more powerful ammunition, increasing the affected altitude.
      I believe that the actions of the country's leadership were correct and technically and practically justified.
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 7 June 2013 11: 52 New
        +2
        Quote: majorlnb
        Therefore, they put the 85 gun, which had completely proved itself at that time. This was not a mistake.

        I am not suggesting that the 85mm heavy tank cannon is a mistake. I just remind you that the first "Tiger" came to us in mid-January 1943. And in general, it was clear that this was a new heavy tank of the Germans, and not an overgrown fly agaric and accidentally mutated Pz-IV. It means that in the future, the appearance of such machines here became a matter of time and it was clear that our new tank needed to somehow fight them.
        So it was most obvious that our 85-mm artillery system is still inferior to the 88-mm fool "fierce tigers" and, at the same time, does not penetrate its armor very well. And this was obvious back in January-February 1943. Accordingly, there is no particular reason to focus on it as an ideal for a future tank. And if there is no suitable weapon, then, of course, it is necessary to install 85-mm for lack of a better one and urgently design a new one.
        In general, it would seem that the need to switch to a more powerful weapon is obvious. But for some reason, our people thought about this not in January and not in February, but only in September.
        1. Per se.
          Per se. 7 June 2013 12: 50 New
          -1
          Yes, the introduction is gorgeous, especially about "picking boogers in the nose", thank you for not talking about something else, in another place. In general, the Germans first used the "Tigers" in August 1942 near Mga, in the Leningrad region. If they had not been able to evacuate the stuck tank, the "Tiger" would have come to us earlier; in addition, there was information from our intelligence, as soon as the tank began to run in at the range. It's good that a suitable D-25 cannon was found, but what if we had no luck with it? To justify consequences from the past is to create reasons for the future. IS tanks could also be armed with a 100mm cannon, especially since there were self-propelled guns ISU-122 and ISU-152. Another question is that there was no modified weapon and ammunition.
        2. Avenger711
          Avenger711 7 June 2013 14: 55 New
          0
          88 mm on the "tiger" is not God knows what tool. The 75 mm "panther" pipe had the best penetration. The 88 mm KwK-43/71 was dangerous, we tried to make a similar gun, this is one of my favorite guns in WoT, the D-5T-85BM, but it did not pass the tests.

          In general, 85 mm barrels were available on the T-34-85, but they also had to be developed. The problem is that during the war, the development of new types of equipment is very difficult.
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 7 June 2013 15: 06 New
            +4
            Quote: Avenger711
            88 mm on the "tiger" is not God knows what weapon

            True? Well then, she fell all the armored vehicles of the Allies from a distance from which the Tiger was not yet visible? :)))
            But this is not the point, but the fact that our 85 mm was inferior to the tiger 88
            1. loft79
              loft79 7 June 2013 22: 03 New
              +1
              Avenger711 probably meant 44g. then yes Tigrina is already rather weak

              look at the table
              http://www.achtungpanzer.eu/pz_penetration.php

              1cm KwK 7.5 L / 42
              2cm KwK 8.8 L / 36
              3. 8.8cm KwK 43 L / 71 General killer)

              And so before and including 43g of the Tiger could shoot without any tension at all)
    2. Avenger711
      Avenger711 7 June 2013 14: 46 New
      +1
      According to Krivosheev’s data, the losses of the Red Army amounted to about 4 fighters for 3 German (along with satellites)


      Krivosheev says nothing about the Germans. I estimate the total losses of Germany killed at least 10 million. I estimate, otherwise the balance will not converge.

      Reasoning now do not usually see, and 10% of the factors that were taken into account by the direct participants, so in 90% of cases, if they did not end in a clear failure, it is the direct participants who are right.
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 7 June 2013 15: 10 New
        0
        Quote: Avenger711
        Krivosheev says nothing about the Germans.

        I wrote. You can look here http://lib.baikal.net/MEMUARY/1939-1945/KRIWOSHEEW/poteri.txt#w091.htm-_Toc24898
        30
    3. Argon
      Argon 7 June 2013 15: 24 New
      +3
      I will try to briefly explain some points. In the winter of 42/43 there was rather a sluggish acquaintance with the "tigers" (the Germans were calcified as never before), the results, however, were taken into account, the planned work was started (according to the IS, they were continued, well, then it was not yet called that). The work was rhythmic, given the constant directives of the GKO rate on increasing the production of already existing samples (after the losses of the summer 42 and against the background of the "Battle of Stalingrad"), quite justified. According to the analysis at that time (WINTER / SPRING 43g), the 85mm gun was most suitable for those that it already existed (within the framework of work on the IS-1, three or two test samples), of all the other available guns, the ballistics of the A-19 were suitable, there was no tank model yet. Launching both the gun and the projectile in war conditions was considered impossible ( quite justified), so the 107mm gun was rejected in principle. The theory suggested that the ideal caliber could be 100mm, and there were such guns (though with not quite suitable ballistics) (which means the shells were fired), but the requirement for an initial speed projectile (about 1000 m / s) somehow unpleasantly raised in memory a 4-year (still pre-war) epic with the release of the "universal" F-22 cannon. And the 100mm idea was put on the back burner. Let's mention another 152mm howitzer-gun, not without "spark of God" inscribed in the wheelhouse of the SU based on the KV-1S. Thus, for the summer operations of 43g, taking into account the use of their new tanks by the Germans, we were "ready" with the anti-tank SU-85, SU152. The IS did not keep up by summer (it affected the workload production and changes in the concept itself, not without the influence of intelligence reports on new enemy tanks). The summer operations of 43g resulted in the "Kursk Battle" where the armored troops of the Red Army showed themselves so to speak "ambiguously", which was the reason for the creation of the Special Commission of the Civil Code of the investigation of the reasons for the high losses (in particular) and the current situation (in general). The conclusions of the commission are still classified (in full), only individual excerpts-quotations appear, in particular, that for one lost German tank we had to pay with 6 of our .Here are the conclusions of this co The missions, coupled with the anger of J.V. Stalin, were the "Lavrov slap on the head" to both the generals and the NKTP who made it real (ALREADY AUTUMN 43g) to assess the situation (and this fully applies to 85mm shells, because previously only the anti-tank component was considered). then it was realized that without the development of a new model (100mm) the German "cat-lover" would not be able to cope. And the tank version of the A-19 was already being tested.
      1. Yemelya
        Yemelya 7 June 2013 20: 13 New
        +1
        In general, I agree, only
        Quote: Argon
        According to the analysis at that time (WINTER \ SPRING 43g), the 85mm gun was most suitable for the fact that it already existed (as part of the work on IS-1, three or two experience samples)

        As for the 85-mm and 107-mm guns, they started moving just in the spring of 1943, after the GKO decree No. 3187 cc on the creation of tank guns to counter new German tanks, before that 76,2 mm was considered normal.

        They wanted to create 2 tanks - IS-3 with 85 mm (shoulder strap 1700 mm) and IS-4 with 107 mm (shoulder strap 1850 mm), but after estimating the prospects for the release of 107 mm shells, they stopped at about. 240 with 85 mm and shoulder strap 1800 mm - the future of the IS-85. But it’s a pity, the IS-4 with a 107-mm ZiS-6, probably, wouldn’t be so squashed, maybe it would have climbed into the big tower and the second one.
        Quote: Argon
        Thus, for the summer operations of 43g, taking into account the use by the Germans of their new tanks, we were "ready" with the anti-tank SU-85, SU152.

        SU-85 appeared at the front only to force the Dnieper, SU-152 anti-tank is very arbitrary. Basically, they hoped for a conditionally anti-tank SU-122 with cumulative ammunition (until the first normal tests of it in this capacity at the training ground).

        On the whole, until the spring of 1943, the problem of the appearance of new tanks by the Germans was ignored, as the saying goes: "until a roasted cock bites in the ass."

        By the beginning of 1943, the tank industry had just recovered from evacuations, and apparently no one wanted to reduce the production rate due to the introduction of new models - the plan was implemented, everyone was happy.
  5. sevtrash
    sevtrash 7 June 2013 09: 47 New
    +3
    In the article, the author writes very controversial things "... because I consider any of the decisions made at that time to be correct, and therefore not subject to our discussion ..." But nothing happens without mistakes! And the most important thing is to talk? In discussion with others, you begin to understand the situation better, in an argument, truth is born. If it is, of course. They say no. Although the author initially establishes and forbids discussing it.

    And also from the author "... especially among the" home-grown professionals "...". Well, who is gathered here? Professionals have nothing to do here, they have to work, which is discussed here - in general, this is not at all their level, maybe their level when they just started to study.
    Where, then, do we non-professionals boast of their scanty knowledge and feel horny by what kind of experts, and also almost foolishly get new knowledge?
  6. Alew
    Alew 7 June 2013 10: 27 New
    +2
    An interesting article with pictures, tables, documents, the author plus definitely
  7. Andy
    Andy 7 June 2013 10: 48 New
    +1
    about 100mm guns, there were not enough of them, there was not enough ammunition. For the first time, the Su-100 self-propelled guns were equipped with an 85mm gun with an appropriate index change!
    1. Andy
      Andy 7 June 2013 13: 59 New
      0
      I wonder what nerd anonymously otminusovat?

      for the development of this idiot- "While preparations for the production of the SU-100 were unfolding at Uralmashzavod, at the suggestion of L.I. 85, installed on the SU-100. "

      "The main reason for the appearance of this previously unplanned ACS was the non-combat capability of the 100-mm gun at that time, the release of B-412B armor-piercing shells for which was mastered only in November 1944 [19] [20]. The first SU-85M was manufactured in July 1944. year, and in August it completely replaced the SU-85 on the assembly lines of the Uralmashzavod [18]. The production of the SU-85M continued until November of the same year, for three months - in parallel with the SU-100, which was not capable of fighting at that time due to the lack of armor-piercing shells; a total of 315 ACS of this type were fired "
  8. Reserve buildbat
    Reserve buildbat 7 June 2013 13: 29 New
    +4
    To the author plus. Very informative, and I saw new photos. smile
  9. Snoop
    Snoop 7 June 2013 14: 03 New
    +2
    The decision was made in wartime. It is better to put into production well-mastered than slightly better, promising equipment, while breaking the production process.
  10. mkpda
    mkpda 7 June 2013 18: 58 New
    0
    The author did not dig deep enough into the depths of the history of artillery systems.
    First. Caliber 100 mm came to us from Italy and was "born" in the form of a ship anti-aircraft gun B-34. Even for the needs of the fleet, this system could not be mastered in production in the required volume, and initially it did not have an armor-piercing projectile. This predetermined the low readiness of 100 mm tank guns and a large amount of refinement when the need arose for them (which did not prevent this caliber from becoming the main one for a long time after the war).
    The second one. The high-power tank artillery system with unitary and separate loading options was developed on the F-39 cannon. But for a number of objective and subjective reasons, this system has remained an experimental product.
    The third. The F-42 was originally created under the non-viable projections of Kotin, which predetermined its abandonment when creating tanks of the IS family (which Kotin knew very well).
    Fourth. The caliber 85 mm appeared as a forced measure, there were no other powerful and relatively suitable for installation in tanks artillery systems in the series. This caliber arose from the use of reserves in the "German" domestic 76 mm anti-aircraft systems. Before the war, the F-30 gun (which was based on the 76 mm F-27 "anti-aircraft" gun) was designed and produced for it in a prototype. But almost immediately they abandoned it in favor of the F-39 because of the small advantages of this caliber over the classic 76,2 mm.
    Fifth. The fight against enemy tanks was a secondary task for our tankers, therefore, in principle, they did not go to increase the anti-tank capabilities of weapons to the detriment of the main task.
  11. Yemelya
    Yemelya 7 June 2013 19: 51 New
    +1
    in the fighting compartment of the complex shape of the IS tank it was possible to place them more rationally.

    Then the author clearly bent. This is such a form of BO in IS-2 - in the form of a Mobius loop, or something.

    That separately charged easier, no doubt. But what about the rate of fire? So the advantage is dubious.

    For the 122 mm gun, the T-44, by the way, developed a unitary shot.
    1. stalkerwalker
      stalkerwalker 7 June 2013 22: 04 New
      +4
      Quote: Emelya
      For the 122 mm gun, the T-44, by the way, developed a unitary shot.

      Now imagine a loader with this heavy "log" in the tower.
      And try the overall ammunition arrangement to organize shots on 25-30 ...
      1. Yemelya
        Yemelya 7 June 2013 23: 22 New
        +1
        Quote: stalkerwalker
        Now imagine a loader with this heavy "log" in the tower.
        And try the overall ammunition arrangement to organize shots on 25-30 ...


        Therefore, apparently, further attempts to create 122 mm unitary shots were abandoned.

        Quote: Emelya
        For the 122 mm gun, the T-44, by the way, developed a unitary shot.
        - I mean, one hundred separate loading was not considered ideal.
  12. rexby63
    rexby63 7 June 2013 20: 13 New
    0
    Mikhail Nikolaevich only PLUS.
  13. Yemelya
    Yemelya 7 June 2013 20: 30 New
    +1
    Despite the fact that the military continued to sharply protest against adopting a tank gun with a muzzle brake, the People's Commissar of Tank Industry V. Malyshev supported this decision and, with the support of D. Ustinov, reported to Stalin about the benefits of quickly adopting a 122 mm tank guns.


    The drug user had to "drive the plan" - to make the required number of heavy. tanks. The fact that tankers did not need such a tank, but needed a faster-firing 100-mm cannon, did not seem to bother him.

    But whether the troops needed IS-2 was a very controversial issue. The fact that he easily dealt with DOT was, of course, good, but ISU-152 could do the same.

    By the way, the IS-2, unlike the other BTTs, during the Second World War was issued strictly fixed - exactly 250 pcs. per month, and not as much as they could, such as the T-34 or the same ISU. That is, there was no acute need for them - they could have been more (due to ISU), but there was no need.
  14. Crang
    Crang 7 June 2013 20: 45 New
    +2
    The author so ardently defends the 122mm D-25T cannon ... The gun is, of course, excellent, but it has a somewhat "non-anti-tank" orientation. It is more likely to destroy pillboxes, bunkers, houses and enemy infantry with high-explosive fragmentation shells. Of course, the D-25T did not have problems with the defeat of any tank of the Second World War at all distances, but the matter was spoiled by the low rate of fire. 100mm is much better here. The experience of operating the IS-3 and IS-3M during the Arab-Israeli wars showed that it was difficult for them to fight against Western tanks equipped with high-speed 90mm and 105mm cannons. To defeat tanks of the Second World War and 1/2 of the post-war generation, the firepower of the D-25T was clearly excessive, and the rate of fire, on the contrary, was insufficient. So along with 122mm ISs, it was necessary to rivet 100mm ISs. The superiority of the D-25T, as well as its D-25TA and D-25TS models on the "Dozens" over 100mm, began to affect after the appearance in the west of new tanks with powerful armor (against which the 100 no longer rolled), the development of 122mm BOPS BR-471P (Vn = 1400m / s) and the installation of semi-automatic locks and mechanized rammers of the T-62 type already on the "Dozens", which made it possible to solve the problem of rate of fire. And for World War II, D-2T or S-10 was better.
    1. Yemelya
      Yemelya 7 June 2013 20: 53 New
      0
      I agree, only instead
      Quote: Krang
      along with 122mm ISs, it was necessary to rivet and 100mm ISs
      It was necessary to make IS, s with 100 mm and ISU-152/122. And before the introduction of the production of 100-mm guns, probably, leave the IS-1 in production.
      1. Crang
        Crang 7 June 2013 21: 28 New
        +1
        Yes. The author clearly underestimated the capabilities of the 85mm D-5T. Purely according to the tabular characteristics, this gun calmly penetrated the frontal armor of the "Tiger" from a distance of 1000-1100m (the sub-caliber 85mm BR-365P at Vn = 1050m / s sewed 110mm from 1000m). It is not for nothing that 148 pieces of KVAS built in the KV-85 version turned out to be a very effective means of fighting German "cats". And the firepower is due, and the armor is more or less normal and the speed is there.
        1. Kars
          Kars 7 June 2013 21: 54 New
          +2
          Quote: Krang
          Purely on tabular characteristics, this gun calmly pierced

          And put on the quality of ammunition?
          Quote: Krang
          (85mm BR-365P subcaliber with Vn = 1050m / s sewed 110mm with 1000m).

          And what's the point? Yes, even at an angle of 90 degrees,
          Quote: Krang
          The KV-85 proved to be a very effective means of dealing with German "cats".

          I wonder where it was written like that? Have you read the classic battle descriptions of similar IS-1/85?
          1. Crang
            Crang 7 June 2013 22: 05 New
            0
            Quote: Kars
            I wonder where it was written like that? Have you read the classic battle descriptions of similar IS-1/85?

            Read. For some reason, the IS-85 showed itself to be worthless, but the KV-85, on the contrary, is excellent. Despite the less powerful armor. I think that this is due to the powerful engine and high mobility of the KV-85 (up to 43km / h on the highway) and, no less important, to its large size. Rather, not big, but just normal. Normal heavy the tank cannot be smaller - now everything is of this size. This apparently determined the comfort and space inside, which in turn predetermined the high efficiency of the crew of the KV-85 tank - a kind of Soviet MBT - an analogue of the Panther.
            Quote: Kars
            And put on the quality of ammunition?

            The data and are given for ammunition of this quality. Moreover, since the 43rd year the quality has increased dramatically.
            Quote: Kars
            And what's the point? Yes, even at an angle of 90 degrees,

            Well, "Tiger" is all square as a barn. Getting into it at a 90 degree angle isn't that hard.
            1. Kars
              Kars 7 June 2013 22: 21 New
              +2
              Quote: Krang
              and KV-85, on the contrary, is excellent

              where did you read that?
              Quote: Krang
              but with a powerful engine and high mobility KV-85 (

              it put on the IS a weaker engine?

              Most of the KV-85 as part of the guards tank regiments of the breakthrough came to the Southern Front (2nd formation), later the 4th Ukrainian Front, where it participated in the liberation of Ukraine and Crimea. Since the Soviet machine, in general, did not surpass the German heavy tanks, the battles were with varying success. The results depended mainly on the training of the crews of the warring parties and on their tactics of action

              ___
              On November 20, both regiments in a two-echelon order attacked the positions of the enemy, who, in addition to artillery, had Pz.Krfw IV Ausf tanks buried in defense. N and self-propelled guns Marder II (up to 18 pieces). During the day, tankers and self-propelled gunners managed to capture the first lines of the German trenches, while losing 6 KV-85 tanks (left on enemy territory) and 6 SU-152. On the second day of the battle, up to 10 Pz.Kff IV Ausf tanks. N launched a counterattack on the position of the Soviet troops. The attack was repelled by the forces of the infantry and both tank regiments, the enemy lost 5 tanks, there were no losses on our side. On November 23, 1943, all serviceable vehicles of the regiment again attacked German positions, broke through its defenses and advanced 5 km. In this operation, 2 more KV-85 tanks were lost, one of them burned down. On November 23, 1943, the 34th Guards and Chamber of Commerce and Industry was set aside for repairs to the rear; only the 28th TSAP, which lost one or two vehicles every day, continued fighting until November 1943, 40

              Quote: Krang
              The data and are given for ammunition of this quality. Moreover, since the 43rd year the quality has increased sharply

              No.
              and when did they start making calibers to 85 mm?

              Quote: Krang
              Well, "Tiger" is all square as a barn. Getting into it at a 90 degree angle isn't that hard.

              Well that's said too much.
              1. Crang
                Crang 7 June 2013 22: 25 New
                0
                Quote: Kars
                where did you read that?

                I read more than once. They fought well.
                Quote: Kars
                it put on the IS a weaker engine?

                Of course. 520hp against 600hp KV-1C. This was done due to the fact that the new transmission with ISP-2 PMP could not withstand such power as that of KVAS. The same thing is IS-3.
                Quote: Kars
                Well that's said too much.

                From what? It is very possible to get into an absolutely square tank at an angle of 90 degrees or close to it. This is not WoT. "Rhombus" does not roll here, if only because you cannot see where they are hitting.
                1. Kars
                  Kars 7 June 2013 22: 35 New
                  +1
                  Quote: Krang
                  I read more than once. They fought well.

                  WHERE?
                  Quote: Krang
                  Of course. 520hp against 600hp at KV-1C

                  IP is two tons lighter, with a more powerful reservation. In general, KV-1C (where the legs grow from) is one of the biggest mistakes.
                  Quote: Krang
                  ? Get into an absolutely square tank at an angle of 90 degrees or

                  And of course, an absolutely flat tank will stand on an absolutely flat surface, parallel and perpendicular, and at the same level as the enemy tank, with a zero heading angle - of course this is not HERE)))
                  1. Crang
                    Crang 7 June 2013 22: 41 New
                    -1
                    Quote: Kars
                    WHERE?

                    Now I can’t remember. Somewhere on the Internet.
                    Quote: Kars
                    IP is two tons lighter with more powerful reservations.

                    How is that easier? Both are 46,5 tons each. Equally.
                    Quote: Kars
                    .In general, KV-1C (where the legs grow from) is one of the biggest mistakes.

                    KVAS is an unrecognized genius. This is a super-successful combat vehicle, which was simply "overlooked" at that stage. Especially in the KV-100 variant with a 100mm S-34 cannon. Outwardly, it is very similar to the T-72. Even in its ultra-modern design, this machine is worth a lot. However, they did not see ours. The Nazis saw it. They were afraid of our IS-2, of course, but they captured the KV-85 and actively tested it at their training ground, like the T-34 at the beginning of the war.
                    1. Kars
                      Kars 7 June 2013 22: 46 New
                      +1
                      Quote: Krang
                      Th. Somewhere on the Internet.

                      Great answer
                      Quote: Krang
                      How is that easier? Both are 46,5 tons each. Equally.

                      44 and 46 different
                      Quote: Krang
                      KVAS is an unrecognized genius.

                      real failure
                      Quote: Krang
                      ... This is a super-successful combat vehicle that was simply not "spotted" at that stage.

                      Yes, of course, to make a medium tank from a heavy tank, reduce the amount of weapons and leave a gun like a medium tank
                      Quote: Krang
                      Especially in the KV-100 version with a 100mm S-34 gun.
                      Well, of course, another GTE will be thrown and there will be a T-80
                      Quote: Krang
                      even in its ultra-modern design, this machine costs a lot

                      ((????
                      Quote: Krang
                      KV-85s were generally captured and actively tested at their training ground, like the T-34 at the beginning of the war.

                      And you naturally read it somewhere on the Internet, and there was a sign that the Germans were more actively testing at their training grounds, and what they used as targets.
                      1. Crang
                        Crang 7 June 2013 23: 01 New
                        0
                        Quote: Kars
                        44 and 46 different

                        Well, let's put it this way. But you shouldn't be proud of it. We made a well-protected "death capsule". Her - for me, KVAS is better, although the armor is not like that.
                        Quote: Kars
                        real failure

                        A real breakthrough. They almost completed it, although its creators fought for the KV brand. It remained to take this KV-85 or KV-100, weld it on the VLD and SLD with a straight 20mm sheet, filling the resulting triangular void with sand. Add 10mm side screens and the T-72 spill of World War II is ready.
                        Quote: Kars
                        Yes, of course, to make a medium tank from a heavy tank, reduce the amount of weapons and leave a gun like a medium tank

                        Why middle then? The main battle. The 85mm cannon was an adequate weapon for the time. For example "Tiger" weighing 57 tons and "Royal Tiger" weighing 68 tons were equipped with 88mm cannons, and 46,5-ton "Panther" - 75mm. Against this background, the artillery system of the 46,5-ton KV-85 was quite large-caliber, and the 100mm KV-100 cannon was a beast in general. To increase the firepower of the 85mm D-5T, it was possible to develop new, more effective types of projectiles, and not immediately put a 122mm fool. There was also a D-5T-85BM. In general, the situation would have come out not at the expense of the rate of fire.
                        Quote: Kars
                        And you naturally read it somewhere on the Internet, and there was a sign that the Germans were more actively testing at their training grounds, and what they used as targets.

                        KV-85 they are exactly tested in various modes. The level of technology of that time simply did not allow the creation of a highly protected and at the same time high-speed heavy tank. Whoever got down to business turned out to be a clumsy monster. "KVAS" and "Panther" were the first.
                      2. Kars
                        Kars 7 June 2013 23: 13 New
                        +1
                        Quote: Krang
                        her - for me, KVAS is better, although the armor is not like that.

                        )))))) for 5 km there is a large maximum speed, and the average along the intersection is the same speed, the frontal armor is weaker, the gun is the same and better)))
                        Quote: Krang
                        Real breakthrough

                        failure
                        As a result of all these changes, the mass of the KV-1s decreased to 42,3 tons, the speed increased (up to 43,3 km / h on the highway), the maneuverability and reliability of the tank. But the price paid for this was high: the armament of the KV-1s remained the same - the 76,2 mm ZIS-5 gun, while the reduction in armor thickness with the "old" armored hull scheme significantly reduced the tank's projectile resistance. In terms of its combat qualities, the KV-1s was almost on par with the T-34.


                        Quote: Krang
                        It remained to take
                        ))))))))))))))

                        Quote: Krang
                        Main battle
                        ))))))))

                        Quote: Krang
                        For example "Tiger" weighing 57 tons and "Royal Tiger" weighing 68 tons were equipped with 88mm cannons, and 46,5-ton "Panther" - 75mm. Against this background, the artillery system of the 46,5-ton KV-85 was quite large-caliber.

                        From what forest have you been released?)))) The main battle)))
                        Quote: Krang
                        They tested KV-85 in various modes

                        )))))
                        Quote: Krang
                        Whoever got down to business turned out to be a clumsy monster. "KVAS" and "Panther" were the first
                        Yes of course.
                      3. Crang
                        Crang 7 June 2013 23: 24 New
                        -1
                        Quote: Kars
                        failure

                        Breakthrough. Do not argue.
                        Quote: Kars
                        From what forest have you been released?)))) The main battle)))

                        What is it? "KVAS", like "Panther", optimally combined high firepower, protection and mobility. Normal MBT. Yes, yes - they existed before the first "official" MBT - T-64A. These include KVASs with 85mm, 100mm and 122mm guns. Of course, the T-10M. And even the T-34 at the beginning of the war.
                        Quote: Kars
                        5 km large maximum speed

                        Not at 5km / h, but at 20% by the way.
                      4. Kars
                        Kars 7 June 2013 23: 38 New
                        +1
                        Quote: Krang
                        Breakthrough. Do not argue.

                        Failure, and the quantity produced, and the rapid descent from the scene are an indication of this.
                        Quote: Krang
                        What is it? "KVAS", like "Panther", optimally combined high firepower, protection and mobility.

                        So what? With this, KVAS and next to Panther did not lie.
                        Quote: Krang
                        Normal MBT

                        Back to the forest.
                        Quote: Krang
                        Not at 5km / h, but at 20% by the way.

                        At 5 km, and even if it is at least 50%, the average technical as well as the intersection is the same.
                      5. Crang
                        Crang 7 June 2013 23: 47 New
                        0
                        Quote: Kars
                        Failure, and the quantity produced, and the rapid descent from the scene are an indication of this.

                        It was created 148 KV-85, 1 - KV-100 and 1 - KV-122. This is more than the IS-85. Given the KV-1 was an expensive and complex toy in peacetime (besides with poor reliability) they wanted to refuse it, but they did it anyway. Moreover, KV-85 fought until the end of the war, while 123 issued IS-85 quickly destroyed everyone. Breakthrough.
                        Quote: Kars
                        So what? With this, KVAS and next to Panther did not lie.

                        What? Can we compare by millimeters? "KVAS" was not inferior to "Panther".
                        Quote: Kars
                        At 5 km, and even if it is at least 50%, the average technical as well as the intersection is the same.

                        And how do you know about the "medium technical"? The KVAS transmission, although it was unreliable, made it possible to turn smoothly like a car. Whereas the PMP on the IS-2 is only in jerks along fixed radii. I would have looked at the "average technical" speed of the IS-2 on a medium-twist road while blitzkrieg through enemy territories.
                      6. Kars
                        Kars 7 June 2013 23: 51 New
                        +1
                        Quote: Krang
                        It was created 148 KV-85, 1 - KV-100 and 1 - KV-122

                        This can generally be counted. And the main failure is precisely the KV-1C
                        And it makes no sense to compare it with the IS-85, it is transitional
                        Quote: Krang
                        what is it? Can we compare by millimeters? "KVAS" was not inferior to "Panther"

                        didn’t even get close. Compare what you want.
                        Quote: Krang
                        And how do you know about the "medium technical"?

                        read somewhere on the Internet))))
                        Quote: Krang
                        I would have looked at the "average technical" speed of the IS-2 on the road of medium tortuosity when making a blitzkrieg through enemy territories

                        Fritz looked.
                      7. Crang
                        Crang 7 June 2013 23: 54 New
                        0
                        Quote: Kars
                        didn’t even get close. Compare what you want.

                        For instance? Firepower, protection, mobility? For all these performance characteristics "KVAS" occupies exactly an intermediate place between "Tiger" and "Panther". And he soaked these "Tigers" with "Panthers" as he wanted. It was no better than the Panther, but no worse. Just a little different.
                      8. Crang
                        Crang 7 June 2013 23: 55 New
                        0
                        Quote: Kars
                        Fritz looked.

                        They looked at the T-34-85. IS-2 is like that - it pushed mostly.
                      9. Yemelya
                        Yemelya 8 June 2013 00: 19 New
                        +1
                        Quote: Kars
                        And the main failure is exactly KV-1C

                        They did what the military asked for - increased mobility. tank (I assume that based on the vicious experience of using the KV-1 in mixed-brigades, where he could not keep up with the T-34), the result was a good medium tank: normal distribution of duties of crew members, normal visibility from the commander, a quite spacious tower, torsion bar suspension, caterpillar with pinion gear, gearbox with demultiplier - all that the T-34M wanted in 1941. True, it’s 34 times more expensive than the T-2, but maybe 1 KV-1S is better than 2 T-34s ...
                      10. Crang
                        Crang 8 June 2013 07: 21 New
                        0
                        What kind of KV-1S medium tank if it has more armor in some places than the "Tiger"? Well, no need to say nonsense. Or WoT outplayed? Where there is, the armor of Western tanks is almost doubled, while ours, on the contrary, is underestimated. To keep the balance.
                      11. Kars
                        Kars 8 June 2013 09: 22 New
                        +1
                        Quote: Krang
                        What kind of KV-1S medium tank if it has more armor in some places than the "Tiger"

                        And where is she at Eski's thicker than a tiger?
                        Quote: Emelya
                        as a result, we got a good medium tank:

                        What do you mean, did he need a new medium tank by 1943? And this is not considering that it was more difficult to produce than the T-34
                        Quote: Krang
                        ? For all these performance characteristics "KVAS" occupies exactly an intermediate place between "Tiger" and "Panther"

                        He doesn’t roll around, maybe technical reliability is a little better than the first panthers.
                        Quote: Krang
                        It was no better than the Panther, but no worse. Just a little different.

                        It was worse, but I dubbed the campaign you were confusing with your memories from the world of tanks.
    2. Yemelya
      Yemelya 7 June 2013 23: 15 New
      -2
      Quote: Krang
      KVAS is an unrecognized genius. This is a super-successful combat vehicle, which was simply "overlooked" at that stage.

      this, of course, is too much, but I don’t argue - before the appearance of the T-34-85, the KV-1S was the best tank of the Red Army (since the beginning of 1943 - along with the Sherman).
      1. Crang
        Crang 7 June 2013 23: 20 New
        -4
        The T-34-85 is just a typical medium tank. Mechanically reliable, but the armor is slightly better than a can.
      2. stalkerwalker
        stalkerwalker 7 June 2013 23: 32 New
        +3
        Quote: Krang
        The T-34-85 is just a typical medium tank. Mechanically reliable, but the armor is slightly better than a can.

        It should be understood that the Soviet leadership during the war simply screwed up with the T-34-85?
        And how do you like the T-50, T-60, T-70?
        And the "frozen dates" captured T-28s were in service until the 50s.
        What am I talking about ...
        A tank is a tool. Instrument of war. It all depends on in whose hands tanks fall from armor is slightly better than a can.
      3. Crang
        Crang 7 June 2013 23: 51 New
        -3
        No, it didn't screw up, but the T-34-85 MBT does not pull. Already in Korea, having met with M26 "Pershing", he earned the nickname "Caviar Bank". This is a medium tank.
        Quote: stalkerwalker
        A tank is a tool. Instrument of war. It all depends on in whose hands the tanks with the armor fall a little better than the tin can.

        In the 44-45s, the percentage of destruction of T-34-85 tanks approached 1. That is, almost any hit in this tank led to its destruction. This is a medium tank for blitzkrieg - a normal tank war. Its main advantage is the fucking reliability and the 85mm gun that can stand up for itself.
    3. Kars
      Kars 7 June 2013 23: 39 New
      +1
      Quote: Krang
      Here T-34-85 is just a typical middle tan

      On the same from your KVAS obt differs slightly less armor and is already a typical medium tank)))
      Quote: Kars
      In terms of combat qualities, the KV-1s almost equaled the T-34.
    4. Crang
      Crang 8 June 2013 07: 19 New
      0
      Not "slightly smaller", but smaller, on average, 1,5-2 times in a circle.
    5. Kars
      Kars 8 June 2013 09: 29 New
      +1
      Quote: Krang
      Not "slightly smaller", but smaller on average by 1,5-2 times in a circle

      )))) and who else has the same message as you? Can you bring the proof? Or again, you read something somewhere))
    6. Crang
      Crang 8 June 2013 17: 44 New
      0
      Sure, not a problem.
      The forehead of the body from top to bottom.
      KB-85
      75mm / 30 (+ 30mm / 30 module from KV-1E) = 87-121mm.
      40mm / 65 = 95mm.
      75mm / 30 = 87mm.
      T-34-85
      45mm / 60 = 90mm.
      45mm / 60 = 90mm.
      Board hull from top to bottom.
      KB-85
      60mm / 0 = 60mm.
      T-34-85
      45mm / 45 = 64mm.
      45mm / 0 = 45mm.
      Feed hull.
      KB-85
      40mm / 50 = 50mm.
      75mm smoothly.
      T-34-85
      45mm / 42 = 67mm.
      45mm / 45 = 64mm.
      Bottom.
      KB-85
      20-30mm.
      T-34-85
      20mm.
      Roof.
      KB-85
      30-40mm.
      T-34-85
      20mm.
      The forehead of the tower.
      KB-85
      100mm smoothly.
      T-34-85
      90mm smoothly.
      Board towers.
      KB-85
      100mm / 10 = 102mm.
      T-34-85
      75mm / 20 = 80mm.
      Feed the tower.
      KB-85
      100mm / 30 = 115mm.
      T-34-85
      32mm / 10 = 33mm.
      As you can see, the KV-85 with much larger dimensions, greater internal spaciousness and ease of work of the crew significantly exceeded the T-34-85 in terms of security. Plus, I want to note that the equivalent is not always enough to reliably evaluate the security of the machine. the thickness of the T-34-85 armor in this case is very critical from the angles at which the shells hit, while the KV-85 is often just thick armor.
    7. Kars
      Kars 8 June 2013 17: 54 New
      +1
      Quote: Krang
      Sure, not a problem

      Naturally what else to expect is a simple listing of the characteristics)))


      As a result of all these changes, the mass of KV-1s decreased to 42,3 tons, increased speed (up to 43,3 km / h on the highway), maneuverability and reliability of the tank. But the price paid for this was great: the KV-1s weapons remained the same - the 76,2 mm ZIS-5 gun, but the reduction the thickness of the armor with the "old" armored hull scheme significantly reduced the resistance of the tank. According to its fighting qualities KV-1s almost caught up with the T-34.

      and it wasn’t written by me
    8. Kars
      Kars 8 June 2013 18: 05 New
      +1
      ________________
    9. Crang
      Crang 8 June 2013 18: 22 New
      0
      I know that it was not you and it was written about the stock KV-1S with the old turret and 76mm cannon. KV-85/100/122 are "a little" other tanks.
    10. Kars
      Kars 8 June 2013 22: 00 New
      +1
      Quote: Krang
      ro stock KV-1C

      Stock))))
      Quote: Krang
      B-85/100/122 are "a little" other tanks.

      85 did not lie next to Panther, the rest was NOT.
    11. Crang
      Crang 9 June 2013 22: 40 New
      0
      The KV-85 is much better than the Panther in many respects. So he proudly stands next to this German tank on an equal footing.
    12. svp67
      svp67 9 June 2013 22: 44 New
      0
      Quote: Krang
      The KV-85 is much better than the Panther in many respects. So he proudly stands next to this German tank on an equal footing.

      An interesting train of thought ... But nothing that these tanks had slightly different tasks?
    13. Crang
      Crang 9 June 2013 23: 00 New
      0
      Tanks usually have the same tasks because it is universal and in the first place offensive weapon... If a tank is tailored for one specific task, then this is not a tank. You'd better call this design with the fashionable word "Combat vehicle ....................."
    14. svp67
      svp67 9 June 2013 23: 19 New
      0
      Quote: Krang
      Tanks usually have the same tasks because they are universal and primarily offensive weapons.

      "Universal" and then RELATIVELY, they became with the advent of MBT, but these tanks are deprived, for example, of the ability to swim independently, as their "light" brothers do ... But this is now, and at that time there is such a thing as "medium" - "heavy "made a lot of sense ... The first are" workhorses "that should be able to do a lot, and the" Panther "is one of them, the second are" a means of high-quality enhancement ", which, by their very appearance, had to change the balance of forces on the battlefield in their favor .. ...
  15. Kars
    Kars 9 June 2013 22: 58 New
    +1
    Quote: Krang
    The KV-85 is much better than the Panther in many respects.

    By what? Principal?
    Quote: Krang
    standing next to this German tank on an equal footing.

    Where is it? In your imagination? And you have a stormy imagination. Our early meetings revealed this. It is simply not clear why such a miracle tank released only 146 pieces.
  16. svp67
    svp67 9 June 2013 23: 09 New
    0
    Quote: Kars
    It is simply not clear why such a miracle tank released only 146 pieces.

    It’s all a matter of the principle of production of KV and IS tanks ... For the former, the hull was made of rolled armor by welding, the second also by welding, but not only of rolled parts, but also of cast armor, which made it possible to increase the speed of production of tanks and reduce the cost of their...
  17. Crang
    Crang 9 June 2013 23: 21 New
    0
    Quote: Kars
    By what? Principal?

    The main advantages of the KV-85 over the Panther include:
    1. Equivalent tower defense in a circle (in tanks, the towers rotate by 360 degrees).
    2. More powerful side, rear and roof protection, with almost equivalent forehead protection.
    3. Diesel engine versus gasoline in "Panther".
    4. Lack of hemorrhoids staggered suspension and spaced gearbox with an engine like the "Panther". The KV-85 had a normal block in the MTO like all modern tanks. And the torsion bar suspension is almost the same, except for the rubber tires on the rollers.
    5. Two sights in the KV-85 versus one in the Panther.
    6. The commander of the KV-85 had a radio station and therefore had direct access to information, against the "Panther" where there was a separate radio operator (as in the early T-34s) who then transmitted information to the commander. In this regard, the command control of the KV-85 tanks was significantly better. And this is very important.
    7. The KV-85 commander had an MK-4 observation device at his disposal, which was capable of carrying out wide-angle observation in a sector of 360 degrees. In addition, the charger had a similar device. The sighting blades in the KV-85 commander's cupola were left as backup (many modern tanks do not have them at all, as unnecessary). Unlike the "Panther" where there were only periscopes in a circle, each of which saw only a narrow sector. Thus, the KV-85 commander did not need to lean out with binoculars from the hatch, risking a splinter or a sniper's bullet, as the Nazis had to do.
    8. The high-explosive fragmentation effect of the 85mm D-5T gun of the KV-85 was significantly higher than that of the 75mm Panther cannon. Which is important for fighting the infantry.
    9. The "Panther" tower revolved, although faster than the "Tiger", but still slow. The MPB with an electric tower KV-85 threw the cannon onto a newly discovered target at a speed of about 15 deg / s, which was not bad for that time.
    10. The KV-85, for all its complexity and high cost of the Mironov time tank, was simpler and more reliable than the Panthers, which often went out of action without any enemy influence.
    Let it be for now.
  18. svp67
    svp67 9 June 2013 23: 30 New
    0
    Quote: Krang
    The main advantages of the KV-85 over the Panther include:

    Everything is very, very indisputable
  19. Crang
    Crang 9 June 2013 23: 33 New
    0
    So argue who does not give you.
  20. svp67
    svp67 9 June 2013 23: 36 New
    0
    Quote: Krang
    So argue who does not give you.

    There is not enough space, and we already have 01.30 10 June ... But if there is a desire, then you can hardly ... I pass to the very bottom of the comments ...
  21. Kars
    Kars 10 June 2013 00: 31 New
    +1
    Quote: Krang
    1. Equivalent tower defense in a circle (in tanks, the towers rotate by 360 degrees).
    2. More powerful side, rear and roof protection, with almost equivalent forehead protection.


    KV-85 forehead is incomparable with Panther's forehead, and frontal armor is the main indicator.
    in a circle - it is compensated by the quality of rolled armor in comparison with cast one. And nowhere is there particularly special superiority.
    Quote: Krang
    ... Diesel engine versus gasoline in "Panther"

    And what? This does not compensate for the large specific power of the Panther. The big fire hazard is fiction. And also the automatic fire extinguishing system in the MTO
    Quote: Krang
    4. The absence of a hemorrhoid chess suspension spaced gearbox with an engine as

    These are the problems of the Fritz and their better technical staff and service. And it cannot be fundamental - the smoothness compensates for many times.
    Quote: Krang
    5. Two sights in the KV-85 versus one in the Panther.

    Optics and accuracy are better for German devices.
    For firing, the KV-85 was equipped with two gun sights - telescopic 10T-15 for direct fire and periscope PT4-15 for firing from closed positions.

    Of course, for an 85 mm high ballistic gun, shooting from closed positions is fundamentally important)))) is another indicator of your incompetence.
    Quote: Krang
    ... The commander of the KV-85 had a radio station and therefore had direct access to information, against the "Panther" where there was a separate radio operator (as in the early T-34s) who then transmitted information to the commander. In this regard, the command control of the KV-85 tanks was significantly better. And this is very important.

    as well as the distraction of the commander from controlling the tank to a rather poor-quality radio equipment, as well as the internal communication of the German tank.
    Quote: Krang
    8. The high-explosive fragmentation effect of the 85mm D-5T gun of the KV-85 was significantly higher than that of the 75mm Panther cannon. What is important for the fight against infantry

    That's just not particularly much
    Figure 388-i1. E. Shelf for 7S-mm guitar, 7,5 cmSprgr. 42 Shells: Caliber: 75 mm. View: Shell. Type: He. Weight: 12,7 kg (loaded with fuses). Color. ONE CHARGE: Number: 13. Weight: 1,44 lbs. View: Ammotol 60/40 (poured)
    Quote: Krang
    9. The "Panther" tower revolved, although faster than the "Tiger", but still slow. The MPB with an electric tower KV-85 threw the cannon onto a newly discovered target at a speed of about 15 deg / s, which was not bad for that time.

    .
  22. Kars
    Kars 10 June 2013 00: 32 New
    +1
    Right? Panther 8
    Turret swivel mechanism
    located to the left of the gunner’s seat,
    consisted of two parts:
    hydraulic swivel mechanism
    driven by cardan
    shaft (with the engine running)
    and mechanical rotary mechanism
    with two manual drives
    at the gunner and loader.
    The hydraulic mechanism provided
    tower rotation with speed
    up to 8 degrees per second, and mechanical
    - one degree in three
    flywheel revolution.

    how about your confirmation? And what was the accuracy of the eyeliner?
    Quote: Krang
    0. The KV-85, for all its complexity and high cost of the Mironov time tank, was simpler and more reliable than the Panthers, which often went out of action without any enemy influence.

    Well, to call the KV-85 a peacetime tank is very strong, and it did not differ much in reliability especially in the conditions of production in evacuation. And the Panther also improved in the production process, and it is not necessary to give estimates for the first vehicles.

    Quote: Krang
    Let it be for now.

    They couldn’t bring anything fundamental, so there would be a postorats to prove that the KV-85 even came close to the Panther, not in vain its production was so quickly turned off
  23. Crang
    Crang 9 June 2013 23: 30 New
    0
    Quote: Kars
    It is simply not clear why such a miracle tank released only 146 pieces.

    148 pieces Kars.
  24. Kars
    Kars 10 June 2013 00: 32 New
    +1
    Quote: Krang
    148 pieces Kars.

    I am only one and not 148)))))
  • builder
    builder 9 June 2013 23: 35 New
    0
    The Germans tried to take "not by number, but by skill." In this case, this meant improving the quality of ammunition with a caliber of 75-mm or 88-mm guns. German armor-piercing shells had a high initial velocity and at a distance of up to 2 km successfully hit any targets, the reservation of which was 90-100 mm.
    Soviet design bureaus acted exactly the opposite, increasing the caliber, a big drawback of such guns was the low rate of fire up to 2-3 rounds per minute. In favor of our method there was a huge destructive force of a large-caliber projectile - for example, a direct hit of a 152-mm projectile SU-152 in almost 100% of cases disabled any German tank, including the “tiger” and “panther”.
  • svp67
    svp67 7 June 2013 21: 16 New
    +1
    But we should not forget that the fire from tanks was carried out most often from short stops, that is, loading was carried out in motion, and in this situation, firstly, quick reloading with heavy and long ammunition (shot) is almost impossible,
    That is, the loaders on T54, T55, T62 did NOT POSSIBLE ... RIDICULOUS.
    1. Crang
      Crang 7 June 2013 21: 46 New
      +1
      Well, partly he is right. T-54/55, and especially T-62 is much larger and more spacious than the IS-2. In addition, the T-62 has a mechanical rammer and automatically throws the sleeve out after firing. HF was also healthy and large, but for some reason it was abandoned.
      1. svp67
        svp67 7 June 2013 21: 56 New
        +1
        Quote: Krang
        The T-54 / 55, and especially the T-62, is much larger and more spacious than the IS-2.
        The freedom of action of the loader largely depends on the size of the overhead of the tower
        IS2 is - 1800 mm
        - Т54 \ 55 - 1816 mm
        agree not a big difference ...
        1. Crang
          Crang 7 June 2013 22: 07 New
          +1
          For the T-62 they forgot to write - 2150mm turret shoulder straps. More than "Abrams" - 1850mm.
      2. svp67
        svp67 9 June 2013 16: 22 New
        0
        Quote: Krang
        In addition, the T-62 has a mechanical rammer

        Something such a "device" on it did not notice ...
        1. Crang
          Crang 9 June 2013 22: 39 New
          0
          Well read it. The charger only needs to put the shell in the rammer’s tray, after which it will be automatically sent to the gun’s charging chamber. After the shot, with the same rammer, the sleeve is thrown through the hatch in the aft of the tower.
  • Alekseev
    Alekseev 7 June 2013 22: 31 New
    +2
    D-25 is a very good choice for a heavy tank. Twenty-five kg shell was effective against any tank of that time and without breaking through the armor. Although the non-penetration of armor of those times at the main battle distances of such a fool rarely happened. Yes, and if it happened, then cracks were observed, a shift from the support of the units, a mass of fragments from the armor inside the hull, a shell concussion.
    But important Not only the power of guns. German 88 and 75 mm tank guns are good, but they are by no means record holders for muzzle energy.
    The IS (and the t-34, too) was inferior to German tanks, in particular, as aiming and surveillance devices and as armor-piercing ammunition.
    These problems were resolved after the war on the t-10.
    1. Crang
      Crang 7 June 2013 22: 35 New
      -1
      The sights were not inferior. By the quality of the shells - yes.
  • Alf
    Alf 7 June 2013 23: 23 New
    +1
    Quote: Krang
    (85mm BR-365P subcaliber with Vn = 1050m / s sewed 110mm with 1000m).

    But will not the respected author tell me how many sub-caliber shots were included in the KV-85?
    For the production of a projectile, rare-earth tungsten was required and in the BC even our tanks, at least allied, at least Hans's, such shells were very rare. Due to the high power of the 122-mm cannon, the 2-mm gun was not required, and the IS-28 was sharpened to be more of an assault tank, just look at the composition of the ammunition in 20 rounds-8 OFS and XNUMX BS.
    Quote: Krang
    Normal heavy tank and can not be smaller - now all of this size.

    Kotin believed that a heavy tank does not have to be huge. And in terms of the size of modern tanks, it is enough to compare the dimensions of the T-90 and Abrams with Leclerc.
    Quote: Krang
    but the KV-85 was generally captured and actively tested at its landfill,

    The Germans also captured the IS-2 and also tested it.
    1. Crang
      Crang 7 June 2013 23: 37 New
      +1
      Quote: Alf
      and IS-2 was sharpened to be more of an assault tank, just look at the composition of the ammunition in 28 rounds-20 OFS and 8 BS.

      No matter who he was imprisoned. This did not cancel his eventual encounter with German cats. And they did not ask whether he was imprisoned or not.
      Quote: Alf
      Kotin believed that a heavy tank does not have to be huge.

      He must be normal dimensions. To ensure a) - normal working conditions for the crew. b) - provide the ability to timely leave the tank when it is defeated.
      Quote: Alf
      And in terms of the size of modern tanks, it is enough to compare the dimensions of the T-90 and Abrams with Leclerc.

      I will surprise and shock you. They are almost identical in external dimensions. The T-90A is even slightly wider than the Abrams, although it is longer.
  • Alf
    Alf 8 June 2013 19: 33 New
    0
    Quote: Krang
    I will surprise and shock you. They are almost identical in external dimensions. The T-90A is even slightly wider than the Abrams, although it is longer.

    Especially in height and size of the tower.
    1. Crang
      Crang 9 June 2013 22: 37 New
      0
      They are about the same in width and height. In length, the "Abrams" tower is, of course, larger because of the developed tower niche.
      1. family tree
        family tree 10 June 2013 00: 55 New
        +2
        Quote: Krang
        the Abrams tower is, of course, more because of the developed tower niche.
        Abrams Tower, first of all, more because of the Negro Joe with a unitary in his hands
  • svp67
    svp67 9 June 2013 23: 48 New
    0
    The main advantages of the KV-85 over the Panther include:
    1. Equivalent tower defense in a circle (in tanks, the towers rotate by 360 degrees).

    It seems correct, but one BUT ... the KV tower was made of CAST parts, the "5" - from rolled parts, respectively, and armor resistance, under equal conditions, the latter was higher
    1. Crang
      Crang 10 June 2013 00: 08 New
      0
      The fact is that the Panther's side and stern of the turret was only 45mm thick. Even with the fact that her armor was rolled, it is still much weaker than that of the KV-85.
      1. svp67
        svp67 10 June 2013 00: 19 New
        0
        Quote: Krang
        Even taking into account the fact that her armor was rolled - it is still much weaker than the KV-85.
        At the IS, it was not small either, but it was the tower, and its frontal part, that was the "Aheles heel", penetrated by the Panther from a distance of up to 1000 meters - in wartime they could not establish the technology of "hardening" of such thick cast parts for a very long time .. ...
        1. Crang
          Crang 10 June 2013 00: 27 New
          0
          What does Panther have to do with it? As I said, at that time there were too many other anti-tank weapons. Small caliber and inconspicuous. Who beat the "Panther" and did not beat the KV-85.
          1. svp67
            svp67 10 June 2013 00: 34 New
            0
            Quote: Krang
            Small caliber and inconspicuous. Who beat the "Panther" and did not beat the KV-85.
            The high losses of our armored vehicles somehow say otherwise. The Germans were the highest specialists in the construction of anti-tank missiles and they knew and knew how to fight tanks ...
            1. Crang
              Crang 10 June 2013 00: 34 New
              0
              No need for specialists. How do you subtly leave the topic. We're talking about the KV-85 and the Panther.
              1. svp67
                svp67 10 June 2013 00: 58 New
                0
                Quote: Krang
                No need for specialists. How do you subtly leave the topic. We're talking about the KV-85 and the Panther.
                You, what do you think, they converged on the battlefield in "knightly duels"? Fight is a very complex organized process ...
  • svp67
    svp67 9 June 2013 23: 50 New
    0
    2. More powerful side, rear and roof protection, with almost equivalent forehead protection.

    Let's leave the sides, stern and roof alone, as they are guaranteed to be hit by all PTSs of both tanks, but here's the forehead. Again, everything seems to be correct for you, BUT, the shape of the "nose", it ruined everything at KV, it was not for nothing that later it was "straightened" on ISs ..
    1. Crang
      Crang 10 June 2013 00: 10 New
      0
      No need to leave the sides and roof alone. At the time, the troops were saturated with 76mm, 47mm, 45mm, 37mm (Door Knocker) PTA. This is not counting the PTR. There is a known case of the destruction of two "Panthers" in one battle at once, what do you think? Our T-70 from a 45mm 20K cannon. So here "Panther" is again hopelessly drained.
      1. Kars
        Kars 10 June 2013 00: 35 New
        +2
        Quote: Krang
        two "Panthers" at once, what do you think? Our T-70 from a 45mm 20K cannon. So here "Panther" is again hopelessly drained.

        Type in the same conditions KV-85 would not have been hit))
        I would more like to know where YOU read about the brilliant military use of the KV-85 Pruff and not read somewhere.
        1. Crang
          Crang 10 June 2013 00: 38 New
          0
          Kars - I can’t argue with two at once. Already started with Mr. SRV67 - so respect.
          1. Kars
            Kars 10 June 2013 00: 41 New
            +2
            Quote: Krang
            Kars - I can’t argue with two at once. Already started with Mr. SRV67 - so respect

            Yes, I drummed it - I wrote it, and you say in your own words at least some kind of Pruff look for, not fairy tales.
          2. Kars
            Kars 10 June 2013 00: 42 New
            +1
            ______________
            Yes, I’m not quick. I wrote my own, and you look for a Pruff to your own words, otherwise one .. water ..
            1. Crang
              Crang 10 June 2013 00: 47 New
              0
              Che gave me "German statistics" according to which our tanks burned in hundreds, and in such a battle one was "slightly wounded" and one was killed "by accident." How did we (then WE) won then? The related statistics can be put on a par with Kalashnikov's nonsense. Let these "memoirs" remain on the conscience of their authors, who could not win only because of "stupid Hitler".
              1. stalkerwalker
                stalkerwalker 10 June 2013 00: 55 New
                +3
                Quote: Krang
                Che gave me "German statistics" according to which our tanks burned in hundreds, and for such a battle one was "slightly wounded" and one was killed "accidentally"

                Do you know about the real losses of our tanks near Prokhorovka, in the Lutsk-Brody-Dubno region on 23-26 on June 1941?
              2. Kars
                Kars 10 June 2013 00: 56 New
                +1
                Quote: Krang
                Che gave me "German statistics"

                no, just a description of the panther.
                Quote: Krang
                tanks burned in hundreds

                Well, somehow 96 lost, and if you still say that super tanks, then this is still sad.
                Quote: Krang
                How did we (then WE) defeated then?

                More precisely good, but won because OUR cause is just.
  • svp67
    svp67 9 June 2013 23: 54 New
    0
    3. Diesel engine versus gasoline in "Panther".

    Generally a "sore point". The choice of the engine type depended on the fuel balance of the warring parties ... Practice has shown that the "solarium" can also explode, and if it starts to burn, it is very difficult to extinguish ... And in terms of the "specific power" of the KV-13,5 hp \ t, "Panther" -15 hp \ t. This means that "Panther" was more nimble ..
    1. stalkerwalker
      stalkerwalker 10 June 2013 00: 02 New
      +3
      Quote: svp67
      And in terms of "specific power" KV-13,5 hp \ t, "Panther" -15 hp \ t. This means that "Panther" was more nimble ..

      The diesel engine has a higher TORQUE, the peak of which is achieved at lower revs - it has a very beneficial effect when driving on rough terrain.
    2. Crang
      Crang 10 June 2013 00: 14 New
      0
      Of course, a solarium can burn - no one argues, but show me at least one modern tank with a gasoline engine? There are none of them. So the concept of the KV-85 was correct. In addition, the point here is not even the fire hazard. The diesel engine has the most optimal power and torque characteristics. for tank which allows him to pull well with a minimum of switching. The high-speed engine of the "Panther" (the EMNIP was spinning up to 3000 rpm) did not pull a damn "from below" and therefore forced the mechanic drive to constantly click the gears of the already unreliable gearbox. At the expense of the merits of the "Panther" - no need. I know them well, which does not prevent the KV-85 from being no worse than her.
      1. svp67
        svp67 10 June 2013 00: 21 New
        0
        Quote: Krang
        At the expense of the merits of the "Panther" - no need. I know them well, which does not prevent the KV-85 from being no worse than her.
        The Germans simply had nowhere to get extra diesel fuel, they fought the whole war on "synthetic gasoline" extracted from brown coal ...
        1. Crang
          Crang 10 June 2013 00: 26 New
          0
          Poor. I'm so sorry for them. Well, IT WASN’T NECESSARY TO START A WAR if you do not have a solarium and you cannot win. KV-85 does not get worse from this.
          1. svp67
            svp67 10 June 2013 00: 28 New
            0
            Quote: Krang
            Well, IT WASN’T NECESSARY TO START A WAR if you do not have a solarium and you cannot win
            Alas, this is not an indicator determining the WINNER ...
            1. Alex
              Alex 15 September 2013 22: 36 New
              +2
              Quote: svp67

              Quote: Krang
              Well, IT WASN’T NECESSARY TO START A WAR if you do not have a solarium and you cannot win

              Alas, this is not an indicator determining the WINNER ...


              Excuse me, but are the level of training of the armed forces and the technical condition of the army not part of the success? Or can you defeat tanks and planes with tomahawks and bows? They still laugh at how the Polish hussars with sabers went to the tanks. Or "lace truce" had to be arranged so that everything would be decorous and noble? The enemy must be beaten always and in any conditions. Gape, was left without fuel, got stuck in the mud - there they could finish him off, damned, and even crush him with his heel like wood lice.


              A la guerre comme a la guerre.
      2. stalkerwalker
        stalkerwalker 10 June 2013 00: 30 New
        +3
        Quote: Krang
        I know them well, that KV-85 does not stop being no worse than her.

        KV series tanks would have a great prospect if initially a more powerful gun was installed on a HEAVY tank than on a MEDIUM tank.
        Y. Mukhin believes that the director of the Leningrad Tank (I don’t remember his last name) simply sabotaged this option, referring to the already established technology and sufficient armor penetration of the L-11.
        1. Crang
          Crang 10 June 2013 00: 34 New
          0
          KV-85 appeared in August 43rd. When the T-34-85 was not there. The 85mm gun was quite adequate. KV-100 was also created and therefore would provide superiority in firepower over the T-34-85 on which a 100mm gun could no longer be installed (there was a T-34-100 and he showed it).
          1. stalkerwalker
            stalkerwalker 10 June 2013 00: 40 New
            +3
            Quote: Krang
            KV-85 appeared in August 43. When the T-34-85 was not yet

            This gun could (should) have been in June 1941.
            This would be a "super tank".
            Everything else is improvisation on the go, on the knee, in the conditions of an eternal lack of everything and everything.
            1. svp67
              svp67 10 June 2013 00: 47 New
              +1
              Quote: stalkerwalker
              in June 1941. That would have been a "super tank".
              If I could get to the battlefield without a break ...
            2. Crang
              Crang 10 June 2013 00: 48 New
              0
              Compared with the German trash of the 41st and the basic KV-1 "Supertank".
              1. stalkerwalker
                stalkerwalker 10 June 2013 00: 53 New
                +3
                Quote: Krang
                basic KV-1 "Supertank".

                I explain.
                The technologies for the production and installation of 85-mm guns were not worked out in advance.
                Look at our auto industry - 20 years of trash released.
                Then, although there was a different country, but the shitty traditions were the same: "And so it will do" ...
                1. Crang
                  Crang 10 June 2013 00: 58 New
                  0
                  I say that compared to the shit that the Germans had on June 22, 41, even the basic KV-1 with a 76mm cannon was a "Super Tank". That's clearer?
                  1. stalkerwalker
                    stalkerwalker 10 June 2013 01: 02 New
                    +3
                    Quote: Krang
                    That's clearer?

                    Half a tone lower, please ...
                    Would really be a "super-tank" - it would be released until the end of the war.
                    1. Crang
                      Crang 10 June 2013 01: 09 New
                      0
                      What nonsense. No one has canceled progress. And he went in World War II by leaps and bounds.
                      1. stalkerwalker
                        stalkerwalker 10 June 2013 01: 17 New
                        +3
                        Quote: Krang
                        What nonsense. No one has canceled progress. And he went in World War II by leaps and bounds.

                        Vyonosh, watch the market ...
                        It seems that you do not need a discussion, but the desire for self-affirmation torments.
                        This is best done in the eyes of your girlfriends.
                        Your love for a particular tank makes you think of an unstable psyche.
                        Good luck in studying the history of armored vehicles.
                      2. Crang
                        Crang 10 June 2013 01: 24 New
                        0
                        Quote: stalkerwalker
                        Vyonosh, watch the market ...

                        Are you "oldies" already? Dap years then? 70 or 90?

                        Quote: stalkerwalker
                        It seems that you do not need a discussion, but a desire to assert oneself tormenting. This is best done in the eyes of your girlfriends. Your love for a particular tank makes you think of an unstable psyche. Good luck in studying the history of armored vehicles.

                        This is called - there is nothing to say. Well, they would not say that. Especially if there are problems with the psyche.
    3. Kars
      Kars 10 June 2013 00: 36 New
      +1
      Quote: Krang
      at least one modern tank with a gasoline engine? There are none of them.

      Profitability, and nothing more. There are vet tanks and GTE
      1. Crang
        Crang 10 June 2013 00: 40 New
        0
        Well, so be it - I'm good today. So KV-85 was more economical and had a greater power reserve. Behind him in the attack, it was not necessary to go to the pilots with the inside-out kamikaze ....
        1. Kars
          Kars 10 June 2013 01: 00 New
          +1
          Engine type V-shaped 12 ‑ cylinder carburetor
          Engine power, l with. Xnumx
          Highway speed, km / h 55
          Cruising on highway, km 250
          Cruising cross country, tom 170
          Specific Power, l s / t 15,6
          Type of suspension torsion bar
          Ground pressure, kg / cm² 0,88


          Engine type V-shaped 4-stroke 12-cylinder diesel
          Engine power, l with. Xnumx
          Highway speed, km / h 42
          Cross country speed, km / h 10 — 15
          Cruising on highway, km 330
          Cruising cross country, km 180
          Specific Power, l s / t 13,0

          ))))))))))) So kindness is especially not necessary for you)))
          1. Crang
            Crang 10 June 2013 01: 08 New
            0
            Quote: Kars
            Engine power, l with. Xnumx
            Highway speed, km / h 55

            Not 700hp, but 650hp. The HL-210 was installed on the Panther. The 230s went to the Tigers.
            Quote: Kars
            Highway speed, km / h 42

            43km / h to be exact. More precisely, 43,3 km / h.
            Quote: Kars
            Cruising on the highway, km 330 Cruising on the cross country, km 180

            KV-85 is MBT, and normal Blitzkriegs are made on the excellent German Kars highway. What is the cruising range and how it can be counted exactly, I can not imagine Kars. Probably ours were considered for our rough terrain, and a fascist for his own because of which the range of their tanks on our rough terrain was less than 100km.
            1. Kars
              Kars 10 June 2013 09: 22 New
              +1
              Quote: Krang
              Not 700hp, but 650hp. The HL-210 was installed on the Panther. The 230s went to the Tigers.

              Is there a truth and a pruff?))))
              Quote: Krang
              43km / h to be exact. More precisely, 43,3 km / h.

              What are you))))))))
              Quote: Krang
              KV-85 is MBT

              You didn’t act in the circus))))
              Quote: Krang
              and how it can be counted exactly, I can’t imagine

              train))
              Quote: Krang
              and our rough terrain was less than 100km.

              ))) Well, yes, but they fought at the end of the war, probably in Siberia)))

              If you wouldn’t end up with a vote, otherwise stock tanks, OBs in WWII))))

              Table 29. The performance characteristics of the Panther tanks.
              Panther Ausf. D Panther Ausf. And the Panther Ausf. G
              Weight, t 44,8 45,5 45,5
              Crew 5 5 5
              Length with gun forward, mm 8860 8860 8860
              Case length, mm 6886 6886 6886
              Width, mm 3270 3420 (with screens) 3420 (with screens)
              Height, mm 2990 3100 3100
              Ground clearance, mm 540 540 540
              Reservation, mm / angle to vertical,
              hail:
              Upper frontal sheet
              80/55 80/55 80/55
              Lower frontal plate 60/55 60/55 50/55
              Upper 40/40 40/40 50/29
              Lower side plate of the housing 40/0 40/0 40/0
              Aft housing 40/25 40/25 40/25
              The bottom of the housing 1 6 -2 5/9 0 1 6 - 2 5/9 0 1 6 - 2 5/9 0
              Housing Roof 25/90 25/90 25/90
              Gun mask 100, rounded 100, rounded 100 - 110, rounded
              The front sheet of the tower 100/12 • 100/12 100/12
              Board towers 45/25 45/25 45/25
              Feed tower 45/25 45/25 45/25
              The roof of the tower 1 6/8 4, 5 - 9 0 1 6/8 4, 5 - 9 0 1 6/8 4, 5 - 9 0
              Armament:
              Gun, type x caliber, mm
              KwK 42 x 75 KwK 42 x 75 KwK 42 x 75
              Barrel length in calibres 70 70 70
              Machine gun, number x type x caliber, mm 2 x MG 3 4 x 7, 9 2 2 x MG 3 4 x 7, 9 2 2 x MG 3 4 x 7, 9 2
              Ammunition pieces:
              Shells
              +79 79 82
              Ammo 5100 5100 4800
              Angles of fire of the gun, city .:
              Horizontal
              +360 360 360
              Vertical - 8, +20 - 8, +18 - 8, +18
              Type of gun sight TZF 12 TZF 12 or TZF 12a TZF 12a
              Machine gun sight type - KZF2 KZF2
              Engine, brand Maybach H L2 3 0 Р30 Maybach H L2 3 0 Р30 Maybach HL 230 РЗО
              Type carburetor carburetor carburetor
              Horsepower (normal / maximum)
              600/700 600/700 600/700

              Fuel tank capacity, l 720 720 720
              Maximum speed on asphalt
              highway, km / h
              54. 54 46
              The maximum speed in the country,
              km / h
              +30 30 30


              Minimum turning radius, m 9,4 9,4 9,4
              Specific pressure, g / cm 2 0,86 0,88 0,88
              Type of radio station Fu 5 + Fu 2 Fu 5 + Fu 2 Fu 5 + Fu 2
              333
              1. Kars
                Kars 10 June 2013 09: 30 New
                +1
                By the way, do you like to compare modern tortes --- and how do you like the fact that post-war Soviet tank sights are almost exact copies of German? And it was at least until the T-62

                And come on the KV-85 practice and I on the panther, a more detailed description of the power reserve.


                Number of fuel tanks 3 3 3
                Fuel tank capacity, l 720 720 720
                Maximum speed on asphalt
                highway, km / h
                54. 54 46
                The maximum speed in the country,
                km / h
                +30 30 30
                Fuel consumption per 100 km, l 280 on the highway, 700 no 280 on the highway, 700 no 250 on the highway, 700 no
                rugged intersected
                intersected
                terrain
                news
                Cruising range when driving along
                highway, km
                +220 220 220
                Cruising range when driving along
                country side, km
                +160 160 160
                Cruising range when driving along
                rough terrain, km
                +100 100 100
                Obstacle obstacles:
                The angle of elevation, deg.
                +35 35 35
                The width of the moat, m 2,45 2,45 2,45
                Wall height, m ​​0,9 0,9 0,9
                Depth of ford, m 1,9 1,9 1,9
                Minimum turning radius, m 9,4 9,4 9,4
                Specific pressure, g / cm 2 0,86 0,88 0,88
                Type of radio station Fu 5 + Fu 2 Fu 5 + Fu 2 Fu 5 + Fu 2
  • svp67
    svp67 9 June 2013 23: 59 New
    0
    4. Lack of hemorrhoids staggered suspension and spaced gearbox with an engine like the "Panther". The KV-85 had a normal block in the MTO like all modern tanks. And the torsion bar suspension is almost the same, except for the rubber tires on the rollers.
    Hemorrhoids, it is of course hemorrhoids, but it allowed to move more smoothly and exert less pressure on the ground, not general, but specific under each roller ... In addition, the front location of the "driving wheels" allows you to slightly increase the tank's cross-country ability in relation to the rear location .. I'm not saying that the habitability conditions of the tower because of this on the "Panther" were higher, as well as below the "removal" of the trunk ...
    1. Crang
      Crang 10 June 2013 00: 19 New
      +1
      I understand. But again I repeat - call me at least one modern tank having the same suspension as the Panther? Name. If the Panther's suspension was so good, then this ingenious invention simply should find use elsewhere. With the exception of German "cats", such a suspension was used in a number of experimental French post-war tanks and more no where. Most modern tanks have suspension in general repeating the KV-85 - with 6 or 7 rinks on board, it doesn’t matter.
      1. stalkerwalker
        stalkerwalker 10 June 2013 00: 25 New
        +3
        Quote: Krang
        name me at least one modern tank with the same suspension as the "Panther"?

        Christie's pendant is recognized as the most successful and has become the most universal.
        1. Crang
          Crang 10 June 2013 00: 36 New
          0
          And what about the suspension of Christie? Especially since there is a little less success in it than nothing? Where did you see Christie's suspension in modern tanks?
          1. stalkerwalker
            stalkerwalker 10 June 2013 00: 42 New
            +3
            Quote: Krang
            Where did you see Christie's suspension in modern tanks?

            Yes, on all domestic tanks there is a MODERNIZED suspension of Christie.
            1. Crang
              Crang 10 June 2013 00: 44 New
              0
              On our torsion bar. On promising can be hydropneumatic adjustable.
            2. Cat
              Cat 10 June 2013 00: 47 New
              0
              Quote: stalkerwalker
              Yes, on all domestic tanks there is a MODERNIZED suspension of Christie.

              all modern tanks (both ours and foreign) have torsion bars. Christie's pendant is only with Merkav.
            3. svp67
              svp67 10 June 2013 00: 49 New
              0
              Quote: stalkerwalker
              Yes, on all domestic tanks there is a MODERNIZED suspension of Christie.
              It was immediately upgraded to the T44 by eliminating the Christie suspension. The presence of large rollers is not a sign of this suspension ...
            4. family tree
              family tree 10 June 2013 01: 06 New
              +1
              Quote: stalkerwalker
              Yes, on all domestic tanks there is a MODERNIZED suspension of Christie.

              With an interference fit, only Merkava can be pulled up to Christy.
          2. svp67
            svp67 10 June 2013 00: 50 New
            0
            Quote: Krang
            Where did you see Christie's suspension in modern tanks?
            - its development on the "Merkavas" ...
            1. Crang
              Crang 10 June 2013 00: 52 New
              0
              "Merkava" is ADIN PIECE. And what about the rest?
        2. svp67
          svp67 10 June 2013 00: 43 New
          0
          Quote: stalkerwalker
          Christie's pendant is recognized as the most successful and has become the most universal.
          The suspension itself may be, BUT it was very "soft", which led to excessive "swinging" of the tank and in the scheme of our BT and T34 the springs stood between the double side, the free space of which was used to install fuel tanks, which often led to the fact that the explosion of the fuel tank destroyed the entire side of our tank and killed the crew
          1. stalkerwalker
            stalkerwalker 10 June 2013 00: 48 New
            +3
            Quote: svp67
            that a fuel tank explosion destroyed the entire side of our tank and killed the crew

            The penetration of an empty shell, but with a pair of tanning salons, or a full tank, led to similar tragedies.
            And I repeat - MODERNIZED suspension.
      2. svp67
        svp67 10 June 2013 00: 27 New
        0
        Quote: Krang
        Most modern tanks have a suspension in general that repeats the KV-85 - with 6 or 7 rollers on board, it doesn’t matter.

        Exactly - in general terms, but if you look closely, there are also enough differences. Our T34 drove the whole war on "springs", the German "4" on springs, all went through some experiments ...
        1. Crang
          Crang 10 June 2013 00: 43 New
          0
          And what? Well, the KV-85 was driven by torsion bars - which are still used today. The spring suspension of the T-34 allowed swinging when it was "short", which made the tank take time before firing to damp the vibrations.
    2. Cat
      Cat 10 June 2013 00: 27 New
      0
      Quote: svp67
      Hemorrhoids, it is of course hemorrhoids, but it allowed to move more smoothly and exert less pressure on the ground, not general, but specific under each rink ..

      Nevertheless, after WWII, Knipkamp's suspension was not used by anyone, including the Germans. Indicator, however.
      Quote: svp67
      In addition, the front location of the "driving wheels" allows to slightly increase the cross-country ability of the tank, in relation to the rear location ... I do not say that the habitability conditions of the tower because of this on the "Panther" were higher, as well as lower "removal" of the barrel. ..

      and in addition to this, the front location of the transmission is also + to the height of the tank (driveshafts under the floor), in fact the driveshafts themselves (an extra chance to break))), plus the transmission failure if it hits the "forehead" even without breaking through the armor , plus some liters of transmission oil in the most vulnerable part of the tank (which, in which case, burns no worse than diesel fuel), plus problems with transmission cooling ... etc. etc. Actually, because of these nuances, such a scheme was abandoned, of all modern MBTs "front-wheel drive" only in Carrots.
      Well, how the location of the transmission affects the habitability of the tower is generally incomprehensible.
      1. svp67
        svp67 10 June 2013 00: 52 New
        0
        Quote: Cat
        Well, how the location of the transmission affects the habitability of the tower is generally incomprehensible.

        At that moment, it was the most direct, so it allowed the tower to be located almost in the geometric center, which immediately reduced the crew’s fatigue and increased its ability to fire ...
        1. Crang
          Crang 10 June 2013 01: 00 New
          0
          And for one, it will lower the gun’s pumping angles. In particular, the declination angle - which is sometimes very important. The location of the tower does not affect fatigue.
          1. svp67
            svp67 10 June 2013 01: 12 New
            0
            Quote: Krang
            The location of the tower does not affect fatigue.

            Well, well ... put the crew farther from the center and ride it over rough terrain and see how it "does not get tired" without even doing anything ...
            1. Crang
              Crang 10 June 2013 01: 18 New
              0
              The KV tower is almost in the center, unlike the ISs and T-34s.
        2. Cat
          Cat 10 June 2013 01: 11 New
          0
          in the T-44 the same result was achieved by the transverse engine
          1. svp67
            svp67 10 June 2013 01: 14 New
            0
            Quote: Cat
            in the T-44 the same result was achieved by the transverse engine
            that's why he is "epoch-making" ...
            1. family tree
              family tree 10 June 2013 01: 41 New
              +1
              Quote: svp67
              that's why it is "epoch-making" ..

              Now everyone will smile wink For the first time in the USSR, an engine was placed across the MS-1.
              1. svp67
                svp67 10 June 2013 09: 34 New
                0
                Quote: perepilka
                Now everyone will smile. For the first time in the USSR, the engine was installed across the MS-1.

                You don’t have to smile here, you have to be proud, especially since
                With the exception of final drives, the T-18 transmission was integrated in a single unit with the engine
                Yes, we are LEGISLATORS ... smile
      2. svp67
        svp67 10 June 2013 01: 01 New
        0
        Quote: Cat
        Nevertheless, after WWII, Knipkamp's suspension was not used by anyone, including the Germans. Indicator, however.

        Yes, I'm just immensely glad that they decided to "ride in comfort" and applied it, otherwise they could have released more tanks and maybe my grandfather could not have reached Prague ...
        1. Crang
          Crang 10 June 2013 01: 04 New
          0
          You see what rams they are. And you say "Panther", "Panther"! There are still legends about "Tigers". it was pretty scary for the infantry and anti-tank equipment since 41. Historians and front-line soldiers hardly notice "Panther" in their memoirs.
          1. svp67
            svp67 10 June 2013 01: 18 New
            0
            Quote: Krang
            Historians and front-line soldiers hardly notice "Panther" in their memoirs.
            But so many "Tigers" were burned that the Germans would not have let them out for a hundred years ... I don't know, but my grandfather spoke very highly of "Panthers", saying that in their brigade one was used for a long time as a "fighter-tanks ". But KV" very much "disliked, because of low reliability, apparently due to the fact that a couple of times did not get under the tribunal for this reason ...
            1. stalkerwalker
              stalkerwalker 10 June 2013 01: 26 New
              +3
              Quote: svp67
              I didn’t like it, because of the low reliability, apparently due to the fact that I didn’t get under the tribunal a couple of times for this reason.

              The Americans, having received a pair of KV-1941С in September 1, were extremely critical of the quality of machining engine parts and transmissions. The air filter finally threw them into shock.
              The very design and the gun - were admired
              1. Crang
                Crang 10 June 2013 01: 31 New
                0
                41st year. And KV-1, not KV-1C. And we are talking about the KV-85 of the second half of the 43rd.
              2. family tree
                family tree 10 June 2013 01: 34 New
                +1
                Quote: stalkerwalker
                The Americans, having received a pair of KV-1941C in September 1, were extremely critical of the quality of processing

                Kv-1S appeared in the 42nd. At the Aberdeen Proving Ground they drove the KV-1 and T-34.
              3. Alex
                Alex 15 September 2013 23: 45 New
                +2
                Yes, the amers then were shocked by all of ours: and the T-34 was not a tank, but a semi-finished product; and HF is good for nothing. They themselves didn’t create much, but they criticized the masters.
            2. Crang
              Crang 10 June 2013 01: 30 New
              0
              Apparently we are talking about the KV-1. And he spoke highly of "Panther", only because he saw her only as an enemy and he did not have to fuck with her in order to appreciate her "unsurpassed reliability." By the way, he correctly called the "Panther" a tank destroyer, not a tank. Feegley - sitting in the bushes in an ambush with such an evil gun, you can fight. But the name of the tank is not at all in this. Not so much in this. You can just plant a cannon or a man with a grenade launcher.
          2. Cat
            Cat 10 June 2013 01: 45 New
            +2
            Crang
            Sorry, but the main ram here is you.
            Because you are trying to convince everyone of the merits of a tank, which can be called an independent model at a stretch. Alteration of the KV-1S, according to the principle "at least something, but here and now."
            The KV-85 armor was penetrated by massive German anti-tank missiles at the main, and the T-V and T-VI guns at all battle distances, while the D-5 gun’s power was insufficient to overcome the enemy’s fortified positions.
            As a transitional option, providing at least some opportunity to fight with new German tanks - yes, as such, the KV-85 still somehow looked. But not more.
            1. Crang
              Crang 10 June 2013 01: 50 New
              0
              Quote: Cat
              Sorry, but the main ram here is you. Because you are trying to convince everyone of the merits of the tank, which can also be called an independent model with a big stretch.

              So brilliant things are created by the Cat.
              Quote: Cat
              The KV-85 armor was penetrated by massive German anti-tank missiles at the main ones, and with the T-V and T-VI guns - at all combat distances,

              Nonsense. I have already said that the main advantage of this tank was the optimal combination of firepower, security and mobility + comfort and convenience for the crew. This is the main thing in it.
              Quote: Cat
              while the power of the D-5 gun was insufficient to overcome the enemy’s fortified positions.

              And they bring in counterbalance to the "Panther" in which it was necessary to think that everything was in order with overcoming the fortified positions of the enemy. Cat - there was a KV-122 and a KV-100 too. They were just fine with that. And artillery must hit the enemy's fortified areas. Well, at least the self-propelled guns that we had heaps of - KV-2, SU-152 (KV-14), ISU-152. Choose the taste. Of these, again, the KV-2 was the most perfect - the prototype of modern ACS.
              1. Cat
                Cat 10 June 2013 02: 21 New
                0
                Quote: Krang
                So brilliant things are created

                in this case this did not happen
                Quote: Krang
                The main advantage of this tank was the optimal combination of firepower, security and mobility

                The T-34-85 had the optimal combination, since in addition to the above, there are also concepts such as "manufacturability" and "maintainability". What qualities the KV series tanks have never differed in.
                Quote: Krang
                And they bring in counterbalance the "Panther" in which, with overcoming the fortified positions of the enemy, one had to think that everything was in order.

                Panther was not intended for such purposes. Its task is to fight tanks, for which there was good frontal armor and a long-barreled gun with high armor penetration. And the breakthrough tank is the Tiger, to compare with which the KV-85 is simply not serious.
                Quote: Krang
                Of these, again, the KV-2 was the most perfect - the prototype of modern self-propelled guns.

                The KV-2 howitzer has a direct-shot range, if I'm not mistaken, of about 300 m, that is, using it to fight tanks is an activity for optimists. And if in 1941 the KV armor completely allowed him to get involved in close combat, then by 1943, due to the massive appearance of 75-mm anti-tank guns among the Germans, the KV-2 had practically no chances.
                Well, shooting along a hinged trajectory, with an elevation angle of about 20 degrees, is not even funny.
                So, about the prototype of the self-propelled guns - you are slightly bent. They often have completely different tasks than those for which the KV-2 was created.
                1. Crang
                  Crang 10 June 2013 02: 34 New
                  -1
                  Quote: Cat
                  in this case this did not happen

                  It happened, but did not make out. Ours then thought with millimeters of armor, but they had a rather vague idea of ​​ergonomics and other wisdom.
                  Quote: Cat
                  The T-34-85 had the optimal combination, since in addition to the above, there are also concepts such as "manufacturability" and "maintainability". What qualities the KV series tanks have never differed in.

                  Only due to reliability and maintainability. But purely in terms of combat characteristics, the T-34-85 merged due to weak armor.
                  Quote: Cat
                  Panther was not intended for such purposes. Its task is to fight tanks, for which there was good frontal armor and a long-barreled gun with high armor penetration.

                  So the Panther is not a tank? Is it fair then to compare it with the SU-100 and SU-152, for example?
                  Quote: Cat
                  And the breakthrough tank is the Tiger, to compare with which the KV-85 is simply not serious.

                  Even funnier ... WHY? Compared by millimeters with "Panther". Can you compare the KV-85 with the "Tiger"? Believe me, the performance characteristics will not be all in favor of the latter. As I said, the KV-85 occupies an intermediate position between the Tiger and Panther.
                  Quote: Cat
                  Well, shooting along a hinged trajectory, at an elevation angle of about 20 degrees, is not even funny. So, about the prototype of the self-propelled guns, you slightly bent. They often have completely different tasks than those for which the KV-2 was created.

                  SAU is a self-propelled artillery mount - essentially artillery on a self-propelled chassis. Its task is to fire from closed positions at remote targets according to the spotter. Why is KV-2 not self-propelled guns like this?
                  1. Cat
                    Cat 10 June 2013 03: 05 New
                    0
                    Quote: Krang
                    Ours then thought with millimeters of armor, but they had a rather vague idea of ​​ergonomics and other wisdom.

                    Reducing the thickness of armor for the sake of ergonomics, in the face of the ever-increasing power of the enemy anti-tank defense system, is a dubious decision. Despite the fact that even the existing, "non-ergonomic" armor was ALREADY insufficient.

                    Quote: Krang
                    Only due to reliability and maintainability. But purely in terms of combat characteristics, the T-34-85 merged due to weak armor.

                    The armor of both T-34-85 and KV-85 made its way through most of the German anti-tank missile systems. The S-53 gun was not inferior to the D-5T, but it was simpler and more technologically advanced. The speed and maneuverability of the T-34 and KV is not even serious to compare.
                    What other combat characteristics can you name (according to which the T-34-85 "merged")?
                    Quote: Krang
                    So the Panther is not a tank? Is it fair then to compare it with the SU-100 and SU-152, for example?

                    Panther is a tank, and T-60 and T-70 are also tanks, and PT-76 is also a tank. Even the Strv 103 is a tank. Only now they were created to perform different tasks in different conditions.
                    Or is it not enough to realize such a truth of your brains (or whatever is in your head)?
                    Quote: Krang
                    Compared by millimeters with "Panther". Can you compare the KV-85 with the "Tiger"? Believe me, the performance characteristics will not be all in favor of the latter. As I said, the KV-85 occupies an intermediate position between the Tiger and Panther.

                    It's not about millimeters. And the fact that both the Tiger and the Panther, at the time of their appearance, could quite successfully solve the tasks for which they were created. But KV-85 - could not, the reasons I have already voiced. Re-read if the first time did not reach.
                    Quote: Krang
                    SAU is a self-propelled artillery mount - essentially artillery on a self-propelled chassis. Its task is to fire from closed positions at remote targets according to the spotter. Why is KV-2 not self-propelled guns like this?

                    Do you have any idea what kind of beast it is - howitzer? and from which such closed positions can she fire, having a maximum elevation angle of 20 degrees?
                    Have you ever encountered information on KV-2 anywhere other than WOT? I doubt it deeply. Otherwise, they would know when and in the calculation of what actions this tank was created. And would not be dishonored here with their conclusions =)
                    1. Crang
                      Crang 10 June 2013 03: 18 New
                      -1
                      Quote: Cat
                      Reducing the thickness of armor for the sake of ergonomics, in the face of the ever-increasing power of the enemy anti-tank defense system, is a dubious decision. Despite the fact that even the existing, "non-ergonomic" armor was ALREADY insufficient.

                      So the German tanks that you praise - they were all built exactly on this principle.
                      Quote: Cat
                      The armor of both the T-34-85 and the KV-85 was penetrated by most of the German anti-tank equipment. The S-53 cannon was not inferior to the D-5T, but it was simpler and more technologically advanced. The speed and maneuverability of the T-34 and the KV is not even serious to compare. What other combat characteristics can you name (according to which the T-34-85 "merged")?

                      How what? By armor. What is this idiotic pharaza: "Armor and T-34-85, and KV-85 penetrated most of the means of the German anti-tank defense system." 37mm anti-tank guns and attack aircraft? 47mm PanzerJager-1? PTR 28-20? "Poopyeong"? Which ones? 20mm cannons into the roof of fighter-bombers? Or do you think that tanks were destroyed only by the same tanks?
                      Quote: Cat
                      Panther is a tank, and T-60 and T-70 are also tanks, and PT-76 is also a tank. Even the Strv 103 is a tank. Only now they were created to perform different tasks in different conditions. Or is it not enough to realize such a truth of your brains (or whatever is in your head)?

                      It seems you haven't enough. The tank is universal offensive weapon... If a tank is "created" only to fight tanks from an ambush (and in defense any weapon is much more effective), then this not a tank... Or then I will now prove to you that following your logic, the SU-100 is a tank, moreover, a tank that, in terms of its effectiveness in fighting enemy tanks, will make the "Panther" like a puppy.
                      Quote: Cat
                      It's not about millimeters. And the fact that both the Tiger and the Panther, at the time of their appearance, could quite successfully solve the tasks for which they were created. But KV-85 - could not, the reasons I have already voiced. Re-read if the first time did not reach.

                      Oh well. "Tiger" appeared in 42 and if it did not meet with the KV-2 or SU-152, it successfully destroyed the T-34 and KV-1 with 76mm cannons. After the appearance of the KV-85, the holiday was over. "Panther" appeared EMNIP in 44th, when powerful Soviet tanks no longer left her superiority.
                      Quote: Cat
                      Do you have any idea what kind of beast it is - howitzer? and from which such closed positions can she fire, having a maximum elevation angle of 20 degrees?

                      Well, of course. For the Americans, the KV-2 was worth its weight in gold on Iwo Jima. And then "Sherman" with its 75mm cannon did not work very well against concrete pillboxes. Yes, even call it an engineering barrage machine KV-2 - one x * r. It won't get any worse.
            2. Kars
              Kars 10 June 2013 09: 26 New
              +1
              Quote: Cat
              Crang
              Sorry, but the main ram here is you.

              hi
              1. Cat
                Cat 10 June 2013 11: 56 New
                +1
                Quote: Krang
                So the German tanks that you praise - they were all built exactly on this principle.

                on which such a German tank during the war was the thickness of the armor reduced? And where exactly did I praise these tanks, poke a finger.
                Quote: Krang
                What kind of VET? 37mm anti-tank guns and attack aircraft? 47mm PanzerJager-1? PTR 28-20? "Poopyeong"? Which ones? 20mm cannons into the roof of fighter-bombers? Or do you think that tanks were destroyed only by the same tanks?

                Pak 40 - adopted by the fall of 1941, during 1942 the rearmament of the anti-aircraft defense unit with this gun took place. Of all Soviet tanks, only the IS-40 could confidently hold the Pak 2 shell.
                Quote: Krang
                If a tank is "created" only for fighting tanks from an ambush (and in defense any weapon is much more effective), then it is not a tank. Or then I will now prove to you that following your logic, the SU-100 is a tank, moreover, a tank that, in terms of its effectiveness in fighting enemy tanks, will make the "Panther" like a puppy.

                Especially, for stupid, I repeat: Tanks are different. In your favorite WOT, there may be ideal tanks, but in real life, any tank is a compromise between security, mobility, firepower, price, etc. etc. An ideal tank does not exist, for the sake of enhancing one characteristic, designers have to sacrifice others. Which ones - depends on the capabilities of a particular military-industrial complex, the conditions of a probable military theater existing at the time of designing the tactics of using BTT, and so on and so forth.
                Regarding the classification - for example, in Germany Panther belonged to a medium tank, in the USSR - to a heavy one. And the Strv 103 I mentioned in all respects is an anti-tank self-propelled gun - which doesn’t stop the Swedes from calling it a tank, who do not give a damn about the opinion of the world community =)
                Quote: Krang
                For the Americans, this KV-2 would have been worth its weight in gold on Iwo Jima.

                Well, yes, and some Richard I for KV-2 is not like gold by weight - he would give his right hand, and his left eye in addition. For the strongholds of the infidels in the Holy Land, as well as the fortifications of the Japanese on Iwo Jima, did not have a strong VET. But the German fortifications, especially in the second half of WWII - had, and even what.

                Well, for a snack ...
                Quote: Krang
                Panther "appeared EMNIP in 44th, when powerful Soviet tanks no longer left her superiority.

                The argument, of course, is very significant, but ... the problem is that accepting it - alas, I won’t drink so much. And other visitors to this site (with the exception of perhaps a couple of unique ones like you) are unlikely to be able to fill in the amount of alcohol that is sufficient to forget the year of the Battle of Kursk.
                1. Kars
                  Kars 10 June 2013 12: 26 New
                  +1
                  _____________________
          3. Kars
            Kars 10 June 2013 09: 25 New
            +1
            Quote: Krang
            Historians and front-line soldiers hardly notice "Panther" in their memoirs

            KV-85 is also unnoticed, even to say that Panther does not notice it much.
        2. Alex
          Alex 15 September 2013 23: 41 New
          +2
          Quote: svp67
          Yes, I'm just immensely glad that they decided to "ride in comfort" and applied it

          It's not about the desire to ride in comfort, it's not a picnic trip after all. This arrangement of the rollers made it possible, first of all, to increase the number of pivot points, which led to a decrease in ground pressure (for a heavy tank, it is important), while not increasing the length of the hull. Smooth running is also a moment, but not for the sake of it such a garden was fenced. With the "Panther" in general, Gomorroi was above the roof and without this creation of Kniepkamp, ​​it is not for nothing that "quick Heinz" called her a difficult child.
      3. svp67
        svp67 10 June 2013 01: 06 New
        0
        Quote: Cat
        Actually, because of these nuances, they abandoned such a scheme
        yes, I agree, but the HF scheme also does not apply ...
        1. Crang
          Crang 10 June 2013 01: 10 New
          0
          Why? What engine is longitudinal?
        2. Cat
          Cat 10 June 2013 01: 13 New
          0
          control compartment - in front, combat - in the center, MTO - in the back. How does this layout differ from that used on most modern tanks?
          1. svp67
            svp67 10 June 2013 01: 20 New
            0
            Quote: Cat
            control compartment - in front, combat - in the center, MTO - in the back. How does this layout differ from that used on most modern tanks?
            You are talking about the general scheme, but the conversation is generally about the features of the transmissions ...
            1. Crang
              Crang 10 June 2013 01: 23 New
              0
              The conversation is just about the general scheme. The "transmission features" of modern tanks differ sharply from both the KV and the Panther.
        3. family tree
          family tree 10 June 2013 01: 25 New
          +1
          Quote: svp67
          Yes, I agree, but the HF scheme is also not applied.

          In fact, this is a Renault FT17 scheme, considered classic, is used on the vast majority of modern tanks.
  • svp67
    svp67 10 June 2013 00: 02 New
    0
    5. Two sights in the KV-85 versus one in the Panther.
    It remains to compare their quality, as again the advantage of HF decreases slightly. The "optics" of the Germans were more "clean", which allowed them to fire up to half an hour more in the morning and evening hours ... Agree, not an unimportant factor.
    1. Crang
      Crang 10 June 2013 00: 21 New
      0
      Yes, important, but two sights against one are also a virtue. Also - again - show me at least one modern tank that has telescopic sight with an exit pupil in the frontal part of the tower? How was the Panther? Yes, the KV-85 also had a telescopic sight, but it also had a periscope sight with a head in the turret roof, which is what all modern tanks have.
  • svp67
    svp67 10 June 2013 00: 04 New
    0
    6. The commander of the KV-85 had a radio station and therefore had direct access to information, against the "Panther" where there was a separate radio operator (as in the early T-34s) who then transmitted information to the commander. In this regard, the command control of the KV-85 tanks was significantly better. And this is very important.

    Here again, QUALITY spoils everything, our radio stations until the end of the war could not equal the German ones in terms of "cleanliness of reception and transmission", especially in motion, so ...
    1. Crang
      Crang 10 June 2013 00: 22 New
      0
      Here I disagree. The radios and TPUs in the KV-85, IS-2 and T-34-85 tanks were already great, although in the early models they really were shit. So the Panther has nothing to cover the KV-85 with.
      1. svp67
        svp67 10 June 2013 00: 54 New
        0
        Quote: Krang
        The radio stations and TPUs in the KV-85, IS-2 and T-34-85 tanks were already excellent,
        And therefore they were replaced by three types, in a short time and, if possible, our tankers removed them and installed American ones ... No, before the "acquisition" of German technologies, our tanks were inferior to German ones ...
        1. Crang
          Crang 10 June 2013 00: 57 New
          0
          Before the acquisition of American technology. Who distorted these technologies (from whom?) With us. You said it yourself. As for the optics, only the quality of the glass itself was worse at first, and the design of the sights was, on the contrary, better. The same is with the Americans. The Sherman M4A3E8 had a sight with a completely "adult" 8x magnification (like the T-72). The Germans did not have this.
          1. svp67
            svp67 10 June 2013 01: 08 New
            0
            Quote: Krang
            , and the construction of sights - on the contrary, is better

            We copied the scheme of the "breaking" sight from the Germans, before that the gunner (tower commander) had to stand up or bend down when aiming ...
  • svp67
    svp67 10 June 2013 00: 10 New
    0
    7. The KV-85 commander had an MK-4 observation device at his disposal, which was capable of carrying out wide-angle observation in a sector of 360 degrees. In addition, the charger had a similar device. The sighting blades in the KV-85 commander's cupola were left as backup (many modern tanks do not have them at all, as unnecessary). Unlike the "Panther" where there were only periscopes in a circle, each of which saw only a narrow sector. Thus, the KV-85 commander did not need to lean out with binoculars from the hatch, risking a splinter or a sniper's bullet, as the Nazis had to do.

    MK-4 is an excellent acquisition of our tanks, it is a pity that it took place too late, although the device itself came to our specialists back in 1939, along with Polish vehicles, but it is a SIMPLE optical device in order to consider what the commander did not care I had to use binoculars. Yes, by the way, the Germans very often used "compass" ... But the "groundhog" method has been used until recently in our armored vehicles ...
    1. Crang
      Crang 10 June 2013 00: 30 New
      0
      It’s obviously earlier than the German tanks, which did not have similar devices until the very end of the war.
  • svp67
    svp67 10 June 2013 00: 11 New
    0
    8. The high-explosive fragmentation effect of the 85mm D-5T gun of the KV-85 was significantly higher than that of the 75mm Panther cannon. Which is important for fighting the infantry.
    It is difficult to argue, except that the latter had higher armor-piercing properties ...
  • svp67
    svp67 10 June 2013 00: 13 New
    0
    9. The "Panther" tower revolved, although faster than the "Tiger", but still slow. The MPB with an electric tower KV-85 threw the cannon onto a newly discovered target at a speed of about 15 deg / s, which was not bad for that time.

    Our wartime bombs did not reach the stated indicators, sparking strongly and not ensuring a smooth turn, which in turn did not allow for accurate fire ...
    1. Crang
      Crang 10 June 2013 00: 31 New
      0
      It is not necessary to cite the Stalingrad T-34 of the 42nd year as an example. MBP at KV-85 was normal.
  • svp67
    svp67 10 June 2013 00: 15 New
    0
    10. The KV-85, for all its complexity and high cost of the Mironov time tank, was simpler and more reliable than the Panthers, which often went out of action without any enemy influence.

    "Panther" was just passing through the period of "childhood illnesses", unlike KV, but if you remember HOW MANY of them he had, then the list will not be small either ...
    1. Crang
      Crang 10 June 2013 00: 32 New
      0
      Well, in terms of reliability, "Panther" is at least not better, but in terms of maintainability and generally shit.
  • Nik
    Nik 14 June 2013 12: 33 New
    0
    In the beginning, the author philosophizes, they say decisions correspond to harsh circumstances. But decisions of executive bodies are always justified and logical, - this is how the state apparatus works. Another thing, when they say, there were no alternatives, that means they hide some previous stupidity, which led to this lack of alternative. Kotin pretty much broke the firewood, in any case it didn’t quite correspond, although the frame was apparently punchy and dexterous, with a considerable amount of mockery the KVs were decoded as Kotin to Voroshilova.
    ps at 41, there were "such" circumstances, and the plant continues to develop unpromising monsters, wasting resources in vain, and this despite the fact that their serial KV was raw and had a reputation among the troops to be ineffective and unreliable, for which Stalin temporarily removed Kotin from office.
    The chief engineer, that's who is responsible for the technical lack of alternatives, it is on the basis of their reviews that decisions are made in the People's Commissars, it is "they" considered it impossible to install a large weapon in the light and weight of the machine, their "authoritative opinion" slowed down the development of medium ACS, and guns for tanks. And as a result, miscalculations - the period from 43g. until autumn 44g, became black for tankers.
  • Alex
    Alex 16 September 2013 00: 04 New
    +2
    So much space was spent on the discussion about the KV-85, but about the cannon on the IP (about which, in fact, the article) - almost nothing. It's a pity.