Military Review

B-3 armored personnel carrier

18
B-3 armored personnel carrier



The B-3 armored personnel carrier was developed in the design bureau of the automobile plant named after them. Stalin in 1944 g. In the same year, the plant produced a prototype of an armored personnel carrier, which did not pass the ground tests at the NIBT range, and therefore was not accepted for service and was not in serial production.

The B-3 armored personnel carrier was an armored semi-tracked vehicle created on the basis of units and parts of a ZIS-5 truck and a light tank T-70. The layout scheme of the armored personnel carrier provided for the front location of the engine compartment, the control compartment in the middle and the troop compartment in the rear of the hull. The crew consisted of two people, and in the landing squad were ten infantrymen with a personal weapons. The landing and exit of the crew of the armored personnel carrier were made through two side doors, located on the left and right sides of the control compartment.

As the main weapon in the troop compartment, an 12,7-mm DShK machine gun could be mounted on a special rack. If necessary, the landing could fire from personal weapons over the sides of the troop compartment.

Armor protection - anti-bullet. According to the project, the welded hull had to be made of armor plates 6 and 15 mm thick, located with rational angle of inclination. On the prototype, the machine body was made of sheets of structural steel of similar thickness.

In the front armor sheet of the engine compartment, fine-strip blinds were made. For access to the power plant elements in the side sheets of the engine compartment was made on one hatch. The troop compartment had no armor roof. For weather protection, a canvas awning was installed above it. For the observation and driving of an armored personnel carrier, there were two inspection hatches in the frontal section of the control compartment, which were closed in a combat situation with armored covers with viewing slots and triplex instruments. In addition, in the entrance doors of the control compartment there was one inspection door, closed from the inside by armored valves. These hatches could also be used to fire the crew’s personal weapons.

The car was equipped with a carburetor six-cylinder engine ZIS-16 of increased power (85 hp (63 kW) at 2600 rpm) with aluminum pistons. The capacity of the fuel tanks was 150 l. The range of the armored personnel carrier on the highway reached 150 km.

The transmission consisted of: main friction (clutch) dry friction and a four-speed gearbox of automobile type, borrowed from a ZIS-5 truck, as well as a final drive with a bevel gearbox. The gearbox provided four forward gears and one gear when reversing.

The following components were used in the undercarriage: the front axle, the design of which was borrowed from a ZIS-5 truck and two automobile wheels with developed lugs, as well as a tracked drive and torsion suspension, the same as in the T-70 light tank. In relation to one side, the caterpillar propulsion unit consisted of four single-row track rollers, a steering wheel of aft location, three supporting rollers and a drive wheel of the front arrangement of the tsevochny gear with a low-speed track. The guide wheels and track rollers had external damping and were interchangeable with each other.

The car was rotated with the help of steering (borrowed from the ZIS-5 car) due to the rotation of the front steer wheels and partial braking of the track of the lagging side. A simple differential was used as a turning mechanism. When traveling over deep snow cover, skis could be mounted on the front steering wheels.

Electrical equipment of the machine was performed on a single-wire circuit. The onboard voltage was 6 B.

After conducting ground tests at the NIBT site, which showed negative results due to engine overheating and extremely low reliability of the units and parts of the machine, work on the B-3 armored personnel carrier was stopped.
18 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. The comment was deleted.
    1. Mikhado
      Mikhado 4 May 2013 08: 40
      +1
      Quote: Canep
      Here is an example when we start copying and nothing happens, it was easier to make an armored personnel carrier based on the T-70 tank. The engine is in front, we remove the turret with a gun, put in its place an armored tank, and on top of a machine gun. A person of 8-10 would fit. And if you need more, the case can be lengthened a little.

      Well, if yes ...
      In the beginning, it was the tanks that were needed, even if they were, because they had already been counted in pieces for the battle for Moscow. And then they considered it more necessary to make the SU-76.
      APCs are a necessary thing, of course, but still auxiliary, and so all the forces strained in the production of armored vehicles. Well, the soldiers riding tanks rode, landing.
      I'm not saying that armored taxis are useless, but apparently I had to choose which is more important.
      1. Blackgrifon
        Blackgrifon 19 May 2013 22: 45
        0
        Unfortunately, the Red Army before the Great Patriotic War was not very interested in armored personnel carriers. It was believed that the army needed only TANKS, and the infantry itself would run.
        1. Snoop
          Snoop 13 January 2017 22: 21
          0
          In fact, the leadership of the Red Army understood everything, including the problems of escorting tanks with their motorized infantry. Another thing is that then it was objectively impossible to create a sane version of the APC. There was no reliable base - the truck chassis. There were no powerful engines. They tried to bring to mind the BA-22, which was supposed to transport the infantry and evacuate the wounded from the battlefield. But it didn’t work out.
          1. Blackgrifon
            Blackgrifon 15 January 2017 15: 43
            0
            The fact of the matter is that nothing came of it. There were many projects. At what the series was sold in metal, but not a single one went into the series. And during the years of the Second World War, Lendlizsky armored personnel carriers practically did not use the main quality - only for reconnaissance and as an artillery. tractors.
            1. Snoop
              Snoop 21 January 2017 07: 55
              0
              Well .. once there were projects, then there were instructions to develop. And you wrote that in the Red Army armored personnel carriers were not at all interested.
              1. Blackgrifon
                Blackgrifon 22 January 2017 16: 22
                0
                And under Peter I, the submarine was designed. So there was also an instruction to "develop"? The BMPT has already been built with half a dozen projects in metal, but was not accepted for service - it must be understood that the Ministry of Defense is interested or not?
                1. Snoop
                  Snoop April 12 2018 08: 43
                  0
                  And here is Peter I?))) There is one comrade on his own initiative, but a whole design bureau worked here. Probably not just that no one will spray the efforts of the design bureau on unnecessary military projects. It is not necessary to make fools of the Soviet military, they supposedly ignored the submachine guns, they did not like the T-34. There were objective reasons for all. As for the fact that motorized infantry must be mounted on wheels and also on protected wheels, ours understood. The problem was the lack of a good base for creating an armored personnel carrier. The Germans had it - they basically created on the basis of their good tractors.
                2. Snoop
                  Snoop April 12 2018 08: 50
                  0
                  In 1937-1938, the DRO plant of the city of Vyksa, by order of the RKKA Sanitary Administration, developed the project of an “armored motorcycle-medical station for the mechanized units of the Red Army” (actually a sanitary armored personnel carrier) based on the GAZ-AAA serial three-axle truck, which was designated BA-22. A prototype armored personnel carrier was built by the factory in September 1938. And by the way, he had a dual purpose for transporting the wounded, as well as for transporting infantrymen. But it did not pass the test, the GAZ-AAA base is not the same, it turned out to be technically unreliable and mobility is not at the level.
                  Here are the reasons for the refusal of the military commission:
                  the prototype BA-22 presented for testing has not been finalized and cannot be accepted for the supply of the Red Army for the following reasons:

                  1. Low engine power.
                  2. The height of the armored hull does not meet the requirements of camouflage.
                  3. Small angle of inclination and thickness of the armor.
                  4. Bulletproof housing is not suitable - protects only from simple bullets.
                  5. Hatches and body doors are not tight.
                  6. The interior equipment of the enclosure does not meet the hygiene requirements regarding cleanliness and amenities.
  2. Canep
    Canep 4 May 2013 08: 38
    +3
    This is an example when we copy and nothing good happens. An armored personnel carrier from SU-76 had to be done. Remove the gun and enough space for 8-10 people.
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 4 May 2013 09: 09
      +6
      We did not copy anything. In the world history of tank building there is even a term "Russian type of tank" - heavy armored vehicles on a tracked chassis. Thanks to the head of the technical department of the Imperial Garage, Frenchman A. Kegresse

      An armored car was designed by Colonel Gulkevich

      And it all started with this:






      Well, the famous
      1. shurup
        shurup 5 May 2013 13: 12
        +1
        Thank you - a good selection of photos.
        And overheating and low reliability were the rule, not the exception. Well, then the driver was then, as now the astronaut in the eyes of the public.
      2. Alex
        Alex 21 September 2013 18: 17
        +2
        Quote: Shovels (1)
        We did not copy anything. In the world history of tank building there is even a term "Russian type of tank" - heavy armored vehicles on a tracked chassis.

        But nothing that BA and armored personnel carriers are somewhat different machines.
    2. Bigriver
      Bigriver 5 May 2013 17: 43
      0
      Quote: Canep
      ... APCs from the SU-76 had to be done. ..

      You propose to do INSTEAD OF Su-76.
      Because there were no free production capacities.
    3. bask
      bask 5 May 2013 19: 33
      +1
      The B-3 armored personnel carrier was developed at the Design Bureau of the Automobile Plant named after Stalin in 1944. In the same year, the plant manufactured a prototype armored personnel carrier that could not stand the polygon.

      Just in 1944, the BTR-T was developed in Germany. The Wehrmacht infantry was to advance along with the Panther tanks
      And then they say that the layout of the BTR-T ,, Ahzarit ,, was invented by the Israelis. Everything was invented even during the Second World War.
      German caterpillar conveyor, Katzhen ,, (kitten). Created by the German company ,,, Autounion, in 1944. Fully armored tracked armored personnel carrier, which could carry up to 8 troops and pull a gun with ammunition. ,, Katzchen ,, was welded from armored rolled sheets located at large angles. The front wheel ,, Katzchen ,, was the driving one. On the armored personnel carrier was installed
      engine ,, Maybach ,,, with a capacity of 180 l / s. TTHD: Length-4,2 m? Width-2,3 m, Height-1,4 m. Reservation; forehead-20 mm, side-15 mm, hull-side-20 mm, feed-20 mm. m
      Could become the main armored personnel carrier of the Wehrmacht, but did not go into the series.



  3. Canep
    Canep 4 May 2013 12: 02
    +2
    The prototype was probably
    1. sergius60
      sergius60 4 May 2013 12: 10
      +1
      Nope, the B-3 looks more like a "polosatikovsky" M-3. But that "dviglo" was almost twice as powerful.
  4. AlexVas44
    AlexVas44 5 May 2013 10: 03
    +1
    Quote: Canep
    This is an example when we copy and nothing good happens.

    Quote: Spade
    We did not copy anything


    Presumably, having no groundwork on the domestic BTR, the designers had to turn to the already belligerent American Half-Track Personel Carrier M3 and the German Sd Kfz 251/10 Ausf.C Hanomag, but something could have happened if there was a corresponding engine. probably in 1944 there was no longer an urgent need to load industry with such a model.
  5. shurup
    shurup 5 May 2013 13: 07
    0
    M-dya. It’s problematic to put it on the rails. In Europe, the roads are good, so regular trucks were enough.