Military Review

Tanks "Panther" in 1945 year

24
At the end of 1943, the German designers attempted to change the design of the Panther tower. First of all, it was supposed to make its front armor sheet narrower to reduce the likelihood of enemy projectiles falling into it, increase its thickness to 120 mm and change its angle to prevent armor-piercing shells from falling down into the hull roof.


The first conceptual designs of such a tower were presented by Rheinmetall in March 1944. This design was referred to as "Tiggp - Panther (schmale Blende)" - "Panther Tower with a narrow mask." This project took into account new weapons requirements tankput forward by the arms control of the ground forces. So, on the roof of the tower, a special armored protrusion was provided for installing the rangefinder, and instead of the telescopic at this stage, the possibility of using a periscopic gun sight was considered. The thickness of the turret’s armor was: frontal sheet -120 mm at an angle of 12 degrees, side and aft -60 mm at an angle of 25 degrees, roof - 40 mm at an angle of 17 and 7 degrees. Most of the elements of internal equipment and weapons remained the same as on the Ausf Panther. G.

Tank "Panther" Ausf. G, left by the crew due to breakage or lack of wet. Hungary, 3-th Ukrainian Front, February 1945 of the year. In 1945, the tanks of this modification were to replace Ausf in the production of the Panther. F with the so-called "narrow" tower (ASKM)

In the spring of 1944, the further development of the new tower design was transferred from Rheinmetall to Daimler-Benz. At the same time, the Tank Armament Test Department (WaPruf 6) issued the “Daimler” tactical and technical requirements for designing a “narrow” turret (Schmalturm - “Schmalturm”), the main of which were as follows:

“Elimination of the possibility of ricocheting the shells from the gun mask down into the roof of the hull;
Increase armor protection without a corresponding increase in the mass of the tower;
Reduction of the frontal projection without reducing the internal space of the tower, necessary for the maintenance of the gun;
Installation of a range finder; Replacing the coaxial MG 34 machine gun to MG42;
Reducing the cost of manufacturing the tower;
Installation of the necessary equipment, which, if necessary, could be quickly converted by the crew, either into a command vehicle (Befehls-Panther) or into a machine with infrared devices; capable of leading a night fight.

Taking into account these technical requirements, Daimler-Benz developed its own project of a “narrow” turret, the design of which (not counting the cost of weapons and optics), allowed to reduce the cost of its production by 30-40%. At the same time, despite a significant increase in the thickness of the reservation, its estimated mass (7,565 tons) was even slightly less than the serial one on the Ausf tank. G (7,665 tons). It was possible to significantly reduce the area exposed to frontal fire while maintaining the internal working volume. The diameter of the shoulder strap in the light remained the same as that of the serial "panthers" - 1650 mm.

After the development of the "narrow" tower, designed for installation on the chassis "Panther" Ausf. G, which almost did not change, a new designation of the tank - Ausf. F.

The first experimental models of the “narrow” towers were made in the summer of 1944, and in August one of them was installed on the Panther chassis Ausf.G.

Tank "Panther" Ausf. G, lined with troops of the 3 of the Ukrainian Front. Hungary, March 1945 of the year. Onboard screens are absent, as well as the car shown in the previous photo (photo from V. Churov’s archive)

The new tower had a much narrower (compared to the serial) frontal armor list of the tower (approximately 950 mm above and 1500 mm below), which made it possible to reduce the area subjected to fire. By reducing the size it became possible to increase the thickness of the reservation.

The turret was fitted with an upgraded 75-mm gun, KwK.44 / 1 L / 71, developed by the Czech company Skodawerke. In the new gun, the recoil brake and nakatnik “moved” under the barrel (on the KwK 42 they were located to the right and left of the barrel). The gun received a new type of mask, similar to the “Royal Tiger” mask, as well as a cradle of a modified design. The air compressor for purging the bore after the shot was replaced by an air pump, which surrounded the knurler as an additional cylinder. The KwK 44 / 1 gun did not have a muzzle brake, although it was present on the first few samples of these guns. As a result, the recoil force increased from 12 to 18 tons.

The rotation of the tower was carried out by a hydraulic drive, which in turn, was driven from the shaft coming from the engine to the transmission. For precise aiming at the target and a slow turn of the turret, the control used earlier on the “panthers” with the help of legs was replaced with manual control. The maximum speed with which the tower could rotate hydraulically was 360 degrees in 30 seconds.

There was also a duplicate manual turning mechanism - one turn of the flywheel corresponded to a turn of 0,405 degrees. When using it, it was possible to rotate the tower 360 degrees in 4 minutes. If the tank tilted to one side, the loader could work with an additional turn flywheel and thereby help the gunner to turn the turret. In general, the Schmalturm tower turning mechanism turned out to be cheaper, had a smaller mass and size than that used on the “panthers” before. This was mainly due to the rejection of the two differentials and the multi-disc safety clutch, which stood in the towers of previous modifications of the tank.

The first version of the "narrow" tower with a 75-mm gun (the gun is equipped with a muzzle brake), mounted on the Ausf Panther chassis. G. August 1944 of the year

Also replaced the mechanism of vertical guidance, which also became more compact and cheaper. He provided the gun with a rise of 20 and a decrease of 4 degrees.

The commander's cupola was also modernized - it was made lower and, accordingly, it represented a smaller target. Like the previous one on Ausf. G turret case was molded, there were seven nests for the installation of periscopes. A special ring was mounted inside the turret, on which it was possible to fix a stereo tube, a turret of an anti-aircraft machine gun or an infrared night vision device. At the bottom of the turret was provided azimuth pointer.

Instead of the MG 34 machine gun, the MG 42 was now installed - this was due to the fact that the MG 34 tank version was no longer produced. To install the MG 42 had to develop a completely new bracket mounted on the cradle of the gun. There were two bags under it: one for feeding with cartridges, the other for collecting spent cartridges.

Originally it was planned to install a monocular articulated telescopic sight TZF13, developed by Leitz, in a “narrow” turret. He had a variable magnification - 2,5 and 6 multiple. In the first case, the field of view was 28, in the second - 12 degrees. However, Leitz manufactured only two samples of the TZF13 sight: one in October 1944, and the other in January 1945. This was due to the fact that in the fall of 1944 of the year, it was decided to install the SZF1 periscope sight with a stabilized field of view in the Schmalturm turrets. The periscope head protruded from the hole in the roof of the tower and was protected by a special armor cap. Leitz was supposed to make an experimental series of 10 SZF1 sights, but managed to assemble only 9 pieces: five from September to December 1944, and four upgraded 1945 in January and February. In January 1945, the order was issued for the first batch of 1000 SZF1, but they were not started.

According to the original project, the loader of the “narrow” tower received a periscope mounted in the roof. However, already in the course of serial production, it was abandoned, and the hole intended for its installation was closed with an armored cap.

As mentioned above, the installation of a range finder was provided for in the Schmalturm tower. For this purpose, a sample was chosen with the base 1,32 m, 15-fold magnification and field of view 4 degrees, designed by Zeiss. The final development of the sample was planned for April, and the beginning of mass production - for July 1945. However, until the end of the war, Zeiss was unable to produce a single range finder sample.

Another interesting solution in the manufacture of the “narrow” tower was the fact that the rear escape hatch cover was made of waste produced by cutting a hole for the hatch in the rear bro-neist. This measure allowed in some measure to save armor.

In the autumn of 1944, changes were approved (besides the introduction of the “narrow” tower) that were supposed to be introduced into the design of the Panther Ausf. F (compared to Ausf. G). Thus, the thickness of the roof of the hull increased from 16 to 25, the hatches of the driver and radio operator were introduced (the lid was raised slightly and opened to the side when the cover was opened), the driver’s periscope modernized and the course gun MG 34 was replaced by assault rifle StG 44 (“Sturmgever”) in ball mount.

The same tank as in the previous photo, left view. August 1944 of the year

The second version of the "narrow" tower with 75-mm gun, mounted on the chassis "Panther" Ausf. G. September 1944 of the year

One of the first production versions of the “narrow” turret with an 75-mm cannon installed in it. Please note that the tower is already camouflaged in color.

From radio equipment on naHTepe Ausf. F intended to be installed in the housing of the Fu 5 radio station. But if necessary, it was possible to easily install additional radio stations in the turret, as a result of which an ordinary tank turned into a commander tank. For this purpose, the installation of two additional antenna inputs was provided for all tanks.

On the serial samples "Panther" Ausf. F envisaged the use of track rollers with a metal band and internal depreciation, which had been developed since the 1943 of the year. 20 February 1945, the department of testing of tank weapons reported that the installation of such rollers is expected to begin in May 1945, including on the Ausf modification tanks. G. In addition, the “Panthers” Ausf. F was supposed to equip the new engine Maybach HL 234, which was already mentioned above.

February 20 of the year at a meeting of the “Commission for the Development of Tanks” approved the dates for the introduction of a series of various components and assemblies to improve the design of the Panther tank: a sight with a stabilized field of view, the installation of a rangefinder in a narrow tower - April 1945, the introduction of reference Rollers with steel band and internal cushioning - May 1945 of the year, new Maybach HL 1945 engine - August 234 of the year.

The initial release schedule for the Panther Ausf. F (with a “narrow” tower) Reichsmini weapons adopted 26 October 1944. At the same time it was planned to connect two more firms to the manufacture of these tanks (see table). According to the schedule, the first production machines modification Ausf. F had to leave the factory floor in March 1945.

However, already 30 January 1945, the year of the program made some adjustments. Now Krupp-Gruson was supposed to turn in its first Panthers in June, and Nibelungenwerk in August 1945. At the same time, by June 1945 of the year, a complete transition to the installation of “narrow” towers was envisaged on all manufactured panthers, including on the Ausf modification machines. G.

However, not a single "Panther" Ausf. F to make and failed. In September, 1945 of the year, during the interrogation by MAN of the company representatives by the Americans, the latter reported that their company did not collect any Ausf Panthers. F.

General view of the so-called "narrow" tower ("Schmalturm"), designed and manufactured for installation on the tank "Panther" Ausf. F. Armament not yet installed

As for Daimler-Benz, it should switch to the release of the Ausf modification. F since 2229-th serial tank. And at the time 24 stopped production on April 1945, the company manufactured 1929 machines (250 Ausf. D, 675 Ausf. A and 1004 Ausf. G) —as roughly on 300 Ausf machines. G less than planned. Thus, before the release of "Panther" Ausf. Rdelo did not come here.

However, before the advent of "Panther" Ausf. F "in the metal" had quite a bit of time. Several samples of the “narrow” tower were made, and at the Ruhrstahl factory, captured by the Allies in April 1945, there were at least four Ausf Panther buildings on the assembly line. F. Several “narrow” towers after the war were taken to the UK for testing.

"Panther" with 88-mm gun

In the autumn of 1944, Krupp offered the option of installing an 88-mm KwK 43 L / 71 cannon (the same as on the King Tiger tank) in a narrow tower designed for the Panther Ausf. F. A drawing of such an installation, dated October 18 1944, was submitted to the test section of the tank armament for review. Representatives of Krupp, who were present at the same time, explained that the main principle of their design was to install 88-mm guns in a “narrow” tower with minimal modifications to the latter. 4 December 1944 between the company and the military signed an agreement for the detailed design of the tower with such weapons for the tank "Panther" Ausf. F.

The arrows show the differences in the hulls of the Panther tanks Ausf. G (above) and Ausf. F (bottom): composite roof, modified fastenings for the hatches of the driver and the radio operator, modified cutting "thorn" at the junction of the front and side sheets

At the same time, Krupp signed a contract for the development of Schmalturm with an 88-mm tool and Diamler-Benz. Having some experience in creating “narrow” towers, the latter presented its project earlier than Krupp.

At a meeting of the “Commission for the Development of Tanks”, held on 23 in January 1945, Colonel Holzhauer (Head of Tank Armaments Testing) reported that Diamler-Benz presented its version of the turret, which had an increased diameter of 100 mm it was installed vertically to increase the internal volume. According to calculations, the mass of the tank with such weapons (compared with the version with the 75-mm gun) increased by about a ton.

Krupp designers had a number of technical problems associated with the installation of an 88-mm art system in a “narrow” tower, as a result of which their design was ready later than the “daimler design”. Thus, in their letter to the 12 February 1945 testing department for tank weapons, they reported that the 88-mm KwK 43 cannon can be installed in Schmalturm only if the gun axles are displaced forward 350 mm. Given the fact that the size of the turret under the 88-mm cannon remained the same as for the 75-mm guns, Krupp engineers asked the military to clarify a few points needed to continue the work.

First, it was unclear whether the internal volume of the turret would be sufficient for the loader to work (the dimensions of the 88-mm shots of the KwK 43 cannon were significantly larger than the X-NUMX-mm “Panther”). To clarify this point, representatives of the company offered to make a wooden model of the tower with an 75-tool and check everything in practice.

Something like this could look like "Panther" Ausf. F when organizing its mass production (a variant with steel support rollers with internal damping and an infrared device on the commander’s tower is shown)

Secondly, the engineers at Krupp did not know whether the form of the mask reservation would suit the military.

Thirdly, the calculations showed that the installation of 88-mm guns will lead to a mixture of the center of gravity of the tower and an increase in its mass by about 900 kg. To continue the design required the consent of the customer (the military) to such changes.

20 February 1945 of the Year “Tank Commission” reviewed the projects of the “narrow” tower with the 88-mm KwK 43 gun, presented by Krupp and Diamler-Benz. Moreover, by this time, the latter, in addition to sketching drawings and calculations, produced a full-scale wooden mockup of the tower.

During the discussion, each project has its own advantages and disadvantages. As a result, representatives of the department of tests of tank weapons and control of armaments of the ground forces offered a compromise. The design of the tower itself was entrusted to the firm and Diamler-Benz, the proposed option with a wide shoulder strap, but with a sloping back wall, as in a “narrow” tower with an 75-mm gun, was taken for the basis. Krupp received a revision of the 88-mm KwK 43 guns for mounting in the Daimler tower, as well as the design of the installation itself and the reservation of the gun mask.

A few days later, on February 27 of the year, a test was held in the test section of tank weapons with representatives of both firms on the development of a “narrow” turret with an 1945-mm gun for the Panther tank Ausf. F. As a result of the discussion, the following requirements were developed.

- The angle of elevation of the instrument should have been 15, and the angle of descent 8 degrees.

- It was supposed to use the 88-mm KwK 43 L / 71 X gun from the Royal Tiger tank as weapons already well mastered in production. In this case, the gun was subjected to alteration - the recoil brake and knurler, in the "basic" version, were placed on top of the barrel, now installed on the bottom. In addition, the gun was deprived of the muzzle brake, which required the reinforcement of recoil devices, and the trunnions of the gun were moved forward, as suggested by Krupp engineers.

- In the front sheet of the turret there had to be only holes for the installation of the gun and the machine gun. Instead of a telescopic one, it was supposed to use a SZF 2 or SZF 3 periscope sight. while the sight was supposed to have a stable field of view.

- As in the version of the "narrow" tower for 75-mm guns, for the 88-mm gun provided for the installation of a periscope. It was supposed to study the possibility of using for this purpose already existing in the production of samples with base 1,32 or 1,65, see.

- The diameter of the weather in the light of the tower was supposed to increase by 100 mm (up to 1750 mm) to facilitate the work of the loader and the entire crew as a whole.

- The ammunition should have been unitary 56 shots. The latter were supposed to be placed on the newly designed shelves inside the case. In addition, several shots were supposed to fit in the tower.

- The overall design of the tower was supposed to be almost the same as that of the Schmalturm designed for the 75-mm gun. The commander's turret was also used with this project.

Assembly line hulls tank "Panther" at the factory of Ruhrstahl, captured by the Allied forces. Spring 1945 of the year. At least four enclosures for Ausf vehicles are visible. F. The arrows show the visible differences from the Ausf Panther cases. G

8 March 1945 Colonel Kron, a representative of the department for testing the tank armament of the Army Armaments Directorate, asked Krupp to submit a final design of the gun mask reservation to 12 in March. 14 March 1945, the design prospects of the Panther with an 88-mm gun and further possible options for developing the design of this tank were discussed in the presence of the Inspector General of the tank forces G. Guderian. Representatives of the firms Daimler-Benz and Krupp reported on the progress of work on this machine as follows.

So, in part of the ammunition, it was possible to place 15 shots to the cannon in the turret, and 50-54 was also supposed to be placed in the tank hull. Thus, portable ammunition was obtained more than the original requirements. According to the engineers of both companies, the total weight of the new tank exceeded that of the Panther Ausf. F with a 75-mm tool for just one ton.

Representatives of the Army Armaments Directorate stated that the manufacture of the first tank model with an 88-mm gun in the non-armored steel turret was planned for the beginning of June 1945. In the case of successful tests of the machine, it was supposed not only to switch to the serial production of this version of the Panther, but also to equip all tanks of this type with such a tower in the future. According to the officers of the department for testing tank armaments, with the necessary assistance from equipment, materials and personnel, the serial production of “panthers” with “narrow” turrets and 88-mm guns could have been launched in the fourth quarter of the year.

Perhaps that was how the Ausf Panther could look. F with 88-mm cannon in a “narrow” turret. However, how such a machine could actually look like,

Projects tank "Panther" Ausf. Fc 88-mm gun, developed by Krupp (above) and Daimler-Benz (below)

23 March 1945 of the year Reich Minister A. Speer conveyed to the Inspector General of the tank forces and representatives of Daimler-Benz and Krupp companies Hitler’s wish for the early production of a Panther prototype with an 88-mm cannon and display of a prototype from regular (not armored) steel in the middle of April. But, naturally, there could be no talk of any prototypes - the Third Reich lived its last weeks. Moreover, until the end of the war, the design of the “narrow” tower with the 88-mm tool was not even completed. The engineers of Daimler-Benz, questioned after the war by the allies, confirmed this, saying that the project was far from complete, and they hadn’t started the production of a prototype from metal. The only thing that was available at the Daimler-Benz plant (in addition to the drawings) was the wooden mock-up of the tower, submitted for review as early as February 1945 of the year. Thus, before the completion of the design and manufacture of the prototype "Panther" with the 88-mm tool was still far away.

As for the Jagdpan-tera tank destroyer, the author does not have any information about the possible modernization of the vehicle. The document “Review of the state of armament on tanks, assault, self-propelled guns and tractors up to August 1945 of the year”, which was already mentioned, provided for 1 March to August inclusive to make 410 self-propelled guns, of which 60 in March, to 80 in April, May, June and July , and 30 in August. Reliably, one can only say what could have been expected on the “jagdpana-trache” installation of a new engine, for example, the Maybach HL 234, as well as road wheels with a metal bandage and internal damping.
Author:
Articles from this series:
German tank industry to 1945 year
Infrared devices for German tanks
Modernization of the "Royal Tiger", 1945 year
Tanks "Panther" in 1945 year
"Waffentragers"
Jagdpanzer 38D tank destroyer
German anti-aircraft tanks
Small tank destroyers of Germany
E series tanks
24 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. wanderer_032
    wanderer_032 19 December 2013 10: 19 New
    +4
    Gansikov led at the end of the war, so they come with the towers "muddy" and other design elements.
    I think with the installation of an 88mm gun in the Panther, they would not have succeeded.
    Because when firing forward from the recoil, the tank would have swung for a long time, and firing from the side would have been impossible at all, because a car with such a high center of gravity would have a great chance of tipping overboard (or breaking the tower off the shoulder).
    The idea of ​​removing the muzzle brake from the gun (which even stood on the Tigers, which are both wider and heavier), looks generally ridiculous.
    It was not otherwise Shtyrlits who helped them promote this idea. laughing
    1. vomag
      vomag 19 December 2013 11: 37 New
      +6
      Hahahaha koment vaasche went especially about swinging 46-47 tons and disrupting the shoulder straps of the rzhuu tower m = it’s not magu !!! it remains to add about the explosion of the battle of the kit in the tower from pressure unprecedented to the village and the crippling of the crew by flying trunnions pins and there is something more than what God will put into his soul !!!
      1. wanderer_032
        wanderer_032 19 December 2013 19: 03 New
        +2
        Actually, I carefully looked at the photo, the drawing, too, and I can say that such a "miracle" only a pest could slap.
        Ours also wanted to put 100mm on 34-ku, but nothing came of it.
        If interested, you can read for self-education.
        I didn’t joke about the buildup (this gun from the Tiger actually, but it’s much heavier, longer and wider, and the tower will be bigger there).
        And if it’s so funny for you, then tell me why not a single Panther was made with this gun. And I will laugh with you then.
        1. vomag
          vomag 19 December 2013 20: 36 New
          0
          [quote = wanderer_032] Actually, I carefully looked at the photo, I can also say the drawing ...., Well, of course, the design departments of Daimler-Benz and Krupp worked tirelessly and were sure of success, but an activist who carefully watched something turned up and said * ovno will not work! maybe you dear clairvoyant? and grandmother Wang is not a relative of the case? and you accidentally didn’t take part in the battle of psychics? you are my dear sir, they just wrote utter nonsense for children at school, but it’s ridiculous for knowledgeable people laughing
          1. wanderer_032
            wanderer_032 19 December 2013 23: 12 New
            0
            You yourself would first read books with the necessary information for self-education, and then you would laugh.
          2. Alekseev
            Alekseev 20 December 2013 22: 17 New
            +1
            Quote: vomag
            Well, of course, here the design departments of Daimler-Benz and Krupp worked tirelessly

            The fact that they "worked tirelessly" is not at all a guarantee of success, that is, the creation of a successful combat vehicle capable of fighting in the real conditions of warfare.
            There are a lot of examples when “tireless work” did not bring the required results, both for “them” and ours.
        2. the47th
          the47th 19 December 2013 21: 30 New
          0
          The 100-mm gun in the T-34 completely fit in and the tank successfully passed the tests in 1945. Only by that time the T-44 was almost ready, and the war was drawing to a close.
          1. wanderer_032
            wanderer_032 19 December 2013 22: 56 New
            +2
            You’re wrong, dear, there were no successful tests to install a 100mm gun on the T-34 tank, these are your speculations.
            The problems are still the same inadequate diameter of the turret (the cannon could not withstand the recoil of the gun), increased loads on the transmission and the running gear. Part of this project was closed.
            Read the book of M. B. Baryatinsky T-34 in detail. The best tank of the Second World War, p. 76-77.ISBN 5-699-19080-5.
          2. Uhe
            Uhe 20 December 2013 00: 24 New
            +2
            This is not the point, but because of all considerations it turned out that it was much more difficult to supply a new T-44 tank to the troops from all sides than to continue to operate the T-34-85, which already then fought on equal terms with the T-5 and T-6 due to a more powerful gun and due to problems with German armor, which has become extremely fragile. The T-44, by the way, the gun remained the same as the T-34-85. But there was no sense in his participation in the war. But after the war, the Germans played in all the films :)
        3. Uhe
          Uhe 20 December 2013 00: 20 New
          +3
          You are right in everything. But ours set 85 mm, which is not much less than 88. And this only proves that when creating the T-34, our designers laid a much greater opportunity for improvement than the Germans. And completely in vain Hitler did not listen to Guderian, who proposed to improve the T-4 and improve it, rather than raw and expensive T-5.
      2. wanderer_032
        wanderer_032 19 December 2013 19: 41 New
        +1
        I will add about such a constructive drawback of the Panthers as a weak chassis that caused constant complaints from German tankers.
        It doesn't look so funny anymore, does it?
        1. vomag
          vomag 19 December 2013 20: 40 New
          0
          Yes, we know a lot of childhood diseases. The panther got a raw tank. So what? where does your marvelous opus about the shoulder straps of the tower and overturning? I'm curious what Comrade KARS will say on this subject
          1. Kars
            Kars 19 December 2013 20: 49 New
            +4
            Quote: vomag
            I'm curious what Comrade KARS will say on this subject

            Regarding the 88 mm guns, they would have inserted it, would it have been necessary to have returned the muzzle brake. It would not tip over.

            About the panther--
            http://topwar.ru/12216-tank-pantera-mogilschik-tretego-reyha.html

            The worst variant of the Panther’s existence for the USSR is the installation of 88 mm from the very first samples (and to the Fritz this unification would make life easier)
            1. wanderer_032
              wanderer_032 19 December 2013 23: 05 New
              +1
              Nothing would have come of them, because they could not have produced high-quality armored steel in Germany at the end of the war due to the loss of raw material sources of manganese and other alloying elements from the second half of 1943.
              And without good steel, all attempts at good tanks were useless.
              All this from a series of Wishlist.
              1. Kars
                Kars 19 December 2013 23: 08 New
                +3
                Quote: wanderer_032
                Nothing would have come of them, because of quality armor steel

                What does it have to do with this?
                Quote: wanderer_032
                And without good steel, all attempts at good tanks were useless.

                Tell it to those whom these tanks grind in 1945
                Quote: wanderer_032
                All this from a series of Wishlist.

                Well, yes, and 13 irretrievably lost Soviet tanks in 000
                1. wanderer_032
                  wanderer_032 19 December 2013 23: 24 New
                  +2
                  And all these tanks destroyed by fire from the Panthers?
                  I have other information. The largest losses in 1945 were from fire from anti-tank missiles, self-propelled guns and Faustpatrons and Panzer Shreks, and not from tank fire.
                  The Soviet troops carried out many operations to capture us points and break through defensive fortifications in 1945. Hence, such losses in armored vehicles.
                  My wife’s grandfather was a direct participant in such battles (guards. Ml. Lieutenant, commander of the self-propelled gun ISU-152, went through the Vistula-Oder and Berlin operations, participant in the assault on Berlin).
                  1. Kars
                    Kars 19 December 2013 23: 31 New
                    +1
                    Quote: wanderer_032
                    And all these tanks destroyed by fire from the Panthers?

                    Quote: wanderer_032
                    , because high-quality armored steel

                    They made ONLY panthers of armor steel? Maybe high-quality steel is still not needed for the manufacture of gun barrels for weapons and ammunition?
                    Quote: wanderer_032
                    I have other information. The largest losses in 1945 were from fire from anti-tank missiles, self-propelled guns and Faustpatrons and Panzer Shreks, and not from tank fire.

                    You do not have any information. It is simply impossible to determine who fired a VET, TANK, or self-propelled guns.
                    Quote: wanderer_032
                    The Soviet troops carried out many operations to capture us points and break through defensive fortifications in 1945. Hence, such losses in armored vehicles.

                    Losses are slightly higher than 1944 and 1943. And at the same time the Germans were already exhausted, and the Soviet troops gained experience and had almost full-time staff (I’ll bracket the Second Front)
                    Quote: wanderer_032
                    My wife’s grandfather was a direct participant in such fights

                    And so what? My grandfather was at ISU-122 Koenberg what next?
                    1. wanderer_032
                      wanderer_032 19 December 2013 23: 37 New
                      +2
                      Where are the "woods" about 13 thousand. destroyed Soviet tanks in 1945, round date?
                      Personally at the forefront led? wink
                      1. Kars
                        Kars 19 December 2013 23: 44 New
                        +1
                        Quote: wanderer_032
                        Where are the "woods" about 13 thousand. destroyed Soviet tanks in 1945, round date?
                        Personally at the forefront

                        strange to you, my grandfather should have told


                        and I even downplayed the figure - 13
                        and told the General Staff of the Red Army in his reports.
                        total figure by the way 96.5
                        want to find it is no longer a secret.
                      2. wanderer_032
                        wanderer_032 19 December 2013 23: 49 New
                        +1
                        The General Staff did not report to the General Staff on the number of losses on all fronts.
                        He already had worries above the roof, he only talked about what he personally saw and where he fought himself.
                      3. Kars
                        Kars 19 December 2013 23: 53 New
                        +1
                        Quote: wanderer_032
                        I didn’t report on all fronts

                        Are you satisfied with the numbers? Let's leave grandfathers alone? (They saw a very limited part of the overall picture)
                      4. wanderer_032
                        wanderer_032 19 December 2013 23: 58 New
                        0
                        I would like a reference, I want to learn more about this report. smile
                      5. Kars
                        Kars 20 December 2013 00: 02 New
                        +1
                        Quote: wanderer_032
                        I would like a reference, I want to study the entot in more detail

                        In Google banned?
                      6. wanderer_032
                        wanderer_032 20 December 2013 00: 12 New
                        0
                        I don’t use Google from the principle (I don’t like it), and since you are appealing with such figures, you can personally cite the source from which they were taken. yes
                        And then from my service in PW, the habit of atrophying was a word to believe in a word.
                      7. Kars
                        Kars 20 December 2013 01: 07 New
                        +1
                        Quote: wanderer_032
                        I don’t use Google from the principle (I don’t like it),

                        Mail ru? Rambler?
                        Quote: wanderer_032
                        And then from my service in PW, the habit of atrophying was a word to believe in a word.

                        I don’t know what PV is, but you can take and give your numbers? It will not bother you?

                        the irretrievable losses of tanks and self-propelled guns of the Red Army amounted to, according to official Soviet data, 96500 combat units. The greatest losses were suffered in 1943 and 1944 - 47200 tanks and self-propelled guns (in 1943 due to the temporary superiority of German armored vehicles, which was especially evident in the battle of Kursk, and in 1944 due to the widespread use of new, revolutionary anti-tank weapons). The total resource of tanks and self-propelled guns that the Red Army had in the war with Germany was 131700 combat units (22600 were in service with the spacecraft by June 22, 1941 plus production and supply under Lend-Lease). On May 9, 1945, the Soviet Union had 35200 tanks and self-propelled guns.

                        By the beginning of World War II (2/1.09.1939/3200), Germany had 1945 tanks (there were no assault guns yet). During the war years (by May 46300) the Third Reich produced 49500 tanks and self-propelled guns. Thus, the total resource that the Wehrmacht had in the war was 4500 combat units. At the time of surrender, there were still (in combat units on the territory of Germany itself, as well as in Italy, Norway, Austria and Czechoslovakia, in reserve, at training bases and factory territories) about 45000 tanks and assault guns. Consequently, the losses of the Wehrmacht during the war amounted to 75 military units. What were the losses of the Wehrmacht on the Eastern Front? According to official Soviet data, the Germans lost 45000% of their tanks and assault guns here. We calculate how much this could be. First of all, 1600 tanks and self-propelled guns lost by Germany from 1.09.1939/22.06.1941/75 to 43400/32550/2,96 need to be taken away from 1, XNUMX% of which is already XNUMX - XNUMX. The ratio of losses in tanks and self-propelled guns between the USSR and Germany was XNUMX to XNUMX.

                        Sources: "Encyclopedia of german tanks of world war two", "Arms and Armor", London, 1993; "History of the Second World War. 1939-1945", Military Publishing House of the Ministry of Defense of the USSR, M., vol. 2,4,12; "Secrecy stamp removed: the loss of the Armed Forces of the USSR in wars, military operations and military conflicts: a statistical study", Military Publishing House, M., 1993.


                        this link unfortunately does not work.
                        tankfront.ru/ussr/losses.html
                      8. wanderer_032
                        wanderer_032 20 December 2013 20: 04 New
                        +1
                        Your data smacks of "linden".
                        I worked a little and found this very statistical collection of losses from military service in 1993 (it is from her that these figures are taken).

                        Honestly, the book is controversial, at first some data is given then others, for example:

                        In total, over the years of the war, 98300 tanks and self-propelled guns of all types (light, medium, heavy) were manufactured in the USSR.
                        Quote: Kars
                        Secrecy stamp removed: losses of the USSR Armed Forces in wars, military operations and military conflicts: a statistical study ", Military Publishing House, M., 1993.
                        p. 349, table 93.

                        Next:
                        On pages 357-358 are the tables of losses for armored vehicles:
                        for the entire war, tanks and self-propelled guns of all types are 96500 pieces. Pages 366-367 provide data on the irretrievable losses for the war (96500 pieces) and for years (41g. -20,5 thousand pieces., 42g-15,1 thousand pieces., 43g. -23,5 thousand pieces., 44g.-23,7 thousand pieces., 45g. -13
                        , 7 thousand pieces) of table 96-97.

                        And then the most interesting:
                        Starting from p. 368 to p. 373, table 98 (losses of military equipment by periods and page operations) is given, according to this table, the losses of tanks and self-propelled guns for the entire war of 1941-45 (including the Manchurian operation) amounted to 63229 pieces.

                        The question is where did the 33271 unit of armored vehicles go?
                        Probably evaporated, not otherwise.
                        And what figure in this book to believe?
                      9. Kars
                        Kars 20 December 2013 20: 10 New
                        +1
                        Quote: wanderer_032
                        In total, over the years of the war, 98300 tanks and self-propelled guns of all were manufactured in the USSR

                        And before the war? And Lend Liz?
                        Quote: wanderer_032
                        потерь за войну(96500шт.) и по годам(41г.-20,5тыс.шт.,42г-15,1тыс.шт.,43г.-23,5тыс.шт.,44г.-23,7тыс.шт.,45г.-13

                        , 7 thousand pieces) of table 96-97.

                        Leads.
                        Quote: wanderer_032
                        Starting from p. 368 to p. 373, table 98 (losses of military equipment by periods and page operations) is given, according to this table, the losses of tanks and self-propelled guns for the entire war of 1941-45 (including the Manchurian operation) amounted to-63229

                        Do you think all the operations are listed there? Maybe you should look for everyday reports?
                        Quote: wanderer_032
                        And what figure in this book to believe?

                        Can you provide a more reliable source?
                      10. wanderer_032
                        wanderer_032 22 December 2013 19: 58 New
                        +1
                        Hardly. And while this is not in the public domain, no one can.
                        I’ll also say that the loss account provided by this book is very blurry, there are no detailed statistics. For some reason, so much technique was lost somehow:
                        1.Fire from the VET
                        2. From fire TCP
                        3. From air raids (including on trains and ships during transportation and at crossings)
                        4. Thrown due to technical malfunctions, due to lack of fuel and lubricants and spare parts
                        5.In case of explosions on mines and landmines
                        6. Undermined by the crews of damaged vehicles when they were unable to evacuate
                        Here are the possible (not even completely) options for irretrievable losses and only then 8. losses in duels with tanks and self-propelled guns of the enemy can be considered.

                        quote = Kars] Do you think all operations are listed there? [/ quote]

                        So the whole Great Patriotic War practically consists of strategic operations flowing one into another.
                        And in this little book they are all listed (including Manchurian).
                        Scroll yourself and see.


                        [quote = Kars] And before the war? And Lend Liz? [/ quote]

                        But what about the statistics of German tanks and self-propelled guns pre-war release is not available?

                        According to Lend-Lease it was delivered:
                        11900 pcs. tanks and self-propelled guns of all types throughout the war.
                        p. 365 notes. If you believe this book.

                        But you have not answered any of my questions.
  2. wanderer_032
    wanderer_032 19 December 2013 23: 39 New
    0
    Quote: Kars
    And so what? My grandfather was at ISU-122 Koenberg what next?

    He talked about the war, that's what.
    1. Kars
      Kars 19 December 2013 23: 41 New
      +1
      Quote: wanderer_032
      He talked about the war, that's what.

      Many told about the war. There is even a site I remember. What then?
    2. wanderer_032
      wanderer_032 19 December 2013 23: 43 New
      +1
      First-hand information, and you?
    3. Kars
      Kars 19 December 2013 23: 45 New
      +1
      Quote: wanderer_032
      First-hand information, and you?

      Did I say that? It was you who led it to the argument.
      Quote: wanderer_032
      My wife’s grandfather was a direct participant in such battles (guards. Ml. Lieutenant, commander of the self-propelled gun ISU-152, went through the Vistula-Oder and Berlin operations, participant in the assault on Berlin).
    4. wanderer_032
      wanderer_032 19 December 2013 23: 55 New
      +2
      Well, what do you think, if a person went through this, would he not remember why they suffered the most losses?
    5. Kars
      Kars 20 December 2013 00: 01 New
      +2
      Quote: wanderer_032
      Well, what do you think, if a person went through this, would he not remember why they suffered the most losses?

      Are you still trying to chat the topic and step aside?
      He could remember why his unit suffered losses. And at the same moment, at 5 km, the picture could be completely different.
      My grandfather did not see a single Tiger or Panther alive, what now to conclude that they were not in principle?

      But once again I do not need to talk about the topic.

      Quote: Kars
      You do not have any information. It is simply impossible to determine who fired a VET, TANK, or self-propelled guns.

      Quote: Kars
      They made ONLY panthers of armor steel? Maybe high-quality steel is still not needed for the manufacture of gun barrels for weapons and ammunition?

      Let's get on the topic?
    6. wanderer_032
      wanderer_032 20 December 2013 00: 41 New
      +1
      After all, I expressed what I saw in the design of this Panther model. The Germans couldn’t put such a gun in this tank (they came across the same rake as ours with the T-34-100, and given the situation with the materials they abandoned this lesson, and not before that at 45m they already became).
      Even the drawing shows that this gun (88mm), too large and powerful for installation on the Panther, especially with such a small tower (it probably became so crowded there that the crew normally could hardly work, not to mention overloads on the hull structural elements , components and assemblies of the tank).
      They would have to strengthen the body itself, as well as make changes to the chassis design and transmission, which would contradict the main idea of ​​simplifying and reducing the cost of manufacturing this machine (which was discussed in the first part of the article).
    7. sapran
      sapran 20 December 2013 00: 57 New
      0
      Which gun is so powerful? 88/71? 75/70 is quite suitable for the solution of anti-tank warfare; besides this, new versions of guns including a single caliber of 105 mm. How many did not try to talk seriously with the Britons regarding theirs L7 did not work. But the fact that there were meetings where the Wehrmacht Krismarine and the Luftwaffe came to a single caliber of 105 in exchange for 75-88-105 I already read this. so the name "narrow tower" confuses you along the way, but the width of the shoulder strap and the working clearance are higher than on a conventional panther tower; moreover, it had good projectile resistance in the frontal projection. The gun itself was not something terrible for the design of the machine where there was a uniform distribution of weights throughout the volume of the hull.
    8. Kars
      Kars 20 December 2013 01: 04 New
      +2
      Quote: wanderer_032
      He expressed what he saw in the design of this Panther model. The Germans couldn’t put such a gun in this tank

      And German firms thought differently.
      Quote: wanderer_032
      stumbled upon the same rake as ours with the T-34-100

      Why are you comparing a medium tank with a heavy one? At the same time, the medium tank, many tons lighter than the Panthers, mounted an 85 mm gun, albeit a bit lighter.
      Quote: wanderer_032
      and given the situation with the materials, they quit this lesson
      is this nonsense again?
      ?

      Quote: Kars
      They made ONLY panthers of armor steel? Maybe high-quality steel is still not needed for the manufacture of gun barrels for weapons and ammunition?

      Quote: wanderer_032
      They would have to strengthen the body itself, as well as make changes to the chassis design and transmission,

      Are you an engineer? A tank builder? Who who and the Germans had some experience in tank building.
      Quote: sapran
      The Wehrmacht Krismarine and the Luftwaffe came to a single caliber of 105 in exchange for 75-88-105 I already read this

      Where have you read this? And are you confused with the anti-aircraft caliber?
      Quote: sapran
      serious with the Britons regarding theirs L7 did not work.
      And what is so interesting there? Moreover, it is far from post-war.
    9. sapran
      sapran 20 December 2013 01: 18 New
      0
      Firstly, the Germans Kars 105 mm had several even purely tank. a) DykerMah the first artillery assault with 105 mm (to combat field fortifications, Heavy tanks)
      b) 105/52 and 105/68 respectively yagd-Panther E-50 (after replacing the tower) and the Royal Tiger
      The main donor for the “forgings” was the kriegsmarines, so the Luftfafe billets were heavier and longer recognized as unnecessarily expensive.
      the Britons had a craving for tank and universal calibers of the following dimensions of 83,8 mm, 102,4 mm 114 mm and 120 mm 105 they appeared somehow “suddenly”, but the noble “trophies” from France tried as German 105/48 105 / 52 and their own in the caliber 90 mm 100 mm 120 mm.
    10. sapran
      sapran 20 December 2013 01: 21 New
      0
      I’ll tell you more. Kars needs a business trip to Britain and France. They can get access to the Archive for a certain amount and check what was exported and from which factories (as luck would have it, I don’t play the lottery crying )
    11. Kars
      Kars 20 December 2013 01: 28 New
      +1
      Quote: sapran
      about the first Kars, the Germans 105 mm had several even purely tank.

      Purely Saushny? Maybe.
      Quote: sapran
      105/52 and 105/68 respectively Yagd-Panther E-50

      the first is almost an ordinary field gun of 10,5 cm K18, the second was not in the metal campaign.

      Quote: sapran
      but the noble “trophies” from France traveled as German 105/48 105/52 t

      and what do they look like L7?

      So what does it mean that the Kriegsmarine were going to shoot-10,5-cm-SKC / 33-L / 65 FlaK?
    12. sapran
      sapran 20 December 2013 01: 33 New
      0
      Read Kars more carefully or doesn’t the word forging tell you anything?
      According to the speaker, the workpiece was taken, but the steepness and the pitch of the rifling are rather from 88/56, which gave a good accuracy but the barrel survivability was considered small.
    13. Kars
      Kars 20 December 2013 11: 51 New
      +1
      Quote: sapran
      Read Kars more carefully or doesn’t the word forging tell you anything?

      This is generally just a piece of iron that still has a way to go to the pipe. What for the Luftwaffe and for the Kriegsmarine had the same anti-aircraft guns, the sea ones might even be more potent.
  3. wanderer_032
    wanderer_032 20 December 2013 18: 20 New
    +1
    [quote = Kars] Why are you comparing a medium tank with a heavy one? At the same time, the medium tank, many tons lighter than the Panthers, installed an 85 mm gun, albeit a little lighter. [/ quote]
    Since when did the Panther become a heavy tank?

    [quote = Kars] this nonsense again?
    ? [/ Quote]

    Then I will listen to your version with pleasure, why didn’t they make the Panther with the 88mm cannon even in the prototype?

    [quote = Kars] Are you an engineer? a tank builder? Who who and the Germans had
    some experience in tank building. [/ quote]

    Our engineers faced the same problems when creating and testing the T-34-100.

    [quote = Kars] [quote = wanderer_032] expressed what he saw in the design of this Panther model. The Germans couldn’t put such a gun into this tank [/ quote]


    [quote = Kars] ONLY panthers were made of armored steel? maybe still high-quality steel is not needed for the manufacture of gun barrels for weapons and ammunition? [/ quote]

    These are your inappropriate questions.
  • Impich
    Impich 21 December 2013 17: 37 New
    0
    I agree .. also neighing ...
  • IRBIS
    IRBIS 19 December 2013 14: 52 New
    +4
    Quote: wanderer_032
    because when firing forward from the recoil, the tank would swing for a long time, and firing from the side would be impossible at all, because a car with such a high center of gravity would have a great chance of tipping overboard (or breaking the tower off the shoulder).

    Masterpiece ... I bow to such a technical "genius" ...
    1. wanderer_032
      wanderer_032 19 December 2013 18: 49 New
      0
      I am not a "genius" as you put it.
      Just carefully examining the photos came to this conclusion.
      The gun is 13 mm larger in barrel diameter, and this is a lot and the return is therefore also on it. The tower in which the gunners wanted to put an 88 mm gun by removing the muzzle brake from it (hence the recoil length increases) has the same dimensions and the diameter of the epaulet on the same thickness of the top sheet Corps. The question is how many shots can be made from this device?
      1. Bigriver
        Bigriver 20 December 2013 08: 51 New
        0
        Quote: wanderer_032
        ... The tower in which the Hans wanted to put an 88mm gun has the same dimensions and the diameter of the epaulet on the same thickness of the upper sheet of the hull. The question is how many shots can be made from this device?

        Of course, by default, it is understood that if 88 mm were installed, the tower would be redesigned. Since when inserting a new trunk, alignment was disturbed. That is, the tower asked to stretch out back-to-backlaughing
        But that is not all. Unitar 42 from the same 43rd, differs by 25 centimes. This is - dohren! Therefore, it would be necessary to inflate the "cheeks". It turns out such a sickly pie comparable to the tower of the 2nd Tiger.
        And we come to a simple question: is it possible to broaden the shoulder strap to the required size under such a widened and elongated tower? In addition, the heavier tons by 1,5-2.
        If it was possible, they would. If not, no.
        All. And there is no defsit with the doping here.
  • Bigriver
    Bigriver 19 December 2013 15: 44 New
    +3
    Quote: wanderer_032
    ... the tank would swing for a long time from recoil, and firing from the side would have been impossible at all, because a car with such a high center of gravity would have a great chance of tipping overboard (or breaking the tower from the shoulder strap).

    The weight of the IS-2 and the Panther is roughly comparable.
    Do you think the recoil momentum of the Kwk-42 and D-25T is very different, and in which direction?
    1. Prohor
      Prohor 19 December 2013 16: 54 New
      0
      I don’t know what's with the “recoil momentum,” but the kinetic energy of the projectile:
      Kwk-42 - high-explosive armor-piercing Panzergranate 39/42 (Pzgr. 39/42)
      14.3 kg * (925 m / s) 2/2 = 6 MJ

      D-25 - armor-piercing 53-BR-471B
      25 kg * (800 m / s) 2/2 = 8 MJ, 33% more.
      1. Bigriver
        Bigriver 19 December 2013 17: 24 New
        +1
        (Pzgr. 39/42)14.3 kg

        This is a mass shot.
        53-BR-471B 25 kg

        And here is the mass of the shell wink
    2. wanderer_032
      wanderer_032 19 December 2013 19: 16 New
      +1
      It is incorrect to compare these two guns, because the big difference in caliber and barrel length and the recoil momentum of the D-25T are many times more.
  • avt
    avt 19 December 2013 10: 33 New
    +2
    Quote: wanderer_032
    Gansikov led at the end of the war, so they come with the towers "muddy" and other design elements.
    I think with the installation of an 88mm gun in the Panther, they would not have succeeded.

    Absolutely right ! These were already sob .. sobs. The quality has fallen, on objective grounds, and they’ve tried, in small forms, to increase their power. A good article. Well illustrated for this format +
  • Volodya Sibiryak
    Volodya Sibiryak 19 December 2013 14: 50 New
    0
    In March 1945, plans were made for August of that year, naive, hoping for something else, the Führer well screwed his brain with his prodigies.
    1. IRBIS
      IRBIS 19 December 2013 18: 18 New
      +7
      Quote: Volodya Sibiryak
      their wunderwaffles.

      After the war, we, the British and Americans, have been trying for twenty years to create analogues of what you so disparagingly called "prodigies." Anti-aircraft missiles, ballistic missiles, guided bombs, night sights, submarines, tanks, etc., etc. Do not kick the dead tiger, the Germans were worthy opponents and in technical terms always surpassed all countries of the world.
      1. wanderer_032
        wanderer_032 19 December 2013 19: 28 New
        +2
        And because they were so smart (they got involved in a war on two fronts), they were in full
        shit head over heels.
        Superiority is there.
        Of course, the Russian people are not a couple to them, only factories from the west to the Urals were transported from bare land, they were built and tanks began to be built as soon as possible. And so our ancestors were nothing special.
        It’s not that it’s not very difficult to develop (the upper race after all), the factories in their place were riveting for themselves and riveting, and the Germans were prepared not like ours, well-fed at the good tanks and training grounds, but what were they bits?
        1. Apologet insane
          Apologet insane 20 December 2013 06: 31 New
          -1
          So the Americans and the British blocked all resources for them. They did not allow them to build a new one, and ours gave them all the old things. And the fact that the well-fed and warm German tankers were preparing was the merit of their command, which treated them as people and not like pigs. The Stalinist gang was so far away.
          1. cth; fyn
            cth; fyn 20 December 2013 18: 40 New
            +1
            This is how to look, 1/3 of all Reich trucks were Ford. American companies continued supplying the Reich until 1943, all information is on the site.
            1. Apologet insane
              Apologet insane 27 December 2013 12: 06 New
              0
              Unproven fabrication of some kind. There are no documents, there are only some articles without any links to information sources. As usual, did Starikov’s inflamed brain try?
  • DesToeR
    DesToeR 19 December 2013 19: 35 New
    +3
    Quote: IRBIS
    After the war, we, the British and Americans, have been trying for twenty years to create analogues of what you so disparagingly called "prodigies." Anti-aircraft missiles, ballistic missiles, guided bombs, night sights, submarines, tanks, etc., etc. Do not kick the dead tiger, the Germans were worthy opponents and in technical terms always surpassed all countries of the world.


    Yeah, this "technical superiority" of the Germans was especially pronounced at the beginning of the war. Yes, they were shocked that the Soviet MiG-3 at medium and high altitudes in the LTE complex surpasses their Me-109 modification. But the T-34 and KV-1 do not break through with the distance of the actual fire with all anti-tank and tank guns. The Katyusha multiple launch rocket system, which had appeared in the arsenal of the Red Army earlier than the Wehrmacht's analogous ones, used rockets (and in large quantities) in the aviation of the USSR. The fascists were surprised by the spread of self-loading rifles among the Red Army men, and they demanded that the poor people increase the store capacity of their submachine guns to a level comparable to the PPSh. 1941 - this is a quiet panic among the Germans - they met an adversary whose weapon systems are not only not inferior, but in many types have no analogues in the Wehrmacht.
    1. sapran
      sapran 20 December 2013 01: 04 New
      0
      The answer was shocked. and what a shock were our pilots who believed in the party and the government that we are so strong and not victorious and this shitty Junkers is not falling and falling. and which demon did someone rush by? (the reports usually referred to this case as the Xe-100, although the usual Me109F actually flew) and if everything was so wonderful, why did the Air Force Commander at the Stalin meetings in winter 1942 insist on returning to the I-16 type 29? Instead of the Promising Yak-1 LaGG-3 and the MiG-3 you named?
    2. The comment was deleted.
      1. DesToeR
        DesToeR April 3 2020 12: 52 New
        0
        Quote: Nik Cobold
        So much superior that it was already discontinued, the same story as with HF only in profile, the curtain.

        And what was the first with the Tiger that the Germans did not grow together? They discontinued after only two years of production ... what shit they drove for the Panzerwaffe ... 1400 pieces of scrap metal.
        Quote: Nik Cobold
        Have you tried to read the report of General Hohlov? Or does faith not allow?

        Guderian did not try to read that after the brigade Katukov abruptly changed his "faith". Not? Did these “memoirs” pass by your “box office”?
        Quote: Nik Cobold
        All this fuss with the "mass" ereses did not have that return

        Do you have a hairbrush? By "bestowal." No, no? Sadness ...
        Quote: Nik Cobold
        the Germans at that time hollowed out of the barrel artillery right on target, having a three to five-fold advantage in howitzer ammunition ...

        And for a long time hollowed? Was it until September 1941? And then it turned out that the war didn’t end ... but it’s still necessary to shoot “exactly at the target”. Well, something like that, the Germans everywhere succeeded.
        Quote: Nik Cobold
        Yeah, they were surprised how such ignoramuses are given such a sophisticated weapon that then you already have to remove it from production, because Ponty is the most expensive.

        Fuuuu, how implausible it was! And what for disassembling and assembling a self-loading rifle did Univer need to finish? So, the EMNIP was removed from production only in 1942.
        Quote: Nik Cobold
        Yeah, and also the rate of fire up to 1000 rounds per minute, this is when a magazine of 32 rounds with a rate of 400 is spent more efficiently

        A formula for effectiveness is not weak? And how is it that the "light elves" today produce a store of 30 rounds and with a pace of 950 v / m and even an industrial cartridge, and even from the "Pepelats" weighing only 2,7 kg? Effectively? Probably not only the Sun rises in Washington, but the laws of physics are written there.
        Quote: Nik Cobold
        Did I miss anything?

        Well then! And where is “one rifle for three”, detachments with drunken commissars, and plywood planes? But how did we manage to take Berlin for the third time in the last thousand years? Maybe you’re “great” to me and will you explain it to me?
  • Morgan761
    Morgan761 19 December 2013 22: 51 New
    +1
    Quote: vomag
    Hahahaha koment vaasche went especially about swinging 46-47 tons and disrupting the shoulder straps of the rzhuu tower m = it’s not magu !!! it remains to add about the explosion of the battle of the kit in the tower from pressure unprecedented to the village and the crippling of the crew by flying trunnions pins and there is something more than what God will put into his soul !!!

    God be your judge, and good luck in life ... Read the mechanics ....
  • DesToeR
    DesToeR 20 December 2013 07: 44 New
    +1
    Quote: sapran
    The answer was shocked. and what a shock were our pilots who believed in the party and the government that we are so strong and not victorious and this shitty Junkers is not falling and falling. and which demon did someone rush by? (the reports usually referred to this case as the Xe-100, although the usual Me109F actually flew) and if everything was so wonderful, why did the Air Force Commander at the Stalin meetings in winter 1942 insist on returning to the I-16 type 29? Instead of the Promising Yak-1 LaGG-3 and the MiG-3 you named?

    You vaasche in what steppe about falls and does not fall, believed or did not believe? In the winter of 1942 (a month is interesting, though), the Yak-1, LaGG-3 and the MiG-3 I called were not just “promising”, but also serial.
    1. sapran
      sapran 20 December 2013 11: 21 New
      0
      I’m talking about the steppe what to put on such an expensive and complex aircraft as the MiG-3 1-12,7 and 2 7,62 is very modern and relevant especially for the class of high-altitude interceptor which was the MiG-3. And about the fact that he ate metal and the deficit, oh mother - my own, which in the conditions of the period I have indicated was not acceptable. In addition to all this opportunity with the pilots, it turned out - the accident is high, and the return is weak (in terms of efficiency) And all ...
  • DesToeR
    DesToeR 20 December 2013 22: 04 New
    0
    Quote: sapran
    I’m talking about the steppe what to put on such an expensive and complex aircraft as the MiG-3 1-12,7 and 2 7,62 is very modern and relevant especially for the class of high-altitude interceptor which was the MiG-3. And about the fact that he ate metal and the deficit, oh mother - my own, which in the conditions of the period I have indicated was not acceptable. In addition to all this opportunity with the pilots, it turned out - the accident is high, and the return is weak (in terms of efficiency) And all ...

    It was no more expensive than German all-metal messerschmites and fokers. And Pokryshkin had enough of these machine guns to dump 11 Nazi aircraft on the MiG, he did not complain about the mass of a second volley. And that’s all ...
  • Herman 4223
    Herman 4223 20 June 2017 21: 01 New
    0
    This includes all losses including damage. In the Berlin operation, for example, irretrievable losses of tanks amounted to 2% of the total number of losses. Many tanks were not included in the list of losses more than once, they were returned to service after repair, and then the story could be repeated in a new way. each time the car is on the loss lists.