Military Review

Mobile Machine Gun Jack (BCP), or "217 Object"

28
In March 1940, in Leningrad, the design bureau of the Kirov Plant developed a lightweight tracked wedge heel “Object 217”. The development of wedges was started in the winter of 1940, at the height of the Winter War, which, of course, affected the design of the machine. The general management was carried out by Kotin Zh.Ya., the leading engineer - Sychev L.E. The specifics of the use of the ground forces of the workers 'and peasants' Red Army was that often the infantry rushed into battle without support tanks, which quite often failed due to severe frosts. Therefore, the main purpose of the machine was to accompany the infantry as a movable machine gun nest during the period of operations on the Karelian Isthmus during the Finnish War. In the course of the work, the wedge was called - BCP.


Mobile Machine Gun Jack (BCP), or "217 Object"
PPG-1, "217 object"


The wedge was a rectangular armored hull mounted on a tracked chassis. The front was a combined combat compartment and a department of control, rear - the engine-transmission. Body tanketki welded. Armor on the sides had a thickness of 10 mm, and the frontal part - 20 mm. Bronelists were installed at small angles of inclination.

Chassis single side: four skating rink and drive sprocket at the rear. There was no steering wheel, the functions of which were performed by the front roller. The wedge was controlled using levers. The engine was installed in the rear part of the hull BCP. The power unit tanketki - carburetor engine PMZ (power 16 hp). The engine allowed to reach speed on the highway to 18 kilometers per hour. Due to the low engine power, the 217 Object struggled to rise more than 30 degrees, was unsatisfactory, and off-road capability. On the roof of the hull for the crew access there was a double hatch. The crew tanketki - two people.

As a weapon, two DT machine guns, installed in the frontal part of the tankette in ball bearings, served. General ammunition - 1575 cartridges (25 disc magazine for 63 cartridge). Such weak weapons were due to the fact that the mobile machine-gun nest was supposed to be used exclusively against infantry. A characteristic feature of the mobile machine-gun nest was the placement of the crew. The rear armored cover in the stowed position was folded back, and the crew of the wedge he was driving the machine while sitting. The rear armored cover in a combat position was closed, and the crew fired from a pair of machine guns in a recumbent position. This decision made it possible to radically reduce the height of the wedge and to provide it with an inconspicuous silhouette. For long distances, the BCP was to be transported by truck.



In 1940, one copy was made. The mobile machine-gun nest resembled the Sabathe wedge 1926 of the year. The main difference was the large thickness of armor and crawler chassis of a different design. BCP was submitted for factory tests. Immediately there was a question about the functionality of the wedge. The machine guns mounted on the wedge had limited firing angles, and the long-term location of the crew members in the lying position had a negative effect on combat effectiveness and comfort. In the case of a meeting with anti-tank artillery or enemy tanks, the machine-gun nest could survive only due to better mobility or speed, but during the tests the wedge was unable to reach speeds higher than 18 km / h.

Comparing the available indicators, ABTU decided not to continue work on the mobile machine-gun nest in view of their futility. Moreover, the war with Finland was already coming to an end, and the preliminary calculation of the use of the “217 Object” in the attack on the Karelian Isthmus did not take place. Pre-order for five experimental machines canceled.

Specifications:
Combat weight - 1730 kg.
Crew - 2 person.
Length - 2500 mm.
Width - 1630 mm.
Height - 860 mm.
Ground clearance - 300 mm.
Armament - two DT machine guns of caliber 7,62 mm in the front hull plate.
Ammunition - 1575 ammo.
The aiming device is optical.
Booking:
Chassis side - 10 mm.
The forehead of the body is 20 mm.
Body Feed - 8 mm.
Bottom and roof - 8 mm.
Engine - LMZ, carburetor, two-stroke, 2-cylinder, liquid cooling.
Engine power - 16 HP
Power density - 9,4 hp / t.
Ground pressure is 0,23 kg / cm².
Speed ​​on the highway - 18 km / h.
Speed ​​over rough terrain - up to 7 km / h.
Cruising on the highway - 100 km.
Transmission - four-speed manual gearbox, single-disc dry clutch, simple differential, shoe brakes, two side gearboxes.
Chassis (on one side) - rear drive wheel, four track rollers, small-caterpillar track, steel tracks.
Obstacle obstacles:
Angle of rise - 35 hail.
Wall height - 40 mm.
Wade depth - 0,5 m.
The width of the moat - 1000 mm.
No means of communication.

Based on materials:
alternathistory.org.ua
feldgrau.info
www.redtanks.bos.ru
www.aviarmor.net
Author:
28 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. makarov
    makarov 13 December 2013 08: 23
    +3
    In what extremes of need did not they rush?
  2. Vladimirets
    Vladimirets 13 December 2013 09: 04
    +2
    Interesting, but stupid technique. Especially in the Finnish war.
    1. the47th
      the47th 13 December 2013 12: 54
      +2
      Just for breaking through fortifications such a technique would help. At least it would have protected the pillboxes from fire.
      1. samoletil18
        samoletil18 13 December 2013 22: 02
        +5
        Quote: the47th
        Just for breaking through fortifications such a technique would help. At least it would have protected the pillboxes from fire.

        1730 kg at 16 hp Well, yes, from behind push the whole compartment.
      2. Vladimirets
        Vladimirets 13 December 2013 23: 40
        0
        Quote: the47th
        Just for breaking through fortifications such a technique would help. At least it would have protected the pillboxes from fire.

        You are joking? Mannerheim line break through these wedges? There the B-4 did a good job.
  3. Running
    Running 13 December 2013 09: 07
    +5
    If brought to mind, it would be an excellent means of supporting the infantry. Although the Germans also had something like that, but for intelligence. Another prodigy: "Kugelpanzer"
    1. Poppy
      Poppy 13 December 2013 09: 44
      +4
      What does it mean to bring to mind? provide armor of 100 mm, so that it could not be knocked out? the idea of ​​a mobile bunker is initially flawed - any bunker is destroyed
      1. Lesnik
        Lesnik 13 December 2013 23: 14
        0
        Quote: Poppy
        What does it mean to bring to mind? provide armor of 100 mm, so that it could not be knocked out? the idea of ​​a mobile bunker is initially flawed - any bunker is destroyed


        In addition to rolling laughing
        The idea is not bad enough hi
        Cons change position - open the hatch and sit down - the target;
        again, the angle of the frontal armor was not calculated.
        But the idea is not bad wink
    2. Lesnik
      Lesnik 13 December 2013 23: 16
      0
      And where did you unearth this miracle? +
    3. Lesnik
      Lesnik 14 December 2013 00: 48
      0
      This idea is now successfully applied in reconnaissance drones.
  4. Prohor
    Prohor 13 December 2013 09: 39
    0
    Interestingly, for the price of this wedge heel - how many dozens of machine guns could be made?
    1. cth; fyn
      cth; fyn 13 December 2013 11: 24
      +1
      I wonder how long the machine gunner lived during the battle on average?
      2 minutes? maybe 5?
      1. klimpopov
        klimpopov 13 December 2013 11: 54
        +4
        Depends on the place. In Stalingrad, less than a minute on average. If we are about the Second World War.
        1. cth; fyn
          cth; fyn 13 December 2013 16: 48
          +1
          Imagine that a company seized a bridgehead on the shore, there was practically nothing left, the enemy throws himself into a counterattack and breaks into a line of pillboxes which, by no means, can be there, after all, it took only half an hour. artillery strikes, but ...
          The bunkers are invulnerable and continue to fire another attack repelled.
          A low silhouette would make it possible to camouflage such an edrenbaton in two picks of a sapper shovel, and after the battle take it to a new position and again mask it.
          1. builder
            builder 13 December 2013 17: 47
            0
            Quote: cth; fyn
            And imagine that the company captured the bridgehead on the shore, there was practically nothing left

            September 26, 1942. In the first echelon was a company OLTB - 10 cars. At 4.30 the tanks went down to the water, while one of them broke down, and the other two caterpillars flew off during maneuvering (later they were evacuated to the rear). The remaining seven cars entered the Neva and rushed to the left bank. The Germans, noticing the crossing, illuminated the river with rockets and opened strong artillery, mortar and machine gun fire on the tanks. As a result, only three tanks left on the left bank. But due to the fact that the infantry of the 70th Infantry Division delayed the crossing, all three vehicles were quickly hit. Their crews tried to swim across the right bank, but in the water they were shot by the enemy and drowned.
            Over the next four nights, the Soviet infantry managed to cross to the left bank of the Neva and occupy a small bridgehead there. Together with the infantry, 29 tanks were transported, of which 16 T-37A and T-38 (9 T-26 and 1 BT-2 were transported across the river by ferry). On the bridgehead tanks immediately were put in position for their use as fixed firing points and dug in. But because of the open area, strong artillery fire and air bombing, By October 5, 1942 25 tanks were shot down.
            Useless tanks for World War II.
  5. Moore
    Moore 13 December 2013 10: 26
    0
    often the infantry rushed into battle without the support of tanks, which quite often failed due to severe frosts. Therefore, the main purpose of the machine was to accompany the infantry as a movable machine gun nest

    But what, this miracle of engineering in connection with severe frosts did not fail? Or was there nothing to go out there - a fire under it was lit, it warmed up the butter and went?
    Well, the enemy’s spherical infantry in a vacuum without guns and grenades in the form of an opponent is yes, it is very often found ...
    On the other hand, it’s a perfectly normal workflow: the Design Bureau proposed that the smart unions from the State Academic Bolshoi Theater refused.
  6. cth; fyn
    cth; fyn 13 December 2013 11: 34
    +1
    as I understand it, she had to quickly move up to the positions captured by the infantry and stand in a convenient place and in the freshly acquired positions she should have appeared, as if by magic, a line of minidotics that could only be opened by a tank, and even if she noticed, she would disguise such a pipelatz once spit. in general, the concept is normal, but execution sucks, especially considering that the project manager was J. Kotin.
    1. Aristocrat
      Aristocrat 13 December 2013 11: 51
      +1
      Quote: cth; fyn
      in general, the concept is normal, but execution sucks, especially considering that the project manager was J. Kotin.


      Who knows whose initiative was to create this unit?
      They gave the task to Kotin to make a "nedotank" against his wishes and vision of the issue, and you will not refuse! 40-th year you are not hukhra muhry. Maybe he flunked this hopeless project? :)
    2. Moore
      Moore 16 December 2013 08: 54
      0
      It seems that the turrets (as on the T-26) would be preferable in this case - they would only stick out over the trenches rather than 2/5 of the hull ... But in this case everything would be more expensive, of course.
      The work of the machine gunner with dispersion along the front in defense through the sight of the ball mount, it seems, was very difficult.
  7. Walking
    Walking 13 December 2013 11: 56
    0
    Infantry support vehicle
  8. the47th
    the47th 13 December 2013 12: 36
    0
    It would not be equipped with machine guns, but a recoilless gun.
    1. samoletil18
      samoletil18 13 December 2013 21: 57
      +1
      Quote: the47th
      It would not be equipped with machine guns, but a recoilless gun.

      Kurchevsky has already been imprisoned for the creation of stillborn guns. But a lot of people's money was ruined. With such a gun you can’t be near the infantry.
  9. sasska
    sasska 13 December 2013 14: 30
    0
    Quote: Hiking
    Infantry support vehicle

    great-grandfather of a modern armored personnel carrier
  10. Bigriver
    Bigriver 13 December 2013 17: 54
    0
    The specifics of the use of ground forces of the Red Army consisted in the fact that often the infantry rushed into battle without the support of tanks, which quite often failed due to severe frosts.

    Initially (in the 30s), the tactics of the Red Army were flawed. It did not imply a close linkage between the actions of rifle formations and artillery, aviation, tanks and engineering training. Love for wedges went from Tukhachevsky. Who believed that they can replace the cavalry. Only this comrade did not know that mechanized means require special specialists, special tactics, service ..., organization. Superficiality and lightness was extraordinary.
    Like the idea of ​​this wedge heel.
  11. PN
    PN 13 December 2013 20: 54
    0
    Dedicated to all WoT fans)))
  12. samoletil18
    samoletil18 13 December 2013 21: 54
    0
    Well done Kotin! He didn’t let him spend money on an unnecessary project, he fell into the bud. I understood that I needed HF and IP.
    1. Jager
      Jager 14 December 2013 00: 27
      0
      Before IS in the 40th it was like barefoot to China. At that time the first HF went.
      1. Lesnik
        Lesnik 14 December 2013 00: 45
        0
        HF appeared in the troops before the war
  13. DesToeR
    DesToeR 13 December 2013 23: 33
    0
    Not such a flawed concept. For example, during the Winter War, due to heavy machine-gun fire, the soldiers of the Red Army used mobile steel shelters. Rifle fire was fired from them, they were put on skis and pulled by tanks. So where the concept was born is obvious: an ordinary armored "cap", but on its own. We built it, tested it - I didn’t like it, there are a lot of such concepts that did not go into series in tank building.
  14. Jager
    Jager 14 December 2013 00: 37
    +1
    You shouldn't be so scolding this wedge heel. In fact, the requirements for it were as follows: a pair of machine guns in a bullet-proof body, capable of moving. It was a mobile OT and nothing more, it is not even a wedge in fact. Not a bad idea, but execution is complete pus! Even a fool understands that POT is incapacitated: narrow tracks, shitty cross-country ability, weak engine, extremely limited visibility, sadistic conditions for the crew. In fact, the T-37 and T-38 would have been preferred. And the ideal infantry support vehicle would be the T-60 and T-70; it would not be difficult to "finish" the T-40 to their level in a couple of months.