Military Review

German airborne tank VK601 (Pz Kpfw I Ausf C)

25
During the Second World War, it was Nazi Germany that had the largest transport aircraft - Messerschmitt Me.323 Gigant. Using this machine, the military wanted to transfer not only light wheeled armored cars and trucks, but also Tanks. At the same time, I wanted to fully realize the capabilities of the aircraft - it was already not interesting to carry out the transfer of the first dancers. A special tank was needed!




The 15 September Armaments Directorate 1939 of the year decided to develop a light tank that would be suitable for reconnaissance, as well as support for the airborne troops. The latter meant that the tank could be transported using heavy transport aircraft. For transportation it was planned to use a Me.323 transport aircraft or a Me.321 glider. To solve this problem, attracted two fairly strong German engineering companies: Daimler-Benz and Krauss-Maffei. Daimler-Benz developed the hull and tower, Krauss-Maffei - the chassis. By the middle of 1942, they reached the finish line. 1 July 1942 of the company presented to the test machine under the designation Panzerkampfwagen I Ausfuehrung C (Pz.KpfW.I Ausf.C). Although the new tank was designated as a modification of the Pz Kpfw I, in fact, Ausf.C was a completely new machine.

It was a 8-ton speed machine with frontal armor 30 mm thick. This reservation made it possible to withstand hits 20-mm guns in front. Rear and side booking - bulletproof. The tank developed a speed of up to 80 km / h thanks to the Maybach NL 45 P six-cylinder in-line water-cooling engine installed in the rear of the hull (power 150 hp). Transmission - VG 15319, eight-speed (1 speed backward, 8 speeds forward).

The crew of the tank VK601 (Pz I Ausf C) - the driver and commander-gunner. Workplace commander located in the tower. By analogy with previous versions of Panzer I, the tower shifted to the starboard side. Unlike other modifications, this car had a commander's turret. The driver was located to the left of the tank axis.




VK601 tank armament consisted of a semi-automatic anti-tank gun EW 141 caliber 7,92 mm and machine gun MG 34 caliber 7,92 mm. Anti-tank gun - an experimental model of the company Mauser. It was released specifically for installation on VK 601 limited edition. "Exclusivity" of this weapons caused the lack of data on these weapons. Barrel length - 1085 mm. The loading was made automatically, the fire was fired by single shots. The ammunition for the anti-tank rifle served as a standard for the Wehrmacht anti-tank cartridge arr. 318. The SmKH bullet, which has a tungsten core, had an initial speed of 1170 meters per second. The kit included a spare barrel (for replacement when overheating). The gun and machine gun were installed in the same mask in the tower. Vertical elevation angle –10 ... + 20 degrees. The turn of the tower is mechanical. The ammunition consisted of 2100 cartridges for machine guns (for 150 pieces in a ribbon) and 94 anti-tank cartridges.



The new tank received a brand new suspension. In the undercarriage, on one side there were 5 rollers without supporting rollers on an individual torsion suspension located in a staggered manner. Drive wheel - front location. 290-mm tracks provide the machine specific pressure on the ground 0,79 kg / cm2.

The driver had a viewing device installed in the front plate and on the left a second viewing device. A turret with 8 periscopes was mounted on the turret for viewing around the tank. In addition, there was a periscope sight TZF 10, used in firing.

Another novelty PzKpfw I Ausf C was a radio station. The standard tank radio Fu 2 or Fu 5 was replaced by Funksprechgerat "a". This radio station provided communication up to 3 km from the parking lot and 1 km on the move.

Apparently, while the design and production of the PzKpfw I Ausf C was under way, the views of the military on the reconnaissance tank changed. Hitler's opinion on the use of airborne troops has also changed. After the German paratroopers suffered heavy losses during the capture of Crete, they were attracted exclusively to carry out special operations. Tanks for special operations are not needed.

In July-December, 1942 produced such tanks of all 40 units. Pz I Ausf C was used in combat in the 1943 year in Russia, as part of the second battalion of the First Tank Regiment of the First Tank Division, where two tanks were deployed for testing by combat. In November-December 1943, they were lost. The remainder (38 machines) in the summer of 1944, was transferred to the backup part of the 58-i reserve tank corps. 6 July 1944. In the name of the corps the word "reserve" disappears as the corps begins to fight with the US-British troops. Tanks took part in battles in France, where they were destroyed.




Not a single instance has reached our days.

Performance characteristics:
Crew - 2 person.
Weight - 8,0 tons.
Length - 4190 mm.
Width - 1920 mm.
Height - 1940 mm.
Armament:
anti-tank rifle - EW 141, semi-automatic, caliber 7,92 mm;
Ammunition - 94 cartridge;
machine guns - MG 34 caliber 7,92 mm;
Ammunition - 2100 ammo.
Booking:
The forehead of the case is 30 mm
hull sides - 20 mm;
hull feed - 20 mm;
bottom - 10 mm;
Roof - 10 mm;
tower - 30 mm;
gun mask - 30 mm;
add-on - 30 mm.
Engine - Maybach HL45P carburetor, 6-cylinder, water cooling.
Power - 150 HP
Displacement - 4678 cm3.
Power density - 18,75 hp / t
Maximum speed - 79 km / h.
Transmission - 8 speeds forward, 1 back.
Fuel supply - 170 l.
Power reserve - 300 km.
Radio station - Funksprechgerat "a".

Based on materials:
strangernn.livejournal.com
ww2history.ru
www.aviarmor.net
www.protank.su
Author:
25 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. makarov
    makarov 6 January 2014 11: 54
    +5
    More like a wedge than a full tank of those times.
    1. Ptah
      Ptah 6 January 2014 15: 02
      +6
      Quote: makarov
      More like a wedge than a full tank of those times.

      And why TEKH TIME?
      The Germans still have small igruhi. For example "Wiesel (weasel)".
      11


      We would say that it "looks like a wedge," but some resources persist in calling it a MULTIFUNCTIONAL AIRCRAFT TANK.
      But more often, of course - "Armored highly mobile air transport vehicle".
      1. Srgsoap
        Srgsoap 6 January 2014 18: 53
        +4
        There are still such)))))))
        1. Ptah
          Ptah 6 January 2014 21: 30
          +3
          Yes, like a chassis from the same "Wiesel-2". What to name the type? Obviously not a command post ... Maybe a pontovo-swamp-field?
          Utility hollowing in the swamps of Schleswig – Holstein or North Rhine – Westphalia is very suitable.
          But in Russia they are not far behind. Here
          "Gazelle-wagen"

          -
          1
    2. bazilio
      bazilio 6 January 2014 15: 17
      0
      Quote: makarov
      More like wedges

      by and large, it’s not what they call a tank or wedge)) you yourself understand that the capabilities of the aviation then put very stringent requirements on the weight and dimensions of any cargo
    3. bazilio
      bazilio 6 January 2014 15: 17
      -1
      Quote: makarov
      More like wedges

      by and large, it’s not what they call a tank or wedge)) you yourself understand that the capabilities of the aviation then put very stringent requirements on the weight and dimensions of any cargo
    4. Sakmagon
      Sakmagon 6 January 2014 20: 15
      +1
      makarov
      More like wedges

      I beg your pardon!
      Anticipating the future use of this article in the topic "and the Germans had it already in 42 ..." I want to clarify that this workGerman airborne tank VK601 " NEVER THEM!
      THE AIRCRAFT IS CONSIDERED THE TECHNIQUES DESIRED BY THE PARAJUT (MAXIMUM - mistaken for the ears - by the Parachute-EXHAUST) METHOD OF AIRCRAFT (HELICOPTERS) OF MILITARY TRANSPORT!
      What can be transported by plane (glider) is not such!
      In the same way, you can christen any tractor that can be transported by plane (glider) with an airborne landing!
      I draw your attention to the fact that the expression "landing on the Kuriles ... by parachute and landing method" means that the landing party LANDED IN A PLANE, BUT WOULD BE DROPPED WITH A PARACHUTE IF NECESSARY!
      This is just a light tank, according to the current classification - a wedge, NOT MORE. You yourself perfectly understand what would happen to this design when trying to REALLY drop it.
      Sincerely...
  2. Professor
    Professor 6 January 2014 12: 40
    +5
    They wanted to ship here.





    1. wei
      wei 6 January 2014 16: 14
      +1
      fantastic glider - plane
      1. Ptah
        Ptah 6 January 2014 18: 08
        +3
        Quote: wei
        fantastic

        More precisely, as the Germans called it - “lappen (rag)” or “adhesive plaster bomber”.
        He flied quite normally as a carrier at the VD Southern Theater. Almost two hundred units have been released.
        In May 2012, one of the aircraft was discovered at the bottom of the sea near the Italian island of Sardinia. The found plane crashed on July 26 1943 of the year. On that day, two Me-323 departed from the Venafiorita airfield in Sardinia to Pistoia (Tuscany). In 12: 10, according to local time, they were attacked by the British near the island of Maddalena. One of the aircraft crashed into the island and burned down, the second - made an emergency landing on the water and later sank. 10 crew members were able to escape, the rest died. Prior to this find, no surviving Messerschmitt Me-323 was known.
    2. xomaNN
      xomaNN 8 January 2014 18: 05
      0
      Very rare and informative photos! Pleased.
  3. smersh70
    smersh70 6 January 2014 13: 39
    +4
    Well, German engineers, they did everything .. they will and will do smile
  4. Ptah
    Ptah 6 January 2014 13: 54
    0
    Post the article.
    Since the title "Messerschmitt" is in the title, then the photo should first of all contain what the "professor" dug.
    Is not it so? But thanks anyway!
  5. family tree
    family tree 6 January 2014 14: 03
    +1
    The armament of the VK601 tank consisted of a 141 mm EW 7,92 semi-automatic anti-tank rifle

    And there are still disputes, what’s there? In different sources, the EW 141 is called a 7,92 mm machine gun, 13 mm machine gun or 20 mm gun. For example, here http://armor.kiev.ua/wiki/index.php?title=Panzerkampfwagen_I_Ausf%C3%BChrung_C
    And everyone argues
    http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=59317
  6. Kars
    Kars 6 January 2014 15: 13
    +5
    The British had their own. And the USSR also received them a little according to Lend-Lease.
  7. family tree
    family tree 6 January 2014 17: 32
    +1
    Quote: Kars
    .and the USSR also received them a little according to Lend-Lease.
    As many as 20 pieces!
    Wunderwaffe! 16 mm armor! 40 mm anti tank a gun good , which is vital for both the landing and reconnaissance tank! True, by 1940, she was already about nothing crying , but, no matter, the main achievement of the English scientists is that one of the three crew members combined two functions, a gunner and a loader belay ! The unique school of aglitz tank building winked !
    1. Kars
      Kars 6 January 2014 17: 47
      +2
      Quote: perepilka
      As many as 20 pieces!

      We fought in the Caucasus.
      Quote: perepilka
      0-mm anti-tank gun, which is vital for both the landing and reconnaissance tank! True, by 1940, she was already about nothing

      Well, you’re in vain, they could work fine until 1943. Especially in German tanks (by the way, it’s not much worse than our 45th which reached Berlin)
      Quote: perepilka
      then one of the three crew members combined two functions, a gunner and a loader

      Well, you are so surprised. Yes, and also in relation to the light tank. The T-34 which was larger was almost the same.
      -34 has a classic layout. The crew of the tank consists of four people - a driver and a radio operator gunner, located in the control compartment and charging with a commander who also serves as a gunner, who were in a double tower
      Quote: perepilka
      The unique school of aglitz tank building

      That is what it is. It is not in vain that the USSR bought British samples of armored vehicles and began to produce them in droves. And Valentine can say one of the best light tanks of WWII,
      1. family tree
        family tree 6 January 2014 18: 40
        +1
        So in 43, everyone was lost. In 34, nevertheless, the commander fulfilled the gunner's duties, there was no need to come off and rush after the projectile. I agree about Valentine. Sticking an anti-tank gun into a reconnaissance tank, and then into an assault tank, and continuing to poke around with TOG2 as far back as 43, doesn't fit in the head.
        1. Kars
          Kars 6 January 2014 19: 25
          +2
          Quote: perepilka
          So in the 43rd and all were lost

          Who?
          Quote: perepilka
          In 34 ke, however, the commander of the duties of the gunner performed,

          Still __)))))) in a 26 ton machine versus an 8 ton car))))
          Quote: perepilka
          . Stick an anti-tank gun into a reconnaissance, and then into a landing tank,

          And what had to stick? Howitzer?
          Quote: perepilka
          continue tinkering with TOG2 already in the 43rd, it does not fit in the head.

          Well, this may be a problem of clutter, which does not fit. For me, Sherman and Firefly Comet with Centurion are quite decent.

          And A39 I’ll definitely put it on the shelf sooner or later.
          1. family tree
            family tree 6 January 2014 21: 51
            +1
            Quote: Kars
            Who?

            Our duck, by October, all 19 pieces.
            Still __)))))) in a 26 ton machine versus an 8 ton car))))

            Rush about from the sight to throw a shell, then look again, and if the commander is still nervous, the anguish is lasting. Ours in the 80s, vsezh commander strained, although also a madhouse.
            And what had to stick? Howitzer?

            Have tried. Tetrarch Mk I CS. Krupnyak put on the scout, and on the paratrooper, something like OB-25 (according to the nomenclature of shells), with a tank sight, well, and paired to the heap.
            Well, this may be a problem of clutter, which does not fit. For me, Sherman and Firefly Comet with Centurion are quite decent.
            So "Valentine" is quite decent, and the "firefly" has only an English cannon what ... The problem, rather, is the conservatism of some "authorities".
            And A39 I’ll definitely put it on the shelf sooner or later.

            Here, a turtle with a wheelhouse, a tank, and even an assault, was called, and the gun, again anti-tank, and a 23 cm lobeshnik, more abruptly than that of "Fedya".
            1. Kars
              Kars 6 January 2014 22: 00
              +2
              Quote: perepilka
              Our duck, by October, all 19 pieces.

              but not before?
              Quote: perepilka
              Darting from the sight, h

              anyway stand your ground?
              and don’t need to make it so complicated for a 40 mm gun
              Quote: perepilka
              Have tried. Tetrarch Mk I CS. Krupnyak put on the scout, and on the paratrooper, something like OB-25 (according to the nomenclature of shells), with a tank sight, well, and paired to the heap.

              stupidities. maybe something else? missiles? binocular rangefinder? 40 mm anti-tank gun is just the very thing - then with anti-tank weapons it was stressful. and this is just the main problem of light-armed landing.
              Quote: perepilka
              So "Valentine" is quite decent, and the "firefly" has only an English cannon

              not only a cannon. and almost the entire tower.
              Quote: perepilka
              The problem, rather, is the conservatism of some "authorities".

              most likely there were no special problems. England could allow herself experiments.
              Quote: perepilka
              Here, the turtle with the wheelhouse, the tank, and even the assault was called, and the gun, again anti-tank

              Well, actually, like everyone’s anti-aircraft alteration.
              Quote: perepilka
              cooler than Fedya.
              Fedya is not an authority at all, but simply an accident.
              1. family tree
                family tree 6 January 2014 22: 42
                +1
                Quote: Kars
                but not before?

                Share the data.
                anyway stand your ground?
                and don’t need to make it so complicated for a 40 mm gun

                To keep the target, not looking up from the sight and at the same time, to put out a projectile in the ammunition by hand, and turn the handwheels with the rest of your hands? Yes, easily.
                nonsense. maybe something else? missiles? binocular rangefinder? 40 mm anti-tank missile defense is just the thing - then with anti-tank weapons was stressful. and this is just the main problem of light armored landing

                There is one task. seize the bridgehead and stand to the death. How many guns can you unload instead of one tank?
                Task two. Rustle on communications and topple. Fuck VET, tanks will not catch up with us.
                Task three. Desperate. Landing in the direction of the breakthrough, again the cannons are pianoforting, until the cavalry comes up, one must stand.
                not only a cannon. and almost the entire tower.

                And on the 34th, under 85 allbut the tank remained 34th.
                Well, actually, like everyone’s anti-aircraft rework

                Well, not like everyone else, in the sense of remaking anti-aircraft, the Angles have their own way. QF 2 pounder, it seems, not a fig was anti-aircraft.
                Fedya is not an authority at all, but just an accident

                They released a minuscule, and they fucked, with this, the infantry basically had to, it's about ours.
                most likely there were no special problems. England could allow herself experiments
                That's the cattle. Our bellies are laid, and they have no special problems, they allow themselves experiments in the 41-43th. Well, and how to relate to them, after that? what
                1. Kars
                  Kars 6 January 2014 23: 13
                  +1
                  Quote: perepilka
                  Share the data.

                  Strange I ask you)) and you have me. But still, they stretched out for a long time. In 1942 they arrived, and were lost only by the end of 1943.
                  Quote: perepilka
                  To keep the target, not looking up from the sight and at the same time, to put out a projectile in the ammunition by hand, and turn the handwheels with the rest of your hands? Yes, easily.

                  And why are you going to do everything at the same time? And you understand that this is a very small and light tank? Can you have a triple tower on it? Will you remember the T-70?
                  Quote: perepilka
                  There is one task. seize the bridgehead and stand to the death. How many guns can you unload instead of one tank?
                  One. Maximum two. Moreover, they will not be self-propelled, and well, very vulnerable to small arms, and light fragments.

                  Quote: perepilka
                  Task two. Rustle on communications and topple. Fuck VET, tanks will not catch up with us

                  Yes, of course they won’t catch up. And if you try to fool around while trying to make a joke, is it the end of shurovka?)))
                  Quote: perepilka
                  Task three. Desperate. Landing in the direction of the breakthrough, again the cannons are pianoforting, until the cavalry comes up, one must stand.

                  And this is just nonsense, dead paratroopers pianos there.

                  Quote: perepilka
                  And on the 34th, under 85 all, but the tank remained the 34th.

                  And so what? The T-34 used domestic components and cannot relate to this example at all.
                  Quote: perepilka
                  Well, not like everyone else, in the sense of remaking anti-aircraft, the Angles have their own way. QF 2 pounder, it seems, not a fig was anti-aircraft

                  ????? we already started talking about a turtle
                  Quote: perepilka
                  Here, the turtle with the wheelhouse, the tank, and even the assault was called, and the gun, again anti-tank,

                  Or are you not talking about the A39 Tortez?
                  Quote: perepilka
                  They released a minuscule, and they fucked, with this, the infantry basically had to, it's about ours.
                  What nonsense is that. What do you want to say? Do you know why they released a miserable? What were they anti-tank? And that the infantry knocked out a couple of Ferdinands?

                  Quote: perepilka
                  That's the cattle. Our bellies are laid, and they have no special problems
                  Well, yes, when the British fought an air battle for Britain in the USSR, they tensed about this, or when the Royal Navi was tormented with raiders, the Soviet icebreakers did not conduct German cruisers))))

                  Quote: perepilka
                  Well, and how to relate to them, after that?
                  How to yourself.
                  1. family tree
                    family tree 7 January 2014 00: 16
                    +1
                    Quote: Kars
                    Strange I ask you)) and you have me. But still, they stretched out for a long time. In 1942 they arrived, and were lost only by the end of 1943.

                    Duck, they’re straight from the ship to the ball, by October 43rd, all nineteen were lost, sources, now I don’t remember where another one was, not that I was not interested, but did not find.
                    And why are you going to do everything at the same time? And you understand that this is a very small and light tank? Can you have a triple tower on it? Will you remember the T-70?
                    The volume of the tower is not fate to compare? The T-70 is one, and the superior does not interfere.
                    One. Maximum two. Moreover, they will not be self-propelled, and well, very vulnerable to small arms, and light fragments.
                    Like the Tetrarch, especially in the 43rd, and even bigger than the M-42 pair, in a marching ton and a quarter. So two, or four all the same?
                    Yes, of course they won’t catch up. And if you try to fool around while trying to make a joke, is it the end of shurovka?)))
                    And this is just nonsense, dead paratroopers pianos there.

                    What if grandma is grandpa?
                    This is not nonsense, it is a combat mission to detain the enemy until the arrival of the main forces.
                    ????? we already started talking about a turtle
                    Well, kind of your words?
                    Well, actually, like all alteration of anti-aircraft

                    Or are you not talking about the A39 Tortez?
                    I'm talking about "turtle" A39.
                    And so what? The T-34 used domestic components and cannot relate to this example at all.

                    Got it! Firefly ceased to be a "Sherman" and became a purely English tank, which was called a firefly and no side to the "Sherman". Since in England.
                    What nonsense is that. What do you want to say? Do you know why they released a miserable? What were they anti-tank? And that the infantry knocked out a couple of Ferdinands?

                    In the course, the "Porsche Tiger" did not pass. At the expense of the infantry, the main losses of "Fed" on the eastern front, from the infantry.
                    Well, yes, when the British fought an air battle for Britain in the USSR, they tensed about this, or when the Royal Navi was tormented with raiders, the Soviet icebreakers did not conduct German cruisers))))

                    And with what fright? When our fascists were beating up in Spain, did the Royal Navi strained too much? Okst, then no one, no one, promised nothing, in contrast to 41-45. Poland, damn it, remember. Let's quit politics, huh? I started, I admit.
                    1. Kars
                      Kars 7 January 2014 01: 53
                      +2
                      Quote: perepilka
                      Duck, they’re straight from the ship to the ball, by October 43rd

                      They made fun. I recommend reading the Baryatinsky Land Lisa tanks in battle. There, even the mat part was worn out)))
                      Quote: perepilka
                      e nineteen were lost, sources, now I do not remember where another one, not that I was not interested, but did not find.

                      Well, don’t remember, since there wasn’t such a thing. And the 20th in the Cuban
                      Quote: perepilka
                      The volume of the tower is not fate to compare? The T-70 is one, and the superior does not interfere.

                      Funny you. And who is the superior?
                      Quote: perepilka
                      Like Tetrarch, especially in the 43rd

                      But it was created in 1936 and there is no need to sculpt the 43rd here.
                      Quote: perepilka
                      and even bigger than the M-42 pair, in a marching ton and a quarter. So two, or four all the same?

                      One, two, no more. Is it starting with the fact that what are you Soviet dragging on? Does the USSR have large gliders?
                      Quote: perepilka
                      What if grandma is grandpa?
                      ))))

                      Quote: perepilka
                      This is not nonsense, it is a combat mission to detain the enemy until the arrival of the main forces.
                      Natural nonsense, suicide is aimless and not a combat mission. Yes, and just stupid.

                      Quote: perepilka
                      Well, kind of your words?
                      Well, actually, like everyone’s anti-aircraft rework

                      My.and the A39 anti-aircraft gun,
                      Quote: perepilka
                      I'm talking about "turtle" A39.

                      Quote: perepilka
                      QF 2 pounder, it seems, not a fig was anti-aircraft.

                      well then prove that she was standing on the A39
                      Quote: perepilka
                      Got it! The firefly ceased to be a "Sherman" and became, a purely English tank,

                      Campaign you kaoyto alternative))))
                      Be careful
                      Sherman Firefly (Sherman Firefly - Sherman Firefly)

                      Quote: perepilka
                      In the course, the "Porsche Tiger" did not pass. At the expense of the infantry, the main losses of "Fed" on the eastern front, from the infantry.

                      In the Soviet memoirs? Where are 2000 Ferdinands burning?
                      But you can bring a tablet.
                      1. family tree
                        family tree 7 January 2014 02: 37
                        +1
                        They made fun. I recommend reading the Baryatinsky Land Lisa tanks in battle. There, even the mat part was worn out)))
                        Yeah, and all in battle, or still as a messenger?
                        Funny you. And who is the superior?

                        The riddle. Who is in the tank of the gunner, a superior, immediate superior?
                        My.and the A39 anti-aircraft gun,

                        And the Tetrarch is not anti-aircraft, but anti-tank
                        Well, actually, like everyone’s anti-aircraft rework

                        Sherman Firefly (Sherman Firefly - Sherman Firefly) And what about me?
                        Well, can this be a problem in clutter? What does not fit. For me and Sherman Firefly and Comet and Centurion are pretty decent.

                        Cool, I have it preserved, to be continued.
                        In the Soviet memoirs? Where are 2000 Ferdinands burning?
                        But you can bring a tablet.

                        There were so few of them that they didn’t get to the VET, and all who met were mostly cut down by the infantry, except for the scattered one, either 152mm, or aerial bombs.
                        Continuation: To clean their posts, the privilege of a moderator? Can you clean my posts too? Even a letter?
                      2. Kars
                        Kars 7 January 2014 13: 08
                        +2
                        Quote: perepilka
                        Yeah, and all in battle, or still as a messenger?

                        Read to find out. And what do you expect from ultralight cars when used in a normal environment.
                        Quote: perepilka
                        The riddle. Who is in the tank of the gunner, a superior, immediate superior?

                        What is this riddle for?
                        Quote: perepilka
                        And the Tetrarch is not anti-aircraft, but anti-tank

                        and tetrarch is not A39 Tortez do you know?

                        Quote: perepilka
                        Cool, I have it preserved, to be continued.

                        And what do you mean by that?
                        Quote: perepilka
                        and the "firefly" has only an English cannon

                        Quote: Kars
                        not only a cannon. and almost the entire tower.

                        ????? 7you are already starting to just merge - just say so. As you can see, none of the names Sherman crossed out--
                        Quote: perepilka
                        There were so few of them that they didn’t get to the VET, and all who met were mostly cut down by the infantry,

                        Are you blind? A table that you didn’t read? Only one Ferdinand was hit by infantry.
                        Quote: perepilka
                        Continued: Clean Your Posts

                        What did I clean? Do not try to cover my stupidities with supposedly force majeure)))))))
                  2. Kars
                    Kars 7 January 2014 01: 53
                    +1
                    Quote: perepilka
                    And with what fright? When our fascists were beating up in Spain, did the Royal Navi strained too much?

                    And whoever drove the USSR to Spain? And why should they have been straining?
                    Quote: perepilka
                    Okst, then no one promised anything to anyone, unlike 41-45
                    And what did England promise in the USSR in 1941-45? Such that prevented her from conducting experiments with armored vehicles?

                    Quote: perepilka
                    I started, I admit.

                    I quite often notice some strange things after you.
                    1. family tree
                      family tree 7 January 2014 02: 57
                      +1
                      Quote: Kars
                      And whoever drove the USSR to Spain? And why should they have been straining?

                      And England, in the second who drove? And the USSR will harness for England, who drove? And Germany in National Socialism, who drove?
                      And what did England promise in the USSR in 1941-45? Such that prevented her from conducting experiments with armored vehicles?
                      I guess right now. Union treaty, no? Or Karsky alliance, first eat yours, and then each his own?
                      I quite often notice some strange things after you.

                      Yes, I’m generally strange, I’m running around the districts, looking for damage on the line, eliminating the effects of hurricanes, in general, trying to ensure uninterrupted power supply to the railway, it’s strange that I like it, and I also like tanks, like the ultimate cars, that is, those which are on the brink, in which every extra gram and millimeter are lowered into minus.
                      All.
                    2. Kars
                      Kars 7 January 2014 13: 11
                      +2
                      Quote: perepilka
                      And England, in the second who drove? And the USSR will harness for England, who drove? And Germany in National Socialism, who drove?

                      So then what are your pretensions to the British?
                      Quote: perepilka
                      That's the cattle. Our bellies are laid, and they have no special problems,

                      ??
                      Quote: perepilka
                      I guess right now. Union treaty, no? Or Karsky alliance, first eat yours, and then each his own?
                      Union agreement? And is there a clause on the prohibition of experiments on armored vehicles?
                      Read this contract of yours first and then tell something.

                      Quote: perepilka
                      Yes, I'm generally strange

                      That is enough.
  • shuhartred
    shuhartred 6 January 2014 19: 54
    0
    Different tanks are needed, all sorts of tanks are important. The main indicator of the effectiveness of combat use and the number of issued copies. Who can argue with the T-34? But just do a cool tank in WofT quite a tank of the third level. I like.
    1. family tree
      family tree 6 January 2014 21: 56
      +2
      Quote: shuhartred
      T-34 can anyone argue?

      Emcha. At some time intervals.
      But just do a cool tank in WofT quite a tank of the third level.

      Well, there’s only cool laughing
      1. shuhartred
        shuhartred 8 January 2014 06: 01
        0
        Quote: perepilka
        At some time intervals.

        on what?
  • moskal68
    moskal68 8 January 2014 06: 55
    0
    I will not say about airborne assault, but this German tank was used mainly in counterguerrilla warfare.
  • sub307
    sub307 8 January 2014 13: 12
    0
    Interesting car. You can skzat - the forerunner of future BMD. They did not bet on this technique, apparently, at least by the quantity produced.
  • xomaNN
    xomaNN 8 January 2014 18: 09
    0
    Wonderful Tank winked In the Red Army for another 20-30s, there was a mini tankette, T-17. it seems. At the site of the Great Patriotic War Museum in Kiev, she was seen as a teenage tank smile
  • moskal68
    moskal68 8 January 2014 20: 51
    0
    Quote: sub307
    Interesting car. You can skzat - the forerunner of future BMD. They did not bet on this technique, apparently, at least by the quantity produced.
    Limited edition released. Then the emphasis was placed on the main tanks, and not on auxiliary ones.