Military Review

Chinese tank building: from copying to original designs

18
One of the modern reasons for the pride of the Chinese defense industry is the Type 99 main tank. At the moment, this fighting vehicle is the highest achievement of tank builders in China and combines all the latest developments in this area. Chinese military and industrialists often call the Type 99 tank one of the best representatives of its class in the world. It is argued that it surpasses most modern tanks and second only to a few types. The correctness of such statements is a topic for another discussion. Nevertheless, one cannot fail to admit that over the past half century or more, China has come a long way in the field of tank building and has now formed a full-fledged design school. To do this, he needed to spend a lot of time, effort and money that went into the design and manufacture of several models of tanks.


It should be noted that the Chinese military met with tanks before the formation of the PRC. The first armored vehicles of this class appeared in China during the so-called. The era of militarists. In the mid-twenties, the Fentean clique, led by Zhang Zolin, bought the X-NUMX light tanks FT-36 from France, which became the first Chinese technology of this class. Later, after the unification of China, the new government began to buy small batches of tanks of different models from the UK and Italy. In total, only a few dozen tanks were acquired. The reason for this was both the insufficient financial capacity of the country and the lack of understanding of the role of tanks in the war. A similar attitude towards tanks persisted until the end of the thirties. In 17, China acquired less than a hundred T-1938 tanks from the Soviet Union, most of which were lost in battles with Japan.

FT-17


Until the mid-fifties, Chinese tank forces exploited foreign-made equipment. At the same time, armored vehicles of Soviet, American and even Japanese production were encountered in different parts. Only in the fifties, official Beijing decided to start building tanks independently at its own production facilities.

"Type 59"

In the fifties, the Soviet Union delivered a number of medium-sized T-54 tanks to China. Shortly after the start of operation of these machines, the Chinese leadership acquired a license from the USSR to build them. In 1957, Plant No.617 (Baotou City), having received Soviet documentation, assembled the first batch of Chinese-made tanks. T-54, slightly modified in accordance with the capabilities of the Chinese industry, was named "Type 59" (also found the designation WZ-120).



Being a licensed copy of the T-54 tank, the “59 Type” retained its main features: its design, layout, and various units. At the same time the power plant, weapons and other equipment changed their name. Thus, the X-NUMX-mm rifled gun D-100T was produced in China under the name "Type 10T". The same designation was given to SGMT machine guns, one of which was paired with a gun, and the second was placed in the front hull plate. The aiming devices and communications equipment, like the other units of the tank, were produced under license and differed from the Soviet ones only with new names. In this case, the Chinese tank did not receive night vision devices. The 59L diesel engine was also copied from the Soviet one used on the T-12150. Engine power 54 HP provided the Chinese tank "Type 540" mobility at the level of the Soviet T-59.



Production of the tank "Type 59" continued from 1957 to 1961 year, after which the Chinese factories began to build armored vehicles of the new version "Type 59-I". It differed from the base model with an updated 69-II Type 100 mm gun, night vision devices and a ballistic computer with manual data entry. Over time, all tanks "Type 59" were refitted to the state "Type 59-II." In the future, the upgraded cars were equipped with a laser rangefinder, onboard screens and new ballistic computers.

From 1982 to 1985, the Chinese defense industry built 59-I type tanks. Their main difference from the previous tanks of this family was the 105-mm rifled gun “Type 81” with an ejector and heat shield, which is a copy of the English L7 gun. On the basis of this modification was created tank "Type 59-IIA". Combined armor was limited in its design.

Serial production of tanks "Type 59" ended in 1987 year. Over 30 years, over 10 thousand combat vehicles of seven modifications were built. The bulk of the tanks built in the eighties, was exported. Currently, tanks "Type 59" remain in service with 17 countries. Some of them carried out an independent modernization of this technology, and also developed other types of equipment on a tank chassis.

"Type 63"

In the mid-fifties, the Soviet Union handed over to the People's Republic of China several light amphibious tanks PT-76. The Chinese military studied this technique and expressed a desire to get such tanks of their own production. Already in the 1959 year began testing a floating tank "Type 60". The design of this car had several major flaws, because of which the customer refused to develop a new one. In this regard, the Chinese tank builders began a new project, during which it was supposed to get rid of existing problems.

The resulting “63 Type” tank is in general terms similar to the Soviet PT-76. However, there are several major differences. Thus, the workplace of the driver was shifted to the port side, and the crew was increased to four people. The Chinese amphibious tank was armed with an 85-mm rifled 62-85 type gun, a rifle-caliber machine gun and a large-caliber anti-aircraft machine gun paired with it.

For movement on water, the 63 Type amphibious tank, like the Soviet PT-76, used two water cannons in the stern. However, in addition to such propulsion, the Chinese war machine could float, rewinding the tracks.

Type 63 in the exposition of the Military Museum in Beijing


For several years of production, a series of modifications of the “Type 63” was created. All of them differed from each other by small changes in the composition of equipment, etc. The most interesting modification is “Type 63HG”. This amphibious tank had higher seaworthiness compared to the base machine. In addition, he received a 105-mm rifled gun, which greatly increased the combat potential.

On the basis of the tank "Type 63" was created several armored vehicles of various classes. Over the years, more than 1500 of such tanks were built, some of which were supplied by China to third countries. Currently, the Chinese army uses about 500 such tanks. Also, a certain number of machines "Type 63" remains in service with North Korea, Pakistan, Sudan, Vietnam and other countries.

"Type 69" and "Type 79"

The first Chinese tank of its own design is considered "Type 69", created in the seventies. Initially, this project meant a deep modernization of one of the modifications of the tank "Type 59", but the military abandoned the armored vehicle thus created. In 1969, the Chinese army succeeded in capturing a Soviet T-62 tank. Chinese experts have carefully studied the captured car and took into account some of the nuances of its design and equipment. The project "Type 69" finalized in accordance with the information received. Soon began the mass construction of a new tank.

The tank "Type 69" had a fighting mass of 36,7 tons and was equipped with a diesel engine with an output of 580 hp. The hull and tower of the car were similar to the corresponding units of the “Type 59”, but at the same time they differed in thickness of some elements. As the main weapons "Type 69" got a rifled gun "Type-69-II". Additional armament was similar to armored vehicles of the previous model. It was supposed to equip the tank with modern sighting devices, communication systems, laser range finder and ballistic computer.



According to some sources, the tank “Type 69” in its serial form did not quite suit the customer in the person of the Chinese armed forces. In this regard, the latest combat vehicle for several years was in trial operation, and the adoption of the weapons took place only in 1982 year. At the same time, the new tank was first demonstrated to the general public. Probably the cause of claims by the military were insufficient characteristics of the tank. In terms of its firepower, it was slightly superior to the “Type 59” of later modifications and significantly inferior to modern foreign tanks.

Nevertheless, the tanks "Type 69" interested foreign customers. The first export contract was signed in 1983 year with Iraq. Following the Iraqi military, other third-world countries, primarily Asian, showed their interest in the new Chinese design. Only the countries of the Middle East in total acquired more than two thousand tanks "Type 69". In addition, contracts with Pakistan and Sudan included the assembly of tanks in local enterprises. Some units were made by countries independently, some were purchased from China.



During the modernization of the project "Type 69" appeared a modification "Type 69-III." Due to significant changes in the design, weapons and equipment, Chinese tank builders decided to give this development the status of a separate project called “Type 79”. This tank was equipped with an 105-mm gun "Type 83" with a casing, hp 730 diesel engine. and a number of special equipment made in England. Marconi provided a laser range finder, a ballistic computer and sights to Chinese tank builders. "Type 79" became the first Chinese tank with an automatic anti-nuclear defense system. In addition, for the first time in Chinese practice, the tank received a system for dynamic protection of frontal projection.

"Type 80"

Tank "Type 79", in contrast to the "Type 69", complied with the requirements of the Chinese military. However, against the background of foreign success, the future of this armored vehicle looked ambiguous. In this regard, work began on updating the project "Type 79" in order to improve the characteristics of the promising tank. The new model of armored vehicles was named "Type 80".



The tank "Type 80" was created based on the experience gained in previous projects, but there were many innovations in its design. As the basis for this tank they took a modified chassis of the machine "Type 79". The armored hull was slightly lengthened, due to which the chassis had to be equipped with six track rollers on each side. First time in stories Chinese tank building armored "Type 80" received a fully welded turret, which significantly increased the level of protection. The basis of the power plant was a diesel engine 1215OL-7BW, produced under the German license. With power 730 hp he provided the 38-ton tank with a maximum speed of 56 km / h.

In the turret of the tank "Type 80" installed 105-mm rifled gun "Type 83", stabilized in two planes, already used on previous Chinese armored vehicles. For fire control, Chinese experts have developed a number of special systems, but the laser rangefinder was manufactured under an English license. Additional armament "Type 80" consisted of large-caliber anti-aircraft and paired with a gun 7,62-mm machine guns.

Shortly after the "Type 80" tank, its advanced version "Type 80-II" appeared. She was distinguished by the presence of new equipment. It was a Chinese laser rangefinder, a system for testing equipment, enhanced protection for sighting devices, and an upgraded system of protection against weapons of mass destruction.

"Type 85"

In the mid-eighties, the Chinese defense industry upgraded the 80 Type tank. It was assumed that the slightly modified "Type 80" will be adopted by the Chinese army, but its combat characteristics did not suit the potential customer. It was decided to focus on the creation of the next generation of main tanks. This took into account the need to improve the fleet of existing equipment. The project "Type 85" was developed to improve the performance of already built tanks "Type 80".



The first two versions of the “Type 85” project implied the installation of new equipment on the “Type 80” tanks or the use of combined armor. Significant innovations followed in the project "Type 85-II". Instead of a 105-mm rifled gun, this tank was to receive an 125-mm smooth-bore gun, copied from the Soviet 2-46. In addition, the “Type 85-II” was supposed to be equipped with an automatic loader, which allowed the crew to be reduced to three people. According to available information, the Middle East wars contributed to the creation of an updated tank with an 125-mm gun, as a result of which a certain number of Soviet-made T-72 tanks went into China through third countries.

In the mid-nineties, the tank was shown "Type 85-MMB". He was a machine model "Type 85-II" with a reinforced combined armor, a new fire control system and sights with a night channel.

To date, about 600 tanks "Type 80" in the Chinese armed forces converted to the state "Type 85". Another 300 machine modification "Type 85-II" with a caliber 125 mm was built in Pakistan under a Chinese license. Pakistan was also offered a modification of the “Type 85-III” with a more powerful engine and new equipment, but a potential customer rejected the possibility of purchasing this equipment.

"Type 88"

The project "Type 88", as well as "Type 85", was intended to improve the existing technology of previous models. The basis for the new tank was the "Type 80". The main changes regarding the base armored vehicle were in the updated elements of the armored hull and some new devices. Part of the hull and turret changes were made to install the dynamic protection system blocks. To increase the rate of fire, the new tank received loading mechanisms to facilitate the work of the crew. Tank "Type 88" was adopted by the Chinese army in the late eighties.



Specifically for the modification "Type 88" was updated tool "Type 83". In the new version, this 105-mm gun had a barrel of greater length, which significantly increased its capabilities. Minor changes have been made to the propelling mechanisms. On the case and the tower of the combat vehicle installed blocks of the dynamic protection system of a new type.

Simultaneously with the "Type 88A" was developed "Type 88B". This modification of the main tank received an improved automatic loading, as well as a new fire control system. To simplify the subsequent serial production, the tanks “Type 88A” and “Type 88B” were maximally unified.

Unlike previous versions, the tank "Type 88C" was created on the basis of the model "Type 85-II." Initially, the “Type 88C” was a basic machine equipped with a 125-mm smoothbore weapon with an automatic loader and a new fire control system. In the future, the tank of this model received a new 1000 hp engine. Shortly after the tests of the “Type 88C” tank were completed, the new fire control system was integrated into previous projects of the “88” family.

Currently, the Chinese armed forces have no more than 450-500 tanks "Type 88" of all modifications. Over 200 tanks "Type 88B" were delivered to Burma. Other countries showed interest in the new Chinese tank, but did not express a desire to acquire it.

"Type 90"

In the nineties, Chinese tank builders created several new main tanks, which were a deep modernization of the 85 Type combat vehicle. The first version of the project "Type 90" had the same composition of weapons and equipment as the basic combat vehicle. All improvements related to the tower and armored corps. "Type 90" became the first Chinese tank with a modular architecture of armor. This means that some elements of the hull could be replaced during repair or conversion. In particular, in the future, it was intended to re-equip the 90 Type tanks with new combined armor with higher protection characteristics. Several prototypes of such a tank were built, but they did not suit the Chinese army.



The failure to supply its own armed forces pushed the authors of the project to continue working on new modifications. Thus, the tank "Type 90-I" was designed specifically for supplying Pakistan. At the request of the customer, it was equipped with an English-made Perkins Shrewsbury CV12 diesel engine and a SESM ESM 500 French transmission. By that time, these units were already used on the Challenger 2 and Leclerc tanks, respectively. In the late nineties, Pakistan conducted nuclear tests, one of the results of which was an arms embargo on this country. Due to the absence of engines and transmissions, the project “Type 90-I” was closed.

The embargo forced Chinese tank builders to find a way to fulfill the Pakistani order. So there was a project "Type 90-II". It was supposed to replace foreign-made components with Chinese counterparts. Tests have shown that the available engines and transmission systems can not be compared with units of English and French production. Because of this, the project “Type 90-II” was also closed due to the lack of prospects.

The problem of the power plant was solved at the beginning of the two thousandth, when Chinese designers created a tank "Type 90-MMB", equipped with a Ukrainian-made 6TD-2 diesel engine. This engine was able to provide the necessary power density and the work on the project continued. The result of the joint work of the PRC and Pakistan was the creation of the main tank Al-Khalid, currently used by Pakistani, Bangladeshi and Moroccan military. Production of tanks is carried out at the enterprises of China and Pakistan.

"Type 96"

In the mid-nineties, the Chinese defense industry created a new tank, combining all the advanced developments of the “Type 83” and “Type 90” projects. The resulting main tank "Type 96" received a modular combined armor, diesel engine with a power 1000 hp, gun caliber 125 mm and modern electronics. Roughly in 1997, the “Type 96” went into series, replacing the “Type 88”, the production of which stopped.



From the previous machines "Type 96" significantly different design of some elements of the hull and tower. In this case, the maximum differences were observed in electronic equipment. The new automated fire control system was paired with a laser rangefinder and sights with a thermal imaging channel. It was argued that tanks "Type 96" equipped with a laser system of optical-electronic countermeasures.

According to reports, the tank "Type 96" is currently the most massive machine of its class in the composition of the Chinese ground forces. According to various sources, from the end of the nineties, 2000-2500 of such tanks were built. 200 armored vehicles of this type were purchased by Sudan.

"Type 98"

Back in the eighties, Chinese tank builders began work on a promising tank, able to stand on an equal footing with foreign combat vehicles. The first version of this tank was the "Type 98". A characteristic feature of this project was the wide use of new ideas that had not previously been encountered in the tank building industry of China. In particular, the “Type 98” received a welded turret with a developed feeding niche, in which the ammunition was placed. Earlier, the ammunition of Chinese tanks was placed inside the hull. Such a "know-how", peeped from Western designers, had specific consequences: the loader returned to the crew.



During the development of the project "Type 98" had to return to the idea of ​​using the automatic carousel loader type, used on some previous tanks. Thanks to this, the crew of the new Type 98G combat vehicle was again reduced to three people. In addition, the updated tank received a Chinese-made 150HB engine with an HP 1200 power.

According to reports, only a few dozen tanks "Type 98" and "Type 98G" were built. These combat vehicles were not widely used, but they became the basis for the newest Chinese tank.

"Type 99"

The most advanced and modern tank in the Chinese army is the "Type 99" and its modifications. This combat vehicle was created taking into account both Chinese and global experience in tank building. The armored hull and turret are equipped with a combination armor that increases the level of protection. To protect the tank from guided weapons also applies a laser countermeasure system. Accurate data on the use of dynamic protection systems is missing.



The tank "Type 99" is equipped with an engine power 1500 HP, which is a copy of the German diesel MB871ka501. Despite the combat weight of about 54 tons, the tank "Type 99" is able to move on the highway at speeds up to 80 km / h. In addition, the engine provides a fairly high speed over rough terrain.

The tank armament complex “Type 99” is reminiscent of that used on modern Russian tanks. A smooth-bore gun stabilized in two planes of the 125-mm is associated with a carousel-type automatic loader. In the styling of the combat vehicle 41 is placed separately-cartridge shot, 22 of which are in the cells of the automatic loader. Ammunition includes shells of various types. In addition, there is information about the creation in China of a guided missile suitable for use with an existing tank gun.

The tank "Type 99", according to available data, has a set of equipment, typical of all modern combat vehicles. The commander and gunner have stabilized sights with a thermal imaging channel. There is also a laser range finder, a ballistic computer and a target tracking machine. It is alleged that the tank fire control system “Type 99” allows you to accurately determine the location of the combat vehicle and, if necessary, fire from closed positions.

A few years ago, an updated tank was shown called “Type 99A1”. From the original car, it differed in some changes in the shape of the tower. They were probably due to some technological reasons.

Further development of the newest Chinese tank was the machine "Type 99A2". Great changes undergone fire control system and sighting devices. In addition, new tanks are supposed to be equipped with a system to display information about the battlefield. Instead of a laser defense system against anti-tank systems, it is proposed to use an active protection complex.

Chinese tank building: from copying to original designs


Over the past few years, about 500 tanks "Type 99" of all modifications were built. According to some reports, the bulk of these tanks built in accordance with the project "Type 99". Due to their complexity, the updated versions are produced in relatively small batches and have not yet gained widespread use in armored forces.

Past, present and future

As you can see, for several decades, the tankers of the PRC were able to go through a difficult path from assembling combat vehicles under license to designing armored vehicles themselves. It should be noted that part of the Chinese tank projects are directly connected with each other. Each subsequent of these projects is a development of the previous one. In the end, this “family tree” goes back to the tank “Type 59” and, as a result, to the Soviet T-54. From this fact we can draw several conclusions, both about the modernization potential of the T-54 tank, and about the cautious approach of the Chinese designers to the creation of new technology. The latter conclusion is confirmed by the fact that for a long time China’s tanks were built on the principle of upgrading equipment and weapons. Noticeable changes at once in all elements of the appearance of combat vehicles began to appear only with the creation of the "eightieth" series. Finally, the latest Chinese tanks show that a similar approach to the design of technology has been established and is being actively used.

For obvious reasons, Chinese tank building has always been forced to catch up with world leaders, at the same time mastering new technologies and technical solutions. The lag was particularly vivid in the seventies and eighties. Because of the limited capabilities of the defense industry in the hypothetical armed conflict of this time, the Chinese ground forces would have to deal with a deliberately superior enemy. Potential opponents of China by that time already had full-fledged main tanks with combined armor and 120 or 125 mm caliber guns. It is unlikely that tanks like the "Type 69" could cope with similar equipment of the enemy.

In the nineties, the situation began to change rapidly. Tanks with homogeneous armor and 100- or 105-millimeter guns have been replaced by newer and more advanced machines. At the moment, the newest and best Chinese tank is the "Type 99". By its appearance, this combat vehicle corresponds to modern foreign models. However, according to some estimates, the “Type 99” and even its latest modifications cannot be fully considered a modern tank. There is some reason to believe that the lag of Chinese tank building still lasts and the “Type 99” corresponds to foreign machines created no later than the end of the eighties.

It is worth noting that the comparison of the latest Chinese tanks with the latest foreign ones is difficult for some reasons. After the end of the Cold War, the leaders of the world tank-building industry - Russia, the USA, Great Britain, Germany and France - slowed down the pace of development of new cars. In recent decades, these countries are mainly engaged in the modernization of existing tanks. China, in turn, did not stop its work in the direction of the development of heavy armored vehicles. Thus, the comparison of Chinese and foreign tanks turns into a difficult task, since lately China could catch up with competitors, at least in certain directions.

For all the complexity of comparing modern tanks, you can make one simple conclusion regarding Chinese armored vehicles. Over the past few decades, Chinese engineers have done a lot for the development of tank building. To date, China is able to produce armored vehicles, which in a number of parameters can be compared with the developments of leading countries. This means that Chinese designers are already working on new projects, and the “premiere” of a promising combat vehicle can take place as soon as possible. It is not known what its characteristics will be, but it cannot be excluded that this time the Chinese tank builders will succeed in creating a fully modern tank.


On the materials of the sites:
http://globalsecurity.org/
http://sinodefence.com/
http://army-guide.com/
http://armyrecognition.com/
http://armor.kiev.ua/
http://army-technology.com/
http://defencereviewasia.com/
http://vpk-news.ru/
Author:
18 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. tronin.maxim
    tronin.maxim 7 October 2013 09: 41 New
    +8
    From carbon to the original. I would not be surprised if in the near future we meet a good tank of a new generation based on advanced ideas and developments. Chinese affairs are of little interest to me, the main thing is that we all have type top!
    1. vjhbc
      vjhbc 7 October 2013 20: 49 New
      +1
      video in topic
  2. Civil
    Civil 7 October 2013 09: 42 New
    0
    They say that we got an abrams and a leopard, so we need to wait for a new leap in technology and design
    1. xetai9977
      xetai9977 7 October 2013 09: 56 New
      +5
      They have already sent a lot for export. Mostly to Africa.
    2. Canep
      Canep 7 October 2013 12: 09 New
      +2
      Well done Chinese, learn from the mistakes of others. But with this approach, they will never be higher than in second place.
    3. Airman
      Airman 7 October 2013 15: 58 New
      0
      Quote: Civil
      They say that we got an abrams and a leopard, so we need to wait for a new leap in technology and design

      To get tanks, this does not mean to get technology. The Germans during the war had many captured T-34s, but could not make tank armor, despite the good metallurgical industry. So in the near future from the "copywriters" an excellent modern tank can not be expected.
  3. kotvov
    kotvov 7 October 2013 10: 01 New
    +3
    they steal and build, and they have their own? the appearance does not determine the combat qualities, but how reliable? until the equipment has passed the test in combat conditions, all these statements are like: improved, best-empty talk.
    1. Akim
      Akim 7 October 2013 11: 15 New
      +4
      Quote: kotvov
      until the equipment has been tested in combat conditions, all these statements are like: improved, best-empty talk

      ZTZ-96 fought with the T-72M2 (former T-72B but without KUV) on the African continent.
      1. T80UM1
        T80UM1 9 October 2013 08: 56 New
        0
        and 72 were utterly defeated, indicating China's success in designing modern tanks.
  4. chunga-changa
    chunga-changa 7 October 2013 10: 05 New
    +1
    Great article, thanks to the author.
  5. Prapor-527
    Prapor-527 7 October 2013 12: 03 New
    +1
    It is not known what its characteristics will be, but it cannot be ruled out that this time the Thai tank builders will be able to create a fully modern tank. Healthy competition will only benefit domestic tank building - there will be a great incentive to create advanced armored vehicles in the shortest possible time. They’re already breathing in the back ...
  6. silver_roman
    silver_roman 7 October 2013 12: 44 New
    +1
    Well, I don’t know. According to the last picture of type-99 - its modification shows that vertical slabs are installed in the projection of the tower. I don’t understand: this is either DZ and combined protection - it does not matter. The important thing is that at such an angle it is at least stupid to put it. Again, the swallows t-34 showed that the greater the angle of inclination of the armor, the greater the thickness of the armor. elementary geometry and no more. The likelihood of a rebound rises significantly. The Germans personally became convinced of this when the unfortunate 40 mm of armor was not taken by German guns due to the rebound.
    The whole story with the Chinese tank building reminds the latest data from the Turkish tank, about the 5th generation Indonesian aircraft. The same j-31 - cheap stuff, copied from fu-22.
    Of course, the enemy should not be underestimated, but until these tanks have proved their worth in military operations, it is too early to draw conclusions. At least there would be information about shelling of armor. And so in fact PR and no more.
    At a minimum, to judge China’s MBT, you need to consider their tank shells. I am sure that there are stern Soviet people there too! in general, everything is subjective.
    1. postman
      postman 7 October 2013 13: 41 New
      0
      Quote: silver_roman
      the Germans were personally convinced of this when the unfortunate 40 mm of armor was not taken by German guns due to rebound.

      which ones? 37 mm PTO?
      A test report on the firing of T-34 and KB tanks from an 88-mm German tank gun, conducted at the NIBT training ground on May 12, 1943.

      CONCLUSIONS.

      1. An armor-piercing shell of a German 88-mm tank gun pierces the frontal armor of the hulls of the KV-1 and T-34 tanks from a distance of 1500 meters.
      2. A high-explosive fragmentation shell of a German 88-mm tank gun produces minor damage to welds in the armor of the hulls of the KV-1 and T-34 tanks and does not disable the tanks.
      .

      1. postman
        postman 7 October 2013 13: 42 New
        +1
        "Report on the production of experimental artillery firing of the 9th tank
        The results of shelling of the T-34 tank with the 88-mm cannon of the Tiger tank from a distance of 1500 meters of the hull of the T-VI tank, carried out on July 20 and 21, 1943.

        1. recrut6666
          recrut6666 7 October 2013 17: 59 New
          +1
          the quality of the T-34 armor in wartime was radically different from that presented for the test, which tankers complained about, when they hit the tank without even breaking through the armor, it produced a lot of fragments inside the tower, a lack of qualified personnel, additives and other delights of the war ,,, ,
          1. postman
            postman 7 October 2013 19: 00 New
            0
            Quote: recrut6666
            the quality of the T-34 armor in wartime was radically different from that presented for testing,

            tests were carried out on real tanks that ours, that German
      2. nerd.su
        nerd.su 7 October 2013 16: 22 New
        +3
        Quote: Postman
        A test report on the firing of T-34 and KB tanks from an 88-mm German tank gun, conducted at the NIBT training ground on May 12, 1943.

        Just in case, I remind you that the war began on June 22, 1941. The Germans did not have an 88 mm tank gun. And with the t-34 and with rational angles of inclination of the armor, they met just at that time.
        1. Kars
          Kars 7 October 2013 16: 29 New
          +2
          Quote: bot.su
          88 mm German tank gun

          they had 88 mm anti-aircraft guns.
          Quote: bot.su
          with rational tilt angles of armor they met

          even in France, at least most likely much earlier.
          1. nerd.su
            nerd.su 7 October 2013 17: 05 New
            +3
            Quote: Kars
            they had 88 mm anti-aircraft guns.

            Well, the same anti-aircraft guns! And meetings with our tanks forced them to create a tank gun from anti-aircraft guns.
            1. Kars
              Kars 7 October 2013 17: 46 New
              +4
              Quote: bot.su
              Well, the same anti-aircraft guns! And meetings with our tanks forced them to create a tank gun from anti-aircraft guns.

              Well, they did it right. Yes, and they started to shoot from the flasks at the Matilda.
              At the same time, the 85 mm cannon on the T-34 is also a former anti-aircraft gun. The Su-100 received a naval gun, and the Is-2 was forcedly armed with a cannon.
              1. postman
                postman 7 October 2013 18: 59 New
                +1
                Quote: Kars
                .Yes, and they started shooting from the flasks at Matildam.

                by T-26

                88 mm guns came in handy on May 21, 1939 when Rommel’s 7th Panzer Division was attacked by units of the English 50th Division and 1st Army Tank Brigade, armed with Matilda medium tanks. German 37 mm anti-tank guns could not cause significant harm to British tanks, and only eight or eight stopped the British advance.

                It was already very light when the battalion of tanks Matilda, who led the attack, began to overcome the last section separating it from the enemy. The first message came from the commander of the tank battalion over the radiotelephone: "They are smashing my tanks to pieces," was the last message. In a tank trap that Rommel created by placing four 88-mm guns near the pass, rightly called by the English soldiers the “Hellfire Pass”, of 13 tanks, Matilda survived only one.
              2. nerd.su
                nerd.su 8 October 2013 20: 55 New
                0
                Quote: Kars
                At the same time, the 85 mm gun on the T-34 is also a former anti-aircraft gun.

                Most sources claim that the 85-mm tank guns are based on existing tank guns, but some do say that the anti-aircraft gun was the basis. I think the confusion arose because the d-5t and s-53 guns were designed for 85mm ammunition of this anti-aircraft gun. Based on the design of all the same tank guns.
                But I will not argue, even if on the basis of an anti-aircraft gun, it still had to be redone for installation on a tank, that is, to create a tank gun.
                The sea gun certainly cannot be put in a self-propelled gun, and even more so in a tank without a radical alteration.
                1. Kars
                  Kars 8 October 2013 20: 58 New
                  +3
                  Quote: bot.su
                  it still had to be redone

                  Does this prove something?
                  Quote: bot.su
                  that the anti-aircraft gun was the basis

                  I can even say more that the 85 mm anti-aircraft gun was made on the basis of the GERMAN 76.2 anti-aircraft guns which the Germans made for the USSR.
                  1. nerd.su
                    nerd.su 9 October 2013 00: 11 New
                    0
                    Quote: Kars
                    Does this prove something?

                    Yes, that the anti-aircraft gun is the anti-aircraft gun, and the tank gun is the tank gun.

                    Quote: Kars
                    I can even say more that the 85 mm anti-aircraft gun was made on the basis of the GERMAN 76.2 anti-aircraft guns which the Germans made for the USSR.

                    Yes, where does it? Everything started with the postman because he, without realizing it, doubted the effectiveness of using rational tilt angles of the armor on the basis that the German 88mm tank gun easily penetrated the t-1943 armor in 34. And I say that inclined armor is an effective defense and the appearance of 88mm tank (and anti-tank) guns is the Germans' recognition of this effectiveness. Since the existing caliber VET could not cope. And the anti-aircraft gun, it should ideally provide air defense.

                    So our dialogue with you is meaningless. Or do you also think that inclined armor does not have advantages in strength over boxes? especially for that period ...
                    1. Kars
                      Kars 9 October 2013 00: 24 New
                      +1
                      Quote: bot.su
                      Yes, that the anti-aircraft gun is the anti-aircraft gun, and the tank gun is the tank gun.

                      And so what? Now, if you had proven that the anti-aircraft gun could not shoot at the tanks, it would be another matter.
                      Quote: bot.su
                      And I say that inclined armor is an effective defense and the appearance of 88mm tank (and anti-tank) guns is the Germans' recognition of this effectiveness

                      No, it’s not, I mean recognition.
                      Quote: bot.su
                      Since the existing caliber VET could not cope.

                      the main caliber of the German VET 75 mm, and the development of the PAK 40 began in the year 1938.
                      Quote: silver_roman
                      Again, swallows t-34 showed that the greater the angle of inclination of the armor, the greater the thickness of the armor. elementary geometry and no more. The likelihood of a rebound rises significantly. The Germans personally became convinced of this when the unfortunate 40 mm armor was not taken by German guns due to the rebound

                      Are you talking about this? This statement is too exaggerated, neither the caliber nor the type of guns are indicated. Especially considering that in addition to 88 mm, there were Czech 47 mm, 100 mm, and so on.
                      Quote: bot.su
                      Or do you also think that inclined armor does not have advantages in strength over boxes? especially for that period ...

                      There were advantages, but only pushing the tilt, and even more so giving it off as the T-34 know-how, is not very good. Although I still wonder why the Germans did not decide to apply a small tilt on the 1 Tiger
                      1. nerd.su
                        nerd.su 9 October 2013 13: 28 New
                        0
                        Quote: Kars
                        And so what? Now, if you had proven that the anti-aircraft gun could not shoot at the tanks, it would be another matter.

                        Yes, maybe, but so what? And who will shoot at planes? I already wrote here to the indefatigable postman that when the T-34s were being developed, the main caliber of the VET was 37-50 mm. PAK 40 began to be designed only in 1938. In 1940 prototypes were made. And the series was launched only at the end of autumn 1941, when it became clear that the blitzkrieg failed, and thirty-four became every day not less, but more.

                        Quote: Kars
                        No, it’s not, I mean recognition.

                        Well, then what is the reason for the appearance of German tank and anti-tank guns of 88mm caliber in 1943?


                        Quote: Kars

                        Are you talking about this? This statement is too exaggerated, neither the caliber nor the type of guns are indicated. Especially considering that in addition to 88 mm, there were Czech 47 mm, 100 mm, and so on.

                        Well, yes, there is a simplified understanding. By the way, do not tell me how many and what kind of guns Germany had before the attack on the USSR and how the ratio changed during the war. I just can’t find such statistics ...


                        Quote: Kars
                        There were advantages, but only pushing the tilt, and even more so giving it off as the T-34 know-how, is not very good. Although I still wonder why the Germans did not decide to apply a small tilt on the 1 Tiger

                        Pushing the slope is not worth it. The know-how was not the inclined position of the armor, but the determination of the rational angles of inclination of the armor. Some consider these to be synonyms, but they are not. Rational tilt angles maximum tilt angles taking into account the requirements for weight, dimensions of the tank, convenience (in the Soviet case - more likely) of the crew. Wikipedia claims that rational tilt angles were used in World War I and cites Mgebrov’s armored vehicles as an example. But in the photo of these armored cars it can be seen that the author does not understand the essence of rational tilt, only front projections are inclined on armored vehicles. Although the picture of t-34 is immediately given where it is indicated that he had practically no armor plates with a vertical arrangement.
                        Further adjustments were made by the massive proliferation of cumulative ammunition.

                        And with the tiger, there is likely a technological solution. An urgent heavy tank was needed, and in view of the decent thickness of the armor, they decided that it would do. But finalized to the royal tiger, only too late.
            2. Aristocrat
              Aristocrat 7 October 2013 22: 11 New
              +1
              The Germans used 88 mm anti-aircraft guns as anti-tank guns long before the attack on the USSR. The frontal armor of Matilda 78mm was even thicker than on our KV and T-34.
          2. postman
            postman 7 October 2013 18: 56 New
            +1
            Quote: Kars
            though most likely much earlier.

            in 1936, in Spain, the Condor battalion
        2. postman
          postman 7 October 2013 18: 55 New
          +2
          Quote: bot.su
          Just in case, I remind you that the war began on June 22, 1941. The Germans did not have an 88 mm tank gun.

          Yes? Well, I will "remind"

          8,8 cm FlaK 18/36/37 (German 8,8-cm-Flugabwehrkanone, literally 8,8-cm anti-aircraft gun of the 1918/1936/1937 model, also known as “eight-eight”) - German 88- millimeter anti-aircraft gun, in service with 1928 for 1945 years.

          The Condor legion (SPAIN, 1936) included several Flak 18 batteries. During the fighting, these guns were successfully used not only for fighting aircraft, but also against ground targets - primarily against tanks.
          1. bask
            bask 7 October 2013 19: 48 New
            0
            Quote: Postman
            , but also against ground targets - primarily against tanks.

            It was planned to use, against heavy Soviet tanks, and larger than 8,8 cm. Flak.
            Tank Fighter - 10,5cm K18 Auf Panzer Selbstfahrlafette IVf. Germany (1941). On the Panzer IV chassis, it was equipped with a fixed, open top armored barrel. 10,5 cm K18 gun, developed by Krupp and Rheinmetall based on the SK 18 infantry gun. Barrel length, 52 caliber. An armor-piercing projectile could penetrate 111 mm of armor at an angle of 30 degrees or 132 mm normal from a distance of 2000 meters.
            1. xAskoldx
              xAskoldx 8 October 2013 01: 40 New
              +1
              I would still classify this machine as a slightly different class since initially it was planned to be used exclusively against bunkers and bunkers, since the experience of using 88 when shooting French fortifications through embrasures revealed vulnerability to calculations and low tactical mobility (time to deploy and collapse)
          2. nerd.su
            nerd.su 8 October 2013 01: 07 New
            +1
            Quote: Postman
            Yes? Well, I will "remind"

            8,8 cm FlaK 18/36/37 (German 8,8-cm-Flugabwehrkanone, literally 8,8-cm anti-aircraft gun of the 1918/1936/1937 model, also known as “eight-eight”) - German 88- millimeter anti-aircraft gun

            Once again, for those who are in the tank - 88mm TANK gun (test protocols of which you bring) the Germans did not have at the beginning of the war! And it appeared only after some time of the war with the USSR, since the other anti-tank and tank guns that were available did poorly.

            Dear postman, I remind you that I entered into a discussion in response to his surprise that the 34 mm German anti-tank guns and proud quotes from the 37-year test report could not cope with the T-43 armor. This, as it were, casts doubt on the statement about the effectiveness of inclined booking. Therefore, I say again that yes, the results of firing anti-tank and tank guns available in the Wehrmacht at that time showed the advantage of rational booking angles and forced the Germans to increase the caliber of their guns. And by the way, the Germans also used slanted armor on their panthers and royal tigers.
            1. postman
              postman 8 October 2013 02: 23 New
              +1
              Quote: bot.su
              Once again, for those who are in the tank - 88mm TANK gun (test protocols of which you bring) the Germans did not have at the beginning of the war! AND


              north africa 1939


              June 1941 -Deutsche 88 mm Flak feuerbereit während des britischen Unternehmens 'Battleaxe' (Juni 1941), wobei über 60 'Matildas' von diesen Geschützen zerstört wurden.


              fall 1941, USSR 88 mm Pak 43/41,

              Winter 1941/1942


              South of the USSR. Summer 1942 Eine seltene Aufnahme, auf der das 'Scheuentor', eine 88 mm Pak 43/41, im Kampf in Rußland dargestellt ist


              Quote: bot.su
              And she appeared only after some time of the war, namely with the CCC

              ?

              Frühe ausführungen gingen mit der Legion Condor nach Spanien, wo ihre potentielle Eignung als Panzer-abwehrgeschütz erkannt wurde.

              Erst späterwährend der Kämpfe in Afrika gegen die schwer gepanzerten Matilda-Panzer, wurde die Acht-Acht als Panzerknacker berühmt.


              You can fantasize as much as you like, but the facts are not fantasy

              what you are talking about refers to 8,8-cm-PaK 43/1 (L / 71) when in the middle of 1943 Krupp set it to “Nashorn” (Sd.Kfz. 164)
              But this event has nothing to do with firing and tables, just earlier (1936,1939,1941, 1942, XNUMX-XNUMX) neither we, nor the Spaniards, nor the British could boast of trophy acht-acht, in any performance
              1. Kars
                Kars 8 October 2013 15: 19 New
                +1
                Quote: Postman
                neither we nor the Spaniards nor the British could boast of trophy

                they couldn’t be trophy. But the USSR could be boasted and bought and delivered by the USSR — it just didn’t work out very well.
              2. nerd.su
                nerd.su 8 October 2013 18: 03 New
                +2
                Quote: Postman
                You can fantasize as much as you like, but the facts are not fantasy


                Isn’t you talking about it, young Padawan, Vladimir Semyonovich sang "and will be a baobab for a thousand years until he dies"? smile

                A TANK gun should be created for arming tanks. Show the tank with this gun and the year of its appearance. This time.

                In your so-called "facts" to the photo of Pak 43/41 anti-tank guns, those with a muzzle brake, it is said that this is autumn 41 and summer 42. You are just a worthless cheat laughing In the original source, where you got the photo, there is no indication of the year of the photo, and in the signature to it, from which you pulled out only the indication that this is a war in Russia, it is said about the difficult conditions in which it was necessary to fight the gun’s calculations. Let it be known to you that the terms of reference for the creation of Pak 43/41 were issued only in the middle of 1942, and production began approximately in the middle of 43 years. So do not powder people’s brains with their substitution of facts. These are two.

                I say again that I do not argue that the Germans had 88mm anti-aircraft guns at the beginning of the war. And they were even used as anti-tank when armor-piercing shells were made under them. Although, against light tanks it was possible to use such a gun with any shell.
                But the main anti-tank guns were Pak 36, 37 mm caliber and Pak 38 50 mm caliber, captured Czech 47mm anti-tank gun Skoda. And their weakness forced the Germans to speed up work on the heavier 75mm Pak 40, which had not previously fit into the blitzkrieg theory. But the war with the USSR returned the Germans to reality and in the fall of 41, Pak 40 mass production began. At 42, the Germans finally plunged into reality and began creating tank and anti-tank 88mm guns, which began to enter the troops in 1943.

                And to a large extent, rational booking angles t-34 contributed to this.
                1. The comment was deleted.
                  1. postman
                    postman 8 October 2013 22: 49 New
                    0
                    Quote: bot.su
                    I say again that I do not argue, the Germans had to the beginning war 88mm anti-aircraft guns.

                    Four batteries (16 guns) of 88mm guns (Flak. 18) initially reached Spain as AA with the Condor Legion in 1936, but it was soon used as anti-tank, anti-bunker and even as anti-battery. More guns were sent later and some more 88-mm guns were supplied to Spanish army units. At the end of the war the Spanish Army AA was using all of them, 52 guns Flak 18 88 / 56mm.
                    Quote: bot.su
                    But the main anti-tank guns were the Pak 36, 37 mm caliber and the Pak 38 50 mm caliber,

                    And who denied the thread? Well, besides the apricots there are facts who denied this?
                    Quote: bot.su

                    And to a large extent, rational booking angles t-34 contributed to this.

                    Poor Matilda, they were cuddled in 1939, 40m from 8,8 and they did not even suspect
                    ===============
                    TIP let me give (even TWO):
                    - puff less, put on weight
                    -Be polite, life is not the Internet and rudeness can cause trouble worse than sticking brains, oh, key
                    1. nerd.su
                      nerd.su 8 October 2013 23: 56 New
                      +1
                      You still quote in Chinese or better in Egyptian cuneiform writing ...

                      Your quote says that anti-aircraft guns began to be used as anti-tank guns, to combat fortifications and for counter-battery warfare. The keywords "anti-aircraft" and "began to be used."

                      Quote: Postman
                      And who denied the thread? Well, besides the apricots there are facts who denied this?

                      So where is the denial.
                      Quote: Postman
                      Quote: silver_roman
                      the Germans were personally convinced of this when the unfortunate 40 mm of armor was not taken by German guns due to rebound.

                      which ones? 37 mm PTO?
                      And then you refer to the tests of the German tank gun in 1943, which pierces the armor of the t-34. If you didn’t notice, then you doubted the effectiveness of the inclined armor based on the pretext that the 88mm gun pierces it. But when the t-34 was created and, by the way, at first it fought, the main anti-tank calibers were 37-50 mm and only when the Germans encountered us did 75 and then 88 mm anti-tank and tank guns appear. If in the 30s 88mm anti-tank missiles were the most common, then the development of tanks could be different. Indeed, now no one is designing tanks, taking into account the fact that the S-1 Carapace will be used against them. And he has on one installation up to 12 missiles with a range of 20 km. If you solve the problem of guidance and use the cumulative and thermobaric charges, you can effectively deal with tanks and fortifications.

                      And what about Matilda? What do you see North Africa as a serious theater of war. Everything was decided on the Soviet-German front. And from 41 years old 88mm anti-aircraft guns began to enter the ground forces, although before that they were exclusively in the air defense forces. For in 41 on the eastern front, the Germans found out that their anti-tank guns had a small caliber. And the whole war the Germans did not have enough anti-aircraft guns in air defense. Because they had to be thrown against our tanks.
                      So the protocol that you brought proves the correct use of inclined armor. This was mastered by the Germans. Bottom line: the appearance of such tanks as the panther and the royal tiger, the development of the IS tank family.

                      As for the tips, thanks, but with the weight I am fine. As for rudeness, I did not understand something ... Are you offended by the cheater? Why try to cheat? smile If I were you, I would follow the do-it-yourself. In some places, for such tricks do not threaten with a finger ... smile
                      1. postman
                        postman 9 October 2013 00: 22 New
                        -1
                        Quote: bot.su
                        You still quote in Chinese or better in Egyptian cuneiform writing ...

                        YES? and you, comrade Uryuk, suggest that I should (like you) use quotes ONLY in Russian, with tape (c) pu for example
                        Quote: bot.su
                        The keywords "anti-aircraft" and "began to be used."

                        So what? used as anti-tank, It was 1936,don't be dumb and so dull
                        Quote: bot.su
                        So where is the denial.

                        it’s you who manipulator attributed these words to me
                        Quote: bot.su
                        And then you refer to the tests of the German tank gun in 1943, which pierces the armor of the t-34.

                        I don’t understand, you’re not just a apricot, are you a apricot in a square or in a cube or something?
                        I won’t chew on what I’ve tasted: “go over” carefully what it was about and where you got into it with unwashed hands. Ku?
                        Quote: bot.su
                        And what about Matilda? What do you see North Africa as a serious theater of war.

                        of course THIS is a SERIOUS argument, and not in Chinese, that there wasn’t Fri 8,8
                        Quote: bot.su
                        So the protocol that you brought proves the correct use of inclined armor.

                        protocol and the data in it, as well as tests (AP) by the Americans KV-1 and T-34 and their conclusions indicate the opposite
                        Although the advantages (as well as the disadvantages) of inclined armor are not denied by anyone (I in any case)
                        repeat:"go over" carefully what it was about and where you got in with unwashed hands. Ku?
                        Quote: bot.su
                        As for the tips, thanks, but with the weight I am fine.

                        superfluous proof of a wise saying: "the scoundrel is all to the face" (they do not lose weight)
                        Quote: bot.su
                        Are you offended by a sharpie? Why try to cheat?

                        1. Is it possible to be offended by the accusation of cheating coming from a cheater?
                        No, I'm kidding
                        2. That you "puff" about deceit, deceiving yourself: distorting my words, and not understanding what was discussed in the article where the photographs and LINKS to data and photos are taken
                        Quote: bot.su
                        In some places, for such tricks do not threaten with a finger ..

                        forward, I will only be glad you are not the first and I hope you are not the last
                      2. nerd.su
                        nerd.su 9 October 2013 12: 12 New
                        0
                        Quote: Postman
                        YES? and you, comrade Uryuk, suggest that I should (like you) use quotes ONLY in Russian, with tape (c) pu for example

                        So you do not like Putin? But I’m not Putin, calm down, don’t need to transfer the image of one person to another, psychiatrists can do this if it reaches the acute stage.

                        Quote: Postman
                        So what? used as anti-tank, It was 1936, don't be dumb, and so dull

                        Oh, hot youth! Used as anti-tank - used as anti-tank or as anti-tank. But these were anti-aircraft guns. And taking into account the battles in Spain, armor-piercing and cumulative shells were developed for them. I think you have long understood that I’m trying to convey to you, but one more example: you can use, say, a Belarus tractor for agricultural work. But if the soil is very stony, then you can Caterpillar D10T. Although this is a bulldozer for completely different jobs, it can be used in agriculture. Just not profitable. But if the conditions are such that you can’t do without it, you will have to develop special attachments for it, change the control, put in the rear view camera and you will get a very powerful agricultural tractor. So with the guns.

                        Quote: Postman
                        protocol and the data in it, as well as tests (AP) by the Americans KV-1 and T-34 and their conclusions indicate the opposite

                        By the Americans? Well, this is of course authorities! laughing They probably have huge experience in using tanks against the Japanese? And in Normandy did the Germans hide from their tanks in panic?

                        Quote: Postman
                        Although the advantages (as well as the disadvantages) of inclined armor are not denied by anyone (I in any case)
                        Repeat: "go over" carefully what it was about and where they got in with unwashed hands. Ku?

                        And why then did they put the protocol into the discussion? As I understand it, since you say that the Germans had such a weapon that easily dealt with the t-34 inclined armor, then you do not consider the idea of ​​inclined booking to be effective. It was necessary to clarify somehow his position. Why did they bring the protocol?


                        Well, I attribute the rest of your politically incorrect statements to ardent youth. I would like to prove my innocence with my fists? laughing Judging by the fact that, instead of arguments, it rolls onto individuals. Go to the gym, it will become easier.
                        If you want to prove something - give facts, specify what you actually proved with your protocol, maybe we are talking about the same thing, only in different words. And if you want to compete in wit, then this is not for me, it’s a foot erotic journey, a lot of witty sent there, you will find a company.
      3. The comment was deleted.
    2. silver_roman
      silver_roman 8 October 2013 10: 07 New
      0
      nobody argues. that 88 mm sewed our tanks. I'm talking about pz-3, pz-4. there were 45 mm. sure.
      but I think to argue that the slope of the armor adversely affects the penetration of its shell by at least stupid.
      it’s good that you didn’t find data on the shelling of the T-34 with kamulatuvami ... you would have neigh at all.
      1. postman
        postman 8 October 2013 12: 57 New
        -1
        Quote: silver_roman
        affects the penetration of her shell at least stupid.

        And who is arguing? Are you the smartest?
        Also pay attention to the excess of caliber over the thickness of the armor and how the rebound "plays"
        And they didn’t come up with a rebound and tilt the armor in the USSR, so it’s really stupid to say so
        Quote: silver_roman
        that you didn’t find data on the shelling of the T-34 with kamulatuvami ... you would have neigh at all.

        you are not a horse, and not in a stable, try to control yourself, not in the hooves.
        Do you need data on shelling with cumulative and high explosive?
        / unfortunately I do not have Emulative /
        1. silver_roman
          silver_roman 8 October 2013 13: 51 New
          +1
          And who is arguing? Are you the smartest?

          listen, if you don’t have enough emotions or adrenaline, if you want adventure, then here I’m not your assistant.
          if I were the smartest, I wouldn’t have a discussion with you at all.
          this also applies to your phrase:
          you are not a horse, and not in a stable, try to control yourself, not in the hooves.

          The conversation was about the rebound of the shell from the armor of the t-34 tank.
          I am sure that the design of the t-34 took into account the calibers and guns that were in the pz-3 and pz-4 tanks that were mass at that time.
          That's what I was talking about. The Germans in response began the creation of tank guns based on 88 mm anti-aircraft guns. If not, then correct. I tried to compare the most massive tank of the USSR during the beginning (!) Of the Second World War and the guns standing on the tanks that were opposing 34-cams at that time. Therefore, I wrote about the cumulative. If we are already considering the second half of the Second World War, then it will be more relevant to shell ISs from 88 mm, as their reservation should have taken into account 88mm.
          I do not claim that even in the beginning there were no 88 mm guns. from the facts you have quoted, it is clear that this is not so. just at the beginning of the war, if I’m not mistaken, they were not so massive. Nevertheless, installation on a tank makes it easier to use than to carry such a massive gun on a tractor.
          Also pay attention to the excess of caliber over the thickness of the armor and how the rebound "plays"

          As far as I know, the larger the caliber, the greater the penetration (this is from the ranks of fact, as I understand it), also a certain design was provided on the shells that increased normalization, which gave an even more tangible effect.

          at the expense of tilting the armor I really do not know. I always believed that the same Panther (pz-5) borrowed the slope from 34-ki. This opinion still exists today. at the expense of his veracity, I cannot vouch, but it seems logical. If you are positioning yourself as the most intelligent, then enlighten where the slope of the armor of the hull comes from from its 4 sides. Thank you in advance!
          1. postman
            postman 8 October 2013 15: 05 New
            0
            Quote: silver_roman
            I don’t have a discussion with you.

            let's see what is primary and what is secondary:
            Quote: silver_roman
            but I’m arguing that the inclination of the armor adversely affects the penetration of its shell at least stupid.
            good that you did not find the data about the shelling of the T-34 with camouflages ...I would laugh at all.


            Quote: silver_roman
            PZ-3, PZ-4 tanks standing in mass tanks at the TIME.

            -October 13 1937 TTZ on A-20 and BT-SV-2 (1937)
            this is the "dad" T-34
            Quote: silver_roman
            I tried to compare the most massive tank of the USSR during the beginning (!) Of the Second World War and the guns standing on the tanks that were opposing 34-cams at that time.

            As has been repeatedly proved: the task of the tank, not the fight against the enemy’s tank.
            and tanks destroy artillery
            Quote: silver_roman
            If we are already considering the second half of the Second World War, then it will be more relevant to shell ISs from 88 mm, as their reservation should have taken into account 88mm.

            For Isov, the Germans prepared another surprise, more potassium bromide

            Quote: silver_roman
            As far as I know, the larger the caliber, the greater the penetration (this is from the category of fact, as I understand it)

            If the caliber of the gun exceeds the thickness of the armor in?, Then the rebound does not occur?
            (it’s better to ask KarsA, he has data)
            1. postman
              postman 8 October 2013 15: 06 New
              0
              Quote: silver_roman
              at the expense of armor tilt I'm really not in hens

              German engineer Grotte, who designed the TG tank for the USSR in 31
              Cruiser Tank Mk.I \ A9 (1935) -tilted armored turret


              1) Inclined armor reduces the internal volume of the tank, worsens crew comfort, and complicates placement inside various equipment;

              2) Inclined armor complicates the technology of production of tanks.

              PzKpfw IV: The long-barreled gun introduced on the G, NK modifications allowed the T-IV to withstand the enemy tanks of equal weight (sub-caliber 75 mm shell at a distance of 1000 meters pierced armor with a thickness of 110 mm)
              a tank shelling carried out in the Middle East in June 1941 showed that the distance was 500 yards (457 m) can be considered the limit for the effective defeat of PzKpfw IV in the frontal part by a 2-pound cannon fire


              Quote: silver_roman
              If you are positioning yourself as the smartest

              no, I'm studying, and I don’t position myself that way
              Quote: silver_roman
              the beginning of the slope of the armor of the hull from its 4 sides. Thank you in advance!

              Yes, this is probably no one will remember, if not for tanks but in general:
              -shield?
              towers of armadillos (dreadnoughts)?
              armored trains?
              -A7V?

              Loyd carrier
            2. silver_roman
              silver_roman 9 October 2013 13: 16 New
              0
              October 13, 1937 TTZ on the A-20 and BT-SV-2 (1937)
              this is the "dad" T-34

              Otak is possible. the dream is only known from open sources that when taking into service two prototypes were considered: a-20 and a-32.
              It seems that the first and became the t-34.

              As has been repeatedly proved: the task of the tank, not the fight against the enemy’s tank.
              and tanks destroy artillery

              I will not even try to dispute anything in this statement.
              But then the question is: why does the tank need a modern 2a46 125 mm cannon? In order to shoot at the infantry with HE shells?
              If there is an entire tank battalion, then it is convenient to use artillery on it, and if a small platoon, then art will no longer be so effective. and again, if there is a battle in the highlands or in a village / town?
              Tank destroyers - are you talking about the years of World War II? To date, they have been abandoned in the form in which they existed during the Second World War.

              For Isov, the Germans prepared another surprise, more potassium bromide

              Do you mean Jagdtiger?
          2. Kars
            Kars 8 October 2013 15: 22 New
            +1
            Quote: silver_roman
            I am sure that the design of the t-34 took into account the calibers and guns that were in the pz-3 and pz-4 tanks that were mass at that time.


            The reservation was designed to protect against 45 mm of armor-piercing shells distributed in the USSR
            1. postman
              postman 8 October 2013 15: 44 New
              0
              Quote: Kars
              The reservation was designed to protect against 45 mm of armor-piercing shells distributed in the USSR

              Do you mean Germans or ours?
              what a handsome man
              1. Kars
                Kars 8 October 2013 15: 48 New
                +1
                Quote: Postman
                Do you mean Germans or ours?

                Armor protection when designing the T-34
                Quote: Postman
                what a handsome man

                I can’t finish the year for 4. I guess I should probably turn off the Internet at home and hide the e-book.
                1. postman
                  postman 8 October 2013 16: 25 New
                  0
                  Quote: Kars
                  Armor protection when designing the T-34

                  TTZ on A-20 and BT-SV-2?
                  Quote: Kars
                  you should probably turn off the Internet at home and hide the e-book.

                  yeah, I lost weight, from this misfortune
                  1. Kars
                    Kars 8 October 2013 16: 49 New
                    +2
                    Quote: Postman
                    TTZ on A-20 and BT-SV-2?

                    It should be noted that the BT-SV-2 case was made J1
                    from ordinary steel sheets with a thickness of 10-12 mm.
                    The real reservation project existed in two versions.
                    The first involved the use of bro
                    brand "FD" with a thickness of 40-55 mm,
                    45-mm shells at all distances' second was calculated
                    to protect against 12, 7-mm bullets suggested the use of
                    20-25-mm armor of the IS brand.


                    T-xnumx were laid solutions used yet
                    when creating the experimental light tank BT-SV-2 "Turtle
                    ", The basis of the concept is the idea of ​​protivosnaryadny
                    reservation. Strictly speaking, both were
                    laid the foundation for the design of an even light tank
                    A-20, and then by inheritance migrated to T -34. Not
                    going into details of the hull and turret designs
                    "Thirty-four", let's try to figure out how much
                    her armor protection met its purpose.
                    The first tank fire tests known to the author
                    took place at the NIBP training ground in Kubinka in
                    end of March 1940 year. The A-34 NQ2 tank was tested.
                    Shelling the sides of the hull and turret of this tank from a distance
                    100 m of domestic (four shots) and
                    English (two shots) 37 -mm pointed-headed guns
                    armor-piercing shells no impact
                    did not produce a tank - shells bounced off
                    armor, leaving only dents with a depth of 10-15 mm.
                    When firing a turret from an 45-mm cannon with two armor-piercing guns
                    shells from the same distance collapsed
                    glass and mirrors on-board sight
                    towers, the forehead was torn off at the sight, and
                    broken welds along the contour of the reservation
                    viewing device and at the bottom of the tower niche. IN
                    the result of deformation of the shoulder strap when the tower
                    jams were observed. Moreover, planted in
                    the tank mannequin remained intact, and wound up in front of the tank
                    fired engine continued to work stably.
            2. silver_roman
              silver_roman 9 October 2013 12: 54 New
              0
              The reservation was designed to protect against 45 mm of armor-piercing shells distributed in the USSR

              But what is the logic of creating armor that can withstand its own ammunition?
              Is it possible that only if these 45 mm were comparable in quality to German or surpassed them, or am I mistaken in something?
  • MRomanovich
    MRomanovich 7 October 2013 15: 13 New
    -1
    Good article, but the title is puzzling. The article is more suited to the title "Chinese Tank Engineering: From Full Copying to Partial Copying." For they have no original ones.
  • nikcris
    nikcris 7 October 2013 16: 59 New
    +1
    Quote: silver_roman
    Well, I don’t know. According to the last picture of type-99 - its modification shows that vertical slabs are installed in the projection of the tower. I don’t understand: this is either DZ and combined protection - it does not matter. The important thing is that at such an angle it is at least stupid to put it. Again, the swallows t-34 showed that the greater the angle of inclination of the armor, the greater the thickness of the armor. elementary geometry and no more. The likelihood of a rebound rises significantly. The Germans personally became convinced of this when the unfortunate 40 mm of armor was not taken by German guns due to the rebound.


    The Germans became convinced and continue the vertical tradition. And against the inclined T-34s, a shell was immediately developed that “clings” to the armor with the edge and turns to the normal before undermining. And from the blanks and machine guns, the slope - yes, it helps.
    1. Aristocrat
      Aristocrat 7 October 2013 22: 16 New
      0
      It’s not clear what you mean by “clinging” shells. A sub-caliber projectile (more precisely, its core) always seeks to deploy and “dive” perpendicular to the armor.
      1. nikcris
        nikcris 7 October 2013 22: 39 New
        0
        I do not remember exactly what it is called correctly. The projectile had an "anti-ricochet nozzle." Correct if you know more than mine. And then my uncle - the elder brother of his father received such a thing three times in his tank in two years.
      2. silver_roman
        silver_roman 8 October 2013 14: 05 New
        0
        I also touched on this topic in my comments.
        If I'm not mistaken, then in the picture I highlighted the "protrusions" on the shells. It seems that they increase the normalization to the armor when the projectile reaches the target.
  • nikcris
    nikcris 7 October 2013 17: 31 New
    -2
    For some reason, it’s discouraging for me to show a “movie” on the “Star” with the words attributed to party organizer Koshkin: “Guys, put your armor at an angle!” Such a sickening cranberry ...
  • nikcris
    nikcris 7 October 2013 18: 28 New
    +3
    Quote: nikcris
    For some reason, it’s discouraging for me to show a “movie” on the “Star” with the words attributed to party organizer Koshkin: “Guys, put your armor at an angle!” Such a sickening cranberry ...

    Before putting a minus, open your eyes, or buy glasses. Look at the BT-2 or the tank "Freedom Fighter Comrade Trotsky" (Renault-17) - is it really that the armor tilt is less than that of the T-34? WHAT FOR NUCLEA WITH THIS TILT?
    It cannot be explained otherwise than by the general debilitation of education. am
  • xAskoldx
    xAskoldx 7 October 2013 19: 00 New
    +1
    China is very persistent in achieving its goals + mentality. so to this day they are already on par with leading countries. The last vehicles, even if they bear the features of several tank schools, have acted and are doing everything in the world around us. So the desire to combine the AZ + 125 mm from Russia with the chassis where the MTO is from Germany, and the SLA + TIUS is to the USA and France, this is mass from the former USSR or even earlier (Genghis Khan) will be a kind of “feature” of the Chinese approach or schools.
  • Technologist
    Technologist 7 October 2013 19: 11 New
    0
    In my opinion, the heyday of the "Chinese" tank building just falls on the 90s, a period of especially strong brain drain and technology trade. Or does it seem to me alone?
  • faraon
    faraon 7 October 2013 19: 39 New
    0
    Yeah, no matter how much you say halva in your mouth, this does not make it sweet. the base is the Russian School, also the Russian one. In general, there’s nothing new, there’s nothing in the Chinese tank like I didn’t look for, the same T-55 candy, in a different package, I didn’t see any of my original designs.
  • Algor73
    Algor73 7 October 2013 20: 24 New
    +1
    The article is normal, and the Chinese tank industry shows the most dynamic development from all countries of the world. Sooner or later, they will be the first, and they will be for the reason that they do this closely and constantly, sparing neither resources nor time, go ahead without thinking about what they will think about if they write (copy) one or a different unit from a more advanced manufacturer.
    1. Aristocrat
      Aristocrat 7 October 2013 22: 24 New
      +1
      The article is quite complete. It only annoys specific oriental names ... Like the Japanese, "Type No. is such and such."
      I expected more not so much from reading the article as from comments. An honest word was awaited by a heap of "flood" about "aries" of Chinese quality, etc. There were of course attacks on the copying technique. Well, who didn’t go through it at one time?
      He worked as a representative of Chinese oil equipment factories. Therefore, I have an idea of ​​their level. Alas, we are far from them ... Their equipment is at the western level, and in some the position significantly exceeds it. Nevertheless, I hope that this does not apply to weapons. All the same, we are used to believing that we are in this niche ahead of the rest. Let it be so!
  • andrey86
    andrey86 5 May 2014 23: 29 New
    0
    NOTHING BASICALLY NEW, AND HIGHLIGHTS OF HIS CHINESTS HAVE NO ONE-SURVEYED AT ONE, OTHER ON OTHERS AND VUALA A NEW MACHINE. BY THE ADVANTAGE OF SUCH APPROACH, I THINK THAT THEY SAVE TIME AND MONEY FOR DEVELOPMENTS AND TAKE EVERYTHING READY AND BY THEM IT IS THE BEST IN FOREIGN MODELS AND IDENTITY.